- I'd like to call to order the July 27th meeting
of the Town of Vail Planning Environmental Commission.
We have four commissioners present in the room.
Do we have any online?
We may have one or two more joining us here,
but we are past one,
so we have a quorum and I would like to get going.
The first item on our agenda
is 3.1 has been withdrawn.
There's no action for us needed on that, correct?
- Correct. Yeah.
- Okay. So the next item, our agenda is 3.2.
Request for review of variances from section 12 dash six C
dash six setback section 12 dash six C nine,
site coverage in section 14 dash six seven, retaining walls
of downtown codes Pursu in the chapter of 17,
variance is Title 12 L town code to allow a garage addition
and basement level living space within the required front
and side yard setbacks,
an increase in allowable site coverage,
retaining wall height, exceeding exposed face height
of three feet in the front setback located at 4 42 59 nugget
lane, big ho estates townhouses, lot two
a re subdivision lots 10 and 11.
It's PC file 26 deaths 13.
I'd also like to note for the record
that Commissioner Jensen is also present.
Also as a reminder to everyone, we will be hearing
to our rules of order
and time limits for today for applicants in public comment.
The planner on the file is Cole.
Cole Diva presentation for us.
- I do. Thank you. Yep.
And I'll have Michael come up here too
and I'll give a short presentation
and then I'll hand it off to Michael.
So these variances we kind
of looked at at the last meeting
and you guys had some comments for Michael to go back
and kind of rework some of his requests.
So I'll go over some of the changes that have happened
as well as what hasn't really changed
from his initial request.
So just to kind of orient ourselves, this project is located
in Eastvale on Nugget Lane.
It is just south of Bighorn Road.
It's accessed by a single lane bridge that takes you over
to Nugget Lane in the Glen Falls neighborhood over there.
Staff would like to note that I, I did some research
and did a lot more digging on the
variances in this neighborhood.
And this is quite a trove of variances in the neighborhood.
And so there were about 15 plus variances
that have been granted in this
neighborhood since the seventies.
So just something to note,
I know commissioners had some questions about other
variances in the neighborhood going into the request from
the applicant and oops, there we go.
And what's being requested as of of today?
So the first request is a variance of setbacks to allow
for the garage to be built into the front
and the east side yard setback as well as the
below grade encroachment that already exists
as crawl space currently,
but the applicant is requesting
to dig out the already existing crawlspace
into basement livable area.
And then second is a variance for site coverage on the lot.
That would be an increase from 20% to approximately 23%
from when you last saw it.
It did decrease but not enough to really sway
that percentage too much.
And then third, that variance,
which was originally requested
for retaining wall height in the front setback
to be higher than three feet exposed
is no longer being tried for today.
So in the motion you can read in the approved motion,
that will be not something a part of
that in the denial motion.
It will be still a part of the motion.
So just something to note.
The retaining walls will no longer,
is no longer being requested today
for being higher than three feet.
Just to kind of point that out,
the applicant did give us kind of those
retaining wall heights
and I'll kind of zoom in here just
to show those have not changed
or those have changed to be lower than or at three feet.
- Three - Feet and then three feet as well.
And we'll take a look at those renderings to kind of see how
that has shifted the, the kind of grading
that was being proposed in the initial variance request,
the, the grading that the applicant was proposing would've
kind of shielded the garage a bit more.
The mass of this additional garage
and the front setback has been kind of taken away due
to the retaining walls dropping in height.
So
And so just kind of going over this really nice diagram kind
of showing those setbacks.
The applicant also was able to take those side yard setbacks
that previously had been at zero
on the east side yard setback has now been moved closer
to the five foot off of the property line,
pretty much in line with the already
existing encroachment into the setback from the basement.
So this green shaded area is that already existing
below grade encroachment into the setback?
This home was previously a part of Eagle County
and when it was annexed into the Town of Vail,
the zoning was kind of placed on top
of this already existing home.
So much of the home is already in the setback
and that is seen both at the below grade on this side
of the home on the east side
and then on the west side as well.
Just the notes. There was a variance
that had been granted on this side of the home
and was approved for a
below grade encroachment into the setback was the same idea
of digging out the crawl space
and then making it into a basement for more livable area.
And then down here is that garage
that is going into the front yard setback,
which is this red dotted line as well
as the side yard setback,
which is this other part of the red dotted line.
So the front,
it's still encroaching about 10 feet into the front setback,
but the applicant was able to kind of pull it off
of the property line.
That had been kind of a concern for,
for the commissioners at the last meeting.
Staff is still concerned with the distance from the road
to this, you know, higher mass that's closer to the road
that we don't really see in this neighborhood.
But yeah, that is kind of the overview of the
step back requests
- Where yeah.
And where on the, looking at the garage, the neighbor
to the right, how far away is the
garage from the property line? What's the,
- And I can zoom in here for you.
Yeah, so it's about five feet off.
This is the property line right here, this dotted line.
It's about five feet off
of the property line from the closest corner of the garage
and then it's about six seven,
it's about almost seven feet from the current parking pad
that is there for the east duplex neighbor.
And it's about 27 feet from the,
from the structure I believe as well.
Again, just can I ask you a question?
- Can I just make sure I understand something? Yeah.
So okay, the dotted line that that goes back
and around inside of the garage, that's the,
that's the front today
- That is the current setback line.
So that would be, this is the 20 foot setback in the front
as well as this is the 15 side yard setback.
So it's kind of all of the setback lines overlaid on top
of the current home as well
as the proposed garage, which is right here.
- Okay, I just wanna make - Sure I got that.
But that would be the conforming building envelope,
- I understand that.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. But, but it's already coming.
We're already bringing bolt
and mass in within the setback in that area.
I just wanna make sure I understood that.
- Oh my gosh. Keeps doing that.
I dunno,
- I'll kind of zoom out - Here.
- Yeah, again, I kind of went over some
of the background already throughout,
but again, many
of these properties in this neighborhood are
already previously non-conforming.
That's where many of these variances over the
years have been kind of granted.
Most of the homes are just built into the setback
and have, you know, wanted to do an addition
or do work within the setback
and they've had to have a variance a lot like this.
And same with below grade variances
as well in the neighborhood.
There is a front setback variance
that I could find in the neighborhood.
It's for a lot on the south side of the road.
And that was for a, a home
that had already been built too close
and already into the front setback.
So they had done an addition kind
of over an already existing
building footprint in the front
setback, just something to note.
And then as for site coverage,
there was a site coverage variance
that was also granted in this neighborhood as well.
- And so that was my question last time. Yeah.
Was had you found any front, so there's one,
- So there's one yeah. And it was a prior
- Non-conforming that at an addition over non-conforming
- Existing Exactly, yes.
And so today's ask is a bit different with the garage
that's being proposed today.
It would be, there is nothing currently built into the front
setback and we'd be building into that front setback.
So it'd be adding mass into the front setback.
- Which one was it?
- Yeah, I can zoom in here.
Believe it's this property right over here.
So it's a bit to the southwest of the home over here.
- Okay. - And as you can kind
of see if you can think about it with the,
with the property lines maybe overlaid,
but it's quite close to the road as is, it sits today.
And so they had done a, an addition above the garage there.
- And then this is the setback from, does
that include the public right away
that's along that stripper?
No, from the
- Public, right.
So it's from, from their property line.
So the setback will be 20 feet off of their property line
on this in this neighborhood.
The, the the right of way kind of extends into, it kind
of goes into some of the properties.
Sometimes it kind of depends on where the road sits,
but most of the time there's a little bit of right
of way in the, into their driveway
and then there's, that's their property line
and then it kind of extends off of that.
And then I'll just kind of go over some of the rendering.
So with that reduction in the retaining wall height,
it has kind of exposed more of that mass
and staff still feels that
with this added mass in the front setback
and the request for site coverage, that it is,
it still is kind of that special privilege
of criteria number two.
Especially with, with it not being
as hidden from the neighboring properties.
Staff still feels that it's quite
a deviation from the neighborhood.
And I'll kind of just go around, this is from, this is kind
of coming from the west of the property looking at the home
And then this is kind of that rear kind
of side from the east.
So you'd be standing on the eastern
duplexes neighbor property
and this is that corner of the garage.
And then I'll kind of just go over some
of the floor plans again, just
to kind of give you guys an idea.
And as you can see this,
this lighter fainter dotted line is the current
property setback line.
So this is the property line, this is the setback line.
So as this house sits today,
the hou the home already is into this,
into the side yard setback.
However it is not into the front yard setback
- Is, is that the crawl space or also the first level?
- This is, this is the crawl space.
So this would be the basement level
and then this is the proposed basement level.
So as you can see, they, they would want to build out
that basement that wouldn't be changing any of those
exterior foundation walls other than adding more foundation
walls here and then going into the front setback here
with the foundation walls of the garage.
And then this is the current existing conditions
of the main level with the parking pad that already
sits in the right of way.
And so this is the property line right here.
And so they're already into the right
of way, which is over here.
So the road is pretty much right on the edge
of their pan of their driveway.
And then this is the proposed main level, oh actually,
sorry, proposed main level right here.
And we do have a turning radius diagram as well to kind
of show how parking would be made.
And then this is kind of that area
of encroachment into the front setback with the garage.
- When I'm looking at this, this shows
how vehicles will exit.
Correct. It doesn't show
how vehicles will enter the driveway.
They're not gonna back in from the right side of the road.
- So as Snap doesn't really look at how vehicles are able
to access their driveways, we only look at making sure
that they have the minimum required amount
of parking on the, in their property.
So we don't look at how they manage to get their vehicles
to fit on property just as long
as they have enough room within it. So in the
- The last meeting, the applicant did talk about a backing
turn motion that potentially they might talk about in their
presentation today.
- Yeah. Okay. Yeah,
- We can discuss an app.
We're almost, almost after the presentation. So,
- And then yeah, just a another just kind of table just
to kind of summarize everything that's kind of being asked.
Currently as the home sits, it does sit on a very small kind
of irregular shaped lot, you know,
sitting at 10,000 square feet
where our minimum is 15,000 square feet for a duplex lot.
And then I've updated the front yard,
the side yard and the rear.
The rear is not changing, but the front
and the side have changed.
For the garage it's still at 10 feet.
The, the side yard for the garage is still around five feet
or, or now is five feet instead of zero feet.
And then for the living area it's still five feet
encroachment in that below grade living area.
And then GRFA he was able, the applicant was able to reduce
their GRFA by some, by some square feet by pushing
that garage kind of closer onto their property
and kind of making that living area,
that vegetable area between the home
and the garage a little smaller.
And then still they are still requesting
that site coverage variance for, for this
above grade garage addition.
So going from 20%, you know, sitting at 2013 square feet
to now 2,414 square feet for site coverage variance.
And I've kind of run through my criteria,
but my, this kind of still stays the same from from the last
presentation, but staff still feels that the relationship
of the requested variance to the other existing
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity is not met.
There are a number of variances in this neighborhood,
but we have not seen a garage being
put into the front setback.
Most of these variances that have been granted were
for properties that were already non-conforming with the,
with the setbacks already laid on top of them.
And so if they did do an addition
or they did dig out a basement, it was already something
that was previously within the setback.
So they weren't really ever building further
into the setback always.
So staff still feels that in the neighborhood context
and other uses, this is something that we don't really see
as well as most
of the other neighbors don't have garages as well.
And then the degree of 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 a grant
of special privilege staff still feels that this
criteria has not been met
and still feels that this is a grant
of special privilege within the neighborhood.
It And then finally the kind
of effect of the requesting variance on light and air
and distribution of population transportation
and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities
and public safety staff still feels that this is being met
by still taking these right of way.
Ve parked vehicles off of the street is a,
is a really great thing.
And I know that public works had come out and,
and talked to the applicant on site
and had expressed their approval of getting the vehicles out
of the right of way, you know, starting
to put more vehicles more onto their own property.
So staff feels that this is a benefit for trying to get some
of these vehicles out of the right of way.
And that is it for my presentation,
but I'm, I'm happy to answer any questions
or go back on any slides to kind of go over anything.
- So you said that most of the variances
into the setbacks were sort of redevelopment of preexisting
setbacks that were either granted or grandfathered in
because this area was annexed in.
- Yeah, so most of the properties in this neighborhood
or already into the setback
with the home being built where it is.
So yeah, a lot of the variances requested were kind
of already on nonconforming lots
with the home where it sits.
- So the variances were similar
to the request in this application to be able
to convert the crawlspace to to basement six,
- Correct. Yeah, those
- Variances.
Yep.
- Are there other questions for staff from commissioners?
Hearing none, we'll move on to the applicant's presentation.
Michael, do a presentation for us.
- Thank you. Michael Hazard, representing John Altman.
Thank you Cole for your presentation.
I will attempt not to run you through much of
what you've already heard as far as what we're proposing
and get more to, I'm gonna, I figured now how to point this.
The, I think the very salient point is that, and,
and maybe this, hopefully it doesn't sound like preaching,
but planning is, especially
with a narrative code such as veil's code is a,
when, when I call it a narrative code
enforcement is based on a number of set precepts, dimensions
that attempt to identify bulk mass
and density on a site, front yard setback,
side yard setback, site coverage,
height limitations, et cetera.
And as many of you may be aware,
there has been a large movement in many communities to
move partly away from that to more of a form-based code
and a form-based code.
And, you know, not to preach,
but form-based code is one that get tries to
identify what the goal is as far as what's proper and appro
and and desirable appearance.
What's the result of all the numerical limitations?
And there's examples like Seaside, Florida,
number of all over the country.
It's being done in Buena Vista as a matter of fact,
I I mention that because I think that the, the, the issues
that we're dealing with are,
as Cole mentioned, I think it's 42 38 nugget lane was an
existing home that had been built prior
to being annexed in the town.
It was built up against a, a mature grove
of trees in the back.
And there was an existing, and,
and I may be wrong on all of this,
but as I understand it,
there was an existing one car garage.
The applicant had apparently a,
a long time prior been granted a, a variance in order
to double that to a two car garage.
It had a master suite above that garage.
And one of the arguments for not putting the garage
behind on the site was number one not
to impact mature trees.
The slope of the site was an impediment.
And so, you know, they were forced by virtue of
where the house sat in our instance,
the duplex again was pre-existing,
was built fairly forward on the site,
not allowing the opportunity for a garage
to be built within the setbacks.
Had it been located with the mindset of creating a garage,
obviously in that state
and in the market at those times, the developer chose
to do pads that infr that actually
inserted themselves on the public right of way.
So in an attempt to satisfy my client's goals
and try to adhere to the intent of the code
and the visual results that the code is attempting to imply,
one of the things that I've attempted to do is,
the current issue right now is that those six half duplexes
and the home at 42, 38
and several others have garages that garages
or parking aprons that back onto the right of way in spite
of the fact that it's just pavement.
That pavement is often occupied by vehicles as we know,
most garages, many garages are used as storage
and cars reside outside of the garages.
So it's not a guarantee
that parking won't occur in front of the garage doors.
I deliberately position the garage
to work with the reality of the site
and not just shoehorned it in to the geometry of the site.
By that I angled it.
So as to number one place, it actually the,
if the corner of the neighboring property
and it's hard to see with these aerials, there's a shed
that protrudes, I actually measured it
and could verify it if we need to,
it's 31 foot eight inches from the face of
where I'm currently showing the garage to the corner
of the home, there is a shed that contains meters
or storage in that shed in that protrusion.
So if you will, the corner of the house.
So if this were a pair of 15 foot setbacks,
we'd be further apart than
what would be allowed by the code.
I then deliberately, instead of simply shoving the garage
into the property and facing it towards the street,
where more than likely
as the trend is these days you'd have translucent
or transparent garage doors opening out onto the street.
You might have a car parked in front
of the garage again impeding on
at least in facing the street
and you'd have the bulk of that in addition to the home,
I purposely created a driveway
that deliberately exits off of the right of way.
I've restored the, the resultant solution that I'm proposing
to you restores 74% of the properties
frontage to soft space to either
landscaping or if you will, road maintenance.
And you know, our expectation is to landscape it generously,
the garage has now turned 90
or they're perpendicular to the road.
And again, I emphasize the visual aspect of this.
Yes, the garage is in the front yard setback
as it is at 42 38
and at other locations throughout Eastvale,
but specifically on this road, the difference is instead
of at 42 38, the garage is turned at 90 degrees.
That means you don't see the garage doors,
there's no asphalt in front of it.
We've now restored a soft frontage to the road,
which I would argue is a superior solution than
what you now have on Nugget Lane.
And so I was talking to my colleague
and friend George Ruther was sitting behind me
and I'm gonna quote him, I warned him
and he said it was okay that the code is flexible
and a variance asks,
it presents the reality of a hardship
and it it asks of you relief from that hardship to achieve
what has been granted to others.
And very specifically on Nugget Lane, I thought it was 10,
now I'm being told it's in excess of 15
variances have granted privileges
because of these preexisting odd shaped, minuscule sites.
If this was on a normal site,
we'd be 21% under the allowed site coverage.
And it's not a normal site. We, that's not our fault.
That was the way the site was zoned.
We don't feel it's a special privilege specifically
because we are simply trying to achieve
what others have been granted.
We feel that we're not only simply achieving the solution
of a garage, we're screening one
of three required parking spaces.
We're turning the garage away from the road, we're improving
the visual result of the planning exercise,
which I would argue is really at the, at its base
what this commission is what, what your mission is
as planning commissioners.
Bobby Lipnick, who is a good friend
and a collaborator, we're both co-founders of the
Eagle County Affordable Housing task force, sat
with me one day and asked me when he was looking at the
westvale master plan that was being proposed
and there were some new statutes being suggested as far
as site coverage, frontage, setbacks and all.
And he said, well, do you think these look right?
And I said, you know, I can't give you
that answer without testing it and what do you mean?
I said, you've gotta create massing that shows what
that might look like
to see whether those numbers in fact succeed in giving you
higher density, which was being tried,
which was being promoted in order to promote redevelopment
and development at the same time without throwing the baby
out with the bath water and enforcing a planning statute,
a planning precept that from a visual human standpoint,
something you can stub your toe on,
looks good, looks acceptable.
And I would argue that the result of, I'm sorry, I'm passing
through a couple of these, my,
my last presentation was terrible self-deprecating,
but now I'm gonna,
anyway, I took a few pictures
of the street actually this morning
and it's cluttered.
There's street, there's cars all over it.
This is one move in the right direction I would argue.
There we go. So you know, this is
what it looked like this morning.
There's it know it's normal life on a street.
Is it the end of the world? Is it unknown? Is it optimal?
No, what we're proposing would be an
improvement, a net improvement.
We are asking for variances to achieve that.
The variances are a numerical and regulatory standard
but they are not the end result.
The visual solution is what you should be assessing.
I'm hoping and it's not working.
I was trying to give you before and
after, these are the two views.
Unfortunately our render fell apart.
I don't have the new proposed renderings without the berm.
As we discussed in the last instance.
What I was trying to do is come back
to you obviously resoundingly the zero setback was a no-go.
We achieved that to the tune of five feet
and the Bill Jensen was concerned about the
retaining wall heights
and we were able to, to propose that we can,
we can bring them down into compliance.
The question might simply be, does the retaining wall, does
that variance grant us better shielding
and better addressing the mass than not having it?
Obviously in the absence of the retaining wall,
we would replace that with ample landscaping, which can be
an effective measure
And forget the slides,
- Cole can advance for you.
- So you know, resoundingly we agree with the staff,
the only issue really is the bulk mass
and the front yard incursion.
And I would ask you to consider the visual reality of
what we're proposing and how that is in our opinion,
an improvement on what an
otherwise solution what, what the solution would be.
Without that approach, we've taken the efforts
to drop it, to shield it.
The town, as I pointed out last time,
offers 300 square foot incentives to create parking
to shield vehicles.
And we're taking up on that offer and we're shielding it.
So we hope you'll agree with us.
We feel that we've got a strong design solution that'll be a
visual improvement to the road.
- Thank you. Any questions
for the applicant from commissioners,
- Mr.
Hazard? So we're not a form-based code,
we're a traditional code.
As commissioners we're gonna be asked
to vote upon this application
and others based upon criteria for granting a variance.
Can you describe for me how
granting this variance would not constitute a grant
of special privilege inconsistent
with limitations on other properties classified in the
same zone district?
- I guess I would go back to at least the one other variance
where there was a one car garage, it was allowed
to be expanded so
that the incursion in the front yard setback went from 16
feet to 18 foot eight inches within 16 inches
of the front setback.
The application stated at the time that the countermeasure
to that was that because of the placement,
as Cole was talking about,
of the pavement within the 50 foot right of way,
there was almost a 20 foot distance from the paved road to
the improvement to the garage.
In our instance we're 18 foot four inches from pavement
to the side of the garage.
So we're about a foot different from what
that application was.
So there's a direct example of how that was a variance
that was granted and we're asking for no more than
what that gave us.
The added benefit of what we're asking is
that we're turning the garage so that we're lessening
the amount of asphalt
and the visual impact of the improvement
- And the variance say you're referring to,
can you give us more detail in regard to that variance?
Do you have any It
- Was, it was granted in 20 16 42, 38 nugget lane.
