Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-01-20 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 1:00 P.M., TUESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2009 NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. NO PUBLIC COMMENT WILL BE TAKEN. 1. Warren Campbell ITEM/TOPIC: PEC /DRB Update. (20 min.) 2. Ken Marchetti ITEM/TOPIC: Discussion with Eagle -Vail Metro District re: John Nichols proposal for joint funding of the Eagle -Vail swimming pool project. Rick Pylman (20 min.) 3. Greg Hall ITEM /TOPIC: A presentation to the Vail Town Council on the Tom Kassmel progress of the South Frontage Road relocation application and a discussion of the Staff recommendations. (60 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen the staff presentation and provide any comments or feedback that the Town Council may have at this time. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Vail Resorts Development Company (VRDC) is proposing to relocate a portion of the South Frontage Road to facilitate the redevelopment of West LionsHead. A relocation application must be reviewed and approved by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) prior to relocating the Frontage Road. CDOT requires that the Town of Vail submits the relocation application on behalf of VRDC (the applicant). Prior to submitting the application to CDOT, however, the Town of Vail must approve the relocation application. The Town staff and the applicant have been actively preparing the relocation application to submit to CDOT. The purpose of this work session to update the Town Council on the progress made to date. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: See attached memorandum dated January 20, 2009. 4. ITEM/TOPIC: Information Update. (15 min.) 1 i Parking Task Force Update. 5. ITEM/TOPIC: Matters from Mayor & Council. (15 min.) 6. ITEMITOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to 1) C.R.S. §24-6 - 402(4)(a)(b) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; to receive legal advice on specific legal questions, Re: Town owned property (10 min.); 2) C.R.S. §24- 6- 402(4)(a)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; and to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, Re: town redevelopment (15 min.); 3) C.R.S. § 24- 6- 402(4)(b) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions, Re: pending and /or threatened litigation (10 min.); 4) C.R.S. §24- 6- 402(4)(f) - to discuss personnel matters, Re: Review of Town Council direct reports (30 min.). (55 min.) 7. ITEMITOPIC: Adjournment. (3:55 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT TBD, TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2009 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 2 Y PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 12, 2009 � . 1:00pm `' TOWN OF YAI� TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Pierce Rollie Kjesbo David Viele Susie Tjossem Sarah Paladino arrived at 1:08 Michael Kurz Scott Proper 15 Minutes 1. Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action approving a request for a minor amendment to SDD No. 39, Crossroads, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved building plans for Solaris increasing commercial floor area, located at 141 and 143 Meadow Drive /Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080075) Applicant: Solaris Property Owner, LLC, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell Staff gave a presentation per the letter discussing Staff's approval. There was no presentation from the applicant. There was no public comment. The Commissioners expressed their support for Staff's approval of the minor amendment. They did not find it necessary to call up the action. 60 Minutes 2. A request for a work session for a review of a preliminary plan for a major subdivision, pursuant to Chapter 13 -3, Major Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the creation of two lots for the redevelopment of the properties known as "Ever Vail" (West Lionshead), located at 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right -of- way /Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080062) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell /George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to January 26, 2009 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 7 -0 -0 Staff gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Tom Miller, representing Vail Resorts, provided a presentation including a digital model of the Frontage Road relocation as it is proposed. The model exhibited the proposed extent and height of the retaining walls, median design, and roundabout design. Page 1 s Gary Wordley, Landscape Architect, with Landworks Design, representing the applicant, discussed then presented four options that were created