Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1974 Planning Commission Memos & Materials
~fiCl. OF FITZNUCl1 SCGTT--kRCiS1 E~FCT5 /P1.4 i{If F:A9, IHC. yAl[„ COLbpA00 l7GS7 J4J/47A-0GJB January q, 1.97j, } ~• Zoning V<<x~~ar,res requ~z~ecl to tree?t; ~'ot~rn Afaster t:'.lar1: , . 1. t;a.nin~unr Front setbaclc -= 10' (Sotttt~) ~~- ~ ~.~. 2. A`in:t.rlism side sei;La41~, -- 10 ° (t;a~t) / ., ' ~' . ~ - ~.Q, t06W13uilclin~; Bu~.k C~,,f;ro7 ~.. 'j 4' wall lengtt? r,=3~tt~orzt la' o~'~:ot wl~rest t•ral7. ~ar]<:l.ng g~.r~.~:;e . --~:ast ~~a~.1. t~car;c:i.ng~ ga~.~agc i 2. Iraar~.nturn ?~?~' corno~ L-o coz•ner ~ aat7;c e:~e~fat~orF _. ~ . i s E j } { l 4 i i i ~ i i i E F ~ E hC'i'l. iC,1-I i ll,l I"C1R VAfi I t,idCC Arid/Or Ci~idDl I~IOifP,f_ L1Sf: f'4~C~rif1" Ordinance ifo, Fz (~erie4. of I973) . A(ipI ic.~~"1-ior. Qatc ;f<irtat:r,y~?~.,V -L4~~'~,._~_#'rabf icai-ion Ga~roY. - -- i ki e a r i r; c} U a t r., ._ ~--_._..._--------__.--- ..:.. ,_»s__} ! o a r' i n c C e e<_-_~ _....~. ~_:~ '` f i f° i n ~a I U e c i s i a n d a t-;; for T a c,~ n Council ^__._~_~_____ .. ' I (~~ e 7 ;+.r _ i~i_c: ~' ~'n l~J~.;., i. r1 ~_ .r-o f ~~O ' . F3o x l 2 g 3 _~_._. _.._~_..._~. ~ (AppYi ic~~n':~)~~ (f~ddress) 3 V;~:i.:1 _- • _ C'hone. ~7r•-553? Co1or~.co __ , ,____ -~-~-- -•---(5 Ida ~ d j ------•---- ~°•-• (C i -r y) 1 cio her°eby requeni pc:rrr.ission to a,3pear before the Vai I Planning Commission 1-o r-egu€:si il~e fol lowing: ( ~;) 1+ariance from Flrticir_P-)_0~~,, Sec-rion 10<602 £: 10,606 t ) toning E; h a n c~ c~ # r v m - --__..~,_t o __ _._____ . { ) ~'arking Var-iancc ( ) Co[zdi i ianal L'se C'err~~i ~~ to ai inw~ _~ inComm. Ses'~'acc Center 7_one. ~ ~. .-~.. ._..__-_ .~.-.^~_~~.~w... y 1 ' For i~he follo~•;iny described proper-Py: L.ot/tract }' Cilocf<5wv•~ r ,~ F i Ping rJ u r:, b e r V, ~ i 1 ~' i 1.1 a r c' i~ 1 r s t ), :11:1 n ~;_..~ _._ ~ -.~__._.,..~ ~. `: I _ ___._---_..~.__ z~...__~.....~ _ 4 Cleariy state purpose and ini-rrnt~ of this app.l ica~ion__ "'he:p~tr!~.~~.se..__- . ~ ~ of t~ 4,~_ ~`s.32i>]-~4~:aL-_~ ot1 i s "_~o a~~~.ly._~'or__Y~r2~lcc s t; ca_t.he w'.Pot~rn of bras 7 . Zca:~1~~. Or~e~;ii~nt?cc~~~ or~?_cr- tl~a.L__~1~~~~nrano~ed riro.-sect s~r~~.ll thtin_rneet ___. . tine 1.eniz~_rem=~r~t,,~ oy ~]~e_Tos~:_i~af_Vai~, I+"aster P1~.n, as ~•_ell a~ th~'__~__ ti z~n:Lt~~ regu:,~^ear~or;ts_--~~'i1e ,_7.3~t~a~t; ~s to ..}"ronor ~r~nd__1'o].int+~ the ].2~v::; cf--- . ' t}~~ To•;;n o~ ~ra~t1, irlsur~ a viab].c ~ro5ject for_otzr ~1'.e:'rt anti ~.trn~o~c .. L-]:a overall character oa ±;13e ~,o~,rn of Va:i.~' . -.__ -- k~hat do you fee I E s i-rre basis far hardship i n ~rh i s casc?_'i'1~~ shape of t}~c s_i.te_<nd tl~e~ }~ro:~:i.erts ser.~T3.c~n; the existing builaa>.~f; o;'r thc~.._. adf}t~.cent site~to t}-re nest. Tn_orcic'r. 'to preserve ~znd respect the . D7aster__Pl«r~ ]ara;~o ,ai tc corr,,Jert }asf_ '~^eadow ]give _tca a pedestr~~.<~:r~ ma3.1 from a Veh~.cu)_£:r st~cet, f.ha_anly ie~~it~le acceus to tt~e exist~.nf;~T^ Cra::,ror~s co*ni~lex~ i,~ ti~roezg]-s ]aar. ce1 T3, ].ot 1', Llock 5-•r~, Vr~:i3. V~i1aVc 1~:~.^st 1':,.~.:L:~:~;. ml~trs xeciti~.r:1n~ Zonir;r~ Variances. . }~ ~~._.. ~iynrs~iur•e of rlpplic~ant Ai'i'f- I C:+1T I G'i i-Dii VF,Ft I i~.ld(:E: Orc;i!'<<.r~;:e~ ;ia,, S (er'scs of 1513? fipF'I ic:a ~ icn fu:L~~ ~-~('t"J"^'r~~ ~1~,1_.~~..3 F'ubl i::~~i ior: 17a~1r:. 1, , ,_ .. a,._~_--.5 -.~.__4.-.._ ...__..._ ._.-.~~~... <t.l (icar Irkr: Or~ic Hea: ino f=ec; '-~~~' 1"ir~~J! ('•~-:ei ~ic,r c:~~~c fir ~'oun ~:our~ci I do I1C'r'C~•}' r•.:ou~_-7 c.err:issic,n fio c^~?C:r,r Le.aro ~ihe Vai i f'It~nrir,~ Car;r,~~ _- ,c;n -c „_~,L•.„# ;Iae fal Ic~,~ i r~ ; ( ) 1'r.ricn`e frog; x•.r~~icle Secfionµ___~_____ ( ) ~'. C~n:riC {r .lrnC!~' 'rUfrl "~-O , ...y ( y;) C r~ r! c i ~ i o n a ' Use s`' e r r. i I- •t o a 1 ! a ~+~ °:Ar~, ~,~ ~; ,'r ~ r? / ,1~ 1I i';=; 's n_ ~{ ~ ; ;' ~ _ t.vne. . .. - For ti}~ foilo;rir:g de;cr-lded prvpYrf~v: [_oi/-tract ~~ Qlaci; __~ Fi 1 irkC tli:r~~,,Gr_1.~';r~.. ~:~It_~-rat''.y;'...-'~?`-'a1~'-~~/t./~sr- ._.._.~..-.Y...__...__..~...-___.w.__..._._._~._ - Cla~rly s~i~te p;:rC,a,,^ and infcnt of t{7i~ _aFp.l icesi.io.~ ~.cj.~ !'~£;~':J1.'`;'" , ~!r~_j~~:l~ys":~ ~1_..~'_? ---~-~! f~('L'~ "I ~.`l~lti.._-~f~f-'/r'r;~ ~}.~',.~~^~ S _ /fv ~~~r l:`f ~~~~ (~'1~'f_f r.._PLr;~X.r, tr:I~ G`~tJ/? !J ~~_~;- /f J'ti~Lf~~.~yGe__~~ 1~1`~,., f~.r7/'~' 1 [` f~)T~i1.n~~ Cj~ ~~~ ~= -- '~~ '%%Ff t:'i°_~~i. ; ~.E.~i.r' i~i;s_f; ~? ~ F°_ _.__~~c._ . --- S l~~'!'~!{_'.!;._._.~,~!~'-!';r~,~_`~til?L'~%rt7t.JS___•_~",)/'/'''fy: sJ",r'._~`~~e-__ ~f.=f~f?rm/JCT. ~_ _---_ ~{Wt,ai' co you i ee i i s -i ne ba.s i s for ha rd,l} i p i n this cas~•? _, _~___ 4tiJ C. r•','k't a l! l,. J S ~f { :~ 4 ~ ' ~ y' +~ ~ ~! r~ F I ~"/ rr y F /r - Jl ~`"/ `' } ~ ..rf ~. 1'rltJ'}~:2'.' r'!' Pi.Gf r._r; -~,_~- ~_.iT;.^`~_;i~y~:{I"~,~.~Jf~~ ~-~fi~~.lc {~;.~r1~'S ».c~r l r_..__ - ~1:'~fx__~>'_"fkr_ ':?.i,~.~`~ ~~~!_ !^J~/~l;',C.r fnl~ 1,'~1!!_(____.°jitir"- .?,'yr"`t};llrylf,~krr //~ ~'~'~d~l,"' } r r~i °.!_-- ~ ` r ~ i ~"* j`~_-. _.,_ !_~~~ ~`~ ~w r_ ~_ _.~f.'~f _~ ~/.f ~ ~>rr~':~ ~ C; % ~ _ r~~'i'" /t f /1 / /"~ r• { ~' _ `7i ~E-kiJ'IUrC i~ , /1 ~I1zC.t.J ~C-- r C:~., ~s f Ul Ij (; 1'-i C ~3~ ~ 7' ?'c.. ~% VGU.~~ 1 F} `} •1 ,~ ~_` - f v s. k; C. l•.~ ~` iS k; ~ r. ~'`~ !~ O 3C 1 () t] 0 5! a l{ c O l O I' e3 f.J O 8 7 fi 3 7 0 3 D 3 4 7 6 5 6 1 3 f a n L7 ~j r y ~~ ~j j I :~ >' tj ~-o: Pl-Ri`IIl l iJC cc~i..,., ! ss l,ol'r I•if=F'r~)fZRfJt lJf~'I ~ 1__ : s ; ~ ,r~, r- ~ i~ l_ ~+r i L ~'; c~ r ~ c> -r ~i l~ :~ ~ R T c ~ l l~ sz ~ ~-1 l~'~ ! 1> A r; ~~ The 'ra+;~n of V~,i I siaff leas revif:+ved the subJuct prf~! iminary plat and +~r i sly to r3:ul.e the io I 1 o+r i ng re co mrnenda~i- i ores ; !. Jinn Vie lc, should s1c.In1;7 and sign thE, plai- as a f~egistered Land Survr-:yor, .~ ?, Dis-I~zances ar~d hear-ine;:s should be provided '~ar-"aI l easementC r~a1~ p~ra I~fc~ I 1'0 la'l I i ncs. 3, E= I eva ~ i ans rind r' cdhts-of-~+;ay show I d be sho+~rn far a f I streets on G~nd adjacen~~ ~io -i-ESP. i ract, 4 . Street addr-ess systern shoo I d be -l-aken i ni-o cons i deration when nami nc; str~e-i-a an :1 h~.; T' E a~i~ asnumbering wau.l d be~ d i f.fi.i c~u.i -F +•r.i -t-h _orr 1 y one. ~ irc:et narrle l~cca~rse of i~he nur-~erous sev i 1 ci~bacl:s i,n '#-1ie rc~,d. `~, Provido P, I .V. elevai ions and gradas fo;~ :-Dads. G, Shat; e l ev~~t i ol~s o~ ra~.,d ai~ Iced Sandstone ~aad. ~1 . ! nd i ca-I-e I ocai- `s on of ~~e 1 ephane i i ncs an eas-#-ern part i on a~ 'l~rac'1~. £3, R dr~:~ i nacre e.ase~tr_~rti- shoo I d be provided for natural spr°` ng . on -I~he Staufcr 7rD`pcrty, - ~. Zonina of adjacan~i pro;~F,s-ty should be ind'rca~i-od, IU. Yle: r::commenc than V,A, at-l-emp-i- to re+~rorr'~ corners 16, !8 and 19, ! I. Should sho4~ culveri locai-iari and sizes. !2. RI ! cu-i- and fi I f oT~eratia~ls should be dei-Ui led to indicr~i-e s lone r~, ;~ i os, niethcd .~ F co~~pact i on, pr-ap~sc~d retaining eta! 1 s, and other in-torm~~-i-ic:n necessary 1•o make reasonable G~~~terminai~ions. Tzevr;;e-~a-',- I' cn of ~~ i ! cu ; al~d f i I I areas shoo I d a l sa be deta i ! ed . 13, I~de rec~mrl~.~:~nd .-h a-: any resubdivision o~~ f3uli< land be required -'-a meet alI subdivision requires:ants and Il7at a total site develop- meni- plan be suLrni~-t~i-t>.d at the - i me cif app l i cat ion'. i n th i s manner, the to~i a I devc Icpment o~T the subdivision can be bei-ter control le;J, t~ ~. t.a°L; ;._.y.~ .~"-"f'4+ ~..rY ~. ~-.~:f~.7r`a r°~ ~ #:t ~:.1 t~ ~M1 `~. ~ 4 irk ~ T,~ r+n~r.r,a-~~.., p ~~ ~- L_... p ~° 1 ~i ~ ~ era"~.._.~ r~ `~~ ~'~a t ~ t ~~-~~ d~~ '~~ b d x 1 0 0 V 8 1 1, C o l o r a d o 8 9 6 5 7 • 3 4 3 4 7 6. 5 6 7 3 January 24, 197 MEMORANDUM T'p: PLAfJN I NG Cpf~9M I SS I ON RE: STAFF REV I Eti'J OF PpTATp PATCH PREL I f~ I NA1=2Y The Town of Vail staff has reviewed the subject preliminary plat and wish to make the following recommendations: I• Jim Viele should stamp and sign the~plat as a Registered Land Surveyor. 2, Dis•rances.and bearings should be provided for•aIl easements not parallel to lot lines. 3. Elevations and rights-ofi--way should be shown for all streets on and adjacent to the trac+. 4. Street address system should be taken into consideration when a naming streets on the Plat as numbering would be~difiicUl-f- with only one street name because of tl~e numerous switchbacks in the road. 5, Provide P.I.V, elevations and grades for roads. 6. Shaw elevations of road at Red Sandstone Road, 7. Indicate location of telephone lines on eastern portion of tract. . $. A drainage easement should be provided fior natural spring - on the Staufer property. - 9. Zoning of adjaee•nt_.property should be indicated. Ip. We recommend that V.A. attempt to r~eworic corners 16, l8 and l9. I!. Should show c,ulver-h loco#ion and sizes. {2. RI I cut and fi I I operations should be detailed 1'o ind-.i'e`ate slope ratios, method of compaction, proposed retaining wall',. and other information necessary ~'o ma.ke reas.on~b[.e~.tfeterminatio~s. Revegetat i on of a 1 ( cut and f l I ! areas shoo I d ~, I so be d-ef'a i I.,~d. - i3, We recommend that ar~y resubdivision of bulk hand _be r~quir.ed to: meet a I l subdivision requirements and that' a total s i~te= dev.e I,o.p= ment p fan .be submitted at the t i me of application , ,,l n ;t.h i.s- manner, ~fihe total development of the subdivision Gan b:c.bett;er contr'of led, C MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: REZONING REQUEST OF VAIL ASSOCIATES FOR POTATO PATCH DATE: JANUARY 24, 1974 In meetings on December 6 and January 24, 1973, the Planning Commission reviewed the presentation by Vail Associates of its preliminary plat and rezoning program for the Potato Patch area. The rezoning request effectively down-zones the whole area from its original design and the only question which the Planning Commission had related to one 22 acre site (Lot 1, Blocic 2, preliminary plat) up-zoned to HDMF from MDMF. In fact, this zoning allows.- for more units than the developer actually plans for the site. The reason for the higher density designation related to technical problems of the zoning ordinance, cluster of units, etc. The Planning Commission voted to approve the rezoning request, subject to a side agreement to be signed between Vail Associates and the Town of Vail, which would restrict the actual gross residential floor area an Lot 1, Blocfc 2, to that permitted by MDMF. L.r1 ni~r~h. I cn~i I o~; r c)i; vni~ i r1rvC; And~or- co,,ul I io:;rll, usi_ I~t.;?h•11 I '~ Vy Q,~cEincT;lcc rice. 8 (Scr-ies vi 197x} k>>Ii!:~,1'rnn r.; (s1c,_.___rir~u:sr~~_~'`_; .r?7~'< f'ublicalio'} Gc7ie_~,cl>_ru__irv I,_I~7; f r _-.. _-- - -_w_.:_...___..._.._.__ ~ ~._ He~,rin~ "~~ie f e' r ~~a:-y ''i, >`37; i~f~ivc~ci ___.~_.._..~_..~._-- ---.. .._______....~_v__u.~..i eG r i n , f-~e_.__~_.~.~ ~..__.. _._.__.~__ __.. ' ~lndl C)F?~I stOi dir';'C tor' IG'::r: Cnrlr}CI I r+Iril~C`1_~, tJ~~~ ^~.m.f _•_.~..__._..... t~i~siri~i~ I (s:'e) Sai I i~~e-`r•r,ol i-1,,r} 'Z c:.rc~~~i-ion or F' (), C,o>: IQ _ __ ~ .. ~.. __-.~- . _ . _ __ __.. _ . ' ' ~. . ~ _ . _. _ ._ _. __ _. .. __ _~_. - -. - (A d rj r ~~ s s ? _-( f', ;l F; I i c ~: rl .f .) _ T` . (:o!r,l°,3u_: ~ Vr~i I f'hionc ~i7C7-~"_~L~13 (5~~~~~) {Gi~ly) dc, I,~rob; ren,~;:-,~1 i~c:r-n:issiL?n is apC:e~~r beicrc: it}~-: V,:i I C'fz,r,r~in<i C:or~clissi~•n to r~cuesi ~fh~ .vi lo~:ring: ( ) V~rialzce: ir:,rn Art ic.lc~_._ Secti:,n~~-~_-~_ ( ) 1 Ci r} r I I Cl [`. I1 c° fl v, l: { t' O r~ __..^~.._--_ I C7 -._ .__ ~ _ _ ( ) }'arl~irty V~?rir;nce ( ;~) ('<?nditic7r~al L.t~.u ~'er~i1' 1o alio'~r~nddi'tion i_o ~aifTc:lut7 i}ousL ir} ncricuitural loncs, r O r t I1 ^ i O I O'rr I t} [~ Ci C' S C r° I b G d ~; I d Fi E3 r' t" }~ : h. o "t- ~ 1" r- ii.C 1 M ~.~ ~. hi I O (' IC~r_._. Gloariy stc.~e~i?!1rFose ~lnd. inter}i. of this ~I~i?licaiion~ ~~ A Condit';ona I~tSc °c:.rr}i 1^._.Ls necessa_ry_ 1_o cottsi !-uci i he_I5_r_nl_n_e.cl __-_ eiddi~ion tc iice Goli Club lioi,s~-~ 1'o hr-ovidc: ~ddii-ional curing sp~c~, and office sh~cc~. Vlhai do you ice I f s ~Che b~,s i s #or. ha i dah i p i n t23 i s case? ~~~~~~. Sign}aju,_c' of P~C}:>;4 `t~~sr11 /, n ~ ,~,i.C~7,~lr~.-F' `~ 1. \.~ ~~-„.. ~d ~~a~~ ~,. ~,~~ box ioo vail, Colorado ssc~~ a 3o3.4~c-ss~s January 28, 1974 NOTICE OF l?UC3L 1 C HERRING NOTICE 15 HEREE3Y GIVEN that Va i I Rsscr.: i ates, Inc, has submitted the final Plat for the proposed i'otato Patch Sdbdivision. R Public Hearing wi{I be held on i"ebr~.iary 14, 1974 a~- 2:00 p.m. in the Vail Municipal E3+~ilding. A Public Hearing will be held in accordance with Article Iil, Section 2 (2} of the Vail Subdivision REgulatir~ns. TOYVN OF VA l L Diana S , Tough i I I ?oning Administrator. - ,._~ ~~ .f C.~ ~ r C~ 8 <A .. ,~ -, i ~ -~ 1r . , y ~,_ t li.!'.i ~'„ 6s ~..' ~ ~d i.., ~ ~ ~ Ct Y. 1 E? D • Y 8 i { ~ C C] t Q C ~ £i o $ t ~: 5 7 R 3 0 ~ Q 7 Ci - 5 G 1 :3 J:~nuriry 7_fi, 1974 t1DT I CE Ul= PUL3L I C HEAR I ICU t~O~~ICE~ IS tfEt~Fi?Y GI'ti'~P! •t-t~at ter. I•`:e~in L. L~,~n r^preser~t ing Cr~~``-~~ ro,:,ds _cr V :_: i ! has app I i ed for bui i d i r-~g bu I ~ _. c.or~1-rc I and s~;~i~bacl var'ianc.~s i1: accordance ~~rith Sections !C).GU?_ rend 1U.60c~ ~~r~d Ir3,~0f} of Or;iinG;~ -~~ I',o. t3 (Series of 1~7:~} in ordor .o ai ioti: an aY+d;tional b.~ i I ci ~ n~ i ~~ nG~ilCOE11'O;"f,anco ar i th 5ec1~ i ons 10. Gut ar~d I 0 .bOE~ on L~o~F .'. C 1 ocl: 5- C), Va i i V i i i ace E= i rs i' Filing , NGTICE IS I-IwC2~~~~' GIUf~,~i That ~'. Cha.rtes .J_~,i'.iay rcp~reseri ing A_po!_lo 1'r~ri: ilcS5 c`'r77 I I ed i'Or ;3 CO'7Ci i t I Cn~3 i t)S ' rE-, rr~i 11;_i n &CCOrGc~lC:E' 'r; I ~i~l"; ~~ l~rticie 18, Sec~ion 18,4u0 of Ordinance ~: (Series of- 1973} in order to p~r~rr3it taut afficc spaces ir. C~ui (ding C) of ~;i~ol la Pai~~ loca-;cd on '3'rac-1~ D, `v'G i I V i! I ane First F i 1 i ng i n are I-IL'~i~9F zor~e , idC)71C;E~ ~5 !;e:i2L13Y' GIVEN That Vai I ~ieiror~oi i-i-an Kecrea-i~;an C)ia~l~ri;f~ h{~s ap~~l icc for a Coc~ditiona-I~Us~__PE;r~~ii_-!_ in acc:ordr:,ncc with Artid~: IF3, Sec-i~iorr IF~,400 or' Ordnance 8 (Series o{' i97:~} in ordor -to . lserm i 1' an ada i t i on~ to the Go I f C I ub Clouse i n as7 l~gr i cu i fora I zone . Il• f ub l i c lien r i ng will be . he [ d i n accardr;,ncc....ti~r.i 3.;1.~.5_pct i on 2 1 , 4uC) of Urdinc,nce ~fo, S (Series of 1973} on I+e~,rua~~ 2_I_=_f97.~a~at 2:OC ~. p:n~. in 'I~Ir.c Val I t~iunicipal Bui Idine. SaidConditional CJse 1~et~t~i``~5 and variances t:~ i I I be heard befo.-c the 7o~.vr. of Va i I P I am i nc Cc ~~.- m i ss i on and ~ i nd i ngs ~•r i I i he transn~ i t'+ed to tho Tv~~~n ~OUi,G i I far tho Town of Vdil. ~~ ~'0',~tv OF VA I L ~ i ana S . 7or;nh i I I, . Zoning r1d~°; i n i s t rator Iowa of nail box 100 vail, calorac~o a~s~~ 3as•4~6.5s~s MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNGiL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: LIONSHEAD LODGE - PARKING VARIANCE 12EQUEST DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 1974 Mr. Martin has the ground to provide are additional 10 parking spaces as required under the zoning ordinance. However, it would mean removing landscaped area from the front of his building. In a meeting January 24, the Planning Commission agreed to recommend to the Gouncil the same pro- cedure outlined in the Lions Square variance, which came up earlier this winter. This procedure is as follows; ~~ That a variance be granted to Mr. Martin, subject to the following con- ditions: -- (1} that the parking be reviewed on an annual basis by the Zoning Administrator, who will report to the Town Council and Planning Commission; and (2) that if it is decided by the Town Council that the additional 10 spaces are. required, LionsHead Lodge would immediately provide those 10 spaces, as shown on the plan presented to the Planning Commission on January 24, 1974. 1't~bt-u.sry 12, 697°~ t,t.)T i Ci= C)F' PtfE;1.1 C: Ii1: R(r' 1 ?~A • t!'>>lC~: ly ,~:.RI:;;Y C.IVrtl "CilAi' „~r. C. C. 1^ar"lin, r~;ar-c::~c,t~i-lncl i_1 C)fl ~~: E':`, ~~ l.o :'r^. Sl i,.:'.: i+n ~,l~~i?G ~Or' cti E:oCl~il"l~rT iil 15c3 17 s31"r;ll"i' lri ~ccarrl~,r,re c•r('r;; Ii ,,"E~iel+; !8, Seeilon I;?,40(1 of Drriinranco f; (:ier° ic•; €?f !')"t :;? In crc't'r to p<;rr;~il a r~rois>ssional oi(ica~. in ~n ~'IJ!•i~ ror'€a l~s~~ieci on Lot f, 'Iovl; !, fall Llunhe:ac: first Filing. 1.:171CE 1`: ;IFR:.~.,il' f'litE~ii T;;A7 l;r. (~rdun ~lercu, rcpt-s-asen"~ing t'ai I `':<.,:!ni"aln ~c:it~,ol; 's:~s =+~',?; i~.~cl for` t, c:or~rfl"i--irsr,~t :~.:~ n~Mrrit .t,~ <rccorctr~r:c,„^ ar,~tT rir~lr..ie, iL, 5ectl,,n 18.~SC3') ai ~rdirr~;nce fi lSer-. lra~ o,` f~~•~~~) Ir ord~:r ?r, ~,}lnrr ~T priur~te sc;hc~nl In an ~xfstirn ~c<_>3rc:r,ccr lr~c~t~tw on Lr;t 31, ulOClc 7 Vai E Vi! lar;c f-irsl" f"i i lnn, `; (QT IC" (S isCRE.f;Y (=iV_i~l "Cil~ts ~1t'. J~~+j PR. 11"!'"'ier 1,7s agl,il~cl for- r. •.•z,ric==};. e- ir; ac.c~ru~rT~-c ~rlth ;ec"Iinn :i.,'•ii.~i anc} 5ectlor~ 1°.?.u^0 of Urdin~,~~.:: P !`=rice ;~F {:~"151 in c~r:ter i~r> 4:rre1€~~;~ {f,5 .~ddit'ional sr~u3re tr,nF n'r fiunr e~r~ra irT r,rT ~x1~,~lr,c, s'cssi~r~nc~: lnca"rcd an Lnt t, `tloc.l•. 7, ~'r.l i Vi l l~,€`r' '7"I~1~ !" l i l nr,,. A i'uhlic t,~~arin;, 4;i t! hc~ hc.l,1 in ~,crar-c':=fgcc; wlfih 5er.1'lot~ 23.100 of C1r"di r3r~ncr~ Q (Srri~~ r.f 1{s'7_',3,0:" i•iz, eT ']. j?~~~~ 2;C10 p.ra. In .lrc' Veri! '-~unlclpt.! 1't,11Idlrfc;. 5rrd E:cTncil'klanzal l;sc !'3rrni"Y.a`~tnci~ Var`IUtI.'.s ~.,I11 b:~ ~Tet.s'Ci !~e.ic7r'e 'tire "4"Or+n ns ~'eSil F'I~Tnnin Cornnslssin~,~ ani4 rindin;'sa ~,a31I be i,_;rrTSr.;ii~teG i-n ~'i;n +o1•rrs Council tr>r the inwn or +1:T1 1 , TOtait !;~ VAf i 7_anlrsc. ftc's:?ir;is~t`ator ~. : ~~ y L. M1 1 7. ... __ . .. _~ _ _ ~ r! ~ f _ 1... .. .!';._r S' ., i'... .r law l.. ,:.~i,al.•..r_~i3 L'.;,.,.a'.S~C,ir a .~~Ir`Ci.,...~w~v ~:,i, i. .,.. o .".~'. a Sz ;: ... .... ., ..., .. .... , u X11' ..< ~...~ :~i ...: p :..-, CL' ~ il? 1..•...~_._E ... t S,j J..1 ..._ ~ > .G ! P ~1 J'~_..''`~i~~.. ... .._ _~~ ._ ~.,.'S.`, _ 'ki-r,'.„ :1.:? ~~ 1'.._ - .._ii:~ ...~.'l.-.`~L.ia X°~~:.: !l„:__ .. .....,a-u u ii ,. .. ,~.. ..,U .. _.... ai.. w..'ui.."t-S.L 1. .:, ~~ cis .~,l:`.;'::i..:.1.3, ~L. .._ „r ~ 1 .., Ci l: .x ~: :_.,:ii. 4' ~ C..' :C'`.- - .. _...,. is ._ ..,-,. ,.'L.l~' i.i%. a .... .'. ~. `s ,=; r>'4. ... ~~~-f. ~ ._ ;:.. l`!: ?:l.c::11~. ;i « L± . ~. ~l i:i, _, ±... ):. :.:'C.L l?k; w'Ei, V ~L~ . _ l :'C?T.; ~'.r , t:i~ aE. s:' ~ `_~:.. is .t'~i. ,. .. r. _ ~.-~ 1 ..1'~.:. ._l.`.... ,. :5 .. C~... SL ~~.. _:'.1.x,1.. i.% c.'.:..}l,%~.6'i. ~:i ill.!.. C~C.1 :-.r !. Ll:'. ... .... r ....c.. ~t. .....,~l ..i lJ ~~t' L!'~.L~1~ .,~... i. L~ 1_~. i.%1,,. :.'1 '.".. .. ~.}.,. ....~ T,.' •J. ,.~,. AAi of ~~ L.a6::: .~.C`. ~Z:. .{~1! ..!i. ,',~. .. .. .:~"i.~__.. ._ ..Ci ~Cii~ :__. .. i:= :1•:. `t':, t?i~ is r~i _.. liL'a 'iJ C,~ C!'>`J .; :L ~,.i ~~T~1ci. 4L ;~:._ ...i.l.{:~:: JiC:'.. <-_Yr._ ._.~'.ei 1, „i :.i.. u'ri~..?1I 1'JU:~~.f.C.ill j, ... .. ,d r'3,Tli: ti ., . ..J ..7 .., , ~ ~ ....-n '~'lr ~:~'r~ Yf:; ~, 3.. _~.I:CYt.~ ... r~.~. i.3 L.~ .~.. r.l.~.li, e_C)il:?..r" ms's: `.i'.:r:.~.Y'_Lt. .Y'f~Csli.';_;'r~a;~ cl .Ll~ !. C?~:;,:`L tC,7:' .."1f'.7~~' l i] 9 C..i i.~Ll.!'.~Cl!.l~ .J._,~ .:_ a. .:i'', ¢ TL r',..__t L_ :='.~.1iC.._._.l.<I3! tv.~.~_~.. .t.;iii_~I,:i (JT .~.,~J g =z11iA ~~. ]~l.'?.:l_:,ll'.'i 't.z:... .~:._..,!I .:~1'C)T`'. C.~71"11.~1 "i~G~ C~CiY~';:l~Z {.%r 1. :,+ ~> ; ~,. 11:.)J.'~::[ 't - ' - '' +.u 1 ~~( ~ i'7 ~. 1: i~ i~l'~ C]!.,~`~'C.'-}-. } ~F' i? . -~ _ . t L.` ... ;J t.T .6..k. i,: - t_ .i_ .. is ~' li i::ri.~:'f. .. ~.+: _. LJ__ i.11'' - - ;~, ,:~. K, ~ ~. .. ~ ~. .: ,' ~ `f § ;~I1.~.,~d:C.]le:, e. _~ :L,i ..~.Ii CC 5^'~ ,~~. u:1. C.A cG .,!S: JLi ~i._ C_i .Ia..y ::i ..e .:).Ai L.l`-.~_il.i.. Li,a .~Z..~Gii4.'? .',3•tJ.Cir LI. l.3.)..:1.",G1::.L~ ..~1.'U:.. C:lJ1.'iif~.l' i:C~ C:Ql'i%C:~.'' :L~> ~C,., i Q~~ tfL31 l:CiU :.u11~,; I;(.)'vJ ClU•':.'s~ ~~:Ll~~d1;_."'~` e,.;::_ L i'iE3:1..iC:)C'.' 1.J1"'1V.:~ .:~.x'.~:Q ~:. _. Ca~~.i1.. ', ... ~;. ~Cs'!l.. .;.:iG;~'C..:);1 <,'):i~ ..,:'- ,.. C:~:E~ S.`._ F.Q 'l..lv. ~7.-: ~' .l.:i~i:.? :ill:`T i:::iiT;'' 'f.,c) .ilk .,~'L,tA ' r', _ _l.... ,~., , I:• ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~i;2,.~: C:U3?"~.:1"'ca?_ 'V~::i?^ 1.Ai1C"~:a 7 ~I:s1C'. ~.~A]?~~'., ., 1. :.~:i: c;~a J:;. .i,a_. :.1~, c__3« i%;.jL~_ :~~~L"U Cc,r_lr::c:~l ~ :. ~,.;La: a~. Clc: ~ ' th ~,c:i~ 5G'.~~~11"l~, ]"'1~ -,,L~II"' 'i.111"i, U!~1 ~~7% £i :L~I:E.' ll:~.`~ ~... ~ i. _. '. Cr ~l 1. ``i it . i ~ * ~ (~ r .. ~t - G ~ i 4 ' r:tJ~~ .~+'.'-r:! i:',C~ t. ",i: u. 1, l.i:'.r'_ r+ S. ~~4~ l;:t::_-i. ~: elk::. Y'C'C~L;.L:Y'..'.li:..'Til. 12i,1; .~£'S'li l',!~! (,~iw el ;.i-.,ii f, M11..1 (. s:.._ !.ti•j:` j' ~'_ mil: '::~~~ .,1:~~7. i'.''~. ~? ~ Al ~~C.7 ii Ci :t.:~l~ OU~t ~,:...i. ~~ y~l'A C.`. ~~'i:? i is _l:i.':_`a3 "~,, r'L ,':: ~l`i .i. .1Sl... `]~l :E' :ifJa'i..'l .., .LC.'1`_. Jw- ~S-t G', i.a.l? t.Ci1.T74; a1•- i1_ `;:.`' `I :lt_C, t?" ~:.St.Ai`iw' i~.c..;i ~l t.:s'::'cy :.a .~ .1:~: ~L.C. .L::3,ilt..~aC:~~g;...i?...s ~'~~ ri l l ~~ ~. -g-. T ,~Ji? c.:. T~,1 i.'_L .l. i iL.li~ ~. ': v5 U ~ i,~.'r'~... Y:.,,1 <r,`r..; f.'1.1 4 . ..3 ~- Lt.: C.: C~~~~'i ::~.tjt~ ~T.)7ii a: .l. e: J . ~~ _ -' - ~ .1~. .. ,. ~ ~ :._ -... ~ .- o ..,~~. .d':.... v. C:} .. .. .. .. (. ~. _ ...;?ifs c.7"t;c: 1. :k yY :,, .-C. ~...-... _ ~. .--., id: ~. .._~_.. 3~V ___~. li . -„ ~ 4°Sd. '.~._. .,-. ~'. c1 ~;~5,. ~i~. ~... _. L.a ;~GEI~i1fA Ai_R!~f1T":l i=,O;~i;`i:ISSIOi~f ~1. Corssicicra~L~ion of rcq~acsf: for setback and f~U i k uUt~iance~ .- Cf~OSSROi=tDS ADDI-CYQE~ -- hierv I_api n. 2. Cansirlu3k°atio~~ of Conci~it.ional Use Permit request cif "f ._ Cf_tar1 e~ _ Oc;_i_1 by represen~ci nc~ ~~a11_o__f~urfc_x to l~~rm~~ -~o~;r office spaces . in 3~~ild~i~~g Dr ~iract DA Vaii l~~illage lst f~~i 1 ~i r?c~ - I;Ili~if~ znnc. 3. Consideration of Canciit~ion~ii Use Permit reci.~est o~i~ ~a~il_ Me~4rLNai_itar~ f~ec~reation ." . D'i s1.ri ct ~:o f~cr~~c~i ~; an acfd i ti on to 'tt~e GoitvC`;~_~~_I~o~,~se ~I11 an Agricultural Zone. ~~. KEView ;~i= tila'i~l Associate's ~ina1 Plat far Potato f'~a.tcl~ -- Jii?~ 1~'ia'ie 5. Revie4v of Prel~iz7~inary iZesubdivisiarrc~~F ~ . Tract A; 1~tF~ i~i1'incl -- Veil Associates. ~J i'; il`i~J. iit~ ~~1~ .~l'i),~.~~. C. z.=, 13:!',!ii~.i , i l #- ;UJ'AL% J.:~.i ilC.-~:f~~i ('~.1Z+i.,r1 i:}~ka.~6: •i;li`. .`u.~:z C;Gllil_ .~. i~:ia.' -Cllr `1.U~?ll US, <' ~1dJ.1. .:~. ~L TC:7:..1! ;i ,.~•};,,.t:,. ti:~_'•l~_itC!c•, r1i;'i.:?.i:..C ` s :L:J1i 1'~fhi..ii3'C~3(i ~` 7i i'`:. + ,i ~?d~~iiu:.R :. :.,UC. II: .i..l'! ~~(.`.CC'T`- l~, F'. at'Z,IiJ (}f~ li :. ;T;C€: 4: ~ i.ii Sc'_'i~ ' ~C .~`.V Il ~; ,;,i1~7J4 ~i,lii r~.1.i-0J Cli' J','"Ci:i..~3.it;G .'~C;. [5 ~Si'-Y'=,.~'.; cil 1cJ`!3). ~~~, J;t.L C'_ :lc :: i'1SFf~ 41 i..1. ~. 1~U flr•.j. Ll iJ.!i `1~1,!f~.-_. ci'} li.'!-;-'r:): ~)3 ~'~~~, ~..1 i : 3~ !! ~ ..TS.. F is lC ~.L?lnaC;?...'7. ~`iiiil3~i ~, Z';., rlf :;1, i~Ci.3: ' Z- ; ~,l .l. ,~.. [71~ 7..J1 ' r -1 ~f- `~r'.1: -i~tr~ , °•e Uni "r^~t~~~n "i :er, i'~~ £ f` 3° of . . K:J'13) . '.i' Ol'~ , F C~;' Vl~ is 1)1.:,111 ~. Tuuf.;i:i.J.?- ~_o:li;lu ~`:ds-~ili:.:. tT~:i~i:c~~~ i ~, _.. ,_~, ! ~ ~f ~fi ~_1 ~f~ff i'C". 'Ji {t >,W O..~IC<3.. "i~~ - ~ ,: i .•l ~ •: _. ... - .c. ....~, ,~ .. i._ ... ~ .. _.[. .. .,.. i..t i, 9. `'. i.; ~l.~ `... - vl ... ~ l i, .1:.. .. _1.1i .. f.. o- .. + ` :<< i 4 i ( t t ~i 7 `s i •ti)~~:1 ~ }.. _i. .a r, t~ ,, .v _'~.i. _i..f.. ~i~ ~~. `~~_~ i, i.: ,~ .. ,. ~).~., Ci ~.. ._,. .1+.. ~', ~~'. . .. .. ... .. . i.r l:~ e ., „ . . .. ~ ~ ~ ~' :~ i i i i i. 11f'r'LlL.il~itl{; rv~~ rnnir,irv~_ i.~,. And/Or crn~i~j -r I c~rinl_ usE i'E;i:P4 i T Ordinantc:.lo. ~ (Series of 1973) ~~: App! icai ion Qate~l'eY>r.uriry 22,_T~,7'± Pub! icatior~ Qaie fFarch :x. ,, ~~7r1 ~ Hearinn 1)aic _~tiarch ~1., ]~9'7~~ ~ Fleari ng Fee alUU.tIU `F~t .<~~ 7-7~Jls'~. ' Fi na I flee i s i on dame for 1 ovrn Counc i I ~ic:ar. i_n.g dat° to Ue a~a.bl.z~hed after dec~.sion and public by P-tanning (,r~mmission ,. i {t~ro) _ Vai.l_ _!1s_eo_c..i<i~~_-:<;~ .':;nc, ~af P._0. _ i3oY 7 _ __ ~, EApplican-i) EF~ddress) ~~; 47G-56B1 Color~!clo VAiI ~ Phone -~~ E _ _ } .,_._ ~(Si~aic'1 ~ ~{City) j , I r: do hereby rcquosi i~errnission is appear before the Vaii Planning ,i„ Comriissiort io reclu~si Cite fol Icwing: ~( { ) Variance frnn Ari~icie , Seci'ion ij E x) 'Lon i ng Change from HDM1=' to Sll~?. j; ( ) Par4ci net Variance E ) Conditional Use Pertrtit to al loyr ~ ._.-_-_ In Zone. i for the fat los~inc~ de~scrihed property: l.at/tract: ~ .E ~ Bioc1< 'T'ract: ;3, Vail V.tll.age 7th f'il.i.n~; and 'Pract~A proposed ., F'i 1 i ng Fiurr~~er E~ Vail- ~r7.1_l.age 7~~Fth F:i.lang I; E:learly s1a1e purpose: anal intent_ot,this appi.ica-1:ion Tc prom,a~t:.e -. ., the orde>~ly development of a phased pra~ect and to !?uarantee th~~ ~i aestne Lir ccampleti on o.f same - { VIha1- do you feel is the basis for hardship in ihi~ case? 5 i gna~urc: of App f i cz.n r f AGENDA PLANNIPdi~ C0~1~1ISSION FF[3(~UFa,RY 2~3, X9J4 l.. Cor~sideratian of regr,est for setk~~"~:~: and bulk variances - CROSSROAi~S AflOITIGN •~ continued from k=cbruary 2lst r~.eetirrg. 2. Consideration of Conditiorral Use Permit reg~.~est of ~'. ChARLi=S OGI~EL~Y representing. AP01wL0 '€'ARK, to permit four office spaces in .Building D, Tract D, Vail Village ls% fi 1-i ng _ HOMF Torre -- coati rued fror~~ February 21st: meeting. 3. Submission of alternative parking plans MONTANEIZOS II -JIM GUNNII~G~IAM ~~ _ Y s-!FYI ~~)(:, i:i -ti!:.!:~.,.,_ ~~ ~~i~t~.,i ~i,~,i~ ~'~C'. ~,_,;t;f- ~Ur'Ct1j S^t,..~1r.Cl° 1. I.~ i tiii ~i-il f: i+~; ~.-~ ,i,, i3 `_i ~€'.'3i i~. Gi sC"ii~ 3 :c3 "#"h - _ i3 C r< V i! I" 1 2: i7 C C? i fl ~'.c:c:c}E ~::Ef15.'i '.(l it ~,~:U', it.>ir t,i, ~)? 23 r1 f! i:i iJ;fi Idi-i;r. ht~l;~~ {~^" 'r:-,g.I tJi.r'1~:i1C~, IIt C.~;LUi..:!'+.. s? Id!'fil .~JC':1~iC?!3 {i,~%ilU Ci~ ~3'~illl~9-.~Cr i~•FU. 'u {:. _:r''tv., cif I~,1~i; _~sid v,;rl_;r-EG Ii _ :; t;~;ari <?r;{~i i:c; for irr Li _:Gl"7 t`tI ci Fi C:L P! i ~'f~!"4 :?C=C~!' 1 C1R (~) , ~~,ti1 O i f)3~(~ ~ I'~€~"=1i C: l? ~ti LJ. ;i { ~i E: l' 1 E'S Cif I9~<';} ..L.flt. i.._. i. 5 iCZi:,~'F..,.~ :311 L.::'?' .3y ~.,I;JCiC iy ycli I I..fC~i]`ii1C23f .'71`(i i-I i IIt4;; i~ ~'tlt:) ~ I C I~ercr i r}C~ F° I i i 1"iW h+ i ~~ [ rl elCt:Or'C{iJF1C:is 17;1 1i?f, l I Vrl 21,4r?) of Orairi~=r.:-:., ,;c~. 3 {5wrie~~ ~P 197:) c.Et "`.:rc:i'~ ~;?, t97~b i i 2 : ~f Q {> , r:i . i r; ~ h f, if a i I `~' ri n i c- i r3 i i i trt (I ii i c'. ~3 t~ a~ti9t"I{;f, S~f ~ i ~:.'. !?1;5C71'"E~ !i'1L'• !ClF11S i!'f Yr:I i hi.i"aitlrl(} ~Cif~fitl.:>5iOl1 ai~~; f i nc'.i n~•, c:~ i i ! .;e .i i°zs.:isr::! ~Y ~L~cJ to i-he -f ov+n Cc~E}nc i 1 r"or- `:-fi~~ c; ti's . ; 0 4 1~ ; ~i i . ~Oi~i? ~)I~ V;: I L i:on i rl_,; r,di.71 r; I ~s1~,r.i~E-cr .:~ w ry~'~` ~S i~~gi~~~tur c nf~7;p~ l i C:~n i • And/Or GO'~i.~i71JPlAi- U~r P'E-i:i~il ! Ordin~,nc~:. '10. ~ (Series of i973) ~ y _ F. `~ ~`1 gN~.u'S ~_`.. €~ f `" e,~-P t: b f i c a ~i i o n m a t e ;~'~ __ '~ ~. _f~ ~ .'-.-~" -. ~~- ~ - . ft h, p l i c. a 1' i c n G a y e °-•~. -- -- _ ~- ' "» '-~ ' ^': ° ~;~ G~ ~s: f- '~~ i l x:. F ~ s hi C'rJ r 1 n ~ ~~ c7 ~' (, _ 1 ~ ~'° _- r 4 €' ~ „! `~ e __-~-_•__.. _...... T . ~ n c e e t e a r J t n ~dl~'n ~UUnC i l l~ I ilJ I ~8C! 5I Pn ~.a I'C, fOr' -,~ . r..