Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-04-09 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF V& April 9, 2018, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Present: Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Brian Stockmar Absent: Pam Hopkins, John -Ryan Lockman 1.2. Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, and Brian Stockmar were sworn in as members of the Planning and Environmental Commission. 1.3. The PEC agreed to postpone the election of a Chair and Vice -Chair until a meeting with more commissioners present. 2. Main Agenda 2.1. A request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements 45 min. by Zone District, Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation and Exclusions, Section 12-18-4 Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district and to allow an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009) Applicant flolly Proctor and John Hutto, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker Neubecker began by summarizing the proposed project and the comments from the previous time the item appeared before the PEC on March 26, 2018. In response to the comments the applicant has proposed changes to the previously submitted plans. The changes include: a reduction of the storage area head height to less than five feet (6) so that the previously requested gross residential floor area (GRFA) variance is no longer necessary. The applicant is still requesting a variance to allow for an entrance to the storage area greater than twelve (12) square feet. Staff still believes that the request does not meet all of the criteria for a variance as there is nothing specific about the site that warrants special consideration. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the application as proposed. John Martin, Martin Manley Architects, asked for clarification as to the term "hardship" and then introduced the unit owner, Holly Proctor. Kurz —Asked for clarification on why a 24 square foot access door is necessary as opposed to the 12 square feet allowed by the Vail Town Code. Holly Proctor, applicant/owner, summarized the previous variance requests and the changes that have been made since the previous appearance before the PEC. She stated that since the last meeting she has discussed the variance criteria in more detail with staff. She believes that the requested variance for an access opening greater than twelve (12) square feet does meet the second criteria. Specifically, she believes that the strict interpretation of the Code does prevent her from the same benefits as other properties in the Town. To her, the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District designation creates a hardship. She believes the proper zoning classification for her property is Residential Cluster (RC), which would allow for the project, as proposed, due to the allowed 250 Addition. She thanked Commissioner Gillette for his suggestion to look at the possibility of accessing a storage area through the existing garage. She recalled to the PEC the difficult path she has had over the last fifteen (15) months in trying to get her project approved. She asked if the PEC could still consider granting a GRFA variance. Stockmar —Asked Proctor when she purchased the property. Proctor responded that two separate units were bought in 2006 and 2010. Stockmar followed up by asking Neubecker when the zoning district was designated. Neubecker responded that the property was designated Primary/Secondary (PS) in 1985. Stockmar asked about the cost differences between different concepts. Neubecker asked Perez to clarify her status on potential conflicts of interest, and if she would recuse herself from reviewing this item. Kurz suggested that it was up to Commissioner Perez to determine if there might be any conflict of interest. Perez asked if the GRFA variance was still up for review. Ms. Proctor confirmed that she would still like the GRFA variance to be considered. The Board discussed potential conflicts of interest, and Ms. Perez indicated she did not believe there was a conflict. The Board indicated that it is up to the individual Commissioner to determine a conflict. Gillette —Asked for clarification as to the definition of crawlspace. Neubecker stated that the characteristics of a crawlspace are discussed within Section 12-15-3, Vail Town Code. Gillette believes staff is misapplying the Code in this instance. Gillette asked for an explanation on the difference between a crawlspace and a shed, as he believes the proposal is not for a crawlspace and therefore the variance for a twelve (12) square foot access opening is not relevant. Neubecker — Stated that if the applicant were correct in her statement that the property has been zoned incorrectly, the proper method to resolve this issue would be through a rezoning request. Kurz —Asked Gillette to clarify his statement that the variance should be for GRFA and not a crawlspace opening. Stockmar — Suggested tabling the item in order to restructure the request. Gillette — Staff did not include the purpose of the zoning regulations title in the staff memo. He believes that the purpose of the title should be included in future staff memos, but also believes there are conflicts within the te)d of the purpose. Neubecker asked for clarification. Gillette stated that the purpose of the overall zoning regulations title, the purpose of the specific zone district, and the purpose of GRFA should all be included within the staff memo. Kjesbo — Stated that twelve (12) square feet may be too small for a crawlspace entrance, but a 24 square foot opening is excessive. Kurz — Stated that he agreed with Kjesbo that the size of the requested variance seems excessive, but there is some hardship established by the zoning classification. He suggested that the GRFA variance not be considered and that the applicant attempt to provide a more modest -sized crawlspace opening. Gillette —Asked for a description of the rezoning process. Neubecker responded. Stockmar —Asked Ms. Proctor if the zoning issue has been discussed among the other Hamlet owners. She responded that almost all of the owners are familiar with the rezoning process and are all aware of the site restrictions under the existing PS zoning. He indicated that he is still uncertain as to whether or not the requested variance is a grant of special privilege. He suggested it may be worthwhile for the HOA to pursue a rezoning in lieu of the requested variance. Gillette —Agreed that a rezoning may be the best approach. Perez — Asked how the applicant arrived at the request for a 24 square foot opening. Proctor responded that it was based on various items that she would like to store. Martin stated that 25 square feet is what is reasonable to accommodate bikes, etc. Neubecker stated that a variance should be unique to a property such that it does not set a precedent. Kurz stated that it is the appearance of a precedent that concerns him. Stockmar — The PEC is constrained by the Vail Town Code, which requires something unique about the property that would warrant a variance. As the staff memo indicates, there is nothing unique about the subject property. Perez —Asked for clarification of the "250 Ordinance." Neubecker stated that it does not apply to the PS zone district. Gillette — Suggested a motion be made Kjesbo — Clarified his remarks that he believes the Code may need amending to allow for a larger opening, but does not believe 24 square feet is a reasonable variance request. Perez —Asked staff about the alternatives they have considered and why they did not find anything unique about the subject property. She believes the incorrect zoning is what makes the subject unique. Jonathan Spence, Senior Planner, clarified that the zoning is not incorrect, but rather was applied with a purpose, despite the fact that it may not match the existing conditions. Martin responded that at this time they are unsure if the alternative and removing the garage wall is physically possible. Gillette made alternative design recommendations involving the use of a gate. Gillette — Recommended that the applicant return with a rezoning request. He asked for staff's opinion on a rezoning request. Neubecker stated that staff has not yet conducted the research to form an opinion. Spence elaborated as to the criteria that would be evaluated in order to make a recommendation on any rezoning request. Gillette reworded his earlier statement that approving a rezoning would be a "slam dunk," but rather that it would be easy to support a rezoning as long as a corresponding zone district could be identified. Kurz opened the meeting for public comment. There was none. Kurz encouraged the PEC to refocus on the variance request before them. Brian Gillette moved to table to May 14, 2018. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 2.2. A request for the review of the following three (3) variances: 1.) a variance 5 min. from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking; 2.) a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than one (1) curb cut per unit; and 3.) a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minimum horizontal clearance between a garage door (parallel to road) to edge of public street pavement of less than 24 feet, located at 2841 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 3, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0012) This application was withdrawn by the applicant. Applicant:Michael & Yoshimi Moore, represented by RAL Architects, Inc. Planner: Matt Panfil 2.3. Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative 10 min. action regarding a request for a minor amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phases I and 11, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plan in order to permit three (3) building additions totaling 149 square feet to commercial Unit 15 to accommodate increased restaurant seating and a new public entrance, located at 100 East Meadow Drive Unit 15/1-ot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0011) (It should be noted that Public Notice was previously provided for this application as a Major Amendment, however the scope of the project has been reduced, resulting in a reclassification of the project as a Minor Amendment.) Spence informed the PEC that the item would not be heard at this meeting. Applicant:Gatto Pardo Bianco LLC, represented by Steven James Riden AIA Architect Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.4. Motion to Ratify Motions made prior to the Swearing in of PEC Members Applicant: Planner: Karen Perez moved to motion to ratify motions made prior to swearing in of PEC members. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. March 26, 2018 PEC Results 4. Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 9, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements by Zone District, Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation and Exclusions, Section 12-18-4 Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district and to allow an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet , located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/1-ot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18- 0009) ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC18-0009 Proctor T Attachment 4 Vicinity Map.pd 4 Applicant Attachment Description PEC18-0009 Proctor Variance - Staff Memo PEC18-0009 Proctor Variance - Attachment A - Vicinity Map PEC18-0009 Proctor Variance - Attachment B - Applicant Narrative PEC18-0009 Proctor Variance - Attachment C - Plan Set 111TWI JEFITI Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 9, 2018 SUBJECT: A request for review of a variance from Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009) Applicant: Holly Proctor and John Hutto, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker SUMMARY The applicants, Holly Proctor and John Hutto, represented by Martin Manley Architects, are requesting the review of a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation and Exclusions, for the property located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive / Unit 5/Lot 41- 43 (Hamlet Townhouses). The variance would allow for the construction of a crawl space with an access opening (door) larger than 12 square feet, which is the size limit to qualify as crawl space and thus not count as GRFA. 