[0:00] - I'd like to call to order the July 27th meeting
[0:03] of the Town of Vail Planning Environmental Commission.
[0:06] We have four commissioners present in the room.
[0:09] Do we have any online?
[0:11] We may have one or two more joining us here,
[0:13] but we are past one,
[0:14] so we have a quorum and I would like to get going.
[0:19] The first item on our agenda
[0:23] is 3.1 has been withdrawn.
[0:25] There's no action for us needed on that, correct?
[0:28] - Correct. Yeah.
[0:29] - Okay. So the next item, our agenda is 3.2.
[0:33] Request for review of variances from section 12 dash six C
[0:36] dash six setback section 12 dash six C nine,
[0:41] site coverage in section 14 dash six seven, retaining walls
[0:44] of downtown codes Pursu in the chapter of 17,
[0:47] variance is Title 12 L town code to allow a garage addition
[0:51] and basement level living space within the required front
[0:54] and side yard setbacks,
[0:56] an increase in allowable site coverage,
[0:58] retaining wall height, exceeding exposed face height
[1:00] of three feet in the front setback located at 4 42 59 nugget
[1:05] lane, big ho estates townhouses, lot two
[1:09] a re subdivision lots 10 and 11.
[1:11] It's PC file 26 deaths 13.
[1:15] I'd also like to note for the record
[1:16] that Commissioner Jensen is also present.
[1:20] Also as a reminder to everyone, we will be hearing
[1:22] to our rules of order
[1:23] and time limits for today for applicants in public comment.
[1:28] The planner on the file is Cole.
[1:30] Cole Diva presentation for us.
[1:32] - I do. Thank you. Yep.
[1:35] And I'll have Michael come up here too
[1:36] and I'll give a short presentation
[1:38] and then I'll hand it off to Michael.
[1:39] So these variances we kind
[1:43] of looked at at the last meeting
[1:46] and you guys had some comments for Michael to go back
[1:49] and kind of rework some of his requests.
[1:54] So I'll go over some of the changes that have happened
[1:57] as well as what hasn't really changed
[2:00] from his initial request.
[2:03] So just to kind of orient ourselves, this project is located
[2:08] in Eastvale on Nugget Lane.
[2:11] It is just south of Bighorn Road.
[2:16] It's accessed by a single lane bridge that takes you over
[2:19] to Nugget Lane in the Glen Falls neighborhood over there.
[2:25] Staff would like to note that I, I did some research
[2:29] and did a lot more digging on the
[2:30] variances in this neighborhood.
[2:32] And this is quite a trove of variances in the neighborhood.
[2:37] And so there were about 15 plus variances
[2:40] that have been granted in this
[2:41] neighborhood since the seventies.
[2:43] So just something to note,
[2:45] I know commissioners had some questions about other
[2:48] variances in the neighborhood going into the request from
[2:53] the applicant and oops, there we go.
[2:57] And what's being requested as of of today?
[2:59] So the first request is a variance of setbacks to allow
[3:04] for the garage to be built into the front
[3:07] and the east side yard setback as well as the
[3:11] below grade encroachment that already exists
[3:13] as crawl space currently,
[3:15] but the applicant is requesting
[3:16] to dig out the already existing crawlspace
[3:19] into basement livable area.
[3:22] And then second is a variance for site coverage on the lot.
[3:27] That would be an increase from 20% to approximately 23%
[3:31] from when you last saw it.
[3:33] It did decrease but not enough to really sway
[3:36] that percentage too much.
[3:38] And then third, that variance,
[3:40] which was originally requested
[3:42] for retaining wall height in the front setback
[3:44] to be higher than three feet exposed
[3:47] is no longer being tried for today.
[3:50] So in the motion you can read in the approved motion,
[3:54] that will be not something a part of
[3:56] that in the denial motion.
[3:58] It will be still a part of the motion.
[4:00] So just something to note.
[4:02] The retaining walls will no longer,
[4:04] is no longer being requested today
[4:05] for being higher than three feet.
[4:09] Just to kind of point that out,
[4:10] the applicant did give us kind of those
[4:14] retaining wall heights
[4:15] and I'll kind of zoom in here just
[4:19] to show those have not changed
[4:22] or those have changed to be lower than or at three feet.
[4:30] - Three - Feet and then three feet as well.
[4:32] And we'll take a look at those renderings to kind of see how
[4:34] that has shifted the, the kind of grading
[4:38] that was being proposed in the initial variance request,
[4:42] the, the grading that the applicant was proposing would've
[4:45] kind of shielded the garage a bit more.
[4:46] The mass of this additional garage
[4:48] and the front setback has been kind of taken away due
[4:52] to the retaining walls dropping in height.
[4:54] So
[5:03] And so just kind of going over this really nice diagram kind
[5:07] of showing those setbacks.
[5:08] The applicant also was able to take those side yard setbacks
[5:13] that previously had been at zero
[5:15] on the east side yard setback has now been moved closer
[5:19] to the five foot off of the property line,
[5:22] pretty much in line with the already
[5:26] existing encroachment into the setback from the basement.
[5:28] So this green shaded area is that already existing
[5:32] below grade encroachment into the setback?
[5:35] This home was previously a part of Eagle County
[5:38] and when it was annexed into the Town of Vail,
[5:40] the zoning was kind of placed on top
[5:43] of this already existing home.
[5:45] So much of the home is already in the setback
[5:48] and that is seen both at the below grade on this side
[5:52] of the home on the east side
[5:53] and then on the west side as well.
[5:56] Just the notes. There was a variance
[5:58] that had been granted on this side of the home
[6:01] and was approved for a
[6:03] below grade encroachment into the setback was the same idea
[6:06] of digging out the crawl space
[6:08] and then making it into a basement for more livable area.
[6:12] And then down here is that garage
[6:14] that is going into the front yard setback,
[6:16] which is this red dotted line as well
[6:18] as the side yard setback,
[6:20] which is this other part of the red dotted line.
[6:22] So the front,
[6:23] it's still encroaching about 10 feet into the front setback,
[6:26] but the applicant was able to kind of pull it off
[6:29] of the property line.
[6:31] That had been kind of a concern for,
[6:33] for the commissioners at the last meeting.
[6:36] Staff is still concerned with the distance from the road
[6:39] to this, you know, higher mass that's closer to the road
[6:43] that we don't really see in this neighborhood.
[6:46] But yeah, that is kind of the overview of the
[6:48] step back requests
[6:51] - Where yeah.
[6:52] And where on the, looking at the garage, the neighbor
[6:56] to the right, how far away is the
[7:00] garage from the property line? What's the,
[7:03] - And I can zoom in here for you.
[7:05] Yeah, so it's about five feet off.
[7:08] This is the property line right here, this dotted line.
[7:12] It's about five feet off
[7:14] of the property line from the closest corner of the garage
[7:17] and then it's about six seven,
[7:19] it's about almost seven feet from the current parking pad
[7:22] that is there for the east duplex neighbor.
[7:28] And it's about 27 feet from the,
[7:30] from the structure I believe as well.
[7:37] Again, just can I ask you a question?
[7:38] - Can I just make sure I understand something? Yeah.
[7:42] So okay, the dotted line that that goes back
[7:45] and around inside of the garage, that's the,
[7:47] that's the front today
[7:49] - That is the current setback line.
[7:52] So that would be, this is the 20 foot setback in the front
[7:56] as well as this is the 15 side yard setback.
[7:59] So it's kind of all of the setback lines overlaid on top
[8:03] of the current home as well
[8:05] as the proposed garage, which is right here.
[8:08] - Okay, I just wanna make - Sure I got that.
[8:10] But that would be the conforming building envelope,
[8:13] - I understand that.
[8:14] Yeah, yeah, yeah. But, but it's already coming.
[8:16] We're already bringing bolt
[8:17] and mass in within the setback in that area.
[8:19] I just wanna make sure I understood that.
[8:25] - Oh my gosh. Keeps doing that.
[8:30] I dunno,
[8:31] - I'll kind of zoom out - Here.
[8:35] - Yeah, again, I kind of went over some
[8:37] of the background already throughout,
[8:38] but again, many
[8:40] of these properties in this neighborhood are
[8:42] already previously non-conforming.
[8:44] That's where many of these variances over the
[8:46] years have been kind of granted.
[8:48] Most of the homes are just built into the setback
[8:51] and have, you know, wanted to do an addition
[8:53] or do work within the setback
[8:56] and they've had to have a variance a lot like this.
[8:59] And same with below grade variances
[9:01] as well in the neighborhood.
[9:03] There is a front setback variance
[9:05] that I could find in the neighborhood.
[9:06] It's for a lot on the south side of the road.
[9:11] And that was for a, a home
[9:13] that had already been built too close
[9:15] and already into the front setback.
[9:16] So they had done an addition kind
[9:18] of over an already existing
[9:21] building footprint in the front
[9:22] setback, just something to note.
[9:25] And then as for site coverage,
[9:26] there was a site coverage variance
[9:28] that was also granted in this neighborhood as well.
[9:33] - And so that was my question last time. Yeah.
[9:34] Was had you found any front, so there's one,
[9:37] - So there's one yeah. And it was a prior
[9:38] - Non-conforming that at an addition over non-conforming
[9:42] - Existing Exactly, yes.
[9:43] And so today's ask is a bit different with the garage
[9:46] that's being proposed today.
[9:47] It would be, there is nothing currently built into the front
[9:51] setback and we'd be building into that front setback.
[9:53] So it'd be adding mass into the front setback.
[9:56] - Which one was it?
[9:57] - Yeah, I can zoom in here.
[9:59] Believe it's this property right over here.
[10:02] So it's a bit to the southwest of the home over here.
[10:05] - Okay. - And as you can kind
[10:07] of see if you can think about it with the,
[10:09] with the property lines maybe overlaid,
[10:11] but it's quite close to the road as is, it sits today.
[10:14] And so they had done a, an addition above the garage there.
[10:19] - And then this is the setback from, does
[10:23] that include the public right away
[10:25] that's along that stripper?
[10:26] No, from the
[10:27] - Public, right.
[10:28] So it's from, from their property line.
[10:29] So the setback will be 20 feet off of their property line
[10:33] on this in this neighborhood.
[10:34] The, the the right of way kind of extends into, it kind
[10:38] of goes into some of the properties.
[10:40] Sometimes it kind of depends on where the road sits,
[10:43] but most of the time there's a little bit of right
[10:45] of way in the, into their driveway
[10:48] and then there's, that's their property line
[10:49] and then it kind of extends off of that.
[10:57] And then I'll just kind of go over some of the rendering.
[10:59] So with that reduction in the retaining wall height,
[11:04] it has kind of exposed more of that mass
[11:07] and staff still feels that
[11:09] with this added mass in the front setback
[11:12] and the request for site coverage, that it is,
[11:15] it still is kind of that special privilege
[11:18] of criteria number two.
[11:20] Especially with, with it not being
[11:22] as hidden from the neighboring properties.
[11:26] Staff still feels that it's quite
[11:28] a deviation from the neighborhood.
[11:33] And I'll kind of just go around, this is from, this is kind
[11:35] of coming from the west of the property looking at the home
[11:40] And then this is kind of that rear kind
[11:43] of side from the east.
[11:45] So you'd be standing on the eastern
[11:47] duplexes neighbor property
[11:48] and this is that corner of the garage.
[11:53] And then I'll kind of just go over some
[11:54] of the floor plans again, just
[11:56] to kind of give you guys an idea.
[11:57] And as you can see this,
[11:59] this lighter fainter dotted line is the current
[12:04] property setback line.
[12:05] So this is the property line, this is the setback line.
[12:09] So as this house sits today,
[12:12] the hou the home already is into this,
[12:14] into the side yard setback.
[12:16] However it is not into the front yard setback
[12:20] - Is, is that the crawl space or also the first level?
[12:23] - This is, this is the crawl space.
[12:25] So this would be the basement level
[12:29] and then this is the proposed basement level.
[12:32] So as you can see, they, they would want to build out
[12:34] that basement that wouldn't be changing any of those
[12:38] exterior foundation walls other than adding more foundation
[12:42] walls here and then going into the front setback here
[12:45] with the foundation walls of the garage.
[12:52] And then this is the current existing conditions
[12:54] of the main level with the parking pad that already
[12:58] sits in the right of way.
[12:59] And so this is the property line right here.
[13:02] And so they're already into the right
[13:04] of way, which is over here.
[13:05] So the road is pretty much right on the edge
[13:08] of their pan of their driveway.
[13:15] And then this is the proposed main level, oh actually,
[13:19] sorry, proposed main level right here.
[13:23] And we do have a turning radius diagram as well to kind
[13:26] of show how parking would be made.
[13:33] And then this is kind of that area
[13:36] of encroachment into the front setback with the garage.
[13:42] - When I'm looking at this, this shows
[13:45] how vehicles will exit.
[13:46] Correct. It doesn't show
[13:48] how vehicles will enter the driveway.
[13:51] They're not gonna back in from the right side of the road.
[13:56] - So as Snap doesn't really look at how vehicles are able
[14:00] to access their driveways, we only look at making sure
[14:04] that they have the minimum required amount
[14:06] of parking on the, in their property.
[14:09] So we don't look at how they manage to get their vehicles
[14:12] to fit on property just as long
[14:14] as they have enough room within it. So in the
[14:16] - The last meeting, the applicant did talk about a backing
[14:19] turn motion that potentially they might talk about in their
[14:21] presentation today.
[14:22] - Yeah. Okay. Yeah,
[14:27] - We can discuss an app.
[14:28] We're almost, almost after the presentation. So,
[14:31] - And then yeah, just a another just kind of table just
[14:33] to kind of summarize everything that's kind of being asked.
[14:37] Currently as the home sits, it does sit on a very small kind
[14:41] of irregular shaped lot, you know,
[14:42] sitting at 10,000 square feet
[14:44] where our minimum is 15,000 square feet for a duplex lot.
[14:48] And then I've updated the front yard,
[14:52] the side yard and the rear.
[14:54] The rear is not changing, but the front
[14:55] and the side have changed.
[14:57] For the garage it's still at 10 feet.
[15:00] The, the side yard for the garage is still around five feet
[15:03] or, or now is five feet instead of zero feet.
[15:06] And then for the living area it's still five feet
[15:10] encroachment in that below grade living area.
[15:15] And then GRFA he was able, the applicant was able to reduce
[15:19] their GRFA by some, by some square feet by pushing
[15:24] that garage kind of closer onto their property
[15:26] and kind of making that living area,
[15:30] that vegetable area between the home
[15:32] and the garage a little smaller.
[15:35] And then still they are still requesting
[15:38] that site coverage variance for, for this
[15:42] above grade garage addition.
[15:44] So going from 20%, you know, sitting at 2013 square feet
[15:49] to now 2,414 square feet for site coverage variance.
[15:56] And I've kind of run through my criteria,
[15:58] but my, this kind of still stays the same from from the last
[16:03] presentation, but staff still feels that the relationship
[16:06] of the requested variance to the other existing
[16:08] or potential uses and structures in the vicinity is not met.
[16:12] There are a number of variances in this neighborhood,
[16:16] but we have not seen a garage being
[16:20] put into the front setback.
[16:21] Most of these variances that have been granted were
[16:24] for properties that were already non-conforming with the,
[16:28] with the setbacks already laid on top of them.
[16:30] And so if they did do an addition
[16:32] or they did dig out a basement, it was already something
[16:35] that was previously within the setback.
[16:37] So they weren't really ever building further
[16:39] into the setback always.
[16:41] So staff still feels that in the neighborhood context
[16:44] and other uses, this is something that we don't really see
[16:47] as well as most
[16:49] of the other neighbors don't have garages as well.
[16:54] And then the degree of to which relief from the strict
[16:57] and literal interpretation
[16:59] and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary
[17:02] to achieve compatibility
[17:03] and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity
[17:07] or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant
[17:10] of special privilege staff still feels that this
[17:13] criteria has not been met
[17:15] and still feels that this is a grant
[17:16] of special privilege within the neighborhood.
[17:18] It And then finally the kind
[17:23] of effect of the requesting variance on light and air
[17:26] and distribution of population transportation
[17:28] and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities
[17:31] and public safety staff still feels that this is being met
[17:35] by still taking these right of way.
[17:38] Ve parked vehicles off of the street is a,
[17:40] is a really great thing.
[17:41] And I know that public works had come out and,
[17:44] and talked to the applicant on site
[17:46] and had expressed their approval of getting the vehicles out
[17:50] of the right of way, you know, starting
[17:51] to put more vehicles more onto their own property.
[17:55] So staff feels that this is a benefit for trying to get some
[17:58] of these vehicles out of the right of way.
[18:01] And that is it for my presentation,
[18:03] but I'm, I'm happy to answer any questions
[18:05] or go back on any slides to kind of go over anything.
[18:09] - So you said that most of the variances
[18:11] into the setbacks were sort of redevelopment of preexisting
[18:17] setbacks that were either granted or grandfathered in
[18:20] because this area was annexed in.
[18:22] - Yeah, so most of the properties in this neighborhood
[18:24] or already into the setback
[18:26] with the home being built where it is.
[18:28] So yeah, a lot of the variances requested were kind
[18:32] of already on nonconforming lots
[18:35] with the home where it sits.
[18:37] - So the variances were similar
[18:38] to the request in this application to be able
[18:41] to convert the crawlspace to to basement six,
[18:45] - Correct. Yeah, those
[18:46] - Variances.
[18:47] Yep.
[18:54] - Are there other questions for staff from commissioners?
[19:01] Hearing none, we'll move on to the applicant's presentation.
[19:03] Michael, do a presentation for us.
[19:07] - Thank you. Michael Hazard, representing John Altman.
[19:10] Thank you Cole for your presentation.
[19:13] I will attempt not to run you through much of
[19:15] what you've already heard as far as what we're proposing
[19:18] and get more to, I'm gonna, I figured now how to point this.
[19:25] The, I think the very salient point is that, and,
[19:28] and maybe this, hopefully it doesn't sound like preaching,
[19:32] but planning is, especially
[19:36] with a narrative code such as veil's code is a,
[19:41] when, when I call it a narrative code
[19:44] enforcement is based on a number of set precepts, dimensions
[19:49] that attempt to identify bulk mass
[19:52] and density on a site, front yard setback,
[19:55] side yard setback, site coverage,
[19:58] height limitations, et cetera.
[20:00] And as many of you may be aware,
[20:04] there has been a large movement in many communities to
[20:10] move partly away from that to more of a form-based code
[20:13] and a form-based code.
[20:15] And, you know, not to preach,
[20:16] but form-based code is one that get tries to
[20:22] identify what the goal is as far as what's proper and appro
[20:27] and and desirable appearance.
[20:29] What's the result of all the numerical limitations?
[20:33] And there's examples like Seaside, Florida,
[20:38] number of all over the country.
[20:40] It's being done in Buena Vista as a matter of fact,
[20:45] I I mention that because I think that the, the, the issues
[20:49] that we're dealing with are,
[20:54] as Cole mentioned, I think it's 42 38 nugget lane was an
[20:57] existing home that had been built prior
[20:59] to being annexed in the town.
[21:01] It was built up against a, a mature grove
[21:04] of trees in the back.
[21:07] And there was an existing, and,
[21:09] and I may be wrong on all of this,
[21:10] but as I understand it,
[21:12] there was an existing one car garage.
[21:14] The applicant had apparently a,
[21:17] a long time prior been granted a, a variance in order
[21:21] to double that to a two car garage.
[21:23] It had a master suite above that garage.
[21:26] And one of the arguments for not putting the garage
[21:29] behind on the site was number one not
[21:33] to impact mature trees.
[21:35] The slope of the site was an impediment.
[21:38] And so, you know, they were forced by virtue of
[21:40] where the house sat in our instance,
[21:43] the duplex again was pre-existing,
[21:45] was built fairly forward on the site,
[21:48] not allowing the opportunity for a garage
[21:51] to be built within the setbacks.
[21:53] Had it been located with the mindset of creating a garage,
[21:58] obviously in that state
[22:00] and in the market at those times, the developer chose
[22:03] to do pads that infr that actually
[22:07] inserted themselves on the public right of way.
[22:09] So in an attempt to satisfy my client's goals
[22:14] and try to adhere to the intent of the code
[22:18] and the visual results that the code is attempting to imply,
[22:23] one of the things that I've attempted to do is,
[22:28] the current issue right now is that those six half duplexes
[22:32] and the home at 42, 38
[22:35] and several others have garages that garages
[22:40] or parking aprons that back onto the right of way in spite
[22:44] of the fact that it's just pavement.
[22:46] That pavement is often occupied by vehicles as we know,
[22:49] most garages, many garages are used as storage
[22:52] and cars reside outside of the garages.
[22:55] So it's not a guarantee
[22:56] that parking won't occur in front of the garage doors.
[23:00] I deliberately position the garage
[23:05] to work with the reality of the site
[23:08] and not just shoehorned it in to the geometry of the site.
[23:11] By that I angled it.
[23:13] So as to number one place, it actually the,
[23:17] if the corner of the neighboring property
[23:20] and it's hard to see with these aerials, there's a shed
[23:23] that protrudes, I actually measured it
[23:26] and could verify it if we need to,
[23:28] it's 31 foot eight inches from the face of
[23:32] where I'm currently showing the garage to the corner
[23:35] of the home, there is a shed that contains meters
[23:38] or storage in that shed in that protrusion.
[23:42] So if you will, the corner of the house.
[23:44] So if this were a pair of 15 foot setbacks,
[23:49] we'd be further apart than
[23:50] what would be allowed by the code.
[23:53] I then deliberately, instead of simply shoving the garage
[23:59] into the property and facing it towards the street,
[24:02] where more than likely
[24:03] as the trend is these days you'd have translucent
[24:06] or transparent garage doors opening out onto the street.
[24:10] You might have a car parked in front
[24:12] of the garage again impeding on
[24:15] at least in facing the street
[24:17] and you'd have the bulk of that in addition to the home,
[24:19] I purposely created a driveway
[24:22] that deliberately exits off of the right of way.
[24:26] I've restored the, the resultant solution that I'm proposing
[24:30] to you restores 74% of the properties
[24:35] frontage to soft space to either
[24:40] landscaping or if you will, road maintenance.
[24:45] And you know, our expectation is to landscape it generously,
[24:50] the garage has now turned 90
[24:53] or they're perpendicular to the road.
[24:55] And again, I emphasize the visual aspect of this.
[24:58] Yes, the garage is in the front yard setback
[25:01] as it is at 42 38
[25:03] and at other locations throughout Eastvale,
[25:06] but specifically on this road, the difference is instead
[25:10] of at 42 38, the garage is turned at 90 degrees.
[25:13] That means you don't see the garage doors,
[25:15] there's no asphalt in front of it.
[25:17] We've now restored a soft frontage to the road,
[25:21] which I would argue is a superior solution than
[25:25] what you now have on Nugget Lane.
[25:27] And so I was talking to my colleague
[25:31] and friend George Ruther was sitting behind me
[25:34] and I'm gonna quote him, I warned him
[25:36] and he said it was okay that the code is flexible
[25:40] and a variance asks,
[25:44] it presents the reality of a hardship
[25:47] and it it asks of you relief from that hardship to achieve
[25:51] what has been granted to others.
[25:54] And very specifically on Nugget Lane, I thought it was 10,
[25:58] now I'm being told it's in excess of 15
[26:01] variances have granted privileges
[26:03] because of these preexisting odd shaped, minuscule sites.
[26:08] If this was on a normal site,
[26:10] we'd be 21% under the allowed site coverage.
[26:14] And it's not a normal site. We, that's not our fault.
[26:17] That was the way the site was zoned.
[26:20] We don't feel it's a special privilege specifically
[26:23] because we are simply trying to achieve
[26:26] what others have been granted.
[26:28] We feel that we're not only simply achieving the solution
[26:33] of a garage, we're screening one
[26:36] of three required parking spaces.
[26:38] We're turning the garage away from the road, we're improving
[26:42] the visual result of the planning exercise,
[26:45] which I would argue is really at the, at its base
[26:49] what this commission is what, what your mission is
[26:54] as planning commissioners.
[26:55] Bobby Lipnick, who is a good friend
[26:57] and a collaborator, we're both co-founders of the
[27:00] Eagle County Affordable Housing task force, sat
[27:04] with me one day and asked me when he was looking at the
[27:07] westvale master plan that was being proposed
[27:09] and there were some new statutes being suggested as far
[27:12] as site coverage, frontage, setbacks and all.
[27:16] And he said, well, do you think these look right?
[27:18] And I said, you know, I can't give you
[27:19] that answer without testing it and what do you mean?
[27:22] I said, you've gotta create massing that shows what
[27:25] that might look like
[27:27] to see whether those numbers in fact succeed in giving you
[27:31] higher density, which was being tried,
[27:33] which was being promoted in order to promote redevelopment
[27:37] and development at the same time without throwing the baby
[27:41] out with the bath water and enforcing a planning statute,
[27:45] a planning precept that from a visual human standpoint,
[27:49] something you can stub your toe on,
[27:52] looks good, looks acceptable.
[27:54] And I would argue that the result of, I'm sorry, I'm passing
[27:59] through a couple of these, my,
[28:02] my last presentation was terrible self-deprecating,
[28:07] but now I'm gonna,
[28:14] anyway, I took a few pictures
[28:15] of the street actually this morning
[28:18] and it's cluttered.
[28:21] There's street, there's cars all over it.
[28:23] This is one move in the right direction I would argue.
[28:27] There we go. So you know, this is
[28:29] what it looked like this morning.
[28:31] There's it know it's normal life on a street.
[28:34] Is it the end of the world? Is it unknown? Is it optimal?
[28:38] No, what we're proposing would be an
[28:41] improvement, a net improvement.
[28:43] We are asking for variances to achieve that.
[28:45] The variances are a numerical and regulatory standard
[28:51] but they are not the end result.
[28:53] The visual solution is what you should be assessing.
[28:57] I'm hoping and it's not working.
[29:04] I was trying to give you before and
[29:05] after, these are the two views.
[29:08] Unfortunately our render fell apart.
[29:10] I don't have the new proposed renderings without the berm.
[29:14] As we discussed in the last instance.
[29:17] What I was trying to do is come back
[29:18] to you obviously resoundingly the zero setback was a no-go.
[29:22] We achieved that to the tune of five feet
[29:25] and the Bill Jensen was concerned about the
[29:31] retaining wall heights
[29:32] and we were able to, to propose that we can,
[29:37] we can bring them down into compliance.
[29:39] The question might simply be, does the retaining wall, does
[29:43] that variance grant us better shielding
[29:46] and better addressing the mass than not having it?
[29:50] Obviously in the absence of the retaining wall,
[29:53] we would replace that with ample landscaping, which can be
[29:58] an effective measure
[30:01] And forget the slides,
[30:06] - Cole can advance for you.
[30:10] - So you know, resoundingly we agree with the staff,
[30:13] the only issue really is the bulk mass
[30:17] and the front yard incursion.
[30:20] And I would ask you to consider the visual reality of
[30:24] what we're proposing and how that is in our opinion,
[30:28] an improvement on what an
[30:33] otherwise solution what, what the solution would be.
[30:36] Without that approach, we've taken the efforts
[30:39] to drop it, to shield it.
[30:42] The town, as I pointed out last time,
[30:44] offers 300 square foot incentives to create parking
[30:49] to shield vehicles.
[30:50] And we're taking up on that offer and we're shielding it.
[30:54] So we hope you'll agree with us.
[30:56] We feel that we've got a strong design solution that'll be a
[31:00] visual improvement to the road.
[31:04] - Thank you. Any questions
[31:06] for the applicant from commissioners,
[31:11] - Mr.
[31:12] Hazard? So we're not a form-based code,
[31:14] we're a traditional code.
[31:18] As commissioners we're gonna be asked
[31:20] to vote upon this application
[31:22] and others based upon criteria for granting a variance.
[31:27] Can you describe for me how
[31:32] granting this variance would not constitute a grant
[31:36] of special privilege inconsistent
[31:37] with limitations on other properties classified in the
[31:41] same zone district?
[31:43] - I guess I would go back to at least the one other variance
[31:46] where there was a one car garage, it was allowed
[31:50] to be expanded so
[31:51] that the incursion in the front yard setback went from 16
[31:54] feet to 18 foot eight inches within 16 inches
[31:58] of the front setback.
[32:00] The application stated at the time that the countermeasure
[32:03] to that was that because of the placement,
[32:06] as Cole was talking about,
[32:07] of the pavement within the 50 foot right of way,
[32:10] there was almost a 20 foot distance from the paved road to
[32:16] the improvement to the garage.
[32:19] In our instance we're 18 foot four inches from pavement
[32:24] to the side of the garage.
[32:25] So we're about a foot different from what
[32:27] that application was.
[32:29] So there's a direct example of how that was a variance
[32:33] that was granted and we're asking for no more than
[32:35] what that gave us.
[32:37] The added benefit of what we're asking is
[32:40] that we're turning the garage so that we're lessening
[32:44] the amount of asphalt
[32:46] and the visual impact of the improvement
[32:50] - And the variance say you're referring to,
[32:52] can you give us more detail in regard to that variance?
[32:54] Do you have any It
[32:56] - Was, it was granted in 20 16 42, 38 nugget lane.
[33:01] It's at the south side of the road at the cul-de-sac
[33:06] and I think Cole, if you wanna back up,
[33:09] I'll let you maneuver.
[33:10] There's an aerial view. Okay, we can Well yeah, sorry.
[33:16] - Is this the one that was mentioned being non-conforming
[33:20] existing garage in the front setback
[33:22] and living spaces added above it?
[33:24] - It was, as I understand it,
[33:26] and I may be mistaken on all the facts,
[33:27] it was a non-conforming one car garage.
[33:30] The variance allowed it to become a two car garage
[33:32] with the addition of the master suite that was in place
[33:35] of where there was a deck.
[33:36] I think
[33:38] - Cole, do you have the Yeah, - Correct.
[33:40] Yeah, so that was, it was an already existing
[33:43] garage into the front setback
[33:45] and that was where, this is a little,
[33:48] this one's differing from currently,
[33:50] there's no front setback encroachment on this property.
[33:53] And so staff feels that that is kind
[33:56] of the differentiating factor is that this home at 42 38
[34:01] already was built into the setback.
[34:03] And so when the, you know,
[34:04] when the setbacks got set onto the home,
[34:07] the garage was already into the front setback.
[34:09] So it's kind of similar
[34:10] where they've added onto it in the front setback
[34:13] and staff was noting that that was part of
[34:15] that front setback variance that was granted
[34:18] and it is the only front setback variance in this
[34:20] neighborhood that was granted. So,
[34:23] - So, so looking at 42, 38
[34:25] and that expansion of the garage that occurred in 2016,
[34:32] the, the, the original garage extended in the setback
[34:37] but was the new garage, it was expanded.
[34:39] So the it so there was a greater encroachment in the setback
[34:44] than previously existed?
[34:46] - Yes, yes, yes. Same with the living space
[34:48] above the garage as well.
[34:49] That also was into the setback as well.
[34:52] - So what's that setback both from the property
[34:54] line and the right of way?
[34:56] - I'm not sure off the top of my head, but
[34:58] - That is, so it expanded to the west as I recall.
[35:01] And so it expanded both to the,
[35:03] to the north towards the front setback
[35:05] and towards the, to the west towards the side yard setback.
[35:08] - And you were saying that your setback from flow line from
[35:11] asphalt is similar to that.
