HomeMy WebLinkAboutUNPLATTED TOV PUBLIC WORKS SNOW STORAGE FACILITYFll.E c0Py
MEMORANDUM
TO: Lorelei Donaldson
FROM: MaryAnn Besl
DATE: March 24,2@5
SUBJECT: Quitclaim Deed - Snow Storage Area
Attrached is the original Deed from Vail Associates, lnc. to the Towr of Vail giving title to the snow
storage ar€a wts formerly leased. Please file in the filp safe.
Location is N. % Section 8, Torrvnship 5 S., Range 80 West of 0s Principal Meridian and north of
Interstat€ 70, recorded at Reception No. 908756.
Attachment
OTA File #338
lilll f!,i",,",,
R 11.00 D o.oo
| illill lllll ll||ill il||t ilt ililt ]ilt ilt ill|Trrk J Sinonton Eaglr, C0 319
QIIITCLAIMDEED
[StatutoryForm- C.R.S. $ 38-30-116] a)rt -
TIIE VAIL CORPORATION, DiBlA VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC., a Colorado
corporation, whose street address is c/o Vail Resorts Development Company, P.O. Box 959,
137 Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado 81620, for good and valuable consideration, in hand paid
or received, hereby sells and quitclaims to TOWN OF VAIL, a municipal corporation duly
organized and existing under and by virnre of the laws of Colorado, whose street address is
75 South Frontage Road West, Vail, Colorado 81657, the real property in the County of Eagle
and State of Colorado that is described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference, with all its appurtenances.
Signed this 4'f-\day of f\,lnw-t -.,2005.
THE VAIL CORPORATION, D/B/A VAIL
ASSOCIATES, INC., a Colorado corporation
srArE or ( alora J O
By:
)
) ss:
)
IcouNTYoF traq I(
!t
The foreeoins instrument was
_,206s,6v llrnrfha\,
rporation, d/b/a Vail Associates, Inc., a Colorado corporation.
Witness mv hand and official seal.
F"lrrno
before r4e this
irs Sr.l;c e ,
619t54.1 RCFISH
EXHIBIT A
Legal DescriPtion
TTIAT PART OF THE NORTH II2 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 80
WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, LYING
NORTH OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAYNO. 70, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 8, THENCE SOUTH
89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST 2651.87 FEET ALONG THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 8 TO THE NORTH Ii4 CORNER OF SAID
SECTTON 8; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINU'TES 27 SECONDS WEST 903.90
FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTIONS TO THE NORTHERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO.70;THENCE THE FOLLOWING
FOUR COURSES ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE:
l) souTH 73 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 15 SECONDS EAST 789.30 FEET
2) SOUTH 78 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST 567.90 FEET
3) SOUTH 7s DEGREES 28 MINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST 942.40 FEET
4) 1327.90 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADruS OF 558O.OO FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13 DEGREES 38 MINUTES
04 SECONDS, AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 36 MINUTES
34 SECONDS EAST 1324.70 FEET, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 8;
THEN NORTH OO DEGREES 23 MINUTES 03 SECONDS EAST 572.10 FEET, ALONG
SAID EASTERLY LINE, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
A-l639t54.1 RCFISH
t
i ^-, Design Review Board
-
ACTION FORM
ror,r'rubFrf?i7 "tr1'ffiTd[#Ex[,fffiffit'
web: www,ci.vail.co.us
,a-____\.//
Project Name: TOV 3RDstorage bin and shed DRB Numbe( OeeO+Oltl-./
\= ---
Proiect Description:
Addition of a third aggregate storage bin at the Public works site; staff approved with conditions
per DRB request following conceptual DRB rerriew and PEC approval; also included, a request for
design rwiew of prwiously unreviewed storage shed.
Pafticipants:
PrcJect Addrcos:
1289 ELKHORN DRIVE
legal Description:
Parrel Number:
Comments:
OWNER VAIL COLOMDO MUNICIPAL BLDG0Z08/2004 Phone:
75 S FRONTAGE RD
VAIL
co 81657
License:
APPUCANT VAIL COLORADO MUNICIPAL BLDG0Z08/2004 Phoner
75 S FRONTAGE RD
VAIL
co 81557
License:
75 S FRONTAGE RD WEST VAIL l-ocation:
Lot: Block Subdivision: (r,,u..,rtoa4-5v
210106400003
see attached
Motion Byl
Second By:
Votes
Conditions:
BOARD/STAFF ACTION
ACtiON: STAFFAPR
Date of Apprcval= 0810912004
Cond:8
(PI-AN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of
Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s).
Cond: 0
(PLAN): DRB approval does not constitute a permit for building. Please consult with
Town of Vail Building personnel prior to construction activities.
Cond: 201
DRB approval shall not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval.
Cond: 202
Approval of this project shall lapse and become void one (1) year following the date
of final approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced
and is diligently pursued toward completion,
Cond: CON0006596
That, prior to final inspection of the project, the applicant finish the storage
shed in materials and colors to match the o<isUng public work buildings on the
site.
Entry: 08/09/2004 By: ee Action: AP
Cond: CON0006598
That, prior to final inspection of the project, the applicant remove all trucks,
trailers, and other stored items located direcdy to the north of the berm that
fronts I-70.
Entry: 08/09/2004 By: ee Action: AP
Planner: Elisabeth Eckel DRB Fee Paid: $650.00
,t
August 9, 2004
Mr. John Gallegos
1309 Elkhorn Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Additional Storage bin DRB040317
PEC040045
PEC040046
Dear John,
Thank you for attending today's Planning and Environmental Commission meeting for approval of an
amendment lo a development plan and a conditional use permit at the Public Works site at 1289 Elkhorn Drive,
unplatted. As you know, the PEC approved the applications wilh the following amended conditions:
1) Prtorb final inspxtion ot the project, the applicant must finish the storage shed in materials and
@lors to match the existing public worl<s buildings on the site.
2) Pior to final inspection of the project, the arylicant must remove all stored items (including, but not
limited to vehicles and trailers) on the southwest area of the lot which are visible above or not screened
by the berm.
Furthermor€, I have statl approved the DRB application, per the Design Review Board's request at its last
public hearing on August 4, 2004. I have attached the forms that you will need to apply for your building permit.
Additionally, I have set up an inspection for this project so that Statf may visit it upon completion to be sure lhat
the required conditions were met. Please feel free to conlact me should you have any further questions or
@ncerns.
Best Regards,
Elisabeth Eckel
970.479.2454
enclosures
August 8, 2004
Mr. John Gallegos
1309 Elkhorn Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Additional Storage bin DRB040317
Dear John,
Thank you for your application for design review of an additional aggregate storage bin at the Town of Vail
shops. As you know, the application appeared as a conceptual review belore the Design Review Board on
Augusl 4'n. The Design Review Board instructed Stafi to approve the application, pending final PEC approval
on August 9', with the following conditions:
1) That, prior to final inspection of the project, the applicant finish the storage shed in materials and
colors to match the existing public works buildings on the site.
2) That, prior to final inspection of the project, the applicant remove all trucks, trailers, and other stored
items located directly to the north ol the berm that fronts l-70.
lwill let you know the results of tomorrow's PEG meeting. Once approval has been received by both the
Planning and Environmental Commission and Statf, you are free to apply for your building permit. Please feel
free to contact me should you have any further questions or concerns. I look forward to seeing you (or another
representative of the Public Works Department) at the PEC meeting on Monday, August 9 at 2pm.
Best Regards,
Elisabeth Eckel
970.479.2454 rLE /jilPy
TOI4'T'ffi
web: www.ci.vail.co.us . :. li 6 .:iju4
General Information:
All projects requiring design review must receive approval prior to submitting a buildingpermit application, Please
refer to S|e submittal requirements for the particular approval that is requested. An application for Design Review
cannot be accepted until all required information is received by the Community Development Depaftment. The
projed may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and/or the Planning and Environmental C.ommission.
Design review approval lapses unless a building penlit is issued and construction commenes within
one year of the ipprcval. -' )
physicafAddress: l2ft1 EtKlh,^.^ T Vo.il r(O tt6cZ
Parcel No.: ?.lDl O? g, OOOO | (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970-328-8640 for parcel no.)
Zoning:
Name(s) of owner(s): fr,- r^ nf Ua i I
Mairins Address: lq O ? FlkA ^r' , I l' i l47q^2ter
Owner(s) Signature(s):
Name of Applicant:
Fax:179-2t6A
Type of Review and Fee:
tr Signs
Lrl
Application for Design Review
Department of Community Development
^ ti:iit:l;X:i1l3"i.X1'bfi.i"i3do€1657 R E c E I v E D
Mailing Address:
u
htr
tr
tr
tr
Conceptual Review
New Construction
Addition
Minor Alterdtion
(multFfamily/commercia l)
Minor Alterdtion
(si n gle-family/duplex)
Changes to Approved Plans
Separation Request
DJIJ
\-
$6s0
$300
$2s0
$20
$20
No Fee
Plus $1.00 per square foot of total sign area.
For consUuction of a new building or demo/rebuild.
For an addition where square footage is added to any residential or
commercial building (includes 250 additions & interior conversions).
For minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as,
reroofing, painting, window additions, landscaping, fences and
retaining wallt etc.
For minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as,
reroofing, painting, window additions, landscaping, fences and
retaining walls, etc.
For re/isions to. plans already approved by Planning Staff or the
Design Review Board.
For Office Usg0ntyFeePaid:/-'checkNo.:/By:-
one
a - u'"'
Planner:/4
I
TOI4I]\'M
I, (print name)
JOINT PROPERTY OWNER
WRITTE'{ APPROVAL LETTER
, a joint owner of property located at (address/legal
description)
provide this letter as written approval of the plans dated which have
been submitted to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the proposed improvements
to be completed at the address noted above, I understand that the proposed improvements include:
I further understand that minor modifications may be made to the plans over the course of the review
process to ensure compliance with the Town's applicable codes and regulations'
(Signature)(Date)
Page 2 of r2l02ll7l02
NEW CONSTRUCTION
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
General Information:
The review process for new construction normally requires two separate meetings of the Design Review
Board: a conceptual review and a final review. Applicants should plan on presenting their development
proposal at a minimum of Wvo meetings before obtaining final approval.
I. SUBMITTALREOUIREMENTS
o Stamped Topographic Surveyx
o Site and Grading Plan*
o Landscape Plan*o Architectural Elevationsx
o Elterior color and material samples and specifications.
o Architectural Floor Plansx
o Lighting Plan* and Cut-sheet(s) for proposed fixtures
o Title repo( including Schedules A & B to verify ownerships and easementsx
a Photos ofthe existing site and adjacent structures, where applicable'
a Written approval from a condominium association, landlord, and joint owner, if applicable.
o Site-specific Geological Hazard Report, if applicable*
o The Administrator and/or DRB may require the submission of additional plans, drawings,
specifications, samples and other materials (including a model) if deemed necessary to
determine whether a project will comply with Design Guidelines or if the intent of the
proposal is not clearly indicated,
Pleose submit three (3) copies of lhe materials noted with an asterisk (*),
Topographic survey:o Wet stamp and signature of a licensed surveyor
o Date of survey
u North arrow and graphic bar scale
o Scale of 1"=10'or I"-20)
o Legal description and physical address
o Lot size and buildable area (buildable area excludes red hazard avalanche, slopes greater than 40ol0,
and floodplain)o 'lles to existing benchmark, either USGS landmark or sewer invert. This information must be clearly
stated on the survey
tr Property boundaries to the nearest hundredth (.01) of a foot accurary. Distances and bearings and a
basis of bearing must be shown. Show existing pins or monuments found and their relationship to
the established corner.
o Show right of way and propefi lines; including bearings, distances and curve information.
o Indicate all easements identified on the subdivision plat and recorded against the property as
indicated in the title repoft. List any easement restrictions.
o Spot Elevations at the edge of asphalt, along the street frontage of the property at twenty-five foot
intervals (25'), and a minimum of one spot elevations on either side of the lot.
o Topographic conditions at two foot contour intervals
a Existing trees or groups of trees having trunks with diameters of 4" or more, as measured from a
point one foot above grade.
o Rock outcroppings and other significant natural features (large boulders, intermittent streams, etc.).
Page 3 of r2l02ll7l02
o All existing improvements (including foundation walls, roof overhangs, building overhangs, etc,).o Environmental Hazards (ie, rockfall, debris flow, avalanche, wetlands, floodplain, soils)o Watercourse setbacks, if applicable (show centerline and edge of stream or creek in addition to the
required stream or creak setback)
o Show all utility meter locations, including any pedestals on site or in the right-of-way adjacent to the
site. Exact location of existing utility sources and proposed service lines from their source to the
structure. Utilities to include:
Cable W Sewer GasTelephone Water Electrico Size and type of drainage culverts, swales, etc.a Adjacent roadways labeled and edge of asphalt for both sides of the roadway shown for a minimum
of 250' in either direction from property.
Site and Grading Plan:o Scale of L"=20'or largero Property and setback lines
o Existing and proposed easementso Existing and proposed grades
o Existing and proposed layout of buildings and other structures including decks, patios, fences and
walls. Indicate the foundation with a dashed line and the roof edge with a solid line.o All proposed roof ridge lines with proposed ridge elevations, Indicate existing and proposed grades
shown underneath all roof lines. This will be used to calculate building height.
o Proposed driveways, including percent slope and spot elevations at the property line, garage slab and
as necessary along the centerline ofthe driveway to accurately reflect grade.
o A 4' wide unheated concrete pan at the edge of asphalt for driveways that exit the street in an uphill
direction.a Locations of all utilities including existing sources and proposed service lines from sources to the
structures,o Proposed surface drainage on and off-site.
o Location of landscaped areas.o Location of limits of disturbance fencingo Location of all required parking spaceso Snow storage areas,o Proposed dumpster location and detail of dumpster enclosure.
o Retaining walls with proposed elevations at top and bottom of walls. A detailed cross-section and
elevation drawings shall be provided on the plan or separate sheet. Stamped engineering drawings
are required for walls between 4'and 6'feet in height.
u Delineate areas to be phased and appropriate timing, if applicable
Landscape Plan:o Scale of 1" = 20' or larger
o Landscape plan must be drawn at the same scale as the site plan.
o Location of existing trees, 4" diameter or larger. Indicate trees to remain, to be relocated (including
new location), and to be removed. Large stands of trees may be shown (as bubble) if the strand is
not being affected by the proposed improvements and grading.
o Indicate all existing ground cover and shrubs.
o Detailed legend, listing the type and size (caliper for deciduous trees, height for conifers, gallon size
for shrubs and height for foundation shrubs) of all the existing and proposed plant material including
grouno cover.o Delineate critical root zones for existing trees in close proximity to site grading and construction.o Indicate the location of all proposed plantings.
u The location and type of existing and proposed watering systems to be employed in caring for plant
material following its installation.
Page 4 of r2lj2l07l02
D Existing and proposed contour lines. Retaining walls shall be included with the top of wall and the
bottom of wall elevations noted.
Architectural Floor Plans:
o Scale of 1/B' = 1'or larger; 1/4" is preferred
o Floor plans of the proposed development drawn to scale and fully dimensioned. Floor plans and
building elevations must be drawn at the same scale.
o Clearly indicate on the floor plans the inside face of the exterior structural walls of the building.
u Label floor plans to indicate the proposed floor area use (i.e. bedroom, kitchen, etc').
o One set of floor plans must be "red-lined" indicating how the gross residential floor area (GRFA) was
calculated. See Title 12, Chapter 15 - Gross Residential Floor Area for regulations.
o Provide dimensions of all roof eaves and overhangs.
Architectural Elevations:o Scale of 1/8' = 1'or larger; 1/4" is preferred
u All elevations of the proposed development drawn to scale and fully dimensioned. The elevation
drawings must show both existing and finished grades. Floor plans and building elevations must be
drawn at the same scale.
a If building faces are proposed at angles not represented well on the normal building elevations, show
these faces also.
o Elevations shall show proposed finished elevation of floors and roofs on all levels'
tr All exterior materials and colors shall be specified on the elevations'
a The following shall be shown graphically and fully dimensioned: fascia, trim, railings, chimney caps,
meter locations, and window details.
o Show all proposed exterior lighting fixtures on the building.
o Illustrate all decks, porches and balconies.
o Indicate the roof and building drainage system (i.e. gutters and downspouts).
D Indicate all rooftop mechanical systems and all other roof structures, if applicable.
a lllustrate proposed building height elevation on roof lines and ridges. These elevations should
coordinate with the finished floor elevations and the datum used for the survey.
o Exterior color and material samples shall be submitted to staff and presented at the Design Review
Board meeting,
Lighting Plan:o Indicate type, location and number of fixtures.
o Include height above grade, lumens output, luminous area
o Attach a cut sheet for each proposed fixture.
II. IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE (ILC)
Once a building permit has been issued, and construction is underway, and before the Building
Department will schedule a framing inspection, two copies of an Improvement Location
Certificate survey (ILC) stamped by a registered professional engineer must be submitted. The
following information must be provided on the ILC:
u Basis of bearing and tie to section corner
o All property pins found or set
o Building location(s) with ties to property corners (ie. distances and angles)
o Building dimensions, including decks and balconies, to the nearest tenth of a foot
o Building and garage floor elevations and all roof ridge and eave line elevations
a All drainage and utility service line as-builts, showing type of material, size and exact location
u All easements
Page 5 of L2l02lO7/02
PROPOSED MATERIAIS
Buildinq Materials Tvoe of Material Color
Roof
Siding
Other Wall Materials
Fascia
Soffits
Windows
Window Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Flues
Flashing
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
Retaining Walls
Exterior Lighting
Other
AtA luv^ tvr'owl'F ladt-.l^ &,rh^,
-\)
I{otes:
Please specify the manufacturer's name, the cijlor name and number and attach a color chip.
Page 6 of L2lO2lO7l02
Botanical Name
PROPOSED TANDSCAPING
Common Name Ouantiw Size
PROPOSED TREES
AND SHRUBS
EXISTING TREES
TO BE REMOVED
Minimum Requirements for Landscaping :
GROUND COVER
soD
SEED
IRRIGATION
TYPE OF EROSION CONTROL
Deciduous Trees - 2" CaliPer
Coniferous Trees - 6'in height
Shrubs - 5 Gal.
Tvpe Square Footaqe
othpr landscape features (i.e. retaining walls
Page 7 of tZlOZllTlOz
fences, swimming Pools, etc.)
t
UTILTTY LOCATION VERIFICATION
This form is to veriff service availability and location for new construction and should be used in
conjunction with preparing your utility plan and scheduling installations. The location and availability of
utilities, whether they are main trunk lines or proposed lines, must be approved and verifled by the
following utilities for the accompanying site plan.
Authorized Siqnature Date
QWEST
970.384.0238 (tel)
970.384.0257 (fax)
Contact: Jason Sharp
EXCEL HIGH PRESSURE GAS
970.262.4077 (tel)
Contact: Brian Sulzer
HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC.
970.949.5892 (tel)
970.949.4s66 (fax)
Contact: Ted Husky
EXCET ENERGY
970.262.4024 (tel)
970.262.4o38 (fax)
Contact: Kit Bogart
EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION
DISTRICT'|.
970.476.7480 (tel)
970.476.4089 (fax)
Contact: Fred Haslee
AT&T BROADBAND
970.949.1224 x 112 (tel)
970.949.9138 (fax)
Contact: Floyd Salazar
*Please provide a site plan, floor plan, and elevations when obtaining approval from the Eagle River Water
& Sanitation District. Fire flow needs must be addressed.
NOTES:
1. If the utility verification form has signatures from each of the utility companies, and no comments
are made directly on the form, the Town will presume that there are no problems and the
development can proceed.
2. If a utility company has concerns with the proposed construction, the utility representaUve shall
note directly on the utility verification form that there is a problem which needs to be resolved.
The issue should then be detailed in an attached letter to the Town of Vail, However, please keep
in mind that it is the responsibility of the utility company and the applicant to resolve identified
problems.
3. These verifications do not relieve the contractor of the responsibility to obtain a Public Way Permit
from the Depaftment of Public Works at the Town of Vail. Utility locations must be obtained before
dioging in any public right-of-way or easement within the Town of Vail. A buildinq permit is not a
Public Wav permit and must be obtained separately.
Page 8 of I2/OZ/07/O2
,
NOTESTO ALL APPUCANTS
Pre-application Meetino
A pre-application meeting with Town of Vail staff is encouraged. The purpose of a pre-application
meeting is to identify any critical issues pertaining to the applicant's proposal and to determine the
appropriate development review process for an application. In many cases, the pre-application meeting
helps to expedite the development review process as critical issues are identified and dealt with in the
preliminary stages. A pre-application meeting may be scheduled by contacting Judy Rodriguez at
970.479.2L28 or jrgdng-ucz@e!=vail-.e4,!s
Time Reouirements
The Design Review Board meets on the 1st and 3rd Wednesdays of each month. A complete application
form and all accompanying material must be accepted by the Community Development Department prior
to application deadlines. A schedule of DRB meetings and associated application deadlines may be found
on the World Wide Web at htto://ci.vail,co.us/commdev/olanninq/drb/meetinqs/default'htm For a new
residential developmenq the application deadline is typically 3.5 weeks prior to a Design Review Board
hearing.
Review Criteria
The proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the Design Guidelines as set forth in Title 12, (Zoning
Regulat'ons) and Title 14 (Development Standards) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
Requirements for orooerties located in hazard areas
ru property is located in or adjacent to a mapped hazard area (i.e. snow avalanche, rockfall, debris flow,
floodplain, wetland, poor soils, etc.), the Community Development Depaftment may require a site-specific
geological investigation. If a site-specific geological investigation determines that the subject property is
located in a geologically sensitive area, the property owner(s) must sign an affidavit recognizing the
hazard report prior to the issuance of a building permit. Applicants are strongly encouraged to consult
with Community Development staff prior to submitting a DRB application to determine the relationship of
the property to all mapped hazards.
Required Plan Sheet Format
For ill surveys, site plans, landscape plans and other site improvement plans, all of the following must be
shown.
1. Plan sheet size must be 24"x 36". For large projects, larger plan size may be allowed.
2. Scale. The minimum scale is 1"=20'. All plans must be at the same scale.
3. Graphic bar scale.4. North arrow.
5. Title block, project name, project address and legal description.
6. Indication of plan preparer, address and phone number.
7 . Dates of original plan preparation and all revision dates.
B, Vicinity map or location map at a scale of 1"=1,000' or larger.
9. Sheet labels and numbers.
10. A border with a minimum left side margin of 1,5".
11. Names of all adjacent roadways.
12. Plan legend.
Page 9 of L2l02l07lO2
I
Desion Review Board Meetinq Reouirements
For new construction and additions, the applicant must stake and tape the project site to indicate
property lines, proposed buildings and building corners. All trees to be removed must be taped, The
applicant must ensure that staking done during the winter is not buried by snow. All site tapings and
staking must be completed prior to the day of the DRB meeting.
The applican! or their representative shall be present at the Design Review Board Hearing. Applicants
who fail to appear before the Design Review Board on their scheduled meeting date and who have not
asked in advance that discussion on their item be postponed, will have their items removed from the DRB
agenda until such time as the item has been republished.
If the DRB approves the application with conditions or modifications, all conditions of approval must be
resolved prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Staff Aooroval
The Administrator (a member of the planning stafF) may review and approve Design Review applications,
approve with certain modifications, deny the application, or refer the application to the Design Review
Board for a decision. All staff approvals are reviewed by the Design Review Board and any staff decision
is subject to final approval by the DRB.
Additional Review and Fees
If this application requires a separate review by any local, state or Federal agency other than the Town of
Vail, the application fee shall be increased by $200.00. Examples of such review, may include, but are
not limited to: Colorado Department of Highway Access Permits, Army Corps of Engineers 404, etc.
The applicant shall be responsible forpaying any publishing fees in excess of 50o/o of the application fee.
If, at the applicant's request, any matter is postponed for hearing, causing the matter to be re-published,
then the entire fee for such re-publication shall be paid by the applicant.
Applications deemed by the Community Development Department to have design, land use or other
issues, which may have a significant impact on the community, may require review by external
consultants in addition to Town staff. Should a determination be made by Town staff that an external
consultant is needed, the Community Development Department may hire the consultant. The
Department shall estimate the amount of money necessary to pay the consultant and this amount shall
be forwarded to the Town by the applicant at the time of filing an application. The applicant shall pay
expenses incurred by the Town in excess of the amount forwarded by the application to the Town within
30 days of notification by the Town. Any excess funds will be returned to the applicant upon review
completion.
Page 10 of I2/O2|O7/O2
j*ffi Survey/Site Plan Review Checklist
Depaftment of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657
tel: 970.479.2139 faxi 970.479.2452
web: www.ci.vail.co.us
*This checktist must be submitted prior to Public Works review of a proposed development
Owners/Project Name:
Project Address:
Applicant:Phone Number:
Submittal
o Stamped survey of property o Landscape plan
o Civi/Site plans o Title Report (Section B)
Survev Reouirements:
o Surveyor's wet stamp and signature o Environmental Hazards (ie. rockfall' debris
o Date of survey flow, avalanche, wetlands, floodplain, soils)
o North arrow o Watercourse setbacks (if applicable)
o Proper scale (1"=10'or L"=20') o Trees
o Legal description s Labeled easements (i.e. drainage' utility,
o Basis of bearings / Benchmark pedestrian, etc...)
o Spot Elevations o ToPograPhy
u Labeled right of way and property lines; o Utility locations
including bearings, distances and curve o Adjacent roadways labeled and edge of
information. asphalt for both sides of the roadway shown
o Lot Size for a minimum of 250' in either direction
o Buildable Area (excludes red hazard from property'
avalanche, slopes greater than 40ol0, and
floodplain)
Site Plan Reouirements:
I. Access (check all)
o Driveway type and finished surface are shown on the site plan.
o Unheated o Heated (portion in Row in a separate zone)
o Snow storage areas are shown on the site plan within property boundaries (300/o of driveway area if
unheated; 10o/o of driveway area if heated)
o All driveway grades, dimensions, radii are clearly noted on the site plan and conform to Development
Standards, p. 11. Steepest Section Driveway Grade (not the average grade):-
o Parking spaces and turning radii are noted on slte plan and conform to Development Standards,
pp.12&14
il. Construction Site (check all)
o Location of all utilities and meter pits are shown on the site plan.
o Limits of disturbance construction fencing is shown on the site plan.
o I am aware that approved Staging and Construction Traffic Control Plans, as per the Manual of
Uniform Traffic Control Devices, will be necessary prior to construction.
o I am aware that a Revocable Right of Way Permit will be required prior to construction.
Page 11 ot L2102/07102
a
Im. Drainage (check all that apply)o The required Valley Pan is shown on the site plan as per Development Standards, p. 12.o (Note: Valley pan must not be heated)
o 4 Foot Concrete Pan o 8 Foot Concrete Pano Positive and adequate drainage is maintained at all times within the proposed site.o Culverts have been provided and are labeled and dimensioned on the site plan.
o A Hydraulic report has been provided. (As requested byTown Engineer)
ry, Erosion C.ontrol (Check all that apply)o Disturbance area is greater than one half acre.o A separate Erosion Control Plan has been professionally engineered and PE stamped.o Less than one half acre has been disturbed, and proper erosion control devicqs are shown on the site
pran.
V. Floodplain (check all that apply)o The project lies wlthin or adjacent to a 100 year Floodplain.
D 100 year Floodplain is shown on the site plan.
n A Floodplain study has been provided. (Required if floodplain is within construction limits or as
requested by Town Engineer)
o The project does not lie within or adjacent to a 100 year Floodplain
VL Geological/Environmental Hazards (check all that apply)
o The project lies within a Geologic/Environmental Hazard area. (See Development Standards, p. 20)o A Hazard Report has been provided
o The project does not lie within a Geologic/Environmental Hazard area.
VII. Grading (check all that apply)
o Existing and proposed grades/contours are provided on the site plan.
o All disturbed areas have been returned to a 2:l grade.
o All disturbed areas not returned to 2:1 grade have been Professionally Engineered with slope
protection and/or stable soils. PE stamped details are provided within plans.
o Only existing contours are shown on the site plan, there is no proposed grading.
VIII. Parking (check all)
o All residential and commercial parking spaces conform to the Development Standards, pp. 12&15.
IX. Retaining Walls (check all that apply)
o All retaining walls conform to the standards in the Development Standards, p. 19.D All retaining walls and combination walls over 4 feet have been Professionally Engineered and a PE
stamped detail has been provided within the plans.
n All retaining walls are shown on the site plan, with labeled top and bottom of wall elevations and type
of wall construction.o No retaining walls are required for this project.
X. Sight Distance (check all that apply)D Proper sight distance has been attained and shown on site plan as per Development Standards, p.12.
D Proper sight distance has not been attained. Explanation why:_
Additional Comments
Please provide any additional comments that pertain to Public Works Review.
Page 12 of 12102/07102
Applicants Signature_
t
From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Elisabeth Eckel
John Gallegos
08/06n004 9:49:29 AM
DRB conceptual
Hi John:
DRB went well on Wednesday, with the DRB's comments limited to he fact that the conditions we are
suggesting be met after a staff approval, that will be granted, provided that PEC approves the conditional
use permit and the amendment to an approved development plan on Monday.
Vllho will be representing the project at 2pm on Monday?
Let me knor of any further questions. I hope your week has been good. See you (or someone else?)
Monday at 2.
Thanks,
Elisabeth
I
,From:
To:
Date:
Subject:
Elisabeth Eckel
John Gallegos
07l3Ol20M 2:55:24 PM
DRB and PEC applications
Hello John:
I apologize for the confusion regading the application for another storage bin at Public Works, but I have
been directed to change the application from a final DRB review to a conceptual DRB review on the 4th
due to the hct that DRB approval isn't even allowed until PEC approval is received. Pending PEC
approval on the 9th, there is a possibility that staff approval could be granted as early as the 1Oth, but that
would have to be directed by the DRB at the conceptual on Wednesday. Otherwise, it would go as a final
on the 18th of August. But, we generally get a pretty good idea of the likelihood of approval at a
conceptual review. So, really, the big day is August 9'th.
I have scoured the files br a hazard report because the area is in a moderate hazard debris flow. I found
a Mears report for the housing area of the site. lf you have something that relates more closely to the
west end, thatwould be great.
Finally, I have attiached a list of the conditions that are probably WeW similar (though may not be exactly
the same) to what will result from an approval at any level.
Have a good weekend.
Elisabeth
Proiect Name:
Proiect Description:
Participants:
Proiect Address:
1289 ELKHORN DRIVE
Legal Description:
Parcel l{umber:
Comments:
OWNER VAIL COLORADO MUNIAPAL BLDGO7|08|20O4 Phone:
75 S FRONTAGE RD
VAIL
co 81657
License:
APPUCANT VAIL COLORADO MUNICIPAL BLDG0Z08/2004 Phone:
75 S FRONTAGE RD
VAIL
co 81657
License:
75 S FROIITAGE RD WESTVAIL
loB Block Snbdivision:
210106.t00003
see attached
Location:
Design Review Board
ACTION FORM
Departrnent of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657
tel: 97 0.479.2L39 fax: 97 0.479.2452
web: wwwci.vail.co.us
TOV 3RDstorage bin and shed DRB Numb DR8040317\--"_-*---
Addition of a third aggregate storage bin at the Public works site; staff approved with conditions
per DRB request following onceptual DRB revlew and PEC approval; also included, a request for
design rwiew of previously unreviewed storage shed.
Mofon By:
Second By:
Vote:
Conditions:
BOARD/STAFF ACTION
ACtiON: STAFFAPR
Date of Approval: 08/09/2m4
Cond: 8
(PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of
Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s).
Cond: 0
(PLAN): DRB approval does not constitute a permit for building. Please consult with
Town of Vail Building personnel prior to construction activities.
Cond: 201
DRB approval shall not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval.
Condr 202
Approval of this project shall lapse and become void one (1) year following the date
of final approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced
and is diligently pursued toward completion.
Gond: CON0006596
That prior to final inspection of the project, the applicant finish the sbrage
shed in materials and colors to match the odsting public works buildings on the
site.
Entry: 08/09/2004 By: ee Action: AP
Cond: @N0006598
That, prior to final inspection ofthe proJect, the applicant remove all trucks'
trailers, and other storcd items located directly to the nofth of the berm that
fronts I-70.
Entry: 08/09/2fl)4 By: ee Action: AP
Planner: Elisabeth Eckel DRB Fee Paid: $65o.(Xt
Conditional Use Permit
Application for Review bY the
Planning and Environmental Commission
Department of Community Development
75 Soitth Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657
teli 970.479.2L39 lax: 970.479.2452
web: www'vailgov.com
General Information:
All projects requiring Planning and Environmental Commission review must receive approval prior to submitting a
building permit applicauon. ilease refer to the submittal requirements for.the particular apprwal that is.requested'
An application for planning and Environmental Commission review cannot be accepted until all required information
is received by the Community-O"u"fopt.nt Department. The project may also need to be reviewed by the Town
Council and/or the Design Review Board.
Type of APplication and Fee:
Rezoning $1300
Major Subdivision $1500
Minor Subdivision $650
Exemption Plat $650
Minor Amendment to an SDD $1000
New Special Development Disbict $6000
Major Amendment to an SDD $6000
Major Amendment to an SDD $1250
(no exterior nodifications)
Minor Exterior Alteration
Major Exterior Alterdtion
Development Plan
Amendment to a DeveloPment Plan
Zoning Code Amendment
Variance
Sign Variance
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
n
D
of the
tr
D
tr
R
tr
o
tr
$6s0
$800
$1s00
$2s0
$1300
$s00
$200
Lot:-Block:-Location of the Proposal:
Physical Address:
parcetNo.:
^l
Ol Ocf To6oO I (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970-328-8640 for parcel no')
' ,':.
Zoning:
CI
t!i
UJ.
c)lrle ::,
Name(s) of Owner(s):
Mailing Address:
Owner(s) Signaturc(s):
Name of Applicant:
Mailing Address:
E-mail Address:
Page I of 5-04128104
TOI4'Nffi
Conditional Use Permit
Submittal Requirements
GENERAL I]IFORMATION
A condiuonal use permit is required for any use classified as being "conditional" in any of he Town's zone districts. All applicauons
for condltional use permits are rwiarcd by the Planning and Environmental Commission. Uses listed as conditional uses in the
various distlcts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limltations as the Town may prescribe to ensure that the location
and operafron of the conditional us€s will be In accordance wih development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to
other uses or properties.
I. SUBI[|ITIAL REOUIREMET{TS
Fee: $650.00 There is no fe€ requlred for conditional use p€rmits for Employee Housing Units (EHU's), however, Design
REr'iew fees are required.
Stamp€d, addressed envelopes and a list of th€ property owners adjacent to the subiect property, including
properties behind and across streeb. The list of property owne6 shall include the owners'name(s), corresponding mailing
address, and the ph)6lcal address and legal desqiption of the property owned by each. The applicant is responsible for correct
names and mailing addresses, This informatjon ls a\railable from the Eagle County Assessot's office.
Trtle Report, Including Schedules A & B.
Written approval from a condominium association, landlor4 and Joint owner, if applicable.
A wjitten statement addr€ssing the following:a. Describe the precise nature of the proposed use and measures proposed to make he use compauble wi0t ofter
propertes in t'|e vkinity,b. The relationship and impact of the use on development objecti\€s of the Town.
c. The effect of the use on light and air, distribuuon of population, Sansportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and
recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public fadlities needs.d, The effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion. automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
tsaffic flow and conbol, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking area,
e. The effect upon the character of the area In which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of
tfie proposed use in relation to surrounding uses.
D Exlsting and Proposed Slte and Grading Plans (Foul complete sets of plans),
O Existing and Proposed Architectural Elevations (Four complete sets of plans).
O Existlng and Plopos€d Architectural Floor Plans (Four complete sets of plans).
O All plans must also be submitted in 8,5' x 11' reduoed format. These are required for the Planning and Environmental
Commission members' information packets.
tr Additional llaterial: The Administrabr and/or PEC may require the submission of additional plans, drawings, specifications,
samples and other materials if deemed necessary to properly evaluate the proposal.
I have read and understand the above listed submittal requirements:
Proiect Name:Shb
Applicant
Date Signed:
o
o
o
Page3 of 5-04128/04
/
,m
Ftr
tr
tr
cl
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
trg
Crnditional Use Permit
FloodPlain Modiff cation
Minoi Exteilor AlEration
$6s0
$400
$6s0
$800
Milor exterior Alteration
Planning and Environmental Commission
Conditional Use Permit .
app'ii"iiion tot Review lI15
,'sffii#SE#:I,,frHfl$:"
General Informatlon: , - -r-^--^-rrr rdnmi(slon review must receive aPProval prior to submitting,a
All Doiects requlring planntng and Envlronmental.c.ommisslon review must receive appru'-'t*that
is requested'
lt":ffi ,s,l$1"3i$iffl?f; irtrFH.:iq'".iffit'ritrit.o ov the c,mmunity Dorelopment Depaflmens
Ll]iiiJio/,it u'e Deslsn Ralew Board'
Type of APPltcation and Fee:
Rezoning
Malor Subdivlsion
Minor Subdivision
ft:$ffi:llXl"nt to an sDD
i'i"* sp"cut Development Dlstrict
Maior Amendment to an SDD
Maior Amendment to an SOD
@6 artertor mdficadons)
of the
$1300
$1s00
$6so
$6so
$1000
$6000
$6000
$1250
a
rJJ
=l!(J
lrjg
Location of the PruPosal: Lot:Block:- Subdivision:
Physical Address:
(Contact Eagle Co' Assessor at 970-328'8640 for parcel no')
Zoning:
Name(s) of Owner(s):
Mailing Address:
Owner(s) Signature(s):
Mailing Address:
E-mail Addrcss:
Page I of5'04/28/04
Conditional Use Permit
Submittal Requi rements
GET{ERAL ilIFORiIATION
A condttonal use permlt ls requtred for any use classified as belng "conditonal" in any of ttre Town's zone disu.icts' All applications
for condruonar use permis are rwilwlj'# u," n"nnrng rno en"r;iitiJiiJ ci.riSi*. y::11$g,tt *ndlflonal us€s in the
vartous distrtcrs mry ue permni'il;; 1o ;;h ;"diuons ano.uiiuilil "i ut" rot"n m"r prescrlbe to ensure that the location
and operauon of rhe onoruonar J#-ffii# ri'i6'JiirE "ru'
d*J6frffi;iltfo; di url'rovn ano wtll not be detsimenbl to
other uses or Properues.
