Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975 Planning Commission Minutes & MaterialsNO of Vol Ai it box 100 office of the town manager nail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 January 9, 1975 MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE FOR PIERCE, BRINER AND SCOTT - POOR RICHARDS BUILDING The Community Development Department staff recommends that the application for a Conditional Use Permit for an additional 750 sq. ft. of office space by Pierce, Briner and Scott in the Poor Richards building be approved for the following reasons: 1. The existing use of an architectural office within the structure has demonstrated that it is a compatible use within the area. 2. The incremental diminishment of dormitory space is insignificant as com- pared with the aggregate of available housing in the immediate area. 3. The minimal decrease in housing on this site does not set a precedent for other buildings in the area as the use was in existence prior to the adoption of the new zoning ordinance and is only an expansion of an existing use. 4. There is no additional parking required for the expanded use; however, the zoning ordinance is deficient in that it does not provide for the cumulative effect of minimal change within a specific building or project. Consideration should be given to granting approval with the condition that additional parking will be provided for any other changes granted within the building. TIME SCHEDULE ZONING FOR SECOND BIGHORN ANNEXATION AREA Public Notice for Planning Commission Hearing January 10, 1975 1:9u Public Hearing before Planning Commission, &i-G9 P.m. .January 30, 1975 Public Notice for Town Council Hearing January 31, 1975 Public Hearing before Town Council and Reading of February 18, 1975 Ordinance for First Reading Second Reading of Ordinance before Council' March 4, 1975 Publication of Ordinance March 7, 1975 Zoning final March 12, 1975 r • AGENDA PLANNING COWISSION JANUARY 16, 19:5 3:00 PM 1. BIGHORN ZONING Bob Voliter 2. CROSSROADS SHOPPING CENTER Request for Similar Use Designation Re: Indoor Recreation Facility Mery Lapin fit, ai 311:1y be regUlre"i tElrurty,it lralgn revreiv procedure• tire- d by Article 15 of this thee, as may be required as a tlnn of ii- Condilionat [.`tic t, or!rs may be rcqulred by the In$ Code or other applicable Distances Between Buildings. shall br no required dititanee•x yen ` rag <, either On the Seale r o adjoining sites, except ly 1W." tabiishecl pursuant to a apment plan adopted by tl,e Council, as may be required gh the design review procedure ribed by Article 15 of this ante, as may be required as a tion of a Conditional Use it, or as may be required by the ing Code or other applicable 1. Height, The maximum height ildings shall be 35 feet. i. � Density Control. Not more So square feet of gross ,ntial floor area (GRFA) shall be ivied for each 100 square feet of rea. i, Building Bulk Control. The mum length of any wall or ing face shall be 125 feet, and ing walls shall be off set to a a of at least lc) feet at least once each 50 feet of wall length. The ,mum distance between any two Drs of a building at the same Lion shall be 160 feet. 7. Site Coverage: Not more than er cent of the total site area shall veered by buildings, B. Useable Open Space, Useable ! space for multiple family pings and lodges shall be required llo ws: (1) For dwelling units, a minimum of 1 square foot, of useable open space shall be provided for each 4 feet of gross residential floor area, but not less than 150 square feet of useable open space per dwelling unit. (2 For accommodation units, minimum of 1 square Wof of useable open space all be provided for each 4 feet of gross residential floor area, but not less than 100 square feet of useable open space per accommodation unit. able open space may be common !e accessible to more than one Sling or accommodation unit, or be private space accessible to [rate dwelling or aecommudation :y or a combination thereof, least one -half the required useable n space shall be provided at and level, exclusive of required at setback areas. At least 75 per t of the required ground level able open space shall be common re. The minimum dimension of area qualifying as ground level able open space shall be 10 feet. I more than one -half of the able open space requirement may satisfied by balconies or roof .ks. The minimum dimension of I area qualifying as non. ground el useable open space shall be 5 t, and any such area shall contain least 50 square feet, M9. Landscaping and Site Develop - mt. At least 10 per cent of the Al site area shall be landscaped. i10. Parking and loading. Off - eet parking and loading shall be ovided- in accord with Article 14 this ordinance., At least one -half of e required parking shall be located thin the main building or buildings. 1 parking or loading area shall be cited in any required front setback ea. 5 ocation of Business Activity. 1 es, businesses, and services 'r :fl by Section 8.200 shall be aerated and conducted entirely {thin a building, except for ;rntitted unenclosed parking or ading areas, and, subject to ,prcval by the Zoning Administra - r, vending stands, kiosks, and cessory outdoor dining terraces :eupying an area not greater than per cent of the building coverage. ARTICLE 9 the. 1< >cations of p:u7ctnv.. and loading; areas, access drives, principal public• and private open spaces, and tither site Plan features. (4) Itelationship of proposed development on tl;i- site to development on ,d)oiuirig, sites, (5) uch a iditibrial lnfornla- tion as the Planning Com- r,,ission and Town Council deem necessary to guide dcreiopincnt within the proposed district, the development plan shill] be used is a guide for the subsequent development of sites and the design and location of buildings and grounds within the district. All plans subsequently approved by the Desif.n Review Board in accord with Article 15 of this ordinance shall subst.aitial- ly conform with the development plan adopted by the Town Council. Section 9.300 Permitted ?rscs Permitted uses shall be the s:lme as those permitt-1 ill the Commercial Core 1 District as p_escribvd by section 8,200 of this ordinance. Retail stores and establishments shall not occupy snore than 8,000 square feet of floor area. Section 9.400 Conditional Uses. The following conditional ayes shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Article 18 of axis ordinance: (1) Ski lifts and tows. (2) Public utility and public service uses. (3) Public buildings, grounds a,,d facilities, {4) Public Park and recreation facilities. (5) Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention f. cilities. (6) Coin - operated laundric3. Section 9.500 Accessory Uses. The following accessory uses shall he permitted: {i) Swimrsling pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreation facilities cus- tortlariiy inckleatal to per- mitted residential or lodge uses. (2) Outdoor dining areas op- erated in convuntion with permitted eating and drink- ing establishments. (3) Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation Permit in ac- cord with the provisions of Section. 1.7.300 of this ordinance. (4) Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses,and necessary for the operation thereof. Section 9,600 Development Stan- dards 9,601, Lot Area and Site Dimensions. The minimum lot or site area shall be 10,000 square feet, and eaell 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 it boundaries. 9,602. Setbacks. The minimum front setback shall be 10 feet, th minimum side setback shall be 1 feet, and the mhlimum rear setback shall be 10 feet; provided that 1 foot of additional front. side, and re' setback shall be required for each feet of building height over 15 feet 9.803, Distances Between Buildings The minimum distance between buildings on the same site shall be 1 feet, and the minimum distranc between a building On a site and building on an adjoining site shall b .20 feet; provided that 1 foot o additional separation between build- ings shall be required for each 3 fee of building height over 15 feet calculated on the basis of the averak height of the two buildings. 9.604. height. The maximum Neigh of buildings shall be 45 feet. 9,605. Density Control. Not mor than 80 square feet of gra residential floor area (tag FA) shall b permitted for each 100 square feet o site area. inn ?' , , , , , ,t„a,ai,,,.. , ._ 11svabte open space shall be 10 feet. Newsstands and to- Not [Harr dean one -b,,lf of the bacco stores useable omen space requirement may Pet shops ' br _tlr ;fled bs balconies or roof photographic studios decks. The lainimrnn dimension of Radio and television any area qualifying as non- ground stores and repair level uxeabte open sPaco shall be 5 shops , fret.:uld any Stich area must contain Radio and television al least 50 square feet. broadcasting studios i.andseaping and Site Develop- Sporting..goods .stores rnent. At le,�st 20 per cent of the � Stationery stares � 1 total site area shall be landsepacd. Supermarkets Parl ;ing and Loading, Off- . Toy stores street parkin t; anti loading shall be Variety stores provided in accord with Article 14 of Yardage and dry this ordinance. At least one -half the goods stores required parking shall be located - (4) Personal services and repair within the main buiiding or buildings• shops, including the fol- No parking or loading area shall be lowing: ' located in any required front setback Barber shops 6 area, Beauty shops 9.611. Location of Business Activity, Business and office All offices, businesses, and ;cry ices services permitted by Section9 -200 shall be Cleaning and laundry operated and conducted entirely pickup agencies with, within a building, except for out bulk cleaning permitted uricnelosed parking or or dyeing loading areas, and, subject to Coin operated or self approval by the Zoning Administra- service laundries tor, 'vending stands, kiosks, and Small appliance repair • accessory outdoor dining terraces shops, excluding fur - occupying an ar ^_a not greater than niture repair 20 per cent of the building coverage. Tailors and dress - ARTICLE 10 makers Co,,IMERCIAI. SERVICE. CENTER Travel and ticket DISTRICT agencies Section 10,100 Purposes (5) Eating and drinking estab- The Commercial Service Center lishments, including the following: District is intended to provide sites Bakeries and delica- for general shopping and commercial tessens with food facilities serving the Town, together service with limited multiple family dwelling, Cocktail lounges,_ and lodge uses as may he appropr ?ate taverns, and bars without interfering with the basic - - Coffee shops conlnlereial functions of the district. - The Commercial Service Center Fountains and sand - District is intended to ensure � wich shops adequate light, air, open space, and �-- {(estatrrrtrffY other amenities appropriate to (6) Additional offices, busi- permitted types of buildings and nesses, or services deter - uses, and to maintain a convenient mined to be similar to shopping center environment . fo permitted uses in accord permitted commercial uses. with the provisions of Section 10.200 Requirements for Section 21.200 Of this Establishment of District ordinance. Prior to the establishment of any Section - 0:40O1.:�iiulitaoara' Commercial Service Center District The following conditional uses shall or enlargement of any existing be permitted, subject to issuance of a Commercial Service Center District Conditional Use Permit in accord by change of district boundaries, the with the provisions of Article 18 of Town Council shall by resolution this ordinance: adopt a general development plan for - (1) Ski lifts and tows 2 Multiple family dwellings the proposed district. The develop- ( ) and lodges. ment plan may be prepared by an i 3 Public utility and public applicant for the establishment of ( ) service uses. ` such district or may be prepared by t the Town. The development plan (4) Public buildings, grounds, shall be submitted to the Planning and facilities. Commission for review, and the (5) Public park and recreation planning Commission shall submit its facilities. findings and recommendations on the (6) and at convention gfac facilities. plan to the Town Council. _ The development plan shall show the (7) cleaning services. e laundry and following information: (.1) Existing topography and (8) Any use permitted by tree cover. Section 10.300 which is (2) proposed division of the not conducted entirely area into lots or building within a building. uses, and the proposed The Section accessory uses shall be uses to be established on s eae!i site. permitted: (3) Proposed locations, dimen- (1) Swimming pools, tennis sioli%, and heights of courts, patios, or other e buildings on each site, and recreation facilities cus° 0 the locations of parking tomarily incidental to con- and loading areas, access ditional residential or lodge drives, principal public and uses. rear private - open spaces, and (2) Home occupations, ' sub - 3 other site plan features. ject to issuance of a home (4) Relationship of proposed -occupation permit in ae- development on the site to cord with the provisions of development on adjoining - Section 17,300 of this 5 sites. ordinance. e {5) Such additional ,informa- (3) Other uses customarily a -tion as the Planning Corn- incidental and accessory to e mission and 'Town Council - permitted or conditional f deem necessary to guide uses, and necessary for the development within the operation thereof, t proposed distract. Section 10.600 Development Stan- , The development plan slian be used dards u e as a guide. for the subsequent 10.601. Lot Area and Site Dimen- f development of sites and the design sions. The minimum lot or site area a t and location of buildings and grounds shall be 20,000 square feet, and each within the district. All pkazt3 site shall have a minimum frontage of. a: e subsequently approved by the Design 100 feet. se Review Hoard is: accord with Article 10,602. Setbacks. The feet, the e 15 of this ordinance shall substantial- front setback shall be 10 feet, the f,. f ly conform with the development minimum side setback shall be 10 plan adopted by the Town Council. feet, and the minimum rear setback cified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Section 19.700. Action b Town CQL1nLi1. within 7 days following action of the Planning Commission, its decision shall be transmitted to the applicant and to the. Town Council. At its next regularly scheduled meeting follow- ing receipt of the decision of the Planning Commission, the Town Council shall review the action of the Con intission, and may confirm, modify, or reverse its decision. If it deenl,s insufficient information is available to provide the basis for a sound decision, the Council may postpone final action for not more than 20 days, and the Council may, at its option, conduct an additional hearing in accord with the provisions. of Section 21.400. Failure of the Council to act prior to the postponement date it sets shall be deemed approval of the action by the Commission, unless the applicant consents to a time extension. The Town Council shall act in accord with the saute criteria, and snall make the same findings as prescribed in Section 19.600 before granting a variance. The action of the Council shall become final immediately. Section 19.800 Permit Issuance and Effect The Zoning Administrator shall issue a variance permit when action of the Town Council becomes final, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Council, or by the Planning Commission if the Council fails to act. The permit shall lapse if construction is not commenced within one year of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion. Section 19.900 Related Permits and Requirements In addition to the conditions which may be prescribed pursuant to this Article, any site or use subject to a variance permit shall also be subject to all other procedures, permits, and requirements. of this and other applicable ordinances and regualtions of the Town. In event of any conflict between the provisions of a variance permit and other permit or require- ment, the more restrictive provisions shall prevail. ARTICLE 20 NON CONFORMING SITE, USES, STRUCTURES, AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS Section 20.100 Purposes This Article is intended to limit the number - and extent of noncon- forming uses and structures by prohibiting or limiting their enlarge- ment, their re- establishment after abandonment, and their restoration after substantial destruction. while permitting non - conforming uses, structures, and improvements to continue, this Article is intended to limit enlargement, alteration, restura- tion, or replacement which :could increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the develon- nr4:nt standards prescribed by this ordinance. Section 20.200 Continuance Non - conforming sites, uses, struc- tures, and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective data of this ordinanee may continue, subject to the limitations prescribed in this Article. Sites, uses, structures, and site improvements lawfully authorized by permits or regulations existing prior to the effective date of this ordinance may continue, subject to such limitations as prescribed by such permits or regulations. Section 20.300 Non- Conforming Sites. Sites lawfully established pursuant to regulations in effect prior to the tner rni ic:r - , •+• ancy between the total structure and applicable _ building bulk control or site cot +;rage standards; and provided that the addition fully conforms With - setbacks, distances between buildings, and height standards applicable to such addition. (2y SL:VCtUxeS which do not conform to density con- trots may be enlarged, olniY if the total gross residential. floor area of the enlarged structure does not exceed the total gross residential floor area of the pre -ex- isting non - conforming structure. (3) Structures or site improve- ments which do not conform to requirements for useable open space or landscaping and site devel- opment may be enlarged, provided that the useable open space requirements applicable to such addition shall be fully satisfied, and provided that the percent- age of the total site which is landscaped shall not be reduced below the mini- mum requirement. (4) Structures or site improve- ments which do not conform to the off - street parking and loading re- quirements of this ordi- nance may be enlarged, -1, provided that the parking JJ and loading requirements 7 for such addition shall be fully satisfied and that the discrepancy between the existing off - street parking and loading facilities and the standards prescribed by this ordinance shall not be increased. Section 20.600 Maintenance and Repairs l`on- conforming uses, structures, and site improvements may be main- tained and repaired as necessary for convenient, safe, or efficient opera- tion or use, provided that no such maintenance or repair shall increase the discrepancy between the use, structure or site improvement and the development standards prescribed by this ordinance. Section 20.700 Discontinuance Any non - conforming use which is discontinued for a period of 12 months, regardless of arty intent to resume operation or use, shall not be resumed thereafter; and any future Ilse of the site or structures thereon shall conform with the provisions of this ordinance. Section 20.800 Change of Use A non - conforming use shall not be changed to another non - conforming use unless permission shall have been granted by the Town Cnun,il. Prior to granting such permission, the Council shall determine that the proposed use does not substantially ,differ from the existing non -con- forining use in terms of compatibility with Lie character of the area in which it is located, and the Council shall determine that the proposed use does not increase or aggravate the degree of non - conformity existing prior to any such change of use. Section. 20.900 Restoration Whenever a non - conforming use which does not conform with the regulations for the district in which it is located, or a non- conformtrig, structure or'site improvement which r- does ot conform with requirements for setbacks, distances betweent' buildings, height, density controls building bulk control, or site coverage, is destroyed by fire or other calamity, by act of God, or by the public enemy to the extent of 50 per cent or less, the use may be resumed or the structure may be restored, provided that restoration is The Zoning Acirinistrator may serve notice indicating the nature of any violation, or requiring the removal of any structure or use in violation of this ordinance, on the owner or his authorized agent, or a tenant, or on any other person who commits or psrticipates in any violation of this ordinance, The Zoning Administrator may call upon the Town Attorney to institute necessary legal proceedings to enforce the provisions of this ordinance, and the Town Attorney hereby is authorized to institute appropriate actions to that end. The Zoning Administrator may call upon She Chief of Police and his authorized agents to assist in the enforcement of this ordinance. 21.103. Appeal of Administrative Actions. Appeal from any adminis- trative action or determination by the Town Manager or the Zoning Administrator pursuant to provisions of this ordinance may be filed with the Town Council by any resident or property owner within 20 days following such action or deter- mination. In event of appeal, the Council, after receiving a report from the Town Manager or the Zoning Administrator, may confirm, reverse, or modify the action of the Town Manager or the Zoning Adminis- trator. A hearing shall not . be required. Failure of the Council to act within 30 days of the filing of an appeal shall be deemed concurrance in the action of the Town Nanager or . o appeal filed pursuant to. this Section shall constitute an appeal from a decision made by the Design Review Board pursuant to Article 15 or a decision made by the Planning Commission pursuant to Article 19 .. or Article 19 of this ordinance: " Section 21.200 Determination of Similar Use In order to ensure that tite zoning, regulations will permit similar uses'in- certain prescribed commercial zones, the Town Council on its initiative or upon written request shall determine whether a use not specifically listed as a permitted use shall be deemed a permitted use on the basis of similarity to uses specifically listed: The procedure prescribed in this Section shall not be substituted for the amendment procedure as a means of adding new uses to the lists of permitted uses, but shall be followed to determine whether the character- istics of a particular use not listed are ufficiently similar to certain classes of permitted uses to justify a finding that the use should be deemed a permitted use. The Zoning Administrator, upon request of the Town Council or written request of any person for a determination under this Section, shall review the characteristics of any use proposed to be determined as similar to permitted uses, and shall transmit a report to the Council advising in what respects the proposed use would be in fact similar to specified permitted uses in the same district, or in what respects the proposed use would not be similar to permitted uses, or would be similar to uses specifically permitted only in other districts. After receipt of the report, the Council may determine the proposed use to be similar to uses specified as permitted uses in the same district if it finds that the proposed use will not be substantially different in its operation or other characteristics from uses specifically permitted in the same distract. The Council shall state the basis -for its determination, and the use thereafter shall be deemed a permitted use subject to the same regulations as - specifically permitted uses in the same district ,�tfL1S9S 1i�00 Declaration of Site Continued — Page 54 SUMMARY PLANNING COMMMISSION JANUARY 16, 1975 A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Thursday, January 16, 1975 at-3:00 P.M. in the Police Conference Room of the Vail Municipal Building. The members present were: Dudley Abbott Bill Wilto Bill Hanlon Jen Aright Bill Heimbach Cordon Pierce Members of the staff present were; Allan Gerstenberger Jim Lamont CROSSROADS SHOPPING CENTER PURPOSE " To have a recreational area geared to kids with pool tables, electronic games, etc. This area to be approximately 1,000 sq. ft. Since the Zoning Ordinance is not specific in Section 21.200, Jim Lamont • suggested that the Planning Commission come to some decision-as to how they feel about a recreational area in CSC, and then write a recommendation to the Town Council. 0 Dudley Abbott made a motion for approval of this idea; and it was seconded by Bill Hanlon. The vote was unanimous. BIGHORN ZONING Jim Lamont presented a land use study that the Town of Vail had been working on -- it was not fully completed but hopefully should be soon. He also pointed out that the Planning Commission should come to a decision as to how they feel this area should be zoned very soon. The Planning Commission has to give the `Town Council a recommendation at the Public Hearing, January 30, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. Bob Voliter pointed out that 70% of the land owners in the 5th Addition of the Bighorn area want it to be zoned single family residence. He came upon this information through petitions he sent out to all land owners. (One petition per lot) Bill Heimbach felt that all the land owners in that area should be notified, by letter, of the Public Hearing on January 30, 1975. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting -was adjourned at 4:30 P.M. 13k AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 1975 2:00 P.M. 1. EVALUATION OF VAIL PLAN Eldon Beck, George Girvan 2. BIGHORN MASTER PLAN a. Questionnaire 3. BIGHORN ZONING a. Slide Presentation -- Bill Pierce b. Existing Land Use -•- Diana Toughill c. Elmore Subdivision Review -- Kent Rose d. Staff Recommendations for Zoning Diana Toughill, Jim Lamont L' [J SUMMARY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23, 1975 EVALUATION OF VAIL PLAN George Girvan and Eldon Beck gave a resummarization of the Vail Plan and pointed out various changes that had occured since the original plan was enacted. Mr. Beck suggested that the Town start a Phasing or Progress Map which would include pressure points, progress reports and a report of gradual improvements. ANTHOLZ RECREATIONAL AREA Mr. Beck pointed out that some decision has to be made soon as to what the people of the Vail area want to see in the Antholz land. He felt that at the latest finalization of the Antholz planning would have to be made by early August because of the time limitation being placed on the _ Bon d_ Issue. A year -round recreational area is being; planned for both the visitors and the locals of Vail. This center might include convention areas, handball courts, performing arts center, swimming pool, etc. It was noted that there was a void in the areas of nature trails, and horseback riding for summer recreation in the preliminary plans for Antholz but they were in the planning for the Bighorn area. BIGHORN PLANNING A sample questionnaire was handed out by Mr. Beck for the Planning Commission's review, and he wanted the commissioners to fill it Out so that they could get an objective view of the types of questions and see if they are relative to the important areas in question before the questionnaires are handed out to the public. The objective of this questionnaire is to see what the taxpayer's goals and priorities are as to how they want to spend their money. EXISTING LAND USE AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ZONING A. All Lots in Blocks 1, 2 & 3, Bighorn 5th Addition Existing -- 6 Single Family and 1_Du olex Proposed -- Single Family`Residential -by the request of the majority of the property owners_ B. Heather of Vail Subdivision Lot 1 -- Cedar Point Condominium density 18 units per acre 5 units existing Lot 2 -- Cedar Point Condominium density 10 units per acre 4 units existing Lots 3 & 4 -- undeveloped Lot 5 -- Frost Town Houses density 16 units per acre 4 units existing Lots 6 & 7 -- Heather of Vail density 24 units per acre 18 units existing Summary Jan. 23, 1975 Page Two Lot 8 -- undeveloped PROPOSED ZONING -- Residential Cluster C. Gore Creek Meadows, Gore Creek Condominium Building A, Lot 6 & 7, Block 2 & 3 of Gore Creek Subdivision Gore Creek Meadows average density 6 units per acre 4 units existing Gore Creek Condominium Density 15 units per acre 4 units existing Lot 6 Density 22 units per acre (Alpen Glo) existing 6 units Lot 7 Density 59 units per acre (Wren House) 16 units existing Block 3 . undeveloped but the County has approved 14 units and parking for the Wren House on 3/4 of an acre PROPOSED ZONING -- Residential Cluster D. Gore Creek Subdivision, Block 1 & block 2 excluding Lot 6 & 7 existing 7 duplexes, 2 single family PROPOSED ZONING -- Residential E. Vail Meadows Filing #1 existing 5 duplexes, 4 single family PROPOSED ZONING -- Residential * Area designated Summer. Recreation Area & Gore Valley Water proposed zoning Agricultural F. Vail Meadows 2nd Filing & Gore Valley Water District existing undeveloped PROPOSED ZONING -- Agricultural. G. Vail Meadows, Inc, existing undeveloped (approximately 4.3 acres by meets and bounds) PROPOSED ZONING -- either Agricultural or Single Family r__. Summary Jan. 23, 1975 Page Three VAIL MEADOWS SECOND FILING Even though the County has given Mr- Elmore formal approval for the subdivision of this land, 'the staff disagrees with their decision for the following reasons; 1. Inaccessibility due to the Creek a. In order for the people,who buy his lots, to get to their homes, Mr. Elmore will have to divert the creek in order to build a road that will go up to his lots. 2. Slope degree is over 40% a. Because the slopes are at such a high degree (40 %) there is no way for people to build.driveways, hence they will have to park on the road, as well as making most of the sites unbuildable Because the County has approved this subdivision, and it can legally be sold to individuals, the Town should zone it Agricultural and then require Elmore to do an Environmental Impact Study; this will hopefully force the issue. The Town has to think about the health and safety of the individuals. If the area is zoned Agricultural (one house for 2 acres) Elmore will have to resubdivide and a reanalysis of his land might reveal a better land use for that area. /J k 10wo of Vol box 100 vail, coloraclo 81667 (303) 476 -5613 January 23, 1975 Dear Bighorn Property Owner: office of the town manager The Community Development Department wishes to notify you that Residen- tial Cluster zoning has been proposed. -for all lots in Gore Creek Meadows, Filing No. 1; Gore Creek Condominiums, Building A; Lots 6 and 7, Block 2, and Block 3 of Gore Creek Subdivision, Town of Vail, County of Eagle. This is a change from the original proposal, which was Residential (two - family) zoning. If you, as a property owner, wish to comment on the proposed zoning, please attend one of the Planning Commission meetings scheduled for the following times, to be held in the Vail Municipal Building. Tuesday, January 28 2:00 p.m. Tuesday, January 28 7:30 p.m. Thursday, January 30 2:00 p.m. Thursday, January 30 7:30 p.m. if you cannot be present at any of the scheduled meetings, please com- ment by telephone, mail or telegram as soon as possible. If you have any questions concerning the proposed zoning, please contact the Com- munity Development Department. Yours truly, COMMU TY DEVELOP14ENT EPARTNIENT r r k ana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator Certified Mail 0 E 10VIR of voi la it box 100 vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476.5613 January 23, 1975 Dear Bighorn Property Owner: office of the town manager The Community Development Department wishes to notify you that Residen- tial Cluster zoning has been proposed for all lots in the Heather of Vail Subdivision, Town of Vail, County of Eagle. This is a change from the original proposal, which was Residential (two- family) zoning. If you, as a property owner, wish to comment on the proposed zoning, please attend one of the Planning Commission meetings scheduled for the following times, to be held in the Vail municipal Building. Tuesday, January 28 2:00 p.m. Tuesday, January 28 7:30 p.m. Thursday, January 30 2:00 p.m. Thursday, January 30 7:30 p.m. If you cannot be present at any of the scheduled meetings, please com- ment by telephone, mail or telegram as soon as possible. If you have any questions concerning the proposed zoning, please contact the Com- munity Development Department. Yours truly, COMMU TY DEVELOP NT EPARTMENT Diana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator 0 Certified Mail • 101"10 or Vol box 100 vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 January 22, 1975 Dear Bighorn Property Owner: office of the town manager The Community Development Department wishes to notify you that Single Family Residential zoning has been proposed for all lots in Blocks 1, 2, and 3 of Bighorn 5th Addition, Town of Vail, County of Eagle. This is a change from the original proposal, which was Residential (two - family) zoning. If you, as a property owner,•wish to comment on the proposed zoning, please attend one of the Planning Commission meetings scheduled for the following times, to be held in the Vail Municipal Building. Tuesday, January 28 2:00 p.m. Tuesday, January 28. 7:30 p.m. Thursday, January 30 2:00 P.M. Thursday, January 30 7:30 p.m. If you cannot be present at any of the scheduled meetings, please com- ment by telephone, mail or telegram as soon as possible. If you have any questions concerning the proposed zoning, please contact the Com- munity Development Department. Yours truly, COMM Y DEVELOPM DEPARTMENT Diana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator Certified Mail SUMMARY SHEET OF REQUESTED AND PROPOSED CHANGES PROPERTY: Block 1, 2 & 3, Bighorn 5th Addition NUMBER OF ACRES: 32 lots of approx. 23, 000 square feet each MAX GRFA MAX UNITS ORIGINAL TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSAL: Residential 184,000 a rox 64 OWNER'S PROPOSAL: A majority of the owners have requested Single Family Residential 184,000 approx. �W_32 STAFF PROPOSAL: Single Family Residential 184,000 approx. 32 _ PLANNING COMMiISSION CONSIDERATIONS: 1. A majority of property owners in this area have indicated a desire to maintain the already established single - family character of the area. 2. Guidelines established by Planning Commission state the intent to lessen densities away from the core area. ,. Existing land use is single - family. Only one duplex has been constructed in the proposed Single Family Residential area. f+ ` LAW OFFICER GEDDES. SPARKS & MACDOUGALL. P.C. SUITE 513 MINING EXCHANGE BUILDINS COLDRADD SPRINGS, DOLORADO 00903 KENNETH W. 3CODEB January 22, 1975 TELEPHONE KENNETH SPARKS 636 -2307 M. E. MA13DOLIGALL BRIAN N. GEDDEB Department of Community Development Town of Vail Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 ATTENTION: Mr. Jim Lamont Dear Mr. Lamont: Pursuant to our telephone conversation last Monday, you are hereby advised that this office represents Mr. Robert Osborne and Mr. Gilbert Johnson, who own single family residences located on lots 11 and 10 respectively, block 3 fifth filing, Bighorn Subdivision. As Mr. Voliter has already advised you, we had a big fuss last July in front of the Eagle County Planning Commission concerning the zoning of this particular area and were successful in keeping the area single family at that time. I believe Mr. Voliter has already given you copies of the documents presented at that time both as evidence and as objections. Please be advised that my clients strenuously object to any zoning other than single family residential zoning so far as each lot in blocks 1, IA, 2 and 3 of Bighorn Subdivision, Fifth Addition are concerned, and so far as lot 1, block 4, lots 9 and 10, block 5, and lots 18 and 19 of block 7 of Bighorn Subdivision, Fifth Addition are concerned. The above lots were designated as single family residential lots in the Declaration of Protective Covenants for Bighorn Subdivision, Fifth Addition and it is our belief that that was a proper designation which should be maintained. According to our telephone conversation I understand that it is the present position of the Planning Commission that the proposed zoning map for the second area of Bighorn and next to the town of Vail will be amended to provide single family res- idential district on the above. Nevertheless, pursuant to your recommendation, someone representing Mr. Osborne and Mr. Johnson will be at the hearing on January 30th at 7: 30 P.M. at the Vail Municipal Building, Should you wish further information or have questions, please advise RFERDESTELLER, VONDY, HORTON 86 WORTH PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW EXECUTIVE CLUB BUILDING 1]]6 SOUTH JACKSON STREET AT THE VALLEY HIGHWAY FRED J. PFERDESTELLER DENVER, COLORADO 90210 FRED W, VONDY JAMES R. HORTON ANTHONY L. WORTH The Vail City City Hall Vail, Colorado Gentlemen: Council 81657 January 27, 1975 SAMUEL CHUTKOW OF COUNSEL AREA CODE 303 7SO -SPOO Re: Proposed Zoning Ordinance on Big Horn II Annexation I am writing to you on behalf of my wife, Barbara, and myself who are the owners of Lot 9, Block 3, Big Horn Subdivision Fifth Addition, a part of the Big Horn II Annexation and in regard to the proposed Zoning Ordinance Hearing on which is to be heard either on January 30th or January 31st. According to my information, Blocks 1, IA, 2 and 3 in the proposed Zoning Ordinance are shown as "R" Zoning or would permit the building of duplex zoning on said property. These properties are by the restrictive covenants presently zoned as single family residents properties. Last summer we had two hearings before the Eagle County Commissioners in which changes to duplex zoning were sought on these properties by various parties and gained the support of the East Vail Property Owners Association, Terry Minger, Town Manager and Jim Lamont, Zoning Administrator for the Town of Vail. Frankly, we had understood that Vail would change its master plan and supported retaining these properties as single family residents zoning. Accordingly, this is to advise that we would like to protest any change from S.F.R. to "R" zoning and if the meeting is to be held on January 31st, would like to speak on this matter before the council. JRH /nms Very truly yours, James R. Horton 0 • BAILEY & GOLDSTEIN 899 Logan, Suite 211 • November 27, 1974 Mr. Mery Lapin Vail. Securities Box 1228 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr. Lapin: Denver, Colorado 84203 • 303- 892 -6522 I am a resident of the Bighorn subdivision that is about to be annexed by the town of Vail. It is my feeling that the zoning out there should be restricted to single family homes and duplexes. THB :dz Yours truly, Thomas H. Bai ,, INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO MANAGERS M�-LAUGHLIN & HART ATTORNEYS AT LAW S. DOUGLAS MYLAUGHLIN RICHARD H, HART JAY K PETERSON January 29, 1975 Town of Vail Planning Commission P. 0. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 ATTENTION: Diana Toughill RE: Bighorn Zoning -- Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 Heather of Vail Subdivision (Cedar Point Townhouses) Gentlemen: VAIL ARCADE P.O. SOX 140a VAfL,COLORADO 61557 303 476 -2427 • Our client, Justus Company, Inc., is the developer of a townhouse project on the captioned lots. Of the three phases, two have been completed and the remaining four unit building located solely on Lot 4 is under construction. Foundations and subflooring have been completed pursuant to a building permit issued by the Colorado Division of Housing following approval pursuant to Senate Bill 35 by Eagle County. The building shell has been fabricated in the State of Washington and awaits shipment to Colorado at an appropriate time. We understand that Residential Cluster Zoning as proposed for the area would permit only three units on Lot 41. We, therefore, request that at least Lot 4 be zoned to permit completion of the four unit building on that lot. We understand that this end would be accomplished by Low Density Multi -- Family Zoning. Though such zoning permits densities (calculated on a units per acre basis) greater than are permitted by the proposed Residential Cluster Zoning, existing developments in Heather of Vail Subdivision are denser yet. If any alternative to such zoning presents itself, we would be delighted to cooperate as we too object to excessive density. cc: C. Peter Van Ness RHH /jb Sincerely, McLAUGHLIN & HART By: Richar H. Har SUMMARY SHEET OF REQUESTED AND PROPOSED CHANGES 0 PROPERTY: Vail Meadows, 2nd Filing NUMBER OF ACRES: approx. 7.8 acres divided into MAX. GRFA MAX. UNITS ,11 individual lots ORIGINAL TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSAL: Agricultural OWNER'S PROPOSAL: Residential STAFF PROPOSAL: Agricultural PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS: N/A 3 84,942 22 N/A 3 1. A study of topography indicates that a large portion of the subdivision is in excess of 30% slope with a predominance over 40% 2. The proposed road would require diversion of part of the Black Gore and filling of existing streambed. 3. Environmental Impact Reports would be required of each lot owner to demonstrate the buildability of the site. There is a high probability that a majority of the lots would be unbuildable due to excessive slope conditions. In our view this would cause an undue hardship on single lot owners. To our knowledge, a maximum of two lots (which might be buildable) have been purchased. By zoning the property "A" it could potentially require resubdivision of the property. The Town would then be in a position to require a complete E.T.S. for the subdivision, thus taking into consideration ecogological factors. 4. Off- street parking, as required by the.Zoning' Ordinance, would be impossible for owners to provide due to excessive slopes. This would necessitate ap- plicLtions for parking variances and. parking on the public street or in flood plain area. A 71 ', T 0 SUITE 250 E - - - - - .823COMMEACEDRIVE - �` OAK BROOK, ILLINDI130 i I _ 312/86 97.1300 SUITE 250 GREENWOODPLAZA I .. ENG LEWOOD, COLORADO 80110 Elmore and Associates, Inc. 30317741683 December 4, 1974 Mr. Jim Lamont Town of Vail P. 0. Box 100 j Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Heather of Vail Vail Meadows, Inc. Dear Jim: In connection with the annexation of the above captioned properties, I have discussed the following with Diana Toughill: 1) Vail Meadows Filing #2 has been recorded and a copy filed with your office. Lots 1 and 2 of Filing #2 have been I conveyed to third parties. 2) With respect to the unplatted area, approximately 4 1/2 acres, we would request a cluster development not to exceed 18 units on this property. 3) We request that you consent to the construction of a bridge 16' wide joining Heather of Vail with Vail Meadows Filing #2. 4) I plan to file.on Elmore and Associates a condominium dec- laration covering the 18 units located on Lots 6, 7 and 8 in Heather of Vail. I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this at your convenience. I will be in Vail on Thursday, December 12th. Very truly yours, David G. Elmore E DGE:jb I F E SUMMARY SHEET OF REQUESTED AND PROPOSED CHANGES PROPERTY: Vail Meadows, Inc. NUMBER OF ACRES: 4.3 MAX GRFA MAX UNITS ORIGINAL TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSAL: Single Family Residence 46,827 15* OWNER'S PROPOSAL: Residential Cluster STAFF PROPOSAL: Agricultural 46,827 • 25 * assumes subdivision into 15, 12,500 sq. ft. minimum lots PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS: Il 1. The access from Main Gore Drive is approximately 40% slope and any attempt at road construction would necessitate extensive cuts and switchbacks to gain access to the site if it were possible at all. 2. Topography of parcel makes it unsuitable for subdivision into individual building sites based upon the limited information we have available. An agricultural designation would allow one single- family house to be constructed which would be much less environmentally detrimental. 4. Agricultrual zoning would force the developer to provide a complete Environmental Impact Study if subdivision and rezoning were ever proposed. i SUMMARY SHEET OF REQUESTED AND PROPOSED CHANGES PROPERTY: Wren House -- Lot 7, Block 2 and Block 3, Gore Creek Subdivision NUMBER OF ACRES: Lot 7 - .273 Developed Block 3 - .72 Undeveloped ORIGINAL. TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSAL; Residential OWNER'S PROPOSAL: MDMF /14 Units STAFF PROPOSAL: Residential Cluster PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS; For Block 3 MAX. GRFA MAX. UNITS 7,856 2 10,998 14 7,856 4 1. There are two other existing four-- plexes adjoining Block 3 to the north and a duplex lot to the south. We, therefore, feel that a density of 19 units per acre on Block 3 is excessive,_ 2. The existing Wren House on Lot 7 contains 16 units on slightly more than a of an acre, or a density of 59 units per acre. If the exisitng and proposed projects are considered as one development, the density would be approximately 30.3 units per acre, which is more than presently allowed by MDMF. 3. The existing building (16 units) has no parking provided and the proposal is to place the proposed building and parking for both buildings on Block 3 whichis less than 3/4 of a acre in size3assuming the units are an average size of 700 square feet, a total of 36 parking spaces would be required.. This would require in excess of 40% of the site to be paved. Very little green space would remain on either site. 4. The Planning Commission guideline states that this portion of Bighorn should be residential in character -W 30.3 units per acre density is not residential' in character. SUMMARY SHEET OF REQUESTED AND PROPOSED CHANGES PROPERTY: Alpin -glo L.�� tv ESI• - &Ija.v- ,4�vAJZ) 1V1jjsr�j NUMBER OF ACRES: .27 MAX GRFA MAX. UNITS ORIGINAL TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSAL: Residential SITE ALREADY DEVELOPED AT OWNER'S PROPOSAL: none submitted 22 UNITS PER ACRE DENSITY STAFF PROPOSAL: Residential Cluster PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS: 1. There are 6 units existing on slightly more than 4 acre. �. Parking is not adequate for the existing units. Any additional density would compound the problem already existing for the entire subdivision. If the building were destroyed, Residential zoning would allow a duplex to be built and Residential Cluster would allow only one unit, due to the small lot size. SUMMARY SHEET OF REQUESTED AND PROPOSED CHANGES PROPERTY: Gore Creels Meadows ._C012.T,�"rnrk-K ) A NUMBER OF ACRES: 2,69 ORIGINAL TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSAL: Residential OWNER'S PROPOSAL: None Submitted STAFF PROPOSAL: Residential Cluster PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS: MAX GRFA MAX UNITS Each lot within this sub - division is already developed at an average density of 6 -7 units per, acre. 1. Residential Cluster is the most closely conforming zone to the existing develop - ment,and we feel is an acceptable density in this primarily residential area. 2. Might allow the addition of one unit to the duplex on Lot 2 3. Average lot size in this subdivision is approximately .6 acres, which is substantially larger than any of the other sites in this second annexation area. WLAuGHLIN & HART 0 ATTORNEYS AT LAW S. DOUGLAS MSLAUGHLIN VAIL ARCADE RICHARD H. HART P. O. BOX t4G8 JAY N. PETERSON VAIL,COLORADO 61657 303 496 -2427 January 29, 1975 Town of Vail Planning Commission P. O. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 ATTENTION: Diana Toughill RE: Bighorn Zoning - Lot 1, Block 3 and Lot 7, Block 2 Gore Creek Subdivision (The Wren House) • Gentlemen: Our clients, The First National Bank of Denver and Clyde Riggs Construction Company are developers of a townhouse project on Lot 1, Block 3 which is being developed in connection with a 16 unit condominium building on Lot 7, Block 2. Development of both lots is in actuality one project and has been always so treated in presentation to the Eagle County Planning Commission and in the developer's mind. A tangible .reflection of the single development concept is provision of almost all parking for the two construction phases on Lot 1, Block 3. Although construction has not begun on Lot 1, Block 3, development of such lot has begun and is represented by sewer construction, surface preparation, architectural work, planning and presentations before Eagle County pursuant to Senate Bill No. 35 and legal expenses in addition to land acquisition costs. We understand that the minimum zoning classification which will permit development of the planned 14 units on Lot 1, Block 3 is Medium Density Multi- Family and therefore request such zoning for such lot. Such zoning comports with existing use on surrounding lots. At least two neighboring lots are more densely developed on a units per acre basis, while other adjacent lots are developed in similar but numerically lower density. • L� AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 30, 1975 2:00 P.M. 1, BIGHORN ZONING FOR SECOND ANNEXATION a. Cedar Point Townhouses -- Dick Hart b. Wren House Dick Hart c. Vail Meadows, 2nd Filing Ken Richards 2. PARKING VARIANCE FOR GP.AMSHAMMER presented by Pepi Graishammer l,1 L L 404411. rr0*q.3 -- W IT -', " ra�A � -L7 . e. i S 1.1tVARY , JANUARY 30, .1975 _ 2:00 P.M. � A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held on Thursday, "anuary 30, 1975 at 2:00 P.M. in the Police Conference Room of the Vail Municipal Building. The members present were: Dudley Abbott Dave Sage Bill Hanlon Bill Heimbach Bill Wilto Others present were: Jim Lamont Mery Lapin ,lay Peterson Diana Toughil7 The first Poi part n of the dedicated to KenpRichardsi for Vail Meadows, Cedar Point Town Second Piling. PARKING VARIANCE FOR GRAMSH411MER Pepi delivered a list of reasons as to why he wants to change his basement to. a cellar night club, Diana Toughill pointed out that the parking requirement is calculated on the amount of net square feet in a given area. With Pepi's change of use he would be required to add nine (9) additional parking spaces to his five (5) which would be a-total of 14 parking spaces. It was noted that ". he could use his land presently - landscaped to the east of the Plaza th4all j for additional parking. - ...._. Jim Lamont then read the attached memo to the Planning Commission as to the Community Development's view of this request. After some discussion Bill Hanlon moved to have the proposal tabled until next week when the Planning Commission members would have had a chance to review this request further. Dave Sage seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous for tabling the proposal until next week. As there was no further business to discuss the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 P.M. /jk l SUMMARY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 30, 1975 7 :30 P.M. _. A public hearing with the Planning Commission was held in the Police Conference Room of the Vail Municipal Building on January 30, 1975 at 7:30 P.M. The meeting was called to further discuss the proposed zoning for Bighorn, second annexation. Proposed zoning is as follows: Block 1, 2, 3, Bighorn 5th Addition Single Family Residential -- approved unanimously Heather of Vail and Frost Townhouses, Lots 5, 6, 7 & S Residential Cluster approved unanimously Cedar Point, Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 (Heather of Vail) Residential Cluster -- approved Vail Meadows, Second Filing Agricultural -- approved Vail Meadows, Inc Agricultural approved unanimously Wren House, Lot 7, Block 2 & 3, Gore Creek Subdivision Residential Cluster -- approved unanimously Alpin -glo, Lot 6, Block 2, Gore Creek - Subdivision Residential Cluster - approved unanimously Gore Creek Meadows & Gore Creek Condomimiun, Building A Residential Cluster -- approved unanimously As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. /jk LI MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Coimmission FWM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 30, 1975 RE: Staff Recommendation on Granshanrmer Variance Request Once again we are confronted with the change of use issue in Commercial Core One. the issues surrounding change of use have been debated off and on for the past year and a half. The debate has resulted in virtually no amendment to the existing legislation, which is the only way to finally . resolve the issue. On the otherhand, major physical changes have taken .place tfiat have altered the functional aspects of the area. The change of use issue basically has focused on three elements: 1. Parking and Transportation 2. Retail /Professional Space Competition 3. housing /Commercial Space. Competition The Gramshammer Variance request principally concerns the parking availability and the Housing /Commercial Space Competition. The changes which have affected them in the past year follows: 1. Parking and Transportation a. •Enforcement of the on-street parking prohibition and loading limitation has been greatly improved in the Commercial Core One area. b. The-completion of the parking sturcture has more than doubled the parking inventory for the %fail Village area. c. The occupancy of the parking sturcture indicates that the automobiles are more evenly distributed bet;veen Lionshead and the Core. Memo - Planning Commission January 30, 1975 Page Two d. The community transportation system has been expanded and improved. There has been a dramatic increase in ridership this season, indicating the viability of the mass transportation concept for reducing vehicle use in the community. 