Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-0425 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN Of VA L April 25, 2016, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Members Present: Ludwig Kurz, John Ryan Lockman, Henry Pratt, and Brian Stockmar Absent: Brian Gillette, Kirk Hansen, and John Rediker 2. A request for review of an Exemption Plat pursuant to Section 13-12-3, Vail Town Code, Plat Procedure and Criteria for Review, to adjust the location of the building envelope located at 971 Spraddle Creek Road, Lot 8, Spraddle Creek Estates, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0013) Action: Table to May 23, 2016 Motion: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 4-0-3 3. Approval of Minutes April 11, 2016 PEC Meeting Action: Approve Motion: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 4-0-3 4. Informational Update PEC Training — Special Development Districts Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager, made a presentation regarding Special Development Districts (SDDs). SDDs allow for flexibility but must comply with specific criteria listed in the Town Code. Uses are limited to the underlying zoning district of the specific area. Additional land uses can not be added, but uses may be further restricted. The process starts with a pre -application meeting between the applicant and planning staff to identify the concept and identify any elements of the SDD that do not comply with Town Code. The applicant then appears before the PEC; it may take several meetings to fully review. The PEC will review where the proposal differs from Town Code and the public benefit associated with granting approval of the project. The plan presented and a separate ordinance are what will regulate the SDD in the future. The DRB may also be involved in the review of a conceptual development plan, but DRB does not have to review the plan. . Review criteria for SDDs include: 1. Compatibility 2. Relationship of land uses 3. Parking and loading 4. Comprehensive Plan 5. Natural and/or geologic hazard 6. Design features 7. Traffic 8. Landscaping 9. Workable plan Lockman — Are the criteria weighted where one item may be more important than another? Neubecker — There may be times when one criteria is not applicable, but there is not one criteria that is more important than any other. A project should comply with all criteria. Town Council is the final decision maker for SDDs, but it does consider the recommendations of the PEC. SDDs require a public hearing and two readings of an ordinance. Rezoning is possible concurrent with an SDD, but would be done by separate application (Amendment to District Boundaries application) which can be reviewed concurrently with the SDD application. A development plan and an ordinance are the controlling documents for a SDD. A development plan may be specific. Some benefits of specific plans are that development is predictable, but on the other hand, changes to the plans require additional reviews and changes to be made to the SDD, through the amendment process. When deviating from the underlying zoning district, the public benefit of granting such deviations is evaluated. This is not an opportunity to extract a pound of flesh in exchange for approving the request. The burden of proof of public benefit is on the applicant. Examples of public benefits are additional employee housing, transit improvements, open space, and increased environmental protection. Another example would be to approve a taller building in exchange for a greater setback from Gore Creek. SDDs can be amended via either a major or minor amendment. Minor amendments can be approved by staff. Major amendments are required to be reviewed by the PEC and to be granted approval by the Town Council. Specific findings are required, focused on the nine (9) criteria, are required for approval or denial of an SDD application. SDDs may expire if they are not started within three (3) years and continued diligently toward completion. With phased SDDs, the next phase must start within one (1) year of completion of the previous phase. SDDs are similar to what other communities refer to as Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) or Master Plans. Land use controls, permitted uses, design regulations are common elements within SDDs and PUDs. Neubecker concluded by stating that there are forty (40) SDDs within Vail. Stockmar — Economic conditions can alter phasing of the project. How do we handle such situations? Neubecker — A change in phasing may require an amendment to the SDD phasing plan. Stockmar — What if a developer completes Phase I but wants to walk away from the project before Phase 11? Neubecker —We cannot require them to complete Phase II, but he will research any instances of this occurring. Lockman — Can a separate developer then complete Phase II? Neubecker — Yes. Spence — Town requires a demonstration that each separate phase of the plan can stand on its own. Pratt— It is his experience that a revegetation bond may be required. Lockman — Is there criteria for when a variance is requested, or an SDD would be required? Neubecker — A variance is based on physical hardship while an SDD request is more based on a desire for flexibility for an alternative design. Pratt — SDDs should be considered a positive approach to land use planning. But the application process and materials can be very expensive. Neubecker — Vail does not, but some other communities, have a minimum size for such a development. Lockman — Can the town apply for an SDD? Neubecker — The town can apply for an SDD on property it owns, but not for a private property owner. Pratt suggested an additional educational session on the General Use zoning district. Most of the development standards in General Use are set by the PEC. Neubecker — Are there other topics of interest to the PEC members? Lockman — Specific zoning districts and how they differ. Also, how the Comprehensive Plan relates to the zoning districts. Pratt — Training on the legal criteria for what is a special privilege and spot zoning when discussion variance cases. Neubecker— Future topics currently planned include nonconforming uses and structures, GRFA, transportation plan, and other discussions with the environmental team. Lockman — Is there a way to link a specific parcel under review to the Town's mapping software? Neubecker demonstrated some information available for parcels in the mapping software. Spence — Newer mapping software will be available soon. Neubecker demonstrated how to access the Town's view corridors on the Town's online GIS mapping software. 5. Adjournment Action: Approval Motion: Lockman Second: Kurz Vote: 4-0-3 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOW?J OF VAi� ` April 25, 2016, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 2. A request for review of an Exemption Plat pursuant to section 13-12-3, Vail Town Code, 5 Min. Plat Procedure and Criteria for Review, to adjust the location of the building envelope located at 971 Spraddle Creek Road, Lot 8, Spraddle Creek Estates, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0013) Table to May 9, 2016 Applicant Terry T. Noell, represented by Triumph Development Planner: Chris Neubecker 3. Approval of Minutes April 11, 2016 PEC Meeting Results 4. Informational Update PEC Training - Special Development Districts 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 appro)amate, 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. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telecommunication Device for the Deaf (TDD), for information. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily April 22, 2016 60 Min. TOW?J OF VAi ` VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 25, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: April 11, 2016 PEC Meeting Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC—Results-041116. pdf Description April 11, 2016 PEC Meeting Results PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION April TOWU OFVeit 11, 2016, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Members present: Brian Gillette, John Rediker, Henry Pratt, Ludwig Kurz, Kirk Hansen, John Ryan Lockman, Brian Stockmar Members Absent: None (Note: Mr. Kurz left the meeting after the swearing in and voting for Chairman.) Swearing-in New PEC Members by Town Clerk, Patty McKenny Henry Pratt nominated John Rediker as Chairman, Seconded by Kirk Only one candidate, not vote taken John Rediker nominated Henry Pratt as Chairman Pro -tem Ludwig seconded the motion Henry Pratt nominated Ludwig Kurz as Chairman Pro -tem Seconded by Kirk Vote for Pratt as Chairman Pro -Tem passed, 4-3 Site Visits: 1. Vail Fire Station No. 1 - 4116 Columbine Drive 2. Gasthof Gramshammer - 231 East Gore Creek Drive 3. Kajara LLC Residence - 265 Forest Road Information Update - Energy Usage: Natural Gas Kristin Bertuglia, Environmental Sustainability Manager, presented information regarding energy usage within the Town. Mark Hoblitzell, Environmental Sustainability Coordinator, presented specific information regarding natural gas usage within the Town. Information included the Town's sources for natural gas, calculating the carbon equivalency of natural gas and the use of natural gas for snowmelt. John King, Public Works, also spoke in order to answer facility operation questions from the PEC 2. A request for review of a Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-713-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of 1,193 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA), located at 304 Bridge Street Units R2 & R3 (Red Lion Inn Condos)/Lots E -H, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC160008) Applicant: Oscar Tang and Blue Mountain Investments represented by J+A Architects Planner: Brian Garner Motion to Approve Motion- Hansen Second- Lockman Vote: 6-0-0 Conditions: 1. This exterior alteration or modification approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 2. The applicant shall mitigate the employee housing impact created by the new net square footage in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12-24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code and the applicant shall make the required fee in lieu payment to the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of any building permit. 3. The applicant shall specify the design and location of the chimney and shall investigate the potential for making the restaurant exhaust chimney smaller and as much to the south as possible. Brian Garner, Town Planner, introduced the project. Mr. Garner summarized the discussions from the previous two (2) reviews that occurred on March 14 and March 28, 2016. The applicant's proposal is the same as it was in the previous meeting. A more extensive sun -shade analysis has been provided by the applicant. At the April 5, 2016 Town Council meeting, the council waived their rights to limit the GRFA as granted in the condominium declarations for the project. Mr. Brian Judge, Architect - Briefly summarized the proposal and then focused his attention on the sun -shade analysis. There are no established setbacks for this site. Mr. Judge stated that the entire HOA has approved the proposal. Mr. Judge also stated that individuals from the neighboring property to the north who previously spoke against the proposal had indicated that they represented the entire HOA for the neighboring property to the north when they did not actually represent the HOA, just themselves. Mr. Judge then referred to sun -shade analysis graphics comparing the existing and proposed conditions at the times and dates required by the design guidelines. According to Mr. Judge, the increase in shadow coverage as a result from this proposal ranges from 3-8% depending on the time of the year. Mr. Judge reminded the PEC that the impact of Vail Mountain was not considered for the sun -shade analysis. Mr. Judge concluded by stating that the proposal will refresh the appearance of the property and remove some of the existing unsightly elements such as the open staircase and awning. The proposal the applicant has attempted to address the concerns of the neighboring property owners and the proposal does not require any variances and leaves undeveloped GRFA. Mr. Merrill Stillwell - Spoke in regards to conversations with the neighboring property owners. Mr. Stillwell stated that the plans have been adjusted to address neighboring property owner concerns. Rediker - Asked for Mr. Judge to specify which plans are requested to be approved. Mr. Judge confirmed that it was the plan set titled, I -A" Public Comment Ms. Margo Mullally - Spoke as the owner of unit R2 in the adjacent Rucksack Building. Ms. Mullally claims that the applicant's comments regarding other properties' length of awareness of this application and their excitement level were misrepresented. Ms. Mullally stated that in the 1990s the neighboring properties were told that the previous expansion was the last time the applicant would be able to increase the size of the building. Ms. Mullally claimed that while the changes shown in the sun -shade analysis may sound small, there is a large impact on the neighboring property. Ms. Mullally claimed that the proposal will place a solid wall in front of the recently built dormer on her unit and invited the PEC to see how it would impact their property. Closed Public Comment Mr. Hansen - Asked how the other individual Ms. Mullally mentioned would be impacted by the proposal. Ms. Mullally stated that the owner of Rucksack Building Unit #R1 is Mr. Bill Gardiner. Rediker - Asked if anyone opposing the proposal attended the Town Council meeting where the waiving of the GRFA limitation was discussed. Ms. Mullally stated that no one to her knowledge attended. Mr. Garner stated that the discussion was held in the Town Council's executive session. Mr. Rediker asked if this meant that none of the neighbors were notified of the meeting, to which Mr. Garner responded in the affirmative. Mr. Judge - The restriction being referred to was not signed by anyone in the town and that the Town Attorney advised that the restriction did not give any restrictive power to the Town. Mr. Gillette - Asked Mr. Garner if the Town Council actually waived their rights or if they determined that the GRFA restriction was not applicable to the Town. Mr. Garner stated it would be more correct to say the GRFA restriction in the declarations was not applicable to the Town. Mr. Hansen - Asked for clarification as to whether the neighboring property owners were correctly notified. Mr. George Ruther, Director of Community Development, stated that staff would research the notification process. Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager - Referring back to the GRFA restriction discussion among the Town Council, he stated that the executive session on the GRFA restriction was specifically listed on the Town Council agenda, and was suggested by the PEC at the previous meeting on this topic. Mr. Lockman - The applicant has conducted good due diligence in regards to providing the information requested. In regards to the sun -shade analysis Mr. Lockman feels the applicant has a done a good job of taking the adjacent property owner to the north into consideration regarding the design and he therefore can support the application. Mr. Hansen - He felt the applicant has accommodated the neighboring properties while still complying with Town Code. The information provided has eased his concerns and Mr. Hansen supports the application. Mr. Pratt - Due to the zero foot (0') lot line regulations there is limited expectation of light and air for surrounding properties. Mr. Pratt did state a concern regarding the size of the chimney and its proximity to the neighboring property. Mr. Judge clarified that the number of vents is actually being reduced and that one single larger vent will reduce noise in comparison to the existing conditions. Mr. Judge stated that he will look into moving the chimney as south as possible, and design it as small as possible. Mr. Gillette - He concurred with the Town Attorney's opinion regarding the Town's lack of authority in the matter of the GRFA restriction. Mr. Gillette feels that the applicant has provided substantial information and demonstrated that the sun -shade impact will be minimal. Mr. Stockmar - He feels the proposal, as it is compliant with Town Code, is something that can be approved, despite the unfortunate disagreement between neighbors. Mr. Rediker - He understands the concerns of the neighboring property owners, and it is unfortunate that the maximum impact on the sun -shade occurs during the winter equinox. Mr. Rediker concurs with Mr. Pratt's statements regarding the size and location of the chimney. Mr. Ruther confirmed that the adjacent property owners had been correctly notified, mailed March 15, including the Martin J. Mullalley Credit Trust, at an address in Minturn, as listed in the Eagle County records. 