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 denial of this application, subject to the findings in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Holly Proctor and John Hutto, represented by Martin Manley Architects, recently obtained approval of a Design Review Board (DRB) application (DRB17-0392) to construct a 225 square foot storage space at the rear of the home, under an existing deck. Approval by the Design Review Board was conditioned upon the storage space being limited to no greater than five feet (5) in headroom, with an access opening of no larger than 12 square feet. This was done because any crawlspace or storage space over five feet (5) in headroom, or with an access opening larger than 12 square feet, is considered gross residential floor area (GRFA). There is no available GRFA remaining on the property, and since the site is nonconforming on the density (dwelling units per acre), the GRFA could not be used even if there was remaining GRFA. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow a crawl space access opening (door) larger than 12 square feet. The proposed access door is 24 square feet. A vicinity map (Attachment A), project narrative with applicant's responses to variance criteria (Attachment B), and plan set (Attachment C) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND This application was last reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on March 12, 2018. During that meeting, some PEC members indicated that they might be able to support a variance for a larger access door, but that the full head height storage area was not supported. Based on the feedback heard from the Commissioners at that meeting, the applicant has revised the proposed plans and is now seeking a variance for only the door opening size. The height of the storage area has been reduced to 4' 11 ". IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 — Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions: A. Within the hillside residential (HR), single-family residential (SFR), two-family residential (R), and two-family primary/secondary residential (PS) districts: 1. Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements, crawl spaces, and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area, except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. a. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in the definition above. Excluded areas as set forth herein, shall then each be deducted from the total square footage. Town of Vail Page 2 (1) Enclosed Garage Area: Enclosed garage areas of up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two (2) vehicle parking spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by this title. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located in a garage and which are twenty five percent (25%) or more open to the garage area may be included in the garage area deduction. Interior walls separating the garage from other areas of a structure may be included in the garage area deduction. (2) Attic Areas With A Ceiling Height Of Five Feet Or Less: Attic areas with a ceiling height of five feet (5) or less, as measured from the topside of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. (5) Crawl Spaces: Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve (12) square feet in area, with five feet (5) or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. Crawl spaces created by a "stepped foundation'; hazard mitigation, or other similar engineering requirement that has a total height in excess of five feet (5) may be excluded from GRFA calculations at the discretion of the Administrator. Title 12 —Variances, Vail Town Code 12-17-1: Purpose: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each zone district, including lot area and Town of Vail Page 3 site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements, or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each zone district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits", and by section 12-3-7, `Amendment, of this title. 12-17-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION: Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the application. The commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the application. A variance may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the commission may prescribe. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. Town of Vail Page 4 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone district. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. Title 12 — Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements 12-18-1: Purpose This chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses and structures by prohibiting or limiting their enlargement, their reestablishment after abandonment, and their restoration after substantial destruction. While permitting nonconforming uses, structures, and improvements to continue, this chapter is intended to limit enlargement, alteration, restoration, or replacement which would increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the development standards prescribed by this title. 12-18-4: Uses The use of a site or structure lawfully established prior to the effective date hereof which does not conform to the use regulations prescribed by this title for the zone district in which it is situated may be continued, provided that no such nonconforming use shall be enlarged to occupy a greater site area or building floor area than it occupied on the effective date hereof. Any subsequent reduction in site area or floor area occupied by a nonconforming use shall be deemed a new limitation, and the use shall not thereafter be enlarged to occupy a greater site area or floor area than such new limitation. (Ord. 29(2005) § 40: Ord. 5(2001) § 5: Ord. 8(1973) § 20.400) Town of Vail Page 5 V. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use Designation Mapped Geological Hazards: Mapped Floodplain: View Corridor: 2014 West Gore Creek Dr., Unit 5 Vail Village West Filing 2, Lots 41-43, Unit 5 Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) Low Density Residential None Yes, western corner of lot not impacting development None Development Allowed / Existing Proposed Change Standard* Required Site Area 15,000 SF of 39,403 SF Total No Change Buildable Area 34,821 SF of Buildable Area Front — 20' Front (N): 9' Front (N): 9' Sides — 15' Side (E): 11' Side (E): 11' Setbacks Rear— 15' Side (W): 49' Side (W): 49' No Change Deck — 7.5' Rear (S): 9' Rear (S): 9' Flat Roof — 30' Building Height Sloping Roof — Unknown No Change No Change 33' Density (DUs) Max. 2 29 28 No Change Density (GRFA) 9,014 SF 15,873 SF 15,873 SF No Change Site Coverage Max. 20% (7,881 SF) 16.4% (6,466 SF) 17% (6,691 SF) +0.5 % (+225 SF) Landscaping Min. 60% (23,641 SF) 62.3% (24,562 SF) 61.7% (24,337 SF) -0.6% (-225 SF) Parking & 51 parking 32 33 +1 Loading spaces (*Note: This chart includes development standards for the entire development lot for The Hamlet Chalets and Townhouses.) VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use: Zoning District: North: Medium Density Residential Residential Cluster South: Low Density Residential Eagle County Zoning - Residential Suburban East: Low Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential West: Medium Density Residential Residential Cluster VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. Before acting on a variance application, the PEC shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: Town of Vail Page 6 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed access opening larger than 12 square feet will have no significant impact on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The benefit of the proposed larger access opening would be increased functionality, improving the ability to store items that might otherwise remain outdoors, such as a picnic table or deck furniture. Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulations is not necessary to achieve compatibility or uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. Granting a variance for the larger access opening does not help to achieve compatibility or uniformity of treatment among sites in the area. Staff finds that there is nothing unique about this property that warrants a variance for the size of the access opening. While we agree that the access opening greater than 12 square feet would be convenient and would make the storage area more functional, it is not necessary to achieve compatibility or uniformity of treatment. As a result, staff finds that proposed larger access opening would create a special privilege for the applicant. Staff finds the proposed variance does not meet this criterion. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variance will not have any significant impact on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities or utilities. By granting the variance, the storage area will be more functional, which may help to improve public safety by allowing the applicant more space to store items out of public view, which may potentially reduce clutter and opportunities for theft in the area. Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Town of Vail Page 7 VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission deny the applicants' request for a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009) Denial Motion: Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the applicants' request for a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions to allow for an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated April 9, 2018, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The granting of this variance will constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is not warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- Town ode, Town of Vail Page 8 b. There are not exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variances that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District, and C. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District." Approval Motion: Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approve, with conditions, a request for review of a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to allow an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009)." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission applies the following conditions: 1. `Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, this variance, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated April 9, 2018, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District, 4. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Town of Vail Page 9 5. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: d. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- e. ode, e. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variances that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District, and f. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant Narrative ("Application for a Variance"), no date. C. Plan Set, prepared by Martin Manley Architects, and dated 03-28-18 Town of Vail Page 10 ACII HW!!!!]II X14 II fCAII II II II If !!!!!. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE A. Name and address of the owner and/or applicant and a statement that the applicant, if not the owner, has the permission of the owner to make application and act as agent for the owner. John M. Hutto and Holly W. Proctor, 2014 West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 11, Vail, CO 81657 B. Legal description, street address, and other identifying data concerning the site: Hamlet Townhouses 5 and 6, 2014 W. Gore Creek Drive, Vail, CO Parcels # 2103-114-18-008 & 2103 -114-18-009 C. A statement of the precise nature of the variance requested, the regulation involved, and the practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title that would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation. Applicant requests a variance from the restrictions in place with respect to the size of the access opening to the crawl space that is limited to 5' in height under the Two -Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) zoning applicable to the site. The size of an access door under these regulations is limited to no more than 12 square feet. Applicant requests the ability to construct a door that is the height of the storage space (5') and 6' wide (double doors of 3' each). The storage area is designed to enclose the area under a deck which sits approximately 8 feet off the ground due to the existing natural grade. The storage will not be climate controlled or otherwise habitable nor is it intended for any use other than storage. This request is predicated on the practical difficulty that is imposed by the GRFA restrictions that limit the height of the storage area to 5' in height; a door opening of only 12' feet further inhibits the usability and functionality of the storage area, intended to house sporting gear, furniture, lawn, landscaping and snow removal equipment, and other household items. With access to the storage limited to such a severe degree, many of these items will be left outside