The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-1009 PECTOWN OF VA Call to Order Present: Absent: Site Visits: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 9, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, and Brian Stockmar Karen Perez and John Rediker 1. Commercial Ski Storage — Various Locations 2. Open Lands Plan — Trails 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 15 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 19 accommodation units and 10 employee housing units, and related uses and improvements, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road (Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek)/ Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5, formerly known as part of Lot 1, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Table to October 23, 2017 First: Gillette Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-0-0 3. A request for the review of two (2) variances in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. These variances include: (1) a variance from Section 12-6B-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a single family home with a five foot (5) side yard setback where fifteen feet (15') is required; and (2) a variance from Section 14-10-4-B Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, to allow a deck within five feet (5) of grade with a two foot, six inch (2'-6") setback where a seven foot, six inch (7'-6") setback is required, located at 307 Rockledge Road / Parcel B, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0040) Applicant: 307 Rockledge LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Matt Panfil Motion: Approve with Conditions First: Stockmar Second: Lockman Vote: 4-1-0 (Gillette opposed) Conditions: 1. Approval of these variances is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal; and 2. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate, via an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC), to the Community Development Department prior to requesting a final planning inspection that improvements have been constructed per plan. Panfil discussed the history of the property, the application, and the criteria for approval of a variance. Stockmar — Asked a question concerning the existing access easement. Panfil — Provided clarification and referred the question to the applicant. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, provided a presentation detailing the property history and the requested variances. A review of the criteria was included. Lockman asked about the private easement. Panfil provided details. Neubecker provided the commission with some guidance concerning the application, and the review criteria on the variance. Determination should be based on criteria in code, not on past approvals or removal of non conformities. Stockmar — Stated his belief that the application meets the criteria for approval. Gillette — Views the request as a special privilege. The private easement on the east side of the property should not be a factor. Hopkins — Stated that it is a difficult site due to its configuration. She supports the application. Lockman — While the PEC should be careful with variances for redevelopment, he supports the application based on the limited building area of the site. Kurz — Stated that he believes the variances are a reasonable request. 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 12-2-2, Definitions of Words and Terms, Vail Town Code, to amend and clarify the definitions of Commercial Ski Storage, Ski Club, First Floor or Street Level, and Basement or Garden Level; to create a new definition for Ski Storage Lockers; to amend Section 12-14-21 Outdoor Display of Goods concerning ski racks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0042) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker Motion: Table to a Date Uncertain First: Gillette Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-0-0 Neubecker began his presentation by describing existing confusion among businesses, Community Development staff, and Code Enforcement staff regarding ski storage and associated business operations and how such operations relate to Town Code. Referring to the staff memo for the agenda item, Neubecker outlined recommendations from the Ski Storage Task Force and specific questions for the PEC. Recommendations included: the continued use of horizontal zoning which does prohibits ski storage on the ground floor or second floor, establish hours of operation for outdoor ski storage, prohibition of ski racks on pedestrian easements (to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis), and separate definitions for ski storage and ski clubs where the existing Town Code combines both uses into one definition. Neubecker stated that within the staff memo there is proposed language for a text amendment that would incorporate the Task Force's recommendations. Kurz — Asked if the proposed changes address all of the action items established by the Task Force. Neubecker responded that the proposed language represents the recommendations of the Task Force, but staff believes that after further consideration it may be best that some of the recommendations of the Task Force not be incorporated into a text amendment. Lockman — Asked for clarification regarding the placement of ski racks within easements. Neubecker responded that while the Task Force recommended a blanket language prohibiting ski storage in easements, staff's recommendation would be to not include such blanket language and instead review the language of each individual easement. Additional discussion occurred between Neubecker and multiple Commissioners regarding the use of the ground floor for ski storage by hotels and lodges. Gillette — Outlined what he felt were several different issues within the general topic of ski storage. It is important to remember that the Town is a ski town and there will be skis visible to the public. Believes there should be no distinction between rental skis versus for -sale skis versus privately -owned skis. During business hours the ground floor should remain commercial, but does not care if skis are stored inside on the ground floor when the business is closed. There may no longer be enough storage space below grade for all of the skis in Town. Does not believe hotels should be able to have a physical space separate from their structure that serves only ski services and has no accommodation units. Stockmar — Asked for clarification as to the origins of the prohibition of storage on the second floor. Spence responded that part of the prohibition is based on the desire for tax -generating services on the second floor. Gillette — Stated that an additional issue for discussion is the use of ski racks outside of a business. Believes there should be a permitting system for the use of outdoor ski racks, regardless of whether the skis are for rent, sale, or storage. Neubecker outlined the argument of some business owners that allowing inside storage on the ground floor during non -business hours creates a competitive disadvantage to those businesses that comply with the existing regulations. Mike Brumbaugh, Venture Sports — For the properties he manages the concern is that they are placing ski racks on private property, but they may be on pedestrian easements. Gillette asked for his opinion on permits for ski racks. Brumbaugh stated that he would be willing to pay for such a permit if the fee was reasonable. Chris Cremer, SkiHaus — Stated that short-term ski storage is taxable, but long-term, over 30 days, is non-taxable. He feels amending ski storage is like opening a Pandora's Box with some unforeseeable impacts on businesses. He stated that businesses will keep adapting to customers' increased demands for customer service. A lengthy discussion was held regarding the operation of ski storage and associated businesses. Hopkins — Stated that there was once a concern that all of the ground floor business on Bridge Street would be t -shirt shops and is wondering if there is an actual concern that all ground floor businesses would become ski storage if it was permitted on the ground floor. Cremer believes that there is a limited demand for ski storage that would not result in all ground floor businesses switching to ski storage operations. Mike Brumbaugh— Stated that there are very few second floor storage operations that were able to get approved, but the PEC has the ability to deny such operations if they were to be requested today. Jeff Babb, Vail Resorts — Original intent of the Ski Storage Task Force was to clarify existing regulations and to analyze how changing customer expectations will impact such regulations. Believes that it might be necessary to postpone making changes and examine how operations can be improved over the upcoming ski season. Cautioned the PEC about the legality of including language that prohibits ski racks on pedestrian easements. Brent Martin, Four Seasons — Stated that the business intent is to provide what customers demand and it is difficult and expensive to do so. The current code is not up to date with the services today's customers expect. Believes that second floor ski clubs can add to the vibrancy of the town. Gillette — Believes the Town needs to adjust permits and taxes to create a more even playing field. Kurz — It is such a complex issue that it might take additional time to complete any changes. Is encouraged by the discussions that have occurred to date. Asked if the rest of the PEC felt the item was ready to forward to the Town Council or if they felt more time was needed. Asked staff if delaying a recommendation would penalize any businesses this upcoming ski season. Neubecker stated that lack of clarity is never a good thing and asked that if the PEC were to delay a recommendation, to provide additional information necessary for the PEC to be comfortable to make a recommendation. Gillette — Does not believe that what has been presented to the PEC will be effective. Recommendations need to be equitable so that any businesses on the second level would cost more than basement level. Also, a permitting system for outside ski racks should be established. If regulations are not enforceable, do not write them. Lockman — Objective data such as locker occupancy and use of easements would be beneficial. Gillette — Believes the Town should be less concerned about what uses are permitted above the ground floor. Neubecker encouraged the PEC to answer the questions on page 4 of the staff memo. Stockmar — Does not feel he can make a recommendation yet on such a complex topic. Is concerned about rushing to a decision and creating unforeseen consequences. Neubecker asked what information was necessary to make a decision. Stockmar stated that there is no specific information he can cite that is needed, but needs time to take in and analyze the scope of the issues. Lockman — Asked if there were other items within the recommendations that the PEC agreed upon and would be comfortable forwarding to the Town Council. Hopkins stated that if the Task Force believes this would work, it might be beneficial to try these regulations for a year and reevaluate after the upcoming ski season. Hopkins asked Babb if he would be OK if the item was tabled. Babb responded that he does in fact believe that this issue may need more time for discussion and review. Gillette — Suggested another Task Force meeting. Mike Brumbaugh — Stated that there is still a level of uncertainty, especially regarding Code Enforcement, if the status quo were to remain. Jeff Babb — Is comfortable with forwarding the recommendations from the Task Force, except for the language regarding easements. Cremer — Suggested ongoing review of regulations throughout the upcoming ski season. Gillette — Stated he believes the PEC should recommend to the Town Council another round of Task Force meetings, in which second floor zoning regulations and potential changes to taxes and feed should be addressed. There was a lengthy discussion as to whether or not PEC was ready to make a recommendation to the Town Council, and if not, what additional information is needed or other topics need to be resolved by the Task Force. It was generally agreed that easements, the equitable use of outdoor ski racks, and second floor zoning need to be evaluated. 5. Approval of Minutes September 25, 2017 PEC Results Motion: Approve First: Lockman Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-0-0 6. Informational Update Open Lands Plan Update —Trails Tom Braun, Braun and Associates Kristen Bertuglia, Environmental Sustainability Manager Braun discussed a draft plan, and an update to be released on October 19. His presentation was to focus on the format of the plan on a very general level. He stated that it is important for the PEC to review the draft of the plan. The intent of the plan is to review and update the current plan, but not to completely rewrite the plan. The plan includes an Action Plan for use of town land, management of lands, trails, and actions to implement the plan. In this update trails, town lands and environmental sensitive lands, each have their own section. This is a subtle restructuring of the plan. There have been a lot of change since the plan was adopted 22 years ago, including significant growth in the community, and increased use of trails. Braun discussed some of the lands that the Town purchased years ago. The community supported these efforts, and emphasized the need to continue to purchase lands to advance the Town's environmental goals. The 1994 Plan identified techniques to protect land, including designated open space and conservation easements. The plan includes an inventory of lands to see how open lands and town lands can advance some of the goals of the community. Biodiversity is one of the recommendations of the plan. The team has performed an inventory of private, vacant lands, to see if any of these lands could advance the goals of the plan and community. Gregg Barrie, Town of Vail Senior Landscape Architect, was introduced to discuss trails. He stated that trail improvements were the second priority of the 1994 Plan. There are many different opinions on the Vail Trail towards east Vail. The team gathered information at the community scoping sessions, but did not get enough feedback to make specific recommendations on trails. The team then conducted more scoping sessions only on trails, ranging from long time locals to new residents. The team asked how the Town can accommodate all the varied wants and needs of the community. Another opportunity for feedback from the community will be held Wednesday, October 11. The goal is to have a more detailed trails plan that the 1994 Plan, including a trails vision, standards for trails (hiking and biking, trails, mixed use trails, etc.), identification of where trails can be improved, maintenance recommendations, and discussion of wildlife impacts from trails. There will be a component on how the Town can work with other jurisdictions. The Town will also work with Bill Andree from the Division of Wildlife. The trails plan will be a long and thoughtful process. Gillette — Are all trails multiuse? Barrie — Most are multiuse. Vail Mountain has a special use permit, and they have some trails for designated uses. The Town can work with the United States Forest Service to recommend certain trails for specific uses. Braun — Last year we had some meetings with pro and anti -trail users on opposite sides of the room. The intent is for the trail discussion to be more of a community discussion on trail issues. Stockmar — Did you discuss electrically assisted bikes? E -bikes will start to create an issue. Barrie — Some Forest Service trails allow motorized use, some allow only non - mechanized use. The plan will lean towards non -motorized. Braun — Action Plan will focus on action items and specific lands and actions to implement the goals. The plan update will address 12-14 items from the old plan that have not yet been addressed. There are a handful of parcels that the Town could potentially acquire for other community uses. The updated plan will discuss funding sources, Eagle County participation, and collaboration with Vail Resorts. Most trails in Crested Butte, Moab and Fruita are not built by the city, but by the participation of trail users groups. Barrie - Vail Valley Mountain Bike Association has pulled in several different groups, businesses, the hospital, etc, to adopt a section of the North Trail. The Forest Service review process would be needed to realign a section of the trail. This section could be done with volunteers, and a variety of funding sources. Gillette — A mini -excavator would be efficient to do trail work. Why doesn't the Town of Vail acquire this equipment and do the work? Barrie — It's Forest Service land. Cougar Ridge was a different story. If the work were to stay within 100 yards of the existing alignment, the NEPA process can be avoided. Town Council support would also be needed in order to spend money outside the town. 7. Adjournment Motion: Adjourn First: Gillette Second: Lockman Vote: 5-0 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. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hours prior to meeting time. TOWN OF VA10 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October9, 2017 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of two (2) variances in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. These variances include: (1) a variance from Section 12-6B-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a single family home with a five foot (5') side yard setback where fifteen feet (15') is required; and (2) a variance from Section 14-10- 4-6 Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, to allow a deck within five feet (5) of grade with a two foot, six inch (2'-6") setback where a seven foot, six inch (7'-6") setback is required, located at 307 Rockledge Road / Parcel B, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0040) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC17- PEC17-0040 - Staff Memo 307 Rockledge 0040_307_Rockledge_Rd_Variance Staff Memo_FINAL.pdf Variance Attachment A_-_Vicinity_Map.pdf Attachment_B .pdf Attachment_C. pdf Attachment_D. pdf Attachment_E . pdf Attachment_F. pdf PEC 17-0040 -Attachment A - Vicinity Map PEC 17-0040 -Attachment B - Project Narrative PEC 17-0040 -Attachment C - Plan Set by Suman Architects June 26, 2017 PEC17-0040 - Attachment D - Setback Variance Application March 10, 1987 PEC 17-0040 -Attachment E - Staff memo to PEC April 20, 1987 PEC17-0040 -Attachment F - PEC Minutes April 20, 1987 TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 9, 2017 SUBJECT: A request for the review of two (2) variances in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. These variances include: (1) a variance from Section 12-6B-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a single-family home with a five foot (5') side yard setback where fifteen feet (15') is required; and (2) a variance from Section 14-10-4-B Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, to allow a deck within five feet (5') of grade with a two foot, six inch (2'-6") setback where a seven foot, six inch (7'-6") setback is required, located at 307 Rockledge Road / Parcel B, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0040) Applicant: 307 Rockledge LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Matt Panfil I. SUMMARY The applicant, 307 Rockledge LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting the review of two (2) separate variances for the property located at 307 Rockledge Road / Parcel B, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1: 1. A variance from Section 12-6B-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a single-family home with a five foot (5') side yard setback where fifteen feet (15') is required; and 2. A variance from Section 14-10-4-B, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., to allow a deck within five feet (5') of grade with a two foot, six inch (2'-6") setback where a seven foot, six inch (7'-6") setback is required. Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of this application, subject to the findings noticed in Section VIII of this memorandum. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant, 307 Rockledge LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, intends to demolish the existing single-family home at 307 Rockledge Road and construct a new 4,536 square foot single-family home in its place. Based on the submitted plans, the proposed single-family home requires two (2) variances: 1. A variance from Section 12-6B-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for a five foot (5') side yard setback from the west property line where fifteen feet (15') is required; and 2. A variance from Section 14-10-4-B, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., to allow for a deck within five feet (5') of grade with a two foot, six inch (2'-6") setback from the west property line where a seven foot, six inch (7'-6") setback is required. A vicinity map (Attachment A), project narrative with applicant's responses to variance criteria (Attachment B), plan set (Attachment C), application to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) for a side setback variance, dated March 10, 1987 (Attachment D), staff memorandum to the PEC, dated April 20, 1987 (Attachment E), and minutes from the April 20, 1987 PEC meeting (Attachment F) are attached for review. BACKGROUND Prior to 1987, the subject property, along with the adjacent properties to the east (267 Rockledge Road) and west (327 Rockledge Road) were combined as two separate development lots, Lots 14 and 17, Vail Village Filing 1 (see below). 5 83° 55"E � i3ET PSN 6[dP L 3 168TP II N A I � U71L1TY EISEIEIT I FOREST ROAD [ 54'1 207 84' Pr sc.P L5 IceET L�T 17 PARCEL A 0. S.. dC S T9.33.E 6.si a'�0Epnlhl ROCxLEDGE OKAIVUt: LU RED: LOT 17 e ^`-�ABArvODrvEC LOL LIrvE -1f VTILiTY EASEMENT i .o j /P�RCEL B 3270 aC 1 � R-611.05' a04°39'M" J �L -4&92 r CN-NTT•15'3B W 1 21� e6,911 • � N 6. 0 e�� E"s l /R�Feaw (30') SET'AH'. N 76. 5U 6e 03 A. aF �q N 99° WOO" E 111.19 wT IS PARCEL C 0 3168 AC Px= 612 05 a 14°3x 13 T L=IST. 35' +CN= 6T•39 09W 1-512.05 8-612 05 a= 19.01 PLAT L'205. 2T Lz L = 203.14 5. CH=N69-56 3120-31, CN=N 7202.21 M ,ex=xe9•AS'w, zo361 20 A. s1' 202.21' IUEasI 0 Z Town of Vail Page 2 At the time, both Lots 14 and 17 were located within the Two -Family Primary / Secondary Residential (PS) District. In late 1986, the owner of Lots 14 and 17 submitted concurrent applications for a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17 into three parcels (Parcel A, Parcel B, and Parcel C) and the rezoning of the subsequently created Parcels B and C from Two -Family Primary / Secondary Residential (PS) to Single - Family Residential (SFR). Both requests received approval. A Resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17 Block 7, Vail Village, First Filing was recorded on February 19, 1987 by the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1987, rezoning Parcels B and C to Single -Family Residential (SFR) was approved by the Vail Town Council on February 3, 1987. The new Parcel B, the subject property associated with this application, is highlighted below: F O R E S T 5 88' 55" E �- . •m ecav+c �cex+ 194.Otr m' A No I Lor 17 W10TY EASEMENT PARCEL Q S 79'13 • E igX,BO. ROCK L9EoD0z R 0 A D [ 50' ) 202 84' NXecAP is. _+'0 1��TXIJITY Fn4F YfNt ME + 41 !�PARCEL B 1 10.32"10 AC. r' li+ �R�6i2OS' I =00'3A'N•• �r /f Y j ovv' faa.3 ¢].1 w6eu•�L ROA D t 30,) J 59° 91'00�E L0 ;S PARCEL C ]16e 4c A—. 55 p. 14°3g' 13 •• CX 6T•39'09"� R •612.05' ` L"P05_PT' L a 203,14 CXSNW-5631 W OX N70w02.5 W Icn• xeP°•+'w, To]c1 20 a. 31' 202.21' iucas� Later in 1987, the property owner of Parcels A, B, and C requested a variance to allow for a five foot (5') side yard setback from the west property line of Parcel B where a fifteen foot (15') was required. In their variance application (Attachment D), the applicant stated their willingness to establish a 25 foot setback for the east property line of Parcel A should the variance be granted for Parcel B, thus establishing a minimum 30 foot separation between structures on Parcel A and Parcel B. The applicant argued that this proposal would comply with the overall intent of the Town Code. In their memorandum to the PEC, dated April 20, 1987 (Attachment E), staff recommended against the requested variance stating that the variance would be a grant of special privilege because the hardship was self-imposed by the applicant through the previous subdivision process. At the April 20, 1987 PEC meeting (Attachment F), the PEC voted 4-2-0 to approve the requested five foot (5') side yard setback variance. The creation of the 30 foot buffer between structures on Parcels A and B was cited as a motivating factor for the motion to approve. On August 14, 2017, the PEC voted 5-0-0 to remove a plat note, established during the 1987 resubdivision approval, limiting the maximum gross residential floor area (GRFA) for Parcels A, B, and C. As a result, the maximum allowable GRFA for the subject property is determined by the underlying Single -Family Residential (SFR) District. Town of Vail Page 3 IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 6, Article B, Single -Family Residential (SFR) District (in part) 12-6B-1: PURPOSE.- The URPOSE: The single-family residential district is intended to provide sites for low density single-family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same zone district. The single-family residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12-6B-6: SETBACKS.- In ETBACKS: In the SFR district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15). Chapter 12-17, Variances (in part) 12-17-1: PURPOSE.- A. URPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each zone district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable Town of Vail Page 4 open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements, or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each zone district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits", and by section 12-3-7, "Amendment", of this title. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS.- A. INDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance.- 1. ariance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance.- 1. ariance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: Town of Vail Page 5 a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone district. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. Chapter 14-10-4, Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc. B. Porches, steps, decks or terraces or similar features located at ground level or within five feet (5) of ground level may project not more than ten feet (10) nor more than one-half (%) the minimum required dimension into a required setback area, or may project not more than five feet (5) nor more than one- fourth (%) the minimum required dimension into a required distance between buildings. Steps that form an exit discharge may project into a required setback area to the degree necessary to conform with the adopted building code's means of egress standards, at the discretion of the administrator. Vail Land Use Plan Chapter ll: Land Use Plan Goals / Policies (in part) 1. General Growth /Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 5. Residential 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. Town of Vail Page 6 V. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS /d'1500 M Legal Description: Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use Designation Mapped Geological Hazards: View Corridor: 307 Rockledge Road Parcel B, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1 Single -Family Residential (SFR) District Low Density Residential Steep Slope > 40% None Development Allowed / Existing Proposed Change Standard Required Site Area 12,500 SF of 14,244.12 SF Total No Change Buildable Area 9,350 SF of Buildable Area Front — 20' Front (S): = 8' * Front (S): 20' Front: +12' Sides — 15' Side (E): 17.3' Side (E): 15' Side (E): -2.3' Setbacks Rear — 15' Side (W): 4.2'** Side (W): 5' Side (W): +0.8' Deck — 7.5' Rear (N): 15' Rear (N): 15' Rear (N): 0' Deck (W): 0' Deck (W): 2.5' Deck (W): +2.5' Flat Roof — 30' Building Height Sloping Roof — Unknown 33' Sloping Roof N/A 33' Density (DUs) Max. 1 1 DU No Change Density (GRFA) 4,551.74 SF 3,851 SF *** 4,536 SF N/A Site Coverage Max. 20% (2,849 SF) 19% (2,715 SF)**** 20% (2,849 SF) +1 % (+134 SF) Landscaping Min. 60% (8,548 SF) 77% (10,932 SF)**** 62% (8,790 SF) -15% (-2,142 SF) Parking & 4 parking 4***** 4 No Change Loading spaces * Garage on steep slope permitted in front setback (Section 12-21-12-K). **A variance to allow a five foot (5) side setback was approved in 1987. *** Based on GRFA calculations in place in Vail Town Code in 1987 **** Based on estimate from 1987 site plan. ***** In combination with access easement with property to the west, 327 Rockledge Road VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use: Zoning District: North: Low Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential South: Low Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential East: Low Density Residential Single -Family Residential (SFR) West: Low Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential Town of Vail (PS) (PS) (PS) Page 7 VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed single family residence, with a setback of five feet (5') on the west side, is consistent with the previous variance on this property. The variance will still result is a separation of 30 feet between structures, as the adjacent property on Parcel A is setback 25 feet from the property line, as mentioned in Section III above. This distance will ensure that there is sufficient privacy and separation between structures. Furthermore, the proposed single-family residence would eliminate the need for a driveway and parking easement with the property to the west. The driveway and parking will be located entirely within the subject property, increasing the separation of uses. Staff finds the proposed variances meet this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Per Section 12-613-5, Vail Town Code, the minimum lot area shall be 12,500 square feet of buildable area. Based on the Town of Vail's geographic information systems' (GIS) calculations, the buildable area of the subject property is approximately only 9,350 square feet. The 1987 subdivision created a unique lot that would not be permitted today based on the amount of buildable area. Development on the site is further restricted by a sewer line easement and a private agreement prohibiting development on a portion of the east side of the site. In combination with the on-site development restrictions, if the applicant were to adhere to the required setbacks, the subject property would be essentially undevelopable due to its irregular shape and size. The western portion of the site is the only practical location to develop a home on this property. The odd shape of the lot, when combined with 15 feet of setbacks on each side, would result in a home design that is not compatible with adjacent home sites in the vicinity. As a result, a variance is necessary in order to ensure compatibility and uniformity of treatment. Town of Vail Page 8 Staff finds the proposed variances meet this criterion. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variance will facilitate the replacement of an existing single-family residence with a new single-family residence that reduces or eliminates existing nonconformities. In comparison to existing conditions, the proposed variance will not have a negative impact on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, or public safety. Staff finds the proposed variances meet this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve, with conditions: (1) a variance from Section 12-613-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a single-family home with a five foot (5') side yard setback where fifteen feet (15') is required; and (2) a variance from Section 14-10-4-B Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, to allow a deck within five feet (5') of grade with a two foot, six inch (2'-6") setback where a seven foot, six inch (7'-6") setback is required, located at 307 Rockledge Road / Parcel B, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, these variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant's request for: (1) a variance from Section 12-6B-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a single-family home with a five foot (5) side yard setback where fifteen feet (15) is required; and (2) a variance from Section 14-10-4-B Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, to allow a deck within five feet (5) of grade with a two foot, six inch (2'-6') setback where a seven foot, six inch (7'-6') setback is required, located at 307 Rockledge Road / Parcel B, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Town of Vail Page 9 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, these variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission applies the following conditions: 1. `Approval of these variances is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal, and 2. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate, via an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC), to the Community Development Department prior to requesting a final planning inspection that improvements have been constructed per plan." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, these variances, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated October 9, 2017, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The granting of these variances will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Single -Family Residential (SFR) District, 2. The granting of these variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and 3. These variances are warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- b. ode, b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variances that do not apply generally to other properties in the Single -Family Residential (SFR) District, and c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Single -Family Residential (SFR) District." IX. ATTACHMENTS Town of Vail Page 10 A. Vicinity Map B. Project Narrative with Applicant's responses to Variance Review Criteria, dated August 14, 2017 C. Plan Set, prepared by Suman Architects, and dated June 26, 2017 D. Side Setback Variance Application, dated March 10, 1987 E. Staff Memorandum to the PEC, dated April 20, 1987 F. Minutes from the April 20, 1987 PEC meeting Town of Vail Page 11 / 4 307 Rockledge Road Variance Request Submitted to the Town of Vail: August 14, 2017 Introduction 307 Rockledge Road LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, is requesting a side setback variance to allow for the construction of a new home at 307 Rockledge Road / Parcel No. 2101-071-15-023. The project includes the demolition of the existing home, referred to as the Tannenbaum Residence. The original home was constructed in 1988 and was extremely controversial at the time, due to its unique architecture. The home was constructed primarily of teal - colored steel beams, set on a 10 ft. square grid, and glass. Designed by a Malibu architect, the home did not seem to comply with the Town of Vail's Design Guidelines nor with the alpine environment. In October of 2016, 307 Rockledge Road LLC purchased the property and while various attempts to remodel the property, the odd construction Subject property located at 307 Rockledge Road. did not lend itself to a remodel, and instead the decision was made to demolish the existing home and construct a new home. The existing residence received a side setback variance to allow it to be within 5 ft. of the western property line. This was primarily due to the oddly shaped lot configuration and a private covenant restricting development from the eastern portion of the lot. The 5 ft. building setback variance, which also allowed deck and other encroachments to 2.5 ft. was part and parcel of the replatting proposed at the time which severely restricted the building envelope at the time as evidenced by the odd shaped lot. The applicant is requesting that this previously granted side setback variance to be granted for the new home to be constructed on the lot. Any building encroachments will maintain the 5 ft. setback previously approved for the lot. In addition, the applicant is proposing a deck and patio to be within 2.5 ft. of the property line. Along with maintaining the 5 ft. building setback, other modifications will improve the current development impacts associated with this property, including the removal of a second curb cut, removal of parking spaces in the right-of-way, conforming front building setback, conforming rear setback, and elimination of the driveway encroachment on the neighboring lot. Steel beams and glass create difficulties in modernizing house to a more useable floor plan. 2of8 Plans for the new home have been conceptually reviewed by the Design Review Board, and were received favorably. The applicant will continue to work with Town Staff and the Design Review Board as the plans progress. 3of8 Zonina Analvsis Address: 307 Rockledge Road Parcel No.: 2101-071-15-023 Lot Size: 0.3270 acres / 14,246 sq. ft. Zoning: Single Family Residential Development Standard Front Setback Side Setback (east) Side Setback (west) Side Setback (west) for deck/patio encroachment Rear Setback GRFA Site Coverage Landscape Area Height Parking Single Family Res. 20 ft. Existing Residence 9.55 ft. Proposed Residence 20 ft. 15 ft. 17.3 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 4.2 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 0 ft. (staircase encroaches 2.5 ft. onto neighboring MW_— I property) 15 ft. 13.3 ft. 15 ft. 4,549 sq. ft. 20% / 2,849 sq. ft. 60% / 8,547 sq. ft. 30 ft. flat / 33 ft. sloping 4 spaces 3,000 sq. ft. 19% / 2,719 sq. ft. unknown 33 ft. 4 spaces 4,536 sq. ft. 20% / 2,849 sq. ft. 61% / 8,790 sq. ft. 33 ft. 4 spaces 4of8 Criteria for Review Section 12-17-6 of the Vail Town Code provides the criteria and findings for the review of a variance request. The criteria are provided below, followed by an analysis of the proposed variance for compliance with the criteria. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Applicant Analysis: According to the survey !r of the existing home, the building is located 4.2 ft. at its closest point to the western property line. In the addition, existing driveway crosses over r� the adjacent property 9 (via an easement agreement) and there is encroachment a portion of a circular staircase that encroaches over the property line. The new Portion of existing survey showing the existing encroachments and parking spaces. proposed home will actually bring it more into compliance, with the building located no closer than 5 ft. along with western property line. All improvements located on the neighboring property will be removed, creating a beneficial situation for the adjacent property. The current parking layout for this residence also creates some challenges, additional curb cut for 2 parking spaces, which are partially in the right -of way. is pavement along the entirety of the front property line, creating difficulties for Town z„ snow plowing and removal. L = The proposed plan will eliminate all of these issues, modifying the driveway access to a single curb cut, with all improvements located within the applicant's property. There is adequate room to provide a turnaround space, so cars will not need to back onto Rockledge Road. The building itself will be a minimum of 5 ft. from the property line and all decks and patios will be 2.5 ft. off the property line, an improvement over the existing condition. The proposed variance improves the relationship of this project to the neighboring properties by eliminating as there is an Generally, there Garage access to existing home. A portion of the driveway crosses the adjacent property )via an easement agreement. 5of8 existing access problems, and eliminating any encroachments over the directly adjacent property. As a result, the proposed variance complies with this critierion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Applicant Analysis: Additional parking spaces and marble walls accessed via a This site is unique in that there is an second curb cut from Rockledge Road. existing private agreement limiting development on the site to the western portion only. The following plan indicates the extent of this agreement limiting the development site: As indicated in this graphic, the area for development on this site is very limited, creating a building envelope mostly on the western portion of the site. The lot configuration and setbacks of 8 were completed in 1987 when the properties were replatted to create a limited building envelope for the property. A previous variance was granted on this site in 1987, when the current home was constructed. At the time, the Planning and Environmental Commission made the finding that the strict or literal interpretation or encroachment of the regulation would result in a practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, and approved the variance due in part to the overall intent of the replat and restricted development area. As a result, the proposed variance request is not a grant of special privilege, as there are circumstances unique to this property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Applicant Analysis: The proposed variance will have only a positive effect on this criterion. variance will improve the improvement conditions along the western property line, light and air between these the homes will be increased. This separation between the existing residence at 327 Rockledge Road and the proposed residence at 307 Rockledge Road will be improved with the proposed variance. In addition, any improvements currently encroaching on the adjacent property will be removed, a benefit to both properties. As discussed previously, the current residence has two curb cuts and parking which is partially located in the right-of- way, which can impact the safety of Rockledge Road. The proposed variance facilitates the construction of a new access and on-site turnaround, improving Because the proposed the safety of Rockledge Road, which Is a Vegetation and separation between 307 Rockledge Road relatively narrow roadway. This is a and 327 Rockledge Road. Distance between buildings is beneficial effect on public safety and approximately 30 ft. traffic facilities. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Applicant Analysis: The applicant can address any other factors or criteria deemed applicable. 7of8 Adjacent Property Owners MAURIELLO PLANNING GROUP PO BOX 4777 EAGLE, CO 81631 KARJA LLC 3811 TURTLE CREEK BLVD STE 1320 DALLAS, TX 75219-4475 PRIMA PARTNERS LLC 2042 ALPINE DR BOULDER, CO 80304-3608 EL HALCON VAIL LLC 421 MADISON ST DENVER, CO 80206-4438 DEAN MITCHELL 2012 IRREVOCABLE GIFT TRUST - MITCHELL, DEAN J. 45 HODGE RD PRINCETON, NJ 08540-3011 HUSSMAN FAMILY TRUST, WALTER E., JR & ROBENA HUSSMAN TRUSTEES PO BOX 2221 LITTLE ROCK, AR 72203-2221 307 ROCKLEDGE LLC 141 E MEADOW DR STE 211 VAIL, CO 81657-5857 MARY R. POWNALL REVOCABLE TRUST - ETAL 267 ROCKLEDGE RD VAIL, CO 81657-5032 C.F. SKI LLC IN CARE OF NAME CF CAPITAL CORP 1 LANDMARK SO STE 20 STAMFORD, CT 06901-2670 RAETHER FAMILY 1992 TRUST 9 W 57TH ST STE 4200 NEW YORK, NY 10019-2707 RAETH ER, PAUL E. & WENDY S. 9 W 57TH ST STE 4200 NEW YORK, NY 10019-2707 PARISH VAIL 50 LLC IN CARE OF NAME C KORCHAK GREENLEAF TRUST 211 S ROSE ST KALAMAZOO, MI 49007-4713 8of8 30N3alS3U 3omlMDOU avow 30O3loom LOS w _ _ O P w ac w - - - 0 W N N z z O � Zz LU g 5 U U g a v W M }a z ❑ �F �" Ozzzz Q aV3 z as z V10000zz > zg 0FFFF a Da W >aga 0aaaa00 V w ~ O J 1 J >>>> W 2 7 2 U w J w W J J J J w w -z a� OwWw>zFwwwwurrn ,A m W .4 H J> g z ZO ZO U U U' U' W y. O N- J w o w z z z z z z r u>&0 i<awzwvw000000 rV ❑ 00� ❑ xp¢a 0a»»» Wzu�a zC�J�7K mmmmmmm Oz z V a O O a O O O O O O O O O O O O K O K NeV eV eV NMMMMMvv w o a a ❑ aaa-4 -4 aas CkJ ` / s Q °a 0� s W ? Q W W W; a- J - - - W� ED g O a - --- 0 ... o. 33N3a1S3U 3Ja3INDO 1 Nvwns dVOU 30031310oa ZOE 11 I —-----——— wh a1� �w JJ z N1, 1 /11/ J w ww 10 Lu �mz7 1 v LU � IX-- IIIIIiiIIllllill I, � �;—' s � C9 W O I r VIII II II z II nlilll I�ry< U ud ® ® � - ' � )��IIII�I�I�lii��i� Jil�I�;+iliilili I I I I I ........ ... OUVUOIOD'IIVA M 33N3a1S3U 30CMINDOd ,°� ~ \ N A s dVOU 30031310OU ZOE LL LL LU LU T--------- > LU LU ^ \ � �\ � � , \\ L Pin F -�7 Po P- 4-0 No �iu ---------- 14 d�66 6 6 Id 2Z IS LL d LU LU > 0 LU L`°; iL LLI a. In M o. Nvwns 3JN3a1S3U 3JQ3INDO 1 avoa 30031310oa ZOE ,. N - Naw ,9, OUVUOIoo'imn _ Q Nvwns 3JN3a1S3U 3JQ3INDOU avoa 30031310oa ZOE to _ 00 �00 i m �m rn YPi ND n -d0 o Zp � ng On ®I 10, � X00 I IFII -�0 kr ........ M OUVUOIoo'imn O Nvwns 3JN3a1S3U 30CMINJOd cam; avoa 30031310oa ZOE Z a J a J W o W ; J WiL e a°IS (32 W¢ � 10, ;0 0 � 0 ........ ... !f- .... .. OUVUOIOD'IIVA 33N3alS3U 30C13INDOU AvAns dVOU 30031310OU ZOE ... . .......... .... .....wi Kiri OUw0100'11VA AvAns 30N3alS3U 30a313MOU C'i A avou 3OU31MOOH LM 0 o EE ---------- 0 ... . .......... .... ..... OUvH0100'11VA AvAns 30N3alS3U 30a313MOU avow 3OU31MOOH LM O L, 8 0000000000 JI a LLI 0 - - - - - - - - F-1 IEEE --LL------ o LL------- IF- - - - - - - - - - - Ll ... . .......... .... ..... OUvH0100'11VA Nvwns 30N3alS3U 30a313MOU avow 3OU31MOOH LM O it it i Q VJ Sk W L ... . .......... .... ..... OUvH0100'11VA Nvwns 30N3alS3U 30a313MOU avow 3OU31MOOH LM O OU0100'11VA w Y Nvwns N3a1S3U 30MINO0N1 M avoe aoaai�looe coe w `- - _ N R O� El F -L- Z 0 a J W 2° zW 0 0 Fd LFILF _s ■ Too 1 you nip! 1 All pfitWHO, d w0000000000 .io iir oi.