3. A request for review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-16 Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code to allow for the expansion of the East Vail Fire Station located at 4116 Columbine Drive/Lot 15 Bighorn Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0010) Applicant: Vail Fire Protection District, represented by John King Planner: Brian Garner Motion to Approve - Lockman Motion- Lockman Second- Pratt Vote: 4-1-1 (Gillette Against, Stockman recused) Conditions: 1. This exterior alteration or modification approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application. 2. The Employee Housing Units (EHUs) shall first be offered to emergency personnel, then to Town of Vail staff before offering to general public. Mr. Garner introduced the proposal and explained that this project entails the expansion of an existing fire station facility and a Conditional Use Permit is required for a fire station in this zone district. The two EHUs are allowed by right in the General Use zone district. Building additions are proposed to the fire station and EHUs. Improvements proposed to the exterior of the building include a new heated concrete driveway in front. Brian Garner corrected the staff memo concerning the number of EHUs proposed on site. Pratt — Is there a requirement for 50% of the employees to be housed on site? Garner indicated that he is not aware of any such requirement. John King — Currently one EHU with a Vail Fire Fighter living there. Gym on second floor will become the second EHU. Fire Station #1 was built about 1982. New roof was added in 2008. Space is cramped, can't walk around firetrucks inside garage. Expansion proposed for work areas, bunker gear, and generator. We will address mechanical and electrical systems to bring up to date and will also be cleaning up the building facade. Heated driveway proposed to address safety issues. Stockmar — I live next door. It may be seen as a conflict of interest. Mr. Stockmar left the room and did not participate in the discussion or vote. Pratt - Is there an option for a heat exchange system to save energy on the snowmelt system? King indicated that there are tying to be efficient and will consider a heat exchange. Lockman - How is building heated now? King — Natural gas. It would be almost impossible to not be more efficient after this remodel. I'm not a fan of adding snowmelt but it's a safety issue since this is a fire facility. Hansen - Will the HVAC system be available for review by the DRB? King — Yes Rediker — Officers are constantly cleaning the trucks. Where do they drain the water? King — Trench drain that currently flow to sanitary system. Driveway and parking will have a water quality vault, and then drain to creek. We are making strides to collect and clean water. We are reducing impervious surface. Lockman- Environmental Report was not required, due to existing structures. Since its close to creek, why not still required environmental report? Garner — Exemption for existing buildings applies here. Gillette — Please explain the safety issues with the heated driveway. Mark Novak — Engineers have 4 wheel drive and snow tires. Real issue is backing up safely. He stated the fire department has people helping to back up the trucks. Having staff standing behind the truck is a safety issue. Gillette — What if you heated only the first 20 feet in front of the building rather than the whole driveway? Novak — 20 feet would not be enough. Once a truck starts to slide it's a safety issue. We looked at changing the driveway, but there are issues with the trucks not clearing the garage doors. Rediker — Question for Bill Pierce, Architect. Which image in the plans is best to see what is proposed on the new proposed driveway? Garner — Displays landscape plan on the screen. Bill Pierce — We added evergreen trees to mitigate headlights from cars. He discussed the displayed landscape plan. Rediker — Operationally, how will snow removal and storage be handled? Will there be any salt and sand getting into the creek? King — We are working with Gregg Barrie to determine best plan to mitigate sand. We may be forced to haul snow. Hansen — Landscaping looks thin along the west property line adjacent to the new proposed driveway. King — We need to consider shrubs that can take snow on them. We are still working on the landscaping plan. Public Comment - None Final Comments Gillette — Likes the application but concerned with the snowmelt. We have only reduced energy use by 2%. Snowmelt should be limited to 10-20 feet in front of the doors, rest should be plowed. Heating that area is convenient, but not necessary. Pratt — Different take on this issue. I once called Fire Department and they showed up in 45 seconds. Snowmelt is warranted. Mr. King should use innovative ways to try to be efficient. Snow Melt boiler is 10 times bigger than that for the building. Don't think we want to snowmelt the drive to the west. EHUs are concern to me. EHUs should be offered first to Firefighters, then town staff, before offering to the public. Hansen — Ditto on housing units and west side landscaping. Snowmelt, lean towards Henry's comments. You need to be able to get out quickly. I live in East Vail and count on these guys. Truck in front of station with flat tire, why is that there? Lockman- Upgrade to the fire stations is important to public safety. Upgrades are much needed. Landscaping needs to be increased. Without requirement for an environmental report ... there are issues with Gore Creek. Advise Town to lead by example on creek and environmental sustainability, snow storage. Rediker— Henry raised a good issue on the EHUs. Did staff look at these requirements, and can we add to the conditional use with those requirements to be occupied by town staff? Ruther — We can add as a priority to rent to a town employee or fire fighter, but would not recommend keeping it empty if those staff are not occupying unit. King — We offer these units to fire fighters and other emergency personnel first. Rediker — If we get rid of baseboard heat, that will save electricity. If we add more efficient boilers, that will offset some of the power use in driveway. Trucks need to be able to exit the building quickly. Agree with comments on additional landscaping on the west side. Neighbor across the creek is far away, and may not be able to plant in wetlands. Do the best you can with landscaping on west side. 3. A request for an Addition and Exterior Alteration to the Gasthof Gramshammer / Pepi's Restaurant Building in Vail Village, pursuant to Section 12-713-7 Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for a revised entrance, new windows and new bar seating area located at 231 East Gore Creek Drive / Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0011) Applicant: Gasthof Gramshammer