HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-0822 PECTOWN OF VA10
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
August 22, 2016, 1:00 PM
Vail Town Council Chambers
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
1. Call to Order
Members Present: Chairman Rediker, Brian Gillette, Henry Pratt, Ludwig Kurz, John
Ryan Lockman, Kirk Hansen and Brian Stockmar
Absent: None
2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to
amend Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculations, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code
concerning the definition of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and setting forth
details in regard thereto (PEC16-0024).
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Chris Neubecker
Action: Approve
Motion: Kurz Second: Lockman Vote: 4-3-0 (Gillette,
Stockmar and Hansen opposed)
Planning Manager Chris Neubecker provided a summary of the application.
Discussion:
Chairman Rediker provided opening remarks and opened questions of staff.
Rediker opened the public hearing.
Mike Suman commented and believes the code language should make a distinction
between units, rather than a duplex as one structure.
Rollie Kjesbo commented and believes the lowest level language currently proposed is
what was always intended. Believes unit separation is important to consider too.
Closed public hearing.
Stockmar — Approximately how many homes out of 100 homes built in Vail encounter
this problem, and would be separated by more than 6 feet?
Staff Planner Jonathan Spence — Possibly as high as 20%, but more commonly 5-10%,
depending on the location in town.
Stockmar — Feels choosing six foot separation allowance is arbitrary and is inclined to
not change anything with GRFA at this time. Would like to have a bigger discussion
dealing with all of GRFA.
Spence — Clarified the intended process with Town Council as a result of today's PEC
recommendation.
Gillette — Likes the application being applied to all zone districts impacted by GRFA.
However, six foot rule is arbitrary. Believes all levels that are subterranean should be
deducted from GRFA.
Neubecker — A larger GRFA deduction on multiple levels of a home was originally
considered and discussed by Town Council when GRFA was amended in 2004, and not
supported by Council at that time.
Hansen — What was rationale when Council made determination?
Neubecker — Unsure due to 2004 occurrence and Town Council ordinance.
Gillette — That's why there are term limits and things change. Steep lots are being built -
out and this affects more applications now than years ago.
Pratt — Does not think this application solves the bigger problem and it contradicts the
decision of the PEC on the Michael Suman application and appeal. Allows multiple
levels but is not equitable between units. Each side should get credit for their buried
space. Feels the six foot rule meets status quo being interpreted by staff, and will send
this application to Council.
Kurz — Feels the application should go to Council with a recommendation of approval.
Hansen — Agrees with Gillette that the application does not solve the problems and
does not see the rationale.
Lockman — Agrees with many statements but this issue needs to be part of a larger
conversation about GRFA. Feels the application does make sense to codify a known
and current practice.
Rediker— Difficult to address this problem. Does not think underground space should
always qualify for a deduction. Agree with staff observations to be careful with code
changes. Looking at application before the PEC today is to codify a known practice and
that is acceptable. Supports the staff proposal.
Kurz — GRFA has served its duty even with all its flaws. Makes motion to approve.
Rediker - Question for staff pertaining to motion language without specificity to the 6
foot language that is proposed.
Neubecker suggested an amendment to the motion to specifically reference proposed
code language on pages 4 and 5 of the staff memo, which adds the sentence "The
lowest level shall be the level with the lowest U.S.G.S. elevation, including all floor
levels within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level."
Motion amended by Kurz as recommended by planning staff, to include reference to the
proposed text amendment language on pages 4 and 5 of the staff memo.
3. Approval of Minutes
August 8, 2016 PEC Meeting Results
Action: Approve
Motion: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 7-0
4. Informational Update
Beavers and the Habitat They Create - Pete Wadden — To be heard at future meeting
Conservation Easements - Brian Garner
Garner gave general overview of conservation easements, their purpose, types of
easements, and benefits of easements. Conservation easements can be used to protect
environmental features of a site, and may provide tax benefits to the property owner.
Majority of conservation easements are granted to non-governmental organizations.
There are about 3,000 conservation easements in Colorado; 58 conservation
easements in Eagle County, many with Eagle Valley Land Trust. There are 5
conservation easements in Vail. Some easements allow public access, others do not.
Stockmar — Aware of a parcel that is a prime candidate for a conservation easement,
about 60% wetlands, basically unbuildable. Homeowners Association cannot agree on
what to do with the land, it's +/- 6 acres.
5. Adjournment
Action: Kurz
Motion: Lockman Second: Kurz Vote: 7-0
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection
during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75
South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the
site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community
Development Department. 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. 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
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
TOW?J OF VAi� ` August 22, 2016, 1:00 PM
Vail Town Council Chambers
75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657
Call to Order
2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations 60 min.
Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend
Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculations, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code concerning
the definition of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and setting forth details in regard
thereto (PEC16-0024).
Applicant Town of Vail
Planner: Chris Neubecker
3. Approval of Minutes
August 8, 2016 PEC Meeting Results
4. Informational Update
Conservation Easements - Brian Garner
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
20 min.
TOW?J OF VAi `
VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2016
ITEM/TOPIC:
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations
Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-15-
3, Definition, Calculations, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code concerning the definition of Gross
Residential FloorArea (GRFA) and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC16-0024).
