HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 5B LOT C AND D COVERED BRIDGE BUILDING 1993-PRIOR LEGALc0P yFf!-t
TOWNOFYAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2 I 38 / 479-2 I i9
FAX 303-479-2452
August 2, 1993
D epartne nt of C o nn nwt iry D eve lo pme nt
Ned Gwathmey
Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects
1000 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
RE: The Covered Bridge Building
Dear Ned:
The intent of this letter is to respond to your written request regarding the status of prior
approvals for the Covered Bridge Building. As you are weil aware, the project went through
the Town of Vail planning process in 1990 and did receive certain Town approvals. The final
Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approval for the major exterior alteration was
approved on August 27, 1990. There is no time limit or expiration on this Vpe of approval,
assuming the project proceeds according to the approved plans without alterations. This
major eXerior alteration approval was based upon drawings submitted by your firm, (Amold
Gwathmey Pratt) and are dated July 2, 1990 with final revisions on August 21, 1990. ln total,
there are twelve sheets to the drawing package.
The final Design Review Board (DRB) approvalwas granted on August 29, 1990. Subsequent
to this approval, the Town of Vail granted an extension to the final DRB approval for the
Covered Bridge Building, thereby extending the approval until August 29, 1992. Since the
Design Review Board approval has now expired, it will be necessary for you to reapply and
receive final DRB approval prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for the Covered
Bridge Building.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the approval process lor the Covered
Bridge Building, please do not hesitate to contact me at 479-2138.
Sincerely,
kU /"6u
Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Planning
xc: Kristan Pritz
lft[c'DJur j o t995
July 28, 1993
Mr. Mike Mollica, Planner
Town of Vail Community Development
111 South Frontage Road West
Vail, co 81657
Re: Covered Bridge Building
Status of Approvals
Dear Mike:
Hillis Aiken, owner of the covered
reguested I contact you and obtainplace for the proposed renovations
BuiIding.
Please Iet me know if we need to do
Sincerely,
THMEY/PRATT/SCHULTZ ARCHITECTS, P. C.
ard M. Gwathmey,
EMG/ad
Enclosure
copy to: Hillis Aiken
Bridge Building, has
an extension on approvals
to the Covered Bridge
any more.
1n
FILE COPY
75 Sortb Frontage Roail
Vail, Colorado 81657
3 0t -479-2 1 t I / 47 9 -21 1 I
D epartment of Commrnity D clelopment
April 1, 1993
Ned Gwathmey, Architect No. 1
Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Architects
1000 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
RE: The Covered Bridge Building
Dear Ned:
Thank you for your memorandum dated March 24, 1993, summarizing our meeting with Jim
Cumutte and Eric Johnson regarding the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building. The
intent of this letter is to clarify a few points which were made in your memorandum.
You indicate that for exterior alterations in Commercial Core | "there is no time limit on this
portion of the approval assuming the project proceeds according to the plans without altering
'100 square feet or the exterior." The Commercial Core I Zone District allows modifications of
100 square feet or less to be reviewed and approved by the staff under the category of minor
exlerior alteration. This staff review can be appealed by the PEC if so desired. Additionally,
any modifications which would increase the square footage of the project by 100 square feet
or more would be considered a major exterior alteration. The review time needed for a major
exterior alteration would be approximately two to three months, depending upon the extent of
the modifications. Your memorandum indicated that the review process would take up to six
months, but I believe that this would only be true for a complete redesign of the Covered
Bridge Building.
Regarding the projects compliance with the ADA, you indicated that "a ramp down through
the pocket park was designed by Jeff Winston, the Town design consultant." As I believe you
are aware, Winston and Associates completed several design altematives for the pocket
park. The final design for the pocket park does not include a ramp down to the site, and this
design has yet to be submitted to the DRB for their review and approval. Should you decide
to resubmit to the DRB to "revalidate" the original approval for the Covered Bridge Building, I
would suggest that the design for the adjacent pocket park be included in this submittal.
| -.
Page Two
April 1, 1993
Gwathmey
I do agree that the proposed air conditioning equipment for the Covered Bridge Building would
not count as site coverage if it is "open ai/'. Should the equipment require some type of cover
over the top, then it may be necessary lo count it as site coverage. A determination as to
whether or not this would constitute site coverage will be made at the time a design is
submifted.
I hope the above information clears up any misunderstanding or confusion regarding the
redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building. Should you have any questions on any of the
above items, please do not hesitate to contact me at 479-2138.
h,-e
Assistant Director of Planning
xc: Eric Johnson
Jim Curnutte
Hillis Aiken
Kdstan Pritz
Sincerely,
/IJ"
Mike Mollica
fil'!' l" , ; ,1;9 j
March 24, 1993
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Date:
Place:
Present:
Re:
March 24, 1993
Community Development Offices - TOV
Mike [olli.ca, Planner
Jim darhutteEric Johnson
Ned Gwathney
Covered Bridge Buildlng
Status of Approvals - Process for Continuation
1
The folLowing issues were discussed regarding the deveLopment of
the above property:
CHANGES TO BUILDINGS TN COMMERCIAT CORE 1
In August 1990 the Planning Commission (PEC) approved plans
enclosed for the modifications to the Covered Bridge Building.
There is no t,ime limlt on this portlon of the approval assuming
the projec! proggeds ?ccgrding-Lo the plans L'itiraut altEitnF-10q
E-quarE-ffior the exterlor. If changes r'itere to be mader the 224 MaY to get on a semi-annual (.
revlew time schedule and the process would take six months if no
variances from the ordj.nances vrere requested. No variance was
requlred before and Mike discouraged proceeding on the
assumption of obtaining a variance as lhe PEC and Council have
become more restrictive since 1990.
DESIGN REVTEW BOARD
The above mentioned plans lrtere approved in August 1990 and the
annuaL approval was extended bv letter to Auqust 1992. It has
expirecl anct appllcatlon must be macle agaln. AssumLng Ene
sgbmittal is the sarne as that shown in the PEC subnittal , the
tine for this is one mont.h for advertising after subrnittal and
approximately two hearings in six weekst time. This approval is
necessary for building permit.
7
Conference Memorandum - Covered Bridge Buildingffi
Page 2
AMERICAN DISABILITIES ACT
Although the Town building official does not enforce the ADA, it
must be considered in future development. It was not in effect
in 1990. Decisions pending which may effect the DRB submittal
are:1. A larger elevator reguires over-ride which would
regui.re going back to PEC/Council.
N,t +r*._-1 Je de consultant.. This
A ram down throuqh the
redesign has not been to DRB.
to the Main Level must be addressed.3.Lift /access
by
FEMA
A small portion of the
FEMA regarded j.t as a
changing t.he existing
elevation /fLoor level .
in the 100 year flood Plain;condition which precludes
changing the lowest
,'t'. "t lL.' ( ' /l;ici'
building is
nonconformingfootprint or
( c:'cte.f , {
FURTHER DRB ISSUES .^ 1.. .la
A discussed chille r torTifr conditioning the building will not
count as site coverage'but must be considered: color, screening
and/or fencing. A condition of PEC approval was a trash
encLosure which would be displaced by the chillerr so the trash
removal issue must be revisited.
In conclusion, the window of the approval by the PEC/Council is
very restrictive and it ls necessary to go back to the DRB to
build along the lines of the approved drawings.
The foregoing constitutes ny understanding of matters discussed
and decisions reached. If ihe interpretation of others varj.es,
please inform us in writing.
copy to: Hillis Aiken
Mike MoIlica
t
TOWN OFVAIL
FIL E COPY
75 Soutb Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
t 0 t -47 9-2 r t I / 47 9 -2 1 t 9
D cP artment of Commuity Deaclopmcnt
February 23, 1993
Mr. Victor Mark Donaldson, President
Victor Mark Donaldson Architects, P.C.
P.O. Box 5300
Avon, CO 81620
BE: The Covered Bridge Building/227 Bridge Street
Dear Mark:
It was a pleasure meeting with you a few weeks ago to discuss the redevelopment of the
Covered Bridge Building. As you are aware, the project went through the planning procass in
1990 and did receive Town approval. The final Planning and Environmental Commission
approval for the exterior alteration was approved on August 27, 1990. The final Design
Review Board approval was granted on August 29, 1990. As I indicated at our recent
meeting, both the Planning and Environmental Commission approval, as well as the Design
Review Board approval, are based upon drawings submitted by the architectural firm of
Arnold, Gwathmey, Pratt. Those drawings were produced at a scale sf 1"=10', and include
the initialdrawing date of July 2, 1990 with final revisions on August 21, 1990. In total, there
are twelve sheets to the drawing package.
At your request, I have reviewed a set of construction drawings for the Covered Bridge
Building that were also produced by the firm Arnold, Gwathmey, Pratt, and are dated March
15, 1992. These drawings were not submitted for the purposes of oblaining a Town of Vail
building permit. My cursory review of this set of construction drawings indicates that
modilications have been made to the construction drawings which would deviate from the
approved PEC and DRB drawings. lt appears that GRFA has been added to the project and
that the upper two levels of the structure have been expanded. Additionally, it appears that
the roof plan has been modified to a point where the project would no longer meet the
maximum allowable buiEing height within the Commercial Core I Zone District. Minor
modifications have also been made to the planters/stairs located between the Covered Bridge
Building and Bridge Street.
It is my opinion that the Town of Vail could not issue a building permit based on this set of
construclion drawings for the Covered Bridge Building. I believe that the modifications, as
indicated on this set of construction drawings, would require further review by the PEC and
the DRB prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit. lt appears that as a minimum, a
building height variance, as well as an amendment to a previously approved major exterior
alteration, would need to be approved by the PEC.
Page Two
February 23, 1993
Donaldson
Should you have any questions regarding my analysis of the set of construction drawings
which you submitted, please do not hesitate to contact me at 479-2138.
Sincerely,
h/, h.a:*
Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Planning
cc: Ned Gwathmey
Hillis Akin
Kristan Prilz
Jim Curnutte
I
303/949-s200
FAxtg49-5205
VICTOR MARK DONALDSON ARCHITEOS, P.C.
ARCHITECIURE . PLANNING . INTERIORS Box 5300. Avon, Colorodo 61620
Fahr.rreFrr 1< ,OOe
I'R, MIKE }'OLLICA. SENIOR PLANNER
Depa:.tment of Communi ty Deve I opnent
Town of Vail
75 South Prontage Ro ad
Va11. Colorado 8165?
Re:Covered Br i dge Bul lding
227 Brldge StreetVail., Co I orado
Dea:' Mi ke :
Ife sincerely apprecJ.ate the asslstance that you and Jim
have provided us 1n our preliminary analysls of the CovereC
Brl dge Bul l di ng !'e c o n s t r u c t I o n . Your counse l l ng and guidance
cf the historical background of the prev.lous reviews has been
rrov'rr halnf rrIrert rlv.Prur !
As we c ont l nue to refine our conceptual des
we will have addi t l onaL ques t i ons for you as they
appl l cabl e de s 1gn and zoning regulatlons.
To that end, please find attached a set
j. gn approach,
apply to the
of drawi ngsprepared by ARNoLD GISATHUEY PRATT, dated 3/15/92. In crder
for us to prepare a nelr deslgn that conforms to the applicable
zonlng requirernents, I need to know the results of you!' zoning
revlew based on the attacheC drawlngs. This does not need to
be a deta 1l ed and exhaustlve revi ew. but simply your connen+.s
on conformance to buildlng height, slte coverage and GRFA as
allowed on thi.s site.
r+ fhaf t'hana be SOne varianCe yri +"h thesPPvg. v nrsJ
original approval granted on Augus+- 29. 1990. If these
drawi.ngs are at variance with that approval, p-lease let ne
know what public revlew p!'ocess would be requi.red to reaf f i.rm
the previous approval anC the nature of variances (if any)
that would be requi red to gain approval based on your revi ew.
ne know if you have any questions regarding
wlll be happy to assist you wi th design data
to you. Thanks again for your assistance.
vICTOR MARK DONALDSON
President
ADTTlrTTD'TC D N
P.!. ease I et
thls rcqlrest. hle
cc: Mr. Bruce Amn
o
Dahnrrrrr' I 1OO2
!{R . :'{ I KE XOLL I CA . SEN I OR PLANNER
Departnent of Connuni ty Deve I opnent
Town of VaiI
75 South Frontage Road Wes t
Vai1. ColoraCo 81657
Re:Covered Brldge Bui lding
227 Br ldge Street
Vail, Colorado
Dear lllke:
PIease let th 1s letter serve as my permission to allow
VICTOR MARK DONALDSON ARCITITECTS. P. C. to conduct design
studles for reconstruction, intpract with you and your
pl annlng staff and to obtain fi Ie infornation as tnay be needed
regardlng the above noted building.