Inc, represented by Gies Architects Planner: Matt Panfil Motion to Approve with Conditions Motion- Pratt Second -Gillette Vote: 6-0-0 Conditions — 1. Approval of this minor exterior alteration request is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application; and 2. The applicant shall mitigate the employee generation impact created by the new net development in accordance with the provisions of Title 12, Chapter 23, Commercial Linkage, Vail Town Code, and if a mitigation option including a fee in lieu payment is chosen, the applicant shall make the required fee in lieu payment to the Town of Vail prior to the issuance of any building permit. As required by the Town Code, if the applicant chooses to mitigate any portion of the obligation through off site unit(s), these unit(s) shall be available for occupancy prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy. 3. The PEC recommends that the applicant and the Design Review Board take steps to increase the alpine character on the Bridge Street side of the building. Matt Panfil introduced the application. He discussed the added landscaping and site coverage on the site plan. A net new 81 square feet of floor area and 24 square feet of landscaping are proposed. The last addition or remodeling to the Bridge Street elevation was in 1988. Applicant would like a refreshed look. The exterior changes will also be reviewed by the DRB. The proposed sliding doors serve a function mentioned in the Vail Village Master Plan, which is to open up more visual transparency to pedestrians. The proposed changes result in a minor increase in the number of tables inside the restaurant. The site coverage will remain below the 80% required by code. Commercial linkage will also apply. Staff finds the proposal in compliance with the CC1 zone district, Vail Village Master Plan, Streetscape Plan, and Urban Design Guidelines. Staff did receive a concern from a nearby neighbor concerning potential for noise. Gillette — Did we do a study on the transparency? Panfil — No there is not a study on the transparency on the existing building vs. proposed. Gillette — I have concerns with the transparency and with the roof form. Pratt — In Vail Village our purview is not limited to bulk and mass. Gillette — I strongly recommend that the DRB look at the transparency, loss of gable roof form, and the loss of muntins and mullions in windows. Pratt — Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan discusses windows, doors, design and trim. Lockman — What is the intent of the language in the Urban Design Guide Plan? Panfil showed portions from the Urban Design Guide Plan on windows and transparency. Ruther discussed the language in the Urban Design Guide Plan. He discussed some other buildings in Town, such as the Gore Creek Promenade and the Wall Street Building. Pratt — Pepi's Sports is an example of what could be done. Gillette — Muntins in Pepi's Sports were examples that were previously mentioned and incorporated into the Wall Street Building. Applicant — Russell Gies, Architect — Existing bar has unusable space. This entrance was originally access to Sheika's bar, now used as ski storage in basement. We wanted to bring more light into the building. The entry that exists is not part of the original design. Original building did not have the protrusion, or these muntins (divisions in the windows). Shed roofs are appropriate on smaller roof forms, per the code. Floor is 39"-41" above Bridge Street. It's not the same as Wall Street Building. We are trying to make it feel like this is part of the original building. Deep recessed windows. Hansen — Have you selected the slider windows? Can you get windows with muntins? Gies — Nana Doors may have muntins. We are going back and forth between sliders and accordion style. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Stockmar — Planter will not go into the right of way? Gies — Landscaping planter will be on private property. Public Comment — None Final Comments — Lockman — I like the idea of 24 sq. ft. net increase in landscaping and it is great to have more commercial capacity in Town. This is a great project. On this application, opening the storefront is great. Agree with Gillette on the loss of the alpine character and to ask the DRB to look into that issue. Hansen — Support project as well. If you wanted to change the whole side of the building, it would not be OK. But for a section of all 18 feet long, it works. This space needs to be fixed. Good design, I support it. Pratt — Thus is a badly needed improvement. Muntins are needed, encourage you and the DRB to look at the muntins. Across the street at new restaurant, seems like everybody is opening up the storefront. It could get cacophonous from music in this small area, potential for a lot of noise. Code enforcement will be able to monitor and enforce noise complaints. Gillette — The applicant should try to get more alpine character on the building. Encourage staff and the DRB to look at that hard. Stockmar — That wall has always bothered me. It is dark on the inside of the building. I like the idea of echoing some of the muntins, so it is not all glass. Rediker — Agree with my commissioners. On site coverage, bulk and mass it meets code. We need to keep the alpine character. Shed roof is getting away from that character. In particular, the four criteria are met, and hope that the DRB notes all of our comments and concerns. Gillette — Look at opening the top rail on the deck. Gies — The deck on the second floor has a solid railing because guests complain about the noise on Bridge Street. Mr. Gies asked if he went to a six or eight panel sliding door system, could he get back to the vertical nature of the building. Gillette — You are losing some of the alpine character. We will ask the DRB to look at the design and see how you can "yodel" it up. 4. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17-1, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a variance to the front setback for a trash enclosure, located at 265 Forest Road / Lot 21, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0012) Applicant: Kajara LLC, represented by Bill Nutkins Planner: Matt Panfil Motion to Deny Motion- Lockman Second- Stockmar Vote: 5-1-0 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 Primary / Secondary Residential District; 2. 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; b. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that does not apply generally to other properties in the Two - Family Primary / Secondary Residential District; and C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the by the owners of other properties in the Two -Family Primary / Secondary Residential District. Panfil gave an introduction to the application. The trash enclosure will be about 5 feet from the property line and creates 34 square feet of new site coverage. The existing retaining wall is about 8'3" in height. Structure would be about 11'3". The home was built in 2003 with a three car garage. Staff recommends denial, based on no physical hardship. Staff agrees that that the design has a minimal impact on the neighborhood, but feels that granting the variance will be a special privilege for the applicant. Rediker — Did you look at other options for locations? Panfil — We looked at a variety of locations. Some others would also require a side setback. The location proposed is what the applicant determined to be the area of least impact. Rediker— Retaining walls are significantly into side setback Panfil — Retaining walls can be within the setback. Ruther — No variances were granted in 2003 for the retaining walls Hansen — Please define why this is a noncompliant addition. Neubecker— Definition of GRFA includes storage areas. There was a discussion on wildlife proof trash containers. Bill Nutkins — Architect — Made some corrections to statements made by the staff. We looked at the east side of the