~a ,~.y i-:..~:`:.!~,>~ ~~~ ~~.a' `~~a~ --,~._...~.-...~.._ ~; ____-__-- _ .--__~_~. ~ . .~----i-~t App i~i c ~ r; #) (Add re5s ) d0 t1CrC~y rea„}nSj err;-;jSiQf~ '-C c.'~f% c%r bCfOre ii1C Va41 '}fdnRlnJ GQfRril l S~, I Cf7 't0 rEqu°CT itlC ~CyI { C3 Y; l,i. CJ - ~. ate. r~' ~ . (t~'~ V a r i a n c e from A ,° -[~ i c i e ~ ..~; f~.s~ ~ :~, Sec 't i o n ~_P ,n ~_ ___ _-.____ ( ) Goad i # i c.« I Lase flGrr:: i't to a i I ow ~.---~~ t n ~- ~ Zone. For #-he fcllo~ring desc:rib~d roper-#y: La~t/iraci- ~~__.~_, ,131ac'r,~' F i I i n c h! a rn b e r ~~!..~,. r~ ., ~~k-' ;.~;~...s'z?'~:~,:~ ..,.~ i ~.__~._.._ `'°~-- `: d _.~~. .7 ---{~~ " y-~,a `~ Clnarty s1-a-#.e purpose and intF>nt c# #f~is a,plicC.#ion_ ~___~_ ___.~ " e f d~ ~ r ~~ ~'~S . . ,~ y.fi :-~ ~f~a.a:°.3~,,..~,..~;mc.txFp.4..~'..~ ~~..~"~ ^~ ' ~ ~ l ~~ f. .w.~ e°'n A; ir~px ~++~i9 ~ b -~ : ~~ .f ~ ` ` ~ ..+3~.,~.+ L„ ` .t t+ ~~S ~~f.m u ~ . ~ ' .f. ~..L d .. e 6 ~ •_C ~ f~•. .~.£ ~aH~ _Q~+- tQ .~1wc+~ a f~=~~ ti^:~Q.m~~ ~~ y ~ .. .`~ 3 ~J ~ i~~ ~P 4~ ~~ ~.r5.y n.tl1 ~E~'i ~~ { A _ 'e ~ i . ~ '1 ~ ~ 9 i nc ~. - ~ _k;~yy . .. + + .1 ~ ___ P .-.- ~ ~&F _q~. rl' '"""~' ~ : ~E J; ! P ` i V '-.~f ~.f~.+tSNY.,.-tf v + I '~ ~ ~ ...._~_._..- 1 ~' 1~ 's s -the basis 4ltoat do you fse I €or t~ardsh i p i n 1-t~ i s case? }/"' k~.. ~ ~~'° e'=~~ -~gsa„/ ~~. ~.,~?'~:~k ef~ -'~ -M ?~'~.~ '~v~a .c ~.: `~'d-~`=,~' - ~~~~,"~~5' -P~`~ra°°r ~+i°~r~- -4~°.~'~,~.,,.~ - < A .,~~ wv~g3.t;.,.~5+ .~ ~' ~ ' +~~~•w'-n.~?x.a . 8 '4 ~ f '~ ~ '~-~.~ _ e~ R~ 1 e~,. ,.R,.~E~.~^,;.~_-_,vC'~^~' Y..^ k --'~`-- ~ ,~ . T,: .1: f ' " '.'- ~_._ „~T _~.~ r 4 j~= y ~s ~ ~ ~~ f ~ ~ ~ _ nT ~ ~^~ r 4 ~ M1J-ir.`. -dt W ~ u~ .5 i gn~li ur ~: of i:i:p I i can I k '{ Town Council Agenda - March 5, 1974 MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: CllRRENT RECOMMENDATIONS DATE: MARCH I, 1974 Ina meeting February 21st, 1974, the Planning Commission discussed and made recommendations on the following topics: FINAL PLAT - POTATO PATCH --RECOMMEND APPROVAL This was the third time that the Planning Commission looked at the proposed plat and technical changes had been made to satisfy questions concerning the turning radius on the major curve as one drives into the property. In addition, Vail Associates removed one of the residential lots along the northern boundary -- creating slightly larger areas among the remaining lots there. Finally, a turn-around in the road had been inserted up on the flattened portion of the property. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the final plat for Potato Patch, and to recommend same to the Council. PRELIMINARY PLAT, TRACT A, I4th FILING -- RECOMMEND APPROVAL The Commission reviewed again the preliminary plat for Tract A -- the eastern portion of A and B. This property contains 5 residential lots, plus the tennis courts, which will be a part of the condominium project on Tract B. One suggestion had been made to curve Vai] Va11ey.Drive through Tract A; in discussions, the Planning Commission decided to accept the Town Planner's recommendation that this curve was not necessary. The Planning Commission voted uanimously to approve the preliminary plat for Tract A, 14th Filing, and to recommend same to Council. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - GOLF CLUB HOUSE -- RECOMMEND APPROVAL The conditional use permit is required to expand the golf clubhouse structure -- which is in an Agricultural Zone. Plans were presented by Bill Pierce; criteria and findings were reviewed-from the zoning ordinance; and the Zoning Administrator indicated that the structure meets all technical requirements. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve a conditional use permit for the golf clubhouse, and to recommend same to the Council. DS/nmm -2- Town Council Agenda - March 5, 1974 MEMORANDUM T0; TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: CONDITIONAL US£ PERMIT REQUEST BY APOLLO PARK DATE: MARCIi 1, 1974 Charles Ogilby came before the Planning Commission on February 28, 1974 to request a conditional use permit which would allow Apollo Park to convert several recreation rooms to office space. After discussion, the Planning Commission decided that this use was i not in keeping with the intended use for that complex and voted unanimously to deny the request. Ogilby indicated that he would not pursue the matter further and would withdraw the request; therefore, no formal action by the Council is necessary. Most likely, Apollo Park will go with dormitory rooms in that space -- which is a permitted use under the Ordinance. DS/nmm -~ AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 197 l:oo P.M. Consideration of request far building bulk control and setback variances for CROSSROADS OF VAIL (Merv Lapin) (continued from February 2I and February 28 meetings) 2. Consideration of application by Mr. C. C. Martin, representing LIONSHEAD LODG£ for Conditional Use Permit, in order to permit a professional office in an HDMF zone located on Lot 7, Bock 1, Vail LionsFiead First Filing. 3. Consideration of application by Mr. Gordon Pierce, representing VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL, fora Conditional Use Permit, in order to allow a private school in an existing residence located on Lot 31, Black 7, Vail Village First Filing. 4. Consideration of application by Mr. Jay Utter for a variance in order to enclose 165 additional square feet of floor area in an existing residence located an Lot 1, Black 7, Vail Viilage 7th Filing. 5. Discussion of House Bi11.1156 (setting up urban boundaries • i~~~t~rch 7, 197~I 1 d: PLf11~i~! I I~C7 Cdi•iiI S ~ I di~J 1~E : Cdi~~D i T I dNAL t;Si- i`'E R"~; i T Ai~'PL I CAT ! diV F1~Of~ VA i L ~lOk3PiTA i N SCIi{)01.. Ai prc;sFn-!~, ~•re cJo not feel v;e have adequate information to make an i n1~E: I i i cren t r~.cornr<~,er;dat i on; hov:ever, the fo 1 I ovr i ng ~3 re pv i n i~s vr,~ ~ror~ I d u.r-I omi~-I" -ho ana l yzc~ : I, Compr:-i-i b i I i 1~y yr i ~ri1 -i~he; ne i gi~bor°hood a. Park i ng for ~Ic~acl',~~rs ~~nd visitors i3, hioise c~c~~~:r~ated by students and tr~,;i:fic c . ~ Ffec~i~ upon neighboring proper-i i es 2. Possii~le ~uildinr Code Considoration:~: ; a. h~r1 rng b. 'i-ype o~F Cons~f•ruction .. c. Sani~taf-ion ~vifi~hin the bui Id~ing d. Light cano ventilation . ~, ~ i re Cons i aer~:-f i ons: ~. PoSSIIJIo Hoed for sprinltler syster~ _ b • Ava i I cab i I i ~i } ofi f i ,"e hyd ran~i-s ~ ~. c. Accessibili~~y up steep drive by fire trucks. i 4~Je do not feel a recommendation for approva ! can be rrrade at > this _rirne unti I some of the more specific c{uesl-ions are answero~. F i IIl f'~^ MINElTES REGt~LAR MEETING PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 7, 1974 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 1.40 P.M. in the Conference Room of the Town of Vail Municipal Building. The following members were present: David Sage, Chairman Dudley Abbott Bill Hanlon Bi11 Heimbach Merv Lapin Gordan Pierce Jen Wright Aiso present were: Kent Rose, Town Engineer s Diana Toughill, Zoning Administrator Jim Lamont, Administrative Assistant Cindy Lamont, Vail Trail The Commission considered an application by Mr. Mervyn Lapin, repre- senting CROSSROAD5 OF VAIL far setback and building bulk control variances (originally reviewed on February 21, 1974, at which time no action was taken and the matter was continued}, Mr. Lapin and Mr. Pierce were not present for this portion of the meeting, due to conflict of interest. The Toning Rdministrator presented to the Commission the original and revised sets of plans, showing that both setback and building bulk control variances were necessary {there had been a misunderstanding when the Planning Commission first reviewed preliminary plans in December that there were no variances necessary in the original plans}. Jim Lamont advised that he, Diana Toughill, Kent Rose and Bob Hunt {architect for the project} met on March 6th, and tentatively modified the plans (sub- mitted on February 21st} to make the building less nonconforming -- removal of tiers of parking, and then providing berming and landscaping, which would eliminate the setback variance necessary on the east portion of the site. The elimination of the parking would take away 20 parking spaces {16 of which were in excess of the requirement}. The remaining 4 spaces will be relocated on surface area of the site. Also discussed was the vertical offsetting of the northernmost roof line of the building (no offsets had been provided and, therefore, variance is required). ff tti ll i ng se y o ca Some general comments were: Jen Wright felt that vert the east and west walls of the parking structure would help the building visually and was in favor of considering a vertical, rather than horizontal offset. He aiso felt the building bulk control should be complied with, but did not have a problem with the setback onto the mall area. Mr. Bab Hunt stated that in order to meet the building bulk control, access could not be provided through the building (which would defeat the master plan - -~ ......for pe~~strianization}. Kent Rose, Town .Engineer, advised that these plans did, in fact, accommodate the pedestrian concept of the master plan. Dudley Abbott questioned how access related to the Hibberd development; Jim Lamont pointed out on the model access to the Village Center project (through the proposed Town of Vail control gate -- which also accommodates the master plan}. Mr. Abbott also questioned the interrelation between the two Crossroads projects {in particular, the condominium association and the '~ proposed project}, with regard to access, parking, etc. r The Commission reviewed the Criteria, as stated in the zoning ordinance, for granting a variance. In order to comply with the best interests of Vail Village and the Vail Master Plan, it was agreed that the following definition gave justification for reviewing the variance request; in particular, Section {2} of Article 19, Section 19.60Q; (2) The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regula- tion is necessary to achieve compatibility and uni- formity of treatment among sites "in the vicinity, ar to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege, U After further discussion, the Commission made the fallowing findings, in accordance with Section 19.600: (1) That the granting of the variance will not con - stitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. {2} That the granting of the variance will not be detri- mental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (3) That the variance is warranted for the following reason: There are exceptional ar extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply genera]ly to other properties in the same district, • A motion was made by den Wright, seconded by Bill Manion, and it was unanimously voted to approve the variance requests for Crossroads of Vail East, based an the following; -- (1) Southeast Setback {building setback from the mall along the south- east is not sufficient to comply with zoning ordinance - variance requested ranges from 6 to 16 feet); -- approved as presented. (2) East Setback {east wall of parking structure is on property line and requires setback variance}: -~- approved, subject to eliminating the east- most tiers of parking, thus moving the wall back approximately 20 feet. Berming must then be created between the east property line and the parking. structure. With these conditions, the east setback is na longer a variance situation. The parking structure will comply with the zoning ordinance in regard to the setback. Twenty parking spaces will be eliminated, but 16 of them were in excess of the requirement. The remaining 4 wilt be relocated on surface areas, (3) Building Bulk Control (diagonal measurement of the building is 260 feet, as compared with the allowable 225 feet, and requires a variance): -- because of the change in the building, from the requirements of #(2) above, the diagonal measurement of the building is reduced. The new length is 240 feel;; and in consideration of the overall circumstances, a 15 foot variance was approved. {4) Building Bulk Control - Offsets {parking structure east and west walls are 92 feet in length, with no offsets; permitted length is 70 feet and will require a variance): ~~- approved, subject tv architect -2-~ r"'`~ ,~ i presenting, within 7 days, anew roof design for that part of the building. The Commission felt that breaking the roof line would ease the visual effect of the building from the east, The visual effect of the building from the west is not of equal importance because the building is hidden at the north- eastern portion of the existing Crossroads complex, Mr. Abbott further expressed concern that existing residential owners in Crossroads nest shou]d be made fully aware of-the proposed project and how it will affect them with regard to ingress and egress and parking, Mr, Lapin was called into the meeting and stated that the Condominium Association was advised of the project at their annual meeting last month. Nir. Lapin also stated that he will have to give a guarantee that the condominium owners will forever have rights of ingress and egress, but that he has not done so at the present time. Mr. Lapin. advised the Commission that no one has voiced opposition to the project to him. • a • continued draft prepared by Nadine of Planning Commission minutes - Page 2 PLANNTNG COMMISSIO -APRIL 4th, 1 --~"_. V.R. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - TRACT 13 - NORTHWOODS - JEN ~IRIGHT Revised document presented t o P.C. Lamont stated needs review by Town Attorney prior to going before Town Council. Basically, need approval from P.C. as to content of document. COMMENTS: Lapin - questioned change in zoning, greater or less density; answer, approximately 15% less. Heimbach, no problems. Hanlon - no c mment.Abbott - have not had time to digest situation, questioned w at ki'"'nc~`ot pol~cy~Ic.~wn~'t~"'~ ~a~ce ~,n par~c~ny'requl'r'~u'i~ri~r:s - ANSWER FROM ZONING ADMINISTRATOR - 85% COVERED PARKING/ REQUIRED 751: Abbott-~- need to clarify setback next to V.A, property, Diana then reviewed the differences between regular zoning and the zoning for special development district (need to get exact info from her). some items mentioned: -- permitted use - Mu1ti~Family Dwelling Units. Will be no Commercial, no Lodge Use permitted. Lot area site - 10,000 requirement, under special development district, only 7.7 acres. distance between buildings is more restrictive under special district. site coverage allowed - 55%, covering about 25%. i,~nc~„c,an~~c re wired 30/, provided 60/, parking and loading, covered insteayd of °. conform to all zoning requirements, except ofitsets ~a~lready approved and setback onto open space property owned by V.A. (I did not take down everything Diana stated -- plan to get all exact information from her for the final minutes). However, substantially under the zoning requirements. VOTE: Lapin moved that the Pl.C, recommend to Council the adoption of ARTICLE 22, SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT; Abbott seconded, unanimous approval; Jen Wright and Gordon Pierce abstained. t " Ai'f'i.1~.1~lOti EOi' VA"F:IAt:CE . :Snd/4r COl![)11"IO,dAL USC: +'[:Zt•+.17 .~ Or'dina^c~ tio. 3 {Series of 19731 Application Dai"e .,~-~~~ - `,r '"°'~° ,.~ ~r~`, ~ H e a r i n c Fee _~ Hearing [) a~e"~ ~ "° ^'~ _ `~' V.~'~ ~~ t Final pecision da1"e #or Tcti}~n Council ~~ -~`'~`°~` -~- t ( - wr .~3 (Appl icanr7 (Address) ~~io.~.t"~".. ~ ~ ~!, Phone ~,~~~~. '~'~'~:' (~; i ~ ) (S"iate) Y do hereby request permi.ssio^. so appear hefore the Vail Planning Commission to requ~si tre ~ollowis~y: ( } Variance fron Article~~.~,~Section ( } Zoning Clfange from ,_,_,_to~-• . ( ) Park i nn Var i air-^ ( j Conditional Lse ror-mit to allow in Zane. Far i:ho fol lotiring descr-ihed properiy:..Lot/tract. ~ Siock Ft ling llurber ~:~ i Cleairly staffe purpose anc; intent of i~hr,,.ies application ~ • ~ /' .r°_°,~, -~'~°..®." ~~ .- -'~" .f.,-'~?.-etc-~x.~'.• ~.-~`~°•T~p°~'°... ~° ~ ' ~°`. ~' ~`,~." ~. - 4lhat do you #ee 1 i s the has i s for hardship i n this case? ~~-~'~,.` ~.~'~ - -~~•--_ - - ~ ~"'" $: g ,e~i'ur~ ~°~` i,PP i i caul ~} ~` • APPLICATION FQR YARIAraCE And/Or GONDlTIONAI USE PERMIT Ordinance Na. 8 {Series of 1973} Application Date Publicatian Date ~~ ~-~~ Hearing Ddte- °';.~- ~ - ~~ ~•, Hearing Fee S5U,UD --'` F i na k Dec i s i an date afar Town Gounc i ! ,~-~~'- 7~ i (r~~), G. C. Martin of Q~_ nFawPr 1869 (Applicant) (Address) ' Colnradn , Uai2' Phone 476-27UQ ~' eS1a Ye} (Gi fiy) do hereby request permission to appear before the Vail Plannin3 Commission to request the fotlowing: i; +; ( ) Variance frem R.rticte~ r, Sec#ian `__ { ) Toning Chanoe from to ( ) Parkinc Variance (. f x) Gand i ti anal Use Permi t to a I I ow Professional Office i n Hl)E~3F Zone . s ~~ i for fihe falkowing described property: Lat/tract 7 Black 3~ ?' filing Nuriber FSr~+ ~. ' .1 '. Clearly state purpose Gnd intent of ~Yhis application~~ i Ta germit occupancy 6y an accounting office in The l.ndge at LiansHsad ~ ~' .~^ ~. • 1~llia# do you feel is the basis for hardship in ibis case? ~~ ~.~~ =_ ' Signature o{ ApQI ican'-r /~./L?~-o.J • i . A~PI"ICnriov FDR VAF2iANCE . ~ And/Or CONDITIOhtAL U5E #'ERMIT •, Ordinance yo. 8 (Series of 1973} 'App 6 i cat i on Data ,T~,•~,,,,,,; ~y 7 a~it _,,__i'ub i i cat i vn Date_,~-.~...~-~~ ~a ~~ • ~ ~ • Nearing Da ter"7"~/~~~•~.J1r r~~ i~faaring Feo f t _ ,,.,,,,,~ -~. ~.inaf Dacision date for~'rown.Councii I {w©) 'Vail i'~iountain School of P.O.. Box 160 ~ • • {Apply"canr} (Address} Colorado ~ ~T, Vail• Phone 47~~3639 . (S1"at©} {City} • do h©raby request permission tc„:~ppoar before the Vail Planning • Camroission to request the fol lotiring; ... • ( ) Variance #rom Article , Sectivn,~~~ - { ) Zoning Ghange from io { ) ~'ar•kiiig ~lariance i X) Conditional Use rermi.t to allow Q private school E. _ ~ i n a x'eszdential. ~ Zone , i' For•the fo3lowing described properi-y: i.o#1•hract 31 Block 7_,_, Filing Number ;~'irst a '. Clearly stat© purpose •and in9ent of i"his .apps icstioR '. ~~ • The Vail. Mountain School is in need of space for the 1~7~i--75 • schoal year. The present accommodations will not be availab~.e for trie next school .year. The house described above is fox' sale and vrould accom;nodate the school for a year until funds • were-raised for building the proposed new schoal. _ • f ;. What do you feel is the basis for hardship in i-his case? There is virtually~no rez;table space avai].abl.e in Vail that the school. can afford. Buying a residence for an interim period • of one or two years would F;r•eatly assist the school financially. / VS~ignature of Applicant • Gordon R. Pierce • Chairman ' Va].]. Mountain School. .r l y •. s ~` APF'i_ I CA7 i ON FOR VAR I ANGE . ~ And/Or . `, ~ CONDITIONAI..IiSF F'FFtMIY ~ . ~. Ordinance No. 8 (Series of 1973)' .'Application Dade .~anuary 29, 197th. Publication Qate • Nearing Date Hearing Fee Final~,Decision date for' Town.Counci I {~ . tw© ) Vail Mountain School o f 1'.0. ,Box 160 . FApp I i canfi) CAddress) ' Coltlrado ~ ~ ~ Vail .. Phone~76-3639 ~• (State) (Cifiy} do hereby request permission 1-o appear before the Vail i'lanning Commission to request the following: (, ) Variance from Article , Section { )~ ion i ngChange from to { ~? Parking Variance { X) Conditional Use Permit to allow A private school • I n a Q~r~ri cn~ t~~ral ~ Zone . • A portion of Tract A For- the foi iowi ng described property:~~(lo~//~r/a~a~t Block - ' Filing Number Vail Village Thirteenth Filing Clearly state purpose and'inten~ of i'his application '.The Vail Mountain School would like to construct a permanent building on the above mentioned property. The school is in need o~f permanent quarters to conduct classes, house their libr'a'ry, and administrate the business of a private school. What do you•feel is the basis for hardship in this case? The school has been given the land to build on by Vail Associates. The school could not .afford to build any structure w3.thout this free property. ~. /'Signature of Applicant Gordon R,.Pierce ' Chairman Vail~Mountain School MEMQRRNDUf~ TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: VARIANCE REQUEST - CROSSROADS OF VAIL EAST DATE: MARCH 8, 1.974 THE REQUEST During the course of several meetings, culminating March 7, 1974, the Planning Commission reviewed and discussed a variance request from Crossroads of Vail East covering several items which do nat comply with the zoning ordinance. BACKGROUND The developer had originally proposed a building (combined commercial space and parking structure on the east end of the site), which would make use of presently existing entrances and exits to the Crossroads parking areas. In late November 1973, Eldon Beck reviewed the plans and suggested to the developer that perhaps a solution could be reached which would eliminate existing entrances and exits to the parking areas, thus accommodating the Master Plan pedestrian concept along East Meadow Drive. To do this, access would have to be through the new building from the east entrance road. When the architects implemented the access, it increased the size and bulk of the building -- in turn, creating certain variance situations, ITEMS REQUIRING VARIANCES The following variances were applied for; 1. Southeast Setback -- The building setback from the ma71 along the southeast is not sufficient to comply with the zoning ordinance. The variance requested ranges from 6 to 16 feetR 2. East Setback -- The east wall of the parking structure is an the property line, This requires a setback variance. i. 3. Building Bulk Control -~ The diagonal measurement of the building is 260 feet, as compared with the allowable 225 feet. This will require a variance. 4. Building Buik Control - Offsets -- The parking structure has east and west wa r s of y~ ree~t in 4engt~i, with no offsets. The permitted length without an offset is 70 feet, This will require a variance, THE PROBLEM In the opinion of the Planning Commission, the issues involved center on an attempt to work with the developer in trying to achieve the objec~ tives of the Vail Master Plan, but without compromising the proper enforce- ment of the zoning ordinance. Consequently, it was decided to approach the request from a positive, rather than negative, standpoint. Outright disapproval appeared to side-step the issue; rather, the Commission felt that approval, subject to certain conditions, was the approach to take. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Going to the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission reviewed again the criteria for granting a variance. One area in particular seemed to fit the situation, Article 19, Section 19,600: (2} The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. In trying to comply with the best interests of Vail Village and the Vail Master Plan, it was felt that this definition gives justification for reviewing the variance request. After much discussion, the Commission concluded in its Findings, in accord ante with Section 19.600, that; (1} That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. -2- (2) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. {3) That the variance is warranted for the following reason: there are exceptional or extraordinary circum- stances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission then voted to approve the variance requests for Crossroads of Vail East and to recomr~end approval to the Council, based on the following formula: 1. Southeast Setback -- approved as presented. ~~ 2. East Setback -- approved, subject to eliminating the eastmost tiers of parking, thus moving the wall back approximately 20 feet. Berming must then be created between the east property line and the parking structure. With these conditions, the east setback is no longer a variance situation. The parking structure will comply with the zoning ordinance in regard to the setback. Twenty parking spaces will be eliminated, but 16 of them were in excess of the requirement. The remaining four will be relocated on surface areas. 3. Building Bulk Control -- because of the change. in the building, from the requirements of #2 above, the diagonal measurement of the building is reduced. The new length is 240 feet (permitted is 225). Tn consideration of the overall circumstances, a 15 foot variance. was approved. 4. Building Bulk Control - Offsets ~- The variance for the 92 foot walls without offsets on the east and west walls of the parking structure were approved, subject to the architect presenting, wi-thin 7 days, a new roof design for that part of the building. The Commission felt that breaking the roof line would ease the visual effect of the building from the east. The visual effect of the building from the west is not of equal importance because the building is hidden at the northeastern portion of the existing Crossroads complex. r ~3- MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: REQUEST FOR GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA VARIANCE FROM JAY UTTER DATE: MARCH 8, 1974 Tn a meeting on March 7, I974, Jay lJtter came before the Planning Commission requesting a variance of the gross residential floor area for his house on Ptarmigan Road. Mr. Utter recently purchased this house from Steve Arnold. The request centers on Utter's desire to enclose two small balconies with glass and to enclose tWo small porch areas at the back of the house with glass. The net effect is to put the residence aver its allowable GRFA by 202 square feet. The Design Review Board had previously given its approval to Mr. Utter's proposal. That Board felt the changes would not materially affect the design or appearance of the house. In accordance with the zoning. ordinance, the Planning Commission found: (1) That the granting of the variance will not consitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, (2) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (3} That the variance is warranted far one or more of the following reasons: (a} The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. The Commission then voted to approve the request for gross residential floor area variance and to recommend same to Council. DS/nmm MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FROM LIONSHEAD LODGE DATE: MARCH 8, 1974 In a meeting on March 7, 1974, Mr. dim Martin came before the Planning Commission requesting a Conditional Use Permit to allow an accounting office to be put in at the ground floor level of LionsHead Lodge. This will be a professional office, open to the public, and it is allowed as a conditional use under the zoning ordinance. Permitted uses allowed Mr. Martin for the same space would be retail shop, or restaurant and bar, either of which he would turn to if the conditional use permit were not approved. There seemed to be no major complaint from the members of the Planning Commission on this request and, after brief discussion, the Commission found, in accordance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance; (1} That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (2) That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated ar maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. {3} That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. The Commission then voted to approve the request for a Conditional Use Hermit and to recommend same to Council, D5/nmm i The circumstances of the Crossroads of Vail East variance request are a bit unusual. nevertheless, the Planning Commission did find within the criteria of the zoning ordinance sufficient reasons to grant approval, based upon the above formula. The Commission further wishes to express its concern to the Council that existing residential owners in Crossroads should be made fully aware of the new project< The feeling was expressed that perhaps the new owners do not understand the full extent of the changes in their vehicular access which this project will create ~~ despite formal publications in the newspaper. The developer did answer some of this concern by saying that the Condominium Association was advised of the changes at their annual. meeting held last month. -4- • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 1~, 1974 1. Consideration of application by Mr. Gordon Pierce, representing VaiT.P4ounta°,n School, for a Conditional Use Permit, in order to allow a private school in an existing residence located on Lot 7, Block 1, Vail LionsHead First Filing (CONTiNUE6 FROM LAST WEEK'S MEETING) 2. Submission of new roof design - CROSSROADS AbDITIOPI W Merv Lapin and Bob Nunt • f~ r a. ,~ • AGENDA P[.ANNTNG COMMTSSTON MiARC~E 21, 1974 1. Consideration of Vail Associates application for zoning change ' from HDiNF to Speciai Development District for Tract D, Vail Village . 