It's at the south side of the road at the cul-de-sac
and I think Cole, if you wanna back up,
I'll let you maneuver.
There's an aerial view. Okay, we can Well yeah, sorry.
- Is this the one that was mentioned being non-conforming
existing garage in the front setback
and living spaces added above it?
- It was, as I understand it,
and I may be mistaken on all the facts,
it was a non-conforming one car garage.
The variance allowed it to become a two car garage
with the addition of the master suite that was in place
of where there was a deck.
I think
- Cole, do you have the Yeah, - Correct.
Yeah, so that was, it was an already existing
garage into the front setback
and that was where, this is a little,
this one's differing from currently,
there's no front setback encroachment on this property.
And so staff feels that that is kind
of the differentiating factor is that this home at 42 38
already was built into the setback.
And so when the, you know,
when the setbacks got set onto the home,
the garage was already into the front setback.
So it's kind of similar
where they've added onto it in the front setback
and staff was noting that that was part of
that front setback variance that was granted
and it is the only front setback variance in this
neighborhood that was granted. So,
- So, so looking at 42, 38
and that expansion of the garage that occurred in 2016,
the, the, the original garage extended in the setback
but was the new garage, it was expanded.
So the it so there was a greater encroachment in the setback
than previously existed?
- Yes, yes, yes. Same with the living space
above the garage as well.
That also was into the setback as well.
- So what's that setback both from the property
line and the right of way?
- I'm not sure off the top of my head, but
- That is, so it expanded to the west as I recall.
And so it expanded both to the,
to the north towards the front setback
and towards the, to the west towards the side yard setback.
- And you were saying that your setback from flow line from
asphalt is similar to that.
- We're about a, we're about a foot less than,
so in other words, one of the defense
or one of the comments that was made in the staff report
10 years ago was that,
and I think this was the applicant's comment, was
that thanks to the position
of the existing asphalt in the right of way, not relative
to the property line, but the edge of asphalt, that the edge
of asphalt was just under 20 feet away from the face
of the proposed garage or the proposed garage expansion.
I think if you look at the area on, on my presentation,
I've got one without all the property lines
that's just, there we go.
Whoop, whoop, there we go. If you can zoom in on that. Yep.
And so as I understand it,
the expansion went both north and west.
- Okay. - And you know, relatively speaking,
it is almost 20 feet from the edge of asphalt, you know,
in this instance the garage fronts into the road.
I, again, I feel that
because we're turning 90 degrees,
we're also offering the ability to screen the garage,
whereas there's no ability on this one, which is,
it's not answering your question, I apologize,
but I think that, I feel that the,
the, the granting of special privilege is one that
we have a a, a notably minuscule lot
and the existing home, just as in this instance,
was shoved further towards the front of the lot, partly
by virtue of the creek in the back, partly by virtue
of grade and the manner in which they use the same floor
plan on three adjoining lots.
And so we were not afforded the ability
to build a garage out of the front yard set back by virtue
of the existing impediment
of the placement of the existing home.
- I'm gonna follow up my first question
with another variance criteria.
The necessary findings that the commission's required
to make by code before granting a variance.
And what I'm looking at is B three A
and BI don't know how familiar you are with these.
Do you, do I need to read them to you?
I, I, what I want to know is, is how you, you, you believe
that this application is warranted
because it meets one of the three reasons stated in three A,
B, and C, because
that's a criteria that we're specifically Sure
- Understand.
- So I haven't heard any argument in that regard.
- Do you want me to read - Or do we have a copy someplace
that we can put on the screen? Yeah, it's
- On - Page
- Nine.
Yeah, I'm, I'm reading directly from the code,
not the review criteria.
So
- I can go to my staff memo.
- It's John, - It would help if
- You would just read it.
You want to go to town code?
- I don't know how much that's gonna help
but I I can read it.
It's 12 17 6 B necessary findings.
We just talked about the one, so we have to make three
separate findings when we talked about the first one.
Let's, let's pull it up here much easier.
So 12, 17, 6. Do you have that up?
Yep. Yep. All right.
Look, look, let's go to necessary findings
and then subpart three, there we go.
A, B, and C. Only one of those has
to be met, those three.
So I want to know what the applicant's position is in terms
of which of these three criteria
met. And the reason
- I, I'd say, I mean starting out with a, thanks
to the irregularity of both the shape
and the square footage of the site, we're attempting to
create a relatively small addition
and we are because of, of the size, shape,
and positioning of the existing home being challenged
to do so.
So we have these, the the added hardship of
that, of that restriction.
The,
I would say again, the reason
that there have been 15 variances on the street is
that there is a number of other lots that have
challenged the, or have requested a variance
and successfully proven that the size, shape and
and existing placement of, of homes has forced the need
to be granted a variance in order to achieve parity
with other property owners.
- I think that's right.
- Let me ask you this, Michael, is this the absolute minimum
size you can fit to get a one car garage on this?
- We've, we, we can probably shrink it a little bit more.
I mean if we have to, we would, I mean we're,
what I'm attempting to do is, is create a garage
that you don't necessarily have to
go on a weight loss program to get in,
but we could reduce it some if need be.
I mean, in other words it's the, the, the desire
to have a garage would obviously be a benefit
and would certainly be willing to
sharpen our pencil and try to reduce it further.
If that was up, if that opened the door
to a possible approval from you.
I might, I guess my question is, I'm trying to figure out,
so this is a duplex and do you own both sides?
No, just, just the side.
So your expansion, where does the, the other owner park,
they, they park on their own parking apron off the road.
So when they did their renovation several years ago, they,
they renovated the house, they left the parking apron.
I think they improved the apron
but they didn't change its general location.
And they do not have a garage, correct? Pardon?
They do not correct.
And then the increase in square footage, does
that include both units or just the one side?
It it, I can, so the, the,
I guess I'm just so I understand your question correctly.
I mean our increase we had to
as differently than when the other variance was approved
for the west side there.
For whatever reason they chose to,
to use the math so that it was two separate lots
and the GRFA site coverage
and everything was restricted to that lot
and not, so now the town has taken the approach
that it's a single lot with an A and B side.
So there's a property line down the, down the party wall,
but all of the calculations, site coverage GRFA
are calculated on the entirety of the, of the double lot.
So the numbers that you see as far
as our compliance take into account both sides,
that's what I was guessing.
But basically based on what you guys are doing,
you're limiting the ability of the adjoining duplex
to do much of any expansions, right?
'cause there was just 120 square feet left of GF ra.
We as, as we were required to, we did, we reached out
to them, met with them, reviewed the drawings,
and they had already, their half had already been.
In other words, the way the town does it is there's no
proportional granting of, as you know,
of GRFA or site coverage.
So that's why you impose upon the applicant the need
to be granted approval by the neighbor, which we were.
So it was done with their permission.
So you have your joint property owner consent
that's in place, correct?
It's been signed and they also wrote a,
an email just supporting the general premise of
what we're doing and then call, can you, I mean
that the number of 300 square feet
enclosed garage got thrown out. What's the
- Yeah, so - The motivation from the town behind that?
- Yeah, so it's, the motivation is when calculating
GRFA, you can take deductions from that overall number of
that number of square footage for the home.
So garages in town are allowed 300 square feet deductions
per space that they can fit within their garage.
So if they have a two car garage,
they could have a 600 square foot deduction from their total
square footage of their home.
So think of it as we calculate the entire gross size
of the home and then we take deductions out of that.
So the garage is considered a deduction.
So it's kind of an incentive
to put a garage within your home in, in the Town of Vail.
So
- Cole, I've got another question for you.
And this is going to, to your analysis of memorandum
and I want to understand staff's perspective on this issue.
Let's, if I look at your memo
and the the first variance
review criteria that's listed at the top of page nine,
you discuss it's the relationship of the requested variance
to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity.
In the second paragraph, it's discussed, staff discusses
the garage, it says the garage could have been better
incorporated into the footprint in architectural form
of the existing home rather than expanding
out in the setback areas.
Furthermore, due to its placements both within the front
yard side yards, setbacks in its proximity
to property lines, the proposed landscaping
and retaining walls failed
to provide adequate visual screening
for a structure of this scale.
Therefore it's more visible from the street.
So there's that one point
and then going to the second criteria, it is somewhat
referenced again and it says
notably the notably the proposal no longer incorporates
grading, grading or earthwork against the garage structure.
Without these grading measures
to help integrate the structure into the site, the massing
and bulk of the garage become far more apparent
and prominent from the streets.
Can you talk a little bit more about staff's perspective on
what would be adequate screening in this instance?
In know if we're going into the setback,
what the concerns were about the grading measures or,
and or earthwork against the garage
and why that would be better?
- Yeah, yeah. Staff originally when the applicant had come,
staff had kind of concerns about the massing into
that front setback and had expressed that massing
isn't really seen in this neighborhood as much as,
as what was being proposed.
So I, I think the applicant had kind of wanted to try
to shield the, the, the mass of
that large garage coming out into the front setback.
So staff had been working with the applicant to kind
of see how grading could help to shield
that large mask protruding off to the front setback.
But with the new
revision from hearing comments about retaining wall height,
they went back
and they have decided to kind
of drop those retaining walls down to three feet.
So originally it had been closer to, I think it was probably
around six feet high for, for the retaining wall
that was really shielding the earth work against the side
of the garage is now three feet
so there's no more earthwork kind of sloping to the garage.
And I can kind of show that here
with this had been the proposed earthwork on the side
of the garage to kind of shield it from the view,
kind of hide that mass.
Something that you as the commissioners can kind
of look at is, is mass, like adding all this mass
to the front of the home,
something within this neighborhood.
And staff felt that that's not something
we've seen throughout.
And so that was kind of a worry with,
with the proposed garage.
So that was what had currently been proposed
with the screening of the great was using grade.
And then if I go to my presentation
with the new renderings, they show like
no more grading happening here on the side of this garage.
So it will be kind of fully,
but I, I think the applicant will also speak to, you know,
using landscaping as well to kind of shield it as well.
So staff still feels that the mass of the extra
en enc en encroachment into the front step back is just
something not seen in this neighborhood on many
of these small lots kind of around the home.
So,
- Well - Then I'll turn it over to ask the applicant,
just talk about the landscaping issues and, and
and what you were trying to work, what you've
- Been trying to, you know, I I think we, we,
we approached this proactively
and to be honest, I completely
missed the retaining wall com component of it thinking that
by doing what we proposed in the renderings, the, the, the,
the old renderings, it was a way of lessening the,
the the vertical aspect of the side of the garage and
and improving its street appearance.
'cause instead of seeing a wall, you're seeing slope grade
with the ability of planting some trees and,
and essentially, you know, very effectively masking it.
What we were trying to do obviously is come back to
having listened to your concerns
and one of them was the retaining
walls and the other was the proximity of the garage
to the adjoining to the side yard side property line.
So that we addressed effectively
and we felt that if you deemed
the lesser of two evils being not requesting the variance
for the retaining walls, then we would then pursue screening
by way of landscaping, which could be boulders,
shrubs, trees.
And you know, essentially we're, you're doing
what historically has been done, you know,
from a fire safe standpoint obviously would probably cide
that side of the garage with a non-combustible such as stone
as we're showing in the renderings so
that we can in fact put trees against the building without
the fear of, you know, urban land
or fire issues.
Our preference would be
to retain the retaining wall if you felt that
that was an acceptable variance in, in lieu
of the, the visual results.
- So your preference would be to go
with the five foot retaining wall to be able
to do the landscaping that we see in the rendering.
- We feel that that in addition
to turning the garage 90 degrees from the road, there's,
there's a vertical bulk but it's, it's camouflage
and visually I think it's a better appearance than
what you currently have with three cars parked in a,
in an undersized parking apron.
- Understood. Are there further questions
for the applicant from commissioners?
- If, - If there are
no more, we'll open up to public comment.
If there's public comment in the room,
you can please come forward and use a microphone.
If you're online, please raise your hand
and we'll promote you to talk.
I'd ask that public comment.
Please keep your comments to three minutes or under.
We have a a full agenda today.
If anyone is speaking and reiterating comments of someone
before them, I ask that you maybe keep them brief
or note that you're seconding comments
from previous public comment.
Thank you. Anyone in the room please come forward.
- My name's Ken Johnson. I actually own 42 38 nugget Lane,
so I'll have comments about that afterwards,
but I'm concerned about this
because you've got significant side
and front setbacks.
It also increases the oc you know, the, the footage from 20%
to 23%.
So no different than last week or two weeks ago.
All they're doing is moving the garage over
to the west by five feet.
And I would highlight the fact
that primarily the reason they're into the front setback is
because they're adding eight foot eight feet to the south
on the expansion, which has not been talked about.
So they're asking for not only the eight foot expansion
of the home itself, then they're asking for the setback
with the garage in front of that.
So you could accomplish a garage if that's what they want
by giving up the eight feet expansion
that they're showing in the,
that they're proposing for that site.
But you know, they're kind of asking for the world,
they were asking for it when they went to zero site setback,
now he's going 10 feet or going 10
or yeah 10 feet into the side setback
and significantly into the front setback with the addition.
And relative to my comments on Nugget lane 42 38, I've owned
that for 28 years.
That was a single car garage
that had a master bedroom above it.
The bedroom was not added, the only expansion to the garage
was into the, onto the side
and it had a previous grant I believe that got gone back,
you know, 25 years ago
where it had been approved to do that.
And you're also comparing a primary secondary
zone site versus a duplex site
and we kept it as a primary single family home.
So it's significantly different when you compare the,
the front setback of that versus a duplex.
So I'm not, you know, that goes way back
and tested my memory of what took place.
But we also removed going back in 20 13 20 14,
a balcony that was even another three feet into the front.
So when they went through that remodel.
So that's my comments is think about
really why they're asking for the front setback
'cause they're already assuming they have the eight feet
expansion of the existing property.
And then finally, I guess I would say that the moving it
to the west by five feet makes it even more
a continuing of a difficult entry
and egress into that parking spot.
'cause you got less room to swing,
it was already bad when it was on the, on the,
on the side set back being proposed on the side set back.
Now you've got five feet less to maneuver a backing car in
and a raging snow storm to get in there. That's all.
- Thank you. - Yeah, any questions? Thank you.
- If there's any further public comment in the room,
please come forward to the microphone, willing
to, I'd love to hear your comments.
Are there any hands raised online?
If there is no more public comment,
I will close public comment and go back to applicant
and staff to see any final comments from the applicant
or staff before Commissioner comment.
Cole, anything from you? No, no comments from staff.
If you, if you have more questions, feel free
- Based on public comment, I'd like
to better understand the variances on the property
that has the garage and the setback
because there's been a lot of discussion about,
there are a lot of other variances on the street,
but those are predominantly preexisting preexisting
variances probably from when they were an extended town.
So I wanna understand if we let them move into the front
side back or just the side set back if either one at all.
- Yeah, I can't fully recall so I can, I can always do
that on the, the side.
But yeah mo most
of the variances are from non-conforming homes already
built into setback.
So this is more of a variance asking
to build into the setback further.
I believe that this front, front setback variance
with the garage was kind of a twofold where yes,
the home was already built into the front setback
and then expanded also into the front setback.
So it was a little different.
Again, staff is noting
that there is a front setback variance in the neighborhood
as well as multiple other side yard setbacks
throughout the neighborhood.
So this is not the, the only
property on this on Nugget lane
requesting a variance of this kind.
I can't remember all the details of that one,
but I do know that it was approved in this neighborhood.
- Okay. I guess, you know, I would argue
that in a sense there was an instance
where they were already in the front yard setback,
but they were allowed to expand in the front yard setback to
increase the garage from a single to a double car garage.
So it's, it, no two projects are identical,
but I'd say it's a similar incursion.
You know, the argument could have been made while
that second car garage could have been pushed in the back
of the property in that instance
because of the placement of the house
and the maturity of the trees on the hillside behind
that was seen as a lesser of two evils.
And so we're,
I I mean I was asked earlier if we would consider
trying to redesign the garage again.
Obviously if that gets us closer
to an approval then we'd certainly be open to that. Okay.
- Can you speak to the comment about the eight foot
expansion in the garage that was made?
Could you fit the garage if you didn't have the eight foot
front expansion within, without going into the setback
or minimally going into the setback? Could we,
- The difficulty is that the existing footprint
of the house is so small that if we were
to push it eight feet into it,
the main entry level would be essentially non-functional,
you know, to move further towards the creek.
We've got impediments on the backside.
So, and you know, I think that the neighbors
to the east would, you know, they,
they're understandably very concerned about
not losing their view.
We've assured them that we are actually removing a
non-conforming deck and
because of the fact that the new patio
that we're proposing in the back is actually below grade
as we'll illustrate to them to put their minds at ease,
we expect that that will be a lesser impediment on their
privacy and on the enjoyment of, of the creek.
So we're, we're a little bit, again, it's a, it's an issue
of the size of the site and the con confines.
- Thank you. Anything further from applicant
or staff?
We move to commissioner comment? No. Okay.
We'll move on to commissioner comment.
We'll start to my right. Commissioner Brown,
- In looking at the criteria for variance, I,
I'm struggling with special privilege.
We've done a lot of talking about the one variance
that appears to have been granted in front setback
and whether or not that is precedent setting for a second.
And I'm struggling with whether a second becomes precedent
setting for a third and a fourth and a 14th and a 15th.
And I think that makes this, this is a unique situation.
These lots are extremely small.
They're smaller than what's permissible under than
what was permissible under,
under avail regulations at the
time that they were incorporated.
I appreciate that, that creates a current difficulty.
I, I worry that solving that
with front setback variances
is an inelegant way to, to address that.
It's hard for me to believe that this isn't a,
an early ask in what will become a cascading ask
and what will become a front setback.
Variance is the standard of the neighborhood
that worries me greatly.
So I, I think in, I think that I would like
to hear what the other commissioners have to say about this.
I will withhold further comment.
- Thank you Commissioner Jensen.
- Well I too feel
that this doesn't warrant a special privilege.
I, I feel it is, the request is a special privilege
and it's not consistent
with the two family residential district.
I'm also just concerned about the mass of it
and you know, I just, I appreciate
that you took the retaining walls down,
but to me that only amplified the mass
and it's hard to see how boulders
or whatever is going to take care of it.
But I too feel really strongly that
approving this with constitute a granting
of special, special privilege.
So I'm struggling there.
I am supportive of the expansion below grade.
So that's, it's a separate request, but
- We really haven't discussed that today.
- Thank you Commissioner Wallace.
- I agree with everything
that my fellow commissioners have already said.
I'll emphasize the basement aspect,
which we haven't discussed.
I did drive through there yesterday.
For me, special privilege is hard here
because there are a bunch of duplexes next to each other
and I, I don't remember seeing any garages there
and I was trying to see how this could fit
and not be sort of a violation of bulk and mass
or special privilege.
I mean, I think when you look at the development next door,
it kind of demonstrates what was supposed
to be possible on these lots which are smaller.
And then on the other side where there,
there was potentially already a variance or
otherwise, it's on the cul-de-sac
and it's next to a ton of open space
and it, you know, I thought it was interesting.
It's a different, it's, it's a different type of lot.
So I think in this case it would be special privilege if we
weren't to give all the duplexes
and I can't imagine what the street would look like if they
all were able to put garages in the front set back.
- Thank you. Commissioner Jensen?
- Yep. - So Mr.
Haard, I, I, number one, I thought you
had a very good presentation today.
You said something about you didn't do a good job last time.
I wasn't here. You did a good job today.
I agree with your proposed that your proposed design
creates far better conditions that exist out there.
And I also agree that the design itself is superior
to other designs that you could have proposed for reasons
that you stated during your presentation.
100%.
I've been trying to search where,
where there's a compromise in this situation
and right now I, I haven't found one.
And you know, looking at the findings that,
that I pointed out to you
before I turned the staff's memorandum, you know, the, the,
you know, we have to find that this would not be a grant,
a special privilege inconsistent
with limitations on other properties
classified in the same zone district.
We're not even looking at at,
at homes in the same neighborhood.
We're homes in the same zone district.
So that's, that's a difficult
threshold to achieve.
I think the points of as to what happened
with 2 4, 3 8 are good points.
It was all, you know, in expansion in the setback.
So the structure actually became much larger
even though there was a pre-existing one car garage,
it became two with an addition above it.
And, and I do believe that that supports an argument
that it's not special privilege,
but I'm looking more along the lines than
just one other property.
And I'm looking at all the other properties
in the same D zone district.
And is it inconsistent with limitations on all
of those properties?
And then three, you know,
I think a, you only have to, to to find
one of the three reasons
that are stated under that Subpart three.
And, and I don't think that C applies at all,
but looking at A and B, the strict
and little interpretation enforcement
of the specified regulation result in a practical difficulty
or unnecessary physical hardship, inconsistent
with the objectives of this title.
You know, my thought in regard to that tracks what staff
said and points one
and two of their memorandum in regard
to the criteria that they analyzed.
So that's difficult as well
as for you guys as, as well as three B, which is
there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
or conditions that are applicable to the site
of the variance that do not generally apply
to other properties in the same zone district.
Looking at that, you know,
looking at other properties in the same zone district,
there are a lot of properties
that face the similar constraints
that your client's property does.
