Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973 Planning Commission Memos & Materialst~,~ box goo . pail, calora.do s~657 303.476.5613 MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: LEVIS PENNOCK _ CONDITIONAL USE PERMiT DATE: OCTOBER 12, 1973 The Planning Commission has reviewed in two separate meetings the proposal by Mr. Pennock. for installing a coin-operated laundry in the basement of the Vail 21 Building at LionsHead. Mr. Pennock has complied with all zoning and parking requirements for the-Town of Vail. and the Building Department has passed favorably on all technical aspects of his project. With this information in hand, the Planning Commission could find no problems with the proposal and recommends to the Council that the Conditional Use Permit be granted. • W'j~ a f}&i, . ._ -:.~~ ~ ~;~ y~ ~~w~3 ~ ~~~ box ~ o o nail coloradv .~ _ 8 1 fi 5 7 • 3 0 3 4 7 6. 5 6 1 3 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HF.P,RING ... ~. ~ - _ .. .- :. - ;~. ~NOTTCE IS HEREBY GIVEN TY,AT ~.evis W. Pennock has applied fora t°x' Conditional Use Permit in accordance wish Articles, l8 , Section ~- `~' ~_ 18.00 of Ordinance 8 (Series of 1973} in order to construct a Cain-operated laundry in the Vail 21 Luilding located on .a ~~ - :~ Part of -Site B, Vail Lionshead First ~`i.ling. - ~ ; # ~A-Public Hearing will be held in accordance with Section 21.4Q0 of Ordinance i1o. 8 (Series of 1973) an ~lr~t-n,~r~' ~~l i Q'1,~. at ~ •p0 p.m. in the Vail Municipal Building, Said Conditional Use Permit •~ ~ application will be heard before the Town of Vail P:lanriz~f' ' - Cbm~~~sia~ and findings wi11 be trans;nitted to the Town Council ' for the Town of Vail, . ~'O~IN F. VAIN.. .r ~ .. • .. <-.. .. ~ . :. Diana S. Toughill - Zvning Administrator . .~ / `/r JT ,, ,~1 J i• ~ , d ~ .~, _. ._ .. _~ APPLICATION TO APPEAR BEI"ORE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - . Ti~E.TOWN COUi3GIL AND/OR VAf~ PLANNING COMMISSION ~ ,: ;- _ y , :APR I i cat i on Date ~ ~~~~I~h~~P:~b~ ~.~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ g: . ~ .~ ~ ~ - .=. .::-: .. t -~:.. Hearing Date ~ ~~/.f.~,i~ // /~7~ .. Hearing Fee .~~- ~~:,~-'~fF. ~,,t ~ (Applicant _ ., ~ (Address? ~.(XE>2.b-~~ ~~~~1.!_.., Phone ~`T~~ ~.~ ~ .. - ~ '(State) (City} . do hereby request'permission tti appear before the Town Council and/or Vai! ' = P1.ann i ng Commission to request -l:he fo f !owing: ~ ~ -: . .. { ) Zoning' Change from ~ to ( ) Parking Variance ' (~ } Conditional Use Permit to al low /~ ~,~z ... , .. n ._w--- . .. ~ ~ . i n ~"~L{.JZr(.~~IrQ~.; ~~~ Zone . - ":, For the following described property: Lot ~~~'~~ Block ~~~~.. ,. Fi I'inq Number y,~„ z!.~~_;~.~.~~;;~ ~ Fir'<.7 ~~~i~~~ti; /~~«~zr,.P7~'e'~2'I ~rdCF•"~'x7 - Ordinance and Sections beil~g appealed:. Ordinance Series S CEeariy state purpose and intent of this' application ---, 7'~E aGle~S~ ~~,~:~ S~= ~r 7 ro ,Q l~ c.~ ~ ~~r.~l~-G,~fD ~/ ~ ~-~=p.Q7~e~ ~~ r ~~ What do you feel is the basis for hardship in this case? ' P • - f C_/ ' • - ~ S'gnatare of Applicant 1 IJSTRUCT I ONS : I. Form must be submitted in triplicate, and all copies must be signed. 2. A plat~map''drawn ~in tripliease to a scale at not less than 200 feet to the inch showing the land in ques~ien, ':ts location, the length and direction of each boundary thereon, '"Q lo~asion and Qxisting use of all•buildings on such land and the pr;nci~af use of all properties withi^ X00 feet of such land. If fibs appliCat;oR is for a parking variance, show parking provided, drawn to scalp and numbered to indicate the spaces. - `~ The names and addresses of the owners ai ell properties within 300 .fe©~ of any part of the land included i^ '•^~ ~~'o:a5od variance. ?~ 4. All information required by the 5~kd;~•,s~on RQgulations for preliminary plats where.applicable, 5. The •Town GOUnc i I and/or th© P I ann ~ -~ ~ Cr.'+'ni ss i on w i I I set a hearing data not rrinrca than thirty (30) da,~• {~D~ the r©ni~c,c+ ~.... -...,,sn., rh.inc;o. `. 1 u~ao of nail SOX 1D0 • VaI~, CO~OI'1E~0 $1fi57 • 303.476.5613 MEMORANDUM TO: MOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: LEVIS PENNOCK - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DATE : OCTOBER ~. 2 , 1.9 7 3 The Planning Commission has reviewed in two separate meetings the proposal by Mr. Pennock for installing a coin-operated laundry in the basement of the Vail 21 Building at LionsHead. Mr. Pennock has complied with all zoning and parking requirements for the Town of Vail and the Building Department has passed favorably on all technical aspects of his project. With this information in h-and, the Planning Commission could find no problems with the proposal and recommends to the Council that the Conditional Use Permit be granted. Xry` .. • - ~ _ ~:- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TY,AT Levis W. Pennock has applied fora _ ~ ~~? Conditional Use Permit in accordance •,aizh Articl~~ 18, Section - °4~;~' 18.400 of Ordinance 8 (Series of 1973) in order to construct a :_5 • co~.n-operated laundry in the Vail 21 building located~on.a ~ ~~ - ,:_~ Part of Site B, Vail Lionshead First tiling. ~ ~ ;~ ~A•Public Hearing will be held in accordance with Section 21.400 of Ordinance ido. 8 (Series of 1973) on 0~~-~~~r'~~~~ ~ a7~ at 2:00 p.m. in the Vail rlunicipal Building. Said Conditional Use Perma.t. •~ •• ~ application will be heard before 'the Town of Vaal ~P.lartriri - Cpmm..~i ssiofin and findings Gllll be trans;titted to the Town Council far the Town of Vail. . ~O~IN ~F. V•AI~. •. ...f •- ~-. F .. .. ~ - • ti ~ ~ ~ ~si ~ ~ ~ ~i Diana S. Toughill - ,~ Zoning Administrator ~ ~ ~• - • ~ •. W • ,.~-~ ~ 'a :~ _ ~ ~~„~~ ~..~„~: ' ~ ~ ~ Af'NL l {;A k ION Z U AI'F'EAR BEFURE ~ - ';.,; UHF TO4fN COUiJC I L AND/UR VA f i. PLANN i NG COMM I SS I OtJ :ApP 1 i cat i an Date ~ ~~ ~~P:'i..L.~~~1~.J ~~f ~~-. ,. ... ".~ x ~ ~. ='- Hearing Date ~~_,~r ./ l/ / /7 ~ .i•iaaring Fee A.~~. ~ ,~~.'~F`~ _~ ~~ ~i -~ - {Applicant r ~ (Address? ~.EL~12,.1~-J~c'~ ~! .C~.1. C.~ ~ Phone -~~~a Wiz..-~ ~EState} (City) . do hereby request permission to appear before the Town Council and/or Vail ' - Planning Commission to request the fio}lowing: ~. ~ "~ .~ ( ? Zoning- Change from - .- 'to - - ( ) Parking Variance (-.~~.}9iji~.2C.~.4-L G`crv// ~l (. Y) Conditions! iJse PerR~it to ai low ~~,~~,~'~~- For the failowing described property: Lot ~.~.~~~ Block ~~~ F i I ~i n q N umb e ~r ~-0•c !.~~ ~- ~ 1-~ ~, ;~ Fret i ,<.'~~ i~L~:::, I~~t~r4 rP7 ~ ~~ 1 ~r+-1c°~,~ y' xz. • Ordinance and Sections bei~~g appealed: Ordinance ~ Series o#_ Section(s) - Clearly state purpose and intent of this' apps ication ~--~ 7`~~ ~1-l~i~~~ f-~~'. ~~7 What do you feel is the basis for hardship in this case? . A ~ _ .. I~ - . S)/gnature OT App f I Cant ' INSTRUCTIONS: I. Form must be submitted in triplicate, and all copies must be signed. 2. A plat map~'drawn •in triplicate to a scale of not less than 200 feet to the inch showing the land in qu_s'ien, its focatipn, the length and direction of each boundary thereo', `^~' lcCBrion and existing use of all• buildings on such land and the princ;~tsi usQ of all properties withi{1 300 feet of such iand. If the application is for a parking variance, show parking provided, drawn to scald and nurbered to indicate the spaces , v The names and addresses ofi the owners a~ alt properties within 300 f©ot of any part of the land included i~ '"~ DroCos©d variance. a. Ali information required by the Suna~~'sj:.n Regulations for pr©limin~yr~' plats where .applicable. ' 3. The~Town Council and/or the P1ann`~~ {:`~^i5sion witl set a hearing _datA nrlt mnrw. than th I rtV { 30) `1'~~` " ~ rA"' the renl~acf~ ~.,.. ...., ..,.~ rh.in.ca . ' -~ -. ~`~~ j, k ~i"E - ~.t Y - x- 'w- - - r - - > >. ,d4 v n .{. -- ~, --n~• t ~ arf n~, - r- q3-~!, - '. t ~„ _ - ray e w _ i ~ r ~ ~ 't;~ -_fti~ e - "~ "fit •- ~ ~ ~,a~ '`"' s f x, ,F d-' k ,~~ -~i"' ~9` `- ~ ~ $ E~ ~*e~ ~ 4 ft~ fi ~ i .g- ~ e E % • ry ~ .!E ~ _ F'? ~ -' g - €r =f ~, x € V ~ : a ~t~~x "„'~ a{, s.'P ~. ~ w+-~S J, p `s'' ., { ~ -' a r ~.,t. ° ti~.4=aa-~~ ' -~- -~-L'~F,-- ~'H a~, _ .~ .S~ M~''~`~'$+-'~' ~"~ s i _ & ?h- ~ _-ti YY, i- rs~ ~~F ~5[ ~,~,. -`~ ~s~ _• ,aEw~3i~: 4 G i '~•r _ r _ - , ~ -~_« A -.s,` £ - _ +, s~,~C g 5 ~ r ' '~ mr 3 ; - q, _ i ~ P ~ ~- --r ~. R a~ r ~ ~ + ~ ~ _ ~ d f y`3 rL A ~ y ~ !>~}+~'~. { 3 L~ ,r „ s _}'} 4 .6+, r - ?' i - ~ _ ~6 Y ye,? -A"5. ¢ ' h = ~' ~ ~ y F ~" ~F . ~ ..ALT i s fi'~3 ~~'j?Kf7'£ 4~~+~~ .- "S _~ ~ '~_ .t~+' ~ 'i ~ r'•'.-`"`3 -~ ~~~z"-S:+,yk.~ - s 7 ~i~ ~~~ ~{-'~.,,1"'"~'~~~ ~~JfN~~~-~; ~'~_- - ~.=e3.~ t'~~~v ~ -) -, i. ~ : ~ ,~ s ~ .~b9 F~i~11G~1'i .~: ~i,~~~'~t'~. ~a- 'a',~~~~}d .1~ v~~ "~~~1.a~xy'~.~,~r .'- ~ r ~ " ~ a I`I`-~' _ ~ n ~1~~.~~~~~~- ir~{i~~ - ia~~'' ~.r - ~~' ~~~r 4Ff~iiy~e~' f 'x { eg~}4 ~ -4 a y~~,#, '~ ',~i ~ s~ ~ ~~z - ~ f c ~ ~~~ii47~~~ El~~ C VRar~~ ~ ~~.. ~S `~iT~~ ~~~~a ~~~~ ~ 3 ~ ~ - i. L ~ ~ ~ .~~~ ia~ ~~~$ ~~,t#-~lA1~ii'~~t7~1 ;~~' ~~~~~ '~~.~-'.~#`~k~#~x~~ ~i~~+~ '~ , ~, Sys x k ,~ ~ h -~ _ - _ ~ -a- g t 'AF ~ ~ - i 3. a _ frt ~ - ~ r _ .F _ -! Y - 'i -,~ _ _ _ ~ ~ 4- ~• it -h ~ _ - f t - ~ i Y 5. d - 3'-'e f G ~`~ F ,~ ~ - .,e t - ~ - C ~ ~ ~_ S x S r ~~ - ty .'~• 6 '~ sr f ~ zs r- ~ ~ ~ r ns ;gt-=. ~" j`f~ --"~ ~ - -"~_ y --'~ K _ ~ ~' -r...~~ - ~ ~ _ - x, ~ ~ --i { 'mod--+ ~.. -`~} "x~rY x+` Y~- ~~d h-~ .2,-4~.~ ~ ^`e ~`~ :1 ~' -~~~ -- a + r ~ ~ s- ~ ~ ~- a' d # -• _ - ~ _ _ to a 4 4 -'e ~.. ~ ., l''~zg".'. 'r'~< ~ --~ - -- .,. ... _ -. `.`.' A~.~,yr'yyr~.'»s, ~.~•~~ '"_- ~. _`. ;` _ :~.~.. dw.-~ ~. ~.~.~itim~'":~`.. E_3~. ..`~~.fe5.,`x,.~:~~. ~ .§`~"'gw ......'"..w~ ;.a.,es{ _ , • NOTICE OF PUBLiC HEARING .; ~. P . _., ..: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TY,AT Levis W. Pennock has applied for a ~~~~~. Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Articl:~~18, Section 1$.~DD C5f Ordinance 8 {Series off' 1973) in order to construct a ,~. coin-operated laundry in the ,Vail 21 building located'on a Part of 'Site B, Vail Lionshead First ~'zling. A~Publa.c Hearing will be held in accordance with Section 21.40D- of Ordinance i~do. 8 (Series of 1973) on ~~~-~~Pr~ ~~~ i Q7,~, at 2:00 ~ . p.m. in the Vail Municipal Building. Said Conditional Use Permit. application will be heard before "the Town of Vail Planning ' - Commission and findings will be transr.~itted to the 'Yawn Council for the Town of Vail. TOfriN .F.. VAII~~ ...f .. .. • ..:.... _ .. . ._ ~ ~_ _ .. .. ~ - f /~, ~~ ~~,~ ~~ nom. ~ ;.~ Diana S. Toughill - s Zoning Administrator ~x~f ,.: 9 ,~,=~ ~~ . ~.. y, w ,' '.- ~s • • ~ lam' C:z~~`~~ ~~- ~L~rur r~'~ 2~, G . . „ ",` ' APPLICATION TO RPPEAR BEFORE ~ ~ ~ s~ THE 70WN CO~7NC ! L AND/OR VA t 1_ l'LANiV I1~iG COMI+~ l SS 1 OiJ ~ ~" !.r _ f N App i i cat i on Date i ~ P~1..ubQ~ (,~. f Y ring Date I_~~:~t!!/ // ~y~7~ Hearing Fee _,,~1~- ~.~~'`~F,- ~;: (Applicant _ (Address) ~~DI~A~~> ,. IF. L..~ Phone ~~~ ~,~ ~~ (State) (City) . do hereby regee.st permission to appear before the Town Council and/or Vai! ' Planning Commission to request the following: -.- . { ) Zoning' Change f ram ~ to ( ) Parking Variance < ~) Conditional Use Permit t o a l low Coo't7/l~l~-2~r.~~ /•~r/ ~~ For the fa I i ow i ng described 'property : Lat ~.~.~~~ B 1 ock ~~~.. _ ~~ ~ ~ry~ Fi ping 1Vumber~ ~ >; ~ <, .,;-. ~- ~A~~ it7z; ~t;f~s:..~ ,~lL'_7 ~/L./.~c7 /~CCo.>1~1g~'1~ •~~'~ ~'iY'aG=r!G' ~.f?~ ,_, - Ordinance and Sections bei~~g appealed: Ordinance Series . af_ section(s) ~ ~ ~~ ~ - ~ ~ - Clearly state purpose and intent of Chas' appi ication '-"- 736/x' l~!l~CiQ~s~ F~;~, ' r ~_~ _ - ~ ~ . What do you feel is the basis for hardship in this case? - ~ ~~ ~ - • ~ ~ - '. . ~ ~ o . %\ ~. _ • ' S'gnature of Applicant - - . l NsTRUC7 I ales : ~ ~ ~ - ~ • 1. Form must be submitted in triplicate, and ail copies must be signed. 2. A plat map ''drawn~in triplicate to a scale of not less than 200 feet to the inch showing the land in quesi'ion, jts location, the length and direction of each boundary thereof, .re tnbefion and existing use of ali~buildings an such land and the prinCl~al use of ail properties within 3a0 feet of such land. if the applicatfGn is for a parking variance, show parking provided, drawn to scale and numbered to indicate the spaces.- . The names and addresses of the owners c' ~tl prope,rties within 30D feo~ of any part of the land included i~ "^~ ~rnCosod variance. _ 4. Ali information required by the Su>~d"~=~;nn RQ9ulations for prel imins~a°y plats where .applicable. 