The architect has been enployed by Mr. Bruce Amrn to
conduct the above noted servlces and together we further
contenplate a resubtnittal through the Town of VaiI process as
may be requi red for s uch reconstruction.
We will provide you further authorization for the
architect to proceed shou I d we desire to enter l nto the formal
subnittal process. Until such tirne, p-lease offer the
architect the sane prof essiona.t assistance that you have
always af forded nyself and llr. Ann in these matters.
Thank you once agai.n
natters.
Yours Truly,
for your asslstance in these
T' T IS
is
I'F
of Snownass. Inc
. Bruce Anm
Hi 11
A€u,-) Ff *'r. hA - ft "
i
[/ru it r^ 7A,
Region VIII Denver Federal Center P.O. Box 25267
Denver, CO 80225-0267
May l-7, L99L
Mr. Eric Johnson, P.E.
Armold Gwathmey Pratt Architects
10OO South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado aL657
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Re: FEMA Review Flood Retaining Wa11
This is a follow up to recent pbone conversations between yourself
and Mr. Fred Metzler regarding our review and approval of a flood
retaining walI for the covered Bridge Building. Based on the
applicantrs not requesting a letter of rnap revision for the covered
siiaqe Building, approval for desigin of a flood retaining waII is
the responsibility of the Town of Vail. our review and approval
is not iequired by National Flood Insurance Program regulations,
plus our policy is to promote review and approval of design for
structures at the local level, rather than with FEII{A.
As l{r. Metzler e4llained regarding flood insurance availability and
rating, the building ownersr flood insurance rate is based on the
lowest floor elevation in relation to base flood level. The
retaining wall has no iropact on the rating, unless the applicant
is clairning the wall has removed their site from the 100-year flood
plain. fn that case a request would have to be made for a Letter
of Map Revision prior to any construction occurring on the site.
Please contact llr. Fred-Metzler at (303) 235-4830 if you have any
questions.
oa
n"a","r E -"d8H.zyz S):'il;t Asency
Sincerely,
,M
ftoouq\as core, chief- Natural and Technological
Hazards Division
cc: Mr. Mike Mollica, Town of vai,ty'
Mr. Richard E. Hatten, Co DODESMr. Brian Hyde, CWCB
05/ t 0/ 199 t t4rtl
IT YOU
FRoil ntOd/Serlhnae/Pr.t,l,r0 {7e2t5t P. Ct
BrO 3
EiROil3
TN'UBER
DATEs
-DoT 6*- -z-s- 4770
Uigiid;n ;- 23s-173o
L /a{.Jq-" ..-
-J5. i n,1 | 9f4W,O-*.,* f j"4
ffi*.-,i4/.:r*:^#KKgK*
rtsLEcoprEa llo1 (za-tatz 4e'1-,-,+4-4' ,rfu 4
-/A ,k4 ' n, n4 n'^ '*
EwE Ar{y euEs',oNs o r***##A{*#Z{ffi Tr--"< '
F'g'nA r...Ihn Lrbrl
Fric, Jeltruta.l
OT PAGES (INCLT'DING COVER):
slrc lqt
Johr. -Ftft.. tt^tih,, {^e' ue*J
Tf *1 edt$"a h^rn.:;r?*1 &'16aa''',g'. Tf 1.[ tb
p(cJ* et6.,* h^J rTT rlq,[ at
Thul"-*to,r S., 11evtt I .-t tPtW*d? rc- F4.t ar'\ =tu-iiu. ***".,
a€. T. ().V, - }1iLc tl"ltro,}
tn$"Hril,...
, *ad lclrcL-
f f$r€c ldt-
€un brclc-
",.$s , +l-lb
*-t I . z-l€1
eglle /199t l4t 3/t rnOn nrlz8eruhrre/Pr.LL TO a7r2l5?.
ilay 10, 1991 Do'J boez
lcderel hoagency l{aaagenent Ag€nct
Regl,on 8
Dtnver Pcdcrel CenterButldlng 710
P.O. Eo$ 25217
Dcnvcr" CO 80228-0267
Rs: Covered Brldge BulLdlng
227 Brtdgc Streetv811, @ 81657
Town of VaLl Plannl.ng D€partront end Dopartrent of Coo[unl.tsyDevelopnent
tollowing revle* of thc butldlng dcslEn deted 1115191 by Arnold/Gwethney/eratt Architects, P.C., the ilood plein and flood wayoalguletlons by Eagle VrlLey sutv€ylng datel 4l18l90 rnd theflood wall €agineered by Honroo hgLneerLng deted 5110191 , ouragoncy s66B r,o vlolations or problens rl,tb our requlrenentr.
Slacerely,
Drr rfohn LrlouReglonal Etdrologlst and Eydrology hglneer
P,g2
#
0 s., 10., t 99 t l4t 15 FRoi AOd/8ur!hnee/Pn.ll
:^
'0 "::,lf
'.ht at#.r--ervtAr" arl
fir*|€+l'-i+J
',+r @Eip*#H;.. * .m*."rl#f,an-.aaF*rce
-;14./...an::.:?-Ah. - lprtull'rJ,*ya€. ql'ttrfiB4
I*-<-4r#'P;-ld'rtstHhita
.;arom)
ble7.b,
, .05/lOl199t
t4! 36 FROi nrOd/eer0hr.u/prrtl r0 47e2r5o P,04
' tHY to '9t 15:35
't__-t--------._. ..-.
YooER Ercrl€eCs YAIL.n Jg3-€t49tgt3
:
/,1,4
a#retQt4Et4
163,419,'sl' '
fitut*'-)lttlepl,+t.
AF?
z.*5
l.JAt l* al .
J c P|axt9,et
'+1ft/ql
l+
+*rri. Fa
l..Frft?- fr"P*d
u4z:el
et4A.9
"FEAI}{ IHet.l Ft sHElt t{o.
o t /'|8{ I 13 r, Jl' 13. *, F Fgtr Q.J,,Slrl t r.e.u4P r I L t r0 17e2ts7o
FRtIlEdTt
AJB'E TT
P.05
OATE
RETAININE I{ALL EBI6t.I
DEACRIFTIBN I
DES1€N DATA
Beil Sarr lrrg Prci3 r
Acttvr Flutd Prl* I
Frgglva PraEst+f t I
ge{r D:nalty
} I,IALL LOADIT.IE EONDITIBIIIB
glqe Pf Baclcflll I
{hrrr Ltlvt"trH-evrl )
Surchergt Fver Toi !
ahall Surcherge h. uscd
9oi1 Ht over Tet r
r.|af l Ht .bove BalI '
ADJEGENT Ff,tOTtrNS LOAD I
Footlng L$act
Epvsrd Foctlng ?
Yrl ,trlrQ t --z.
UNIFTERT'i UIAD (Adctedlr
T.IALL & FOOTI}E 6EO}'IETRY
} RETAI}GD HEIEHT
(rbovc T.O,F.)
Z,Eoo Prl FOOTII'{E t-'-sS icf Ftg/6atl Frlctlon
25o bsl f's - concrete
iio F"r FY - Rrinforcemsnt
O rl D€riEn Ftgtd FrFcsurr-r(Corroctrd for SloPe)
O psf €lurc hrrgc owcf l'leel =
fn-e;ifrtfng t'toarente frlt N=O --)
3l in Axtal Load ffr gtefi r
o lt LoaC € llell Abnvr soll''
lfidth ol Feoting a
o Plf Ftg. Dist. frcn lfall tl
. Deith t'f BParlng Eelcu
O S.orf C Rtrr F'B'N' '
O otl Eottsn ffiG\ro T-O'F' -' ToP Above T'O'F'
r
o.*ogrooo
60, OOC'
pri
pal
I
I
!
i
I
I'
I
I
55,o Pst
5O Pafo <-'
0 Plt
o p6f
oftott
ott
o.oo fto,@ ft
10 in2ft )
o.s33 ft
o.57 tt
o.45 lt
1,43 tt
Frrs+ing Thickngss
Xqr DrPth
X:Y tltdthte ( KcY Dltt'Toe Utdth
Eten llttlth
H66l $idth
FOOTITG }IIDTH
STABILITY €il{FIARY
SOIL Pfi€SSN..R€ IgtllL PREESUR€ T
FACTOft OF SAFETY
FACTBR OT'EAFffY
ONE.+|AY S&IEAR AT
BnlE-+lfiY SN{EAR AT
rl
!
a
')
Oinolnott
t-
TTE
HEEL
: Eliding
TOE gIDE
}IEEL SIDE
-
I
!
F sThtl
oF gT€l.l
2r124
o
2.92
6.36
prf t
P€'
l>1>
'H(
r(
2rEO0 I fillct
lSlTErl-OK
O = liD EflflD
I Ovar turn ing =
TOTf,L P, AI
llEl.tORAtfDltlit
To: Larry EskwithKristan Pritz
cary Murrain
FROM: Mike Mollica
DATE: April 8, L99L
suBJEcr: covered Bridse Buudins FILE C0PY
Upon consultation with Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, and Kristan
Pritz, Director of community Development, we have now reached
consensus on the question of whether the covered Bridge Building
can be totally denolished and rebuilt according to the previously
approved Planning and Environmental Comnission and Design Review
Board drawings. It has been agreed that Section 18.69.047 of the
Town's zoning code, Procedures for the Substantial rmprovenent of
Legal Non-conforming Structures, Located in Part or in Whole, in
a Flood Hazard zonet would apply in this instance.
The Town of Vail recognizes the Covered Bridge Building as a'
1ega1 , non-conforming structure. This non-confornity is based
upon the location of the l-oo-year flood plain, which is located
approxirnatety 7.2tr vertically, above ground, along the north wall
of the Covered Bridge Building. This occurs for approximately 40
Linear feet of the building.
Town records indicate that the Covered Bridge Building was
constructed prior to L970. It should be noted that the original
FEMA floodplain identification (i.e napping) for this area of the
Town occurred on Septenber 1.9, L978.
The redeveJ.opnent of the covered Bridge Building, as proposed, if
totally denolished and reconstructed, would not reguire any
variances from the Town of Vail. This is based upon the finding
that the existing building footprint would not be enlarged,
rnodified or expanded when the redevelopment occurs. ft should
also be noted that a flood plain rnodification would not be
required, due to the fact that the existing 100-year flood plain
would remain in the same position it currently is, after the
redevelopment of the site.
Per a conversation today with John Liou, of the Federal Emergency
Managenent Agency (FEMA - 235-4836), 'any construction which
involves a cost of 508 or nore, over the current value of the
building, would require the project to follow the current FElt[A
regulations. Regarding this project, John believes that a FEMA
Map Revision would probably not be necedsary, however he feels
that given the situation, a waLl or dyke must be constructed
along the area wlrere the floodptain touihes the structure. Thls
coula sinply be the foundatLon wall, and the crest, or top, of
the wall nust Ue at least three feet above the 100-year flood
Based upon thls conversation wittr John Liou, the Town will not
issue Jfuitaing permit for the projeet until FEUA approves, in
writing, the proposed redeveloprnent of tbe Covered Bridge
elevation.
Building,
xc:
/A^ *.'h/ -fub*
I
T,(t' ir*,&ryiFilrf, :!:FriFfFt{firlrlrts{4{xtltrltFl
3.2?,?o
Fr rilFrrtwF6F;wEqq IlIl
Prolect Appllcatlon
Prorect Name:
Proiect Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner. Address and Phone:
Architeci, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: t-ot tl-D Btocx 5 ^B r,,,ns V'V.%-e l4 .zone CCL
-\ /
Design Revlew Board
Y.27.90
Motion by:LrJ-
Seconded by:
j-o- I
DIf}'IFFR€'HL
(/- - g * \\/
Town Planner
Oate:
E Statt Approval
--I
August 22, 1990
Mr. Mike Mollica, Senior Planner
Town of Vail Community Development
75 South Frontage Road WestVai1, CO 81657
RE! Covered Bridge Building
PEC Submittal for Exterior Alterations. in CC1
Dear Mi-ke:
Enclosed find the latest with the "final" modifications including
both your suggestions and detail tenant input.
fn summary, your suggestions which have been addressed are:
1. Adding sloped roof on elevator.
2. Adding chimney cap.3. Altering dormers on all four elevations.
4. Reducing/clarifying site coverage, i.e., basement pfan.
5. Adding trash holding area.
Further, the tenants have requlred changes to the entry balcony off
Bridge Street which do not alter the numbers but should improve
views to shop fronts. These changes are included in the 8-21-90
drawings enclosed, and r promise there wifl be no more changes.
We plan to update and present the model by the August 27th meeting,
along with the colored/rendered elevations.
Don't hesitate to call if you have questions or need more
informati.on.