in response to comments and concerns provided by the Commission at the December 22 hearing. He stated that the options were not trying to solve a single issue, but were attempting to balance several elements. Within the four options Option 1 is the wall as presented previously, but formatted differently to more clearly identify wall height and the extent of the differing wall heights. Commissioner Paladino stated that she believed the information regarding the retaining walls was incorrect. i Mr. Wordley explained how the table was exhibiting the information. Commissioner Paladino stated that the portions of the distance of the relocated Frontage road without walls should be eliminated from wall calculations as it is skewing the data. i Mr. Wordley said it would be eliminated. He then went on to elaborate on Option 2 which showed a raised median per a comment made by the Commission at the December 22, hearing. He stated that raising the median will protect the plantings. There are some types of trees that won't work because over time, they won't fit in the median. He continued by describing Option 3 which looked at the possibility of eliminating the 10 -foot bike lane on the North Frontage Road. In this design there would be the CDOT required 6 -foot shoulder, but no bike lane. This would result in a 9.5 -foot area of landscaping between the wall and shoulder. Without a bike lane, there could be plantings in front of the retaining wall. In this option the retaining walls are the same height, however a foot of the base would be buried to create positive drainage thus resulting in one less foot of exposed wall height. He concluded by describing Option 4 which reduces wall heights by raising the grade of the proposed Frontage Road while maintaining the elevation of the bridge, access to the Glen Lyon Office Building (GLOB), and the elevation of the Simba Run underpass. This option eliminates all the retaining walls east of the proposed bridge and reduces the height of the walls west of the bridge with smaller portions measuring 10 to 12 feet in height. Commissioner Kurz stated the he believes there needs to be landscaping in front of the proposed walls to reduce the impact of the height. . Commissioner Pierce asked about the connection between the Frontage Road and the GLOB. Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, stated that Staff has brought some sketches which will help explain the grade changes. Commissioner Pierce stated that it would make a big difference to the height and impact of the retaining walls to raise the grade of the Frontage Road. Mr. Miller pointed out the extent of the tallest portion of retaining wall. He added that access to the GLOB and to the creek are essential. Commissioner Pierce stated that the retaining wall could get shorter if you change the access to the GLOB. Commissioner Viele stated that it was a legal requirement to keep access to the GLOB site from proposed relocated Frontage Road through the Ever Vail site. Page 2 Mr. Kassmel stated that if the GLOB access stays at existing, there is an 8% grade with straight shot to GLOB. This meets Town Code but 8% is teeper than ideal for the proposed traffic roundabout located just east of the proposed parking structure. Mr. Miller stated that Option 4 raises the road while providing access to the GLOB and adequate cross slope in the roundabout. Commissioner Tjossem asked whether raising the road will improve grades which were a concern she expressed previously with regard to the approach to the proposed Simba Run underpass. Mr. Miller stated that it does reduce the grades fo the relocated Frontage Road. Commissioner Pierce asked what the roundabout east of the proposed parking structure would serve. Mr. Miller said it is similar to the entry area to Cascade Village, where it will serve many functions of the site, including transportation center, skier drop off, shuttle drop off, etc. Commissioner Tjossem said with it being legally required to maintain access to the GLOB, would you have one access to GLOB or would the new access to the west end of the property replace the access? j Mr. Miller responded that the GLOB will have its own access exactly where it is today. Commissioner Kurz asked if this is the highest elevation the Frontage Road could be raised. Mr. Miller stated that to respond the fixed elevations of the bridge, GLOB access, and Simba j Run it was the maximum it could be raised. Mr. Kassmel then presented several exhibits which he created in response to questions and concerns raised at the December 22, hearing. His exhibits would show what Staff found if the grade of the relocated Frontage Road was raised. He stated that his exhibits solely looked at the best case scenario for design the Frontage Road with the least possible amount of retaining walls and