5. The Town Counci i and/or the Dian"'°~~ ~-o~"~ission wi I i set a heariric~ ~ f L daf'a nn-h rrinro -khan th t rtV t3()} J1'f -E ~~';.s~ -- ~3Y' ~r-S'a "y2 .~` t'c"ii~ _ 4 ~r~ - -~: t ~"3 e - 1 _ _ e ~- ~~ £_ -_ ~ - --~,. k p - - ~ adj. r - ~"~. ,F• ~ S. t r~~ rt ' .. '~"^~ 3'r : ~. ~- i $~ ;`~` x ~' t '~ ~ .3`° . u2 ~ 'wS °t.. ' },~ ~ ~ac ~1~- - -d. ~ ~ ``~ x - - ~'~`3j4'is ~ ~ ' ~` '~ 2"! '2- ~ - - _3, ,~ - x~~-- in, ~ ~ ~ xs- ~A y`x~ w"~ r'~. -~ z ~ =a s' - s• `~- ~ Zs ;°~a '~ - 3 F~ '{ _ L-- ~ ~+~«~&- - kA M. ~e~- ~'r ~a -)_ ,~v -# a Y't ,'~~~ '~j rr..~ # ~t 1 r ~ ~ _z 5 i 3a~ ~ ~ "~ :~ ±~t.t.E~ ~ !7 ~ -Yk$ ~_ _- ~ 1„ ~. ~_.!@'~~u`,~',p+.t,~ - r` -, 'a~~i ~ A L ~i~' 3 ~'~ _~Y: "~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ipy - - ~' -'tea - gas '3'~T #~ ix = i.~ '3bt- ~rr1Y - -- S~ T. ~ n"~~~ ~..cN~,r 4 - ,~ w3' ..F ~-~~ -xa ~ - sb°( ~ --a ~__ kt -~~~ ~-, `~~ ~ eft y- .~ ~~ ~, ; '~'fR _ ~."w -~# x,~ ~ ~ta~'-,yw } ~ ~-° ~- ~ ~~x + e .a. ~~ --, F ` `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~~ `~ ,mow sh ~ -!_ A'r : ~ "~ -+ri ^"_`~`~~ -~±f ~~k4~ '.~ fi -S' ;' 4 ~.~ t `~ - ~ - - ~~ _ Y - ''S,~ a ~ - -y" - s < ~ -L " ~4 ? ~ , > ,; ,~ ._, ,mss _ '~ f +r - ~ ~. -~' .} 3. di S g ~ ~3-_~ ~'~'~° ~ -i :e - 'F' q `./y n -may yid "~+g~ - ~~' ~ ` ~ ~~ ~ ~~. i~ - ~~~ Sy` A 1 :';K' ' ~~ P ~ "lEph ~'~ ~t.~i `~~~~5!C. -fit i+~-~~~1~~ -•~i7S si z ~". ~ k t- ~'r y ~~ - - ~ _ - -- ' ~.. ~- - ~ _ _ i _ i - W ~ #,~, r ~ ~ -- # -- ~ - r ,,fib -. { ~ x'4'3 ~~~ ~ A1~. s ~~~~~! -~'~ a ~ - h ~ - _ ~. '~` _ k - -x+ ° w t -, -- w~~ -' ~~~y "~~~t[~~~ ~F ~ ~P~ aR?~~e~",j~~ f~~~p .y d4~~ ~~ i. ~sf F ~ ~` .fir. S3$ _ .~ 1 _ .fig R `.t ~ 2 ~~f -~ - t? _ ~. ~ . t `~ x .~ ~ ~ fir- ~~_~~ _ - - : ---; - - - - _-~~ { - t '> 4 ~. 1-- ~ -a~- ,y - ,y ~ •'~ -~ ~sy "~ _ !. ••_ • ~ - ~ ~- ~~~ - ~ ~ ~ - ~ - - ~ - - ~ ,'l ~d Wla-' ~ of +7_ ~~~.. ~'' - ` ~ ~ ~r '~ ~~tiii'~5~~- y ~ - ~#> ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~'fi ~ 3 • ~`~'~~~ -_ ih - -+Rr ,,a=a .~#r~ ~.t - ~ e a ~ a ~ ak -~ _ :; ~¢~~$.~r. ~ '• _ # ,-' ~';sex - < y~ n - f- : ~ f a'. ~;, ~' t~s:~ ~ + ~~_ 8^"'i+Lr ~ -- - }< - "- --° F r+TS~ p3. ~ 1 ~- i~;: ~ ~Y h'4 S ilS ~~ 33`f~i"+~+ - ~ ~ s ~ - - _-' ~'_ r ~ Y %z rs - - € fit'"-.3 '- ' - -'r ~. - - -~-L~` _ v a~ ~~ - -x.- ~~ __ ~~` - ~ ~_' f -fir '"_~. -~~. ,r ~,.E _ k- -r..s *~'~-„~ a '~ ~t -,} - i.~ ...sz~5. s.: ~_..x.. a_r_~.:e:_, _ ~ 4,.,.~~a,.s~,uR:s•~._-~`~~``~,~_,'.,"x~~-n~~~'fL"`i?S>a ~a'~a$::-'~~'~.~ -~=v~:ar - -`~-~';, 4 $ ~Mpy~ ~ { ~ ~ gyyJ_ - - r - :~ ~ ~ +~'~ ~+'is '€ s- ~, ~ y; ~ k ~~ - a ,, t~ F ~ c~ S~F ss ,z' ~ _ ~' ~ - ' ~ Wit- ~ '3 _•'z- -~ ~ :` r t - ? ~`S ' ~z~ c ~' r - ~~ - ~ ,.~, ~ -~ ~ a ,~r1 s _ _ ~ - ~_ - _ _ a _ _ -- _ r `~ - ~ t` ~ ~~ - ~ - .' - ..~ - _~, _ Via. "$ c _ $ _ g ~ ~ - ->' -~- ~ a ~~ ~~ ~ < ~ ~ C xz ~~ e -f ~ , ~~W~_ w - 5 ~. ~~- ~~~~ - z `~ § S- 'cue. < _ '7 - 1 -- ~` g :~ ~~ y _ z -rb i -, ti ~ _, ~ ?#~~ -< _ - 's_.b ~,5 - '}6 an ~ ''i>:~s -'-.Arcx-~~~¢ ~ x- x~ ~- ~- w _ _ ~--# "f'~ -L t-~ - y[ s~ 'Y .~ ~- z -• .a ^~ 13i ~ i.~ - ~ -- .£". S s 'k'}~ e~!~-"}` "~s ~ ~ - ~$ ~ +~ "°`- ~ ga ~ '~F{ s"a-g-,.an ~ p - '~`/~~rK ~' +y~l~yjy}y, - jay] ~Y - - ~ ~"iY' iF7L~tv.~~ ~ 3 -F .,:e ~' y e ~ f-~ - ~ - ~ - L fish T ~(~, M-~y~ ~' " ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~„ yp~p~yp~ yy~ 7 ~ Z.. J~ £. - <; fty p ~ ~ _ -1~ 3v ,~ ra d ,~ 4~~ - 3' '. -- ~~~ _ ': ~~~ ~~ ~~ iRt ~'c8 r -' r _ ~ .r ~ 2, i rs ~a ~ ,f _.. £ - MST ~ ~!` ~ 3 I ~ ; g ~ t is K 't t+-,;~~~r-~~__ ~ 111E ~ ~h~ ~~ ~ _ _ w~~~~,-q_ E~q`'p. y,.~ ~y~] ~-~~ ~' ~ - ~ - s s _ ~ _ ~ ~ Vj~,rJy~¢~j. _ - ~~ 7 { '~ ~aT~F-y..k i,'~.~t~~~R~~ti~~'=t~ L~~~s ~ - --. s }~ ~r ~ ~`F A - Y ,~ Lp ~.y{. - i (y~•~S ~, ~.~ r ~ „~ ~' -'i" - C - r i _--_ ~p [[LYYa - :~rd~~ ~ ~ E'er- z,~i - ~i~ -' r~ y„ y .r ~ ~s t _ ~_ # - - ~~~ ~ M~11~ V 9 i -p L .: ~~ _ ~§ ~'w" ~ 3- ~ -- S ~ ' ~ -t- - #b. ~_'_ ?-~ `~^~+ 6 f4 ` i5 _ `~ ~_ ~~ $ -~ti< ~r ~II q y 4' {~-_y~~ x•(~",S h ~ _ _ ~ s ` 9~ - a~`~.~3 ~~ - ~'~ ~~ `4 y~~`y~~Q&f'~y ~" d - - ,+. - ~ - - $-E. R {~"3 •~~YM.j ~M ~ ~ ~ s ~~~ - ~ 'F ~~ -_ ~~~~~ ,- -..ry ~~~,p~> ~~6 .YcY ~`'~ ~ ~ u. ~•Y` ~ - _ [y~~ (~y~ /~ {Q (yam, (,]$~ ~g ~ !Q~ ~"~~ ~ - • q.,'y-,i #_ - ~ ~*~ ...J~~~TI~1Lai il~~~JR~~ ~~'.G~ ~ S^~ - --- - -k':~,~~.~t ..2 .N` X_- '-r ~ ~ 3+,c-__ -.t~~~• - - ~ ~i yam,'.. - - - - f .a - ~~4 > :+`S { .nzr :.'~z° " ~ ~ S a?~-~" ~ ~, y ~ L` ~ *T ~ „~~ 1.1 se a'o4 zi~L S.• r.~..: ~.' - ~ mss. --~,^ ~r ~ ~-~" 'V~ ~.~. ~ '"y ~Y!~ss - ~_-"~' "~#L, t~rs& ~a ~...f ~ ~,- _ - ;as ~ _ ~ .- ~ *-, - ~'A`' ~ S _ !' - - _ ~S ~ - a - _, a~~~ *~ _ - '- - --, ~ '~ - 5is ~' t ~ .45' -' . w ~Y P -i ~ - ;mow ~ r ~- y ~ ~,- ~ ~,' - ~ V ~ - ~' a 1y - Aa - -gyp ~` ~ ~ ,~> ~ _', f -=~~,~ ~F` ~~ ~ - $~t ~~ ~ -~_ ~a'~~ K «F4~~ ' ~ i ~-, -' ~ a+ ~ ~~ f .S~ ' ~~ ~_ _ y'a e- "'~ ~ '3' GF- 2' ~/ a --Y-x's, ~1" ,{- ~ - .}t s'~~ z ' '~-- .~ +' -- x _~~ s -~ - +~ Y x i -"~ r.. '~~; ~~y ~5 ~.~ ti - a;x - _- ~ A~'~.'p' -: rah-~ _~~, ~ ~ ~~, . \~ . .._. _ - NOTICE 0F` PUBLIC HEP,RING ~ -. ~r; ; •NOTICE IS HERP:BY GIVEN TP,AT Levis W. Pennock has applied far a _ ~~~5 Condi-tianal Use Permit in accordance wish Articl:~, 18, Section - ~ ~``<~ 18.400 of Ordinance 8 (Series of 1973) in order to construct a ~~~~ coin-operated laundry in the .Vail 21 building located on a ~ - .=~ Part of 'Site B, Vail Lionshead First Filing. ~ ~A'Public Hearing will be held in accordance with Section 21.400 - '~> of Ordinance t1o. 8 (Series of 1973} on [~~t~~~r~~~~,i ~ ~~~, at 2:00 p.m. in the Vail municipal Building. Said Conditional Use Permit, ~~ •. •~ application will be heard before the ;owxi of Vail 3?lan.n,~:r~'~ ' Co'iw~:ssio~ and findings will be trans:^.ififi~d to the Town Council ' for the Town of Vail. ' LOGIN •F. V•AI~. •, -f .: : •• _..:. .. .. . ~ ~_ ' ~ ~ •'s Diana S. Toughill :~ ~ Zoning Adrninzstrator ~ ~ ;r._..,.W ~' • - ~,~ ~'_ s..~~~ - - ~. IF • • ~ `~ •• I ~ .~ • S f . .~ ~~ J ~~. ~, . ' . E APPLICATION TO APPEAR BEFORE - ~ ~ - 7NE TOWN COUNC ! L AND/OR VA I L PLANK l NG COMM I S5 I Old ~~~,~' ;- i ca~-i on Date ~'~ ~~fv~P.2.[.tb~ ~.~~~ ~ _ - - r r- i ~r g Gate ~ ~ .~ ~ _ /. ~ ~~/ /I 1 c 7 ~ - ,~ ~ .R~ ~ - ,~~' - .:. _ ~ ~ ~ Fiearrng Fee .'~~• _`,~.~...,. ~ =. ~~~~~(~ I i cant _ . ; (Address3 . ~~,~. U Phone ~~~, ~•?,.~ (State). (City) do hereby request permission to appear before the Town Cauncif and/or Vai.i ` Planning Commission to request the following: ~ - . ~. { } Zoning' Change tram - to - ( ) Parking Variance ' . - (Y) Conditional Dse Permit to a! Iow ~~~~`~~~ ~~° l~ . .. ~ - ~ i n ~./>~ ~-~~C.~~. ~.Y~'~ ~ Zone . " For- the fof lowi--n~~g describedproperty: Lot ~~~~~ Block ~~J~ ' .~,,1~f c~ Sry~ r`~ ,.., . Fi I'in Number ~~ ~; <- ~ -~ ~ - Sl ~.1 /! ~ r`~ t- ~, t ' f- f., "~ ~/ G' _ l f-/(-. /.~~'~ ~ ~~L' ~C~Ic°1; P'7 ~ 2' ~ f r~ C F" }~,f >' ~' - Ordinance and Sections being appEaled:. Ordinance Series . ofi• Sectian(s7 ~ .. Clearly stare purpose and intent of this' application ~-~-~ T~~ ~uea~~~ ~-~,~ ~I~,a~ What da you feel is the >~asis for hardship in th-is case? !i~ 1 ~/L,~-~',~~,Q ~/ ~'" .L.4C1is~,e~`~~./J-~i~i7l~ ~ /.C./ ~~.hrL.~S ,c~~~. __ _. _ • ~ •... • 1 - . . _ .~ S' gnature ox App 1 i cant INSTRUCTfONS: ~ - - I. Form must be submitted in triplicate, and all copies must be signed. 2. A plat map ''drawn •in triplicate to a scale of not less than 200 feet to the inch showing the land in ques'ion, its location, the length and direr#ion of each boundary thereof, '^Q lacat;on and existing use of all•buildings on such land and the pr~nc~aal use of all properties with;rs 300 feet of such land. If the applicasion is for a parking variance, show parking provided, drawn to scalQ aid nunb9red to indicate the ;P spaces.• The names and addresses of the owners cf.all properties within 300 feot ~ in .~v Grp of any part of the land included Gospd variance. 4. All information reouired by the Suda+4~iS:'on RoBulations for pratimin~~ry plats where applicable. ~9 5• The •Town Counci 1 and/or thv P1en^'~`~ Cerr~ission wi l i set a hearing ~,..,~.F.,_,_.~_,..,__dRtfl not mnra thin th l rtY ~ q r©nf,A~+ . s,... VarlanCL' Hearing Thu-?"S.~,Oct. ~~ I. Deve1aper Aresentation - J.C. A. History of devel opment of Lion ~ yrare 1. Time frame - ph. z,~L and z><T 2. What total facility includes 3. Lzon Square designed to be L~;onsHead`s premier facility-anchor of community activity a. Lion Square is and will continue to be largely responsible far current. LionsHead success ~- particu1arly summer activity. B. Original Concept of Llan Square 1, LionsHead Gondola/L1on Square combfned facility a. Unsuccessful experience over past . 2 years - School - Theatre 2. Development of noise problem from gondola aperatY~on a. Probable daily operation of gondola during summer .. el ~mlates meeting space C. EmpFiasr"z e. un~''que si'tuat-t~on 7. Desfgned Lion Square to combine Lion Square- LiartsHead fact1lities. TFtis bias nat worfced a. ~n fact, this issue discussed in land purchase contract 2. Design of Lfon Square 1=ac~''l ity such that proposed plan fits perfectly: a. Ease of access by guests 6. Kitc~ien adjacent c. Good entrance, exits d. Central location e. iVa%fiing visible from ground level - no structure change v~ • D. Reiteration of expected economic impact and acceptability on part of LionsHead community II. Operations Aresentation - W.K. A. Analysis.of last winter's parking 1. Presentation of total occupancy - approximately 55~ over season 2. Group/bus use - figures on separate sheet a. These figures demonstrate scope of use of transportation not requiring parking spaces. 3. Presentation of general village statistics - attach.ed 4. Point out: Garage never available for ',_,.~~`~, vSQ- B. Analysis of summer experience 1. Mostly combination of individuals and groups - approximately 5Q% bus use 6y groups 2. Lion Square was at capacity tFtree times a. June 2~-30: Lincoln National Life - `: all cars; lot fu]1, no problems. Garage no open 6. Ju1jr 19-23: Amery/can Medical Center -_ all 6us transportation c. Bnai~ Brit Ft - Center for Management and Techn~''ca7 Training - Aug, 16~-19: host cars9 one .bus: lot not full 3, piscuss summer market. a. Large lodge must have groups - cannot f~111 otherw-t~se _~. b. Approximately 50l utilization of buses by groups c. Lfon Square will not pick up substantial drop~in business, as Koliday Tnn. QrapFins mean cars, we don`t get them d. Reiterate necessary group orientation of large lodge C. Current Season anal sis y 1. Expected $0~ occupancy during winter season -' • 2. Cite peak periods, present percentage of group business 3. Relate village statistics on rental cars ~. Overall Factors 1. Certainly ample parking adjacent 2. Predominance of condominium operations- ~ OJr Z .~. r n 1.a. cr W~. ~ u~6 ~' 4 sw C ?~ p esC.~ ~. c.y C ~: ~) ~ ~~ a. Combined with more-than-adequate parking equals less pressure on public/ adjacent par[cing 3. Past and projected under-utilization of par[ci'ng now provided 4. As alreddy mentioned, limited appal of ,_ Lion Square to drop-in traffic 5. City and valley bussing programs as planned will aslo feelp in reducing overall parkx"ng pressures throughout area a. Plans of new parking garage and transpvration desi:nged in this direction 6. ~[ith respect to meeting space added, it will certainly be primarily for in-house use. No additional traffics sf~oul d be inval ved except that already required for lodging units ~. Li'on Scll~are already demonstrates a significant. economic impact on the LionsHead community 1. Summers: because of lack of` full-service lodging facilities, summer occupancy has bean, and will continue to be, very discouraging for the 1~ionsHead area as a whole 2. Past experience and future projections strongly indicate need for increased summer and winter iow~-season activity a. Evidence this past summer 6 , lack of service 1 odges planned for area c. Nlar~et far individuals limited - we. must encourage groups d. Certainly all Lions~ead business people will support an effort to increase overall activity a. This is our goal ~- and it can be achi sued with tFie proposed change f. Overall vai_1 community impact will b positive ~_ Y,, °.