Sincerely,
ARNOLD/GWATHMEY/PRATT ARCHITECTS, P. C.rl- il
tY-
Ned Gwathmey, AfA
NG/ad
Enclosures
fax to: Bruce Arnm w/revi-sed drawings
oo
)5
@
1f,^ /ilr*,' :m -.- c.-t1
(n /'"-JU-(+)p.e^-*-^ fu-- /trr/-/ - n-rr-L 7
? ^*iuz NA.h J-/
N\ / Ca1/r.'-- A F",td "*>6 aza.'-q-ba ttJ * ,a/t.ri)
s4.- '*/4^+'u / t/
At-t+
\\L- q\ -\-A -) Yru
* )"2*a fu
\ rr'6 a\- 'Lvr,ntt!.
-$F ?\F
)e- t)
j!
o mtvuq {" frc'uH n,
o
#r @\J\rd- Wtt ,re*utv r-
U,,wW!
Ae,' M 1*o1" 6lla
W\%%ry
M,MIY\YIF= 0'1 q{<- il.t vwr,re
f.-/ ^0,=./a4-<- -fu /t4/ 7
o
Nd &)qo zr;ivi* (\. Wfu- dP-naa-4-g
WotVtt ry d hUatU;4x + uvgt,sa..lal 1!6pc4-e
Mtors ' *tna'lant +" Pl, ^"t ^7uTt|%Lr/rll r*^ y' brr'tlr\ o? Jo erds-
?tr Ae qfuno*v,r +o tn'ye M .Y
%q@v #a,4'"X -Z--*n
t4',Q/- Vm/a'lt- \M'AI$AI r's d*er,'
Tkp"Y'Wu IqfuA4.- &$ '1'o0
tVaA- fu V/bgL dbevJf e"A"xa--.-- lf<-an a'a- f/1
ql'w-6/ru'rMtLU-- W'u .* A ?q- dJvyxkih1r
- l,:itl- WlwM - *Ja -*-14*- *ulg=*Z.+d.?d*.
i.*TTHIS APPLICATION I'IILL NOT
. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING:
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
APPLTcATToN oxu'- o?/o lqo':'tiu
DATE oF DRB r4EETIr{c ' u / t> | 1o
DRI] APPLICATION
BE ACCEPTED UNTIL ALL INFORMATION IS SUBI{ITTED**TTT
A pre-application meeting with-a plannins staff member ls strongly suggested to
determine tf any uooilioioi lirforination is-neeOeO.. No appllcation will be accepted
unress it is compr.i;'t;l;;i i;;i;;;-;ii ii.Lii-iiq'ired.bv'the zonins administrator).
It is the applicant,'i iiiip6nsiuiitty to mire-an ippointnrent with the staff to find
out about addttionallt;ilii;i-iequirements' Pleise note that a COMPLETE applica-
tlonwlllstreamlinetheapprovalPrycessfor.your.proj::lbydecreasingthenumberof conditions of upprorir-tiat the'DRB miy itiiutatL. -ALL cbnditions of approval must
6; i;;;i;;d before'a-buildins Permit is lssued'
B. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
L.l.1 riA 6'lreef
Descri pti on Lot 6, O , ri2 Block C?-V
C. NAME OF APPLICANT:
Address
D. NAME OF APPLICANTIS REPRESENTA
I
Address
E. M}IE OF OI'JNERS:F+
S i gnature
Address
F. ORB FEE:The fee will be paid at the
VALUATION
$ o-$ lo,ooo$lo,oot-$ 5o,ooo
$.50,001 - $ 15o,oo()
$150,001 - $ .5o0,ooo
$5oo,ool - $l,ooo,ooo$ 0ver $1,000,000
IMPORTANT NOTICE RTGAROING ALL SUBMISSIONS
ftVE: Arnol J, (aa,'rfi.rr^z^,,r FrrtF
o.e- Fzo=J i,^J.e4 telephone 41b't141
1
telephone 41b - 4tt, -
time a bullding pernrit is requested.
FEE
'$ 10.00
$ 25.00
$ 50.00
$r00.00
$200.00
$3o0.oo
TO TIIE DRB:
Address
Legal
Zoning
Filing Lq V=11
vilt._2.
l. tel ephone
l. In addition to meetlng submittal requirements, the_applicant must stake the sit'e
iii inaiiaie prope"ii'iin.i ina-uriidins-corneis. Trbbs that will be removed
itoutA also be inarked. This work tust-Ue completed before the DRB visits the
site.
Z, The review process for NEll BUILoINGS will nornrally involve tt'to separate meetings
ii-tne oeiibn nirii*-boiiA,-;;-pi;; on ar leasr tio meetings for their approval.
3. People who fail to appear before the Design Review
meeting and who have not asked for a pottPonement
republ i shed.
Board at their scheduled
will be required to be
,/
Vr tl:
O..,,, OF MATERIAL'
Co:t<+eJ p";.\;(J
Vl ot P,
information is required for submlttal by the appllcant to
a final approval can be fiven:
MTERIALS: TYPE OF MATERIAL
Ced>v 4^aV-e+,
Plazr 4d6e- ldu^'
MME OF PROJECT:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
STREET AODRESS:
DESCRIPTION OF P
The followlng
Board before
A. EUILDING
the Design Review
?cn, l1oot4-, ;1', tLOt..^l +tri..-
COLOR
N>fv,r. IRoof
Si di n9
0ther I'lall Materials
f x a ?€t o^,n Ce f,o.-bC' 6a -
*J t
Fasci a
Soffi ts
!Ji ndows
lJindow Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck'Rails
Fl ues
Flashings .
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
0ther
Wool Cr,"^ . + *c "rt fffl,-
? >< ?.b CsJ'",.-
i- o v.+ ctJ', (SrrvtA) qc.4l F;r'i,'".'
O>lVv,.-, *t-ru- P-,,',^*
Pa.r r"- [nL h ,]o-.-
EXISTING TREES TO
BE REMOVED
*Indicate caliper for deciducious trees.
Common Name 0uani ty Si ze*
F ^r"t** +(xvc1-- 3- -l 'Gffiio".rJl-
for conifers.
(over )
8. LANDSCAPING: Name of Designerz _ ACog
Phone:
PLANT MTERIALS:
PROPOSED TREES
Botanical Name
Indicate height
/':
. PLANT IIATERIALS:
(con't)
SHRU85
. Botanical Name Conrnon Name
Yrlen\ll,
Quani tv
--J--
lz
-.
Size
D. AvehL l'',Uq-J u'a b6
EXISTING SHRUBS
TO BE REMOVED
GROUND COVERS
s0D Att ?vV /\r, v-
bfuo
__'-
Square Footaqe
zeo 4y
Trvpe
- S,-,af brl
SEEO
TYPE OF
IRRIGATION
TYPE OR
EROSION
METHOO OF
CONTROL
]. OTHER: LANDSCAPE FEATURES
3tr
(retaining wal I s,fences, swimming pools,P I easeetc. )speci tr
tr t.
N
ttsltfrlnLto'!.d
-nl-brlaoltfttc6!.rlrro
l|lf, rlott! riRrf,strlllll, tEgl
trl- L?r r
tnou - FaA Yau K (eUr-ttl AruA .dk1.-t4f
anlgg 69.-o9 -qz t.!'r;z 3t/o
rO. OI D}GES DI FGUICI{T (f,o:l gcllD![c ;tr8 sEltts
IISFONSE TEQUIAED?:
tEr,rT DVz tuAMfll ttrEEfJ*IO[ lUBlAs-/€
(lgttt O! YlfL tXI DIOFI fUlEERs t0!-l?9-215?
toz Gttr
l.*{*+ ffirew
l. NDTRFS-TD e€ Fer1,{o/@,' 2 E(taltlt fr-fcfuN#{f efFuct.-ro re %,'(.<g- ffi<
el-a-l 6a:d+ 1eff6.-#-ffi'<WW W4'Ittcui,.
4.WW Arnue 4w$ fForcELq
\NltL. A)Pl! rcR $(tt{Ib{,lo$l-l
51151^/ srDF s€.
.a. FfleATUP LAI AI
4.
l@w^, @w{Y 1eY-/$ ?e?E<fi
t AFdF).,
FralohN'1 EN€r4Nuffi'
T? wi{rr
Slreet Nunbui
ruar?E:e-r( LNe
tsa(\
Nli\\.
Ir
Lz
t'1'\-/'
4M e\vl=Fe + no\OEtue lilll li. tiq!4r B( Ta^f,J zeH6r&T4{r ,Ll I 'i--'-'?7P'"4@7 -''-;' ---'
@VW PRaz€-+'l
I
Iw 0163
LNE
6,t'
z4l9v\u
fr'?v*u
Tol;l f-n( A*r > 4lL3 *
A ^-*, .4o4,. 33': 3o1? f da
4*i tr'- 1j' z ll?b*dl
'r..= ro
^7 2o
I
I
I
I
I
l
l
'l-
Il*sl.
lr
t;
Er j
rd
filfl
+
aiAn*{ fizrr,.
l..-
l*Ir
I
I
\
\
\
I
;irsll l-A
tF'l-
lr
H
tsr
,f ,\, r-__1_q
r+r
td uewtr M,
Shcet lrlrrnbc,
10
o
I
l$ls
t-
I
IF
I
l-
tq
lF
le IE
le
I-
lF
I
o
tl
U
o rnr
(|l
\
0L
1',1
oo a9a4
J6
ZH
dlE,OAHElgE8oo
=IIJ
ffrr
a ),
G""^'A T.,}e 13Ht
AJ^-'4 - OK
$- oK (r
4
d\t
/"L' Z,f^ q-J
\,!h- %r-4//L'Jg - fJ ,fe^ /rh,"-- e*+ \ /FC-(/ '-e>/4 4.% dv2- ?^r"-bio*/ -4L -*J-.-},.;'^ - N".-( c^- ,-**1 . n *4 /^ -* V^--k /f,
Z( 9. r'.-*('{ -4,144,0 /. 4K4 - ?,^-t r/**,- ; /-,.+ / 442'j *,v/Jx1 -*"J
/ / ,/ _, / / /" /a- ^ ^rV*i "
- cz'X /t *- *+ ,r/.'L "+^^ f4^/t-.- ; f T-,'--(bza;.- ',-, -'4;r'<*.5 -Jfu . V ,--i -//"-" * /-<.
>"Le-- ^H .te #1 */ c".z:2"'= 7.- -'%
-- IL ru ffi,+ r,-/-- .-t/v.u4-.
lo{zt e-O /
rutu.,)
vvp f
and without creating more visual irnpacts, she would be pleasedwith that as well. She suggested using boulder wal1s wherepossible. A section through the switchback on Forest Serviceproperty and the other najor switchback above Lots 5 and 5 would
be helpful.
Kathy suggested a separate drawing showing building envelopes,
driveways, lots, retaining walls, and roadway wouJ.d be helpful .
Heights of the waI1s could be indicated by different colors.
Ttris approach would nake it easier to understand the project.
Kathy also requested a view analysis for the entire subdivision.
Greg said that he would neet once more with Kent and Kristan to
refine the roads for the prelirninary plat review.
Connie Knight said that she was stitl concerned about encroaching
onto Forest Service Land. She realized the trade-offs involvedbut was concerned with the relationship to the Tennenbaum trade-
off.
Joe ltacy stated that this property was an "in holdingrr which
meant that it was surrounded on three sides by Forest Service
Land and the Forest Service had to provide access by law.
Jay added that this did not relat,e to the Tennenbaum case and the
stable would have to build a neet road anlzway. This was strictlyfor access.
Diana wanted to stress that she did not want fandscaping just
along the roads and the buildings. She suggested creating groves
with plantings in other areas to create a natural appearance.
o
T\LT TS
Lot D, and the southwesterlv 4 feet of Lot B. a1I
in Block 5-8. Vail Villacre lst Filing, 227 Bridqe
Mike Mollica showed how the applicant had rnodi:fied the building
since the last work session. Mike explained that the reguest wasfor an exterior alteration. He reviewed the zoning
considerations and conpliance with the Purpose Section of ccf,
the Vail village lrtaster PIan, the Urban Design Guide Plan, and
the Design Considerations and stated that the staff reconmended
approval with one condition: that prior to the issuance of a
building permit the applicant post a letter of credit to cover
the replacenent of evergreens which are to be rel-ocated. Mike
explained how the staff had interpreted the height on the
Minutes
PEC 8/27/90
building by using a diagonal line which allowed one half of thebuilding to be based on the Bridge Street grade and the otherhalf of the building to be based on the pocket park elevation.
Ned Gwathney, who was the architect for the project, showed the
model and colored renderings of the elevations.
Diana rras concerned how the condo residents would get to their
condo with their groceries and was told there llere two parking
spaces leased from Pepirs.
Kathy Warren was concerned about the belvedere and she preferred
a natural rock garden.
Ned said that the area now was used as a snoet storage area, but
he also felt the need for a safety fence and was asked by staff
to have the handrail removed in the winter for snow storage.
