Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-04-27 PEC0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION T0l,V?J OF ffl April 27, 2020, 1:00 PM Virtual 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order 1. 1. Zoom Meeting: In accordance with current public health guidelines, this meeting will be held virtually. Register in advance for this webinar: https://zoom.us/j/266241669 After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. 1.2. Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Henry Pratt, John -Ryan Lockman, Rollie Kjesbo, Pete Seibert, Brian Gillette Absent: Perez was absent from the middle of the discussion on item 2.2 through the rest of the meeting 1.3. Election of Officers Brian Gillette moved to approve Karen Perez as Vice Chair. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). Brian Gillette moved to approve Ludwig Kurz as Chair. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). Main Agenda 2.1. 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 1. Approval of this sign variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. Planner Spence introduced the project by letting the PEC know that this application has been updated with changes since the last meeting Tom Braun: Began by discussing changes since the last meeting this was heard. The Vail Health Sign on the top of the building has been removed and a number of other signs have had their sizes reduced in response to PEC feedback. Still in need of variances. In discussions with Vail Health, it was decided that the "red cross" sign is more widely recognized globally than the "blue H" for a symbol for a hospital. Commissioner Pratt: Noticed that there are signs off of the freeway that point out locations like town information center, why aren't there updates to these signs as part of this application? Braun: Indicated that they are working towards updating these signs. Chairman Kurz: Had a question about the size of the red cross sign at the top of the hospital. Feels that what is proposed won't be too imposing. Pratt: Didn't see a proposal for the red cross on the east face of the hospital. Braun: We have only provided a mock-up for the west side of the building. The red cross is proposed for both elevations No public comment Pratt: Feels that directional signs in Vail are critical for locating the hospital. For the ambulance entry and exit signs, are they aggressive enough? Doesn't want someone to accidentally try to park in the ambulance area. Braun: Had discussions with Staff about this and feel comfortable with the current proposal. If it becomes an issue in the future the signs will be reevaluated. Seibert: No issue with the scale of the red crosses. Wonders how necessary they are with smartphones, but ok with the scale. Kjesbo, Lockman: Both in support of the proposal and changes. Perez: Likes the changes, a little unsure about the size of the crosses. Gillette: Still a little wary of the crosses. Feels that the hospital has a stark look and the crosses only draw attention to this. Feels that currently people are finding hospitals through their phone, rather than looking up at buildings. Does not want to set a precedent for signs above 25'. Kurz: Feels that the red cross sign is appropriate. Rollie Kjesbo moved to approve with conditions. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (4-3). Ayes: (4) Kjesbo, Kurz, Lockman, Seibert Nays: (3) Gillette, Perez, Pratt 2.2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed 60 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 This item will be re -noticed and heard on June 8, 2020. Planner Roy: Gave a short summary of the previous discussion with the PEC. The PEC wanted to see a broader look at the parking issues in Vail and how they can be addressed. No action is being requested today, this meeting is more to gain direction from the PEC for possible solutions to dig i nto. Tom Braun: At the end of the last discussion it was decided to look more holistically at this gap in the code. Parking in Vail's two core area are somewhat unique. Lots of properties have private parking, there are two large parking structures, but we don't have on street parking. The parking garages and the pay -in -lieu are an effort to keep in line with the original vision of a pedestrian oriented core. The private parking present is generally not used by employees or average visitors to the valley. Braun then discussed the history of the parking garages and the pay -in -lieu properties. In the pay -in -lieu zones, these properties cannot have additional parking on-site, so they have to use the pay -in -lieu. For properties in the town core areas but not in the pay -in -lieu, they can add parking and garages. The idea is that these locations would not have their parking exit on pedestrian corridors. This is more difficult to provide for small businesses or additions that don't involve a full tear -down and rebuild. The original proposal of this application was aiming to address this perceived gap. Pratt: Asked if grating a parking relief variance for the Vail Mountain Lodge would be considered due to this being a special circumstance? Braun: Expressed doubt that the building shape could be used as grounds for a variance. Braun next discussed the option of using a special review to grant parking relief. This may work for properties that have little or no additional parking demand, but no viable for those that do. Gillette: Asked about seeing the 4 criteria for a special review. Pratt also expressed interest in seeing this. Roy showed the criteria and outlined them. Braun: The next option would be to modify the pay -in -lieu map to include more of these town core properties. I n discussion with staff it was felt that the current pay -in -lieu structure is well thought out. Does it make sense to add more properties to this provision when many of the properties that would be added currently have parking? These properties, when they redevelop, would no longer be allowed to have parking and as a result put more stress on the parking stock in the Town parking structures. Gillette: The pay -in -lieu fee is too low and has not kept up with the cost of actually developing parking spaces. It seems that the PEC needs to be able to grant a pay -in -lieu option. Could we create a separate pay -in -lieu tool that allows applicants to ask the PEC for the option to use pay -in -lieu for a portion of their parking requirement? Braun: Jumping off of this question, there is another option allowed by the code where the PEC could make limited expansion/use of the pay -in -lieu provision. There are some questions that would come with this option. Should this be limited to certain properties or uses? Should there be a % cap on the parking allowed to make use of this? Should the fee be adjusted? Lockman: Would the PEC make a recommendation to the Council on option 4, or would this be a PEC decision to make? Braun: Currently it would be a PEC decision. Spence: Feels that it should remain in PEC purview. Braun: Do you think there should be an established cap? Pratt: Doesn't like to see a hard number limit, but it also wouldn't make sense to allow these properties to have 100% of their parking be pay -in -lieu. Gillette: Wants to see an increase to the fee first and then have the town look into options for how to spend this additional money before digging into these options. We need some kind of plan for getting either multimodal options or more parking on the ground. Pratt: Likes the idea of having applicant ask for this kind of relief. Thinks that adjusting the fee is a council issue. Gillette: Stated that the PEC can still give its recommendation to the council. Kurz: Favorable to option 4, also echoed Gillette and Pratt's comments. Braun: There is one more option which is essentially the proposal put forward at the last meeting. This would involve