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.