Mike added that there was an alpine garden in the remainder of
the area.
Kathy did not care for the design of the northeast corner of the
buildinq and stated it appeared to be rradded on[ to the existing
structure. She suggested that the area be revised.
Chuck liked the building as it was.
Dalton also liked the building. Dalton connended Ned for workj.ng
with the staff.
Ludvig felt that this project ltas a good exanple of cooperation
betueen the applicant and the PEC and he liked the building asproposed. He sras concerned with the belvedere but he did not
know how to work out a better solution, given the steep grade
ctrange between Bridge StreeF and the pocket park.
Diana asked about the fencing along the west side of the
belvedere and that was discussed at length. Diana felt the need
for a fence froro the Covered Bridge to the South wall of the
covered Bridge Building.
Ned said he had hoped to keep it rnore transparent than that.
Kathy did not agree with Diana. She felt sbe would rather see
the area between the betvedere and the covered bridge be open and
not closed off and suggested perhaps reworking the sJ.ope to Lower
the grade.
o
Minutes
PEC 8/27/9O
Diana recornmended that the DRB carefully review the locations of
the trees, lights and benches in this area and Mike responded
that this was part of the streetscape p1an. Diana also thanked
Ned for working with the Board.
A motion to anprove the request for an exterior alterationper the staff neno with the followinct conditions was nade bv
Dalton and seconded brz Jim Shearer
Conditions:
Prior to the issuance of a buildino permit for the
redevelopment. the applicant, shall post a bond or
letter of credit, in a sufficient amount to cover the
replacement of the two evergreen trees which are
proposed to be relocated. The relocated trees shall be
cruaranteed to live for a period of not less than two
years from the original date of relocation, or thev
will be reglaced with two 25-foot tal1 everqreens.
2. The anplicant not rernonstrate against the strean walk
if and when one was constructed in the area.
VOTE: 7-0 IN FAVOR
Item No. 4:
recorded in Book 22L at Page 992 of the Eagle
Countv. Col.orado, Clerk and Recorderrs records,part of Lot C, Morcus Subdivision, a subdivision
recorded in Book 255 at Paqe 70 of the Eacrle
county, colorado, clerk and Recorderts records and
a part of Lot C, Morcus Subdivision. a subdivision
recorded in Book 255, at Page 70 of the Eaqle
Countv, Colorado. Clerk and Recorderrs records.
Both prooerties know as 715 West Lionshead Circle
LThe Marriott Mark Resort).
Applicant: M-K Corporation
Chuck Crist abstained fron this discussion. Kristan gave a brief
presentation and reninded the board that they had voted for the
underlying zone district previously and recommended this to the
Town Council . The Town Council reviewed the original request to
apply the underlying zoning and at their July L7, 1990 rneeting
1.
A request to applv an underlvinq zone district of
Pub1ic Acconnodation all of Lot 4 and Lot 7 ' Block
i-, vail,/Lionshead Third Filin<r, a subdivision
3.tu,_ 24lggl
tluly 24, 1991
Mr. Mike Mollica, *1 planner
Town of Vail Comnunity Developnent75 South Frontage Road WestVail, CO 81657
Re: Covered Bridge Building
Approval Status
Dear Mike:
Exterior alterations and additions to the Covered BridgeBuilding were approved by the Deeign Review Board February LggL,and by PEC prior to that date. Mr. Hillis Aiken is planning todo thege inprovenenta beginning Spring 1992 and would like forthe approvals to be extended.
ff thig letter cannot be the basis for the extensione, would youlet ug know what is required to keep our client fron goingthrough the whole process again.
Sincerely,
ARNOLD/GWATHMEY/PRATT ARCHITECTS, p.C.
EMG/Ad
copy to3 Hil.lie Aiken
o
luwn
75 touah lrontage road
Y!ll, colorldo 816!i7
(30:r) 47$2138
(303) {792139
August 5, 1991
Mr. Ned GwathmeyArnold, Gwathmey & Pratt
1000 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 8165?
RE: Covered Bridge Butlding
Dear Ned:
In regard to your letter dated JuJ-y 24, 1991 referencing the
approval status of rhe Covered Bridge Building' I offer the
following:
The PLanning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved the
exterior alteracion request for the Covered Bridge Building on
August 27, l-990. This approval carried with it two conditions.
On August 29, 1990, the Design Review Board (DRB) granted finaf
design approval- for the Covered Bridge Building.
The Town zoning code does not currently place an expiration date
on exterior alteration approvais, however' lhe DRB approval of
August 29, 1990 does have a one year expiration. Said DRB
approval shall expire on Augusr 29, 1991. Chapter l-8.54.110 of
the Mrrnicinal co.ie states that "If there have been no zcnrng
revisions or rewisi-ons or amendments to these guidelines which
would alter the conditions under which the approvaf was grven'
Lhe Communj-ty Development staff may extend the period of
approval - ti It is the stafft s position that there have been no
zoning modirications, or anrendments to the design guidelines of
the Town zoning code, and the staff does hereby grant an
extension of one year for the approval of the Covered Bridge
Building. witb this grant of extension, tbe final DRB approval
for the Covered Bridge Building sball nor expire on AugrrsL 29,
L992.
TILE COPY
oflice of community develoPment
If you should have any questions or conments on any of the above,
please do not hesitate to contact me at 479-2L38.
Sincerely,
14* /4eL
Mike Mollica
Assistant, Director of PJ.anning
cc: Hill-is Aiken
\o
FIL E COPY
lmn
75 south lrontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(3(ts) 4792138
(3(ts) 4792139
otflc€ of community development
March 25, 1992
Pepi Gramshammer
Gasthof Gramshammer
231 E. Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Proposed Covered Brldge Bulldlng Redevelopment
Dear Pepi:
Thank you for your letter dated February 27, 1992, addressed to Ron Phillips, Peggy
Osterfoss and the Vail Town Council, in which you expressed concerns regarding the
proposed redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building.
The proposed redevelopment of he Covered Bridge Building was approved by the Planning
and Environmental Commission on August 27,.,1990. On August 29, 1990, lhe Town's Design
Review Board granted final design approval for the project. The original redevelopment
proposai submitted to the Town included requests for site coverage, landscaoe and height
variances, and a floodplain modification request. After extensive discussions with the statf
regarding this project, and after two worksessions with the Planning and Environmental
Commission, the applicant modified the proposal. The project which was ultimately approved
by the Planning and Environmental Commission on August 27, 1990 involved no variances to
the Town's development code. The project was redesigned to meet all the development
standards in the Commercial Core I Zone District, and no variances were requested.
As of this date, the Town has not received a building permit application for the redevelopment
of the Covered Bridge Building. Should Hillis Akin decide to proceed with the building permit
process, I will personally contact you to discuss any possible actions or mitigations which
might be required to reduce the negative impacts the construction would have on adjacent
businesses.
'Mr. Pepi Gramshammer
March 25, 1992
Page 2
Thank you again for your comments. lf you should have any questions regarding the Covered
Bridge Building, please do not hesitate to contact me at 479-2138.
tq//;
Assistrant Director of Planning
lab
VailTown Council
Ron Phillips
Kristan Pritz
Sincerely,
frLJ"
Mike Mollica
$asftot
$ramshammet, nnc.
. *0.,0=D MAR - z tsez
FAX: 303/476-8816
Telephone: 303i476-5626
Peoi Gramshammer
Sheika Gramshammer
February 27, L992
Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Peggy Osterfoss, Vail Mayor
Vall Town Council
75 S. Frontage Rd.
vall- uo . E 10J ./
Dear Ron, Peggy, and Vail Tom Council Menbers,
I rranted to write you about my concerns over the proposed
redevel-opnent of uhe "Covered Bridge Store Building,rr As a
neighbor to this building, a business o\{ner, and a concerned
citizen, I have some serious problems rilith the current project.
A couple of years ago, Ehe owners of this building proposed a
REI.{ODELING project which I approved of at the tine. However, the
current proposal requires tearing down the existing struc!u:e alld
REPLACING it rtrith somethLng much larger. This is not the project
that I originally saw, approved of and thought would be an lmprovement
to the area !
My rnain concern is the amount of redevelopnent that has been
approved for Bridge Street. Not only has the tol'n approved this
much larger construction project for a bigger building risht at
the entrance Eo the covered bridge, but lt has- also approved Russellrs
Restaurant extension of a deck out onto Bridge SEreet itself. Both
of the projects are golng to cause tremendous disruption right at
the roaln guest entrance, i.e. the covered bridge, during ccnstructJon
AND will remaln a source of congesti.on when they are completed. How
much more developnent is the tovm councLl going to allow? lJhat would
happen if every business along Bridge St. requested approval to
rebulld larger buildings and extend onto the sEreet?
I know for a certainty that the rebuilding of the Covered Bridge
store structure wlll have a tremendous negaEive lmpact on my busLness.
231 East Gore Creek Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
o
-2-
There is no way that I will be able to rent rny hotel rooms durlng
the construction due to Ehe noise level, dirt aod dust. I?m also
sure Lhat the construcElon deliveries ldLl create alot of disruption
in this area and w111 not be a pleasant welcome for che guests
coning into the vi11age. Irm not yet certaln thac I wlll a11ow
Itillis to use ny parking lot durlng the constructlon and I donrt.
see how he will be able to manage lrlthout Ehe use of ny property.
FLna11.y, orlce coustructlon of this buildlng ls complete, where
will the delivery access for this bullding be? There is Do access
or parking for the Covered Brldge Store oo Ey property, therefore the
deliveries will be right on Bridge St. I urge the t orrn council to
consider and address the potential_ for negatlve and adverse impacts
on Ehis portion of Brldge Street.
Sincerelv.
@L--7
Pepi Gramshanmer
P8lss
August 21 , 1990
Mr. Mike MoIIica, Senior Planner
Town of VaiI Community Development
75 South Frontage Road WestVail, CO 81557
RE: Covered Bridge Building
View Corridor Analysj-s Procedure
Dear Mike:
Pursuant to our discussion regarding certificati.on of the view
corridor analysis, I wish to explain the procedure.
Eagle Valley Surveyingrs Dan Corcoran inforrned me that the viewpoint of the original photo was obliterated in the on-going parking
structure modifications. He did go back from distant control and
established the horizontal position of the view point - see ye1low
flag in photo.
We then determined that the vertical position of the camera was
14t-3". I was granted access to the site by PCL superintendent
Denny Armor, found a ladder, measured up, then took the photos.
The position is within 1r-O'r but because the surveyors' instrument
was not rigidly set, they cannot certify that the photo hzas per the
original. They think only in hundredths of inches.
I am confident in the procedure and will certi-fy the above.Further, the possible intrusion by our proposed building into the
view corridor isn't even c1ose.
If you have questions or wish to walk
me, don't hesitate to ca11.
Sincerely,
through the procedure with
OLDI ATHMEY/PRATT ARCHITECTS, P.C.
Ned Gwathme
NG/ad
M.
JR.
a
frnf
mshammer, lnc.
$as
Telephone: 303/ 47 6-5626$n
Pepi Gramshammer
Sheika Gramshammer
231 East Gore Creek Orive
Vail. Colorado 81657
JuIy 23, 1990
Hillis Akin & Bruce Amm
170 East Gore Creek DriveVail, CO 81657
Dear Hillis & Bruce,
As a neighbor to the covered Bridge Store, I am in favor of
the proposed remodel and expansion of your building. I believe
that this will approve the appearance of the building and the
entrance to Bridge Street.
As you know the north walt of Gasthof Granshammer is not very
appealing and this expansion will approve the overall looks.
r hope that this letter wiII help in the decision to approve this
improvernent.
Sincerely,
, i)G\-e-\; T-^:
Pepi Gramshanner
Ps/is
'&-Nfc'rcrgfe;'te.r rt c o' q xrr r !f
201 Gore Creek Drive
Bell Tower Building
JuIy 21, 1990
Town of Vail Planning DePartment
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Co 81657
Dear Sirs:
This letter comes !o express my supPort for the re-
development of the Covered Bridge Building as
propo"id by Mr. Bruce Anm and Mr. Hillis Aiken'
As the owner of Vail Management Company and the
Property Manager of the Creekside Condominium
asslciaiion (the property adjacent to the subject
site), I have reviewed the Preliminary Plans and-
find them to be a significant improvement over the
existing building.
Thank you for your consideration of my opinion'
TC: sl
Vail Colorado 81657
(3O3) 47H262
Since
Thomas R. Castce
Vail Management
o''Li;."f
Sns{Z
July 23r 1990
Tfli Backhus
Slifer & CcrnPany
230 Bridge St.
Vail, Oo. 81657
Dear $snt
vile have reviewed plans for the proposed addition
to the Hillis suifainq. Renie ard I feel this
r,puld be a positive fiiprovs€nt that will
enhance the atrpearance of Bridge Street. I{e
wish l.lr. Arm and you good luck in lpur ventua€'
sincerely,
ilal burcL
David Gorsuch
263 E-Gore Creck Dtive, Vail, Colorado 8165? 303/476'2294
RtrOJUN121g9OSrmEn, Sprrrrr & Fnaprr.rou,INc.