house, but we would have needed a variance there too. East side of the garage also would be an eyesore, and a large drop off of about 12 feet in grade. Panfil - Agreed that the dimensions mentioned by Nutkins are correct. He read sections from the Town Code requiring screening and trash enclosures. Ric Fields — Landscape Architect — Discussed some of the goals of the design, and need for a roof. One goal is to keep snow from piling on top of trash cans. Public Comment — None Final Comment Stockmar — During site visit, it looks like a solution in search of a problem as there is an existing three car garage with lots of storage. A solution may be a niche in the wall. I tend not to think that it is a necessity. None of the alternatives seem practical. I will vote against this. Gillette — Agree with staff. Do not think that the criteria for a variance have been met. Try to find a design and location that is not GRFA, eliminate the roof and you are there. Pratt — This is an elegant solution that is not needed. There is GRFA available. The fact that there is a roof that sticks over the wall seems to make it a special privilege. Hansen — I will go the other way. I do think that this is a different situation. I would support the application. Lockman — I did not see any practical difficulties. I think it makes sense to use the space under the wall. The roof makes it need a setback variance, which I cannot support. Look to other locations without a variance. Rediker — I like the plan. I see the issue that the owner has, but I agree with the analysis from staff. I do think there are some practical difficulties with this site. But it does not rise to the level of supporting a variance. 5. Approval of Minutes March 28, 2016 PEC Meeting Results Motion to Approve Motion- Gillette Second -Lockman Vote: 5-0-1 (Stockmar abstain) 6. Adjournment Motion — Stockmar; Second — Gillette 6-0-0 TOW?J OF VAi ` VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: April 25, 2016 ITEM/TOPIC: PEC Training - Special Development Districts ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description SDD_Memo_to PEC.pdf Staff Memo to Planning and Environmental Commission 02/08/2016 SDD_Powerpoint_PEC _042516.pdf Presentation on Special Development Districts 0) TOWN OF VAIL ' Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 25, 2016 SUBJECT: Informational Presentation on Special Development Districts What is a Special Development District? A Special Development District (SDD) is best described as a municipal land use planning tool utilizing an overlay form of zoning whereby deviations from the prescribed development standards of the underlying zone district may be granted to allow increased flexibility and creativity in the design of a site which achieves the adopted land use and development goals and objectives of the community. What is the purpose of a Special Development District? According to Chapter 9, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, the purpose of a Special Development District is to, "encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use, to improve the design character and quality of the new development with the town, to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities, to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas, and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail comprehensive plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the special development district. Special development districts do not apply to and are not available in the following zone districts. hillside residential, single-family residential, two-family residential, two-family primary/secondary residential." Who may apply for a Special Development District designation? Any owner of property to be included within the proposed Special Development District or his (her) agent or authorized representative. Can a Special Development District be created in any zone district? No. Special Development District designation may not be applied to properties located within the Hillside Residential, Single-family Residential, Two-family Residential, or Two-family Primary/Secondary zone districts. What are the procedures for establishing a Special Development District? Section 12-9A-4, Development Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, outlines the various steps and procedures for establishing a Special Development District. According to Section 12-9A-4, there are three primary steps in the establishment procedures: 1) Pre -application meeting with the Town staff 2) PEC review 3) Town Council review In an effort to ensure an efficient and timely review of a Special Development District development review application, the first step is for the applicant to meet with the Town staff for a pre -application meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss: 1) The goals of the proposed Special Development District 2) The relationship of the proposal to applicable elements of the town's master plan 3) The review procedure that will be followed for the application The second and third steps in the process are the actual review of the application by the PEC and Town Council. What are the roles of the PEC, DRB, and Town Council in the review of a Special Development District development review application? Development applications for the establishment of a Special Development District are first reviewed by the Planning & Environmental Commission (PEC) for impacts associated with the proposed uses on the development objectives of the Town and compatibility of any requested deviations from the prescribed development standards (i.e. GRFA, site coverage, building height, etc.) with the Town's adopted design criteria. The review and recommendation of the application by the PEC is based upon a set of prescribed criteria. According to the Vail Town Code, in part, "the design criteria shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the Special Development District." The nine design criteria are outlined below: 1. Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Town of Vail Page 2 2. Relationship. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. 3. Parking and Loading. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 10 of this Title. 4. Comprehensive Plan. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and urban design plans. 5. Natural and/or Geologic Hazard. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. 6. Design Features. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. 7. Traffic. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. 8. Landscaping. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. 9. Workable Plan. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. In nearly all instances, the review and recommendation of the PEC is the result of numerous meetings with the staff and applicant during work session discussions and public hearings before the Commission. In the case of an application to establish a Special Development District, the role of the PEC is to act in an advisory capacity to the Town Council. According to the Vail Town Code, the PEC can recommend approval, approval with modifications, or denial of an application to establish a Special Development District to the Town Council. Then, and often concurrently, the Design Review Board (DRB) reviews a separate development application conceptually for compliance with the prescribed design guidelines of the Town. For larger developments, the review of the application may occur over the course of several conceptual review meetings with the Board. The DRB, however, does not take final action on the development application until final action on the SDD application has been taken by the Town Council. The Town Council's review of an application to establish a Special Development District is based upon a number of considerations. According to the Vail Town Code, the Council's final decision on an application to establish a Special