HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-19 A Resolution Approving the Update to the Vail Land Use Plan Associated with the Rezoning of Lot 4, Middle Creek Subdivision, a Resubdivision of Tract A1
RESOLUTION NO. 19
SERIES 2024
A RESOLUTION OF THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL APPROVING THE
UPDATE TO THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE
REZONING OF LOT 4, MIDDLE CREEK SUBDIVISION, A
RESUBDIVISION OF TRACT A
WHEREAS, the Town is in the process of acquiring the real property more
particularly described and depicted in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference (the "Property");
WHEREAS, on November 18, 1986, the Vail Town Council adopted the Vail Land
Use Plan, via Resolution 27, Series of 1986;
WHEREAS, on February 26, 2024, the Town filed an application to rezone the
Property from undesignated and General Use to Housing (H) and to update the Vail Land
Use Plan accordingly (the "Application");
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2024, the Planning and Environmental Commission (the
"PEC") held a properly-noticed public hearing on the Application, and recommended that
the Town Council approve the Application; and
WHEREAS, on April 16, 2024, the Town Council held a properly-noticed public
hearing on the Application, and approved the rezoning of the Property to Housing (H).
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO:
Section 1. The Town Council hereby approves the update to the Vail Land Use
Plan as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
The update shall become effective upon the effective date of the ordinance rezoning the
Property to Housing (H).
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16th DAY OF APRIL,
2024.
Travis Coggin, Mayor
ATTEST:
Stephanie Bibbens, Town Clerk
2
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description of Property
Lot 4 Middle Creek Subdivision, A Resubdivision of Tract A
3
EXHIBIT B
Land Use Plan Amendment
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 25, 2024
SUBJECT: A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Vail Land
Use Plan map amendment, pursuant to Section 8-3, Amendment Process,
Vail Land Use Plan, to change the designation of the proposed Lot 4,
currently located at Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision, from Open Space
and Public/Semi-Public to High Density Residential. (PEC24-0007)
Applicants: Town of Vail and Corum Real Estate Group
Planner: Greg Roy
I. SUMMARY
The applicants, Town of Vail and Corum Real Estate Group, are requesting a
recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Vail Land Use Plan map amendment,
pursuant to Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail Land Use Plan, to change the
designation of the proposed Lot 4, currently located at Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision,
from Open Space and Public/Semi-Public to High Density Residential.
d in Section Vl of this memorandum and
the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department
recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation
of approval to the Vail Town Council.
With a concurrent Minor Subdivision application, a piece of right-of-way that is being
purchased by the Town is being proposed to have the same land use of High Density
Residential as the remainder of the proposed lot 4.
II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicant is proposing to amend the land use for portions of Tract A Middle Creek
Subdivision from Open Space and Public/Semi-Public to High Density Residential.
Currently, the developed portions of the Middle Creek Subdivision consist of Middle Creek
Town of Vail Page 2
Housing, Residences at Main Vail, and the telecom tower. The portions of the site that
are proposed for land use amendment are not developed and are currently vacant.
The maps below show existing and proposed Land Use Designations. It also shows the
proposed Lot 4 in the dashed line, including the portion of the right-of-way that is being
purchased by the Town and incorporated into the lot:
Included with this memorandum as attachments are the following for review by the
commission:
A. Proposed Land Use Amendment Map
B. Applicant Narrative 3-25-2024
C. Terracon EIR 2-12-2022
D. Terracon EIR Summary 2-12-2022
E. Hazard Map
F. Slope Analysis
Town of Vail Page 3
IlI. BACKGROUND
The property was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1968 with Ordinance No. 8, Series of
1969. In 1974, the property was deeded to the Town of Vail, as part of an agreement with
Vail Associates Inc. The land use is believed to have been enacted with the original
annexation of the property. In 2002 the property was subdivided to create Lots 1 and 2 to
hold the Middle Creek Housing and the site of the telecom tower. In 2020 Lot 3 was
subdivided out of the larger Lot 1.
In 2001, the PEC recommended approval of the land use change and rezoning of Lot 1
to accommodate the Middle Creek Housing project. Originally the site had a land use
designation of Open Space and was amended to be High Density Residential. Similarly,
the original zoning was Natural Area Preservation and the site was rezoned to Housing.