and exposed, thereby creating an eyesore for the project and community as well as a safety concern resulting from the unnecessary risk of theft or damage. With respect to the relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, the proposed access opening of greater than 12 square feet will have no have an adverse impact on such uses or structures. Relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation will, in effect, allow for compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. Across Gore Creek, Casa Del Sol is a multi -family project zoned Residential Cluster. Directly across West Gore Creek Drive, Ptarmigan Townhomes is a multi -family project zoned Residential Cluster. For some reason, the Hamlet was zoned under the Primary / Secondary designation, which in turn imposes an undue hardship by requiring conformance with P/S restrictions on an existing multi -family project. Had the Hamlet been zoned in a way that was consistent with sites in the vicinity, i.e. the neighboring developments including Casa del Sol and Ptarmigan Townhomes, the Applicant would be permitted a storage space of 250 square feet and a door of appropriate height. The Applicant seeks no "special privilege" in this application yet requests consideration that would be granted had the zoning been correctly applied. The hardship imposed by the existing zoning designation essentially penalizes the Applicant for owning property that is part of a 29 unit complex (originally 30) and yet is zoned for Primary / Secondary use. Finally, the proposed opening will not have any significant effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, pubic facilities and utilities and public safety. The proposed access, by increasing the functionality of the storage area, will in fact, enhance public safety by mitigating the risk of vandalism and theft at the property and for the neighborhood. D. A site plan showing all existing and proposed features on the site, and on adjoining sites if necessary, pertinent to the variance requested, including site boundaries, required setbacks, building locations and heights, topography and physical features, and similar data. The site plan has been provided under the previous Application for Variance. E. Such additional material as the administrator may prescribe or the applicant may submit pertinent to the application and to the findings prerequisite to the issuance of a variance as prescribed in section 12-17-6 of this chapter. Please recall the buildings on site were built in 1971 under Eagle County jurisdiction. The Hamlet was a replat of Lots 41, 42, and 43 of the Vail Village West Filing 2 that was recorded in 1965, under Eagle County Jurisdiction. Those lots were later platted as The Hamlet in 1975, under Eagle County jurisdiction. This property, along with others in the neighborhood, were annexed to the Town in January 1986 (Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1986). The neighborhood was subsequently zoned by the Town to Primary Secondary Two - Family Residential in March of 1986 (Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1986). In this case, as noted above, it is not understood why the Hamlet was singled out under the Primary / Secondary zoning designation while the neighboring multi -family properties were more appropriately zoned under Residential Cluster. Given the fact that the annexation took place in 1986, it is unlikely we will determine the basis for the designation, however, the Applicant requests that this variance be considered in the context of the hardship imposed as a result of zoning that was and is incongruent with the existing improvements as well as the fact that this request does not reflect the Applicant seeking special privilege, but rather treatment that would be consistent with that granted to owners of similar properties in the vicinity. F. A list of the owner or owners of record of the properties adjacent to the subject property which is subject of the hearing. Provided, however, notification of owners within a condominium project shall be satisfied by notifying the managing agent, or the registered agent of the condominium project, or any member of the board of directors of a condominium association. The list of owners, managing agent, registered agent or members of the board of directors, as appropriate, shall include the names of the individuals, their mailing addresses, and the general description of the property owned or managed by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed envelopes to each individual or agent to be notified to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. It will be the applicant's responsibility to provide this information and stamped, addressed envelopes. Notice to the adjacent property owners shall be mailed first class, postage prepaid. Managing Agent for the Hamlet Association: Eileen Jacobs, Mountain Caretaker, Inc., PO Box 1093, Eagle, CO 81631 Hamlet Association Board President and Owner of Hamlet Townhouse #3 & Hamlet Chalet #1: Harold Jorck, West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 2, Vail, CO 81657 G. If the property is owned in common (condominium association) and/or located within a development lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signature on the application. (Ord. 27(2016) § 7: Ord. 29(2005) § 39: Ord. 24(2000) § 2: Ord. 49(1991) § 2: Ord. 50(1978) § 15: Ord. 30(1978) § 2: Ord. 8(1973) § 19.200) This Approval Letter has been delivered. z:=,:w ,v zw:L a : ,. 0 10 a— zwa ,�;am_lean� _:_:means uOR-AOue�]mo0 d <©Jolo a : . . �� :A v. r, _ ,,, . _.©� �m `a (§#\t:k tI \:(/\ 0 .2).. 0 10 .. `a (§#\t:k tI \:(/\ 0 o }\(}}) (} }}j§; \\\ \ 0 10 \\ `a (§#\t:k tI \:(/\ 0 }\(}}) (}/\\\\\ \\\ o»a�.y neiuewu uew- LrMoo'10ansLxoaod �dS do �s�Kz Us w��Nviavw 9L -9-Z 13s IIN?:od 9+g 9sasnoyunnol;alw8H ayl antra laaic) @JoE) M t4oz uoiJenouad J0j00Jd �o�aad ]� 's V SN�-.- �l �.,w"".fog -- 8�8Ze area ■ � o imp m II dap w ,��zo Io I � i o»a�.y neiuewu uew- LrMoo'10ansLxoaod �dS do �s�Kz Us w��Nviavw 9L -9-Z 13s IIN?:od 9+g 9sasnoyunnol;alw8H ayl antra laaic) @JoE) M t4oz uoiJenouad J0j00Jd �o�aad 's �� SN�-.- �l �.,w"".fog - 8�8Ze area Flo o»a�.y neiuewu uew- LrM oo'10a nsL xoa od �ddo LsLS Kz Us A 9 1 N V W 1 M V W 9L -9-Z 13S 11N?:od 9 12 9 sasnoyunnol;alw8H ayl antra 199JO @JoE) M t40Z uoi}-AOUG�J a0}00ad `Jo;oad }/�../ =^r-, � " V �/ SNOI1tlA313 �xxxx .,w"".f ," 8o--M-e area wl� o�� wlo wl� �mw z �o o»a�.y neiuewuuew- ,rMoo'10ansLxoaod �ddo LSI,SE K 6 w3�Nviavw 9L -9-Z 13s 11N?:od 9+g 9sasnoyumO-Llalw8Hayl antra laaic) @JoE) M t4oz uoiJenouad J0j00Jd Jolooid 's �� SNOLL— �� �.,w"".fog - 81,8Ze area J r t t -I o»a�.y neiuewu uew- LrM oo'10a nsL xoa od �3dd0 LsLS Kz Us A Nvwiavw 9L -9-Z 13s IIN?:od 9 12 9 sasnoyunnol;alw8H ayl antra IaaJ0 @JoE) M t40Z uOiJenouad J0j00Jd `Jo;oad 9`d =^r-, � " J s„"13° �.,w"".fog 8o--M-e area i yLLomi _p� J m - � w 6> p n LU z J — m J 69 OW F)z z "' LULU H�L LU LU Q a Z w _:iO LU z J — m J 69 OW F)z z "' LULU H�L zMoo 810: nsLxogv ��,.� ~L a � .,�. .� a— z wa ,12;am_leanG _:_:means UOReaOue�]mo0 d _a , /� » �\�12 _. 3 „ ^ xxxx _. ° / – ® - �� 5900 UP(OZ61 xel • R6986110116 .. OV V dO l00 (/1INfl OD 119VI ` IVA AO NMOI 0.919 0, —V 1 IA »]'BUTAaAJns 9 N S SIINfl aBUE, agog 119THXg t Z LO Z C 1O ! "' 066—L6 066 —LC -- 75 zioj/8L/8 " 75 <a n+wv City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 9, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of the following three (3) variances: 1.) a variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking; 2.) a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than one (1) curb cut per unit; and 3.) a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minimum horizontal clearance between a garage door (parallel to road) to edge of public street pavement of less than 24 feet, located at 2841 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 3, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0012) This application was withdrawn by the applicant. City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 9, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action regarding a request for a minor amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phases I and II, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plan in order to permit three (3) building additions totaling 149 square feet to commercial Unit 15 to accommodate increased restaurant seating and a new public entrance, located at 100 East Meadow Drive Unit 15/1-ot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0011) (It should be noted that Public Notice was previously provided for this application as a Major Amendment, however the scope of the project has been reduced, resulting in a reclassification of the project as a Minor Amendment.) Spence informed the PEC that the item would not be heard at this meeting. ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC18-0011 SDD No 6 Approval Letter 100 E Meadow Dr.pdf Approved Plan Set March 14 2018.pdf 4.4.18 Response to Notice on Unit 15.pdf 04042018 PEC Letter-Liebhaber.pdf 4-4-18 Ltr of Objection - Unit 15 Griffin.pdf AJ Property Request to PEC rev 4 5 2018 AJ Trust.pdf Description Staff Approval Letter to PEC and SDD members, 03-21-2018 Approved Plan Set, March 14, 2018 Letter of Opposition, Meadow Drive Ventures, Inc, 04-04-2018 Letter of Opposition, Phase V Owners, 04-04-2018 Letter of Opposition, Phase V Condominium Association Letter of Opposition, Unit 30, 04-05-2018 78 South Frontage Roel west Vail, Colorado 81657 vallgov.com March 21, 2018 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Steven James Riden AIA Architect 115 G Street Salida, CO 81201 Community Development Department 979.479.2138 Re: Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action regarding a request for a minor amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phases I and II, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plan in order to permit three (3) separate building additions totaling 149 square feet to commercial Unit 15, to accommodate increased restaurant seating and a new public entrance, located at 100 East Meadow Drive Unit 15/Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0011) (It should be noted that Public Notice was previously provided for this application as a Major Amendment, however the scope of the project has been reduced, resulting in a reclassification of the project as a Minor Amendment.) Applicant: Gatto Pardo Bianco LLC, represented by Steven James Riden AIA Architect Planner: Jonathan Spence Dear PEC members, Gatto Pardo Bianco LLC, Steven James Riden AIA Architect, and adjacent property owners: The purpose of this letter is to inform you that Town of Vail Community Development Department has approved a minor amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phases I & II. This approval allows for the construction of two 52 square foot additions to the southern facade for additional restaurant seating and a 45 square foot addition to the west facade for a new public entrance. The Community Development Department finds that approval of this minor amendment request meets the criteria in Section 12-9A-8, Vail Town Code. The amendment does not alter the basic intent and character of Special Development District No. 6, Vail Village Inn. The amendment will continue to be compatible with the neighborhood and other uses. The approval of this minor special development district amendment will be reported at a public hearing before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission at 1:00 PM on Monday, April 9, 2018 in the Vail Town Council Chambers, located at 75 South Frontage Road. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 970-479-2440, or jspence(a7vailov.com Sincerely, Jonathan Spence Senior Planner Attachment: Approved site plans and elevations, dated 03-14-18 j ,o a. iso OQVTIO'IOO"IIVA _ - "" ST# l8 OL#.LINK HARIa Moavgw ISVH OOT SN3S IHDdV N3aITI S37ni tlf N3A3SS �.]--II TTA�TT \\TTnn TT ``TT TTA�TT [['II {.]