minimal height of retaining walls. In his exhibits the walls east of the bridge could easily be removed to match the existing grade. Furthermore his exhibits showed that a large portions of the retaining walls west of the bridge could be eliminated and by locating the "hinge" point of beginning to flare the Frontage Road out to align with the future Simba Run underpass resulted in a greater distance being created between the Interstate and the Frontage Road thus allowing for the tiering of retaining walls. Commissioner Kurz asked that if the Frontage Road grade is raised, is one story taken off the buildings? Mr. Miller stated that the grades would need to be reexamined, but yes, one story could be taken off. Mr. Kassmel stated that one of the benefits of the exhibits he created was that if it works together, the roundabout will allow for ease in vehicular movement into the GLOB and proposed parking structure. Commissioner Viele asked how the Town could design a solution which impacted another entity's property? Page 3 Mr. Kassmei stated that staff was just examining all the possibilities and of course agreement from the GLOB would be necessary. Commissioner Pierce stated that in the long run, all of this could benefit all of the property owners. Mr. Miller stated that based on Tom Kassmel's drawing, the applicant has not had a chance to review and determine the impacts to the proposed redevelopment. If it is the direction from the Commission to follow Staffs suggestions they will need more time to respond. Commissioner Pierce said the Frontage Road will always be there. The design should be designed around the best alignment for the Frontage Road. In the long run, the Frontage Road will be there and will impact a great deal of the community. Commissioner Proper stated that a great deal of information was provided and that he needed time to absorb it before responding. I Commissioner Viele stated that this is a difficult discussion because he is close to GLOB ownership and on the Water District Board. He suggested that if anyone thought he should recuse he would do so. (Mr. Miller stated he did not believe a recuse was necessary) He stated that solving the Frontage Road design is paramount. He feels strongly about access to GLOB and the Simba Run underpass location. He doesn't necessarily agree with the need for a Simba Run underpass, but this is the direction he's been given. He is concerned about wall height and the effect of creating a canyon. He would like to see what Vail Resorts wants, which Tom Miller responded with Option 4. I Commissioner Kjesbo stated that as he looks at the various options he is worried about how you get the snow out of there. It does look like a canyon with 12 -13 foot high walls. If we could raise Frontage Road more, it might help. Raising the grade of the Frontage Road will help with snow removal due to the matching of grade between the Interstate and the Frontage Road. Commissioner Tjossem stated that the community would be concerned about the walls associated with underpass and feels that this was not clearly identified when it was determined that Simba Run underpass should be constructed. The community likes the openness. The underpass is causing implications that the community is not going to appreciate. She would like to know what the town council and the community would think. Mr. Kassmel added that the walls have impacts. With regard to walls, the Simba Run underpass is not causing the walls. The relocation of the Frontage Road at the proposed grade is what is causing the walls. if you did not relocate Frontage Road, you could build Simba Run with minimal walls. It would look like the underpass going to East Vail by Aspen Lane. It does have impacts to the South side, with the creek, which is why they looked at the change in location. Access to the creek and better access to GLOB is causing the walls. Commissioner Paladino stated that she believed another site visit was warranted with the greater level of understanding about the Frontage Road from the work sessions. She also stated that the Town should coordinate getting the GLOB, Vail Resorts, and Staff together to discuss the GLOB access. The DRB comments made her rethink her position. The walls make this urban. I Commissioner Kurz stated that the walls are not the big issue. He said looking at the location of the proposed buildings on the south side of the Frontage Road was his concern. The buildings are very close to the back of the sidewalk along the proposed Frontage Road design. This increases the backside feeling of the project. The canyonization is not because of the walls, but Page 4 y because of the height of the buildings in relationship to the pedestrian walkway. The dimension and width of the entire boulevard does not look enjoyable. The long frontages on the buildings, which is apparent on the 3D model, show vast lengths of building. The horizontal mass is affecting his perception, not the height. He said the only relief is straight up. The height of the roadway, the facades and the backside of the facades, all factor into his feeling of canyonization. This is not the best job we can do. We are creating practical problems with steep grades. Fire trucks will not want to have such steep grades. Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Homeowners Association, stated that he finds the terminology being used in the discussion interesting. Last time we saw a rural village was 1968, with Lionshead setting the urban tone that has not changed. We have been successful with urbanization modulating itself so it has a character without massive boxes fronting the transportation corridor. We are the most urban ski resort in the world. We will probably become more urban because we are not willing to sacrifice densities. He said he hears compromises between Town Staff and the applicant, and is glad to hear that both parties want to continue the conversation. There are ways to avoid monolithic walls, with the interstate in East Vail showing ways to sculpt walls, so the wall is not affronting. If the Simba Run underpass is not built, the community will have gridlock. We can make decisions that will make it more expensive in the future to build the Simba Run underpass but, in the future, we will be a more urban community. We need to be less selfish and go along with the givens about Simba Run underpass. If the grades can be reconciled, with heated streets, etc, the idea of a roundabout with the transportation center is essential. The thing we are not doing well is that there is no comprehensive plan for skier drop -off, mass transportation terminals. The thing that makes a city work is traffic flow. He discussed super capacity skier drop off. We are limiting our capacity to handle visitor and local traffic by not doing our jobs to recognize that we are doing a bad job at making this place work. We have to back off from selfishness about making our neighborhoods work from a traffic standpoint. Mr. Miller responded to Paladino, saying the PEC needs to go on another site visit. He said the goal is to mitigate 1 -70 for their development, and all development south. Option 1 is what VRDC wants, however, they are willing to do Option 4. Town of Vail wants no walls at all. There needs to be compromise. They have a legal obligation to GLOB to provide access. This will not.change anytime soon. Vertical or horizontal separation from 1 -70 will help the development and creek use. Commissioner Pierce asked if George Ruther, Director of Community Development, could orchestrate a meeting between VR, Town, and GLOB to discuss compromise. Commissioner Paladino asked for a cross section from the Frontage Road to East Lionshead Circle in the proximity of the bus stop. She stated that this would help her better understand what is being discussed and proposed. Commissioner Pierce stated that there is a strong commitment from the Commission to have the Frontage Road be the primary determinant. Mr. Miller said that the building heights on the west side are concerning. Staff could determine that the heights are ok, but the feeling going forward is that the building steps down. It does that currently. You are seeing bulk and mass now, but not full articulations int eh model. There is a lot of play with landscaping, per the LRMP guidelines. There is more relief than shown on the model. Greg Hall stated that if the only goal was to minimize retaining walls, there are only a few issues. However, there are several aspects which need to be balanced. There is a balance between Page 5 north /south and up /down that will work for everyone. Are any areas more important than others? If the Commission has more direction with what is most important, then let us know. Mr. Miller said VRDC said Option 1 and 2 are preferred because they have been working on it and it meets all standards. His compromise position is Option 4, but need to understand impacts of what the Town is suggesting before further comment. Commissioner Tjossem asked for some examples around Town of wall heights in relation to Frontage Road. Mr. Ruther stated that the next site visit will be very extensive. 