Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 7 TRACT B GOLDEN PEAK BASE 1980 LEGALtL --!4I,NUTES OF PLAT.INING August MEI'IBERS PRESENT Gerry white Ed Drager Dan Corcoran Gaynor Miller John Perkins .Iim Morgan Roger Tilkemei-e_r .,/- -AI{D ENVIRONI4ENTAT COMMISSION 25, 1980 3:00 P.M. COUNCIL PRESENT none STAFF PRBSENT Peter Patten Jin Rubin oiik Ryan Betsy Rosolack 1. Approval of mi.nutes of August 11, 1980- Dan Corcoran moved to aPprove the minutes, seconded by Ed Dragerr vote was unanimous 2. Exterior Itlodification to the Trionshead Goldola Build-ing. Jim Rubin presented the project as explai.ned in the nemorandu:, and stated that the staff recommended approval. B. J. Brit{ion, o:iroer of A Place on Earth, showed drawings and describecl the snovl pileC high in the winter in front of the building. He mentioned that the two store fronts were concePtual, that there weie no tenants as ye{:. D:.scussion followed concerriiig the fact that the barrier j.n front of the building separated the buil-ding from the rea11,,an4_that.it was so wide that it laifea peogile perspective. It was felt that this modificat--ic:i was neeclei for the Lionshead Commelcial exposure. Dan Corcoran moved to ?pprove' subject to the conditions noted- in the staff report' Ed Drager s':conded, the vote was unanimous. Jim Rubin presentecl the project and, after explanai:ion, stated thal: the staff iecommencled de;ial because no hardship existecl.. EiLeen Schili:ng explained the drawilgs further, and pointed out that a neighbcr (Davis) was given a variance to extencl a deck an<1 buil'J a garage. - Fu:ther. neitfer of her neighbors objected, and tlre other o]rner of her duplex wrobe a letter requesting that Eiteen be allowed to build on the West in order not to intrude on his privacy. She pointeC out that' the reason the d.eck was not proposed for the b;ick was to save the trees there, ancl because the site was steep. Discussion fotlowed abcut the fact that there is no neighbor to the Wesi: because it is air avalanche area, and will never be ocCupied, therefore won't impact anycne. Roger Tj"lkemeier moved to approve this va-riance, John Perk-i-ns seconded' and all voted for approvaf eicept for Jim l.lorgern who abstained and Ed Drager rvho voted agtinst approval because he felt no hardship existed. 3.Setback variance to buil-d a deck on Lot 1 v. Vil larTe 7th 4.Christ.iania Lodqe Parkin Variance to A1low a 2800 Ft -\dditiorr Peter Patten presented thc request explaining that it was not in CCI' . paul Johnston ment.ioned that ihe::e was a past parl<ing agreement between tlie Cirristiania Condosr the VA, ancl Chateau Christiani.a. Roger Tilkeneier pEC rurinutes - B/25rc5 page 2 f said that he wasnrt aware.of any agreement with the Christiania Condos,but that the agreement was with the Christiania Lodge, VA and the KendaLl residence. PauI added that only one space has been deeded to one condo. He went on to explain that the units he wanted to convert were very smal1 and also that 3 units had only showers. The plan was to reduce 9 unj-ts to 6 larger units, thus improving the guest rooms, and change 2 units on the ground letel to housekeeping quarters and storage. John asked if a parking variance was needed. Others did not see the need.for a parking variance, expecially in light of the fact that there maybe a letter verifying the parking agreement. Peter and Dick felt thatit may be good to give a parking variance so the applicant wouldntthave to.come back again. Others fett that since Paul wasn't under atime d.uress, he didntt need a vote now. Ed Drager moved that considera-tion of the Variance be postponed, and Roger T. seconded. The vote.to postpone consideration was unanimous. 