[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[0:23] is 3.1 has been withdrawn.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.

Vail Planning and Environmental Commission

Agenda

Transcript