HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-20 Agenda and Supporting Documentation Town Council Evening Meeting1.Call to Order (6:00pm)
2.Public Participation (6:00pm)
2.1 Public Participation (10 min.)
3.Any action as a result of Executive Session (6:10pm)
4.Public Hearings (6:10pm)
4.1 Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2024, Second Reading, An
Ordinance Rezoning Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision
3rd Addition from Residential Cluster (RC) to Community
Housing-1 (CH-1) (6:10pm)
5 min.
Approve, approve with amendments, or deny Ordinance No.
10, Series of 2024, upon second reading.
Presenter(s): Jamie Leaman-Miller, Planner I
Background: This application is requesting a zone district
boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of 4355
Bighorn Road, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition, Block 3, Lot
3, from the Residential Cluster (RC) District to the Community
Housing 1 (CH-1) District.
5.Adjournment 6:15pm (estimate)
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
Evening Session Agenda
Town Council Chambers and virtually by Zoom.
Zoom meeting link: https://vail.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_ZxzRNWLAQIy2VadzyG7hXA
6:00 PM, August 20, 2024
Notes:
Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine what time
Council will consider an item.
Public comment will be taken on each agenda item.
Public participation offers an opportunity for citizens to express opinions or ask questions regarding town
services, policies or other matters of community concern, and any items that are not on the agenda.
Please attempt to keep comments to three minutes; time limits established are to provide efficiency in
the conduct of the meeting and to allow equal opportunity for everyone wishing to speak.
Staff Memorandum - Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2024
A. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2024
B. Staff Memorandum to PEC, July 8, 2024
C. PEC Meeting Minutes, July 8, 2024
D. Applicant Presentation
E. Application and Supporting Materials
1
Meeting agendas and materials can be accessed prior to meeting day on the Town of Vail website
www.vail.gov. All town council meetings will be streamed live by High Five Access Media and available
for public viewing as the meeting is happening. The meeting videos are also posted to High Five Access
Media website the week following meeting day, www.highfivemedia.org.
Please call 970-479-2136 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon
request with 48 hour notification dial 711.
2
AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.1
Item Cover Page
DATE:August 20, 2024
SUBMITTED BY:Stephanie Bibbens, Town Manager
ITEM TYPE:Citizen Participation
AGENDA SECTION:Public Participation (6:00pm)
SUBJECT:Public Participation (10 min.)
SUGGESTED ACTION:
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ATTACHMENTS:
3
AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.1
Item Cover Page
DATE:August 20, 2024
TIME:5 min.
SUBMITTED BY:Jamie Leaman-Miller, Community Development
ITEM TYPE:Ordinance
AGENDA SECTION:Public Hearings (6:10pm)
SUBJECT:Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2024, Second Reading, An Ordinance
Rezoning Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition from
Residential Cluster (RC) to Community Housing-1 (CH-1)
(6:10pm)
SUGGESTED ACTION:Approve, approve with amendments, or deny Ordinance No. 10,
Series of 2024, upon second reading.
PRESENTER(S):Jamie Leaman-Miller, Planner I
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Memorandum - Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2024
A. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2024
B. Staff Memorandum to PEC, July 8, 2024
C. PEC Meeting Minutes, July 8, 2024
D. Applicant Presentation
E. Application and Supporting Materials
4
Town of Vail Page 1
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development
DATE: August 6, 2024
SUBJECT: Second reading of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2024, for a zone district
boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town
Code, to allow for the rezoning of 4355 Bighorn Road, Bighorn Subdivision
3rd Addition, Block 3, Lot 3, from the Residential Cluster (RC) District to the
Community Housing 1 (CH-1) District. (PEC24-0022)
Applicant: Wiggins LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group
Planner: Jamie Leaman-Miller
I.SUMMARY
The applicant, Wiggins LLC represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a zone
district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to
allow for the rezoning of 4355 Bighorn Road, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition, Block 3, Lot 3,
from the Residential Cluster (RC) District to the Community Housing 1 (CH-1) District.
The Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Zone
District Boundary amendment on July 8, 2024, where a recommendation of approval was
forwarded to the Vail Town Council by a vote of 7-0-0.
II.ACTION REQUESTED OF THE TOWN COUNCIL
The Vail Town Council shall approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 10,
Series of 2024 on second reading.
5
Town of Vail Page 2
III. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of 4355 Bighorn Road, Bighorn
Subdivision 3rd Addition, Block 3, Lot 3, from the Residential Cluster (RC) District to the
Community Housing 1 (CH-1) District. The lot is currently vacant, and the rezoning would allow
for a development under the Community Housing zoning. The proposed CH-1 zoning has the
lowest allowable heights of the three Community Housing Districts.
The map below shows the existing zoning map and the results of the amendment if approved.
6
Town of Vail Page 3
IV.BACKGROUND
The subject property is platted as Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition, Block 3, Lot 3, and has a
size of .714 acres. It was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. The property was originally
zoned Low-Density Multiple Family but this was changed to Residential Cluster in 1977. Two
units are allowed on the site under RC zoning and several development applications have been
reviewed over the years and in 1999 the DRB approved a single-family residence on the site.
Ultimately no construction took place, and the site remains vacant today.
The Town’s geologic hazard maps show no avalanche, rockfall, or debris flow hazards on site,
although there are slopes in excess of 40%. The property has a land use designation of High
Density Residential.
Several recent changes have been made to the zoning regulations to help realize the Town’s
housing goals. In September of 2023, on the PEC’s recommendation, the Town Council
approved Ordinance 17, Series of 2023, which allowed structures to be built in the Housing
Zone District on slopes of 40% or greater. Prior to this code change, variances were often
obtained to allow development on slopes of 40% or greater in the housing district. In January of
2024, Town Council adopted changes to the Housing zone district which included defined
zoning standards, changes to the review process, and the creation of the Housing 2 district. In
June of 2024, Ordinance 6, Series of 2024, was adopted which changed the names of the
Housing districts to Community Housing and added a third district with a maximum height
between the two existing height limits.
V.RECOMMENDED MOTION
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 10, Series of
2024, on second reading, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends
the Council pass the following motion:
“The Vail Town Council approves, on SECOND reading, Ordinance
No. 10, Series of 2024, an ordinance for a zone district boundary
amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code,
to allow for the rezoning of 4355 Bighorn Road, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd
Addition, Block 3, Lot 3, from the Residential Cluster (RC) District to the
Community Housing 1 (CH-1) District .”
Should the Vail Town Council choose to approve Ordinance No. 10 Series
of 2024, the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends the
Council make the following findings: “The Vail Town Council finds:”
1.That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements
of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail
comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development
objectives of the town; and
7
Town of Vail Page 4
2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes
of the zoning regulations; and
3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and
general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and
harmonious development of the town in a manner that
conserves and enhances its natural environment and its
established character as a resort and residential community of
the highest quality.”
Vl. ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance No. 10, Series of 2024
B. Staff Memorandum to PEC, 7-8-24
C. PEC Meeting Minutes, 7-8-24
D. Applicant Presentation, 8-6-24
E. Application and supporting materials
8
1
ORDINANCE NO. 10
SERIES OF 2024
AN ORDINANCE REZONING LOT 3, BLOCK 3, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION
3RD ADDITION FROM RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER (RC) TO COMMUNIT Y
HOUSING - 1 (CH-1)
WHEREAS, Wiggins LLC (the "Applicant") owns the real property more
particularly described as Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition, Vail, Colorado,
and depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference
(the "Property");
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2024, the Applicant filed an application to rezone the
Property from Residential Cluster (RC) to Community Housing 1 (CH-1) (the
"Application");
WHEREAS, Section 12-3-7 of the Vail Town Code sets forth the procedures for
rezoning;
WHEREAS, on July 8, 2024, the Planning and Environmental Commission (the
"PEC") held a properly -noticed public hearing on the Application, and recommended
that the Town Council approve the Application; and
WHEREAS, on August 6, 2024, the Town Council held a properly -noticed public
hearing on the Application.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1. The Town Council, upon reviewing the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, hearing the statements of Town staff, the Applicant and the
public, and giving due consideration to the matter, finds and determines as follows:
a.The rezoning is consistent with the applicable element s of the adopted
goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail Comprehensive Plan and is
compatible with the development objectives of the Town;
b.The rezoning is compatible with and suitable to adjacent uses and
appropriate for the surrounding areas; and
c.The rezoning promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of
the Town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the
Town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its
established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality.
Section 2. Based on the foregoing findings, the Town Council hereby approves
the Application and rezones the Property from Residential Cluster (RC) to Community
Housing 1 (CH-1).
9
2
Section 3. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town and the
inhabitants thereof.
Section 4. The amendment of any provision of the Vail Town Code as provided
in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor
any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision
amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 5. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are repe aled to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer
shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof,
theretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this ___ day of ______________,
2024 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the _____day of
______________, 2024, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail,
Colorado.
_____________________________
Travis Coggin, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Stephanie Kauffman, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this ___ day of ______________, 2024.
_____________________________
Travis Coggin, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Stephanie Kauffman, Town Clerk
10
3
EXHIBIT A
11
To: Planning and Environmental Commission
From: Community Development Department
Date: July 8, 2024
Subject: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district
boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code,
to allow for the rezoning of 4355 Bighorn Road, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition,
Block 3, Lot 3, from the Residential Cluster (RC) District to the Community
Housing 1 (CH-1) District. (PEC24-0022)
Applicant: Wiggins LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group
Planner: Jamie Leaman-Miller
I. SUMMARY
The applicant, Wiggins LLC represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a
recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment,
pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of
4355 Bighorn Road, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition, Block 3, Lot 3, from the
Residential Cluster (RC) District to the Community Housing 1 (CH-1) District.