leasing parking spaces to applicants. The PEC previously had large concerns about what happens at the end of this lease and how parking is addressed if the lease is not renewed. Could the previous option, PEC granted pay -in -lieu, be used as a solution to this end -of -lease issues? Gillette: Had a question about the Double Tree proposal for EHUs. Could we give applicants a mitigation bank for parking? Kurz: How would we incentivize private properties to create mitigation spaces. Many properties don't want people coming in and out of their properties who don't have some kind of business on the property. Gillette: Envisioning a setup where developers would set up parking with a specific buyer in mind. This may help the privacy issue. Spence: We have tried encouraging this with neighboring properties and there has generally not been any interest. Although this is anecdotal. Does not want to confuse problems such as day skier parking with what we are discussing. Pratt: Wonders if option 4 and option 5 could be combined into one. Kjesbo: Still worried about the enforceability of a lease option. Roy: In talking with Matt Mire the option may be to require that properties pay -in -lieu if they do not renew a parking lease. Kjesbo: What happens if the owner refused to pay this as well? Perez: Indicated that she needed to leave the meeting. Wanted to say that any lease option cannot be for less than 49 years. (Perez departs for the remainder of this meeting.) Spence: Asked about what the fee itself should be. Gillette: The fee needs to be based on the actual cost to build parking. Pointed to the Red Sandstone garage as a guide. Kjesbo: Echoed Gillette's comments. Spence: When we revisit this issue, it will need to be re -noticed in order to reflect the new scope of these discussions. Gillette: Ran through the presented options again. Also wants to look more into incentivizing utilizing unused parking in private garages. Spence: We usually do not see interest in doing this from properties with excess parking. Braun: Appreciates the feedback, feels that making the fee the price of constructing a parking spot is onerous. Pratt: May the use factors into the fee. More desirable uses maybe should have lower fees. Spence: Is there a difference between developments that are expanding the physical footprint of a building vs one that are increasing density or units within the existing envelope? Need to make sure we have review criteria that makes sense and that can encompass these differences. 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 the construction of a new hotel and on-site EHUs, located at 1783 North Frontage Road/Lot 9-12, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0008) This item will be renoticed and heard at the May 11, 2020, PEC meeting. Applicant: Vail Hotel Group LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates 2.4. 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) This item will be renoticed and heard at a later date. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.5. 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) This item will be renoticed and heard at a later date. Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.6. 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 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) This item will be renoticed and heard at a later date. Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. April 13, 2020 PEC Results Brian Gillette moved to approve. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Perez 4. Adjournment Brian Gillette moved to adjourn. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Perez 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: Zoom Meeting: In accordance with current public health guidelines, this meeting will be held virtually. Register in advance for this webinar: https://zoom.us/j/266241669 After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. 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: Election of Officers City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 27, 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 Description PEC20-0006 Vail Health Siqn Variance Staff Memorandum.pdf Staff Memorandum Attachment A. Protect Narrative revised April 16 2020.pdf Attachment A. Project Narrative, revised April 16, 2020 Attachment B. Vail Health Sign Package with matrix revised April 16 2020.pdf Attachment B. Vail Health Sign Package with matrix, revised April 16, 2020 Attachment C. PEC Meetinq minutes Aptril 13 2020 (in part).pdf Attachment C. PEC Meeting minutes, Aptril 13, 2020 (in part) Attachment D. Visual Mock-up of Tower Red Cross.pdf Attachment D. Visual Mock-up of Tower Red Cross 0 rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 27, 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 a condition, 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. On April 13, 2020, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed this application and continued it to the April 27, 2020 public hearing. In response to the comments from the commissioners, the application has been amended as follows: • The proposed Vail Health logo on the helicopter tower has been removed. • The "Hospital Entrance" sign located at the main entrance has been reduced from 14 to 12 square feet. • The "Ambulance Entrance" sign has been reduced from 16 to 12.5 square feet. • The "Ambulance Exit" sign has been reduced from 12.5 to 10 square feet. The applicant's revised project narrative (Attachment A), revised signage packet (Attachment B), the PEC meeting minutes (in part) from April 13, 2020 (Attachment C) and a visual mock-up of the location of the red cross on the tower (Attachment D) 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: Town of Vail Page 2 Title 11 — Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 1: Description, Purpose, and Applicability (in part) 11-1-2: PURPOSE.- A. URPOSE: 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 Town of Vail Page 3 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. 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. Building Frontage 10 feet - 49.99 feet 50 feet - 74.99 feet Allowed Total Sign Area FF1 20 square feet -FF 30 square feet Town of Vail Page 4 75 feet - 99.99 feet FF 40 square feet 100 feet - 149.99 feet FF F50 square feet 150 feet - 199.99 feet FF'1 50 square feet r -FF 200 feet plus 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. Town of Vail Page 5 (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.- (1) igns: (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 Town of Vail Page 6 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.- 1. pproval: 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 Address: 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 Town of Vail Page 7 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 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, the Vail Health Campus signage program responds to these unique circumstances while maintaining conformance with the purpose and intent of the Sign Regulations. Staff finds the proposed variance 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 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 meets this criterion. 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 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) Town of Vail Page 8 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with a condition, 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.- Approval onditions: Approval of this sign variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 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 27, 2020 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. 