[35:13] - We're about a, we're about a foot less than,
[35:14] so in other words, one of the defense
[35:17] or one of the comments that was made in the staff report
[35:19] 10 years ago was that,
[35:21] and I think this was the applicant's comment, was
[35:25] that thanks to the position
[35:26] of the existing asphalt in the right of way, not relative
[35:31] to the property line, but the edge of asphalt, that the edge
[35:34] of asphalt was just under 20 feet away from the face
[35:38] of the proposed garage or the proposed garage expansion.
[35:45] I think if you look at the area on, on my presentation,
[35:48] I've got one without all the property lines
[35:49] that's just, there we go.
[35:51] Whoop, whoop, there we go. If you can zoom in on that. Yep.
[35:57] And so as I understand it,
[35:59] the expansion went both north and west.
[36:02] - Okay. - And you know, relatively speaking,
[36:06] it is almost 20 feet from the edge of asphalt, you know,
[36:08] in this instance the garage fronts into the road.
[36:13] I, again, I feel that
[36:14] because we're turning 90 degrees,
[36:18] we're also offering the ability to screen the garage,
[36:20] whereas there's no ability on this one, which is,
[36:25] it's not answering your question, I apologize,
[36:27] but I think that, I feel that the,
[36:32] the, the granting of special privilege is one that
[36:37] we have a a, a notably minuscule lot
[36:43] and the existing home, just as in this instance,
[36:46] was shoved further towards the front of the lot, partly
[36:50] by virtue of the creek in the back, partly by virtue
[36:53] of grade and the manner in which they use the same floor
[36:57] plan on three adjoining lots.
[37:01] And so we were not afforded the ability
[37:05] to build a garage out of the front yard set back by virtue
[37:08] of the existing impediment
[37:11] of the placement of the existing home.
[37:18] - I'm gonna follow up my first question
[37:20] with another variance criteria.
[37:22] The necessary findings that the commission's required
[37:25] to make by code before granting a variance.
[37:29] And what I'm looking at is B three A
[37:32] and BI don't know how familiar you are with these.
[37:38] Do you, do I need to read them to you?
[37:40] I, I, what I want to know is, is how you, you, you believe
[37:44] that this application is warranted
[37:48] because it meets one of the three reasons stated in three A,
[37:52] B, and C, because
[37:56] that's a criteria that we're specifically Sure
[37:59] - Understand.
[38:00] - So I haven't heard any argument in that regard.
[38:03] - Do you want me to read - Or do we have a copy someplace
[38:08] that we can put on the screen? Yeah, it's
[38:09] - On - Page
[38:10] - Nine.
[38:11] Yeah, I'm, I'm reading directly from the code,
[38:13] not the review criteria.
[38:16] So
[38:18] - I can go to my staff memo.
[38:20] - It's John, - It would help if
[38:22] - You would just read it.
[38:23] You want to go to town code?
[38:24] - I don't know how much that's gonna help
[38:26] but I I can read it.
[38:28] It's 12 17 6 B necessary findings.
[38:33] We just talked about the one, so we have to make three
[38:37] separate findings when we talked about the first one.
[38:39] Let's, let's pull it up here much easier.
[38:46] So 12, 17, 6. Do you have that up?
[38:50] Yep. Yep. All right.
[38:53] Look, look, let's go to necessary findings
[38:56] and then subpart three, there we go.
[39:00] A, B, and C. Only one of those has
[39:04] to be met, those three.
[39:07] So I want to know what the applicant's position is in terms
[39:10] of which of these three criteria
[39:13] met. And the reason
[39:17] - I, I'd say, I mean starting out with a, thanks
[39:22] to the irregularity of both the shape
[39:25] and the square footage of the site, we're attempting to
[39:31] create a relatively small addition
[39:36] and we are because of, of the size, shape,
[39:40] and positioning of the existing home being challenged
[39:44] to do so.
[39:48] So we have these, the the added hardship of
[39:51] that, of that restriction.
[39:54] The,
[40:02] I would say again, the reason
[40:03] that there have been 15 variances on the street is
[40:06] that there is a number of other lots that have
[40:12] challenged the, or have requested a variance
[40:15] and successfully proven that the size, shape and
[40:19] and existing placement of, of homes has forced the need
[40:23] to be granted a variance in order to achieve parity
[40:27] with other property owners.
[40:32] - I think that's right.
[40:38] - Let me ask you this, Michael, is this the absolute minimum
[40:41] size you can fit to get a one car garage on this?
[40:46] - We've, we, we can probably shrink it a little bit more.
[40:50] I mean if we have to, we would, I mean we're,
[40:52] what I'm attempting to do is, is create a garage
[40:55] that you don't necessarily have to
[40:58] go on a weight loss program to get in,
[41:01] but we could reduce it some if need be.
[41:05] I mean, in other words it's the, the, the desire
[41:07] to have a garage would obviously be a benefit
[41:10] and would certainly be willing to
[41:17] sharpen our pencil and try to reduce it further.
[41:19] If that was up, if that opened the door
[41:22] to a possible approval from you.
[41:29] I might, I guess my question is, I'm trying to figure out,
[41:33] so this is a duplex and do you own both sides?
[41:38] No, just, just the side.
[41:39] So your expansion, where does the, the other owner park,
[41:45] they, they park on their own parking apron off the road.
[41:48] So when they did their renovation several years ago, they,
[41:52] they renovated the house, they left the parking apron.
[41:54] I think they improved the apron
[41:56] but they didn't change its general location.
[41:59] And they do not have a garage, correct? Pardon?
[42:01] They do not correct.
[42:03] And then the increase in square footage, does
[42:08] that include both units or just the one side?
[42:12] It it, I can, so the, the,
[42:16] I guess I'm just so I understand your question correctly.
[42:19] I mean our increase we had to
[42:22] as differently than when the other variance was approved
[42:27] for the west side there.
[42:29] For whatever reason they chose to,
[42:33] to use the math so that it was two separate lots
[42:37] and the GRFA site coverage
[42:39] and everything was restricted to that lot
[42:41] and not, so now the town has taken the approach
[42:45] that it's a single lot with an A and B side.
[42:48] So there's a property line down the, down the party wall,
[42:52] but all of the calculations, site coverage GRFA
[42:56] are calculated on the entirety of the, of the double lot.
[43:00] So the numbers that you see as far
[43:02] as our compliance take into account both sides,
[43:07] that's what I was guessing.
[43:10] But basically based on what you guys are doing,
[43:15] you're limiting the ability of the adjoining duplex
[43:18] to do much of any expansions, right?
[43:22] 'cause there was just 120 square feet left of GF ra.
[43:27] We as, as we were required to, we did, we reached out
[43:31] to them, met with them, reviewed the drawings,
[43:35] and they had already, their half had already been.
[43:38] In other words, the way the town does it is there's no
[43:41] proportional granting of, as you know,
[43:44] of GRFA or site coverage.
[43:46] So that's why you impose upon the applicant the need
[43:50] to be granted approval by the neighbor, which we were.
[43:53] So it was done with their permission.
[43:55] So you have your joint property owner consent
[43:57] that's in place, correct?
[43:59] It's been signed and they also wrote a,
[44:01] an email just supporting the general premise of
[44:04] what we're doing and then call, can you, I mean
[44:08] that the number of 300 square feet
[44:11] enclosed garage got thrown out. What's the
[44:14] - Yeah, so - The motivation from the town behind that?
[44:17] - Yeah, so it's, the motivation is when calculating
[44:22] GRFA, you can take deductions from that overall number of
[44:27] that number of square footage for the home.
[44:29] So garages in town are allowed 300 square feet deductions
[44:34] per space that they can fit within their garage.
[44:36] So if they have a two car garage,
[44:38] they could have a 600 square foot deduction from their total
[44:42] square footage of their home.
[44:43] So think of it as we calculate the entire gross size
[44:48] of the home and then we take deductions out of that.
[44:50] So the garage is considered a deduction.
[44:53] So it's kind of an incentive
[44:54] to put a garage within your home in, in the Town of Vail.
[44:58] So
[45:03] - Cole, I've got another question for you.
[45:07] And this is going to, to your analysis of memorandum
[45:10] and I want to understand staff's perspective on this issue.
[45:16] Let's, if I look at your memo
[45:18] and the the first variance
[45:22] review criteria that's listed at the top of page nine,
[45:28] you discuss it's the relationship of the requested variance
[45:31] to other existing or potential uses
[45:33] and structures in the vicinity.
[45:36] In the second paragraph, it's discussed, staff discusses
[45:43] the garage, it says the garage could have been better
[45:45] incorporated into the footprint in architectural form
[45:48] of the existing home rather than expanding
[45:51] out in the setback areas.
[45:53] Furthermore, due to its placements both within the front
[45:56] yard side yards, setbacks in its proximity
[45:59] to property lines, the proposed landscaping
[46:02] and retaining walls failed
[46:03] to provide adequate visual screening
[46:06] for a structure of this scale.
[46:08] Therefore it's more visible from the street.
[46:11] So there's that one point
[46:13] and then going to the second criteria, it is somewhat
[46:19] referenced again and it says
[46:25] notably the notably the proposal no longer incorporates
[46:29] grading, grading or earthwork against the garage structure.
[46:32] Without these grading measures
[46:34] to help integrate the structure into the site, the massing
[46:37] and bulk of the garage become far more apparent
[46:41] and prominent from the streets.
[46:47] Can you talk a little bit more about staff's perspective on
[46:52] what would be adequate screening in this instance?
[46:56] In know if we're going into the setback,
[47:00] what the concerns were about the grading measures or,
[47:05] and or earthwork against the garage
[47:07] and why that would be better?
[47:10] - Yeah, yeah. Staff originally when the applicant had come,
[47:14] staff had kind of concerns about the massing into
[47:16] that front setback and had expressed that massing
[47:22] isn't really seen in this neighborhood as much as,
[47:24] as what was being proposed.
[47:26] So I, I think the applicant had kind of wanted to try
[47:29] to shield the, the, the mass of
[47:31] that large garage coming out into the front setback.
[47:34] So staff had been working with the applicant to kind
[47:39] of see how grading could help to shield
[47:42] that large mask protruding off to the front setback.
[47:45] But with the new
[47:48] revision from hearing comments about retaining wall height,
[47:51] they went back
[47:53] and they have decided to kind
[47:54] of drop those retaining walls down to three feet.
[47:56] So originally it had been closer to, I think it was probably
[48:00] around six feet high for, for the retaining wall
[48:02] that was really shielding the earth work against the side
[48:05] of the garage is now three feet
[48:07] so there's no more earthwork kind of sloping to the garage.
[48:11] And I can kind of show that here
[48:12] with this had been the proposed earthwork on the side
[48:16] of the garage to kind of shield it from the view,
[48:20] kind of hide that mass.
[48:21] Something that you as the commissioners can kind
[48:24] of look at is, is mass, like adding all this mass
[48:27] to the front of the home,
[48:29] something within this neighborhood.
[48:30] And staff felt that that's not something
[48:31] we've seen throughout.
[48:33] And so that was kind of a worry with,
[48:36] with the proposed garage.
[48:37] So that was what had currently been proposed
[48:40] with the screening of the great was using grade.
[48:44] And then if I go to my presentation
[48:48] with the new renderings, they show like
[48:52] no more grading happening here on the side of this garage.
[48:56] So it will be kind of fully,
[49:00] but I, I think the applicant will also speak to, you know,
[49:02] using landscaping as well to kind of shield it as well.
[49:04] So staff still feels that the mass of the extra
[49:09] en enc en encroachment into the front step back is just
[49:13] something not seen in this neighborhood on many
[49:16] of these small lots kind of around the home.
[49:19] So,
[49:20] - Well - Then I'll turn it over to ask the applicant,
[49:23] just talk about the landscaping issues and, and
[49:26] and what you were trying to work, what you've
[49:28] - Been trying to, you know, I I think we, we,
[49:30] we approached this proactively
[49:32] and to be honest, I completely
[49:34] missed the retaining wall com component of it thinking that
[49:40] by doing what we proposed in the renderings, the, the, the,
[49:44] the old renderings, it was a way of lessening the,
[49:48] the the vertical aspect of the side of the garage and
[49:51] and improving its street appearance.
[49:54] 'cause instead of seeing a wall, you're seeing slope grade
[49:59] with the ability of planting some trees and,
[50:01] and essentially, you know, very effectively masking it.
[50:05] What we were trying to do obviously is come back to
[50:09] having listened to your concerns
[50:10] and one of them was the retaining
[50:15] walls and the other was the proximity of the garage
[50:18] to the adjoining to the side yard side property line.
[50:23] So that we addressed effectively
[50:25] and we felt that if you deemed
[50:30] the lesser of two evils being not requesting the variance
[50:35] for the retaining walls, then we would then pursue screening
[50:39] by way of landscaping, which could be boulders,
[50:43] shrubs, trees.
[50:45] And you know, essentially we're, you're doing
[50:48] what historically has been done, you know,
[50:50] from a fire safe standpoint obviously would probably cide
[50:53] that side of the garage with a non-combustible such as stone
[50:56] as we're showing in the renderings so
[50:58] that we can in fact put trees against the building without
[51:01] the fear of, you know, urban land
[51:05] or fire issues.
[51:07] Our preference would be
[51:08] to retain the retaining wall if you felt that
[51:11] that was an acceptable variance in, in lieu
[51:15] of the, the visual results.
[51:19] - So your preference would be to go
[51:20] with the five foot retaining wall to be able
[51:23] to do the landscaping that we see in the rendering.
[51:26] - We feel that that in addition
[51:28] to turning the garage 90 degrees from the road, there's,
[51:32] there's a vertical bulk but it's, it's camouflage
[51:36] and visually I think it's a better appearance than
[51:39] what you currently have with three cars parked in a,
[51:43] in an undersized parking apron.
[51:49] - Understood. Are there further questions
[51:53] for the applicant from commissioners?
[51:56] - If, - If there are
[52:01] no more, we'll open up to public comment.
[52:04] If there's public comment in the room,
[52:06] you can please come forward and use a microphone.
[52:07] If you're online, please raise your hand
[52:09] and we'll promote you to talk.
[52:11] I'd ask that public comment.
[52:12] Please keep your comments to three minutes or under.
[52:15] We have a a full agenda today.
[52:17] If anyone is speaking and reiterating comments of someone
[52:21] before them, I ask that you maybe keep them brief
[52:23] or note that you're seconding comments
[52:25] from previous public comment.
[52:26] Thank you. Anyone in the room please come forward.
[52:33] - My name's Ken Johnson. I actually own 42 38 nugget Lane,
[52:37] so I'll have comments about that afterwards,
[52:40] but I'm concerned about this
[52:42] because you've got significant side
[52:45] and front setbacks.
[52:47] It also increases the oc you know, the, the footage from 20%
[52:52] to 23%.
[52:53] So no different than last week or two weeks ago.
[52:57] All they're doing is moving the garage over
[53:00] to the west by five feet.
[53:02] And I would highlight the fact
[53:05] that primarily the reason they're into the front setback is
[53:09] because they're adding eight foot eight feet to the south
[53:14] on the expansion, which has not been talked about.
[53:17] So they're asking for not only the eight foot expansion
[53:20] of the home itself, then they're asking for the setback
[53:24] with the garage in front of that.
[53:26] So you could accomplish a garage if that's what they want
[53:29] by giving up the eight feet expansion
[53:32] that they're showing in the,
[53:34] that they're proposing for that site.
[53:37] But you know, they're kind of asking for the world,
[53:40] they were asking for it when they went to zero site setback,
[53:44] now he's going 10 feet or going 10
[53:46] or yeah 10 feet into the side setback
[53:50] and significantly into the front setback with the addition.
[53:54] And relative to my comments on Nugget lane 42 38, I've owned
[53:58] that for 28 years.
[54:00] That was a single car garage
[54:03] that had a master bedroom above it.
[54:05] The bedroom was not added, the only expansion to the garage
[54:10] was into the, onto the side
[54:12] and it had a previous grant I believe that got gone back,
[54:17] you know, 25 years ago
[54:19] where it had been approved to do that.
[54:21] And you're also comparing a primary secondary
[54:25] zone site versus a duplex site
[54:28] and we kept it as a primary single family home.
[54:32] So it's significantly different when you compare the,
[54:34] the front setback of that versus a duplex.
[54:38] So I'm not, you know, that goes way back
[54:41] and tested my memory of what took place.
[54:43] But we also removed going back in 20 13 20 14,
[54:49] a balcony that was even another three feet into the front.
[54:52] So when they went through that remodel.
[54:54] So that's my comments is think about
[54:57] really why they're asking for the front setback
[55:00] 'cause they're already assuming they have the eight feet
[55:03] expansion of the existing property.
[55:05] And then finally, I guess I would say that the moving it
[55:09] to the west by five feet makes it even more
[55:13] a continuing of a difficult entry
[55:16] and egress into that parking spot.
[55:18] 'cause you got less room to swing,
[55:20] it was already bad when it was on the, on the,
[55:23] on the side set back being proposed on the side set back.
[55:26] Now you've got five feet less to maneuver a backing car in
[55:30] and a raging snow storm to get in there. That's all.
[55:34] - Thank you. - Yeah, any questions? Thank you.
[55:40] - If there's any further public comment in the room,
[55:42] please come forward to the microphone, willing
[55:44] to, I'd love to hear your comments.
[55:47] Are there any hands raised online?
[55:52] If there is no more public comment,
[55:54] I will close public comment and go back to applicant
[55:58] and staff to see any final comments from the applicant
[56:01] or staff before Commissioner comment.
[56:04] Cole, anything from you? No, no comments from staff.
[56:07] If you, if you have more questions, feel free
[56:10] - Based on public comment, I'd like
[56:12] to better understand the variances on the property
[56:16] that has the garage and the setback
[56:18] because there's been a lot of discussion about,
[56:22] there are a lot of other variances on the street,
[56:24] but those are predominantly preexisting preexisting
[56:27] variances probably from when they were an extended town.
[56:30] So I wanna understand if we let them move into the front
[56:33] side back or just the side set back if either one at all.
[56:37] - Yeah, I can't fully recall so I can, I can always do
[56:40] that on the, the side.
[56:41] But yeah mo most
[56:43] of the variances are from non-conforming homes already
[56:46] built into setback.
[56:47] So this is more of a variance asking
[56:49] to build into the setback further.
[56:52] I believe that this front, front setback variance
[56:57] with the garage was kind of a twofold where yes,
[57:00] the home was already built into the front setback
[57:03] and then expanded also into the front setback.
[57:05] So it was a little different.
[57:08] Again, staff is noting
[57:09] that there is a front setback variance in the neighborhood
[57:12] as well as multiple other side yard setbacks
[57:14] throughout the neighborhood.
[57:15] So this is not the, the only
[57:19] property on this on Nugget lane
[57:21] requesting a variance of this kind.
[57:23] I can't remember all the details of that one,
[57:25] but I do know that it was approved in this neighborhood.
[57:30] - Okay. I guess, you know, I would argue
[57:32] that in a sense there was an instance
[57:34] where they were already in the front yard setback,
[57:36] but they were allowed to expand in the front yard setback to
[57:41] increase the garage from a single to a double car garage.
[57:44] So it's, it, no two projects are identical,
[57:48] but I'd say it's a similar incursion.
[57:52] You know, the argument could have been made while
[57:53] that second car garage could have been pushed in the back
[57:56] of the property in that instance
[57:58] because of the placement of the house
[58:00] and the maturity of the trees on the hillside behind
[58:02] that was seen as a lesser of two evils.
[58:06] And so we're,
[58:12] I I mean I was asked earlier if we would consider
[58:17] trying to redesign the garage again.
[58:19] Obviously if that gets us closer
[58:22] to an approval then we'd certainly be open to that. Okay.
[58:25] - Can you speak to the comment about the eight foot
[58:27] expansion in the garage that was made?
[58:29] Could you fit the garage if you didn't have the eight foot
[58:32] front expansion within, without going into the setback
[58:36] or minimally going into the setback? Could we,
[58:38] - The difficulty is that the existing footprint
[58:41] of the house is so small that if we were
[58:43] to push it eight feet into it,
[58:45] the main entry level would be essentially non-functional,
[58:49] you know, to move further towards the creek.
[58:51] We've got impediments on the backside.
[58:54] So, and you know, I think that the neighbors
[58:56] to the east would, you know, they,
[58:58] they're understandably very concerned about
[59:00] not losing their view.
[59:01] We've assured them that we are actually removing a
[59:05] non-conforming deck and
[59:07] because of the fact that the new patio
[59:09] that we're proposing in the back is actually below grade
[59:13] as we'll illustrate to them to put their minds at ease,
[59:17] we expect that that will be a lesser impediment on their
[59:19] privacy and on the enjoyment of, of the creek.
[59:22] So we're, we're a little bit, again, it's a, it's an issue
[59:24] of the size of the site and the con confines.
[59:31] - Thank you. Anything further from applicant
[59:35] or staff?
[59:36] We move to commissioner comment? No. Okay.
[59:40] We'll move on to commissioner comment.
[59:41] We'll start to my right. Commissioner Brown,
[59:50] - In looking at the criteria for variance, I,
[59:56] I'm struggling with special privilege.
[59:59] We've done a lot of talking about the one variance
[1:00:04] that appears to have been granted in front setback
[1:00:10] and whether or not that is precedent setting for a second.
[1:00:13] And I'm struggling with whether a second becomes precedent
[1:00:15] setting for a third and a fourth and a 14th and a 15th.
[1:00:19] And I think that makes this, this is a unique situation.
[1:00:22] These lots are extremely small.
[1:00:24] They're smaller than what's permissible under than
[1:00:27] what was permissible under,
[1:00:28] under avail regulations at the
[1:00:30] time that they were incorporated.
[1:00:31] I appreciate that, that creates a current difficulty.
[1:00:38] I, I worry that solving that
[1:00:42] with front setback variances
[1:00:47] is an inelegant way to, to address that.
[1:00:51] It's hard for me to believe that this isn't a,
[1:00:53] an early ask in what will become a cascading ask
[1:00:56] and what will become a front setback.
[1:01:00] Variance is the standard of the neighborhood
[1:01:02] that worries me greatly.
[1:01:09] So I, I think in, I think that I would like
[1:01:14] to hear what the other commissioners have to say about this.
[1:01:17] I will withhold further comment.
[1:01:19] - Thank you Commissioner Jensen.
[1:01:23] - Well I too feel
[1:01:25] that this doesn't warrant a special privilege.
[1:01:30] I, I feel it is, the request is a special privilege
[1:01:33] and it's not consistent
[1:01:35] with the two family residential district.
[1:01:38] I'm also just concerned about the mass of it
[1:01:42] and you know, I just, I appreciate
[1:01:47] that you took the retaining walls down,
[1:01:48] but to me that only amplified the mass
[1:01:52] and it's hard to see how boulders
[1:01:54] or whatever is going to take care of it.
[1:01:57] But I too feel really strongly that
[1:02:03] approving this with constitute a granting
[1:02:06] of special, special privilege.
[1:02:08] So I'm struggling there.
[1:02:12] I am supportive of the expansion below grade.
[1:02:16] So that's, it's a separate request, but
[1:02:18] - We really haven't discussed that today.
[1:02:22] - Thank you Commissioner Wallace.
[1:02:25] - I agree with everything
[1:02:27] that my fellow commissioners have already said.
[1:02:30] I'll emphasize the basement aspect,
[1:02:32] which we haven't discussed.
[1:02:34] I did drive through there yesterday.
[1:02:40] For me, special privilege is hard here
[1:02:42] because there are a bunch of duplexes next to each other
[1:02:46] and I, I don't remember seeing any garages there
[1:02:49] and I was trying to see how this could fit
[1:02:52] and not be sort of a violation of bulk and mass
[1:02:55] or special privilege.
[1:02:56] I mean, I think when you look at the development next door,
[1:02:59] it kind of demonstrates what was supposed
[1:03:02] to be possible on these lots which are smaller.
[1:03:05] And then on the other side where there,
[1:03:08] there was potentially already a variance or
[1:03:10] otherwise, it's on the cul-de-sac
[1:03:12] and it's next to a ton of open space
[1:03:14] and it, you know, I thought it was interesting.
[1:03:16] It's a different, it's, it's a different type of lot.
[1:03:19] So I think in this case it would be special privilege if we
[1:03:22] weren't to give all the duplexes
[1:03:24] and I can't imagine what the street would look like if they
[1:03:26] all were able to put garages in the front set back.
[1:03:30] - Thank you. Commissioner Jensen?
[1:03:34] - Yep. - So Mr.
[1:03:39] Haard, I, I, number one, I thought you
[1:03:43] had a very good presentation today.
[1:03:45] You said something about you didn't do a good job last time.
[1:03:48] I wasn't here. You did a good job today.
[1:03:51] I agree with your proposed that your proposed design
[1:03:55] creates far better conditions that exist out there.
[1:03:59] And I also agree that the design itself is superior
[1:04:04] to other designs that you could have proposed for reasons
[1:04:06] that you stated during your presentation.
[1:04:08] 100%.
[1:04:14] I've been trying to search where,
[1:04:15] where there's a compromise in this situation
[1:04:19] and right now I, I haven't found one.
[1:04:23] And you know, looking at the findings that,
[1:04:28] that I pointed out to you
[1:04:30] before I turned the staff's memorandum, you know, the, the,
[1:04:34] you know, we have to find that this would not be a grant,
[1:04:37] a special privilege inconsistent
[1:04:39] with limitations on other properties
[1:04:41] classified in the same zone district.
[1:04:43] We're not even looking at at,
[1:04:45] at homes in the same neighborhood.
[1:04:47] We're homes in the same zone district.
[1:04:50] So that's, that's a difficult
[1:04:54] threshold to achieve.
[1:04:58] I think the points of as to what happened
[1:05:01] with 2 4, 3 8 are good points.
[1:05:04] It was all, you know, in expansion in the setback.
[1:05:07] So the structure actually became much larger
[1:05:10] even though there was a pre-existing one car garage,
[1:05:13] it became two with an addition above it.
[1:05:16] And, and I do believe that that supports an argument
[1:05:20] that it's not special privilege,
[1:05:22] but I'm looking more along the lines than
[1:05:25] just one other property.
[1:05:26] And I'm looking at all the other properties
[1:05:29] in the same D zone district.
[1:05:31] And is it inconsistent with limitations on all
[1:05:34] of those properties?
[1:05:36] And then three, you know,
[1:05:41] I think a, you only have to, to to find
[1:05:47] one of the three reasons
[1:05:49] that are stated under that Subpart three.
[1:05:53] And, and I don't think that C applies at all,
[1:05:57] but looking at A and B, the strict
[1:05:59] and little interpretation enforcement
[1:06:01] of the specified regulation result in a practical difficulty
[1:06:04] or unnecessary physical hardship, inconsistent
[1:06:07] with the objectives of this title.
[1:06:10] You know, my thought in regard to that tracks what staff
[1:06:15] said and points one
[1:06:18] and two of their memorandum in regard
[1:06:22] to the criteria that they analyzed.
[1:06:29] So that's difficult as well
[1:06:34] as for you guys as, as well as three B, which is
[1:06:39] there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances
[1:06:41] or conditions that are applicable to the site
[1:06:43] of the variance that do not generally apply
[1:06:45] to other properties in the same zone district.
[1:06:49] Looking at that, you know,
[1:06:51] looking at other properties in the same zone district,
[1:06:55] there are a lot of properties
[1:06:56] that face the similar constraints
[1:06:59] that your client's property does.
[1:07:01] And again, I I, I'm, without having to follow the criteria,
[1:07:05] I'm very sympathetic to the desire to put a garage in
[1:07:09] and expand and, and improve the property
[1:07:12] and create a better space for the owners.
[1:07:15] But at the same time, I just don't see
[1:07:17] where in this instance that, that you can meet,
[1:07:21] say three B to help satisfy that criteria.
[1:07:24] 'cause there doesn't seem to be exceptional
[1:07:26] or extraordinary circumstances that don't apply
[1:07:30] to other properties in the, in the zoning district.
[1:07:33] So those are my comments.
[1:07:35] - Thank you. Thank you. Let me get
[1:07:37] through my comments first Michael, and then the future.
[1:07:39] Of course. We'll just get through Commissioner comment.
[1:07:40] Thank you. You, you know, I'm falling in the same veins
[1:07:44] of the commissioners and it, it's close to me.
[1:07:46] But the thing is, what it comes down to is, you know,
[1:07:50] looking at that, you know, is
[1:07:52] that other variance precedent sending,
[1:07:54] well technically there's no such thing as precedents, right?
[1:07:56] And in, in governmental rulings. Sure.
[1:08:01] You know, and that's, that's part of our code.
[1:08:03] That ones do not set precedents, but,
[1:08:06] but kind of analyzing that it's splitting hairs.
[1:08:09] But, you know, they didn't increase their front
[1:08:11] setback, they went laterally.
[1:08:12] And I know it increased their en the set foot,
[1:08:15] the footprint in the front setback.
[1:08:17] But here we're adding totally new encroachment
[1:08:19] into the front setback.
[1:08:21] And really what it comes down to me is, you know,
[1:08:23] is this the mini minimum, minimum relief necessary?
[1:08:26] And I don't think it is. And part of it comes down
[1:08:28] to is when we discussed last time, you know, I asked, well,
[1:08:31] is it possible to have a drive under garage?
[1:08:33] He said, yes, it's possible,
[1:08:35] but we'd be losing living area in
[1:08:37] the, in the basement level.
[1:08:39] And so at the end of the day, you know, I see this
[1:08:41] as granting an e economic benefit
[1:08:43] by placing a garage in the front setback by
[1:08:46] allowing this variance, which then allows
[1:08:48] for more liberal square footage in the, in the home.
[1:08:50] Which is what, you know, the intent of this is. I get it.
[1:08:54] I just can't get there on our, our criteria.
[1:08:57] So those are my comments, and if you have further
[1:08:58] comment, Michael, feel free. Yeah,
[1:09:00] - Yeah.
[1:09:01] No, and, and you know, thank you for all your comments.
[1:09:03] I appreciate it. It's, it's a difficult thing.
[1:09:05] You know, I, my attempt earlier to talk about planning
[1:09:09] and design is that really,
[1:09:11] there shouldn't be a discordance between them.
[1:09:14] And unfortunately, you know what, what you're
[1:09:20] entrusted with, essentially you're using
[1:09:24] and you know, as you must,
[1:09:25] and I understand the rules you're using, the standards,
[1:09:29] the setback, the numbers, the percentages, as you know,
[1:09:32] they were set sometime back as, as,
[1:09:35] I wouldn't say arbitrary,
[1:09:37] but they've, they've been adopted as the regulations.
[1:09:40] And then when an applicant comes forth as I am asking
[1:09:45] for variance to those standards, the, the,
[1:09:51] the numbers are one thing,
[1:09:53] the visual resulting of it is another.
[1:09:55] And I think that in other, so one solution, obviously
[1:10:00] that's becoming the louder option here,
[1:10:02] is the elimination of a garage.
[1:10:04] At which point we we're, we're, we're back
[1:10:09] to exposing three vehicles.
[1:10:11] We've lost some of the elements that we're getting,
[1:10:15] we'll still probably depress the parking area
[1:10:18] and still try to improve the street frontage.
[1:10:23] But I feel that yes, we were asking for a greater,
[1:10:28] we're asking her for a front yard incursion in addition
[1:10:31] to the side yard incursion.