2. Housing /Commercial Space Competition: a. The only recent removal of housing from the existing inventory was one apartment unit in the McBirde Building, which created space for Country Flair. b. The Covered Bridge Store altered two existing dwelling units. SUMMARY OF THE GRAMISHAIMMER PROPOSAL: 1. Sco e: The area proposed for change is currently being used as short term dormitory space during the winter months. The space provides lodging for approximately 24 people. The proposed change would convert . the space to a night club accommodating approximately 125 people, which would require nine (9) additional parking spaces. EVALUATION OF GRAMSHAMH ER PROPOSAL 1. Parking and Transportation: a. The Town's policy for the past two years has been to discourage all forms of parking within the Commercial Core .1 area. A series of parking variances and exemptions have been granted during this time period. b. The proposed use would generate parking demand principally during the evening hours which coincides with the minimum occupancy of the parking stuucture. A tabulation each evening of cars parked in the structure at 11:30 P.19. indicates an average of only 50 -100 cars. F i i rage snree c. The parking requirement for the proposed.use could be partially fulfilled by removal of the landscaped aNea adjacent to the Gore Creek Fountain. d. The proposed use would impact the transit system during the evening hours; its least crowded operating period. Only 15% of the total riders are using the bus system between the hours of 5:00 P.M. - .1:00 A. M. 2. Housing/Co-mmercial Space Competition a. The proposed use is consistent with the Planning Commission's proposal to the Town Council, submitted last July (see attachment r°2) b. The environmental impact of noise would be considerably reduced by locating the night club.use in the basement as proposed.. The com- parison between the Nu Gnu and the Casino demonstrates the degree of impact from noise based on location within a structure. c. The proposed use is consistent with the permitted • uses provided for in the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance states "The Commercial Core T District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in-a':­pre.7.:si3inately pedestrian environment. d.' The Gramshammer Buildincj is a multi -use Building with a total of 20,349.square feet. The breakdown of uses are: Pepi's Sports 3000 square feet Restaurant & Ear 3000 square feet Accommodation Units (37) 12849 square feet Dwelling Units (2) 1500 square feet The proposed change would alter approximately 2,700 gross square feet currently being used as dormitory rooms which constitutes approximatley 19% of the squa.re footage devoted to accommodation use within the building. E January 30, 1975 Page Four e. Considering the dormitory use as a specific type of accommodation unit, Gasthof Gramshammer represents the only such type within Commercial Core I. Verbal statements by Mr. Gramshammer indicate that.the dormitory space is not used during the summer months. Occupancy rates for the current season for the area proposed for conversion are: November 10% December 40 - 50% January 505 The average length of stay is two days, and the charge is $8.00 per night. 14r. Gramshammer states that the space has never been used for housing for his employees. STAFF CONCLUSION 1. Parking and Transportation a. the parking structure has sufficient capacity to provide for the influx of vehicle traffic generated by the proposed use. b. The proposed use will not necessitate vehicular access into the pedestrian area, except for delivery. vehicles: that are already servicing the existing restaurant and bar. c. The mass transit system is capable of handling any additional passengers which would be generated by the proposed night club d. Mr. Gramshammer has demonstrated his support for - pedestrianization of the Vail Village area by removing seven (7) parking spaces in the Gore Creek Plaza area. He has further indicated his willingness to remove more off - street parking when the mall system is implemented. Memo - Planning Commission January 30, 1975 Page Five R 2. }lousing /Commercial Competition for Space a. The space affected by the proposed change of use does not meet the quality standards for either the guest or the resident. b. The removal of this type of housing accounts for 1.012% of the total accommodation space inventory, which is in our view insignificant. c. The current physical configuration of the,.dormitory space does not conform to Town of Vail Building Codes in terms of adequate exiti -Ag,- ventilation and lighting, therefore these conditions further diminish the value of the space as housing. d. The availability of adequate housing in the Gore Valley has increased in recent years because of a variety of economic conditions as well as new construction. Consequently, the dormitory housing has lost its appeal. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS In reviewing Section 19.600 of the Zoning Ordinance (criteria and findings), the Staff found the following factors: 1. The proposed use is similar to the Nu Gnu and the Casino in that there is no parking provided for in thts*or any other restaurant, bar or night club in the CCI District. None of the existing structures in the CCI area have sufficient off - street parking to meet the requirements of the present Zoning Ordinance. 2. The relief sought by the applicant is consistent with pre- viously granted variances or exemptions which are based on achieving the pedestrianization of the CCI area. The objectives of the Zoning Ordinance regarding CCI are not altered by the proposed change due to the availability of public parking to serve the area. 0 Memo - Planning Commission January 30, 1975 Page Six 3. The affects of the variance on adequate light, air, distribution of population, and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety are negligible. 4. The only additional factor of importance is the removal of dormitory.. space which, consideri-rig the effect on the total housing inventory, is insignificant. FINDINGS 1. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with thelimitation on other properties classified in the same district. The predominance of v- structures and sites within CCl are unable to provide sufficient parking. Several variances and exemptions have • been granted in the district in order to further the pedestrianization concept. The parking structure was built in order to allow the pedestrianization.program to proceed. 2. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public,, health, safety of welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 'On the contrary if the variance were not granted,the impact on the Gore Creek Plaza area by placing parking on the landscaped area would 1 diminish the value of the Gore Creek Plaza by imposing more traffic through the space. Secondly, the visual impact of the automobiles would destroy the beauty of the Plaza. 3. "The strict or literal. interpretation an enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty -�Df unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Ordinance," ( Section 19.600). By � requiring on -site parking the pedestrianization concept is further from being implemented which is in direct opposition to the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. 0 V Memo - Planning Cori lli scion January 30, 1975 Page Seven SUMMARY It is the position of the Department of Community Developemnt that the variance request is justified and should be approved by the Planning Commission. Adequate parking now exists in the Transportation Center (see attached graph) for the CCI District; there is no threat to the area by the automobile. The issue concerning the removal of housing, whether accommodation units or dwelling units, is an important long -term issue. However this change of use combined with previous changes does not pose an overall threat to the mixed use concept in the CCI District nor the health, safety and welfare of the community. Further, the present Zoning Ordinance does not address the issue of.maintaining mixed uses within the CCI District. This difficiency in the Ordinance does not provide any legal basis for prohibiting changes of use because housing is being replaced by retail or'non- lodging uses. The Commission must be careful. to distinguish between its legal charge to provide planning guidelines to the Town Council based on the enforcement of the existing Zoning Ordinance, as well as to propose the necessary amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which reflect new.. conditions, knowledge and law. The Connission should be careful, to distinguish between a citizen's legitmate request under the law and their frustration with implementing changes within the law. Ii k r T .Memo -- Planning Commi.ssioll .79mini -v 30. 19.75 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 premit basements and first floor areas to be used as retail stores and establishments as now permitted by the zoning or- dinance; retail shops, business and professional offices, personal service, and repair shops would be allowed on the second floors; resi- dential would be the only permitted use on or above the second floor. .The Conditional. Use Permit would be used to encourage flexibility 4 in allowing business or professional offices as well as changing any existing residential use. Restaurants and bars could either be a per- mitted use or a conditional use on the first floor and basement. !RS FU TO: ORO'M: RE: MEMIOP,AkNDUM Tp;;,I COUNCIL PLANNIING CO'XIMISSIOfI PLf,ii;IING CO;,;IISSIC'i RECO XENDATION ON APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE FER iIT FOR ADDITiO tint OFFIGE SPACE FOR PIERCE, BRIi;ER AizD SCOTT POOR R1676ARDS BUILN.N'l Vote by Planni COTllission: Against Hanlon mbach For - Abbott Abstain -- Pierce N Wilto proposal by ADD fierce, $river and Scott have proposed to convert ari addlti�o,�al 75O square feet in t1je Poor Richards ds Buil�h�ODros�ntationpbyP for the use of additional archtt Gordon Fierce indicated that the space. proposed for conve.-sion is presently space beir,q used for storage and wocrld oe'sSnottcontEmplate no r�Drointthte future, in the area. Further, the owner d re- establish,ttent of the dormitory use that had existed in this portion of the building. Planning Commission Criteria and Findings: (Please refer to attached copy from the Zor3i ng Ordi Hance 1. • I . . 2. The Planning Co:'Itission is divided in their feelnrs�ouvotedjegainst of the dormitory' space to office space. The mcm the Conditional Use Permit ob objectives ofetheopownd ii has -is amai ntai ning impact on tiie devalnp:'�Y J the balance bet�reen comccom -nodation spacers nthtiseP.A.izone should not standing opinion that accc`� ed. This policy is based almost entirely be in any way reduced or chang on the fear that CCl and this zon goulde become twoLusesy eo��mercial, thus removing a reasonable e The Planning Commission members i'�le useeforothehspacedis3betterUse thanpert not feel that a demonstrated compat�ka --use at all of the space. The proposed use would have no detrimental effect on the light ie and air, schools, P ulation�, transportation fac distribution of pop etc �. -There is a change that the �proposed suthet 'exi�t�isguspace is increased usedi` only and traffic in the it :�ediate area a . seasonally, if at ail. 4. Granting of the ConditionaldUse ePermit' �r�or wppeasancc owner building to improve the shoddy parking area. This improvement could be a recuiren -'ent as a condition for granting the permit. L 77 . S# Pace„ 2 � �ieimorandu ,i to Town Coun cil February 4, 1975 the -5-n onal Ce:..�ents - Tl,e Planning Commission feels that e Gaunocilyforcrpzobing Additi _ ;. g -tcr�� so;c,i icn +ar t �;s si.e is ccnsidwr "atian y the thus el•i:f!inati na the Possibility bi�l ity -of P�- t�c:rde�lt setting for converting .tile site to LGl .. the remaining P.A. sites in the adjacent areas to all crur.et "vial. - Planning Commission �e�lhers tir!±o voted for the Conditional Use that ra feel The Pl ann� i s di scrim -n r:atorY i n ti,at many _ that the decision Prese ^ted by t'.° ��a', ority ����•odztion areas have been converted to co�vmercial in other residential or acc —m the adjoining Con,miercia l Core e gypp;, F ' r f Actin � rha- il'man � Planning Commission bp .3 v - ;YJLwY � ....awaaA.. v 4Y�.•. SPC ti Ult _0.z'1 > ?P51 t�TAt1{�n v�'hrn:N'er a nu atn,iforininl: use ' which does not conlnrm "I" nh the t for the district in Nk'l : it regulations jis Inca ±cd, or a non- conforr.,inq f ! strarture or site improvement which P dne. n.a CW:iOem cci ::: requi:ernents iii? - . g fir 5Pt` �rlts, distances between; l)uildini ;s, height, density control. ,f 3 buildin:: buck control, or site cover__ge, is destroyed by fire or ; Y act of . or hY - ; otl,lr ' ;, by a God tine Public enemy to the extent of 50 s ' rg per cent or less, the use %nay be ' ' to { xcsutitid or the stricture may be; �e I restored, provided that restoration is The Vail Trail 1 cott,menced %vithin 1 year and } diligently pursued to completion, 6 When destruction exceeds 50 per i cent, or the structure or site - improvement is voluntarily razed or removed by law, the structure or site ` improvement sha:l not be restored 2 i except in full conformity with the E development stand:,rds prescribed by 4 this ordinance. Tile estec:t of damage or partial destruction shall be based upon the j ratio of the estimated cost of 1 restoration to the same condition as prior [o such d- -rnarc or partial ' destruction, to the estimated cost of i duplieatinF the entire structure as It ' r existed prior thereto. Estimates of cost for this pultpose shall be trade or t " ' reviewed by the Town Manag3r, shall - be approved by the Town Council, and shall bu 1?ased oil thr. miniinum 14Dost of construcitmt in compliance with the Building Code. _.. - jtT1Gi F, 21 y - ADbl1c-VlsTRATiON - Secti-n 21.100 Zoning Administru lion 21,101. Appointment. The Town blanager shall appoint a Zoning Administrator who shall administer and enforce this ordinance, The _ position of Zoning Administrator may be ' combined with another position of the Town. ,ti 21.102, Duties. The Zoning Adminis- _._.. — _- ` —' - tTh6r shall be responsible for such . duties as Prescribed in this ordinance, and Shall be responsible for enforce- merit of the zoning regulations. The Zoning administrator and his depu- _ ties shall have the right to enter on _ any site or to enter Nny structure for the purpose of investigation or Inspection relaters to any pro %isiun of ` this ordinance, provided that the right of entry shall be exercised only at reasonable hours and that in no - - - - case shah any structure be entered in - - the absence of the owm,er or tenant without the written order of a court of competent jurisdiction. The Zoning Adzn!n;strator may serve 1 notice indicating tine nature of any - violation, or requirini; the removal of any structure or use t:: vi:Altton of this ordinance, on the oN:nsr or his j - authorized agent, or a tcnart, or on t • any other person who commits or ' participates in any violation of this s E ordinance. The Zonine Administrator tn--•; + may call upon the Tonan Attorney- institute necessary 1--gal oroccedings; 4' to enforce the provisions of this ordinance, and the 'fo•.cn Attorney t hercby i5 atl:hOr,7ail :O insulate appro;rriate a.9tions to that end. The $, . _ _.. [.oning Administrator map call uron 9 the Cntef of 1','iicc acrd his authorized - - agents to assist in the enforetment of e this ordinance. E .I �S �� : �� �r ,, � ��,, . s4. i�. , „+�> •= Y *415'��3�0�9 d i f�9f 7 S W z 10 IPMONOZ CSP western union a r im �� 4 j3433997976: MGM TDON DENVER CO .14 =Dia 4 iS;��P � * *�� � Y IRW ��l�:i l•.� %1� ., .... .�... i.i . .I. .) . .l ..1 ..� � - 3f . ... r. . -� :ll' .. [' li.� I�]t ii =: ,. MRS DIANA TOUGHILLP ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BOX 100 VAIL CO 61657 '— 1 STRONGLY SUPPORT RESIDENT -IAI. CLUSTER- ZONING - PROPOSAL - JAMES WHEELOCKLOT 1 SL.00K 2 GORE CHEEK SUBDIVISION 12134 EST MGMDVRT HSB v J LFLY UY 7viJ11LCaFtA - 6L NI.V ?S�i SWE 1.uk VJL iiDil.! UiH101`.. I L. SUMMARY SHEET OF REQUESTED AND PROPOSED CHANGES PROPERTY: Heather of Vail NUMBER OF ACRES: 1.07 total .3 undeveloped ORIGINAL TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSAL: Residential OWNER'S PROPOSAL: None submitted STAFF PROPOSAL: Residential Cluster MAX GRFA MAX UNITS 3,297 2 3,297 1 PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS: 1. There are presently 18 units on the .78 acres that are developed. This constitutes an average density of approximately 24 units per acre, which we feel is much too high in a primarily residential area. 2. The original proposal would allow a duplex on the undeveloped lot. Residential Cluster would allow a single unit on lot 8 which would be compatible with the adjacent duplex lot. Thus, Residential Cluster actually reduces allowable density due to the small size of lot 8, 0 SUMMARY SHEET OF REQUESTED AND PROPOSED CHANGES PROPERTY: Cedar Point -- Lot 1, 2, 3 & 4 Heather of Vail NUMBER OF ACRES: 1.33 Total .62 Undeveloped ORIGINAL TOWN OF VAIL PROPOSAL: Residential 0WNER'S PROPOSAL: LDMF/ 4 Units Maximium STAFF PROPOSAL: Residential Cluster PLANNING COMMISSION CONSIDERATIONS: For undeveloped lots 3 & 4 MAX GRFA MAX UNITS 6,751 - 4 8,102 4 6,751 3 1. Owner has a four -plea designed for one of the remaining sites and proposed to use the other parcel for green space and parking. 2. The parking problem in this subdivision is critical and greater density only compounds the problem. , .3. if consideration is given to allowing to owner's proposal, Cedar Point should be required to provide adequate parking for both the existing and proposed de- velopment. rel 0 I r 0 • • MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL g'7,, .. FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ON APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE FOR PIERCE, BRINER AND SCOTT - POOR RICHARDS BUILDING Vote by_Planning_Commission: Against - Hanlon For - Wright Abstain - Pierce -- - - - - Heimbach Abbott Wi l to Proposal by Applicant: Pierce, Briner and Scott have proposed to convert an additional 750 square feet in the Poor Richards Building to office space for the use of additional architectural office space. The presentation by Gordon Pierce indicated that the space proposed for conversion is presently being used for storage and would thus not be reducing accommodation space in the area. Further, the owner does not contemplate, now or in the future, re- establishment of the dormitory use that had existed in this portion of the building. Planning Commission Criteria and Findings: (Please refer to attached copy from the Zoning Ordinance 1. The Planning Commission is divided in their feelings about conversion of the dormitory space to office space. The members who voted against the Conditional Use Permit feel that the proposed use has an adverse impact on the development objectives of the Town, which is maintaining the balance between commercial and residential uses. There is a long- standing opinion that accommodation space in this P.A. zone should not be in any way reduced or changed, This policy is based almost entirely on the fear that CC] and this zone would become entirely commercial, thus removing a reasonable balance between the two uses. The Planning Commission members who voted for the Conditional Use permit feel that a demonstrated compatible use for the space is better than no use at all of the space, 2. The proposed use would have no detrimental effect on the light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, etc. 3. There is a change that the proposed use would result in increased parking and traffic in the immediate area as the existing space is being used only seasonally, if at all. 4. Granting of the Conditional Use Permit might encourage the owner of the building to improve the shoddy exterior appearance of the building and parking area. This improvement could be a requirement as a condition for granting the permit. • C] 11 Page 2 Memorandum to Town Council Fonbruary 4, 1975 Additional Comments - The Planning Commission feels that the only acceptable long -term solution for this site is consideration by the Council for rezoning the site to CC] thus eliminating the possibility of precedent setting for converting the remaining P.A. sites in the adjacent areas to all commercial. The Planning Commission members who voted for the Conditional that the decision presented by the majority is discriminatory other residential or accommodation areas have been converted the adjoining Commercial Core 1 area. Acting Chairman Planning Commission Use Permit feel in that many to commercial in J, fiiCJtBP . �. /r4ctrrer �• �p/I 0rt3F6 �[P[l� ATID MEURER, INC, �y'FF1FfidBP$ �^"" 2907 West 19th Aycnuc Denver, Colorsdo 80204 February 13, 1973 MANOR VATL PRELIMINARY DRAINAGE STUDY LOCATION: Civil Enginoers Structural Engineers Land Surveyora Phone: 433 -7321 Th s report is a preliminary drainage study for Manor Vail locate.d in the Town of Vail, south of Interstate 70 in part of Section 8, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the Sixth Principal 'Cleridian, Eagle County, Colorad6. NATURAL WATiRCOURSES: A preliminary analysis indicates 'that no major drainage problem exists as far as storm runoff in. the proposed development is concerned. Gore Creek,with a drainage area of approximately 62 square miles, flows in a well defined channel section with 15 feel: to 30 feet bottom width and moderate to steep banks on both sides. It appears that the runoff from 1110st major storms will be contai.n­d wi- th.:i.n the channel section without inundating. the areas proposed to be developed. An approximate: and con - servative estimate shows that a flood discharge of 2500 cfs may be expected in Gore Creek at Manor Vail from a major storm. The average flow depth at this site may be approximately 6 feet. It is, therefore, recommended that all structures proposed to be built in the development should be at least 6 feet above the channel. bed of Gore Creek. The proposed street between. Blocks I -and 3 crosses Gore Creek and requires a bridge over the creek. Preliminary analysis indicates a waterway requirement of approximately 50 feet. x 10 feet which is comparable with the 40 feet x 14 feet opening of the existing bridge 1600 feet downstream. The actual v7atorway will, however, need to be determined in conjunction with the street and bridge design. r Manor Vail. •Page 2 February 13, 1973 OTHER DRAINAGE FEATURES: There are two existing 24 inch C.M.P. culverts under the service road of interstate 70 north of Manor Vail that dis- charges -into the northern part of Manor Vail. Discharge from the culvert near the northeast corner may be allowed to flow overland -into Gore Creek. Runoff from the westerly culvert may be diverted by means of a swale between Lots 2 and 3 of Block 2 into the roadside ditch as shown in the drainage plan. A peak runoff of 25.0 cfs may be anticipated from this cul- vert. This flow together with the runoff from Block 2 will apparently .require a 30 inch C.M.P. in order to cross the proposed street as indicated in the plan. offsite drainage from the south is intercepted by Vail Valley Drive (Vail Village Seventh Filing) and crosses the street through an existing 30 inch C.M.P. with.an estimated flow of 40 c.f.s. at the east end and an 84 inch C.M.P. with an approximate peals runoff of 78.5 c . f . s . at the west end of Vail Valley Drive. Discharge from the 30 inch culvert will require to be diverted in a swale between Lots 5 and 6 of Block 4 or be taken underground in a storm sewer (24 inch R.C.P. at 3.0% slope), The actual design will depend on the detailed plans for the development of the area. Flow from the 34 inch culvert on the west apparently flows through Manor Vail North to Gore Creek and does not appear to require any special treatment: since this area is not proposed to be developed. Information provided in this report is of a preliminary nature and intended for conceptual planning only. Detailed drainage study and designs should be made at the time of the project's final plans. Prepared_ by , Kudal.l.ur D. Nambudripad U i LAW OFFIDEffi GEDDES, SPARKS & MACDOUGALL. P.C. SUITE B13 MINING EXCHANGE BUILDING • COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO 80903 February 3, 1975 KENNETH W. GEDDBS KENNETH SPARKS M. E. MACDOUGALL BRIAN N. GEODES Vail Planning Commission c/o Town of Vail Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Proposed Zoning Map for Big Horn 11 Gentlemen: TELEPHONE 636 -2307 Reference is made to my letter of January 22, 1975 to Mr. Jim Lamont together with the action taken by the Vail Planning Commission at their meeting of January 30, 1975. On behalf of our clients Mr. Osborne and Mr. Johnson, may we please express our appreciation for your cooperation in our request that Blocks 1, 2, . and 3 of Big Horn Subdivision Fifth Edition be zoned SFR, thereby decreasing the density from the previous master plan, but also thereby conforming to the declaration of protective covenants concerning these particular lots. your attention to the wishes of the lot owners is sincerely appreciated. Please advise if you anticipate any objection to this SFR zoning at the hearing which we now understand is scheduled for February 18, 1975. MEM: je cc: Mr. Robert Osborne Mr. Gilbert E. Johnson Mr. Bob Voliter Mr. James R. Horton • • 0 • MEMORANDUM TO: TERRELL J. MINGER FROM: DIANA S. TOUGBILL RE: DESTRUCTION OF NU GNU BY FIRE AND DETERMINATION OF PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL STRUCTURE DESTROYED Under Section 20,900 of the zoning ordinance, we must make a determination if the Nu Gnu was more or less than 50% destroyed by fire. This section states "Whenever a non - conforming use which does not conform with the regula- tions for the district in which it is located ... is destroyed by fire or other calamity... to the extent of 50 per cent or less, the use may be re- sumed or the structure may be restored... When destruction exceeds 50 per cent, ...the structure or site improvement shall not be restored except in full conformity with the development standards perescribed by this ordinance." The existing use is non - conforming with respect to required off- street park- ing. If a determination is made that there was more than 50 per cent destruction, the Nu Gnu would be required to apply for a parking variance before a building permit could be issued for restoration. Plans for the restoration have been prepared and submitted by John Eden and a per�it will be applied for as soon as possible. The zoning ordinance outlines the following procedures for making the determination of percentage of destruction "The extent of damage or partial destruction shall be based upon the ratio of the estimated cost of restora- tion to the same condition as prior to such damage or partial destruction, to the estimated cost of duplicating the entire structure as it existed prior thereto." Attached is a copy of an estimate supplied by Bob Wilson of Mountain General Contractors for both the restoration of the Nu Gnu and replacement of the entire McBride Building. The estimate indicates a destruc- tion ratio of approximately 5.6 %. The zoning ordinance requires that the Town Manager review the cost estimate and that this review be approved by the Town Council. ��-7 • L February 4, 1975 Mr, David Mcllvain 413 Core Creek Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Mr, Mcllvain: MOUNTAIN general contractors, inc. P.O. Box F 'Vail, Colorado 81657 • (303) 476.2090 Our estimated cost to replace the Clock Tower Building at the corner of Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street had it been totally demolished by fire or other causes would be $623,885,00; The cost to restore and remodel the NU GNU in the basement of the aforementioned building without fixtures and furniture is $34,900,00 Sincerely, - obert D. Wi son, president Mountain General Contractors, INC. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 7975 2:00 P.M. 1. Discussion of Citizen Committees for Antholz Property Master Plan 2. Parking Variance for Gasthoff Gramshammer 3. Discussion of Proposed Zoning Changes for Commercial Core I 4. Bighorn Questionnaire 0 SUMMARY PLANKING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 6, 1975 2:00 P.M. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Conference Room of the Vail Municipal Building, February 6, 1975, at 2:00 P.M. The following members were present; Dudley Abbott Bill Hanlon Bill Heimbach Gordon Pierce Dave Sage Jen Wright Bill Wilto DISCUSSION OF CITIZEN COMMITTEES FOR ANTHOLZ PROPERTY Jim Lamont gave a brief summary of the preliminary schedule of events surrounding the ideals and goals of the Town as far as the Civic Center is concerned. A committee comprised of 60 citizens will be formed to dis- cuss various aspects of the Civic Center. Then they will be broken down into six subcommittees containing one council member and a member of the staff, From there a gropp of six citizens, one from each group, will get together with the Mayor and Town Manager and comprise a report with the various ideas and goals that the committees have come up with. Those ideas will be put into effect by the preliminary Design Team, which will include: Landscape Architect -- Royston Accoustic Consultant -- Chris Jaffee Solor Energy Consultant -- Architect -- Contractor Management Expert -- Members of the Staff -- Jim Lamont & Terry Minger The final Design Team will be comprised of basically the same people, excepting the addition of a project manager, who will be chosen after the bond election. PARKING VARIANCE FOR GASTHOFF GRAMSHAMMER After some discussion Bill Heimbach made the motion for approval of the following parking exemption request for nine spaces under the following guidelines: The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitation on • • 0 Summary Feb. 6, 1975 Page Two other properties_ classified in the same district. 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. The strict or literal interpre- tation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship in- consistent with the objectives of this Ordinance. Bill Wilto seconded the motion, the vote for conditional approval was unanimous, with Gordon Pierce abstaining. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES FOR COMMERCIAL CORE I A summary of the changes that have to be studied and amended were outlined into four areas by Diana Toughill. 1. Pedestrianization as it affects parking 2. Change of Use a. Horizontal Zoning b. Maintaining acceptable balance between housing and Com- mercial space c. Reassessment of existing P.A. area along East Meadow Mall, d, Technical changes required These changes will be discussed further after Diana Toughill has done a thorough study of all the aspects concerned. BIGHORN QUESTIONNAIRE As the questionnaire is now, the Commission decided that it is very weak in areas that should be given more direction, i.e. parking, transportation, shopping areas, CATV, etc. There should also be some documentation as to the status of the person answering the questionnaire, i.e. age, sex, whether they are renters or owners. . It was decided that a general questionnaire would be made up in order to get a selected sample, then a community wide questionnaire would be sent out, with the possibility of the responses calculated by a computer As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting adjourned at 4:00 P.M. SUMMARY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 13, 1975 3:00 P.M. A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held in the Conference Room of the Municipal Building on February 13, 1975, at 3:00 P.M. The Town Council was invited to attend this meeting. Members of the Planning Commission that were present: Dudley Abbott Jon Wright Bill Hanlon Bill Wilto Bill Heimbach Gordon Pierce Dave Sage Members of the Town Council that were present John Dobson Kathy Klug Tom Steinberg Members of the Community Development Staff that were present; t Jim Lamont Diana Toughill I. GRAMSHAMMER PARKING VARIANCE The Planning Commission summarized to the Town Council the decisions - ..that transpired during their past meetings in regard to the variance request for the Gramshammer parking II. PROPOSED BIGHORN ZONING The Planning Commission discussed with the Council members their basic philisophy and feelings towards their recommendations on zoning for the second annexed portion of Bighorn. I. PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES IN COMMERCIAL CORE I Diana Toughill summarized the proposed zoning changes for Commercial Core I to the Planning Commission and the Council, memo attached. On the whole the Board members and the Council thought it was a good pro - posal, but there were a few items that needed to be studied.)further, i..e. the economic impact, ,legal aspects of parking requirements on different zones in the CCI,;what impact would changing the Mountain Haus E lable. and the Wede1 Inn to CCI have on the';arnou Hof— comm1prcaal space avai • • MEMORANDUM T0: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: February 13, 1975 RE: Proposed Zoning Amendments for Commercial Core I and Adjacent Areas The following changes are recommended to implement horizontal zoning; promote the pedestrianization of Commercial Core I, areas adjacent to East Meadow Mall and peripheral pedestrain areas. The necessary amendments can be divided into four major categories: 1. Horizontal zoning for Commercial Core I II. Parking requirement for Commercial Core I III. Surface parking requirement adjacent to East Meadow Mall and in peripheral pedestrain areas IV. Proposal for Pedestrain Public Accommodations Zone I. HORIZONTAL ZONING FOR COMMERCIAL CORE I The following proposal is intended to ensure a continuing balance between the many commercial and residential uses permitted within Commercial Core I and to pre'* 't entire buildings from becoming commercial space at the expense of dwelling and accommodation units. Additionally, it is designed to promote a variety of retail shops at the street level in order to create visual interest and a diverse shopping experience for the visitor in a pedestrain environment. Conditional Use Permits will lend flexibility to allow innovative esign and provide for unusual circumstances such as multi -level interior space utilization. Sections A -F are designed to replace Sections 8.200, 8.300, and 8.400 � 0 . of the existing ordinance. Planning Commission February 13, 1975 Page Two 10 I. HORIZONTAL ZONING FOR COMMERCIAL CORE I, cont. A. Permitted and Conditional uses basement or garden level within a structure 1, The following uses shall be permitted - a. Retail stores and establishments including the following: Apparel stores Art supply,stores and galleries Bakeries and confectioneries, including preparation of products for sale on the premises Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores Chinaware and glassware stores Delicatessens and specialty food stores Drug stores and pharmacies Florists Gift stores Hobby stores Household appliance stores Jewelry stores Leather goods stores Liquor stores Luggage stores Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores. Photographic studios * Radio and television stores and repair shops Sporting goods stores Stationery stores Toy stores Variety stores Yardage and dry goods stores b. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Barber shops Beauty shops Business and office services • Cleaning and laundry pickup agencies without bulk cleaning or dyeing • Small appliance repair shops, excluding furniture repair Tailors and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies *needs to be restudied and possibly removed as permitted uses due to their traffic generating characteristics • • • • Planning Commission February 13, 1975 Page Three I. HORIZONTAL ZONING FOR COMMERCIAL CORE I coat, c. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service Cocktail lounges, taverns and bars Coffee shops _ Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants d. Professional offices, business offices, and studios e. Banks and financial institutions f, Additional retail,businesses,or services determined to be similar to permitted uses in accord with the provisions of Section 21.200 of this ordinance -so long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic. 2, The following uses shall be permitted subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance. a, Theaters, meeting rooms, and convention facilities B. Permitted and Conditional Uses -- first floor or street level within a structure 1. The following uses shall be_permitted.: a. Retail stores and establishmentsiincludinq_the following: Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Bakeries and confectioneries, including preparation of products .for sale on the premises Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores Chinaware and glassware stores Delicatessens.and specialty food stores Drug stores and pharamicies Florists Gift shops Hobby stores Household appliance stores Jewelry stores Leather goods stores * Liquor stores *needs to be restudied and possibly removed as permitted use due to its traffic generating characteristics Planning Commission February 13, 1975 Page Four 19 I. HORIZONTAL ZONING FOR COMMERCIAL CORE I, Section B, cont, Luggage stores Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Photographic studios Radio and television stores and repair shops Sporting goods stores Stationery stores Toy stores Variety stores Yardage and dry good stores b. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service Cocktail lounges, taverns and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants c, Additional businesses determined to be similar to permitted uses in accord with the provisions of Section 21.200 of this ordinance so long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic. 2. The following uses shall be,perm itte., su an bject ois5uce`of a- Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Article 18 of this Ordinance. a. Professional offices, business offices, and studios b. Banks and financial institutions c, Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Barber shops Beauty shops Business and office services Cleaning and laundry pickup agencies without bulk cleaning or dyeing Small appliance repair shops, excluding furniture repair Tailors and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies C, Permitted and Conditional Uses _- second floor above grade within a structure 1. The following uses shall be permitted. a. Multiple family residential dwellings b. Lodges Planning Commission February 13, 1975 Page Five 10 I. HORIZONTAL ZONING FOR COMMERCIAL CORE I, Section C, Cont. c. Professional offices, business offices, and studios d. Banks and financial institutions e. Retail stores and establishments -including-the—following: Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Bakeries and confectioneries, including preparation of products for sale on the premises Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios. Candy stores Chinaware and glassware stores Delicatessens and specialty food stores I Drug stores and pharamacies Florists Gift stores Hobby stores Household appliance stores Jewelry stores Leather goods stores Liquor stores Luggage stores Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Photographic studios Radio and television stores and repair shops Sporting goods stores Stationery stores Toy stores Variety stores Yardage and dry goods stores F. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Barber shops Beauty shops Business and office services * Cleaning and laundry pickup agencies without bulk cleaning or dyeing Small appliance repair shops, exiuding furniture repair Tailors and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies * needs to be restudied and possibly removed as permitted use due to its traffic generating characteristics Planning Commission February 13, 1975 Page Six I� I HORIZONTAL, ZONING FOR COMMERCIAL CORE I, Section C, Cont. g. Additional offices, businesses or services determined to be similar to permitted uses in accord with the provisions of Section 21.200 of this Ordinance so long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic. 2. The following uses shall be permitted subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance. a. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service Cocktail lounges, taverns and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants b. Meeting rooms D. Permitted and Conditional Uses -- any floor above the second floor above grade within a structure: - - -- 1. The following uses shall be permitted:: a. Multiple family residential dwellings b. Lodges 2. The following conditional .uses shall be permitted subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance: a. Any use listed as a permitted use on first floor. E. Conditional Uses -- general 1. The following uses shall be permitted subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Article 18 of this Ordinance. a. Ski lifts and tows b. Public utility and public service uses c. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities d. Public park and recreation facilities lanning Commission ebruary 13, 1975 Page Seven I. HORIZONTAL ZONING FOR COMMERCIAL CORE I, Section C cone. F. Accessory Uses -- general 1. The following accessary uses shall be permitted: a. Swimming pools, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential or lodge uses; b. Outdoor dining areas operated in conjunction with permitted eating and drinking establishments; c. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accord with the provisions of Section 17.300 of this ordinance; d. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof. II. PARKING REQUIREMENT IN COMMERCIAL CORE I The present parking requirement provided for in the Zoning Ordinance does not accurately reflect the actual need, pedestrian philosophy of the Vail Plan, and creates visual and physical conflict. As the first stage of encourageing pedestrianization of the Village area, the Community Development Department Staff recommends that the parking require- ment in Commercial Core I, with the exception of underground parking at the Lodge, (See Section IV), be entirely eliminated. There are three possible ways to handle existing underground parking in the Core area: 1. Allow it to remain with very limited access and strong use control provisions. 2. Allow it to be converted into other permitted uses 3. The municipality should consider leasing available space for storage or other related uses as it might .prove to be less expensive than building comparable space and would also lend control over access to a pedestrian area. c: Planning Commission February 13, 1975 Page Eight II. PARKING REQUIREMENT IN COMMERCIAL CORE I, Cont. As a control mechanism it is suggested that landscaping be required to replace some of the surface parking that could legally be removed. A. Section 8.510 is proposed as follows: Parking and Loading --- off - street parking shall not be required in Commercial Core I; however, when existing surface parking is removed, at least 50% of the area which was devoted to parking and access_must be landscaped. Off - street loading shall beprovided for in accord with.Article 14. III. SURFACE PARKING REQUIREMENT ADJACENT TO EAST MEADOW MALL AND IN PERIPHERAL PEDESTRIAN AREAS An important distinction must be made between surface and underground parking in areas of visual importance such as the East Meadow Mall area. Where access is available from the periphery of a pedestrian area without major • traffic infringment on that area, total underground parking should be required and an attempt made to remove existing surface parking and replace it with landscaping or integrate it into proposed mall areas. The automobile substantially degraded the environmental quality of the area adjacent to East Meadow Mall and.in concept surface parking and the auto- mobile have been planned out of existence. Historically, the Town of Vail has wielded the parking requirement as a control device over commercialization and excessive density. With the advent of strict zoning regulations and enforcement and Check -point Charlie, the Town weakened its ealier position because of its advocacy of a pedestrian village. It was at this point that the municipality was faced with the argument that if a building or business expanded or a change of use occurred which required additional parking it would be in direct conflict with the Town's pedestraan concept. Further, the adoption of the Vail Plan, the introduction of inter -city mass transportation and the opening of the transportation center defeated the parking requirement as a Planning Commission February 13, 1975 Page Nine control device for change of use and building expansion. For the past two years the municipality has been under continuous pressure to grant exemptions or variances for enterprises seeking to enlarge existing sturctures or change a structure's internal use. The only plausible conclusion is that the parking requirement is no longer an effective tool to control building exapnsions and changes of use in this area. We feel that horizontal zoning and restrictive bulk control regulations are much more effective in controlling undesirable change and exessive density. Since the Transportation Center has been in service for a major portion of a ski season, including two peak periods, it has become apparent that it is capable of handling additional demand, at least for the immediate future. It is strongly recommended that surface parking requirement be removed -- in fact, at -some point in the future, we should require removal of all existing surface parking. The parking provision proposed in "Pedestrian.Public Accommodations" district would be an acceptable interim solution. IV. PEDESTRIAN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ZONE PROPOSAL The Community Development Department recommends that a new "Pedestrian Public Accommodations" district be created to allow a buffer peripheral pedestrian area circling the present Commercial Core I district. This new zone would allow for removal of unwanted surface parking and requiring total underground parking in areas where visual impact is important, as well as lending flexibility and control for uses within buildings. A horizontal zoning approach is also Planning Commission February 13, 1975 Page Ten recommended for the new zone; however, with a much more restrictive approach to permitted uses and areas in which commercial space would be allowed. As the proposal is written, the amount of commercial space permitted would be no greater than that permitted by the Public Accommodations zone regulations, and more control would exist as to location of permitted uses within the buildings The following existing developments are recommended to be included in the proposed "Pedestrian Public Accommodations" district: 1. Lodge at Vail and Lodge South 2. Poor Richards /Short Swing 3, Blue Cow 4. Valhalla 5. Vorlaufer 6. Tivoli Lodge 7. Christiana /Chateau Christian 8. Kindel Residence . . Villa 700. Vail Townhouses The following existing developments are recommended to be placed in the existing Pedestrian Commercial Core l zone: 1. Mountain Baus 2. Wedel Inn These two structures will have no access to parking that does not have a detri- mental effect on the East Meadow Mall. Most of the parking now available for the Wedel Inn is located either partly on Town of Vail property or Village Centre property and the construction of EAst Meadow Mall and Village Centre Plaza will almost entirely eliminate existing parking which is now available. PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR PEDESTRIAN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION ZONE Purposes - The Pedestrian Public Accommodation District is intended to provide sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors together with such retail businesses and limited professional offices, and private recreation and related visitor - oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. Planning Commission February 13, 1975 Page Eleven iThe Pedestrian Public Accommodation District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Additional non - residential uses are permitted as conditional uses which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community, and where permitted are intended to function compatibly with the high density lodging character of the district. A. Permitted Uses - The following uses shall be permitted in areas as designated; provided, however, that total floor area devoted to permitted commercial uses does not exceed 20% of the gross floor area of the building. 1. The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure: a. Lodge rooms (accommodation units) b. Multiple Family residential dwellings so long as the total GRFA devoted to multiple family residential dwellings does not exceed GRFA devoted to accommodation or lodge units within the total building. c. Meeting rooms and convention facilities. d. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service Cocktail lounges, taverns and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants 2. The following uses shall be permitted on first floor (street level) within a structure: a. Lodge rooms (accommodation units) b. Multiple Family residential dwellings so long as the total GRFA devoted to multiple family residential dwellings does not exceed GRFA devoted to accommodation or lodge units within the total building. c. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following; Bakeries and delicatessens with food service Cocktail lounges, taverns and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants Planning Commission February 13, 1975 Page Twelve • d. Retail stores and establishments including the following: Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores Chinaware and glassware stores Delicatessens and specialty food stores Drug stores and pharmacies Florists Gift stores Hobby stores Jewelry stores Leather goods stores Luggage stores Music and record stores Newsstands and Tobacco stores Photographic studios Sporting goods stores Stationery stores Toy stores Variety stores Yardage and dry goods stores 3. The following use shall be permitted above the first floor above grade: a. Lodges b. Multiple family residential dwellings so long as the total GRFA devoted to multiple family residential dwellings does not exceed GRFA devoted to accommodation or lodge units within the total building. B. Conditional Uses 1. The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance. a. Retail stores and establishments not located on first floor b. Professional and business offices c. Personal servi -ces and repair shops, including the following: Barber shops Beauty shops Business and office services Cleaning and laundry pickup agencies without bulk clenaing or dyeing Small applicance repair shops, excluding furniture repair Tailor and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies n L. J Planning Commission February 13, 1975 Page Thirteen d. Private clubs and civic, cultural, and fraternal orangizations e. Ski lifts and tows f. Public or commercial parking facilities or structures g. Public transportation terminals h. Public utility and public services uses i. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities j. Public park and recreation facilities C. Accessory Uses 1. The following accessory uses shall be permtted: a. Swimming pools, tennis courts, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted lodge uses b. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accord with the provisions of Section 17.300 of this ordinance c. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the - operation thereof. D. Devleopment Standards 1. Lot Area and Site Dimensions. 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. 2. Setbacks, The minimum front setback shall be 10 feet. The minimum side setback shall be 10 feet, and the minimum rear setback shall be 10 feet; provided that one (1) foot of additional front, side and rear setback shall be required for each three (3) feet of building height over 15 feet. 3. Distances Between Buildings. The minimum distance between buildngs on the same site shall be 15 feet, and the minimum distance between a building on a site and a building on an adjoining site shall be 20 feet;_provided_that one 1 foot of additional _separation between buildings shall be required for each three (3) feet of building height over 15 feet, calculated on the basis of the average height of the two buildings. Planning Commission February 13, 1975 Page Fourteen 4. Height. The maximum height of buildings shall be 45 feet 5. Density Control. Not more than 80 square feet of gross residential floor area GRFA) shall be permitted for each 100 square feet of site area 6. Building Bulk Control. The maximum length of any wall or building face shall be 175 feet, and building walls shall be off set to a depth of 10` at least once for each 70 feet of wall length. The maximum distance between any two corners of a building at the same slevation shall be 225 feet. 7. Site Coverage. Not more than 55 per cent of the total site area shall be covered by buildings 8. Useable Open Space . Useable open space for multiple family dwellings ' and lodges shall b required as follows: a. For dwelling units, a minimum of one (1)square foot of ueseable open space shall be provided for each four (4) feet of gross residential floor area, but not less that 150 square feet of useable open space per dwelling unit. b. For accommodation units, a minimum of one (1) square foot of useable open space shall be provided for each four (4) feet of • gross residential floor area, but not less that 100 square feet of useable open space per accommodation unit. Useable open space may be common space accessible to more than one dwelling or accommodation unit, or may be private space accessible to separate dwelling or accommodation units, or a ;combination thereof. At least one -half the required useable open space shall be provided at ground level, exclusive of required front setback areas. At least 75 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. Not more than one -half of the useable open space requirement may be satisfied by balconies or roof decks. The minimum dimension of any area qualifying as non - ground level useable open space shall be five (5) feet, and any such 9. area shall contain at least 50 square feet. Landscaping and Site De- velopment. At least 30 per cent of the total site area shall be 10. landscaped. Parking and Loading. Off - street parking and loading shall be in accord with Article 14 of this ordinance, 75% of the calculated parking shall be required and all required parking must be located within the main building or buildings. No loading shall be permitted in any front setback area. When existing surface parking is removed, at least 50% of the area which was devoted to parking and access must be landscaped. Additional parking shall not be required for permitted changes of use within existing structures, AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27, 1975 3:00 P.M. 1. Environmental Impact Statement 2. Discussion of proposed amendments to the Town of Vail subdivision regulations 3. Discussion of Architectural Selection for Antholz 0 ` x 6` �F MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FOR1,4: Diana Toughill DATE: February 26, 1975 RE: Proposed amendments to the Town of Vail subdivision regulations The recommended amendments must be made to the Subdivision Regulations to make it consistent with recent changes in municipal and state legislation. 1. Purpose statement must be restated to reflect the present philosophy of the Town of Vail regarding subdivision and development and also to include the requirement for submission of Environmental Impact Reports at the subdivision level and to incorporate the Vail Master Plan. 2. Control mechanism must be added to allow review and approval or i disapproval of relocation of a property line which changes the shape, size, or character of a lot. 3. A provision is recommended to eliminate site improvements, road or bridge construction prior to submission of an Environmental Impact Report and approval of a subdivision plat. 4. Provisions were removed or reworded which referred to State Statutes that are no longer applicable to the Town since inception of the dome Rule Charter. 5. Administrative provisions should be added to make a specific person responsible for enforcement of and duties prescribed by the ordinance. This is important if the Town were to be involved in litigation with respect to the regulations. P;ianning Commission February 26, 1915 Page Two 6. An amendment procedure must be added giving procedures for public notice, hearing and decision- making within specific time limits. The present ordinance allows the Planning Commission to amend the ordinance by simple vote after an informal public hearing is_.held, This is inconsistent with provisions of the Home Rule Charter. 7. Application procedures for Preliminary Outline Development Plan and Final Plat should be separated as they require different information to be presented and substantially different review and approval procedures. 8. Clarifications are necessary to inform subdivider.. as to specific information which is required.for submission and additionally in what format the submission should be made. There exists no specific regulations in the pre- application procedure for such items as contour intervals, tree location, lot and block numbering and size, etc. These should be made consistent with the zoning ordinance. 9. Requirements should be added to make preliminary Environmental Impact Report outline content and preliminary natural hazard identifications mandatory during the review period of the Preliminary Outline Development Plan.-.1 10. The notification of interested parties that a subdivision has been proposed and may be reviewed needs simplification. Present ordinance requires that sketch plan plats be submitted to utility companies, etc. which is not only expensive, but time consuming: At this stage, there are rarely comments or concerns from these agencies. 11. Guidelines or regulations must be established for public notice, hearings and decision- making process for both Preliminary Outline Development Plans and Final Plats. Existing regulations are either very vague or non- existent. 12. Provisions for approval of a minor,subdivi Sion must be simplified. • Planning Commission F - February 26, 1975 f Page Three 13. Technical provisions for roads, utilities, etc. need review and up- dating to reflect current thinking and to reflect changes in the Rules and Regulations of the Vail Water and Sanitation District. 14. Technical regulations pertaining to lot size, dimensions, etc. must be amended to be consistent to the zoning ordinance. 15. Variance section must be rewritten to provide for proper notice, hearing and approval. The Planning Commission is presently listed as the decision - making body in a variance situation, which is in direct conflict with the Town Charter. 16. Last, and most important, guidelines trust be established for requirement, preparation,and approval of complete environmental impact reports at the subdivision level. t7 /jk KJ 3. ' SUMMARY PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 27:, 1975 . Members present: Dudley Abbott Gordon Pierce Bill Hanlon Dave Sage Bill Heimbach Jen Wright Staff members present: Jim Lamont I ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Jim Lamont presented some slides of buildings that he had taken when he was in California reviewing some of the architectural firms that had responded to the Antholz Recreational Center Project. II. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE OF VAIL SUBDIVISIONS Lamont summarized some of the problems that were brought up at the last Council meeting relating to the zoning recommendations from the Planning Commission in regard to Heather of Vail and Vail Meadow, Inc. After reviewing the site, Terry Minger feels that Vail Meadows, Inc. should be zoned residential or single family residential because, as he feels, the Town of Vail is using the wrong method to get Mr. Elmore to resubdivide his property by applying a different meaning to the present Zoning Ordinance, A way to achieve the resubdivision of Elmore`s property is to establish requirements for a complete Environmental Impact Study at the subdivision level within the Zoning Ordinance. Lamont then went to point out highlights of the memo from Diana Toughill, which are as follows: Guidelines must be established for requirements, preparation, and approval of complete environmental impact reports at the subdivision level. Control mechanism must be added to allow review and approval or disapproval of relocation of a property line which changes the shape, size, or character of a lot. An amendment procedure must be added giving procedures for public notice, hearing and decision- making within specific time limits. The present ordinance allows the Planning Commission to amend the ordinance by simple vote after an informal public hearing is held. This is inconsistent with provisions of the Home Rule Charter. Application procedures for Preliminary Outline Development Plan and ,. Final Plat should be separated as they require different information to be presented and substantially different review and approval procedures. These should be closely related toihe Zoning Ordinance and the Home Rule Charter III. DISCUSSION OF ARCHITECTURAL SELECTION FOR ANTHOLZ. Three of the Planning Commission members commented on the architectrual presentation they had attended: ABBOTT: attended all but one, felt that all of.the architects were qualified but he felt that Bull Field, Volkman were the most sensitive to snow and how to work with it, therefore they were the most qualified. ROUFF: (Bull Field; Kump) He felt that Bull Field, & company, was excellent, but that this firm did.not have much diversity in dealing with various problems that occur in "snow country ". On the other habd Kump had the ability to analyize and work out problems that were indiginous of certain communities and geographic areas. Kump, in Rouff's opinion, is someone who has the ability to capture the "spirit" which is unique to Vail and only Vail. HANLON: (Everett /Ziegle; Nixon, Bowen, etc.; Bull Field) Of the two Colorado firms, Nixon was the strongest. Taking all three firms into consideration Hanlon felt that Bull Filed was able to deal with the snow conditions that occur in Vail with more creativity. AGENDA ` PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1975 1. Preliminary presentation of Katsos Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Site Development Plan for subdivision and staff review of avalanche reports - Andy Norris, Vail Associates, 2. Resubdivision of Lot 7, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch into three residential lots to be know as Lots 10, 11 and 12, Vail Potato Patch. 3. Rezoning of the resubdivision of Lot 7, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch from Medium Density Multiple Family to Residential. 4. Review of County subdivision for Matterhorn Village, Filing Number 2. • • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 13, 1975 3:00 P,M. 1, Blanch Hill -- parking variance 2. Rob Garton -- parking variance; preliminary discussion 3. Subdivision Regulation -- amendment to ordinance • PLANNING COMMISSION SUhiIMAIi,Y MARCH 13, 1975 All members, expect Dudley Abbott, were present. Staff members present were Diana Toughill and Ben Strahan I. BLANCH HILL -- PARKING VARIANCE Jay Peterson presented the proposed addition to the Hill residence -- 1300 square feet of residence and 1500 square feet of commercial space is requested. The request from the Planning Commission was for an exemption of 11 parking spaces. The Commission unanimously recommends approval of the exemption with the condition that Mrs. Hill sign the standard contract. II. ROB GARTON - PARKING VARIANCE, PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION Diana Toughill gave a brief history of the Garton case, informing the Planning Commission of what Garton wanted to do with the old Tayvel office space in the Mill Creek Court Building. r It was noted that in order to put in a restaurant and bar facility, a parking exemption for six (6) spaces was needed. Since this was just a preliminary discussion, the Planning Commission could not vote on the proposal. They unanimously felt that the Condominium Association should be notified as to Garton',s proposal, and that its approval should be documented. Other than that there were no parking problems. III, SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS -- -- 'AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE Diana Toughill summarized the changes and additions to the present subdivision regulation that the Department of Community Development was proposing. There were a few points that the Commission felt should be looked into further. They were as follows: 1. stronger criteria dealing with steep slopes; 2, specific street requirements for out and fill areas. Since there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 4;15 P.M, MEMORANDUM 0 TO: TOWN COUNCIL, FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: PARKING VARIANCE APPLICATION - Blanche Hill The Department of Community Development feels that this variance should be approved as it would be possible -For Mrs. Hill to provide underground parking for this project in an area where we do not want cars and which with the implementation of the Mall Act would be a financial burden for the Town to acquire. The following conditions are recommended as a part of the variance approval: 1. Careful attention should be given to landscaping as this is a very important site visually, particularly from the ski slope and park area. Brick pavers or similar treatment is suggested in this heavy traffic location. 2. Provisions should be made for delivery to the commercial area that doesn't create additional traffic problems in a congested area. 3. Mrs. Hill should be approached in respect to giving up a claim for payment for existing parking upon the implementation of the Mall Act. 4. The Town of Vail needs an easement across her property for a bicycle path and this could be a requirement for granting the variance. 5. An indoor trash storage facility should be provided because of the large amount of pedestrian traffic south of the proposed addition. Ale) ID 0 1 f _ Ll • • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 20, 1975 3:00 P.M. 1. Subdivision Regulations staff AGENDA PLANNING COMMI$51ON March 27, 1975 1. Proposed zoning changes to implement horizontal zoning and solve parking situation in Commercial Core I. 2. Review of proposed Subdivision Regulations. 3. 4:30 p.m. - Tour of Poor Richards /Short Swing property. • • • go SUMMARY PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 27, 1975 Members of the - Commission present: Dudley Abbott Bill Hanlon Bill Heimbach Dave Sage Members of the staff present: Jim Lamont Diana Toughill PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS FOR HORIZONTAL ZONING AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN COMMERCIAL CORE I Diana Toughill outlined the proposed amendments for the Planning Commission's review. The Commission wanted to discuss the negative aspects of horizontal zoning, rather than the positive ones. They were very interested in the protection of condominium owners against the noise aspects of restaurants and bars. They wanted to know how much weight the Condominium Association had as far as protecting their members as well as how the Town could keep a "happy medium" between restaurants and commercial. space? One suggestion was to make all xestuarants and bars conditional uses on all floors and create stronger criteria and findings for each conditional use. These criteria and findings should be relative to the mix between the commercial and residential space. In this proposal parking requirements for Commercial Core I were also discussed. As it was presented, the parking re- quirements for Commercial Core I would be totally eliminated with the stipulation that 50% of the removed parking would be landscaped. Some of the commission members felt that 10070 of the removed parking should be landscpaed so as to prevent additional building in Commercial Core I. Jim Lamont felt the landscaping proposal would treat property owners unfairly because if they had parking previously, they would not be able to expand their building, whereas if they previously had landscaped area they might be able to expand.. Due to the complexity of this problem; the Commission decided not to consider the parking with Horizontal Zoning but to wait and discuss it with the Mall Act. Diana will revise the proposed horizontal zoning amendment and present it to the Planning Commission April 3,1975 for their consideration and vote. Due to the lateness of the day, nothing else was discussed. The meeting was adjourned at 4 :45 P.M. • 'fierce �nor Fitzhugh Scott Inc. Architecture Planning P. O. Box 2298 Vail, Colorado 81657 303 476 -3038 Town Council and the Planning Commission of the To01=n of Vail Gentlemen: March 19, 1975 r Is is our under standing that the Town Council and the Planning Commission are considering the legal implications of a charge in the zoning of the properties which adjoin the new parking structure. As owners of the short Swing and Poor Richards) Claude Martin and 1 would like very much to sho;v members of the Counc l and the Planning Commission through these tuo buildings. The sooner this can be done the better because after the skiing season is over they become largely untenanted. We would be gl d to arrange for a tour at your convenience. Very truly yours, 1J Fit .hugh Scott FS:db • [7 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commisison Town Council FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 26, 1975 RE: Proposed Zoning Amendments for horizontal zoning and parking requirements in Commercial Core I The following changes are recommended to implement horizontal zoning and promote the pedestrianization of Commercial Core I. The necessary amendments can be divided into two major categories: I. Horizontal zoning for Commercial Core I II. Parking requirements for Commercial Core I I. HORIZONTAL ZONING FOR COMMERCIAL CORE I The following proposal is intended to ensure a continuing balance between the many commercial and residential uses permitted within Commercial Core I and to prevent entire buildings from becoming commercial space at the expense of dwelling and accommodation units. Additionally, it is designed to promote a variety of retail shops at the street level in order to create visual interest and a diverse shopping experience for the visitor in a pedestrain environment. Con- ditional Use Permits will lend flexibility to allow innovative design and provide for unusual circumstances such as multi- level interior space utilization. 10 I0 • Sections A -F are designed to replace Sections 8.200, 8.300,and 8.400 of the existing ordinance. A. Permitted and Conditional Uses -- basement or garden level within a structure 1. The folloiwng uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels-within a structure: a. Retail shops and establishments including the following: Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Bakeries and confectioneries, including perparation of products for sale on the premises Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores Chinaware.and glassware stores Delicatessens and specialty food stores Drug stores and pharmacies Florists Gift stores Hobby stores Household applicance stores Jewelry stores Leather goods stores Liquor stores Luggage stores Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Photographic studios Radio and television stores and repair shops Sporting goods stores Toy stores Variety stores Yardage and dry goods stores b. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Barber shops Beauty shops Business and office services C. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service 10 • • Cocktail lounges, taverns and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants d. Professional offices, business offices, and studios e. Banks and financial institutions f. Additional retail businesses, or services determined to be similar to permitted uses in accord with the provisions of Section 21.200 of this ordinance so long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic. 2. The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a structure, subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance. a. Meeting rooms B. Permitted and Conditional Uses --- first floor or street level within a structure. 1. The following uses shall be permitted on first floor or street level floor within a structure; a. Retail stores and establishments including the following: Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Bakeries and confectioneries, including preparation of products for sale on the premises Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios. Candy stores Chinaware and glassware stores Delicatessens and specialty food stores Drug stores and pharmacicies Florists Gift shops Hobby stores Household appliance stores Jewelry stores Leather goods stores Luggage stores Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco st.ores Photographic studios Radio and television stores Sporting goods stores Stationery stores Toy stores Variety stores Yardage and dry good stores b. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service Cocktail lounges, taverns and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants C. Additional businesses determined to be similar to permitted uses in accord with the provisions of Section 21,200 of this ordinance so long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic. 2. The following uses shall be permitted on first floor or street level floor within a structure, subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Article 18 of this Ordinance, a. Liquor stores b. Professional offices, business offices, and studios c. Banks and financial institutions d. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Barber shops Beauty shops Business and office services Tailors and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies e. Multiple family residential dwellings. f. Lodges • C. Permitted and Conditional Uses -- second floor • above grade within a structure. 1, The following uses shall be permitted on the second floor above grade within a structure: a. Multiple family residential dwellings b. Lodges C. Professional offices, business offices, and studios d. Banks and financial institutions e. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Barber shops Beauty shops Business and office services Tailors and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies f. Additional offices or services determined .to be similar to permitted uses in accord with the provisions of Section 21:200 of this Ordinance so long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic. 2. The following uses shall be permitted on second floor above grade, subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance: a. Retail stores and establishments in eluding the following: Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Bakeries and confectioneries, including. preparation of products for sale on the premises Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores Chinaware and glassware stores Delicatessens and specialty food stores Drug stores and pharmacies Florists Gift stores Hobby stores • Household appliance stores Jewelry stores Leather goods stores Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Photographic studios Radio and television stores and repair shops Sporting goods stores Stationery stores Toy stores Variety stores Yardage and dry goods stores b. Eating and drinking establidiments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service Cocktail lounges, taverns and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants C. Meeting rooms D. Permitted and Conditional Uses --- any floor above the second floor above grade within a structure: 1. The following uses shall be permitted on any floor above the second floor above grade: a. Multiple family residential dwellings b. Lodges 2. The following uses shall be permitted on any floor above the second floor above grade, subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance: a. Retail stores and establishments inc u ing the following: Apparel stores Art supply stores and galleries Bakeries and confectioneries, including preparationbf products for sale on the premises Book stores Camera stores and photographic studios Candy stores • � 0 Chinaware and glassware stores Delicatessens and specialty food stores Drug stores and pharamicies Florists Gift shops Hobby stores Household appliance stores Jewelry stores. Leather goods stores Luggage stores Music and record stores Newsstands and tobacco stores Photographic studios Stationery stores Toy stores Variety stores Yardage and dry good stores b. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: Bakeries and delicatessens with food service Cocktail lounges, taverns and bars Coffee shops Fountains and sandwich shops Restaurants C. Liquor stores d. Professional offices, business offices, and studios e. Banks and financial institutions f. Personal services and repair shops, including the. following: Barber shops Beauty shops Business and offices services Tailors and dressmakers Travel and ticket agencies g. Additional businesses determined to be similar to permitted uses in accord with the provisions of Section 21.200 of this ordinance so long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic. E. Conditional Uses -- general 1. The following site uses shall be permitted subject to the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accord with the provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance, a. Ski lifts and tows b. Public utility and public service uses c. Public buildings, grounds, and facilities d. Public park and recreation facilities F, Accessory Uses -- general 1. The following accessary uses shall be permitted: a. Swimming pools, patios, or other recreational facilities customarily incidental to permitted residential or lodge uses; b. Outdoor dining areas operated in conjuction with permitted eating and drinking establish- ments; C. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accord with the provisions of Section 17.300 of this ordinance; d. Other uses customarily incidental and ac- cessory-to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation theireof. II. PARKING REQUIREMENT IN COMMERCIAL CORE I The present parking requirement provided for in the Zoning Ordinance does not accurately reflect the acutal need, pedestrian philosophy of the Vail Plan, and creates visual and physical conflict. 4 As the first stage of encourageing pedestrianization of k ' the Village area, the Community Development Department staff r recommends that the parking requirement in Commercial Core I, with the exception of underground parking at the Lodge, be entirely eliminated. As a control mechanism it is suggested that landscaping be required to replace some of the surface parking that could legally be removed. A. Section 8.510 is proposed as follows: {replaces existing section Parking and loading- -off- street parking shall not be required in Commercial Core I; however, when existing surface parking is removed, at least 50% of the area which was devoted to parking and access must be landscaped g and existin underground parking with actress from non -- pedestrian streets must be retained. Off- street loading shall be provided for in accord with Article 14, r 10 1. Horizontal Zoning -- Diana 7oughill PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 1, 1975 1:00 P.M. • PLANNING COMMISSIONS SUMMARY APRIL 3, 1975 Members present: Dudley Abbott Bill Hanlon Bill Heimbach Dave Sage Bill Wilto HORIZONTAL ZONING In general the Planning Commission wanted to restrict or control all proposed restaurants and bars because of the nQi-se factor and how is affects the con- dominium owners. In order to do this, restaurants & bars should be conditional uses under the proposed horizontal zoning amendment, Four of the members of the planning commission were for making restaurants & bars conditional uses. Bill Heimback was against this becauue he felt that control of noise should be handled through the health & welfare criteria of the liquor code, and that the singling out of restaurants and bars and putting more restrictions of them was unfair, Diana Toughill and Dennis Murphy are looking into the possible use of a decible metering system to control the "noise problem" in Town. This is the type of criteria and findings that the Planning Commission and the Town Council should consider before granting conditional uses to restaur- ants and bars. More strict restrictions on criteria for conditional uses needs to be set up before the proposed horizontal zoning amendment is put into ordinance form and given to the Council. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The Commission will review the proposed amendments on the subdivision regulation and then make any comments or suggestions at the meeting on April 17, 1975. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 4:00 P.M. n U • • lie PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL_ MEETING APRIL 14, 1975 3:00 P.M. . Members present; Bill Heimbach Gordon Pierce Jen Wright Bill Wilto Others present: Bill Rouff Diana Toug hill The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the proposed resubdivision of Elizabeth Larson's property, Lots 6 & 7, Block 7, Bighorn 5th Addition, from two lots into one lot. The motion to approve said resubdivion was made by Bill Heimbach and it was seconded by Bill Wilto. A vote was taken and the motion was approved unanimously. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 P.M. /jek PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 21, 1975 2:00 P.M. A special meeting was called in order to reconsider a variance of the set back requirements and the offset requirements of:the Zoning Ordinance for Crossroads East, This variance was previously granted last year, but due to the time lapse, it had expired. Members of the Planning Commission present were Dave Sage Bill Heimbach Bill Wilto Jen Wright: Others present were; Doug McLaughlin Ron Todd Mery Lapin • After a brief explanation of.what transpired last year, Doug McLaughlin; who was representing Village Markets registered a complaint, His clients had no problem with the requested variance but they felt that a provision should be put on it in regards to the maintenance of the delivery route during construction, Dave Sage made a motion for approval of the variance as it was originally approved last year, and Bill Wilto seconded the motion. A vote was taken and it was unanimous for approval The matter was then left to the Town Council to vote on. After some discussion the Council voted to approve the variance with the condition -that work be completed on the northeast corner and that a 15 foot clear access be provided to the east side of the existing Crossroads building for delivery truck access.during the summer construction. As there was no further business to discuss, the Planning Commission adjourned at 3:00 P.M. • • } `1 May 7, 1975 MI,IMIUMDUM T0: JIM LAMONT FROM: DIANA TOUGHILL RD: PROPOSI1) TINA, SCIMUI.L FOR L1,GAL CONSULTANI`S The following is a list of projects in order of priority and a suggested time schedule for each project: LARRY RIDER I. Preparation of injunction to protect water supply from Gore Creek in the event it is polluted by the Interstate Highway project. (No later than May 15 as Spring runoff will become a problem about that time). 2. Horizontal zoning for Commercial Core 1 - Review of proposed legislation and putting it into ordinance form for amendment procedure. (Published for hearing by the Planning Commission on May 29, Council June 17 for first reading) I have talked to Rider on this time schedule and he will have something for staff review the week of May 9. 3. Review of Subdivision Regulations and put in ordinance form. (Publish for • Planning Commission on May 16.for hearing on June 5, Council first reading on June 17). 4. Begin drafting; of Mall Act and coordinate with amendment to zoning ordinance to remove parking requirement from CCl and portions of PA surrounding the proposed pedestrian mall system. Preliminary staff research is complete and P.R. work should get under way soon before first presentation to the Planning Commission and Council. (First draft should be complete by June 30, with first hearing before Planning Commission July 31 and Town Council August 5). Terry made a commitment to John Amato to have an evaluation and answer to him 90 days from March 4 - -time is running out. 5. Review of proposed amendments to Recreational Amenities Tax and .legal assessment as to constitutionality of the Tax. (Planning Commission review of amendments on May 22, hearing by Council as soon as legal opinion arrives-- - should be as early as possible in June). 6. Amortization prog;rwn for signs based on the Art Neon vs, City of Denver decision, needs to be drafted and.put in ordinance amendment forma Should be prepared as time permits, but before August 15. 7. Review of annexation proceedings proposed for West Vail and Lionsridge areas. To be scheduled with Bob Manzanares to coordinate with their research. Staff research should be complete on property ownership by June 15. 8. Landscaping Ordinance - Review of previously drafted ordinance after staff has had an opportunity to rewrite and rethink. This can be done any time that it will fit in the schedule. Proposed Time Schedule for Legal consultants May 7, 1975 41 Page 2 W 9. Miscellaneous or ongoing problems and projects: a. Further research pertaining to inverse condemnation through zoning or hazard designation b. Racquet Club - I have received an initial opinion from Rider. We are to send our letter of intent. If any work is started, we are to issue a stop work order axnnediately. If the stop wnrk order is violated, he will seek an injunction against Racquet Club c. Discuss the possibility of setting up a variance procedure for present nonconforming uses in the Bighorn area recently annexed. d. Possible assistance on the Larese case if it is pursued. GRIMSHAW 1. Special. paving district(s) for Bighorn area - draft special district and coordinate with Stan on financial aspects and Kent Rose on engineering and field aspects of the district. 2. Work with Alan Gerstenberger concerning the proposed Regional Transporta- tion District. Initial research, obtaining necessary permits, and drafting of necessary legislation. 3. Bighorn annexation lawsuit filed against the Town by Parillo. s C] P.O. Box 623 Vail, Colorado 81657 May 12, 1975 Mr. Terry Minger TOWN OF VAIL P.O. Box 100 Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Terry: Jack and I have some concerns about the proposed housing project east of our house, and want to relay these concerns to you and your staff. We may be the only people in the area voicing an opinion, .since most of the others work for Vail Associates, Inc. 1. The article in the April 25 issue of The Vail Trail states that "seven 3- story walk up buildings are to be placed on the land in two rows with 188 parking places located in front of the buildings." We feel quite strongly that some other location for at least part of the 188 cars should be found, so that they are hidden from view, rather than directly in front of the buildings, and therefore in full view from the frontage road, highway, and most importantly the mountain. 2. Norris reported that "the parking would probably be reduced since 1� parking spaces per unit seemed in excess of need." We question this thought of reducing the number of parking spaces, in view of the rent scale and there- fore the numbers of people who will have to occupy each unit. We feel they will definitely need at least 1' parking spaces per unit to handle the load of cars during the ski season, and the rest of the year also as Vail grows into a year -round resort cormianity. 3. We question whether VAI and Security Pacific should be given a parking variance, since their project•does not meet the HDMF zone requirement of 75% underground parking. If they do not want to incur the cost this zoning dictates, then they should apply for a zoning change downward which would have less stringent requirements for underground parking spaces. Since this project will "eventually beeone a tax sheltered limited partnership for 'interested investors" with no interest in Vail excepting a monetary one, we feel strongly that aesthetics should not be sacrificed for the money to be made by these people. We feel we should all be thinking about our ccnmuni.ty first and the adverse effects those interested only in making money can have on it. 4. We question whether the State Highway Department should "allow sane parking for the project to be located in the easement of No. Frontage Road" and we are contacting the Highway Department about this request. Again, in order for their project to fly they "need" to infringe on the rights of all citizens and ask their help in making money. We don't feel we need to subsidize limited partners at our own expense, and that of our neighborhood. I'm not certain the Highway Department has the right to allow parking in their easements; I would doubt they do, but will check into it. • r r Mr. Terry Manger May 12, 1975 Page - Two F__1 LJ 5. Norris also indicated that "he would be requesting a waiver for any recreational amenities fee for the project—of $80,000.00," in exchange for some type of trade off. we question whether a bike path frcrn the Sandstone tot lot through the project to the elementary school site and beyond can be valued at $80,000.00, especially based on the fact that recreational amenities for the project are not assured. If they are not going to provide "on- site" recreational amenities for their dwellers, then most assuredly they should pay a recreational amenities fee for the burden those dwellers will bring to bear on area facilities, which all taxpayers have helped pay for. 6. Another concern of ours is the fact that "access is proposed to the west of the project curving out onto VAI green belt which Norris said "would soon be dedicated to the Town of Vail." This seems to be " indian-giving" --give it as green belt, but then for your own purposes turn it into "black belt " --• asphalt. A longer look needs to be taken at this proposal as well. 7. We feel an extensive landscaping plan need be seen before approval be given for this project, with of course assurances that it be carried out. I would think a great deal of berming need be done to hide the cars parked on -site, plus the trash durrpsters.. B. We feel it should be a project-which restricts the tenants from having pets, specifically dogs. I realize this may be a problem with the FHA • involvement. However, I feel this is especially important due to the proximity to the frontage road and highway. With dogs running loose it would not be a safe place for either the dogs or motorists. Additionally, having the K -4 school nearby complicates this issue further. The possibility always exists of neighborhood dogs.runn ng in packs; why give them 400 kids to chase? 9. I trust maximtn set -backs fry► the frontage road will be strictly enforced, since at one time this project was billed as "family housing," and there may be a few children living in the project. 10. Another concern of ours is that a residential area is being squeezed between large apartment complexes, which may be detrimental to that single family or duplex residential area. 11. Which brings me to the last point, rents. A one -- bedroom apartment, $240.00, two - bedroom apartment, $32.0.00; and two-- bedrocxn apartment with balcony, $340.00. I seriously question how many young fannies of Vail will be able to pay $320.00 per month for rent, when mortgage payments for a 3- bedroom single family dux-Ming are less. Obviously then it will become a residence for singles, skiing Vail for the season, living four or more to an apartment, and each owning a car. (Note Item #2) This project definitely cannot be billed as "low cost employee housing" be the units larger than Apollo or not. It is still expensive living, and every- one won't have that kind of money for rent. • Mr. Terry Minger May 12, 1975 Page - Three • I can't buy VAI's sales pitch of this being employee housing, desperately needed in Vail; therefore, let us have all the variances we "need" because we are doing you such a big favor of providing for your employees, and we are therefore keeping you afloat in Vail, Colorado. I hope you and your staff will take a long look at this project before any approval to begin construction is given. We'd be most happy to discuss our concerns with you in greater detail if you wish. Thanks for taking the time to hear us out. Sincerely, v Sandy Mills ( Mrs.) cc: �of Vail Building Dept. Town of Vail planning Ccrnaissi_on Town of Vail Design Review Board State Highway Department • PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 15, 1975 3;00 P.M. 1. Zoning Amendment Recreational Use Crossroads East 2. Vail Associates Rezoning of Vail Village loth Filing 3. Proposed Self- Service Gas Station Pitkin Creek Conditional Use • • r1 • PLANNING COMP]ISSION SUMMARY MAY 15, 1975 RAPP'S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Below is a summary of the ideas and feelings from various segments of the community that were expressed about the proposed gas station in Pitkin Creek at the May 15, 1975 Planning Commission meeting. The Department of Community Development felt that in general the gas station was not very well thought out, as expressed in the attached memo, and that the proposed property division shown on the site plan is not legal -- the line must be removed or legally subdivided. Local Gas Station Owners They wanted to know how Mr. Genova planned to advertise his business and the "extra savings" on gas. They questioned the need for a self -- service station in Bighorn, especially since the conceptual idea of a gas station in Bighorn was to be.a "neighborhood station ". Don Welch Presently Bighorn is primarily a residential area, and he felt that it should remain that way and not as a major commercial area -- a gas station of this type, in hisopinion,would not lend to the "community" feeling that is present in Bighorn at this time. He felt that if there was a need or desire for a gas station, and he doesn't think that there is, that the visability and impact of said station should be minimal. This could be achieved by placing large berms around the station. His feelings about the proposed station was that it would draw more traffic from the highway rather than from the local -- is this what we want? -- as a Bighorn resident, it is not. East Vail Property Owners At their board meeting on May 12, the board members thought that if the conditional use permit was granted, large trees and berms should be incorporated to hide the station. At present the proposed land- scaping plan does hide the station from the east and west but not from the northern or southern views, Design Review Board The plans for the station were preliminarily reviewed by the Design Review Board on May 1, 1975. The basic "difficulties that the Board found were: 1. appearance of the station 2. the impact of the site plan on that area. • 0 • Page Two Design Review Board, coat. The appearance and aesthetic factors are not what the Design Review Board would like to see in Vail as well as not being compatible with' the design philosophy of the Town. With the present site plan, there is the possibility of traffic jams during the winter and this has a major impact on that portion of the Town. Also, i,t was felt that the turning radius of the proposed station is not sufficient to handle the needs of a community of this type -- large campers, campers with trailers, etc, The Board felt that the aesthetic and operational impact of this station should be redone in order to be compatible with.our terrain and general aesthetic philosophy. Mr nannva Mr. Genova appeared to be very flexible in terms of the landscaping arrangements, but he did feel that the station should definitely be visible from the highway and that he should have enough exposure to be seen from the road. The station itself would be only a self- service gas station with either three lanes with three pumps or four lanes with two pumps each. The proposed canppies over the pumps could be removed, which might give more room as well as extending the turning radius for cars. There woul.d be only one entrance and one exit, and the doubts that were brought up in this meeting as far as traffic con- trol, he felt, had no justification, The design of this station is a standard design and there has not been one accident as far as he knows. Besides the proposed gas station on his lot, he is also.proposing building a house in order to provide accomodations for company housing.. This house would be a two family dwelling, When asked about the type of trade this station would attract, Mr. Genova felt that 5% of his trade would be local and the remainder would be from the highway and tourists. Planning Commission Members 1. During the zoning considerations for the Bighorn area, the Planning Commission, as well as the Bighorn residents, felt that the commercial area would be basically a neighborhood shopping area dealing primarily with locals. 2, A survey of whether the Bighorn residents.want this.station should be. taken before the Planning Commission make their recommendations the design aspects of the station should a conditional use permit be granted, should be the concern of the Design Review Board. 3. This is a heavy residential area, but it has been zoned Heavy Services. The question to consider is if we want to see this type of station. We don't want heavy highway traffic to run through that area, and a station of this type might encourage that. Page Three 4. Because of the possible traffic, and gas = oil spillages,.we might have to require an Environmental Impact Statement if the conditional Use Permit is granted. Because of the various unanswered questions, and in an attempt to con- front the Bighorn residents and get their views, a motion was made to table this proposal until May 29, 1975. Bill Heimbach made the motion, and it was seconded by Bill Hanlon. A vote was taken, a 4-1 majority in favor of the motion took place. CROSSROADS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Jeff Nichols presented a request for a Conditional Use Permit for. the new Crossorads addition in order to put in a recreational area similar to Fun City. At present, the Zoning Ordinance does.:not deal with recreational uses in Commercial Service Districts, so the applicant wants to have an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as a Conditional Use. There was some concern about the noise factor that this.recreation area would produce but the Planning Commission felt that.it was the job of the police to control excessive noise and ..disturbarice: .The Planning Commission should only concern itself with the conceptual idea of the recreational center. As there was no further business to discuss, two motions were made: 1. Bill Heimbach made a motion that.the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance be approved; Bill Han'l.on seconded it, The vote was unanimous for approval 2. Bill Heimbach made a motion that the Recreational Use Permit be granted; Bill Hanlon.seconded it. The vote was 4 to l for approval of the motion. VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER - CONDITIONAL USE`TERMIT The VVMC applied for a conditional use permit so that they can expand their hospital facilities on the first floor and have the doc- tor's offices on the second floor of the Clinic. Dudley Abbott made a motion that this request be granted; Bill Heimbach seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous for approval. VAIL ASSOCIATES - REZONING 10th FILING At present 10th filing in zoned strictly residentail and because of the findings of the Avalanche Hazard Report prepared by the Colorado Geoecolgy Division Vail Associates wants the Town to designate 3 of .the major avalanche hazard lots agricultural. Vail Associates feels that the 5. hazard lots remaining should be marked on the Town Zoning Map as hazard lots and if someone wants to build a residence on such a lot that special conditoins.be incorporated in order to prevent avalanche danger and damage. Dudley Abbott made a motion that lots 9, 10, 11 of the 10th fili.n9 be rezoned agricultural and that the hazard areas as indicated on. the apended map be masked on the Official Zoning Map as hazard areas. Bi11 Wilto seconded the motion. Approval of the motion was unanimous. May 15, 1975 MY 1D *1410011JOi TO: PLANNING COMMISSION AMID TOWN COUNCIL FROM: COMMUNITY DWEi,OPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS RAPPS, INC. (Conditional Use Permit for Service Station in Bighorn area) We do not feel that the plans, as submitted by Mr. John Genova, are acceptable for the following reasons: 1. Proposed island cover is extremely massive and not necessary. We feel this is an important consideration because of the visibility from the residential neighborhood directly south of Highway 6. 2. The original Planning Commission and Council concept for a gas station in the Bighorn was one which would be oriented toward the neighborhood. We do not feel that nine gas pumps are necessary for a neighborhood station. Four to six pumps would be more appropriate for the area, and service facilities should be included to serve the people in the area. 3. Driveways as proposed do not function properly with respect to traffic flow fran the highway through the pump area and back to the highway. We feel that the proposed traffic pattern within the property will cause considerable traffic problems along Highway 6, particularly in snowy weather, We would recommend one entrance and one exit with heavy Landscaping in front with berms. 