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 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 16, 2020 B. Vail Health Sign Package, revised April 6, 2020 C. PEC meeting minutes (in part) from April 13, 2020 D. Visual mock-up of the location of the red cross on the tower Town of Vail Page 9 VAIL HEALTH COMPREHENISVE SIGN PROGRAM and SIGN VARIANCE REQUEST March 16, 2020, revised 4/6/2020, 4/16/2020 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-six signs are proposed. The Town's sign code defines different 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. Thirteen of the proposed signs involve variances to the sign code. Ten of the thirteen sign variances are specifically for sign categories related to parking, traffic control and assisting visitors with wayfinding to and throughout the campus. One variance is for a Business Identification sign (for the Emergency Room) and two variances are for Public Information signs (red crosses on the helipad tower). 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 thirteen 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 10 square feet. The size of the signs is due to the importance of informing both skier transport vans from Vail Mountain and the general public that these areas are for ambulance access only. East Wing/South Frontage Road (sign EX.020 - 1.a.) 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. Four square feet is permitted for Traffic Control signs. East Wing/Helipad 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. A cross is a widely recognized symbol for emergency medical care. The symbol may be depicted as a white cross, a white cross within a red background, or with a red cross. The use of this symbol is documented in a 2004 report prepared by a partnership between the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Hablamos Juntos, and the Society for Environmental Graphic Design. Excerpts from this report are provided at the end of this document. Online searches identified many examples in other countries where a red cross is used as a symbol for emergency medical care and facilities. Examples of these and a few domestic examples are found at the end of this report. Based on the information above, internal discussions within Vail Health, and with input from the project architect and sign designer, the red cross was determined to be the most effective and most widely recognized symbol to identify the emergency room at the Vail Campus. 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.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. EMERGENCY ROOM k MEW si E -G C pd - If I., ION lam lop, Q URGENCES Chirurgicale- Medic ale AMBULANCIA CRUZ ROJA MEXICANA LAS CHOAPAS,VER. Universal Symbols in Health Care Produced by rHablamos Juntos Developing a Symbols -Based Wayfinding System: Implementation Guidebook With support from onE!E!r Robert Wood Johnson Foundation f� Hablamosluntos Symbol designer Mies Hora (Ultimate Symbol) was engaged to design the final set of symbols. Hora also refined the original set for consistency. The result is a comprehensive, 50 -symbol set that adheres to internationally recognized symbol design standards. While the symbols library will always remain a work in progress, the goal is to develop a set of symbols that will achieve acceptance among designers and facility managers. The entire, updated Universal Symbols in Health Care set is presented in this guidebook and can also be downloaded from the Hablamos Juntos or SEGD websites. Universal Symbols ago in Health Care, 0 + expanded symbol set91 im 0 0 0 13 11 El 11 M The university consortium's research and design work is documented in two reports: Signs That Work Phase 2: Symbol Design Curriculum Report and Signs That Work Phase 2: Symbol Design Research Report. Experience Analysis One of the key factors in developing a successful wayfinding system is analysis of the visitor wayfinding experience. Experience analysis, including interviews with visitors and facility staff, creates a complete picture of the facility's wayfinding needs and helps determine the effectiveness of symbols. ES:4 I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I UNIVERSAL SYMBOLS IN HEALTH CARE ILI rr 10 !� = � as � �: �eOir Q MRI I LAI The university consortium's research and design work is documented in two reports: Signs That Work Phase 2: Symbol Design Curriculum Report and Signs That Work Phase 2: Symbol Design Research Report. Experience Analysis One of the key factors in developing a successful wayfinding system is analysis of the visitor wayfinding experience. Experience analysis, including interviews with visitors and facility staff, creates a complete picture of the facility's wayfinding needs and helps determine the effectiveness of symbols. ES:4 I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I UNIVERSAL SYMBOLS IN HEALTH CARE HHablamos Junt­-11os W Case Study: Destination Hierarchy and Referent Naming Women & Infants Hospital Symbols set developed for Women & Infants Hospital had experimented with symbols -based wayfinding directory signs at Women & Infants Hospital. before its facility renovation, and developed a plan linking health care symbols, building identity, and the room -numbering system. Education Center Building Identification The building is part of a large campus, so building identification was considered y Neonatal Intensive less necessary/prominent for the interior wayfinding system. Care Unit Building Zones and Floors The facility's two main sections, Main Building and South Pavilion, are marked Antenatal Care Unit with major gateways and directory signs at the main entrance. These identities ' are not as important for interior wayfinding. Cafeteria primary Destinations © Eight destinations in the Main Building and three in the South Pavilion are Diagnostic Imaging identified by health care symbols. 1011i]l Support Destinations Medical Records 4111m=P Five destinations (including cafeteria, bank, and restrooms) are identified by circular symbols different from the square health care symbols. Family Liaison QNm60 Room Addresses Room numbers and addresses appear as a subset to the primary destination Laboratory W" areas on directional and destination signs. Business Office EMERGENCY Emergency/Triage 2:4 1 GUIDEBOOK I UNIVERSAL SYMBOLS IN HEALTH CARE Destination Names In most cases, the hospital used the destination names assigned with the USHC symbols set. The most significant exception is Pediatrics. Because the facility is devoted to women's health during delivery, the terminology was changed to focus on natal care. To ensure that this approach is well understood, the facility is adding explanatory handouts to its wayfinding program. HHoblamos Juntos At Women & Infants Hospital (left and top), symbols used for support destinations (i.e., restrooms, cafeteria) are a different shape than those used for medical departments. At Children's Mercy Hospital (bottom), symbols for the emergency room hospital zones are different colors than the other symbols. UNIVERSAL SYMBOLS IN HEALTH CARE I GUIDEBOOK 1 2:5 fn.� s: +^ _........ °"^swear c`Nc ®wi�mnr ��kcUu.r �® FnEeervrc- Qioboms �R DeparhrrerL'Seryiw Neonatal Intensive Lerel ®Re'rrwmn Care Unit ® Patient Floors 4.5,6 When desk- - Dleasenressbutton w�` ®Ambulatory ® Surgical Unit Cafeteria 2440-24501 l - ® coastway community sank panel Layout: Type 4FM - Sign 2-4DAA Symbols that represent Diagnostic Imaging separate levels in a Rhode Island Hospital Tunnel 2440-2450 2410-2410 destination hierarchy can be differentiated by color, shape, positive/negative contrast, _ or size. At Women & Infants Hospital (left and top), symbols used for support destinations (i.e., restrooms, cafeteria) are a different shape than those used for medical departments. At Children's Mercy Hospital (bottom), symbols for the emergency room hospital zones are different colors than the other symbols. UNIVERSAL SYMBOLS IN HEALTH CARE I GUIDEBOOK 1 2:5 Case Study: Sign Vocabulary and Guidelines Children's Mercy Hospital The wayfinding program for Children's Mercy Hospital in Kansas City, Missouri, optimizes symbol legibility in the face of two difficult issues. The extensive number of departments and zones require large numbers of building unit icons, health care symbols, and support symbols. In addition, low ceiling heights and subdued artificial lighting made the use of large overhead signs difficult. In response, the wayfinding program incorporated the following strategies: Small number of sign types The hospital employs only three major sign types: a large, wall -mounted sign that can serve as both a directory and wayfinding sign, large directional signs at major decision points, and identification signs. Zone identification to structure information The use of color -coded zones is crucial to supporting the large number of symbols used in the facility. b, Castle Elors and Pp .. Towemrs Kidney Conic l Hid ney LnIt OTPT & Spic Id Care Ginlcs Dni[Grn EIOr im !o San1C Day Surgery (W N b. c. Special Care Clinic UNIVERSAL SYMBOLS IN HEALTH CARE I GUIDEBOOK F1 HablamosJuntos The sign vocabulary developed for Children's Mercy Hospital shows how symbols are deployed across a range of sign types. (Note: placeholders are used for incomplete symbols.) 3:3 H Hablamos Juntos go Large symbols All wall -mounted signs use larger (at least 2 -in.) symbols than those typically seen on standard wall -mounted directory signs and identification signs. Only three sizes for symbols Only three sizes are used for symbols: 3 -in. symbols for wall -mounted signs, 6 -in. symbols on identification on support signs, and 12 -in. symbols for identification on primary destination signs. +n +0".p^. _ F®M At Children's Mercy Hospital, clear guidelines for locating signs at key decision points made the sign system more legible and reduced clutter. Multiple consistent directory signs at every major decision point Directory signs were placed at multiple corners of every major decision point in the facility, perpendicular to visitor line of site in all directions. Directory wayfinding signs were configured similarly, with health care symbols, support symbols, and unit symbols in the same locations on the signs. 3:4 1 GUIDEBOOK I UNIVERSAL SYMBOLS IN HEALTH CARE 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� ov o0 � o 0 0 0 V 0 c N > N > r V) 0 M Z m m o` cn o 04 —mm r cu m'T�� u u X O N •- N d o C'o o 04 t0 o n o rO m o o o u — o p � 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 eco V) v v� Qm ov o0 V N > N > r V) 0 M s Q lu u u N in CS in > > � U U a - U po CT) 02 eco 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 aQ o o E c > h Eco a o 2 o, mmmmmCD = -a m m a) a)a) o - 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 aQ o o E c > h Eco a o 2 o, - = -a m m a) a)a) o ■ 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 aQ o o E c > h Eco a o 2 o, - = -a m m a) a)a) o ■ vm -U )PO 6) O n ■ h 0 CLNa y U) � 2 N N o^ o - E 'e aQ o o E c > h Eco a o 2 a o E - „tea �a a o ■ 0 ■ 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 \ \ / | \\ .. . u ] ) __ O \ E§ >ƒ� �\ 0404 \ r W } � vi 7 \ 6\\ | � | \\ u ] ) \ E§ >ƒ� �\ w \ r »_ } � vi 7 | \ / ❑ } � § � I �--§---� \\ 99999 \ ] % § ƒ ) \ CD � w \+ .. . :\ N \ �® \CD 't ®9 — O ��§ — \\5\ =x .. . , / 14- //> j y 2 _ 2 C32so ) / 999/ - \\ \ / / ) \ - z - \ �'w ) E cqcs \ t o \ _ , 7CD \\j j \/ \}000� \ ft \ = — o\ :* \\ /\\ ` �\ƒ \ § � I �--§---� \\ \ ] % § ƒ ) > w \ c »_ 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 N O W N N W O a Im N c U E U � V 0 mmmmm Q Q m - a o io04 o� 0 ` ` (n C 0 wwwo z7�mm t 0c IL > _ N 0 ao N 04 o 0 o o - W vv C) mommm� 04 �0 04 2 01 U) N 6 6 N rn > > � /1 U° L o � r 04 04 m o ro o cd (d w vV �� w N LU aj cu 04 o o o Q _ 0 cu o m — cu o -' 0 v �' �' o ci ci ni a� o C 0 _o= �o a > -oo N O W N N W O a Im N m d c U E U � V 0 Q Q Q m - a o N o� 0 ` ` (n C 0 D E IL a oa V t IL > _ N 0 o LO N a W vv C) C) 04 �0 04 2 01 U) N 6 6 N rn > > =oo w w _o= �o a V � t z° o > o N W I VV � � m d c U E U � V 0 Q Q Q m �v a o aN n o� 0 ` ` (n C 0 D E IL a oa V t IL > _ 0 � Q U/ O d H W vv V C C 6 6 01 U) N 6 6 N o > > 0 �v _o= �o V � t >f6 N W T Q VV U N f6 N m d m d U E U � V Q 3 Q Q Q m o V a o aN n O aN V ` ` (n D E Q a oa D E IL a oa O N W moi® z � U 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 ' r 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 o o ¢ > N L L CSI C4 0. a Dr o 0 0--oo N � .= z O>o vi moi® z � U a rrrrir aZ r� rn a0 �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 Nva WQ V V ' r a v P d z � U a o aZ Q O rn a0 �V a m � a zm d � O CD >�o m > N Z a v P d v � U o Q O rn a0 �V a m � a d � O CD >�o m > N Z d f.l N U � � O O mV 3 h � a �s �s N aro `m tn `m tn Nva WQ V V u N N f6 O N o > > a v P d � U E � Q O a0 �V a m � m IL �A t6C 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 Nva Nva 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 m m 0 0 nn m m m m m m m m m m I IV w w w w w w w w w w w w w O 0 0 0 0 o v v o 0 0 0 0 N I N N N N N N .N N N N N N N V N N V �n w t0 O O O v 0 v v 0 0 0 fp O O vWn , Wv O v O O v v O v O O v v Z Z Z} Z}} Z Z Z > Z Z}} Z} Z Z}} Z} Z Z}} 0) 0) N N 0) 0) C 10 C Y •VI Y •h — a d Y W W •VI Y 'H 0) 3 0 0) 3 Y 0 7 Nw w N w YO C 3-- w w - w YO p w w Q NI lOD cN-I lOD V Z Q NI N NV cN-I lOD Q Z V V V V lOD V Z Z V V cN-I l�D lOD cN-I V V 0) 00 0 N c C N C C y •h N •h y •� 'H p 7 p 3 p w 7 3 Q w Q Q LD LD 'tt V O O dVN N LD n 1 M cd A N 00 N N M bD > bD bD bD bD bD bD Y Y Y Y Y c c E c c c c c c c c c } m m Ev o o E E E E E E E o v v° o o v o === v o v= c@@c c o c c c c c@@ c O _@ _ _ E c m t E E E E E E bD bD bD bD bD bD bD bD N N '� N b N bD N N N N N N N N N bD N bD c Y C Y Y Y c Y Y Y c Y Y c Y O O C� C pc� O '6 7 7 Y Y 7 7 7 7 7 c c 7 7 7 C C C 7 7 7 c •' 0 0 0 0 0 i' O O O i' O O O tb tb O 0 0 tb tb tb O 0 0 0 tb - E E bD- a a E E - E E E E E E E E E •N 0) N — — N •1V/1 Q Q •N v v N (0 E N Q Q N v N (0 (0 (0 v v N (0 (0 v v v N (0 v N v G LL LL W G Q Q LL G LL LL LL LL LL LL LL QO O Q O O c c O Y Y N } O bD bD n o O O O O O E E O O i i 0 0 n n r p p c m m c c c c p c c c U 2 p U c c C v O cO O O O— Opp O — v 0 0 V V V V bD V V V bD V V Y c p o@ o o.o m m r m co r co r z z m m r F F F F m r LL LL F F m m r r �--� m V V Il 00 00 n 00 n V V N N N M Lf) Lf) M N 00 lf) LO W LO O N + N Y N d (U 4)@ v@Lm V, a a } C 0 ONO c -I c -I N N N M I c -I N V lD N M V N W n W m 6 6 �--i �--i N V N N n W m O ti .`�I X X id X X X X X X X I w w w X X X X X X X X X X X X X W > } C 0 ONO Z E N bOD o N > W > ? O V N Z LL -p bD bD bD bD bDIn Q iN V V J Q O C9 Z N N N c i i i W LU C Y Y Y E O 3 C O O O O G C bD bD W W W J V W N@ V i i i i N@ -0 Q (0W p N c C C C W U �J M 3 J > W W W W 3 O O J J J N N M V In lO n W m O N DO D � Q CL Q O O bbD W N 0) t7 3 3p_ 3 m W- r �"' �� Y .? .? p W W W W bD Z M M v N N v N N '6 "6 O O O O O Y Y Y Y Y (0 b bi V(0 wE wE @c YO YO 4! N W YN YN YN YN t C O O pO O --@Q Q Q- Q- c c .r .r r � I w w N Q w w Q x x Q Q 2 2 2 2 2 2 N N M V In lD n W Ol O N N M V In lD N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N TOWN OF VAI!' ` PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 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 URL to join. https://zoom.us/j/269691644 Password: 266421 Or join by phone: Dial: US: +1 346 248 7799 Webinar ID: 269 691 644 1.2. Attendance Present: Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Henry Pratt, John -Ryan Lockman, Rollie Kjesbo, Pete Seibert, and Brian Gillette Absent: 1.3 Swearing in of new members. 2. Main Agenda 2.1. 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) 20 min. Applicant: Hilliard West LLC, represented by Pierce Austin Architects Planner: Erik Gates Motion: Approve First: Gillette Second: Lockman Vote: 6-0-0 Kurz absent Planner Gates presents 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. 2.2. 