[1:10:34] But I think that the manner in which we were doing it was
[1:10:37] offering a superior design solution.
[1:10:39] And you know, in many new codes, the, the visual guidelines,
[1:10:44] they are, instead of having setbacks, you're, you're,
[1:10:47] you're imposing bill two lines
[1:10:50] and you're defining street frontages.
[1:10:52] And in a sense, one way
[1:10:54] of fixing this would be if you encouraged a series
[1:10:57] of garages that restored the soft frontage of the road,
[1:11:01] you'd get the public works department dancing on a pin.
[1:11:06] 'cause it'd be easier to maintain the road edge.
[1:11:08] And I think the resultant designs
[1:11:10] of those six homes could be far superior.
[1:11:14] I think, I don't have to read the writing on the wall.
[1:11:17] It's fairly obvious. I don't know.
[1:11:21] I suspect if we can maybe ask to table it
[1:11:25] and then we'll come back with a solution
[1:11:26] that hopefully finds acceptance to the remaining variances
[1:11:30] that we are asking for.
[1:11:32] We we're comfortable at least that the expansion
[1:11:36] to the crawlspace appears to be concurrent
[1:11:38] with other variances granted.
[1:11:40] And we will endeavor to
[1:11:44] adjust other elements of it to come back
[1:11:46] and hopefully get, get your
[1:11:51] - Approvals.
[1:11:52] Yeah, and my comments regarding the EP deck stand from last
[1:11:54] meeting, completely on board with
[1:11:56] that in the living area in the basement. So,
[1:11:58] - Yeah, no, I mean, you know, we understand, you know,
[1:12:00] and we appreciate the role you're in.
[1:12:02] It's tough zoning is not easy. So
[1:12:06] - I, I, I'd two, two points.
[1:12:09] Cole, when's our next regularly scheduled meeting?
[1:12:12] What's the date or Heather? Either one
[1:12:17] - 14th, 14th maybe - Of August.
[1:12:19] August 14th. Think it's August 14th.
[1:12:21] Would that be when you would be looking to come back?
[1:12:23] If we tabled this,
[1:12:24] - We could table it and you could always
[1:12:26] push from there too.
[1:12:27] - Yeah, you can push from that.
[1:12:28] I just want to put a date down. It's
[1:12:29] - August 10th.
[1:12:30] - August 10th. - August 14th, sorry.
[1:12:33] - August 10th. 10th, yep. Okay.
[1:12:34] And then the second point I wanted to make is
[1:12:39] to some of your more general points about our code.
[1:12:42] I think you're aware that staff is in the process with
[1:12:47] outside help rewriting significant portions
[1:12:50] of our development code, which is so spectacular.
[1:12:53] Yeah. And, and so hopefully you'll be able
[1:12:57] to participate in that process as a member of the community.
[1:13:00] Community I community and someone who works in our C I'd
[1:13:02] - Delight.
[1:13:03] Yeah. Zoning. Zoning and staff.
[1:13:04] - I have a lot respect. And so I, I invite you to do that.
[1:13:08] Thank you. That being said,
[1:13:09] and if there's nothing else from other commissioners, Mr.
[1:13:12] Chairman, I move that we table agenda item 3.2
[1:13:17] to our next regular scheduled meeting on
[1:13:18] August 10th, 2026. There's
[1:13:21] - A motion by Commissioner RedR
[1:13:22] and a second by Commissioner Wallace.
[1:13:24] All in favor, please say aye. A Aye.
[1:13:27] All opposed, hearing none that passes.
[1:13:30] It is tabled to the August 10th meeting. Thank you.
[1:13:33] Thank you. Thank you. The next item
[1:13:36] or agenda is 3.3.
[1:13:38] Request for recommendation of the Vale Town Council
[1:13:40] for the establishment of a new special development district
[1:13:43] pursuant to section 12 dash nine, a
[1:13:45] special development district's Vail Town code to allow
[1:13:48] for the development of a multifamily project located at 4 42
[1:13:52] South Frontage Road, east Vail Village filing five track D,
[1:13:56] it's PEC filing 26 dash 11.
[1:14:00] The planner on the file is Heather Knight.
[1:14:03] Heather, do you have a presentation for us today?
[1:14:05] - I do. Should we take a break
[1:14:09] since there's only three left?
[1:14:11] - We can, yeah, we don't have four in the room,
[1:14:13] so we'll take a, okay.
[1:14:15] Two minute break for return. Perfect, perfect.
[1:14:23] - Hold on, we'll try this again.
[1:14:27] So this is PAC 26 11.
[1:14:29] It is for the establishment
[1:14:31] of a new special development district for Lunar Vale,
[1:14:34] which is located at 4 42 South Frontage Road East.
[1:14:40] And here's the location here is noted by the yellow dot.
[1:14:43] It's the existing development lot of Apollo Park
[1:14:47] to the south and the property is actually this
[1:14:51] parking lot right here.
[1:14:53] Altus Vale is to the west as well as Mountain View
[1:14:57] residences also to the west and the Ren is to the east.
[1:15:04] So hit little history of the property first,
[1:15:08] just really quickly,
[1:15:09] the Apollo Park buildings were constructed in the 1970s
[1:15:13] to employ, provide employee housing.
[1:15:16] And then in 1978 a condo map was,
[1:15:20] was establishing the kind
[1:15:22] of the condominium ownership structure.
[1:15:24] And after that, those units were all conveyed
[1:15:27] as fractional ownership interest creating
[1:15:30] existing timeshare use on the property.
[1:15:32] And I believe, and the applicant could correct me,
[1:15:35] I think there's 1700 different
[1:15:38] timeshare owners of that property.
[1:15:41] In 2006, the site was subdivided
[1:15:44] to facilitate the phase redevelopment of the property
[1:15:47] to the west resulting in the mountain view residences
[1:15:51] and a phase one and two, which is now known as Altus.
[1:15:54] And those were completed in 2008 and 2019.
[1:15:59] And then the last was a new swimming pool was added
[1:16:02] to the Apollo Park property in 2007 to replace
[1:16:05] an existing one that was demolished
[1:16:07] to accommodate the Vail Mountain View residences.
[1:16:11] So just a quick little timeline thanks to the applicant
[1:16:14] for providing this image.
[1:16:15] It started as one property
[1:16:17] and then later was subdivided to accommodate the
[1:16:21] Mountain view residences to the west.
[1:16:24] Again, Apollo Park is, is this property to the East
[1:16:27] and then further subdividing the Mountain
[1:16:29] View Altas properties.
[1:16:31] To that point, this remaining the same, they're in
[1:16:35] that sub area nine of the Vil Vail Village Master plan.
[1:16:40] And we'll get to some kind of some points relating to that
[1:16:44] as I move further along the current application.
[1:16:48] So skip ahead to this slide real quick.
[1:16:51] History of the project is,
[1:16:53] you have seen this many, many times before.
[1:16:56] It actually came about four times before to the PEC
[1:17:01] and then went on to Town Council twice, where that in,
[1:17:05] in January of this year, it was remanded back to the PEC
[1:17:09] by the Town Council in April.
[1:17:11] And in May you saw it again as a work session
[1:17:15] and that was reevaluated.
[1:17:18] The project was reevaluated at that time
[1:17:20] and kind of worked through some of the details.
[1:17:22] And now it is here for a final recommendation.
[1:17:27] But this current application today does not include the
[1:17:31] redevelopment or replacement
[1:17:32] of the existing Apollo Park buildings.
[1:17:36] Lunar VA is, you know, the, they are the, the property,
[1:17:40] the landowner of the property
[1:17:42] and there's leasehold rights associated with Apollo Park.
[1:17:46] So they do, from what we have learned from the applicant
[1:17:50] and from doing our own research, there is, you know, rights
[1:17:54] to develop this parking lot on this piece of property.
[1:17:59] So this request here is
[1:18:01] to establish a new special development district on the
[1:18:04] development lot that is shared with Apollo Park.
[1:18:07] The underlying zoning is high density multiple
[1:18:10] family residential.
[1:18:12] The proposed development includes 17 new residential units
[1:18:15] and eight deed restricted units
[1:18:18] and a fully enclosed 75 space parking garage.
[1:18:22] And I do want to note that at the end
[1:18:25] of my presentation we will have a presentation from our
[1:18:29] housing department relating
[1:18:31] to those deed restricted units on the property.
[1:18:34] So if you wanna hold any questions related to housing
[1:18:37] until they're able to present,
[1:18:41] the applicant very nicely listed all
[1:18:44] of the revisions since the last reiteration that came
[1:18:48] before Town Council.
[1:18:50] And this was something that was worked
[1:18:51] through in the last two work sessions of the PEC.
[1:18:55] A lot of that has to do with really the reduction in the,
[1:18:59] in the bulk and in the GFA since the last PEC recommendation
[1:19:04] to council reduction in the building height
[1:19:08] and, you know, further increases of some of the setbacks
[1:19:12] and reduction in, in overall density.
[1:19:17] So why a special development district
[1:19:20] as there have been 42 before this?
[1:19:23] So this would be, actually,
[1:19:25] there's 43 now that have been approved.
[1:19:28] The most recent was the special development district number
[1:19:32] 42, the Vail Mountain View residences, phases one and two.
[1:19:35] So right next door.
[1:19:38] This does provide a little bit more flexibility for
[1:19:43] site planning in terms of meeting some of the elements
[1:19:46] of the master plan related to height, which we'll get
[1:19:50] to some of those deviations as well as kind of recognizing
[1:19:55] that the master plan and,
[1:19:57] and was outdated in terms of meeting some of these goals.
[1:20:03] So just a real quick outline of what we, we are at today.
[1:20:06] Where are we at today? This is the survey north is to the,
[1:20:10] to the left of the screen.
[1:20:12] These are the existing Apollo Park buildings.
[1:20:15] And this is showing kind of the very interesting outline
[1:20:18] of the property.
[1:20:20] It was, you know, again, this is a mountain view
[1:20:23] and Altus here on the bottom of the screen.
[1:20:25] So it was subdivided, you know, maybe why it was, it had a,
[1:20:29] a jog in this, you know, not, not important.
[1:20:32] Now there are some easements in place in terms
[1:20:35] of utility easements
[1:20:37] and we'll see that how close the, this pro,
[1:20:42] this new development actually gets
[1:20:44] to this Western property line in just a moment.
[1:20:48] In terms of circulation, I wanted to put this slide in
[1:20:51] 'cause I did feel that this was important not only to
[1:20:55] maintain circulation appropriate to Apollo Park,
[1:20:58] but also all the way through to towards Grower Creek.
[1:21:01] So this plan is actually flipped and north is to the right.
[1:21:06] Gore Creek here is is to the, to the left of the screen.
[1:21:10] So the existing buildings, so the, the orange
[1:21:13] represents vehicle access.
[1:21:14] So vehicles would come in the driveway on the east side
[1:21:17] of the property and circle around to the back
[1:21:20] to enter the garage in and out of that garage structure.
[1:21:25] There are some surface parking spaces located along the
[1:21:30] apol existing Apollo Park building.
[1:21:32] But most of the vehicles will kind of make that easy
[1:21:37] turn right into the, the enclosed parking garage.
[1:21:40] The red, it does demonstrate the fire axis, which does make
[1:21:44] that very simple for our fire trucks.
[1:21:46] It has, this plan has been fully reviewed multiple,
[1:21:50] multiple times by our fire department
[1:21:54] and they, they feel very confident in
[1:21:56] what is happening onsite for fire, fire apparatuses
[1:22:01] and their, their needs from that department.
[1:22:04] The purple is an important one to note.
[1:22:07] The purple does outline pedestrian access
[1:22:10] and coming from the parking structure along the, the front
[1:22:15] of the Apollo park buildings as well as along
[1:22:18] that west property line, still maintaining
[1:22:20] that pedestrian easement along that west line.
[1:22:24] So that from the frontage road down to the,
[1:22:28] the pedestrian path in front of the creek
[1:22:31] really is still maintained at this point.
[1:22:37] So the deviations requested today are setbacks
[1:22:41] and it's a below grade setback for parking.
[1:22:44] For the parking structure. 20 foot is required in this zone
[1:22:48] district and six foot is proposed.
[1:22:51] And on the next page I will show you where that is,
[1:22:56] but it really is, it's limited to
[1:22:58] below grade, it's not visible.
[1:23:00] There will be plantings, landscaping fully on top of,
[1:23:04] of this structure
[1:23:06] and it achieves the parking that's necessary
[1:23:08] to fulfill the parking requirements
[1:23:10] for this particular development.
[1:23:14] So as you can see here, this kind of hatched area is the,
[1:23:18] the amount of encroachment into the setback
[1:23:22] and it relates it to the property line.
[1:23:24] So again, this dash line is the property line
[1:23:26] and this dash line, I'm sorry, here
[1:23:30] is the setback line
[1:23:33] - And the vast majority of
[1:23:34] that is solely underground, correct? Exactly. Okay.
[1:23:37] - Except for the one portion where it kind of green.
[1:23:40] - Yep. Well it would be that it'd be in the notch
[1:23:47] by the corner where it reflects there, right.
[1:23:49] I believe applicant's presentation might show that
[1:23:56] - The next deviation is height, 48 foot is
[1:24:00] prescribed in the high density multiple family,
[1:24:04] 69.8 foot is proposed.
[1:24:07] And the proposed building height, this is kind of
[1:24:09] where we go back to reference the Vail village master plan
[1:24:13] and the subject areas within this circle, which here is
[1:24:18] to noted as is four,
[1:24:19] and that means four stories above grade.
[1:24:22] However, the adjacent sites are noted as the five to six,
[1:24:27] five to six, six to six.
[1:24:29] And this is typical, it's actually noted
[1:24:33] in the next slide here about building height.
[1:24:35] And the goal is to maintain the concentration
[1:24:38] of the low scale buildings in the core area.
[1:24:41] We're positioning the larger buildings along the northern
[1:24:44] periphery, so along the frontage road as depicted here in,
[1:24:48] in these diagrams within the master plan.
[1:24:51] And this area right here that I'm highlighting with the,
[1:24:55] the arrow is actually the area of, this is the ren
[1:24:59] described here, this is Apollo Park described here.
[1:25:04] And then there was a, a viewing corridor down, which would,
[1:25:08] I believe would be blue cow chute.
[1:25:10] And then we've got the public facility parking structure
[1:25:13] which provides views.
[1:25:15] So there is a consistency.
[1:25:17] And then to the west of that, again,
[1:25:19] the building height increases, so kind
[1:25:21] of frames the core area.
[1:25:24] This is one of the eastern most portions of the,
[1:25:27] the core, the village core.
[1:25:29] So that pattern has already been established along this,
[1:25:34] not only with the adjacent structure of Altus
[1:25:37] but other structures further west down the frontage road.
[1:25:44] And this is just a quick diagram showing, again,
[1:25:49] kind of a a three dimensional view of,
[1:25:51] of the proposed development with respect of Altus
[1:25:56] immediately to the west
[1:25:58] and then as it steps down towards Gore Creek to the south,
[1:26:02] to the existing Apollo Park buildings.
[1:26:05] And this shows here that this is,
[1:26:07] the building height is still lower than the height
[1:26:11] of Altus reaching that 69.8
[1:26:14] and that's only really at the center
[1:26:17] portion of the building.
[1:26:20] So that stepping effect is also prescribed in, in the,
[1:26:24] the village master plan as kind of allowing the views to be,
[1:26:28] to be had of not only the creek but up to the mountain.
[1:26:32] So the larger buildings,
[1:26:33] again at the frontage road stepping down to Creekside.
[1:26:42] So the other deviations are related to density and GFA
[1:26:46] and those kind of go hand in hand.
[1:26:48] 31 units are allowed per code.
[1:26:52] 57 units are proposed.
[1:26:55] So it's GFA is 40,434 square feet allowed
[1:27:00] and 66,057 square feet proposed.
[1:27:05] Currently there is an existing, you know, there's more,
[1:27:10] there's more, it exceeds the maximum
[1:27:12] dwelling unit density on site.
[1:27:14] I believe it's 41 units. So it currently exceeds that.
[1:27:18] So any development, anything that would happen
[1:27:21] on this site would already require a variance for density.
[1:27:27] Similarly, I just wanted to kind of, you know,
[1:27:30] draw some similarities between Altus and, and Mountain View.
[1:27:34] That lot has 53 units where 28 were permitted
[1:27:38] by high density multiple family.
[1:27:44] So it does speak a lot about having a higher density in
[1:27:48] these areas, particularly when the vehicle
[1:27:53] parking structures are enclosed.
[1:27:56] It does provide areas where it minimizes that
[1:28:00] that viewing it really, you know, it's unique that it's off
[1:28:04] of the frontage road so there's not a lot
[1:28:06] of vehicular traffic that impacts other areas of the village
[1:28:10] and it does actually call out for a park parking lot infill
[1:28:14] and residential infill over existing surface parking is
[1:28:17] really called for in the master plan.
[1:28:19] The height of the building should not impede
[1:28:22] view corridors from the frontage road.
[1:28:24] That's not an issue in this part of the, of the village.
[1:28:28] As I mentioned in that diagram, that was before four.
[1:28:33] So just to look at our zoning standards
[1:28:34] and what was being met
[1:28:36] and what the deviations are requested.
[1:28:39] Site area complies, setbacks, height, density,
[1:28:43] GFA are the four deviations for this
[1:28:48] site coverage, it does comply, landscaping complies as well
[1:28:52] and then parking, they have everything is is a hundred
[1:28:56] percent within the building
[1:29:00] Housing we will get to in just a moment.
[1:29:02] But I just wanted to to show what is currently being
[1:29:06] proposed here of the eight EHU units on site
[1:29:09] and how they're represented on this diagram.
[1:29:15] But to quickly review the, the review criteria
[1:29:19] for special development districts, one is compatibility,
[1:29:22] so compatibility sensitivity to immediate environment.
[1:29:26] So architectural design scale, bulk height,
[1:29:30] character orientation, all of those things.
[1:29:33] It is compatible with those properties.
[1:29:37] It does mitigate the visual impact of the height
[1:29:40] by having the highest point of the building kind of within
[1:29:42] that center of that massing
[1:29:45] and the, the massing hass been designed so
[1:29:48] that it does provide a slight step back.
[1:29:50] So in that stepping back of massing
[1:29:53] again spelled out in the Vail village master plan,
[1:29:57] I'll really relationship the uses activity
[1:29:59] and density which provide a compatible, efficient
[1:30:02] and workable relationship
[1:30:03] with the surrounding uses and activity.
[1:30:06] It is consistent, that area is very consistent
[1:30:09] of residential uses, multiple family residential uses.
[1:30:14] They are all high density multiple families, zone district
[1:30:18] beyond their special development district.
[1:30:20] In the case of the properties next door, it does identify
[1:30:25] this area is suitable for residential infill
[1:30:28] and it does satisfy the intent of this zone district.
[1:30:34] And then parking and loading a total
[1:30:36] of 75 vehicle parking spaces is
[1:30:38] provided within the fully enclosed parking garage
[1:30:41] and three surface spaces are proposed.
[1:30:44] This is for this particular development and then trash
[1:30:48] and recycling program is at the
[1:30:50] north entrance of the garage.
[1:30:52] It doesn't require the trash truck to like back up
[1:30:55] or turn around.
[1:30:57] And so it's kind of a drive through sort
[1:30:59] of trash access drive.
[1:31:02] So it, it has been reviewed by our public works department
[1:31:05] and has been approved by them as well.
[1:31:10] The other, the next three comprehensive plan,
[1:31:14] natural geologic hazard
[1:31:16] and design features staff feels that those are all met.
[1:31:20] They are actually offering a public benefit
[1:31:24] contribution towards the restoration
[1:31:26] of Gord Creek Stream tracked.
[1:31:28] While public benefits are not in your purview,
[1:31:31] it is something that will be in the Town Council.
[1:31:34] So just I wanted to kind of add that as a supplemental to
[1:31:39] this review criteria.
[1:31:41] And then traffic is the circulation system designed
[1:31:44] for both vehicles and pedestrians.
[1:31:47] We, I discussed this earlier in my presentation,
[1:31:51] but the proposed emergency fire, fire vehicle access, I mean
[1:31:55] that was a critical one to make sure we got this right
[1:31:58] and like I said before,
[1:32:00] the fire department has reviewed this
[1:32:02] and feels confident that it does work on this property.
[1:32:08] The, the network of the pedestrian sidewalks, the pathways,
[1:32:12] you know providing safe access from the frontage road
[1:32:14] to the creek is also a very
[1:32:18] positive aspect to this project.
[1:32:22] And then landscaping, it does comply
[1:32:24] with the landscape requirements of this zone district.
[1:32:27] And on the, I speak of the eastern property line,
[1:32:30] there is a slight, a small landscape buffer of a row
[1:32:34] of trees planted that will
[1:32:37] enhance the natural aspect as well
[1:32:40] as maybe provide a visual buffer between that property
[1:32:43] and the rent And also additional landscaping has been,
[1:32:48] and screening has been incorporated into the outdoor
[1:32:51] swimming pool to sort of give a sense
[1:32:54] of privacy to that as well.
[1:32:57] Excuse me. On the western property line there's a mix of
[1:33:01] of landscaping that have been reviewed by our wild and fire
[1:33:06] and that has met all of the fire mitigation requirements
[1:33:09] as well, as well as contributing to that pedestrian walkway
[1:33:12] to really soften the feel of that.
[1:33:16] And just wanted to give a quick overview
[1:33:18] of the landscape plan.
[1:33:19] Again the row of trees kind of lining
[1:33:21] that property line separating, giving a little visual buffer
[1:33:25] between the run
[1:33:26] and the property here fully, you know, knowing
[1:33:31] that there are residential units
[1:33:33] above whose balconies look out.
[1:33:35] So to give a sense
[1:33:36] of separation privacy is is always a, a nice feature.
[1:33:40] And then as well as having some landscape buffer
[1:33:43] along the edge of the building between the building
[1:33:46] and this pedestrian walkway
[1:33:47] that leads back down from the frontage road all the way back
[1:33:51] to the creek
[1:33:56] and then the workable plan.
[1:33:57] So they're required to submit a condominium map,
[1:34:01] a subdivision of the site, which will establish a new
[1:34:05] for all the new improvements.
[1:34:06] It'll establish a new condo map
[1:34:09] and it will be Apollo Park buildings will be maintained
[1:34:13] and accessible during construction
[1:34:15] and we will be asking for a construction management plan
[1:34:18] along with the building permit to review.
[1:34:24] So with that said, the community development department does
[1:34:28] recommend approval with conditions
[1:34:29] and those are noted in the staff memo
[1:34:31] and I'm happy to stop here, answer some questions
[1:34:34] or we can keep going and hand it off to housing.
[1:34:37] So it's up to you.
[1:34:41] - I'd say we open up to housing
[1:34:42] and then we come back with questions.
[1:34:43] Okay. If commissioners are on board with that? Yep. Okay.
[1:34:47] Okay,
[1:34:57] - Thank you.
[1:34:59] Hi everyone for the record, my name is Anna Bankson.
[1:35:02] I am the housing development specialist with the Town
[1:35:06] of Vail and I know it might be a bit irregular for me
[1:35:09] to be up here during staff presentation, but Heather
[1:35:11] and I felt like it was important for us
[1:35:15] to specifically call out the community housing plan,
[1:35:18] analyze it on its own and for me to speak to it directly.
[1:35:20] So I'm here to dig into the housing plan for this project
[1:35:25] a little bit deeper and I'll try to keep it short
[1:35:28] and sweet, talk about the submitted plan,
[1:35:32] a staff alternative and then go over staff recommendations.
[1:35:37] Before I go in though,
[1:35:38] I'll give two kind of upfront comments.
[1:35:41] Both of the plans that I am going to run through today
[1:35:46] are based off of the basically underlying commitment
[1:35:50] that the applicant has made to trying to go
[1:35:52] beyond the 10% baseline employee housing mitigation
[1:35:56] requirement and to provide 17.5% mitigation overall.
[1:36:00] So that's kinda the standard baseline.
[1:36:02] And then secondarily the things that I refer to as
[1:36:06] housing fee in lieu
[1:36:07] or housing fund contribution,
[1:36:09] those calculations are all based off
[1:36:11] of the current inclusionary zoning housing fee
[1:36:14] and lie rate of $675 and 76 cents per square foot.
[1:36:21] I'm not usually in this position so can you
[1:36:23] - State the mitigation rate one
[1:36:25] more time please? The dollar amount? Yes.
[1:36:26] - $675 and 76 cents. Thank you.
[1:36:33] Perfect. Okay,
[1:36:35] so this is the submitted plan
[1:36:39] based under the current project there is a net new GRFA
[1:36:43] of 38,159 square feet,
[1:36:46] which puts the baseline 10% employee housing mitigation
[1:36:50] requirement at a little over 3,800 square feet.
[1:36:55] The current proposal, as Heather pointed out,
[1:36:59] includes eight onsite one bedroom employee housing units
[1:37:03] plus a roughly
[1:37:06] $425,000 housing
[1:37:10] fund contribution.
[1:37:11] So that means that
[1:37:14] the applicant meets the full inclusionary zoning,
[1:37:18] 10% baseline requirement on site
[1:37:20] with a voluntary additional onsite square footage
[1:37:24] and dollars to meet that 17.5% commitment
[1:37:28] that they're trying to, trying to show.
[1:37:32] I don't have much more to say about this other than all in
[1:37:35] all it is a good plan.
[1:37:36] It fully satisfies inclusionary zoning code
[1:37:40] and demonstrates that they're going above and beyond.
[1:37:46] That being said, the there is an alternative
[1:37:51] that from the housing department perspective,
[1:37:55] not just slices the pie differently
[1:37:57] but actually expands the pie in terms of impact
[1:38:01] for community housing.
[1:38:03] And I will couch this
[1:38:04] before I dive into things that we don't have
[1:38:08] official drawings, but I try to visually represent this
[1:38:10] for you in my arts and crafts, PDF fun.
[1:38:15] So to give you a little bit of a reference
[1:38:18] and so this plan is based on a
[1:38:23] reduction of onsite units,
[1:38:24] which overall increases the project's net new GRFA
[1:38:27] to roughly 40,955 square feet and
[1:38:32] therefore increases the 10%
[1:38:35] baseline employee housing mitigation requirement
[1:38:38] to 4,096 square feet.
[1:38:41] So under the plan, which has been discussed
[1:38:44] with the applicant, this would provide five deed restricted
[1:38:48] units on site, which is 79% of
[1:38:51] that 10% baseline employee housing mitigation.
[1:38:56] And then would meet the remaining
[1:39:00] 21% of that 10% baseline employee housing unit mitigation
[1:39:06] through a fee in lieu that is
[1:39:10] $569,000 $665.
[1:39:16] Then as a voluntary contribution
[1:39:19] to bring the overall plan up to that 17.5%
[1:39:24] commitment, there would be an additional housing fund
[1:39:27] contribution of just over $2 million.
[1:39:32] So looking at this option,
[1:39:36] staff believes this satisfies
[1:39:40] 12 24 6
[1:39:45] A 1D in full and better achieves the projects
[1:39:49] and VA's workforce housing goals through a mix
[1:39:51] of onsite units fee and lie payment
[1:39:53] and housing fund contribution.
[1:40:04] I had a third, a fourth slide to this. There we go.
[1:40:11] So this just presents both options to you
[1:40:15] and a side by side format so that you can look at them
[1:40:18] directly together and kind of their basic components.
[1:40:25] The bottom line for us from the housing perspective is that
[1:40:30] there are two good options that comply with code
[1:40:32] and the difference for us is impact.
[1:40:37] So from the housing perspective, we recommend option two
[1:40:40] because it maintains, eh, U'S employee housing units
[1:40:45] on site but provides an additional meaningful
[1:40:49] financial contribution
[1:40:51] that could be immediately applicable towards some
[1:40:53] of our out other community housing efforts, specifically
[1:40:57] initiatives at the CDOT eastvale property.
[1:41:00] So it puts the mitigation to dollars associated
[1:41:03] with this project to work at scale.
[1:41:06] So our recommendation would be to approve the project
[1:41:10] with option two for community housing
[1:41:13] with the proposed conditions of approval that were
[1:41:15] provided in the housing staff memo.
[1:41:20] - I have a question about the, the graphic.
[1:41:22] We're looking at the option two that that
[1:41:26] is being discussed when it says onsite homes,
[1:41:30] the second line down five eh u under option two
[1:41:35] aren't three remaining on site?
[1:41:38] - No, five would be remaining on site. So five
[1:41:40] - Would be - Remaining?
[1:41:41] Yes. So the five that are still in pink enlist
[1:41:44] as EHU four through eight.
[1:41:46] Okay. Are the remaining on site
[1:41:48] and the three that would be flipped over into market
[1:41:53] rate housing are in what's now the orange
[1:41:55] - Polygon.
[1:41:56] Okay. Thank you for clarifying. Yep.
[1:41:57] - For me. - So I'd say
[1:42:02] what we have in here, maybe we focus on housing questions.
[1:42:05] Let me go back to questions for, for Heather on more
[1:42:09] general related staff questions.
[1:42:12] - I'm, I'm kind of always interested in why one bedrooms
[1:42:16] and not two bedrooms.
[1:42:20] - I think, well speaking beyond
[1:42:22] what the applicant's perspective might be,
[1:42:25] what we have seen recently in terms of things
[1:42:28] that businesses have purchased
[1:42:30] and individuals have purchased, one bedrooms have been very
[1:42:34] marketable for employee housing units. Okay,
[1:42:36] - Thank you.
[1:42:38] - And so that the, the remaining portion that's getting
[1:42:41] to the seven and a half in option two, the the
[1:42:45] 2.075 Yeah that's kind of being,
[1:42:49] that's being contributed at a rate
[1:42:50] of 6 75 a square foot, right?
[1:42:53] Yes. And that's higher than our code mitigation rate, right?
[1:42:56] For fee and lie, is that correct or no?
[1:42:58] That's the, that that's currently our code's.
[1:42:59] The updated one, yes. Okay, got it. Thank you. Yep.
[1:43:03] - So that was passed by resolution in, in 2025
[1:43:06] and I, I will note that those fee
[1:43:08] and lie rates can get updated year over year.
[1:43:11] So they are, they are subject to change in the future
[1:43:13] but that 6 75 rate is
[1:43:15] what is currently established by town code.
[1:43:17] - Would this, when does this lock in per se
[1:43:21] with the housing department, you know,
[1:43:22] does it lock in when they pay the fee if you increase your
[1:43:26] mitigation rate or is it subject to the increase?
[1:43:28] Do you know how that works from this end?
[1:43:31] - I, I believe it locks in when they pay the fee.
[1:43:33] So it is the, the fee at the time
[1:43:35] that they're coming in with the payment.
[1:43:37] Okay. And sorry, I'm looking
[1:43:40] to other housing department folks just in case
[1:43:43] I am misrepresenting something but I see nods.
[1:43:46] - Okay, - Heather, same subject
[1:43:51] but question in regard to the conditions that were drafted
[1:43:53] by staff in regard to to
[1:43:56] or that would be associated with approval if it went forward
[1:44:00] Condition 13 prior to the issuance of the first certificate
[1:44:05] of occupancy for the project,
[1:44:06] the applicant shall record deed restrictions
[1:44:08] with the Eagle County clerk
[1:44:10] and recorder in a format approved by the town for each
[1:44:13] of the eight onsite employee housing
[1:44:14] units, so on and so forth.