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 the Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a
recommendation of approval, to the Vail Town Council, for a zone district boundary
amendment, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone
district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town
Code, to allow for the rezoning of 4355 Bighorn Road, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition,
Block 3, Lot 3, from the Residential Cluster (RC) District to the Community Housing 1
(CH-1) District. The lot is currently vacant and the rezoning would allow for a possible
development under the Community Housing zoning. The proposed CH-1 zoning has the
lowest allowable heights of the three Community Housing districts.
12
Town of Vail Page 2
III. BACKGROUND
The subject property is platted as Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition, Block 3, Lot 3, and
has a size of .714 acres. It was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. The property
was originally zoned Low-Density Multiple Family but this was changed to Residential
Cluster in 1977. Two units are allowed on the site under RC zoning and several
development applications have been reviewed over the years and in 1999 the DRB
approved a single-family residence on the site. Ultimately no construction took place
and the site remains vacant today.
The Town’s geologic hazard maps show no avalanche, rockfall, or debris flow hazards
on site, although there are slopes in excess of 40%. The property has a land use
designation of High Density Residential.
13
Town of Vail Page 3
Several recent changes have been made to the zoning regulations to help realize the
Town’s housing goals. In September of 2023, on the PEC’s recommendation, the Town
Council approved Ordinance 17, Series of 2023, which allowed structures to be built in
the Housing Zone District on slopes of 40% or greater. Prior to this code change,
variances were often obtained to allow development on slopes of 40% or greater in the
housing district. In January of 2024, Town Council adopted changes to the Housing
zone district which included defined zoning standards, changes to the review process,
and the creation of the Housing 2 district. In June of 2024, Ordinance 6, Series of 2024,
was adopted which changed the names of the Housing districts to Community Housing
and added a third district with a maximum height between the two existing height limits.
IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
A. TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE (in part)
Chapter 12-1: Title, Purpose and Applicability
12-1-2: Purpose:
A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health,
safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and
harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its
natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential
community of high quality.
B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific
purposes:
1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities.
2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow,
and other dangerous conditions.
3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and
to lessen congestion in the streets.
4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading
facilities.
5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic
values.
6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land
uses, consistent with municipal development objectives.
7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with
structures.
14
Town of Vail Page 4
8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town.
9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other
desirable natural features.
10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other
amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters.
11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community.
Article 6E: Residential Cluster (RC) District
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/vailco/latest/vail_co/0-0-0-8314
Article 12-6: Community Housing-1 (CH-1) District
See Attachment D, Ordinance 6 Series of 2024
12-6L-1. Purpose
The Community Housing-1 (CH-1) District is intended to provide adequate sites for
employee housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee
housing, cannot be adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for
other residential zone districts. This zone district allows flexibility to provide for the
critical need for housing to serve local citizens and businesses, and to provide for the
public welfare. The CH-1 District is intended to ensure that employee housing is
appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents of the Town, to
harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces and
other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses.
B. TOWN OF VAIL LAND USE PLAN (In Part)
Chapter II – Land Use Goals and Policies
1. General Growth / Development
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the
visitor and the permanent resident.
1.12. Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing
developed areas (infill areas).
5. Residential
5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing,
15
Town of Vail Page 5
platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist.
5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private
efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a
full range of housing types.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded.
Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites
throughout the community.
Proposed Land Use Categories
HDR High Density Residential
The housing in this category would typically consist of multi-floored structures with
densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category
would include private recreational facilities, and private parking facilities and institution/
public uses such as churches, fire stations and parks and open space facilities.
C. VAIL HOUSING 2027
Goal: The Town of Vail will acquire 1,000 additional resident housing unit deed
restrictions by the year 2027.
These new deed restrictions will be acquired for both existing homes as well as for
homes that are newly constructed by both the Town of Vail and private sector
developers.
Vision: An Eye on the Future - We envision Vail as a diverse, resilient, inclusive,
vibrant and sustainable mountain resort community where year-round residents are
afforded the opportunity to live and thrive. We take a holistic approach to maintaining
community, with continuous improvement to our social, environmental, and economic
well being. We create housing solutions by recognizing and capitalizing on our unique
position as North America’s premier international mountain resort community in order
to provide the highest quality of service to our guests, attract citizens of excellence and
foster their ability to live, work, and play in Vail throughout their lives.
Our strategic solutions and actions result in the retention of existing homes, creation of
new and diverse housing infrastructure, and collaboration with community partners. For
Vail, no problem is insurmountable. With a consistent, community-driven purpose and
16
Town of Vail Page 6
an entrepreneurial spirit, Vail will lead the industry in innovative housing solutions for
the 21st century. The Town is well positioned financially to undertake this significant
challenge.
Mission: Maintaining and Sustaining Community - We create, provide, and retain high
quality, affordable, and diverse housing opportunities for Vail residents to support a
sustainable year round economy and build a vibrant, inclusive and resilient community.
We do this through acquiring deed restrictions on homes so that our residents have a
place to live in Vail
Policy Statement: Resident Housing as Infrastructure - We acknowledge that the
acquisition of deed restrictions on homes for Vail residents is critical to maintaining
community. Therefore, we ensure an adequate supply and availability of homes for
residents and recognize housing as infrastructure in the Town of Vail; a community
support system not unlike roads, bridges, water and sewer systems, fire, police, and
other services of the municipal government.
D. VAIL 2020 STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
Goal #4: Provide for enough deed-restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the
workforce through policies, regulations, and publicly initiated development.
V. SURROUNDING LAND USES
Land Uses Zoning
North: N/A (CDOT) N/A (CDOT)
South: Low Density Residential Two-Family Residential
West: High Density Residential Low Density Multiple-Family
East: High Density Residential Residential Cluster
VI. SITE ANALYSIS
Address: 4355 Bighorn Road
Legal Description: Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition, Block 3, Lot 3
Current Zoning: Residential Cluster (RC)
Proposed Zoning: Community Housing 1 (CH-1)
Land Use Plan Designation: High Density Residential
Current Land Use: Vacant
Geological Hazards: Excessive Slopes
The chart below demonstrates the relationship between the standards of the RC and
CH-1 zone districts:
17
Town of Vail Page 7
Standard Residential Cluster (RC) Community Housing 1
(CH-1)
Lot Size 15,000 sf minimum, 8,000 sf
buildable area minimum
10,000 sf minimum
Setbacks
Front – 20’
Side – 15’
Rear – 15’
Front – 20’
Side – 15’
Rear – 15’
Maximum Height
Flat or mansard roof – 30’
Sloping roof – 33’
Flat or mansard roof – 35’
Sloping roof – 43’
Density
6 dwelling units / acre of
buildable site area (2 units
permitted)
No maximum
GRFA
Maximum 36/100 sf of
buildable site area (multi-
family building may include 1
attached accommodation
unit)
No maximum
Site Coverage
maximum
25% of the site area 55% of the site area (if
75% of required parking
spaces are enclosed, site
coverage may be
increased to 65%)
Minimum
Landscaping
60% of the site area 25% of the site area
VII. ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDARY AMENDMENT CRITERIA
Per Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, before acting on a zone district
boundary amendment application, the Planning and Environmental Commission
shall consider the following factors with respect to this proposal:
1. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the
applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in
the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives
of the town.
The application is consistent with the Vail Comprehensive Plan, which includes the
Vail Land Use plan, the 2020 Strategic Action Plan, and the Housing 2027 Plan. The
proposal meets the applicable goals, objectives, and policies in the plan as detailed
18
Town of Vail Page 8
in Section IV of this memorandum. In particular, it meets several residential goals of
the Land Use Plan:
Residential
5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing,
platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist.
5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private
efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a
full range of housing types.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded.
Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites
throughout the community.
Therefore, staff finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion.
2. The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing
and potential land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land
uses as set out in the town's adopted planning documents.
The subject lot has a land use designation of High Density Residential, along with the
majority of the surrounding neighborhood north of Bighorn Road. The HDR designation
has the greatest densities of the residential land use categories, which aligns with the
CH-1 district which does not limit density or GRFA. The land use plan recognized the
suitability of this use, “specifically in East Vail between the Frontage Road and I-70,
where access is good and surrounding land uses would be compatible for this type of
use.” There is a range of housing types in this area and several lots near the subject
property have densities approaching or exceeding 20 units per acre. The site has good
access, with road frontage immediately to the north and south, and close proximity to
the I-70 exit and existing transit routes.
Staff finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion.
19
Town of Vail Page 9
3. The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious,
convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with
municipal development objectives.
The zone district amendment would allow the development of needed community
housing, as supported by numerous elements of the comprehensive plan including Vail
Housing 2027. In line with the Town’s land use goals; the proposal represents an
opportunity for infill development in an established neighborhood with the infrastructure
to support the allowed uses. Furthermore, it advances the goals of accommodating
housing needs at varied sites throughout the community and contributing to a full range
of housing types.
Staff finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion.
4. The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an
orderly viable community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment
serves the best interests of the community as a whole.
The proposed zone district amendment is consistent with the land use plan and
provides the appropriate incentives for the orderly development of the subject property.
This zoning amendment does not result in the granting of privilege nor is it incompatible
with the Vail Comprehensive Plan, two tests for a determination of spot zoning.
The neighborhood along Bighorn Road already contains a range of housing options and
this proposal will continue those similar uses. The purpose of the CH-1 zone district is to
“...provide for the critical need for housing to serve local citizens and businesses, and to
provide for the public welfare,” therefore the development standards will ensure
appropriate, compatible development that in is the best interest of the community.