-;^ F. Sales and MarEceti ng 1. Individual vs. group markets a. we can attract groups with quality facilities 2. Demand for quality facilities - reflection on entire town a , we al 1 know of problems tftat Rave arisen in this area 3. lion- Square has Van's only true full time salespersan a. lion 5gware has demonstrated success C.o~S~~eur in selling - but need product to ~sell-- 6. Overall positive impact on economics of town c. Certainly in interest of town to assist in development of quality group faci-l~ties - now lac[c~t°ng at li.onsead G. finally, variance purpose 1. recognize difficulty of parking question a. No set answers 2. Suggest ~''n. interum that each case be decided an its individual merits a. No precedent setting required. East case an its awe 3. Request, in interest of fairness and our ai3i1 ~''ty to demonstrate a positive impact on lt''onsE~ead and entire community, - a timely approval of proposed plans ~; l~ lnavl. b„y~'~.w ~u~hf- ~--~2 aa~f wu~~. ~G ht,t.c~~ IIF. Architect Presentation - J.E, wa~~ t~ ~r.•.c~.. ~~~,,,~,~,~~~,~ A. Site plan 1. Detai_1 existing par[cing - 131 spaces B'. P7 oor plan of praposed- garage. change - reduce 11 s-paces C. Rendering of proposed area. ~.- • '72 - '73 Season Thanksgiving weekend: 4 nits- 8Q% bus use Dec.15-Jan.S: ~ost1y individual car use - 99% booked - no problems Jan.7-14: 2D% building booked with group - bus use Jan.18-2i: 40% building booked with group bus use Jan.37-Feb.4: 40% building booked with group bus use. Fe6.17-24: 30% building 6aoked~~wi.th group - bus use March 17-3Q: 5p% building booked with group - R il bus use pr : 0~ rented space, 50% to groups - bus use ' T3 - '''74Season hlov'.21~f1ov.25: 95% boil-ding booked with group - bus use f~ov.28-Dec.2: 25% building booked with group - bus use Dec.7~Dec.14: 75% building hooked with group - bus use Dec.15-Jan.S: 20% 6uildi,ng booked with group- bus use Jan.5-i2: 40% building booked with group - blaS USe Jan.24-Feb.2: 90% building booked with group - 6us use Fe6.2-~~6.9: 1a0% building booked with group - 50l bus use Feb.9-Fe6.23: 85% building booked with group - bus use ,~. ~' • Feb.23~March 2; March 2-30: Marcb 30-Aril 6: April 6-21: 75~ building booked - 90q bus use by group 60% 6uiiding booked - 90q bus use by groups 50~ building,booked - 100% bus use by groups 5°6 bu$1 ding 6aoked - fius use ._ ~ • • ..- t.a Current Par[cinq aequirement, 173 Phase T r.y~ 1. 18 2 bedr. @ 997 ft. 18 x 1~ ~1~ ',/ 2. 9 3 bedr. @ 997 ft. 9 x 296 ft. 4 x .7~1! 13, y~~ 7~/'(• `~ f P P ~P~ia~e 'TF 1 . 2 1 bedr. @ 514 f.t. 2 x l .0rq 2 • ° ~~ 2. 2 Z 5ed.r. @ 710 f.t. 2 x .1 .2[ 2.`~~- 3. 6 2 bedr. @ 1101 ft. 6 x l .6u 1 1-8-' ~• ~ ~ . 4 . 2 3 bedr . @ l 101 f t , ~ ~, ~ . &~ 1 3 -~ ~= .... 19~ ~t.. z as .i .~ 1 .P.hase ~1; FI ~rz q~j a x I. 7~ 9 .~ , :~"~ B 1 . 10 2 5edr. @ 4.95 f.t. l0 x .1=:-5" ~ ~r ~y, i ~~`' ~~ y~:s ~7, ~~~~ 2. l6 1 bedr. ~ @ .593 ft. 16 x l .d~~-~ lQ 3. 3l ~iotel•:units @ 312 ft. 31 x .7/.~.. 22 . ~ ~/ .,4ddit~"onal ~ r~ ~ , a. ~.~< 1 1. Restaurant 100 seats 1.0 x 10 10 ~~ 2. CCgC Offices 1277 ft 4~ ~ ~ ~ 3. Alpine Offl'c 1277 ft 4 ~ ~ '~' ~` Total ~~r, Less 2.5~ -~ Vet Total ~~'2'°` ~~~ ~~. Total Prov~~ded: l3l • Previous Parking Requirments 1972 Phase I 18 2 bedr. @ 997 ft. 18 x 1.25 22 9 3 bedr. @ 1293 ft. 9 x 1.5 i4 Phase ~IT 2 1 bedr. @ 519 ft. 2 x 1 2 2 2 bedr. @ 710 ft. 2 x 1.25 2 6 2 bedr. @ 1101 ft. 6 x 1.5 9 2 3 bedr. @ 1299 ft 2 x 1.5 3 Phase III 10 2 6ed.r. @ 995 ft. 10 x .1.25 13 16 1 bedr. ~ C~ 593 ft. 16 x 1 16 31 hotel @ 312 ft. 33 x i 31 Additi onal Restaurant 6 CCDC Office 3 Alpine Offt°ce 3 ' Total: i2~ Total Prov~"ded: 131 i =~ ~r y,~ 1 ~IOt'!n OP V111 IJOX '!UO vaii, colarado 8i6S7 303.47$•5fi73 MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: VAIL PLANNING COMMTSSION RE: PENDING PARKING VARIANCES - COMMERCIAL CORE I DATE: OCTOBER 19, 1973 BACKGROUND The Planning Comnnission has become quite concerned about the increasing influx of variance requests from individuals and busa~nesses in the Commexcial Core T zone. Variances to be resolved inc~.ude the following existing and proposed situations: 1. Red Lion - expansion requiring additional parking; ~ 2. Slifer Building - expansion and added use requiring additional parking; 3. Schober Building -- expansion requiring additional parking; 4. The S~.ope - expansion and change of use requiring additional parking; 5. The Patio - proposed change of use from residen~;ial to commerical requiring additional parking; 6. Lions Square - proposed change of use eliminating parking; 7. The Riverhause - proposed change of use from residential to commercial requiring additional parking. i • MEMORANDUM TO: TO~YN COUNC x L _~_ October 19, 1973 In addition to the above, the Commission understands that lodging rooms at Pension Isabel. are being offered for rent as office space. Certainly, this constitutes a drastic change of use involving parking requirements, etc.; yet, to the Commission's knowledge, the Town has not formally been notified about it. Finally, word of mouth reports indicate other contemplated changes which will be generating variance requests of one sort or another. THE PROBLEM The Commission feels that the questions of increased parking requirements, changes in traffic pressure, the purchase of spaces in the parking structure, method of payment, pedestrian core, etc., in regard to these requests, are secondary to the central. issue being raised, --- CHANGE OF USE. The new zoning ordinance appears to have left a void in the area of guidelines on haw to deal with change of use proposals in the Town. The significance here is that the core area could conceivably become totally commercial in character, as compared with i_ts rather pleasant mixture of lodging, residential, and commercial.. Because of the mounting pressure through variance requests, the Planning Commission feels that this Change of Use problem must be addressed and resolved with all possible speed. RECO~~MENDAT I ONS The Planning Commission would like to make the following recom- mendations to the Town Council: Burdick, Riley, Schober, Slifer:--- That the variance requests from this group be dealt with under some ~Corumla relating to the purchase of spaces in the parking structure. Each has gone through at least a minimal negotiating rrocess on the matter and representations have been made to each that the spaces could be purchased. That the cost per space be set at a figure not to exceed $3,500.00. • .~ ,. MEMOF~ANDUM T0: '~ TOWN COUNCIT~ -3- October 19, 1973 That the terms of purchase involve the following: 1. The issuance to the Tawn of Vail. of a Second Deed of Trust on the property ire question to secure the Note; 2. A ten-year note carrying interest at the rate of 8o per annum; but with a minimum payment of $1.,000.00 per year. The Commission discussed the method of payment at great length. Choices ranged from the extremes of requiring a total. cash p~.yment before the issuance of a Building Permit, to allowing payment over 20 years on a non-interest bearing note. A reason- able middle ground ap}~eared to be the best approach. Because of the small amount that may be due where a few number of spaces is involved, the $1,000.00 yearly minimum is suggested. 90-Day Interim Period: That a ninety-day period, effective immediately, bet set during which no variances of any kind be entertained by the Planning Conunission or Town Council for Commercial, Care I zone. During this time, the Council, with the assistance of the }Manners and the Planning Commission, should come to grips with this Change of Use problem and formulate guidelines for handling it. Basic to the issue should be ob,~ectives and goals for the total. future character of the core area. Patio Restaurant Variance Request: That this request not be acted upon until after the 90-day periad. This request, in particular, is of key impaxtance since it involves the change of residential space into a restaurant.. Since neither the Planning commission nor the Design Review Board has reviewed plans ox proposals on the matter, it is fcl.t that the request should not be considered until after the Council has resolved the problem. Pension Isabel: That the Town Staff be directed to investigate the situation of lodge moms being offered for rent as offices. If this is i.tz .fact the case, the owners should be notified about taking the appropriate procedural steps to comply with the Zoning Ordinance. :.1. ~r '"~`~ APPLICATION TO APPEAR BEFORE TyE l"OWI,I C01Jt•lG I t ANO/OR VA I t i'tRi~'~ I NG C ~I'~iM111 5S I Oi3 ~, ~.. ""° "~ .l ication Date ~~ rate ". ~~~~~~~ Hearing Fee ~f~°~~ . f Hearing 4 ~~ (Applicant (Address? ~°a .( ~, Phone ~ .,~ -.- (State) do hereby request p Planning Commission { ? (•~'3 (City) ermission to appear before the Town Council and/ar.,Vai to re-quest the following: • Zoning Chance from to ~ • Parking Variance 'c'onditional Use Permit to allow . • ' ~ '• ~ . i n ~ ~ ~ ~ Zone'. F-or the following described' property:- Lot ~ ~ ~ , Block- ~ - F i l i n a~ N u m b e r ... _._ .. .. -- --- -- -- ----- Ordinance and Sections being appealed: Ordinance' Series r l y •s~tat~purpose' and i ritent of ~'h i s app l i cat i on ,, ~ ~:.. :,~R"~ .,,,._,. ~- ~ ~ - ~~.3~~8 ~ ~ ~~ ~~_ ~~.~~~"~ ~ ';~ ire f. _ What do you feel is the basis far hardship in this' case? •. ~ 1 `_,v ~"'"w°°-~~°`° e`er` 1 ~, ~~~ °`~.~ Signature of R pi icant E M1f ~i '!" f1,J C T I O N S t, Form must be submitted in tripiicat and all copies must be signed. 2. A ~p I at map drawn i'n trip 1 i ate to sca I e of not ' 1 ess than 200 •feet -1-0 t.h© inch showing the land i question, its location, the length and' , direction of e'~ch boundary hereo,, the_ loca~ion•and,existing. use of , mot.,,- al! bui Idirigs •on such' land a. d t e principal use of al I properties within 3i30.feef of. s:u,ch Eanci,~ if th p•Iica.ti6n•-is••f~or a park'Png~varian•ce, ..~•show parking .pr:ovi ded~,, drawn o sca-1•e and num~bered• to ~indi~cat.e t11e .• • ~, Tt,e names antl•addresses of the wners of all properties within 300 feet of any part of the land inclU e i~ the proposed variance. 4, Ail information required by tie ubdivision Regulations for preliminary plats where applicable. 5,~ The Town Caunc i 1 and/or the ' 6 ann ~ ng Comm's ss i on w`i I 1 -set a -~-ear i neg'~~`~ -~' date not more than thirty ( 0? dati from the request for zoning chanee, application for pari<in5 variance o conditional use permit. .~:~., Not Icss than fifteen (l5? days pri r to the date set for the hearing, the h~3ring authority shall cause a copy of a notice of the time and i ~~~~~: of s~sGh hear: ng to ~ e pub i i shy: once i n a ne~.~rspaper of cor~era I • circulation in the County a4 Eragle. '1I1 property owners in (3) above snail be notified of sal applicr3l'ion and hearing, F. r g~K 4 k, - - . ,. --....,..., w.- Fem.:. -.,...>._ .,..- .. ,..., ,. ._..~... w ....a .._ ~ , ~ ... ,..-.. i_.M -- - ' ... ,x..., r_., : .... n_.. 1 `~,.,, ~ _ ~~ - ~. .~ • ' .. ~ ' .. .. .. f ~ - ' f~fl7lCk 1 ti~:R1;i~Y G!V>N ~!'t~~•r• Ltaty,~u~sr°~ t_'t"~9, ~"~r~f's~~r.ati~r~ f~=r~.; . ~~{~ f i ~:;! scar ~ ~~r-k 1 t1~ v~r° f r~r~c~~ i ~ ~scr_ordt~~nce b~ i •t~tZ •~~c~ i c~s~~ . f~-.2C1Q ~anc~ '}9.2~+~ af' Ursa{n~n~~ ~ (~E;r~i~~s cif #97:i) Brs ae°r~~r f~~ 8{ tntit CC]rti`a'f'f E1C`f IG~fI of ~ cc~rsfpr+~nc;~ ~rtd mcs~i'lsgr~ €sci t I~1•V ~~-.~~- . ;~i~c~ of _~~4~t~1 ve t t:l} ~~,>xi~tii~ ~~;r"ktn~ ~~~r~s~:~~ frr ur~c~r-;r~cZr'os.~s~c3 - ~ A t'ui~ f i c: Fi~ari rig 'sr i ! f taca f~~ 6 d t n ~a~c~,orc~~rscc ~•~ 1 ~"'~ S~c~ ~ cart "l.. i . ~bC)~ of Orc~ir7t,nc~ tars, t3 t5€?rt~~ «f 1~37.a3 an ~ c~b~r 2~. i~~ ~•~ ~:(3~ . •• p.r~. ln. Ets~: Vii i~.f~~tsi~fr:I~~i t;irf idlr3cr„ ~ ~~ri~rE~c~ ~~pt>i }~~-tic~r~ ~ vrl• i I bey f~e€~rd :fsrafc~r~~ ~~~~ ~a~vn of V~) 1 ~~iat~r?In ~cas~snl~~3c~n ~n~ ~ . . • - f i nd i n~a~ viii ! ~ ~a tt°z~n~rEi Stec; fio ilre 7o>~n Ca~us~~ i i far ~ts€~ "i°Qws~ ' - ca{ Vat.! . • . - .: ~ _.. - • - ,~ - Dlrsn~ S. Tta~€nht 1 f .. "l..an i sir Adrrs! n i s~-r~t:as° .. - ..' ~I ~ ~ ~. . - .. ~ - ~~~~ . /, a '~ 7 '~ ,r . ,~ . ,..,,.,. a-. -,.y ,'~. '_. ,.v.,-., -yv:x x. r al..nno.. xr Y"str,'•~" -..:? ~'^'".- _ . ~, - ,:~J:%~~ ~ ~, ::r~-., n ,q;,r..t"s+,. ~ r . ~ .. • MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PARKTNG VARIANCE FOR DENTIST'S OFFICE. IN PENS-ION ISABEL DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 1973 BACKGROUND: A Dr. Peter Wells has rented one lodge room from Manfred Schober in the Pension Isabel. Work is underway to.conwert this room to a dentist's office. For one reason ar another, no building permit had been applied for or issued on this project as of the Commission's meeting Thursday, November J.st. Furthermore°, the Town had :not been advised of the change of use (and attendant parking,requi~e- ment) which this situation involves. 