I. SUBI{ITTAL REOUIREMET{TS
oFe€:$650.00There|snofeerequiredforcondiuona|usepermitsforEmp|oyeeHous|rEunits(EHU,S),however'Design
Rariev, fees are requlred.
ostamPcd,addressedenvdopcanda|istoftfie.]']op€rtyowne]s.ad'acentto.thesubiectpfoperty,includlng
properfles behind and "crdr'#""s:
n. ||rt ot p.pov- Jii"[ ,rtlii inau*i tte. otuners' namdl)' coresponding mailing
addres, and the pnysrcar address and tegat descrtption,"r gJjtiji,r#iiJw 9a.-a1l3licant is responslble for conect
names aM mai'ng acrdresJi. il-rJnioni.uon ir i*ir.up r-ri ure Eigle county Assessor's offre'
o TIU€ R€poG lncluding Sdtedules A & B'
tr wdttcn apprwal fiom a ondominlum association' landlod' and Jolnt oivner' lf apdkaue'
o otf"omil:?1trllflf"i$'$l&d *e and measures proposed to mal." the use compauble wnh d.r
ProPerues in the vlcinitY'
b. The relationshlp and impact of the use on devetopment obj€ctives of tht T'9Il:
'--"c, The effect of $e use on llght and air, disfilbution di iopriiuon, transportation facilitles' utilltles' schools' parks and
recreatbn facllltles, and other public facilltles and pubjh faclliues needs' ''d. The efrect upon traffic, vrlth partcular r*er**6'*r'gtotl aJom.ow..e31 -3festrian
safety and convenlence',
tramc f,oliv and conbo|' access,
'naneu\,erab||lty,.
ai,o
'*,io*r
oi snow from the streets and Darking area.
e. Ttre efiect upon src ctraracrer of o|e area In whtd';r;;;;;i; o G rocateo, Including tt|e scale and bulk of
tre proposed use In relauon b sunoundlng uses'
o Exbdng and Propo6€.1 Site and Gradlng Plans (Four GomPl€E set3 of plans)'
o Exlsdng and Proposed Archltectural Elevauonc (Four complete sets of phns)'
0 Exl3tlng rnd ProFos€d Ardrltoctural Floor Plans (Four complet€ s€ts of glans)'
o All pbns mu3t.lso be 3ubmltsd ln 8.5'I 11' r€dued formtt' These ar€ required for the Plannlng and Envlronmental
CommlsCon membe6' Informauon Pa&ets'
oAddlt|ona|ilat€ria||TheMm|nlstratorand/orPECmayrequi]ethesubmlssionofaddfuona|p|ans,dnw|ngs,specmcations'
samDles and other materlals lf deemed necessary b pmperty ivatuate Ure Proposal'
I have rcad and underctand the above listed submittal requirements:
Proiect Name:Shb
Applicant Sagnatur€:
Date Signed:
Page 3 of 5-0428/M
,-t)Planning and Environmental Commission
ACTION FORM
Departnent of Community Development
75 Sorrth Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657
tel:, 970.479.2L9 fax; 97 0.479.2452
web: www.ci.vail.co.us
Project Name: TOV STOMGE BIN PEC Number: ?EC040O46
Project Description:
@NSTRUCT NEW ARCHED STORAGE BIN FOR AGGREGATE AND APPROVE STORAGE
Participants:
OWNER VAIL COLOMDO MUNICIPAL BlLDG0il0912004 Phoner
75 S FRONTAGE RD
VAIL
co 81657
License:
APPLICANT VAIL COLOMDO MUNICIPAL BLDG0Z09/2004 Phone:
75 S FRONTAGE RD
VAIL
co 81657' License:
Projed Address: 75 S FRONTAGE RD WEST VAIL Location:
1289 ELKHORN DRIVE
Legal Description: Lot: Block Subdivision:
Paroel Number: 21010810$03
Comments: see conditions
BOARD/STAFF ACTION
Motion By: Rollie Kjesbo Action: APPROVED
Second By: David Viele
Vote: 6-0-0 DateofApproval= O8l09l2OOa
Conditions:
@nd:8
(PLAN): No change to these plans may be nnde without the written consent of Town of
Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s).
Cond: 300
PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of
approval.
Cond: CON@06603
Cond: CON@066M
Prior to final inspection of the project, the applicant must finish the storage shed
in materials and colors to match the eristing public works buildings on the site.
Entry; 08/@/2004 By: ee Action: AP
Cond: CON0006605
Prlor b final Inspection of Bre prcJect, the applicant must rernore all stot€d ltems
(ircluding, but not llmlbd b rtehlcles ald tralles) on the southwest are of the
lot whijr are visible abore or not so€ened by the berm.
Entry: 0B/09/200,1 By: ee Acdon: AP
Planner: Elbabefi Edd PEG Fee Piid: $250.00
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Yail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
www.vailgov.com
August 9,2004
Mr. John Gallegos
1309 Elkhorn Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Additional Storage bin DRB040317
PEC040045
PEC040046
*n*,
Dear John,
Thank you for attending today's Planning and Environmental Commission meeting for approval of an
amendment to a development plan and a conditional use permit at the Public Works site at 1289 Elkhorn Drive,
unplatted. As you know, lhe PEC approved the applications with the lollowing amended conditions:
1) Pior to final inspection of the project, the awlicant must finish the storage shed in mateials and
colots to match the existing public worl<s buildings on the site.
2) Ptior to final inspection of the project, the applicant must remove all stored items (including, but not
limited to vehicles and trailerd on the southwest area of the lot which are visible above or not screened
by the berm.
Furthermore, I have statf approved the DRB application, per the Design Review Board's request at its last
public hearing on August 4, 2004. I have attached the forms that you will need to apply for your building permit.
Additionally, I have set up an inspection for this project so that Staff may visit it upon completion to be sure that
the required conditions were met. Please feel free to contacl me should you have any turther questions or
concerns.
970.479.2454
enclosures
{p ^".r"r"o rt""*
,-ffi Planning and Environmental Commission
ACTION FORM
Departrnent of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Oolorado 81657
tel : 97037921fi taxz 970.47 9.2452
web: www.ci.vail.co.us
Protect Name: PEC Number: PE@40045
PEG Type: TOV quonset, storage shed
Prcject Description:
Construct new quonset for aggregate storage; gain approval of constructed storage shed
Participants:
OWNER VAILCOLORADO MUNICIPAL BLDG07|O9|2O04 Phone:
75 S FRONTAGE RD
VAIL
co 81657
License:
APPLICANT VAIL COLORADO MUNICIPAL BLDGO7|09|2O04 Phone:
75 S FRONTAGE RD
VAIL
co 81657
License:
Protect Address: 75 S FRONTAGE RD WEST VAIL Location:
1289 ELKHORN DRIVE
Legal Descdption: lot Block Subdivision: Parcel Number: 21010&100ffi3
Comments: Seeconditions
BOARD/STAFF ACTION
Motion By: Rollie Kjesbo Action: APPROVED
Second By: David Viele
Vote: 6-0-0 Date of Apprcval: 08/09/2004
Meeting Date: 08/09/2004
Conditions:
C-ond: 8
(PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of
Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s).
@nd:300
PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of
approval.
Cond: CON0006501
Prior to final inspection of the project, the applicant must finish the storage shed
in materials and colors to match the existing public works buildings on the site.
Entry: 08/09/2004 By: ee Action: AP
Cond: CON0006602
Prior to final inspection of the project, the applicant must remove all stored items
(including, but not limited to vehicles and trailers) on the southwest area of the
lot which are visible above or not screened by the berm.
Entry: 08/09/2004 By: ee Action: AP
Planner: Elisabeth Eckel PEC Fee Paid: $650.00
List of amended conditions for the Town of Vail storage bin application
PEC040045
1) Prior to final inspection of the project, the applicant must finish the storage shed in
materials and colors to match the existing public works buildings on the site.
2) Prior to final inspection of the project, the applicant must remove all stored items
(including, but not limited to vehicles and trailers) on the southwest area of the lot which
are visible above or not screened by lhe berm.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Developmenl Department
August 9, 2004
A request for a final review of an amendment to an approved developmenl
plan, pursuant to Section 12-9C-5, Development Standards and a Conditional
Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Vail Town Gode, to allow for the
construction of "Public Buildings and Grounds", localed at 1289 Elkhorn
Drive/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Elisabeth Eckel
il.
SUMMARY
The applicant, the Town of Vail, is requesting an'amendment to an approved
development plan and a conditional use permil to allow for an additional aggregate
storage bin and a storage shed located at the Public Works Department site.
Pending approval from the Planning and Environmental Commission, lhe bin would
be the third of its kind to house aggregate for winter season use by the Public Works
Department. The approval of the existing storage shed would legalize ils existence,
as it has heretofore not been approved as part of the conditional use permit. Statf is
recommending approval, with conditions, of these requests subject to the findings
and conditions outlined in Section lX of this memorandum.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The applicant, lhe Town of Vail, is requesting an amendment to an approved
development plan in accordance with Section 12-9C-5, Development Standards, and
a conditional use permil in accordance with Section 12-9C-3, Vail Town Code, to
allow for an additional aggregate storage bin and a storage shed localed at 1289
Elkhorn Drive/Unplatted.
The Town of Vail currently operates its Public Works Department from several
locations in town, one of which is the site lraditionally referred to as the "Town
Shops" or the "Bus Barn". The current onsile uses are designated as "Public
buildings and grounds", which are conditional uses within the General Use District.
The area houses the work bays for Town of Vail vehicles, lractors and other Town
maintenance vehicles, and provides storage for a number of other miscellaneous
items related to Town maintenance, such as electrical supplies, light poles, street
signs, fire equipment, trailers, and other similar equipment.
Pending Planning and Environmental Commission approval, the aggregate storage
bin would be the third of its kind to be placed on the northwest area ol the site. Two
large aggregate storage bins, or "Quonsets", culvert-shaped and about twenty feet
(20') in diameter, already exist. The third would be placed to the west of the existing
two and would be installed to malch the others. Additionally, approval is being
requested for a nine hundred square foot (900 sq. ft.) storage shed just to the north
of the berm fronting l-70. The shed has already been built, but did not receive
Planning and Environmental Commission prior to its erection. This approval, with
conditions, would legalize the structure and allow it to remain. Furthermore, the
applicant is proposing to finish the structure to match the existing buildings at the
Town Shops.
The application appeared before the Design Review Board on August 4, 2004. The
Board commented favorably on the proposal, provided lhat the conditions thal Staff
suggested are attached to the proposal and fulfilled at the time of construction.
BACKGROUND
The Public Works Department has been serving the Town of Vail since 1979. The
"Bus Barn" was one of the first buildings to be constructed at the Elkhorn site in the
early 1 980's. The Town Council approved a Public Works master plan in 1993, since
which time the site has evolved in various ways. The Administration Building was
enlarged in 1994 and the Buzzard Park Employee Housing Units were approved and
began construction in 1997. The most frequent amendment to the approved
development plan occurred in the fall of 2002 and included "slope restoralion" and
grading on the north area of the sile.
The site is located in a moderate hazard debris flow area. Upon researching the file,
however, Staff found enough informalion to verify thal the proposed improvements
would not be affected by the debris flow. The following stalements, copied from a
1994 letter from Arthur Mears, Professional Engineer and avalanche-control
engineer, retlect this viewpoint:
'The building site /les within a "moderate hazard" debris flow area, as
indicated on Town of Vail hazard maps. A moderate hazard debris flow area
is defined as an area that can'experience property damage through flooding,
erosion and impact of muddy water, soil, rock, and debris'. The alluvial fan
above the building (Administration building) site is characteistic of fine-
grained deposits and small rocks that should not produce large impact loads
when incorporated into flow, therefore will not constitute a significant hazard
to people. Furthermore, study of aerial photographs dating to 1939 shows no
evidence of recent debris tlow activity this century...Adequate protection from
the rare debris flows can be achieved by building a trenchberm
structure...This structure will protect the building from all reasonable
foreseeable debris flows. Extraordinary but extremely rare) flow may
overtop the berm and reach the office extension, but such events are so
unlikely that they are not considered in land-use planning and engineering at
Vail."
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDStv.
In the General Use zone district, development standards are prescribed by the
Planning and Environmental Commission. Section 12-9C-5 of the Town Code
stales:
Prescribed By Planning And Environmental Commission: ln the general use
district, development standards in each of the following categories shall be as
prescribed by the planning and environmental commission:
1. Lot area and site dimensions.
2. Setbacks.
3. Building height.
4. Density control.
5. Site coverage.
6. Landscaping and site development.
7. Parking and loading.
Beviewed By Planning and Environmental Commission: development standards
shall be proposed by the applicant as a part of a conditional use permit
application. Site specific development standards shallthen be determined by the
planning and environmental commission during the review of the conditional use
request in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 of this title.
Lot Size: 740,520 sq. ft.
Zoning: General Use
Hazards: Moderate Hazard Debris Flow, High Severity Rockfall
Standard Existino Prooosed
SetbacksFront 82 ft. N/A
Side (east) 500 ft. N/A
Side (west) 1,000 ft. no change
Rear 90 ft. N/A
Buibing height 55.5' (Buzzard Park) IVA
Density control N/A N/A
Site coverage 60,981 sq. tL (8.2/", -61,881 sq. ft.(-8.3%)Parking 124 spaces N/A
V. ROLES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS
ConditionalUse
Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PEC for
acceptability of use and then by the DBB for compliance of proposed buildings and
site planning.
Planning and Environmental Commission:
(
Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of Conditional Usb Permits
The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town.
2. Etfect of the use on light and air, dislribulion of population, transportation facilities,
utililies, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public
facilities needs.
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, tratfic flow and control, access, maneuverability,
and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas.
4. Etfect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located,
including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relalion lo surrounding uses.
5. Such other factors and criteria as lhe Commission deems applicable to the
proposed use.
6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an
environmental impact report is required by Chapter 12 of this Title.
7. Conformance with development standards of the applicable zone district and
proposed use include:- Lot area- Site Dimensions- Sile coverage- Landscape area- Parking and loading- Mitigation of development impacts
Desiqn Review Board:
Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a Conditional Use Permit, but must
review any accompanying DRB application.
The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for:
- Architectural compatibility with other slructures, the land and surroundings- Fitting buildings inlo landscape- Configuration of buibing and grading of a site which respects the topography- Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetalion- Adequale provision for snow storage on-site- Acceptability of building materials and colors- Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms- Provision of landscape and drainage- Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory slructures- Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances- Location and design of satellite dishes- Provision of outdoor lighting- The design of parks
4
Staff:
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and
plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff
also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines.
Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a
staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a
recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also
facilitates the review process.
Town Council:
Actions ol DRB or PEC may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town
Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with
approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the
board's decision.
APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Town of Vail Zonino Requlations
12-9 General Use District (GU):
12-9C-1: PURPOSE:
The general use district is intended to provide sites for public and quasi-
public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be
appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other
zoning districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed
for each particular development proposal or proiect are necessary to achieve
the purposes prescribed in section 12-1-2 of this title and to provide for the
public welfare. The general use district is intended to ensure that public
buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permifted in the
district are appropriately located and designed to meet the needs of residents
and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of
buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open spaces,
and other amenities appropriate to the permifted types of uses.
12-16 Conditional Use Permit (in part)
1 2- 1 6- 1 : PU RPOSE ; LIM ITATIONS :
In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this
title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of
a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics,
conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located
properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their
effects on sunounding properties. The review process prescribed in this
chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development
between conditional uses and surrounding properties and the town at large.
Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted
subject to such conditions and limitations as the town may prescribe to
vil.
ensure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in
accordance with development objectives of the town and will not be
detrimental to other uses or properties. Where anditions cannot be devised
to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be
denied. (Ord.8(197s) S 18.100)
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR REVIEW
Conditional Use Permit
In order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of the Zoning
Regulations, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of
a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characleristics,
conditional uses require review and evaluation so that they may be located properly
with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their etfects on
surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to
assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and
surrounding properlies and the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the
various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the
Town may prescribe lo ensure lhat the location and operation of the conditional uses
will be in accordance with development objectives of the Town and will not be
detrimenlal lo other uses or properties. Where conditions cannol be devised to
achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permits shall be denied.
Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and
Environmenlal Commission shall consider the following factors with respecl to the
proposed use:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development obiectives of the
town.
Staff believes that the proposed storage area additions will have little to no
impact on the development objectives of the Town. The Public Works master
plan did not specify future goals regarding storage space and/or the addition
thereof.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
lacilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs.
Staff believes that the approval, with the recommended conditions, of
request for two additional storage areas will have a positive effect
provide improvement to the public facilities used by the Town.
3. Eflect upon lraffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking
areas.
Staff believes that the proposed increase in storage area will have little to no
effect on the above criteria.
the
and
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
Slaff believes that the proposed increase in slorage area will have little 1o no
effect on the above criteria.
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a conditional use permit:
'1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this
Title and the puposes of the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be
operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this
Title.
VIII. STAFFRECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission approves, with conditions, the request for an
amendment to an approved development plan in accordance with Section 12-9C-5,
Development Standards, and a conditional use permit in accordance with Section
12-9C-3, Vail Town Code, to allow for an additional aggregate storage bin and a
storage shed located at 1289 Elkhorn Drive/Unplatted.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the
applicant's requests, staff recommends that the following conditions be made as
part of the molion:
1) That, prior to final inspection of the project, the applicant finish the storage
shed in materials and colors to match the existing public works buildings on
the site.
2) That, prior to final inspection of the project, the applicant remove all
trucks, trailers, and other stored items located directly to the north of the berm
that fronts l-70.
IX. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Public notice
C. Photos of site
Attachment A
A
ll
N)oo
-
,
!
2
Ftt
1=
!6tg
il
15
!tit
EiE
E F3-i i
it!
iii
Ei3
Attachment B
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE m{m?
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Gommission of the Town of
Vail wilt hold a pubtic n""rini inl""orO"ni" r,iith Section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on August 9,
2004, at 2:00 PM in the TovIn of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of:
A request for a final review of a variance, pursuant to Section 12-17,Yariances' Vail Town Code'
to alfow for a building to encroacn into thJside setback, located ?fl425.7 l.|yge"1 Lane/Lot 1'
Bighorn Estates, a resuOO'ivision of Lots 10 & 11, 6igho;n Estates, and setting forth details in
regard thereto.
Applicant: Patrick & Mary P. DunahaY
Planner: Elisabeth Eckel
A request for a final review of a major amendment to a spec-ial develoPment district (SDD)'
prrii,l"i tJSection tZ-gn-f O, n EnOm"nt P_rocedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an
amendment to SDD *0, VaiiViifag" inn, to allow for the conversion of existing c9ryol 1:a.to..
;;; s;; *.ioentiat f6;;r";i6RFAj, tocateo at 68 East Meadow Drive/Lot o' Block 5D, Vail
VilbgL Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto'
Applicant: Carlos RojasPlanner: Clare Sloan
A request for a final review of an amendment to an approved.gevelopm.,en! plan' pursuanlto , ^
Section 12-gC-S, Oevetopmeni StanOirOi inO a ConO'itional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-
9C-3, Vait Town code, tJairow tor the construction of 'Public Buildings and Grounds', located at
1289 Elkhorn Drive/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant Town of VailPlanner: Elisabeth Eckel
A request for a final review of a floodplain modification, pursuant to Chapter 14-6, Grading - -
StanitirOs, Vail Town CoOe, tJaffow'for irrigation systeri improvements, located at the Vail Golf
Course, 1778 Sunburst ilri""ltlnpi"tt"O (j iomptet6 metes and bounds description is. available
it tn" Community Oevelopmeni bepirtnient), and setting forth details in regard-thereto'
Applicant Vail Recreation District, represented by H-ydrosphere Resource consultants, lnc'
Planner: Bill Gibson
A request for a final review of a condition use permit, pursuant to. Section.l2-6D-3, Conditional
Uses, Vait Town Code, i"Lrro* ioi" iipe tt emptoyeb Housing Unit (El'f U)' located at.2683
Gortina Lane/Lot Z, efo"[ AlV"ii ni-gd'SuUOivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto'
Applicant TrentHubbard/StefanSchmidPlanner: Bill Gibson
A request for a final review of a minor subdivision, pursuant.to Chapler 13-4, Minor Subdivisions' Vail
Town Code, to amenO tine locations of the exisfing building envelopes; and a final review of a
variancefromSection f Z-Zf -iO, Oeultopmentnestri-cted,Vaii Tov'rnCode,toallowforconstruction
on slopes ot 4eoho1. gr""iJr, 6;d-;iibgg euffehi Creek Road/Lots A, B, C' and D, Residences at
Briar Patch, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Residences of Briar Patch HoireownerAssociation, represented by Zehren and
Associates
Planner: Bill Gibson
The applicatiofis and information about the proposals are available for public insqection during reg-ular
office hours at the Town oiVjii Co11munity'Deielopment Department, 75 South Frontage Road' .The
public is invited to attend proje* orientatio'n and thd site visits that precele the public hearing.in the
Town of Vail Communiiy beietopment Department. Please call (970) 479'2138 for additional
information.
Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call
(970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing lmpaired, for information.
Published, July 23, 2004, in the Vail Daily.
Attachmenfi C
I^ocATto p of (no7o5ED T3r,v
- P1010002.JPG
Irttw I3trv To NIT cH Exr 57t,u c>
(f,ofo)ED Lo<ATro,v o€ pEu Drt)
f,rrRD Btp To $o ADDED To THt lrrr
OF Sxrrr tMG,
I
t-
I
.i'1.:
'1. :." ', ;
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
May 13, 1991
A request to change the Land Use Plan designation of a property generally
located west of the Town of Vail Public Works shops from Open Space to
Semi-Public Use and a request to rezone the property from Agricultural and
Open Space to Public Use District. The property is described as follows:
That part of the North 1/2 of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of
the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, lying north of Interstate
Highway No. 70 and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner of said Section 8; thence along the northerly line of
said Section I, S89 46'27"W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the
northerly line of said Section 8, S00 23'03.W a distance ol 529.86 ft to a point
on the northerly ROW line of l-70;thence along the northerly ROW line of l-70
following two courses:
1) S75 28'18"E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature;
2) 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of
5580.00 ft, a central angle of 13 38'04" and a chord which bears N89
36'34"E 1324.70 tt distance to a point on the easterly line of said
Section 8;
Thence departing said ROW line ol l-70 N00 23'03"E along the easterly line of
said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containing
20.480 acres more or less.
The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the
property described and is not based on a field survey. The basis of bearing for
the above parcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46'27'W as shown
on said annexation plats.
Applicant: Town of VailA/ail Associates
I. INTHODUCTION
The Town of Vail is requesting a rezoning of a tract of land west of the Town Public Works
Department shops. The parcel is approximately 600 feet wide and 1,500 feet long and is
directly west of the Town of Vail Shops. The current zoning ol the property is Agricultural and
Open Space District, and the applicant is propositp Publlc Use District zoning. tte owner of
the property is Vail Associates (VA), and the Town of Vail will be the leaseholder. The
purpos0 of the request to rezone the property is to allow 'public service facilities' as
conditional uses. lf the rezoning is approved, the Town of Vailwill apply for a conditional use
permit for a'public service facilig,' or more specifically, a Town snow dump.
Development standards in the Public Use District are prescribed by the Planning and
Environmental Commission (PEC) for individual proposals. In Section 18.36.050 of the Public
Use District, the PEC is given the authority to:
"prescribe development standards for each particular development proposal or project
in each of the following categories: A. Lot area and site dimensions; B. Setbacks; D.
Height; E. Density Controls; G. Site Coverage; H. Landscaping and Site Development.'
Note: C&F have been deleted since the original adoption.
Because the PEC has the authority to set development standards for each specific use, staff
believes that each should be analyzed closely at the time of the conditional use hearing.
II. EVALUATION OF THE REZONING REQUEST
A. Sultablllty of Exlstlng Zoning
The tract of land under consideration is zoned Agricultural and Open Space District,
and is located between land zoned Public Use District to the east and Agriculture and
Open Space District to the west. Because the parcel under consideration is adjacent
to existing Public Use District zoning, statl believes it is reasonable to expand this
zone district. In addition, staff believes the two zones are compatible with each other.
B. ls the Amendment Preventlng a Convenlent..workable Relatlonshlp wlth
Iand Uses Conslstent wlth Munlclpal Oblectlves?
Staff believes the relationship of land uses in the area is workable, as both the
Agricultural and Open Space District and the Public Use District allow only low intensity
uses. -9-o!. re
allow use
Because of the is written for regulating the
the
standards for any conditional use, such as a snow duqpr !o ertsure that it
Staff believes that the rezoning will help achieve a municipal objective of providing
snow removal. The area the Town currently uses to dump snow is the north bank of
Gore Creek in Ford Park, just east of the tennis courts. Town Council has requested
that the Public Works Deparlment find a new location to dump snow, as the current
use of the Gore Creek bank is not environmentally sensitive to Gore Creek or Ford
Park.
deve
is co
During a previous PEC worksession on this issue, the PEC's primary concern centered
on potential land uses which the rezoning would allow. "By-Right" uses ol both
districts are listed below:
Public Use District (Proposed Zoning)
A. Public parks, playgrounds, and open spaceB. Pedestrian and bicycle paths
c. seasonal structur€s or uses to accommodate educational, recreational or
cultural actiMties
Aoriculture and Open Soace (Existing Zoning)
A. SinglefamilyresidentialdwellingsB. Plant and tree nurseries and raising ol field, row and tree cropsC. Public parks, recreation areas and open spaces
During the worksession, the one use the PEC was concerned about was letter C-
seasonal structures or uses. Research done since the worksession shows that the
definition of seasonal structure requires conditional use approval in every zone district.
Though this conflicts with the use being listed as a permitted use in the Public Use
District, whenever the zoning code applies more than one standard to a development
regulation, staff practice has been to consistently use the more restrictive stiandard.
The definition of a seasonal structure is a:
"temporary covering erected over a recreational amenity, such as a swimming
pool or tennis court, lor the purpose of expanding their use to the cold weather
months. Such seasonal covers may not be in place for more than seven
consecutive months of any twelve-month period. . . . Any seasonal use or
structure shall require a conditional use permit in accord with Chapter 18.60'
Because of this definition, the only by right uses allowed in the Public Use zone district
are parks and bicycle paths.
C. Does the Rezonlng Provlde for the Growth of an Orderly, Vlable
Communlty?
lf approved, the rezoning will provide the conditional use process for lhe Town of Vail
to request approval of a snow?ufrp-Qump for
-Dommun
idhd help the
Jown function more efficienlly. The conditional use criteria will allow fo--thorougr@iecommunityconcernsareaddressed.Apartofan!
conditional use review will be an analysis ol the rockfall hazard. This is the only
hazard affecting the site, and any proposed use will have to incorporate any mitigation
recommended in a hazard study.
o )
D. Land Use Plan
This parcel is designated as Open Space in the Land Use Plan. Criteria for amending
the Land Use Plan have been established. On page 62 of the Plan, it states that in
order:
'to change lhe Plan . . . it will be the responsibility of the gpdica1t!_lg_-Qea4y_
demonstrate how conditions have changed since the Blan was adopted, how
thef-lan-WdSlnEir<ii oifiowme add'rtior',-AEienon or change to the Plan is in
concert with the Plan in general."
The goals and policies of any Land Use Plan are lhe fundamental basis on which such
a plan is developed. Policy 6.1 ol the Town of Vail Land Use Plan states that,
"Services should keep pace with increased growth.' Staff believes snow removal is a
service which the Town provides and is included under this policy.
In another section of the Plan, which discusses the facility and service standards ol the
Town, it states that the Public Works' Town Shops "is of adequate size to
accommodate future space needs.' Stafl believes that conditions have changed since
that statement was put in the Plan, and in order to maintain the service standard called
for in Policy 6.1, rezoning this land to accommodate public service facilities would be
an appropriate action. In addition to the change in land use designation from Open
Space to Semi-Public Use, staff also suggests changing the Land Use Plan to reflect
that there is a need for expansion of the services the Town Shop site provides.
ilr. coNcLUSroN
Staff recommends approval of the rezoning. Staff finds that the suitability of the existing
zoning is not adequate to accommodate the interesls of the public, and that the proposed
rezoning would provide a convenient, workable relationship with the land uses on either side
of the parcel, and that the rezoning would be consistent with municipal objectives. In addition,
statf believes that the rezoning, which would allow public service facilities, via the conditional
use process, would provide for a more orderly and viable community, Lastly, staff believes
that the Land Use Plan policies and amendment criteria are such that a rezoning to Public
Use Dislrict is consistent with the plan in general.
Flegarding the Land Use Plan, staff recommends that the two changes discussed be
approved. First, the Land Use designation shown on the maps should be changed from Open
Space to Public Use. Secondly, the text referring to the Public Works Shop sile should be
modified to read "the Public Works Town Shops may need to be expanded to accommodate
future space needs and to allow lor additional services to be located at the Shops." Staff
believes that these changes are consistent with the criteria established to modify the Plan as
well as Policy 6.1 of the goals and policies. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning
and Environmental Commission recommend to Town Council that the Land Use Plan be
changed and that the parcel generally west of the Town Shops be rezoned to Public Use
District.
c:\pectrtov\snowdump. 5 1 3
et rk"-\
Dcra 3
d'"/
t
t<,t/' ,
?u*o*d
tt")fr|, WHEREAS, conditions in the Town of Vail have changed since the Land Use Plan was
(lu"+ bkn^
originally adopted; and
WHEREAS, Policy 6.1 of the Land Use Plan states that services should keep pace with
increased growth; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Vail has a need for additional land with the designation of semi-
public in order to meet the standards of Policy 6.1.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
1. The Town Council finds the procedures for amending the Land Use Plan, as set
forth in Chapter Vlll, Section 3 of the Land Use Plan have been satisfied.
2. The Town Council hereby amends the Land Use Plan:
A. chansins rhe Land use Desisnation shown on h$J+i'ittftffr1fit
Open Space to Semi-Public for the property more particularly described in Exhibit A, and
B. Changing text of Chapter Vll, Section 2, "Public Works" to read: 'The
Public Works/Transportation Department is housed at the Town of Vail shop property which is
located north of l-70 in the vicinity of the golf course. The Publlc Works Town Shops may need
to be expanded to accommodate future space needs to allow for addltlonal servlces to be
located at the shops. Also, in the previous space use study, it was recommended that a small
satellite facility to accommodate under storage and a snowplow be developed in West Vail."
INTRODUCED, READ, APPFOVED AND ADOPTED this-dAY Of
1991.
Kent Fl. Rose,
ATTEST:
rf
\
t-2t-ql
1o {**
fnol tf;t'n". (!'1,'J' A REsoLUTToN MoDrFyrNG THE TowN oF vAtLr44 \ 04F'- LAND usE PLAN. GHANGTNG THE LAND usE DES|GNT
'luie
ld r'""
,4r4
RESOLUTION NO. 13
Series of 1991
USE PLAN, CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION
OF A PARCEL OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED
WEST OF THE TOWN OF VAIL SHOPS FBOM
OPEN SPACE TO SEMI.PUBLIC, AND SETTING
FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
I '/
l<'^tt
J<.*J st''t'
Qtt'*
a l-4
/-n
g+a"4lo^'a
^I/lto h,r T^^ 31-,nhy
866 L[/,r-.
Fiw( P"JT
Mayor
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
2*l 6-o
,t-
I
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPT]ON OF AREA
OF PROPOSED LAND LEGAIJ DESCRIPTTON
USE CHANCE AI.ID REZONING
THAT pARt OF THE NORTH I OF SECTION 8, TO!{NSHTP 5 SOUTU, RAI{GE 80
I|EST OF fiIE 6TIl PRINCIPAL I.IERIDIAI{, E.AGLE COINTY, COITRADO, LYING
NORTH OF INTERSTATE HTGEWAY NO. 70 AND BEING UORE PARTICUI,ARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLTOT{S:
BEGTNNING AT TIIE NORTH EAST CORNBR OF SATD SEETION 8' THENCE AI'NG
THE NORTITERLY LrNE OF SAID SEcTION I, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 46 UINI/IES
27 SECONDS WBST A DTSTA}TCE OF 15OO.OO FEET' MIENCE DEPARTING THE
NORTHERLY LrNE OF SArD SEqtrON 8, SOUTB OO DEGREES 23 UTNUIES 03
SECONDS IIEST A DISTA}ICE OF 529.86 FEEI TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY
RIGHT OF WAY I.,INE OF INTERSTATE HIGTIIEAY NO. 70' TEENCE AI,NG THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF TNTERSTATE HIGIIWAY NO. 70 FOLI'WTNG
TWO COITRSES:
1) SOUrH 75 DEGREES 28 I-TTNUTES 18 SECONDS EAST A DTSTANCE OF
180.82 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVASURE'
2) L327.9O FEET AI'NG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 5580.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE Or 13 DEGREES 38 !.IINUTES
04 SECONDS AND A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 36 MTNUTES 34
SECONDS EAST 1324.70 FEET DISTANCE TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE
OF SAID SECTTON 8'
THENCE DEPARTING SATD RTGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGIMAY NO.
70 NORTH OO DEGREES 23 MINUTES 03 SECONDS EAST AIONG IHE EASTERTY
LTNE OF SAID SECTION 8, A DISTN{CE OE 572.10 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 20.480 ACRES UORE OR LESS.
THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION IS BASED ON THE TOT{N OF VATL NWEXATION PI,ATS
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND IS NOT BASED ON A FIELD SI'RVEY. THE
BASIS OF BEARING FOR THE ABOVE PARCEL TS THE NOR$TERLY LTNE OF
SEqTION 8 BEING SOUTH. 89 DEGREES 46 T.IINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST AS
sHowN oN sArD AI{NEXAIION prnTs. (NORTH ANHOLTZ)
oo
ORDINANCE NO. 14
Series of 1991
AN ORDINANCE RUONING A TRACT OF LAND GENERALLY
LOCATED WEST OF THE TOWN OF VAIL SHOPS FROM
AGRTCULTURE/OPEN SPACE, SECTION 18.32, TO
PUBLTC USE D|STRICT, SECTION 18.36.
WHEHEAS, an application has been submitted by the Town of Vail and Vail Associates
to rezone a parcel generally located west of the Town of Vail Shops from Agriculture/Open Space
Zone District to Public Use District Zone District; and
WHEREAS, the allowed and conditional uses of the proposed zone district are such that
they will be compatible with adjacent zone districts; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning elfort is consistent with municipal objectives to provide an
orderly, viable community by allowing "public service facilities' as conditional uses in the proposed
zone district; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning is consistent with Policy 6.1 of the Land Use Plan, and
is consistent with the revised Land Use designations shown on the Land Use Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental
Commission held a public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment and has submitted its
recommendation to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices, as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to he
appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of
the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL. COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
The Town Council finds the procedures for a zoning amendment, as set forth in Section
18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied, and all of the
requirements ol the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail relating to the zoning amendments have
been fully satisfied.
Section 2
The Town Council hereby rezones the property, more particularly described in Exhibit A,
ailached hereto, from Agriculture/Open Space Zone District to Public Use Zone District.
Section 3
lf any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not eflect the validity of the remaining portions of
this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and
each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereol, regardless of the fact that any
one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
Section 4
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary
and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 5
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as
provided in this ordinance shall not atfect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under of by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed
and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST BEADING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE lN FULL, this_day of 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon
on the _ day of 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town.
Kent Fl. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of _, 1991.
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
o
::a.
EXtrIBIT A
HTffi:|il :lr$* r.rEcAL pEscnrprroN
USE CEANGE AT{D REZONING
THAT PART OF tHE NORTH I OF SECIION 8, TOWNSETP 5 SOUTH, RN{CE 80
WEST OF IIIE 6TH PRINCIPAL IiIERIDTAN, EAGI..E COT'NTY, COIPRADO, LYING
NORTH OF INTERSTATE HTGHWAY NO. 70 AIID BETNG }TORE PARTTCI'I,ARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOIJOWS:
BEGTNNTNG AT TIIE NORTTT EAST CORITER OF SATD SECIION 8
'
T1TENCE AI'NG
THE NORIEERI,Y LINE OF SArD SECITON 8, SOUm 89 DEGREES 46 UTNUIES27 SECOIIDS I|EST A DISTANCE OF 15OO.OO FEET' THENCE DEPARTING TIIE
NORTHERIy LINE OF SAID SEqIION 8, SOTIIH OO DEGREES 23 UTNUTES 03
SECONDS I'EST A DISTA}ICE OF 529.86 TEET EO A POIIII ON TIIE NORTITERI,Y
RIGHT OT WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE ITGEI{AY NO. 70' TEENCE AIONG TEE
NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF TNTERSTATE BIGHIIAY IIO. 70 FOLIOWINGtt{o coltRsEs:
1) SOUm 75 DEGREES 28 IiINUTES 18 SECONDS EAST A DrSTN{C8 Or
180.82 AEET TO A POII{T OF CT'RVATT'R3'
2) L327.9O FEET AI'NG TITE ARC OF A CI'RVE TO TIIE I8FT, IIAVING A
RADTUS OF 5580.00 FEET, A CENTRAL Al{cLE OF 13 DEGREES 38 !{TNUTES04 SECONDS }}{D A CHORD WHICE BE.ARS NORTII 89 DEGRSES 36 UTNUTES 34
SECONDS EAST 1324.70 FEET DTSTA}ICE TO A POTNT OIT THE EASTERI,Y IJNE
OF SAID SECTION 8'
THENCE DEPARTING SATD RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE IIIGTI!{AY NO.70 NORTII OO DEGREES 23 MINUTES 03 SECONDS TASI AI'NG IHE E.ASTERLY
LrNE OF SAID SECTTON 8, A DISTAI{CE OF 572.10 FEET TO tHE porilr OF
BEGINNING, CONTAINING 20.480 ACRES ttORE OR IISS.
TEE AEOITE DESCRI TTON IS BASED ON THE TOWN OF VAIL I'IINEXATTON PIATS
FOR TIIE PROPSRTY DESCRIBED AND TS NOT BASED ON A FTELD ST'RVEY. THE
BASIS OF BTARING FOR TFE ABOVE PARCEL IS TIIE NORTIIERLY LINE OF
SESIION 8 BEING SOIIn| 89 DEGREES 46 UINUTES 27 SECONDS I{EST AS
sHowN oN sArD ANNE,(AAION PIATS. (NORnr A!THOL!Z)
l
Project Application
o^r" ?/n/r 3
\Projecl Name:
3a /lrxtProject Description:
Contact Person and Phone
" /r,w /r, '6+t
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
a--< t-rzla:tt / ,Pan!/ a v-.+l - | ,7,no* -s /,"ft--l
/z tq ,4^L U'z'a;d A<'-<-
Lega|Description:Lot-,B|ock-Fi|ingv,zone-
Com ments:
Design Review Board
,t/
Darc {//7 / y'7
Motion by:
Seconded by:
@4-o DISAPPROVAL
O ro I +ff+,.'J
Summary:
out", 4a/z s
E Statt Approval
F!l_ [
Kristan PriE stated that the community had decided that they wanted the 250 Ordinance
to remain and that she did not feel that what Diana was suggesting went along with the
intention of the 250 Ordinance.
Shelly Mello stated that the applicant had checked with Holy Cross and that the
underground cable on the site is on the five year program. She stated that there will be
significant cost incurred with undergrounding the electrical cable.
Jim Morter inquired whether the property could be developed under RC zoning.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she would like to see more units in the same size
buildings in this area. She stated that if they are to lose units, lhen she does not want to
see the buildings get bigger.
Kristan Pritz stated that the Town of Vail has inherited several projects from Eagle County,
where the allowed zoning exceeds what should be developed there. She stated that the
Town felt that RC was the closest thing to what the County had proposed to zone this
location when it was annexed into Vail.
It should be noted that Jeff Bowen left the meeting at approximately 5:50 p.m.
A request for a modilication of the conditional use permit for the snow dump to allow an
expansion of the road located at 1309 Vail Valley Drivey' an unplatted parcel located west
of the Town of Vail shops.
coP y
5.
Applicant:
Planner:
Town of Vail
Andy Knudtsen
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the PEC agrees with the staff comments contained in the
staff memo. She said that they have a strong feeling that the impact not be extended any
lurther than what it is and that a boulder retaining wall in lieu of regrading could help
minimize the site disturbance. Kathy stated that there was significant impact at the comer.
Greg Hall stated that Public Works had taken the PEC's suggestion that the road be 30
feet wide instead of 35 feet wide at several locations.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the PEC would like to see the disturbance line remain the
same. Kathy stated that the PEC did not want to see the disturbance go past what the
existing odginal disturbance line is approved at. She stated that there was concem about
the visual impact of a solid wall, but that sections of wall could be at varying slopes and
that teffacing could possibly work. She stated that the DRB could provide additional input
conceming the design of the retaining wall.
Dalton Williams stated that the triangular piece of disturbance on the west end is
extremely evident and that he would like lo see additional landscaping planted at this
location.
Plannlng and Envlronmental Gomml3slon
August 9, 1993 11
Greg Hall stated that this area had been seeded with sage and that the location was still
in the process of being revegetated.
Diana Donovan made a motion to approve this request per the staff memo specifically
identifying the condition that the line of disturbance be located east of the existing shrubs
and be verified in tfre field with Community Development staff. Greg Amsden seconded
the request and a 6-0 vote approved this request.
6. A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision, a request for a variance lrom
Section 18.13.050 buildable area, and a request for a rezoning from the High Density
MultFFamily to the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district for a propefi located at
Lot 4, Block 3, Bighom Subdivision Filing No. 3/4333 Bighom Road.
Applicant: BAB Partnenhip
Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO AUGUST 23, 1993
Greg Amsden made a motion to table this item until August 23, 1993. Dalton Williams
seconded this motion and a 6-0 vote tabled this request until August 23, 1993.
A request for a major exterior alteration to allow for a retail expansion and a request to
amend a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for an existing "Television Station"
at the Sunbird Lodge, located at 675 Lionshead Place/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd
Filing.
7.
8.
Greg Amsden made a motion to table this item indefinitely. Dalton Williams seconded this
motion and a 6-0 vote tabled this request indefinitely.
A request for a major exterior alteration in CCl, for an addition and exterior upgrades to
the Cyranos Building, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st
Filing.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Tim Kehoe
Tim Devlin TABLED INDEFINffELY
Margretta B. Parks
MiKe MoIIica TABLED INDEFINITELY
9.