[1:44:17] Here we're talking about
[1:44:19] or something potentially different
[1:44:22] and I think that the app, the applicant's okay
[1:44:26] with the proposal staff is okay with the proposal.
[1:44:30] How's that gonna impact conditions and,
[1:44:33] and any ion potential conditions for approval.
[1:44:36] Number one, I think that your 13 is now down to
[1:44:42] five, I mean, sorry your eight is down to five
[1:44:45] and that thing.
[1:44:47] But then what other conditions would we have to approve
[1:44:51] to make sure that the intent
[1:44:54] of the parties are would be effectuated?
[1:44:57] - We definitely would have to switch out
[1:45:00] condition number three, which is actually speaks to the
[1:45:06] contribution that is in the current plan based off of the,
[1:45:09] the current submitted proposal.
[1:45:12] It would also, just reading down here real quick,
[1:45:17] it would be, it would change number 13
[1:45:21] as you noted because it does speak
[1:45:25] to the eight onsite employee housing units.
[1:45:28] So that would change the wording would need
[1:45:30] to change on that one.
[1:45:33] And then I believe, I think it,
[1:45:38] there were only two that was it.
[1:45:39] - So yeah, in that three would be really just changing if a
[1:45:44] motion was to be made with this option number three
[1:45:47] three condition two would involve changing that number
[1:45:52] from 4 25 as listed up here
[1:45:57] to a housing contribution paid number of 2 6 6 4 or
[1:46:01] - Right and that is the Language.
[1:46:03] Yeah, the language is actually noted on page three
[1:46:06] of the housing memo that was attached.
[1:46:08] Okay. There are conditions of approval that were reviewed by
[1:46:12] planning staff and, and housing staff as well.
[1:46:16] So Okay. Those are the approved alternate
[1:46:19] conditions to replace those.
[1:46:21] And I think the only note that I would make on top of
[1:46:24] that is that the first two in the housing staff memo were
[1:46:28] intended to directly replace those two
[1:46:31] that Heather just called out in the planning staff memo.
[1:46:34] And then there are two additional to kind
[1:46:37] of capture the full picture of option two.
[1:46:41] - Okay, thank you.
[1:46:45] - So Anna, thank you for making this presentation.
[1:46:47] First off, you know, when we, we had talked about
[1:46:50] alternative housing plans, I had stated that I wanted
[1:46:54] to hear from housing departments supporting
[1:46:56] it before I entertained it.
[1:46:57] So it's important having you here.
[1:46:58] So thank you for your time. And to be clear,
[1:47:01] this is the option two is what you prefer
[1:47:04] and what you think is more impactful in terms
[1:47:06] of a housing plan for this project? Correct.
[1:47:08] - Okay. - Do we know what happens with
[1:47:14] the E-H-U-G-R-F-A
[1:47:15] or is that just gonna be a question for the applicant?
[1:47:18] It, so in terms of option one versus option two?
[1:47:22] Yeah because it looks to me like option one is about
[1:47:26] 32,000 private GRFA
[1:47:29] and option two was about 38,000 private GRFA.
[1:47:34] So am I misunders, is that correct?
[1:47:36] So it will, it will increase that deviation for the density
[1:47:39] for GRFA slightly
[1:47:42] - 'cause ees don't count towards GFA
[1:47:45] and so if the three GFA convert to market rate,
[1:47:48] they are then counted towards GFA.
[1:47:51] - So the orange block, the, yeah, so the,
[1:47:56] If you shift by eliminating those three EU
[1:48:00] that are in the orange polygon, then the overall project
[1:48:04] net new GRFA increases to 40,955.
[1:48:08] The 10% mitigation rate goes up from that 3,800 to
[1:48:13] now 4,096 square feet.
[1:48:16] The onsite E-H-U-G-R-F-A for those five remains the same as
[1:48:20] what you would see in the plan.
[1:48:22] So that would, I think 3,253 square feet
[1:48:27] and the, I think, sorry, I'm gonna zoom in.
[1:48:30] Sorry, I feel like I'm, I'm confused by the answer
[1:48:33] in option one, the private GRFA, which excludes ESU
[1:48:39] is okay.
[1:48:41] It only goes, so you're saying it only goes up by the 2000?
[1:48:44] Yes, because that's, that's the only change at least that
[1:48:48] we are looking at from the housing plan.
[1:48:49] The huge GFA is excluded. Yes. Okay.
[1:48:55] And then I think typically we're supposed to do fee in lieu
[1:49:00] for like a, you know, a fractional 400 foot
[1:49:04] or less Yeah, for a fractional remainder.
[1:49:07] So we have analyzed this under
[1:49:10] what would be again section 12 24 6 1 A 1D,
[1:49:15] which allows the commission to provide
[1:49:20] for exceptions where there's an option
[1:49:22] that better achieves both the specific
[1:49:24] and general goals of the, of inclusionary zoning.
[1:49:29] And we believe that this is
[1:49:30] code compliant underneath that exception
[1:49:36] - Are further.
[1:49:37] Questions for Anna?
[1:49:42] - I'm not sure if this is a question that I,
[1:49:44] this might be a question for both of you. Is
[1:49:46] - The parking obligation the same for unrestricted GRFA
[1:49:51] as it is for E-H-U-G-R-F-A?
[1:49:52] Does this change the parking obligation on the total plan?
[1:49:55] - It depends what they turn the units into.
[1:49:58] The, the, I'm sorry, the EHU units
[1:50:02] 'cause they've already committed to one parking space
[1:50:04] per EHU unit.
[1:50:06] So if it changes
[1:50:08] to another one bedroom unit that'll convert over.
[1:50:11] However, if it changes into a larger, the conversion
[1:50:15] will need to play itself out.
[1:50:17] It's, I believe it will work itself out in terms
[1:50:19] of square footage and
[1:50:21] that's something the applicant can probably, they've looked at,
[1:50:24] - So there were three in the orange spots,
[1:50:26] so there were three parking spots allocated towards
[1:50:29] that orange area.
[1:50:30] So chances are if that unit requires three
[1:50:33] or less, then it's okay. Yes.
[1:50:35] - Okay. - Which based on that square footage
[1:50:39] that they're replacing, it should theoretically work.
[1:50:44] They've got the real answer mapped out.
[1:50:50] - Anything further for Anna? Thank you Anna.
[1:50:55] - Thanks - Anna. I'll be in the room until 3 45. Okay.
[1:51:01] - Questions for Heather on the plan on the presentation.
[1:51:09] So Heather, has,
[1:51:10] has anything changed substantially from the last working
[1:51:12] session that we had on this building to
[1:51:15] where we sit now? No,
[1:51:16] - The plans have not been updated since June 10th.
[1:51:20] I think the last work session was in late May.
[1:51:23] So some negligible changes to that.
[1:51:25] The applicant can address that more specifically,
[1:51:29] but staff has not seen any noticeable changes to that.
[1:51:34] - Okay. Anything else for staff?
[1:51:40] Hearing none, we'll turn it over to the applicant.
[1:51:43] George, do you have a presentation for us today?
[1:51:45] - I do, I do. Thank you. Good afternoon.
[1:51:48] George Ruther with Ruther Associates here on behalf
[1:51:51] of Lunar VA land investment in Sean by
[1:51:56] and Ron Burn.
[1:51:57] I'm gonna take just a couple minutes.
[1:51:58] Heather did a fantastic job going through the presentation.
[1:52:01] I want to take a couple minutes and just highlight maybe a
[1:52:03] couple things that may be a little bit redundant,
[1:52:06] but I wanna make sure they're,
[1:52:07] they're refle accurately reflected on the record as well
[1:52:11] as maybe add a couple of things to it.
[1:52:13] So I'll run through these slides real quick
[1:52:17] and to ensure that we comply with our time limit,
[1:52:21] I jotted these notes down,
[1:52:22] so I'm gonna kinda share this stuff
[1:52:24] with you pretty quickly here.
[1:52:28] The applicant's written narrative
[1:52:29] and plans proposed developing lunar avail residences in
[1:52:32] accordance with the recommendations
[1:52:34] of the Vail Village Master plan and the Vail Town Code.
[1:52:37] More than the 75 page written narrative thoroughly details
[1:52:41] how the proposed plan complies
[1:52:43] with the review criteria prescribed by the Vail Town Code.
[1:52:46] The plan is implemented within the framework
[1:52:48] of a newly established special development district,
[1:52:51] and I think as you're aware,
[1:52:52] the town has consistently approved special development
[1:52:55] districts to achieve development goals
[1:52:58] and serve the in the best interests of the communities.
[1:53:00] These districts are in fact the best
[1:53:03] and most effective tool,
[1:53:04] providing the greatest flexibility in delivering the best
[1:53:07] results for the community.
[1:53:09] In our case, the requested deviations include increases in
[1:53:13] density, controls, a change to the setbacks,
[1:53:17] and an increase in building height.
[1:53:20] The proposed special development district is the best means
[1:53:23] of implementing the recommendations
[1:53:25] of the Vail Village Master plan, as well
[1:53:27] as the development goals and objectives of the Town of Vail.
[1:53:31] The lunar Vail residences development project,
[1:53:34] as Heather noted, is a residential community featuring
[1:53:37] luxury condominiums and de restricted housing.
[1:53:40] A total of 17 new homes
[1:53:41] and eight D restricted homes are planned on the site.
[1:53:45] Based on upon adopted master planning efforts,
[1:53:48] the site is recommended
[1:53:49] for high density residential infill development.
[1:53:52] The new building does sit atop a 75 space,
[1:53:55] fully enclosed parking garage that replaces an existing
[1:53:59] asphalt parking lot.
[1:54:01] The building height as proposed aligns
[1:54:03] with the recommendations of the Vail Village Master plan
[1:54:06] and the exterior materials
[1:54:07] and architectural styles match those of existing
[1:54:10] and potential residential buildings.
[1:54:11] In the East Vail Village area.
[1:54:14] The building's uses bulk mass and scale
[1:54:17] and height are compatible with the neighborhood's character
[1:54:20] and evolving development patterns in
[1:54:23] the, in the neighborhood.
[1:54:26] The new development is contained within a single building.
[1:54:29] The lunar ville residences is composed of two thirds
[1:54:32] of the building is five stories tall.
[1:54:34] Only one third
[1:54:36] of the buildings are six stories tall.
[1:54:40] And this building is located on the northern two thirds
[1:54:43] of the development site.
[1:54:44] The building's average height.
[1:54:46] A question that came up in previous meetings is 57.3 feet
[1:54:50] with the maximum height being the 69 feet that
[1:54:53] that Heather referenced.
[1:54:54] This is compatible
[1:54:55] with adjacent structures in the immediate vicinity.
[1:54:59] It's important to note that roughly 33%
[1:55:01] of the building's total mass is below grade
[1:55:06] and the building's roof forms do step down
[1:55:08] to match the development site's.
[1:55:09] Natural topography
[1:55:11] as it slopes southerly towards Gore Creek as required.
[1:55:15] The architectural style
[1:55:16] and design of the new buildings compliment the existing Vail
[1:55:20] Mountain View residences, Altus Vail residences,
[1:55:23] the REN Condominiums
[1:55:24] and Apollo Park featuring both an assemblage of stone stucco
[1:55:28] and wood-like siding.
[1:55:29] The sloping roofs are as noted, our plan,
[1:55:33] a rooftop solar array is also planned for
[1:55:36] atop the new lunar vale residence building.
[1:55:41] As part of the owner's amenity package
[1:55:43] and outdoor plaza with casual seating, barbecue grills
[1:55:47] and swimming pools is integrated into the landscape design.
[1:55:50] The swimming pool deck has been recited
[1:55:53] and redesigned to minimize unintended impacts
[1:55:56] to neighboring property owners
[1:55:57] and to remain outside the 30 foot wide utility easement.
[1:56:02] A thoughtfully planned landscape design,
[1:56:04] including two rooftop planting areas,
[1:56:07] balances the visual aesthetics, firewise protection,
[1:56:10] visual screening,
[1:56:11] and year round appeal across the buildings and this site.
[1:56:15] The landscape plan as, as Heather noted, is fully compliant
[1:56:19] with the veil town coat, low level, fully
[1:56:22] shielded landscape like fixtures comply
[1:56:25] with the town's outdoor lighting standards
[1:56:27] and minimize any undesirable light pollution.
[1:56:30] The development plan a, as Heather's slide noted
[1:56:33] and I'll speak to here in a moment, has been resigned new,
[1:56:36] or excuse me, revised numerous times based upon input from
[1:56:40] the Vail Town Council, the Town of Vail Planning
[1:56:42] and Environmental Commission,
[1:56:43] and the neighboring property owners in the vicinity.
[1:56:46] Most notably and regrettably,
[1:56:49] a new riverfront building is no longer planned.
[1:56:51] Instead, the Apollo Park buildings A and B will remain.
[1:56:55] The revisions to the site include, again, reduced density
[1:56:58] and GRFA increased landscape areas, removal
[1:57:01] of building stories bulk mass
[1:57:03] and scale minimized setback, encroachments,
[1:57:06] maximized onsite community housing,
[1:57:09] improved emergency vehicle access
[1:57:11] and decreased vehicle trips, as well
[1:57:14] as increased separation between all
[1:57:17] of the buildings within this neighborhood
[1:57:19] and an enhanced architectural design.
[1:57:22] Undoubtedly, these revisions have improved the project.
[1:57:24] Thank you for your input along the way,
[1:57:26] but most unfortunately, they no longer solve
[1:57:29] what I kept referring to for the last 18 months
[1:57:32] as the Apollo Park puzzle.
[1:57:36] The plan revisions section eight,
[1:57:38] if you're following along in your, in your packet
[1:57:41] of the applicant's written narrative,
[1:57:43] summarizes the proposed land uses on the property
[1:57:45] and analyzes the requested zoning and development standards.
[1:57:49] In doing so, the proposed development standards are compared
[1:57:52] with those that are prescribed
[1:57:53] for the high density multiple family zone district and,
[1:57:56] and the deviations are noted.
[1:57:58] Heather had a slide in her deck that showed the kind of a,
[1:58:02] a compare and contrast of the
[1:58:04] existing two proposed development standards.
[1:58:07] It's also included with in the applicant's
[1:58:10] written narrative, most notably site density is currently
[1:58:15] non-conforming as it was when the,
[1:58:18] the Met the Vail Village master plan was adopted.
[1:58:21] The GRFA deviation has been reduced to align
[1:58:24] with similar developments in the Town of Vail
[1:58:25] and the neighborhood and the area
[1:58:27] of the encroachment on the west side setback has been
[1:58:31] reduced to only 208 total square feet above grade.
[1:58:35] The building height remains unchanged
[1:58:38] as acknowledged despite an attempt to update
[1:58:40] and amend the outdated Vail Village Master plan.
[1:58:43] The 40 foot height maximum
[1:58:45] of the high density multiple family zone district remains
[1:58:49] grossly misaligned with the housing recommendations
[1:58:52] of the Vail Village Master Plan.
[1:58:54] I think we spoke about that at length at previous meetings.
[1:58:58] That given the recommendations
[1:59:02] of the master plan proposing five to six stories
[1:59:05] of development on this portion of the development site
[1:59:08] and a 40 foot height limitation is the
[1:59:10] misalignment I'm referring to.
[1:59:17] Lastly, a lunar Vail Residences community housing plan has
[1:59:21] been proposed that plan contents comply fully
[1:59:24] with the requirements of the Vail Town Code
[1:59:26] and a mitigation goes well beyond the minimum requirements
[1:59:30] of the Vail Town Code.
[1:59:31] The plan has the support of the Town
[1:59:33] of Vail Housing Department and the Vail Local Housing
[1:59:35] Authority upon implementation of the upon implementation,
[1:59:39] the plan will help the Vail community achieve its adopted
[1:59:43] and at one time thought to be an audacious housing goal.
[1:59:47] The town's housing department has proposed an
[1:59:50] alternate housing option.
[1:59:52] Option two, which the applicant does support provided it
[1:59:56] provided that its implementation does not somehow delay
[2:00:01] the review of this, of this application.
[2:00:04] And in fact, we'd like that option to
[2:00:09] that the housing staff has recommended
[2:00:10] so much we wish we had proposed it.
[2:00:16] The Lunar VA residences is similar
[2:00:18] to other development proposals within the Town of Vail.
[2:00:20] It has undergone extensive scrutiny and review and revision.
[2:00:24] Heather did take an opportunity
[2:00:25] and go through each one
[2:00:27] of the compliance and review criteria.
[2:00:29] These next couple slides I'm not gonna bore you with
[2:00:31] because I think it says largely the same information,
[2:00:35] but I will say that our application does achieve the
[2:00:38] development goals, excuse me,
[2:00:40] and objectives of the Town of Vail
[2:00:42] and was created in collaboration with the neighbors
[2:00:45] and offers public benefits that would not otherwise be
[2:00:49] provided absent a special development district.
[2:00:54] The compliance criteria that I'm kind of scrolling
[2:00:57] through here, they are all more fully described again in a
[2:01:01] copy of your packet in the written analysis.
[2:01:04] This is a summary of
[2:01:05] how we believe we we fully achieve those standards.
[2:01:20] I will point out here in a moment in the slides
[2:01:23] and answer some of the questions that came up.
[2:01:25] I I do want to note one
[2:01:26] of the bullets here about emergency vehicle
[2:01:28] access and staging.
[2:01:30] I'm gonna speak to that here again in a moment as well.
[2:01:40] We believe that approving the special development district
[2:01:43] number 44 is in the best interest
[2:01:45] of the East Vail Village
[2:01:46] neighborhood and the Vail community.
[2:01:48] A recommendation of approval from the Planning Environmental
[2:01:51] Environmental Commission to the Town Council,
[2:01:53] we believe is warranted.
[2:01:55] To that end, we would recommend that the in request,
[2:01:58] that the Planning Environmental Commission
[2:02:03] recommends approval of this project
[2:02:04] as noted in the staff memorandum to the,
[2:02:07] the Vail Town Council.
[2:02:09] So therefore, on behalf of the applicant's Ron
[2:02:11] and Sean Byrne, I request the planning commission
[2:02:13] unanimously recommends approval of this project
[2:02:16] to the Vail Town Council so we can continue to move forward
[2:02:20] with the project.
[2:02:22] Heather, can you run that animation for me please? Quickly,
[2:02:34] we put together a 3D model, 3D animation that,
[2:02:37] that puts this building into context
[2:02:39] and perspective with the adjacent structures
[2:02:42] and uses in the site.
[2:02:44] It does not address
[2:02:46] or identify what could potentially happen if the REN were
[2:02:51] to redevelop consistent with the avail village master plan,
[2:02:54] but again, just kind of focuses on existing conditions in
[2:02:58] and around the property.
[2:03:00] This takes just a minute to run.
[2:03:09] - So that's Mountain View at the bottom swinging by. Right.
[2:03:11] And we see Altus in the left, correct?
[2:03:13] - Correct.
[2:03:18] You'll also notice when the building comes around,
[2:03:20] we took a large portion,
[2:03:22] and I'll speak to this, we took a large portion of GRFA out
[2:03:25] of that Western facade at the request of the neighbors.
[2:03:28] So above that kind of trellis work on the west side,
[2:03:31] you can see where the, the outdoor patio
[2:03:32] or deck is where we removed a bunch of GRFA.
[2:03:36] Heather, can you take us back to the
[2:03:41] PowerPoint presentation?
[2:03:44] I do want to jump ahead a little bit in the,
[2:03:46] in the PowerPoint presentation
[2:03:48] and talk about what we think is a key element
[2:03:51] of, of this project.
[2:03:53] We, a question came up about plan changes since
[2:03:57] April 27th in May 11th in response
[2:04:01] and to a request from the Vail Fire Department.
[2:04:05] And I think it's important to note, not an obligation
[2:04:08] of the International Fire Code,
[2:04:09] but in response to a request from the Vail Fire Department,
[2:04:12] we did and are proposing to amend our plans.
[2:04:17] I'm just gonna jump ahead here a little bit.
[2:04:19] We're proposing to amend our plans
[2:04:23] to provide improved emergency vehicle access, not
[2:04:26] for this property, but instead
[2:04:27] to the Altus property in the Vail Mountain View property.
[2:04:30] It will enhance
[2:04:31] and benefit the Apollo Park portion of, of the site,
[2:04:36] but again, outlined here, this diagram
[2:04:38] that you're seeing up on the screen shows the required
[2:04:43] fire department access to this, this project consistent
[2:04:46] with the town's adopted international fire code,
[2:04:50] again at the request of the Vail Fire Department,
[2:04:53] based upon a non-conforming emergency vehicle access
[2:04:58] that exists entirely on the Vail Mountain View
[2:05:01] and Altus Properties.
[2:05:03] We have worked with our civil engineers
[2:05:05] and we are willing to amend our plan to address the need for
[2:05:11] emergency vehicle access to Avail Mountain View
[2:05:15] and Altus with the expansion being primarily and,
[2:05:19] and almost entirely on the,
[2:05:23] the Lunar VA site.
[2:05:25] This does impact our development potential in the future,
[2:05:28] but it also provides a greater sense of life safety
[2:05:33] and protection of property in the neighborhood.
[2:05:36] So again, we are willing to implement this plan
[2:05:39] and if this, this project does receive a recommendation
[2:05:43] of approval from the Planning commission, we'll amend this,
[2:05:46] this vehicle access plan prior to first reading
[2:05:49] with the Town Council to show it on the, on the plan set.
[2:05:53] There's also a,
[2:05:54] an important distinction to be understood here.
[2:05:57] There are some existing encroachments
[2:05:59] into the already platted emergency vehicle access
[2:06:03] encroachments that were constructed
[2:06:05] by Vail Mountain View Residences and Altus.
[2:06:07] They're on their property, not on our property.
[2:06:10] The original request was, I believe, was for us
[2:06:14] to compensate and make up for those encroachments
[2:06:17] that they have on their property
[2:06:18] and essentially allow them
[2:06:20] to have encroachments on their easement and
[2:06:22] therefore we just build more on our property.
[2:06:26] I think understandably, you, you can appreciate,
[2:06:28] we're not agreeable to doing that if this plan is
[2:06:32] to be implemented, we would ask
[2:06:34] that the Vail Fire Department in the Town
[2:06:36] of Vail require those encroachments into the, this
[2:06:41] most important emergency vehicle access, be removed
[2:06:45] by Vail Mountain View
[2:06:46] and Altus to fully pull off this plan
[2:06:50] as it's as it's outlined.
[2:06:51] We think that's, that's only fair in, in just
[2:06:56] this last diagram, just shows a a again, our site,
[2:07:00] the Red Arrows showing from the fire staging area,
[2:07:03] the fire department's footpath of travel
[2:07:07] and access around not only our building,
[2:07:10] but also around the remaining Apollo Park buildings
[2:07:14] A and b on the site.
[2:07:15] And it should be noted that, excuse me, that each
[2:07:18] of these plans has received approval from the,
[2:07:21] the Vail Fire Department.
[2:07:23] And with that, I'm going to end my remarks
[2:07:28] and then I can get back to some
[2:07:29] of your other questions when the, when the time is right.
[2:07:34] - Questions for the applicant from commissioners.
[2:07:40] One thing I want to ask George,
[2:07:46] regarding the parking, can you ref,
[2:07:48] we talked about this previously,
[2:07:49] but can you talk about what is currently
[2:07:51] provided to Apollo Park and what will be
[2:07:53] provided with the new parking deck Sure.
[2:07:55] And how, how that works? Yep.
[2:07:57] - I believe out on the site today is approximately 40
[2:08:01] to 43 surface parking spaces.
[2:08:04] What will be provided upon construction
[2:08:08] of this project is parking spaces that are fully compliant
[2:08:11] with chapter 10 of the Vail Town Code in the Vail Town Code
[2:08:15] requires that there be two parking spaces, I believe each
[2:08:18] for the six condominium units on the site
[2:08:22] and 0.7 parking spaces for a timeshare unit on the site.
[2:08:26] The numbers that we have provided accommodate for
[2:08:29] that in this plan, so we fully comply.
[2:08:32] There was an additional question about parking
[2:08:34] and, and parking compliance.
[2:08:35] Our intent, and Heather had it correct, is
[2:08:38] that when you convert those, eh, used
[2:08:40] to free market square footage,
[2:08:41] the net effect is we still meet our parking requirement
[2:08:44] and that's, and that would be our intent.
[2:08:46] No deviations from parking. Okay.
[2:08:49] - And in reading, oh, go ahead
[2:08:51] - George.
[2:08:52] Couple three questions.
[2:08:53] I guess first, the three exterior parking spaces,
[2:08:56] where are those located?
[2:08:59] - Let me see. I don't have that in my set
[2:09:02] of site plans. I tried to
[2:09:03] - Tell Heather's - Got they, they're exterior
[2:09:06] and they're right immediately south
[2:09:08] of the entrance to the parking garage.
[2:09:10] - Okay. I think when I was looking at the video,
[2:09:13] I maybe picked up on that, but not,
[2:09:16] and then, yeah, I'm assuming
[2:09:17] there's got highlighted right there.
[2:09:19] You know, UPS FedEx is probably gonna utilize that.
[2:09:24] That's those front of that parking area. A
[2:09:28] - A actually we, we accommodate UPS
[2:09:30] and FedEx on the north portion of the site. Okay,
[2:09:33] - So - I'm sorry.
[2:09:34] Yes. Entering, entering
[2:09:38] through the easement in that area right there is where we,
[2:09:41] we've identified our loading and delivery space
[2:09:44] - And then how, where's, where's trash
[2:09:47] and how does that get accessed
[2:09:49] - Trash.
[2:09:50] I didn't put that slide in,
[2:09:51] but you, we can probably work off of this one right here,
[2:09:53] Heather, if you can just drive the cursor
[2:09:55] for me entering trash.
[2:09:57] And we've talked with the local waste haulers entering
[2:10:00] the site through the easement access easement with Altus.
[2:10:05] They pull into Altus, they grab trash from Altus.
[2:10:08] They then continue west,
[2:10:10] or excuse me east along that access drive until they get to
[2:10:14] that entrance.
[2:10:15] There is a trash enclosure located fully contained
[2:10:18] within inside the building.
[2:10:20] They wheel the dumpster out, dump the trash,
[2:10:22] wheel it back in, exit back out of our
[2:10:27] - Driveway.
[2:10:28] And then the Apollo buildings that remain same situation or
[2:10:31] - We, we, they all, all the buildings share the same trash.
[2:10:35] Okay. Okay. And that, that's essentially if you,
[2:10:37] if you're familiar with the site, it's essentially
[2:10:39] where the trash is located today.
[2:10:41] Okay. We did, I if I could share maybe just,
[2:10:45] we can stay there Heather.
[2:10:46] That that one works fine there.
[2:10:47] There's loading delivery in a trash truck.
[2:10:49] We also looked at the opportunity of, since you know,
[2:10:53] trash was going to be a, a neighborhood need,
[2:10:56] we looked at the opportunity of providing access
[2:10:59] to the existing Ren trash enclosure.
[2:11:02] Re's trash enclosure is located
[2:11:05] in the very northwest corner of their site.
[2:11:08] Little further north Heather? Yeah. Up in that area.
[2:11:10] Generally in that area, we looked at the opportunity of,
[2:11:14] since their trash enclosure was there,
[2:11:16] could we just extend across, so the truck,
[2:11:19] when they come in, they pick up the trash dump one in one
[2:11:22] time out, not have to go back out onto the
[2:11:24] frontage road and come back in.
[2:11:25] Unfortunately, the grades, as soon as we get to that corner,
[2:11:28] the building, the grades start to tip
[2:11:30] and the trash truck can't operate on that cross slope.
[2:11:35] But we did look at trying to combine opportunities if
[2:11:38] that was something the run was willing
[2:11:41] to, to collaborate on.
[2:11:43] Unfortunately we can't do it.
[2:11:49] - Can you talk about construction, one
[2:11:51] of the concerns in written public comment that was submitted
[2:11:55] multiple times is access
[2:11:56] to the Apollo Park building during construction.
[2:11:59] You know, since trash will be replaced,
[2:12:01] where is there trash go during construction?
[2:12:03] How are those impacts mitigated
[2:12:05] during construction of the building?
[2:12:07] - Sure. I I, I think there, there's a important distinction
[2:12:12] that, that I think needs to be, to be understood
[2:12:15] and I know it was in a letter from Apollo Park
[2:12:19] where their counsel is correct in, in stating
[2:12:24] that the parking for Apollo Park is going
[2:12:27] to be temporarily impacted.
[2:12:29] Counsel, however, we believe is incorrect in
[2:12:32] that it is gonna be permanently eliminated.
[2:12:34] They make a reference that somehow it's gonna
[2:12:36] be permanently eliminated.
[2:12:37] We show a plan that shows it's being replaced
[2:12:39] and will be back parking for Apollo Park is fully restored
[2:12:43] as per the parking requirements of the town code
[2:12:46] and upon completion of lunar Vale residences.
[2:12:49] They also suggest that a development application,
[2:12:52] which we believe is an entitlement, shall be denied
[2:12:56] because of what is instead a permitting issue.
[2:12:58] The town code makes it very clear that there's entitlements
[2:13:01] and there's permitting in the permitting process
[2:13:04] and staff can maybe, can maybe provide some credibility to.
[2:13:08] What I'm gonna say is there is a requirement
[2:13:11] that we provide a construction access
[2:13:13] and staging plan as well as emergency vehicle access plan.
[2:13:16] That's an administrative review process that's part of
[2:13:18] that, that process.
[2:13:20] So before a building permit could be issued for this site,
[2:13:23] we need to submit that construction staging
[2:13:26] an emergency vehicle access plan to the Town of Vail
[2:13:29] for review and approval.
[2:13:30] As has been done with every other project in the Town
[2:13:33] of Vail, I don't think you'd be surprised
[2:13:35] to know this is not the first project
[2:13:37] where access in parking has been temporarily
[2:13:42] impacted by construction.
[2:13:43] But again, the town requires that we, we demonstrate a,
[2:13:47] a workable plan prior to the issuance of a building permit.
[2:13:50] - Okay. And that is condition number six
[2:13:53] on our conditions list.
[2:13:54] Just to spell it out even more clear for the applicant.
[2:13:59] Okay.
[2:14:02] - Further questions for the applicant from commissioners
[2:14:05] - Can I'm sorry, go Bill shared.
[2:14:08] I thought, bill, you had three questions.
[2:14:10] - I thought garbage, FedEx, UPS
[2:14:14] and the three outside parking spaces.
[2:14:16] - Got it. Thank you. - And
[2:14:18] so your construction management plan will address access,
[2:14:22] temporary trash facilities, things of that nature, correct?
[2:14:24] Correct. Okay.
[2:14:31] Are there other questions
[2:14:32] of the applicant from commissioners?
[2:14:39] Last one from me.
[2:14:41] Do you prefer as the applicant option two that was presented
[2:14:44] by the housing staff?
[2:14:48] - We, we do. Like I said,
[2:14:50] we wish we had come up with it ourselves.
[2:14:52] We, the, the only concern that I have,
[2:14:54] and I have talked to Jason
[2:14:56] and Anna about this, is the condition requires that we
[2:15:00] fund the full pay Lou fee prior
[2:15:04] to the issuance of the building permit.