'The Build`i~ig Department indicates that one additional parking space is required for the creation of D r. We1],s' dentist office in phis building: CURRENT STATUS: The Building Department has stopped work on the project because of the lack of supporting permits, etc. Dr. Wells came to the Planning Commission November ist to request that he be able to purchase an additional space under the same forumla as Burdick, Slifer, Riley, etc., to satisfy his parking requirement. The Commission advised Dr. Wells and-his attorney that `a_letter' of recommendation would be written to the Tawn Council for its next meeting. • . . . _ .. . _ .: ,:. ... _. i RECOMMENDATIONS: The Planning Commission recommends to tine Council that Dr.. Wells' request for a parking vara.ance be tabled until some. decisions have been reached in regard to the Change of 'Use problem outlined in the Commission's memorandum to the Council dated October 19, 1-:973. There are a number of supporting thoughts behind this recommendation. First, no building permit has been issued and tlae Design Review Board and. the Planning Commiss~..gn have not had the opportunity to review the project. Hence, a here are girounds for tabling a decision based on simple`la~k o,f procedural compliance by Dr. Wells. Second, there is some thought on .the part of the Coti~mission that this particular use may not b.e desirable for the core area of the Town because of the increased trai'fic 'which ~:'~ would create. Thix°d, this case directly. involves a change of use from a lodging room t_o a professional office. It is the topic upppermost in the Plann~.ng Commission's mind as ome which should be studied and decided upon by the Council before' any further, variances are granted. DS/nmm w ++ .~ MEMORANDUM • • TO: FROM: RE DATE: TOWN COUNCTL VAIL PLANNTNG COMMISSION PARKING VARIANCE REQUEST AT LIONS SQUARE NOVEMBER 5, 197 3 BACKGROUND.: At the meeting October 25, 1973, Jim Cunningham and Warxen Klug came before the Commission with a proposal for eliminating 11 spaces in the Lions Square underground garage to accariimodate a meeting room for groups, conventions and the like, coming to Lions Square and to LionsHead in general. A wealth of supporting documents were presented to outline the need for such a facility at LionsHead,-- all those documents are available from the Town Staff, if necessary. CONSIDERATIONS: The Commission has a variety of thoughts about this proposal. 1. Not only does the proposal eliminate parking spaces;, however, the meeting room would also generate the require- ment far more spaces under the present,ordina~ce. 2~. Practically speaking, the proposal is. a good one and a conference room would undoubtedly benefit the lodges and businesses in LionsHead. Further, .the need is there. 3. An unknown is whether the core area of LionsHead will became busy enough in future years to require those 11 ', spaces -~- which are now vacant a good deal of the time. 4. The granting of the variance would make a nonconforming building in LionsHead even more nonconforming under the ordinance. ,: -... .: - _ .; .:. near _. , . _ ... _ , r.. N • Page 2 November 5, 1973 5. If the spaces could be replaced by .the deveXopers, then perhaps there might be more favorable grounds for granting a variance. The developer is presently unable to ,relocate the e~.iminated spaces. RECOMMENDATIONS: While sympathetic to the need for a con~exence zoom in LionsHead to handle up to 250 people, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the Council that the Lions. Square variance be denied. DS/nmm i• i• _. _ .. .. ~ 4 ~ . ^ Te ^P ~ - t Rb -~$ Y s~ - ' _ r - -rte Y ~ ' £. _ '~ '~ '~`~ ~ ~"~"~~'Y/' ~ -i ? r 4 ~ a" ~ ? ,~"~ s3 f y k ~s~ Y ~ `t ~ ~r ~ - ,S4 v -Yg t ri - 'P'. - _ - '': - - - J- x ~.- ~~ y -a S t .~"~` _ _ J i ~~ ~ . ms's ~ ~ ~ m 1~'t3 ~ ~ ~ b s * $ ~` +~ ~'~.~~~.'., ~~a1S'~P1~i yzyi.y~~[a~Y'L/wls~~yis+Y~~~~M~~` 1~.~7~ T ~ 4:- sz {",fit z ~ ~ _-~~ Y . a. ri a ~ T_~~~`l: 4A~Q~Yr.~i ~. -G7 tii~7~~ r ~~ !-, - . ~,1 "{ °~ - 'F y „s _ ~ ~ ~ _~^ ~ ~ ~-: ~ ''~7Y.1Ra~i~~11i{'~RY`i ~- - ;- ,~' '~~ _ tiro "' +~ ~ _ ~ yam, 3 .~~ -,_ _ .k. ,,,~'y~ ~ -_;.a*- ~ ~ _ ~~ a. - ~ _~ ~~x ~M ~ ~•~ 5-~T ~ d~a~~'~i~~ Ri~ irsi~gifM~k~ .L ~nT Y4"'~ Vr iw l~ ~~~ - -' ~' 3~ - ~3i ~., ~~ ~ __~ ~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s ..' S Y ~ Y ;~~ ~ 'k ~;~ L`il~ ~~~~Ri~--yie.il~r~. ~~~~ ~~.}7o-~'~3 ~'"~ V -_~~~~j's~~,~ ,x ~ '~.Y~ =s""~~~ ~ `'Tyy(',•~'~] }'j~~pl~~ : ~~ Y ~e~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ '~m~^~~ ~~ "'~r~ I:i'~R~ ~~~ ~_{ 4~,y ~~i~~ ~ ' - } ~ '~"' y 6 ~ ~ '. ~ -. - ~'E- h - - 1 ,3s g 4 s5 ' 4 F ~ 4 5tr~-'+e -- ~; ~ a , -~ 1 y '4 MPs ff __ ~ _ y _ ~ - _ ~ k- J .A _ {'r ~. 1.y.,•,t ~~~ S -~ ~ - (y~, -ma~~yy[[ ~ - f _ - - ~ .age' -t -' ~ }S - 'eG 1 f~ '~~'4g4g • n =sE ; ~~ ~-~~ ~ '~ - ~ ' ~s.~" _ ~s`'~ ' ' :~ a l ,aka a a.~ '- ~ >t - ~ ~ _ _ _ T Wes, ~, ~ "T _ _ ~, ~ ~ ./4 ~ ~ .' ~ - y -- - _- R -~~ - - . _ LLLLL ~ ~ x~ i 1 y ~.:r • tewo tl -ail box goo . pail, Colorado ais5~ soa•a~s-5sis MEMORANDiJM ~. T0: ELDON BECK FROM: THE VATL PLANNING COMMSSSION RE: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BTGHORN PLANNTNG AND BONING DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 1973. Following is a list of comments and recommendations which the Vail Planning Commission has in regard to planning the Bighorn area for possible annexation into the Town of Vail. ENVTRONMENTAL CONCERNS There are several fairly obvious categories to be enumerated. Stream protection axad green belt --- A similar policy of stream protection and green belt along the stream courses, similax to that in Vaii Village, should be instituted where possible. Avalanche and snow slide areas -- The inherent dangers of building near or a.n such areas must be taken into consideration. Flood plains -- Must be considered in looking at planning the area. Reforestation.-- A policy of continuing the reforestation- program along I-70 up the Valley from Vail Village through the Bighorn area should be an important. requisite. RECREATIONAL FACTORS While there are a wide variety of~ amenities w~ich can be offered in any area, the following 3 would be'most important for Bighorn. Page 2 November 5, 1973 • Bike paths -- Continuation of the bike system from Vail into and through Bighorn can be the fixst step in a valley-wide system. Parks -- As much open space as possible should be left for general public parks. Playgrounds -- Playgrounds similar to that which we have in Vail at the Pirate Ship should be encouraged for the use of residents in the Bighorn area. MAJOR TRANSPORTATION Certainly, the extension of a mass tramportation system into the Bighorn area is a logical and necessary outgrowth of the Vail Master Plan. ZONING OF EXISTING AREAS • The simplest approach seems to be that existing structures on subdivisions should. be zoned as covenanted. In the .case of existing duplex residential, the area would be zoned as such; where single family residential exists, the area would be zoned as single family residential; where existing commercial structures exist, each would be zoned to the .closest zone which exists in the ordinance. A number of conflict situations have already been pointed out. The Commission recomrCm~nds that- a list of alb. these conflicts be prepared and reviewed by planners anal the town staff -- with that list in hand, solutions can be worked out fox each of the specific situations. COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS The Commission recognizes that factors of transportation, people-flow, and the like, will affect ultimate decisions on what kind of commercial activity should be allowed in Bighorn. The opinion of the Commission is that commercial zoning should be minimal to nonexistent for the area. • ',; Page 3 r~ November 5, 1973 If a gas station is to be permitted, it should be limited to basic services only and hidden by extensive landscaping No truck stops, car wash operations, auto repair shops, etc., should be allowed. In addition, the Commission belives that lodging accommodations should be kept to an absolute minimum. The inherent beauty of Bighorn as one comes off Vail Pass and into the Gore Valley must not become marred with the neon lights, signs, etc., which accompany commercial centers. UNDEVELOPED GROUND As a general concept, the Commission feels that densities should progress from higher to lower starting in the areas closest to Highway 6 and I-70. In other words, higher densities should be between and close to the two highways; a lower density ratio between Highway 6 and the stream south- ward to the National Forest. Recognizing that this concept, if taken in the strictest sense, could create undesirable corridors of growth down the valley in a linear sense, the Commission feels that clustering of densities with green space in between should be accomplished wherever possible. DENSITY The most desirable feature about Bighorn is its basic resi- dential character, and the Vail Planning Commission would like to see that character preserved. Th~.s means that the density maximum should be Medium -- and that as little as possible of that Medium Density done should be permitted. DS/nmm • _r r~ Town oi' Vai.l P1aI]n171f; Ca~T?[111SS].On Municipal Is uildin~~~ Vail, Co~laracin f~l~i~7 Gent]emen: l3ox "D„ Vail, Colorado lvovornbEr 13, J.S73 '_{'hi.s litter is in x•espaxzse to a request by tkl.e Chairman that tlae Snow Lion Condan~iniurn !`,ssociation send a letter to floe Comrxlissian stwting our cb~cctlons to the pre.il.fnlnary plans for Sna~~r Lian ll as stzbn7itted by Caur- ~hevel, Ltd . .l~s a general statement we foal that Courchevel plans ignore reasonable plannir{i; standards , invacla t17c privacy and enjoyment of adjacent prapexty ownez~s, and redzace pxopc:rty values on substantial investm:ants already made. Our objections fall into four major eategoxies: • -Siting -Larxd Coverage -Parking -Snow stacking 1. Situ; Proposed building is located - -15' from 1st floor a£ exist:irlg building' - 7' from 2nd £]anr to Balconies an prapased building Proposed building and construction rlest-roys °.Z~ mature ILSpc:n Trees --f30' of Terrace The F3uilding as sited e_rzcroaches on the privacy of tie existing buildil~g to an u:zacceptable levEl. The Building is 44' high and completely cxestroys trze view a£ most o£ tl~ e owners ilz the front o£ existing' buil!lizlg . s r ~e.~ ..~ uy'~ .. _. _....F F'.. ~,.. •;i' ;,a ~Y-~4~'.,~~.Y The Parking Lot is widened from existing 47' to 64' . The Par.lzing Lat is about 4' blow 1?oal and `~'orrace. To get oz~ grade vrith 1'ar].~ing this area urill be excavated to within 7' o#:' the Poel. T:he Depth of Pool at this point is 3'. The pool is subject to s~tructu.xal damage. In ac;.dition., the Parl~ing •,vill encroach 10z feet onto existing landscaping az~d 1'001 Teri; ce, Page 2 2 . ~.g\f D COVf:3.3 f1CsI~.: ~~ - 61`-'s ol~ tlz.e ground is covcrecl - a total of 3$,100 SF of thy', G2,464 SF available. Courclaevcl figures o£ 32,379 S.F of coverage do not include: Fr. ont and 1~.ear ENT1tY S'a'ATR.S and walkways to existing building. -- Front entzy to proposed buildin€~ . -- Swirr~rring Fool Cement 'T'errace -- 1'001 P~zmp Hcuse 3. PA3~,IiI\TG: - COUrehevel is required to find 34.5 vehicle spaces based on 1.5 ratio - Parling proposed for Snovr Lion 11 vrould be pxacTided by widexiing the existing paved parking and developinY; park- ing off Vail View Dx°i~Te , Tl-~is area is contiguous ~~ith Vail View Drive and is not nog=r :yet aside separately in the Con- dorniniur_n 11'lap filed in Eagle County for ?dock 2. Parking for ~T cars iu to be provided 90 degrees to tl~e flow o£ traffic on Vail Vie~~r Drive. This Parking Area, if developed wiil not be in accordance ~~~ith existii2g standards and criteria . - Ail parking is based on 9' x 18' per vehicle space- 10' x 20' i.s stai~,dard in Snow Country. • - No space is provided for refuse co*~.taine~°s in the Parking Plan . At least t~vu spaces ~_, ould b e required . - Two spaccas (25 - 2G - Courchevel Pa:cl~izag Plan) block Pool Pump 1"louse and l:NT11,Y to Snow.