Staff finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion.
5. The extent to which the zone district amendment results in adverse or
beneficial impacts on the natural environment, including, but not limited to, water
quality, air quality, noise, vegetation, riparian corridors, hillsides and other
desirable natural features.
The amendment does not have direct impacts that are either adverse or beneficial to
the natural environment. Future development on the parcel will be required to adhere to
all applicable environmental standards during development review, construction and
operation. Any development in the CH-1 district will require the approval of the Design
Review Board, including site planning, design, and landscaping.
Staff finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion.
20
Town of Vail Page 10
6. The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose
statement of the proposed zone district.
The proposed zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose of the CH-1
district, which is “intended to provide adequate sites for employee housing which,
because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be regulated by
the development standards prescribed for other residential zone districts.” While only
two units would be allowed under the current zoning, the proposal allows for the greater
utilization of a vacant lot in furtherance of the Town’s stated housing goals.
Furthermore, CH-1 allows flexibility to address the critical housing need, and “ensure
the employee housing is appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of
residents of the Town, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate
light, air, open spaces and other amenities.” This amendment will allow the flexibility for
a housing project that is suitable for the area and in harmony with the adjacent sites and
uses.
Staff finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion.
7. The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions
have changed since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted
and is no longer appropriate.
Since the RC zoning designation in 1977, the housing needs of the Town have grown
significantly, and the development of additional community housing is critical for Vail’s
vision to be the premier international mountain resort community.
In the last year, the Town has instituted multiple changes to the housing zone district(s)
with the goal of facilitating projects on sites that may have been previously overlooked.
This is important given the relative scarcity in Town of sites vacant or suitable for
housing. Additionally, the graduated height maximums in the three CH districts provide
flexibility to ensure the standards fit the surrounding uses. The proposed CH-1 zoning
has the lowest allowable heights of the three districts, which is the most compatible with
the surrounding area.
Staff finds the proposed rezoning meets this review criterion.
8. Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem
applicable to the proposed rezoning.
21
Town of Vail Page 11
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends the Planning and
Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval, to the Vail Town
Council, for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7,
Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning of 4355 Bighorn Road, Bighorn
Subdivision 3rd Addition, Block 3, Lot 3, from the Residential Cluster (RC) District to the
Community Housing 1 (CH-1) District and setting details in regard thereto. (PEC24-
0022).
Staff’s recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria described in Section VII
of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval, for this request, the Community Development
Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion:
“The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of
approval, to the Vail Town Council, for a zone district boundary amendment,
pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the rezoning
of 4355 Bighorn Road, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition, Block 3, Lot 3, from the
Residential Cluster (RC) District to the Community Housing 1 (CH-1) District and
setting details in regard thereto. (PEC24-0022)”
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval, for this request, the Community Development
Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings:
“Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII this Staff
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated July 8, 2024
and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental
Commission finds:
1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the
adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive
plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and
2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning
regulations; and
3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare
of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of
the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment
and its established character as a resort and residential community of the
highest quality.
22
Town of Vail Page 12
IX. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Applicant Narrative
C. Topographic Survey
D. Ordinance 6, Series of 2024: Establishing Community Housing Districts
23
Present:David Tucker
William Jensen
Robert Lipnick
John Rediker
Scott McBride
Brad Hagedorn
Robyn Smith
1.Virtual Link
Register to attend the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Once registered,
you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining this webinar.
2.Call to Order
3.Worksession
4.Main Agenda
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Applicant Name: PHH Design Development
4.1
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a major amendment to
Special Development District No. 4 (Cascade Village), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special
Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use
project on the property known as the Cornerstone site, located at 1276 Westhaven Drive/
Cornerstone Parcel, Liftside/Cornerstone Subdivision and setting forth details in regard
thereto. (PEC24-0016)
Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes
Monday, July 8, 2024
1:00 PM
Grand View Room
PEC24-0016 Staff Memo July 8, 2024.pdf
Attachment_A._Vicinity_Map.pdf
Attachment B. Narrative-Project Description.pdf
Attachment C. Amendment Materials June 27, 2024 Update.pdf
Attachment D. Cornerstone Plan Set_Part1.pdf
Attachment D Cornerstone Plan Set_Part2.pdf
Attachment D. Cornerstone Plan Set_Part3.pdf
Attachment D. Cornerstone Plan Set_Part4.pdf
Attachment E. Massing Model.pdf
Attachment F. March 11, 2024 PEC minutes (Worksession).pdf
Attachment G. June 10, 2024 PEC Minutes.pdf
Attachment H. Seter, Vander Wall and Mielke representing Cascade Village Metro District, May 20,
2024.pdf
Attachment I. Caplan and Ernest representing applicant response letter, June 24, 2024.pdf
Attachment J. Applicant’s Presentation to the PEC, July 8, 2024.pdf
1
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 24
Timestamp: 0:00:25
Spence presents the changes from the previous meeting. These include changes by reducing the
“Owner’s lounge” at the lowest level of the site and adding one additional EHU in the building. He goes
over the potential public benefit that is included in the application. He also goes over the deviations of the
project from the requirements of the SDD. Height and parking are the main variations of the proposal.
The parking spaces were found to be undersized by the PW team as recently as the previous week. It
will need to be determined if those spaces were originally striped that way or if that was a change at
some point.
Rediker has a question on how the reduction in the owner’s lounge has allayed staff’s concern on the
topic.
Spence answers that the reduction in size and locating it in the rear of the lowest level allows for the
greatest commercial frontage.
Rediker, so the PEC would have to determine that this is the appropriate use on that level of the site?
Spence, that is correct. He refers to the CC1 district as the example but the determination can be made
by the PEC.
Rediker asks if there needs to be an amendment to the SDD.
Spence states that the PEC would have to determine that this is an appropriate use in this location.
Hagedorn asks if this is a ski club and if so that it would have to be considered the basement to allow.
Spence, that is correct.
Smith, does the town have a master plan for this area of town?
Spence, the SDD is largely the plan overall for the area. There is no separate master plan for this area.
Gennett, underlying this area is the land use plan for ski base area and there is no underlying zone
district for this area.
Jensen, SDD ski club locker space, this is similar to the village?
Spence, The SDD borrows the CC1 zoning designation for uses on the first floor from the Vail Town
Code. It uses those as the appropriate uses.
Rediker, Question on parking. Can you explain to me on the conclusions on the availability of the parking
spaces for this use not designated for other uses?
Spence, the 2016 parking analysis that was done analyzed the uses at that time. Some of those uses
have been discontinued since then, so the number may be greater than reported. The current undersized
spaces are a concern to the Town Engineer as it makes the spaces very hard to utilize. We encourage a
restriping plan so it will give us an actual number of spaces per Code and how many needed per current
and future use.
Rediker, are we concerned with parking for the EHU?
Spence, those will be in the garage as well and will most likely be 5-6 spaces.
Rediker, we need 30 spaces, but those have to be proper size?
Spence, I believe the town engineer would be in support of that.
2
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 25
Hagedorn, there were concerns about the easements at the last meeting from public. Where has staff
fallen on that?
Spence, per the legal team, that is a civil matter that staff and the PEC does not concern with.
Robyn, when did the spaces become undersized? Were the size requirements changed or were they
always like that?
Spence, we do not have that information on that. We don’t know when it was done, but spaces need to
meet current day standards.
Robyn, are there other active permits in that SDD?
Spence, there are some permits for the event space above the parking area for safety items.
Robyn, can we get a site visit? When do we make that request?
Spence, now works, we can see when we can get that done to visit and the level of the current
construction of the space. Prior to the meeting on July 22nd may be good.
Robyn, asks for at least 4 hands on this request for a site visit on July 22nd.
All members support this ask.
Jensen, are all the spaces in the garage undersized?
Tom Kassmel, Town engineer, says they did not measure all of the spaces but the majority of the spaces
are around eight feet in width. He estimates that about 90% are 8' wide, some are a little less and a
handful are 9' wide.
Jensen, this could be a 15% loss?
Kassmel, this could be a significant loss of spaces.
Rediker, we’ll have to see staff’s analysis and see what the number will be with the restriping of the
spaces. We can update the table when we have those measurements in place?
Spence, we will work with the applicant to get that done.
Lipnick, how many spaces will be lost?
Kassmel, we don’t know, maybe up to 20.
Applicant Presentation
Gabby Voeller, from SE Group
The team went back through the commercial linkage and the inclusionary zoning requirements and goes
over the table of those requirements. The three retail establishments, offices and other uses are in the
table. She goes over commercial linkage and inclusionary zoning requirements and how the application
is providing the housing as required.
Joseph goes over some of the other comments from the PEC at the previous meeting. He shows the
property owners in the area, easements on the site (including drop off and access through the site), the
ticket office that does not sit in any easement). He shows the plaza level from the drop off and how the
site plan meets that requirement of providing access through the site. The Paseo level shows the
3
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 26
easements at that level going east/west on that site, and where the ticket office is being located.
Alonso goes over that they had presentation with the metro district and Vail Resorts to go over the
proposal. They’ve also had conversations with ERWSD on the easements and requirements. Holy Cross
has also been worked with to determine if they have concerns.
Joseph goes over the floorplan changes to the site and shows how the additional retail space has been
added at the Paseo level.
Alonso, there is an access point from the owner’s lobby, but that is the only part that now fronts on the
paseo.
Joseph goes over the change that added an employee housing unit to the building.
Alonso goes over the CMC building and the employee housing. Originally accounted for 22 beds but the
plan showed 25. For clarification the site is broken into 3 clusters where there are gathering spaces and
ahs natural light coming in. They do share the kitchen and bathroom area, but they have more lounge
areas.