Greg Amsden made a motion to table this item indefinitely. Dalton Williams seconded this
motion and a 6-0 vote tabled this request indefinitely.
A request for the establishment of an SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Comice
Building and a request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of three Type
fV employee housing units, located al 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically
described as follows:
A parl of Tract "B' and a part ol Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, county of Eagle, Slale of Colorado,
more particularly dgscribed as follows:
Plannlng and Envlronmental Commlsslon
August 9, 1993 12
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
IIEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
August 9, 1993
A request for a modification to the
allow an expansion of the road
unplatted parcel located west of the T
dump to
{Pt$l Drive/an
tlduutsstott
t-4-'t7
The Town of Vail is requesting to modify the conditional use approved for construction of he
snow dump, west of the Town of Vail maintenance shops. Last winter was the first winter the
snow dump was used. After its initial year, tre Public Works staff has identified "kinks that
need to be ironed out."
At this time, the Public Works Department is proposing to widen the road to 30 feet. At the
worksession on July 26, 1993, the proposal was to widen the road to 35 feet. The Public
Works staff has reevaluated the way in which the snowdump will function and trucks will no
longer attempt to tum on the road in an effort to send the snow directly into the lower portion
of the dump. Instead, they will pile the snow on the road and use a front end loader to push
the snow off of the road into the dump. In order to allow trucks to pass the piles of snow, the
road will need to be wide enough to accommodate a driving lane as well as a "dumping lane."
Given these needs, Public Works is recommending a 30 feet wide road. This, in tum, will
require that the regrading of the hillside be extended 20 to 25 feet above the existing line of
revegetation. The proposed slope of the disturbed area will match the existing cut slope.
tI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 19.60, the Community Development Department recommends
approval of the modification to the conditional use permit based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development obiectives of
the Town.
Applicant:
Plannen
l_
Hff,?HillHoNMENT^L
' :. . 'lmililies, end other public facllides needs.
l,wlg.-lr\1,r' ' Stalt bdiaeg|trat them.fifpe no negative impacts from the expansion of the
snowdump on the critedtrlllfled above.
% rrifrhrith partacutar rebrence to congestion,
automotilre and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and
fiirur,;ffsHiDneuverability, and removal of enow from the
The purpose section ol the Public Use Distrlct, as listed in Section 18.36.010 of
the Town of Vail Zoning Code, states that this distric't is "intended to ensure
that public buildings and grounds and certiain types of quasi public uses... are
appropdately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors
of Vail and to harmonize with sunounding uses..." Staff believes that this
project will certainly help maet the needs of residents and visitolrs to Vail as it is
a cdtical cornponent in the Town's snow removal effoft.
2. Thc €firct of prc u:e on light and alr, dlstrlbution of population,
tramportrtiori facilitles, utilities, schools, parkr and ncreation
street and parking areas.
The staff believes that there will be a positive effed on traffic with the
construclion of this pottion of the snowdump. By making the snowdump work
more etficiently, staff believes that the Town will be able to imprwe snow
removal on the streets and roads in the community.
4. Efbct upon the character of the arca in which the proposed use ic
to be located, including the scale and bulk ol the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
Statf believes that there are two separate issues to identify regarding the
proposed expansion to the snowdump. The filst is he amount of site
disturbance above the existing line ol disturbance. Staff undestands thal the
new line of disturbance will be approximately 20 to 25 feet above the existing
line. This extension of fie disturbance will not create a noticeable change to
the hillside as viewed lrom surrounding properties.
The second point of discussion is the amount of regrading proposed on the
west end of the site. There are several large bushes in this area that should be
preserued. Furthermore, staff believes hat this would be the most visible
extent of regrading as seen from the so@er fields and the rest of the
neighborhood south of the interstate. By leaving this area as it is today, staff
believes that there will be little impact on the function of the snowdump
because the road at the far west end is wider than the road around the rest of
the snowdump.
Staff is recommending that the regrading and the road ogansion begin
approximately 190 feet from the westemmost end of the snowdump so hat the
existing vegetation can be saved. By preserving these shrubs, the cut can be
,L4r-L
tlrF
a7
tl-0 -l
screened as much as possible. lf the plans are modified according to these
recommenda$ons, staff beliwes ftat the prcposal will meet this cdteria.
B. Findinos
The Plannino and Environmental Gommission shall make the followinq findinos before
orantino a conditional use Dermit:
1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes ol
the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, salety, or welfare or matedally iniurious to propenies or
improvements in the vicinitY.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
tv. coNclusroN
The statf recommends approval of the proposed expansion to the snowdump. We believe
that it meets the criteria as discussed above as well as the findings. Specifically, slaff
believes trat Finding (B)(1) is met because the proposed use is consistent with the purpose
section of the zone district, as described above. Finding (BX2) is met in statfs opinion as the
proposed location of the snowdump and the operation of the snowdump will hot be detrimental
to public health, safety or welfare. Finding (BXg) is met as it complies with all of the
standards of the Public Use District of the Zoning Gode. Therefore, statf recommends
approval of this request with the condition that there is no disturbance to the hillside for the
westem 190 feet of the snow dump, as shown on the attached map.
Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval shall
lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and diligently
pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not commenced within
two years.
c:tsecfodsnowdump.809
a
I
o-0 ryu/
7'-z
,*y'oh/
*r'4/
-?0
h tt1-'a-.' 'v
*-* *4.
T7e ?q/-/ (w f w
nc/
'n:"?Z v .--y)Y*f r'y fq
a,, 7t- - 4@ ,h t 'I --\/t->^
or)
I
t"/*9-j
*"'77 ,t
w t1nz-zm
-""Y""r1
't*g h
't4? -vL)v
,n*-S =4
)/"/ s 6ru
F!t- [ c0P'{
g. A request for a worksession for a modification to the conditional use permit for thc snow
dump to allow an expansion of the road located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/an unplatted
parcel located west of the Town of Vail shops.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Andy Knudtsen/Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica made a presentation per the staff memo summarizing the Town of Vail's
request for a modification to the existing conditional use permit for the snow dump' to
allow for an expansion of the road. He added that the Town will need a signature from
Vail Associates, Inc., prior to a final hearing on this proposal, as Vail Associates is the
property owner of the land under the snow dump.
Greg Hall discussed the existing area of disturbance versus the proposed area of
disturbance and reviewed the tuming radius figures that the trucks will require for dumping
snow on this site. He stated that the Town wanted to give the truck drivers adequate
tuming room for safetY reasons.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the stakes indicating the limits of disturbance needed to
be more accurate for the next meeting. She said that Allison commented that wherever
possible, the site disturbance needed to be reduced.
Mike Moll6a inquired whether a wall could be placed on the uphill side of the road to
eliminate a majority of the proposed cut.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the site, as it was staked during the site visit earlier in the
day, already appeared to be disturbed.
g. A request to amend Title 17 regarding the subdivision process by adding a requirement
for proof of payment of property ta,Yes.
Applicant Town of Vail
Planner: Mike Mollica
Dalton Williams made a motion per the staff memo for approval to amend Title 17 with
Diana Donovan seconding this motion. A 4-0 vote approved this request.
10. A request for a worksession for a major exterior alteration to allow for a retail expansion
at the Sunbird Lodge, located at 675 Lionshead Place/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd
Filing.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Tim Kehoe
Planner: Tim Devlin
Tim Devlin made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that Vail Associates was
requesting PEC input regarding the possibility of changing the conditional use definition
Planning and Environmental Commission
JUV 26' 1993
fl
t
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
July 26, 1993
A request for a worksession for a modification to the conditional use for
the snow dump to allow an expansion of the road located at 1309 Vail
Valley Drive/an unplatted parcel located west of the Town of Vail shops.
Applicant:
Planner:
Town of Vail
Andy Knudtsen
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
The Town of Vail is requesting to modify the conditional use approved for construction of the
snow dump, west of the Town of Vail maintenance shops. Last winter was the first winter the
snow dump was used. After its initial year, the Public Works statf has identified "kinks that
need to be ironed out." Specifically, the Public Works staff found that the road was not wide
enough to accommodate dumping maneuvers by the largest trucks. At this time, the Town
Engineer is requesting to widen the width of the road on the north side of the snow dump from
15 feet to 35 feet. This would in turn require regrading and revegetating the hillside north of
the snow dump. At this time, the disturbed area extends 40 feet above the road. lf this
request is approved as submitted, the new area of disturlcance would be 25 to 30 feet higher
than this point.
il. DtscusstoN oF rssuEs
As this is a worksession, staff has not discussed the criteria. Instead, staff believes that we
should focus on the following issues:
1. Staff has requested that Greg Hall provide tuming radius of the trucks that will
be dumping the snow. Staff believes that this piece of information is critical in
order to understand how wide the road needs to be. Stafl would like to
minimize the width as much as possible while still allowing for safe and
functional access.
2. Prior to tinal hearing on this proposal, staff will need a signature from Vail
Associates, Inc., as they own the land under the snow dump. The Town has a
long term lease for the use of this ground.
3. Staff would like to see the area ol disturbance limited, particularly on the west
end. This is an area where there are several large shrubs. Also, it is this area
that is most visible from the interstate. By reducing the disturbance in this area,
I
staft believes the expanded snow dump will be less visible.
III. CONDMONAL USE CRITERIA
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the
Town.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distdbution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities,
and other public facilities needs.
3. Etfect upon traffic with padicular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from fie street and parking areas.
4. Eftect upon the character ol the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
B. Findinos
The Plannino and Environmental Commission shall make the followino findinos before
qrantinq a conditional use oermit:
1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with he purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes ol
the district in which the sile is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimentalto the public
health, salety, or welfare or mateddly injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinitY.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of he Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval shall
lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and diligenty
pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not commenced within
two years.
c :\pec\tov\snowdump.726
-c
',, .
T
L
-1o
J
J;
:9:( ci
b'>, F;
il:J 3
-:i[:'€
.i(-q;
q.
OC
ED'.i *
* i't.i
I il ij.l :r':.r'r
3iii S
'r3 .,3
tr-o
l.
At(+lo\<'lillq,.'r
$,(\
TE
i
flo-
a
,ot
:. l|
'ih,
,l
r \i
i:
l!'
'
1, l;,
I.5;,t
1.u
I
T
i
'
'1. 2b.73 Tov S Te<
o
r: !rt.;ij. :.:ri.::,i
revis€d LOl5l92
APPI.IICATION FOR
Date of Application
Date of PEC Meeting
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
I.This procedure is reguired for any project required to obtain aconditional use permit
The application wiII not be accepted until all information issubmitted.
OWNER(S) (print orN
srcNArnRE (il/2
A.
B.
NAI'{E OF APPLI
NAME
ADDRESS
ADD
NAI.{E OF
oYfNER (S)
ADDRESS
PHONE
E.
LOCATION OF PROPO LOCK FILING
ADDRESS
FEE $2OO.OO PAID
THE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT WILL ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL.
F. Stamped, addressed envelopes of the names of ownetrs of allpropert.y adjacent to the subject. property INCLUDING pROpERTy
BEHIND AND ACROSS STREETS, and a list of names and mailingaddTesses. THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FoR coRREcT
OWNERS AND CORRECT ADDRESSES.
II. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE:
A pre-application conference with a planning st.aff member isstrongly suggested to determine if any additional information isneeded. No application will be accepted unress it complete (mustinclude all itens required by the zoning administrator) . It, isthe appJ-icant, s responsibility to make an appointment with thestaff to find out about additional_ submittal requirements.
III. PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPI,ETE APPLICATION WILL STREAMLINE THE
APPROVAL PROCESS FOR YOUR PRO\'ECT BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
coMMrssroN (PEc) MAY STTPULATE. AI,r, coNDrrroNs oF APPRoVAL MUsrBE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE A BUILDING PERM]T IS ISSUED.
1,.
Four (4) copies of the following information must besubnitt.ed:
1. A description of the precise nature of t.he proposed useand its operating characterisLics and measures proposedto make the use compatible with other properties in thevicinity.
The description must also address:
a. Relationship and impact of the use on developrnentobjectives of the Town.
OF
ss
c.
efi/o
b.
,{
u;::"i:.lf:, "::.::olig::,;,3lii,ii3!libution
ut.ilities, schools, parks and recreationfacilities, and other public facilities and public
facilities needs-
Effect upon traffic, with particufar reference to
congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and
convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from thestreets and parking area.
Effect upon the character of the area in which Lhe
proposed use is to be located, including the scale
and bulk of the proposed use in rel-ation to
surrounding uses.
A site plan aL a scale of at least L" = 20' showing
proposed development of the site, including topography,
build{,;qrg locations, parking, traffic circulation,
useable open space, landscaped areas and utilities and
drainage features.
Preliminary building elevat,ions and floor plans.
A title report to verify ownershj.p and easements.
If the building is condoniniumized, a let.ter from the
condominium association in support of the proposal must
be submitted to staff.
2.
6.Any additional materiaL necessary
application as determined by the
** For interior modifications,
and site plan may be waived
admi-nistrator.
for the review of thezoning administrat,or.
improvement surveythe zoning
an
by
rv.TIME REQUIREMENTS
The Planning and Environmental Commission meets on the 2nd
and 4th Mondays of each mont.h. A complete application form
and all accompanying material (as described above) must besubnitted a minimum of four (4) weeks pri-or to the date ofthe PEC public hearing. No incomplete applications (as
deLermined by Lhe zoning adninistrator) will be accepted bythe planning staff before or after the designated submittaldate.
AII PEC approved conditional use permits shall lapse ifconst.ruction is not. commenced within one year of the date ofapproval and diligently pursued to completion, or if the usefor which the approval is granted is not commenced within
one year.
If this application requires a separate review by any local,State or Federal agency other than the Town of VaiI, theapplicat.ion fee shall be increased by $200.00. Exanples ofsuch review, may include, but are not limited to: Colorado
Department of Highway Access Permits, Army Corps ofEngineers 404, etc.
The applicant shall be responsible for paying any publishingfees which are in excess of 508 of the application fee. If,at the applicant's requesLr doy matter is postponed forhearing, causing the matter t.o be re-published, then, theentire fee for such re-publication shall be paid by theapplicant
A,
B.
A.\r
EI
,i,"".i.-..,i..
c.*or;"".;t o""*"d by the communityQrr"rop.ent, Deparrnenr,to have significant design, land use or other issues which
may have a significant irnpact on the community may requirereview by consultant.s other that town staff. Should adetermination be made by the town staff that an outsideconsultant is needed to review any application, Corununity
Development may hire an outside c6nsultant, it shallestimate the amount of money necessary to pay him or her andthis anount shall be forwarded to the Town by the applicantat the time he files his application with the Comrnunity
Development Department. Upon cornpletion of the review ofthe application by the consultant, any of the fundsforwarded by the applicant for payment of the consultantwhich have not been paid to the consultant sha1l be returnedto t.he applicant. Expenses incurred by the Town in excessof the amount forwarded by the applicant shall be paid tothe Town by the applicant within 30 days of notification bythe Town
'o
Post-lt'- brand fax transmittal memo 7611 # ol pages > f
'o ,tu4 tl[llL rom Aldt*Xo/Car__,
"" '&tilta LJtVa co' Ltnt'- Qzt*.
Dept.Phone# ,llq -lil8,",r +1E- Jt/./1,/Fax# 471i -J+tJ-
revised 9/4/9L
DRB APPLTCATION - TOWN OF IIAIL, COT,ORADO
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED :
T PROJECT TNFORMATTON:
A. DESCRIPTION-:
DATE OF DRB MEETINC: W I**********
TSIS APPLICATION WU.,I. NOT BE
I'NTIL AI,L nIQUIRED INFORMATION**********
ACCEPTEDIS SUBMITTED
o
@ c;\ ^,{
-i/-'
I u*'lK*'
, t7^
ta't^t'IQ
* DESIGN REVXEW BOARD APPROV]$ EXPIRES ONE YEAR AT'TER FII{AT..
APPRoVA! UNLESS A.BUIT.DING PERMII Is ISsuED AlrD CONSTRuCTTON IS
STSRTED.
:t}tNO APPIICS,TION WILL BE PRocEsSED WITHoUT owNER' s SIGNATuRE
't
Da-t V,rzu,t-
rr
, o*r.^ ^ nnl' B 'TYPE OF REVIEW:
New Construction
Addition ($50.00)
ADDTGSS:
IEGAL DESCRIPTION:
Subdivision
Minor Alteration ($20 . 00 )
Conceptual Review ($01
BIock
($200.00)
c.
D.
If propert,y is described bydescription, please provide
attach to this application.
zoNING, Pnbl;- l);<-
a meeLs and bounds 1egal
on a separate sheet and
n.
.1.
f\.
LOT AREA: If required, applicant
st,amped survey showing lot area.
must provide a current
P//*l c.NAME OF APPLICANT:Mailing Address:
5
H.
I. NAME OF OwNERS, 't'or,-, of l/o- I
*SIGNATURE(S):
Mailing Address:
Condoninlum Approval if applicable.
DRB FEE| DRB fees, as shown above, are to be paid atthe tlme of submittal of DRB apptication. Later, whenapplying for a building permit, please ident.ify theaccurate valuation of the proposal . The Town of VaiLwill adjust the fee according to the table beloW, toensure the correct fee is paid.
FSE PAID: $
FEE SCHEDUTE:
VALUATION
I 0 - $ 10,000
I 10/ 001 - $ 50,000
$ 50,001 - $ 150,000
$150,001 - $ 500,000
$500,001 - $1,000,000$ . Over $1r 000,000
FEB
$ 20.00I 50.00
$100.00
$200.00
$400.00
$s00.00
ffis'[ ." ",
Phone
Phone
o
II. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING:
A pre-application meeting with a member of the planningstaff is strongly encouraged to determine if any additionalapplication information is needed. It is the applicantrsresponsibility to make an appointment with the staff todetermine if there are additional submittal requirements.Please note that a COMPLETE application will- streamlj_ne theapproval process for your project.
III. IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THE DRB:
A. fn addition to meeting submittal requirements, theapplicant must stake and tape the project site toindicate property lines, building lines and buildingcorners. AIt trees to be removed nust be taped. Allsite tapings and staking must be completed piior to the
DRB site visit. The applicant must ensure t.hat stakingdone during the winter is not buried by snow.
B. The review process for NEW BUILDINGS normally reguirestwo separate meetings of the Design Review Board: aconceptual approval and a finaL approval . Applicantsshould plan on presenting their development proposal ata minimum of t.wo meet.ings before obtaining final_approval.
C. Applicants who fail to appear before the Design ReviewBoard on their scheduled neeting date and who have notasked in advance that discussion on their itern beposLponed, will have their items removed fron the DRBdocket unti.l such tirne as the item has beenrepublished.
D. The following items may, at the discretion of thezoning administraLor, be approved by the Comrnunity
Devel_opment Department staff (i.e. a formal hearinqbefore the DRB nay not be required):
a. Windows, skylights and similar exterior changeswhich do not alter the existing plane of thebuilding; and
b. Building addition.proposals not visible from anyother lot or public space. At the time such aproposal is submitted, applicants nust includelett,ers from adjacent. property owners and/or fromthe agent for or manager of any adjacent
condominium associat.ion stating the association
approves of the addition.
E. If a property is located in a mapped hazard area (i.e.
snow avalanche, rockfall, flood plain, debris f1ow,wetland, etc) r a hazard study must be submitted and theowner nust sign an affidavit recognizing the hazardreport prior. to the issuance of a building permit.Applicants are encouraged to check with a Town plannerprior to DRB application to determine the relationshipof the property to all mapped hazards.
F, For al] resldentlal construction:
a. Clearly indicate on the floor plans the insidefaee of the exterior structural wall_s of thebuilding; andb. Indicate nith a dashed line on the site plan afour foot distance from the exterior face of thebuilding walls or supporting columns.
If DRB approves the application with conditions ormodifications, aLl condit.ions of approval must beresolved prior t,o Town j.ssuance of a building perrnit.
TI'I
NEW CONSTRUCTTON
A.Three copies of a recent topoqraphic survev, stamped bva licensed survevor, at a scaLe of 1" = 20t or larger,
on which the fol-lowing information is provided:
Lot area.
Two foot contour j.ntervals unless the parcel
consists of 6 acres or more, in which case, 5'contour j-ntervals may be accepted.
Exist.ing Lrees or groups of trees having trunkswith diameters of 4" or more, as measured from apoint one foot above grade.
Rock outcroppings and other significant naturalfeatures (large boulders, intermittent streams,
etc. ) .
Hazard areas (avalanche, rockfall, etc.),cenLerline of stream or creek, required creek or
stream setback, 100-year flood plain and slopes of40t or more, if applicable.
Ties to existing benchmark, either USGS landmarkor sewer invert. This information should be
cLearly stated on the survey so that. alL
measurements are based on the same starting point.
This is particularly important for height
measurements. See Policy On Survey fnformation,for more information regarding surveys.
Locations of the following:a. Size and type of drainage culverts, swales,etc. must be shown.
b. Exact location of existing utility sources
and proposed service lines from their sourceto the structure. Utilities to include:
Cab1e TV
Telephone
Sewer
Water
Gas
E l onl- ri n
B.
c. Show all ut.ility meter locat.ions, including
any pedestaLs to be localed on sit.e or in theright-of-way adjacent to the site. Revocablepermits from the Town of Vail are requiredfor improvements in the right-of-way.
d. Property lines - distances and bearings and abasis of bearing must be shown.
e. A11 easements (Title report must also includeexisting easement locations)
8. Existing and finished grades.
9. Provide spot elevat.ions of Lhe street, and a
minimum of one spot elevation on either side ofthe lot, 25 feet out from the side property lines.
Site Plan
1. I.,ocations of the foLlowing:
surface drainage on and off sit.ea. Proposed
b. Proposed driveways. Percent. slope and spot
elevat.ions must be shown.
ALl existing improvements including structures,
landscaped areas, service areas, storage areas,walks, driveways, off-street parking, loading
areas, retaining walls (with top and bottom ofwall spot elevations), and other exist.ing site
improvements.
z.
c.
and proposed srades shown underneaLh). TheseeLevations and grades must, be provided in orderfor the staff to deternine building height. Allridge lines should be indicated on the site p1an.
Elevations for roof ridges shall also be indicated
on the site plan with corresponding finished andexisting grade elevations.
4. Driveway grades may noL.exceed 8t unless approvedby the Town Engineer.
Landscape Plan (!tl = QQt or larger) - 3 copies required
1. The following information must be provided on thelandscape plan. The location of exist.ing 4"diameter or larger trees, the location, sizelspacing and type (common and latin name) of allexisting and proposed plant material . AII treesto be saved and to be renoved must also beindicated. The plan must also differentiate
between existing and proposed vegetation.
2. Complete the attached landscape mat.erials Iist.
3. The location and type of existing and proposedwatering systems to be employed in caring forplanL mat.erial following its installation.
4. Existing and proposed contour lines.
In order to clarify the inter-relation of the variousdeveloprnent proposal components, please incorporate asmuch of the above information as possible onto the sitep1an.
Siqn off from each utility companv verifying thelocation of utility service and availability (see
attached) .
A prelirninary title report must accompany allsubmittals, to insure property ownership and locationof aLl easements on property.
Architectural Plans (1/8" = 1r or larger, L/An lspreferred scaLe for review) 3 copies required.
L. Scaled floor plans and all elevations of theproposed development. Elevations must show bothexisting and finished grades.
2. One set of floor plans must be {red-lined" to showhow the gross resident.ial floor area (GRFA) wascalculated.
3. Reductions of aII elevations and the site plan (g-L/2" x L!"1 for inclusion in pEC and,/or TownCouncil memos nay be reguested.
4. Exterior surfacing materials and naterial colorsshall be specified on the attached materials list.This materials list must be completed andsubmiLted as a parL of DRB application. Colorchlps, siding samples et.c., should be presented tothe Design Review Board meeting.
?ong check Iist (attached) must be completed if projectis located within the Single-Family, eiimary/Secbnairyor Duplex zone districts.
Photos of the existing site and where applicable, ofadjacent structures.
NOTE:
n
E
H.
I. The zokg Administrator and/or oJm", require the
submission of additional plans, drawings,specificat.ions, samples and other material-s (including
a model) if deemed necessary to deterrnine whether aproject will comply with Design Guidelines.
V. MINOR ALTERATIONS TO THE EXTERIOR OF BUILDINGS.
Photos or sketches which clearly convey the redevelopmentproposal and the location (site plan) of t.he redevelopmentproposal may be submitted in lieu of the more formalrequirements set forth above, provided aII importantspecifications for the proposal including colors andmaterials to be used are submitt.ed.
VI . ADDITTONS _ RESTDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAI,
A. Original floor plans with all specifications shown.
B. Three sets of proposed floor plans I/8't = Lt or larger(1,/4n = lr is preferred)
C. Three copies of a site plan showing existing andproposed const.ruction. Indicate roof ridge elevationswit.h existing and proposed grades shown underneath.
D. Elevations of proposed addition.
E. Photos of the existing structure.
F. Specificat.ions for all materials and color samples onmaterials list (attached).
At the request of t.he Zoning Admini-st.rator you may also berequired to submit:
G. A statement from each ut.ilj-ty verifying location ofservice and availability. See attached utilitylocation verification form.
H. A site improvement survey, stamped by regist.eredprofessional surveyor.
I. A prelimlnary title report, to verify ownership ofproperty, which lists all easements.
VII. FINAL STTE PLAN
Once a building permit has been issued, and construction isunderway, and before the Building Department. will schedule aframing inspection, two copies of an fmprovement LocationCertificate survey (ILC) stamped by a registeredprofessional engineer must be submitted. The followinginformation must be provided on the ILC:
Building locat.ion (s) with ties to property corners,i.e. distances and angles.
Building dimensions to the nearest tenth of a fooL.
All utility service line as-buiLt.s, showing type ofnaterial used/ and size and exact location of lines.
Dralnage as-builts.
Basis of bearing to tie to sect.ion corner.
A.
B.
c,
t't
E.A11 property pins are to be eitherstated on improvement survey.
AII easements.
Building floor elevat.ions and a}lwith existing and proposed grades
1ines.
found or set. and
roof ridge eLevat,ions
shown under the ridqe
H.
vrrr.coNcEPTuA" o"l* REVTE*
A.Submietal reguirements: The owner or authorized agentof any project requiring design approval as prescribed
by this chapter may submit plans for conceptual reviewby the Design Review Board to the Department of
Community Development. The conceptual review isintended to give the applicant a basic understanding ofthe compatibilj-ty of their proposal with the Town, sDesign Guidelines. This procedure j.s recommendedprimarily for applications more complex than single-fanily and two-family residences. However, developersof single-family and two-family projects shall not beexcluded frorn the opportunity t.o request a conceptualdesign review. Complete applications must be submitted
10 days prior to a scheduled DRB meeting.
The fol-lowing information shall be submitted for aconcept,ual review:
L. A conceptual site and landscape pLan at a minimumscafe of one inch eguals twenty feeti
2. Conceptual elevations showing exterior mat,erials
and a description of the character of the proposedstructure or structures;
3. Sufficient information to show the proposal_
complies with the development standards of the
zone district in which the project is to beIocated (i.e. GRFA, sj-te coverage calculations,
number of parking spaces, etc.);
4. Completed one application form.
Procedure: Upon receipt of an application forconceptual design review, the Department of ConmunityDevelopment shalL review the submitted materials forgeneral compliance with the appropriate requirements ofthe zoningr code. If the proposal is in basiccompliance with the zoning code requirements, theproject sha1l be forwarded to the DRB for conceptualreview. If the application is not generally incompliance with zoning code requirements, theapplication and submittal materials shall be returnedto the applicant with a written explanation as to whythe Community Development Department staff has foundtbe project not to be in compli_ance with zoning codereguirements. Once a complete application has beenreceived, the DRB shal1 review the submit.t.ed conceptualreview application and supporting material in order todetermine whether or not the project generally complieswith the design guidelines. The DRB does not vote onconceptual reviews. The property owner or hisrepresentative shall be present at the DRB hearinq.
B,
NAME OF PROJECT:
LEGAI DESCRIPTION: LOT BLOCK
STREET ADDRESS:
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
LIST OF MATERIALS
I
informatioh is requrrbefore a final approval
SUBDIVISI
d for submittal to the Design
can be given:
The following
Review Board
A.BUILDING T'IATERIALS:
Roof
Siding
Other WaIl Material-s
Fascia
Soffits
Windows
Window Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Flues
Flashings
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
Other
LANDSCAPING: Name
PLANT MATERIALS:
PROPOSED TREES
TYPE OF MATERIAL COLOR
of Designer:
Dhrrno.
Botanical Name Common Name Ouantitv Size*
B.
EXISTING TREES TO
BE REMOVED
*Indicat.e caliper for deciduous trees. Minimum catiper for
deciduous trees is 2 inches. Indicate height for coniferoustrees. Minimum heiqht for coniferous trees is 6 feet.
PLANT MATERIAI
PROPOSED SHRUBS
.o..or,?"..Ouantitv Size*.Botanical Name
1u*-l h, L.
EXISTING SHRUBS
TO BE REMOVED
*fndicate size
5 qallon.
GROUND COVERS
enn
SEED
TYPE
OF IRRIGATION
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSION CONTROL
of proposed shrubs.
Tvpe
Minimum size of shrubs is
Sguare Footaqe
LANDSCAPE LIGHTING: If exterior lighting is proposed, please
show the number of fixtures and locations on a separatelighting plan. Identify each fixture from t.he fiqnting planon the list below and provide the wattage, height above -
grade and type of light proposed.
OTHER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retaining wa1ls, fences, swimmingpools, etc.) please specify. Indicate heights of retaininfwal-ls. Maximum heiqht of walrs wi-thin the front setback i5
? f9.!. . Maximum height of walls eLsewhere on the propercy
1C tr f oaf
D.
o
1.
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE TOWN OF VAIL SHOPS
White River National Forest
Owner USFS
Holy Gross Ranger Disttict
P.O. Box 190
Minturn, CO 816115
Ford Park:
Ownen Town of Vail
unplatted parcel west of Tov shops:
Owner: Town of Vail
Golf Course:
Ownen Town of Vail
The Wren
Owner: The Wren Condominium Association
Attn: Allen Wood
500 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
4.
5.
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 ot the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on July 26, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A clarification of the subdivision process regarding payment of taxes.
Planner: Mike Mollica
2. A request for a minor amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village for the Waterford
parcels in area A, described as follows:
TtEt !E t ol tM SW 1 A NE 'l A, Secloo t a Tofynrhlp 5 Sout[ RsnC€ Et W6t ot th. S&lh Prlndpal Msldhn, Torvn ol Vall, EaCle County,
Cdordq dCcrlbd 6 blos:
B€elnnllt at a polnt on the southslt rlght-ot wey llne ol hbrstata llehrvay llo. 70 *herce an kon ph wlth I daslic cap maddne t|s caol€. of
3e|d Scdlon 12 bc[ I 9fl0'1y W l{47.03 feet; hen€. alone sald roJtt!.dt .lght oF{ry ln€ t|vo cout3a
r) N 52"502r E 229.88 aer
2) N 7,a.381r E t6om bcl
lh.nce d.F tlng sald roulh€.ly rlgl d{ay llne N 88".a55f E 138,93 te.q f|€oc. S 40e45'l4. W 9{.32 bot lhonce S 18" 1836'W 5a-08 te€t;
f|.occ S 0l2tf WS.02leet fi€nc. S I ?O73d W t1O.5 bcf thenoe S 28?8S W 1et.,l6lca[ ts|ce N.tO'l70t'W2lt.tA bot
0|.occN49'42561E97.9)beqtheirceN3T'Gl'31'W95.59t€€tth€ncaS5f5029rW55.tOleet;fiencr69.48l€otdmelhearcofamn-
bngent qryc b rhe let havlne a iadltr3 ol 65.m ls€t a centrrl arEla of 6lcl/t'4f snd s crrord hal beaE N 58" 55'53 W 66.22 teet lhene t{
3ru31' W I18.50 b.t To Th3 Truo Polnt ol Bcglnning. County ot E{L, Slete ol Coloradoi
Applicant: MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina and
Gommercial Federal Savings.Planner: Shelly Mello
3. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow an expansion to a residential unit at
the Red Lion/Lots E, F, G and H, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1st Filing/304 Bridge Street.
Applicant: Aagje NoursePlanner: Jim Curnutte
r A request for a modification to the conditional use for the snow dump to allow an
expansion of the road located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/an unplatted parcel located
west ot the Town of Vail shops.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner:Andy Knudtsen
5. A request for a variance to allow a deck to encroach into a seback for a residence
located at Lot 14, Bighom 2nd Filing/3876 Lupine Drive.
Applicants: Eric and Susan Sipf
Planner:Andy Knudtsen
!.
6. A request to amend the development plan for the Gold peak ea; b;iior a building
'
,
for restrooms and locker rooms located at Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing/458 Vail
Valley Drive.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Tim Kehoe
Planner: Tim Devlin
7. A request for a Jolnt worksesslon with lhe Planning and Environmental Commission
and the Design Review Board for the establishment of a Special Development District
to allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive,
and more specifically described as follows:
A parcel of land In Tract B, Vall Village, Firsl Fillng, Torn of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, mors panicularly
descdbed as follows:
Commenclng at lhs North€ast corner ol sald Traa B; lherrce N 79'46'00' W along th€ North€rly lin€ of Vail
Village, First Filing, and along tho Northerly line of said Ttact B 622.86 f€€t; thence S 0626'5f W a
distarce of 348.83 feet to lhe Souhwest corn€r of lhal parcel of land described ln Book 19,| at Page 139 as
recorded January 10, 1966 and fil€d in Recaption No, 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also
belng the True Point ol Beglnning; lhenco S 79oO4'08' E and along tho Southedy line of said parcel 200.00
fset 1o the Southeast corn€r lhereol; th€rc€ N 62"52'00 E and along lh€ North€dy line ot lhat parc€l of land
described ln WR 42 at Page 513 as r€corded In 1971 in th€ Eagle County Records, a dislance of 66.78
l€et lo the Northeasterly corner ol said parcel ol land; said corner being on ths W€sterly rigtrt-of-way llne of
Gore Creek Road, as plattod in Vail Village, Flfih Filing; th€rrce N 27'13'37' W a distance ol 77.37 leet
abng sald Westerly dghl-ot{,vay line of Gore Cr€€k Road; thence N 89"29'22 W a distanc€ of 12.80 feet lo
the North€ast€rly corner ol that parcel of land described in Book 191, PagE 139 as recorded January 10,
't 966 and liled In Reception No. 102978 In the Eagle County Records; lhence Northwesterly 26.51 test along
tho arc d a 37.50 feet radlus curve lo the letl having a central angle of 40'30'00'whose chord bears N
53o40'00' W a distance of 25.96 fe€t to a point of tar€errcy; lh€nc€ N 73'55'00' W and elor€ said tangenl
166.44 teet; lh€nce N 85'10'21'W a dlstance of 50.40 l€ol to tho Northw€sledy corner ol th€ irounlain
Haus Parccl; thenc€ S 02o18'00'W and along the east€rly line of said iilountain Haus Parcel a distance ol
lOO.OO feet to the South€asterly oorn€r th€r€of; thenc€ S 45'13'53' E a digance of 38.70 lest to the True
Polnt of B€ginnlng, containlng 30,486 square le€l, more or lEss,
Applicant: Vail Athletic Club
Planner: Shelly Mello
8. A request for a major exterior alteration to allow for a retail expansion at the Sunbird
Lodge, located at 675 Lionshead Place/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing.
Applicant: vailAssociates, lnc.
Planner: Tim Devlin
9. A request for the establishment of an SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Cornice
Building and a request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of three
Type lV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically
described as follows:
A part ol Tracl'B' and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Mllage, First Filing, County of Eagle, State of
Cobrado, more parlicularly described as folloivs:
Commerrclng at $e Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Filing; thence Norlh 79'46'00'Wesl along th€
S.:r;ihc;lv line r,{ l.l l. llich',r.:;v i.lo C ;l di:ianco of 367 0G i.), i :o ih,. lii'11i,.:'::l airi.t .:tr 1.;i;j fract "3";
th€nce South 10.14'0O'West along the Easterly lne of said Tract "B'; a distance ol 198.31 leel to the
I
. Soulhoasterly corner ol sald Tract'B'; thsnce North 79'4600'W€st abng the South€rly lne ol sald Tract
'B' a dlstarrce of 100.00 le€t to the truE polnt of b€glnning th€nco Norlh @'10'07'West a dislance ol 41.67
f€ot; lh€nc€ South 88027'11'West a distancs of 75.21 feet; thence South n"13'37' East a dislanca ol
77.37 taoli th€nce North 9724'00. Easl a distance of 55.11 teet, rnore or less to fte tru€ point of b€ginning.
Applicant: David SmithPlanner: Jim Curnutte
10. A request for a conditional use permit and a landscape variance to allow an expansion
of fie Vail Associates vehicle maintenance shop located at the NW 1/4 NW 1/4
Section 7 and the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 6, Township 5 South Range 80 W of the
60th P.M.A/ail Associates.
Applicant: VailAssociatesPlanner: Jim Curnutte
o
^Gls ITEM MAY EFFECTYOUR PROPERW
I
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 ol the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on August 23, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an additional covered entry to an
existing residence located at 1547-A Springhill Lane/Lot 2, Block 3, Vail Valley 2nd
Filing.
2.A request for the establishmenl of a Special Development District to allow the
expansion of the Vail Athletic Clrh, focated at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more
specrfically described as fotlows:
A parcel ol land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at the North€ast corner of said Tract B; lhence N 79046'00'W along the Northerly line of Vail
Village, First Filing, and along the Northedy linE of said Tracl B 622.86 leel; thence S 06"26'52'W a
distance of 348.83 feet to the Soulhwest corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191 al Page 139 as
recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also
being the True Point ol Beginning; thence S 79"04'08" E and along th€ Southerly line ol said parcel 200.00
t€el to the Southeasi comer thefeof; thence N 62"52'00" E and along lhe Northerly line of lhat parcel of land
described ln Book222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in lhe Eagle County Records, a dislanc€ of 66.78
feet to thE Northeasterly comer of said parcol of land; said corner being on the Westerly rightof-way line of
Gore Creek Road, as planed in Vail Mllag6, Fitth Filing; thence N 27'13'37" W a distance of 77.37'feel
afong said Weslerly right€t-way line of Gore Creak Road; thence N 89o29'22'W a distance ol 12.80 feet to
the Northeast€rly comer of that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January.10,
1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; lhence Northwesterly 26.51 feel along
lhe arc of a 37.50 teei radius curve to th€ lett having a central angl€ of 40"30'00'whose chord bears N
53"40'00' W a dislancE of 25.96 teet to a point of langency; thence N 73"55'00" W and along said tangenl
'166.44 ieet; thence N 85'10 21" W a distance of 50.40 teet to the Northwesterly corner ol the Mountain
Haus Parcel; lhence S 02"t8'00'W and along the easterly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a dislance ol
100.00 leet to the Souiheasterly comer thereof; thence S 45"13'53' E a distance of 38.70 leet to the True
Point of Beginning, conlainlng 30,486 square feel, more or less.
Applicants:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicants:
Planner:
Frank and Marlene Rembert
Andy Knudtsen
VailAthletic Glub
Shelly Mello
Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc.A/ail Associates,
lnc./Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, lnc.
Mike Mollica
e A request for a work session for the establishment of a Special Development District,
a CCI exterior alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an amendment to
View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B,
C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing.
9.
*
4. A request for setback and site coverage variances lo allow for a new residence on Lot
18, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing/32s Forest Road.
Applicanl TimothY Drisko
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
5. A request for a worksession for proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38,
Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, and Chapter 18.32 Agricultural and Open
Space District, of the Vail Municipal Code.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planners: Jim Curnutte and Russ Forrest
6. A request for a minor subdivision for Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing/381 Beaver
Dam Circle.
Applicant Leo PaYne
Planner: Jim Curntttle
7. A request for variances for wall heights, construction in an area with slopes in excess
of 40o/o and parking in the front setback and an amendment to the approved
development plan for the Briar Patch Condominiums, located at 1398 Buffehr Creek
Road/Lot F, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 2.
Applicanl Briar Patch Condominiums
Planner: ShellY Mello
8. A request for a minor subdivision, a request for a variance from Section 18.13.050
buildable area, and a request for a rezoning from the High Density Multi-Family lo the
Pdmary/Secondary Residential zone district for a property located at Lot 4, Block 3,
Bighorn Subdivision Filing No. 3/4333 Bighom Road.