- Lion 1 - At least 3 spaces that encroach into Swin7ming Pool Area should Ue clizninated. - Courch~:vcl Parking Plan as submitted is 4 short of 67 required. ( A1. 1~asi; ale: v'en ~1.I) spaces shot } 1N SUI~I'.11ARY -The Parking Plan as proposed is: - Inadequate in nurr~t~er of spaces - Does NOT meet criteria - Develops an area tlsat is marginal_ off Vail View Drive - Endangers structural stability o; S~virnnling Fool 4. SNOLh' STl1CKING: There would be no suitable area far Sno~:s= Stacking . Four separate areas are sho~xrn for a total of only 700 Sli" on the Parking Lot and about 450 SF on East land of Proposed building. This is far short of the reglxixement and creates a serious problem . Unless suitable storage is provided several parking spa^es will be elirnin- • ated va}ten t~~e need thcra most; or the association is forced by the developer to haul. the sno~~~ out. This is a conti~iuinL; expense that we should not bc~ forced to assu~nc. The association considex•s that the Preliminary Flans as submitted by Caur. chevel I~td . do not inert reasonab]e planning; standa.x cis and acec:pted criteria. The Plan is unacceptak~lE~ to the association. ~' , Jaynes A. Darby i President, Sno~r Lion ,lLss'n ~, • t ~\ ~ R~[~ l~¢~ ~ B7 R t~ i ~i4d}® k~ ~~ b 0 X i D 0 a V 8 k~, c a E o r a d a & i G 5 7 0 3 Q 3 4 7 6- 5 6 1 3 1~TEk4T0FtANDU)~T T0: FRO~k ; RE DATE: TO~UN COi3NCIL VAIL PLANNING COAiMISSION VACANCY ON TdIE PLANNING COI~TMISSION NOVEbIBER 16 , 1973 E:Cfecti.~Te October 25, 1973, Hans j~Yeibel resigned from the Plann~.n~ Commission . He intends to sper.~d the wintez• ~ n Mexico, and the Commission felt that a six-montk~ appointee was riot tl.ae proper approach in this situation; there:~ore, )G~r. S1'eibP:l have notification of his resignation shortly before he left. The Council should have received a letter from Hans about this, but he has not written it yet. Plc~.se accept this memorandum as formal notice of his resig-- natzon, to lie follot~red by a personal letter from him in the near future. DS / ntnm • `~~\ ~ ~_ ~~ ~~~~~~~ f]O X 7 0 0 ~ vcl l ~ eoi o ra d o 8 1 G 5 7 • 3 0 3 4 7 G- 5 6 1 3 ~r~~ioRnN~u~t TO ; TO~YN COUNC I L FRQirI; VAIL F'L.ANNING C011~~rISSION RE ; VACANCX ON THE PLANNING CCa.I~~ISSICN DATE : NOVEIIDLR 16 , 19 i 3 Efi`ecta.ve October 25, 1973, Hans tVeibel resigned from the Planning Commission. He intends to spend the winter i_n Mexico, and the Commission i'elt that a six-month appointee ~uas zZOt the proper approach in this situation; therefore, Mr. ~Ueilael gave notification of his resignation shortly before he left. the Council should have received a letter from Tlans about this, but he has ~xot wri-tten it yet. Please accept this memorandum as formal notice of his resig- nation, to be folla~ved by a personal letter from him in the near future . DS / n~nm ~J -~~~~ `~ `_ ~w-fir lyd~~ ~` ~ 4 h' 4 ~~~ ~~~~ E box i oo e vail, colaraclo s~ ~s7 aos a~s~ss, s 14fFl1iORANDU~1 T0: FROr~7 RF DATE: TO~~'N COUNCIL VAIL PLANNING CO~iI~fISSION VA,CANCI' ON THE PLAI~rNING C0~.21121SSION NOVE~~BER 1G, 1973 Effective October 25, 19'73, Hans ~~Veibel resigned from the Plann~_a1g Commission. He intends to spend the ~vinter in Mexico, and the Cotnmissa.oz~ felt that a six-month appointee was not ~:he proper approach in this situation; -therefore, Mr, j9ea.bel gave notification of his resignation shortly before he left. The Council should have received a letter Ixom Hans about this, but he has not written zt yet. Please accept this memorandum as formal notice of his resig- nation, to be followed by a personal letter .from hi.m in the near future. DS/nmm • ~> . 4 --~ l r +~ ` ~~\~ y ~~~~ lib, ~~k~~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ ~:a~ T0; FROM: Rl DATD: b O x 1 0 Q o V a l ~ c o l o r a d o 5 1 6 5 7 • 3 4 3. 4 7 6 5 6 1 3 hiL",IORAti~U~i Ta~YN COUNCT?, VAIL PLANNING CUI~~~i4IISSION~ VACANCY ON THZ PLANNI\G COP,I1IISiION' NOVL;t413ER 1G , 1973 I';Siective Octobe~~ 25, 1973, Fans ~4'ei•b+~1 resigned from the Planning Commission. He intends to spend thc~tivinter iz1 Mexico, and the Commission felt that a s9_x--month ap~aaintee was not the proper approach in this situation; thexeFore, Mr. Weibel gave notification of his resignation, shortly before he left. The Council should have received a letter from ~-Iarzs about this, but he has i~ot written it yet. Please accept this memorandum as forrna.l notice of his resig- nation, to be followed by a personal letter from him in the near future. DS/nrnm n '• of rain box ~ oo . nail, Colorado s1 657 • 303. 476-561 s MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION RE: VACANCY ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1973 Effective October 25, 1973, Hans Weibel resigned from the Planning Commission. He intends to spend the winter in Mexico, and the Commission .felt that a six-month appointee was nat the proper approach a~n this situation; therefore, Mr. Weibel gave notification of his resignation shortly before he left. The Council should have received a letter from Hans about this, but he has not written it yet. Please accept this memorandum as formal notice of his resig- nation, to be followed by a personal letter from him in the near future. DS/nmm ~~ ,, .. _.. _ ~~~ ,,a .: ~~~ ~ ~ ~~- , ~~° ~, .. ~~~ ~,~~~ box too o nail, Colorado a~e57 ao3.a~~-ssis MEMORA~TDUI4~I TO: ELDON BECK rROhi: VAIL PLANNING COhil•~ISSION RI{, : ~ PROPOSED ZON IivTG OI' BIGHORN DATE : NOVEIti4BER 16 , 1973 In a meet]_ng November 15, 1973, the Corr~nission addressed itself' to the issues of commercial and recreational zoning in Bighorn. In regard to commercial activity, the fol7_owing points were ,•~ made . .. I. NO COi,~64ERCIAL ACTIVITY. A. Points in Favor. k 1. Retains resiaential character of area; 2. Eliminates visual problems of neon lights, signs, etc.; 3. Does not fragment commercial areas in the valley; 4. Minimizes additional traffic into Bighorn; 5. Eliminates potential environmental problems; 6. Limits the conflict between uses in the area. • i~ MI,~l01~AN1~U~~ X1'0: I';LllOiV ]BECK _~_ November 16, 1973 B . Points A~;~ainst . ~.. Wzll bring greater trafi'ic and parking ~i.nto Vail Village care area; 2. Limits services easily available to Bighorn cammun~.ty . • J II. LIDIITED COn41IERCIAL -- NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER. A. Points in Favor. ~.. 1-IelpS satisfy service needs of the community; 2. Creates competition w3.thin the cainmercial community --- a healthycharacter~~stic; 3. Because of small size, can possibly be made unobtrusive; ~. Covenience far permanent residents in area. B. Points Against. Y. Small size may be difficult to control from both visual and design aspects. C. Other Paints. 1. Existing covenanted use patterns may establish validity of either concentrated neighborhood shopping center or fragmented neighborhood shopping center. III . n~1A.70R C01I1ILI~,C IAL CE:dTER . A. Points in Favor. 7., Bighorn i,s a natural location fo.r a trucl~ stop, chain station, etc. B. Points Against. 1. Would change character of the area; 2. Environmental impacts may be severe: audio, visual, clfactory; .. h4rAI0RANDCJII T0: 1rUU0v I.3I~,Cl~ _3_ ~ November Y6, 1973 3. Community needs and sine do not justify major commercial scale; 4, Potential traffic and parl~ing congestion would be created. In reg2rd to the role of recreation of Bighorn, several points xvere expressed. Tirst, recreational amenities should be planned to tie in with existing and proposed patterns of amenities in the Town of Vail. Second, negotiation should be oriented to the permanent community living in Bighorn, not the tourist or short-term visitor. Third, because of the uncertainties of population growth over the long range-(15 to 2U years), land designated for recreation should be in suffa.c~.cnt amounts toallow for phys~_cal structures such as a gym, small theatre, etc. The immediate indoor recreation needs of the community should be fulfilled by the structures planned within the Town of Vail. • ll S / nmtn • 7 l Il Y811 bOX 100 • Valk, Colorado 81 657 • 30,3 476.561 3 MEMORANDUM • TO: ELDON BECK FROM: VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PROPOSED ZONING OF BIGHORN DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 1973 In a meeting November 15, 1973, the Commission addressed itself to the issues of commercial and recreational. zoning in Bighorn. In regard to commercial activity, the fallowing points were made. I. NO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. A. Points in Favor. 1.. Retains residential character of area; 2. Eliminates visual problems of neon lights,... signs, etc.; 3. Does not fragment commercial areas in the valley; 4. Minimizes additional traffic into Bighorn; 5. Eliminates potential environmental problems; 6. Limits the conflict between uses in the area. • MEMORANDUM T0: ELDON BECK ' -2- November 16, 1973 B. Points Against. 1. Will bring greater traffic and parking into Vail Village core area; 2. Limits services easily available to Bighorn community. • • II. LIMITED COMMERCIAL -- NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER. A. Points in Favor. 1. Helps satisfy service needs of the community; 2. Creates competition within the commercial community -- a healthy characteristic; 3. Because of small size, can possibly be made unobtrusive; 4. Covenience for permanent residents in area. B. Points Against. ].. Small size may be difficult to control from both visual and design aspects. C. Other Points. 1. Existing covenanted use patterns may establish validity of either concentrated neighborhood shopping center or fragmented neighborhood shopping center. III. MAJOR COMMERCIAL CENTER. A. Points in Favor. ~.. Bighorn is a natural location for a truck stop, chain station, etc. B. Points Against. 1. Would change character of the area; 2. Environmental impacts may be severe: audio, visual, olfactory; MEMORANDUM T0: ELDON BECK -3- November 16, 1973 ~. 3. Community needs and size do not justify major commercial scale; 4. Potential traffic and parking congestion would be created. Tn regard to the role of recreation of Bighorn, several points were expressed. First, recreational amenities should be planned to tie in with existing and proposed patterns of amenities in the Tnwn of Vail. Second, negotiation should be oriented to the permanent community living in Bighorn, not the tourist or short-term visitor. Third, because of the uncertainties of population growth over the long range (15 to 20 years), land designated for recreation should be in sufficient amounts to allow for physical structures such as a gym, small theatre, etc. The immediate indoor recreation needs of the community should be fulfilled by the structures planned within the Town of Vail. • DS/nmm • p ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ = ~:~~4~ ~~~~~~ ~- ` ~~ ,~,. ~ ~ . ~' ~ ~ '3 f 3 ~`~' - ~~ , ..- . V ~ .. .., . ~ 111.ti4a ~, ~. x b `4~'k~i~€~~ 3 ,6: i~r~ ~F f~1`~ ''"~~'~.]}~~ ~ c yCy y-~~"~ ~ --.~ r r ts_ _; t u ~' iii '~~ '~^~~~i..'~-~~~~- ;'.k r - 5 ~~i S~ Y ~ ~ k ,~.~~'~: '4i`~c~ hit ~ ~ ~~'~' ,`~'~-.~ ~' ~~ =p~.~~e~~ ~ •. P_ ~ k ~' , ~ -'. a ~"~' - '~ r -' .. ? - ~ ~ ~-~ x. ~ '~i ~ ;• ~' e -- ~~ 5 ~ ' -'~` ~ r ~ ~ i - : s~` ~' a ' her { `. ~ - -' ~-,~i~ a d y.-~ i _ a - L y u x. a ~' ~~-~~ -fit _ y a s ~wF s ~ .~ ~ trit ,tea +'~;^f _ ^~ ~ ` i ~ _ ~ s; ~ '-~ F '~ t J ~ - $ F a ' ~ ~. f _ -_ q L V-3 d '3 aS~ 3x J - . dg4rF~ { - s P f - 't _ ~ ~ - ~' **44ff - ' i ~.~ ~ . ~ ~.~~ ... r _.. ~-~'~ .. . _. 3.' . _< .~_ ~.. --~' ~` iris' ~ ~~- 2.~ E ~ '~ N F €+F _ ? 't ~- ~ ''4` ~ ~ ~ [' ~ __ . ~'. Y • t; Y' ti• 4.G The Vail Trail m R ,P a Notice Of Iltclusiort NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there has been filed whit the Board of Directors of the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District of Eagle writing at the office of the Vail Town Clerk, at the Vail Muntcipai Builtling, Vail, Colorado, for an absentee ballot, at any time during regular business Hours, on or before Friday, November 16, 1g73. Given under my hand and the seal of the Town this twenty-n',nth day of October, 1973. County, Colorado, on or about Linda R. Hall October 3, 1973, a petition praying 'rown Clerk far the inclusion of certain lands in Published in the Vait Trail on Such District. November 2 ~ bet 9, 1973. = 1, The name and address of the petitioner and [ne description pf the property mentioned in such petition \ ~ are as follows: m Owner: VAIL ASSOGlATES, ~'? ~ .' ~~ € ~-'• z P,xttx_ f°j,- ~a~ ~3 '~ INC., P.O, l3ox 7, Vait, C~lorad . ~r' a° 81G57. Description: Section 11: /2 NE1/4 lying South of U.S. Highway 6 and 24 as pr sentty constructed. Sections 25, 26, 35 and 36: U.5. Homestead Entry SurveY.