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
PEC16-0024_GRFA_Memo.pdf Staff Memo
0) TOWN OF VAIL '
Memorandum
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 22, 2016
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town
Code, to amend Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculations, and Exclusions, Vail
Town Code concerning the definition of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA)
and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC16-0024).
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Chris Neubecker
I. SUMMARY
This is a proposal to clarify the text of Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation, and
Exclusions, Vail Town Code, relating to how gross residential floor area (GRFA) is
calculated in basements in the following zone districts: Hillside Residential (HR), Single -
Family Residential (SFR), Two -Family Residential (R), and Two -Family
Primary/Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple -
Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple -Family
(HDMF), Housing (H), and Vail Village Townhouse (VVT)
Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum
and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department
recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation
of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed Prescribed Regulations
Amendment.
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
This is a request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to clarify Section 12-
15-3 of the Vail Town Code concerning gross residential floor area (GRFA) and the
allowable basement deduction. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the Town
Code in response to a decision by the Planning and Environmental Commission
concerning an appeal of an administrative determination. This amendment will codify
the GRFA basement deductions that have been implemented by staff and many
members of the development community.
The proposed changes do not include the treatment of dwelling units in a two-family
dwelling as separate structures. The Community Development Department has studied
the impacts that such a change would have on the community, and does not
recommend treatment as separate structures for a number of significant reasons
previously discussed and mentioned later in this memorandum.
As currently written, the Vail Town Code states that:
(6) Basements. On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior
wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior
walls for the purposes of this section) that are unexposed and below existing or finished
grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of
the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The percentage deduction
calculations shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level exterior wall
surface area shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the
underside of the structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the
purposes of these calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered
part of the lowest level exterior walls. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal
areas on the lowest level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units
also deducted from the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title, but the deduction
does not apply to any crawl space or attic.
To rectify the existing ambiguity, the following new sentence is proposed to be added to
this section of the code:
"The lowest level shall be the finished floor level with the lowest U.S.G.S.
elevation, including all floor levels within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level.
The proposed code amendment would apply to properties in the Hillside Residential
(HR), Single-family Residential (SFR), Two-family Residential (R), and Two-family
Primary Secondary Residential (PS), Residential Cluster (RC), Low Density Multiple -
Family (LDMF), Medium Density Multiple -Family (MDMF), High Density Multiple -Family
(HDMF), Housing (H), and Vail Village townhouse (VVT) districts.
III. BACKGROUND
During the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting of May 23, 2016,
the Commission overturned an administrative decision on an appeal (TC16-0004)
concerning the exclusion of GRFA within a basement under each dwelling unit in the
Primary/Secondary zone district. The Commission determined that staff incorrectly
interpreted the Town Code relating to the GRFA exclusion on the lowest levels in a two-
family dwelling. The PEC determined that for the purposes of calculating GRFA, each
dwelling unit in a two-family dwelling is considered a separate structure, and each
structure has its own lowest level, and thereby may qualify for its respective GRFA
lowest level exclusion.
Town of Vail Page 2
On June 7, 2016 the Town Council reviewed the minutes of the PEC meeting of May 23,
2016. The Council did not call-up the PEC decision, but some Council members
expressed concern with making significant changes to the GRFA policy. The Council
wanted to allow the PEC and staff time to work through the issues raised during the
appeal.
On June 13, 2016, the PEC reviewed a number of options for clarifying the code. The
PEC directed staff to move forward with the proposed code amendment, listed as Option
#1 in the staff memo of June 13, 2016. As a work session, there was not a formal motion
or vote.
• Option #1 (from June 13, 2016 meeting) included adding the following sentence to
the existing code: "For the purposes of basement GRFA exclusions only,
each dwelling unit shall be considered a separate structure, and each
structure shall have its own lowest level." No other changes were proposed at
the time.
On June 27, 2016 the PEC began formal review of this application. The Commission
supported measuring each unit in a duplex separately. The Commission had mixed
reactions to measuring the grade at a party wall compared to the entire perimeter of the
duplex structure. Some Commissioners also supported allowing a step in the lowest
level, based on past interpretations of the Town Code, which is not currently codified.
During the PEC/DRB update on August 2, 2016, some members of the Town Council
reiterated concerns over making significant changes to the Town Code related to GRFA.
On August 8, 2016 the PEC expressed concerns with the proposals presented by staff
and the potential impacts of the proposed changes. Some members of the PEC
indicated that the 6' step was an arbitrary number that may not work in some duplex
situations.
IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code
Section 3-7 Amendment (in part)
A. Prescription. The regulations prescribed in this title and the boundaries of the
zone districts shown on the official zoning map may be amended, or repealed by
the town council in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this chapter.
B. Initiation.-
1.
nitiation.
1. An amendment of the regulations of this title or a change in zone district
boundaries may be initiated by the town council on its own motion, by the
planning and environmental commission on its own motion, by petition of any
resident or property owner in the town, or by the administrator.