Joseph goes over the potential public benefit. He counts a lot of the landscaping changes that are being
done on and off-site to create gathering spaces for users of the site. Part of the hotel site will have a
gathering space as well as the improved drop-off area. Wayfinding will be added to help direct people to
the site. A site plan that shows how the project will improve connectivity to the site by adding areas to get
to the lift from the hotel entrance and from Westhaven Drive.
He goes over the retail that is being added to the site. He goes over the site plan from the last application
compared to the current. The previous one did not have retail on the ski lift side. He shows renderings
comparing the two elevations and how the previous approval was lower in most areas, but also higher at
some points. It was one continuous building and roof ridge compared to the current proposal of two
buildings.
The applicant has met with the AIPP team to show the areas of potential public art. They were
encouraged to make it in areas where it will be most viewable by the public.
Alonso adds that the team is in conversations with the owner of the parking deck and are working
towards an agreement with him.
Jensen, can you walk us through the retail space depth at the paseo level. It seems small.
Joseph says the depth is approximately 35’, with some recesses in the building. Goes down to 27, but
could be increased.
Jensen, what is the depth of the owners lounge and why does it need to be so deep?
Alonso. It is about 30ft deep due to construction and access requirements. Ticket office is a little smaller
closer to 20’.
Rediker, you reference conversations with VR on the lift. What has been discussed? Has queueing for
skiers come up?
Alonso, more of an introduction to the project. No discussion of the queuing. They were open to the idea
of relocation the ticket office, but no concerns brought up.
Rediker, can you pull up the slide of the circulation and access? The front of the building would be for
owner and skiers?
Alonso, correct, but more for public as owners have parking area.
4
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 27
Rediker, would loading/unloading take place there as well? Does this need to be designated for skiers
only? Would there be a conflict there?
Alonso, the hotel dock can accommodate the loading and delivery for retail areas and building.
Rediker has concerns about FedEx or delivery trucks trying to use that space as well. Are we taking
away the public benefit if we allow both?
Tom Kassmel, this would likely need to function as the West Lionshead drop off with two separate areas.
One for cars and one for deliveries.
Rediker, concerns on how that would be used and timing. Needs to be short timeline for skiers as they
don’t need 15 minutes.
Kassmel, it would need to be managed and reviewed.
Alonso, we need to see what the need is for this. 2-5 minutes for skiers and if there is need for parking it
would be done in the structure.
Rediker, the skier drop off is the benefit, not general loading and delivery.
Tucker, loading dock is too far away. Doesn’t think it will be used well and people will try to use that drop
off instead of the proper area.
Alonso, starting to think internally of how these spaces would operate. It would likely be the hotel that
would operate these areas.
Smith, doesn’t appear as there is two way traffic to the NE of the drop-off island. Is that one way or two
way traffic outside of the drop-off?
Alonso, two way so they would not need to enter the drop off to exit from Westhaven. The idea is that
this would make it as efficient as possible.
Smith, As there are external vendors that use that loading area, does it use the same service elevator as
EHUs or is there another?
Alonso, there is another elevator for the hotel. No loading and delivery would be done through the EHU
area.
Robyn, curious about the VR conversation. It seems like replacing the lift after this is built would be much
more expensive. Would they do it if this goes through?
Alonso, we can’t speak for them. They know this is proposed and the challenges that it would make for
replacing that lift. It’s up to them to figure out if that is a possibility.
Smith, it is up to us as well as the lift access is a public benefit. If it changes to a faster lift, that is a
bigger benefit. It would be extremely difficult to get it there after the fact.
Alonso, we are working towards a mutual solution.
Lipnick, why is the lift office a public benefit?
Alonso, it is being included in the building itself as well as bathrooms and lockers.
Lipnick, I understand the bathrooms. VR hasn’t signed off on the building being inside?
Alonso, we have had one meeting with them so far. It is an attractive solution for everyone to have it
5
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 28
inside the building.
Lipnick, where is the offsite skating rink and play area?
Alonso, it is on hotel property now at the base of the area. It is a temporary area today that is then used
for other items in the summers. We would be making it permanent and open to the public on a
continuous basis.
Rediker, the ice rink is not on the Cornerstone site, correct?
Alonso, yes.
Rediker, there is no requirement for that to maintain unless restricted publicly, correct?
Alonso, yes, that is a possibility, but the general ownership has no intention to do so and want it to be
successful.
Rediker, if cornerstone is developed as residential spaces, the owners will change as the units are sold.
Are the retail spaces going to change hands or be sold to the residential owners as well and then they
can change? Has trouble as these being amenities if these are not restricted to be maintained. No
control over what happens to that space.
Hagedorn agrees. These need to be guaranteed to be maintained in perpetuity so that they are a true
public benefit. The Solaris has a very similar setup that could be a great public benefit.
Rediker, if that hotel is sold to another owner how is that maintained as an offsite proposed public
benefit. Would like to hear from staff at the next meeting
Smith, do we have a definition of public benefit?
Spence, no we do not.
Smith, this seems programmatic and how do we guarantee that into the future.
Roy goes over the setup for the Solaris and how that would likely be similar. There is a maintenance plan
in place and that should also be considered.
Hagedorn, how tied are the applicants to the owner’s lounge, especially the 30' frontage?
Alonso, not tied, but more retail would require more commercial linkage.
Hagedorn goes over the TC and their feelings have been communicated to PEC on the ground level
uses and ski lockers in the area.
Smith asks how the short term rental program works for their units. her understanding is that the Hyatt
runs a short term rental program for any properties that are to be rented in the Cascade district. Trying to
understand how it may be rented to guests.
Alonso can have more information next time from his team that works on that.
Smith wants to know how that would be handled as this site would likely be very likely or attractive for
owners to use for that purpose. How much business does short term rentals bring to town and what the
difference would be if these are not short term rented we will end up with a largely vacant building at the
base of the ski area. Would also love to hear what the master plan for the site would be for the area as a
whole.
Rediker asks about current building height approval is 71 and applicant wants 97 feet, is that correct?
6
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 29
Spence confirms.
Rediker, so as a commissioner we are looking at the 26 feet as a deviation and we are using the criteria
when reviewing this application. Is the proposed height looking at criteria 1 for compatibility?
Spence confirms.
Rediker, for applicant, we’ve been through two meetings and both times commissioners have made
comments on the height and its not compatible to the area. Why have there been no changes to the
building height?
Alonso, says it is part of the ask and they want deviation on that and are trying to balance with the
benefits of the project.
Rediker, so the applicant is saying that the height is compatible and the public benefit should bring it to
an approvable place.
Alonso, we believe that the public benefits would out weigh any potential deviations based on the height.
Rediker asks for a review of the public benefits.
Joseph, paseo level, bringing retail and activated space, the improved drop off and stairs down,
improving the general landscape through the general development and circulation through the site.
Rediker, has a question on the parking, but who owns the garage again and how do we guarantee that
those spaces will always be allocated for that site and not torn down and dedicated to another use. Is
staff worried about that?
Spence, staff believes that the wording in the SDD would be enough to maintain the use of those spaces
over time.
Rediker, we’re counting on that place being a parking lot forever, right? They may lose control over time.
Spence, a development agreement would need to be done over time to ensure it is maintained.
Gennett, says that a development agreement would be done where it guarantees it would be done over
time.
Rediker notes the difference in ownership compared to the Solaris that is one ownership compared to
this lot which could very easily have three different ownerships and how do they guarantee that be done
overtime?
Gennett, those would have to be done through a development agreement and would like to speak with
the Town Attorney on how that would be guaranteed over time.
Rediker would like to have more information on that at the next meeting.
Hagedorn would like better context imagery to show more of how it fits into the site.
Spence notes that the massing model would likely be a good way to visualize that
The applicants bring up the massing model for viewing.
Rediker, question for staff, for the housing requirement are they allowed under town code to use dorms?
Spence confirms that is allowed at the discretion of Town Council.
7
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 30
Hagedorn, could other buildings be able to use that height?
Spence says that it would be tied to this specific site plan and building.
Smith, asks if we can require parking to charge the same rate as the town or not?
Spence, no, it would be specific to the building.
Kassmel says that there is no current requirement like that, and that they will charge what the market will
bear.
Smith says there was conversation out there that the layer of parking was required to charge the same
rate as the public garages. Would like staff to look into that.
Lipnick still has trouble with the proposed height and how it is not compatible with the other buildings.
Rediker, has questions on the dorms. Is it one common kitchen? How do that work in the dorms?
Alonso, would have two of everything as far as appliances as well as areas to eat. Common areas have
tables and bars to eat at as well.
Lipnick, one bathroom for 25 people?
Alonso, no there are multiple stalls for each bathroom.
Public comment
Thad King, President to the Liftside condominium association has sent a letter if they had received it.
Hagedorn has not seen it yet. Thad asks that the commissioners read it before the next meeting. They
are asking for a lot of increases in height, density, and GRFA that is incompatible with SDD 4. There are
no specific setbacks as there are for Liftside. The applicant is proposing setbacks of zero feet and it is
unjustified and unnecessary for reasonable development of the site. A survey shows the footprints for the
existing buildings in the development area. There are a couple instances where setbacks are at or near
property lines but the difference is that the lot lines were at or near a public open space or right of way. In
most instances otherwise there were generous setbacks between building footprints and property lines
so they don’t negatively impact buildings on the adjacent parcels. Does not see where it is necessary or
compatible to eliminate setbacks on the property. Have a concern with the proposed height at 97 feet.