~NO, 274. 2. The prayer of [he petition is that the abOVe property grincludeo within the Upper Eag a Valley San'stat'son District. Accordingly, notice ; s hereby given to all interested ~ ersons to appear at the meeting of ~h Board of pirectors of the Distric • t Manor Vail, Fagle County, Col ado, on Wednesday, the 14th day of November, 1973, at the hou of 2:00 o'clock P.M., and show use in writing, if any they have, w y such petition should not be granted. UPPER EAGLE VA L£Y SANITATION DrST ICT PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC hiEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVlyN that Peter Alan Wells Has applied 'or a parking variance in accordance with Sections 14.200, and 14.300 of Ordinance 8 {Series of 1'3731 in order to allow a change of use from two lodge rooms Eo a dental office in units 7 antl 8 of Pension Isabel. The change of use requires one additional parking space. A Public Hearing will be held in accordance t•.ith Section 21.400 of Ordinance No: 8 (Series of 1973) on lyovsmtter 79. 1973 at 200 p,~ in the Vail 'Municipal 8uild;ny. Said Variance application will be heard by the Flancring Commission and their decision transmitted to the 'Town Cdt1RC11. By JUhn V, A to TOWN OF VAIL Presid t Diana 5 Tougnill Published in The Vaif Trail oR October 26, November 2 and November 9, 1973. NoricE o~ PUBLIC HEARING 'I'O WHOM iT MAY CONCERN ANC[ PARTICUt»ARLY TO THE ELL=C'fORS OF THE LION'S RIDGI; WATER DlSTR3CT OF EAGL£ COUNTY, GOLORADD: NOTICE IS HERFRY GIVEN chat a pit bile hearing will be held at the Snow Lion Condominium conler- ence room, Eagle County, Colorado, on Tuesday, November 13, 1973, al the hour of 4:00 o'clock P.M., for thn, purpose of epn sidering amenc4- meats to the !Rules and Regula#ions for the Lion's Ridge Water District. Copies of the proposed Rules and Reyulallons may be obkained from the maltagement consultants for the District, Lyon-Collins & Ca., 2470 ChamanLx Road, Vail, Colorado. All those !n tc rested In the flrstrict antl in the rev,sions !o end r7 uras and Remnations .fro rstvr;ed to attend and e%ple55 thelf ~OntRteni4 an(t ObjCC• tlO rl s, If .ttly IhCV hav2. Dated this 19117 day or October, 1973. I~tON'SRIi7C,EYlATE_R i~35TRIC7 Ely; F. ESl~ke Lynch, pre5!drni Published In tno Va:I "f tai; an October 2fi, Nrvembar 2, and Ncwembcr 9, 19"/~3; ~~CA~ Zoning Administrator Published Ln rite Vail 'trail on ~ve~ttber 9, 1973 NOTICE OF.PROPO~ED BUDGET TONlN OF VAIL NOTICE LS HERBY GIVEN that a proposed budget has been submstted to the Town of Vail for the ensuing year of 197A. That a corn o} Such proposed budget has Ut,en filed in the office of the Town at Vail, Municipal 8uil ding, Vaii, Cotorado, whore same is open for p ~.:hliC inspection. That sueit pr0- n~setl buUget will be considered at a special meetutg of the Town Council }or the Town of Vail to he held at the M1iunru3?al Eilrlldint7 on Monday, Nn`mmtN'r 2G, 1913, at 7:3D o'CIpGk p. nt. Arty iaxnaycr wi U7in said Town of Vail ,a.ry at any time prior to the local au .r•tra•, p1 ;rte bridge[ file or fegr5ief nil ut?tNa-iil)rts thereto. DATED tn,; s~xtlt day of November, t~})J. '3QNrN Or VAIL r<,~Hrt c+er>< Pu 4rlsh ed In tftc Val[ Trait on November 9, 1973. ~~ p ~ ~:m g~a, ~~x~R'~s tt"t: OR1:311\IANCF ~iU. E) (SCflr?5 Of ~ J73) AN DRDINANCL TO CC)i`d- -1 RACT AN INDi~t3'rEDNE'.'>' ON BC:E;ALF OF ThIL TCiS'!fi 0+-- VAtL„ CO LO RAf?O, AND Ut't3N Tt-iE= CREC)!7 "t'HFRf:.OF RY Novers~ber ~, I97~ or from Eirne to time, in such a manner and antnunts and L:pon Such terms and cpn drtions a5 the Town Counci; may determine, including at the. option of ttte Town Council prpvrsions for the xedcmphon pf 4ands prier to rnaturiiy with or without She payment of a prernium:" and WHEREAS, more than a majority of such qualified, registered electors voting on said question voted in favor of creating such debt and Issuing said Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Town Council Of \ the Town of Vail has determined, antl does hereby daterm lne, 10 ~55Ut' at {his time L;te genera'. obligation bands for n:al estate acquisi:ran urpases of the Town of Vaii, IOYadp, auto ori2ed at sa,d sp CC ial el coon held on the 25th day of Se tember, 1973, in a {oral principal am unt of 53,OOO,D00, as hereinafter set rib "rn this Ortlinance; and H[R£AS, pursuant to Ortli- nanc No. 11 (Series of 3973) of the Tow of Vail, there was submitted to the ualified, registered electors di the wn of Vail, Colorado, at said sped, I election held on the 25th day of Se tember, 1973, U7e question of the i Tpusition pf a sales tax on the sale f tanginie persanat property at retail and the furnishing of se,rv:ces withi the Tawn pF Vail; and W EREAS, more than a malority of s n qualified, registered erectors voti g on said sales tax quest'rot~ vot in favor cf imstusir~g the said sal tax; and WHER£A5, the Town Council of tit . Town of Vail Has esiima[ert and d [ermined and .oes hereby estimate nd determine that tha irincipal maturing and rite interest aceruin, pn Said ~3,DDD,DDD, the principal amount of bonds far real es?ate acquisition purposes, may be met from Y(iV P.n l7e5 defived from spurt es other than general nb:igation ad valorem property taxes, inciuaing without limitation the revenues to be derived from the salts tax allihprized by said Town of Vail Drginance No. I1 [Series of 1073) arts approved by the said electors eF the 'rown of Vail voting a[ sa~rt seer-tai election; and WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Tavn of Vail, Cotorado, has determined, and tloes Hereby deter mine, that ik is necessary and for the best interest of iha "I'ayvn of Vaii and the inhabitants thereof [hat said Rends 3or •eal estate acquisition purposes is the total principal amount of 53,ODO,ODO be now issued in accordance with ,he provisions of this Ordinance. NOtN, Tl-1ERFFORE, EJE 17" DRDAINEDav rHf_-rn'fvNCatsN- CIL OF "rt-iE: TU'-J1N OF VAit_, COLORADO, l-FEAT: 1. 2=ur rite purppse. pf providing funds to defray to whole nr in part 1il f, cn5l Of .Zr [ti ,l r,nn thr• t,ntt`i f'tY Vtft e Li'•(t ill tN= 1. SCd t~'°r ~ - FIIbEr:, and rm Ll rt =Cleat p<,rac.;+:s stated in Ordinan~^,e Nc. G (~'-rie5 0l 19731 OS the town of Vail, Colorado, and also Iha CnSi Of aCgtl illnCJ necessary ea serter.ts tc 1==^.d from card rent estate, the cost of extdnsipn of water and sewer tines ihc:eto, artd the cost of lartd;caprnq said real estate, the Tt'nvn n' Vail, f_t]IOratlo, shah f.sue o.t u2'taif of Sant ~Fov:n acrd :rpnn ih,~ cr+~di[ tttar~.oi, iL negntiatae cpupcn General Ob?iga- t,nrl F3onds, Scri.;s Ndventh~r 1, 3:r7;s, in the agt7regata trincipal amount of ~.3,OOO,ti00 dAte[! f~kU• vamber :, 39'73, consistiny of G00 13 to 35 ' 115 36 to 58 11 s5 59 to 64 13th 65 l0 3 ~ 0 1.3Q 111 to 333 1'4ii 140 to 169 1'S 170 to 201 36.St 202 to 234 165, 235 to 270 18C~ 271 to 308 19.f! 309 to 349 24:; 350 to 392 21-.t` 393 to 437 ?.1.~ 438 to 466 245 -23-7 [0 540 270 541 to 600 300 Eionos of this issue Uefore C~ecember 1., redeemable prior ~.to matltrity dates. Bone maturing in cite year; inclusive, are rede~ option of the ~'I`ov August 15, 1884, ". payment tlates there numerical order, - tali par, accrued interest of 1/?45 of piinripa' issue maturing in'tMQ thereafter are redo option of tha Tov Augus! 15, 19$4,. i payment dates there numarical order, up par and accrued inter, 2. Ttte prfndlpaYr~r; all of said General OI Series November J, payable in lawful- •, United states of A National F3ank in ~4 Cotorado, vrhich 15 F1'r3 the paying agent fore The net effective Bonds of this issue'is ; Said Bonds sh. ob!Igat3ons of cite TO shaft be payable fn tares, except as they, paid from Other YBV@E hcroirt. 3. :laid I~tt.gds shill the narne'apr3'-on belt, with the' facsinYlle s Mayor, shall hear as' the Seal pf ~ t44r: T atleStBCi by thB S~t1a~r71 the Town Clerii~'ai~' each of said Bon aPtached thereto ~ - ntmtbr of intr_fBSt C Yne facslrnile signafuo Saitl Ctoupons shall I shall be numbel'eil itnm one upVvafds' fc aporopriate:~VJhl3n iss as hart of sold Bond shall 3.i~ the Ia+rJful' ti and ohligations~ ' o according t.o in¢Ir'~i ttto payme~tt gf tlia becomes dire. Shoo vJhnsf? 1774nLlai ~Y faC appears r,ri said k7 oria Coupons attact, c.rr ln~ ..•,-„ ,ctrl: n, ,•. ~' .. epvpprts atta•.Ilc-~s .:*~ eta beta n;~a!ly u:,] Ps;s . {L ~~rr:a sit t' lJtV3Tt-i! `=`f D f= ;~ t.t L f; $-CHTE: OF COt..C]E'tADC3 c,ENc'.l2FiL rsEii.tt::~ ivo. -"-' MEMO T0: Terrell J. A4inger Kent R. Rose FROM: Jim LaMOnt DATE: November 27, 1973 RE: Tract A ~ B Review Process 1. Preliminary Approval I _? 1. Presentation of Proposed. Project [a) Site Plan (b) Traffic (Pedestrian ~ Vehicular) (1) Access, Circulation, Parking (c) Massing Study {1) On-site (2) Off-site {d) Conceptual Landscaping Program 2. Preliminary EIR Review By: Date: November 29, 1973 1. Planning Commission F Design Review Board, Date: Prior November 29 2. TOV Staff ~ Consultants. Reports Prepared: Date: Prior December 3 1. Staff ~ Consultants Date: Prior December S 2. Planning Commiss3_on ~, Design Review Board. Review By Town Council: Date: December 3 or 4 1. Determine points of conflict. 2. Determine points needing further study, 3. Approval or disappr~ova~. of conceptual plan. Date: December 27, 1973 Public Nearing #~ - 2 - II. Secondary Approval 1. Presentation of Site Alternatives (a) Traffic Circ~~l.ation (b) Building biassing Alternatives (c) Landscaping ~ Recreational. Amenities (d) Site Interrelationship 2. Presentation of Design Alternatives (a) Building Design {b) Parking ~ Road System (c) Public Mall (d) Landscaping ~ Recreation Amenities 3. Presentation of Final ETR (a) Identification of conflict between Site and Building Design Alternatives. {b} Summary of positive and negative impact of each alternative. Reviewed By: Date: January 3, 1974 1. Staff ~ Consultants Date: January l7, 1974 2. Planning Commission and Design Review Board (a} Respond to method which conflict paints were resolved. (b) Identify any new conflicts and further study areas. (c} .Identify mast appropriate site and building design alternative. Reports Prepared: Date: 1. Staff ~ Consultants Date: 2. Planning Commission and Design Review (Forward Reports to Town Council.) t i - 3 - Review By Town Ccauncil: Date: January 24 or 2S 1. Review Submitted Reports 2. Resolve Points of Conflict 3. Approve, Modify or Reflect Praj ect Date: January 29, 1974 Public Hearing #2 TIT. Final Approval 1. Subdivision Approval (a) Presentation of Materials Required by Subdivision Regulation to: Date: 1. Staff Date: 2. Planning Commission Date: 3. Town Council (Public Hearing) 2. Design Review Approval (a} Presentation of Materials to: Date: 1. Staff Date: 2. Design Review Roard Date: 3. Public Hearing ? - M~Mo i T0: Texrel.l J. Minger Kent R. Rose PROM: Jim Lamont DATE: November 27, 1973 RE: Tract A F, B Review Process I. Preliminary Approval ~J 1. Presentation of Proposed Project (a) Site Plan {b) Traffic (Pedestrian F Vehicular) (1) Access, Circulation, Parking {c) Massing Study {1) On-site (2) Off-site {d) Conceptual. Landscaping Program 2. Preliminary DIR Review By: Date: November. 29, 1973 1. Planning Commission ~ Design Review Board. Date: Prior November 29 2. TOV Staff ~ Consultants. R~epoxts Prepared: Date: Prior December 3 1. Staff $ Consultants Date: Friar December 3 2. Planning Commission ~ Design Review Board. Review By Town Council: Date: December ~ ar 4 1. Determine points of conflict. 2. Determine points needing further study. 