Town of Vail Page 3
2. A petition for amendment of the regulations or a change in zone district
boundaries shall be filed on a form to be prescribed by the administrator. The
petition shall include a summary of the proposed revision of the regulations, or a
complete description of proposed changes in zone district boundaries and a map
indicating the existing and proposed zone district boundaries. If the petition is for
a change in zone district boundaries, the petition shall include a list of the owners
of all properties within the boundaries of the area to be rezoned or changed, and
the property adjacent thereto. The owners' list shall include the names of all
owners, their mailing and street addresses, and the legal description of the
property owned by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed
envelopes to each owner to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. The
petition also shall include such additional information as prescribed by the
administrator.
V. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT
The only proposed change is the codification of the six (6) foot step.
This proposal is intended to address the issue of different finished floor levels within a
structure but otherwise does not make significant changes to GRFA. It is evident from
staff's research and from PEC comments over the past several meetings on this topic
that previous code changes would have made the GRFA policy overly complicated and
could have created undesirable consequences for some property owners. In an effort to
keep the proposed code change in line with a clarification and not a policy change, the
Community Development Department recommends that limited aspects of the GRFA
regulations be addressed at this time. Should further changes to the policy be needed
in the future, and if such changes are supported by the Town Council, staff can return to
the PEC at that time.
(New code language is shown in bold. Language proposed for removal is shown
in strikethre, @ )
Section 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 a (6) Basements. On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior
wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior
walls for the purposes of this section) that are unexposed and below existing or finished
grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of
the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The lowest level shall be the
finished floor level with the lowest U.S.G.S. elevation, including all floor levels
within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level. The percentage deduction calculations
shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level exterior wall surface area
shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the
structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these
Town of Vail Page 4
calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest
level exterior walls. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal areas on the lowest
level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units also deducted from
the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title, but the deduction does not apply to any
crawl space or attic.
B. Within the residential cluster (RC), low density multiple -family (LDMF), medium
density multiple -family (MDMF), high density multiple -family (HDMF), housing (H), and
Vail Village townhouse (VVT) districts:
1 a (7) Basements. On the lowest level of a structure, the total percentage of all exterior
wall surfaces of the structure as a whole (interior party walls are not considered exterior
walls for the purposes of this section) that are unexposed and below existing or finished
grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall be the percentage of the horizontal area of
the lowest level deducted from the GRFA calculations. The lowest level shall be the
finished floor level with the lowest U.S. G.S. elevation, including all floor levels
within six (6) vertical feet of the lowest level. The percentage deduction calculations
shall be rounded to nearest whole percent. The lowest level exterior wall surface area
shall be measured from the finished floor elevation of that level to the underside of the
structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. For the purposes of these
calculations, retaining walls and site walls shall not be considered part of the lowest
level exterior walls. The deduction shall be applied to all horizontal areas on the lowest
level of a structure, including garages and employee housing units also deducted from
the calculation of GRFA elsewhere in this title, but the deduction does not apply to any
crawl space or attic.
VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS
The goal of the proposed text amendment is to ensure equity, consistency, simplicity,
and to eliminate or reduce the creation of nonconformities for existing structures. The
proposed changes help to best achieve these goals.
As staff continues to research the issues relating to GRFA and measuring each unit as
a separate structure, more concerns and potential problems become evident. Many of
these issues stem from the treatment of a property as one development site for most
development standards, but measuring GRFA separately for the purposes of the
basement GRFA exclusion. As previously proposed, the standards were developed
based on the premise of one development site with one structure. This included
measurements for GRFA, setbacks, site coverage, landscaping, and other development
standards. Considering duplexes as separate structures can be problematic. For this
reason, staff does not recommend calculating GRFA for these dwelling units separately,
but accommodating a change in the finished floor elevation of the lowest levels of the
structure.
Allowing a step of up to six (6) feet within a structure, whether it is within a dwelling unit,
or between dwelling units, has been applied consistently for the past ten (10) years.
This number was based on approximately one-half story, or a floor to floor distance of
Town of Vail Page 5
twelve(12)feet. Floors that are within six (6) feet of the lowest level were determined to
be on the same floor level. This method allows for structures to respond to site
topography, while still being close to the lowest level of the structure.
The proposed amendment would codify the six (6) foot step allowance. It would also
treat single family and duplex structures the same. The proposed method is easier to
understand than previous proposals and eliminates the need to measure the grade at
the party wall of each duplex structure. Additionally, because this method is more
consistent with the current code and measurement methodologies, it is less likely to
create nonconformities with existing properties. This proposal would not, however,
measure each side of a duplex as its own structure.
VII. CONCERNS
The proposed code amendment originated with the intent of clarifying that each dwelling
unit is considered its own structure for purposes of the GRFA basement exclusion.
1. The proposal is a not a policy change.
This proposal is not a policy change, but is rather an amendment to clarify the
measurement methods that staff has been using and which has been previously used
by many members of the development and design community.
2. Creation of nonconformities
The adoption of this amendment should not result in the creation of nonconformities on
existing developed properties. In addition, this amendment will not significantly change
the expectations of GRFA and development rights, as the amendment is consistent with
recent decisions.