5. Vail Associates Cond.itional Use Permit to place temporary structurefor the 1980-Bl ski season.on the Upper Golden Peak Tennis Courts Peter Patten presented the stud.y and mentioned that, it was the samerequest as last year, and the staff recommended approval. Discussionfollowed about the parking stalls cut into the bank iltegally, and thefact that the parking stalls had. been there 2 ox 3 years. Tom Harnedsaid it was VA's intenti-on to fix up the bank beyond the parking. andthat the parking lras supposed to be for the race personnel . Request was for one year at a time, until such time as VA wiLl build permanentfacilities for Small World. Tom had a letter from Pat Dodson indicatingan agreement vrith the Recreatj_on District. Dick A11is of ltlanor Vail spoke to say that they were not basically opposec-to the structure, nor to Small World, but was concerned about the amounuof traffic an<l the speed of some of the tr:affic in that area. He alsomentioned the impact on his parking. IIe asked for a speed bump. GerryWhite felL that. the Council would read the.se minutes and receive the comments. Dick felt the need for some sort of trade-off since he letthe Slci Club use 4 parking spilces. IIe felt that it was the only partof Vail that has retained the character that Vail started out to be. Dan Co::coran moved to approve the conditional. use permit subject tothe conditj-ons noted in the staff report. Ed Drager seconded, and thevote was unanimous with Roger T. abs,uaining. 6. Setback Vari ance to bui Id an addif icrn r:nto an rrxi stincr rpqi dcnr-e Peter Patten presented the staff findi.ngs and the staff recommendaLionof denial. llark Donaldson showed photos of various sides, saying that.the projected addition would impact Lhe site the least. The discussiot,that followed questioned the reason for putting the garage .in that positic::or in that place, and it was gcnerally felt that the garage could be moved a little to keep it rvithin the setback. Ed Drager moved'for denial, seconded by Roger Tilkenicier, and the votefor denial was unaniroous. _SS!! a glc _v-gr -g1gc e t o bu i 1 d _ql__egd Lgiglr_-9n!9__a!-_ex i s t in s r e s i de nc eon Lot 34, BlocJ< 1, Vail Meadows Suhdirrision, I'ilinq ]. PEC Minutes - 8-25-80 I page 3I /t difica7. Density CqntroL Variance and an Exterior Mo tion to constructa 21900 square foot commercial space and a 1,100 square foot manag'errsapartment addition to the East of theBlock 5Er Vail Village lst Filing.Village Center D building, Tract Jim Reuben explained the proposal and. Fred Hibberd pointed out thatwhen the building was constructed, all traffic to the village centerwas supposed to enter through the ramp from E. Meadow Drive. The rampwas too steep, and so was'not used. Proposed is a one story commercialspace and a managerts apartment on,seeond^ f1oor. Jim Reuben was asked if the plan conformed. to the urban.Design pran,'and he said that the Urban Design PIan dealt with one story but it couldbe stretched to d.eaf with'a 2nd story. The height was discussed. andthe.view plane was examined, and the fact that i.n L974 a 22 space parkingvariance was granted in exchange for the landscaped area which is theqTgqgsed site of the new building. Hibberd stated that he found itdifficult to keep the area wateied, and. was continually p_icking trashup from it, and felt that it did not work. part of this land w6urd bededicated to an exclusive bus lane. cecil Dodson, President of Village center Buildings A,B, and. c spoke.He felt that the 2nd story would cut off the view-corrid.or for 2i, 38,and 2c, 3c, 4c to the North side" He expressed support of the concepcof pedestrianization, and the lst story leven thougit the Ist story w6uldcut off his own yiew), He felt that even more important was Lhe impacton the vi-ew corridor to the south. He fett it wis good to eliminatethe entrance with the ramp. support was for the commercial space.not the second story More discussion about the impact of t-he 2nd floor followed. with Dick'ssuggestion that. perhaps changes be made in the plans, especially inJ-ight of the fact, that the urban Design plan dells rviLh Lnly oni sEory. More discussion fo11owet1 concerning the need for employee hcr.ising inthe core. Back to the plan and the Urban Design Plan calling for one story adclitionand one,9mal1 pedestrj.an park. Gerry fett that any change fronithatPlan called for redesigning of the uiban Design plan. Ed Drager proposed that this was a nrajor char:ge Lo the.DGplan. Therewas no second. ,leff Winston had wriLten con:,:r,ents on the plan that wereread. The fact that it is one of the major entrances to the Town andtherefore should.remain