Development District shall be based upon consideration of the recommendation forwarded by Town of Vail Page 3 the PEC and compliance with each of the nine design criteria prescribed in the Zoning Regulations. The Town Council's evaluation of an application to establish a Special Development District is in the form of an ordinance. As is the case with the PEC, the Town Council can approve, approve with modifications, or deny the application by either approving or denying the request upon two readings of the ordinance. The final step in the review process is final design review of the development application by the DRB. The final decision of the DRB is based upon compliance with the following design guideline criteria: • Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings fitting buildings into landscape • Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography • Removal/preservation of trees and native vegetation • Adequate provision for snow storage on-site • Acceptability of building materials and colors • Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms • Provision of landscape and drainage • Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures • Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances • Provision of outdoor lighting • Compliance with the architectural design guidelines of applicable master plans. What types of land uses are allowed in a Special Development District? Pursuant to Section 12-9A-7, Uses, Vail Town Code, "Determination of permitted, conditional and accessory uses shall be made by the planning and environmental commission and town council as a part of the formal review of the proposed development plan. Unless further restricted through the review of the proposed special development district, permitted, conditional and accessory y uses shall be limited to those permitted, conditional and accessory uses in a property's underlying zone district. Under certain conditions, commercial uses may be permitted in residential special development districts if, in the opinion of the Town Council, such uses are primarily for the service and convenience of the residents of the development and the immediate neighborhood. Such uses, if any, shall not change or destroy the predominantly residential character of the special development district. The amount of area and type of such uses, if any, to be allowed in a residential special development district shall be established by the Town Council as a part of the approved development plan. " For example, if a proposed Special Development District is located within the Public Accommodation (PA) zone district, those permitted, conditional and accessory uses Town of Vail Page 4 listed for the PA zone district would be permissible, provided such uses were not further restricted as part of the final approval. Can the underlying zone district of a proposed Special Development District be changed? Yes, but not by the SDD process. A property owner can propose to amend the underlying zoning of a proposed Special Development District. In order to do so, an application for a zone district amendment (rezoning) would be required. The amendment application would be reviewed concurrently with the application to establish the Special Development District. If a Special Development District is an overlay district atop an underlying zone district, how is development regulated within the Special Development District? Development within a Special Development District is regulated pursuant to an approved development plan. An approved development plan is the principal document in guiding the development, uses and activities of a Special Development District. A development plan shall be approved by ordinance by the Town Council in conjunction with the review and approval of any Special Development District. The development plan shall be comprised of materials submitted in accordance with Section 12-9A-5 of this Article. The development plan shall contain all relevant material and information necessary to establish the parameters with which the Special Development District shall develop. The development plan may consist of, but not be limited to, the approved site plan, floor plans, building sections and elevations, vicinity plan, parking plan, preliminary open space/landscape plan, densities and permitted, conditional and accessory uses. In essence, the approved development plan, along with the approving ordinance, becomes an "illustrative and written contract" between the Town and the property owner for the future development of the site. What about the development standards (i.e., site coverage, GRFA, density, building height, landscape area, parking, setbacks, etc.)? How are they determined? Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverage, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed Special Development District's compliance with the design criteria outlined in Section 12-9A-8 of the Zoning Regulations. Town of Vail Page 5 Historically, deviations have been granted for development in Special Development Districts to allow for increases in GRFA, density (dwelling units per acre) building height, site coverage along with decreases in the requirement amounts of parking, landscape area, and setbacks. Justification for such deviations has included proximity to public transportation, increased protection of the Gore Creek corridor, increased number of accommodation units, compliance with the adopted goals and policies of the Town's master plans, provision of on-site employee housing units, below -grade development versus above - grade development, provision of public improvements (sidewalks, plazas, loading/delivery, etc.) on private property, increased commercial square footage in exchange for GRFA, reductions in density (dwelling units per acre), provision of open space and public recreation, protection of natural area from future development and creation of a "third" village. Can a Special Development District approval be amended? Yes. By definition, an amendment is either "major" or "minor". The distinctions between the two are generally the extent or magnitude of the changes requested and the subsequent review process prescribed for each. For example, change is use, increases in GRFA, change in the number of dwelling or accommodation units or requests to modify or enlarge the boundaries of a Special Development District are considered major amendments. The review process for a major amendment is nearly identical to that required to establish a new Special Development District. A minor amendment, by comparison, would be a request to modify building plans, site or landscape plans that does not alter the basic intent and character of the approved special development. Regardless of whether an amendment is considered major or minor, in order to be approved, the amendment must be consistent with the adopted design criteria. (Note: SDD amendments are not required for projects that add floor area through the "Interior Conversions" (Sec. 12-15-4) or "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area (250 Ordinance) (Sec. 12-15-5) portions of the adopted code. Such projects may require modification of the recorded plat, if the plat includes GRFA restrictions.) What findings must the PEC and Town Council make to approve or deny a request to establish a Special Development District? To avoid claims of arbitrary or capricious decision making by the Planning and Environmental Commission and/or Town Council, the Vail Town Code establishes design criteria that must be evaluated and specific findings of fact that must be made about the application by the reviewing bodies. In all instances, when either making a recommendation or taking final action on an amending ordinance, the PEC and Town Council must find that, Town of Vail Page 6 "The applicant has met the burden of demonstrating that the submittal materials and the proposed development plan comply with each of the nine