Out of compatibility with Liftside at 55 feet and 65 feet along the south side. The proposed height
combined with the design of the roof forms are unlike any in development area A. It exacerbates the
perceived height the way the roof forms are done. The hipped roof design at Liftside lowers the
perceived height and mass of structures by bringing the top floor into the roof or roof down into the top
floor. The proposed design and character are foreign to the buildings in development A. The design
being proposed might be compatible if it was in Lionshead or village but doesn’t seem consistent with the
development of building area A. Cascade village is understated in design currently as it has hipped roofs,
white stucco, and stone. The proposed cornerstone does not align with the context of the areas.
The shading is another concern where the sun/shade angles with and without the building. It is hard to
see what the summer solstice is. Set dates and times do not have a complete timeline that would show
the affect at all times of the day. Could be affecting their pool area and would like to see shading study at
the 71’ height to show the impact of the additional height. Additionally, the NE corner of the building
would face the Liftside building and would allow the residents to look down on the pool deck. Would like
the developer to review the floor plan to flip the floor plan to reduce balconies on that side. Cornerstone
8
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 31
plan shows minimal landscaping.
In conclusion would like to see justification for reduced setbacks similar to the variance requirements as
to why they cannot build to normal setbacks, ask applicant compare proposed site coverage compared
to existing sites and calc existing site coverage in area A for comparison. Would like to have height
reduced, move away from butterfly roof design, and that the applicant update the sun/shade analysis to
show all times and compare to a 71’ height of building. Redesign floor plan to move the balconies to the
other side.
Kim Setter, attorney for Cascade metro district. The applicant did attend a board meeting, the
participation was gladly accepted. They are looking into the easements and requirements at this time.
More information will be given to the PEC prior to the August 12th. They would like to see an agreement
between them, VR, and the applicant so that there is a public benefit into the future. This is needed for
the agreement for the use of the ski lift and other requirements the district is required for. Drainage has
not been addressed yet. Public benefit is intertwined with the lift, and it’s continued operation. District
and VR finance the lift, maintenance, replacement and other financing. The escalator and other
improvements are a big part of the public benefit. The district and VAI(VR) operate the lift per an
agreement which imposes burdens on the district to help with the finance based on ridership. The district
is responsible for snow removal and maintenance for all the access to the lift. The district must provide a
certain number of items per the agreement including stairs, lift ticket office, bathrooms, etc… The
applicants will render these agreements inoperable and the new design will require a new agreement to
agree on maintenance, operability, parking etc… This is concerning as escalators may break and
provide an unserviceable entrance to the area. Under the proposal the district may be required to
maintain the escalator. The applicant is moving and replacing lockers, affecting the district’s abilities to
maintain the lockers. Would need an MOU or some agreement about lift replacement or repair.
The district requests the amendment be denied or at least a recommendation of approval that an
agreement be provided from the district, VR, and the applicant to ensure continued lift operation and
maintenance.
Scott Wagner, 1225 Westhaven. Reaffirms the concerns from Kim. Wood stairs were rebuilt last year,
and safety needs to be first. 50’ escalator is a big concern about it being able to be maintained and
useable at all times. Can’t remember if paseo is heated or not. Would like answer to that. Access at the
lift house, would want to know if ski racks would be provided at the top for drop off. Proposal at the
paseo would allow for good access.
Not sure why circle needs to be redone. Eliminating or reducing the turn lanes, but there is a lot of traffic
that goes on that. Speed limits are high and needs a turn lane in that area. Decreasing the turn lane from
east to west would pose a problem for the buses and there may not be enough room without the turn
lane. The ice rink that has been discussed is pretty small and maybe inadequate. The new area would
be about 70% of the size of the current one. Would this be a good use where the fire pits that are today
are used a lot more. Want to know how the logistics would work for construction ingress/egress. How
would construction affect ski lift during wintertime. Height is not congruent with what is in the
neighborhood today. The approval expired in 2017 and we should not be referencing that as a starting
point.
Janie Lipnick on the metro board. Agrees with Scott and Kim. Really object to the height as it ruins views
coming in and out. It goes outside of the character of the neighborhood. The public benefit does not
outweigh the offset. Concerns with construction for access to and from the neighborhood. The skier
drop-off back up could cause traffic delays. Prior approvals should not count. Why does that still have
part of the conversation. No agreements form the district on the project.
Closed public comment.
9
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 32
Comments from commissioners
John Rediker, parking, public benefits off-site (if those should be considered). From Staff, he is
concerned with the easements and operation/access agreements. Metro district concerns seem very
applicable and “compatibility with surrounding uses “criteria may not be able to be met without that
agreement. Bulk, height, mass, and setbacks are not compatible. We’ve raised, bulk, height and mass
issues and there have been no changes. Concerned on the dormitory housing and PEC has discretion. It
may house temporary employees and may not have fulltime housing use. Has said enough earlier that
does not need to repeat.
McBride online agrees with commissioner Rediker and he conveyed his concerns accurately and shares
that concern. How are those previous approvals and why those should be taken fully into account?
Tucker, agrees on the easements and issues. Need to figure out who will operate commercial spaces as
it could impact the loading/delivery.
Smith, thanks applicant for moving around the owner’s lounge to reduce access and including another
EHU. Housing component does not meet minimum standards, not supportive of dorms. Public benefit
does not justify the deviation for mass and scale. Public benefit proposed so far would be accomplished
by a smaller building, and 97' needs to be much more. Reserve judgment on parking and compatibility on
lift operation, and master plan for the area until applicant provides more information. States that applicant
is sitting on aces, so don't fold.
Lipnick, thanks applicant for presentation. Remains concerned about off-site public benefits and parking
if the ownership were to ever change. Concerned about easements, height, massing, lack of setbacks,
compatibility with neighborhood, dorm style EHUs (doesn’t work for families and year-round employees),
parking in general and how many will be maintained after making them conform. Agrees with Smith
concerning a site visit to clarify many items.
Jensen, thanks applicant for their work, but still a lot to be done. This redevelopment is incredibly
complex, and comments today have reinforced that. Seems early to be in front of the PEC until these
issues have been resolved. Appreciate the owners lounge, but it should be reduced further to be more
utilitarian space for owners rather than a lounge. Staff has work to do on the parking and how that will be
impacted. Access to the lift and impacts to the stairs. Can’t get to the 97’ height. Public benefits would be
reasonable if the project was asking for little deviation. Does not work for what is being proposed today.
Needs to preserve the integrity of the community.
Hagedorn thanks applicant for the detailed presentation. Future lift replacement does not fit into
conversation. Public benefit is the big part of the conversation and how the proposed benefits will be
maintained into the future. What is the method that would require that to be continued in perpetuity.
Parking continues to evolve at each meeting. Will need to know definite, final solution and how that will
be maintained into the future. Setbacks don’t bother, but the height is too much. 71’ is in line with other
area, but 97' is not justifiable. Looking forward to seeing what is provided next.
Rediker, we don’t typically look at design of the building but there are 9 criteria in the memo and one
of those is design features.
4.2
A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6H-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code in
Robyn Smith made a motion to Continue to the August 12, 2024 meeting; John Rediker seconded the
motion Passed (7 - 0).
10
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 33
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Applicant Name: Alura Residences, represented by Pierce Austin Architects
accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for
an accessory structure to be located within the side setback, located at 1488 Matterhorn
Circle, Vail Park Meadows Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC24-
0021)
Timestamp: 02:32:50
Spence gives a presentation on the proposed application. The location of the structure is largely due to
the tightness of the site and location of the existing and proposed buildings. States that staff erred on
previous approval for the location of the trash area.
Rediker, asks why this cannot be relocated?
Spence, the site is extremely tight, and the fire access turn around which precludes all other locations.
The applicant has a good site plan on where alternatives were proposed.
Hagedorn, Was there a PEC file for this? What was the review?
Spence, there was another variance for this site, and went to the DRB as a use by right in the HDMF
zone district.
Presentation from the applicant. Jordan Kalasnik from Pierce Austin Architects has a short presentation
on where the alternatives were proposed that did not allow for the relocation. He pulls up the turn radius
for the fire access. He shows that all possible locations would require some sort of variance or be too
close to other buildings.
Rediker is this up against the property of Eagle point and we haven’t heard back from them either?
Spence, yes they received notice and staff has not heard back from them.
Hagedorn asks about other potential locations and Kalasnik goes over reasoning for not choosing those
locations. Looks like there is existing vegetation that screens this location, correct?
Kalasnik shows imagery. There are shrubs and landscaping rocks. No trees in that spot. Does show that
the building is up on the hill comparatively. Well above neighboring parcel.
Jensen, asks if this hadn’t missed this in the project what would have been done differently to
accommodate that?
Kalasnik, we can’t even speculate as to what would have happened. It would have been a total site re-
design.
Jensen, the trouble is that this affects the neighbor the most and not the development in general.
Jordan, the side of the adjacent property is a blank wall of the building with minimal windows. They
would otherwise be looking at the hillside.
PEC24-0021 Staff Memorandum.pdf
Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf
Attachment B. Project Narrative, dated May 29, 2024.pdf
Attachment C. Plan Set, dated May 2, 2024.pdf
Attachment D. Aerial photo.pdf
11
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 34
Rediker asks about the design.
Kalasnik talks about the construction of it and the proposed design.
Rediker asks about the snowmelt vault that would be underneath the structure.
Kalasnik talks about what the design would be and that it is used to house snowmelt boilers and
equipment.
Rediker, clarifies that this is used for equipment as well
Kalasnik, yes, talks about the current outlook and issues being worked through to determine if it is
necessary/doable.
Rediker asks about elevations and materials for enclosure.
Kalasnik talks about the stone being proposed and how that fits on the site.
Hagedorn, asks about interior layout and what empty space on detail one.