7th Filing and Tract A~praposed ; Vaii Village l:4th Filing. s • a i l ~~ ~~ ~-~.~ ~:~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~'~~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ f~4 IloX 400 • VaII, Colorado 8#G57 • 303. 4765G13 March 21, 1974 w " r Mr. C, C. Mar~E•in Lionshead Lodge Vail, Colorado Re: Parking Variance and Conditions! Use Permit for Lionshead Lodge 1I '. ',~ Dear Jim: The Town Council voted unanimously to approve a conditional .use permit for MCC-lave, 4'!a! I &-MciJ~ahon to occupy.~1,750 ~sguare f"eat on the first floor of the Lionshead Lodge II' building: " A parking variance for it parking spaces was also granted Qn a conditional basis far a period of one (i) year. Parking demand will be monitored on a continuing basis and the variance wi I l be revie4~red in March 1975. If, after review, the Council determines that the !I spaces"are needed tQ ser:ve the building;.the.y can require them to be constructed.'; Yours truky, TOUJN 0 VA I L Riana S~. Toughil! Zoning Administrator' '. ~. dt cc: McClave, Mall ~ McMahon a r t } • ~, IOFI~ 01 VIII box i oo . vail', calorado Fig b57 sos• 476.5G1 s March 21, 1974 Mr. Merv Lapin Crossroads of Vai! Box 1228 Vai(, Colorado Re: Variance applications for Crossroads of Vail fast Dear Merv: This letter is in confirmation of the action of the Town Council on March 19, 1974. The Town Council voted unani- mous I y to approve the recommen~dati.on o.f the P1 ann i ng 'Commission regarding setback and bulk control variances on the proposed project. A copy of the Planning Commission recommendation to the Council is attached. If you have further questions, please contact this office. Yours truly, Town os~ vA I I_ ' ~ + ~~ ~ -s' Diana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator _~ lo~~~n of uail 4 box goo . uail, Colorado ai$s~ sos.a7s•~si~ March 21, 1974 Mr. Jay Utfier P. O, Bax 1088 Vai;, Colorado Re: Variance for residence Dear Jay: . The Town Gounci; affirmed unanimously the Ptanning Cornetissian decision to approve a densii~y control variance to allow an addition of 202 square feet to your house iacafied an Ptarmigan Road. The additional square foatag~ wiii require .a .recreation fax of $34.30. Ifi you have any questions, p;ease confiact this office. Yours firuly, TOWN OF VAlL p r tJ y • . Dana S. Toughil! honing Administrator dt ~ . V }. i. 4 (§~ draft prepared by Nadine of relevant portions of minutes for Planning Commission • MARCH 21st, 1974 -aPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING V.A. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - on agenda - Mr. JEN WRIGHT requested that the matter be continued until the next meeting. March 28th. MARCH 28th, 1 - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ~~ V.A. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT - TRACT B - NORTHWOODS - JEN WRIGHT (very rough draft - see also memo of Planning Commission to Town Council dated April 2, 1974) Mr. Wright stated whole project to be incorporated into special development district. {reviewed document prepared by Wright and Town Staff jointly, including amendments made by Town Staff and agreed to by Mr. Wright). zoned HDMF, 2 setback variances necessary (5 f t. and 10-15 ft), possibility of variances not being necessary because of creation of special development district. Offset variances necessary - Building A. Document needs {a} legal provision (?}, (b) phase by phase design review (Wright had already agreed to that); (c) strike words proposed" locations and "proposed" uses. -- requesting final decision next Thursday. Comments: -~ Hanlon questioned how many acres of total site will be included in special district {7.7) -- the .5 single family lots will not be included in the special district -- still zoned HD, will downzane. Proposed -duplex zoning -- there has been some opposition voiced re size of buildings, etc. for Tract A. Abbott felt a precedent was being set by establishing special development district, and felt there should be minimum acreage under which you can apply for special district -- Diana advised there is a minimum of 5 acres. BUILDING BULK CONTROL/OFFSET VARIANCE -- 10 ft. offset every 70 feet required (see attached diagram prepared by Gordon Pierce - P.C. Memo of April 2, 1974, entitled Bulk Control Comparison). All comments favorable to granting variance. Abbott feels visual rendering should be presented to Council. '~ VOTE: (also see memo of P.C. April 2, 1974): -- based on criteria #2 of zoning ordinance and Findings 1, 2, 3(a). Motion by Lapin, seconded by Heimbach, to approve variance application as submitted, for building bulk control/offset. VOTE: - Sage abstained, Wright abstained, Gordon abstained= remaining four unanimous approval. } `^ 1 j .~ \I _~ _~~• r ~Q% ~ p0 • V3Il COlOr~EjO 81657 s 303 47Ci 5Ei 1 3 f:~i a r- c h 2 7, 1 9 7 4 JOT I CE OF PI,iBL. I C NEARING NOTICE IS NEFZtgY GIVEN that Vail Associates, lnc, has applied for a zoning change from Nic,~h Density Multiple Fareily to Special Development Dis-hrict for Tract B, Vaii Village 7th Filing in accordance with Section ?_1.500 of Ordinance No, 8 (Series of 1973? in order to promote the orderly developmen-i- of a phased project and to guarantee the aesthetic completion of same. R Public Hearing will be held in accordance' with Section 2 1 . ~J00 of Ordinance No. 8 ~(Se.r i es of 1973) ors April 16, 19 14 at 7:30 p . rn. i n the Vail Mun i c i pa I . l ~' Said amenameri i application ti•rill be heard by the own,Cau for Town of Vail who ti~r i l I consider an .ordinance on -first reading of .same.. TOb'dN 0 - VA 1 L f r ' s s'~~..~ • Diana S. Toughill . - ~an i n, Adri i n i stratcrr ,, H '~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~, ~. ~ s ~ ~~ a o w ~ o w ~ m y o ~ o ~ ~e o ~, ~~ ~ o ~. b ~ ro ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ o c °~,* `° r,• b ~ ~ fig A v I~ 1 p AAAAAA C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R ~Q4~~ ~~ ~,. ,.~ r Oy G n ~ ~ ~ ~ `° ro ~ ~~i ro N ~ rr ?.b ~ ~ txV ~ ~ p, Q' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ p' C fi '~~ ~ ro ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~~a~ ~~~'~ ~ ~~p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~o~o~o~b ~ ~ .. r m ~' y ~w ~ ~ ° ~y 0 ~ ~ o ~oA ~~~~~ J ~ ~ ~ a w '" ~ ~, ~ ~~ a ~« A ~ ~ ~ e~+ ~ ~ ~ ~ fl f~"~ ~ (7 ~ ~, -~ ~ ~ ~ '~ o ,~ ~~ ~ ,_, „s .~. ., q '~ ~. ~~~ m ro er t7 .~ m O C ~ ~ ~y~~~o ~w ~ D +-h wn C G ~_ ro , 0 ~ ~ ~i G to *b''~ ~ ~. .fir ~ A+ ~''C w ~'! O Q ~ y ~n `~ Cs7 co H. ~ ~ N v 1 ~ d' 'g~± ~ •wj u~i ~ ~'r, Q ~ ~t~ ~ ,fie v$ ~ jfi ~ ~ N ~ M ~ ~ ~ K R ~;I '~ •G ~ S3 ~ rr '~. W .~ ~, cyWy ~~ nZ ° uaainmomw, nG ?~` Z ~~61.n N~ jF~ e„b~lFdd'n' ~.' to ~ t7i + -` 2 ~ ta4"~ ~ . w~ r .o A us .., v u m m ~ Q ~? ~ II ,o N n~ ~ D- ¢uJC IVnK~'N { ~ ~n O C ~ ~ • ~v~p~A~, f[~ O n 7 ,I ~ vZ ~_~ '' ~ ' ~ ' ° ~~ d z .=~Q~_~. ~ a ~ ~ tam , n o v a~ D _ ° c 3 O m a ~ O ~' ~ a h ff ~ 7 4 -f ~ . ' - N n c i - a '1 0 H 4 °' -133oaoa~: ~xdn~_a~n~~ro a A~ Q:%~.m 'tl N~ r~n~~01 ~ n3 n 0~{ ~ w j ~ F ~ N ~ °, r~ ~~. i~ ~ , ~ D ~ ~y~ A Z ° o 3..oa am -a ~xsw s ~ v O ? m ~ ~ ti~~ F d °z • e~' ~ Q ,~ 3 c~ q3 cv ~ ..c . _ o ~ ~ ,-7 A ~q F.{ n t0 ~ v, ~ ~ o. ~ ~ ~ p ~' ~Y,, c'" y ~ ~ a ~ ~' rs1 C1 s~ ~~ ~ ~. r++ a' ego p> d +~ +a r. ~ ~i' ~c ~ ~ 'pr~ G ~ r ~ m ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ r. Vic, ~ ~ n ~ c a ~' ¢; ~ ~ ~, G Hs r .~ ~ y '~ w ~G d ~ dt+' ~ O O ~ ~ ... ~ ~ ~ '9 W ~' O `~ o, " ~ ~ ~ fir. w ~ ".~ ~+ ~ ~ w~ .e w " ~ eo e+ ~ p n ~p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~` ~ `~ ~ .ti ~ ~a. ro -ti as °~ d r. R ~, O? N N y S1 '3 9~~ ~,°a~ n °o~o~~°~°on~ 3~n~ a ? 3 tz 7 ~ y ~ ?~ 3 jL w iv ~. ~'" m ~~ y ~ o f F n~-'11 C1~ s~ ~'~ yw Z nN::~.c ;~gaoMN° `ate"=$• o~ u~~' ¢a0 ~$'w~ry'o o~~~gwv~u."a~y"in~v+?~wC~m~-p ~ a .a _ W „~3~a~090 Na F a ~rocS.N r.+3~JP@p ~V C' . G w.~ ~3 m p m .~ to `! 1 i~._I r, 'ty ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ y '~' ~ ~ my 4 N . ~ p [ ~ V ~ ~ C c M ~ ~. ~ ~ . A. ~ p ~ a ~ o o . "'~ (I~ '~, ~ ~ ' "" ~ ~, ~ c ~ ro ~s '-~ ~ ~ C3 ~ ~ ~ m ro ~ m m t7 0 '~ o ~,' a ~ .ti ~* ~ ~ ~ . t (3. ~' a t`' ~ j~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..~ cµL+ ts7 ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ . n O ~ ~ ~' ro ro ~ n ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~-+~~ (C fb SD Sv ~G r.~ r-. ~ pi ~ ~ SN W ~ [D ,~ x Q ~ ~ O ro .h ~ ~i a n L1+ .t ¢y ~ ~, ~' ~ ~ M ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ ti3 ~ •~.~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ Q~~~~H~~~' ~ m m ~ ~ K ~. a a' o p: ~ ~.. r- Yn' a ~ '~ m ~~ `° H C~~m `° O m ~ p' ~"r* G''*C? ~ m d w K, ~ a' ~. R' ~O A +`~ ~. ~ m N $ ~ 2 a• ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ a ^c o~a~„ ~ ti O ..t ro ~. M, w .fie ~ ~ ~ ~ ro `~' ~ M ~? ~ w W p, t9 r~ 6 ry K i1. ~. G ~ 'C7. W v ~n' ~ ~ iC tqy O A O..~ "" G~ ~ m ~ Nd ~~ a, C=~Z~w7~An 'Py~ ~ vy a ~~ ~~n~°D{0~ namv°.~xa-1Q y~;i n9 3 3 1C 7 7<`^ 3p, Ct .° =QlPNH ~ o ~W ~" .O ~vl 3C ~°' Z ~°~..rd N~~~av~~a4~ AW m. [Qr1 C 6.~ ~' c U~ O o - °° co ~ 6. m '° ro 'p a a x ~o o~ e n RI ~ Z 5;30 rm ~'~ { ~~ 7~'4~DV~.3~dv7 mro~y~"n+,.QN n4 `~i° ?iD D "' j7mnm~~~a~-'~n`a "°.~m2 Its as ~^?~ C °~~~=~~Ntna~r'~oo~°~o~A-6m qp $..A -1 ~ w ~ l7 N -• ~ ,,, ~ SY a RI a ~ f°N°tD.3o~a`~ ~<o~~.~-~~na0.~ZfiJ ! ..13~o,QO ~= =' do n ~ v.:3 i9 t7~ N~ ~~0~ Oro y ~°T~p,~ .. ' -S ° omty ~+om Fmdovrtnm£Of.~46~ O ~ WP.7'~~ ~3 (t1~R WSa.aNW ~ ~ 7 ~'d "~ G C"` n n ~,. 7 '. f. to a ~' rr~ N ~ a Q d ~' O a A ~ ~ O ri `~ .~, ro n c p a C ~ ~" ~. ~~ ~ ~ M ~~~o~a~• ~ d ~ ~o ~ ~~ a ~ ~ ~ ro QY m ~ rs ~' p ~. ,.., O c+ a to co • .ti ro Z *~ ~ ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~~ a~a~ ~ ~ o ~ . a ~ ~ ~ Ry M~ 4-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~/ ~ ~ .~y G Q y 9 ~ ~ S3+ 'C is p C p ~„ v~ ~: ~ ~ tb ~ P' ,K ~, gi ~ r~ p. 3n + ~ ~ ~~ ppJ, t~ kr'~ R 'C ~ 3 ~.c ~ +'~ ~ ~ t* r' p~ ~ ~ ~ .D ~,..~ "~ Vs C3. ~ O~ n ~ 5" V (~ f,L ry p ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ Q. ~ C~7 ~i .s ~ G~ s~ "~ ' ~ . M M o c' ~ a `° ~~ry~ ~ a' ~' 'fit . "'~ " n' ,.,~ E ~' b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ n d ~ ~ y-~ ttpp ~ n ~ ry r ~ C1. ~ ~ r c. CP ~ W m ~ ~ ~' tD ,C ~ ~' r ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~p~n ~ "x-r ~ ~ CL ~' ~ ~ o ~ c ~' ~ ~ ~~ c'. ~ m ~ .-r ~ a ~ ~ K ~.'. • ' t- ~. p 't1 ~ to ~+ ~ m ~ ~ ro ro ~ ~,. ~ ~ b ~ y rt~,e o ~ ~;.C, `~ ~ d ' ~. ~ ~ ~, a ~, M ~ ,mow a ~ y ~ 7 ~ M a ~ ~ ~_ Cl t F L ~ (Q ~ . p y C a 4{.~ ° ACS a Vt V~+ "„ Y` 'CS QR ~ M ~, p ~ ~ ° " ~ . ~ d V• ~o ~ ~ ~ro to ~~~ ~~o~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rp+s N ~ M ,~ as ~: ~ fi N cC ~ ~ ro . N N ~ W ti K ~ ~y ~~ ~ rn ~at~S~ ~ '~ ~ m n ~ `~ ~. a. w. ~ p °' ~ ~ m . fi w o.DavtODoa ..-. ~:' a~~ Qn ~Om OQ~d. e.3 Z 000 ac_.a?," ~p.D~y.°o ~mrn~a Nw. ~ ~y ~~~ anoa'4's aa~`''33o~~R~m~~l'm~ Y~ ~NQ~n:'o,o~o ~~ts mac. ZS9~m~~~~~..~ ~!1 v7 b ~,no;v p~ ~O ~ 3p. w mm act °oo_.~ ~ m odo~'f^• ~,;t0n^ 2C•, ,~, A .~- .~ 7W ro p...Nr~-~. or7 f~ D ~..~ 3 0 ~°o'~ m f_ m a d4~ W Z < o° ?~'a°}a oism° V7a~o3~n ~ v~ w . ,ocn m;~~ v~ tio~rt".mZa_t m v .,l~,o nwo,n.. n-•mR~ c n3~° m • ~ R r+ ~ E ~ ~ '~. .p., N ~ W ~ O~ ~ N x d H cD ''~ C7 o t*;~ t0 . .~ c ~~ m °, ~3 d fA U1 ~ I ~ ro~ ~' :7 ~ ~' '~ ~ G Illc~ ~ y a ~ ~ ro ~ ~ m ~ O ~. ~ ~• ro (~ ~ ~, ~ ~ a A ~ ~ ro Q4 '~ W '~~' °' m p, o 'Gir -~ ~ D ('~ a. ~,' p ~ coo m ~ °. `" ~ °. `° ~ A ~ '"~ Q ~' o ~, ~ a oo Qa :, o ~ ro C~ m ~ ~~ G. ~~.o~or.a~_ Q ~ CL W p ~' "• N `~ y 'Y p tp rC C n; Rte" ~' ep+, [!) O ~ Oc" A C' „f°~ 'L7 .M. ~. y ~~ M rros °;. rC ~ p C ~ ro ro C H ' a ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ n.a~o row ~ ~ ~ Z H.. ~ .+, fD v' ~ •, we ~ p G. p tU ~ ~ ¢, ~ O ~ t'7D n r'D p ~' "~ ry `ate v+' ""~ ~1 ~ 'L] CL `Y ~ ~, ~ii '~' y~ ro p ~ ~ h ~ ~ o ". ~nyy`°~ a~ ~ ro F,a .p., ~ e+• ~ ~ ~ ro r' ~ .%t ~' .fir "C r~-r (A n ~ ~ •+r - C+ sr cp G~ ro 'C rn O ro .p p rp ~-t _' . ~~ ,~~ 7~. H~nwao.._.< z ~c 3w m ~_.ow~.OQ~n?'.~O F.~ w ~Z Nov ~~a' °a °.:-s-t N D' O ~ryw-*. o~ 0~.'9 ~ ~~ app N -~ ~ m°~=-~m C va -~'~~< ~co dd O~ ;~f atz F'~ a a5D o co~~ n':r~~,~- rp k:~O . ~ »~r wt~..a.c7~'o w~OCdCIU' n-i 3n ~cn~HZo TC~ • s G ~p~ ~' $ mnTmwjz mm m wo 3 _ zoaaa^77 DO <~ yo'w a~a~~-,m ~'~ 3 ~ ~ `zxom Qa m moQ-'~w~51 m p ~ .o a - mm Va' NOmci~;oG `'7~ ~' m o n~~wo ~_. ° • ~ mmmo3 °,a7nm3z A • MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: VARIANCE REQUESTS - THE MARK BUILDING BULK CONTROL/OFr~~~S - SETBACKS DATE: APRIL 2, 1974 In a meeting March 28, 1974, the Planning Commission reviewed two variance requests from The Mark. One request related to the building bulk control section of the ordinance concerning 10 foot offsets every 70 feet. The second request relates to a variance from the setback requirements of the ordinance. REQUEST FOR OFFSET VARIANCES The situation with The Mark is somewhat similar to the situation with Northwoods project. Design provides for 8 foot offsets every 72 feet, instead of 10 feet every 70 feet, The problem is created because of length of stall requirements for the parking garage underneath the building, Recognizing that the offset problem is going to be a continuing one because of automobile sizes, and recognizing that this section should possibly be changed in the ordinance, members of the Planning Commission had no objection to the nature of this variance request, REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCES The Mark is requesting a 15 foot setback variance along the south and along the west property lines -~ the buildings wi11 be 10 feet from the lines, instead of 25 feet. This problem arose, partially because the Design Review Board requested that more space be created between and around the 3 buildings involved in this project. The Planning Commission agreed with the Design Review Board about creating more space between buildings, Further, the south line borders on green belt and the west line borders on a street right-of-way -R thus, no conflict will be created with other projects in the area, Based on the above observations, members of the Planning Commission had no conflict with the scope of this request, CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Going to the ordinance, the Commission found justification for both variance requests from The Mark, because ~_ Section 19.800 -Criteria and Findings, (2) The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege, Further, the Commission found that the variance could be granted based on the following findings, in accordance with Section 19.600: - (1} That the granting of the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with. the limita- tions an other properties classified in the same district. (2} That the granting of the variance is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (3) That the variance is warranted because the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. CONCLNSION Based upon the above Criteria and Findings, the Planning Commission voted to approve the variance request from The Mark, as presented, concerning the building bulk control/offset section of the ordinance, and to recommend similar approval by Council. -2- Based upon the above Criteria and Findings, the Planning Commission voted to approve the variance request from The Mark, as presented, concerning the setbacks along the.-south and west property Tines. ~3 ~. E ~~. a MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE; MONTANEROS II -~ VARIANCE REQUESTS p BUILDING BULK CONTROL and PARKING WITHIN TWE BUILDTNi~ DATE: APRIL 2, 1974 In a meeting March 28, 1974, the Planning Commission reviewed two variance requests from Montaneros TI. The first request dealt with a portion of the zoning ordinance which requires that parking for a project must be "within the building". The second request dealt with the building bulk control section of the ordinance covering maximum allowable wall length. REQUEST FOR COVERED PARKING OUTSIDE T11E BUILDING The issue here centers on the point that the developer would like to have underground parking along the back portion of the project -- but separated from the main building. The ordinance states that underground or covered parking must be "within the building". The underground garage, as proposed by Montaneros TI, would be covered with earth and landscaped, Tn addition, berming would be accomplished to hide the structure for every view, except that from the rear of the new building. Separating the parking does reduce the profile of the new, proposed building. The feeling of the Planning Commission is that if the parking structure is properly landscaped and hidden, if the`~projec.lr is aesthetically compatible with the area, and if the garage-helps reduce the profile of the new condominium building, then there should be no problem with granting a variance from the wording of the ordinance. s y ~ .~ REQUEST FOR WALL LENGTH VARIANCE In discussing the request for a variance from the 175 foot wa11 length requirement as stated in the zoning ordinance, the Commission learned that the building is 5 feet over the maximum length -- 180 feet, instead of 175. The Zoning Administrator advised that all other requirements for the building, -- offsets, diagonals, etc., had been properly met. In consideration of the fact that the strict or 1i-feral interpretation of the ordinance might create an unnecessary hardship upon the developer, the Commission agreed that a variance could be granted. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The Planning Commission went to the ordinance in terms of bath requests for Montaneros II and found that the variance requests were justified because: ~- Section 19.600 - Criteria and Findings. (2) The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. Further, the Commission found that the variance could be granted based on the following findings, in accordance with Section 19.600: w- (1) That the granting of the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limita~ tions on other properties classified in the same district. (2) That the granting of the variance is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (3) That the variance is warranted because the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. T2~ ~.,. r ;1 CONCLUSTOI~ (1) Based on the above Criteria and Findings, the Planning Commission voted to approve the request from lontaneros TT far a variance from the wording of the zoning ordinance concerning the parking require- ment, and to recommend approval to the Council, A strong feeling was stated that Montaneros II is a special situation and a variance in the matter should be in no way construed as an endorsement of parking separated from a building. (2} Based on the above Criteria and Findings, the Planning Commission voted to approve the request from Montaneros TI for a variance from the building bulk control/wa11 length section of the ordinance and to recommend approval to the Council, -3- :_.J MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANKING COMMISSION RE: VARIANCE REQUEST - VAIL ASSOCIATES - NORTHWOODS PROJECT - BUILDING A - BUILDING BULK CONTROL/OFFSETS DATE: APRIL 2, 1974 In a meeting March 28, 1974, the Planning Commission reviewed a request from Vail Associates, Inc. for a variance from the offset requirement of the building bulk control portion of the zoning ordinance. THE PROBLEM The ordinance calls for an offset of 10 feet for every 70 foot wall length on a building. The Northwoods project has a variety of offsets within the 70 foot wall lengths; however, the offsets do not meet the 10 foot requirement see attached diagram. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS In reviewing the building, the Planning Commission found that the developer had indeed complied with the intent of the ordinance in .,;providing offsets to break up long building walls. Going to the ordinance, the Commission found that the request for variance was justified because: -- ''Section 19.600 - Criteria and Findings. {2) The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this ordinance without grant of special privilege. • 1 Further, the Commission found that the variance could be granted based on the following findings.; in accordance with Sec. 19.600: -- (1} That the granting of the variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limita- tions on other properties classified in the same district. (2) That the granting of the variance is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (3) That the variance is warranted because the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. CONCLt1SI ON The Planning Commission voted to approve the building bulk control/offset variance to the Northwoods project - Building A, as presented, and recommends a similar approval by Town Council. D5/nmm -2- BULK CONTROL COMPARISON ~ORTHWOODS PROJECT owner: VAIL ASSOCIATES INC. architect: OFFICE OF FITZHUGH SCOTT, ARCHITECTS/ PLANNERS,lNC, 70 o~ r of a O~ 7Q r AS REQUIRED BY ZONING 70 95 9 37 9 10 9 ~E~~1n~~C l M~ f ` ~ ~~ ~ f 75 ~'A' BLDG. NORTHWOODS R~~ C~~PAR1S~~- G ~flR~~~~a~~ ~` -,- AS R~(~~IR f~-~ `t '~~ ry ~. . ~_'~ ~' ~.,,..~ ! A 9 €Jj l1 IRi ~a~~ k;~ ~.:~Y[; box ~vo nail, Galorado s~es~ o a~s.n~s-seas P9arch 2'7, 1974 i'iOTICE OF PU3LIC HEARING NOT ICE I S i-iEREGY GIVEN that NicL.augh l i n/Peterson have applied for a variance to allow 60 covered parking spaces in lieu of 8F~ covered parking spaces ou# of a total of 1l4 spaces reciuired (154 spaces provided) in order to allow. the economical construc-1•ion of employee housing. Variance application is in accord with Sec#ion 6,510 and Section 19.00 of Ordinance No. 8 (Series of 1373} A public hearing will be held in accnrr~~ca with Section 2[.400 of Ordirianca ~Jo. 8 (Series of 1973) o~Apri [ 15, 197~at 2:00 p.m. in the Vail h4unicipal Building. Said variance Yrill be heard be- a fore the Town of Vai[ Planning Commission and findings will be transmitted to the Town Counci{ for tine Town of Vail. TOt~lN OF VA I L r,,,, , ~/ " ~~ Diana S, tour~hill Zoning Administrator ~ ~- ~~-~ . dt MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM; PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PARKING VARIANCE REQUEST - VILLAGE CENTER HATE: APRIL 16, 1974 In a meeting April 11, 1974, Mr. Fred Hibberd came before the Planning Commission with a request for a 22 car parking variance. The issue is one that has been discussed during the past two months at various times; the 22 car spaces would be eliminated on the east end of his parking structure and a small park made to replace them. The park, as shown on Hibberd's plans, is designed with an aggregate base over the area, planters with shrubs and small trees, and a scattering of benches. Opinion was somewhat divided on the Commission about this issue, but a majority of the members voted to approve the variance request, and to recommend approval to the Council. t DS/nmm u .. ~ F ,. MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNCIL PROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: ARTICLE 22 ~ 5PECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT ~ . VAIL ASSOCIATES - NORT~iW00DS PROJECT ~ TRACT B DATE: APRIL 26, 1974 In a meeting April 4, 1974, the Planning Commission reviewed the final design of Article 22 - Special Development District, which affects Tracts A and B. It appears that the Town Staff, Planners, and Developer have reached a point of mutual agreement an all aspects of this district. The Planning Commission voted to adopi; Article 22 ~ Special Development District for the Vail Associates - Northwoods Projec t, and to recommend adoption of said Article by Council. D5/nmm • • MEMORANDUM • T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMTSSION RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST - LOU PARKER - SANDSTONE STAFF HOUSE w THE PRINTERY DATE: JUNE 4, 1974 At its May 9, 1974 meeting, the Planning Commission unanimously approved the Conditional Use Permit request for Lou Parker to establish a printing business and office in the Sandstone Staff House. The Commission found that the Conditional Use Permit could 6e granted based an the following findings, in accordance with Section 18.604 of the zoning ordinance: -- (1) That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; (2) That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to proper ties or improvements in the vicinity; (3) That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance. The Commission is also in receipt of a letter from the Sandstone Condominium Association indicating that they do not object to the requested use. ML/nmm r ME~aRANDUM TO: TOwN coUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMTSSTON RE: PARKING VARTAhCE REQUEST r COVERED BRIDGE STORE MAYOR Ja~N DaasoN DATE: JUNE 4, 1974 At its meeting on May 30, 1974 {after being continued from May 9, 1974), the Planning Commission considered a request by Mayor John Dobson fora parking variance for 3 cars, necessitated by addition of retail space to the Covered Badge Store. The Commission came to basic agreement that this variance request should be handled in the same manner as previous variance/exemption requests in CCI, until such time as the entire parking situation for CCI is resolved, Therefore, upon motion duly made and seconded, it was voted three to one {4 members present}, to recommend to the Town Council that the parking variance/exemption be approved subject to the condition that the incremental parking requirements be met and that the terms of the purchase be set at $3,000 per additional space required, to be paid either in cash, or by a tenwyear note carrying interest at the rate of 8~ per annum, with a minimum payment of X1,000 per year, secured by a subordinated Deed of Trust on the property in question, issued to the Town of Vail. Mayor Dobson stated that he was willing to sign an agreement to that effect. / nmm • i r . ~. is June 4, 1974 I,EOT l CE aF f'U8L 1 C HEAR I lJG i• ;,IOTICE IS i•lERE:BY GiVEdd 'THAT l~r. 8ert Rlviore, representing Riviera E+nterpt'1sQS, Inc., has applied far a setback variance in accordarECQ with Section 3.502 of Ordinance No, Fi tSeries tsf 173); scald v~r~ianco has been applied far in accordance with Section 19.200 of grdinancr~ 1l0. 