Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-04-13 PEC0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION T0l,V?J OF ffl April 13, 2020, 1:00 PM Virtual 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Link to Virtual Meeting: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device: Please click this U RL to join. https:Hzoom.us/j/269691644 Password: 266421 Or join by phone: Dial: US: +1 346 248 7799 Webinar ID: 269 691 644 1.2. Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz (joined late), John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, Henry Pratt, Pete Seibert Absent: None 1.3. Swearing In New Members Tammy Nagle, Town Clerk 2. Main Agenda 2.1. A request for the review of a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum 20 min. Standards, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the maximum centerline driveway grade, located at 1801 Sunburst Drive Unit A/Lot 2, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0002) Applicant: Hilliard West LLC, represented by Pierce Austin Architects Planner: Erik Gates Planner Gates presented the application. Commissioners had no questions for the applicant. No public comments. Lockman: Straight forward and would improve safety. Rollie: I see the issue, and this is a better alternative. Gillette: I agree with commissioners and staff. Seibert: This is an improvement all around. Pratt: Site constraints warrant granting. Perez: This meets the requirements for a variance. Brian Gillette moved to approve. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kurz 2.2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 11-6 Business and 20 min. Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the number and size of hospital campus signs, located at 180 South Frontage Road West/Lot E and F, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0006) Applicant: Vail Health, represented by Braun Associates Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence Planner Spence presented the application. Lockman: Please provide some clarity on why staff does not want to have the name on the tower but allows the cross. Spence: The cross is needed to identify the building for safety, the name is not necessary for safety and does not meet the criteria. Pratt: Does this integrate with signs on the highway? Spence: These are for the campus; those other signs are separate from this application. Gillette: Are we allowing more signs and larger signs than we typically allow? Spence: The signs and size are more for wayfinding. Braun's presentation will address this question more fully. Applicant Tom Braun presented. Lockman: What would be the alternative? Is the red cross alone ok? Braun: We would take the cross at a minimum but would also like Vail Health up there even if lower. However, don't want to do it too low so that a redevelopment of the Evergreen would block it in future. Gillette: What about the signs on the road? Braun: We are working with Tom Kassmel on signs in the ROW. Kurz: Great looking signs to meet public needs. Concern of highest sign, which seems to be branding. I would like to see mock up of sign on tower for visual impact. Braun: Happy to do that if rest of commissioners agree. Perez: I would like to see how these compare to the current signs. Braun: Prior to construction, not a lot if signs on there. Spence: Agreed most of the signs were along Meadow Drive. Lockman: What about wayfinding for helicopter? Is there a need for aerial signs for helicopters? Spence: That would be handled by FAA. Braun: This is private pad without necessity for aerial signs. Lockman: Based on what we did for museum, we only allowed "museum" without added parts. Gillette: What is the international symbol for hospital? Is it the cross or the H? Braun: Unsure if it is H or the cross. Pratt: Is the cross backlit? Spence: Yes, it is halo lit. Staff has concerns that lettering up there will not be legible. Lockman: Would the mock up be digital or physical. Braun: Physical. Kjesbo: Agree with staff, I support for the cross only. Gillette: I disagree. Better off with H path on roads than the red cross. Red cross ineffective and better done with road signs. Kurz: Total package effective and well done. Issue with big sign high up. Would like to see a mock up. Seibert: Agree with staff that signs should be limited to 25 feet for these brand signs. Understand the comments on the red cross from everyone, but no problem with cross alone. Lockman: Agree on branding. Crucial that people are able to identify and get to the hospital. Think the cross or other indicator helpful on tower. Would like to see mockups. Pratt: I don't think anything needed on the tower. Agree with Gillette, that people will be looking for blue H. Think 28, 29 and 30 are overkill. Question the need for 28 for branding. Rest ok. Perez: We want to be consistent with "hospital" and "H" wherever possible. The branding is not necessary and inconsistent. Want to see mockup and what the old signs are compared to what is now. Like a big H better than cross. Discussion of the existing signs included in this packet. All signs existing are included in packet, but most are new signs. Braun: Happy to regroup and come back with new plans in two weeks. What about the other signs in the packet? Gillette: Do wayfinding signs need to be so big? Lockman: Would like to see other examples of hospitals with these signs. Brian Gillette moved to table to April 27, 2020. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed 20 min. regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off Site and Joint Facilities, Vail Town Code, to refine standards to be used in the review of such proposals and to clarify the review process and other considerations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0007) Applicant: Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Greg Roy Planner Roy introduced the project by describing the code section in its existing form and describing the substantive changes proposed by this application. Major changes include increasing the maximum required distance to off-site parking, allow review of off-site parking to be handled by PEC, setting a percentage of off-site parking allowed, requiring an outline of off-site parking operation and maintenance, and a minimum lease of 10 years. Gillette: Asked a question about the 10 -year lease. Asked when the last time this provision had been used. Planner Spence: No memory of this provision being used but knows it had been used by the Lift House over 40 years ago. Gillette: Asked about why only 10 years for the lease, indicated 50 or 100 may be more appropriate. Perez: Echoed Gillette's statement, and also had a question about submittal requirements Roy: The 10 -year lease would provide more flexibility to the town if the property changed uses over the years. The submittal material would be reviewed by PEC. Tom Braun: This provision provides more flexibility for developments. The proposal also closes a potential gap in the code in regard to what an applicant is to do once their parking lease expires. Public Comment Bill Pierce: Asked a question about the goal of this change. Wanted clarification on the 25% allowance and if this was new provision. Had a question about the last proposed provision for what happens when a 10 -year lease ends. Also asked why the Town couldn't expand fee in lieu areas. Some areas, like in Lionshead, would benefit from this. Braun: All of the properties along Meadow Drive are not in the fee -in -lieu area. However, these places do have road access into their on-site parking. It was decided among the applicant and town staff that this method would bring less issues in the future than expanding the fee -in -lieu areas to areas with road access. Gillette: Expressed concern about potentially recommending a code change for the benefit for an applicant. Thinks that the fee -in -lieu structure should be reviewed. "Quarter mile" and "10 -year lease" language feels arbitrary. Kjesbo: Also expressed concern about the 10year lease. What happens if after 10 years the lease is not agreed to be renewed? A potentially bigger parking problem would arise. Perez: A 10 -year lease is not long-term control. Spence: Is it the responsibility of the town or the applicant to provide parking. If we just collect fee -in -lieu the town will not be able to provide the needed parking to the market. Feels that many developments will opt for the fee. Gillette: Feels that we have a current parking issue due to allowing the market to handle parking. Spence: Feels that tourism is the biggest stressor on the town's parking. We have a lot of underutilized parking. Gillette: That underutilized parking is more the issue for town parking. Doesn't feel that the proposed language would address this. Braun: We have parking in the town parking structures and most developments have their own parking. There needs to be something to address additions to existing structures that will require additional parking. With fee -in -lieu a development is "in or out" with their parking. Gillette: Asked staff to look at the towns current parking provisions and the fee -in -lieu structure. Roy: Yes, staff can look into this. Spence: Addressing these issues will take multiple meetings Gillette: Feels that addressing these issues more comprehensively is appropriate. Lockman: What would a more comprehensive parking program look like? Spence: The town has hired a mobility planner to look at town parking requirements and approach. Moving forward we would likely need to include this employee. Braun: To put the quarter mile distance into perspective. The on-site parking for the hospital, for example, would have people walking up to 400 ft into the building. The quarter mile distance is also a common walkability measure. Perez: Need to adjust the lease length and look at this issue more globally rather than using specific project examples. Braun: Requested to table to April 27th Brian Gillette moved to table to April 27, 2020. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to adopt the 30 min. Community Wildfire Protection Plan as an element of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan to reduce the risk of wildfire, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0004) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada Planner: Greg Roy Planner Roy introduced the project and Paul Cada, W ildland Program Manager. Paul Cada: Introduced the concept of a Community Wildfire Protection Plan. This is a planning tool that helps communities identify and reduce wildfire risk. These plans are also used by federal land management agencies to help prioritize their efforts. A CW PP does not obligate the town to implement any specific recommendations or expend funds. There are however minimum standards for a CW PP. These standards are: defining the community's wildland-urban interface (W UI), identify adjacent land owners, conduct a community risk analysis, a discussion with the community about preparedness to respond to a wildland fire, recommendations to reduce structural ignitability. Cada then described the stakeholder involvement conducted for the CW PP. This started in early 2018. Cada went on to discuss the goals of the plan which include reducing wildland fire risk and community preparedness. Cada continued by discussing the town's wildland fire risk, he provided maps to aid in this portion of the presentation. Next Cada discussed completed and ongoing measures within the town, these included things such as outreach and education, fuels reduction, the W UI Code amendments, and other operational programs. Cada then explained proposed preparedness strategies. Gillette: Is the CW PP a requirement for fire department funding. Cada: Yes, this plan would open up more grant funding for the mitigation projects desired by Fire. This plan can be updated to include completed projects and new identified projects. Kjesbo: Asked about the recommendation for clearing 1 00f worth of fuels from structures. Is this going to be a requirement? Cada: This is just a recommendation, but it would be targeted towards specific at -risk properties. No public comment. Lockman: Thinks this is a good collaborative effort and plan for the community. Seibert: Asked about how this connects with the mitigation above Booth Heights. Cada: This recommendation would help the forest service to reduce and manage the wildlife hazard above booth heights. This would also help reduce other hazards. Pratt: Has concerns about applying these recommendations to properties not adjacent to forest land. Also had a question asking if people have been sued for implementing or not implementing these recommendations. Cada: I n his experience no, he has not seen this happen. Cada did not see this as opening up lawsuits for property owners. Perez, Gillette, and Kurz were in support of the proposal. Brian Gillette moved to recommend approval. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district 90 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. Applicant: TNREF I I I Bravo Vail LLC True North Management Group LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Planner Greg Roy read into the record correspondence received after all other correspondence had been provided to the commission and the public. Planner Greg provided the commission with an overview of the proposal and the applicable criteria. Greg discussed the change in recommendation from the previous meeting. Staff also looked more closely at the criteria related to what has changed. Greg discussed the PA -2 zone district and its intent. Commissioner Lockman asked for additional clarification regarding the commercial uses. Greg spoke to staff considerations on this Dominic Mauriello provided a presentation concerning all three applications. Dominic spoke to the resolution of long-standing nonconformities related to use, density and height. Dominic spoke to the reasoning for the SDD. Dominic summarized the ideas/issues that arose during the previous meeting(s). Dominic discussed the conditions of approval and the condition related to public art. The applicant does not agree with the proposed Al PP contribution proposed by staff. Dominic walked the commission through changes that were made to the plans, specifically the changes to the EHU building and the parking/sidewalk/snow storage configurations. Lockman asked for clarification on the "sharrow" through the parking lot. Dominic clarified that it is striping only at that the valet will be aware. Lockman spoke to the sidewalk alignment and what is intended for the public vs the occupants. Dominic clarified that the western sidewalk is intended for the public while the area through the site is intended for occupants. The easement on the east side was spoken to. PUBLIC COMMENT Michael Spiers -Spoke to concerns/comments related to the EHU building, its location and height. Feels that it is out of scale with the neighborhood and that it should be reduced the three stories. Pat Lauer- Spoke to the need to hear staff's view on the S D D criteria. Feels that staff has changed their direction concerning the rezoning. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Rollie- Supports the rezoning. Lockman- Supports the rezoning and removing the nonconformities. Siebert- Concurs with Lockman and Rollie. Gillette- A loss of the commercial uses cannot be overlooked. Interested in more multiple used, need community commercial. This is a huge mistake and is short sighted. Perez- Supports the rezoning Pratt- Recognizes the change in the commission. Supports the rezoning. Kurz- Supports the rezoning. Rollie Kjesbo moved to recommend approval. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (6-1). Ayes: (6) Kjesbo, Kurz, Lockman, Perez, Pratt, Seibert Nays: (1) Gillette 2.6. 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. Applicant: TNREF I I I Bravo Vail LLC True North Management Group LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy 1. This approval is contingent upon the applicant receiving approval of the Special Development District application PEC19-0048 and the Zoning Code Amendment application PEC19-0047. Planner Roy continued his presentation, focusing on the SDD and Exterior Alteration. Roy walked through the changes that occurred since the previous hearing including the changes to the EHU building including massing and building entrances. Roy spoke to changes in the snow storage management plan and the inclusion of the grasscrete pavers. Many of the changes reduced the level of deviations necessary and has improved the functionality of the project. Roy spoke to the deviations requested, the benefits offered and the reason for the level of Al PP contribution requested. Roy spoke to the changes in building height. Dominic had no further comments but referenced the criteria in the staff report and applicant narrative. PUBLIC COMMENT Tanya Boyd- Concerned with the sun shading of the EHU building and how snow storage and removal will occur. Tom Kassmel-Town Engineer -Spoke to the separated sidewalk allowing an adequate area for snow storage. Recognized that additional sun shading will require increased maintenance. Pat Lauer- Spoke to the mass of the building and the image shown and feels that it is excessive in size. Would require removing the entire top floor. Not just chunks. Concerned about the shading creating unsafe conditions for pedestrians. Concerned with the public transit capacity and that Highline does not have the shuttle capacity. Feels that the EHU building is out of character with the neighborhood. Double standard with the developer being allowed things that are not otherwise permissible. Tanya Boyd- Concerned about large vehicles, buses and tractor trailers and a lack of parking for them. Concerned about parking for EHU building. Has witnessed a lot of parking on site during the winter months. Kathy Standage-P resident of the Tall Pines HOA on Chamonix Major concerns with parking for the EHU building. Concerned with the aesthetics of the EHU building. Cheep facade that does not match hotel. People in West Vail are not happy about this. How can this be stopped from being pushed through? Mike Spiers- Is this the last opportunity to discuss the height of the EHU building? What would be the harm in reducing the EHU building to an acceptable height? Need a compromise here. Pat Lauer- Where do employees park at the Double Tree? Does anybody care about the mature trees that will be removed? Are there any penalties if the project takes too long? Steve Lindstrom- Speaking for Housing Authority- This proposal is absolutely what we should be doing. On the bus line, close to services with minimal infrastructure needed. Kathy Standish -No discussion on pollution, trees removal etc. END OF PUBLIC COMMENT Brian Gillette- Its public comment not negotiation between the public and the applicant. Great letters have been received that speak to how the application relate to the standards and guidelines. The public has done a great job. Kurz- Questions arose concerning employee parking and large buses. Planner Roy spoke to the parking study that was provided and that the parking provided exceeds that what demand is anticipated. Dominic spoke to required parking of the EHU building based on other similar developments. Dominic also spoke to tour buses and other large vehicles. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS Rollie- Still concerned with the height of the EHU building. Need to remove a total floor. Asked to look at the elevations again as some of the mass is increased with the proposal. Ok with the parking being managed. Still have a problem with height being over 38' on the EHU building. Support staff on public art. Lockman- Likes other commissioners' comments. Looking at criteria and process, a good process. Interior walkway through the parking lot is a good compromise but that easement on the east is important. Agrees with staff on AI PP contribution. Siebert- Good changes made to EHU building. Will support. Gillette- A lot can be done to improve this development. Questions public benefit and deviations. Need to reduce deviation or add increased public benefit. Perez- Applicant has made good changes. Not perfect but a lot of the concerns are view based. Project good for community. Pratt- Very concerned about the height, bulk and mass of the EHU building. Concerned with criteria 1,2 and 6 in the staff report. Questions about loading and trash. (Planner ROY responded to question) Question for the applicant concerning placing the EHU building along the east side of the property (Dominic responded that it was looked at and did not work) Thinks north south is a better orientation. Kurz- Feels that the applicant has made significant changes. Has concerns with the height but does not want to lose units. Thinks there are more public benefits including tax revenue. Feels the sun/shading has been addressed. We should ask the applicant to table so more can be worked on. Feels that the public benefit outweighs deviation. Supports staff on Al PP contribution. Dominic: Ok with Al PR Would like to move forward to the TC. John -Ryan Lockman moved to approve with conditions. Pete Seibert seconded the motion and it passed (4-3). Ayes: (4) Kurz, Lockman, Perez, Seibert Nays: (3) Gillette, Kjesbo, Pratt 2.7. 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. Applicant: TNREF I I I Bravo Vail LLC True North Management Group LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy 1. Applicant shall obtain approval for subdivision before a certificate of occupancy for the EHU building is granted. 2. The applicant shall obtain the certificate of occupancy for the EHU building before requesting a certificate of occupancy for the hotel addition. 3. Approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 4. The applicant shall obtain approval for a conditional use permit for the commercial space on the first floor before a building permit is issued. 5. Applicant shall obtain approval from Holy Cross to vacate the easement under the proposed hotel addition before a building permit is issued. 6. Applicant shall set aside two (2) three-bedroom units and two (2) one - bedroom units in the EHU building not to be included in the mitigation bank. 7. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall record deed restrictions with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, in a format approved by the Town Attorney, for the Type I I I Employee Housing Units. 8. The applicant shall coordinate and resolve landscape conflicts with utilities and sight distance before a building permit is issued. 9. The applicant shall show the drainage outfall for Chamonix Lane swale in the building permit submittal. 10. The applicant shall provide a 2' gravel shoulder along Chamonix Lane and side slopes of swale no steeper than 2:1. 11. Applicant shall increase Al PP contribution to $32,500 and the installation shall be completed before a certificate of occupancy for the hotel addition is granted. 12. Applicant shall correct plans to meet the comments from the Fire Department prior to the submittal for a building permit. 13. Applicant shall update all plan pages to match the latest submission prior to the submittal for the Design Review Board application. (Please see commentary from previous item) John -Ryan Lockman moved to approve with conditions. Pete Seibert seconded the motion and it passed (4-3). Ayes: (4) Kurz, Lockman, Perez, Seibert Nays: (3) Gillette, Kjesbo, Pratt 2.8. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-7A-11: Parking and 2 min. Loading, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the prohibition of parking located within the front setback and from the requirement that 75% of the required parking be located within the main building, located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0003) The applicant has requested that this item be continued to the April 27, 2020 public hearing. Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence Karen Perez moved to continue to April 27, 2020. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.9. A request for the review of a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 2 min. 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the replacement of the existing structure with a seven (7) suite lodge with related site improvements, located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 19-0008) The applicant has requested that this item be continued to the April 27, 2020 public hearing. Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence Brian Gillette moved to continue to April 27, 2020. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 2.10. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 2 min. Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-61-8: Parking and Loading, to revise the requirements related to mobility and onsite parking in the Housing (H) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0005) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to April 27, 2020. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jonathan Spence Rollie Kjesbo moved to continue to April 27, 2020. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. March 9, 2020 PEC Results Brian Gillette moved to approve. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Abstain: (1) Pratt 4. Adjournment Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Karen Perez seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: Link to Virtual Meeting: Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device: Please click this URL to join. https://zoom.us/m/269691644 Password: 266421 Orjoin by phone: Dial: US: +1 346 248 7799 Webinar ID: 269 691 644 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: ITEM/TOPIC: Swearing In New Members City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 13, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the maximum centerline driveway grade, located at 1801 Sunburst Drive Unit A/Lot 2, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0002) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Staff Memorandum PEC20-0002.pdf [Attachment Al Vicinity Map.pdf [Attachment Bl Applicant s Narrative.pdf [Attachment Cl Project Plan Set.pdf Description Staff Memorandum [Attachment A] Vicinity Map [Attachment B] Applicant Narrative [Attachment C] Project Plan Set TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 13, 2020 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the maximum centerline driveway grade, located at 1801 Sunburst Drive Unit A/Lot 2, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0002) Applicant: Hilliard West LLC, represented by Pierce Austin Architects Planner: Erik Gates I. SUMMARY The applicant, Hilliard West LLC, is requesting a review of a variance from Section 14- 3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the maximum centerline driveway grade, located at 1801 Sunburst Drive Unit A/Lot 2, Vail Valley Filing 3. This variance is for a driveway proposal that would improve sightlines for the homeowners and lessen an existing driveway centerline nonconformity. 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, subject to the findings noticed in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting a review of a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code to allow for a driveway realignment. The proposed realignment would move the driveway for the east half of the duplex (Unit A) to the northeast of the existing driveway. This realignment would move the driveway so that it connects to the street in the middle of its curve rather than immediately after the street curve, thereby allowing for greater visibility for vehicles exiting the property. The new driveway would add less than 200 sq. ft. of additional site coverage over the existing driveway. The new driveway is proposed to be heated and have a peak centerline grade of 20%. Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, of the Vail Town Code allows for a maximum centerline slope of 12% for heated driveways. A vicinity map (Attachment A), applicant's narrative (Attachment B), and project plan set (Attachment C) attached for review. III. BACKGROUND This ABC duplex property was originally developed in the early 1980's with construction on the duplex beginning in 1980. The existing driveway used by Unit A has a layout that has been present since at least 1990. Staff research into this property shows a driveway that extends directly from the Unit A garage to Sunburst Drive in the original building plans. However, the next survey on record for this property, in 1990, shows the existing driveway layout. This existing driveway has a maximum grade of 22%. Due to concerns related to the safety of pedestrians walking down the driveway in wet conditions, a pedestrian walkway was added to the property connecting Unit A to Sunburst Dr. in 2002. 1801 Sunburst is a lot whose frontage marks the beginning of a large curve on Sunburst Drive. Because of this and the current driveway alignment, Unit A, the easterly unit, has poor visibility for vehicles approaching from the northeast coming out of this curve. The proposed realignment will provide a significantly improved sightline to the northeast. Drawings of the existing (top) and proposed (bottom) driveways, with sight triangles, are shown below. Town of Vail Page 2 The revised driveway will also reduce the extent of the existing centerline grade nonconformity by having a maximum grade of 20%. However, this is still not compliant with the Town Code, resulting in the need of a variance. Due to the location of the duplex, which is somewhat restricted by the presence of a utility easement cutting through the rear of the property, and the severity of the slopes falling off from Sunburst Drive, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to have a driveway compliant with regard to Town of Vail Page 3 slope without a complete redevelopment of this lot. The existing pedestrian walkway is proposed to remain. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 1, Title, Purpose and Applicability (in part) 12-1-2: PURPOSE.- A. URPOSE: A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes.- 1. urposes: 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. Town of Vail Page 4 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. (Ord. 8(1973) § 1.100) Chapter 6, Article D, Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District (in part) 12-6D-1: PURPOSE: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. (Ord. 29(2005) § 23: Ord. 30(1977) § 2) Chapter 12-10, Off Street Parking and Loading (in part) 12-10-1: PURPOSE: In order to alleviate progressively or to prevent traffic congestion and shortage of on street parking areas, off street parking and loading facilities shall be provided incidental to new structures, enlargements of existing structures or a conversion to a new use which requires additional parking under this chapter. The number of parking spaces and loading berths prescribed in this chapter shall be in proportion to the need for such facilities created by the particular type of use. Off street parking and loading areas are to be designed, maintained and operated in a manner that will ensure their usefulness, protect the public safety, and, where appropriate, insulate surrounding land uses from their impact. In certain districts, all or a portion of the parking spaces prescribed by this chapter are required to be within the main building in order to avoid or to minimize the adverse visual impact of large concentrations or exposed parking and of separate garage or carport structures. Chapter 12-17, Variances (in part) 12-17-1: PURPOSE: Town of Vail Page 5 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.- A. INDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance.- 1. ariance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Town of Vail Page 6 B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone district. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. Chapter 14-3, Residential and Commercial Access, Driveway and Parking Standards (in part) 14-3-1: Minimum Standards.- This tandards: This section (tables 1 and 2) specifies the access, driveway and parking standards for residential and commercial development. These standards are subject to all conditions and exceptions described herein. These standards shall be considered the minimum standards. When two (2) or more standards conflict, the more restrictive standard shall apply. TABLE 11 DRIVEWAY/FEEDER ROAD STANDARDS Town of Vail Page 7 V. Standard Single -Family, Two -Family, Primary/Secondary - Access to not more than 3 dwelling units (including EHUs) - Structures and all portions thereof within 150' from edge of street pavement Driveway/Feeder Road Minimum width normal detail 1 12' Minimum width 90 degree corner 15' crossover (detail 2) Minimum width entrance%urb cut 16' detail 1 Flare to 16' Maximum width entrance%urb cut 24' head in detail 3 48' back out Minimum grade centerline detail 4 0.5% Maximum grade centerline (detail 4) 10% unheated 12% heated Maximum grade centerline 8% unheated corner/crossover (detail 2) 12% heated Maximum cross sloe grade detail 1 8 Entry angle minimum deflection for 450 first 30' of driveway length detail 5 Maximum centerline breakover grade 14 detail 6 Maximum grade at edge of public road 8% asphalt (detail 4) Maximum length of maximum grade at 10' edge of public road asphalt detail 4 Minimum centerline turning radius 20' detail 7 ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Lot Area: Zoning: Land Use Designation Current Land Use: Geological Hazards: 1801 Sunburst Drive Vail Valley 3rd Filing, Lot 2 0.428 acres (18,683 square feet) Two -Family Primary/Secondary Low Density Residential Duplex Residence High Severity Rockfall VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use: Zoning District: North: Golf Course Outdoor Recreation (OR) District Town of Vail Page 8 South: Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PS) District East: Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary (PS) District West: Residential Single -Family Residential (SFR) District VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed driveway realignment and associated variance should have no significant impact to surrounding structures. The proposed driveway is located entirely upon the applicant's property and is less than 200 sq. ft. larger than the existing driveway. The driveway will have no additional visual impacts and should improve safety along Sunburst Drive. Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. 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. The goal of this variance is primarily aimed at furthering the goals of traffic safety promoted by the Town Code. The variance would allow for a driveway alignment that provides better sightlines for vehicles exiting 1801 Sunburst Dr. Unit A. The sightline to the west of this property will be slightly reduced as a result of this realignment, however this sightline has been determined to be sufficient and the alignment approved by the Public Works department. The proposed driveway grade is also less severe than the existing conditions, thereby bringing this driveway closer to compliance with the Town Code. Overall this proposal significantly increases driver safety and improves a nonconformity with only a small increase in driveway coverage. Staff finds the proposed variance meets 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 driveway is anticipated to improve public safety by creating a driveway that is safer to exit and approach from the northeast. Greater visibility for the vehicle in the driveway will help this driver avoid conflict with other vehicles Town of Vail Page 9 approaching from the northeast. Greater visibility for drivers along Sunburst Dr. gives them more time to see and anticipate any vehicles leaving from Unit A. The work associated with the approval of this variance is not anticipated to have any additional impacts on population, utilities, or other public facilities due to no increase in density resulting from this project. This work is also not anticipated to have significant environmental impacts and will not have any impact on the rockfall hazard present on this site. Therefore, Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the maximum centerline driveway grade, located at 1801 Sunburst Drive Unit A/Lot 2, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the maximum centerline driveway grade, located at 1801 Sunburst Drive Unit A/Lot 2, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated April 13, 2020, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- Town inds: Town of Vail Page 10 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District; 2. The granting of these variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. These variances are warranted for the following reasons.- a. easons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- b. ode, b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District., and 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 Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District. " IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant's Narrative C. Project Plan Set Town of Vail Page 11 To Whom It May Concern: In regards to 1801 Sunburst Dr. — A We are relocating the curb cut in order to better align the driveway with the garage. The goal in realigning the driveway is to alleviate the current blind spots while accessing Sunburst. This change will also reduce the max grade of the driveway. We are making an existing non -conforming condition, less non -conforming. Thank you, Pierce Austin Architects 6961-+eQwnN 10OWd 110 a m k as isanEINnsiogL 6���bs 1sun9Nns °��0� � 0 W a z w a a UCO nn V Aa° Z LU X LU Q Z Q o= � h W mJe� yJ= r�/� V J M1 rco V J U) LU LU H 0 LU U) O 0- 0 O d 3 Aa° LU Q Cl) Cl) cO 6961-+eQwnN 10OWd co °/ N a i 1 L98L8001ItlA 6w yam ¢w k a UG Is nEINns Log �6� j O 1sEnaNns°22 - - o Q wz U)J = m = Z �^ W OU QUO VJ WLL- Z -H z OC 1 W �QZLU o LUQLLu '�°OLL wCcUU) WU LOCC�W O�U-� W Z W U) � UO 75 C' 0 LL LL W JCP D m — LUz - - ;o 0 Z W W /uu; 0- W cr LL Ir W J } 0 0rr W W W LLI LL C/) 0 W LO LU U) CV O V J (n O C W OC ZLU /Z LU J W QU Z , wQ a� ��' W ^ = cn cn C/) vi o rr 0 n O U) < Cc Z >- D}m H Q W QLU LU J LU Z 0- W% 6991-+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 C) 1 LS8L800��ItlA 6ovj Baa. �r O k Ha Is nEINns Log .y 6� a > � O q� 1sEmONns �o22oJ = - o Q Lu 0 cD +' Z�z CA�}W W J Q J O0 Lu >O YD W ?)(D r QU w O <Ir c'x �LLm�m >� — Wcr >_z0 z W C ~ F W o=w D�Jm w 0D mH_JOQ ZU z zQ� WJQU� HQ U) � � (D En- C) CA H W z w�w > Q�� Q W X CA UQ J>WWCA WD Orr LU 24'-0" C , LL Cr QU Q Dw - -- =- - �- %fta— U IC 00 L-1z li PJ LU W W OP �P°` W rr W J ,o ry5 / / W o w �Q 11 W C) O C'3 LL W c\j z C/) X z Lu zJ Q W �P°� J Z 5 W J Q CD P , 1 Cr rr ryy moo VJ F L 17 LU Q 0 �^ O� w V J w 06 Z X ww75 W LUcUw LU Lu LL Cn 0 LL Z z Q W W — _ City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 13, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a variance from Section 11-6 Business and Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the number and size of hospital campus signs, located at 180 South Frontage Road West/Lot E and F, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0006) ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC20-0006 VH Siqn Variance Staff Memorandum.pdf Description PEC20-0006 VH Sign Variance Staff Memorandum Attachment A. Protect Narrative revised April 6 2020.pdf Attachment A. Project Narrative, revised April 6, 2020 Attachment B. Vail Health Sign Package with matrix revised April 6 2020.pdf Attachment B. Vail Health Sign Package with matrix, revised April 6, 2020 0 rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 13, 2020 SUBJECT: A request for the review of a variance from Section 11-6, Business and Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the number and size of hospital campus signs, located at 180 South Frontage Road West/Lot E and F, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20- 0006) Applicant: Vail Health, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence I. SUMMARY The applicant, Vail Health, represented by Braun Associates, Inc., is requesting the review of a variance from Section 11-6 Business and Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the number and size of hospital campus signs, located at 180 South Frontage Road West/Lot E and F, Vail Village Filing 2. Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of this application, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, Vail Health, represented by Braun Associates, Inc., is requesting the review of sign package for the Vail Health Campus that includes a number of requested variances. The Vail Health Campus is located in Sign District 1 which includes all areas within the Town of Vail with the exception of the West Vail commercial areas. The sign regulations for Sign District 1 are generally tailored to the pedestrian oriented villages and to resort style development. A hospital campus requires a unique signage program that provides wayfinding and service identification to patrons and visitors. The Community Development Department has worked closely with the applicant and their consultants on a context appropriate signage package that will provide users of the campus with the information necessary to safely and efficiently navigate the campus. Staff finds, as outlined in Section VII, that the signage program's exceptions to the sign code meet the variance criteria with two revisions. The one revision is: • Omission of signs EX.023 and EX.021-3, the proposed "Vail Health" to be placed on the helicopter tower with a size of 88 square feet each and located at a height of approximately 100 feet. Please see Section VII for an additional discussion concerning these signs. The applicant's project narrative (Attachment A) and signage packet (Attachment B) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND On March 17, 2015, the Vail Town Council approved Resolution No. 3, Series of 2015, The Vail Valley Medical Center Site Specific Redevelopment Master Plan. This plan, a component of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, is the guiding document for the redevelopment of the hospital campus. In tandem with this approval, the Vail Town Council also approved Resolution No. 4, Series of 2015, which established a new land use category for the Vail Land Use Plan that corresponds with the Redevelopment Master Plan. The first phase of the hospital redevelopment, the west wing addition and associated improvements, was approved by the PEC on March 23, 2015 and was completed in 2017. On September 11, 2017 the PEC approved application PEC17-0022 for the reconstruction of the east wing, including healthcare facilities, ambulance district facilities, heliport building and associated structured parking. The phase is currently under construction with completion anticipated in late 2020. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds the following provisions of the Vail Town Code relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 11 — Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 1: Description, Purpose, and Applicability (in part) 11-1-2: PURPOSE.- Town URPOSE: Town of Vail Page 2 A. General Purpose: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town of Vail and to promote the coordinated and harmonious design and placement of signs in the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. B. Specific Purpose: These regulations are intended to achieve the following specific purposes.- 1. urposes: 1. To describe and enable the fair and consistent enforcement of signs in the town of Vail. 2. To encourage the establishment of well designed, creative signs that enhance the unique character of Vail's village atmosphere. 3. To preserve a successful and high quality business environment that is aided by signs that identify, direct, and inform. 4. To aid in providing for the growth of an orderly, safe, beautiful, and viable community. Chapter 6: Business and Building Identification Signs (in part) 11-6-1: PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION.- Business ESCRIPTION: Business and building identification signs are meant to identify and inform through the display of the business and/or building name and any graphic symbols or language pertinent to the advertised enterprise. This chapter covers all of the technical information related to business and building identification signs. All business and building identification signs shall comply with the standards outlined in the chapter and shall be subject to design review. 11-6-2: SIGN DISTRICTS.- A. ISTRICTS: A. Sign district 1 (SD 1): All of Vail except for property zoned ABD and CC3. 11-6-3: BUSINESS SIGNS: A. Business Identification Signs 1. Business identification signs in sign district 1 (SD I).- a. ): a. Number: Each business shall be allowed one business identification sign per public entrance. Town of Vail Page 3 b. Area: The allowable area of each business identification sign shall be up to six (6) square feet. At the discretion of the design review board, a business identification sign for a bowling alley or movie theater may be up to fifteen (15) square feet in area, subject to the applicant demonstrating that the sign area is harmonious with the scale and architectural character of the subject business and the building in which it is located. 11-6-4: BUILDING IDENTIFICATION SIGNS.- A. IGNS: A. Description: A building sign indicates the name of a building, which, in some cases (such as a hotel or lodge) may be the same as the primary business and building owner. All building signs shall comply with the regulations listed herein and shall also be subject to review by the design review board, which reviews signage based on the criteria in chapter 5 of this title. The total area allowed for building identification signage in both sign district 1 and sign district 2 includes the total number of its building signs, each measured differently, according to the type of building identification sign, and varies according to building frontage (see following tables). 1. Sign District 1 (SD 1), Allowable Building Identification Sign Area: The linear frontage of a building shall be measured in the same manner as that of a business, except that frontages shall not be delineated by inner divisions between tenant spaces. Building identification signs, unlike business signs, shall be allowed on building frontages without entrances, as long as that frontage parallels a major pedestrian or vehicular way. Allowed Total Building Frontage I Sign Area 10 feet - 49.99 feet 20 square feet 'FF 50 feet - 74.99 feet FFI� ' 30 square feet 75 feet - 99.99 feet FF 40 square feet 100 feet - 149.99 feet FF F- 50 square feet 150 feet - 199.99 feet FF'1 ' 50 square feet Town of Vail Page 4 200 feet plus FF 60 square feet 3. Sign Districts 1 And 2, Types Of Building Identification Signs.- a. igns: a. Freestanding Signs.- (1) igns: (1) Number: One freestanding sign per building frontage on a major pedestrian or vehicular way, with a maximum of two (2) freestanding signs per building. (2) Area: Freestanding building identification signs shall be subject to the total sign area requirements of the building frontage tables listed previously and shall be measured according to the total sign area. (3) Height: No part of a freestanding building identification sign shall be higher than eight feet (8) above existing grade. (4) Special Provisions: Freestanding signs shall be placed on two (2) separate building facades facing pedestrian and vehicular ways and shall be subject to design review. A joint directory sign, though a type of freestanding sign, shall not count toward the total quantity of freestanding signs allowed. b. Wall Mounted Signs: (1) Number: One sign per building frontage on a major pedestrian or vehicular way. A maximum of two (2) wall mounted building identification signs shall be allowed if a building has two (2) frontages as defined in these regulations. (2) Area: Wall mounted building identification signs shall be subject to the total sign area requirements of the building frontage tables listed previously, and shall be measured according to the size of the text only. (3) Height: No part of a wall mounted building identification sign shall be higher than twenty five feet (25) above existing grade. (4) Special Provisions: If using two (2) signs, signs shall be placed on two (2) separate frontages, subject to design review. c. Joint Directory Signs.- Town igns: Town of Vail Page 5 (1) Number: One joint directory sign per building unless the building has more than one building frontage (see chapter 2 "Definitions", of this title) with a combined linear frontage that exceeds one hundred fifty feet (150), in which case that building shall be entitled to two (2) joint directory signs. No building identification sign, other than a joint directory sign, shall be allowed for the side of a building that houses a joint directory sign. (2) Area: Each joint directory sign may contain signage of up to one square foot per business tenant in a building, and up to three (3) square feet for the name of the building, placed atop the joint directory sign. (3) Height: No part of a joint directory sign shall be higher than eight feet (8) above existing grade. (4) Special Provisions: A joint directory sign, though a type of freestanding sign, shall not count toward the total quantity of freestanding signs allowed. However, the area of the joint directory sign shall be included in the total building identification area allowed according to building frontage. All joint directory signs shall be kept current according to business turnover. Chapter 10: Variances and Appeals (in part) 11-10-1: VARIANCES.- A. ARIANCES: A. Purpose: A variance from the sign regulations constitutes relief from the strict interpretation of the standards and may be granted by the planning and environmental commission (PEC) in cases where there exists a physical limitation that prevents the existence, placement, or operation of a sign in compliance with the standards of this title. B. Application Procedure: An application for a variance from the sign regulations may be obtained from the community development department. The variance application must include a sign permit application, the applicant's reasons for requesting a variance, and a nonrefundable fee determined by the town council as set forth by town ordinances. The staff shall set a date for a hearing before the planning and environmental commission once the complete application has been received. C. Criteria For Approval.- Town pproval: Town of Vail Page 6 1. Special circumstances or conditions must exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question. However, such circumstances must be unique to the subject site. 2. The applicant shall not have created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request. 3. The applicant must demonstrate that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title. V. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Uri 5rr:M Legal Description: Zoning: Land Use Plan Designations Current Land Use: Geological Hazards: 180 South Frontage Road West Vail Village Filing 2, Lot E and F, General Use (GU) Vail Valley Medical Center Site Specific Redevelopment Master Plan Hospital Campus None VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use: Zoning District North: Government General Use South: Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary (P/S) Residential East: Residential High Density Multiple -Family (HDMF) West: Hotel/Condominiums Lionshead Mixed -Use One (LMU-1) VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 11, Chapter 10, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, and are as follows. The applicant must demonstrate that all three of these criteria are met: 1. Special circumstances or conditions must exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question. However, such circumstances must be unique to the subject site. In order for the Planning and Environmental Commission to grant a sign variance, there must be a finding that special circumstances or conditions exist that prevents the effectiveness of signs complying with the standards of Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code. In contrast to most properties and buildings located within Sign Town of Vail Page 7 District 1 (SD 1), the Vail Health Campus is a large development lot with special circumstances related to service identification and wayfinding that warrant relief from the provisions of the sign regulations. As proposed, with one exception, the Vail Health Campus signage program responds to these unique circumstances while maintaining conformance with the purpose and intent of the Sign Regulations. The one exception staff finds that is not consistent with this criterion are as follows: Signs EX.023 and EX.021-3, two (2) 88 square foot "Vail Health" signs located approximately 100 feet above grade on the helicopter tower. The Sign Regulations restrict the maximum height of sign to no more than 25 feet from grade. Staff is not aware of any variance to this standard being approved. Staff is supportive of the internationally recognized red cross signs to assist motorists on Interstate 70 in recognizing the presence of hospital services at the Vail Town Center exit. Staff does not find the inclusion of the "Vail Health" signs are necessary in relaying this information. Significant signage is proposed and supported by staff that informs the visitors to the campus and the community that this is a Vail Health facility. Staff does not find special circumstances or conditions exist that warrant the proposed `Vail Health" signage on the helicopter tower. Staff finds the proposed variance, as conditioned, meets this criterion. 2. The applicant shall not have created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request. The circumstances necessitating the variance request is due to the overall design and functional layout of the Vail Health Campus. Sign District 1 (SD 1) is intended for the pedestrian -oriented Vail Village and Lionshead Village and does not consider this collection of uses or building layout. The applicant did not create the circumstances that necessitate the requested variance. Staff finds the proposed variance, as conditioned, meets this criterion. 3. The applicant must demonstrate that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title. The granting of the requested variance is in general harmony with the general or specific purposes of Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code. Specifically, the approval of the Vail Health Campus Sign Program is consistent with promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town of Vail by informing residents and guests to the location and operation of the Vail Health Campus. Staff finds the proposed variance, as conditioned, meets this criterion. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Town of Vail Page 8 Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of a variance from Section 11-6 Business and Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the number and size of hospital campus signs, located at 180 South Frontage Road West/Lot E and F, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0006) Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, the applicant's request for a from Section 11-6 Business and Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the number and size of hospital campus signs, located at 180 South Frontage Road West/Lot E and F, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Conditions.- 1. onditions: 1. Approval of this sign variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 2. Approval of this sign variance does not include signs identified as EX.023 and EX. 021-3 ("Vail Health" Tower Signs) on the project submittal dated April 6, 2020. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, this sign variance request, the Community Development Departments recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon a review of Section Vll of the April 13, 2020 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. Special circumstances or conditions exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question,- 2. uestion, 2. The applicant has not created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request; and Town of Vail Page 9 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Project Narrative, revised April 6, 2020 B. Vail Health Sign Package, revised April 6, 2020 Town of Vail Page 10 VAIL HEALTH COMPREHENISVE SIGN PROGRAM and SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST March 16, 2020, revised 4/6/2020 Introduction The purpose of this report is to describe the comprehensive sign program and sign variances proposed for Vail Health's Vail Campus. Effective signage is critical to successful operations at the Vail campus and considerable time has gone into the development of this sign program. The campus is large, it includes many different uses and functions, and it has multiple entries. It also serves many first-time visitors, and often visitors who may be anxious due to health conditions. These factors were major considerations in the design of the sign program for this unique and important community facility. The sign program addresses the new East Wing, the West Wing and Central Wing. The neighboring Medical Professional Building is not included in this sign program. This application is submitted on behalf of Vail Clinic, Inc. This narrative provides an overview of the sign program. Other information includes a Vail Health Sign Inventory (a matrix that summarizes all proposed signs), and a plan set with details on proposed signs and renderings depicting the location of the proposed signs. Sign Program Twenty-eight signs are proposed. The Town's sign code defines a number of types of signs. The types of signs include in the sign program are Building Identification signs, Business signs, Joint Directory signs, Private No Parking Signs, Traffic Control signs, and Public Information signs. The sign code addresses the number, size, location and design of these signs in different ways. The allowable number and size of Building Identification signs are determined by the length and number of street frontages and the length of buildings along these frontages. The Vail Health Campus has frontage on both West Meadow Drive and South Frontage Road. Building frontages on the campus allow for the maximum amount of signage for Building Identification Signs, 60 square feet on both West Meadow Drive and South Frontage Road. Fifteen of the proposed signs involve variances to the sign code. Twelve of the fifteen variances are specifically for sign categories related to parking, traffic control and assisting visitors with wayfinding to and throughout the campus. Refer to the Vail Health Sign Inventory for specific information on the types of signs that are proposed and the variance requests. Rationale for proposed variances is outlined below. Variances Below is an explanation of the fifteen proposed sign variances: West Meadow Drive (sign eX.004) This pedestrian -oriented traffic control sign is located at the entry to the West Wing. The sign identifies the entry to the hospital. Four square feet are permitted for traffic control signs, the proposed sign is six square feet. West Meadow Drive (signs EX.032 and EX.033) Two No Parking signs are proposed at the garage doors to the enclosed loading facility. No parking signs are limited to 2 square feet. Proposed signs are 4 square feet. East Wing/South Frontage Road (signs EX.019 and EX.021) Ambulance entry and ambulance exit signs are proposed at the garage doors to the ambulance facility/patient drop-off area. Traffic control signs are limited to 4 square feet. Proposed signs are 12.5 and 16 square feet. The size of the signs is due to the importance of informing people that these areas are for ambulance access only. East Wing/South Frontage Road (sign EX.020 - 1.a.) Four square feet is permitted for Traffic Control signs. This 40 square foot monument sign is proposed at the main entry to the campus. The sign is the first opportunity to inform visitors of the location of the Emergency Department, the hospital, parking and medical offices. The sign is critical to directing the flow of traffic into the campus. East Wina/Heliaad Tower (signs EX.021-2 and EX.022 Red "crosses" are proposed at the upper level of the helipad stair tower. These signs are oriented to westbound and eastbound traffic on 1-70. The red cross is an internationally recognized symbol for emergency medical care. These Public Information signs are intended to inform 1-70 traffic of the emergency care facilities at Vail Health. These signs are 16 square feet and approximately 100' above grade, this height necessitates a variance. East Wing/Helipad Tower (signs EX.023 and EX.021-3) These two Building Identification signs identify Vail Health and are located next to the red crosses described above. While locals are likely aware that this facility is Vail Health, substantial numbers of visitors to Vail and Eagle County are not. For this reason, it is necessary to identify Vail Health in concert with the red crosses. Variances are required for the height of the sign (approximately 100' above grade), size (each sign is 88 square feet) and number of Building Identification signs (the site is permitted two Building Identification signs along South Frontage Road, sign are proposed at the entry to the East Wing). East Wing/entry drive (sign EX.024-2) This Traffic Control sign provides directions to the entry to the East Wing and to structured parking. Traffic Control signs are limited to 4 square feet. This freestanding sign is 24 square feet. The sign is critical to directing the flow of traffic into the campus. East Wing/entry drive (sign EX.025-2) This traffic Control sign provides direction to vehicles exiting the main hospital drop-off circle. Traffic Control signs are limited to 4 square feet. This freestanding sign is 8 square feet. The sign is critical to directing the flow of traffic into the campus. East Wing/main entry (sign EX.027) This Business Identification sign is for the Emergency Department and is located at the main entry drive to the hospital. Business Identification signs are limited to 6 square feet. The proposed sign is 24 square feet. East Wing/main entry (sign EX.028) This Building Identification sign is located at the main entry to the East Wing, it identifies Vail Health. This sign is within the allowable number of Building Identification signs. Coupled with the proposed monument sign, 72 square feet of Building Identification signage is proposed. The variance is for 12 square feet of signage. East Wing/main entry (sign EX.030) This pedestrian -oriented Traffic Control sign is located at the main entry to the East Wing. The sign identifies the entry to the hospital. Traffic Control signs are limited to 4 square feet. This wall mounted sign is 14 square feet. East Wing/entry to parking garages (sign EX.031) This traffic control sign directs visitors to parking in the new East Wing and the Medical Professional Building. Traffic Control signs are limited to 4 square feet. This freestanding sign is 30 square feet. Variance Review Criteria Purpose: A variance from the sign regulations constitutes relief from the strict interpretation of the standards and may be granted by the planning and environmental commission (PEC) in cases where there exists a physical limitation that prevents the existence, placement, or operation of a sign in compliance with the standards of this title. Three criteria are considered in evaluating sign variance requests. These criteria include: 1. Special circumstances or conditions must exist that apply to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right of way, that would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question. However, such circumstances must be unique to the subject site. Response Special circumstances or conditions exist, starting with the unique nature of Vail Health as a community health care facility. These circumstances and conditions are furthered by the size of the parcel, the size of the building, the multitude of uses and services offered at the Vail Campus, and the number of entries to the campus. It is essential that signage be clear and that directional and wayfinding signs effectively guide visitors to and from the campus. More importantly, the Vail campus has many first-time visitors. These visits are typically due to health issues that may involve emergency situations. Visitors that may be anxious or feel rushed further compound the need for exceedingly clear and concise signage. These considerations were major factors when designing the proposed sign program. 2. The applicant shall not have created the circumstances that have necessitated the variance request. Response The applicant has not directly created the circumstances necessitating the variance requests. Rather, it is the nature of the use coupled with behavior patterns that have created the need for these variances. 3. The applicant must demonstrate that the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title. Response The stated purpose of the sign code is: General Purpose: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town of Vail and to promote the coordinated and harmonious design and placement of signs in the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. The granting of these variances will promote the health, safety and general welfare of the Town by providing a comprehensive and effective sign program that responds to the unique characteristics of the Vail Health's Vail campus and more importantly to the needs of visitors to the campus. s W c T In W mmmmm Mo E �� C O O L am c N ��o�—�mm o r o V V O O Z O cu mr TUI �a cX Q� N N H o X a m a cD _ U T cD o cu < LoW � U a C)z �a W No OS�c - d a'o LL� y cE - a _ •� w CW C �_ .. L 61 61 61 61 O O C4 C4 LTJ .9:0o° UJ Lo - ~ t U L O - id O cU O cd (O a � II .. CD w o > x �; cu m ci o ¢ cu o m — cu o v L-� L-� o ci ci m �, �, o cu > w o o > aD� o 0 0 —oo cn m z 0 C s W °z d c T In W U/ E C O c Q c N �Q �a O m LL N z c r o V V X O c 01 U) N S Q Q� N N H °z d W Q �Q �a � a o Q� a m a U � U a C)z �a W OS�c - d a'o LL� y cE - a l) Cl) ❑ CW C «U00 E y29?onU3 °r No Q LTJ .9:0o° UJ Lo 0 0 0 N 0 0 x W I Z s W U �ammmmmM �w W Q CD N W I 2-0 N ©©©© l CN E �a z `° m � m�mm 0 a 000-0 o 1 4 �1 o c 0 04 C c Lo � a N /U d1 U m N > c m o m m m `� V) =o �u rn w y N > p o (O d - .� N L of L m m m m o o LL In cs /1 o - " � o ro o ro o ror_(o CD LL N V n w 2= �j cu o _ cu o m — cu o� `° o > x w m c i o o Q > v �' o ci ci m a o 0 0 --CD N •� Q o Qa z O>o T ~ V N f6 T Vty N f6 01 N N - E E � 0 c 9 U m U u Z s W U W Q N W I 2-0 ©©©© E E o 1 �1 o c c U m rn m V) N w N o LL In m LL M Z C N s Q N s Q X W •0 Q ~ V V W •� Q ~ V V T ~ V N f6 T Vty N f6 01 N N �p �p C 01 N N f6 f6 Ni7i0 U7 i i N Ui 0 J U u Z s W U W Q N W I 2-0 ©©©© k \ j f 99999 X22 \\ }< {zt / 01{ / ) \ :M §_ } \ y0 / CD \\_\ C4G 2 2 § CD 999/ W �( aLU j\\\ \ _ \\\\\\\\\ k �\ ` \ j f Z W ( ^ } W � o 4 \ LU T- \❑ )] /� � / / / ƒ ƒ TO a $ 2 O 04 04 § E ƒ a -: J» / §§ - W Cu\ c » ' . § ty / k ) } } 7 �\ ` \ j Z W ^ J} W � o LU T- \❑ /� � / / )k TO /§ O 04 04 a -: -: � 2 : 7 - W ) \ \\\ \ \ )\ � �\ ` \ j Z W ^ W � o LU T- \❑ /� � Z W ^ W � o LU T- o 0 Q o )k TO /§ / � 2 ❑ O W M' F mmmmm o 0 0 0 V) v m O -O a/ o0 U o T cu m— mm �a X �' O • d X o L• o o_ C i t0 o a �� W o V V C T — u C C �CNoo o O �Lo a v x �1 > > co m m m !H _ b -=o cru o m - w y Co= v° o m o ro n ro��m o C± a �000 a C w �, g -s > x �; cu o cu o CO — cu o v o - m a �, o cu .o' 2 a - a) > w m CN o o ¢ iL > �' �' ci ci m D� o 0 0--oo N cn m o Q 0 C z N M' F 0:H � o O a` V) v m O -O a/ o0 U o w �Q vo �� W Q V V T — u C C � 0:H � o O a` k \> f 9999® \ - _ \ \_ � \± .. . :> §) - \\__ ] / \ ƒ ) .. . f O f ) ` �u w=y§ � =x .. . ):: 7 2 o o / / ƒ } g C32 ° / 999/ - \\ �� � �\\\ cnj \ � £/� \ \(\ / / }/ :»swops )z000� »_ M \ jƒ /Rj g o\ :* zm 6// f j � @ §) ] / \ ƒ ) �u e U /k\}} 7 0 K W �a m cy) mmmmm V) v v� Qm � o 0 0 0 0 c Z m m o` cn o 04 —mm r cu m'T�� X N N N 0 O •- N d s Q o C'o o 04 t0 lu o n o rO m o o o u — o p N � Lo N co �j ...w o (D_ m o m m m 2 a o �u /� y _ o o co S w .� w 04 04 «- v° o m o ro n 00. C± a �000 o °_ w a > x �; cu m o °1 cu o m – cu o ' V O - u ,N°i- o cu a - rn > w 04 o o ¢ > N L L �I �I m a� o 0 0--oo N cn m o� Q (O O>o ¢ ¢ z - N � U U a - U po CT) 02 0 V) v v� Qm ov o0 V > > N N N 0 M s Q lu u u N in CS in > > � U U a - U po CT) 02 0 k f 9999® %- \ \_ \__ \ \\ �_ } - � .. . �� ) x ~ =x .. . e J » __ CD �o /k\}} - -^ \ ± / 999/ - \\ �� �: W \\} Ol0 \ - z�,w _ C4 C4 C%2 ( t/� 7/\ � \\ :_ \z000� 3- /Rj / :»swops :* \ CD o\ zm Ln k � CL L4n 0 z z � LU z � f j e $ } � j ) \ ) { �u e J /k\}} 7 � CL L4n 0 z z � LU z � �Y E 'e o Eco o, mmmmmCD = -a m m a) a)a) - - M 01 0 0 � z m � L o v -vmm h 0 c �a �1 U) � 2 °' M N N O • m a_ o` X M m 04 o o o t0 >Q n o a o ■� C04 N o -M 0 U > o 04 O o- o mommm� O E .0 � a w ao C/ C/ C/ X X X � �a N m > ������ a !�_ o o04 00 LL 0 z C w w w y- _ w `g �_ M o 0 0 o cu 04 C d r L E°o � /1 F v U L o o N r ro o ro o cd (.d p� a o moo o s Q O s Q O s V w g m a> �; c' o _ cu o m - cu o ' dj 0 H `� o cu � a a w a W x > w m 04 o o ¢ > N V L L O UI UI CO � o 0 0--oo N o Q z O>o "- _ u m ,mc u m m 0 U/ 0 K w 00 Y O � � a a dm o��r E 'e o Eco o, aQ o E c > h = -a m m a) a)a) - „tea �a a 01 0 0 )PO ■ 6) O n h 0 c V) �1 U) � 2 N i N o^ o - a o -M 0 p N E o -M 0 E 0 E w U/ 0 N N m ad LL i z C �„ LL z C LL 0 z C E a � d 'a tom` M m` El _0 E°o M�`" QIL O s Q O s Q O s Q -a ma O _ X dj 0 H X v o H X dj 0 H `� w a W T Q u u W Q u u W Q u u o "- u m ,m u m ,mc u m m 0 U/ O N i i (n In � N i i In 0 N i i ■ _ O � O O N O t _ a �v �o E � a t7 _ � o < C7 a s N 00 Y O � � a a dm o��r E 'e o Eco o, aQ o E c > h = -a m m a) a)a) - „tea �a a vm -U )PO ■ 6) O n h 0 CLNa y U) � 2 N N o^ o - E 'e o Eco aQ o E c > h a o 2 a o E - „tea �a a o ■ h ■ 0 0 h a E 0 E 0 E E a Ea ad �„ a; '; Q � d 'a tom` m` I ■ H I k 0 2 ¥9> §)U \ Ltj \) { q E ± k w \ »_ 7 / k 6 � 9999® \\ �< . - \ .. \ \ .. . CN /\ j® } \ _ �®9 O \/ W } 2 T x f \ 0\\ � a)= y G22§ CMD � ) /CCD E 00 \\\ 01} \ 999/ E zy/ e� �ccJ Q \\\\\\C\j \\\ 0 2 ¥9> §)U \ Ltj \) { q E ± k w \ »_ 7 / k 6 � | �f .. . - 22 .. \ \ .. . E /\ } \ /2 I \ W 72- 2 T f \ 0\\ � a)= c\ � \ � � 0 E ■ � | T El ` \ k 22 :- \\ \\\ �.0 /\ \[ /2 I \ -C 2 T � a)= c\ � \ � � 0 E (a � J E zy/ e� T El ` \ k . :- \\ \\\ �.0 /\ \2 T El / cd co 15 lu\» ` \ k . :- \\ \\\ �.0 I \ -C 2 T � a)= c\ � / cd co 15 lu\» \\C/, �.0 I \ -C 2 T -2 a)= c\ )u § | 0 E (a � J E zy/ e� ,\� � / cd co 15 lu\» 2 § | ! E � �G 0 u cy) mmmmmCD G a O c' y e m o m � N (lJ a 0 m o U o 6) c tn z O c U m o m � X, o � —�mm o��� .O �a w O .s O T OM a N LL >- V) M p C4 0 0— s Q O 4 6)IO U w 0 H W Q V V UI O O U Lo a N n 0 in A_ W E �.w > (D' LL m m M2 i� C4 o cru No of > _ o ° _ L-- m m �D CD CD d - Cc � /1 ~ v ° " o ro o ro o cd (dmoo a _ - L � w a�`� �j cu m UI o _ a� cu o m — cu o ' V L L O UI UI CO u o � a a� rn a' x LU o o Q > N a� o 0 0--oo N Ln m o Q (O z O>o -- _ as Ul M K W 0 u EIn - o G a O c' y e m o m � N (lJ 0 a EIn - o G a in c' y In v a�w E 0 m U o 6) c tn O c U m w V) .O ' w O .s O T OM a N LL >- V) M s Q O _� E U w 0 H W Q V V T UUi m Ln U N N n 0 in > > 0 a EIn - o G a > c' y In am a�w d Q O m U tn 4 v ) Ij .O N O .s O T N U� _� E U _ �� � U m Ln U ©© 0 a EIn - o G a > c' y In am a�w d Q O a �O ■ \: | j ` 99999 \ \\\ <2 \ | \_ / ❑ / � � ) / - \\__cn ) \ •� ` 04 w=yCD ƒ 3 $ 2 oo _ .. . yy: ƒ �999� g % �� r »_ �f<t CY ) \ \ f / k \ ® 7 .. .> >M 7 \ }\> CD CD 04 04 CIO\\\ } ©/\ \ - , 70 22 6 _� \ \ )/J R3 j\}/ j\\\\\j\\ \} \ /\\ k k \ � 0 N � N O � W E m U5 | j ` - § \ \\\ <2 | / ❑ / � � ) / 4 ) \ / ƒ ƒ 3 $ � ; § % \ r »_ CY \ \ / k \ 7 \ � 0 N � N O � W E m U5 | j ` - § \\\ <2 / ❑ / � � k � }\ O \/ � 3:> C32 -he 0404\ CC 3 4— \ �} U \ \ / | \ \\ .. . __ O 0404 § ƒ ) W } � \ E§ >ƒ� �\ \ 6\\ \ r »_ | � | \ \\ \ ] % § ƒ ) / ❑ } � \ E§ >ƒ� �\ w \ r »_ 7 vi | \ / ❑ } � § \\ 99999 u 5 ) \ CD � \+ .. . :\ N \ \ �® c \CD 't ®9 /0U 7 — O ��§ — \\5\ =x .. . , / 14- //> j y 2 _ 2 C32so ) / 999/ - \\ \ / / ) \ - z - \ �'w ) E cqcs \ t o \ _ , 7CD \\j j \/ \}000� \ ft \ = — o\ :* \\ /\\ ` �\ƒ \ § \\ u 5 ) > w \ c »_ /0U 7 o a` O > M mmmm m Mo _ LI 00 O 7 o 0 ro 4— z O 7 m m � I O V– V m m � a n KK W V -,L O •� U' d o x 6i O Clp 0 N Z C xl a w - O O O r� 00 cel o o o C4 TO (D' O u� Q Q d1 a `° 1��o Q N > > o m m m o i■ _ o o Cru o co u u 0)y LU LU f6 f6 H '� V f6 f6 L m m m 6) o o N n o(n>> �yN N " r r C4 C4 oID v, w m c4 c i o a a� v �' �' o c i C i (.i N ,`°, w a o C4 o Q co a a� > w o o> 0 0 0-- o o (� z O> o 1 o a` O O LI O 7 o 0 ro O 7 UA n KK W V -,L ao W LLI V H> V 0 N Z C H> V 0 N Z C 00 Q N Q N uli u uj u H •_ V f6 f6 H '� V f6 f6 N n o(n>> N no(n>> o a` 0 LI o o 0 ro UA n KK W ao W LLI Ci ui k CIF§ OF§ _\j!, .}\/)§ $ § ) g 99999 M \ \: g z r »_ ty G ` ) }f / ƒ }; \ . § Jz \ ) )® \ 2 �\ �) O }/ �� .. \ /k\}} �u 7 %� e u a_ W C04 D CD ~°z§ q va') V, - C: /2 o U) \\ }z\ J > �999� ® \ \ \012 \ N > » 7 1 } \w N O O \ \/\ \ - W , 722 2 _� \%2 }\}/ jD\000-\\ \} \ /\\ � 5 � _\j!, .}\/)§ § k { � \ k CIFk $ § ) g N M \ w g z r »_ ty G ` ) 7 IL ƒ }; /} . § CN \ ) ) 0 2 �\ r »_ .. \ /k\}} �u 7 %� e u W W ~ q va') V, a § k { � \ k CIFk $ § ) g N M w ) ) r »_ ty u 2 7 IL IL }; IL . § CN \ ) 0 % �\ r »_ 2 /k\}} 7 § k { � \ k CIFk § N M w \ r »_ ty /k\}} 7 IL IL }; .. . § CN CN ) 0 O O { 2 W W ~ ~ 1 a C: C: U) U) N N O O W W � 5 � § E § w \ r »_ ty /k\}} 7 ) � Ee ) 0 { 2 N W moi® z � L a rrrrir mmmmm r� rn =_ . a zm d � O L T �ttrrruuu� �� d f.l N U � � O O mV 3 h � a p �s N aro M z `m tn m04 WQ Lo- m m V V �Ua a = N O l7 d o x L. m0 > > o x l n O UI O o cu o o r p O .0 G (O a cra N > o m m m - -=o � .. X y L > �� -p L M M M M o 0 �_ o om d ° �= w N • w o N r r cu 04 rlL a - - - -p Ln a�`� Cj o d cd d cd cu o m — cu o p w �, _o �; i 0 ' V O N Q�f�t� > X > w m c 0 0 ¢ > N L L CSI C4 0. a Dr o 0 0--oo N � .= z O>o vi moi® z � L a rrrrir aZ r� rn a0 O Q V a m� a zm d � O CD �ttrrruuu� �� d f.l N U � � O O mV 3 h � a �s �s N aro `m tn `m tn WQ V V �Ua W 0 z � L a o aZ rn a0 O Q V a m� a zm d � O CD >� 00 > M N In 0 a v � L o rn a0 O Q V a m� a d � O CD >� 00 > M N In d f.l N U � � O O mV 3 h � a �s �s N aro `m tn `m tn WQ V V �Ua u N N f6 O N Ui o U75 > > a � L E � a0 O Q V a m� m IL � A ro C c � d � O CD CD d U � m 3 � d f.l N U � � O O mV 3 h � a �s �s ar aro `m tn `m tn �Ua �Ua O O ■ M W a z • raatell, U/ m m m mm 00 e e m roO d V m Aill D z m • e ., "� m m N a �o 3:(n IL >� 00 > N O z M rn I z w o mcn w m�mm u u .i V 6 6 �Ua C N U o U > > C4 O � �- � O o Lo n w ■ C U o mommm� O �� C4 r d7 N > CD a X y _ �a > o o m w Q3 C4 C4 C.90U— L-- o m o cd o cd (.d a CD cop o �1 d ` > v • m > x �; cu m C4 o Q _ — cu o m C! ' v �' �' o ci ci CO N `° 7 o Q co a - LU o o iL > o 0 0--oo z O>o v, 1 c%i a N W LLU 3 m 3 a E _ z • raatell, U/ 1� e e m roO d V m Aill D z m • e ., "� m m N a �o 3:(n IL >� 00 > N O z M ar11� I O w o 11 w a N W LLU 3 m 3 a E _ z a U/ a7 �N m roO d V 3 7 z m m m N a �o 3:(n IL E U/ m roO d V 3 7 m m a �o 3:(n IL >� 00 > N O z M m f.1 s Q O w o H w `m tn u u .i V 6 6 �Ua �Ua N U o U > > E a ro N m roO d V 3 O m m a �o 3:(n IL �s a3: �s a3,E m f.1 m f.1 `m tn `m �Ua �Ua O O ■ § OFk � CL 0 9999® j j M .. . \� \ }_ \(__ }± -\ M M M ) : x _ =x .. . } < O O k//§ - .. . \ D \ o \\ _ 2 / ) C31 oX999/ \ \ / ) - < \ \ ( W W \ 3 \ - z �'L_ _ - Co §\\ \ t\� w :_ »_ //\ c » ' . § K c /Rj /\}\ \\\\\\\\\ } } \/ \ 0 } } q q C � CL 0 j j ( ( & & /\ /\ \ D \ 2 \ / \ / ) \ \ / ) < w \w \ c » ' . § K c » ' . § K U / ) } } / k ) } } q q � CL 0 1 v Q � 0 O N N 0 i O b0 ._ b0 v (U in S 0 E U N i .a C :2'y1 i O m o m ni Ln Ykl 0 ar m a N M V lA to M M M M M C 0 0 0 0 0 X X X X X N w w w w w LU D ?� 00 00 O 0 Y Y '0-' U L i O O pLu w w w i N M V V1 0 0 O O O O O O O MM 0 0 C ° 0 C O O 0 v° v° vu b0 u s s b0 tF tF tF t tF U U i i i i 7 i 7 7 7 N N N M u1 u1 u1 Ln 0 n3 ar a LA fc s a -I c -I N C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X X X X X X X X X N w w w w w w w w w D O w 3 3 p' mo w U E E U O O O O o c c E c c E a a Z0 J w w Q w w Q 2 2 2 0 O O 0 C C U 0 N N M � V1 V1 I� 00 N N N N N O O O O O X X X X X w w w w w m Q O_ O O 00- a a O O O T T L T T 0 0 N Nmo mo W N N 0 0 0 0 0 to r, W M O v Q 0 O O U 0 0 i v° v° 0 i i 00 to O 2 M O N M M O O O w w w v v �s �s b�0 o b�0 0 a (b >b0 E O E O m L LL O� > 00 00 NO O N LLO LL L N N fC N 0 0- 0 0- 0 b0-0 b0-0 b0-0 b0-0 b0-0 b0-0 b0-0 b0-0 b0-0 b0 0-0 bv0 b0-0 b0-0 �^ ++ O O .' O O O N N O = N y w .' 0 - w w w 0 0 O 0 c w w O O O) V N O) N N U N N O) N N N •N N U N N N v1 N N N +�+ N O N N N N N N N N N N N C C '�, �, C '�, '�, o. ++ o. vi t0 O O O v 0 f0 v v 0 0 0 �^ 0 f0 O O v v O v O O v p bD �n �^ 0 v p b0 �n �n N N O N N 0 0 > Z Z Z} Z}} Z Z Z Z Z}} Z} Z Z} tp } tp }} Z}} O Z j j 0 0 0 0 0 0 O) O j 0 O) j O) O N N O O j O j _ _ O N O O Q 0 0 0 0 O w O Q NI l0 c -I l0 V Z Q NI N N l0 a -I l0 Q Z l0 Z Z to W c -I l0 l0 a -I N M 0 M N 0 M N 0 N 0 0 0 O 3 G w s w O) a 0 O O. 3 s w O 0 O O. in w w w w w O w 3 w w w 3 w w LO N a i N d N N -1 -4 tO Z 2 M N I, N Ln ci N 2 N N O t�0 t�0 to to 00 M N M -1 -1 -1 w 00 00 lA N w -1 N M O -1 -1 M bD > b0 b0 b0 b0 b0 b0 ++0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 b0 b0 b00 00_0 00_0 E �' O O �^ i E E E E E i E 0 N N O O v N N 0v 2 O M U 00 0 0 0 2 v Mo -O -O bD 'O -6 -6 -6 -6 -O -O -O -O bD bD -O b0 b0 b0 b0 b0 0 0 0 ++ ++ N b0 N b0 b0 N N N 0 N N N N N N b0 N O =p =p 0 0 v O O O 0 0 ++ O 0 0 C C C 0 +- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F' 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N •' 0 0 0�� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 ��� 0 0 0 0 0 f0 v+� v+� E E bOD — E E — E E E v+ v+ E E E E E v+ v+ v- E E � E v+ N i N E a LL LL W N Q Q Os N is 0 Q Q LL � N fa i0 is N N f0 i0 i0 is 0 � � � LL LL f0 N N N LL LL LL N N LL LL v Q � 0 O N N 0 i O b0 ._ b0 v (U in S 0 E U N i .a C :2'y1 i O m o m ni Ln Ykl 0 ar m a N M V lA to M M M M M C 0 0 0 0 0 X X X X X N w w w w w LU D ?� 00 00 O 0 Y Y '0-' U L i O O pLu w w w i N M V V1 0 0 O O O O O O O MM 0 0 C ° 0 C O O 0 v° v° vu b0 u s s b0 tF tF tF t tF U U i i i i 7 i 7 7 7 N N N M u1 u1 u1 Ln 0 n3 ar a LA fc s a -I c -I N C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X X X X X X X X X N w w w w w w w w w D O w 3 3 p' mo w U E E U O O O O o c c E c c E a a Z0 J w w Q w w Q 2 2 2 0 O O 0 C C U 0 N N M � V1 V1 I� 00 N N N N N O O O O O X X X X X w w w w w m Q O_ O O 00- a a O O O T T L T T 0 0 N Nmo mo W N N 0 0 0 0 0 to r, W M O v Q 0 O O U 0 0 i v° v° 0 i i 00 to O 2 M O N M M O O O w w w City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 13, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off Site and Joint Facilities, Vail Town Code, to refine standards to be used in the review of such proposals and to clarify the review process and other considerations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0007) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Staff Memorandum PEC20-0007.docx Staff Report Attachment A. Text Amendment Proposal.pdf Attachment A. 0 TOWN OF VAII Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 13, 2020 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off Site and Joint Facilities, Vail Town Code, to refine standards to be used in the review of such proposals and to clarify the review process and other considerations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0007) Applicant: Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Greg Roy I. SUMMARY The applicant, Braun Associates, Inc., represented by Tom Braun, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off Site and Joint Facilities, Vail Town Code, to refine standards to be used in the review of such proposals and to clarify the review process and other considerations. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outline in Section VI of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council. The following attachments are available for review: Attachment A — Zoning Code Amendment Proposal II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Applicant is proposing to update the Vail Town Code to amend the section that allows for off-site or joint facilities parking to increase the distance from a site that would qualify for off-site parking, set a defined amount of parking that would qualify, change the reviewing body for these requests, and clarify the submittal requirements. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE The applicant proposes the following language to be added to Title 12: The proposed amendments are as follows (text to be deleted is in strikethrei ,gh text that is to be added is bold. Sections of text that are not amended have been omitted. 12-10-6: Parking; Off Site and Joint Facilities All parking and loading facilities required by this chapter shall be located on the same site as the use for which they are required, provided that the Planning and Environmental Commission may permit off site or jointly used parking facilities if located within throe h, ind-red foot X309 thirteen hundred and twenty feet (1,320') of the use served. 4i itherit„ to norm it eff site er feint narking fanilities shall net evte-Rd to narking eAeRd to marking manes permitted to he , inennlesed No more than twenty five percent (25%) of the required on-site parking may be provided by such off-site locations. Prior to permitting off site or joint parking facilities, the 01 Planning and Environmental Commission shall determine that the proposed location of the parking facilities and the prospective operation and maintenance of the facilities will fulfill the purposes of this chapter, will he as usable and nnrnienient as narking fonilities lenater! en Submittal material required for an application for off-site parking shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator and shall generally include, but not be limited to a parking inventory of the subject property, the location of off-site parking, an operational plan for the use of off-site parking, and legal instruments necessary to ensure the continuation of such facilities, that may include evidence of ownership, long term lease, or easement. In the case of a lease for off-site parking, the minimum term shall not be less than ten (10) years. Any action by the Planning and Environmental Commission to approve leased parking shall include a condition of approval or separate agreement between the applicant and the Town obligating the applicant to provide evidence of how parking requirements will be addressed at the end of the lease term. IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of Review: Generally, text amendment applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Commission will forward a recommendation to the Town Council. The Town Council will then review the text amendment application and make the final decision. Town of Vail Page 2 Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for the review of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, and forwarding of a recommendation to the Town Council. Town Council: The Town Council is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a text amendment application, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code. Staff: The Town Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application materials for completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the application; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Town Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Town Code and Vail Land Use Plan are relevant to the review of this proposal: Vail Comprehensive Plan Land Use and Development Goal #2 • Promote alternative transportation through planning efforts that will reduce Vail's carbon impact. Land Use and Development Goal #3 • Develop a streamlined design review process and include in regulation updates. VI. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and The general purposes of the zoning regulations are for "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 Town of Vail Page 3 environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality". This text amendment is intended to advance these purposes by providing clear standards in the zoning code that are consistent and less ambiguous. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and The proposed text amendment will provide staff, as well as anyone who references the code, clear standards for planning and development review that can be applied consistently. The amendment provides an avenue to reduce vehicle traffic and allow for greater possibilities for infill developments. The codification of these standards will help better implement and better achieve the adopted goals, objectives and policies in Vail. 3. The text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and This section of the code was written when the original zoning code was adopted in 1973 and has not been modified since its adoption. The view of mobility and the amount of options has significantly changed since the time of adoption. There are many more options to get from place to place including a shift to encourage people to be healthier and to walk more. These changes also reflect the increase in the acceptance of utilizing alternative modes of transportation. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and By increasing transparency in the zoning code, the proposed text amendment will promote a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives. The text amendment does not conflict with other existing land use documents or municipal development objectives. 5. Such other factors and criteria the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendments Staff will provide additional information as needed should the PEC and/or council determine other factors or criteria applicable to the proposed text amendments. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Town of Vail Page 4 The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval for the prescribed regulation amendment to the Vail Town Council. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amendment, pursuant to Section 12- 3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-10-6 Parking, Off Site and Joint Facilities, Vail Town Code, to refine standards to be used in the review of such proposals and to clarify the review process and other considerations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0007)." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulation amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section 111 of the April 13, 2020 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds. 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the Town, and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the Zoning Regulations outlined in Section 12-1-2, Purpose, Vail Town Code, and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. " ATTACHMENTS Attachment A — Zoning Code Amendment Proposal Town of Vail Page 5 ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off site and Joint Facilities INTRODUCTION Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off site and Joint Facilities allow a project's on-site parking requirement to be met by leasing off-site or jointly used parking facilities. Off-site parking is subject to review and approval by the Town Council. The purpose of amendments proposed to this section of the code is to refine standards to be used in the review of such proposals and to clarify the review process and other considerations. This application has been prepared on behalf of Gravity Haus Vail, LLC, owners of the Vail Mountain Lodge. The application has been prepared in accordance with 12-3-7 of the Vail Zoning Code. Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off site and Joint Facilities This section of the code allows, subject to Town Council approval, projects to satisfy parking requirements by leasing (or through other means), parking spaces located off-site from the subject property. This section of the code is an important tool. It allows, subject to review and approval by the Town, properties that cannot otherwise provide additional on-site parking to satisfy their parking requirement at other off-site locations. The code section provides an outlet of sorts, and in doing so may help facilitate new, otherwise beneficial development projects that could not happen if the only option was for all required parking to be located on- site. This section of the code also allows for improved efficiency of parking resources throughout the Town. While in concept what Section 12-10-6 is trying to accomplish is sound, a detailed review of this section reveals a number of areas that could be improved. For example, some standards to be used in evaluating off-site parking proposals are unnecessary, unclear, or in some cases unachievable. Below is the existing section 12-10-6. Areas of concern are underlined and include a number reference (X) where an explanation of concerns is provided below. Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off site and Joint Facilities All parking and loading facilities required by this chapter shall be located on the some site as the use for which they are required, provided that the town council may permit off site or jointly used parking facilities if located within three hundred feet (300') of the use served. (1) Authority to permit off site or joint parking facilities shall not extend to parking spaces required by this Zoning Code Amendment Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off-site and Joint Facilities title to be located within the main building on a site, but may extend to parking spaces permitted to be unenclosed. (2) Prior to permitting off site or joint parking facilities, the council shall determine that the proposed location of the parking facilities and the prospective operation and maintenance of the facilities will fulfill the purposes of this chapter, will be as usable and convenient as parking facilities located on the site of the use, (3) and will not cause traffic congestion or an unsightly concentration of parked cars. (4) The council (5) may require such legal instruments as it deems necessary to ensure unified operation and control of joint parking facilities or to ensure the continuation of such facilities, including evidence of ownership, long term lease, or easement. (6) (Ord. 29(2005) § 29: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.400) (1) Some distance limitation is warranted. For example, providing off-site parking in West Vail for a project in Vail Village is not practical. That said, the 300' limitation is an unreasonable short distance. One quarter mile is a distance widely accepted to be reasonable walking distance. On average a quarter mile, or 1,320 feet, can be walked in 5 minutes. The diagrams on the following page provides some context of walking distances. To put into perspective how limiting 300' is, when complete, the walk from Vail Health's new parking structure to the East Wing of the campus will be in excess of 400'. Walking distance from the Vail Village parking structures to the top of Bridge Street is +/-1,300'. (2) The purpose of this provision is intended to limit the percentage of required parking that can be provided off-site. To establish this limitation this provision uses design standards for on-site parking that require (in certain zone districts) a certain percentage of parking to be enclosed. This is an inconsistent approach to limiting the amount of off-site parking, and is further complicated by the fact that not all zone districts require a percentage of parking to be enclosed and the percentage varies between zone districts that do have this percentage requirement. Limiting the number of off-site spaces to a set percentage is a more effective approach. (3) This provision requires the Council to determine that off-site parking will be as convenient as on-site parking. It would be difficult if not impossible for this determination to be made. (4) Traffic flow and the aesthetics of parking are addressed in other elements of the Town's development review process and by development standards. It seems redundant to consider traffic congestion and visual aspects of parking as a part of this process. (5) The review of any proposed off-site, leased parking is the purview of the Town Council. When compared to other Town review processes, the review of off-site, leased parking Zoning Code Amendment Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off-site and Joint Facilities would not seem to rise to the level of needing Council review, these types of proposals are more commonly reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Once the Town Council establishes by ordinance the parameters for off-site leased parking, the Planning and Environmental Commission is the appropriate review board to evaluate such requests. (6) This provision could be improved by defining submittal requirements, particularly the minimum length or term of a lease for off-site parking. Zoning Code Amendment Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off-site and Joint Facilities l 16 Al +/- 4OOft n v. 14t i am kw i Iley ;enter =1 TR r i Vail Village E Zoning Code Amendment 4 Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off-site and Joint Facilities Proposed Amendments Below are proposed revisions to Section 12-10-6: Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off site and Joint Facilities All parking and loading facilities required by this chapter shall be located on the same site as the use for which they are required, provided that the Planning and Environmental Commission may permit off-site (or jointly used) parking facilities if located within thirteen hundred and twenty feet (1,320') of the use to be served. No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of required on-site parking may be provided by such off-site locations. Prior to permitting off-site parking facilities, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall determine that the proposed location of the parking facilities and the prospective operation and maintenance of the facilities will fulfill the purposes of this chapter. Submittal material required for an application for off-site parking shall be determined by the Zoning Administrator and shall generally include, but not be limited to a parking inventory of the subject property, the location of off-site parking, an operational plan for the use of off-site parking, and legal instruments necessary to ensure the continuation of such facilities, that may include evidence of ownership, long term lease, or easement. In the case of a lease for off-site parking, the minimum term shall not be less than ten (10) years. Any action by the Planning and Environmental Commission to approve leased parking shall include a condition of approval or separate agreement between the applicant and the Town obligating the applicant to provide evidence of how parking requirements will be addressed at the end of the lease term. Major changes to this section include: • The maximum distance to off-site parking is changed to 1,320'. • The review of off-site parking is changed to the Planning and Environmental ;.uu =4 •, • The maximum percentage of required parking that can be provided off-site is now 25%. • Review of a proposal for off-site parking will consider whether the proposal can fulfill the purposes of this chapter. • Submittal requirements for off-site parking are outlined. • A minimum term for a lease of off-site parking is ten (10) years. Review Criteria for Text Amendment to the Zoning Code The Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council shall consider the following factors with respect to a requested text amendment to the zoning code: (1) The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and Zoning Code Amendment Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off-site and Joint Facilities Response The proposed amendments maintain the some basic provisions that are included in the existing section of the zoning code. Amendments merely refine and clarify the existing code section. As such they further the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations. (2) The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and Response The existing code section allows properties that cannot otherwise provide additional on- site parking to satisfy their parking requirement at off-site locations. The code section provides an outlet of sorts and in doing so may help facilitate new, otherwise beneficial development projects that could not happen if the only option was for all required parking to be located on-site. In keeping with goals in the Town's master plan to streamline the development review process and to update regulations when necessary, the proposed amendments will improve the effectiveness and usefulness of this existing section of the zoning code. (3) The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and Response The existing code section was first adopted at a time when planning principles put an emphasis on locating required parking on the site of the subject use. In the past twenty years perspectives on mobility and how to address parking have changed. Managed parking and multi -modal solutions are new approached that influence how on-site parking can be handled. Specific to Vail, the use of local and regional transportation is an example of alternatives to the use private cars (and related parking considerations). Mobility by foot, bicycle or public transit is now emphasized. Another changed condition are the number of visitors to Vail who arrive via plane and shuttle services from Denver and Eagle. Proposed amendments respond to changed conditions and in doing so will make this section of the code a more effective tool for how land owners can address parking. (4) The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and Response The proposed amendments clarify how this section is to be implemented and provide more effective and realistic standards for the review of off-site parking proposals. These amendments will make the regulations more convenient and workable and in doing so further the Town's development objectives. Zoning Code Amendment Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off-site and Joint Facilities (5) Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. Response TBD Zoning Code Amendment Section 12-10-6 Parking; Off-site and Joint Facilities City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 13, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to adopt the Community Wildfire Protection Plan as an element of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan to reduce the risk of wildfire, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0004) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC20-004 Staff Memo CWPP Adoption.docx Staff Report Attachment A. Vail Community Wildfire Protection Plan.pdf Attachment A. Attachment B. FD -Memo CWPP.Ddf Attachment B. rowN ofvain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 13, 2020 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to adopt the Community Wildfire Protection Plan as an element of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan to reduce the risk of wildfire in the community and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0004) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada Planner: Greg Roy I. SUMMARY The applicant, the Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada, Wildland Program Manager, requests a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to adopt the Community Wildfire Protection Plan as an element of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan to reduce the risk of wildfire in the community and setting forth details in regard thereto. The following attachments are available for review: Attachment A — Vail Community Wildfire Protection Plan Final Draft Attachment B — FD Memo II. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION The Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to adopt the Community Wildfire Protection Plan. III. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing to amend the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Community Wildfire Protection Plan as a reference document. IV. BACKGROUND The Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) is a Vail specific document that assess the wildfire risk for the Vail Community and sets five main community goals in a strategic framework. Through this document Vail will be better prepared for wildfires should they happen and have a set of recommended actions to further reduce the likelihood of those fires occurring. The proposal is to adopt this plan the CWPP for the Town as a guiding document, providing the necessary framework for decision makes on issues related to wildfire. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval to the Town Council, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission recommends approval to adopt the Community Wildfire Protection Plan as an element of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan to reduce the risk of wildfire in the community and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0004)". VI. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A — Vail Community Wildfire Protection Plan Final Draft Attachment B — FD Memo Town of Vail Page 2 Attachment A Vail Community Wildfire Protection Plan Contributing Organizations Town of Vail Community Development and Environmental Sustainability Departments, Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation, USDA Forest Service, Upper Colorado Fire Management Unit, Vail Fire and Emergency Services, Vail Police Department, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Colorado State Parks and Wildlife, Colorado State Forest Service, Town of Vail Economic Development, Vail Resorts (Vail Mountain), Eagle River Watershed Council, Vail Valley Partnership, Denver Water, Vail Chamber and Business Association, Eagle County Emergency Management, Xcel Energy Executive Summary Wildfire is a necessary and inevitable element of the ecosystem of the Vail Valley; however, it also presents the single largest threat to the safety, health and vitality of the Community of Vail. In 2015 the Town of Vail adopted the "Fire Adapted Vail" strategic frameworks to guide efforts to create a resilient community in the face of the growing risk from wildfire. This Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) expands upon the strategic framework by establishing five main community goals. These goals are supported by eleven strategies which can be accomplished by implementing 36 recommended actions. The plan identifies seven areas recommended for hazardous fuels reduction across private, local, state and federally managed lands. This plan was collaboratively developed by a diverse stakeholder group. The stakeholders of this plan have long-standing working relationships and collectively have the knowledge, skills and motivation to increase resiliency throughout the community. The CWPP was developed to implement the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy at a local level. The Cohesive Strategy has 3 pillars, Resilient Landscapes, Fire Adapted Communities and Safe and Effective Response, which are all incorporated within the recommendations. This CWPP meets the intent and purpose as set forth in the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and the Colorado State Forest Service guidelines for development of a community wildfire protection plan. While this plan does not obligate any stakeholder to implement any of the recommendations, they should be considered when developing projects, budgets and allocation of stakeholder resources. Together the stakeholders and community can continue to live, grow and thrive within this fire - dependent ecosystem. Table of Contents ExecutiveSummary...................................................................................................................................2 FireAdapted Vail.......................................................................................................................................5 Authorization............................................................................................................................................5 Purpose..................................................................................................................................................... 5 Goals.........................................................................................................................................................6 Community Wildfire Protection Plan Standards.......................................................................................6 Community and Agency Engagement in Development of this CWPP......................................................7 HistoricalBackground...............................................................................................................................7 CWPPPlanning Area.................................................................................................................................8 Geographic............................................................................................................................................ 8 Fuelsand vegetation...........................................................................................................................10 CommunityProfile..................................................................................................................................14 VailVital Statistics...............................................................................................................................14 Community..........................................................................................................................................14 Resort..................................................................................................................................................15 WildlandUrban Interface........................................................................................................................15 Status of Natural Ecosystems..................................................................................................................17 Wildfireand Wildlife...........................................................................................................................18 Watershedsand Wildfire....................................................................................................................18 Post Wildfire Flooding and Debris Flow..............................................................................................19 Community Preparedness to Respond...................................................................................................20 EmergencyResponse.......................................................................................................................... 20 Citizen Preparedness and Evacuation Planning..................................................................................21 Business Community Preparedness....................................................................................................22 Reduction of Structural Ignitability.........................................................................................................23 CommunityEducation.............................................................................................................................24 Community Wildfire Risk Assessment....................................................................................................25 Wildfire Preparedness Strategies...........................................................................................................34 Implementation......................................................................................................................................39 Linked and Individual Structure Defensible Space..............................................................................39 LowerGore Creek...............................................................................................................................40 3 MiddleGore Creek..............................................................................................................................42 Benchmark/ Mushroom Bowl.............................................................................................................44 Eagles Nest/ Lower Game Creek.........................................................................................................46 LowerVail Mountain...........................................................................................................................48 Deer Underpass/ Bell Flower..............................................................................................................50 ElliottRanch........................................................................................................................................52 Previously Completed Wildfire Risk Reduction Projects.........................................................................54 Table of Figures Figure1- CWPP Planning Area Map..............................................................................................................9 Figure2- Fire Regime Map..........................................................................................................................11 Figure 3- Fire Return Interval Map..............................................................................................................12 Figure4- Condition Class Map....................................................................................................................13 Figure 5- Wildland Urban Interface Map....................................................................................................16 Figure6- Fire Intensity Map........................................................................................................................26 Figure7- Burn Probability Map...................................................................................................................27 Figure 8- Critical Infrastructure Map..........................................................................................................28 Figure9- Wildfire Hazard Map....................................................................................................................29 Figure 10- Urban Conflagration Hazard Map..............................................................................................30 Figure 11- Wildfire Risk Map.......................................................................................................................31 Figure 12 -Geologic Instability Map............................................................................................................32 Figure 13- Watershed Areas of Concern.....................................................................................................33 21 Fire Adapted Vail The Town of Vail and the stakeholders of this plan recognize wildfire as an inevitable and important component of the natural ecosystem that the community is situated in. Wildfire is a matter of when, not if, and like the ecosystem, the community's resiliency is dependent upon its ability to adapt to a significant wildfire event. In 2015 Vail Fire developed and the Vail Town Council sanctioned the "Fire Adapted Vail" concept. Fire Adapted Vail is a strategic framework aimed at increasing community resiliency. The framework is developed around the three pillars of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy; Restore and Maintain Landscapes, Fire Adapted Communities, and Response to Fire. This Community Wildfire Protection Plan will provide specific goals and strategies to address the components of the Fire Adapted Vail framework. Authorization The initial authorities for community wildfire planning came from the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003. Title I of HFRA outlined requirements for reducing hazardous fuels on federal lands. Vail's plan has been developed to be consistent with the requirements of the HFRA and to provide Vail with a community wide baseline from which to continue community wildfire planning in coordination with the various community stakeholder groups. The Colorado Legislature has since adopted specific statutes guiding community wildfire planning. The statutes providing authorization for this planning are outlined below: •C.R.S. 23-31-312 Community wildfire protection plans, guidelines and criteria, legislative declaration, definitions •C.R.S. 29-22.5-103 Wildland fires, general authority and responsibilities •C.R.S. 30-10-513.5 Authority of Sheriff relating to fire within unincorporated areas of the County •C.R.S. 30-15-401.7 Determination of fire hazard area, community wildfire protection plans, adoption, legislative declaration, definition. Purpose The purpose of this plan is to identify areas where wildfire hazard and community values intersect and create strategies to reduce the potential impacts of wildfire. The plan should guide and inform community efforts to reduce risks to the community through public education, reduction of hazardous fuels and decreased vulnerability to structural ignition. The plan is intended to be used as a living document. As projects are completed or new hazards are identified the plan should be revised to reflect these changes. At a minimum the stakeholder group should meet and revise the plan every 5 years. Goals 1. Reduce the risk of a Wildland Urban Disaster within the Town of Vail a. Strategy 1- Build and maintain structures and their surrounding vegetation in a manner the resists ignition from wildfire or when ignited does not rapidly spread the fire b. Strategy 2- Implement fuels reduction projects immediately adjacent to the community to minimize fire behavior within 100 feet of structures c. Strategy 3- Ensure all community codes and ordinances are consistent with current best practices for reduction of structural ignitability d. Strategy 4- Integrate wildfire risk reduction and planning efforts with other Town(s), County and federal environmental and sustainability planning goals and activities 2. Decrease the probability of landscape scale high severity wildfire events a. Strategy 5- Create resilient landscapes that promote diversity of species, ages and condition classes b. Strategy 6- Create compartmentalization across the planning area where unplanned wildfire can be managed for multiple resource benefits when appropriate c. Strategy 7- Ensure the community has appropriate response resources for wildfire management d. Strategy 8- Identify and prepare watersheds and infrastructure that are at risk from post fire flooding and debris flow 3. Build business community resiliency to wildfire disasters a. Strategy 9- Promote and provide tools to businesses to implement and improve business continuity best practices 4. Citizen engagement and preparedness a. Strategy 10- Develop and support programs to educate and empower residents to prepare for evacuation b. Strategy 11- Improve the public's understanding of our existing community fire protection infrastructure and limitations 5. Support the utilization of forest products Community Wildfire Protection Plan Standards CWPPs are a direct extension of the HFRA authorized by Congress in 2003. In an effort to promote these plans and to encourage consistency in the development of these plans, a model handbook was prepared by the Communities Committee, National Association of Counties, National Association of State Foresters, Society of American Foresters and the Western Governors' Association. Colorado State statute further defines requirements specifically required for approval of CWPPs within Colorado. A list of these standards can be found at https://csfs.colostate.edu/wildfire-mitigation/community-wildfire- protection-plans/#1447445534754-268d6379-de99. This plan meets or exceeds all requirements as set forth by HFRA and Colorado State Statute. 11 Community and Agency Engagement in Development of this CWPP The community and many interested stakeholders have been integral to the development of this plan. Beginning in the winter of 2018 a group of stakeholders including local government, federal land management agencies, utility providers, private business and environmental interests met on a number of occasions to develop this plan. Through the planning process the stakeholder group has developed a set of common concerns, strategies to reduce wildfire impact and an initial set of recommendations for implementation. The community has been engaged through a number of community meetings and surveys to better understand their perspective on potential wildfire impacts and support for different mitigation actions. The stakeholder group and community should continue to be engaged through the implementation of this plan. Historical Background When the Town Charter was signed in 1966, the hazards of wildland fire were not acknowledged, nor were they incorporated in any of the foundational documents of the Town of Vail. The impact of wildland fire has steadily increased throughout Colorado and the West for the past few decades. The size, frequency, intensity and impacts of wildland fires continues to grow across the state as we continue to develop wildland areas. Years of aggressive fire suppression, insect and disease activity and lack of active forest management have created conditions that increase the risk of a catastrophic wildfire. It has become clear that wildland fires have the potential to inflict significant damage to a community that is unprepared. 2002 was a record setting wildfire year in the state of Colorado in terms of number of acres burned, number of large fires, number of houses lost to wildland fire and total insurable loss from wildland fires. This record setting year captured the attention of many of the citizens, responders and elected officials around the state. It was in that year that Vail Fire and Emergency Services began in earnest its efforts to ensure the community was prepared for a wildland fire. Since 2002 the community has engaged in numerous programs and projects, large and small, to reduce the risk of wildland fire within the community. Eagle County developed and adopted the first countywide CWPP in 2003. This plan has been regularly updated and used for countywide risk reduction. In 2007 the Town of Vail enacted codes that prohibit the installation of new wood shake roofs, which have long been recognized as one of the riskiest building practices in the wildland urban interface. Additionally, the Town of Vail invested in funding of a wildland mitigation program through the fire department. Since the inception of the program, the focus has been to measurably reduce wildfire risk to the community. The stakeholders of this plan have invested millions of dollars and thousands of hours of labor into community risk reduction efforts. A summary of the activities can be found in the "Previously Completed Wildfire Risk Reduction Projects" section of this plan. CWPP Planning Area Geographic The Town of Vail and the CWPP planning area is in the central mountains of Colorado approximately 100 miles west of Denver. Interstate 70 bisects the planning area from east to west running the entire length of the Town of Vail. The planning area covers approximately 1177 square miles, of which approximately 95 percent is public lands managed by the White River National Forest. The other 5 percent of the land is owned and managed by a combination of private, municipal and state. Elevations within the planning area range from just below 8000 feet in Dowd Junction to roughly 12,500 feet on the peaks of the Gore Range. Mountain shrub communities dominate the hotter and drier south and west aspects of the lower elevations while lodgepole pine, aspen and spruce -fir stands dominate the cooler and wetter east and north aspects as well as the higher elevations. Small areas of alpine tundra dominate the high peaks that flank the boundaries of the CWPP planning area. Gore Creek, a tributary of the Colorado River, bisects the planning area from east to west. Additionally, a small portion of the Upper Eagle River watershed is covered by this plan. Gore Creek and the Upper Eagle River join at their confluence in Dowd Junction at the very western tip of the planning area. Water from these two watersheds provide drinking water and recreation to many larger communities down - river. Vail Resorts operates the Vail Ski area under a special use permit of the U.S. Forest Service. The ski area boundary encompasses most the lands between the Town of Vail and the southern planning boundary. A large portion of the White River National Forest North and East of the Town of Vail is part of the federally designated Eagles Nest Wilderness. 0 •T\ L 4 C•y � _ 4 Q C � 'C Yr � f iIx Q :4 1 N 1 Ir h 7 ��• O G 0 Fuels and vegetation Fuel types, elevation and geographical location play an important part in identifying the natural fire return interval, or fire regime. A fire regime is a term given to the general pattern in which fires naturally occur within an ecosystem over an extended period of time. Fuel types are the driving factor in identifying the fire return interval or natural fire regime. A large percentage of the planning area fall within Fire Regime IV due to the predominant lodgepole pine and spruce -fir forests. The fire frequency for Fire Regime IV is predicted to be between 35-200 years. Although fires are less frequent for this fire regime, they are predicted to be high severity fires which consume or kill most of the aboveground vegetation. The second most prevalent group is Fire Regime I which is classified as more frequent (0-35 years) but less intense fire behavior. The areas of Group I are mostly the mountain shrub and aspen communities which occupy the lower elevations of the planning area. The maps below identify the type of fire regime in planning area and the type of fire that is predicted for this fuel type. The condition class map shows the current departure from the natural fire return interval. Many of the areas of Fire Regime IV are within or near their historical range of variability. As can be seen in the map large portions of the planning area, primarily Fire Regime Group I, are highly departed from the natural fire return interval. When burned, areas highly departed from their normal fire return intervals tend to exhibit higher fire intensity and higher resistance to control. 10 IIID '}•� 7j � � � a.'�1 � � r~' 4�= r e 12 4•,5V ��s L s }r a -•r s a� W m CL 0 h0 0 s a� s H M c-1 atf�'�' '•'vL q b.`� ok 03 :S G i k.4 I U � � r y9. �-0� � • y � .i1 ' ..^.:.:... i `� � ter'•' N ��� .' r � � `A• ■�..'. `orb% Al zz .. .' .�•�7L s }r a -•r s a� W m CL 0 h0 0 s a� s H M c-1 Community Profile Since its incorporation in 1966, Vail has earned the distinction as one of the leading mountain resort communities in North America. With more open space than any other community of its kind, free transit and other environmentally sensitive services, plus an abundance of recreational, cultural and educational opportunities, Vail has become not only a great place to visit, but an even better place to live. Vail Vital Statistics • Elevation: 8,150 feet • Size: 4.6 square miles, 10 miles in length • Location: 100 miles west of Denver on Interstate 70 in Eagle County and easily accessible via the Eagle County Regional Airport, 35 miles to the west. Vail is surrounded by 350,000 acres of White River National Forest land. • Climate: Vail receives more than 335 inches of snow annually and almost 300 days of sunshine each year. During the summer, daytime temperatures average 75 degrees and 45 degrees for the nighttime low. Winter daytime temperatures average 45 degrees, with lows dipping below 30 degrees. Community On the heels of its success as a resort, Vail has evolved into an appealing recreation -friendly alpine community now comprised of over 5,000 full-time residents and an estimated 5,000 part-time residents. Together, Vail is considered to be a leader in its resort -community qualities and best practices. Examples include: • Largest free transit system in the nation • First modern roundabout interchange in the nation • More open space (30 percent of its lands) than any other resort community in the U.S • Home to Gore Creek, one of only 11 Gold Medal fishing streams in the state • 4 percent ski lift tax is the first of its kind in the country and represents the highest contribution level by a ski resort to its municipal partner in the state and perhaps the nation. The funds assist in the operation of Vail's free transit system • Recognized as a resort leader in redevelopment initiatives of $1.5 billion in public-private investments from 2004 to 2008, representing more than 50 percent of property in the core areas of Vail Village and Lionshead • Most connected resort in North America with the most technologically advanced outdoor LTE cellular system in the country 14 Resort Vail Resorts, Inc. is the operator of Vail Mountain. Coveted as one of the largest ski resorts in the world with more than 5,200 acres of skiable terrain, seven legendary Back Bowls spanning seven miles, and the most groomed terrain of any ski area. Vail has been an extraordinary winter vacation destination for passionate skiers and snowboarders for more than 50 years. It is home to world-class athletes during the U.S. Ski Team early -season training sessions in Golden Peak, the Burton US Open Snowboarding Championships and the 2015 World Alpine Ski Championships. Wildland Urban Interface The wildland-urban interface, or WUI, is any area where man-made improvements are built close to, or within, natural terrain and flammable vegetation, and where potential for wildland fire exists. For the purposes of this plan the wildland-urban interface or WUI can be defined as an area that includes all developed private parcels of land and areas of special interest including Vail Mountain, the I- 70 corridor and major utility lines. The WUI extends one and one half miles from the edges of these features. A visual depiction of the Vail WUI area can be seen on the WUI Map. As can be seen in the wildland urban interface map (Figure 5) the community values identified within this plan extend beyond the planning boundaries. It is imperative that the stakeholders of this plan also work with the adjacent jurisdictions to ensure the communities values are appropriately mitigated and protected. 15 Im Fr Q,1 � Q �^ 4 zi V �1 cv Ln 4 o Status of Natural Ecosystems Wildland fire is a part of the natural ecosystem that the community exists within. The natural fire regime for an ecosystem such as the Vail Valley is low frequency, high severity fires (large fire every 30- 200 years, fire regime IV). An average year may include several small fires (single tree to an acre in size) and few if any large or significant fires. The large fires would be expected in years of persistent drought typically coupled with ecosystem change such as insect and disease activity, large wind damaging events or even avalanche. Wildfire within our ecosystem acts as a successional reset and species such as aspen and lodgepole have adapted to thrive in the highly disturbed post fire environment. It has been a significant time since a large-scale wildfire has burned in the Vail Valley. Folklore says that the famous wide open, relatively treeless back bowls of the Vail Ski resort are the result of wildfires set by the Ute Indians in the 1870's before they were driven from their lands by white settlers. Since that time no significant wildfires have burned within the CWPP planning area. Between the time the first white settlers arrived in the Vail Valley and the 1960s, the area was primarily used for livestock grazing, small scale farming and a short-lived mining boom. Historical photos show the valley bottoms, south and west aspects covered mostly in grass and open brush except for spruce trees lining the riparian corridors. The East and North aspects were covered in mixed conifer and aspen stands. Stand sampling from a variety of stands throughout the planning area shows the average age of the conifer forest types to be near 130 years and the aspen stands 80-90 years indicating a predominantly mature forest condition. A relatively small portion of the of the planning area has been activity managed. Stands within those managed area range in age from 0-40 years old. Drought, insect activity and disease have significantly impacted forest health throughout the planning area for the past 20 years. A persistent drought of the late 1990's and early 2000's significantly impacted the health of the area's aspen stands. A combination of drought stress, insect activity and a variety of funguses, termed Sudden Aspen Decline (SAD), worked together to outright kill some of the aspen stands within the valley. Following the end of the drought many of the stands that experienced impacts from SAD partially or fully recovered; however, nearly all stands have large accumulations of standing dead and down woody material. The fringe aspen stands, stands growing in marginal conditions for the species, were most heavily impacted by SAD and many of them did not recover. The drought in combination with a continuous supply of suitable host trees also helped Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB) population build to epidemic populations. Between 2002 and 2014 the MPB outbreak infested trees on millions of acres throughout the Colorado high country. The height of the outbreak in the Vail Valley occurred between 2007 and 2010. While not as severe as places like Grand and Summit County the MPB still killed an estimated 30-50% of the mature lodgepole pine trees within the Vail Valley. This mortality has changed the stand structure of the lodgepole pine stands within the area. Lodgepole pine, a traditionally even aged monoculture with little understory vegetation, has been transformed into stands of mixed live and dead overstory with significant grass and shrub understory. 17 Lodgepole pine regeneration is patchy within most stands while shade tolerant species such as sub - alpine fir is becoming more prevalent. In 2014 Spruce Beetle was identified in several trees along Gore Creek. Upon further investigate it was discovered that a small but potentially impactful population of Spruce Beetle had been building for several years in the area. Sanitation treatments to remove the infested trees were completed and the population continues to be monitored. The population continues to be active but is not growing at a significant rate. Throughout Eagle County populations of Spruce Beetle continue to be active along the numerous river drainages however no large populations have been identified within the upland forest stands. Spruce Beetle has become a major forest pest in both Southwest and Northwest Colorado where it has impacted 1.84 million acres between 1998 and 2018. Wildfire and Wildlife Like much of the vegetation in the area the wildlife has evolved with wildland fire. The aquatic and terrestrial life both need a variety of different ecosystem conditions to thrive. It is impossible to fit one statement on how wildfire impacts either positively and/or negatively the wildlife of the valley. One species may benefit from the disturbance by improving the habitat while another may be forced from the area because the disturbance has destroyed their preferred habitat. Of general note though is that an area that has a variety of ecotypes in a variety of successional stages will be much better habitat for a larger number of species. The community has expressed concern in the recent past over the declining numbers of big game species such deer, elk, moose and big horn sheep as well as a decline in the aquatic health of Gore Creek. Wildlife habitat and the impacts of wildfire on the habitat should be evaluated during all planned activities as well as during the decision-making process in wildfire management. Watersheds and Wildfire The Gore Creek and Upper Eagle River watersheds are part of the headwaters of the Colorado River watershed providing water for people, wildlife and recreation across the western U.S. Locally they support the community with abundant high-quality water for consumption, wildlife and recreation. Watershed scale high severity wildfire presents the single largest threat to watershed health in the Vail Valley. In 2010 JW Associates was contracted by the Rocky Mountain Region of the USFS to conduct a spatial analysis of the vulnerability of watersheds to wildfire throughout the Colorado High Country. The Eagle River Phase 1 Watershed Assessment studied the majority of the 12th level watersheds within the CWPP planning area boundary. The study ranked vulnerability of each watershed based on factors such as wildfire hazard, flooding or debris flow hazard, and soil erodibility. A map of the composite rating can be found in the Community Wildfire Risk Section of this plan (Figure 11). The Lower Gore Creek 12' level watershed is identified at the most vulnerable watershed within the CWPP planning area. This study should be consulted when prioritizing treatment areas. Priority should be given to projects that will limit the potential for watershed scale high severity fire behavior within these priority watersheds. 18 Post Wildfire Flooding and Debris Flow Wildfire has the potential to fundamentally change the landscapes and watersheds that surround the Vail Community. Wildfire, and particularly high severity wildfires and/or those with long residence time, removes vegetation which covers slopes and creates hydrophobic soils which limits the ability of the soil to absorb water. Many of the drainages that surround the community are already identified at high risk for instability and have high potential for landslide and debris flow. Seasonal flooding is also a current concern for homes and infrastructure along Gore Creek and its many tributaries. The Town of Vail has upgraded some community infrastructure to accommodate predicted seasonal flood events; however, wildfire has the potential to increase predicted flows 20 to 50 times greater than the current predictions. The Lake Christine Fire of 2018 in the Roaring Fork Valley provided an example of the potential effects on the community. Due to the proximity to the community of Basalt and the known instability of the underlying geology within the fire perimeter, federal land managers and community officials began post fire flooding preparations before the fire was even declared contained. A Burn Area Emergency Response (BAER) team was brought in to evaluate the environmental impacts of the fire. By examining burn severity and existing conditions they created a report which outlined the areas of at highest risk for flooding and debris flow. Local officials and land managers used this information to identify the downstream communities and infrastructure that was most at risk and implemented mitigation projects to decrease overall risks to life and property. Immediately post fire, increased stream flows and small- scale debris flows were observed. In the summer of 2019, the burned area was inundated with significant precipitation from a thunderstorm which has been classified as a 500 -year event. This event caused localized flooding of approximately 12 homes downstream of the fire scar. Many of the post fire rehabilitation actions are difficult to complete in advance, since the specific area burned, and the level of burn severity drive much of the required action. The community can however be prepared to respond rapidly in a coordinated effort. Federal land management agencies utilize a Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) team to develop post fire rehabilitation plans and mitigate potential impacts. The BAER reports typically only cover federally managed land, leaving communities potentially vulnerable. Communities that have been successful in proactively managing post fire flooding impacts have: • Rapidly completed cross boundary post fire risk assessment looking at burned area as well as downstream effects • Assigned a lead to coordinate recovery efforts and accomplishing multijurisdictional work • Implemented integrated advanced warning systems to provide adequate warning to the community about flash flood potential • Engaged experts in identifying, designing and implementing mitigation projects 19 Community Preparedness to Respond Emergency Response Vail Fire and Emergency Services (VFES) is the all-risk fire department that provides incident response to wildland fire on non-federal lands within the planning area. In addition to the three 24 hour staffed engine companies, VFES employs a seasonal wildland fire crew each year from May through October. The Upper Colorado River Fire Management Unit (UCR) provides response to fires on all federal lands within the planning area. The UCR staffs response resources in Silverthorne and Eagle. Staffing of the UCR resources is 7 day effective during daylight hours from May through September with varying but more limited response capabilities in spring and fall. The Eagle County Sheriff is the jurisdictional authority for wildland fire suppression within the non-federal portions of unincorporated portions of Eagle County. Vail Fire and the UCR work closely together to ensure resources are dispatched to any report of a wildland fire. Additional resources are available as needed through multiple mutual aid and resource mobilization programs. Specific concepts of operations for wildland fire response are addressed in the most current version of the Eagle County Annual Operating Plan. It is recognized by all within the response community that no one single entity has enough resources to contain all possible wildfires. Because of this local, regional, statewide and national mobilization programs have been developed to efficiently move resources to the areas of need. Rapidly expanding incidents within the planning area would initially be staffed by local resources such as those of Vail Fire and the UCR. As the fire expands and requires additional resources incident commanders may request resources from throughout Eagle County, Northwest Colorado, all of Colorado and then likely from other regions of the United States. There is a very real possibility that a fire ignited near the community could impact the community before sufficient resources were on scene. This is due to the relatively low staffing levels within the region and travel distances associated with significant mutual aid or resource mobilization. The National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) and the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC) have established national standards for training, operations and equipment that the local resources follow to the best of their abilities. Since most of the resources available to suppress a fire are from outside the area, it is critical to safe and effective firefighting that they can all work together. Two elements that are critical to effective firefighting are wayfinding and communications. Over the past few years the Eagle County response agencies have been working diligently to develop tools to ensure that out of area resources can quickly obtain quality tactical maps and integrate with the existing emergency radio systems. In 2019 the Eagle County Wildland Preplan Map book was rolled out for use throughout the county. The intention of the map book product was to provide responding resources with easy to use tactical maps that included street names, water sources, fuels modification areas and a host of other useful information. The foundation for each map book page is a "Wildfire Zone". The zone is defined as an area of similar building, road and vegetation type that shares common access. These zones also play a key role in notification if an evacuation were to be needed. The zones are prepopulated in the county public notification system and can be rapidly used by dispatchers to send mass notifications to specific areas. 20 Local response capabilities have steadily increased in the past 15 year however there is still significant room for continued improvement. All firefighters within Eagle County receive all required basic wildland fire training as well as annual refresher training, however many of the responders lack significant real- world experience with wildland fire suppression operations. Locally wildland fire response is a relatively small portions of the overall call volume, with an average of 12 wildland calls in the VFES response area annually. To support outside agencies and gain additional experience, approximately a quarter of the employees of VFES participates in out of area deployments. To ensure that the remaining three quarters of the department builds adequate experience it is critical that ongoing training be provided in as realistic situations as possible. Citizen Preparedness and Evacuation Planning Large fires across the west each year continue to point to the need for robust evacuation planning as well as engaged and prepared citizens. VFES and Vail Police Department (VPD) have been working for years on improving evacuation preparedness within the planning area. In 2014 a formal evacuation plan was drafted, which included some basic traffic flow studies as well as potential resource placement for evacuation operations. In 2016 and 2017 VFES and VPD hosted functional exercises where the evacuation plan was tested in a limited capacity with willing community participation. It is important to note that community participation was extremely low. These exercises helped these agencies to refine the plan and identify some potential weak points. As described above, the wildland map book provides tools that may significantly speed up notification and evacuations. The success of the evacuation plan depends significantly on the Town of Vail's emergency services departments as well as significant support from nearly every department within the Town. An Emergency Operations plan was developed for the Town of Vail which has been exercised to a limited extent. It is imperative that the plan continue to be updated and exercised to ensure that it can be effectively implemented if needed for a wildfire event. While significant work has been accomplished in the implementation of evacuations, successful evacuations dependent on a prepared and engaged community. One challenge in the planning area is the transient nature of the community. Each season, and in reality, each day brings a potentially different population to the community. While the community has a strong backbone of full-time residents, many residents are either long term renters or short-term guests. VFES and Vail PD have conducted extensive and ongoing advertising campaigns to ensure residents are signed up for emergency notifications. Notifications systems that do not require registration, such as Reverse 911 and the Integrated Public alert Warning Systems (IPAWS) have also been tested, but the reality is that a large majority of the community is still not registered to receive emergency notifications. In 2018 it was estimated that less than 50% of the residents were signed up to receive emergency notifications through ECAlert, the countywide emergency notification system. While full time residents and long-term renters are challenging to reach, even more challenging is attempting to notify the short-term rental population. Short term renters are any guest staying in the area from 1-30 days in length. It is estimated that Vail contains almost 2500 short term rental units housing potentially 14,000 people. In the event of an emergency, this group may be very challenging to reach since they are not likely to be subscribers of the county emergency notification system. To 21 address this type of issue, several redundant systems could be deployed including the use of the IPAWS system which is similar to the Amber Alert system and does not require signup. In 2019 the Town of Vail purchased a long-range acoustic devise (LRAD), the device has the capabilities to broadcast a message over a long distance (1/4 mile) and be heard inside vehicles or buildings. Use of this device may speed up traditional door to door evacuation processes. Notification of the community is only one part of evacuation. The citizens and guests also need to be prepared ahead of time. VFES and Vail PD have worked together to develop several preparedness documents and videos. Preparedness education is also delivered at several community events each year. While no official measure of individual preparedness is currently available, the general sense is that the majority of the community is not prepared for an evacuation. Evacuation continues to be a topic of significant interest to the community. The stakeholders of this plan should continue to develop and implement programs that build preparedness within the community. Business Community Preparedness The business community is the economic driver within the region. Most of the businesses within the community are tourism based, with the majority being in the lodging and hospitality sectors. Wildfire has the potential to significantly impact these businesses. The 2018 wildfire season demonstrated the potential impacts on the business community. Smoke from wildfires in Western Eagle County and Garfield County filled the Vail Valley for weeks at a time during the busy summer months. While the fires themselves did not impact the community, the smoke caused a noticeable downtick in tourism. The Lake Christine Fire, which burned near the Town of Basalt provided a first-hand lesson for the Roaring Folk Community. The fire started on July 3rd and burned actively throughout the entire summer. The fire was finally fully contained as the first snows started to fall in late October. During that time businesses were first disrupted by the actual fire through either evacuation of the business or employees not coming to work because they were evacuated. There were also disruptions in supply chain from road closures and power outages. The evacuations, road closures and power outages were lifted in the first few weeks of the fire, but the impacts did not end there. The smoke and media coverage of the fire caused tourists to seek out alternative locations for their travels to avoid the smoke or perceived dangers from the fire. Even after the smoke has cleared and the fire was declared controlled, the impacts persist. The area in the national forest where the fire burned was declared closed for at least 6 months to ensure the public was not endangered by falling trees and burned out stump holes left behind by the fire. The area is a popular with the local community and tourists alike due to the abundant motorized and non -motorized recreation trails. While no official report was generated on the economic impacts of the Lake Christine fire, nearly every business owner in the Roaring Folk Valley can provide anecdotal evidence of the impacts on their business. Many of the businesses in that community were not prepared for that kind of event. Like the Roaring Fork Valley, many businesses within the Vail Valley are not prepared for a disaster. Large businesses such as Vail Resorts and the major hotel chains are better prepared than many of the small and medium sized businesses. 22 Every business within the community should be prepared for wildfire as well as other likely natural disasters. FEMA and the Small Business Administration has resources and suggestions for business preparedness and continuity planning. These types of programs should be presented to and supported for the business community within the Vail Valley. Reduction of Structural Ignitability Reducing risk to life and property is the highest priority of this plan. Because of the shape and orientation of the community in relation to the surrounding wildlands, all structures, residential and commercial, within the planning area are at risk from wildfire. Because of this risk, it is incumbent upon all property owners to take appropriate measures to reduce their individual hazards. In 1966 when the Vail Town Charter was signed, wildland fire was not a recognized threat to the community. Much of the current development that exists within the valley was built without regard to the potential risks from wildfire. Because of the lack of awareness, building practices such as the use of dense landscaping and hazardous construction materials such as wood shake roofs were required for many structures. Additionally, because of the limited space within the community, high density development dominates many of the parcels. This combination of factors has led to an at -risk community with the potential for significant loss of property and life. Over the past 20 years the scientific community has conducted substantial research with the goal of developing a better understanding of structural ignition during wildland fires. This research has led to an ever-growing body of knowledge on best practices for preventing structure ignition from wildfire. The most basic but important understanding is what causes structures to ignite. Research shows that structures ignite in one of three way during a wildfire: direct flame contact from burning vegetation, ignition from embers, and radiant and convective heat from nearby structures burning. Of the three ignition sources, ember ignition is by far the most common ignition source. Because of the density of buildings, the risk of structure to structure ignition or conflagration is higher in Vail than many other communities. Each one of these methods of ignition are different and require different but compatible types of mitigation to reduce the hazard. Retired USFS researcher Dr. Jack Cohen coined the term "Wildland Urban Disaster" to describe a type of event that is growing in intensity and frequency across the Western U.S. A Wildland Urban Disaster is an event where more than 100 structures burn during a wildfire event, typically in a single day or short time period. The wildland fire causes a single building or possibly multiple buildings to ignite (typically ember caused). Once the building is on fire a combination of factors including radiant and convective heat, embers from the burning building, proximity of adjacent structures and lack of firefighting resources cause the fire to spread from building to building. Fires such as the 2012 Waldo Canyon Fire in Colorado Springs and the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, CA demonstrate the potential of these types of events. Of note in both of these cases, is the fact that the fire burned in a relatively densely populated urban/ sub -urban environment. Years of research by Dr. Cohen has identified that to prevent this type of disaster from occurring does not require the control of extreme wildfire, it requires the control of the elements within the community such as preventing the first building from igniting and preventing building to building ignition. 23 The identified best practices for reducing structure ignition include a combination of home hardening and vegetation management to create an environment near the home that does not support the ignition or spread of fire. Home hardening techniques include the use of non-combustible and ignition resistant building materials and construction techniques that reduce the number of gaps or intersections where embers may be able to ignite flammable building materials. Vegetation within 100 feet of the structure should be installed and maintained in a fashion that resists ignition and if ignited does not support high intensity fire or rapid fire spread. Vail Fire has worked extensively within the town and with its partners to develop outreach materials and programs to empower property owners to mitigate the hazards within the community. Programs such as Ready, Set, Go and the Curbside Wildfire Hazard Evaluations aim to help community members identify specific hazards on their property. In 2003 Eagle County adopted its first land use regulations relating to wildfire. These regulations require developers to incorporate home hardening and defensible space into new construction and additions in unincorporated Eagle County. In 2019 the Vail Town Council adopted similar regulations for all properties within the town boundary. These types of codes are imperative to ensure that new homes built within the community incorporate best practices. In addition to these codes it is critical that the partners of this plan continue to develop and implement programs that support the mitigation and on-going maintenance of the buildings and vegetation within the community. Community Education Education of the community about the risks and mitigations of wildfire has been a cornerstone of the risk reduction program for more than a decade. Nearly every member of the stakeholder group of this plan has provided or participated in community education. The outreach has been focused on creation of defensible space/ ignition resistant landscaping, home hardening, community evacuation, and family preparedness. A variety of different programs and delivery methods have been used within the community. Some examples of past outreach efforts include: Ready, Set, Go community workshops; booths at community events such as the Vail Community picnics; presentations to homeowner associations; presentations to professional groups such as landscapers and community association managers; and one on one meetings with community members. The Town of Vail and Vail Fire strongly believe in informing all community members of the risk from wildfire. To accomplish this task, Vail Fire began a community -wide curbside risk evaluation process in 2017. This risk evaluation process will evaluate the specific risk to each individual parcel within the community over a 5 -year cycle. The intention of this risk evaluation includes; informing each property owner of their specific risks, providing mitigation suggestions, offering additional technical assistance with parcel specific mitigation actions, and measuring change over time. The overall goal of the program is to empower community members to reduce wildfire hazards on their own property thereby reducing the overall hazards within the community. 24 Community Wildfire Risk Assessment The Risk Assessment for this CWPP utilizes data from a variety of sources including the USDA Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service, State of Colorado, Eagle County, Town of Vail and various other partners to this plan. The risk assessment is broken down into several different separate but interconnected components of risk and hazard. The components of the assessment are; intensity and probability of fire, community value at risk directly related to a wildfire event, and potential post fire impacts. A graphical depiction of each component is found in the maps below: 25 Q0 N R Y 4 i 4 Jc 0 A in ar ami N r 47 4 O Q0 N r - r14 J d qj iq p r� r . N N O O 00 N r m w C � w~ N fA ■ C C7 4 D a U N m N 47 O 9 ff- CF) �., �.:..- �� � f: � � e , �� ƒ� a!A • a . - »� # ff- CF) X m CJ LO a U N e m A -. � (\( } ~ k - 2 Jc \ �_ - � rj- @ o - |�- 2 2a LP N M C m V) C L u U C O U f6 q0 C X N i N Q N f6 s a� L N s H Z* 7 a 1 ■i v �l C � m .r t� v� f4 (A ■ u �7 �o v E v U� 1J o . i C r r r n d N M C m V) C L u U C O U f6 q0 C X N i N Q N f6 s a� L N s H C r LL` FjI—I.j� 41 Q,1 V s� L d� U I� w d CL N o - M M Wildfire Preparedness Strategies I. Goal 1: Reduce the risk of a Wildland Urban Disaster within the Town a. Strategy 1- Build and maintain structures and their surrounding vegetation in a manner that resists ignition from wildfire or when ignited does not rapidly spread the fire. Discussion: Community protection starts with all structures in the community being resistant to ignition from wildfire. The building itself and the near building vegetation are the greatest determinate of survival during a wildfire. Actions: i. Implement planning and building codes to require projects to incorporate ignition resistant building materials and landscaping into the project design. ii. Work with commissions and boards to ensure that landscape designs incorporate appropriate spacing of shrubs and trees from structures and from each other. Landscape designs and plant spacing should anticipate the growth and maturation of those plants. iii. Support existing and develop additional programs that empower community members to implement wildfire hazard mitigation on their own property. iv. Maintain and build upon the community wide curbside hazard evaluation program to inform all property owners of the specific risks and mitigation. b. Strategy 2- Implement fuels reduction projects immediately adjacent to the community to minimize fire behavior within 100 feet of structures. Discussion: Research and post fire investigation have shown that structure survivability is high when high intensity fire behavior is kept at least 100 feet from the structure. Projects should be targeted to reducing flame length to 4 feet or less within 100 feet of each structure. Actions: Prioritize and incentivize fuels reduction treatments immediately adjacent to community. c. Strategy 3- Ensure consistency among community codes and ordinances is provided for in a manner which supports best practices and existing ordinances regarding structural ignitability. Discussion: It is critical that all codes and ordinances are consistent in intent and application. Public safety shall be a priority in all codes and ordinances. 34 Actions: i. Building, planning and fire codes and ordinances should be reviewed during each code adoption cycle to ensure currency and consistency. d. Strategy 4- Integrate wildfire risk reduction and planning efforts with other town(s), county, state and federal environmental and sustainability planning goals and activities. Discussion: Many different environmental, planning and building efforts occur within the CWPP planning area boundary. All plans should consider the impacts of wildfire on specific plans and projects. Actions: i. Include provisions or consideration for wildfire risk into planning and environmental projects proposed and developed within the CWPP boundary. ii. Actively work with boards, commissions, elected officials and land management agencies to ensure that land use practices do not create obstacles to fire suppression and the implementation of projects designed to protect public safety or the community. II. Goal 2: Decrease the probability of landscape scale high severity wildfire events a. Strategy 5- Create resilient landscapes that promote diversity of species, ages and condition classes. Discussion: Landscapes that contain a high level of diversity are more resilient to drought, insect and disease activity and wildfire. Additionally, these types of ecosystems provide high quality habitat for a larger variety of wildlife. Actions: i. Develop and implement forest management and fuels reduction projects, prioritizing high hazard areas as identified in the community risk assessment and further described in the implementation section of this plan. b. Strategy 6- Create compartmentalization across the planning area where unplanned wildfire can be managed for multiple resource benefits. Discussion: Successful management of a large wildfire event is contingent upon utilization of natural or manmade control features. If these features are not already present fire managers will spend considerable time and effort to create control features in the wildfire area. Understanding where existing control features are and creating additional features ahead of a fire event will increase community and firefighter safety by increasing firefighting efficiency. 35 Actions: i. Strategically implement fuels reduction projects described in the implementation section of this plan to maximize wildfire response efficiency. ii. Explore opportunities to preplan incident response within the CWPP planning area. iii. Ensure fire management plans are consistent with identified communities' values at risk. c. Strategy 7- Ensure community has appropriate response resources for wildfire management. Discussion: When a wildfire event occurs within the planning area it is critical that local response resources are capable of locating and managing the fire for public safety, community protection and resource benefit. Actions: i. Support and develop tools to increase effectiveness of response. 1. Engage in the development of fire plans that use Potential Operational Delineations (POD'S) or similar tools. ii. Continue to support the operation of regional resource mobilization such as the Mountain Area Mutual Aid program. iii. Support efforts to develop a statewide mutual aid plan as well as a statewide resource mobilization plan. iv. Improve response capabilities through continued training in WUI and wildland fire response and support of wildland fire resource deployments. v. Continue to refine and exercise the Town of Vail and Eagle County Emergency Operations Plans to ensure efficient implementation when needed. vi. Develop and implement operational plans with Vail Resorts to ensure access to emergency water across the ski area through stored water and snow making equipment. d. Strategy 8- Identify high hazard watersheds and infrastructure and implement mitigation projects that reduce post fire flooding and debris flow. Discussion: Watersheds burned during a largescale wildfire have an increased potential to produce flash floods, significant debris flows and decrease water quality. Work before, during and after a wildfire can minimize the short- and long-term effects of the fire on the community. 36 Actions: i. Conduct rapid post fire risk assessments of burn area and downstream community and infrastructure including all lands and jurisdictions. ii. Assign personnel to lead recovery and mitigation efforts. iii. Ensure adequate warning systems are in place to provide advance warning of flash flooding. iv. Identify infrastructure which may be damaged by significant increases in stream or debris flow. III. Goal 3: Build business community resiliency to wildfire disasters a. Strategy 9- Promote and provide tools to businesses to implement and improve business continuity best practices. Discussion: The business community provides the backbone of the community. A wildfire in or near the planning area could cause irreversible harm to the business community thereby crippling the community's ability to generate revenue. A failure of the business community would likely lead to an overall failure of the community. Actions: i. Develop and implement tools to support businesses in the development of preparedness and continuity plans as well as marketing strategies. ii. Develop a continuity of operations plan for local government for use during a large-scale emergency such as a wildfire. iii. Ensure critical infrastructure has adequate protection to resist damage from wildfire and that resilient infrastructure is developed for the community. iv. Consider ways to integrate local businesses into the Town of Vail Emergency Operations Plan to support response and recovery. IV. Goal 4: Citizen engagement and preparedness a. Strategy 10- Develop and support programs to educate and empower residents to prepare for evacuation. Discussion: It is critical that the community be prepared for an evacuation at any time. A wildfire which starts in or near the community may give only minutes to safely evacuate. Residents, guests and businesses must be prepared to leave quickly and be gone for several days and/or weeks. Actions: i. Develop programs and systems that facilitate the rapid notification of short- term occupancies. 37 ii. Support and develop additional programs and systems that facilitate rapid notification of community. iii. Identify and engage community members with access and functional needs to ensure effective response. iv. The stakeholders of this plan should continue to develop and implement programs that build and measure preparedness within the community. b. Strategy 11- Improve the public's understanding of existing community fire protection infrastructure and limitations. Discussion: The response capabilities of the local resources is limited by the number of responders and apparatus as well as the distance between population centers in the mountains. It is important that the community understands these limitations and prepares their homes and businesses to maximize the efforts of the limited resources. Actions: i. Incorporate community fire protection infrastructure and limitations into educational materials and presentations emphasizing the need for community preparedness. ii. Explore the designation of neighborhood safe refuge areas for use when evacuation is not possible. iii. Ensure Vail Public Safety Communication Center incorporates best practices for emergency communications with public including protocols for worst case scenarios such as trapped by fire. V. Goal 5: Support the utilization of forest products. Discussion: Management of forested lands to promote forest health and reduce the hazard of wildfire is expensive. Markets for logs and biomass would significantly reduce costs. Actions: i. Work with the U.S. Forest Service and Colorado State Forest Service to support the use of wood products within the town and state. ii. Provide technical support and guidance for any business utilizing forest products in and around the Town of Vail. 38 Implementation Linked and Individual Structure Defensible Space • Many structures throughout the planning area abut undeveloped land managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Town of Vail. Due to the size and arrangement of the lots throughout the community many of these property owners must modify vegetation on the adjoining public lands to create adequate defensible space. The USFS and Town of Vail should develop standard prescriptions and procedures to allow interested property owners to modify the adjoining vegetation. These prescriptions should follow the Colorado State Forest Services most recent guidelines for the creation of defensible space and current best practices. Priority: High 39 Lower Gore Creek Project Area Description: The lower Gore Creek treatment area includes the area from the ridge line north of Dowd Junction east to FS road 700. Interstate 70 and the developed private property from the southeast or downhill boundary and uphill boundary is the lower extent of previous treatments off FS rd. 700 and FS rd. 734. Primary ownership within this treatment area is USFS; however, portions of the treatment area are private and state ownership. The treatment area contains several areas of critical infrastructure including transmission powerlines and communications towers. Treatment Objective: The objectives of this treatment area are: 1. Return ecosystem to historic fire regime 2. Protect critical infrastructure from high intensity wildfire 3. Create compartmentalization on landscape Preferred Treatment Method: Multiple treatment methods will be necessary to accomplish the stated objectives. Below are the preferred treatment methods: 1. Use hand treatments to create linked defensible space for all structures along the downhill boundary of the treatment area. These treatments should extend from the structure to an area at least 100 feet wide. Priority: High 2. Use a combination of hand treatments and mechanical harvest to implement point protection for critical infrastructure. Specific prescriptions for point protection should decrease potential fire behavior below thresholds that would damage infrastructure (i.e. flame length less than 3 feet within 100 feet of the infrastructure). 3. Reintroduce fire onto the landscape through the use of prescribed fire. Priority: Moderate 40 a E a U rr 1 l�+ '4 L y d7 � L roU cu w o b � b � v o 0 ca m � — N �I7 O O Middle Gore Creek Project Area Description: The Middle Gore Creek treatment area includes the area from FS road 700 to the Pitkin Creek Drainage. Interstate 70 and the developed private property form the southern or downhill boundary. The treatment area covers the lower reaches of the Middle Creek, Spraddle Creek, Booth Creek and Pitkin Creek drainages. Primary ownership within this treatment area is USFS however portions of the treatment area are private and municipal ownership. The eastern portion of the treatment area overlaps with the boundary of the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area. The treatment area contains several areas of critical infrastructure including transmission powerlines and communications towers. Treatment Objective: The objectives of this treatment area are: 1. Reduce high intensity fire behavior within 100 feet of structures 2. Return ecosystem to historic fire regime 3. Create compartmentalization on landscape 4. Decrease potential ignition sources by improving existing power infrastructure Preferred Treatment Method: Multiple treatment methods will be necessary to accomplish the stated objectives. Below are the preferred treatment methods: 1. Use hand treatments to create linked defensible space for all structures along the downhill boundary of the treatment area. These treatments should extend from the structure to an area at least 100 feet wide. Priority: High 2. Reintroduce fire onto the landscape through the use of prescribed fire. i ionty: Moderate 3. Prioritize the undergrounding of above ground power distribution lines between the Spraddle Creek subdivision and Bald Mountain Road. Priority: High 42 I �r a E a S7 L Q] Qu w L s� as G� F� p b� as w b� fib as b G as N Lo 4 o M Benchmark/ Mushroom Bowl Project Area Description: The Benchmark/ Mushroom Bowl treatment area includes all the area in the upper reaches of the Mill Creek Drainage. The area is commonly referred to as Benchmark or the Mushroom Bowl. The area is accessed via Benchmark Road. Primary ownership within this treatment area is USFS. Treatment Objective: The objectives of this treatment area are: 1. Create operational delineations on the landscape to decrease resistance to control for fires burning within Benchmark or the East Vail Chutes 2. Reduce high intensity fire behavior along the ridgeline between Benchmark and the East Vail Chutes Preferred Treatment Method: 1. Use a combination of commercial timber harvest and hand treatments and prescribed fire to create and maintain openings along the Northern or Eastern treatment area boundaries. Pockets of dead or diseased trees should be removed throughout the treatment area to decrease fire intensity and create potential operational delineations for fire suppression. Priority: Modi 44 Ln v U E U a. coC Q � L cu � h , F+ � m cu U y p fi a� U m 2 N cu u7 O d Eagles Nest/ Lower Game Creek Project Area Description: The Eagles Nest/ Lower Game Creek treatment area includes the area west of the Vail Ski Area Boundary from the Cascade Lift on the north over the top of the ridge to the drainage below the Game Creek Bowl. Primary ownership within this treatment area is USFS. The treatment area contains several areas of critical infrastructure including recreational ski infrastructure and communications sites. The area immediately east of the treatment area is a highly used developed recreation site for summer recreation activities. The Eagle Bahn Gondola which runs along the eastern edge of the treatment area is the primary evacuation method for moving guests from the mountain to safety in the village. Treatment Objective: The objectives of this treatment area are: 1. Protect critical infrastructure and recreational facilities from high intensity wildfire 2. Create compartmentalization on landscape 3. Protect primary evacuation route Preferred Treatment Method: 1. Use a combination of commercial timber harvest and hand treatments to create and maintain openings throughout the treatment area boundaries. Priority: High 2. Use a combination of hand treatments and mechanical harvest to implement point protection for critical infrastructure. Specific prescriptions for point protection should decrease potential fire behavior below thresholds that would damage infrastructure (i.e. flame length less than 3 feet within 100 feet of the infrastructure). Priority: High 46 b g E U � Q1 q t dj L � �U v wU m m w � a b � � N r y W y H O y V � 47 LU LO o Lower Vail Mountain Project Area Description: The Lower Vail Mountain treatment area includes the lower portions of Vail Ski Area Boundary from the Cascade Lift on the west to the Vail Golf Course on the East. Primary ownership within this treatment area is USFS however a large portion of the northern boundary is private ownership. The treatment area contains several areas of recreational ski infrastructure. Fires within this area have the potential to threaten the densely populated core of the Vail Villages. Treatment Objective: The objectives of this treatment area are: 1. Reduce potential fire behavior to low intensity fire within 1000 feet of structures Preferred Treatment Method: 1. Use hand treatments to create linked defensible space for all structures along the downhill boundary of the treatment area. These treatments should extend from the structure to an area at least 100 feet wide. Priority: High 2. Underground distribution powerlines within 1000 feet of all structures Priority: High 3. Use a combination of hand treatments and mechanical harvest to implement point protection for critical infrastructure. Specific prescriptions for treatment area should decrease potential fire behavior to low intensity surface fire. Priority: Loin 48 rn r � b E a V N 61 N L S� Q f+ � W w� W ^I 0 d E rn Deer Underpass/ Bell Flower Project Area Description: The Deer Underpass/ Bell Flower treatment area includes the Deer Underpass State Wildfire Area and Private Property at the West End of Bell Flower and Basingdale Blvd. Ownership within this treatment area is state and private property. Treatment Objective: The objectives of this treatment area are: 1. Reduce potential fire behavior to low intensity fire within 1000 feet of structures and throughout the neighborhood 2. Decrease potential ignition sources by improving existing power infrastructure Preferred Treatment Method: 1. Use hand treatments to reduce potential fire behavior to low intensity surface fire throughout the treatment areas. Priority: High 2. Prioritize the undergrounding of above ground power distribution lines between the throughout Intermountain. Priority: High 50 d v 4 C Ep$E C V cu L cu O +r. �cu c (D L � b C di CL b L aU as b G cu �' 4 Elliott Ranch Project Area Description: The Elliott Ranch treatment area includes the private property within the Elliott Ranch and Highland Meadows communities of West Vail. Ownership within this treatment area is private property. Treatment Objective: The objectives of this treatment area are: 1. Reduce potential fire behavior to low intensity fire within 1000 feet of structures and throughout the neighborhood Preferred Treatment Method: 3. Use hand treatments to reduce potential fire behavior to low intensity surface fire throughout the treatment areas. Priority: High 52 M Ln a a a 3 � E In' L L i L a� �, w Previously Completed Wildfire Risk Reduction Projects The stakeholders to this plan have been engaging in wildfire risk reduction and working towards creating a fire adapted community for nearly 20 years. In this time the group have implemented: educational programs; large- and small-scale fuels reduction projects; adopted and amended building and planning codes; and made strides towards more affective wildfire response. A summary of some of the selected activities are below. • Education o Ready, Set, Go- Engaged community members in workshop type format based on the International Association of Fire Chiefs Ready, Set, Go education program. Workshop focused on pre -fire mitigation, family preparedness and evacuation. o Public forums (community picnic, etc.)- Vail Fire and Police, Eagle County and UCR regularly participate in public forums to promote ignition resistant homes and landscaping, personal preparedness and evacuation. o Landscaping guides- In 2016 Vail Fire created a Vail specific Fire -Resistant Landscaping guide to provide technical information and encourage property owners to install and maintain fire resistant landscaping in the near home environment. o Plant guide- In 2019 Vail Community Development, Environmental Sustainability, Fire and Public works co -developed the Fire -Resistant Landscaping Plant Recommendation Guide as a supplement to the larger Fire -Resistant Landscaping guide. The intention of the supplement is to preserve and enhance the natural landscape character while protecting your home from wildfire. o Presentations to professional groups- The stakeholders of this plan periodically get the opportunity to present wildfire related materials to local, statewide and national professional groups. Past interactions include: Landscapers, property and community association manager, builders and architects and the real estate community. The Vail Board of Realtors have become an excellent partner in wildfire education. o Curbside Assessments- Vail Fire has completed several town -wide wildfire hazard assessments since 2000. In 2016 Vail Fire initiated the latest round of wildfire hazard assessments with the stated goal of informing every property owner of the specific hazards of their property. As part of the program the department created the webpage www.vailwildfire.com which acts as the public portal to the community information. Between 2016 and 2021 the department will collect wildfire hazard information on all parcels within the department's response area. In 2022 data collection will begin again in hopes of tracking change over time. o RealFire- The RealFire program is an in-depth wildfire hazard assessment program which provides property owners the ability to receive recognition for completing all recommended hazard reduction activities. RealFire was co -developed with the Vail Board of Realtors and Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation. The program is administered by Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation and supported by Vail Fire. 54 • Fuels o Between 1988 and 2019 the stakeholders of this plan completed over 3,100 acres of fuels reduction and hazard tree removal project within the planning area. Below is a breakdown of the acres treated by ownership. Most if not all projects shown below were accomplished through partnerships between the many stakeholders of this plan. A map showing project area boundaries, year completed, and treatment type can be found on the Town of Vail GIS portal. www.maps.vailgov.com ■ USFS- 2,880.4 acres ■ Town of Vail- 37.8 Acres ■ Colorado Parks and Wildlife- 6.5 Acres ■ Eagle River Water and Sanitation District- 18.6 Acres ■ Denver Water Board- 17.5 Acres ■ Private- 164.6 Acres o Community Chipping- Vail Fire and Emergency Services has operated a curbside chipping service since 2007. Since the inception of the program the department has chipped hundreds of tons of trees and slash to aid property owners in the creation of defensible space. Between 2015 and 2019 the department averaged 116 calls for service per season and provided services to all portions of the response area. The program provides a safe and efficient way for property owners to dispose of slash and is very popular with community. • Planning o Opens lands plan- In 2018 the Community Development Department completed an update to the previously approved open lands plan. The open lands plan is the guiding planning document for the development and management of non-developed Town owned lands. Recommendations of the plan include considering impacts of wildfire when making future land management and planning decisions and a recommendation to develop natural resource management plans for all open space designated town owned parcels. o WUI Code Amendments -The community has legacy building code issues relating to wildfire hazard that will take time to correct. These issues include the use of highly flammable building materials and overly dense planted landscaping. In 2004 Eagle County Adopted its first building resolution requiring wildfire mitigation to be incorporated into new construction. Since that time the resolution has been amended to incorporate the latest best practices. In 2007 Vail Town Council took its first step towards hazard reduction by banning wood roof coverings for new construction and replacement. In 2016 Council amended the design guidelines to encourage use of ignition resistant building materials and fire-resistant landscaping. 2019 saw the further amendment of the design guidelines and building codes to require the use of ignition resistant building materials and fire-resistant landscaping for new construction and significant additions. In all, the jurisdictions having authority in the planning area have 55 taken measured steps to create more fire-resistant structures throughout the community. • Operations o Wildland Map Book- In 2016 Vail Fire created the first wildfire response map book for the Vail Valley. The intention of the map product was to provide rapid situational awareness for responders. Additional benefits of the map product included preplanning of evacuation areas. In 2018 the map book was expanded to include all of Eagle County. The map product is available in both paper and electronic versions an is designed to be shareable on commonly used platforms of the wildland response community. o Full Scale Exercises- Vail has hosted a number of full-scale wildfire response exercises, the two most recent were in 2016 and 2017. The intention of the exercises was to practice strategic command and wildland urban interface tactics in a real-world environment. Community evacuation was a large part of both recent exercises. All agencies involved in the exercises learned valuable lessons on operations within the community. o Seasonal wildland firefighter program- Since 2007 Vail Fire has employed a seasonal wildland fire program. In 2014 the Department hired the first full time program manager to oversee all components of wildfire in the department. The original intention of the program was to provide a workforce to complete mitigation projects within the Town. While this is still the central mission of the program, Wildland Division staff now engage in wildfire suppression, education, technical rescue and special event support. o Closest unit dispatching- Closest unit dispatching is a term used for dispatching the closest resource regardless of jurisdiction. This type of dispatching provides the highest level of service to the community and ensures the quickest response. As stated in the Eagle County Wildfire Annual Operating Plan, the closest unit will be dispatched regardless of jurisdiction for all wildland fire. In 2019 Eagle River Fire and Vail Fire agreed to make this uniform across all call types. o Mountain Area Mutual Aid- Expanding wildland fires and/or multiple wildfires rapidly overwhelm local response capabilities within the planning area. Systems are in place to order additional firefighting resources, but time lags of 24-48 hours are common. In 2018 the fire chiefs in the Mountain Region worked together to develop a rapid mobilization system to fill the gap between local resources being exhausted and ordered resources arriving. Nine deployments in 2018 and one in 2019 showed the effectiveness of the program by providing responders in the critical early hours of an incident. 56 W1171 Memorandum To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Paul Cada, Wildland Program Manager Date: April 13th, 2020 Subject: Recommendation for Adoption of Vail's Community Wildfire Protection Plan Background A Community Wildfire Protection Plan or CWPP is a critical planning tool for communities to increase resiliency to wildfire. The CWPP concept was developed and authorized by the federal government as part of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act in 2003. At its most basic level it is a tool that local communities use to work with federal land management agencies such as the USFS to prioritize forest restoration projects on federal lands. In a more wholistic view a CWPP can be used to show the need for coordinated wildfire mitigation activities across jurisdictional boundaries so as to provide for the greatest protection of the community. Besides prioritizing treatments, having a CWPP is a minimum requirement for nearly all wildfire mitigation grant funding. The framework of a CWPP is relatively loose to allow for the incorporation of the needs of the local community, however, a few key components are required. A key component of the planning process is the participation and input from community stakeholders. In the case of Vail, community comes in many forms including individual citizens, the business community, local government, infrastructure providers, state and federal land managers and others. CWPP's have been an important part of identifying and implementing wildfire mitigation projects throughout Eagle County. Eagle County developed and adopted its first CWPP in 2004 with the participation of many communities including Vail. Since then the countywide CWPP has been modified twice to account for changing conditions of the landscape and development throughout the valley. The group that oversees the countywide CWPP is the Eagle County Wildfire Council, which Vail Fire is an active participant. While Vail is covered under this countywide CWPP, the large geographic area of the countywide plan makes it not very specific to the needs of the Town. As part of the overarching wildfire mitigation program, Vail Fire has identified the need for a Town specific CWPP to address the unique challenges faced by the community that are not addressed in the countywide plan. The planning process for a Vail specific plan was initiated in the winter of 2018 with a stakeholder kickoff meeting. The stakeholder group for this plan includes staff from multiple Town departments and external partners such as the USFS, Colorado State Forest Service, Eagle River Watershed Coalition, utility providers, Vail Valley Partnership, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Vail Resorts and water providers. II. Plan Goals and Components Wildfire is a necessary and inevitable element of the ecosystem of the Vail Valley; however, it also presents one of the largest threats to the safety, health and vitality of the Community of Vail. In 2015 the Town of Vail adopted the "Fire Adapted Vail" strategic frameworks to guide efforts to create a resilient community in the face of the growing risk from wildfire. This Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP) expands upon the strategic framework by establishing five main community goals. 1. Reduce the risk of a Wildland Urban Disaster within the Town of Vail 2. Decrease the probability of landscape scale high severity wildfire events 3. Build business community resiliency to wildfire disasters 4. Citizen engagement and preparedness 5. Support the utilization of forest products These goals are supported by eleven strategies which can be accomplished by implementing 36 recommended actions. The plan identifies seven areas recommended for hazardous fuels reduction across private, local, state and federally managed lands. To accomplish these goals the plan includes: • A map defining the Wildland Urban Interface area or place where community values interact with wildfire hazards • Community risk analysis that considers fuel hazards, risk of wildfire occurrence and community values • Evaluation of the community's preparedness for wildfire response • Recommendations for methods to reduce structural ignitability • An implementation plan that identifies and prioritizes potential fuels treatment projects • Summary of completed work to reduce the wildfire hazard within the community The final draft of the plan can be found in Attachment A. Town staff have developed a web map portal for community members to explore the various map layers associated with this plan. The interactive web maps can be found on the towns map portal at http://maps.vailgov.com/ . III. Current Situation and proposed action Since the beginning of the planning process, Vail Fire has hosted five stakeholder meetings and one community meeting. The community was also surveyed during the summer of 2018 to identify community perceived hazards. Fire Department Staff presented an update of the plan and process to Town Council at the January 21St, 2020 meeting. Since the council update on January 21St, the plan has been finalized and posted for community review. Following the review and recommendation for approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission the plan will be formally brought before Town Council for adoption. To formally adopt the plan, it must be adopted by Vail Town Council, Colorado State Forest Service and U.S. Forest Service. The U.S. Forest Service, Colorado State Forest Service, Eagle County and the Eagle County Sheriff have already completed agency reviews of the plan and have formally committed to adopt the plan. Town of Vail Page 2 IV. Staff Recommendation 1. Review the Final Draft of the Vail Community Wildfire Protection Plan and associated web maps. 2. Provide a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to formally adopt the CWPP Town of Vail Page 3 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 13, 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. ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC19-0047 Staff Memorandum - Highline - Rezoning - April 13.0 Staff Report PEC19-0047 Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment A. Vicinity Map DoubleTree Narrative 3-16-2020.pdf Attachment B. Applicant Narrative - 3-16-2020 Attachment E. Public Comment - Patricia Lauer - 12-3-2019.pdf Attachment F. Public Comment - Tania Boyd - 12-3-2019.pdf Attachment G. Attachment H. Public Comment - Lauer - 2-4-20.pdf Public Comment - Elyse Howard - 2-3-2020.pdf Attachment I. Public Comment - Chris Romer - 1-27-2020.pdf Attachment J. Public Comment - Carey and Brett August - 12-7- 2019.pd Attachment K. Public Comment - James Pyke - 2-26-2020.pdf Attachment L. Public Comment - VCBA - 3-4-2020.pdf Attachment M. Vail Local Housing Authority Letter - 12-18-2019.pdf Attachment N. Public Comment - Michael Spiers - 3-3-2020.pdf Pec results 120919.pdf Pec results 030920.pdf Additional Public Comment.pdf Attachment C. Public Comment - Patricia Lauer - 12-3-2019 Attachment D. Public Comment - Tania Boyd - 12-3-2019 Attachment E. Public Comment - Lauer - 2-4-20 Attachment F. Public Comment - Elyse Howard - 2-3-2020 Attachment G. Public Comment - Chris Romer - 1-27-2020 Attachment H. Public Comment - Carey and Brett August - 12-7-2019 Attachment I. Public Comment - James Pyke - 2-26-2020 Attachment J. Public Comment - VCBA - 3-4-2020 Attachment K. Vail Local Housing Authority Letter - 12-18-2019 Attachment L. Public Comment - Michael Spiers - 3-3-2020 Attachment M. PEC Minutes from Meeting on 12-09-2019 Attachment N. Minutes from Meeting on 3-09-2020 Attachment O - Additional Public Comments 0) rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 13, 2020 SUBJECT: A Zoning Code Amendment/Rezoning, pursuant to Section 12-3-7C1, Zone District Boundary Amendment, Vail town Code, to change the zone district from Commercial Core 3 (CC3) to Public Accommodation — 2 (PA - 2) on a parcel of land 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. (PEC19-0047) Applicant: TNFREF III Bravo Vail LLC represented by Mauriello Planning Group & Triumph Development Planner: Greg Roy SUMMARY The applicant, TNFREF III Bravo Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group and Triumph Development, is requesting 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 N. 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 Commercial Core 3 (CC3) to Public Accommodation — 2 (PA -2). Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outline in Section VI of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, is proposing to rezone the parcel with the existing hotel from CC3 to the PA -2 zone district, to allow for the expansion of the hotel which is not currently allowed under the CC3 zone district. Switching to the PA -2 zone district would make the hotel no longer a non -conforming use and allow the expansion that includes the following: • 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 • Build 15 unit employee housing apartment building While these additions are proposed concurrently through a separate application, the zoning designation will remain with or without the approval or construction of the aforementioned proposed additions. The proposed rezoning is being reviewed concurrently with a Special Development District, and Major Exterior Alteration applications. These applications are dependent on the zone boundary amendment being approved by the Vail town Council. Included with this memorandum are the following for review by the commission: A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant Narrative, 3-16-2020 C. Public Comment — Patricia Lauer — 12-3-2019 D. Public Comment — Tania Boyd — 12-3-2019 E. Public Comment — Patricia Lauer — 2-4-2020 F. Public Comment — Elyse Howard — 2-3-2020 G. Public Comment— Chris Romer— 1-27-2020 H. Public Comment — Carey and Brett August — 12-7-2019 I. Public Comment — James Pyke — 2-26-2020 J. Public Comment — VCBA — 3-4-2020 K. Vail Local Housing Authority Letter — 12-18-2019 L. Public Comment — Michael Spiers — 3-3-2020 M. PEC Minutes from Meeting on 12-09-2019 N. PEC Minutes from Meeting on 3-09-2020 II. BACKGROUND In 1980 the hotel was built in the County and annexed into the town per Ordinance No. 43, Series of 1980 and subsequently zoned CC3 within the required ninety days. The annexation ordinance was later overturned by the Colorado Court of Appeals due to a lack on contiguity. The property was annexed again with Ordinance No. 1, Series 1986 and was again zoned CC3 through Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1986. Town of Vail Page 2 Over time there have been multiple applications for small additions or exterior alterations. Most recently was the exterior alteration that allowed for restriping of the parking lot, pool upgrades, and exterior facade upgrades to the building in 2016. This application was discussed as part of a work session with the PEC on December 9th 2019. The Design Review Board also saw the application for a conceptual review on December 18th, 2019. The PEC heard this application on March 9th and the application was tabled to the March 23rd meeting at the applicant's request. Due to the March 23rd meeting being postponed the application is to be reviewed at the April 13th meeting. Hrghline - A Doubletree Hotel R„ Major Exterior Alteration - PEC 19. 0046 Rezoning - PEC19-0047 a Special Development District - PEC19-0048,-m�„ +y,k' 2211 North Frontage Road West %nom,- ,, G }`� 41�!�7 Y F �r �a v •e i R ' 4 40 0 25 W 100 '•as.�.:�Ec-'= ---_ ,OWtl Yf Yd III. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan, the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Vail Town Code TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE Town of Vail Page 3 12-3-7: AMENDMENT. A. Prescription: The regulations prescribed in this title and the boundaries of the zone districts shown on the official zoning map may be amended, or repealed by the town council in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this chapter. B. Initiation.- 1. nitiation: 1. An amendment of the regulations of this title or a change in zone district boundaries may be initiated by the town council on its own motion, by the planning and environmental commission on its own motion, by petition of any resident or property owner in the town, or by the administrator. 2. A petition for amendment of the regulations or a change in zone district boundaries shall be filed on a form to be prescribed by the administrator. The petition shall include a summary of the proposed revision of the regulations, or a complete description of proposed changes in zone district boundaries and a map indicating the existing and proposed zone district boundaries. If the petition is for a change in zone district boundaries, the petition shall include a list of the owners of all properties within the boundaries of the area to be rezoned or changed, and the property adjacent thereto. The owners' list shall include the names of all owners, their mailing and street addresses, and the legal description of the property owned by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed envelopes to each owner to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. The petition also shall include such additional information as prescribed by the administrator. C. Criteria And Findings.- 1. indings: 1. Zone District Boundary Amendment.