In 2022, the Town processed a minor subdivision application to create a lot 4 and lot 5
over the existing Tract A. This was accompanied by a land use plan amendment to
change the land use from Open Space to Public/Semi-Public and High Density
Residential, and a zone district boundary amendment to change the zoning from Natural
Area Preservation to Housing and General Use. The land use amendment and zone
district boundary amendment were subsequently approved by Town Council. The Minor
Subdivision was approved by the PEC, but the plat was never recorded by Town Staff,
thus the approved lots were not created, and that approval has since lapsed. This left the
condition of multiple land uses and zone districts on the Tract A parcel.
IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Town
Code are relevant to the review of this proposal:
Vail Land Use Plan (in part)
Chapter ll Land Use Plan Goals/Policies
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.
1.6. Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not
highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and
developed with sensitivity to the environment.
Town of Vail Page 4
1.7. New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas.
1.10. Development of Town owned lands by the Town of Vail (other than parks and open
space) may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public
use.
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.
5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts,
assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions.
5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range
of housing types.
5.5. The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional
employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the
community.
6. Community Services
6.2. The Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth
with
services.
Chapter Vlll Implementation
2. Key Goals
B. Residential Uses
1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted
areas.
2. New subdivisions should not be permitted in proven high geologic hazard areas.
3. Development proposals on the hillsides may be appropriate, in a limited number of
cases, for low density residential uses. These proposals would need to be evaluated on
a case-by-case basis, with development being carefully controlled as to sensitivity to the
environment and visibility from the Valley floor.
Town of Vail Page 5
E. General Growth and Development
5. Development may also be appropriate on Town-owned lands by the Town of Vail (other
than park and open space) where:
a. No high geologic hazards exist; and
b. Such development is for public use.
Chapter Vlll Implementation
3. Amendment Process
periodic updates to reflect current thinking and changing market conditions. The process
includes amendments which may be initiated in any of the following three ways:
A. By the Community Development Department
B. By the Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council
C. By the private sector
A. Community Development Department Amendments
The Community Development Department should update and revise the Plan every three
to five years, whenever possible. However, if the plan is not updated within such time
frame, this shall not jeopardize the validity of the plan. This should include analysis of the
goals and policies; update of the forecasting model and review and revision of the Land
Use Plan map. The Community Development Department would then make
recommendation for proposed changes to the Planning and Environmental Commission
where these changes would then be considered in a public hearing format. The Planning
and Environmental Commission would then make recommendations to the Town Council,
which would also hold a public hearing on the proposed changes. If adopted, the changes
would then become a part of the Plan.
B. Planning and Environment Commission or Town Council Amendments
These entities could also initiate plan amendments periodically, as deemed appropriate.
These amendments would also require public hearings with both the Commission and the
Council, and upon adoption then become a part of the Plan.
4. Proposed Land Use Categories
HDR High Density Residential
The housing in this category would typically consist of multi-floored structures with
densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable acre. Other activities in this category
Town of Vail Page 6
would include private recreational facilities, and private parking facilities and institution/
public uses such as churches, fire stations and parks and open space facilities.
OS Open Space
Passive recreation areas such as greenbelts, stream corridors and drainageways are the
types of areas in this category. Hillsides which were classified as undevelopable due to
high hazards and slopes over 40% are also included in this area. These hillside areas
would still be allowed types of development permitted by existing zoning, such as one
unit per 35 acres, for areas in agricultural zoning. Also, permitted in this area would be
institutional / public uses.
PSP Public / Semi-Public
The public and semi-public category includes schools, post office, water and sewer
service and storage facilities, cemeteries, municipal facilities, and other public institutions,
which are located throughout the community to serve the needs of residents.
.
