Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutpec_results_120808_working_RAW MINUTESPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 8, 2008 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Pierce Scott Proper Rollie Kjesbo David Viele (departed at 5:15PM) Michael Kurz Sara Robinson-Paladino Susie Tjossem Site Visits: Ever Vail, 862, 923, 934, 953 and 1031 South Frontage Road West Vail Village parking structure, 241 East Meadow Drive Evergreen Lodge 250 South Frontage Road 5 Minutes A request for final review for an amendment to an approved development plan, pursuant to 12-9C-5, Development Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for temporary skier parking at the Vail Mountain School, located at 3000 Booth Falls Road/Lot12, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 12, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080070) Applicant: Vail Mountain School, represented by Robert Fitz Planner: Nicole Peterson ACTION: Withdrawn Nicole Peterson stated that she had received a request to withdraw the application from the applicant. The reason stated was concern expressed by neighboring properties with regard to controlling parking at the Vail Mountain School in the future which the school shared. 30 Minutes A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, for amendments to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to incorporate the property known as Glen Lyon Office Building into the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Study Area and create site specific recommendations, located at 1000 S Frontage Rd/ Lot 54, Cascade Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080069) Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Planner: Nicole Peterson ACTION: Recommendation of approval MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Tjossem VOTE: 5-0-1 (Viele recused) Commissioner Viele recused himself from the review of this item due to a conflict of interest. Nicole Peterson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Jay Petersen, attorney representing the applicant, stated that the relocation of the Frontage Road changes the situation of the Glen Lyon Office Building. The stage has been set for the inclusion of the GLOB within the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan in order to allow for the comprehensive planning of this area. He went on to add that he understands that Lionshead Mixed Use-2 zoning would allow a great deal of development potential which would not be appropriate. The applicant stated that this is why they were specifically listing maximums on density, Gross Residential Floor Area, and height below that for this property which are more appropriate. He added that if this request were to be approved it could allow for the reconfiguration of property lines in the area which could result in better planned developments. The Commissioners expressed their support and benefits for having the entirety of the area under the same Master Plan. Commission Paladino asked what Vail Resorts thought of the proposal. Jay Petersen stated that Vail Resorts had expressed support at the Land Use amendment stage and in recent conversations were supportive of this request and the synergies which could be a result. 45 Minutes A request for a work session for a review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications; and requests for conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12-7H-2, Permitted and Conditional Uses, Basement or Garden Level; Section 12-7H-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses, First Floor or Street Level; 12-7H-4, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Second Floor and Above, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the Evergreen Lodge, with dwelling units, accommodation units, and conference facilities and meeting rooms on the basement or garden level, multi-family dwelling units, accommodation units and conference facilities and meetings rooms on the first floor or street level, and a fractional fee club on the second floor and above, located at 250 South Frontage Road West/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080033, PEC080072) Applicant: HCT Development, represented by TJ Brink Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Tabled to December 22, 2008 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 6-0-0 Rachel Friede gave a presentation per the Staff memorandum. She highlighted the topics for the work session were flat roofed area, pedestrian path along Middle Creek, loading and delivery, and curb-cut access. She requested that the PEC consider and provide direction on screening the loading and delivery. Referenced the employee housing requirement, noting that the applicant is proposing fee-in-lieu, however, Staff recommends some housing on-site. Referenced relationship to adjacent properties and frontage road access. Kurz had a question regarding the date of the next PEC. Rachel stated that the date stated in the memo is Bruce Wright, SV Arch, representing applicant. He stated goal of receiving comments and feedback today on the 4 points of the Staff memo, and then move forward to a final recommendation in late Dec or January. Gave powerpoint presentation including an explanation of an aerial photo of the neighborhood and photos of the property and surrounding properties. He explained the proposed site plan including, point of vehicular access, pedestrian corridor, and stream placement. He also explained the proposed building orientation and proposed floor plans. He presented several renderings to illustrate the building mass at different angles. He