��TT``TT RVI I NVIdnVisiU V�luT[aJ VIVU�Q V.L V I - -= € j ,o a. iso �""""°' OQVTIO'IOO"IIVA _ - ° N3a[TI 93LSVf N3A3S9 TT T TT ��TT SLS�# ly OLTT#.LINL�-TT HARhaT!A'1(O�TQVH�YTV`ISSVH OOT INVIdnVisiU V:)Ild [91 VNU'l �.L� 1 o. ,o a. no,o� i so OQVTIO'IOD IIVA _ - N3a[TI 93LSVf N3A3S9 TT T SLS�# ly OLTT#.LINL�-TT HARhaT!A'1(O�TQVH�YTV`ISSVH OOT INVIdnVisiU V:)Ild [91 VNU'l �.L� 1 - o. N ,o a. no,o� iso OQVTIO'IOO"IIVA _ - N3a[TI 93LSVf N3A3S9 TT T SLS�# ly OLTT#.LINL�-TT HARhaT!A'1(O�TQVH�YTV`ISSVH OOT INVIdnVisiU V:)Ild [91 VNU'l �.L� 1 - o. M ,o a. no,o� iso OQVTIO'IOO"IIVA _ - N3a[TI 93LSVf N3A3S9 SLS�# ly OLTT#.LINL�-TT HARhaT!A'1(O�TQVH�YTV`ISSVH OOT T INVIdnVisiU V:)Ild [91 VNU'l V.LV 1 o. Meadow Drive Ventures, Inc. Email: rbruckmann@gmail.com April 4, 2018 Via Electronic Mail Jonathan Spence Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 Tel. (970) 479-2138 Email: jspence@vailgov.com Re: Response Requesting Reconsideration of Community Development District ("CDD") March 21, 2018 Notice Regarding 3 Separate Building Additions to Unit 15, 100 East Meadow Drive Dear Jonathan: Thank you very much for providing notice of the Community Development Department's intent to report an approval of three separate building additions to commercial Unit 15 of Vail Village Inn, Phases I and II, at the April 9, 2018 public hearing before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. On behalf of Meadow Drive Ventures, Inc., which owns residential units in the adjacent Phase V building located at the corner of Vail Road and Meadow Drive, this response respectfully requests that the CDD reconsider and deny or at least withhold approval of the proposed additions "to accommodate increased restaurant seating and a new public entrance" for the following reasons. First, the proposed additions do not qualify as minor amendments and are therefore not subject to CDD approval because (i) they involve variations of more than five feet to the building's footprints; and (ii) they will adversely impact pedestrian and vehicular circulation in special development district 6 ("SDD6"). For this reason alone, the applicant and adjacent property owners should be afforded the heightened review procedures required for major amendments under Town Code § 12-9A-4, including the ability to submit comments in advance of any approval. With respect to pedestrian circulation—an integral part of both the SDD6 development and the very character of the Town—the proposed additions appear to represent the first step in a plan that will significantly impair pedestrian linkage by eliminating the sidewalk between Unit 15 and Meadow Drive. Because the plans associated with the potential outside patio space are neither finalized nor approved, the approval of the related building additions should be withheld or denied. {M 1423782.1 } Page 2 Parking is also a real concern warranting reconsideration. The existing parking available for SDD6 falls short of conforming to the parking requirements contained in the SDD6 development plan and the ordinances authorizing the different phases of the SDD6 development. These parking requirements, which the Town previously deferred until the redevelopment of Phase IV, remain unsatisfied. At least until the existing SDD6 parking requirements are met, any approval of commercial development that would result in increased restaurant operations or vehicular traffic should be withheld. Furthermore, the proposed commercial additions in the heart of an already established residential community do not meet the criteria in Town Code § 12-9A-8 because the expansion of a restaurant with a projected 2:00 a.m. closing time risks diminishing the character of SDD6 as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. Indeed, if Unit 15's restaurant expansion goes forward, then the owners and occupants of adjacent or nearby residential properties will very likely experience a deterioration in the use and quiet enjoyment of their residences. At the very least, any restaurant expansion in SDD6 should be conditioned upon a midnight closing time, consistent with the closing time of adjacent restaurants, such as La Bottega. Finally, and in the unlikely event that the CDD decides to proceed with its approval report on April 9, 2018, please do make very clear that although the drawings attached to the CDD's notice depict additional modifications, any approval is limited to the building additions totaling 149 square feet to commercial Unit 15. Please also include a copy of this correspondence in any report related to proposed development. Thank you again for your notice, your time, and your careful consideration regarding this matter. Sincerely, Ronald D. P. Bruckmann As Vice President of Meadow Drive Ventures, Inc. {N11423782.11 April 4, 2018 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL Mr. Jonathan Spence, Planner Town of Vail Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Tel: (970) 479-2138 Email: jspence@vailgov.com In re: PEC18-0011 Application to Amend SDD6 @ 100 E Meadow Drive by Gattopardo Bianco Dear Mr. Spence, As private property owners of units in a directly -adjacent building, we, the undersigned, wish to comment on, and object to, this application. We are aware of at least two (if not more) pending applications before the PEC. The first, which is now being characterized as a "minor amendment" has, according to your March 21St letter to Steven Riden, the applicant's architect, already been "approved" and will be read into the record on the April 9th PEC meeting. As we understand it, there is also a "major amendment" which is scheduled to be heard on the April 23rd PEC meeting. At this time, we will address only the minor amendment, but we will plan on submitting comments relating to the major amendment at the appropriate time. Specifically, according to the Town's Code §§12-9A-2 and 12-9A-4, we have a concern that this application should be classified as a major amendment, as opposed to minor. The alterations proposed by this minor amendment alone, ignoring the bigger picture, will potentially change the dynamic of an established physical building in an already noisy, dangerous immediate area. However, it is also part of a larger, more significant plan which would raise concerns of health and safety not only of the general public on the street but also of the occupants of nearby properties. Consequently, it should not be approved piecemeal. Rather, it should be fully -reviewed and carefully considered in its' entirety in order to fully assess, evaluate and consider the impacts such amendment(s) will impose upon the neighboring properties and general public. We also concur with the arguments put forth by the Phase V Association and Meadow Drive Ventures that this violates section § 12-9A-8 of the Code by diminishing the character and high quality of the SDD. Secondly, we express very strong concerns about granting an approval to this applicant given recently -observed violations of the Town's noise ordinances and trespasses by the operator and the operator's contractors on our property. We do not feel it is appropriate for the Town or its' staff to be granting approvals to an applicant that is not in FULL compliance with the Town's code and that is causing regular disturbances to its' neighbors. Finally, we object to a process that not only seeks to expedite reviews without public hearings but one that would appear to intentionally seek to summarily dismiss the concerns of nearby owners. Not only does that strike us as being improper, it makes us wonder whether it is in complete bad faith. We will be some of the most impacted properties, and we would expect that our concerns, as taxpaying, property owners (and/or voters), will be taken seriously and given careful consideration. Unfortunately, from our perspective, the process has appeared to minimize and sideline them. For the reasons above, we respectfully submit that the approval of the "minor amendment" application be withdrawn, re-classified as a major amendment, re - docketed, and completely -reviewed giving full weight and consideration to the burdens such alterations will unavoidably place on the surrounding properties. As mentioned, we will plan to submit additional points in advance of the April 23rd PEC meeting. Sincerely, Richard Liebhaber Village Inn Plaza Phase V - Unit 11 John Glenn Village Inn Plaza Phase V - Unit 12 Konrad Oberlohr Village Inn Plaza Phase V - Unit 13 Karin Wagner Village Inn Plaza Phase V - Unit 14 VILLAGE INN PLAZA -PHASE V CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 100 EAST MEADOW DRIVE VAIL, CO 81537 April 4, 2018 Jonathan Spence, Senior Planner Community Development Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: Application of Gattopardo Bianco LLC c/o Steven Riden, AIA File No. PEC18-0011 Unit 15, Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1 Dear Mr. Spence: This letter is written in my capacity as President and Director of the Village Inn Plaza -Phase V Condominium Association, and as an owner of a residential unit in Phase V. We ask that the Community Development Department withdraw its approval of the Application, that the Application be restored to a Major Amendment to Special Development District No. 6 (SDD6) and that the hearings presently planned for the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) be vacated. Our reasons for this request are as follows: 1. The project is not a minor amendment to SDD 6. Although not entirely clear from the renderings we have seen displayed at Barrio Social, the building footprint and set backs are altered more than the five feet maximum allowed for minor amendments. See Vail Town Code, § 12-9A-2. We ask the project be reclassified to a Major Amendment for further proceedings. 2. The project is not consistent with the basic intent of SDD6. SDD6 was originally approved as a mixed commercial and residential district along East Meadow Drive. The project narrows the pedestrian pathway between East Meadow Drive and the exterior patio that experiences consistent heavy pedestrian use'. The project degrades the safety of the existing circulation of pedestrians and vehicles along East Meadow Drive inconsistent with design criteria 12-9A-8(7) of the Vail Town Code. See also Goal #3 of the Vail Village Master Plan. 3. The project increases the risk of nuisance behavior. The project alters the entrance to Unit 15 so that patrons enter and exit from the west in a corridor between Unit 15 and Phase V. The exterior patio faces East Meadow Drive. Noise from the patrons exiting the west side will echo through ' East Meadow Drive is already a "busy" thoroughfare. In addition to pedestrians, bicyclists, skateboarders, dog - walkers, skiers and shoppers, there are buses (often two abreast), delivery trucks (food & FedEx/UPS), construction contractors and other vehicles (for example, vehicles going to the Talisman). And, these are just the "legitimate" ones. Many vehicles use this stretch of East Meadow as a "pass-through" driving along it rather than correctly diverting around it. These vehicles vary in size from passenger cars to semi -trucks and trailers and ToV buses. Taking away a sidewalk by adding a patio and extending a building's footprint out narrows it even further and chokes it down even more. Further note should be made that the summer markets are already congested to the point that they are difficult to impossible to navigate. April 4, 2018 Page 2 the corridor and bounce off adjacent buildings. Noise from the patio will bounce off buildings across the street due to the "Canyon effect." Phase V residentsz have experienced especially loud and offensive behavior from after -midnight patrons exiting adjacent restaurant and bars awakening them at night and interfering with their rest. As currently designed, the project will increase this risk. The proposed project does not comply with design criteria 2 since the proposed use will exacerbate the noise and patron nuisance caused by other establishments operating after midnight. We are not opposed to the concept of new businesses or restaurants. However, we do oppose any new establishments that are likely to impair pedestrian and traffic flow or create loud and offensive noise and disruption by patrons impacting the large number of residents and tourists in the area. Thank you for your attention to this letter. VILLAGE INN PLAZE-PHASE V C'O N D ,' iN1UM AS �M By Samuel G. Griffin 1ff" siden tt SSG/ms 2 Understanding the impact on adjacent and nearby properties as it relates to this application should be important to the ToV in its efforts to be balanced . There are many nearby accommodations directly impacted by the noise and disruptive conduct experienced by Phase V occupants from the nearby restaurants and bars open past midnight. REQUEST TO PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TO CALL UP FOR REVIEW APPLICATION PEC 18-0011 FOR AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 6 TO: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, Colorado 81657 REQUESTING PARTY: AJ Property Trust — Owner of Unit 30, Vail Village Inn Condominiums c/o Kerry H. Wallace Goodman and Wallace, P.C. P.O. Box 1886 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Counsel for Objecting Party ATTORNEY FOR REQUESTING PARTY: Goodman and Wallace, P.C. Kerry H. Wallace 0105 Edwards Village Blvd., Suite D-201 P.O. Box 1886 Edwards, Colorado 81632 Telephone: 970-926-4447 Email Kerrya,�zoodmanwallace.com This Request is submitted by AJ Property Trust ("Owner") which owns Unit 30 at Vail Village Inn Condominiums ("Unit 