V. SITE ANALYSIS
Address: 199 North Frontage Road West
Legal Description: Lot 4, Middle Creek Subdivision a Resubdivision of
Tract A (proposed PEC24-0010)
Existing Zoning: Natural Area Preservation (NAP) District, General
Use (GU)
Proposed Zoning: Housing (H) District (PEC24-0008)
Land Use Plan Designation: Open Space, High Density Residential and
Public/Semi-Public
Proposed Land Use Designation: High Density Residential
Geological Hazards: Moderate Hazard Debris Zone and Medium Severity
Rockfall
Vl. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Existing Use Zone District
North: US Forest Land NA
South: Lionshead
Redevelopment
Master Plan
General Use (GU)/Lionshead Mixed Use 1
East: Open Space, High
Density Residential,
Public/semi-public
Natural Area Preservation (NAP), General Use (GU), and
Housing(H)
West: Open Space, Medium
Density Residential
Natural Area Preservation (NAP), Housing
Town of Vail Page 7
VIl. REVIEW CRITERIA
Any amendments to the Land Use Plan require a public process. Adjacent properties are
notified, and the Planning and Environmental Commission holds a public hearing and
makes a recommendation to the Town Council on the proposal. The Town Council adopts
the changes by resolution. Any changes to the Land Use Plan must address the following
three criteria:
1. How conditions have changed since the plan was adopted
The Vail Land Use Plan was originally adopted in 1986 and updated in 2009. Since that
time, there have been several approvals and subsequent development in the immediate
area that have changed the area.
In 2001, the Vail Town Council, upon a recommendation from the Planning and
Environmental Commission, approved a land use amendment, rezoning, and subdivision
for the original Middle Creek Housing site. At that time the entire property was in the Open
Space land use category and zoned Natural Area Preservation. The approved
amendments and the subsequent development of the lot is a change from 1969 when the
plan was originally adopted. That is an example of how the need for housing spurred a
change that the Land Use Plan did not contemplate at the time it was adopted. Likewise,
today there is further increase in the need for housing that was not present at the time of
the last update of the Land Use Plan.
Staff finds that the proposed land use amendment meets this criterion.
2. How the plan is in error
The original land use plan adopted in 1986 had this designated area to be changed to
High Density Residential and the adjacent Middle Creek site designated as open space.
A portion of that has since been amended and is recognized as suitable for high density
residential. Staff believes the 1986 plan did not foresee the current housing challenges
and that because the site is directly adjacent to the right-of-way, this land is also suitable
for high density residential and other public/semi-public uses and should be re-evaluated
for the current needs of the Town.
As the need for housing has increased, the reassessment of previously designated sites
has been needed to determine if there are areas of specific sites that might be suitable
for development. The subject areas of the lot proposed for the land use change were
identified by the applicant team as developable portions.
The amendment and development of Middle Creek followed by the additional
development of Residences at Main Vail supports the position that the area adjacent to
the frontage road is a suitable location for development.
Town of Vail Page 8
Previously the land use plan was amended to add the Public/Semi-Public land use to
Tract A with the intent that there would be a child care center located there in the future.
This use did not materialize and makes the land use change to Public/Semi-Public no
longer relevant to the proposed use. The resulting study over the past two years since
that approval determined the best use for this land would be residential housing. This
application proposed to amend that error and change that land use to be more
appropriate.
Staff finds that the proposed land use amendment meets this criterion.
3. How the addition, deletion, or change to the plan is in concert with the plan in
general
Staff has identified the following objectives and goals, which staff believes are relevant to
this proposal from the Vail Land Use Plan.
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.
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.
5.3. Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by
limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions.
5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of
housing types.
5.5. The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional
employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community.
Staff finds that the proposed land use amendment meets this criterion.
