Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEC results_111212Page 1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 12, 2012 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 **Order and times of agenda items are subject to change** SITE VISITS None 20 minutes 1. A request for review of a conditional use permit for “public buildings, grounds and facilities,” pursuant to Section 12-7A-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a temporary fire station, located at 100 East Meadow Drive, Unit 2 (Village Inn Plaza Phase V)/ Lot M, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120040) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Mike McGee Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Approved with conditions(s) MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6-0-1 (Pierce recused) CONDITION(S): 1. The applicant, Town of Vail, and its tenants shall not use East Meadow Drive for any loading, delivery, or parking associated with the uses in this commercial condominium unit of Vail Village Inn Phase V. All loading and delivery shall occur through the Sebastian hotel joint loading and delivery facility and parking shall occur in designated areas. 2. This approval shall expire and all equipment and personnel shall be removed from the commercial unit, seven days after the approval of a building final at the renovated Fire Station No.2. Bill Pierce recused himself due to a conflict of interest as he is the project architect for the ongoing remodel of Fire Station No. 2. Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commissioner Pratt noted concerns about staging the fire truck across the street at the fire station construction site. Warren Campbell and Greg Hall explained the accommodations have been made for the truck in that location. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, asked for clarification about the notice and whether the proposed use was only offices or also for dwelling units. Warren Campbell responded that firemen would be using the space as for sleeping quarters, food preparation, and offices for the on duty crew. 30 minutes Page 2 2. A request for a review of an exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7J-12, Vail Town Code, to allow for a limited service lodge, located at 1783 North Frontage Road West (The Roost Lodge)/ Lots 10, 11, 12, Buffehr Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC120041). Applicant: Timberline Roost Lodge, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6-1-0 (Rediker opposed) CONDITION(S): 1. This exterior alteration or modification approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of the associated design review application. 2. This exterior alteration or modification approval is contingent upon the applicant mitigating the impacts on employee housing generated by this redevelopment in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-23, Commercial Linkage, Vail Town Code, as may be amended. 3. Prior to the submittal of building permit applications, the applicant must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval of final civil drawings, in compliance with all standards of the Vail Town Code. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall revise the Traffic Study to address the 54 surplus parking spaces. 5. As presented, the Traffic Study indicates the net new peak hour trips as 54. This is based on 112 proposed peak hour trips, less the 52 existing trips, less a 10% reduction for multi-modal. Therefore, prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall pay a traffic mitigation fee for system wide transportation improvements of $351,000 (54 x $6500). This amount shall be revised based on the updates to the Traffic Study noted above. Portions of this fee may be offset by offsite traffic/transportation improvements. that are not required by the development; specifically, the sidewalk from the west property line to Buffehr Creek Road. 6. The developer recognizes that based on the Traffic Study, the SBL 2035 turning movement has a Level of Service of F if the Simba Run Underpass is constructed. The developer agrees that if this movement becomes a safety issue in the future this development will be required to provide improvements to resolve or restrict this movement. 7. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall resolve all construction staging issues shall be resolved prior to construction including staging, phasing, access, schedules, traffic control, emergency access, parking, loading and delivery, etc. 8. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) approval of Right-of-Way and Utility for all construction within the street/highway right-of-way. 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must obtain general Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) approval of all improvements within the street/highway right-of-way including road improvements and landscaping, and obtain CDOT approval of an Access Permit. Page 3 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit or grading/excavation permit, the applicant must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval of a shoring and excavation plan which shall include; excavation phasing, engineered shoring plans, profile and cross sections. Cross Sections and plans shall include all existing conflicts (i.e. utilities). The applicant must obtain Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) approval for any shoring within the street/highway right-of- way. The applicant must also obtain Public Works Department approval and a License Agreement approval for any shoring within the street/highway right-of-way. 11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval of an engineered stamped final drainage report, pavement design report, and geotechnical report. 