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) 20 min. Applicant: Vail Health, represented by Braun Associates Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Table to 27th of April First: Gillette Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 Planner Spence presents 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 presents. 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. 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. 2.3. 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) 20 min. Applicant: Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Greg Roy Motion: Motion: Table to 4/27 First: Gillette Second: Kjesbo Vote: 7-0-0 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 i r 4 i -Itj plc' City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 27, 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.pdf Staff Report Attachment A. Amendment to Parkinq Regulations Final.pdf Attachment A. Amendment to Parking Regulations 0) rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 27, 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 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. At the previous PEC meeting held on April 13th the PEC indicated that moving forward with an amendment to only one section would not be preferable and would instead like to have a larger discussion on parking reductions and exemptions in the Town. The application has been brought to this meeting on the 27th to facilitate that discussion. There is no request for a recommendation at this meeting. No motion is necessary. The following attachments are available for review: Attachment A — Amendment to Parking Regulations II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Applicant is proposing to update the Vail Town Code to amend the appropriate section that allows for off-site parking options for developments that lack the ability to add parking facilities on-site. The Applicant requests the PEC have a discussion on possible parking regulation amendments and give direction on which amendment(s) would be most suitable to pursue. For the purpose of this discussion the applicant wishes to look at the possible parking solutions available for properties to do additions or alterations when they lack the option to add parking on-site. Under current Town Code a property has the following options: • A variance subject to the criteria in Chapter 17 • A special review under Section 12-10-20 • To find a space off-site in accordance with Section 12-10-6 • To pay in lieu if located in the established zone in Section 12-10-21. Discussion on these individual options are located in Attachment A, including viability and specific questions on issues of implementation. The following points should be considered during the discussion: 1. What is the problem, if any exists, that needs solving with the current regulations? 2. Of the sections highlighted in Attachment A, which seems to have the best potential to solve that problem? 3. Is there more than one section that would be appropriate? 4. Does the PEC agree with a certain amendment suggested for that section or sections? 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. 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 Town of Vail Page 2 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 prov des 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. IV. 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. Vail Town Code 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 town council may permit off site or jointly used parking facilities if located within three hundred feet (300) of the use served. Authority to permit off site or joint parking facilities shall not extend to parking spaces required by this title to be located within the main building on a site, but may extend to parking spaces permitted to be unenclosed. 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, and will not cause traffic congestion or an unsightly concentration of parked cars. The council 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. (Ord. 29(2005) § 29: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.400) 12-10-16: EXEMPT AREAS, PARKING FUND ESTABLISHED.- Town STABLISHED: Town of Vail Page 3 A. Criteria: The Town Council by resolution may exempt certain areas from the off street parking and loading requirements of this chapter if alternative means will meet the off street parking and loading needs of all uses in the area. Prior to exempting any area from the off street parking and loading requirements, the Council shall determine the following.- 1. ollowing: 1. That the exemption is in the interests of the area to be exempted and in the interests of the Town at large. 2. That the exemption will not confer any special privilege or benefit upon properties or improvements in the area to be exempted, which privilege or benefit is not conferred on similarly situated properties elsewhere in the Town. 3. That the exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or improvements in the vicinity of the area to be exempted. 4. That suitable and adequate means will exist for provision of public, community, group or common parking facilities, for provision of adequate loading facilities and for a system for distribution and pick up of goods, and for financing, operating and maintaining such facilities; and that such parking, loading and distribution facilities shall be fully adequate to meet the existing and projected needs generated by all uses in the area to be exempted. B. Parking Fund: For projects located within the Town's "Parking Pay -In -Lieu" Zones (as identified on the Town's official "Parking Pay -In -Lieu Zone" maps, incorporated by reference) property owners or applicants shall be required to contribute to the Town Parking Fund, hereby established for the purpose of meeting the demand and requirements for vehicle parking to the extent outlined in applicable master plan documents and the zoning regulations. At such time as any property owner or other applicant proposes to develop or redevelop a parcel of property within an exempt area which would require parking and/or loading areas, the owner or applicant shall pay to the Town the parking fee hereinafter required: 1. The Parking Fund established in this section shall receive and disburse funds for the purpose of conducting parking studies or evaluations, construction of parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities, the payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking facilities, and administrative services relating to parking. 2. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant shall be determined by the Town Council. 3. If any parking funds have been paid in accordance with this section and if subsequent thereto a special or general improvement district is formed and assessments levied for the purpose of paying for parking improvements, the payer shall be credited against the assessment with the amount previously paid. Town of Vail Page 4 4. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant is hereby determined to be eighteen thousand five hundred ninety seven dollars eighty cents ($18,597.80) per space for residential uses (including, but not limited to, accommodation units, timeshares and fractional fee units). There is no pay in lieu fee for commercial uses. This fee shall be automatically adjusted annually by the percentage the consumer price index of the City of Denver has increased or decreased over each successive year. 5. For additions or enlargements of any existing building or change of use that would increase the total number of parking spaces required, an additional parking fee will be required only for such addition, enlargement or change and not for the entire building or use. No refunds will be paid by the Town to the applicant or owner. 