3. Approval or disappr~o~ral of conceptual plan. Date: December 27, 1973 Public Hearing ~`1 • - 2 • II, Secondary Appxoval 1. Presentation of Sate Alternatives (a) Traffic Gird*lation (b) Building l~fassing Alternatives (c} Landscaping ~ Recreational Amenities (d) Sits Interxelationship 2. Presentation of Design Alternatives (a) Building Design (b} ParI<ing € Road System (c) Public Mall (d) Landscaping ~ Recreation Amenities ~. Presentation of Final EIR (a} Identification of conflict between Site and Building Design Alternatives. (b) Summary of positive and negative impact of each altexnative. Reviewed By: Date: January 3, 1974 1. Staff €~ Consultants Date: January 17, 1974 2. Planning Commission and. Design Review Board (a) Respond to method which conflict points were resolved. (b) Identify any new conflicts anal further study axeas. (c) .Identify most appropriate site and building design alternative. Reports Prepared: Date: 1. Staff $ Consultants Date: 2. Planning Commission and Design Review (Forward Reports to Town Council) r • ~ .. Review I3y Town Council: Date: January 24 or 25 1. Review Submitted Reports 2. Resolve Paints of Conflict 3. Approve, Modify or Reflect Project Date: January 29, I974~ Public Hearing ~2 TTT. Final Approval 1. Subdivision Approval (a) Presentation of Matexa.als Required by Subdivision Regulation to: Date: 1. Staff Date: 2. Planning Commission Date: 3. Town Council (Public Hearing) 2. Design Review Appro~ral (a) Presentation of Materials to: Date: 1. Staff Date: 2. Design Review Board Date: 3. Public Hearing i ~+ i• TiEAiO TO : Tame 11 J . Aiinger Kent R. Rose rROD4: Ji.m Lamont DATE: November 27, 1973 RE: Txact A ~ B Review Process T. Preliminary Approval 1. Presentation of Proposed Project (a} Site Plan (b) Traffic (Pedestrian F, Vehicular) {1} Access, Circulation, Par'_:ing (c) D4assing Study (1} On-site (?.) Off--site (d) Conceptual Landscaping Program 2, Pre2imi~nary EIR Review By; Date: November 29, 1973 ~.. Planning Commission ~ Design ~~ Review Board. Date: Prior November 29 2. TOV Staff ~~ Consu~.tants. R~eparts Prepared: Date: Prior December 3 1. Staff ~ Consu~.tants Date: Prior December 3 2. Planning Commission ~ Design Reviet,r Board. Revie~,T By Town Council: Date: December 3 or 4 1. Determine points of conflict. 2. Determine paints needing further study . 3. Approval nr disapproval of conceptual plan. Date: Dece~n'ber 27, 1973 Public Hearing ~=1 2 T ZI, Secondary Approval 1. presentation of Sate Alternatives (a) Traffic Circulation (b) $uilding 1~-tassing Alternatives (c) Landscaping ~ Recreational Amenities (d) Site Interrelationship 2. Presentation of Design Alternatives (a) Building Design (h) Parking ~ Road System (c) Public ~ial1 (d) Landscaping F Recreation Amenities 3. Presentation of Final FIR (a) Identification of conflict between Site and Building Design Alternatives. (b) 5umrnary of positive and. negative impact of each alternative. i• Reviewed By: Date: January 3, 1974 1. Staff ~ Consultants Date: January 17, 1974 2. Planning Commission and Design ' Review Board (a) Respond .to method which conflict points were resolered. (b) Identify any new conflicts and further study areas, (c) Identify most appropriate site and building design alternative. Reports Prepared: ~J Date: 1. Staff ~ Consultants Date: 2. Planning Commission and Design Review (Foxtti=axd Reports to Town Counca~l) 7 i• f 3 , Review I3~= Toian Council: Date: January 24 or 25 1. Reviei~ Submitted Reports 2. Resolve Points of Conflict 3. Approve, ;~TOdify or Reflect Project Date: January 29, 1974 Public Hearing #2 III. Pinal Approval 1. Subdivision Approval {a) Presentation of Materials Required by Subdivision Regulation to: Date: 1. Staff Date: 2. Planning Commission Date: 3. Town Co~.ncil (Public Hearing) 2. Design Review= Approval {a) Presentation of Materials to: Date: 1. Staff Date: 2. Design Review Boaxd Date: 3. Public Hearing • r~ ~~ MEMORANDUM TO; TOWN COUNCIL FROM: VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION RE: RECOMMENDATIONS ON'PARKING VARIANCE'/EXEMPTION REQUEST BY'DR. PETER WELLS DATE: DECEMBER 3, 1973 In its regular meeting on Thursday, November 29th, the Planning Commission met with Jay Peterson, Attorney for Dr. Peter Wells, i.n regard to the latterTs dual request for a parking variance or exemption in regard to a dentist's office in Pension Isabel. Granting a variance would mean that Dr. Wells would not have to provide parking of any kind (one space is required) for his operation. After discussion, the Planning Commission . voted to recommend to the Council that a parking variance not be granted. Reasons given are the increased traffic which employees and patients would create for that area and concern for general public health and safety because of that increased traffic. The Commission then took up the matter of a parking exemption. This would mean that Dr. Wells, or Manfred Schober, could purchase one space in the Parking Structure, under the same formula as other businesses earlier this fall (attached minutes of meeting October 23rd outlining that formula}. After dis- cussion, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the Council that a parking exemption not be granted. Reasons given centered on the point that granting an exemption would not be in the best interests of that area, or in the best interests of the Town .at large. SUMMARY The Planning Commission recommends to the Town Council that neither a parking variance, nor a parking exemption be granted to Dr. Peter Wells. DS/nmm ,, •~'~ T. 0 0 ' ~ , i~ ,~ ',~ ~~ F ,~~ MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION RE': INITIAL PROPOSAL BY VAIL ASSOCIATES ON TRACTS A & B DATE: DECEMBER 3, 1975 In its regular meeting on November 29th, the Planning Commission reviewed maps and a model presented by Vail Associates as a preliminary concept for development of Tracts A & B, just east and south of Manor Vail. As presently contemplated, the development involves 5 single-family lots on the eastern end of the 10 acre site. West of the lots would be 4 tennis courts and west of the tennis courts would be a condominium development involving approximately 130 units. Recognizing that this project is in the concept stage, the Planning Commission feels that it looks good. The blending of residential into condominium density, with the amenities of swimming pool and tennis Courts, seem to blend very nicely with the general character of the Village in that area. Comments were almost uniformly favorable from the Commission members. Areas of concern that should be kept in mind center on parking, which the proposed additional Gold Peak chairlift might create {the chairlift is not part of the project, but is anticipated fox the area and will parallel the existing chairlift); automobile access to the project via the pro- posed road along the east end of Antholz;.potential commer- cial establishments in the condominium buildings (V.A, indi~ cated that no commercial use, save perhaps a restaurant, is contemplated at this time), DS/nmm 1 MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION RE: CHANGE OF USE ISSUE DATE; DECEMBER 3, 1973 Requests for parking variances and exemptions appear to be increasing from businesses in the Core area, highlighting the change of use problem, which the Commission outlined in its memorandum to the Council October 19, 1973. The Commission would like to urge the Council to act on the 90-day holding period, so that both Commission, Council and Town Planners can try to come to some conclusions about • this matter. DS/nmm • MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PROPOSED ADDITION TO CROSSROADS AT VAIL SHOPPING CENTER DATE: DECEMBER 3, 1973 PRESENT SITUATION: Crossroads of Vail, Inc. (Lapin and Crosby) has plans fnr an additional building on the east side of its property. This building has been reviewed by both the Planning Com- mission and Design Review Board, and it complies with all parking requirements. It does require one setback variance on the southeast corner. In looking the site plan over, Eldon Beck felt that it conflicted with the Town's Master Plan, because it made use of the existing automobile entrances and exits to the Crossroads parking lots. The Master Plan calls for a total pedestrian zone in that area. Beck proposed an alternative plan, which utilizes a single entrance and exit ramp coming from the east access road and going through the new building. This alternative plan eliminates 24 parking spaces from the new building. It would obviously require a variance to the developers. THE PROBLEM: The Planning Commission feels that the Beck proposal is'in the best interests of the Town and of the Master Plan. The question has arisen, however, that East Meadow Drive may be used, in any event, for automobiles to reach the west end of the Village Center project; there is some disagreement between the Town and Fred Hibberd on this matter. i • • If East Meadow Drive is to be Crossroads proposal {with its sidered. If East Meadow Drive proposal should be considered. RECOMMENDATION; used for cars, then the secon-d variance) need not be con~- i.s pedestrianized, then the Crossroads of Vail is entitled to proceed with its original buildi~zg, and approval has been given on that basis, subject to the 15-day publication pexiod far the setback variance. Because of ordering materials, etc., the owners w~.ll proceed with the first building when final approval is given in 15 days. Although the Beck proposal for Crossroads is probably best for the Town and for the Master Plan in the long run, the parking variance requixed is of a major nature. Because of that, the Planning Commission wi.l]. not approve such a variance unless the Town Staff, Planners, Hibberd, Planning Commission and Council can make a final decision on the Village Center access problem within the nest 15 days. DS/nmm _~_ :~ Royston Hanamoto deck & Abet' ~i i~~• December 11, ?973 Mr. Terrell J. Minger Town Manager Town of Vail P. O. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 3].657 Re: Crossroads East Project Dear Terry: On December G, 1973, a meeting regarding the Crossroads East Project was held, attended by Gordon Pierce and Bob Hunt r~N~ esenting Crossroads East, Jim Lamont and Kent Rose of the Town, and myself, The purpose of the meeting was principally to review auto circulation and parking of the proposed project and of the existing Crossroads parking. The following conclusions were reached: 1. it was agreed that auto access through the proposed building was the only realistic approach to both sites. The only other option available would use the proposed pedestrian mall. and would have definite negative impact upon the Town Plan. 2. Limited truck use of the pedestrian mall is acceptable. 3. A turnaround form at the end of the public access to this property is advisable. This must be coordinated with the Transportation Terminal plans and is really the obligation of the Town, Enclosed is a sketch showing a possible solution. A print of the Trans portation Terminal plan is being sent to Gordon for his information in understanding all related traffic characteristics. 4. I recommend highly that an auto/truck connection be created somewhere near the northwest corner of the existing Crossroads site. This will involve coordination with the adjacent property owner, Isndscape Architects: Land Planning ~n Design Park Planning Enviroamental Planning Principals: Robert Royston FASLA Asa Hanamoto A5LA Eldon Beck ASIA Kazuo .Abet' A5E.A Associates: Patricia Carlisle ASLA Louis G. Alley, Architect AEA Harold N. Kobayashi ASIA EUgeae R. Kuait ASLA Robert T. Battertaa George W. Girvia SO-Green Street San Praacisco California 94!11 (413) 397.0594 Mr. Terrell J. Minger -2 -- December 11, 19'13 The traffic: and emergency service access to the site will be improved tremendously. It must be understood that the original Crossroads site actually included a drive access at the northwest corner, intersecting with the frontage road. A section of land was released so that the adjacent property would have access. It is reasonable to expect that a negotation again creating Crossroads access at that corner should be possible. The access would serve con- dominium tenants and the real estate parking rather than Cross - roads Shopping traffic. The meeting was an excellent one and I was very much impressed with the texture sand potential quality of the east and south facades of the building. Sincerely, RO ON, NA TO, BECK & ABEY don Bec tm cc: Mr. Kent Rose, w/sketch Mr. Jim Lamont, w/sketch Mr. John Dobson, w/sketch Mr. Gordon Pierce, w/sketch Vail Design Review Board, w/sketch Vail Planning Commission, w/sketch Enclosure ~~~~ ~~,r ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~.