And again, I I, I'm, without having to follow the criteria,
I'm very sympathetic to the desire to put a garage in
and expand and, and improve the property
and create a better space for the owners.
But at the same time, I just don't see
where in this instance that, that you can meet,
say three B to help satisfy that criteria.
'cause there doesn't seem to be exceptional
or extraordinary circumstances that don't apply
to other properties in the, in the zoning district.
So those are my comments.
- Thank you. Thank you. Let me get
through my comments first Michael, and then the future.
Of course. We'll just get through Commissioner comment.
Thank you. You, you know, I'm falling in the same veins
of the commissioners and it, it's close to me.
But the thing is, what it comes down to is, you know,
looking at that, you know, is
that other variance precedent sending,
well technically there's no such thing as precedents, right?
And in, in governmental rulings. Sure.
You know, and that's, that's part of our code.
That ones do not set precedents, but,
but kind of analyzing that it's splitting hairs.
But, you know, they didn't increase their front
setback, they went laterally.
And I know it increased their en the set foot,
the footprint in the front setback.
But here we're adding totally new encroachment
into the front setback.
And really what it comes down to me is, you know,
is this the mini minimum, minimum relief necessary?
And I don't think it is. And part of it comes down
to is when we discussed last time, you know, I asked, well,
is it possible to have a drive under garage?
He said, yes, it's possible,
but we'd be losing living area in
the, in the basement level.
And so at the end of the day, you know, I see this
as granting an e economic benefit
by placing a garage in the front setback by
allowing this variance, which then allows
for more liberal square footage in the, in the home.
Which is what, you know, the intent of this is. I get it.
I just can't get there on our, our criteria.
So those are my comments, and if you have further
comment, Michael, feel free. Yeah,
- Yeah.
No, and, and you know, thank you for all your comments.
I appreciate it. It's, it's a difficult thing.
You know, I, my attempt earlier to talk about planning
and design is that really,
there shouldn't be a discordance between them.
And unfortunately, you know what, what you're
entrusted with, essentially you're using
and you know, as you must,
and I understand the rules you're using, the standards,
the setback, the numbers, the percentages, as you know,
they were set sometime back as, as,
I wouldn't say arbitrary,
but they've, they've been adopted as the regulations.
And then when an applicant comes forth as I am asking
for variance to those standards, the, the,
the numbers are one thing,
the visual resulting of it is another.
And I think that in other, so one solution, obviously
that's becoming the louder option here,
is the elimination of a garage.
At which point we we're, we're, we're back
to exposing three vehicles.
We've lost some of the elements that we're getting,
we'll still probably depress the parking area
and still try to improve the street frontage.
But I feel that yes, we were asking for a greater,
we're asking her for a front yard incursion in addition
to the side yard incursion.
But I think that the manner in which we were doing it was
offering a superior design solution.
And you know, in many new codes, the, the visual guidelines,
they are, instead of having setbacks, you're, you're,
you're imposing bill two lines
and you're defining street frontages.
And in a sense, one way
of fixing this would be if you encouraged a series
of garages that restored the soft frontage of the road,
you'd get the public works department dancing on a pin.
'cause it'd be easier to maintain the road edge.
And I think the resultant designs
of those six homes could be far superior.
I think, I don't have to read the writing on the wall.
It's fairly obvious. I don't know.
I suspect if we can maybe ask to table it
and then we'll come back with a solution
that hopefully finds acceptance to the remaining variances
that we are asking for.
We we're comfortable at least that the expansion
to the crawlspace appears to be concurrent
with other variances granted.
And we will endeavor to
adjust other elements of it to come back
and hopefully get, get your
- Approvals.
Yeah, and my comments regarding the EP deck stand from last
meeting, completely on board with
that in the living area in the basement. So,
- Yeah, no, I mean, you know, we understand, you know,
and we appreciate the role you're in.
It's tough zoning is not easy. So
- I, I, I'd two, two points.
Cole, when's our next regularly scheduled meeting?
What's the date or Heather? Either one
- 14th, 14th maybe - Of August.
August 14th. Think it's August 14th.
Would that be when you would be looking to come back?
If we tabled this,
- We could table it and you could always
push from there too.
- Yeah, you can push from that.
I just want to put a date down. It's
- August 10th.
- August 10th. - August 14th, sorry.
- August 10th. 10th, yep. Okay.
And then the second point I wanted to make is
to some of your more general points about our code.
I think you're aware that staff is in the process with
outside help rewriting significant portions
of our development code, which is so spectacular.
Yeah. And, and so hopefully you'll be able
to participate in that process as a member of the community.
Community I community and someone who works in our C I'd
- Delight.
Yeah. Zoning. Zoning and staff.
- I have a lot respect. And so I, I invite you to do that.
Thank you. That being said,
and if there's nothing else from other commissioners, Mr.
Chairman, I move that we table agenda item 3.2
to our next regular scheduled meeting on
August 10th, 2026. There's
- A motion by Commissioner RedR
and a second by Commissioner Wallace.
All in favor, please say aye. A Aye.
All opposed, hearing none that passes.
It is tabled to the August 10th meeting. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. The next item
or agenda is 3.3.
Request for recommendation of the Vale Town Council
for the establishment of a new special development district
pursuant to section 12 dash nine, a
special development district's Vail Town code to allow
for the development of a multifamily project located at 4 42
South Frontage Road, east Vail Village filing five track D,
it's PEC filing 26 dash 11.
The planner on the file is Heather Knight.
Heather, do you have a presentation for us today?
- I do. Should we take a break
since there's only three left?
- We can, yeah, we don't have four in the room,
so we'll take a, okay.
Two minute break for return. Perfect, perfect.
- Hold on, we'll try this again.
So this is PAC 26 11.
It is for the establishment
of a new special development district for Lunar Vale,
which is located at 4 42 South Frontage Road East.
And here's the location here is noted by the yellow dot.
It's the existing development lot of Apollo Park
to the south and the property is actually this
parking lot right here.
Altus Vale is to the west as well as Mountain View
residences also to the west and the Ren is to the east.
So hit little history of the property first,
just really quickly,
the Apollo Park buildings were constructed in the 1970s
to employ, provide employee housing.
And then in 1978 a condo map was,
was establishing the kind
of the condominium ownership structure.
And after that, those units were all conveyed
as fractional ownership interest creating
existing timeshare use on the property.
And I believe, and the applicant could correct me,
I think there's 1700 different
timeshare owners of that property.
In 2006, the site was subdivided
to facilitate the phase redevelopment of the property
to the west resulting in the mountain view residences
and a phase one and two, which is now known as Altus.
And those were completed in 2008 and 2019.
And then the last was a new swimming pool was added
to the Apollo Park property in 2007 to replace
an existing one that was demolished
to accommodate the Vail Mountain View residences.
So just a quick little timeline thanks to the applicant
for providing this image.
It started as one property
and then later was subdivided to accommodate the
Mountain view residences to the west.
Again, Apollo Park is, is this property to the East
and then further subdividing the Mountain
View Altas properties.
To that point, this remaining the same, they're in
that sub area nine of the Vil Vail Village Master plan.
And we'll get to some kind of some points relating to that
as I move further along the current application.
So skip ahead to this slide real quick.
History of the project is,
you have seen this many, many times before.
It actually came about four times before to the PEC
and then went on to Town Council twice, where that in,
in January of this year, it was remanded back to the PEC
by the Town Council in April.
And in May you saw it again as a work session
and that was reevaluated.
The project was reevaluated at that time
and kind of worked through some of the details.
And now it is here for a final recommendation.
But this current application today does not include the
redevelopment or replacement
of the existing Apollo Park buildings.
Lunar VA is, you know, the, they are the, the property,
the landowner of the property
and there's leasehold rights associated with Apollo Park.
So they do, from what we have learned from the applicant
and from doing our own research, there is, you know, rights
to develop this parking lot on this piece of property.
So this request here is
to establish a new special development district on the
development lot that is shared with Apollo Park.
The underlying zoning is high density multiple
family residential.
The proposed development includes 17 new residential units
and eight deed restricted units
and a fully enclosed 75 space parking garage.
And I do want to note that at the end
of my presentation we will have a presentation from our
housing department relating
to those deed restricted units on the property.
So if you wanna hold any questions related to housing
until they're able to present,
the applicant very nicely listed all
of the revisions since the last reiteration that came
before Town Council.
And this was something that was worked
through in the last two work sessions of the PEC.
A lot of that has to do with really the reduction in the,
in the bulk and in the GFA since the last PEC recommendation
to council reduction in the building height
and, you know, further increases of some of the setbacks
and reduction in, in overall density.
So why a special development district
as there have been 42 before this?
So this would be, actually,
there's 43 now that have been approved.
The most recent was the special development district number
42, the Vail Mountain View residences, phases one and two.
So right next door.
This does provide a little bit more flexibility for
site planning in terms of meeting some of the elements
of the master plan related to height, which we'll get
to some of those deviations as well as kind of recognizing
that the master plan and,
and was outdated in terms of meeting some of these goals.
So just a real quick outline of what we, we are at today.
Where are we at today? This is the survey north is to the,
to the left of the screen.
These are the existing Apollo Park buildings.
And this is showing kind of the very interesting outline
of the property.
It was, you know, again, this is a mountain view
and Altus here on the bottom of the screen.
So it was subdivided, you know, maybe why it was, it had a,
a jog in this, you know, not, not important.
Now there are some easements in place in terms
of utility easements
and we'll see that how close the, this pro,
this new development actually gets
to this Western property line in just a moment.
In terms of circulation, I wanted to put this slide in
'cause I did feel that this was important not only to
maintain circulation appropriate to Apollo Park,
but also all the way through to towards Grower Creek.
So this plan is actually flipped and north is to the right.
Gore Creek here is is to the, to the left of the screen.
So the existing buildings, so the, the orange
represents vehicle access.
So vehicles would come in the driveway on the east side
of the property and circle around to the back
to enter the garage in and out of that garage structure.
There are some surface parking spaces located along the
apol existing Apollo Park building.
But most of the vehicles will kind of make that easy
turn right into the, the enclosed parking garage.
The red, it does demonstrate the fire axis, which does make
that very simple for our fire trucks.
It has, this plan has been fully reviewed multiple,
multiple times by our fire department
and they, they feel very confident in
what is happening onsite for fire, fire apparatuses
and their, their needs from that department.
The purple is an important one to note.
The purple does outline pedestrian access
and coming from the parking structure along the, the front
of the Apollo park buildings as well as along
that west property line, still maintaining
that pedestrian easement along that west line.
So that from the frontage road down to the,
the pedestrian path in front of the creek
really is still maintained at this point.
So the deviations requested today are setbacks
and it's a below grade setback for parking.
For the parking structure. 20 foot is required in this zone
district and six foot is proposed.
And on the next page I will show you where that is,
but it really is, it's limited to
below grade, it's not visible.
There will be plantings, landscaping fully on top of,
of this structure
and it achieves the parking that's necessary
to fulfill the parking requirements
for this particular development.
So as you can see here, this kind of hatched area is the,
the amount of encroachment into the setback
and it relates it to the property line.
So again, this dash line is the property line
and this dash line, I'm sorry, here
is the setback line
- And the vast majority of
that is solely underground, correct? Exactly. Okay.
- Except for the one portion where it kind of green.
- Yep. Well it would be that it'd be in the notch
by the corner where it reflects there, right.
I believe applicant's presentation might show that
- The next deviation is height, 48 foot is
prescribed in the high density multiple family,
69.8 foot is proposed.
And the proposed building height, this is kind of
where we go back to reference the Vail village master plan
and the subject areas within this circle, which here is
to noted as is four,
and that means four stories above grade.
However, the adjacent sites are noted as the five to six,
five to six, six to six.
And this is typical, it's actually noted
in the next slide here about building height.
And the goal is to maintain the concentration
of the low scale buildings in the core area.
We're positioning the larger buildings along the northern
periphery, so along the frontage road as depicted here in,
in these diagrams within the master plan.
And this area right here that I'm highlighting with the,
the arrow is actually the area of, this is the ren
described here, this is Apollo Park described here.
And then there was a, a viewing corridor down, which would,
I believe would be blue cow chute.
And then we've got the public facility parking structure
which provides views.
So there is a consistency.
And then to the west of that, again,
the building height increases, so kind
of frames the core area.
This is one of the eastern most portions of the,
the core, the village core.
So that pattern has already been established along this,
not only with the adjacent structure of Altus
but other structures further west down the frontage road.
And this is just a quick diagram showing, again,
kind of a a three dimensional view of,
of the proposed development with respect of Altus
immediately to the west
and then as it steps down towards Gore Creek to the south,
to the existing Apollo Park buildings.
And this shows here that this is,
the building height is still lower than the height
of Altus reaching that 69.8
and that's only really at the center
portion of the building.
So that stepping effect is also prescribed in, in the,
the village master plan as kind of allowing the views to be,
to be had of not only the creek but up to the mountain.
So the larger buildings,
again at the frontage road stepping down to Creekside.
So the other deviations are related to density and GFA
and those kind of go hand in hand.
31 units are allowed per code.
57 units are proposed.
So it's GFA is 40,434 square feet allowed
and 66,057 square feet proposed.
Currently there is an existing, you know, there's more,
there's more, it exceeds the maximum
dwelling unit density on site.
I believe it's 41 units. So it currently exceeds that.
So any development, anything that would happen
on this site would already require a variance for density.
Similarly, I just wanted to kind of, you know,
draw some similarities between Altus and, and Mountain View.
That lot has 53 units where 28 were permitted
by high density multiple family.
So it does speak a lot about having a higher density in
these areas, particularly when the vehicle
parking structures are enclosed.
It does provide areas where it minimizes that
that viewing it really, you know, it's unique that it's off
of the frontage road so there's not a lot
of vehicular traffic that impacts other areas of the village
and it does actually call out for a park parking lot infill
and residential infill over existing surface parking is
really called for in the master plan.
The height of the building should not impede
view corridors from the frontage road.
That's not an issue in this part of the, of the village.
As I mentioned in that diagram, that was before four.
So just to look at our zoning standards
and what was being met
and what the deviations are requested.
Site area complies, setbacks, height, density,
GFA are the four deviations for this
site coverage, it does comply, landscaping complies as well
and then parking, they have everything is is a hundred
percent within the building
Housing we will get to in just a moment.
But I just wanted to to show what is currently being
proposed here of the eight EHU units on site
and how they're represented on this diagram.
But to quickly review the, the review criteria
for special development districts, one is compatibility,
so compatibility sensitivity to immediate environment.
So architectural design scale, bulk height,
character orientation, all of those things.
It is compatible with those properties.
It does mitigate the visual impact of the height
by having the highest point of the building kind of within
that center of that massing
and the, the massing hass been designed so
that it does provide a slight step back.
So in that stepping back of massing
again spelled out in the Vail village master plan,
I'll really relationship the uses activity
and density which provide a compatible, efficient
and workable relationship
with the surrounding uses and activity.
It is consistent, that area is very consistent
of residential uses, multiple family residential uses.
They are all high density multiple families, zone district
beyond their special development district.
In the case of the properties next door, it does identify
this area is suitable for residential infill
and it does satisfy the intent of this zone district.
And then parking and loading a total
of 75 vehicle parking spaces is
provided within the fully enclosed parking garage
and three surface spaces are proposed.
This is for this particular development and then trash
and recycling program is at the
north entrance of the garage.
It doesn't require the trash truck to like back up
or turn around.
And so it's kind of a drive through sort
of trash access drive.
So it, it has been reviewed by our public works department
and has been approved by them as well.
The other, the next three comprehensive plan,
natural geologic hazard
and design features staff feels that those are all met.
They are actually offering a public benefit
contribution towards the restoration
of Gord Creek Stream tracked.
While public benefits are not in your purview,
it is something that will be in the Town Council.
So just I wanted to kind of add that as a supplemental to
this review criteria.
And then traffic is the circulation system designed
for both vehicles and pedestrians.
We, I discussed this earlier in my presentation,
but the proposed emergency fire, fire vehicle access, I mean
that was a critical one to make sure we got this right
and like I said before,
the fire department has reviewed this
and feels confident that it does work on this property.
The, the network of the pedestrian sidewalks, the pathways,
you know providing safe access from the frontage road
to the creek is also a very
positive aspect to this project.
And then landscaping, it does comply
with the landscape requirements of this zone district.
And on the, I speak of the eastern property line,
there is a slight, a small landscape buffer of a row
of trees planted that will
enhance the natural aspect as well
as maybe provide a visual buffer between that property
and the rent And also additional landscaping has been,
and screening has been incorporated into the outdoor
swimming pool to sort of give a sense
of privacy to that as well.
Excuse me. On the western property line there's a mix of
of landscaping that have been reviewed by our wild and fire
and that has met all of the fire mitigation requirements
as well, as well as contributing to that pedestrian walkway
to really soften the feel of that.
And just wanted to give a quick overview
of the landscape plan.
Again the row of trees kind of lining
that property line separating, giving a little visual buffer
between the run
and the property here fully, you know, knowing
that there are residential units
above whose balconies look out.
So to give a sense
of separation privacy is is always a, a nice feature.
And then as well as having some landscape buffer
along the edge of the building between the building
and this pedestrian walkway
that leads back down from the frontage road all the way back
to the creek
and then the workable plan.
So they're required to submit a condominium map,
a subdivision of the site, which will establish a new
for all the new improvements.
It'll establish a new condo map
and it will be Apollo Park buildings will be maintained
and accessible during construction
and we will be asking for a construction management plan
along with the building permit to review.
So with that said, the community development department does
recommend approval with conditions
and those are noted in the staff memo
and I'm happy to stop here, answer some questions
or we can keep going and hand it off to housing.
So it's up to you.
- I'd say we open up to housing
and then we come back with questions.
Okay. If commissioners are on board with that? Yep. Okay.
Okay,
- Thank you.
Hi everyone for the record, my name is Anna Bankson.
I am the housing development specialist with the Town
of Vail and I know it might be a bit irregular for me
to be up here during staff presentation, but Heather
and I felt like it was important for us
to specifically call out the community housing plan,
analyze it on its own and for me to speak to it directly.
So I'm here to dig into the housing plan for this project
a little bit deeper and I'll try to keep it short
and sweet, talk about the submitted plan,
a staff alternative and then go over staff recommendations.
Before I go in though,
I'll give two kind of upfront comments.
Both of the plans that I am going to run through today
are based off of the basically underlying commitment
that the applicant has made to trying to go
beyond the 10% baseline employee housing mitigation
requirement and to provide 17.5% mitigation overall.
So that's kinda the standard baseline.
And then secondarily the things that I refer to as
housing fee in lieu
or housing fund contribution,
those calculations are all based off
of the current inclusionary zoning housing fee
and lie rate of $675 and 76 cents per square foot.
I'm not usually in this position so can you
- State the mitigation rate one
more time please? The dollar amount? Yes.
- $675 and 76 cents. Thank you.
Perfect. Okay,
so this is the submitted plan
based under the current project there is a net new GRFA
of 38,159 square feet,
which puts the baseline 10% employee housing mitigation
requirement at a little over 3,800 square feet.
The current proposal, as Heather pointed out,
includes eight onsite one bedroom employee housing units
plus a roughly
$425,000 housing
fund contribution.
So that means that
the applicant meets the full inclusionary zoning,
10% baseline requirement on site
with a voluntary additional onsite square footage
and dollars to meet that 17.5% commitment
that they're trying to, trying to show.
I don't have much more to say about this other than all in
all it is a good plan.
It fully satisfies inclusionary zoning code
and demonstrates that they're going above and beyond.
That being said, the there is an alternative
that from the housing department perspective,
not just slices the pie differently
but actually expands the pie in terms of impact
for community housing.
And I will couch this
before I dive into things that we don't have
official drawings, but I try to visually represent this
for you in my arts and crafts, PDF fun.
So to give you a little bit of a reference
and so this plan is based on a
reduction of onsite units,
which overall increases the project's net new GRFA
to roughly 40,955 square feet and
therefore increases the 10%
baseline employee housing mitigation requirement
to 4,096 square feet.
So under the plan, which has been discussed
with the applicant, this would provide five deed restricted
units on site, which is 79% of
that 10% baseline employee housing mitigation.
And then would meet the remaining
21% of that 10% baseline employee housing unit mitigation
through a fee in lieu that is
$569,000 $665.
Then as a voluntary contribution
to bring the overall plan up to that 17.5%
commitment, there would be an additional housing fund
contribution of just over $2 million.
So looking at this option,
staff believes this satisfies
12 24 6
A 1D in full and better achieves the projects
and VA's workforce housing goals through a mix
of onsite units fee and lie payment
and housing fund contribution.
I had a third, a fourth slide to this. There we go.
So this just presents both options to you
and a side by side format so that you can look at them
directly together and kind of their basic components.
The bottom line for us from the housing perspective is that
there are two good options that comply with code
and the difference for us is impact.
So from the housing perspective, we recommend option two
because it maintains, eh, U'S employee housing units
on site but provides an additional meaningful
financial contribution
that could be immediately applicable towards some
of our out other community housing efforts, specifically
initiatives at the CDOT eastvale property.
So it puts the mitigation to dollars associated
with this project to work at scale.