12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall revise the proposed plans to include all Frontage Road improvements including any necessary lighting, irrigation, and signage. 13. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide the Town of Vail an easement, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, in the northwest corner of the property for existing encroachments of the roadway asphalt and shoulder area, drainage and a 5 foot buffer to accommodate snow storage and a guardrail. 14. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall provide the Town of Vail a public access easement, in a form acceptable to the Town Attorney, for the pedestrian connection between the bus stop and Meadow Ridge Road. The applicant may dedication this public access easement in conjunction with the proposed drainage easement in that area; however, the 10 foot proposed drainage easement must be widened to accommodate the walkway plus a 2 foot buffer and also be named as a general utility, drainage, pedestrian access easement. 15. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant must obtain Town of Vail Public Works Department approval of a snowmelt heat and streetscape maintenance agreement for those portions of heated walk located within the pedestrian easement along the western property line. 16. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct the concrete pedestrian walk from the proposed bus stop to Buffehr Creek Road; the walk shall be a minimum of 10 feet wide. 17. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall coordinate all Art in Public Places (AIPP) contributions with the Town of Vail Public Works Department AIPP Coordinator. 18. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall construct a 2.0 inch asphalt overlay for the extent of all constructed Frontage Road improvements. Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on the request. He highlighted that there was no change to the approved bulk and mass, but a conversion of the 28 dwelling units in the project to lodge units. He spoke to the removal of a small architectural element on the west elevation of the building. He added that the project is compliant with the Page 4 current Town Code with regard to employee housing mitigation. He added that a process was underway in which the Town staff was evaluating the employee housing generation rates for limited service hotels of this caliber. He concluded by highlighting the projects benefits and a change request to the Public Works Department’s recommended traffic mitigation condition. Gregory Bemis, resident of the neighborhood, asked about the number of stories in the structure. Dominic Mauriello, responded that the number of floors was the same as approved in 2006. There was no change to approved plans with regard to building height. Gregory Bemis asked about fire egress on the rear of the building, the retaining wall along the rear, and requested that exterior lighting be subdued on the rear side of the structure. He added that the neighborhood understands the need for the project, but expressed concern over the shadow that might be cast on the street behind. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, asked what the average size of the hotel rooms would be. Dominic Mauriello brought up a slide depicting the breakdown of the room types of units. Jim Lamont asked how fire department access was being provided for the project. Dominic Mauriello explained that fire department access will be from the frontage road and the street behind. Jim Lamont inquired about the landscaping along the north property line. Dominic Mauriello explained the retaining walls and landscaping. Jim Lamont inquired as to the ability to reduce the width of pavement in front the structure to achieve greater landscaping. Dominic Mauriello explained the area necessary to accommodate a delivery truck turning radius. Commissioner Pierce asked Tom Kassmel to speak to the applicant’s request for the traffic impact fee to be off-set by their construction of street improvements. Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, spoke to the change in policy in 2009 with regard to allowing for traffic impact fees to be off-set. Tom pointed out that this is the first large scale project, other than Solaris, which would need to comply with this revised policy. Commissioner Kurz inquired as to the cost of installing the Simba Run underpass and the traffic impacts generated. Tom Kassmel answered Commissioner Kurz’s question. Commissioner Pratt asked about recommended condition number 18 which would require an overlay of the street and turn lanes. Tom Kassmel explained the recommended overlay requirement. Page 5 Dominic Mauriello made an argument that the existing approval would be allowed to off-set its traffic impact fees by constructing improvements and this new policy is a disincentive for the applicant to convert the approved condominiums to hotel rooms. Commissioner Kurz stated that it appeared capricious to no longer allow this project, which has an existing approval, to offset the fees with improvements. Commissioner Rediker inquired as to the accuracy of the submitted sun/shade analysis. Dominic Mauriello stated that the analysis was based on final version of the