shared some example proposed materials. Showed a height comparison of the existing Evergreen Lodge and the proposed building which illustrated that the proposed will be lower in height. Shared a sun-shadow analysis, for the building only, not including landscaping. He explained the proposed, submitted elevations. Spoke to the 1st point of the Staff memo, the flat roofs proposed. Introduced a model of the project and explained that the model is set at a distance from the podium that illustrates the view from the mountain. He proceeded to show renderings of the project from different angles including Vail Mountain. Pierce requested more explination of the last three points in the Staff memo. Mr. Wright continued by addressing the loading and deliver access and types of trucks that are expected to deliver to the hotel. He shared three different configurations, explaining that WB-50 trucks, if eliminated, would increase the amount of screening of the loading area. He stated that the applicant wishes to work with future re-development plans of the Vail Medical Center. The applicant has worked with the PW Dept. on access and circulation that works with the future re-development. He addressed the options for the pedestrian path. He explained that the path is meant to create a bike and pedestrian connection from the South Frontage Road to Meadow Drive. He described that the existing grades on the site create a challenge in designing the path, he believes the best location is on the west side of the building. Pierce asked for public comment and referenced the letters included in the Staff memorandum. Rachel added that she received another email that will be included Sue Freshly, husband is an original owner. She referenced the retaining walls on both sides of the path ranging from 2-6 feet. She is concerned about the safety on the bike. She stated that the existing path is ‘slicker than snot’ and could not fathom a 10% grade on the proposed path. She is concerned with run-off to middle creek. She is not in favor of a path on either side of the creek. She is concerned that building and maintaining the trail doesn’t make sense for the little traffic on the path today. Greg Hall commented that the plan calls for the connection from S. Frontage Rd. to Meadow Dr. He stated the importance of bike access (connection to the existing bike path). There is not a clear connection today, and it would be best located in this re-development because of the close proximity. Jim Lamont disagrees. He believes the path should be incorporated with the Lionshead parking structure redevelopment. He is concerned with the habitat of Middle Creek. There should be an environmental study conducted on the middle creek. Suggested that an alternative route for the connection could be between VMC and Skal House. That would like to the bus stop location as well. The path should not disrupt the natural character of the area. Does not believe the path was well thought thru. Pierce proceeded to request comments of the PEC on the flat roof issue Veile has no problem with the proposed flat roof. Rachel commented that there are no completed roof forms. Kjesbo, agrees with the proposal, he believes there is enough transition in the architecture. Pierce does not agree with the flat roof, ‘creates a landing strip’. He stated concern about the amount of the deviation. Susie asked about material Wright - batten-seam material and silver color. Susie asked about the Staff’s suggestion on the roof – Rachel referenced and read portions of pg. 3 of Staff memo. 22,000 sf of roof area and the plan references a max of 5,000. She commented that the building massing should be separated, Staff recommends that the flat roof not be allowed – Susie asked about projections – Rachel said Some projections will be a part of the roof (chimney’s etc). Warren added that the heights in the plan were put in place to allow for the projections. Viele asked what the height is – Warren guessed 110’. Sarah asked for examples of projects such as Solaris etc. Rachel stated that those projects were SDD’s and have much higher roofs. Kurz requested that the break-ups be shown on the model at the next meeting. Loading and delivery: Pierce requested a statement from Greg Hall. Greg recommended that the site accommodate WB-50 (beverage trucks). The standard Solaris, Arrabell are capable of WB-50. Viele? WB-40 inside? WB-50 on outside. Rachel explained that the service drive could be eliminated if WB-50 eliminated. Applicant has offered to not allow WB-50 on-site. Concern that the trucks will park on the S. Frontage Rd. Viele indifferent. Kjesbo likes proposal with service drive to remove trucks from Frontage. Pierce says this is a brand new project and wants to see a designated area for the WB-50’s. Pierce – location of the service road is a mistake. Susie believes that there needs to b room for the larger trucks – Sarah the same. Micheal would agree to no service rd if the trucks were properly enforced /eliminated from site delivery – concern about enforcement. Kurz – how much larger does the bay need to be? TJ Brink referenced the 30 feet of drive area, the trucks should be in the building. Peirce – maybe it’s proposed at the wrong end of the building. Employee housing: Rachel explained the Staff recommendation per memo. Applicant proposing no on-site. Is that ok? Kurz – right to do what they want to do. Unanimous that the applicant is before the 50% and that the applicant can do what they wish. Middle Creek ped/bike path: Pierce requested details of design . . options w/I staff memo. Site specific recommendation in the master plan – path shall