6. The owner or applicant has the option of paying the total parking fee at the time of building permit or paying over a five (5) year period. If the latter course is taken, the first payment shall be paid on or before the date the building permit is issued. Four (4) more annual payments will be due to the town on the anniversary of the building permit. Interest of ten percent (10%) per annum shall be paid by the applicant on the unpaid balance. If the owner or applicant does choose to pay the fee over a period of time, he or she shall be required to sign a promissory note which describes the total fee due, the schedule of payments, and the interest due. Promissory note forms are available at the offices of the Department of Community Development. 7. When a fractional number of spaces results from the application of the requirements schedule (section 12-10-10 of this chapter) the parking fee will be calculated using that fraction. This applies only to the calculation of the parking fee and not for on site requirements. (Ord. 29(2005) § 29: Ord. 4(200 1) § 2: Ord. 3(1999) § 11: Ord. 10(l 994) § 1: Ord. 6(1991) § 1: Ord. 30(1982) § 1: Ord. 47(1979) § 1: Ord. 8(1973) § 14.800) 12-10-20: SPECIAL REVIEW PROVISIONS.- Notwithstanding ROVISIONS: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 12-10-18 of this chapter, the Planning and Environmental Commission may approve a reduction to the number of required spaces specified in section 12-10-10 of this chapter, provided a report documenting the presence of unique parking characteristics is provided by a qualified consultant and the following findings are made by the Planning and Environmental Commission.- A. ommission: 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 Town of Vail Page 5 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. In reaching a decision, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider survey data submitted by a qualified transportation planning or engineering consultant. Projects under "special review" are subject to additional scrutiny by the Planning and Environmental Commission after development plan approval if it is deemed necessary to verify continued compliance with the above listed criteria. The maximum allowable reduction in the number of required spaces shall not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of the total number required under section 12-10-10 of this chapter. (Ord. 29(2005) § 29: Ord. 9(2000) § 5) 12-10-21: PARKING PAY IN LIEU ZONES ESTABLISHED.- The STABLISHED: The "Parking Pay In Lieu Zone" maps (attached to the ordinance codified herein, and available for inspection in the Office of the Town Clerk) shall be used to identify properties within the Parking Pay In Lieu Zones referenced in section 12-10-16 of this chapter. Properties will be required to comply with the amended program upon demolition/rebuild. Properties not included in the Pay In Lieu Zones may apply to the Planning and Environmental Commission for review if the provision of on site parking on the property would circumvent relevant objectives of applicable comprehensive plan documents including, but not limited to, parking, pedestrianization, and vehicle penetration elements. (Ord. 29(2005) § 29: Ord. 4(2001) § 3) V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION This proposal is for discussion purposes only at this time. No recommendation is necessary. VI. Attachments Attachment A — Amendment to Parking Regulations Town of Vail Page 6 AoWPBuN ASSOCIATES, INC. LAND PLANNING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM Memo To: Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Memo From: Tom Braun CC: Jonathan Spence, Greg Roy, Bryon Fitzgerald Date: April 22, 2020 RE: Amendments to Parking Regulations On April 13th an amendment to Section 12-10-6 of the zoning code was presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). The intention of this amendment was to clarify and improve an existing section of the code that allows a landowner to satisfy on-site parking requirements with off-site parking spaces. During discussion of this proposal, among other comments the PEC requested that a more comprehensive look be taken at potential options for addressing the intention of this amendment. This memo addresses: • the goals of this effort, • how parking is currently handled within Vail Village and Lionshead, • issues that have been identified with parking in Vail Village and Lionshead, and with the parking regulations, and • potential options for addressing this situation. Goal of this effort To evaluate current zoning/parking regulations to ensure that they are effectively addressing the needs of the community in a manner that will further the Town's development goals and objectives. The focus of this effort pertains to Vail's two main activity centers - Vail Village and Lionshead. Parking in Vail Village and Lionshead Parking in Vail Village and Lionshead is provided two ways — on-site parking at private development sites and in the Town's two public parking structures. Private Parking On-site parking at private developments in Vail Village and Lionshead primarily serves residential and lodging uses. By way of example, Talisman Lodge, All Seasons, Vantage Point, Manor Vail and Antlers are all lodging or condominium properties that provide on-site parking for their owners and guests. Other mixed-use properties such as the Vail Village Inn, the Lodge at Vail, Sonnenalp and Arrabelle provide on-site parking, but in most cases patrons to retail or restaurant uses at these properties do not park on-site. While it may be possible to valet park at some of these developments, patrons of their retail and restaurants by and large utilize the Town's parking structures. Gateway Building • 12 Vail Road • Suite 600 • Vail, Colorado • 81657 970-926-7575 • www.braunassociates.com Town Parking Structures The Town's parking structures are widely viewed as skier parking for Vail Mountain, and that skier parking is the primary purpose of these structures. While this view may be valid, the structures also provide the primary parking resource for visitors to Vail Village and Lionshead. They also provide an important parking resource for employees who work in these two areas. Pay in Lieu Parking The Town established a pay -in -lieu parking program for Vail Village and Lionshead in 1973. This program defines specific properties in Vail Village and Lionshead that are not allowed to provide on-site parking (or to add to existing on-site parking). If these properties redevelop in a manner that creates additional parking demand, a cash payment is made to the Town to satisfy parking requirements, in -lieu of providing new parking on-site. The 25 properties within the pay -in -lieu zone are located within the core areas, or most pedestrianized areas of Vail Village (21 properties) and Lionshead (4 properties). The concept is based on the premise that not allowing more on-site parking in these areas will lessen vehicle traffic and in doing so benefit the pedestrian character and experience. Funds generated by the pay -in -lieu program are used to construct or maintain parking facilities, to conduct parking studies, and to pay bonds on parking facilities. The Core Area Parking Map is found on the following page. Issues to address By and large the combination of private parking and the Town's parking structures works fairly - well for Vail Village and Lionshead. While there are certainly broad topics that have been discussed in the past and will likely be discussed in the future (i.e., capacity limitations of the structures on peak ski days or summer events, Frontage Road parking, if or how it may be possible to open up under-utilized private parking for public use, how managed solutions could be implemented), these topics are outside of the scope of this effort. Observations on how parking is handled in Vail Village and Lionshead raises a fundamental question — How does a property pursue a redevelopment, expansion or property improvement that triggers an additional