- a. mendment: a. Factors, Enumerated: Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the planning and environmental commission and town council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment.- (1) mendment: (1) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town, and (2) The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents, and Town of Vail Page 4 (3) The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives, and (4) The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole, and (5) The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features, and (6) The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district; and (7) The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate, and (8) Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. b. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the planning and environmental commission and the town council shall make the following findings with respect to the requested amendment.- (1) mendment: (1) That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town, and (2) That the amendment is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas, and (3) That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. ARTICLE D. COMMERCIAL CORE 3 (CC3) DISTRICT 12-7D-1: PERMITTED USES.- Town SES: Town of Vail Page 5 The following uses shall be permitted in the commercial core 3 district: Automated teller Business and office confectioneries, machines (ATMs) services. preparation of products exterior to a building. for sale on the premises. Banks and financial institutions. Communications antennas and appurtenant equipment Eating and drinking establishments, including the following-- Cocktail ollowing:Cocktail lounges and bars. Coffee shops. Fountain and sandwich shops. Restaurants. Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Health clubs. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Beauty and barber shops. Cleaning and laundry pick up agencies without bulk cleaning or dyeing. Laundromats. Shoe repair. Small appliance repair shops, excluding furniture repair. Tailors and dressmakers. Travel and ticket agencies. Professional offices, business offices, and studios. Retail stores and establishments without limit as to floor area including the following: Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries. Auto parts stores. Bakeries and Bookstores. Building materials stores without outdoor storage. Camera stores and photographic studios. Candy stores. Chinaware and glassware stores. Delicatessens and specialty food stores. Department and general merchandise stores. Drugstores. Electronics sales and repair shops. Florists. Food stores. Furniture stores. Gift shops. Hardware stores. Town of Vail Page 6 Health food stores. Hobby stores. Household appliance stores. Jewelry stores. Leather goods stores Liquor stores. Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores. Photographic studios. Radio and television broadcasting studios. Sporting goods stores. Stationery stores. Supermarkets. Toy stores. Variety stores. Yardage and dry goods stores. Additional offices, business, or services determined to be similar to permitted uses in accordance with the provisions of this section. (Ord. 12(2008) § 13) 12-7D-2: CONDITIONAL USES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the commercial core 3 district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title: Any use permitted by section 12-7D-1 of this article which is not conducted entirely within a building. Bed and breakfasts, as grounds, and facilities. further regulated by Dog kennels. section 12-14-18 of this Public park and title. Drive -up facilities. recreation facilities. Brewpubs. Major arcades. Public utility and public service uses. Child daycare center. Massage parlors. Radio and television Commercial laundry and Outside car wash. signal relay transmission cleaning services, bulk facilities. plant. Pet shops. Religious institutions. Commercial storage. Public buildings, Town of Vail Page 7 Theaters, meeting 2(2016) § 10: Ord. rooms, and convention Transportation 12(2008) § 13) facilities. businesses. (Ord. 12-7D-3: ACCESSORY USES.- The SES:The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the commercial core 3 district Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Minor arcades. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to conditional residential. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 6(1982) § 5(b): Ord. 11(1981) § 1) 12-7D-4: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS.- The IMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be twenty five thousand (25, 000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of one hundred feet (100). (Ord. 11(1981) § 1) 12-7D-5: SETBACKS.- In ETBACKS: In the commercial core 3 district, the setback shall be twenty feet (20) on all exterior boundaries of the zone district. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 11(1981) § 1) 12-7D-6: HEIGHT. For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty five feet (35). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed thirty eight feet (38). (Ord. 11(1981) § 1) 12-7D-7: DENSITY CONTROL: Not more than thirty (30) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Total density Town of Vail Page 8 shall not exceed twelve (12) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. (Ord. 11(1981) § 1) 12-7D-8: SITE COVERAGE.- Site OVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the total site area. (Ord. 17(1991) § 10: Ord. 11(1981) § 1) 12-7D-9: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT. At least twenty five percent (25%) of the total site shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 11(1981) § 1) 12-7D-10: PARKING AND LOADING.- Off OADING: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. No parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. (Ord. 11(1981) § 1) 12-7D-11: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. - A. Limitation, Exception: All permitted and conditional uses shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted loading areas and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be unenclosed by a conditional use permit and the outdoor display of goods. For purposes of this section, "conducted entirely within a building" means that all activities related to the permitted use, including contacting potential customers and clients, must occur completely inside of a building, and not in an open doorway of the building. B. Outdoor Displays: The area to be used for an outdoor display shall be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor displays. (Ord. 11 (2019) § 3: Ord. 34(1982) § 3: Ord. 11(1981) § 1)ARTICLE J. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION -2 (PA -2) DISTRICT 12-7J-1: PURPOSE.- The URPOSE: The public accommodation -2 district is intended to provide sites for lodges, limited service lodges, and residential accommodations on a short term basis, for visitors and guests, together with such public and semipublic facilities and commercial/retail and related visitor oriented uses as may be appropriately located within the same zone district and compatible with adjacent land uses. This district is intended to provide for lodging sites located outside the periphery of the town's Vail Village and Lionshead Town of Vail Page 9 commercial core areas. The public accommodation -2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the zone district. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-2: PERMITTED USES.- The SES: The following uses shall be permitted in the PA -2 district: Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Limited service lodge, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. (Ord. 1(2008) § 23.- Ord. 3:Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-3: CONDITIONAL USES.- The SES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the PA -2 district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title.- Bed itle: Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Fractional fee club units, as further regulated by subsection 12-16-7A8 of this title. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and occupying between ten percent (10%) and fifteen percent (15%) of the total gross residential floor area of the buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures. Public transportation terminals. Town of Vail Page 10 Public utility and public service uses. Religious institutions. Theaters and convention facilities. (Ord. 2(2016) § 18: Ord. 12(2008) § 25: Ord. 1(2008) § 23: Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-4: ACCESSORY USES.- The SES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the PA -2 district.- Home istrict: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Meeting rooms. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted lodge uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS.- The IMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable area and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80) on each side within its boundaries. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-6: SETBACKS.- In ETBACKS: In the PA -2 district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20). At the discretion of the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board, variations to the setback standards outlined above may be approved during the review of exterior alterations or modifications (section 12-7J-12 of this article) subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria.- A. riteria: A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. Town of Vail Page 11 B. The proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. C. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. D. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-7: HEIGHT. For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty five feet (45). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty eight feet (48). (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-8: DENSITY CONTROL: Up to one hundred fifty (150) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) may be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Final determination of allowable gross residential floor area shall be made by the planning and environmental commission in accordance with section 12-7J-12 of this article. Specifically, in determining allowable gross residential floor area the planning and environmental commission shall make a finding that proposed gross residential floor area is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. For the purposes of calculating density, employee housing units, limited service lodge units, accommodation units and fractional fee club units shall not be counted towards density (dwelling units per acre). A dwelling unit in a multiple -family building may include one or more attached accommodation units. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-9: SITE COVERAGE.- Site OVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed sixty five percent (65%) of the total site area. Final determination of allowable site coverage shall be made by the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board in accordance with section 12-7J-12 of this article. Specifically, in determining allowable site coverage the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board shall make a finding that proposed site coverage is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) Town of Vail Page 12 12-7J-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT. At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-11: PARKING AND LOADING.- Off OADING: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. No at grade or above grade surface parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. Below grade underground structured parking and short term guest loading and drop off shall be permitted in the required front setback subject to the approval of the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-12: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: A. Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building shall be reviewed by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. However, any project which adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, limited service lodge units, any project which adds more than one thousand (1,000) square feet of commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has substantial off site impacts (as determined by the administrator) shall be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission as a major exterior alteration in accordance with this chapter and section 12-3-6 of this title. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in accordance with administrative schedules developed by the department of community development for planning and environmental commission and design review board review. The following submittal items are required.- 1. equired: 1. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the administrator. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations. 2. Application, Contents: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification application. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and Ned in the department of community development. Certain submittal requirements may be waived and/or modified by the administrator and/or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and Town of Vail Page 13 materials required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail comprehensive plan. The administrator and/or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications, samples and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. 3. Work Sessions/Conceptual Review: If requested by either the applicant or the administrator, submittals may proceed to a work session with the planning and environmental commission, a conceptual review with the design review board, or a work session with the town council. 4. Hearing: The public hearing before the planning and environmental commission shall be held in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. The planning and environmental commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the planning and environmental commission may be appealed to the town council in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. 5. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration as prescribed by this article shall lapse and become void three (3) years following the date of approval by the design review board unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion. Administrative extensions shall be allowed for reasonable and unexpected delays as long as code provisions affecting the proposal have not changed. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-13: COMPLIANCE BURDEN.- It URDEN: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the planning and environmental commission and the design review board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the public accommodation -2 (PA -2) zone district, and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-14: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS.- Property MPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be Town of Vail Page 14 determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-15: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. A. Limitations, Exception: All permitted and conditional uses shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building except for permitted parking and loading areas and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be unenclosed by a conditional use permit and the outdoor display of goods. For purposes of this section, "conducted entirely within a building" means that all activities related to the permitted use, including contacting potential customers and clients, must occur completely inside of a building, and not in an open doorway of the building. B. Outdoor Displays: The area to be used for an outdoor display shall be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor displays. (Ord. 11 (2019) § 10) Vail Land Use Plan (in part) Chapter 11 — Land Use Goals/Policies 3. Commercial 3.1. The hotel bed base should be preserved and use more efficiently. 3.2. The Village and Lionshead areas the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of destination skiers. 3.3. Hotels are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. 3.4. Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. Chapter IV — Proposed Land Use 2. Key Goals Town of Vail Page 15 2.A.2 Commercial growth should be concentrated primarily in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 2.A.3 New hotels should continue to be located primarily in the Village and Lionshead areas. 5. "Preferred Plan" Land Use Pattern 5.B.4 Community Commercial: This new category has been designated for the West Vail commercial area, which is primarily oriented to serve the needs of the permanent resident and the long-term visitor. Because the community expressed the desire to concentrate commercial uses within existing commercial nodes, no new commercial areas have been designated. The CC land use area contains 24 acres or 1% of the land area. TABLE 9: PROPOSED LAND USE -"PREFERRED LAND USE PLAN:: LAND USE CATEGORY ACRES PERCENT Lary Density Residential 698.8 20.8 Medium Density Residential 420.8 12.5 High Den ity Residential 68.5 2.0 Hillside Residential 33.3 1.0 Village Master Plan 77.0 2.3 Tourist Commercial 15.8 .05 Resort A-ccom m od atio n Services Transition Area 51.9 11.4 1.8 10.8 Community Commercial 24.4 0.7 Community Office 15.6 0.5 Park _ Open Space 255.9 11102-2.9 7.6 30.5 Public and Semi-public 72.0 2.1 Ski Base Interstate 70 Right -Df -Way TOTAL 86.3 505.5 3.360.1 2.6 15.0 100.0 This table also shows that there will be a deficit of 70,272 square feet or approximately 3.3 acres of land for commercial / retail uses. This may be accommodated through: 1) increasing intensities of use within the core areas; 2) adding commercial square footage within Lionshead through the relocation of the Gondola building and possible addition of commercial space to the parking structure. These are both options being discussed but are not yet quantified. These two options could then provide the additional 51,850 square feet of skier -related retail space, 3) addition of support retail outside of the core areas within the Community Office land use area, and, 4) increased intensity of use in the West Vail Community Commercial undeveloped area. These two options could be utilized to accommodate the 18,422 square foot shortfall of local related retail space. It was decided to rely on the marketplace to accommodate this additional retail demand through these types of options, rather than designating new Town of Vail Page 16 IV commercial areas away from existing nodes, which would have been contrary to the desires expressed by the community at large. SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Land Use Plan Designation Current Land Use: Proposed Land Use: Geological Hazards: 2211 North Frontage Road West Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3 Commercial Core 3 (CC3) Public Accommodation -2 (PA -2) District Community Commercial Lodge Lodge Debris Flow, Steep Slopes and Rock Fall Hazard Development Community Public Standard Commercial 3 Accommodation 2 CC3 PA -2 Lot Size Min. 25,000 sq. ft. Min. 10,000 sq. ft. buildable area buildable area Minimum Setbacks Front — 20' Front — 20' Sides — 20' Sides — 20' Rear — 20' Rear — 20' Maximum Height 38 ft. max - sloped 48 ft. max - sloped 35 ft. max - mansard 45 ft. max - mansard Density Max: 30 sq. ft. GRFA per Max: 150 sq. ft. GRFA 100 sq. ft. buildable site per 100 sq. ft. buildable area site area Max 12 DUs/Acre Max 25 DUs/Acre Site coverage Max. 40% of site area Max. 65% of site area maximum Minimum Landscaping Min. 25% of site area Min. 30% of site area V. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use North: Multi-family/Single- family South: 1-70 East: Commercial West Town of Vail 7nna nictrirt Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential N/A Commercial Core 3 (CC3) Commercial/Housing Commercial Core 3 (CC3) & Housing (H) Page 17 VI. REVIEW CRITERIA Before acting on an application for a zone district boundary amendment, the Planning and environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested zone district boundary amendment.- Zone mendment: Zone District Boundary Amendment Factors 1. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town. The proposed zone district amendment is supported by the Vail comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive plan values a healthy economy which includes a "year- round economy that caters to full and part-time residents, visitors and business owners and operators. A growing employment and revenue base supports the economy ..." Other applicable goals met by this application include the following Land Use Plan goals: 1.3 Quality development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more efficiently. 3.3 Hotel are important to the continued success of the Town of Vail, therefore conversion to condominiums should be discouraged. Staff finds that the proposed zone district amendment conforms to this criterion. 2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents. The proposed zone district amendment is suitable to the existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents when taken into context with the potential future plans for the area. The "Preferred Plan" in the Town's adopted Land Use Plan reviewed the proposed land use categories and assessed the feasibility and compatibility with adjacent existing land uses. The Plan included Community Commercial as a new category designated for the West Vail commercial area to serve the needs of permanent residents and long-term visitors. Town of Vail Page 18 The proposed rezoning to PA -2 alone is compatible with this land use designation with the amount of commercial development on this site. Within the PA -2 zone district commercial uses are limited to ten (10) percent of the total GRFA on the site and fifteen (15) percent with a conditional use permit. The amount of commercial on this site is within fifteen percent, which will require a CUP, but still has room to expand in the future. If there is desire for more commercial expansion in the future that fits within the 15% limit then the CUP could be amended to allow it. If there is desire for more than that amount, a change to allowed uses on the site could be considered based on the planning documents at that time. Staff finds that the proposed zone district amendment conforms to this criterion. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. The proposed zone district amendment results in a harmonious relationship among land uses. The rezoning is consistent with the following goals, objectives and policies of the Land Use Plan: • Goal 3.2 "The Village and Lionshead areas [are] the best location for hotels to serve the future needs of destination skiers." • Goal 3.4 "Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial area to accommodate both local and visitor needs." The site includes commercial aspects and as stated previously has room to grow within the PA -2 district with the use of the CUP process. As hotels are considered a commercial use then allowing the hotel to remain and expand would fit within the Goal 3.4. Goal 3.2 above does not restrict hotels from being located in other areas of the town, but simply states that the best areas are in the villages. This distinction is what allows the PA -2 zone district itself to not conflict with the Land Use Plan. Staff finds that the proposed zone district amendment conforms to this criterion. 4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole. The proposed zone district amendment does serve the best interest of the community as a whole. The comprehensive plan encourages a year round healthy economy, which is aided by the redevelopment of infill properties. The existing hotel has not been significantly upgraded since its original construction Town of Vail Page 19 and an amendment to allow that to occur would serve as a benefit to the community. Staff finds that the proposed zone district amendment conforms to this criterion. 5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features. As this area is currently developed there is not a natural environment that has not already been disturbed. The proposed uses being added to this existing development would not negatively affect riparian corridors, air quality, water quality, or other environmental aspects. The application is proposing to add vegetation to the site. Staff finds that the proposed zone district amendment conforms to this criterion. 6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district. The proposed zone district amendment is generally consistent with the PA -2 zone district's purpose, as it allows for lodges and residential accommodations on a short-term basis outside of the core areas of the villages. It also includes the commercial operations that support the lodge use. Staff finds that the proposed zone district amendment conforms to this criterion. 7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. The PA -2 zone district was created in 2006, more than 20 years after this property was originally zoned CC3. The PA -2 zone district is intended to "provide for lodging sites located outside the periphery of the town's Vail Village and Lionshead commercial core areas". It is differentiated from the Public Accommodation zone district by the fact that it allows for limited service lodge units which were desired to be kept out of the village centers. PA -2 allows for hotels to be added to areas around the town where it is compatible with adjacent uses. While the physical conditions have not changed, the creation of the PA -2 shows that the town believes that there are locations appropriate for hotels outside of the core area. Staff finds that the proposed zone district amendment conforms to this criterion. Town of Vail Page 20 8. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval 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 the parcel 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. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval 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 the parcel 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". Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward this recommendation of approval, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outline in Section VI of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated April 13th, 2020, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town, and 2. That the amendment does further the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations, and 3. That the amendment does promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural Town of Vail Page 21 environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant Narrative, March 16, 2020 C. Public Comment — Patricia Lauer — 12-3-19 D. Public Comment — Tania Boyd — 12-3-19 E. Public Comment — Patricia Lauer — 2-4-2020 F. Public Comment — Elyse Howard — 2-3-2020 G. Public Comment— Chris Romer— 1-27-2020 H. Public Comment — Carey and Brett August — 12-7-2019 I. Public Comment — James Pyke — 2-26-2020 J. Public Comment — VCBA — 3-4-2020 K. Vail Local Housing Authority Letter — 12-18-2019 L. Public Comment — Michael Spiers — 3-3-2020 M. PEC Minutes from Meeting on 12-09-2019 N. PEC Minutes from Meeting on 3-09-2020 Town of Vail Page 22 ii O O -10 lLO L LO N O �x co d' W � 0 M 1 � y Q W a .� � CL0 ' coLL owo U CL .O ca � °ALO W p N O ff^�^ v, ii O O -10 lLO L LO N O �x Hig h Iin le , A DoubleTree by Hilton Submitted to the Town of Vail: November 11, 2019 Revised January 27, 2020 Revised February 25, 2020 Revised March 16, 2020 VU I Id Mauriello Planning Group Consultant Directory Developer/Owner Mark Mutkoski TNREF III Bravo Vail, LLC Yo True North Management Group, LLC 10 Bank Street, 12 Floor White Plains, NY 10606 Project Manager/Owner Representative Michael O'Connor Triump Development 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 970.688.5057 Planning and Entitlements Dominic Mauriello Mauriello Planning Group PO Box 4777 Eagle, CO 81657 970-376-3318 dominic@mpgvail.com Community Outreach Kristin Williams Commfluent PO Box 3402 Vail CO 81658 970 390-0062 kristin@commfluent.com Architect Bill Pierce and Kit Austin Pierce Austin Architects 1650 Fallridge Road, Suite C-1 Vail, CO 81657 970.476.6342 Landscape Architecture Dennis Anderson Dennis Anderson Assoc., Inc. P.O. Box 3722, Eagle CO 81631 970.390.3745 Civil Engineering Matt Wadey, P. E. Alpine Engineering Inc. 34510 Highway 6, Unit A-9 Edwards, CO 81632 970.926.3373 Geology and Geo Hazards Julia Frazier, P.G. Skyline Geoscience jfrazier@skylinegeoscience.com 303.746.1813 Traffic Engineering Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE McDowell Engineering P.O. Box 4259 Eagle, CO 81631 kari@mcdowelleng.com 970.623.0788 Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 2 Table of Contents Consultant Directory 2 Background 9 Review Process 11 Rezoning 11 Special Development District 13 Major Exterior Alteration 14 Zoning Analysis 15 Parking 17 Deviations Sought through SDD 23 Workforce Housing Plan 28 Criteria for Review: Rezoning 33 Criteria for Review: Special Development District 40 Criteria for Review: Major Exterior Alteration 46 Conclusion 49 Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 3 Introduction Highline, a DoubleTree by Hilton (Highline hereafter), is requesting an application for rezoning to Public Accommodation 2 (PA2) and the establishment of a new Special Development District (SDD) for Highline to facilitate the construction of a new mixed-use building located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. West in Vail. The proposed project consists of an employee housing apartment building, limited service lodge units (LSLUs), accommodation units/hotel rooms (AUs), and an Employee Housing Unit (EHU) dorm space. As part of the application, the applicant is requesting a major exterior alteration in order to add the additional lodging and EHUs. In the interest of providing a much needed public benefit, the applicant originally proposed the development of an employee housing apartment building that included 16 units, providing a total of 40 bedrooms. Through the review process and in order to address the concerns of the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town staff, the EHU building has been modified to 15 units with 34 bedrooms. This building is not required as part of the project, but is being proposed as a public benefit. The workforce housing requirement for the additional lodging space is being met with the addition of the EHU dorm space. The project furthers three key identified community goals: the provision of employee housing, the provision of live beds, and encouragement of in -fill development. New Underground Parking New Hotel Wing. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 4 The rendering below includes the previously proposed EHU Building massing prior to March 16, 2020. The proposed project includes the following: 176 AUs with approximately 32,555 sq. ft. of net new GRFA (79 net new, one existing AU lost to circulation needs) 19 LSLUs with approximately 20,050 sq. ft. of GRFA (previously dwelling units) 12 employee housing bedrooms within a dormitory space with approximately 4,400 sq. ft. of floor area 15 employee housing units (1, 2, and 3 bedroom units) with approximately 13,502 sq. ft. of floor area n 208 total parking spaces (39 net new parking spaces, 48 of which are enclosed) To facilitate the development of this project, the property is proposed to be rezoned from CC3 to PA2, and include a SDD. The SDD designation will apply to the entirety of the Highline property, including the pre-existing lodge and restaurant facilities. The only practical method to achieve the project as contemplated is a zoning change for the site to align with the historical use of the property as a lodge as well as an SDD for some relatively minor deviations. The required deviations are solely generated by the inclusion of the Employee Housing structure within the development project. If that structure were removed, no SDD would be necessary. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 5 Rezoning and SDD applications follow a similar path in that they are each recommended by the Planning and Environmental Commission and receive approval by the Town Council. For major exterior alteration applications, the Planning and Environmental Commission is the final review authority. Highline presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment within the Town of Vail. It provides a smooth transition between the West Vail commercial core to its east and west and residential to the west (partially) and to the north. As an infill site, with a portion of the proposed development constructed upon an existing parking lot that currently serves the existing Highline and a previously disturbed portion of the site, there are minimal, if any, impacts to the natural environment. Public Benefits of the Project: Employee housing far in excess of requirements, all on-site and near the major employment center, addressing one of the documented critical needs of the Town Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 6 (The proposal generates the need to house 9.5 employees and the project well exceeds this requirement) All EHUs are highly functional and livable dwellings within the employment center of Vail for single and/or double occupancy 15 Type 3 EHUs, not required as mitigation, are proposed as a benefit of the project Redevelopment of an infill site in the Town of Vail as suggested by the Vail Land Use Plan Economic vitality and enhanced public and private revenues to Town as a result of new lodging facilities and locals housing Improving the Town's hotel bed base New community sidewalk along Chamonix Road along the Highline frontage improving neighborhood accessibility to and from the commercial areas Fiscal Impacts of the project: To expand upon the potential positive impacts to the economy, the applicant has estimated the lodging and sales taxes revenues of the hotel addition (79 new hotel rooms and meeting space) as well as the sales tax revenue impacts of the hotel guests and onsite employee housing proposed. The incremental sales and lodging tax collections for the hotel is estimated as follows: • Total annual sales and lodging tax collections: $694,000 • Town of Vail annual sales and lodging tax collections: $382,000 The Vail Local Housing Authority commissioned an analysis in 2019 on the Economic Value and Community Benefits of Resident Housing Investment. The report cites numerous benefits of local resident housing including increased sales tax revenues, benefits to local businesses in terms of labor supply, increase in revenue for local schools, increased supply of volunteerism, reduced carbon footprint, and other benefits. Looking at only one of the benefits, direct Town of Vail sales tax revenue per household, the 15 deed restricted employee housing units would generate approximately: • $18,600 per year, based on annual Town sales collections per household of $1,165 • That sales tax collection is based upon approximately $29,000 spent annually per household in the local economy, or • $466,000 spent annually within the local economy from the 15 new employee units. The applicant has also estimated the total revenues generated by the additional 79 hotel rooms and meeting space in terms of guest spending. Data on guest spending is limited. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 7 When the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was adopted over 20 years ago, it was estimated, based on a study by RRC Associates that the average spending per hotel guest was $100 per day and it was assumed that on average there were two guests per room. The applicant believes these numbers, both the average spending and the average of 2 persons per room are now grossly understated due to the age of the data, the effects of inflation, and other factors. In 2018 the EGE Air Alliance commissioned a study, also prepared by RRC Associates, of passengers at the Eagle Airport. This report found that the average daily expenditure per person in 2018 was $405 per day. The 2018 data was collected from only those people who flew into the Eagle Airport and may be a slightly more affluent data set versus all occupants at the Highline. In order to be ultra conservative, the applicant assumed an average daily spending per person of $100. If one assumes a 63% annualized occupancy rate of the 79 new hotel rooms, the resulting annual spending from hotel guests at this site would be approximately $3.6 million per year. In summary: $382,000 in incremental direct onsite TOV sales and lodging tax collections from the hotel $466,000 in annual local resident spending from 15 units, plus associated sales tax $3.6 million in annual incremental hotel guest spending, and associated sales tax, to the local economy. Planned Future Subdivision: A future subdivision application will be processed for the property. This future application will provide for a total of two parcels. One to accommodate the hotel and all of its related uses, and another parcel for the employee housing structure. While the properties will be tied together as it relates zoning and development standards, creating a separate parcel for the employee housing building will facilitate a separate ownership for the purpose of financing the employee housing separately from the hotel. This proposed subdivision concept is key and inherent in the proposed development of the site. The Type 3 EHU building will be developed at the same time as the hotel as a single phase. The subdivision of the property will be required prior to a final CO being issued on the EHU building. Public Art: The applicant proposes to provide public art, yet to be determined, with a value of at least $15,000. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 8 Background The Highline site was originally built under the jurisdiction of Eagle County. In 1979, the newly constructed facility received a certificate of occupancy from Eagle County. It was then annexed to the Town of Vail as part of a larger annexation of the West Vail area by Ordinance No. 43, Series of 1980, approved on December 10, 1980. Per the statutory requirements, the newly annexed land was required to be zoned by the Town of Vail within 90 days of annexation, by March 10, 1981. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1981, was first read in on March 3, 1981. This ordinance created the Commercial Core III (hereinafter "CC3") zone district, under which this site was zoned. It appears the zone district was created hastily as the CC3 zoning district did not allow for hotels or dwelling units which were already developed on the property. From the inception, the CC3 zone district upon application to this site rendered the existing hotel a nonconforming use. Over four years later, on August 15, 1985, the Colorado Court of Appeals overturned the original West Vail annexation because a rectangular tract owned by the BLM was between two contiguous tracts that were being annexed. This BLM land was improperly included in the proposed area to be annexed, and without this land, the proposed annexation would be 'invalid for lack of the necessary one-sixth contiguity.' The Town of Vail moved quickly to again annex West Vail. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1986, re -annexed Recent Drone Aerial of Highline Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 9 a ,r 14 West Vail on January 29, 1986. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1986, was first read in on March 18, 1986. There were no changes to the zoning for the site in this ordinance even though the hotel (76 hotel rooms) and condominium units (19 dwelling units with 20 lock offs) on this property had existed for 7 years (the condominium units were added in 1983). This was likely an oversight since the hotel had been there for so long and because by that time the Town had adopted the Vail Land Use Plan which encouraged the preservation and expansion of the Town's lodging bed base, specifically in the West Vail area. Thus, since 1981, this site has operated as a nonconforming use and maintained its use as a lodge as it was first built in 1979. A nonconforming use cannot be expanded or modified except if changed to a permitted or conditional use even though the Town has been focused for the last 40 years at encouraging and expanding the hotel base. Today, the primary intended uses on the site permitted by CC3 zoning are the commercial spaces (two restaurants and limited retail), which is key reason that a rezoning to PA2 is necessary to allow the hotel. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 10 Review Process Rezoning As discussed above, the existing lodge and a few related development standards do not conform with the provisions of the CC3 zoning on the property and therefore necessitates a change in zoning on the property. Some of the current issues with the CC3 zone district as applied to the Highline include the following: Use 0*1 Hotel - The existing hotel (76 hotel rooms) and condominiums (19 dwelling units with 20 lock -offs) are nonconforming uses. This means that the lodging use cannot be expanded. Building Height 0*1 The height of the existing building is 52 feet (worst-case), though the maximum allowable building height for the CC3 zoning district is 35 feet. Density The CC3 zone district allows 12 dwelling units per acre, yet does not permit dwelling units. Because accommodation units are not allowed, there is no indication of how accommodation units are treated with regard to density. Parking_ in the Front Setback The front setback on this property is the North Frontage Road frontage. Parking is developed to the front property line and does not comply with this requirement however, the right-of-way has been nicely landscaped to provided an adequate buffer. The applicant examined a variety of potential approaches to redeveloping the the property in terms of the Town's development review processes. The existing CC3 zone district was compared with the PA, PA2, and HDMF (High Density Multiple Family) to understand which zone district most closely aligns with the existing development on the property and that proposed by the applicant. No one zone district perfectly aligns with existing or proposed conditions. To maintain the CC3 zoning on the property, that zone district would require significant amendments. These amendments, which would apply to the remainder of the parcels in the West Vail commercial area, may not be appropriate for all properties zoned CC3. Hotels and limited service lodge units would have to be added as permitted uses, the height allowance changed, as well as GRFA and density provisions modified. It was determined that the best avenue to facilitate the development is to rezone the property to PA2. There are several benefits of rezoning the property to PA2, including greater assurance that the property will remain as a hotel into the future. This provides protection that one of the Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 11 primary uses the Town seeks to support and encourage due to its ability to generate significant tax revenues to the Town and increase the overall vitality of the Town year round. The rezoning results in a property where all of the uses are conforming and comply with zoning. In addition, the allowable building height in PA2 of 48' more closely aligns with the existing hotel which has one area on the roof of the building at 52'. The proposed new buildings fully comply with the 48' height limit with further restrictions imposed by the SDD. The Planning and Environmental Commission at its December 9, 2019 hearing (a worksession) seemed to indicate that the PA2 zoning and the SDD overlay were appropriate designations with the inclusion of the Employee Housing apartment building in the same phase of development. The PEC also seemed to agree with the proposed parking reductions. The rezoning to PA2 resolves the flaw of having included this property in the CC3 zone district to begin with. The following nonconformities are resolved or reduced by rezoning to PA2: n Lodging and all other uses will now comply as permitted/conditional uses n Building height more closely reflects the height of the existing structure on the property with a height allowance of 48'. All new buildings will comply with 48' limit with additional limits imposed by the SDD n Density issues will be resolved n GRFA issues will be resolved There will continue to be some development standards in the PA2 zone district where the existing site and proposed development does not fully comply, including the following: Parking in the front setback. Because this condition is pre-existing and is also true in CC3 zone district, and because the applicant is not making the condition any worse, the proposed redevelopment is not required to meet this standard. If preferred by the Town Council, a deviation from the parking located in the front setback could be included in the SDD proposal. Requirement for 75% of all parking to be enclosed. Unlike the CC3 zone district, the PA2 zone district requires 75% of the parking to be enclosed. Today, all of the existing parking is unenclosed surface parking. The applicant is proposing to enclose 48 new proposed parking spaces with the proposed additions and actually reduce the amount of pavement associated with the surface parking areas. Through the use of a valet program, and being more efficient with the use of surface pavement, the applicant is proposing a net increase in the number of surface parking spaces while reducing the amount of pavement associated with surface parking. Overall, 23% percent of the parking onsite will be enclosed, however, comparing the existing parking requirement of 185 spaces (though only 169 spaces exist) with the proposed parking requirement of Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 12 208 spaces, there is only a net new requirement of 23 parking spaces or 39 spaces over what exists. The proposal is to add a total of 48 enclosed parking spaces and reorganize the existing surface parking areas. The result is that all of the net new parking is proposed to be enclosed. Therefore, the applicant believes that the proposed redevelopment complies with the 75% enclosure requirement based upon the net new impact of the proposal. Building height. The existing hotel building will continue to be nonconforming with respect to building height for the 52' existing hotel structure. All proposed buildings comply with the 48' building height allowance and therefore the redevelopment complies with the building height requirements. A Special Development District is being sought to provide some relief from parking related standards documented below generated solely due to the inclusion of the EHU structure. The applicant believes that the public benefits offered by this project, outweigh the relatively minor relief and deviation being sought. The benefits proposed include: n employee housing in excess of code requirements, n increase in the amount of hotel lodging provided within the Town, n increase in revenues to the Town and the business community, n increase in the amount of conference space provided within the Town, n dedication of easement for Chamonix Lane on applicant's property, and n the overall aesthetic improvements being proposed. Special Development District The applicant is seeking to rezone the property to a PA2 so that it can more accurately function in compliance with the zoning district. However, the applicant is faced with some minor deviations largely generated due to the effort by the applicant to provide a public benefit, addressing the employee housing crisis, by creating additional employee housing within the Town of Vail. These deviations include parking rates, valet parking, landscape areas dimensions, and snow storage (see parking section for details on these deviations). The deviations being created are solely due to the inclusion of the employee housing structure containing 15 units. No SDD would be required if the employee housing structure were removed from the proposal. Deviations such as the proposed, are common among Special Development Districts, especially when trying to redevelop a property that was originally developed under Eagle County regulations in the 1980s. In this case, the deviations being sought are relatively minor in terms of impacts to the community at large. The proposed deviations have little impact upon the bulk and mass of structure (height or footprint) but relate more to operational aspects of the property. All of the deviations have to do with the unique circumstances found on this Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 13 site and based upon how the property will be operated. There was a previous SDD granted on this property that was never implemented. Deviations from Underlying Zoning Section 12-9A-9, Development Standards, provides the mechanism for deviating from the underlying zone district. It states: Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the town council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the planning and environmental commission. Before the town council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12-9A-8 of this article. Major Exterior Alteration The PA2 Zone District requires a Major Exterior Alteration for the addition of dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, limited service lodge units, and the addition of 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial floor area or common space. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 14 Zoning Analysis Location: 2211 N. Frontage Rd. West/ VAIL DAS SCHONE FIL 3 Block: A Lot: 1 THRU:- Lot: 3, Subdivision: VAIL DAS SCHONE FIL 3 Lot: 1 VAIL DAS SCHONE 1 PT OF TR C VAIL DAS SCHONE 1 Parcel Number: 210311415017 Lot Size: 3.95 acres / 172,047 sq. ft. Existing Zoning: Commercial Core 3 (CC3) Proposed Zoning: Public Accommodation 2 (PA2) Development Standard Existing (CC3) Lot Area Lodging and Residential Uses 3.95 acres (rounded) 172,047 sq. ft. Proposed (PA2) 3.95 acres (rounded) 172,047 sq. ft. 97 AU 176 AU 19 DU 19 LSLU 12 EHU Dorm Units 15 EHUs (apartments) Commercial Uses (gross 1,520 sq. ft. hotel retail 1,520 sq. ft. hotel retail sq. ft.) 6,955 sq. ft. restaurant 6,955 sq. ft. restaurant 4,500 sq. ft. office/commercial 0 sq. ft. office/commercial (converted to EHU Dorm) Conference 3,076 sq. ft. gross area 7,666 sq. ft. gross area 2,666 sq. ft. conference seating 6,616 sq. ft. conference seating area area Parking 169 spaces 208 spaces Setbacks North - > 20 ft. North - 20 ft. East - > 20 ft. East - > 20 ft. South - > 20 ft. South - >20 ft. West - > 20 ft. West - >20 ft. Trash/Recycle 12' Height 52 ft. 52 ft. existing building 48 ft. new buildings Density 12 units per acre allowed Noncompliant with CC3 19 DU 97 AU Total: 116 "units" Uses do not count as density per code 176 AU 19 LSLU 12 EHU Dorm rooms 15 EHU apartments/condos Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 15 Development Standard GRFA EHU Floor Area Site Coverage k Landscape Area Internal Parking Landscaping (10% of surface parking area) Snow Storage (30% of surface parking area) Existing (CC3) Proposed (PA2) 51,614 sq. ft. (30%) allowed 258,070.5 sq. ft. (150%) allowed 45,250 sq. ft. (26.39/6) total 77,805 sq. ft. total 25,200 sq. ft. existing AUS 32,555 sq. ft. net new AUs 20,050 sq. ft. existing DUs 25,200 sq. ft. AUs existing 20,050 sq. ft. LSLU converted DUs 0 sq. ft. 17,902 sq. ft. total 4,400 sq. ft. EHU Dorm 13,302 sq. ft. EHUs 68,818 sq. ft. (40%) allowed 111,830 sq. ft. (65%) allowed Existing 36,084 sq. ft. (21 %) Proposed 62,070 sq. ft. (36%) 43,012 sq. ft. (25%) required 51,614.1 sq. ft. (30%) required 60,388 sq. ft. (35%) existing 53,946 sq. ft. (31.35%) proposed (with deviation and grasscrete area) see discussion of pedestrian easement Paved area = 72,194 sq. ft. Internal Landscaping Required 7,219.4 sq. ft. (10%) Internal Landscaping Existing: 6,564 sq. Ft. (9%) Paved Area: 72,194 sq. ft. Snow storage Required: 21,658.2 sq. ft. (30%) Snow Storage Existing: 23,210 sq. ft. (32%) sq. ft. *EHUs do not count towards density or GRFA. Paved area = 58,019 sq. ft. proposed Internal Landscaping Required: 5,802 sq. ft. (10%) Internal Landscaping Proposed: 12,715 sq. ft. (21.9%) (including grasscrete area) Paved area (unheated) = 59,134 sq. ft. Paved area (heated) = 2,303 sq. ft. Snow storage Required: 16,945 sq. ft. (30%/10%) Snow storage Proposed: 17,189 sq. ft. (including grasscrete area) see discussion of pedestrian easement Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 16 Parking Predicting the amount of parking that is needed for any use or development is a challenging endeavor. Parking regulations are rarely reflective of empirical data and usually developed by comparing one community to the next. Parking rates are influenced by the need to access a property by one's personal car, the availability of public transit, the availability of onsite private shuttles, airport shuttles, availability of taxis or Uber, and the ability to access other commercial offerings and services by foot. Highline is located in the West Vail core area, on the free Town of Vail bus system, and within easy pedestrian or bicycle access to many services. The applicant engaged McDowell Engineering to analyze the parking generation of this hotel property. Their analysis includes using the 5th Addition of the Parking Generation Manual published by ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) in 2019 and more importantly, the collection of local onsite parking data. The applicant collected parking data over a 11 month period to assist with this analysis. Section 12-10-20 Special Review Provisions of the Offstreet Parking and Loading requirements of the Town Code allow the PEC to reduce the parking requirements of the Town Code by up to 25% based upon data provided by a qualified consultant that shows less parking is required. The following findings must be made by the PEC: A. The parking demand will be less than the requirements identified in section 12-10-10 of this chapter; and B. The probable long term use of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand; and C. The use or activity is part of a demonstrated permanent program (including, but not limited to, "rideshare" programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts) intended to reduce parking demand that has been incorporated into the project's final approved development plan; and D. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation (including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services) is significant and integral to the nature of the use or business activity. All of the criteria above is met at this property and with the demands generated by the uses onsite. Their parking analysis is provided with the application materials provided. A summary is provided below. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 17 The analysis, based on the local data collected, shows that the highest average parking rate, with a 99% confidence interval, per room existing on the property is 0.67 parking spaces per hotel room (using Saturday as peak). This data represents that there are vacancies that occur and that there is not 100% occupancy. A 99% confidence level means that 99% of the time the parking rate will be at 0.67 parking spaces per hotel room or less. To account for vacancies and try to predict the parking rate during an assumed 100% occupancy scenario, the data was also analyzed based on the number of cars parked per occupied hotel room. The result is a peak average of 0.70 cars parked per occupied hotel room, with a 99% confidence level. A 99% confidence level means that 99% of the time the parking rate will be at 0.70 parking spaces per hotel room or less considering full occupancy of the hotel (worst-case scenario). Using national parking data prepared by the ITE, the rate for similar hotels (suburban hotels with conference/convention centers, hotel bar and restaurant, and retail uses) the average peak period parking demand is 0.74 spaces per room or 0.83 spaces per occupied room. The national parking data counts include meeting room space, retail, and hotel bar/restaurant so that the rates include those ancillary uses in the overall number. The ITE indicates that using local data is more accurate than relying on national data but we have included it here as a conservative analysis and to account for meeting room and commercial uses. The local data was collected during the busy Christmas week in 2019 but was not collected when the meeting space was being used. However, if you look at the use characteristics collected during the day (see parking study Figure 1, page 3), the peak parking being utilized from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm was 48 spaces leaving 121 spaces available during the day. The conclusion being that during the day, even at 100% hotel occupancy, there will be significant parking available during typical conference hours. Therefore, no adjustment was made to the proposed parking rate for the hotel based on the characteristics of parking. McDowell Engineering also performed a parking needs analysis based on the Lion's Ridge project located in Vail and found that the complex parking need is 1.06 parking spaces per unit. The applicant is proposing to reduce the parking requirement for the 15 unit workforce housing apartment building to 1.06 parking spaces per unit or 16 parking spaces. The following tables are parking calculation for the Highline based on local data for the hotel, the occupied room rate, and 99% confidence interval. The analysis was done based on Occupied Room to be most conservative. Parking for the EHUs is being reduced as noted above and third -party restaurants were calculated at the rates according to Town Code even though the local data count was inclusive of the two third party restaurants, thus providing an additional layer of conservatism. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 18 Use Units Per Unit Existing SF New SF Total SF 1 Space Req. Accomodation Unit 176 0.70 123.2 Limit Service Lodge Unit 19 0.70 13.3 Meeting Space (seating area) Use occurs during the day (see discussion above) Lobby Bar (Seating) Included in the rate above 3rd Party Restaurant (Seating) 2277 0 2277 8.3 18.9 Spa - Simply Massage Included in the rate above Retail - Charter Sports Included in the rate above Dorm Apartment (one unit, 12 bedrooms) 1 2.5 2.5 EH U 15 1.06 15.9 Total Parking Need 173.8 Parking provided 208.0 Difference/Surplus 34.2 The McDowell parking analysis shows that the parking need is fairly consistent with our original submittal which sought to seek deviation from the conference parking calculation as applied outside the core area and reduction to the parking for the onsite retail uses within the hotel (uses with no access or presence outside of the hotel common areas). Parking Management Plan: The Town staff requested the applicant provide a parking management plan to understand how the parking will be managed or this project. The parking for the hotel and its related uses, the two, third -party restaurant spaces, and the proposed EHU Building have parking that is co - mingled on the property. Below is a description of the parking provided followed by the management elements. Parking Summary: Total parking provided: 208 spaces Total parking proposed as required: 175 Total valet spaces: 111 (53.3% of total) Total enclosed spaces: 48 (23% of total site, all of net new parking) Total net new parking: 39 spaces Garage parking spaces: 42 valet, 6 regular Surface Parking spaces: Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 19 69 valet spaces 80 regular spaces 4 compact spaces 4 employee spaces (impacted by loading space used infrequently) 1 parallel space (plus one short term space) 2 spaces within the porte cochere 2 valet operation spaces (temporary car shuffling, not included in parking count) Controlled Access Parking: There are a total of 208 parking spaces provided onsite. Of these 208 parking spaces, 556 of them are located outside of the controlled access area. Within the controlled access area, 32 spaces are capable of being self -parked where the guest or other user is given access beyond the gate, however, the owner may decide to valet park all of the spaces as necessary. Hotel Guest Parking: All hotel guest parking will be accommodated by valet or controlled gate access. During peak winter season, all hotel guests may be valet parked at the discretion of the owner. EHU Apartments: The 15 EHU apartments require a total of 16 parking spaces. The parking for these apartments will be located within the parking area with controlled access and in the parallel parking (1 parking space and 1 short term space) along Chamonix Lane. The number of parking spaces needed for the apartments may end up being less for the 16 units and the need of the occupants to have daily access to their cars will be evaluated based on experience. In concept, there will be 12 self -park spaces available within the hotel parking area, 1 self parking spaces along Chamonix Lane, and another 3 valet spaces available to EHU residents. Because the EHU building is a rental apartment building, the owner will be able to control the number of occupants with cars as documented in leases. EHU Dormitory: The EHU dormitory will be targeted to employees of the hotel and those with limited need for car ownership. It is anticipated that only 2 parking spaces will be necessary for the dormitory. These parking spaces will either be accommodated within the valet system or otherwise designated for the dormitory use. Since this dormitory is a rental facility, the owner will be able to closely control number of occupants with vehicles as documented in leases. Retail and Restaurant Establishments: The primary parking for the retail and restaurant facilities employees and customers, other than hotel guests who are already parked, will be within the self parking spaces Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 20 provided outside of the controlled parking area. There are 56 parking spaces available to patrons outside of the controlled parking area. Valet parking services will also be provided to these customers as desired by the customer. Meeting Room Space: Parking for the meeting rooms will be primarily accommodated by the hotel parking facilities, as these users are already parked within the facility. Users of the conference space, other than hotel guests, will be parked via the hotel valet system. Valet Operations: The valet operation will require the shuffling around of cars within the exterior parking lot and within the parking garage. For the exterior parking lot, two parking spaces, not included in the total parking count, have been provided so that cars can be shuffled in the parking lot without impairing the operation of the drive aisles. Within the enclosed parking area, where the parking is only staked two cars deep, cars will be parked temporarily within the drive aisle to perform the shuffling of cars. The valet parking layout complies fully with Town Code. Parking Lot Maintenance and Snow Removal: The exterior parking lot will require snow removal and maintenance on a continuous basis during the winter months. The hotel experiences high turnover of parking spaces during the day as guests check out of the hotel in the morning and new guests arrive in the evenings. This daily reduction in parking as well as the typical hotel occupancy rates which are far less than 100%, 99% of the time, will allow for snow removal and maintenance. When the need arrises, snow will be stored temporarily within the parking lot until it can be removed and trucked offsite. In no case will snow be temporarily stored within the parking areas for more than one week. The drive aisle/ ramp on the north side of the existing hotel building will be heated in order to maintain it free from snow and ice and reduce the needs for snow storage. Hotel Shuttle Operation: The hotel has two shuttles that operate 365 days a year depending on need. In general, the shuttle at peak times of the year, transports hotel guests with the commercial core areas of the Town on a continuous loop from 8:00 am to 10:30 am and again from 3:30 pm to 6:00 pm. During the afternoon and in the evening, the shuttles run on -demand. This service makes it possible for hotel guests to book the Highline and arrive via van or taxi and therefore not require a car during their stay. Employee Parking Generally: In general, employees of the hotel and businesses on this campus are required or encouraged to use public transportation in order to reduce the parking demands of the Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 21 property. Parking requirements and studies reflect the total number of cars parked on commercial or residential property and therefore include cars that are parked by employees as well as guests and consumers. Therefore, parking for employees is inherent in the parking counts. That said, the Highline intends to reduce the impacts on the environment and make more parking available to guests and consumers but discouraging employees from driving to work. Fire Truck Turn Around Area: The fire truck turnaround area shall be maintained free from any obstacles, ice, and snow. Snow storage shall not infringe upon the turnaround area. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 22 Deviations Sought through SDD The applicant is attempting to provide a public benefit to the Town of Vail, and Eagle County at large, by building additional EHU units on its property and improve local economic conditions with increased Town and business revenues. In doing so, the applicant is using space that could otherwise be put toward parking, landscaping, and snow storage. If the Employee Housing building proposed were removed from the project, no deviations would be necessary and no SDD would be required. Because it would be a lost benefit to the community to not build the employee housing in this location, it is for this reason that the applicant is seeking the following deviations. Conference Parking: The current parking regulations allow a fractional fee club style hotel outside of the core areas to have its parking related to conference facilities reduced from 1 parking space for each 120 sq. ft. to 1 parking space for each 330 sq. ft. The same calculation is true within the core areas of Lionshead and Vail Village. Yet a regular hotel, outside of the core area, is not afforded the same relief as that of a fractional fee property. This is likely an error or oversight in the current parking regulations. The parking requirement for meeting rooms or conference rooms at 1 space for 120 sq. ft. is for a stand alone facility with no lodging onsite. It makes sense that a hotel with meeting room space, especially when the space is very limited total size, would primarily be occupied by people already staying and parked at the hotel. The primary reason a hotel provides meeting space is to increase occupancy of the hotel during slower periods of the year. Additionally, the hotel operator provides shuttle services from West Vail to the core areas of Lionshead and Vail Village which then requires less parking overall for the hotel. The applicant prepared a site specific study to understand the parking utilization onsite. The applicant is requesting a deviation that is consistent with the parking analysis prepared by McDowell Engineering. Meeting room users are mostly also guests within the hotel that are already parked as a hotel guest. The parking study shows that from the hours of approximately 9:00 am and 5:00 pm, the hours when the meeting rooms would typically be in use, the parking onsite was more than 70% available or empty. Therefore, there is adequate parking within the facility to accommodate the few that might attend an event that are not already staying at the facility. The hotel also operates a town shuttle service that can also provide transit for meeting room users onsite. The parking analysis prepared by McDowell Engineering, supports this reduction in the amount of parking for this site. Parking for commercial and retail space: Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 23 The existing and proposed hotel includes an 820 sq. ft. Simply Massage space and a 700 sq. ft. Charter Sports space. The Town's parking requirements do not provide any reduction in parking requirement for these types of retail/service facilities within a hotel. The parking study that was prepared analyzed the property as well as looking at national parking data. Hotels typically have retail uses located within them and those parking counts are accounted for in the data collected. The analysis shows that there is no additional parking that needs to be assessed on these retail uses within the hotel. The applicant is proposing to maintain the parking requirements per code for Casa Mexico and West Side Cafe, even though some percentage of users come from the hotel guests. Parking 15 Unit Apartment Building: The applicant originally proposed to meet Town Code for the parking for the 15 unit employee housing apartment building: 2 parking spaces per unit. However, based on concerns related to snow storage and landscaping, the applicant is seeking a parking deviation that reflects the actual parking utilization of EHUs in Vail. Vail's access to transit allows the local workforce to live and work in Vail without the need for a car. This is evidenced by parking studies that have been conducted in Vail. McDowell Engineering performed a parking needs analysis at Lion's Ridge, a similar rental complex located in Vail, in support of the Boothfalls application. This analysis shows that the observed parking rate per unit is 1.06 parking spaces per unit. The applicant is providing 16 parking spaces which reflects the parking need. Valet Parking: The code allows up to 50% of the required parking to be within a valet parking program. The proposed redevelopment project requires a total of 174 parking spaces and provides 208 total parking spaces onsite. There are 111 parking spaces proposed as valet parking spaces or 51.62% of the required parking. The applicant is requesting a deviation within the proposed SDD to account for this minor deviation. Snow Storage: The code requires that an area equal to 30% of the surface parking areas that are not heated for snow melt and 10% of the surface parking or driveways that are heated with snowmelt be provided as snow storage. The proposed project provides approximately 17,189 sq. ft. of snow storage where 16,945 sq. ft. is required. The applicant proposes to manage the snow storage onsite by utilizing an area of the parking lot proposed as grasscrete designated for valet parking to temporarily store snow until it can be removed from the property after a large storm event. Grasscrete is a permeable surface that can grow grass but also allows vehicles to park on it without damage. In the summer months, this area can be used for parking while in the winter months it can also serve as snow storage. Similar successful approaches to snow removal occur in the remainder of the West Vail commercial area. The Town Code does not Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 24 allow areas where trees are located to be counted for snow storage even though it is common to store snow around the bases of deciduous trees. In fact landscape areas with mature trees are used today for snow storage. The applicant is seeking a deviation from this requirement in order to maximize snow storage. The applicant is proposing to provide a 6' pedestrian easement along the east property line. This is provided in the event there is a future redevelopment of properties to the east and the area is needed for a joint pedestrian walkway. Until the walk is provided, the snow storage calculations will remain as proposed herein. If the full 6' pedestrian easement is paved with a pedestrian pathway, the amount of snow storage will be reduced by another 2,535 sq. ft. The applicant is requesting a deviation within the proposed SDD to account for the snow storage calculation and counting of treed areas in the calculation. Landscape Area: The total landscape area required by the existing property under CC3 zoning is 43,012 sq. ft. which represents 25% of the total site area. The PA2 zone district requires a minimum of 30% or 51,614 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing 53,946 sq. ft. or 31.35% of the site as landscape area including the grasscrete area, in excess of the minimum required. The calculations for landscape areas only allow 20% of the landscape area calculation to include "hardscape" improvements like pools, pool decks, and sidewalks. As proposed the project includes hardscape areas of 16,052 sq. ft. but based on the definition of landscape area, only 10,323 sq. ft. is able to be counted. The code limits areas on a property that can qualify as landscape area. Per code, a landscape area must be at least 15' wide and 15' deep and contain a minimum of 300 sq. ft. to qualify as a landscape area. This precludes a substantial amount of landscape areas within this project. This site provides many large areas of landscaping that does not meet the 15' or 300 sq. ft. requirements. As examples, Commercial Core 1 and 2 and Lionsheads Mixed Use 1 and 2 have no minimum landscape area dimension requirement. Several other zone districts have a 10' x 10' requirement. This standard is not consistent throughout the Town Code. The applicant is proposing to provide a 6' pedestrian easement along the east property line. This is provided in the event there is a redevelopment of properties to the east and the area is needed for a joint pedestrian walkway. Until the walk is provided, the landscape area calculations will remain as proposed herein. If the full 6' pedestrian easement is paved with a pedestrian pathway, the amount of landscape area will be reduced by another 2,535 sq. ft. The applicant is seeking a deviation from this minimum size limit for landscape areas within the proposed SDD. Future Subdivision: A future subdivision plat will be filed to create a separate parcel for the EHU apartment building so that it can be financed and owned separately from the hotel. The EHU apartment Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 25 building parcel is intended to meet the minimum lot size of the PA2 zone district (10,000 sq. ft. minimum) and site perimeter setback requirements but would not be subject to interior setbacks (south and west property lines) nor the requirement of being of a shape that can enclose an 80' by 80' square. The intent is not to create a lot that is intended to be sold as a development parcel, but instead to allow a separate ownership within the context of an overall planned development of the Highline SDD. The intent is that the entire development site, including the hotel and the EHU apartment building, would be treated as one parcel for the purpose of applying the development standards as adopted by this SDD, including parking requirements (i.e., shared parking facilities). These deviations to the subdivision and zoning regulations to accommodate this future subdivision are also embodied in this SDD. The subdivision approval is proposed to occur prior to a CO being issued to the EHU Building. Slope of Driveways: The existing driveway does not meet Town Code as portions of unheated drive are steeper than 9% and the access points do not meet the required 4% for the first 30'. The proposed SDD is not making these standards any worse but staff has requested that we include this existing condition as a deviation from development standards. Trash and Recycling: The trash and recycling enclosure is proposed to extend into the side setback on the east side of the employee housing building resulting in a 12' setback of this one story element to the property line. The enclosure complies with the 20' setback from Chamonix Lane. The enclosures are capable of holding two 1.5 yard containers. One will be used for recycling and the other for trash. This volume of trash and recycling is adequate for the EHU building with service up to twice a week. While not deviations, the follow issues noted as applicable to these applications: Commercial Uses: There is a total of 8,475 sq. ft. of retail and restaurant uses within the hotel today. The PA2 allows there to be these commercial uses on site as a permitted use limited to 10% of the GRFA constructed onsite. The PA2 allows this limit to be increased to 15% with a Conditional Use Permit. The GRFA of the property is 77,805 sq. ft. (only hotel room floor area) thus allowing 7,780 sq. ft. of commercial uses as a permitted use or 11,670 sq. ft. as a conditional use. The applicant will pursue approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to an application for a building permit for any of the proposed improvements to bring the commercial uses into compliance with the PA2 zone district. In the future, if the Town wants to allow more variety of commercial uses and more floor area of commercial uses in the PA2 zone district, amendments to the PA zone district could allow these changes. Existing Manmade Site Grades: A small area of the site has grades that exceed 40% slope. Section 12-21-10 Development Restricted states in part "No structure shall be built on a slope of forty percent (40%) or greater Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 26 except in single -family residential, two-family residential, or two-family primary/secondary residential zone districts." This regulation was intended to apply to natural grades and not where grades exist due to grading caused by prior development or excavation and is therefore not applicable to the Highline property. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 27 Workforce Housing Plan Section 12-23-8: Administration, of the Vail Town Code requires the submittal of an Employee Housing Plan for all projects subject to development review. The proposed project exceeds both the total requirement and the onsite requirement for employee housing. In fact, in the interest of providing a much needed public benefit, the applicant is proposing the development of an employee housing apartment building that will include 15 units, providing a total of 38 bedrooms. Town Code limits occupancy of employee housing to two persons per unit. This building is not required as part of the project, but is being proposed as a public benefit. The workforce housing requirement for the additional lodging space is being met with the addition of the EHU dorm space. The Employee Housing structure is intended to be developed on a separate parcel of land that will be subdivided from the remainder of the property, yet tied to the overall property for the purpose of applying zoning and development standards. This will facilitate its development by a separate entity from the hotel to accommodate a separate financing structure while still being integral to the hotel campus. A. Calculation Method: The calculation of employee generation, including credits if applicable, and the mitigation method by which the applicant proposes to meet the requirements of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: Inclusionary zoning does not apply to this application as there are no new dwelling units or GRFA being proposed. In fact, 19 dwelling units are being removed and replaced with Limited Service Lodge Units. Therefore, the property will maintain an inclusionary employee housing credit of 2,005 sq. ft. of EHU floor area that can be used in the future, should dwelling units ever be proposed within the property. Commercial linkage applies to this project. Commercial Linkage Calculation Use Calculation Total Employees Generated 79 net new 0.6 employees per unit accommodation units 19 net new LSLUs Conference Space Removal of 4,500 sq. ft. office space Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 0.6 employees per unit 0.8 employee per 1,000 feet of net new floor area (3,950 new) 3.2 employees/1,000 sq.ft. Net employees generated Mitigation Rate 47.4 11.4 3.2 -14.4 47.6 20% 28 Use Calculation Total Employees Generated Total Commercial Linkage 9.5 employees to be housed Requirement The proposed project generates a net requirement of 9.5 employees to be housed. This will offset by the applicant's proposal of an EHU dormitory style housing to accommodate up to 17.6 employees. Thus, the proposal has a surplus of 8.1 employees that shall be carried forward as a credit against future employee generating proposals on the property. The applicant is also proposing to develop a 15 -unit employee housing apartment structure onsite concurrent with the expansion of the hotel. These units will allow the applicant to establish an employee housing bank pursuant to section 12-23-7 of the Town Code. However, in order to provide a public benefit, 25% of the units (two, three- bedroom units and two, one -bedroom units) will be set aside and excluded from any future mitigation bank established for the EHU building as permitted by sections 12-23-7 and 12-24-7 of the Town Code. The image below is the 15 unit EHU building proposed. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 29 B. Plans: A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan that demonstrates compliance with section 12-23-3, "Size And r 4 3 �'� 2 Building Requirements", of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: A dimensioned site plan and architectural 5 floor plan has been provided with this submittal. The EHU dormitory style unit has a total square footage of 4,400 sq. ft. and s SIO0.4GE with 12 total units or bedrooms. The ort°R minimum square footage per person occupying the dormitory is 250 sq. ft., which o ___ o therefore allows for a total of 17.6 � employees. C. Lot Size: The average lot size of the iLl proposed EHUs and the average lot size of a other dwelling units in the commercial development or redevelopment, if any; Applicant Analysis: s iati 11 iz This is not applicable to this application. D. Schedules: A time line for the provision of any off site EHUs; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. Proposed Dormitory Layout E. Off Site Units: A proposal for the provision of any off site EHUs shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. F. Off Site Conveyance Request: A request for an off site conveyance shall include a brief statement explaining the basis for the request; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 30 G. Fees In Lieu: A proposal to pay fees in lieu shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; and Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. H. Written Narrative: A written narrative explaining how the employee housing plan meets the purposes of this chapter and complies with the town's comprehensive plan. Applicant Analysis: Section 12-24-1: Purpose and Applicability, of the Vail Town Code provides the purpose of the Inclusionary Zoning Chapter: The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that new residential development and redevelopment in the town of Vail provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such residential development and redevelopment. The mitigation rates were established by the Town of Vail Employee Housing Nexus study. These rates are based on a survey of various properties in mountain communities. The Town Vail Land Use Plan offers the following goals with regard to employee housing: 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. In 2008, the Town of Vail established the Employee Housing Strategic Plan, which brought together all of the Town's goals on employee housing into a single plan. It provides the following: In 2006, through the Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future process the community established a housing goal. It is as follows: "The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 31 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. " Based upon the community's work, the Vail Town Council has confirmed the Town of Vail recognizes deed restricted employee housing as basic infrastructure. This type of housing allows employees to live within the town, promoting community, and improving the quality of our local workforce, thereby supporting the local economy, and reducing regional transit needs. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan (EHSP) seeks to meet the expectations established by the community and confirmed by the Town Council and provide enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the community's workforce to live in the Town of Vail through a variety of policies, regulations and publicly initiated development projects. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan then outlines the various objectives and policies for implementing the plan. It provides a list of Town Initiatives, one of which is specifically applicable to this project: Incentive Zoning and Density Bonuses The Town will consider workforce housing objectives in all review processes that permit discretion. This means that the Town will work actively with developers as a part of the Housing District, Special Development District review processes and requested changes in zoning to not only meet the requirements of existing code, but to look for opportunities to go beyond code requirements to encourage additional workforce housing to be created. As a part of these review processes the Town will work actively with developers to create incentives to develop housing that exceeds the minimal requirements contained in the code. Additional density may be granted in selected locations through the appropriate review processes, and fee waivers and subsidies may be considered. The Incentives Zoning and Density Bonuses help Vail to "catch up" with existing deficiencies and add to the overall percent of employees living within the Town of Vail. As indicated in this submittal, the proposal complies with and furthers the purposes and goals of the Town's employee housing requirements and master plans. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 32 Criteria for Review: Rezoning Section 12-3-7: AMENDMENT, of the Vail Town Code, provides the criteria for review of a zone district boundary amendment. The following section includes the criteria, along with an analysis of the compliance of the proposal with the criteria. 1. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; Applicant Analysis: The property is governed by the Vail Land Use Plan. Other applicable plans include the Vail 20120 Plan and the Housing Strategic Plan, all of which are described below: • Vail Land Use Plan The adopted map of the Vail Land Use Plan shows a designation of "Community Commercial" for the majority of the property. Per the Vail Land Use Plan of 1986, this area was designated to be Community Commercial. (See Vail Land Use Plan, Chapter VI - Proposed Land Use). This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short- term visitor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures (with densities up to 25 dwelling units or 50 accommodation units per buildable acre). These areas are oriented toward vehicular access from 1-70, with other support commercial and business services Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 33 included. Also allowed in this category, would be institutional uses and various municipal uses." (Vail Land Use Plan pg. 25) This new category has been designated for the West Vail commercial area, which is primarily oriented to serve the needs of the permanent resident and the long-term visitor. Because the community expressed the desire to concentrate commercial uses within existing commercial nodes, no new commercial areas have been designated. The CC land use area contains 24 acres or 1% of the land area. " (Vail Land Use Plan pg. 28). The intention of the Preferred Land Use Plan was to "...reflect[s] a balancing of existing conditions, community opinion, opportunities and constraints, and projected growth demands. Many properties were zoned at that time without much careful consideration of the impact of proposed zoning throughout West Vail, including this property. Being more thoughtful at the time would more likely have resulted in accommodation units being allowed in the CC3 zone district or perhaps there would have been an appropriate zone district applied to the hotel knowing that hotels, hot beds, and lodging taxes were and are top goals of the Town. The Vail Land Use Plan states that allowing accommodation units at 50 units per acre is appropriate. On this 3.95 acre site, that would allow for 197.5 accommodation units. The applicant is proposing 195 units, including the limited service lodge units. The proposal includes a zoning of Public Accommodation -2 District. The PA2 zone district allows lodges with multiple family dwellings, employee housing units, and commercial/office uses. The proposed amendment will make all of the uses conform with zoning. • Vail 20/20 Plan The Vail 20/20 Plan provides the following goals: Provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. 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. The proposed zoning of PA2 and the proposed SDD helps to further the goal of the Town of Vail to provide deed -restricted housing for 30% of the workforce. This property Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 34 creates an exciting opportunity to create new housing stock in an area that provides services and transportation within walking distance. • Employee Housing Strategic Plan The Employee Housing Strategic Plan outlines the Town of Vail's goals and policies to ensure employee housing. It provides the following objectives: •;• Actively address affordable housing for Vail workers to ensure that the community remains competitive in economic terms. •;• Increase and maintain deed -restricted housing within the Town to encourage the efficient use of resources by placing employees closer to their place of work. The proposed zoning will allow for the creation of new deed -restricted employee housing units within the Town of Vail, allowing Vail to remain economically competitive in attracting and maintaining a quality workforce. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the various Town of Vail planning documents and helps to further four of Vail's critical goals: creating employee housing within the Town of Vail boundaries to ensure that Vail remains economically competitive; maintaining and increasing the Town's lodging bed base to increase revenues and improve the vitality of the Town's economy; to increase occupancy and vitality in the shoulder seasons by providing new conference space; and promoting infill development within the Town. 2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents; and Applicant Analysis: The Highline site was originally built under the jurisdiction of Eagle County. In 1979, the newly constructed facility received a certificate of occupancy from Eagle County. It was then annexed to the Town of Vail as part of a larger annexation of the West Vail area by Ordinance No. 43, Series of 1980, approved on December 10, 1980. Per the statutory requirements, the newly annexed land was required to be zoned by the zoning district for the Town of Vail within 90 days of annexation, by March 10, 1981. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1981, was first read in on March 3, 1981. This ordinance created the CCC3 zone district, under which this site was zoned. It appears the zone district was created hastily as the CC3 zoning district did not allow for hotels or dwelling units where were already developed on the property. From the inception, the CC3 zone district upon application to this site rendered the existing hotel (76 hotel rooms) and condominiums (19 dwelling units with 20 lock -offs) as nonconforming uses. Over four years later, on August 15, 1985, the Colorado Court of Appeals overturned the original West Vail annexation because a rectangular tract owned by the BLM was Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 35 between two contiguous tracts that were being annexed. This BLM land was improperly included in the proposed area to be annexed, and without this land, the proposed annexation would be 'invalid for lack of the necessary one-sixth contiguity.' The Town of Vail moved quickly to again annex West Vail. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1986, re -annexed West Vail on January 29, 1986. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1986, was first read in on March 18, 1986. There were no changes to the zoning for the site in this ordinance even though the hotel and condominium units on this property had existed for 7 years. We believe that this was an incredible oversight since the hotel have been there already for so long and because by that time the Town had adopted the Vail Land Use Plan which encouraged the preservation and expansion of the Town's lodging bed base. This property sits on the edge between the West Vail Commercial Center and multi- family residential properties. The West Vail Commercial Center consists of commercial uses designed to meet the needs of locals and guests alike. Just like the existing hotel, the proposed hotel and employee housing will continue to be compatible and complimentary to the other uses within the area. Given the location and transitional point between commercial and residential, a hotel and workforce housing such as this provide the obvious transition and naturally fit in the environment. The proposed rezoning of the property to Public Accommodation 2 along with the proposed SDD will allow the site to be conforming and thus allow the property to enjoy conforming status and allow for the proposed expansion of the hotel. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; Applicant Analysis: This property sits on the edge between the West Vail Commercial Center and multi- family residential properties. The West Vail Commercial Center consists of commercial uses designed to meet the needs of locals and guests alike. When moving between commercial zoning and residential zoning, it is important to consider a transition that provides a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship among the existing land uses. Just like the existing hotel, the proposed hotel and employee housing will provide such a transition and will continue to be compatible and complimentary to the other uses within the area. Given the location and adjacency of two zone districts types (commercial and residential), a hotel and workforce housing such as this provide an obvious transition and present a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship between these land uses. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 36 The proposal to rezone the property to PA2 furthers three major development objectives: Provision of employee housing Encourage the preservation and expansion of the Town's lodging bed base Encourage the development of conference facilities to address generation of revenues during the slower shoulder seasons As a result, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. 4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and Applicant Analysis: The proposed zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community by allowing a hotel to be expanded within the limits of its development site and provide for workforce housing. The proposal is close to existing services and transportation, while simultaneously providing needed lodging to encourage overnight visitors. Employee housing is key to ensuring that the Town of Vail remain economically viable and competitive, while not having impacts to environmentally sensitive lands. This proposed rezoning does not constitute spot zoning, as the PA2 zone district helps to further these community goals and is consistent with the Town land use plan and other guiding documents. As a result, the proposed amendment serves the best interest of the community. 5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and Applicant Analysis: The proposed zone district amendment proposes to rezone a property currently zoned as CC3 zone district to PA2 zone district. The site is currently largely developed and any environmental impacts the may have occurred did so decades ago. As evidenced in the EIR provided from the project, there is limited to no impacts on water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides, or other desirable natural features. Because the entirety of the site is already used as a lodge with commercial space, there should be no new impact to the natural environment and complies with this criterion. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 37 6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district; and Applicant Analysis: Section 12-7J-1 provides the purpose of the Public Accommodation -2 zone district is: The public accommodation -2 district is intended to provide sites for lodges, limited service lodges, and residential accommodations on a short term basis, for visitors and guests, together with such public and semipublic facilities and commercial/retail and related visitor oriented uses as may be appropriately located within the same zone district and compatible with adjacent land uses. This district is intended to provide for lodging sites located outside the periphery of the town's Vail Village and Lionshead commercial core areas. The public accommodation -2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the zone district. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) The Highline site was originally developed as a lodge facility with multiple -family dwellings as well as commercial and retail uses, and received a Certificate of Occupancy from Eagle County in 1979. Based on the background of the site and the annexation and zoning of West Vail to the Town of Vail, it appears that the current zoning designation, CC3, is inappropriate zoning for the property. CC3 has never allowed for a lodge facility and thus was never appropriate zoning for the site. The facility pre -dated the annexation and zoning, and it appears that applying more appropriate zoning was overlooked and is now long over -due. Vail's Land Use Plan recognized and encourage the development of lodging facilities in this area of the Town. Furthermore, the addition of the PA2 zoning exhibits the Town of Vail's intention of providing lodging and residential accommodations in the valley. Not only does this project accomplish that intent, but it also fits perfectly within the definition of the PA2 zoning. As a result, the proposed zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the PA2 zone district. 