be thru the Evergreen. Rachel stated is is a suggestion of the Master Plan. Viele does not believe this site is an appropriate location for the path – none of the option. Kjesbo says same as Viele – more logical locations. Peirce – should look at south option – Town property should be used – fine if modifications to bldg are required to accommodate. Susie – none of the 3 options – likes to explore the south property line option. Sarah does not think the bike path seems safe and should do environmental study. Kurz – this will never be riverwalk of San Antonio – we should leave it alone – seek other options. Wright – clarify easement – runs into the parking garage and ends. Loading/delivery issue and path causes a lot of traffic in that area. Relationship to adjacent properties: Relates to access of future re-dev of VMC. Concern with grade changes between Evergreen and VMC. Peirce – how did entrance to VMC end up in that location. TJ stated that there is and existing easement for the parking structure to stay in that location. Pierce ?Distance between the two proposed access points. _____ 150ft. Perice – the distance between the access of Evergreen and VMC – applicant _____ strike a balance between grading and access and future re-dev. Viele – has no problem. Kjesbo – no problem. Kurz – no problem, just concern that the drop at the edge of the parking structure – we have no idea what the VMC will do. Greg Hall shared that the alignment of the access points across from one another (municipal building and VMC) is important. Determining the correct distance for the next intersection (150’). He recommended that the access be moved to the west. Both service and main entrance. He is concerned about the close proximity to VMC. TJ stated that he will not allow the VMC to access on his site, Evergreen. TJ cannot continue to be controlled by the VMC. Pierce – could the Evergreen and VMC would share the entrance? Two parties should work togther for mutual benefit. Kurz – would this be main entrance for emergency? Greg said it would be the main entrance. Vile said he’s on the Board and believes Greg is presumptuous. Greg stated that he was saying we would like to get the Emergency vehicles off the S. Frontage. Table to Dec 22nd – Veile, Kjesbo 2nd, 6-0-0. 45 Minutes A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council of proposed amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan, pursuant to Section VIII-B, Adoption, Extensions, and Amendments, Vail Village Master Plan, to amend Sub-area #4, Transportation Center, to allow for a mixed-use development on the south side of the Vail Village parking structure, located at 241 East Meadow Drive/Parts of Tracts B and C, Vail Village Filing 1 (a complete description is available at the Community Development Department upon request), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080015) Applicant: Triumph Development, LLC, represented by Rick Pylman Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to December 22, 2008 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 6-0-0 George Ruther made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Ruther noted that the item is actually a work session rather than a final recommendation. Bill Pierce asked if they need to meet all or just some of the criteria. George Ruther responded that they need to meet some of the three. Ruther continued with his presentation. Steve Virostek, Triumph Development, then made a presentation as a representative of the applicant. He said he has been working on the Willows redevelopment over the past few years, and has gotten to know the issues that are currently facing the town. Housing is clearly an issue, but also vitality and quality of life in the Village are major issues for the Town. They are concerned about the long term viability of Vail Village for workers, residents and guests. Until he became a resident, he was not exposed to the shoulder seasons. Now, during shoulder seasons, he sees that the village is quiet. In hearing all of these discussions on housing, it became obvious that not only housing was an issue, but employment for businesses in the Village. Having families in the Village will improve vitality, providing people to walk around, shop and eat, especially during shoulder seasons. Front rangers would be more likely to visit during shoulder seasons if there is more vitality in Vail Village. The project being proposed today is a step in the right direction. Triumph is proposing the project because there is merit to the idea, even though they don’t own the land. He said the uses, and the corresponding amendments to the Vail Village Master Plan, should go through, regardless of whether the town chooses Triumph Development for the project. He said other developers may be chosen for development, but in the end, the changes will make the town a better place. The idea is to take the landscape berm, as shown in the corresponding maps and attachments, and replace the buffer with a building buffer. The building buffer would house: 100% deed restricted housing from bridge street to the east, first floor retail, second floor quasi retail, and office on second and third floor, and parking for those uses below the new building. Virostek went on to show the existing site as well as a proposal for development of the landscape berm. He noted that the building would look similar to the design intent shown in the rendering. He mentioned that it would not be exactly the same because through the process, the design of the building changes. He said that all of this can be done without affecting the day to day operations of the garage. The