� . .:...o4..w a r w Kiri Oaw0100'11v11 w w O vwns 30N3alS3U 30a313MOU o z ter' avOH 3OU31MOOH LM 0 h ... .... - ...... o ..... ..: '� ... _. u.... LL _ s. � r r r r r r r r r i r r i I 1 yoHu . .:...o4..w a r w Kiri OU0100'11v11 w w O ns 30N3alS3U 3Ja313i3OU -A ter' OvOH 3OU31MOOH LM lal r ______________________�_�__________ -�0 -, i i r :. LU V) LU 3 O V) a L 0 N ..,� W � 0 Q Q z > `o �LU D p N Q C9 o �LU IL D Lu LU D U Q J Z 0 F�MMWWAI M N N b 0 OD 0 U C) N N h N O C, a) W �Q Lu — — aZ -- Q � w_ — N ° LU J a H w I IL LU w 3 W — J U Z o N N b 0 OD 0 U C) N N h N O C, a) C-71 :. LU V) LU LU 3 O z a L z �: (D w LU n 2 J a � C z LU v z O O a L 0 G LU V) Q w O z a L 6 3 v, w o J ~ a "' ILIL w LU v I a L :. LU V) LU 3 O V) a L G LU LU LU 0 0o 3 a L O z �: 0 w LU o= J � a D p O IL LU V) v z O O a L M. log "gN n- VP,' Ell MOP Wd" P7 P7 -el Op a "'Gordon R. Pierce - Architect - A.I.A. March 10, 1987 Town of Vail Attention: Rick Pylman Community Development Department 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 RE: Variances for Side a Resubdivision of Vail Village First Dear Rick: Setbacks for Parcels A & B, Lots 14 & 17, Block 7, Filing We are requesting side setback variances for Parcel A and Parcel B, a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Vail Village First Filing. Please refer to the enclosed site plan, Exhibit A. We would like to change the east setback of Parcel A from 15'-0" to 25'-0" and the west setback of Parcel B from 15'-0" to 5'-0". These changes would still maintain a 30'-0" clear setback separation between Parcels A and B. The following reasons apply to our request: I. It is understood that a portion of our hardship may be considered to be self-imposed due to the recent resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17. However, the critical positioning of the proposed residence is meant to respect those views and open spaces currently enjoyed by all other existing parcels. The easternly "dog -leg portion" of Parcel B will be an undeveloped portion of the property primarily for the purpose of.protecting the view corridors of Parcels A, B and C of the resubdivision. 2. A 10'-0" setback reduction from the west property line would provide a better buffer between the existing Parcel C residence and the proposed residence. The separation would provide better light and air between these two adjacent properties. 1000 South Fromages [toad West . Vail, Colorado 81657 . 303/476-4433 0 Town of Vail Attention: Mr. Rick Pylman March 10, 1987 Page Two 3. Many of the larger and healthier spruce and fir trees are located on the eastern portion of Parcel B. It is our intention to preserve these trees as much as practical by keeping the proposed residence further to the west. 4. The views for the proposed residence on Parcel B will be greatly enhanced by bringing it closer to the western property line without interfering with other properties in the adjacent area. All heights for the proposed structure will be within the zoning limits for the property. In conclusion, we feel that by increasing the eastern setback of Parcel A to 25'-0" from its existing 15'-0" will accommodate a reciprocal setback adjustment of 10'-0" to the west property line of Parcel B. The creation of a 30'-0" structure separation would result which is currently observed by the Town of Vail zoning ordinances for such properties. This would follow the intent of the Town's zoning regulations. We hope the Town staff duly considers this variance request. Please call if you should have any questions. Sincerely, Kurt A. Segerberg, A.I. . KAS/ lrt enc. TO: FROM: DATE: E 0 Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department April 20, 1987 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a residence on Parcel B, a Resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Mr. Michael Tennebaum I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant, Michael Tennenbaum, is requesting a 10 foot variance from the required 15 foot side setback for the newly created Parcel B: a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing. Parcel B is roughly 90' x 100' with a narrow dog leg that extends to the east of the property. This parcel contains slightly more than 12,500 square feet, which is the minimum lot size for the Single Family zone district. This parcel was created through a previous subdivision action by Mr. Tennenbaum. Mr. Tennebaum resubdivided the Primary/Secondary zoned Lots 14 and 17 into three parcels. Parcel A which remained a Primary/Secondary zoned property and Parcels B and C which each became Single Family zoned parcels. The applicant, who still controls the adjacent Parcel A, has stated a willingness to restrict development on Parcel A to a distance of 25 feet from the property line. By restricting this development through either covenants or deed restrictions, the applicant would provide a 30 foot separation between structures equal to the normal 15 foot setback from each property line. The proposed site development which encroaches up to 10 feet into the required 15 foot setback from property line also entails creating an access easement, retaining wall and asphalt drive through this 30 foot area. The actual driveway that accesses Parcel B initiates approximately 20 feet from the property line on Parcel A. In an effort toward compromise, the staff requested the applicant to maintain this 30 foot buffer as undisturbed open space. The applicant, however, declined to amend the site plan and design program to allow this buffer. The side setback area requested for encroachment contains several fairly significant natural features, including two large sprueQ -trees . — glvwa- II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested setback variance based upon the following factors: Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. In a situation where the average slope underneath proposed parking areas exceeds 30%, staff and Design Review Board may waive the required front setback standards. The garage area for this proposal meets this criteria, so the location of the garage in the front setback of this proposal is not an issue. With regard to the encroachment into the side setback, staff feels that if the applicant were willing to restrict development including site work to a 25 foot setback on Parcel A through a deed restriction or covenant to which the Town is a party, there would be little impact on other potential structures in the vicinity. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The Community Development Department staff feels that approval of this request would be a grant of special privilege. We believe that there is little to no physical hardship on this parcel requiring a side setback variance. In fact, we see significant natural features on the lot located within the 15 foot setback which enhance the site and should be preserved. The subdivision regulations are designed to ensure that an adequate building envelope will be created during development or subdivision of any lot. The applicant, through recent previous actions, created this lot and should be able to design within the parameters of that parcel of ground which he has created. Any claim of hardship due to lot size or shape is self imposed by the owner as a result of the previous resubdivision application. 0 Effect of the r distribution of facilities, pula safety. 0 guested variance on liqht and air, population, transportation and traffic is facilities and utilities. and nubli c There is little impact upon this criteria by this proposal. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. III. FINDINGS The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before grant#a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommendation is for denial of the side setback variance. We feel there is no physical hardship driving the side setback request and feel that it would be a grant of special privilege. Indeed, physical features within the area of the 15 foot setback warrants its preservation. This lot was recently created and great efforts were taken at that time to ensure that this lot did meet the minimum lot requirement for this zone district. We feel adequate space exists for the siting of a single family structure without requiring a setback variance. Finally, any hardship is self- imposed by the owner through his previous minor subdivision request and subsequent design. . v Irk !97- 231- 1 •�'� W •4p'' � Mj . $4' � � eb � iiff 4 Ono 4r 11 i C v+ i u �f I IL , f i Ap 1�ry1 p i a • �� 1 � ��A4.-rl 10 YL L u N N S 0 I I C•. nta c�c�dtr m �to v5 Or cvmar•� !!! •rO �< mao Kr.ry Op Or Op KGmoOti M A `C 3 rA W to fat f { \ r A (ff CL • f3E n m h $ •� •Vi 0 .7µ ~ a }l j • m to --- A X T m 00 m~ f I + required screening. Peter's concern was that in the future the Town could not go back and ask for more or different screening. J.J. moved to approved the request for the conditional use permit conditional upon Design Review Board review and in light of requirements for landscaping on the north property line, especially as it would be related to the new exit. Also required would be a letter of credit from the applicant. The motion was seconded by Pam Hopkins and the vote for approval was 5-0. 4. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a residence on Parcel B. a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17 Block 7. Vail Village First Filin . Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Tennenbaum Rick Pylman showed site plans and explained that the applicant was requesting a 10 foot variance from the 15 foot side setback requirement for a lot which had recently been created by the applicant. Rick stated that the applicants also owned the property to the east (Parcel A) and were willing to restrict development on Parcel A to a distance of 25 feet from the property line by use of a deed restriction or covenants. Rick explained that the staff requested that this area be left as undisturbed open space, but the applicants declined to leave this buffer undisturbed. Rick also stated that the side setback area requested for encroachment contained several fairly significant natural features, including two large spruce trees. The staff recommendation was for denial of the side setback variance because they felt there was no physical hardship driving the side setback encroachment and felt it would be a grant of special privilege. Jay Peterson, representing the applicants, stated that the applicants could have achieved the requested setbacks if they had requested a special development district, but had preferred to go through a subdivision process instead. They felt that any problems could be achieved through the variance procedure. He felt the integrity of the setbacks was being maintained. J.J. Collins stated that he did not see why a building could not be designed in such a way that it remained within the setbacks and did not destroy large trees. Jay replied that this was the area in which to place the house to take advantage of the views. J.J. pointed out that the applicant had a clear lot on which to build and plenty of room. Jay replied that when the trade-offs became too great, they decided to ask for a variance. He added that hundreds of hours were spent on various schemes on all three sites. C Peggy asked if there was any interest in protecting the two evergreen trees that would be lost. Jay replied that they were already spending a lot of money on landscaping. Peggy said J.J. did a good job of expressing her views. She felt that she would work with the proposal if the lost landscaping would be replaced. Jay stated that a landscaped buffer could be a condition of approval. Kurt Cegerberg stated that they were trying to bring landscaping into the building area and attention would be paid to bring landscaping into the buffer area. Diana felt it was too bad that the applicant first created the lot and then could not design a house to fit the lot. Jay replied that he could have asked for a special development distict and gotten rid of the property line and kept within the interity of the zone code and received approval. He added that he would rather use the variance procedure as long as he could keep the integrity of the zone code. Sid shared a lot of the feelings the other members stated. He wished it hadn't gotten to this state, but felt if there was a 30' buffer between the houses, it would preserve the distance factor. He added that he did not feel driven to preserve the rock outcropping. Pam felt that there was no hardship on which to base the granting of a variance. Jay replied that any time the PEC is given a variance, they look at it on a site by site basis, that each project stands alone. Jim Viele agreed with Jay with respect to the proces. He added that if there is no objective judgement involved, there would be no variance procedure. He stated that in the overall view, the purpose of the setbacks is to maintain the distance of separation between dwellings. He wondered if the project would be a better one if it conformed to the setback regulations and added that he would rather see the house where is was proposed to be rather than take out additional trees. J.J. asked why the house was sited where it was on Parcel A to the west, and Kurt replied that they were trying to pick up views of Gore Range and down valley and that the dwelling was broken up to help to reduce the massiveness of the project. J.J. stated that on Parcel B he saw plenty of room within the required setbacks. Curt said he could not argue with the fact that one can fit something on the lot, but the trees were a major concern. Jay added that on any given site one can build without going into setback areas, but it may make an uninteresting town. J.J. pointed out that each time he had seen the PEC challenge an architect, the architect had been able to come up with a plan within the setbacks. He repeated the fact that the architect in this case had a clean piece of property. Jay answered that they had voluntarily torn down the existing structure and should be given latitude to build, that they were being penalized for making a clean site. Viele spoke in favor of the proposal as long as the buffer would remain. Jay answered that there would be a deed restriction that only the Town of Vail could remove the buffer. Pam Hopkins pointed out that another owner could hire Jay to ask to remove the buffer. She added that the PEC was going through this process because Parcel A had to be a minimum site. Jay said the purpose of the subdivision was to stop from having two old homes being added onto. He added that they knew they might have to ask for variances when they planned the subdivision. Peter Patten felt that the natural features should be preserved within the 15 foot setback area and added that this was a self created hardship. Jim Viele moved to approve the variance with the findings that the strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the zone code. He specified that particular attention be paid by the DRB of landscaping planned to be in the 30 foot buffer. Sid seconded the motion and the vote was 4 in favor and 2 (JJ and Pam) against. 