30"). Unit 30, which is used as a residential unit, is located directly above the commercial unit upon which the exterior and interior alterations will occur per the Application. Unit 30 is located in the Common Interest Community known as Vail Village Inn Condominiums ("Association"). Owner maintains 11% of the Allocated Interests in the Association. Association is a mixed use project located on Meadow Drive, Vail, Colorado ("VVI Project"). The VVI Project is included in Special Development 6 ("SDD 6") with an Underlying Zoning of Public Accommodation ("PA"). Unit 30 is part of SDD 6 which Applicant AJ Property Trust Request to Hear Application for Amendment to SDD 6 Page 1 seeks to amend for purposes of adding GRFA to Unit 15 by incorporating exterior General Common Elements, addition of roof line and other exterior elements, moving the public entrance to Unit 15 and constructing an outdoor patio with patio doors upon General Common Elements. Owner just became aware of the adjustment of the Application from Major to Minor and accordingly the recent staff approval without public hearing. Owner has not as yet had an opportunity to review the Application file or SDD 6 and all amendments thereto as the open records request information was just received. As the Application is set to be reviewed by the PEC on Monday, April 9, 2018 at 1:00 p.m., Owner felt it imperative to raise concerns Owner has not had an opportunity to articulate due to the conversion of the Application from major to minor amendment. Owner requests that the PEC call the Application up for review as permitted by the Town of Vail Code in relation to a Staff Approval of a minor amendment to a Special Development District. I. Revocation of Association Approval — It is Owner's understanding that the Applicant made misrepresentations to the Association about the purpose of the approval letter requested by Applicant from the Association. The Association advises that the approval was for initial general dialogue with the Town of Vail and not approval of the Application. The approval letter from the Association indicates it is limited to being only valid for discussions with the Town. Owner understands from the Association that the Association in fact has not approved the Application in any form and that the Application would require an Amendment to the Association Declaration that appears to require 100% approval of all Members based upon express provisions under the Association Declaration that falls within the carve out under the Colorado Common Interest Ownership Act for more than 67% Owner approval for a Declaration amendment. Owner joins the Association in requesting that the Application be stayed and staff approval revoked until the Applicant can bring full Association approval for the project as such approval is an initial criteria requirement for the Application. it. Public Accommodation Requirements - Owner requests that the following Public Accommodations Zone District requirements, to the extent not modified by SDD 6, be confirmed to have been complied with: a. Lodges, including accessory eating, drinking, or retail establishments located within the principal use and not occupying more than ten percent (10%) of the total gross residential floor area of the main structure or structures on the site; additional accessory dining areas may be located on an outdoor deck, porch, or terrace. (Ord. 12(2008) § 11); b. The PA Zone District has 20' front, side and rear setbacks that only can be reduced by the PEC based on a set criteria set forth in Section 12-7A-6. AJ Property Trust Request to Hear Application for Amendment to SDD 6 Page 2 c. The added GRFA meets the code Density Control limit in Section 12-7A-8 unless such was varied by the SDD. d. The building and site alterations meet the Site Coverage limitations in Section 12- 7A-9. e. The removal of the landscaping out front for the patio may reduce the required Landscaping and Site Development requirement in Section 12-7A-10 unless varied by the SDD. f. The Exterior Alteration and Modification requirements in Section 12-&a-12 are met. g. Section 12-7A-15 requires that a minimum of 70% of any added floor area must be devoted to accommodations units or fractional units. h. Privacy concerns are addressed. Dated this 5I' day of April, 2018. GOODMAN AND WALLACE, P.C. By: Kerry H. Wallace Kerry H. Wallace For the Requesting Party AJ Property Trust Request to Hear Application for Amendment to SDD 6 Page 3 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: March 26, 2018 PEC Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description pec results 032618.pdf March 26, 2018 PEC Results PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF V& March 26, 2018, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order 1. 1. Present: Ludwig Kurz, Brian Stockmar, Brian Gillette, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, John Rediker, Pam Hopkins Absent: None 2. Site Visits - begin at 10:00 AM 2.1. Map of Site Visits 2.2. OLP #14 - 370 Hanson Ranch Road 2.3. OLP #15 - Property north & west of Mill Creek Drive 2.4. OLP #16 - 460 Vail Valley Drive 2.5. OLP #18 - 1278 Vail Valley Drive 2.6. OLP #17 - Just east of 720 South Frontage Road West 2.7. OLP #19 - 3094 Booth Falls Court 2.8. OLP #24 - 3700 North Frontage Road East 2.9. OLP #20 - 3785 Lupine Drive 2.10. OLP #22 - South of 4018 & 4022 Willow Way 2.11. OLP #21 - 4205 Columbine Drive 2.12. OLP #23 - 4313 Spruce Way 2.13. OLP #25 - 4770 Bighorn Road 2.14. OLP #26 - 4682 Meadow Drive 2.15. OLP #27 - 4802 Meadow Lane 2.16. OLP #28 - Just north of 5137 Main Gore Drive & 5147 Gore Circle 2.17. OLP #11 - Property sourthwest of 742 Sandy Lane 2.18. OLP #10 - Just east of 1079 Sandstone Drive 2.19. OLP #7 - 1783 North Frontage Road West 2.20. OLP #5 - 1955 Chamonix Lane 2.21. OLP #4 - 2139 & 2159 Chamonix Lane and 5179 St. Moritz Way 2.22. OLP #2 - Property northwest of 2603 through 2703 Cortina Lane 2.23. PEC18-0012 - 2841 Basingdale Boulevard - Moore Residence 2.24. OLP #1 - 2734 Snowberry Drive 2.25. OLP #3 - 2100 Vermont Road 2.26. OLP #6 - 2338 Tahoe Drive #C 2.27. OLP #8 - 1602 Matterhorn Circle 2.28. OLP #9 - 1494 South Frontage Road West 2.29. OLP #12 - Just east of 292 West Meadow Drive 2.30. OLP #13 - 91 W iHow Bridge Road 2.31. PEC 18-0004 - 231 East Meadow Drive 3. Main Agenda - begin at 1:00 PM 3.1. A request for the review of the following two (2) variances: 1.) a variance from 30 min. Section 11 -6 -3 -A -1-a, Business Identification Signs, Number, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than one (1) business identification sign; and 2.) a variance from Section 11 -6 -3 -A -1-b, Business Identification Signs, Area, Vail Town Code, to allow for a business identification sign greater than six (6) square feet in area, in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-10-1, Variances and Appeals, Vail Town Code, located at 231 East Meadow Drive (Colorado Snowsports Museum)/Tract B & C, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0004) Applicant Colorado Snowsports Museum Planner: Matt Panfil 1. Approval of this sign variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. Panfil explained the two variances that were originally requested by the applicant. One variance is for the maximum number of signs and the second variance is for the size of the proposed signs. Panfil referenced new renderings and changes proposed since the previous Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting on March 12, 2018. Perez —Asked if the current request is for one (1) sign or two (2) signs. Panfil responded that based on the applicant's revisions, the motion in the staff memo is only for size, not quantify, as the applicant is now only requesting one (1) sign. Susie Tjossem stated that Panfil captured the details of the proposal. She added the sign is still slightly visible from the pedestrian area below. This is a compromise of the prior proposal and the PEC's comments from the prior meeting. Also, the color of the copy changed from red to black and the logo was incorporated into the sign. There were no questions from commissioners for the applicant. There was no public comment Lockman — Stated that the applicant did a great job cleaning up the sign. He believes the sign meets the needs of the variance and is now more comfortable with the application. Hopkins — Stated she liked the symbol and color. Perez — Pleased with the changes, but does not think the sign needs to be as large as it currently is. Kurz — Believed the applicant responded well to the PEC comments. Gillette — Stated he still questioned the needs of a variance for this project. Stockmar — Stated that because of the distance from the stairs to pedestrian area, this variance solves the problems that was stated at the previous meeting. Rediker —Agreed with staff's analysis of the variance and the effectiveness of the size and logo of the sign. He believed that due to the location and setback of the museum from the road, it would be difficult for the sign to be effective given the nature of the building and other circumstances. Perez —Asked for clarification as to why staff felt the application met the second criteria for a sign variance. Panfil responded that the layout and design of the building itself creates the difficult situation. Rediker closed commissioner comment. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it passed (6-1). Ayes: (6) Rediker, Hopkins, Kurz, Lockman, Perez, Stockmar Nays: (1) Gillette 3.2. A request for the review of the following three (3) variances: 1.) a variance 30 min. from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking; 2.) a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than one (1) curb cut per unit; and 3.) a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minimum horizontal clearance between a garage door (parallel to road) to edge of public street pavement of less than 24 feet, located at 2841 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 3, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0012) ApplicantUichael & Yoshimi Moore, represented by RAL Architects, Inc. Planner: Matt Panfil Panfil began by pointing out the application is a request for three (3) separate variances and that each variance is in someway related to the others. The first variance to exceed maximum site area covered by driveways and surface parking is supported by staff. The second variance is a request for a second curb -cut. This is requested because, based on Town Code, the applicants are allowed only one curb -cut and the existing curb -cut is already counted. Rediker —Asked for clarification as to the location of the existing and proposed curb cuts. Panfil mentioned the condition suggestion by the Department of Public Works as to their preference that the applicants would not use the westernmost two (2) parking spaces within the existing parking and access easement for their own parking uses. Public Works has some safety concerns regarding a proposed increase in the amount of vehicles with back out parking as well as safety concerns with parked vehicles encroaching into the right-of-way. Based on Public Works recommendation, staff does not support the third variance request. Rediker —Asked for Panfil to show where the edge of pavement is compared to the right-of-way. Panfil — Stated a suggestion by Public Works is to push the garage north and fit meet the minimum requirements of distance from pavement edge to the proposed garage. Rediker —Asked staff to confirm that the PEC is being asked to review variances without an established home size. Panfil stated the maximum home size allowed per Town Code for the subject property would be approximately 3,500 square feet. Based on this size, staff can safely assume 3 parking spaces would be the maximum required. Rediker —Asked staff to confirm that if the PEC were to grant variances today, rather than having the applicants come before the body again, could other recommendations be made. Panfil responded that any recommendations or possible design solutions that would not require any new variances can be made. If recommendations were made that required a new variance, the item would have to be republished to include such variances. Rediker — Referenced the alternative proposal concepts on page 13 of the staff memo and asked Panfil to explain the alternative proposal. Panfil — The alternative is based on Public Works' comments and the applicants might be better at explaining the feasibility of each proposal. The first alternative would be to not grant a second curb cut and require the applicants access the site from the existing parking and access easement area. The second alternative is to move the garage back farther to the north enough to no longer need the third variance. The