Applicant BAB PartnershiPPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
A request for a modification to the conditional use permit for the snow dump to allow
an expansion of the road located at 1309 VailValley Drive/an unplatted parcellocated
west of the Town ol Vail shoPs.
Applicant: Town of VailPianner: Andy Knudtsen ''
I
LIST OF ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
Bob Moston
Deparment of Transportation
P. O. Box 2107
Grand Junction, CO 81502
Joseph Staufer
Vail Village Inn Arcade
Vail Village Inn
100 East Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Sonnenalp Austria Hous
Sonnenalp Swiss Chalet
Sonnenalp Properties, Inc.
20 Vail Road
Vail, CO 81657
Crossroads Condominium Association
c/o Slifer Management Co.
143 E. Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Village Center Condominium Assoc.
124 Willow Bridge Road
Vail, CO 81657
FII. T COF Y
2.
*
o
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vailwill hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18,66.060 of the MunicipalCode of
the Town of Vail on March 27,1995, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideralion of:
1. A request for a major exterior alteration and site coverage variance to allow for the
expansion of La Tour Restaurant and the Gotthelf's Gallery located in the Village
Center Building, 122East Meadow Drive/a portion of Block 5E, VailVillage lst Filing.
Applicant: Fred Hibberd, represented by Craig Snowdon
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a height variance to allow a satellite dish to be located at 143 East
Meadow Drive, Suiie 240, Crossroads EasULot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Bill Wilto, representing RE/MM Vail, Inc.
Planner: Jim Curnutte
3. A request for a modification to the Land Use Plan from Open Space to Public - Semi-
Public and a rezoning from Natural Area Preservation to General Use to allow for the
redevelopment of the goll course maintenance parcel located al 1278 Vail Valley
Drive/Parcel E, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Ernie Bender, representing the Vail Recreation District
Planner: Russ Forrest
4. A request for a setback variance to allow for an expansion to the Redpath residence
located at2692 Cortina Lane/Lot 10, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Bob Redpath
Planner: George Ruther
5. A request for a setback variance to allow for the construction of a freestanding garage
to be located a|4524 Meadow Driveffimberfalls Condominiums.
Applicant: RichardVossler, Timberfalls Condominium Association
Planner: Randy Stouder
Published in the VailTrailon March 10. 1995.
3,1O.9 5 flJ1''enf lellers sent
JUN 2 1 1991
CONFERENCE
MEMORANDUM c'SiISUTTNG ENGINEERS
550 SOUTH WADSWORTH BLVD., SUITE 5OO
I,AKEWOOD. COLORADO 8tr226
Project
Vail Snow Storage
Client
Town of Vail
Confereoce locati<m
Town of Vail Public Worh Conference Room
Attendanti
Greg Hall, Town of Vail - Public Works
Andy Knutson, Town of Vail - Planning
Mike Dungan, Muller Engineering Company, Inc. (MEC)
Purpce
Vail Snow Storage Ploject Frogress Mreeting
Discnssi<n
TI{E FOLLOWING IS OT]R UNDERSTANDING OF TIIE SUBJECT MATTER
COVERED IN TIIIS CONFERENCE" IF TT{IS DIFFERS WTTH YOUR
UNDERSTANDING. PLEA.SE NOTIFY US.
Items Discussed:
1. Mike Dungan presented the drawinp. Some corrections to be made were as folloqr:
a. Show where embankment is removed.on the water line profile-
b. Add dimensions on section 5, Sheet 7.
c. Show 2Vo cross slope on road detail.
2. The landscaping portions of the work were discussed. Some items requiring further analSis
are:
a. The vertical bounds of shrubs/sagebrustr/replanted sagebrush were not shown on the
plan.
b. maybe consider a third seed mk for the 2:1 slope on the north side of the facility.
This mix could have grass colored blue or blue-grey to better match the hillside.
c. Can the erosion control netting be eliminated on the south side of the berm due to the
flatter slopes?
3. Andy nould like a section through the valley showing the Snow Storage Facility. Greg will
supply elevations on the upper road which are not on the t942 top. MEC will complete
the valley section-
4. The following schedule was agreed upon:
Greg needs 4 drawing sets as sooo as pocsible.
Reduced drawings will b€ delivered to Vail by Friday, June 21.
Sherry Dorward or Wenk Associates will attend PEC meeting on Monday, June 24ttt-
MEC will try to have specifications delivered to Greg Hall on Friday, June 28.
5. The C-ontractor should complete all pipe work other than the water line. The Torvn will
strip topoil and remove it from the site.
a.
b.
c.
d.
(303) e37-3500
Oonference Date
June 14, 1991
Issrr Date
June 18, 1991
Proiect No.
w36.U2
Routing
LAT,i
File
Prepared By:Distntution:
All Attendants
fllffi;J"f,frr;
o-J
LOoO
vr.
(f ,1
4
at)z
Fl
I
luFooo-zo
|-o-utY
UJ
(D
Ydir- d\F ,-.{
cc o\
lll Fr
4.xFl
--li=lo-l()El,Hlrl
UurbEzo
z,no
=EH=zA?:fldr(9
ixoQ=
=F3=oi6d>
F
t!
lt
uloz
lo
an
o
9
JF|;>
o- uJ>(LOu9o5tu-l!:>rJ l-
UJJJ
nJ
co
oF
o
E
cLo
o
o
c
E
co.,
o
ts
=E,
lrJ
o-zIF(Jf
E,Fazo(J
nnKrt_JLlxl
oz
ts
=
t.u
o-
I zlzl ta'H't.r)l
d t ErqF4 PrYpt ztkE :ir1 ,g
>, 16 >, 19
-l I6t -rl..\ | Cho, '.\ l,-{ | F- 1,,,-- .,,'\. ,Fo tFo Is
lol
I'
!$:gs
FE:58EY-FV!irecsE;ei9: A P'E3E_'PkEEEFg'rc; ct::
(l)E L:IJ
r!O--=-c;o(,trEti::
:9>-9Y''o.l)V
x5 5: E
I
I
lvl
Io{
FI
l6
lFl
tF-lt<
lo
Itrr
=>(r
-I(Y)
=tDAr
O-r
5rdr!>ooz&
trA..q<
n<o.n
<zcFr
z<
!l F4\J CJ
z
^6
oo
z
f,
^i
al
tr
zl
zl
. >l
uJo
uJ
IJJzaF
(r
uJ
zI
troo
;
X x X X
Fl
i
2
tr
c0
zi
UJo
(rl
uJl{tJI
<l>l
t!lol
zl
3lolFI
€!n
c.l
Io\r\{
lltltltl
4l el
:l Elol Jlt<lzt >lBl r.l9l ol't zl>l 3lEt oltrl Fl
=,|ol
ql
al>l
rr-Iol
2l
3l
9lFI
=lol
|rIq
zl
3lIFI
I
I
I
"l=.1
uIl
:l
al>l
u-lol
pl i
l-lrolFr
I a.lllloilr\l.s+tit-
I
I
I
")ua-rq FlclH
qsni5o
t;
I frlIt{lFlt<ItlFtIHt<
l>lo,
l(')
1..{
FfH
tsto
zB
ts
ul
z
FHH
H(-)
tI{
t4
&ots(n
B
zvt
rJ
=z
tltlll.l IztlHt Ic4tlFlt IFlt IztlF{l I
vtlztlr{l
I&tli,i I (')l3t frFll dae>l JEt <dE
E99;()
=fd6
z
-
LIJ
=LIY
(JZ
t
<F
IJJ <zd.urF(rz
JE<o()F
F3
.\a !-\z
F
tlJ
=-trtru
oo
JOB NAME:TOU SNOW DUMP 1UlU9r
CONTRACTIOR:TOWN OF VAIL PERMIT#5149
CONST. ZONE N/A I ADDRESS:OPEN SPACE
NO.OFT]MTS 0 PLANNER ANDY
NEW SQ,FT.0 TOTAL $o PLANS CHECKER DAN
PERMIT TYPE EXC ELECTRICAL $0
USE TYPE OPEN MECHAI\IICAL $o
REC.FEERATE 0.00 PLTJMBING $01
# OF GAS APPLINCES 0 RESTN.ICTED N/A
S OF GAS FIN,EPI.A,CES 0 t oF wooD sTovE 0
BTIILDING 0 PLAN 0
ELECTRICAL N/A REC.0
MECHAI\ICAL N/A DRB 0
PLT]MBING N/A CLEAN IJP N/A
PLTJMB. PLANFEE N/A OTHER FEE
MECH.PLANFEE N/A 0 0
Ff!.t cOPy
Present
Chuck Gist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Ludwig Kurz
Kathy Langenwalter
Jim Shearer
Gena Whinen
PLANMNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
October 14,l99l
Staff
Krisun hitz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Betsy Rosolack
Amber Blecker
The worksession was called to order by Chairperson Diana Donovan at approximately
l:55PM.
l. A renuest for a worksession for Soecial Develooment District No. 4. Cascade Villase
icoseriff Parccl). to review a develooment plan. generallv located south of Milhce
Condominiums and west of the Westin Reso'rt. Vail.
Aoolicant: East-West Parmers
Planner: Shellv Mello
Mark Smith, Jerry Mullikin and Ned Gwathmey reprcsented the applicants.
Shelly Mello began the discussion of the proposal by suting staff believed the project needed
to be more materially compatible, a landscape plan, and a final survey were needed, and since
it was an unplatted parcel, a rninor suMivision would be nocessary.
Diana Donovan was unhappy that the property would not remain open space, and the
Commission agreed with her.
Jim Shearer did not mind a difference in materials, and believed that the applicants should try
to "bring up" the neighborhood.
Ludwig Kurz thought that, since there were distinct styles, wban and hotel, that compatibility
was impossible. He said he could live with the design presently submitted. He was more
concerned with both landscaping and sEect surface materials.
Ned Gwathmey asked what the opinion of the Commission was rcgarding a rnetal roof, and
which type should it be. He advocated shake shingles stained to match the existing
surrounding buildings, but did not believe a material match was the best solution. He
suggested spraying the shake shingles to achieve a compatible roof color. Kathy
Langenwalter did not see a problem in not using a metal roof, as long as the rmf lines werc
cornpatible. She suggested perhaps adding mor€ stucco and changing the railings for a morp
refirni appeiuance of ttre building. She also believed it was important to continue the paving
pattcm which was used in the Millrace projcct. She was concerned with the layout of the
p-j"", and the difference in scale between the hotel and this project. She said it felt like the
east unit was very close to a large building.
Ned asked if a landscape plan would be necessary for approval. The Commissionen told him
it would.
Chuck Crist asked if employee housing would be a part of the development. Shelly said suff
would not require it as a condition of approval, as 0tere was a reduction in density from the
previously-approved plan. Chuck asked ifthe applicants werc interestcd in providing a
iaretaker unit. tt e responded that they wer€ not. Shelly said staff would be supportive if
such a unit was proposed, as long as it was integrated into one of the p'roposed units.
Kathy broughr up the issue ofparking. Shelly explained the proposal had 4 spaces more than
the Town required. Kathy wondered where guest parking would be provided. Kevin
McTavish, the manager of the existing units at Millrace, shared Kathy's concem, stating that
their project had no guest parking, and it was a major pmblem. Ned asked what a reasonablc
number of overflow parking spaces would be. He was not opposed to providing additional
parking, but indicated it would rcquire additional paving. Kathy suggested perhaps widening
ihe circle. Ned agreed to look at differ€nt possibilities for providing additional parking.
Kathy said shc would prefer to have adequate parking for the project rather than insisting the
project meet the 75Vo enclosd parking requircment.
After a general discussion regarding parking, Connie Knight asked if drere were any problem
with thJbike path running across the project. Shelly said there should be an easement, and
agreed to check the Special Development District documents to make sure.
Kevin McTavish reiterated that the prescnt parking plan was inadequate.
At this time, the public meeting was begun.
Filine/365 Vail Vallev Drive.
Applicant: Marearct Hill Marital Trust
Planner: Shellv Mello
Shelly Mello explained the differences betrveen what had been submittcd for the PEC
approval of the SDD, building permit and what was built, and the discrepancies. Staff asked
thit the Improvemenr l,ocation Certificate (ILC) and future surveys reflect the fact that the
prop€rty lines not close. The sources of the discrepancy wer€ attributed to three factors. The
l.
tlis project and that the golf course devclopcrs take the responsibility of maintaining these
improvements.
Gena Whitten moved to approve the request for approval of a wetland mitigation proposal for
areas along Gore Creek and Booth Creek per staff memo and the attachments, with the
r"co.1nendution that ar€as F, G, L and Q be the prcferred restoration aleas, and areas O, N
and K be possible areas for restoration, as shown on Exhibit D of the staff's memo. Connie
Knight seionded the motion. The recommendation was unanimously approvcd, 7-0.
9.A reouest for m amendment to the apOroval conditional use ocrmit in order to
co,nsuuct a snow dump on the proDertv eenerallv located west of tlle Town of Vail
Shoos. The prooerw is more soecificallv describcd as follows:
That part of the North l/2 of Section 8. To\rnshiD 5 South. Ratlse 80 w.est of the 6th
ffie countv. Colorado. lvine nonh of Intentate Hiehwav No. 70
and beine more oarticulatlv described as follows:
S75o28'18"E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature:
Anplicants: Town of VaiUVail Associates
Planner: Andv Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen explained that the requested change in the approved conditional use permit
*asio build a portion of the snow storage facility this fall, and the remainder of it next
summer. Greg Hall, Town Engineer, said that, due to the time remaining in the curent
construction s-ason, only half of ttre project could be completed. Kristan Pritz indicated the
-l)
D
ROW line of I-70: thence alone the ntnherlv ROW line of I-70 followine hvo
distance to a ooint on the easterlv line of said Section 8:
Section 8. a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of besinnins. containins 20.480 acres
annexation plats.
ll
project was brought back to the Commissioners because of their concems regarding watcr
quality and visibility.
Diana Donovan asked that, if a portion of the berm werc consuucted this year, could Public
Works guarantee that the existing snow storage facility would not be used. Greg could not
commit to that, as it depended on how much snow fell during the season. He did agr€e to
avoid the use of the cun€nt facility if possible.
Diana also requested that top soil to be stockpiled bc locaed in areas to be disturbed by the
constnrction. This would minimize the impact to the arpa around the snow dump, and o kill
as little sage as possible.
Tamra Nottingham, representing Vail Associatcs, pointed out that the leasc did not cxactly
match the legal description noticed for the conditional usc permir Kristan explaincd that the
permit was for a specific set of plans. Though the legal description was broader than the
ionstruction area, V.A. would not need to be concerned about development on the rest of the
parcel at this time, since all construction would have to comply with the approved plan.
Kathy Langenwalrer questioned if all of the approved plans would still be completed. Mike
Mollica said this was basically a rcquest for a phasing plan, and that all the work would
eventually be completed. Kathy also requested that the lighting would be minimal in the
area. Andy said that angled lights would be used in the area, and there would be very little
visual impact.
Ludwig Kurz moved to amend the approved conditional use permit in order to construct a
snow dump on rhe property generally located west of the Town of Vail Shops. The property
is more specifically described as follows:
That part of the North 1/2 of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the 6th
Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, lying north of Interstate Highway No. 70
and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the NE comer of said Section 8; thence along the northerly line of said
SeCdon 8, S89o46'27"W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the no'rtherly line
of said Section 8, S00"23'03"W a distance of 529.86 ft to a point on the northerly
ROW line of I-?0; thence along the northerly Rov/ line of I-70 following nvo
coursesl
l) S75"28'18"E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point ofcurvature;
2\ l327.gg ft along rhe arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 5580.00 ft, a
central angle of 13o38'04" and a chord which bears N89o36'34"E 1324.70 ft
distance to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8;
12
t
Thence departing said ROW line of i-70 N00"23'03"E along the easterly line of said
Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containing 20.480 acres
mo're o'r less.
The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the property
described and is not based on a field survey. The basis of bearing for the above
parcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being S89"46'27"W as shown on said
annexation plats.
The motion was made per the staff memo, with the additional condition that any top soil
stockpiled in the area would be stored in an area to be disnrbed under the approved plans.
Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The unanimous vote, 7-0, approved the motion.
The staff made several informational updates to the C.ommissioners.
Villaee lst Filine/395 Mill Creek Circle.
Aoplicant E.B. Chester
Planner: Kristan Pritz
Katlry Langenwalter moved to table the above request to October 28, 1991. Ludwig Kurz
seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 7-0.
After discussion, November 20, l99l at 9:00AM was the preferred date and time for the
above special meeting. Staff would pursue this date and inform the Commissioners at the
next meeting.
The meeting was adjoumed at 6:30PM.
15.
16.
l3
MEMORANDI,JM
Planning and Environmcntal Commission
Community Dcvelopment Dcpartrncnt
sr/4ftr prrEs:
Pe c n'/g irz ,
tlJu{t,6=A/
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SI.]BJECT:
Ocobcr 14, 1991
A requcst for ur amcndmcnt to the approved corrditional usc pcrmit in ordcr to
oonstruct a snow dump on thc propcrty gcncrally laatcd wes19f thc Town of
Vail shops. The p'ropcrty is mm spccifrcally dcscribcd as follows:
That part of ttre North l2 of Section 8, Township 5 !o1th, nggt-8-O wcst of
thc 6ill principal Meridian, Eagle County, Oolorado, lying north of Interstatc
Highway No. ?0 and being more particularly dcscribcd as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner of said section 8; thence along the northerly line
of iaiO Sttion 8, S89 46'22"W r distance of 1500.00 ft; thencc dcparting the
northerly line of said Scction 8, S0O 23'03"W a distance of 529.86 ft o a point
on the northerly Row line of I-70; thcnce along the northerly ROril line of I-
70 following two coursBs:
1) S75 28'18"E a distance of 1t0.82 ft to a point of ctwaturp;
2')I32T.gOftalongthcarcofacurvetothelcft,havingaradigsof
5580.00 ft, a ccntral angle of 13 38'(X" and a chord which bcars N89
36'34"Els?/,.T}ftdistancetoapointonthceastcrlylineofsaid
Section 8;
Thencc dcpaning said Row linc of I-?0 N00 23'03"8 along thc castcrly line
of said Section $, a distance of 572.10 ft to thc point of beginning, containing
20.480 acres morc or less.
The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the
ptopr*y dcscribod and is not based on a field survey, t9-UTl:^9f-Fdng f-
itr"'"Uor" parcel is thc northcrly linc of Section 8 bcing S89 4'6'27'V as
shown on said annexation Plats.
Applicanc Vail Associatcsfiom of Vail
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
j,l l,ru*\^ fu
ft\" l'a
il-W'grtl-t
rll,t4
\,.
IJY
lt
{*P,11
fil "futl,1\L
INTRODUCTION
I.DESCRIPTION OF TTIE PROPOSED USE
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon rcview of Section 18.60, tbe Community Development Department recommends
approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factus:
l. Relationslrip and impact of the |lse on the development objectives of
the Town.
The dcvelopmenr objectives of the Town, 8s ststed in the prqpose scction of
the zoning titlc call fc:
Section 18.02.020(8)(9): "The conscrvation and protcction of wildlife'
sutams, woods, hillsidcs and othcr dcsirable natural fcatups"'
In addition, the Town's Land Usc Plan statcs that:
Policy l.l3: "vail recognizcs its strcam tract as being a dcsirable land
fcature as well as its potential for public use."
And that:
Policy 6.1: "services should keep pace with increased growth"'
By relocating the snow dump from the banks of Gore Geck to thc proposed
location, staff belie"es that tire goats of presewing the sUeam tract arc met. In
addition, staff believes Policy 6.1, which calls for additional Town services
with increased growth, will 6c met as the snow dump will allow for additional
snow removal services.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population'
transportation facitities, utilities, schools, parks and rccreation
facilitieq and other public facilities needs.
snff believes rhe proposed snow dump will not have a direct impact on the
above-rpferenceO faciiities. There may be an indircct benefit, in that snow
rcmoval services may improve as a rcsult of the expandcd snow dump area.
3. Effect upon trafiic with particutar referencr to congest-ion'-
automotive and pedestrian safety and (uvenience, traflic flow and
cnntrot, socess' maneuverability, rnd removal of snow from the
street and Parking areas.
This new snow dump will allow for a smoother snow rcmoval operation. By
increasing thc amount of snow that can be hauled, additional snow removal
scrvices Jan bc provided. Thc Town shop entry off of ttrg Fmntagc Road is
adcquate to handle the truck traffic to thc snow dump. The Town scnt plans
o
for the proposal to @OH for thcm to revicw thc impacs O traffic on the
fr,ontagj road. Bascd on rpccnt CDOH dccisions, Town sAfr bclicvcs that thcy
will havc no requiremcns of the Town for this projcct"
4. Efiec-t upon the character of the rrea In whiclr the propced use is
to be tocate4 including the scale end bulk of the propced use in
rclstion io surrounding use&
Staff has analyzed thc potential impact of thc snow dump on thc surrounding
charactcr of thc arca in cach of thc following catcgmics:
a- Views from the Surroundine Area
YF YEl,t::t gif :,f$lfflflr, !ly.Ll$ I :,:Ili,lillijti-li i.i':riti!i!?iiiii:,ii:in:f;:,R :.i
rf'of;,!ff2, During the April 22, 199] Planning
Co.misiion woitiGision, staff and the Planning Commission
identified scveral points which rcprcscnted thc most scnsitive
areas which the snow dump could impacr The map on the
following page shows thesc areas around the snow dump.
l) The socrcer field. Analysis done by the landscapc
consultants hircd by the Town of Vail shows that the
impact of thc snow dump on arcas likc thc soccer ficld
(as well as points 3, and 4), are reasonable, bccause the
amount of cxisting vcgetation in the immcdiatc arca
would screen the new snow dump. The large cvergrcen
tees block the vicws of the new bcrm as wcll as the cut
areas at dre rear of the snow dumP.
2) Fairway Drive/Fairway Court. This area has the
highest elevation in the vicinity, and has somc of the
most direct views to the snow dump. The graphic scction
shown at the cnd of this packct shows drc sight line from
this area to lhe snow dump. As one can scc ftrom this
scction, the trces planted on thc bcrm will wort to ssFen
both thc cut slope on thc back side of the snow dump as
well as the snow dumP oPeration.
3) Homestake Circle. Thc no'rttr cnd of Homestakc Circlc
is similar to the socc€r field in that the existing
landscaping around those homes screen the snow dump.
o
4) Hornsilver Circle. Thc north cnd of Hornsilver Circle is
also similar !o the socccr field in that thc cxisting
landscaping around those homcs screen thc snow dump'
5) Yail Golf Coume. Thc golf coursc dcs have clcar
vicws to thc p'roposcd snow dump' Though no residcnces
in the arca arc imPactc4 uscn of the golf coursc could
be. The bcrm would bc visible. However, a bcnefit from
thc projcct is that thc bcrm will be extcndcd far enough
to tbc wcst so 0rat it would blend in with the cxisting
hillside. This will bc a much more natural rcsolution of
thc bcrm, and is a significant improvement to the
appearance of the currcnt berm.
Note: At the Planning Commission hearing' tlrc
landscapc consultant will show colored renderings of the
proposed constnrction from some of these areas' The
renderings were produced from slides taken from the
an"us, una will show that, what the snow dump will look
like from these areas.
4 ^+
ji
L"L' v''
Landscaoins -,^.,1
,u ,1,1. f ,.yi ,,,n.u ., , ^
,rt.u ,1,' I r * tl vrvt I
rnscEbariE'$l rcddittd':thcrsamE:-The landscape design concept , etrhchndscaifinsDlanftmamg.t4984r.neiIn9raIrgsgaPr'UEslE|rr,u|199y1,<i;rd b"-i is-o makc it app€a, as nanual as possible. Trpes will bc '
t,,. ;,i,,,
planted in clusten, with a majority ntg 9. top of theterm. yd Y* L,&1\
*'
Lthers groupcd in the middle and on the lowcr parts' The ridge of thc
Ucrm frff & undulated, so that it will not appeat as a hard, horizontal
line that would look unnatural. on the back side of the snow dump, the
cut slopes will bc rcvegetated. The lurdscape design concept i1 the.
arca has bcen to break up thc horizontal lines witlr groupings o_f native
grasses and sage. We believe the taller trccs, 9 feet, 10 feet, 12 ft'
ihoulO be incrcased at the top of the bcrm to provide as much screening
as possible of the rucks. Trees along the cxisting berm where the soil
has sloughcd, should also bc removed or rcplantcd properly'-The
natural flanting configuration on the new berm is positive'- Two tlacs
of rcveietatiorimix arc propos€d. The heartier variety will bc uscd for
the snoi dump basin. The hillside's cut and fill arcas will be
rcvegetated with nativc grasses as well as ranqplanted sage'
c. Elcctric Lines
,. ''tttsn i.fffi irb9 fln{li
f#i:-dc are n*o seti of transmisiion lines in the vicinity of the
ino# Ou.p. Onc runs east-west, but is located at an clevation higher
than the snow dump, and is not impacted- Thc line that runs north-
south will cn)ss over the snow dump. Onc power pole will have to be
movcd to thc top of 0re berm, from which point thc lincs will clear thc
snow dump complctcly. Thcrs will bc somc ncw scrvics installcd fr,om
thc transformcr on thc nortlr-south transmission linc o thc Town sbop'
All ncw scwicc lines will bc locatcd wrdcrground" Stafr spokc with a
represcntativc from Holy Gross Elccric. Staff bclicvcs it is
unreasonable o rcquire ttre undcrgrounding bccausc Holy Goss has
indicated that an exEnsive lcngth of linc south of l-70 would have to bc
placed undcrground, instad of just thc scgment on thc Town of Vail
if-p"rty. This work would also include bo'ring undcr thc Intcrstate' At
a minimum, the Town will providc a conduit under the snow dump
bcrm for the futurc undergrounding of the line. The Town will continue
to wo'rk with Holy Goss on the undergrounding of $e lines'
d. Access Road
bcrm incr€ased in height, or the road stightly lowerrd (in ordcr to
minimize visibility of rhe truck opcration). Thc dcsign concePt allgws
for good screening of the dump, but could be improvcd so thatit also
p-iiom better screcning of trucks on thc snor*'dump loop road' Thc
inow dump will function wi0r drivcrs using the road to &ivc to a
location w-here therc is room to drop their snow. The truck driver will
,'jack-knife" the vehicle so that most of the snow falls off the road into
the dump. some of it, howcver, will fall on the road. At the cnd of the
day, front-cnd loadcrs will go out to move the snow around and clear
thi road. Until that rime, trucks must bc ablc to continuc to drive the
loop road. The 15' widrh will allow for' clcarancc for tlre trucks to pass
around the perimecr.
Liehtine
,ilbft.i$, , figG to'. ,lig tin!..p. ; TheTown is proposing ro.!rfY.Y i?. f.l, .r.:i:'91 -. -:i.: n-!r'----:e f ':--:
iriitatt"t'iigliiC h r#'!|ow dump arca, and rclocate one which will be
identical ti ttorc which currently illuminate the Public Works Shops
sie. The trvo lights arc nceded to illuminatc the area for occasional
night dumping. The lights witl bc facing north,-and will bc located no
triiher than t1-e existing lights (approximarcly l0 fcct above the bcrm).
Tie
"ott"nt
lights which illuminate thc parking lot of the sitc are not
visible to the ieighborhood. This is bccausc they are facing north and
are angled down. Staff has driven through the arca at night and has
noted ihat the lights which are visible are ones on buildings or ary-the
lamp posts Gimitar to the Town and County lights) ncxt to the offices.
fne proposed lighting is needed to allow hauling and dumping at night'
Though-this is not on a regular basis, it will allow for this usc when
needed.
f. Water Oualitv
i: The drainage system of the
d;podAffi";Aump ffi Ei'o"iig""a in such a wav to cnsun that
the runoff from the inow dump will not impact Gore Creek. Soil tes6
done by the consulting engineer indicate that ore percolation ratc is very
o
high in this arsa. Bascd on thc soil tcsts, the consulting engrneer -
"*fu"1'
grat all of rhc snow melt will petcolatc through thc soil to Core
Creck. Thcre is vinually no bencr rnethod to improve warcr quality
than to allow ir to drain through soil as ground water. The cnginecr has
designcd a drainage system, in the cvent that there is very hot weather
with a quick snow m€lt, and the drainage dcmand exceeds the
percolatioir ratc of thc soil. This drainage system design prorides-fq a
40hogr &rcntion pcriod so that tfic watsr can drop ury scdimcnt bcfore
Gntoring corc occr. Thc 40.hour dctcntion pcriod is a standard which
tras bccn dcvclopcd that cnsurcs that the watcr lcaving an s€a is clcar'
The cnginecr has also dcsigrrcd larger ovcrflow pipes at highcr
clcvatiJns in thc cvent of an cmcrgency cvcnt. Thcsc will be used to
drain the snow dump without compromising thc structural inagrity of
the bcrm or shop facilities.
FINDINGS
granting a conditional use Permit:
A. That the proposed location of thc use in accord with the Purposcs of this
Ordinancc anO tttc purposes of the district in which the site is located.
B. That tlre proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would
be operared or maintained would not be dctrimental to the public hedth,-safety,
or *l1;ate or materially injurious to properties or improvcments in the vicinity.
C. That the proposed use would comply with each of thc applicablc provisions of
this Ordinance.
Iv. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The planning staff rccommends approval of qc requcsted conditional use petmit, based on the
oi*i" and hndings. Staff bcticves thc fint finding is met, as the s19y dump, a pl!li"_
- -.
r"rui." facility, mfets the pupose of the zone district in which it will be locatcd- The Public
Use Zone Oijtrict calts fon public uses, such as this, with the condition ttrey bc dcsigned and
used in harmony with surrounding uscs. Staff bclicves that tlre visual analysis done for the
snow dump, from the surroundinl arcas, shows that it is reasonably compatiblc' Furthermore'
statr believes the proposal is coniistcnt with grc dcvelorpmcnt objectives of the Town, as
defined by the Land Use Plan and the Zoning Title'
Finding 2 is mct, in staffs opinion, in thar thc snow dump will not be &rimcntal to public
healthjafety and wclfarc. Thc one impact rclating to thesc issucs is watcr quality, and staff
bclicves the snow dump dcsign providcs a drainage systcm that wilt Prcvcnt poor quality
waEr ftrom cntcring Gotc Clcck.
Conccrning Finding 3, staff believes the snow dump complies with thc applicable rtgulatio.ns
of ttre Zonlng Codc. Ttrc zonc district thc snow dump will bc locatedin allows thc Planning
and Environiental Commission to dcprminc thc dcvelopmcnt standards. Typical standards,
such as height, sctbacks, lot sizc rnd GRFA 8I€ not applicable with this proposal'
The staff rccommcndation carries the following two conditions of approval:
rer*e+rl*ngn++*+;re+;
sleECh€A
dre reaC eeuld be lewepC urdls'drc berm rds€d t€ futh€r ss€on *tc vchi€lcs-Ed
.P.Eg,ln6 ni
li
*n+se
*
3l
oI I
O
-'* 0,,,f ifti"i .iffii-ftih#i
clFcrlorimrdnpOttl
t0
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
MEMORANDT]M
Planning and Environmcntal Commission
Community Development Departrnent
October 14,l99L
SIJBJECT: A request for an amendment to the approved conditional use permit in order o
construct a snow dump on the property generally located west of the Town of
Vail sho,ps. The property is morc specifrcally described as follows:
That part of tlre North 12 of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of
the 6dr Principal lvlcridian, Eagle County, Colmado, lying north of Interstatc
Highway No. 70 and being morc particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the NE comer of said Section 8; thence along the northerly line
of said Scction 8, S89 46'27"W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the
nmtlrerly line of said Section 8, S00 23'03'Ty' a distance of 529.86 ft to a point
on the northcrly ROV/ line of I-70; thence along thc northerly ROW linc of I-
70 following two courses:
l) S75 28'18"8 a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of cun'ature;
2\ 8n.90 ft along the arc of a cune to the left, having a radius of
5580.00 fg a cennal angle of 13 3E'04" and a chorrd which bears N89
36'34'E l3U.7O ft distance o a point on the easterly lfup of said
Scction 8;
Thence dcparting said ROV/ line of I-70 Nm 23'03"8 along thc cast€'dy line
of said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containing
20.480 act€s more or less.
The above dcscription is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats fu thc
property describcd and is not based on a field survcy. The basis ofbearing fu
the above parcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46'27'\il as
shown on said annexation plats.
Applicant Vail Associates/Town of Vail
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
INTRODUCTION
I. DESCRIPTION OF TTIE PROPOSED USE
The Town of Vail is proposing to construct a snow dump on the recently rezoned land
(Public Use District) west of the Town Public Works Shops. The proposed use requires a
conditional use review in the Public Use Zone Disrict. The existing berm which screens the
shops from I-70 and the south will be continued, at the same height, to the west. The berm
will be landscaped with an additional 60 spruce, 15 douglas fir, and 17 aspen tnees. The
snow dump will be constructed by excavating below the existing grade approximately 10-20
ft., in order to increase capacity for snow storage. The design includes a 15' wide loop road,
located around the snow dump. The road will be built just below the top of the berm, which
will be 30 ft. above the bottom of the snow dump. With this design, truck drivers will start
dumping snow in the lower level of the hole until it is full. They will then use the loop road,
dumping snow from the higher elevation onto the lower level. There will be no retaining
walls used to build the road. All slopes will be 2:1 or less, except for the slopes on the
inside of the dump which do not exceed 1.5:1. Please see the attached plans.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Deparunent recommends
approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors:
A.Consideration of Factors:
l. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of
the Town.
The development objectives of the Town, as stated in the purpose section of
the zoning title call for:
Section 18.02.020(BX9): "The conservation and protection of wildlife,
suEams, woods, hillsides and other dcsirable natural featurts."
In addition, the Town's Land Use Plan states that:
Policy 1.13: "Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land
feature as well as its potential for public use."
And that:
Policy 6.1: "Senrices should keep pace with incrcased growth."
By relocating the snow dump from the banks of Gore Creek to the proposed
location, staff believes that the goals of prescning the strcam tract arc met. In
addition, staff believes Folicy 6.1, which calls for additional Town services
with incr€ased growth, will be met ali thc snow dump will allow for additional
snow removal senrices.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schoolg parks and rccreation
facilitieg and other public facilities needs
Staff believes the proposed snow dump will not have a direct impact on the
above-referenced facilities. There may be an indirea benefit, in that snow
removal senrices may improve as a result of the expanded snow dump area.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion,
automotive and pedeshian safety and cpnvenience' traflic flow and
mntrol, aocess, maneuverability' and removal of snow frorn the
sheet and parking areas.
This new snow dump will allow for a smoother snow removal operation. By
incneasing the amount of snow that can be hauled, additional snow removal
services can be provided. The Town shop entry offofthe Frontage Road is
adequate to handle the truck traffic to the snow dump. The Town sent plans
for the proposal to @OH for them to review the impacts o traffic on the
fr,ontage road. Bas€d on rccent CDOH &cisions, Town stafr believcs that they
will have no requirements of the Town for this projecr
4. Efiec't upon the character of the arta in which the pnopced use is
to be located, including the scale and bulk of the propced use in
rclation to sumounding uses.
Staff has analyzed the potential impact of the snow dump on the surrounding
character of the alra in each of the following categories:
a. Views from the Surroundins Arca
During the April 22, l99L Planning
Commission worksession, staff and the Planning Commission
identified several points which reprcsented the most sensitivc
areas which the snow dump could impact. The map on thc
following page shows these areas around the snow dump.
1) The soccer field. Analysis done by the landscape
consultants hfued by the Town of Vail shows that the
impact of the snow dump on arcas like the soccer field
(as well as points 3, and 4), are reasonable, becauss thc
amount of existing vegetation in the immediate arca
would screen the new snow durnp. The large evergrcon
tnees block the views of the new berm as well as the cut
areas at the rcar of the snow dump.
2) Fairway Drive/Fairway Court. This area has the
highest elevation in the vicinity, and has some of the
most dircct views to the snow dump. The gaphic section
shown at thc end of this packet shows the sight line from
this area to the snow dump. As one can see from this
section, the trees planted on the berm will wort to screen
both the cut slope on the back side of the snow dump as
well as the snow dump operation.
3) Homestake Circle. Thc north end of Homestake Circle
is similar to the soccer field in that the cxisting
landscaping around those homes screen the snow dump.
Honnsilver Circle. The north end of Hornsilver Circle is
also similar to the soccer field in thu the existing
landscaping around those homes screen thc snow dump.
Vail Golf Coune. The golf course does have clear
views to the proposed snow dump. Though no residences
in the area are impacted, users of the golf course could
be. The bcrm would be visible. Howeyer, a benefit from
the p'roject is that the berm will be extended far enough
to the west so that it would blend in with the existing
hillside. This will be a much more natural resolution of
the berm, and is a significant improvement to the
appearancc of the current berm.
Note: At the Planning Commission hearing, the
landscape consultant will show colored renderings of the
proposed constnrction from some of these arcas. The
renderings were produced from slides taken from the
areas, and will show that, what the snow dump will look
like ftrom these areas.
b. Landscaoine
The landscape design concept
for the berm is to make it appear as nailral as possible. Trces will be
planted in clusters, with a majority near the top of the berm and with
others grouped in the middle and on the lower parts. The ridge of the
berm will be undulated, so that it will not appear as a hard, horizontal
line that would look unnatural. On the back side of the snow dump, the
cut slopes will be revegetated. The landscape design concept in the
area has been to break up the horizonal lines with groupings of native
grasses and sage. We beteve the taller trees, 9 feet, 10 fet, 12 ft"
should be incrcased at the top of the berm to provide as much screening
as possible of the trucks. Trees along the existing berm where the soil
has sloughd should also be removed or replanted properly. The
natural planting configuration on the new berm is positive. Two types
of revegetation mix are proposed. Thc heartier variety will be used fm
the snow dump basin. The hillside's cut and fiIl areas will be
r€vegetabd with native grasses as well as transplanrcd sage.
4)
5)
c.Electric Lines
There are two sets of transmission lines in the vicinity of the
snow dump. One runs east-west, but is located at an elevation higher
than the snow dump, and is not impacted. The line that runs north-
south will cnoss over the snow dump. One power pole will have to be
moved to thc top of the berm, from which point the lines will clear the
snow dump completely. There will be some new services installed from
the transformer on the north-south transmission linc to the Town shop.
All new scrvice lines will be located underground. Staff spoke with a
r€prcscntative from Holy Cross Elecfic. Staff believes it is
unreasonable to require the undergrounding because Holy Closs has
indicatcd that an extensive length of line south of I-70 would have to be
placed underground, insead of just the segment on the Town of Vail
propsrty. This work would also include boring under the Interstate. At
a minimum, the Town will provide a conduit under the snow dump
berm for the future undergrounding of the line. The Town will continue
to work with Holy Choss on the undergrounding of fte lines.
d. Access Road
Thc width of the loop road does not affect the visual impacts
as much as the elevation of the road does. Staff would like to see the
berm increased in height, or the road slightly lowered (in order to
minimize visibility of the truck operation). Thc design concept allows
for good screening of the dump, but could be improved so that it also
provides better screening of trucks on the snow dump loop road. The
snow dump will function with drivers using the road to drive to a
location where there is room to drop their snow. The truck driver will
"jack-knife" the vehicle so that most of the snow falls off the road into
the dump. Some of it, however, will fall on the road. At the end of the
day, front-end loaders will go out to move the snow around and clear
the road. Until that time, trucks must be able to continue to drive the
loop road. The 15' width will allow for clearance for the trucks to pass
around the perimeter.
e. Lishtins
nhlii#;;i$1iilsiii;ffi9$iitd1iiffii$tfttiiils,if"U* rhe rown is proposing to
install 2 lights in the snow dump area, and relocate one which will be
identical to those which currcntly illuminate the Public Works Shops
site. The nro lights are needed to illuminate the area for occasional
night dumping. The lights will be facing north, and will be located no
higher than ttre existing lights (approximately l0 feet above the berm).
The current tights which illuminate the parking lot of the site are not
visible to the neighborhood. This is because they are facing north and
are angled down. Staff has driven through the area at night and has
noted that the lights which are visible are ones on buildings or are the
lamp posts (similar to the Town and County lights) next to the offices.
The proposed lighting is needed to allow hauling and dumping at night.