[2:15:06] The whole advantage, the win-win outcome that comes
[2:15:10] of this alternative comes
[2:15:12] because when we, with the additional square footage GRFA
[2:15:16] that is granted, it generates the revenue
[2:15:18] to write the check for that fee.
[2:15:22] I was hopeful that we would be able to, to pay all
[2:15:27] or a portion of that fee in lieu payment at the time
[2:15:30] of an is prior to the issuance of the first certificate
[2:15:34] of occupancy because right at
[2:15:36] that point the revenue is generated.
[2:15:37] The, the proceeds are there to make, to make the payment,
[2:15:41] but the condition is what the condition is and yeah.
[2:15:45] We'll, we'll, we'll move forward with option number two if
[2:15:49] that is amenable to the, to the planning commission.
[2:15:52] If not, we are happy to stick with option number one
[2:15:56] as we originally proposed.
[2:16:00] - Great. - Anything else
[2:16:03] before we turn over to public comment?
[2:16:07] Hearing nothing further from commissioners,
[2:16:09] we will turn it over to public comment.
[2:16:11] If you are online and would like to comment,
[2:16:13] please raise your hand if we'll promote you.
[2:16:15] Sorry, go ahead George. Yeah,
[2:16:16] - I was just gonna say while you're, while you're going
[2:16:18] through that, I do want to pass out four
[2:16:21] to be entered into the record, a memorandum
[2:16:24] to the Planning Environmental Commission from Ballard
[2:16:27] Spar. Legal counsel
[2:16:29] - Representing Luner Vale Land Investment.
[2:16:33] - Okay, you can pass it out. We'll take it into the record.
[2:16:36] - I'm sorry. That's alright.
[2:16:41] - Thank you. If you wouldn't mind giving out the microphones
[2:16:45] with anyone in the room coming forward,
[2:16:47] if you're in the room, we'll start in the room.
[2:16:49] Please come forward. I would appreciate you keeping
[2:16:52] your comments to three minutes.
[2:16:53] We have a lot of public comment to hear from today.
[2:16:55] We want to hear from everybody.
[2:16:58] I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Thank you.
[2:17:00] And will you come forward? Please state your name
[2:17:02] for the record just before you give your comments.
[2:17:05] Use the one at the, the desk here.
[2:17:07] That microphone at the lectern does not work. Thank you.
[2:17:14] - Hello again. Dave Zein, president
[2:17:15] of Apollo Park at Vail Homeowners Association.
[2:17:18] Just so you know that this plan, the SDD application
[2:17:22] is not approved by Apollo Park.
[2:17:24] We're not a co-applicant
[2:17:26] and we ask that you deny this application.
[2:17:29] Just a little bit reminder of the history,
[2:17:31] we worked really hard with Learner Vale.
[2:17:34] We had a, an agreement that has long since expired
[2:17:39] and we'd worked on an Apollo Park portion of the property.
[2:17:42] We brought that to you in 2025.
[2:17:45] You denied that after that
[2:17:48] lunar VA on their own without Paula Park.
[2:17:52] Went to Town Council in January with a five story building
[2:17:58] and Town Council sent that back to you.
[2:18:00] So anyway, the last plan that we agreed to back then was,
[2:18:04] was denied by y parking is a big issue for us.
[2:18:09] A few years ago we converted 5,000 square feet
[2:18:12] of asphalt into a beautiful landscaping.
[2:18:14] I worked with the planning department and fire
[2:18:17] and then we went through DRB
[2:18:18] and the town's rule at
[2:18:19] that time was no reduction in parking spaces, not a one.
[2:18:23] They were really adamant about that.
[2:18:25] So that's why we have 44 spaces out there now.
[2:18:28] Here the applicant intends
[2:18:30] to reduce our usable parking spaces by 25%.
[2:18:34] Just seems unfair to have one stricter rule for residents
[2:18:37] and a different one for the developer as far
[2:18:40] as fire safety go goes, you know,
[2:18:43] with planning we walked the entire property inside
[2:18:45] and out around all the grounds worked.
[2:18:48] The fire chief, the chief asked for specific items.
[2:18:52] We fully complied.
[2:18:53] He had us move our prime parking spaces
[2:18:55] around the away from the building
[2:18:57] so he could create a staging area.
[2:18:59] He asked for a 26 foot drive aisle.
[2:19:01] We complied with that and they also wanted an easy path in
[2:19:04] order to get to the B building.
[2:19:06] Now they want to park cars in the east staging area
[2:19:09] and they have a fenced pool in the area in front
[2:19:12] of our west building is is just crazy.
[2:19:15] The safety, our residents must be paramount.
[2:19:18] These are long-term issues.
[2:19:20] It's not just during construction
[2:19:21] that we're worried about this.
[2:19:23] You end up risking the life safety of our residents
[2:19:26] to improve this plan and it seems just unfair
[2:19:29] and unsafe to compromise for a developer here.
[2:19:34] George Luther and Planner Knight say
[2:19:37] that they're covering the parking lot
[2:19:39] actually you're covering our pool,
[2:19:40] our parking lot, our beautiful park.
[2:19:43] It's way more than the little bit of asphalt
[2:19:45] that that's out there right now.
[2:19:47] So when I was in front of you previously,
[2:19:49] I asked you we wanna avoid a a force development.
[2:19:52] This is the force development.
[2:19:54] We were very much misled into believing a redevelopment
[2:19:57] would replace the Apollo Park buildings.
[2:19:59] We believe that used deception to get to Apollo Park
[2:20:02] to support previous plans.
[2:20:04] And now we're completely out of that.
[2:20:06] We would ask you to please not reward this behavior.
[2:20:10] The easiest path to a, a proper site redevelopment solution
[2:20:14] that solves the Apollo Park puzzle, as George calls it,
[2:20:17] the one that works for the neighbors, the town,
[2:20:19] the fire department, and Apollo Park is
[2:20:21] to simply deny this application.
[2:20:23] So thanks for your time, really appreciate it. Thank you.
[2:20:38] - Hi, my name is Aviva Flock. I'm an owner at Apollo Park.
[2:20:41] My family and I have been coming to Vail
[2:20:43] for more than 50 years to enjoy skiing, dining, shopping,
[2:20:47] and the overall charm of Vail year round.
[2:20:50] I wanna provide my perspective on why this number 44 SDD
[2:20:54] should be recommended for denial.
[2:20:56] As Sheridan previous public comment, the Apollo Park HOA,
[2:20:59] supported the initial application
[2:21:00] because we were told that our buildings would be replaced
[2:21:03] as part of the development.
[2:21:05] Now that the applicant has eliminated these previously
[2:21:07] mentioned provisions and seeks large variances
[2:21:10] to develop lunar Vail North without offering any
[2:21:13] compensation for Apollo park owners
[2:21:15] or even coming to the table to discuss an amenable plan,
[2:21:18] I question whether they have honestly considered the best
[2:21:21] interest of longtime Vail residents
[2:21:23] or simply hope to ultimately eliminate us
[2:21:25] through this develop redevelopment process.
[2:21:28] Approval of this application will result in a two
[2:21:31] to three year construction period during which my family
[2:21:33] and our neighbors will lose significant access to parking,
[2:21:37] swimming in the beautifully landscaped areas.
[2:21:40] The loss of those amenities combined
[2:21:42] with the construction noise
[2:21:43] and general disruption will prevent us from enjoying our
[2:21:46] units or attracting renters for the two
[2:21:48] to three year construction period.
[2:21:50] In addition, the long-term impact from loss
[2:21:52] of parking spaces and other outdoor amenities will
[2:21:55] drastically reduce the usability
[2:21:58] and value of our properties.
[2:22:00] Apollo Park owners are not like the wealthy second
[2:22:02] homeowners likely to purchase the proposed luxury condos
[2:22:06] primarily for status or income.
[2:22:08] We're longtime visitors
[2:22:09] and supporters of Vail
[2:22:11] who have developed great relationships within our community.
[2:22:14] Our inability to use
[2:22:16] or rent our units during the construction period
[2:22:19] and no plan to compensate us for the loss of value
[2:22:21] to our owner units will hurt not only us,
[2:22:24] but also the businesses we love to support.
[2:22:26] While we're here as protectors of the architectural charm
[2:22:30] and friendly environment that makes Vail special, we hope
[2:22:33] that the Vail PEC
[2:22:34] and Vail Town Council will reject this request
[2:22:37] for massive variances.
[2:22:39] The greatly disadvantages me
[2:22:40] and my neighbors, the application is bad
[2:22:44] for the neighborhood and generally bad for Vail.
[2:22:47] - Thank you. Thank you. Hey Cole, I've got time here.
[2:22:50] Can we, we don't need that giant time wrap on the screen.
[2:22:53] It's a little distracting. I'd rather focus be
[2:22:55] on the, on the public comment.
[2:22:56] That was, that was me. Sorry, I'm keeping track here, right?
[2:23:00] Thank you. Yeah, better.
[2:23:08] - Hi, my name is Terry Paget.
[2:23:11] My wife and I have been owners
[2:23:12] of Apollo Park since the 1980s.
[2:23:15] Before purchasing there, we were part of the Vail community.
[2:23:18] I managed the Vail branch
[2:23:21] of an electrical contractor in our company,
[2:23:24] help build projects like the Simba Run Bale Spa.
[2:23:28] I can go on and on, you know, in Beaver Creek and,
[2:23:31] and Yon as well.
[2:23:34] So the the we, we were proud to invest in
[2:23:39] and help build this community.
[2:23:40] We moved to Denver, raised four children
[2:23:42] and today all four of them own property at Apollo Park.
[2:23:45] Along with us, our family has a long-term
[2:23:48] commitment to Vail.
[2:23:50] As a longstanding business owner myself,
[2:23:52] I understand the importance of updating and
[2:23:54] and improving properties over time.
[2:23:56] However, I also understand the importance of doing
[2:23:59] so responsibly by honoring existing contracts
[2:24:02] and ensuring that all parties involved are
[2:24:05] heard and considered.
[2:24:07] We support thoughtful development
[2:24:08] that includes Apollo Park Park's best interest.
[2:24:11] We want projects that are well planned
[2:24:14] and meet veils, building standards, comply with all safety
[2:24:18] and fire codes and respect the character of our community.
[2:24:23] We simply ask that whatever decision is made is fair
[2:24:25] to the current owners of Apollo Park
[2:24:28] who have invested in this community for decades.
[2:24:31] Thank you for your time. I have one question also on the
[2:24:35] rendering, it showed how the access was going
[2:24:39] to be in order to fight a fire.
[2:24:42] When a ladder truck, if I am aware of that, is like 45
[2:24:46] to 55 feet long, how are you going
[2:24:51] to maintain a, a good fire escape or
[2:24:55] or accessibility to this building B.
[2:24:59] So thank you. Safety is a big concern. Yeah.
[2:25:12] - Hi, thanks for your time today.
[2:25:13] My name is Whitney Vanel, formerly Whitney Paget.
[2:25:16] I was honored to be the Vail New Year's baby in 1984.
[2:25:20] My family's roots in Vail run very deep for generations.
[2:25:23] Apollo Park has been part of the fabric of Vail
[2:25:25] and part of my family's story.
[2:25:27] As owners and families have returned year
[2:25:29] after year supporting local businesses,
[2:25:31] investing in the town's economy
[2:25:33] and creating multi-generational traditions
[2:25:36] and memories, we are deeply invested in Vail,
[2:25:39] not just financially but also personally.
[2:25:41] As I sat here today, I want to share one thing clearly.
[2:25:45] We want Apollo Park to be beautiful.
[2:25:47] We want it to reflect the high standards
[2:25:49] and character that make Vail so special.
[2:25:51] We wanna partner with the town
[2:25:53] and the developer to update Apollo Park
[2:25:55] and ensure it remains a place
[2:25:57] where families can continue making memories
[2:25:59] and investing in veil for generations to come.
[2:26:02] Apollo Park has never opposed redevelop redevelopment.
[2:26:06] We have spent time trying to collaborate
[2:26:08] and partner with the developer to find a solution
[2:26:10] that both benefits them and Apollo Park.
[2:26:13] Unfortunately, that spirit
[2:26:14] of partnership seems to have disappeared.
[2:26:17] We are also asking, we are not asking
[2:26:19] for you to stop the progress.
[2:26:21] We are simply stating that Apollo Park needs
[2:26:23] to have a seat at the table that includes Apollo's parking.
[2:26:27] Just because it's to code with the Town
[2:26:29] of Vail doesn't negate the fact
[2:26:31] that there are fewer spots available
[2:26:32] for Apollo Park residents.
[2:26:35] Also future updates that also for the future updates
[2:26:38] that need to happen to hope Paula Park,
[2:26:40] that a solution is found here today.
[2:26:42] That Respe respects the people
[2:26:44] who have invested in this community for decades
[2:26:47] and allows us to continue to partner with Vail's future.
[2:26:50] We respect, we respectfully ask the council
[2:26:53] to encourage a path that brings everyone back to the table
[2:26:56] that protects the interest of all parties, not just one.
[2:27:00] Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:27:13] Good afternoon. My name is Kim Paget
[2:27:16] and my family moved here in 1978
[2:27:19] and we've watched the Vail Valley grow into a family
[2:27:22] friendly, beautiful,
[2:27:23] and thoughtfully planned community that it is today.
[2:27:27] My husband worked on many projects throughout Vail,
[2:27:30] beaver Creek and Avon that reflected the character
[2:27:32] of our mountain community.
[2:27:34] We love the Swiss Val Village atmosphere
[2:27:38] that attracts families, visitors from around the world,
[2:27:42] movie stars, presidents,
[2:27:44] and most importantly the locals who make this place special.
[2:27:48] We were saddened to see Blue Cow Swiss Hotdog
[2:27:51] restaurant close this week.
[2:27:53] This year after 40 years as a family run business.
[2:27:56] It reminded us how important it is to preserve the character
[2:28:00] and the traditions that make Veil unique.
[2:28:03] We have owned at Apollo Park for 38 years.
[2:28:06] We brought our parents, our children,
[2:28:08] and now our nine grandchildren here
[2:28:12] to create memories together.
[2:28:13] When we purchased our property, we understood
[2:28:17] that the lease extended until 2077.
[2:28:21] Giving future generations of our family the opportunity
[2:28:24] to continue the the tradition.
[2:28:27] We support remodeling and updating Apollo Park
[2:28:30] and we want improvements that are fair to everyone.
[2:28:33] But changing the terms that family relied on when they
[2:28:36] invested here does not seem fair.
[2:28:39] Vail has always been our home away from home.
[2:28:42] We've, we've supported Apollo Park,
[2:28:44] the concerts at Ford Park
[2:28:45] and our local businesses for nearly 40 decades.
[2:28:49] We've lost count of how many skis, parks,
[2:28:52] and other gear we've purchased here over the years.
[2:28:55] We simply ask that you honor the commitment made
[2:28:58] to our family like ours
[2:28:59] and help preserve the community we love.
[2:29:02] So for so long,
[2:29:03] because of our love for the Vail Valley,
[2:29:06] all our four children have purchased Apollo Park units
[2:29:09] and plan to continue visiting for years to come.
[2:29:12] I'm very concerned about the parents
[2:29:14] and the safety of the new proposal being
[2:29:17] proposed, being represented.
[2:29:19] Therefore I oppose this application
[2:29:21] and respectfully ask that you deny it.
[2:29:24] Thank you. Thank you.
[2:29:38] Good afternoon. My name is Holly Hampel and my husband Scott
[2:29:42] and I own two timeshares at Apollo Park.
[2:29:44] We've owned one for nine years and the other for two years.
[2:29:47] My family of 19 has been coming to Vail
[2:29:51] for the summer vacations.
[2:29:52] For most of us for the past 30 years.
[2:29:55] We truly enjoy the Vail
[2:29:56] and we supported the local community financially, not only
[2:29:59] during the summer but also when we visit and pass through.
[2:30:02] During the fall and winter months, we are writing
[2:30:05] to express our opposition
[2:30:06] to the proposed plans for Apollo Park.
[2:30:08] We're particularly concerned about the significant
[2:30:11] and significant reduction in parking
[2:30:14] and the resulting challenges that may create
[2:30:17] for the timeshare owners and visitors.
[2:30:19] We also have serious concerns about safety
[2:30:22] and access to our units as well as the potential
[2:30:24] to impact our residents
[2:30:26] and our senior citizens who rely on convenient
[2:30:28] and safe access to the property.
[2:30:31] We're also concerned about the future plans of
[2:30:33] for the buildings and the potential changes
[2:30:35] to the management and owner ownership
[2:30:38] of the association moving forward.
[2:30:41] These decisions have significant impact on many timeshare
[2:30:44] owners who come to Vail each year.
[2:30:47] These are families, couples
[2:30:48] and individuals who work hard to be able
[2:30:51] to enjoy time in a place they love.
[2:30:54] We understand that Vail is growing
[2:30:55] and changes may be necessary,
[2:30:57] however, to, we do hope
[2:30:59] that in any future development we pre preserve the character
[2:31:03] and the beauty of Vail while ensuring the, the buildings
[2:31:06] and surrounding areas function safely
[2:31:08] and effectively for everyone involved.
[2:31:10] We do not want to see Vail become overdeveloped
[2:31:14] or lose the qualities that make it such a special place.
[2:31:17] Our family genuinely cares about Vail and the Apollo Park
[2:31:21] and we want to see both continue to thrive
[2:31:23] for generations to come.
[2:31:25] We would welcome the opportunity to work together
[2:31:27] and partner with the Town of Vail
[2:31:28] and the other parties involved in the project
[2:31:30] to find solutions that best address the concerns
[2:31:33] of our timeshare owners, our residents,
[2:31:35] and the broader community.
[2:31:36] We respectfully oppose the plans
[2:31:38] that they're currently presenting
[2:31:40] and hoping that our concerns regarding safety,
[2:31:43] accessibility, parking,
[2:31:45] and the future of Apollo Park will be carefully considered.
[2:31:48] Mostly, most importantly, we hope that Paula Park,
[2:31:51] timeshare owners and owners will be included in the process
[2:31:55] and given meaningfully meaningful opportunity
[2:31:58] to participate in decisions that directly affect the future
[2:32:02] of Apollo Park and the land that we have invested in
[2:32:05] and cared about for so many years.
[2:32:06] Thank you. Thank you.
[2:32:20] Hi, my name is Lacey Bruno.
[2:32:21] I'm from Olathe, Kansas and I'm also an owner at Apollo Park
[2:32:26] and you've heard from basically my whole family already,
[2:32:29] but I just wanna add,
[2:32:51] sorry.
[2:32:52] - That's fine. - We live nine hours away
[2:32:57] and we're a blended family so the time that we have
[2:33:01] with my stepdaughters is very special to us
[2:33:04] And this is one week where we don't have to split time.
[2:33:08] It's not like a holiday or a birthday where you know,
[2:33:11] the girls have to go to their mom's
[2:33:12] for a certain portion, then they come to us.
[2:33:15] This is a week where we get
[2:33:16] to help them understand they're loved and they belong.
[2:33:20] You know, this is un unrestricted time and it's always ours
[2:33:24] and as you've heard from my family, we've been here for
[2:33:27] nearly 44 decades.
[2:33:29] Right. And this is a a time where not just them
[2:33:32] but also my sons get to get to come and be a part, you know,
[2:33:36] because we can't just go to the meets
[2:33:38] or the, the swim meets the place we come
[2:33:41] and my son, he's four
[2:33:43] and if you know, the average 4-year-old asks between two
[2:33:47] and 300 questions a day and he does that.
[2:33:50] Where's N and Papa? Are they coming for dinner?
[2:33:53] Where's the cousins? I want to go to the park.
[2:33:55] Can we go say goodnight to them?
[2:33:57] These are things that help develop and grow relationship
[2:34:00] and so obviously I can agree
[2:34:03] with all the things about the building, I just ask
[2:34:05] that you would consider the families that are being affected
[2:34:07] by this because it's much more than just a property.
[2:34:11] - Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:34:28] - Hello, my name is Lisa Patton
[2:34:31] and I've been a homeowner there, share owner
[2:34:37] since 79.
[2:34:38] And so it's been about 45, 46 years.
[2:34:43] I have my, my daughter who is now actually on the board
[2:34:48] was nine when we bought the unit
[2:34:50] and currently she has a unit
[2:34:53] and my granddaughter has a unit in addition
[2:34:56] to my husband's and money.
[2:34:59] And I think that I agree with everything everybody's saying.
[2:35:03] We do not oppose a development,
[2:35:06] but we feel that we have been now not included.
[2:35:11] I have very big concerns, I'm an engineer
[2:35:14] and I've been, I mean, experienced with constructions
[2:35:20] and I do not see Immediately
[2:35:24] how we would be able to improve our property in the,
[2:35:29] the near or even much distant future with this being
[2:35:35] built right in front of us.
[2:35:36] And we don't, I don't know how they would do the staging
[2:35:39] and, and bring the equipment in and all that.
[2:35:42] So I think that there are a lot of things
[2:35:45] that haven't been addressed with this
[2:35:47] because we have been eliminated from the picture of the,
[2:35:53] of course I have issue, we've always had issues
[2:35:55] with the parking and we, you know, you can't have,
[2:36:00] it's just one per per unit.
[2:36:02] So now without one per unit
[2:36:04] that will be even a larger problem.
[2:36:09] So that is, that's my thought
[2:36:11] and I believe that there's, you know, 1700 of us that are
[2:36:16] probably very similar minded in this respect.
[2:36:20] So I appreciate, thank you for listening. Thank you.
[2:36:37] - Alright. Hi,
[2:36:41] - My name is Tony De and I own five units in the Palo Park
[2:36:47] and over the last six months
[2:36:50] or longer I have been trying to figure out
[2:36:55] what's been presented from Lunar Vale to Apollo Park
[2:37:01] who has privilege to that information.
[2:37:05] And it's been difficult for me to, as an owner to
[2:37:11] get that information from Apollo Park, whether it's the,
[2:37:16] the board or I was told that we
[2:37:21] hired someone that was a developer,
[2:37:25] but Harrison h is our accountant
[2:37:30] and he won't tell me the names of the board of directors.
[2:37:37] I've emailed info at Apollo Park
[2:37:40] and Harrison H on several occasions.
[2:37:45] I still honestly don't know the names of the board members.
[2:37:50] The guy that came up that said he was the president,
[2:37:53] that's the first time I've seen or heard of him
[2:37:57] and he said his name so fast I didn't even get it.
[2:38:01] So right now I don't see how,
[2:38:05] who is representing Apollo Park.
[2:38:08] That's what I want to know.
[2:38:11] Where are the minutes to the discussions
[2:38:13] between the board members?
[2:38:17] Do we have someone hired?
[2:38:19] So, sorry, what's the name of the law firm? This
[2:38:21] - Is public comment.
[2:38:22] We, it's, we don't engage in back and forth.
[2:38:24] If you have some questions, we
[2:38:25] - Can.
[2:38:26] Okay, so that's my public comments is there's a serious lack
[2:38:28] of information distributed to the owners
[2:38:32] of Apollo Park to be able to comment on the seriousness
[2:38:38] of the legitimate proposal that Lunar Vale is making,
[2:38:42] which is their right.
[2:38:45] And I, I think that they're good operators
[2:38:48] but Apollo Park has some decisions to make,
[2:38:52] whether they want to be a part of fixing up those buildings
[2:38:57] and modernizing them or doing a tear down.
[2:39:02] But I don't see the, the connection,
[2:39:05] I don't see the information being distributed to owners and
[2:39:10] or the public however it's supposed to be legally.
[2:39:14] So I am still at a loss as to how
[2:39:18] to make a final decision. Thank you. Thank you.
[2:39:22] - Thank you.
[2:39:32] Hi, I am Tyler Paget
[2:39:33] and I swear I'll be the last pageant
[2:39:35] that you guys have to talk to today.
[2:39:37] Unlike the rest of my family, I fought
[2:39:39] for my unit for 10 years.
[2:39:41] It took a long time for me to get up here
[2:39:43] and to get my family into a unit.
[2:39:46] I've been an electrical electrician, excuse me,
[2:39:49] for the last 25 years
[2:39:50] and I'm now a superintendent down at DIA at the
[2:39:53] international airport and I do tons and tons of projects and
[2:39:57] whenever we start looking at a project, one
[2:39:58] of the main concerns is
[2:39:59] how are we gonna work our ourself out?
[2:40:02] Right? We don't ever wanna work ourselves into a corner,
[2:40:04] we wanna work ourselves out of a corner.
[2:40:07] And my request is, is that as the council
[2:40:09] that you guys look at this development
[2:40:12] with a logical viewpoint of how is Apollo Park going
[2:40:16] to ever develop, right?
[2:40:17] Are we going to become an eyesore, right?
[2:40:19] Because then we become a bigger problem, right?
[2:40:21] That has to be fixed later on down the road.
[2:40:23] And if we're not able to collaborate
[2:40:25] with the developer at this point in time
[2:40:27] and begin to develop some of those things, now when are we,
[2:40:31] because we're right there on the edge, we're right next
[2:40:33] to Gore Creek and we don't want to impede on that, right?
[2:40:36] We don't want to have to, there's no way we can ever develop
[2:40:39] fully and with a proper
[2:40:40] and a good way of actually getting ourselves out of
[2:40:43] that corner unless we do it
[2:40:45] with the developer at this point in time.
[2:40:47] So I ask that you guys would please look at that
[2:40:49] with a a logical standpoint of how are we going
[2:40:52] to get Apollo Apollo park up to the wonderful
[2:40:55] and beautiful standards that the rest available is at.
[2:40:58] Thank you. Thank you.
[2:41:07] Is there a further public comment in the room
[2:41:12] if there's no further comment in
[2:41:14] the room, we will go online.
[2:41:16] Are there hands raised online?
[2:41:19] - Yes, there are hands getting raised right now.
[2:41:24] I have 14 hands raised. Okay. Oh 15.
[2:41:31] I will just start promoting.
[2:41:33] Yep, just go down the line more come up.
[2:41:34] We will just promote them. So understood.
[2:41:39] Todd, Todd, I've promoted you to,
[2:41:41] to speak if you wanna state your name for the record.
[2:41:44] - I,
[2:41:51] - Hi Todd, you're promoted.
[2:41:52] If you can state your name, you can state your comments.
[2:42:02] Todd, we, we can't hear you.
[2:42:05] You may be muted if we move on
[2:42:07] to the next person you can raise your hand if you want
[2:42:09] to try again, if you can unmute your, your system.
[2:42:17] - Dan I'm gonna promote you.
[2:42:18] Please state your name for the record.
[2:42:21] - Hi, can you hear me? - We can. Thank you.
[2:42:24] - Hi, my name is Dan Wolf and my wife Carol
[2:42:26] and I own number 3 0 3 at Vail Mountain View residence.
[2:42:30] I'm also a member of our HOA board.
[2:42:34] Despite the minimization of the variations
[2:42:39] that are being requested by both by your staff and by Mr.
[2:42:43] Ruther, the applicant is asking
[2:42:45] for massive zoning variations which don't fit
[2:42:49] with the character of our neighborhood.
[2:42:51] They're back to the PEC with a proposal
[2:42:54] that has a similar number
[2:42:55] and size of variations as the earlier proposal
[2:42:58] that was rejected by the Town Council on
[2:43:01] June 6th of this year.
[2:43:03] To me that seems to show a lack of respect for the PEC,
[2:43:06] the Town Council, the neighbors
[2:43:08] and the process in general
[2:43:11] under the current high density multifamily zoning rules.
[2:43:15] SDD number 44 is entitled to exactly zero square feet
[2:43:19] of new GRFA.
[2:43:22] So 100% of the new GRFA
[2:43:24] that the developer is requesting is in excess of
[2:43:27] what the zoning rules allow on that property.
[2:43:31] In addition, I'd like to compare the number
[2:43:33] and size of variations being requested
[2:43:36] with SDD number 44
[2:43:38] with SD number 42 which was mentioned earlier,
[2:43:44] that which which was for the approval
[2:43:48] to enable development of the neighboring Altus building it.
[2:43:53] As far as I know the,
[2:43:54] the Vail Mountain View residence was not included in
[2:43:57] that there were no variations required for the the
[2:44:01] construction of VMVR
[2:44:06] with SDD 44,
[2:44:10] although it was ultimately re approved.
[2:44:12] There are many who believe that Altus is too big
[2:44:15] and too tall for that site.
[2:44:17] So let's look at SD number 42.
[2:44:19] At Altus it required four variances with an average variance
[2:44:23] of 35% from the zoning codes or rules.
[2:44:29] SD number 44 lunar park requires five variances
[2:44:32] with an average size
[2:44:33] of 73% in variance from the zoning rules.
[2:44:37] So about twice that which is required.
[2:44:42] Those major variances include height at 45% over
[2:44:46] GRFA at 63% over, which will actually
[2:44:50] it sounds like increase if there's option two is is taken on
[2:44:55] the EH u and the density at 83% that doesn't square
[2:45:00] with the development that fits with the character
[2:45:02] of the neighborhood.
[2:45:04] And we would ask that PEC recommend the denial
[2:45:06] of SD number 44 at least
[2:45:09] until the applicant addresses the neighbor's issues.
[2:45:12] Thank you.
[2:45:13] - Thank you
[2:45:20] - Bill, I'm going to promote you to talk if you'd like
[2:45:23] to state your name for the record please.
[2:45:31] - Bill, you've been promoted. If you can state your name.
[2:45:33] Oh, I think, I think we had you there
[2:45:35] - Bill Crawford.
[2:45:37] Okay, good. A good afternoon. I'm, my name is Bill Crawford.
[2:45:41] I'm here today to speak about the second
[2:45:43] of four major issues with lunar BA's application.
[2:45:46] It's it, it's interference with the rights
[2:45:50] of Apollo Park and our neighbors.
[2:45:52] The Vail time code states that lunar BA's application must
[2:45:55] propose uses activity density which provide a capable,
[2:46:00] efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses.
[2:46:03] Simply put, the application does not indicate
[2:46:05] that Lunar Vale is interested in the relationship
[2:46:08] that is compatible, efficient or workable.
[2:46:10] First, the application would temporarily eliminate all
[2:46:13] parking and pool access
[2:46:14] for Apollo Park for two or more years.
[2:46:17] It does not represent any plan from where
[2:46:20] residents are supposed to park
[2:46:21] during construction of the new building.
[2:46:24] This function makes our buildings unusable for large number
[2:46:26] of our residents for an undefined period of time.
[2:46:30] Second, following construction of the new building,
[2:46:33] the plant permanently eliminates nearly 25%
[2:46:35] of the power park's existing parking spots.
[2:46:39] And lastly, most importantly,
[2:46:41] the application would impair a power park's ability
[2:46:43] to develop our property in the future.
[2:46:47] We are 50 years into a ground lease
[2:46:48] with another 50 years to go.
[2:46:50] During this time Apollo Park is supposed
[2:46:52] to have exclusive control of the property.
[2:46:55] Approval of this application will make it dramatically more
[2:46:58] difficult, if not impossible for us
[2:47:00] to design a workable redevelopment plan.
[2:47:03] Situations like this are exactly why the code does not allow
[2:47:07] unilateral development applications
[2:47:08] and instead requires consent from all owners.
[2:47:11] The application should not be viewed in a vacuum.
[2:47:14] This is a once in a 50 year opportunity for the PEC to think
[2:47:17] outside the box and look at the property in its entirety.
[2:47:21] Lunar Vale is asking the town of Vail for huge variances
[2:47:26] of mass density, height, and setback requirements.