applicants would then have 4 full parking spaces and the remaining could be paved per the easement language, or alternatively, the applicants could amend the easement language and add landscaping back to the site. Rediker —Asked staff to clarify that the easement that is currently gravel and dirt would need to be repaved with the development of the subject property. Asked the size of the green area shown in the second alternative and if it could be landscaped or paved and blocked off by chain or other measures. Panfil responded that the easement language correctly contemplates that the Town of Vail will require that the entire parking and access easement to be paved upon the development of the subject property, but it is staff's recommendation that the applicants consider amending the easement language to allow them to landscape their (2) reserved parking spaces. Gillette —Asked staff how the area in green was measured. Panfil responded that staff does not have exact size of the area in green, but an estimate could be provided based on the fact that a standard outdoor parking space, per Town Code, is 19'deep by 9' wide. Gillette —Asked if the parking extends onto the other lot. Ladd confirmed. Panfil — Stated estimated that based on the standards in the Town Code, approximately three (3) additional parking spaces would fit to the east of the two (2) westernmost parking spaces. Bobby Ladd, RAL Architects, presented on behalf of the applicants. He stated that Town Code required three parking spaces for a house of the size that would be built. The applicants do not have an issue abandoning spaces for their use, but the intention is to incorporate them into parking area for the property to the north because they already exist. If the garage is pushed back to accommodate the 24' pavement to garage door requirement, there are topography issues that could cause other problems that might result in the request for additional variances. Also, the garage doors would go beyond the front setback by several feet. A potential area for a third parking spot is to the right of the proposed garage, utilizing the same curb -cut. The two (2) parking spaces reserved for the subject property could then be abandoned and landscaped. Ladd concluded by stating that the applicants believe pulling the wall forward is the best use of the area. Rediker —Asked the applicants to clarify that the area referred to as a possible third parking spot is just to the east of the proposed garage. Rediker —Asked if the neighboring property has been contacted about a modification of the easement. Ladd — There was a preliminary application years ago and the property to the north asked that their easement not go away. Rediker — Stated the neighbor would already lose parking once the gravel parking is removed and then asked if the first alternative concept which showed access to the site from the existing curb cut is feasible. Ladd —A fire hydrant would have to be relocated and a 12'- 14' tall retaining wall would have to be created based on the alternative concept. It would be a significant challenge due to the e)asting topography. Panfil then stated an additional variance would be required if there was to be a 14' retaining wall. Gillette — The easement is a private easement. The property cannot be paved unless the Town approves. Panfil — The Town does not allow for gravel or dirt driveways or parking spaces. Based on the correct contemplation in the language of the easement, the Town of Vail will require that the applicants and the adjacent neighbor to the north pave the easement area if the lot is developed. Gillette — Theoretically the existing gravel must be landscape. Panfil — It is not possible to enforce the easement agreement between the two (2) private properties. Rediker —Asked if moving the parking spots further southeast to where the red "X" is labeled on the alternative concept would require less remediation. Hopkins — Stated that pushing the building and parking back to the north would be the simplest solution. She mentioned that another issue for consideration is accommodating snow storage when plows clear the street during the winter. Ladd — The only people to enforce the applicants' requirement to pave the parking would be the neighbors. Gillette — Suggested the applicants begin to talk with the neighbor about the easement, then return to the PEC with a practical solution. Rediker — Ideally, the applicants have to have a discussion with their neighbors about the pavement requirement within the easement. Gillette — Stated the easement does not work well the way it is written. Rediker — The PEC would look favorably upon an agreement with the neighbor that the two abandoned spots would be abandoned and landscaped as the neighbors are not entitled to those two (2) parking spaces. Ladd —Asked the PEC to confirm that they prefer the applicants rewrite the easement and abandon the two (2) parking spaces. Public Comment. William Woolford — Stated he owns one (1) of the four (4) units to the north of the subject property. He stated that the owners would be very happy to collaborate with the applicants as the parking area is a major mess, particularly during the winter. He asked for a parking solution for both properties to avoid parking disasters for the adjacent property to the north. He believes meeting the requirements in the existing easement will make the situation worse. He agrees that it is the best suggestion and right idea for both parties to collaborate together. Two (2) of the units are rental units and they have a lot of cars. The units do not have designated parking, but both reserved spots on the applicants property are currently utilized. Gillette — Stated that Woolford and the applicants should meet and work out new easement language. Commissioner Comment. Stockmar — Stated that based on the Town Code, the PEC's job is not to find solution for the applicants, but for the applicants to find the solution. He suggested the item be tabled in order to give both parties time to work together while accommodating the rules. Gillette — Stated the applicants should return to the PEC once meeting with the neighbors to the north. He asked the other commissioners if they would be ready to approve the first two (2) variances if the applicants agreed to push the garage back. The consensus was that the item should be tabled to allow for discussion between the applicants and neighbors. Gillette —Asked how many units were in the building to the north and how many parking spaces are required. Woolford responded that there are four (4) units and that he generally only requires one (1) parking spaces, but the rental units require more. Kurz —Agreed with Stockmar's comments. He does not have enough information available at the moment to feel comfortable approving the three (3) variances. He expressed his hope that the applicants would table the item and return at the next meeting with solutions to the issues raised at this meeting. Perez —Agreed with Stockmar's comments. Hopkins — Stated she would like to see the applicants return with solutions to the issues raised at the meeting. Lockman — Expressed his hope that both parties can return with a solution. Rediker — Stated that he was inclined to follow Public Works recommendations, but agrees with Stockmar's comments. The curb cut variance depends on what happens with the other two spaces. He stated that from a lawyer's perspective, once the applicants develops the lot, the neighbors cannot use the two (2) westernmost parking spaces. Of the three (3) variances requested, he could not support the third variance that requested the distance from the garage doors to the edge of pavement be reduced from 24' down to 14'. Tabling the item will give the applicants more time to have conversations with the neighbors. Gillette —Asked if the existing curb cut impacted notifications for the next meeting. He wanted to know if part of the existing curb cut area was on the property to the north. Ladd — It is on both development lots Panfil — Stated that if new variances are brought forward, a new notification would be required. If not, the notification is still valid. He stated that the next PEC meeting is Monday, April 9, 2018. Brian Stockmar moved to table to April 9, 2018. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed 30 min. regulations amendment pursuant to Section 12-3-7 Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 27, Wireless Service Facilities, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0010) Applicant Town of Vail Planner: Justin Lightfield Lightfield began by distributing a confidential memo prepared by the Town Attorney. The PEC adjourned for approximately five (5) minutes to allow time to review the memo Lightfield explained that the purpose of the amendment was to align Town Code with state and federal regulations. Lightfield reviewed the recent state and federal acts governing wireless service facilities and how they impact existing Town of Vail regulations. Stockmar —Asked for clarification that both telephony and wi- fi were included in this amendment. Lightfield confirmed. Gillette —Asked what prompted the code amendment. Lightfield stated that it is based on the Town Attorney's recommendation to align the Town Code with state and federal regulations. Stockmar —Asked if the Town is currently non -conforming to state or federal regulations. Lightfield responded negative, but this amendment brings forward more specific state and federal requirements. Rediker —Asked for clarification of the language regarding substantial changes. Asked if the proposal would grant unfettered access to the construction of wireless service facilities anywhere in Town. Lightfield explained that the Town is allowing the minimum requirements per state and federal regulations. Stockmar —Asked Lightfield to confirm that the proposal meets the minimum standards for all of the state and federal requirements. Lightfield confirmed. Rediker —Asked for clarification between small wireless facilities and micro facilities. Asked if there was an appeal process available to the Town if a wireless service provider wanted to mount a facility in the public right-of-way that the Town did not agree with the proposed location. There was no public comment. Stockmar — Stated his support for the proposed amendment. Gillette — Stated his support for the proposed amendment. Kurz — Stated his support for the proposed amendment. Perez — Stated her support for the proposed amendment. Hopkins — Stated her support for the proposed amendment. Lockman — Stated his support for the proposed amendment. Rediker — Concurred with the other commissioners and stated that the state and federal government has imposed the regulations upon the Town. Brian Stockmar moved to recommend approval to the Vail Town Council Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, pursuant to Section 120 min. 