next rendering he showed was Bridge street to the east. While the housing is deed restricted, because of its prominence to the village, it would be of similar quality to existing village. He said that there are people who are already interested in buying the units. The EHUs would be approximately 2400 sq ft townhomes, and in some cases, an owner could occupy upper levels and rent the lower level to key employees. Virostek continued with discussion regarding access to parking. He said that employee housing would access their parking through the existing parking structure and would exclusively be occupied by EHU owners/renters. For office space, the employees could park in the office parking during office hours, but during non-office hours, the parking could be open to the public for public parking. This would alleviate the burden on the town for parking. He said that the retail would complement the employee housing, and not be another t-shirt or fur shop. He said employee housing, office space and complementary retail, as well as parking, are great amenities for the Town of Vail. He said in other cases, it might be developed as market rate condos, and in his opinion this is a mistake. 20-30,000 sq feet retail and 20-30,000 sq ft office, as well as 20-30 units for employees (56,000 sq ft of residential space). It is not a big project, but could have a big impact. The Vail Town Council voted to approve goals including housing and parking, and this project meets those requirements. He said opponents would say this is taking away open space, and he thinks there is plenty of open space in other locations. He said that this wasn’t envisioned in the master plan, but a master plan is a living document. If we didn not amend the master plan, we would not have an evervail, a front door, or similar projects. He said you may hear we have enough development. He said everyone is tired of this, but there are ways of mitigating construction. He said if Triumph was selected, he would be able to mitigate development, as he did in the Willows. He said Triumph is motivated to do the right thing for the community, to solve issues that are not unique to Vail. This will help show that Triumph can solve community issues. Rick Pylman, Pylman and Associates, discussed the “technical” aka boring aspects of the project. He noted that the goals in the master plan do not need to change, as the project would meet all of the goals in the master plan today. He said adding paragraph 4.2 would allow for details on this project. He said in the land use plan map on page 50 of the master plan would detail section 4.2, showing retail/office and residential. The changes are to the transportation center sub-area. The review criteria is really important, and there are three, required to meet two. How have conditions changed since the plan was adopted? He said conditions have changed quite a bit. He said there was a perception that Vail Village was across the covered bridge. He said this is no longer true with improvements that have occurred on the north side of the covered bridge. The landscape buffer was in place when the master plan was created, and it identified existing conditions. He said it was there because it was the most economically viable way of structurally supporting that side of the parking garage. Is there a better way for the community to screen that side of the parking garage? He said since the Sonnenalp redevelopment and One Willow Bridge redevelopment, it is a vastly better place to walk. People come to Vail for the shopping and strolling activity. From the Slifer Plaza west to solaris, we have improvements on one side of the road, but this project would make a better pedestrian connection. The changes to the master plan would allow more exploration of the concept. The next criteria: is the master plan in error? No, but conditions have changed. Is the project in concert with the master plan in general? Yes. There are no changes except changes to the sub area, and all of the goals support that. To be brief, they can meet two of the review criteria. There are covenants in place on the Vail Village Parking Structure, and he believes they will not impede the project. He said they are comfortable with discussion. Virostek said that this project will allow for a new structural system, creating independence for the Vail Village Parking structure. This will allow for redevelopment of the parking structure, with a rail solution, more density, etc. He said some issues can be solved right now, while other issues like rail will be solved later. Bob Sinclair, owner at the Mountain Haus since 1970, coming to Vail since 1968. He comes from an area near Seattle. He said the image or dream he has all year, is the wonderful open space that makes Vail the unique place that it is. He said that this project is not compatible with Vail’s work to be stewards of the environment. He said this location is really the front door to Vail, and this is the impression people take home with them when they leave. Any urbanization of this area will give the wrong impression to visitors. He said Vail creates memories that turn into dreams that people have, pushing them to come back. Axel Wilhelmsen, property owner and merchant in Vail, said that this is a great use of the space. It’s a space that while considered open space, it is not used as an open space. Many people cant even fathom what is there today because it is not used as open space. We have a lot of open space around us. In Zermatt, Switzerland, there is a tremendous amount of open space. But in the core of the village, it has been built out for centuries. It