7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate; and Applicant Analysis: Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 38 The Highline site first fell under the CC3 zone district in 1981 after the property was originally annexed to the Town of Vail. Prior to this annexation and subsequent zone designation, the property had already been developed as a lodge facility and had received a Certificate of Occupancy in 1979. The property was then re -annexed to the Town of Vail in 1986 and immediately thereafter was re -zoned as CC3. Just months later, the Town of Vail issued the Vail Land Use Plan, with a proposed designation of Community Commercial from the Highline site. Per the Vail Land Use Plan, and the subsequent Vail 20/20 Plan and Employee Housing Strategic Plan, the intentions and the goals for the Town of Vail are to encourage lodging facilities for overnight visitors as well as to provide much-needed employee housing in the Vail Valley. The PA2 zoning district allocation will allow for the Highline site to be redeveloped to allow for additional lodging beds while also providing the community need of employee housing. The CC3 zoning district has never been appropriate for this site, and appropriate zoning designation is long over -due. Conditions have always been ripe for this property to be rezoned to PA2 and what is proposed is consistent with the direction given in the Vail Land Use Plan. 8. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. Applicant Analysis: Any other factors can be addressed as necessary. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 39 Criteria for Review: Special Development District Section 12-9A-8: DESIGN CRITERIA AND NECESSARY FINDINGS, of the Vail Town Code, provides the criteria for review of a Special Development District. The following section includes the criteria, along with an analysis of the compliance of the proposal with the criteria. 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Applicant Analysis: The architecture is consistent with the surrounding architecture and the Town's design guidelines applicable to areas outside of the core areas. The concept is to use natural materials, such as stone, wood composite siding, and metal panel or stucco, to create a project that is responsive to the existing hotel and the surrounding neighborhood. This design creates architectural interest by providing a variety of characteristics throughout the new uses on the site. The project seeks to increase the Town's lodging and employee housing bed base while helping to screen or reduce the visual impact of the existing surface parking areas from neighboring properties. The property is on the edge of the West Vail Commercial Core, which consists of large structures and several three-story buildings. The maximum height of the proposed buildings is 48 ft., which complies with the PA2 zoning maximum height restriction of 48 ft. and less than the 52 ft. of the existing hotel. Additionally, the maximum height is approximately 4 feet lower than the existing lodge building. Furthermore, the new hotel tower is sized in relation to the current hotel tower. This project will provide a visual and sound buffer zone to the neighbors to the north of the property from the 1-70 traffic and the commercial areas with the residential building that faces the residential neighbors to the north. Furthermore, the proposed hotel and EHUs are completing the existing lodging block rather than seeking out new development opportunities on what is currently non-developed open space. Significant surface parking lots are a characteristic of the immediate neighborhood, including residential properties, which is not a very efficient use of land. While surface parking will remain on the property, the project is proposing to enclose a significant amount of the parking below the proposed new wing of the building and screen the surface parking lot from the residential neighborhood behind. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Applicant Analysis: Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 40 Highline is adjacent to the 1-70 and North Frontage Road corridor to the south of the property. It provides a smooth transition between the West Vail commercial core to its east, commercial to the west, and residential to the west and to the north. The Vail Land Use Plan expressed a desire to concentrate commercial uses in designated locations. The Highline provides lodging to overnight guests, while the EHU units provide the desirable transition from Commercial uses to Residential uses (which are to the north and to the west of the property). The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding residential uses to the north and west and the commercial uses to the east and the west. Pursuant to the PA2 zoning and the Town of Vail's policies and goals around encouraging hotel beds and employee housing, the proposed density of the project is zero. The proposed EHU structure is similar in scale and mass to the Chamonix Townhouses and other multi -family buildings in the area. As a result, Highline is compatible with the surrounding uses and activity and is consistent with this criterion. The SDD is only needed to address technical issues related to parking and snow storage. Therefore the impacts to the neighbors or the community at large is limited. 3. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. Applicant Analysis: Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 41 A parking analysis was provided in a previous section of the submittal. As that analysis provided, the entire project is not only in compliance with the parking requirements of Chapter 10, except for the parking required for the meeting room facilities and onsite retail which has been addressed herein. As permitted by Town Code, the applicant has provided an analysis to show that the need for parking is less than that predicted by the Town Code and the SDD complies with this analysis. The project complies with the loading requirements found in Chapter 10. The application is therefore in compliance with this requirement. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. Applicant Analysis: The property is governed by the Vail Land Use Plan. Other applicable plans include the Vail 20/20 Plan and the Housing Strategic Plan. • Vail Land Use Plan The adopted map of the Vail Land Use Plan shows a designation of "Community Commercial" for the property. Per the Vail Land Use Plan of 1986, this area was proposed to be Community Commercial. (See Vail Land Use Plan, Chapter VI - Proposed Land Use). This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short- term visitor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures (with densities up to 25 dwelling units or 50 accommodation units per buildable acre). These areas are oriented toward vehicular access from Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 42 1 -up, with other support commercial and business services included. Also allowed in this category, would be institutional uses and various municipal uses." (Vail Land Use Plan pg. 25) This new category has been designated for the West Vail commercial area, which is primarily oriented to serve the needs of the permanent resident and the long-term visitor. Because the community expressed the desire to concentrate commercial uses within existing commercial nodes, no new commercial areas have been designated. The CC land use area contains 24 acres or 1% of the land area. " (Vail Land Use Plan pg. 28). The intention of the Preferred Land Use Plan was to "...reflect[s] a balancing of existing conditions, community opinion, opportunities and constraints, and projected growth demands. The Vail Land Use Plan states that allowing accommodation units at 50 units per acre is appropriate. On this 3.95 acre site, that would allow for 197.5 accommodation units. The applicant is proposing 195 units, including the limited service lodge units. The proposal includes a zoning of Public Accommodation -2 District. The PA2 zone district allows lodges with multiple family dwellings, included employee housing units, and commercial/office uses. The proposed amendment will make all of the uses conform with zoning and consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan. • Vail 20/20 Plan The Vail 20/20 Plan provides the following goals: Provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. 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. The proposed zoning of Housing on the buildable area of the site helps to further the goal of the Town of Vail to provide deed -restricted housing for 30% of the workforce. This property creates an exciting opportunity to create new housing stock. • Employee Housing Strategic Plan The Employee Housing Strategic Plan outlines the Town of Vail's goals and policies to ensure employee housing. It provides the following objectives: Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 43 ^ Actively address affordable housing for Vail workers to ensure that the community remains competitive in economic terms. ^ Increase and maintain deed -restricted housing within the Town to encourage the efficient use of resources by placing employees closer to their place of work. The proposed zoning will allow for the creation of new deed -restricted employee housing units within the Town of Vail, allowing Vail to remain economically competitive in attracting and maintaining a quality workforce. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the various Town of Vail planning documents and helps to further one of Vail's critical needs: creating employee housing within the Town of Vail boundaries to ensure that Vail remains economically competitive. 5. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Applicant Analysis: There are two known geologic hazards that affect the property: debris flow and rockfall. A Geological Report was prepared for this project. The report concludes that the hazards are low severity due the existing development north of the property but has provided some recommended mitigation for the structures on the property. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Applicant Analysis: The property is currently developed with an existing lodge and with restaurants located onsite. There are no natural features remaining on this portion of the property since its initial development in the 1970s, nor any natural vegetation existing on the site other than what has been planted. The proposed project is sited above existing surface parking and other previously disturbed areas. As a result, there is little disturbance to any natural features on the site. The site plan and the building have been developed to not only be responsive and Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 44 compatible with the existing buildings on the site, but also consistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood. The building design specifically moves the project forward by meeting current design guidelines. Open Space: The site is located within the West Vail Commercial hub with intensive commercial uses and very limited open space. The town is surrounded by numerous open space areas which this site does not directly impact. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan (shown above), prepared by Dennis Anderson, has been included with the submittal. The plan provides for appropriate treatment of open areas. The SDD produces a functional development plan which is sensitive to the existing landscaping and neighborhood. As a result, the proposed SDD is consistent with this criterion. 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. Applicant Analysis: The proposed redevelopment maintains the same vehicular circulation system as exists on the property today, with the exception that four parallel parking spaces are proposed on the subject property but adjacent to Chamonix Lane. These parking spaces are proposed to be reserved for the residents of the employee housing units. The pedestrian circulation system is largely to same as exists today on the property with the notable exception that a new sidewalk is proposed along Chamonix Lane and a new stair connection is provided from the hotel parking area to Chamonix Lane and the existing Town of Vail bus stop. A traffic report has been provided by McDowell Engineering addressing the impacts of the proposed redevelopment on traffic conditions in the area. The conclusions of this report are favorable recommending only that the South Frontage Road be re -striped to provide for a left turn into the site at its east access point. The proposed SDD is consistent with this criterion. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Applicant Analysis: The landscape plan was developed by Dennis Anderson Assoc. Inc. with an eye towards functionality, use of native species, and maximizing the areas best suited for planting. The PA2 zone district requires 30% of the total site area be landscaping, which would Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 45 be 51,614 sq. ft. The proposed project meets this requirement subject to the deviation for the 15' x 15' dimension requirement, being sought by this application. There are no natural features to preserve in this area where the proposed building is being located as the area was previously disturb from development that occurred in the 1970s. As a result, the proposed landscape plan is consistent with this criterion. 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Applicant Analysis: The improvements and addition to the hotel, as well as the addition of the Dorm EHUs, and the 15 unit employee housing apartment building are to be completed in one phase. A future subdivision plat will be filed to create a separate parcel for the EHU apartment building so that it can be financed and owned separately from the hotel. The EHU apartment building parcel is intended to meet the minimum lot size of the PA2 zone district (10,000 sq. ft. minimum) and site perimeter setback requirements but would not be subject to interior setbacks (south and west property lines) nor the requirement of being of a shape that can enclose an 80' by 80' square. The intent is not to create a lot that is intended to be sold as a development parcel, but instead to allow a separate ownership within the context of an overall planned development of the Highline SDD. The intent is that the entire development site, including the hotel and the EHU apartment building, would be treated as one parcel for the purpose of applying the development standards as adopted by this SDD, including parking requirements (i.e., shared parking facilities). These deviations to the subdivision and zoning regulations to accommodate this future subdivision are also embodied in this SDD. Criteria for Review: Major Exterior Alteration Section 12-7J-13: COMPLIANCE BURDEN, of the Vail Town Code, provides the criteria for review of a Major Exterior Alteration in the Public Accommodation - 2 Zone District. This section states: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the planning and environmental commission and the design review board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the public accommodation -2 (PA -2) zone district, and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 46 The following section includes the above criteria, along with an analysis of the compliance of the proposal with the criteria. 1. The proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Public Accommodation -2 (PA -2) zone district. Applicant Analysis: Section 12-7J-1: PURPOSE provides the following purpose statement for the PA -2 zone district, stating: The public accommodation -2 district is intended to provide sites for lodges, limited service lodges, and residential accommodations on a short term basis, for visitors and guests, together with such public and semipublic facilities and commercial/retail and related visitor oriented uses as may be appropriately located within the same zone district and compatible with adjacent land uses. This district is intended to provide for lodging sites located outside the periphery of the town's Vail Village and Lionshead commercial core areas. The public accommodation -2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the zone district. The Highline site was originally developed as a lodge facility with multiple -family dwellings as well as commercial and retail uses. The current zoning, CC3 has never allowed for a lodge facility and thus was never appropriate zoning for the site. The proposed project includes the following: O's 176 AUs with approximately 32,555 sq. ft. of net new GRFA (79 net new, one existing AU lost to circulation needs) 19 LSLUs with approximately 20,050 sq. ft. of GRFA (previously dwelling units) 12 employee housing bedrooms within a dormitory space with approximately 4,400 sq. ft. of floor area 15 employee housing units (1, 2, and 3 bedroom units) with approximately 13,502 sq. ft. of floor area The proposed program increases the number of accommodation units by 79 and limited service lodge units by 19. This complies with the purposes of the PA -2 Zone Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 47 District, which encourages the provision of these uses for sites located outside of Vail Village and Lionshead. 2. The proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. Applicant Analysis: Highline is adjacent to the 1-70 and North Frontage Road corridor to the south of the property. It provides a smooth transition between the West Vail commercial core to its east, commercial to the west, and residential to the west and to the north. The Vail Land Use Plan expressed a desire to concentrate commercial uses in designated locations. The Highline provides lodging to overnight guests, while the EHU units provide the desirable transition from Commercial uses to Residential uses (which are to the north and to the west of the property). The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding residential uses to the north and west and the commercial uses to the east and the west. Pursuant to the PA2 zoning and the Town of Vail's policies and goals around encouraging hotel beds and employee housing, the proposed density of the project is zero. The proposed EHU structure is similar in scale and mass to the Chamonix Townhouses and other multi -family buildings in the area. Furthermore, vehicular traffic to the hotel and the EHU apartment building is focussed at the current entrances off the north frontage road, and therefore do no negatively impact the neighborhood. As a result, Highline is compatible with the surrounding uses and will not have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. 3. The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. Applicant Analysis: This review of this criterion has been addressed in both the Criteria for Review of the Rezoning and the Special Development District. As indicated in these sections, the proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the various Town of Vail planning documents and helps to further four of Vail's critical goals: creating employee housing within the Town of Vail boundaries to ensure that Vail remains economically competitive; maintaining and increasing the Town's lodging bed base to increase revenues and improve the vitality of the Town's economy; to increase occupancy and vitality in the shoulder seasons by providing new conference space; and promoting infill development within the Town. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 48 Conclusion Highline presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment within the Town of Vail. It provides a smooth transition between commercial use and residential use. The proposed project achieves four key community goals: the provision of employee housing, the provision of live beds, the development of conference facilities, and encouragement of in- fill development. The 15 Type 3 EHUs are not required as mitigation, but are proposed as a public benefit of the project. Furthermore, the project is part of an already existing lodge, resulting in continuity of already established uses for the site. The proposed project consist of employee housing units, limited service lodge units, hotel rooms, and EHU dorm space. As part of this application, Highline is asking to clean up zoning inconsistencies by rezoning the site to PA2, which is reflective of the existing and future desired use of the property. For the reasons stated above, Highline respectfully requests approval of the applications for Major Exterior Alteration, Rezoning to PA2, and the SDD. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 49 Greg Roy From: Matt Gennett Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 9:13 AM To: Greg Roy Subject: FW: Expansion of DoubleTree Hotel FYI and for the file. Thanks. -----Original Message ----- From: Suzanne Silverthorn <SSilverthorn@vailgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 7:46 AM To: plauer@sisna.com; Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>; PEC <PEC@vailgov.com> Cc: Matt Gennett <MGennett@vailgov.com> Subject: RE: Expansion of DoubleTree Hotel PEC & Town Council members, please see public comment below. Suzanne Silverthorn, APR Communications Director Town Manager's Office 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Office: 970.479.2115 Cell: 970.471.1361 vailgov.com -----Original Message ----- From: info@vailgov.com <info@vailgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 7:28 AM To: Info <Info@vailgov.com> Subject: Expansion of DoubleTree Hotel Hi, My husband, Jay Lauer, and I are homeowners at 2269 Chamonix Ln, Apt. 4, Vail CO 81657. We are traveling internationally until the middle of December. We received notification from one of our neighbors about the proposed expansion of the DoubleTree hotel at 2211 North Frontage Road West. We are definitely not in favor of this high density development and granting approval for variences on section 12-6D-8 or 12-15-3. Is there a way to communicate to the town council at the Dec 9th meeting that we are not in favor of this development since we are not able to attend the Dec 9th meeting? 1 Thanks for your help and I will wait to hear back. Patricia Lauer Submitted By: Name:: Patricia Lauer Telephone:: 3032298575 Email:: plauer@sisna.com Submitted From: https://www.vailgov.com/contact Greg Roy From: tania boyd <scubakiwi2@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 5:20 PM To: Greg Roy Cc: MICHAEL SPIERS; Jacqueline Nickel; Jim Pyke; Jay Lauer; kstandage@exclusivevailrentals.com Subject: Double Tree Expansion Dear Greg, Brandywine Trace Condominium owners at 2249 Chamonix Lane will be directly impacted by the proposed expansion of the Double Tree Hotel in West Vail. Our building is directly behind the hotel and we are opposed to the rezoning of the property which would allow the developer to exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA. This proposed development would significantly impact our property's view and the attractiveness of our neighborhood. The zoning that is currently in place protects developers from cramming in buildings and parking lots with disregard to the surrounding beauty of our valley. I believe the Town put this regulation in place to ensure we do not fall victim to over development and detract from the scenic landscape surrounding us. This is what makes Vail a desirable place to live for all of us locals who have been fortunate enough to be able to afford to buy a home and live here. The sheer scale of the project is daunting. The remodel that they undertook had numerous problems and lasted more than two years. During that time we were subjected to constant construction and noise. Brandywine is very concerned that now it has been finally completed we are going to be subject to this all over again. As the President of the HOA I wanted to submit our disapproval as I will not be able to attend the December 9th meeting. Regards Tania Boyd Brandywine Trace Condominium Association President My husband (Jay Lauer) and myself (Pat Lauer) are full time Vail residents at 2269 Chamonix Lane, Apt 4, which is behind the DoubleTree. We have owned our Vail Tenterrace property for approximately seven years so we are very familiar with the area. Below are our reasons for not supporting this proposed development and required zoning changes. We have also made some suggestions below for modifications to be considered by the PEC committee for the development. LIMITED COMMERCIAL SPACE IN VAIL - This Development Does Not Serve The Best Interest of Our Community and Long Range Goals: Since Vail has a very small commercial area development (1 % as pointed out in the Vail Land Use Plan), we believe that the commercial area should stay as currently zoned as we feel like there is not enough commercial space allotted for the size of Vail. If you look at the current commercial space in West Vail, there is very little commercial vacancy. In our opinion, the commercial space we have now should be protected as to what was originally designated in the Vail Land Use Plan. We think if there is a comparable study done with other Colorado ski towns nearby, such as Breckenridge or Steamboat, you will find that the 1 % commercial space allotted in Vail probably underserves our community. When reviewing the rezoning criteria (section 12-3-7), changing the land from Commercial Core 3 (CC3) to the Public Accomdation-2 (PA -2), we believe changing the zoning is not in the best interest of our community and does not match with what the long term goals are for the town of Vail per the land use plan (12-3-7, Section 1, (a), 1). There are many other beneficial commercial businesses that could be utilized in the current land to serve the Vail community. DESIGN FEATURES OF THE 16 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX DON'T MATCH OUR EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER: EXCESSIVE HEIGHT: The EHU 16 apartment complex is excessively high with four stories as there are no other complexes in our neighborhood built with four stories. This design does not fit in with the rest of our neighborhood. The height of the four story apartment impacts the neighborhood adversely in the following ways: • Even with the proposed sidewalk, it will be a huge winter road hazard for the extensive pedestrian foot and vehicular traffic because of the ice accumulation (due to the shade) on Chamonix Lane. • The structure is not visually appealing to pedestrians and cars from street level as you are looking into an intrusive, tall building with only a 20 foot set back requirement from the street. • It blocks the views of several developments behind it (Sunlight, Tenterrace, Brandywine and several of the Pine Ridge units). Triumph Shade Study: The shade study is difficult to interpret within the document we were given as there was no scale to reference as to how much of the road the shade of the building covers. It would have been beneficial if they would have imposed the road on their image in Attachment C 1 of 3, page 9. In our opinion, from looking at the shade on Chamonix for the winter 10 am and 2 pm time periods, it looks Chamonix Lane road is completely shaded. Please see the attached recent photos of Chamonix Lane we took so the PEC committee can see what the road looks like with our current shade conditions as the road can be hazardous throughout the winter. The developer expressed that this EHU 16 apartment building would mitigate some of the 1-70 noise and that residents behind it would prefer to look at the building instead of the parking lot. We strongly disagree as we would definitely prefer to keep our existing views versus looking right at this very tall building. Also, we are concerned that if the height of the EHU 16 apartment building is approved, that might open up the possibility that the commercial buildings to the east might want to "raise the roof' on their complex to add additional square footage. EXCESSIVE DENSITY: The EHU 16 apartment complex has way too high of a density compared to the rest of our neighborhood. As mentioned above, there are no other complexes in our neighborhood built with four stories and with all 16 units attached together. The developer tries to equate the EHU structure as being similar in scale and mass to the Chamonix Townhouses and other multi -family buildings in our area, which we don't believe is accurate or a relevant comparison. If you compare the building style and density per square foot in this proposed EHU 16 apartment complex, it is clearly denser than the recently built neighboring Chamonix Townhouses — here is the developer's quote below from the SDD Narrative2 PDF: 12-9A-8: Design Criteria and Necessary Findings, #2: "The proposed EHU structure is similar in scale and mass to the Chamonix Townhouses and other multi -family buildings in the area. As a result, Highline is compatible with the surrounding uses and activity and is consistent with this criterion. The SDD is only needed to address technical issues related to parking and snow storage. Therefore, the impacts to the neighbors or the community at large is limited. " OCCUPANCY: Below are the existing and proposed hotel and dormitory and EHU 16 apartment building with the number of maximum occupants. This development could potentially double the number of people that will be occupying the development, housing up to a maximum capacity of 792, from 386 people now. There would be a maximum capacity of 126 EUH permanent occupants, including the dormitory and the 16 EHU apartments. We believe this constitutes excessive high density during the peak visitor time periods and doesn't benefit our neighborhood. Potential Maximum Occupancy Existing Hotel & Proposed DoubleTree (per the developer): Existing Hotel: Current Total 386 People 116 rooms (97 hotel rooms + 19 condos) 193 beds Proposed Hotel & Dormitory & EHU: Total 792 People - Increase of Maximum Potential Occupancy = 406 people 195 hotel rooms 333 beds 666 people 12 dorm bedrooms — 18 people 16 EHU apartments with 38 bedrooms = Total 108 (7 Three Bedrooms w/2 people per bedroom and 2 people in the living room = 56 people / 8 Two Bedrooms w/2 people per bedroom & 2 people in the living room = 48 people / One 1 Bedroom w/2 people per bedroom & 2 people in the living room = 4 people) We recommend eliminating the EHU 16 apartments building as it is not in character with the existing neighborhood as well as a winter ice hazard for pedestrians and vehicles. Some possible employee housing alternatives to consider: • Incorporate a separate wing in the new 79 hotel room addition with its own access to EHU units comprising of various sized condos and reduce the number of hotel rooms. Perhaps some of the proposed 6,616 sq. ft. conference space for these condos could utilized since the existing conference space of 2,666 sq. ft. is not being fully utilized as the developer stated in the December 9t" PEC meeting. • Convert some of the existing 19 condos that are in the currently in the existing hotel structure to employee housing. • Design an appropriately sized EHU apartment building and move it to the east side of the parking lot (parallel to the backside of Christy's Sports and McDonalds), which in our opinion would be more visually appealing and not as congested. By reorienting the EHU apartment structure, it would eliminate the treacherous icy road conditions on Chamonix Lane in the winter. • If the EHU apartment building stays where it's currently at on Chamonix Lane, reduce its height to two floors to help minimize the shade impact of the building, which should lessen the icy, unsafe road and walkway conditions in the winter. HOTEL PARKING & CONFERENCE SPACE CONCERNS: The conference space, at 2,666 sq. ft. is currently underutilized as was mentioned by the developer in the December 9t" PEC meeting. At the January 8t" meeting the developer held at DoubleTree for the public, they told us the conference space was to be increased to approximately 4,000 sq. ft. In the most recent SDD Narrative2 update submitted by the developer on January 17, the parking study shows the conference space now increasing to 6,616 sq. ft. so a very significant increase. The increase in conference space directly affects the results of the parking study and lowers the number of parking spaces required. The developer is requesting a deviation as stated below per their SDD Narrative2 January 17 update: Conference Parking: The developer is requesting a deviation within the proposed SDD to reduce to 1 parking space for each 330 sq. ft. of conference space. The parking requirement for meeting rooms or conference rooms at 1 space for 120 sq. ft. is what is currently required. When we look at the proposed development with a potential of accommodating up to a maximum of 792 occupants during peak time periods, we have a difficult time believing that there will be enough parking spaces. Our concern is that people driving cars will park their vehicles in other commercial spots to the east of the DoubleTree hotel or perhaps, in our residential building's parking areas immediately behind the DoubleTree on Chamonix Lane. We are concerned the employee housing may not have enough parking spots and guests visiting these residents would increase unauthorized vehicles parking in our parking lots. We have already experienced people parking in our building parking areas that are not authorized to park there. There would be increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the area with the employee housing development. In the SDD Narrative2 update, it shows a net of 47.6 employees would be working at DoubleTree. On page 21, it shows there are only four parking spots allocated to hotel workers. Where will all of the DoubleTree employees park that don't live in the dormitory housing? They can't all be expected to take the shuttle bus can they? Our concern is that employees driving cars to work will park their vehicles in other commercial spots to the east of the DoubleTree hotel or in our residential building's parking areas immediately behind the DoubleTree on Chamonix Lane. 1=1ill 1VI:Z6]IT, 14illIE1Wale] ill &IIQ4X11107ill E_1QEI:012IIs] ill [670611J:A►1=1M:I*s]0:Isle] � This project is going to remove and destroy the atheistic beauty of the mature spruce trees that line Chamonix Lane. These spruce trees are "trophy" trees that can't be replaced — see attached photos. Replanting with smaller trees doesn't have the screening impact of what is now offered with our mature spruce trees and changes the character of our neighborhood. The last remodel at the hotel a couple of years ago went way over the projected time period to be finished. It took them well over two years to remodel the inside and do some minor exterior alterations. We are concerned that if this development goes through, our neighborhood will suffer for years with dirt and noisy construction and increased congestion from the construction workforce. The developer told us that they estimated it would take 15 months to complete this project. If this project is approved, there needs to be some agreement between the developer and the Town of Vail that the project will be completed in the agreed upon time so our neighborhood is not compromised and disrupted for an unreasonable time period. : [oil I=1 1111R]:Lill aII4F_1•11141[ON - WaI:L`VRUX:iI_AI[s]► Currently, the DoubleTree has two shuttle buses that each hold 14 people. There will be a lot of DoubleTree guests, employees and residents during the busy winter hotel time periods (Saturdays, Christmas/New Years, President's Week, March spring breaks, winter weekends and powder snow days) in the morning going to the Vail ski resort and returning in the late afternoons coming back from the resort. Our concern is that guests will take the public bus system instead of waiting for the hotel's shuttle buses. When people have the option of a short one minute walk to get to the Pine Ridge bus stop, we think it will put excessive pressure on our already congested public bus system. The public buses during these peak time periods are currently very full, with standing room only once you go to the next one or two shuttle bus stops down from Pine Ridge. We believe studies should be done during the above mentioned peak time periods to evaluate the additional amount of buses that would need to be added to accommodate the increase in riders. Thank you for your time and consideration in reading our concerns about this proposed development. Sincerely, Jay and Pat Lauer 2269 Chamonix Ln APT Vail, CO 81657 �l k NP •• *. ir r� { ILI , 'r • •' fir. �, �• Nk _ a+2J` � •• *. ir r� { ILI l�4 N , 'r • •' fir. �, �• l�4 N • ... .�. �. _• - _'�Y'_� .. `tet - - ________ T •AES •�y „ • + .. " - • - ; M1 F M1 } 1 } ' • . 'LS' • 16 F �+ •F* . •.+}}�. '• k i i�'R .'-} �y" •. � �z 'kr •,fir k rd r +' a{*•. 1tia�. 'rIlk R,i.+w k :ti;';'� +W' w�.• f•+per N, 4. F t _ 'I t `• ; } • ,k•' Y . 4j..� SOX k4 VA r. k y .1 IIA • 0 y. F, IN , j V - ",, 9 ' A 0 dr V's 'o, A4� A,t I, A., �6 14 711 .1k ..r, lF, t" " ��� ;\' � `; -jt From: Elyse Howard To: Grea Roy Cc: Council Dist List Subject: Highline Date: Monday, February 3, 2020 2:50:32 PM Dear Greg, I am writing to express my support for the Highline rezoning and special development district applications. I am excited that the proposed redevelopment of Highline includes 28 additional employee housing units (EHUs). In order to meet the goals in the Town's Housing 2027 plan, it's important to take advantage of situations like this one where a private developer has brought forward the opportunity to add EHU's in an infill location. It is well documented in the Town of Vail Housing strategic plan as well as the Eagle County Housing Needs assessment that we face a scarcity in the supply of affordable rental and for sale homes for our workforce. Today there is a shortage of 2,780 units County wide, and by 2025 that deficit will grow to 5,900 units. It is a "win" that this project proposes to add 28 EHU's at no cost to the Town while also adding hotel rooms. When extended family comes to town, they typically choose to stay in West Vail as it is closer and more convenient to our home. I appreciate the addition of this type of mid-level accommodations. In addition, Highline is on the Town bus route, and close to the West Vail commercial area. Having lived in West Vail since 2000, 1 know it's a great location for workforce housing. To realize the Town's vision to be North America's premier international resort community, we must grow our community. Workforce housing is community infrastructure and an important component to building a strong community. Sincerely, Elyse Howard vara rauey PRRTRFR5HIP' January 27, 2020 Town of Vail c/o Greg Roy 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Planning Commission members and Vail Town Council, Vail Valley Partnership is the regional chamber of commerce, with over 900 members throughout Eagle County who collectively represent over 80% of the local workforce. We are dedicated to the economic vitality of the valley, and as such our board of governors - which includes residents & business operators throughout Eagle County - has identified workforce housing as our number one priority. Our complete housing position can be found at In short, Eagle County faces a gap in the availability of ownership and rental housing that is affordable for local residents. Residents are burdened by high housing payments. Employees are forced to commute long distances. According to the annual workforce survey, employers believe that the availability of workforce housing is a critical or major problem in Eagle County. The Eagle County Housing Assessment shows a shortfall of 4,500 units to meet current needs. Currently and anecdotally, units that have been long-term workforce rentals are being removed from that market as they are converted into short-term rentals. This has the potential to grow both catch-up and keep -up needs for workforce housing. Workforce and affordable housing has long been an issue in Eagle County. Addressing our affordable housing issue is essential to the continued success and growth of our business community across industry sectors. As such, we support the proposed Highline Vail redevelopment proposal. We request that projects seeking Vail Valley Partnership support must meet the following criteria, and believe that the Highline Vail project meets each of these requirements: 1. Demonstrate commitment to the future through incorporating resident occupied workforce housing units/employee housing units at or above the minimum required by local code and that result in a net increase in workforce housing stock (i.e., more housing created than jobs created); 2. Utilize resident occupancy requirements in their deed restrictions; 97 Main Street, Suite E-201, Edwards, CO 81632 VailValleyPartnership.com AAN vallya".ev P R R T n E R S N! P - 3. Actively engage neighboring communities before and during the process through various stages of approval (planning & zoning, design & review, elected boards, etc.); 4. Be located in appropriate in -fill locations throughout the county, and/or in areas designated and zoned for housing development; S. Be cognizant of regional transit and transportation impacts and mitigate these impacts through their development plans. Our board is also supportive of additional moderately priced hotel rooms within Vail, and sees great value in maintaining the Hilton and Doubletree brands within our lodging inventory. We want to ensure our community can remain competitive to keep locals local and to support our business community. We encourage local governments and boards to approve appropriate in -fill projects and to be open-minded and flexible to grant appropriate variances to local code to facilitate the development of these projects. Sincerely, Chris Romer President & CEO Vail Valley Partnership 97 Main Street, Suite E-201, Edwards, CO 81632 VailValleyPartnership.com Grea Ro From: Brett A. August < BAA@pattishall.com > Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 12:50 PM To: Greg Roy; Jonathan Spence Cc: Erik Gates Subject: STOP the DoubleTree Expansion! Importance: High To the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission: The proposed additions to the DoubleTree Hotel are far out of proportion to neighborhood standards and should NOT be permitted. We live directly across the street from the proposed addition, at 2309 Chamonix Lane. So we have a string and direct interest in preventing the construction of so large a building as is proposed. A review of the proposed project shows that, in contrast to the two-story existing structure, the DoubleTree proposal would double that height, to four stories. This is not an "expansion," as that term is commonly used: it is a large and inappropriate NEW project that would likely more than double the size of the existing structure. Although all the plans refer to construction at a property on the north frontage road, ALL of the proposed construction is immediately adjacent to Chamonix Lane, which is entirely residential. The proposed project is so large that it would obstruct views of the residential properties on Chamonix Lane, an unjust taking for which we would demand compensation. We do not object to adding to the existing DoubleTree property so long as the addition is of the same height and density as the existing structure. The developers describe the project as including: "176 AUs [accommodation units] with approximately 32,555 sq. ft. of net new GRFA." Such a large re -development of this parcel - which the developers admit would require significant rezoning - is way out of proportion to the surrounding area and should NOT be permitted. Moreover, as the developers admit: "since 1981, this site has operated as a nonconforming use and maintained its use as a lodge as it was first built in 1979. A nonconforming use cannot be expanded or modified except if changed to a permitted or conditional use even though the Town has been focused for the last 40 years at encouraging and expanding the hotel base." So the existing structure already surpasses the intended size of the structure: to allow a giant new structure to be placed on this parcel would make a mockery of Vail's once -vaunted planning process. Vail is losing its way by allowing unbridled development and is in danger of destroying the very essence of the town, the so-called "secret sauce" that has made Vail so special to all of us who live here. The Planning and Environmental Commission needs to return to representing the best interests of the residents of Vail and not simply become a pawn to commercial interests that are contrary to the interests of Vail's residents. Cordially yours, Carey and Brett August Brett A. August Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP 200 South Wacker Drive Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60606-5896 Direct: (312) 554-7962 Main: (312) 554-8000 Fax: (312) 554-8015 OcPATUT BAApattishall.com www.pattishall.com H LL (c� AULIFFL BEST Pattishall Ranks in FIRMS the United States and in LAW FIRMS .. Illinois in the prestigious 2020 WTR 1000 The preceding message and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client or other privilege. You may not forward this message or any attachments without the permission of the sender. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error and then delete it. Nothing in this email message, including the typed name of the sender and/or this signature block, is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in the message. 2269 Chamonix Ln Apt 3 Vail, CO 81657 February 26, 2020 Mr. Greg Roy, AICP Planner II Community Development Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Roy, I am writing about the proposed DoubleTree Expansion. I'm a full-time resident of Vail living at 2269 Chamonix in the Tenterrace Condominiums. I recognize some of the goals of the expansion in order to provide additional, affordable housing for workers in Vail; however, for many reasons, I do not see this project as ultimately providing that in a sustainable, viable way. Furthermore, I see additional challenges with the overall proposed development. At this point in time, I would have to strongly oppose the planned changes. I was able to attend the first open house on December 5th. I also attended the January PEC meeting. I will unfortunately be unable to attend the March PEC meeting due to a family situation. I have significant concerns about the impact on the local community from a traffic safety perspective. The proposed development would substantially increase traffic in the local area. The EHU would have 16 units with up to 40 bedrooms. My experience at my condominium is that there is a car for each bedroom. This would potentially result in another 40 cars in a concentrated area. Furthermore, there would be substantially more people waiting at the Pine Ridge and West Vail Mall bus stops. Substantially more vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the area would increase the likelihood of accidents. I do applaud the proposal to add a sidewalk to Chamonix Lane which would be helpful, but, noting our most recent snowfalls, could substantially impact the viability of the sidewalk at the times it would be most needed. Furthermore, the excessive height of the proposed buildings would create significant shading along Chamonix lane, preventing ice from melting from the sidewalk and street and creating hazards for pedestrians. Vail already has a shortage of commercial space to support the community, reducing this through the SDD would only negatively impact our community. Vail has limited commercial space to support grocery stores and other amenities needed by both the full-time residents as well as visiting tourists. By constraining the supply of available space even more by changing the zoning you, effectively, raise the prices to everyone. Vail is already an expensive place to live and the reduction of commercial space will simply exacerbate that situation. The development as proposed has not considered ways to reduce its environmental footprint. While I'm sure the development team would follow all the necessary requirements and regulations from the Town of Vail and other AHJs. I was surprised by the lack of consideration of solar energy for all the additional rooftop space. Having worked in the renewable energy industry for over 10 years, I believe the Town of Vail should aspire to continuously push for the use of cleaner energy. From a process point of view, I feel the development team could have done a better job with the community. As I noted, I attended the first open house. I was unfortunately unable to attend the second open house due to scheduling considerations. However, I would note that the letter for the January 8t" meeting was only written on January 2nd and not postmarked until January 4t". (Please see my appendix for copies). I believe I received the letter on January 7t" which was about 24 hours prior to the actual meeting. To me, this is noteworthy since during the first PEC meeting, the development team presented photos of the impacted views from Chamonix properties. However, they did not present photos from all the impacted properties. In fact, they only presented photos from the least impacted properties. Both 2269 Chamonix and 2249 Chamonix were excluded. To date, I have not seen photos of the property view impact from the development team. Perhaps these were available at the open house that I could not attend. Creating a consistent approach to redevelopment of West Vail will be important to maintaining the character of our community. From my attendance at the first PEC meeting where this discussed, I understand that there is a broader redevelopment plan being considered for West Vail. I think it would make more sense to pursue a comprehensive plan for West Vail rather than pursuing individual projects that are inconsistent with the community. Once the Town of Vail makes significant zoning changes and special accommodations for a single developer, there will be no end of requests. Will the Town of Vail approve all of these requests or just some? How will they decide? In the absence of a larger plan, it seems there will be a real risk of significant damage to the community from unintended consequences. I appreciate your consideration of the community's input to this proposed project. I understand the need for affordable housing in our community for employees is quite significant. I also appreciate the effort that the development team has put into the design and planning of this project. However, as noted above, I do not feel this project will meet the needs of the community in a sustainable way. Sincerely, James T. Pyke 2269 Chamonix Ln Apt 3 Vail, CO 81657 Appendix Letter Written on January 2nd for January 8th meeting N1GHLINE A DoubleTree by Hilton January 2, 2020 Dear Neighbors. - We hope you enjoyed wonderful holidays, celebrated a Happy New Year and are enjoying all the fresh sno We last contacted you in mid-November with an overview of our plans to expand and improve Highline, a loyee housing units on undeveloped portions of the proper: DoubleTree by Hilton, as well as build new emp The hotel was originally built in 1979 under Eagle County jurisdiction and was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1980 as part of a larger annexation of the West Vail area. We recently submitted revisions to our application to the Town of Vail based on very good input we have received from you, our neighbors, Town staff; the Planning & Environmental Commission at a work session held on Dec. 9; and Design Review Board at a conceptual plan meeting on Dec. 18. Weare very excited about the community stakeholder engagement and positive momentum for not only new lodging units and meeting space, but critical incremental homes for our workforce. We recently met with the Vail Local Housing Authority and have received a letter of support from them for our willingness to incorporate incremental new, deed - restricted, resident -occupied housing into your overall development pian without any obligation to do so. I We would like to invite you to a second open house to review our updated plans on Wednesday, Jan. 8 at 5:30 p.m. in the Hightine lobby. We will serve food and beverages. We appreciate your continued thoughts and ideas as we strive for another hearing with PEC on Jan. 27. As a reminder, our proposed project features: 79 net new hotel rooms. • About 4,000 square feet of new meeting room space. • A 12 -bedroom deed restricted Employee Housing Unit dormitory facility (converting current commercial space above Casa Mexico.) • A 16 -unit employee housing apartment building. our updated application materials highlight: • Change in the color and materiai on the existing hotel building. Today the existing hotel has a green metal roof and the roof is proposed to be replaced with a brown asphalt shingle roof to match the proposed primary roof material of the hotel addition. • Repaint the exterior walls, railings, fascia and trim to match more closely with the colors proposed on the hotel addition. Letter Postmarked on January 4th JUNCITIO-N, 81's. amen T. Ryke M9 Chamonix Ln., Apt 3 Jail, CO 81657-4219 .. . M AL VCBA The Vail Chamber & Business Association March 3, 2020 241 South Frontage Road East, Suite 2 Vail, Colorado, 81657 970-477-0075 www.vailchamber.org Mr. Jonathan Spence ispence@vailov.com and members of the Planning & Environmental Commission The Vail Town Council via Mayor Dave Chapin dchapin@vailgov.com Mr. George Ruther gruther@vailgov.com Dear Mr. Mayor, Mr. Ruther and Mr. Spence: After a presentation by the Highline (DoubleTree in West Vail) development team at our February meeting, the Board of the Vail Chamber & Business Assoc. offered its unanimous support of the proposed additional lodging, conference room space and the 16 units of employee housing and 12 -bedroom employee housing dorm. The VCBA highly recognizes how this proposed project helps to meet Vail's economic and housing goals. DoubleTree is a great complementary brand to our five-star offerings, and the workforce housing is in such high demand. We also appreciate the changes made to address neighbor concerns about needing a sidewalk and views. Thank you for all of your hard work and please approve the rezoning, major exterior alternation and Special Development District applications. Best regards, Alison C. Wadey Executive director Vail Chamber and Business Association Mr. Michael O'Connor Triumph Development 12 Vail Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Michael - December 18, 2019 I am writing to you on behalf the Vail Local Housing Authority to express our support for the proposed Highline — Double Tree by Hilton Hotel development. We very much appreciated the presentation shared by your team during our most recent public meeting on December 17th. We appreciate your willingness to incorporate incremental new, deed -restricted, resident -occupied housing into your overall development plan. In determining our support for the development plan, several key factors were taken into consideration. Those factors included: • The deed -restricted housing use is permitted as a use by right in the Public Accommodation -2 zone district. • The deed -restricted housing is supported by the Town's recently adopted 2018 Housing Policy Statements. • The deed -restricted housing is provided by the private sector with no financial participation of the Vail taxpayer or the Vail Local Housing Authority. • The deed -restricted housing is an incremental net new increase in overall supply. • The private sector is an important partner in helping solve our housing challenges. • An infill approach to development is taken thereby resulting in greater utilization of already developed land. • The deed -restricted housing is within convenient, walkable proximity to restaurants, commercial uses, and Town of Vail free public transit. • There is a demonstrated demand for additional for -rent homes in Vail. • The deed -restricted homes result in a incremental increase in the supply of resident -occupied homes until such time as the owner requests an ehu credit. Respectfully, the Vail Local Housing Authority requests you exclude a minimum of 4 (25%) of the 16 deed -restricted homes from any future mitigation bank. In the Vail community, there are both existing demands, and future needs, for housing. Each could be addressed as a public benefit of the proposed special development district if a percentage of the homes were excluded from future mitigation bank opportunities. Again, thank you for sharing your presentation and plans for development. We appreciate the efforts you are making to help address the housing needs in the Vail community. Sincerely, Steve Lindstrom, Chair Vail Local Housing Authority From: MICHAEL SPIERS To: Grea Roy Cc: tania bovd Subject: Highline hotel development. Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 2:16:40 PM Dear Greg, Hi my name is Mike Spiers and I am a member of the Brandywine condominium association in West Vail. I wanted to express to you our concerns regarding the Highline hotel development in West Vail. Please understand that we are not NIMBYs and understand the need for more employee housing and don't necessarily oppose the development of more hotel rooms on the Doubletree lot. What we are very concerned about is the size of the project and it's effect on the overall character of the neighborhood. In particular the proposed EHU building parallel to Chamonix Lane would dwarf the street and be completely out of character with other buildings on the street. Not only would it block the views of the Apartments on the north side of Chamonix In but it would completely shade Chamonix In and permanently change the look of the neighborhood. I have attended all the community meetings provided by the Highline people. Initially they seemed receptive to reducing the size of this building to two stories which we thought would be a good compromise. Unfortunately in their latest plans the building is still a monolithic three stories high reducing only one small end of the building to two stories. Many of my fellow neighbors are sure to express concerns about snow removal, parking, traffic along Chamonix In and these are all legitimate concerns. It is my hope that you will get a chance to thoroughly look at the impact of this building and the main hotel building to see if we can make it more compatible with the size of the other buildings in the neighborhood.My suggestion for compromise is to reduce the EHU Building to two stories maximum. This would still provide many employee housing units but not alter the nature and character of the neighborhood as much. Thank you for listening to our concerns, regards Mike Spiers. Get Outlook for iOS 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl) December 9, 2019, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, Pete Seibert Absent: Pam Hopkins 1.2. Swearing In New Member New Member Pete Seibert was sworn in by the Town Clerk 1.3. Election of Officers Brian Gillette moved to appoint Ludwig Kurz as Chair. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins Brian Gillette moved to appoint Karen Perez as Vice Chair. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2. Main Agenda 2.1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district 45 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. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy 2.1, 2.2, & 2.3 will all be heard concurrently. Chairman Kurz: Clarified that the 3 items are all being heard as worksessions today. Planner Roy: Not looking for any motion today, just looking for feedback from the PEC. Started by introducing the location of the site and the existing conditions. Described an increase in accommodation units and the addition of EHUs and a new building only for housing EHUs. Roy then described the reason for the rezoning to PA -2 and the criteria for the rezoning. Lodges are not allowed in the current CC3 zoning. Roy then went on to describe the application for a Special Development District. This will help the proposal reach compliance with the Code with regard to parking requirements. Commissioner Lockman: Asked staff to clarify "nonconforming" Roy: The hotel was built before it was annexed into the Town. When it was annexed into the Town under CC3 it became legally nonconforming with respect to use. This means that the current development can be maintained but not expanded under the current zoning. Dominic Mauriello: Began by introducing his team. Mark Mutkoski: Introduced himself by describing his history visiting Vail. He then described the current state of the Hotel renovation. Also described the chain of ownership until now including his role as the Owner Representative. Described how they reinvigorated the property already in order to bring it in line with the Town's standards. The current hotel is not the highest and best use for the property. Mauriello: Continued to describe the site as it exists today. Pointed out several largely unutilized areas of the site and the surrounding commercial uses. Mauriello then began to describe the proposed additions to the site. Seventy-nine (79) net new accessory units, 19 limited -service lodge units (LSLUs), 12 dormitory units, and 16 employee housing units of 2-3 bedrooms. Two -hundred -twenty-three (223) parking spaces proposed, however this number will change due to some Fire Department concerns. From here, the applicant moved on to describe the proposed hotel units themselves. The applicant also provided a number of renderings, including some neighboring view renderings. Commissioner Perez: Asked if these renderings showed both buildings. Mauriello: Indicated that they did, but also stated that other angles showing more of both buildings could be provided in the future. Mauriello then went on to describe how the development would align with the goals of the Town. He then described the hotel's history and how this relates to the current non - conformities. This property has both nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses. Nonconforming structures cannot have their non- conformity expanded upon, but compliant additions and alterations are permitted by the code. Nonconforming uses effectively stop all additions to the nonconforming use. Current nonconformities include building height, density, parking, and internal landscaping. With respect to use, hotels and dwelling units are not permitted in the CC3 zone district, hence the rezoning request. The PA -2 zone district is more applicable to this development. The special development district is being proposed primarily in order to address some parking compliance difficulties. The parking requirements for the PA -2 would be 250 spaces, but 223 are being proposed. One reason for this proposed reduced parking has to do with the proposed meeting space on site. As attendees to this conference space would primarily be lodged within the Highline Hotel, there is a large overlap between the parking necessary for the conference space and the parking necessary for the hotel itself. Mentioned that the EHU building is creating the need for some of these deviations from the code, so there is a question regarding the value of EHUs to the Town vs the standards that relief is being requested from. Available land for Employee Housing is very limited in Vail. A Public Open House was hosted by the applicant in early December to share the proposed development to the neighboring public. Mauriello then addressed some of the concerns mentioned by staff in their memorandum to the Commission. Addressed concerns related to the increased density in the area, the rezoning to PA -2 in an area with limited commercial services, and parking deviations from what is required by the Code. Perez: The SDD is Vail's equivalent of a Planned building group. What is the purpose of the rezoning AND an SDD? Mauriello: In Vail, an SDD is an overlay as opposed to a replacement for a rezoning district. The SDD cannot violate the allowed uses of the underlying zone district. Perez: Clarified that she was referring to planned building groups as opposed to a planned unit development. Mauriello: Stated that it made sense for them to propose both in order to bring the hotel into compliance and to allow for the proposed EHU building. Lockman: Asked a question about an existing SDD on the property. Mauriello: Stated that this SDD was no longer active. Lockman: Directed staff to correct this in future memos. Kurz: Asked about the specific benefit to the town for the proposed SDD Mauriello: Talked about the need to increase hotel units in Vail. The Town has lost some significant hotel units in recent history. The SDD will also facilitate the addition of more EHUs, this is not required for the project, but the applicant feels this a net benefit for the Town. Kurz: Asked about the upcoming West Vail Master Plan. Matt Gennett: Stated that staff will be going in front of Town Council to get direction on the Master Plan scope on December 17. This Master Plan process is expected to take a calendar year. Mauriello: There was a previous attempt to improve this property, but it was recommended they wait for a previous West Vail Master Plan effort. This Master Plan effort fell through, so the applicant would like to avoid risking this happening again to the property owner. Kjesbo: Felt that the EHUs are being waved as a carrot for this application but saw that the E H U building could be sold off. Mauriello: This was stated in order to add some flexibility. Kjesbo: Felt that the employee housing needs to be tied in with the rest of the project to avoid the EHUs being sold off and never being developed. Perez: The three applications makes it unclear what is being proposed and what the timing will be for this project. It also obfuscates the benefit to the Town and the community. Mauriello: Stated that the proposed benefits were well stated in the proposal Perez: Need to look at how the stated benefits to the Town relate to the proposed deviations from the code. Lockman: Had a question regarding the proposed height, as staff and the applicant had a disagreement on how the height should be measured. Mauriello: Showed a rendering of the buildings. Stated that the height is strictly compliant with the code as some of the roof forms have been staggered in order to meet compliance. Perez: It would also be helpful to know how high the buildings would be above Chamonix Rd. Feels that existing residents are concerned about the view. Lockman: Had a question about the parking and valet Mauriello: Indicated that most units, including the EHU units, would be using the valet parking. Also, there will be a stairwell and sidewalk from the EHU building leading down to the rest of the development and Frontage Rd. Kurz then opened the floor for public comment. Molly Rabin Concerned about density in West Vail. Glad that the parking is being kept off of Chamonix. There are no sidewalks on Chamonix, so an increase in development will create a greater safety issue. Asked for some form of density study. Mike Spiers: Representing Brandywine Trace Condominiums behind this development. The proposed buildings dwarf the existing. There is no building of the scale of the EHU unit on Chamonix Mentioned that some affected views not shown in the application would be potentially significant. Jim Pike: Echoing Mike's comments. Specifically mentioned how some impacted views were not represented in the meeting. Thinks it would also be a great opportunity to add solar to these buildings. Pam Stenmark: Expressed gratitude for the questions presented by the PEC. Public Comments closed Kjesbo: Stated that his EHU concerns were already mentioned. Wants the EHU building to be in conjunction with the rest of the site. Could likely support the deviation from parking requirements. Needs a sun/shade analysis. Need references to new and existing heights. Feels PA -2 zoning is likely the correct zoning here. Likes the idea of adding a sidewalk heading towards the Frontage Road. Gillette: Thinks of something grander than this for the redevelopment of West Vail. Thinks the planning for West Vail should be done first before this. Doing the Master Plan right, might help direct this development to more accurately reflect Town goals. Sees this area being redeveloped as multiuse in the future. Approving the development like this may hamper redevelopment efforts in the rest of West Vail. Perez: Also indicated that the development needs to be developed comprehensively, needs a timeline as well. Need to make sure that the applicant is meeting the requirements of an SDD. Wants to also see a sun/shade analysis and more information on building heights. Concerned that with the conference center not being utilized much now, that increasing the conference space and needs is unnecessary. Seibert: Liked how this would solve some nonconforming use. Has a concern with the proposed valet parking for the EHUs. A large number of employees are likely to need their cars at the same time. Lockman: Echoed the concerns of Perez regarding the expanded conference space. Likes the idea of converting the underutilized commercial space into employee dorms, however, he also needed to see a parking plan for the EHUs. Likes the effort to reduce nonconforming uses. Also struggling with this project in the absence of a West Vail Master Plan. The Master Plan would help describe the appropriate density and bulk and mass for this site. I mproving circulation and safety along Chamonix could be an additional public benefit of this project. Kurz: Also concerned about this project going ahead of the West Vail Master Plan. However, in responding just to the project that is before the commission, Kurz echoes Kjesbo's comments. One could call the proposed "carrot" of the EHUs as a "quid pro quo." Important that sensitivity toward the surrounding neighborhood is shown. Also wants sun/shade analysis. Largely neutral on parking now but would like to see parking maximized. Brian Gillette moved to continue to January 13, 2019. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 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. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Brian Gillette moved to continue to January 13, 2019. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 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. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Brian Gillette moved to continue to January 13, 2019. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.4. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12- 20 min. 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of an outdoor dining patio, located at 254 Bridge Street Unit C/Lot C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 19-0049) Applicant: Mt. Belvedere 45 LLC North Bridge Venture Partners, represented by Resort Design Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. This Conditional Use Permit approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 2. The applicant shall operate the outdoor patio in a manner generally consistent with the approved site plan dated 07/19/2019. Chairman Kurz: Moved this item to the front of the Main Agenda Planner Spence: Began by explaining the need for a CUP for an outdoor patio in Vail Village. This proposed outdoor patio is entirely within private property. Spence then went on to explain some of the proposed improvements. Public Works and Fire Department have both reviewed and found no issues. Tom Braun: Began by introducing his team members present at the meeting. During construction of Gorsuch, the unit below vacated, so the new proposal is for a new cafe on the street level. The CUP is only for the patio with outdoor seating and firepits. No food service will occur outside, patrons will have to order inside and bring items out to the patio. No Public Comment. Commissioner Kjesbo: No additional comment Commissioner Gillette: No additional comment Commissioner Perez: Asked about how far the patio extends. Planner Spence showed a diagram demonstrating the extent of the patio. Perez: Concerned about the amount of clutter in the corridor. The corridor is already narrow and ski racks also are set out in this area. The proposed patio will be put right in this area. Spence: Felt that the patio will be an overall improvement to the area over the ski racks. Commissioner Seibert: No additional comment Commissioner Lockman: No additional comment. John -Ryan Lockman moved to approve with conditions. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.5. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density 5 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) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to January 13, 2020. Applicant: Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates Karen Perez moved to table to January 13, 2019. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.6. A request for review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, 45 min. Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of six (6) feet tall at the Town of Vail Public Works facility located at 1289 Elkhorn Drive/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0041) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Erik Gates 1. Construction of the shoring wall and rock -fall 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. Planner Erik Gates recapped the process on how the application got to the current meeting. Third meeting before PEC. Master plan schedule, and process. Applications today are for the streets building expansion and the retaining wall. Both need CUP due to being in the General Use Zone District. Changes from last meeting are the comments from CPW on this application and the E I R submitted. Staff added another condition that the construction of the wall be limited to June to November. Another comment from CPW was to prohibit dogs, which is already a policy at the Public Works site and Buzzard Park units. Greg Hall introduced Rick Kahn the wildlife biologists. Streets building will be pushed off until 2021 due to schedule. Gives time to monitor the site this winter and next winter. If approved, the wall, berm, and utilities would hopefully be built next summer. Gillette — Can you not build the wall and do the streets building? Hall — Yes, but severely limits parking. Kahn — Professional wildlife biologist hired to consult on this project and Booth Heights for context. General comments, a lot of interests in the sheep right now. People are comparing it to Booth Heights, and there are differences and similarities. Both projects in overall winter range of S2 native herd. Herd is not doing well due to bad winters and hasn't picked back up to former levels. Very small winter range, as typical of sheep in high altitudes. Booth Creek area is typically ewes and rams. The town area is exclusively used by rams. Ewes are much less mobile and tied into steep areas to stay away from mountain lions. Winter range for ewes much more critical. Rams are more mobile, bigger, and less susceptible to change in landscape. Site is used intermittently, and 3-4 times in the last few years. Not every winter such as last year when there was a big snow layering. Groups segregate by sexes during the winter. Rams could be attracted to salt storage or something to attract them to the site. Site has not always been historically occupied by sheep. Less than ideal information since there are a lack of studies. This is not at all unusual. Made an observation during the process that the area of the rock -fall berm and solar that would be occupied and lost, occurs in a small narrow band of the sheep habitat. Not a significant loss. Biggest concern would be that this greens up earlier in the spring due to non-native grasses. Winter is a period where they starve and lose weight. They are attracted to that disturbed area with non-native grasses. Loss of area of disturbed area is not a big concern. Key is that the disturbed areas needs to be located near escape cover and they are. This site has had extensive human activity for 40-50 years. Not new area loss, but small disturbance of an already active site. The solar array extends to the west a couple hundred yards that is not heavily disturbed yet. No literature on the topic of solar array disturbance to sheep. Very narrow area that could have small impact. Losing native vegetation could be potentially problematic. Cumulative impacts unknown. With mitigation and CPW's recommended mitigation it can be managed to minimize impact. As it sits, with available information, impacts will be minimal and mitigatable. Perez — Do you think the proposed condition from staff is sufficient or is more required? Kahn — J une thru November makes a lot of sense. It depends on if the sheep are present. Gillette — How do we get to a collar study? Kahn — Money Gillette — How much? Kahn — For state-of-the-art collar study it could be $500,000. A lot of the habitat work would need to be on the USFS land. Habitat improvement would be better done by Booth Heights. There could still be some done on this site. Gillette — Of $500,000 how much is collar and how much is emergency funds? Kahn — $150,000 for collar and $100,000 for personnel. The rest would be money in the bank for reaction to what was discovered during that study. This one herd is not #1 on the books for CPW and they would need money to make something happen soon. Gillette — What kind of checks would you need for habitat work. Kahn — Three things, fertilization, fire, and hand trimming and setback of vegetation. I don't have figures, but you're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars to do all the sites, maybe $1 million. Gillette — On a yearly basis, what would be the most important? Kahn — Collar and some habitat would be best. Gillette — So $250,000 for collar and another $250,000 for habitat. Kahn — If you maintain the status quo and development you can expect the herd to continue to be affected. Gillette — So let's say $250,000 a year for the next 10 years, do you think this would affect this herd? Kahn — Yes, it would dramatically lower the risk of extirpation. Gillette - What's the number one thing you can do to increase herd numbers? Kahn — Limit disturbance, resetting habitat in winter range specifically and summer range. Not all of which is in the purview of Town of Vail. Gillette — So the plan to burn hasn't happened after it was planned for 20 years. Why didn't that happen? Kahn — I don't think the town was behind it because of the concern of fire. The Forest Service could do it if they needed to. It is the initiative of leaders at district level that needs to happen. Gillette — If the Town wants to be a lobbyist, how would they do that? Use staff, hire someone? Kahn — Citizenry has to consent moving forward. There are a variety of ways moving forward. Lockman — Is there a recommendation on the terraced retaining wall vs non - terraced wall. Does one have more benefits? Kahn — I think in the long term keeping the sheep out of habited area is the best option. Non -terraced wall does more of a job keeping them out. We don't want to see them on 1-70. Adding a fence is not a huge deal as they can get around it. Gillette — So no fence, correct? Kahn — No, it wouldn't do a lot, and you don't want to keep them out of the disturbed sites that could give them early spring greenery. Large fences not a solution to this problem. Kurz — We got a letter from CPW, should we hear them now or at public comment. Gillette — Let's bring CPW up so we can ask questions instead of during public comment. Duval — CPW. This is a remarkably different proposal from what you've heard before. This is a small review of a limited area. For me, I have to view it through a wholistic lens where we look at miles around for the effect. Limited habitat right now, that needs to be treated as a valuable and finite resource. Gillette —Any comments on the numbers? Duval — Those sound good, but mitigation is not a one and done deal. It is a concerted effort and needs to be done in perpetuity. In conjunction with habitat, contingency and collars, then a $500,000 starts to get you to that area. Gillette — What is the value of the collar study? What are we learning? Duval — It says whether the mitigation is working, and what habitat use looks like. Where are they congregating. We're operating on old information on where they are utilizing the landscape based on our best guesses. Gillette — We don't know the extent of the problem is what you're saying? Isn't the solution always doing mitigation? Duval — But where is the question. Do we focus in the middle or on the edges? Where are they actually using the landscape? Public Comment Larry Stewart, East Vail I just heard for the first time today that the building is not going to be built until 2021, so why are we approving that now? We have more time to do more observations between then. There is no time limit for when the streets building could get built. They could start tomorrow. One question you need to address is why are we approving the CUP today until we can study it since it won't be built until later? I want this to be built in the most effective way. There is a dearth of information on how the sheep are using the site. This points towards caution, since there is no do over. They are already stressed and compressed. I think fencing would be a good idea to keep the sheep out and the humans from entering the hills. What you want to accomplish here is to keep the human activities from the sheep. You could also require landscaped screening to keep them out. They don't like cover and would keep them out. Why isn't there a condition that no dogs are allowed on the site. That should be part of the approval since the masterplan and comments are not enforceable. I implore you not to look at this just as a variance on a retaining wall and building, but the larger impact on the herd. No room for error. This has to be gotten right. Tom Vucich, 4957 Juniper Lane You expressed at the last meeting that you wanted a more comprehensive view and thank you. The only difference is the CPW statement. "reads from CPW comments" You all touched on it two weeks ago about wanting a more comprehensive plan. It is time that you and the town put a specific number and timeline on this project and how to address the impacts to the herd. Patti Langmaid, 2940 Manns Ranch Road On the burn, one of the reasons that the neighbors were opposed was because there was an escaped forest service burn that burned down a couple houses in Colorado. I think now, we are more savvy and that with the right conditions a burn would be acceptable Blondie Vucich, East Vail Bill was unable to be here, so I wanted to read a couple sentences from the public comment he submitted **reads from letter**. Close public comment Open Commissioner Comments Lockman — Thanks CPW for memorandum. I'm struggling here on this one with all of the dialogue. I would implore our elected officials to do something on this issue. This board faces challenging decisions that impact wildlife. Whether that is putting specific funding towards it or making a plan. On the retaining wall, the variance for the non -terraced wall makes the most sense. If we look at the criteria of the application, I think public works has met all the items needed for approval. Seibert — I concur with the need for a more comprehensive plan. We need to get to a more proactive point, but not what is before us today. The vertical wall makes more sense to save hillside and doesn't tempt a sheep to come down. It's a small site, so they will get around a fence. I agree on the prohibition of dogs and possibly adding it as a condition. On timing, they need this approval so they can meet the window even if they aren't doing the whole building. Perez — I want to know where the mitigation plan is, and what the plan is. We have to treat the applicants the same, in particular criteria #2 **quotes criteria**. The Booth Height project had many conditions of approval related to the sheep herd, and this site is only 2 miles away from Booth Heights. I don't see how we are treating these sites with consistency. There is no real mitigation plan here. If we approve now, we aren't going there with a comprehensive view. I don't think this conforms today. Would vote against. Gillette —Agree with Perez 100%. We need this building to provide bus service and snow removal service. The mitigation effort should be part of this plan. We need to do some significant study and dedication half a million towards it. We need to lobby congress to get this stuff done, and we need to have this money in place, and we need to have Council fund this. Kristen where are we with this? Kristen Bertuglia — The Town had to get a strategic plan and divvy up what we could do on this. We did some cutting and stacking. We had a burn plan approved, but the presence of sheep delayed it. We've had several meetings with the Forest Service but heard that burning for wildlife was not supportive there. We continue to look at the option for a larger burn but cannot do that due to the burn in designated wilderness area. We've got $100,000 this year to do some effort. What we want to do is find what the best thing to do for these sheep. Gillette — What's next? Bertuglia — Rewrite the mitigation plan from the 90s to today's conditions. Hopefully in the ne)d couple months. Gillette — Greg, what do you need? If we separate the wall and building? Hall — Based on time limits, getting materials ready and making construction go quickly is why we need another year. We couldn't have everything done next year. No issues on dog prohibition. By waiting one more year we have more time for observation. For collaring there are a lot of costs that go in as well as staff. We are waiting for a comprehensive study to do some mitigation, instead of doing something that won't be as effective. I don't have the $250,000 budget to put towards something like this, as Town Council does. With regard to construction, get a contract, get final approval, we need that longer time period to get it done. Kurz — On dog rules, how are they being adhered to and controlled, what about recreation on the hill, have they done a ski jump that you are aware Of? Hall — Three-year leases with no pets, if we find one then they're gone. Limited approval for dogs when it comes to vet visits (for employee pet emergencies). As for a ski jump, there might have been, but I hadn't seen anything back there except one hiker. Gillette — Kristen, is the collar study part of your funding? Bertuglia — Depends on the mitigation plan. Gillette — Just so Council understands the importance of this stuff I suggest we break this up and get the wall and the berm approved and hold them hostage on the building. J ust to let them know that it is important to us, we'll hold them hostage on the one part. It adds to the importance of getting the long term plan done. Lockman — Does that affect your ability to operate Greg? Hall — Limits us to the timeline of the plan. Kjesbo — If we disturb habitat, we need to build it somewhere. We need a mitigation plan that is equal at the same time. I'd like to see the Forest Service be part of that, but we can't wait on them. We need it defined from council and staff what the end result on the public works area. If the town defines the final result of the plan, then we need to have an EIS started or under contract with this approval. I'd like a definition from the council what the final number of units would be approved in the masterplan. We need to control this and not do it piecemeal. Definitely no dogs. I don't think we're ready for a vote yet and I think we have time. Gillette — Kahn, do you value an E IS over E I R? Kahn — I don't know how an El R is defined here, but it just needs to be comprehensive. For an official EIS, feels that these studies can take upwards of 10 years to complete, by which time conditions on the site have often changed. Gillette — Greg if we don't vote today what is your schedule on this wall? Hall — Part of this is moving the project along, planning time is being taken away from us if delayed. Getting a plan together is less time than getting the construction plans and approvals for the building. Gillette — Less concerned with the actual mitigation than a commitment from council on actually doing it. Kjesbo — I'd be open to mitigation in other areas, if not here, in the case that we don't have USFS approval to do it on other town areas. Our constituents are concerned with the sheep, so we need to be. Gillette — I want to hold the Town of Vail to a higher standard. Let's hold this project and see if we can get Council to do something. We want to hear from the Town of Vail as the applicant whether they are committed to the herd. Perez — The other alternative path is that we say no, and Town Council calls it up to do what they want anyway. Gillette — W here are we with requiring the EIS in masterplans? We want an update from Kristen on the mitigation, and staff on the master planning process including an environmental portion. Spence — We can do that now and moving forward that all masterplans include an environmental study. Kjesbo — I'm fine with separating them and voting on the variance so they can move forward with design, but not construction. Spence — We'll add the conditions to the CUP that you are not going to vote on tonight, so it is cleaned up for the ne)d meeting. Kurz — This commission has some issues that we are not ok with as of now. We understand their time constraint. We are all ok with the motion on the variance as of today. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.7. 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 Karen Perez moved to table to January 13, 2019. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. November 25, 2019 PEC Results Karen Perez moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Abstain: (1) Seibert Absent: (1) Hopkins 4. Adjournment Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department TOWN OF VA10 N PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 9, 2020, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1.1. Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Pam Hopkins, John -Ryan Lockman, Rollie Kjesbo, Pete Seibert, and Brian Gillette Absent: Main Agenda 2.1. 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) 90 min. This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0046 and PEC19-0048. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Motion: Continued to March 231d First: Gillette Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 Planner Roy began by introducing the rezoning application (PEC19- 0047). He showed a vicinity map showing surrounding residential and commercial property. He also explained the existing zoning and uses in the vicinity. Roy then explained the criteria for a rezoning. In discussing the 3rd criteria, Roy discussed the additional height and density allowances that would result from a rezoning from CC3 to PA -2. In discussing the 7t" criteria, Roy discussed the history of development on this property. It was built as a hotel in the county and later annexed into the town with the CC3 zone district. Staff found that site conditions have not significantly changed over time. Concluded that Staff is recommending denial, but stressed that staff is not opposed to redevelopment, instead suggesting the current zoning remain and add a Conditional Use into the CC3 be sought for the hotel. Commissioner Perez: Had a question about links to code sections in the staff memo that were not working. Roy: Indicated that staff would work with Sterling Codifiers and the IT department to fix this issue. Perez: They're going for an SDD anyway, so why are we rezoning or changing zoning requirements if the SDD will set their standards anyway. Roy: An SDD cannot allow a new use, so they need a zoning change regardless. Perez: Asked a question about the relevance of the upcoming West Vail Master Plan to this project. Gillette: Asked staff about the idea to add a text amendment for a conditional use to the CC3. Worried that everyone in CC3 would try to redevelop for a hotel. Roy: The conditional use for a hotel could be tailored and have other specific requirements that could limit hotel development in CC3. Roy: Proceeded to explain the SDD request (PEC19-0048) Perez: Asked what is different from the last time this came before the PEC. Roy: Stated some design changes have been made as a result of DRB and Public Works comments. Roy pointed out these changes on a diagram. Perez: Asked if the height has been changed. Roy: Ridge heights have not changed, but one building was moved in order to reduce its height as defined by the code. Gillette: Asked about a proposed sidewalk. Tom Kassmel: This sidewalk was requested largely for the use of residents north of the site to access the commercial area along North Frontage Road. PW requested the sidewalk connect to the existing sidewalk, but this is not shown on the application. Roy: Continued by explaining the purpose of an SDD as defined by the Code. Then began to describe the deviations from the proposed zone district that the SDD would be addressed. Staff identified 11 deviations. There are also 4 proposed public benefits from this SDD which are, EHUs, pedestrian access along the east side of the property, pedestrian access along the west side of the property, and (missed this one). Roy continued by discussing proposed parking deviations. Then discussed deviation for the snow storage requirement. Perez: They want excess valet parking, but also to use some of these excess spaces for temporary snow storage, why? Roy: Staff would rather see some valet parking being converted to permanent snow storage. Hopkins: Had a question about snow storage in relation to the trees and proposed walkway on the east side of the property. Roy: Continued discussing the requested deviations by discussing a deviation from the minimum size of landscaping areas requirement and deviation from total landscaping required. Roy then finished out the discussion of deviations by discussing the remaining 5 deviations that Staff found appropriate. Hopkins: Asked about fire access. Roy: Stated that the applicant had worked with the Fire department and was able to meet the Fire department's requirements. Roy: Next discussed the design criteria for this application. These criteria include compatibility, parking and loading, design features, traffic, landscaping, and a workable plan. Perez: Asked why having a valet to shuffle cars for snow storage would be worse than asking people to self -move. Roy: If the parking lot was full, which is most likely to happen in the winter, then the development would only have two spots to shuffle cars to. Perez: Mentioned that with her building they work around limits like that by utilizing temporary street parking. Roy: Stated that staff was just looking at parking viability at the site scale. Roy: Then discussed the review criteria for the exterior alteration application (PEC19-0046). Thinks that with changes to parking, landscaping, and snow storage, this could be a very successful project. Lockman: Asked if staff had been working with the applicant. Roy: Indicated that staff had and had been discussing these issues with the applicant. Dominic Mauriello: Introduced himself and his team. Also mentioned that the Widewaters Group is no longer associated with this property. Discussed some of the process that led to this meeting. Mauriello then began discussing their request. Argued that EHUs were not meant to be counted as GRFA in the CC3 zone district and that the PA -2 district exempts EHU GRFA. The PA -2 zone district would also allow other kinds of units like hotel units and lodge units. The proposed district also brings the existing height closer into compliance. In discussing the Vail Land Use Plan, Mauriello stated that hotels are considered a commercial use in this document. The Land Use Plan also doesn't indicate that this hotel in West Vail should be removed. Perez: Asked if by switching to PA -2, they are limiting commercial uses, which is not encouraged by the Vail Land Use Plan. Mauriello: We are proposing what we think will be on this property for decades, and that zoning eventually changes over time. Continuing the discussion of the Land Use Plan, thinks Staff has misinterpreted the goals of the Vail Land Use Plan. Mauriello then discussed the feedback from the previous PEC discussion. Feedback included keeping the rezoning to PA -2 with an SDD concept, changing the existing roof color, pedestrian access, building the EHU building around the same time as everything else, and additional feedback. Mauriello continued with a discussion of the existing site conditions and the proposed project. Ultimately reducing parking area on the site. Adding additional hotel rooms and EHUs. Acknowledges that the lower units of the EHU building are not as good as the above floor units, but it felt like a missed opportunity to not include additional EHUs when it is possible. Discussed how the applicant has met with the local community, and community and town boards multiple times. Vail Local Housing Authority and the Eagle County Housing Taskforce have also stated their support for this project. Discussed the changes to the plan as a result of discussions with the Fire Department. Discussed the Chamonix Lane sidewalk. Not bringing this sidewalk all the way down through the property as to not direct pedestrians into a parking lot. Proposing more parking than required. Conducted a traffic study that showed that the Frontage Rd can handle the additional traffic. Next discussed the minimum landscaping standards by showing that the Town does not have consistent minimum landscaping area standards. Hopkins: Asked about snow storage and trees. Mauriello: Stated that while evergreens limit snow storage somewhat, you wouldn't clear out a 20' landscaping area of trees to make room for snow storage. Mauriello: Continued to show how much of the uses in this area are non- conforming, not just the hotel. A 3 -story building is not uncommon in this area. Then showed some renderings of the proposed buildings and their effect on surrounding views. Perez: Asked if there were renderings from the Chamonix development. Mauriello: Showed a rendering from Chamonix Road near the site. Mauriello: Continued his presentation by discussing the anticipated revenue. Next discussed the hotel occupancy. In 2019, the hotel had an average occupancy of just under 60% with about 1.7 persons per occupied room. The hotel will never reach its theoretical maximum occupancy. Then discussed the need for the SDD. Discussed the variations needed and what is being offered in return. Stated how the project was strongly aligned with the Vail Housing Authority Plan. Open to forwarding a recommendation of approval with conditions for height, parking, or snow storage, if deemed necessary. Gillette: Had a question about putting some EHU into the mitigation bank. Mauriello: Explained how these unit's credits could be purchased by future development. Gillette: So what's the community development for those units? This means that the next development that comes in won't have to add 2 EHUs and could buy these banked units instead. Mauriello: Many developments find that they can meet EHUs on site anyway and that it is common for these banked units to take years to sell off. Hopkins: Asked a question about access to the West Vail Mall and the bus stop from the EHU building. Perez: Talked about how walking through parking lots in the winter can be treacherous, but mentioned how for a hotel it is better risk management to have the lot well maintained. Public Comment Pat Lauer: Lives right behind the development. Wrote a letter about this project and is opposed to the development. Already very limited commercial space in this area. While everyone wants EHU housing, but the proposed building is too tall. This building is actually 4 levels and there is no 4 -level building in the area. Worried also that Chamonix Ln will be hazardous in the winter due to the shading from the EHU building. Discussed some ideas on how this could be mitigated. Also worried about traffic and snow removal on Chamonix. Density is too high and will overcrowd the already crowded public shuttles. Unclear on how the proposed parking will work. Understands that only 4 spots are designated for employee parking. The tripled conference space size benefits the parking requirement in favor of the developer. Mike Oldham: Lives on Chamonix Ln. and represents the HOA at Tall Pines. Not opposed to the expansion of the hotel use as long as it is done effectively. Opposed to the EHU building and especially with its north facing orientation. The now will pile up and will not melt in the winter season, this is why the residential developments in the area face south. The current stairs from Chamonix into the West Vail mall gets icy and hazardous, feels that a walkway on the east side is an overdue idea. Opposed to removing large conifers and doesn't think snow storage in this east area makes sense. Likes the idea of better using this land, but there are a lot of issues with this proposal. Joel Barton: In favor of expanding existing uses. Most lowest -level residential units will not have their views impacted. Workforce housing is a big issue for his work and as a result is supportive of the additional workforce housing. Public Comment closed Planner Roy: Supportive of the expansion of the existing use and adding EHUs, but finds that the site plan needs improvement. Lockman: Thinks that the broad zoning approach with CC3 in the 80s made created this and a lot of issues. Can't hold up this project for the West Vail Master Plan. Wishes there was more overall planning for West Vail already. Doesn't want to lose the hotel and doesn't want to lose commercial uses. We want West Vail to have a broad option of commercial uses. Ultimately doesn't see a huge barrier with the proposed rezoning. See's Staff's concerns with the criteria, but also finds that the applicant has made an effort to meet these criteria and is working with the situation they're given. Wants a clearer plan for pedestrian access along this lot. EHU building could make more sense with a south -facing orientation. Seibert: Could the SDD be used to limit the development potential of this property so that the full extent of the PA -2 density could not be used here? Roy: Yes. Seibert: Concerned about parking in the first meeting, and still a little concerned. Understands Gillette's concern about the EHU banking, but finding land to build new housing is difficult and we have a proposal here to build new units. Hopkins: Doesn't like small spot landscaping that doesn't work with snow storage. Looking at the plan it seems like the applicant has been trying to put too much on the property. Wishes the EHU building was further offset from the road, doesn't seem like this building is as effective as it could be. Thinks this might have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The Chamonix development is more balanced with density and height. Perez: This is a big improvement from the December meeting. Thinks this is a nice transition from the residential areas, to the commercial, to 1-70. This could reduce 1-70 impacts for residents north of the development. Concerned about the light in the lower units of the EHU building. Doesn't like the island landscaping, would rather see some extra landscaping around the EHU building. Thinks it is absurd that hotels aren't considered commercial in the Zoning Code. Doesn't think that this project or others should be held up by the West Vail Master Planning process. Wants the sidewalk as a condition of approval. Blocks some view, but is not out of character for the neighborhood. Kjesbo: Thinks this method will get the property more in compliance. Agrees that hotels should be considered commercial. Thinks that the EHU building towers too high above Chamonix Rd. The bulk and mass is too great for being that close to the road. The hotel will deal with the parking and it is in their best interest to make it work for the guests. Not holding his breath for a West Vail Master Plan. Doesn't think the parking makes sense specifically for the EHU units, would need snowmelt along the entire path for those residents. Gillette: Still in the same place as last meeting. Yes a hotel is commercial, but it is not community commercial. Zoning is the only way to protect the community commercial as commercial developers will go with the use that gets them the most value. CC3 was created to protect the commercial that is still in town. Doesn't see how the commission can approve this project. The project can't and doesn't meet the criteria. Feels that this process needed more discussion when talking about the expansion of a hotel in this area. Can't get on board with the current proposal. Kurz: Tends to agree with Gillette's comments, but we need to act on this project today. Complimented both the applicant and staff. Feels that there must not have been enough discussion between staff and the applicant if staff is recommending denial on all three applications. It appears that this application is not approvable based on the required criteria. Wants to table in the effort to create a more approvable plan for this project. Comfortable with the height. There is a problem with access between parking and the EHU. Worried about the owner maintaining the snow storage. Seeing a project of this scale continuing to have major Staff concerns, brings him concern. Perez: Had a question about being able to preserve the current allowed commercial uses. Planner Spence: Indicated that Staff would envision more of a mixed use project to maintain the commercial nature of this area. The SDD process can limit uses, but cannot expand them. Mauriello: Zoning is not forever, and we are not rezoning the entire CC3 district. If the West Vail Master plan comes in at a later date, this property can still be rezoned to come in conformance with that plan. Has met many times with Staff, but feels that there is a philosophical difference of opinion. Perez: There are some issues remaining on this project. Specifically, the orientation of the entry and access for the EHU. Kjesbo: Wants the height for the EHU building to come down a story. Mauriello: Requested a tabling. 2.2. 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. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Motion: Continued to March 231d First: Gillette Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 2.3. 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. ' 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. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Motion: Continued to March 23rd First: Kjesbo Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 2.4. 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) 5 min. The applicant has requested this item be tabled to May 11, 2020. Applicant: Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates Motion: Table to May 11, 2020 First: Gillette Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 2.5. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required front setback for a stair tower, located at 2696 Davos Trail/Lot 6, Block C, Vail Ridge Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20- 0001) 20 min. Applicant: Michael & Carol Kay Phillips Planner: Greg Roy Motion: Approve with conditions First: Kjesbo Second: Gillette Vote: 7-0-0 Conditions: 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal; and 2. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate, via an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC), to the Community Development Department prior to requesting a final planning inspection that improvements have been constructed per plan. Planner Roy: Introduced the project and described the site conditions. Staff is supportive of this variance as it allows for a more workable site. There are a number of existing garages in the area in the front setback, doesn't feel that a stairway would have any greater impact. Michael Phillips: Has lived in this house for decades and has had to snow shovel the existing walkway for a long time. Age has made this more and more difficult and adding a stair would allow them to continue living in this house. No Public Comment. 2.6. A request for the review of a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the maximum centerline driveway grade, located at 1801 Sunburst Drive Unit A/Lot 2, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0002) 5 min. The applicant has requested this item be tabled to a future date. Applicant: Hilliard West LLC, represented by Pierce Austin Architects Planner: Erik Gates Motion: Table to March 23rd First: Gillette Second: Kjesbo Vote: 7-0-0 2.7. 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 a portion of the property located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision. The proposed rezoning would change the Zone District from Agriculture and Open Space (A) District to the Public Accommodation (PA) District and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0022) 90 min. Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Recommend Approval First: Kjesbo Second: Seibert Vote: 4-2-0 Gillette & Perez opposed Read concurrently with PEC20-0003 and PEC19-0008 Planner Spence opened the project by describing the nature of the application and the history of this project. In the past, the PEC requested that the exterior alteration be heard alongside the rezoning request for context. The two applications cannot be tied together, so a motion on the rezoning will be requested today, but the other items will be tabled. Gillette: Disagrees with Staff's assessment of the court order regarding the rezoning. Says the order does not require a change of the zoning. It preserves the covenants on the property, including conservation easements. Spence: Clarified that Staff did not mean to say otherwise in the memo. Rick Pylman: Introduced his team on the project. Trying to meet the goals of the Vail Master Plan. This building was built in the 60s and much of the neighborhood has stayed the same. Continued to discuss the proposed lodge and amenities involved. Goal is to build the nicest lodge property in vail. Next discussed the site redevelopment. Showed the areas of the lodge that extend over previous other properties. Hanz Berglund: Began by introducing the exterior alteration application and design. Aiming to enhance the quality of this site. Made a significant effort to meet the goals and objectives of the Master Plan. Discussed that this would pull more lodging demand into Vail Village rather than in the more residential neighborhoods. Showed floor plans and elevations of the project. Next he discussed the surrounding character and scale. The existing building is significantly smaller than the buildings surrounding it. The proposed building is comparable in height to its neighbors. Berglund discussed the proposed tower on the building and showed another of other towers throughout Vail Village and Lionshead. He discussed the nature of the proposed setback encroachments and how surrounding buildings also extend into their setbacks. Perez: Asked about a previous discussion of a square design for the property. Berglund: To fit in the side setbacks would cut about 20ft of the building off. It would lead to a steeper fagade. Felt that the current proposal was a better design architecturally. Proposing an increase in landscaping between the proposed building and the Christiana. Also aiming to create a more inviting walking portion in front of the proposed Avanti building. Also showed a sun -shade analysis for this building on Hanson Ranch Road. Perez: Asked a clarifying question about ownership and operations management Sarah Baker: Stated that they refer to Vailpoint as "the client" as they make all final decisions on the property. Perez: Asked a question about if rooms could be rented individually. Rick Pylman: Discussed the need for the setback variances and a parking variance. Kjesbo: Is there an ability to move the building back further to minimize parking in the front setback? Pylman: Potentially, but it is not preferred. Didn't want to give too much front space in parking and risk someone trying to double park and end up parking on the sidewalk. Kjesbo: In speaking to the design, feels that the tower is too much bulk and mass. Didn't think the Tivoli towers had as much b&m Hopkins: Also felt that the building was too large. Feels that this scale does not fit the goal of the project to be a small, highest -class lodge. Also feels like the applicant may not be taking as many sustainability measures as they could. This could also attract guests. Baker: Refreshed the PEC on the history of the rezoning application. She presented a diagram showing the old property and the former separate parcels that are zoned agricultural/open space. Believes this is the only parcel in vail with multiple zoning designations. Showed an overlay of the proposed building over the old agricultural/open space tracts, tried to keep the building off of the back tract as much as possible. Then showed how the current zonings on the lot do not meet their lot size requirements. Rezoning the whole lot to PA would bring the lot size into conformance. Baker continued to describe how the redevelopment would further the Vail Village Master Plan objectives. Commissioner Lockman had to leave during this time and be absent for the remainder of the meeting. Baker: Discussed other factors to consider for redevelopment. Argued that development is already allowed on agriculture/open space so this will not result in or set precedent for further additional development on open space lots. Public Comment Wendle Porterfield: Representing Villa Valhalla. Asked a question to Pete Seibert about his previous employment with Vailpoint. Seibert: Said that he had considered whether he should recuse himself for this. However, he has not been involved in Vailpoint for around 3 years and does not stand to make any money off the project. Porterfield: Asked a question about the sale of the property. Seibert: Discussed the sale of the property and how the additional tract was acquired and assumed to be a part of this property originally. Porterfield: Feels that this is a self-inflicted situation. The applicant is asking for a rezoning but they are clearly going for the rezoning that makes them the most money instead of rezoning for ag and open space for example. Feels that this is a clever way for the applicant to force the PEC to rezone open space. Carol Krueger: Argument against this development has not changed for her since the last meeting. The back part of the property looks unkempt because it is meant to be natural open space. Over 1600 sq ft of patio with development is not undisturbed and will change the character of previous open space. Also stated that the proposed design has not significantly changed. Asked the PEC to carefully consider the setback variance. The original buildings were built before the setback regulations were in place. Doesn't feel that this practice should be continued for a redevelopment. Shouldn't prioritize visitors over the neighboring properties with bedrooms housing Vail residents. For the parking variance, she asks the Commission to consider the current state of Hansen Ranch Road. It's a mess and drop offs happen in the road all the time. Public Comment Closed Baker: The adverse possession case was not a contested trial. It was resolved by stipulation. In addressing the claim that this a self-created issue. Applicant has not proposed to build to a greater scale than what would have been allowed with the previous, smaller parcel. Argues that as such they are not asking to be "rewarded" for the extra lot size. They recognize that parking and loading is an issue in this area and do not want to contribute to that problem. Hopkins: Asked about trash storage Berglund: The current plan is to use regular garbage cans and store them in the garage. Perez: Disappointed that this is the 4t" time hearing this project and nothing has really changed. We disagreed that this is not an owner - created problem. Not in agreement with staff that this meets the criteria. Quoted a section of the Land Use Plan that stated that all greenspace should be attempted to be preserved. Applicant hasn't made an attempt to comply with the PEC's comments. The applicant has asked for variances and does not feel that they shown the grounds for these variances. Hopkins: In agreement with Perez. There doesn't seem to be any benefit for the Town for this project. Seibert: Feel there are 2 ways of looking at this. Open space is what anyone sees when walking by natural vegetation. Seeing manicured grass inside a fence does not read as open space. Disagrees with the argument for the setbacks just because that is the old way buildings were built. Wants to verify that they are not gaining GRFA. Generally supportive of the rest. Kjesbo: If we rezone this, and create a PA compliant lot, why are you requesting a setback variance. Spence: The PA zone district can enter the setbacks Gillette: In the "preserve open space at all costs" boat. In agreement with Perez and Hopkins. Kurz: Based on the Staff report, it seems that the criteria for rezoning has been met. Was in support of the rezoning. Ready to let Town Council to make the final decision on this. 2.8. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-7A-11: Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the prohibition of parking located within the front setback and from the requirement that 75% of the required parking be located within the main building, located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0003) Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Continued to March 231d First: Kjesbo Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-0 2.9. A request for the review of a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the replacement of the existing structure with a seven (7) suite private lodge with related site improvements, located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0008) Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Continued to March 231d First: Kjesbo Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-0 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. February 10, 2020 PEC Results Motion: Approve First: Kjesbo Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-1 Perez abstain 4. Adjournment Motion: Adjourn First: Kjesbo Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily March 6, 2020 Shelley Bellm From: tania boyd <scubakiwi2@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2020 9:30 AM To: Greg Roy Subject: Doubletree Expansion Dear Greg, Brandywine Trace Condominium Association concurs with Pat and Jay Lauer's letter representing Tenterrace regarding issues with the Double Tree expansion. I attended part of the last PEC meeting and am disappointed to see the latest plans from the developer. They do not seem to have taken any of the recommendations and concerns into account in their revised plans, at least as far as the drawings are concerned. I wish to reiterate previous concerns that Brandywine has in regards to the shading and snow removal on Chamonix Lane. As I'm sure you are aware, the sun is low in the south during the winter months and as a consequence both Chamonix Lane along with Tenterrace and Brandywine parking areas receive limited snow or ice melt depending on the weather. Our parking lot and walking along Chamonix Lane can be very treacherous at times. With significantly reduced sun on the street and parking lot, along with our steep entry, we foresee an increase in the number of falls and injuries. Also, as the town needs to plow along the street, would the proposed sidewalk be available to walk on? Currently the town pushes snow over the bank on the south side and also along the front of our properties. Would the town still push snow over the bank or would it now be pushed in front of our properties where we already struggle with enough room for snow storage?? We are wondering how the entryway to the EHU would be kept clear and who would be responsible for that and maintaining the stairs? Our condo complex struggles with ice on our stairs and we are south facing. These north facing areas would not melt until long after the season ends and would be a hazard for the guests and employees trying to use the Pine Ridge bus stop. Also during the meeting you addressed the snow removal issue and valet parking. We agree with you that their proposed snow removal and storage would definitely be of concern particularly in high snow years. We have witnessed this for the past several years and are struggling to understand with an increased building footprint that there would be enough room for snow storage. Their proposed parking and particularly 3 deep valet parking is definitely going to be problematic in regards to enough spaces for the expanded number of guests and employees, along with being able to move cars for plowing. We also wanted to bring up something that we aren't sure if anyone has addressed so far. There are multiple semi's and other truck drivers along with tour buses who stay at the Double Tree for tournaments in Vail. They are often parked up where the EHU will be built or around the corner near where the hotel expansion will be. Will these trucks and buses still be allowed to park on the hotel property or will they need to park on the Frontage road thereby blocking the Frontage road for plowing and skier parking? Or will they be allowed to park in the commercial parking adjacent to the hotel also rendering plowing difficult. Currently no vehicles are allowed to be stored overnight in these spaces. Several years ago we approached the Town about adding 2 guest parking spaces to our lot. We were told that we could not exceed the GPA required by the town as that percentage of land needed to be landscaped according to code. We would be disappointed if these huge edifices are approved when all the surrounding HOA's are required to follow the Town code and landscaping requirements.To Tenterrace`s point, the mature spruce trees would be need to removed and minimal landscaping would be possible. We feel that the sheer size of the EHU building in particular is not in keeping with the current size of the other buildings on this part of Chamonix Lane contrary to what the developer has tried to prove. It will definitely be taller and not fit in with the general aesthetic of the neighborhood where all the buildings are set back from the roadway with landscaping in front. As mentioned in our previous email, we are not completely opposed to the project but would want the construction to enhance the beauty and safety of our neighborhood. As locals who have made West Vail our home we hope you will take our concerns to heart and consider the long term vision for our neighborhood. Regards Tania Boyd on behalf of Michael Spiers, Jackie Nickel and Brandywine Trace Condominium Association April 10, 2020 Mr. Greg Roy, AICP Planner II Community Development Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81557 My husband (Jay Lauer) and myself (Pat Lauer) are full time Vail residents at 2269 Chamonix Lane, Apt 4, which is behind the DoubleTree. We have owned our Vail Tenterrace property for approximately seven years so we are very familiar with the area. We are disappointed with the DoubleTree developer's newest proposal as the modifications are minimal, especially given the comments from the PEC committee and public at the March meeting, which we attended. There are three parts to this developer's request which are the rezoning, special development district and exterior alterations. The Community Development Department (Vail planning staff) recommended a denial on all three of the above requests at the March Vail Town Council meeting. We summarized these areas below to re-emphasize that the developer has specific criteria that need to be met according to the Vail regulatory codes. Especially for the SDD, the developer has the burden of proof to meet each design criteria and we think it is clear that their new proposal falls short. FAILURE OF ZONE CODE AMENDMENT/REZONING - LIMITED COMMERCIAL SPACE IN VAIL: Since Vail has a very small commercial area development (1% as pointed out in the Vail Land Use Plan), the commercial area should stay as currently zoned as there is not enough commercial space allotted for the size of Vail. If you look at the current commercial space in West Vail, there is very little commercial vacancy. The commercial space we have now should be protected as to what was originally designated in the Vail Land Use Plan. At the last PEC meeting, Vail planning staff found that the proposed rezone district amendment did not conform to 4 out of 8 rezoning criteria by the developer (2, 3, 4 and 7 — shown below). Nothing has changed in the rezoning request in the developer's modified proposal. 2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. 4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole. 7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. FAILURE ON SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (SDD) CRITERIA — APPLICANT DID NOT PROVE THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF FOR EACH REVIEW CRITERIA: Per section 12-9A-8, under the design criteria and necessary findings, section A states: SDD Criteria: The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluation the merits of the proposed special development district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. With this new proposal, the first criteria, compatibility, will still fail since there were minimal design changes on the EHU 15 apartment complex, so the developer does not comply with each of the SDD criteria. 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. 3. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. SDD Deviations: Also, there were a total of 11 deviations requested by the developer of which 3 were denied at the last meeting. The last deviation will never be met due to the design of the EHU 15 apartment complex. 3. Exception from the requirement that landscaped areas with trees cannot be used for snow storage. 4. Reduction in the amount of snow storage required. 7. Relief from the subdivision requirement that requires a new lot be able to enclose an 80' by 80'square. FAILURE ON EXTERIOR ALTERATION— APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THEIR CRITERIA: The Vail planning staff found that the criteria for section 2 below was not met and was denied. The new proposal will not change as the EHU 15 apartment complex design has barely changed. 2. That the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. The reply from the Vail planning staff stated: The proposal does have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. The height that is proposed is as part of this application is not compatible with this neighborhood. As discussed in SDD criteria #1, there is a large difference between the residential zone districts across Chamonix Road and the proposed height of the buildings in this application. With this proposal, that difference is tripled, which is out of character to any other properties in the neighborhood. OUR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: Lastly, we mentioned (and want to emphasize again) the following points in our previous letter to PEC and in the March meeting: Density of the Complex: The number of people (guests, employees and tenants) at this entire complex will be over double the current capacity (386 people) with a new maximum capacity of 782 people. We believe this is excessively high density during the peak visitor time periods and definitely doesn't benefit our neighborhood. There would be increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the area with the employee housing development. Excessive Stress on Our Public Bus System: Currently, the DoubleTree has 2 shuttle buses that each hold 14 people. If you figure the shuttles can only move 112 people per hour (4 round trips per shuttle in an hour), then the DoubleTree guests, employees and residents during the busy winter hotel time periods (Saturdays, Christmas/New Years, President's Week, March spring breaks, winter weekends and powder snow days) will be utilizing our public bus system to get to Vail Resort instead of waiting for the hotel's shuttle buses. When people have the option of less than a 1 minute walk to get to the Pine Ridge bus stop, we think it will put excessive pressure on our already congested public bus system. The public buses during these peak time periods are currently very full, with standing room only once you go to the next one or two shuttle bus stops down from Pine Ridge. Lack of Adequate Parking in the 15 EHU buildinL. With only 16 parking spots for 34 bedrooms (maximum of 98 people), the parking is inadequate. The McDowell Engineering performed a parking needs analysis at Lion's Ridge, which is not a good comparison as the location is substantially different compared to the DoubleTree location. Having only 16 parking spots for this many people seems unrealistic. Lack of Adequate Parking for DoubleTree Employees: With only 4 employee spaces, this is inadequate parking for a hotel expansion this size. Our concern is that employees driving cars to work will park their vehicles in other commercial spots to the east of the DoubleTree hotel or in our residential building's parking areas immediately behind the DoubleTree on Chamonix Lane. Destruction of the Neighborhood's Mature Spruce Trees: This project is going to remove and destroy the atheistic beauty of the mature spruce trees that line Chamonix Lane. These spruce trees are "trophy" trees that can't be replaced. Replanting with smaller trees doesn't have the screening impact as well as the majestic beauty of these mature spruce trees. It changes the character of our neighborhood. No Penalty if the Project is not Completed in 15 Months: The last remodel at the hotel a couple of years ago went way over the projected time period to be finished. It took them well over two years to remodel the inside and do some minor exterior alterations. We are concerned that if this development goes through, our neighborhood will suffer for years with dirt and noisy construction and increased congestion from the construction workforce. The developer told us that they estimated it would take 15 months to complete this project. If this project is approved, there needs to be some agreement between the developer and the Town of Vail that the project will be completed in the agreed upon time so our neighborhood is not compromised and disrupted for an unreasonable time period. Thank you for your time and consideration in reading our concerns about this proposed development. Sincerely, Jay and Pat Lauer 2269 Chamonix Ln Apt 4, Vail, CO 81557 plauer@sisna.com April 11, 2020 Mr. Greg Roy, AICP Planner II Community Development Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81557 The Tall Pines Homeowners Assoc at 2239 A & B Chamonix Lane, & 2241 A & B Chamonix Lane are again reaching out to you to oppose this Doubletree Developers proposal. We had a filed our first complaint with you on March 7, 2020, and now after seeing the proposed modifications from the developer- we see that they are minimal modifications. This is so disappointing, as there were so many comments from the PEC committee and the Public comments at the March meeting, which we attended. Our Tall Pines development is directly behind the Doubletree Hotel and parking area. We have been West Vail residents for 20 years. We are in complete agreement with Pat & Jay Lauer's letter sent to you April 10, 2020. They recognized 3 parts to the Developers request which is Rezoning, Special Development District and Exterior Alterations. The community Development Dept (Vail Planning Staff) recommended a denial on all of the 3 parts of the Developers Request at the March Town Council meeting. The Lauer's most recent April letter to you, summarized the areas below to re-emphasize that the developer has specific criteria that needed to be met according to the Vail regulatory codes. Especially for the SDD- the developer has the burden of proof to meet each design criteria and the Tall Pines Homeowners Assoc thinks this new proposal falls way short! FAILURE OF ZONE CODE AMENDMENT/REZONING - LIMITED COMMERCIAL SPACE IN VAIL: Since Vail has a very small commercial area development (1% as pointed out in the Vail Land Use Plan), the commercial area should stay as currently zoned as there is not enough commercial space allotted for the size of Vail. If you look at the current commercial space in West Vail, there is very little commercial vacancy. The commercial space we have now should be protected as to what was originally designated in the Vail Land Use Plan. At the last PEC meeting, Vail planning staff found that the proposed rezone district amendment did not conform to 4 out of 8 rezoning criteria by the developer (2, 3, 4 and 7 — shown below). Nothing has changed in the rezoning request in the developer's modified proposal. 2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. 4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole. 7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate. FAILURE ON SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (SDD) CRITERIA — APPLICANT DID NOT PROVE THEIR BURDEN OF PROOF FOR EACH REVIEW CRITERIA: Per section 12-9A-8, under the design criteria and necessary findings, section A states: SDD Criteria: The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluation the merits of the proposed special development district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. With this new proposal, the first criteria, compatibility, will still fail since there were minimal design changes on the EHU 15 apartment complex, so the developer does not comply with each of the SDD criteria. 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. 3. Parking and Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. SDD Deviations: Also, there were a total of 11 deviations requested by the developer of which 3 were denied at the last meeting. The last deviation will never be met due to the design of the EHU 15 apartment complex. 3. Exception from the requirement that landscaped areas with trees cannot be used for snow storage. 4. Reduction in the amount of snow storage required. 7. Relief from the subdivision requirement that requires a new lot be able to enclose an 80' by 80' square. FAILURE ON EXTERIOR ALTERATION— APPLICANT FAILED TO MEET THEIR CRITERIA: The Vail planning staff found that the criteria for section 2 below was not met and was denied. The new proposal will not change as the EHU 15 apartment complex design has barely changed. 2. That the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. The reply from the Vail planning staff stated: The proposal does have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. The height that is proposed is as part of this application is not compatible with this neighborhood. As discussed in SDD criteria #1, there is a large difference between the residential zone districts across Chamonix Road and the proposed height of the buildings in this application. With this proposal, that difference is tripled, which is out of character to any other properties in the neighborhood. 0111Cye\DID]IIM) ►1e\IEi101RAIRA1a►1C.11 Lastly, we mentioned (and want to emphasize again) the following points in our previous letter to PEC and in the March meeting: Density of the Complex: The number of people (guests, employees and tenants) at this entire complex will be over double the current capacity (386 people) with a new maximum capacity of 782 people. We believe this is excessively high density during the peak visitor time periods and definitely doesn't benefit our neighborhood. There would be increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the area with the employee housing development. Excessive Stress on Our Public Bus System: Currently, the DoubleTree has 2 shuttle buses that each hold 14 people. If you figure the shuttles can only move 112 people per hour (4 round trips per shuttle in an hour), then the DoubleTree guests, employees and residents during the busy winter hotel time periods (Saturdays, Christmas/New Years, President's Week, March spring breaks, winter weekends and powder snow days) will be utilizing our public bus system to get to Vail Resort instead of waiting for the hotel's shuttle buses. When people have the option of less than a 1 minute walk to get to the Pine Ridge bus stop, we think it will put excessive pressure on our already congested public bus system. The public buses during these peak time periods are currently very full, with standing room only once you go to the next one or two shuttle bus stops down from Pine Ridge. Lack of Adequate Parking in the 15 EHU building: With only 16 parking spots for 34 bedrooms (maximum of 98 people), the parking is inadequate. The McDowell Engineering performed a parking needs analysis at Lion's Ridge, which is not a good comparison as the location is substantially different compared to the DoubleTree location. Having only 16 parking spots for this many people seems unrealistic. Lack of Adequate Parking for DoubleTree Employees: With only 4 employee spaces, this is inadequate parking for a hotel expansion this size. Our concern is that employees driving cars to work will park their vehicles in other commercial spots to the east of the DoubleTree hotel or in our residential building's parking areas immediately behind the DoubleTree on Chamonix Lane. Destruction of the Neighborhood's Mature Spruce Trees: This project is going to remove and destroy the atheistic beauty of the mature spruce trees that line Chamonix Lane. These spruce trees are "trophy" trees that can't be replaced. Replanting with smaller trees doesn't have the screening impact as well as the majestic beauty of these mature spruce trees. It changes the character of our neighborhood. No Penalty if the Project is not completed in 15 Months: The last remodel at the hotel a couple of years ago went way over the projected time period to be finished. It took them well over two years to remodel the inside and do some minor exterior alterations. We are concerned that if this development goes through, our neighborhood will suffer for years with dirt and noisy construction and increased congestion from the construction workforce. The developer told us that they estimated it would take 15 months to complete this project. If this project is approved, there needs to be some agreement between the developer and the Town of Vail that the project will be completed in the agreed upon time so our neighborhood is not compromised and disrupted for an unreasonable time period. Thank you for your time and consideration in reading our concerns about this proposed development. By the way: We will be in attendance via the internet for the Mon April 13 meeting. Sincerely, Tall Pines HOA: Kathy Standage & Mike Oldham- 2239B Chamonix Lane Plowden Bridges & Vaughn Bollard- 2239A Chamonix Lane Judy & Charles Goldman, 2241B Chamonix Lane Evan Noyes, 2241A Chamonix Lane City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 13, 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. ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC19-0046 PEC19- 0048 Staff Memorandum - Highline - SDDEA - April 13.pdf Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf Highline cover letter 3-16-20.pdf DoubleTree Narrative 3-16-2020.pdf Plans 1 of 4.pdf Plans 2 of 4.pdf Plans 3 of 4.pdf Plans 4 of 4.pdf Attachment D. Attachment E. Highline Parking Study 1-10-20.pdf Public Comment - Patricia Lauer - 12-3-2019.pdf Attachment F. Public Comment - Tania Boyd - 12-3-2019.pdf Attachment G. Attachment H. Public Comment - Lauer - 2-4-20.pdf Public Comment - Elyse Howard - 2-3-2020.pdf Attachment I. Public Comment - Chris Romer - 1-27-2020.pdf Attachment J. Public Comment - Carey and Brett August - 12-7- 2019.pd Attachment K. Public Comment - James Pyke - 2-26-2020.pdf Attachment L. Attachment M. Public Comment - VCBA - 3-4-2020.Ddf Vail Local Housing Authority Letter - 12-18-2019.pdf Attachment N. Public Comment - Michael Spiers - 3-3-2020.pdf Attachment O. PEC Minutes from Meeting on 12-09-2019.pdf Pec results 030920.pdf Description Staff Report PEC19-0046, PEC19-0048 Attachment A. Vicinity Map Attachment B. Applicant Cover Letter Dated 3-16-2020 Attachment C. Applicant Narrative - 3-16-2020 Attachment D. Plan Set 1 of 4 Attachment D. Plan Set 2 of 4 Attachment D. Plan Set 3 of 4 Attachment D. Plan Set 4 of 4 Attachment E. Highline Parking Study 1-10-20 Attachment F. Public Comment - Patricia Lauer - 12-3-2019 Attachment G. Public Comment - Tania Boyd - 12-3-2019 Attachment H. Public Comment - Lauer - 2-4-20 Attachment I. Public Comment - Elyse Howard - 2-3-2020 Attachment J. Public Comment - Chris Romer - 1-27-2020 Attachment K. Public Comment - Carey and Brett August - 12-7-2019 Attachment L. Public Comment - James Pyke - 2-26-2020 Attachment M. Public Comment - VCBA - 3-4-2020 Attachment N. Vail Local Housing Authority Letter - 12-18-2019 Attachment O. Public Comment - Michael Spiers - 3-3-2020 Attachment P. PEC Minutes from Meeting on 12-09-2019 Attachment Q. PEC Minutes from Meeting on 3-09-2020 0) rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 13, 2020 SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Highline Double Tree), pursuant to Section 12-9-A Special Development (SDD) District, 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 a 15 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) And A final review for a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, 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 a 15 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. (PEC19-0046) Applicant: TNFREF III Bravo Vail LLC represented by Mauriello Planning Group & Triumph Development Planner: Greg Roy SUMMARY Special Development District The applicant, TNFREF III Bravo Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group and Triumph Development, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for approval of a Special Development District, pursuant to Section 12-9-A, Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, located at the property of 2211 N. Frontage Road West, which is comprised of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outline in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions to the Vail Town Council to establish a Special Development District. Major Exterior Alteration The applicant, TNFREF III Bravo Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group and Triumph Development, is also requesting approval of a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, located at the property of 2211 N. 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. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outline in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve, with conditions, the applicant's request for the major exterior alteration. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, TNFREF III Bravo Vail LLC represented by Mauriello Planning Group & Triumph Development, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application to establish Special Development District No. 42 (Highline Double Tree), pursuant to Section 12-9-A Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, and a final review for a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, 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 a 15 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. Attached for review are: Town of Vail Page 2 A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant Cover Letter Dated 3-16-2020 C. Applicant Narrative, 3-16-2020 D. Plan Set, Pierce Austin Architects, 3-16-2020 E. Parking Study 1-10-2020 F. Public Comment — Patricia Lauer — 12-3-2019 G. Public Comment — Tania Boyd — 12-3-2019 H. Public Comment — Patricia Lauer — 2-4-2020 I. Public Comment — Elyse Howard — 2-3-2020 J. Public Comment— Chris Romer— 1-27-2020 K. Public Comment — Carey and Brett August — 12-7-2019 L. Public Comment — James Pyke — 2-26-2020 M. Public Comment — VCBA — 3-4-2020 N. Vail Local Housing Authority Letter — 12-18-2019 O. Public Comment — Michael Spiers — 3-3-2020 P. PEC Minutes from Meeting on 12-09-2019 Q. PEC Minutes from Meeting on 3-09-2020 BACKGROUND In 1980, the hotel was built under Eagle County jurisdiction and was annexed into the Town of Vail per Ordinance No. 43, Series 1980 and the zoned Commercial Core 3 (CC3) within the required ninety days. The Ordinance was later overturned by the Colorado Court of Appeals due to a lack on contiguity. It was then annexed again with Ordinance No. 1, Series 1986 and was again zoned CC3 with Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1986. Over time there have been multiple application for small remodels or exterior alterations. Most recently was an exterior alteration that allowed for the restriping of the parking lot, pool upgrades, and exterior facade upgrades to the building in 2016. This application was discussed before the PEC as part of a work session on December 9th 2019. Please find the minutes from this meeting included as Attachment P. The Design Review Board also reviewed a conceptual application on December 18th, 2019. This application was scheduled to be heard on March 23rd but was to the April 13th meeting. Town of Vail Page 3 Highline - A Doubletree Hotel. Major Exterior Alteration - PEC 19. 0046 ra Rezoning - PEC19-0047 Special Development District - PEC19-0048 2211 North Frontage Road West ;.b Pic - y c lip Pa E F L Feet 0 25 50 100 ..:issirwei�ee-oeremeer z, mse iOWX df YA IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan, the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Vail Town Code ARTICLE A. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT (SDD) DISTRICT 12-9A-1: PURPOSE AND APPLICABILITY. A. Purpose: The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities, to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas, and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. An Town of Vail Page 4 approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. B. Applicability: Special development districts do not apply to and are not available in the following zone districts: hillside residential, single-family residential, two-family residential and two-family primary/secondary residential. (Ord. 29(2005) § 26: Ord. 9(1994) § 1: Ord. 21(1988) § 1) 12-9A-2: DEFINITIONS.- AFFECTED EFINITIONS: AFFECTED PROPERTY: Property within a special development district that, by virtue of its proximity or relationship to a proposed amendment request to an approved development plan, may be affected by redesign, density increase, change in uses, or other modifications changing the impacts, or character of the approved special development district. AGENT OR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE: Any individual or association authorized or empowered in writing by the property owner to act on his (her) stead. If any of the property to be included in the special development district is a condominiumized development, the pertinent condominium association may be considered the agent or authorized representative for the individual unit owners if authorized in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations and all other requirements of the condominium declarations are met. MAJOR AMENDMENT (PEC AND/OR COUNCIL REVIEW): Any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area, change the number of dwelling or accommodation units, modify, enlarge or expand any approved special development district (other than "minor amendments" as defined in this section), except as provided under section 12-15-4, "Interior Conversions'; or 12-15-5, "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance)'; of this title. MINOR AMENDMENT (STAFF REVIEW). Modifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development district, and are consistent with the design criteria of this article. Minor amendments may include, but not be limited to, variations of not more than five feet (5) to approved setbacks and/or building footprints, changes to landscape or site plans that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the special development district; or changes to gross floor area (excluding residential uses) of not more than five percent (5%) of the approved square footage of retail, office, common Town of Vail Page 5 areas and other nonresidential floor area, except as provided under section 12-15-4 "Interior Conversions", or 12-15-5, "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance) ", of this title. UNDERLYING ZONE DISTRICT: The zone district existing on the property, or imposed on the property at the time the special development district is approved. The following zone districts are prohibited from special development districts being used: hillside residential, single-family residential, two-family residential, two-family primary/secondary residential. (Ord. 29(2005) § 26: Ord. 13(1997) § 2: Ord. 9(1994) § 2: Ord. 21(1988) § 1) 12-9A-4: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES.- A. ROCEDURES: A. Approval Of Plan Required: Prior to site preparation, building construction, or other improvements to land within a special development district, there shall be an approved development plan for said district. The approved development plan shall establish requirements regulating development, uses and activity within a special development district. B. Preapplication Conference: Prior to submittal of a formal application for a special development district, the applicant shall hold a preapplication conference with the department of community development. The purpose of this meeting shall be to discuss the goals of the proposed special development district, the relationship of the proposal to applicable elements of the town's comprehensive plan, and the review procedure that will be followed for the application. C. PEC Conducts Initial Review: The initial review of a proposed special development district shall be held by the planning and environmental commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. Prior to this meeting, and at the discretion of the administrator, a work session may be held with the applicant, staff and the planning and environmental commission to discuss special development district. A report of the department of community development staff's findings and recommendations shall be made at the initial formal hearing before the planning and environmental commission. Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed amendment, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the petition or proposal. The commission may recommend approval of the petition or proposal as initiated, may recommend approval with such modifications as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or may recommend denial of the petition or rejection of the proposal. The commission shall transmit its recommendation, together with a report on the public hearing and its deliberations and findings, to the town council. D. Town Council Review: A report of the planning and environmental commission stating its findings and recommendations, and the staff report shall then be transmitted to the town council. Upon receipt of the report and recommendation of Town of Vail Page 6 the planning and environmental commission, the town council shall set a date for hearing within the following thirty (30) days. Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a proposed SDD, the town council shall act on the petition or proposal. The town council shall consider but shall not be bound by the recommendation of the planning and environmental commission. The town council may cause an ordinance to be introduced to create or amend a special development district, either in accordance with the recommendation of the planning and environmental commission or in modified form, or the council may deny the petition. If the council elects to proceed with an ordinance adopting an SDD, the ordinance shall be considered as prescribed by the Vail town charter. (Ord. 29(2005) § 26: Ord. 21(1988) § 1) 12-9A-6: DEVELOPMENT PLAN.- An LAN: An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of special development districts. A development plan shall be approved by ordinance by the town council in conjunction with the review and approval of any special development district. The development plan shall be comprised of materials submitted in accordance with section 12-9A-5 of this article. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the special development district shall develop. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, parking plan, preliminary open space/landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional and accessory uses. (Ord. 29(2005) § 26.- Ord. 6:Ord. 21(1988) § 1) 12-9A-7: USES.- Determination SES:Determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the planning and environmental commission and town council as a part of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed special development district, permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in a property's underlying zone district. Under certain conditions, commercial uses may be permitted in residential special development districts if, in the opinion of the town council, such uses are primarily for the service and convenience of the residents of the development and the immediate neighborhood. Such uses, if any, shall not change or destroy the predominantly residential character of the special development district. The amount of area and type of such uses, if any, to be allowed in a residential special development district shall be established by the town council as a part of the approved development plan. (Ord. 29(2005) § 26: Ord. 21(1988) § 1) 12-9A-8: DESIGN CRITERIA AND NECESSARY FINDINGS.- Town INDINGS:Town of Vail Page 7 A. Criteria: The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed special development district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved.- 1. chieved: 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. 3. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. 5. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. B. Necessary Findings: Before recommending and/or granting an approval of an application for a special development district, the planning and environmental commission and the town council shall make the following findings with respect to the proposed SDD: Town of Vail Page 8 1. That the SDD complies with the standards listed in subsection A of this section, unless the applicant can demonstrate that one or more of the standards is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. 2. That the SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town, and 3. That the SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas, and 4. That the SDD promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. (Ord. 29(2005) § 26: Ord. 21(1988) § 1) 12-9A-9: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.- Development TANDARDS: Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the town council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the planning and environmental commission. Before the town council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12-9A-8 of this article. (Ord. 29(2005) § 26: Ord. 21(1988) § 1) ARTICLE J. PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION -2 (PA -2) DISTRICT 12-7J-1: PURPOSE.- The URPOSE: The public accommodation -2 district is intended to provide sites for lodges, limited service lodges, and residential accommodations on a short term basis, for visitors and guests, together with such public and semipublic facilities and commercial/retail and related visitor oriented uses as may be appropriately located within the same zone district and compatible with adjacent land uses. This district is intended to provide for lodging sites located outside the periphery of the town's Vail Village and Lionshead commercial core areas. The public accommodation -2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the zone district by establishing Town of Vail Page 9 appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the zone district. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-2: PERMITTED USES.- The SES: The following uses shall be permitted in the PA -2 district: Employee housing units, as further regulated by chapter 13 of this title. Limited service lodge, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. (Ord. 1(2008) § 23.- Ord. 3:Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-3: CONDITIONAL USES.- The SES: The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the PA -2 district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title.- Bed itle: Bed and breakfasts, as further regulated by section 12-14-18 of this title. Fractional fee club units, as further regulated by subsection 12-16-7A8 of this title. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and occupying between ten percent (10%) and fifteen percent (15%) of the total gross residential floor area of the buildings, grounds and facilities. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures. Public transportation terminals. Public utility and public service uses. Town of Vail Page 10 Religious institutions. Theaters and convention facilities. (Ord. 2(2016) § 18: Ord. 12(2008) § 25: Ord. 1(2008) § 23: Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-4: ACCESSORY USES.- The SES: The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the PA -2 district.- Home istrict: Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the provisions of section 12-14-12 of this title. Meeting rooms. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreation facilities customarily incidental to permitted lodge uses. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS.- The IMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be ten thousand (10,000) square feet of buildable area and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80) on each side within its boundaries. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-6: SETBACKS.- In ETBACKS: In the PA -2 district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20), and the minimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20). At the discretion of the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board, variations to the setback standards outlined above may be approved during the review of exterior alterations or modifications (section 12-7J-12 of this article) subject to the applicant demonstrating compliance with the following criteria.- A. riteria: A. Proposed building setbacks provide necessary separation between buildings and riparian areas, geologically sensitive areas and other environmentally sensitive areas. B. The proposed building setbacks will provide adequate availability of light, air and open space. Town of Vail Page 11 C. Proposed building setbacks will provide a compatible relationship with buildings and uses on adjacent properties. D. Proposed building setbacks will result in creative design solutions or other public benefits that could not otherwise be achieved by conformance with prescribed setback standards. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-7: HEIGHT. For a flat roof or mansard roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty five feet (45). For a sloping roof, the height of buildings shall not exceed forty eight feet (48). (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-8: DENSITY CONTROL.- Up ONTROL: Up to one hundred fifty (150) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) may be permitted for each one hundred (100) square feet of buildable site area. Final determination of allowable gross residential floor area shall be made by the planning and environmental commission in accordance with section 12-7J-12 of this article. Specifically, in determining allowable gross residential floor area the planning and environmental commission shall make a finding that proposed gross residential floor area is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. For the purposes of calculating density, employee housing units, limited service lodge units, accommodation units and fractional fee club units shall not be counted towards density (dwelling units per acre). A dwelling unit in a multiple -family building may include one or more attached accommodation units. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-9: SITE COVERAGE.- Site OVERAGE: Site coverage shall not exceed sixty five percent (65%) of the total site area. Final determination of allowable site coverage shall be made by the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board in accordance with section 12-7J-12 of this article. Specifically, in determining allowable site coverage the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board shall make a finding that proposed site coverage is in conformance with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-10: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT. Town of Vail Page 12 At least thirty percent (30%) of the total site area shall be landscaped. The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area not less than three hundred (300) square feet. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-11: PARKING AND LOADING.- Off OADING: Off street parking and loading shall be provided in accordance with chapter 10 of this title. At least seventy five percent (75%) of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public view. No at grade or above grade surface parking or loading area shall be located in any required front setback area. Below grade underground structured parking and short term guest loading and drop off shall be permitted in the required front setback subject to the approval of the planning and environmental commission and/or the design review board. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-12: EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS: A. Review Required: The construction of a new building or the alteration of an existing building shall be reviewed by the design review board in accordance with chapter 11 of this title. However, any project which adds additional dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, limited service lodge units, any project which adds more than one thousand (1,000) square feet of commercial floor area or common space, or any project which has substantial off site impacts (as determined by the administrator) shall be reviewed by the planning and environmental commission as a major exterior alteration in accordance with this chapter and section 12-3-6 of this title. Complete applications for major exterior alterations shall be submitted in accordance with administrative schedules developed by the department of community development for planning and environmental commission and design review board review. The following submittal items are required.- 1. equired: 1. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building owner's authorized agent or representative on a form provided by the administrator. Any application for condominiumized buildings shall be authorized by the condominium association in conformity with all pertinent requirements of the condominium association's declarations. 2. Application, Contents: The administrator shall establish the submittal requirements for an exterior alteration or modification application. A complete list of the submittal requirements shall be maintained by the administrator and filed in the department of community development. Certain submittal requirements may be waived and/or modified by the administrator and/or the reviewing body if it is demonstrated by the applicant that the information and materials required are not relevant to the proposed development or applicable to the planning documents that comprise the Vail comprehensive plan. The administrator and/or the reviewing body may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, Town of Vail Page 13 specifications, samples and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal. 3. Work Sessions/Conceptual Review: If requested by either the applicant or the administrator, submittals may proceed to a work session with the planning and environmental commission, a conceptual review with the design review board, or a work session with the town council. 4. Hearing: The public hearing before the planning and environmental commission shall be held in accordance with section 12-3-6 of this title. The planning and environmental commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with conditions or modifications, or deny the application. The decision of the planning and environmental commission may be appealed to the town council in accordance with section 12-3-3 of this title. 5. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of an exterior alteration as prescribed by this article shall lapse and become void three (3) years following the date of approval by the design review board unless, prior to the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diligently pursued to completion. Administrative extensions shall be allowed for reasonable and unexpected delays as long as code provisions affecting the proposal have not changed. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-13: COMPLIANCE BURDEN.- It URDEN: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the planning and environmental commission and the design review board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the public accommodation -2 (PA -2) zone district, and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-14: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS.- Property MPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The Town of Vail Page 14 intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) 12-7J-15: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY: A. Limitations, Exception: All permitted and conditional uses shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building except for permitted parking and loading areas and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be unenclosed by a conditional use permit and the outdoor display of goods. For purposes of this section, "conducted entirely within a building" means that all activities related to the permitted use, including contacting potential customers and clients, must occur completely inside of a building, and not in an open doorway of the building. B. Outdoor Displays: The area to be used for an outdoor display shall be located directly in front of the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor displays. (Ord. 11 (2019) § 10) V. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 2211 North Frontage Road West Legal Description: Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3 Existing Zoning: Commercial Core 3 (CC3) Proposed Zoning: Public Accommodation -2 (PA -2) District Land Use Plan Designation: Community Commercial Current Land Use: Lodge Proposed Land Use: Lodge and Employee Housing Apartment Building Geological Hazards: Debris Flow, Steep Slopes and Rock Fall Hazard Town of Vail Page 15 VI. Development Required by Town Proposed Complies? Standard Code Lot Size Min. 10,000 sq. ft. 3.95 acres (172,047 sq. Complies ft. Minimum Setbacks Front — 20' North: 20' Deviation Requested Side — 20' South: >20' Rear — 20' East: 12' West: >20' Maximum Height 48 ft. max - mansard 47'6" ft. max Complies 45 ft. max - flat 44'3" ft. max GRFA Max. 150/100 Buildable 77,805 sq. ft. Complies Site Area or 258,070 SF Site coverage Max. 65% of site area or 62,070 sq. ft. or 36% Complies maximum 111,830 sq. ft. Minimum Landscaping Min. 30% of site area or 53,948 sq. ft. or 31% ** Deviation Requested 51,614 sq. ft. Minimum Snow Min. 30% of paved area* 17,189 sq. ft. or 30%*** Deviation Requested Storage or 16,945 sq. ft. Required Parking 256 spaces 208 spaces Deviation requested * Snow storage is 10% for paved areas that are snow melted. ** Including areas that do not meet the dimension or size requirements and area of grasscrete. Additional discussion in deviation #4 below. *** Including areas with trees. Additional discussion in deviation #3 below. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use North: Multi-family/Single- family South: 1-70 East: Commercial 7one nistrict Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential N/A Commercial Core 3 (CC3) West: Commercial/Housing Commercial Core 3 (CC3) & Housing (H) VII. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEVIATIONS REQUESTED: 1. Reduction in the parking requirements for the site. The application includes a parking study perfomed by McDowell Engineering that analyzed the parking counts for the hotel, conference space, retail, and commercial uses on the property. The counts suggested do not include the EHU units or the two existing independent restaurants in the hotel building. The study utilizes the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) counts as well as an onsite parking survey performed by the property owner over a period of 11 months. Town of Vail Page 16 The study concludes that for the uses proposed, a rate of 0.7 parking spaces per room will be sufficient 99% of the time. At 0.7 spaces per room that comes to a total of 137 spaces for 195 rooms. With the restaurant seating (18.9), the dormitory (2.5), and the EHU building (17) parking the total spaces proposed to be required would be 175 spaces. Use Rooms/Units Spaces Per Room/Unit GRFA/SF 1 Space Per Parking Required Applicant's Suggestion Accommodation Units 176 0.4 57755 1000SF GRFA 128.2 123.2 Limited Service Lodge Unit 19 0.7 13.3 13.3 Restaurants and lobby bar(seating area) 2357 120 SF 19.6 18.9 Spa/retail 1520 300 SF 5.1 0 Dorm (dwelling unit 2000+SF 1 2.5 2.5 2.5 EHU 16 2 32 17 Conference Space (seating floor area) 6616 120 SF 55.1 0 Total Parking Required 255.8 174.9 Based on the data of actual parking usage collected on the site, and the study performed by McDowell Engineering, staff finds that the proposed required parking count suggested by the applicant will be sufficient. 2. Increase in the amount of parking controlled by valet. Town Code stipulates that "Valet parking shall be allowed but shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the required parking on site." If the required parking is decided upon as 175 parking spaces, then 50% would be 87.5 spaces that would be allowed to be operated by valet parking. The application is proposing to valet park 111 spaces or 78.8% of the required parking, which would be 23 more spaces than the maximum allowed by code. The application proposes to include 208 parking spaces, which exceeds the required parking (175 spaces) by 33 spaces. The application shows the third row of exterior valet spaces will be covered with grass pavers. This increases the flexibility of the parking on site and will allow for overflow parking in the summer and increased snow storage in the winter months. Three deep, exterior valet parking could cause functionality concerns if utilized during winter months, but the ability of the site to flex and utilize the third row for snow storage instead of parking minimizes any potential conflicts. 3. Exception from the requirement that landscaped areas with trees cannot be used for snow storage. Section 14-5-2(g) does not allow landscaped areas with trees to be counted for snow storage purposes. Some of the areas that are currently being utilized for snow storage are included in the proposed snow storage in this plan. With these areas included in the calculation the site is meeting the snow storage minimums. Meeting the minimum Town of Vail Page 17 amount with a snow removal plans makes it less likely that the snow storage will be utilized in and around the trees, reducing the possible negative impacts from including these areas in the calculation. 4. Relief from the minimum size of landscaping areas qualifying to meet landscape standards. There is a minimum size for landscaping in the PA -2 Zone District that is eligible to meet the minimum landscape requirement. The Code requires "The minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet (15) with a minimum area of not less than three hundred (300) square feet." This application wishes to be granted relief from this requirement. Allowing these areas that do not meet the minimum size requirements makes it possible to disperse more landscaping throughout the site. While the survivability of the planting in these areas may be challenged, with appropriate care and maintenance they will add to the overall aesthetic of the site. 5. Relief from the subdivision requirement that requires a new lot be able to enclose an 80' by 80' square. For a future subdivision, which would be required to create a new lot, the minimum lot area and dimensions in Section 12-7J-5 requires that "each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area eighty feet (80) on each side within its boundaries." Due to the nature of the proposed EHU building and the site plan, there is no practical way to meet this requirement. 6. Relief from the interior setbacks for the proposed two lots. If the new subdivision is proposed to be treated as one development lot then the interior setbacks may be waived. 7. Relief from the required maximum allowed driveway slope. As an existing condition the slope of the entrance drives do not meet the commercial requirements of 8% for centerline and 8.5% for cross -slope. Since this is an existing condition there is no practical way to meet these requirements today without full redevelopment of the site. 8. Relief from the side setback for the recycling and dumpster enclosure. Due to the typical size of a trash enclosure the side setback being reduced for only this portion would not be unreasonable. 9. Relief from the restriction that no structure shall be built on a slope that exceeds forty percent (40%) or greater except in a single-family residential zone district as outlined in section 12-21-10. Town of Vail Page 18 Since this is a man-made condition the request to be exempted from this provision is a reasonable deviation. Deviations/Benefits Through the SDD process deviations from development standards can be requested from the underlying zone district. Before approval is given/recommended it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. Listed is the amount of deviations requested by the application and the benefits the town would see. SDD Deviations Requested: 1. Reduction in parking requirements for the site. 2. Increase in the amount of parking controlled by the valet. 3. Exception to from the requirement that landscaped areas with trees cannot be used for snow storage. 4. Relief from the minimum size of landscaping areas. 5. Relief from the subdivision requirement that requires a new lot be able to enclose an 80' by 80' square. 6. Relief from the interior setbacks for the proposed two lots. 7. Relief from the required maximum allowed driveway slope. 8. Relief from the side setback for the recycling and dumpster enclosure. 9. Relief from the restriction that no structure shall be built on a slope that exceeds forty percent (40%) or greater except in a single-family residential zone district as outlined in section 12-21-10. Benefits: 1. Four EHU units above and beyond the requirement and the additional interim period between when the other 11 units are first leased and when they are credited towards another development. 2. A six-foot easement for pedestrian access along the far eastern boundary of the lot. 3. A sidewalk along Chamonix Lane and Chamonix Road. 4. A Public art contribution which is proposed to amount to $15,000. Staff suggests the amount be increased to $32,500 to reflect the PEC's suggestion. 5. A walkway from the bus stop through the property and to the frontage road. VIII. REVIEW CRITERIA — SDD Criteria: The following design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluation the merits of the proposed special development district. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that the submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved: Town of Vail Page 19 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. The proposed SDD is generally compatible and sensitive to the immediate environment, neighborhood or adjacent properties. The SDD hotel addition is in the west and north portion of the lot. This is adjacent to residential properties to the north and the Chamonix development to the west. In relation to the properties to the west the proposed height is similar to what was approved for Chamonix. The homes there have a maximum height of 44 feet for sloped roofs. This is similar to the proposed height of the hotel addition which would be higher at 48 feet. While the height of the addition is taller than the homes to the north, there is more of a setback from those homes that may lessen the impact. The SDD also is proposing an EHU apartment building on the north end of the property. The structure is broken down to have steps in the floors on the Chamonix Lane facade. It alternates between being two stories and three stories on the facade facing Chamonix Lane. This brings the mass of the structure down and has two story portions that are closer to thirty feet (30') in height instead of forty five feet (45'). These portions of the building relate to the maximum heights of the residences across the street. Other commercial buildings that have frontage on Chamonix Lane and the North Frontage road have larger buffers to the residential area than the current proposal. The Safeway and the Das Schone buildings have parking lots in the rear of the building to set the building further away from residential properties. City Market has a similar buffer to what is proposed here by facing a residential component on the Chamonix Lane side of the lot and the commercial portion towards the frontage road. Staff finds that the proposed SDD conforms to this criterion. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. The SDD does not propose a change in the use, or activity on the site. Density in terms of residential will be decreased with this application. In terms of building density as site coverage, the application proposes 36% site coverage which would be within the maximum 40% allowed in the CC3 Zone District on either side of this property. Staff finds that this criterion is met. Town of Vail Page 20 3. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. This application proposes a deviation from the maximum amount of parking that is allowed to be controlled by valet and to minimize the amount of parking on the lot according to the provided parking study. There are several things to consider when it comes to the amount of parking that is proposed to be valet parked. The application shows valet parking that is three cars deep on the surface parking lot. The third row of the parking aisle is proposed to be covered by grass pavers. The application states that this area will be used for snow storage during the winter and allow for it to be used as excess parking during the summer. Keeping the lot clear enough for fire access and staging could be difficult, but with the available third row of parking snow removal operations should not be of concern. The PA -2 zone district has a requirement that 75% of the required parking be located within the main building. With this application there will be 48 parking spaces located within the main building, or twenty five percent (27%) of the 175 spaces discussed above. There are only 39 spaces being added with this application, meaning the application does not exacerbate the existing non -conformity, but does not reach the 75%. Staff finds that as there is no increase to the non -conformity, this is acceptable. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. The application would be forwarding the Goal #4 of the Land Use and Development section of the comprehensive plan if the employee housing building would be in addition to required employee housing. The applicant is proposing to build this as a mitigation bank so that future developments that are unable to build the necessary units on their site can buy into the mitigation bank to satisfy their requirement. The application is leaving two one -bedroom units and two three-bedroom units out of the bank as a true benefit that cannot be credited towards another development. Having these additional units puts the town closer to achieving its goals for providing housing. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 5. Natural And/Or geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. There are steep slopes, hazardous rock fall, and debris flow that affect this property. The applicant supplied a report on these hazards. The report states that a site specific study would need to be completed for debris flow to suggest the needed mitigation for Town of Vail Page 21 the site, and that the rock fall hazard was low for this site. A site specific study for all geologic hazards will be required prior to building permit. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. The site plan does produce a functional development that is in line with aesthetic quality of the community. The employee housing building is oriented towards Chamonix Lane with two entrances on the street side and one entrance on the rear of the building that faces the interior parking lot. The rear entrance allows for the residents to have a covered access when entering from the parking lot. The entrance does not service the western units of the building but will give them a covered stairway to a heated path that leads to their portion of the building. This will be a benefit to residences during the winter months to have an interior stairwell to avoid snow. If residents are parking in the enclosed garage, then they must walk up the sloped drive aisle to the building. However, having that rear access makes the travel distance to their unit easier. For residents utilizing the valet parking they have a designated walkway that is striped in the drive aisle to access their building. This acknowledges the pedestrians and gives vehicular traffic an indication that pedestrians may be present and increases the safety and walkability of the parking lot. The grass pavers in the third row of valet parking allows for seasonal flexibility when it comes to the valet operations. It will allow the additional parking in the summer and extra snow storage during the winter months. When it comes to the design of the buildings the Design Review Board (DRB) made several comments on the overall design of the proposed buildings and the site as a whole. The DRB, based on the Code, had concerns relating to a lack of unified architecture and extensive unbroken roof lines. The application has incorporated a few changes to try to address these concerns. The color of the roofs have been coordinated and, the building color on the existing hotel will match the new addition, breaks between dormers on the new building have also been added to improve the aesthetic appearance. Two of the units on the bottom floor have a window in the living room portion of the unit, which allows some natural light into the living areas of the units. On the west half of the building, the bottom floor windows will be cast in the shadow of the hotel, as seen on the sun/shade analysis. Additional possibilities to adding windows will be explored through the Design Review Board process. Town of Vail Page 22 Staff finds that this criterion is met. 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. The application proposes a sidewalk along Chamonix Lane and Chamonix Road that fluctuates between five feet, six feet, and ten feet in areas. The sidewalk improves off site pedestrian circulation resulting in a benefit to the community. The sidewalk terminates into the property and will provide an access path to the frontage road from those users. The interior circulation system promotes walkability to and through the site. It features a way for residents and hotel users to access the frontage road sidewalk without walking through the entrance drive. There is a delineated path through the parking lot for residents and users going to the bus stop. The stairs and paths around the EHU building that lead to the entrances are proposed to be heated. All of these items combined assist in creating a safer pedestrian environment. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. At the December 9t" PEC work session, the Commissioners requested the landscape plan to be revised to provide adequate screening of the buildings from adjacent properties. The plan includes two 10'-14' conifers between Chamonix Lane and the EHU building and nine between the hotel addition and Chamonix Lane and Chamonix Road. The exact size and location of the trees will be decided through the Design Review Board approval process. The SDD asks for relief from the minimum dimensions for landscaped areas to count in the landscaping calculations. Allowing these areas that do not meet the minimum size requirements allows more landscaping to be distributed throughout the site evenly. This increases the aesthetic quality of the landscaping on the site. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. The applicant has stated that the EHU building will be constructed at the same time as the hotel addition. A future subdivision is proposed to occur prior to the first certificate of occupancy. The applicant will also be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for retail uses that exceeds the 10% PA -2 zone district maximum. Town of Vail Page 23 Staff finds that this criterion is met. REVIEW CRITERIA — EXTERIOR ALTERATION Section 12-7J-13, Compliance Burden, Vail Town Code, outlines the review criteria for exterior alteration applications proposed within the Public Accommodation -2 (PA -2) zone district. According to Section 12-7J-13, Vail Town Code, a major exterior alteration shall be reviewed for compliance with the following criteria: 1. The proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purpose of the public accommodation -2 (PA -2) zone district. The proposed exterior alteration is generally consistent with the PA -2 zone district's purpose, as it allows for lodges and residential accommodations on a short term basis outside of the main core areas of the villages. It also includes a limited amount of commercial to support the lodging use. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 2. That the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. The proposal does not have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. The height that is proposed is as part of this application is generally compatible with this neighborhood. As discussed in SDD criteria #1, there is a difference between the residential zone districts across Chamonix Road and the proposed height of the buildings in this application. Staff finds that this criterion is met. 3. The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. The proposal supports the goals and objectives of the Vail comprehensive plan through the inclusion of deed restricted housing and the promotion of alternative transportation options. Staff finds that this criterion is met. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation of approval with conditions to the Vail Town Council to establish a Town of Vail Page 24 Special Development District No. 42 (Highline Double Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schone Fil Schone Filing 3. Suggested Motion Tree), pursuant to Section 12-9-A on the parcel which is composed ng No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval with conditions, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval with conditions to the Vail Town Council to establish a Special Development District No. 42 (Highline Double Tree), pursuant to Section 12-9-A Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, on the parcel 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". Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval with conditions, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission applies the following conditions: Applicant shall obtain approval for subdivision before a certificate of occupancy for the EHU building is granted. 2. The applicant shall obtain the certificate of occupancy for the EHU building before requesting a certificate of occupancy for the hotel addition. 3. Approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 4. The applicant shall obtain approval for a conditional use permit for the commercial space on the first floor before a building permit is issued. 5. Applicant shall obtain approval from Holy Cross to vacate the easement under the proposed hotel addition before a building permit is issued. 6. Applicant shall set aside two (2) three-bedroom units and two (2) one -bedroom units in the EHU building not to be included in the mitigation bank. 7. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall record deed restrictions with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, in a format approved by the Town Attorney, for the Type III Employee Housing Units. Town of Vail Page 25 8. The applicant shall coordinate and resolve landscape conflicts with utilities and sight distance before a building permit is issued. 9. The applicant shall show the drainage outfall for Chamonix Lane swale in the building permit submittal. 10. The applicant shall provide a 2' gravel shoulder along Chamonix Lane and side slopes of swale no steeper than 2:1. 11. Applicant shall increase AIPP contribution to $32,500 and the installation shall be completed before a certificate of occupancy for the hotel addition is granted. 12. Applicant shall correct plans to meet the comments from the Fire Department prior to the submittal for a building permit. 13. Applicant shall update all plan pages to match the latest submission prior to the submittal for the Design Review Board application. Suggested Findings Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval with conditions, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outline in Section Vlll of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated April 13th, 2020, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. That the SDD does comply with the standards listed in subsection A of this section; and 2. That the SDD is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the development objectives of the town, and 3. That the SDD is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and appropriate for the surrounding areas, and 4. That the SDD does promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." Town of Vail Page 26 EXTERIOR ALTERATION The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission approve with conditions the request for a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12 Exterior Alterations or Modifications, 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 15 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. Suggested Motion Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve with conditions, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approve with conditions the major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, on the parcel 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". Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve with conditions, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission applies the following condition: 1. This approval is contingent upon the applicant receiving approval of the Special Development District application PEC19-0048 and the Zoning Code Amendment application PEC19-0047. Suggested Findings Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve with conditions, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outline in Section Vlll of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated April 13th, 2020, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. That the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the public accommodation -2 (PA -2) zone district; and Town of Vail Page 27 2. That the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood; and 3. That the proposal does substantially comply with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan." X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant Cover Letter Dated 3-16-2020 C. Applicant Narrative, 3-16-2020 D. Plan Set, Pierce Austin Architects, 3-16-2020 E. Parking Study 1-10-2020 F. Public Comment — Patricia Lauer — 12-3-19 G. Public Comment — Tania Boyd — 12-3-19 H. Public Comment — Patricia Lauer — 2-4-2020 I. Public Comment — Elyse Howard — 2-3-2020 J. Public Comment— Chris Romer— 1-27-2020 K. Public Comment — Carey and Brett August — 12-7-2019 L. Public Comment — James Pyke — 2-26-2020 M. Public Comment — VCBA — 3-4-2020 N. Vail Local Housing Authority Letter — 12-18-2019 O. Public Comment — Michael Spiers — 3-3-2020 P. PEC Minutes from Meeting on 12-09-2019 Q. PEC Minutes from Meeting on 3-09-2020 Town of Vail Page 28 ii O O -10 lLO L LO N O �x co d' W � 0 M 1 � y Q W a .� � CL0 ' coLL owo U CL .O ca � °ALO W p N O ff^�^ v, ii O O -10 lLO L LO N O �x VU Mauriello Planning Group March 16, 2020 Planning and Environmental Commission `% Greg Roy, Planner II Community Development Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Highline Rezoning and SDD Applications Dear PEC Members: Along with this letter, we have submitted revised application materials for the rezoning, SDD, and Major Exterior Alteration applications previously submitted to the Town. The revisions to the application materials are a result of the comments we received at the hearing with the PEC held on March 9, 2020 and discussions with the Town staff held on March 11, 2020. We look forward to a final hearing with the PEC on March 23, 2020. As you recall, the applicant was originally proposing to add 79 net new hotel rooms, 4,000 sq. ft. of meeting room space, a 12 bedroom deed restricted EHU dormitory facility, and a 16 unit Employee Housing Apartment Building (40 bedrooms with 16,270 sq. ft.) at the site of the Highline hotel. Below is a summary of the more significant changes that have occurred to the plans and application materials for this facility: • Addition of grasscrete pavers (permeable reinforced turf area) within the parking lot to accommodate parking, landscaping, and snow storage; • Reduced massing on the top floor of the EHU building so that the north facade of the building transitions from 2 -stories, to 3 -stories, to 2 -stories, to 3 -stories and back to 2 -stories. The result of this change is a reduction of unit count, bedrooms, and total floor area. The unit count is now 15 units with a total of 34 bedrooms (loss of 6 bedrooms) and total floor area of 13,502 sq. ft. (loss of 2,768 sq. ft.). The reduced massing provides building mass relief to the street and lesser impacts to neighbors; • The sidewalks and parallel parking spaces on the north side of the EHU Building are now snowmelted, as well as the stairs leading down to the parking lot and the sidewalk on the south side of the building; • A new entry has been provided on the south side of the building, accessed by a heated sidewalk, to allow residents more direct access to the parking area; u I ;&r Mauriello Planning Group • A pedestrian path is proposed to be stripped and marked with pedestrian symbols within the parking lot so that drivers are alerted to the presence of pedestrians that may be traversing the property; • The applicant has realigned the sidewalk along Chamonix Road per the direction of the Town Engineer so that it provides access directly into the Highline property; • The applicant has provided a sidewalk connection at the main driveway to the Town's North Frontage Road sidewalk; • The proposed EHU Building will be built concurrently with the hotel expansion and at least 25% of the units (4 units) will be excluded from the ability of the owner to create a mitigation bank for those units as currently allowed by Town Code. The units to be excluded include two, one bedroom units and two, three bedroom units; and • The applicant proposes to maintain the public art value at a minimum $15,000 in light of the extensive package of public benefits (costs to the project) including workforce housing and public sidewalk improvements. We are very excited about the positive response we received from the PEC and believe the changes that we have proposed address the critical staff issues and input provided by the PEC. We believe the changes that have been made, make the proposed development plan much more cohesive and provide it with a unified identity that the Town can be proud of. We look forward to presenting the revised application to you in the weeks ahead. Sincerely, O4L—J-Q— Dominic E Mauriello, AICP Principal 2 Hig h Iin le , A DoubleTree by Hilton Submitted to the Town of Vail: November 11, 2019 Revised January 27, 2020 Revised February 25, 2020 Revised March 16, 2020 VU I Id Mauriello Planning Group Consultant Directory Developer/Owner Mark Mutkoski TNREF III Bravo Vail, LLC Yo True North Management Group, LLC 10 Bank Street, 12 Floor White Plains, NY 10606 Project Manager/Owner Representative Michael O'Connor Triump Development 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 970.688.5057 Planning and Entitlements Dominic Mauriello Mauriello Planning Group PO Box 4777 Eagle, CO 81657 970-376-3318 dominic@mpgvail.com Community Outreach Kristin Williams Commfluent PO Box 3402 Vail CO 81658 970 390-0062 kristin@commfluent.com Architect Bill Pierce and Kit Austin Pierce Austin Architects 1650 Fallridge Road, Suite C-1 Vail, CO 81657 970.476.6342 Landscape Architecture Dennis Anderson Dennis Anderson Assoc., Inc. P.O. Box 3722, Eagle CO 81631 970.390.3745 Civil Engineering Matt Wadey, P. E. Alpine Engineering Inc. 34510 Highway 6, Unit A-9 Edwards, CO 81632 970.926.3373 Geology and Geo Hazards Julia Frazier, P.G. Skyline Geoscience jfrazier@skylinegeoscience.com 303.746.1813 Traffic Engineering Kari J. McDowell Schroeder, PE, PTOE McDowell Engineering P.O. Box 4259 Eagle, CO 81631 kari@mcdowelleng.com 970.623.0788 Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 2 Table of Contents Consultant Directory 2 Background 9 Review Process 11 Rezoning 11 Special Development District 13 Major Exterior Alteration 14 Zoning Analysis 15 Parking 17 Deviations Sought through SDD 23 Workforce Housing Plan 28 Criteria for Review: Rezoning 33 Criteria for Review: Special Development District 40 Criteria for Review: Major Exterior Alteration 46 Conclusion 49 Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 3 Introduction Highline, a DoubleTree by Hilton (Highline hereafter), is requesting an application for rezoning to Public Accommodation 2 (PA2) and the establishment of a new Special Development District (SDD) for Highline to facilitate the construction of a new mixed-use building located at 2211 N. Frontage Rd. West in Vail. The proposed project consists of an employee housing apartment building, limited service lodge units (LSLUs), accommodation units/hotel rooms (AUs), and an Employee Housing Unit (EHU) dorm space. As part of the application, the applicant is requesting a major exterior alteration in order to add the additional lodging and EHUs. In the interest of providing a much needed public benefit, the applicant originally proposed the development of an employee housing apartment building that included 16 units, providing a total of 40 bedrooms. Through the review process and in order to address the concerns of the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town staff, the EHU building has been modified to 15 units with 34 bedrooms. This building is not required as part of the project, but is being proposed as a public benefit. The workforce housing requirement for the additional lodging space is being met with the addition of the EHU dorm space. The project furthers three key identified community goals: the provision of employee housing, the provision of live beds, and encouragement of in -fill development. New Underground Parking New Hotel Wing. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 4 The rendering below includes the previously proposed EHU Building massing prior to March 16, 2020. The proposed project includes the following: 176 AUs with approximately 32,555 sq. ft. of net new GRFA (79 net new, one existing AU lost to circulation needs) 19 LSLUs with approximately 20,050 sq. ft. of GRFA (previously dwelling units) 12 employee housing bedrooms within a dormitory space with approximately 4,400 sq. ft. of floor area 15 employee housing units (1, 2, and 3 bedroom units) with approximately 13,502 sq. ft. of floor area n 208 total parking spaces (39 net new parking spaces, 48 of which are enclosed) To facilitate the development of this project, the property is proposed to be rezoned from CC3 to PA2, and include a SDD. The SDD designation will apply to the entirety of the Highline property, including the pre-existing lodge and restaurant facilities. The only practical method to achieve the project as contemplated is a zoning change for the site to align with the historical use of the property as a lodge as well as an SDD for some relatively minor deviations. The required deviations are solely generated by the inclusion of the Employee Housing structure within the development project. If that structure were removed, no SDD would be necessary. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 5 Rezoning and SDD applications follow a similar path in that they are each recommended by the Planning and Environmental Commission and receive approval by the Town Council. For major exterior alteration applications, the Planning and Environmental Commission is the final review authority. Highline presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment within the Town of Vail. It provides a smooth transition between the West Vail commercial core to its east and west and residential to the west (partially) and to the north. As an infill site, with a portion of the proposed development constructed upon an existing parking lot that currently serves the existing Highline and a previously disturbed portion of the site, there are minimal, if any, impacts to the natural environment. Public Benefits of the Project: Employee housing far in excess of requirements, all on-site and near the major employment center, addressing one of the documented critical needs of the Town Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 6 (The proposal generates the need to house 9.5 employees and the project well exceeds this requirement) All EHUs are highly functional and livable dwellings within the employment center of Vail for single and/or double occupancy 15 Type 3 EHUs, not required as mitigation, are proposed as a benefit of the project Redevelopment of an infill site in the Town of Vail as suggested by the Vail Land Use Plan Economic vitality and enhanced public and private revenues to Town as a result of new lodging facilities and locals housing Improving the Town's hotel bed base New community sidewalk along Chamonix Road along the Highline frontage improving neighborhood accessibility to and from the commercial areas Fiscal Impacts of the project: To expand upon the potential positive impacts to the economy, the applicant has estimated the lodging and sales taxes revenues of the hotel addition (79 new hotel rooms and meeting space) as well as the sales tax revenue impacts of the hotel guests and onsite employee housing proposed. The incremental sales and lodging tax collections for the hotel is estimated as follows: • Total annual sales and lodging tax collections: $694,000 • Town of Vail annual sales and lodging tax collections: $382,000 The Vail Local Housing Authority commissioned an analysis in 2019 on the Economic Value and Community Benefits of Resident Housing Investment. The report cites numerous benefits of local resident housing including increased sales tax revenues, benefits to local businesses in terms of labor supply, increase in revenue for local schools, increased supply of volunteerism, reduced carbon footprint, and other benefits. Looking at only one of the benefits, direct Town of Vail sales tax revenue per household, the 15 deed restricted employee housing units would generate approximately: • $18,600 per year, based on annual Town sales collections per household of $1,165 • That sales tax collection is based upon approximately $29,000 spent annually per household in the local economy, or • $466,000 spent annually within the local economy from the 15 new employee units. The applicant has also estimated the total revenues generated by the additional 79 hotel rooms and meeting space in terms of guest spending. Data on guest spending is limited. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 7 When the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan was adopted over 20 years ago, it was estimated, based on a study by RRC Associates that the average spending per hotel guest was $100 per day and it was assumed that on average there were two guests per room. The applicant believes these numbers, both the average spending and the average of 2 persons per room are now grossly understated due to the age of the data, the effects of inflation, and other factors. In 2018 the EGE Air Alliance commissioned a study, also prepared by RRC Associates, of passengers at the Eagle Airport. This report found that the average daily expenditure per person in 2018 was $405 per day. The 2018 data was collected from only those people who flew into the Eagle Airport and may be a slightly more affluent data set versus all occupants at the Highline. In order to be ultra conservative, the applicant assumed an average daily spending per person of $100. If one assumes a 63% annualized occupancy rate of the 79 new hotel rooms, the resulting annual spending from hotel guests at this site would be approximately $3.6 million per year. In summary: $382,000 in incremental direct onsite TOV sales and lodging tax collections from the hotel $466,000 in annual local resident spending from 15 units, plus associated sales tax $3.6 million in annual incremental hotel guest spending, and associated sales tax, to the local economy. Planned Future Subdivision: A future subdivision application will be processed for the property. This future application will provide for a total of two parcels. One to accommodate the hotel and all of its related uses, and another parcel for the employee housing structure. While the properties will be tied together as it relates zoning and development standards, creating a separate parcel for the employee housing building will facilitate a separate ownership for the purpose of financing the employee housing separately from the hotel. This proposed subdivision concept is key and inherent in the proposed development of the site. The Type 3 EHU building will be developed at the same time as the hotel as a single phase. The subdivision of the property will be required prior to a final CO being issued on the EHU building. Public Art: The applicant proposes to provide public art, yet to be determined, with a value of at least $15,000. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 8 Background The Highline site was originally built under the jurisdiction of Eagle County. In 1979, the newly constructed facility received a certificate of occupancy from Eagle County. It was then annexed to the Town of Vail as part of a larger annexation of the West Vail area by Ordinance No. 43, Series of 1980, approved on December 10, 1980. Per the statutory requirements, the newly annexed land was required to be zoned by the Town of Vail within 90 days of annexation, by March 10, 1981. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1981, was first read in on March 3, 1981. This ordinance created the Commercial Core III (hereinafter "CC3") zone district, under which this site was zoned. It appears the zone district was created hastily as the CC3 zoning district did not allow for hotels or dwelling units which were already developed on the property. From the inception, the CC3 zone district upon application to this site rendered the existing hotel a nonconforming use. Over four years later, on August 15, 1985, the Colorado Court of Appeals overturned the original West Vail annexation because a rectangular tract owned by the BLM was between two contiguous tracts that were being annexed. This BLM land was improperly included in the proposed area to be annexed, and without this land, the proposed annexation would be 'invalid for lack of the necessary one-sixth contiguity.' The Town of Vail moved quickly to again annex West Vail. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1986, re -annexed Recent Drone Aerial of Highline Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 9 a ,r 14 West Vail on January 29, 1986. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1986, was first read in on March 18, 1986. There were no changes to the zoning for the site in this ordinance even though the hotel (76 hotel rooms) and condominium units (19 dwelling units with 20 lock offs) on this property had existed for 7 years (the condominium units were added in 1983). This was likely an oversight since the hotel had been there for so long and because by that time the Town had adopted the Vail Land Use Plan which encouraged the preservation and expansion of the Town's lodging bed base, specifically in the West Vail area. Thus, since 1981, this site has operated as a nonconforming use and maintained its use as a lodge as it was first built in 1979. A nonconforming use cannot be expanded or modified except if changed to a permitted or conditional use even though the Town has been focused for the last 40 years at encouraging and expanding the hotel base. Today, the primary intended uses on the site permitted by CC3 zoning are the commercial spaces (two restaurants and limited retail), which is key reason that a rezoning to PA2 is necessary to allow the hotel. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 10 Review Process Rezoning As discussed above, the existing lodge and a few related development standards do not conform with the provisions of the CC3 zoning on the property and therefore necessitates a change in zoning on the property. Some of the current issues with the CC3 zone district as applied to the Highline include the following: Use 0*1 Hotel - The existing hotel (76 hotel rooms) and condominiums (19 dwelling units with 20 lock -offs) are nonconforming uses. This means that the lodging use cannot be expanded. Building Height 0*1 The height of the existing building is 52 feet (worst-case), though the maximum allowable building height for the CC3 zoning district is 35 feet. Density The CC3 zone district allows 12 dwelling units per acre, yet does not permit dwelling units. Because accommodation units are not allowed, there is no indication of how accommodation units are treated with regard to density. Parking_ in the Front Setback The front setback on this property is the North Frontage Road frontage. Parking is developed to the front property line and does not comply with this requirement however, the right-of-way has been nicely landscaped to provided an adequate buffer. The applicant examined a variety of potential approaches to redeveloping the the property in terms of the Town's development review processes. The existing CC3 zone district was compared with the PA, PA2, and HDMF (High Density Multiple Family) to understand which zone district most closely aligns with the existing development on the property and that proposed by the applicant. No one zone district perfectly aligns with existing or proposed conditions. To maintain the CC3 zoning on the property, that zone district would require significant amendments. These amendments, which would apply to the remainder of the parcels in the West Vail commercial area, may not be appropriate for all properties zoned CC3. Hotels and limited service lodge units would have to be added as permitted uses, the height allowance changed, as well as GRFA and density provisions modified. It was determined that the best avenue to facilitate the development is to rezone the property to PA2. There are several benefits of rezoning the property to PA2, including greater assurance that the property will remain as a hotel into the future. This provides protection that one of the Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 11 primary uses the Town seeks to support and encourage due to its ability to generate significant tax revenues to the Town and increase the overall vitality of the Town year round. The rezoning results in a property where all of the uses are conforming and comply with zoning. In addition, the allowable building height in PA2 of 48' more closely aligns with the existing hotel which has one area on the roof of the building at 52'. The proposed new buildings fully comply with the 48' height limit with further restrictions imposed by the SDD. The Planning and Environmental Commission at its December 9, 2019 hearing (a worksession) seemed to indicate that the PA2 zoning and the SDD overlay were appropriate designations with the inclusion of the Employee Housing apartment building in the same phase of development. The PEC also seemed to agree with the proposed parking reductions. The rezoning to PA2 resolves the flaw of having included this property in the CC3 zone district to begin with. The following nonconformities are resolved or reduced by rezoning to PA2: n Lodging and all other uses will now comply as permitted/conditional uses n Building height more closely reflects the height of the existing structure on the property with a height allowance of 48'. All new buildings will comply with 48' limit with additional limits imposed by the SDD n Density issues will be resolved n GRFA issues will be resolved There will continue to be some development standards in the PA2 zone district where the existing site and proposed development does not fully comply, including the following: Parking in the front setback. Because this condition is pre-existing and is also true in CC3 zone district, and because the applicant is not making the condition any worse, the proposed redevelopment is not required to meet this standard. If preferred by the Town Council, a deviation from the parking located in the front setback could be included in the SDD proposal. Requirement for 75% of all parking to be enclosed. Unlike the CC3 zone district, the PA2 zone district requires 75% of the parking to be enclosed. Today, all of the existing parking is unenclosed surface parking. The applicant is proposing to enclose 48 new proposed parking spaces with the proposed additions and actually reduce the amount of pavement associated with the surface parking areas. Through the use of a valet program, and being more efficient with the use of surface pavement, the applicant is proposing a net increase in the number of surface parking spaces while reducing the amount of pavement associated with surface parking. Overall, 23% percent of the parking onsite will be enclosed, however, comparing the existing parking requirement of 185 spaces (though only 169 spaces exist) with the proposed parking requirement of Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 12 208 spaces, there is only a net new requirement of 23 parking spaces or 39 spaces over what exists. The proposal is to add a total of 48 enclosed parking spaces and reorganize the existing surface parking areas. The result is that all of the net new parking is proposed to be enclosed. Therefore, the applicant believes that the proposed redevelopment complies with the 75% enclosure requirement based upon the net new impact of the proposal. Building height. The existing hotel building will continue to be nonconforming with respect to building height for the 52' existing hotel structure. All proposed buildings comply with the 48' building height allowance and therefore the redevelopment complies with the building height requirements. A Special Development District is being sought to provide some relief from parking related standards documented below generated solely due to the inclusion of the EHU structure. The applicant believes that the public benefits offered by this project, outweigh the relatively minor relief and deviation being sought. The benefits proposed include: n employee housing in excess of code requirements, n increase in the amount of hotel lodging provided within the Town, n increase in revenues to the Town and the business community, n increase in the amount of conference space provided within the Town, n dedication of easement for Chamonix Lane on applicant's property, and n the overall aesthetic improvements being proposed. Special Development District The applicant is seeking to rezone the property to a PA2 so that it can more accurately function in compliance with the zoning district. However, the applicant is faced with some minor deviations largely generated due to the effort by the applicant to provide a public benefit, addressing the employee housing crisis, by creating additional employee housing within the Town of Vail. These deviations include parking rates, valet parking, landscape areas dimensions, and snow storage (see parking section for details on these deviations). The deviations being created are solely due to the inclusion of the employee housing structure containing 15 units. No SDD would be required if the employee housing structure were removed from the proposal. Deviations such as the proposed, are common among Special Development Districts, especially when trying to redevelop a property that was originally developed under Eagle County regulations in the 1980s. In this case, the deviations being sought are relatively minor in terms of impacts to the community at large. The proposed deviations have little impact upon the bulk and mass of structure (height or footprint) but relate more to operational aspects of the property. All of the deviations have to do with the unique circumstances found on this Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 13 site and based upon how the property will be operated. There was a previous SDD granted on this property that was never implemented. Deviations from Underlying Zoning Section 12-9A-9, Development Standards, provides the mechanism for deviating from the underlying zone district. It states: Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the town council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the planning and environmental commission. Before the town council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12-9A-8 of this article. Major Exterior Alteration The PA2 Zone District requires a Major Exterior Alteration for the addition of dwelling units, accommodation units, fractional fee club units, limited service lodge units, and the addition of 1,000 sq. ft. of commercial floor area or common space. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 14 Zoning Analysis Location: 2211 N. Frontage Rd. West/ VAIL DAS SCHONE FIL 3 Block: A Lot: 1 THRU:- Lot: 3, Subdivision: VAIL DAS SCHONE FIL 3 Lot: 1 VAIL DAS SCHONE 1 PT OF TR C VAIL DAS SCHONE 1 Parcel Number: 210311415017 Lot Size: 3.95 acres / 172,047 sq. ft. Existing Zoning: Commercial Core 3 (CC3) Proposed Zoning: Public Accommodation 2 (PA2) Development Standard Existing (CC3) Lot Area Lodging and Residential Uses 3.95 acres (rounded) 172,047 sq. ft. Proposed (PA2) 3.95 acres (rounded) 172,047 sq. ft. 97 AU 176 AU 19 DU 19 LSLU 12 EHU Dorm Units 15 EHUs (apartments) Commercial Uses (gross 1,520 sq. ft. hotel retail 1,520 sq. ft. hotel retail sq. ft.) 6,955 sq. ft. restaurant 6,955 sq. ft. restaurant 4,500 sq. ft. office/commercial 0 sq. ft. office/commercial (converted to EHU Dorm) Conference 3,076 sq. ft. gross area 7,666 sq. ft. gross area 2,666 sq. ft. conference seating 6,616 sq. ft. conference seating area area Parking 169 spaces 208 spaces Setbacks North - > 20 ft. North - 20 ft. East - > 20 ft. East - > 20 ft. South - > 20 ft. South - >20 ft. West - > 20 ft. West - >20 ft. Trash/Recycle 12' Height 52 ft. 52 ft. existing building 48 ft. new buildings Density 12 units per acre allowed Noncompliant with CC3 19 DU 97 AU Total: 116 "units" Uses do not count as density per code 176 AU 19 LSLU 12 EHU Dorm rooms 15 EHU apartments/condos Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 15 Development Standard GRFA EHU Floor Area Site Coverage k Landscape Area Internal Parking Landscaping (10% of surface parking area) Snow Storage (30% of surface parking area) Existing (CC3) Proposed (PA2) 51,614 sq. ft. (30%) allowed 258,070.5 sq. ft. (150%) allowed 45,250 sq. ft. (26.39/6) total 77,805 sq. ft. total 25,200 sq. ft. existing AUS 32,555 sq. ft. net new AUs 20,050 sq. ft. existing DUs 25,200 sq. ft. AUs existing 20,050 sq. ft. LSLU converted DUs 0 sq. ft. 17,902 sq. ft. total 4,400 sq. ft. EHU Dorm 13,302 sq. ft. EHUs 68,818 sq. ft. (40%) allowed 111,830 sq. ft. (65%) allowed Existing 36,084 sq. ft. (21 %) Proposed 62,070 sq. ft. (36%) 43,012 sq. ft. (25%) required 51,614.1 sq. ft. (30%) required 60,388 sq. ft. (35%) existing 53,946 sq. ft. (31.35%) proposed (with deviation and grasscrete area) see discussion of pedestrian easement Paved area = 72,194 sq. ft. Internal Landscaping Required 7,219.4 sq. ft. (10%) Internal Landscaping Existing: 6,564 sq. Ft. (9%) Paved Area: 72,194 sq. ft. Snow storage Required: 21,658.2 sq. ft. (30%) Snow Storage Existing: 23,210 sq. ft. (32%) sq. ft. *EHUs do not count towards density or GRFA. Paved area = 58,019 sq. ft. proposed Internal Landscaping Required: 5,802 sq. ft. (10%) Internal Landscaping Proposed: 12,715 sq. ft. (21.9%) (including grasscrete area) Paved area (unheated) = 59,134 sq. ft. Paved area (heated) = 2,303 sq. ft. Snow storage Required: 16,945 sq. ft. (30%/10%) Snow storage Proposed: 17,189 sq. ft. (including grasscrete area) see discussion of pedestrian easement Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 16 Parking Predicting the amount of parking that is needed for any use or development is a challenging endeavor. Parking regulations are rarely reflective of empirical data and usually developed by comparing one community to the next. Parking rates are influenced by the need to access a property by one's personal car, the availability of public transit, the availability of onsite private shuttles, airport shuttles, availability of taxis or Uber, and the ability to access other commercial offerings and services by foot. Highline is located in the West Vail core area, on the free Town of Vail bus system, and within easy pedestrian or bicycle access to many services. The applicant engaged McDowell Engineering to analyze the parking generation of this hotel property. Their analysis includes using the 5th Addition of the Parking Generation Manual published by ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) in 2019 and more importantly, the collection of local onsite parking data. The applicant collected parking data over a 11 month period to assist with this analysis. Section 12-10-20 Special Review Provisions of the Offstreet Parking and Loading requirements of the Town Code allow the PEC to reduce the parking requirements of the Town Code by up to 25% based upon data provided by a qualified consultant that shows less parking is required. The following findings must be made by the PEC: A. The parking demand will be less than the requirements identified in section 12-10-10 of this chapter; and B. The probable long term use of the building or structure, based on its design, will not generate additional parking demand; and C. The use or activity is part of a demonstrated permanent program (including, but not limited to, "rideshare" programs, shuttle service, or staggered work shifts) intended to reduce parking demand that has been incorporated into the project's final approved development plan; and D. Proximity or availability of alternative modes of transportation (including, but not limited to, public transit or shuttle services) is significant and integral to the nature of the use or business activity. All of the criteria above is met at this property and with the demands generated by the uses onsite. Their parking analysis is provided with the application materials provided. A summary is provided below. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 17 The analysis, based on the local data collected, shows that the highest average parking rate, with a 99% confidence interval, per room existing on the property is 0.67 parking spaces per hotel room (using Saturday as peak). This data represents that there are vacancies that occur and that there is not 100% occupancy. A 99% confidence level means that 99% of the time the parking rate will be at 0.67 parking spaces per hotel room or less. To account for vacancies and try to predict the parking rate during an assumed 100% occupancy scenario, the data was also analyzed based on the number of cars parked per occupied hotel room. The result is a peak average of 0.70 cars parked per occupied hotel room, with a 99% confidence level. A 99% confidence level means that 99% of the time the parking rate will be at 0.70 parking spaces per hotel room or less considering full occupancy of the hotel (worst-case scenario). Using national parking data prepared by the ITE, the rate for similar hotels (suburban hotels with conference/convention centers, hotel bar and restaurant, and retail uses) the average peak period parking demand is 0.74 spaces per room or 0.83 spaces per occupied room. The national parking data counts include meeting room space, retail, and hotel bar/restaurant so that the rates include those ancillary uses in the overall number. The ITE indicates that using local data is more accurate than relying on national data but we have included it here as a conservative analysis and to account for meeting room and commercial uses. The local data was collected during the busy Christmas week in 2019 but was not collected when the meeting space was being used. However, if you look at the use characteristics collected during the day (see parking study Figure 1, page 3), the peak parking being utilized from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm was 48 spaces leaving 121 spaces available during the day. The conclusion being that during the day, even at 100% hotel occupancy, there will be significant parking available during typical conference hours. Therefore, no adjustment was made to the proposed parking rate for the hotel based on the characteristics of parking. McDowell Engineering also performed a parking needs analysis based on the Lion's Ridge project located in Vail and found that the complex parking need is 1.06 parking spaces per unit. The applicant is proposing to reduce the parking requirement for the 15 unit workforce housing apartment building to 1.06 parking spaces per unit or 16 parking spaces. The following tables are parking calculation for the Highline based on local data for the hotel, the occupied room rate, and 99% confidence interval. The analysis was done based on Occupied Room to be most conservative. Parking for the EHUs is being reduced as noted above and third -party restaurants were calculated at the rates according to Town Code even though the local data count was inclusive of the two third party restaurants, thus providing an additional layer of conservatism. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 18 Use Units Per Unit Existing SF New SF Total SF 1 Space Req. Accomodation Unit 176 0.70 123.2 Limit Service Lodge Unit 19 0.70 13.3 Meeting Space (seating area) Use occurs during the day (see discussion above) Lobby Bar (Seating) Included in the rate above 3rd Party Restaurant (Seating) 2277 0 2277 8.3 18.9 Spa - Simply Massage Included in the rate above Retail - Charter Sports Included in the rate above Dorm Apartment (one unit, 12 bedrooms) 1 2.5 2.5 EH U 15 1.06 15.9 Total Parking Need 173.8 Parking provided 208.0 Difference/Surplus 34.2 The McDowell parking analysis shows that the parking need is fairly consistent with our original submittal which sought to seek deviation from the conference parking calculation as applied outside the core area and reduction to the parking for the onsite retail uses within the hotel (uses with no access or presence outside of the hotel common areas). Parking Management Plan: The Town staff requested the applicant provide a parking management plan to understand how the parking will be managed or this project. The parking for the hotel and its related uses, the two, third -party restaurant spaces, and the proposed EHU Building have parking that is co - mingled on the property. Below is a description of the parking provided followed by the management elements. Parking Summary: Total parking provided: 208 spaces Total parking proposed as required: 175 Total valet spaces: 111 (53.3% of total) Total enclosed spaces: 48 (23% of total site, all of net new parking) Total net new parking: 39 spaces Garage parking spaces: 42 valet, 6 regular Surface Parking spaces: Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 19 69 valet spaces 80 regular spaces 4 compact spaces 4 employee spaces (impacted by loading space used infrequently) 1 parallel space (plus one short term space) 2 spaces within the porte cochere 2 valet operation spaces (temporary car shuffling, not included in parking count) Controlled Access Parking: There are a total of 208 parking spaces provided onsite. Of these 208 parking spaces, 556 of them are located outside of the controlled access area. Within the controlled access area, 32 spaces are capable of being self -parked where the guest or other user is given access beyond the gate, however, the owner may decide to valet park all of the spaces as necessary. Hotel Guest Parking: All hotel guest parking will be accommodated by valet or controlled gate access. During peak winter season, all hotel guests may be valet parked at the discretion of the owner. EHU Apartments: The 15 EHU apartments require a total of 16 parking spaces. The parking for these apartments will be located within the parking area with controlled access and in the parallel parking (1 parking space and 1 short term space) along Chamonix Lane. The number of parking spaces needed for the apartments may end up being less for the 16 units and the need of the occupants to have daily access to their cars will be evaluated based on experience. In concept, there will be 12 self -park spaces available within the hotel parking area, 1 self parking spaces along Chamonix Lane, and another 3 valet spaces available to EHU residents. Because the EHU building is a rental apartment building, the owner will be able to control the number of occupants with cars as documented in leases. EHU Dormitory: The EHU dormitory will be targeted to employees of the hotel and those with limited need for car ownership. It is anticipated that only 2 parking spaces will be necessary for the dormitory. These parking spaces will either be accommodated within the valet system or otherwise designated for the dormitory use. Since this dormitory is a rental facility, the owner will be able to closely control number of occupants with vehicles as documented in leases. Retail and Restaurant Establishments: The primary parking for the retail and restaurant facilities employees and customers, other than hotel guests who are already parked, will be within the self parking spaces Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 20 provided outside of the controlled parking area. There are 56 parking spaces available to patrons outside of the controlled parking area. Valet parking services will also be provided to these customers as desired by the customer. Meeting Room Space: Parking for the meeting rooms will be primarily accommodated by the hotel parking facilities, as these users are already parked within the facility. Users of the conference space, other than hotel guests, will be parked via the hotel valet system. Valet Operations: The valet operation will require the shuffling around of cars within the exterior parking lot and within the parking garage. For the exterior parking lot, two parking spaces, not included in the total parking count, have been provided so that cars can be shuffled in the parking lot without impairing the operation of the drive aisles. Within the enclosed parking area, where the parking is only staked two cars deep, cars will be parked temporarily within the drive aisle to perform the shuffling of cars. The valet parking layout complies fully with Town Code. Parking Lot Maintenance and Snow Removal: The exterior parking lot will require snow removal and maintenance on a continuous basis during the winter months. The hotel experiences high turnover of parking spaces during the day as guests check out of the hotel in the morning and new guests arrive in the evenings. This daily reduction in parking as well as the typical hotel occupancy rates which are far less than 100%, 99% of the time, will allow for snow removal and maintenance. When the need arrises, snow will be stored temporarily within the parking lot until it can be removed and trucked offsite. In no case will snow be temporarily stored within the parking areas for more than one week. The drive aisle/ ramp on the north side of the existing hotel building will be heated in order to maintain it free from snow and ice and reduce the needs for snow storage. Hotel Shuttle Operation: The hotel has two shuttles that operate 365 days a year depending on need. In general, the shuttle at peak times of the year, transports hotel guests with the commercial core areas of the Town on a continuous loop from 8:00 am to 10:30 am and again from 3:30 pm to 6:00 pm. During the afternoon and in the evening, the shuttles run on -demand. This service makes it possible for hotel guests to book the Highline and arrive via van or taxi and therefore not require a car during their stay. Employee Parking Generally: In general, employees of the hotel and businesses on this campus are required or encouraged to use public transportation in order to reduce the parking demands of the Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 21 property. Parking requirements and studies reflect the total number of cars parked on commercial or residential property and therefore include cars that are parked by employees as well as guests and consumers. Therefore, parking for employees is inherent in the parking counts. That said, the Highline intends to reduce the impacts on the environment and make more parking available to guests and consumers but discouraging employees from driving to work. Fire Truck Turn Around Area: The fire truck turnaround area shall be maintained free from any obstacles, ice, and snow. Snow storage shall not infringe upon the turnaround area. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 22 Deviations Sought through SDD The applicant is attempting to provide a public benefit to the Town of Vail, and Eagle County at large, by building additional EHU units on its property and improve local economic conditions with increased Town and business revenues. In doing so, the applicant is using space that could otherwise be put toward parking, landscaping, and snow storage. If the Employee Housing building proposed were removed from the project, no deviations would be necessary and no SDD would be required. Because it would be a lost benefit to the community to not build the employee housing in this location, it is for this reason that the applicant is seeking the following deviations. Conference Parking: The current parking regulations allow a fractional fee club style hotel outside of the core areas to have its parking related to conference facilities reduced from 1 parking space for each 120 sq. ft. to 1 parking space for each 330 sq. ft. The same calculation is true within the core areas of Lionshead and Vail Village. Yet a regular hotel, outside of the core area, is not afforded the same relief as that of a fractional fee property. This is likely an error or oversight in the current parking regulations. The parking requirement for meeting rooms or conference rooms at 1 space for 120 sq. ft. is for a stand alone facility with no lodging onsite. It makes sense that a hotel with meeting room space, especially when the space is very limited total size, would primarily be occupied by people already staying and parked at the hotel. The primary reason a hotel provides meeting space is to increase occupancy of the hotel during slower periods of the year. Additionally, the hotel operator provides shuttle services from West Vail to the core areas of Lionshead and Vail Village which then requires less parking overall for the hotel. The applicant prepared a site specific study to understand the parking utilization onsite. The applicant is requesting a deviation that is consistent with the parking analysis prepared by McDowell Engineering. Meeting room users are mostly also guests within the hotel that are already parked as a hotel guest. The parking study shows that from the hours of approximately 9:00 am and 5:00 pm, the hours when the meeting rooms would typically be in use, the parking onsite was more than 70% available or empty. Therefore, there is adequate parking within the facility to accommodate the few that might attend an event that are not already staying at the facility. The hotel also operates a town shuttle service that can also provide transit for meeting room users onsite. The parking analysis prepared by McDowell Engineering, supports this reduction in the amount of parking for this site. Parking for commercial and retail space: Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 23 The existing and proposed hotel includes an 820 sq. ft. Simply Massage space and a 700 sq. ft. Charter Sports space. The Town's parking requirements do not provide any reduction in parking requirement for these types of retail/service facilities within a hotel. The parking study that was prepared analyzed the property as well as looking at national parking data. Hotels typically have retail uses located within them and those parking counts are accounted for in the data collected. The analysis shows that there is no additional parking that needs to be assessed on these retail uses within the hotel. The applicant is proposing to maintain the parking requirements per code for Casa Mexico and West Side Cafe, even though some percentage of users come from the hotel guests. Parking 15 Unit Apartment Building: The applicant originally proposed to meet Town Code for the parking for the 15 unit employee housing apartment building: 2 parking spaces per unit. However, based on concerns related to snow storage and landscaping, the applicant is seeking a parking deviation that reflects the actual parking utilization of EHUs in Vail. Vail's access to transit allows the local workforce to live and work in Vail without the need for a car. This is evidenced by parking studies that have been conducted in Vail. McDowell Engineering performed a parking needs analysis at Lion's Ridge, a similar rental complex located in Vail, in support of the Boothfalls application. This analysis shows that the observed parking rate per unit is 1.06 parking spaces per unit. The applicant is providing 16 parking spaces which reflects the parking need. Valet Parking: The code allows up to 50% of the required parking to be within a valet parking program. The proposed redevelopment project requires a total of 174 parking spaces and provides 208 total parking spaces onsite. There are 111 parking spaces proposed as valet parking spaces or 51.62% of the required parking. The applicant is requesting a deviation within the proposed SDD to account for this minor deviation. Snow Storage: The code requires that an area equal to 30% of the surface parking areas that are not heated for snow melt and 10% of the surface parking or driveways that are heated with snowmelt be provided as snow storage. The proposed project provides approximately 17,189 sq. ft. of snow storage where 16,945 sq. ft. is required. The applicant proposes to manage the snow storage onsite by utilizing an area of the parking lot proposed as grasscrete designated for valet parking to temporarily store snow until it can be removed from the property after a large storm event. Grasscrete is a permeable surface that can grow grass but also allows vehicles to park on it without damage. In the summer months, this area can be used for parking while in the winter months it can also serve as snow storage. Similar successful approaches to snow removal occur in the remainder of the West Vail commercial area. The Town Code does not Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 24 allow areas where trees are located to be counted for snow storage even though it is common to store snow around the bases of deciduous trees. In fact landscape areas with mature trees are used today for snow storage. The applicant is seeking a deviation from this requirement in order to maximize snow storage. The applicant is proposing to provide a 6' pedestrian easement along the east property line. This is provided in the event there is a future redevelopment of properties to the east and the area is needed for a joint pedestrian walkway. Until the walk is provided, the snow storage calculations will remain as proposed herein. If the full 6' pedestrian easement is paved with a pedestrian pathway, the amount of snow storage will be reduced by another 2,535 sq. ft. The applicant is requesting a deviation within the proposed SDD to account for the snow storage calculation and counting of treed areas in the calculation. Landscape Area: The total landscape area required by the existing property under CC3 zoning is 43,012 sq. ft. which represents 25% of the total site area. The PA2 zone district requires a minimum of 30% or 51,614 sq. ft. The applicant is proposing 53,946 sq. ft. or 31.35% of the site as landscape area including the grasscrete area, in excess of the minimum required. The calculations for landscape areas only allow 20% of the landscape area calculation to include "hardscape" improvements like pools, pool decks, and sidewalks. As proposed the project includes hardscape areas of 16,052 sq. ft. but based on the definition of landscape area, only 10,323 sq. ft. is able to be counted. The code limits areas on a property that can qualify as landscape area. Per code, a landscape area must be at least 15' wide and 15' deep and contain a minimum of 300 sq. ft. to qualify as a landscape area. This precludes a substantial amount of landscape areas within this project. This site provides many large areas of landscaping that does not meet the 15' or 300 sq. ft. requirements. As examples, Commercial Core 1 and 2 and Lionsheads Mixed Use 1 and 2 have no minimum landscape area dimension requirement. Several other zone districts have a 10' x 10' requirement. This standard is not consistent throughout the Town Code. The applicant is proposing to provide a 6' pedestrian easement along the east property line. This is provided in the event there is a redevelopment of properties to the east and the area is needed for a joint pedestrian walkway. Until the walk is provided, the landscape area calculations will remain as proposed herein. If the full 6' pedestrian easement is paved with a pedestrian pathway, the amount of landscape area will be reduced by another 2,535 sq. ft. The applicant is seeking a deviation from this minimum size limit for landscape areas within the proposed SDD. Future Subdivision: A future subdivision plat will be filed to create a separate parcel for the EHU apartment building so that it can be financed and owned separately from the hotel. The EHU apartment Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 25 building parcel is intended to meet the minimum lot size of the PA2 zone district (10,000 sq. ft. minimum) and site perimeter setback requirements but would not be subject to interior setbacks (south and west property lines) nor the requirement of being of a shape that can enclose an 80' by 80' square. The intent is not to create a lot that is intended to be sold as a development parcel, but instead to allow a separate ownership within the context of an overall planned development of the Highline SDD. The intent is that the entire development site, including the hotel and the EHU apartment building, would be treated as one parcel for the purpose of applying the development standards as adopted by this SDD, including parking requirements (i.e., shared parking facilities). These deviations to the subdivision and zoning regulations to accommodate this future subdivision are also embodied in this SDD. The subdivision approval is proposed to occur prior to a CO being issued to the EHU Building. Slope of Driveways: The existing driveway does not meet Town Code as portions of unheated drive are steeper than 9% and the access points do not meet the required 4% for the first 30'. The proposed SDD is not making these standards any worse but staff has requested that we include this existing condition as a deviation from development standards. Trash and Recycling: The trash and recycling enclosure is proposed to extend into the side setback on the east side of the employee housing building resulting in a 12' setback of this one story element to the property line. The enclosure complies with the 20' setback from Chamonix Lane. The enclosures are capable of holding two 1.5 yard containers. One will be used for recycling and the other for trash. This volume of trash and recycling is adequate for the EHU building with service up to twice a week. While not deviations, the follow issues noted as applicable to these applications: Commercial Uses: There is a total of 8,475 sq. ft. of retail and restaurant uses within the hotel today. The PA2 allows there to be these commercial uses on site as a permitted use limited to 10% of the GRFA constructed onsite. The PA2 allows this limit to be increased to 15% with a Conditional Use Permit. The GRFA of the property is 77,805 sq. ft. (only hotel room floor area) thus allowing 7,780 sq. ft. of commercial uses as a permitted use or 11,670 sq. ft. as a conditional use. The applicant will pursue approval of a Conditional Use Permit prior to an application for a building permit for any of the proposed improvements to bring the commercial uses into compliance with the PA2 zone district. In the future, if the Town wants to allow more variety of commercial uses and more floor area of commercial uses in the PA2 zone district, amendments to the PA zone district could allow these changes. Existing Manmade Site Grades: A small area of the site has grades that exceed 40% slope. Section 12-21-10 Development Restricted states in part "No structure shall be built on a slope of forty percent (40%) or greater Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 26 except in single -family residential, two-family residential, or two-family primary/secondary residential zone districts." This regulation was intended to apply to natural grades and not where grades exist due to grading caused by prior development or excavation and is therefore not applicable to the Highline property. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 27 Workforce Housing Plan Section 12-23-8: Administration, of the Vail Town Code requires the submittal of an Employee Housing Plan for all projects subject to development review. The proposed project exceeds both the total requirement and the onsite requirement for employee housing. In fact, in the interest of providing a much needed public benefit, the applicant is proposing the development of an employee housing apartment building that will include 15 units, providing a total of 38 bedrooms. Town Code limits occupancy of employee housing to two persons per unit. This building is not required as part of the project, but is being proposed as a public benefit. The workforce housing requirement for the additional lodging space is being met with the addition of the EHU dorm space. The Employee Housing structure is intended to be developed on a separate parcel of land that will be subdivided from the remainder of the property, yet tied to the overall property for the purpose of applying zoning and development standards. This will facilitate its development by a separate entity from the hotel to accommodate a separate financing structure while still being integral to the hotel campus. A. Calculation Method: The calculation of employee generation, including credits if applicable, and the mitigation method by which the applicant proposes to meet the requirements of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: Inclusionary zoning does not apply to this application as there are no new dwelling units or GRFA being proposed. In fact, 19 dwelling units are being removed and replaced with Limited Service Lodge Units. Therefore, the property will maintain an inclusionary employee housing credit of 2,005 sq. ft. of EHU floor area that can be used in the future, should dwelling units ever be proposed within the property. Commercial linkage applies to this project. Commercial Linkage Calculation Use Calculation Total Employees Generated 79 net new 0.6 employees per unit accommodation units 19 net new LSLUs Conference Space Removal of 4,500 sq. ft. office space Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 0.6 employees per unit 0.8 employee per 1,000 feet of net new floor area (3,950 new) 3.2 employees/1,000 sq.ft. Net employees generated Mitigation Rate 47.4 11.4 3.2 -14.4 47.6 20% 28 Use Calculation Total Employees Generated Total Commercial Linkage 9.5 employees to be housed Requirement The proposed project generates a net requirement of 9.5 employees to be housed. This will offset by the applicant's proposal of an EHU dormitory style housing to accommodate up to 17.6 employees. Thus, the proposal has a surplus of 8.1 employees that shall be carried forward as a credit against future employee generating proposals on the property. The applicant is also proposing to develop a 15 -unit employee housing apartment structure onsite concurrent with the expansion of the hotel. These units will allow the applicant to establish an employee housing bank pursuant to section 12-23-7 of the Town Code. However, in order to provide a public benefit, 25% of the units (two, three- bedroom units and two, one -bedroom units) will be set aside and excluded from any future mitigation bank established for the EHU building as permitted by sections 12-23-7 and 12-24-7 of the Town Code. The image below is the 15 unit EHU building proposed. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 29 B. Plans: A dimensioned site plan and architectural floor plan that demonstrates compliance with section 12-23-3, "Size And r 4 3 �'� 2 Building Requirements", of this chapter; Applicant Analysis: A dimensioned site plan and architectural 5 floor plan has been provided with this submittal. The EHU dormitory style unit has a total square footage of 4,400 sq. ft. and s SIO0.4GE with 12 total units or bedrooms. The ort°R minimum square footage per person occupying the dormitory is 250 sq. ft., which o ___ o therefore allows for a total of 17.6 � employees. C. Lot Size: The average lot size of the iLl proposed EHUs and the average lot size of a other dwelling units in the commercial development or redevelopment, if any; Applicant Analysis: s iati 11 iz This is not applicable to this application. D. Schedules: A time line for the provision of any off site EHUs; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. Proposed Dormitory Layout E. Off Site Units: A proposal for the provision of any off site EHUs shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. F. Off Site Conveyance Request: A request for an off site conveyance shall include a brief statement explaining the basis for the request; Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 30 G. Fees In Lieu: A proposal to pay fees in lieu shall include a brief statement explaining the basis of the proposal; and Applicant Analysis: This is not applicable to this application. H. Written Narrative: A written narrative explaining how the employee housing plan meets the purposes of this chapter and complies with the town's comprehensive plan. Applicant Analysis: Section 12-24-1: Purpose and Applicability, of the Vail Town Code provides the purpose of the Inclusionary Zoning Chapter: The purpose of this chapter is to ensure that new residential development and redevelopment in the town of Vail provide for a reasonable amount of employee housing to mitigate the impact on employee housing caused by such residential development and redevelopment. The mitigation rates were established by the Town of Vail Employee Housing Nexus study. These rates are based on a survey of various properties in mountain communities. The Town Vail Land Use Plan offers the following goals with regard to employee housing: 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. In 2008, the Town of Vail established the Employee Housing Strategic Plan, which brought together all of the Town's goals on employee housing into a single plan. It provides the following: In 2006, through the Vail 20/20 Focus on the Future process the community established a housing goal. It is as follows: "The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community, reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 31 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. " Based upon the community's work, the Vail Town Council has confirmed the Town of Vail recognizes deed restricted employee housing as basic infrastructure. This type of housing allows employees to live within the town, promoting community, and improving the quality of our local workforce, thereby supporting the local economy, and reducing regional transit needs. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan (EHSP) seeks to meet the expectations established by the community and confirmed by the Town Council and provide enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the community's workforce to live in the Town of Vail through a variety of policies, regulations and publicly initiated development projects. The Employee Housing Strategic Plan then outlines the various objectives and policies for implementing the plan. It provides a list of Town Initiatives, one of which is specifically applicable to this project: Incentive Zoning and Density Bonuses The Town will consider workforce housing objectives in all review processes that permit discretion. This means that the Town will work actively with developers as a part of the Housing District, Special Development District review processes and requested changes in zoning to not only meet the requirements of existing code, but to look for opportunities to go beyond code requirements to encourage additional workforce housing to be created. As a part of these review processes the Town will work actively with developers to create incentives to develop housing that exceeds the minimal requirements contained in the code. Additional density may be granted in selected locations through the appropriate review processes, and fee waivers and subsidies may be considered. The Incentives Zoning and Density Bonuses help Vail to "catch up" with existing deficiencies and add to the overall percent of employees living within the Town of Vail. As indicated in this submittal, the proposal complies with and furthers the purposes and goals of the Town's employee housing requirements and master plans. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 32 Criteria for Review: Rezoning Section 12-3-7: AMENDMENT, of the Vail Town Code, provides the criteria for review of a zone district boundary amendment. The following section includes the criteria, along with an analysis of the compliance of the proposal with the criteria. 1. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; Applicant Analysis: The property is governed by the Vail Land Use Plan. Other applicable plans include the Vail 20120 Plan and the Housing Strategic Plan, all of which are described below: • Vail Land Use Plan The adopted map of the Vail Land Use Plan shows a designation of "Community Commercial" for the majority of the property. Per the Vail Land Use Plan of 1986, this area was designated to be Community Commercial. (See Vail Land Use Plan, Chapter VI - Proposed Land Use). This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short- term visitor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures (with densities up to 25 dwelling units or 50 accommodation units per buildable acre). These areas are oriented toward vehicular access from 1-70, with other support commercial and business services Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 33 included. Also allowed in this category, would be institutional uses and various municipal uses." (Vail Land Use Plan pg. 25) This new category has been designated for the West Vail commercial area, which is primarily oriented to serve the needs of the permanent resident and the long-term visitor. Because the community expressed the desire to concentrate commercial uses within existing commercial nodes, no new commercial areas have been designated. The CC land use area contains 24 acres or 1% of the land area. " (Vail Land Use Plan pg. 28). The intention of the Preferred Land Use Plan was to "...reflect[s] a balancing of existing conditions, community opinion, opportunities and constraints, and projected growth demands. Many properties were zoned at that time without much careful consideration of the impact of proposed zoning throughout West Vail, including this property. Being more thoughtful at the time would more likely have resulted in accommodation units being allowed in the CC3 zone district or perhaps there would have been an appropriate zone district applied to the hotel knowing that hotels, hot beds, and lodging taxes were and are top goals of the Town. The Vail Land Use Plan states that allowing accommodation units at 50 units per acre is appropriate. On this 3.95 acre site, that would allow for 197.5 accommodation units. The applicant is proposing 195 units, including the limited service lodge units. The proposal includes a zoning of Public Accommodation -2 District. The PA2 zone district allows lodges with multiple family dwellings, employee housing units, and commercial/office uses. The proposed amendment will make all of the uses conform with zoning. • Vail 20/20 Plan The Vail 20/20 Plan provides the following goals: Provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. 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. The proposed zoning of PA2 and the proposed SDD helps to further the goal of the Town of Vail to provide deed -restricted housing for 30% of the workforce. This property Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 34 creates an exciting opportunity to create new housing stock in an area that provides services and transportation within walking distance. • Employee Housing Strategic Plan The Employee Housing Strategic Plan outlines the Town of Vail's goals and policies to ensure employee housing. It provides the following objectives: •;• Actively address affordable housing for Vail workers to ensure that the community remains competitive in economic terms. •;• Increase and maintain deed -restricted housing within the Town to encourage the efficient use of resources by placing employees closer to their place of work. The proposed zoning will allow for the creation of new deed -restricted employee housing units within the Town of Vail, allowing Vail to remain economically competitive in attracting and maintaining a quality workforce. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the various Town of Vail planning documents and helps to further four of Vail's critical goals: creating employee housing within the Town of Vail boundaries to ensure that Vail remains economically competitive; maintaining and increasing the Town's lodging bed base to increase revenues and improve the vitality of the Town's economy; to increase occupancy and vitality in the shoulder seasons by providing new conference space; and promoting infill development within the Town. 2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents; and Applicant Analysis: The Highline site was originally built under the jurisdiction of Eagle County. In 1979, the newly constructed facility received a certificate of occupancy from Eagle County. It was then annexed to the Town of Vail as part of a larger annexation of the West Vail area by Ordinance No. 43, Series of 1980, approved on December 10, 1980. Per the statutory requirements, the newly annexed land was required to be zoned by the zoning district for the Town of Vail within 90 days of annexation, by March 10, 1981. Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1981, was first read in on March 3, 1981. This ordinance created the CCC3 zone district, under which this site was zoned. It appears the zone district was created hastily as the CC3 zoning district did not allow for hotels or dwelling units where were already developed on the property. From the inception, the CC3 zone district upon application to this site rendered the existing hotel (76 hotel rooms) and condominiums (19 dwelling units with 20 lock -offs) as nonconforming uses. Over four years later, on August 15, 1985, the Colorado Court of Appeals overturned the original West Vail annexation because a rectangular tract owned by the BLM was Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 35 between two contiguous tracts that were being annexed. This BLM land was improperly included in the proposed area to be annexed, and without this land, the proposed annexation would be 'invalid for lack of the necessary one-sixth contiguity.' The Town of Vail moved quickly to again annex West Vail. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1986, re -annexed West Vail on January 29, 1986. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1986, was first read in on March 18, 1986. There were no changes to the zoning for the site in this ordinance even though the hotel and condominium units on this property had existed for 7 years. We believe that this was an incredible oversight since the hotel have been there already for so long and because by that time the Town had adopted the Vail Land Use Plan which encouraged the preservation and expansion of the Town's lodging bed base. This property sits on the edge between the West Vail Commercial Center and multi- family residential properties. The West Vail Commercial Center consists of commercial uses designed to meet the needs of locals and guests alike. Just like the existing hotel, the proposed hotel and employee housing will continue to be compatible and complimentary to the other uses within the area. Given the location and transitional point between commercial and residential, a hotel and workforce housing such as this provide the obvious transition and naturally fit in the environment. The proposed rezoning of the property to Public Accommodation 2 along with the proposed SDD will allow the site to be conforming and thus allow the property to enjoy conforming status and allow for the proposed expansion of the hotel. 3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives; Applicant Analysis: This property sits on the edge between the West Vail Commercial Center and multi- family residential properties. The West Vail Commercial Center consists of commercial uses designed to meet the needs of locals and guests alike. When moving between commercial zoning and residential zoning, it is important to consider a transition that provides a harmonious, convenient, and workable relationship among the existing land uses. Just like the existing hotel, the proposed hotel and employee housing will provide such a transition and will continue to be compatible and complimentary to the other uses within the area. Given the location and adjacency of two zone districts types (commercial and residential), a hotel and workforce housing such as this provide an obvious transition and present a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship between these land uses. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 36 The proposal to rezone the property to PA2 furthers three major development objectives: Provision of employee housing Encourage the preservation and expansion of the Town's lodging bed base Encourage the development of conference facilities to address generation of revenues during the slower shoulder seasons As a result, the proposal is consistent with this criterion. 4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests of the community as a whole; and Applicant Analysis: The proposed zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community by allowing a hotel to be expanded within the limits of its development site and provide for workforce housing. The proposal is close to existing services and transportation, while simultaneously providing needed lodging to encourage overnight visitors. Employee housing is key to ensuring that the Town of Vail remain economically viable and competitive, while not having impacts to environmentally sensitive lands. This proposed rezoning does not constitute spot zoning, as the PA2 zone district helps to further these community goals and is consistent with the Town land use plan and other guiding documents. As a result, the proposed amendment serves the best interest of the community. 5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other desirable natural features; and Applicant Analysis: The proposed zone district amendment proposes to rezone a property currently zoned as CC3 zone district to PA2 zone district. The site is currently largely developed and any environmental impacts the may have occurred did so decades ago. As evidenced in the EIR provided from the project, there is limited to no impacts on water quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides, or other desirable natural features. Because the entirety of the site is already used as a lodge with commercial space, there should be no new impact to the natural environment and complies with this criterion. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 37 6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the proposed zone district; and Applicant Analysis: Section 12-7J-1 provides the purpose of the Public Accommodation -2 zone district is: The public accommodation -2 district is intended to provide sites for lodges, limited service lodges, and residential accommodations on a short term basis, for visitors and guests, together with such public and semipublic facilities and commercial/retail and related visitor oriented uses as may be appropriately located within the same zone district and compatible with adjacent land uses. This district is intended to provide for lodging sites located outside the periphery of the town's Vail Village and Lionshead commercial core areas. The public accommodation -2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the zone district. (Ord. 2(2006) § 2) The Highline site was originally developed as a lodge facility with multiple -family dwellings as well as commercial and retail uses, and received a Certificate of Occupancy from Eagle County in 1979. Based on the background of the site and the annexation and zoning of West Vail to the Town of Vail, it appears that the current zoning designation, CC3, is inappropriate zoning for the property. CC3 has never allowed for a lodge facility and thus was never appropriate zoning for the site. The facility pre -dated the annexation and zoning, and it appears that applying more appropriate zoning was overlooked and is now long over -due. Vail's Land Use Plan recognized and encourage the development of lodging facilities in this area of the Town. Furthermore, the addition of the PA2 zoning exhibits the Town of Vail's intention of providing lodging and residential accommodations in the valley. Not only does this project accomplish that intent, but it also fits perfectly within the definition of the PA2 zoning. As a result, the proposed zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the PA2 zone district. 7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer appropriate; and Applicant Analysis: Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 38 The Highline site first fell under the CC3 zone district in 1981 after the property was originally annexed to the Town of Vail. Prior to this annexation and subsequent zone designation, the property had already been developed as a lodge facility and had received a Certificate of Occupancy in 1979. The property was then re -annexed to the Town of Vail in 1986 and immediately thereafter was re -zoned as CC3. Just months later, the Town of Vail issued the Vail Land Use Plan, with a proposed designation of Community Commercial from the Highline site. Per the Vail Land Use Plan, and the subsequent Vail 20/20 Plan and Employee Housing Strategic Plan, the intentions and the goals for the Town of Vail are to encourage lodging facilities for overnight visitors as well as to provide much-needed employee housing in the Vail Valley. The PA2 zoning district allocation will allow for the Highline site to be redeveloped to allow for additional lodging beds while also providing the community need of employee housing. The CC3 zoning district has never been appropriate for this site, and appropriate zoning designation is long over -due. Conditions have always been ripe for this property to be rezoned to PA2 and what is proposed is consistent with the direction given in the Vail Land Use Plan. 8. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed rezoning. Applicant Analysis: Any other factors can be addressed as necessary. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 39 Criteria for Review: Special Development District Section 12-9A-8: DESIGN CRITERIA AND NECESSARY FINDINGS, of the Vail Town Code, provides the criteria for review of a Special Development District. The following section includes the criteria, along with an analysis of the compliance of the proposal with the criteria. 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Applicant Analysis: The architecture is consistent with the surrounding architecture and the Town's design guidelines applicable to areas outside of the core areas. The concept is to use natural materials, such as stone, wood composite siding, and metal panel or stucco, to create a project that is responsive to the existing hotel and the surrounding neighborhood. This design creates architectural interest by providing a variety of characteristics throughout the new uses on the site. The project seeks to increase the Town's lodging and employee housing bed base while helping to screen or reduce the visual impact of the existing surface parking areas from neighboring properties. The property is on the edge of the West Vail Commercial Core, which consists of large structures and several three-story buildings. The maximum height of the proposed buildings is 48 ft., which complies with the PA2 zoning maximum height restriction of 48 ft. and less than the 52 ft. of the existing hotel. Additionally, the maximum height is approximately 4 feet lower than the existing lodge building. Furthermore, the new hotel tower is sized in relation to the current hotel tower. This project will provide a visual and sound buffer zone to the neighbors to the north of the property from the 1-70 traffic and the commercial areas with the residential building that faces the residential neighbors to the north. Furthermore, the proposed hotel and EHUs are completing the existing lodging block rather than seeking out new development opportunities on what is currently non-developed open space. Significant surface parking lots are a characteristic of the immediate neighborhood, including residential properties, which is not a very efficient use of land. While surface parking will remain on the property, the project is proposing to enclose a significant amount of the parking below the proposed new wing of the building and screen the surface parking lot from the residential neighborhood behind. 2. Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Applicant Analysis: Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 40 Highline is adjacent to the 1-70 and North Frontage Road corridor to the south of the property. It provides a smooth transition between the West Vail commercial core to its east, commercial to the west, and residential to the west and to the north. The Vail Land Use Plan expressed a desire to concentrate commercial uses in designated locations. The Highline provides lodging to overnight guests, while the EHU units provide the desirable transition from Commercial uses to Residential uses (which are to the north and to the west of the property). The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding residential uses to the north and west and the commercial uses to the east and the west. Pursuant to the PA2 zoning and the Town of Vail's policies and goals around encouraging hotel beds and employee housing, the proposed density of the project is zero. The proposed EHU structure is similar in scale and mass to the Chamonix Townhouses and other multi -family buildings in the area. As a result, Highline is compatible with the surrounding uses and activity and is consistent with this criterion. The SDD is only needed to address technical issues related to parking and snow storage. Therefore the impacts to the neighbors or the community at large is limited. 3. Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. Applicant Analysis: Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 41 A parking analysis was provided in a previous section of the submittal. As that analysis provided, the entire project is not only in compliance with the parking requirements of Chapter 10, except for the parking required for the meeting room facilities and onsite retail which has been addressed herein. As permitted by Town Code, the applicant has provided an analysis to show that the need for parking is less than that predicted by the Town Code and the SDD complies with this analysis. The project complies with the loading requirements found in Chapter 10. The application is therefore in compliance with this requirement. 4. Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. Applicant Analysis: The property is governed by the Vail Land Use Plan. Other applicable plans include the Vail 20/20 Plan and the Housing Strategic Plan. • Vail Land Use Plan The adopted map of the Vail Land Use Plan shows a designation of "Community Commercial" for the property. Per the Vail Land Use Plan of 1986, this area was proposed to be Community Commercial. (See Vail Land Use Plan, Chapter VI - Proposed Land Use). This area includes activities aimed at accommodating the overnight and short- term visitor to the area. Primary uses include hotels, lodges, service stations, and parking structures (with densities up to 25 dwelling units or 50 accommodation units per buildable acre). These areas are oriented toward vehicular access from Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 42 1 -up, with other support commercial and business services included. Also allowed in this category, would be institutional uses and various municipal uses." (Vail Land Use Plan pg. 25) This new category has been designated for the West Vail commercial area, which is primarily oriented to serve the needs of the permanent resident and the long-term visitor. Because the community expressed the desire to concentrate commercial uses within existing commercial nodes, no new commercial areas have been designated. The CC land use area contains 24 acres or 1% of the land area. " (Vail Land Use Plan pg. 28). The intention of the Preferred Land Use Plan was to "...reflect[s] a balancing of existing conditions, community opinion, opportunities and constraints, and projected growth demands. The Vail Land Use Plan states that allowing accommodation units at 50 units per acre is appropriate. On this 3.95 acre site, that would allow for 197.5 accommodation units. The applicant is proposing 195 units, including the limited service lodge units. The proposal includes a zoning of Public Accommodation -2 District. The PA2 zone district allows lodges with multiple family dwellings, included employee housing units, and commercial/office uses. The proposed amendment will make all of the uses conform with zoning and consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan. • Vail 20/20 Plan The Vail 20/20 Plan provides the following goals: Provide for enough deed -restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies, regulations and publicly initiated development. 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. The proposed zoning of Housing on the buildable area of the site helps to further the goal of the Town of Vail to provide deed -restricted housing for 30% of the workforce. This property creates an exciting opportunity to create new housing stock. • Employee Housing Strategic Plan The Employee Housing Strategic Plan outlines the Town of Vail's goals and policies to ensure employee housing. It provides the following objectives: Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 43 ^ Actively address affordable housing for Vail workers to ensure that the community remains competitive in economic terms. ^ Increase and maintain deed -restricted housing within the Town to encourage the efficient use of resources by placing employees closer to their place of work. The proposed zoning will allow for the creation of new deed -restricted employee housing units within the Town of Vail, allowing Vail to remain economically competitive in attracting and maintaining a quality workforce. The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the various Town of Vail planning documents and helps to further one of Vail's critical needs: creating employee housing within the Town of Vail boundaries to ensure that Vail remains economically competitive. 5. Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Applicant Analysis: There are two known geologic hazards that affect the property: debris flow and rockfall. A Geological Report was prepared for this project. The report concludes that the hazards are low severity due the existing development north of the property but has provided some recommended mitigation for the structures on the property. 6. Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Applicant Analysis: The property is currently developed with an existing lodge and with restaurants located onsite. There are no natural features remaining on this portion of the property since its initial development in the 1970s, nor any natural vegetation existing on the site other than what has been planted. The proposed project is sited above existing surface parking and other previously disturbed areas. As a result, there is little disturbance to any natural features on the site. The site plan and the building have been developed to not only be responsive and Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 44 compatible with the existing buildings on the site, but also consistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood. The building design specifically moves the project forward by meeting current design guidelines. Open Space: The site is located within the West Vail Commercial hub with intensive commercial uses and very limited open space. The town is surrounded by numerous open space areas which this site does not directly impact. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan (shown above), prepared by Dennis Anderson, has been included with the submittal. The plan provides for appropriate treatment of open areas. The SDD produces a functional development plan which is sensitive to the existing landscaping and neighborhood. As a result, the proposed SDD is consistent with this criterion. 7. Traffic: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site traffic circulation. Applicant Analysis: The proposed redevelopment maintains the same vehicular circulation system as exists on the property today, with the exception that four parallel parking spaces are proposed on the subject property but adjacent to Chamonix Lane. These parking spaces are proposed to be reserved for the residents of the employee housing units. The pedestrian circulation system is largely to same as exists today on the property with the notable exception that a new sidewalk is proposed along Chamonix Lane and a new stair connection is provided from the hotel parking area to Chamonix Lane and the existing Town of Vail bus stop. A traffic report has been provided by McDowell Engineering addressing the impacts of the proposed redevelopment on traffic conditions in the area. The conclusions of this report are favorable recommending only that the South Frontage Road be re -striped to provide for a left turn into the site at its east access point. The proposed SDD is consistent with this criterion. 8. Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Applicant Analysis: The landscape plan was developed by Dennis Anderson Assoc. Inc. with an eye towards functionality, use of native species, and maximizing the areas best suited for planting. The PA2 zone district requires 30% of the total site area be landscaping, which would Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 45 be 51,614 sq. ft. The proposed project meets this requirement subject to the deviation for the 15' x 15' dimension requirement, being sought by this application. There are no natural features to preserve in this area where the proposed building is being located as the area was previously disturb from development that occurred in the 1970s. As a result, the proposed landscape plan is consistent with this criterion. 9. Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Applicant Analysis: The improvements and addition to the hotel, as well as the addition of the Dorm EHUs, and the 15 unit employee housing apartment building are to be completed in one phase. A future subdivision plat will be filed to create a separate parcel for the EHU apartment building so that it can be financed and owned separately from the hotel. The EHU apartment building parcel is intended to meet the minimum lot size of the PA2 zone district (10,000 sq. ft. minimum) and site perimeter setback requirements but would not be subject to interior setbacks (south and west property lines) nor the requirement of being of a shape that can enclose an 80' by 80' square. The intent is not to create a lot that is intended to be sold as a development parcel, but instead to allow a separate ownership within the context of an overall planned development of the Highline SDD. The intent is that the entire development site, including the hotel and the EHU apartment building, would be treated as one parcel for the purpose of applying the development standards as adopted by this SDD, including parking requirements (i.e., shared parking facilities). These deviations to the subdivision and zoning regulations to accommodate this future subdivision are also embodied in this SDD. Criteria for Review: Major Exterior Alteration Section 12-7J-13: COMPLIANCE BURDEN, of the Vail Town Code, provides the criteria for review of a Major Exterior Alteration in the Public Accommodation - 2 Zone District. This section states: It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence before the planning and environmental commission and the design review board that the proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the public accommodation -2 (PA -2) zone district, and that the proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, and that the proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 46 The following section includes the above criteria, along with an analysis of the compliance of the proposal with the criteria. 1. The proposed exterior alteration or new development is in compliance with the purposes of the Public Accommodation -2 (PA -2) zone district. Applicant Analysis: Section 12-7J-1: PURPOSE provides the following purpose statement for the PA -2 zone district, stating: The public accommodation -2 district is intended to provide sites for lodges, limited service lodges, and residential accommodations on a short term basis, for visitors and guests, together with such public and semipublic facilities and commercial/retail and related visitor oriented uses as may be appropriately located within the same zone district and compatible with adjacent land uses. This district is intended to provide for lodging sites located outside the periphery of the town's Vail Village and Lionshead commercial core areas. The public accommodation -2 district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the zone district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional nonresidential uses are allowed as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a vacation community, and where permitted uses are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the zone district. The Highline site was originally developed as a lodge facility with multiple -family dwellings as well as commercial and retail uses. The current zoning, CC3 has never allowed for a lodge facility and thus was never appropriate zoning for the site. The proposed project includes the following: O's 176 AUs with approximately 32,555 sq. ft. of net new GRFA (79 net new, one existing AU lost to circulation needs) 19 LSLUs with approximately 20,050 sq. ft. of GRFA (previously dwelling units) 12 employee housing bedrooms within a dormitory space with approximately 4,400 sq. ft. of floor area 15 employee housing units (1, 2, and 3 bedroom units) with approximately 13,502 sq. ft. of floor area The proposed program increases the number of accommodation units by 79 and limited service lodge units by 19. This complies with the purposes of the PA -2 Zone Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 47 District, which encourages the provision of these uses for sites located outside of Vail Village and Lionshead. 2. The proposal does not otherwise have a significant negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. Applicant Analysis: Highline is adjacent to the 1-70 and North Frontage Road corridor to the south of the property. It provides a smooth transition between the West Vail commercial core to its east, commercial to the west, and residential to the west and to the north. The Vail Land Use Plan expressed a desire to concentrate commercial uses in designated locations. The Highline provides lodging to overnight guests, while the EHU units provide the desirable transition from Commercial uses to Residential uses (which are to the north and to the west of the property). The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding residential uses to the north and west and the commercial uses to the east and the west. Pursuant to the PA2 zoning and the Town of Vail's policies and goals around encouraging hotel beds and employee housing, the proposed density of the project is zero. The proposed EHU structure is similar in scale and mass to the Chamonix Townhouses and other multi -family buildings in the area. Furthermore, vehicular traffic to the hotel and the EHU apartment building is focussed at the current entrances off the north frontage road, and therefore do no negatively impact the neighborhood. As a result, Highline is compatible with the surrounding uses and will not have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood. 3. The proposal substantially complies with other applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan. Applicant Analysis: This review of this criterion has been addressed in both the Criteria for Review of the Rezoning and the Special Development District. As indicated in these sections, the proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the various Town of Vail planning documents and helps to further four of Vail's critical goals: creating employee housing within the Town of Vail boundaries to ensure that Vail remains economically competitive; maintaining and increasing the Town's lodging bed base to increase revenues and improve the vitality of the Town's economy; to increase occupancy and vitality in the shoulder seasons by providing new conference space; and promoting infill development within the Town. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 48 Conclusion Highline presents a unique opportunity for redevelopment within the Town of Vail. It provides a smooth transition between commercial use and residential use. The proposed project achieves four key community goals: the provision of employee housing, the provision of live beds, the development of conference facilities, and encouragement of in- fill development. The 15 Type 3 EHUs are not required as mitigation, but are proposed as a public benefit of the project. Furthermore, the project is part of an already existing lodge, resulting in continuity of already established uses for the site. The proposed project consist of employee housing units, limited service lodge units, hotel rooms, and EHU dorm space. As part of this application, Highline is asking to clean up zoning inconsistencies by rezoning the site to PA2, which is reflective of the existing and future desired use of the property. For the reasons stated above, Highline respectfully requests approval of the applications for Major Exterior Alteration, Rezoning to PA2, and the SDD. Highline, A DoubleTree by Hilton 49 C96 L -,,q"N ]'al"d 2 cssLa OGVHW00 SIVA 6w a z N a o M GH3JV1NOii� N L LddLip - X 3NI�HJIH °��0, LU Q El o� - - s a LL LL � 0 0 C4 0 � C7 LL W Q W Q J LLI x LLI x N J N W J W > J W L>L I (� LL W iL} LL J O Z N J� Z N r o r H o oC II iii Z II N CDD M - W r N M W r ~ M � r O � D ° a LL Lai Ll Ir('� Lai IrIr J 0 J J W J (S W N J > J W W W J J W > WJ LU Z W LL J J Z W p L H , C, Z OC Z_ -_ W N = r JO SQ LL X Q II (S N LL a II W X H II W J- fA 2C\l J WC\l _ Z LL N W O M ('j LL M N r r Z N r N CD N ( w W ! n 0 O O C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 L99L8 O(NUMOO SIVA 6w �a a a � a o M Oki 3Otl1NOki3 N LLdd �6 sa 0LIP C7 O 3NI-HJIH a Q r II °o 0 LL N Ln a a LL U) ... .. .,. .. :. :: N J W LU W J NO O U _ X o LU r � u Q Q U Cl) O C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 O/ a F co L99L8OGV8 00o IVA 6ovj baa o O a 6 M 08 30tl1NOHJ N L Ldd w b� w 3NI-1 91H 22g - Q g R o w a h° w oaz o0 0 -aoi yooa o¢ ¢Qo _ mow wa 000w oa w woo oa oaao aoa awoo oa a°� v J oF¢o J ¢ w wa as a° o ¢°o ¢a og moo ozo xaJ ao w 500 Og i QLL fA W (� 0 Ir 0 2 Q W Z Q J = W (S _ Cn Z Q O J O 0_ Lo W II U7 r O o 0 s o000 0 � X000 z L w LU V / U7 \ Z Q o J O LO °¢ oa 20- Z m O Op 0 LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL N co co co co co co co co co co U N Q m m (O O � CO I.- m in o m a a o in m a o O a � aS oS uS a aS a �f a r m LL N LL LL LL LL LL LL W (n (n (n (n (n CO 0 O O O O O O M O ifJ O ifJ M a o in m a o 0 a LL N LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL ('} CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO N co � m m ui ui X W � � O a J W � � Q F Q Q � O O Q W LL O r j m m Q U � Z O w w�� LL � ¢ ¢ � O O a w � O O p LL U U U=��¢ � � � O W W LL ¢ 0] O N Z � � O W >> W Q r O � O � O� r O � w J � r C7 C7 � m C7 � O ¢r 02200 Q �0 0 z M N �ao 00 0 o w`?oa aoo Ns� 000 i oww sa =oo O J Z Y / Q d / p LLJ (n / O d O d Q Q H i Z = Q o J � d LO LL1 11 U r O ¢ao=a o=ag wwww— v �0�00 i Y d Z H w LU Q \\ J LO \ LU I \ � O E961 -+egwnN We1ad LssLs oavao�oo iron a o M Oa 3`Jtl1NOaJ N L Ldd 3NI�HJIH O ¢r 02200 Q �0 0 z M N �ao 00 0 o w`?oa aoo Ns� 000 i oww sa =oo O J Z Y / Q d / p LLJ (n / O d O d Q Q H i Z = Q o J � d LO LL1 11 U r O ¢ao=a o=ag wwww— v �0�00 i Y d Z H w LU Q \\ J LO \ LU I \ � O E961 -+egwnN We1ad LssLs oavao�oo iron a o M Oa 3`Jtl1NOaJ C96 L -,,q"N ]'alad 2 '^ 19918 OGVHM00 �IVA 6w baa a O a o M GH 30 w O V1NOdzl N l IEZ �6� w 3NI-lHJIH 01:1-0, = - Q C96L -+egwnN 10OWd L99L8O(NUMOO�IVA 6w baa ° a 6 M Oki 3Otl1NOi3 N L Ldd �6� w w O 3NI�HJIH°22 - - Q �o _ o w 0 I 6i g O r� ¢Q t1l; IV O I o Qo d � i w� I ¢ o- U) J W w nlryr� Q moo= w �g H jw w ~ O a O C96L eqwnN 10OWd LD 9 /99L8 O(NUMOO �IVA LU 6 M GH 30V1NOHJ N L LZZ E-1 !DIH 6 INI H i, V, A\ 'Wrl Y x 0 OX z LU LLJ -0 C\l Ln LJ) (n U) << z Z < C?< C? Lu LU LO �_o LO < C,) r C,) LU LU U) U) U) LL,CE ------1 z LU z z < 0 C\l C� p I < z z < < C? C? LOLO LU Lu Al C,) C,) C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 LS8L8OOtlki0�00�Itln 6w �a ao O rZa6 — .-t�M Oki 30tl1NOkid N L Ldd ����sLIP O z 3NI�HJIH °22 - - °" Q ° Z C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 F �ssLs oavao�oo iron 6w ea a w o O S 6 M Oa 3Otl1NOa3 N L Ldd 76LIP =~ O 3NIui -IHJIH °22 .-t�°� Q 0 0 =1m o>Im o>I� o>Im w - Jlm m f io o iiia — w MINE-, jLL -o _ o C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 /99L8 O(NUMOO iron 6w Z w O d 6 M GH 30VINOud N L Ldd X O r 3NI�HJIH °���, = Q omN w �a� o o 1 s oN� r�° z Ln x LU i J LL > LL z W� r < II 1 � � � r i ` O C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 ° N L99L8O(NUMOO�IVA 6ovj baa. w O rz e 6 M Oki 30tl1NOki3 N L Ldd �6�s a w r 3NI�HJIH °22 J Q GO ° Z em I ln�E 0 a0 o ❑o o ❑o ❑- J aLU ❑ wo ❑ o a0 - z N ❑ ❑ , o� ❑eCO2E 2E 2E c) G 0 0 J W O H 2 N 0 Z Z N X W LL LL LL LL LL LL CO (n (n CO in M h o 0 1n 0 0 to 0 0 to (n o o O W N N w a O N CO 0 0 0 Q N Q � Q � 0 Q Q Q Q ° O M O M W M O �w �IJi N� N� O O JO h0 h0 h0 o� o� � M N r J J J J J H W W W W Q O W W W W O C96L eqwnN 10OWd co 9 /99L8 O(NUMOO �IVA 6ovj baa. LU 6 M (18 30V1NOH3 N L LZZ > ui —1 !DIH < EINI H GO < co In In 0, 0 LU 7 7 7 LU C? CO U) 77 < < < < 0 CO CO CO 2E 2E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7h 25 0 0 LU 0 0 Z M (n (n N CO O O O JO h0 h0 h0 NLu Lu Lu Lu < LL > > > > X 0 0 LU C96L eqwnN 10OWd 10 9 /99L8 O(NUMOO �IVA LU rz .6 6 M (18 30V1NOH3 N L LZZ > ui -1 !DIH < EINI H GO o CO LL U) + < CO C) C) C) 0 0 0 LU U) < < < < < < zo < < < < 0 CO CO CO CO 2E 2E 2E 2E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 LU 0 0 Z N CO O O O JO h0 h0 h0 M NLu Lu Lu Lu < > > > > X 0 Lu Lu Lu Lu 0 LU C96 L -,,q"N ]'alad "'0 '0 a LN 1 I1 19918 OGVHM00 �IVA 6w baa. w O a s M GH 3OV1NOdzl N l lad �As _ �, r 3NI-lHJIH 01:1.0 Q 2 6ovj -a r� r r o7o r 0220 a Q 0 L LL v ° S- a)0 wo Fvl El I a Naiv-uaaaiNauNm-3ad ' / 1 ' I ' 1 I W I yZj a R� W I �UW U I LLZLL C I o2pF YN I I UW ZN I 3 1 I I 1 1 I W .5.9-3dOlS%90.0 SL ,—, ,—, 1 W ® W 1 w�mo z TO wino O Q _II z LU -- O p LU 2E Q Wm _----- , W N O CL O cc a LL E961 -+egwnN We�ad LL a LL LL J U U U �ss�s oavao�oo iron M Oa 3`Jtl1NOa� N L Lll o Q In N In N o W 0 O 0 M 3NI�HJIH O 2 6ovj -a r� r r o7o r 0220 a Q 0 L LL v ° S- a)0 wo Fvl El I a Naiv-uaaaiNauNm-3ad ' / 1 ' I ' 1 I W I yZj a R� W I �UW U I LLZLL C I o2pF YN I I UW ZN I 3 1 I I 1 1 I W .5.9-3dOlS%90.0 SL ,—, ,—, 1 W ® W 1 w�mo z TO wino O Q _II z LU -- O p LU 2E Q Wm _----- , W N O CL O cc a LL LL LL LL LL LL J U U U U U Q In N In N o W 0 O 0 M O N N M M N � Q (r (r (r (r N N N W m� zm m 0 Yg � � Sa Sr S� Sr W - H U �O LL LLO Z� o m O °J U � M N J J J J J w w w w o J J J J F C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 ° Jz N /99L8 O(NUMOO iron 6w w O r a 6 M Oki 30VINOkid N L Ldd ����s - p o r 3NI-HJIH °22 Q � O I I o I i ❑ II I / o I 1 — - - dfl- 1 O , � q N I I ❑ 0 O - I II q I N LL � Ba ❑ I I 0 O q LP UU 4 1 1 N N _0�5 O ❑ ` L❑ rz J -y O ❑ - Trz 1 arc 3 O V 0 N - O O❑ 1 �i 1 N p 1 N J W ° ❑ __��_ > O w ` J O q O I ❑ y\ � 1 N m O - - - Q r �� - (O 0 o ve o ,as o ,asLULU p CO .o .86 W N M N O IL O cc IL LL LL LL LL LL LL J U U U U co Q N N W O M O N N M O N � � it it it it N N N W - m� Zm m ❑ YQ qz � 8 �a �Y DY DY w - 0 LU U �O LL ° Z � LL � m O °J U � M N J J J J J w w w w o J J J J F Z 0 p 5 Q W U) O IL O cc IL C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 ° Jz co L99L8 O(NUMOO SIVA 6w w O r a 6 M Oki 30tl1NOkid N L Ldd 3NI-HJIH °22 Q Lu I LL () LL LL LL LLLL J '1 1, 1 1 I U U U U0 Q J n N n N o W 0 O 0 M W 1 � J p N N M O 1 � o i 1 Q N � J Q 2E 2E 2E Q 2E / /1 0 0 0 O N N N W m� Zm m 0 8 U O � Tm oa or or or W - O 2 LU U LU C, OLU LL LL O Z � uo m O U � M N J J J J J w w w w o J J J J F 110tE "o ZE 1 .O.Z£ O-86 Q Q Q M � I I '1 1, 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 - I Cl) 1 � J W W 1 � J Z 1 � o i 1 Q r Q r / /1 C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 L99L8 O(NUMOO SIVA 6w w O ELr rz a 6 M Oki 30tl1NOkid N L Ldd 3NI-HJIH °22 Q FIT LL (l) LL LL LL LLLL J 0 0 0 (n 0 Q n N n N o W 0 O 0 M O N N M O N � CO CO CO CO J Q 2E 2E 2E 2E 0 0 0 O N N N W m� Zm m 0 8 U � oa or or or W H 0 2. 