5. A request for front_ s4r3e_ rear anA =tr=am =cthmr•7r variances, a site coverage variance, a dross residential floor area variance and a variance from required landscaping in order to construct additions on Parcels A and B. Lot 3� Blockl, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Jerome A. Lewis, Downing Street Foundation Betsy Rosolack presented the proposal, stating that the applicants wanted to build two 2 -car garages and additional square footage allowed under Ordinance 4 of 1985. The staff recommendation was for denial as it was felt the additions could be constructed within the setback areas. Tom Briner, one of the architects on the project, spoke in favor of the project and Dan Rickli, another architect, explained that there seemed to be a discrepancy in the amount of square footage that they were adding. Jerry Lewis and John TOWN OF VA10 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October9, 2017 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 12-2- 2, Definitions of Words and Terms, Vail Town Code, to amend and clarify the definitions of Commercial Ski Storage, Ski Club, First Floor or Street Level, and Basement or Garden Level; to create a new definition for Ski Storage Lockers; to amend Section 12-14-21 Outdoor Display of Goods concerning ski racks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0042) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Memo—Commercial—Ski—Storage—Update 100917.pdf Commercial Ski Storage Update Memo TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 9, 2017 SUBJECT: Commercial Ski Storage - Update PURPOSE The purpose of this memo is to update the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on issues and progress relating to the Town's commercial ski storage regulations and to present a draft of the text amendments necessary to update these regulations. There are also a few questions for the PEC to help determine the direction of these regulations. The PEC is asked to review the questions, and draft text amendments and provide feedback on changes or additional information that may be necessary before moving forward with a formal prescribed regulations amendment. II. BACKGROUND The Town's current regulations of commercial ski storage, ski valet and ski concierge services have not kept pace with the evolving nature of the ski industry. As a result, the Town is experiencing the following challenges with the current regulations on commercial ski storage: • Regulations that are ambiguous and vague • Regulations that are inconsistent with evolving customer expectations; • Regulations that are difficult and/or impractical to enforce, resulting in a perception of inconsistent enforcement; and • Regulations that may have resulted in unintended consequences, most notably considerable storage of ski equipment outside that has both safety and aesthetic implications. On September 5, 2017, the Community Development Department presented the Commercial Ski Storage Task Force's recommendations to the Town Council, which included a recommendation to not change the existing policy on commercial ski storage. The Town Council supported the recommendations, and directed staff to begin to draft text amendments to implement the changes. On September 11, 2017, the Community Development Department presented the Commercial Ski Storage Task Force's recommendations to the PEC. The PEC requested more time to review specific code language, and requested that this topic return for further discussion. On September 25, 2017, the Community Development Department presented the Commercial Ski Storage Task Force's recommendations to the PEC. The PEC requested site visits to several of the ski shops, ski valet services and ski clubs impacted by these regulations. A tour of these properties is scheduled for October 9, 2017 as part of the PEC meeting. (Please see the attached schedule for more information on the locations and estimated times for the tour.) III. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE TASK FORCE The current zoning regulations permit Commercial Ski Storage/Ski Clubs only in the basement or garden level of a building in the following districts: • Commercial Core 1 (CC1) • Commercial Core 2 (CC2) • Lionshead Mixed Use -1 (LMU-1) • Lionshead Mixed Use -2 (LMU-2) • Ski Base Recreation -2 (SBR -2) Following is a summary of the Task Force recommendations: • Keep the existing horizontal zoning in place, which only allows Commercial Ski Storage and Ski Clubs as a permitted use on the basement or garden level of a structure • Add graphics to improve the definitions for the following: ➢ First floor of street level ➢ Basement or garden level • Separate the definitions for Commercial Ski Storage and Ski Club • Create a separate definition for Ski Storage Lockers • Set time of day limits on the placement of ski racks outside of a business • Do not set limits on the number of racks placed on private property • Ensure that public pedestrian easements are not blocked by ski racks • Consider removing code language on outdoor displays stating that an outdoor display "shall not visually detract from or block storefront or shop window" • Clarify that a building used for delivery of skis to guests of a hotel, which is separated from the hotel property, is considered Commercial Ski Storage (i.e. Four Seasons at Gorsuch on Wall Street) Town of Vail Page 2 IV. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THESE REGULATIONS? Depending on the amendments that are finally adopted, there may be impacts to local business, the guest experience, code enforcement, or other unintended consequences. Action Positive Impact Negative Impact TIME Time of day limits on the Achieves policy objective. Some business may operate placement of ski racks outside Clearly indicates when racks outside the set time limits. of a business of skis can be placed outside. Ensures ski racks are not outside all the time. May improve safety and aesthetics. PLACE Keep existing zoning that only Maintains vibrancy of retail Guests must walk up stairs in ski allows ski storage in shops and restaurants on boots carrying skis. Reduced basements street level number of locations for ski storage. Prohibit placing racks on Ensures safe passage for Some properties are surrounded by pedestrian easements pedestrians and emergency easements, and would have no vehicles place for ski racks — Arrabelle; Concert Hall Plaza Action Positive Impact Negative Impact Clarify that a ski storage Easier to understand if Change applies only to one building separated from the regulations are more specific property at this time. hotel property is considered Commercial Ski Storage, and is not exempt from Commercial Ski Storage regulations MANNER No limit on number of racks Allows business owner to Potential negative impact on determine what is best for the aesthetics. business OTHER CODE CLARIFICATIONS Add graphics to improve Easier to understand There may be impacts to other understanding of definitions sections of Town Code by amending definitions. Separate the definitions for Easier to understand Commercial Ski Storage and Ski Club Create a separate definition Easier to understand for Ski Storage Lockers Remove language on visually This language in the Outdoor May result in more clutter, and less detracting or blocking Display section of the code is visibility of display windows. storefront or shop window already vague, and may be Conflicts with the Town policy difficult to enforce objective of maintaining vibrancy and economic vitality in the commercial cores. Town of Vail Page 3 After further consideration of these changes and clarifications, the Staff and Task Force request feedback on the following questions in order to have clarity on these regulations: Several businesses in Town currently place racks of skis outside their business during the day, and then roll these racks onto the first floor of the business at night, when the business is closed. These are usually racks for skis that are rented to a customer, and then returned to the same rental shop each night. In some cases, these racks may be for skis belonging to hotel guests, where the hotel has an agreement with the ski shop for storage of the skis. • Is the placement of racks of skis inside a business when the business is closed considered "Commercial Ski Storage"? If it is, then it is currently prohibited on the first floor. • How is this operation distinguished from storage of private skis for an individual? Does it matter if the skis are rented from the same business? • If it is not considered "Commercial Ski Storage", then what is it? • Is the PEC comfortable with additional businesses following this business model, which may lead to more floor area dedicated to ski racks, and less floor area dedicated to retail sales? • There may also be fire and safety issues with too many racks of skis blocking emergency access inside a business. • Limits on the number of racks, or a maximum area, could be implemented. But some businesses selected their locations due to the amount of outdoor space available for display, and limiting the number or area of racks would impact these businesses. 2. The Task Force recommended setting time limits on the placement of racks of skis outside a business. The recommended time limits are from 7:00 AM until 9:00 PM. This timeframe was recommended to allow skis to be placed outside before the lifts open, and late enough that it allows a business to remain open late, if they desire, without brining the skis in while the shop is open. • Is 7:00 AM — 9:00 AM a reasonable timeframe to allow outside racks of skis? 3. Ski Clubs are currently permitted only in the basement or garden level. There is at least one Ski Club that currently operates on upper level of a building, which was permitted as the result of a determination of similar use by a previous Council. In that case, the Ski Club was determined to be similar to an "Eating and drinking establishment". Many ski clubs have a significant ski storage aspect to the club. • Should Ski Clubs be permitted on the second floor or above? Town of Vail Page 4 • If so, this would be a change in policy. • What are the impacts of allowing Ski Clubs on the second floor or above? • The Task Force recommended no policy changes. 4. The Task Force recommended adding language to prohibit placement of ski racks on pedestrian easements. After further research, Staff has determined that many developments in Vail Village and Lionshead are surrounded by pedestrian easements. For example, Arrabelle at Vail Square, the Hill Building, and Concert Hall Plaza each have significant pedestrian easements in front of shop entrances. Prohibiting racks of skis on easements would severely impact businesses that operate in these developments. • The purpose of a pedestrian easement is to ensure that the public has legal and safe access through private property. • Should placing racks of skis on pedestrian easements be prohibited? • If racks of skis on pedestrian easements are allowed, what is the impact on pedestrian circulation? • Is there a size or number of racks that would be acceptable? • This language may not be needed, as each easement is different and requires a case-by-case review, and may require a legal opinion based on the specific language in the easement document. 5. The Task Force recommended that Commercial Ski Storage and Ski Clubs be defined separately, to improve clarity in the regulations. During staff's review of this recommendation, it was determined that there exists very few differences between the two uses and those differences do not necessitate different regulatory approaches. As such, staff believes that separate definitions are not warranted. • Should there be separate definitions of Commercial Ski Storage and Ski Club? • Unless these uses will be regulated differently, there may be no reason to separate the definitions. Following are the proposed text amendments, based on the recommendations of the Task Force and as previously presented to the PEC: (New language is shown in bold and underline. Language proposed for removal is shown in strikethrough.) Title 8 — Outdoor Display on Town Property 8-7-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this chapter is to provide standards for the licensed use of town Town of Vail Page 5 owned property by retail establishments for outdoor display of goods. Businesses that are located in buildings without adequate privately owned exterior space may obtain a license to use adjacent town owned property for outdoor display of goods, for the purpose of increasing the vibrancy and economic vitality of the commercial cores. (Ord. 32(2007) § 2) 8-7-2: DEFINITIONS: ADMINISTRATOR: The director of the department of community development and/or his or her designee that administers and enforces the guidelines outlined in this chapter. FRONTAGE, BUSINESS: The horizontal, linear dimension of any side of an above grade level that faces a major vehicular or pedestrian way and has its own public entrance for the exclusive use of said business. OUTDOOR DISPLAY. A temporary outdoor arrangement of objects, items, or products representative of the merchandise sold or rented by a retail establishment, and further regulated by section 12-14-21 of this code. PUBLIC WAY.- Means and includes a public street, easement, right of way, highway, alley, way, place, road, or bike path, and any nonexclusive utility easement. RETAIL ESTABLISHMENT: Any licensed business within the town of Vail with a physical location that is open to the public for the purpose of selling, leasing or renting tangible personal property or services at retail. (Ord. 32(2007) § 2) 8-7-3: OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF GOODS REGULATED: It shall be unlawful to place or maintain any outdoor display of goods on town owned property or on other publicly owned sidewalks or rights of way without complying with the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 32(2007) § 2) 8-7-4: PERMIT REQUIRED.- It EQUIRED: It is unlawful for any person or retail establishment to utilize town owned property or other publicly owned sidewalks or rights of way without first securing an outdoor display on public property permit. Such permit shall be issued by the administrator and shall be pursuant to the requirements of this chapter. Permits may be approved for a time period of up to two (2) years. Permits shall be automatically renewed for additional two (2) year terms unless otherwise terminated. Prior to final approval of a permit, the retail establishment shall enter into a license agreement with the town of Vail, to be executed by the town attorney. Permit applications, application requirement, application fees and Town of Vail Page 6 license fees are on file with the department of community development. (Ord. 32(2007) § 2) 8-7-5: ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION: The administrator shall review the application and make a determination of approval, approval with modifications, or denial within thirty (30) days of submittal of a complete application. The determination by the administrator shall become final at the next planning and environmental commission public hearing following the administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up for review by the commission. Determinations shall be based on the criteria in section 8-7-6 of this chapter. All appeals shall follow the procedures outlined in section 12-3-3, "Appeals"; of this code. (Ord. 32(2007) § 2) 8-7-6: CRITERIA FOR DECISION.- Outdoor ECISION: Outdoor display of goods on town owned property or on publicly owned right of way shall be lawful at specific locations for use by a specific retail establishment approved by the administrator. Retail establishments may be allowed to utilize town owned property for the use of outdoor display should the following conditions be met.- A. et: A. Zone District: The retail establishment shall be located in one of the following zone districts.- 1. istricts:1. Commercial core 1 (CC 1) district. 2. Commercial core 2 (CC2) district. 3. Lionshead mixed use 1 (LMU-1) district. 