does not detract from the experience of coming to Zermatt. For the proposed development, he gives his support. Tim Hargrave, general manager of Los??, said he would like to lend support to the project. He said the SOnnenalp has improved meadow drive a lot, and before redevelopment, Meadow Drive was a busway. He said this project will further the improvements to Meadow Drive, and the employee housing would be a great way to bring back families to town. Ted Wininger, started coming to Vail in 1982, came to Vail and rented until they could find a place in Vail. They could never find a place that was affordable to them, and ended up moving to Eagle. He would love the opportunity to live in the Village in an affordable housing development. Steve Hawkins, general manager of the Mountain Haus, said he would make several brief points. In Vail, there are 92 properties available for less than $1Million. He went into detail about what is available in that range of price points. HE said there is already a lot of properties available for sale. If we would have put this type of development on the property, it would now not be available for use today (??). The objectives of goal 4 is to improve existing open space and provide new plazas…… This is part of the fabric of the community. The open space and the history of the Village provides a better product than other communities. He said this project may preclude the parking structure from expansion for monorail. He also said this is a critical public policy issue of using public land for private development. He said this provides a buffer between the mountain haus and the parking structure. The open space in front of the building is a great use until the development occurs for the entire property. If this had been built in Lionshead, you would not have the options you have now to redevelop the site. Lets make sure the village is ready for new development, and that the site is ready and intact before any partial development occurs. Congestion in that area is of major concern, especially because of skier drop off. Blocking views, more congestion are both issues. Future needs need to be addressed, and this project only addressed existing needs. But where does it end? There is a beautiful park nearby, and will that be used for development? Each park is important to the fabric of the village. It scares him that pretty pictures can take the discussion out of land use and Vail’s needs. The discussion should be able the long term future of Vail. Reject any attempts to amend the master plan. Kaye Ferry, no title, said she opposes the sale of public land and further opposes giving it away. Stan Cope, managing director for Vail Mountain Lodge and Spa, represents the ownership of the property, said he disagrees with Rick. He said the Vail Mountain Lodge and spa is not unattractive. The key to this is the berm. The berm is a buffer that is important. He said if the whole property was redeveloped, he would hope that there would be a setback. The Vail Mountain Lodge and Spa is 30 feet from this proposal, with 18 rooms facing this proposal. He said the Town of Vail runs buses up and down Meadow Drive. And there are major noise issues. He noted that the Town needs to prioritize redevelopment of outdated properties in the Village, rather than focusing on new development. He also stated that the only buffer parking and the village should not be eliminated. Rich Selph, long time visitor and new resident. He highlighted the master plan’s recommendation to preserve open space and noted that it sets Vail apart from other ski resorts who could resist developing every inch. He is also concerned about what public property will be developed next. He believes that despite how tasteful the architectural drawings the affect will be a movie lot appearance rather than a mountain village. Deviating from the master plan would be a breach of faith with the community and the adjacent owners. Robby Moore, Mountain Haus owner, he remember being able to see the ski mountain from the parking lot in the 1960’s, and he believes the buffer was intentional when the parking structure was built to preserve such views. The landscaped area is a closing image for guests leaving Vail. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowner’s Association, who remembers being part of this project since the 1970’s. He agrees with the representatives of the Mountain Haus that the parking area was the origins of Vail. He noted that this project is similar to other projects in Vail’s history. He did admit that times have changed, but the community does not appear to know where it is going. He cautioned that any project on Town property must be thoroughly vetted and timed properly. He believes there are other priorities in the communities, and we can not be permitted to be distracted by anyone proposing to amend the Town’s master plans. He expressed concerns that the Lionshead Parking project has gone no where at a high cost of time and money. He is concerned that the Town doesn’t have a long range plan and now will grasp for any development with the treat of a down economy. He noted that Vail’s new economic model from recent development is not tested. Numerous other projects in Lionshead still need to be redeveloped prior to shifting priorities to a new development in the Village. He stated that a large portion of the counties workforce may leave the county with the downturn in construction and real estate. He believes the Village is already functional and competitive with other resorts, and we need to stay focused. Timber Ridge needs to the focus of employee housing, Simba Run