[2:47:29] It should therefore not be too much asked for the PC two PC
[2:47:33] PEC to request Luna Vale develop a comprehensive plan
[2:47:37] for Apol Park and the Town of Vail for the entire property.
[2:47:41] If you approved of shortsighted single development,
[2:47:43] you inevitably or the inevitable mass density, height
[2:47:47] and setback requirements needed to
[2:47:50] redevelop a power park would make it prohibitive.
[2:47:53] You also subject the residents of Mountain View Altus,
[2:47:56] the rent and the thousand people
[2:47:58] who use the Gore Creek pathway every day
[2:48:00] to access the ball fields.
[2:48:02] Betty Ford Gardens the Amphi, the
[2:48:05] to view an old outdated building constructed in the 1970s
[2:48:09] for the next 51 years.
[2:48:11] Is this really the best long-term
[2:48:13] interest for the Town of Vail? Thank you.
[2:48:16] - Thank you. Can we promote the next person?
[2:48:20] Yes Steve, I'm going to promote you.
[2:48:22] Please state your name for the record.
[2:48:31] Steve, you've been promoted. If you could state your name,
[2:48:33] you can give us your comments
[2:48:39] - After I press the unmute button. That should be better.
[2:48:41] - You've got you now. - Sorry.
[2:48:44] Good afternoon members of the commission.
[2:48:46] My name is Steve Shaver
[2:48:48] and I'm in a, I'm an Apol Park board member.
[2:48:51] I'm going to speak today about a major issue
[2:48:54] with the lunar Vail application.
[2:48:56] It's failure to conform with the Vail Village Master plan.
[2:49:01] As you, as you already know,
[2:49:06] the Bell Village plan is a planning document that
[2:49:10] lays out both broad goals for Vail Village
[2:49:13] and specific development guidelines
[2:49:15] for certain sub areas of the town.
[2:49:18] The lunar Vail application acknowledges
[2:49:20] that our property is subject to the guidelines
[2:49:22] of the master plans east frontage road sub area,
[2:49:27] but it fails to address its non-conformance.
[2:49:29] With those guidelines specifically,
[2:49:32] there are three design criteria pertinent
[2:49:34] to parking lot infill projects in this sub area
[2:49:38] that the application fails to satisfy.
[2:49:41] First, the master plan states
[2:49:42] that building heights should be limited.
[2:49:45] So it is not to impede views of Vail Village
[2:49:48] and Vail Mountain from the frontage road.
[2:49:51] As already discussed.
[2:49:53] The ab, the application does not limit building height.
[2:49:59] It blocks view corridors and absolutely dwarfs Apollo Park.
[2:50:05] Second, the master plan states
[2:50:06] that buildings should be designed to step back
[2:50:09] from the frontage road to prevent sun
[2:50:11] and shade impacts on the road.
[2:50:13] The proposed building is not stepped back.
[2:50:16] The town can therefore expect unwanted shade impacts
[2:50:20] on the frontage road.
[2:50:22] Third, the master plan states
[2:50:24] that any new development should include a substantial
[2:50:27] landscape buffer between the new building
[2:50:30] and the frontage road.
[2:50:32] In this case, the lunar VA application proposes the smallest
[2:50:35] allowable buffer area with only four
[2:50:38] or five trees as the landscaping that is hardly substantial.
[2:50:44] None of these problems are inherent
[2:50:46] to developing this property,
[2:50:48] but they are inherent to this specific application.
[2:50:52] If lunar Vail would again work with us,
[2:50:56] there could be more flexibility in site design
[2:51:00] that addresses the master plan issues of scale, character
[2:51:03] and pragmatic land use.
[2:51:06] Thank you for your time. Thank
[2:51:08] you Cole. Keep
[2:51:11] - With the next person please.
[2:51:13] - Yes, I'm gonna promote Andy to talk.
[2:51:15] Andy, if you can state your name for the record.
[2:51:18] - Yes, can you hear me? We can. Great. Good afternoon.
[2:51:22] Members of the PEC, I'm Andy Peters,
[2:51:25] I'm land use counsel for Apollo Park.
[2:51:27] You've heard from numerous owners at Apollo Park today,
[2:51:30] not neighbors, but owners that share a development parcel
[2:51:33] with the applicant and who must live under the standards
[2:51:36] PEC recommends today.
[2:51:38] So as legal counsel I want
[2:51:40] to emphasize just two points for your consideration.
[2:51:43] First section 12 nine A eight sub three
[2:51:48] requires compliance with parking
[2:51:51] and loading requirements is outlined in chapter
[2:51:53] 10 of billing use code.
[2:51:56] It's the applicant's burden to demonstrate that compliance
[2:51:59] and the parking table included on page 45 of the applicant.
[2:52:04] Narrative doesn't show that even though the applicant says
[2:52:07] no deviation, so even though the GRFA works out
[2:52:11] to over 2000 square feet a unit acknowledging
[2:52:14] that there's some square footage for other things
[2:52:16] that would require two
[2:52:17] and a half spaces a unit not two as presented here.
[2:52:22] And there's nothing that suggests
[2:52:23] what the sizes are in the application.
[2:52:25] So it's, there's just nothing in the record
[2:52:26] that really shows on the employee housing units.
[2:52:30] It just says one per unit.
[2:52:32] But again chapter 10 says
[2:52:33] that employee housing units are required
[2:52:35] to follow the same standards as other square footages
[2:52:38] and in section B or in schedule B.
[2:52:42] And then as you've heard from a number
[2:52:43] of Apollo Apollo park owners, this is going
[2:52:46] to permanently eliminate parking.
[2:52:47] And I was, I was careful in using that term
[2:52:50] because as you heard George say there's 40 to 43 spaces.
[2:52:53] It's in fact 44 spaces currently devoted to Apollo Park.
[2:52:57] But complying with the current code requirements drops that
[2:53:01] to three six spaces.
[2:53:03] So this is a permanent elimination of spaces dedicated
[2:53:07] to Apollo Park and that matters
[2:53:09] because the applicant's just unilaterally taking away
[2:53:12] parking and can't show
[2:53:14] that it even meets the minimum parking spaces in turn.
[2:53:18] So it's an underpowered building
[2:53:21] and Apollo Park owners might simply be turned away.
[2:53:24] Now second, you heard
[2:53:26] that Apollo park's included in this district
[2:53:28] and you heard that the town attorney says
[2:53:30] that we can't withdraw consent to an application.
[2:53:34] But even setting aside, you know
[2:53:36] and acknowledging that we withdrew consent to this, the,
[2:53:41] the letter of support that Apollo Park initially submitted
[2:53:45] and appears it's 1 0 5
[2:53:47] and the applicant narrative expired
[2:53:49] by its own terms on October 31st.
[2:53:52] And this is a new application, it's PEC 26 11,
[2:53:55] not the old application.
[2:53:57] So it's a new application without consent in.
[2:54:00] Irrespective of what the town attorney has said may be
[2:54:02] allowed, I just would ask PEC to consider
[2:54:04] what might be right in this circumstance.
[2:54:07] In fact, earlier today you asked whether a property owner
[2:54:10] had the required consent for just a garage variance
[2:54:12] that might impact the GRFA left
[2:54:14] to another duplex owner here.
[2:54:16] Is it right for the town
[2:54:18] and the applicant to submit to set development standards
[2:54:21] for an owner's property over their objection?
[2:54:23] Is it right for an applicant
[2:54:24] to develop a project without presenting any plan for parking
[2:54:27] or access during construction?
[2:54:29] And is it right for an applicant
[2:54:30] to permanently eliminate owner owned parking spaces
[2:54:33] over their objection?
[2:54:34] This is why the code requires consent.
[2:54:37] We'd like to work together, we can work together.
[2:54:39] But until we can, we'd ask that PEC recommend denial.
[2:54:42] Thank you. Thank you.
[2:54:47] - I'm going to promote Anna to talk.
[2:54:49] Anna, if you can state your name for the record.
[2:54:53] - Yes, can you hear me? We can. Okay.
[2:54:56] My name is Anna Davis and I thank you for your time today.
[2:55:02] I am a member of the board
[2:55:04] and I am also going
[2:55:05] to speak a little bit on my own behalf as an owner.
[2:55:09] So as a board member, I want to reiterate
[2:55:13] my fellow board member language here
[2:55:18] and request the denial
[2:55:22] of this proposal on the grounds
[2:55:25] that there's four main key issues
[2:55:29] that I'll address here.
[2:55:32] First, the incompatibility of
[2:55:37] lunar VA's application With surrounding properties,
[2:55:41] we've heard quite a bit about the size
[2:55:44] and scale of the, the development
[2:55:47] and how this would completely dwarf Apollo Park.
[2:55:52] And the Vail Town Code states
[2:55:56] that every special dis special development at strict app
[2:55:59] application needs to demonstrate design, compatibility
[2:56:02] and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood
[2:56:06] and adjacent properties.
[2:56:08] The code then lists subjective criteria
[2:56:11] that the town is supposed to use to compare the application
[2:56:14] to the neighboring properties.
[2:56:16] Things like the building scale, height, setbacks, et cetera.
[2:56:21] In this case lunar Vail application.
[2:56:24] This particular application totally ignores just
[2:56:27] how much larger the proposed building is compared
[2:56:30] to the neighboring buildings.
[2:56:32] Apollo Parks building A
[2:56:33] and B would be completely dwarfed by the new building
[2:56:37] and would have our access relegated to a narrow alleyway.
[2:56:44] We do acknowledge that most development proposals here will
[2:56:48] require some additional height, which includes Apollo Park.
[2:56:51] However, the amount
[2:56:54] of additional height proposed here cannot be accepted.
[2:56:58] Similarly, the code requires
[2:57:00] that the buildings on this property have a setback
[2:57:02] of at least 20 feet on all sides.
[2:57:06] In this proposal, only one of the four sides
[2:57:09] of the new building would comply with this requirement.
[2:57:12] Again, the application provides no justification for why
[2:57:16] lunar Vale should be able to ignore the town code.
[2:57:20] And this is exactly why the town code requires owner
[2:57:23] consent for an application.
[2:57:26] This is a project proposed on Apollo Parks property
[2:57:29] that fails to take Apollo Park into account
[2:57:34] and we cannot agree to that.
[2:57:35] And again, I wanna iterate, reiterate
[2:57:37] that there are 1700 owners
[2:57:40] and whole owners as in addition to that at Apollo Park
[2:57:46] who have basically been ignored.
[2:57:49] And although we have tried to work with Lunar va,
[2:57:55] we have not come to an agreement.
[2:57:57] And then, which brought us here today,
[2:58:02] I've been an owner, I've been coming
[2:58:04] to Apollo Park since I was nine years old
[2:58:07] as my mother actually testified a little while ago.
[2:58:11] And I am an owner as well. My daughter is an owner as well.
[2:58:15] We have friends that are owners.
[2:58:17] We, we want to see that Apollo Park is preserved
[2:58:22] in the, the vision of the Town
[2:58:27] of Vail and everything that we have brought
[2:58:29] to the Town of Vail.
[2:58:31] And again, those 1700 owners I would
[2:58:35] strongly request personally
[2:58:37] and as a board member that the
[2:58:41] counsel please deny this request. Thank you for your time.
[2:58:45] - Thank you. - I'm
[2:58:50] going to promote Karen to talk.
[2:58:52] Karen, if you can state your name for the record.
[2:59:01] - Karen, you've been promoted.
[2:59:02] If you could state your name, you can provide your comment.
[2:59:05] - Hi, I had to unmute myself.
[2:59:07] Okay, I think I did. Am I unmuted?
[2:59:09] - We can hear you now. Yes. - Yep.
[2:59:11] Hi, my name's Karen k Clayman.
[2:59:13] I'm the owner of at Unit 3 0 4 in Bell Mountain View
[2:59:18] residences and I'm also on the homeowners board.
[2:59:23] One of the things that several members of the Town Council
[2:59:27] mentioned when they rejected this project in June was the
[2:59:31] need to work with the neighbors.
[2:59:35] I think you've heard from enough people
[2:59:37] that they haven't really been working successfully
[2:59:40] with the neighbors of this project.
[2:59:43] One very large thing that hasn't been mentioned is
[2:59:49] when Ron Burn developed Dale Mountain View residence is in
[2:59:52] 2008.
[2:59:53] Two pedestrian access paths
[2:59:56] to reach the Creekside town path, which if you don't know,
[2:59:59] that's the path that goes from Vail
[3:00:01] to the amphitheater were built.
[3:00:05] The eastern path that's closest to Apollo Park was created
[3:00:08] with a snow melt system under the pavers
[3:00:11] and stairs down to the creek with Grass Creek along the path
[3:00:15] to the fire he near us and Apollo Park.
[3:00:19] Initially the eastern footpath was used primarily
[3:00:23] by the Apollo Park residence
[3:00:25] because the other path is
[3:00:27] connected directly to our building.
[3:00:29] It was then used by the Altus residents residence.
[3:00:33] After that building was opened.
[3:00:35] Bell Mountain View residents solely paid for the operating
[3:00:40] and maintenance costs for that path
[3:00:42] until Altus was constructed.
[3:00:44] And now Altus also shares the operating maintenance costs.
[3:00:48] You also need to know that
[3:00:49] that path is a hundred percent on Vail Mountain View
[3:00:53] residence property.
[3:00:57] If you look to the special development district,
[3:01:01] number 44, that Lunar be north has not
[3:01:06] invested in building a new path for their new project
[3:01:11] or stairway down to the creek.
[3:01:13] They plan to use the path that's funded
[3:01:15] by Vail Mountain View residences in Altus.
[3:01:19] The applicant has avoided the significant expense
[3:01:21] of building his own path, but they won't agree to join Altus
[3:01:25] and Bell Mountain View residences in funding upgrading
[3:01:29] the maintenance costs for the path going forward.
[3:01:32] Their residents and guests will increase traffic on the path
[3:01:35] but they refuse to contribute to it.
[3:01:38] There is an easement for that
[3:01:40] but still there's a cost for that path
[3:01:43] and the stairs as a result, we feel that this special use
[3:01:49] district number 44 proposal is detrimental
[3:01:51] to the neighborhood and should be denied.
[3:01:54] A denial will provide a necessary incentive
[3:01:57] for the applicant to negotiate reasonably with the neighbors
[3:02:02] as requested by the Town Council in June.
[3:02:06] Thank you very much for your time.
[3:02:07] We appreciate all the hard work you've been doing on this
[3:02:10] for the last several years.
[3:02:13] - Thank you. - I'm going to promote
[3:02:19] Justin to talk.
[3:02:20] Justin, if you can state your name for the record.
[3:02:27] - Justin, you've been promoted.
[3:02:29] If you can unmute and state your
[3:02:30] name we can hear your comment.
[3:02:33] - Sorry, can you hear me now - We can. Yep.
[3:02:35] - Great. I'm Justin Asley.
[3:02:37] I am the president of the Altus HOA.
[3:02:40] I'm also a homeowner in Altus.
[3:02:44] I am, I'm here to request the Dell the proposal.
[3:02:48] I'm gonna keep my comments pretty short
[3:02:50] 'cause I would honestly just be repeating most
[3:02:52] of the other things that have been said in the,
[3:02:54] the public comment already.
[3:02:57] One thing that I would like to,
[3:02:58] to speak about though is just the, the sheer size
[3:03:02] and mass of what's being asked to be approved.
[3:03:06] Altus is a very, very large building
[3:03:07] and anyone driving down the highway sees it.
[3:03:10] We've got those bright green exit sign lights
[3:03:12] that everyone complains about
[3:03:14] to me when I tell 'em I'm, I'm over at Altus.
[3:03:17] But it really is a just a,
[3:03:19] a massive building from from the highway,
[3:03:21] from the frontage road.
[3:03:22] And when we look at going down this path
[3:03:25] where we're gonna give another building right next to it,
[3:03:28] even larger variances to become another giant building,
[3:03:33] I'm just concerned about what happens long run here.
[3:03:36] If this is the direction that we continue to go, you know,
[3:03:40] one large building after the next, it's going
[3:03:42] to change veil entirely.
[3:03:44] And I'm not sure that that's a veil that that many
[3:03:46] of us have grown to love in our lifetimes and
[3:03:49] and desire to see.
[3:03:52] So I'll leave it there. Thank you.
[3:03:54] - Thank you. - I am gonna
[3:03:58] promote Howard to talk.
[3:04:00] Howard if you can state your name for the record.
[3:04:08] - Howard, you've been promoted if you can unmute.
[3:04:11] - Okay. Can you hear me now? - We have you now. Yes.
[3:04:13] - Okay, thank you. My name is Howard Willard and my wife
[3:04:17] and I own Vail Mountain View residence is number 4 0 6
[3:04:22] VMVR has had discussions with the developer
[3:04:25] and we have been clear that our primary issue
[3:04:28] with their proposal has been their unwillingness
[3:04:31] to contribute to improvements to the fire path located
[3:04:33] to the west of the proposed lunar Vale North building.
[3:04:38] With the proposed redevelopment of SBD number 44.
[3:04:41] The applicant is removing the last remaining option other
[3:04:44] than the fire path to reach VMVR
[3:04:47] with the veil ladder truck parking.
[3:04:50] The ladder truck in the Apollo Park parking lot currently
[3:04:53] allows access to VMVR
[3:04:55] but SBD number 44 is proposing
[3:04:58] to build a 70 foot tall building on the current parking lot.
[3:05:02] The development proposed
[3:05:04] by SDD number 44 leaves only the fire path
[3:05:07] that was built in 2008
[3:05:09] to stage fire trucks near the VMVR building in the
[3:05:12] Apollo Park buildings.
[3:05:15] However, and this was a surprise for me in in the meeting
[3:05:19] the applicant had right up till the materials were published
[3:05:24] for this meeting refused to enable
[3:05:26] and contribute to improvements to the fire path
[3:05:29] to provide a minimum width
[3:05:30] of 20 feet along its entire length as requested
[3:05:33] by the Vail Fire Department.
[3:05:35] I have had several discussions
[3:05:37] with the fire marshal about this issue
[3:05:38] and I'm interested in reviewing their proposed
[3:05:41] changes to the fire path.
[3:05:44] Finally, SDD number 44 has submitted plans
[3:05:47] to change their driveway design
[3:05:49] and access point to South frontage road
[3:05:52] SDD number 40 four's movement
[3:05:54] of the existing Apollo Park driveway
[3:05:56] to the far northeastern corner of their property reduces
[3:06:00] or eliminates the ability of the ladder truck
[3:06:02] to turn onto the VMVR fire path.
[3:06:05] I will be interested in reviewing if there changes proposed
[3:06:08] in this meeting address this issue.
[3:06:12] I believe the recommendation for SBD number 44
[3:06:15] should be delayed until the applicant submits plans
[3:06:19] for their proposed changes to address the fire access issues
[3:06:23] for the benefit of VMDR Altus Apollo
[3:06:25] Park and Lunar Vale North.
[3:06:28] To make a recommendation today when the set
[3:06:31] of plans hasn't even been submitted,
[3:06:34] I think would be would be a problem.
[3:06:37] I do acknowledge the fire path cannot be expanded without
[3:06:39] the participation of lunar vale
[3:06:42] and my belief is
[3:06:44] that I'm glad they've at least thought about stepping
[3:06:46] forward but a lot more work needs to be done to see whether
[3:06:49] or not their proposal really does address the fire
[3:06:52] department's issues with the fire path.
[3:06:55] Thank you to the PEC for your patience.
[3:07:02] - Thank you. Thank you.
[3:07:06] - I'm going to promote Deborah na talk.
[3:07:08] Deborah, if you can state your name for the record.
[3:07:12] - Hi. Hello, my name is Deborah Larussa.
[3:07:16] I have been going to Paula Park since 1989
[3:07:20] and have consecutively every year gone there.
[3:07:24] And now that I see that the changes that are trying
[3:07:28] to be made are not acceptable, especially doing
[3:07:31] to the parking, the safety
[3:07:34] and all the things the other timeshare owners
[3:07:37] and full-time owners have stated, I would like to request to
[3:07:42] for the application to be denied
[3:07:45] and I'd like to thank you all for your time
[3:07:47] so much. Bye-bye.
[3:07:49] - Thank you. - I am
[3:07:54] going to promote Theresa to talk.
[3:07:56] Theresa, if you can introduce yourself for the record.
[3:08:04] - Hi Theresa, you've been promoted.
[3:08:06] If you can unmute and
[3:08:07] state your name, we can hear your comments.
[3:08:15] Theresa, we we can't hear you.
[3:08:16] There might be a microphone issue.
[3:08:19] We'll move on to the next public comment.
[3:08:21] Oh, can you hear me now? We have you now.
[3:08:23] We just got you Theresa. Alright,
[3:08:25] - Good.
[3:08:26] Thank you. Yeah, I'd like to address my comments
[3:08:28] to you Brad, John, Meg, bill, Lauren, I've been on the call
[3:08:33] for several hours now and I noticed the care you took
[3:08:37] and looking into the case on 42 59 Nugget Lane
[3:08:42] and really looking at the impact that that
[3:08:46] petition had on the neighborhood.
[3:08:49] And I just wanna ask you as a board to consider
[3:08:53] that we have 1700 owners at Apollo Park
[3:08:58] and we're looking at a development that's going
[3:09:00] to accommodate 17 new owners.
[3:09:05] And I'm not, I, I don't object to the development
[3:09:09] but I think that it would be very advantageous
[3:09:13] to include Apollo Park
[3:09:15] and any redevelopment plan for that area.
[3:09:20] I agree with the comments made by a previous person about
[3:09:25] what this looks like for the town of Avail
[3:09:27] to have Apollo Park
[3:09:28] and aging property that needs a lot of care
[3:09:33] in the midst of brand new development placed on
[3:09:36] what looks like a postage stamp
[3:09:38] on the property in such close proximity to Apollo Park.
[3:09:43] So I would just ask that as an owner
[3:09:48] for 40 years and a Colorado native, that you would please
[3:09:53] deny this petition for this development
[3:09:57] until we can develop a comprehensive plan to include
[3:10:02] redevelopment of Apollo Park.
[3:10:06] I wanna thank you for hearing me this, this evening
[3:10:09] and I request that you deny this application.
[3:10:13] - Thank you. - I'm gonna promote Chris the talk.
[3:10:18] Chris, if you can introduce yourself for the record.
[3:10:25] - Hi there, my name is Chris Bailey.
[3:10:28] I have been coming to Vail since in the summer,
[3:10:32] since 1979.
[3:10:35] My family owned several of the timeshares there.
[3:10:39] We built a lot of memories, we spent a lot of money in Vail.
[3:10:42] We love it there. And I would like you,
[3:10:45] I have nothing really new to say
[3:10:47] that other owners haven't said,
[3:10:49] but I would like you to please deny this application.
[3:10:53] It he has a huge impact on the owners
[3:10:56] in the Apollo Park and Alta
[3:10:59] and they have not considered that impact
[3:11:03] on all these people.
[3:11:05] And I would like you to consider us in making your decision.
[3:11:10] Thank you for all the hard work you've put in this.
[3:11:12] And that's all I have to say.
[3:11:15] - Thank you. - I'm gonna promote Shannon to talk.
[3:11:19] Shannon, if you can introduce yourself for the record.
[3:11:29] - Shannon, you've been promoted.
[3:11:31] If you can unmute and
[3:11:32] state your name, we can hear your comment.
[3:11:37] - Hello - We we can hear you now.
[3:11:39] - Hi. Perfect. Alright.
[3:11:41] Hello, my name is Shannon Larson
[3:11:43] and I thank you for your time today.
[3:11:45] I may be repeating much of
[3:11:46] what others have verbalized today,
[3:11:47] but I wanted to express
[3:11:51] that I have enjoyed Vail and Apollo Park for 38 years
[3:11:54] and have been an owner for the past 16 years at Apollo Park.
[3:11:59] And I would just like to request the denial of this motion
[3:12:02] and encourage opportunity for collaboration
[3:12:04] between Lunar Vail and the owners of Apollo Park.
[3:12:09] It would be nice if we could come to a solution
[3:12:11] that benefits both the owners of Apollo Park and Lunar Vale.
[3:12:14] This motion neglects the town codes
[3:12:16] and proposes mass variances that impact the overall safety
[3:12:20] of the owners as well as parking in many other aspects.
[3:12:23] Many of the owners have fond memories
[3:12:26] and enjoy spending time and money at Vail
[3:12:28] and we would just like to see a solution
[3:12:30] that benefits all parties.
[3:12:32] So I would like to request, respectfully request
[3:12:35] that PEC deny this motion. Thank you.
[3:12:38] - Thank you.
[3:12:44] - I'm gonna promote Debbie to talk.
[3:12:45] Debbie, if you can state your name for the record.
[3:12:55] - Me, - We can hear you now. Yes.
[3:12:57] - Oh great. My name is Debbie Charles.
[3:12:59] My husband and I have been owners of the rent since 1989
[3:13:03] and since 2014.
[3:13:05] We own Hoon unit for oh one at the rent.
[3:13:07] I also serve as the HOA board president.
[3:13:11] I might be the only re owner speaking today,
[3:13:13] but you have received letters from many other owners
[3:13:16] all opposing the project.
[3:13:19] This project, as we know, has been UN under discussion
[3:13:21] for a year and a half about recently.
[3:13:24] It's been so long. We have three new PEC members,
[3:13:27] a new planner, and significant changes to the project.
[3:13:31] Unfortunately those changes have made the project worse.
[3:13:34] It now has a very negative impact on Apollo Park
[3:13:38] and the proposed reductions in the building's height
[3:13:40] and GRFA do not go far enough.
[3:13:43] I believe the developers now relying on project fatigue
[3:13:46] to secure approval of this latest version
[3:13:48] and that shall should not be allowed to have them.
[3:13:51] So as related to the rent, I have three main concerns.
[3:13:56] Number one, the building runs along our property
[3:13:59] being too tall and too large.
[3:14:01] The building is also often compared to Altus,
[3:14:04] which is also 70 feet at its peak.
[3:14:07] At previous PEC meeting, some members thought
[3:14:09] that approving Altus was a mistake.
[3:14:11] It was likely approved because
[3:14:12] of the employee housing component,
[3:14:14] even though it did not fit well within
[3:14:16] the surrounding neighborhood.
[3:14:18] The Val Master plan intentionally preserved this portion
[3:14:20] of Vale Village with lower building heights
[3:14:22] and more open green space.
[3:14:24] As you approach vale from the east on I 70,
[3:14:27] the intended experience is to see the golf course,
[3:14:30] then the park with the ball fields, then gradually
[3:14:32] to our buildings while still maintaining views
[3:14:34] through to the mountains.
[3:14:36] Altus is oriented parallel to I 70,
[3:14:38] so motorists see the narrow side
[3:14:40] until they are directly in front of it.
[3:14:42] Lunar vale, however, will present the appearance
[3:14:44] of a wall rising out
[3:14:46] of one vale's most beautiful green spaces.
[3:14:49] In fact, if Altus didn't exist,
[3:14:51] Solaris would be effectively the first tall
[3:14:53] building along frontage road.
[3:14:55] That is what the master plan envisioned.
[3:14:57] Number two, lunar Vail parking garage entrance should be
[3:15:00] relocated to the front of the property
[3:15:02] with the side driveway reserved for emergency access
[3:15:05] and and loading only.
[3:15:07] This is a significant safety concern.
[3:15:10] The driveway is about one foot from the Rens property line.
[3:15:14] According to the projects traffic study,
[3:15:16] more than 200 vehicles per day plus commercial vehicles will
[3:15:19] travel from frontage road to the rear of the property.
[3:15:22] There is no sidewalk.
[3:15:23] So pedestrians will inevitably use this driveway as
[3:15:30] Also shine directly into the rent and Apol park.
[3:15:32] During nighttime hours. The project should be redesigned
[3:15:35] to put the garage entrance in front.
[3:15:37] Number three and last.
[3:15:39] Commitments made
[3:15:40] to neighboring property owners continue to change.
[3:15:43] About a month ago, the room was told the trees would be
[3:15:45] replanted along our east property line
[3:15:47] with no conditions attached
[3:15:49] because that was part of the plan being presented today
[3:15:52] and shown in the renderings.
[3:15:54] Now we are told those trees will only be replanted if we
[3:15:57] accept partial financial responsibility for the water line
[3:16:00] and allow the developer to excavate
[3:16:02] beneath our trash enclosure.
[3:16:03] Among other requirements, the conditions continue to change
[3:16:06] and that undermines our confidence in the
[3:16:08] developer's intentions.
[3:16:09] We do not approve of the developing developer placing
[3:16:12] infrastructure on our property.
[3:16:14] If the project were smaller, many
[3:16:16] of these issues would disappear.
[3:16:18] Anything included in the approved plan should be guaranteed
[3:16:20] and completed entirely at the developer's sole expense.
[3:16:24] In summary, the project as currently propose,
[3:16:26] is not in the best interest of Vail
[3:16:28] or the surrounding neighborhood.
[3:16:30] I respectfully urge the PEC to deny this application today.
[3:16:35] - Thank you. - I'm
[3:16:39] going to promote Luis ak Luis,
[3:16:42] if you can introduce yourself for the record.
[3:16:52] - Louis, you've been promoted.
[3:16:54] If you can unmute and state your
[3:16:55] name, you can provide your comment.
[3:17:01] - Okay. Can you hear me?
[3:17:02] - We can hear you hear you now, yes.
[3:17:04] - Okay, thank you. I'm here with my,
[3:17:09] we have been at Apollo Park since 1979
[3:17:12] and we are, we own a literally a fourth
[3:17:17] of a year in timeshare weeks there.
[3:17:20] And you are familiar with my name
[3:17:23] 'cause you've seen me in person
[3:17:24] and you've seen me also on Zooms
[3:17:27] for every single meeting you have had on this topic.
[3:17:31] So I, I am not going away. I'm still here.
[3:17:34] And I do greatly appreciate at the beginning
[3:17:38] of the meeting a lot of my own personal questions
[3:17:42] you have answered and I, I appreciate that.
[3:17:46] In the interest of time, just as Justin has said from Altus,
[3:17:51] I'm going to say that my husband
[3:17:53] and I agree with mostly all of what people have said
[3:17:57] from Apollo Park, either online
[3:18:01] or in person.
[3:18:03] So thank you for that.
[3:18:05] And I would also, my husband
[3:18:09] and I would also reiterate as Andy, our lawyer has stated
[3:18:14] that from our heart
[3:18:16] and soul as the family of Apollo Park, to your
[3:18:21] heart and soul of the commissioners,
[3:18:26] the Town Council and Peck
[3:18:27] and your families, that that you would consider
[3:18:31] what is right to be done.
[3:18:39] And I would then conclude by saying
[3:18:42] that we would be interested in a continuance
[3:18:45] or continued stay on the discussions to keep moving
[3:18:50] this forward, but with a cooperative effort.
[3:18:54] Thank you for your time and efforts.
[3:18:57] - Thank you.
[3:19:02] - I'm gonna promote Laura to talk.
[3:19:04] Laura, if you can state your name for the record.
[3:19:07] You've been promoted.
[3:19:10] - Can you hear me? Now - We can.
[3:19:13] - Hi. Thank you for having me. My name is Laura Willard.
[3:19:15] I'm the secretary of the Vail Mountain
[3:19:17] View Owners Association.
[3:19:18] And I'm reading comments on behalf of our board.