REAL ESTATE BROKERS AND CONSULIANTS
2.T BRIDCE STREET
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
TELEPHONE
<303) 47G2421
TELEFAX
<303r47G: ffi
June 7, l-990
Mr. Ron Phillips
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage RoadVai1, CO 8L657
Dear Ron:
I wanted to write as an interested neighbor regarding the proposed
Covered Bridge Store remodel. I support the proposal that is sub-nitted to the Town of Vail. I also feel thai the sooner the pro-ject can get underway, the better. This sumrner is already dis-rupted and it would be a good tirne to get started. They have goodaccess to the back of the building which will help rnitigate theinpact of construction.
I feel strongly that rnany of the older buildings in Vail need tobe upgraded to current design standards. I also am concerned ifsonething is too big or not designed to fit into the neighborhood.fn this case, f feel the design in very approprlate and would bea great improvement over the current structure.
Bridge street is probabry the most visibre and important street-scape in VaiI. I feel that the proposal for the Covered Bridgebuilding is long overdue and will be a definite irnprovemenE.
Yours very tru11',
REs/j r
OFFICES IN VA IL AND BEAVER CREEI.
o riuDJJrs NorrcE oNoTIcE Is HEREBY drVnu that the ptannlng and snviroyoggtaf
connLsslon of the rown of vatl wllt hotd a public i!(6 n^
accordance wlth sectton 18.66.060 of the nunicipat code "{t6tp/
PUBL,IC NOTICE
Town of Vall on August 27 , L99O, at 3: OO p.n. Ln the Town of Vall
l{uniclpal Buildlng. Consideratlon of:
1. A request to apply an underlying zone dlstrLct of publlc
Acconmodation all of Iot 4 and I,t 7, Block 1,Vail/Llonshead Third Filing, a subdlvlsion recorded Ln Book22L at Page 992 of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk andRecorderrs records, part of Iot c, ltorcus Subdlvlsion, asubdivielon recorded in Book 255 at page ZO of the EalleCounty, Colorado, Clerk and Recorderrg records, beJ.ng Dorepartlcularly described as follows:
Beglnnlng at thc Southeast cornar of Lot D, liorcuesubdivlaton, thenoe N 22oBg'41" if " arri"n""-"i'1s9.oi-feetithence S 83.25'{5" }f a diatance of 68.2g ii6t; thenceN 16'Ll'21" w to the southerrv rteht-oi-*"v-ii", of lleetLionshead cirole a dratance oi re6.sg-ic;ii trru""" along aardroutherlv rlght-of-n&v an arc dieta'cc oi ioo.si reJl-aioni-icurva to the- left, gald curve having a central angle of
39:91'9?1, a radiue of 892.00 iaer ind whoae tong chord bcargtt 57c48'28" 8 a dletance of 199.33 fectt; " 61;t of reveraecurvature; sald^curve havlng a central arglJ ;i-ag.t6€t;;-.;-radi'rg of 239.o0 fset and whoee long chorE u""i" N 6g.gs.a2.,E adletance of 196.11 feet to a polnt 6f revErg" curvature; thencEcontlnulng along lalq rlght-of-way an arc dlgtance of a6.al i"it,a central anglc of 13'18's1", a radiuc of 2o0.oo fcet and whJeelong chord beare N 86'09'26" E a dietance of 46.3? feet to apoint of, reverae curvature; thence eont:Lnuing an are dlatance of?1.-32-f,cet, a central angle of o?o4t'oT*, " i"Jru" of E2b.o0 fcetcnd whoae long ehord beare N ?8"96'29" E a dlctanca of 7t.2? feetto a polnt of raveruE curvatura; thencc zz:sg fcct aronl thc ircof a curve to the rlght wlth a cantral angle of g6.12.Oi,,,, a ---
radlue of 15.00 fect and whoce long chora-bearJ s 6s.og;ai':-r adlgtanea of, 20.51 fq"!; thcnca conllnuing atont thc waatcrlyrl'ght-of,-wav ll.na 6f r,l,onehcad ptace sg.5? fcgf, along ths aic ofa curv€ to thc rlglrt wlth a ccntrar anrlc of 29.00'06", a radlucof 171.00 fcct and whocc long chord bcarc S OEaOO.OO., i adlgtaDcg of 82.74 f,cet to a polnt of rcvcrgs cunraturci tbcncceontlnulng_along aald rlght-of-way llnc along a curvc wlth an arcdlrtancc of 7!.90- fact, a ccntral anglc of g7.og:1?.,, a radLuc oft10-00 fpct and rhoaa long chord bcaic g lz.g4'09. B a dlatancc:f:79.99_f*t, to tho nor€hor.ly oolnorr of,_Lat B, V.rily'.lonohcad'-l'tl!'cl rullgt thcnca s 40'00'00" l,f a dlgtarrcc of lES.gE fcst;tlrcnce s 02'56'61" 8 to the coutheait-cornJr oi-aald Lot,rl adl'ctancc of 13o.?6 fect; itrenci-s Ec.zg,oo- t|-rdtntoncc of go.oo
!.q!; thcnoc 6 76.1.1'OOi' tf a dlatancc of 195.6{ tiat; ihanccI 66'24'00" lJ to thc Southweat coraer of pald Lot 4 i dlatancc of
72.29 fcct to ths Polnt of Bcglnnlns, contalnlng 1g2,g68 rEuarrfcct or 3.6 acrcc Dorc or lcgl.-
lt,fu vL /a/ac"J 6ur*'-o'!a .^ t/s/no FfLt C[Pf
and a reque*o apply an underlying zofiistrict of liigh
Density ttuttlfre rlnily to aII or r.ot D-and a.part 9f-19tC, l,torEus subdivision, a subdivision recorded in Book 255,
at Page 70 of the Eagle County, Colorado, clerk and
Recorierre records l6tng Dore particularly described as
follows:
Bcglnnlng at the eouthweEtErly cornar of eald Lot D thcnca N
1e.t?'21" E i dlgtance of 399.60 ieet to tha Southarly r{ght-of-
way of WeeL Llonahsad Clrclc; thenca slong sald Southerly rteh!;
of:way an arc dlstanca of 160.10 along a curv€ to thc left' aald
curv6- havlng a radlua of 392.00 fcct, a central angel of
61.42',30,' atra whoca chord b'earg N E6'34'{7" E a dlatance of
158.99 feet; thenca S 16.1?'21" E e dlstancc of 165.59 fect;
thence N 69.2b'4S.,E a dietance of 63.29 feet; thcnce S
22o98'4!"E a dlctance of 159.02 feet to the Southeaeterly corner
of eald Lot D, thence s 66'24'00" !J along southenly lot llle-a
diEtance of 2lo.oo f,eet; thence s 16'1?'.O0" E a dlatancc of, 3;15
fcet; thence s 79"42'37* Vl to southwset corner of cald lot D a
dletancc of 26.69 feet to the Polnt of beginnlng contalnlng
68,661 .19 cquarc fact or 1.58 acrca lrotc or lcag'
Both propertles know as ?15 West Llonshead Circle (The
Marriott Mark Resort).Applicants U-K CorPoration
2. A reguest for a maJor subdivision, to approve
the p-relininary plln, a request for a variance to the
naxiiun height- for retaining walls, and a reguest for a'variance to the naxinurn percent grade for a road, on a
parcel conmonly referred to as sPraddle Creek' an
ipproxinate 40 acre Parcel located north and east of the
Itiin Vail I-70 interlhange and east of the Spraddle Creek
ii*r.ry. Connencl.ng at tie Northeast Corner of the Southeast
le oi the southwelt ya of section 5' -Tonnship.s soutlr -ninge 8o West of the etn principal l{eridian,.betlg an Eagle
Couity Brass Cap properly rnarked and setr -with all bearings--
contained herei-n Lei-ng r6lative to a bearing of S O0 11r OOrl
E between the Northeatt Corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the
southwest L/4, and the southeast corner of said southeast
L/4 ot the Southwest 1/4 belng an Eagle County Brass cap
p'roperly narked and set; said Northeast Corner of the-soultrea3t L/4 of the southwest L/4 being the Point of
legtnntng; thence S OO 11r OOn B along the-east line of said
Sorittreas€ I/4 of the Southwes1- L/4 of Sectlon 5 a dlstance
of 1320.14 feet to the southeast corner the said southeast
L/4 of the southwest L/4 of section 5; thence s 89 47I 48|| W
aiong the Eouth line o'f eald Southeast L/4 ol the Southwest
17i |rt-section 5 a distance of 9O1.OO feet; thence N 73 481
g'2" w along Interstate 70 Rlght of way line.a dlstance of
2L4.Lz feet; thence N 65 52t L2n w along said Right of-lfay
Ilne a diEtance of 241.10 feet to a point on the west Ilne
oi saia Souttreast L/4 ot. the Southweit t/l of Section 5;
thence N oo 20r 31rr lf along the west tine of said southeast
L/4 of the Southvest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1161.66
5':it,;:"t"ir?:l'3:itr3i'!'["iln'* ;:#e;l"t(ooii"!n3"nproperly uarked and seti thence N 89 41r 12rr E along ttre
north llne of said Southeast L/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 5 a dlstance of 1331.07 feet to the Polnt of
BeEinning. Sald real property contalnlng 39.55 acres, Doreor less.Appl!.cant: ceorge Gillett, ilr.
A request for an exterior alteratlon on Lot C and Lot D, and
the Couthwesterly 4 feet of Iot B, all ln Block 5-8, Vall
Viltage lst Fillng, 227 Bridge street (covered Brldge
Buildlng).Appllcant: llillls of snownass, rnc. and Bruce Ann &
Associates.
4. A reguest for a naJor anendnent to SDD No.
16, part of parcel-A, Lionsrldge subdlvlslon, Fillng 2- (The
Valley Phase III)ApplLcant: Brad & Susan TJossen
The appll-cations and infortnation about the proposals are
available for public inspection in the Cornrnunity Development
Departrnent office.
Town of Vail
Connunity Development
Published ln the ValI
Department
Trail on August 10, 1990.
o
PI,AIINING AI.ID EITVIRONUENTAL COI.TUISSION
iluly 23, 1990
In the intereEtpubllc hearing.
staffKristan Pritzl{ike uollicashelly l{ello
Andy l(nudtsenilill Kanmerer
Betsy Rosolack
Penny Perry
Susan Scanlan
of tlme, work eesslonE sere held prior to the
Susan Scanlan presented the proposal as per the staff memo.
285 S. Frontaqe Road West.Applicant: Amoco Corp.
Ton McCurdy, representing the Anoco Corporation, responded to the
issues addieEsed ln the iemo explalnlng that contamlnation was
found on the Gateway site. However, they did not yet know the..
extent. After talk-ing wlth etaff, Anoco chose the proposed site
because lt would caus6 the least hardship for all concerned since
any other location deleted parking spaceB. - Regarding alternate.
rne[hods, the proposed design was the best for the situatlon. It
was po=iible Lhey would netd larger wells, however, they had
alreldy allowed for addltional space in the roon for an
additional air stripper. Amoco originally ProPosed to use a
portable buildlng. -lte sald that staff had conmunicated concerns
i:hat a portable bullding would not.neet deslgn- crLteria.
negardiilg the use of thE catenay site rather than the Alpin_e
Stindard-site, the present owner did not want then to use the
basernent as was orlglnally planned. The owner had expressed
concerns of tlabllity and parking.
Present
Chuck Crlst
DLana Donovan
connie Knight
Ludwig Kurz
Jim Shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton Wlllians
Chuck Crist asked how noisy the eysten would be and Tom l,lcCurdy
explalned that the only noise would be generalgd-by a compressor.
ThL conpressor would be withln an enclosed building and the
lnpact iould be nininal . He felt the noise from the highway
would be more obtrueive.
Chuck then asked, if the probleD was uore extensive than
origlnally thought, would Anoco have to build another station
elst where? From what distance could the welle be punped?
Tom ltcCurdy explained the wells could punp up to 2oo-250 feet
arJay.
Dalton and Ludwlg had no connents.
Diafia asked how deep tbey tested the water and Tom l'lcCurdy
explained they test anlmhere from 20 to 4or below the ground
surface.
Diana also asked how nuch water would be processed in 1 day and
Tom l,lccurdy explained that the systen processed 35 gallon? peT
ninute. -Otanl was concerned about how the l{ater and Sanitation
department would handle the eituation and how it would affect the
Town.s water supply. Tom l,[ccurdy explalned that the nater would
be discharged to the Water and Sewer plant and the water plant
discharged to the Townrs streans. He did not feel that 35
gallons a ninute would affect the water supply.