VIIl. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of this memorandum and the
evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department
recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission forward a recommendation
of approval to the Vail Town Council for a Vail Land Use Plan map amendment, pursuant
to Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail Land Use Plan, to change the designation of
the proposed Lot 4, including the area of the right-of-way to be incorporated into lot 4,
Town of Vail Page 9
currently located at Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision, from Open Space and
Public/Semi-Public to High Density Residential and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a
recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council, the Community Development
Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion:
forwards a recommendation of
approval to the Vail Town Council for a Vail Land Use Plan map amendment,
pursuant to Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail Land Use Plan, to change the
designation of the proposed Lot 4, currently located at Tract A, Middle Creek
Subdivision, from Open Space and Public/Semi-Public to High Density
Residential
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward this
recommendation of approval, the Community Development Department recommends
the Commission makes the following findings:
d in Section Vll of the Staff
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated March 25th,
2024, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental
Commission finds:
1. That the amendment is consistent with the adopted goals, objectives and
policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and compatible with the
development objectives of the town; and
2. That the amendment does further the general and specific purposes of the
zoning regulations; and
3. That the amendment does promote the health, safety, morals, and general
welfare of the town and promote the coordinated and harmonious development
of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment
and its established character as a resort and residential community of the
IX. ATTACHMENTS
A. Proposed Land Use Amendment Map
B. Applicant Narrative 3-25-2024
C. Terracon EIR 2-12-2022
D. Terracon EIR Summary 2-12-2022
E. Hazard Map
F. Slope Analysis
Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes
Monday, March 25, 2024
1:00 PM
Vail Town Council Chambers
Present:Robert N Lipnick
William A Jensen
Scott P McBride
John Rediker
Henry Pratt
Robyn Smith
Absent: Brad Hagedorn
1. Virtual Link
Register to attend the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Once registered,
you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining this webinar.
2. Call to Order
3. Worksession
3.1
A work session of the Planning and Environmental Commission to review a
Major Exterior Alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7B-7 Exterior Alterations or
Modifications, Vail Town Code for a new mixed-use building located at 17 Vail
Road, Vail Village Filing No. 2, Lot G. (PEC24-0011)
Work session Memo 3-25-24.pdf
PEC Worksession.pdf
Attachment A. Vicinity Map Firstbank.pdf
The applicants are represented by Jim Telling and Lou Bieker. They introduce the proposed
project. They give a presentation about the existing context and zoning standards. They walk
through the proposed site plan, parking, units on site, landscaping, and floor plans.
PEC expresses concerns that there is enough customer parking.
Applicants walk through the contemplated materials and architecture.
Rediker asks for public comment.
Matthew Wyatt represents the Vail Religious Foundation. CC1 does not allow for surface parking. He
talks about the terms of the parking easement agreement. They have concerns about the public
access and parking.
Michelle Taylor is with the Villa Cortina board. There is a concern about how close the new building is
to the property line. There wouldn’t be a problem if the large trees were to remain. The underground
garage to the property line will endanger the old trees in that area. She talks about the surface parking
on the north of the site, and access in the area.
Rediker asks for commissioner comments.
McBride has concerns about congestion, egress and ingress, shading, and public access to bank.
Jensen has concerns about the parking setup and management. The current maturity of the
landscape provides a lot of value for the community.
2
Smith thanks applicants for efforts to conform with zoning regulations. If the trees will have to go, it’s
better to acknowledge it up front. The standards are applied consistently and appropriately regardless
of ownership. From a public perspective, ideally there isn’t a surface lot on the corner of that street.
Lipnick says the idea is great, reiterates concern about five surface parking spaces. Concerned about
access to residences, working out concerns with neighbors. What does the Town think about the
four spaces they own?
Pratt discloses his company’s name is on old First Bank drawings, he never worked on it. He has long
history of working with applicants, no financial interest in this, it’s his last meeting. Biggest issues are
with parking and loading; going from 11-12 surface spaces to 5-6. The snow storage is designed to
meet the letter of the law, will have practical difficulties. Deliveries in this little lot will inhibit parking,
CC1 requires you to take care of loading and delivery on site.
Rediker says he would like a better understanding of the roof plan and roof heights, and how the
design guide fits in it. Also raise no net loss landscaping, loading and delivery, neighbor concerns. If
issues can be worked out with neighbors in advance it is good outcome for everybody. Also concerns
with parking and congestion. He talks about the standards of CC1 with regard to setbacks and fire
resistant landscaping.
3.2
A work session of the Planning and Environmental Commission to review the
West Vail Master Plan – Chapter 2: West Vail Center for the future prescribed
regulations amendment application
Presenter: Matt Gennett, Community Development Director
Memo WVMP Phase 2 PEC 032524.pdf
West Vail Presentation.pdf
Community Development Director Gennett offers to table the item.
Robert N Lipnick made a motion to Table to the April 15, 2024 meeting; Scott P McBride seconded the
motion Passed (5-0).