design criteria, or demonstrated that one or more of the nine design criteria is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. " Does an approval of a Special Development District ever lapse? Yes. The developer must begin initial construction of the Special Development District within three (3) years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward the completion of the project. If the Special Development District is to be developed in phases, the developer must begin construction of subsequent phases within one year of the completion of the previous phase. If the developer does not begin and diligently work toward the completion of the Special Development District or any stage of the Special Development District within the time limits imposed by the preceding subsection, the approval of said Special Development District shall be void. The Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council shall review the Special Development District upon submittal of an application to reestablish the Special Development District following the procedures outlined in the Zoning Regulations. In addition to the above -prescribed time requirements, the Town Council may, at its discretion, place more restrictive time requirements upon an approval. This was the case with the approvals of the Vail Plaza Hotel and Westhaven Condominium Special Development District major amendment applications. Upon approving each of the applications, in addition to making the necessary findings of fact, the Town Council also found that the interest and welfare of the public would be furthered by placing a shorter timeframe on the length of the respective major amendment approvals. Are Special Development Districts unique to Vail? Yes and no. The terminology used, "Special Development District" is somewhat unique to Vail. In most instances, the term "Planned Unit Development " (PUD) is used to describe a land use planning tool that encourages flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; improves the design character and quality of the new development with the town; facilitates the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; preserves the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and furthers the overall goals of the community as stated in the comprehensive master plan. Regardless of the term used, upon reviewing a number of other communities' zoning and land development regulations, the procedures for establishing or amending an SDD or PUD are nearly identical to those outlined in the Vail Town Code. In all instances the creation of an SDD or PUD is seen as an amendment to the municipality's zoning or land use regulations, and as such, requires review and approval of an amending ordinance by the legislative body of the municipality. Town of Vail Page 7 How Many Special Development Districts are currently in Vail? Forty (40) and counting. The last new SDD approved was in 2006 (The Willows). An SDD for the Vail Row Houses failed in 2009. Due to the flexibility that SDDs offer to developers, it is likely that we will see more applications for SDDs over time. It is also likely that we will be reviewing amendments to existing SDDs. Town of Vail Page 8 "-ftft M W O uj E�� M CL N LO r -I N Tt O c I 0 L (tf cy) V Z Q) N LO r -I N Tt O c I r' O ■ �N T O E 0 m L Al CD F -W, cn m CD a) E Q _O` W a) m N cn m cn a) a) U El m LO \ N Tt O C I .V 0 IA W U) ^O 0- ki \ Ln N Tt O CL 0 a� 0 E 0 U c I lz M L O f� L- 0 a--+ U .L cn N E Q _O N N 0 (6 �U N Q cn N N _0 N N to N N •a N U O N � Q M O O O L O QA--- Ln LO \ N Tt O c a� E CL 0 a� a� 0 c E 0 U c I U N O (6 N +� .� C/) O N — L O 0 .� N _N }, C:m — cn (6 a--� — � N L N (6 > m . p 70 Q Z a) E >-, � L E 1 O cn 1 1 v2Cn�� x w . Ln LO \ N Tt O c a� E CL 0 a� a� 0 c E 0 U c I cn L- cn N E CDL _O N N w m i /�1 E N Q cn cn m O a-+ U cn N E CDL _O N N 0 • m O cncn N 70 O p O c U M O � v T 0 O � � N_ _ (6 O O = 4-j 0 CY) - _ O 0 a V L N .� U E cn L Q N N O a� 4 cn 0- toO N , .. _ — 0 \ Ln N Tt 0 4� c a� CL 0 a� a� 0 E 0 U c I 0 0 Ilb 0 U U w F— m � O U .L ui � N U O � U a)_ ^� N) ' > P► L.I. Na) LL • • I n LO \ N Tt 0 C I• m a) 'cn Q � N _O E O U CO cn O N F- N Uo°o cn o M a) 0 0 L Q _0 O N N N cn L OU 0 E T O � � Q � U O cn (6 cn Q U O Q +� M N U M > > 0 U U w F— m � O U .L ui � N U O � U a)_ ^� N) ' > P► L.I. Na) LL • • I n LO \ N Tt 0 C I• U O LAI 70 m lei T O a) O i a) r) L- 0 O •C O Ucn o o > o C cn C/) CDL Q 70 I W EQ .MM CD- > U c -0 o E E U o • • • m Q a)p E Cn 0-4- > o o -0 �:. M a) a) ^ ` �+ L m •> Q a) a L U I I LAW F- • . E0 • •• LO \ N Tt O C I• .M r�1 V .C: •m U N • L co U � (6 � _ N 'U E L _O N N N c - 'U cn Q :3 cn -0 N — cn O cn O M Q .L a L 1. U O CDL � N o E CD N O� ■O� }' T M M N m — L M U ,c_ N > Ua) N m E O " ' O U m 2 O N � N N cn O cn Q N 70 4-j M N > .m 70m C:m ' Q M O -0 CM U 00 O O . cn -0 � C� C: 41 a) - -0 }' N _0 M QE cn O L O � � U '> 'gin N - m 2! � U E m O -0 M M N cn _0 N '> � O U � O cn c N }' m cn O Z.M U N M " U N a) -0 cn_0 O m m N N N N cn a) E .a) N CD O m CD Q U N M a-=� E �U4- O . O a) m CDL O M J � � U Q� C � N M O co m LO \ N Tt 0 a� CL 0 a� a� 0 c E 0 U c I .M r�1 V E E O U 0 LO N Tt 0 CL 0 a� a� 0 c E 0 U c I U 1- _ 70 3L M O > M _ N N N � 4. O 0cn 70 Q cnN4-0 U _ N cn (m� N E � _r_ _m Q U _r_ UN N C: 70O CDL m N CD C:— Q = cn m 0� (6 a) > N U 70O �' M .ate � �-0 0 m Q M U Q — — � -0T + O cn N 0 (6 Q '7 70C BUD T= C: _a)� 4 m cn -0 U •— N E .T " N 53 m C:42 a- _ +� M Q (6 -0 O 0 cn U o 0 o 0 .0) Q � O � NN+� ..7 N m � N (6 > cn 4-j N � .� 0 7 p N U- O N Dcn Fo Q � Q 0) ' Q N E O ate-+ m L 0 _O (n N }, U E Z O > oC:. � Q N " N E E O U 0 LO N Tt 0 CL 0 a� a� 0 c E 0 U c I .M r�1 V U 'a) }, U 70 N Q (6 70 C/) C/) Q N N 70 ia '5 C: O m 7 M N •O U 0) a) NC: U > m N U � cncn O 7C3N -0 C:L 7C3O (6 'a). M L .O ,U N � U M M Nm cn W M cn L cn cn O Q a-+ m M U 6.N 'U O 'Q Q cm V CDL O Ucn O m ch a) 4-j L I� m 00 O 4- 0 O a) m E N > N N +-j _ 4-j O (6 CD_ O Q L O .� •cn cn O cn O +� (6 U Q W M _m O N m N O 07 U cn a) E CDL _O a) N U Q cn N LO \ N Tt O c I U W a) 0- m A Q Ncn }' ■� N T L- 0 O L U a) O > N U N (6 � O U O •� U vi 0 m C U °) O ^> U O m a- ccn U 4-j CDL 0 Q O M c N � O N 00 a. a) a) a) CD cn C: U � N N O CD a--� M �L N N E>0 O N N }' > cn H O ry cn N cn cn m cn CY) M cn a) W.0 o C E c- a) oo"0E oC: 4-+ W CD N N N}' N Lu 'V �: m mcn }_' U +1 c — ---j O m N (6 U Q � m 0- 2 C) _T N r -I LO \ N Tt O a� CL 0 a� a� 0 E 0 U c I V O U rn a CD O � .L M -0 N m a)tu U O cn U) m LO \ N Tt 0 a� CL 0 a� a� 0 c E 0 U c I 'cn cn ma--+ 'E '� L O U � U N .> N N � E O CM >, O U � a) UJ aL cn :5O vi -0 m O U L CM cn O N O CD -0 'c ' — m m O O Q 70 U 0a) C:O U }' M ^ W E E OU N c 'U O N > C: N }' O O NQ p m Q 70 4-jUQ N N m N � -0- > O O � CDLO }' o U c E Q a) UUQ a) ~ rn a CD O � .L M -0 N m a)tu U O cn U) m LO \ N Tt 0 a� CL 0 a� a� 0 c E 0 U c I U) 7 U) O L _m cn 0cn c Q L O 0� � cn m a--� T m O � + _0cn E (6 N _N m N O L U L— �_ O N a Q � O N CD (6 N cn CD C � C: CD m N > (6 � � m cn m N m cn " Q N p � p j 70 M � a--' .� m e 1. � L�-0 p W _0 p p O N M to (6 cn C:p > p CD U O � a) + M •� a)- Uj 'Q U cn CD M > O N a) ET cn o o 70 M M CY) IM o CD � M .� � M W m -oma� c� O ■T O�:. c U EZ a) Fn EZ 0 !E`� O .> :2T .> U -0 Q O C U +- QUU-000 . . . . . . . . . . . . Tt LO N Tt 0 CL 0 0 E 0 U c I O N Q) \ Ln N Tt O CL 0 0 c E 0 U c I O a=+ m U U O M m cn U Q CD � � N 0 E a) � � Q " cn _O N N C N cn � N 'cn � 'L VJ O }, o Q4-- O cn N L 'CY, ° m a� m N E E m O N N Q U \ Ln N Tt O CL 0 0 c E 0 U c I r' N E Wr-,, N E U s�. .cn m I..L N 3 cn N E U O 0 O O U 11 U m O m N I u O U •L N CD 4-j c O Q O . — +� N cn c • m � N Q� 0 N " O �Q .� }, cn N > m 4-j N O N + N cn N O cn N V — > 0 O O -r }' M W N �' U O EU (� m 4- U _ Q -a N '� N cn - > (6 N U cn N cncn .� V> M (6 E U N +� p = N (6 N � N — }' cn .� .— �� O U m O L O Q� N G1 U O N m O p t �+ N >> (6 > cn . cn — E N C N � O > cn Q�■� O N C Q — T O Q T ■. - m = O OU O � - /. !Q cn O �? • _cn OLD Q� N Q 0 U + (6 U N '� m _ Q � nUt> O >'� EZ O U m > cn cnN O Q N 5 c +� cn cn N � (6 Q N +� Q L O a) o v— cn E E p }, N (6 E O m ccnn N CL CDL CDL 0 }, CDL 0 c E m .