~ ~ "~ +` w,~.,.....~..~- ~•r""~ ~"~~ r r w ~" ~- ~' __J~yw~ ..r -~~ „, r :'~` cam, ,~~ SPt~r~ '~ ~ ~w'~ afl q per, Me~gA'8~'taS~~~ ` ~'-~..: ~~ a~ ~~, t+c~`fi ~0 V~`'~ „ '"- ~~~ ..- ,, ~~, ~~. r . yRU-..,.,~ m tQ't~' ~'^~u'' 0 P~~"x# , ~~~ - ~~ r ~~~~ '1J! ~~l~Y~ f ~~ December 11, 1973 Mr. Terrell J. Minger Town Manager Town of Vail P. O. BOX 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Village Center Project Dear Terry: Royston Hanan~oto Beck & Abey On December 6, 1973, a meeting regarding the Village Center Project was held, attended by Mr. Bob Harford and Mr. Kurt Walter of the Hibberd Construction Company, Jim Lamont and Kent Rose of the Town, and myself. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss automobile access to the project. The following conclusions were reached: i~ • Landscape Architects: ~I Planning Urban Design Psrk Planning Environmental Planning 1. It was agreed that the pedestrian mall could be crossed for access to the project but was not to be used to any major extent for access. 2, An access ramp to the upper floor of the underground garage seemed possible in many ways. Flexibilities were: (a) Create an "S" shape in a ramp to extend the ramp length. Entry would be into the side of the garage. (b) Enter the east end of the garage. This would involve restudy of the open landscape space. {c) Raise the building and garage by one or two feet to decrease ramp steepness. (d) Lose one or two parking spaces to create improved auto turning characteristics. (Bath "c" and "d" above may require either a variance or negotiation of some kind; The improvement to the project and the Town Frincipals: Associates: Robert Royston FASLA Patricia Carlisle ASLA Eugene R. Kunit ASIA 50 Green Street Asa Hanamoto ASLA Louis G. Alley, Architect AIA Robert T. $atterton San Francisco Eldon Seck AS[.A Harold N. Kobayashi ASIA Geotge W. Girvin California 94111 Kazuo Abey ASLA (415) 397=0594 Mr. Terrell J. Minger -2- December 11, 1973 _~ would be significant and I recommend favorable con- sideration if minor modifications are necessary, ) fie) Raise one portion of the exterior terrace and garage space below to ease grade steepness. 3. Connection to the ramp serving the lower gargge level is possible by connecting an exit from the west end of the upper garage level to the adjacent ramp. Turning movements- seem comfortable and alI auto circulation can be Dept on the project property. 4, Auto access across the pedestrian mall from the public road will probably require an automatic or person controlled gate. There will be a need for control of service vehicles to other properties, control of maintenance vehicles on the mall, and perhaps control. of the transit system vehicles. Coordination between the Town and the affected parties will be necessary. After the meeting on the Village Center, a review was held of the Crossroads East Project. A good solution for that project has also been reached and auto . access to the Crossroads parking will be through the building, thus taking auto movement pressure off of the pedestrian mall. It became apparent in review of the Crossroads East Project that it and the Village Center retail spaces are definitely complimentary to each other. A superb shopping plaza can be created between the two and it becomes very evident that the auto free pedestrian mall between these two projects must absolutely be preserved. I would urge that the two developers look at their projects together, along with the Town, to reach the best possible coordinated pavement and landscape plan of the space between the buildings. Building of models at 20 scale would be very beneficial to see the design potential, I must express my pleasure at working with both the Village Center and Cross-- roads East people. They were extremely cooperative and helpful, understood the problem, and 1 think will reach very good solutions. I am also excited by the potential of the urban space along the mall. All in all, areal asset. to Vail. I will be pleased to assist in further review of these projects as the process is into more definitive design. Sincerely, RO ON, A OTO, BECK & ABEY on ec tm cc: Messers: Lamont, Rose, Dobson and Hibberd Construction Company, Vail Design Review Board, Vail Planning Commission /'"'~ r~sE~~aRANDU~ • • TO : Ta~tiiN couN c ~ L PROM: PLANNING COtiItilISSION RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERAiiT - VAIL ASSOCIATES - co~~~~~rl: l~rrlc~~iT cavlJR - LI1iT ~Ls DATE : DECEA~fB1;R 18 , 19 7 3 BACKGROUNp: The Plannizzg Commission, an Decemlaer 13, 1973, considered an application for a Conditional Use Permit by Vail Associates, Inc. , in accordance liT7_th Article 18, Section 18 .400 of Ordinance 8 (Series a£ 1973) in arder to permit a counter weight cover to he constructed on lift #8 in an Agricultural none. Mr. ~'xed atto of Vail Associates presented plans anal photographs. It was stated that the lift cover was necessary because of danger to an operator in arder to shovel out snow. There presently exist similar lift covexs on lifts #7 and #10. ACTION BY PLANNING CO~L~IISSION; The Planning Commission determined that the application was in accord with Sectiaz~i 18.500 -- Cri'teri'a and Pinda.ngs, of Ordinance $ {Series of-. 1973), and, in particular, the use is in accord with the purposes of said ordinance and the purposes flf the district in which the site is located; that the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained is not detximental to ti~.e.public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of said ordinance. Therefore, upon motion duly made by Gordon Pierce to approve the Conditional Use Permit, seconded by Bi11 i-fanlan, it was unanimously voted to approve the Conditional Use Permit. Jen Wright abstained from thelrate due to his position with Vail Associates. RI;COACAfENDATION The Planning Commission, therefore, recommends to the Town Council that the Conditional Use Permit be issued to V.A. on this project. DS /`n~m3tt • MEMORANDiJb1 • C7 T0: TOI~'N COUNCIL FROA~~: PLANNING COAiMTSSION. RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - DR. '1'IiO~TAS DUNCAN - CIilROP1zACTIC OFFICE DATE: DECI:AiBLR 18, 1973 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission, on December 13, 1973, considered an application far a Conditianal Use Permit by Dr. Thomas lluncan, in accordance with Article 18, Section 1$.00 of Ordinance $ (Series of 1973) in order to per.~nit a Chiro- practic office in a Medium Density Alultiple family zone, located. on a portion of Tract A (Sandstone Staff House). The Zoning Adma.nistrator advised the Commission that there wexe no technical problems. The parking requirement requires one additional space, which can be provided. It bras noted that t.l~ere has been no public opposition voiced to the .project. ACTION BY PLANNING COMMTSSiON: The Planning Commission then determined-that the application was in accord. with Section 18.600 ~- Criteria and Findings (Series of 1973), and in particular, the use is in accord with the purposes of said ordinance and the purposes of the distract in which the site is located; that the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated ar maintained is not detrimental to the public health, safety, ox welfare, or materially injurious to properties or .i~mpro~~ements in the vicinity; and the proposed us e. will comply with each of the applicable provisions of said. ordinance. Therefore, upon motion duly made by Jen bright to approve the Conditional Use Permit, seconded by Gordon Pierce, it was unanimously voted to approve the Conditional Use Permit. RIJCOA~IENDAT ION The Planning Commissi.on..recommend.s to the Council that the Conditional Use Permit be issued to Dr. Duncan for his office. DS/nmm A4EAI0 RAN DUM • • TO : TOI~'N COUNC 1 L FROA4: PLANNING COi~1~4ISSION RD: CO~DITIO~IAI. 115E PERMIT - UI;G, TNC. - FA.,'~IiLY I;N7'ERTAiN~~IF:~T GIJNTER DATE: DECEMBER 18, 1973 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission cansidexed an application for a Conditional Use Permit by UEG, INC., in accordance with Article l8, Section 18.400 of Ordinance 8 (series of 1973) in order to permit a family entertainment center in a Com- mercial Coxe Z zone in the tail 21 Building. The Zoning Admina.strator advised the Planning Commission that this center was previously approved in error, and in order tc make it legal, a conditional use permit would be necessary. The Zoning Aclmir~istrator also advised that there were no technical problems. ACTION BY Pi,ANNI~rG GOA~IISSIQN: The Planning Commission then determined that the application, was in accord with Section 18.600 - Criteria and Findings, of Ordinance 8 {Series of 1973), and, in particular, the use is in accord with the purposes of said ordinance and the purposes of tl~e district in which the site is located; that the proposed location o£ the use and the conditions under ~~hich it t}=ould be operated ar maintained is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and the proposed use swill comply with each of the applicable provisions of said ordinance. Therefore, upon motx_on duly made by Jen Wright to approve the Conditional Use Permit, seconded by Gordon Pierce, it was unanimously voted to approve the Conditional Use Permit. I~Ierv Irapin abstained from the vote because of a possible conflict of interest. RECOAI~IENDATION The Planning Commission recommends to the Council that the Conditional Case Permit be issued to UEG, Inc. far the family entertainment center. DS/nmm • AlEA90IZANDUAI T0: TO1VN COUNCIL, FROM: PLANNING COP~~IISSION RE: NE1~ I.TONSQUARE CONVEi~TION ROOA~3 PROPOSAL DAT>J: D)/CEAIBER 18, 1973 BACKGROUND: 1Varren IClug came before the Planning Commission at its regularly sclaeduleci meeting on December 13, 19.73, ~+r~th a new proposal for the Lionsc~uare convention room. Briefly, Cunningham and K1ug determined that 12 additional spaces can be added. to Lionscluarers existing surface parking lot by redesigning the lat. They are prepared to go ahead wa.th this nely design (and to build the convention room in the garage); however, the now design will el~.minate some of the existing planters and green space on the parlcing -- lot . TH); TS5UU: The issue appears to be simple. At the cost of some green area, Cunningham will redesign his parking lot and build the convention room. There is no variance, exemption or other condition necessary for him to comply with in order to proceed. If, on the other hand, a variance is granted allowing him to temporarily retain the green areas and not to xedesign the Lot, then a solution might be reached which tivould be of benefit to Cunningham and to the Town in terms o£ preservation of green space, etc. ACTION BY PLANNING CO~iMZSSION: Mx. Lapin made a motion to approve the variance far Lionsquare parking, subject to the following conditions: • ~J (].) that it be reviewed on an annual basis by the Zoning Administrator, who will report to the Totivn Council and I'lanni.ng Commission; (2) that if it is decided by the Town Council that the additions.]. 11 spaces are reQuired, Liansquare would imme- diately provide those 11 spaces, as shown on the Exhibit present al to the Planning Commission on December 13, 1.973, marked Exhibit A; (3) that the conference room is available to people in the Lionsflead area (one of the main paints which Cunningham and 1C1ug made to the Cf11.131C11 and the Commission vas that all lodges in the area had need of conference facilities). The Commission voted to approve the variance reQuest, with Lapin as the anl~r dissenting vase, subject to the conditions noted above. I~ir. Sage, although he voted for approval of the variance, believes the credibility of tJle enforcement by Tozan Council of the cllange of parking, if necessary, is cJuestionable, in his mind. f RECOAlt,4ENDAT I ON • - The nlannin Commission recommends to the Town Council that g the parking variance be granted to Liansquare under the conditions outlined above. DS/nznm -z- Di1;A~0 R.'lN D Ui~~ TO : TO~ti~N COUNC I L FROM: PLANNING C03~f~~ISSION RE: ~ RESIGNATION OF JACK FRIT~LEN DAT1 DECEMBER l$, 1973 As you. lcnaiJ, Jack Fritzlen has resig~~.ed from the Planning Commission. This memo is for the purpose of foxmal~.y stating that there is na~v a second vacancy to fall o~~ tl~e Planning Commission. • DS/nmm r~ u