4. Main Agenda
4.1 A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6H -6 Setbacks, Vail Town
Code in accordance with the provisions of Section 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town
Code, to allow for the alteration of the front entry stair and roof within the front
setback, located at 114 Willow Road, Vail Village Filing 1 Block 6 Lot 7, Riva Ridge
Chalets South and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC23-0030)
Planner: Heather Knight
Applicant Name: Riva Ridge Chalets South, represented by Pierce Austin Architects
PEC23-0030_StaffMemo.pdf
Attachment A - PAA Project Narrative.pdf
Attachment B - PEC23-0030 Architectural.pdf
Attachment C - Vicinity Map.pdf
Planner Knight gives a presentation on the request. She talks about the context, zoning, and site plan.
Public Works does not have any concerns with the proposal.
Rediker says the building is encroaching on the setbacks, were the setbacks changed at some point?
3
William Pierce and Jordan Kalasnik with Pierce Austin Architects are representing the applicant.
The zoning and setbacks were retroactively applied to the building as it predated the current
zoning.
Smith asks if the neighborhood has had similar variances for setbacks. Knight confirms.
The applicants give a presentation.
Jensen asks about landscaping. Kalasnik says a tree would be removed that doesn’t meet fire
code, along with concrete planter boxes, and new planter boxes will be installed.
Smith asks if the deck above the entryway is changing. Kalasnik says no. The encroachment is
approximately 2.5 feet, they’re looking at this as an architectural feature and to improve the
safety of the stairs by protecting them.
Rediker asks for public comment. There is none.
Rediker looked at criteria, setbacks applied retroactively creates a lot of difficulties. Agrees with
staff analysis that criteria are met.
Robert N Lipnick made a motion to Approve with the findings on page 11 of the staff report; Scott
P McBride seconded the motion Passed (6 - 0).
4.2 A request for review of a Minor Subdivision, pursuant to Section 13-4, Minor
Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to create Lot 4, Middle Creek Subdivision,
located at Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision. (PEC24-0010)
Planner: Greg Roy
Applicant Name: Town of Vail and Corum Real Estate Group
PEC24-0010 Staff memorandum.pdf
Attachment A. Final Plat dated 2-22-2024.pdf
Attachment B. Applicant Narrative 3-25-24.pdf
Attachment D. Terracon EIR Summary 2-12-2022.pdf
Attachment C. Terracon EIR 2-12-2022.pdf
Attachment E. Hazards Map.pdf
Attachment F. Slope Analysis.pdf
Attachment G. Vicinity Map Minor Subdivision.pdf
Planner Roy introduces the request. He walks through the history and proposed plat.
Rediker asks if there are utilities in the easement. Roy says he will have to check with ERWSD for
more details. They are looking to extend their lines on the north side of the frontage road related to
this project.
Roy continues with presentation. He walks through criteria and proposed conditions, proposing
to change the timing on some conditions.
Rediker asks for more information about the Open Lands plan.
Roy says it was done in 2018, this was not among those because it was looking at all of Tract A,
but it also didn’t have lot 4 separated out at that time. Open Lands Plan may have had a different
position if that lot was created at that time.
Pratt asks if there is a copy of the previous plat. Roy says he can indicate the areas in the presentation.
The applicant team is represented by George Ruther, Eric Komppa, Jesse Adkins, and
.
Ruther gives an introduction and talks about the history. At the direction of Council, Community
Development did a feasibility study of developing housing on that site and a determination that a portion
4
of Tract A was a developable lot. The 30-foot easement with ERWSD does not have anything in it today,
and is being vacated on this plat. Future improvements would be in the right of way. They are proposing
to change timing of the conditions from the recordation of plat to the building permit.
Rediker asks for public comment. There is none.
Lipnick reviewed criteria and is in support.
Jensen supports this, but it is stressful with the outstanding issues and impending closing. Roy clarifies
the ERWSD concerns.
Rediker asks about the current zoning.
Pratt says in 2022 he did not agree with this and still doesn’t. It does not meet criteria #7. The Open
Lands plan does not identify this as developable land. It does not meet criteria 8 and the preservation
of hillsides. What was approved in 2022 was supposed to be focused on the eastern part of this. Not
in favor of this.