So our recommendation would be to approve the project
with option two for community housing
with the proposed conditions of approval that were
provided in the housing staff memo.
- I have a question about the, the graphic.
We're looking at the option two that that
is being discussed when it says onsite homes,
the second line down five eh u under option two
aren't three remaining on site?
- No, five would be remaining on site. So five
- Would be - Remaining?
Yes. So the five that are still in pink enlist
as EHU four through eight.
Okay. Are the remaining on site
and the three that would be flipped over into market
rate housing are in what's now the orange
- Polygon.
Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Yep.
- For me. - So I'd say
what we have in here, maybe we focus on housing questions.
Let me go back to questions for, for Heather on more
general related staff questions.
- I'm, I'm kind of always interested in why one bedrooms
and not two bedrooms.
- I think, well speaking beyond
what the applicant's perspective might be,
what we have seen recently in terms of things
that businesses have purchased
and individuals have purchased, one bedrooms have been very
marketable for employee housing units. Okay,
- Thank you.
- And so that the, the remaining portion that's getting
to the seven and a half in option two, the the
2.075 Yeah that's kind of being,
that's being contributed at a rate
of 6 75 a square foot, right?
Yes. And that's higher than our code mitigation rate, right?
For fee and lie, is that correct or no?
That's the, that that's currently our code's.
The updated one, yes. Okay, got it. Thank you. Yep.
- So that was passed by resolution in, in 2025
and I, I will note that those fee
and lie rates can get updated year over year.
So they are, they are subject to change in the future
but that 6 75 rate is
what is currently established by town code.
- Would this, when does this lock in per se
with the housing department, you know,
does it lock in when they pay the fee if you increase your
mitigation rate or is it subject to the increase?
Do you know how that works from this end?
- I, I believe it locks in when they pay the fee.
So it is the, the fee at the time
that they're coming in with the payment.
Okay. And sorry, I'm looking
to other housing department folks just in case
I am misrepresenting something but I see nods.
- Okay, - Heather, same subject
but question in regard to the conditions that were drafted
by staff in regard to to
or that would be associated with approval if it went forward
Condition 13 prior to the issuance of the first certificate
of occupancy for the project,
the applicant shall record deed restrictions
with the Eagle County clerk
and recorder in a format approved by the town for each
of the eight onsite employee housing
units, so on and so forth.
Here we're talking about
or something potentially different
and I think that the app, the applicant's okay
with the proposal staff is okay with the proposal.
How's that gonna impact conditions and,
and any ion potential conditions for approval.
Number one, I think that your 13 is now down to
five, I mean, sorry your eight is down to five
and that thing.
But then what other conditions would we have to approve
to make sure that the intent
of the parties are would be effectuated?
- We definitely would have to switch out
condition number three, which is actually speaks to the
contribution that is in the current plan based off of the,
the current submitted proposal.
It would also, just reading down here real quick,
it would be, it would change number 13
as you noted because it does speak
to the eight onsite employee housing units.
So that would change the wording would need
to change on that one.
And then I believe, I think it,
there were only two that was it.
- So yeah, in that three would be really just changing if a
motion was to be made with this option number three
three condition two would involve changing that number
from 4 25 as listed up here
to a housing contribution paid number of 2 6 6 4 or
- Right and that is the Language.
Yeah, the language is actually noted on page three
of the housing memo that was attached.
Okay. There are conditions of approval that were reviewed by
planning staff and, and housing staff as well.
So Okay. Those are the approved alternate
conditions to replace those.
And I think the only note that I would make on top of
that is that the first two in the housing staff memo were
intended to directly replace those two
that Heather just called out in the planning staff memo.
And then there are two additional to kind
of capture the full picture of option two.
- Okay, thank you.
- So Anna, thank you for making this presentation.
First off, you know, when we, we had talked about
alternative housing plans, I had stated that I wanted
to hear from housing departments supporting
it before I entertained it.
So it's important having you here.
So thank you for your time. And to be clear,
this is the option two is what you prefer
and what you think is more impactful in terms
of a housing plan for this project? Correct.
- Okay. - Do we know what happens with
the E-H-U-G-R-F-A
or is that just gonna be a question for the applicant?
It, so in terms of option one versus option two?
Yeah because it looks to me like option one is about
32,000 private GRFA
and option two was about 38,000 private GRFA.
So am I misunders, is that correct?
So it will, it will increase that deviation for the density
for GRFA slightly
- 'cause ees don't count towards GFA
and so if the three GFA convert to market rate,
they are then counted towards GFA.
- So the orange block, the, yeah, so the,
If you shift by eliminating those three EU
that are in the orange polygon, then the overall project
net new GRFA increases to 40,955.
The 10% mitigation rate goes up from that 3,800 to
now 4,096 square feet.
The onsite E-H-U-G-R-F-A for those five remains the same as
what you would see in the plan.
So that would, I think 3,253 square feet
and the, I think, sorry, I'm gonna zoom in.
Sorry, I feel like I'm, I'm confused by the answer
in option one, the private GRFA, which excludes ESU
is okay.
It only goes, so you're saying it only goes up by the 2000?
Yes, because that's, that's the only change at least that
we are looking at from the housing plan.
The huge GFA is excluded. Yes. Okay.
And then I think typically we're supposed to do fee in lieu
for like a, you know, a fractional 400 foot
or less Yeah, for a fractional remainder.
So we have analyzed this under
what would be again section 12 24 6 1 A 1D,
which allows the commission to provide
for exceptions where there's an option
that better achieves both the specific
and general goals of the, of inclusionary zoning.
And we believe that this is
code compliant underneath that exception
- Are further.
Questions for Anna?
- I'm not sure if this is a question that I,
this might be a question for both of you. Is
- The parking obligation the same for unrestricted GRFA
as it is for E-H-U-G-R-F-A?
Does this change the parking obligation on the total plan?
- It depends what they turn the units into.
The, the, I'm sorry, the EHU units
'cause they've already committed to one parking space
per EHU unit.
So if it changes
to another one bedroom unit that'll convert over.
However, if it changes into a larger, the conversion
will need to play itself out.
It's, I believe it will work itself out in terms
of square footage and
that's something the applicant can probably, they've looked at,
- So there were three in the orange spots,
so there were three parking spots allocated towards
that orange area.
So chances are if that unit requires three
or less, then it's okay. Yes.
- Okay. - Which based on that square footage
that they're replacing, it should theoretically work.
They've got the real answer mapped out.
- Anything further for Anna? Thank you Anna.
- Thanks - Anna. I'll be in the room until 3 45. Okay.
- Questions for Heather on the plan on the presentation.
So Heather, has,
has anything changed substantially from the last working
session that we had on this building to
where we sit now? No,
- The plans have not been updated since June 10th.
I think the last work session was in late May.
So some negligible changes to that.
The applicant can address that more specifically,
but staff has not seen any noticeable changes to that.
- Okay. Anything else for staff?
Hearing none, we'll turn it over to the applicant.
George, do you have a presentation for us today?
- I do, I do. Thank you. Good afternoon.
George Ruther with Ruther Associates here on behalf
of Lunar VA land investment in Sean by
and Ron Burn.
I'm gonna take just a couple minutes.
Heather did a fantastic job going through the presentation.
I want to take a couple minutes and just highlight maybe a
couple things that may be a little bit redundant,
but I wanna make sure they're,
they're refle accurately reflected on the record as well
as maybe add a couple of things to it.
So I'll run through these slides real quick
and to ensure that we comply with our time limit,
I jotted these notes down,
so I'm gonna kinda share this stuff
with you pretty quickly here.
The applicant's written narrative
and plans proposed developing lunar avail residences in
accordance with the recommendations
of the Vail Village Master plan and the Vail Town Code.
More than the 75 page written narrative thoroughly details
how the proposed plan complies
with the review criteria prescribed by the Vail Town Code.
The plan is implemented within the framework
of a newly established special development district,
and I think as you're aware,
the town has consistently approved special development
districts to achieve development goals
and serve the in the best interests of the communities.
These districts are in fact the best
and most effective tool,
providing the greatest flexibility in delivering the best
results for the community.
In our case, the requested deviations include increases in
density, controls, a change to the setbacks,
and an increase in building height.
The proposed special development district is the best means
of implementing the recommendations
of the Vail Village Master plan, as well
as the development goals and objectives of the Town of Vail.
The lunar Vail residences development project,
as Heather noted, is a residential community featuring
luxury condominiums and de restricted housing.
A total of 17 new homes
and eight D restricted homes are planned on the site.
Based on upon adopted master planning efforts,
the site is recommended
for high density residential infill development.
The new building does sit atop a 75 space,
fully enclosed parking garage that replaces an existing
asphalt parking lot.
The building height as proposed aligns
with the recommendations of the Vail Village Master plan
and the exterior materials
and architectural styles match those of existing
and potential residential buildings.
In the East Vail Village area.
The building's uses bulk mass and scale
and height are compatible with the neighborhood's character
and evolving development patterns in
the, in the neighborhood.
The new development is contained within a single building.
The lunar ville residences is composed of two thirds
of the building is five stories tall.
Only one third
of the buildings are six stories tall.
And this building is located on the northern two thirds
of the development site.
The building's average height.
A question that came up in previous meetings is 57.3 feet
with the maximum height being the 69 feet that
that Heather referenced.
This is compatible
with adjacent structures in the immediate vicinity.
It's important to note that roughly 33%
of the building's total mass is below grade
and the building's roof forms do step down
to match the development site's.
Natural topography
as it slopes southerly towards Gore Creek as required.
The architectural style
and design of the new buildings compliment the existing Vail
Mountain View residences, Altus Vail residences,
the REN Condominiums
and Apollo Park featuring both an assemblage of stone stucco
and wood-like siding.
The sloping roofs are as noted, our plan,
a rooftop solar array is also planned for
atop the new lunar vale residence building.
As part of the owner's amenity package
and outdoor plaza with casual seating, barbecue grills
and swimming pools is integrated into the landscape design.
The swimming pool deck has been recited
and redesigned to minimize unintended impacts
to neighboring property owners
and to remain outside the 30 foot wide utility easement.
A thoughtfully planned landscape design,
including two rooftop planting areas,
balances the visual aesthetics, firewise protection,
visual screening,
and year round appeal across the buildings and this site.
The landscape plan as, as Heather noted, is fully compliant
with the veil town coat, low level, fully
shielded landscape like fixtures comply
with the town's outdoor lighting standards
and minimize any undesirable light pollution.
The development plan a, as Heather's slide noted
and I'll speak to here in a moment, has been resigned new,
or excuse me, revised numerous times based upon input from
the Vail Town Council, the Town of Vail Planning
and Environmental Commission,
and the neighboring property owners in the vicinity.
Most notably and regrettably,
a new riverfront building is no longer planned.
Instead, the Apollo Park buildings A and B will remain.
The revisions to the site include, again, reduced density
and GRFA increased landscape areas, removal
of building stories bulk mass
and scale minimized setback, encroachments,
maximized onsite community housing,
improved emergency vehicle access
and decreased vehicle trips, as well
as increased separation between all
of the buildings within this neighborhood
and an enhanced architectural design.
Undoubtedly, these revisions have improved the project.
Thank you for your input along the way,
but most unfortunately, they no longer solve
what I kept referring to for the last 18 months
as the Apollo Park puzzle.
The plan revisions section eight,
if you're following along in your, in your packet
of the applicant's written narrative,
summarizes the proposed land uses on the property
and analyzes the requested zoning and development standards.
In doing so, the proposed development standards are compared
with those that are prescribed
for the high density multiple family zone district and,
and the deviations are noted.
Heather had a slide in her deck that showed the kind of a,
a compare and contrast of the
existing two proposed development standards.
It's also included with in the applicant's
written narrative, most notably site density is currently
non-conforming as it was when the,
the Met the Vail Village master plan was adopted.
The GRFA deviation has been reduced to align
with similar developments in the Town of Vail
and the neighborhood and the area
of the encroachment on the west side setback has been
reduced to only 208 total square feet above grade.
The building height remains unchanged
as acknowledged despite an attempt to update
and amend the outdated Vail Village Master plan.
The 40 foot height maximum
of the high density multiple family zone district remains
grossly misaligned with the housing recommendations
of the Vail Village Master Plan.
I think we spoke about that at length at previous meetings.
That given the recommendations
of the master plan proposing five to six stories
of development on this portion of the development site
and a 40 foot height limitation is the
misalignment I'm referring to.
Lastly, a lunar Vail Residences community housing plan has
been proposed that plan contents comply fully
with the requirements of the Vail Town Code
and a mitigation goes well beyond the minimum requirements
of the Vail Town Code.
The plan has the support of the Town
of Vail Housing Department and the Vail Local Housing
Authority upon implementation of the upon implementation,
the plan will help the Vail community achieve its adopted
and at one time thought to be an audacious housing goal.
The town's housing department has proposed an
alternate housing option.
Option two, which the applicant does support provided it
provided that its implementation does not somehow delay
the review of this, of this application.
And in fact, we'd like that option to
that the housing staff has recommended
so much we wish we had proposed it.
The Lunar VA residences is similar
to other development proposals within the Town of Vail.
It has undergone extensive scrutiny and review and revision.
Heather did take an opportunity
and go through each one
of the compliance and review criteria.
These next couple slides I'm not gonna bore you with
because I think it says largely the same information,
but I will say that our application does achieve the
development goals, excuse me,
and objectives of the Town of Vail
and was created in collaboration with the neighbors
and offers public benefits that would not otherwise be
provided absent a special development district.
The compliance criteria that I'm kind of scrolling
through here, they are all more fully described again in a
copy of your packet in the written analysis.
This is a summary of
how we believe we we fully achieve those standards.
I will point out here in a moment in the slides
and answer some of the questions that came up.
I I do want to note one
of the bullets here about emergency vehicle
access and staging.
I'm gonna speak to that here again in a moment as well.
We believe that approving the special development district
number 44 is in the best interest
of the East Vail Village
neighborhood and the Vail community.
A recommendation of approval from the Planning Environmental
Environmental Commission to the Town Council,
we believe is warranted.
To that end, we would recommend that the in request,
that the Planning Environmental Commission
recommends approval of this project
as noted in the staff memorandum to the,
the Vail Town Council.
So therefore, on behalf of the applicant's Ron
and Sean Byrne, I request the planning commission
unanimously recommends approval of this project
to the Vail Town Council so we can continue to move forward
with the project.
Heather, can you run that animation for me please? Quickly,
we put together a 3D model, 3D animation that,
that puts this building into context
and perspective with the adjacent structures
and uses in the site.
It does not address
or identify what could potentially happen if the REN were
to redevelop consistent with the avail village master plan,
but again, just kind of focuses on existing conditions in
and around the property.
This takes just a minute to run.
- So that's Mountain View at the bottom swinging by. Right.
And we see Altus in the left, correct?
- Correct.
You'll also notice when the building comes around,
we took a large portion,
and I'll speak to this, we took a large portion of GRFA out
of that Western facade at the request of the neighbors.
So above that kind of trellis work on the west side,
you can see where the, the outdoor patio
or deck is where we removed a bunch of GRFA.
Heather, can you take us back to the
PowerPoint presentation?
I do want to jump ahead a little bit in the,
in the PowerPoint presentation
and talk about what we think is a key element
of, of this project.
We, a question came up about plan changes since
April 27th in May 11th in response
and to a request from the Vail Fire Department.
And I think it's important to note, not an obligation
of the International Fire Code,
but in response to a request from the Vail Fire Department,
we did and are proposing to amend our plans.
I'm just gonna jump ahead here a little bit.
We're proposing to amend our plans
to provide improved emergency vehicle access, not
for this property, but instead
to the Altus property in the Vail Mountain View property.
It will enhance
and benefit the Apollo Park portion of, of the site,
but again, outlined here, this diagram
that you're seeing up on the screen shows the required
fire department access to this, this project consistent
with the town's adopted international fire code,
again at the request of the Vail Fire Department,
based upon a non-conforming emergency vehicle access
that exists entirely on the Vail Mountain View
and Altus Properties.
We have worked with our civil engineers
and we are willing to amend our plan to address the need for
emergency vehicle access to Avail Mountain View
and Altus with the expansion being primarily and,
and almost entirely on the,
the Lunar VA site.
This does impact our development potential in the future,
but it also provides a greater sense of life safety
and protection of property in the neighborhood.
So again, we are willing to implement this plan
and if this, this project does receive a recommendation
of approval from the Planning commission, we'll amend this,
this vehicle access plan prior to first reading
with the Town Council to show it on the, on the plan set.
There's also a,
an important distinction to be understood here.
There are some existing encroachments
into the already platted emergency vehicle access
encroachments that were constructed
by Vail Mountain View Residences and Altus.
They're on their property, not on our property.
The original request was, I believe, was for us
to compensate and make up for those encroachments
that they have on their property
and essentially allow them
to have encroachments on their easement and
therefore we just build more on our property.
I think understandably, you, you can appreciate,
we're not agreeable to doing that if this plan is
to be implemented, we would ask
that the Vail Fire Department in the Town
of Vail require those encroachments into the, this
most important emergency vehicle access, be removed
by Vail Mountain View
and Altus to fully pull off this plan
as it's as it's outlined.
We think that's, that's only fair in, in just
this last diagram, just shows a a again, our site,
the Red Arrows showing from the fire staging area,
the fire department's footpath of travel
and access around not only our building,
but also around the remaining Apollo Park buildings
A and b on the site.
And it should be noted that, excuse me, that each
of these plans has received approval from the,
the Vail Fire Department.
And with that, I'm going to end my remarks
and then I can get back to some
of your other questions when the, when the time is right.
- Questions for the applicant from commissioners.
One thing I want to ask George,
regarding the parking, can you ref,
we talked about this previously,
but can you talk about what is currently
provided to Apollo Park and what will be
provided with the new parking deck Sure.
And how, how that works? Yep.
- I believe out on the site today is approximately 40
to 43 surface parking spaces.
What will be provided upon construction
of this project is parking spaces that are fully compliant
with chapter 10 of the Vail Town Code in the Vail Town Code
requires that there be two parking spaces, I believe each
for the six condominium units on the site
and 0.7 parking spaces for a timeshare unit on the site.
The numbers that we have provided accommodate for
that in this plan, so we fully comply.
There was an additional question about parking
and, and parking compliance.
Our intent, and Heather had it correct, is
that when you convert those, eh, used
to free market square footage,
the net effect is we still meet our parking requirement
and that's, and that would be our intent.
No deviations from parking. Okay.
- And in reading, oh, go ahead
- George.
Couple three questions.
I guess first, the three exterior parking spaces,
where are those located?
- Let me see. I don't have that in my set
of site plans. I tried to
- Tell Heather's - Got they, they're exterior
and they're right immediately south
of the entrance to the parking garage.
- Okay. I think when I was looking at the video,
I maybe picked up on that, but not,
and then, yeah, I'm assuming
there's got highlighted right there.
You know, UPS FedEx is probably gonna utilize that.
That's those front of that parking area. A
- A actually we, we accommodate UPS
and FedEx on the north portion of the site. Okay,
- So - I'm sorry.
Yes. Entering, entering
through the easement in that area right there is where we,
we've identified our loading and delivery space
- And then how, where's, where's trash
and how does that get accessed
- Trash.
I didn't put that slide in,
but you, we can probably work off of this one right here,
Heather, if you can just drive the cursor
for me entering trash.
And we've talked with the local waste haulers entering
the site through the easement access easement with Altus.
They pull into Altus, they grab trash from Altus.
They then continue west,
or excuse me east along that access drive until they get to
that entrance.
There is a trash enclosure located fully contained
within inside the building.
They wheel the dumpster out, dump the trash,
wheel it back in, exit back out of our
- Driveway.
And then the Apollo buildings that remain same situation or
- We, we, they all, all the buildings share the same trash.
Okay. Okay. And that, that's essentially if you,
if you're familiar with the site, it's essentially
where the trash is located today.
Okay. We did, I if I could share maybe just,
we can stay there Heather.
That that one works fine there.
There's loading delivery in a trash truck.
We also looked at the opportunity of, since you know,
trash was going to be a, a neighborhood need,
we looked at the opportunity of providing access
to the existing Ren trash enclosure.
Re's trash enclosure is located
in the very northwest corner of their site.
Little further north Heather? Yeah. Up in that area.
Generally in that area, we looked at the opportunity of,
since their trash enclosure was there,
could we just extend across, so the truck,
when they come in, they pick up the trash dump one in one
time out, not have to go back out onto the
frontage road and come back in.
Unfortunately, the grades, as soon as we get to that corner,
the building, the grades start to tip
and the trash truck can't operate on that cross slope.
But we did look at trying to combine opportunities if
that was something the run was willing
to, to collaborate on.
Unfortunately we can't do it.
- Can you talk about construction, one
of the concerns in written public comment that was submitted
multiple times is access
to the Apollo Park building during construction.
You know, since trash will be replaced,
where is there trash go during construction?
How are those impacts mitigated
during construction of the building?
- Sure. I I, I think there, there's a important distinction
that, that I think needs to be, to be understood
and I know it was in a letter from Apollo Park
where their counsel is correct in, in stating
that the parking for Apollo Park is going
to be temporarily impacted.