8 (Series of 1970 . The prpposed duplex 1s IaGat4d on I_at 17, 13ioci: 2, Vai I VI I loge i3~t-h F'i 11ng. A public hearing will bo held in accordance with Section 21.400 of Ordinance Plo. 8 (series a# 1973) an .lone Z7, l~37A at ~,OQ p.m. in the Vai I 1~9unlclpal 13ui iciing, Said variance hearirae) wi I I ba bc~fara the Tarn of Vai I Planning Cor}r~isslon end findings wi i 1 be transmitted to tho Tcawn Counci I for ~tha 1'aYrn pf Vai i . .- TOWN OF VAIL - ,: ~, :' ~ . (,: ~r~ / ~-j D i anr~ S, Tough i i 1 (/~ honing Administrator ~l C~ Y ~ ~~ / ~J f o ~ ~ ~~ , , y (~ 11 ~ • I~ ~ ~ It it ~ _. n U ~ ~ f 7• ~ / f /i - ~~ ~ y ,• . a :, ..... APPI,ICATIQN POP VARIANCE And/Or COtVDI 7~ IONAL USF PERMI T Ordinance Na. S (Series of 1973) ~, r5'.~y Application Date .23~_•975~ PubCication Date ~.~,-~~~ ~7 }ieartng .Date ~x~ ~z~'-,/~?y' Hearing Fee .~/41J. o`~ Fi na [ Dec i s i o~n date for down Gounct I ~ . /9 ?~ . -~ ~ . FApplicant} ~ (Address} '/ Phone ~~Y"~/`~~`~r cState} ~ c~ity~ do hereby request permission to appear before the Vail Planning Commission to request the follo+rring: (X) Variance from Art i c I e ,3 Section ,3..5~~'~-- ( ) Zoning Change from to Parking Variance ( } Conditional Use Permit to allow in ~ Zone. J For the following described property; Lot/bract ~ ! , 81ock ~ Filing Number ~~ Clearly state purpose and intent of this application ~.-~'~.P ~ ~' ~d ~ ' r Whalt do you feel is the basis for hardsh+p in thisR case?~~ ~dL%(td.C~i ?~2GGl~''~~YI~'~F' G~i~ G~G~f~ / ~~~/ ~ ~'G r/ ~ i /r) .~~, Signature- of Applicant 3-c,no ~ 5, 1974 _, d•! 0 ~ I C E: C)1" E'' l.! [31, i (~ N E r~ rt I s~ ~ -. _ ~ , , . NOTI s~ a-ar",•~~}`t (~IlI~N tha-i~ l~r, Cs~rdrr~ Pi~r`c~~, repro-- ~er~-l-in~ Mr. ~I I i iac~ Uc,w~~ha~ appi i~cl for ~ ~e~baak v~riz~rtce._ . Irt accar-dancv wi'ii~i Section 3.5f)z of C)rrJi~sar7o~: i~o. ~ (5arle~~ of i x`733 ; sa i u earl anco ham i:c~dn Epp d 1 a~ frar i n accor•ci~;nca a~ i ~'i1 Seatdr~n 19,?.OQ of ~r•ciinar~ce tJa. E3 (:;cries ~~-~ iS7'3?. ih~ pr•o~- posocl addi~'fian is lac~~tr.~f on i,e'1' i~, 13icc;k ~, 1lai I_ Vi l l~~c;e~ ;rat I~lllnr,. .. ~~ ,.,. ,. .. -~ _.-.:_.__ ,- _..._ A publ i~ datiarirt;~ t,d d d ~~; tac;dd i~r.t-nrs~~~ rvi•+.°h S~~cf•iar~ ._ . 2 i . ~t~~ of fide zon i nc~, or°cd i nr~nc~:~ ar. .! u l y 3 ~, 1 97~i ~ ~,•Y '2: C'U p~~ ... ._ ._. in tl~v Viii t~^univipad [~ul lciin~. ,.t~id v~1"ianc:e he~r.ds~~ wt ! I lea _. ba {Qr'c ~.ha .l.ati~rn of ~~? i l f' i ann l nr; Cic7nrni 5s i or7 end i i iici i n ~ Fr i i i ba 'i'ransrzlt---ed 1-0 X130 7'c~-~t; ~vur~r,i I €or• ~•1~a •~.aran o~` .Vai i . .._ .:.~ .'. :. _. _....:._ .............. ~ :. ,__. a.. .. ~_ ._.._ _ _ . _... . Di~n~ S. 'foucYhl 1 ! Zon i i~c; Ac~o~I n; s~'r~-tor ..._. _...._ _ - _ ,a _~ .. 1 ~. ,~!~ . , J rune 25, l g74 (=act I m County Cor~n~i ss i crnsrs Eanie County Cnurt i-fousa f 0. [3o~x739 >rmnia, Colorado Ui~ai itE: Fi ic:3 tdo. Ssp-~57~7~i Ske~-oh Dian: i3i~horn .lunctlan Gantiernett: Tire 'fawn of Yai i has rospandad to the abovcr raferencc~ddskatch p i an th rauyh the County Tack n i ca i i~e:v i eve Cor~rnt ttoa and by vQrbal camrrunicatlon with County Planner, Mlchaal S. Riair. Nlr. (1Eair has subseeluara-~ly pc~intc~d otrt that he ~+~uid iiice fiarmal response d i roof` l y to the Gc~r~r~i ss i opera r®c~ard i ng this matter. • it is the Town'S }~asition that this skc~tcl~ plan is basically ~aacl rand wou! d probab I y be accepted l f tho ~ 1 c~hrsrn annaxz~-h i an bacornas r~ raa i l ty . Rn czn v i ronr~c~nta I i r~+pact statement would Eae rc~gut rod bafpra f i na i ,Juclc~araent cc~u t d ba mado. The ~+nc~ point f-hrxt i s i acic i n~ i n the sl.atch p i are presQntat i ran that dlsaila~ys apprc~vai ai: this prv,ject is water supply. To dato, 1°ho davniaper cannot racclulr~c~ service fir©r~ art exiatin0 .. district and Senate l3i 1 i iio. ~5, ar-ticie 106--2-:3~ (~? s-i~atc~s "~a)...no Uoard afi county commissioners steall approve any pra~» iiminary plan or final plat far any subdivision located within the county unless -l~ha 5uhdivictor !}as provided the fa! lawinr~ materials as part of the, pr®iimin~~i~y plan car final plat sutr-- divisian sub-~ri ,s#on: (b) Evidctac€s to establish that definite provision hiss bet~n made For ~ ~~ratQr supp}y that i5 sufificient i n terr;~s of qua I i ty, dQpendab l i i ty, anal c}uanti ty to }govt da an Ap{~raprlatQ supply at water for the -hype of subdivision prapascrd..."' Ear~la~County Sul~divlslc~n f~agutations and©r sketch plan require-~ menu 4 .1J2.(}~ (a) ! . staf'e t'...a~ciaquata evidence tha-h a wsf'er supply that is ~~±ffici~:nt In terms of quality, c}u~ntity and dapt~ndabi I ity wi l i ba oval iabiQ to ar~s~rro an adQquate supply of tirat~r for the type of subdlvislon propost~d. Such evidence mray include, but shat I nflt bo iir~ited toe Cat r V - ~ ~ - ~a, t a Co~rnty Comm(ss i ongrs June 25, 1~7Q. F'a~a ~ a. i~vidance of vwnershi{a ar right of accfut5itian of or use of oxtsttns~ and prapased ~ratar righi•s. b. 1-llsfiorlc uae and eattmrsi"ed yto{d of clatmsd~wai~ar rtc~hts. c. AmQnn6tl[ty of Qxisttng rights to a ef3~nc~e in use. d. ~vt dflncQ that public or pr(vate wai-er ©rrncrs can and art 1 t supply water to tho prnpo5®d subdivision stai-tng thca amount of water available for use within the subdtvt514n and the fens t b i i 1 ty of e~xi'Qnd f nc~ sorvi cQ fio that arQa. e. 1~vldance concarntnr~ the pntabttity of thG proposed water guppiy for the subdivision. A5 n point to cEostng, 1"hes .Vat I k~lafier anti Sanitatfan District tr t I ! f i E e op pos t t i can t n the tau rfis to thc~ forr^at t on of any newly croated water distr(ct within tha Go r® Val fey a5 s+aCi~ formatl on mi ~ht ba do•t'ri man#•a i to tha I3t strt ct~ s t nterasts. Vory truly yours, ~'OV1P1 f}F YA I t_ iCent R. floss, P.1w. Ta-~rn ~ngt near dt u ~~~~i9 p3f fi~~~ a~~. box 10Q • vaif, coforado ~ 81657 (303} 476.5613 office of the touun manager June 28, 1974 Eagle County Commissioners Eagle County Court house P. 0. box 789 Eagle, Colorado 81631, Re: File No. Ssp--57-74 Sketch Plan: F3ighorn Junction Gentlemen: Due to the importance of the bighorn Junction project, we would appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. We are planning to meet v~ith the developer to dfscuss this project withi?1 i~he next week, and we will have a co€nment to you shortly afterwards, ..~ Thank you for your cooperation, - Sincerely, VAIL PLANKING COMMISSION Mervyn L. Lapin, Chairman ;~ MLL/nmm cc: Eagle County Planning Commission Mike R1air, Eagle County Planner Kent R. Rose, Town of Vail Engineer .-~ .. ,, Joky €, 1e374 ~. • ' ~ - ~ ~, ~; NOT € G~ U~' PEJf3l. I C NEAi~ k t1G . tdQ'I'iCE IS r ° ~~:t:;v ~! -N i~hat Mr. t~l~stl7anic~! ~.. I-~~rrl,, t^cpras4nting ~dia Vail, Inc, 1'~as ~~1>p€ied ic~r a Cc~rtdl#•1©n~I Usa F';~rm l # i n uecordancq w h Article: ! ~, Sec~h i on 1 ~.4UQ a# '. Qr~:l I n~r~rc~ ido. £i (Sari es of i973? i n s?s dclr ~o ~ertni t €, . pubkir, ser°vice use (r~ci€o broedcastinc~ studio? 1n ~ GC2 _ ~c~na. Sut~jc~r,-f• uses is ioc~i-ed ott Lod- i, Vii € €.ionsf~acsd #irst #i f inr~ ~E.ic~nsqunrc~ t,odr~e), - r . A Puhi.ic f-€aarin~ w€ l i he lzeid 1 nca tvi-1~h Sec't'1c~r~ - -_ 2k.~+00 0# ikto ranlnq orc~irzance an u!y ?~, 1974_ ~~' 3.flCl i~,t^~. in •€~fie Il~+l I i4~unicli,~~! uu€ !c!'snr. ~€cf Ccnditlc~n~l t35a t'erms•i' -~i ! f UG haUrd be#ot~e ~-fir~..~•r~wr~ a# _VaI I ~'i~r~ttiir~c~ Car~r~3€ss€ati~ _ -- ~s~d r`€ndinSs wi I { b~ trans:rail-ic~c€ ~i'a "the •l own Gounci 1 #.or ;lie • _._ .. Tc~.~rn of Vn t ! . _. - .. ... .. T ca'p' i•~ 01= V A 1 L ._ . ,. - - _ - -- - fan € r~ir~ Film l n €>tr~tor ;.. ~~ ~ . ~ CJ MENlpRAN4UM T4: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PI.ANNiNG COMMISSIpN RE: SETBACK VARIANCE - RIVIFRE ENTERPRISES - DllpLEX DATE: JULY 2, 1974 At the meeting. on June 27, 1974, the Planning Commission reviewed a request for setback variance from Riviere Enterprises, Inc. The request is for a variance of 2 feet from the setback requirement at southwest corner of the duplex, to be ]orated on Lot 17, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing. ~. The lot is 8p feet in size. If. the house is moved to the east 2 feet, it will be too close to the Steve Meyer house. Meyer's house was built under the old zoning ordinance and is only 10 feet off the property line. If the house were turned slightly to comply with the setback requirement, several large aspen trees would have to be removed. The CosrQnission felt a variance was warranted in this case, in accordance with Criteria #2 of Section 1.9.604 of the coning ordinance, The Commission found that: (1) The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in 'the same district; (2) The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injuriours to properties or improvements in the vicinity; 1 {3) The variance is warranted because the strict or literal inter- pretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship incon- sistent with the objectives of this ordinance, Therefore, the Commission voted unanimously to grant the 2 foot setback variance, and would recommend the same action by Town Council. /nmm APPLtCATIOP~ FOR VARIANCE And/Or CONDITIONAL U5E PERMIT Ordinance Ito. 8 (Series of 1973) T, /S~y Application Date ~r;~3 /~7~f i'ublica#ion Date ~~ ~,~y.s~-= • V~~ Hearing Da#'e ~sr~ ~ /17~ Hearing Fee/OO• °~ ~ ~ Et na I Oeci s i o~n date for Tawn Gounc i I ~,.~~ ~_. /'Q 7y ~, }, (Applicant) (Address) ,/ 7 .~ L~~GGfJ Phone ~~Y "/~3z ~5 {State) ~ {~'i ty) da hereby request permission to appear before the Vail Planning Commission to request the folEawing: (~) Variance tram Ari'icle .~ , Section.3.Sd~-- ( ) Zoning Change f rom to ( ) Parking Variance ( ) Gonditional UUse Permit to allow in ~f Zone. i=or the totlowing described property: Lot/1-ract ~ / , Block ~" . Fi I ing Number ~~ ~ ~ ~ . Glearly state purpose and intent of this application ~ G~ _ i /~" ~ ~if. ~'.., o . ~ .,2t-~~~•~,ti. ter G~~G • ' .~. ~ - . Plha't~ do you fee I i s the basis #or hardsh t p 1 n this case?~~ ,___..__ ~.•'i -~-Ufa-~`2«r~C«GL~~~evrJ '`-U/ ~ ..-G ~~ ~'~ . ~ ~ ~~ . s Signature of Appiicani- Juiy 9, {974 i~dOT iCE OF f U(3L i G 1-IE~Af:l f~G NOT l CF I S FiCFt~E3Y Gt VE.PJ that t~ir. Rnd+eoy ~ . S 1 l #er repr~ssent l ng John P1cf3rld9, has applied fc~r a parking variance ar axet^ptton in accord with Section 14.601 0~ grdlnance Zeta. 8 (Saries of 1973) In order to al tats an apartment unit to ba car~vorted to carrmerclai space for "~r;r F= 1 ~ L-" - Tf~e un 1 t l s i acatod i n -i-hQ ir1c13rt Go l3ul idinci on Garo Cre©k Drive. tdgTiCE t5 l~t;Rt:(3Y G1V~#d that Mr. {~obert Ruder represanfiing bodge F'ropertiss, has applied for- a b~elidte~g buik con~troi variance !n accord vrlth Section £3,506 of grdinance Flo, 8 e;Serles of 1973) to order to allow the nddl-hion of a trash and storage biaitdin, to an a i r-aacly nonconforrnl ng si~ructura. Said prapos~:d heal dZlj 1 ng wau 1 d bo aftached to tha orfc~lnat bodge at Val i. - . A public haaring vrlit be held in aceoruanco with Section 21.400 of tha zoning ordinance on Auc~us-h 1, [971 at 3: 00.p,m. in - the Vat l t~Zuniclpal E3ui Ic.iinc~. Sall variancas wl I i be heard bc~fare thQ Town of Va i t Planning Corrrr, i ss l cin and findings 1~ i ! i bo trans-- ~i tied to the Totirn Counc 1 l for- thc~ Torn of Va t i . .. ..._ . _ -.._.._.. _ Diana S. Toughi i i _. ____._... . _.. _. __-.__ ._... .w__...._....._.__. ._. .~_.....~.---_...._ _.__...__ . Zon i ncd Adrryl n i strator %O r~~ _ q . S' w __w~_._ _.__... ._ .~ ~ _........~a.,_.. ~. . tit= :",. ~`~' "Sf~ W -~f3 7.~t~ ~U c Vr i• r i• 1 r APF'L I CAT I OtJ F0~? VAtt I ANCE Ar•,d/Csr GRI•JUITIUhJAL USC f'ERIdIT Ordinance Wo. a (Series of 1573) Apislicatlon (?ate Pubiicatton Da to Hearing Uate G(,t 1 F1earTng Fe© P ~. FinsE Uectsian date #or Town Council i (we} Country Flair of Gore Creek Drive . (Applicant} (Address) Vail Colorado r•hone~~~"'22g4 (;rate) (City} do hereby request perm.lssion io appear•ti@fore the Vaii Punning Commission to re-Guest the foitawing: ~(X } Variance from Article Section ( ) Zoning rhang~ from to 7X~).Park.ing Variance (- 3 Cd.nditiona! Use Permit to atlovr n''• Zone . for the fql iowT~g described property: T.at/tr8c; C~_.C~~ e, 31a:!:rr~.~_ F'i.Ting idumbe~~.,-_r;Vail_Vil3age First Filing- ---------___._.~_..~_ - Ciearly•state,purpose••and•int'ent `tif~th'i'~ application ~, .exemption fpr parking '~ r • _ ___._ .. .,. What do you teel is the basis far hardship in-l-his ca~a7 5igna ure o ApplGtcahit ~~ -~ .~ __ _ . .. •. .L '~? o ~s, (] n ~.. ~ Z._ , _ ., ,F ~ Juiy 9, l974 IdOT i C~ 4F P€JE3i. 1 C H~AiZ ! I~G N{?TICE I S iiF€~EE3Y G! Vi:tJ that i•~r. Radtioy E. S { t #sr repr®santtng John I+~ci3rtda, has a°ppi led for x~ pari~ing variance ar exomptian in accord with Section l4.C01 0~ Orcfinanee No. 8 iSortes a# !9733 in ardor to a€€ow an apartment unit to be.cQnv+arted to cnrnmercEal space far "Country Hair". The unit is iacated In the Nici3rido i3ui Idtng on Gorr Crack Drive. -- P~6~iCE !S ia~:i~i<[3Y GiVi=1~ tha~€- t~tr. Raber-t Rud~:r represan~Fln~ Lszs~.i~p-~~,~~~-~~s, ;,as applied for a butidinr, #~ulk controi variance to accord with SeC'3'iOn ~i.54b of Ordinance No. £i ~Sertes of l~373) to at`der 1'o ai iow the addition of a trash and storage bul iding to an airaady nonconforming structuro, Said propasad buid€diinc~. would bQ ai-tachpd to the or I c~ i na i Lodcda at Vai € . A public hearing viii ba herd In accordance with Suction 2I,4Q0 of tho zoning ordinance on Ru~~ust-1, I974 at 3:OL3.p.m. in . th4 Vail h~lunicipai Duiiding. Said variances will bo heard before _ fiha Town of Vai i i'lanning Cor~rnission and. ~flndings wi i i bo trans~- mitted to the Fawn CauszGi ! for-.-the. Town of. Vai 4 . .~ _ ... _..___.__ ,-_......__ [)tuna S. TouDhi I I -..._ _ _....___-._ ., _.. ..- ----._.._--_----.__..._...__..__..._..___......_._.._.. Zoning Administrator . L ~ ,''~ 1 "~~ ~5 q~ Apo • ? ,f: (~1.~~ t'- ~ r 1 , a APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE And/Or CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Ordin a No. 8 (Series of 19737 App { ication D ~~~15/Pub I icatlon Date /r`Ty ' Hearing Date '~,]~~/~ 7y Hea g Fee ~ ~• ~ 6 Final Detts on da for Town Council .~~5 ~~ . I f w e /~-P~id~/ o f m~s~ 3~ / pplica~t) (Address? Phone y~ - {State) (City) • do.hereby~ request permission to appeaF•6gfore the Vail Planning Commission to request the following: {~) Variance from Articl e , Section ~ ' D ( ) Zoning Change from to ( ) Parking Variance ( ) Conditional Use Permit #o allow Tn ~ ~ ~ Zone. For the #olEowing des 'bed property: Lo /tract ,. Block Fi I ing Number _ ,O Clearly state purpose an intent ~of this application What do you feel is the basis for hardship in this case? ~~ ° .~ - - ' ~~ture of Appii ant f ...:,, .,6 dx,.:...,, .. .,., .. ,. ...e ..-.:. ...~u~F ,,.. +•d ., ,. :. a:~~~-~ „. . ~. ~• _ '`Y~"."~~ it.~. .y~at eyr;~a .,. • TRANSCRIPT PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 11, 1974 3:00 PM BIGHORN JUNCTION A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was convened at 3:00 P.M. in the Conference Room of the Town of Vail Municipal Building to discpss and review plans for Bighorn Junction. The following members of the Planning Commission were present: Merv Lapin, Chairman Dudley Abbott Bi11 Heimbach. . Gordon Pierce Dave Sage Also present were: Jim Lamont, Administrative Assistant for Town of Vail Diana Toughill, Zoning Administrator, Town of Vail y Cindy Lamont, Vail Trail Bruce Dalton, representing Bighorn Junction Jim Schorsch, representing Bighorn Junction Charles Gersbach, representing Bighorn Junction Ron Landeck, Attorney for Bighorn The meeting was openEd with ..a pre7imi.nary statement by Jim Lamont,. LAMONT: The Planning Commission has asked to review this from the perspective that Town Planning Commission responding to the County Planning Commission. I would also like the Planning Commission to~ consider this as a review of, a more specific review of the project in terms of the Bighorn zoning, which we all know will not be actuated until after the annexation election, but it is a fairly complicated project. I have proposed that it be a special development district,. and in order far the Staff to proceed, we should get a read1ng from • bath the-planning Commission and the Council as far as a special development district, but before we get into that, Merv had asked the developer to come in and make a very specific presentation on this particular project, right? LAPIN: Right, and the reason for this approach was to make sure we were a17 cognizant of what he was doing and why he was putting what where, and why he went the route that he did go, and make sure that we understood his thinking anyway. LAMONT: Now, Heimbach, I don't think you were here when this was going on? HETMBACH: Yes, last Tuesday. LAMONT: Yeah, that's right. Beck has reviewed it, and I"lI go over his Tetter and see if there are any questions, and go over it from the Staff's point of view. Page Two :7 PIERCE: Just out of context here, what are we going to take about on CCI? LAMONT: You have a report, a summation of our diSCUSSlon, to look at, and what I'd like to do is try to get on the work session agenda for next Tuesday with the Planning Commission/Couneilt I`ve kept it very brief, so, you might, if you get a chance, take a look at it before the meeting. PIERCE: I might have to take it with me. LAPIN: You mean this coming Tuesday? LAMONT: Yeah, donut we have a special meeting scheduled far Monday? TOUGHILL: Yes, at Gordon~s request on the Dews residence, so that that could be on the Council agenda for that Tuesday. LAPIN: Well, I thought what we were going to have, well, . PIERCE: I can tell you about it now. ABBOTT; A special meeting about what? PIERCE: Remember I was talking about the Dews residence thing. LAPIN: I thought that we were going to do that today, and then on Monday, I was just going to show up, and everyone 'wasn't going to have to show up, assuming that everyone approved, and that we had a meeting of one to approve it on Monday. NADINE: it"s published for the 15th. LAPIN; Oh, I was just trying to avoid a special meeting if it wasn't necessary. PIERCE; It wouldn~t take very long, I can te17 you that. LAMONT: You may want to take that home, read it, and then meet on it Monday, so you can prepare for Tuesday, PIERCE: Maybe that`s what we ought to do, Merv. LAMONT: I tried to stick as closely to the minutes of the meetings that we had . LAPIN: A11 right, why don't do that;.is there any problem with us meeting on Monday? C. LAMONT: What time? LAPIN: 2:00. (OK, with everyone.) ABBOTT: And then we've got a meeting on Tuesday, at 2:00 with Council? LAPIN; And then Thursday.. Page 3 • LAPIN: OK, let4s; Bruce Dalton, representing Bighorn Junction, OK, Bruce, why don`t you set it up on the „ t The other thing is, are you going to at same point discuss Tracts A & B in terms of the Town buying or not buying? John Dobson said he wanted a comment from U5. , (everyone talking at once} LAPIN: Bruce, we talked briefiy about the kind of presentation you might want to make, is that what you want to do? DALTON: This is a of the project as proposed compared to the requirements of the zoning ordinance. (passed out comparison sheet prepared by developers). DALTON; For anybody who wasn't .here in the last meeting, I'm Bruce Dalton, the architect for Bighorn Ltd, Partnership. Merv, do you think there's any reason for me to go back to some of the things we covered last time? . LAPIN: No, T don`t think so, ABBOTT; When did you have a meeting on this before? LAPIN: At a joint Planning and Council. A884TT; Oh, last Tuesday,, LAMONT; Basically, what happened at that meeting, is T reviewed in detail the process of Bighorn zoning relative to this project and how we got to the point where we are now, and there have been several steps or phases which T can go back over with you in private. ABBOTT; T"d like to know about it, LAPTN: First of all, does everyone know where itis iota ted, are there any questions about its location? All right, why don't you start from... DALTON; Location is on the soutFieast corner of the Pitkin Interchange, access ramp to the eastbound lane, down here it's an $.3 acre piece of property, bounded on the west by some undeveloped land, currently owned by Skelly Oil, and one the east by the East Vail Condominiums. Now, our development plan has been based on a PUD concept, working towards a special development district, at the .suggestion of the planning administraR Lion, The two zones that we've been working with-have been Commercial Core 2 and Medium Density Multifamily. This is close(?) to sane of the earlier thinking on the part of Eldon Beck and the planning admini- stration, in that they had thought of Cammercial Service Center use fln the property, and our investigations of the zoning ordinance, we felt that the use of the Commercial Care 2 was more suitable to development an this property, for two main reasons, and those are restrictions inherent in the Commercial Service Center district. A Commercial Service Center district only allows accommodation or lodging units by conditional use permit, but the more important thing is that in a commercial service core, you can only have maximum 50% of your core area in residential, and if that were the case, we could have quite a large, extensive commercial facility, yet only equal that in square footage residential, so, potentially we could come up with, maybe, 50,000 square feet of commercial, which wouldn't even be absorbed, or could not absorb the business in the area, so the plan we've worked to is one of taking the zoning ordinance, as it states uses, and we've tried to apply these uses to the piece of property, and we have made no consideration, were not looking for Commercial Core Z a. Page 4 for density at a17, we're looking for purely use. The design concept is based upon one of separation of pedestrian, within the PUD, separation of pedestrian from the vehicular, the pedestrian use of, working along the backside of the site, the vehicular access off of U.S. 6, We're attempting to locate the buildings on the site, working to the natural topography and save as many of the existing conifers and aspen trees as possible. The buildings are situated to work to the topography, as you can see here where the site slopes up along the hillside, and this area where it°s relatively flat, we can pretty much put the buildings in any position we wantR Here, we're working with the topo, here, down here, we can step down to topo, the site is not toa steep to use this area ~?), and the many reasons for the configuration in this arrangement at this point is fn order to save as many of those evergreens as possible, and we have, to our count, eliminated somewhere between 10 and 12 on the entire 8.3 acres LAPIN: Topographically, this area is below the highway? DALTON: Yes, the highway is their fill is getting quite high above the site in this area, • LAPIN; Where is the off-ramp on, in relation to the highway and that piece of property? If you~r:e coming from Denver, where to get off? DALTON; The westbound .off-ramp is.right here...,...,.. DALTON; Now, the concept also relies upon the screening from U.S. 6 of the structures in the complex by use of the natural landscaping; there`s a large natural berm that will be~retained, as well as we would add to this to screen further We also rely upon more additional landscaping to help screen the project. We feel its unfortunate that the Highway Department chase to wipe out all the appen trees along the highway right~of-way. The general design concepts of the project in general are that the accommodation structure would have a family orientation. What were trying to do is come up with, meet some of the needs that,. are still lacking within the community. And Vaii, to date, to my knowledge, does not have an accommodation structure that orients toward total family use. That's the intent of this accommodation structure. Economics may come into play as the building is developed - it"s the rate structure - so that itks not as much family oriented as we want now, but this is where we're heading, The commercial facility here is totally planned to accommodate only commercial needs for the Bighorn area. It's not to say we're not going to have some accessory people coming in, but it's planned purely for the Bighorn area. The residential above the com~ mercial is planned to keep the area active and give more vitality when the commercial is not open in the later evening, And the medium density multi- family units we have on this end of the site are of such .a design at this point in time, or concept, that they could meet the needs of wor-king personnel in the area -and were not at all saying employee housing - but the concept, which I'll get into later, is that the size is such it could accommodate a couple or a couple with two children, or something, on a scale of the ..,. LAPIN: They~re going to be sole condominiums or apartments? OALTON: At this point in time, it's not decided; we've discussed apartments. There was one point in time when they looked at the location as an apartment project serving both Vail and construction mankets, But, the exact use of that is not defined at this point in time. Now, the accommodation structure, I'd like to point out since our last meeting, we`ve redesigned, or repositioned the building to comply with some problems we had on the original scheme of bulk and diagonal dimensions through the building, Weave opened it up to have more of a residential scale, or break down the scale of the building. The building still encompasses 162 accommodation units, and the assumption is now that they would be 24x14 areas, 336 square feet, and that's where we keep coming up with the 162, and when I start talking about areas of the building for gross residential floor area, it's based upon that assumption at this time. The accommodation structure will vary up to Page 5 4 stories in height, but will not be a Continuous ~ story high structure, I can point to a schematic section of what we're considering at this point in time, is that these would represent your 4 stories, your maximum height, which, without having the design of the building, we can`t equate specifically