3. Impacts on multi -family and townhome properties
The proposed change will not result in a deviation from the existing approach to GRFA
on multi -family and townhome style developments.
4. Measuring party walls
The proposal to allow a six (6) foot step does not require measuring the grade at a party
wall.
5. Multiple Lowest Levels
The proposed language does not deviate from the existing language, which only allows
the application of the GRFA basement deduction to the lowest level. The consideration
of multiple lowest levels for the GRFA basement deduction is inconsistent with the Town
Council's 2004 decision.
Town of Vail Page 6
6. Conversion to Single -Family
This proposal continues to respect the intent of the GRFA regulations by treating duplex
and single-family structures the same. As a result, property conversions would be
unaffected. A six (6) foot step is consistent with current measurement methods, and
helps to treat a structure the same whether it contains one or more dwelling units. This
ensures that the intent of GRFA, which includes the regulation of bulk and mass, is
respected.
VIII. REVIEW CRITERIA
Section 12-3-7(C)(2) of the Zoning Regulations identifies the criteria that the Planning
and Environmental Commission must consider before making a recommendation for a
change to the text of the code. These criteria include the following:
1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific
purposes of the zoning regulations; and
The proposed text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning
regulations by allowing a six (6) foot step within a structure, which allows more flexibility
in design. This text amendment will codify the actual practice of the design community
and staff, which has been in place for several years, and helps to improve the clarity of
the code. This text amendment meets the following purposes of the zoning regulations:
12-1-2 A
General. These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health,
safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated
and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and
enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and
residential community of high quality.
12-1-2 B
5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic
values.
6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land
uses, consistent with municipal development objectives.
9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable
natural features.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better
achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies
outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development
objectives of the town; and
Town of Vail Page 7
The proposed text amendment is compatible with the development objectives of the
town. This change will establish clear and consistent language in the Vail Town Code.
Following are some of the relevant goals of the Town's Comprehensive Plan:
• Goal #1: Vail will continue to manage growth, maintaining a balance between
the bulk and mass of residential, commercial and recreational uses to ensure
the quality, character, diversity and vitality of the town by ensuring that all
regulatory and advisory land use documents are updated and current,
providing ease of compliance and enforcement, and uniformity among
regulatory and advisory documents.
• Goal #3: Ensure fairness and consistency in the development review
process.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have
substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the
existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and
The amendment is in response to a lack of clarity within existing regulations. As a
matter of practice, staff and the development community have been allowing a six (6)
foot step at the lowest level. The proposed text amendment will codify this practice.
Staff finds this criterion to be met.
4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient,
workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal
development objectives; and
The proposed text amendment provides clear terminology within the Vail Town Code so
that regulations are consistent with municipal development objectives.
As a result, staff finds this criterion to be met.
5. Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commission
and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment.
IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the analysis of the review criteria contained in Section VIII of this
memorandum and on the evidence and testimony presented, the Community
Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental
Commission make a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to approve the
proposed Prescribed Regulations Amendment to Section 12-15-3: Definition,
Calculation, and Exclusions.
Town of Vail Page 8
If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to recommend approval of the
proposed text amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the
following motion:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of
approval to the Vail Town Council for Prescribed Regulations Amendments to
Section 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code relating
to how gross residential floor area (GRFA) is calculated in relation to basements
and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC16-0024)."
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed Prescribed
Regulation Amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the
Commission makes the following findings:
'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vlll of the
Community Development Department memorandum dated August 22, 2016, and
the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental
Commission finds.-
1.
inds.
1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the
adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive
plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town, and
2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the
zoning regulations, and
3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious
development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its
natural environment and its established character as a resort and
residential community of the highest quality.
Town of Vail Page 9
TOW?J OF VAi `
VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2016
ITEM/TOPIC: August 8, 2016 PEC Meeting Results
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name
pec results 080816.pdf
Description
August 8, 2016 PEC Meeting Results
TOWN RF��"
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
August 8, 2016, 1:00 PM
Vail Town Council Chambers
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
1. Call to Order
Members Present: Chairman Rediker, Brian Gillette, Henry Pratt, Ludwig Kurz and
Brian Stockmar
Absent: John Ryan Lockman, Kirk Hansen
2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 11-6-3: Business Signs and
Section 11-6-4: Building Identification Signs, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 11-
10-1: Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a Business Sign in excess of six (6)
square feet and a wall mounted sign to be placed higher than twenty five feet (25)
above existing grade, located at 1775 Sunburst Drive (Vail Golf & Nordic Clubhouse) /
Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC16-0028) - 15
min.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall
Planner: Jonathan Spence
Action: Approve the Sign Height Variance w/ conditions (sign in excess of 6 sq. ft.
not approved.)
Motion: Pratt Second: Kurz Vote: 4-1-0 (Gillette opposed)
Spence — Summarized the Town's three (3) sign districts and referenced graphics
depicting the locations and dimensions of the proposed signage. The golf course is
located within Sign District 1, which is intended for pedestrian -oriented businesses.