30 Minutes 3. A request for a final review of major exterior alterations, pursuant to Section 12 -71-1-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the property known as the "North Day Lot ", with a multiple unit employee housing project, located at 600 West Lionshead Circle /Part of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080009) Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Mauriello Planning Group, LLC Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Tabled to January 26, 2009 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Palladino VOTE: 7 -0 -0 30 Minutes 4. A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulation amendments, pursuant to Section 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Section 12 -61 -8, Parking and Loading, and Chapter 12- 10, Off Street Parking and Loading, Vail Town Code, to amend parking requirements for employee housing units and to clarify the parking requirements in the Housing (H) zone district, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080067) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther ACTION: Tabled to January 26, 2009 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Palladino VOTE: 7 -0 -0 5 Minutes 5. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council to establish a new special development district, pursuant to Article 12 -9A, Special Development (SDD) District, Vail Town Code, located at 303 Gore Creek Drive, Units 7 through14 (Vail Rowhouses) /Lots 7 through 13, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080074) Applicant: Christopher Galvin, represented by K.H. Webb Architects Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to January 26, 2009 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Palladino VOTE: 7 -0 -0 5 Minutes 6. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -71-1-7, Exterior Alterations or Modifications; and requests for conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12 -7H- 2, Permitted and Conditional Uses, Basement or Garden Level; Section 12 -71-1-3, Permitted and Conditional Uses, First Floor or Street Level; 12 -71-1-4, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Second Floor and Above, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the Evergreen Lodge, with dwelling units, accommodation units, and conference facilities and meeting rooms on the basement or garden level, multi - family dwelling units, accommodation units and conference facilities and meetings rooms on the first floor or street level, and a fractional fee club on the Page 6 second floor and above, located at 250 South Frontage Road West/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080033, PEC080072) Applicant: HCT Development, represented by TJ Brink Planner: Rachel Friede ACTION: Table to February 9, 2009 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Tjossem VOTE: 7 -0 -0 7. Approval of December 22, 2008 minutes MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Palladino VOTE: 6 -0 -1 (Kjesbo abstained) 8. Information Update 9. Adjournment MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Paladino VOTE: 7 -0 -0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development 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 Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published January 9, 2009, in the Vail Daily. Page 7 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING January 7, 2009 TOWN Of VAL " Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1:00pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Mike Dantas Tom DuBois Pete Dunning Brian Gillette Libby Plante SITE VISITS 2:00pm 1. 2379 Chamonix Lot LLC, 2379 Chamonix Road I PUBLIC HEARING — TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00pm 1. Lion Square Lodge North DRB080608 / 5 Minutes Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (third floor windows) 660 Lionshead Place /Part of Lot 8, Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Applicant: Lion Square Lodge North, represented by JL Viele Construction ACTION: Approved MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Dantas VOTE: 5 -0 -0 2. Corrigan Residence DRB080616 / 20 Minutes Nicole Final review of new construction (single family residence) 2379 Chamonix Road /Lot 15, Block A, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 Applicant: 2379 Chamonix Lot LLC, represented by Blueline Architects ACTION: Approved, with conditions MOTION: Gillette SECOND: DuBois VOTE: 5 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1. The applicant shall submit, for review and approval by staff, a light fixture to replace the non- conforming light fixture referenced as the `exterior wall sconce,' illustrated on sheet A1.6 of plans date stamped December 15, 2008, with a light fixture that meets Section 14 -10 -7, Vail Town Code, prior to submittal of a Building Permit application. 