Counsel, however, we believe is incorrect in
that it is gonna be permanently eliminated.
They make a reference that somehow it's gonna
be permanently eliminated.
We show a plan that shows it's being replaced
and will be back parking for Apollo Park is fully restored
as per the parking requirements of the town code
and upon completion of lunar Vale residences.
They also suggest that a development application,
which we believe is an entitlement, shall be denied
because of what is instead a permitting issue.
The town code makes it very clear that there's entitlements
and there's permitting in the permitting process
and staff can maybe, can maybe provide some credibility to.
What I'm gonna say is there is a requirement
that we provide a construction access
and staging plan as well as emergency vehicle access plan.
That's an administrative review process that's part of
that, that process.
So before a building permit could be issued for this site,
we need to submit that construction staging
an emergency vehicle access plan to the Town of Vail
for review and approval.
As has been done with every other project in the Town
of Vail, I don't think you'd be surprised
to know this is not the first project
where access in parking has been temporarily
impacted by construction.
But again, the town requires that we, we demonstrate a,
a workable plan prior to the issuance of a building permit.
- Okay. And that is condition number six
on our conditions list.
Just to spell it out even more clear for the applicant.
Okay.
- Further questions for the applicant from commissioners
- Can I'm sorry, go Bill shared.
I thought, bill, you had three questions.
- I thought garbage, FedEx, UPS
and the three outside parking spaces.
- Got it. Thank you. - And
so your construction management plan will address access,
temporary trash facilities, things of that nature, correct?
Correct. Okay.
Are there other questions
of the applicant from commissioners?
Last one from me.
Do you prefer as the applicant option two that was presented
by the housing staff?
- We, we do. Like I said,
we wish we had come up with it ourselves.
We, the, the only concern that I have,
and I have talked to Jason
and Anna about this, is the condition requires that we
fund the full pay Lou fee prior
to the issuance of the building permit.
The whole advantage, the win-win outcome that comes
of this alternative comes
because when we, with the additional square footage GRFA
that is granted, it generates the revenue
to write the check for that fee.
I was hopeful that we would be able to, to pay all
or a portion of that fee in lieu payment at the time
of an is prior to the issuance of the first certificate
of occupancy because right at
that point the revenue is generated.
The, the proceeds are there to make, to make the payment,
but the condition is what the condition is and yeah.
We'll, we'll, we'll move forward with option number two if
that is amenable to the, to the planning commission.
If not, we are happy to stick with option number one
as we originally proposed.
- Great. - Anything else
before we turn over to public comment?
Hearing nothing further from commissioners,
we will turn it over to public comment.
If you are online and would like to comment,
please raise your hand if we'll promote you.
Sorry, go ahead George. Yeah,
- I was just gonna say while you're, while you're going
through that, I do want to pass out four
to be entered into the record, a memorandum
to the Planning Environmental Commission from Ballard
Spar. Legal counsel
- Representing Luner Vale Land Investment.
- Okay, you can pass it out. We'll take it into the record.
- I'm sorry. That's alright.
- Thank you. If you wouldn't mind giving out the microphones
with anyone in the room coming forward,
if you're in the room, we'll start in the room.
Please come forward. I would appreciate you keeping
your comments to three minutes.
We have a lot of public comment to hear from today.
We want to hear from everybody.
I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Thank you.
And will you come forward? Please state your name
for the record just before you give your comments.
Use the one at the, the desk here.
That microphone at the lectern does not work. Thank you.
- Hello again. Dave Zein, president
of Apollo Park at Vail Homeowners Association.
Just so you know that this plan, the SDD application
is not approved by Apollo Park.
We're not a co-applicant
and we ask that you deny this application.
Just a little bit reminder of the history,
we worked really hard with Learner Vale.
We had a, an agreement that has long since expired
and we'd worked on an Apollo Park portion of the property.
We brought that to you in 2025.
You denied that after that
lunar VA on their own without Paula Park.
Went to Town Council in January with a five story building
and Town Council sent that back to you.
So anyway, the last plan that we agreed to back then was,
was denied by y parking is a big issue for us.
A few years ago we converted 5,000 square feet
of asphalt into a beautiful landscaping.
I worked with the planning department and fire
and then we went through DRB
and the town's rule at
that time was no reduction in parking spaces, not a one.
They were really adamant about that.
So that's why we have 44 spaces out there now.
Here the applicant intends
to reduce our usable parking spaces by 25%.
Just seems unfair to have one stricter rule for residents
and a different one for the developer as far
as fire safety go goes, you know,
with planning we walked the entire property inside
and out around all the grounds worked.
The fire chief, the chief asked for specific items.
We fully complied.
He had us move our prime parking spaces
around the away from the building
so he could create a staging area.
He asked for a 26 foot drive aisle.
We complied with that and they also wanted an easy path in
order to get to the B building.
Now they want to park cars in the east staging area
and they have a fenced pool in the area in front
of our west building is is just crazy.
The safety, our residents must be paramount.
These are long-term issues.
It's not just during construction
that we're worried about this.
You end up risking the life safety of our residents
to improve this plan and it seems just unfair
and unsafe to compromise for a developer here.
George Luther and Planner Knight say
that they're covering the parking lot
actually you're covering our pool,
our parking lot, our beautiful park.
It's way more than the little bit of asphalt
that that's out there right now.
So when I was in front of you previously,
I asked you we wanna avoid a a force development.
This is the force development.
We were very much misled into believing a redevelopment
would replace the Apollo Park buildings.
We believe that used deception to get to Apollo Park
to support previous plans.
And now we're completely out of that.
We would ask you to please not reward this behavior.
The easiest path to a, a proper site redevelopment solution
that solves the Apollo Park puzzle, as George calls it,
the one that works for the neighbors, the town,
the fire department, and Apollo Park is
to simply deny this application.
So thanks for your time, really appreciate it. Thank you.
- Hi, my name is Aviva Flock. I'm an owner at Apollo Park.
My family and I have been coming to Vail
for more than 50 years to enjoy skiing, dining, shopping,
and the overall charm of Vail year round.
I wanna provide my perspective on why this number 44 SDD
should be recommended for denial.
As Sheridan previous public comment, the Apollo Park HOA,
supported the initial application
because we were told that our buildings would be replaced
as part of the development.
Now that the applicant has eliminated these previously
mentioned provisions and seeks large variances
to develop lunar Vail North without offering any
compensation for Apollo park owners
or even coming to the table to discuss an amenable plan,
I question whether they have honestly considered the best
interest of longtime Vail residents
or simply hope to ultimately eliminate us
through this develop redevelopment process.
Approval of this application will result in a two
to three year construction period during which my family
and our neighbors will lose significant access to parking,
swimming in the beautifully landscaped areas.
The loss of those amenities combined
with the construction noise
and general disruption will prevent us from enjoying our
units or attracting renters for the two
to three year construction period.
In addition, the long-term impact from loss
of parking spaces and other outdoor amenities will
drastically reduce the usability
and value of our properties.
Apollo Park owners are not like the wealthy second
homeowners likely to purchase the proposed luxury condos
primarily for status or income.
We're longtime visitors
and supporters of Vail
who have developed great relationships within our community.
Our inability to use
or rent our units during the construction period
and no plan to compensate us for the loss of value
to our owner units will hurt not only us,
but also the businesses we love to support.
While we're here as protectors of the architectural charm
and friendly environment that makes Vail special, we hope
that the Vail PEC
and Vail Town Council will reject this request
for massive variances.
The greatly disadvantages me
and my neighbors, the application is bad
for the neighborhood and generally bad for Vail.
- Thank you. Thank you. Hey Cole, I've got time here.
Can we, we don't need that giant time wrap on the screen.
It's a little distracting. I'd rather focus be
on the, on the public comment.
That was, that was me. Sorry, I'm keeping track here, right?
Thank you. Yeah, better.
- Hi, my name is Terry Paget.
My wife and I have been owners
of Apollo Park since the 1980s.
Before purchasing there, we were part of the Vail community.
I managed the Vail branch
of an electrical contractor in our company,
help build projects like the Simba Run Bale Spa.
I can go on and on, you know, in Beaver Creek and,
and Yon as well.
So the the we, we were proud to invest in
and help build this community.
We moved to Denver, raised four children
and today all four of them own property at Apollo Park.
Along with us, our family has a long-term
commitment to Vail.
As a longstanding business owner myself,
I understand the importance of updating and
and improving properties over time.
However, I also understand the importance of doing
so responsibly by honoring existing contracts
and ensuring that all parties involved are
heard and considered.
We support thoughtful development
that includes Apollo Park Park's best interest.
We want projects that are well planned
and meet veils, building standards, comply with all safety
and fire codes and respect the character of our community.
We simply ask that whatever decision is made is fair
to the current owners of Apollo Park
who have invested in this community for decades.
Thank you for your time. I have one question also on the
rendering, it showed how the access was going
to be in order to fight a fire.
When a ladder truck, if I am aware of that, is like 45
to 55 feet long, how are you going
to maintain a, a good fire escape or
or accessibility to this building B.
So thank you. Safety is a big concern. Yeah.
- Hi, thanks for your time today.
My name is Whitney Vanel, formerly Whitney Paget.
I was honored to be the Vail New Year's baby in 1984.
My family's roots in Vail run very deep for generations.
Apollo Park has been part of the fabric of Vail
and part of my family's story.
As owners and families have returned year
after year supporting local businesses,
investing in the town's economy
and creating multi-generational traditions
and memories, we are deeply invested in Vail,
not just financially but also personally.
As I sat here today, I want to share one thing clearly.
We want Apollo Park to be beautiful.
We want it to reflect the high standards
and character that make Vail so special.
We wanna partner with the town
and the developer to update Apollo Park
and ensure it remains a place
where families can continue making memories
and investing in veil for generations to come.
Apollo Park has never opposed redevelop redevelopment.
We have spent time trying to collaborate
and partner with the developer to find a solution
that both benefits them and Apollo Park.
Unfortunately, that spirit
of partnership seems to have disappeared.
We are also asking, we are not asking
for you to stop the progress.
We are simply stating that Apollo Park needs
to have a seat at the table that includes Apollo's parking.
Just because it's to code with the Town
of Vail doesn't negate the fact
that there are fewer spots available
for Apollo Park residents.
Also future updates that also for the future updates
that need to happen to hope Paula Park,
that a solution is found here today.
That Respe respects the people
who have invested in this community for decades
and allows us to continue to partner with Vail's future.
We respect, we respectfully ask the council
to encourage a path that brings everyone back to the table
that protects the interest of all parties, not just one.
Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Kim Paget
and my family moved here in 1978
and we've watched the Vail Valley grow into a family
friendly, beautiful,
and thoughtfully planned community that it is today.
My husband worked on many projects throughout Vail,
beaver Creek and Avon that reflected the character
of our mountain community.
We love the Swiss Val Village atmosphere
that attracts families, visitors from around the world,
movie stars, presidents,
and most importantly the locals who make this place special.
We were saddened to see Blue Cow Swiss Hotdog
restaurant close this week.
This year after 40 years as a family run business.
It reminded us how important it is to preserve the character
and the traditions that make Veil unique.
We have owned at Apollo Park for 38 years.
We brought our parents, our children,
and now our nine grandchildren here
to create memories together.
When we purchased our property, we understood
that the lease extended until 2077.
Giving future generations of our family the opportunity
to continue the the tradition.
We support remodeling and updating Apollo Park
and we want improvements that are fair to everyone.
But changing the terms that family relied on when they
invested here does not seem fair.
Vail has always been our home away from home.
We've, we've supported Apollo Park,
the concerts at Ford Park
and our local businesses for nearly 40 decades.
We've lost count of how many skis, parks,
and other gear we've purchased here over the years.
We simply ask that you honor the commitment made
to our family like ours
and help preserve the community we love.
So for so long,
because of our love for the Vail Valley,
all our four children have purchased Apollo Park units
and plan to continue visiting for years to come.
I'm very concerned about the parents
and the safety of the new proposal being
proposed, being represented.
Therefore I oppose this application
and respectfully ask that you deny it.
Thank you. Thank you.
Good afternoon. My name is Holly Hampel and my husband Scott
and I own two timeshares at Apollo Park.
We've owned one for nine years and the other for two years.
My family of 19 has been coming to Vail
for the summer vacations.
For most of us for the past 30 years.
We truly enjoy the Vail
and we supported the local community financially, not only
during the summer but also when we visit and pass through.
During the fall and winter months, we are writing
to express our opposition
to the proposed plans for Apollo Park.
We're particularly concerned about the significant
and significant reduction in parking
and the resulting challenges that may create
for the timeshare owners and visitors.
We also have serious concerns about safety
and access to our units as well as the potential
to impact our residents
and our senior citizens who rely on convenient
and safe access to the property.
We're also concerned about the future plans of
for the buildings and the potential changes
to the management and owner ownership
of the association moving forward.
These decisions have significant impact on many timeshare
owners who come to Vail each year.
These are families, couples
and individuals who work hard to be able
to enjoy time in a place they love.
We understand that Vail is growing
and changes may be necessary,
however, to, we do hope
that in any future development we pre preserve the character
and the beauty of Vail while ensuring the, the buildings
and surrounding areas function safely
and effectively for everyone involved.
We do not want to see Vail become overdeveloped
or lose the qualities that make it such a special place.
Our family genuinely cares about Vail and the Apollo Park
and we want to see both continue to thrive
for generations to come.
We would welcome the opportunity to work together
and partner with the Town of Vail
and the other parties involved in the project
to find solutions that best address the concerns
of our timeshare owners, our residents,
and the broader community.
We respectfully oppose the plans
that they're currently presenting
and hoping that our concerns regarding safety,
accessibility, parking,
and the future of Apollo Park will be carefully considered.
Mostly, most importantly, we hope that Paula Park,
timeshare owners and owners will be included in the process
and given meaningfully meaningful opportunity
to participate in decisions that directly affect the future
of Apollo Park and the land that we have invested in
and cared about for so many years.
Thank you. Thank you.
Hi, my name is Lacey Bruno.
I'm from Olathe, Kansas and I'm also an owner at Apollo Park
and you've heard from basically my whole family already,
but I just wanna add,
sorry.
- That's fine. - We live nine hours away
and we're a blended family so the time that we have
with my stepdaughters is very special to us
And this is one week where we don't have to split time.
It's not like a holiday or a birthday where you know,
the girls have to go to their mom's
for a certain portion, then they come to us.
This is a week where we get
to help them understand they're loved and they belong.
You know, this is un unrestricted time and it's always ours
and as you've heard from my family, we've been here for
nearly 44 decades.
Right. And this is a a time where not just them
but also my sons get to get to come and be a part, you know,
because we can't just go to the meets
or the, the swim meets the place we come
and my son, he's four
and if you know, the average 4-year-old asks between two
and 300 questions a day and he does that.
Where's N and Papa? Are they coming for dinner?
Where's the cousins? I want to go to the park.
Can we go say goodnight to them?
These are things that help develop and grow relationship
and so obviously I can agree
with all the things about the building, I just ask
that you would consider the families that are being affected
by this because it's much more than just a property.
- Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
- Hello, my name is Lisa Patton
and I've been a homeowner there, share owner
since 79.
And so it's been about 45, 46 years.
I have my, my daughter who is now actually on the board
was nine when we bought the unit
and currently she has a unit
and my granddaughter has a unit in addition
to my husband's and money.
And I think that I agree with everything everybody's saying.
We do not oppose a development,
but we feel that we have been now not included.
I have very big concerns, I'm an engineer
and I've been, I mean, experienced with constructions
and I do not see Immediately
how we would be able to improve our property in the,
the near or even much distant future with this being
built right in front of us.
And we don't, I don't know how they would do the staging
and, and bring the equipment in and all that.
So I think that there are a lot of things
that haven't been addressed with this
because we have been eliminated from the picture of the,
of course I have issue, we've always had issues
with the parking and we, you know, you can't have,
it's just one per per unit.
So now without one per unit
that will be even a larger problem.
So that is, that's my thought
and I believe that there's, you know, 1700 of us that are
probably very similar minded in this respect.
So I appreciate, thank you for listening. Thank you.
- Alright. Hi,
- My name is Tony De and I own five units in the Palo Park
and over the last six months
or longer I have been trying to figure out
what's been presented from Lunar Vale to Apollo Park
who has privilege to that information.
And it's been difficult for me to, as an owner to
get that information from Apollo Park, whether it's the,
the board or I was told that we
hired someone that was a developer,
but Harrison h is our accountant
and he won't tell me the names of the board of directors.
I've emailed info at Apollo Park
and Harrison H on several occasions.
I still honestly don't know the names of the board members.
The guy that came up that said he was the president,
that's the first time I've seen or heard of him
and he said his name so fast I didn't even get it.
So right now I don't see how,
who is representing Apollo Park.
That's what I want to know.
Where are the minutes to the discussions
between the board members?
Do we have someone hired?
So, sorry, what's the name of the law firm? This
- Is public comment.
We, it's, we don't engage in back and forth.
If you have some questions, we
- Can.
Okay, so that's my public comments is there's a serious lack
of information distributed to the owners
of Apollo Park to be able to comment on the seriousness
of the legitimate proposal that Lunar Vale is making,
which is their right.
And I, I think that they're good operators
but Apollo Park has some decisions to make,
whether they want to be a part of fixing up those buildings
and modernizing them or doing a tear down.
But I don't see the, the connection,
I don't see the information being distributed to owners and
or the public however it's supposed to be legally.
So I am still at a loss as to how
to make a final decision. Thank you. Thank you.
- Thank you.
Hi, I am Tyler Paget
and I swear I'll be the last pageant
that you guys have to talk to today.
Unlike the rest of my family, I fought
for my unit for 10 years.
It took a long time for me to get up here
and to get my family into a unit.
I've been an electrical electrician, excuse me,
for the last 25 years
and I'm now a superintendent down at DIA at the
international airport and I do tons and tons of projects and
whenever we start looking at a project, one
of the main concerns is
how are we gonna work our ourself out?
Right? We don't ever wanna work ourselves into a corner,
we wanna work ourselves out of a corner.
And my request is, is that as the council
that you guys look at this development
with a logical viewpoint of how is Apollo Park going
to ever develop, right?
Are we going to become an eyesore, right?
Because then we become a bigger problem, right?
That has to be fixed later on down the road.
And if we're not able to collaborate
with the developer at this point in time
and begin to develop some of those things, now when are we,
because we're right there on the edge, we're right next
to Gore Creek and we don't want to impede on that, right?
We don't want to have to, there's no way we can ever develop
fully and with a proper
and a good way of actually getting ourselves out of
that corner unless we do it
with the developer at this point in time.
So I ask that you guys would please look at that
with a a logical standpoint of how are we going
to get Apollo Apollo park up to the wonderful
and beautiful standards that the rest available is at.
Thank you. Thank you.
Is there a further public comment in the room
if there's no further comment in
the room, we will go online.
Are there hands raised online?
- Yes, there are hands getting raised right now.
I have 14 hands raised. Okay. Oh 15.
I will just start promoting.
Yep, just go down the line more come up.
We will just promote them. So understood.
Todd, Todd, I've promoted you to,
to speak if you wanna state your name for the record.
- I,
- Hi Todd, you're promoted.
If you can state your name, you can state your comments.
Todd, we, we can't hear you.
You may be muted if we move on
to the next person you can raise your hand if you want
to try again, if you can unmute your, your system.
- Dan I'm gonna promote you.
Please state your name for the record.
- Hi, can you hear me? - We can. Thank you.
- Hi, my name is Dan Wolf and my wife Carol
and I own number 3 0 3 at Vail Mountain View residence.
I'm also a member of our HOA board.
Despite the minimization of the variations
that are being requested by both by your staff and by Mr.
Ruther, the applicant is asking
for massive zoning variations which don't fit
with the character of our neighborhood.
They're back to the PEC with a proposal
that has a similar number
and size of variations as the earlier proposal
that was rejected by the Town Council on
June 6th of this year.
To me that seems to show a lack of respect for the PEC,
the Town Council, the neighbors
and the process in general
under the current high density multifamily zoning rules.
SDD number 44 is entitled to exactly zero square feet
of new GRFA.
So 100% of the new GRFA
that the developer is requesting is in excess of
what the zoning rules allow on that property.
In addition, I'd like to compare the number
and size of variations being requested
with SDD number 44
with SD number 42 which was mentioned earlier,
that which which was for the approval
to enable development of the neighboring Altus building it.
As far as I know the,
the Vail Mountain View residence was not included in
that there were no variations required for the the
construction of VMVR
with SDD 44,
although it was ultimately re approved.
There are many who believe that Altus is too big
and too tall for that site.
So let's look at SD number 42.
At Altus it required four variances with an average variance
of 35% from the zoning codes or rules.
SD number 44 lunar park requires five variances
with an average size
of 73% in variance from the zoning rules.
So about twice that which is required.
Those major variances include height at 45% over
GRFA at 63% over, which will actually
it sounds like increase if there's option two is is taken on
the EH u and the density at 83% that doesn't square
with the development that fits with the character
of the neighborhood.
And we would ask that PEC recommend the denial
of SD number 44 at least
until the applicant addresses the neighbor's issues.
Thank you.
- Thank you
- Bill, I'm going to promote you to talk if you'd like
to state your name for the record please.