The golf course, being automobile -oriented, is therefore requesting two (2) signage
variations from the underlying sign district; one (1) variance to exceed the maximum
allowed size and one (1) variance to exceed the maximum allowed height.
Kurz — Asked for clarification of the height of the sign.
Stockmar — What is across the street from the property and have there been any
neighbor comments?
Spence — The golf course townhomes are across the street and the owners were
notified of the request, but there have been no comments.
Gillette — What size were the previous signs?
Spence — Does not know.
Rediker — Why does only one of the signs require a size variance?
Spence — Sign size is calculated based on frontages. The building is allowed a sign up
to fifty (50) square feet and the tenant is allowed up to six (6) square feet.
Public Comment — There was none.
Kurz — Has the rest of the signage been approved by the DRB?
Spence — No, it will be reviewed separately by the DRB in the near future and it is
anticipated that the signage will be staff approved.
Kurz — Believes the signage is appropriate and is in favor of the requested variances.
Pratt — Supports the request for the sign height variance, but is unsure about the sign
size variance for the tenant.
Spence — Mentioned that if the property were located in Sign District 2, the proposed
tenant sign would be permitted by right.
Gillette — Does not support either requested variance because he believes everyone
will know that the property is a golf course.
Spence — Different properties within the same sign district have different circumstances.
Stockmar — Supports the sign height variance, but is concerned about the size of the
tenant sign. Would like the two (2) requests to be separated.
Rediker — Agrees with other Commissioners in that he supports the sign height
variance request, but not the sign size variance request. Believes there are other
solutions available, and that the sign size variance request does not fulfill the three (3)
criteria for a sign variance.
3. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 24, Warner Development, pursuant to
Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code to remove Section 5,
Item 3, requiring the pool area on Lot 4 to be permanently restricted to a pool, from
the conditions of approval within Ordinance No. 11, Series of 1990, located at 1825
Sunburst Drive/Lot 4, Vail Valley Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto
(PEC16-0027). - 30 min.
Applicant: Deborah Webster, represented by Current Architects
Planner: Matt Panfil
Action: Approve
Motion: Stockmar Second: Gillette Vote: 5-0-0
Panfil — Summarized the request contained in the application.
Rediker — Is the site compliant with site coverage requirements?
Panfil — Yes.
Pratt — Under the SDD, what variations from the underlying zoning are there to be
gained?
Panfil — GRFA and site coverage were different at time of SDD approval.
Pratt — Today's underlying zoning requires 20% site coverage?
Panfil — Confirmed by today's zoning.
Rediker — Why are there three lots included in the SDD rather than one?
Panfil — The decision was made at time of SDD, but he does not have all of the details.
Rediker— Explain again the EHUs on the site and how they are related to the swimming
pool?
Panfil — Clarified the EHU conditions on the site as being a public benefit in exchange
for additional GRFA and site coverage.
Michael Current, Current Architects, representing the applicant provided an overview of
the request.
Stockmar — Are there any current plans to make further changes to the property?
Michael Current — No changes at this time are anticipated.
Pratt — Has the applicant contemplated abolishing the SDD?
Michael Current — Contemplated the idea, but this specific request is narrow.
Rediker — Opened public hearing. No public comment.
Rediker - Opened Commissioner comment.
Stockmar — Concerned about site coverage but the request does not appear that it will
affect anything else as it is an existing developed property. The request speaks to
unintended consequences of changes in land use policy.
Pratt — Question for George Ruther about how many lots were originally plotted?
Ruther — Confirmed three lots.
Pratt — GRFA and site coverage are a concern of granting special privilege. Favors
abolishing the SDD altogether to eliminate issues and then default to underlying zoning.
Kurz — Concurs with Commissioner Pratt.
Applicant requests to speak to issues raised by Commission. Site coverage is integral
to the structure at this time. Structure has been in place since 1990 and the pool area is
nearly entirely subterranean.
Stockmar — Asked applicant to clarify how the space will be utilized? May change bulk
and mass and footprint.
Gillette — Asked for clarification as to the approval process by council.
Ruther — The SDD was originally approved with deviations from GRFA and site
coverage, but changes over time have made it now compliant with GRFA.
Gillette — Concerned with original council approval that the pool was to remain in
perpetuity.
Pratt — Site coverage overage is not entirely due to the pool. Normally an applicant
would have to bring more detailed development plans to remove a specific element of
the original plan.
Ruther — Any future changes that did not comply with zoning would need to return to
the PEC.
Gillette — By the SDD standards, how much GRFA remains? How much GRFA remains
by underlying zoning?
Panfil — Provided data.
Rediker — Is the EHU currently occupied?
Deborah Webster, owner of 1825 Sunburst Drive — No, the EHU is not currently
occupied. It was until two months ago, but the property was under contract so the
lease was not renewed.
Stockmar — Does a PEC approval today affect the requirements of the EHU?
Panfil — No.
4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to
amend Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculations, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code
concerning the definition of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) and setting forth
details in regard thereto (PEC16-0024). - 60 min.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Chris Neubecker
Action: Continue to August 22, 2016
Motion: Gillette Second: Kurz Vote: 4-1-0 (Rediker opposed)
Neubecker — Summarized the request and options contained in the application.