previously approved building design. Commissioner Rediker stated that it might be unfortunate for this applicant, but the new traffic impact fee policy should be assessed. He added that with the design of the roof structure creates a building with a five stories appearance. Commissioner Bird how the hotel would transport guests to the ski mountain. Dominic Mauriello explained how guest could access the nearby bus routes. Commissioner Bird recommended the applicant consider providing shuttle services for their guests. She asked if guest could rent rooms for more than 30 days. Dominic Mauriello clarified that this isn’t an extended stay hotel, but nothing would prohibit a guest willing to pay the daily rate to stay for long periods. Commissioner Pratt inquired as to any precedent of a property having two approved development plans. Bill Gibson noted that staff was not aware of any similar circumstances. Commissioner Pratt stated that as the crux of the issue was the conversion of dwelling units to accommodation units with no changes to the building bulk and mass which he believes is a benefit to the community. He would be in support of allowing the traffic impact fees to be off-set. He does not support on-site employee housing units because they are not compatible with hotel uses in the same building. Commissioner Cartin asked how the sidewalk along the front of the project will tie in with the existing sidewalk along the frontage road. Tom Kasmel explained that this is the “last piece” in bike path system in this neighborhood.. Commissioner Hopkins asked about the service of guest with a bus stop heading west and adding time to get to the mountain. She also recommended the applicant consider providing guests with a shuttle service. Commissioner Kurz inquired about the traffic impact fee associated with the previous approval. Tom Kassmel clarified how the previous fees could be off-set. Commissioner Kurz noted his support for allowing the traffic impact fees to be off-set for this proposal and made a motion for approval with conditions. Page 6 Dominic Mauriello clarified that the motion would allow the traffic impact fees to be off-set by the construction of transportation improvements. 60 minutes 3. A request for the review of amendments to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-16- 10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the Vail Golf Course Club House (i.e. accessory buildings, permanent and temporary, and uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional outdoor recreational uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, including restrooms, drinking fountains, bleachers, concessions, storage buildings, and similar uses), located at 1775 Sunburst Drive/Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3 and Unplatted Parcels (a complete metes and bounds description is available at the Community Development Department Office), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120036) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Continued to November 26, 2012 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5-0-2 (Pierce and Hopkins recused) Commissioner Pierce recused himself due to a conflict of interest as he is the project architect on the temporary golf course buildings and a member of the Fallridge home owners association. He departed the meeting. Commissioner Hopkins recused herself due to conflicts of interest as her architecture firm has submitted an alternative design for the golf course clubhouse project. She also departed the meeting. Bill Gibson gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. He covered the three applications and how together they would permit the reconstruction of the Vail Golf Course. Commissioner Cartin asked that packets of this size be provide as much in advance as possible. Commissioner Kurz inquired about the community liaison concept in the proposed operation plan. Tom Braun, the applicant’s representative, answered that the operation plan would provide for a single point of contact for the neighborhood if they have questions or concerns. Tom Braun gave a presentation highlighting questions asked previously by the Commissioners about the design and program. He covered the clubhouse banquet/event room occupancy, traffic trip analysis, Design Review conceptual review comments, the proposed rezoning, the building height text amendments, and the amended conditional use permit application. Commissioner Pratt asked if architectural projections would be allowed above the proposed height limit. Bill Gibson described how an architectural projection is allowed to be taller than the height limit in all zone districts in Vail. Tom Braun then presented each element of the proposed operations plan. Commissioner Kurz stated that the neighborhood should have a similar liaison that interacts with the VRD and the Town, and there needs to be accountability on both sides. Page 7 Commissioner Bird asked if there was air conditioning planned for the banquet room? She asked if the bar/grill would also be available for rent by groups. Greg Hall explained that the bar/grill during the summer would be made solely available to golfers, but it was a possibility that it could be used by other groups in the winter. Tom Braun described the proposed parking management plan. He covered statistic collected at the Donovan Pavilion that may predict the types of events expected and the typical event start times. He noted that the VRD operates the entire facility, so they would also manage the