Though this is not on a regular basis, it will allow for this use when
needed.
f.Water Oualitv
The drainage system of the
proposed snow dump has becn designed in such a way to ensure that
the runoff from the snow dump will not impact Gore Creek. Soil tests
done by the consulting engineer indicate that the percolation rate is very
m.
high in tris area. Based on the soil tests, the consulting engineer
expects ttrat all of the snow mclt will percolate through the soil to Gore
Clreek. There is virnrally no better method to improve water quality
than to allow it to drain through soil as ground water. The engineer has
designed a drainage system, in the event thu the'rc is very hot weather
with a quick snow melt, and the drainage demand exceeds the
percolation rate of the soil. This drainage system design provides for a
4Ghour detention period so that the water can drop any sediment before
entering Gore Creek. The 4Ghour detention period is a strndard which
has been developed that ensures that the water leaving an ar€a is clear.
The engineer has also designed larger overflow pipes at higher
elevations in the event of an emergency event. These will be used to
drain the snow dump without compromising the structural integrity of
the berm or shop facilities.
FINDINGS
The Plannine and Envfuonmental Commission shall make the followine findines beforc
granting a conditional use permit:
A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this
Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would
be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare o'r materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of
this Ordinance.
ry. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The planning staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit, based on the
criteria and findings. Staff believes the first finding is met, as the snow dump, a public
service facility, meets the purpose of the zone district in which it will be locued. The Public
Use Zone Disuict calls for public uses, such as this, with the condition they be designed and
used in harmony with surmunding uses. Staff believes that the visual analysis done for the
snow dump, from the surrounding areas, shows ttrat it is reasonably compatible. Furthermore,
staff believes the proposal is consistent with the development objectives of the Town, as
defined by the Iard Use Plan and the Zoning Title.
Finding 2 is met, in staffs opinion, in that the snow dump will not be detrimental to public
health, safety and welfare. The one impact relating to thesc issues is water quality, and suff
believes the snow dump design provides a drainage system that will prevent poor quality
waFr from entering Gore Crcek.
Concerning Finding 3, staff believes the snow dump complies with the applicable regulations
of the Zoning Codc. The zone district the snow dump will be located in allows the Planning
and Environmental Commission to determine the development standards. Typical standards,
such as height, setbacls, lot size and GRFA are not applicable with this proposal.
The staff recommendation carries the following two conditions of approval:
1, That *re ligh*rg fer *re snew dump be dswdigh*tg s€ m n€t te omit glaro s "h€t
erCn$risl'C wh€n $e snew Cump ie net in us€'
*lg
steugho&
pro
@
*rs read eeuld be lewered ander *re Lsm -dsed te fur*rer sereen $e vehieles erC
€qpi
"ry,:;:ffilii ;,li fliiiffit$8r,,t.i ;:}hklH$s,::lf-$'s ii
9i
$i
oo
fii,$.fi $lii[U*iiifti.{l*t$Iddft iff'lffi l$#ffi i,tffi iffi SII.'Ft#*i{ffi
c\pccrro$rnowdury.O14
f"ffi.fi.h.iirffi,ilffi$itfdt$iil#j#JifrHxs$$fitfrffi,ffi##lhrIsi*ii,#tr6"fi*$ft1*lliliff$,H#ffiii*r!:ffill..ffi
10
*xJl"o -,fu,".- nna'11U/yof y^,-n groV,q!
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ptanning and Environmental
Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of VaiI on october 14, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building. Consideration of:
1. A worksession to consider rezoning Lots 3 through 9 and 12,
Vail Meadows Filing No. 2 from Agricultural and Natural Open
Space to Residential Cluster.
and David Elmore
2. A request for a wa}l height variance for the Chester
Residence' Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing/39s Mill
Creek Circle.Applicant: E.B. ChesterPlanner: Kristan Pritz
3. A follow-up to the AugusL L2, 1991 PEC review of the staff
approval oi the minor amendment for Garden of the Gods' SDD
No-. 22, Lot K, Block 5A, Vail ViIIage 5th Fil-ing/365 Vail
VaIIey Drive.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicants:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
vail City Corporation
Andy Knudtsen
Margaret Hill Marital Trust
SheIIy Mello
VaiI Associates
'JiLf Kammerer
Eric and Susan Sipf
Andy Knudtsen
.tackalope, Inc.
Mike Mollica
4. A request for a conditional use permit for a celfular
telephone "cell site" at Red Sandstone School, 551 North
Frontage Road,/Lot 2, Block 8, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: The Walter GrouPPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
5. A reguest for a minor amendment to the Golden Peak
development plan to allow for the installation of a rope tow
lift, 499 vail Valley Drive/Tract B, vail village 7th
Filing.
Applicant:
Planner:
6. A request for a setback variance for the Sipf Residence'
38?6 -Lupine Drive/Lot 148, Block 1, Bighorn 2nd Addition.
1. A reguest for a satellite dish antenna variance for the
JackiJ.ope Cafe and Cantina, 2161 N. Frontage Road west/Lot
2A, Resubdivision of Lot 2, Vail Das Schone Filing #3.
A regues! for a conditional use pernit and a variance to the
parking standards, Section 18.52 of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code to allow for off-street surface parking at
the nHoly Cross parcel" which is generally located on the
north side of the South Frontage Road east of and
imrnediately adjacent to Red Sandstone Creek.
10
9. A request for a setback variance for a garage at the
Kaiser/Hall Residence, 4913 ,Juniper tane/Lot 3, Block 5,
Bighorn 5th Addition.Applicant: Ursula Kaiser/Robert HalI
Planner: SheIlY MeIIo
A request for an amendment to the approved conditional use
permit in order to construct a snow dump on the property
generally located west of the Town of Vail Shops. The
ptoperty is more specifically described as follows:
That part of the North l/2 of Section 8' Township 5 South,
Range 80 west of the 6th Principal Meridian' Eagle county,
Colorado, tying north of Interstate Highway No. 70 and being
more parLicularly described as fol.lows:
Beginning at the NE corner of said Section 8; thence along
the northerly line of said Section 8, S89 46t 27"W a distance
of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said
Section 8, S00 23'03"W a distance of 529.86 ft to a point on
the northerly ROW line of l-70; thence along the northerly
ROw tine of I-?0 following two courses:
1) 575 28' 18nE a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of
curvature;
2l 132'1 .90 ft along the arc of a curve to the leftr having
a radius of 5580.00 ft' a central angle of 13 38'04"
and a chord which bears N89 36'34"8 1324.70 ft distance
to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8;
Thence departing said ROW line of I-?0 N00 23' 03"E along the
easterly line of said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to
the point of beginning, containinS 20.480 acres more or
less.
The above description is based on the Town of Vail
annexation plats for the property described and is not based
on a field survey. The basis of bearing for the above
parcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46'27"w
as strown on said annexation plats.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicants:
Planner:
Vail AssociatesJill Kammerer
Town of Vail/Vail Associates
Andy Knudtsen
A request to amend Chapter t8.32, AgricuLtural and Open
Space, Section L8.32.030 - Conditional Uses in order to
a1low well water treatment facilities as a conditiona] use.
applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated water Dist,rict
Planner ShellY Mel1o
t1
L2. A reguest to amend Chapter !8.62, Variances, Section
18.6r.080 - Permit Issuance and Effect and Chapter 18.60,
conditional use Permits, section 18.60.080 - Permit Issuance
and Effect in order to clarify the notification of approval
procedures.Applicant: Town of VaiIPlanner: JiIl Kammerer
13. A reguest for a worksession on Millrace IV Special
Developnent District No. 4' for Cascade Villaggr to review a
developnent plan, generally located south of Millrace
Condominiums and west of the Westin Resort' VaiI.
Applicant: East-West PartnersPlanner: Shelly Mello
L4. A request for approval of a wetland mitigation proposal for
areas along Gore Creek and Booth Creek.Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation
DistrictPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
Information on the listed items is avaifable at the Community
Development office in the Vait Municipal Building during regular
office hours.
TO$IN OF VAIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Pubfished in the Vail Trail on September 2?, 1991-
.F {itu' .cEi't-- 4l1tuOnlfraT -^dr"t.'t grcp.fri
Planner:Andy Knudtsen
2.AreguestforawallheightvariancefortheChester
Residence, Lot 19, Block 12 Vail Village 1st Fillng/395 Mifl
Creek Circfe.Applicant: E.B. Chester
Planner: Kristan Pritz
3. A foLlow-up to the AugusE !2, 1991 PEC review of the staff
approval oi tne minor-amendment for Garden of the Gods, sDD
N;-. 22, Lot X, elock 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing/365 Vail
Va1ley Drive.Rppli-ant: Margaret llill Marital Trust
Planner: SheIIY MeIIo
4. A request for a conditional use Permit {o: "- cellular
tetepnone "ceII site', at Red sandstone scttool, 551 North
Fronlage Road/Lot 2, Block 8, vail Potato Patch'
Applicant: The Walter GrouP
Planner: AndY Knudtsen
5. A request for a minor amendnent to the Gofden Peak
devefopment plan to allow for the installation of a rope tow
tift' qgA va'if Valley Drive/Tract B, Vail Village 7th
5. A reguest for a setback variance for the sipf Residence,
38?6.Lupine Drive/Lot, 14B, Block 1, Bighorn 2nd Addition.
ApPlicants: Eric and Susan SiPf
Planner: AndY Knudtsen
'1 . A request for a satellite dish antenna variance for the
,Jackalope cafe and cantina, 2151 N. Frontage Road west/Lot
Ze. nesitUdivision of Lot 2, Vail Das Schone Filing *3'
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the Plannlng and Environmental
commission of the Town of vail wilt hold a public_hearing^in-
accordance with section 18.55.050 of t,he Munlcipal code of the
lown of vail on OcioUer fE, 1991 at 2:00 p.rn. Ln the Town of Vail
Municipal Building. Consideration of:
1. A worksession to consider rezoning Lots 3 through 9 and 12r
Vail Meadows Filing No. 2 from Agricultural and Natural open
Space to Residential Cluster.appficant: VaiI City Corporation and David Elmore
Filing.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Vail AssociatesJill Kammerer
Jackalopel Inc.
Mike Mollica
Town ol Vail
A reguest for a cOnditional use permit and a variance to the
parkfng standards, Section 18.52 of the Town of Vail
i4unicipal Code to allow for off-street surface parking at
the "Holy Cross parceltr which is generally located on the
north side of the South Frontage Road east of and
imrnediately adjacent to Red Sandstone Creek.
Applicant:
Planner:
vail AssoclatesJiIl Kammerer
9.
10
A reguest for a setback variance for a garage-at the
xaiser/Hal] Residence, 4913 .Iuniper Lane/Lot 3, Block 5,
Bighorn Sth Addition.epiticant: Urgula Kaiser/Robert Hall
Planner: Shelly MeIIo
A reguest for an anendment to the ap!'roved conditionar use
permit. in order to construct a snow dump on Lhe property
ienerally located west of the Town of Vail Shops. The
froperty- is rnore specifically described as follows:
That part of the North l/2 of Section 8, Township 5 South,
Range 80 west of the 5th Principal Meridian, Eagle County,
Col5rado, lying north of Interstate Highway No. 70 and being
more particularly described as follows:
eegin;ling at the NE corner of said Section 8; thence al.ong
ifr6 nottierly line of said Section 8, S89 45' Z'ln1l a distance
of 1500.00 fL; thence departing the northerly line of said
Section 8, S00 23'03"W a distance of 529.86 ft to a point on
the northerly Row tine of I-?0; thence along the northerly
ROhl line of I-?0 following two courses:
1) s?5 28'18"E a distance of 180-82 ft to a point of
curvaturei
2't l-g2'l .90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left' having
a radius of 5580.00 ft, a central angle of 13 38'04"
and a chord wbich bears N89 36' 34"8 L324.70 ft distance
to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8;
Thence departing said ROW line of I-?0 N00 23' 03"E along the
eisterly iine oi said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to
the poi;t of beginning, containing 20.480 acres more or
less.
The above description is based on the Town of Vail
annexation plats for the property described and is not based
on a field Gurvey. The basis of bearing for.the above
parcel is the noitherly line of Section 8 being S89 45'27"W
is shown on said annexation P1ats.Applicants: Town of Vail/Vail Associates
Pllnner: AndY Knudtsen
A request to anend Chapter 18-32, Agricultural and Open
Sp"c"rSection18.32.030-ConditionalUsesinorderto
"iIor' welf water treatment facilities as a conditional use.
eppii""nt: Vail Va11ey Consofidated water District
Planner ShellY Mello
11
L2. A request to amend Chapter 18.62t Variancesr- Section
1S.6i.080 - Pernit Issuance and Effect and chapter 18'60,
Conditional Use Permits, Section 18.60.080 - Permit Issuance
and Effect Ln order to clarify the notification of approval
procedures.Applicant: Town of VaiIPLanner: JilI Kammerer
13. A reguest for a worksession on Millrace IV Special
Devefopment District No. 4, fox Cascade Villager-to review a
develolrnent plan, generally located south of Millrace
Condominiums and west of the Westin Resortr Vail'
Applicant: East-west PartnersPlanner: ShellY Mello
14. A reguest for approval of a wetland mitigation proposal for
areai along Gore Creek and Booth Creek.
Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley water and Sanitation
DistrictPlanner: AndY Knudtsen
Information on the listed itens is available at the Community
Development office in the Vail Municipal Building during regular
office hours.
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Published in the Vail Trail on Septetber 27, 1991'
Prcsent
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Ludwig Kurz
Jim Shearer
TILE COPY
PLANNING AI{D EI.IVIRONMENTAL COMMSSION
June 24, 1991
Staff
Kristan Prig
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Shelly Mello
Amber Blecker
Absent
Connie Knight
Ka0ry Langenwalter
Gena Whinen
The public hearing was called to order at 2:15PM by Chairpenon Diana Donovan.
l.A reouest for a worksession for heieht. palkine and dcnsifv (GRFA/common arca)
variances for the Sonnenalp. Part of Ints K & L. Block 5-E. Vail Villaee First Filine/
20 Vail Road.
Applicant Sonnenalo Properties
Planner: Andv Knudtsen
Kristan Pritz explained the changes in the proposal from the one submitted several months
previously. These included asking for variances for common area./accessory use, height and
parking, instcad of proposing a Special Development Disrict. Kristan explained the issues
staff believed were important to discuss, and these included the proposed parking,
landscaping, employee housing, and a stream walk.
At the conclusion of Kristan's prcsentation, Jay Peterson, the applicant's representative,
furftrer explained the proposal. Regarding thc parking, Jay indicated applicans were working
with the staff to reach a compromise between the number of spaccs provided and interior
landscaping. The height variance was being rcquested in order to accommodate "chillers," a
form of cooting for the rooms, in an enclosed area of thc roof to most effcctively screen the
bulk and noise from the units.
Jay presented applicant's position that a 35% allowance for common area in a 100% lodge
project was noisufficient. A fust-class facility would usually have a greater demand for
co1111non area. He indicated that the GRFA for the project was actually below that which was
permitted for the site.
Regarding stafPs sream walk rccommendation, Jay pointed out that it was a study arca, and
not a concept specifically desigrated in the Land Use Plan. He stated it was valid, however,
to ensure that the project was not developed in such a way as to prohibit future stream walk
development, and the proposd did not prcvent such development.
Suffs recommendations had includcd exploring the provision of employee housing with this
proposal. Jay pointed out that the cxpansion was going to only add an additional l0 sleeping
rooms, and there would be no staff additions necessary to accommodate the redevelopmenr
Jay also obscrved that thc amount of additional pa*ing required under the proposal was due
to tlre size of the rmms. Although the rooms would still only accommdate 2 people, the
size was increasing the parking space per nxrm percentage.
Jim Wear, the attorney for the Talisman Condominiums, stat€d the Talisman was generally in
favor of the proposal, and rciterated that the strcam walk should be looked at only as a study
item. Kristan asked if the Talisman and Sonnenalp had solved the access easement question,
and Jim replied they had, and the two generally had a good working relationship. Jim felt the
easement could bc rcsolved.
Ludwig Kurz asked if some of the outside dining area would be lost. Kristan indicated it
would be partially infilled. Ken O'Brien, the Sonnenalp's architect, stated dle additional
space in the dining portion on the east side of King Ludwig's would make up for the loss on
the dining deck. I(ristan surcd approximately 350 sq. ft. of the dining deck would be
removed.
Ludwig believed the amount of commory'accessory space was absolutcly necessary for the
project, and was important for the cr€ation of a first class facility. He did not consider the
height variance to be much of a problem, as it was a trade off for better concealing the
chillers. He did question if the chillen would create a sound nuisance. Ken answercd they
would not, as the sound would be directed uPward.
Ludwig suggested that with the efficiency of parking the Sonnenalp was able to maintain
through strict controls, the shordall was acceptable, especially in light of staffs study finding
the actual usage of the lot to be less than 100%. He recommended additional landscaping be
substituted for some of the parking.
Ludwig was hopeful ttre project would not neglect the possibility of a compatiblc future
stream walk. Hc believed a stream walk would enhance the Sonnenalp's guests' experience.
He recommended the developer continue to consider the option.
Addressing the overall landscaping of thc proposal, Ludwig believed some areas of thc project
could be improved. He qpecifrcally cited that the railroad ties could be rcmoved in existing
planter areas, particularly at thc Meadow Drive bus stop.
6. A reouest for a modification b m aooroved development olan for The Vallev. Phase
IUl480 Buffehr Cheek Road-
Aoplicant Steve Gcnsler
Planner: Andv Knudtsen
Kristan Pritz summarizcd what was being presentd stating it was similar to what Ed
Zneimer had brought through a few months previously. Suff would likc to scc more of a
consolidatcd sitc planning approach o minimizc disnrbancc on the pmpcrty and to bc more
compatible with the cxisting projecr Staff felt saving as many of the large tr€es as possible
was important.
Randy Hodges explained the difficulties in thc currcnt dcvelopment plan. One problcm is that
there are some units which have their parting 4(D feet away from their units, which makes
them very difficult to seU ro either visitors or locals. Anothcr difficulty is that under the
curent plan, onc building site is just too steep (the one adjacent o the existing foundation)'
nandy said the developer would prefer to forget an increase in GRFA and instead reduce the
density from 9 to 7 units, pull those units closcr to the access point, and be located further
from the Grousc Glen project. Randy indicated his preferenccs on a map of the area.
Ludwig Kurz asked if the developer wanted all the units along one side of the road. Kristan
Pritz answered that they didn't necessarily havc to be that way, but staff and the developers
were smrggling with access and Earage issues. Randy said a lot of vegetation would be
affected but if the number of units were decreased, that would help avoid some of the
problems. Kristan asked if Steve Gensler would agce to reducing units. Randy said it was
clear the site could not handle additional GRFA.
Jim Shearer asked if they had investigated accessing the area from above. Randy said they
had, and it would be even more difficult
Diana Donovan was concemed that all the sites seemed to be located where there were groves
of tnees. She indicated her prcference for individual unic over a complex, but was not sure
how to develop the area without destnoying it in the process. Jim Shearer was convinced that
if the units were relocated to avoid some trees, the project and values for the units would
benefit
Jim also wanted to know if the number of units could be reduce4 eithet with a corresponding
drop in GPSA or without it, but keeping in mind that clustered site planning was an
important factor. He suggcsted the developers use the tre€s tio their advantage. He
commented thc plan looked like it was made without regard to the topography of the sirc.
Randy agrced that the major problem was the grade overall, and that not too much could be
done with it. IIe said the bcst idea the developen had devised was to move the project closer
to the road"
15
After a discussion of fire access concerns, neighbor Tom Firch askcd about the possibility of
providing common carports. The carports would still result in a walk, but it would be much
shorter. Randy replied that option was not acccptable. Jim asked thc developers be limited
to a 2-car gamge per unit. Nancy Robbins, a neighbor, asked how overflow parking was
going to be addrcssed. Randy indicated they had investigated a couple options, but no final
determination had becn made.
Diana Donovan said she did not like houses on both sides of the st€et. She preferred a
cluster off a single drivcway, and strongly rcquested the devclopers not destroy the best pat
of the sites--the tees.
Kristan asked tbe Commissioners to define a direction for thc developen. Jim Shearer was
favorable to the developen' intent, and said the less disturbance srrated, the better. Diana
Donovan asked how the Commission could help the process. Randy asked for an
endorsement in: l) the reduction of units to s€ven; 2) effort to pull the units up the hillside;
3) concept for site plan is do-able. The consensus of the C.ommissionen was in agrcement.
Diana concluded by saying she believed the developen could come up with a plan and show
that it was the best
Tom Fitch concluded the worksession by saying, "save the trees!"
7. A reouest for a conditional use permit in order to construct a snow dump on the
Eopertv senerallv located wcst of the Town of Vail Shops. The oropcrtv is more
specificallv described as follows:
That part of the North 1/2 of Section 8. Township 5 South. Ranee 80 west of the 6th
Principal Meridian. Eaele Countv. Colorado. lvine north of Intentate Hiehwav No. 70
and beine more particularlv described as follows:
Beeinnine at the NE corner of said Section 8: thence alone the northerlv line of said
Section 8. S89 46'27"W a distance of l5U).(X) fn thence deoartins the northerlv line
of said Section 8. S00 23'03"W a distance of 529.86 ft to a point on the northerlv
ROW line of I-70: thence alone the nonherlv ROW line of I-70 followine two
courses:
-U S75 28'18"E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature:
21 1327.90 ft alone the arc of a curve to the left. havine a ndius of 5580.00 ft. a
central anele of 13 38'04" and a chord which bears N89 36'34"E 1324.70 ft
disunce to a ooint on the easterlv line of said Section 8:
Thence departine said ROW line of I-70 Nfi) 23'03"E alone the easterlv line of said
Section 8. a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beeinnine. containine 20.480 acres
more or less.
l6
The above descriotion is base<l on the Town of Vail urnexation plats for thq prooerw
describcd and is not based on a ficld survev. fire basis of bearine for thc above
oarcel is tlrc northerlv line of Section 8 beine S89 46'27'W as shown on said
anncxation plats.
Aoplicanu Town of VaiWail. Associates
Planner: Andv Knudtsen
Mike Mollica cxplained the issues surrounding thc request. After the prescntation, Chuck
Crist asked if the Colorado Departnrent of Highways wati to rcquire a left turn lane for the
access permit, would the bridge o the golf course be affected- Mike said it woul4 but that
tne Cpbff would probably not rcquire the Town to oonstruct Ore Urn lane as condition of the
snow dump.
Discussing the lighting for tlre site, Greg Hall, Town Engincer, said the FoPosal called for
the lights to be directed away from thc highway, and the poles hiddcn bchind trpes. Diana
Donovan asked if the lights could be guaranteed to only bc on when someone was working in
the dump. Greg Hall said there needed to be some rmm for human emr, but the intent was
to only have them on when the Town was working in the snow dump.
Mike related conccrns staff had over the elevation of the road. Jim Shearcr wondered if the
height of the berm could be undulated to better hide the road. Paul Thomas, the Town's
consulting landscape architect with Wenh & Associates, said that they were proposing large
scale irregularities in the berm, and they would attempt to blend the color with the existing
back slope.
Thc Commission discussed planting plans, undulation, and general landscape/dcsign concerns.
At the conclusion of that discussion, the consensus was to eliminate the frst sentence of
condition 2 of the staffs memo.
Greg Hall asked if hazard mitigation would have to be implemented- Krisan Priu suggested
doing the hazard sftdy, then they would talk with Iffry Eskwith, Town Attorney, to
determine what would be required to be done.
Regarding the possibility of the berm sloughing, Diana exprcssed her preference that if there
werE a great possibility of it, to make the cut higher originally, so it could be better
landscaped.
The consensus of the Commissioners was the landscaping was adequate. However, they
suggested an additional recommendation that the Ford Park sitc bc cleaned up.
Jim Shcarer moved to approve the request for a conditional usc permit in order to construct a
snow dump on ttre property generally located west of the Town of Vail shops-' The properry
is more spccifically dcscribed as follows:
t7
That part of thc North l2 of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the 6th
Principal Mcridian, Eagle C.ounty, Colorado, lying nonh of Intentate Highway No. 70 and
being morc particularly &scrib€d as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner of said Section 8; thence along the nonherly line of said Scction
8, S89 46'2?'V a distancc of 1500.00 fq thcncr departing thc norttrerly line of said Section
8, S00 23'03'V a disrance of 529.86 ft o a point on the northerly ROW line of I-70; thence
along the northerly ROW line of I-70 following two oourses:
l) S75 28'18"E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point ofcurvatue;
2, 8n.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of 5580.00 ft, a central
angle of 13 38'04" and a chord which bcars N89 36'34"8 13U.70 ft distance to a
point on the easterly line of said Section 8;
Thence depaning said ROW line of I-70 N00 23'03"E along the easterly line of said
Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to thc point of beginning, containing Z).480 acres
mo're or less.
The above description is bascd on thc Town of Vail annexation plats for the property
described and is not based on a field survey. The basis of bearing for the above parcel is the
northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46'27"W as shown on said annexation plats.
The motion was to approve the request per the staff memo with the following changes to the
conditions of approval:
l. That the lighting for the snow dump be downlit so as not to emit glare or "hot qpots"
toward I-70 or the rcsidential properties to the south. All lights arc to be extinguished
when the snow dump is not in use by vehicles.
2. The existing berm shall also be repaired in the arcas where it has sloughed.
3. The Town shall complete a rocKall hazard study before a grading permit is released
for the project. If mitigation measur€s arc requircd, these measures shall be included
in the construction of the snow dump.
4. All debris or forcign matter at the current Ford Park snow dump sitc shall be cleaned
up and removed.
5. The note at the end of the staff memo shall be removed.
Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 4-0.
18
tlL[ f;il;''u 5 0,*,,
Present
Diana Donovan
Ludwig Kurz
Jim Shearer
Gena Whitten
Absent
Chuck Crist
Connie Knight
Kathy Langenwalter
PLANNING AND EI{VIROMvIENTAL COMMISSION
May 13, 1991
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Amber Blecker
The worksession was called to order at 11:45AM by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
1. Uodate bv Holv Cross Electric Association reeardine an amcndment to 1990 Master
Plan to undersround electrical lines.
Applicant Holv Cross Electric
Winston Chapham from Holy Goss Electric presented the tentative plan for undergrounding
electrical lines in thc Bighorn ar€a to the PEC. He indicated the reason for the change from
the 1990 plan was the Bighorn circuit was completely overloaded, necessitating a change
from using existing conduits in the area to a new plan. He explained the options for the new
conduit to tie the area together, emphasizing the landscaping and road cut options. He stated
Holy Cross would need to dig from Vail View Drive to the west side of Sandstone under the
new proposal. They would dig ditches where applicable, and bore under new roads, to
eliminate cutting pavement in those areas. He also stated he hoped to bring in a landscape
contractor to help ensure the landscaping was preserved.
Town Engineer Greg Hall clarified that ttre Town Council had passed an ordinance which
prohibited cutting new roads. He also recommended that Holy Cross Electric inspect their
underground lines before the Town resurfaced any roads in the future. Mr, Chapham said
Holy Cross began inspecting their lines via the use of television last year, and hoped to
expand that use. Greg Hall stated he was concerned with easements in the proposed plan.
Mr. Chapham acknowledged easements might have to be obtained from Simba and the Potato
Patch Club, among others.
Diana Donovan said she believed Todd Oppenheimer and Greg Hall could work out any
difficultics in the plan. If therp was a problem which remained, Holy Closs could come back
to the Commission. Mr. Chapham stated that, since there were environmental aspects to the
plan, Holy Cross would need to file with the Commission when the plan was completed.
In conclusion, Diana stated she would srongly suggest placing the "green boxes" on comers
of sites, rather than in the middle. A planner or Todd will accompany Holy Cross to help
determine such placements and appropriate landscape screening.
2. Update on Municioal Complex. Phase I
Ken HuehevMike Mollica
Ken Hughey began the staff presentation by giving a brief background of the project. In
1989, the Town began looking for more space, specifically to house the Vail police
Department. Originally, they looked at the old Post Office, but it became apparent it would
be too expensive to rcnovate that space for the needs of the police department. The decision
was to find a long term solution, rather than just a "band-aid" for the problem. A
design/consulting team of Roth & Shepherd/Snowdon & Hopkins was chosen. The Town
Council authorized approval of the consultant team and suggested a phased approach to the
construction of a municipal complex, with the highest priority given to a new police facility.
Ken Hughey went on to note that the next step in the process was to give the Town Council
an engineering and technical plan, along with the alternative costs of not providing a new
building. This data is due to the Council in June or July.
When sites were examined by the Municipal Complex Task Force, the Lionshead
Transportation Center was identified as the top choice due to its location, access, and ease of
construction. The primary site analysis consisted of four sites. Phase I would consist of a
new level above the existing upper level for the Police Department, as well as a new level on
the Lionshead Circle (south) side for additional parking. Phase tr would move the remainder
of the municipal functions to a new fourth level on the Lionshead Circle side.
Hughey stated that the current site decisions, such as when moves would take place, had not
yet been determined.
Mike Mollica clarifred the planning process and stated that the proposal would go to the
Town Council in June or July for authorization to proceed with the Lionshead location. The
staff would come back to the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council
with a rezoning request so the site could be used for a municipal complex/police department,
and in addition, a conditional use permit would also be necessary. Mike further indicated
there would be no net loss of parking on the site. Pam Hopkins stated there would actually
be a bit of an increase, including provisions for the additional parking generated by the
municipal complex.
6. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for construction of Steohens Park in
thc Greenbelt/Natural Open Space zone district. The park area is more specificallv
described as follows:
Platted sovernment lots 13. 23 and 24. Townshio 5 South. Ranee I West of the 6th
Principal Meridian. NW 1/4 of Scction 14. Eaelc Countv. Colorado.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Andy Knudtsen explained that the plans for the park had been reviewed and approved by the
PEC, Design Review Board and Town Council, and this was the last step in the approval
process. The Creenbelt/tlatural Open Space zone district is highly restrictive. The criteria
for granting a conditional use is that the proposed use provide a recreational amenity, that it
preserve the stream tract, that it help decrcase demand on othor facilities, that it met standards
for access and parking, and it would have a positive impact on the character of the area. One
concern the PEC raised in previous reviews was the issue of parking. The parking was
increased to 18 spaces, which exceeded the standards for a neighborhood park of this size.
Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit.
Jim Shearer examined the plans for the park, and indicated he did not remember a path in the
center to the Frontage Road. Andy responded the Town Council had requested pedestrian
access to the Frontage Road, and due to the steepness of grades elsewhere, this was the first
location it could be placed. Jim was concerned this location would encourage parking along
the Frontage Road. Andy agreed to look at the possibility of including a stairway, and
moving it to the east for better pedestrian access.
Jim also inquired if the Town had entered into an agreement permanently restricting the area
from soccer game play. Andy said the size was not large enough for league play, and that
this issue would be clarifred in the contract between the Town and the VRD.
Diana Donovan inquired if avalanche and rockfall signs were also to be placed, and Andy
responded they were. Diana stated her preference not to see a path in the cunent location to
the Frontage Road. Ludwig Kurz agreed with Jim's statements. Kristan agreed to pass those
comments onto Council.
Jim Shearer moved to approve the request for a conditional use permit to construct Stephens
Park in a Greenbeltfi.latural Open Space zone district, with the request that the Commission's
comments rcgarding there being a practice field only with league play prohibited, be passed
on to Council. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. The motion was a unanimous 4-0 in
favor of the motion.
7. A request to chanse the Land Use Plan designation of a oropenv generallv located
west of the Town of Vail Public Works shoos from Ooen Soace to Semi-Public Use
and a reouest !o rezone the orooertv from Agricultural and Open Space to Public Use
District. The oroperty is described as follows:
That part of the North l/2 of Section 8. Townshio 5 South. Ranee 80 west of the 6th
Principal Meridian. Eaele Countv. Colorado. lvine north of Intentate Hiehwav No. 70
and beine mor€ oatticularlv dcscriH as follows:
Beeinnine at the NE cdner of said Section 8: thence alone the northerlv line of said
Section 8. S89 46'7"1V a distancc of 15fi).(n ft thence dcoartine thc northerlv line
of said Scction 8. Sfi) 23'03"W a distancc of 529.86 ft to a noint on the no'rtherlv
ROW line of I-70: thencc alone thc nctherlv ROVtt line of I-70 followine hvo
courses:
D S75 28'18"E a distance of 180.82 ft to a ooint of curvature:
D. 1327.90 ft alone thc arc of a curve to the left. havine a radius of 5580.00 ft. a
central anele of 13 38'04" and a cho,rd which boars N89 36'34"E 1324.70 ft
distance to a ooint on the easterlv line of said Section 8:
Thence deoartins said ROW lins of I-70 N00 23'03"8 alone the easterlv line
of said Sec-tion 8. a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beeinnine. containine
20.480 acres more or less.
The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the prooertv
described and is not based on a field survev. The basis of bearine for the above
parcel is tlre northcrlv line of Section 8 beins S89 46'27"W as shown on said
annexation Dlats.
Applicants: Town of VaiWail Associates
Andy Knudtsen explained the request. The current zoning on the parcel is Agriculture/Open
Space. The rcquest was to rezone the property to Public Use in order to construct a snow
dump on the site. The Town would be the leaseholder of the property.
Andy explained the criteria for rezoning a parcel of land. The fint criteria was the suitability
of the land to the proposed zone district. Because the location of the parcel lies between
Public Use and Agriculture/Open Space, staff believed both zones were compatible, and the
Public Use zoning could be extended.
The second criteria was the workable relationship between land uses. Both zone districts
have low impact uses and are very restrictive. Therefore, staff believed they were workable.
The third criteria was how the zoning related to municipal objectives. Since this would
provide for better snow r€moval by the Town, it would be a positive municipal change.
During the worksession, ther€ had been concern expressed about the by-right uses in the
Public Use zone district. Andy explained that under the definition of seasonal stmctures and
uses, a conditional use permit was required in all zone districts. The only risk of a by-right
use if the land were to be rezoned was that a park or bicycle path being built. All other uses
would require a conditional use permit
Andy sfated the proposed snow dump would provide for growth and better snow removal
services by the Town. He explained that both the map and text of the code would need to be
changcd to indicate this was a good location for Public Works to expand. The request met
the land use and rezoning criteria, and stalf rccommended appmval of the rezoning.
Kristan Pric elaborated that the snow durnp would be a conditional use, not a by-right use,
and the Town would have to retum to the PEC for approval on the snow dump'
Mike Dungan of Muller Engineering, the consultant working on thc snow dump, explained
the proposal. He showed alternate views of the proposed dump, from differcnt locations, both
before and after. Ludwig Kurz asked what the elevation of the access road behind the dump
would be. Mike indicated it would be approximately 5-8 feet above the height of the berm.
The new berm would extend to the ridge line, and the area of the dump would be revegetated,
with an attempt to revegetate using sage. The planting height and type along the berm itself
would be varied. Sherry Dorward, design consultant, said that there were two assumptions
being made in the plan. The fint was the Eees on the berm shown in the illusrations were
15 feet tall, and that the cut slope revegetation was good, but not perfect. The intent was to
fuzz and "finger" the cut line to make it less apparent. They would replace the dead sage
until the new hopefully grew in below it.
Mike Dungan stated there would be moderate view effects due to the existing location of the
Public Works shops. The berm in front of the snow dump would be more natural, and at a
lower slope. The maximum slope of anything cxposed to view would be 2:1. Greg Hall,
Town Engineer, added that the inside of the berm would be grassed.
Jim Shearer wondered if there would be gravel accumulation inside the dump. Mike Dungan
indicated the gravel would be cleaned out periodically, and it would look much better than the
current dump. Sherry pointed out that, from the ski slopes, cinders would be able to be seen.
Jim thought a positive aspect of the plan was there would be more vegetation along I-70, and
asked if drip irrigation would be used. Grcg said it would be drip. When Jim asked about
the drainage system for the dump, Mike Dungan indicated the salt from the snow could not
be filtered out, but that they would sample the water to determine what the salt content was.
A culvert to the site is existing, and the system would consist of a water quality and sediment
pond. Pete Burnett added that, since only Town of Vail snow would be permitted in the
dump, the content of the snow would be easily determined. Mike Dungan stated that there
would be both a regular, sediment drain and an emergency drain. During the process of
developing the dump, the culverts along I-70 would be improved. He stated this was an
excellent location for a dump.
Jim asked if a filter could be installed later if a need were presented. Mike Dungan said it
could be packaged with a pump after construction if necessary. He explained that the intent
was to ground filter as much of the waEr as possible, and that was why no impervious barrier
was being placed beneath the dump. With the system being designed, Vail would be in the
forefront of monitoring the content of their meltwater.
Regarding the lease terms, Jim questioned if the length had been determined, and if any
automatic renewals had been negotiated. Kristan said Ron Phillips was requestinga7 yeat
lease period. Jim also stated he would like to see conditions in the lease avoiding liability if
the ground were conurminated. Greg stated those conditions were in the lease.
Jim Shearer moved to approve the request to change the l:nd Use Plan designation of a
propeny generally located west of the Town of Vail Public Works shops from Open Space to
Semi-Public Use and a rcquest to rezone the property from Agriculture and Open Space to
Public Use Disnict per the staff memo. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. The Commission
unanimously voted, 4-0, to aPprove the request.
8. Appeal of a staff decision reeardine Lund Residence walkwav. I.ot 4. Block 4. Vail
Villaee 3rd Filins/443 Beaver Dam Road.
Appellant: Jav Peterson
Andy Knudtsen explained that staff reviewed the request to enclose the walkway and turret of
the Lund residence, and determined that a GRFA or density variancc would be necessary for
the request. Because the request was made in 1990, the 1990 site coverage and GRFA
policies applied. The basis for staff's decision in this matter was that they interpreted the
code to mean that semi-enclosed spaces were not GRFA, but that the current structurcs were
already semi-enclosed. Any further enclosurc would generate square footage under the GRFA
policies. They determined that glass walls, in this case, would constitute enclosing walls of a
structure. In the building permit plans, staff had specifrcally "redlined" the plans to indicate
the openings must remain "open air." Andy noted that there would be 2 windows and one
door left open in the walkway to the garage under the proposal.
Kristan Pritz clarified the distinction between thc Chester spa and some prcvious deck
enclosures. Staff reviewed this proposal with the question of when space is no longer
unenclosed. Their judgment was that their past interpretafions had been very generous, and in
this case, they had been generous to determine the turret was not treated as GRFA in the
original building.
Jay Peterson, representing the Lunds, stated that staff accurately portrayed what had occurred
during the planning and construction of the residence. Galen Aasland, the architect for the
project, was aware at all times that the spaces werc to remain open. The owner did not mind.
He wanted the areas to be open, and non-habitable areas. Since the completion, however, it
was found that the wind swirled through the area, and it was extremely difficult to keep the
debris from collecting. The main doors to the home would remain the main doors.
l0
w\pr
Lr(flu A
fylu f t.* J* ,l I'P'n' r
/*,\ Lu,L-',5 fu,i,k 1- c"
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ilEIJ|ORANDUI'
Planning and Environmental Gommisslon
Community Development D€partment
May 13, 1991
A request to change the Land Use Plan designation ol a property generally
located west of the Town ol Vall Public Works shops from Open Space to
Semi-Public Use and a request to rezone the property from Agricultural and
Open Space to Public Use District. The property is described as follows:
That part of the Nortr 112 of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of
the 6th Principal Meddian, Eagle County, Colorado, lying north of Interstate
Highway No. 70 and being more partictlarly described as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner of said Section 8; thence along the northerly line of
said Section 8, S89 46'27'W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the
northerly line of said Section 8, S00 23'03"W a distance of 529.86 ft to a point
on the northerly ROW line of l-70;thence along the northerly ROW line of l-70
following two @urses:
1) S75 28'18'E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature;
2) 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of
5580.00 ft, a central angle of 13 38'04' and a chord which bears N89
36'34"E 192470 ft distance to a point on the easterly line of said
Section 8;
Thence departing said ROW line of l-70 N00 23'03"E along the easterly line ol
said Section 8, a distance ol 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containing
20.480 acres more or less.
The above description ls based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the
property described and is not based on a lield survey. The basjg_of bearing for
itre above parcel is fre northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46'27'W as shown
on said annexation plats.
Applicani: Town of VailA/ail Associates
I. INTRODUCTION
The Town of Vail is requesting a rezoning of a tract of land west of the Town Public Works
Department shops. Tn'e parcel is approximately 600 feet wide and 1,500 feet long and is
dir6Aly west of ihe Town of Vail Shopa. The cunenl zoning of the property is Agricultural and
o
Open Space Dlstrlct, and he appllcant ls proposlng Public Use District zonlng. The orvner of
the property is Vail Assoclates (VA), and the Tortn of Vailwlll be the leaseholder. The
purpos€ of the request to rezone ihe property is lo allow 'public service facilitiss'as
conditlonal uses. It the rezoning is approved, the Town of Vailwill apply for a conditional use
permit for a'public service facllity,'or mot€ specifically, a Town snow dump.