Smith agrees with Lipnick. This meets the criteria as it relates to the minor subdivision.
McBride appreciates staff’s findings in the memo. There is a difference now between what was
addressed in the 2018 Open Lands plan. He echoes Jensen’s comments that this feels rushed, it’s
not ideal to be put in that situation.
Rediker confirms none of this goes forward unless there is a title report.
Scott P McBride made a motion to Approve with the findings and conditions on page 16 of the
staff report and amending conditions 2, 3, and 4, replacing “prior to recording of the plat” with
“prior to applying for a building permit” and amending condition 1, replacing “prior to the
issuance of” with “prior to applying for”; Robert N Lipnick seconded the motion Passed (5 - 1).
Voting For: William A Jensen, Robert N Lipnick, Robyn Smith, John Rediker, Scott P McBride
Voting Against: Henry Pratt
4.3
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a review of a Vail Land
Use Plan map amendment, pursuant to Section 8-3, Amendment Process, Vail Land
Use Plan, to change the designation of the proposed Lot 4, currently located at Tract A,
Middle Creek Subdivision, from Open Space and Public/Semi-Public to High Density
Residential. (PEC24-0007)
Planner: Greg Roy
Applicant Name: Town of Vail and Corum Real Estate Group
PEC24-0007 Staff Memorandum.pdf
Attachment A. Proposed Land Use Amendment.pdf
Attachment C. Terracon EIR 2-12-2022.pdf
Attachment B. Applicant Narrative 3-25-24.pdf
Attachment D. Terracon EIR Summary 2-12-2022.pdf
Attachment E. Hazards Map.pdf
Attachment F. Slope Analysis.pdf
Items 4.3 and 4.4 are heard concurrently.
Planner Roy gives an introduction.
Rediker asks if an update is needed for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Roy says an update
may be appropriate, but the significant findings would not be expected to change.
Jensen says if this was a non-governmental developer, how would this go. Could an updated EIR be a
condition. Roy says that could be appropriate.
5
Rediker thinks an update is appropriate, wants to understand that the impacts will not become
more acute.
Pratt says the proposal includes a 60-foot cut on the west end, which could have impacts as well.
Smith says it was a little bit unusual when that EIR was requested at the time. If it was a
private developer, we would have waited until there was a development to evaluate.
Roy says that’s correct; it was a general evaluation.
Smith wants to make sure we’re asking for the information we need and asking for it at the right time.
Is there a way for the administrator to ask for an update of the environmental impacts that are of
concern and driven by the development plan.
Jensen suggests recommending to council that the EIR be revisited with this new information.
Rediker says he has a difficult time seeing the criteria being met, without assurances on the EIR.
Ruther says regarding the land use criteria, it doesn’t need to be something in error for the planning
commissions to approve this. We don’t believe it’s in error, just that conditions have changed. There
are demonstrated results of the need for housing from the last 50 years, identify sites for future
housing that may have been overlooked in the past. He talks about the history of the site. We know
now more today about these sites, than when the application came through. The EIR can be
updated, but that original also looked at the surrounding areas above and to the west of lots four and
five. He talks about the soils report.
McBride says we’re increasing Lot 4, what’s the best answer to say this is justified to take away
open space.
Ruther says that was one of the considerations Council had when Community Development was
directed to identify sites for housing in the community. There is the consideration that not all open
space was created equally, and the Town has since amended its development regulations. The Town
knows more today about that specific space than when it was put into the NAP zone district.
McBride says given the original and proposed size of lot 4, what is the difference in employee
housing that is available?
Ruther says the original approval were in the range of 150-175 dwelling units, with the added land
area the design was increased to 260-270 dwelling units.
Jensen says another town had two types of open space, and housing development were permitted
within one designation. Something to think about.
Roy talks about the difference between designated open space and NAP zoning.
Smith is on the open lands board. The Town has looked at the designations over time, many
parcels have changed zoning and land use. This parcel has not been identified as highly
environmentally sensitive.
Rediker asks about the application in 2022. Ruther clarifies. The General Use (GU) designation was
put in place so that it could accommodate customary or incidental uses if that was deemed desirable.