Rediker — Opened for questions from board to the staff.
Pratt — Asked to clarify why a six foot (6') difference in floor levels was chosen.
Neubecker — Explained process whereby staff arrived at six foot (6') floor height. That
number has been used by staff and development community, now being codified.
Rediker — Option 1 is really a change of code, not just policy. From Option 2, how is six
foot (6) floor height not a code change and what is the justification?
Neubecker — It is a change in code, used to implement current policy. Option 2 would
change an interpretation used by staff for some time. The six foot (6) step change
would provide flexibility.
Gillette — Described floor level separation from construction perspective. Believes it
leads to better architecture. Would Mike Suman's plans have passed if this were
implemented? Was there a step greater than six feet (6) in those plans?
Neubecker — The Suman house does have steps greater than six feet (6).
Gillette — The number is arbitrary and should not dictate design. The lowest level should
be any level throughout the house with no other GRFA below it. Most people don't want
subterranean space.
Rediker — Opened public comment.
Ron Byrne — Does not understand intent of six foot (6) floor level restriction proposed.
End goal should be equality between homeowners. Does not agree with any of the
options presented by staff.
Adam Gilmer, Berglund Architects — Agrees with Ron Byrne; the rules should be equal
for both homeowners. Six foot (6) step proposed is arbitrary. Differentiate "unit" from
"structure" and measuring from party wall is already being done from existing grade.
Planning department at one time considered each unit of a duplex a structure.
Rediker — Closed public comment. Opened commissioner comments.
Kurz — Does not feel the options presented are adequate to address the issues at this
time.
Pratt — Option 1 is more equitable but is a much more significant change. Option 2 is
closer and more equitable, but six foot (6) step restriction is too arbitrary. Should be the
lowest level on each side. Option 3 (no action) is not an option.
Gillette — Does not understand equitable argument. Does not think a buyer of a duplex
is entitled to equity. Questions the purpose of basement deduction and thinks if it is
underground and doesn't affect bulk and mass then it should not count as GRFA.
Stockmar — Difference between equity and fairness. GRFA rules have become too
complex. Agrees with Commissioner Kurz, the options presented do not fix the
problem. Inclined to defer action on the application.
Rediker — Option 1 is not right; Option 2 provides more equity and certainty but
concerned that six foot (6) step restriction is arbitrary. Inclined to modify Option 2 to
move the application forward.
Gillette — Was happy to see the other zone districts added in to application
Ruther — Asked PEC to provide better direction and reiterated that we are moving away
from a clarification and more toward a wholesale code amendment.
Spence — Clarified six foot step (6') was chosen to allow for different floor levels on the
lowest level of the structure, such as a sunken media room.
Neubecker — Clarified how a structure is measured in response to comments by Pratt.
Gillette — How are the levels actually calculated?
Neubecker — Percentage below grade is calculated as one structure, not as two units
and then split between the units.
Ruther — Staff needs to test going beyond the six foot (6') restriction and see if it works.
Pratt — Not comfortable with six foot (6') step restriction.
Gillette —What number is the right sized step then? Six foot (6') is not enough because
an uphill unit (of a duplex) would not get the deduction if it is higher than six feet (6')
from other floor. If it is subterranean they should get the credit as the lowest level.
Come back to PEC with options specific to the levels.
Ron Byrne asked Chairman Rediker to speak — Permission granted.
Pratt — Asked whether to go to Council for more direction?
Ruther — Best to keep the issue with PEC at this time. Recommend testing a couple of
new ideas presented today and return to PEC with findings. Will also better justify the
rationale and justification of the proposed step.
Rediker — If the PEC is comfortable with Option 2, then consider a motion to approve.
Options are Option 2, or continue the application to a later date.
5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed
Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code,
to amend Section 12-13-5, Employee Housing; Employee Housing Unit Deed
Restriction Exchange Program, Section 12-23-6, Commercial Linkage; Methods of
Mitigation, and Section 12-24-6, Inclusionary Zoning; Methods of Mitigation, Vail
Town Code, concerning the payment of Fees in Lieu of providing Employee Housing
and setting forth details in regard thereto (PEC16-0025). - 60 min.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Alan Nazzaro
Action: Approve
Motion: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-0-0
Nazzaro — Summarized the request.
Rediker —What is the main purpose behind this proposed amendment?
Nazzaro — Keep deed restrictions we have for Town inventory of units.
Rediker — So it will mostly impact new development?
Nazzaro — Correct.
Gillette — Not limiting an applicant's ability to acquire another property to deed restrict?
Nazzaro — Correct.
Pratt — Strictly for off-site units?
Nazzaro — Would have to find another property or deed restriction.
Gillette — The purpose is to have someone fulfill the EHU obligation rather than just pay.
Rediker — Clarify unit size?
Nazzaro — Clarified the proposed requirements.
Pratt — Clarify the number of employees vs number of units as contained in the
requirements.
Ruther — Clarified.