- Bill, you've been promoted. If you can state your name.
Oh, I think, I think we had you there
- Bill Crawford.
Okay, good. A good afternoon. I'm, my name is Bill Crawford.
I'm here today to speak about the second
of four major issues with lunar BA's application.
It's it, it's interference with the rights
of Apollo Park and our neighbors.
The Vail time code states that lunar BA's application must
propose uses activity density which provide a capable,
efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses.
Simply put, the application does not indicate
that Lunar Vale is interested in the relationship
that is compatible, efficient or workable.
First, the application would temporarily eliminate all
parking and pool access
for Apollo Park for two or more years.
It does not represent any plan from where
residents are supposed to park
during construction of the new building.
This function makes our buildings unusable for large number
of our residents for an undefined period of time.
Second, following construction of the new building,
the plant permanently eliminates nearly 25%
of the power park's existing parking spots.
And lastly, most importantly,
the application would impair a power park's ability
to develop our property in the future.
We are 50 years into a ground lease
with another 50 years to go.
During this time Apollo Park is supposed
to have exclusive control of the property.
Approval of this application will make it dramatically more
difficult, if not impossible for us
to design a workable redevelopment plan.
Situations like this are exactly why the code does not allow
unilateral development applications
and instead requires consent from all owners.
The application should not be viewed in a vacuum.
This is a once in a 50 year opportunity for the PEC to think
outside the box and look at the property in its entirety.
Lunar Vale is asking the town of Vail for huge variances
of mass density, height, and setback requirements.
It should therefore not be too much asked for the PC two PC
PEC to request Luna Vale develop a comprehensive plan
for Apol Park and the Town of Vail for the entire property.
If you approved of shortsighted single development,
you inevitably or the inevitable mass density, height
and setback requirements needed to
redevelop a power park would make it prohibitive.
You also subject the residents of Mountain View Altus,
the rent and the thousand people
who use the Gore Creek pathway every day
to access the ball fields.
Betty Ford Gardens the Amphi, the
to view an old outdated building constructed in the 1970s
for the next 51 years.
Is this really the best long-term
interest for the Town of Vail? Thank you.
- Thank you. Can we promote the next person?
Yes Steve, I'm going to promote you.
Please state your name for the record.
Steve, you've been promoted. If you could state your name,
you can give us your comments
- After I press the unmute button. That should be better.
- You've got you now. - Sorry.
Good afternoon members of the commission.
My name is Steve Shaver
and I'm in a, I'm an Apol Park board member.
I'm going to speak today about a major issue
with the lunar Vail application.
It's failure to conform with the Vail Village Master plan.
As you, as you already know,
the Bell Village plan is a planning document that
lays out both broad goals for Vail Village
and specific development guidelines
for certain sub areas of the town.
The lunar Vail application acknowledges
that our property is subject to the guidelines
of the master plans east frontage road sub area,
but it fails to address its non-conformance.
With those guidelines specifically,
there are three design criteria pertinent
to parking lot infill projects in this sub area
that the application fails to satisfy.
First, the master plan states
that building heights should be limited.
So it is not to impede views of Vail Village
and Vail Mountain from the frontage road.
As already discussed.
The ab, the application does not limit building height.
It blocks view corridors and absolutely dwarfs Apollo Park.
Second, the master plan states
that buildings should be designed to step back
from the frontage road to prevent sun
and shade impacts on the road.
The proposed building is not stepped back.
The town can therefore expect unwanted shade impacts
on the frontage road.
Third, the master plan states
that any new development should include a substantial
landscape buffer between the new building
and the frontage road.
In this case, the lunar VA application proposes the smallest
allowable buffer area with only four
or five trees as the landscaping that is hardly substantial.
None of these problems are inherent
to developing this property,
but they are inherent to this specific application.
If lunar Vail would again work with us,
there could be more flexibility in site design
that addresses the master plan issues of scale, character
and pragmatic land use.
Thank you for your time. Thank
you Cole. Keep
- With the next person please.
- Yes, I'm gonna promote Andy to talk.
Andy, if you can state your name for the record.
- Yes, can you hear me? We can. Great. Good afternoon.
Members of the PEC, I'm Andy Peters,
I'm land use counsel for Apollo Park.
You've heard from numerous owners at Apollo Park today,
not neighbors, but owners that share a development parcel
with the applicant and who must live under the standards
PEC recommends today.
So as legal counsel I want
to emphasize just two points for your consideration.
First section 12 nine A eight sub three
requires compliance with parking
and loading requirements is outlined in chapter
10 of billing use code.
It's the applicant's burden to demonstrate that compliance
and the parking table included on page 45 of the applicant.
Narrative doesn't show that even though the applicant says
no deviation, so even though the GRFA works out
to over 2000 square feet a unit acknowledging
that there's some square footage for other things
that would require two
and a half spaces a unit not two as presented here.
And there's nothing that suggests
what the sizes are in the application.
So it's, there's just nothing in the record
that really shows on the employee housing units.
It just says one per unit.
But again chapter 10 says
that employee housing units are required
to follow the same standards as other square footages
and in section B or in schedule B.
And then as you've heard from a number
of Apollo Apollo park owners, this is going
to permanently eliminate parking.
And I was, I was careful in using that term
because as you heard George say there's 40 to 43 spaces.
It's in fact 44 spaces currently devoted to Apollo Park.
But complying with the current code requirements drops that
to three six spaces.
So this is a permanent elimination of spaces dedicated
to Apollo Park and that matters
because the applicant's just unilaterally taking away
parking and can't show
that it even meets the minimum parking spaces in turn.
So it's an underpowered building
and Apollo Park owners might simply be turned away.
Now second, you heard
that Apollo park's included in this district
and you heard that the town attorney says
that we can't withdraw consent to an application.
But even setting aside, you know
and acknowledging that we withdrew consent to this, the,
the letter of support that Apollo Park initially submitted
and appears it's 1 0 5
and the applicant narrative expired
by its own terms on October 31st.
And this is a new application, it's PEC 26 11,
not the old application.
So it's a new application without consent in.
Irrespective of what the town attorney has said may be
allowed, I just would ask PEC to consider
what might be right in this circumstance.
In fact, earlier today you asked whether a property owner
had the required consent for just a garage variance
that might impact the GRFA left
to another duplex owner here.
Is it right for the town
and the applicant to submit to set development standards
for an owner's property over their objection?
Is it right for an applicant
to develop a project without presenting any plan for parking
or access during construction?
And is it right for an applicant
to permanently eliminate owner owned parking spaces
over their objection?
This is why the code requires consent.
We'd like to work together, we can work together.
But until we can, we'd ask that PEC recommend denial.
Thank you. Thank you.
- I'm going to promote Anna to talk.
Anna, if you can state your name for the record.
- Yes, can you hear me? We can. Okay.
My name is Anna Davis and I thank you for your time today.
I am a member of the board
and I am also going
to speak a little bit on my own behalf as an owner.
So as a board member, I want to reiterate
my fellow board member language here
and request the denial
of this proposal on the grounds
that there's four main key issues
that I'll address here.
First, the incompatibility of
lunar VA's application With surrounding properties,
we've heard quite a bit about the size
and scale of the, the development
and how this would completely dwarf Apollo Park.
And the Vail Town Code states
that every special dis special development at strict app
application needs to demonstrate design, compatibility
and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood
and adjacent properties.
The code then lists subjective criteria
that the town is supposed to use to compare the application
to the neighboring properties.
Things like the building scale, height, setbacks, et cetera.
In this case lunar Vail application.
This particular application totally ignores just
how much larger the proposed building is compared
to the neighboring buildings.
Apollo Parks building A
and B would be completely dwarfed by the new building
and would have our access relegated to a narrow alleyway.
We do acknowledge that most development proposals here will
require some additional height, which includes Apollo Park.
However, the amount
of additional height proposed here cannot be accepted.
Similarly, the code requires
that the buildings on this property have a setback
of at least 20 feet on all sides.
In this proposal, only one of the four sides
of the new building would comply with this requirement.
Again, the application provides no justification for why
lunar Vale should be able to ignore the town code.
And this is exactly why the town code requires owner
consent for an application.
This is a project proposed on Apollo Parks property
that fails to take Apollo Park into account
and we cannot agree to that.
And again, I wanna iterate, reiterate
that there are 1700 owners
and whole owners as in addition to that at Apollo Park
who have basically been ignored.
And although we have tried to work with Lunar va,
we have not come to an agreement.
And then, which brought us here today,
I've been an owner, I've been coming
to Apollo Park since I was nine years old
as my mother actually testified a little while ago.
And I am an owner as well. My daughter is an owner as well.
We have friends that are owners.
We, we want to see that Apollo Park is preserved
in the, the vision of the Town
of Vail and everything that we have brought
to the Town of Vail.
And again, those 1700 owners I would
strongly request personally
and as a board member that the
counsel please deny this request. Thank you for your time.
- Thank you. - I'm
going to promote Karen to talk.
Karen, if you can state your name for the record.
- Karen, you've been promoted.
If you could state your name, you can provide your comment.
- Hi, I had to unmute myself.
Okay, I think I did. Am I unmuted?
- We can hear you now. Yes. - Yep.
Hi, my name's Karen k Clayman.
I'm the owner of at Unit 3 0 4 in Bell Mountain View
residences and I'm also on the homeowners board.
One of the things that several members of the Town Council
mentioned when they rejected this project in June was the
need to work with the neighbors.
I think you've heard from enough people
that they haven't really been working successfully
with the neighbors of this project.
One very large thing that hasn't been mentioned is
when Ron Burn developed Dale Mountain View residence is in
2008.
Two pedestrian access paths
to reach the Creekside town path, which if you don't know,
that's the path that goes from Vail
to the amphitheater were built.
The eastern path that's closest to Apollo Park was created
with a snow melt system under the pavers
and stairs down to the creek with Grass Creek along the path
to the fire he near us and Apollo Park.
Initially the eastern footpath was used primarily
by the Apollo Park residence
because the other path is
connected directly to our building.
It was then used by the Altus residents residence.
After that building was opened.
Bell Mountain View residents solely paid for the operating
and maintenance costs for that path
until Altus was constructed.
And now Altus also shares the operating maintenance costs.
You also need to know that
that path is a hundred percent on Vail Mountain View
residence property.
If you look to the special development district,
number 44, that Lunar be north has not
invested in building a new path for their new project
or stairway down to the creek.
They plan to use the path that's funded
by Vail Mountain View residences in Altus.
The applicant has avoided the significant expense
of building his own path, but they won't agree to join Altus
and Bell Mountain View residences in funding upgrading
the maintenance costs for the path going forward.
Their residents and guests will increase traffic on the path
but they refuse to contribute to it.
There is an easement for that
but still there's a cost for that path
and the stairs as a result, we feel that this special use
district number 44 proposal is detrimental
to the neighborhood and should be denied.
A denial will provide a necessary incentive
for the applicant to negotiate reasonably with the neighbors
as requested by the Town Council in June.
Thank you very much for your time.
We appreciate all the hard work you've been doing on this
for the last several years.
- Thank you. - I'm going to promote
Justin to talk.
Justin, if you can state your name for the record.
- Justin, you've been promoted.
If you can unmute and state your
name we can hear your comment.
- Sorry, can you hear me now - We can. Yep.
- Great. I'm Justin Asley.
I am the president of the Altus HOA.
I'm also a homeowner in Altus.
I am, I'm here to request the Dell the proposal.
I'm gonna keep my comments pretty short
'cause I would honestly just be repeating most
of the other things that have been said in the,
the public comment already.
One thing that I would like to,
to speak about though is just the, the sheer size
and mass of what's being asked to be approved.
Altus is a very, very large building
and anyone driving down the highway sees it.
We've got those bright green exit sign lights
that everyone complains about
to me when I tell 'em I'm, I'm over at Altus.
But it really is a just a,
a massive building from from the highway,
from the frontage road.
And when we look at going down this path
where we're gonna give another building right next to it,
even larger variances to become another giant building,
I'm just concerned about what happens long run here.
If this is the direction that we continue to go, you know,
one large building after the next, it's going
to change veil entirely.
And I'm not sure that that's a veil that that many
of us have grown to love in our lifetimes and
and desire to see.
So I'll leave it there. Thank you.
- Thank you. - I am gonna
promote Howard to talk.
Howard if you can state your name for the record.
- Howard, you've been promoted if you can unmute.
- Okay. Can you hear me now? - We have you now. Yes.
- Okay, thank you. My name is Howard Willard and my wife
and I own Vail Mountain View residence is number 4 0 6
VMVR has had discussions with the developer
and we have been clear that our primary issue
with their proposal has been their unwillingness
to contribute to improvements to the fire path located
to the west of the proposed lunar Vale North building.
With the proposed redevelopment of SBD number 44.
The applicant is removing the last remaining option other
than the fire path to reach VMVR
with the veil ladder truck parking.
The ladder truck in the Apollo Park parking lot currently
allows access to VMVR
but SBD number 44 is proposing
to build a 70 foot tall building on the current parking lot.
The development proposed
by SDD number 44 leaves only the fire path
that was built in 2008
to stage fire trucks near the VMVR building in the
Apollo Park buildings.
However, and this was a surprise for me in in the meeting
the applicant had right up till the materials were published
for this meeting refused to enable
and contribute to improvements to the fire path
to provide a minimum width
of 20 feet along its entire length as requested
by the Vail Fire Department.
I have had several discussions
with the fire marshal about this issue
and I'm interested in reviewing their proposed
changes to the fire path.
Finally, SDD number 44 has submitted plans
to change their driveway design
and access point to South frontage road
SDD number 40 four's movement
of the existing Apollo Park driveway
to the far northeastern corner of their property reduces
or eliminates the ability of the ladder truck
to turn onto the VMVR fire path.
I will be interested in reviewing if there changes proposed
in this meeting address this issue.
I believe the recommendation for SBD number 44
should be delayed until the applicant submits plans
for their proposed changes to address the fire access issues
for the benefit of VMDR Altus Apollo
Park and Lunar Vale North.
To make a recommendation today when the set
of plans hasn't even been submitted,
I think would be would be a problem.
I do acknowledge the fire path cannot be expanded without
the participation of lunar vale
and my belief is
that I'm glad they've at least thought about stepping
forward but a lot more work needs to be done to see whether
or not their proposal really does address the fire
department's issues with the fire path.
Thank you to the PEC for your patience.
- Thank you. Thank you.
- I'm going to promote Deborah na talk.
Deborah, if you can state your name for the record.
- Hi. Hello, my name is Deborah Larussa.
I have been going to Paula Park since 1989
and have consecutively every year gone there.
And now that I see that the changes that are trying
to be made are not acceptable, especially doing
to the parking, the safety
and all the things the other timeshare owners
and full-time owners have stated, I would like to request to
for the application to be denied
and I'd like to thank you all for your time
so much. Bye-bye.
- Thank you. - I am
going to promote Theresa to talk.
Theresa, if you can introduce yourself for the record.
- Hi Theresa, you've been promoted.
If you can unmute and
state your name, we can hear your comments.
Theresa, we we can't hear you.
There might be a microphone issue.
We'll move on to the next public comment.
Oh, can you hear me now? We have you now.
We just got you Theresa. Alright,
- Good.
Thank you. Yeah, I'd like to address my comments
to you Brad, John, Meg, bill, Lauren, I've been on the call
for several hours now and I noticed the care you took
and looking into the case on 42 59 Nugget Lane
and really looking at the impact that that
petition had on the neighborhood.
And I just wanna ask you as a board to consider
that we have 1700 owners at Apollo Park
and we're looking at a development that's going
to accommodate 17 new owners.
And I'm not, I, I don't object to the development
but I think that it would be very advantageous
to include Apollo Park
and any redevelopment plan for that area.
I agree with the comments made by a previous person about
what this looks like for the town of Avail
to have Apollo Park
and aging property that needs a lot of care
in the midst of brand new development placed on
what looks like a postage stamp
on the property in such close proximity to Apollo Park.
So I would just ask that as an owner
for 40 years and a Colorado native, that you would please
deny this petition for this development
until we can develop a comprehensive plan to include
redevelopment of Apollo Park.
I wanna thank you for hearing me this, this evening
and I request that you deny this application.
- Thank you. - I'm gonna promote Chris the talk.
Chris, if you can introduce yourself for the record.
- Hi there, my name is Chris Bailey.
I have been coming to Vail since in the summer,
since 1979.
My family owned several of the timeshares there.
We built a lot of memories, we spent a lot of money in Vail.
We love it there. And I would like you,
I have nothing really new to say
that other owners haven't said,
but I would like you to please deny this application.
It he has a huge impact on the owners
in the Apollo Park and Alta
and they have not considered that impact
on all these people.
And I would like you to consider us in making your decision.
Thank you for all the hard work you've put in this.
And that's all I have to say.
- Thank you. - I'm gonna promote Shannon to talk.
Shannon, if you can introduce yourself for the record.
- Shannon, you've been promoted.
If you can unmute and
state your name, we can hear your comment.
- Hello - We we can hear you now.
- Hi. Perfect. Alright.
Hello, my name is Shannon Larson
and I thank you for your time today.
I may be repeating much of
what others have verbalized today,
but I wanted to express
that I have enjoyed Vail and Apollo Park for 38 years
and have been an owner for the past 16 years at Apollo Park.
And I would just like to request the denial of this motion
and encourage opportunity for collaboration
between Lunar Vail and the owners of Apollo Park.
It would be nice if we could come to a solution
that benefits both the owners of Apollo Park and Lunar Vale.
This motion neglects the town codes
and proposes mass variances that impact the overall safety
of the owners as well as parking in many other aspects.
Many of the owners have fond memories
and enjoy spending time and money at Vail
and we would just like to see a solution
that benefits all parties.
So I would like to request, respectfully request
that PEC deny this motion. Thank you.
- Thank you.
- I'm gonna promote Debbie to talk.
Debbie, if you can state your name for the record.
- Me, - We can hear you now. Yes.
- Oh great. My name is Debbie Charles.
My husband and I have been owners of the rent since 1989
and since 2014.
We own Hoon unit for oh one at the rent.
I also serve as the HOA board president.
I might be the only re owner speaking today,
but you have received letters from many other owners
all opposing the project.
This project, as we know, has been UN under discussion
for a year and a half about recently.
It's been so long. We have three new PEC members,
a new planner, and significant changes to the project.
Unfortunately those changes have made the project worse.
It now has a very negative impact on Apollo Park
and the proposed reductions in the building's height
and GRFA do not go far enough.
I believe the developers now relying on project fatigue
to secure approval of this latest version
and that shall should not be allowed to have them.
So as related to the rent, I have three main concerns.
Number one, the building runs along our property
being too tall and too large.
The building is also often compared to Altus,
which is also 70 feet at its peak.
At previous PEC meeting, some members thought
that approving Altus was a mistake.
It was likely approved because
of the employee housing component,
even though it did not fit well within
the surrounding neighborhood.
The Val Master plan intentionally preserved this portion
of Vale Village with lower building heights
and more open green space.
As you approach vale from the east on I 70,
the intended experience is to see the golf course,
then the park with the ball fields, then gradually
to our buildings while still maintaining views
through to the mountains.
Altus is oriented parallel to I 70,
so motorists see the narrow side
until they are directly in front of it.
Lunar vale, however, will present the appearance
of a wall rising out
of one vale's most beautiful green spaces.
In fact, if Altus didn't exist,
Solaris would be effectively the first tall
building along frontage road.
That is what the master plan envisioned.
Number two, lunar Vail parking garage entrance should be
relocated to the front of the property
with the side driveway reserved for emergency access
and and loading only.
This is a significant safety concern.
The driveway is about one foot from the Rens property line.
According to the projects traffic study,
more than 200 vehicles per day plus commercial vehicles will
travel from frontage road to the rear of the property.
There is no sidewalk.
So pedestrians will inevitably use this driveway as
Also shine directly into the rent and Apol park.
During nighttime hours. The project should be redesigned
to put the garage entrance in front.
Number three and last.
Commitments made
to neighboring property owners continue to change.
About a month ago, the room was told the trees would be
replanted along our east property line
with no conditions attached
because that was part of the plan being presented today
and shown in the renderings.
Now we are told those trees will only be replanted if we
accept partial financial responsibility for the water line
and allow the developer to excavate
beneath our trash enclosure.
Among other requirements, the conditions continue to change
and that undermines our confidence in the
developer's intentions.
We do not approve of the developing developer placing
infrastructure on our property.
If the project were smaller, many
of these issues would disappear.
Anything included in the approved plan should be guaranteed
and completed entirely at the developer's sole expense.
In summary, the project as currently propose,
is not in the best interest of Vail
or the surrounding neighborhood.
I respectfully urge the PEC to deny this application today.
- Thank you. - I'm
going to promote Luis ak Luis,
if you can introduce yourself for the record.
- Louis, you've been promoted.
If you can unmute and state your
name, you can provide your comment.
- Okay. Can you hear me?
- We can hear you hear you now, yes.
- Okay, thank you. I'm here with my,
we have been at Apollo Park since 1979
and we are, we own a literally a fourth
of a year in timeshare weeks there.