Developmenl slandards in the Public Use District are prescribed by the Plannlng and
Environmental Commission (PEG) for Indtuldual proposals. In Section 18.36.050 ol the Public
Use Districl, the PEC is given he auhority to:
'prescribe development standar6 for each particular development proposal or project
in each of the following categories: A. lot area and site dimenslons; B. Setbacks; D.
Height; E. Density Controls; G. Site Coverage; H. landscaplng and Site Development.'
Note: C&F have been deleted sincs the originaladoption.
Because lhe PEG has the authority lo sel development standards for each specific use, stiaff
believes that each should be analyzed closely at the time ot the conditional use hearing.
A. Sultablllty of Exlstlng Zonlng
The trad of land under consideration is zoned Agricultural and Open Space District,
o;',tlf JllFilffi+ffi t"g:;11",'f :31?:1TJl.'y jtrJ#i,fi';,',HiP
to existing Public Use Dlstricl zoning, straff believes it is reasonable to expand thi5*'
B.
zone district. In addition, staff belleves th with each other.
m;ilponslstent wlth Munlclpal oblectlvea
Staff believes the relationshlp of land uses in the area ls workable, as both the
Agricu|turalandopenSpaceDis|rictandthePublicUseDistrict3||owrrH
Both zone
.rffiBecause of the manner in whlch the zoning code is written ioiieiQutffi=ttre
Public Use District, the Planning and Environmental Commission will be able to set he
development standards for
-a'*'q( Y\*{ lt^J ..'-' ('^ltn'^.L-<- a or'L etL
Staff bslier/es that the rezoning will help achieve a m
The area the Torn cunsntly uses to dump snow is the north bank of
Gore Creek in Ford Park, just east of the tennis courts. Town Council has requested
that the Public works Departmsnt find a new location to dump snow, as the current
use of he Gore Creek bank ls not environmentally sensitlve to Gore Creak or Ford
Park.
During a previous PEC worksession on this issue, the PEC's primary concern centered
on potential land uses which the rezoning would allow. 'By-Right'uses of both
districts are listed below: ; .,
pubilc use Drstric-t (proposecr Zoning) '>' l"'')
"',t ,t" , ,,:: ,'' ,,\ f l i1lV; /
Public parks, playgrounds, and open space
Pedestrian and bicycle paths
Seasonal struciures or uses to accommodate educational,
cultural activities
Aorlculture and Ooen Soace (Existing Zoning)
Single family residential drellings
A.
B.
c.
A.
B.
c.
Plant and tree nurseries and raising of field, row and tree crops ,. ,( rl ,-' :y,-, , (\1 , .,,
^Public parks, recreation areas and open spaces
During the worksession, the one use the PEC was @ncerned about was letter C-'
seasonal structures or uses. Research done since the worksession shows that the
lefinition of seasonal structure requires conditional use approval in every zone districl.
,, Though this conflicts with the use being listed as a permitted use in the Public Use
' District, whenever the zoning code applies more than one standard to a development' regulation, statf practice has been to consistently use the more restrictive standard.
The definition of a seasonal structure is a:
'temporary covering erected over a recreational amenity, such as a swimming
pool or tennis court, for the purpose of expanding their use to the cold weather
months. Such seasonal covers may not be in place for more than seven
consecutive months of any twelve-month period. . . . Any seasonal use or
structure shall requlre a conditlonal use permlt In accord wlth Chapter 18'60'
Because of this definition, the only by right uses allowed in the Public Use zone district
are parks and bicycle paths. [t ,"1_ _,.,. .]
...t .,*.i | .,t i',),., i i,.:,,, ,, li, .,.., i
c. Does the Rezonlng Provlde for the Growth of an orderly, vlabte ; ' .1r 4 t'5 t rf
Communlty? ,;,,i
) ,,i ,, ,
lf approved, the rezoning will provide the conditional use process for the Town of Vail
to request approval of a'snow dump. Stiafl bettgves that irovUing a snow dump for the ( " tt" "/l'r"
community will improve snor removal seMoes, rEduce envlronmenlal lmpac{s, make /.l.r,.i,,.,./
the community m6re enioyable for guests and resldents durlng the winter, and help the I
Town func.tion mors efficiently. The conditional use criteria will allow for a horough / "'' !. ')
review of the request to insure community concerns are addressed. A part of any
conditional use review will be an analysis of the rockfall hazard. This is the only
hazard affecting the site, and any proposed use will have to incorporate any miligation
recommended in a hazard study.
D. l,tnd Ulo Plan
Thls parcel ls de3lgnated as Open Space In the Lend Use Plan. Crlteda for amendlng
the Land Use Plan harc been estaHlshsd. On page 62 of the Plan, lt states hat In
order:
'to change Qe Plan . . . lt wlll be the responshllity of the
the Plan was
The goals and policles of ary Land Use Plan are he fundamental basls on whlch such
a plan ls I of thE Twun of Vall tand Use Plan states
Town, it stabs that the Publlc 'ls of adequate slza to
accommodate futire
ITF?rkllilon to the change In land use deslgnaton fmm Open
r Use, stall also suggests changlng the Land Use Plan to retlect
that there ls a need for expansion of he seruic* the Torvn Shop slte provides.
ilr. coNcLUSroN
Staff recommends approval of the rezonlng. Staff tinds that the sultability
is not doquate to accomn!9dat€lhg he oublic, and
Regarding the @mmends hat the lwo cianges discussed be
glearly
id, hour
lan ls In
4
con@rt wlth he Plan ln general.'
In another secton of lhe Plan, whlch dlscusses the faclllty and servlce standads ol the
clpec\torbnodump.5lS
r!
i,
-
sI
It!
:
!r
P t
;
lr, ,Ft
GIHI-t
;
{
('
=d
EF
tt
EJJ
,)j
0
Ff
g
JI
t
Present
Chuck Gist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Ludwig Kurz
Kathy Langenwalter
Jim Shearcr
Gena Whinen
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
April22,l99l
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Anber Blecker
The worksession was called to order at 2:l7PM by Chairpenon Diana Donovan.
A reouest for a workscssion to consider an application to rczone oropertv senerallv
located west of thc Town of Vail Public Works shops from Agricultural and ODen
Snace to Public Use Disu'ict. The soecific descriotion of the prooertv is as follows:
That oart of the North 112 of Section 8. Townshio 5 South. Ranee 80 west of the 6th
Principal Meridian. Eaele Counw. Colorado. lvins north of lnterstate Hiehwav No. 70
and being more particularlv described as follows:
Besinnins at the NE corner of said Section 8: thence alone the northerlv line of said
Section 8. S89 46'27"W a dishnce of 1500.fi) ft: thence departine the northerlv line
of said Section 8. S00 23'03"W a distance of 529.86 ft to a ooint on the northerlv
ROV/ line of I-70: thence alone the northerlv ROW line of I-70 followinq nilo
courses:
-U S75 28'18"E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point ofcurvature:
2 1327.90 ft alone the arc of a curve to the left. havine a ndius of 5580.fi) ft. a
central anele of 13 38'04" and a chord which bears N89 36'34"8 1324.70 ft
distance to a ooint on the easterlv line of said Section 8:
Thence departine said ROW line of I-70 N00 23'03"E alone thc casterlv line of said
Section 8. a distance of 572.10 ft to the ooint of beeinnine. containine 20.480 acres
more or less.
The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the oroperw
described and is not based on a field survev. The basis of bearine for the above
parcel is the northerlv line of Section 8 beine S89 46'27"W as shown on said
annexation plats.
Apolicant: Town of Vail
rtf!
Andy Knudtsen stated the purpose of this worksession was to discuss the rezoning of the
parcel from AgriculturaVOpen Space to Public Use District. The proposed zone has three
permittcd uses, consisting of public parks, playground and open space; pedestrian and bicycle
paths; and seasonal structurcs or uses to accommodate educational, reqeational or cultural
activities. Any other uses of the zone district are conditional uscs, in which case the Planning
and Envir,onmental Commission sets the standards.
Grcg Hall explained the location of the stakes for a proposed snow dump which were seen on
the site inspection and where the berm would be located. He also clarified what cuts would
need to be made and what the elevations of the proposed snow dump would be.
Chuck Ctist asked what the typical snow volume for the Town is, and Pete Burnett answered
that it is averages 60,000 cubic yards.
Jim Shearer asked why the height of the berm wasn't raised to increase the capacity of the
dump, to which Greg answercd that the project was still in the planning stages with the
landscapc architect, and the final berm slope had not yet been determined. A major constraint
in this regard, however, was that the slope along the highway portion of the proposed dump
could not exceed 2:1, with a 1 l2:l slope on the Town Shop side.
Chuck inquired how much snow typically accumulates. Pete indicated that the high end was
120,000 cubic yards, which was plowed by the Town during the 1982 season. Chuck asked if
the proposed dump would eliminate the other dumps around the Town. Greg replied that the
intent was to do just that, and to rcmove the snow storage from the parks. Pete further
explained that this dump would be for Town of Vail snow only. Connie Knight clarified that
the proposed dump would eliminate dumping into Gorc Creek.
Kathy Langenwalter asked where the drainage from the proposed snow dump would be. Greg
Hall said there is an existing culvert under I-70 which would be utilized. There would be a
water quality pond, with a 40 hour retention period, constructed to filter suspended solids
from the water. Jim asked if a sand filter would also be used, and Greg replied the baffels in
the filtration system would filter out any oil contained in the water. He continued to say that
the pond would not eliminate salts, though the Town does not use much salt in thcir sanding
mixture. Greg stated that Aspen utilized the same type of pond.
o
Chuck asked if the snow in the dump would be gonc by June. Pete replied that the cur€nt
snow dumps still show signs of snow and ice in August due to the use of cinders in sanding.
Greg continued to say that every 2-3 years, the cinders would be cleaned out of the dump to
increase storage spaoe.
Kristan Priu asked if the detention ponds would be underground. Greg answered they would
be along the berm, with a pipe regulating the out flow ratc. The Town was examining the
soit permeability to determine what the specific site conditions were. Diana said that when
the iransportation Task Force had examined the possibility of placing a highway off-ramp at
this location, they had been told there was extremely unstable soil at this location and the hill
should not be cut.
Greg clarified for the Commissioners that the slope of a I lf2:l berm would be less steep
than the current berm in front of the Public Works shops, and aspen and pines would be
placed on the berm.
Diana asked if the road would have to be placed at the upper edge of the berm. Greg
indicated the cost and the fact that the snow could only be worked on at certain times dictated
the placement of the road. Mike Mollica wondered why the road could not be widened to
accommodate two way traffic, but Pete stated there would be too groat a volume loss in the
dump itself. Greg explained to the Commission that after a load of snow was dumped, a
nighi crew would then come in and move the snow around to an appropriate location. A one'
way looped road would be more efficient, as that would allow the end loader driven would
be able to dump the snow on the edge and drive forward, out of the dump. Providing a
turnaround area for the large trucks instead of a looped road would reduce the capacity of the
dump.
Diana stated there was a great need for a now snow dump, as the current ilrangements were a
disgrace. The proposed dump would be a balancing act, as it was a huge project. She was
concemed about the upper mad being visible for some residents on the golf course. Mike
asked if that road would be paved, and Greg clarified it would be gravel. Diana qucstioned if
the dump and mad would be lit, to which Greg answered the lighting would be similar to the
current Town shop lights. Diana said that this was a very important concern.
Pete explained the lights would not be on all the time, but that the shops are very busy'
nearly on a 24 hour basis, and that lighting was important. Greg reiterated the lights would
not be on continually. Andy asked if the lights on the loaders would be sufficient' Pete
replied if all they were doing was pushing snow, they would be, but not if they were hauling
the snow in. He thought it would be unusual for thc lights to be on very often, as the night
shift would only be working if there was a large quantity of snow, as in 1982.
Greg said that one of the conditions for the conditional use could be the lights would only go
on when the dump was in use. Pete continued that a system similar to the bus tunnel could
be used where, when a bus entered the tunnel, a beam would be broken, tuming on the lights.
The lights would go off when the truck lcft.
Diana said she had no problem with the location, but was concerned with the rezoning and
subsequent conditional use that no building would be visible from the mountain. Greg stated
the only building being considercd would be a storage area built into the berm, and would not
be noticeable.
Diana was also concerned that the shop area not extend to spraddle creek. she also
indicated the police use of an adjacent area for target practice was problematic. Pete told
Diana the target range had recently been moved from that location permanently.
Connie Knight wondered if the provision of a snow dump could be accommodated on this
location without rezoning. Kristan answered that, unless the PEC wished to change the
zoning code itself, it would not be possible. Kristan funher recommended against proceeding
in that direction.
Diana asked what the lease term on the property was with VA. Greg answered the current
term was 3 years. Diana questioned if the PEC could make the rezoning contingent on a
longer lease term. She also indicated she believed VA should be the applicant, as they were
the owners of the land. Staff clarified that the Town was the entity requesting rhe rezoning,
and as such, was the applicant, but that VA had signed the application as the owner. Further,
Diana was concemed that VA would perhaps build seasonal structurcs on the site if it were
rezoned and subsequently retumed to VA.
Connie stated her hesitance to rezone the property without a longer lease from VA. She said
it would be nice to move the dump from the current creek location, but that she didn't want
all the work to be retumed to VA after only 3 years.
Chuck Crist didn't think the rezoning would result in VA gaining a benefit, as the use on the
site would be restricted. He thought of this land as "junk land" which could not be built upon
without a further application to the Commission. Greg thought the only thing VA would
want to build was, perhaps, employee housing.
Diana wondered if there was legal access to this site. Greg answered there was a 50 foot
right-of-way through the bus barn access.
Chuck strongly encouraged a longer lease be negotiated. Greg responded by explaining the
negotiation process. The Town had originally requested a 20 year lease term, or ouright
purchase. Due to VA's legal status, they were unable and/or unwilling to either rEmove
property from their assets, or place propeny on a lease of that duration. However, VA had
requested as a paft of the lease that if the snow dump wers removed from the land in the
futurp, thc property would revert back to an AgiculturaVOpen Spacc zoning' Unfortunatcly,
that could not legally be placed in the lease agrcement.
Kathy Langenwalter agreed with Diana and Chuck, and was concerned with the visibility of
the high road. She prefcrred a2-way road along the top. She rcquested the roadline bc
staked for the next site visit, and to determine if the road would be visible from the golf
course homes. She was very concerned with any proposed lighting of the dump, but would
accept a condition that it would only be lit when work was being performed. She also stated
her ioncern that the hillside be revegetated wittr sage. As a uxpayer, she was apprehensive
abouta3yearlease.
Pete indicated this was about the only suitable site for a snow dump which had adequate
drainagc. With the cunent conoerns over air and water quality, he felt the move to this
location was essential. Greg said thc dump would not be cheap to develop, and he did not
feel the Council would allow a $500,000 investment to be wasted.
Ludwig Kurz commented he believed the rear road would be visible, and he asked that the
impacts of this be mitigated in some way. Pete told the Commissioners the nrad had
originally been designed at a higher elevation, and had been brought down to help the view
impacts. Greg said they would further examine the view corridors to the proposed site and
determine the visibility of the road.
Jim Shearer stated the site was a definite need, and that the proposal, overall, appeared to be
good. However, he was also concerned about the views and the revegetation of the hillside.
He asked if juniper, which the Post Office had used, would be an appropriate landscape
material. fete reptied it would have to be re-planted every year, but they were planning on
revegetating for erosion control. Jim continued that, even with the site difficulties, he was in
favor of moving the snow dump from its present locations. Jim questioned the $500,000 for
site development, and Greg explained most of the cost was for hauling the dirt, design and
Iandscaping of the site. However, if it tumcd out there was good quality topsoil on the site, it
would offset the cost.
Jim said he would like to see an automatic extension in the lease term with a designated
interest escalation (perhaps not more than 107o). He asked staff to investigate if the rezoning
could be made conditional on the reverting of the site if the snow dump were moved' Kristan
agreed to check that provision with Larry Eskwith upon his rcturn. She felt the rezoning
should be considered on its own merits. Jim concluded he would like as little light as
possible on the site without endangering the drivers.
Greg noted they would be returning to the Commission on May 13 with a request for
rezoning, but stated they would not have a final design for the snow dump at that time. He
asked if the Commission would like to see anyttring else at the May 13 meeting. Diana
replied she would like to see the road impacts determined more clearly, as well as
investigating a longer lease term. She stated requiring a longcr lease term as a condition of
r€zoning may not be the prerogative of the Commission, but that a rezoning for three years
may not bc appropriate.
Gena Whinen joined the meeting at this time, but had no comments as she had missed the
site visit.
Kristan reminded the C;ommissioners they needed to base their dccision on the rezoning on
whether a Public Use District zoning was appropriatc on this site in general.
The public hearing was called to order at 3:20PM by Chairpenon Diana Donovan.
l. A request for a setback variance. Forbes Residence. Texas Townhouses 48 and 58.
l,ot 4Bl5B. Vail Villaee Fourth Filind 483 Gore Cleek Drive.
Aoplicanl WalterForbes
Chuck Crist moved to table this item to the May 13, 1991 meeting. Connie Knight seconded
that motion. The Commissioners voted unanimously, 7-0, in favor of the table.
2. A request for a setback variance. MacCormick Residence. Texas Townhouses 68. Lot
6B. Vail Villaee Fourth Filins/483 Gore Creek Drive.
Applicanr Alexander MacCormick
Mike Mollica explained that this request was a straight forward variance request. The lot was
zoned High Density Multi-Family, which meant there was a 20 foot side setback requirement.
When the Texas Townhouses were originally subdivided, the lots were established as 25 feet
wide, with a 0 side setback. Therefore, any changes to the buildings rcquired a setback
variance. There was no GRFA or site coverage incrcase with this request.
The request consisted of raising the roof on the north side by 3-4' in order to gain head room.
Staff recommended approval of this request, as the property was a pre-existing non-
conforming lot. There would be no impact on the neighbors from this request.
Diana Donovan clarified that these were townhouses, not condos, and there was no property
in common.
Connie Knight moved that the rcquest for a setback variance for the MacCormick Residence,
Texas Townhouses 68, lrt 68, Vail Village Fourft Filing/483 Gore Creek Drive be approved
per the staff memo, with the finding that the variance was warranted by the fact that the strict
and literal interpretation or cnforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
Chuck Crist seconded the above motion. The motion passed, 7-0.
o
In the interests of time, item 3 was postponed to a later time in the meeting.
4, Aooeal of calculation of GRFA for Primarv/Secondarv units under 1991 reeulations.
Apoellant: Ned Gwathmev
Kristan Pritz explained the staff would agee to calculate GRFA as rcquested by Mr.
Gwathmey, and that this item was not actually an appeal, but more a clarification r€quest
from staff to the Commission on the direction to take with regard to requests such as this.
She explained the reason the bonuses were calculated on a 60/40 basis was that this was how
the original language in the code had divided up credits. The code allowed for credits to be
allocatid per unit or pooled into one unit. Nedhad brought to the attention of staff that if the
850 sq. ft. was added to the total GRFA and then the 60/40 split was calculated, the second
unit would not get the full benefit of the credits. An equal allotment of 425 sq. ft. seemed to
be more fair to Ned. Staff was willing to calculate the GRFA by using the formula based on
lot size and then add 425 sq. ft. per unit. However, staff did not want to be responsible for
dividing the 850 sq. ft. of GRFA between two owners. The secondary unit would stipulate
the GRFA cap of 40Vo + 425 sq. ft. The bonom line was that total GRFA + 850 sq. ft. shall
not be exceeded under any circumstances, and Primary/Secondary lots will not be allowed to
have a secondary unit that exceeds 40Vo of GRFA + 425 q. ft. Staff wanted to ensure the
PEC was clear on this decision.
Chuck Crist asked if the primary unit would be eligible for all 850 sq. ft. if a secondary unit
was not built. Kristan replied it would.
After discussions with Jay Peterson, Diana Donovan indicated she was agreement with the
staff direction on this issue.
Chuck Crist moved the Commission support ttre staff position outlined in their memo.
Connie Knight seconded. The vote was a favorable 7-0.
5. Appeal of calculation of GRFA as it relates to substantiallv enclosed soace. Mindlin
Residence. Lot 7. Vail Potato Patch/800 Potato Patch Drive.
Appellant Peter l.ooms
Jill Kammerer clarified the bottom line on this appeal was there was a differing code
interpretation between staff and appellant. The existing structure had a covered entrance with
three floor-to-ceiling openings which werc non-contiguous. The lineal openings of these areas
totalled 26Vo of the space, and code only required a25%lineal opening. However, the code
specified the openings must be contiguous.
Pcter Iroms, architect for the Mindlins, agrced that thc openings did not meet the cde
requirement for contiguous openings, but that no one connected with the house had ever
consider€d the arca as cnclosed space. If it werc counted in that manner, approximatcly 350
sq. ft. of GRFA would be lost and the expansion poantial for the residence would be slverely
impacted.
Kathy Langenwalter agrecd with the staff interprctation of the code, stating this was a
massing issue. The Tnning Code Task Force had specifically addrcssed this issue, with a
$eat deal of time spent thinking and examining what the provisions should be. The Task
Forcc had carefully looked at whether posts could bc allowed, but had determined they could
not.
Chuck CYist ageed with Kathy's assessmenl Connie Knight indicated this proposal was
exactly what was to be eliminated. She asked Mr. Looms if the posts were structural
suppofis. He indicated they were, but also statsd they were solcly architectural elements.
Ludwig Kurz felt this question was a mass and bulk issue and agreed with the staff position.
Gena Whitten also agreed.
Jim Shearer agreed with staffs position, but questioned the interpretation if the space had
tumed a corner with a corner post. Kathy Langenwalter indicated the Task Force had
specifically talked about that, and decided the space needed to be contisuous. Otherwise,
suppon bcams could become 4' posts.
Chuck Crist moved to uphold staff's decision rcgarding the GRFA question for the Mindlin
residence. Jim Shearer seconded the motion, and a unanimous, 7-0, C-ommission upholding
the decision.
Kristan Pritz indicated to the Commissioners staff had been making interpretations of the new
GRFA policy, and was making this presentation to ensune they were acting in accordance
with the intent of the policy, and the direction the PEC wished sraff ro take. The
Commissioners upheld all of the staff decisions presented.
At this time, the Commission returned to Item 3.
6.
3. A recuest to amend the Zonine Codc. addine a scction to identifu all apDrovcd vicw
conidors and to set fo'rth details with reead thercto.
Applicant Town of Vail
Andy Knudtsen explained this as a rcformatting of thc previously given information. The
information was better organized, and would be placed in the Design Review section of the
zoning code.
Kathy Langenwalter asked why the decision had been made to place the view conidor
information in the Design Review section. Andy answered ttrat the original thought had bcen
to create a new chapter, but that staff decided it would be more useful in Design Review. If
an applicant came in and asked for building rr4uirements, they would be automatically given
the Design Review criteria in their packet. The goal was to make the provisions as clear as
possible and acceptable to the public. Kathy wondcred if Oris actually would clarify thc
guidelines. She 0rought that perhaps placing the provisions in the Commercial Core I zone
disuict would be more beneficial. Andy replied there werc some view corridors which
extended beyond CCI, and that future view corridors may be adopted which affect areas
outside CCI.
Kathy Langenwalter suggested the language under the amendment section of the proposed
ordinance could be clarified. She proposed it read: "No proposed strucrure may encroach
into an adopted corridor without an amendment to the established view corridor boundary."
In addition, she said that Paragraph 8, dealing with rebuilding non-conforming structures,
would be improved if the standard would allow desnoyed structures to be rebuilt to the
previous height, as well as size. A thid revision she proposed would re-word Paragnph 6(C)
so that it emphasized that the encroachments into the view corridor would be the proposed
expansions, not existing buildings.
Andy clarified that if a proposed building would encroach in a view corridor, a full view
corridor amendment would be required, including PEC and Town Council reviews' Kristan
stated that staff wanted a specific prrcess set forth in the futurc so that if a project such as
the Red Lion was proposed, there would be a clear procedure for amendments. She indicated
Larry Eskwith would revicw thc spec'ifics of the ordinance beforc it was presented to Town
Council.
Kathy was also concerned that the language "no existing structure located in a view conidsr
shall be expanded or enlarged" would prohibit any Clock Tower expansion or remodel.
Kristan said that the language applied more directly to buildings other than the Clock Tower,
like the Golden Peak House. Diana wanted to clarify that the part in the view conido'r could
not be expanded, but a portion of the building which was not in the view corridor would not
be limited.
Chuck Crist asked for a clarification from pagc 6 regarding an existing structurc within the
view corridor. If it were tom down intentionally, would thc Town allow it to be rebuilt
exactly as it was. Mike explained the purpose of this language was to phase out non-
conforming structures when thcy came in for redevelopmenl However, natural causes for a
demolition (fue, etc.) would be exempted. Chuck asked about demolition because of an
unsafe building due to deterioration over time. Mike indicated that the nonconforming clause
would only pertain to destruction by natural causes.
Jim Shcarer wondered if the Clock Tower should be specifically excluded. Diana believed
the Clock Tower, as an indicated focal point, was protected in both the old version of the
ordinance and thc proposed ordinance. Andy clarified it was a goal of the Town to pr€serve
designated focal points, and that the Clock Tower was refercnced as a focal point in the first
part of the proposed ordinance.
Chuck Crist asked if a "structure," as indicated in Paragraph 3, would includc street lights or
nees. Kristan answered that street lights and public utilities would not be included in that
definition. Chuck responded that, eventually, tnees could block the intended view. Shelly
related that other communities around the nation had tried to deal with this issue, and it was a
common question. Chuck clarified he was more concemed with artificial structures, such as
s[eet lights, but not vegetation. The suggestion made by Diana was to add language to this
paragraph which would indicate man-made objects, such as sneet lights, top lights and utility
poles, would not bs allowed.
Chuck also wondered if the Design Review Board would be the body to rpview the
applications for a change to the view corridors. Kristan answercd that the request would go
to the PEC and Town Council on an ordinance amendment.
Jim Shearer asked if stakes could be placed where the photos were taken. Diana replied there
were survey points. Kristan clarified that staff would like to place brass caps in the pavement
to designate the point of origin for tlre view corridon. Jim requested the legal description of
the view corridor include not only the height at which the picture was taken, but also the type
of lens used. Mike Mollica stated that would be indicated in the future. Kristan explained
that there was no indication on the previous corridors adopted. Diana was positive Dan
Corcoran had that information, and Kristan agreed to look into it. If Dan did not have the
information, the corridors would be re-photographed for documentation.
Kathy Langenwalter suggested displaying the corridors in a prominent location. Kristan
proposed the planning office.
Connie Knight wondered why there was no view co'rridor including the 4-way stop. Kdstan
answercd that, when the previous view corridor study was done, that particular view corridor
was not approved. It was the intent, however, of thc planning staff to do another study in the
Village and Lionshead during the next budget year.
10
Kattry Langenwalter moved to recommend the Town Council amend the Zoning Code, adding
a section to identify all approved view corridors and to set forth details with rcgard thereto as
per the proposed orrdinance with the following changcs and additions:
l. Designatc the lens tyrye and size for all vicw corridon.
2. Include objects, such as sneet lights, sop signs and utility poles as structures which
should not be allowed to encroach into a view co'rridor.
3. Change the title of Paragraph 4.
4. Modify the last sentence in Paragraph 6(C) so that the encroachments into the view
corridor which are discussed clearly called out "proposed encroachments."
5. Modify the last section of Paragraph 7 so that it reads: "No proposed structule may
encroach into an adopted view corridor without an amendment to the established view
corridor boundary."
6. Modify the section of the proposed ordinance dealing with nonconforming buildings so
that a reconstruction of a building desnoyed by natural causes would not be able to
exceed the previous height or size.
7. Include a section in the proposed orrdinance so that appeals would be brought to the
PEC.
Jim Shearer seconded the above motion. The unanimous 7-0 vote was in favor of the
recommendation.
Before proceeding to the worksession, the Commissioners dispatched the following items:
Chuck Crist moved, and Connie Knight se,conded, that the minutes be approved as written.
The vote was 7-0 in favor.
9. Approval of minutes from April 8. 1991 meetine.
Jim Shcarer moved that the April 8, 1991 minutes bc approved as presented with the deletion
of the last sentence of the next to last paragraph, page 14. Gena Whitten seconded. The
minutes wer€ approved as changed 7-0.
l1
7. Worksession on Master Transoortation Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Greg Hall, Town Engineer, indicated this worlsession was to learn what the concems of the
PEC were in a morc relaxed atrnosphere than the joint PEC/Council session. Kathy
Langenwalter expressed her desire to see the changes since the previous workscssion.
Consultant Arnie Ullevig said the plan presented in March had been marked up with the
changes rcquested. He was about to go for a final revision to incorporate those changes, but
wanted to be clear on the PEC's direction.
The fust aspect of the plan reviewed was the portion relating to ransit.
Arnie stated the most significant alteration from the cutent system was the proposed
opposing bus loops in West Vail. A concern which had been indicated was the difficulty in
going from West Vail South to West Vail North. The opposing loops would help eliminate
that problem. The difficulties still to be worked out for this proposal were the equipment and
scheduling implications. The gleatest user impact would be the rider would have to
determine if the bus was inbound or outbound. The Sandstone route would continue as a
separate route.
Concerning the in-town shuttle, the people mover possibility was retained as a long term
concept, but the more immediate proposal was to go to more of a shuttle vehicle than a bus.
The difference was that the passengers would be standing for the most part, and there would
be a lower step access to the vehicle. The fleet would be modified over time. Arnie showed
that the carrying capacity would be significantly increased. In addition, passengers would
carry their skis on the shuttle, and the shuttles would operate on the same route.
Jim Shearer expressed concern over people carrying skis in such a confined space. Amie said
it was up to the Town, but racks could be placed outside the shuttles. Having passengent
carry their own skis would lessen the entry and exit time for riders. Greg Hall stated they
had gone to Copper Mountain to examine that issue and found it not to be a problem.
Copper currently uses a similar vehicle to the one proposed. Arnie said they could talk with
the manufacturers to devise a methd of carrying the skis, but the ridenhip is so high, the
vehicles needed to be maximized.
The use of the shuttle bus option would give adequate service for approximaely 10-15 years
before another merhd would need to be investigated. The wording in the Master Plan
rcgarding people movers was the technology would have to be significantly improved.
Regarding the routing of the in-town shuttle, Amie srongly recommended not extending the
route to the Frontage Road and mixing it with other vehicles. He said this was particularly
imponant if a standing shuule werp utilized. He did not think the shuttle should be extcnded
past the Lionshead parking structure. Chuck Crist asked if the shuttle could turn around at
t2
that point, and riden going further could use the current busses for beyond that point. Arnie
believed that to be a safer option.
For the other end of the route, the tumaround at Gold Peak, Arnie's recommendation was to
change the location of the turnaround to bener keep the shuttle from mixing with traffic and
dclaying the system. Kathy I-angenwalter was concemed about the impacts the move would
have on childrcn as wcll as adults, since the relocarcd turnaround would be fur&er frrom the
day care facility, not to mention being an uphill hike from the stop. Diana thought the
existing location was more convenient for pcople, but worse for traffic impacts. Arnic said
the transportation recommendation is to unungle the bus from trafric as much as possible.
Expressing her difficulty with the plan, Gena Whinen stated she was concerncd with the
connection to the golf course bus. Amie said the connection stop would most likely also be
moved to match the new location.
Kathy wondered about the possibilily of taking the shuttle through the Lionshead Mall. Amie
replied the structur€s in Lionshead would have to be modified, as there was currently no clean
line for a route. Kathy said that, since this was at the mast€r plan level, thc Town should
place the emphasis on gaining right-of-ways when buildings came up for remodel. Jim
suggested polling Lionshead merchants, telling them there was a possibility of the in-town
shuttle eliminating the Marrion loop, and determine their reaction. He believed that would
help the process.
Diana was in favor of taking the shuttle off the Frontage Road to Mariott, but stated those
passengers would need to be accommodated in another fashion. Greg indicated the West Vail
South bus currently stops near the Marriott. Diana expressed her opinion the Maniott loop
should be eliminated
Arnie dirccted the attention of the Commission to the east end of the route, and suggested
changing Vail Valley Drive to a one-way street and operating a one-way shuttle along iC with
the construction of a bridge back to the Frontage Road. He said there would be
disadvantages, but felt more problems would be fixed than created. Greg explained the route
could be landscaped, and could give exclusive bus, pedesnian and vehicle rcutes.
Connie Knight objected to that portion of the plan frrom a personal standpoint, stating people
at the east end of Hanson Ranch Road or Gore Creek Drive would have a much longer drivc
to Safeway.
The next portion of the Master Plan to be rcviewed was corc area loading and delivery.
Arnie said it was clear wherc the urucks should not go, but the problem was finding where
they should park. Following an explanation of the proposal, Kathy asked if the street pa*ing
would be eliminated if a truck parking facility was constructed across from the Christiania.
She was told it would be.
l3
Diana declared the loading and delivery time should bc rcsricted to state the time when
trucks would have to leave the ariea, not come in. The current procedure only gave the latest
time they could enter the corc.
Jim was not in favor of covering any portion of the creek to provide parking. The rest of the
Commissioners echoed this sentiment.
Diana said nothing in the plan would work without the provision of a cenral dock facility.
The proposed Cushmans for delivery, the delivery times, ctc., were all dependent on that
construction.
Greg Hall asked if the parking along Gore Cleek Drive could be eliminated. The consensus
among the Commissioners was it could. Greg said one option for the proposed parking area
was to have car parking on the lower deck, trucks on the Hanson Ranch Road level, and then
landscape a park or grcen area on top. The Commissioners cxpressed their approval of such a
plan.
Jim Shearer wanted a strong rccommendation to go to the Town Council that Vail Village is
a pedestrian village, and the dollan should be spent to retain that character. Diana further
emphasized that the truck docking facility was the most important thing the Town could
spend money on in the next few years.
Tuming back to the shuttle system, Kristan asked a statement be given that a people mover
system should not be located along Meadow Drive. She did not think the system would
accomplish the goals of a pedestrian village, given present technology. She would like a
check to be placed in the master plan to ensure future considerations of building such a
system would examine those aspects. The Commission asked her to write verbiage
expressing those concerns.
Gena Whinen left the meeting at 5:50PM, and Connie Knight departed at 6:00.
The final portion of the proposed Master Plan to be discussed was the medians. Arnie and
Greg went over the recommendations with the C.ommissioners, with the PEC memben giving
input on individual aspects of the plan.
The strongest recommendations from the Commissioners was to consolidate access points
along the Frontage Road to decrease the amount of left tum lanes necessary. The PEC also
recommended adding landscaping wherc ever possible, but not through the use of a center
median when the sides of the road could be nicely landscaped. They wsrc in favor of
changing the access points at the West Vail inerchange with I-70, but Kathy Langenwalter
was uoubled by the re-routing of the Fronuge Road on the north side.
Chuck Crist left the meeting at 6:35PM.
t4
When discussing thc +way Etop, the Commissioners wanted the ideal access closures
identified, and clcarly srated ilreir opinion no information booth should be placed on the
Frontage Road.
There was discussion around thc road leading to Gossroads Mall, with Arnie and Grcg noting
the final recommendations.
Therc was no consensus ovcr rslocating thc main Vail exits from I-70. Many options werc
discussed, including rcsigning the highway to indicate Os East Vail exit was for Vail Village,
and the current main Vail cxit was for Lionshead. Additional recommendations involved
closing the main Vail exit from I-70Vir and thc entranoc to I-70E for a season to determine
the impacts to the East Vail interchange, but somc Commissioners expressed hesitancc over
this plan, stating they did not f€el the Frontagc Road should handle that volumc of traffic.
There was no final conscnsus to the direction thc Master Plan should takc with regard to ttris
interchange.
The meeting was adjoumed at 6:58PM.
l5
[nj*
Send Subnittal and Application to
Planning Staff
Completed application Due
1st PEC Hearing (Work Session)Prelirninary PIan Available
2nd PEC Hearing
lst Council llearing
2nd Council Hearing
March 15
March 29
April 22
May L3
May 2L
June 4
Submit to Planning Staff forConditional Use Pernit
Prelirninary Conceptual to DRB
Conpleted Application DueFina1 Plan Availabte
Lst PEC Hearing (Work Session)
2nd PEC Hearing
Council Hearing
Final DRB Approval
Plans and Bid Package Available
Bid Opening
Notice to Proceed
Conpleted Construction
April L5
May L
May Lo
June 10
June 24
July 2
July 3
July L2
July 25
August 5
October 18a
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
f,.t,u onecl,
*Zz-qr
MEIIORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Communlty Develognent Department
Aprll22, 1991
A request for a worksession to consider an application to rezone property
generally located west of the Town ol Vail Publlc Works Shop from Agriotlture
and Open Space to Public Use District.
Applicant Torrtn of Vail
I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of thls worksession is to discuss th€ potential rezoning of a tract of lard wesl of r
the Torrn shops. The parcel is approximately 500 feet wide and 1,400 feet long and is
direcdy west 6t tre foivn of Vail birops. The cunent zoning of the property. is Agricultural and /*A,a
Open Space Dlstrict. The owner of the prop€rty ls Vail Associales (VA), with the Town of Vail
being the leaseholder. The purpose of the request is to rezone fie property from Agricultural S;21
and Open Space to Public Use District zoning. The Public Use District allows'public s3rvice U4 drre1facilities'as a conditional use. lf the rezoning is approved, the Town of Vail will apply lor a '-
conditionaf use permit for a snow dump. Deieloprir'ent standards in tre Public Usb-OiSnA are'iN /co,1
prescribed by the Plqnning Commission lor lndividual proposals. Section 18.36.050 of the i//'{BlXlii'i,"""""J$"'#t'#
'rne pranni;,gEmmission shall prescribe development standards for each particular PU,D
development proposal or project in eacfi of the following categories: A. Lot area
and slte dimensions; B. Setbacks; D. Height; E. Density Controls; G. Site Coverage; H.
Landscaping and Site Development.'
Stafi believes that each of these issues ol site development should be analyzed closely at the
timg of trg corditional use hearing.
i'l'lePlllE l'1 srruuru 'xt "tt'rtylvtJ r'reDttry ar lrr.' ?6L
II. EVALUATION OF THE REZONING REQUEST
,*bT
#
Below is the criterla the Town uses to evaluate rezoning requests. Staff would like comments
on the first firee. ThE fourth, conceming the land Use Plan, lnc]udes a discussion by stiaff,
as lt involves detalls from ths Land Use Plan. Stafl will take the issues hat the PEC raises
and address them at the next hearing, followlng the work session.Q'fh'
A. Sultablllty of Exlstlng Zonlng
-1"*;u
".T'ur
B. ls the Amendment Preventlng a Gonvenlent, Workable Relatlonshlp wlth land
Uses Conslstent wlth Munlclpal Oblectlves?
C. Does the Rezonlng Provlde lor the Growth of an Orderly, Vlable Gommunlty?
D. land Use Plan
This parcel is designated as Open Space in the Land Use Ptan. Criteria for amending
the land Use Plan have been established. On page 62 of the plan, it states hat in
order'to change the plan . . . it will be the responsibility of the applicant to dearly
demonstrate how conditions have changed since the plan was adopted, how the plan
was in error or how the addition, deletion or change to the plan is in concert with the
plan in general.' The goals and policies of any Lard Use Plan are the fundamental
basis on which such a plan is developed. Policy 6.1 ol the Town ol Vail Land Use
Plan states that, 'Services should keep pace with lncreased growth.' Staff believes
snow removal is a service which he Town provides and is included under this policy.
ln another seclion of the plan which discusses the facility and service siandards ot the
Town, it states that the Public Works Town Shops 'is of adequate size to
accommodate luture space needs.' Staff believes that conditions have changed since
that statement was put in the plan, and in order to maintain the service standard called
for in Policy 6.1, rezoning this land to accommodate public service facilities is an
appropdate action. In addition to the cfiange in landscape designation, staff also
suggests changing the Land Use Plan to reflect the need for expansion ol the Town
Shop site.