2. The applicant shall revise the retaining walls within the front setback, as illustrated on sheet A1.1 of plans date stamped December 15, 2008, to not exceed 3 feet in height, within the front setback, per Section 14 -6 -7, Vail Town Code, to be reviewed and approved by Staff in conjunction with the Building Permit application. I 3. North Day Lot DRB080050 / 40 Minutes Warren Conceptual review for new construction (employee housing, skier drop -off) 600 West Lionshead Circle/Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, represented by Mauriello Planning Group ACTION: Conceptual, no vote Page 1 4 4. Ever Vail DRB080547 / 60 Minutes Warren Conceptual review of a new development (Ever Vail) 862, 923, 934, 953, and 1031 South Frontage Road West, and the South Frontage Road West right -of- way /Unplatted (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department) Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Corporation, represented by Mauriello Planning Group ACTION: Conceptual, no vote STAFF APPROVALS Valls Residence DRB080596 Nicole Final review of an addition (basement) 4552 Meadow Drive, Unit 24 (Courtside Town homes)/U n platted Applicant: Aimee & Bart Valls, represented by Ankerholz Inc Vail Sports DRB080598 Nicole Final review of a sign 675 Lionshead Place /Lot 1, Lionshead Filing 6 Applicant: Vail Sports, represented by Joe Walker Burton DRB080599 Nicole Final review of a sign 675 Lionshead Place /Lot 1, Lionshead Filing 6 Applicant: Burton, represented by Joe Walker Patagonia DRB080600 Nicole Final review of a sign 675 Lionshead Place /Lot 1, Lionshead Filing 6 Applicant: Patagonia, represented by Joe Walker O'Hara Residence DRB080601 Bill Final review of a minor exterior alteration (deck) 1711 Geneva Drive, Unit B /Lot 5 -13, Matterhorn Village Applicant: Laura & Thomas O'Hara, represented by Aaron Page Groe Residence DRB080602 Nicole Final review of a minor exterior alteration (re -roof) 5045 Main Gore Drive South /Lot 34A, Block 19, Vail Meadows Filing 1 Applicant: Jacquolyn Groe Gillette Residence DRB080603 Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (landscaping, railings, chimney) 2498 Arosa Drive /Lot 12, Block C, Vail Das Schone Applicant: Brian Gillette Vail Development DRB080605 Warren Final review of a minor exterior alteration (temporary tent) 1 Vail Road (Four Seasons) /Lots A & C, Vail Village Filing 2 Applicant: Vail Development LLC, represented by Melissa Masterson Page 2 w Kirschner Residence DRB080607 Nicole Final review of changes to approved plans (lighting) 1995 Chamonix Lane /Lot 27, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision Applicant: John Kirschner, represented by JL Viele Construction Landmark Condominiums DRB080610 Rachel Final review of a sign 610 West Lionshead Circle /Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Applicant: Landmark Condominiums, represented by Hillary McSpadden Sabbia Talenti DRB080611 Rachel Final review of a sign 30 East Meadow Drive/Tract K -L, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Sabbia Talenti, represented by Judity Winick Vail Cascade DRB080612 Nicole Final review of changes to approved plans (condenser) 1300 Westhaven Drive /Cascade Village Subdivision Applicant: Vail Cascade, represented by The Weitz Company Cahalin Residence DRB080613 Warren Final review of a minor exterior alteration (deck) 1816 Sunburst Drive /Lot 1, Tract B, Vail Valley Filing 3 Applicant: John & Ellen Cahalin, represented by Conway Builders Manor Vail DRB080615 Rachel Final review of changes to approved plans (screen wall) 595 Vail Valley Drive /Lot A, Vail Village Filing 7 Applicant: Manor Vail, represented by Zehren & Associates Millennium Bank DRB080617 Nicole Final review of a minor exterior alteration (ATM) 2111 North Frontage Road West, Suite 101 / Lot 3, Vail Das Schone Filing 3 Applicant: Millennium Bank, represented by Beth Levine Millennium Bank DRB080618 Nicole Final review of a sign 2111 North Frontage Road West, Suite 101 /Lot 3, Vail Das Schone Filing 3 Applicant: Millennium Bank, represented by Beth Levine Vail Sports DRB080621 Bill Final review of a sign 521 East Lionshead Circle, Suite 101 /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 Applicant: Vail Sports, represented by Joseph Walker One Track Mind DRB080622 Bill Final review of a sign 610 West Lionshead Circle /Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Applicant: Vail Sports, represented by Joseph Walker Page 3 F 4 Sciotto Residence DRB080623 Bill Final review of a minor exterior alteration (mechanical equipment) 380 East Lionshead Circle, Suite 410 /1-ot 7, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 Applicant: Beck Building Company The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Page 4 WJ I.%LD.01 U*A.1t 3 Ohl_ Existing South Frontage Road so w m f K � i" ! ��� � � � _ r Ezielln pppN Frontapa Np.tl R.O.W e ft T fAT r {. r Gib iiei antic � ng �� � 6c ♦_ � 1 200 Proposed 80' South Frontage Road R.O.W. M r i Proposetl south F ta0e RP d R 0 W V rF' w h.. -• � �/ 9 y T —t . N AN P " . n N r ® �L ---------- I Fee. o�.?0.09 w5 Proposed 110 South Frontage Road R.O.W. (1 A Land Exchange) ` yy X51 Ake \♦ Y 7 ' r 4, x Val .k r V.. P p aed ulM1 Froniege R. d J' T �s I G LY A . e� ♦ � eel •�..