one story was polnted out by Gerry. ltiscussionfolrowed concerning keeping the ;ddition one story on the-i\torth, anclL/2 sLory on south. Jim lrlorgan sriggested thaL photos be l-alcen. FredHibberd stated that he didn't want io mai<e majoi changes .to 'Lhe UD, pi-an and was wilring to go t-o one story and skip Lhi: residcirtial 1>art. Ecl Drager moved. that the reguest be tabled un+-il sepL. B, seconded byRoger and the vote was unanirnous. loger rto\red Lhat the last item (#B) coneerning LoL 1, bIk 3, Li-on's Ridge#3be tabled to Sept 8, seconded by Dan Corcoran, vote was unaninous. Moved that the mcet-ing bc adjourned, 2nd by , unanimous, }4EMORANDUM TO, PLANNING AND ENVTRoNMENTAL COMMISSTON FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMI]NTTY DEVELOPMENT/PETER PATTED{ DATE: B/20/80 RE: Conditional Use Permit request by Vail Associatesto al-Low a temporary mobile unit on the upper tennis courts at Golden Peak for the 1980-1981 ski season. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE This is a re-application of a conditional use permit granted onoctober 5t 1979. The mobj-le unit is used to house the SmaII World Nursery.Screening wilL be the same. as Last year by the existing green wind screenson the tennis court. Again, no evening use of the facility is proposed.It is our understanding that no damage to the courts resul-ted from last season ts use. CRTTERIA AND FTNDINGS Upon review of Section 18.600, the Departrnent of Community Developmentrecommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the followingIactors: Consideration of Factors: l.Relationship and impact of the use.cn development objectives of the Town: No relationship or impact on development objectives exists. 2.The effect of the use on J.ight and air, distribution of population, trans-portation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities,and olher public facilities and public facilities needs: The nursery is an important facility serving the public to al-low adultsto go skiing without worrying about obtaining a private baby sitter. 3.Effect upon traffic with parLicular reference to congestion, automotiveand pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control , access,naneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas: Visual impact will be negligible. No complaints as to traffic congestionhave been registered with the Department of community Development. , .Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to'be located, including the scale and butk of the proposea use in relationto surrounding uses: No negative effects are foreseen. 8-o 5. That the proposed location of the of this ordinance and the purposes is located. That the proposed location of theit would be operated or maintainedpublic health, safety, or welfareor improvements in the vicinity. That the proposed use would complyof this ordinance. SmallWorld-2-20-80 Such other factors and criteria as the to the proposed use: There are none. ssion d.eems applicable FINDINGS A}iD RECOMMENDATIONS : The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional Use Permit be Approved based on the following findings: o Commi use is in accord with the PurPosesof the district in which the site use and the conditions under which wouLd not be detrimental to the or materially injurious to properties r^rith each of the aPplicable provis:ons '.,I DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPI,IENT RECOMMENDATTON We recorunend approval, as we feel the nursery performs an inrportant fi:nc-tion for.the Town and the ski area. we havenrt received. any input in-dicating any'major problems with the functioning of the nursery during the last ski season. East of the bus turn-around at Gold Peak, therewere some .ilregaI parkj-ng stalls cut into the bank. This area shouldbe restored and landscaped, and no parking should take place in thisarea. This would be the only condition of the approval recommendatio:rby the Community Development Department; The Recreation Board. has reviewed the request and has no problern withthe proposal. h-(,,1, USEPERUIT Fl-:AtrE oGTACH A?t'O itT^lt{ Ffl !U'R rEOiOg ' ::: r =;;;'| i tFoR '-'ot ^t'dc?r sn! VAIL ASSOCIATES