to the zoning ordinance, but the maximum height would not exceed 45 feet, and, hopefully, we can hold it down. We`re sure that the trees will help screen this a great deal from U.S. 6. The accessory use space in the center here, is assumed at this point to be approximately 4,000 square feet, of which 2,000 square feet of that would accommodate eating and drinking facilities. Adjacent and under this portion. of the accommodation unit is a parking structure to be depressed into the ground as much as we possibly can, and on top of that, the parking structure will accommodate 120 cars, and on top of that, we'Tl have 2 tennis courts, swimming pool and play area. We also will, as a family-oriented facility, pay a great deal of attention towards the amenities requi-red of a family in terms of play areas, nurseries, baby-sitting services and things like that. Now, the building is sited to, in our revision here, we do respect the county 30-foot site setback. As I stated before, I knew we could do it, and so we've accomplished that here. There's also allowance for at least 130 feet of undisturbed area between the buildings and the stream, leaving this whole portion pretty much in its natural state, except for the removal of the existing buildings dawn along the road.. The units in the accommodation structure will be designed to afford maximum privacy from views from unit to unit, and also for the maximum view of the scenery down the valley and across the valley. And that's also retaining as many of these trees as possible. Moving out to the neighborhood commercial center, these units comprise approximately 13,000 square feet of commercial area at grade. The type of businesses we envison in there are such as convenience store, liquor stare, possible beauty and harbor shop, maybe shoe repair, possible small drug store, possible delicatessen. It`s more or less neighborhood oriented business. We donut anticipate gift shops, import shops, things like that; however, if somebody did want toylocate there, there`s nothing likely to prevent it. CINDY LAMONT: Mr. Dalton, what was the 4,000 square feet of commercial that you talked about? DALTON: The 4,000 square feet was the accessory use for the accommoda- tion unit alone. The reason I point that out is it`s not included in calculations for your gross residential floor area C. LAMONT; So, is it included in the 13,000? DALTON: No, it's not. DALTON: Now, the design Concept we`re working with here on the commercial is that everything will orient around a pedestrian mall, which will be an open ma11< The intent is that none of the buildings would have a definite front or back. The shops could occur with orientations to any of the pedestrian access areas around the commercial center. Above the commercial, we would have potentially as much as 15,000 square feet of office/family dwellings. We haven't even begun to break down whether they're going to be 1 bedroom, 2 bedroom, what the square footage is of each unit, we`re just looking at a certain amount of multifamily units above the commercial. Now, in conjunction with these units, if they are rental units, in fact, this could occur far the whole site, but the management function could occur fray the accommodation units. These again could be privately sold, but if the, the point being that any rental facility on the site could be managed from the accommodation units. The surface parking in here is, as I Page 6 stated before, will be concealed by the natural berm and will be landscaped as much as we possibly can once we get more of a develop- ment plan. The fact that we have a loading area/service area for the accommodation unit here, can service two spaces for the commercial here and one space for the medium density, multi-family there. Now, moving on to the medium density, multi family, from this point on, those buildings represent 60 units. The assumption now is that the units would be a maximum of 900 square feet per unit, and that~s why I say that it might suit itself to some form of empioyee~type oriented housing, not specifically being geared towards that though. And the units would terrace up the slope with no penetration of roads. These would be pedestrian pathways, back and forth along the hillsides The slope is approximately 12%? it varies from 12% to maybe 14% or 15% up to about this point, and then shoots up higher in the range of 20%. ~e~re trying to respect this upper area and not develop it, and have building sections of approximately how that will work going up the slope, with the dotted line representing the existing slaps on the lower 12~ and that the four-plex buildings at this point in time would .work from both sides, and you'd- have two of them together; so each building would have four units in it, and then multiples of that in order to get up to a 12-plex or something, And again, let me say that we haven't gotten into the architecture or design concepts; this may change very drastically once we get doing it, but at this time, I envision now something in character similar to-the Booth Creek units in terms of appearance. Now, due to the fact that we are terracing up, we,'re not going to have any excessive cuts due to roads. The pedestrian access would be obtained either by, if the slopes are low enough that we can walk, we'll do that, but if we have any type of mechanical device, the two things we've con , sidered are an elevator system at the lowest point getting up to bridges that would contact back into the hill, or if we get the approval of the state agencies, we would like to investigate inclinedlifts for people going up the hil]side. I know of two or three of them, but I understand that they have a question in terms of the safety features from the elevator standpoint. ~e"'re not talking of anything as'sophisticated as escalators. Now, the development up in here will be situated so that we retain as many as the aspens and the evergreens that are on that site as possible. The residents in-this areas as I pointed out before, have access to the remaining portion of the site without any interference from the vehicular use. And again,the pedestrian circulation of the whole project is such that we can hook up and connect to the Vail. bike trails, and as was pointed out tome, I believe, at one time, Jim, that you desired some connection through this point. It can jest as easily get connections through over there as~.weil. The parking here for this much of the development is comprised of a parking structure enclosed underground, with berming up to it, and then we go back over here, this area, anything that projects up we would berm up to to help conceal the fact that it's parking. We have a parking structure for 48 cars; we have 32 cars here; 29 cars here; 39 cars here; plus the service for that unit. Now, this list I passed out, T'.d bike to review that with you in terms of the way this project stands today compared to the zoning code. I didn't break it down by section, but each section,. the site, setbacks, things, are in the same numerical sequence, so the site area, minimum required is 10,000 square feet; we have 351,000 square feet, $.3 acres. Setbacks ~ the setback requirements are basically, because it, assuming that we would look at the accommodation unit at this point as 40-45 ft high building; that would require a 20 foot setback along this portion of this property. We have have-20 foot here; we have in excess of the 2C foot back there. As I pointed out, we have over a 130 feet on this side. We get into the setbacks in this area, we still would have maybe 20 foot, but you can't have parking in your required setbacks. Required setbacks are a minimum of LO feet; we"~ve respected that 10 feet along from the property line. You may notice that there's approximately 80 feet between the parking and the road.. Along this portion of the property, we"re back down to the required 20 feet, Werre in much excess of that; same here; we"re right at approximately the 20 foot point here, and we"re at the 17 foot point here. T'm working on the assumption that these units would not exceed 35 feet, and these wouldn"t exceed 35 feet, but from our early sectional studies of these, both of these, both of these units n Aage 7 will probably be less than the maximum allowable, par ticularly,, these units might only be as high as 25 feet. The distances between buildings, since we have not designed the buildings, we have not gone through and itemized exactly what our spaces are. We can see that we have a couple areas that look that they would have to be separated, but we know when we get down to the specific:design of the buildings, we can easily accomplish the required space between the buildings. When we redesigned this portion in order to break the bulk down, we definitely have enough space between the buildings, because we calculated we needed 20-25 feet. We have at least 2$ there, Building height, as I said, we`re assuming now 45, 35, and 35, but they could be lower. Density control - this is where that I feel we're in very good shape compared to the zoning ordinance. In a Commercial Gore 2, you~re allowed to have 80% of your site covered by buildings, or 80% of your gross residential floor area, per 100 square feet of site; Tn the muli-family, you can have 35% of your gross residen- tial floor area for your site. On the right hand side, we`ve calculated what we now see as our gross residential floor area for all of our gross residential construction on the site, and we come up with approximately 123,000 gross residential, which puts our site, or floor area ratio for the site at 34%, which is even lower than that., the maximum of medium density, multi-family. The building bulk control, without designing the buildings, we can't definitely say that we know what our total situation is from the zoning ordinance, but you can see that we have no buildings any longer than 175 fee t; in fact, most of them are less; this probably being the longest one; that building would 6e 110 feet maximum. The diagonal distance does not exceed any of the diagonal requirements of the ordinance, so I'm very confident that in continuing the design that we can comply with bulk control. Site coverage r this is the one where we come out very favorable, that within the Commercial Core 2, we could have by building a 70% site coverage; in this area, it would be 45% site coverage; we have even included the areas in our cal- culations of the parking structures even though that that land will be reclaimed for recreation or amenities, weave included them in our cal culations and our site coverage is only 28.7%, which is far below even that of medium denisty mu1ti~family. Now, in terms of usable open space, you have to have your .4, or 1 suuare MEMO Ta: ~ T01~N COUNCIt FROM: PLANNING CO`i~9ISSI0N RE: CCI QATE: JULY lI, 197 The Planning Commission in recent months has spent considerable time deliberating the issues and problems confronting the Commercial Core I zone. This memorandum is a summation of our de7iberatians, as well as recommendations for the resolution of CCI problems, I'he Commission`s discussions have focused on dour principal areas of study: ~~ {1} Pedestrian Concept; - ~ . • ~ {2} Parking and Vehicular Access; (3} Change of Use; ~ ~ . {4) auilding Fiullc Control. The following text outlines the various elements of each principal area of concern: {l,} PLDFS~RII~N CONCLPI:: 'fhe principal factor which wi11 determine the resolution o f many parking and vehicular access problems is = directly related to the pedestrian concept provided for in the Uail . Plan. l"he Commi ssion has revie~~ed the proposed Vail Village pedestrian area and has mad e the following findings: (a) That the general .area subject to pedestrianizatian • in the Uail Plan is valid; {b} That there are distinctive differences in vehicular accessibility within the boundaries of the pedestrian precinct; (c) That there is a need to implement the pedestrianization concept on a phased basis, which is a function of the use capacity of the transportation center; ~J (dj That there is a need far providing limited vehicular access and circulation within the pedestrian area until such time as an acceptable technological solution is found for delivery and pick-up of goods and people; ~'he Planning Commission has identified tvaa distinctions within the pedestrian precinct. The first distinction being the area which can be fatally pedestrianized, given the appropriate technology. The second being those areas on~the periphery of the pedestrian precincts which have vehicular access and have minimal canfiict with the pedestrian mall system. The Commission believes that the pedestrianizatian program should be implemented an a phased basis with the use capacities of the transportation center being the determining fact a^ as to 4rhen subsequent phases should be implemented, A map has been prepared illustrating all of the above information. (2) PARKING AND VCHICtILAR ACCESS: ' Parking: Given the existence of the transportation center, many of t}ie former parking problems will be removed. However, the Corn~~ission believes that it is necessary to establish firm policies regarding vehicular access and parking within CCI. The folla4~ring are the Commission`s views concerning controls over parking. (a} In the total pedestrian area, all parking, bath _ public and private, should be eliminated. In the case of existing private parking, the owners should be compensated in some equitable manner; (b) In the peripheral pedestrian areas, required parking fvr new construction should be 100f underground. How- ever, consideration should be given to reducing the parking requirement and/or allow valet parking to minimize the design impact of underground parking structures; (c) In peripheral pedestrian area, steps should be taken to minimize the visual impact of surface parking, either through adequate landscaping, parking require- ment reduction; or other appropriate means. Vehicular Access; If the total pedestrian precinct is dependent upon technology to resolve our goods and people delivery problem, we, therefore, make the following recommendations as interim measures. ~~ L -2- (a) Delivery vehicles should be limited to specific ' hours and a permit system to control the length of time the vehicle is within the pedestrian area; ' • ~ {b) Construction and service vehicles should be given . designated parking areas removed from the mall system. All vehic]es would be required to park in such areas while performing their various services; • (c) Experimentation should take place to determine an appropriate mini-delivery vehicle if one is deemed necessary. Mini electric carts have been suggested, as well as standard push shopping carts for trans • porting packages and luggage. {d) In the peripheral pedestrian area, access will be . available to both surface and underground parking areas. However, responsibility far controlling . access to these private lots will be the responsi- bility of the property owner. General: It is the Commissi~nts opinion that the parking require- ment i~s an inappropriate method for controlling change of use and building bulk control. Further, that tihe exemption requirement which allows far the assessment of a per space fee should be disregarded and discontinued, In the long run, the patron and owners of the business within CCI will pay for the cost of the parking structur e {3} CHA~iGE QF' USE: The Commission believes that the original planning concepts for the Vail Village area were based upon an economic evolution predicated by the practical needs of the area. However, there was a ~anscious effort to provide a mixed-use area. The Commission believes that it is desirable to retain the mix of uses and to encourage 1ong- term residences in the area. In recent years, retail and business offices have continually increased and replace short and long term housing because of their higl3er return of investment. The Commission believes if this • trend continues, the viability o:f the Core is threatened. Therefore, the Commission believes a mare restrictive approach should be taken. . Control Methodology: Several different approaches were discussed, . The recommended method combines the existing conditional use permit procedure, with a horizontal zoning concept. Horizontal zoning would permit basements and first floor areas to be used as retail stores and establishments as now permitted by the zoning ordinance; retail shops, business and professional offices, personal se~vice and repair shops • would be allowed on the second floors; residential would be all awed on or above the second floor. The conditional use permit would be used to allow flexibility in allowing business or professional offices, as well as changing any existing residential use. Restaurants and bars could either be a permitted•or a conditional use on.the first floor and basement, _3,. ~4) GGILDI~EG GdLK COP1TE70L: The Commission reviewed the exi-sting controls provided in the zoning ordinance. It was found that the existing controls are sufficient to control the expansion or reneo-ral of building tivithin the area. ~iowever, the variance provisi.,, should ~` be strict]y enforced. Further, it is suggested that more~de~~~~nitive design guidelines be developed in order to strengthen the design review procedures. -4- .iuiy 2, 1974 NOT I CI~ OE: PURL 1C HI"AR hIJG NOTICE !5 hiEi2Ei3Y GIV~~i THAT Nit, ui l iia~r~ Ruoff, rapt©sQn#1ng Raiph E, Davis has applied for a 5e#back • variance in accordance wi#h Sac#ion 3.502 of Ordinanc© No, 8 (Series of 1973); said variance has been applied for in accordance wi#h Section l9»200 of Ordinance No. t~ (Series of 1973). The proposed addt#ian is coca#ed on i.o# 3, E3 i aci< 7, Vai 1. V i i i age 7#h F i f i ng. !~ pubilc h©aring wiil be hail in accordance wt#h Sec#1on ~I.4Q0 of the zoning ordinance or~J-fnv ~~~ 1974 a-i• 3:00 p.m. in the Vai i t~lunicipal E3u1 idtng. Said varianco hearing wiii be i~afara the Town of Vai! Pianninc~ Camr~lsslan and findings will be #rans~i#ted #o the Town Cauncii for #heTown of Vaii. -rowi~ oi; VA! i. i?iana 5. Toughtlt zoning Administrator MEMaRANDUM Ta: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSIaN RE: DEWS RESIDENCE/VARIANCE REQUEST DATE: JULY 15, i9~4 The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the variance request be given. The request is for the building of additions to the residence six feet into the utility easement which is on the south side of the property abutting the national forest. The Comm'15510n is in receipt of letters from the Vail Cable TV, Noly Cross Electric, Public Service and Mountain Bell indicating that they have no problem with the building being placed into the easement. Vail • Cable TV's letter indicated that they would need an underground duct to the building and the builder has agreed to this. Holy Crass Electric has indicated that they could use an easement on the side of the property and Gordon Pierce, representing the Dews, has indicated that they have agreed to giving an easement through their property for Holy Cross. Therefore, the Planning Commissions under Section 19.6 _ Criteria and Findings, has considered those four factors and have made-the following findings: -- article #1, 2, 3 (a),{b) and (c}. ML/nmm ... s :, ~ a ~_ _ .~ _ ~.. -- - ..~:.: v. . _ _ ~ ~ . - . - - ~ . _. AGENDA PLAtdNTNG COMMISSION AEIGUST I, 1974 3.00 1. Consideration of parking variance or exemption request by Rodney Slifer, representing John McBride, to allo~r an apartment unit,located in she McBride Building on Gore Creefc Drive, to be converted to commercial space for CaUISTRY FP_AIR, ' 2, Consideration of building bulk control variance request by Robert Ruder, repre- senting Lodge Properties, to allow the addition of a trash and storage building to an already nonconforming structure; said building to be attached to the • original LODGE AT VAIL. 3. Consideration of request by 1~layor John Dobson for extension of garkci ng vari anee for TFiI" COVERED BRIDGE 570RE. • Aucdus~t 5, iSi74 IdQ'~ I Cw OiM Pl~tiL I C FI~~R ! IIC s~:n1-inc; t~arica Vir.tr~rl~ varl ar~,c;:s~/caxam~tl car} 1 r~ ~,r~ca Ira. 13 (Seder cif store to bo conve;r•"I'cd lrG~teci In ~fha i..~}z€ar CIV~1~ th€~t €~Icharcl N. l~lr~rt. raprc~- fi'it:~scarr, has APP l iced far a pr~ricl nc~ accord with Sactlan I~.Ggt of Grc4lnw 1c373) In nrdar 1'0 €~1lc~w a ,jewelry #a ~ ros~Yauranfi. Sub,j~c'r ~raa Is ~trc.~cla F~r~i 6dinr~ an ~~al 1 Strce'~. f1 Puh I l c har~r-I nc~ w I I I Jae he I d I n ~ccardanc~: w fi •f•f, Soc~~ion 7i.~4G~ of tine x.onira~ ardlnanca an~'7~ucusl~ 49, 1~74~ at ~: OU p .r... I n ~`Izo V~ i i F•Icara i c l ~~3 I fi3s~ I l d l ng. 3a c v€~r 1 ancc~ wi 1 I Jae ]tic~arcl bc:fcar`a ~-hn ioe~in of Va€ I E'lonninr~ Cor~r~nlsaton end find 1 ngs ~~r I I I L~~° tram;rr~I -F ~ ad ~'c> •t~ha ~'owrr Cc~uncl E far ~`ha 'fa~~n of Va I k . 0€:f'AR~1~1LI~;T G!" CO€~iR~Ui~I ! 1'Y E)EV~I_0~'E~Er~`I' Uiar~c~ >. Toa~lzll I 7.on E ~~;} AcIR~~I t7 I :>•i'rai-ar :1 f' s• r. .~ r • Auc~us-i• G, 147G f;U'I• I C~_ OF PUEf. I G liEl~Fi; l F#G 1tOr € CE: f ~ I~E:fiE~l' GI V~~l ~-I~a~ V~ i I Associ ~~~-es Inc. has ~~17~ I i cad Ear a C a 7t ,.-1~,;1~, ya r?~7~ I p~l~.a~e~f pct r ry, f t € n ~ c coo -r t1`~'F'c c''~~~ `~C"i"~~ ~ c ~ i o n € £s . 2 0 0 of Ordlri~.nvu i':: {5eri~s o~ ~~73) ire order ~'o cons-i'ruc~' a ski €€f~ in an a~r~icul-i'ur•al zone. Sa€d Ilf-f 12 is •t'o ba loc4~ocf in -f-lze Galc:an €'eak at-c;~ cr~rrr~n-1'ly used for' i-he ~or~e--€ € f-I end r~€;h'Ey~ r:~1'€'c~. !~ ~ Uft l i c~ hc;ii i' I nr: s•~ 1 1 1 f~a hr~ I d i n accorJancc ri i -1'h Socfi i an 71.100 o'r Ordfnarice ;io. B {Scsrlc;s of f97:~1 an Ruc~us'€~ ~3_, [97~. asp~. s.~~:~~ •~~~.~..~~; ~, a~' i:UO l~.r~. In `1-i~u Va€ € Ehun€c€I~ai E;ui ldlr~c~. S~i-ci ~onc~'~-t'ionaT- Uso i'e;rm I JF tir € € € !~e i~G<~r'ci bei~or-o ~Y€~e '1'ot~rn of Va i i F' € ann € n~ Carr. arylsslon tinC€ tfndir7~s 411 € I bc; 'transc:l~--1-ed ~i-o ~'ha 'i'oti~rn ouncl for t€, c, rt}ti~rt of Va € i . nl:1~r~,l;~rf-~~~,~.~~~ oi- uU~f~1;1~f €-~~r oEV~~.a~r~~l=r~~r "I' {) i-t I~d 01= V n 11. .!t . Diana v . 1'ou~h i € I 7.ot1€ rn Adc:~i n 1 5-fr~s•1-ot' MEMORANDUM T0: TOwN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: COVERED BRIDGE STORE AMENDMENT TO PARKING VARIANCE/EXEMPTION BUILDING BULK CONTROL/OFFSET VARIANCE DATE: August 6, 1974 Rt their meeting on August 6, 1974, the Planning Commission reviewed a request for an amendment to the parking exemption and building bulk control/offset variance for the Covered Bridge-.Store. The building bulk control variance amendment concerned a request to allow a wall approximately 70 feet long, without a i0 foot jog. Because the wall in question is directly adjacent to Gasthoff Gramshammer, it does not seem practical to require the 10 foot offset requi red every 5O feet,. The Planning Commission unanimously voted, with David Sage ab- staining, to grant the amendment to the variance for the offset, based on the following findings, in accordance with Section 19.600: I. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welf.ar~, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted because; (a) The strict or literal interpretation. and. enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical dif- ficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. The Covered Bridge Store was granted a parking. variance/exemption for three parking spaces previously; due to a change anal enlarge- ment, an amendment for-two additional spaces is required. The Commission voted 4-2, with one abstention (for: Abbott, Heimbach, Pierce, Wright; against: Hanlon, Lapin; abstaining: Sage), based on Section 14.800. (2) of the zoning ordinance. The basic arguments for granting the exemption are: I. That only 250 square feet are being changed from residential to comm.,ercial, aid that there would still be two apartments. 2. Restricting building additions using parking is not legal. Those voting.a- gainst did not want to see the change of use from residential" to commercial and felt that adding commercial square footage should require signing of the previous parking agreement for the additional spaces required and that additional parking is needed to accommodate the additional traffic. .-.. COVERED BRIDGE SWORE ADpITION '- SUMMARY OF ADDENDUM TO VARIANCES ' Residential Floor Area: !, In original building - 2 apartments with !,393.13 square feet. 2. In building and approved addition for which variance was originally granted - 2 apartments with 1,233,[3 square feet. 3, In final proposal and original building - 2 apartments which contain a total of I,l4l.i3 square fleet. Addendum to parking variance: 1. First addition proposed and variance approved - 960 square feet for a total of 3 parking space variance/exemption. 2. Second proposal which is-489 square feet larger would require an additional 1.63 car variance/exemption. This ma'd,be done as an addendum to the first variance/exempi-ion. Addendum to building bulk control; I. Original appll-cation was fior a wall approximately 52 fleet long (already existing) which was being made more nonconfiorming because it was to be higher. The ordinance allows a 50f wail without a 10~ jag. This was granted by the Planning Commission and the Council. 2. The new proposal has a wall approximately 70t long without a jog and the original variance must be amended, r .r AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION/TOWN COUNCIL AUGUST 6, 1974 1:00 P.M. 1. Consideration of Conditional Use Permit request by Mr. Nathaniel B. Harris, representing RADIO VAIL, INC., in order to permit a public service use {radio broad- casting studio) in a CC2 zone. Subject use is located on Lot 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing (Lionsquare Lodge). 2. Consideration of request for setback variance by Mr. William Ruoff, representing RALPH E. DAVIS; proposed addition located on Lot 3, Block 7, Vail Village 7th Filing. 3. Consideration of request far parking variance ar exemption by Mr. Rodney E. Slifer, representing JOHN McBRIDE, in order to allow an apartment unit to be converted to commercial space for "Country Flair" M- located in the McBride Building on Gore Creek Drive (Gorsuch). 4. Consideration of request for building bulk control variance by Mr. Robert Ruder, representing LODGE PROPERTIES, in order to allow addition of a trash and storage building to an already nonconforming structure. 5. Consideration of addendum to existi.rq parking variance and building bulk control variance for-THE COVERED BRIDGE STORE - Mayor John A. Dobson, w y MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE; RADIO VATL - CONDITTONAL USE PERMTT DATE; AUGUST 6, 1974 At their meeting on duly 25, 1974, the Commission reviewed an applica- tion for a conditional use permit to allow a radio broadcasting studio in a CC2 zone - Lionsquare Lodge, The Commission had na objection to the plans as proposed, subject to the antenna disc being approved by Design Review Board (on Thursday, August $, 1974, agenda for D.R.B..