4. We would recommend that the gasoline storage tanks be located further from Pitkin Creek and that a negative pressure system be installed to prevent leakage into groundwater. 5. If proposed property line to divide the property into two parts is pursued, it must be legally subdivided through the Town of Vail and a Subdivision plat must be approved by the Planning Commission and Town Council and filed with Eagle County. Subdivision is not consistent with zoning intent. 6. We feel that service facilities should be substituted for the residential area as proposed, 7. Trash area as proposed is not acessible by large trash trucks.- 8. Topographic information is insufficient -- furnish contour lines in lieu of spot elevations, 9. We would recommend professional design review (Royston, Honamota, Beck & . Abey) as this is a very visible location from Highway 6 and from I -70: Review would be at the expense of the developer. 10. Landscaping plan is unacceptable. Need heavier berthing and landscaping to block views from residential areas, A Page 2 Staff recommendations on Rapps, Inc. Conditional Use Permit May 15, 1975 11. Canopy design would not allow gasoline tanker access to storage tanks without blocking one complete driveway. 12. We would recommend shake shingles for goof material in lieu of aggregate. 13. Asphalt coverage should be minimized as much as possible. Any excess paved areas should be eliminated. 14. An.on.site drainage plan must be submitted which includes grease, sand and oil interceptors in conjunction with catch basins. 15. Check if existing ditch is a recorded easement; if so, does anyone currently hold rights to the ditch. 16. Impact of service on the site should be minimized and service should be related to passenger car service rather than trucks and buses. 22 M� RAPP S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Below is a summary of the ideas and feelings from various segments of. the community that were expressed about the proposed .gas station in Pitkin Creek at the May 15, 1975 Planning Commission meeting. The Departmentof Community Development felt that in general. the gas station was not very well thought out,as expressed in the attached memo, and that the proposed property division shown on the site plan is not legal - - the line must be removed or legally subdivided. LOCAL GAS STATION OWNERS They wanted to know how Mr; Genova planned to advertise his business and the "extra savings" on gas. They questioned the need for a self-service station.in Bighorn, especially since the conceptual idea of a gas station in'Bighorn; was to be a "neighborhood station ". DON WELCH l Presently Bighorn is primarily a residential area, and he felt 'that it should remain that way and not as a major.commercial area -- a gas station IC of this type, in his opinion, would not lend to the "community" feeling that is present in Bighorn at this time. He felt.that if there was a F . need or desire for a gas station, and he doesn't think -that there is, that k the visability and impact of said station should be minimal-.;. This could be achieved by placing large berms around the station. His feelings E about the proposed station was that it would draw more traffic from the highway rather than from the local is this what we want? - as a Bighorn resident, it is not. EAST VAIL PROPERTY OWNERS Bill Wilto spoke for the EVPO, and at their Meeting on May 12, the general feeling about the proposed station was very negative. If the conditional use permit. was granted, large trees and berms should be incorporated to . hide the station. At present the proposed landscaping plan does hide the. station from the east and west but not from the northern or southern views. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The plans for the station were prelimi'narily.reviewed,by the Design.Review Board on May.1, 1975. The basic difficulties that the Board found were: 1. appearance of the station 2. the impact of the site plan on that area F • • RAPP`S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, cunt. Page Two DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The appearance and aesthetic factors are.not what the Design Review Board would like to see in Vail as well as not being compatible with the design philosophy of the Town. With the present site plan, there is the possibility of traffic jams during the winter and this has a major impact on that portion of Town,. An examples of .this would-be when the pass is closed, people see a gas station and think that it would probably sell chains - only to discover that it is just a self - service station -- how do they get back on the road? Also, it was felt that the turning radius of the proposed station is not sufficient to handle the needs of a community of this type -- large campers, campers with trailers, etc. The Board' felt that the aesthetic and operational impact of this station should be redone in order to be compatible with our terrain and general aesthetic philosophy. MR. GENOVA Mr. Genova appeared to be very flexible in terms of the landscaping arrangements, but he did feel that the station .should definitely be visible from the highway and that he should have enoug "h exposure to be seen from the road. The station itself would be only a self - service gas station with either three lanes, with three pumps or four lanes. with two pumps each. The proposed 'canopies over the pumps could .be removed, which might give more room as well as extending the turning radius for cars. There would be only one entrance,and; one exit, and the doubts that were brought up in this meeting as far:;as traffic con trol, he felt, had no.justification. The deiign of this station is a standard design and there has not been one accident as far as he knows. Besides the proposed gas station on his lot,.he is also proposing bui.lding a house in order to provide accomodati.ons for company employees. This house would be a two family dwelling. When asked about the type of trade this stallion would attract, Mr. Genova felt that 5% of his trade would be local and the remainder would be from the highway and tourists. INPUT FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION 1. During the zoning considerations for the Bighorn area, the Planning Commission, and they felt the Bighorn residents, felt that the commercial area would be basically a neighborhood shopping area dealing primarily with locals. 2. A survey of whether the Bighorn residents want this station should be taken before the Planning Commission make their recommendations -- the design aspects of the station should a conditional use permit be granted, should be the concern of the Design Review Board. R • 10. RAPP'S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, cont. Page Three PLANNING COMMISSION INPUT, cone, 3. This is a heavy residental area, but it has been zoned heavy services. The question to consider is if we want to see this type of station. We don't want heavy highway traffic to run through that area, and a station.of this type might encourage that, 4. Because of the possible traffic,and gas and oil_spillages,:we might have to require an Environmental Impact.Statement if the conditional use permit is granted, Because of the various unanswered questions, and in an attempt to confront the Bighorn residents and get their views, a motion was made to table this proposal until May 29, 1975 Bill Heimbach made the motion, and it was seconded by Bill Hanlon. A vote was taken,a 4--1. majority in favor of the motion took place. im , • m • T0: Janes F. Lamont FROM: Denni s J. Murphy RE: Rapps.Service Station DATE:May 21,1975 MEMO Although the service station proposed for the Bighorn area was originally thought to be a "neighborhood station" the projected sales figures tend to disprove this idea. The station is projected to pump an average of 150,000 gallons per month. Since the stations located at the entrance to Vail Village pump a maximum of 130,000 gallons per month during peak season and rely heavily on interstate and skier traffic, (75%,25%), it • seems that this "neighborhood station" would have to draw heavily from • this seasonal traffic and also service a phenomenal amount of the local traffic. According to several major oil companies approximately eight pumps would be needed for this type service with each pump rated at 12 gallons per minute. An average of 10 gallons per car serviced was received and using this figure the station would have to service at least 500 cars per day. With this large volume of traffic and the toxic nature of gasoline, I feel that several factors must be addressed by the applicant in an Environmental Impact Statement. I. Air pollution a. Increased carbon monoxide and particulate emissions in a relatively r. 'Page 2 • small: localized area. b. Effects of the above parameters on a non comercialized air shed. c. Vapor loss from storage tanks and hoses during the pumping operation. Neither the Environmental Protection Agency nor the State Health Department have any regulations or' guidelines that would be of any use to us in this matter. 2. Water Pollution a. Storage tanks should be moved further from Pitkin Creek. b. Drainage should keep runoff from gaining access to the property. c. Water that can not be kept off the property should be treated with grease and oil interceptors before being released from the property. d. Negative pressure pumps should be required to minimize the possibility I • of leakage. e. Spillage of gasoline during storage tanks filling or customer pumping should be contained and not allowed to coma in contact with any water. 3. Traffic Patterns a. The effects of large volumes of traffic on local traffic patterns should be studied. b. Effects of interstate flow in the localized area should be studied. 4. Noise a. Noise generated by the traffic patterns and the station itself should be analysed in relation to its effects on local residents. Page 3 The Colorado Inspectors of Oils has several requirements for the install - ation and maintenance of service stations. The applicant must comply with the following: 1. Plans must be submitted to the inspector prior to construction. 2. Soil resistivity tests must be conducted by a qualified engineer to determine the need for corrosion protection. 3. beak detection equipment is required on all pump systems. 4., Accurate inventory records must be kept. ` 5. Procedures for leak detection and control must be posted on the premises. E 6. All leaks must be reported. The Highway Department has not as yet selected a site for the chain station. I was'informed however that the service station site would be taken into consideration before the chain station site is finalized. AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 29, 1975 3:00 PM 1. Rapp's Conditional Use Permit 2. Recreational Amenities Tax Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance MEMORANDUM f� TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 29; 1975 RE: Rapp's Gas Station Conditional Use Permit The applicant has presented a plan that would provide the following services: 1. A 9 -pump self- service gas station designed to pump 150,000 gal /month. 2. An office area that would be used for cash transaction, oil. sales, vending machines, and rest rooms; . 3. A duplex housing unit, One unit would provide employee housing for station operators. The intent of occupancy for the second unit has not been defined; 4. Operating hours would be from 6 AM -,10 PM. The station would not supply chains nor provide service facilities for repair and maintenance. IMPLICATIONS: The Department of Community Development staff have reviewed the re- quest and made the following findings and recommendations: 1. Traffic Congestion: The proposed 150,000 gal /month capacity of the station requires an average traffic flow in and out of the station of one car every.two minutes; therefore, special provisions should be made to provide adequate staging areas for the vehicles awaiting services. The nature of: peak" per- iods in our community will cause an extreme amount of traffic between 4 -7 PM. The site adjacent to a major interchange compounds the traffic flow in the area. The design of the interchange does not provide for a widening of the Frontage Road adjacent to the site. Planning Commission T demo May 29, 1975 Page Two ON SITE HOUSING: The applicant proposed a duplex housing unit on the site. It is our opinion that the Heavy Service District does not provide for the location or dwelling units nor accommodationunits within this District. The applicant has not demonstrated that the housing is necessary for the station operation. The Zoning Ordinance does not mention the encouragement of on -site employee housing. It is our position that the minimum building mass on the site will minimize the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Should the Planning Commission deem that the housing is necessary, we suggest that specific development be imposed limiting the maximum GRFA to 1,500 square feet within one unit. . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: An Environmental Impact Statement will be required as outlined in the Murphy Memo. Ilk ` r f MEMORANDUM E TO: Town Council k FROM: Planning Commission DATE: June 3, 1975 RE: Recommendation on Rapp's Gas Station. ` Conditional Use Permit f The Planning Commisssion has reviewed the Rapp's Gas Station Conditional Use Permit and has taken the following factors into consideration: 1. "Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town." The Planning Commission believes that the Heavy Service Zone District is valid for the property and''that there has been no sub- stantial change in the character of the neiglborhood that would invalidate the present zoning for the property. The use of the property has been discussed by the Community Development staff, the Planning Commission and the Town Council as a viable location for a neighborhood gas station. The proposal, however, departs from a neighborhood orientation to one of emphasizing off- interstate and valley -wide consumers. This focus creates subsequent problems that were not envisioned when the original zoning was approved. 2. "Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, _parks and recreation facilities; and other public facilities needs," t: • Memo - Town Council June 3, 1975 Page Two I The Planning Commission feels that the proposal will not have significant impact on the above factors. 3. 11 Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian saf flow and control, access, maneuverability, and the streets and parking areas." The Planning Commission believes that tl will have the following negative impacts: a. a and convenience, traffic removal of snow from ie proposal as presented The volume of traffic betw en the hours of 4 -7 PM . during the peak winter seaon.will not be adequately controlled given the present site plan; .The Frontage Roads contigulus to the property will be insufficient into provide a back -up lane to handle overflow traffic; consequently, the danger of significant traffic congestion is likely; c. The sites adjacent to the Pitken Creek interchange further increases the likeiyhood of major traffic congestion due to adverse weather conditions which frequently occur. Traffic congestion is extreme. in this area as there are no alternative:. routes into the Bighorn area which4aye significant im- plications for emergency situations. 4. "Effect a on the c�ar-acter;of the area in_which the proposed— is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses," The proposal as submitted requests the location of a duplex unit on the site which will increase the visual impact.of the site on the surrounding residential neighborhood. The commission believes that this problem can be mitigated through proper design 5. "Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use." The proposal for the duplex dwelling unit is not specifically listed as a permitted use within a conditionall, use, There are no GRFA • • • Memo - Town Council June 3, 1975 Page Three limits nor development standards related to residential housing in this district; therefore, specific conditions should be imposed upon this proposed use should it be permitted. Thell,applicant maintains.: that the housing is necessary to prevent vandalism to the property. 6. "The Environmental Impact Report concerning the proposed use, if an Environmental Impact Report is required by.Article 16 of this ordinance." The applicant submitted his proposal onl�an exploratory basis. The Department of Community Development would linsist on a complete Environmental Impact Statement prior to the islsuance of a Building Permit. as outlined in the Environmental Health Office;r's memo, THE PLANKING COMMISSION MAKES THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this ordinance' and the purposes of the district in which the site is located." The proposal complies with the above polints but a question: exists on the visual impact as well as a need I'for the duplex dwelling unit. 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." The proposal does not comply with this ',point in that the danger . of excessive traffic congestion is detrimental to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and the community. �I Memo - Town Council June 3, 1975 Page Four 3. "That the proposed use will!,l comply with each of the applicable provisions of this ordinance."I The proposal does not specifically meet the provisions of the ordinance, however, the location of housing on thie site is feasible providing that the scale and bulk of the structure is acceptable and -does not have,an adverse impact,on the neighborhood. Further, that there are specific development standards controlling the size, number of units, and character of the dwelling structure. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is the majority recommendation of the members of the Planning Commission that this proposal be denied based,on finding #2 of the above discussion, Further, we recommend that the Department of Community Development staff be directed to research and ',propose development criteria and related implications for the site which would be used to judge the appropriateness of future proposals. �I i• MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 29, 1975 RE: Rapp's Gas Station Conditional Use Permit The applicant has presented a plan that would provide the following services: 1. A 9 -pump self- service gas station designed to pump 150,000 gal /month; 2. An office area that would be used for cash transaction, oil sales, vending machines,and rest roams; 3. A duplex housing unit, One unit would provide employee housing for station operators. The intent of occupancy for the second unit has not been defined; 4. Operating hours would be from 6 AM - 10 PM. The station would not supply chains nor provide service facilities for repair and maintenance. IMPLICATIONS: The Department of Community Development staff have reviewed the re- quest and made the following findings and recommendations: 1. Traffic Congestion: The proposed 150,000 gal /month capacity of the station requires an average traffic flow in and out of the station of one car every two minutes; therefore, special provisions should be made to provide adequate staging areas for the vehicles awaiting services. The nature of "peak" per- iods in our community will cause an extreme amount of traffic between 4 -7.PM. The site adjacent to a major interchange compounds the traffic flow in the area. The design of the interchange does not provide for a widening of the Frontage Road adjacent to the site. Ito Planning Commission - Memo May 29, 1975 Page Two 0 ON SITE HOUSING: The applicant proposed a duplex housing unit on the site. It is our opinion that the Heavy Service District does not provide for the location or dwelling units nor accommodation units within this District. The applicant has not demonstrated that the housing is necessary for the station operation. The Zoning Ordinance does not mention the encouragement of on -site employee housing. It is our position that the minimum building mass on the site will minimize the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Should the Planning Commission deem that the housing is necessary, we suggest that specific development be imposed limiting the maximum GRFA to 1,500 square feet within one unit. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: An Environmental Impact Statement will be required as outlined in the Murphy Memo. /j k I * T0: James F. Lamont FROM: Denni s J. Murphy RE: Rapps.Service Station DATE:May 21,1975 MEMO Although the service station proposed for the Bighorn area was originally thought to be a "neighborhood station" the projected sales figures tend to disprove this idea. The station is projected to pump an average of 150,000 gallons per month. Since the stations located at the entrance to Vail Village pump a maximum of 130,000 gallons per month during peak . season and rely heavily on interstate and skier traffic, (75%,25% ), it seems that this "neighborhood station" would have to draw heavily from • this seasonal traffic and also service a phenomenal amount of the local traffic. According to several major oil companies approximately eight pumps would be needed for this type service with each pump rated at 12 gallons per minute. An average of 10 gallons per car serviced was received and using this figure the station would have to service at least 500 cars per day. With this large volume of traffic and the toxic nature of gasoline, I feel that several factors must be addressed by the applicant in an Environmental Impact Statement. 1. Air pollution a. Increased carbon monoxide and particulate emissions in a relatively .0 r 'Page 2 small, localized area. b. Effects of the above parameters on a non comercialized air shed. c. Vapor loss from storage tanks and hoses during the pumping operation. Neither the Environmental Protection Agency nor the State Health Department have any regulations or'guidelines that would be of any use to us in this matter. 2. dater Pollution a. Storage tanks should be moved further from Pitkin Creek. b. Drainage should keep runoff from gaining access to the property. c. Water that can not be kept off the property should be treated with grease and oil interceptors before being released from the property. d. Negative pressure pumps should be required to minimize the possibility of. 1 eakage. e. Spillage of gasoline during storage tanks filling or customer pumping should be contained and. not allnwpd to cnma in contact ,,vith any water. 3. Traffic Patterns a. The effects of large volumes of traffic on local traffic patterns should be studied. b. Effects of interstate flow in the localized area should be studied. 4. Noise a. Noise generated by the traffic patterns and the station itself. •10 should be analysed in relation to its effects on local residents. f • The Colorado Inspectors of Oils has several requirements for the install- ation and maintenance of service stations. The applicant must comply with the following: 1. Plans must be submitted to the inspector prior to construction. 2. Soil resistivity tests must be conducted by a qualified engineer to determine the need for corrosion protection. 3. Leak detection equipment is required on all pump systems. 4.. Accurate inventory records must be kept. 5. Procedures for leak detection and control must be posted on the premises. 6. All leaks must be reported. The Highway Department has not as yet selected a site for the chain station. I was'informed however that the service station site would be taken into consideration before the chain station site is finalized. 10 !� May 15, 1975 WdORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: STAFF TOM ENDATIONS RAPPS, INC. (Conditional Use Permit for Service Station in Bighorn area) We do not feel that the plans, as submitted by Mr. John Genova, are acceptable for the following reasons: 1. Proposed island cover is extremely massive and not necessary. We feel this is an important consideration because of the visibility from the residential neighborhood directly south of Highway 6. f 2. The original Planning Commission and Council concept for a gas station in the Bighorn was one which would be oriented toward the neighborhood. We do not feel that nine gas pumps are necessary for a neighborhood station.. Four to six pumps would be more appropriate for the area, and service facilities should be included to serve the people in the area. . 3. Driveways as proposed do not function properly with respect to traffic flow from the highway through the pump area and back to the highway. We feel that the proposed traffic pattern within the property will cause considerable traffic problems along Highway 6, particularly in snowy weather, We would recommend one entrance and one exit with heavy landscaping in front with berms. 4. We would recommend that the gasoline storage tanks be located further frcm Pitkin Creek and that a negative pressure system be installed to prevent leakage into groundwater. 5. If proposed property line to divide the property into two parts is pursued, it must be legally subdivided through the Town of Vail and a Subdivision plat must be approved by the Planning Commission and Town Council and filed with Eagle County. Subdivision is not consistent with zoning intent. 6. We feel that service facilities should be substituted for the residential area as proposed. 7. Trash area as proposed is not acessible by large trash trucks. 8. Topographic information is insufficient --- furnish contour lines in lieu of spot elevations, 9. We would recommend professional design review (Royston, Honamota,.Beck & Abey) as this is a very visible location from Highway 6 and from I -70. Review would be at the expense of the developer. .f . 10. Landscaping plan is unacceptable. Need heavier berming and landscaping to block views from residential areas. ` Page 2 Staff recommendations on Rapps, Inc. Conditional Use Permit May 15, 1975 11. Canopy design would not allow gasoline tanker access to storage tanks without blocking one emplete driveway. 12. We would recommend shake shingles for roof material in lieu of aggregate. 13. Asphalt coverage should be minimized as much as possible. Any excess paved areas should be eliminated. 14. An on site drainage plan must be submitted which includes grease, sand and oil interceptors in conjunction with catch basins. 15. Check if existing ditch is a recorded easement; if so, does anyone currently hold rights to the ditch. 16. Impact of service on the site should be minimized and service should be related to passenger car service rather than trucks and buses. Ic Wei illage market aA, f J • y \,j L3, P. O. Box 1108 • Vail, Colorado 81657 • (303) 476 -5300 IV • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 1975 3:00 Phi 1. Preliminary review of Horizontal Zoning Members present: PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY JUNE 12, 1975 Dudley Abbott Bill Hanlon Dave Sage Jen Wright Vic Gallina explained the need for the requested set back variance for the Billups residence. A motion was made to recommend the variance request for a maximum of three feet from the east porperty line of the Billups Residence by Jen Wright; Bill Hanlon seconded the motion. A vote was taken it was unanimous for approval of the variance request, Since that was the end of the official business, the meeting was turned to discussion about the addition of a rectory for the Vail Interfaith Chaple. Presently,that area is zoned agricultural. Diana Toughill saw no problem in adding a chaple and rectory for acceptable uses in an agricultural zone rather than write a new zone district. The last order of business to be discussed was about a plot of land outside the Town limits by Sandstone. If this land .69 acres was annexed to the Town, Dudley Abbott wanted to know if the Planning Commission would have any problems if the Town zoned it MDMF. Most of the members had no dif- ficulty with this request, as long as the proposed 15 housing units were quality built. One thought was that in the•near future, the Town of Vail will be annexing that whole west Vail area, do we want to zone as related to the existing area or do we want to set a precedence and down zone in order to get the density level down from.the existing'A and use. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 P.M. PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 26, 1975 3:00 PM 1. Vail Associates stairway from V.A. real estate office -- J.B. Meadows 2. Horizontal Zoning PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 26, 1976 3:00 PM Members present: Dudley Abbott Bill Hanlon Bill Heimbach - Chairman Gordon Pierce Jen Wright Bill Wilto VAIL ASSOCIATES They needed permission from the Planning Commission to cross the Town of Vail street right -of -way in order to make the proposed improvements to the stairway for their real estate office, Bill Wilto made the motion for approval of the request; Abbott seconded it. A unanimous vote was taken with Jen Wright abstaining.for approval of the request. HORIZONTAL ZONING After reviewing the proposed legislation for Horizontal Zoning, the Planning Commission came up with the following changes: • Liquor, luggage, and heavy appliance stores because of the bulk of the merchandise, type and number of cars they generate should all be conditional uses, • Lodges should be incorporated into.permitted uses. Multi family dwellings on basements and street 'levels should be conditional uses. • Travel agents and ticket offices as well as dressmakers and tailors should be conditional uses on basement and street levels. • Leather goods stores should be included in permitted uses for basement and street levels. • The description of bakeries and confectioneries permitted on the second floor subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit was changed to read: Bakeries and confectioneries, restricted to preparation of products specifically for sale on the premises Planning Commission June 26, 1975 Page Two HORIZONTAL ZONING, coat. On basement, garden, street, and first floor levOls, the Planning Commission reached agreement. The second floor uses whether to have retail shops conditional uses or permitted posed problems, Some commission members felt that the retail shops should be per- mitted uses -- that is was discriminatory to make there conditional uses and that the Town really should not have the control over the freedom to have a retail business on whatever floor the owner desired, The other faction of the Planning Commission felt that the second floor and above should be under the control of the Planning Commission and of the Town,in order to keep dwelling units from changing to commercial uses. Since there was a divided feeling amount the Planning Commission, they felt that they should delay the vote for a week until all the members could be present and express their views, Matters that should be discussed in relation to Horizontal Zoning at the next meeting are: • Movie Theaters what type of use should they be and on what level should they be allowed • Office Space -- what type of use should they be and on what level should they be allowed As there was no more business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 PM, r 1 PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 3; 1975 3:00 PM 1, Staff review of Flood Plain Study -- Kent Rose 2, Review of horizontal Zoning • • KI MEMO TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: CCI DATE: JULY 11, 1974 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 deliberations, as well as recommendations for the resolution of CCI problems. The Commission's discussions have focused on four principal areas of study: (1) Pedestrian Concept; (2) Parking and Vehicular Access; (3) Change of Use; (4) Building Bulk Control. The following text outlines the various elements of each principal area of concern: (1) PEDESTRIAN CONCEPT: The principal factor which will determine___ - the resolution of many parking and vehicular access problems is directly related to the pedestrian concept provided for in the Vail Plan. The Commission has reviewed the proposed Vail Village pedestrian area and has made the following findings: (a) That the general area subject to pedestrianization in the Vail 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; ■ • (d) That there is a need for 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; The Planning Commission has identified two distinctions within the pedestrian precinct. The first distinction being the area which can be totally pedestrianized, given.the appropriate technology. The second being those areas on the periphery of the pedestrian precincts which have vehicular access and have minimal conflict with the pedestrian mall system. The Commission believes that the pedestrianization program should be implemented on a phased basis with the use capacities of the transportation center being the determining fact a^ as to when subsequent phases should be implemented. A map has been prepared illustrating all of the above information. (2) PARKING AND VEHICULAR ACCESS: Parking: Given the existence of the transportation center, many of the former parking problems will be removed. However, the Commission believes that it is necessary to establish firm policies regarding vehicular access and parking within CCI. The following are the Commission's views concerning controls over parking. (a) In the total pedestrian area, all parking, both 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 for new construction should be 100% 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, A 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. -2- r� (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 vehicles 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 for controlling access to these private lots will be the responsi- bility of the property owner, General: It is the Commission's opinion that the parking require - ment is an appropriate method for controlling change of use and building bulk control. Further, that the exemption requirement which allows for 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 structure, (3) CHANGE OF 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 conscious effort to provide a mixed -use area. The Commission believes that it is desirable to retain the mix.of uses and to encourage long- 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 higher return of investment. The Commission believes if this trend continues, the viability of the Core is threatened. Therefore, the Commission believes a more 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 stor.es,.and establishments as now permitted by the zoning ordinance; retail shops, business and professional offices, personal service and repair shops would be allowed on the second floors; residential would be allowed 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. 531 • (4) BUILDING BULK CONTROL: The Commission reviewed the existing controls provided in the zoning ordinance, It was found that the existing controls are sufficient to control the expansion or renewal of building within the area. However, the variance provisions should be strictly enforced. Further, it is suggested that more definitive design guidelines be developed in order to strengthen the design review procedures. A' E s /// L11 6 11 /'t. " V, � - -, DRAFT MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 22, 1975 RE: John McBride Parking Variance Exemption Application for a ��three -car parking variance /exemption has been made by John McBride in order to allow conversion of two apartment units of approximately 1,764 square feet to offices. No specific tenant has been designated. * * * * * * * ** add attachment #1 The proposed horizontal zoning ordinance requires a conditional use permit for any use which eliminates a dwelling or accommodation unit above the first floor. The Planning Commission has stated that the preservation of existing housing in the Core area is the most im- portant goal of the Horizontal Zoning and feel strongly that the var- iance should be disapproved; however, this application is identical to the numerous other parking variance /exemptions previously granted by the Council in this area. The applicant further argues that the space in question is no longer suitable for housing and must be rented at reduced rental rates due to the noise produced by the Clock Tower and Nu Gnu. He has agreed to preserve the existing apartment in the Town because it is not suitable for commercial use due to numerous Building Code Problems. We feel that the decision on this parking variance be tempered by the proposed Horizontal Zoning Ordinance. The following findings must be made before the granting of the variance: * Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town Granting of--the variance would not_constitute..a grant of special privilege in light of previous variances granted in the Core area. In order to be consistent, a parking purchase contract should be required. t * Effect of the use on light, and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and re- creation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. Granting of the variance could be detrimental from the stand- point that it eliminates housing in an area where mixed uses are necessary to the viability of a successful area. We are aware that similar variances have been granted in the past; however, we feel the depletion of the housing investors is becoming a service problem and further depletion could be quite detrimental to the area and we therefore recommend a cautious approach. * Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, . automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas. THe- ew #tewi•a -e €- the- Zee�eg- 9wd��anee- states -that- .the- 6e�eE }� shall -eees} dew -``• The - degree- te- w{ieh- re4ie#:-.4s- eecessary -te- aeb�e+�e- eer�yat���l •qty- app- up�#'err����+ -ef- The privilege of converting dwelling units to commercial space has been extended to owners of other properties in the same district. The criteria of the Zoning Ordinance states that the Council shall consider "The degree to which relief,.. is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity..." Attachment #1 -- the applicant sights as a reason for the request the following: "Since two apratments are located above a restaurant with. late night noise, it is difficult to get the going rate in rents." The Zoning Ordinance states that "Cost or inconvenience to the applicant,..shall not be a reason for granting of a variance" The Department has reviewed the criteria and findings as presented in Section 19.600 of the Zoning Ordinance. We have the following comments: FACTOR #1 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The applicant states that due to surrounding noise problems the dwelling units do not return a desirable rent rate. Pursuing this logic nearly every dwelling unit or accommodation unit in CCI is subject to the same or similar conditions. Therefore, the same argument could be applied to other variance requests by other building owners, thus through time this logic could effectively eliminate a significant amount of housing -- whatever type -- from the CCI area. It should be remembered that the quality of a living environment is dependent upon the perception of the occupant. Ther are as many different perceptions as there are people. The appli ant has not demonstrated to our satis- faction that the living environment$ of these units i.5' unacceptable as a living environment. Further, the municipality has either program or studies underway to mitigate against undesirable noise, odor and traffic congestion in the CCI district. THe end result being a more desirable living environment. Therefore, we rejtct the applicant's argument. The adverse environmental condittOn reduces the desirablity of the.dwelling unit. It should be noted that means can be found to reduce the adverse environmental impacts such as installation of windows, carpeting, etc. In our view allowing the variance under the condition that rent rates are not comparable with the going rate is taking economic or costs into consideration which is not allowed under the Zoning Ordinance. To the best or our knoweldge economics has not been a condition under which a variance has been previously granted. The closest comparable situation was the Gra )nshammer variance. It was the view of the Department of Community Development that transient dormatory housing type was not a desirable type of housing when located in the basement area due to the lack of proper light and ventilation which then existed. This is not the case after a preliminary review of the McB&de Building. The issue of economics in our view should address the economic viability of a class of use for the entire district. WE cannot be concerned with specific instances of economic inequities. Specific instances are totally conditioned by the market place. The health and stability of the market place is a concern of the municipality. Clearly from existing sales tax figures for the past two years the health of the market place is good. Con- sequently, we feel there is no basis for changing the Town policy towards retaining this class of housing within the commercial core area. Any inequity between owner and tenant should be resolved at that level. The Department of Community Development would not be sympathetic to an attempt by the owner to price these dwelling units out of the existng market in order to force abandonment of these units. FACTOR # 2 The degree to which relief from the Irict 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, We feel it would be a gr. of special prividege; it would suggest a precedent for subsegwappli.cants to use the argument of economics and environmental conditions if the variance was granted. f i FACTOR # 3 The effect of the requested variance on light and air distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Adverse effects on distribution of population FACTOR # 4 Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance, Horizontal Zoning being considered •-- under the wire - -the Boulder Case - -the Texas Case Protection of employee housing The variance providing they are not high traffic generators --- can be accommodated. Have the applicant resubmit the proposal. PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 24, 1974 3:00 PM 1. Parking Variance I ,jj4 � McBride Building 2. Horizontal Zoning Development Objectives y. g, // hok" a/ 4TIQ Pierce Sriner Fitzhugh Scott Inc. Architecture Planning P. O. Box 2299 Vail, Colorado 303 4 Jul 22, 1975 303 476 -3038 Y Jim Lamont Director of Community Development Department Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Jim: As of this date, I hereby submit my resignation as Chairman of the Town of Vail Planning Commission. However, I will remain an active member on the Board to the end of my appointed term. U ry truly yours, W o don R. Pierce GRP /im 1 .0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 24, 1975 RE: Horizontal Zoning Subsequent to an informal meeting between the Town Council and the Planning Commission concerning Horizontal Zoning the following issue was raised: The conditional use concept for review and controlling changes of use is only valid when explicit criteria are available against which a conditional use application is judged. Explicit criteria is not available in the pres- ent Zoning Ordinance. • The Department of Community Development staff was directed to investigate the formulation of the criteria. We have made a study of the issue and have the following observations: Section 18.600 CRITERIA AND FINDINGS for evaluating conditional use permits presents six factors which have direct applicability to the development of explicit criteria. These factors are: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on develop- ment objectives of the Town; 2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs; 3. Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrain safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking areas; i MEMO - Planning Commission July 24, 1975 Page Two 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to sur- rounding uses; 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use 6. The Environmental Impact Report concerning the proposed use, if an Environmental Impact Report is required by Article 16 of this ordinance; Unfortunately, each of these factors can. be construed either way depending upon who is justifiying what proposed change, In order to develop specific criteria for the Horizontal Zoning District, a two -step process will be necessary. These steps are: 1. The Development of definitive development objectives for the District. The objectives should be compre- hensive in nature Inherently, they will still be general,but they will be applicable to the specific district; however, many will be transferable to other similar districts. 2. Specific policy statements based on statistical fact and opinion.surveys are essential to support the policy statements. This information exists or could be gathered within a 2 -3 month period. The availability of this information would give a data base against which any proposed changes can be evaluated. The above two step - process could follow the following format. It should be noted that these are only suggestions for you to consider on a preliminary basis. 1. General Development Objectives These general objectives can be correlated to each of the factors outlined in Section 18.600.. They are as follows: To encourage the reduction of vehicular traffic into and through the district so as to provide an optimum environment for living, working, shopping, and recreation. lie MEMO - Planning Commission July 24,1975 Page ,Three a. removal of all on- street parking except for restricted loading zones b. removal of non - essential off - street parking c, improvement of goods and services delivery and pick -up systems d. provide sufficient public parking to service the existing and future parking demands e, provide efficient, economic and convenient mass transportation to reduce the dependency on the automobile and promote the distri- bution of population. f. development for pedestrian use of public spaces *. To encourage the mixed public spaces, commercial, and residential uses w-tho the district so as to provide for diversity of use, social cohesiveness, maintenance and protection of the district by its property owners, residents and guests. *. To encourage high quality architectural and landscape design so to retain the alpine character of the district. *. To encourage a high quality of construction and maintenance of public and private property. * To encourage the redevelopment of the area in a manner that.will promote the mixed use concept. *. To encourage economic growth and stability within the district while retaining the mixed use concept. *. To encourage environmental improvements which minimize the negative impact of noise, odor, dust, smoke 2. Evaluation Criteria The following information could be used as a means'to evaluate attitudes and values regarding changes on the social and economic systems w .tK.i,ri,i the district a. Interview of residents living within the district. This.information would define the character of each dwelling unit in relationship to the life style of the occupant. It would also define the likes and dislikes of the residents toward the area. Thus identify the problem that could by alleviated so as to improve the living en- vironment MEMO - Planning Commission July 24, 1975 Page ,Four b. Interview of business operators within the District. This study would be essentially the same as the above. c. Inventory of existing .uses and changes of use. This study would identify on a continuing basis the amount of square footage allocated to each use. Further it would identify any trends that would be taking place either permitted or proposed. Much of this information is currently existing. d. Impact of economic factors on change of use. This study would indicate, based on sales tax figures for each class of use, the growth rate and potential of different business types. This information will allow adjustments in the zoning ordinance that would encourage or discourage certain types of use. e. Impact of environmental factors on change of use. This study would analyze the negative environmental factors which currently exist in the area. From this information, mitigating strategies can be initiated and further baseline data can be set up against which any change of use can be evaluated. Noise from nightclubs is the most obvious example. It should be understood that the gathering of this information will take time and money. To think the administration can embark on such a program at this time without outside.assistance is erroneous. On the other hand, the importance of proceeding in this direction is essential to the survival of -the Horizontal Zoning concept in fact rather than in theory. I suggest we discuss with Mr. Rider the implications of the above discussion. He may well have another approach. /j k • I[] PLANNING COMMISSION July 31, 1975 Summary Members Present: Bill Hanlon Bill Heimbach Dave Sage Bill Wilto CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CROSSROADS EAST Diana Toughill read the application request for a conditional use permit for the addition of a game area in the new Crossroads Addition. The staff had no problem with the request,and they asked the Planning Commission to review the criteria and findings very carefully before making any decisions. This was done. So, with the information that was supplied at the June 17, 1975 meeting, in which an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was enacted for this specific purpose,a motion was made to recommend granting of the Conditional Use Permit by Bill Wilto, and Bill Hanlon seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion was passed unanimously. Dave Sage expressed a point of view that the Planning Com- mission and the Design Review Board should be paid a token sum by the Town for their services. These boards are totally voluntary and the Town expects them to be available at alltimes as if they are paid. He feels that this is not fair. If they were paid a small sum, it would definitely be an incentive to the Boards and it would make them feel that they were appreciated a little more. As there was no more business to discuss, the meeting was adjourn r 1-40 MEM0RANDUM TO: Gene A. Smith FROM:; Department of Community Development DATE: August 1, 1975 RE: Amendment to Section 12.300 of the Zoning Ordinance In reply to your memo of July 31, the reason we requested F that churches and rectories be added as a permitted use is the fact that the application for amendment and legal notice were both worded in this manner. The staff felt the ordinance should be worded the same way it was published and amended by the Council if they agree with the Planning Commission's recommendation. If you have questions regarding any Planning Commission's recommendation, please contact our department rather than the Planning Commission directly. By contacting the Planning Commission members directly,`it only confuses communications. Further it engenders lack of confidence in the Town Staff, of which you are a member, to act in a cohesive, competent, and professional manner. We have been designated as the official liasion between the staff administration and the Planning Commission; therefore, any non - personal communication which you have with the Planning Commission members should be discussed with Diana or myself first. We have been able to establish a healthy and trusting relationship between ourselves and the Commission. We do not intend to have that relationship damaged or jeopardized, The importance 140 MEMO - SMITH August 1, 1975 Page Two of the Commission's work cannot tolerate diversiveness brought on by the inability of the administrative staff to communicate internally. Therefore, in the future we hope that similar circumstances will not occur. It is far better to understand the background of an issue before reaching a conclusion that is not based in fact. We should all remember that if we have an unalterable disagreement with a position that the Planning Commission and /or the Design Review Board takes on a matter our redress is to the Town Manager and Town Council. No one need be muzzled in an open governmental system. Manipulation, power grabbing, and game playing are not founded in honesty. They only destroy trusting relationships.. Our role as professionals is to: 1. see that procedures are followed correctly; 2. offer recommendations based on professional knowledge, experience and common sense; 3. that assignments and obligations are diligently pursued; 4. be honest and forthright with ourselves and the .people with which we deal; In the case of Ordinance No. 15, it can go to the Council as it is written and the Council must then also vote on the Conditional Use Permit for the rectory addition as proposed by the Vail Religious Foundation. Since the Town of Vail owns the bulk of Agricultural land, control is not a problem whether the use is permitted or conditional; • therefore, your argument for control becomes moot. ' MEMO - SMITH August.l, 1975 Page 'Three I We hope that this lengthy dissertation sheds some light on our working relationship and will lead to a forthright discussion of issues. Distrust is destructive to anyone who harbors.it, /jk cc: (1) Terrell J. Minger (2) William Heimbach • • e t 10 i NOTE TO: Department of Community Development Attention: V) James F. Lamont, Director V2) Diana Toughi11, Zoning Administrator FROM: Gene A. Smith, Town Attorney DATE: July 31, 1975 RE: Zoning Ordinance SUBJECT: Amendment to Section 12.300 1. Yesterday r received a request from the Department of Community Development requesting that before 8- 5- 1975 1 draft an ordinance amending the Zoning'Ordinance so as to make churches and rectories a permitted use in Agricultural and Open Space District, (A), which would mean amending Section 12.2,00. 