Rediker — Has an analysis of relative costs been performed? Economic analysis on
redevelopment?
Nazzaro — The proposed Housing Strategic Plan recommends that the Town also
purchase deed restrictions if funding ok by Council.
Rediker — Opened to public comment. No public comment. Closed public comment.
Kurz — In favor of the application and agrees with the intent not to produce revenue but
produce actual units.
Pratt — The Town's goal is to house 30% of the workforce and the Town is falling short
and with this an applicant cannot write a check out of it.
Gillette — Thinks the application is great.
Stockmar — Feels it is important that the Town have adequate housing opportunities.
Very much in favor of the application.
Rediker — Sees the changes to be beneficial to the Town's goals. Cuts down on
applicants punting the job of finding housing by writing a check.
Approval of Minutes
July 25, 2016 PEC Meeting Results
Action: Approve
Motion: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-0-0
Informational Update - View Corridors — Brian Garner
Adjournment
TOW?J OF VAi `
VAI LTOWN PLANNINGAND ENVI RONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2016
ITEM/TOPIC: Conservation Easements - Brian Garner
ATTACHMENTS:
File Name Description
PEC -Conservation -Easements -Presentation. pdf Presentation
N
c
I
O
U
N
L
L
rZ,
O
V
N
c
I
gsNo
L
O
kn
kn
O
L
V
ca
O
� V
�
�
O
�
0
U
4-j
Q
-
V
m
c
a�
CL
0
a�
a�
0
E
0
U
0
I
� V
�
�
U
m
c
a�
CL
0
a�
a�
0
E
0
U
0
I
m
b.A
Z
m
E
El
E
LA
W
i
O
•V
E
A�
W
E
W
to � U
p
(I''� a� �
• 0 V
4-0
CL
V 4-J — cin -0
4-j a
a N o
o N o
0
V o
W•
W a-+ 4-j
N � C�
V i �
- U
Z i roC
CL
E a�
W � �
E �.0
W •
W
"toW*o
ki
I
V
0
LM
CL
V
N
V
Q
N
0
LMV
V
m
I-
L
�UR
L
Q
s
aA
n
C
I
O
M
O
r�
�J
I -
14
El
A
n
Q
O
a�
CL
O
a�
a�
0
c
E
0
U
C
I.
Im
IN
�J
E
r-
C
I
CL
i
�0J
LU
a
••
c
a�
CL
0
D
c
E
O
U
C
I
W
U
L
Q
U
m
�
Q
••
un
-
z
�
L1J
o
0
a--)
-
CL
O
O
CL
wJc:
U
4")
Q
�
U_
J
co
D
(/i
L
W
0
C�
J4—)
Q
;U
LU
CL
i
�0J
LU
a
••
c
a�
CL
0
D
c
E
O
U
C
I
txo
ro
Ln
X
ro
C: a--�
O
a--� C: C:
W0 • 0 a--�
i _0 m
4--)(D =3U
V ' _0 X C:
ro
Q� C: X>
ca
ca cu ro X
ate-+
O i .°' E o
Oro
CL X a�
C� • — 4-J
4-J 4 -r- O
�= O }' bn O
O _0 i` •— 4— CL
ca
O ca •
_r_ —
tn • L U a C6
• ca O O
U c�
- _
- .
O �
U
�r1
I..I�
0
I
■
62
N
N
W
{ �a
•. _
Eli
.,
k
L
_wT
tl
�f C
. , Q -e
17
IV
T "� +� • �w �� f��11
0
I•
0
F)
N
m
tD
E
L
o
O
0
�
Vf
Li
72
C
4D
N
ui
LM
�
V
O
�
�+
n
M
m
>
C,4
Lf)
�
:.
N
bbA
cb
O
iA
cb
r -I
>
a
O
0
F)
N
m
tD
E
Ch
o
LA
0
�
m
Li
72
C
4D
N
Q
L;
�
�
c
�
n
CN
N
C,4
Lf)
�
:.
N
Ch 5} O hN
00 � N
Ln T-1 fn �q �D �q �D Ln
F)
N
m
tD
Ch
Ch
0
�
m
N
4D
N
L;
�
�
0)
�
n
CN
N
C,4
Lf)
�
N
N
c
0
w
m
(DE
Er-
Q)
cu
V)
C
W
>E�
0
0
w
4
s
>
[6
u
T—
4-0
M
Z
m
O
62
N
N
W
00
m It
0) 00
•
N
r -I
CL
O
a�
a�
0
c
E
0
U
C
I
W,
0
00
�
C
C7
�
�
w
V1
7
+d
O
W
>�
>
N
a.
obA
Ir
00
E
N
�
4.1
cc
cn
N
'7�C�
Ln
Itr CIA Ln
W,
00
�
cc
�
LM
.O
V1
0
•0
W
�.
>
N
V
obA
•�
00
E
N
�
cn
N
N
>
r.
O
N
O
CU
W,
m
I
00
�
cc
�
:
ro
ON
�.