parking. Commissioner Bird inquired as to the enforceability of requiring a shuttle service for certain events at certain times of day and asked what course of action would be used to prevent parking on Sunburst Drive. Tom Braun described how shuttles, parking, and other issues would be part of the contract and deposit for reserving the banquet room. Commissioner Kurz stated that parking on Sunburst Drive is a Code Enforcement (Police) issue and will would to be addressed in that manner. Commissioner Cartin inquired as to how the switch from general parking to valet parking would occur and how will it be insured that non-valet cars aren’t blocked in. Tom Braun explained the anticipated management process. Commissioner Cartin asked about deliveries. Pedros Campos explained how and where the loading and delivery will occur. Dale Bugby, an avid golfer who spends a lot of time on the course, stated that the parking lot is typically full. If this were any other applicant there would be a new parking structure with a park on top. The proposed parking plan is flawed since it doesn’t address banquet staff parking. There is not enough parking for golfing and an event since some rounds of golf go until 8:00 PM. He covered a letter that he wrote and submitted through Art Abplanalp. An event center is not compatible with the neighborhood. The property was purchased with open space tax money and the PEC’s approval of this application will jeopardize the future collection of that tax. This proposal conflicts with the Pulis covenants. The golf community is opposed to this plan. He suggested a survey of season golf pass holders to ascertain the feelings on this application. The Town Council and the VRD Board have made a back-door-deal that neither group will go back on now. The Town will pay to fix the clubhouse, but only if they get an event center. Neighbors will be impacts by noise since weddings don’t occur without someone opening the door to go outside for a smoke. The applicant states that there is minimal change, but the destruction of the 18th green and the baffle nets have negative impacts. The existing clubhouse is a dump, but the proposed building is out of scale with the neighborhood. The conditional use permit allows new uses, not the expansion of existing uses. The event size description and parking proposal does not take into account the total capacity of people in the banquet room, at the grill, on the patio, and on the lawn area. The applicant is not proposing to prohibit tents. The proposed grill and too small and won’t be a profitable business. The Commission needs to vote no on the project. Art Abplanalp, attorney representing several property owners, asked if the members had received his letter. His response was challenged because the Town was late publishing the packet. He provide a packet of papers which he believed reflected what the Commissioner had Page 8 already received, but he wanted to ensure were a part of the record. He noted their support for the proposed rezoning of the parking lot. He spoke to the height amendment and that architectural projections should not be allowed over 33 feet. He spoke to the definition of what is included as an accessory use to a golf course. A public golf course does not typically have this type of a facility and it’s not within the Commissioner purview to approve this application. He stated that a wedding chapel is not necessary for a golf course. Other golf courses have event facilities separated from the clubhouse. Facilities for events are not typically found at public golf courses. The proposed building design looks like the wedding chapel at the Air Force Academy and doesn’t look like a golf course clubhouse. This is a wedding chapel and restaurant with a clubhouse attached. He stated that the only goal of this project is build a cash-cow for revenues that will come at the neighbors’ expense. He compared the sizes of the existing and proposed banquet rooms, patio, etc. He stated that the proposed chapel and restaurant are not necessary for a golf course. He noted that the neighbors and golfers are opposed to the project. He objected to the public notice not acknowledging the conversion of the 18th green. The notice only refers to the clubhouse and does not speak to the changes on the golf course and the banquet facility. He asked about bleachers and other items listed in the public notice. Bill Gibson clarified that term bleachers and the other listed items in the notice is the verbatim land use language from the Vail Town Code and are not the description of the applicant’s request. Art Abplanalp continued that he does not believe the Commission has been made aware of what the applicant is actually asking for. The proposed conditional use permit is a blank-check. Nothing being presented by the applicant is for sure, there is no certainty. The proposed management and operation plan is worthless since the term “may” is used and it doesn’t address the concerns of the neighbors. If the Commission is going to provide the type of hearing that the constituents expect, the Commission needs to consider everything before them. He believes staff will need to be on-site 24-7 to ensure compliance. People are furious about this proposal but worn down by the review process, so that is why there are so few people in the audience. Art stated that Warren Pulis himself is opposed to this project. He further noted that during past Town Council hearings former Mayor Dick Cleveland and current Mayor Andy Daley said the clubhouse remodel