2. In the 7 -25 -1975 edition of The Vail Trail there was an article which stated that the DCD had recommended a ZO amendment to add churches and rectories as a permitted use in A, but the Planning Commission determined that it would recommend to the Town Council that the ZO be amended to add churches and rectories as a conditional use in A. 3. Today a PC member confirmed to me that it had acted to recommend churches and rectories as a conditiona-1 use in A rather than as a permitted use. 4. it seems to me that there should be a minimum of permitted uses in A, for otherwise the essence of an open space zoning district is destroyed. 1 see no more reason to permit a church as a permitted use in A zoning district than buildings for many other purposes. 5. TOV will have control on whether a church will be permitted in an A zoning district if churches are...a,conditional... use, whereas it would have no control if churches are a permitted use. 6. 1 think the PC recommendation is correct, that is if any modification for church use in A zoning district is to be f allowed by TOV. Perhaps you simply overlooked mentioning to me that the PC had recommended churches as a conditional use. 7. Please furnish to a copy of the PC's recommenda- tion to the TC for my file. 8. Please inform me as to whether you agree that the PC recommended churches as a conditional use in A zoning district and that said recommendation is a good decision which should be approved by the TC. 9. In the proposed ordinance I added to Section.12.300 as a conditional.use "Churches, rectories, and related structures ". I included "related structures" because a church development could well have a structure that is not a church or a rectory but is a necessary facility. 10. A copy of the proposed ordinance is attached hereto. /sam attachment I* lie ORDINANCE NO. 15 Series of 1975 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 12.300 BY THE ADDITION OF CHURCHES AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT WHEREAS, Section 12.300 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordi- nance No. 8, Series of 1973, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, estab- lished six conditional uses in the Agricultural and Open.Space District (A) ; and WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, finds that it is appropriate to amend the Zoning Ordinance by the addition of churches, rectories, and related structures as a con- ditional use in said zoning district; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title. This ordinance shall be known as the "Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance Section 12.300 ". Section 2. Amendment Procedures Fulfilled; Planning Commission Report. The amendment procedures prescribed in Section 21.500 of the Zoning Ordinance have been fulfilled, with the report of the Planning Commission recommending the enactment of this ordi- nance. Section 3. Amendment to Zoning Ordinance. Section 12.300 of the Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 12.300. Conditional Uses.. The following conditional uses shall be permitted, sub- ject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the provisions of Article 18 of this ordinance. Town Clerk s° I* i i Ord. 14, 1975 Page 2 (1) Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which involves assembly of more than 200 persons together in one building or group of buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational: facility. (2) Public and private schools and colleges. (3) Churches, rectories, and related structures. (4) Private golf, tennis, swimming and riding clubs, and hunting and fishing lodges.. (5) Semi - public and institutional uses such as convents and religious retreats. (6) Ski lifts and tows. (7) Keeping of horses, poultry, or livestock, but specifically excluding keeping of hogs and commercial feed lots. Section 4. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect five days after publi- cation following the final passage hereof. INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 5th day of August, 1975, and a public hearing on this ordinance shall be at the regular meeting.of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 19th day of August, 1975, at 7:30 P.M., in the Municipal Building of the Town. Mayor I r Ord. 14, 1975 Page 3 INTRODUCED, READ ON SECOND READING, APPROVED, ENACTED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 19th day of August, 1975. Mayor ATTEST: Town Clerk MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: August 1, 1975 RE: Conditional Use Permit for a Recreation Facility in the New Crossroads Addition The Planning Commission voted 4 -0 to recommend approval to you of the conditonal Use Permit requested from Mery Lapin representing the New Crossroads Addition. The request concerns a "recreation facility" to include pool tables, pinball machines, and similar things. We felt such a facility would have no adverse effects on the area, grant no special privileges, nor did we feel it was inconsistent with the zoning and development goals of the community. WN /jk NO of Vain/ box 100 vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476.5613 Mayor Dobson and Town Council Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 office of the town manager August 1, 1975 Dear Mayor Dobson and Members of the Town Council: The Planning Commission has asked me to write you concerning apparent scheduling problems that have arisen with joint sessions of the Council and Commissioners. July 29, 1975's joint session was cancelled with no notification to us until we arrived for the meeting. On previous occasions we some- times have been left waiting 15 -30 minutes past the arranged time of the meeting. We understand that scheduling can sometimes be difficult and that oc- casionally there must be last minute changes. We want you to understand, though, that we feel the current situation be unfair to us. We are all working people who must juggle our schedules to make our meetings, and we ask you and the staff to keep this in mind. One possible solution to the problem is that whenever possible, we be placed first on your agenda. This has worked out well when it has been done in the past, Please keep in mind that we consider the joint sessions important to our planning consultant role with the Council, and this is why we wish to better the current situation, Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, THE VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION William Heimbach Chairman WH /j k cc: Terrell J. Minger s MEMORANDUM DATE: AUGUST 6, 1975 TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE; AMENDMENT TO ALLOW CHURCHES AND RECTORIES AS A CONDITIONAL USE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO ALLOW APPROXIMATELY 600 SQ. FT. RECTORY ADDITION TO INTERFAITH CHAPEL By a 5 - 0 vote, the Planning Commission recommends to you that.the Zoning Ordinance be amended to allow churches and rectories to be built in Agri- cultural zone with the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The reason for this recommended amendment is that it is the desire of the current chapel directors to add a rectory to the existing chapel. The chapel is located in an agricultural zone and consequently there is no provision to allow the addition of a rectory. At the same meeting, the Planning Commission also voted 5 - 0 to recommend that a Conditional Use Permit be granted for the rectory as proposed. It was the feeling of the Planning Commissioners that because of the unique zoning problem of the chapel, our recommendation was the correct route to go because it allows for the rectory addition but still keeps a control on future church and rectory forays into green space by placing them in a Conditional Use category rather than as a permitted use Concerning our recommendation to you that this particular Conditional Use Permit be granted, it should be noted that we directed the Community Develop- ment Department to inform the Villa Cortina development by letter of our findings and recommendations. It was felt that because of the close proximity of the development to the future rectory site, the Condominium owners should be informed so that they could communicate any concerns they have about the project to you. PLANNING COMMISSION August 7,1975 3;00 PM 1. Cohen Variance 2. L.G. Everist Conditional Use Permit Request • 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: August 19, 1975 RE: Planning Commission's recommendation on the Cohen Variance On August 7, 1975 the Planning Commission voted to recommend the requested variance for the addition of gross residential floor area in a presently non - conforming building. Three units in the Row Houses -- 6B, 5B, & 4B request permission to enclose their southern balcony and two units .wish to increase the size of their loft areas. The total variance asked for is approximately 350 square feet. By a 3 -1 vote, the Commission decided to recommend favorably to the Council the granting of the variance. The majority felt that because the changes were basically interior they had no problem with the variance. It was also felt that the external changes would be reviewed closely by the Design Review Board, and the Planning Com- mission was not particularly concerned about the square footage variance per se. The minority vote was against the variance because he did not feel any balconies should be enclosed. • has had any complaints about the plant. She said that she had several from residents in that area and they were mainly complaints about the dust problem. Since Everist Construction Company has started to water down their area, and properly vent the cement storage, the complaints have stopped. Mr. Jerry Deckers, plant manager from L.G. Everist, said that his company has been batching concrete to ;the Town of Vail for at least five years from their Silverthorne Plant, but with the 90 minute limit and with the delays that often happen over the pass now with construction, it is im- possible for them to make deliveries within the 90 minute limit. The staff pointed out that Everist could still make commercial deliveries from Silverthorne since they have now obtained a valid contractors license. The Department of Community Development recommended that if the Conditional Use Permit were approved it be for the sole purpose of supplying concrete for the highway project and further that it be for a limited period of time and that the staff be allowed to control dust and other nuisances created by the Plant. The staff feared that if an unlimited Conditional Use Permit were issued it would set a precedent for establishing non - conforming uses. Mr. Leftosky questioned whether or not a Conditional Use Permit would give rise to a series of nonconforming uses and its relevance to the problem at hand. The plant could be moved entirely on highway right -of -way, but the question of operation still remains unsolved. He also wanted to know thelegality of the Zoning Department's actions by going on to the site where the company is delivering and putting a stop work order on.them rather than going to the plant and stopping them there. Diana Toughill stated that the Department's basic problem was with the commercial deliveries and the only way to determine where the concrete is being delivered is to follow the truck to a job site. The scope of operation.of a Conditional Use is covered in the Zoning Ordinnace, Leftosky felt that all the comments and concerns made about industrial activity within the Town of Vail were valid but he asked the Planning Commission to consider the special circumstances surrounding this case. They would be batching concrete only temporarily for three or four months more and Mr. Leftosky wanted the Planning Commission to decide whether or not the concrete batching plant was creating a nuisance to the residents. He went on to say that if a conditional use permit was granted that he and his company would work with the Zoning Department on any conditions that were put on the Conditional Use Permit. A representative of Mountain Mobile Mix asked the Planning Commission to take into consideration the competition factor involved when two.companies are working out of the same area -- one of them is in a zoned district abiding by all of the controls and the other is not.. After Diana Toughill read the criteria and findings to the Planning Commission, Bill Wilto made a motion to grant a Conditional Use Permit for the aggregate stockpiles for a three month period for delivery to the Highway Project only. Bill Hanlon seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE John Donovan made a suggestion to the Planning Commission that they take a look at Section 17,207 of the Zoning Ordinance. His suggestion to that section was that they limit the amount that grade can be changed to the natural grade level. The Planning Commission agreed to consider his sug- gestion seriously. RESIGNATION AND REAPPOINTMENT TO THE DRB Bill Hanlon submitted his resignation to the Design Review Board after having served for two years. Bill Wilto was appointed to replace him, As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 4:15 PM �J • PLANNING COMMISSION August 7, 1975 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Hanlon Bill Heimbach Gordon Pierce Dave Sage Bill Wilto - appeared for the second item on the agenda COHEN VARIANCE Background information was supplied at the July 17, 1975 meeting in whi.ch the architects and the firm of McLaughlin.& Peterson were present. This is a request for the addition of GRFA in a presently non - conforming building. Three units in the Row Houses -- 6B, 5B, & 4B request permission to enclose their southern balconys and two units wish to increase the size of their loft areas. The total variance asked for is approximately 450 square feet. The staff, when asked their feelings, had no problems with the request. After Diana Toughill read the criteria and findings to the Planning Commision, Gordon Pierce made a motion to approve the variance, and Dave Sage seconded the motion. A vote was taken and Heimbach, Pierce & Sage voted for the motion and Bill Hanlon opposed it. The motion was passed with a 3 to 1 vote. L.G. EVERIST CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST L.G. Everist, Inc was requested to apply fora Conditional Use Permit to allow aggregate stock piling in a heavy service district (Skelly Oil property just west of Pitkin Creek). A concrete batch plant was illegally erected on State Highway right'Sfnecessar which thethere batch plant zone operation� and the aggregate stockpiling Y The Community Development Department advised Everist that they would be allowed to continue to furnish concrete for the highway project pending approval of the Conditional Use Permit but would not be allowed to make commercial deliveries from the Bighorn plant. It was felt that allowing the concrete plant to remain to complete the highway is in the best interest of the community and that the enlarged scope of operation as a commercial facility is not. Mr. Steve Leftosky, Everist's Attorney, had no argument that the Plant is not a desirable thing to have in theTown.. The batch plant will be operated on a temporary basis until their contract with the Highway Department expires in the next three to four months. The main conflict that they have with the Town is their continuation of private sales of concrete within the Town. Mr. Leftosky went on to say that his company has tried to keep the impact of the concrete batch plant down to a minimum by placing it away from the residential area and by watering it down every day to keep the dust problem down to a minimum. He asked Diana Toughill, Zoning Administrator, if she • 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: August 19, 1975 RE: Conditional Use Permit Everest Construction On August 7, 1975 the Planning Commission voted 5 -0 to recommend granting of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the stock- piling of gravel on the Skelly Property for.90 days to be used solely in conjunction with Interstate- 70 construction. The originaal request from the principals involved in the operation for a permit to allow both stockpiling and a batch plant on the Skelly property and adjacent Highway right -of -way was for both highway and private commercial use. It was our decision that because a batch plant operation was not covered in the Zoning Ordihdnce as either a permitted or conditional use -- and shouldn't be -- that part of the request was out of the question. It was additionally decided that we did not want to see stockpiling on the property that would be used for private commercial use. We did feel, though, that in hope of speeding highway construction along, we should allow them to stockpile for 90 days for use strictly in conjunction with the Highway. PLANNING COMMISSION August 21, 1975 3:00 PM Members present: Heimbach Wright Abbott WiIto Others present: Lamont Toug hi 11 SALES TAX FIGURES Lamont presented sales tax data summarized by John Ryan and suggested that staff and Planning Commission might be able to use this information as an aid in considering conditional use permits in CCI. The general feeling was that the Planning Commission would not want to impose the Town in the economic determinants of the community,and the market place should determine what types of new businesses are allowed. They did, however, feel that the data with some refinement, could be used by the staff in the general review process. SET BACK VARIANCE FOR LOTS 5, 7, and B.Vai_l Villa e 10th Filin Jim Abbie, representing owners of Lots 5, 7, & 8, Vail Village 10th Filing - application for 4' setback in lieu of 20' required by the Zoning Ordinance. Diana Toughill explained that the setback variance was requested by these owners for two reasons: first, to locate the structure as far from Zone I, Avalanche Hazard area, as possible, and secondly to mitigate the environmental damage from extensive cuts and fills nec- essary to meet the setback requirements. The Community Development Department staff recommended approval of the variance. Based on criteria and findings from Article 19 read into the record, a motion for approval was made by Jen Wright and seconded by Bill Wilto. The motion carried with Abbott opposed. • 0 i PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY August 28, 1975 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Heimbach Dudley Abbott Bill Wilto Dave Sage OTHERS PRESENT Diana Toug hi l l Ellen Jacobson The first item on the agenda was a compliant from Ellen Jacobson that various areas around her neighborhood on lower Forest Road need attention and satisfaction from the Town of Vail has not been.forthcoming: 1. The area round the Mark needs general trash cleanup. There is a stack of cans remaining from the tennis court surfacing, . an old wooden desk,and lumber scraps. 2. The bank on the south side of the Mark tennis courts has not been revegetated and is eroding. 3. There is a great deal of trash in the car pound area and the fence is a mess. Mrs. Jacobson stated that she had been told previously that the pound would be moved this year and the area would be cleaned up. 4. Mrs. Jacobson also did not approve of the Town's use of the Continential Trailways trailer as a shuttle bus facility without a public hearing. The Planning Commission instructed Diana Toughill to follow -up on the com- plaints and take the necessary action to resolve the problems and report back to them in 30 days. The Planning Commission then discussed the development standards proposed by the Department of Community Development staff for Cql which would amend proposed Ordinance 16 (Horizontal Zoning). A motion for ap- proval for inclusion in the Horizontal Zoning Ordinance was made by Bill Wilto and seconded by Dave Sage. The motion was unanimously approved. 0 Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting August 28, 1975 Page 2 The next item on the agenda was Bob Lazier's request for an amend- ment to the variance permit issued on the Lionshead commercial building. Lazier has requested that he be allowed to use the money he would spend to cover 15 parking spaces, as required by the variance, to instead add heated walkways, landscaping and other site amenities to the project in the same dollar amount, The Department of Community Development staff prepared a complete cost estimate for the covered parking (copy attached) which is $6790.00 and suggested that Lazier pay an additional amount not to exceed $500 to the Town of Vail for design of the improvements, Lazier was not present because of a court subpoena to Denver, but committed by telephone to Diana Toughill that he would be willing to abide by improvements determined by the Planning Commission and Council and the amount estimated by the staff. After a great deal of discussion and questions, a motion was made by Dave Sage, amended by Bill Wilto and seconded by Bill Hanlon as follows: That the Planning Commission recommend to the Town Council approval of the amendment to the variance permit allowing Lazier to provide landscaping and additional site amenities as designed by the Town of Vail in the amount of $6,790 plus $500 for design work, with unex- pended design money to be refunded; provided, however, that the $7,290 is deposited with the Finance director in cash or certified funds no later than 5:00 p.m., September 2, 1975, Further that • any item not yet complete on the building and site as approved previously by the Design Review Board be completed no later than September 30, 1975. The motion passed three (3) votes for and one (1) vote opposed (Abbott) and Bill Hanlon abstaining due to a conflict of interest. • i & SUMMARY PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES September 4, 1975. Present: Heimbach, Sage, Wilto, Wright, Pierce, Hanlon, Lamont, Toughill, Andy Norris (V.A.), Ron.Todd (architect) The first item on the agenda was a request for a gross residential floor area variance to add approximately 150 sq. ft. of loft area to'the R. D. Gunn unit in the Christiania.building, which is presently non - conforming. Ron Todd, representing Mr. & Mrs. Gunn, presented the plans to the Planning Committee. Gordan Pierce made a motion.for approval of the variance based on items 1, 2 and 3a of the criteria and findings of the zoning ordinance. The motion was seconded by Jim Wright and ,p,ass.ed 5--0 with Dave Sage abstaining. A presentation was made by Andy'Norris of V.A....requ.e'sting a parking variance to allow 587o of the required parking for the proposed Lions View Apartments to ;be covered ;bud- not: wit -hip? the building as opposed to the zoning ordinance requirement that,.750/c of the parking be within the buildings. Norris explained the FHA involvement and control of the project and stated'that rent'cont�rol by FHA would prohibit the parking within the building and that total expenditure and profits are very restricted. Norris presented a comparison of rents for Apollo Park and Fall Line, with the proposed,project being slightly lower. He further explained that the developer would agree to provide a day care center of approximately ,1,500 sq. ft. or larger if the TOV felt there was a need for more space. They are also proposing mini -tot lots and outdoor recreation areas. After a great deal of discussion and questions from the Planning Committee and the staff., Dave Sage made a motion to table the request in order to obtain more information The motion was seconded by Bill Wilto. The motion carried with.Pie.rce and Wright abstaining. The Planning Committee then directed the staff to notify residents in the area to obtain public input. Since Abbott was not present, the staff requested that the Ski Museum and variances be continued. A motion was made by Hanlon, seconded by Pierce and approved unanimously, The Planning Committee and directed the staff to seven members with then discussed the composition of the DRB to prepare an amendment to change the board only one Planning Committee member. 10 r1 LJ • MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: September 16, 1975 RE: Planning Commission's Recommendations By a 4 -0 (with one abstention), the Vail Planning Commission agreed to recommend to you the approval of a GRFA variance for a condominium unit in the northwest corner of the Christiana Lodge. The variance entails a 150 square foot loft to be built into the unit's existing livingroom. The loft will be used basically as an extra bedroom. The variance request doesn't encompass any external changes to the unit. Additionally, the Planning Commission, by a 3 -0 vote (with one abstention), agreed to recommend to you favorable consideration for two variances requested by Vail Associates for the 125 -unit Lions View Apartment to be located adjacent to Sandstone. Because the Town Council preliminarily reviewed this project before we saw it, I will not go into great detail. The variances were for relief concerning the Zoning Ordinance requirement that covered parking be "within the building" and that in a HDMF zone 75 percent of the parking must be covered. VA wishes to cover only 58 percent of the parking, and none of this will be technically within the building. • MEMO - TOWN COUNCIL Setpember 16, 1975 Page Two The following summarizes the reasons for the Planning Commission's vote in favor of these variances: 1. The project will be made possible through an FHA loan and will be marketed purely on a rental basis which will hopefully make it attractive and convenient to Vail area employees. 2. FHA financing, we are told, requires high quality construction and guarantees that project investors can receive no more than 10 percent return on their investment. If profits are higher than that level, the money must be returned to the project in the form of lower rents or capital improvements. 3. We are concerned that with the Gore Valley con- dominium market on an upswing, as we are told by several realtors, that this may lessen the supply of housing for employees. We feel that a purely rental project will assist in assuring that employees will not in the future be frozen out • of this valley as far as housing is concerned. 4. Vail Associates has agreed to furnish.4,000 square feet of this project to the Town of Vail for badly needed daycare facilities. We are told that 100 children could use this facility and still meet all State requirements. We were also as- sured that the day care center would be available to all Vail. residents (not just those of the project itself) and that it would not be used for tourist children. 5. Jack and Sandi Mills and Horst and Kit Abraham and Sharon Welin attended our meeting Thursday to voice the concerns of Sandstone residents. They left the meeting with no objections to the project after it was fully explained (although they still have some concern). 6. We don't feel that forcing parking to be "within the building" .necessarily is best in all cases. Lions Square North, for instance, serves as a positive example where a variance was given and the final product is aesthetically pleasing. .7 MEMO- TOWN COULCIL September 16, 1975 Page Three C] WH / j k • • 7. We are also not greatly concerned that the project meet the HDMF requirement of having 75 percent of the parking covered. The actual density of the project meets HDMF stipulations which would require that only 50 percent of the parking be covered. Also, we are more concerned that the project be aesthetically pleasing rather than meet all the technical requirements. With the berming, land- scaping, and snow removal plans we were told about, plus the fact that the project must pass the Design Review Board, our concerns in this area were allayed. LJ MEMORANDUM TO: (1) Terrell J. Minger (2) James F. Lamont FROM: Diana Toughill DATE: September 16, 1975 RE: Summary of Proposed Land Exchange between Vail Intermountain Associates and the Bureau of Land Management Approximately four and one -half years ago, Vail Intermountain Associates was approached by the Division of Wildlife and the Bureau of Land Management to exchange.a portion of a 163 acre parcel of land owned by Vail Intermountain Associates (VIA) north and south of the deer underpass to protect an established deer migration route. DOW and BLM wished to prevent development of the subject land and subsequent destruction of the approximately 600 head of deer and small elk population using the area for migration and winter feeding ground. An appraisal prepared by.Danial L. Clinger, M.A.I., in November 1971 valued the 163 acres at $1,392,500.00, part of which is now Vail Intermountain Subdivision. A second appraisal was done in 1972 by Alan MacRossi for the undeveloped 116 acres of the VIA land and the BLM property proposed for trade, with VIA land valued at $372,020 and the selected 120 acre BLM parcel located in the Meadow Mountain area valued at $375,750. In 1973 the proposed Meadow Mountain exchange was informally rejected and the Gartons began investigating BLM land in the Granby area suitable for trade. At this time Andrus, State Director of BLM, requested yet a third appraisal of the Intermountain land and the BLM parcel. Andrus requested that William T. Van Court, MAI, be hired by VIA to perform this appraisal,which valued the land in February 1974 at $790,000; Andrus requested Eagle County Commission to review the acquisition of the Intermountain land in March 1974 to which they gave a strong favorable endorsement. Again in March 1974 Andrus requested a meeting with Garton and at'this time indicated there was a great deal of public opposition to the Granby (Val Moritz area) trade but that they were willing to go ahead with the reclassification of the Blm land proposed for trade. MEMO - Minger, Lamont September 16, 1975 Page Two Jack Grieb, Director of the Division of Wildlife, submitted in January 1975 an update game management plan to Andrus stressing the urgency of the land exhange for the protection of an expanding deer herd. After more than four years of negotiation and with= holding the subject land from development or private sale, Andrus notified Garton that the land in question is no longer worth the originally appraised value due to County zoning and unfavorable soils con- ditions. In August 1975, BLM's appraiser valued the land at $30 to $50 per acre or a total of approximately $5,000.00 for the 116+ acres which were determined not economically suitable for any kind of development. In the S to,jjber 2, 1975 letter notifying VIA of the new appraisal, BLM°0'°�i`egotiate further based on the newly established value which was rejected by Garton. A discussion of the foregoing problem is scheduled for the September 17 County Planning Commission's meeting. In.light of what has taken place, I feel Intermountain has every right to proceed with subdivision and development if BLM maintains their present position on the value of the subject property, which is absurd. Some of the property adjacent to the Creek is developable and there are buildable areas within the steeper terrain,which is presently served by a dirt road and all utilities are available. If we were recommending Town of Vail Zoning for the acres, we would recommend Residential Cluster for the property on the south side of I -70 and Agricultural for the parcel on the north side which is probably undevelopable. The County Zoning for the property is "Resource" which is the zone the County uses for most unsubdivided land and it could probably be changed to "Suburban" which would allow approximately six (6) units per acre. I personally feel that the Town of Vail should support VIA and make a strong statement regard.ing'the worth of the land; the ridiculous, bureaucratic treatment of VIA;and the value of pre- serving our wild life. If you have any questions about the documents submitted, which are in chronological order, or the chain of events, please call me. /jk cc: Bob Manzanares SUMMARY PLANNING. COMMITTEE MINUTES. September.18, 1075 Present: Sage, Wilto, Abbott, Heimback, Wright, L'amo.nt, Toughill A proposal for.changing the composition of 'the DRB was presented by, the staff. The proposal would amend the zoning ordinance so that only one Planning Committee member would serve on the the Board with the other 4-members being appointed by the Planning Committee. One that terms be staggered and second that the members all be residents of the Town of Vail.. The Planning Committee would also like the opportunity for the committee and the DRB to make appointment recommendations to the Council. A motion was made by Abbott to present the amendment to the Council. The motion was seconded by Sage and approved unanimously. The next item on the agenda was approval of the school site location pursuant to Colorado School Law. A motion was made by Sage and seconded by Abbott to approve the location of the proposed K -4 school site and was approved unanimously. The Planning.Commi.ttee also indicated their preliminary approval of the subdivision of the school site, Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch • PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA October 2, 1975 1. Resubdivision of Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch 2. Resubdivision of Lot D, Block , Vail Village 1st Filing 3. Conditional Use Permit - Tofel & Selby - request for office building in High Density Multiple Family Zone 4. Discussion with Town Council concerning Ski Museum conditional use and associated variances. • lie MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: October 2, 1975 RED Conditional Use Permit for Office Building Tofel and Selby Based on Criteria and Findings from Article 19 of the zoning Ordinance, the Department of Community Develop- ment staff recommends approval of the subject conditional use permit: 1. The development objectives have not been clearly defined for this particular district; however, we must recognize that it has become Town policy to discourage office use within the CCI area. This policy was created not to deny the need for office space but to maintain the mixed use concept. The issues that must be considered in light of this proposal are: a. Is it desirable to allow an office building to be located in area outside of CCI, CCII, or CSC? b. Is it desirable to mix pure high density residential structures with a pure high density office structure, or should the uses be mixed within the structure? C. If it is desirable,what is the most appropriate location for this use to occur? PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFFICE BUILDING October 2, 1975 Page Two When one views the community for the most suitable means of providing office space,the following factors should be considered: a. The frequency of vehicular visits are higher for office uses, (Dependent upon the types of occupants,) b. User access by vehicles should be convenient. c. The office structure should be centrally located to commercial cores. d. The location of the office structure should not conflict with existing use. The proposed project is located within a HDMF zone surrounded on the west by the Vail Clinic (MDMP) and on the east by the Holiday Inn (Public Accommodation), The MDMF and Public Accommodation districts are high intensity use areas. The relationship to the clinic and municipal building will more than likely encourage support services to be located within the proposed building. The existing uses within the HDMF zone are short and longterm dwelling units, The nature of the office use will have minimal effect providing that uses do not produce off -site noise or odor problems. The effect of mixing residential and office use within the same structure has the tendency to spread the office use throughout the entire area, With the advent of PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFFICE BUILDING October 2, 1975 Page Three the Mall. System many of these offices will lose their desirability because of the inconvenience of access. Any sites which are in close proximity to the Frontage Road have the tendency of being below average living environments. The proposed use will preclude the addition of more dwelling or accommodation units into the available housing resource base. It has been the implicit policy of the Town to discourage whenever possible major additions to the housing resource base. The location of the site will allow principal traffic to enter from the Frontage Road. This will limit traffic circulation on residential streets, 2. The proposed use will have little, if any, impact upon distribution of population, transportation, utilities, schools, parks and recreation or other public facilities. In fact, there is perhaps a positive impact in that a potential condominium site which would impact these important community concerns is not adding to the bed base and population. The site would allow approximately 30 - two bedroom condominium units or 120 additional people. 3, Traffic could be a problem in the area due to the close proximity of the Hilton Inn and the Post Office driveways. The proposed traffic pattern is more desirable than routing the cars through a residential and emergency ambulence and fire routes. A portion of the potential traffic problem could be alleviated by proper signing at I I* • PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OFFICE BUILDING October 2, 1975 Page Four 4. The character of the neighborhood is some- what commercial in character due to the Clinic, the Hilton, the Municipal Building and the Post Office, In terms of bulk, the proposed project is in keeping with the general scale of the area and somewhat smaller than some of the surrounding structures, 5. There would be little or no environmental impact created.by the proposed office building. THE MORTE.R /TODD PARTNEFISHIP, AIA Proposed Vall Professional Building The applicants for the Conditional Use Permit are: Jeffrey B. Selby P.O. Box 1528 Vail, Colorado 81657 Richard M. Tofel P.O. Box 172 Vail, Colorado 81657 Conditional Use Permit is sought for the express purpose of providing professional offices. The property is presently zone High Density Multiple Family District and in accordance with Section 6.300, of the Zoning Ordinance, Conditional Uses, subparagraph (1), the proposed use is permitted, upon issuance of a Conditional Use Permit. The precise use of the building will be for professional offices including, but not necessarily limited to the following: legal offices, accountants offices, insurance offices, engineering offices, architects offices, general buginess offices, corporate offices, governmental offices, brokerage offices, real estate offices, and other similar uses. Other data required by the Zoning Ordinance is contained within the attached architectural drawings. In accordance with Section 18.600, Criteria and Findings, the applicant respectfully offers the following comments. (Paragraph numbers are referenced to those in the Zoning Ordinance) 1) Applicant understands that the design objective of the Town of Vail with respect to professional offices is that it be located in such places where residential is not conducive. To this end, the proposed project would provide an alternative location for these types of professional offices presently located in other areas around Vail. 2) The proposed use is strictly non - residential, and will have no effect on population growth. Consequently, it will not create any additional needs for schools, parks, recreation facilities and other public facilities. Its overall impact on utilities will be minimal because of its lack of effect on population. No additional transport - ation facilities will be required and the non- residential character of the building means no fireplaces to add to Vail's periodical air pollution problem. The building is sufficiently removed from surrounding structures to avoid any problems associated with light and sun exposure. CROSSROADS AT VAIL BOX 1186 VAIL, COLORADO 81657 476 -5105 • • I* THE MORTER /TODD PARTNEI= SHIP, AIA 3) Traffic control. The building is being designed to be in total. compliance.with the zoning regulations with respect to parking. This means that all vehicular traffic created by the building can be handled within the site with absolutely no impact on surrounding parking facilities. Access to the site is available on 2 sides. Due to the more residential nature of the south side of the building, the primary traffic pattern will revolve around the north entrance. This entrance ties into the Frontage Road at a point where traffic has been slowed down already by traffic control signs. With a heated ramp and traffic control signs on the property, every effort will be made to minimize the traffic effect at this congested area. As an alternative solution, ingress traffic could be routed from the Frontage Road with egress traffic routed to the south of the building. This solution can be instigated at the outset of the project, or held in abeyance until it is determined through use that a problem does exist. One positive impact the project could have is the elimination of . traffic to the core area of the Village where certain business offices are presently located if these offices were relocated to the proposed structure. The proposed building is centrally located within the Vail /LionsHead complex and pedestrian accessibility is anticipated. This type of activity will have a positive influence on traffic control. 4) The character of the surrounding area is such that a business and professional building is a consistent use. Specifically the use of the building on the east and south are high density residential condominiums, while the uses to the west are the clinic and the Hilton hotel. On the north is the town offices and Post Office. In terms of bulk site, the proposed structure is smaller than both Scorpio and the Hilton, but larger than the town offices, the clinic and the Skall Haus. By use and building mass, the proposed structure is very consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. r w MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Diana Toughill DATE: October 2, 1975 SUBJECT: Problem Areas in Zoning Ordinance and recommended changes. Section Definitions 1.500 1. Grade or average grade - difficult to calculate even on working drawings. Impossible to determine for a preliminary set of plans in order to complete preliminary zoning and design review. 2. Height - due to above problem, Planning Commission has allowed average height to be measured from finished grade to the highest point at the mid -point of every wall 20' or longer and an average of these measurements used. This interpretation allows more imaginative roof design and encourages more variation in roof levels. Maximum number of floors according to Uniform Building Code definition would be an easier way of achieving the same objective. As an alternative to height limits, in zones that allow 45' maxi- mum height, four stories and a loft and in zones that allow 35' maximum height three stories and a loft would be approximately the same, but easier to administer and would solve the problem of developers squeezing in extra height and units by raising the natural grade. 3. Site Coverage - Consider including drives and parking for calcula- ting site coverage. Only coverage buildings are now considered a site coverage. 4. Usable Open Space - delete.5% grade in SFR &R - Almost all residen- tial sites in Town are greater than 10% grade - regulation requires cut and fill or very large decks to meet requirement of less than 10% grade. Articles 2 & 3 SFR &R - Consider reducing GRFA and /or site coverage. Council feels many of the homes are too large, particularly duplexes. Article 6 HDMF 6.300 - Conditional uses - Can professional offices occupy only 10% permitted for accessary uses, all of the building with unlimited floor area or the same floor area allowed for GRFA? needs clarification. 6.503 - Distance between buildings could be increased. Design Review Board keeps asking for more space than required by Ordinance. 6.506 - Building offsets are a problem because of required parking underneath with a dimension of 9' wide. Suggest 75' maximum without offset as this allows for 9' parking stall and columns and consider standard prestress spans for unit modules. .—; 7 Public Accommedati ores - 7.300 - same comment as 6.300 only 20% 7.503 & 7.506 - same comment as HDMF 7.200 - include definition of a lodge from 1.500 for clarification. - 2 - Article 8 CCI - to encourage dwelling units to consider deleting usable open space requirement and decrease site coverage and increase landscaping for balance. The horizontal zoning ordinance has solved all but the parking problem in CCI. Article 9 CCII - We may want to consider horizontal zoing for this area also.. 9.606 - same comment as 6.506 Article 10 Commercial Service Center - We should consider requiring some under- ground parking for commercial space. Presently, 50% covered parking is required for dwelling units only. H.S.& A - no problems. Proposed Public .Zone -- We need to draft a zone district for properties 46 owned by the Town of Vail for Antholz, Site 24, Tract A, school site, etc., as the uses proposed for these sites do not fit within the existing zones. The zone needs to be flexible but with a review process to make proposals subject to public hearing. Article 14 Parking - requirements for large multi -use projects appears to be too high. Could possibly use credit system as originally proposed by Livingston. Article 15 Design Review - Change composition of Board to relieve Planning Commission. Limit DRB approval to one year. Article 16 Environmental Impact - Checklist approach seems to work well, however, we need procedure to declare a lot or site unbuildable prior to specific development plans being submitted, particularly in hazard areas. Should consider using economics as a means of evaluating the impact of major new Article developments. 17 Supplemental - Suggest 17.401 be made a part of heavy service district for clarification. Article 18 Suggest conditional use permits be handled completely by Planning Commission with the Council having right of review. Article 19 Variances - no problem - process lengthy but probably no way to shorten. Article 20 . no problems Article 21 no problems I. Landscaping definition could be more restrictive for higher density areas so that natural vegetation such as wild grass is not considered unless a part of a total plan. 2. Consider general landscaping regulation for denuded soil to prevent fugitive dust. 3. Consider building maintenance program for existing buildings. 4. Re- access permitted use and development standard within problem districts. �� 5. Define development objective for each zone district. h � • • MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY OCTOBER 3, 1975 Dudley Abbott Bill Heimbach Bill Hanlon Gordon Pierce Bill Wilto -- II Dave Sage III Pete Eichsteadt Jim Lamont Jim Mortor Rich Tofel item on the agenda item on the agenda I. Resubdivision for School Site -- Block B, Potato Patch --- final Approval After a brief summary of the resubdivision proposal for the resubdivision by Jim Lamont, Bill Hanlon made a motion for final approval of the resubdivision and Dudley Abbott seconded the motion, A vote was taken andthe proposal was unanimously approved. II. Resubdivision of Lot D. Vail Village First Filinz --- A proposal was made by Rich Tofel and Jim Mortor for the resubdivision of Lot D, Vail Village First Filing. Jim Lamont gave a brief description of the lot in question and stated that staff had no problem with the request. Gordon Pierce made the motion for approval of the resub. and Dudley Abbott seconded the motion. A vote was taken and it was approved un- animously. III. Conditional Use Permit for the pro ose.d office building Attached is the written request by Tofel /Selby fox. the Conditional Use Permit in order to allow an office building on Lot D, Vail Village First Filing. The Planning Commission felt that there was no problem with the requested use but that a better traffic plan and pedestrian access should be worked out. Bill Wilto made the motion for approval contingent upon the fact that Jim Mortor work with the Department of PLANNING COMMISSION October 3, 1975 Summary Page Two III. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE PROPOSED OFFTCF RTTTT.nTMr, Community Development to work out a final traffic plan as well as a pedestrian access and then return to the Planning Commission with their findings for approval. Gordon Pierce seconded the motion and the vote was unanimously in favor of granting the con- ditional use permit. IV. Ski Museum -- joint session with the Town Council L ' 1 • MEMORANDUM TO: I Town Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: October 7, 1975 RE: Ski Museum By a 4 -0 vote (and one abstention), the Vail Planning Commission decided to recommend to you the approval of a Conditional Use Permit, setback variance, and parking variance for the proposed ski museum subject to a mandatory 'f review in two (2) years by the Town Council, Planning Com ! mission, and Museum Committee of the museum functions as they relate to the Zoning Ordinance. The intention of the review shall be to perpetuate the museum in the best possible location. As you know, the Planning Commission is con- cerned about the currently proposed site of the museum as it relates to vehicular and pedestrain traffic congestion, lack of any nearby public parking, and lack of facility expansion potential. It is hoped that intwo (2) years these questions can be better answered. The Commission wishes to make it clear that we are all 100 percent in support of the museum and only want to assure that the facility is in the best possible location. ! 0 I* MEMORANDUM TOi Town Council FROM; Department of Community Development DATE: October 7, 1975 RE: Lion's View Apartment Consideration of factors (Section 19,600) 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The site is located east of an area recently down- 40 zoned to residential. This area contains approximately ten (10) single - family and duplex residences. The occupants of these dwellings are primarily local residents, The site is bound on the east by the new K-4 school. The site is surrounded by green belt on all sides. 