Roy and Smith discuss uses in GU and Housing district.
Rediker asks about the regulatory buffers around Middle Creek.
Roy states that in terms of the lot and stream setbacks, the more restrictive measure applies.
Rediker’s wants to make sure there are no more negative impacts to the watershed.
6
Roy says the EIR looked at water quality issues and included best management practices for
mitigation. It appears the access road will be on that side of the lot, snow storage will be another
consideration in that area.
Smith asks how these concerns can be incorporated.
Roy says it can be included in the recommendation to council.
Jensen says the reality is we’re only making a recommendation here. He likes the language of
when a building permit is issued, so it knows what we’re dealing with.
Ruther says they have been sensitive not mixing the development application with the land use
applications. But for context, the nearest building to is roughly 200 feet from the two year flood line.
There is also an environmental sustainability group on the development team. If you recommend the
EIR be updated, suggest that it is prior to applying for building permits.
Lipnick asks how long would the EIR update take?
Ruther says he’s hopeful it could be done in 6-8 weeks, but he doesn’t know the schedule for sure.
We are supportive of an updated EIR, let’s get it at the appropriate time.
Rediker asks if there is anything further to share regarding the slope analysis.
Ruther says in order to address this housing problem, we’re all forced to deal with the more
challenging and constraining sites, valley wide.
Rediker asks for public comment. There is none.
Pratt disagrees that these are developable sites that we need to build housing. The process to get
here is death by one thousand cuts. The proposal has changed, the Town has removed 40% slope
restrictions, removed the PEC from review, and changed retaining wall heights. We’re looking at a
building with 60-foot-high retaining walls, and a hillside that has been identified as open space. As we
go through housing projects, we need to deal with quality-of-life issues. We’re rushing headlong into
this, especially given that the future is changing so fast. Agrees we need housing, but this isn’t the
place and the process has been railroaded.
Lipnick says the critical issue in this valley is housing. The lots above the North Frontage Road
have been identified as opportunities, he supports this project. There are things that need to be
updated but supports housing in this town. Others have suggested housing down valley, but it
brings into play commuting and parking issues. Having housing in the town is critical.
Smith finds that the criteria has been met for the land use and zone district boundary amendment.
She hears what Pratt says, but every time we’ve had the opportunity to infill housing in residential
neighborhoods the argument has always been just not here, not now. And now 40 years later, we
have reached a crisis point. We know it is large, high-density housing. It meets the criteria, there is a
valid opportunity to get another look at the EIR, that is a separate consideration.
7
Rediker believes the criteria is met in 4.3. He is struggling with 4.4, which has different set of criteria.
He has concerns with criteria 5. The PEC has a desire to update the EIR and design to have minimal
impacts on west middle creek. Concerned about changing zoning without assurances the proper
protections will be in place in terms of protecting the natural environment.
Robyn Smith made a motion to Recommend for approval with the findings on page 9 of the staff
report; Robert N Lipnick seconded the motion Passed (5 - 1).
Voting For: William A Jensen, Robert N Lipnick, Robyn Smith, John Rediker, Scott P McBride
Voting Against: Henry Pratt
4.4 A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a zone district
boundary amendment, pursuant to Section 12- 3-7, Amendment, Vail Town
Code, to allow for the rezoning of the proposed Lot 4 currently located at Tract
A, Middle Creek Subdivision, from the General Use (GU) and Natural Area
Preservation (NAP) Districts to the Housing (H) District. (PEC24-0008)
Planner: Greg Roy
Applicant Name: Town of Vail and Corum Real Estate Group
Attachment A. Zone District Amendment Map.pdf
Attachment B. Applicant Narrative 3-25-24.pdf
Attachment C. Terracon EIR 2-12-2022.pdf
Attachment D. Terracon EIR Summary 2-12-2022.pdf
Attachment E. Hazards Map.pdf
Attachment F. Slope Analysis.pdf
PEC24-0008 Staff Memo.pdf
Robyn Smith made a motion to Recommend for approval with the findings on page 13 of the staff
report; Robert N Lipnick seconded the motion Passed (4 - 2).