Kathy Warren asked Ton Briner, the architect for ttre-proJect, if
they would be able to bern on either side of the building and Tom
stated ryestr, on the sl,des but not the front or rear.
Diana felt that the appllcant should consider extra insulatlon to
rnitigate the noise. She asked Kristan if this would be an
oppo;tunity to clean the island/at9a.up and_shelly reminded Diana
airi-ttre bolrd that there iE a possibllity of a sidewalk as well.
Tom-lfcgurdy explained that there Itas an unidentified easenent and
Diana felt-that it was an issue that staff could handle and
inform the board if it woutd be a problen at the next neeting.
shelly felt that the Town needed to see the final reports when
they Lane out before naking a recomnendation and Tom.Uccurdy
did;r't feel ttre final reports would affect the location of the
building. He felt the present neeting was to center around the
aesthetics, noise etc.
Chuck Crist asked how the air discharge was done and if It
required stacks. Tom ltcCurdy explained that vents would be used.
chuck also wanted to know lf there would be an odor and Tom
uccurdy explained that the odor would be no nore than the gas
station itself.
1.
2.
3.
The aopll.cant olant mature landscapingr throughout the
site.
The site of the exlstlng structure be taken back to
natural qrade and landscaped.
llhe area acrosa Beaver Dam Road be reveqetated.
VOTE: 7-O IN FAVOR
Krietan reconnended that treeE on the site
sLzes determined before a building per"mit
trees die due to construction, there vould
and tlpe replacenent trees.
IleLNeJAi
be photographed andis released so that if
be agreement on size
ae a Dermitted use.
APPII-cant: Dean Llotta
Andy Knudtsen presented the proposal for staff explainlng that
the-applicant iras proposing Lo ctrange the-zonLng code to allow a
Urew lirU as a use Ly ligtrt-in the Comnercial Senrice Center zone
district. The regu6st ias to define the brew pub use in the
definition sectiori of the code, ILst the use as a permitted uqe
ln the csc section of the code, list the use, with linited off
site sales, aE a condltional use ln the CSC Eection of the code'
ina tncfudi a paragraph, also in the csc section' regardlng
operating char-acteiisLtis. Andy reviewed the background research
tlat had-been done and the appl-icable criteria and findinqs.
The staff reconmendation was for approval of the request'
Andy, at the request of Larry Eslmith, clarified_the difference
fetiien on-site-consuutption, retail sales for off-site
consunption, and wholesale sales.
Kristan felt it was
the brew pub use was
inportant for the board to understand that
lntended to be accessory to a restaurant.
D,ean Llotta ocplained that he was not planning on brewing -9n a.
constant basls-. Ile nanted to brew 3 to 5 tiues per lteek (Erewing
took approxinately 75 ninutes) and he would like to be able to
Urew airiing normai working hoirrs. If it becarne a problen in the-
future, he-would be happy-to change the hours of brewing._ He had
been given a 1OOO barrEl-a year cap. He stated he would hate to
15
be at 1000 barrels on Decenber 15 and be forced to go 2 weekg
without business. He asked what would happen ln that sltuation?
Krlstan explained to Dean, that lf he was that close to hls cap,
he coutd cone back and request a higher caP.
Dean felt that the sale to a restaurant patron that took a 6-pack
home ehould be consldered on-site saleE. Kristan stated that,
not only restaurant patrone buy beer to take out, but others
would use the pub as a lJ.guor etore and lt would create
additLonal traffic.
Diana felt that Lf tlre pub wae going to have both salee for off-site consurnptlon and wholesales, they should be considered as two
eeparate conditional uses.
Dean showed the board plctures of what the equipnent looked like
and:how it would be laid out on the site.
Kristan suggested that lf the odor was a problen' the staff
(T.O.v.) could inltiate a code change. Dean agreed that he would
conply with future odor control ordinanceg.
Kathy warren suggested that the Lssue be discusaed when he came
to the board for a condltlonaL use permit for off-site sales.
The barrel ner vear cap be Lncreased to 1500.
Item No. 3, Petmitted Uses--(G) referencino operatino
hours be deleted.
VOIE! 7-O IN FAVOR
Iten No. 13:
1.
2.
3.
\$$$t\
A reouest for a work session for an exterior
15
I
If.L UoUtca presented the proposal for staff . He explalned-the
changes that Lad been nade since the laet work EessLon including
roof-height percentages, the adJacent pocket park (Town Council
had given pernission to proceed with design), the-renoval of
sideialks Lo give a more lnformal access, and modifications to
the retaining wall near the covered Bridge.
Dalton suggested that the Town nover/durnp the snow elsewhere.
Mlke explained that the staff interpretation of helght
restriclions would be split 5O/5O with the 50t to the east taken
off of Bridge Street griOe and ttre 50* to the west taken fron the
grade froro the northwest corner of the building. The
interpretation was taken fron hos past sltuations were handled.
Ned Gwathney, representing the appllcant, felt that the-grade
from Bridge-street should-be used entl-rely. The elevation from
Bridge Stieet was clearly the elevation that was inportant.
Regardless, they would still need a variance.
Xristan explained that in order to allow the Covered Bridge
Building t-o use the Bridge street grade for dete:minlng height
the staif would have to allow the same grade to be used
throughout the Village. Doing that would create future problens.
Dalton Willians felt that, if the applicant stayed within the
height gruidelines, the result would be a massive building
froitin6 the road and a big yellow wal1 (Pepirs BuLldLng) visible
to the north.
Kathy Warren stated that she did not see a physical hardship to
Justify granting the variance.
Ned Gwathmey revLewed the Village ltaster Plan points which he
felt relatea to the project, stating that the Master Plan called
for the stepping aown ol buildings frorn the Frontage Road-and
called for l- g to e story building in the Village. Ned felt
that the existing slte wis a hardship. They were in the
floodplain, the butlding ltself was I'n bad shape, the cost of
aenolition and redevelofment was a hardshlp. The existJ-ng
building did not meet safety concerns.
Diana Donovan felt that the floodplain Eeened to be the only true
physical hardship she could see. She asked what the sqgar9
io6tage of the aiea of the exLsting building that was within the
floodifain and Ned Gtrathmey answered n60 sg. ft.I. Diana felt
she night support a height-varlance for not encroaching into-the
floodpialn. -biana felt that the other hardshlps that Ned had
listei were self inposed in that the owner was aware of then when
he purchased the building.
Jin Shearer stated that he had been trylng to weLgh the pros and
L7
cons of the project. He felt that, personallY, he cane up with
more pluses than minuses. He felt that the project would be the
chance to ask the Town to flnd a different locatlon to dump snow.
He felt that the buildlng was the flrst funpression of vatlVillage and dld not feel lt vas deslrable to have the buildingsall the same size. He llked the pocket park desigm and inproved
safety features. There vas no doubt that the proposal was above
the allowed height by the difference of grade to the rear. He
was Ln favor of the connercial space downstairs.
Connie Knight stated that originalLy she had thought inot rnore
downtown infillfl. However, after walking around the building she
realized it dial need help. Stre did feel tlre proJect was stlll
too dense.
Kathy warren felt the proposal was for 5 l-evels not 4 and that
the applicant could get closer to the helght called for Ln thecode. She did not see a physLcal hardship.
Diana Donovan felt the proJect was igood and badrr. She needed
more reasons before she could support a varLance. She felt, if
the applicant would drop the creek side elevation down, the
proJect would be closer to receivlng her support.
Diana asked what percent of the roof was too tall and the meno
said 53* and Bruce Ann replied tbat the greateat Percentage of
the roof was an area below 33* and that they were novl.ng that
area to the back so that nost of the unused volume waE toward the
back.
Diana replied that it was really not the Boardre absolute rlght
to trade in this area.
Dalton agreed with the staff. He felt the applicant was going to
havi to live with the rules. Maybe stepping down from Pepirs
building would also help the height gltuatlon of Pepirs roof. He
liked the design of the Project.
Ludwig asked if there waE conEiEtent Lnterpretation of the
gradei, and Mike replled that there had been and Kristan and Tom
Braun had conferred as to what had been done in the past. Ludwigfelt that it was an improvement to the building but fel-t that the
height was still a nurnber one concern.
Kristan said that a couple of Board nenbere asked if the
applicant was going to consider an sDD. She saLd that it was an
opllon but that it was not an easy process either. - Ned replied
that underlying zonlng would still bave to be considered.
Kathy said that, with an SDD the appllcant could probably use
18
Bruce Anmr6 argu[ent regarding noving the nass of the lower roof
to the front oi the bul.ldlng and the mass of the higher roof next
to Pepirs.
Connie sald that she vould vote against an sDD.
Diana polnted out that under the existlng zoning only the height
needed-nitlgation. t{lke explained how the tunreyor would
determine the Vlew Corridor fron the denolished parking
structure. Bruce Ann felt that they were clearly out of the View
Corridor and Mike said that it didnrt appear that the project
would go into the Vlew Corridor, but that verification was
required.
K:ristan saLd that ehe wanted to be sure that Ned knew all of the
other options. Ned asked for a definltion of rrhardshiprr and
Kristan explal.ned the definition.
Iten No. 7:
IleLNe,lzi A request for a naior amendn9nt to SD? l,{ot
ffit-A. Lionsridqe subdivision.
Fllinq 2. (Ehe Vallev Phas? rIIl
arcrcliiant: Brad e susan tjossen
A motion to table ltems No. 7. 11. and 12 to th9 Aucrust 13.
1990 rneetlng' $'as nade by Kathy warren and seconded bv chuck
criBt.
VOfE: 7-O rN FAVOR
19
Item No. 1:
The followlng changes were requested:
Page 2--change ,tRudyr, twJ-ce ln ttre flrst paragraph to Ludwig.
Page 2--strlke nand second hon6 rentalo
Page 7--add rrentir€ Cascade SDDrt under the sq. ft. calculations.
An infornal discussion followed concernlng staff nenos.
20
I
TO:
FRO}T:
DATE:
SUB..TEET:
OecoptPlanning and Environnental Connission
ConrnunLty Development Department
August 27, 1990
A request for an exterior alteratlon on Lot c and Lot
D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of l.ot B, all in Block
5-B, vail village lst Fillng, 227 Brldge Street.Applicant: Hillis of snoltmasa, fnc. and Bruce Ann &
Associates.
r.DESCRIPTION OF TIIE REOI'EST
The applicants are proposing a naJor redevelopment of the
Covered Bridge Bullding located at 227 Bridge Street. The
prgposal calls for modiflcations to the front entrance of
the- exLsting commercial spaces' the creatLon of lower level
comnerciat ipaces which would be accessible fron a new stair
directly on Bridge Street, tnfitL of the north and northwest
sections of the existing structure, the additlon of an
elevator and stair tower at the northwest corner of the
building, and the addition of two upPer floors,
predoninantly Located along the south and west sections of
Lhe structure. The existing covered stalrs located along
both the west and north elevations would be renoved. A
sprinkler systeu for fire protection will be added to the
entire building and all exits will be improved and brought
into compliance wLth todayrs Bullding code.
The applicants have also proposed to upgrade the Toltnrs
aajacent pocket park to the north of the Covered Bridge
Building. The Town Council, on July L7, 1990, granted the
applicant approval to move fomard with designs for the park
and to proceed through the planning process.
The applicant ls proposing to construct a new entry stair to
the park fron Bridge Street and a viewing platform, or
belvedere, over the existing retaining wall adjacent to the
covered Bridge. The viewing platforn sould be cantilevered
over the exliting retaining wall which rrould provide for a
seating area and-photo polnt and would also be available
(wtth a detachable railing) for snow storage during the -ri'inter months. A snall alpine garden will also be added in
this area, (please see attached site plan).
l/t
tne ernl! Itf trt" covered Brldge Building had previously nade
th.q fdl.fp*ing applications with regards to the
-,.r$dAvef,opment:r !'"\ ' .tt-'r- , It An exterior alteration reguest;'z. A helght variance request;3. A site coveralte variance request;
4. A landscape variance request; and5. A floodplain nodifl-catlon request.
The proJect has been further rnodified eince the last PEC
work eession and the reguest is now as follows:
1. An exterior alteratLon request.
The project has been redesigned to conply with all of the
Townrs development standards for Connercial Core I and the
helght variance, site coverage variance, landscape variance
and fl-oodplain nodification requests have been withdrawn.
IT. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The following is a summary of
the proposed redeveloPrnent of
1. Lot Size:
Buildable Area:
2. Site Coverage:
the development standards for
the Covered Bridge Building.