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 thie ordinance without grant of special privilege. The applicant has requested a variance from the required parking within the building which would have required a total of 75% parking spaces to be Located within the building. The applicant seeks to locate no parking within the building. The Proposal is to cover 5870 parking spaces. Significant.landscaping 10 C MEMORANDUM - TOWN COUNCIL October 7, 1975 -- Lion's View Apartment Page Two would be used to screen the exposed parking from off -site view corridors. The development plan significantly reduces the proposed density to MDMF. The degree of relief is not significant considering that the density allowed is.HDMF and.propos.ed is MnMF, 3. The effect of the required variance on light and air,distribution of population, trans- portation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The effect on: a. Distribution of population will allow for a significant increase into the area. The nature of this population will be primarily local residents such as: (1) family.living.units of 2 -4 individuals (2) single living.units of 1 -4 individuals There is no .information available t:h. is '.indicates what the mix of living styles will be. It will obviously fluctate according to available housing alternatives and employement op- portunities. b. Transportation and Traffic Facilities are as follows; (1) Transportation facilities are capable of servicing the area given n' the present configuration of the mass.transit system; (2) Traffic facilities as it applies to pedestrain traffic will be adequately served by a path system and pedestrian overpass. Vehicular traffic flow is suit - able. Parking meets the requirement of the Ordinance. However, there is a dispute as to the adequacy of the parking requirement. Our MEMORANDUM - TOWN COUNCIL October 7, 1975 -- Lion's View Apartment Page Three previous experiences indicates that if there are suitable con- trols over the parking space allocation the existing require - ment,is sufficient. The appli- cant has stated that he has the ability of expanding on site parking should the need arise while still meeting.the remain - ing development standards. This point should be thoroughly discussed with the developer and residents in the area. Public facilities, utilities and public safety no significant impact. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Refer to Planning Commission Memorandum., Findings 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege incon- sistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. We do not feel this is a grant of special privilege because the applicant has reduced densities to MDMF Standards in exchange for the parking variance. Further the applicant has taken a similar approach to covered parking which was allowed on the Lionsquare project. 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. We have not found any information that would lead us to believe that the project would be detrimental to the above items. We have recommended to the developer that adequate storage ;` MEMORANDUM -- TOWN COUNCIL October 7, 1975 -- Lion's View Apartment Page Four be provided, Further that regulation be developed that would not allow storage except for firewood on balconies. Also, that parking expansion areas are available should a parking problem emerge. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: (b) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. The following reasons indicate that.there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site: (1) That by providing underground parking within the building would more than likely be higher. We believe that taller buildings would be a negative impact upon the adjacent residential areas. (2) That FHA requirements are more excessive than TOV development requirements. (3) That the cost of construction is directly related to rental rates as well as allowable profits are fixed by FHA regulation. i MEMOr TO: Town Council FROM: Planning Commission RE: Planning Commission Recommendations By a 4--0 vote (with one abstention), the Vail Planning Commission agreed to recommend to you the approval of a GRFA variance for a condominium unit in the northwest corner of the' Christiana Lodge.. The variance entails a 150 square foot loft to be built into the unit's existing livingroom. The loft will be used basically as an extra bedroom. The variance request doesn't encompass any external changes to the unit. Additionally, the Planning Commission, by a 3 -0 vote (with one abstention), a greed to recommend to you favorable con- sideration for two variances requested by Vail Associates for the 125 -unit Lions View Apartments to be located adjacent to Sandstone. Because the Town Council preliminarily reviewed this project before we saw it, I will not go into great detail. The variances were for relief concerning the zoning ordinance require- ment that covered parking be "within the building" and that in a HDMF zone 75.per cent of the parking must be covered. VA wishes to cover only 58 per cent of the parking, and none of this will.be technically within the building. The following summarizes the reasons for the Planning Commission's vote in favor of these variances: 1) The project will be made possible through an FHA' loan and will be marketed purely on a rental basis which will hopefully make it attractive and convenient to Vail area employees. 2) FHA financing, we are told, requires high quality construction and guarantees that project °investors can receive no more than a 10 per cent return on their investment. If profits are higher than that level,'the money must be returned to.the project in the form of lower rents or capital improvements. EI -. is t e s 3) We are concerned that with the Gore Valley condo- 'minium market on an upswing, as we are told by several realtors, that this may lessen the supply of housing for employees. We feel that a purely rental project will assist-in assuring that employees will not in the future be frozen out of this valley as far as housing is concerned. 4) Vail Associates has agreed to furnish 4,000 square feet of this project to the Town of Vail for badly needed day care facilities. We are told that 100 children could use this facility and still.meet all state requirements. We were also assured that the day care center would be available to all Vail residents (not just those of the project itself). and that it would not be used for tourist children. 5) Jack and Sandi Mills and Horst and Kit Abraham and Sharon Welin attended our meeting Thursday to voice the concerns of Sandstone residents. They left the meeting with no objections to the project after it was fully explained (although they still have some concerns). 6) We don't feel that forcing parking to be "within the building" necessarily is best in all cases. Lions Square North, for instance, serves as a positive example where a variance was given and the final product is aesthetically pleasing. 7) We are also not greatly concerned that the project meet the HDMF requirement of having 75 per cent of the parking covered. The actual density of the project meets MDMF stipulations which would require that only 50 per cent of the parking be covered. Also, we are more concerned that the project be aesthetically pleas- ing rather than meet all the technical requirements. With the berming, landscaping, and snow removal plans we were told about; plus the fact that the project must pass the Design Review Board , our concerns in this area were allayed. • PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 1975 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: Also Present: Bill Heimbach Joe Stauffer Gordon Pierce Andy Norris Jen Wright Jdhn.Kaemmer Bill Wilto Jim Lamont Diana Toughill Discussion of zoning problems on Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch. Presentation by Andy Norris of Vail Associates. Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance by John Kaemmer to convert a dwelling unit to an antique shop in the McBride Building. Motion to approve by Pierce, Second Wright, Hanlon Abstain. 2 for and 2 against.' Preliminary consideration of conditional use permit (five month temporary) for use of approximately 4,500 sq.ft. in the Poor Richards Building for Billy Jack Enterprises. • • PLANNING COMMISSION October 23, 1975 AGENDA Discussion of zoning problem on Lot I Block 2, Vail Potato Patch, Presentation by Andy Norris of Vail Associates, Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance by John Kaemmer to convert a dwelling unit to an antique shop in the McBride Building Preliminary consideration of conditional use permit (five month temporary) for use of approximately 4 500 sq ft in the Poor Richards building for Billy Jack Enterprises. MEMORANDUM TO PLANNING COMMISSION FROM; DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RED JOHN KAEMMER REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE - MCBRIDE BUILDING The staff has reviewed the Conditional Use Permit request according to Section 18;600 of the Zoning Ordinance and have the following comments, Request; The applicant has requested that an existing dwelling unit consisting Of approximately 1140 square feet located on the second floor of the McBride Building be converted)to an antique shop, The request would also require a parking variance for two spaces, I. Factors A. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town, B. The Zon the and the applicable development objective under the Horizontal ing Ordinance that is of concern in the request is continuance of the various commercial, residential, public uses in Commercial Core 1 so as to maintain existing character of said area. Our principal concern with the conversion of this type of unit (GRFA over 1,000 square feet) is that it is a relatively . rare housing type. Of the total estimated GRFA allocated to dwelling or accommodation units (263,796 sq, ft, or 64.627o of total estimated sq. ft. in CCI), This housing type accounts for only 44 751 sq, ft. (approximately 39 units or 177o of the total estimated sq. ft, in CC1). This unit constitutes 3% of the sq. ft. allocated for this type of dwelling unit, Due to the limited availability of this housing type we believe it would have significant impact on the desirable mix that is currently existing in CCl, C„ Effect of the use on light and airy distribution of population transportation facilities, utilities, schools parks and recreation facilities and other public facilities and public facilities needs, Our principal concern, under this factor would be the dis- tribution of population,, We believe that the size of this unit would be conducive to encouragement of permanent residents to use the unit, which we feel is desirable, Planning Conni.ssiQn October 23, 1975 Page 2 D Effect upon traffics with particular reference to conges- tion/. automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and re- moval of snow from the streets and parking areas. We forsee no major conflict with these considerations; however, the use would involve some truck traffic for deliveries to the store and from the store to customers, E. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale . and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding .uses Assuming that character refers primarily to physical concerns, we see no conflict with this provision, F, Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed use, Previous applicants have complained of the noise problem emanating from the Nu Gnu which is located below the dwelling unit in question, We have no information regarding this problem. We suggest that a committee of the Planning Commission visit the unit during Nu Gnu business hours to determine the proported negative effect of noise. The applicant has inferred that economic conditions have changed in the district which has encouraged him to con- sider conversion to a commercial use, As the Planning Commission is aware. we are not able to accept these reasons for justirication of the request because they are concerned with economic factors, It is of concern to the staff that several changes have occurred within the McBride Building within the last several years, The zoning ordinance allows for a maximum of 8 000 sq, ft, for any one business Gorsuch is currently at 9,000 sq, ft, In 1974 an additional 750 sq, ft, was allocated for the Country flair shop, In 1975 a request was made to convert an additional 1764 sq, ft, This pro- posal was later withdrawn! however it has been brought to our attention that a dwelling unit has been converted to storage just prior to the adoption of the horizontal zoning amendment, If this assertion is correct approxi- mately approximately 807o of the building is in non- residen- tial uses. Assuming that 64% of total area allocated to residential uses is the average in CC1., this building would be approximately 20% beyond the average_ for the entire CCl area, -: "4; P.l,gnning Commission October 23,� 1975 Page 3 We believe a tour or the building is necessary to deter mine what the actual use allocation at this time is, The Planning Commission may want to consider the proposi- tion that no building should be allowed to convert below a standard percentage level, We should consider the consequences of continuing to in- crease available commercial space in CCl, Figures in dicated that major new areas of commercial use are be coming available or are under- lztilized, By limiting expansion of commercial uses in CCl it may have the effect of improving utilization of other commercial areas— II, FINDINGS; Until the above information is gathered, we do not feel it is appropriate to make any recommendations at this time, 1.0 • • O U a 44 O raw O 9 A4 • u y O a f h Q W W O � w z F � � O d O O b d O O a� cd � w o caws al m �Ld y W � 0 y ocv r OW aCc e?ry O a w m w O �4 v A5 �o a) m ae .coWbno oEo �, 3 '� ^ •V' Q a1 ° w �l � o y � a°' v9r- '� o JS os v c� o d ° 3 0 Off+ X0000 G O a a 6, w � oc'ac����� � •a.0 n.� ��� � � F a b m O Q O m a� a � o o b � o a w 0 i 10 49 Q L' m v a 0 H a; O � � A a O U w 'O 9 � I 0 V a> w o +� c O •r4 0 � W m as O U • NOTICE OF PUBLIC.HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT Mr,. Bill Humphries, representing Mr. Leo Payne, has applied for a setback variance in accord with Section 3,502 of Ordinance No. 8 (Series of 1973) in order to construct a garage and additional living space to residence located on Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing. A Public Hearing will be held in accordance with Section 21.400 of Ordinance No. 8 (Series of 1973) on October 30, 1975 at 3;00 p.m. before the Vail Planning Commission whose decision will be transmitted to the Town Coun cil for final decision. Said hearing will be held in the Vail Municipal • Building. TOWt,ENT AIL DEP OF COMMUN Y DEVELOPMENT C Diana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail on October 10, 1975 • MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Planning Commission DATE: November 4, 1975 RE: Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance Request for John Kaemmer The Planning Commission voted 2--2 (with one abstention) for a Conditional Use Permit and Parking Variance request from John Kaemmer to convert a dwelling unit to an antique shop in the McBride Building. Significantly, this is the first case to come before us under the jurisdication of the new Horizontal Zoning Ordinance. Those voting against the request felt that because of the governmental emphasis to retain some living accomodations in the Core area, the conversion of this unit to commercial space should not be allowed to happen. Those voting negatively thought that because the unit in question is the last living unit on that side of the McBride Building, it should be retained for that use, particularly in view of fire safety. It was that same unit that John Kaemmer has lived in for the past ten (10) years and was living in the night that he detected the fire in the Nu Gnu, which under certain circumstances could well have spread to other parts of the building. If that unit is removed from the living accomodation inventory, that would leave only the apartment in the Clock Tower inhabited, plus, in MEMO - TOWN COUNCIL November 4, 1975 Page Two that general area, the unit above the Ore House. The opinion was stated that even with new sprinkler systems and other fire prevention devices in the Nu Gnu, there is still no better guarantee in that building for detecting and arresting afire in the middle of the night than having people living there. Other reasons for having people living in the Core Area were fully covered during the Horizontal Zoning legis- lative process, so I won't further dwell on those here. Another important point discussed, though, was the noise factor. Those voting negatively felt that although noise might be a problem in that unit for some people, there were others that viewed the location as very desirable for living, mainly because of the convenience, Those Planning Commissioners voting for the request felt that the location, because of noise and traffic flow, should be commercial. space. It was stated by John Kaemmer that living next to the Country Flair has been difficult because of the pedestrian flow and the fact that some customers mistake his door for Country Flair's and walk right into the apartment. It was also felt by those that people living in the unit would cause in the Core Area than having a retail shop further felt that fire protection, because stalled within the building, was not a sig matter. voting for the request more vehicular traffic in that location. They of safety devices in- nificant factor in the . .- .. 4 LIONSRIDGE AND A PORTION OF WEST VAIL ANNEXATION Density Analysis November 5, 1975 DEVELOPED .SITES PROJECT A--S Lions- Mane I Lions Mane II A -6 Homestake A & B B -1 Telemark B -2 Snow Lion B -3 Breakaway I Breakaway II A &B Breakaway II C B -6 Booktree unplatted Aspen Tree C --6 -11 Vail Run COMPAR. SITE AREA SITE AREA ## OF UNITS ZONE SQ. FT.. ACRES UNITS PER A. DISTRIC. 16,801 .385 18 47 HDMF` 28,850 .662 19 29 MDMF`'' 59,285 1,360 66 49. HDMF 39,029 .895 18 20 MDMF' 50,41.6 1.360 26 19 MDMF 15,420 .353 12.. 34 HDMF 49,527 1.136 27 24 MDMF 16,990 .390 15 38 HDMF 53,753 1..233 48 39 HDMF 19,830 .450 15 33 HDMF 358,901 8.224 264 332/10 = 33.2 avg. units per acre P.U.D. x-18,000 commercial. 35 HDMF i • Area Description Sq. Ft. A 62,988 A -2 50,094 A -3 .41,121 A- excepted 60,723 'A -4 11,848 A -7 53,796 A -8 56,192 B -4 158,558 8 -5 1039'629 8 -7 67,126 C -6 -11 385,.070 SC -1-5 439,084 ..Part D 28,240 Subdivided' t Total 1,518,_066 r Fleming 467,834 McCallister 69,696 Nottingham 30,579 G -T 43,560 �. Indian Crk 392,040 Holy Cross 56,336 Hoyt 43,560 Hoyt /Avery. 86,783 •Chevron 43,560 Gore Crk 3,386,833 POSSIBLE UNIT DENSITY AND GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA UNDEVELOPED LAND Area 30 -61 18,828 Acres A R.C. LDMF 1.9,667 8 17 1.446 15,747 18,896 35 -71 6 13 1.150 12,523 15,028 23,494 5 11 .944 10,280 12,336 151 -302 8 16 1.394 15,181 18,217 9,884 1 3 .271 2,962 3,554 grfa grfa 14 1.234 .161 -322 16,138 163,741 15 1.289 24,393 16,857 10 -21 43 3.639 15 -30 47,567 26,136 28 2.378 31,088 18 1.541 20,137 106 8.84 115,521 120 10.08 131,725 7 .648 8,472 units units 28 411 grfa grfa 34.85 .56,693 455,536 64 128 10.74 .116,958 140,350 9 19 1.60 17,424 20,908 4 8 .702. 7,644 9,173 6 12 1.00 10,890 13,068 4 54 108 9.00. - 98,010 117,612 7 1.294 14,084 6 1.00- 10,890 6 1.074 11,695 6 1.00 10,890 466 933 77.751 846,708 1,016,049 MDMF HDMF 18 -37 30 -61 18,828 32,277 .24-38 32 -64 1.9,667 33,715 54 -109 .90 7181 55,495. 95,135 35 -71 59 -118 36,270 .62,177 23-46 38 -77 23,494 40,275' 132 =265 221 -442 134,774 231,042 151 -302 252 -504 153,679' 263,450 9.19 16 -32 9,884 16,944 units units 446 -887 738.147.9 grfa grfa 452,091. 775,015 .161 -322 163,741 24 -48 24,393 10 -21 10,702 15 -30 26,136 H. S, 6 12 McDaniel 45,738 1.05 11,434 13,721 7 14 Robbins 53,578 1.23 13,394 16,073 18 36 Lutheran 130,680 3.00 32,670 39,204 units units units 752 1456 210.421 Bul fcland grfa grfa gfra Total 5;488,135 .125.991 1,372,030 1,589,365 224,972 - F: 1 4 1 4. ' t r F cif k LIONSRIDGE AND A PORTION OF WEST VAIL ANNEXATION Population Projections at full development at various densjtjes November 6, 1975 1. . Assumptions: An average unit is 1,000 square feet in size and occupied,by an average of three people. Estimated population of existing units: 319 units X 3 people = 957 estimated population Estimated population with undeveloped subdivided land zoned at lowest possible density: 56,693 grfa @ R.C. 387,505 grfa @ LDMF 441,198 total grfa = 441 gpits X,,3 people = 1,323 Estimated population with undeveloped bulk land zoned at lowest possible density: 8,000 grfa @ A 1,372,030 @ RC grfa 1,380,030 total grfa — 1,380 units,X.3 people = 4,140 °? Total estimated population at lowest density = 6,420 Estimated population with undeveloped subdivided land zoned at mid - range.. density: 68,031 grfa @ LDMF . 452,091 grfa @ MDMF 520,122 total grfa W 520 units X 3..people = 1,560' Estimated population with undeveloped bulk land zoned a.t.mid -range density:. 47,559 grfa @ RC 1 589 365 g rfa @ LDMF 1,636,924 total grfa = 1,636 units X 3 people = 4,908 Total estimated population at mid -range density = 7,426 Estimated population with undeveloped subdivided land at hfgh -range density: 68,031 grfa @ LDMF 775,015 grfa @ HDMF 843,046 total grfa = 843 u.niis.X.3'people = 2,529'.' .,kPopulation Projections at Full Development at Various Densitips� ,k � November�,6, 1975 ! �� Estimated'population with undeveloped bulk land at high- range density,:,,i A 47,559 grfa @ RC 1,405,86.6 grfa @ LDMF %• 224,972 grfa @ MDMF i�;y. 1,678,397 total grfa - 1,678 units }('3 people.= 15,034' -, k `X Total estimated population at high -range .densi.ty - 8?52d f �' fr r � �1 r l: i � #r v, j, a F ;i, 1i k Ifftinn.l� 1! 11jAk , I EXPLANATION OF COUNTY ZONING TERMS AND ALLOWABLE DENSITIES RESIDENTIAL SURBAN MEDIUM DENSITY .3 square feet cif building per 1 square foot of land building shall not exceed 5.5 dwelling units :for each acr'e.. of net developable land i PLANNED DEVELOPMENT - a minimum of 25o of the total PU'D'.:shall be open space, either public'or quasi- public (unuseab:le open space shall not count in the`'.'. 25% minimum) residential development shall not exceed 6 units per acre of net developable land minimum area PUD allowed on is 5 acres COP,MERCIAL LIMITED - .5 square feet of building per "l square foot of land (maximum floor area ratio). 50% by buildings or a total of 70% including coverage by all other impervious materials RESOURCE - one homes.ite per 40 acres of land I ' i LIONSRIDGE AND A PORTION OF WEST VAIL ANNEXATION Density Analysis of Undeveloped Land under County Zoning I November 5, 1975 RESOURCE # of Units Max. Floor. Area`. McCallister No Development Flemming Lunber No Development Gore Creek Association .2 (approximately) COMMERCIAL LIMITED Holy Cross 28,183.32 sq..'ft. First Lot West of Holy Cross 21,780.00 sq,''it. Second Lot West of Holy Cross 23,391.72 sq, ft,, Chevron e2l,780.00 sq, f.t. Gore Creek Association (approximately) 348,480.00 sq...ft. RESIDENTIAL-SUBURBAN MEDIMUM DENSITY 3 acre parcel 16.5 units 39,204.00 sq. ft, McDanial 5.78 units 13,721.40 sq. %ft. Robbins 6.77 units .16,073.00 sq. ft. Mansfield 85.53 units 203,207.40 sq. ft, A -9 11.00 units 26,031.30 sq. ft. A -8 7.10 units 16,857.60 sq. ft. Ar-7 6.77 units 16,138.8.0 .sq', ft B--4 20.02 units 47,567.40 sq. ft. B -5 13.09 units 31,088.70 sq,'.ft B -7 8.47.units 20,138.70 sq, ft. Nottingham 3.86 units 9,173.74 sq. ft. '.�a�i ,; '. k, :��� ;��•, . ;'. i - i i LIONSRIDGE ANNEXATION AND A PORTION OF WEST VAIL ANNEXATION Slope Analysis November 6, 1975 'E B -5 -- The average slope is between 10 & 20 %. The uphill`1 /10th is 30% or over (along the road). B -4 - The average slope is between 10 &'20% approximately 157o B--3 - The average slope is between 107o and 200 on about 1 /3rd of y the lot. The balance is less than 10% B -2 - The average slope is less than 107o except for. the.rear, 1 /10th along the road which is 30 %. B -1 = The average slope is just over 107o (11.5 %) . i A -9 The lower 1 /8th and part of the upper portion (about 1 /8th) is 30% or over,the balance is just over 20% (ab(out.,21,57o). A -8 - Part of the lower portion (about 1/12) is at 30% or over, the balance is between 207o and 307o. A -7 - The lower portion (about 1 /10th) is 30 % and ove.r,'ithe balance-', is between 10% and 207o, A -6 The lower 1 /8th and part of the upper portion (about 1/8) is 30% or over, the balance is between 207o and 30% A-5-- About 3/4 of the lot is in excess of 30 1,1o, the balance is about 25%. A -4 -- is all 307o and over. Lilts 1 through 3C - are at 30 01a or over on the'upper nth, The balance is about 107o average. Lots 4 through 9C are at 30ro in the upper 1 /8th, The balance is at 10 °I° Lots 10 &.11C - are at a 107o slope, Gore Creek Associates no topographical data a.vail4ble' i , PLANNING f""01112MISSION A(3ENNBA • Novembe: , 13, 1975 1. Wes ;'r i )ads - Request fo-r., setback variance in order to cover (_011,1-rance area on a non-- conforming building. 2. Tom C,?u Jilin residence -- Request for Gross Residential Floor " %vea variance in order to convert crawl space into +lam ,,gable :door area. 3. 'Poo:f~ Richards -- Request for Conditional Use permit to aj.lo N use of approximately 4,500 sq. ft. for office space _for a five month .period by Billy Mack productions. 4. B:i.gljr t -,n Construction - )'request for Gross Residential floc iirea variance in order to construct additional into= ,i-ior space in a non - conforming building. 5. Prol'o: ,,�'d rezoning for two parking lots and proposed new district specifically for parking. • MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION RE: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR LAUGHLIN GRFA VARIANCE, WESTWINDS SETBACK VARIANCE AND MULLIN GRFA VARIANCE DATE: November 19, 1975 At their regular meeting of 13, 1975, the Planning Coxnmissiori con- sidered the following items; 1. Westwinds represented by Oran Palmateer, requested a setback variance in order to construct a covered entryway on a non- conforming building. The present building is approximately 61� from the south property line and the covered entry would make-. the southwest corner approximately 216" more non - conforming; however, the entire building meets the appropriate separation between Westwinds and the Lift House. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the setback variance, 2. Tom Laughlin, represented by Bill Ruoff, requested a Gross Residential Floor Area variance in order to.convert a crawl space of 326 sq. ft, to habitable floor area. This would make • the GRFA 326 sq. ft. over the allowable. The Planning Commission found that there would be no negative impact to the neighborhood since the space already exists and voted to approve the variance with Bill Hanlon voting against the request. 3. Mr. and Mrs. Mullin, represented by Bighorn Construction Company,. requested a Gross Residential Floor Area variance to add interior loft space in Texas Townhouse No. 4. The present building is non -- conforming thus requiring the variance., The Planning Com- mission found that there would not. be a negative impact on the neighborhood as the space is interior and the only change to the outside of the building would be the addition of windows and a skylight. The Planning Commission voted to approve the GRFA variance with Bill Hanlon voting negatively. • PLANNING COMMISSION Summary November 13,;1975 MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Bill Heimbach Bill Hanlon Bill Wilto OTHERS PRESENT: Diana Toughill Jim Lamont Oren Palmeter Paul Clark Bill Ruoff Peter Eichsteadt WESTWiND -- SETBACK VARIANCE Presently the Westwind building sits 6 feet from the property line and under the present Zoning Ordinance, it is a non - conforming building. The setback request is to make the building 218" more non - conforming in order to cover an existing stairway on the south end of the building. Dudley Abbott made the motion for approval with Bill Hanlon seconding the motion. A unanimous vote for approval was taken. LAUGHLIN RESIDENCE - GRFA REQUEST Bill Ruoff presented the request for an addition to the gross residential floor area of the Tom Laughlin residence on Mill Creek . Circle in order to convert crawl space into useable floor area. The requested variance is for 326 square feet. Staff recommendation is for approval of the request and it was mentioned that no additional • 140 SUMMARY November 13, 1975 LAUGHLIN RESIDENCE - GRFA REQUEST, cont. parking would be required with this variance. As there.was no further discussion, Bill Wilto made a motion for approval of the request and Dudley Abbott seconded the motion. A vote was taken with 3 -1 for approval (Hanlon opposed the request) of the motion. BIGHORN CONSTRUCTION - MULLIN RESIDENCE (Texas Townhouse Unit) This is a request for 325 square feet of additional gross residential floor area in order to change a loft into living accomodations. With this proposal, they plan to add windows and a skylight behind the chimney. The staff recommends approval of the request and with that (after all was considered) Bill Wilto made a motion for approval of the request and Dudley Abbott seconded the motion. A vote was taken with 3 -1 for approval (Hanlon opposed) of the motion. POOR RICHARDS - REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT As no information was supplied to the Planning Commission to review, a motion was made for tabling this matter by Bill Wilto and seconded by Bill Hanlon. A unanimous vote was taken in favor of this motion. PROPOSED NEW ZONE DISTRICT The proposed new zone district would be for the parking lot between the Christiana, Tivoli, Valhalla, and the Villa as well as for the parking lot between the All Seasons and the .Valhalla. Presently, the areas are zoned PA. The residents of these areas ; 0 SUMMARY November 13, 1975 Page Three PROPOSED NEW ZONE DISTRICT, cant. want to buy th.e lots and Vail Associates, the present owners, won't sell them unless they get a guarantee that the..lots will stay parking. The residents have asked that the Town create a new zone specifically for parking with recreational uses as con -. ditional. Dick Hart has drawn up an Ordinance enacting this new district of which the Town has modified. A copy of the modified ordinance is attached. The staff recommendation for this new district is to approve it as it will definitely stop any new de- velopment in those already crowded areas. It was suggested that on the deed of sale a section should be put in specifying that if the residents of the area want to have it rezoned that they have the right to present their change of use request to the Town. In addition to that, it was felt that the word "recreation" should be stricken from the title of the ordinance as it was confusing. As there was no further discussion, Bill Wilto made a motion for ap- proval of the ordinance and Bill Hanlon seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was taken for approval of the motion. A second motion was made by Bill Wilto for the approval of the new zone district. Bill Hanlon seconded the motion and the vote was un- animous in favor of the motion. REPORT ON LAZIER'S LIONSHEAD LANDSCAPING Bill Pierce and Diana Toughill met with both George Girvin, of Royston, Hanamoto, Beck & Abey, as well as with Bob Lazier to come up with a comprehensive j. landscaping plan. The staff as well as • SUMMARY November 13, 1975 Page Four LAZIER'S LIONSHEAD LANDSCAPING, cont. Lazier were in complete favor of the Royston, et. al. proposal, but Lazier felt that we ought to look farther into the present pedestrian problem in that area. A question was raised by one of the Planning Commission members -- Are we using Town funds to correct a problem that is not of the Town's concern but of the individual? If so, should we get involved? If it is found that this will benefit only the individuals concerned then.we should not get involved,but if it is a problem of the Lionshead Mall they we should get in- volved. This is something that we must discern before any action is taken, Jim Lamont pointed out that this subject is on the • Capital Improvements Budget for next year and that we will look much closer into the problem in the spring of 1976. KI The staff recommends that we wait until the spring to get Lazier's landscaping completed because we will have more time and the weather factor will not be a problem. The Planning Commission agreed with the staff recommendation but they definitely felt that the Town should not pay Lazier any interest on the money held in escrow. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. 1a • ORDINANC:i_', NO. Series of 1975 h:N EMEMEEN Y ORDINAACE AMENDING THE ZONING OVDINANCE BY THE ADDITION OF PROVISIONS :F;qT BLISHING THE PARKING AND RECREATION ZCiN'J:NG DISTRICT r i 2 f zoning WHEREAS, Article 1, Section 1. 01., o the q Ordinance, Oro nance No. 8, Series of 1973, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, as amended, provides thirteen zoning districts for the municipality; WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Vaal, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "Town", finds that it is appropriate to amend the Zoning Ordinance by establishing an additional ZO&Dg district to be known as the Parking and Recrea- tion District OR) ; WUEREAS, in order to facilitate the application of the new zoning district to a parcel of land for which it may be ideally suited, the Town Council considers that the enactment of this ordinance as an emergency measure is necessary for the preservation or Lhe public property, health, welfare, peace, or safety; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOI—N COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OE VA'TL, COLORADO, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title. this ordinance shall be known as the "Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance By Establishing Parking and Recreation District ". Se(- :'ion ..2.- - Amendment Procedures Fulfilled; _P ar�ni g Commission f'.epQrt. The amendment procedures prescribed in Section 21.500 of the Zoning ordinance have been fulfilled, with the report of the Plannaira Commission recommending the enactment of this ordinance. r U 0 Wage 2 Section 3. Amendments to Toning Ordinance. The Toning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, as amended, is hereby amended as hereinafter provided: A. Section 1.201 is amended to read as follows: :1.201. Toning Districts Established. The following zoning districts are hereby established: P) Single Family Residential District (SFR). (_?) Two Family Residential District Q. (3) Residential Cluster District (RC). (4) Low Density Multiple Family District (LDMP). . (`a) Medium Density Multiple Family District (MDMF). (6) High Density Multiple Family District (HDMF). (A Public Accommodations District (PA). (4) Commercial Core 1 District.(CCl). (9) Commercial Core 2 District (CC2) (10) Commercial Service Center District (CSC). (11) Heavy Services District (HS). (:1.-') Agricultural and Open Space District (A) . (13) Special Development District (SD). ( 1!I:) Parking and Recreation District (PR). B, Article 24 is added as follows: Article 24 Parking and Recreation District. ;section 24.100. Purposes. rl"ho Parking and Recreation District is intended to provide sites For private and public, structured and unstructured, off- street vehicle parking, for private and public parksand recreation tac ±..cities and for landscaninq: 'Th& Parking and_" Recreation Dishrict is intended to provide such facilities while ensuring aaequnLe light, air, privacy, and open space for each valid use in adjacent areas. � 0 Page 3 S,,cLion 24.200. Permitted Uses. 1,11he following uses shall be permitted: 11) Private and public, structured and unstructured off-street vehicle parking. _rerx-ea_tton ... fac -1 t?ex- ( ) Landscaping. Section 24.300. Conditional Uses. �c.;lI��13cab3.e . d S ction 24.400. Accessory Uses. f 1 }cat: applicable. Section 24.500. Development Standards. Not applicable. le.a-tion 4. Effective Date. This ordnance shall take effect upon the passage A hereof. INTRODUCED, READ'AS AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE, APPROVED, rte- ENACTED TO TAKE ]EFFECT "UPON FINAL PASS$ ON THIS DATE, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL WITHIN TEN l &AFTFR PASSAGE OR AS SOO,1S1 1'OSS:T }3LE, this day of 1975.. Mayor lie ATTEST Deputy Tu C:.l erk :7 lows • box 100 nail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 November 22, 1975 office of the town manager Dear West Vail and Lionsridge Property 04ner: The Town Council and the Town of Vail Planning COM- mission will hold a joint hearing on Thursday, Decwber 4 to consider proposed zoning for the Lionsridge -E4est Vail annexation area, for which an annexation election is scheduled on December 11, 1975. All property owners and residents are urged to attend this important meeting to express their swishes on the future development of the Lionsridge -West Vail, area. The hearing will be held in the Vail Amicipal Building at 7:30 p.m., Thursday, December 4, 1975. sincerely, DEP IT OF CQIMNrI'Y DEVEAPMYr Diana S. Touahill Zoning Adminis- trator AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION . November 26, 1975 Discussion between property owners and Planning Commission for the following properties in the proposed annexation area: 1. Dudley Abbott - Approximately .7 acres described by metes and bounds adjacent to Sandstone 70 2. Gore Creek Associates - Walt Koelbel - Approximately 100 acres described by metes and bounds on the south side of Interstate 70 3. Lions Ridge Ltd. - Lots 1 through 5, Block 5, Lions Ridge Filing No, 1. 4. Leo Payne - Lot A -8, Lions Ridge Filing No. 1 5. Deane Knox - Lot A -9, Lions Ridge Filing No. 1 6. Mike Burgamy - Lot A -7, Lions Ridge Filing No. 1 Other matters: 1. Resubmission of GRFA variance for Texas Townhouse #4 Bighorn Construction • • MEMBERS PRESENT: PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY November 26, 1975 Dudley Abbott - acting chairman Bill Hanlon Gordon Pierce Dave Sage 1. Dudley Abbott -- approximately .7 acres described by metes and bounds adjacent to Sandstone 70 This matter was not considered due to the fact that Planning Commission had already heard Mr. Abbott's proposal a few months ago. i. GORE CREEK ASSOCIATES - Walt Koelbel - approximately 100 acres described by metes and boun s on the south side of Interstate 70. • It was made known that this property has a split ownership -- Walter Koelbel owns 20 acres and Gore Creek Associates, represented by Henry Kates, owns 80 acres. At present the owners have no definite plans for development but they are in negotiations with various organizations. Diana Toughill went through the annexation procedures to the gentlemen representing this property ( Koeblel and Kates) and explained to them that the Planning Commission at this time had no preconceived recommendations for zoning on this property and that was the reasons for them being present at the meeting -- to give the Planning Commission some idea of what they want to eventually do with their property. It was mentioned by one of the Planning Commissioners that this was a unique circumstance because these gentlemen owned more land than all the other property owners combined. They own approximately'70% of the total land to be annexed in the Lions Ridge Annexation. Henry Kates went through the possible development plans for his portion of the land (80 acres). All flood plain and avalanche studies for his property were done about two years ago and that at that time the development plans included: duplexes, multi- family dwellings and office space on the two acre parcel near the road. Mr. Kates said that at that time he was planning no more than 600 units on the total 80 acres, Diana Toughill said that this development would probably fail somewhere between Residential Cluster and Low Denisty Multi - Family. Since at present he has no development plans for this area and he does not want to rush SUMMARY - November 26, 1975 Page Two GORE CREEK ASSOCIATES, Cont. • into anything prematurely, Mr.. Kates requested a Special Development District Zone for his property. Mr. Koelbel went on to describe development plans for his 20 acre parcel. He said that he has been thinking about setting up a non - profit learning institute and very possibly use Vail as a base. This project would take only about 3 -4 acres, but since no definite development plans have been made, Mr. Koelbel asked the Planning Commission to be as fldxible as possible in deciding on the appropriate zone for the land. In summary the applicants have requested that the Planning Commission zone their property Special Development District because they not only do not have any development plans at present but they also want the flexibility to do with their property as they see fit. The Planning Commission feels that their request is reasonable and very negotiable. The Planning Commission directed the staff to check on the time implications of a special development district, and asked the applicants to submit a letter to the staff stating their ultimate density range as well as their request for a special development district. • MIKE BURGAMY -- LOT A -7 Blake Lynch, representing this parcel, explained that it was just west of Homestake. Plans have already been submitted to the County Commissioners about 2z years ago for preliminary development and a building permit has been issued on the working drawings of that development. He is willing to submit the proposed plans to the Town for their review. The proposed project, named Mill Ridge, sits on 1.23 acres and the plan is to put 26,000 square feet of development on the 1.23 acreage. There will be two buildings each of them 3 stories in height with the two bedroom units on the second and third floors and studio units on the ground floor. Total units is 40. It was discovered that the building permit issued to Mr. Lynch has since expired -- issued in February 1975. From Mr. Lynch the staff requests records that prove the plan approval from the County as well as the recorded plat mat and a set of plans for the development.be submitted as well as a soils and engineering report --- generally any information per- taining to the site. Mr. Lynch explained that the economic reasons and that the • outside with a ratio of lz to that the Planning Commission vested interests. project was not started because of parking for the building would be 1. In summary Mr. Lynch feels should give some consideration to • • SUMMARY - November 26, 1975 Page Three LEO PAYNE -- LOT A -9 Mr. Stuart Brown, representing Leo Payne, explained that no development plans have been stated to the County for approval, and that a possible joint development with Deane Knox's parcel might be in the making. Payne regards the land only acceptable for commercial interests.and according to the zoning placed on that parcel by Eagle County, high density and commercial is allowed. Other than that Mr. Brown has no other information about his client's wishes, Jim Lamont asked that he get a letter stating his clients desires. It was noted that in reviewing this parcel, the staff should review the adjoining properties to see what fits in best with the other developments DEANE KNOX - LOT A -9 & G -4 {not in the annexation Mr. Brown went on to say that G -4 and A- 9,.Homestake 4, was an approved subdivision by the County and that it has pre- liminary plat approval. The development plans for this parcel would include 104 -108 units which would fit into the low end of High Denisty Multi - Family, Mr, Brown explained that a complete soils test has been done by Tom Summerlee and that it proved all the land to be stable. Mr. Brown went on to say that the entire hillside should be looked at as a unit and that the G -4 lot should be brought into the annexation proceedings so that the entire parcel could be seen as a planned development.. The staff has requested all information that Mr, Brown has concerning these parcels, and when asked about the possible zoning; for the parcel, Jim Lamont said it is very difficult to deal with land that has had plans proposed for many years in terms of density and bringing this into conformance with the Town of Vail as well as being fair to the owner /developer. The staff feels that lower density might prove to be more worthwhile to the owner /developer as well as more profitable. SUMMARY - November 26, 1975 Page Four j LIONS RIDGE LTD - LOTS 1 THROUGH 5, BLOCK C, LIONS RIDGE FILING NO. 1 • Rich Tofel, representing Lions Ridge Ltd ,wont on to explain that lots 6 -11 of this parcel were allocated to the Vail Run project and that although no specific plans have beensubmitted to the county for development they would like to have lots 1 -5 in a similar zone to be in keeping with the Vail Run Project. They are not interested in increasing the density of this area but they would like the flexibility to be able to have retail space as well as storage and possibly transportation facilities on that area. If there was to be any dwelling development, 20 units per acre is all that they desire. GRFA,VARIANCE TEXAS TOWNHOUSE #4 Due to lack of time this matter was not considered at this meeting Ul • AGENDA PLANNING COMMISSION . November 26, 1975 Discussion between property owners and Planning Commission for the following; properties in the proposed annexation area: 1. Dudley Abbott -- Approximately .7 acres described by metes and bounds adjacent to Sandstone 70. Gore Creek Associates - Walt Koelbel - Approximately 100 acres described by metes and bounds on the south side of Interstate 70 3. Lions Ridge Ltd. - Lots 1 through 5, Block a, L -ions 'Ridge 'Filing No, 1. Leo Payne - Lot A -S, Lions Ridge Filing No. 1 �-� Deane Knox - Lot A -9, Lions Ridge Filing No. 1 Other matters: • 1. Resubmission of GRFA variance for Texas Townhouse # Bigh n Consstruction lam) (U- o Ak 1& i%z ". �� { Igo N . moov N-4 V, ( bAAA.CA-- C� o TV r LIONSRIDGE AND A PORTION OF.WEST VAIL ANNEXATION Density Analysis November 5, 1975 DEVELOPED SITE AREA SITE AREA SITES PROJECT SQ. FT. ACRES A--5 Lions Mane I COMPAR. Lions Mane II f A -6 Homestake A & B B -1 Telemark B -2 Snow Lion B -3 Breakaway I HDMF Breakaway II A &B 29 Breakaway II C B--6 Booktree unplatted Aspen Tree C -6 -11 Vail Run 16,801 28,850 59,285 39,029 50,416 15,420 49,527 16,990 53,753 19.830 358,901 P.U.D. .385 .662 1,360 .895 1.360 .353 1..136 .390 1 '. 233 .450 8.224 +18,000 commercial. 35 HDMF COMPAR. # OF UN1'�-S. ZONE UNITS PER A. DISTRICT 18 47 HDMF 19 29 MDMF 66 49 HDMF 18 20 MDMF 26 19 MDMF 12 34 HDMF 27 24 MDMF 15 38 HDMF 48 39 HDMF 15 33 HDMF 264 332/10 = 33.2 avg. units per acre +18,000 commercial. 35 HDMF POSSIBLE UNIT DENSITY AND GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA UNDEVELOPED LAND Descri tion Area §-9. Ft. Area Acres A R.C. LDMF MDMF HDMF H.S. 8 17 A -1 62,988 1.446 - 15,747 18,896 6 13 A -2 50,094 1.150 12,523 15,028 5 11 A -3 41,121 .944 -. 10,280 12,336 8 16 A- excepted 60,723 1.394 15,181 18,217 1 3 A -4 11,848 .271 - 2,962 3,554 7 14 18 -37 30 -61 c A -7 .53,796 1.234 13,449 16,138 18,828 32,277 7 15 24 -38 32 -64 A -8 56,192 1.289 14,048 16,857 19,667 33;715 A -9 86,771 1.991 21 43 54 -109 90 -181 B -4 158,558 3.639 39,639 47,567 55,495 95,135 14 28 35 -71 59-118 B -5 103,629 2.378 25,907 31,088 36,270 62,177 9 18 23 -46 38 -77 B -7 67,126 1.541 16,781 20,137 23,494 40,275 53 106 132 --265 221 -442 C -6 -11 385,070 8.84 96,267 115,521 134,774 231,042, �C 60 120 151 -302 252 -504 -•1 -5 439,084 10.08 109,771 1531679 263,450 .131,725 7 9 -19 16 -32 Part D 28,240 .648 8,472 9,884 16,944 Ln units units units 199 411 446 -887 738 -1479 Subdivided grfa grfa grfa grfa Total 1,518,066 34.85 372,555 455,536 452,091 7751015 64 128 161 -322 Fleming 467,834 10.74 5 116,958 140,350 163,741 9 19 24 -48 McCallister 69,696 1.60 - 17,424 20,908 24,393 4 8 10 -21 Nottingham' 305579 .702 - 7,644 9,173 10,702 6 12 15 -30 G -T 43,560 1.00 - 10,890 13,068 26,136 4 54 108 Indian Crk 392,040 9.00 - 98,010 117,612 15 no density Holy Cross 56,336 1.294 7 - 14,084 16,900 control 6 12 Hoyt 43,560 1.00 - 109890 13,068 6 12 Hoyt /Avery 46,783 1.074 - 11,695 .14 , 034 " Chevron 43,550 1.00 6 - 10,890 12 13,068 j, 466 933 V Gore Crk 3,386,833 77.751 38 846,708 1,016,049 . Mansfield 677,358 15.55 7 169,339 203,207 6 12 McDaniel 45,738 1.05 - 11,434 13,721 7 14 ,Robbins 53,578 1.23 - 13,394 16,073 ,Lutheran, 130,680 3.00 18 1 32,670 36 39,204 units units 55 752 1507 Bulkland grfa grfa Total 5,488,135 125.991 1,372,030 1,646,435 lie [16 units 210 -421 gfra 224,972 I m • • • EXPLANATION OF COUNTY ZONING TERMS.AND ALLOWABLE DENSITIES RESIDENTIAL SURBAN MEDIUM DENSITY - .3 square feet of building per 1 square foot of land building shall not exceed 5.5 dwelling units for each acre of net developable land PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -- a minimum of 250 of the total PUD shall be open space, either public or quasi - public (unuse.able open space shall not count in the 257o minimum) residential development shall not exceed 6 units per acre of net developable land minimum area PUD allowed on is 5 acres COMMERCIAL LIMITED. - .5 square feet of building per 1 square foot of land (maximum floor area ratio) 50% by buildings or a total of 707o including coverage by all other impervious materials RESOURCE - one homesite per 40 acres of land`, gross project density shall. not exceed one dwelling unit per 35 acres of developable land minimum lot area: 35 acres. LIONSRIDGE AND A PORTION OF WEST VAIL ANNEXATION Density Analysis of'Undevel.oped Land under County Zoning t i November 5, 1975 C] 1. * RESOURCE McCallister Flemming Lunber Gore Creek Association # of Units No Development No Development 2 (approximately) COMMERCIAL LIMITED Holy Cross First Lot West of Holy Cross Second Lot West of Holy Cross Chevron Gore Creek Association (approximately) RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN MEDIMUM DENSITY 3 acre parcel 16.5 units McDanial 5.78 units Robbins 6.77 units Mansfield 85.53 units A -9 I.1.00 units A -8 7.10 units A -7 6.77 units B -4 20.02 units B_5 13.09 units B -7 8.47 units Nottingham 3.86 units Max. Floor Area 28,183.32 sq. ft. 21,780.00 sq. ft. 23,391.72 sq. ft. 21,780.00 sq. ft. 348,480.00 sq. ft. 39,204.00 sq. 13,721.40 sq. 16,073.00 sq. 203,207.40,sq. 26,031.30 sq. 16,857.60 sq.. 16,138.80 sq. 47,567.40 sq, 31,088.70 sq, 20,138.70 sq. 9,173.74 sq. ft. ft. ft. ft ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. ft. C. C] LIONS -RIDGE AND A PORTION OF WEST VAIL ANNEXATION Denisty.Analysis of Undeveloped Land under County Zoning November 5, 1975 Page Two # of Units Acres PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Block C * Lots 6 -11 270.00 8.84 acres * Eagle County has exempted a number of areas from these densities, but the County has no comprehensive list of these exemptions or the approved densities Lots 1-5 60.48 units 10.08 acres r i LIONSRIDGE ANNEXATION AND A PORTION OF WEST VAIL ANNEXATION Slope Analysis November 6, 1975 B -5 - The average slope is between 10 & 20 %, The uphill 1 /10th is 30% or over.