underpass in a priority of transportation, Ever Vail/West Lionshead is a critical project that may give confidence to other developers and investors, the government should not be competing with the private sector developers with private projects on public lands. He also noted that the design of landscaping was designed by a world class designer and was done very intentionally. The community must recognize there are unintended consequences to such a project and this use of public land is unprecedented. Andrew Purdy, East Vail resident, noted that the applicant’s claim of off-season benefits and employee housing. He believes the Vail voters should have the ability to decide how to use their land. John Thoreau, local skier and commercial builder in Denver, described the visual quality of the area. He stated a desire to preserve and even enhance the natural look of the parking structure berm. He noted that he is bidding jobs at 7% profit, not 10% being proposed by the applicant. He also has concerns about developing this parcel, rather than preserving it for a future use. He is concerned developing this parcel now is buying high, rather than buying low. George Ruther clarified the intent of the worksession, and reiterated that no final decision is requested at this time. Commissioner Viele noted that he does not believe the applicant has standing to file the application. Commissioner Kjesbo agreed a lot with Jim Lamont. He has concerns about the affordability of the EHU’s, he’s like to first see the results of the ongoing construction projects and is not Commissioner Tjossem agree with Commissioner Viele and is concerned about the timeliness of selling public land at this time. She is concerned about the affordability of the EHUs. Commissioner Pierce stated his concern about preserving the intent of using this land for parking. He would like to see a consistent policy in accepting applications where deed restrictions affect properties. Commissioner Paladino agreed with Commissioner Pierce and Commissioner Viele. George Ruther clarified that the Town Council did grant the applicant the authority to Commissioner Kurz believes the proposed density is egregious. He is not in favor of revising the master plan until the “dust has settled” on current development projects, and believes the proposal is contrary to the goals of the community. Commissioner Viele departed the meeting due to prior commitments. 60 Minutes A request for a work session for a review of a preliminary plan for a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13-3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the creation of two lots for the redevelopment of the properties known as “Ever Vail” (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right-of-way/Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080062) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to December 22, 2008 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 5-0-0 Commissioner Viele departed prior to the start of this item. Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum and outlined the discussion points for today’s work session. Greg Hall, Public Works Director, gave a presentation summarizing the transit and transportation topics associated with this proposal. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, noted that there a key issues of contention that must be resolved in a timely manner such as circulation and parking. He asked if the Town should build the long term road improvement solutions or can those be constructed in phases. He noted that the Simba Run underpass will be a critical element to Vail’s future success and the issue must be thoroughly researched and studied. He does not believe a simple pedestrian bridge is a viable solution for the future of Vail. In speaking with other development projects, there are methods available to optimize the existing developments. He recommended a compromise in the number of required parking spaces based upon public access to properly managed parking. The community can not afford to consider increasing the skier numbers until the community’s infrastructure needs have been addressed. Tom Miller, Vail Resorts, along with other members of the development team gave a presentation about the circulation and transportation internal to the Ever Vail project. 30 Minutes A request for a final recommendation for prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Chapter 12-13, Employee Housing, Vail Town Code, to establish regulations for an Employee Housing Unit Exchange Program, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080071) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by the Vail Local Housing Authority Planner: Nina Timm/Bill Gibson ACTION: Recommendation of approval MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5-0-0 Nina Timm gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commissioner Kurz asked about the perceived benefits of the proposed program. Nina Timm stated that she has already been contact by several people who want to provide housing just not in their home. The Commissioners expressed their support of the application. 