4. Lionshead mixed use 2 (LMU-2) district. 5. Ski base/recreation 2 (SBR2) district. B. Area: The area of town owned property to be utilized shall be a maximum of twenty (20) square feet for retail establishments. Businesses displaying bicycles may be permitted to license additional square footage of town owned property at the discretion of the administrator. C. Location: The property to be licensed shall be a contiguous piece of property that is directly adjacent to the business frontage. D. Circulation: The use of town owned property for outdoor display shall not impede circulation and thus, shall not block or encroach upon the required ingress/egress of doorways, walkways, stairways, and parking or loading/delivery spaces. The placement of ski racks on pedestrian or vehicular access easements is prohibited. Town of Vail Page 7 E. Street And Sidewalk Width: A minimum street width of twenty two feet (22) shall be maintained in order to allow for emergency vehicle access. Sidewalks shall remain a minimum width of six feet (6). Connection of exit discharge to the public way, as required by the adopted building code, shall not be blocked. F. Public Safety: The use of town owned property for outdoor display shall not pose any risks to public safety. The use of town owned property for outdoor display shall not block or encroach upon any fire lane, fire staging area, and shall maintain a minimum distance to fire hydrants of seven feet (7) to side or rear, and fourteen feet (14) to the front. G. Maintenance Access: The use of town owned property for outdoor display shall not block or impede street sweeping, snow removal or snow storage/loading operations. The use of town owned property for outdoor display shall not block access to trash receptacles, dumpsters, mailboxes, manholes, water valves, flowerbeds or other landscape areas. H. Aesthetics: The use of town owned property for outdoor display shall not negatively impact established view corridor or acknowledged "postcard" images on shall Apt 1i/rC�Lloll do ranGt fnm er b1GGk sterefrept Ar chem winrews 1. Lack Of Available Space: Retail establishments may only be located on a site without twenty (20) square feet of privately owned exterior space adjacent to the business frontage. J. Outdoor Display Fixtures: Outdoor display fixtures shall be freestanding, temporary in nature, and shall be removed from the exterior location when the business is closed. K. Code Compliance: All aspects of the outdoor display shall remain in compliance with this code and the Vail comprehensive plan. (Ord. 32(2007) § 2) L. Ski Racks: The outdoor placement of racks used for display of skis or the distribution and/or collection of rental skis, shall be prohibited between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM. Title 12 — Definitions 12-2-2: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS COMMERCIAL SKI STORAGE/SK4-��: Storage for equipment (skis, snowboards, boots and poles) and/or clothing used in skiing related sports, which is available to the public or members, operated by a business, club or government organization, and where a fee is charged for hourly, daily, monthly, Town of Vail Page 8 seasonal or annual usage. This use may have, but does not require, the following components: A. Personal lockers, B. Boot dryers, C. Ski storage racks, D. Ski tuning, E. Food and beverage service, F. Areas for congregation and/or socializing, G. Restrooms and/or shower facilities, H. Nonwinter activities, /. Concierge ski services, J. Retail sales, K. Business center. Ski storage that is part of a lodge, or dwelling unit, in which a fee is not charged, is not considered commercial ski storage/ski club. A building separated from the hotel property that is used for ski storage or delivering skis to a _quest is considered commercial ski storage, and is not exempt from this definition. Ski Club - A private membership organization, catering exclusively to members and quests for social, recreational and athletic purposes, where membership requires a fee on daily, monthly, seasonal or annual basis, and which is focused primarily around skiing and similar winter outdoor sports. Ski Storage Lockers - Storage for equipment (skis, snowboards, boots and poles) and/or clothing used in skiing related sports, located within a designated enclosure or cabinet which is available hourly, daily, monthly, seasonal or annual usage. Title 12 — Outdoor Display on Private Property 12-14-21: OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF GOODS: Town of Vail Page 9 A. Purpose: The purpose of this section is to establish regulations for the outdoor display of goods by retail establishments. B. Applicability: Outdoor display of goods shall be permitted by retail establishments in the following zone districts and shall be prohibited in all zone districts not listed.- 1. isted:1. Housing (H) district; 2. Commercial core 1 (CC 1) district; 3. Commercial core 2 (CC2) district; 4. Commercial core 3 (CC3) district; 5. Commercial service center (CSC) district; 6. Lionshead mixed use 1 (LMU-1) district; 7. Lionshead mixed use 2 (LMU-2) district; 8. Ski base/recreation 2 (SBR2) district. C. Permit Not Required: Outdoor display on private property, where permitted by the provisions of this title, are not subject to design review. A permit is required to obtain a license to utilize town owned property for outdoor display of goods by retail establishments, per title 8, chapter 7 of this code. D. Requirements For Outdoor Display: Where permitted, outdoor display shall be subject to the following limitations.- 1. imitations: 1. Location: The area used for an outdoor display shall be located directly in front of the retail establishment displaying the goods. Outdoor display shall be entirely upon the establishment's own property unless the retail establishment is permitted to utilize town owned property, per the requirements in title 8, chapter 7 of this code. 2. Circulation: Outdoor display shall not impede circulation and thus, shall not block or encroach upon the required ingress/egress of doorways, walkways, stairways, and parking or loading/delivery spaces. The placement of ski racks on pedestrian or vehicular access easements is prohibited. 3. Street And Sidewalk Width: A minimum street width of twenty two feet (22) shall be maintained in order to allow for emergency vehicle access. Sidewalks shall remain a minimum width of six feet (6). Connection of exit discharge to the public way, as required by the adopted building code, shall not be blocked. 4. Public Safety: Outdoor display shall not pose any risks to public safety, shall not block or encroach upon any fire lane, and shall maintain a minimum distance to fire hydrants of seven feet (7) to side or rear, and fourteen feet (14) to the front. Town of Vail Page 10 5. Aesthetics: Outdoor display shall not negatively impact established view corridors or acknowledged "postcard" images and shall not visually detract from or block storefront or shop window. 6. Outdoor Display Fixtures: Outdoor display fixtures shall be freestanding, temporary in nature, and shall be removed from the exterior location when the business is closed. 7. Height: No part of any outdoor display shall extend more than six feet (6) above existing grade. 8. Signage: Sale signs may be permitted on outdoor displays, as regulated by subsection 11-6-3F of this code. No other signage is permitted on or adjacent to outdoor displays that is not otherwise approved by the administrator, subject to the regulations of title 11 of this code. 9. Cardboard Boxes Prohibited: Outdoor display of goods shall not include any cardboard boxes, unless part of individual packaging of goods. 10. Code Compliance: All aspects of the outdoor display shall remain in compliance with this code and the Vail comprehensive plan. (Ord. 32(2007) § 13) 11. Ski Racks: The outdoor placement of racks used for display of skis for sale or the distribution and/or collection of skis for storage, shall be prohibited between the hours of 9:00 PM and 7:00 AM. V. NEXT STEPS The next step in this process is for the Community Development Department to present a Prescribed Regulation Amendment to the Town Council on October 17, 2017. Following are the upcoming meeting dates on this topic: • Town Council - October 17, 2017 — Town Council — 1s' Reading of Ordinance on text amendments Town Council - November 7, 2017 — 2nd Reading of Ordinance on text amendments • November 17, 2017 —Vail Mountain Opening Day Town of Vail Page 11 Commercial Ski Storage Tour October 9, 2017 1:00 PM - Depart from Vail Municipal Building (All times are estimated) Lionshead 1:05 PM - Arrabelle at Vail Square (Meet at Tavern on the Square) 1:20 PM - Ski Base, 610 W. Lionshead Circle 1:30 PM - Ski Valet, 616 W. Lionshead Circle Vail Village 1:45 PM - Four Seasons / Gorsuch, 227 Wall Street 2:00 PM - Ski Haus, 254 Bridge Street 2:15 PM —Vail Gondola Club, 298 Hanson Ranch Road 2:30 PM - Base Camp — Mike Brumbaugh, 298 Hanson Ranch Road 2:45 PM - Vista Bahn Ski Rentals, 278 Hanson Ranch Road Town of Vail Page 12 TOWN OF VA10 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: September25, 2017 PEC Meeting Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name pec results 092517.pdf Description September 25, 2017 PEC Meeting Results FAWN OF VA10 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 25, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order Present: Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, John Rediker, and Brian Stockmar, Brian Gillette Absent: Karen Perez 2. Main Agenda 3. Staff requests that the report out to the Planning and Environmental Commission be tabled to December 11, 2017 to address design considerations. A report to the Planning and Environmental Commission on the Administrator's approval of an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a steel - frame tensile fabric shelter at the softball fields spectator plaza area, located at 580 South Frontage Road East (Ford Park)/U n platted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17- 0032) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Table to December 11, 2017 First: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-0-0 4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application establishing Special Development District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residences), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Development Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the development of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 15 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 19 accommodation units and 10 employee housing units, and related uses and improvements, located at 430 and 434 South Frontage Road (Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek)/ Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5, formerly known as part of Lot 1, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Table to October 9, 2017 First: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 6-0-0 5. A request for review of a final plat, pursuant to Title 13 Chapter 4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for a subdivision of a parcel of land located at 3700 North Frontage Road East/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0041) Applicant: Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Chris Neubecker Motion: Approve with Condition(s) First: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 5-1-0 (Rediker opposed) Conditions of Approval: 1. Approval of this plat shall expire on December 29, 2017, unless the final plat is recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. 2. This subdivision approval shall be contingent upon the applicant receiving approval of the pending rezoning of the property for the Housing (H) district on the western 5.4 acres of the property, and the Natural Area Preservation (NAP) district on the eastern 17.9 acres of the property. Planner Neubecker introduced the project. Neubecker spoke to the related rezoning application. Neubecker spoke to the applicable criteria for approval and the staff's recommendation. Kurz- Has the town attorney reviewed the application? Neubecker-No, but it has been reviewed by staff including the Town's Engineer Stockmar- Has anything changed related to the rezoning? Neubecker-No Rediker-What is the status of the rezoning and are they interdependent? Stockmar - Asked if the applicant would be OK with a contingency that the subdivision does not go into effect unless the Town Council approves the associated rezoning application. Mauriello indicated "yes". Mauriello, representing the applicant, provided a short PowerPoint and referenced that the criteria for approval is very similar to the rezoning. Public Comment - None Stockmar-1St step in a complex project. Supports the process. Gillette -Agrees with staff Hopkins -agrees with staff Kurz -Agrees with staff Lockman -Agrees with staff Rediker-Agrees with staff but has reservations about the applicability of the criteria at this stage in the process when the project and future development plan is unclear. Would like Town Council to address this. We should not have to make a decision without knowing what will be built here. 6. 