}. The Commission found, in accordance with sec. 18.600, of the zoning ordinance: (1) That the proposed location of the use .is in accord with the purposes of the ordinance .and-the purposes of the district in which the site is located, (2} That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements 1n the vicinity, (3) That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance, The Commission voted unanimously to approve the conditional use permit as proposed, M,LAPIN/nmm MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNTNG COMMTSSION RE: RALPH DAVTS RESIDENCE ~ SETBACK VARIANCE DATE: AUGUST 8, 1974 At their meeting on July 25, I974~ the Commission reviewed a request for setback variance to add a carport to the DAVIS residence, located on Ptarmigan Road, at the Golf Course, The variance request is for 7 feet, in lieu of 20 feet, along Ptarmigan Road. The Commission had no objections to the request. The Commission found, in accordance with section 19.600 of the zoning ordinances . (I} That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties ciassi.fied i.n the same district.. (2) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, {3} That the variance is warranted because: (a) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objet- fives of this ordinance (b) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive th.e applicant of privilege s enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. The Commission voted unanimously to approve the variance request, M.LAPTN/nmm M~MQRANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL. FRAM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: LODGE PROPERI'.IES ~:'BUILDING::BULK CONTROL DATE: AUGUST 6, 197A~ At their meeting an August 2,1974, the Planning Commission reviewed a request fora building bulk control variance (exceeds diagonal length) for the addition of a trash and storage building to the south side of the original Lodge building. Forest Service permits have been obtained. in accordance with Criteria #{3}:of ;the zoning ordinance, the Planning Commission found: {1) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district, (2) That the granting oi: the variance wi11 not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare¢ or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (3} That the variance is warranted because: (a) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the ojbectives of this ordinance. (b) There are exceptional or extraordinary cirucrostances ar conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. (c) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Th.e Commission voted unanimously to approve the variance request floe Chairman abstaining, M. LAPIN/nm a ~ ~ u MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: COUNTRY FLAIR - PARKING EXEMPTION DATE: AUGUST 5, 197 At their meeting on August I, 1974, the Planning Commission reviewed a request for parking exemption to convert an apartment unit to commercial space for COUNTRY FLAIR in the McBride Building on Gare Creek Drive, In accordance with Section 14.800 (2), the Planning Gommission voted 3-2, with 1 absention, to deny the exemption. The ma,~or reason was a change of residential space to commerc ial space on the 2nd floor. The Commission feels that this type of change is not desirable. The argument was made that the space has been used as storage for at least a year and that it was not really a residential to commercial change. M.LAPIN/nmm •' r AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 8, 1974 3:00 PM I.. Consideration of request by Mr. Jay Peterson, representing Mr: ROBERT: T. LAZIER, for a variance to allow nan~covered parking in order to construct a structure located on Parcel C, Vail LionsHead First Filing. 2, Consideration of request by Mr, Benedict, representing ANTLERS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, for a variance to a71ow non-covered parking in order to construct a conference room facility and move parking to new location. 3. Consideration of plans of VAIL AS50CIATf=S for 'LIFT #12, located at Gold Peak, approximately in the same location of existing Poma Lift and l~igl~ty tai to r Prei 3n~i naries • E I July 17, 1974 _ _. .. .. _... _ _ rtOT k Cl: OF F'E3E3L 1 C HEAR ! t~G 1~IOTlCE t5 liERE3Y GIVCN that Mr. Jay Peterson, rapre- senti ng Mr. Robert T. Laz inr, has airp I 1 ed far a varl ante to al taw non-covered parking as required iiy Section 9.b10 of Ordinance too. (3 (series of l973} In order to construct a structure locai'ad on °arcel C, Vai I .ions[-iced E"irst f=31 ing. Application has been made In accord with Section 19.2QO of paid ordinance, _ .. ,_ ~ ~.. A public hearing wlil 6e held In accordance wi~Yh Section 21.404 of the zoning ordinance an August ~3, 1974 at ~:OO p,m. in the Vai I t~9unfcipa! 13ui ldinci. Saki varlancQ wi I I be hoard baforo the Tot~n of Vail Pkanninc~ Corr~mi5sion and findings will ~' be transr~l -tied 'to 1'he Toaan Counci ! for the ~1'own of l~a~ I ,_ _ 1`0ti'1tl OF VA l 1. ~ ~ - .. ..~. Dlan~ S, 7augh3tl _ ~ _ Zan i ng .~ ,Admi n 3 strator - -- _ _.._......C_.___. ~. ---.- ._.._.... ... .._- -- -_- .__ _._. ... : a. - . ~ • -.. ~Y' APPLfCATION FOR VARiANGE And/Or CON[)1T10NAL USE PERMIT Ordinance No. 8 (Series of 1973) ~~ App! icatlon Hate J u l y 17, 1974 f'ubl Tca#ion Date Jul y 19, 1974 Hearing Date AUgu5~ F3, i974 Hearing Fee ~ 104.00 f`'J',i `i Fine) Decision date for Tawn Council Rugtls'h 20, i974 t (we) Robert T, Lazier of P. 0. Box (Rpplicant) (Address) Co I orado Va i I Phone 476--55 10 (State) (City) do hereby request permission to appear=•befpre the Vail Planning Commission to request the following: ( X) Variance firom Article 9 , Sectlan9.610 ( ) Zoning Change from to ( X) Parfcing Variance See an4VC ( ) Conditional !!se Permit to allow in CC2 Zones. .~ For the following described property: Lest/tract 131ock Fi,lTng Number Parcel C Vail LioRSHead First Fi I iRq Clearly state purpose and intent ~of this appl ic,ationTh~ purpose of this app3.ication is f_or a variance from providing 500 of the required parking within the proposed _ building. Applicant desires to orovide tiarkina in the parking structure located approximately 30 feet from the building. ' ' 4ihat do you fieel is the basis for hardship in this case? The ' dimensions of the site and the location of the existing building make it impossible to provide parking within the bnildinq. Sufficient parking 7.s to he Stlt~nl i ed wi t•hi x~ t]-~P PS{„•t Gt'i r~Cr ~~~~ nr~ structure and adjacent property. 9'? ~ i F 1~C1 ~~_..12.. Signature of"'Applicant a Peterson ~At rney for App~.icant a ~~-~M . : APPLICATIQN FOR VARiAtJCE And/Or CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Ordinance No. 8 {Series of 1973) Appl iCatlon Date July 22, X.974 `} Publication Date ~`/~~~ 7] Nearing Date (if ~> >~~ /~7~ ~yea•ring Fee Fi na l Dec E s i on date for Town Counc l I ~ o _ /e~>ef I (we} Antlers Condominium Assnof L.ionshPad, Vail tAppEicant) (Address) Colorado ~ Vail Phone 47b-2471 (state} (City) do hereby request permission to appeaF•bg€o re the Vail Planning Commission to request the following: /J' ( Variance from Article , Sec3ion=/-CF'iG~ ( } Zoning Change from to ,~ ( ) Parking Variance ( } Conditional Use Permit to allow ;~ In Zone. . ~(v]~ For the following described property: C.ot/tract ~ Black ~- Flung Number Third . Clearly state purpose and intent of #his applicationW~ i nf-Pric1 to build a conference zoom and common restroom facilities. Tn order • to do so~ we need ~o re'I.nrate 9 nark~_na 5naces to camnly with the eXx5ting COdE'~ a5 ,,car c~ro..lra ar,r~ ~~~nc Phi c arp kTi l l Leo attractively enhan-.~Ar7 h~* ;-ht c~~~nci-rim-inn What do you fee! is the basis for hardship in this case?$ E 1 na a 72 unit condominium we desperately need conference room and rest roam facilities in order to do any summer and off season business. The location we have c osen or -is cons ~~ Lt~c -.:~~ri is she any economical place. ><ve can praviae ztie pax-xiiiy can ~iie lower i~vel hOWever It 1S t00 ~nNtlla.i.v~ alaC.i".~~ w~uiC~ iu.,..ia Ll,c ui~..~i.~.~.c~:.~..u.i.ul appearance of the buzlaan proposed parking ~Pa~o This proposed change will "will be barely visible in visible in the winter. ,. g ~~ we ran the coverea area over tn~.s keep our parking on the lower level and the summer and probably not at all nature of .Applicant ~~ a AGENDA PLANNING CONu~iISSIO[~ Af1GUS1" 15, X1974 3:OQ PM (1~ Consideration oi: new proposal i'ar parking variance ~ Jay Peterson, representing R08ERT LAZIER • CJ AG Ei~ DA PLANfVTNG COM~ITS5ION/TOW~f COUNCIL AUGUST 20, 1974 (1) Consideration of request by ROBERT Te LAZTER for variance to allow covered parking not within a structure - Parcel C ~ Vail Lianshead first Filing • ~1 L J MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: REQUEST SY ROBERT T. LAZIER FflR VARIANCE TO ALLOW COVERED PARKING NOT WITHIN A STRUCTURE ~ PARCEL C, VATL LTONSHEAD FIRST FILING GATE: AUGUST 2O, 1974 At their meeting on August 15, 1.974, the Planning Commission reviewed a request by Robert T, Lazier that he be al-lowed to put additional covered parking spaces into a structure attached to the present parking structure that is adjacent to the Lift House and Lazier Lionshead Arcade Building. The variance is for covered parking not within the building, as required by Section 9.610. Mr. Lai er and his attorney, Jay Peterson, argued that (1} a precedent has already been set in that parking variances have been given in CC1, and (2) that a precedent has been set in that Lionsquare North was given a variance for parking not within the building. The Com~kissi~on found, in accordance with section 19.600 of the zoning ordinance: (1) That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. (2} That the granting of the variance wi11 not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (3) That the variance is warranted because: ('a) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. By a vote of 5 for, 1 abstention, Hanlon; Pierce absent; the variance request was grantede Mr, Lazier was informed the following conditions must be met: (I} he must obtain design approval of the addition to the covered paring; (2} he must bring landscaping up to standard; as required by the zoning ordinance, and' (3) his occupancy permit would be revoked if the land= scaping were nat brought up to standard, LAPIN/nmm .., ~. MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN ATTORNEY FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: LEGAL OPTNTONS DATE: Al1GUST 20, 1974 We would appreciate a 1ega1 opinion from you regarding the following questions: First, can you change a lot line without going through the Planning Commission? The concern here is that if someone changed the lot line, they could also change the character of the neighborhood. -For example, the lots on the golf course are between I/2 to 3/4 acres. If two adjacent 3/~ acre lots were changed so that one lot contained only 1,500 square feet, and the other lot, the remainder of the land, this would allow one very large house next to one very small house. The second problem concerns whether we have the ability to control the change of lodge rooms to either condominimized rooms or to condominimized apartments. We feel that a key ingredient to the economic success of the core is lodge rooms. Lodge rooms tend to create the greatest economic activity for other businesses in the area, Our immediate concern is the possible change of the Valhalla from lodge rooms to condominiums. Pi ease respond in writing, LAPIN/nmm MEMORANDUM T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSTON RE. VATL ASSOCIATES, INC. - CONDTTIONAL USE PERMIT - LIFT #12 DATE; SEPTEMBER 3, 1974 At their meeting on August 29, 1974, the Planning Commission considered a request for a Conditional Use Permit by Vail Associates, Inc „ in order to construct a ski lift in an agri- cultural zone. Said lift is to be located in the Golden Peak area currently being used for the poma lift and mighty-mite. The lifthouse building will be approximately 12~ x 24', 13' high. The design of the lifthouse building is scheduled for design approval on Thursday, September 5, 1974. The Chairman reviewed the criteria and findings of the zoning ordinance; the Zoning Administrator advised that an environmental impact report is not necessary. The Commission then found, in accordance with Section 18.600 of~the zoning ordinance.; (1) That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (2) That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (3) That the proposed use will comply with each of the app1i-cable provisions of this ardinance. Based an the above findings, the Commission voted unanimously {Hanlon absent; Wright abstaining) to approve the request fora conditional. use permit and to recommend the same action to Town Council. /nmm MLMORANDU~i TO: TOWN COUNCIL FRONT: PLANNING COMMISSION R£: VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. -- CONDITIONAL USE PERf~IT -- LIFT #12 PATE: 5£PT£MOER 3, 1974 At their meeting on August 29, 1974, the P'ianning Commission considered a request for a Conditional Use Permit by Vail Associates, Inc „ in order to construct a-ski lift in an agri- cultural zone. Said lift is to be located in the Golden Peak area currently being used for the puma lift and mighty mite. 'fhe 1ifthouse building will be approximately 12~ x 24', 13' high. The design of the iifthouse building is schedu-led for design approval on Thursday, Septemb,r 5, 19?4: The Chairman reviewed the criteria anti findings of the zoning ordinance; tare Zoning Administr°atar advised that an environmental impact report is not necessary, The Commission then found, in accordance with Section 18.600 of. the zoning ordinancez . (1) That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. :{2) That the proposed location of the use arrd.the conditions under which it would be operated or maintai:t~E~d-.w~ll nct be detr7menta7 -to the publ is he'a;i th, safety, or ,welf~.~~e;' or materially "injurious to properties or improveme>~.ts in the vicinity. ~3) That the proposed Use will comply with each of ~~~e applicable provisions of tJ~tis,r~rdi,r•rance. ' based on the above findings, the Commission voted unanimously (Flanlon absent; Wright abst~~ining) to approve the request fora conditional use permit and to recomr~e,nd ;vikre same action to town Council. /nmm MEMORANDUM TO: TERRY MILAGER FROM: J I M LAh10NT RE: LAZIER LiONSHi=AD PROJECT - REQUEST FOR VARIANCE DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 1974 It is the viE;: of the Communi~iy Development staff that the request for variance by Robert T. L`a~ier for eight parking spaces required to be within the building to be located adjacent to the existing parking structure should not be granted based upon the applicant's arguments for the following reasons: I. Article 14 (Off--street parking and loading) - Section (4,100 of the zoning ordinance states "In certain districts (which applies to this project) al! or a portion of the parking spaces prescribed by this article are required to be within the main building in order to avoid or to minimize the adverse visual impact of large concentrations of exposed parking and of separate garage or carport structures", There can be little doubt that the existing condition of this site obviously has an adverse visual impact, Further, ir, our judgment, the proposed separate carport structure would not lessen the adverse visual impact. The argument has been advanced, though ~~ot formally, that a precedent was set with the approval of a similar variance reques-I• for the LionSquare North project, It should be noted that this variance was permitted to preserve views from -rhe Mantaneros project by allowing the proposed building to be of a lower profile, Secondly, extreme care was taken to require that the enclosed parking was substantially underground and not viewable from principal view corridors. Consequently, the visual impact of this variance was of more benefit to the surrounding neighborhood than if the variance had not been permi tted. 2, Article 14, Section 14.400 (Off-street and Joint Parking Facilities) states that "authority to permit off-site or joint parking facilities shall not extend to parking spaces required by this Ordinance to he located within the main building on -hhe site but may extent to parking spaces permitted to be unenclosed, Clearly, the intent of the zoning ordinance demonstrates that the Lazier proposal is not permitted. Further, given the explicit language of this section, it concerns us that a vari- ance granted in direct opposition to this provision would seriously undermine the legal stability of the "Enclosed" parking requirement, particularly in CC2, It must be noted that a similar legal quagmire was created in CCf using the sarrEe presentation technique that is being Used Page 2 Sep-I-ember 3, 1974 >~ far the L i onsiiead project . We fee l i -I- i s essent i a I tha-i ' ire Cenci I understand the fundamen-i~a I na-f-ure of -i-he project. Once the underground or enclosed parking concept is compromised, it opens up unlimited possibilities for other existing si-I~es 'I-o request variances. This would in essence allow existing underground or covered parking to be converted to other uses, Secondly, as was pointed out in the CCI staff memo, there are obvious visual benefits accruing to the community by removing 'the automobile for surface parking areas. Further, that under- ground parking should be treated as a non-renewable resource--- once gone, it is virtually impossible to replace. Surface parking can more easily be adjusted according to demand and surface asphalt can easily be turned into landscaped area should the parking demand diminish. 3, Article 19 (Variance section 19.600 - Criteria and Findings) - A copy of cri-i-eria and findings is attached. The Lazier project does not, in our opinion, meet any of the findings set forth in this section for the following reasons: a. A variance can be granted only if there is an "unnecessary physical hardship". Counsel for the applicant has stated to the staff that parking could be physically located within the main bui Iding, it is obvious tl".a-i- locating parking t~tithin -I•he main building would diminish the available commercial square footage thus creating an economic hardship, 'which is not grounds for a variance. b. The applicant has not demorstrated any "exe~ptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appl'rcabie to the site". The very Fact that he can physically locate the par'r,ing within -i-he main building and that he owns the site on which the parking must occur and that grades, access points, aisle widths, sethacks, etc. all meet zoning standards, point out that there are not exceptional or unique circumstances. c. At no time has the applicant demonstrated that not granting this variance would deprive him of rights enjoyed by other property owners in the same district. On the contrary, great pains have been taken to insure that this area meets the pro- vision of this ordinance. For example, LionSquare Lodge, Antlers, Treetops, Vantage Point, LionsHead Centre, Sunbird lodge, Montaneros 1, Westwirids and Landmark have provided at least a portion (in most cases more than 50p) of the required parking beneath the building. although they were built before this was a requirement of zoning. In fact, the Village Centre variance was approved expressly for the purpose of removing surface parking from public view. SUMMARY: This project presents a particular dilemma in that: 1. The addition of a new building will in all likeiyhood improve the visual appearance of the area given proper design controls. Page 3 September 3, f974 2. if a strong case cannot be presen~~ed b~~ the developer that his • request for a variance from the enclosed parking requirement is totally unique, then a potentially damaging preceden-f- couid be established. Therefore, we suggest that the developer be required #o present his argument in terms of his project's complete uniqueness from other projects ~n the same zone district. This must be done so that a clear distinction is es-f'abiished so tha-r other developers cannot use this variance as a precedent. Failing to achieve this distincl~ion we recommend that a comp I ete I y enclosed garage be atl~ached to the proposed building on the west side. This would bring the project into compliance with the zoning ordinance and alloet for the necessary commercial square footage to be constructed. A second alternative would be to require that the parking be provided within 'rhe building which is feasible, but would significantly reduce the commercial square footage. This project- raises basic questions -I-hat, in our view, require a detailed investiga~'ian by the Town Attorney. Caution should be exercised to see that all legal requirements under the zoning ordinance are strictly adhered to. 1 1 1+!'isEir~stic,r': fnr ,. ~~~rriut~cc is :.ut,r:ii'cd in ifre Gaair.r, lcrnini,tr~. ;,; 2, Leggy! r,, IICC' f`ui`Il:find ai l4"tire l5 da,•s p: ir3f io pUbl rc I,ea,-ins _i, Ptt,'~~i'~rz ,.hrri_.;pn ,~r,lf trold a pu:.lic he:~riry wifhi„ 30 c;~.,~ nt tic die u' a~t~iicaiicn. ~_ L'!";r.n s;• ':r;• ,.,'on r,ysi r~a`r.e~ r' +1CCi_i(.,n v~ii1?'sn 7.0 d,n•; of tt:t. C tp:,ir:: .. J~:, I1C -, O::rin.' !'1 Snn1 n~`l•U:'F"I{51ar1 IBi3 )~ i:GC'+"O VC, per>p .. .._•:•:re ,.~p::, ~undi'lion or rr::y iSSU,; tar a lie~iie:; ~Jricd o€ ii•ic• ... r.~~r be r•evacabie. ' ~. l.iinirr'7 ~tsys fUllc••,•i:~r~; ac:'1'icn by the i'lanning Car^.r;rissicn the decision >hai.i Ge ~ran•.;n.ii•i~cd to the at:pEica~:~t and tiro Ta~.ry (:aunci i, 6, 7hti ;a~:n %oi:nci! s;nali contirrs, •~aJify or reverse the decision o : the f' l..nn i nc CaTr,i ss iqn a t tt~e• next renu I arr.eet i n„ • ~ 7, The Lo^iny Ar:ministrator ShalE i•>ur: v Vt,riance f'csrrait. Crlieria and Findincs: !, Ttie relationship at the requested variance to other exisi•ing or patenisal uses and structures in the vicinity, 2. The de~rec to witici, re] iei €rer:^. the strict or ! itcsral. interprre't_~- ' Tian turd E:n~C~rc^r;,ent af• a srecif iE,d re4ulaiion is necess~rry i~c • aeh ic:ve car^.nai i~b i l ity and un's for'mi iy ar~ i'reai'rsarr; arao;~r si fes in the vicinity, ur t~ attain the abjectives of this ordinance • _ wi'Fhou# gri;'L~t of special privilege, 3.' The effect or tt~c requesi'ed variance orr lithe and air, di5'€rit~ui'ion of pups:lai"inn, trar.sportai'icn and tra4fic facilities, bpulic ~ frscilitius and utilttios ancl'pubiic safety; ~ ~ ~ ' 4, S?r ;h other +actors-and critoria as 7ne Carinis:icn deems appticabi~:' • to else propa~ed . va-ri ante. - - . 7t~e i'lanninc Cor7issien shad rsai<e tha fol lowing findings before • granting a variance: t . That f~he ,crane i nc o€ the vat i ante ;~ i I I not constitute a gras:-h pi special priviic~~ incansisi"eni~ 4ri';h the limi.ations on oi"her • properties clzssified in the szrr,e d's','riat. 2, 'Ff:at t'i:c crane i nc ofJ the variance rr i 1 I ~ net .ba c'etr; r:;enta.! tc • tht~ public health, safety, ar xeffare, "or r^ai-eria',',y injurious fo properties or irs.rov.~srrents in the vicinity, - . 3. Thai tha variance is rrarrantpd for one ar rote of the ?otlawing reascn~: a. The s#rict or literal intsrpre~Yat'scn and enforce^ent ar` 1he 5pc:cified recs~lation ;:ould resuEi in practical difficulty or unnecesspr•; Whys i ca F h~rdsi: i p i : cony i si~ent with tt~c • ~ obieetives nc this ordinance. ' b, 7harc: aro exce,~tional ar extrzordinary circumstance=_ er ' conditions 4:,~!icabte to the site of the variance Thai do not apply gEr.er_Ily to other prop^rtie5 in the sar;a zanc. C. 7hr~ s-,'rict or l i-Ferat intarpret~~; tan and ~~r;farcer;enT of i"tre srecitied re~via:-tan wauic dr~prive ih~ ap.plicant_o: srivile,~s enjoyed by the o:.~r.ers of ai-her praper:.ies in fhe sai;e distri.^.t, CAST GR I~C`Ji!';Eillciii:E TC5 TFiE f,r~'t=l ;C;;;T GF STF;iC'.' Cf2 LiTE:rtnL CCi•i('L[~irl~Cr Pt l i'~i ii F1 f_ ~ULF,T E C?N SHALL i~07 it A r=.[~i1S:rid Fir e GF.A:I'F [;:G A V,R,t; E At;{:C , ' , c f , APi't I CAT E ON F"OR VAR i ANCE And/Or ,, CONDITIOhJAt USE PERMIT '~ Ordinance No. 8 (Series of 1973) • Application batesepte[nber 4, 1974Publicai~Eon Gate Hearing Qate Nearing Fee Fine! Decision date for Town Council I (we}~Vai l Associates, Tnc. of P.O. Bax 7 . {Applican~~) (Address) Colorado Va i 1 Phone 476-5601 {State) {City) - do hereby request permission to ap-pear before the Vai! Planning Commission i~o request the following: ' ( } Variance from Article , Section ( ) zoning Change from to ( ) Parking Variance _ • ~ {X) Conditional Use Permii' to allowPUbllC Ski StOrdQe addition at Golden in Agricultural Zone. Praak Building Golden Peak Area ' For the following doscribed property: tat/tract Bi.:,.l. Filing Number - Clearly state purpose and 'intent of this applicatianTQ.prpVlde a . changing room and ski and boot storage facility for'the skier as an addition to the East end of the existing rental shop. Its purpose is to eliminate the use of locking ski racks and ' boot coin lockers in this area. It wi11 consist of 265 sq. fit. of space gained by closing off under the Forth 2 of the East balcony at the Golden Peak restaurant. - What do you feel is the basis for hardship in this case? l~ ~ ~~s-y+.~ S i gnai'ure of f,~p I i can# ~ .. • A, vac.] a v U ~ -~:, .~~ ` ~+r V G,.~ QsI rrGca-~ 2~- L. • a, noucus H<t•ucH~ik h~C N•aD n, ~.•H7 ~•r K -EtER9nM Town Council Toum of Vail P. O. Box 100 Vail, Co~.orado 81657 1a, ~~'~~' RE: Non-conforming i3se of Blue Cow Restaurant Dear Sirs: VAiL wRC•~E P.O 60x ~a~g VAI C. COlO RA00 8:557 307 s76-2N27 Pursuant to Section2~.800, Change of Use, Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance, hereby request that the downstairs section of the Blue Cow Restaurant ~e allowed to be used as an extension o£ the present restaurant, for the following reasons, to-wit: ~.. That the proposed use does not substantially differ from the existing non-conforming use irx , ternns of compa-- tibi..lity with the character of the area in which it is located; 2. That the proposed use does not increase or aggzavate ~. the degree of non-conformity existing pr~.or to s~zch changE of use; and 3. That unless said change o£ use is~al~.owed, the zoning .ordinance prohibits any use and would therefore be confis- catory regarding this property, Thank you. Sincerely yours, cc: ~iana Toughili . Gene Smith Josef Langegger JKP/jb ~~Cj..t1[,*GiiLi:~ ~ HART A7T0RrvErS AT SAW Segtember 10, 197 ' McLAUGtiLIN & HART .1 gy ~` ~ 'Jay K~ Peterson ii /f / +~ ,• si " ` September 17, 1974 ..:~ .,.,.__ •,.. ~ cup, {_~: o~ ,~,~~ r~-~;, ~ ~ ~;; ~ ~ :.,-, =' ' PdQ7ICE 4~ PtJ8LIC' t1ERRI~IC.