would occur within the footprint of the existing building. He noted than the neighbors had submitted an alternative design to the Town Council, but have not yet received a response. He requested that the Commission put an end to the VRD and Town Council’s arrogance. Gretchen Bussey a resident of the neighborhood, spoke to her concerns about parking. She raised concerns about tents,, the process for approving the tents, will the tents have music, and other questions. She asked who is the proposed neighborhood liaison and who will monitor the parking lot. She is concerned that the proposed events center is a large size. Lue Maslak, resident of Sunburst Drive representing herself and her husband, spoke about the time she and her husband put into finding the perfect property to build their house and retire. She is opposed to the proposed co-opting of the clubhouse and noted that the building is 1/3 for golf and 2/3 for events. She noted that the bride’s room appears to be larger than the men’s locker room. This is a residential neighborhood with bicycles and children and the proposal is not compatible. She urged the Commission to denying the project. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association, thanked those Commissioners who recognized that they had a conflict of interest and stepped down. He added that in projects such as this with Page 9 many cross-currents that other conflicts should be made know. The Town should consider adopting a code of ethics rather than simply relying on the conflict of interest rules. He was confused if the neighbor’s alternative plan (referenced by Art Abplanalp) that was prepared by Snowdon/Hopkins Architects had been submitted to the Commission. He asked the attorney representing the neighbors if it has been submitted as a part of the record. Art Abplanalp stated that it had been submitted prior to the last Commission hearing. Jim Lamont asked if the VRD was a lessee of the Town and if any term of that agreement can be overturned by the Town Council. There is confusion over the rolls and that the Town and VRD are one and the same. They are separate entities and the Town can at its discretion modify the agreement. Therefore, what is approved by this Council can be changed by a future Council. Te is amused at the operation plan and finds it inadequate when compared to the Golden Peak operation/management plan. In the Golden Peak Management plan there is a requirement for all parties (including the neighbors) to be consulted on amendments and changes. The proposed management plan submitted is dictatorial and not collaborative. He stated that the current problems at the clubhouse will not go away with the approval of this project and the management plan doesn’t solve any problems. He clarified that the Vail Homeowners are not a neighborhood association and there only obligation is to communicate. He suggested that the proposed building height text should have a separate clubhouse section in the code. He believes there needs to be a paragraph for all parcels and then specifics for the clubhouse. He noted concern that property owner adjacent to other Outdoor Recreation District properties have not been specifically notified about proposed height change and would not support a height increase for all buildings. The lack of landscaping along the south end of the parking lot is symptomatic of this whole process. The Commission, even in their limited role, needs to send the message that the applicant is not being a good neighbor. Commissioner Kurz inquired of Matt Mire, Town Attorney, if approval of this project would jeopardizing the collection of real estate transfer tax (as asserted by Dale Bugby). Matt Mire answered no. Commissioner Rediker inquired about the property covenant and any current or potential violations. Mire Mire said he has issued a legal opinion that he can share with the Commission in executive session, but due to the ongoing litigation he will not disclose that opinion in the hearing. He clarified that private covenants are outside the scope of the Commission scope of review. Commissioner Rediker stated that as he reads the Outdoor Recreation District and he does not read anything about a banquet facility, etc. He asked for clarification. Bill Gibson read from the district stating that the golf course is a permitted use and the clubhouse and related uses are accessory and subject to the review of a conditional use permit. Commissioner Rediker inquired further about what is considered accessory. He does see how someone could object to a pro shop, locker rooms, etc.; but was unclear whether or not a banquet facility would be objectionable or not permitted. Tom Braun, stated that the Town Code is not clear on the specific uses within the club house, but many golf courses include a banquet facility. Page 10 Bill Gibson gave an example of City Market which is a grocery store. However, within that grocery store there may be various types of the activities such as a pharmacy, photo development, movie rentals, a deli, etc. Commissioner Rediker noted that some concerns from the neighbors are being overblown and some of their rhetoric is weird. He stated that this proposal is not a wedding chapel. Art Abplanalp state that the covenant language and the Code include very similar language. Dale Bugby added that everyone should read the Pulis deed as it states “only what is required”. Bill Gibson clarified that the covenants are beyond the scope of the Commission’s review. Commissioner Kurz stated his concerns about formalizing