Kalasnik states it is for mechanical equipment area.
Hagedorn, asks if that place can be relocated elsewhere.
Kalasnik, says that this would not be possible as other places would be in the setback or block fire
access and there are already deep utilities that are in place today counting on this location as previously
approved.
Public Comment – None
Commissioner Comments
Jensen, feels they need to be supportive and was an oversight that was relied upon. Doesn’t seem to be
a reasonable alternative.
Lipnick, Supportive for the reduced side setback will not grant special privilege and doesn’t result in a
negative impact on light, air, transportation, or utilities.
Smith, supports as the utilities are already in place. Staff makes mistake and that happens sometimes.
Tucker, supports based on the conditions of the application. Made sure it was the least intrusive spot on
the site.
McBride supports for reasons articulated.
Rediker, looking at the three criteria they are met. Mistakes were made and not result of the applicant’s
doing. Problem is putting it next to other person’s property line and it is unsightly. Not pleased, but no
comments from neighbors. Unfortunate circumstance that the PEC is placed in this situation.
Hagedorn, not a grant of special privilege.
Robert N Lipnick made a motion to Approve with the findings on page 9 of the staff memorandum; Robyn
Smith seconded the motion Passed (7 - 0).
12
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 35
Planner: Jamie Leaman-Miller
Applicant Name: 44 Willow Place #2 LLC, represented by KH Webb Architects
4.3 A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6H-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code in
accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code to allow for a
deck expansion within the front setback, located at 44 Willow Road 2, Vail Village Filing 1,
Block 6, Lot 9, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC24-0018)
Timestamp: 03:02:47
Leaman-Miller gives a presentation on the request for a setback variance. He shows the site plan of how
the existing building received setback variances in the past. Existing and proposed decks are shown.
Applicant proposed to go 11 feet into the setback with the variance today. The deck expansions would
shadow windows of units below. Could impact pedestrian experience by closeness to the sidewalk. A lot
of variances for setbacks in the area were for infill of balconies or balconies filling niches in buildings.
Already received variances for the current building.
Rediker, asks about the reference to the EHU.
Leaman-Miller, there is two EHUS on the site.
Rediker asks about the potential impact.
Leaman Miller, the second floor bank of windows directly below are for the EHU.
Smith asks about the HOA approval and if the EHU owner has approved of this proposal.
Leaman Miller, HOA approval was included with the application as it is a submittal requirement.
Smith asks about green lines on site plan.
Leaman-Miller explains the variance for the setbacks as approved in 1993. Staff recommended denial at
that time.
Hagedorn asks if the hatched area is the proposed encroachment.
Leaman-Miller confirms.
Jensen asks if the deck next to it went out to the limit.
Leaman-Miller confirms.
Roy clarifies that each project needs to get approval for a variance per code.
Leaman-Miller adds that the existing deck was approved in 1993 by the PEC.
Smith asks if this is similar to the Riva Ridge recent approval.
Leaman-Miller looked into previous variances granted and most were common elements, entrances or
filling in balconies.
Roy clarifies the Riva Ridge variance that included common space and safety of entry stairs.
Smith asks about the setback lines on the site plan and asks if they are from different variances.
PEC24-0018 Staff Memo.pdf
Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf
Attachment B. Applicant Narrative & Documents.pdf
Attachment C. Project Planset.pdf
13
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 36
Roy clarifies an error by previous staff in regards to a previous deck encroachment.
Jensen states that it is the PEC responsibility to provide consistency with the history and with the code.
How does staff feel about that?
Leaman-Miller talks about legally non-conforming properties contrasting with this building which was
designed with the current zoning in place.
Applicant Presentation
Kyle Webb gives a presentation on the application. He goes over some history of how the area has
evolved over time. Uniqueness of the lot that it is a triangle, but the major frontage is the Vail Road, and
they decided willow circle was the 10’ rule for setbacks. The property line is 10’ in front the street and
provides a larger buffer to the road. Setbacks are less in all these locations. Bishop Park is also
proposing a similar larger deck along the street. Goes over the ILC and how it will maintain 10 from the
road on Willow Bridge side. Proposal is not going any further to the road than the existing deck, only
going two feet further from the building.
Doesn’t believe this adds mass to the building as a deck. It is one of those projects that will look like it
always belonged. Is less than the deck that was previously approved. Willow Circle has been treated
differently and is not a grant of special privilege, they have historical 10’ setbacks. Different
neighborhood and context because they fit in with the context. Notes the Vail Village master plan
encourages redevelopment or improvement. Larger deck encourages activity on the street. Sees this as
being in context with the neighborhood. Are not increasing the encroachment compared to other deck.
Does not affect light or air as staff does.
Hagedorn, is that the EHU on the lower level?
Webb EHU is on lower level, windows are a bedroom. The same owner owns that EHU.
Smith, asks why they want to get rid of EHU, is it because of the rental requirement?
Webb, yes, it is an “if rented” deed restriction.
Public Comment – None
Commissioner Comments
Tucker, really unique situation given the character of the old neighborhood. Sees staff’s concerns on
encroaching on the property line and willow road. Can see it both ways, by striking a balance as there
were already a variance granted in the past. Is that the hardship?
Webb, correct, we have nowhere to go since the variance was already granted. There are already
existing situations similar.
Tucker states that it makes it hard to ever want to grant a variance if it will spawn another one.
Smith, disagrees with staff as this is within the lines of what has previously been approved as an
appropriate setback. Finds that it meets the criteria.
Lipnick, agrees with the variance. A deck is not massing and goes to the front setback for the other
decks and doesn’t think it’ll add more massing. Thinks review criteria are met.
Jensen, the historical variance leads one to be supportive of this variance.
Rediker, agrees with staff’s analysis and that it does not meet the criteria 1 and 2 for the variance.
14
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 37
McBride, agrees with commissioner Smith’s comment and that it meets criteria.
Hagedorn, sees how this is a tough one. Mitigating factor is that this is a nonconforming area of town
with how they are rarely meeting setbacks. Criteria 2 how this is minimal relief for hardship. Finds himself
leaning towards improving as the context of the neighborhood and context of the site itself.
Smith motions to approve with the findings on page 12 and the condition on page 13.
Planner: Jamie Leaman-Miller
Applicant Name: Wiggins LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group
4.4
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary
amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for the
rezoning of 4355 Bighorn Road, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition, Block 3, Lot 3, from the
Residential Cluster (RC) District to the Community Housing 1 (CH-1) District. (PEC24-0022)
Timestamp: 03:37:04
Leaman-Miller gives presentation.
No questions from commissioners.
Applicant presentation.
Allison Kent gives presentation, identifying the location of the property and historical background of
the zoning. She discusses the opportunities for development and acknowledges that this will be the first
property to be zoned CH-1. She covers the review criteria for the Vail Comprehensive Plan, focuses on
employee housing opportunity. She reviews the development objectives and the purpose of CH-1 is
discussed.
Jensen asks if changing to CH-1, what density would the applicant be looking at?
Webb states that he is not there yet as far as design and calculations but it would probably be more than
double that what is allowed in Residential Cluster.
No public comment in room.
Online is Steve Lindstrom from Vail Housing Authority. He states that this is a great example of what
we were after when adding CH-1. Disperses housing throughout neighborhoods and utilizes different
sites.
Commissioner Comments:
Rediker, criteria is met and agrees with staff and applicant. He is voting to approve.
Jensen, all criteria are met and excited to see this housing district.
Lipnick, supports and is consistent with all criteria and is what the community needs.
Smith has very little to say as it meets all criteria. Fully supports this.
Robyn Smith made a motion to Approve with the findings on page 12 and the condition on page 13 of the
staff memorandum; Robert N Lipnick seconded the motion Passed (6 - 1).
Voting For: William A Jensen, Robert N Lipnick, Robyn Smith, Brad Hagedorn, Scott P McBride, David N
Tucker
Voting Against: John Rediker
PEC24-0022 Staff Memo.pdf
Attachment A. Vicinity Map.pdf
Attachment B. Applicant Narrative.pdf
Attachment C. Topographic Survey.pdf
Attachment D. Ordinance No. 6 Series of 2024 - Community Housing.pdf
15
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 38
Tucker is excited to see the first product.
McBride, supports this rezoning and excited to see what happens.
Hagedorn is excited to see this application come through. Meets that policy we worked hard on. Meets
all criteria.
5.Staff Approvals
Planner: Greg Roy
Applicant Name: Leibovail LLC, represented by KH Webb Architects
5.1
A Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action
regarding a request for a minor amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 28,
Christiania at Vail, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town
Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plan to decrease the gross
residential floor area (GRFA), located at 356 Hanson Ranch Rd, Unit 420/410 Lot D, Block
2, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC24-0020)
6.Approval of Minutes
6.1 PEC Results 6-24-24
7.Information Update
Roy updates the Commission that the next PEC meeting for July 22nd has been noticed for the
Council Chambers as the meeting should be held there.
8.Adjournment
John Rediker made a motion to Recommend for approval with the findings on page 11 of the staff
memorandum; Robyn Smith seconded the motion Passed (7 - 0).
PEC24-0020 SDD 28 Minor Amendment PEC Report (Final).pdf
PEC Results 6-24-24.pdf
Robert N Lipnick made a motion to Approve ; William A Jensen seconded the motion Passed (6 - 0).
Robyn Smith made a motion to Adjourn ; David N Tucker seconded the motion Passed (7 - 0).
16
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of July 8, 2024 39
4355 Bighorn Road
Rezoning to CH-1
Town Council
August 6, 2024
40
PEC Recommendation
•On July 8, 2024, the Planning & Environmental Commission unanimously
recommended approval of the rezoning:
•Rediker - criteria is met and agrees with staff and applicant. Voting to approve.