-. ~ ; ~::, . ~ ::~ ;~. ~;~ t ~ _._-----......, '. . ,,„ _ t~OTiCE IS ~~FflEDY GIVEt~d TF~AT Ifalter larch and Jay Ut~er (Vail Racquet .......... • Club} have applied far a con:litional use perr:jit iii accordance -~riti~ Article lU, Sectian 1D.400 of Ordinance Plo. 3 (Series cif 1973) in order . to permit an accessory restaurant and bar in a l~iedium Density 1•lulti'ple~ -. Family Zone. Subject proposed use is locatad an Lot 2, Vail Racquet Club Condominium Subdivision. A Publ i G lieari ng will be held i n accordance Sri th Secti an 21.400 of the zoning ordinance on tlctobpr 30, 1974 a~; 3:b0 p.m. in the Vail ,- t~lunicipal auilcling. Saic# GonJi~iora[. i~s~ Per;nit grill be heard before the To~tn of Vail Planning Go;:.mission ar~d findings trill be transrr~itted to the 7os~rn Council far the Tovrn of Vail .for final decision on October__15, 974. ..:: ; .: , ., _ . :.. „~~ ' , _~_ ~ 'i'03~1P~ QF VAS L 'i , ~ s _ ~ _x_.~ .-'--`_~..__.~__. ~ < ~~ ~ .. " -, .. ~~ ~, -~ ,s ,.- it's Cz ~ ~ i~i , ;~ rp .iC .; G f ~ J: '.i ? 1'il~; .. j ~.. C: i i '" r~ r' ~~.~,......-._._....___.•' ~k ~ C'. °.---_,.-......_:_.F .. Diana S. Toughill . ,_ .. . w r ~~ , .. __ . __. ~__. _.._-- ._ _---.,._..__.~.u _ Zoning Administrator =~.. fi __..<~ . •~~s f ~ ~... -- -----_.... r~ ~: ' ~ ~ . Published in the Vail Frail an Se~ter~ber 20, ] 974. _ . - ~ ._. _.... ... _ .~ - ~. ~ _. ., _ r ,% ..~ ,. .i -- ~ , /d/~ ~~ • ~~~i^Y APPLICATION FOR VARIANCI= And/Or COND I I' l OhiAL i1S E PEi2F•11 T Ordinance 3:0. 8 (series of 1973) Application pat ~'~~- ~~~ Publication Date -~~ ~o -~J' Hearing Hate ~/C~ /G,~~~7~ HQarinr Fee_~~S~J~ ~~~'--z~ Final Decision date for Town Counci I /~~~~ /~ 7C~ f ~ ~ ~r / ` ( { w e) ~~/~~/~ /1 /i`Gh ,E ~%y l/T//fir o f rT ~~~ ~i ~/C"OC 7u~,~ C~ir~ ,~1` tAppiicant) / fAddress) '`' [10~ , //~if ~ Phon ~ Ar~G_"'~3~~a (State3 (Cify) ~`. do hereby request ~Sermission to appear before the Yai] Planning Commission to request the fo!lotiiing: • ( ) Variance from Article , Section { ) Zoning Change from to _ { ) Parking Variance ~. ,y.. (}~.) C o "n~d i~t i o n s ! !! s e Permit t o a l (a w~~j ~S /~!u/-pro / c~.+c~ >~~ ~-' For the following described property: Lot/tract ;~ , Block~.~, F I I I n g H u m b e r_e~~i~ ~4~- yu~G/ ~~ ~~tiad6 nr~~.uy r .~~i~~~i~i.ric,~ r Clearly state purpose and intent of this application ~.~~~u/,,~o.s~ Ylhat do you fee I i s the basis for hards``h i p i n this case /H,~1 ~~174Nror. f" ati ~ e.~~r Gr/~r~ Div ~~ T~~ ra ~ ~Qr~ ~ ~f .~ v ~ /J / / ~/ • dr/9fHd / ,~ ~/9.T O~ ~/9~ Oi/ ~C~~ f LIP L/I f~ ~ /'//f.~G1+rilsNe•.'..YG~afCr V /' ~~ / a7- ~iP ,~~fi~~« care, ~~•E',r?~c~ mar, ~ o~~~~ /vr..~n s' / /~ _,c. /~ i~ / /~ Z6`li~l~ r.'1Q J'J~ Pico/io~f ~r ~ ~~,r° /J/za r ~~ Goy .O%~~/> ~ ~: n~.f ~qu~ii f~ dv~ Lvc°r~ GtfJigh~'~ 7s ~ G/~~.r/irJ~~e ~ I.UJi ie / /-t~~s' ~h ~~ ~~~ /J 1 ~ / ~ 1 '~'"/7 r, 4~7~ 1/Cl"/~7/?CP~l !St' C~3h1-Y/7.ni~U ~ L/.~~ ~~?/"yN~7f Lt/i~~ ~c~ ' O~1y r • _ Signai~ure of Applicant v//~~ ~~ / ~/-.ra~~' oi' Q r~.f'7aurA.a7~ dfa~rJor` lrJ / ~~/J ~ / /~ r ,.~•) r v. tawo of nail box ioo vail, Colorado sissy . 3oa.a~s•5s}s September 17, 1974 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEADING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Mr, Abe L, Shapiro has applied for a resubdivision of Lot 4, Block 1, Bighorn 1st Addition pursuant to Article IV~of the Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations. The re- salting subdivisian is to be known as Tracts A and B, Bighorn Falls TOwnhOUSet --_.~ A Public Hearing will be held o October 3, 197 t 3;00 p.m, before the Town of Vail Planning Commis n. the--d• ~sion will be trap s mitted to the Town Council -for the Town of Vail far final decision on October i6, 1974 at 7:30 p.m. Said hearings will be held in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. • DEPRRTMENT OE' COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Diana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator cc; Mr, Abe Shapiro Mr, V. K, Turner and N, K. Muncaster, et al. Mr. Leigh H, Norgren & Company Mr. !r!i 11 iam F. Mitchel l ~ Mr, Stanley C, and Mrs, Martha 8, Wilson Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District Public Service Company of Colorado Mountain Sell Ho1y'Cross Electric Aublished in the Vail Trail Friday, September 20, 1974 A17 copies Certified Mail, Return Keceipt Requested //~ f:~'G~'~,~C' 71~~1~C.GC~~c~.L.~ • ~ `'~ C , ~~~~ MEMU T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: HORIZONTAL ZONING DATE: SEPTEMBER 17, 1974 At their meeting on August 29, 1974, the Planning Commission voted [Hanlon absent; Wright dissenting) to request Town Council to consider horizontal zoning as a first priority, separate and apart from the ma]1 act. /nmm • AGENDA PLANNING CO~IMISSiON SEPTEMBER ~.9, 1974 3:00 PM /~ (~.) PARTLLO proper y (Bighorn) - preliminary rscussion (2) BLUE COW RESTAURANT --opinion re z~on-conforming use {3) VAIL ASSOCxATES ~- Public Ski Storage addition at Golden Peak Building ~- extension of Conditional Use Permit (4} Presentation of Proposed Zoning Changes for Bighorn r: • u t~~~~l~ ~~ ~~~ V Uox 100 - nail, Colorado 8165T {303) 476-5613 September 25, 1974 NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING office of the town manager Notice is Hereby given that Bighorn Junction, Ltd, has applied for a zoning change from Low Density Multiple-Family and Commercial Service Center to Special development District, for approximately 15,29 acres, being ~a part of Sections 11 and 12, Township 5 South, Range 80 l~test of the 6th P,M., Eagle County, Colorado, as described on-that certain annexation map t~or the Bighorn annexation on file with tfle 1-oti4~n Clerk, in accordance with Section 21.500 of Ordinance P:o. 8 {series cf IyT3} in order to promote the orderly development of a phased project and to guarantee the aesthetic completion of same, ' A Public Hearing wiz ~l be held on Uc~r . before the Town of Vail Planning Commission, at 3.00 F.M. in the Town of Fail Municipal Building. Said Put~lic Hearing is in accordance r~ith Section 23:..400 of Ordinance hlo. 8 {Series of 1973). TOV~N OF VRIL J~EPAR7t~i1=l~T OF COM~MI!lVITY DEVf:LUPMENT Diana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail, Friday, September 27, 1974. ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ . ~~ ~ i)nM J N ~~' ~~~ .~ ;~ '° ~ ~,r~} ~,~~ ~ / ` ~'f``j~~l~ box 100 • vaif, coinracto 8'!657 (303) q7G-5613 aeptember 25, 3.974 office of thr; tot~ln manager i~UTICE OF P>3BLIC 1iEARING HUTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT Vail Associates )zas applied far u resubdivision of Lot 3., Bloek 1, Vail Lionshead, Second riling, as recorded in Book 22I, Page 9n9, Eagle County,CoTcrad.o C1erE: and Kecorder's Records, pursuant to Article iY of the Down t,f Vail Subdivision Etegulations. fhe resulting subdivision is to ue r:rwtir~~ as Parcels A, Band C, a Notion of Let ., a]cc'.: 1, Vail Lionshead, Second Filing, A Public Hearin wi71 be held on Oc tH •~ g ~~.~..~„~...~ before the Torn of Vail Planning Gammission. The decision r~riIl be trans mined fro the 7os~rn Council for the To~~rn of Vail for final decision on uctober 3.5, 1974 at 7:30 P,ti. Said hearings ~rri fl be held in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. ~ DEPAl~7MEI~7 OF GUMhSUNI7Y DEVELOF~iE[i7 •~ ~~ ~* ~~ ~ Diana S, Toughill Zoning Administrator ::~ ~~% .. ~~ '~C'~, ~~ ~~ cc: Mr. C. C. Martin, c/o Lodge at LionsHead, ~lai1 Vail Int4rnational Condominium Association, c/o F:igomar Thurmer rrr. Charles Bush, c/o Hiiton Inn at Vail Mr. Dale Harper, c/o Nilton Inn at 11ai? Yail Associates llr. Thomas Steinberg tis. Beatrice k~1. Baldauf A(1 copies Certified Mail, Return.Receipt Requested Pub?fished in the Vai? Trail, Friday, 5epta~nber 27, 1974 cc:w/plat map, cert. mail: Vail 4later and Sanitation District Public Service Company of Colorado Mountain Beli Vei'~ C~aoble ~ctric AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION 5EP~EMBER Z6, 1974 3:00 PM (1) RICHARD ROTH -proposal t'or rental housing at Gore Range II Ltd. property -Bighorn (2) JAY lJTTER -lot line change (3) BIGHORN ANNEXATION MAP -signatures • • MEMO T0: TOWN COONCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: HORIZONTAL ZONING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1974 The Planning Commission requests that the Town Council give priority to having an ordinance enacted which incorporates horizontal zoning into the zoning ordinance. The Planning Commission is concerned that through a rapid change of use of existing buildings in Commercial Core I, that the character atmosphere which is now considered desirable, would radically be changed. Merv Lapin, Chairman Planning Commission ML/nm MEMO T0: GENE SMITH, TOWN ATTORNEY FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: THE NEED FOR A MASTER PLAN BEFORE ZONING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 3974 According fio Ordinance 6, 1966, and Chapter 1 of the Municipal Code, 3-1-4, there is some confusion as to whefiher the master plan must be approved before zoning can be established for the land. Would you please give us a legal opinion as to whether a master plan needs to be approved and what is considered to be a master plan, There is concern that the zoning we have already passed for the Town of Vail may technically be illegal, as no master plan, to the best of our recollection, has ever formally been approved. cc: Terrell J. Minger Town Council ML/nm ,~ ~.. MEMO T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: NON-CONFORMING USE OF BLUE COW RESTAURANT DRTE: OCT08ER 1, 1974 The Planning Commission voted 3 to 3 concerning whether to allow the basement of the Blue Cow Restaurant to become available for additional restaurant seating. Those voting for felt {1) that under Section 20,800 of the zoning ordinance, given the zoning of HDMF, they saw no problem with having additional space being used as a rest- aurant, and (2) that the building was not becoming more non-conforming, as defined in Section 20.800 of the zoning ordinance. Those voting against felt (1) that there was a dangerous precedent being set in giving a parking variance in the HDMF zone and that it could be used in future cases to allow other basements to expand, and C2) that the building does have a need for parking which cannot be provided now and that by creating additional restaurant space, it would further increase the demand for parking. Merv Lapin, Chairman Planning Commission ML/nm • - ..;. 5~pOVGLAS MFLAVGMLIN 4~C HARD H.HAgT JAY N PETERSON Town Council Town of Vail P. O. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 NIcLA,rroziz.zrr £~ H~zz~ ATTOF3NEYS AT LAW 5 eptembex 10 , ~. 97 4 Q~r" ~~ RE: Ton-conforming Use of Blue Cow Restaurant Dear Sirs: VAIL gRCAOE P.O BO% :{OS VAIL,COLORAAO 6:557 1303 4]6-Z4~7 V + ~~ Pursuant to 5ection20.800, Change of Use, Town of Nail Zoning Ordinance, I hereby request that the downstairs section of the Blue Cow Restaurant be allowed to be used as an extension of the present restaurant, for the following reasons, to-wit: ~.. That the proposed use does not substantially differ from the existing non-conforming use in .terms of carnpa- tibility with the character of the area in which it is located; 2. That the proposed use does not increase or aggravate the degree of non-conformity existing prior to such change of use; and 3. That unless said change of use is allowed, the zoning ordinance prohibits any use and wou~.d therefore be confis- catory regarding this property. Thank you. cc: ~iana Toughill Gene Smith Josef Langegger JKP/jb Sincerely yours, MGLAUGHLIN & HART ~i By ~'~~ u' ;`J~.y K. Peterson ,~ ~: /~~ i `' ,/ ~ • + M MEMO T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE; VAIL ASSOCIATES - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PUBLIC SKI STORAGE ADDITION - GOLDEN PEAK BUILDING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 1974 Vail Associates proposes to extend the east end of the building at Golden Peak underneath the balcony to encom- pass the walk that is presently there. Planning Commission unanirr€ously voted, with Jen Wright abstaining, that all three findings, in accordance with Section 18.600 of the zoning ordinance, were met. Merv Lapin, Chairman Planning Commission ML/nm APPLICATION FDR VARIANCE And/Or C~NDITlONAL U5E PERMIT ~~~ _ ~ Ord'inance No. 8 (series of 1973) i App i i cati on DateSeptember 4, ~ 974Pub I i cat ion Date Hearing Date Hearinc Fee Final Decision date for Town Council I (we) Vail Associates, Inc. of P.O. Box 7 EApplicanl-) (Address? Colorado (State) Vai 1 - ~ Phone 476-5601 (City) do hereby request perm'sssion to appear before the Vail Planning Commission to request the following: ( ? Variance from Article , Section ( 3 Zoning Change from to ( ) Parking Variance • {X) Conditional Use Permit to aI!owPUbliC Ski Storage addition at Golden: in Aaricu7tural zone. peak Building Golden Peak Area f=or the fo I I ow i ng described p rope rty: Lot/tract B [-cre~k Fiiinc~ Number Clearly state purpose and intent of this applir.ationTo provide d changing room and ski and boot storage facility for the skier as an addition to the East end of the existing rental shop. Its purpose is to eliminate the use of locking ski racks and " boot Coln lockers in this area. Tt will consist of 265 sq. ft. of space gained by closing off under the North z of the East balcony at the Golden Peak restaurant. • What do you feel is the basis for hardship in this case? Signa-P'ure of A/(~p! icant F+ ~ ~ cM.P Q.sa .L~ sri a . • AGENDA PLANNING CQt~iMISSTON OCOTBER 3 , 1974 3:00 (1) AB£ L. SHRPIRO - resubdivision o•F Lot 4, Bloek 1, Bighorn First Addition (2) BIGHORN JUNCTION, LTD.• (Bighorn zoning) (3) FRIARS PROPERTY (Bighorn zoning) (4) SHAPIRO PROPERTY (Bighorn zoning) • .. . ". NOTE i TO; Planning Cos^nmission FROM; Gene A. Smith, Town Attorney DATE; October 3, '974 f~E: First Bignai^n annexation SUBJECT: Consideration of zoning to be imposed on tl~e annexed area ~ ~ . A notice of a public hearing to be conducted by the Planning Commission on the above-captioned subject on Oct.~ber 2'f , '5974, at 7:30 p. m,, whicl~ the Zoning Administrator has arranged to have published, is attached hereto as Exhibit A . • 2. The public hearing is to be held by the Commission pur- suant to Motion 2 set forth on Exhibit B. 3. James F. Lar~ont, Director of Department of Community Planning, wilt assist you with respect to this subject. 4. Idly n'k~in co~~uc;^r~ is tf ~r::t the necessary p;^occdures be fcl-- ~ r towed on time so that zoning can be imposed on the annexed Bighorn area by no later than ©ecember 'i2, X974, within 90 days af~:er the September 1 ~ , iJ74~, effective date Qf the znnexation as is required by Tlis Municipal Annexation Act of X965, as amended, the statute under which the annex- ation was effected . r.__. _ .` • ~5 j m .,~~ '~; . . . .. _ f }', _~„ . f.7 i ' . . r~ U • ~- l~~.~I~3LIC NOTICE ' PUBLIC !-!E/~RING REGAl:D1NG ZONING FOR ANNEXED BlG1-TORN AREA PLEASE "C"AKE NOTICE that in accordance with Section 21 .500 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973, of the Town o~ Vail, Colorado, the Pl~:nning Commission shall conduct a public hearing recgarding L'he zoning to be irriposed on the portion of the Bighorn area annexed to the Town effective on September i ~ , '1974, said hearing to be held an October 21, 1974, at 7:30 p.m., in the Municipal Building of the Tovrn. PLEASE ALSO TAKE NOTICE that the Planning Commission and the Town Council veil! consider rcgE.ests from property owners see[~ing a change in zoning district from tl~t designated on the Interim Zaning Map of the Annexed Bighorn Area, provided that said requests are sL~brnitted • f. in writing to the Planning Commissions prior to the aforesaid hearing. DEPARTMENT OF COlV'iMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Diana S. Toughill, Zoning Administrator gated October i , 1974. K Publis[~ed in the Vaii Trai! on Friday, October 4, '1974. v ~. ~ 1 t ~. ~' MOT! Oi-~; .: i. C]i+^c:c,ting tine PE.~rining Commission to cor-xiuct c71 }-: t °s'•ir~g in •" r aCG.c~r^ciance wit}~ Sect€or~ 21 .500 of the Zoning Qrc!: ,_-~° `:~> consider ~ prc~€~asecl amcndmant to the zoning Ordinance tq 'id'=y ;t; by n'-.~!<ing it ex€~ress€y applic<~i~tc to areas annexed t 1"~:;.~rn sub-- sequrnt to the cn~zctn-vYnl crf the Zoning Ordinance, ...._`:}~; i~ropased amc~ndn~~ni~`~n a draft ordinance designated for rc~F~. ~ ..~~~:tn~ ;purposes as Ordinance No, 20, Series of 1974, a copy of v~f~ic:ii ~:~ilE be transmitted to the Planning Commission by the To~vrZ At".orney, and directing the Zoning Adr~ninistrator la gtve notic:• of said hearing. 2. Directing the.i'lanning Camrnission to conduct a public hearing in accordance with Section 21 .500 of tho Zoning Ordinance reran^ding the zoning to be imposed on the portion of the Bighorn area annexed to the Town cffectiva an September 4, 1974, and directing the Zoning /adt~inistr^ator to give notice of said hearing, which notice shall state that tl~e Planning Commission and the Town Council will consider requested changes in zoning districts from tizose designated on the • Interim 7_aning Map of tl~e Annoxed Birhor^n Area, provided that written requests are submitted to the Planning Commission prior to the aforesaid hearing . ~. ©ue to the expected absence from the Town of Vail of at least four members of the Town Counci 1 on October ~ 5, i 974, it appears that a quorum will not be available For the regular meeting of the Cauncil on ti-rat date, and i:horefare, pursuant to Section 3 of Ordinance No. 1 , Series of 1974, oFthe Tawn of Vail, Colorado,rhe Cauncil defers its regular moeting of October 15, 1974, far one v+~eek to October,22, 1974, at 7:30 p, m. , in tha Municipal But iding o; the Tov,~n, and the Tov~n , i Clerlc is directed to have a notice of the dc~ferrence of the regulai^ ~~ meeting pu?~lishcd anc2 prior to October 15, 1974, and post said native in two public places, ~. ©ue to the presont disGbility o`Alher^t Ger"hard (Gerry) Write, Mayor: A~ fro Tern, in order {:o enable the Town Council to conduct public hear--- Inc~s in tha absence of tl~e Mayor in accordance with Section 3.4 of the . Charter ,af the Tawn of Vail, Colorado, Councilm:~n ~ _£ is nominated to serve as Acting Mayor Pra Tem during tha period of Mr. White's disability ar until further action by the Tawn Council. . 5. Instructing the Finance Director of the Town of Vail, Colorado, tb assess and collect from Shamrock-Vail, Ltd. , the recreational amenitios tax due for its Sunburst development under the contract between the Tawn and the developer. Y • v i ~x~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ w V • `~ ~..~ .~ ' ~ ` ~~~I/ ' ~ ~ ~ ., ' October 9, 1974 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTTCE IS IlEREBY GIVEN that Jay K, Peterson, Attorney for the Blue Cow Restaurant, has applied fora parEcing variance or. exemption of fourteen spaces, in accord with Section 14.601 of Ordinance No. 8 (Series of 1973), in order to change the use of the first level of its premises to a restaurani;, The Blue Cow Restaurant is a part of Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, A public hearing will be held in accordance with Section 21.400 of Ordinance No, 8 (Series of 1973} on October 31, 1974, at 3:00 P.M. in the Vail Municipal Building, Said variance will be heard before the Town of Vail Planning Commission and findings will be transmitted to the Town Council for the Town of Vail. TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Diana S. Toughill, Zoning Administrator ~ Dated this ninth day of October, 1974. Published in the Vail Trail, Friday, October 11, 1974, 1~~..~/-7-9- - ~G~ ~e~~~~- ~ Mfr ~.~:~ • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISST~.ON OCTOBER 10, 197 ~~~~~ . ^t ~~c,~ (1) G Gt~-[ ABE L. SHAPIRO - Resabdivisian - ~~ . Lot 4, Block 1, Bighorn lst Addition °'tJj'%~--i, f.,~~~~~/, (2) VAIL ASSOCTATES - Resubdivision - Site 24 C~~..1~-~~f~ (3) VATL RACQUET CLllB - Conditional Use Permit ~ to permit accessory restaurant and bar in MDMP zone (Utter and Kirch) {4} FOLSON PROPERTY - informal presentation re Bighorn annexation {5) BORWICK PROPERTY = informal presentation re Bighorn annexation N {6) BIGHORN SEVEN {Ogilvy) - informal. presentation . re Bighorn annexation (7) PARILLO PROPERTY - informal presentation re Bighorn annexation ~~~~~~~ G~-~r~, /~ //~ C,~ ~ y' ~~ ~~~- ~ ~ ~~ z~~~~~ °' ~ •..~ . ~.,; October 1, 1974 t~OT I CE pF F'i3E3L i C TEAR f NG NOTIGF 15 HERESY G1;1EN TEAT C~~;~„P,„~f.;,, 1~ ...,,f.,P,~~~, Richards) has applied for a canc~itianal use permit in acco'rdGnGe with P,rticle 18, Section 113.400, and a•parkinn, variance for li spaces in accordance with Article t~l, SEction 14..601, ar" Ordinance 8 (Series of 1973), in order to aliaw professionai business offices i n a PA zany:. .Subject p rapased use i s l orated on Tract ii, Yail Village 1st Filing. A public hearing will be help in accordance with Section i97~i~0atf3~00~~a~ce Vo.tge{VaileNlu~ictpal)13ulld~~g°.~_~5.a.?d~: conditianai use permit request and parking variance will be heard before the To~.rn of Vail Planning Commission and findings -vili be transmitiec; to the Town Council for the Town of Vail. T O4~ N O F V A f i_ ~ _ v. DEPARTAiEi~T OF COiti,~~U~l E TY DEVELOPi+~ENT Diana Toughill, Zoning Administrator ~ubiished in the Vail Trail, Friday, October 4, 1974 / ~ ~.~~ APPI, ICAT I OIJ FOR VARIANCE Rnd/Or CONDITIONAL U5G PERMII' Ordinance No. 8 (Series of 1973) - Appl icai'ion Date ~•~~ ~ 7~ publication Date %''~ . Hearing Date Hearing ~'ee ~' Final Decision date for Town Council k (we) l .Y_LG/.~<~_i !/ ~~~yLt- of ~c~~ l~p - ~~- (Rp ican~ (Address) l _~.~/./f~ L2r~ u,~i LG~iI/~t-~~ts ~ phone % a 3'°~ ~~G j ' (state) (Ci~'y) do hereby request permission to appear b.eFore the Vail Planning Commission to request the following: i I ( ) Variance from Article ~ , Ssctlon ( ) Zoning Change from to ( } parking Variance r~ (X} Conditional Us ermit to al low~~1=L,S~nr~~17(. Si,J t1~5 IC~a , in ~~ zone, - For the fo~lowing~fde5cribed property: Lot/tract ~~ Block F i l i n g Number V fit. l~l f 1 ~~~t~~ sr ~r L-1 n7t'~ • . ~ Clearly state purpose and intent of this application ~Q ~.d~~t!CK-G 1~ p ~~E US~C~.--~ ~ ~Uic,D~.(s--1~lJocv~1 ~s `! aolL~~C ~U?S ~2bc~u D~AIL'! ~.R I~. D C)r~ c ~ r7,~! S OAG~ -T'r} iVlOk rrrJ (~ 2~rc~^'r~t~ "~f.t,S r, ~h 4 ____ E ~~rl C~S.~CI~L `Klt7!E,,'[')iR)L, ~tik~.c) A~ ° .~~1~f.i ~.5"[~71u~ref t~7 rr.c, ~t--~t~fR~k~ ` - i _A S ~ l~ Oll,Gvi I pit -, t ~' What, `do you fee i i s the basis for hardship f n this case?~~,-^ `-~-=~ m~. V Psl~, ~~~ ~.btF1~U~ .~f~T~~k'l~ 1 ~~fZ,.t- 1 ~ 1~'L} ~~~firi'i~ ~~rv3A.~1~ , - ~ ~o~( ~ a~a Dor~v~ l-riZ( ~i~.5 P~~ ~J rGc~r" ~.zaa1~ F,r.r~S1~ ~u s r~~ 5,~~s ~~1~ i l_. i l7 ~ ~ i ry~v 5 r" ~ F~ ~'r// P1„a c ~ '7l~ '~~iuG ~U ( /~ArGf3fi~, ft1 f S 1~ Try ~~ K.s',k7 f P?~~,(,{:F c~~~} 1~i~'}i G7N9! TJ ~F Vu~~IGC `RJ 7rr1~SC~ CL?f7k~J(7% .. .....~ /~/~cl Slgnat e of Applicant - ~ ~~ ~yG ~ v ~ ~~ C~ ~ ~ 3 R VARIANCG ~ P A710t1 F RP LIC O And/Or ~' CONDIi'IDNAL USE ~'ERh117 t I Ordlnancc ':o. 8 iSeries of 1973) I _ 3o ~ 1 Pub~ication Da#e Application Gate r ~ /~ ` }}~~ i( i F d" ~~ Q•®~ ~ ear ng e ~ i Nearing Da#e Final Decis[on data for Town Council ~ ~ ~ ~ (rl~ ~f 0 [~1 of ~Ll( i f ) ~ ( l~ • . , _ . . , fApplj/~:ant} (Address. x f~` i~ t (Gr/~fUS~Y~ Phone ~ J J `~ ~~ l , ~ ~ ~~ • fStato) (City)/ - do hereby reques# permission to appear 5efore the Vail PEanniag • Commission to request the following: ( } Variance from Article , Suction ' f 3 Zoning Change from to Parking Variance ' ) Conditional Use t'ermit to allow )h 4 11 Ton.a, ~ , 81ock • For the following described property: Lot/tract C ~ ' ~ ~ ~~ ~ • ~ Filing idumber L ~ { l/ Tcat i o p l n~l ~(1~ Clearly state purpose and intent of this ap r - ~ / " ~ ' ~~E i15Alr,.,~,_~}F' 1~, I)il~ts(9(t {nL,{U'JC~~.t) ,~, r f'`;~rC,Y:C~FYi!)~x~f~"~1-ti . ~ D0, l •f 17~-1,t9 Tl~l .~1 -~cU~,1 ri~ C DA.r ~ '-r"D vl~n ~ }t• Js r ~f . ~1 r, 555 ~ ~ - ~ ~t)t-~trr~ . ~ul~ R~~,u~rr~)~a ~L.R)a~,,~~t, ~r~~[~lnt,-r ~ScA}rA}G"r~11 c.cl . '~J,~~lrvt r~~ n l - ~ S A . ~ -Dn A.rru I To 1z~ _ t ~ - ~ •- • a What do you feel is the basis for hardship lrs this cass? `i~~l~(~ f ~ l a ~~_n F i P A r[ , i~ ~ ~ W l~A~tl1/i J~ ~.SYt `i~rlAT TEL~>~f k=, t S all0 (ncv G is r'~ • TlF~nnt~t,ll~ T~hUL A.fJ(7 RAM. ~1Ft75 7~ n7lGLfI'. 1.A11 fl ~57Ya+.h{,f,5~#Cn ~[ a< }x.55 C~i 1 . ~ 1;~~ 1~ ESi f ~.oUS r7 F t~r.r nXa f9 i. o SG- ~0 1~}~rt,c~..,u7 4 Cr~~?ne•1 G~1 [,611Cf~1 -i~ 7Zrh,3- n~rc~ .S~AC•F Pi~i riii;l7L~} i'~~: c31ur~(hc-~ ~-n Dn . Cn i r ll~rl,'1.0{?T~' ~1 Att,i~tu14 1! Ar<•i f1uJC.~i . l/ ~ " ~ ~ a v}gnati/~e of Applicant ~~• `~~ ~ ~ 1 ,~l ~,~ ~~ .~ ~ . ,,: - _,~-~ i ~.. e1GLt~DA PLAfVfll?~G CQh~h1ISSI0~ OCTD6ER 15, 1974 3 : G d Pt~~ ~1 } Genora~ Discussion (2} ~iohorn 4~+~nction - Sigi~orn Zoning (3} bighorn Sevon ~- Bighorn Zoning f Cs~~~~C~R1~i.]O !:~ATEIi CONSERVATION BOARD lG2 Columbine Building 13~! 5 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80?.03 . September 11, 1974 T~ E i•i O R A N D U ~q TO: members, Colorado T•later Conservation Board and Colorado Water Congress r~.dvisory Committee. FROi~i: Felix L. Sparks, Director. SUBJECTa Agenda items 2 and 3 relating to identification and regulation a£ floadplains •- Board meeting, September 18, ].974. Pursuant to the provisions of House Bi11 No. 1041, relating to the use of land (Article 7, Chapter l(l6, C.R.S. 1963, as amended), the Colorado Vdat~r Conservation Board is directed: 1. To promulgate a model floodplain regulation not later than September 30, 1974. 2. To assist: local governments in the identification of flood hazard areas, which is to be accomplished by June 30, 1976.. Last week there was mailed to the board a document entitled "Criteria and Procedures for Flood Hazard Identification." This docu- ment was prepared for the guidance of local governments in identifying floodplain hazards by June 30, 1976. This document will be discussed at the board meeting for possible cY.anges, additions ar other amendments. Enclosed herewith i~ a proposed model floodplain regulation. This has bean a very difficult Legulation to prepare, and in same respects is considerably different from any other regulation on the same subject which we have revie~•~ed. This proposed regulation will require a great deal of study and attention before its final adoption by this board. The local governments which Twill be directly affected by the adoption of this regulation have not yet had an opportunity to submit their comments. rt is recommended that this proposed regulation be discussed as thoroughly as pasai'le at the board meeting on September 18, 1974, and that final action on the regulation be postponed until the board f meeting o~ Deccmbcr 4, 197!• e In the mea~~i~,.rle, w~: will dis~.ribui:e the proposed ~_egulation es ~~idel~r as possib~.e ~,o I.aca1 governments and otl~cr i.ntozest.ed partie's r~ith a request that they submit their recom- mendatzans to the board for changes, amendments and additions not later than I~lovemUer 15~ 1974. This would then give us time to consider Such recommendations prior to the board meeting on December ~, 1974•. FLS:mm inc. ~ie3morandum _~_ September 11, x.974 - COLORADO ~~IATER CONSERVATION BOARD 1.02 Columbine 3uildiz~g 135 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 September 11, 197 ~.~IODEL FLOODPLATN REGULATTO~I (PR£LIi~III~7ARY) Section I. Statutory authorization, findings of fact, statement of purpose and definitions. 