= 4t675 square feet
= 41510 square feet
Existing = 3,602 square feet, or 7'7*
Allonab1e = 3r74o square feet, or 808
Proposed = 3r74O square feet, or 808
36 ft. to ridge.
43 ft. to ridge.
50* of the building
nay be up to 33r and
up to 40t of thebullding rnay behigher than 33 r, but
no higher than 43r.
3. Building Heights: Existing =ProPosed =AIlowable =
4. Roof Area Percentages:
a) Allowable belon 33|
Proposed below 33r
b) Allowable between 33r-43r =
ProPosed between 33r-43r =
= 2 r?OB
= 3,O37
1r 806
Lr126
sg. ft. or 60tsq. ft. or 73*
sq. ft. or 40*sq. ft. or 2'7*
5.Density:
Exlstlng Dwelllng Unlts = 0
Allowable Dwelllng Unlts - 2
Proposed Dwelllng Units - 1
6. GRFA:
Conmercl-al Square Footage:
Existing
Proposed
Existing = 0sq.ft.
Atlowable - 31608 sq. ft.
Proposed - 2,92L sq. ft.
= 9'334 sq. ft.
= 91520 sq. ft.
7.
8. Floodplain: The existing 100-year floodplain, asindlcited by FEI'IA is currently 7.2 inches, vertically,
above the existing grade along the north elevation of
the existing building wall. No further encroachnents
lnto the floodplain are proposed, in fact, a portion of
the existing encroachrnent (covered stair on north
elevatLon) will be renoved fron the floodplain.
III. COIiIPI,IANCE WIIH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COI,II,IERCIAL CORE I
18.24.010 P|rr3Dose!
The Conmercial Core I Dl.strict is intended to provide
sitee and to naintain the unique character of the vail
Village Cornrnercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and
conneicial eEtablishments ln a predoninantly pedestrian
environment. The Conrnercial core I District is
intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and
other anenities approprlate to the pernitted types of
bulldings and uses. The district regulations in
accordance wlth the Vall Village Urban Design Guide
Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site
developnent Etandards that are l-ntended to ensure the
naintenance and presenration of the tightly clustered
arrangements of buildings frontLng on pedestrian ways
ana pultic greenitays, and to ensure continuation of the
building scale and architectural qualities that
distingruish the Village.
The staff believes that the proposed redevelopnent of the
covered Bridge Bullding ls in conpliance with the purpose
section of the ccl zone district.
IV. CO}IPLIANCE WITIT THE VAIL VTIJAGE UASTER PI,AN
Although not specificaLly categorized as a Sub-Area, the
covered Brldge Building is speclfically ldentlfled in theVall Village ltaster Plan as followe:
nALthough it ls a goal to nal.ntaln desigm contl-nuity inthe Vl-llage core, there rl11 be change in the core
areas bullt environrnent. Thle le nostly due to the
nunber of properties that have not exerclsed thelr full
developnent rlghts. The rnost notable anong thesepropertlee are the Red Llon Building, the CyranorsBullding, the L,odge at Vail, and the Covered BridgeBulldlng. If each of these and other properties
develop to thelr full potential, there wilL undoubtedly
be a slgnificant lncrease in the level of developnentin the Village core.tr
There are many goals, obJectlve, and pollcies whlch areidentified in the vail village llaster Plan that are
applicable toBuilding. wethis project:
L.2
1.3
1.3.1
GOAL #2-
the redevelopnent of the Covered Bridgefeel that the following specifically address
GOAL * 1- ENCOT'RAGE HIGH QUALITY REDEVEI'PIIENT T{IIII,E
PRESERVING THE T'NIQUE ARCHITE TURAL SCALE OF THE
VTLIAGE IN ORDER TO SUSTATN ITS SENSE OF CO!{!,IUNITY
Al{D IDENTITY.
ObJective:
Encourage the upgradLng and redevelopnent ofresldential and conmercial facilltles.
objective:
Enhance new developnent and redevelopnent throughpublic inprovenents done by private developers
worklng in cooperation wlth the Towrr.
Policv:hrblic inprovenente Ehall be developed withthe participatlon of the private sectorwor*lng with the To!,nr.
TO FOSTER A STRONG TOT,'RISIr INDUSTRY AI{D PROUOTE
YE.AR-AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTII AND VIABILITY FOR THE
VILIAGE AI{D FOR THE COMMT'NITY AS A I{HOI,E.
Obiective:
Encourage the developnent of a variety of nev
commerciat activity where conpatible with existing
land uses.
4
2.4
2.4.L
GOAL * 3-
3.1
3.1.1
3.4
PoIicv:
Cornmercial infill developnent consistent with
establlEhed horlzontal zonlng regrulatlonsshall be encouraged to provlde activity
generators, acceEsible greenspaceE, publlc
plazas, and streetscape inprovements to tbe
pedestrian network throughout the Village.
TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENTIANCEMENT OF
THE WAIJ(ING EXPERIENCE TIIROUGHOUT THE VILIAGE.
Obiectlve:
Physically lnprove the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other inproveuents.
Pollcv:Private developnent proJects shall
J.ncorporate streetscape lmprovenents (such as
paver treatnents, landscaping, lighting and
seating areas), along adJacent pedestrJ'an
ways.
obiective:
Develop additional sldewalks, pedestrian-only
walkways and accessible green space areas,
lncluding pocket parks and stream access.
Policy:
Physical inprovenents to property adJacent to
strean tracts shall not further restrlctpublic access.
3.4.1
GOAL #4- TO PRESERVE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AREAS AND EXPAND
GREENSPACE OPPORTT'NITIES .
4.L ob-lectlve:
Improve exlsting open space areas and create nelr
plazas with greenspace and pocket parks.
Recognize the different roles of each tlpe of open
space in forning the overall fabric of the
ViIlage.
It is the etaff opinion that the covered Brldge Brrilding
redevelopment, speclflcalty the proposed commerciaL lnfill
nodlfication and the proposed inprovementa to the Tolrnrs
pocket park, would be in conpliance with the above named
l.taster Plan goals and objectlves.
IV. COUPLIANCE WTTII TIIE T'RBAN DESIGN GUIDE PI.AN FOR VAIL VTLINGE
The Urban Design cuide Plan Sub-Area concepts identified forthe Covered Brldge Bullding Lnclude a pocket park with
benches and plantersi snow storage l-n wl-nter. A feature
area sith pavement treatnent ls also identified for a sroal.l
area irnnediately south of the covered Bridge. In additLon,the Gore Creek Pedestrl.an Path, or Streamwalk, is alsoproposed, Ln the Guide Plan, to go through this pocket park
area.
The staff believes that the appllcantrs proposed
nodifLcatlons to the Townre pocket park, including the
viewing platfor:n adJacent to the covered Brldge and a newentry stalr into the park, would be in confornance with the
sub-Area concepts. The appllcant had suggested constructing
the portion of the Streanwalk as It crosses the pocket park.
However, because the Streanwalk would dead-end at theparking lot west of the pocket park, staff and PEc
reconmended that this section of the Streamwalk be delayeduntil a more conplete path could be constructed.
V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBN{ DESIGN CONSTDERATIONS FOR VAIL
VILIAGE
A. Pedestrianization:
The redevelopnent of the covered Bridge Bulldlng Ehould
not have any effect on the existlng pedestrianlzation
along Bridge street. We do bell,eve that the
applicantrs proposal to provide pavers along Bridge
Street and the addition of the viewing platform will be
a positive step in pronoting the Villagers pedestrian
systen. These pavers will be desLgned ln conJunctionvith the Townrs currently on-going Streetscape Master
Plan.
B. Vehicular PenetratLon:
The redevelopment of the covered Bridge Bullding will
not change the current vehlcular penetration patterns
in the Village.
c.Streetacape Frameldork:
We believe tlre proposal to be positlve wJ'th regar$ to
streetscape franew-ork. By lncieasing the.visibillty of
the lower- level coumercia-l spaces fron Bridge Street'
ifre rtaft believes that these new activity generators
wiir-give added street life and visual interest along
sifag6 street. The proposed I'mprovements to the
iaJa6ent pocket p"tx, witn tne laaition of a viewing
ptitforn,-wtff aiso -infto.r" the quality of the nalking
ixperlenie in this area of the Vlllage'
Street Enclosure:
The deslgn conslderations stress that bullding facade
trlfqht" ihould not be uniform fron building to
lutiatng, and that they should provide a rrcomfortablerr
enctosuii for the streit. we tretieve that the-proposed
noaiffcatl.ons to the covered Brldge Building wlIl
relate very well to the pedestrlan activity-and-
"xptii"""e-s atong Bridge- street. The building 9oesstlp back rron siiage Street and also =t:P: Pl?T-ft"t[n"-"aj""ent pocket-park to the north' The buildingrs
varieti of height and rnassing creates a street
enclosirre wher6 the buil.ding-walls are aPproxirnately
Jii.:rtiie as high as the street width, whiglt suPports
iiii--a.rifn coicept. One najor consideration for the
li...t"ttt-of the Luilding'".1??= and butk is the Townrs
iEq"ii"t"nts for naximun-buildlng height' -rt ls this-"JJiopt"nt standlrd that has driven the Placement of
[t.-t.!" is indicated on the attached elevations'
Street Edcre:
This redevelopnent should have little-inpact upon
siilet edge a-s the proposed modl-ficatLons to the
u"irai"g 6o not tig'ttific"ntly alter the configuration
"i-fJ".€ion of the-exiEting -structure. The applicants
tti'u" agreed to work with the staff and the Townrs
streetscape "ontuitant, as this proj,ect evolves, in
"ia"" to hesign inprovenents to Bridge street,
specifically paver treatroent along the eastern
eLevation of the structure.
Bul.ldina Heiqht:
The vall village Master Plan has identified thls area
is naving an aiceptable range.of.building heig!!? i"
the 3-4 itory catigory. A building story is defined as
9r of helght-and no roof ie lncluded'
D.
F
r.
Because there is a 6r difference in height between
Bridge Street and the pocket park area the applJ-cant
hae iequested the Etaff to reanalyze and lnterpret
where bullding helght base elevatlons w111 be
calculated from.
Regardlng the neasurement of helghte on tJrls site, the
etife has nade the followlng lnterpretatlons:
1. Ttrat the covered Bridge Bulldlng slte be divided
egually beglnning at the northeaet corner of the
property with a ll.ne runnlng diagonal to the
Eouthwest corner of the property. l{e believe that
thls will provide for a falr and eguitable
analysl.s of buildlng helght because it allows for
the Bridge Street elevatlon of the structure to be
based upon the grades on Brldge Street. It also
allows tor the elevations of the bulldlng which
front north to the pocket park and west to Pepirs
parking lot to be based upon the existl-ng grades
in the Park area.
2. That the base elevatLon of Bridge street (8,161
ft. ) will be used to detemine heigbtE for areas
of ttre buildlng which fall lnto the southeastern
50t of the divlded property.
3. That the base elevation at the northwest corner of
the covered Bridge property (8,153 ft.) wlIl be
used to deternrine building belghts for the
northwest 50* of the structure.
Given the above analysls, the staff is of the opinion
that the proposed redevelopnent is in confornance with
the zonlng considerations, epeclfically as llsted in
Sectlon rI (3) Building Height, anal (4) Roof Area
Percentages, of this staff memorandum.
G. Views and Focal Points:
The proposed rldge line of the Covered Bridge Building
vi11-nol encroach Lnto any of the Townrs adopted view
corridors. View Corridor No. f is a view corrldor
fron the steps of the vail viltage Parkl-ng structure
extendLng over Vall Vlllaqe towardE VaiI ltlountain. ft
vas lntended to provide unobstructed views of Vail
Dlountain and key architectural features such as the
Clock Torter and the Rucksack Tower. The applicant has
certified, rith the assistance of Eagle valley
SurveyingrE Dan Corcoran, that the proposed
redevelopnent of the Covered Bridge Buildlng siII not
encroach lnto View Corrldor No. 1. It lE the etaff
opinion that thiE proJect w111 have an inslgnlflcant
inpact upon any other views or focal pointe from
adJacent properties.
H. SerlrrLce and Delivery:
The only nodiflcation with regard to service and
delivery for this proJect would be the addition of a
trash holding area at the southsest corner of theproperty. The applicants proPose to construct a 6-foot
high wood screen fence conpletely around the trashfacillty.
The parking requlrement for this proJect slll be net by
the applicants paying lnto the Town'e parklng fund.
These calculations are as follows:
Residential = 2.50 spaces required x $5,000 = 912,500.00Conmercial = 0.62 spaces regulred x $31000 = I 11860.00Total = 914,360.00
I. Sun./Shade:
The proposed expanslon will cast increased shadepatterns on the adJacent pocket park slte to the north
ind northwest. The staff believes this additional
shade wlll have rnininal inpacte in that the area of the
additional shading is nalnly to the northwest of the
pocket park and this area is heavlly landscaped with
large evergreen trees.