o1-094-5305 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Tom Harned representing Vail Associates, Inq., has applied for a conditional use permit for Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing (Golden peak) to allow a temporary structure to be placed on the upper Golden Peak Tennis Courts for the 1980-81 ski season. Application has been made in accordance with Section 18.60.020 of the VaiI trtunicipal Code. A Public Hearing will be held in accordance with Section 18,66.060 of the Municipal Code on Augarst 25t L98O at 3:00 p.m. before the Town of VaiI Planning and Environmental Commission. Saj-d hearing will be hel-d in the VaiI Municipal Bui1ding. The application and infornntion relating to the proposed change is available in the Zoning Adninistratorrs office during regular business hours for review or inspection by the public. Jim Rubin Zoning Administrator TOIIN OF VAIL DEPARTIT{EI{T OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Published in the Vail- Trail , August 8, 1980. oo l1'- r( TOWN OF VAIL APPLICATION IIOR. CONDITIONAL, USE PERMIT | '"+ 1 ,, , ,' l'r, rfu- )o (.1 3O l"s I oq A,N . +(^ Application Date Publication Date Public Hearing Date \) | Ca,.5 f t18.o ,A P-dName of Applicant 14..1 Name of Owner if different from Applicant l/^, t. /4 >toc r'<13' Mailing Address TeLephone rl )6 - f6o r -T\/A<+ ALegal Description: k' - r Block , Filing L/-'rt Ui lla|e'lfu property s unplatt su it metes unds escript ion Permit to as exh allow: t) Appllcatlon is ll hereby made for t'Uc- l,d a Co:rditional Usefiod<rlr" 4*;"1- S rnu -f .,Oc<rt< o t/1 ("1<1en fu^I zvlta r 5 (o '-'.1. f4 /1 ,las t ina rtos APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED I'NLESS ACCOMPANIED BY THE FOLLO'IYING: dl 1. Hearing Fee - $5O.OO + 15p for EACH addressed envelope. n 5O.6, e 2. A LIST OF THE OWNERS OF TI{E PROPERTIES within 300 feet in a s'1, Single-tr'amily Residential; Two-Family Residential; cjr Two-FaniIV' y/1 J/Primary/secondary ResidentiaL zone District; or adiacent to /' the subject property in a1I other Zone Districts. The owners List sha11 include the names of all owners and the lega1 descrlption of the property owned by each. Accompanying this list sha11 be pre-addressed envelopes along with certificates and Return Receipts properly fi1led out to each owner. These forms can be obtained from the u.s. Post office. 3. Site Plan, floor plan and other documents as required by the Zoning Administrator 4. A description of the precise nature of the proposed use, its operating characteristics and measures proposed to make the use compatible with other properties in the vicinity. ,Uo*i f i."{ioc'. -tlA /.tn4G'--'oo 45 /A^v\oL- U'^"1 L o[)-^.i" J, ',t/u,t';. r/ Zone District. ignature of APP1icant lf .^' r'J Mailing Address TOWN OF VAIL APPLICATION ]IOR. CONDITIONAL USE PI'RIIITn ./j^. i '.1 YOApplication Date /1 '-^' ' ' > T ., ' A ,t" h.-t'q,nrf A-sL. l18O -J r, ' I'-='J H-n ^oJName of APPlicant I ct e"'t t / l. /.'j >s<.c r a.J4- Name of Owner if different from Applicant ULa t i/]L- *;-6orTelephone Legal DescriPtion: -Trr,.r-.t ,?-lot , Block , Filing If property is unplatted suUmit metes & bounds descript ion Permit to as exhibit) allow:Application is S ivr" Il hereby made tL-/t"- lC Cc.-.-f^< for a Conditional Use +. ..ld -t I 4 t/1 \.1, I (a ..,,--t ina A0s Zone District. APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY THE FOLLOWING: /1 --1. Hearing Fee - $5O.OO + rsp for EACH addressed envelope. "5 C;.-CC 2. A LIST OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES WithiN 3OO fEEt lN A single-Family Residential; TVo-Family Residential; or Two-Family priilary/Secondary Residentia1- Zone District; or adjacent to tbe subject property in all other Zone Districts' The Otvners List- strait include the names of a1 1 owners and the 1ega1 description of the property owned by each' Accompanying this list stritt be pre-addressed envelopes along with certificates and Return Receipts properly fi11ed out to each owner. These forms ean be obtained from the u.s. Post office. 