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 12-2-2, Definitions of Words and Terms, Vail Town Code, to amend and clarify the definitions of Commercial Ski Storage, Ski Club, First Floor or Street Level, and Basement or Garden Level; to create a new definition for Ski Storage Lockers; to amend Section 12-14-21 Outdoor Display of Goods concerning ski racks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0042) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker Motion: Table to October 9, 2017 First: Gillette Second: Hopkins Vote: 6-0-0 Planner Neubecker brought the commission up to speed on status of the project and some of the challenges between the regulations and guest expectations. Neubecker spoke to proposed language and questions where feedback from the PEC and the Town Council would be helpful. He spoke in general to these remaining questions. Commissioners Rediker and Gillette offered ideas on how to proceed. Neubecker discussed how we ended up where we are. Gillette asked about the genesis of the apparent problems. Rediker spoke to his understanding of the original regulations and horizontal zoning. He asked about the intersection of the definitions and operating characteristics. Neubecker used the Four Seasons operation on Wall Street to illustrate the challenges with the existing language. Stockmar spoke to a need for a clear understanding of the problem. Gillette asked for a clarification on what is occurring at the Four Seasons. Neubecker explained the different levels of the structure used by the Four Seasons. Rediker returned the discussion to the 5 questions included in the staff memorandum. Rediker spoke to the question of pedestrian easements. Neubecker spoke to the situation arising from pedestrian easements, and how many properties in the commercial core areas are surrounded by easements. Rediker spoke to his feeling that any encroachment into the easement is an impediment and that long term encroachments can be problematic. Kurz spoke to conflicting interests and overarching goals including safety, respecting business investments and aesthetics; he feels that wholesale changes are not warranted. Rediker spoke to the definitions discussion in the staff memo. A brief discussion concerning what is and is not taxed in relation to ski stores and ski storage. Hopkins asked for further clarifications regarding the Four Seasons building. Lockman asked about what other communities are doing. Neubecker spoke to other resort communities including Aspen and Breckenridge. Rediker asked about how ski shops and ski stores are related to this. Neubecker pointed to the challenges associated with the current regulations and ski store operations. Public Comment Mike Brumbaugh, Venture Sports (Base Camp) -Spoke to the Four Seasons operation, the basement situation and the easement situation. What is legal and what is not illegal? Rediker asked how the current regulations impact his operation. Mike Brumbaugh spoke to what their operation is and the gray areas. Tom Higgins, American Ski Exchange - Very difficult. Everyone has self -interests on the task force. Want more bars and not more private clubs. Need to be concerned with vitality. This issue is getting more complicated, not less. We have a short season. Is ski storage a service or an amenity? Changing the rules penalizes those that have played by the rules. Rediker asked Tom Higgins to describe his operation. Tom Higgins described his business operation. Marco Valenti, Vail Resorts Retail - Spoke to the evolution of the discussions within the task force. Spoke to mobile ski storage as opposed to ski clubs. Felt that certain retail aspects are outside the purview of the task force. Spoke to guest expectations. Rediker asked which ski clubs Vail Resorts operates Marco Valenti spoke to the clubs and their operations. Supports adding clarity. Concerned about easements and its affects on business operations. Zach Meyers, General Manager of the Arrabelle, spoke to the Arrabelle operation and how it was designed with the regulations in mind. Sean Filiault, Pepi's Sports - Spoke about his operation. Was not a part of the task force (out of town). Does not support wheeling lots of racks out onto the street. Brent Martin, Four Seasons - Discussed the model that they run. Reminded the task force and the PEC that they are not competing with each other, but with other destination resorts (i.e. Jackson Hole). Spoke to the need for a location closer to the hill which was what started the partnership with the Gorsuch. He described what occurs on what level of the "Hong Kong" building on Wall Street. Does not see why ski clubs on the second floor are a problem; they drive more traffic than office. Spoke to the ski rack issue. Jeff Evans, Christie Sports - Spoke to the changes in the economics of the ski industry. Greatest growth will be with rentals. Rediker asked about storage of skis. Evans spoke about the 60 racks that store the rental skis. Neubecker spoke to pedestrian easements in the vicinity of Christie Sports. Tommy Neyens, Ski Valet in Lionshead - Greatest concern is equity. Would like to keep things the way they are. No ski clubs on the second floor. Has concerns about ski storage on the first floor. Supports horizontal zoning. Outdoor storage on private property is OK. Hours may be too generous. Commissioner Lockman- Still confused. Clarity? Operations all over the place. What has been proposed will not necessarily help. Does not see the answers. Can some 7 91 of these issues be handled on a case by case basis? Commissioner Hopkins- Understands the complexity of the issue. Sees it as old school vs. new services. Understands the concerns with black holes (spaces that are not used in summer) and ski clubs. Not ready to take action. Commissioner Kurz- Not ready to act. Recognizes lack of agreement and feels that pressure to act may result in more unintended consequences. Commissioner Gillette- More than one issue. Bulk ski storage vs. skis for sale. How many ski racks to we want to see? Bulk Ski Storage may be different than ski clubs. Commissioner Stockmar- Understands the problem better, but not fully. Issues about commercial vibrancy are present. Concern with just being a storage area. Have not reached an answer. It's more than about ski storage. This is the tip of the iceberg concerning vitality. Commissioner Rediker-Appreciated the public's input. Horizontal zoning still valid and important. What is ski storage? Maybe looking at what a rental shop does. Impractical for ski rental shops to store skis in the basement. Don't want rental shops to be fronts for hotels. Concerned with 2nd floor ski clubs. Spoke to pedestrian easements. Not sure what the answer is. Case by case analysis of easements may be necessary. Approval of Minutes September 11, 2017 PEC Meeting Results Motion: Approve First: Kurz Second: Stockmar Vote: 5-0-1 (Gillette Abstained) Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department TOWN OF VA10 VAI L TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October9, 2017 ITEM/TOPIC: Comprehensive Open Lands Plan Update ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Comprehensive Open_Lands Plan_Update_100917.pdf Open Lands Plan Update Memorandum 171003_PEC_draft _plan_(4)_100917.pdf Open Lands Plan Framework Rondeau_Letter 100317.pdf Public Comment Letter 0 rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 9, 2017 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Open Lands Plan Update I. PURPOSE The purpose of this session is to provide the Planning and Environmental Commission an overview of the progress to date on the update to the 1994 Comprehensive Open Lands Plan (OLP), and the concurrent trails planning process, as a subset of the OLP. The original OLP, survey results and additional information may be accessed: http://www.vaiIgov.com/openlandsupdate II. PARCELS FOR DETERMINATION/SITE VISITS 1. East Vail Pond — potential environmental preservation 2. 3 parcels adjacent to Safeway, West Vail — example of land to purchase to meet town needs (e.g. housing) 3. Donovan Park Middle Bench — town needs or open space 4. Lot adjacent to Middle Bench — potential wildlife movement corridor 5. Parcel adjacent to Potato patch — potential removal from action list III. BACKGROUND In December, 2016, the Town authorized an update to the 1994 Comprehensive Open Lands Plan. The process for updating the OLP involves revisiting the existing Plan to identify initiatives that have been addressed (and those that have not); evaluating via a community engagement process the goals, objectives and initiatives of the existing OLP; and drafting an updated plan with goals, objectives and initiatives reaffirmed or identified during the process to address the community's needs. IV. TRAILS CONCEPT PLAN The '94 OLP listed improvements to the town's trail system as its second priority, behind acquisition and protection of open space, and included recommendations for new and improved trails for Vail as well as a simple "concept plan" for trails. The construction of the North Trail and widened Frontage Road shoulders are both specific outcomes of that plan. However, the '94 trails concept plan does not provide a lot of detail and when the town began efforts to alter and extend the Vail Trail in 2015, there was significant pushback from segments of the community, ultimately leading the Town Council to recommend updating the Open Lands Plan, including the trails plan. The OLP update process has included multiple community meetings to provide opportunities for input on trails as well as other topics. To further the discussion on trails, the town held five additional meetings this past September. These small group meetings, termed "Scoping Sessions", consisted of three to six community members with diverse Vail experiences and were formatted to encourage open discussion on Vail's trail system with a goal of building consensus on trail improvements. Topics included current trail usage, trail needs and desires, environmental concerns, conflict resolution and a trail ideas mapping exercise. The sessions yielded the information highlighted below as Trail Issues and Actions. This information is to be presented at a Community Trails Workshop on Wednesday, October 11th. The Workshop input will help to further refine the Trails Concept Plan prior to including it in the OLP Update. The Trail Plan for the OLP Update will continue to be considered a Concept Plan. It will include: • Vision and goals for Vail's trail system • Recommendations for new trails and improvements to existing trails • Description of next steps for any new or improved trail • Recommended trail standards • Conceptual trail map This plan will help set the direction for trail planning for many years. It is important to note that before any new trails are constructed, they will require multiple levels of approval through the Vail Planning and Environmental Commission, Vail Town Council, the US Forest Service and Colorado Parks and Wildlife as well as additional community input. Trail Issues and Actions 1. Protect Vail Trail and other similar experiences • Designed towards hiking as opposed to biking • Small footprint, meandering trail • Provide more hiking -friendly opportunities • Helps to reduce user conflicts 2. Vail shouldn't try to be all things to all people • Limited trail expansion • Okay to provide opportunities, but we should not strive to become a biking destination per se in the spirit of Crested Butte, Breckenridge, etc. 3. Trail system should provide: • Beginner level hiking and mountain biking • Improved connections— hard and soft surface • Improved access • Repair, improve, adopt and better -utilize existing trails 4. Improve signage/maps • Wayfinding • Conflict abatement signage and education • Public access to trail information 5. Sensitivity to wildlife/environment • Protect existing habitats and wildlife populations • Important to protect what's there, but evaluate current conditions through new studies/analysis V. NEXT STEPS The next steps in the planning process are to conduct the trails workshop on October 11th, :30- 6:30 p.m., at the Vail Public Library Community room, and complete the draft OLP for public comment. The Planning and Environmental Commission will be requested to provide feedback and ultimately make a recommendation of adoption of the Plan to the Town Council. VI. ATTACHMENTS A.) Open Lands Plan Framework B.) Public Comment Letter Town of Vail Page 2 LU cn z z CL �: 0 Z < L=u A CL ILU- CD - E Eo 0 z 0 u 0 z ui U z Luvdi IL, z TD LU 0 CL 0 CD - 7-D ix 0 N 0 E TD < < � z 0 - Na . . .... Wr� L- 0 U 0 Q o o vs u _ N C m O CC E C -+- L- 0 V V) QJ U VLUE> QJ J CL- O C) --� c� �� 61 O O QJ QJ Q 0O ti � CZ C p c a G QJ Z G O> ti U N2 Qm� Uwa_a_w�� m Z EU - Q) + > Q W W z J 1L O M J zs U >, o U s ZmZ � Q Q O > C i O 61 U QJ vs QJ V Q :�: Zy U O 4 -N� Q O O % o o O Z Q U m u c o m M ZUmUm Z�= Z U-) cZ�I� Q � U Q� Q U > J G v� + QJ QJ -0 +� � omC p.-0 U��m0 l' m�o-I= Nils Z W W M W J O Z V Q r- N m N 0 Z Q U- 0 W N 0 z VIQ 0 Z 0 W Z 0 1 Z O F -- (Vi M C - c II II fn C- Q O II N 0 J Q 0 Q II U LU O O °E c 3 C.0 3 >O E '� W o , E <.; J 1 -E (D (D .N ° E 0= 'n II II > 0 LU Q° o O=D =D= -� OE>O�N� 0 ° ° 0 D N 0 0 z N 0 Q 0 ZCDQUO W z N m N 0 Z Q U- 0 W N 0 z VIQ 0 Z 0 W Z 0 1 Z O F -- (Vi M fn N C c V) II J Q O n � N 0 0 Q 0 0 ° LU O O II °E c 3 C.0 3 >O E '� W o , E <.; J j Q W Q W (D E 0= 'n LU O O O Z 0 OE>O�N� H U w w a D U z W N m N 0 Z Q U- 0 W N 0 z VIQ 0 Z 0 W Z 0 1 Z O F -- (Vi M r0� Rn LL 0 W J m a X O fn N C c V) �° � 0 0 Q O O N 3 N 0 Q 0 0 ° Z 0 0 N °E c 3 C.0 0 0 E '� >>� U00Lu Lu r0� Rn LL 0 W J m a X O X D c Q z? Q ° CL E Z E O 00- P 0P UN U X X z O a Z X W C 0 J W CL CLa _ Q c �° � N O Q O N Q N > 0 N E 0) (D E 0= 'n N 0 ,N U > w O 0 U Q H X D c Q z? Q ° CL E Z E O 00- P 0P UN U X X z O a Z X W C 0 J W CL CLa _ Q z O V 0 O z W F -- CL CL a V Iow 4L. � U Q� u' •y Q TD Q-) Q-) Q Q C, d O O h v1 Q � •� U �oo � °� 6 o O v °L/; v v ° 3 v N>QJ v Q G Q W c O O c E c O o L/I >v ° -u O v c °°vV u CL (G IQ -J �1 �1 Ul �1 _ _ 1 ° O QJ V QJ O E V V ' til .L QJ M � 0- v a v -u d Q i c 0 v E6 v -� r - v o °° vL/I v > V v o w U` o Q Z o v o M v ° M o w ° VCL m C� Q) v v Z v v 0'v 6 N M 61 QJ QJ O c -u W Q >� M> W c M O O -u .0 O O O Q I- O O O G FOL/I v > v QJ z V QJ v Q O 0O QJ O -E > > O N L/iv N O g i M O O � 6 O O F-- G °O 61 O > v v v � Qv vD- o ° o o O` . 6> O M� ci QJ 0 —M' vi M O d- O M QJ W v Q v E ° � O O M QCJ _ O -u QJ O +-� ci CNS QJ +-� L CQ� = V 0 vi N M CQ�J 61 �' Q ci QJ �_ QJ N L m � N QJ L ~ O L O V �i - L QJ (G L/I(G v QJ Q ° V O vim-_ O v--_ Q �G L v QJ �O N 61 V QJ 6 G Q O � QJ QJ 0 w Q 61 QJ Q Q� n v v �� o a Z U v 6 � V V v oQ E v° m o °' v v v v 0 i° aJ - c o° v U v v- v v QJ H- m- v o v v v v> �� v Q > 0 0.�d- - v u °-U QOno O :� Q QJ O v ° W Z> N G O N 6 0 E J n V — l� vQJ vQJ I o V c I� vN ` I� Q U z V L I� W E aJ Wci • • • O O O O _ V QJ O OO QJ ° G QJ O v QJ O Q v O 6 E Q V Q QJ V C vi i Q O QL QJ ::3 oO U� �� cj N E O O Q d- >, - �— w v O Q QJ ci > J v c v 0 t °ci O N Q c c> QV D� >> NO , c V QJ > Q > +6 Q QO O - Q J °C QJ i J QJ Q -o >> -0 QC �L Qvov-u 0)E o Q) v CD o v o v E >° v 6 v o v 6' v O O .� ci v° O v °�' v v 6 v Q O ° 6 v °J 6 O - 0 A N � � v O 6 O N .� v v Qo o° v C -� v o v v v v o Q vv Vod QE c 6 Q� v 4 o v v = Ov vCJ vs ti ° ° v. °~ V o O v = Q d..o v v o 6 Q v v CJ v v Q v v v v C H° .� J> o c CL�� vL/I L O v L/Iv v tiL/I .o LA Q N i =O v O L/I v Q v" O Q G p v O W ° 0 c E E O M y u_ O -u W v Q O 6 -u D >vwH� LL��° wQ< ° < > D w 0 -0)J 1— v a� v o 4� � o ., > o Co 0)v v CJ v E Q�Ci ci v ° o on v vO o O C 2 CL O v v . 61 � V V O s' C� O QJ v v V O N V QJ ,O °' N 0 Q OV >� v 6 20 N N > O QJ 20 NI— O CG N L/I G O N QJ V N OL N � 0" N O> M N ci o Yl L/I D v O C- 0 Q � i r N > ° z- > vI QJ O N Q N N vi Q) Q N G O O G N i Q N O ov N > O N N O O CJ N > c - Q QJ vv m c .O L/I N v` L/I m ° v 0 00 v ` N .0 N O � (D 61 . � E > c Q o) Q V V N N c- ci m O Q v o O -Q v N L/I N Q N ° ° - Q o 0 i -C V v� O Q .- 61 -u m N Q Q A Gr] m o .? v Q)CJ v > v Q) > O O Z o oL/Iv o o Q>;v -E� N 0 H of > O C > Q O Q O O c O O -u ,i c G C v N O v, N o N C-iZ O oo v Q o E OI �J O ci �V �v' o ' o G Ci °CJ v mo vCi O G oQ CCi o v� M (D U' o +,o d C � E Q v M v o o _ u-)Q)M v -u M� .� O� r: N M O O aJ Q M O O QJ O QJ M N QJ L N Q i N Q �_ aJ ut N N u vt C QL/I CJ E O Q c E of Q � vO -u E 6 O VO Q O D r>�, CJ O u �> .� v .� 61 v _OCJ > o OV .c G O O v Q v O O Q v QJ _� Q L/I v N O `> G v 0 >> 00 G QJ Q Q V o>. o c V N c O CLD Ci >, G v E O O O M v v O v v v M O M - O c no G Q QuE _o u v v O aJ 0 Ci v N Cj o Q O QJ 0 > O 61 vvi N O N > N v v Ci �G V < +-� V U O L 61 O u ut C- o o 0 N Q N O Q - �O v v � v j 0 6 O 6) O E Q CO O C O VL/I O N vi O +- O C Z .61 u N M i N- N M ME LuO N N Q EE t? E C G c6 v -u >v V W v Q v Q N OV Q > > c O Q QJ G J G of u O i V R N O Q vi N_ aJ - v o 6 v O Z 6 O v O c Q o - v o G1 V N v v i 6G1 Q M W V ~> .� O C;F' cE m O v u QJ Q Z .� Q v G E Q QCi 0 CJ M a� M O �� moi° uo . 6 j o ; Qo vQ 0E vo° �°O vVu -6.�vQ � °>u-m<oQ-L- E V A v Q CL J N Q o 0 N A LO / \ W \ \ / \ / / p / / / o E \ D- K y \ W / x .> ° \ / y ^ / / > 0 / / CJ y \ \ / CD / y / / .c - / ^ /_ ci E 2 / § / % ? J / � « x % / ©/ - 0 E \ / ./ / / / w § \ S % y / / y / / / \ o E � \ / / / j / a o « o E \ _ m \ d \ e° \ K e 3 . / ƒ c c .9 § Q z 2 9.g J / / / / \ �.\ / / .E f m c /2 w ® \ q / J \ C ^ / // » © / c K 3 w.- z ^ E § o » / » ® ° $ y o \ ° / z $ $ \ \ / uw«%» - ® c .k g o l d g o J § c- / / e w = ^ o 0)z » 0) % y = 2 \ E / � w / E C / \ / � / m / q / y / c / / E / 2 / \ \ § / / ƒ § / / \ / / \ / / / / / / / / / : D 2 / < / ƒ A LO / / \ \ / \ / ° / / / / D- K y \ W = x .