222LUO LU C,O COLU LL LL O Z � uo m O O � M N J J J J J LU w w w o J J J J F C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 O/ .NVQ LL1 O /99L8 O(NUMOO iron 6w a COo N rz e 6 M GH 30tl1NOHJ N L Ldd O O r 3NI�HJIH °22 �� Q J J IrIr Q = W ?) ~O U)o z LU o wz O Q U) 0 O z Q W 2 J OW 0 oQ 2QQ H O U O[0 z CAHUJ UJ oom D m �w z ui QQz Z O OJ H W Um m O m 0 z Y W J CO O O 0 o Q v v J LU LU O CO CO m O 0 z z J T u Y Y O iv o = C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 L99L8 O(NUMOO iron 6w ° N a 6 M Oki 30tl1NOkid N L Ldd UJ r 1-1 !D I H °22 Q iLv I—co z� m= Qo cwn?z d W W Q oo`) J Z Q u0 -10C O.SZ u0 -d LU C? J L` 0 Q Z Z_w U) Y m ' Q J C? i m O W II O N i = r O w� mZ �o YeoLU w Ir DC) 0ZJ Z(n QwW O (no Z CO m W z O OQ a� z z o�w o J oC O� x c� Q oc o = cai> Z IrW Q U w xEr Ua co z GE co W Y Q W LZ o 0o� >�� >� wU C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 Q T Jo VJ L99L8 O(NUMOO SIVA 6w �a a > ° N a 6 M Oki 3Otl1NOkid N L Ldd O �6 w - 3NIHJIH °22 - - w� Q r II 75 w O = 0 v U) Y EE pW[ LU W o 0 W Q �J Q z J W X® Lu o X Lu LU O 2-1 Q 11 Quuuuuu Q U) U M Q O Z O > O J J W W LU m W J W (3 LU —1 (n O a cc z z O O Z U) cc z p0LL� Uoom a LU GE IL Nocococ co LLILU LU LU 12'-0' W PC 00 O0N �ddd r r 'NN Qrrr �1 Q 11 Q V Q LU Z w U C)�' D N U) 0 O~ m O Ow� a N Q pC -i () U) GE z UCE •0.OOCE Lu QLu t:�w�OU¢OX QQU1i¢ Ow J U 011 U)2E W N M -i T �7 T o z Q J d N T Q Q Q Q N J P) O W T > W J O U _ X� n W r II LI L1i CO I� W Q CO 77 U co =Ll O Li III/ NO w� O� 4W C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 L99L8O(NUMOO�IVA 6ovj 8➢¢ ww Cl? r a > 6 M Oki 3Otl1NOki3 N L Ldd �6�s UJ w r 1-1 !D I H °22 w J Q z w cc z z w W > -J �� > —i S w Y a v w Y U 'O W U J Q d W Q i o[ Q �w� IL co -0—i-- K Q _----co Q W IL /w 0 rna a /w 0 0� 0� co Z q--� I ❑ - ❑ I do do -- I ma Cl) I i I I o � o Z LU Cn z z I H W z �O 0� 0� c o I m co Z w ¢ CSI a m N ® Z i � I In i I Z to LL El L 0 H Z o I �� o � r � q�--�1 W q @) H @---0 a a �� J J W W J J O O LU u w u Q _ W W W D w O 0 a O CL h O M N N N M M M M ZCO CO CO COLUcc zw�zzzz Z Y d � M N r J J J J J w w w w< w w w w O J J J J I C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 M LS9L8 O(NUMOO SIVA 6ovj a s w w N > co a d M Oki 30tl1NOi3 N L Ldd �6�s UJ w r EINI-1 !D I H °22 w J Q z wz w J Z J Z HJ � W Y WIL IL Y U U � 00[ Q w o0[ Q w IL w to a w 0 r ® r I I - o -- z El > I I 0� dn � I I nln z I � LTJ � I 0 LTJ o Fl FEII I z I judfl I I Cl) ❑CO CO CO CO CO LL — ❑ H �o ® Z CO CO CO CO CO LU LU J J I �'I > > O O w u w u l 2 W r In O O a O h O M N N N M M M M zw�Z Z Z Z Z Y Q Lcc U d � M N r J J J J J w w w w< w w w w O IL J J J J � C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 g ="a o co L99L8 O(NUMOO iron 6w a o z M e 6 M GH 30tl1NOHJ N L Ldd 3NI-HJIH °22 w Q OoO RJ IEI 0 ®® Ir 40F771 z z OWM E71 C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 L99L8 O(NUMOO iron 6w a o z co e 6 M GH 30tl1NOHJ N L Ldd 3NI-HJIH °22 w Q ------------------------- 1 000 Ep m 000 O 0 0 0 LL= �3a p W coN z Q J d z O W II H � p M O C96L-+eq-1410OWd 2 v 3 LU_ ^ 9/99L8OO UMOO�IVA 6 J �a orO a 6 M 08 3Otl1NOHJ N L Ldd �6 a 3NI�HJIH°22 - OZ Q wHA E oil o o o 12. wl" - - -wm a w g m =1¢111-111-x'$111 x �1 II=11f�`III=111, g a � � � —III—III=III=III—III=11 x — P IIIIII III IIII IIII ITIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIII =III IIII IIII III III I IIII w 45 IIIIIII —I V I$IIII=1 I' I I I I III V I I I IIII I_IIII I I I I I I ISI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I1111111111111111111I�11111111 —III—III—I I I� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I=1 I I�I 11=1 I' ===IIP IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II111�111=III=IIII�III=11 I II IIIIIII I I I I I I—I I T I I I I$III III I II I I I A Hill IIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIII -1=1 1=1 1-1WI III I III II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� i =__= IIIIIPII +III IIII _IIII IIII I_IIII ITIII 1_11111 I I I�I I I=1 11=1 I I�I 11=1 I I—I I'1=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I— ' III I=IIIIIIII= =111 1$I1I1I111=11' IIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIII —1111111111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� o 0 0 00 D I II llllillllillllill I II T II T I� I IIIIiIIIII i Illllill T Iilllil II�ITIITIITIITIITII�ITIITIII I=III= =III=III=II' IIII�ITIITIIIIIIIIIIIITIITII�IIIITIII 11THITIIIIITIIIiI�IIIITI ------------------------- , 11-111-111-111 HIM ISI ITIIIIITIIIIITI ITIIIII I�I I I=ITI=ITI=III=ITi� Ii�lli ITIIiIITIIiIITIIT ITIITII� ' MITI———I—— Iillli)I i�I�ITIIIIITIIIIITII�ITIIIIII ' -III-I T�I=ITI III ITI III ITI=ITIIIIIiI -III Ti TI -_II -III-I l�l l—Till I I—I I —III I W- II IIIITIITI I i�I1ITl lil ITI lil ITI 111ITIl i l l o I T I -I T IIII I I-ITI-ITI-III-I T I� o -- IiII�IIIIIIiIIIIIIiIIIIIiIIIIITIIIi� =_IIIITIITIIIIITIIIIITIIIIITIIT lillilill�l�lilllllilllllill�lillil� o l==—IIITil-lil-lil==—IIIIIi=I I' z 1II1--1I.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII z IIIi1lIIITIIIIITIlIll11IIIITIIi o w _II 11111-1 l i l l l l -III -III -I I II —_---- -I< —I I II II II II II I.I II IITII I I I II II II I I I II ITI- I I I II II II l l— z __ IITIII=_ IIIIII=II = —O o —IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�III�IITIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIII Q ;, =T= II —1=I—III _ = II w � III I I III I Y 1 I I—II II II II III II II II I�T 'j r •_____I____! ________________�__________ HI�11=III=III=III=III=IIIAIN 00 ¢o s g m �w��� �m�� i5 333m m3 w � a O F O O Q» a H i z� z � � �v�i Ogg ��3g33"rc rc"o�m �Sggg J'z 000ioo'owoo'oww�o� ww ooiio�a���3 wjjrn�rn� C96L -+eq-1410OWd 2 v 3 LU L99L8O(NUMOO�ron 6ovj baa o� O a o M Oki 30VINOi3 N L Ldd �6�s p w N 3NI-1H9IH --_ - - - o�m wq W aaiilll aiiil elm � � ' � ' 111 IINlll IIIA' 11-0 o a —1III IIITII ITI IITIIlII I II ITI II II g1IIII 1 1 —III—00 00 W. III=1 h Y = h 1111111111 M-T 0 0 111111 11111111111 T �� IIIIIIII IIIIII� =111 IIIIII� III=11 1 1111111 11111111 =111 0 0 11 II 111111 =111 D D I T IIIt11111 IITI IIITI�Iil11111111 =ITI+ITI=1 i j' EJ: El iIT11TI11�lllTlll 1TIIlil1 ITII IlTllllIIIIIIIIIIIIITI� =111 i11 111ITIII TI11I T IITI� D D 1TI1 T IIII T IIITIITIII �IIIITI�IT111111 =1 IT=11 W. o II T 11111�1lIITII I D D =ITI-1 T I Ill ITI I T IT11TIIIIll1111T1� - -111111TH IITIITI� 111T1111TII1 �1111TI�ITIIIIIi =1 I I+III=1 T IITITII�ITIITI I w ITIITII�IITIITIT ITIIIIIIIIIIITI� =1Th i Fj� 1111111TIIIIi111TIITl� D D I Ej i—ITI1111TIIlll TITII =1 T+ITI=T OEM I�I I I ITI I I D D T1TIlT ��IT1= 1=IIIIII1111T1� =111 TIIITi IIITIITI iTiT=1i D El0 11TIIT11111 U) — Q IIIIT11ili "' z III O IIIIII� o o z _ 0 0 0 11111111111111 0 - O _ o= > u LU m LL] r O 0 0 Qo o� z � m m w �f 5� 33� ¢oF � o�og ��3g33'�'rc oo3��3wsz°oxoo�cgi rc�o Jmm�g Sgg J'z 'z ao a� w�w3ww���a��gww wjjrn�rn� 000ioo'owoo'oww�o� ooiio�a���3 C96L -+eq-1410OWd 2 v 3 LU LS9L8O(NUMOO�Itln 6w baaco r O a 6 M 08 3Otl1NOHJ N L Ldd �6 a 3NI�HJIH °22 - - a� Q 10 Z=1m�=1m o . o o� o olp w o 1.�oa� ------------� aJ aJ oc�,� lo,m w g ¢. mom¢ aJi 14 111111111111 W __ _ 1111= g Y08080 OW = f=11 VIII III f of 0 o - IIS xo III IFC IIIA IF IH IT Ll Iff Iff Il I = iIT 11 =11 0 I= <n II z =IIff0 i- � =I o ii Q z = > Lu Ii Ii J ili w r 00 ¢o s s �zm rw �w� zo 1m�� i5 333m m3 waoF oo3��3Hiz°owoo�����°��g 8�3g33�rcrc�o�'n"�SSggJ'z'za�a� w�w3ww0 0 000ioo'owoo'oww�o� �aww ooiio�a���3 w��rn�rn� C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 M LUW L99L8O(NU �Oo�ron 6ovj baa Co o O a= M 08 30VINOud N L Ldd r d a 3NI�HJIH°22 - - a� Q o o o o w ° m TTi- a 1 Q m Q h Q m o I = g 111111 1 1 111 wlz wo III—III=III=III=III=III= x Ti=III=III=III=III=III 1T11T1-171-ITI-ITI- Y 1 —11111111111111111111 IIIIIIIIII '111111 ww 1 1111-1111=111-111-111-111 111111111111111111111 ___ 1 rl 1 111111=111' 111111 Y' � 111 = 111 111 111 1 1 1 1 = =111111=111=111=111= 111111111 11111111111111 1111 l 11l 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I I ISI I I-1 I I1-1 I I I I I I I I-1 I I I I I I I I VIII " < 11=1�= 111111=III=III=III= 11111111 sm LLLU 11 111111—I I I—I I I=I I I- :;' 11111111 111111111 I I I—I 11-1 11—II I—I I I 111 1111111111 — III -11 I1111111I11111IIII11�1IIII1111111I1111111I111111111I =1 1 1�=1 11=1 111-1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I == 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1—IIIIII�IIIIIIIII'lllllllll—= 1111111=—III�III=111111111111111111111111 III-111111111-IIII-III-III-III-III 111111=III=III=III= =I11111,11111111111�1111I =—_ 1I1111111I11111IIIIIIIIIIII111111111I1111111I111111111I w Ej1111 ==111111=1111=III=III=III=III =111I111111111111111111111111111111 — — — III =111111=III'-111111—= ' IIIIIIIIII 1=1 11=1 I ISI I I=1 I I I I I I I I I I II I II I I S = 111111=IIII-III=III=III=III II �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111111111111=11=1 ——-- g III 11111/111 1111/111 111111111111111111111111111 1111/111 1111/111 1111/111 I I —III—I II -1 -1 -1I -1I-1 o —III—III—III—III III—III—III—I I I- 1111111111111111�1111111111111111111111111111111111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111111 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I=1 11=1 11=1 I I ' - =111 IIII 111111111111111111111111111111 III II = _= 111111111111=IIII-III=III=III=III 1 =__ _ =111111=III=III=III= =-111111111111111 111IIIll1==- __ ====111111==== 11I1111111I1111111I11111IIII11�1IIII1111111I1111111I1111111II I �II II� _=111111=1111=111=111=111=111 VIII III III =111111111111111111�111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 =111111=III'—III= —_ —III—III—III- 111111111111=—III�III —III—III—III —=1 111 1=1 11=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 _ 111111=III=III=III= --111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I 111111111 111111111 o I 111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Ej� =1l l-1 -1-l-1111-14- LU1 Al III III —I 1111 11111 11111 1 1111 1111111 111/1111 11111111111—=111111=III'—III= _ =111 � 111 I I I I I I I I I I I I 1111 I I I I I�I I l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l p __ — — =III=III=III=III=III=� 1111 1111/111 1111/111 1111/111 1111/111 111111 1111/111 1111/111 1111111 I II I I Q --111111—==IIIIQ o I II1111111I1111111I111111IIII �IIII11111I1111111IIII —Z 1 111111=III=III�III=1111=III=III=III=1110 0 11111111=11111111111 71111 _1111Q T 11111 1111 X11111 1 III -111--i IlLu - 111 1 11 I-1 I I-1 I II Ill 1I-1 111-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I-1 I I - 1 1 - -III-III- -111111III-III-III- 111111-111-111111-1�=111-111-111-III r � o0 ¢o - s s J z oar ww m mJo 0 _ °tea �� sig goo ow �¢o�ooazz3Hso�zoo00���5 F���F[9 [9zwz[90Kww �SSOr Oo 000ioo'owoo'oww�o� w3ww�ww�rciw�gggggw ooiio�����3 C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 = F 0') J L99L8OO UMOO�IVA 6w baa p O a 6 M 08 3`Jtl1NOHJ N L Laa �6 a z 3NI-HJIH°22 - w Q I ww 00 00 0 gw2m no yo olm wl� wl� wl� �> o 0 MM-iiiliii-❑IIII WWWW❑— Jm J^ �I II l =11111 r a l 111 1111 l 1111 l 111 l l i = _ _ ❑IIIIIII❑III ❑ � III 11111111111111111111111111�111111111 I = _ = IIIIII�II1111_ 11111I11111111I I111111� 1111111111111111111 ❑I I ISI I I❑III❑IJ I❑III❑ � I 1111111111111�111111111111111111111111 0 ❑ =IIIIIII IIII=III ❑ l l l III—IIII 11— __11111111 _ _ ❑IIIIIII❑III � I -TTI IIII II IIIIIIII'1111111I111II1111I11111I1111�1II11111I11111II ❑0 ❑D IIIIIIIIIIIII IIII❑IIII❑III❑I I I I I I I I I❑I I I ❑I I ISI I I❑III❑Id I❑III❑ I I II I11�11II I I I�I11= I ❑o ,` I I fill °ol11I III II hill 111=-=111-1 I I 0 I1 II I1III1I111IIIIIIIIIIIIIII111�IIIIIIIII _ IIII II�IIIll111I11111 I I 111II11I1111IIII==I II II 111 II❑III❑I III 11 —11 ISI I I❑III❑IJ I❑I I II I I ❑ 111I111111111�_111111111111111111111 ' IIII�II1111l1111'llll = VIII III— IIIIIII 1111111111111111111111111111111 III=III❑III � I IIIllllllllllllllllllllllllll�IIVIIII111�1IIIIIIII I 0 l=— — IIIIT�II1111= IIIll11I111II111�1I111T11111IIII111IIIIIIIII ❑I I1=1 I I❑III❑Id I❑III❑ 11111111111111�111111111111111111111111 _-111 llllllllllllli Ell rlFllFl Pill 11 1111111 I I I I I I I I I I I❑III❑IIII❑III❑ 13 _ _ _ ❑IIIIIII❑III IIIIII'll III _ _ II I Ili 111111111 IMI 1111�111111I 111111111�11111111I1111111111111I1I III ❑I I ISI I I❑III❑Id I❑III❑ 0 111 — I———III I' Illlll1l1l1IIIl1�lIIIIIIIIllllllllll1l1l11IIIII 0 ' ®' IIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII'I�I 111111 0 � � III=1T�1111111111111111= C =III=1dl III=III=III=III 1111111111111111111111111�111111111 i' 11111111 1 ❑ � 1111111111�1111111111111111111111 III❑I I ISI I I❑III❑IJ I❑III❑ V I I I❑III❑III❑III—III❑I I I 11 I I I I I�I 11=1 I I❑III❑III❑ I = 111 1111/111 I IIII 11' IIII 11111 I II 11 I ❑ 1111111111111111111111111111111111=I I I= ==III❑III = 1111111111111111111111111111111111111�111111111111 � 0 =1'11=IIIIIIIIII=III O r - - z IIII 111111=III=IIII=III= _ � LU — O � o0 ¢o s s w oa� � ass° °w w go 33� � fFiizwi f xcgi N z O Oo "� _ -zo"rcrc -ggo�oz wa 0003�x WOO cg�333'�'�a�aio�y-i OO��OO SSg a�a� O5 00000�oo�w�o��ooio�����3 w�ww��aw;gww J22 w»���� C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 € /99L8 O(NUMOO iron 6w a =Lij O a 6 M Oki 30tl1NOkid N LLdd �y�6 COs we Q 3NI�HJIH 221, w g1. w2m no yo �3 0 0 0 olp ?lO ?lO �h w� IIIIIITI Illli 11-11 I—IT ❑o ❑o =III—I l 11 ❑ ❑ IIFEIIIIiIII III = ITIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�ITIIIIIIT = II T+ITIIT- i TIII�TIIIIIIIIIITIIiIIIIITIITIiIi —I I ISI I I❑III-1d I -1I I- rITl-1�_ITI_IiIIIIIi1-1T — illll II ITII+II �I IIIIi SII T IITI T IIT= T TI II T T Tllilllill li U) —In lT w r D=illillllillililllilii IIiTiI�iTill ii � u Q wr O W. wm R,iilll � ' I I� I II I II 11=1 11=1 I I—III=1 I =1I I=111111111111111111111= =1 I ISI 11= I1=ITI—I I II I IIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITIIII - =III=111111111= i ❑❑o (IIIIIIIIIIITII i —III III�III== II II IIIII�IIIIIIII ®; ,I; IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII _II (IIIIIIIII U) C? �IIIIIIIIIIIIIII Q r w u D zo 0 0 0 0 w r I I I I I I � � o0 ¢o s s w oa� � sigass° °w w 5~ 33� � �f F��Fiizwif xv H z O Oo "� _ 1.20 wa -55o�oz cg�333'�o�v�-i 0003�x �z OO��OO SSg J22 a�an O5 00000�oo�w�o��ooio�����3 w �ww��aw�gww 0961 -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 = F - 10 T LsslsoavUMOO�IVA 6w baa. 0 T a o M Oki 3`Jtl1NOkid N LLdd 7d co 3NI-HJIH°22 - w Q w w g8.y OW Ay pyww Wlm WIC m 11—I 1�mlll—III—II III=—III=III= ru3 i i 11=111111=III=11 ®" ...- I' III IIII III V III= i =III=III= IIII III=' r,l I I 1=11 I I I I=III= I I I I I�I I I—I 11=1 I 0 ' ' ' I❑ I I I I I II I I�I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II I IIII El E=l ® ❑DIIIII TIT 777 777. I- 0 h" IIIIIIIII�IVIIII�IIII 11 I I ISI 11=1 11=1 I 0 � � IIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ' 111I1I111= I I IIII I�I I I ITI I I IITII I IIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIII�IIII ' 19�II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII -1-1 IIIIII III=III=11 111=111= III=III=11 � � � � i � � � � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII � i r III—III— ® � ❑0 IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII i r' I III=1I ❑D � III VIII 0 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII II III I VIII II IIVIII — _ i I IIII IIIIIIIIIII 0 0 U u w r 00 ¢o s s �zw QLLrc `o�� w � - �u w f �zcnoxrc� �ggo�o� o��oo �000�og cg�333"�rcrc'ao�w SSg J22 a�a� w�www�����gww 00000�oo�w�o��ooio�a���3 wjjrn�rn� C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 LU /99L8 O(NUMOO iron 6w a ° O a 6 M Oki 30tl1NOid N LLdd 7d co s2 x w Q 3NI-HJIH 2 lil Hffil Hil-lil-lil-lil=lil=lil=lil=lil=lil=l H-I = I1=�=1I 1=1 I 1=1 I1=1 I1=1 I1=1I 1=1 I 1=1 I1=1 I1=1 I1= r' � T �III�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII (�i0j / i 1111�11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 o a ISI� ll ll ll llll� ll ll ll= —_ =I 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 I� 1=1 1=1 1=1 wo. =III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III= g o III — - H-- - 1==III=III=III=III=IIIIII=III=III=III=III= j -x ILIIIIIIIIIIII =III —III=III —III=III =III= m i III=III—III=III III=III III III=III III—III=11 j i 111=1 l- 1=11=11=1 H=11=11=11= < I�Illlllllllllllllllll�lllllllllllll i i _ � I I—III—III—I I =o= --1I I�-1I-1I-1I-1I I� I1=111=111=111= S�=w I I II III=III=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=111=11 C � i �I o<s�o 11=�=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III= � i — � I IIIIIIII I � �II�IUII�II�II�II a � o �, m �, III=I 111 111 111 111 111 111 I I� 111 I 1=1 I 1=1 I L- - - - - - - - -- _ CP � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII CP � =III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=11 1111=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III= — ±1111 ± ± ± 1�1HI 1 1 O HH VIII VIII±±±±±III±±±±±±±±±±±III d ¢ 11-111-111-111-11 11±1111±11111±11111±11111±11111±11111±1 III w ———— I—I—III—III—III— - —111-111-111-11111111111--11111111111111 Ellill iiiii iiiii—ill 111111-11 I IIIEIIIEIII C? o � 11111111 �111II II 111111 Ii II II 111111 Ii IIII 111111 �I II II 111111 111111-11 11_Ii 11 1111111 1111111111 W =Z —IIS I m — 1I z =H o 0 =w r _ II IIS ii Z@ 111111—w IIIA T =� O C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 LU Lr) /99L8 O(NUMOO iron 6w a ° O a 6 M Oki 30tl1NOid N LLdd 7d co �� s2 x w Q 3NI�HJIH 2 MMO TI I� I11 - IT 4 ITI II ITI IIITIII ITI ITI ITI ITI IIITII T 11i1Ni1—=== 11111111111111111=_____ I11II1Iihill1111 ==== o x==1II11i1I1i1I11i1I111I1111I111I1111I111I1111I1i1i1I1i1I11i11I li I1i-11i-11i-11- 00 .o U _m � 11i1"=lliillil-_ __== ____= ___= �° -1111111 __ 1��i�111� i 11� i 111111111111111111111111111i11111ii1 —IIIIIII�IIIIIII—====____ i = 1111I1I1IN�11I1I1I111======== �i o>g og o 1111111�11111111I1I1I1111I1I1I111 _ � J IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII " I—III—III—I I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I II I L - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I� �I1-111-111=1I 1=1 I1=1 I1=1 I1=1I 1=1I 1=1 O IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII - a 1111 II 1I 11111 1I 1111 11111 1� 1I 11111 1� 1II 1111 II 1I 11111 II 1I 11111 1� 1I 11111 1� 1I 11111 1� 1II I z ¢ 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 w 5� I-- IE IIIIIIII — — — —— — — — — —— 1111111i1+111i11+H11i1 +11i o D � 1111111111 N0 1El IEl IEl IEl IEl I O— — — — — — —_ ----- 111 11/1 11111 W I=1 U I=1 W I=11 Z =III =W = I-11H — — IIII�Iz w III =O 0� =11~ o 11 I I-v FoII II II 11l u 1LLJ 1=U T C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 LU /99L8 O(NUMOO iron 6w a In ° O a 6 M Oki 30tl1NOkid N L Ldd ����s - r w co 3NI�HJIH °22 °� Q --------------- ='n m l�lil='lil='lil='lil='lil='lil='lil='lil='i lMIil-lil-liI H-11 H lil-li —iffimm, I I I�IiII l ll i lllll i 1 I A 111--i l—III—1--III I I Illlli'llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll � � T , __ =l lull lull lull lull lull MHMH 0 III IIII II HMI IIIIIII o=w I��II=III-III-III-III�II-III-III- -- o=so R HMI HMI HMI I HMH I Ii H1 — — - =�oom i,illi illi ii a " " BONN IIII IMI IMI I III IIIII�IIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII m I—III—III—III—III-II—III—I I I� I I� 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I I� 11=1 11=1 i i II IIII , IIII II I = a d� 11=1 11=1 11=1 11=1 I H I I=1 11=1 11= � ------I__ � I� 1 1 1 I MH M-1 11=1 11=1 I I=1 HMI I H I I=1 I I=1 11= I� 1=1 1=1 1=1 1=1 I� 1=1 1=1 J Ir —a III III III III III I HMI HMI HMI ..............— — --- III IIII IIS I� III IIS H MH mi HMI HMI HMH X IIII IIIIII III III III III III III III III III III IIIH MH III Ir o g o VIII VIII III III III VIII II IIII mi HMI HMI HMI HMH MH mi HMI - mi HMI HMI HMI HMI HMI HMI HMI I HMI i HMI --------------- —--- --III1Il11H I I HMI II-a-1II IIII-III III II HMI I=1-IIII I HMI HMI HMI HMI HMH M, Mi IMI M— IMMMOMMMM o _—_ _—_—_ _— — — — — — — HMI HMI HMI HMH mi HMI I mi HMI � z N III III III IIII IIII III III III °x 'om = m — III III III � — 2 —VIIz I � _—III C� — VIzII III W r IIII H W r C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 L99L80GV8WOO�Itln 6ovj baa. o O a 6 M Oki 30tl1NOki3 N L Ldd EINI-1 !D I H °22 Q r� Om 0 0� 0� 0 bo :r-- il)r rzoo m co 0 a) 0 0 a) a) a) 0 a)O O m corl cocorl 2 W ui = W W �w oQ Ww DQ oCW p> W J J W — J J ui ui 00 =_ 00 == WW 00 WW WW (n (n (n (n HH 00 00 00 00 x x OC OC OC OC WW as as m r,� lk �l i 8m a� 8 � m �=i J'. Nr W. ®r Na !, NN NN � J: J 41 mi NI �' C96L -+egwnN 10OWd 2 v 3 ° M L99L8O(NUMOO�Itln 6ovj baa. o O m a 6 M Oki 30tl1NOki3 N L Ldd EINI-1 !D I H °22 Q 0 E961 egwnN l wd 2 v 3 �j LO LssLs oavaMoo iron 6ovj o O m a o M Oa 30tl1NOa3 N L Ldd 3NI-lHJIH 01:1.0 _ - Q E961 egwnN l wd 2 v 3 L99L8O(NUMOO�Itln 6ovj baa o O g a= M Oki 30tl1NOki3 N L LZZLis I I310H 3NIIHJIH °22 Q _ ,maw w 7 i PEN u r 1 ! EV m �.'..'� low J'lIN�3NIdlV'N\iNN\31 Lno).d-1 :3 -Lis 'SNI JNId33NIJN3 sss ON e W oadro�o0 �idn ml. ,d we°sddd °zs 3a ONO3NMd az/zz/� � U dNld�b ��d1a18f104 BN1IHJIH 1� INNI-11 I'lo d.N 3a M,w 03°°s �a a j m�I � z 0 0 ¢SIE aZZ \ �i0 \ ww, \ 0 LL 0 z \ I a 11\A� 11 0 ❑ opo oos , AT r �'�i� I1g 111 1!'ll � 11 \V I 1V ��� • X1111111 i71 �?, l1 1�1\�``Y\� 9 ___�� / ,� i \ \ � �✓�,.. �4 1 � I'el �3 ��1� 11 y 1`\l1\\\11\11 `` �� �� J � \ � •P�\ 11 L :- �� � i j ¢�/I j S, � \\\ �11 astir-- �_�� �_ Z � ��• i � 1—� �� s � � I �� J'll/\I:>3NIdlV'N\iNN111 S3adJO 3115 �dO1J0151H KKK KK KK '�NItl JNId33NIJN3 %%% II, ° W N Oad JO -1O0 `11b'n ens 3d oz sl M w 03NMd w ns n3a rs z � U ���11�18f104 �NIIHJIH ° °£y z,` �Nld�b III MIN OINOISIO IN V I/ / I � I I l I l 1 I l � I l tel✓ � 1— "�- \ , \V - \I V1 ®Y g � � j � •'' � � i 1 I � �v vv � � vv I /I zl � l\1111\11111111111 \\ � �.�� \\1\\1\\\11\ �� " 11111111 '•�1 �l II II 1111111\\ mn '111111 �1\ 1\1, 1 Ir 1 1 I, 1111 I' jl II l 1 I 1 \\ 1\ 11 \\1111\ ' \\ as \ \ 'SNI 5MN 133NIJN3 ElNld-b' m 00 -tt tt z gy 3LL O z d raQ O Z— 00dpQ W �wOwOrww zvmzm2E 2Ez� mo wzWo3Or ii w¢ (7 N tt i i a Uz<ior¢ ¢ w (¢7 7, w i 1111 ' i II�II i � \ PI II I la I i I III illi 1pl 1 111111 I Va yJ I I— I k I w1 zl I� 8 I 1 111111 111\1 \\ El 1 $ \\I \ ZD � JJJJV lIVns� � v1 1s oadro-100 `1Idn aauia-isnoa BM-1HUH a\ III ON 901 W M w mA MM a3r�3 ZZwZ ON M� av1 37� wo -33"" wzrwr zzO2EO6 a j Ulw-,"I /pr I<ozz,y Uo a o ¢oz¢ / 1\ yg m 1. a\ III ON 901 W M MM a3r�3 w =5 ON M� av1 �a i — a j Uo I yg m 1. 1 4 I I y l I�\ I 1 I \ a\ III ON 901 W M MM a3r�3 w =5 ON M� av1 �a a j Uo � yg m »�Id,yMM„ NV-la N0111-101^130 'ONI EMIHJ IWON3 xxx om aor W O oad�o�o0 `� 1dn M°w ;d we°s 3d oz oz i a M;w .,Na E3adiEneno4 DNIIHUH M'ry IvIIIH ` ` `� mow nrriwens o3d el oc al 1N1d�b a3Nx�s a a Fs ae- 05m El �V vq�• �. Ipl A I \ � \iA i-. V x\ Cyy 5 III LTMI� _ - I i t mm d"- I p i UII ��� I \ •: �'�'� \ � o'- I III sd c I , 1 $, I \ �\��Ss/.< Ez i•� �� Fu 8R0 ,,s � Z 0 U 7 2F- Z�.Z 2r0 WET LL 0 Z J'll/\IJ3NIdlV'N\iNN\31 Nb' -1 d 0N10 b'JD 'JNI JNId33NIJN3%%% °N ° W (V Oad JO -1O0 `-11dn 3d WWI M w °yd az/cz/� U ]Nld�b ���11a18f104 BN1IHJIH IN -1 „° IN ,a—°3°°s `1 '�e sa �. it w I eye ga 4 i ph, 5 5F4 a � $8 t$e Ups eye ga � $8 t$e Ups eye J'll/\IJ3NIdlV'N\iNN\ 31 Nd�d �Nlad J� 'JNI JM'J33NIJN3 %%% ON e W N Q d .7 Ido Mzw /vuiwens Jaa WWI s aia Maw o NMv W (V az/cz/" = U aauia-isnoa BM-1HUH �Nld�b III w n3NY�s �a a, as \- - I it Z K, i vdv ggb U UUM HIN \\\ wj JOU \ QN �Eit 0 Ai Y alp •. • ��;, +�10 Ii l I uu„ "P <� XINOW �♦ j <� XINOW d a � oJ, nIJ3NId,V MMM NV-1a �:J 3M 3 S W J 01 SKKK KK KK 111K '�NI'm�NIi1�3NI�N3 ssx oN e w O OQd �O�O0 °�1dn maw \vuiwens »d oz razz aia maw 03Nmv W � U �Nld�b E3E3u1E19f104 BNIIHJIH G]NDISIG IIVG a [ 8 3 Y & w I -1 Z 0 QRZ ii0 WE¢ a ❑ N � 1 1 IFt ii ii gi it lwpw' vvv„. I � 1i 1 ildl W� I n v� — `� ����:� I � 'v I A\ � . � • v111I'ii'.'I ��k d's oog e, s � mrzs \ a a 2`s�fio — 84 d V VI W W J_ a J'll/\I:>3NIdlV'N\iNN\31 N011d1f1WIS ONIN?�f11 �?�IA '�Nltl `.JNId33NI:JN3 +++ ON e 'L..' -:DA �� X; oadro�oo 1Idn az/zz/ �U dNld�b aad1a-La@N1IHUH ]N ,a M,w J]NAI � Y ~Y \ U O < �--� \ 04Q � \ �. II W ry cn \ \ J W J \\ .; �,r U< \\ J In,Q W ry W' \N W 1, cn 3: AALJ ` �rt ti H i \ �h \ x y \ W u v o f a \ N AN LOA Lo cn W S G o - 41 v ----------- \4-V Ot \\ \ r \ v v v Nb'-ld ).1nan '�NI'm�NIi1�3NI�N3ssx ON e w O OQd �JO-1' O� —11dnmaw wuiwens »a oz razz aiamaw 03N- W o1 K, N U �Nld-Ib' E3E3ui-Erie oci BNIIHJIH G]NDISIG Snip F15 �ll/\IJ3NIdlV'N\iNN\ 11 - KKK ONIN?�f11 �?�IA '�NItl JNId33NIJN3 sss °N ° w0 � N �� oadr o -1O3 `11dn ens 3d oz sl M;w °'Md ns n3a rs z NV Emu.—La@N1IHUH ° °£y ` �Nld�b ��aw n3��s � Y ~Y \ U O < �--� \ 04Q � \ �. II W ry cn \ \ J W J \\ .; �,r U Q \\ J n W CD ry W' \LLJ N W LIJ O ° w 11) IS) V ' l" v \ \ LLJ � U Q Q U W' W Ocn Ln LLJ n, \` CD 91, 111 111 M ® \ \ p I � -- ti - \4—v � l I \ J'lIN�3NIdlV'N\iNN\31 N did �Nlab J� 'SNI JNId33NIJN3 %%% ON °DI W (V oadro�o0 �idn M;w °'Md �2 U dNld�b ��d1�18f104 BNIIHJIH 1� INNI-11 I'lo d.N ,a M,w 03°°s �a a j m� w3m m� U ¢oF k Q z soil LL Ogg e"z dd � is �7 Re Rsi ����� � ��✓✓/%3, a°oSo ��r ��... I � .� � I `i � � +� & s su o i 1 � I s i iX r e _e -e meq• _-, i 0,� � vv`v ws ,J d d .a a � a ry m � FF sga — sm �s3 mE�o�x� R to Eo $i irm �Ug ZZ _ooh DO w3'm it — x zz ?o a R1- $90� w3'm E961 -+egwnN We�ad a �ss�s oavao�oo iron M Oa 3`Jtl1NOa� N L Ldd o 3NI�HJIH - �� W. ww o o= NO � s a ���� wF �JJ rOF4 W> gFwB WW giG wwww ��� �wxw ooF � Fya o �g o��� ���"-,�z�o p�p�pgggoa'o3 F O � F 00 � a� V, w '� O O O F Q¢¢ z g g� J0000 rc. 5��~ ¢? 5 0000¢_� aawaa°��� w rcrc°J� � LLLLLLLL��ww0000=» "~`p p p pwzxxxxx0000xxxxx� � �� - 5 s oA4aning g�s�a v Bu3 lrnl�� OOVt10100 'A1NnoO 31OV3 'IIVA AO NMOL r JN1H33NIE)N3 C ON ONITJ 3NOHO5 sva vvA aNV m LL we;unoW :aa;ul "•"''mw ""`""m'' '��'=w��o 1 ON `ONIIIA 3NOH04 4V0 IIVA to NOISAIGG S38 V g � �� O ° 4 r 011 'IIVA CAVH8 III 13aN1 JVA 0IH"800JO-L ° ' R sa A ff sqx 4 �k!, oq �.� I III I �xta e la / cad kc \ "Z 30 >.sls 4,1 ------------- a --- / rr ` j I a .r` � jf Il, JAI ILIIa LL W ^ odoaxN oa7 ---z� ,"�mh� orvvNd QJ ° O3� ��� ,NEz�is' pix `. a ILL Z 0=q 5 �°fi�e U U O ag 5i vY o R A` e ufflg 8aea_`j U it LS o t& a`s5 & e.. ZAjs s o oLL Z 0 Qj J Q �" of geSn Q _ a &ee $ Easss l8€ Y g��s a&as Es "s ;` K94 ss kl F C €€ g s g L Za h. wR CO 3 i V 2 W e .EE o sg a sal IgEla eea $F �8� s, s� (� J ms EEg$ Q LL CD W a ssa x x�y8 aoe< Via$$ Q Q �E'� gY 5� 50 $ !' ag°gY YE °5 Fsk $ "€ LL a.s'£p =€e _,-1 Isp 1_€4�s f_a€eas "k8t.2o a.:p_se osai a:� J as; 'sig $a € ogao€ ZQea nLS §� 3 "y� a mo�ry5 O LaJ Q O ee ry?�e;� Wm N o ?'¢ " zEEc H a Q U R.,q g o 0 o ry 00"0100 '11VA 'GvOH 3OViNO"J'N a ry"" w w�° k vU7a I 3 N I -1H J I H 1 4x J° N 01 4 uR nil V , i lu •, / f3irc 4 � l Mm � m m �YP I o � i 0 - W� 11m �I a IDe QN �- m k X '^„�\\c � �r� w � m u� do �q i u o;' ioz x � `� I• �',. '�m� ��"� / 0 m m e r". a \ 3 AN n y � r a� m "Lou X� qY laMaMInI � \ �� oill I f 5 H 2 WE nq Ta�SZ '`„tea p ii P -- see X�\, Triumph Development Attn: Michael O'Connor 12 Vail Road, Suite 700 Vail, CO 81657 January 10, 2020 Re: Doubletree Hotel Expansion - Parking Analysis Vail, Colorado Purpose: This memorandum was developed to give a recommendation for the redevelopment of the Doubletree Hotel. The recommendation is based upon the following two methodologies: • Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE) parking demand data • Local parking rates at current facilities Proposed Expansion: Existing Conditions: The existing Doubletree Hotel currently has ninety-seven (97) hotel rooms and nineteen (19) condominium units. The hotel has 2,000sf of meeting space. Additionally, there are two existing restaurants on the property. The hotel operates its own private shuttle service to and from the Vail core area, and will continue to operate this shuttle in the future. Proposed Conditions: The redevelopment at the Doubletree Hotel will bring the facility to a total of the following: • 176 hotel rooms • 19 hotel suites (hotel rooms with kitchens) • 16 deed restricted employee dwelling units (2-3 bedrooms per unit) • 12 deed restricted employee housing units in a dormitory configuration • 6,000sf of meeting space • The two restaurants will remain unchanged National Parking Rate: The Institute of Transportation Engineers' Parking Generation Manual' is a publication of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Its purpose is to present data based upon land uses and provide data and statistics to forecast parking demand by time of day on a specific day of the week, for a specific land use. Land Use Selection: Land Use 310 Hotel in the Parking Generation Manual was selected based upon the description best matching the Doubletree Hotel's land use. Per the Land Use Description: "A hotel is a place of lodging that provides sleeping accommodations and supporting facilities such as a full-service restaurant, cocktail lounge, meeting rooms, banquet room, and convention facilities. It typically provides a swimming pool or another recreational facility such as a fitness 1 Parking Generation Manual, 5t" Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2019 CDOWELL G�1 ENGINEERIN�c TanHspnrzrarinN ENGINEERING COM9l1LTANC EAGLE • BROOMFIELD • GRAND JUNCTION 970.623.0788. MCDOWELLENG.COM room. All suites hotel (Land Use 311), business hotel (Land Use 312), motel (Land Use 320), and resort hotel (Land Use 330) are related uses. ,2 It should be noted that the land use description 310 Hotel includes the ancillary uses of a full-service restaurant, lounge, meeting and banquet rooms, and convention facilities. The other above-mentioned related land uses (311 All suites hotel, 312 business hotel, 320 motel, and 330 resort hotel) do not provide all these ancillary uses, and therefore the Land Use 310 represents the best appropriate fit for the proposed Doubletree Hotel project, as it is assumed that these ancillary uses are included within the parking counts. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' Parking Generation Manual states that the average peak period parking demand for a suburban hotel (Land Use #310) is 0.74 spaces per room. The statistic is given based upon the 95th Percent Confidence Interval for a nationwide study of 22 hotel sites. The 95th Percent Confidence Interval indicates that there is a 95% likelihood that the parking demand will fall within 0.65 to 0.83 parking spaces per room. The statistical analysis on this data set is considered good with a low coefficient of variation of 30%. Additionally, the average peak period parking demand for a suburban hotel (Land Use #310) is 0.83 spaces per occupied room. The statistic is given based upon the 95th Percent Confidence Interval for a nationwide study of 27 hotel sites. The 95th Percent Confidence Interval indicates that there is a 95% likelihood that the parking demand will fall within 0.74 to 0.92 parking spaces per occupied room. The statistical analysis on this data set is considered good with a low coefficient of variation of 28%. These rates were taken in a general urban/suburban setting throughout the United States. These hotel facilities do not necessarily have the same access to transit, employee workforce, and restricted workplace parking that the Doubletree Hotel will likely experience. Observed Actual Parking Rate: As stated in the Parking Generation Manual: "The quality and quantity of parking demand data vary significantly by land use code. The Parking Generation Manual should be considered only the beginning point of information to be used in estimating parking demand. Local conditions and area type can influence parking demand. The wide array of data in the manual blends many site conditions and may not best reflect a particular local condition. Therefore, a survey of a site in a comparable local condition should always be considered as one potential means to estimate parking demand." Therefore, local data provides a more accurate representation of parking for the site. The hotel has collected the following datasets: • Two days of counts taken 5 times per day • Nightly count data taken for eleven (11) months z Parking Generation Manual, page 201 (Included as an attachment to this memorandum) CDOWELL 2 ENGINEERING1c TanHspnrzrarinN ENGINEERING COM9ILTAN7S EAGLE • BROOMFIELD • GRAND JUNCTION 970.623.0788. MCDOWELLENG.COM Two Days of Counts: Ten (10) counts were taken from Friday, December 20, 2019 to Saturday, December 21, 2019 at the following times, as shown in Table 1 below. The meeting room space was not being utilized when these counts were acquired. Table 1: Doubletree Hotel Hourly Count Data Time # of Vehicles Friday 12/20/19 # of Vehicles Saturday 12/21/19 Fri Occupancy Rate (61 Occupied Rooms) Saturday Occupancy Rate (74 Occupied Rooms) Fri Occupancy Rate (97 Total Rooms) Saturday Occupancy Rate (97 Total Rooms) 5:00 AM 42 57 0.69 0.77 0.43 0.59 9:00 AM 27 48 0.44 0.65 0.28 0.49 12:00 PM 23 27 0.38 0.36 0.24 0.28 5:00 PM 37 48 0.61 0.65 0.38 0.49 9:00 PM 45 59 0.74 0.80 0.46 0.61 Averages 35 48 0.57 0.65 0.36 0.49 The data shows that the overall average was 0.65 parked vehicles per occupied room. The overall average was 0.49 parked vehicles per room for the Saturday time, which is the highest rate for both the occupied room and room rates. Figure 1 shows the data in Table 1 graphically. Figure 1: Doubletree Hotel Hourly Count Data 70 En Ln 00 60 00 00 a a Ln N L L 50 Q0 Q0r rn m L o 40 Q0 � N N i o N o 0 30 a o m rn 20 0.0 10 C 5:00 AM 9:00 AM 12:00 PM 5:00 PM 9:00 PM ■ Friday (% of 61 Occupied Rooms, # of Vehicles) ■ Saturday (% of 74 Occupied Rooms, # of Vehicles) CDOWELL ENGINEERING11.c F TftANSPtlRTAYItlN ENGINEERING CGN5GLIA. EAGLE • BROOMFIELD • GRAND JUNCTION 3 970.623.0788 9 MCDOWELLENG.COM From inspection of the above data, the peaks occur during the 5:00 AM and 9:00 PM count times, thus showing that the peak parking is during the nighttime. Additionally, the parking demand during the midday hours is less than the overnight parking. This trend of parking being the maximum during the nighttime is consistent with the parking demand for Land Use 310, as shown in the Percent of Peak Parking Demand3 section of the Parking Generation Manual. This daily parking pattern is consistent with high hotel turnover in the morning hours and later afternoon hours, leaving parking capacity during the midday for any drive-in participants for an event utilizing a meeting room. However, there are also participants that are presently parked as an overnight guest at the hotel. Nightly Count Data: The hotel has collected nightly data over the last 11 months (January -November 2019) to show how many rooms were occupied and the related number of cars onsite. The counts were taken at night at 10:00 PM to capture the peak parking time. Copies of this data is provided as an attachment. Table 2 summarizes the data and shows the average rate, the low and high 95% confidence interval' rates for both the Parking Generation Manual and the nightly count data, based upon a parking rate per room. Additional confidence intervals of 98% and 99% have also been added. Scenarios shown include a weekday and Saturday, and provides a "Peak" time defined as the months of March and July which represent the highest number of vehicles and occupancy per month. Figure 2 shows the data from Table 2 in a graphic format. There are not any 95% confidence intervals calculated for the Parking Generation Manual's Saturday category, as this data set had only one study performed. Table 3 and Figure 3 similarly summarize and display the data based upon a parking rate per occupied room. Additional confidence intervals of 98% and 99% have also been added. There are not any 95% confidence intervals provided from the Parking Generation Manual's Saturday category', as this data set had eight (8) studies performed, however, this 95% confidence interval has been calculated to provide a comparison of the rates. 3 Parking Generation Manual, Page 201 (Included as an attachment to this memorandum) ' The 95% confidence interval is defined from the Parking Generation Manual as follows: "95 Percent Confidence Interval—a measure of confidence in the statistical data to the average. It indicates the range within which there is 95 percent likelihood the average will fall. This range is shown when data for 20 or more study sites are available. It is computed as two standard errors plus or minus the average." j-, / ' Parking Generation Manual, Page 206 (Included as an attachment to this memorandum) A-ACDOWELL 4 ENGINEERING�c TanHspnrzrarinN ENGINEERING COM9ILTAN7S EAGLE • BROOMFIELD . GRAND JUNCTION 970.623.0788 9 MCDOWELLENG.COM Table 2: Parking Rates by Rooms Figure 2: Parking Rates by Rooms 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 Ln N 1.20 `~ 1.00 ^opp 0.80 (Too O p o p, N '0� Ln Ln 0.60 m-zT rnr omoomo aga0o0o 0.40 0000066 000 0.20 0.00 Luer, 00 Ln Lgp0O O Ln L(1 L(1 p� 0 `� 0 0 0 0 O O O O 000 Hotel (310) - Hotel (310) - Doubletree Hotel - Doubletree Hotel - Doubletree Hotel - Doubletree Hotel - Rooms - Weekday Rooms - Saturday Rooms - Weekday Rooms - Saturday Rooms - Weekday Rooms - Saturday (Annual) (Annual) (Peak (Mar & Jul)) (Peak (Mar & Jul)) ■ 99% Confidence Interval (Low) ■ 98% Confidence Interval (Low) ■ 95% Confidence Interval (Low) ■ Average Rate ■ 95% Confidence Interval (High) ■ 98% Confidence Interval (High) ■99%Confidence Interval (High) * Note: Scenarios shown in Red Bold type represent a small sample size and their data should not be used for analysis, especially when there is site-specific data available. Additionally, confidence intervals cannot be calculated when there is only one study in the data set. CDOWELL ENGINEERING1C F TRAN5Ptl R7AYItlN ENGINEERING CGN5GLTANTS EAGLE • BROOMFIELD • GRAND JUNCTION 5 970.623.0788 . MCDOWELLENG.COM Confidence Confidence Avg' # of Scenario Interval (Low) Interval (High) Rate Studies 99% 98% 95/ 95/ o 98/ 0 99% Hotel (310) - Rooms - Weekday 0.62 0.63 0.65 0.74 0.83 0.85 0.86 22 Hotel (310) - Rooms - Saturday - - - 1.15 * - - - 1 * Doubletree Hotel - Rooms - Weekday 0.33 0.34 0.34 0.36 0.38 0.38 0.38 236 (Annual) Doubletree Hotel - Rooms - Saturday 0.40 0.40 0.41 0.46 0.50 0.51 0.52 48 (Annual) Doubletree Hotel - Rooms - Weekday 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.50 0.54 0.54 0.55 44 (Peak (Mar & Jul)) Doubletree Hotel - Rooms - Saturday 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.58 0.65 0.66 0.67 9 (Peak (Mar & Jul)) Figure 2: Parking Rates by Rooms 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 Ln N 1.20 `~ 1.00 ^opp 0.80 (Too O p o p, N '0� Ln Ln 0.60 m-zT rnr omoomo aga0o0o 0.40 0000066 000 0.20 0.00 Luer, 00 Ln Lgp0O O Ln L(1 L(1 p� 0 `� 0 0 0 0 O O O O 000 Hotel (310) - Hotel (310) - Doubletree Hotel - Doubletree Hotel - Doubletree Hotel - Doubletree Hotel - Rooms - Weekday Rooms - Saturday Rooms - Weekday Rooms - Saturday Rooms - Weekday Rooms - Saturday (Annual) (Annual) (Peak (Mar & Jul)) (Peak (Mar & Jul)) ■ 99% Confidence Interval (Low) ■ 98% Confidence Interval (Low) ■ 95% Confidence Interval (Low) ■ Average Rate ■ 95% Confidence Interval (High) ■ 98% Confidence Interval (High) ■99%Confidence Interval (High) * Note: Scenarios shown in Red Bold type represent a small sample size and their data should not be used for analysis, especially when there is site-specific data available. Additionally, confidence intervals cannot be calculated when there is only one study in the data set. CDOWELL ENGINEERING1C F TRAN5Ptl R7AYItlN ENGINEERING CGN5GLTANTS EAGLE • BROOMFIELD • GRAND JUNCTION 5 970.623.0788 . MCDOWELLENG.COM Table 3: Parking Rates by Occupied Rooms Figure 3: Parking Rates by Occupied Rooms 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 00 ri 1.20 Nma N� rn��rn 0�rn 1.00 Nrn.0666 000 n mm� n��� r, 00"' 0.80 6p0 IgIq 1O000 �Oo�0o�1O000 ZoCo�00666 00-0600 0060 0000 000 opo 0.60 0.40 0.20 � ■ I 0.00 Hotel (310) - Hotel (310) - Doubletree Hotel - Doubletree Hotel - Doubletree Hotel - Doubletree Hotel - Occupied Rooms - Occupied Rooms - Occupied Rooms - Occupied Rooms - Occupied Rooms - Occupied Rooms - Weekday Saturday Weekday (Annual) Saturday (Annual) Weekday (Peak Saturday (Peak (Mar & Jul)) (Mar & Jul)) ■ 99% Confidence Interval (Low) ■ 98% Confidence Interval (Low) ■ 95% Confidence Interval (Low) ■ Average Rate ■ 95% Confidence Interval (High) ■ 98% Confidence Interval (High) ■99%Confidence Interval (High) * Note: Values shown in Red Bold type represent a small sample size and their data should not be used for analysis, especially when there is site-specific data available. Observed Highest Parking Rates per Occupied Room: Table 4 provides a summary of the top 5 highest observed rates per occupied room. It should be noted that in all cases where the rate per occupied room CDOWELL 6c ENGINEERING1 TanHspnrzrarinN ENGINEERING COM9ILTAN7S EAGLE • BROOMFIELD • GRAND JUNCTION 970.623.0788. MCDOWELLENG.COM Confidence Confidence Avg' # of Scenario Interval (Low) Interval (High) Rate Studies 99% 98% 95/ 95/ o 98/ 0 99% Hotel (310) - Occupied Rooms - 0.72 0.73 0.74 0.83 0.92 0.93 0.94 27 Weekday Hotel (310) - Occupied Rooms - 0.89 0.92 0.96 1.18 1.40 1.44 1.47 8 Saturday Doubletree Hotel - Occupied Rooms - 0.63 0.63 0.64 0.65 0.68 0.68 0.68 237 Weekday (Annual) Doubletree Hotel - Occupied Rooms - 0.60 0.60 0.61 0.65 0.69 0.69 0.70 46 Saturday (Annual) Doubletree Hotel - Occupied Rooms - 0.65 0.66 0.66 0.70 0.73 0.74 0.74 44 Weekday (Peak (Mar & Jul)) Doubletree Hotel - Occupied Rooms - 0.60 0.60 0.62 0.68 0.74 0.75 0.76 9 Saturday (Peak (Mar & Jul)) Figure 3: Parking Rates by Occupied Rooms 2.00 1.80 1.60 1.40 00 ri 1.20 Nma N� rn��rn 0�rn 1.00 Nrn.0666 000 n mm� n��� r, 00"' 0.80 6p0 IgIq 1O000 �Oo�0o�1O000 ZoCo�00666 00-0600 0060 0000 000 opo 0.60 0.40 0.20 � ■ I 0.00 Hotel (310) - Hotel (310) - Doubletree Hotel - Doubletree Hotel - Doubletree Hotel - Doubletree Hotel - Occupied Rooms - Occupied Rooms - Occupied Rooms - Occupied Rooms - Occupied Rooms - Occupied Rooms - Weekday Saturday Weekday (Annual) Saturday (Annual) Weekday (Peak Saturday (Peak (Mar & Jul)) (Mar & Jul)) ■ 99% Confidence Interval (Low) ■ 98% Confidence Interval (Low) ■ 95% Confidence Interval (Low) ■ Average Rate ■ 95% Confidence Interval (High) ■ 98% Confidence Interval (High) ■99%Confidence Interval (High) * Note: Values shown in Red Bold type represent a small sample size and their data should not be used for analysis, especially when there is site-specific data available. Observed Highest Parking Rates per Occupied Room: Table 4 provides a summary of the top 5 highest observed rates per occupied room. It should be noted that in all cases where the rate per occupied room CDOWELL 6c ENGINEERING1 TanHspnrzrarinN ENGINEERING COM9ILTAN7S EAGLE • BROOMFIELD • GRAND JUNCTION 970.623.0788. MCDOWELLENG.COM is high, there is minimal hotel room occupancy, and the parking rate per room is consistent with the remaining data. Therefore, it is assumed that these observed rates can be treated as outliers. Nevertheless, the statistical analysis as shown in Table 3 and Figure 3 include these values and because they only occur rarely, the confidence intervals demonstrate that the rates per occupied room in Table 4 are statistically irrelevant. Table 4: Top 5 Highest Parking Rate per Occupied Rooms The Doubletree Hotel is located where it has direct access to Vail's transit system. The site is located within walking and bus proximity to recreation and amenities including restaurants, retail and grocery stores. Observed Parking Rate per Room: Per the nightly count data, the observed parking rate was 0.36 vehicles per room during the weekday and 0.46 vehicles per room on Saturday, based on the annual data. The observed parking rate for the two highest "peak" months of March and July was 0.50 and 0.58 for the weekday and Saturday respectively. The "two days of counts" dataset had averages of 0.36 and 0.49 for the weekday and Saturday respectively. Observed Parking Rate per Occupied Room: Per the nightly count data, the observed parking rate was 0.65 vehicles per occupied room during the weekday and 0.65 vehicles per occupied room on Saturday, based on the annual data. The observed parking rate for the two highest "peak" months of March and July was 0.70 and 0.68 for the weekday and Saturday respectively. The "two days of counts" dataset had averages of 0.57 and 0.65 for the weekday and Saturday respectively. Effect of Weekday and Saturday Rates: Comparing the room and occupied room rates, the ITE data shows a consistently higher rate for Saturdays than for the weekdays. This same trend is not realized with the Doubletree Hotel data sets. Additionally, the Saturday rate for the parking rate by room has only one study, and therefore is not sufficient for predicting valid parking rate conclusions. Likewise, the Saturday rate for the parking rate by occupied rooms has eight (8) studies. Comparing the ratios of the ITE Weekday to Saturday rates against the Doubletree Weekday to Saturday rates indicates that the Doubletree has a very consistent parking rate which is only slightly higher (approximately 16-27% higher for the Doubletree), where the ITE ratios are approximately 42-55%. CDOWELL 7 ENGINEERING1c TanHspnrzrarinN ENGINEERING COM9ILTAN7S EAGLE • BROOMFIELD . GRAND JUNCTION 970.623.0788 9 MCDOWELLENG.COM Room Occupancy Parking Rate Parked Occupied Parking Rate Date Day (out of 119 per Occupied Vehicles Rooms per Rooms rooms) Rooms 11/21/2019 Thu 38 21 18% 1.81 0.32 2/5/2019 Tue 80 58 49% 1.38 0.67 3/25/2019 Mon 47 37 31% 1.27 0.39 2/11/2019 Mon 49 41 34% 1.20 0.41 2/17/2019 Sun 87 77 65% 1.13 0.73 The Doubletree Hotel is located where it has direct access to Vail's transit system. The site is located within walking and bus proximity to recreation and amenities including restaurants, retail and grocery stores. Observed Parking Rate per Room: Per the nightly count data, the observed parking rate was 0.36 vehicles per room during the weekday and 0.46 vehicles per room on Saturday, based on the annual data. The observed parking rate for the two highest "peak" months of March and July was 0.50 and 0.58 for the weekday and Saturday respectively. The "two days of counts" dataset had averages of 0.36 and 0.49 for the weekday and Saturday respectively. Observed Parking Rate per Occupied Room: Per the nightly count data, the observed parking rate was 0.65 vehicles per occupied room during the weekday and 0.65 vehicles per occupied room on Saturday, based on the annual data. The observed parking rate for the two highest "peak" months of March and July was 0.70 and 0.68 for the weekday and Saturday respectively. The "two days of counts" dataset had averages of 0.57 and 0.65 for the weekday and Saturday respectively. Effect of Weekday and Saturday Rates: Comparing the room and occupied room rates, the ITE data shows a consistently higher rate for Saturdays than for the weekdays. This same trend is not realized with the Doubletree Hotel data sets. Additionally, the Saturday rate for the parking rate by room has only one study, and therefore is not sufficient for predicting valid parking rate conclusions. Likewise, the Saturday rate for the parking rate by occupied rooms has eight (8) studies. Comparing the ratios of the ITE Weekday to Saturday rates against the Doubletree Weekday to Saturday rates indicates that the Doubletree has a very consistent parking rate which is only slightly higher (approximately 16-27% higher for the Doubletree), where the ITE ratios are approximately 42-55%. CDOWELL 7 ENGINEERING1c TanHspnrzrarinN ENGINEERING COM9ILTAN7S EAGLE • BROOMFIELD . GRAND JUNCTION 970.623.0788 9 MCDOWELLENG.COM Proposed Parking Rate: The parking rate for this facility is best determined by using local parking data. From inspection of the detailed, eleven (11) month data and its statistical confidence, and in alignment with the recommendations from the Parking Generation Manual to utilize a local site survey, this parking analysis utilizes the data collected at the Doubletree Hotel. To provide a conservative and statistically valid estimate of parking for the Doubletree Hotel, a parking rate of 0.70 spaces per room would be appropriate, and would include the hotel retail spaces, restaurant/bar/lounge, and the conference/meeting room spaces. This rate is based off the 99% confidence interval for a Saturday annually, and represents a conservative rate utilizing the collected data. The 99% confidence interval would expect to see parking rates within this rate 99% of the time. The Doubletree Hotel Development is proposing to provide 215 parking spaces. After subtracting out the parking required for the two third -party restaurants (18.9 spaces) and the employee housing and dormitory (32 and 2.5 spaces), the effective rate of parking for the hotel will be 0.83 parking spaces per room, a very liberal amount of parking for the hotel and ancillary uses. Please call if you would like any additional information or have any questions regarding this matter. Sincerely, McDowell Engineering, LLC KarI/M E, PTOE Traffic Engineer Enc. CDOWELL 8 ENGINEERING1c TanHspnrzrarinN ENGINEERING COM9ILTAN7S EAGLE • BROOMFIELD . GRAND JUNCTION 970.623.0788 9 MCDOWELLENG.COM Land Use: 310 Hotel Description A hotel is a place of lodging that provides sleeping accommodations and supporting facilities such as a full-service restaurant, cocktail lounge, meeting rooms, banquet room, and convention facilities. It typically provides a swimming pool or another recreational facility such as a fitness room. All suites hotel (Land Use 311), business hotel (Land Use 312), motel (Land Use 320), and resort hotel (Land Use 330) are related uses. Time of Day Distribution for Parking Demand The following table presents a time -of -day distribution of parking demand (1) on a weekday (four study sites) and a Saturday (five study sites) in a general urban/suburban setting and (2) on a weekday (one study site) and a Saturday (one study site) in a dense multi -use urban setting. Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots 201 Percent of Peak Urban/SuburbanELGenerall Weekday Saturday Demand Weekday Saturday Hour Beginning 12:00-4:00 a.m. 96 74 93 100 5:00 a.m. — — — — 6:00 a.m. 91 62 97 95 7:00 a.m. 89 62 100 95 8:00 a.m. 90 72 93 89 9:00 a.m. 100 74 72 85 10:00 a.m. 98 76 69 74 11:00 a.m. 89 77 65 61 12:00 p.m. 85 79 78 47 1:00 P.M. 75 78 78 42 2:00 p.m. 81 67 63 41 3:00 p.m. 70 64 59 43 4:00 p.m. 74 67 58 48 5:00 p.m. 65 73 52 53 6:00 p.m. 73 83 63 64 7:00 p.m. 78 92 74 67 8:00 p.m. 93 97 78 78 9:00 P.M. 96 100 72 81 10:00 P.M. 95 91 84 93 11:00 P.M. 95 83 92 98 Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots 201 Hotel (310) Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Rooms On a: Weekday (Monday - Friday) Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Peak Period of Parking Demand: 11:00 p.m. - 8:00 a.m. Number of Studies: 22 Avg. Num. of Rooms: 321 Peak Period Parking Demand per Room Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval Standard Deviation (Coeff. of Variation) 0.74 0.43-1.47 0.64/0.99 0.65-0.83 0.22(30%) Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots 203 Hotel (310) Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Rooms On a: Saturday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Peak Period of Parking Demand: 10:00 p.m. - 9:00 a.m. Number of Studies: 1 Avg. Num. of Rooms: 285 Peak Period Parking Demand per Room Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval Standard Deviation (Coeff. of Variation) 1.15 1.15 - 1.15 204 Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition Wd Hotel (310) Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Occupied Rooms On a: Weekday (Monday - Friday) Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Peak Period of Parking Demand: 11:00 p.m. - 8:00 a.m. Number of Studies: 27 Avg. Num. of Occupied Rooms: 268 Peak Period Parking Demand per Occupied Room Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval Standard Deviation (Coeff. of Variation) 0.83 0.43-1.58 0.72/1.03 0.74-0.92 0.23(28%) Land Use Descriptions and Data Plots 205 Hotel (310) Peak Period Parking Demand vs: Occupied Rooms On a: Saturday Setting/Location: General Urban/Suburban Peak Period of Parking Demand: 10:00 p.m. - 9:00 a.m. Number of Studies: 8 Avg. Num. of Occupied Rooms: 242 Peak Period Parking Demand per Occupied Room Average Rate Range of Rates 33rd / 85th Percentile 95% Confidence Interval Standard Deviation (Coeff. of Variation) 1.18 0.72-1.58 0.93/1.55 *** 0.32(27%) 206 Parking Generation Manual, 5th Edition Wd Ipm OMJ��MroI Jan 1-Jan 2-Jan 3-Jan 4-Jan 5-Jan 6-Jan 7-Jan 8-Jan 1179 74 68 71 44 27 15 12 13 2029 114 108 110 108 91 43 26 39 9-Jan 22 37 10-Jan 39 49 11-Jan 43 59 12-Jan 52 58 13-Jan 17 27 14-Jan 14 25 15-Jan 17 23 16-Jan 26 44 17-Jan 37 78 18-Jan 79 113 19-Jan 102 115 20-Jan 15 94 21-Jan 18 47 22-Jan 22 35 23-Jan 32 43 24-Jan 45 73 25-Jan 61 111 26-Jan 63 113 27-Jan 30 49 28-Jan 20 31 29-Jan 16 25 30-Jan 32 56 31-Jan 53 85 Page 1 of 11 Date Sum of ParkedVehicles Feb 1-Feb 2-Feb 3-Feb 4-Feb 5-Feb 6-Feb 7-Feb 8-Feb Sum of OccupiedRooms 1497 79 58 61 42 80 47 70 73 1919 90 72 64 58 101 104 107 9-Feb 81 10-Feb 11-Feb 49 41 12-Feb 31 67 13-Feb 40 91 14-Feb 63 114 15-Feb 80 116 16-Feb 87 116 17-Feb 87 77 18-Feb 46 74 19-Feb 46 88 20-Feb 59 21-Feb 25 89 22-Feb 80 100 23-Feb 45 77 24-Feb 41 79 25-Feb 26-Feb 53 94 27-Feb 74 100 28 -Feb Page 2 of 11 Date Sum of ParkedVehicles Mar 1-Mar 2-Mar 3-Mar 4-Mar 5-Mar 6-Mar 7-Mar Sum of OccupiedRooms 1806 82 86 83 42 55 48 59 2695 113 116 112 64 85 72 87 8-Mar 87 116 9-Mar 66 104 10-Mar 52 94 11-Mar 49 96 12-Mar 49 77 13-Mar 50 94 14-Mar 38 71 15-Mar 67 95 16-Mar 75 88 17-Mar 54 85 18-Mar 51 74 19-Mar 43 59 20-Mar 40 61 21-Mar 53 74 22-Mar 74 112 23-Mar 83 116 24-Mar 51 85 25-Mar 47 37 26-Mar 54 91 27-Mar 62 98 28-Mar 57 99 29-Mar 63 97 30-Mar 43 79 31-Mar 43 44 Page 3 of 11 Apr dmmL 1-Apr 2-Apr 786 1223 21 27 24 38 3 -Apr 4 -Apr 5 -Apr 6 -Apr 29 21 38 47 58 57 68 68 7 -Apr 23 34 8 -Apr 26 39 9 -Apr 22 33 10 -Apr 31 40 11 -Apr 23 27 12 -Apr 30 41 13 -Apr 28 44 14 -Apr 28 38 15 -Apr 20 42 16 -Apr 26 50 17 -Apr 26 45 18 -Apr 26 40 19 -Apr 32 40 20 -Apr 34 56 21 -Apr 8 23 22 -Apr 27 37 23 -Apr 26 30 24 -Apr 25 33 25 -Apr 22 30 26 -Apr 28 44 27 -Apr 22 39 28 -Apr 21 32 29 -Apr 26 35 30 -Apr 26 35 Page 4 of 11 May 1 -May 2 -May 3 -May 4 -May 5 -May 6 -May 779 27 20 48 31 4 14 1171 35 26 53 46 17 24 7 -May 22 31 8 -May 21 37 9 -May 22 40 10 -May 19 20 11 -May 45 83 12 -May 12 20 13 -May 22 34 14 -May 36 38 15 -May 36 39 16 -May 15 19 17 -May 18 21 18 -May 22 31 19 -May 15 22 20 -May 42 56 21 -May 37 57 22 -May 27 41 23 -May 16 40 24 -May 18 39 25 -May 31 59 26 -May 25 41 27 -May 12 26 28 -May 20 32 29 -May 21 42 30 -May 40 51 31 -May 41 51 Page 5 of 11 Date Sum of ParkedVehicles Jun MML 1-Jun 2-Jun 3-Jun 4-Jun 5-Jun 6-Jun Sum of OccupiedRooms 1230 29 18 33 43 37 44 1826 53 25 46 56 63 82 7-Jun 52 92 8-Jun 9-Jun 59 26 103 51 10-Jun 29 59 11-Jun 35 50 12-Jun 31 41 13-Jun 31 48 14-Jun 53 66 15-Jun 57 65 16-Jun 23 39 17-Jun 37 57 18-Jun 56 76 19-Jun 41 48 20-Jun 35 55 21-Jun 45 60 22-Jun 65 77 23-Jun 29 48 24-Jun 32 62 25-Jun 41 53 26-Jun 40 66 27-Jun 44 57 28-Jun 56 79 29-Jun 69 100 30-Jun 40 49 Page 6 of 11 Jul 1-J u I 2 -Jul 3 -Jul 4 -Jul 5 -Jul 6 -Jul 1923 38 53 50 82 80 64 2740 65 69 80 112 114 96 7 -Jul 46 71 8 -Jul 43 62 9-J u I 62 86 10-J u I 65 87 11-J u I 64 86 12 -Jul 66 86 13 -Jul 69 91 14 -Jul 56 92 15 -Jul 59 78 16 -Jul 62 100 17 -Jul 86 110 18 -Jul 83 105 19-J u I 69 101 20 -Jul 57 106 21 -Jul 46 62 22 -Jul 54 70 23 -Jul 57 78 24 -Jul 59 98 25 -Jul 86 107 26 -Jul 86 116 27 -Jul 76 116 28 -Jul 57 77 29 -Jul 44 70 30 -Jul 53 69 31 -Jul 51 80 Page 7 of 11 Aug 1 -Aug 2 -Aug 1627 2733 56 87 65 93 3 -Aug 4 -Aug 5 -Aug 6 -Aug 7 -Aug 66 56 53 67 64 106 87 95 113 104 8 -Aug 67 102 9 -Aug 74 108 10 -Aug 63 111 11 -Aug 34 100 12 -Aug 38 111 13 -Aug 51 104 14 -Aug 50 94 15 -Aug 63 97 16 -Aug 64 97 17 -Aug 58 103 18 -Aug 40 72 19 -Aug 42 86 20 -Aug 45 83 21 -Aug 49 73 22 -Aug 49 75 23 -Aug 43 60 24 -Aug 46 78 25 -Aug 36 53 26 -Aug 32 56 27 -Aug 41 65 28 -Aug 41 64 29 -Aug 35 57 30 -Aug 61 83 31 -Aug 78 116 Page 8 of 11 Sep 1358 2204 1 -Sep 68 110 2 -Sep 30 64 3 -Sep 27 46 4 -Sep 5 -Sep 6 -Sep 41 52 58 45 69 73 7 -Sep 67 86 8 -Sep 48 64 9 -Sep 38 63 10 -Sep 48 63 11 -Sep 37 71 12 -Sep 35 50 13 -Sep 62 85 14 -Sep 61 85 15 -Sep 23 53 16 -Sep 31 44 17 -Sep 35 54 18 -Sep 43 75 19 -Sep 48 80 20 -Sep 70 116 21 -Sep 71 116 22 -Sep 28 59 23 -Sep 40 78 24 -Sep 45 78 25 -Sep 49 91 26 -Sep 43 83 27 -Sep 67 104 28 -Sep 48 113 29 -Sep 21 41 30 -Sep 24 45 Page 9 of 11 Date Sum of ParkedVehicles Oct 1-Oct 2-Oct 3-Oct 4-Oct 5-Oct 6-Oct Sum of OccupiedRooms 1097 44 45 42 83 75 21 1766 55 58 60 112 113 36 7-Oct 30 62 8-Oct 42 60 9-Oct 32 49 10-Oct 28 49 11-Oct 29 56 12-Oct 40 69 13-Oct 28 45 14-Oct 33 52 15-Oct 31 53 16-Oct 36 61 17-Oct 28 47 18-Oct 47 68 19-Oct 35 67 20-Oct 33 56 21-Oct 27 42 22-Oct 32 42 23-Oct 23 40 24-Oct 35 44 25-Oct 46 64 26-Oct 28 60 27-Oct 14 25 28-Oct 25 54 29-Oct 36 67 30-Oct 22 58 31-Oct 27 42 Page 10 of 11 Date Sum of ParkedVehicles Nov 1-Nov 2-Nov 3-Nov 4-Nov 5-Nov 6-Nov 7-Nov 8-Nov Sum of OccupiedRooms 1025 18 29 14 24 29 23 25 58 1492 58 69 23 40 44 39 47 73 9-Nov 50 76 10-Nov 10 25 11-Nov 11 27 12-Nov 28 36 13-Nov 20 37 14-Nov 27 36 15-Nov 41 51 16-Nov 40 47 17-Nov 16 26 18-Nov 21 38 19-Nov 32 43 20-Nov 33 43 21-Nov 38 21 22-Nov 38 47 23-Nov 60 70 24-Nov 40 48 25-Nov 45 67 26-Nov 38 62 27-Nov 40 74 28-Nov 62 81 29-Nov 83 99 30-Nov 32 45 Page 11 of 11 Greg Roy From: Matt Gennett Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 9:13 AM To: Greg Roy Subject: FW: Expansion of DoubleTree Hotel FYI and for the file. Thanks. -----Original Message ----- From: Suzanne Silverthorn <SSilverthorn@vailgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 7:46 AM To: plauer@sisna.com; Council Dist List <TownCouncil@vailgov.com>; PEC <PEC@vailgov.com> Cc: Matt Gennett <MGennett@vailgov.com> Subject: RE: Expansion of DoubleTree Hotel PEC & Town Council members, please see public comment below. Suzanne Silverthorn, APR Communications Director Town Manager's Office 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Office: 970.479.2115 Cell: 970.471.1361 vailgov.com -----Original Message ----- From: info@vailgov.com <info@vailgov.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 7:28 AM To: Info <Info@vailgov.com> Subject: Expansion of DoubleTree Hotel Hi, My husband, Jay Lauer, and I are homeowners at 2269 Chamonix Ln, Apt. 4, Vail CO 81657. We are traveling internationally until the middle of December. We received notification from one of our neighbors about the proposed expansion of the DoubleTree hotel at 2211 North Frontage Road West. We are definitely not in favor of this high density development and granting approval for variences on section 12-6D-8 or 12-15-3. Is there a way to communicate to the town council at the Dec 9th meeting that we are not in favor of this development since we are not able to attend the Dec 9th meeting? 1 Thanks for your help and I will wait to hear back. Patricia Lauer Submitted By: Name:: Patricia Lauer Telephone:: 3032298575 Email:: plauer@sisna.com Submitted From: https://www.vailgov.com/contact Greg Roy From: tania boyd <scubakiwi2@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 3, 2019 5:20 PM To: Greg Roy Cc: MICHAEL SPIERS; Jacqueline Nickel; Jim Pyke; Jay Lauer; kstandage@exclusivevailrentals.com Subject: Double Tree Expansion Dear Greg, Brandywine Trace Condominium owners at 2249 Chamonix Lane will be directly impacted by the proposed expansion of the Double Tree Hotel in West Vail. Our building is directly behind the hotel and we are opposed to the rezoning of the property which would allow the developer to exceed 40% of allowable site GRFA. This proposed development would significantly impact our property's view and the attractiveness of our neighborhood. The zoning that is currently in place protects developers from cramming in buildings and parking lots with disregard to the surrounding beauty of our valley. I believe the Town put this regulation in place to ensure we do not fall victim to over development and detract from the scenic landscape surrounding us. This is what makes Vail a desirable place to live for all of us locals who have been fortunate enough to be able to afford to buy a home and live here. The sheer scale of the project is daunting. The remodel that they undertook had numerous problems and lasted more than two years. During that time we were subjected to constant construction and noise. Brandywine is very concerned that now it has been finally completed we are going to be subject to this all over again. As the President of the HOA I wanted to submit our disapproval as I will not be able to attend the December 9th meeting. Regards Tania Boyd Brandywine Trace Condominium Association President My husband (Jay Lauer) and myself (Pat Lauer) are full time Vail residents at 2269 Chamonix Lane, Apt 4, which is behind the DoubleTree. We have owned our Vail Tenterrace property for approximately seven years so we are very familiar with the area. Below are our reasons for not supporting this proposed development and required zoning changes. We have also made some suggestions below for modifications to be considered by the PEC committee for the development. LIMITED COMMERCIAL SPACE IN VAIL - This Development Does Not Serve The Best Interest of Our Community and Long Range Goals: Since Vail has a very small commercial area development (1 % as pointed out in the Vail Land Use Plan), we believe that the commercial area should stay as currently zoned as we feel like there is not enough commercial space allotted for the size of Vail. If you look at the current commercial space in West Vail, there is very little commercial vacancy. In our opinion, the commercial space we have now should be protected as to what was originally designated in the Vail Land Use Plan. We think if there is a comparable study done with other Colorado ski towns nearby, such as Breckenridge or Steamboat, you will find that the 1 % commercial space allotted in Vail probably underserves our community. When reviewing the rezoning criteria (section 12-3-7), changing the land from Commercial Core 3 (CC3) to the Public Accomdation-2 (PA -2), we believe changing the zoning is not in the best interest of our community and does not match with what the long term goals are for the town of Vail per the land use plan (12-3-7, Section 1, (a), 1). There are many other beneficial commercial businesses that could be utilized in the current land to serve the Vail community. DESIGN FEATURES OF THE 16 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX DON'T MATCH OUR EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER: EXCESSIVE HEIGHT: The EHU 16 apartment complex is excessively high with four stories as there are no other complexes in our neighborhood built with four stories. This design does not fit in with the rest of our neighborhood. The height of the four story apartment impacts the neighborhood adversely in the following ways: • Even with the proposed sidewalk, it will be a huge winter road hazard for the extensive pedestrian foot and vehicular traffic because of the ice accumulation (due to the shade) on Chamonix Lane. • The structure is not visually appealing to pedestrians and cars from street level as you are looking into an intrusive, tall building with only a 20 foot set back requirement from the street. • It blocks the views of several developments behind it (Sunlight, Tenterrace, Brandywine and several of the Pine Ridge units). Triumph Shade Study: The shade study is difficult to interpret within the document we were given as there was no scale to reference as to how much of the road the shade of the building covers. It would have been beneficial if they would have imposed the road on their image in Attachment C 1 of 3, page 9. In our opinion, from looking at the shade on Chamonix for the winter 10 am and 2 pm time periods, it looks Chamonix Lane road is completely shaded. Please see the attached recent photos of Chamonix Lane we took so the PEC committee can see what the road looks like with our current shade conditions as the road can be hazardous throughout the winter. The developer expressed that this EHU 16 apartment building would mitigate some of the 1-70 noise and that residents behind it would prefer to look at the building instead of the parking lot. We strongly disagree as we would definitely prefer to keep our existing views versus looking right at this very tall building. Also, we are concerned that if the height of the EHU 16 apartment building is approved, that might open up the possibility that the commercial buildings to the east might want to "raise the roof' on their complex to add additional square footage. EXCESSIVE DENSITY: The EHU 16 apartment complex has way too high of a density compared to the rest of our neighborhood. As mentioned above, there are no other complexes in our neighborhood built with four stories and with all 16 units attached together. The developer tries to equate the EHU structure as being similar in scale and mass to the Chamonix Townhouses and other multi -family buildings in our area, which we don't believe is accurate or a relevant comparison. If you compare the building style and density per square foot in this proposed EHU 16 apartment complex, it is clearly denser than the recently built neighboring Chamonix Townhouses — here is the developer's quote below from the SDD Narrative2 PDF: 12-9A-8: Design Criteria and Necessary Findings, #2: "The proposed EHU structure is similar in scale and mass to the Chamonix Townhouses and other multi -family buildings in the area. As a result, Highline is compatible with the surrounding uses and activity and is consistent with this criterion. The SDD is only needed to address technical issues related to parking and snow storage. Therefore, the impacts to the neighbors or the community at large is limited. " OCCUPANCY: Below are the existing and proposed hotel and dormitory and EHU 16 apartment building with the number of maximum occupants. This development could potentially double the number of people that will be occupying the development, housing up to a maximum capacity of 792, from 386 people now. There would be a maximum capacity of 126 EUH permanent occupants, including the dormitory and the 16 EHU apartments. We believe this constitutes excessive high density during the peak visitor time periods and doesn't benefit our neighborhood. Potential Maximum Occupancy Existing Hotel & Proposed DoubleTree (per the developer): Existing Hotel: Current Total 386 People 116 rooms (97 hotel rooms + 19 condos) 193 beds Proposed Hotel & Dormitory & EHU: Total 792 People - Increase of Maximum Potential Occupancy = 406 people 195 hotel rooms 333 beds 666 people 12 dorm bedrooms — 18 people 16 EHU apartments with 38 bedrooms = Total 108 (7 Three Bedrooms w/2 people per bedroom and 2 people in the living room = 56 people / 8 Two Bedrooms w/2 people per bedroom & 2 people in the living room = 48 people / One 1 Bedroom w/2 people per bedroom & 2 people in the living room = 4 people) We recommend eliminating the EHU 16 apartments building as it is not in character with the existing neighborhood as well as a winter ice hazard for pedestrians and vehicles. Some possible employee housing alternatives to consider: • Incorporate a separate wing in the new 79 hotel room addition with its own access to EHU units comprising of various sized condos and reduce the number of hotel rooms. Perhaps some of the proposed 6,616 sq. ft. conference space for these condos could utilized since the existing conference space of 2,666 sq. ft. is not being fully utilized as the developer stated in the December 9t" PEC meeting. • Convert some of the existing 19 condos that are in the currently in the existing hotel structure to employee housing. • Design an appropriately sized EHU apartment building and move it to the east side of the parking lot (parallel to the backside of Christy's Sports and McDonalds), which in our opinion would be more visually appealing and not as congested. By reorienting the EHU apartment structure, it would eliminate the treacherous icy road conditions on Chamonix Lane in the winter. • If the EHU apartment building stays where it's currently at on Chamonix Lane, reduce its height to two floors to help minimize the shade impact of the building, which should lessen the icy, unsafe road and walkway conditions in the winter. HOTEL PARKING & CONFERENCE SPACE CONCERNS: The conference space, at 2,666 sq. ft. is currently underutilized as was mentioned by the developer in the December 9t" PEC meeting. At the January 8t" meeting the developer held at DoubleTree for the public, they told us the conference space was to be increased to approximately 4,000 sq. ft. In the most recent SDD Narrative2 update submitted by the developer on January 17, the parking study shows the conference space now increasing to 6,616 sq. ft. so a very significant increase. The increase in conference space directly affects the results of the parking study and lowers the number of parking spaces required. The developer is requesting a deviation as stated below per their SDD Narrative2 January 17 update: Conference Parking: The developer is requesting a deviation within the proposed SDD to reduce to 1 parking space for each 330 sq. ft. of conference space. The parking requirement for meeting rooms or conference rooms at 1 space for 120 sq. ft. is what is currently required. When we look at the proposed development with a potential of accommodating up to a maximum of 792 occupants during peak time periods, we have a difficult time believing that there will be enough parking spaces. Our concern is that people driving cars will park their vehicles in other commercial spots to the east of the DoubleTree hotel or perhaps, in our residential building's parking areas immediately behind the DoubleTree on Chamonix Lane. We are concerned the employee housing may not have enough parking spots and guests visiting these residents would increase unauthorized vehicles parking in our parking lots. We have already experienced people parking in our building parking areas that are not authorized to park there. There would be increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic in the area with the employee housing development. In the SDD Narrative2 update, it shows a net of 47.6 employees would be working at DoubleTree. On page 21, it shows there are only four parking spots allocated to hotel workers. Where will all of the DoubleTree employees park that don't live in the dormitory housing? They can't all be expected to take the shuttle bus can they? Our concern is that employees driving cars to work will park their vehicles in other commercial spots to the east of the DoubleTree hotel or in our residential building's parking areas immediately behind the DoubleTree on Chamonix Lane. 1=1ill 1VI:Z6]IT, 14illIE1Wale] ill &IIQ4X11107ill E_1QEI:012IIs] ill [670611J:A►1=1M:I*s]0:Isle] � This project is going to remove and destroy the atheistic beauty of the mature spruce trees that line Chamonix Lane. These spruce trees are "trophy" trees that can't be replaced — see attached photos. Replanting with smaller trees doesn't have the screening impact of what is now offered with our mature spruce trees and changes the character of our neighborhood. The last remodel at the hotel a couple of years ago went way over the projected time period to be finished. It took them well over two years to remodel the inside and do some minor exterior alterations. We are concerned that if this development goes through, our neighborhood will suffer for years with dirt and noisy construction and increased congestion from the construction workforce. The developer told us that they estimated it would take 15 months to complete this project. If this project is approved, there needs to be some agreement between the developer and the Town of Vail that the project will be completed in the agreed upon time so our neighborhood is not compromised and disrupted for an unreasonable time period. : [oil I=1 1111R]:Lill aII4F_1•11141[ON - WaI:L`VRUX:iI_AI[s]► Currently, the DoubleTree has two shuttle buses that each hold 14 people. There will be a lot of DoubleTree guests, employees and residents during the busy winter hotel time periods (Saturdays, Christmas/New Years, President's Week, March spring breaks, winter weekends and powder snow days) in the morning going to the Vail ski resort and returning in the late afternoons coming back from the resort. Our concern is that guests will take the public bus system instead of waiting for the hotel's shuttle buses. When people have the option of a short one minute walk to get to the Pine Ridge bus stop, we think it will put excessive pressure on our already congested public bus system. The public buses during these peak time periods are currently very full, with standing room only once you go to the next one or two shuttle bus stops down from Pine Ridge. We believe studies should be done during the above mentioned peak time periods to evaluate the additional amount of buses that would need to be added to accommodate the increase in riders. Thank you for your time and consideration in reading our concerns about this proposed development. Sincerely, Jay and Pat Lauer 2269 Chamonix Ln APT Vail, CO 81657 �l k NP •• *. ir r� { ILI , 'r • •' fir. �, �• Nk _ a+2J` � •• *. ir r� { ILI l�4 N , 'r • •' fir. �, �• l�4 N • ... .�. �. _• - _'�Y'_� .. `tet - - ________ T •AES •�y „ • + .. " - • - ; M1 F M1 } 1 } ' • . 'LS' • 16 F �+ •F* . •.+}}�. '• k i i�'R .'-} �y" •. � �z 'kr •,fir k rd r +' a{*•. 1tia�. 'rIlk R,i.+w k :ti;';'� +W' w�.• f•+per N, 4. F t _ 'I t `• ; } • ,k•' Y . 4j..� SOX k4 VA r. k y .1 IIA • 0 y. F, IN , j V - ",, 9 ' A 0 dr V's 'o, A4� A,t I, A., �6 14 711 .1k ..r, lF, t" " ��� ;\' � `; -jt From: Elyse Howard To: Grea Roy Cc: Council Dist List Subject: Highline Date: Monday, February 3, 2020 2:50:32 PM Dear Greg, I am writing to express my support for the Highline rezoning and special development district applications. I am excited that the proposed redevelopment of Highline includes 28 additional employee housing units (EHUs). In order to meet the goals in the Town's Housing 2027 plan, it's important to take advantage of situations like this one where a private developer has brought forward the opportunity to add EHU's in an infill location. It is well documented in the Town of Vail Housing strategic plan as well as the Eagle County Housing Needs assessment that we face a scarcity in the supply of affordable rental and for sale homes for our workforce. Today there is a shortage of 2,780 units County wide, and by 2025 that deficit will grow to 5,900 units. It is a "win" that this project proposes to add 28 EHU's at no cost to the Town while also adding hotel rooms. When extended family comes to town, they typically choose to stay in West Vail as it is closer and more convenient to our home. I appreciate the addition of this type of mid-level accommodations. In addition, Highline is on the Town bus route, and close to the West Vail commercial area. Having lived in West Vail since 2000, 1 know it's a great location for workforce housing. To realize the Town's vision to be North America's premier international resort community, we must grow our community. Workforce housing is community infrastructure and an important component to building a strong community. Sincerely, Elyse Howard vara rauey PRRTRFR5HIP' January 27, 2020 Town of Vail c/o Greg Roy 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Planning Commission members and Vail Town Council, Vail Valley Partnership is the regional chamber of commerce, with over 900 members throughout Eagle County who collectively represent over 80% of the local workforce. We are dedicated to the economic vitality of the valley, and as such our board of governors - which includes residents & business operators throughout Eagle County - has identified workforce housing as our number one priority. Our complete housing position can be found at In short, Eagle County faces a gap in the availability of ownership and rental housing that is affordable for local residents. Residents are burdened by high housing payments. Employees are forced to commute long distances. According to the annual workforce survey, employers believe that the availability of workforce housing is a critical or major problem in Eagle County. The Eagle County Housing Assessment shows a shortfall of 4,500 units to meet current needs. Currently and anecdotally, units that have been long-term workforce rentals are being removed from that market as they are converted into short-term rentals. This has the potential to grow both catch-up and keep -up needs for workforce housing. Workforce and affordable housing has long been an issue in Eagle County. Addressing our affordable housing issue is essential to the continued success and growth of our business community across industry sectors. As such, we support the proposed Highline Vail redevelopment proposal. We request that projects seeking Vail Valley Partnership support must meet the following criteria, and believe that the Highline Vail project meets each of these requirements: 1. Demonstrate commitment to the future through incorporating resident occupied workforce housing units/employee housing units at or above the minimum required by local code and that result in a net increase in workforce housing stock (i.e., more housing created than jobs created); 2. Utilize resident occupancy requirements in their deed restrictions; 97 Main Street, Suite E-201, Edwards, CO 81632 VailValleyPartnership.com AAN vallya".ev P R R T n E R S N! P - 3. Actively engage neighboring communities before and during the process through various stages of approval (planning & zoning, design & review, elected boards, etc.); 4. Be located in appropriate in -fill locations throughout the county, and/or in areas designated and zoned for housing development; S. Be cognizant of regional transit and transportation impacts and mitigate these impacts through their development plans. Our board is also supportive of additional moderately priced hotel rooms within Vail, and sees great value in maintaining the Hilton and Doubletree brands within our lodging inventory. We want to ensure our community can remain competitive to keep locals local and to support our business community. We encourage local governments and boards to approve appropriate in -fill projects and to be open-minded and flexible to grant appropriate variances to local code to facilitate the development of these projects. Sincerely, Chris Romer President & CEO Vail Valley Partnership 97 Main Street, Suite E-201, Edwards, CO 81632 VailValleyPartnership.com Grea Ro From: Brett A. August < BAA@pattishall.com > Sent: Saturday, December 7, 2019 12:50 PM To: Greg Roy; Jonathan Spence Cc: Erik Gates Subject: STOP the DoubleTree Expansion! Importance: High To the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission: The proposed additions to the DoubleTree Hotel are far out of proportion to neighborhood standards and should NOT be permitted. We live directly across the street from the proposed addition, at 2309 Chamonix Lane. So we have a string and direct interest in preventing the construction of so large a building as is proposed. A review of the proposed project shows that, in contrast to the two-story existing structure, the DoubleTree proposal would double that height, to four stories. This is not an "expansion," as that term is commonly used: it is a large and inappropriate NEW project that would likely more than double the size of the existing structure. Although all the plans refer to construction at a property on the north frontage road, ALL of the proposed construction is immediately adjacent to Chamonix Lane, which is entirely residential. The proposed project is so large that it would obstruct views of the residential properties on Chamonix Lane, an unjust taking for which we would demand compensation. We do not object to adding to the existing DoubleTree property so long as the addition is of the same height and density as the existing structure. The developers describe the project as including: "176 AUs [accommodation units] with approximately 32,555 sq. ft. of net new GRFA." Such a large re -development of this parcel - which the developers admit would require significant rezoning - is way out of proportion to the surrounding area and should NOT be permitted. Moreover, as the developers admit: "since 1981, this site has operated as a nonconforming use and maintained its use as a lodge as it was first built in 1979. A nonconforming use cannot be expanded or modified except if changed to a permitted or conditional use even though the Town has been focused for the last 40 years at encouraging and expanding the hotel base." So the existing structure already surpasses the intended size of the structure: to allow a giant new structure to be placed on this parcel would make a mockery of Vail's once -vaunted planning process. Vail is losing its way by allowing unbridled development and is in danger of destroying the very essence of the town, the so-called "secret sauce" that has made Vail so special to all of us who live here. The Planning and Environmental Commission needs to return to representing the best interests of the residents of Vail and not simply become a pawn to commercial interests that are contrary to the interests of Vail's residents. Cordially yours, Carey and Brett August Brett A. August Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP 200 South Wacker Drive Suite 2900 Chicago, IL 60606-5896 Direct: (312) 554-7962 Main: (312) 554-8000 Fax: (312) 554-8015 OcPATUT BAApattishall.com www.pattishall.com H LL (c� AULIFFL BEST Pattishall Ranks in FIRMS the United States and in LAW FIRMS .. Illinois in the prestigious 2020 WTR 1000 The preceding message and any attachments may contain confidential information protected by the attorney-client or other privilege. You may not forward this message or any attachments without the permission of the sender. If you believe that it has been sent to you in error, please reply to the sender that you received the message in error and then delete it. Nothing in this email message, including the typed name of the sender and/or this signature block, is intended to constitute an electronic signature unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in the message. 2269 Chamonix Ln Apt 3 Vail, CO 81657 February 26, 2020 Mr. Greg Roy, AICP Planner II Community Development Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Roy, I am writing about the proposed DoubleTree Expansion. I'm a full-time resident of Vail living at 2269 Chamonix in the Tenterrace Condominiums. I recognize some of the goals of the expansion in order to provide additional, affordable housing for workers in Vail; however, for many reasons, I do not see this project as ultimately providing that in a sustainable, viable way. Furthermore, I see additional challenges with the overall proposed development. At this point in time, I would have to strongly oppose the planned changes. I was able to attend the first open house on December 5th. I also attended the January PEC meeting. I will unfortunately be unable to attend the March PEC meeting due to a family situation. I have significant concerns about the impact on the local community from a traffic safety perspective. The proposed development would substantially increase traffic in the local area. The EHU would have 16 units with up to 40 bedrooms. My experience at my condominium is that there is a car for each bedroom. This would potentially result in another 40 cars in a concentrated area. Furthermore, there would be substantially more people waiting at the Pine Ridge and West Vail Mall bus stops. Substantially more vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the area would increase the likelihood of accidents. I do applaud the proposal to add a sidewalk to Chamonix Lane which would be helpful, but, noting our most recent snowfalls, could substantially impact the viability of the sidewalk at the times it would be most needed. Furthermore, the excessive height of the proposed buildings would create significant shading along Chamonix lane, preventing ice from melting from the sidewalk and street and creating hazards for pedestrians. Vail already has a shortage of commercial space to support the community, reducing this through the SDD would only negatively impact our community. Vail has limited commercial space to support grocery stores and other amenities needed by both the full-time residents as well as visiting tourists. By constraining the supply of available space even more by changing the zoning you, effectively, raise the prices to everyone. Vail is already an expensive place to live and the reduction of commercial space will simply exacerbate that situation. The development as proposed has not considered ways to reduce its environmental footprint. While I'm sure the development team would follow all the necessary requirements and regulations from the Town of Vail and other AHJs. I was surprised by the lack of consideration of solar energy for all the additional rooftop space. Having worked in the renewable energy industry for over 10 years, I believe the Town of Vail should aspire to continuously push for the use of cleaner energy. From a process point of view, I feel the development team could have done a better job with the community. As I noted, I attended the first open house. I was unfortunately unable to attend the second open house due to scheduling considerations. However, I would note that the letter for the January 8t" meeting was only written on January 2nd and not postmarked until January 4t". (Please see my appendix for copies). I believe I received the letter on January 7t" which was about 24 hours prior to the actual meeting. To me, this is noteworthy since during the first PEC meeting, the development team presented photos of the impacted views from Chamonix properties. However, they did not present photos from all the impacted properties. In fact, they only presented photos from the least impacted properties. Both 2269 Chamonix and 2249 Chamonix were excluded. To date, I have not seen photos of the property view impact from the development team. Perhaps these were available at the open house that I could not attend. Creating a consistent approach to redevelopment of West Vail will be important to maintaining the character of our community. From my attendance at the first PEC meeting where this discussed, I understand that there is a broader redevelopment plan being considered for West Vail. I think it would make more sense to pursue a comprehensive plan for West Vail rather than pursuing individual projects that are inconsistent with the community. Once the Town of Vail makes significant zoning changes and special accommodations for a single developer, there will be no end of requests. Will the Town of Vail approve all of these requests or just some? How will they decide? In the absence of a larger plan, it seems there will be a real risk of significant damage to the community from unintended consequences. I appreciate your consideration of the community's input to this proposed project. I understand the need for affordable housing in our community for employees is quite significant. I also appreciate the effort that the development team has put into the design and planning of this project. However, as noted above, I do not feel this project will meet the needs of the community in a sustainable way. Sincerely, James T. Pyke 2269 Chamonix Ln Apt 3 Vail, CO 81657 Appendix Letter Written on January 2nd for January 8th meeting N1GHLINE A DoubleTree by Hilton January 2, 2020 Dear Neighbors. - We hope you enjoyed wonderful holidays, celebrated a Happy New Year and are enjoying all the fresh sno We last contacted you in mid-November with an overview of our plans to expand and improve Highline, a loyee housing units on undeveloped portions of the proper: DoubleTree by Hilton, as well as build new emp The hotel was originally built in 1979 under Eagle County jurisdiction and was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1980 as part of a larger annexation of the West Vail area. We recently submitted revisions to our application to the Town of Vail based on very good input we have received from you, our neighbors, Town staff; the Planning & Environmental Commission at a work session held on Dec. 9; and Design Review Board at a conceptual plan meeting on Dec. 18. Weare very excited about the community stakeholder engagement and positive momentum for not only new lodging units and meeting space, but critical incremental homes for our workforce. We recently met with the Vail Local Housing Authority and have received a letter of support from them for our willingness to incorporate incremental new, deed - restricted, resident -occupied housing into your overall development pian without any obligation to do so. I We would like to invite you to a second open house to review our updated plans on Wednesday, Jan. 8 at 5:30 p.m. in the Hightine lobby. We will serve food and beverages. We appreciate your continued thoughts and ideas as we strive for another hearing with PEC on Jan. 27. As a reminder, our proposed project features: 79 net new hotel rooms. • About 4,000 square feet of new meeting room space. • A 12 -bedroom deed restricted Employee Housing Unit dormitory facility (converting current commercial space above Casa Mexico.) • A 16 -unit employee housing apartment building. our updated application materials highlight: • Change in the color and materiai on the existing hotel building. Today the existing hotel has a green metal roof and the roof is proposed to be replaced with a brown asphalt shingle roof to match the proposed primary roof material of the hotel addition. • Repaint the exterior walls, railings, fascia and trim to match more closely with the colors proposed on the hotel addition. Letter Postmarked on January 4th JUNCITIO-N, 81's. amen T. Ryke M9 Chamonix Ln., Apt 3 Jail, CO 81657-4219 .. . M AL VCBA The Vail Chamber & Business Association March 3, 2020 241 South Frontage Road East, Suite 2 Vail, Colorado, 81657 970-477-0075 www.vailchamber.org Mr. Jonathan Spence ispence@vailov.com and members of the Planning & Environmental Commission The Vail Town Council via Mayor Dave Chapin dchapin@vailgov.com Mr. George Ruther gruther@vailgov.com Dear Mr. Mayor, Mr. Ruther and Mr. Spence: After a presentation by the Highline (DoubleTree in West Vail) development team at our February meeting, the Board of the Vail Chamber & Business Assoc. offered its unanimous support of the proposed additional lodging, conference room space and the 16 units of employee housing and 12 -bedroom employee housing dorm. The VCBA highly recognizes how this proposed project helps to meet Vail's economic and housing goals. DoubleTree is a great complementary brand to our five-star offerings, and the workforce housing is in such high demand. We also appreciate the changes made to address neighbor concerns about needing a sidewalk and views. Thank you for all of your hard work and please approve the rezoning, major exterior alternation and Special Development District applications. Best regards, Alison C. Wadey Executive director Vail Chamber and Business Association Mr. Michael O'Connor Triumph Development 12 Vail Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Michael - December 18, 2019 I am writing to you on behalf the Vail Local Housing Authority to express our support for the proposed Highline — Double Tree by Hilton Hotel development. We very much appreciated the presentation shared by your team during our most recent public meeting on December 17th. We appreciate your willingness to incorporate incremental new, deed -restricted, resident -occupied housing into your overall development plan. In determining our support for the development plan, several key factors were taken into consideration. Those factors included: • The deed -restricted housing use is permitted as a use by right in the Public Accommodation -2 zone district. • The deed -restricted housing is supported by the Town's recently adopted 2018 Housing Policy Statements. • The deed -restricted housing is provided by the private sector with no financial participation of the Vail taxpayer or the Vail Local Housing Authority. • The deed -restricted housing is an incremental net new increase in overall supply. • The private sector is an important partner in helping solve our housing challenges. • An infill approach to development is taken thereby resulting in greater utilization of already developed land. • The deed -restricted housing is within convenient, walkable proximity to restaurants, commercial uses, and Town of Vail free public transit. • There is a demonstrated demand for additional for -rent homes in Vail. • The deed -restricted homes result in a incremental increase in the supply of resident -occupied homes until such time as the owner requests an ehu credit. Respectfully, the Vail Local Housing Authority requests you exclude a minimum of 4 (25%) of the 16 deed -restricted homes from any future mitigation bank. In the Vail community, there are both existing demands, and future needs, for housing. Each could be addressed as a public benefit of the proposed special development district if a percentage of the homes were excluded from future mitigation bank opportunities. Again, thank you for sharing your presentation and plans for development. We appreciate the efforts you are making to help address the housing needs in the Vail community. Sincerely, Steve Lindstrom, Chair Vail Local Housing Authority From: MICHAEL SPIERS To: Grea Roy Cc: tania bovd Subject: Highline hotel development. Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2020 2:16:40 PM Dear Greg, Hi my name is Mike Spiers and I am a member of the Brandywine condominium association in West Vail. I wanted to express to you our concerns regarding the Highline hotel development in West Vail. Please understand that we are not NIMBYs and understand the need for more employee housing and don't necessarily oppose the development of more hotel rooms on the Doubletree lot. What we are very concerned about is the size of the project and it's effect on the overall character of the neighborhood. In particular the proposed EHU building parallel to Chamonix Lane would dwarf the street and be completely out of character with other buildings on the street. Not only would it block the views of the Apartments on the north side of Chamonix In but it would completely shade Chamonix In and permanently change the look of the neighborhood. I have attended all the community meetings provided by the Highline people. Initially they seemed receptive to reducing the size of this building to two stories which we thought would be a good compromise. Unfortunately in their latest plans the building is still a monolithic three stories high reducing only one small end of the building to two stories. Many of my fellow neighbors are sure to express concerns about snow removal, parking, traffic along Chamonix In and these are all legitimate concerns. It is my hope that you will get a chance to thoroughly look at the impact of this building and the main hotel building to see if we can make it more compatible with the size of the other buildings in the neighborhood.My suggestion for compromise is to reduce the EHU Building to two stories maximum. This would still provide many employee housing units but not alter the nature and character of the neighborhood as much. Thank you for listening to our concerns, regards Mike Spiers. Get Outlook for iOS 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF ffl) December 9, 2019, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Attendance Present: Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, Pete Seibert Absent: Pam Hopkins 1.2. Swearing In New Member New Member Pete Seibert was sworn in by the Town Clerk 1.3. Election of Officers Brian Gillette moved to appoint Ludwig Kurz as Chair. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins Brian Gillette moved to appoint Karen Perez as Vice Chair. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2. Main Agenda 2.1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district 45 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. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy 2.1, 2.2, & 2.3 will all be heard concurrently. Chairman Kurz: Clarified that the 3 items are all being heard as worksessions today. Planner Roy: Not looking for any motion today, just looking for feedback from the PEC. Started by introducing the location of the site and the existing conditions. Described an increase in accommodation units and the addition of EHUs and a new building only for housing EHUs. Roy then described the reason for the rezoning to PA -2 and the criteria for the rezoning. Lodges are not allowed in the current CC3 zoning. Roy then went on to describe the application for a Special Development District. This will help the proposal reach compliance with the Code with regard to parking requirements. Commissioner Lockman: Asked staff to clarify "nonconforming" Roy: The hotel was built before it was annexed into the Town. When it was annexed into the Town under CC3 it became legally nonconforming with respect to use. This means that the current development can be maintained but not expanded under the current zoning. Dominic Mauriello: Began by introducing his team. Mark Mutkoski: Introduced himself by describing his history visiting Vail. He then described the current state of the Hotel renovation. Also described the chain of ownership until now including his role as the Owner Representative. Described how they reinvigorated the property already in order to bring it in line with the Town's standards. The current hotel is not the highest and best use for the property. Mauriello: Continued to describe the site as it exists today. Pointed out several largely unutilized areas of the site and the surrounding commercial uses. Mauriello then began to describe the proposed additions to the site. Seventy-nine (79) net new accessory units, 19 limited -service lodge units (LSLUs), 12 dormitory units, and 16 employee housing units of 2-3 bedrooms. Two -hundred -twenty-three (223) parking spaces proposed, however this number will change due to some Fire Department concerns. From here, the applicant moved on to describe the proposed hotel units themselves. The applicant also provided a number of renderings, including some neighboring view renderings. Commissioner Perez: Asked if these renderings showed both buildings. Mauriello: Indicated that they did, but also stated that other angles showing more of both buildings could be provided in the future. Mauriello then went on to describe how the development would align with the goals of the Town. He then described the hotel's history and how this relates to the current non - conformities. This property has both nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses. Nonconforming structures cannot have their non- conformity expanded upon, but compliant additions and alterations are permitted by the code. Nonconforming uses effectively stop all additions to the nonconforming use. Current nonconformities include building height, density, parking, and internal landscaping. With respect to use, hotels and dwelling units are not permitted in the CC3 zone district, hence the rezoning request. The PA -2 zone district is more applicable to this development. The special development district is being proposed primarily in order to address some parking compliance difficulties. The parking requirements for the PA -2 would be 250 spaces, but 223 are being proposed. One reason for this proposed reduced parking has to do with the proposed meeting space on site. As attendees to this conference space would primarily be lodged within the Highline Hotel, there is a large overlap between the parking necessary for the conference space and the parking necessary for the hotel itself. Mentioned that the EHU building is creating the need for some of these deviations from the code, so there is a question regarding the value of EHUs to the Town vs the standards that relief is being requested from. Available land for Employee Housing is very limited in Vail. A Public Open House was hosted by the applicant in early December to share the proposed development to the neighboring public. Mauriello then addressed some of the concerns mentioned by staff in their memorandum to the Commission. Addressed concerns related to the increased density in the area, the rezoning to PA -2 in an area with limited commercial services, and parking deviations from what is required by the Code. Perez: The SDD is Vail's equivalent of a Planned building group. What is the purpose of the rezoning AND an SDD? Mauriello: In Vail, an SDD is an overlay as opposed to a replacement for a rezoning district. The SDD cannot violate the allowed uses of the underlying zone district. Perez: Clarified that she was referring to planned building groups as opposed to a planned unit development. Mauriello: Stated that it made sense for them to propose both in order to bring the hotel into compliance and to allow for the proposed EHU building. Lockman: Asked a question about an existing SDD on the property. Mauriello: Stated that this SDD was no longer active. Lockman: Directed staff to correct this in future memos. Kurz: Asked about the specific benefit to the town for the proposed SDD Mauriello: Talked about the need to increase hotel units in Vail. The Town has lost some significant hotel units in recent history. The SDD will also facilitate the addition of more EHUs, this is not required for the project, but the applicant feels this a net benefit for the Town. Kurz: Asked about the upcoming West Vail Master Plan. Matt Gennett: Stated that staff will be going in front of Town Council to get direction on the Master Plan scope on December 17. This Master Plan process is expected to take a calendar year. Mauriello: There was a previous attempt to improve this property, but it was recommended they wait for a previous West Vail Master Plan effort. This Master Plan effort fell through, so the applicant would like to avoid risking this happening again to the property owner. Kjesbo: Felt that the EHUs are being waved as a carrot for this application but saw that the E H U building could be sold off. Mauriello: This was stated in order to add some flexibility. Kjesbo: Felt that the employee housing needs to be tied in with the rest of the project to avoid the EHUs being sold off and never being developed. Perez: The three applications makes it unclear what is being proposed and what the timing will be for this project. It also obfuscates the benefit to the Town and the community. Mauriello: Stated that the proposed benefits were well stated in the proposal Perez: Need to look at how the stated benefits to the Town relate to the proposed deviations from the code. Lockman: Had a question regarding the proposed height, as staff and the applicant had a disagreement on how the height should be measured. Mauriello: Showed a rendering of the buildings. Stated that the height is strictly compliant with the code as some of the roof forms have been staggered in order to meet compliance. Perez: It would also be helpful to know how high the buildings would be above Chamonix Rd. Feels that existing residents are concerned about the view. Lockman: Had a question about the parking and valet Mauriello: Indicated that most units, including the EHU units, would be using the valet parking. Also, there will be a stairwell and sidewalk from the EHU building leading down to the rest of the development and Frontage Rd. Kurz then opened the floor for public comment. Molly Rabin Concerned about density in West Vail. Glad that the parking is being kept off of Chamonix. There are no sidewalks on Chamonix, so an increase in development will create a greater safety issue. Asked for some form of density study. Mike Spiers: Representing Brandywine Trace Condominiums behind this development. The proposed buildings dwarf the existing. There is no building of the scale of the EHU unit on Chamonix Mentioned that some affected views not shown in the application would be potentially significant. Jim Pike: Echoing Mike's comments. Specifically mentioned how some impacted views were not represented in the meeting. Thinks it would also be a great opportunity to add solar to these buildings. Pam Stenmark: Expressed gratitude for the questions presented by the PEC. Public Comments closed Kjesbo: Stated that his EHU concerns were already mentioned. Wants the EHU building to be in conjunction with the rest of the site. Could likely support the deviation from parking requirements. Needs a sun/shade analysis. Need references to new and existing heights. Feels PA -2 zoning is likely the correct zoning here. Likes the idea of adding a sidewalk heading towards the Frontage Road. Gillette: Thinks of something grander than this for the redevelopment of West Vail. Thinks the planning for West Vail should be done first before this. Doing the Master Plan right, might help direct this development to more accurately reflect Town goals. Sees this area being redeveloped as multiuse in the future. Approving the development like this may hamper redevelopment efforts in the rest of West Vail. Perez: Also indicated that the development needs to be developed comprehensively, needs a timeline as well. Need to make sure that the applicant is meeting the requirements of an SDD. Wants to also see a sun/shade analysis and more information on building heights. Concerned that with the conference center not being utilized much now, that increasing the conference space and needs is unnecessary. Seibert: Liked how this would solve some nonconforming use. Has a concern with the proposed valet parking for the EHUs. A large number of employees are likely to need their cars at the same time. Lockman: Echoed the concerns of Perez regarding the expanded conference space. Likes the idea of converting the underutilized commercial space into employee dorms, however, he also needed to see a parking plan for the EHUs. Likes the effort to reduce nonconforming uses. Also struggling with this project in the absence of a West Vail Master Plan. The Master Plan would help describe the appropriate density and bulk and mass for this site. I mproving circulation and safety along Chamonix could be an additional public benefit of this project. Kurz: Also concerned about this project going ahead of the West Vail Master Plan. However, in responding just to the project that is before the commission, Kurz echoes Kjesbo's comments. One could call the proposed "carrot" of the EHUs as a "quid pro quo." Important that sensitivity toward the surrounding neighborhood is shown. Also wants sun/shade analysis. Largely neutral on parking now but would like to see parking maximized. Brian Gillette moved to continue to January 13, 2019. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 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. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Brian Gillette moved to continue to January 13, 2019. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 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. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Brian Gillette moved to continue to January 13, 2019. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.4. A request for review of a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12- 20 min. 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the installation of an outdoor dining patio, located at 254 Bridge Street Unit C/Lot C & L, Block 5C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 19-0049) Applicant: Mt. Belvedere 45 LLC North Bridge Venture Partners, represented by Resort Design Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence 1. This Conditional Use Permit approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 2. The applicant shall operate the outdoor patio in a manner generally consistent with the approved site plan dated 07/19/2019. Chairman Kurz: Moved this item to the front of the Main Agenda Planner Spence: Began by explaining the need for a CUP for an outdoor patio in Vail Village. This proposed outdoor patio is entirely within private property. Spence then went on to explain some of the proposed improvements. Public Works and Fire Department have both reviewed and found no issues. Tom Braun: Began by introducing his team members present at the meeting. During construction of Gorsuch, the unit below vacated, so the new proposal is for a new cafe on the street level. The CUP is only for the patio with outdoor seating and firepits. No food service will occur outside, patrons will have to order inside and bring items out to the patio. No Public Comment. Commissioner Kjesbo: No additional comment Commissioner Gillette: No additional comment Commissioner Perez: Asked about how far the patio extends. Planner Spence showed a diagram demonstrating the extent of the patio. Perez: Concerned about the amount of clutter in the corridor. The corridor is already narrow and ski racks also are set out in this area. The proposed patio will be put right in this area. Spence: Felt that the patio will be an overall improvement to the area over the ski racks. Commissioner Seibert: No additional comment Commissioner Lockman: No additional comment. John -Ryan Lockman moved to approve with conditions. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.5. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density 5 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) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to January 13, 2020. Applicant: Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates Karen Perez moved to table to January 13, 2019. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.6. A request for review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, 45 min. Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a retaining wall in excess of six (6) feet tall at the Town of Vail Public Works facility located at 1289 Elkhorn Drive/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0041) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Erik Gates 1. Construction of the shoring wall and rock -fall 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. Planner Erik Gates recapped the process on how the application got to the current meeting. Third meeting before PEC. Master plan schedule, and process. Applications today are for the streets building expansion and the retaining wall. Both need CUP due to being in the General Use Zone District. Changes from last meeting are the comments from CPW on this application and the E I R submitted. Staff added another condition that the construction of the wall be limited to June to November. Another comment from CPW was to prohibit dogs, which is already a policy at the Public Works site and Buzzard Park units. Greg Hall introduced Rick Kahn the wildlife biologists. Streets building will be pushed off until 2021 due to schedule. Gives time to monitor the site this winter and next winter. If approved, the wall, berm, and utilities would hopefully be built next summer. Gillette — Can you not build the wall and do the streets building? Hall — Yes, but severely limits parking. Kahn — Professional wildlife biologist hired to consult on this project and Booth Heights for context. General comments, a lot of interests in the sheep right now. People are comparing it to Booth Heights, and there are differences and similarities. Both projects in overall winter range of S2 native herd. Herd is not doing well due to bad winters and hasn't picked back up to former levels. Very small winter range, as typical of sheep in high altitudes. Booth Creek area is typically ewes and rams. The town area is exclusively used by rams. Ewes are much less mobile and tied into steep areas to stay away from mountain lions. Winter range for ewes much more critical. Rams are more mobile, bigger, and less susceptible to change in landscape. Site is used intermittently, and 3-4 times in the last few years. Not every winter such as last year when there was a big snow layering. Groups segregate by sexes during the winter. Rams could be attracted to salt storage or something to attract them to the site. Site has not always been historically occupied by sheep. Less than ideal information since there are a lack of studies. This is not at all unusual. Made an observation during the process that the area of the rock -fall berm and solar that would be occupied and lost, occurs in a small narrow band of the sheep habitat. Not a significant loss. Biggest concern would be that this greens up earlier in the spring due to non-native grasses. Winter is a period where they starve and lose weight. They are attracted to that disturbed area with non-native grasses. Loss of area of disturbed area is not a big concern. Key is that the disturbed areas needs to be located near escape cover and they are. This site has had extensive human activity for 40-50 years. Not new area loss, but small disturbance of an already active site. The solar array extends to the west a couple hundred yards that is not heavily disturbed yet. No literature on the topic of solar array disturbance to sheep. Very narrow area that could have small impact. Losing native vegetation could be potentially problematic. Cumulative impacts unknown. With mitigation and CPW's recommended mitigation it can be managed to minimize impact. As it sits, with available information, impacts will be minimal and mitigatable. Perez — Do you think the proposed condition from staff is sufficient or is more required? Kahn — J une thru November makes a lot of sense. It depends on if the sheep are present. Gillette — How do we get to a collar study? Kahn — Money Gillette — How much? Kahn — For state-of-the-art collar study it could be $500,000. A lot of the habitat work would need to be on the USFS land. Habitat improvement would be better done by Booth Heights. There could still be some done on this site. Gillette — Of $500,000 how much is collar and how much is emergency funds? Kahn — $150,000 for collar and $100,000 for personnel. The rest would be money in the bank for reaction to what was discovered during that study. This one herd is not #1 on the books for CPW and they would need money to make something happen soon. Gillette — What kind of checks would you need for habitat work. Kahn — Three things, fertilization, fire, and hand trimming and setback of vegetation. I don't have figures, but you're talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars to do all the sites, maybe $1 million. Gillette — On a yearly basis, what would be the most important? Kahn — Collar and some habitat would be best. Gillette — So $250,000 for collar and another $250,000 for habitat. Kahn — If you maintain the status quo and development you can expect the herd to continue to be affected. Gillette — So let's say $250,000 a year for the next 10 years, do you think this would affect this herd? Kahn — Yes, it would dramatically lower the risk of extirpation. Gillette - What's the number one thing you can do to increase herd numbers? Kahn — Limit disturbance, resetting habitat in winter range specifically and summer range. Not all of which is in the purview of Town of Vail. Gillette — So the plan to burn hasn't happened after it was planned for 20 years. Why didn't that happen? Kahn — I don't think the town was behind it because of the concern of fire. The Forest Service could do it if they needed to. It is the initiative of leaders at district level that needs to happen. Gillette — If the Town wants to be a lobbyist, how would they do that? Use staff, hire someone? Kahn — Citizenry has to consent moving forward. There are a variety of ways moving forward. Lockman — Is there a recommendation on the terraced retaining wall vs non - terraced wall. Does one have more benefits? Kahn — I think in the long term keeping the sheep out of habited area is the best option. Non -terraced wall does more of a job keeping them out. We don't want to see them on 1-70. Adding a fence is not a huge deal as they can get around it. Gillette — So no fence, correct? Kahn — No, it wouldn't do a lot, and you don't want to keep them out of the disturbed sites that could give them early spring greenery. Large fences not a solution to this problem. Kurz — We got a letter from CPW, should we hear them now or at public comment. Gillette — Let's bring CPW up so we can ask questions instead of during public comment. Duval — CPW. This is a remarkably different proposal from what you've heard before. This is a small review of a limited area. For me, I have to view it through a wholistic lens where we look at miles around for the effect. Limited habitat right now, that needs to be treated as a valuable and finite resource. Gillette —Any comments on the numbers? Duval — Those sound good, but mitigation is not a one and done deal. It is a concerted effort and needs to be done in perpetuity. In conjunction with habitat, contingency and collars, then a $500,000 starts to get you to that area. Gillette — What is the value of the collar study? What are we learning? Duval — It says whether the mitigation is working, and what habitat use looks like. Where are they congregating. We're operating on old information on where they are utilizing the landscape based on our best guesses. Gillette — We don't know the extent of the problem is what you're saying? Isn't the solution always doing mitigation? Duval — But where is the question. Do we focus in the middle or on the edges? Where are they actually using the landscape? Public Comment Larry Stewart, East Vail I just heard for the first time today that the building is not going to be built until 2021, so why are we approving that now? We have more time to do more observations between then. There is no time limit for when the streets building could get built. They could start tomorrow. One question you need to address is why are we approving the CUP today until we can study it since it won't be built until later? I want this to be built in the most effective way. There is a dearth of information on how the sheep are using the site. This points towards caution, since there is no do over. They are already stressed and compressed. I think fencing would be a good idea to keep the sheep out and the humans from entering the hills. What you want to accomplish here is to keep the human activities from the sheep. You could also require landscaped screening to keep them out. They don't like cover and would keep them out. Why isn't there a condition that no dogs are allowed on the site. That should be part of the approval since the masterplan and comments are not enforceable. I implore you not to look at this just as a variance on a retaining wall and building, but the larger impact on the herd. No room for error. This has to be gotten right. Tom Vucich, 4957 Juniper Lane You expressed at the last meeting that you wanted a more comprehensive view and thank you. The only difference is the CPW statement. "reads from CPW comments" You all touched on it two weeks ago about wanting a more comprehensive plan. It is time that you and the town put a specific number and timeline on this project and how to address the impacts to the herd. Patti Langmaid, 2940 Manns Ranch Road On the burn, one of the reasons that the neighbors were opposed was because there was an escaped forest service burn that burned down a couple houses in Colorado. I think now, we are more savvy and that with the right conditions a burn would be acceptable Blondie Vucich, East Vail Bill was unable to be here, so I wanted to read a couple sentences from the public comment he submitted **reads from letter**. Close public comment Open Commissioner Comments Lockman — Thanks CPW for memorandum. I'm struggling here on this one with all of the dialogue. I would implore our elected officials to do something on this issue. This board faces challenging decisions that impact wildlife. Whether that is putting specific funding towards it or making a plan. On the retaining wall, the variance for the non -terraced wall makes the most sense. If we look at the criteria of the application, I think public works has met all the items needed for approval. Seibert — I concur with the need for a more comprehensive plan. We need to get to a more proactive point, but not what is before us today. The vertical wall makes more sense to save hillside and doesn't tempt a sheep to come down. It's a small site, so they will get around a fence. I agree on the prohibition of dogs and possibly adding it as a condition. On timing, they need this approval so they can meet the window even if they aren't doing the whole building. Perez — I want to know where the mitigation plan is, and what the plan is. We have to treat the applicants the same, in particular criteria #2 **quotes criteria**. The Booth Height project had many conditions of approval related to the sheep herd, and this site is only 2 miles away from Booth Heights. I don't see how we are treating these sites with consistency. There is no real mitigation plan here. If we approve now, we aren't going there with a comprehensive view. I don't think this conforms today. Would vote against. Gillette —Agree with Perez 100%. We need this building to provide bus service and snow removal service. The mitigation effort should be part of this plan. We need to do some significant study and dedication half a million towards it. We need to lobby congress to get this stuff done, and we need to have this money in place, and we need to have Council fund this. Kristen where are we with this? Kristen Bertuglia — The Town had to get a strategic plan and divvy up what we could do on this. We did some cutting and stacking. We had a burn plan approved, but the presence of sheep delayed it. We've had several meetings with the Forest Service but heard that burning for wildlife was not supportive there. We continue to look at the option for a larger burn but cannot do that due to the burn in designated wilderness area. We've got $100,000 this year to do some effort. What we want to do is find what the best thing to do for these sheep. Gillette — What's next? Bertuglia — Rewrite the mitigation plan from the 90s to today's conditions. Hopefully in the ne)d couple months. Gillette — Greg, what do you need? If we separate the wall and building? Hall — Based on time limits, getting materials ready and making construction go quickly is why we need another year. We couldn't have everything done next year. No issues on dog prohibition. By waiting one more year we have more time for observation. For collaring there are a lot of costs that go in as well as staff. We are waiting for a comprehensive study to do some mitigation, instead of doing something that won't be as effective. I don't have the $250,000 budget to put towards something like this, as Town Council does. With regard to construction, get a contract, get final approval, we need that longer time period to get it done. Kurz — On dog rules, how are they being adhered to and controlled, what about recreation on the hill, have they done a ski jump that you are aware Of? Hall — Three-year leases with no pets, if we find one then they're gone. Limited approval for dogs when it comes to vet visits (for employee pet emergencies). As for a ski jump, there might have been, but I hadn't seen anything back there except one hiker. Gillette — Kristen, is the collar study part of your funding? Bertuglia — Depends on the mitigation plan. Gillette — Just so Council understands the importance of this stuff I suggest we break this up and get the wall and the berm approved and hold them hostage on the building. J ust to let them know that it is important to us, we'll hold them hostage on the one part. It adds to the importance of getting the long term plan done. Lockman — Does that affect your ability to operate Greg? Hall — Limits us to the timeline of the plan. Kjesbo — If we disturb habitat, we need to build it somewhere. We need a mitigation plan that is equal at the same time. I'd like to see the Forest Service be part of that, but we can't wait on them. We need it defined from council and staff what the end result on the public works area. If the town defines the final result of the plan, then we need to have an EIS started or under contract with this approval. I'd like a definition from the council what the final number of units would be approved in the masterplan. We need to control this and not do it piecemeal. Definitely no dogs. I don't think we're ready for a vote yet and I think we have time. Gillette — Kahn, do you value an E IS over E I R? Kahn — I don't know how an El R is defined here, but it just needs to be comprehensive. For an official EIS, feels that these studies can take upwards of 10 years to complete, by which time conditions on the site have often changed. Gillette — Greg if we don't vote today what is your schedule on this wall? Hall — Part of this is moving the project along, planning time is being taken away from us if delayed. Getting a plan together is less time than getting the construction plans and approvals for the building. Gillette — Less concerned with the actual mitigation than a commitment from council on actually doing it. Kjesbo — I'd be open to mitigation in other areas, if not here, in the case that we don't have USFS approval to do it on other town areas. Our constituents are concerned with the sheep, so we need to be. Gillette — I want to hold the Town of Vail to a higher standard. Let's hold this project and see if we can get Council to do something. We want to hear from the Town of Vail as the applicant whether they are committed to the herd. Perez — The other alternative path is that we say no, and Town Council calls it up to do what they want anyway. Gillette — W here are we with requiring the EIS in masterplans? We want an update from Kristen on the mitigation, and staff on the master planning process including an environmental portion. Spence — We can do that now and moving forward that all masterplans include an environmental study. Kjesbo — I'm fine with separating them and voting on the variance so they can move forward with design, but not construction. Spence — We'll add the conditions to the CUP that you are not going to vote on tonight, so it is cleaned up for the ne)d meeting. Kurz — This commission has some issues that we are not ok with as of now. We understand their time constraint. We are all ok with the motion on the variance as of today. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 2.7. 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 Karen Perez moved to table to January 13, 2019. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. November 25, 2019 PEC Results Karen Perez moved to approve. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Abstain: (1) Seibert Absent: (1) Hopkins 4. Adjournment Rollie Kjesbo moved to adjourn. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Hopkins The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department TOWN OF VA10 N PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 9, 2020, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1.1. Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Pam Hopkins, John -Ryan Lockman, Rollie Kjesbo, Pete Seibert, and Brian Gillette Absent: Main Agenda 2.1. 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) 90 min. This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0046 and PEC19-0048. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Motion: Continued to March 231d First: Gillette Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 Planner Roy began by introducing the rezoning application (PEC19- 0047). He showed a vicinity map showing surrounding residential and commercial property. He also explained the existing zoning and uses in the vicinity. Roy then explained the criteria for a rezoning. In discussing the 3rd criteria, Roy discussed the additional height and density allowances that would result from a rezoning from CC3 to PA -2. In discussing the 7t" criteria, Roy discussed the history of development on this property. It was built as a hotel in the county and later annexed into the town with the CC3 zone district. Staff found that site conditions have not significantly changed over time. Concluded that Staff is recommending denial, but stressed that staff is not opposed to redevelopment, instead suggesting the current zoning remain and add a Conditional Use into the CC3 be sought for the hotel. Commissioner Perez: Had a question about links to code sections in the staff memo that were not working. Roy: Indicated that staff would work with Sterling Codifiers and the IT department to fix this issue. Perez: They're going for an SDD anyway, so why are we rezoning or changing zoning requirements if the SDD will set their standards anyway. Roy: An SDD cannot allow a new use, so they need a zoning change regardless. Perez: Asked a question about the relevance of the upcoming West Vail Master Plan to this project. Gillette: Asked staff about the idea to add a text amendment for a conditional use to the CC3. Worried that everyone in CC3 would try to redevelop for a hotel. Roy: The conditional use for a hotel could be tailored and have other specific requirements that could limit hotel development in CC3. Roy: Proceeded to explain the SDD request (PEC19-0048) Perez: Asked what is different from the last time this came before the PEC. Roy: Stated some design changes have been made as a result of DRB and Public Works comments. Roy pointed out these changes on a diagram. Perez: Asked if the height has been changed. Roy: Ridge heights have not changed, but one building was moved in order to reduce its height as defined by the code. Gillette: Asked about a proposed sidewalk. Tom Kassmel: This sidewalk was requested largely for the use of residents north of the site to access the commercial area along North Frontage Road. PW requested the sidewalk connect to the existing sidewalk, but this is not shown on the application. Roy: Continued by explaining the purpose of an SDD as defined by the Code. Then began to describe the deviations from the proposed zone district that the SDD would be addressed. Staff identified 11 deviations. There are also 4 proposed public benefits from this SDD which are, EHUs, pedestrian access along the east side of the property, pedestrian access along the west side of the property, and (missed this one). Roy continued by discussing proposed parking deviations. Then discussed deviation for the snow storage requirement. Perez: They want excess valet parking, but also to use some of these excess spaces for temporary snow storage, why? Roy: Staff would rather see some valet parking being converted to permanent snow storage. Hopkins: Had a question about snow storage in relation to the trees and proposed walkway on the east side of the property. Roy: Continued discussing the requested deviations by discussing a deviation from the minimum size of landscaping areas requirement and deviation from total landscaping required. Roy then finished out the discussion of deviations by discussing the remaining 5 deviations that Staff found appropriate. Hopkins: Asked about fire access. Roy: Stated that the applicant had worked with the Fire department and was able to meet the Fire department's requirements. Roy: Next discussed the design criteria for this application. These criteria include compatibility, parking and loading, design features, traffic, landscaping, and a workable plan. Perez: Asked why having a valet to shuffle cars for snow storage would be worse than asking people to self -move. Roy: If the parking lot was full, which is most likely to happen in the winter, then the development would only have two spots to shuffle cars to. Perez: Mentioned that with her building they work around limits like that by utilizing temporary street parking. Roy: Stated that staff was just looking at parking viability at the site scale. Roy: Then discussed the review criteria for the exterior alteration application (PEC19-0046). Thinks that with changes to parking, landscaping, and snow storage, this could be a very successful project. Lockman: Asked if staff had been working with the applicant. Roy: Indicated that staff had and had been discussing these issues with the applicant. Dominic Mauriello: Introduced himself and his team. Also mentioned that the Widewaters Group is no longer associated with this property. Discussed some of the process that led to this meeting. Mauriello then began discussing their request. Argued that EHUs were not meant to be counted as GRFA in the CC3 zone district and that the PA -2 district exempts EHU GRFA. The PA -2 zone district would also allow other kinds of units like hotel units and lodge units. The proposed district also brings the existing height closer into compliance. In discussing the Vail Land Use Plan, Mauriello stated that hotels are considered a commercial use in this document. The Land Use Plan also doesn't indicate that this hotel in West Vail should be removed. Perez: Asked if by switching to PA -2, they are limiting commercial uses, which is not encouraged by the Vail Land Use Plan. Mauriello: We are proposing what we think will be on this property for decades, and that zoning eventually changes over time. Continuing the discussion of the Land Use Plan, thinks Staff has misinterpreted the goals of the Vail Land Use Plan. Mauriello then discussed the feedback from the previous PEC discussion. Feedback included keeping the rezoning to PA -2 with an SDD concept, changing the existing roof color, pedestrian access, building the EHU building around the same time as everything else, and additional feedback. Mauriello continued with a discussion of the existing site conditions and the proposed project. Ultimately reducing parking area on the site. Adding additional hotel rooms and EHUs. Acknowledges that the lower units of the EHU building are not as good as the above floor units, but it felt like a missed opportunity to not include additional EHUs when it is possible. Discussed how the applicant has met with the local community, and community and town boards multiple times. Vail Local Housing Authority and the Eagle County Housing Taskforce have also stated their support for this project. Discussed the changes to the plan as a result of discussions with the Fire Department. Discussed the Chamonix Lane sidewalk. Not bringing this sidewalk all the way down through the property as to not direct pedestrians into a parking lot. Proposing more parking than required. Conducted a traffic study that showed that the Frontage Rd can handle the additional traffic. Next discussed the minimum landscaping standards by showing that the Town does not have consistent minimum landscaping area standards. Hopkins: Asked about snow storage and trees. Mauriello: Stated that while evergreens limit snow storage somewhat, you wouldn't clear out a 20' landscaping area of trees to make room for snow storage. Mauriello: Continued to show how much of the uses in this area are non- conforming, not just the hotel. A 3 -story building is not uncommon in this area. Then showed some renderings of the proposed buildings and their effect on surrounding views. Perez: Asked if there were renderings from the Chamonix development. Mauriello: Showed a rendering from Chamonix Road near the site. Mauriello: Continued his presentation by discussing the anticipated revenue. Next discussed the hotel occupancy. In 2019, the hotel had an average occupancy of just under 60% with about 1.7 persons per occupied room. The hotel will never reach its theoretical maximum occupancy. Then discussed the need for the SDD. Discussed the variations needed and what is being offered in return. Stated how the project was strongly aligned with the Vail Housing Authority Plan. Open to forwarding a recommendation of approval with conditions for height, parking, or snow storage, if deemed necessary. Gillette: Had a question about putting some EHU into the mitigation bank. Mauriello: Explained how these unit's credits could be purchased by future development. Gillette: So what's the community development for those units? This means that the next development that comes in won't have to add 2 EHUs and could buy these banked units instead. Mauriello: Many developments find that they can meet EHUs on site anyway and that it is common for these banked units to take years to sell off. Hopkins: Asked a question about access to the West Vail Mall and the bus stop from the EHU building. Perez: Talked about how walking through parking lots in the winter can be treacherous, but mentioned how for a hotel it is better risk management to have the lot well maintained. Public Comment Pat Lauer: Lives right behind the development. Wrote a letter about this project and is opposed to the development. Already very limited commercial space in this area. While everyone wants EHU housing, but the proposed building is too tall. This building is actually 4 levels and there is no 4 -level building in the area. Worried also that Chamonix Ln will be hazardous in the winter due to the shading from the EHU building. Discussed some ideas on how this could be mitigated. Also worried about traffic and snow removal on Chamonix. Density is too high and will overcrowd the already crowded public shuttles. Unclear on how the proposed parking will work. Understands that only 4 spots are designated for employee parking. The tripled conference space size benefits the parking requirement in favor of the developer. Mike Oldham: Lives on Chamonix Ln. and represents the HOA at Tall Pines. Not opposed to the expansion of the hotel use as long as it is done effectively. Opposed to the EHU building and especially with its north facing orientation. The now will pile up and will not melt in the winter season, this is why the residential developments in the area face south. The current stairs from Chamonix into the West Vail mall gets icy and hazardous, feels that a walkway on the east side is an overdue idea. Opposed to removing large conifers and doesn't think snow storage in this east area makes sense. Likes the idea of better using this land, but there are a lot of issues with this proposal. Joel Barton: In favor of expanding existing uses. Most lowest -level residential units will not have their views impacted. Workforce housing is a big issue for his work and as a result is supportive of the additional workforce housing. Public Comment closed Planner Roy: Supportive of the expansion of the existing use and adding EHUs, but finds that the site plan needs improvement. Lockman: Thinks that the broad zoning approach with CC3 in the 80s made created this and a lot of issues. Can't hold up this project for the West Vail Master Plan. Wishes there was more overall planning for West Vail already. Doesn't want to lose the hotel and doesn't want to lose commercial uses. We want West Vail to have a broad option of commercial uses. Ultimately doesn't see a huge barrier with the proposed rezoning. See's Staff's concerns with the criteria, but also finds that the applicant has made an effort to meet these criteria and is working with the situation they're given. Wants a clearer plan for pedestrian access along this lot. EHU building could make more sense with a south -facing orientation. Seibert: Could the SDD be used to limit the development potential of this property so that the full extent of the PA -2 density could not be used here? Roy: Yes. Seibert: Concerned about parking in the first meeting, and still a little concerned. Understands Gillette's concern about the EHU banking, but finding land to build new housing is difficult and we have a proposal here to build new units. Hopkins: Doesn't like small spot landscaping that doesn't work with snow storage. Looking at the plan it seems like the applicant has been trying to put too much on the property. Wishes the EHU building was further offset from the road, doesn't seem like this building is as effective as it could be. Thinks this might have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The Chamonix development is more balanced with density and height. Perez: This is a big improvement from the December meeting. Thinks this is a nice transition from the residential areas, to the commercial, to 1-70. This could reduce 1-70 impacts for residents north of the development. Concerned about the light in the lower units of the EHU building. Doesn't like the island landscaping, would rather see some extra landscaping around the EHU building. Thinks it is absurd that hotels aren't considered commercial in the Zoning Code. Doesn't think that this project or others should be held up by the West Vail Master Planning process. Wants the sidewalk as a condition of approval. Blocks some view, but is not out of character for the neighborhood. Kjesbo: Thinks this method will get the property more in compliance. Agrees that hotels should be considered commercial. Thinks that the EHU building towers too high above Chamonix Rd. The bulk and mass is too great for being that close to the road. The hotel will deal with the parking and it is in their best interest to make it work for the guests. Not holding his breath for a West Vail Master Plan. Doesn't think the parking makes sense specifically for the EHU units, would need snowmelt along the entire path for those residents. Gillette: Still in the same place as last meeting. Yes a hotel is commercial, but it is not community commercial. Zoning is the only way to protect the community commercial as commercial developers will go with the use that gets them the most value. CC3 was created to protect the commercial that is still in town. Doesn't see how the commission can approve this project. The project can't and doesn't meet the criteria. Feels that this process needed more discussion when talking about the expansion of a hotel in this area. Can't get on board with the current proposal. Kurz: Tends to agree with Gillette's comments, but we need to act on this project today. Complimented both the applicant and staff. Feels that there must not have been enough discussion between staff and the applicant if staff is recommending denial on all three applications. It appears that this application is not approvable based on the required criteria. Wants to table in the effort to create a more approvable plan for this project. Comfortable with the height. There is a problem with access between parking and the EHU. Worried about the owner maintaining the snow storage. Seeing a project of this scale continuing to have major Staff concerns, brings him concern. Perez: Had a question about being able to preserve the current allowed commercial uses. Planner Spence: Indicated that Staff would envision more of a mixed use project to maintain the commercial nature of this area. The SDD process can limit uses, but cannot expand them. Mauriello: Zoning is not forever, and we are not rezoning the entire CC3 district. If the West Vail Master plan comes in at a later date, this property can still be rezoned to come in conformance with that plan. Has met many times with Staff, but feels that there is a philosophical difference of opinion. Perez: There are some issues remaining on this project. Specifically, the orientation of the entry and access for the EHU. Kjesbo: Wants the height for the EHU building to come down a story. Mauriello: Requested a tabling. 2.2. 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. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Motion: Continued to March 231d First: Gillette Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 2.3. 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. ' 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. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Motion: Continued to March 23rd First: Kjesbo Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 2.4. 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) 5 min. The applicant has requested this item be tabled to May 11, 2020. Applicant: Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates Motion: Table to May 11, 2020 First: Gillette Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 2.5. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required front setback for a stair tower, located at 2696 Davos Trail/Lot 6, Block C, Vail Ridge Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20- 0001) 20 min. Applicant: Michael & Carol Kay Phillips Planner: Greg Roy Motion: Approve with conditions First: Kjesbo Second: Gillette Vote: 7-0-0 Conditions: 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal; and 2. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate, via an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC), to the Community Development Department prior to requesting a final planning inspection that improvements have been constructed per plan. Planner Roy: Introduced the project and described the site conditions. Staff is supportive of this variance as it allows for a more workable site. There are a number of existing garages in the area in the front setback, doesn't feel that a stairway would have any greater impact. Michael Phillips: Has lived in this house for decades and has had to snow shovel the existing walkway for a long time. Age has made this more and more difficult and adding a stair would allow them to continue living in this house. No Public Comment. 2.6. A request for the review of a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the maximum centerline driveway grade, located at 1801 Sunburst Drive Unit A/Lot 2, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0002) 5 min. The applicant has requested this item be tabled to a future date. Applicant: Hilliard West LLC, represented by Pierce Austin Architects Planner: Erik Gates Motion: Table to March 23rd First: Gillette Second: Kjesbo Vote: 7-0-0 2.7. 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 a portion of the property located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision. The proposed rezoning would change the Zone District from Agriculture and Open Space (A) District to the Public Accommodation (PA) District and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0022) 90 min. Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Recommend Approval First: Kjesbo Second: Seibert Vote: 4-2-0 Gillette & Perez opposed Read concurrently with PEC20-0003 and PEC19-0008 Planner Spence opened the project by describing the nature of the application and the history of this project. In the past, the PEC requested that the exterior alteration be heard alongside the rezoning request for context. The two applications cannot be tied together, so a motion on the rezoning will be requested today, but the other items will be tabled. Gillette: Disagrees with Staff's assessment of the court order regarding the rezoning. Says the order does not require a change of the zoning. It preserves the covenants on the property, including conservation easements. Spence: Clarified that Staff did not mean to say otherwise in the memo. Rick Pylman: Introduced his team on the project. Trying to meet the goals of the Vail Master Plan. This building was built in the 60s and much of the neighborhood has stayed the same. Continued to discuss the proposed lodge and amenities involved. Goal is to build the nicest lodge property in vail. Next discussed the site redevelopment. Showed the areas of the lodge that extend over previous other properties. Hanz Berglund: Began by introducing the exterior alteration application and design. Aiming to enhance the quality of this site. Made a significant effort to meet the goals and objectives of the Master Plan. Discussed that this would pull more lodging demand into Vail Village rather than in the more residential neighborhoods. Showed floor plans and elevations of the project. Next he discussed the surrounding character and scale. The existing building is significantly smaller than the buildings surrounding it. The proposed building is comparable in height to its neighbors. Berglund discussed the proposed tower on the building and showed another of other towers throughout Vail Village and Lionshead. He discussed the nature of the proposed setback encroachments and how surrounding buildings also extend into their setbacks. Perez: Asked about a previous discussion of a square design for the property. Berglund: To fit in the side setbacks would cut about 20ft of the building off. It would lead to a steeper fagade. Felt that the current proposal was a better design architecturally. Proposing an increase in landscaping between the proposed building and the Christiana. Also aiming to create a more inviting walking portion in front of the proposed Avanti building. Also showed a sun -shade analysis for this building on Hanson Ranch Road. Perez: Asked a clarifying question about ownership and operations management Sarah Baker: Stated that they refer to Vailpoint as "the client" as they make all final decisions on the property. Perez: Asked a question about if rooms could be rented individually. Rick Pylman: Discussed the need for the setback variances and a parking variance. Kjesbo: Is there an ability to move the building back further to minimize parking in the front setback? Pylman: Potentially, but it is not preferred. Didn't want to give too much front space in parking and risk someone trying to double park and end up parking on the sidewalk. Kjesbo: In speaking to the design, feels that the tower is too much bulk and mass. Didn't think the Tivoli towers had as much b&m Hopkins: Also felt that the building was too large. Feels that this scale does not fit the goal of the project to be a small, highest -class lodge. Also feels like the applicant may not be taking as many sustainability measures as they could. This could also attract guests. Baker: Refreshed the PEC on the history of the rezoning application. She presented a diagram showing the old property and the former separate parcels that are zoned agricultural/open space. Believes this is the only parcel in vail with multiple zoning designations. Showed an overlay of the proposed building over the old agricultural/open space tracts, tried to keep the building off of the back tract as much as possible. Then showed how the current zonings on the lot do not meet their lot size requirements. Rezoning the whole lot to PA would bring the lot size into conformance. Baker continued to describe how the redevelopment would further the Vail Village Master Plan objectives. Commissioner Lockman had to leave during this time and be absent for the remainder of the meeting. Baker: Discussed other factors to consider for redevelopment. Argued that development is already allowed on agriculture/open space so this will not result in or set precedent for further additional development on open space lots. Public Comment Wendle Porterfield: Representing Villa Valhalla. Asked a question to Pete Seibert about his previous employment with Vailpoint. Seibert: Said that he had considered whether he should recuse himself for this. However, he has not been involved in Vailpoint for around 3 years and does not stand to make any money off the project. Porterfield: Asked a question about the sale of the property. Seibert: Discussed the sale of the property and how the additional tract was acquired and assumed to be a part of this property originally. Porterfield: Feels that this is a self-inflicted situation. The applicant is asking for a rezoning but they are clearly going for the rezoning that makes them the most money instead of rezoning for ag and open space for example. Feels that this is a clever way for the applicant to force the PEC to rezone open space. Carol Krueger: Argument against this development has not changed for her since the last meeting. The back part of the property looks unkempt because it is meant to be natural open space. Over 1600 sq ft of patio with development is not undisturbed and will change the character of previous open space. Also stated that the proposed design has not significantly changed. Asked the PEC to carefully consider the setback variance. The original buildings were built before the setback regulations were in place. Doesn't feel that this practice should be continued for a redevelopment. Shouldn't prioritize visitors over the neighboring properties with bedrooms housing Vail residents. For the parking variance, she asks the Commission to consider the current state of Hansen Ranch Road. It's a mess and drop offs happen in the road all the time. Public Comment Closed Baker: The adverse possession case was not a contested trial. It was resolved by stipulation. In addressing the claim that this a self-created issue. Applicant has not proposed to build to a greater scale than what would have been allowed with the previous, smaller parcel. Argues that as such they are not asking to be "rewarded" for the extra lot size. They recognize that parking and loading is an issue in this area and do not want to contribute to that problem. Hopkins: Asked about trash storage Berglund: The current plan is to use regular garbage cans and store them in the garage. Perez: Disappointed that this is the 4t" time hearing this project and nothing has really changed. We disagreed that this is not an owner - created problem. Not in agreement with staff that this meets the criteria. Quoted a section of the Land Use Plan that stated that all greenspace should be attempted to be preserved. Applicant hasn't made an attempt to comply with the PEC's comments. The applicant has asked for variances and does not feel that they shown the grounds for these variances. Hopkins: In agreement with Perez. There doesn't seem to be any benefit for the Town for this project. Seibert: Feel there are 2 ways of looking at this. Open space is what anyone sees when walking by natural vegetation. Seeing manicured grass inside a fence does not read as open space. Disagrees with the argument for the setbacks just because that is the old way buildings were built. Wants to verify that they are not gaining GRFA. Generally supportive of the rest. Kjesbo: If we rezone this, and create a PA compliant lot, why are you requesting a setback variance. Spence: The PA zone district can enter the setbacks Gillette: In the "preserve open space at all costs" boat. In agreement with Perez and Hopkins. Kurz: Based on the Staff report, it seems that the criteria for rezoning has been met. Was in support of the rezoning. Ready to let Town Council to make the final decision on this. 2.8. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-7A-11: Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the prohibition of parking located within the front setback and from the requirement that 75% of the required parking be located within the main building, located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0003) Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Continued to March 231d First: Kjesbo Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-0 2.9. A request for the review of a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the replacement of the existing structure with a seven (7) suite private lodge with related site improvements, located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0008) Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Continued to March 231d First: Kjesbo Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-0 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. February 10, 2020 PEC Results Motion: Approve First: Kjesbo Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-1 Perez abstain 4. Adjournment Motion: Adjourn First: Kjesbo Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily March 6, 2020 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 13, 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. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 13, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-7A-11: Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the prohibition of parking located within the front setback and from the requirement that 75% of the required parking be located within the main building, located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0003) The applicant has requested that this item be continued to the April 27, 2020 public hearing. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 13, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request forth e review of a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the replacement of the existing structure with a seven (7) suite lodge with related site improvements, located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0008) The applicant has requested that this item be continued to the April 27, 2020 public hearing. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 13, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-61-8: Parking and Loading, to revise the requirements related to mobility and onsite parking in the Housing (H) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20- 0005) The applicant has requested this item be tabled to April 27, 2020. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: March 9, 2020 PEC Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Pec results 030920.pdf March 9, 2020 PEC Results TOWN OF VA10 N PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 9, 2020, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1.1. Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Pam Hopkins, John -Ryan Lockman, Rollie Kjesbo, Pete Seibert, and Brian Gillette Absent: Main Agenda 2.1. 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) 90 min. This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0046 and PEC19-0048. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Motion: Continued to March 231d First: Gillette Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 Planner Roy began by introducing the rezoning application (PEC19- 0047). He showed a vicinity map showing surrounding residential and commercial property. He also explained the existing zoning and uses in the vicinity. Roy then explained the criteria for a rezoning. In discussing the 3rd criteria, Roy discussed the additional height and density allowances that would result from a rezoning from CC3 to PA -2. In discussing the 7t" criteria, Roy discussed the history of development on this property. It was built as a hotel in the county and later annexed into the town with the CC3 zone district. Staff found that site conditions have not significantly changed over time. Concluded that Staff is recommending denial, but stressed that staff is not opposed to redevelopment, instead suggesting the current zoning remain and add a Conditional Use into the CC3 be sought for the hotel. Commissioner Perez: Had a question about links to code sections in the staff memo that were not working. Roy: Indicated that staff would work with Sterling Codifiers and the IT department to fix this issue. Perez: They're going for an SDD anyway, so why are we rezoning or changing zoning requirements if the SDD will set their standards anyway. Roy: An SDD cannot allow a new use, so they need a zoning change regardless. Perez: Asked a question about the relevance of the upcoming West Vail Master Plan to this project. Gillette: Asked staff about the idea to add a text amendment for a conditional use to the CC3. Worried that everyone in CC3 would try to redevelop for a hotel. Roy: The conditional use for a hotel could be tailored and have other specific requirements that could limit hotel development in CC3. Roy: Proceeded to explain the SDD request (PEC19-0048) Perez: Asked what is different from the last time this came before the PEC. Roy: Stated some design changes have been made as a result of DRB and Public Works comments. Roy pointed out these changes on a diagram. Perez: Asked if the height has been changed. Roy: Ridge heights have not changed, but one building was moved in order to reduce its height as defined by the code. Gillette: Asked about a proposed sidewalk. Tom Kassmel: This sidewalk was requested largely for the use of residents north of the site to access the commercial area along North Frontage Road. PW requested the sidewalk connect to the existing sidewalk, but this is not shown on the application. Roy: Continued by explaining the purpose of an SDD as defined by the Code. Then began to describe the deviations from the proposed zone district that the SDD would be addressed. Staff identified 11 deviations. There are also 4 proposed public benefits from this SDD which are, EHUs, pedestrian access along the east side of the property, pedestrian access along the west side of the property, and (missed this one). Roy continued by discussing proposed parking deviations. Then discussed deviation for the snow storage requirement. Perez: They want excess valet parking, but also to use some of these excess spaces for temporary snow storage, why? Roy: Staff would rather see some valet parking being converted to permanent snow storage. Hopkins: Had a question about snow storage in relation to the trees and proposed walkway on the east side of the property. Roy: Continued discussing the requested deviations by discussing a deviation from the minimum size of landscaping areas requirement and deviation from total landscaping required. Roy then finished out the discussion of deviations by discussing the remaining 5 deviations that Staff found appropriate. Hopkins: Asked about fire access. Roy: Stated that the applicant had worked with the Fire department and was able to meet the Fire department's requirements. Roy: Next discussed the design criteria for this application. These criteria include compatibility, parking and loading, design features, traffic, landscaping, and a workable plan. Perez: Asked why having a valet to shuffle cars for snow storage would be worse than asking people to self -move. Roy: If the parking lot was full, which is most likely to happen in the winter, then the development would only have two spots to shuffle cars to. Perez: Mentioned that with her building they work around limits like that by utilizing temporary street parking. Roy: Stated that staff was just looking at parking viability at the site scale. Roy: Then discussed the review criteria for the exterior alteration application (PEC19-0046). Thinks that with changes to parking, landscaping, and snow storage, this could be a very successful project. Lockman: Asked if staff had been working with the applicant. Roy: Indicated that staff had and had been discussing these issues with the applicant. Dominic Mauriello: Introduced himself and his team. Also mentioned that the Widewaters Group is no longer associated with this property. Discussed some of the process that led to this meeting. Mauriello then began discussing their request. Argued that EHUs were not meant to be counted as GRFA in the CC3 zone district and that the PA -2 district exempts EHU GRFA. The PA -2 zone district would also allow other kinds of units like hotel units and lodge units. The proposed district also brings the existing height closer into compliance. In discussing the Vail Land Use Plan, Mauriello stated that hotels are considered a commercial use in this document. The Land Use Plan also doesn't indicate that this hotel in West Vail should be removed. Perez: Asked if by switching to PA -2, they are limiting commercial uses, which is not encouraged by the Vail Land Use Plan. Mauriello: We are proposing what we think will be on this property for decades, and that zoning eventually changes over time. Continuing the discussion of the Land Use Plan, thinks Staff has misinterpreted the goals of the Vail Land Use Plan. Mauriello then discussed the feedback from the previous PEC discussion. Feedback included keeping the rezoning to PA -2 with an SDD concept, changing the existing roof color, pedestrian access, building the EHU building around the same time as everything else, and additional feedback. Mauriello continued with a discussion of the existing site conditions and the proposed project. Ultimately reducing parking area on the site. Adding additional hotel rooms and EHUs. Acknowledges that the lower units of the EHU building are not as good as the above floor units, but it felt like a missed opportunity to not include additional EHUs when it is possible. Discussed how the applicant has met with the local community, and community and town boards multiple times. Vail Local Housing Authority and the Eagle County Housing Taskforce have also stated their support for this project. Discussed the changes to the plan as a result of discussions with the Fire Department. Discussed the Chamonix Lane sidewalk. Not bringing this sidewalk all the way down through the property as to not direct pedestrians into a parking lot. Proposing more parking than required. Conducted a traffic study that showed that the Frontage Rd can handle the additional traffic. Next discussed the minimum landscaping standards by showing that the Town does not have consistent minimum landscaping area standards. Hopkins: Asked about snow storage and trees. Mauriello: Stated that while evergreens limit snow storage somewhat, you wouldn't clear out a 20' landscaping area of trees to make room for snow storage. Mauriello: Continued to show how much of the uses in this area are non- conforming, not just the hotel. A 3 -story building is not uncommon in this area. Then showed some renderings of the proposed buildings and their effect on surrounding views. Perez: Asked if there were renderings from the Chamonix development. Mauriello: Showed a rendering from Chamonix Road near the site. Mauriello: Continued his presentation by discussing the anticipated revenue. Next discussed the hotel occupancy. In 2019, the hotel had an average occupancy of just under 60% with about 1.7 persons per occupied room. The hotel will never reach its theoretical maximum occupancy. Then discussed the need for the SDD. Discussed the variations needed and what is being offered in return. Stated how the project was strongly aligned with the Vail Housing Authority Plan. Open to forwarding a recommendation of approval with conditions for height, parking, or snow storage, if deemed necessary. Gillette: Had a question about putting some EHU into the mitigation bank. Mauriello: Explained how these unit's credits could be purchased by future development. Gillette: So what's the community development for those units? This means that the next development that comes in won't have to add 2 EHUs and could buy these banked units instead. Mauriello: Many developments find that they can meet EHUs on site anyway and that it is common for these banked units to take years to sell off. Hopkins: Asked a question about access to the West Vail Mall and the bus stop from the EHU building. Perez: Talked about how walking through parking lots in the winter can be treacherous, but mentioned how for a hotel it is better risk management to have the lot well maintained. Public Comment Pat Lauer: Lives right behind the development. Wrote a letter about this project and is opposed to the development. Already very limited commercial space in this area. While everyone wants EHU housing, but the proposed building is too tall. This building is actually 4 levels and there is no 4 -level building in the area. Worried also that Chamonix Ln will be hazardous in the winter due to the shading from the EHU building. Discussed some ideas on how this could be mitigated. Also worried about traffic and snow removal on Chamonix. Density is too high and will overcrowd the already crowded public shuttles. Unclear on how the proposed parking will work. Understands that only 4 spots are designated for employee parking. The tripled conference space size benefits the parking requirement in favor of the developer. Mike Oldham: Lives on Chamonix Ln. and represents the HOA at Tall Pines. Not opposed to the expansion of the hotel use as long as it is done effectively. Opposed to the EHU building and especially with its north facing orientation. The now will pile up and will not melt in the winter season, this is why the residential developments in the area face south. The current stairs from Chamonix into the West Vail mall gets icy and hazardous, feels that a walkway on the east side is an overdue idea. Opposed to removing large conifers and doesn't think snow storage in this east area makes sense. Likes the idea of better using this land, but there are a lot of issues with this proposal. Joel Barton: In favor of expanding existing uses. Most lowest -level residential units will not have their views impacted. Workforce housing is a big issue for his work and as a result is supportive of the additional workforce housing. Public Comment closed Planner Roy: Supportive of the expansion of the existing use and adding EHUs, but finds that the site plan needs improvement. Lockman: Thinks that the broad zoning approach with CC3 in the 80s made created this and a lot of issues. Can't hold up this project for the West Vail Master Plan. Wishes there was more overall planning for West Vail already. Doesn't want to lose the hotel and doesn't want to lose commercial uses. We want West Vail to have a broad option of commercial uses. Ultimately doesn't see a huge barrier with the proposed rezoning. See's Staff's concerns with the criteria, but also finds that the applicant has made an effort to meet these criteria and is working with the situation they're given. Wants a clearer plan for pedestrian access along this lot. EHU building could make more sense with a south -facing orientation. Seibert: Could the SDD be used to limit the development potential of this property so that the full extent of the PA -2 density could not be used here? Roy: Yes. Seibert: Concerned about parking in the first meeting, and still a little concerned. Understands Gillette's concern about the EHU banking, but finding land to build new housing is difficult and we have a proposal here to build new units. Hopkins: Doesn't like small spot landscaping that doesn't work with snow storage. Looking at the plan it seems like the applicant has been trying to put too much on the property. Wishes the EHU building was further offset from the road, doesn't seem like this building is as effective as it could be. Thinks this might have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The Chamonix development is more balanced with density and height. Perez: This is a big improvement from the December meeting. Thinks this is a nice transition from the residential areas, to the commercial, to 1-70. This could reduce 1-70 impacts for residents north of the development. Concerned about the light in the lower units of the EHU building. Doesn't like the island landscaping, would rather see some extra landscaping around the EHU building. Thinks it is absurd that hotels aren't considered commercial in the Zoning Code. Doesn't think that this project or others should be held up by the West Vail Master Planning process. Wants the sidewalk as a condition of approval. Blocks some view, but is not out of character for the neighborhood. Kjesbo: Thinks this method will get the property more in compliance. Agrees that hotels should be considered commercial. Thinks that the EHU building towers too high above Chamonix Rd. The bulk and mass is too great for being that close to the road. The hotel will deal with the parking and it is in their best interest to make it work for the guests. Not holding his breath for a West Vail Master Plan. Doesn't think the parking makes sense specifically for the EHU units, would need snowmelt along the entire path for those residents. Gillette: Still in the same place as last meeting. Yes a hotel is commercial, but it is not community commercial. Zoning is the only way to protect the community commercial as commercial developers will go with the use that gets them the most value. CC3 was created to protect the commercial that is still in town. Doesn't see how the commission can approve this project. The project can't and doesn't meet the criteria. Feels that this process needed more discussion when talking about the expansion of a hotel in this area. Can't get on board with the current proposal. Kurz: Tends to agree with Gillette's comments, but we need to act on this project today. Complimented both the applicant and staff. Feels that there must not have been enough discussion between staff and the applicant if staff is recommending denial on all three applications. It appears that this application is not approvable based on the required criteria. Wants to table in the effort to create a more approvable plan for this project. Comfortable with the height. There is a problem with access between parking and the EHU. Worried about the owner maintaining the snow storage. Seeing a project of this scale continuing to have major Staff concerns, brings him concern. Perez: Had a question about being able to preserve the current allowed commercial uses. Planner Spence: Indicated that Staff would envision more of a mixed use project to maintain the commercial nature of this area. The SDD process can limit uses, but cannot expand them. Mauriello: Zoning is not forever, and we are not rezoning the entire CC3 district. If the West Vail Master plan comes in at a later date, this property can still be rezoned to come in conformance with that plan. Has met many times with Staff, but feels that there is a philosophical difference of opinion. Perez: There are some issues remaining on this project. Specifically, the orientation of the entry and access for the EHU. Kjesbo: Wants the height for the EHU building to come down a story. Mauriello: Requested a tabling. 2.2. 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. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Motion: Continued to March 231d First: Gillette Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 2.3. 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. ' 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. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy Motion: Continued to March 23rd First: Kjesbo Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 2.4. 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) 5 min. The applicant has requested this item be tabled to May 11, 2020. Applicant: Scott Ryan & Foster Gillett, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates Motion: Table to May 11, 2020 First: Gillette Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 2.5. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the required front setback for a stair tower, located at 2696 Davos Trail/Lot 6, Block C, Vail Ridge Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20- 0001) 20 min. Applicant: Michael & Carol Kay Phillips Planner: Greg Roy Motion: Approve with conditions First: Kjesbo Second: Gillette Vote: 7-0-0 Conditions: 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal; and 2. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate, via an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC), to the Community Development Department prior to requesting a final planning inspection that improvements have been constructed per plan. Planner Roy: Introduced the project and described the site conditions. Staff is supportive of this variance as it allows for a more workable site. There are a number of existing garages in the area in the front setback, doesn't feel that a stairway would have any greater impact. Michael Phillips: Has lived in this house for decades and has had to snow shovel the existing walkway for a long time. Age has made this more and more difficult and adding a stair would allow them to continue living in this house. No Public Comment. 2.6. A request for the review of a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the maximum centerline driveway grade, located at 1801 Sunburst Drive Unit A/Lot 2, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0002) 5 min. The applicant has requested this item be tabled to a future date. Applicant: Hilliard West LLC, represented by Pierce Austin Architects Planner: Erik Gates Motion: Table to March 23rd First: Gillette Second: Kjesbo Vote: 7-0-0 2.7. 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 a portion of the property located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision. The proposed rezoning would change the Zone District from Agriculture and Open Space (A) District to the Public Accommodation (PA) District and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0022) 90 min. Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Recommend Approval First: Kjesbo Second: Seibert Vote: 4-2-0 Gillette & Perez opposed Read concurrently with PEC20-0003 and PEC19-0008 Planner Spence opened the project by describing the nature of the application and the history of this project. In the past, the PEC requested that the exterior alteration be heard alongside the rezoning request for context. The two applications cannot be tied together, so a motion on the rezoning will be requested today, but the other items will be tabled. Gillette: Disagrees with Staff's assessment of the court order regarding the rezoning. Says the order does not require a change of the zoning. It preserves the covenants on the property, including conservation easements. Spence: Clarified that Staff did not mean to say otherwise in the memo. Rick Pylman: Introduced his team on the project. Trying to meet the goals of the Vail Master Plan. This building was built in the 60s and much of the neighborhood has stayed the same. Continued to discuss the proposed lodge and amenities involved. Goal is to build the nicest lodge property in vail. Next discussed the site redevelopment. Showed the areas of the lodge that extend over previous other properties. Hanz Berglund: Began by introducing the exterior alteration application and design. Aiming to enhance the quality of this site. Made a significant effort to meet the goals and objectives of the Master Plan. Discussed that this would pull more lodging demand into Vail Village rather than in the more residential neighborhoods. Showed floor plans and elevations of the project. Next he discussed the surrounding character and scale. The existing building is significantly smaller than the buildings surrounding it. The proposed building is comparable in height to its neighbors. Berglund discussed the proposed tower on the building and showed another of other towers throughout Vail Village and Lionshead. He discussed the nature of the proposed setback encroachments and how surrounding buildings also extend into their setbacks. Perez: Asked about a previous discussion of a square design for the property. Berglund: To fit in the side setbacks would cut about 20ft of the building off. It would lead to a steeper fagade. Felt that the current proposal was a better design architecturally. Proposing an increase in landscaping between the proposed building and the Christiana. Also aiming to create a more inviting walking portion in front of the proposed Avanti building. Also showed a sun -shade analysis for this building on Hanson Ranch Road. Perez: Asked a clarifying question about ownership and operations management Sarah Baker: Stated that they refer to Vailpoint as "the client" as they make all final decisions on the property. Perez: Asked a question about if rooms could be rented individually. Rick Pylman: Discussed the need for the setback variances and a parking variance. Kjesbo: Is there an ability to move the building back further to minimize parking in the front setback? Pylman: Potentially, but it is not preferred. Didn't want to give too much front space in parking and risk someone trying to double park and end up parking on the sidewalk. Kjesbo: In speaking to the design, feels that the tower is too much bulk and mass. Didn't think the Tivoli towers had as much b&m Hopkins: Also felt that the building was too large. Feels that this scale does not fit the goal of the project to be a small, highest -class lodge. Also feels like the applicant may not be taking as many sustainability measures as they could. This could also attract guests. Baker: Refreshed the PEC on the history of the rezoning application. She presented a diagram showing the old property and the former separate parcels that are zoned agricultural/open space. Believes this is the only parcel in vail with multiple zoning designations. Showed an overlay of the proposed building over the old agricultural/open space tracts, tried to keep the building off of the back tract as much as possible. Then showed how the current zonings on the lot do not meet their lot size requirements. Rezoning the whole lot to PA would bring the lot size into conformance. Baker continued to describe how the redevelopment would further the Vail Village Master Plan objectives. Commissioner Lockman had to leave during this time and be absent for the remainder of the meeting. Baker: Discussed other factors to consider for redevelopment. Argued that development is already allowed on agriculture/open space so this will not result in or set precedent for further additional development on open space lots. Public Comment Wendle Porterfield: Representing Villa Valhalla. Asked a question to Pete Seibert about his previous employment with Vailpoint. Seibert: Said that he had considered whether he should recuse himself for this. However, he has not been involved in Vailpoint for around 3 years and does not stand to make any money off the project. Porterfield: Asked a question about the sale of the property. Seibert: Discussed the sale of the property and how the additional tract was acquired and assumed to be a part of this property originally. Porterfield: Feels that this is a self-inflicted situation. The applicant is asking for a rezoning but they are clearly going for the rezoning that makes them the most money instead of rezoning for ag and open space for example. Feels that this is a clever way for the applicant to force the PEC to rezone open space. Carol Krueger: Argument against this development has not changed for her since the last meeting. The back part of the property looks unkempt because it is meant to be natural open space. Over 1600 sq ft of patio with development is not undisturbed and will change the character of previous open space. Also stated that the proposed design has not significantly changed. Asked the PEC to carefully consider the setback variance. The original buildings were built before the setback regulations were in place. Doesn't feel that this practice should be continued for a redevelopment. Shouldn't prioritize visitors over the neighboring properties with bedrooms housing Vail residents. For the parking variance, she asks the Commission to consider the current state of Hansen Ranch Road. It's a mess and drop offs happen in the road all the time. Public Comment Closed Baker: The adverse possession case was not a contested trial. It was resolved by stipulation. In addressing the claim that this a self-created issue. Applicant has not proposed to build to a greater scale than what would have been allowed with the previous, smaller parcel. Argues that as such they are not asking to be "rewarded" for the extra lot size. They recognize that parking and loading is an issue in this area and do not want to contribute to that problem. Hopkins: Asked about trash storage Berglund: The current plan is to use regular garbage cans and store them in the garage. Perez: Disappointed that this is the 4t" time hearing this project and nothing has really changed. We disagreed that this is not an owner - created problem. Not in agreement with staff that this meets the criteria. Quoted a section of the Land Use Plan that stated that all greenspace should be attempted to be preserved. Applicant hasn't made an attempt to comply with the PEC's comments. The applicant has asked for variances and does not feel that they shown the grounds for these variances. Hopkins: In agreement with Perez. There doesn't seem to be any benefit for the Town for this project. Seibert: Feel there are 2 ways of looking at this. Open space is what anyone sees when walking by natural vegetation. Seeing manicured grass inside a fence does not read as open space. Disagrees with the argument for the setbacks just because that is the old way buildings were built. Wants to verify that they are not gaining GRFA. Generally supportive of the rest. Kjesbo: If we rezone this, and create a PA compliant lot, why are you requesting a setback variance. Spence: The PA zone district can enter the setbacks Gillette: In the "preserve open space at all costs" boat. In agreement with Perez and Hopkins. Kurz: Based on the Staff report, it seems that the criteria for rezoning has been met. Was in support of the rezoning. Ready to let Town Council to make the final decision on this. 2.8. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-7A-11: Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance from the prohibition of parking located within the front setback and from the requirement that 75% of the required parking be located within the main building, located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0003) Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Continued to March 231d First: Kjesbo Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-0 2.9. A request for the review of a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the replacement of the existing structure with a seven (7) suite private lodge with related site improvements, located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1, 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0008) Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Continued to March 231d First: Kjesbo Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-0 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. February 10, 2020 PEC Results Motion: Approve First: Kjesbo Second: Gillette Vote: 6-0-1 Perez abstain 4. Adjournment Motion: Adjourn First: Kjesbo Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily March 6, 2020 Ad #: 0000571864-01 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 4/10/2020 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 4/10/2020 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 4/28/2020. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 4/28/2020. / f Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .1ER USNNMEDINAP t iAI, RDyz VAT(:Oi 1"11 €11 NOWZY Ii12ir�079i9A v.CfiX¢CGON:XPIRI:GAk3Gil57et.- PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 13, 2020, 1:00 PM Virtual 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Can to Omer 1.1. Link to Virtual Meeting: Join from a PC, Mac, Pad, iPh- or Android device: Please click this URL 10 join. IT., raba/y269691644 Pall -rot 266421 Or join by phone: Dial: US: +1 346 248 7799 W.binar ID: 269 691 644 1.2. Attendance 2. Main Uegentla Vail Town 21. Are s[for the review of a variance from Sermon 14-3-1, Minimum SlantlaNs, Code In accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for avar- ce to the maximum centerline driveway grade, located at 1801 Sunburst Drive Unit A/Lot 2, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0002) 20 min. Applicant: Hilliard West LLC, represented by Pierce Austin Architects Planner: Erik Gates 2.2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 11-6Business and Building Identification gns, Vail SiTown Cd,,,n accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10, Variances, Vail Town Cotle, to Ilow for a variance to the number and size of hospital campus signs, located at 180 South Frontage Road Wes W E and F, Vail Village Filing 2, and selling forth details in regain thereto. (PEC20-0006) 20 Applicant: Vail Health, represented by Braun Associates Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amend- ment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Cotle to amend Section 12-10-6 Panting; Off Site and Joint Facilites, Vail Town Code, to refine standards to be used in the review of such proposals and to clarify the review process and other considerations and setting forth details in regard lherelo. (PEC20- 0007) 20 in. Applicant: Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Greg Roy 2.4. Aroqu,st fora rads-ntlalion to the Vail Town Council to adopt the Community Wildfire Protection Plan as an element of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Plan to reduce the risk of wildflre, and seeing forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0004) 30 min. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Paul Cada Planner: Greg Roy 2.5.Arequest fora remmmendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundaryamend- al pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Cotle, to allow for the rezoning of 2211 North Fromage Roatl West which is composed of Tract C, Lot 1 Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schon. Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schon. Filing 3, from the Commercial Core 3 (CC3) District to the Public A ... ra-dation-2 (PA -2) District and setting forth details In regain thereto. (PEC19-0047) 90 min. This item will be heardconcurrently with PEC19-0046 and PEC19-0048. Applicant: TNREF III Drava Vail LLC True North Management Group LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy 2.6. A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Exterior Altera- tions or Modifications Vail Town Code, to allow for construction of a hotel addfi,n and an EHU apartment builtling, located at 2211 North Frontage Road West which Is composed of Tract C, Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schon. Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schon. Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard there- to. (PEC19-0046) This item will be heard concurrently with PE019-0047 and PEC19-0048. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC True North Management Group LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy 27 A request for a remmmendation to the Vail Town Council of an application establishing Sp,- dial Development Distrid No. 42 (Highlin, Hotel Renovation 2019), pursuant 10 G.clion 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a hotel addition to add 79-rin- modation 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 builtling, and relaletl uses and improvements, looalaid at 2211 North Frontage Road West which is com- aos.al of Tract C, Lot!, Lot 2, and Lot 3 Vail Das Schon, Filing No. 1 and Lot 1, Vail Das Schon. Filing 3, rid setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0048) This item will be heard concurrently with PEC19-0047 and PEC19-0046. Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC True North Management Group LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Greg Roy 2.8. A request for the review of a variance from S -ion 12-7A-11: Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code In accordance with the provisions of Section 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Cod, to allow for a ce from the prohibition of parking located within the from ront setback and fthe requirement that 7580 of the required Parking b...... located within the main building, located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1; 366 Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0003) 2 min. The applicant has requested that this item be continued to the April 27, 2020 public hearing. Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.9. A request for the review of a Malar Exterior Alteration, purs..n 10 Section 12-7A-12, E -n- or Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Cotle, to allow for the replacement of the existing at -ba with a en (7) suite lodge with related site improvements, located at 366 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot 1, 366 Han- son Ranch Road Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC19-0008) 2 min. The applicant has requested that this ilem be continued 10 the April 27, 2020 public hearing_ Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Sao - 2.1 0. pence2.10. Arequest for a remmmendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, for prescribed regulations amendments to Till, 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, to amend Seclion 12-61-8: Parking and Loading, to revise the requirements related to mobility and onsite parking in the Housing (H) Distdd, and setting forth details in regain thereto. (PEC20-0005) 2 The applicant has requested lhia item be Iabled to April 27, 2020. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jonathan Spence 3. Approval of Minutes 31. March 9, 2020 PEC Results 4. Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals ars available for public inspection during regular of- fice hours at the Town of Vail Communily Development Department, 75 South Fronlage Roatl. The public nviled to attend the project orientation and the site visils that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subj.d to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time thePlanning and Environmental Commission will nsider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please -11711 for sign language nlerpralon on 48 hour prior 10 meeting lime. Communily Development Department Published in the Vail Daily April 10, 2020. 0000571864 Ad #: 0000567469-01 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLMT PUBLIC NOTICE Your account number is: 1023233 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Pla..inyana hoold`e pup)"e n e°im9 it eaca;dehr a w th...ti-12- 3-6, Vail Town Code, c -l", 13, 2020 at 1:08 pm In the Town of Vail Municipal Building. PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY In a=cence with current public health guidelines, beaweet tlwl,b,ehehviagally. The meeting can ht!F J/zoom.us(tt//269691644Opwa=VZNVNOdIVDJJ STATE OF COLORADO A01rW' hH2WtgNdrUT09 Password 266421 OF EAGLE Or via telephone: wbass s44 e1iz°ssiCOUNTY A request for a re mendation to the Vail Tows I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the Council ,o adept the C,rur ry Wildfire Protec,ior Plan as an .lament of the Town of Vail C.mpreh.n ve Plan to reduce the risk of wildfire in the com- VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper in whole o= d ,ffin9mrthda,ailsmragent r�o. printed, (PEG or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Applicant Town of Vail, not, .nt.a by Paul Cade Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said Planner: Greg Roy A request for the review of a aria... from section newspaper has been published continuous) and P Y ,1-6 Busin.se. and Build -g m.nu"oauon Sig" Val c°a., uh m. uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more — ,n am, ane. dnd o°°ai°variia�1c°'; athen-ba, and °iz�°a'h-pit than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first -pus signs, located at 180 SouthFrontageRoac oinats�°gameogeaiiearei(Pczo -o,and adnin, publication ofthe annexed legal notice or advertisement and Applicant: Vail Health, red resentedbyBraun that said newspaper has published the requested legal Planner`�...the, Sp— notice and advertisement as requested. Gounc ape-ibeE ter rreg°ie o,'amte,ame,„—r' .ant ,0 Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Tow, Coad to amend Section ,2-10-6 Parking; Off Sit, and Joint FecilOies, Vail Town Code, to refine stand The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, P 9 9 ards to be ueed In the review of uch proposale and tad,the re w process and other—did.ra- only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule iPEc2o=000s "i°9 forth a.,a°e i° `.gam tb.`.o provision. Bareg nA...ciance, Inc. plenli—t Roy The applications and informd,ion eboutthd propos- That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was able for public inspection during",,, hle avilthe Town of Vail CommunityD.v.loprn- published in the regular and entire issue of every number of D.Pa"meM, 75 South Frontage Road. The public a - ted to attend couthe"a. Pldaae call 970-479-2138 or visit www.vailgov.comlplannin0 for said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that add"°nal-f.nrl the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said Sig language int nation available upon request wi,n24-hournomidation, lona newspaperdated 3/27/2020 and that the last publication of P Publiahad Match 27,2020inthe Vail Daiy. 0000567469 said notice was dated 3/27/2020 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 4/7/2020. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 4/7/2020. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .1 ME LISPN MEDINAP r rnI, C' z FiATf Di -0111-11 NOTARY lil RgiOg9i9A N`/ vCfi3.¢CGpM;XPlRIGAk3Cil57et,20K'