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, concerning an update to the 1994 Comprehensive Open Lands Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 17-0049) Applicant Town of Vail, represented by Tom Braun, Braun and Associates Planner: Chris Neubecker & Kristen Bertuglia Neubecker introduced the Open Lands Plan Update (the Plan) by referencing a series of graphics that summarized the timeline of the Plan update, dating back to late 2016. Neubecker stated that the items in red te)d in the Plan update are changes that have been made since the last time the PEC reviewed the draft Plan. Stockmar —Asked if the upcoming new PEC term affects the PEC's recommendation. Neubecker responded in the negative. Neubecker referred to a change regarding Action Item 24, the addition of public comment submitted via email, and the fact that the PEC went on a site visit of all the affected parcels. Stockmar —Asked for clarification regarding Action Item 24 and if the Town Council agreed with the PEC's previous recommendation. Neubecker confirmed. Stockmar asked why the item was still in the plan. Neubecker stated that there are additional steps that can be taken on the property. Bertuglia added that as the parcel is still vacant, it qualifies for the Plan update. Stockmar encouraged the Town to consider a mechanism that would require developers to demonstrate financial feasibility when seeking approval of a project. Neubecker referenced the criteria found on pages 7 and 8 of the staff memo, and stated that staff recommends the PEC recommend approval to the Town Council. Rediker —Asked for clarification of some of the items listed on Attachment C. Neubecker and Bertuglia responded. Stockmar —Asked if Attachment C would be included within any recommendation. Neubecker confirmed. Rediker suggested that Attachment C be referred to only as the PEC's recommendations that they be incorporated, nor required to be incorporated in the Plan. Neubecker then introduced Tom Braun, Braun Associates, Inc., a consultant on the Plan update. Braun referenced a PowerPoint presentation that covered the following topics: a review of the 1994 Comprehensive Open Lands Plan; an overview of the Plan update process; and the goals of the Plan update, which pertain to environmentally sensitive land, Town -owned lands, trails, and the Action Plan and I mplementation Steps. I n total, there are 28 Action Items in the Plan update. Braun discussed the specific Plan goals (environmentally sensitive land, Town -owned lands, and trails) and the associated Action Items in greater detail. Chapter 6, Implementation Steps, consolidates the Action Items into an easier to follow path forward. Lockman —Asked for clarification of the trails matrix referenced by Tom Braun. Braun stated that it is on page 33 of the Plan update. Lockman asked for more details regarding the future evaluation of trails. Braun stated that is not part of the scope of the Plan update, but if adopted, the Town Council would direct staff to begin developing trail evaluation criteria. Chairman Rediker opened the item for public comment Anne Esson — Stated that she had four (4) points she wanted to make. First, the executive summary should include a statement that no trail shall be approved that negatively impacts the environment. She suggested additional wildlife forums and presentations by environmental scientists. Second, any extension to the Vail Trail will have a negative impact on wildlife. She recommends that the entire Vail Trail extension be removed from the conceptual plan. Third, if the PEC will not recommend the elimination of the Vail Trail, the trail should terminate further west than proposed in order to protect nesting Peregrine Falcons. Fourth, she recommended re -wording certain items on page 36 regarding Peregrine Falcons. Finally, she requested that the PEC not forward a recommendation to the Town Council until June or J uly. Blondie Vucich — Read a prepared statement. She stated that while this draft is an improvement, there are still changes needed. She recommended the following three (3) items: 1.) remove the proposed Vail Trail extension due to its adverse impact on wildlife; 2.) all trails developed on Town of Vail land exempt from NEPA or USFS review should still be reviewed by the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife; and 3.) the draft Plan update should include a summary of the information provided at the Wildlife Forum. Bill Andree, Department of Parks and Wildlife, cautioned people regarding the idea that mitigation measures could prevent the loss of Peregrine Falcons were a trail to be developed near their nesting area. Rediker —Asked Andree if he has reviewed the Plan draft and if he does in fact recommend the Vail Trail extension be removed from the trails concept plan. Andree affirmed both questions. Andree cited multiple studies from Australia pertaining to Peregrine Falcon behavior. Gillette —Asked if there was a social trail near the Peregrine Falcon nesting area. Andree could not confirm, but stated that it was quite probably there was a social trail in the area. Gillette asked if the social trail, if existing, should be closed. Andree affirmed. Rediker —Asked if the caveat within the executive summary regarding no trails adversely impacting wildlife, if any of the other new suggested trails should be eliminated from the concept trails plan. Andree stated that while there are some proposed trails that they are not satisfied with as proposed, there were none he would recommend be immediately eliminated. Hopkins —Asked for clarification regarding a statement by Andree regarding trail buffers. Tom Vucich —Agreed that the current Plan draft is an improvement, but requests that the Vail Trail extension be removed from the concept trails plan. He is skeptical that Colorado Parks and Wildlife' opinion will be given serious consideration by the Town. He requested that minutes from the Wildlife Forum and a meeting in Tom Braun's office in February be included in the Plan document. He wants the Town to value place over human wants and needs. Diane Donovan — Expressed her interest in wildlife preservation. She encouraged the PEC to consider the statement and requests made by Blondie and Tom Vucich. She recommends that the title be changed to, "The 2018 Update to the Town of Vail Comprehensive Open Lands Plan of 1994." She would like the plans integrated into each other, rather than adopt a whole new plan. Open space as a visual buffer is barely mentioned in the Plan draft. She cited other examples in the 1994 Plan that are not included in the Plan update draft. She asked if the Town can afford to build more trails, especially trails outside of Town boundaries. She stated that there is a new children -oriented trail in Minturn that should fulfill the need for any beginner -level or children - oriented in the Town. She does not believe parallel trails contribute to sustainability. She quoted a Colorado Parks and Wildlife brochure that discussed the adverse impacts of outdoor recreation on wildlife. She expressed her belief that there should have been a citizen task force that would attend every meeting regarding the Plan. Public comment was closed and the commissioners were allowed to ask any additional questions of Town staff or Tom Braun. Lockman —Asked for clarification of the implementation items. Neubecker stated that the implementation steps would be taken directly from throughout the plan, but formatted in a single chart or matrix for more thorough evaluation. Lockman stated that it would have been helpful if an implementation matrix been included in the draft Plan. Braun explained the implementation steps as a tabular form of the narrative of the Plan. Rediker —Asked for clarification as to the current status of the Designated Open Space Board. Neubecker is unsure as to when the last time the board met, but they would be encouraged to meet more often to discuss the potential for more properties to be classified as Designated Open Space. Perez and Rediker suggested more information be provided regarding conservation easements and the Designated Open Space Board. Rediker expressed his concern regarding language within the conservation easements section on page 10 that states conservation easements "are considered unchangeable." Braun explained that it is possible for a conservation trust and a public owner to agree to amend a conversation easement. Rediker continued by expressing his concern regarding the statement on page 13 regarding value being a key question regarding conservation easements. Braun agreed to strike the comment. Rediker stated his belief that the discussion regarding conservation easements is skewed in favor of their use and believes that the negative consequences of conservation easements should be included in the Plan. Rediker asked what studies or information was reviewed by staff in regards to the establishment of conservation easements on municipally -owned property. Bertuglia stated the east Vail waterfall conservation easement as an example. Greg Hall, Director of Public Works, stated his belief that a private property owned placed the conservation easement on the property before dedicated to the Town. Braun stated that the Plan does suggest the establishment of a task force to review the use of conservation easements. Gillette suggested that the language be modified to require conservation easements be reviewed similar to the review of classifying properties as Designated Open Space. Hopkins —Asked for clarification as to why the Vail Trail extension is proposed. Braun stated that there may still be options available that will not negatively impact wildlife. The idea is that until the proposed trail is reviewed in detail, using criteria as proposed to be developed by the Plan, it should not be eliminated. Rediker asked how close the parallel trails may be. Braun stated that such details have yet to be decided because they would require extensive review. Rediker asked if there was expression of support for the Vail Trail extension throughout the update process. Braun stated that there were residents that expressed a specific interest in soft surface trails. Perez —Asked if Braun was open to the request to include minutes from the Wildlife Forum in the Plan. Braun stated that he would not oppose including a summary of the Wildlife Forum in the document. Bertuglia suggested that it would be difficult to provide exact minutes, but an extended summary could be provided. Rediker — Identified a typo on page 20 regarding the capitalization of Vail. He stated the language regarding adverse impacts of trails in the executive summary is vague as it seems impossible to prevent any impact in the development of a trail. Gillette suggested the term significant replace the term adverse. Neubecker asked for specific comments regarding Attachment C. He stated that Attachment C would serve as a guide to the changes that should be incorporated into the Plan, not a part of the Plan itself. The commissioners reviewed each item of Attachment C to determine their recommendation. Perez — Stated that she does not believe the item is ready for a recommendation from the PEC. Stockmar stated that while the Plan has improved, he concurred with Perez. Neubecker encouraged the PEC to take a recommendation vote. Stockmar stated that he is not comfortable making a recommendation vote at this meeting. Neubecker asked for specific items that are not ready for a recommendation vote. Rediker — Stated that this is the fourth time this item has been reviewed and believes a vote at this meeting is possible. He believes that the PEC has not provided enough specific changes to staff that will significantly alter the Plan. Gillette concurred that he thought it was possible to take a recommendation vote at this meeting. Kurz —Agreed that the outstanding issues can be resolved and a recommendation vote can be made. Stockmar — Stated that taking a vote at this meeting would send a mixed message to the Town Council. He feels there is a lot of significant information included in Attachment C that is not yet in the Plan. He stated that he may be comfortable with a recommendation vote if there is an agreement on the Vail Trail extension being eliminated from the concept trails plan. A lengthy discussion occurred regarding whether or not the item was ready for a recommendation vote. The commission attempted to address each item of Attachment C. Clarification of Language Section #1: 1 n favor. #2: 1 n favor. #3: Not in favor. #4: 1 n favor. #5: 1 n favor. #6: Not in favor — remove typo. #7: 1 n favor. Is a Separate Definitions Section Required? Yes I mplementation Actions? Yes I nvolve Department of Parks and Wildlife if a trail is entirely within the Town? Bertuglia — Recommendation or caveat included in the trail language. Rediker — Is this a mandatory condition? Gillette— Does Colorado Parks and Wildlife have the jurisdiction to approve it? Colorado Parks and Wildlife should be consulted, but they do not grant approval. Kurz does not believe Colorado Parks and Wildlife should have the ability to control what occurs within Town boundaries. It was agreed Colorado Parks and Wildlife should be consulted, but not have approval power. The proposed Vail Trail extension was discussed at length. It was agreed that the extension should be kept in the Plan for consideration. Rediker —Asked commissioners to provide direction to staff on suggested changes for the Plan. Lockman — The caveat language on page 4 of the executive summary regarding adverse impacts should be altered for better clarity. A majority of the commissioners agreed. Gillette — Stated he wants better language regarding conservation easements and the ability to use the Open Lands definition on more parcels within the Town. Rediker — Suggested changes to remove the term "potential detriment" and simply state, "detriment" on page 13. Perez — The term "conservation easement" is not defined anywhere in the document and should be included in the definitions section. Braun asked if the first sentence in the paragraph in question was not a definition. Perez responded in the negative. Rediker — Reiterated that the negative consequences of conservation easements be discussed in greater detail within the text on page 10. A lengthy discussion was help regarding the trails section of the Plan. Hopkins stated that she preferred the East Water Tank Trail be removed from the concept trails plan. Braun suggested a modification to the language that would maintain the existing width and character of the existing trail. Hopkins affirmed that she would be accepting of the proposed modifications. Perez —Asked if language should be added that required two (2) miles of social trails be removed for every one (1) mile of newly established trails. She also suggested language be added to make it clear that Action Items are suggestions, not requirements. She added that the minutes of the Wildlife Forum should be added. Hopkins —Asked for a quote from Bill Andree be included in the Plan. Rediker — Reiterated his belief that the item is ready to be sent to Town Council. Kurz concurred. Lockman — Stated that the wildlife education is a great component of the Plan. Hopkins — Believes the wildlife studies have had a significant impact on the Plan. Gillette — Supports the Plan and is ready to vote based on the recommendations made at this meeting. Stockmar — Would be more comfortable with one (1) more review of the Plan based on the changes suggested at this meeting. Rediker — Stated that Tom Braun and staff did a good job putting together the Plan and he feels the public comment was valuable to making the Plan what it is. He does not believe the fact that new PEC terms start at the next meeting should affect the decision to make a recommendation vote or not. Braun — Stated what is most important to him is unanimous support from the PEC. John -Ryan Lockman moved to table to April 23, 2018. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it passed (4-3). Ayes: (4) Hopkins, Lockman, Perez, Stockmar Nays: (3) Rediker, Gillette, Kurz 3.5. A report to the Planning and Environmental Commission on the 10 min. Administrator's approval of an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a steel -frame tensile fabric shelter at the softball fields spectator plaza area, located at 580 South Frontage Road East (Ford Park)/U n platted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0032) Applicant Town of Vail Planner: Jonathan Spence Todd Oppenheimer, Public Works, described the proposed structure. The structure would be permanent and match the architecture of the other building located near the softball fields. Stockmar — Asked what material the roof would be. Oppenheimer stated that it would be a live roof. Gillette —Asked if the proposal was included in the Ford Park Master Plan. Oppenheimer responded that it was not prohibited by the plan. Lockman — Asked about the performance of other live roofs used in Town. Oppenheimer stated that they have worked well. 3.6. A request for review of a Major Amendment to Special Development District 5 min. (SDD) No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phases I and 11, pursuant to Section 12-9A- 10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plans in order to permit building additions, an outdoor patio and associated landscape improvements located at 100 East Meadow Drive Unit 15/Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0011) Due to a significant reduction in project scope, this project is being re - advertised and re -noticed as a Minor Amendment. As a result, this item will be heard as a report to the Planning and Envornmental Commission on April 9, 2018. Applicant:Gatto Pardo Bianco LLC, represented by Steven James Riden AIA Architect Planner: Jonathan Spence Brian Gillette moved to table to April 9, 2018. John -Ryan Lockman seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.7. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail 5 min. Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to a side setback, located at 1200 Ptarmigan Road, Unit A/ Lot 1, Block 8, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0047) Applicant:Eileen Hyatt, represented by RKD Architects Planner: Matt Panfil Brian Gillette moved to table to April 23, 2018. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.8. A request for a review of a prescribed regulations amendment to Section 14- 5 min. 10-6, Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to allow the Design Review Board (DRB) to apply different design review standards in situations when two-family dwellings appear as separate and distinct development lots, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0005) Applicant requests PEC table to May 14, 2018. ApplicantArosa Partners LLC, represented by Brad Hagedorn Planner: Justin Lightfield Karen Perez moved to table to May 14, 2018. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 4. Approval of Minutes 4.1. March 12, 2018 PEC Results 5. Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Ad #: 0000221487-01 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLMTown COMMISSION April 9, 2018,1:00 PM Council Chambers ]5S. Frontage R,ad.Va6, C,I,mde, 81657 Your account number is: 1023233 1 CalltnOrder PROOF OF PUBLICATION 2, Main Agenda 1-2, Gsito,FA Requremenle°MYsZo e Section 12-15-2, GR FA Re District, Bordon 12-153 Definition, Cabulation and VAIL DAILY b.cluo..... aeon.. 12 la 4 uses, and Soon- 12- 18-5, Density Control Van Town Code, purs...I is Title 12 Chapter 17, Verlances, Vell Town Code, to for Grose Redd—wl Floor Area in STATE OF COLORADO allow (GRFA) ..tees of me amscon permuted by let are and are COUNTY OF EAGLE tlistrict and to allow an access opening to a crawl crass m greater than 12 square feel, located a1 4 West U reek Dhva Hal /Lot 4 (Hamlet Townhouses), Voll VIIIage Weet Piling 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18 I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of Code) 45 — the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in Applicant Holly Procter, represented by Manin Money Architects nne'ckers Planned whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, 22. A request for the review of fellow - State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein, Ing three (3) variances'. t-) a variance from Section 12-2112, Restried,ne is Specific zones 0n E.,es- that said newspaper has been published continuously and sive Vail Town Codeto allow fhan teSlopes, ecent (10 ) of thetotal sits area to be uninterruptedly in said Count of Eagle for period of P Y Y 9 P covered by tldveways and anrfaee parking; 2.) a V., e 11C 5110 14-3-1, Mini... t Standard,,n(1) vao Town code, 1, x14-3 for nl more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the 14-334" I bro lstandzrds, vaiiToPw `coo ; to ah first publication of the annexed legal notice or low for minimum horizontal clearance between a garage door (parallel to mad( tC edge 0f public street pavement of less than 24 leer, loc"ateU at advertisement and that said newspaper has published the 2841 Rasmgdole Roulevard)Lot 3, Block 8, Vail In- termountain Development Subdivision, and setting requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. forth detellxin regard th.rod,(PEC 16-012).5 min This application was withdrawn by the applicant. Appir—L Mir Teel & Y.,trami M—Ciapresant- The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, tl by RAL Architects, Inc. PlannerMalt Pentyl only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home 23. Report io the Planning rod Environ - me CaI cpmmiasion of an administrative action re- Rule provision. garding a request for a minor amendment fo Spe- Tal Development Disnicl (SDD) Nu. 6, Veil Vllage Inn, Phasedantl II, puant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Pursrocedures, Vail Town Code, to allow That the annexed legal notice Or advertisement was fnor o l(Icadone to the approved development plan i lingood,, to permt three (3) building addition, total 149 square feat to commercial unit 15 to pro- published in the regular and entire issue of every number modate increased r.som ani eating and a °°w p0bue.....a— IC,at.d at 100 "" Meadow of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and Dnve Unit l51 -t O, 81ock 5D, Vail Winge Filing 1, Mod setting forth dataua In regard in to (PEC,& that the firstublication of said notice was in the issue of p 11 °r encore be —d that Public Notice as p evisoufy provided for this application as a Major said newspaper dated 4/6/2018 and that the last n e ° edM°e'a°rwa"Iu6 he scope of snkn f°;°o're publication of said notice was dated 4/6/2018 in the issue protect as a MlnorsAmentlmeni) 10 min. of said newspaper. Anpicant: Gatto PardoGame LLC, represented ftn nuJames Rltl.n AIA ArChihc, J9 Steve, Plann2C pence In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. March 26, 2018 PEC Results 4/15/2018. 4- Adoumment 1 The application, and formation about the propos- ,. available during regular tyre vepart tot Publl°Int, offie, hour, at the Town of Vail Community Devel- p�%/ I,11VIp1^ -1- ,••� op Front public Department, a, n South Frontage Road. The public 1s invliod to attend the projad orientation antl fji/rA` the site visits that precede the publio hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Iand order of Items are appro—saw, subject Mark Wurzer, Publisher to chane,, and cannot b, votod upon to dct,rminc at what timethe Planning and Environmental Com - mi sin will consider a item. Please Call (970) 479-2138 for editorial Information. PI .... ..it 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to Subscribed and sworn to before me, a nota public in and notary p meeting time. Community Development Department Published is for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 0000022148ty April s, 2018, 4/15/2018. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 JEm LYNN 6l hb7AEW f+iI.SLiC, iiATF:L t^.1iLU4A®G N08AR1"p:2d50k6g938A' A+YCfq;Sl@M f'Xi'3�lw4AUGi15P9,20.�i' Ad #: 0000214284-01 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Your account number is: 1023233 metion as ce,inn°aeam,°12-" no"apuorcirea°ia in inbec g Accor 3-6. Vail Town Code, on April 9, 2018at 1:00 pm In PROOF OF PUBLICATION the Town of Val Mpmelpal Brill A rogue.. for re'I— of variances from Section 12- VAIL DAILY 15-2, GRFA Requirements by Zone District, Sec - on 12-15-3 Definifid, C,Iwl,ti,h andExoluslons, STATE OF COLORADO Section 12-18-4 Uses, antl Section 12-18-5, Denai- C coarct, Val Town code, Vl ownrCoe, Tit, 12 haptersl m allow for Res dentia) Floor Area (GRFA) in COUNTY OF EAGLE ai.vaiend too allow on a b, sa opening.oma .o e c ewl f . man 12 ,lo..ted at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive rUnit 5/Lot 41-43 I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, d setting north dotal. In regard thereto. (PEC1a- the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in 0009) Adicheant: Holly Proctor, represented by Martin whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, Manley Architects Plannor Chds Noubo,kor State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein, Report to the Planning and Environmental Commis - of an admmistdamlentaction reg oe a rcgneat that said newspaper has been published continuously and ,o Dl.tda[ �soo)allo°6, Vail V ill llnn, Ph....p and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of II, pursuant to Searle, 12-9A-10, Amendment Pro - <oaireeapp,Ilea ee eopement allow t n order Collin, more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the mit three �(m) bonding addlllons totallnngn149 orluare feat m c m raial unit 15 o sea mods. in first publication of the annexed legal notice or ,sed restaurant seating antl a ew public en - trance, located . 100 Eaar McPro, Drive unit advertisement and that said newspaper has the 15/Lot O, Brock 5D, Voll Wiled, Flling 1, Ana s,t- forthtieail,notin second(PEEC18-0 11) published requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. I chemist (,ng me`t,no-or theb.ple°oftheprotectnlaeb enhe= daoed, r—ldng In a si..elFlpalipn of the p,,j,,t Minor Amendment.) Applicant: GattopardcBianco it repr... red by Steven James Rlden All Architect The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, Plnnn,r Jonethan Sp,we only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home only rools - The application, and information about the Pols— are warable far trials iromwitmi, dmmg mac Rule provision. hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 15 South Frontage Road The public imams! to attend site visits. Please call 9]0-4]9- 2138 or visit www.vatigov.com/planning for addition - at informatian. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was Sign mnguage nt,,p,,taton available rpor request published in the regular and entire issue of every number with 24-hour oi,rifi 8oq shot 711. of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and Published March 23, 2018' In the Vail Daily. (000021 4234) that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 3/23/2018 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 3/23/2018 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 4/15/2018. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 4/15/2018. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 J'Em LYNN MEDINA hb7AYY RU.gLiC, iiATF:L t�ULU4A®D N08ARY'p:2dh9ki3g938A' WC um", F'Xclo1!„4AUGi15' I'm