I
O
m
m
00
0)
N
�
0o
Lq
N
O
CU
O)C
D
co
c
m
c
Lr)N
m
I
�
cc
�
:
ro
�.
kD
T -1n
m
co
I
LU
4 J
L
O
CJ
~
C
O
_
L
Q
W
4]
>
C:
O
(
cj
r
0)
Qj
til
J
L
Q�
LL
Z
a
OC
U7a
Z)
m
I
Q
L
4+9
V
E
fd
0
I� ��✓^yi
4�
7-
Uj
w
O
Q
L
4+9
CL
Lci
fd
c
C) Q
C
I� ��✓^yi
4�
7-
Uj
0
m
Ln
0
N
cc
0)
�c'y�"}'I
ih
(m)Lam�+
11I
�
L A
�}
y
R
�I
4 V
W
14
4 1
,
N
CD
I
Qj
m
0
�c'y�"}'I
ih
(m)Lam�+
11I
�
L A
�}
y
R
�I
4 V
W
14
4 1
Qj
q�
W
���ryry
`V
W
r
L
E
O
LL
LL
CSC
W
_
I
I
I
I
L
C
M
fo
M
p
0
-L
rfo
V 1
47 l
c l
ro
Tt
I
N
W
62
N
N
W
i
O
(� JV CL � m �
J =
w Q O= w a m
0 LU > � W >
r
H �v0 (1)
CL
00 N s m00
Ln W V V Q
kk
14
P
h —
W W
~t
Ln
c
I•
LO
r -I
I
M
6v±
N
N
W
a--0
w
E
w
Ln
ro
LU
n
c
I
0
L
0
U
cn
a�
Ln
U
U
U
0
0
-0
ca
c�
r -I
n
c
I
M
■
62
2
N
N
W
I
E
w
W
r_
.0
0
U
(n
U
10
U
U
O
O
N
0
=3
m
N
I
M
■
62
2
w
cn
I
V /
ro
W
r_
0
V /
0
U
U
_0
�
CD
0
Q
M
0
W
.�
0
w
cn
I
too34
ri4 �
• Fes, . , .
...1 w„ r.. 4 —,-.'�i.�°. a,Y:.�.r
M, .
_.•. t � !AL�Jd/"d�'uCa �.�k,.
-77
x r3cr 7' A ft
i
e
Yo.
��•�.
� f,•°his
5W
LU
a
LU
z
0
o�
F --
LU
z
0
L)
M
■
62
N
N
W
N
C
I
^C:
W
Ln
C
U
Lu
U
. O
C6
C6
r
U
O
O
O
>
>
o
�
r1
(o
•
•
•
•
LU
.
O
�
U
N
C
I
U Z
W
LM
O
V
J
A�
W
�
Q
N
.O
+-'
W
LM
E
H
O
0
•—
C:
i
W
�
N
O
2-0
O
V
06
�
,o
U Z
01 0
0
N
N
CL
0
a�
a�
0
E
0
U
c
I
LM
O
V
J
�
�
Q
LM
H
W
J
01 0
0
N
N
CL
0
a�
a�
0
E
0
U
c
I
or
r r
r
e + �
Al , N n, y
A
u
Ad Name: 12324324A
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSION August 22, 2016, 1:00 PM
Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM
Vail Town Cd
-VaiC Colorado,
75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657
Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33
1.Call to Order
2 A request fora recommendation to the Vail Town
L
VailDaily
Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment,
pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town
Code, to amend Section 12-15-3, Definition, Cal-
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
culations, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code on -
cernierning the definition of Gross Residential Floor
Area (GRFA) and setting forth details in regard
thereto (PEC 16-0024). - 60 min.
STATE OF COLORADO }
of Vail
ApplicantChris Neubecker
l SS
3.Approval of Minutes
I
August 8, 2016 PEC Meeting Results
COUNTY OF EAGLE }
4. Informational Update
Beavers and the Habitat They Create - Pete Wad-
den - 15 min.
I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified
Conservation Easements - Brian Garner - 20 min.
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 August 19, 2019
(12324324)
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 8/19/2016 and
that the last publication of said notice was dated 8/19/2016 in
the issue of said newspaper.
In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day,
08/22/2016.
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 08/22/2016.
� 2M 4, & 9. -V-�
Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public
My Commission expires: November 1, 2019
Nx �
Ad Name: 12294753A
Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM
Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33
Vail Daily
PROOF OF PUBLICATION
STATE OF COLORADO }
}SS.
COUNTY OF EAGLE }
I, Mark Wurzer, 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 8/5/2016 and
that the last publication of said notice was dated 8/5/2016 in
the issue of said newspaper.
In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day,
09/23/2016.
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 09/23/2016.
� 2M 4, & 9. -V-�
Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public
My Commission expires: November 1, 2019
Nx �
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and
Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will
hold a public hearing in accordance with section
12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on Aug 22, 2016 at 1:00
pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
No new items have been submitted for this meet-
ing. Tabled or continued items from previous
meetings may be scheduled for this meeting date.
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 call
970-479-2138 for additional information.
Sign language interpretation is available upon re-
quest, with 24-hour notification. Please call
970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Im-
paired, for information.
Published Aug 5, 2016 in the Vail Daily.
(12294753)