a liaison and his concerns about the proposed building height language. Addressing Jim Lamont’s comments, Commissioner Kurz disclosed that he serves on the Vail Economic Advisory Committee (VEAC) and he is married to the Town of Vail Economic Development Manager; but this has no influence over him in reviewing this project. Commissioner Bird suggested that the bride room be relabeled on the plans to be a meeting room. She agrees that height needs to be more clearly defined and she is not sold on the parking plan. Commissioner Cartin asked the applicant to clearly identify the proposed conditional use permit area. Commissioner Pratt asked how tents are allowed. Bill Gibson explained that there are two processes. There is a conditional use permit review process for seasonal uses and structures, and there is a special event process through the Committee on Special Events. Commissioner Cartin agreed Jim Lamont’s recommendation to separate the code language regarding building height for clubhouses. He clarified that the Commission is a judicial review body, and does not make a decisions about the configuration of the holes at the golf course. Bill Gibson clarified that the height architectural projections is not unlimited. The Town Code limits there height to be 25% more than the height listed in every zone district. He gave an example of an existing architectural projection in the neighborhood and described how the observatory tower at the Maslak was approved to exceed the height limit of the Two-Family Primary/Secondary District. Commissioner Kurz suggested that the Commission take action on the proposed rezoning and text amendment. Commissioner Pratt noted his concern that the parking study shows enough parking, but anecdotal evidence from the neighbors suggests otherwise. The retaining wall on the south end of the lot should be looked at and reworked to achieve an improved buffer. He recommended that the lawn area included in the conditional use permit area or that tents should not be erected. The management plan seems to be reactive verses proactive. He wonders how all the elements of the management plan are addressed real time during an event. He pointed out that the drainage report speaks to surface drainage to an open ditch. He recommended that the Page 11 applicant install a sand and oil separator. He would like to see some sort of trigger for the management plan to return to the Commission for review should a certain number of complaints be received or maybe after one year of operation. Motions were made on the rezoning and text amendments. Tom Braun asked for clarification on the issues of concern. The Commission summarized their concerns about parking and the day of management of events. Commissioner Kurz noted that he does not remember seeing an alternative plan proposal. Commissioner Pratt stated that any alternative plan needs to be presented to the applicant and not to the Commission. Tom Braun noted that they would look into Commissioner Pratt suggestion of a trigger to re- review any approvals. Art Abplanalp noted that the exhibit in the document he submitted earlier in the hearing includes the neighbor’s alterative plan and stated that the Commission should not approve what the applicant is proposing. Commissioner Pratt again stated that the decision of what to propose is up to the applicant, not the Commission. 20 minutes 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 a rezoning of the Vail Golf Course parking lot from the General Use District to the Outdoor Recreation District, located at 1775 Sunburst Drive/Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120037) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Recommendation of approval MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 5-0-2 (Pierce and Hopkins recused) 20 minutes 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow for amendments to Section 12-8B-7, Height, Vail Town Code, to increase the allowable building height within the Outdoor Recreation District, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120039) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Recommendation of approval MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5-0-2 (Pierce and Hopkins recused) 6. A request for the review of conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, for a healthcare facility and a public building and grounds, to allow for the redevelopment of the Town of Vail municipal site with a medical research, rehabilitation, and office building and a municipal office building located at 75 and 111 South Frontage Road West/ Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120012) Page 12 Applicant: Vail MOB, LLC, represented by Triumph Development and Town of Vail, represented by Consilium Partners, Vail Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Withdrawn 7. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6G-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the setbacks, located at 4192 Columbine Way/Lots 25 & 26, Bighorn Terrace, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC120027) Applicant: Anne Upton, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Table to December 10, 2012 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 7-0-0 8. Approval of October 22, 2012 minutes MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 7-0-0 9. Information Update 10. Adjournment MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Bird 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 November 9, 2012, in the Vail Daily.