> ° \ / y ^ / / > 0 / / CJ y \ \ / CD / y / / .c - / ^ /_ ci E 2 / § / U") ?� / � « x % / ©/ - 0 E \ / ./ / / / w § \ S % y / / / / d / \ / / / o / 2 « o E y 0 \ - \ / / / d / / ƒ A LO A v N W M v v o ff Z O N CL 0 °� o -u D => >U � LU N w .� W = N t= N J ~ N U Q Z WC W Q >CL W H CL N LC N H Z = Q W v CLJ Z J LU C Z J o zo 00 0Z 0 0 W30.5 o LL- Z W Z Z Z W M LU My OV Z 0Q 0* 1�- j > 5 o Z Z Q� P Z Q w 1— Q (D- LL. Lu �Q �W LU ��M Z yL/I° m = 0 >z Z Q Qz > 0>z Z uN.i 0 Z .� o H V WJ W 0 CLW 0 V W E o v o � v ) v Q v o v v v o J .� v v o .� E d E o .� ci °' N N> ly o o> .� o N v 6 0, N °' Q o c o o N Q Flu E o o o° v Q v Q Q Q o `n o o° v v v o m o o Q v .o o > � o �v-c, o .0 ��M vvcfi o.� Z v> Q O D 0O V N° Q O 6 >O 0 o O o v ° i > E v J 0 v o n ci v m D C o C v anici ° v 0 E o° 0 o .o v v v v�� .i- E Q v v LL o� O v O v E� Q Ov >- v - ° 0) >� v oQ° vo°,u W P-E�_ vv L O — E -c O v Q— 0 V� v�� 0�� v E o v _� o o� w v LLJ v v6vvOO o o> o� °o �Ovo� > O v Q� Q O :1 v ° N 6 N ° y � b ZS U u 6 N N V m 0 LD O 4 O V v � v o v E un L/I oO O O O N W O 6 N Z En .0 a N V VO N O v O V v O v a o o Qm �_ v .o O v o v vUn O .� OLu Q u ° v O s' vi � o) m N Ov Q v vO C 'o o o Qv E .Zo w> w w w °oO Q ° v vvo V o Qoo0- cv d f-CNC';'t m o >� 0 W z 0 1 0 LL 0 H z CW C 'W^ V Q N 5z o L Q J N 0 0 W z W z L LU 3 0 J W 0 ' z i CL 0 N W 0 CL CL Z L� W Z 0 On 0 o z z 0 Z O Q > a ao LU LU z -j0 -jZ U W O A � LU>-j WO N .4 L� F'' L -d L C O U O C N Q O A 0 Q o Q v I r v v v — m> ci > v ° o ° o v � o �0 o v v v u Q v E o° M M o o u z v v M m o Q v� Q� v i N° z Ny>v G Q O N m o °�' N ci ° O 0 > OV j G -- 6i 0- o w v O O 61 o v oIlz Qv o o E ° Q° L/I 0 - CJ v vQ Q N . v o m �_< o v o N °"° oO N �CJ O > O N -u- M �_ v N 0O O N N .� m o Q 0 N 0> O i N Q o o � > ci a� o o° v m o Q� v Q v v Q o .� v v 6 m — QJ o QJ v C o V `� N m d� OV m N G >O o v E \1 w LU CL I Lr Wn .1 . A rig AimLi rig \ } � 4qa W y © ^ 2 \ c \ \ d / E E / / w o/ �« ci z > g g y / y J 2 u y ®\ o / : / y o.z 9 0 M / ƒ % d 0 L>11 \ o / q q / « « « c ® � / / / 1-0 / E .\ o \ / wy /»./ 0 0 \ / \ 2 I / / 0 \ \ / o / \ y E 2 c o o \ f jy d 0 2 \ o / CJ : > CL = 2 C> 3 0, »/ / o / / \ ° 2 6 a D ° ° 0 d \ 2 0 / © //_ E \ / / E + \ y / .9 / § /0yl 0 o 0- > d o 2 / n A N O N Z W J � C H CL Z H h J ; J J CL N J Q CLC O J LU i W O H J O LL. Z O Z P CL W u Z N W U N J O U H > X Lu O U 0 C a z a CL z O V a 1 w LU CL a V I t 4 r jl A j N O c O l v N O Q O > O QJ Q 6 QJ O A -J N QJ E O N G O V V 6 V m >G N ci vn QJ CQ 0 V N O LN L/I N Q L �_ N vi m v Ov X m C;G 6 Q— V O N N yCJ � > > CJN M O - — CJ V QJ C= G QJ CL V> < 0- 6 Q O O N d 0' X X v QJ E CJ N O i _ r� -L/I Q O>> v v N v -u v > V P E M vi i i E �_ N N N o X m -2— CJ MG Q Ci y O d � CJ `—' v0_ � — v > � � Q QJ 0- CL QJ O v .> E m +� N G .> V O G QJ QJ O N� QJ QJ _ 0 v G N O O< O aJ N vi v--_ O - c < . X N c 0 Q + Q N0QJ QJ O 61 N +v C�l CJ Nci � m O O V QG N Q M > CJ OV (G 1-� _'_ V \.JL/I � Q O � A-� Q V TZ `' E Q) Vl M O L O ci 0c ci L, m c.O c o ri CJ 0O E N O N V o 1 E V A�- V O LL 4 ��>� ��ci <�� vv Q QJ QJ G c -C — V L/1 E+-� QJ QJ VJ Qci 6 N N 6 ci �-� � N O� N > O m N N L/IO Q O > O u G E> �O O� N O 61 N X > N N n NCJ N 0 m >O �� O Q v E Q N B QJ m O —0 Q v Q N- m Q O Q Ny "' > Q > V O v O ., ,O M 0 m O Q D- c V E N N >� Q QJ c O N O< > CJ NE O O O Q y v CJ � � -u N -u L Q - CJ .� N - CJ v O `+-(� m > i c 1L l/I v -u m vC-u � vl E L c� c -u >v�v M-0 -u u v .>�>o� E �vv�c �0�4 0 o� <0-d- �O �O O <0-:�� 0O O .} -u - 0 c I� I� V 0 C L 0 I� � ci� V U1 4- MNM W V c < J� v -C D - V O A N N a uj v W � 0 t v � �U • m � � y v v mY " v w C t 3 O A -AN 4U 7; :r I _� I L -0 m M � O IA o v, y a o r O O O 1010® CL U > a o m� CL �.. O E O =_ U +r - o '� cn+ 1 w -------- r w I �' .1- e a v � O v o v m � y v v mY " v w C t 3 O A -AN G C O n C O U Q LO N Q O A N PIA ~ CL CL J CL Z Z 0 H H Q 0 U N L0J a z W W J CL w LU CL a rr U v v 0 v o < o >v v o Q o o v v v o— v oti o Q° o cL L/Im Q o U�Cv o v CL o E Q v v° Q J N m "M m E c v o v CJ Ilu o CJ M O .� O Q o _O — v o v v v CJ v � ° voQ °v o o o U 0) .� I N V W N CL 0 CL U � 0 Z O O J H Z M O m J J � Z LL. O V - wl�m jam: Alist toe- I- �.,� rte__ �. •�f •'• 1 t ' _ ••� -~• M1 } - V` - j "`� • - �i.l�i` r i i'•�"- A N A THOUGHTFUL PERSPECTIVE FOR VAIL'S MIDDLE BENCH (Submitted 10/2/2017) TERMS & CONTEXT OF WORDS: 0 The word UPPER has two uses: Upper Bench vs. Middle Bench and........ upper Matterhorn Circle vs. lower Matterhorn Circle n Matterhorn Circle is not a circle --Geneva Drive is the missing part of the circle. 0 RETT = Real Estate Transfer Tax, initially established to purchase open lands, but its use has expanded to now include recreation and beautification --both construction & maintenance. 0 Designated Open Space became the highest level of open lands protection per a town charter amendment in 1995. HISTORY OF DONOVAN PARK MIDDLE BENCH: Three pieces of property were purchased with RETT funds in 1980. Overall they were known as Donovan Park, thanks to the leadership John Donovan, town mayor. The parcels consisted of the Lower Bench, north of Gore Creek, coupled with the Upper and Middle Benches, high up above Gore Creek against forest service land. Upper and Lower references came as a result of the upper Matterhorn Circle gravel road that ran straight through of what was really a single sloped property. In 2000, a town -wide open lands review was launched by activating an Open Space Board of Trustees. From this review, the Vail town council voted the Upper Bench to become "Designated Open Space" (DOS) --the highest level of town protection. Strong staff recommendations steered the Council to categorize the Middle Bench not as DOS, but "Park", a lesser level of protection. As a result, its status continues to be the subject of discussion for its future. SEVEN REASONS TO GIVE MIDDLE BENCH "DOS" STATUS: [1 ] RETT FUNDS INTENTION: In a world where nothing seems to be "forever", moral and legal reasoning should put an end to constant uncertainty for the future of this precious open land. [2] WILDLIFE CORRIDOR: The observed deer, moose, foxes, and birds cross over from one Bench to another easily as the upper portion of Matterhorn Circle, opposite the Middle Bench, is lightly used. This because those folks on the East end go and come east and those folks on the West end go and come west. Further, for those animals seeking access to Gore Creek, its just a short distance further down the hill over vacant land (consider purchasing with RETT funds?) or across the yards of homes. This is one of the few contiguous wildlife corridors from the woods to the river in the town of Vail! [3] A NEIGHBORHOOD IN BALANCE: Geneva Drive and most of lower Matterhorn Circle contain the most dense employee - occupied, private rental housing. In short, this mostly full-time resident neighborhood is "doing its share" in providing the needed living facilities for our workforce and where everybody gets along in this integrated YIMBY setting. But, to maintain this balance, the open space on both sides of upper Matterhorn Circle is a needed get -away respite. Especially note the high volume of neighborhood dog walkers that go up one side of the road and back on the other --with an unwritten rule that dogs are pretty much always on a leash. Further, in the winter, skiers and riders come down through the trees of the Upper Bench and most then continue on through the Middle Bench to the housing below. [4] CLOSING ACCESS TO THE ENTIRE MIDDLE BENCH: 0 Fire Department Training: During both summer and winter months the Vail Fire Department has training that involves using the fire hydrant to pump and spray on the Upper Bench --with sprays finding their way onto the Middle Bench. q Collection & Storage: Over the years a portion of upper Matterhorn Circle opposite the middle Bench is closed for weeks or months at a time as a collection point for helicopter -deposited cut trees (currently going on) or storage of landscape/road materials. [5] SUSTAINABILITY & SHOWCASING: Especially with Vail obtaining the Sustainability Certification, we need to direct our national and international visitor's attention to the many showcase features of the Town of Vail --people, places and things. In short, its frequently overlooked that our town is just as world class as its adjacent world class mountain. Clearly, the need to do a better job highlighting the foresight associated with setting aside open lands from commercial development, allowing prudent municipal development for workforce housing and a plethora of other features that many of our visitors can only dream about. [6] INPUT FROM OPEN LANDS MEETINGS: However the "sense of the community" is summarized regarding the Middle Bench, it came from a rigorous Open Lands review process -- including the multiple meetings. These were well publicized, spread out across the calendar and included opportunities for those not attending to input their thoughts by letter or email. This whole process, although not perfect, was not unlike any democracy process, where a portion of folks get involved and a portion do not. Finally, attendance at the gatherings was not amped up due to any organized get -out -to -the -meeting effort. Just inherent, organic interest, coupled with awareness that the meetings were being held from reading the paper and the town's information dissemination outlets. [7] COUNCIL ASSURANCES: Just as Councils change, the feelings of the Council regarding various positions change. One need only look at the federal scene where the status of National Monuments currently is unclear with the new administration. In short, assurances need to be "in writing." SUMMARY: After many years it should be clear "the stars are aligned" and "dots connected" to move ahead pulling together both the Middle and Upper Benches as one --protected with Designated Open Space status, just about the closest thing to the term "forever." Prepared by Paul Rondeau, after much deliberation & thought Ad #: 0000119124-01 Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLMT Your account number is: 1023233 PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the 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 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 9/22/2017 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 9/22/2017 in the issue of said newspaper In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 9/25/2017. Mark Wurzer, Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 9/25/2017. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 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 October 09, 2017 at 1:04 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. A request for the review of two (2) variances in ac- cordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Var- iances, Vail Town Code. These variances include: (1) a variance from Section 12-6B-6 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a single family home with a five foot (5') side yard setback where fifteen feet (15) is required; and (2) a var- iance from Section 14-10-4-B Architectural Projec- tions, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, to allow a deck within five feet (5) of grade with a two foot, six inch (2'-6") setback where a seven foot, six inch (7'-6") setback is re- quired, located at 307 Rockledge Road / Parcel B, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0040) Applicant: 307 Rockledge LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Matt Panfil The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend site visits. Please call 970-479- 2138 for additional information. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification, dial 711. Published September 22, 2017 in the Vail Daily. 0000119124 Ad #: 0000128069-01 Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLMT Your account number is: 1023233 PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the 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 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 10/6/2017 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 10/6/2017 in the issue of said newspaper In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 10/6/2017. Mark Wurzer, Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 10/6/2017. Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 NCs3'APY Rt}�'t� 3fY%C,1�E.5SIi}N &k�'�if•;�R�SG'sSS � �, 2�2s} PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 9, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order Site Visits 1. Commercial Ski Storage — various locations 120 min. 2. Open Lands Plan — Trails 60 min. 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an application establishing Special Devel- opment District No. 42 (Vail Mountain View Residen- ces), pursuant to Section 12-9(A), Special Develop- ment Districts, Vail Town Code, to allow for the de- velopment of a mixed use building consisting of 12 dwelling units with 15 attached accommodation units (lock -offs), 19 accommodation units and 10 employee housing units, and related uses and im- provements, located at 430 and 434 South Front- age Road (Vail Mountain View Residences on Gore Creek)/ Lot 1, Vail Village Filing 5, formerly known as part of Lot 1, a Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village Filing 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0006) 5 min. The applicant requests that this item be tabled to the October 23, 2017 regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Environmental Commission to allow further discussions with interested parties. Applicant: Lunar Vail LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Jonathan Spence 3. A request for the review of two (2) variances in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. These variances in- clude: (1) a variance from Section 12-613-6 Set- backs, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a single family home with a five foot (5') side yard setback where fifteen feet (15') is required; and (2) a variance from Section 14-10-4-B Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Win- dows, Etc., Vail Town Code, to allow a deck within five feet (5') of grade with a two foot, six inch (2'-6") setback where a seven foot, six inch (7'-6") setback is required, located at 307 Rockledge Road / Parcel B, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth de- tails in regard thereto. (PEC17-0040) 30 min. Applicant: 307 Rockledge LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Matt Panfil 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 12-2-2, Definitions of Words and Terms, Vail Town Code, to amend and clarify the definitions of Commercial Ski Storage, Ski Club, First Floor or Street Level, and Basement or Garden Level; to create a new definition for Ski Stor- age Lockers; to amend Section 12-14-21 Outdoor Display of Goods concerning ski racks, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0042) 90 min. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker 5. Approval of Minutes September 25, 2017 PEC Meeting Results 6. Informational Update Open Lands Plan Update — Trails 45 min. 7. Adjournment The applications and information about the propos- als are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Devel- opment 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 Com- mission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479- 2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meet- ing time. Community Development Department Published in the Vail Daily October 6, 2017 0000128069