3. Site Plan, floor plan and other documents as required by the Zoning Administrator 4. A description of the precise nature of the proposed use, its operating characteristics and measures proposed to make the use cotp"tible with other properties in the vicinity' P,.'{L /3'o t^' ^ / /,6 ct lio tlo'-", L + I Ic I f r)/ 13t". K l/ L' ll .-yc r :j c-.tLjL l,+r t I 0|1-,s,^"..n. nAoY i3z-o f.I^o ihatr'{."F"4 ol, LJ-- 6",.+T., S{ 600 y's- i.)- ,,r" \ \ t4) ,| o Tt. e4 A"/4*/'-%- -r-frttes. /o/no 0 g&+'y- ,^--;+,[-- & /z -*,1-t -ir'- CLoL{L-4''(rr-o^t s+wsO; "iorr^' Ldt*"| [t^r-t gerr-*! \._ (/a-Vt- Sl^J.l A r4^7 li),o**7 - d"l--*- u-*L I vAT q G.- D-=* vL,f. Fl-**, v'-- r"t@ e'z-- a- o.)*, oo ;tu L/-\ + p^*+ry*l yL'- 1t*1L-ffi ** dlr "Kit/,-.ArH- u-H- Vrvl,h (b/'iJ/'q- /A'/dzfr< ?*< \% q{dP FV- *rcykL br 2 /, T0 S n4 ,'c t /oa/ Roasar- ?r te^ ffi* ,r' l,! : Best coPY Available { n 1 X,t' I,-O rQl - - d,'':/. ./ \{/ (tl / ?*peuvnL lrutrc -fr\/ a^t{ tsry;. (rN i/ (r) Rr rDale7,4L LD7= ot t*ta/ J f, Aa\-v qV 9r-+ {J.^-.-,* (" fr-^;'*,*,.( ' (s) A(fttc-p7 164 Dt L rF-]-- -r^X 6VSla /,\Tt^ulb) L /r-W Lo-cS 'd,C**-*-..- '-f/--L c>',,- & P # U Z/ ^/,^ /.. ( - \c.ss.tr-rl-)tV*- e A z, kr9**,3a-U FPJ-.E* Z-/--- U*,1, + +-/:*- &.*--7_y'ry'-- zz/t c I --t d! '.)/r.,fr,1-. Qu-* 6-'t- J#(-n Fts.n-# a \)attl{-, 7t^-ffi,..,,-., # p-f'ti *-t (,,,h=., , t) A t| ,/ , , r" h/ ( r'^b,,: /^._ , ,. " ., , r, ,, gF/r-.L-1- W- Vo^-4-r- ' + <--. rl i; Asr -R.>Tb brr ( Cfu-c ffi.x -Eos \$PC pneea. t_-z,-^-i; - 't'g, ?zs' '& '7=s- '*trg TO: FROM: DATE: MEMOMNDUM Rich Caplan, Town Manager Djck Ryan & Jjm Rubin, Communjty Development Department 1-3-80 ThismorningJim and I had a meeting with Vai'l Associates regarding tiie-redeveiopment p'lans at Gold Peik. gne proposa1 is to do a phased approach of i^emoviirg the western most buil.dinS 1ld construct a new illi;i;S ii tt'is ioiation. Tennis Court #3 wou'ld also be removed as part of the new building would be located on the court' The plans that were previously prdsented for this bujlding were ski ii[obil iiitiei iit.s', the Braisice]ler and Smal'l World Nurserv on the iecona'fiooi, una 'locker room and showers on the first f'loor. Some adjustments can be made to acconunodate pub'l ic rest rooms' The Tennis Pro Shop would not change location or size since the 6iiiloing'woula ue bait of Phase II-redevelopment_if a .phased.approach wis usea. The pei^manent rest rooms were a'lso pl.anned in this phase. Since Vai1 Associates and the Town of Vai'l consider a ioint use of the site should be exp'lored we need to consider severa'l issues. l'linter use by Vail Associates. l. what uses can the Town see for Phase II? Some of the use possible ior the building dur.ing the surmer are day care.use, a-good size room for childr6n that attend soccer camp for showing films' or use of the room for indoor recreationa'l use. The locker room ind showers could be used by the kids in soccer camp. Pub'lic iest rooms cou'ld probably bE designed into this phase until Phase II is constructed. 2. ilho js going to finance the structure is another important_guestion. Is the Town-going to finance this phase of construction. If yes' do we have a-method of providing at'least $500,000 to construct the structure this year? If tha Town is going to -finance the structure a long teim'lease program will be needed. 3. Ownersh'ip of the land is another issue that wou'l d have to be resolved. The land could be turned over to the Town or a long term ground lease is another solution 4. l,lho pays front end expenses of architecture fees, etc. needs to be determinec. 5. The definition of who manages the and the Town could have potential done. project is important as V.A.I. problems on how construction is Ff' lhmo to Rich caplan O'- l-3-80 Page Tuo 6. Flnally there phased program substantial as to complete. I told Bob Parker our next meeting. involved to answer needs to be a detennination made if this will be a or developed at one time. Financing needed would be the project probably will cost $2 to $3 million dol'lars that I would work on answers to these questions beforeIt seems to me that Town Council needs to be more some of the quest'ions. At the next meeting we plan to a'lso discuss specific Town uses for the building and developing a plann'ing program for the site.