on-site parking requirement, if the property is not located in the pay -in -lieu zone and the property does not have a realistic way of providing additional on-site parking? The short answer is that such properties would have no viable opportunity for implementing a redevelopment. The pay -in -lieu program provides a way for properties located in the pay -in -lieu zone to satisfy parking requirements. However, most properties in Vail Village and Lionshead have no feasible way of increasing their supply of on-site parking. As such, these properties are precluded from initiating any improvements that would have an additional parking requirement. M m �L W I L U _ C - �,,-Jl �L♦ W U I _ � I r N Q I � w 3-5, ill T N cu N cn N Q Q Q) O O U U ca co M m �L W L U C �L♦ W U N Q w N cu N cn N Q Q Q) O O U U ca co � LL J a) a U U a- vx M m Current parking regulations create a situation in Vail Village and Lionshead whereby redevelopments that may otherwise be considered desirable cannot occur. Examples of desirable uses may include retail or restaurant expansions or the creation of additional lodge rooms or meeting rooms. These types of uses are encouraged by various elements of the Town's master plan and in keeping with the Town's development objectives. The premise of this amendment process is to establish a mechanism for such properties to satisfy parking requirements and in doing so allow for what otherwise may be considered desirable redevelopments to occur. Options In response to the PEC's comments to look comprehensively at this situation, below is a summary of existing options in the zoning code and potential code amendments that could provide a mechanism for properties in Vail Village and Lionshead to satisfy parking requirements. 1. Variance Request A variance request to on-site parking requirements could be proposed. To grant a variance the PEC would need to find a physical hardship exists and that the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privilege. Physical hardship has typically been considered site constraints that make it impossible or impractical to satisfy site development standards. Summary Based on the town's prior interpretations in evaluating variance requests, it would seem unlikely that a finding of physical hardship could be made in evaluating a request to not provide on-site parking. Making such a finding could also create precedent concerns with other variance requests and what is considered a physical hardship. This option is not considered viable. 2. Section 12-10-20 Special Review Provisions This section allows the PEC to reduce parking requirements subject to review of a study demonstrating unique parking consideration is provided by the applicant (i.e. demonstrating the actual parking demand varies from requirements prescribed by the code). This provision may be viable for a project that can demonstrate it will not have additional parking demand, but it would not work for a project that will increase parking demand. Summary While in concept this provision of the code may have merit, it involves "case by case" review with no real clear standards for evaluating the request. In addition, it would only be viable for a project that can demonstrate it will have no or less parking demand than code requirements. This option is not considered viable. 3. Amendment to Amend pay -in -lieu parking map/Section 12-10-16 Properties included in the pay -in -lieu zone include properties located along Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive in Vail Village and properties in Lionshead with no or constrained access to a public right-of-way. In concept, the Town's parking map could be modified to include additional properties in the pay -in -lieu zone. While in concept this is possible, adding properties to the pay -in -lieu zone raises the following questions: • What factors should be used in determining properties to be added (i.e. location on bus route, location on pedestrian corridor)? • Any potential properties that could be added to the pay -in -lieu program currently have access to a public right-of-way and have existing on-site parking. Is it a wise policy decision to include these properties (considering that if they re- develop, they would not be permitted to replace on-site parking, but would have to pay into the parking fund) in the pay -in -lieu program? Summary It seems counter -intuitive to add properties to the pay -in -lieu program that currently have on-site parking and are not located in a defined pedestrian area. To broadly expand this program could over -stress the town's parking structures. This option is not considered viable. 4. Section 12-10-21 — Parking Pay in Lieu Zones Established This existing section of the code reads: The "Parking Pay In Lieu Zone" maps (attached to the ordinance codified herein, and available for inspection in the Office of the Town Clerk) shall be used to identify properties within the Parking Pay In Lieu Zones referenced in section 12- 10-16 of this chapter. Properties will be required to comply with the amended program upon demolition/rebuild. Properties not included in the Pay In Lieu Zones may apply to the Planning and Environmental Commission for review if the provision of on-site parking on the property would circumvent relevant objectives of applicable comprehensive plan documents including, but not limited to, parking, pedestrianization, and vehicle penetration elements. (Ord. 29(2005) § 29: Ord. 4(2001) § 3) This section of the code was recently utilized to address a one -space parking deficit involving a very unique situation at Elevation, a new project planned for Lionshead. The intention of this section is less than clear and as written is quite vague. In concept however, with refinements this section could provide a mechanism for properties to satisfy parking requirements and in doing so allow for otherwise desirable redevelopments to occur. With modifications, this section could be a viable option. This section could remedy the "black and white" nature of the existing pay -in -lieu program, its utilization could be limited to redevelopments and improvements that further the town's development objectives, and the extent of which the program is utilized could be limited. Questions to address in considering this option include: • Do the properties to be eligible for this section need to be specifically identified or could all properties within Vail Village and Lionshead be eligible? • Is it appropriate to limit the use of this provision to redevelopments or uses that are consistent with the Town's development objectives, and if so, would those uses be retail, restaurants, meeting facilities, lodge rooms? Others? • Is it appropriate to cap the extent to which this provision could be used, i.e. set a maximum number of spaces or a maximum percentage of the properties parking requirement? • Is it necessary to modify the dollar amount of the price per parking space? If so, how would this figure be set, should the figure be documented in the zoning code or established by resolution, and is this determination the purview of the PEC or Town Council? Summary Subject to further discussion and resolution of the questions above, this appears to be a viable option for addressing the goals of this effort. 5. Amendment to Section 12-10-6 — Parking; Off site and joint facilities This existing section of the zoning code allows for on-site parking demand to be addressed by off-site parking that may be on leased land (or established by easement), or on other land owned by the applicant. A proposal to amend this section of the code was presented to the PEC, foremost among concerns raised by the PEC was with leased parking and specifically, what would happen at the end of a lease term. Initial input from the town attorney regarding off-site leased parking is that there may be enforcement challenges in the event a landowner does not provide a new lease at the end of the initial lease term. It could, however, be feasible for the town to mandate that an applicant pay a fee at the end of the lease term in the event a new off-site lease cannot be provided. This type of arrangement could be facilitated by implementation of option 94 above. Summary Section 12-10-6 has merit. Subject to resolving issues with leased off-site parking and other considerations discussed at the April 13th PEC meeting, amendments to this section of the code are still warranted. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 27, 2020 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new hotel and on-site EHUs, located at 1783 North Frontage Road/Lot 9-12, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0008) This item will be renoticed and heard at the May 11, 2020, PEC meeting. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 27, 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) This item will be renoticed and heard at a later date. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 27, 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) This item will be renoticed and heard at a later date. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 27, 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) This item will be renoticed and heard at a later date. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: April 13, 2020 PEC Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Pec results 041320(1).Pdf April 13, 2020 PEC Results 0 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 Ad #: 0000574972-01 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 4/24/2020 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 4/24/2020 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. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .1 ME LYNPd EDINA r rnI, eDg Ft ATI: CtcuLzn4A€7n NOWZY Iil2gir�Og9i9A Rr/i.ce"il (i18:Xi'lRIEGAk3GilS7et,28K' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April 27, 2020, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Can to Order 1.1. ZOO. Meeting'. In accordance with current public health guidelines, this meam, will be held virtually. Register in advance for this webinar: Mips://zoo..u,/j/266241669 Aker registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. 1.2. Attendance 1.3. Election of Clubs, 2. Main Agenda 2.1. Areq ... tforthe reviewof—mirtcefrom Section 11-6 Businessand Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Cotle, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10, Variances, Vail Town Cotle, to allow for a variance to the tuber and size of hospital campus signs, located at 180 South Frontage Road W.ddL. E and F, Vail Village Filing 2, and ..ding forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0006) 20 min. Applicant: Vail Health, represented by Braun Associates Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.2. Areq... t fora r.comm.ntlaion to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulation amentlment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code to amend Section 12-10-6 Parking, On Site and Joint Facildies, Vail Town Code, to refine standards to be usetl In the review of such proposals antl to clarify the ew process and other considerations, and samrg forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-000]) 60 min. Applicant: Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Greg Roy 2.3. A request for review of an Exterior Alteration, our ... nttc Section 12-7J-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Val Town Code, to allow for the construction of a new hotel and on-site EHUs, located M 1783 North Frontage ROatl/Lot 9-12, Bukehr C—Resubtlivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC2P0008) This item will bar renoticed and heard at the May 11, 2020, PEC meeting. Applicant: Vail Hotel Group LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates 2.4. A request for a recorn—dation 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 Cade, to amgnd Section 12-6I-8: Parking antl Loading, l0 revise the requirements related t0 mobility and onsite parking in the Housing (H) District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PE120-0005) This item will be renoticed and heard at a later date. Applicant: Town o1 Vail Planner: J—han Spence 2.5. A request for the review of a vadance from Section 12-7A-11: =and Loading, Vail Town Code in .—m -d. 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 RoadlLot 1,% Hanson Ranch Road Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC20-0003) This item will be renoticed and heard at a later data. Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, representetl by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.6. A request for the review of a Major EMerio, Alteration, pursuam t0 Section 12-]A-12, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Cotle, 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 north details in regard thereto. (PE C19-0008) This item will be renoticed and heard at a later don.. Applicant: Vailpoint LLC, represented by Sarah J Baker PC Planner: Jonathan Spence 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. April 13, 2020 PEC Results 4. Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during eguIri Lice hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, ]5 South Frontage Road. The public is nvited to attend the project orientation and the site vil 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 con- sider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 far additional information. Please call 711 far sign language inter- pretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily April 24, 2020. 0000574972 Ad #: 0000571861-01 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Mat Me Planning and Your account number is: 1023233 In- . .hk hearng in aloc danceTOWUh °.h.12- 2 3-' 3-6, Vail Town Code, on April 27, 2020 at 1:00 pm PROOF OF PUBLICATION n the Town of Vail Municipal Building. VAIL DAILY Join from a PC, M- -d, iPh— or Android d.wce: I IPPll ra cicmWeUR624186b. 9 STATE OF COLORADO Password: 266421 Oesaiption: A meeting &the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission COUNTY OF EAGLE Orl d,by ptone: D I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of US: +1 669 900 6833 Webinar 10: 266 241 669 the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper in A request for review of an Extern A11—ficn, pun 1° Section 12-7J-12, Exterior AheraC°ne .. printed, whole or in art and published in the County of Eagle, P P g Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for Che cm oc0on of a new hotel and cn-site EHUe, located 1183 N.. Frontage R°ad/Lot BuHebr Creek 7 State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; a1 a 9, Resubdivision, and settling torah details in regard thereto.(PEC2o-000e) that said newspaper has been published continuously and Applicant: Vail Hotel Group LLC, represented by Maude9° Planning Group Planner: Erik Gates uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the The applications and information about the pmpos- Is are available for public inspepdbn dude chic. hours at me Town m Vail Commani Be'egopne first publication of the annexed legal notice or °-°reds wntne�a she sn . Peas al 970L79 advertisement and that said newspaper has published the 21382138 or'left —vallgo—nn/planning hor addlllon al is cnna,icn. requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. p ea -0,1,1, upoe°ae SiMn 2l4an-ooanetlre caflcn, dial 711. Published April 10, 2020 in the Vail Daily. 0000671861 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. /Ik..L&-d, 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. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 .1Er�E �YM!J MEp!RdF TIF- -0RY 1111 . FiATl:atcutnzoo NOTA6ZY til Rpir�079i9g u`/vCfi3.CSGpM;XplRI:GAUGil57et,2f3�i'