•Jensen - all criteria are met and excited to see this housing district.
•Lipnick - supports and is consistent with all criteria and is what the community
needs.
•Smith - very little to say as it meets all criteria. Fully supports this.
•Tucker - excited to see the first product.
•McBride - supports this rezoning and excited to see what happens.
•Hagedorn - excited to see this application come through. Meets that policy we
worked hard on. Meets all criteria.
41
Property Location:
2101-122-12-007
4355 Bighorn Road
Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn Filing 3
I-
7
0
Bi
g
h
o
r
n
R
o
a
d
S
p
r
u
c
e
W
a
y
St
r
e
a
m
s
i
d
e
C
i
r
c
l
e
42
I-70
Bighorn Road
Spruce Way
Streamside Circle
43
44
Background
•Property annexed in 1974, by Ordinance
20, Series of 1974
•When originally annexed zoned Low
Density Multiple Family, rezoned in 1977
to Residential Cluster
•Land Use Designation for the property
identified by the Vail Land Use Plan is
“High Density Residential”
•Various designs for single-family or
duplex from 1980s to 2000 - Never built
45
Housing Opportunity
•Vacant lot in East Vail with
development potential for
free-market sfr or duplex
•Private owner willing to do
deed-restricted units
instead
•Located in established
locals oriented
neighborhood
•Served by Town of Vail bus
46
Community Housing-1
•Adopted in June 18, 2024
•No properties were zoned CH-1 with the adoption
of the zone district
•This property is the first proposed to be zoned
CH-1
47
Permitted Uses Setbacks Site Coverage Landscape Area Height Density GRFA
CH-1 EHUs, Public
uses
Front: 20’
Side/Rear: 15’
55% up to 65% with
enclosed parking =
17,095 - 23,311 sf
25% =
7,770 sf
35’ flat
43’ sloping NA NA
CH-1 vs RC
Permitted Uses Setbacks Site Coverage Landscape Area Height Density GRFA
RC
Single Family,
Duplex,
Multiple
Family
Front: 20’
Side/Rear: 15’25% = 7,770 sf 60% =
18,649 sf
30’ flat
33’ sloping
6 du per
buildable
acre = 2 du
5,604
sf
48
Review Criteria: Vail Comprehensive Plan
•Vail Land Use Plan designates it as
“High Density Residential”
•Vail 20/20 - recognizes housing for
employees as infrastructure
•Employee Housing Strategic Plan -
states efficient use of resources by
placing employees close to their
place of work
Subject Property
Vail Land Use Map
49
Review Criteria: Surrounding Land Uses
•Area of East Vail includes a variety of
residential uses
•Apartments, condominiums, and
townhouses, single-family and duplex
homes
•Mix of residential uses has created a
vibrant community
•Easy access to the Town’s bus system
and bike paths make it an ideal
location for local resident housing
The Victorians
SDD
Bighorn Falls
Townhomes
50
Review Criteria: Development Objectives
•Furthers goals and objectives outlined in Vail Land Use Plan
•Makes use of infill property already identified as appropriate
location for residential uses
•Provides housing for locals in already established
neighborhood with abundant services and amenities
•Not many opportunities where a private landowner
voluntarily rezones to provide deed-restricted housing
•With so few vacant developable parcels remaining in Town
of Vail, this rezoning is opportunity that cannot be
overlooked
51
Review Criteria: Orderly Viable Community
•Provides for the growth of an orderly viable community by establishing site
for employee housing within Town boundaries, close to existing services and
transportation
•Employee housing is key to ensuring that Town of Vail remains economically
viable and competitive, while protecting environmentally sensitive lands that
have created a place worth living in
•Does not constitute spot zoning:
•Zone district helps further these goals
•Property is already zoned for residential uses and
•Consistent with Future Land Use Designation of the Town’s Land Use Plan
52
Review Criteria: Natural Environment
•Proposes to rezone a property currently zoned as RC zone district to CH-1
zone district
•Not located within any mapped avalanche, debris flow, or rockfall hazard
areas
•Not adjacent to any streams or waterways, and therefore does not impact
any riparian corridors
•Like many properties in Vail, impacted by its adjacency to I-70 which does
create some noise impacts to property
•Environmental considerations for the property:
•slopes in excess of 40% (not a regulatory issue)
•existing vegetation on the site
53
Review Criteria: Natural Environment (cont.)
•As part of creation of CH Zone Districts, Town adopted amendments to
Section 12-21-10 to allow structures to be constructed on areas of slopes
40% or greater in these districts
•Variances from this section were common in the past:
•Property was approved for a similar variance in 1999 (expired)
•Next door, Bighorn Falls Townhouses received variance to allow for
construction on areas exceeding 40% slope
•Property contains grasses, shrubs, and some trees, and while vegetation
will be disturbed with any type of development, an appropriate landscape
plan will be developed in a way that is consistent with development on
surrounding properties
54
Review Criteria: Purpose of CH-1
The Community Housing-1 (CH-1) District is intended to provide
adequate sites for employee housing which, because of the nature and
characteristics of employee housing, cannot be adequately regulated
by the development standards prescribed for other residential zone
districts. This zone district allows flexibility to provide for the critical
need for housing to serve local citizens and businesses, and to
provide for the public welfare. The CH-1 District is intended to ensure
that employee housing is appropriately located and designed to meet
the needs of residents of the Town, to harmonize with surrounding
uses, and to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces and other
amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses.
55
Review Criteria: Conditions Changed
•RC zone district would generally permit low-density free-
market residential development
•Property allowed 2 dwelling units and up to 5,600 sq. ft. of
GRFA
•Recognizing that the residential needs of the Town have
changed dramatically since the late 1970s, the new zoning of
CH-1 allows for the development of employee housing on the
property, which is a major need of the community
56
Request Today
•We hope to receive a
vote of approval
•Our team is happy to
answer any questions
57
THANK YOU
I-
7
0
Bi
g
h
o
r
n
R
o
a
d
S
p
r
u
c
e
W
a
y
St
r
e
a
m
s
i
d
e
C
i
r
c
l
e
58
TO
P
O
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
M
A
P
LO
T
3
,
B
L
O
C
K
3
,
B
I
G
H
O
R
N
S
U
B
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
T
H
I
R
D
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
EA
G
L
E
C
O
U
N
T
Y
,
C
O
L
O
R
A
D
O
LEGEND
59
Submitted to the Town of Vail:
June 2024
4355 Bighorn Rd
Rezoning to Community Housing-1 Zone District
Property Location:
2101-122-12-007
4355 Bighorn Road
Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn Filing 3
60
Introduction
Kyle Webb, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a rezoning for the property
located at 4355 Bighorn Road / Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn Filing 3. This vacant property is approximately
0.714 acres in size. The existing zoning of the property is Residential Cluster (RC) Zone District. The
property is proposed to be zoned Community Housing-1 Zone District (CH-1). The applicant has
owned the property for decades and now wants to pursue a development project on the land that
maximizes the benefits to the community in the form of local resident housing. The applicant believes
it would be a lost opportunity to not pursue locals housing on the property and hopes to partner with
the Town in the future on locals housing project.
The property was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974, by Ordinance 20, Series of 1974. When
originally annexed it was zoned Low Density Multiple Family, then rezoned in 1977 to Residential
Cluster. The Land Use Designation for the property, as identified by the Vail Land Use Plan is “High
Density Residential.”
The CH-1 zone district was adopted by the Town in 2024 as a vehicle to encourage the development
of local resident housing in Vail. Once zoned CH-1, the property can only be developed in support of
deed restricted housing. The applicant’s intent is to develop local’s housing opportunities as allowed
by the CH-1 zone district.
The purpose of the CH-1 zone district is:
The Community Housing-1 (CH-1) District is intended to provide adequate sites for employee
housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be
adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zone
districts. This zone district allows flexibility to provide for the critical need for housing to serve
local citizens and businesses, and to provide for the public welfare. The CH-1 District is
intended to ensure that employee housing is appropriately located and designed to meet the
of 2 11
Site photos of the subject property:
Photo 1 is from Bighorn Road, looking northeast during fall. Photo 2 is from Spruce Way, looking south during June.
61
needs of residents of the Town, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate
light, air, open spaces and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses.
No plans have been developed at this time. Once the zoning is established, any development plan
submitted to the Town will need comply with the Town’s regulations. Notably, the CH-1 zone district
limits the maximum height to 35 ft. for flat roofs and 43 ft. for sloping roofs. This is the only difference
from the other Community Housing zone districts, which allow for much greater building heights. This
will be the first property in the Town of Vail to be zoned CH-1.
of 3 11
62
Site and Zoning Analysis
Parcel: 2101-122-12-007
Address: 4355 Bighorn Road
Legal: Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn Filing 3
Lot Area: 0.714 acres / 31,082 sq. ft.
Zoning: Residential Cluster
Proposed Zoning: Community Housing - 1 Zone District
Hazards: Slopes in Excess of 40%
Development Standard RC Zone District CH-1 Zone District
Minimum Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft. / 8,000 sq. ft. buildable No minimum lot area
Setbacks Front: 20 ft.
Side and Rear: 15 ft.
Front: 20 ft.
Side and Rear: 15 ft.
Height Flat: 30 ft.
Sloping: 33 ft.
Flat: 35 ft.
Sloping: 43 ft.
Density 6 du per buildable acre = 2.14 du No limit
GRFA 36 sq. ft. per 100 sq. ft. buildable = 5,604 No limit
Site Coverage 25% of site area = 7,770.5 sq. ft.55% of site area, may be increased to 75%
with provision of enclosed parking
= 17,095.1 - 23,311.5 sq. ft.