And you are familiar with my name
'cause you've seen me in person
and you've seen me also on Zooms
for every single meeting you have had on this topic.
So I, I am not going away. I'm still here.
And I do greatly appreciate at the beginning
of the meeting a lot of my own personal questions
you have answered and I, I appreciate that.
In the interest of time, just as Justin has said from Altus,
I'm going to say that my husband
and I agree with mostly all of what people have said
from Apollo Park, either online
or in person.
So thank you for that.
And I would also, my husband
and I would also reiterate as Andy, our lawyer has stated
that from our heart
and soul as the family of Apollo Park, to your
heart and soul of the commissioners,
the Town Council and Peck
and your families, that that you would consider
what is right to be done.
And I would then conclude by saying
that we would be interested in a continuance
or continued stay on the discussions to keep moving
this forward, but with a cooperative effort.
Thank you for your time and efforts.
- Thank you.
- I'm gonna promote Laura to talk.
Laura, if you can state your name for the record.
You've been promoted.
- Can you hear me? Now - We can.
- Hi. Thank you for having me. My name is Laura Willard.
I'm the secretary of the Vail Mountain
View Owners Association.
And I'm reading comments on behalf of our board.
Our owners association board at
- V-M-V-V-R
- Was alarmed that the report
of the town staff does not address the need for improvements
to the fire access path located on the west
of the proposed LUNER Vale North building.
We have had discussions with the Vail Fire Marshal about
their desire to have the fire path widened
to 20 feet wide from an average width of 13 feet wide.
Currently we have had preliminary discussions
with Lunar VA about the issue,
but they've refused to execute a binding agreement
to participate in the, in the improvements
and file the modified plans with the improved fire path
for SDD number 44.
The burns were involved in both the development of VMVR
and the initial planning
and zoning for Altus,
which created the 70 foot tall Altus building,
which curtailed large truck access from our Western entry,
but did not affect our existing easement
to the east on Apollo's, on on Apollo park's entry,
the Burns lunar ville North building would now
remove our existing.
- Laura, you cut out. We, we've lost you there,
Laura.
I think your mic might have cut out.
We can't, we can no longer hear you.
- Alright. - We have you wave you back now.
- Oh, okay. Okay. Where did, where did you leave?
Where did I leave off? Something about the Eastern
attack on easement.
- It was regarding the fire easement to the west.
- Okay. So when Altus was billed,
it could child large truck access from our Western entry,
but did not affect our existing easement
to the East on Apollo park's entry.
The Burns Luner Vale North building would now remove our
existing easement to the east, eliminating firetruck access
to VMVR in particular, as well as secondarily
to the Western Apollo Park Building Altus
and the east side of Luner VA North.
This improved fire lane must be developed
for the benefit of the MBR
and the Western Apollo Park Building
and the entire neighborhood.
It must be resolved
before any recommendation of approval for SDD 44.
And I'd like to thank you all, everyone for the heroic time
and effort spent on this one, so thank you very much.
- Thank you.
- I'm gonna promote, Bernadette, if,
if you can state your name for the record.
- Bernadette, you've been promoted.
If you can unmute and state your
name, you can provide your comment.
- Hi, can you hear me? - We can hear you now, yes.
- Okay. Yes. So my name is Bernadette Devo
and I own unit 4 0 3 at Vail Mountain View.
And I just would like to say I'm in agreement with
all of the comments, most of the comments today,
and I am just,
I just feel like it's, it's frightening to have,
have any type of future fire incident
that impacts what could potentially impact
these three buildings.
So thank you so much for your time.
- Thank you.
- And I'm gonna promote John Deak.
John, if you can state your name for the record.
- My name is John O'Brien
and I've been coming to Vail since 1983.
I'd just like to thank all the speakers
coming before me who are much more eloquent than me,
but we'd like to ask the, the council to,
to decline this application.
Thank you very much.
- Thank you.
Are there any more speakers online?
- There are no more hands raised at this moment.
- Okay. We'll give one last opportunity
for anyone else in the room who'd like to come to the mic
and speak and there are no more hands.
Cole,
- I'm, I'm not seeing any other hands raised at the moment.
If I do see any, Brad, would you, would you like to know?
- Yeah. At this point we'll close public comment though.
We appreciate all the comment that's been made. Okay.
At this point I'll go back to staff
and the applicant for any final comments
before we move on to commissioner comments.
I'd also opened it to further commissioner comments
that have been created from public comment.
- Staff doesn't have anything further
unless there's something specific
that you would like me to address.
- Does the applicant have any further comments?
- I do. In fact, I, I apologize,
but I have quite a few based upon what we're hearing.
We believe that the applicant has fully
fulfilled their obligations under the Vail Town Code.
We have submitted a complete plan
of development applications to the town staff
and to the Planning and Environmental Commission.
We've met the applicant's burden of proof
by demonstrating compliance with the Vail Town Code as well
as the Vail Village Master Plan.
The development application has been presented
for public discussion at public hearings On six
or more occasions between the hearings,
the ma the applicant did maintain open dialogue
with adjacent property owners and stakeholders.
As a result, over the past 18 months, the applicant,
excuse me, the application has been revised
and amended in response to comments
and feedback from the Vail Town Council, the Town
of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission,
the town staff, and the
neighboring property owners and stakeholders.
Admittedly, these comments and the projects, again,
have improved the project.
Thank you all for your help in making the project better.
Did the applicant respond to each
and every request of the neighbors?
No, we did not. Nor is there a reasonable expectation
that we could do so.
The applicant did, however, respond
and take numerous positive steps
to address the requests To the extent possible,
I need to respond to the letter.
I think there was a letter in your packet of,
from the Vail Mountain View Residences
Homeowner's Association.
Did everyone get a chance to read that letter?
- Which - One was this? Because I, I need to respond to
that, to that letter
regarding Vail Mountain View Residence's.
HOA Board of Directors? Yeah,
- It was from I Do you see that one? Yeah.
- You see that in there, the applicants, we received a list
of six demands from the Vail Mountain View,
HOA Board of Directors.
The, the comment was, address these six issues
and you will gain our support for the project.
Five of the six demands were addressed.
The sixth for reasons, for ethical reasons,
was not questionable.
Ethics aside, the applicants continued to collaborate
with Vail Mountain View Board of Directors
and the Vail Fire Department in good faith
and have offered to implement at the applicant's sole
expense a design solution
to an existing life safety issue associated
with VMVR of Importance.
Bill and John, when you asked the applicant to meet
with the neighbors to solve neighborhood issues,
we believe your expectation was to address planning
and land use issues in that vein.
That is exactly what we did.
We did not think, nor do we believe your request
for collaboration and expectation was
to subject the applicant to what we perceive
as financial extortion.
No binding agreement with VMVR is required. Why?
Because all five of the six issues they had asked for
are addressed on the plans.
Staff will, will, will verify
the plans are all the contract we need.
We've increased the setbacks, we've reduced the GRFA.
We offered to provide access to a loading
and delivery space on our property as well as
to limit the pool hours.
All we asked for in return was a reciprocal agreement from
VMVR, not willing to provide that.
They wanna use our loading and delivery space,
but we can't use theirs.
Our whole intent in, in providing access to that loading
and delivery space was, this was a neighborhood issue.
Let's resolve these issues as neighbors let,
same thing with the pool.
We limit our hours.
They won't eliminate, or excuse me, limit their hours.
We believe the request.
Again, the only reason for the binding agreement, I'm glad
that Laura Willard brought this up, was
because outside the bounds
of any planning application is the requirement
for financial consideration.
We're not gonna provide financial consideration.
All of our other agreements are documented on the plan.
The only thing they can't get from,
from the documented plans is financial
consideration from the applicant.
In return for a support of their approval.
In their letter, they, I identify three issues
that they, they highlight.
First, let's be honest,
the Town Council did not reject the proposal on January 6th,
as was suggested.
Instead, given the number of revisions proposed
to the application made
between the P'S recommendation in November of 2025
and the Vail Town Council meeting, the Vail Town Council
specifically stated they wanted the p's, the benefit
of the P'S review of the revised plans before acting.
Most of those revisions were the result
of input shared by the PEC.
Additionally, yes, the number
of deviations remains the same.
Three, there's three deviations. Somebody said five.
There's three deviations.
It's documented in the staff memorandum,
density setbacks in building height.
However, what VMVR misses is that the extent
of the deviations has changed,
and in all instances, the extent
of deviations has been reduced
and in all instances it's been reduced.
In response to five of the six demands
that we got from VMVR, again, let's not be misled.
There are distinctions between SDD number 42 and number 44.
For example, the lots East west orientation,
the street frontage of SDD number 44
and SD number 42 are very different.
The presence of a 30 foot wide utility easement,
which was the justification
for the town's variance approval in 1976,
that affects SDD number four is 44 is absent in
SDD number 42, the greatest impact
of the setback deviations in SDD number 42 is not
the lunar Vail residences.
You heard somebody, I, I forget someone referenced the
magnitude of variances we are requesting for our project.
The magnitude of variances there, the, the,
I believe they're referencing is the existing variances
granted by the Town of Vail in 19 76, 77
for the Apollo Park buildings A and B,
because this is a single SDD, we do have to account
for the existing development on the site.
So when you look at that development table that is,
that is in your packet
and you see a zero foot setback,
that's not the lunar vale residences building,
that's an existing Apollo Park building.
When you see a six foot,
when you see the six foot deviation from the west setback,
that is our parking garage.
And as the staff noted, the majority of that is below gray.
John, you had asked a question about was there any square
foot is there's 208 square feet that sticks up above grade
that has been reduced
by more than half from when we originally
submitted the application.
It is immediately adjacent to the Vail Mount,
or excuse me, the Altus Vail residences,
which has five stories
of its building encroaching into the 20 foot
setback up to five feet.
I I think I, I don't know.
I had it in a previous memorandum
and we shared with you kind of the magnitude of, of what
that was, but it pales by comparison
to the 208 square feet of
where a parking garage barely sticks up above the ground,
two to four feet out of the ground.
In fact, in this diagram in illustration
that you're looking at, you can't even see it
because it's hidden behind the landscape burn that
that is adjoining the, the pathway.
The third issue that VMVR brings up, this is a new one
to us, quite honestly, I believe,
and we think it's a a bit disingenuous in, in the response
included in the, the list of six demands was the reduction
of, of bulk mass
and scale of the new building to do so in exchange
for public acknowledgement of support of the project.
As VMVR offered to do the north south length
of the building has been reduced.
I'm gonna jump ahead, Sean.
Can you, is this your presentation, Heather? Or I'm sorry,
- Your, it's, it's stuck.
Oh, that's the end.
- Oh, thank you. I'll go up then.
I think this is important to understand
'cause it, it, it's being largely overlooked.
The diagram you see on the screen in front of you
in the brown shading, that was,
that is the existing building as proposed today.
The yellow moat that is essentially around that building
that is the proposal back that you saw back in December
and the Town Council saw in January.
We've significantly reduced the amount of length
to the building and width of that building on the site.
This is also at the ground point.
If you look in the upper right hand corner
of our building kind of screen,
right upper right hand corner of the building, there's
that beige light brown color that is building mass
that has been entirely removed
above the first level of the building.
So from ground, it shows up here
because it does touch the ground as a footprint,
but once you're above grade, that
that building mass has been entirely reduced from the site.
That was in response to the input that we had received from
from VMVR.
We believe we've gone through and checked each of the boxes.
However, now V-M-V-R-H-O-A board is now back saying the
development is too large and too tall.
Either the V-M-V-R-H-O-A board of directors never intended
to negotiate in good faith
or Howard Willard, who I've spoken with dozens,
literally dozens of times was not authorized
to speak on behalf of the board.
Either way, the applicant acted in favor, acted favorably
and demonstrated its willingness to collaborate
with its neighbors and as requested by the PEC.
Despite the response that we got from VMVR,
our plans are gonna stay the same.
The deal, we're not looking to retrade the deal as,
as has been suggested by VMVR finally as attested to
by the, the Vail Fire Department.
The applicant has not refused
to help improve emergency vehicle access.
In fact, despite not being required,
this is an important distinction.
This is not required by the Vail Town Code
or by the adopted fire code.
The applicant has generat generated the idea
to improve the existing access path
and present it to the town for review.
It's been presented to the town.
I think back in May was the first time we met
with the fire department to demonstrate this plan.
So it, it has been out there
and it is out there since VR VMVR has gone back on its word
and desires to retrade its deal
and sought to extort rather than collaborate.
I have chosen to take a different approach
to resolving the issues rather than continue to
actively engage with VMVR.
Please don't allow yourselves to be misled
and represented by the VM V-R-H-O-A board of directors.
I do want to respond to some of the, the questions
and comments that came up.
Fire access. We've talked about, we heard numerous folks
kind of represent a willingness to collaborate on a,
a shared development plan.
Again for 18 months.
I spoke in front of this board
and the Town Council about a desire
to solve the Apollo Park puzzle.
We tried, we tried diligently,
we tried numerous different ways.
We revised the plans there.
There was comment in the,
in the public comments about the number of revisions
and the length of this review process.
I think that's largely because of the,
the numerous revisions we continue to make in an effort
to try to come up with a solution
that solved the Apollo Park puzzle.
Unfortunately, we haven't been able to do that.
Quite honestly, when I say we,
I mean not only the applicant in Apollo Park,
but that includes the town staff, the neighbors,
the planning commission, the Town Council
to solve The Apollo Park puzzle as we continued to,
to reiterate, was going
to take more than just one individual,
just a, a small group of people.
It was going to take a concerted effort
by everybody involved, excuse me, involved to get there.
There was conversation also about,
and I don't want to go into this
'cause I understand this is not your purview,
but there are legal agreements, lease agreements
between Lunar Bay land investment in Apollo Park
that are not the purview of this board.
They're not to be adjudicated by this board,
but there are some, some issues that that came up that i,
I do want to just brush on quickly because it's important.
I think that everyone understands within those agreements,
there is written acknowledgement
that a building E is going to exist on this site
and it would exist in the location
of the surface parking lot
where we're proposing to put this building.
It also acknowledges
that there are no additional development rights available
to Apollo Park beyond what is out there in existing today.
Again, as I shared, we accommodate those
and propose those be addressed in this
special development district.
So in the event that something happens to Apollo Park,
it can be rebuilt.
This diagram that's on the screen that,
that the architects put back together for me, it it,
it shows some additional information
and that is, if you look to the left hand side of the pool,
you see that kind of pink color, darker pink color
and the light pink color.
The darker pink color was the riverfront
building in the location.
We originally had it proposed.
You'll notice that nothing
that we're doing on this north portion
of the site prohibits the redevelopment
of a riverfront building.
And, and in fact we, we have gone to lengths to understand
that if in the future there were to be an opportunity
to collaborate with Apollo Park in a way
that is both financially viable
and can be approved by the Town of Vail.
That's the important distinction can
be approved by the Town of Vail.
We've, we've ensured that in our proposed plan
that you're looking at today, that we can extend
that parking structure as we originally intended.
Nothing changes about what we're seeking approval for today
to what we could potentially do if the parties
can collaborate in the future.
It was interesting listening to some of the comments
because we agree there was a lot more agreement from
what was shared today than I think people truly understand.
We agree it's an old outdated building.
Apollo Park at some point probably needs to be redeveloped.
It wasn't contemplated in the master plan and
therefore it was not supported by the town.
The redevelopment of Apollo Park was not supported
because it was not acknowledged in the master plan.
We talked about the value of,
or the distinction between there being a, you know,
you know, I think the only thing worse,
I may have shared this, the only thing worse than not having
a master plan for your guidance
and review as a planning commission and as a planning staff
and an and an applicant is to have an outdated master plan.
Because by its very nature,
it leads you down the wrong path.
From the very beginning of your planning efforts,
we attempted to amend the master plan so
that we were all moving forward in, in a similar direction.
Again, the Apollo Park puzzle, we couldn't get there.
We tried, but most importantly,
there's nothing about this application today
that precludes us from continuing as we, as we go forward.
In fact, lunar VA's objective has always been
to complete a whole property redevelopment.
Apollo Park would like to believe
that Lunar VA has done nothing
to collaborate on a whole party redevelopment project.
Three different planning efforts
and countless plan iterations prove otherwise.
Interestingly, lunar VA residences again now are in,
in the exact same location
and configuration today as they were yesterday.
Albeit they are now reduced in size and footprint.
This change in no way impacts the redevelopment
of Apollo Park in the future.
Yet Apollo Park Association somehow now today
vehemently opposes it
because it does not comply
with the zoning in the in the master plan.
This seems duplicitous to us.
It appears that to be Apollo Park may be experiencing a bit
of negotiator's remorse.
It has been requested of the association by lunar ville
that rather than opposing the plan that they,
that they once fully supported propose a redevelopment
option that is both financially viable
and can't be approved by the Town of Vail.
Lunar VA is prepared
to enthusiastically reengage in a whole party redevelopment
instead of investing in legal effort,
legal efforts perhaps do as Vail lunar VA has done
and invest in redevelopment design alternatives
that the town will approve.
It. It, it seems like I said that, that
there's support for collaboration
but at this point in time from both sides,
but regardless of of how that collaboration
plays out going forward, there is an opportunity
for a redeveloped building pursuant
to the master plan on the surface parking lot.
In this portion of the avail village master plan
that we're proposing and requesting approval for
or a recommendation of approval for today,
we'd again ask you to approve this project
to the Town Council, subject to the conditions
that were recommended by the town staff, the
adoption or the alteration
to the community housing plan option two,
and the understanding that prior to first reading
of an amending ordinance, we will show that
fire department access that the applicant has agreed
and been agreeing to provide for months now on our plans.
So the Town Council has the benefit for that.
I do want to be very clear about the,
the fire department access
because a large portion of
that encroaches onto this property
and it is not required by the International Fire Code.
And I believe the town staff can reiterate this as,
as stated by the Vail Fire Department.
We would like a fire lane designation applied to
that site so that it is used for fire lanes
and not for any other reasons.
I think the real reason Vail Mountain View residence is,
is looking for this fire lane access is they have an
expectation of using it for remodels and removal
and repair of hot tubs and whatnot on their site
because that's how this issue first arose was, you know, how
how are we gonna get to our buildings
to take our hot tubs down again, we'll,
we'll provide fire access for life safety
and property protection purposes.
I'm not sure given the, the circumstances that
also providing access for remodels construction
and hot tub removals was the intended purpose
of of that objective.
- If I may from, I have a,
an email from the fire department from our Fire,
fire Marshal Taylor Ross,
and this is in, in regard to the fire lane
that he is talking about between Mountain View
and lunar ville and it says regarding the approval
of the PEC, it is not dependent on the improved access via
this easement and it could be documented in the DRB
or building permit stage if an agreement is reached.
But Vail fired and emergency services should be consulted
to provide guidance.
Since it is not a requirement, we're not going
to include this as a condition of approval.
So it is a civil matter at this point
and once the civil matter is resolved,
then the fire department will be
involved to look at those changes.
- Understood. - The only thing I,
I believe we have some legal counsel online that just wants
to make a quick remark in response to,
- To our council.
We can, yeah, we can consider that as applicant.
Common. Thank
- You.
- Is it Mary? Is that who I should be promoting? Mary,
- What names should we promote - Or is it Chris?
Chris, Chris
- Pain?
- Well probably Chris.
I have a, I have a Mary with her hand raised.
I'm gonna just see if this is Chris.
I don't have Chris who you're looking for is online.
- It may be.
- This is Chris Payne. There.
- There we go. We have you Chris
- Payne.
I'm a partner with the law firm
of Ballard Spar based in Denver.
My address is Littleton, Colorado.
And again, I'll be brief as course you heard from George.
We received a comment letter from
the Apollo Park at
- Chris.
You're, you're cutting out. We're losing you
Chris, we've, we've lost you.
You're still promoted. We can't hear you.
We, we can hear you now. It might be a bad connection.
- Alright, I'll stop shuffling papers in front
of the microphone as well.
We did present a supplemental
response to the
association's memo.
They provided effectively two memos, one dated July 6th,
another dated July 23rd.
Hopefully our memo will, will be, make it into the
package for today's meeting,
but I just wanted to highlight it's
- Submitted to the record. Yep.
- Points in support of the application
separate and apart from George's summary indicating
that there are, you know, new objections on
town code compatibility
and reasserting that the applicant has responded
to those both comments both raised
by the association and by other parties.
There are two legal issues.
The first is the association's contention that
there is no authority to proceed with the application
because the association has withdrawn its initial
notice of of authorization.
And then the second point being that,
that the current application somehow has irrevocably
denied the association, the ability to redevelop
the existing buildings.
What we're referring to as A and B on the first point.
We've provided in the memo the association's initial
notice of authorization that
is effectively the similar form as the town's form
and we support the opinion
and share the opinion of the town attorneys that
there is no, you know, unilateral right by the
association to withdraw that a authority, particularly when
the changes that have been made
to the initial application have been to comply
with the town code.
This is not a situation where the applicant has somehow
ginned up a completely new development
and has tried to slip a, a prior approval
by the association into a new application.
This is a continuation of the existing application
that the association authorized on the north building
and is really just dissatisfied that the
ability to redevelop a
and B at this point was
withdrawn from the initial application.