Voting For: William A Jensen, Robert N Lipnick, Robyn Smith, Scott P McBride
Voting Against: Henry Pratt, John Rediker
4.5
A request for review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town
Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for
retaining walls in excess of fifteen feet (15’) in height located on the proposed Lot 4,
currently located at Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision (PEC24-0009)
Planner: Greg Roy
Applicant Name: Town of Vail and Corum Real Estate Group
PEC24-0009 Staff Memo.pdf
Attachment A. Variance Vicinity Map.pdf
Attachment B. Applicant Narrative 3-25-24.pdf
Attachment C. Project Plans.pdf
Attachment D. Slope Analysis.pdf
Roy introduces the request. He reviews the site plan, sections, and criteria.
Smith asks if this is the first applicant subject to the 15-foot regulations? Roy confirms. Smith asks
procedural questions.
8
Ruther addresses criteria 2, we don’t believe there is special privilege. In the absence of a variance
approval, the applicant is denied the chance granted for housing in other areas. In no instances are the
walls any taller than necessary to achieve development objectives. Timber Ridge, Lionsridge, Solar Vail,
and West Middle Creek face the same challenges. When it’s time to address the housing needs, only
the most physical challenging sites are left.
Adkins, Komppa, and Mason Talkington give a presentation discussing site considerations, like
technical considerations, maintaining setbacks to property lines, fire access, and site constraints.
The proposal could meet the 15-foot requirements, but they are requesting relief for the modular
approach to improve the qualitative aspect, and break down the scale of the walls. The monolithic
approach meets the criteria height criteria, but the DRB was not pleased aesthetically.
PEC and applicants discuss the heights and details of the modular approach.
They discuss the considerations of the bus stop and associated walls. Discussion of terraced areas
and how that plays into variance request.
Pratt asks how the wall will be perceived from the frontage road. Adkins says the modulation will
help mitigate the visual impact.
Rediker asks about why there is an elevator. It is for ADA considerations.
Pratt asks if the Town was interested in running the bus up the drive with that many beds.
Ruther says they were interested, there were challenges with accessibility. If the town could get
the busses up there, we would prefer to have them on site.
Smith says the user experience for the rider should also be considered.
Ruther says the Town is also considering an employee express route which would improve on
the experience.
Smith asks about the mobility plan and if it will come back to PEC. Roy says it will depend on the
parking accommodations and count if it will require a mobility plan.
Smith asks about solar. The applicants are exploring that possibility in a couple of areas.
Jensen absolutely thinks the aesthetic approach is a better result. They have made a
convincing argument for the modulation.
Rediker asks for public comment.
Steve Lindstrom is with the VLHA. There has been a big design evolution, he is encouraged by the
evolution, when you see it in action that’s what makes it worthwhile. This is making the best out of one
of these tough sites that is left.
Douglas Smith is in West Vail. He is in favor of anything we can do to strengthen and support the
bus system.
Pratt is opposed to the project, but he does applaud this approach.
Lipnick says there will be greater access to the residents, and the requested design of the walls is better.
Smith says the intent of the Housing code change, was to free the PEC from variance requests regarding
wall height. The variance process isn’t well set up to be subjective and discretionary. Agrees this is
probably a better design but we should stick with the criteria or change it. It fails to meet the criteria.
Rediker references criteria 2. He respects staff analysis, but the request is achieving compatibility
with the objectives of Title 12. References 12-1, these purposes are being satisfied with these slight
9
deviations in certain areas.
William A Jensen made a motion to Approve with the conditions and findings on page 9 and 10 of
the staff report; Robert N Lipnick seconded the motion Passed (4 - 1) (McBride absent).
Voting For: William A Jensen, Robert N Lipnick, Henry Pratt, John Rediker
Voting Against: Robyn Smith
5. Approval of Minutes
5.1 PEC Results 3-11-24
PEC_Results_3-11-24.pdf
Robert N Lipnick made a motion to Approve ; Robyn Smith seconded the motion Passed (5 - 0)
(McBride absent).
6. Information Update
Roy and Rediker thanks Pratt for his years of service on Town boards.
7. Adjournment
Henry Pratt made a motion to Adjourn ; Robert N Lipnick seconded the motion Passed (5 - 0)
(McBride absent).
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of March 25, 2024