30 Minutes A request for a final recommendation for prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 11-3-3, Prescribed Regulation Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 11-7-10, Open House Signs, Vail Town Code, to allow for changes to the allowable quantity and location of open house signs, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080073) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Recommendation of approval with conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 4-0-1 (Kurz recused) Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Michael Kurz recused himself as the group he represents has numerous real estate agents within in it and he did not feel he could act without bias. Cynthia ?????, stated that she understands concerns of having Vail appear it is “on sale”. She would like to increase the number of directional signs from three as proposed to five for far reaches of East Vail. Concerned about the prohibition in I-70 right of way be dropped. Would like to see size increased from 1.5 square feet to 5 square feet. Has further concerns about the limit of three days in a week maximum for an open house. Some sellers have requested longer time frames in order to move a project. Would like to eliminate the maximum number of days in a given week signs could be displayed. Commissioner Paladino wants to keep signs at 1.5 likes the limits on the signs with regard to hours. Commissioner Pierce would like to clean up some definitions but wants the regulations to remain as they exist. With GPS, computer map programs, etc. peole should be able to find a location.Would be ammenible to an increase in sign size to 3 square feet. Commissioner Tjossem didn’t believe most people drive around looking for open houses. She believes most are accompanied by a broker. 5 Minutes A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12-6I-8, Parking and Loading, and Chapter 12-10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to amend parking requirements for employee housing units and to clarify the parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080067) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Table to December 22, 2008 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5-0-0 5 Minutes A request for final recommendations to the Vail Town Council, for the proposed adoption of the Chamonix Master Plan, to facilitate the development of Employee Housing and a Fire Station on the “Chamonix Parcel” and “Wendy’s Parcel” and a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council to amend the Vail Land Use Plan, pursuant to Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail Land Use Plan to designate the Chamonix Master Plan area, located at 2399 North Frontage Road and 2310 Chamonix Road/Parcels A & B, re-subdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080058) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to December 22, 2008 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5-0-0 5 Minutes A request for final review of conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12-7I-5, Conditional Uses: Generally (On All Levels Of A Building Or Outside Of A Building), Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a public or private parking lot (parking structure); a vehicle maintenance, service, repair, storage, and fueling facility; a ski lift and tow (gondola), within “Ever Vail” (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right-of-way/Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080063) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to December 22, 2008 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5-0-0 5 Minutes A request for a final review of major exterior alterations, pursuant to Section 12-7I-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the area known as “Ever Vail” (West Lionshead), with multiple mixed-use structures including but not limited to, multiple-family dwelling units, fractional fee units, accommodation units, employee housing units, office, and commercial/retail uses, located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right-of-way/Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080064) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to December 22, 2008 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5-0-0 5 Minutes A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-10-19, Core Areas Identified, Vail Town Code, to amend the core area parking maps to include “Ever Vail” (West Lionshead) within the “Commercial Core” designation, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080065) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to December 22, 2008 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5-0-0 5 Minutes A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district boundary amendment, pursuant to 12-3-7, Amendments, Vail Town Code, to allow for a rezoning of properties from Arterial Business District and unzoned South Frontage Road West right-of-way which is not zoned to Lionshead Mixed Use-2, properties known as “Ever Vail” (West Lionshead), located at 953 and 1031 South Frontage Road West and South Frontage Road West right-of-way, (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080061) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to December 22, 2008 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5-0-0 5 Minutes A request for a final review of major exterior alterations, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the property known as the “North Day Lot”, with a multiple unit employee housing project, located at 600 West Lionshead Circle/Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080009) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to January 12, 2009 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 5-0-0 Approval of November 24, 2008, minutes MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Tjossem VOTE: 5-0-0 Information Update Adjournment MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 5-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published December 5, 2008, in the Vail Daily. Page 2