� 0 m m 0 Q p p p U p m N LO \ N Tt 0 a� CL 0 a� a� 0 c E 0 U c I E V N O O N � � p C`• CY) (6 M _00 N 4-jN M E•��o� U o O lL CDL O V� i � a--+ m M cn o L C:}' 0) � � 70 m N m N E T O� 70 Q O O cm 0 .E >-,o .� N O M N E o-0 CD }' CMcn _0 — 0 E cn N 0m > _ 4-jN O --' m a --j U 70 m •L W C:0 m '70 70 C) C 70 0 0 � a�+ M 4-1 c 0 o N p (D 0 o o 0 c - O � 0A-ZC:" z a) o m a--+ N N N to !_Q O 0IL 42 a 0 O Z L Qi • • • ,. ate--+ � • r - LO \ N Tt O C N E Q O N a� 0 E O U C I . = CL E V O 4-- a) O O 4-- L M O '> .� cn V� i m > M cnN a) � t E ._ CDL O > O O N >cn r.Q , CDL U0 — L W •U U O O 0o � N `~ OCY) +- C: Q � N � N � 0 :3 N N O m -r-L .. +-+ ,�, �� LO \ N Tt O C I• cn m O N c > a) �_ _� a) cn •� •E O > ,U m OQ N N c M N _r_ � � TO 0 cn .0 m CD }, cnA— N -r m M E N 4-j 4-jO N � O C +-1 O 4-- m m E O }, N 0•— U U N cn O 0 O E Q 0 U NC O m U m N 4-j cn U U Q ' nM M +� 0 (6 0 � U O O O -0 W > w O E• Ln NN N c U T � -0 O O 00 '> +� -0 E O L O � > Q ,(6 � N 0 c-0 N � 0" O 0 0 +-1 0 to (6 O a-=; U -0 Q cn M N N-0.> — N� 00 a) ■ � a---+ -0 m �/Q�� MM� 0 -CV + C: Mj • • • m (n M � LO \ N Tt O C I• D 0 r' Dow ate-+ CY)� 0 70 M LL t'1 70 M M.0 N 7C3 70 U N 70 C: 0� Q ate-+ 0 a-+ 0 E E 0 N 0 IE CD Q a) rn LO \ N Tt O c I D 0 r' Dow O N LO \ N Tt O c I W 70 0) 70 m }+ U 0 C/) m 70 N N m O 0 Q N j cn � -0 � M � 'tn O N O mcn N NN a) cn 0 C L � � cn .� 0 Fn C: a) c 0 c0 E cn m a Q -i- " 0 W O N O >m > Q O� — cn — O m U n NU � EOU ON m Q O N LO \ N Tt O c I C� M D 0 O M r' Dow N LO \ N Tt O c N Q 0 a� a� 0 E 0 U c I 70 70 O m 0 cn 70 L U m m a) O L N70 cn c N N � > 0 U om o }, o C� " ccn I o 32.� i 04— 4-j� m O O -0 � C: E }'j }' �_ N O 4-jcn L .. j m L O � v c O CY)-0 C: p U N (6 U m m 4-j •O Q O O O 0- cm cn m m>.,E O O N c U M C:= cn .- U j cn m Qa O ■ T O .Ln U W •- �•m N ��� c N N N Q � _ _ a) L 70 U N M U m m F W cch N LO \ N Tt O c N Q 0 a� a� 0 E 0 U c I 0) izo N N LO N Tt 0 E CL 0 a� a� 0 c E 0 U c I a) m � L L M t L 0 0, _ 0 m E 'a) U cn a) CE j — C: •V cn O Z. � cn O m � 0 N CD -0 C: U 0 0 a)a) C:� E aE0-oO OU F -m U N .� 0 > �_ cnL -0 a) 0—v � c'V n N N = N � cn Q � cn 0 O U o � U 0.— 0 L c� � �- 0 0 E m _ � E :3>> U E E E E Q� � L _0o a) c x o m"M— I M" E 2002 Q • • • N N LO N Tt 0 E CL 0 a� a� 0 c E 0 U c I .V 0 r' Dow 0) izo O N +- E N N +� CnA----+ 70 0 N N O U O CDL Q U O _E m � c O m� CD E ON maO N N cn---j ' cn c L N cn N U (n N Q pN > cn O CD cn � O N m O N 0 N N 0 Q -0 U U 0 O O cn O O Q 0 m O � cn " N (6 O CY) M N 70 O � U O � M (6 � � N cn cn LO L '� ) _� 0 U N O N� +� N �Z N > — � i- cnT O cn L N Q N 'cn Q m U m V) �+ > L Q 0 ■�+ L a) .� m N N O M� T E -0+ 70U .. U ,U T O O —0 N .V -cn 1--i > 0 0 m N •cn Q m L �,� E 0 0 0 0 p 0 � E Q� O U) l0 c .M cn U Q U> (6 O C A U cn N p� � N (6 N•L m C) > -bU cl�U� m Q m N LO \ N Tt O a� CL 0 a� a� 0 4 c E 0 U c I 0 V W CL Tt N LO \ N Tt O C I• m . L^- a) U � .O_ }' U O m N U Cn 70 -0 m m .L N N 4-j" cn U N m � L O M 4- . M N >., U O N E � O LI E O — .cn O N . U) .0 N N 07 L � N a) O a ) cn 'c O 0-0 N a)�--+ u— D O Tt N LO \ N Tt O C I• U O U 0 V_: N N LO \ N Tt O c N CL 0 0 E 0 U c I U O U 0 U W CL M 0 kD N LO \ N Tt O C CL O 0 E O U C I• 0 LO r -I N Tt O c I n N L ^m W L m^` W W cn M }� O • W cn W W L LE M O L a .4.- U) co 0Ln MI.� 0� . 4-j a) 0 Q ch a) U N O m C7)— _r_ (6 c> O cn O N U -0 •0 ) N a--+ C (n M L Q 70 (n U o > LO r -I N Tt O c I n N rW^ 6 �rq ro Yo LO \ N Tt O c I m a--+ U O 70 O Q Q m m cn N E O U N _ M � E-0 > L _0 >' 0 • (6 cn -F NO ^�^`` ch E }+ W E EO _O N L U 0 C/) A_— N 70 _ � � cn O }, E N � U Q cn 0 _O to N E • X Q N N � Q �+ cn E c:O ^M Q Z) cn 0- a) � N U _O ON > >s > cncn .w .c }' Nc c 0 Q m -T N E — N (6 D L L E N Q c O a) U E'FU 0� CIO O m O O 0 U�UQT �rq ro Yo LO \ N Tt O c I m 5i Ad Name: 12065855A PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMIS- SION April 25, 2016, 1:00 PM Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM Vail Town Cd 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 -VaiC Colorado, Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33 1.Call to Order 2 A request for review of an Exemption Plat pursu- Vail Daily ant to section 13-12-3, Vail Town Code, Plat Pro- cedure and Criteria for Review, to adjust the loca- tion of the building envelope located at 971 PROOF OF PUBLICATION Spraddle Creek Road, Lot 8, Spraddle Creek Es - tates, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0013) - 5 Min STATE OF COLORADO } Table to May 9, 2016 Applicant: Terry T. Noell, represented by Triumph l SS Development I Planner:Chris Neubecker COUNTY OF EAGLE } of Minutes April 11, 2 April 11, 2016 PEC Meeting Results 4. Informational Update - 60 Min I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified PEC Training - Special Development Districts representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper S.Adjournment printed, in whole or in part and published in the County The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regu- of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation laroffice hours at the Town of Vail Community De - Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The blic is invited to the therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously puent attend project orienta- tion and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Develop- and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of ment Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be re- more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first lied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional in - formation. Sign language interpretation is available said newspaper has published the requested legal notice upon request with 48-hour notification. Please call Telecommunication Device for thethat Deaf for information. and advertisement as requested. (TDD), Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily April 22, 2016 (12065855) The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of I consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 4/22/2016 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 4/22/2016 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 04/25/2016. General Man ager/Publisher/Editor Vail Daily Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 04/25/2016. � 2M.&& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2019 Nx � Ad Name: Customer: Your account number is: Vail Daily PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated Aprii a, 2016 and that the last publication of said notice was dated April 6, 2016 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, General Manager/Publisher/for Vail Daily Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day Aprii a, 2016 Ila -P" . Vic, Pamela J. Schultz, Not Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2019 f. 3 THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Cornrnission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town code, on April 25, 2016 at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. A request for review of an Exemption Plat pursu- ant to section 13-12-3, Vail Town Code,. Piet Pr(:)- cedure and Criteria for Review, to adjust the loca- tion of the building envelope located at 971 Spraddle Greek Road, Lot 8, Spraddle Creek Es- tates, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 1 S-0 12) Applicant: Terry T. Noell, represented by Triumph Development Planner: Chris Neubecker The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop- ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend site visits. Please gall 970-479-21:38 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon re- quest, with 24-hour notification. Please call 979-479-2555, Telephone for the Hearing €111 - paired. for information. published April 0, 2016 in the Vail Daily Cotilm unity Development Departrnent Published in th;1 Vail Daily April 8.. 2016 ( 12929036)