[3:19:22] Our owners association board at
[3:19:24] - V-M-V-V-R
[3:19:28] - Was alarmed that the report
[3:19:30] of the town staff does not address the need for improvements
[3:19:32] to the fire access path located on the west
[3:19:35] of the proposed LUNER Vale North building.
[3:19:37] We have had discussions with the Vail Fire Marshal about
[3:19:40] their desire to have the fire path widened
[3:19:42] to 20 feet wide from an average width of 13 feet wide.
[3:19:46] Currently we have had preliminary discussions
[3:19:49] with Lunar VA about the issue,
[3:19:51] but they've refused to execute a binding agreement
[3:19:55] to participate in the, in the improvements
[3:19:58] and file the modified plans with the improved fire path
[3:20:02] for SDD number 44.
[3:20:05] The burns were involved in both the development of VMVR
[3:20:09] and the initial planning
[3:20:10] and zoning for Altus,
[3:20:12] which created the 70 foot tall Altus building,
[3:20:16] which curtailed large truck access from our Western entry,
[3:20:20] but did not affect our existing easement
[3:20:23] to the east on Apollo's, on on Apollo park's entry,
[3:20:28] the Burns lunar ville North building would now
[3:20:31] remove our existing.
[3:20:38] - Laura, you cut out. We, we've lost you there,
[3:20:44] Laura.
[3:20:45] I think your mic might have cut out.
[3:20:46] We can't, we can no longer hear you.
[3:20:50] - Alright. - We have you wave you back now.
[3:20:53] - Oh, okay. Okay. Where did, where did you leave?
[3:20:56] Where did I leave off? Something about the Eastern
[3:20:59] attack on easement.
[3:21:00] - It was regarding the fire easement to the west.
[3:21:05] - Okay. So when Altus was billed,
[3:21:09] it could child large truck access from our Western entry,
[3:21:11] but did not affect our existing easement
[3:21:15] to the East on Apollo park's entry.
[3:21:19] The Burns Luner Vale North building would now remove our
[3:21:23] existing easement to the east, eliminating firetruck access
[3:21:26] to VMVR in particular, as well as secondarily
[3:21:30] to the Western Apollo Park Building Altus
[3:21:34] and the east side of Luner VA North.
[3:21:37] This improved fire lane must be developed
[3:21:42] for the benefit of the MBR
[3:21:43] and the Western Apollo Park Building
[3:21:46] and the entire neighborhood.
[3:21:48] It must be resolved
[3:21:49] before any recommendation of approval for SDD 44.
[3:21:53] And I'd like to thank you all, everyone for the heroic time
[3:21:58] and effort spent on this one, so thank you very much.
[3:22:02] - Thank you.
[3:22:07] - I'm gonna promote, Bernadette, if,
[3:22:10] if you can state your name for the record.
[3:22:18] - Bernadette, you've been promoted.
[3:22:19] If you can unmute and state your
[3:22:21] name, you can provide your comment.
[3:22:25] - Hi, can you hear me? - We can hear you now, yes.
[3:22:28] - Okay. Yes. So my name is Bernadette Devo
[3:22:32] and I own unit 4 0 3 at Vail Mountain View.
[3:22:38] And I just would like to say I'm in agreement with
[3:22:43] all of the comments, most of the comments today,
[3:22:46] and I am just,
[3:22:50] I just feel like it's, it's frightening to have,
[3:22:54] have any type of future fire incident
[3:22:59] that impacts what could potentially impact
[3:23:03] these three buildings.
[3:23:05] So thank you so much for your time.
[3:23:08] - Thank you.
[3:23:13] - And I'm gonna promote John Deak.
[3:23:15] John, if you can state your name for the record.
[3:23:24] - My name is John O'Brien
[3:23:27] and I've been coming to Vail since 1983.
[3:23:30] I'd just like to thank all the speakers
[3:23:35] coming before me who are much more eloquent than me,
[3:23:39] but we'd like to ask the, the council to,
[3:23:44] to decline this application.
[3:23:48] Thank you very much.
[3:23:50] - Thank you.
[3:23:57] Are there any more speakers online?
[3:24:00] - There are no more hands raised at this moment.
[3:24:03] - Okay. We'll give one last opportunity
[3:24:05] for anyone else in the room who'd like to come to the mic
[3:24:07] and speak and there are no more hands.
[3:24:11] Cole,
[3:24:14] - I'm, I'm not seeing any other hands raised at the moment.
[3:24:16] If I do see any, Brad, would you, would you like to know?
[3:24:20] - Yeah. At this point we'll close public comment though.
[3:24:22] We appreciate all the comment that's been made. Okay.
[3:24:25] At this point I'll go back to staff
[3:24:27] and the applicant for any final comments
[3:24:29] before we move on to commissioner comments.
[3:24:32] I'd also opened it to further commissioner comments
[3:24:34] that have been created from public comment.
[3:24:39] - Staff doesn't have anything further
[3:24:40] unless there's something specific
[3:24:42] that you would like me to address.
[3:24:45] - Does the applicant have any further comments?
[3:24:47] - I do. In fact, I, I apologize,
[3:24:50] but I have quite a few based upon what we're hearing.
[3:25:06] We believe that the applicant has fully
[3:25:09] fulfilled their obligations under the Vail Town Code.
[3:25:12] We have submitted a complete plan
[3:25:13] of development applications to the town staff
[3:25:16] and to the Planning and Environmental Commission.
[3:25:18] We've met the applicant's burden of proof
[3:25:20] by demonstrating compliance with the Vail Town Code as well
[3:25:24] as the Vail Village Master Plan.
[3:25:26] The development application has been presented
[3:25:28] for public discussion at public hearings On six
[3:25:30] or more occasions between the hearings,
[3:25:32] the ma the applicant did maintain open dialogue
[3:25:35] with adjacent property owners and stakeholders.
[3:25:38] As a result, over the past 18 months, the applicant,
[3:25:42] excuse me, the application has been revised
[3:25:44] and amended in response to comments
[3:25:46] and feedback from the Vail Town Council, the Town
[3:25:49] of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission,
[3:25:51] the town staff, and the
[3:25:52] neighboring property owners and stakeholders.
[3:25:54] Admittedly, these comments and the projects, again,
[3:25:57] have improved the project.
[3:25:58] Thank you all for your help in making the project better.
[3:26:01] Did the applicant respond to each
[3:26:03] and every request of the neighbors?
[3:26:05] No, we did not. Nor is there a reasonable expectation
[3:26:08] that we could do so.
[3:26:09] The applicant did, however, respond
[3:26:11] and take numerous positive steps
[3:26:13] to address the requests To the extent possible,
[3:26:18] I need to respond to the letter.
[3:26:20] I think there was a letter in your packet of,
[3:26:25] from the Vail Mountain View Residences
[3:26:27] Homeowner's Association.
[3:26:28] Did everyone get a chance to read that letter?
[3:26:31] - Which - One was this? Because I, I need to respond to
[3:26:34] that, to that letter
[3:26:38] regarding Vail Mountain View Residence's.
[3:26:40] HOA Board of Directors? Yeah,
[3:26:42] - It was from I Do you see that one? Yeah.
[3:26:43] - You see that in there, the applicants, we received a list
[3:26:46] of six demands from the Vail Mountain View,
[3:26:49] HOA Board of Directors.
[3:26:51] The, the comment was, address these six issues
[3:26:54] and you will gain our support for the project.
[3:26:57] Five of the six demands were addressed.
[3:27:00] The sixth for reasons, for ethical reasons,
[3:27:03] was not questionable.
[3:27:05] Ethics aside, the applicants continued to collaborate
[3:27:08] with Vail Mountain View Board of Directors
[3:27:10] and the Vail Fire Department in good faith
[3:27:13] and have offered to implement at the applicant's sole
[3:27:16] expense a design solution
[3:27:18] to an existing life safety issue associated
[3:27:20] with VMVR of Importance.
[3:27:24] Bill and John, when you asked the applicant to meet
[3:27:27] with the neighbors to solve neighborhood issues,
[3:27:30] we believe your expectation was to address planning
[3:27:33] and land use issues in that vein.
[3:27:35] That is exactly what we did.
[3:27:37] We did not think, nor do we believe your request
[3:27:40] for collaboration and expectation was
[3:27:43] to subject the applicant to what we perceive
[3:27:46] as financial extortion.
[3:27:48] No binding agreement with VMVR is required. Why?
[3:27:52] Because all five of the six issues they had asked for
[3:27:56] are addressed on the plans.
[3:27:58] Staff will, will, will verify
[3:28:00] the plans are all the contract we need.
[3:28:02] We've increased the setbacks, we've reduced the GRFA.
[3:28:06] We offered to provide access to a loading
[3:28:10] and delivery space on our property as well as
[3:28:13] to limit the pool hours.
[3:28:15] All we asked for in return was a reciprocal agreement from
[3:28:19] VMVR, not willing to provide that.
[3:28:21] They wanna use our loading and delivery space,
[3:28:24] but we can't use theirs.
[3:28:26] Our whole intent in, in providing access to that loading
[3:28:29] and delivery space was, this was a neighborhood issue.
[3:28:32] Let's resolve these issues as neighbors let,
[3:28:34] same thing with the pool.
[3:28:36] We limit our hours.
[3:28:37] They won't eliminate, or excuse me, limit their hours.
[3:28:42] We believe the request.
[3:28:43] Again, the only reason for the binding agreement, I'm glad
[3:28:46] that Laura Willard brought this up, was
[3:28:49] because outside the bounds
[3:28:50] of any planning application is the requirement
[3:28:52] for financial consideration.
[3:28:54] We're not gonna provide financial consideration.
[3:28:57] All of our other agreements are documented on the plan.
[3:29:00] The only thing they can't get from,
[3:29:02] from the documented plans is financial
[3:29:05] consideration from the applicant.
[3:29:06] In return for a support of their approval.
[3:29:11] In their letter, they, I identify three issues
[3:29:15] that they, they highlight.
[3:29:16] First, let's be honest,
[3:29:17] the Town Council did not reject the proposal on January 6th,
[3:29:21] as was suggested.
[3:29:22] Instead, given the number of revisions proposed
[3:29:25] to the application made
[3:29:26] between the P'S recommendation in November of 2025
[3:29:30] and the Vail Town Council meeting, the Vail Town Council
[3:29:34] specifically stated they wanted the p's, the benefit
[3:29:37] of the P'S review of the revised plans before acting.
[3:29:41] Most of those revisions were the result
[3:29:43] of input shared by the PEC.
[3:29:47] Additionally, yes, the number
[3:29:48] of deviations remains the same.
[3:29:51] Three, there's three deviations. Somebody said five.
[3:29:54] There's three deviations.
[3:29:55] It's documented in the staff memorandum,
[3:29:57] density setbacks in building height.
[3:29:59] However, what VMVR misses is that the extent
[3:30:02] of the deviations has changed,
[3:30:04] and in all instances, the extent
[3:30:06] of deviations has been reduced
[3:30:08] and in all instances it's been reduced.
[3:30:10] In response to five of the six demands
[3:30:13] that we got from VMVR, again, let's not be misled.
[3:30:18] There are distinctions between SDD number 42 and number 44.
[3:30:23] For example, the lots East west orientation,
[3:30:25] the street frontage of SDD number 44
[3:30:30] and SD number 42 are very different.
[3:30:32] The presence of a 30 foot wide utility easement,
[3:30:35] which was the justification
[3:30:37] for the town's variance approval in 1976,
[3:30:41] that affects SDD number four is 44 is absent in
[3:30:45] SDD number 42, the greatest impact
[3:30:48] of the setback deviations in SDD number 42 is not
[3:30:53] the lunar Vail residences.
[3:30:55] You heard somebody, I, I forget someone referenced the
[3:31:02] magnitude of variances we are requesting for our project.
[3:31:05] The magnitude of variances there, the, the,
[3:31:08] I believe they're referencing is the existing variances
[3:31:11] granted by the Town of Vail in 19 76, 77
[3:31:15] for the Apollo Park buildings A and B,
[3:31:18] because this is a single SDD, we do have to account
[3:31:22] for the existing development on the site.
[3:31:24] So when you look at that development table that is,
[3:31:27] that is in your packet
[3:31:28] and you see a zero foot setback,
[3:31:30] that's not the lunar vale residences building,
[3:31:32] that's an existing Apollo Park building.
[3:31:35] When you see a six foot,
[3:31:37] when you see the six foot deviation from the west setback,
[3:31:42] that is our parking garage.
[3:31:43] And as the staff noted, the majority of that is below gray.
[3:31:47] John, you had asked a question about was there any square
[3:31:50] foot is there's 208 square feet that sticks up above grade
[3:31:55] that has been reduced
[3:31:56] by more than half from when we originally
[3:31:58] submitted the application.
[3:32:00] It is immediately adjacent to the Vail Mount,
[3:32:03] or excuse me, the Altus Vail residences,
[3:32:05] which has five stories
[3:32:07] of its building encroaching into the 20 foot
[3:32:09] setback up to five feet.
[3:32:12] I I think I, I don't know.
[3:32:13] I had it in a previous memorandum
[3:32:15] and we shared with you kind of the magnitude of, of what
[3:32:18] that was, but it pales by comparison
[3:32:20] to the 208 square feet of
[3:32:23] where a parking garage barely sticks up above the ground,
[3:32:27] two to four feet out of the ground.
[3:32:29] In fact, in this diagram in illustration
[3:32:31] that you're looking at, you can't even see it
[3:32:34] because it's hidden behind the landscape burn that
[3:32:36] that is adjoining the, the pathway.
[3:32:41] The third issue that VMVR brings up, this is a new one
[3:32:46] to us, quite honestly, I believe,
[3:32:48] and we think it's a a bit disingenuous in, in the response
[3:32:53] included in the, the list of six demands was the reduction
[3:32:56] of, of bulk mass
[3:32:57] and scale of the new building to do so in exchange
[3:33:00] for public acknowledgement of support of the project.
[3:33:03] As VMVR offered to do the north south length
[3:33:07] of the building has been reduced.
[3:33:12] I'm gonna jump ahead, Sean.
[3:33:14] Can you, is this your presentation, Heather? Or I'm sorry,
[3:33:17] - Your, it's, it's stuck.
[3:33:23] Oh, that's the end.
[3:33:25] - Oh, thank you. I'll go up then.
[3:33:32] I think this is important to understand
[3:33:34] 'cause it, it, it's being largely overlooked.
[3:33:41] The diagram you see on the screen in front of you
[3:33:44] in the brown shading, that was,
[3:33:46] that is the existing building as proposed today.
[3:33:50] The yellow moat that is essentially around that building
[3:33:54] that is the proposal back that you saw back in December
[3:33:58] and the Town Council saw in January.
[3:34:01] We've significantly reduced the amount of length
[3:34:05] to the building and width of that building on the site.
[3:34:09] This is also at the ground point.
[3:34:11] If you look in the upper right hand corner
[3:34:14] of our building kind of screen,
[3:34:15] right upper right hand corner of the building, there's
[3:34:17] that beige light brown color that is building mass
[3:34:21] that has been entirely removed
[3:34:23] above the first level of the building.
[3:34:25] So from ground, it shows up here
[3:34:27] because it does touch the ground as a footprint,
[3:34:29] but once you're above grade, that
[3:34:33] that building mass has been entirely reduced from the site.
[3:34:37] That was in response to the input that we had received from
[3:34:40] from VMVR.
[3:34:42] We believe we've gone through and checked each of the boxes.
[3:34:45] However, now V-M-V-R-H-O-A board is now back saying the
[3:34:49] development is too large and too tall.
[3:34:51] Either the V-M-V-R-H-O-A board of directors never intended
[3:34:57] to negotiate in good faith
[3:34:58] or Howard Willard, who I've spoken with dozens,
[3:35:02] literally dozens of times was not authorized
[3:35:06] to speak on behalf of the board.
[3:35:08] Either way, the applicant acted in favor, acted favorably
[3:35:12] and demonstrated its willingness to collaborate
[3:35:14] with its neighbors and as requested by the PEC.
[3:35:18] Despite the response that we got from VMVR,
[3:35:22] our plans are gonna stay the same.
[3:35:24] The deal, we're not looking to retrade the deal as,
[3:35:27] as has been suggested by VMVR finally as attested to
[3:35:31] by the, the Vail Fire Department.
[3:35:33] The applicant has not refused
[3:35:35] to help improve emergency vehicle access.
[3:35:38] In fact, despite not being required,
[3:35:40] this is an important distinction.
[3:35:41] This is not required by the Vail Town Code
[3:35:44] or by the adopted fire code.
[3:35:46] The applicant has generat generated the idea
[3:35:49] to improve the existing access path
[3:35:52] and present it to the town for review.
[3:35:54] It's been presented to the town.
[3:35:55] I think back in May was the first time we met
[3:35:58] with the fire department to demonstrate this plan.
[3:36:01] So it, it has been out there
[3:36:03] and it is out there since VR VMVR has gone back on its word
[3:36:07] and desires to retrade its deal
[3:36:09] and sought to extort rather than collaborate.
[3:36:12] I have chosen to take a different approach
[3:36:13] to resolving the issues rather than continue to
[3:36:17] actively engage with VMVR.
[3:36:19] Please don't allow yourselves to be misled
[3:36:21] and represented by the VM V-R-H-O-A board of directors.
[3:36:32] I do want to respond to some of the, the questions
[3:36:35] and comments that came up.
[3:36:42] Fire access. We've talked about, we heard numerous folks
[3:36:45] kind of represent a willingness to collaborate on a,
[3:36:50] a shared development plan.
[3:36:52] Again for 18 months.
[3:36:54] I spoke in front of this board
[3:36:55] and the Town Council about a desire
[3:36:58] to solve the Apollo Park puzzle.
[3:37:01] We tried, we tried diligently,
[3:37:03] we tried numerous different ways.
[3:37:07] We revised the plans there.
[3:37:08] There was comment in the,
[3:37:10] in the public comments about the number of revisions
[3:37:13] and the length of this review process.
[3:37:15] I think that's largely because of the,
[3:37:17] the numerous revisions we continue to make in an effort
[3:37:21] to try to come up with a solution
[3:37:22] that solved the Apollo Park puzzle.
[3:37:25] Unfortunately, we haven't been able to do that.
[3:37:27] Quite honestly, when I say we,
[3:37:30] I mean not only the applicant in Apollo Park,
[3:37:33] but that includes the town staff, the neighbors,
[3:37:36] the planning commission, the Town Council
[3:37:38] to solve The Apollo Park puzzle as we continued to,
[3:37:41] to reiterate, was going
[3:37:43] to take more than just one individual,
[3:37:45] just a, a small group of people.
[3:37:47] It was going to take a concerted effort
[3:37:50] by everybody involved, excuse me, involved to get there.
[3:37:54] There was conversation also about,
[3:37:58] and I don't want to go into this
[3:38:00] 'cause I understand this is not your purview,
[3:38:02] but there are legal agreements, lease agreements
[3:38:05] between Lunar Bay land investment in Apollo Park
[3:38:09] that are not the purview of this board.
[3:38:11] They're not to be adjudicated by this board,
[3:38:14] but there are some, some issues that that came up that i,
[3:38:16] I do want to just brush on quickly because it's important.
[3:38:19] I think that everyone understands within those agreements,
[3:38:22] there is written acknowledgement
[3:38:25] that a building E is going to exist on this site
[3:38:29] and it would exist in the location
[3:38:30] of the surface parking lot
[3:38:32] where we're proposing to put this building.
[3:38:34] It also acknowledges
[3:38:36] that there are no additional development rights available
[3:38:40] to Apollo Park beyond what is out there in existing today.
[3:38:44] Again, as I shared, we accommodate those
[3:38:46] and propose those be addressed in this
[3:38:49] special development district.
[3:38:50] So in the event that something happens to Apollo Park,
[3:38:53] it can be rebuilt.
[3:38:55] This diagram that's on the screen that,
[3:38:57] that the architects put back together for me, it it,
[3:39:00] it shows some additional information
[3:39:03] and that is, if you look to the left hand side of the pool,
[3:39:06] you see that kind of pink color, darker pink color
[3:39:09] and the light pink color.
[3:39:11] The darker pink color was the riverfront
[3:39:14] building in the location.
[3:39:15] We originally had it proposed.
[3:39:17] You'll notice that nothing
[3:39:18] that we're doing on this north portion
[3:39:20] of the site prohibits the redevelopment
[3:39:23] of a riverfront building.
[3:39:25] And, and in fact we, we have gone to lengths to understand
[3:39:28] that if in the future there were to be an opportunity
[3:39:32] to collaborate with Apollo Park in a way
[3:39:36] that is both financially viable
[3:39:38] and can be approved by the Town of Vail.
[3:39:40] That's the important distinction can
[3:39:42] be approved by the Town of Vail.
[3:39:44] We've, we've ensured that in our proposed plan
[3:39:46] that you're looking at today, that we can extend
[3:39:50] that parking structure as we originally intended.
[3:39:53] Nothing changes about what we're seeking approval for today
[3:39:57] to what we could potentially do if the parties
[3:40:00] can collaborate in the future.
[3:40:08] It was interesting listening to some of the comments
[3:40:13] because we agree there was a lot more agreement from
[3:40:16] what was shared today than I think people truly understand.
[3:40:20] We agree it's an old outdated building.
[3:40:24] Apollo Park at some point probably needs to be redeveloped.
[3:40:27] It wasn't contemplated in the master plan and
[3:40:30] therefore it was not supported by the town.
[3:40:32] The redevelopment of Apollo Park was not supported
[3:40:35] because it was not acknowledged in the master plan.
[3:40:38] We talked about the value of,
[3:40:40] or the distinction between there being a, you know,
[3:40:44] you know, I think the only thing worse,
[3:40:46] I may have shared this, the only thing worse than not having
[3:40:48] a master plan for your guidance
[3:40:50] and review as a planning commission and as a planning staff
[3:40:53] and an and an applicant is to have an outdated master plan.
[3:40:56] Because by its very nature,
[3:40:58] it leads you down the wrong path.
[3:41:00] From the very beginning of your planning efforts,
[3:41:03] we attempted to amend the master plan so
[3:41:06] that we were all moving forward in, in a similar direction.
[3:41:10] Again, the Apollo Park puzzle, we couldn't get there.
[3:41:13] We tried, but most importantly,
[3:41:15] there's nothing about this application today
[3:41:17] that precludes us from continuing as we, as we go forward.
[3:41:22] In fact, lunar VA's objective has always been
[3:41:26] to complete a whole property redevelopment.
[3:41:28] Apollo Park would like to believe
[3:41:30] that Lunar VA has done nothing
[3:41:31] to collaborate on a whole party redevelopment project.
[3:41:36] Three different planning efforts
[3:41:37] and countless plan iterations prove otherwise.
[3:41:41] Interestingly, lunar VA residences again now are in,
[3:41:44] in the exact same location
[3:41:46] and configuration today as they were yesterday.
[3:41:50] Albeit they are now reduced in size and footprint.
[3:41:55] This change in no way impacts the redevelopment
[3:41:57] of Apollo Park in the future.
[3:42:00] Yet Apollo Park Association somehow now today
[3:42:05] vehemently opposes it
[3:42:06] because it does not comply
[3:42:08] with the zoning in the in the master plan.
[3:42:10] This seems duplicitous to us.
[3:42:13] It appears that to be Apollo Park may be experiencing a bit
[3:42:16] of negotiator's remorse.
[3:42:18] It has been requested of the association by lunar ville
[3:42:22] that rather than opposing the plan that they,
[3:42:24] that they once fully supported propose a redevelopment
[3:42:28] option that is both financially viable
[3:42:30] and can't be approved by the Town of Vail.
[3:42:33] Lunar VA is prepared
[3:42:34] to enthusiastically reengage in a whole party redevelopment
[3:42:38] instead of investing in legal effort,
[3:42:41] legal efforts perhaps do as Vail lunar VA has done
[3:42:45] and invest in redevelopment design alternatives
[3:42:49] that the town will approve.
[3:42:54] It. It, it seems like I said that, that
[3:42:58] there's support for collaboration
[3:43:01] but at this point in time from both sides,
[3:43:04] but regardless of of how that collaboration
[3:43:08] plays out going forward, there is an opportunity
[3:43:11] for a redeveloped building pursuant
[3:43:13] to the master plan on the surface parking lot.
[3:43:15] In this portion of the avail village master plan
[3:43:18] that we're proposing and requesting approval for
[3:43:22] or a recommendation of approval for today,
[3:43:25] we'd again ask you to approve this project
[3:43:28] to the Town Council, subject to the conditions
[3:43:30] that were recommended by the town staff, the
[3:43:35] adoption or the alteration
[3:43:37] to the community housing plan option two,
[3:43:40] and the understanding that prior to first reading
[3:43:44] of an amending ordinance, we will show that
[3:43:48] fire department access that the applicant has agreed
[3:43:51] and been agreeing to provide for months now on our plans.
[3:43:56] So the Town Council has the benefit for that.
[3:43:59] I do want to be very clear about the,
[3:44:01] the fire department access
[3:44:04] because a large portion of
[3:44:06] that encroaches onto this property
[3:44:08] and it is not required by the International Fire Code.
[3:44:12] And I believe the town staff can reiterate this as,
[3:44:16] as stated by the Vail Fire Department.
[3:44:19] We would like a fire lane designation applied to
[3:44:24] that site so that it is used for fire lanes
[3:44:27] and not for any other reasons.
[3:44:29] I think the real reason Vail Mountain View residence is,
[3:44:32] is looking for this fire lane access is they have an
[3:44:36] expectation of using it for remodels and removal
[3:44:40] and repair of hot tubs and whatnot on their site
[3:44:43] because that's how this issue first arose was, you know, how
[3:44:48] how are we gonna get to our buildings
[3:44:49] to take our hot tubs down again, we'll,
[3:44:52] we'll provide fire access for life safety
[3:44:55] and property protection purposes.
[3:44:57] I'm not sure given the, the circumstances that
[3:45:02] also providing access for remodels construction
[3:45:05] and hot tub removals was the intended purpose
[3:45:08] of of that objective.
[3:45:12] - If I may from, I have a,
[3:45:15] an email from the fire department from our Fire,
[3:45:18] fire Marshal Taylor Ross,
[3:45:20] and this is in, in regard to the fire lane
[3:45:24] that he is talking about between Mountain View
[3:45:27] and lunar ville and it says regarding the approval
[3:45:30] of the PEC, it is not dependent on the improved access via
[3:45:35] this easement and it could be documented in the DRB
[3:45:38] or building permit stage if an agreement is reached.
[3:45:42] But Vail fired and emergency services should be consulted
[3:45:44] to provide guidance.
[3:45:46] Since it is not a requirement, we're not going
[3:45:49] to include this as a condition of approval.
[3:45:52] So it is a civil matter at this point
[3:45:54] and once the civil matter is resolved,
[3:45:57] then the fire department will be
[3:45:59] involved to look at those changes.
[3:46:01] - Understood. - The only thing I,
[3:46:05] I believe we have some legal counsel online that just wants
[3:46:09] to make a quick remark in response to,
[3:46:12] - To our council.
[3:46:13] We can, yeah, we can consider that as applicant.
[3:46:16] Common. Thank
[3:46:17] - You.
[3:46:20] - Is it Mary? Is that who I should be promoting? Mary,
[3:46:24] - What names should we promote - Or is it Chris?
[3:46:27] Chris, Chris
[3:46:30] - Pain?
[3:46:32] - Well probably Chris.
[3:46:34] I have a, I have a Mary with her hand raised.
[3:46:38] I'm gonna just see if this is Chris.
[3:46:40] I don't have Chris who you're looking for is online.
[3:46:46] - It may be.
[3:46:50] - This is Chris Payne. There.
[3:46:52] - There we go. We have you Chris
[3:46:59] - Payne.
[3:47:00] I'm a partner with the law firm
[3:47:01] of Ballard Spar based in Denver.
[3:47:03] My address is Littleton, Colorado.
[3:47:07] And again, I'll be brief as course you heard from George.
[3:47:12] We received a comment letter from
[3:47:15] the Apollo Park at
[3:47:24] - Chris.
[3:47:25] You're, you're cutting out. We're losing you
[3:47:33] Chris, we've, we've lost you.
[3:47:35] You're still promoted. We can't hear you.
[3:47:47] We, we can hear you now. It might be a bad connection.
[3:47:50] - Alright, I'll stop shuffling papers in front
[3:47:53] of the microphone as well.
[3:47:56] We did present a supplemental
[3:48:01] response to the
[3:48:03] association's memo.
[3:48:06] They provided effectively two memos, one dated July 6th,
[3:48:11] another dated July 23rd.
[3:48:15] Hopefully our memo will, will be, make it into the
[3:48:21] package for today's meeting,
[3:48:23] but I just wanted to highlight it's
[3:48:24] - Submitted to the record. Yep.
[3:48:26] - Points in support of the application
[3:48:35] separate and apart from George's summary indicating
[3:48:38] that there are, you know, new objections on
[3:48:43] town code compatibility
[3:48:48] and reasserting that the applicant has responded
[3:48:51] to those both comments both raised
[3:48:54] by the association and by other parties.
[3:48:56] There are two legal issues.
[3:48:58] The first is the association's contention that
[3:49:03] there is no authority to proceed with the application
[3:49:08] because the association has withdrawn its initial
[3:49:15] notice of of authorization.
[3:49:17] And then the second point being that,
[3:49:20] that the current application somehow has irrevocably
[3:49:26] denied the association, the ability to redevelop
[3:49:31] the existing buildings.
[3:49:32] What we're referring to as A and B on the first point.
[3:49:37] We've provided in the memo the association's initial
[3:49:42] notice of authorization that
[3:49:47] is effectively the similar form as the town's form
[3:49:53] and we support the opinion
[3:49:57] and share the opinion of the town attorneys that
[3:50:02] there is no, you know, unilateral right by the
[3:50:07] association to withdraw that a authority, particularly when
[3:50:13] the changes that have been made
[3:50:14] to the initial application have been to comply
[3:50:19] with the town code.
[3:50:21] This is not a situation where the applicant has somehow
[3:50:26] ginned up a completely new development
[3:50:30] and has tried to slip a, a prior approval
[3:50:35] by the association into a new application.
[3:50:41] This is a continuation of the existing application
[3:50:43] that the association authorized on the north building
[3:50:50] and is really just dissatisfied that the
[3:50:55] ability to redevelop a
[3:50:57] and B at this point was
[3:51:01] withdrawn from the initial application.
[3:51:06] On the second point, again as George stated, and
[3:51:10] and we concur based on our review of the ground lease,
[3:51:15] the amendments to the ground lease, the assignments
[3:51:18] of the ground lease all somewhat
[3:51:23] ine and the town doesn't need to get into
[3:51:26] but the end result is that lunar vale
[3:51:30] both reserved the development rights necessary to
[3:51:36] proceed with the current application
[3:51:39] is exercising those development rights
[3:51:42] and also continues to hold any development rights applicable
[3:51:47] to the future redevelopment of building A and B.
[3:51:51] So as George concluded,
[3:51:56] we stand ready to exercise the development rights when there
[3:51:59] is a, a viable development
[3:52:03] and nothing in the current application has
[3:52:07] from a private legal matter reduced
[3:52:10] or eliminated those, those reserve development rights.
[3:52:14] So again, glad to answer any questions.
[3:52:17] Thank you for your time.
[3:52:20] We request the recommendation to proceed with approval
[3:52:23] of the current application.