(along the road). B--4 - The average slope is between 10 & 207, --- approximately 157o B -3 - The average slope is between 107o and 200 on about 1 /3rd of the lot. The balance is less than 1076 B -2 - The average slope is less than 10010 except for the rear 1 /10th along the road which is 307o. B -1 - The average slope is just over 107o (11.511'o) A -9 - The lower 1 /8th.and part of the upper portion (about 1 /8th) is 30% or over, the balance is just over 2076 ( about 21.5 1/0) A -8 - part of the lower portion (about 1/12) is at 30 %Q or over, the balance is between 20o and 30 %. A -7 - The lower portion (about 1 /10th) is 30% and over, the balance is between 107o and 200, A -6 - The lower 1 /8th and part of the upper portion (about 1/8) is 30% or over, the balance is between 20 7o+and 30% A -5 - About 3/4 of the lot is in excess of 30 %, the balance is about 250. A:-4 - is, all 307o. and over. Lots 1 through 3C -- are at 3090 or over on the upper Ith. The balance is about 107o average, Lots 4 through 9C - are at 30% in the upper 1 /8th. The balance is at 10% Lots 10 & 11C - are at a 10% slope, Gore Creek Associates -^ no topographical data available. �i n MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING L. R. B. Company is the holder of title to Lots B--4, B -5 and 8-7, and a part of Block D, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Eagle County, Colorado. Lion's. Ridge Subdivis.i.on was created on July 25, 1969 and is presently being used as a high density subdivision for multiple - family (approximately 40 apartment units per acre) and commercial use purposes. . L. R. B. Company has received from the Board of-County Com- missioners of Eagle County, Colorado (the "Board ") preliminary approval of a 52-apartment condominium subdivision on Lot B-7, L'ion's Ridge Subdivision. it is-the desire of the Board to reduce wherever practicable, the density of new construction within Lion's Ridge Subdivision from the presently utilized density. L. R. B. Company desires.to construct additional apartments on Lots B -4 and B -5; as well as on Lot B -7, but is willing to cooperate with the Board in achieving a density reduction. it is therefore understood that the Board having granted preliminary subdivision approval to the condominium subdivision plan of L. R. S. Company for Lot B -7, Lion's Ridge Subdivision: {l) L. R. B. Company will within 120 days from this date prepare and submit to the Board, through the Planning Commission for Eagle County, Colorado, a sketch plan and a preliminary subdivision plan for a condominium subdivision for Lots B -4.and B -5, Lion's Ridge �! Subdivision,. containing not greater than 105 condominium aparl:menL u111 a, a central dining facility, a bar and accommodations for such convenience shops as are customarily located in quality inns, it being contemplated that the condominium structure will be operated as a quality inn. (2). L. R. 'B. Company will promptly execute and record a document restricting construction of any structure for occupancy by humans on that part of Block D, Lion's Ridge Subdivision owned by L. R. B. Company for a period of 20 years. (3) Subject to the condition that L. R. B. Company shall have complied with the currently existing subdivision regulations of Eagle County, Colorado, with respect to the sketch plan and the preliminary subdivision plan for the condominium subdivision for Lots B -4, and B -5, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, as described in paragraph (1) above, the Board 4 w311 approval the prel llninar subdlYlJiV11 F/lClll OIIV �iirr 7laL<4J grant its aNp Ltl { uses for those lots. (4) The covenants of L. R. B. Company contained herein shall be covenants running with Lots B -4 and B -5, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, ' and shall be binding upon all successors in title to such lots. The ultimate effect of this understanding will be to reduce the originally approved- apartment unit density on Lots B -4, B -5 and B -%, Lion's Ridge Subdivision to an average of less than 21 apartment units per acre, and considering the land area within Block b, to an average of less than 18 apartment units per acre. This understanding achieved this ;v7 day of tl r, 1973• L. R. B. MFDANY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF EAGLE' COUNTY B_ , ,,,T, General Partner Daniel F. Kop inilcar 0 m BUILDING DIVISION OF EAGLE COUNTY,' P.O. BOX 789 -6339'. :- , r K 11 41 m I .(303)323 R' 'C0URTHOUSEJAGLE,'CO.—PH JOB W E AT N E R 'A"Dr� 4I a DATE ftbr 13 ---------- P[�RMIT NO 1,7rLchmb Colorado Wagit ADDRESS DOX V -p VIII. APPLICANT L ------------ tN0.1 (STREET) (o0713 LIC NUMBER OF' PERMIT TO 5&nual cod STORY DW�L L ING . UNITS (TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT) No. (PROPOSED USE) ZONING D I S -rF4 ir ,AT (LOCATION) BETWEEN AND (CROSS STREET) (CROSS STREET) LOT 'SUBDIVISION ug Vi atnit LOT !&'&7 BLOCK SIZE Jr. 60�ST Y FT SHALL .1'.CONrO M 0 BUILDING IS-TO BE FT. WIDE 13Y FT. LONG B IN HEIGHT jANb� z TO TYPE USE GROUP BASEMENT WALLS OR FOUNDATION C, REMARKS' PERMIT j-+, , ' C *' L AREA OR ESTIMAT ED COST $ FrE^ IQ VOLUME (CUBIC /SQUARE FEET) IP Lol W ER 13 DIE W"t CO- UIL 6 ADDRESS BOX 9 Vall I InlOr do A1657 BY �EITHSR T THIS PERMIT CONVEYS NO RIGHT TO OCCUPY ANY STREET, ALLEY OR SIDEWALK OR ANY PART - THEREOF, EMPORARILY Oft I PERMANENTLY. ENCROACHMENTS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED UNDER . THE. BUILDING: CODE' " "musf, BE'A'P6 vEo BY THE JURISDICTION. STREET OR ALLEY GRADES AS WELL AS DEPTH AND LOCATIONLOF PUBLIC SEWERS MAY BE; OBTAIN THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ❑07S NOT RELEASL-:',rtlE�APPI.ICANT.,,FROM.THF- CONDITION41 -S U C E -0 T Eo N E S 1) P L AN 5 MUST T POSTED Ul 0 r P C WHERE A ER W " - THE By '0 N THE T JURISDICTION. WORKS. V 0 E E P AR M T 0 F PUBLIC NY APPLICABLE SUBDIVISION RESTRICTIONS. D OF THREE CALL APPROVED PLANS MUST BE RETAINED ON JOB AND THIS WHERE APPLICABLE SEPARATff- MINIMUM PERMIT$ ARE RVqUIREOq FOR 0 Q C INSPECTIONS REQUIRED FOR E [ON HAS BEEN EL-ECTRIC`AL,. PLUMBING �:AND M�� S U , CARD KEPT UNTIL- FINAL INSPECT ALL CONSTRUCTION WORK: W R MF-CHAN�CAL. IN1jTALI,,ATI0.NS. :-1 4 , '0 . T MADE. WHERE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IS RF,-� L 1. FOUNDATIONS OR FOOTINGS. U IL N - I, jl;'A 0 U CU, L Q U I E), S U C H B D t" I , T R A RE F I N TO 0 1- A 2. PRIOR TO COVFR�NG STRUCTURAL.QUIRED,SUCH BUILDING SHALL NOT BE OCCUPIED UNTII- M EM 13 F R S (R V ADY T H). FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE. - S. F f4 FINAL INSPECTION BEFORE OCCUPANCY. iI:i-Pml PO.ST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE- FAO_ _M_ , TnEET — ELVCTRICAL NSPECTIbN APPROVALS BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVALS PLUMBING INSPECTION APPROVALS r L.A 01 2 2 j T -0 Al 3, OTHER WORK SHALL. NOT PROCEED UNTIL- THE PERMIT WILL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION, : WINSPECTIONS�INDMATED ON THIS CARD it `fCAN BE ARRANGEO,FOR BY TELEPHOH�"?' INSPECTOR HAS APPROVED THE VARIOUS WORK IS NOT STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DATE THE % ':QR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION STAGES OF CONSTRuc'riON, PERMIT IS ISSUED'AS NOTED ABOVE. — HEATING INSPECTING APPROVALS REF1410CRATION INSPECTION APPROVALS., f ii k C. 4 :Fv 0 .j. WORK SHALL. NOT PROCEED UNTIL- THE PERMIT WILL BECOME NULL AND VOID IF CONSTRUCTION, : WINSPECTIONS�INDMATED ON THIS CARD it `fCAN BE ARRANGEO,FOR BY TELEPHOH�"?' INSPECTOR HAS APPROVED THE VARIOUS WORK IS NOT STARTED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF DATE THE % ':QR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION STAGES OF CONSTRuc'riON, PERMIT IS ISSUED'AS NOTED ABOVE. 0 • SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE --WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lots 6 -11 Resubdivision of Block C, Lions Ridge Subdivision, containing 8.84 acres OWNER: . Sloco Properties joint venture EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: 55 + 18,000 square ft. commercial on 3 acres 2. Units per Acre: 18 3. Comparable Zone Distract: CC 2 4. Nonconformities: building height, building bulk ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: 1. Zone District: Special Development District or High Density Multiple Family 2. Number of Units: 270 total units 3. Units per Acre: 30 4. County Zoning or Approvals: approval of planned unit development containing 270 units +18,000 commercial and recreational facilities DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum.Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: Special Development District 2. Maximum Number of Units: 132 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: 134,774 COMMENTS: 13 0 SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGF, --WEST VAIN, ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lots 1-5 Resubdivision of Block C, Lionsridge subdivision containing 10,08 acres OWNER: Lion's Ridge, Ltd. EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: None 2. Units per Acre: n/a 3. Comparable Zone District: n/a 4. Nonconfo.rmi'ties : n/a commercial ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: A zone to allow office and /facilities as well as some condominiums 1. Zone District: CC 2 2. Number of Units: 200 maximum 3. Units per Acre: 20 4. County Zoning or Approvals: Residential suburban medium density zoning which allows 55 units DENSITY'RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community.Development: 1. Zone Districts: Residential Cluster or LDMF 2. Maximum Number of Units: R.C. -- 60 units LDMF --120 units 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: R.C. _.109,771 LDMF 1310725 COMMENTS: n SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE -WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: A tract in SEA NE4, 12 -5 -81 containing a total of 15.55 acres OWNER: Koelbel & Company EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: none 2. Units per Acre: n/a 3 3, Comparable Zone District: n/a 4. Nonconformities: n/a i ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER:. l 1, Zone District: Special Development District 2, Number of Units: 390, possible educational facility 3.. Units per Acre: 19 4. County Zoning or Approvals: Residential Suburban Medium Density 5,5 /acre = 93 units DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning - Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3, Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: Special Development District at Residential Cluster, or Low Density Multiple Family density' 2. Maximum Number of Units: S.D.D, at low density = 186 Residential Cluster = 93 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: At low density - 203,207 At R.C. 169,339 COMMENTS: • 9 SUMMARY. PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE --WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 12,5 -81 containing 77.751 acres OWNER: Gore Creek Associates EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: none 2.- Units per Acre: n/a 3. Comparable Zone District: n/a 4. Nonconformities: n/a ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: 1. Zone District: Special Development District 2. Number of Units: 600 3. Units per Acre: 7.7 4. County Zoning or Approvals; approximately 1 zoned commercial limited the balance is zoned resource DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission; 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: SDD at Residential Cluster Density 2. Maximum Number of Units: SDD at RC Density = 466 3, Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: 846,708 COMMENTS: SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE- -WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: A tract of land SW-41 NE-4- 12 5 -51 containing 1.23 acres OWNER: Estate of Phoebe Robbins EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: none 2. Units per Acre: n /a' 3. Comparable Zone District: n/a 4. Nonconformities: n/a ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: Developer has not contacted the Town 1. Zone District: 2. Number of Units: 3. Units per Acre: 4. County Zoning or Approvals; Residential Suburban Medium Density allowing 7 units DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area :. Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: Resideritial Cluster 2. Maximum Number of Units: 7 3, Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: 130394 COMMENTS; T I SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE --WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: A tract of land.in SW4 NE14 12 -5 -81 containing 1.05 acres OWNER: Frances McDaniel EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: 2. Units per Acre: 3. Comparable Zone District: 4. Nonconformities: ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: No request made 1. Zone District: 2. Number of Units: 3. Units per Acre: 4. County Zoning or Approvals: Residential. Suburban Medium Density allowing 6 units DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: Residential Cluster 2, Maximum Number of Units: 6 3, Maximum Gross Residential floor Area: 11.434 COMMENTS: SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE --WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lots B-4 and B -5, Lions Ridge Filing #l, containing 6,017 acres OWNER: L.R.B. / Bosco, Ltd, EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: none 2. Units per Acre: n/a 3. Comparable Zone District: n/a 4. Nonconformities: n/a j ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: 1. Zone District: High Density Multiple Family 2. Number of Units: 105 + restaurant and bar, approx. 68,000 sq, ft, • 3. Units per Acne: 17 4. County Zoning or Approvals :Memorandum of understanding, dated December 3, 1973 approving 105 units. Will apply for County Building Permit 12/4/' DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY.PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: LDMF or MDMF 2. Maximum Number of Units: MDMF - 71 MDMF -- 58 -.117 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: LDMF - 780655 MDMF - 91,765 COMMENTS: Plans as proposed exceed hei &t limit (approximately 64' in height at the highest point). No underground parking, Commercial exceeds ?10% allowable, 0 • SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE --WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot B -7, Lions Ridge Subdivision containing 1.541 acres OWNER: L , R , B . Company EXISTING BUILDINGS: none 1. Number of Existing Units: n/a 2. Units per' Acre: n/a 3. Comparable Zone District; n/a 4.. Nonconformities: ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: 1. Zone District: High Density Multiple Family 2, Number of Units: 52 condominiums 3. Units per Acre: 34 • 4. County Zoning or Approvals: Preliminary subdivision approval and agreement dated December 3, 1973 DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area; p Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: LDMF or MDMF. 2. Maximum Number of Units: LDMF - 18 MDMF - 23 -46 3. Maximum Gross Residential floor Area: LDMF -- 20,137 MDMF- 23,494 COMMENTS: T • , SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE- --WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lots A -1 and A--2 containing 2.596 OWNER: L.R,B. Company EXISTING BUILDINGS: none 1. Dumber of Existing Units: 2, Units per Acre: 3. Comparable Zone District; 4, Nonconformities: ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: no specific proposal 1. Zone District: 2. -Number of Units: 3. Units per Acre: 4. County Zoning or Approvals: zoning residential suburban medium density DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: .Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross. Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts; Residential.Cluster 2. Maximum Number of Units: 15 28 3, Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area:. 270 COMMENTS: Most of the site exceeds 30% grade T SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE -WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: part of Block D, Lions Ridge Subdivision OWNER: L.R.B. Company EXISTING BUILDINGS: none 1. Number of Existing Units: none 2. Units per Acre: n/a 3.. Comparable Zone District: n/a 4. Nonconformities: n/a ZONING PROPOSED,BY DEVELOPER: 1. Zone District: Agricultural for possible dedication.to the Town 2. Number of Units: n/a 3. Units per Acre: n/a 4. County Zoning or Approvals: reserved as green space for 20 years in agreement dated December 3. 1973 DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: Agricultural. 2. Maximum Number of Units: none 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: n/a COMMENTS: r • SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE --WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Lot B,1 and. Lot Br-2 (Snow Lion) 1.36 acres, OWNER: Courchevel, Ltd. EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: 26 2. Units per Acre: 19 3. Comparable Zone District: MDMF 4. Nonconformities: No underground parking,' setbacks, building offsets ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: I Zone District :HDMF 2. Number of Units 23 additional units • 3. Units per Acre: 36 4. County Zon In . or Approvals: 49 units total -- now being challenged,in court by Condominium Association DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:. Planning Commissi011: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: De artment of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: MDMF or HDMF 2. Maximum Number of Units: MDMF - 20 -40 HDMF - 34 -65 3, Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: MDMF - 20,734 HDMF -- 35,544 COMMENTS: SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE --WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot 7, Block A -.1,234 acres OWNER: Colorado Land Investment Syndicate (Mike Burgamy) EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of .Existing Units: none d 2. Units per Acre: n/a 3. Comparable Zone District: n/a 4. Nonconformities: n/a ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: 1. Zone District: HDMF 2. Number of Units: 40 -- 26,000 square feet 3. Units per Acre: 32 4, County Zoning or Approvals: Building Permit issued February, 1975 DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts; LDMF 2. Maximum Number of Units: 14 3, Maximum Gross Residential floor Area: 16,138 COMMENTS: • SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE -WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot A -8, Lions Ridge Subdivision containing 1.289 acres OWNER: Leo Payne EXISTING BUILDINGS: none 1. Number of Existing Units: n/a 2. Units per Acre: n/a 3. Comparable Zone District;_n /a 4. Nonconformities: n/a ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: 1. Zone District: High Density Multiple Family 2. Number of Units: not proposed • 3. Units per .Acre: not proposed 4. County Zoning or Approvals: No approvals, zoned Residential Subur- ban Medium Density allowing 7 units DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: RC or LDMF 2. Maximum Number of Units: RC -- 7 LDMF - 15 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: RC •- 14,048 LDMF - 161857. COMMENTS: SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE --WEST VAIL ANNEXATION i PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: A -9 and (G -4 not included in annexation), Lions Ridge Subdivision containing 3.768 acres total, A -9 1.99 acres OWNER: Deane Knox (Stewart Brown) EXISTING BUILDINGS: none 1. Number of Existing Units: n/a 2. Units per Acre: n/a 3. Comparable Zone District: n/a 4. Nonconformities: n/a ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: 1. Zone District: HDMF ,2. Number of Units: 108 Proposed for 2 lots included in county approval Lot G,4 not included in annexation 3. Units per Acre: 29 4. County Zoning or Aprovals :Preliminary subdivision approval for q08 units on two lots DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development 1. Zone Districts: LDMF or RC 2. Maximum Number of Units: LDMF - 23 RC - 11 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: LDMF - 26,000 RC - 21,671 COMMENTS: r • r SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE -WEST VAIL AN14EXATION y PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 3 tracts in section 12 -5 -81 containing a total I °k of 2.061 acres 0 w W OWNER: E E EXISTING BUILDINGS: Plumbers Inc., and construction storage 1. Number of Existing Units:dwelling units, mobile homes,service station, shop and office space for soils engineer,, New Electric 2. Units per Acre: 3. Comparable Zone District: Heavy Service f 4. Nonconformities:dwelling units not a permitted or conditional use heavy service zone and mobile homes not permitted ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: Developer has not contacted the Town 1. 'Lone District: 2. Number of Units: 3. Units per Acre; 4. County Zoning or Approvals :Commercial Limited DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: i 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: m 1. Zone Districts: Heavy Services 2. Maximum Number of Units: none allowed 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: n/a COMMENTS: 0 w W CJ • SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE --WEST VAIL ANNEXATION 3 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: A part of SEcti.on 1.2- 5-•81. containing 1.294 acres OWNER: Holy Cross Electric EXISTING BUILDINGS: l.. Number of Existing Units: none used for equipment storage 2. Units-per Acre: n/a 3. Comparable Zone District: n/a 4. Nonconformities :n /a ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: 1. Zone District: Heavy Service 2. Number bf Units: n/a 3. Units per Acre: none 4. County Zoning; or Approvals: DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: .1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: Heavy Services 2. Maximum Number of Units: none allowed 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: n/a COMMENTS: T ti • PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRSUMMAY IDGE -WEST V AIL.ANNExATxoN PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of a the NE4 NE4 Section 12 -5.81 aontaini 1 acre OWNER: chevron Oil Company EXISTING BUILDINGS: Z. Number of Existing Units: Service Station . 2. Units per Acre; n/a 3• Comparable Zone District: Heavy Service 4• Noncon_formities: Si ns g landscaping ZONING•PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: 1. Zone District: Heavy Service 2., Number of Units: n/a 3. Units per Acre: n/a 4• County Zoning or Approvals: Commercial Limited DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMI COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: SSION AND DEPARTMENT OF P Ian nil n Commission; I. Zone Districts; 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Grass Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: I• Zone Districts: Heav Y Service 2. Maximum Number of Units: none allowed 3. Maximum Gross Residential Flao.r Area: n /.a COMMENTS: t SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE --WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Section. 6 --5 -80 containing 12.34 acres 4. OWNER: .john and Elinor H McAllister and Fleming Lumber "and Mercantile EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: 3 and construction storage 2. Units per Acre: .25 3. Comparable Zone District: no comparable zone. 4. Nonconformities; Houses not connected to public sewer or water ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: 1. Zone Distract: LDMF 2. Number of Units: 147 maximum 3. Units per Acre: 12 4. "County Zoning or Approvals: Resource which allows one unit for eac 25 acres DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units; 3. Maximum Gross Resi.dential.Floor Area: ' a Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: Residential Cluster or "LDMF 2. Maximum Number of Units: LDMF - 17 RC - 73 3, Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area :LDMF -- 161,258 RC - 134;382 COMMENTS: e• • • SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE -WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Tact of land in 1 -5 -81 containing ,6945 acres OWNER: Sandstone 70 corporation EXISTING BUILDINGS: none 1. Number of Existing Units: n/a 2. Units per Acre: n/a 3. Comparable Zone District: n/a 4. Nonconformities: n/a ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: 1. Zone District: MDMF 2. Number of Units: 15 10,500 grfa 3. Unit's per Acre: 21 4. County Zoning or-Approvals: Zoned residential suburban medium density allowing 4 units DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: LDMF or MDMF 2, Maximum Number of Units: LDMF .-8 MDMF , 10 -21 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: LDMF -- 12 068 MDMF «- 26 , x.36 COMMENTS: I SUMMARY. . y PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE -WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION; Lot A--�3 exempted parcel, a portion of vacated Lions Ridge Loop & a portion of Indian Creek, Ltd. containing approximately 4,6 acres OWNER: Mountain Properties, Ltd. EXISTING BUILDINGS: none 1. Number of Existing Units: n/a 2. Units per Acre: n/a 3. Comparable Zone District:n /a 4. Nonconformities: n/a ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: Developer has not contacted the Town - plans for Ski Lion have been submitted to County for 1. Zone District: preliminary approval scheduled for hearing on 12/17 2. Number of Units: 25 3. Units per Acre: 5,43 4. County Zoning or Approvals: Sketch plan DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: Agricultural 2. Maximum Number of Units: 2 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: n /a COMMENTS: Site is over 30% slope. some exceeding 40 %. Plans as submitted shows retaining walls up to 24 feet high. We have requested the County to deny approval for technical reasons and because of the pending annexation, SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE --WEST VAIL ANNEXATION 1 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Breakaway. West, Lot B -3 Lionsridge Subdivision containing 1.875 acres OWNER: Condominiums owned individually EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: 54 2. Units per Acre: 29 3. Comparable Zone District: HDMF 4. Nonconformities: insufficient underground parking r= exceed max, GRFA ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: none proposed 1. Zone District: 2. Number of Units: 3. Units per Acre: . 4. County Zoning or Approvals., DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY.DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: De artment of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: MDMF or HDMF 2. Maximum Number of Units: no further units could be added 3, Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area:existing buildings exceed GRFY'1 COMMENTS: • • SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE -WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Dons Mane I & II, Lot A.-5 containing 1.047 acres OWNER: Individual condominium owners x EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: 37 .2, Units per Acre: 35.3 3. Comparable Zone District; HDMF 4. Nonconiformities :No underground parking, building bulk exceeds GRFA' ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: none proposed. 1. Zone District: 2. Number of Units: 3. Units per Acre: 4. County`Zoning or Approvals: DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: MDMF or HDMF 2. Maximum Number of Units: no further .units could be constructed 3, Maximum Gross Residential Floor Axea: existing buildings:,I „exceed _ GRFA COMMENTS: � 0 • SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE -WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Homestake A & B Lot A -6 Lionsridge Subdivision containing 1.360 acres OWNER: Individual Condominium owners EXISTING BUILDINGS: f 1. Number of Existing Units: 66 2. Units per Acre: 49 3. Comparable Zone District: HDMF i 4. Non onfArmit' no underground parking, exceeds GRFA, non - conorming offses: ts ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: none proposed 6 1. Zone District: 2. Number of Units: 3. Units per Acre: 4. County Zoning; or Approvals: DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Planning Commission: 1. Zone. Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area :. Department of Community'Development: 1. Zone Districts: MDMF or HDMF 2. Maximum Number of Units: no further units could be constructed 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area:existing buildings exceed GRFA COMMENTS: f1 I . 1i 0 SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE -WEST VA.IL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Telemark Townhouses' Lot Bl containing .895 acres OWNER: Individual condominium owners EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: 18 2. Units per Acre: 20 3. Comparable Zone District: HDMF 4. Nonconformities: no underground parking, exceeds GRFA ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER none proposed 1. Zone District: 2. Number of Units: 3. Units per Acre: 4. County Zoning or Approvals: DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: q 1. Zone Districts: HDMF or MDMF 2. Maximum Number of Units': no further units could be constructed 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area:existing buildings exceed GRFA COMMENTS.: 9 • • SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE --WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Brooktree, Lot B-6 containing 1.233 acres OWNER: Individual condominium owners EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: 48 2. Units per Acre: 39 3. Comparable Zone District: HDMF. 4. Nonconformities: building offsets exceeds maximum GRFA, no underground parking ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: none proposed 1. Zone District: 2. Number of Units: 3. Units per Acre: 4. County Zoning or Approvals: DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND-DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area:. Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: MDMF or HDMF 2. Maximum Number of Units :no further units could be constructed 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area:existing building exceeds GRFA COMMENTS: is t: SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE -WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Aspen.Tree Condominiums, .450 acres OWNED.: Ind iwidual condominium owners EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing [hits: 15 2. Units per Acre: 33 3. Comparable Zone District; HDMF 4. Nonconformities:exceeds GRFA, insufficient parking; -no underground parking ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: none proposed 1. Zone District: 2. Number of Units: it 3. Units per Acre: 4. County Zoning or Approvals: DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: i 1.- Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential. Floor Area: E Department of Community Development: 4.. 1. Zone Districts: MDMF or HDMF. 2. Maximum Number of Units:no further units could be constructed 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area:Existing building exceeds GRFA COMMENTS: r �. is [r] SUMMARY 2 PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE-WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: A tract of land in SE4 NWT , s.ection 12- -5-r81 containing 3 acres OWNER:. Board of American Missions of Lutheran Church' EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: none 2. Units per Acre:n/a 3. Comparable Zone District: n/a 4. Nonconformities: n/a ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: Church facility and possible hostel or encumenical retreat 1. Zone District: 2. Number of Units: 3.. Units per Acre: 4. County Zoning or Approvals: residential suburban medium density which allows 18 units. DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:' Planning Commission: 1. Zone. Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: Agricultural 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: COMMENTS: Churches are a permitted use, rectories area conditional use in agricul- tural zones. When future plans are availalbe, zone could be amended to allow proposed auxiliary uses as conditional use. The only other % zone which permits churches is Public Accommodations which we db not feel is suitable for this property, SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGI -WEST VATL ANNEXATION i PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: part of Block D, Lions Ridge Filing #1 OWNER: Lions Ridge Water District EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: water plant 2. Units per Acre: 3. Comparable Zone District: 4. Nonconformities: ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: none. proposed 1. Zone District: n/a 2. Number of Units: n/a 3. Units per Acre: n /a. . 4. County Zoning or Approvals: n/a DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2, Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: Agricultural 2. Maximum Number of Units: n /a 3, Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: n/a COMMENTS: 1 SUMMARY PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE -WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Tract in SE4 SE, ' 1.5 -81 containing ,702 acres OWNER: Willis E. Nottingham EXISTING BUILDINGS: none 1. Number of Existing Units: none 2. Units per Acre: n/a 3. Comparable Zone District: n/a 4. Nonconformities :n /a ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: Developer has not contacted the Town 1. Zone District: 2. Number of Units: 3. Units. per Acre: Residential Suburban Medium Density 4. County Zoning; or Approvals: which allows 4 units DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission; 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts: Agricultural 2. Maximum Number of Units: none 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: none COMMENTS: Land is very steep -- the cliff area along Standstone Road SUMMARY �- PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE -WEST VAIL ANNEXATION PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Part of Section 1 --5 -81 containing 9.0 acres Less approx, 3 acres sold to Mountain Properties g OWNER:Indian Creek Ltd. € EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: none 2. Units per Acre: n/a 3. Comparable Zone District: n/a 4. Nonconformities: n/a ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER: Developer has not contacted the Town 1. Zone District: 2. Number of Units: r 3. Units per Acre: 4. County Zoning or Approvals: Residential Suburban Medium Density which allows 36 units DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: r 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor-Area,: Department of Community Development: { 1. Zone Districts: Agricultural 2. Maximum Number of Units.3 i 3, Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: COMMENTS: Site exceeds 30% slope and approximately 2 of site exceeds 40% slope. There is no existing access to the property. Pending subdivision proposal ' i see A -3 and exempted parcel. ' The Tax roles show exemptea parcel aL�u, x=uw�-„�� �• -�- -° - - -- parcel belonging to Mountain Properties. SUMMARY t PROPOSED ZONING LIONSRIDGE --WEST VAIL ANNEXATION, PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Lot A -4 containing .271 acres OWNER: Lions Ridge Subdivision EXISTING BUILDINGS: 1. Number of Existing Units: none . 2. Units per Acre: n/a 3. Comparable Zone District: n/a 4. Nonconformities: n/a Developer has not contacted the Town ZONING PROPOSED BY DEVELOPER ; 1. Zone District: 2. Number of Units: 3. Units per Acre: . 4. County Zoning or Approvals: DENSITY RANGE PROPOSED BY PLANNING COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENT OF COMAUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Commission: 1. Zone Districts: 2. Maximum Number of Units: 3. Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: Department of Community Development: 1. Zone Districts :Agricultural. 2. Maximum Number of Units: none 3, Maximum Gross Residential Floor Area: none COMMENTS: Site exceeds 307o slope and has no feasible access , • is 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda December 4, 1975 1. Review of staff recommendations on Lions Ridge Zoning and make Planning Commission recommendations 10 1-0, PLANNING COMMISSION Summary December 4,:1975 Attached are the deciisions that the Planning Commission made in relation to the proposed zoning for the.:Lions Ridge Annexation., A special meeting was held on December 4, 1975 7:30 PM with the Town Council to get their recommendations. MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Bill Hanlon Dave Sage OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Lamont Dana Toughill Cindy Lamont AGENDA - INDEX LIONSRIDGE -WEST VAIL ANNEXATIQN JOINT COUNCIL - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING December 4, 1975 I. Introduction - Purpose of Meeting II, Overview: A. Slides -- Existing Land Use and Density Review B. Hazards C. County Zoning III. Policy Determination IV. Proposed Zoning and Density Summary: A. Planning Commission Proposal B. Community Development Department Staff Proposal C. Analysis technique V. Individual Site Review A. Staff Presentation B. Planning Commission Comment C. Public Comment D. Town Council Comment and Recommendation VI. Conclusion MATERIAL INDEX AND AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL SITE REVIEW I. Density Analysis of Existing. Buildings II. Possible Unit and GRFA Density of Undeveloped land III. Explanation of County Zoning Terms and Densities IV. Density Analysis of Undeveloped Land under County Zoning (Does not consider exemptions approved by Eagle County) V. Slope Analysis of Undeveloped property with slope 107o or over VI. Building Permit- Lot A -7 VII. LRB Agreement with Eagle County Dated December 3, 1973 VIII. Individual Site Review A. Sloco Properties Joint Venture - Lots 6 -11, Resubdivision of Block C, Lions Ridge Subdivision B. Lions Ridge, Ltd. - Lots 1 - 5, Resubdivision of Block C, Lions Ridge Subdivision C. Koelbel & Co. - Tract of land in Section 12 -5 -81 containing 16.55 acres D. Gore Creek Associates - Part.of Section 12 -5 -81 containing 77.751 acres E. Estate of Phoebe Robbins - Tract of Land in Section 12 -5 -81 Containing 1.23 acres F. Frances McDaniel - Tract of land in Section 12- 5- 81containing 1.05 acres G, LRB /Bosco, Ltd. - Lots B -4 and 13 -5, Lions Ridge Subdivision Lot B -7, Lions.Ridge Subdivision - Lots A -1 and A -2, Lions Ridge Subdivision - Part of Block D, Lions Ridge Subdivision H. Courchevel, Ltd (Snow Lion) - Part of Lot. B -1 and Lot B -2 Lions Ridge Subdivision I. Presentation by Joe Sylvester representing Snow Lion Condominium Association J. Colorado Land Investment Syndicate (Mike Burgamy) -- Lot 7, Block A, Lions Ridge Subdivision K. Leo Payne - Lot A -8, Lions Ridge Subdivision L. Deane Knox (Stewart Brown) - Lot A -9, Lions Ridge Subdivision M. Hoyt - Heidbrink - Three tracts of land in Section 12 -5 -81 containing 2.061 acres N. Holy Cross Electric - A part of Section'12 -5 -81 containing 1.294 acres 0. Chevron Oil. Company - Part of Section 12 -5 -81 containing 1 acre P. John F. and Elinor H. McAllister and Fleming Lumber and Mercantile - Part of Section 6 -5 -80 containing 12.34 acres Q. Sandstone 70 Corp. - Tract of. land in Section 1 -5--81 containing .6945 acres R. Mountain Properties, Ltd. - Lot A- 3,.Exempted parcel, a por- tion of vacated Lions Ridge Loop and a portion of Indian Creek, Ltd. containing approx. 4.6 acres S. Breakaway West -- Lot B -3, Lions Ridge Subdivision T, Lions Mane I & II Lot A -5, Lions Ridge Subdivision U. Homestake A & B - Lot A -6, Lions Ridge ,Subdivision V. Telemark Townhouses - Part of Lot B -1, Lions Ridge Subdivision W. Brooktree, Lot B--6, Lions Ridge. Subdivision X. Aspen Tree Condominium - A tract of land containing .45 acres Y. Board of American Missions of Lutheran Church - A tract of land in Section 12 -5 -81 containing 3 acres Z. Lions Ridge Water District - Part of Block D, Lions Ridge Subdivision AA. Willis E. Nottingham.- Tract of land in Section 1 --5 -81 con - taining .702 acres BB. Indian Creek, Ltd. - Tract of land in Section 1 -5 -81 con- taining 9 acres, less portion sold to Mountain Properties CC. Lions Ridge Subdivision - Lot A -4, Lions Ridge Subdivision :J PUBLIC NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Department of Community Development has requested an amendment to Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973, Section 15.200 relative to the terms of the Design Review Board Members in accordance with Section 21.500 (amendment procedure). A public hearing will be held in accordance with Section 21.400.of Z_:_ Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1973 on 1975 at 7:.30 PM before the Town Council for final decision. Said hearing will be held.in the Vail Municipal Building. TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1 o me r ign Administrator Published in the Vail Trail November 7, 1975 I* 1-0 PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda December 10, 1975 1. Vail Village Inn ---- preliminary presentation of master plan for VVI expansion 2. Bighorn Construction -- GRFA variance for Unit ##4, Texas Townhouse 3. Review of notification procedure for properties located in avalanche hazard areas. 4. Review of Colorado Geological Survey's Avalanche Report PLANNING COMISSION Summary • December 11, 1975 MEMBERS PRESENT: Bill Hanlon Gordon Pierce Dave Sage - acting chairman Jen Wright COUNCIL PRESENT: John Dobson Bill Heimbach Josef Staufer Bill Wilto OTHERS PRESENT: Jim Lamont Diana Toughill Bill Ruoff Jay Peterson Mr. & Mrs. Mullins Cindy Lamont VAIL VILLAGE INN - PRELIMINARY REVIEW. OF MASTER PLAN FOR VVI.EXPANSION It was noted that this piece of property is the only commercial property not developed within CCI. The size of the site is approximately 3J acres. Mr. Staufer, the corowner of the property, would like to do a completely new development on this property that would include shops, parks, and accomoda.tions units. Bill Ruoff, the architect, explained that they would like to see the low -scale pedestrian element on the south side of the building (east meadow mall side) with the parks on top of the commercial buildings and graduating up to the,accomodation units on the northern side of the property. They are planning all the parking to be underground with a minimal amount of above- ground parking for the guests of the hotel to unload bage, etc. The proposed dwelling units for the property is either 100 condominium units or else 300 single -room hotel accomodations. With this new development plan, the owner plans to eventually tear down all existing buildings. It was noted that this project would be in a phased sequence. If the Planning Commission and the Town Council were in agreement with the owner about the development plans, it is hoped that phase one of the project would begin next year with major landscaping included in the con - struction of the first building. In relation to landscaping, Mr. Staufer PLANNING COMISSION -- Summary December 11, 1975 Page Two • sees East Meadow Mall around his property as being an extenSion of the Vail Plan and if the Town Council and the Planning Commission: are in agreement with his plan, then he is willing to do all the major land- scaping around his property from his own money and he will use any architect that the Town suggests to design the Landscaping. He expects completion of landscaping in about 2 -3 years which is way ahead of the the estimated completion date of the Vail Plan for that area -- in addition,his doing the landscaping will save the taxpayers thousands of dollars. In general the Planning Commission and the Town Council were in agreement with his development ideas but major concern was felt in the following. areas: building height contrived landscaping completion of phasing of the project. Some Commissioners felt that the plan was alittle too urban in design and that the requested PUD zone district might be alittle too binding for both the developer and for the Town. Before any concensus of feeling about the project could be voiced. the Planning Commission would like to see a visual model of the project. BIGHORN CONSTRUCTION - TEXAS TOWHOUSE GRFA VARIANCE At an earlier date Mr. & Mrs. Mullinsnade a similar request in order to convert loft space into two bedrooms with a sauna and a bathroom. At that time the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance but when it was brought before the Council, they denied the request. At the Council meeting when the request was denied the Council said that they might reconsider the application if it was for a one - bedroom addition. At this time, Jay Peterson, representing Mr. & Mrs. Mullins, presented their new application. The GRFA variance requested is 326 square feet. Mr. Peterson felt that his client's needs fit into both the criteria and findings of the Zoning Ordinance that the Planning Commission must take into consideration before granting a variance.. He went. on to read the criteria and findings and answer as to how his client's request applied. Another point that Mr. Peterson brought up was that his client considered this unit to be his home and as it presently is his client does not have enough room to house his total family. It was also pointed out that this area is residential and not commercial. The only exterior changes that will be noted, if this requested is granted, is the addition of a window on the street side of the building. Diana Toughill pointed out that there is no additional . required parking if the Planning Commission and the Town Council grant this GRFA variance. • 10 PLANNING COMMISSION - Summary December 11, 1975 Page Three Jen Wright made a motion for approval of the requested GRFA variance, and Gordon Pierce seconded the motion. A vote was taken with 3 for approval and 1 against. Bill Hanlon voted against the request because he is against the addition of GRFA in an already; nonconforming building. REVIEW OF NOTIFICATION PROCEDURE FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED IN AVALANCHE HAZARD ZONES The staff explained their suggested procedure to the Planning Commission. Attached are the letters of explanation and public notice. The, Commission was in complete agreement with the staff's suggested procedure and gave the staff their "go- ahead ". REVIEW OF COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY'S AVALANCHE REPORT The Planning Commission did not have a chance to review this report, but Diana Toughill gave each Commissioner a copy of the report to review on their own and if they had any questions to ask either her - self.or Jim Lamont. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. MEMORANDUM TO: Terrell J. Minger FROM: Diana S. Toughill DATE December 9, 1975 RE:. Notification of Bighorn Townhouse Owners of Avalanche Hazard and filing of Public Notice with Eagle County The Planning Commission has requested the Department of Community Development-staff to notify all property owners who are located in avalanche hazard areas. In reviewing the K.A.C. avalanche report, it • pinpoints the Bighorn Townhouse project as being-in a major avalanche path and indicates a 607o probability that the buildings will be destroyed in their estimated lifetime. I have talked with Larry Rider at length regarding the legal implications of notifying property owners as requested by the Planning Commission, He feels the Town is not incurring a legal liability by the notification and, in fact, feels we. have an obligation to do so. On properties where we have very. A specific information such as KAC and Bighorn Townhouses, he feels we should file a "Public Notice" with Eagle County so the avalanche hazard becomes a part of the permanent property record so as to notify potential purchasers of the hazard. In addition, I would also like to notify all local real estate companies as two of the units are presently on the market. Attached is a letter I have drafted for your signature to notify Bighorn Townhouse owners. Please review and MII CUhit December 9, 1975 Page Two forward to the Council if you think that is appropirate. Larry Rider has also advised that we should set a date for public hearing for the Council to review the avalanche report and that we should notify the King Arthur people (Don Thomas, Sliver State Savings) at least 15 days prior to the hearing by certified mail so that they can attend the hearing. Would the January 6, 1976 Council meeting be an acceptable date for Council review? Please let me know . and i will see that all interested parties are notified. • • 10WH of Vail 13/ box 100 office of the town manager vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476.5613 December 10, 1975 DST %jk Dear Bighorn Townhouse Owner: An avalanche study recently completed for the King Arthur's Court property indicates that the Bighorn Townhouse project.. is located in a major avalanche path. The report, prepared by Hydro- Triad, Inc., indicates "Consider- , ing a fifty year life for the buildings, and a fifty year recurrence interval for a major avalanche, the chances for avalanche damage to these buildings is approximately 6 out of 10 during the expected life period." The Town of Vail is extremely concerned with the possible loss of life and property, and wishes to notify all present and future property owners of the danger. Due to the high probability of avalanche destruction, we are therefore recording the attached Public Notice with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder so that it will become apart of the permanent property records for each condominium unit or parcel of land in the impacted area. If you have any questions or wish to review the avalanche reports, please feel free to call the Department of Community Development. Sincerely, TOWN OF VAIL Terrell J. Minger Town Manager DST %jk � - L - -, I* • PUBLIC NOTICE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a recently pre- pared avalanche report indicates the following described properties are located in a major avalanche path and struc- tures may be subject to destruction: Bighorn Townhouses located on Tracts A and B, Bighorn Townhouse Subdivision; Tracts C and D, Bighorn Townhouse Subdivision, Section 12, Town- ship 5 South, Range 80 West, of the 6th Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, Colorado. Lot 1, Block 7, Bighorn fifth Addition A portion of Lot 2, Block 7, Bighorn Fifth Addition King Arthur's Court - A portion of the property more fully described as follows: (complete legal will be inserted) Copies of avalanche reports are on file with the Department of Community Development, Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Diana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator I Open File Report 1 COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY is DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF COLORADO 1975 n e t 1� SNOW AVALANCHE HAZARDS OF THE VAIL AREA EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO by Arthur I. Mears for The Colorado Geological Survey I' t471 ", w, Photo by Jerry Cleveland *ARD D. LAMM GOVERNOR �V N N f 1r COLORADO GEOLOGICAL SURVEY DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 254 COLUMBINE BUILDING — 1845 SHERMAN STREET DENVER, COLORADO 80203 PHONE 892 -2619 November 19, 1975 The Honorable Richard D. Lamm Governor of Colorado Dear Governor Lamm: We are pleased to release the attached open -file report of avalanche hazard studies of selected areas in Colorado. The Colorado Geological Survey has for some time recognized the exis- tence of locally severe avalanche hazards and their impact on man and his activities in Colorado. Our initial involvement with and growing concern for avalanches resulted from our reviewing subdivision activi- ties under S.B. 35 and other land -use proposals. It is well known that avalanches were a serious hazard to life and property during the early history of the State when mining; activities led to extensive develop- ment of high mountain areas. During the first half of this century, however, decreased mining activity and related decreasing occupancy of land susceptible to avalanches served to minimize public awareness of this hazard. Since World War II, rapid growth of the winter recreation industry and mountain residential development have forced the growing mountain popu- lations to consider avalanche hazards in their growth and development planning. Specific recognition of avalanche hazards as geologic haz- ards and as matters of state concern is contained in H.B. 1041, which was enacted on July 1, 1974. Under that law the Colorado Geological Survey is named as the lead agency for identifying geologic hazards and furnishing related advice and counsel to local governments. As part of our responsibility under H.B. 1041, we retained a consul- tant, Mr: Arthur I. Mears, to study and identify avalanche hazards in selected areas of the State. The intent was to study those areas of present or expected intensive development activity where avalanche hazards were known to exist. Final selection of the actual study areas was made after recommendations from the U.S. Forest Service, local gov- ernments, and knowledgeable citizens. GEOLOGY STORY OF THE PAST ... KEY TO THE FUTURE JOHN W. BOLD Director The Honorable Richard D. Lamm Rage 2 November 19, 1975 Because we have by no means examined all of Colorado's avalanches in our present investigations, additional area studies must be made as develop- ment pressures and patterns emerge. Some areas that would have been in- cluded were deleted because of studies already completed or under way by others. A manual of procedures for detailed evaluation of identified avalanche hazard areas and methods for quantifying risks, design parameters, and mitigation procedures for various avalanche hazards is in preparation and will be available in the near future. We hope that the attached map and report will be useful in the identi- fication, designation, and regulation of avalanche hazard areas-by local governments and private decision--makers and will contribute toward safer development in the State's mountainous areas. Respectfully, 7 `John W. Rold Director and State Ceologist JWR /WPR /ls • William P. Rogers, Chief Engineering and Environmental Geology Section J ! SNOW AVALANCHES IN THE VAIL AREA EAGLE COUNTY:, COLORADO GENERAL DISCUSSION Snow avalanches in the Vail area which are likely to. affect areas of existing or potential use by man are shown on the accompanying map. Avalanches in the remote .areas of the Gore Range, and those within the Vail ski area, are not mapped. Hazard.. in these areas varies considerably in response to the amount of use by cross country skiers, snowmobilers and snowshoers. many of the avalanches affecting these recrea- tional user groups are too small and plentiful to be mapped at the 1:24,000 scale of these maps. They are frequently small slides triggered by the victims themselves. Although such slides were not included in the study, they are obviously important. it is strongly recommended that users of the back country educate themselves in techniques of avalanche avoidance and survival and heed all official avalanche warnings. The Vail area constitutes an excellent example of avalanche hazard. The avalanche paths are small to medium in size by Colorado standards. Of the 13 major paths in the area, only one (path 1, Vail Meadows) has a starting zone larger than 40 acres, and only four have starting zones of more than 30 acres (Vail Meadows, King Arthur, Racquet Club, Timberfalls). Vertical drops of the major paths range from 2600 to 1300 feet. All of the starting zones are completely below .the timber- line. In contrast, large Colorado avalanche paths typically have starting zones of . 