Landscape Area Minimum 60% of site area = 18,649.2 sq. ft.25% of site area = 7,770.5 sq. ft.
of 4 11
63
Criteria for Review
Section 12-3-7: AMENDMENT, of the Vail Town Code, provides the criteria for review of a zone district
boundary amendment. The following section includes the criteria, along with an analysis of the
compliance of the proposal with the criteria.
(1)The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with all the applicable
elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive
plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and
Applicant Analysis:
The property is governed by the Vail Land Use Plan, which was adopted in 1986 and most recently
updated in 2009. Other applicable plans include the Vail 20/20 Plan and the Housing Strategic Plan,
all of which are described below:
•Vail Land Use Plan
The adopted map of the Vail Land Use Plan shows a designation of “High Density Residential” for the
property. The High Density Residential designation is defined as follows:
HDR High Density Residential
The housing in this category would
typically consist of multi-floored
structures with densities exceeding
15 dwelling units per buildable acre.
Other activities in this category
would include private recreational
facilities, and private parking
facilities and institution/ public uses
such as churches, fire stations and
parks and open space facilities.
The Vail Land Use Plan also
provides the following Objectives
and Policies that are applicable to
this rezoning request:
5. Residential
5.1. Additional residential growth
should continue to occur primarily in
existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist.
5.2. Quality time share units should be accommodated to help keep occupancy rates up.
of 5 11
Subject Property
64
5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted
by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions.
5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of
housing types.
5.5. The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional
employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the
community.
•Vail 20/20 Plan
The Vail 20/20 Plan provides the following goals:
Provide for enough deed-restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through
policies, regulations and publicly initiated development.
The Town of Vail recognizes the need for housing as infrastructure that promotes community,
reduces transit needs and keeps more employees living in the town, and will provide for
enough deed-restricted housing for at least 30 percent of the workforce through policies,
regulations and publicly initiated development.
The proposed zoning of Housing on the buildable area of the site helps to further the goal of the Town
of Vail to provide deed-restricted housing for 30% of the workforce. This property creates an exciting
opportunity to create new housing stock, while still protecting the steeper hillside from development
by zoning the steep portions NAP.
•Employee Housing Strategic Plan
The Employee Housing Strategic Plan outlines the Town of Vail’s goals and policies to ensure
employee housing. It provides the following objectives:
Actively address affordable housing for Vail workers to ensure that the community remains
competitive in economic terms.
Increase and maintain deed-restricted housing within the Town to encourage the efficient use
of resources by placing employees closer to their place of work.
The proposed zoning will allow for the creation of new deed-restricted employee housing units within
the Town of Vail, allowing Vail to remain economically competitive in attracting and maintaining a
quality workforce.
The proposal is consistent with the goals and objectives of the various Town of Vail planning
documents and helps to further one of Vail’s critical needs: creating employee housing within the
Town of Vail boundaries to ensure that Vail remains economically competitive.
of 6 11
65
(2)The extent to which the zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential
land uses on the site and existing and potential surrounding land uses as set out in the town's
adopted planning documents; and
Applicant Analysis:
This area of East Vail is a
variety of residential uses.
There are apartments,
c o n d o m i n i u m s , a n d
townhouses, along with single-
family and duplex homes. This
mix of residential uses has
created a vibrant community,
with easy access to the Town’s
bus system and bike paths,
making it an ideal location for
local resident housing.
The property to the west is
Bighorn Falls Townhomes.
Bighorn Falls Townhomes are
zoned Low Density Multiple
Family. The site consists of
approximately 4 units, with a
duplex structure constructed in
1994 directly adjacent. The
other two units are single-
family structures constructed in
1996. This site received a
v a r i a n c e t o c o n s t r u c t
residences on slopes in excess of 40%, which is not permitted in the LDMF zone district. Similar to the
subject property, the land use designation is High Density Residential.
The property to the east is developed with the Victorians at Vail. This property is zoned Special
Development District #18 with an underlying zoning of RC. The Victorians also have a land use
designation of High Density Residential.
To the north of the subject property is I-70 Right-of-Way and to the south is Bighorn Road. There are
residential uses across Bighorn Road, with single-family and duplex properties zoned Two-Family
Residential.
The uses allowed by the CH-1 zone district are similar to those listed in RC and LDMF, though EHUs
are the only permitted residential use in the CH-1 zone district. Free-market dwelling units are
of 7 11
The Victorians SDD
Bighorn Falls
Townhomes
I-
7
0
R
O
W
66
allowed as an accessory use with additional limitations such as only allowed as 30% of the GRFA
constructed on the site. Unlike the other Community Housing Zone Districts, commercial uses are not
allowed in the CH-1 zone district.
The proposed zone district amendment is suitable with the existing and potential uses on surrounding
properties.
(3)The extent to which the zone district amendment presents a harmonious, convenient,
workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives;
and
Applicant Analysis:
The proposal to rezone the property to CH-1 furthers one of the Town’s major development
objectives:
The provision of employee housing
The proposed zoning furthers the goals and objectives outlined in the Vail Land Use Plan, makes use
of an infill property already identified as an appropriate location for residential uses, and provide
housing for locals in an already established neighborhood with abundant services and amenities.
There are not many opportunities where a private landowner voluntarily rezones a property to provide
deed-restricted housing. Under the existing zoning, this site can currently be developed as a duplex
of over 5,600 sq. ft. of GRFA. In fact, one was approved by the DRB in the past but never constructed.
With so few vacant developable parcels remaining in the Town of Vail, this rezoning is an opportunity
that cannot be overlooked.
of 8 11
Subject property in context of neighborhood
Victorians at Vail
Bighorn Falls
Townhouses
Subject Property
I-70
67
(4)The extent to which the zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable
community and does not constitute spot zoning as the amendment serves the best interests
of the community as a whole; and
Applicant Analysis:
The proposed zone district amendment provides for the growth of an orderly viable community by
establishing a site for employee housing within the Town of Vail boundaries, close to existing services
and transportation. Employee housing is key to ensuring that the Town of Vail remain economically
viable and competitive, while protecting the environmentally sensitive lands that have created a place
worth living in. This does not constitute spot zoning, as the zone district helps further these goals and
because the property is already zoned for residential uses and is consistent with the Future Land Use
Designation of the Town’s Land Use Plan. As a result, the proposed amendment serves the best
interest of the community.
(5)The extent to which the zone
district amendment results in
adverse or beneficial impacts on
the natural environment,
including, but not limited to,
water quality, air quality, noise,
vegetation, riparian corridors,
hillsides and other desirable
natural features; and
Applicant Analysis:
The proposed zone district
amendment proposes to rezone a
property currently zoned as RC zone
district to H zone district. The subject
property is not located within any
avalanche, debris flow, or rockfall
hazard areas as mapped by the Town
of Vail. It is not adjacent to any
streams or waterways, and therefore
does not impact any riparian corridors.
Like many properties in Vail, it is
impacted by its adjacency to I-70,
which does create some noise impacts
to the property. There are two
environmental considerations for the
property: slopes in excess of 40% and existing vegetation on the site.
of 9 11
Excessive Slopes Map
30 - 40% slopes
>40% slopes
68
As part of the creation of the Community Housing Zone Districts, the Town adopted amendments to
Section 12-21-10 Development Restricted that allows structures to be constructed on areas of slopes
40% or greater.
Prior to this changes, variances from this section were common. The subject property was approved
for a similar variance in 1999, which has since expired. Bighorn Falls Townhouses received a variance
to allow for construction on the areas exceeding 40% slope. Other variances in the area noted that
much of the 40% slopes were created with the construction of I-70 and Spruce Way.
The subject property contains grasses, shrubs, and some trees, and while the vegetation will be
disturbed with any type of development of the property, an appropriate landscape plan can be
developed in a way that is consistent with development on surrounding properties. The rezoning is
therefore consistent with this criterion.
(6)The extent to which the zone district amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of
the proposed zone district; and
Applicant Analysis:
Section 12-6L-1 provides the purpose of the CH-1 zone district:
The Community Housing-1 (CH-1) District is intended to provide adequate sites for employee
housing which, because of the nature and characteristics of employee housing, cannot be
adequately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other residential zone
districts. This zone district allows flexibility to provide for the critical need for housing to serve
local citizens and businesses, and to provide for the public welfare. The CH-1 District is
intended to ensure that employee housing is appropriately located and designed to meet the
needs of residents of the Town, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and to ensure adequate
light, air, open spaces and other amenities appropriate to the allowed types of uses.
This site is within the Town of Vail boundaries, adjacent to established transportation routes, including
a Town of Vail transit stop and in close proximity to the recreation path. The CH-1 zone district allows
the Planning and Environmental Commission to set most development standards, creating flexibility to
create a housing project that is suitable to the individual site. As a result, the proposed zone district
amendment is consistent with the purpose statement of the H zone district.
(7)The extent to which the zone district amendment demonstrates how conditions have changed
since the zoning designation of the subject property was adopted and is no longer
appropriate; and
Applicant Analysis:
The RC zone district would generally permit low-density residential development. In this case, the
property would be allowed 2 dwelling units and up to 5,600 sq. ft. of GRFA. Recognizing that the
of 10 11
69
residential needs of the Town have changed dramatically since the late 1970s (when the RC zone
district was applied), the new zoning of CH-1 allows for the development of employee housing on the
property, which is a major need of the community. As a result, the proposal is consistent with this
criterion.
(8)Such other factors and criteria as the commission and/or council deem applicable to the
proposed rezoning.
Applicant Analysis:
Any other factors can be addressed as necessary.
of 11 11
70