1.1 Statutory authorization. This (regulation) {ordinance) far flood prevention and control ~.s adopted pursuant to the authority contained in Chapter 1.06, Article 7, Colorado Revised Statutes 1963, as amended, and Section 106-2-10, Colorado Revised Statutes 1963, as amended, (counties), or Section 139-b0-1, Colorado °Revised Statutes 1963, as amended, (towns and cities). 1.2 Findincrs of fact. The (board of county commissioners) {city council) finds that there are within the (county) (city) of various floodplains constituting natural - hazards of state and local interest, the occupation of which (has already resulted in) (is likely to cause} the loss of human life and the destruction of property, and that the imprudent occupation of these floodplains will pose a continuing and greater futua:e danger to life and property, unless proper regulations are adopted concerning their use and occupation: 1.3 Statement of ourpase. It is the purpose of this (regulation} ~J (ordinance) to promote the public health, .safety and genera]. welfare by provisions designed toe (l) Permit only such uses within the designated floodplains as wall not endanger lifer, .~ealth, public safety or property in times of f~.ood. {;~) Prohibit the placement of fi~.l, materials and structures which would obstruct flood flows or cause potentially dam- aging debris to be carried downstream. (3) Minimize expenditure of public funds for costly flood control projects. (4) Minimize rescue and relief efforts, general~.y under- taken at the e~cpense of the general public. {5) Minimize business and commerce interruptions, (6) Minimize damages to public utasities, streets and bridges. {'7) Minimize victimization of unwary home and land purchasers. {g} Minimize the pollu:.ion of water by prohibiting the disposer]. of garbage and other solid waste materials in flood- plains. '~ l.4 Definitions. As used in this (regulati.on) (ordinance). the following words or phrases ale defined as foll..owse (~.) "Designated floodplain" means the area designated as a ',, ~ floodplain by official action of the (board of county -2-- R' camm~.ssioners) {city council} with the prior concurrence of the Colorado Water Conservation Board. (2) "Floadplain" means an area in and adjacent to a stream, which area is subject to flooding as the result of the occurrence of an ~.ntermediate regional flood and which area thus is so adverse to past, current, or foreseeable con- struction or land use au to constitute a significant hazard to public health and safety or to property. (3} "Intermediate regional flood" means a type of flood, including the water surface elevation and territorial occupation thereof, which can be expected to occur at any time in a given area based upon recorded historical precipi- tation and other valid data, but with an avexage statistical.. one percent chance of being equalled or e~zceeded during any one year. The term is used interchangeably with a one per- cent flood or hundred ~-ear flood. (4) "Low hazard zone" means that area of the fl.oodplain in which the waters of an intermediate regional flood will not either attain a depth greater f:h~.n one foot or reach a veloc9.ty greater than three feet per second. (5) "Stream" means any natural channel. or depression through which water flows either continuously, interzn~.ttentl.y or periodically, including any artificial modification of the -3- natural .channel or depression, Section 2. Designation of floodplains - identification. 2.1 DeSiQnation. The floadplains of the {county) {city} of are hereby defined as encompassing alb. those land areas of the (caunty) (city) in and adjacent to a stream which lies within the area which would be inundated by an intermediate regional £load as heretofore or hereafter approved by the Colorado Eater Conservation Board, and as heretofore ar hereafter designated by the (board of caunty commissioners) (city Council) of in the manner prescribed by (regulation} (ordinance) number 2.2 Identification. True and official copies of maps of flaod- plains so designated by the (board of county canunissianers) {city council) shalt be kept and maintained for public inspection in the offices of the (caunty) (city) clerk and the (county) (city) planning commission. Such maps shall be in sufficient detail . and scale sa as to permit ready identification of the flood hazard area, including the lair hazard area. if any, by.ground inspection ar survey. Copies of such maps shall be available for public sale at a charge of $ per section. 2.3 Interpretatian_ Where interpretation is needed as to the exact location of the boundaries of floodplains, the (designated caunty or city official or agency} shall make the necessary -4- interpretation. The intermediate: regional flood elevation for the point or points in question shall be the governing factor in determining the actual boundaries. 2.~4 Official zoning map. Any official zoning map or maps of the (county) {city) shall incorporate the flaodplains designated by the (board of county commissioners) (city council). Section 3. Use of designated floodpla.ins. 3.1 General. No development, use, fill, construction or altera- tion on or over any portion of a designated floodplain shall be permitted which would cause or result in any of the follo~aing~ (~,} The storage or processing of materials that in times . of flooding are buoyant, flammable, explosive or otherwise potentially injurious to human, animal or plant la~fe. ~~~ (2} The disposal of garbage or other solid waste materials. {3} The human occupation of structures, either fixed~or mobile, for residential purposes, either permanent or temporary. (4} Substantial solid debris being carx•ied downstream by v floodwaters. {5} Any obstruction which would impair the flow capacity of a designated floodplain so as to cause foreseeable damage to others , when: ever 1 ocated . -5-- 3.2 Exceptions. {I} Except as prohibited ?~y section 3.1 (~.) and (2), the ].ota hazard zone of a designated floodp~.ain, if the law hazard zone has been identified, may be used for any lawful purpose; provided thato (a) Such use shal3 not cause a measureable enlargement of the floc~dplain on lands other than those otaned by the userP (b) Any building or structure, whether fixed or mobile, designed far human occupancy or the storage of pxoperty, and occupying a space greater than one hundred square feet, sha11 be constructed or located so that any external taall sha11 be not less than fifteen feet from. the inner boundary of the low hazard done. (c} The lat~~er floor of any such building or structure shall be not less than one foot above the maximum ~.aatex elevation of the computed intermediate regional flood. (2} The provisions of this section shall not apply to any fixed building ar structure already lawfully in place or for which a lawful perma.t has already ;peen granted at the time of the enactment of this (regulation) (ordinance); provided that, in the event of the substantial destruction of such building or structure, its reconstruction or replacement shall --U- be considered a ne~a use and lac governed by the other applicable provisS_ons of this section. Section 4•. Administration. ~.l hermits. zt shall be unlawful to develop, fill. or occupy; or to construct, reconstruct or alter any bu~.lding or structure; within a designated floodplain without the property owner or his authorized representative first obtaining a permit from the (designated county or city official or agency), in accordance with the following procedures: (1} Application for a permit shall be made in the form prescribed by the (designated county of city official or agency), accompanied by a fee of $ Plus the esti-- mated publication costs. {2) Not later, than thirty days after receipt of an applica- tion for a permit, notice of such application shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the county of which said publication shah. be nvt less than thirty nor more than sixty days bexore the date Set for hearing. A copy of such notice shalt be forwarded to the Colorado Land Use Commission not later than the date of publication. Copies of such notice shah. also be made available far public dissemination in the office of {cocznty) s (city} clerk. _,_ • {3) After the conclexsion of the public hearing, the (des-- ignated county~or city official. or agency} shall grant or deny the permit according to the criteria set forth in section 3 of this (regulation) (ordinance); provided that if the (designated county or city official or agency} shall find that there is not sufficient information concerning the boundaries and other characteristics of the designated floodplain upon which a sound decision can be based, it shall continue such hearing until. sufficient information is obtained. (4) Any person claiming to be affected by the granting or denial of any such permit may appeal such granting or denial to the district court in and far the county of {dote: The county or c~.ty may E•aish to establish an inter- mediate appeal procedure.) n.2 inspection. {l.} The (county or city official or agency} or its autho- rized representatives (is) (are) hereby empowered and directed to inspect and examine the use, occupation or development of designated floodplains within the (county} {city} of for the purpose of determining from time to timc:ivhether or not such use, occupation or development is in violation of any of~the provisions of section 3 of this (regulation) {ordinance), or of any permit issued or required _g_ • pursuant to this section 4. {2j Tf a violation shall be found to exist, the (designated agency) or its authorized representatives shall by written ardor direct that such remedial action be taken forthcxith as will result in full compliance Frith the applicable provisions of this {regulation) {ordinance)! provideds however, that the issuance of such order shall in nn way or manner be deemed a prerequisite to the institution of such enforcement pro ceedings as are hereinbelow set forth; and provided further, that compliance with such order shall not necessarily be deemed to be a defense to any alleged violation of this (regulation) (ordinance} in any court action instituted seeking full compliance theretrith, but evidence of compliance with such order may be introduced as pertinent to mitigation and extenuation. a~.3 Violations and remedial actions. tl) Any person, firm or carporatian, whether as principal, agent, employee or otherwise, ~~~ho shall use, occupy or develop _. any portion of any designated floodplain in violation of any provision of this (regulation) (ordinance) shall be fined an amount oat to exceed one hundred dollars {~100.fl0) for each violation, such fine to inure to the (county) (city) of Each day during sahich such illegal use, -9~ occupation ar development continues shall be deemed a separate offenses (2) If any such use, occupation or development shall accux in violation of any provision of this (regulation} (ordinance), or the applicable statutes of the Stats of Colorado, the (board of county commissioners) (city council) or any person who may be injured by such violation, ir. addition to other remedies provided by lac•~, may institute injunction, mandamus, abaterrtent ar any other appropriate action or proceeding to prevent, enjoin, abate or remove such unlawful use, occupation or development, and the fine hereinabove provided for inay be recovered in that sarne civil action wherein such injunction, mandamus or abatement a~.s sought, or separate and distinct proceedings may be instit=a,tea seeking varying forms of relief, as the law may a11o~a. Section 5. Interpretation, di.sclaitner of liability and severability. 5.1 Interpretation. (l} It is not intended by this {regulation} (ordinance) to repeal, abrogate or impair any existing easements, covenants, or deed restrictions. However, where this (regulation) (ordinance) ir~:poses greater restrictions, the provisions of this (regulation} (ordnance) shall prevail, A11 other (regulations) (ordinances) inconsistent with this {regulation) -10- ~. ~~ '-~ (ordinance) are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsa.stency only. (2) ?~.;~ their interpretation and app~.ication, the provisions of t}~a.s (regulation) (ordinance) shall be held to be mini~~num requirements and shall not be dee~~~ed a limitation or. repeal of any other po~.vers granted by the state constitution ar statutes. 5.2 Disclaimer of liability. The degree of flood protection. required by this (regulation) (ordinance) is considered reasonable for the protection of life and property and is based on engineering and scientific methods of study. Larger floods may occur on rare occasions ar the flood height may be increased by man-made ar natural causes, such as ice jams and bridge ox Culver': openings being restricted by de"oris. This (regulation) {ardinaz~ce} does not imply that areas outside the designated floodplains or land uses permitted wa-'chin such floodp~.ain will be free from flooding or flood damages. This (regulation) (ordinance) sha3~1 not create liability on the part of the (county) (city} of ar any officer or employee thereof far any flood damages that result from reliance on this (regu~.ation) (ordinance) or any administrative decision lawfully made thereunder. 5,3 S~:verability. if any section, clause, provision or portion of this (regulation) {ordinance) is adjudged unconstitutional ar invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this (regulation) (ordinance} shall. not be affected thereby. FLS ~ n~ -ll- MEMO TO: JI~;RRY L. ALDRICH, CHIEr BUILDING O~'PICIAL FROM : TERRELL J . MINGER , TOVaN MANI~GEI~. RE ; BASS S~YIniM ING POOL STRUCTURE DATE : OCTOBER 17 , 1974 It is understood that the pool in question spans the prlvate].y--owned propert~.es and the structure itself is ,jointly owned by the two property owners. xt is also understood that, as per your interpretation of the requirements of the current Pdition of t?~e Uniform Building Code, the structure must be built upon one property under one~ownerstiip, or a separation wall be constructed on the property line. The feasibility of a separation wall. destroys the purpose and creating new property lines creates numerous mooning problems by causing existing dwellings ~to becoi~ae nonconforming. As ti~~e use of this structure is minor in nature and is ,jointly owned by the property owners involved, it is my determination that allowances should be rflade to construct the pool and structure as originally,,aroposed over the existing property line. This shall in n o way, however, la~mx~~ any other code requirements as per occupancy and type of construction. ~~~ ~. Torx ll° . , Minge TJ'~+4/ nmm ME1~0 T0: TOWN COUNYCIL FROM : PLANNING COh-i'.K I S S I ON RE: PLANNING COh~~iISSION AND DESIGN REVIESY BOARD ~- Ii,Eh4UNERATION DATE; OCTOBER 1~, 19'7 The Planning Commission would Like to request that remuneration o~ some kind be paid to tl~e Vail Planning Commisslon and Design Review Board members. Both a~ these boards have evo~.ved into considerab]_y time-consuming functions and. remuneration may discourage a rapid tuxnover in personnel. CJ ML/nmm n MEMO TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PLANNING COMMISSION AND DESIGN REVTEY~ BOARD - REMUNERATION DATE; OCTOBER I7, 1974 The Planning Commission would like to request that remuneration of some kind be paid to the Vail Planning Commission and Design Review Board members, Both of these boards have evolved ,into considerably time,consuming functions and remuneration may discourage a rapid turnover in personnel. • ML/nmm MEMO TO; TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: VAIL ASSOCIATES - RESUBDTVTSION , SITE 24 DATE: OCTOBER, ~, 1974 At their meetings on October 10 and 17, 197d, the Planning Commission considered a request from Vail Associates to resubdivide Site 24 -- Lat 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead, Second Filing, pursuant to Article 1V of the Town of Vaii Subdivision Regulations. The resulting subdivision is to be known as Parcels A, B and C, a portion of Lot ]., Block ]., Vail Lionshead, Second Filing. The Commission found that all technical requirements of the Subdivision Regulations had been met. The Town Engineer had reviewed the plat and suggested some minor technical changes, which have been completed, All adjacent landowners and utility companies were notified of the resubdivision.and public hearing; no objections were raised by either landowners or utility companies. Therefore, upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously (Jen Wright abstaining) voted to recommend to Town Council approval of the above resubdivision. ML/nmm it `a i •~ ~~ ,~ ~~ ~. MEMO TO; TOWN COUNCIL FROM; PLANNING COMMISSION RE: BIGHORN ZDNTNG DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1974 Having conducted a public hearing, in accordance with Section 21..500 of the Zoning Ordinance, Drdinanoe No, 8, Series o:f 1973, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, regarding: (1) A proposed amendment to Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973, providing fox the imposition of zoning upon newly annexed territory; {2) A*proposed amendment providing for the imposition of zoning districts upon the newly annexed territory of Bighorn; (3) A proposed amendment providing for the creation of a residential (cluster zone district; and (4) A proposed amendment providing for creation of a Special Development District 3; the Planning Commission hereby forwards its findings attached hereto to the Town Council, this twenty-second day of Dctober, 1974. AFL/nmm ... MEMORANDUM T0: JIM LAMONT DIANA TOUGHILL ** GENE SMITH ** BILL PIERCE NADINE MONACO FROM: MERVYN L, LAPIN, CHAIRMAN RE: BIGHORN ZONING DATE: OCTOBER 23, 1974 You are hereby awarded one Gold Star each for your outstanding effort, beyond the call of duty, in assisting the Planning Commission with the zoning of Bighorn. Each Gold Star is good for 5,000 zephyrs, or 50% of the Planning Commissionts salary received from the Town Council in the past year, p Mervyn L. Lapin MLL/nmm cc; Town Council Terrell J. Minger a :.. . at ~ AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 24 , ~.97~k 3:00 PM (1} Consideration of request for Conditional Use Permzt and Parking Variance for 11. spaces, to allow professional business offices in a PA zone POOR RICHARDS/SHORT SWING (2) Fre~entation of Environmental Impact Report r BIGHORN JUNCTION • • • ME1Vx0 T0: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: POOR RICHARDS - CLAUDE MARTIN - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT and PARKING VARIANCE DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 1974 At their meeting on October 24~, 1974, the Planning Commission considered a request by Claude J. Martin (,represented by Gordon Pierce) for a conditional use permit and parking variance, in order to allow professional business off ices in a PA zone. The Poor R~.chards building would then become totally office space, with Vail Associates occupying the new space, Vaii Associates would provide parking for some of its employees, and it was proposed to provide parking to the full extent on their own property (approximately • 30 cars}; green area would be on the Town property. A variance for fourteen spaces is necessary. Some members of the Commission felt there should not be a change of use from Public Accommodations to Commercial, however, the reason for the request for a change is because there is no demand for public accommdations of the type offered at Poor Richards. After extensive discussion and review, a motion was duly made by Dudley Abbott, seconded by Bill Hanlon, to approve the conditional use permit, based on the following findings: {1) That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the pux~.poses of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located_(because the property is presently 50% office space}, (2) That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in • • MEMO TO: TOWN COUNCIL. FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: BLUE COW RESTAURANT ~- PARKING VARIANCE/EXEMPTION DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 1974 At their meeting on October 31, 1974, the Planning Commission considered a request from Attorney Jay K. Peterson, repre- senting the Blue Cow Restaurant, for a parking variance or exemption of fourteen spaces,. in order to change the use of the first level of its premises to a restaurant. Aftar review, a~majority of the Commission found that; (1) the granting of the variance wi1~l constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the la.mitations on other properties classified in the same district; (2) the granting of the variance wi11 be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, (3} the variance is not warranted because the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this ordinance. A vote was called for, and upon motion duly made by Dudleq Abbott to deny the request, seconded by David Sage, it was voted to deny the request for parking variance/exemption, based on the above findings (vote; for the motion: --- Abbott, Sage, Lapin, Hanlon; against the motion: Pierce and Wright}. Those voting against the motion found the above statements to be in the affirmative. It is, therefore, recommended to the Town Council that the above request be denied. /nmm ~~ the vicinity (because the present use - dorm space - is more detrimental than office space}. (3) That the proposed use wi11. comply with each of the. applicable provisions of the zoning ord~.nance. A vote was taken as follows: Abbott W. in favor; Heimbach and Hanlon - against; Pierce -~ abstaining. Those voting against the motion were opposed to the change from PA to Commercial and felt other options were available to the owner. Therefore, it is recommended to Town Council that the request far a conditional use .permit be denied. rnm • ...,2'-. C7 BIGHORN ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS I. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 4/RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER Purpose: Ta provide sites for multiple family buildings with a density of 8 to 8 units per acre. Permitted Uses: (1) Multiple family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings. Conditional Uses: {1} Public utility and public service uses. (2) Public buildings, grounds and facilities. (3) Public or private schools. (4) Public park and recreation facilities. (5) Ski lifts and taws. Accessory Uses: {1) Private greenhouses, taolsheds, playhouses, garages or carports, swimming pools, patios, or recreation facilities customarily incidental to single family, two family, or low density multiple family residential uses. (2) Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accord with the provisions of Section 17.300 of this ordinance. (3) Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof, Lat Area and Site Dimension: The minimum lot or site area shall be 10,000 square feet, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. Setbacks: The minimum front setback shall be 20 feet, the minimum side setback shall be 1.0 feet, and the minimum rear setback shall be 1.0 feet; provided that 1 foot of additional side and rear setback shall be required for each 2 feet of building height over Y5 feet. Y+ ~ Distance Between Buildings: The minimum distance between buildings on the same site shall be 15 feet, and the minimum distance between a building on a site and a bui,lciing on an adjoining site shall be 20 feet; provided that 1 foot of additional separation between buildings shall be required for each 2 feet of building height over 15 feet, cal cu~.ated on the basis of the average height of the two buildings. Height; The maximum height of buildings shall be 35 feet. Density Controls: Nat more than 1 dwelling unit shall be permitted far each 5,250 square feet of site area, and not more than 25 square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area. Building Bulk Control; The maximum length of any wall or building face shall be 100 feet, and building walls shall be offset to a depth of at least 10 feet at least once for each 50 feet of wall length. The maximum distance between any two corners of a building at the same elevation shall be 1Z5 feet, Site •Coverage : Not more than :25 per cent of the total site area shall be covered by buildings. IIseable Open Space: A minimum of 250 square feet of useable open space exclusive of required front setback areas shall be provided at ground level for each dwelling unit. Useable open space may be common space accessible to more than one dwelling unit, or may be private space accessible to separate dwelling units, or a combination thereof, At least 50 per cent of the required ground level useable open space shall be common space. The minimum dimension of any area qualifying as ground level useable open space shall be 10 feet. Parking: Off-street parking shall be provided in accord with Article 14 of this ordinance. No parking ~a11 be located in anry required front setback area, except as may be specifically authorized in accord with Article 19 of this ordinance. At least ane parking space per dwelling unit shall be located within the main building of buildings or within accessory garages. _2_ _.k ,~ Landscaping and Site Development,; At least ~0 per cent of each site shall be landscaped, Special Conditions: (1) Shall be subject to environmental. impact statement. (2) AlI proposed uses within hazard area must be approved by Planning Commission and Town Council as a conditional use. (3} A total development plan must be submitted and approved prior to issuance of building permit or subdivision of the land, Properties Recommended for SDD4: { 1. ) Gore Range l l {2) Friars (3) Parillo (4 ) KAC -3- r NOTICE OF Pl1BLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Vail Associates, Inc. has applied for a resubdivision of Lot 7, 61ock 1, Vail Village 12th Filing, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, Colorado, pursuant to Article IV of the Town of Vail Subdivision regulations. The resulting resubdivision shall be kno4~n as Lots 8, 9, 10, and 71, Block 1, Vail Village 1Zth Filing. NOTIC£ IS ALSO GIVEN that Vail Associates, Inc. has requested that the resubdivision of Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village 12th Filing be rezoned from the existing Low Density Multiple Family to Residential in accordance with Section 21.500 of the zoning ordinance, Ordinance No. 8 (Series of 1973), To4vn of Vail, Colorado ' Subject parcel of land consists of approximately 2.5 acres and. is located in the area known as Booth Creek. Pursuant to the provisions of 5ectian 21.500 of the zoning ordinance, the Planning Commission has held a public hearing an December 5, 1974 and has forwarded their findings to the Town Council who will hold a second public hearing on January 7, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Building. TO1~PJ OF VAIL DEPAR ENT OF COMMElNITY DEVELOPMENT .•. r a° ,- / `'- Diana S. Toughi1l Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail an Friday, December i3, 1974 i