III. POTENTIAL CONCERNS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE REVIEW
As this is a worksession, staff thought it might be appropriate to discuss both the rezoning
issue as well as potental conoems hat may arise during the conditional use revierrv. Clearly,
the rezoning is the first step and must be approved prior to any conditional use approval. At
this time, staff has identified some questions, which are listed below. lf the PEC can add to
this list, then Town staft and the consultant who has been hired can research he concerns
the PEC may have.
1. Water quality. Describe how drainage from the snow dump will be treated before
enteringGoreCreek , ! , .,cL^ ..,"ulil '14^rr k an'
Lphting. Providti-infoifridiibn redlrdihg nlght time operation and a lighting plan.
Appearance. Explain if debris and cinders will be visible from homes in the vicinity.
Screenirg.
a. Document assumptions, such as the sight line from homes in the area, berm
height, berm slope and height of trees to be planted on the berm.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
b. ldentify enough elevations ln the surrounding neighbofiood, with conesponding
site lines, so that the PEC can thoroughly understand where the visual lmpacls
willbe.
Excess flll. lf excess fill wlll be generated, Hentify where it will b€ moved.
Access tify if the aooess road will be visible from he neighbofiood, if it will
need
7. Capacity. ldentlfy small, medium and large volumes in the snow dump, representing
the amount of snow which will bs in the dump lor dry, average and heavy snowfall
years.
8. Area Show what area of tre proposed rezoning will be used lor the snor dump and
what will remain undeveloped. lf remaining land is to be used for other Public Works
facilities in the future, ldentify the potential uses.
IV. CONCLUSION
Staff is not including a recommsndation, as this is a worksession.
1jl,Bt;t S F ,i.iutt from homes in the area.
/w b?l ,oi /
;,nor"3/"'37
c:Voc\bd8no{dlmp..|:!2
&u,*^7
6: t"...//r1^t *'t'
n0, [ . 1;^-''
6to opt,l,*"-{ {*/ / e^/'t"-+/7o;/( ,/ L'
\-/ / /?/, h(r( '
/o*x ,'.t{ {,.
Ca,,^ //z '/L -o. s..-/u/.Z h{,t *"t/OF , o-'^V '2
LJul"/ //r;s J,/;*-*1 ofr.. /..-,-vt ?
F*l
Ug " l"ny"/
fAad'
d" o/'t, k
feYY'an/ 7
2
r ^//t 7/,, /rt ,/ 7
"rt'1 tJ Loi4-<*
40 h"-,7r/.^ / *' 7 uv / '=/ ffiO '
dh nhu -n/7
6f .trt/"*'.
n14ouU8
11a,*
w6M
O ,**=-
*+lt" ,'*$ ^ t-r/ :'' 'rli)"'. . ,''
sii'(,*^ *Ll au 4t.t"t-,/
1A,A
^.
N
\
N
a<
\
il
Y7
e
\q
a_
ll
Ura'---'-
-..4J6i1.t1 {a*r, r"(
&ddir-e.q
,/ /*
v/\ 4' f
''#,*d4e-
z
9F()
UJa
ott
N
F
uJ
IJJ
ah
lrJ
u,
@
,\\lri\
Irtll\r
rl
UJ
J
()
@
oF
Foz
s0
T\i,'l
\dl.\\'*.N
\.)_
l' rtr(\)
t
a
\
,\
.\
'rY
i l\
r. \l
\_ \\
{
N
>--\-vl . --r{ --lL):,e
_s
No
C;(tooI(t)
lI-o
dz
FUJ()uJ
llJ -?@oE
o-
Fo
lrJa,o
=E
LU
6H
=9PA
3oz
@
z
J
o.
J
DF
o.
t!l
ozoo
||ttt-l
olo.lol*l(/)lJl(')l (ol
=lol=l:llll*lo lo' It! 'r! lOZ = t luJ9]ou9('<uJF>ulGl{9,oooo.c
U
ZtZ
O.
U
rt
z
I.'J
tr.l
z(Jzt!
I!
FJr-l
(/) oooa/ aao
ii.i qr 1?; !F5E >r:o() o;A
2 Ar-a
Lt q o.i._ -{ <l) ad,7 \o
FfXI OYF aav3-A
Z e,6
^ o;x 36v l,vo<<J3
F
(n
-i
il
rl
.l
:'t
t,
'I
;l'
:i.
ri
I
itii
:i
,l'I
lillli
lr
tl
li
li
ri
ii
ll
ll
I
.:
I
I
I
i
i
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
f
I
l
i
I
;-
I
I
I
Ii
I
I
I
I
i
l
I
I
!
I
T
I
I
i
i
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
!
]ll
i
I
I
I
;.r
li
;l
ii
ij
1i
ii
ll
rl
ii
ii
..;
rl
,l
rl
Ii
':::
ii
lr
l,
fr
Ii
I
t:
li
,i
ti
ii.
ti
ri,
ii;
iil
li'
.i.1,.iIl,i
iiiit,
11ilirliiili-llr
lli'n'i
tititi1t]Iijlii-rr'r
{ lifirilltllIrl
illli::l:
il',ll
l':1
;ii.ri
lii
i1i
:ii
iii
iiiriiiti
iiiitliliilriii
iii
tiliiilrltiliiiiliiiitl
illrl.l
iiljii
iilliirilli!lllliliililiitl'it.i
r-;l
iililiiiliti
+1+
iillltlll
lti:l.i.t
lliIt.tllrlilllrilt||lrill;ir',:!i:i
irriI'
i
il
L,I
il
ii
il
lill
ti
iirlii
il
il
i1.:
;l
ii
ii
rt
ii'il
'I
1t
ii
ll
lj
1i
tl
:i
ri
I.,
JI
tl
ir
Ii'!i
J,:
lj
ti
ii'
tl
lilfLl
i'l
:iir
:ilril
il
:l
L-ii
lj
t:l,il
$rr.{
\-
i:
ti.
t:
i.l
lr
ii
il
rl
'l
tlti;l
rl,l
'ltlLlli
rl
ii
ii
lr
il
.l.l
li
ii
1i
rlti
ll
ll
fi
il
!1
ilrl
I
I
P
tiilll
lllill
\:t\,
l,NI t\irl"
I 'li.il'
il
i'1,
i,l
lil,
li:1,
li,li
iiil
{: I
$:i 1
$iirlt' :;l
Rii l
i,,1tv-?
lliir
liirl
I ii,i
liiil
lll'l:.t;:r,j''|:
i,i
!ii
liiii{lil:
U '1-r :i#
li;iii i , t.i
'fl':_"'liill
liiii
Ir:l;
l;;ri
liitlIllirliill
il|rii;l I
li,illlliir
li'1,l.llil
lf rii
t;i+;\
L :-. ::
liltiI l:: l0
lli{
i'ti':r
his
liliit!irtI i1- I
Itarl
lrrr(
||ilqlillill:ill
|]IrItiit.i
llijI
Ili{rlilll
l'illi
iiili
iiI illrll
\
\
L
I
I
i
:t
ill
ir;
il,
ilr
rl,
\
\
ir,
:
;i
:l
.:
rli
iii
ill
;;l
iilIi
lr
t'l.il
i!
t;
ota
&
rlLi
i_l
t:
li
ri
ilttrl
ii
rl
jj
1.,
ii-
l'lr
i1
.:.:
I
III
!,
il
t,
:"
i':
|;i'
l;
t:
t;
I
B
\
I
il
fit
sn
il
:l
:l
il
rl
I
il
;l
il
\
\
I
-\.
::
6aa
,d[{:f
;,
I
t:
'I'I
i:
t- t-
Iri.
ri
il
I
,i
\
\
\
i\
,"\
I
I
I
i
:l
\
I
,1.,,
(
il
l.:
:.
l
:,;
:l
..t
.l
't--
'1lli,i
.:
: i ,'.,i,*':ii.w !
4
'1
G
F
Ilr
U;,
Ir --6
l1lo
r0l',
:\i,1, -r'rX
. \-..J"
ll
I
\
\
I
I
!
llll
li!
Ir
li
li
ii
l,
I
I
ll\
i
I
I
I
I
:l
I
I
I
I
!
i
Iij
(i
(
I.l
:li
rl:
'tl
t
l
e
'i
r
,
:l
:l
,l
;I
rl
I
,:J
'il
'illil
'll
. t.l
I
.:
a
.
J
r
)
)
5tl
i
!
it
1
I
i
s
I
$
;
l
)n
\
a
)r
st
l!
I
I
jl
;'
rllr!i
i"
li
;.i
li
;:
iiil
i;tl
t'!ili
l.
rl
i..
i.i
ii
1l
i'i
I'lrr:il
:ii,
1r
l.l:'i;l
,,lii
,,ii:i!:l r!
riiiil
,I lli
ltiii,iilii
'rili'lirilllirill.l
;.i i.l.rliiil'-f
iiil Li
iiilil
i'.;l,ii
li:li'l
irilll'i
'I,i
r"i,,
l,,l,i;,lij
;;1.1
:lli
;1,1;i
i,,1,;
ill.i
i'r1,,illlii
iiil;r
ii;l,iiiililii;liliiil:trrilii
riilil
iiiiiirlilii
rrlli'llillii
:iiilii
tri I ii
ii.lii
I rii
I tll
rl :l I
i:iIi
iiili
iiifi
iirli
i.ili
iiili
ll,li
1.,, j:
Ir:Liir:
I
No
d
c)
3sl
ll-.o
9N
5Htul3',oE
o-
Fo
IIJ?,O
=E
-ul
Eg
tE
=99o
=oz
U'
z
J
o-
J
f
]-
o.
uJozoo
tttll |J
al:lal:l
=l"l=l:ltll'lo la llrt ' u.t lOZZJ llll93our9fr;Hliooooat
Uz
>.z
#
oU
(,z
IlIl!z
ozlll
lr I
FJFfD
(n o€o
l'li qfT; !R5F 3t:ot1(,)=^
E p'sB
st{*ix
H x,-
(^ i?i
6sX- Hi
3
F
(rl
X =tl"^. ."fr'"- *,-iPrt'* *du" ,P*Vtlp
w
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOIICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental
Commission of the Town of VaiI will hold a public hearing in
accordance witb Section 18.66.050 of the Municipal Code of the
town of Vail on May 13, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of vail
Municipal Building. Consideration of:
1. A request to amend Sections 18
Municipal Code relating to the
and slope.
Applicant: Town of Vail
2. A request to amend Section 18.04.130 of the Municipal Code -
definition of Floor area, gross residential (GRFA),
pertaining to buildings containing more than two alfowable
dwelling or acconrmodation units.
Appficant: Town of Vail
3. A reguest to amend the following sections of the Municipal
Code relating t.o site coverage: Section 18.04.360 -
definition of site coveragei 18.14.110 - Residential Cluster
District, 18.16.L10 - Low Density Residential nisLrict;
18 .18 ,1-l-0 - Medium Density Residential; l-8 .20 .110 - High
Density Residential District; 18.22.110 - Public
Accommodation District; I8.24.150 - Conmerci-a1 Core I
District; 18.26.120 - Commercial Core II District; 18.27.090
- Commercial Core rII District'' 18.28.L20 - Commerciaf
Service Center District; L8.29.090 - Arterial Business
Districtt 18 .30 .11.0 - Heavy Service Distrj-ct,' 18.32. L1'0 -
Agriculturat and open Space District; and 18.39.190 Ski
Base/Recreation District.
Applicant: Town of VaiI
4. A request to amend the folfowing sections of the Municipal
Code relating to density conLrof: Sections 18.14.090 -
Residential Cluster District; 18.16.090 - Low Denslty
Multiple-Family District; and 18.18.090 - Medium Density
Multiple-Family District .Applicant: Town of Vail
5. A request for a setback variance for the Stork Residence,
I,oE 23, Block B, Vail Ridge/2605 Davos Trail
Applicant: Otto Stork
5. A request for a conditionaL use pernit to allow for
construction of Stephens Park in the Greenbelt.,/Natural Open
Space zone district. The park area is more speci.fically
described as follows:
PLatted government lots 13, 23 and 24, Township 5 South,
Range 1 glest of the 6th Principal Meridian, NW l/4 of
04.350 and 18.04.365 of the
definitions of site coverage
g""-f y''J{4,t
dlp
* 10. A request to change the Land Use Plan designation of a
Section 14, Eagle County, Colorado.Applicant: Town of Vail
7. A request for a Special Development District for the DaysInn site, 2211 N. Frontage Road/ Lot 1, Block A, Vail Das
Schone Third Filing, a resubdivision of vail Das SchoneFirst Filing.Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Days fnn
8. A reguest for a minor exterior alteration, Concert HaII
PLaza, Lot 1, Lionshead 4th Filing/616 W. Lionshead Plaza.Applicant: VaiL lnvestment Company.
9. A request for a minor subdivision for Lots A, B and C, VaiIVillage 7th Filing/sgs E. vail valley Drive.Applicant: Manor VaiI
property generally located west of the Town of VaiI Public
Works shops from Open Space to Semi-Public Use and a requestto rezone the property from Agricultural and Open Space toPublic Use District. The property is described as follows:
That part of the North L/2 of Section 8, Township 5 South,
Range 80 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County,
Colorado, lying north of Interstate Highway No. 70 and being
more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner of said Section 8,' thence along
the northerly line of said Section 8, S89 46' z-l"w a distanceof 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said
Section 8, S00 23'03"w a distance of 529.86 ft to a point on
the northerly ROW line of I-70t thence along the northerly
ROW line of I-70 following t$to courses:
l.) S?5 28'18"8 a distance of 180.82 fL to a point of
curvature;
2't L327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having
a radius of 5580.00 ft' a central angle of 13 38'04"
and a chord which bears N89 36'34"8 L324.70 ft distanceto a point on the easterly line of said Section 8;
Thence departing said ROw line of I-70 N00 23' 03"E along the
easterly line of said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to
the point of beginning, containing 20.480 acres more or
less.
The above description is based on the Town of Vail
annexation plats for the property described and is not based
on a field survey. The basis of bearing for the aboveparcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being s89 45'27"w
as shown on said annexation Plats.Applicant: Town of VaiI
11. Update by HoIy Cross Electric Association regarding an
amendnent to 1990 llaster Plan to underground electrlcal
lLnes.Appllcant: Holy Cross.Electrlc
L2. A request for wall height and front setback varLances for
the NeusranEer ResLdence, Lot 5, Block B, VaiI RLdge/2642
Cortina Lane.Applicant: Chrls Neusvranger
All itens tabled from the AprLL 22, 1991 PEC meeting agenda.
The appllcatlons and information about the proposals areavailable for public inspection in tbe Conmunity Development
Department office.
Town of Vail
Community Development DepartBent
Fubllshed in the VaiI Trail on April 25, 1991.
X Jr,,- ,^-t,-- r""1ctr* ff V**''*t
\./
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS IiEREBY GI\IEN that the Planning and Environmental
Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance wittr Sect.ion 18.55.060 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on May 13, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building. Consideration of:
1. A reguest to amend Sections 18.04.360 and 18.04.355 of the
Municipal Code relating to the definitions of site coverage
and slopeApplicant: Town of Vail
2. A request to amend Section 18.04.130 of the Municipal Code -
definition of Floor area' gross residential (GRFA),
pertaining to buiLdings containing more than two allowab]e
dwelling or accommodation units,applicant: Town of Vall
3. A request to amend the following sections of the Municipal
Code relating to site coverage: Section 18.04.360 -
definition of site coveragei 18.14.110 - Residential Cluster
District; 18.16.110 - Lott Density Residential District;
18.18.110 - Medium Density Residential; 18.20.110 - High
Density Residential District; 18.22.1I0 - Public
Accommodation District; 18.2A.150 - Commercial Core I
District, L8.25.L20 - Commercial Core II District,' 18.2?.090
- Commerciaf Core III Districtt 18.28.L20 - Commercial
Service Center District; 18.29.090 - Arterial Business
District,' 18 .30.110 - Heavy Service District,' LB -32.110 -
Agricultural and Open Space District; and 18.39-190 Ski
Base/Recreation District .Applicant: Town of Vail
4. A request to amend t,he foLlowing sections of the Municipal
Code relating to density control: Sections 18.14.090 -
Residential Cluster District; 18.16.090 - Low Density
Multiple-Family District; and 18.18.090 - Mediurn Density
Multiple-Family District .Applicant: Town of Vail
5. A request for a setback variance for the stork Residence,
Lot- 23, Block B, Vail Ridge/2605 Davos Trail
Applicant: otto Stork
6. A request for a conditional use perrnit to allow for
construction of Stephens Park in the Greenbelt/Natural OPen
Space zone district. The park area is more specifically
described as follows:
Platted government lots 13, 23 and 24' Township 5 South,
Range 1 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, Nw L/4 of
Town of Vail
1.
Section 14, Eagle CountY, Colorado.Applicant: Town of Vail
A reguest for a Special Development District for the Days
Inn site, 2211 N. Frontage Road/ Lot 1, Block A, vail Das
Schone Third FiJ.ing, a resubdivision of Vail Das SchoneFirst Filing.Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Days Inn
A reguest for a minor exterior alterationr Concert HaII
PIaza, Lot 1, Lionshead 4th Filing/615 W. Lionshead P1aza.Applicant: Vail- Investment Company.
A reguest for a minor subdivision for Lots A, B and C, VailVillage 7th Filing/595 E. vail Valley Drive.Applicant: Manor vail
A reguest to change the Land Use Plan designation of a
property generally located west of the Town of Vail Public
Works shops from Open Space to Semi-Public Use and a request
to rezone the property from Agrj.cultural and Open Space to
Public Use District. The property is described as follows:
That part of the North L/2 of Section 8, Township 5 South'
Range 80 west of the 5th Principal Meridian, Eagle County,
Colorado, lying north of Interstate Highway No. 70 and being
more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner of said Section 8; thence along
the northerly tine of said Section 8, S89 46'27nw a distance
of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said
Section 8, S00 23'03"W a distance of 529.85 ft to a Point on
the northerly ROW line of t-10; thence along the northerly
ROw line of I-70 following two courses:
1) S'75 28' 18'E a distance of 180.82 tx to a point of
curvaturei
21 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having
a radius of 5580.00 ft, a central angle of 13 38'04"
and a chord which bears N89 36' 34"8 L324.?0 ft distance
to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8;
Thence departing said ROw line of I-70 N00 23' 03"E along the
easterly line of said Section 8, a distance of 512.10 ft to
the point of beginning, containing 20.480 acres more or
1ess.
The above description is based on the Town of VaiI
annexation plats for the proPerty described and is not based
on a field survey. The basis of bearing for the above
parcel is the northerly line of Section I being S89 45'2?"w
as shown on said annexation Plats.Applicant: Town of Vail
9.
10
11. Update by HoIy Cross Electric Association regarding an
amendment to 1990 Master Plan to underground electricalIines.Applicant: Holy Cross Electric
12. A reguest for wall height and front setback variances for
the Neuswanger Residence, Lot 6, Block B, Vail RLdge/2642Cortina Lane.Applicant: Chris NeusYranger
AlL items tabled from the April 22, 1991 PEC meeting agenda.
The applications and information about the proposaLs are
available for public inspection in the Community Devefopment
Department office.
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Published in the Vail Trail on April 26, 1991.
Z o
l\D+-t:'-rrT ^ /.,3 r3(r,q-
. / /- /,
lM *t 7**Q4
*J:***f
t7/u1, o;k
l1t^(,,'1 - o\, ,"[ or-.,r,a { *^ ;n*+ rLA,I
"hhl, M.iI- tqld t1,'^\
I
n;.,|L( orl;r, $ ?
tt
'//r-*f drnn o 6,r-._ ar Vr..r'4I
4-to-q(rrr
,LAtd rlAa4/r/.4/\/'
/),fr74r/. /<_t;zQ.
d'l^A^ f*1.
o
//
74"/
U
7
S*Ja
4-F-ql
@/,u { s,1a,l fru
L*, -., /. 7
tl(.t q
cou{k
?d ;s 8.>
t ' -^-r-J-t /',.'-
tur,
,,I-*/t*
rva/5 k
* ,il 5t"y->
*r;ll
L"*
l, {t+-<*(
,/,zt( a, ua'd>Z(
PUBIJC NOTICE
NoTIcE Is IIEREBY GIVEN that the Plannlng and Environnental
Conmlsslon of the Torn of vall wlll hold a publlc hearLng ln
accordance wlth Sectlon 18.66.060 of the uuniclpal code of tbe
Town of VaLl on April 22, LggL at 3:oo p.n. l-n the Town of Vail
Uunlcipal BuildlnE. Consl.deratlon of:
1. A reguest for a eetback varlance, MacCormlck Resl'dence,
texai TownhouseB 68, Lt 68, Vall Vlllage Fourth Flling/ 483
Gore Creek Drlve.Appllcant: Alexander l{acCor:nick
2. A request for a conditional use pemlt to o<pand an existlng
entry and slte coveragte varl.ance, valt Interfaith chapel ,
Tract J, Vail village First rillngr/xg vail Road.
Applicant: Vail Religious Foundation
3. A request for a setback variance, vail Potato Patch
Townhomes Partnership Townhone N, Part of Lot 6, Block 2,
Vall Potato Patch/ 7to N. Potato Patch DrLve.
AppJ.icant: Potatb Patch Townhones Partnership
4. A request to amend the Zoning Code, addlng a section to
identify all approved vlew corridors and to set forth
details with regard thereto.Applicant: Town of Vail
5. A request for a worksession to consLder an application__to-
rezone property generally located sest of tlre Town of vail
Public works sLops frorn Agricultural and open space to
Publlc Use Distr-ict. The-specific descrlption of the
property is ae follows:
That part of the North L/2 gf sectLon !r -Township S_soutlr,
nange- 8o west of the 6tlr Prlncipal MerL9ian,- Eagle cognlYq
Col5rado, lying north of Interslate Highway No. 7O and being
more particularly described as follows:
Beglnning at the NE corner of said section 8i thence glong
ttr6 norttrerly line of said Section 8, S89 46'27nW a distance
of 15OO.OO ft; thence departlng the northerly line of said
SectLon 8, SOO 23'o3rrw a distance of 529.86 ft to a polnt on
the northirly ROI{ llne of I-?Ot thence along the northerly
Row llne of I-70 following two courses:
1) S75 28'18rrE a diEtance of 180.82 ft to a poj.nt of
cur:vaturei
4- *'- ?7
2l L327.9o ft along the arc of a currre to the left, having
a radius of 5580.00 ft, a central angle of 13 38'O4rl
and a chord which bears N89 36'34n8 1324.70 ft distance
to a point on the easterly line of said section 8i
Thence departing said ROW line of I-70 N00 23'03r'E along the
easterly line of said Section 8, a dl.stance of 572.LO ft to
the point of beginning, containing 20.480 acres more or
Iess.
The above descriptlon is based on the Town of Vail
annexation plats for the property deEcrLbed and is not based
on a field sunrey. The baEls of bearing for the above
parcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46'27xW
as shown on said annexation Plats.Applicant: Town of Vall
All itens tabled from the april 8, 1991 PEC neeting agenda.
The applications andavailable for public
Department office.
Town of VaiI
Conmunity Development
Published in the vail
infornation about the proposals are
inspection ln the Connunity Development
DepartmentTrail on April 5, 1991.
' $:* ;*::i ser'r.ce Oil:i'"i:IociatesP.O. Box 1.90 P.O. Box 7Minturn, CO 81645 Vail, co 81658
AI Pierce
Colorado Div. of ltighways litr. ceorge Gillett, Jr.P.O. Box 2107 P.O. Box 7
Grand Junction, co 81502 Vail, co 81658
OTosn of Vail
Town of Vall
Pl anni no l,ll I estones
Send Submitta'l and Appllcation
to Planning Staff
Completed Appllcatlon Due
lst PEC Hearing (llork Sesslon)
Prel iminary Plan Available
Znd PEC Hearing
lst Council Hearing
2nd Council Hearing
Submit to Planning Staff for
Conditional Use Permit
Prelininary Conceptual to DRB
Completed Appl ication Due
Final Plan Available
lst PEC Hearlng (tlork Session)
2nd PtC Hearlng
Council Hearing
Final DRB Approval
Plans and Bid Package Availab'le
Bid 0pening
Notice to Proceed
Completed Construction
Notice to Proceed
Comp'lete Initial Eva'luations
and Se'lect Desired Plan
Complete Prel lminary
Des i gn
Complete Final Design
Complete Contract
Document Revisions
Date
llarch 4
l,larch 29
llarch 29
Aprll 12
April 22
llay 13
llay 2l
June 4
April 15
l{ay I
ilay l0
llay l0
June l0
June 2l
June 24
July 2
July 3
July 8
July 12
July 25
August 5
0ctober l8
petitioiate
PETITION FORITI FOR A}IENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDTNANCE
.oR
REQT'EST FORA CtsANGE IN DISTRICT BOI'NDARIES
I.This procedure Ls required foror for a reguest for-a district
A. NA}TE OF PETITIONER
any anendment to the zoning ordinance
boundary change
1
PBONE479-2r00
PHONE 479-2160
B.
DDRESSfIS. F.o"r"s" Ro".l, :.
NAITIE OF
ADDRESS
PETITIONERTS REPRESENTATI\IE Gre
c.NAME OF print YaLl Assoelates. Inc.
SIGNA
ADDRESS
D.I,OCATTON OF PROPOSAI
ADDRESS
described in the follor.rine leealI.EGAI" DESCRIPTION lot b,lock -
#.-----
PHONE476-5601
ibtt A
E.FEE SIOO.OO PAID
F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to thesubJect property, and their nailing addressei.U.S. Forest Service, p.0. Box I90
Minturn, C0
ATTN: Bill Wood
Colorado Dlvislon of Highways -- 4ZOI E. Aikansas, Denver, CO gO2Z2'
-- P.0. Box 2107, Grand Junction, CO 81502
-- P.O. Box 298, Eagle, CO 81631
ATTN: A1 PierceVail Associates, Inc., p.O. Box 7Vail, CO 81658
ATTN: Joe Macv
George N. Gi-llet, Jr., i
P.O. Box 7
Vai1, CO 81658
Tovrn of Vai1, 75 S. Frontage Road
Val1, C0 81657
(0vER)
' Petition form for *ol.o zonins ord or Requegt t" .n"rrr. rr, uii3iri."
II. Four (rll copies of the following information:
A. The Petition ehall include a sunnary of the proposed revisl.onof the regulations, or a_conplete d-escrLption oi tf,. pr"p"""achanges in dLEtrict boundaries andl a map'rnarciirng tf,i-ixrstingand-proposed dietrict boundaries-. Appricint nst subnit nritten and,/orgraphic uaterials stat,ing the reasons for -riquest.
Iff. Tine Reguirements
The Planning and Environnental Conrnrission meets on the 2nd and 4thtrlondays of each nonth. A_petition with the necesgary acconpanyingmaterial must be su'bmitted four weeks prJ.or to the dUt"-oF-trre meet-ing. Following the Planning and nnvrioimentat comnisiion-ueeting,arl amendments to the zoning_ordinance oi-aistri;t boutta""y--it ""g.must go to the Town Council for finat action.
IV.Your proposal will be reviewed for compliance wlth Vail,s Comprehensive plan.
II.
A,i I'ir l"
r 1 -,1 \( "'IP, ..)
- /'1 l\" FI''
L.' I r, "".it .." '
'rr'r i'
I
',1:
;"L/ /
1' ,,, .5'" , ,,-r"'.i*r ' "
(i("' n r'
- ,n' , A
),t ]' i
'l - t''
1"
PETITION FORM FOR AI'IENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
OR
REQUEST FOR
A CHANGE IN DTSTRTCT BOUNDARIES
The Town of Vail as a leaser from Vait Associates
wishes to rezone a portion of the unplatted parcel as
described in rrExhibit Att fron Agricultural and open
space Zone District to the Public Use Zone District.
More specifically that portion to be rezoned is
described by "Extribit B" and as shonn on the attached
maps 'rExhibit c" and nExhibit D".
The request for a Public Use Zone District is necessary
so the Town may apply for a conditional use forconstruction of a Snow Dump on the prenises. Theconditional use pernit !,ri11 be for public facilities
use to altow construction of the Snow Dunp.
The Town currently dunps snow along the banks of Gore
Creek in the vicinity of the east parking lot of Ford
Park and also in the vicinity of Stephens Park in West
Vail .
The Town Council has reguested that the Public Works
Departrnent find a location for a new Snow Dunp andconstruct such a dunp in a manner to improve thecurrent aestheti-c and environmental concerns. Mostspecifically the close proximity of snow and debrisnext to Gore Creek. The construction scheduled for
Stephens Park this summer also negates the use of this
area as a Snow Durnp in the future.
The new Snow Dump would be built to handle 50,000-
70,000 cubic yards of snolr. The facj-lity will be
bermed and landscaped in a rnanner similar to thecurrent Public Works facility. Water quality will beaddressed, in a manner which doesnrt preclude the Townfrom neeting the Environmental Protection Agencies,National Pollution Discharge Elirnination Systems stornwater quaLity requirements.
Specific plans for the Snow Dunp will be presented tothe Planning and Environmental Comnission and Design
Review Board when the conditional use pernit is appliedfor and granted.
C tr*h,h,+ A
THAT PART OF TIIE NOR.I'II L/2 OI? SnCI'ION B, ',.|OWNSIITP 5 SOUTII' RANGE
80 WEST OF THE 61'II PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, EAGI,E COUN'.TY, COLORADO,
LYING NORTH OF INTERSTATE IIIGIIWAY NO. 70, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF I]AID SECTION 8 '
TIIBNCE SOUTH
89 DEGREES 46 MINU'TES 27 SECONDS WES'I'2651.87 FEET ALONG TIIE
NORTIIERLY LINE OF SArD SEC'IION B 'rO 'IllE NoRTII l-l4 CORNER OF SAID
SECTION B; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTBS 27 SECONDS WEST
903.90 FEET ALONG TTIE NOR'IIIERLY I.,INE OF SAID SECTION B TO THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE Or INTnRS',I'ATA HIGHWAY NO. 70; TIIENCE
TIIB FOLLOWING FOUR COURSES ALONG SAID NORT'I]ERLY RIGHT OF WAY
LINE:
r") souTll 73 DEGRnES 46 MTNUTES l-5 SIICONDS nAST 789-30 FEET
2) SOUTH 78 DEGnEES 49 MrNUI'BS 16 SnCONDS IIAST 567-90 FI1ET
3) SOUTH 75 DEGREES 23 MTNUTES l-B SIICONDS EAST 942-40 FEET
4) L327.90 FEET ALONG ,IIIE AllC OF A CUIIVtr TO Tllll LEFT, IIAVING A
RADIUS OF 55BO.O0 FEET, A CITNTRAL ANGr,lI Or 13 DEGREtrS 38 MTNUTES
04 sEcoNDS, AND A CIIORD WI{rCII BBAI1S N(-)Rilll 89 DEGREBS 36 MTNUTES
34 SECONDS EAST L324.7O FEET, TO TIII1 nASTnRLY LrNE OF SArD
SECTION B; THEN NORTII OO DEGREES 23 MINUTES 03 SBCONDS EAST
572.LO FEET, ALONG SAID EASI'ERLY LINE, TO'I'IIE POINT OF BEGINNING.
TTIE ABOVE DESCRIPTION IS BASED ON TOWN OF VAII, ANNEXATION PLATS
FOR TIIE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND IS NOT BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY.
tHE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR TIIE ABOVE PARCNL TS THE NORTIIDRLY LTNB
OF SECTION 8 BEING SOUTII 89 DTIGREES 46 },IINU'J:ES 27 SECONDS WEST AS
STIOWN ON SAID ANNEXATION PT,ATS. (NOR'III ANIIOLTZ)
L-2
a @1r,;v;[o
I-,EGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PART OF THE NORTH } OF SECTION 8, TOI{NSHIP 5 SOUTH, R,,,ANGE 80
WEST OF THE 5TH PRINCIPAL I'IERIDIAN, EAGI.,E COUNTY, COI'RADO, LYING
NORTH OF INTERSTATE HTGHWAY NO. 70 AND BEING MORE PARTICUI,ARLY
DESCRIBED AS TOLI,oWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 8' THENCE AIONG
THE NORTHERLY LrNE OF SArD SECTTON 8, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 45 MTNUTES
27 SECONDS T{EST A DISTANCE OF 15OO.OO FEET' THENCE DEPARTING THE
NORTHERLY LrNE OF SAID SECTTON 8, SOITTH OO DEGREES 23 UINUIES 03
SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 529.86 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LTNE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70' THENCE AI.,,ONG THE
NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70 FOLI'WING
TWO COURSES:
1) SOUTH 75 DEGREES 28 I{TNUTES 18 SECONDS EAST A DTSTANCE OF
180.82 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE'
2') L327.90 FEET AIPNG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE I,EFT, HAVING A
RADTUS OF 5580.00 FEET, A CENTRAL ANGT,E OF 13 DEGREES 38 !'{INUTES
04 SECONDS AND A CTIORD WHICH BEARS NORTII 89 DEGREES 36 !'INUTES 34
SECONDS EAST 1324.70 FEET DISTANCE TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE
OF SAID SECTION 8'
THENCE DEPARTING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO.
70 NORTH OO DEGREES 23 MINUTES 03 SECONDS EAST AIONG THE EASTERLY
LINE OF SArD SECTION 8, A DTSTANCE OF 572.LO FEET TO THE POrNT OF
BEGINNTNG, CONTAINING 20.480 ACRES UORE OR LESS.
THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION IS BASED ON THE TOWN OF VAIL ANNEXATION PLATS
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND IS NOT BASED ON A FIEIJD SURVEY. THE
BASIS OF BEARING FOR THE ABOVE PARCEL IS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF
SECTION 8 BEING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 46 UINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST AS
sHowN oN SAID N{NEXATION PLATS. (NORTH ANHOL,TZ)
li
3c
a
t---
<J)
UJEr
J
zotr
z
El!
E.
t.lJ
F.T
=
\\\
,,\$
P
.t,
.l
eli
-32frl
-c
F
lrj
=J
J
s
t-/tlg
fl't
\\'tr
'lu
S
s\N
i\\)
t\\
lllt
-o
IJ
-+
--s
..->.x
CI,r
il)
l,ll
tsr,&$l.-
-
i
I
I
ltW
i\
retitifoa te
I. This procedure is reguired for any anendment to the zoning ordinanceor for a reguest for-a district bounctary change
A. NAI|E OF PETITIONEn rorg" "t vail
PEONE479-2100
B.NAITiE OF PETITIONERTS REPRESEI{TAIIVE cre
ADDRESS PEONE 479-2160
PETITION FORITI FOR AITTENDDTENT
'oR
REQT'EST FORA CHANGE IN DISTRICT
NAME 0F 0IJNER (print or
SIGI{ATT'RE
',ii'fi I ;
r'r !, U lr.. _
TO THE ZONING ORDTNANCE
BOT'NDARTES
c.IJPB) vail Assoclates. rnc.
NDruSS p.O. ro* 7. Vrir. cO EONF:476-560I
D.IOCATTON OF PROPOSAI,
ADDRESS
descrlbed Ln the
IEGAT DESCRIPTION lot followlng legalblock
IT 1ex
descrlp t ionfiltu
E.FEE $r00.00 PAID
F. A list of the names of owners of arl property adjacent to thesubject property, and their nailing addrissei.
U.S. Forest Service, p.0. Box 190
Minturn, CO
ATTN: Btll Wood
Colorado Dlvlsion of llighways -- 42OL E. Aikansas, Denver, CO 80222'
-- P,O, Box 2L07, Grand Juncrlon, CO 81502
-- P.0. Box 298, Eagle, CO 81631
ATTN: Al Plerce
Val1 Assoclates, Inc., p.0. Box 7
Vatl, CO 81658
ATTN: Joe lLacy
George N. Glllet, Jr.,
P.O. Box 7
Vail, C0 81658
Town of Vail, 75 S. Frontage Road
Vai1, C0 81657
(0vER)
rr.
PETITION FORM FOR N{ENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
OR
REQUEST FORA CHANGE IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
The Town of Vail as a leaser from Vail Associateswishes to rezone a portion of the unplatted parcel asdescribed in "Exhibit Ar from Agricultural and openspace Zone District to the public Use Zone District.More specifically that portion to be rezoned isdescribed by 'rExhibit Br and as shown on the attachedmaps trExhibit Cn and ttExhibit Dx.
The request for a Public Use Zone District is necessaryso the Town rnay apply for a conditional use forconstruction of a Snow Dump on the prernises. Theconditional use permit wilt be for public facilitiesuse to al.low construction of the Snow Dump.
The Town currently dunps snow along the banks of GoreCreek in the vicinity of the east parking lot of FordPark and also in the vicinity of Stephens park in WestVaiI.
The Town Council has requested that the public lgorksDepartnent find a location for a new Snow Dunp andconstruct such a dunp in a manner to irnprove thecurrent aesthetic and environmental concerns. Mostspecifically the close proxirnity of snow and debrisnext to Gore Creek. The construction scheduled forStephens Park this sunner also negates the use of thj.sarea as a Snohr Durnp in the future.
The new Snow Dump would be built to handle 50,OOO-70,000 cubic yards of snow. The facility will bebermed and landscaped in a manner sinilai to thecurrent Public Works facility. Water guality will beaddressed, in a manner which doesnrt pieclude the townfrom neeting the Environrnental proteclion Agencies,National Potlution Discharge Elinination Syiterns stormwater quality requirenents.
Specific plans for the Snow Dump will be presented tothe.Planning and Environmental borornission- and DesignReview Board when the conditional use perrnit is apptieafor and granted.
I
-+
{\'\ n.-r
L-
,<)
3
o?.ct\nl-:-' _.\
't{,?t \r\,
tr\
--tu
*."a
Cra-s
?"J-1-
I
.-\
\_
\d44
,-/
THAT PART OF THE NORTH I/2 OF SECTION I' TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH' RANGE
80 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL I'{ERIDIAN' EAGLE coUNTY' COI0RADO'
LyING NoRTH or INTERSTATE ItIGHwAy No. 70' DESCRIBED As FoLLoWS:
BEGINNIN6 AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION It THENCE SOUTH
89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST 265,1-.87 FEET AIJONG THE
NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION I TO THE NORTH L/4 CORNER OF SAID
SECTION 8; THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST
903.90 FEET AISNG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SATD SECTION 8 TO THE
NORTHERTY RIGITT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70; THENCE
THE FOLIPWING FOUR COURSES AI,ONG SAID NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY
LINE:
1) SOUTH 73 DEGREES 46 MINUTES l-5 sEcoNDs EAST 789.30 FEET
2) SOUTH 78 DEGREES 49 MINUTES 16 SECONDS EAST 567.90 FEET
3) SOUTH 75 DE|REES 28 MINUTES 18 SEcoNDs EAST 942.40 FEET
4) L327.90 FEET ALONG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE LEFT' HAVING A
RADIUS OF 558O.OO FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF ].3 DEGREES 38 MINUTES
04 sEcoNDs, AI'ID A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 36 MINUTES
34 SECONDS EAST T324.70 FEET, TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
SECTION 8; THEN NORTH OO DEGREES 23 MINUTES 03 SECONDS EAST
572.LO FEET, ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, TO THE POrNT OF BEGINNING.