[3:52:26] - Thank you. George, you have any further comments for us?
[3:52:32] Not at this time. Thank you there.
[3:52:34] Any further questions of the applicant from commissioners?
[3:52:43] I seeing none, I'd like to move into commissioner comment.
[3:52:48] This is an involved one. Anyone willing to lead us off?
[3:52:54] - I can try. - Okay. Commissioner Wallace,
[3:52:57] - Do, do we want to start by, we have to make a decision
[3:53:01] between like option one and option two.
[3:53:03] Do we wanna separate that or just
[3:53:05] - Include it?
[3:53:06] If there's a motion then that would be part
[3:53:07] of the motion in amending the conditions to comply
[3:53:10] to con to option two.
[3:53:12] Yep. So you could state, you know, as we,
[3:53:14] as you talk about your comments on the file in general,
[3:53:17] you could state your, you know, your thoughts on that.
[3:53:21] - Okay. Alright.
[3:53:27] So first I'm gonna be reading a little bit,
[3:53:30] there's a lot here and I think I, I think the beginning
[3:53:34] of this is addressing my thoughts on some
[3:53:39] of the public comments.
[3:53:40] So first of all, I think it's imperative that the safety
[3:53:43] of residents be insured at all phases
[3:53:45] of construction on safety.
[3:53:48] I will defer to our fire department and,
[3:53:49] but I want to ensure that the concerns raised have been
[3:53:52] addressed in the department's approval as it relates
[3:53:54] to all phases of the project.
[3:53:57] I also think that it, it directly
[3:54:00] and indirectly relates to I believe part of our master plan
[3:54:04] where construction impacts should be resolved rather than
[3:54:07] deferred and coordinated
[3:54:10] to minimize unintended consequences.
[3:54:12] We've talked about that from both sides ad nauseum today.
[3:54:15] So, you know, the one thing
[3:54:19] that was left in my mind was there a lot of, a lot
[3:54:22] of folks raised the issue of temporary parking,
[3:54:24] which I think is a component of that.
[3:54:26] I don't know if there's a plan. I didn't hear that today.
[3:54:36] I kind of said this from the beginning,
[3:54:37] but I I believe we should have
[3:54:40] attorney representation on record
[3:54:41] to explain why this specific project does not require
[3:54:44] approval or why the approval
[3:54:46] or validate the memo that we received today.
[3:54:48] Which I think is gonna be made part of the record.
[3:54:52] I do understand that there was an earlier approval
[3:54:54] by Apollo, but that the plan has changed
[3:54:56] and I personally can't get my head around how
[3:54:59] that does not require additional approval.
[3:55:02] I'm, I rely on the advice
[3:55:04] that we have from counsel from our earlier meetings
[3:55:09] and so I'm not trying to rera that.
[3:55:10] I just wanted to say, I just wanted to point that out.
[3:55:23] It was raised that there's lack of information sharing
[3:55:26] and process during the processes
[3:55:28] and I do agree that that's probably something
[3:55:30] to be addressed in civil court and I mentioned
[3:55:33] before that the, however our code does encourage resolving
[3:55:36] these situations ahead of time
[3:55:38] and it sounds like maybe in one
[3:55:40] of the earlier PEC meetings I wasn't a part of.
[3:55:42] We encourage coordinating.
[3:55:44] I I I do think that's coordinating must haves
[3:55:48] and not nice to haves.
[3:55:50] So where are people gonna park safety, not extorting money.
[3:55:53] So
[3:55:59] I think I I I personally struggle
[3:56:01] with whether the project is fully aligned
[3:56:04] with the master plan re regardless
[3:56:06] of whether we should have one
[3:56:07] or that's a great way for our
[3:56:10] community to manage development.
[3:56:13] I think the biggest thing for me is, is sort
[3:56:17] of the view corridor protection
[3:56:20] and the landscape buffer from frontage road.
[3:56:22] Those are the areas I think that even though we have Altus,
[3:56:27] I think it, this worsens the situation when I drive down I
[3:56:29] 70 and I see open space that's now community housing
[3:56:33] and I go back and I look at some
[3:56:35] of the different communities with our neighborhood
[3:56:36] and I drive by this three
[3:56:38] or four times a week when I go to Ford Park.
[3:56:42] I think if we fill in all the open space someday we we do
[3:56:46] lose the character that was intended by some of the
[3:56:49] direction from the master plan
[3:56:55] and yeah, so it's not,
[3:56:58] it's not the variances specifically
[3:57:01] and I appreciate you clarifying the setbacks
[3:57:03] 'cause I had remembered that we weren't really asking
[3:57:05] for any major setback exceptions that didn't already exist.
[3:57:10] Okay. So that's, that's a start.
[3:57:15] - Commissioner Jensen, I mean I am,
[3:57:19] I am appreciated.
[3:57:21] All the public comment, there was a lot of emotion there
[3:57:25] and as a commissioner I can't base decisions on emotion.
[3:57:32] I am, I still, I guess am concerned Heather about
[3:57:37] fire safety and reading
[3:57:40] that email from the fire marshal that basically
[3:57:45] absolved themself, they're going by the international code
[3:57:48] that George points out that they're in compliance with to me
[3:57:53] is it's,
[3:57:58] it's just so non-committal
[3:58:00] and you know, I heard all the feedback.
[3:58:03] You look at it, it sounds
[3:58:05] to me like there still is conversations happening
[3:58:10] between the neighbors about this.
[3:58:13] I agree, George. No, it's not for the crane to come in
[3:58:16] to get the hot tub out.
[3:58:17] It's there to bring fire equipment in if there's a fire.
[3:58:22] But I just, you know, I just want to be on the record that
[3:58:28] it's, it's important from the town, town
[3:58:33] that and the fire department that the fire,
[3:58:37] that all the safety things
[3:58:40] are addressed in this recommendation.
[3:58:45] So, you know that that's the big one.
[3:58:52] You know, I I'm not gonna comment on the emotional stuff.
[3:58:55] It's, I it's, it's
[3:59:02] the, the situation I would say right now is, is not
[3:59:06] where anybody would like to see it,
[3:59:08] but I'm not gonna base my decision on that.
[3:59:13] - Commissioner - Brown,
[3:59:20] - I appreciate what you guys have said so far.
[3:59:23] I think my, my first question,
[3:59:29] and it's a question still is that I'm a little,
[3:59:33] I'm a little taken
[3:59:34] with the fire access question in the sense that I want
[3:59:37] to understand is the application in front
[3:59:40] of us today the final application
[3:59:42] that incorporates the most recent
[3:59:44] conversations with the fire department?
[3:59:46] Are we there, are we looking at that?
[3:59:48] - Yes. And,
[3:59:50] and let me explain, I don't know Heather,
[3:59:52] if you can bring up that fire truck access.
[3:59:55] I, I apologize. The,
[3:59:57] the you the fire department access breaks down into two
[4:00:01] separate issues and, and
[4:00:02] and I I was hopeful the Vail Fire Department could join us
[4:00:05] today to speak to this
[4:00:07] 'cause I think they would've alleviated your concerns Bill
[4:00:10] and been done a better job of addressing this question.
[4:00:13] But there's two issues with fire department access,
[4:00:16] fire department access.
[4:00:18] Go back one more Heather to that one right there.
[4:00:22] That is the, the application as proposed
[4:00:25] and it shows the fire truck,
[4:00:27] I mean this is months in the making.
[4:00:30] It shows the firetruck accessing the site coming down onto
[4:00:34] site to an approved staging area
[4:00:36] where the fire department stages
[4:00:38] and can then access both the lunar vale residences as well
[4:00:42] as Apollo park buildings A and B, this plan.
[4:00:46] And if the fire department was here, I don't wanna speak
[4:00:49] for 'em, but I think they would say this
[4:00:50] and that was Heather's comment would say,
[4:00:53] this plan has been fully vetted
[4:00:55] by the Vail Fire Department and approve.
[4:00:58] We wouldn't be here today if that plan did not comply.
[4:01:03] So, so this, this provides emergency vehicle access to
[4:01:07] luter VA North Apollo Park buildings A and b it also,
[4:01:11] and we we're, we're can
[4:01:16] with with some additional collaboration
[4:01:18] which we have offered.
[4:01:20] It can also provide emergency vehicle access
[4:01:23] to the rent immediately adjacent to the these because,
[4:01:28] but for collaborating on that access,
[4:01:31] there may be the requirement
[4:01:33] for redundant fire department access in the future
[4:01:36] for the rent we're saying
[4:01:38] and worked with the fire department to get
[4:01:40] to a fire state access
[4:01:42] and staging plan as you're seeing here on the diagram
[4:01:44] that not only meets the requirements for the lunar VA site,
[4:01:48] but also provides a future access to the rent.
[4:01:51] So that box is checked the second box if you go
[4:01:55] to the next plan,
[4:01:59] this was the request
[4:02:01] of the Vail Fire Department understanding.
[4:02:04] And I think what Ryan, or excuse me,
[4:02:05] what Taylor Taylor Ross's email referenced was
[4:02:10] based upon the life safety report
[4:02:12] and we did submit a life safety report
[4:02:14] with this application based upon the findings
[4:02:17] of the life safety report.
[4:02:19] Our project fully complies.
[4:02:22] We, we, this property owner is under no obligation
[4:02:25] to provide emergency vehicle access
[4:02:28] to the adjacent property owners.
[4:02:30] And as you heard, Vail Mountain View residents say they have
[4:02:33] a 13 foot wide or a some width wide access.
[4:02:38] What we said to the Vail Fire Department
[4:02:40] and the Vail Fire Department has seen this plan
[4:02:42] and approved this plan
[4:02:43] and we're willing to amend our application prior
[4:02:47] to first reading to the Town Council, documenting this plan,
[4:02:51] showing how we would improve, expand the width
[4:02:55] of the fire department, access entirely on
[4:02:59] lunar vale's property.
[4:03:00] So this access can actually be accommodated
[4:03:03] and we would do it because I think we all agree
[4:03:06] it's the right thing to do.
[4:03:08] It should be a public benefit, it's a life safety issue.
[4:03:11] If the buildings next door start burning it doesn't do us
[4:03:14] any good if, if they can't get to,
[4:03:17] to Vail Mountain View or to Altus.
[4:03:19] So we're willing to do this plan.
[4:03:22] The only thing that we have asked for,
[4:03:24] and I think we need, we need confirmation from the town
[4:03:28] and Vail Mountain view residences.
[4:03:31] There are encroachments
[4:03:32] that Vail Mountain View residences has constructed into the
[4:03:36] existing easement rather than address those encroachments on
[4:03:41] our side of the property line, meaning move more
[4:03:43] of the fire lane onto our side.
[4:03:45] We think they should be required
[4:03:47] to remove those non-compliant improvements.
[4:03:50] It's a fence and some trees.
[4:03:52] I, I believe is what's, is what's there.
[4:03:55] We're willing to do that plan again as, as Heather's email,
[4:03:59] reading the email from Taylor.
[4:04:01] I think what he is citing to is he, they can't,
[4:04:04] the fire department cannot require us to do this
[4:04:06] because we're not obligated to do so under the fire code.
[4:04:10] We are volunteering
[4:04:12] or volunteering to do this for the benefit
[4:04:15] of the, of the neighborhood.
[4:04:19] - I wanna build on that a little bit
[4:04:21] and I'm certainly not gonna speak for Vail Fire,
[4:04:24] but we do have a life safety consultant Ron Elli,
[4:04:27] Steve Relli of Ron Elli Life Safety.
[4:04:32] And there's a perception that's been shared
[4:04:34] to this afternoon that the existing condition
[4:04:39] of Apollo Park is satisfactory for fighting fires.
[4:04:43] That's inaccurate. And what we propose
[4:04:47] improves not only access but staging, dedicated staging
[4:04:50] because currently the parking spaces
[4:04:54] that have been a hot topic,
[4:04:57] apparently they're used quite often when
[4:05:00] that parking lot is full a firetruck a hundred foot ladder,
[4:05:04] which they'll has cannot go in and turn around successfully.
[4:05:08] This plan, this proposal provides
[4:05:10] for a dedicated firetruck turnaround that turns
[4:05:13] that a hundred truck apparat a hundred foot
[4:05:15] apparatus around successfully.
[4:05:18] It also has improved fire staging
[4:05:19] and firefighting capabilities
[4:05:22] that's been discussed ad nauseum with fail fire
[4:05:25] with our consultant and just generally
[4:05:29] not only passes the smell test
[4:05:31] but also improves the functionality of firefighting.
[4:05:34] Today, probably most relevant to Apollo Park itself,
[4:05:39] other buildings around
[4:05:40] to include the proposed north building are
[4:05:41] sprinkled Apollo Park is not.
[4:05:45] So that improves the, this is not a, not only a change
[4:05:49] to the existing fire access,
[4:05:52] but a very large improvement thereof.
[4:05:56] Commissioner Brown, do you further
[4:05:57] - Comments?
[4:06:00] I do have one further. I yes I do.
[4:06:05] Page it's 221.
[4:06:07] It's the landscape plan shows
[4:06:12] a corridor of trees that creates the,
[4:06:15] the entry toward Apollo Park.
[4:06:18] Are those trees, those trees are a commitment
[4:06:23] under the landscape plan?
[4:06:24] Correct.
[4:06:25] - Tho those trees as we have been, no, they are not. Okay.
[4:06:30] Those trees were cited again in collaborate in hopes
[4:06:34] of collaborating with our property owners to the east.
[4:06:38] And as we have talked about in the past, those trees
[4:06:41] because of Eagle River Water
[4:06:43] and sanitation districts new requirements
[4:06:46] would not allow the existing that,
[4:06:49] that they replace an existing row of trees.
[4:06:51] The existing row of trees could not be replaced under the
[4:06:54] Eagle River water and sanitation district's
[4:06:57] existing requirements.
[4:07:00] We can put those trees back
[4:07:03] and I believe the REN had sought for those trees
[4:07:07] to be put back.
[4:07:10] If we take that main water line, there's a main water line
[4:07:13] that goes from the frontage road down to the buildings.
[4:07:17] If we convert that main water line to a service line,
[4:07:20] then the district does not care
[4:07:22] what we plant within 10 feet of that line.
[4:07:26] If we do that, we're able to then plant those trees.
[4:07:30] And as you heard, Debbie Charles, I, I think share,
[4:07:35] she did not feel that there should be a commitment financial
[4:07:38] or otherwise by the REN to put those trees in.
[4:07:42] It's for that reason that we have since agreed
[4:07:46] to fund the replacement
[4:07:47] of those trees 100% if we can put 'em in
[4:07:51] that location On the site.
[4:07:56] Otherwise the district is gonna require those
[4:07:59] to be bushes and not trees.
[4:08:08] - So from a, from a planning perspective, this is treated
[4:08:12] as landscape be, but could be grass?
[4:08:14] That's correct. Okay.
[4:08:22] - I, - I think that's all that I have at the moment. It's
[4:08:27] - Commissioner - Whitaker.
[4:08:34] - So looking at
[4:08:39] the criteria and looking at the under current
[4:08:43] underlying and the evolution of this
[4:08:49] application, you know, when it comes
[4:08:52] to what's being currently proposed for density
[4:08:54] and GRFA, the max height
[4:08:59] and the setbacks, you know, have all
[4:09:04] of those issues, I'm extremely comfortable with, I think
[4:09:07] that the, the application, you know,
[4:09:11] it does a good job.
[4:09:14] It's meeting the requirements of what I see as both code
[4:09:19] as well as the town of Vail's master plan.
[4:09:23] I know the building height at one point was of concern to
[4:09:27] some members of this commission and members of the public.
[4:09:32] I fully feel like that the 69 foot roof
[4:09:37] is, is meeting what's in the master plan
[4:09:42] and you know, certainly the master plan contemplates
[4:09:46] that at some point this parking lot was gonna be infilled
[4:09:50] with development and that's what's being proposed
[4:09:54] and I support everything in this application
[4:09:59] surrounding those issues.
[4:10:04] There's one thing that I can't shake
[4:10:08] and it's the only thing
[4:10:09] that's giving me pause at this point in time in terms
[4:10:13] of approving this application
[4:10:16] and it's town code
[4:10:21] and it's 12 9 8 2
[4:10:23] or sorry 12 9 8 3,
[4:10:26] which I think the ex in this authorization letter issue
[4:10:31] that we've been discussing, I think that the exact
[4:10:36] language says, and the code says it requires written consent
[4:10:41] of owners of all property
[4:10:43] to be included in the special development district.
[4:10:48] And I know that we have this legal opinion from Ballard Spar
[4:10:52] that I have not read in detail.
[4:10:55] We've heard from the town attorney
[4:10:57] and staff in the past about this issue.
[4:11:00] I've got the written approval letter that was submitted
[4:11:04] with the, this application originally.
[4:11:09] My real problem with the approval level letter is
[4:11:13] that code requires written consent of owners of all property
[4:11:18] to be included in the STD and
[4:11:19] and written consent through the form
[4:11:22] of this written approval letter.
[4:11:24] It was submitted initially,
[4:11:27] but the way
[4:11:29] that this is being interpreted legally does not sit well
[4:11:33] with me because
[4:11:36] although the, the, this may be the same application
[4:11:40] that was proposed originally, this application is
[4:11:45] 100%, not 100%.
[4:11:49] The majority of this application is far different than
[4:11:52] what we saw what was originally proposed
[4:11:55] and in various contexts.
[4:11:58] And it, it just doesn't make sense to me
[4:12:02] that an approval letter for
[4:12:04] what was essentially a different project would be effective
[4:12:07] just because numbers didn't change on an application for
[4:12:12] what is being proposed now.
[4:12:13] And I guess the, this, I'm trying
[4:12:16] to develop a simple analogy for what my con concern here is,
[4:12:20] but, but you know, if someone, if you had
[4:12:23] to get consent from your neighbor in regard to a
[4:12:28] development on your lot and you own the neighboring lot
[4:12:34] and your neighbor saw the plans and everything well
[4:12:36] and they're like, oh well this, this is great, no problem.
[4:12:40] But then you come back to the, the building department
[4:12:45] with, well I'm not gonna do that plan anymore.
[4:12:48] I'm gonna just do this plan
[4:12:50] but I'm not changing my application number.
[4:12:53] Well why wouldn't the neighbor have,
[4:12:54] if it's materially different than what was originally done,
[4:12:58] why wouldn't the the neighbor have
[4:13:02] the neighbor's approval need to be obtained?
[4:13:04] Again because I consider these almost different applications
[4:13:09] and while I am generally in support of this application
[4:13:14] and I want to make sure that that's clear
[4:13:16] for the record at this point in terms of
[4:13:18] what people keep referring to as as variances,
[4:13:22] but it's really changes to the underlying zoning.
[4:13:25] I'm in support of all the changes
[4:13:27] that are being proposed right now
[4:13:29] and generally in support of moving this project forward.
[4:13:33] What I don't agree with is the legal analysis internally
[4:13:38] in what's been generated at this point.
[4:13:40] Again, I've not had, we were handed this letter
[4:13:43] so I haven't had a chance to review the legal analysis
[4:13:47] provided by Ballard Spar,
[4:13:48] but the pre legal analysis that apparently is
[4:13:51] provided with our
[4:13:53] internal legal department here in town I don't think is correct.
[4:13:58] So that's my problem with this application at this point.
[4:14:02] The rest of it looks good to me.
[4:14:07] - So my comments are, you know,
[4:14:09] I'll start out addressing public comment
[4:14:11] that it sincerely makes me happy to hear the stories
[4:14:14] of families coming here
[4:14:15] and forming good memories in our town.
[4:14:18] You know, the experience of the Apollo Park owners is great
[4:14:21] to hear that complex has created the amount of positivity
[4:14:24] to the Town of Vail that it has.
[4:14:27] I will say so that I earnestly don't believe
[4:14:30] that an approval here takes away rights from
[4:14:32] Apollo Park owners.
[4:14:34] It leaves the current buildings intact
[4:14:37] with the current ownership structure.
[4:14:41] I don't think it precludes the future redevelopment
[4:14:43] of the Apollo Park buildings either.
[4:14:45] If you look at the footprint now this of the lunar park
[4:14:48] north building, it's smaller than was proposed previously.
[4:14:52] So if anything there's more room
[4:14:53] to develop the Apollo Park buildings
[4:14:55] and there was previously, I don't buy that,
[4:14:58] there's not room to redevelop there.
[4:15:00] You know, this town sees
[4:15:02] redevelopment development all the time.
[4:15:03] There is incredibly challenging tight sites
[4:15:05] that happen all the time for development in this town.
[4:15:08] In town core. If there is a willpower among the owners
[4:15:11] to redevelop Apollo Park, it can't happen.
[4:15:14] And it's not that this commission's opposed to redevelopment
[4:15:17] of the Apollo Park buildings.
[4:15:19] What happened was in the previous proposal we did not
[4:15:21] believe complied with the master plan in stepping buildings
[4:15:24] towards Score Creek, which was the issue we had
[4:15:26] with this previous plan with the lunar park South buildings
[4:15:29] and the Apollo Park buildings in the previously
[4:15:32] submitted application.
[4:15:36] And you know, beyond beyond that issue, I think some of
[4:15:40] the public common largest currents concerns beyond bulk
[4:15:42] and mass seemed to come down to parking.
[4:15:45] But at the end of the day,
[4:15:47] the master plan specifically targets the surface lot
[4:15:50] for redevelopment as a use
[4:15:52] that should be redeveloped in the town.
[4:15:55] And we have to hold this project to the same standards
[4:15:57] that we hold other projects to if it's parked in accordance
[4:16:00] with our code, we have to honor that.
[4:16:04] Regarding the consent letter, I'm not an attorney,
[4:16:07] we have attorney, we have attorneys on this
[4:16:09] commission, I'm not one of them.
[4:16:11] So personally I will defer to the town
[4:16:13] council's recommendation here.
[4:16:16] I don't feel I have the expect expertise
[4:16:17] to make a determination on that.
[4:16:21] I wanna go further regarding the planning
[4:16:23] commission process on this file.
[4:16:25] 'cause there was a recent file,
[4:16:26] another file in a Town Council meeting
[4:16:28] that I heard some pretty disheartening public comment on
[4:16:31] saying that the planning commission rubber stamped an
[4:16:34] approval and rushed an approval through on a unrelated file.
[4:16:38] And you know, I want to thank the commission from that
[4:16:41] of time they've spent on this file.
[4:16:42] This is a volunteer board,
[4:16:44] there's been an exhaustive review of this application.
[4:16:47] We've spent, I don't even know how many meetings
[4:16:49] and hours reviewing this application sitting here.
[4:16:53] So thank you to commissioners who've spent the time
[4:16:55] to review this in such detail.
[4:16:57] And through that process, here's what we've come up with.
[4:17:00] We have reduced height, we've added steps in the building,
[4:17:04] we've reduced density, we've decreased,
[4:17:07] we've increased setbacks.
[4:17:08] So we only have a very small portion of setback
[4:17:11] that is nonconformance.
[4:17:14] The ones noted most
[4:17:16] of the ones notice nonconformance are stemming from the
[4:17:18] existing all the par pilot park buildings right now on the
[4:17:21] app, on the the matrix we've reduced bulk
[4:17:25] and mass, we've reduced unit count,
[4:17:27] we've increased the housing contribution
[4:17:29] and generally reduced the deviations of this file.
[4:17:32] So I think this process has worked
[4:17:34] and brought a better building to this
[4:17:36] that's better fits the town.
[4:17:38] And you know, regarding the zoning, there's comments
[4:17:41] regarding, well this is a conflict of HDMF zoning.
[4:17:44] Well there's a clear conflict here between HDM zoning
[4:17:46] and the Vail Village master plan.
[4:17:48] The Vail Village master plan clearly denotes five
[4:17:50] to six stories on this portion of the parcel
[4:17:53] and that's what's being recommended
[4:17:54] and I believe it's in accordance with that.
[4:17:58] Again, the Village MA Village master plan specifically calls
[4:18:02] out redevelopment of the existing surface parking lot at
[4:18:04] Apollo Park and and encouraging parking to be contained
[4:18:09] inside enclosed parking structure,
[4:18:10] which this building does do.
[4:18:14] I believe it's unfortunate that the redevelopment
[4:18:16] of Apollo Park is no longer included.
[4:18:18] Yes, but was previously proposed
[4:18:20] with the previous application,
[4:18:22] did not meet the Vail Village master plan,
[4:18:24] at least the guidelines that we are required to adhere to.
[4:18:28] And I believe this scaled back version does
[4:18:30] and still opens the door to a redevelopment
[4:18:32] of Apollo Park in the future.
[4:18:35] Finally, regarding that, the housing plan,
[4:18:39] I appreciate the options that were submitted
[4:18:40] by the housing department and I'm very much in favor
[4:18:43] of option two, which provides a mix of onsite housing
[4:18:48] as well as some funds that will kind of a force multiplier
[4:18:51] with other projects that the,
[4:18:52] the town is working on right now.
[4:18:55] Those are my comments. I dunno if there's further
[4:18:57] comments from commissioners.
[4:18:59] - I - I'd like to,
[4:19:02] I'm sorry, go ahead John.
[4:19:05] - I was just gonna say, you know, looking at Apollo Park
[4:19:07] and the future and future redevelopment, I mean I think
[4:19:10] that the, the applicant at that time would come back
[4:19:13] and seek an amendment of the SDD
[4:19:16] but I, you know, I, you can't predict
[4:19:19] what future commissions would do,
[4:19:21] but hopefully that there's enough of a record here as to
[4:19:25] what transpired here today,
[4:19:27] that you're not gonna have a commission that sits up here
[4:19:30] and is gonna be unreasonable in regard
[4:19:32] to a future application
[4:19:34] and resetting some of the parameters in terms
[4:19:39] of density GRFA in order
[4:19:44] to accomplish a redevelopment of those buildings.
[4:19:50] - Anything further? - I think, well I would say
[4:19:52] that like some of the additional comment on the history
[4:19:55] and the master plan I think has addressed
[4:19:57] some of my concerns.
[4:20:00] I personally preferred option one
[4:20:03] and I would would've wanted
[4:20:04] to see a single internally consistent proposal
[4:20:06] to support option two
[4:20:07] because I struggle with the increased GRFA and option two
[4:20:11] because it seems to me like we're adding 3000 square feet
[4:20:16] of additional GFA in exchange
[4:20:17] for a thousand dollars per square foot.
[4:20:19] And I don't personally believe
[4:20:21] that just the money alone addresses creating
[4:20:26] employee housing units in our village,
[4:20:28] but maybe other people feel differently on that.
[4:20:33] - Anything further from commissioners?
[4:20:37] - I, I mean I just learned that my read
[4:20:40] of the $2 million goes to Eastvale
[4:20:43] and the CDOT property, which I really think is a valuable
[4:20:48] affordable housing project for this community
[4:20:52] versus Vail Village.
[4:20:55] - I agree with that but I don't,
[4:20:57] I don't think there's any guarantee
[4:20:58] that's what it goes towards.
[4:21:00] - It was written that way.
[4:21:02] - Okay. And maybe I misunderstood.
[4:21:09] - Is there further comment from commissioners?
[4:21:13] Hearing none. I'll also make one final comment
[4:21:16] that this is not a final approval, this is a recommendation
[4:21:19] to the Town Council final.
[4:21:20] If there is a recommendation for approval
[4:21:22] or denial either way this will go
[4:21:24] to the Town Council for another hearing.
[4:21:27] With that said, is there a motion?
[4:21:30] - I'll make a motion. The Planning
[4:21:33] and Environmental Commission approves
[4:21:36] with conditions the applicant's request for a recommendation
[4:21:40] to the Devale Town Council for the establishment
[4:21:43] of a new special development district pursuant to section 12
[4:21:49] dash nine, a special development district's VA town
[4:21:54] code to allow to allow for the development
[4:21:57] of a multifamily project
[4:21:59] located at 4 4 2 South Frontage Road,
[4:22:03] Eastvale Village filing five track D
[4:22:07] PEC 26 dash 11.
[4:22:11] And with that motion I include the
[4:22:16] conditions found on page 18
[4:22:18] and 19 with the addition of one one condition,
[4:22:23] that option two of the housing recommendation
[4:22:29] is included and then also the four findings on page
[4:22:35] 20, I believe.
[4:22:37] - So thank your motion would amend conditions three
[4:22:39] and 13 to comply
[4:22:40] with option two presented
[4:22:42] by the housing department. Thank you for
[4:22:43] - If we might recommend just striking conditions
[4:22:47] three and 13.
[4:22:48] Yeah. And adding conditions one through four on page three
[4:22:52] of the lunar park housing staff memo dated July 27th, 2026.
[4:22:57] - Thank you. Robin, - You're okay with that Bill?
[4:23:00] - Yes I am. - Okay.
[4:23:01] There's a motion by Commissioner Jensen. Is there a second?
[4:23:08] I will second. All in favor please say aye. Aye.
[4:23:12] Aye. All opposed?
[4:23:15] - Opposed? - That motion carries four to one. Thank you.
[4:23:22] The final
[4:23:23] or actually the next item on our agenda is the approval
[4:23:26] of the minutes from the July 13th meeting of the PEC.
[4:23:30] Is there a motion on those minutes? So
[4:23:32] - Moved.
[4:23:33] - The motion to approve by Commissioner Jensen.
[4:23:35] Is there a second? Second.
[4:23:36] There's a second by Commissioner Brown.
[4:23:38] All in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. All opposed hearing?
[4:23:43] None opposed? I
[4:23:44] - Ab I abstain. Oh,
[4:23:46] - I was not present.
[4:23:47] We have four, four
[4:23:48] and one abstention for Commissioner Reder
[4:23:51] who is not present at the meeting.
[4:23:53] The next item is an information update.
[4:23:56] Heather, do you have anything for us?
[4:23:57] - Nothing new. Just thank you as always for your time
[4:24:00] and your, your wisdom on these projects.
[4:24:02] - Okay, good.
[4:24:05] - We just wanted to say thank you.
[4:24:06] We gotta get a chance to thank the commission as well.
[4:24:09] But not only the commission but the public comment.
[4:24:11] I think there is opportunity as was discussed.
[4:24:15] I truly think that if the same support that came out
[4:24:19] in opposition today of Apollo Park had come out in support
[4:24:24] of that original plan,
[4:24:25] we would all be in a very different place today.
[4:24:29] So thank you. Thank you. I
[4:24:31] - Want thank the commissioner personally.
[4:24:32] You spent a tremendous amount of time on this on record.
[4:24:35] Off the record that,
[4:24:37] and we have been talking, this is a five year,
[4:24:41] it's not 18 months, it's five years we've been
[4:24:44] and we do want to work with Apollo Cars to try to redevelop.
[4:24:48] They just have to agree to fit in the box
[4:24:50] that you guys will all all work with
[4:24:52] and if we can do that, we will develop entire site.
[4:24:55] Thank you so much. Thank you.
[4:24:56] - Thanks for your time. It's certainly not lost on us
[4:24:58] how much you, you put into this
[4:25:00] and in your free time, which is probably not ample
[4:25:03] or anything like me. So thank you. Well,
[4:25:06] - Thank you.
[4:25:07] Are there any questions
[4:25:09] or information updates from commissioners for staff?
[4:25:12] Hearing none. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved.
[4:25:16] Is there a second? Second. All in favor please say aye. Aye.
[4:25:20] Aye. All opposed And carries unanimously or adjourned.
[4:25:23] Thank you.