On the second point, again as George stated, and
and we concur based on our review of the ground lease,
the amendments to the ground lease, the assignments
of the ground lease all somewhat
ine and the town doesn't need to get into
but the end result is that lunar vale
both reserved the development rights necessary to
proceed with the current application
is exercising those development rights
and also continues to hold any development rights applicable
to the future redevelopment of building A and B.
So as George concluded,
we stand ready to exercise the development rights when there
is a, a viable development
and nothing in the current application has
from a private legal matter reduced
or eliminated those, those reserve development rights.
So again, glad to answer any questions.
Thank you for your time.
We request the recommendation to proceed with approval
of the current application.
- Thank you. George, you have any further comments for us?
Not at this time. Thank you there.
Any further questions of the applicant from commissioners?
I seeing none, I'd like to move into commissioner comment.
This is an involved one. Anyone willing to lead us off?
- I can try. - Okay. Commissioner Wallace,
- Do, do we want to start by, we have to make a decision
between like option one and option two.
Do we wanna separate that or just
- Include it?
If there's a motion then that would be part
of the motion in amending the conditions to comply
to con to option two.
Yep. So you could state, you know, as we,
as you talk about your comments on the file in general,
you could state your, you know, your thoughts on that.
- Okay. Alright.
So first I'm gonna be reading a little bit,
there's a lot here and I think I, I think the beginning
of this is addressing my thoughts on some
of the public comments.
So first of all, I think it's imperative that the safety
of residents be insured at all phases
of construction on safety.
I will defer to our fire department and,
but I want to ensure that the concerns raised have been
addressed in the department's approval as it relates
to all phases of the project.
I also think that it, it directly
and indirectly relates to I believe part of our master plan
where construction impacts should be resolved rather than
deferred and coordinated
to minimize unintended consequences.
We've talked about that from both sides ad nauseum today.
So, you know, the one thing
that was left in my mind was there a lot of, a lot
of folks raised the issue of temporary parking,
which I think is a component of that.
I don't know if there's a plan. I didn't hear that today.
I kind of said this from the beginning,
but I I believe we should have
attorney representation on record
to explain why this specific project does not require
approval or why the approval
or validate the memo that we received today.
Which I think is gonna be made part of the record.
I do understand that there was an earlier approval
by Apollo, but that the plan has changed
and I personally can't get my head around how
that does not require additional approval.
I'm, I rely on the advice
that we have from counsel from our earlier meetings
and so I'm not trying to rera that.
I just wanted to say, I just wanted to point that out.
It was raised that there's lack of information sharing
and process during the processes
and I do agree that that's probably something
to be addressed in civil court and I mentioned
before that the, however our code does encourage resolving
these situations ahead of time
and it sounds like maybe in one
of the earlier PEC meetings I wasn't a part of.
We encourage coordinating.
I I I do think that's coordinating must haves
and not nice to haves.
So where are people gonna park safety, not extorting money.
So
I think I I I personally struggle
with whether the project is fully aligned
with the master plan re regardless
of whether we should have one
or that's a great way for our
community to manage development.
I think the biggest thing for me is, is sort
of the view corridor protection
and the landscape buffer from frontage road.
Those are the areas I think that even though we have Altus,
I think it, this worsens the situation when I drive down I
70 and I see open space that's now community housing
and I go back and I look at some
of the different communities with our neighborhood
and I drive by this three
or four times a week when I go to Ford Park.
I think if we fill in all the open space someday we we do
lose the character that was intended by some of the
direction from the master plan
and yeah, so it's not,
it's not the variances specifically
and I appreciate you clarifying the setbacks
'cause I had remembered that we weren't really asking
for any major setback exceptions that didn't already exist.
Okay. So that's, that's a start.
- Commissioner Jensen, I mean I am,
I am appreciated.
All the public comment, there was a lot of emotion there
and as a commissioner I can't base decisions on emotion.
I am, I still, I guess am concerned Heather about
fire safety and reading
that email from the fire marshal that basically
absolved themself, they're going by the international code
that George points out that they're in compliance with to me
is it's,
it's just so non-committal
and you know, I heard all the feedback.
You look at it, it sounds
to me like there still is conversations happening
between the neighbors about this.
I agree, George. No, it's not for the crane to come in
to get the hot tub out.
It's there to bring fire equipment in if there's a fire.
But I just, you know, I just want to be on the record that
it's, it's important from the town, town
that and the fire department that the fire,
that all the safety things
are addressed in this recommendation.
So, you know that that's the big one.
You know, I I'm not gonna comment on the emotional stuff.
It's, I it's, it's
the, the situation I would say right now is, is not
where anybody would like to see it,
but I'm not gonna base my decision on that.
- Commissioner - Brown,
- I appreciate what you guys have said so far.
I think my, my first question,
and it's a question still is that I'm a little,
I'm a little taken
with the fire access question in the sense that I want
to understand is the application in front
of us today the final application
that incorporates the most recent
conversations with the fire department?
Are we there, are we looking at that?
- Yes. And,
and let me explain, I don't know Heather,
if you can bring up that fire truck access.
I, I apologize. The,
the you the fire department access breaks down into two
separate issues and, and
and I I was hopeful the Vail Fire Department could join us
today to speak to this
'cause I think they would've alleviated your concerns Bill
and been done a better job of addressing this question.
But there's two issues with fire department access,
fire department access.
Go back one more Heather to that one right there.
That is the, the application as proposed
and it shows the fire truck,
I mean this is months in the making.
It shows the firetruck accessing the site coming down onto
site to an approved staging area
where the fire department stages
and can then access both the lunar vale residences as well
as Apollo park buildings A and B, this plan.
And if the fire department was here, I don't wanna speak
for 'em, but I think they would say this
and that was Heather's comment would say,
this plan has been fully vetted
by the Vail Fire Department and approve.
We wouldn't be here today if that plan did not comply.
So, so this, this provides emergency vehicle access to
luter VA North Apollo Park buildings A and b it also,
and we we're, we're can
with with some additional collaboration
which we have offered.
It can also provide emergency vehicle access
to the rent immediately adjacent to the these because,
but for collaborating on that access,
there may be the requirement
for redundant fire department access in the future
for the rent we're saying
and worked with the fire department to get
to a fire state access
and staging plan as you're seeing here on the diagram
that not only meets the requirements for the lunar VA site,
but also provides a future access to the rent.
So that box is checked the second box if you go
to the next plan,
this was the request
of the Vail Fire Department understanding.
And I think what Ryan, or excuse me,
what Taylor Taylor Ross's email referenced was
based upon the life safety report
and we did submit a life safety report
with this application based upon the findings
of the life safety report.
Our project fully complies.
We, we, this property owner is under no obligation
to provide emergency vehicle access
to the adjacent property owners.
And as you heard, Vail Mountain View residents say they have
a 13 foot wide or a some width wide access.
What we said to the Vail Fire Department
and the Vail Fire Department has seen this plan
and approved this plan
and we're willing to amend our application prior
to first reading to the Town Council, documenting this plan,
showing how we would improve, expand the width
of the fire department, access entirely on
lunar vale's property.
So this access can actually be accommodated
and we would do it because I think we all agree
it's the right thing to do.
It should be a public benefit, it's a life safety issue.
If the buildings next door start burning it doesn't do us
any good if, if they can't get to,
to Vail Mountain View or to Altus.
So we're willing to do this plan.
The only thing that we have asked for,
and I think we need, we need confirmation from the town
and Vail Mountain view residences.
There are encroachments
that Vail Mountain View residences has constructed into the
existing easement rather than address those encroachments on
our side of the property line, meaning move more
of the fire lane onto our side.
We think they should be required
to remove those non-compliant improvements.
It's a fence and some trees.
I, I believe is what's, is what's there.
We're willing to do that plan again as, as Heather's email,
reading the email from Taylor.
I think what he is citing to is he, they can't,
the fire department cannot require us to do this
because we're not obligated to do so under the fire code.
We are volunteering
or volunteering to do this for the benefit
of the, of the neighborhood.
- I wanna build on that a little bit
and I'm certainly not gonna speak for Vail Fire,
but we do have a life safety consultant Ron Elli,
Steve Relli of Ron Elli Life Safety.
And there's a perception that's been shared
to this afternoon that the existing condition
of Apollo Park is satisfactory for fighting fires.
That's inaccurate. And what we propose
improves not only access but staging, dedicated staging
because currently the parking spaces
that have been a hot topic,
apparently they're used quite often when
that parking lot is full a firetruck a hundred foot ladder,
which they'll has cannot go in and turn around successfully.
This plan, this proposal provides
for a dedicated firetruck turnaround that turns
that a hundred truck apparat a hundred foot
apparatus around successfully.
It also has improved fire staging
and firefighting capabilities
that's been discussed ad nauseum with fail fire
with our consultant and just generally
not only passes the smell test
but also improves the functionality of firefighting.
Today, probably most relevant to Apollo Park itself,
other buildings around
to include the proposed north building are
sprinkled Apollo Park is not.
So that improves the, this is not a, not only a change
to the existing fire access,
but a very large improvement thereof.
Commissioner Brown, do you further
- Comments?
I do have one further. I yes I do.
Page it's 221.
It's the landscape plan shows
a corridor of trees that creates the,
the entry toward Apollo Park.
Are those trees, those trees are a commitment
under the landscape plan?
Correct.
- Tho those trees as we have been, no, they are not. Okay.
Those trees were cited again in collaborate in hopes
of collaborating with our property owners to the east.
And as we have talked about in the past, those trees
because of Eagle River Water
and sanitation districts new requirements
would not allow the existing that,
that they replace an existing row of trees.
The existing row of trees could not be replaced under the
Eagle River water and sanitation district's
existing requirements.
We can put those trees back
and I believe the REN had sought for those trees
to be put back.
If we take that main water line, there's a main water line
that goes from the frontage road down to the buildings.
If we convert that main water line to a service line,
then the district does not care
what we plant within 10 feet of that line.
If we do that, we're able to then plant those trees.
And as you heard, Debbie Charles, I, I think share,
she did not feel that there should be a commitment financial
or otherwise by the REN to put those trees in.
It's for that reason that we have since agreed
to fund the replacement
of those trees 100% if we can put 'em in
that location On the site.
Otherwise the district is gonna require those
to be bushes and not trees.
- So from a, from a planning perspective, this is treated
as landscape be, but could be grass?
That's correct. Okay.
- I, - I think that's all that I have at the moment. It's
- Commissioner - Whitaker.
- So looking at
the criteria and looking at the under current
underlying and the evolution of this
application, you know, when it comes
to what's being currently proposed for density
and GRFA, the max height
and the setbacks, you know, have all
of those issues, I'm extremely comfortable with, I think
that the, the application, you know,
it does a good job.
It's meeting the requirements of what I see as both code
as well as the town of Vail's master plan.
I know the building height at one point was of concern to
some members of this commission and members of the public.
I fully feel like that the 69 foot roof
is, is meeting what's in the master plan
and you know, certainly the master plan contemplates
that at some point this parking lot was gonna be infilled
with development and that's what's being proposed
and I support everything in this application
surrounding those issues.
There's one thing that I can't shake
and it's the only thing
that's giving me pause at this point in time in terms
of approving this application
and it's town code
and it's 12 9 8 2
or sorry 12 9 8 3,
which I think the ex in this authorization letter issue
that we've been discussing, I think that the exact
language says, and the code says it requires written consent
of owners of all property
to be included in the special development district.
And I know that we have this legal opinion from Ballard Spar
that I have not read in detail.
We've heard from the town attorney
and staff in the past about this issue.
I've got the written approval letter that was submitted
with the, this application originally.
My real problem with the approval level letter is
that code requires written consent of owners of all property
to be included in the STD and
and written consent through the form
of this written approval letter.
It was submitted initially,
but the way
that this is being interpreted legally does not sit well
with me because
although the, the, this may be the same application
that was proposed originally, this application is
100%, not 100%.
The majority of this application is far different than
what we saw what was originally proposed
and in various contexts.
And it, it just doesn't make sense to me
that an approval letter for
what was essentially a different project would be effective
just because numbers didn't change on an application for
what is being proposed now.
And I guess the, this, I'm trying
to develop a simple analogy for what my con concern here is,
but, but you know, if someone, if you had
to get consent from your neighbor in regard to a
development on your lot and you own the neighboring lot
and your neighbor saw the plans and everything well
and they're like, oh well this, this is great, no problem.
But then you come back to the, the building department
with, well I'm not gonna do that plan anymore.
I'm gonna just do this plan
but I'm not changing my application number.
Well why wouldn't the neighbor have,
if it's materially different than what was originally done,
why wouldn't the the neighbor have
the neighbor's approval need to be obtained?
Again because I consider these almost different applications
and while I am generally in support of this application
and I want to make sure that that's clear
for the record at this point in terms of
what people keep referring to as as variances,
but it's really changes to the underlying zoning.
I'm in support of all the changes
that are being proposed right now
and generally in support of moving this project forward.
What I don't agree with is the legal analysis internally
in what's been generated at this point.
Again, I've not had, we were handed this letter
so I haven't had a chance to review the legal analysis
provided by Ballard Spar,
but the pre legal analysis that apparently is
provided with our
internal legal department here in town I don't think is correct.
So that's my problem with this application at this point.
The rest of it looks good to me.
- So my comments are, you know,
I'll start out addressing public comment
that it sincerely makes me happy to hear the stories
of families coming here
and forming good memories in our town.
You know, the experience of the Apollo Park owners is great
to hear that complex has created the amount of positivity
to the Town of Vail that it has.
I will say so that I earnestly don't believe
that an approval here takes away rights from
Apollo Park owners.
It leaves the current buildings intact
with the current ownership structure.
I don't think it precludes the future redevelopment
of the Apollo Park buildings either.
If you look at the footprint now this of the lunar park
north building, it's smaller than was proposed previously.
So if anything there's more room
to develop the Apollo Park buildings
and there was previously, I don't buy that,
there's not room to redevelop there.
You know, this town sees
redevelopment development all the time.
There is incredibly challenging tight sites
that happen all the time for development in this town.
In town core. If there is a willpower among the owners
to redevelop Apollo Park, it can't happen.
And it's not that this commission's opposed to redevelopment
of the Apollo Park buildings.
What happened was in the previous proposal we did not
believe complied with the master plan in stepping buildings
towards Score Creek, which was the issue we had
with this previous plan with the lunar park South buildings
and the Apollo Park buildings in the previously
submitted application.
And you know, beyond beyond that issue, I think some of
the public common largest currents concerns beyond bulk
and mass seemed to come down to parking.
But at the end of the day,
the master plan specifically targets the surface lot
for redevelopment as a use
that should be redeveloped in the town.
And we have to hold this project to the same standards
that we hold other projects to if it's parked in accordance
with our code, we have to honor that.
Regarding the consent letter, I'm not an attorney,
we have attorney, we have attorneys on this
commission, I'm not one of them.
So personally I will defer to the town
council's recommendation here.
I don't feel I have the expect expertise
to make a determination on that.
I wanna go further regarding the planning
commission process on this file.
'cause there was a recent file,
another file in a Town Council meeting
that I heard some pretty disheartening public comment on
saying that the planning commission rubber stamped an
approval and rushed an approval through on a unrelated file.
And you know, I want to thank the commission from that
of time they've spent on this file.
This is a volunteer board,
there's been an exhaustive review of this application.
We've spent, I don't even know how many meetings
and hours reviewing this application sitting here.
So thank you to commissioners who've spent the time
to review this in such detail.
And through that process, here's what we've come up with.
We have reduced height, we've added steps in the building,
we've reduced density, we've decreased,
we've increased setbacks.
So we only have a very small portion of setback
that is nonconformance.
The ones noted most
of the ones notice nonconformance are stemming from the
existing all the par pilot park buildings right now on the
app, on the the matrix we've reduced bulk
and mass, we've reduced unit count,
we've increased the housing contribution
and generally reduced the deviations of this file.
So I think this process has worked
and brought a better building to this
that's better fits the town.
And you know, regarding the zoning, there's comments
regarding, well this is a conflict of HDMF zoning.
Well there's a clear conflict here between HDM zoning
and the Vail Village master plan.
The Vail Village master plan clearly denotes five
to six stories on this portion of the parcel
and that's what's being recommended
and I believe it's in accordance with that.
Again, the Village MA Village master plan specifically calls
out redevelopment of the existing surface parking lot at
Apollo Park and and encouraging parking to be contained
inside enclosed parking structure,
which this building does do.
I believe it's unfortunate that the redevelopment
of Apollo Park is no longer included.
Yes, but was previously proposed
with the previous application,
did not meet the Vail Village master plan,
at least the guidelines that we are required to adhere to.
And I believe this scaled back version does
and still opens the door to a redevelopment
of Apollo Park in the future.
Finally, regarding that, the housing plan,
I appreciate the options that were submitted
by the housing department and I'm very much in favor
of option two, which provides a mix of onsite housing
as well as some funds that will kind of a force multiplier
with other projects that the,
the town is working on right now.
Those are my comments. I dunno if there's further
comments from commissioners.
- I - I'd like to,
I'm sorry, go ahead John.
- I was just gonna say, you know, looking at Apollo Park
and the future and future redevelopment, I mean I think
that the, the applicant at that time would come back
and seek an amendment of the SDD
but I, you know, I, you can't predict
what future commissions would do,
but hopefully that there's enough of a record here as to
what transpired here today,
that you're not gonna have a commission that sits up here
and is gonna be unreasonable in regard
to a future application
and resetting some of the parameters in terms
of density GRFA in order
to accomplish a redevelopment of those buildings.
- Anything further? - I think, well I would say
that like some of the additional comment on the history
and the master plan I think has addressed
some of my concerns.
I personally preferred option one
and I would would've wanted
to see a single internally consistent proposal
to support option two
because I struggle with the increased GRFA and option two
because it seems to me like we're adding 3000 square feet
of additional GFA in exchange
for a thousand dollars per square foot.
And I don't personally believe
that just the money alone addresses creating
employee housing units in our village,
but maybe other people feel differently on that.
- Anything further from commissioners?
- I, I mean I just learned that my read
of the $2 million goes to Eastvale
and the CDOT property, which I really think is a valuable
affordable housing project for this community
versus Vail Village.
- I agree with that but I don't,
I don't think there's any guarantee
that's what it goes towards.
- It was written that way.
- Okay. And maybe I misunderstood.
- Is there further comment from commissioners?
Hearing none. I'll also make one final comment
that this is not a final approval, this is a recommendation
to the Town Council final.
If there is a recommendation for approval
or denial either way this will go
to the Town Council for another hearing.
With that said, is there a motion?
- I'll make a motion. The Planning
and Environmental Commission approves
with conditions the applicant's request for a recommendation
to the Devale Town Council for the establishment
of a new special development district pursuant to section 12
dash nine, a special development district's VA town
code to allow to allow for the development
of a multifamily project
located at 4 4 2 South Frontage Road,
Eastvale Village filing five track D
PEC 26 dash 11.
And with that motion I include the
conditions found on page 18
and 19 with the addition of one one condition,
that option two of the housing recommendation
is included and then also the four findings on page
20, I believe.
- So thank your motion would amend conditions three
and 13 to comply
with option two presented
by the housing department. Thank you for
- If we might recommend just striking conditions
three and 13.
Yeah. And adding conditions one through four on page three
of the lunar park housing staff memo dated July 27th, 2026.
- Thank you. Robin, - You're okay with that Bill?
- Yes I am. - Okay.
There's a motion by Commissioner Jensen. Is there a second?
I will second. All in favor please say aye. Aye.
Aye. All opposed?
- Opposed? - That motion carries four to one. Thank you.
The final
or actually the next item on our agenda is the approval
of the minutes from the July 13th meeting of the PEC.
Is there a motion on those minutes? So
- Moved.
- The motion to approve by Commissioner Jensen.
Is there a second? Second.
There's a second by Commissioner Brown.
All in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed hearing?
None opposed? I
- Ab I abstain. Oh,
- I was not present.
We have four, four
and one abstention for Commissioner Reder
who is not present at the meeting.
The next item is an information update.
Heather, do you have anything for us?
- Nothing new. Just thank you as always for your time
and your, your wisdom on these projects.
- Okay, good.
- We just wanted to say thank you.
We gotta get a chance to thank the commission as well.
But not only the commission but the public comment.
I think there is opportunity as was discussed.
I truly think that if the same support that came out
in opposition today of Apollo Park had come out in support
of that original plan,
we would all be in a very different place today.
So thank you. Thank you. I
- Want thank the commissioner personally.
You spent a tremendous amount of time on this on record.
Off the record that,
and we have been talking, this is a five year,
it's not 18 months, it's five years we've been
and we do want to work with Apollo Cars to try to redevelop.
They just have to agree to fit in the box
that you guys will all all work with
and if we can do that, we will develop entire site.
Thank you so much. Thank you.
- Thanks for your time. It's certainly not lost on us
how much you, you put into this
and in your free time, which is probably not ample
or anything like me. So thank you. Well,
- Thank you.
Are there any questions
or information updates from commissioners for staff?
Hearing none. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved.
Is there a second? Second. All in favor please say aye. Aye.
Aye. All opposed And carries unanimously or adjourned.
Thank you.