100 acres or more, fall over 3000 feet, and almost invariably begin above timberline. Hazard, however, is as much a characteristic of the land --use and the resulting time of exposure_ of people in areas subject to avalanche activity as it is to the physical features of avalanche paths. In the Vail area, permanent buildings and residences already exist within, or immediately adjacent to avalanche runout zones, and many more are being proposed. This.development and the resulting residential occupancy of avalanche zones results in a time of exposure which may be a factor of 100 or more greater than .that experienced by motorists, for example, on avalanche endangered highways. Although avalanches such as those at Vail may approach their runout limits at return periods of twenty -five years or more they constitute a very sig- nificant hazard to those occupying the.runout zone. i - 2 - Unfortunately, the direct observational record of large avalanches in the Vail area is quite short when compared with the estimated return periods of the avalanches. - Vail has existed for only 13 years, a particular time period (1962 through 1975) in which the runout extents shown on the accompanying map have not been approached. It is not unusual that a short time period such as this should be devoid of Large avalanche events and it can be shown statistically that there is a high probability that any given 13 year period will not be affected. However, it is impossible to determine in advance which time period will be devoid of large avalanches. Therefore, it is necessary to plan for the extreme event, given the statistical certainty that it will occur again. It is the purpose of this mapping project to delineate zones of avalanche hazard intensity. The degree of hazard depends on both avalanche frequency and expected 5 values of impact pressure within hazard zones. The mapping scale of 1:24,000 gives a general, indication of hazard zones and can serve to alert both local government officials and proponents of land -use change to potential avalanche problem areas. The accompanying map should not be enlarged with the thought of providing more detailed information because such a process magnifies inherent errors in the map. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Previous work on avalanche research and hazard mapping in the Vail area was conducted by the University of Colorado, institute of Artic and Alpine Research (INSTAAR). The results of these studies are incorporated into this report. r F 4 IIAZARU ZONLS High Hazard Zone: Avalanches within this zone have return periods of 25 years or less and will produce impact pressures of 500 pounds per square foot (ps'f) or more. The high hazard zone is characterized by either high frequency, high impact pressure, or both high frequency and high pressure. Moderate Hazard Zone: Avalanches within this zone will occur at return periods in excess of 25 years and will have impact pressures of less than 1000 . pounds per square foot. Avalanche frequency and.impact pressures de- crease toward -the outer limits of this zone. When large avalanches occur and run to the outer boundaries of this zone they can be very destructive in spite of their reduced probability and pressures. This zone is character- ized by return periods of more than 25 years and reduced pressures. No Hazard: Areas not designated as hazardous can be considered free of avalanches with return periods of up to one or two cen.turi:es. However, there is some probability that unpredictable large avalanches may occur and surpass the moderate hazard boundaries. Such avalanches have a probability small enough to be disregarded for planning purposes, and may be considered as acceptable risk. Estimates of return periods cannot be made for these areas. Air blast from powder avalanches may also extend beyond the moderate hazard zone. However, resulting pressures would usually be less than 50 psf. Small Avalanche Areas: These areas are not wide enough to be accurately displayed at the mapping scale of 1:24000, so they are indicated as arrows. Although they appear small at this scale, they can also be very destructive. PREPARATION OF THESE HAZARD MAPS Accurate determination of avalanche frequency and impact pressure cannot be made without very long records of weather, snow accumulation, snow ac- cumulation intensity, avalanche occurrence, extent, and measurement of im- pact pressures. Ideally, the'length.of .these records should be considerably longer than the return period it is necessary to predict. For example, it may be necessary to have two or three centuries of detailed records to be able to calculate the "100 -year avalanche" extent. However, long, detailed records of this type are completely lacking in the United States. In the absence of a long and detailed history of Colorado avalanches, other techniques were used in preparing these maps. They were prepared from studies of maps, terrain analysis, steroscopic aerial photographs, and field reconnaissance. Frequency estima:tes.were obtained from historical records where available, personal interview.with long -time residents, highway • • - 4 - department records, and qualitative studies of vegetative indicators. More detailed dynamic analyses were made of selected paths in each of the study areas. These analyses made use of the Swiss equations of avalanche motion and other dynamic analysis techniques developed especially for this study. The results of these more detailed studies were transferred to other avalanche paths within the area which were similar in terms of size, shape, orientation, and elevation.. From these studies and our experience gained in more detailed studies of many other Colorado avalanche paths, qualitative estimates of the extents, frequencies, and impact pressures were made. MAPPING ACCURACY AND LIMITATIONS It is important to recognize that the science of avalanche dynamics and terrain analysis upon which these maps are based is not exact. As a result our analyses and interpretations are subject to some undefinable degree of un- certainty. Furthermore, as mentioned previously in the "no hazard" zone de- scription, there is some small probability that the avalanche paths mapped will exceed even the boundaries indicated. It is also possible that we have not delineated all hazard areas within each map, or that future hazard could increase through forest fire, timber cutting, construction operations, or similar land. AMW These uncertainties point to a need for a continuing effort, especially. on the part of local residents and government officials, to carefully report, observe, and document avalanche events. In _this way the hazard maps can constantly evolve as new information becomes available. Specific responsibility for this should rest with a certain individual or local government entity. Regardless'of the quality of information on avalanches, the map accuracy cannot exceed that of the U. S. Geological Survey base map upon which it is 'drawn. This base map conforms to U. S. Map Accuracy Standards, which means not more than'10'percent of the well- defined points on the base'map (such as buildings) are in error by more than 1/50 inch, and not more than 10 percent of the elevations are in error by more than one -half the contour interval. The greater mapping accuracy needed for the more detailed studies discussed below cannot be gained by enlarging a given map. The errors in such enlarged maps increases in proportion to the amount of enlargement. In ganeral a specially compiled map of the area should be provided which meets the needs and specifications of,the investigator doing the detailed analysis: RECOMMENDED USE OF THESE MAPS W 5 Land -use recommendations in avalanche hazard zones discussed herein are r modeled after the Swiss avalanche zoning plans and regulations. Swiss plans i and regulations evolved after study and debate at both.scientifac and the various government levels over the past two or three decades. . Le al ldentification of hazard Zones: Property located within the J high and medium hazard zones should be so designated and recorded on all i r legal property descriptions.. This would inform potential buyers of the existence of a hazard before purchase. Building Within Hazard Zones: If property falls within high hazard zones, then the hazard, in terms of frequency and impact pressure, is probably too . great to allow permanent residences. Although buildings can be designed to withstand the pressures possible within this zone, the people one wishes Co protect may not always be inside when the avalanche occurs. Thus, avalanche I frequency within this zone becomes an important consideration. Lesser hazard exists within the moderate hazard zone. Building in this zone might- be permitted provided that certain precautions are taken. These should include: - -- the location of buildings F - -- building type, arrangement,, and proportion - -- building stability and strength. The lesser.avalanche frequency within this zone substantially reduces the probability of encounter with persons who may be outside the building and as such this is probably not an important consideration. Hazard zones canrnot be defined within the "small avalanche areas" because of the small scale of the base maps. Property within these areas must have detailed studies to delineate the hazard. The probability of avalanches occurring which extend beyond the moderate hazard zone is small enough to be disregarded for planning purposes. MORE DETAILED STUDIES OF AVALANCHE HAZARD ZONES Avalanche hazard maps presented on a scale of 1:24000 give some in- dication of avalanche frequencies and impact pressures, but thel do not provide the necessary des i n criteria for building within hazard zones. If building is planned within the hazard zones it is strongly recommended that detailed studies be-conducted'by qualified.experts. It is recommended that these studies be designed to provide information about: - -- the-areal extent of the runout zone ' - -- the impact pressure distribution withir.ithe.runou.t zone- V - 6 - -� -- the type of avalanche reaching various parts of the runout, zone - -- avalanche frequency - -- avalanche discharge- --- avalanche flow depth. This information should be summarized on a map.with a scale of 1:1000 or larger, with accurate topographic details. The report should also present the necessary explanatory text, data tabulation, and other essentials for further work or govern- mental review. The in formation obtained through such studies should enable the architect and structural engineer to design buildings which can safely withstand avalanche forces. Techniques by which the information necessary in the more detailed studies can be derived are discussed in detail in Special Publication No. 8 of the Colorado Geological Survey. MITIGATION OF AVALANCHE 11AZARD The mitigation of avalanche hazard is usually called "avalanche control," or "avalanche defense." Artificial Release: Artificial release'of avalanches by explosive control.or artillery is not considered to be an alternative for areas of potential human oc- cupancy because of its unreliability as a long -term failsafe method. It is com- monly used, with various degrees of effectiveness, in ski areas and along mountain highways where the avalanche paths can be evacuated prior to control attempts, and where avalanches will not cause structural damage. It should tot be used above permanent development. Structural Control in the Starting Zone: Structures designed to support the snow in the.starting zone thereby preventing large scale avalanche releases have. { been used successfully in Europe, for many years. There is only limited experience . with this type of construction in the United States and construction and design. costs would prove very expensive, possibly,exceeding $200,000 per acre of support- ing structures. Furthermore, the avalanche starting zones are often located on National Forest land which could result in difficulty in obtaining necessary per- mits for construction which may have very negative visual impacts. Structural Control in the Runout Zone: Structural control in the runout zone is defined here to include avalanche deflecting and arresting structures, and direct protection structures for individual buildings. The design of these types of avalanche defenses requires the detailed studies mentioned in the previous section, as well as careful economi.c.analyses. Of the three broad categories of mitigating methods discussed in,this-section, these..have generally- proven to. be J - I - Y i j most practical in Colorado, possibly because construction can take place on pr - 1 vale land, and it is less expensive than starting zone supporting structures. Diverting or arresting structures are intended to increase the safe area within runout zones by shortening the avalanche flow through dissipation of energy, or by deflecting avalanches away from certain areas. Direct protection structures protect individual objects and must be designed to withstand avalanche forces. 0 The runouC zones should be long,.wide, and generally of less than 30% (17 ) in clination for deflecting or dissipating structures to be effective. on steeper slopes where avalanches will not begin to decelerate naturally, these structures are not effective. The runout zone of deep powder avalanches cannot be reduced appreciably by these structures. Some avalanche paths are much more amenable to structural control than others. Suitability should be determined for each individual path only after careful and detailed studies. DESCRIPTION OF AVALANCHE PATHS ACCOMPANYING THIS MAP a • Avalanche, paths on these maps are described in terms of their topographic settings, which in turn give some indication of potential avalanche size. It must be remembered that potential size also depends on variations of weather and snowpack conditions which vary greatly across large geographic regions, and with elevation. The results of this variability have been qualitatively evaluated for this map through observations of the cumulative destructive effects of avalanches which have occurred over a long time period. This technique was described briefly in the section on preparation of the hazard maps. Total Vertical Drop_: This is the maximum elevation difference in a given path. it may be a good indication of path size when the track is wide and.uncon- fined although for narrow; confined, tracks the starting zone area is a better measure. • Starting Zone Area: An estimate of starting zone area is obtained from n e:cisting topographic maps. It is an. upper limit of the ;area which could be. in- volved in a single, large avalanche release, and such areas are bounded on the top and sides by distinct topographic features, such as ridges. The size of the scarfing zone is. the most important topographic factor in determining the size, . velocity, impact pressure, and runout distance of confined avalanches Track Gradient: Track gradient is important.in.determining the velocity of dense, flowing avalanches. As defense construction in a runout zone'i:s primarily es, track gradient against the dense,flowing portion of avalanchC becomes i 8 r an important consideration. Powder avalanche velocity is'probably not strongly affected by track gradient. Runout Zone: The length of this zone was scaled from topographic maps and the width is indicated on the hazard maps. It is assumed that runout zones begin where the slope inclination becomes less than 30% (170} because it is on slopes of this or lesser inclination that defense structures become most effective and avalanches will probably begin to slow naturally. Another criteria.for the defi- nition of runout zones is the top of alluvial fans below gullies. It is at this point that avalanches can begin to widen and decelerate. i mom INDIVIDUAL PATH DESCRIPTIONS Path 1 (Vail Meadows): Total vertical drop: 2600 ft Starting zone: 50 acres, shallow bowl below timberline Track: Gradient 41 %, confined to channel at top, open slope near bottom Runout zonQ: Path hits 100 ft high hill directly, part of the avalanche flow is deflected east of the hill, part goes over top, and most of the flow is deflected west of the hill. Path 2: Total vertical drop: 1800 ft Starting zone: 5 to 10 acres open spots in timber Track: Gradient 38% , runs in shallow gully Runout zone: Gradient 22 %, length about 900 ft Path 3 King Arthur • Total vertical drop: 2400 ft Starting zone: Two sections consisting of upper basin and west side of upper track; total area is 40 acres. Track: upper track confined to channel, gradient 50% lower track runs on open slope and over cliff, gradient 32% Runout zone: Gradient 8%, length about 1000 ft Path 4 Old Muddy): Total vertical drop: 1900 ft Starting zone: 35 acres, open spots in timber Track: Gradient 43 %, confined to gully, falls over small cliff at bottom Runout zone: Gradient 10 %, length about 800 ft Path 5: Total vertical drop: 1800 ft Starting zone: 6 acres, open spot in timber Track:, Gradient 54 %, runs in shallow channel Runout zone: Gradient 15%, length about 500 ft - 3.0- y i • Path 6 Timber Falls : Total vertical drop: 2500 ft Starting zone: Total area, 30 acres; consists of three sections which, under extreme conditions could all release at once Track: Gradient 50 %, mostly unconfined Runout zone: Gradient 10 %, length 800 ft, reaches Gore Creek Path 7: Total vertical drop: 2000 ft Starting zone: 15 acres, open spots in timber Track: Gradient 63 %, open slope, falls over several cliffs Runout zone: Gradient 30 %, length 500 ft Note: Several small avalanches in this area can develop into powder avalanches as they fall over cliffs in the avalanche tracks. Path 8 (Waterfall)' Total vertical drop: 2400 ft Starting zone: Total area, 25 acres; consists of three main parts which could release at one time Track: Gradient 52 %, falls over steep cliff at bottom Runout zone: Gradient 20 %, length about 700 ft a Path 9 _(Terra y) Total vertical drop: 1300 ft Starting zone: about 10 acres Track: Gradient 70 %, confined to channel Runout zone: Gradient 30 %,length about 500 ft Path 10 (Gilke y) Total vertical drop: 1800 ft Starting zone: Total area about 15 acres, consists of two parts, which might release at one time iTrack: Gradient 60 %, falls over cliff at bottom Runout zone: Gradient 28 %, length 500 ft .LI I- .Path 11 Sidewinder Total vertical drop: 1800 ft Starting zone: about 5 acres Track: Gradient 60 %, falls over cliff at bottom Runout zone: Gradient 201, length about 600 ft Path 12 (Frontage): Total vertical drop: 1900 ft Starting zone: 20 acres in bowl Track: Gradient 55 %; runs in channel; falls over cliff at bottom Runout zone: Gradient 25 %, length 500 ft Path 13 (Gore)_: Total vertical drop: 1900 ft Starting zone: 10 acres Track: Gradient 65 %, runs in shallow channel, falls over cliff at bottom Runout zone: Gr.adient.25 %, length 500 ft Path 14 Clubhouse): Total vertical drop: 2100 ft Starting zone: Total about 30 acres, consists of two main parts which may run at one time. Track: Gradient 50 %, runs in channel Runout zone: Gradient 17 %, length 600 ft ' Most of the numbered paths described are difficult to analyze by use of the • normal dynamic equations because they fall over cliffs in their tracks. This can cause dry snow avalanches to develop into more dangerous, longer running powder avalanches. Other Avalanches Smaller slides are indicated by arrows on the hazard map. They involve much smaller volumes of snow than the numbered paths. — Those which release from high elevations and fall over the cliff band (such as those between paths 7 and 8) are particularly dangerous because they too may become powder avalanches. -:.lZ- It. a 4 T Avalanche paths on the north side of Gore Creek will rarely occur because • these slopes do not usually accumulate: a deep snowpack. when they do occur they will not involve large snow volumes and will stay in the gullies, stopping quickly in the runout zone. Prepared by Arthur I. Mears R Vaal July, 1975 4 • i .n m O EAGLE 30 tip(. � ip (JOwDS JUNG. (U. S. 24) 5 tit(. o' C'. 0 0 �: p1 c m r M D D o D O iii sl 1 / oD (n o o v v y o m :13 Oil _ m v M lit \�' C r D3 CD 0 rnN; n l 0 v Lo G, c o, N ° ill f 0 Z ,,� N o _ I r+ ° <; - F n CD �\ i a al ;i L a� CP 9 0 • • PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA December 18, 1975 1. Review of Avalanche report for Shapiro property (Lots 1 - 5 and Lot 9, Bighorn Subdivision, First Addition). 2. Discussion of Colorado Geologic Survey avalanche report for possible incorporation into the Environmental Impact section of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. Staff report on progress on King Arthur's Court and avalanche notification process. • MEMBERS PRESENT: Dudley Abbott Bill Hanlon Pam Garton Gerry White OTHERS PRESENT: Diana Toughill Peter Eichsteadt PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY December 18, 1975 REVIEW OF SHAPIRO'S AVALANCHE REPORT FOR LOTS 1 -5, & LOT 9, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FIRST ADDITION At present lots 1 -5 are zoned residential cluster and lot 9 is zoned residential. The report that was prepared for him by Art Meyers (attached) says that only lots 4 & 5 might be buildable. It was noted by Diana Toughill that if he did build on these lots that he might not meet the front setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. What Mr. Shapiro would like from the Planning Commission is approval of the submitted report so that he can proceed with the engineering and design aspects of building on avalanche hazard lots as well as to see if it is feasible to build on these lots. Bill Hanlon made a motion to approve the attached report and Gerry White seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was recorded for approval of the motion. r� • 0 �J PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY December 18, 1975 COLORADO GEOLOGIC SURVEY AVALANCHE REPORT -- DISCUSSION OF The staff has asked the Planning Commission to review this report (attached on December 11, 1975 Planning Commission meeting) and came back with suggestions as to what portions of this report we should use in creating a model ordinance for environmental hazards. The staff would also like to develop guidelines which would fit within the requirements of House Bill 1041 that will also give guidence for the amendment of the Environmental Impact Statement on the Zoning Ordinance. KING ARTHUR'S COURT -- STAFF REPORT ON PROGRESS Diana Toughill went on to explain that the existing buildings are in a major avalanche path, and that al1buiIding and property owners. are being notified. There are plans being made to remove the existing buildings -- but this has yet to be presented to the Town Council. As there was no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned. •1 i C7 Project 7589 SNOW AVALANCHE HAZARD STUDY SHAPIRO PROPERTY BIG HORN SUBDIVISION VAIL, COLORADO Prepared for MR. ABE SHAPIRO BOX 1547 VAIL, COLORADO I SNOW AVALANCHE HAZARD STUDY ON SHAPIRO PROPERTY BIG HORN SUBDIVISION VAIL, COLORADO I. INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF REPORT Previous reports (INSTAAR 1973; Colorado Geological Survey, 1975) indicate that snow avalanche hazard exists above properties studied in this report. Topographic maps produced as a result of these.studies were at a scale of 1:24,000 and therefore did not delineate the hazard accurately enough for detailed planning purposes. The objective of the present study is to place on a map scale of 1" = 200' more detailed information on the extent of avalanche runout so that planning and more detailed studies can proceed if sufficient land is free of snow avalanche hazard. This reconnaissance study, 7 however, will not provide design information such as impact pressures and io estimated frequencies and flow depths. The results of this study therefore cannot be used to provide design criteria for building within the runout zone. Lots studied in this report are Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9 in Big Horn, First Addition, Vail, Colorado whose approximate locations are shown on Figure 1. These 6 lots will be referred to hereafter as the Shapiro property. II. DESCRIPTION OF AREA The steep slopes above the Shapiro property collect and maintain a deep snow- pack throughout most winters. This slope is oriented toward the northeast and therefore receives only indirect rays of the sun throughout much of the R winter. Under exceptional weather and snowpack conditions, large quantities of snow will accumulate and release from these slopes and flow downhill as snow avalanches. Figure 2 is a photograph of these slopes taken 'in late 1 Spring of 1975. It clear.Jy shows tracks cut through the timber which have been caused by avalanches which have occurred in the past. The presence of lwi Y I O 4 ZN o UJ U r LL � f o J Y O LLJ LLI J 1L W 7 O w a d J -J W a� o � Z m � w Z� & O� Z p U S $Ill D LL- s Uw zx 20 £ Z O t z� { � ati Ez ow u * z z o oz z -- F o T . U E 0 W D T u V � C �p "O Q d N J7 w U- CJ i m � E N � � I I i the prominent cliff above the property makes the analysis more complicated because some dry snow flowing avalanches may be transformed into powder avalanches as they flow over the cliff. Flowing avalanches which threaten the Shapiro property can begin either below or above the cliff band shown in Figure 2. Flowing avalanches which begin ,. above the cliffs can reach Lots 9, 1, 2, 3, and part of. Lot 4; however, they are deflected away from Lot 5 and part of Lot 4 due to the shape of the terrain above the cliffs. Lot 5, however, is affected by avalanches which -2- III. DESCRIPTION OF TYPES OF AVALANCHES WHICH CAN OCCUR ON THE SHAPIRO PROPERTY Powder avalanches (or airborne powder avalanches as they are sometimes called) are low - density, high - velocity suspensions of snow and ice particles. Because of their great flow depths and velocities they can travel long distances on low gradients in the runout zone and can be very destructive despite their low densities. Both wet and dry flowing avalanches are high-density, low- velocity masses of snow and ice. Because of their shallow flow depths and low velocities these avalanches stop readily on slopes of low gradient in the runout zones. Because of their high densities, flowing avalanches cause high impact pressures in spite of low velocities. The impact pressures from powder avalanches are caused by their high velocity but are generally less per unit area than impact pressures from flowing avalanches. Flow depths of such powder avalanches are generally deeper than those of flowing avalanches resulting in high loadings on structures in their path. Flowing avalanches can sometimes r. . be controlled by diverting or arresting the flow whereas powder avalanches cannot often be diverted or arrested and structures must be designed to with- stand the impact. IV. LOCATION OF AVALANCHES ON AND ABOVE THE SHAPIRO PROPERTY Flowing avalanches which threaten the Shapiro property can begin either below or above the cliff band shown in Figure 2. Flowing avalanches which begin ,. above the cliffs can reach Lots 9, 1, 2, 3, and part of. Lot 4; however, they are deflected away from Lot 5 and part of Lot 4 due to the shape of the terrain above the cliffs. Lot 5, however, is affected by avalanches which -2- i Y begin below the cliff. Lot 5 is not in the runout of the large Waterfall Avalanche path west of the Shapiro property. Under certain conditions dry snow avalanches will develop into powder avalanches as they fall over the cliffs. These powder avalanches threaten Lots 9, 1, 2, 3, and part of Lot 4. In summary, Lots 9, 1, 2, 3, and part of Lot 4 can be reached by both flowing avalanches which begin above and below the cliff and by powder avalanches. Lot 5 is affected only by avalanches which begin below the cliff which cannot develop into powder avalanches. The hazard areas from both flowing and powder avalanches have been mapped separately on Figure 3. Of all the property, only a portion of Lot 5 is completely free of avalanche hazard. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As shown on Figure 3, avalanche hazard exists on all of the lots on the Shapiro property. A small portion of the downhill limit of Lot 5 is free of avalanche hazard. Powder avalanches which sweep over Lots 4, 3, 2, 1, and 9 can travel well beyond the Shapiro property and may reach existing houses on the north side of Lupine Drive. Avalanches of design magnitude have not been observed at this location since Vail was founded. Establishment of the desirability and feasibility of building within the hazard areas on the Shapiro property should include these steps: 1. Determine what portions of the hazard areas shown on Figure 3 are acceptable for building in terms of the impact pressure and frequency criteria.. Such criteria have been informally adopted by the Town of Vail for areas affected by flowing avalanches (Lot 5 and part of Lot 4 on the Shapiro property); but not for areas affected by powder avalanches. Such criteria must be developed for these powder avalanche areas (Lots 9, 1, 2, 3, and part of Lot 4). T- d w W cli • �� oIoo pr LLJ N i f • • •• • //� -� // r .r /'i✓ • �i IL JV . • Q / 1r X fy,�/ r/ /�* /�� 1 iJTa 4 Alf LAJ Ov j i1 /i/ /�i/ �� �� iiiiiiiiiii a� •, �� / ✓/ ' /// / �jj �/ 1//////// 1 w `� �/• /�/ //j / Y / / / / //. O N V D tq [b i I j ' V uo1 i ! w w uj (9 lL IOL Q C / • Cl? a w ro as v+ This step would also provide design criteria by specifying: a. Avalanche flow depths distribution in the run out b. Avalanche impact pressure zone ;. c. Avalanche frequency estimates 2. w N Use the design criteria from Step 1 to develop recommendations for avalanche defenses within acceptable risk areas and determine the economic feasibility of individual structures on the property. Step 2, however, does not provide structural engineering or architec- tural details for individual buildings. tep. Furthermore, Step t may consider One may decide to stop work at any s arty or only Lot 5 and part of Lot 4 where only all lots on the Shapiro property ted engineering costs flowing avalanches occur. At this time we have estima for Step 1 to be approximately $3000. The cost of Step 2 has not been estimated. We suggest meetings be held with the Town of Vail to discuss the situation termine their attitude as affected by this report. on this property to de Vi. ADDITIONAL. HAZARDS ON THE SHAPIRO PROPERTY Horn Rockfall and mud and debris flow hazards threaten Portions of the Dog affected and 4. of the Shapiroproperty have obviously been area. lots l , 2, 3 . of rockfal 1. by rockfall in the past (see Figure 4). While the frequency resentl known methods, the area affected previously cannot be determined by p Y by rockfall can be mapped so that this information can be considered in ear to be a major problem development plans. Mud and debris flows do not app art of on this property; however, small mudflows may occur on the upper p Lot 1. _4- = a r �' f•. r }C 1 .r e,A f f i! ' # #•awrtS.y e v ;R. 4 4.1A 1iik {- �R' i }k 1f f +`f.i�Y � �• stay now Of 74 n b A ^`1 b PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HORIZONTAL ZONING - COMMERCIAL CORE 1 To be added after Section 3 on Page 12 Section 4. Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Article 18 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission shall consider the Development Standards hereby established for Commercial Core 1 as they would apply to the Conditional Use Permit under consideration: A. The effect upon vehicular traffic into and through the Commercial Core 1 district in an effort to encourage the reduction of vehicular traffic into and through the area so as to provide an optimum environ- ment for living, working shopping and recreation. As they apply to the Conditional Use Permit under consideration, the following guidelines should be considered and encouraged on the part of the applicant: 1. Removal of non - essential off - street parking; 2. Improvement of goods and services delivery and pick -up systems. 3. Development of public spaces for pedestrian use. B. The effect upon the mixed residential and commercial and public uses in Commercial Core 1 so as to provide for div ersity of use, social cohesiveness, maintenance and protection of the viability of the district, C. The quality of architectural and landscape design to encourage a high quality and maintain the alpine character of the district. D. The quality of construction to encourage a high quality construction and maintenance in the district, E. The effect upon economic growth and stability within the district and its relation to the mixed use concept. • F. The effect upon the environment as the impacts can be minimuzed with respect to noise, odor, dust, and smoke. • PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS HORIZONTAL ZONING - COMMERCIAL CORE 1 To be added after Section 3 on Page 12 Section 4. Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with Article 18 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission shall consider the Development Standards hereby established for Commercial Core 1 as they would apply to the Conditional Use Permit under consideration: A. The effect upon vehicular traffic into and through the Commercial Core 1 district in an effort to encourage the reduction of vehicular traffic into and through the area so as to provide an optimum environ- ment for living, working shopping and recreation. As they apply to the Conditional Use Permit under consideration, the following guide- . lines should be considered and encouraged on the part of the applicant and the Town of Vail: 1. Removal of all on- street parking except for restricted loading zones. 2. Removal of non - essential off - street parking 3. Improvement of goods and services delivery and pick -up systems. 4. Provision of sufficient public parking to service existing and future parking demands. 5. Provision for efficient, economic and convenient mass transpor- tation to reduce the dependency on the automobile and promote the distribution of population. 6. Development of public spaces for pedestrian use. B. The effect upon the mixed residential, commercial and public uses in Commercial Core 1 so as to provide for diversity of use, social • cohesiveness, maintenance and protection of the viability of the district. Page 2 C. The quality of architectural and landscape design to encourage . a high quality and the maintain the alpine character of the district. C. The quality of construction to encourage a high quality construction and maintenance in the district. E. The effect upon economic growth and stability within the district and its relation to the mixed use concept. F. The effect upon the environment as the impacts can be minimized with respect to noise, odor, dust, and smoke. • I* U PROCEDURE FOR BIGHORN ZONING Call Public Hearin; to Order in accord with Article 21 of the zoning ordinance. Public Notice was given as required by Section 21.402. Review attached evidence for Council. Review all Requested and Proposed Changes: 1. Blocks 1, 2, and 3 Bighorn 5th Addition - Requested change from Residential to Single Family Residential. Request: comments from audience and Planning Commission Request Notion and action from Council 2. Heather of Vail and Frost Townhouses - Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 Heather of Vail Subdivision. - Proposed change from Residen- tial. to Residential Cluster. Request commnents from audience and Planning Commission Request motion and vote from Council 3. Cedar Point Townhouse Subdivision - Requested change from Residential Cluster to LD;iF with a maximum of four units. Request comments from audience and Planning Commission Request Motion and action from Council 4. Vail Meadows Second Filing -- Requested change from Agri- cultural to Residential. Request comments from audience and Planning Commission Request motion and vote from Council (e e. Wren House - Lot 7, Block 2 and Block 3 Gore Creek Sub- division - Requested change from Residential Cluster to Medium Density Multiple Family. Request comments from audience and Planning Commission- Request motion and vote from Council. Alpin Glo —Lot 6, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision - Pro - posed change from Residential to Residential Cluster. - Request •comments from audience and Planning':Cornmission Request motion and vote from Council Gore Creek Meadows and Gore Creek Condominium Building A - Proposed change from Residential to Residential Cluster. Request comments from audience and Planning Commission Request motion and vote from Council. Gore Creels Subdivision except Block 3 and'.',sLo.tO 6 and 7, Block 2 and all of Vail '„eadows First; Filing No requested or proposed changes. Should vote on Residi "fit%.{ proposal. Request comments from audience and Planning `C.ommi Ssion R quest motio an e o Co cil. ,_ l Ohio A j� eq otion tc� -?�e:i Ordinance No. 3 (Series of 1974) on �� reading in order to adopt entire map and amend the official zoning neap. i 7 a • EVIDENCE The Town Council shall base its determinations upon statements contained in the application or petition, upon reports from the Town staff or consultants, if any, upon evidence submitted to the Planning Commission and the recommendations of the Commis- sion, and upon evidence presented to the Council at the hearing. ACTION BY TOWN COUNCIL Within 20 days of the closing of a �fc) y g public hearingta proposed. . amendment, the Town Council shall act on the petition or pro- posal (BE SURE TO REMIND THEM THAT THEY MUST ACT TONIGHT OR WE WILL NOT MEET THE'90 DAY DEADLINE). The Council shall consider but shall not be bound by the recommendations of the Planning Commission. The Town Council may cause an ordinance to be introduced to amend the regulations of this ordinance or to change district boundaries, either in accord with the recommendation of the Planning Commission or in modified form, or the Council may deny the petition. If the Council elects .to proceed with an;ordinance.amending the regulations or chang- ing district boundaries, or both, the ordinance shall be con- sidered as prescribed by the Charter of the Town of Vail. i 4 MEMORANDUM TO: TERRELL J. MINGER FROIM : DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RE: STAFF REVIEW OF AVALANCHE AND MUDFLOW HAZARD REPORT AND AVALANCHE AND MUDFLOW.DEFENSE REPORT FOR KATSOS AND 10TH FILING PROPERTIES OWNED BY VAIL ASSOCIATES MSC, Inc. of Boulder has prepared an excellent avalanche and mud_flow hazard report for the Katsos and 10th filing properties owned by Vail Associates. Art bears, who was responsible for the Town's avalanche report, headed the 114-SC group. Fourteen, separate slide areas �ocatod'on the Katsos property were identified and sampled usipg "a tree ring analysis (dendrb= chronology) which involves coring 'rees',in a :eas which have been impacted by avalanche. romtt e'trek; corers a-chronolog�7: i can be constructed which spec''ical 1y . idx�tfies, th-e:. years iii which avalanches have occurre, 'and a projectioff Can-, be made on expected avalanche frequencie per' - 100 ":years. and the average recurrence interval. Of the fourteen slide areas, four ;'large avalanches_, - Terray, Gilkey, Sidewinder and Frontage—were idoxitified and sampled. 1. Terray Gully has avalanc�ied : n 1969; 1947, 1940..., 1927 and. 1_921. and has a. 5 5% Pr Q1 b i :y „C1f year, wish an average recurrence interval of 18 years.. 2. Gilkey Gully had avalanches occurring in 1962, 1948, 1930 and 1924 with a 6.:5% probability of avalanching in any one year-and an average recurrence interval of 15 years. 3. Sidewinder was active in 1958, 1948, 1938, 1924, and 1919, has a 67o probability of sliding in any one year and an average recurrence interval of 17 years. 4. Frontage -- Avalanches occurred in 1962, 1950, 1938, 1919, has a projected frequency of 6.67o per year and an average recurrence period of 15 years. The report divides the property into three zones based upon avalanche impact as follows: 1. Zone I - High hazard -- Should be totally avoided for con- struction pruposes. Pressures in excess of 615 psf. impact with return periods of less than 20 years (5% probability of slide in any given year). Dangerous to life and property. 2. Zone II - Moderate hazard -- Building could be allowed with special design to withstand a minimum of 615 psf impact and design criteria to consider aerodynamic uplift forces. From a staff viewpoint, this area should also be considered as unbuildable because of possible danger to'life when entering or leaving a structure or parking. 3. Zone III -- No significant hazard - May be used for construct - ing buildings with attention given to not locating.large areas of glass facing the four major avalanche paths due to possible wind blast from powder avalanches. U • Staff Review of Katsos and 10th Filing February 18, 1975 Page 2 Six slide areas were identified on the 10th Filing property, all of the wet snow type with an average probability of 6.1% and a recurrence interval of 16 years. It appears from the report that some of the subdivided lots are buildable and safe from avalanche hazard. The Avalanche and Mudflow Defense report prepared by McDowell - Smith and Associates of Boulder is very preliminary and makes only general suggestions for diversion'or control devices for both avalanche and mudflow hazards. The report also suggests structure design for Zone II areas: The general conclusion from the report is that control devises are not very practical either economically or aesthetically. We.feel the report should be used only as a base for further research pertaining to defense against avalanche and mudflow hazards. We recommend that both reports be reviewed by Colo.Geological survey for accuracy and content. It is further recommended that a complete flood plain analysis be completed to substantiate the hazard area drawn on the maps furnished with the avalanche reports. A request has been made by the Community Development Staff that a content outline be provided for the complete Environmental Impact Report prior to review of any subdivision proposal. Jim Viele has informed us that THK Associates and John Ryan will be jointly. responsible for the report. I w • j 0 • LE! orn Citizens' Questionnaire: The purpose of a Bighorn General Plan will be to develop com- munity wide circulation systems, landscape systems and recrea- tion systems consistent with those proposed for the remainder of the community by the Vail Plan. By circulation systems we mean the routes of public buses with designated stopping places- the routes for bicycling - the routes for the pedestrian - the routes for the automobile - By landscape systems we mean the analysis of the various road- ways and public movement corridors from the standpoint of land- scape quality, that is -- the need to change or add to the existing landscape for visual improvement, -the need to add planting, earthforms, etc. for the purpose of. sound control, visual screening, repair of damage to the natural landscape. By-recreation systems we mean the analysis of the land for reasons of public use for play areas, open turf recreation space, community gathering places, and for preservation or conservation of spaces of natural beauty or open space value. The overall plan in addition would attempt to better define the natural hazard areas and recommend community policy as to use of the areas. To achieve the objectives stated, the residents of the Town should participate in decisions reached in several ways. Firstly, response is requested to a questionnaire regarding community E • Bighorn Citizens' Questionnaire Page 2 goals. Secondly, the residents should participate in the three distinct phases of planning that will follow: 1. Review of answers to the questionnaires, agree- ' ment as to the general plan objectives. Basically, the deter -- , urination of the design program. 2. Review and comments to the preliminary general. plan. 3. Review and comments to the final general. plan. By following the above steps of communication, we should achieve • a general, plan responsive to the goals of the residents, the Town Council, and other Town agencies. 1 0 3; i i ■4 • • 1 0 QUESTIONNAIRE 1. What are the most pressing problems of the Bighorn area? (Rate in order of concern) Traffic Density 'Lack of information of hazard areas Lack of recreation facilities Lack of public open space Lack of commercial facilities Sound intrusion Air quality Visual qualities of Gore Creek Visual. qualities of other areas Other 2. Circulation s stems a. Is public transportation desirable? b. Is a bike path separate from the roadways desirable? c. Are walkways separate from roadways desirable? ,d. Is pedestrian circulation along Gore Creek desirable to a maximum amount? e. Is pedestrian circulation along Gore Creek desirable in limited public areas? QUESTIONNAIRE Page 2 3. Landscape systems a. Where can the natural landscape be improved? b. Should the Interstate be screened from view? C. Where are areas of important natural beauty that should be preserved? • d. What open areas seem important to the community as a whole? 4. Recreation systems a. Are public recreation facilities desirable? b. Should the recreation facilities provided be only passive, hiking, natural experiences? C. Should recreation include both the natural hiking exper- iences and other park type facilities? d. What are the areas that seem most logical for public recreation? f L i QUESTIONNAIRE l Page 3 e. What are the recreation facilities that should be provided? (Mark as many as necessary) (1) Pre - school play areas (2) School age play areas (3) Basketball courts (4) Volleyball courts (5) Tennis courts (6) Open grass play fields (7) Formalized play fields (a) Baseball or softball (b) Soccer or football (S) Family picnic facilities (9) Group picnic facilities (10) Meeting rooms, indoor (11) Recreation space (12) Craft teaching facilities (13) Swimming pool (14) Passive, natural areas (15) Other f. Which of the above should receive highest priority? • f L • MEMO TO: Town Council FROM: Planning Commission RE: Planning Commission Recommendations By a 4 -0 vote (with one abstention), the Vail Planning Commission agreed to recommend to you the approval of a GRFA variance for a condominium unit in the northwest corner of the Christiana Lodge. The variance entails a 150 square foot loft to be built into the unit's existing livingroom. The loft will be used basically as an extra bedroom. The variance request doesn't encompass any external changes to the unit. • Additionally, the Planning Commission, by a 3 -0 vote (with one abstention), a greed to recommend to you favorable con- sideration for two variances requested by Vail Associates for the 125 -unit Lions View Apartments to be located adjacent to Sandstone. Because the Town Council preliminarily reviewed this project before we saw it, I will not go into great detail. The variances were for relief concerning the zoning ordinance require- ment that covered parking be "within the building" and that in a HDMF zone 75 per cent of the parking must be covered. VA wishes to cover only 58 per cent of the parking, and none of .this.wi.11 be technically within the building. The following summarizes the reasons for the Planning Commission's vote in favor of these variances: l) The project will be made possible through an FHA loan and will be marketed purely on a rental basis which will hopefully make it attractive and convenient to Vail area employees. 2) FHA financing, we are told, requires high quality construction and guarantees that project investors can receive no more than a 10 per cent return on their investment. If profits are higher than that level, the money must be returned to the project in the form of lower rents or capital improvements. . 3) minium market that this may that a purely will not in t We are concerned that with the Gore Valley condo - on an upswing, as we are told by several realtors, lessen the supply of housing for employees. We feel rental project will assist in assuring that employees Le future be frozen out of this valley as far as housing is concerned. 4) Vail Associates has agreed to furnish 4,000 square feet of this project to the Town of Vail for badly needed day-care facilities. We are told that 100 children could use this facility and still meet all state requirements. We were also assured that the day care center would be available to all Vail residents (not just those of the project itself) and that it would not be used for tourist children. • 5) Jack and Sandi Mills and Horst and Kit Abraham and Sharon Welin attended our meeting Thursday to voice the concerns of Sandstone residents. They left the meeting with no objections to the project after it was fully explained (although they still have some concerns). 6) We don't feel that forcing parking to be "within the building" necessarily is best in all cases. Lions Square North, for instance, serves as a positive example where a variance was given and the final product is aesthetically pleasing. 7) We are also not greatly concerned thatthe project, meet the HDMF requirement of having 75 per cent of the parking covered. The actual density of the project meets MDMF stipulations which would require that only 50 per cent of the parking be covered. Also, we are more concerned that the project be aesthetically pleas- ing rather than meet all the technical requirements. With the berming, landscaping, and snow removal plans we were told about; plus the fact that the project must pass the Design Review Board, our concerns in this area were allayed.