THE ABOVE DESCRIFTION IS BASED ON TOWN OF VAIL ANNEXATION PI,ATS
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND IS NOT BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY.
tHE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THE ABOVE PARCEL TS THE NORTHERLY LTNE
OF SECTION 8 BEING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 27 SECONDS WEST AS
SHOI1IN ON SAID ANNEXATION PI,ATS. (NORTH ANHOLBZ)
l-
A-2
.i
Nicholas LamPiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEOLOGIST
0185 INGERSOLL LANE
SILT, COLOBADO 81652
rco3) $33600 (21 HouRs)
Septernber 21r 1991
.^\(
N,N,A
6reg Hal I
Town o{ Vai 1
75 S. Frontage Rd
Vail ' CD. AIb37
RE: 6eologic RePort, Snow FacilitY
Dear Mr. HalI:
I have comPleted
storage facilitY
west end o{ the
the Town o{ Vai I
my geologic investigation "+-:1:,proposed Enow
{or the Town of Vail' The property lies at the
maintanance {acirity nortfr o{ Intergtate 70' in
o Eagle CountY, Colorado'
The +acility i5 to lie at the base o+ a hillside to th€ north
which can have debris flow hazirO associated with it' The
majority o{ the site iE open meadow n except where, a road trrosse5
along the northern- eCqe ' at tfre-Ulse of the hillside' The
proposed f acility 'wiit -fl"t'* no buildings associated with it'
fiud or debris flows €an come out of several gullies on that
hillgide and flow into the site' The existing road can slow or
stop some of themt but larger ones will' reach the site' Howevert
due to thF proposed usage o{ the-rii" *ith little to be damagedn
I do not Euggest any rnitigatlon {oi itre operation' Debris flowE
comeslowlyenoughthatworkerg-at-tr'eiiteshoutldnorrnallybe
able to avoid the hazard'
The 6ite iE a geological 1y eenritive area but the developrnent
will not lncrease tnl hazard to other property. or struclurest or
to public buildi;q;;'- riqhts-o+-"tv' tbtot' streete' easements'
utilities o. +..'iiiiies ir othen prirpertie? ol. *tv kind' Flease
do not hesitate [o-."nt..t me i{ there are further questions'
Si ncerel Y t
fid%
Nicholas LarnPiris
ConsLtl ti ng Gieologi st
I
Project Application -7- 3- 7/
Project Name:
Project Description:
Contact Person and
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect. Address and Phone:
Design Review Board
Date 7-3-r
D ISAPPROVAL
A/l{Jd\/ddr4 tz (cA---^. "t
Summary:
Date:
-7- 3-q/
E statt Approval
-t''o ' '":f
CONFERENCE
MEMORANDUM CONSULTING ENGINEERS
550 SOUTH WADSWORTH BLVD., SUTIE 5OO
I.AKEWOOD, COLORADO 8tr226
Project
Vail Snow Storage Project Progress Meeting
Client
Town of Vail
C.onference Location
Town of Vail Public Worls Conference Room
Attendants
Greg Hall, Town of Vail - Public Works
Pete Burnett Town of Vail - Public Works
Andy Knutson, Trnm of Vail - Planning
Jim Hoza, Town of Vail - Public Works
Mike Dungan, Muller Engineering Company, Inc.
Purpce
Vail Snow Storage Project Progress Meeting
Discussion
THE FOLLO1WING IS OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE SUBJECT MATTER
COVERED IN THIS CONFERENCE" IF THIS DIFFERS WITH YOUR
UNDERSTA}.IDING, PLEASE NOTIFY US.
The progress meeting was separated into discusions concerning two items - the drainage study
and the snow storage area.
Drainage Study discussion:
1. Vail will provide utility locations and Muller will trace the utilities on the mylars.
L The channel and piping s'6tem by the bus wash should be designed for the lGyear flood.
Higher flows may flood the building.
3. Locate an inlet and lateral upbill from the fuel island. This will allow time to clean up fuel
spills bef<rre reai;hing a $tolm sewer.
4, Inlet grates should have smalt openings for safety unless they are located in open areas with
ao traffic. Place delineaton to mark inlets in open areas.
5. Use concrete pipe for the storm sewer through the underpass. Smooth pipe will pass
sediment loads better. Add an underdrain beneath underpass due to high groundwater.
Snow Storage discussion:
1. The berm between the storage area and highway would be more attractive if the top
elevation and side slopes are varied C,onsider raising berm to provide more storage.
2. The actual size of trees (8 - 12') should show on the cros section. Snow storage should
be calculated for initial tree height (8'- 12'), and future tree height (20').
(303) 937-3500
Oonference Date
April lQ 1991
Issue Date
April 17, 1991
Project No
9086.4
Routing
I.AM
css
File
o
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
April lQ 191
Page 2
3. A loop road should be shown around the $torage area for access to the upper areas for
snow storage. The Town will look into areas required for cycling existing equipment. Some
preliminary details for the road include 6Vo normal gtade, SVo-9Vo maximum grade, top of
road at eL 80 or lower, width of 15', and asphalt surfacing.
4. Consider scalloping edge of grass disturbance.
5. Consider providing facilities for new technolory emerging for snow storage areas.
6. Provide hydrant on water main and 2fi)' extension with hydrant for wetting snow layers.
7. The mnceptual plan shown allowed for 68,fi)0 cubic yards of snow storage with 20,000
cubic yards orcess material. Vail thought excess of material presented no problem,
especially if material was topoil.
8. Geotechnical engineer should provide remmmended maximum side slopes so storage can be
maximized where slopes are not exposed to view.
9. Check Town of Vail Iandscape Improvement Plan which should show what types of
landscaping are proposed for the Public Works area.
Distribution:
All Attendants
Prepared By:
Michael S. Dungan
fllAAtrhr^_
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental C.ommission
Community Development Department
June 24, 1991
A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a snow dump on
the property generally located west of the Town of Vail shops. The property is
more specifically described as follows:
That part of the North 12 of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of
the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, lying north of Interstate
Highway No. 70 and being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the NE comer of said Section 8; thence along the northerly line
of said Section 8, S89 46'27"W a distance of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the
northerly line of said Section 8, S00 23'03"W a distance of 529.86 ft to a point
on the northerly ROW line of I-70; thence along the northerly ROW line of I-
70 following two courses:
1) S75 28'18.'E a distance of 180.82 ft to a point of curvature;
2> 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a radius of
5580.00 ft, a central angle of 13 38'04" and a chord which bears N89
36'34"E 1324.70 ft distance to a point on the easterly line of said
Section 8;
Thence departing said ROW line of I-70 N00 23'03"8 along the easterly line
of said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to the point of beginning, containing
20.480 acres morc or less.
The above description is based on the Town of Vail annexation plats for the
propefty described and is not bascd on a field survey. The basis of bearing for
the above parcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46'27"W as
shown on said annexation plats.
Applicant: Vail Associatesflown of Vail
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
I. DESCRIPTION OF TT{E PROPOSED USE
The Town of Vail is proposing to construct a snow dump on the recendy rezoned land
(Public Use District) west of the Town Public Works Shops. The proposed use requires a
conditional use review in the Public Use Zone District. @es t. The berm
will be with an additional60 15 douslas fir. and 17 trees. The
snow dump constructed by excavating bclow grade approximately 10-20
ft., in order to incrcase capacity for snow storage. The dcsign includes a 15' widc loop road,
located around the snow dump. The rcad will be built just below the top ofTe berm, which
will be 30 ft. above the bottom of thc snow dump. With this design, tnrrck drivers will start
dumping snow in the lower level of the hole until it is full. They will then use the loop road,
dumping snow from the higher elevation onto the lower level. There ni_!!__bg__!qlgtai!1gg
walli uJed to build the road. All slopes will be 2:1 or less, exGpt foi the slopesii-if,d
inside do not exceed 1.5:1. Please see the attached plans.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
lJpe+*evieur-of Section 18.60, the Community Development Deparunent recommends
. hpproval of tle ionditional use permit based upon the following factors:-'=--:---
A. Consideration of Factors:
l. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of
the Tovm.
The development objectives of the Town, as stated in the purpose section of
the zoning title call for:
Section 18.02.020(BX9): "Thc conservation and protection of wildlife,
sEeams, woods, hillsides and other desirable natural featurss."
In addition, the Town's Land Use Plan states that:
Policy 1.13: "Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land
feature as well as its potential for public use."
And that:
Policy 6.1: "Scrvices should keep pace with increased growth."
By relocating the snow dump from the banks of Gore Creek to the proposed
location, staff believes that the goals of presenring thc stream tract arc met. In
addition, staff believes Policy 6.1, which calls for additional Town services
with increased growth, will be met as the snow dump will allow for additional
snow removal services.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facitities, utititieg schoolg parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
Staff belicves the proposed snow dump will not have a direct impact on the
above-refercnced facilities. There may be an indirect benefit, in that snow
removal services may improve as a result of the expanded snow dump area.
3- Effect upon traflic with particular reference to congestion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and
controt, aocess, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the
street and parking areas.
This new snow dump will allow for a smoother snow removal operation. By
increasing the amount of snow that can be haule4 additional snow removal
services can be provided. The Town shop entry off of the Frontage Road is
adequate to handle the truck uaffic to the snow dump. The Town sent plans
for the proposal to CDOH for them to review the impacts to traffic on the
frontage road. Based on rccent CDOH decisions, Town staff believes that they
will have no requirements of the Town for this project.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is
to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
Staff has analyzed the potential impact of the snow dump on the surrounding
character of the arca in each of the following categories:
a. Views from the Surrounding Area
During the April 22, l99l Planning Commission worksession,
staff and the Planning Commission identified several points
which represented the most sensitive areas which the snow dump
could impact. The map on the following page shows these areas
around the snow dump.
l) The soccer field. Analysis done by the landscape
consultants hired by the Town of Vail shows that the
impact of the snow dump on areas liks the soccer field
)NAL FOREST
UTIPLATTED 6i l-'".r-l-, fG-l
-urL
.aLt.et onn E
lomr 0F \alL
I^lxt s'loP
H
VAILVILLAGE 8rh. FILING N
. FILING
t2la
FIRCEL E
GOLF COIJRSE MAITT ALOC
N eAFcEL o
RACT A
2)
(as well as points 3, and 4), are reasonable, because the
amount of existing vegetation in the immediate area
would screen the ncw snow dump. The large evergrcen
trees block the views of the new berm as well as the cut
aneas at the rear of the snow dumP.
Fairway Drive/Fairway Court. This area has the
highest elcvation in the vicinity, and has some of the
most dircct views to the snow dump. The graphic section
shown at the end of this packet shows the sight line from
this area to the snow dump. As one can see from this
scction, the tnees planted on the berm will work to screen
both the cut slope on the back side of the snow dump as
well as the snow dump operation.
Homestake Circle. The north end of Homestake Circle
is similar to the soccer field in that the existing
landscaping around those homes scr€en the snow dump.
Hornsilver Circle. The north end of Hornsilver Circle is
also similar to the soccer field in that the existing
landscaping around those homes scrcen the snow dump.
Vail Golf Course. The golf course does have clear
views to the proposed snow dump. Though no residences
in the area are impacted, users of the golf course could
be. The berm would be visible. However, a benefit from
the project is that the berm will be extended far enough
to the west so that it would blend in with the existing
hillside. This will be a much more natural rcsolution of
the berm, and is a significant improvement to the
appearance of the current berm.
Note: At the Planning Commission hearing, the
landscape consultant will show colored renderings of the
proposed construction from some of these areas. The
renderings were produced from slides taken from the
areas, and will show that, what the snow dump will look
like from these areas.
3)
4)
5)
Landscaoing
s
natural as possible. Jrees will be plantcd in clusters, with a maiority
4mllbglglof the bcrm and with others grouped in the middle and on
the lower parts. The ridge of the berm wi[_beJndulatc4so that it will
not appear as a hard, horizontal line that would look unnatural. On the
back side of the snow dump, the cut slopes will be revegetated. The
landscape design concept in the area has becn to break up the horizontal
lines with groupings of native grasses and sage. We be!!q'e the taller
should bc incrpased at the too of the
as possible of the trucks. Trees along the
existing berm where the should also be rcmoved or
replanted properly. The natural planting configuration on the new berm
is positive. Two types of revegetation mix are proposed. The heartier
variety will be used for the snow dump basin. T_e_hl!!td9lS!LC!.d
tated with native grasses as well as transplanted
c. Electric Lines
Therc are two sets of transmission lines in the vicinity of the snow
dump. One runs east-west, but is located at an elevation higher than the
snow dump, andis notimpacted. @ill
cross over the snow dump. one
point the lingq w:!l!
some new services installed from
transformer on iF north-south transmission line to the Town shop.
Jrew_service lines will be located underground. Staff spoke with a
relreGntative from Holy Cross Electric. Staff believes it is
unreasonable to require the undergrounding because Holy CYoss has
indicated that an extensive length of line south of I-70 would have to be
placed underground, instead of just the segment on the Town of Vail
property. This work would also i@ At
a minimum, the Town will provide a cond mp
lerm for the future underfrounding of the line. The Town will continue
to work with Holv Cross on the undergrounding of the lines.
d. Access Road
the
All
sage.
width of the loop road dqgqlqg
increased in height, or the road slightly lowered (in order to minimize
visibility of the truck operation). The design concept allows for good
screening of the dump, but could be improved so that it also provides
better screening of trucks on the snow dump loop road. The snow
dump will function with drivers using the road to drive to a location
wherp there is room to drop their snow. The truck driver will "jack-
knife" the vehicle so that most of the snow falls off the road into the
dump. Some of it, however, will fall on the road. At the end of the
day, front-end loaders will go out to move the snow around and clear
the road. Until that time, trucks must be able to continue to ddve the
loop road. The 15' width will allow for clcarance for the trucks to pass
around the pcrimeter.
Liehtine
The Town is to install 2 area, and
relocate one illuminate
t@. The two lights are needed to illuminate
tlie area for occasional night dumping. The lights will be facing north,
and will be located no higher than the e@
feet above the berm). The current lights which illuminate the parking
lot of the site are not visible to the neighborhood. This is bccause they
are facing north and are angled down. Staff has driven through the area
at night and has noted that the lights which are visible are ones on
buildings or are the lamp posts (similar to the Town and County lights)
next to the offices. The proposed lighting is needed to allow hauling
and dumping at night. Though this is not on a regular basis, it will
allow for this use when needed.
f. Water Ouality
The drainage system of the proposed snow dump has been designed in
such a way to ensure that the runoff from the snow dump will not
impact Gore Geek. Soil tests done by ths consulting engineer indicate
tlrat the Fercolation rate is very high in this alea. Based on the soil
tests, the consulting engineer expects that all of the snow melt will
method to imrnve water quality than to allnrv it te &ain through soil
4!-99!nd-waler- The engineer has designed a drainage system, in the
event that there is very hot weather with a quick snow mclt, and the
drainage demand exceeds the percolation rate of the soil. This drainlge
system design provides for a 40-hour detention period so that the water
can drop any sediment before entering Gore Creek. The 4O-hour
detention period is a standard which has been developed that ensures
that the water leaving an ar€a is clear. The engineer has also designed
larger overflow pipes at higher elevations in the event of an emergency
event. These will be used to drain the snow dump without compro-
mising the structural integrrty of the berm or shop facilities.
FINDINGS
The Plannine and Environmental Commission shall make the followine findines before
granting a conditional use Dermit:
A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of this
Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would
be operated or maintained would not be derimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of
this Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The planning staff recommends approval of the requested conditional use permit, based on the
criteria and findings. Staff believes the first finding is met, as the snow dump, a public
service facility, meets the purpose of the zone disrict in which it will be located. The Public
Use Zone District calls for public uses, such as this, with the condition they be designed and
used in harmony with surrounding uses. Staff believes that the visual analysis done for the
snow dump, from the surrounding areas, shows that it is reasonably compatible. Furthermore,
staff believes the is consistent with the development ves of the Town, as
defined
-Ti"din!.t ir)tet, in staffls opinion, in that the snow dump will not be detrimental to public
6ty and welfare. The one impac119l49!ng1q water qualitY. and staff
beli ty
@k.
Concerning Finding 3, staff believes the snow dump complies with the applicable regulations
of the Zoning Code. The the snow
III.
IV.
and En
J
I
2nl = )-rl^7
Wki" 4- o
The
,,-\(t/\4
f)t=./
staff recommendation carries the following pcgonditions of approval:
That the lighting for the snow dump be downlighting so as not to emit glare or "hot
spots" toward I-70 or the residential properties to the soutf. $ll lights are to be
extinguished when the snow dump is not in "tq,h rutidA?a ,
J't'hat $e -reposed lail
fo' the full length ef dre -new dump in ordcr to htrcr screen the tncks durfutg
-eumping-eperatione The existing berm shall also be repaired in the areas where it has
sloughed.
The Town provide a rockfall hazad study before ^mpermit is released for the
project.
eemmaion-e++ne*nsp-autnp. ,\,*/il< z< uz+ ro'-'^ d4f '^'^ (/4 4 fu "f-4
Althou a specific condition of the staff would recommend that the
evati of relation tdthe of the berm,Perhaps
could the,berm raised the vehic
equipment on the loop road severcly decreasing storage capacity.
c:\,cc\ov\snowd ump,624
-1. &*' ? F"A F"4 a-totv 4,
loop
I.Thi s
use
The
A.
Date of Appl i cation 5r liiryl
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
procedure is required for any proiect required to obtain a conditjonal
permi t.
app'lication wi'l'l not be accepted unti'l a'l'l informat'lon is submitted'
NME 0F APPLICANT ro-" "r v"tt
ADDRESS zl s- n"""t"g" na
vai 1 - co Rl6qz PH0NE--4194U8-
Vat1, CO 81657 PH0NEgg2lp3-
c.NAME 0F 0I.JNER(S) (Print
oi.rNER(s)' SIGNATURE(S)
ADDRESS
vait-. co er6se PHoNE az6-5iol-
D. LOCATI0N 0F PROP0SAL: LEGAL: LOI BLOCK FILING
t{ME 0F APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Gree Hall
ADDRESS 75 s. Frontagg Bd.
Comp 1ex
THE FEE I,|UST BE PAID BEFORE THE DEPARTI"IENT OF COI'iII''IUNITY DEVELOPI'IENT I'IILL
ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL.
F. A list of the names of owners of al'l propglly adi.acent to the subi-ect proPerty
TNCLUDTNG piOprniv-siinlo AHo AcROSs brnLers, and_their mqll!!9_a9!I9::9s.
THE AppLrcArii iiil sE lEspoNsraii-Fon-ioRneii owHrns AND coRREcT ADDRESSES.
(See Below)
II. PRE.APPLICATION CONFERENCE:
A PRE-APPLIcATION CONFERENCE bJITH A PLANNING STAFF I,,IEI.IBER IS STROI'IGLY SUGGESTED
To DETERMTNT rr-lini-Abofiionnl-rnronmAiion Is ilEEDED.__N0 APPLIcATIqI !.lLL-.
BE AccEPTED ur{LE3'i'I?"ii'ioiiFiEi'E ii'iijsi'iricl[oE-Atl ITEt'rs REQUIIFP-PLiIi-zoNING
ADMINIsTRATonI.--ir-is-inennt[iqnHi;i-nEiioHit91'11y.1o-MAKE AN APPoINTMENT
}{ITH THE srAFF T0'iIND oiji Aboui Aooiriottni SusmtnRL REQUIREI'lENrs'
PLEASE NOTE THAT A C0i4!!EIE APPLICATI0N t/|lILL STREMLINE THE APPR0VAL-PRoCESS
FoR youR pRgJEci ijy-Eenimri,ib iHi'numiieil-oF ionoiltqls oF APPRovAL THAT THE
pEc lrAy sTtpuLATE. ALL coNDrTroNs 6F nFpnovnl MUST BE C0MPLIED lillTH BEFORE A
BUILDING PERMIT IS Is'sI]ED.
List of Property owners: Town of Va11' 75 S' Frontage Rd.' Vail' CO 81657
U.S. Forest Servlce C0 Dlv. of Highways -- 42Ol E. Arkansas, Denver, CO 80222
P.O. Box 190 -- Box 2107, Grand Junction, CO 81502
ADDRESS
E. FEE $'I OO PAID
MinEurn, C0 81645
ATTN: Bill l,Iood
Vail Associates, Inc. ,
P.0. Box 7
Vail, CO 81658
ATTN: Joe Macy
described in the following legal descriPtion
CK# BY
-- Box 298, EagLe, C0 81631
ATTN: A1 Pierce
(0VER) George N. Glllet, Jr.
P. O. Box 7
Vail, CO 81658
I
Conditiona'l Use nermifz-
III. Four (4) copies of the following informat'ion:
A. A description Of the precise.nature of the proposed use and its
op"".iinb characteristics and measures proposed to make the use
cbmpatibie with other properties in the vicinity'
The descriPtion must also address:
l. Relationship and impact of the use on development obiectives
of the Town.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population'
traniportation facil ities, util ities, schools,. parks and recreation
iaiiiities, ino oitrer pubiic facilities and pubiic facilities needs.
3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestlon'
automotive and pedestrian iafety and convenience, traffic flow
inO-ionttot, actess, maneuverability, and removal of snow from
the streets and Parking area.
4, Effect upon the character of the area in which the pPposed
use is tb be'located, inc'luding the scale and bulk of the proposed
u;a i; retaiion to surrounding uses. -- tho *kr"t /o, Eo, 7
B. A site plan at a scale of at least l" = 20' showing proposed development
of the iite, including topography, building locations' parking'
i"aiiic ciriulation, iseab16 obe-n space, landscaped areas and ut'iljties
and dra'inage features.
C. Preliminary building e'levations and floor plans'
D. A title report to verify ownership and easements)
If the building is condominiumized, a 'letter from the condominium
issociation in'support of the proposal must be submitted to staff.
Anv additional material necessary for the review of the application
as-detennined by the zoning administrator.
* For interior modification, an improvement survey and site p1 an
may be omitted bY the aPPlicant.
F.
IV. Time Requ'irenents
The p'lanning and Environmenta'l Commission meets on the 2nd and 4th Mondays
of-each monih. -A-comp'lete application form and all accompanying material
iis-aiicriUed above) must be submi.tted a minimum of 4 weeks ?llol-19.il9-.,.iile ot the pEC Pubiic Hearing. No incomplete applications (as determined
bv the zoninq aCministrator) witt be accepted by the plann'ing staff before
o-r after the-designated submittal date'
7
diil[tiil;*leet
Date of APPIication-5/1'fl!l' -
I.Thls procedure
use permit.
The apPllcatlon
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL
is required for anY Project
will not be accePted untl'l
Date of PEC l'leet'lng 6liol9r ''
USE PERI.IIT
requlred to obtaln a conditional
all information is submitted.
A. NME OF APPLICAN
ADDRESS us s- n"""t"g" n't
Ver I , co fl16q7 PH0NE-4J9=211S-
NME OF
ADDRESS
APPL ICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE GreB.
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vall, C0 81657 PH0NE-.r479:?_ll8_
c.NAwIE 0F 0blNER(s) (Print or type) .-Va11 essocta
or.rNER(s)' SIGNATURE(S)L4
ADDRESS
HONEj25=5591-
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL' 19641-: LO!BLOCK_FILING
Complex
ADDRESS
E. FEE $100 PAID
U. S. Forest Servlce
P.0. Box 190
Mlnturn' CO 8f645
ATTN! 8111 Wood
Vall Assoclate6' Inc. ,
P.O. Box 7
Vatlr CO 81658
ATTN: Joe Macy
descrlbed ln the f .11"ti"C legal descrlPtlon in "Exhlblt A"
CK# BY
THE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPI'IENT I'ITLL
ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL.
F. A'list of the names of olnqll qf-111 PnPgIIy adiacent to the subJect property
INcLUDING PRoPERTY BEHIND mo ninoii 5rn'rers' and-thelr mal'llng addresses'
THE AppLrCANT l,nLL BE REspoNsrsii"idn-ciiRnici oi,inrnl-Ailo c0RREcT ADDRESSES'
(See Below)
II. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE:
A PRE-APPLICATIoN coNFERENCE III!'l-l PLAI{NING STAFF-t|lEl'tsER ls STR0I{GLY SUGGESTED
T0 DETERMINE IF-ANy ADDTTIoNAL_INF0d'{Aii6N'is-1'reoro.- No APPLICATIoN }IILL
BE AccEPTED uNLEss IT Is coMPLETE..(iidli'iiliciuo'i-ili-irEiii nEoutRED BY THE zoNING
ADilrNrsTRATon).'-ir'is'inimbriqAryi';'i-nr3i;oil5iqLiii.I0"t'rAKE AN APPoINTMENT
t.tITH THE STAFF To'iIND oiii]\boui Aooirionhi"Slstairrr REQUIREl'lENTs'
PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION }IILL STREMLINT T}IE APPROVAL PROCESS
FoR youR pRoJEcT ev-DEmffirNc IllE'iimiiEn'oF ionoljlQ$ or RppnovRt' THAT THE
pEc trAy sTrpuLATE. ALL -CoNDrTroHs
ijF"iti;novnl-liu5r-sE C0MPLIED t'llTH BEFoRE A
gUiTbiNE-iEMIT IS ISSIIED.
Llst of ProPerty Owners: Town of Vall' 75 S' Frontage Rd" VaIl' CO 81657
CO Dlv. of Hlghways -- 42Ol E. Arkansas, Denverl CO 80222
-- Box 2107' Grand Junction, CO 81502
-- Box 298, Eagle, CO 81631
ATTN: A1 Pierce
(0Ven1 George N' Gl11etr Jr'
P.O. Box 7
VatL' GO 81658
III.
PETITION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERI.IIT
The Town of vail as a I"€aser fron vail Associates needs
to obtain a conditional use pernit to construct a Snow
Dump on the recently rezoned parcel as described in
"Exhibit A". A public facility is an approved use in a
publlc use zone district if the conditional use is
obtained. The Snow Dump is considered a public
facility.
The Town currently dunps snow al-ong the banks of Gore
Creek in the vicinity of the east parking lot of Ford
Park and also in the vicinity of Stephens Park in West
Vail.
The Town Council has reguested that the Public lforks
Department find a location for a nel Snow Dunp and
construct such a dump in a manner to improve the
current aesthetic and environmental concerns. ltostspecifically the close proxinity of snow and debris
next to Gore creek. The construction scheduled for
Stephens Park this sunmer also negates the use of this
area as a Snow Dump in the future.
The new snow Dump would be built to handle on an annual
basis 5OTOOO-TOrOOO cubic yards of snow with a peak
volume in heavy snow years of 1101000 cubic yards. Thefacility will be bermed and landscaped in a nannersimj.lar to the current Public l{orks facility. Concerns
mentioned in the Townrs Landscape Master Plan about the
current bern will be addressed on the new berm. Waterguality will be addressed, in a manner which doesnrtpreclude the Town fron meeting the Environmental
ProtectLon Agencies, National Pollution DischargeElinination Systerns storm water quality requirements.
The operation of the site will. be sinilar to how the
Tohrn currently operates the dunping of snow at FordPark. The vast naJority of snow ls hauled J.n duringthe day by the Townrs 40 yard end dunp tractor traller
and its two tandem dunp trucks. In the afternoon and
evening the snow is pushed over the eide with a front
end loader. If the snow rdas not able to all be hauled
out with the day operation the Townrs night crew wouldhaul the rernainder out. The current Snow Dump at Ford
Park allows the trucks to be at tbe top of the dunping
area and aII the snow is pushed over the slde. This
operation is the most ideal durping arrangement, as the
snow is stored using a dunping down procedure saving alot of equipnent time pushing snow into large piles.
The volume of snow storage that is needed on an average
snon year is approxinately 50,000-60r000 ydJ. The needto haul out more snow from the extrlanded parkingstructure, in addition to the potential streetscapeprojects elininating sno$/ storage areas along nanyvillage roads requires a site able to-operate with
normal volumes in excess of 751000 ydJ. The site nustalso be able to accommodafe heavy snow fall years where
voluraes exceed 100rOOO ydJ.
The site Es designed contains approxinateJ.y 50r000-
60,000 ydi below the proposed ring road. The volune is
76.000 yd" 8r above the proposed berm, in sone
instances the northern ring road is at or above thiselevation at other areas the roadway is far bgtow theelevation. The site contains over 11O,OOO ydJ 20l
above the bern eLevation. This eite allows for thevolunes that are necessary to accommodate all snow
dumping operations in one site. The volume wasobtained in a couple of lrays. First, the site wasexcavated approximately 8r below ttre elevation of thecurrent Public Works facility. The height of the bernis approxirnately 10 feet high. The introduction oftrees on the bern allows an additional 8-12 feet ofscreening at initial planting and a potential of 20feet of screening in 10-15 years with the possibilityof greater screening beyond that.
The ability to continue to dump down on the rnajority ofthe dunp necessitates the road being elevated above thedunplng area. The Town felt it was necessary to be ashigb as possible to dunp the snow. This reguiresputting the road on the north side of the site. Theroad would need to accomnodate a durnping area and allowtrucks to pass the dunped snow and each other. Theproposed ring road is a good solution. It's highestelevation is 30r above the bottom of the site but onLy1Or above the bern elevation. Trees planted on top ofthe bern will elininate most of the visible J-npacts ofthe road.
The ability to ring the road elirninates the need tobuild a 2-way roadway which would double l-ts width anda large turnaround on the west end to acconnodate thetrucks turning.
The placenent of the ring road allows the nornalvolunes of snow to be handled from a durnping downoperation. The heavy snord years will require snow tobe pushed up. This was a good compromise between the
needs of the conrnunity for snow storage volune andvisual inpacts. Lighting for night operation if needed
hrill be similar to the current Tonn shops. The lightswill be against the bern and shine down and towards thenorth. Llghts witl only be on if night hauling 1srequired. Push down operations of the loader does not
reguJ.re llghts as the vehiclesrs headlights are
adequate.
The nelt water fron the snow will be bandled throughthe use of a outlet system designed to work as asettling pond. Suspended solids settle out of the
water before the water is discharged. Ttris is thecurrent rrstate of the artrr in water quality control for
storm water runoff. The majority of pollutants attach
thenselves to the suspended solids. If the solidsprecipitate out of the water the pollutants precipitatealso. In addition to designing the outlet structure toforn a water quality pond. The soils found at the
bottour of the storage area meet the classification foran infiltration pond. The site actualJ-y has two waterquality enhancements an infiLtration site with asettling pond.
The site relates weII to the existing Town Shop conplex
and is really an extension of it. The effect of lightwill- be increased but in a controlled way with no realadverse inpacts cornpared to the current shop site. Theinpacts on air will be increased as the haul distanceis a i nile farther in each direction then the currentsite. Hohrever, if this site is not used, a site downvalley would be needed to dump snow and these sites
would be 10-20 niles in distance each way which wouldbe an extremely large increase in potlutants being
erq>elled to the air.
The effects on population, utillties, schools areninimal . There is a positive effect on parks as both
Ford Park and Stephens Park will no longer be used as
snow dunps. There is a positive effect ontransportation and publlc facilities as the need of the
Town to efficiently renove snow fron these facilitlesis enhanced.
fhere would be an increaee in traffic in and out of the
Town shop facilities. There ls a current need tocreate a Left turn lane into the Town shop facllitles.This will compound that need. The left turn cannot be
accomplished, however, until the Pulis Bridge isreplaced. The bridge is designed. Funds to replacethe bridge are not availabte to construct it at thistine. Once it is constructed, a teft turn lane will beprovided.
The Snow Dunp project has positive benefite on
congestion at the 4-nay versus a elte down valley. Itspositive benefits to pedestrian Eafety and renoval of
snow from Etreets is obvious lmprovements.
The bulk and size of the site in relation to its
surrounding character are compatible. The Town feelsthis is an appropriate use for the site and feels thenininal adverse inpacts are outweighted by the overallpositive inprovements to the Tolrn.
4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PART OF THE NORTH } OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH' RANGE 80
WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL UERIDIAN, EAGLE COT'NTY, COIFRADO' LYING
NORTH OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70 AND BEING MORE PARTICUI,ARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLI,OWS 3
BEGTNNING AT THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 8; THENCE AI.,,ONG
THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 8, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 46 I'{INUTES
27 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 15OO.OO FEET' THENCE DEPARTTNG THE
NORTHERLY LrNE OF SArD SECTTON 8, SOUTH OO DEGREES 23 MTNUTES 03
SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 529.86 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF TNTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 70' THENCE AIONG TH8
NORTHERI,Y RIGHT OF WAY LTNE OF TNTERSTATE HIGHT{AY NO. 70 FOLI.,OWING
TWO COURSES:
r.) sourH 75 DEGREES 28 MTNUTES 18 SECONDS EAST A DTSTANCE OF
180.82 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE'
2) L327.90 FEET AISNG THE ARC OF A CURVE TO THE I,EFT, HAVING A
RADIUS OF 558O.OO FEET, A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13 DEGREES 38 MINUTES
04 SECONDS A}ID A CHORD WHICH BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREBS 36 MINUTES 34
SECONDS EAST ]-324.70 FEET DISTANCE TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE
OF SAID SECTION 8'
THENCE DEPARTING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE HIGIIWAY NO.
70 NORTH OO DEGREES 23 MINUTES 03 SECONDS EAST AIONG THE EASTERI.,Y
LINE OF SAID SECTION 8, A DISTANCE OF 572.LO FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGTNNING, CONTAINTNG 20.480 ACRES l.tORE OR LESS.
THE ABOVE DESCRIPTION IS BASED ON THE TOWN OF VAIL ANNEXATION PI,ATS
FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AND IS NOT BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY. THE
BASIS OF BEARING FOR THE ABOVE PARCEL TS THE NORTHERLY LINE OF'
SECTION 8 BEING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 45 I,IINUTES 27 SECoNDS WEST AS
sHowN oN SAID ANNEXATTON PLATS. (NORTH ANHOLTZ)
+,< J'ir"^ -U,"- & "/fe-f ,oXa'u-^. #"Q^k
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the Planning and Environmental
Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance wlth Section 1,8.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on June 24, 1991 aE 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building. Considerat,ion of:
1. A request for review of the Vail Streetscape Master Plan for
fornal recommendation to the Town Council. The Master Pl'an
addresses the general area fron E. Lionshead Cir. to Ford
Park, and includes W. Meadow Dr., E. Meadow Dr., Willow
Bridge Rd., Gore Creek Dr., Vail Va11ey Dr., Bridge St.1 and
Hanson Ranch Rd.Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Mike Mollica
2. A request for a front setback varj.ance for the Schofield
residence, Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing/L448 YaJ.I
Valley Drive.
Applicant: John SchofieldPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
3, Discussion of site seLection for the Municipal Conplex-
Worksession
Town Staff: Ken Hughey, Kristan Pritz, Mike Mollica
4. A request. for a Special Development District. A part of the
SE 1/4 of the SE 1,/4 of Section 1., Township 53, Range 81,
West 6th Prime Meridi-an.
Applicant: Abe L. ShapiroPl"anner: Mike Molf ica
5. A request for a front setback variance for the Dick
Residence, tJnll 2, Tract A, Bighorn Townhouses/4708 Meadow
Drive, #21.
Appl j-cant: Carol DickPlanner: Jill Kammerer
6. A request for a worksession for height, parking and density
(GRFA/common area) variances for the Sonnenalp, Part of Lots
K & L, BLock 5-8, Vail Village, 1st Filing/2O vaLI Road.
Applicant: Sonnenalp PropertiesPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
7. A reguest for a conditionaf use permit in order to construct
a snolr dump on the property generally located v.,est of the
Town of Vail Shops. The property is more specificalJ.y
described as follows:
That part of the North L/2 of Section 8, Township 5 South,
Range 80 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagfe County,
Colorado, lying north of Interstate Highway No. ?0 and being
more particularly descrlbed as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner of said Sect.ion 8i thence along
'/r^tr b -7 -?/
44
the northerly line of said Section 8, S89 46' 27"w a distance
of 1500.00 ft, thence departing the northerly line of said
Section 8, S00 23'03"W a distance of 529.85 ft to a point on
the northerly ROW line of I-70; thence along the northerly
ROw fine of I-?0 following tvto courses:
1) 575 28' 18"8 a distance of 180.82 fE to a point of
curvature;
2) L327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having
a radius of 5580.00 ft' a central angle of 13 38'04"
and a chord which bears N89 36'34"8 1324.70 ft distance
to a point on the easterly Line of said Section 8,'
Thence departing said RoW line of I-70 N00 23'03"E along the
easterly line of said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to
the point of beginning, containinS 20.480 acres more or
less.
The above description is based on the Town of Vail
annexation plats for the property described and is not based
on a field survey. The basis of bearing for the aboveparcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being S89 45'27"W
as shown on said annexation P1ats.Applicants: Town of vail/Vail Associates
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
8. A request for a front setback variance for a garage for the
oberlohr residence, Lot 3, Block 3, vail Ridge
Subdivisi on/2655 Davos TraiI.
Applicant: Konrad Oberlohr
Pl-anner: Shel1y MelLo
9. A determination for a 50 or 90 day review period for an
exterior alteration for the Golden Peak Houser Lots A & B,
Block 2, YaLL Village 1st Filing/278 Hanson Ranch Road.
Applicants: Golden Peak House Condo. Association; VaiI
Associates; GPH Partners, Ltd.,' and Margaritaville, Inc.
Planner: Mike Moll-ica
10. A request for a side setback variance for the Heiman
Residence, Lot 9, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision/5134
Grouse Lane.
Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Paul Heiman
Planner:,lill Kammerer
Any items tabled from the June l-0, I99I PEC meeting agenda.
The applications and information about the proposals are
avaj-Iable for public review in the Community Developmen!
Department office.
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Published in the Vail Trail on June 8, 1991.
+,( J,t^^^ -D,* & a/f*"d'r-, p^^Q^k
x
PUBLIC NOT]CE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental
Commission of the Town of Vail will hofd a public hearing ln
accordance wittr Section 18.66.050 of the Municipal code of t.he
Town of VaiI on June 24, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building. Consideration of:
1. A reguest for review of the vail streetscape Master Plan for
formil reconmendation to the Town Council. The Master Pl'an
addresses the generaL area fron E. Lionshead Cir. to Ford
Park, and includes W. Meadow Dr., E. Meadow Dr., Willow
Bridge Rd., Gore Creek Dr., Vail VaIIey Dr., Bridge St., and
Hanson Ranch Rd.Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Mike Mollica
2. A request for a front setback variance for the Schofield
residence, Lot 18, Block 3, VaiI Valley lst Filing/1448 Vait
Valley Drj.ve.Applicant: John SchofieldPfanner: Andy Knudtsen
3. Discussion of site selection for the Municipal Conplex-
Worksession
Town Staff: Ken Hughey, Kristan Pritz, Mike Mollica
4. A reguest for a Special Development District. A part of the
sE l/4 of the sE 1/4 of Section 1, Township 53, Range 81,
west 6th Prime Meridian.Applicant: Abe L. ShaPiroPlanner: Mike Mollica
5. A request. for a front setback variance for the Dick
Residence, tJnll 2, Tract A, Bighorn Townhouses/4708 Meadow
Drive, #2A.Applicant: Carol DickPfanner: JiIl Kammerer
6. A request for a worksession for height' parking and delsity
(GRra/common area) variances for the sonnenalp, Part of Lots
K & L, Block 5-8, Vail Village, 1st Filing/2O vai]- Road.
Applicant: Sonnenalp ProPerties
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
'1 . A request for a conditional use pernit in order to construct
a snow dump on the property generally located west of the
Town of vail Shops. The property is more specifically
described as foflows:
That part of the North l/2 of Section 8, Township 5 South,
Range 80 west of the 5th Principal Meridian, Eagle County,
Co16rado, lying north of Interstate Highway No. ?0 and being
more particularly described as follows:'e NE corner of said Section 8; thence along
Town ol Vail
)
the northerly line of said Section 8, S89 46'27"w a distance
of 1500.00 ft; thence departing the northerly line of said
Section 8, S00 23'03"11 a distance of 529.86 ft to a Point on
the northerly ROW line of I-70; thence along the northerly
ROw line of I-70 following tvto courses:
1) S75 28'18r'E a distance of 180.82 fE to a point of
curvature;
2, 1327.90 ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having
a radius of 5580.00 ft, a central angle of 13 38'04"
and a chord which bears N89 36'34"8 1324.70 ft. distance
to a point on the easterly line of said Section 8;
Thence departing said ROW lj.ne of I-?0 N00 23' 03"8 along the
easterly line of said Section 8, a distance of 572.10 ft to
the point of beginning, containinS 20.480 acres more or
less.
The above description is based on the Town of Vail
annexation plats for the property described and ls not based
on a field survey. The basis of bearing for the aboveparcel is the northerly line of Section 8 being S89 46'z'l"w
as shown on said annexation Plats.Applicants: Town of VaiI/VaiI Associates
PLanner: Andy Knudtsen
8. A request for a front setback variance for a garage for the
Obertohr residence, Lot 3r Block 3, VaJ.l Ridge
Subdivision/ 2655 Davos TraiI.
Applicant: Konrad OberlohrPlanner: Shelly MeIIo
9. A determination for a 60 or 90 day review period for an
exterior alteration for the Golden Peak House' Lots A & B,
Block 2, laiL Village 1st Filing/2?8 Hanson Ranch Road.
Applicants: Golden Peak House Condo. Association; Vail
Associatest GPH Partners, Ltd.; and Margaritaville, Inc.
Planner: Mike MolLica
10. A request for a side setback variance for the Heiman
Residence, Lot 9, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision/5134
Grouse Lane.Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Paul HeimanPlanner: JilI Kammerer
Any items tabled fron the June 10' 1991 PEC meeting agenda.
The applications and information about the proposal.s are
available for public review in the Community Development
Department office.
Town of Vail
Community Development DePartment
Published in the VaiI Trail on June 8, 1991.