There will be no addltional shade cast along Bridge
Street, nor on the Covered Bridge.
J. Architectural/Landscape Consl.derations:
1) Architectural Considerations:
The staff believes the proJect to be in conpliance
with the architectural coneiderations as outlined
ln the cuide Plan, specifically vlth regard to
roof form and pitch, overhangs' bullding
materl-als, and color. The Design Review Board has
conpleted a conceptual review of this proJect (on
August 15, 1990) and although a fonnal vote waE
not taken at this prelinlnary hearing, the Board
reacted very favorably torard the proposal and had
no naJor design concerns.
2l Iandscape ConslderatLons:
The applicant is proposS.ng to relocate the twolarge evergreen treeE located at the northeast
corner of the elte. These trees are proposed to
be relocated into the Townrs adJacent pocket park
(please see attached site plan). The staff is
obviously concerned about the relocation of these
large evergreena. A letter on flle from GlenEllison, of Iand Designs by Elllson, specl.fically
Lndicates that nthe advantages of moving these
large spruce doee appear to be beneficial and
outweighe the initial Lnvestment and riek.rl
Because the existlng evergreens have grown so
close to the covered Bridge Building, the staff
bell.eves that the trees, when placed out into the
open pocket park area, will appear very one-sl-ded.
tle woul.d reconmend that these trees be placed
close together and be encouraged to grow as onecluster. If relocation of the trees proves to beinfeasible, due to the root systen being too closeto the building, the applicant has conmltted to
fund the replacenent of the trees, with two
evergreens havlng a nininun height of 25-feet.
VII.@
The staff recommendation on the exterior alteration for the
covered arldge Bullding is for approval . I{e applaud the
efforts of the appllcant to nodify and redesign the proposal
and to ellninate the need for any variances. We believethat the proJect will be a positive benefit to the connunity
as the covered Bridge Building has been in need of upgrading
for some tlne.
We feel strongly that the proJect is now ln conpliance with
the Vait Village Master Plan, as well as the urban Design
Guide PIan and oeslgm Consl.derations.
A staff condLtl-on of approval is as follows:
1. Prior to the Lssuance of a building petnit for the
redevelopment, the applicant shall post a bond orletter of credit, in a suffl.cient amount to cover the
replacenent of the two evergreen trees which are
proposed to be relocated. The relocated trees shall be
guaranteed to live for a period of not less than two
year6 fron the original date of relocation, or theywiII be replaced with two 25-foot tall evergreens.
10
.z?--= i.z;il
1
l
t
iI
trt
u
1
eo(9 "*o-t
.l
r$$ffi\r F
I
2'!'g
I
B$r
-{F$
\\\r\\\\|\\r
F-
--l-
r-J
I
It-1
I-|--J
-.Wl-;.+
P
-:--
WT5T C L EVAfION
oa?? o?'o?p
tJJA
q
ootI
f.
N
J
i
!,
0
%
-t
t-
E
l-
t7ll Iri
I
IIH
iiq
o
frrof
msha
0as
$n mmr, lnc.Tolephone:30U476€626
Pepi Gramshammer
Sheika Gramshammer
231 East Gore Creek Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
July 23, 1990
EillLE Akin & B:iuce AnD
17o East Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Hillis & Bruce,
As a neighbor to the Covered Bridge Store, I an ln favor of
the proposed rernodel and ecpanslon of your bullding. I belleve
that-thls vill approve the appearance of the building and the
entrance to Bridge Street.
As you know tbe north vall of Gasthof Gramstranmer Ls,not very
appEating and thLs erqlansion wlll approve the overall looks.
r hope that thls
improvenent.
Sincerely,, f) 1:zi-47-
PepL Gramsham[er
Pe/7s
letter wlll help ln the decLslon to approve thls
i:
t
!
i
I
.-oo
,/tL t -
' YqiL Ntfcutr4fern€r rl Con rlxu rU
201 Gore Creek Ihive
Bell Tower Building
JuIy 21' 1990
Town of Vail Planning DePartment
75 S. Frontage RoadVail, CO 81557
Dear Sirs:
This letter comes to express my suPPort for the re-
development of the Covered Bridge Building is
propos-ed by Mr. Bruce Amm and Mr. Eillis Aiken'
As the owner of Vail Management Company and the
Property Manager of the Creekside Condominiun
esslciation (fhe property adjacent to the subject
site), r have reviewLd the Pielinlnary Plans and-
find ihem to be a significant inprovement over the
existing buiJ-ding.
Thank you for your consideration of my opinion'
TC: sl
Vail Colorado 81657
(fi1r 4764262
Thomas R. CasVail Management
o
Xtl], 23, 1990
lb Eaddrrg
Sltfer r aqtpn!'
230 ddge s't.rtall, cb. 81657
lG hatr! rvifleat pfans fG tjte paopoced adnttldl
to tJ|G EiUis Bdjdl'tg. Rerrle and I feel thta
rpuld be a poeitive fttpsollcmnt that will.: ffi.HtrffiSilFi"ffiLffi*.
Slnoerclltr
iluilhwd.
David GGEuctl
263 F-C,orc Crnecl Drtvq V.tl, Cotordo 8f 65? 3Ot/17&2291
Delr tts!,
[t";
I",
w
t
Srrrr'n, Srrmr & Fn cldrroN,
NEAL ESTATE BROKERS AND CONSULTANTS
ZI' BRIDGE STREET
vAlL coLoR^Do 8167
o
INc.nE0JUN 1 e €90
TELEPHONE(8t a7e2a1
TELEFAX
@3) i|7t265E
June 7, 1990
!lr. Ron Phillips
Town of Vall
75 South Frontage RoadVail, CO 81657
Dear Ron:
I wanted to write as an interested neighbor regarding the proposed
Covered Bridge Store remodel . f support the proposal that is sub-nitted to the Town of Vail . I also feel that the sooner the pro-ject can get underway, the better. This sunner is already dis-rupted and it would be a good tine to get started. They have good
access to the back of the building which will help nitigate theinpact of construction.
I feel strongly that nany of the older buildings in Vail need tobe upgraded to current design standards. I also am concerned ifsonething is too big or not designed to fit into the neighborhood.In this case, I feel the design in very appropriate and would bea great improvenent over the current structure.
Bridge Street is probabj.y the nost visible and inportant street-
scape in Vail . I feel that the proposal for the Covered Bridgebuilding is long overdue and will be a definite inprovenent.
truly,Yours very
REs/jt
OFF|CES tN VAIL AND SEAVERCREEK
August 2, 1990
HAND DELTVERED
Mr. Mike Mollica, Senior Planner
Town of VaiI Community Development
75 South Frontage Road WestVai1, CO 8'1657
RE: Covered Bridge Building
Dear Mike:
Following your letter regarding the method of height calculation,
we have redesigned to comply. See enclosed drawing 1 through 13
dated August 2, 'l 990.
We would reguest PEC hear us on the 13th for Exterior Alterationsin CCl . We are continuing on the basis of the design to provide
you with the view analysis per our letter July 13, 1990. The nodel
based on this design will be ready for your reviel,rt next week. Dan
Corcoran is working to certify site coverage and we will get thatto you next week.
We will ask if we could present to DRB August 15 if we provide allproposal information August 3. The Owner/Applicant is anxious to
do the nodifications to the commercial levels by November 15, 1990,
and would appreciate your cooperation.
Don't hesitate to call
information.
Sincerely,
ARNOLD /GWATHMEY /PRATT
if you see problems or need additionaL
ARCHITECTS, INC.
NG/ad
Enclosures
Copy to Bruce Amm
Gwathmey,
t'
I
75 toulh trontrge road
Yell, colorado 61657
(3)3) 47S2138
(303) 47$'2139
IIAND DELIVERED
August 2, 1990
olfice ol communlly deYelopmenl
FttE cvPl
Mr. Ned Gwathney
Arnold Gwathney Pratt
1OOO S. Frontage RoadVail, CO 81657
RE: Cover.d Brldgc Bullding
Dear Ned:
The intent of this letter is to document our recent conversations
regarding the nethod of calculation for building height for !tt: -Coiered eridge property. After further analysis of the subrnittal
rnaterials, speclfically the survey and topo for the site, and at
your requestl tne stafi is now comfortable with a nodification of
our original interpretation regarding the calculation of building
heights. we are cognizant of the 6 to 8 foot difference in
neignt between the Bridge Street elevations and the existing
grades at the pocket park area innediately north of the Covered
Bridge Building.
tlith regard to the neasurement of height on this site' the
planning staff has now made the following interpretations:
1. fhat the covered Bridge Building site be divided equally'
beginning at the northeast corner of the property with a
line runnlng diagonal to the southqrest corner of theproperty. we lelieve that this will provide for a fair and
LquitaUle analysis of building height because it all.ows for
the Bridge Street elevation of the structure to be based
upon the grades on Bridge Street. It also allows for the
elevations of the building which front north to the pocket
park and west to Pepi's parking lot to be based upon the
existing grades in the park area.
o
2. That the baEe elevation of Bridge Street (8,161 feet) will
be used to detertnine heights for areas which fall lnto the
southeastern 50t of the divided property.
3. That the base elevatlon at the northrest corner of the
Covered Bridge Property (8,153 feet) will be used to
determine heights for the northwest 50t of the structure.
The above infornation should now clarify the staffrs position
with regard to the neasurement of building heights for the
Covered Bridge Building. Should you have any further guestions
or concerns regarding our interpretation of buildlng heLghts.or
should you feel the need to appeal our decision to the Planning
and Environmental ConnisEion, please let ne know by 5:oo p.n.
Aug"ust 3rd.
Sincerely,
NED GWATHMEY
I,ETTER' PAGE 2
llike Mollica
Senior Planner
uM/pp
llA tr,lL
;. I
JuIy 27, 1990
Mr. Mike Mollica,
Town of Vail
75 South FrontageVail, CO 81657
Senior Planner
Road West
RE: Covered Bridge Building
Revised Submittal Followlng PEC work Session
Dear Mike:
We have further revised the Covered Bridge Building taking into
account comments of the PEC in the work session of July 23, 1990-
We feel we do not need any variance for the design enclosed dated
JuLy 27, 199Q; therefore, the PEC acts only on Exterior Alterations
on CCl .
Our assurnptions on height are per my letter to you JuLy 24. At
this time we have not had a response, but feel our reguest htas
reasonable and cl.early reflect PEC commi.ssioners' comments.
we are proceeding on the basis of this design to provide you with
the view analysis as per our letter iruly 13, 1990. The new design
is so far below Pepits we question the need for the expensive
analysis, but are proceeding unless we hear otherwise.
The model based on this new design is underway and should be ready
for your review next week. Corky is determining and will certify
site coverage next week. We reguest you put us on the PEC agenda
for the next hearj.ng.
Mr. Mike Molllca -2-
The Owner has requested that \{e be allowed a
DRB prior to the PEC hearlng as the window ofquickly closlng for thIE construction season.
Please let me know if there are problerns withproposed schedule. Thank you for your tlnely
Slncerely,
ARNOLD / GWATH!,IEY / PRATT ARCnITECTS, P.C.
Gwathmey,
JuIy 27, 1990
conceptual review with
tirne/opportunity is
our design or
consideration.
NG/ad
Enclosures
copy to:Bruce Amm
JlIy 24, 1990
Mr. Mike Mol}ica, Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road WestVail, co 81 657
RE: Covered Bridge Building
Establishing Heights
Dear Mike:
Our impressj.on of the PEC work session was that no variance was
acceptable and vte are considering redesigning the building to meet
that objective. Recommendatlons of PEC members, especially Diannat
lead us to a reguest for you to consider the height measurement
Would the Staff consider amending "interpretation" page 4 so that
the measurements of height be:
- the base elevation of Bridge Street to determine heights for
the southern 50t of the structure.
- the base elevation of the northwest or northeast corner of
the covered Brldge propertfrfll-Etermine-irETgE'ts for the
northern 50t of the structure.
This change would enable us to address the "yellow waII of Pepi's
and then slope north toward the pocket park. We do not intend to
change our Bridge Street profile. The Owner is deciding to
take/reduce commercial space thus reducing building volume.
If we need to discuss, please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
ARNOLD/
Ned Gwathney,
NG/ad
THMEY/PRATT ARCHITECTS, P.C.
e4r
.-J
COVERED BRIDGE
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS:
Pepi Granshammer
Ron Riley
Rod Slifer
Dave Gorsuch
Creekside Condominium
c/o Vail Management
Johannes Faessler
c,/o Sonnenalp Hotel
llkJLr'-\+
, ',' tt
231 East Gore Creek Driver Vail
228 Bridge Street, Vail
230 Bridge Street' Vail
263 Gore Creek Drive, Vail
Association
201 Gore Creek Drive, Vail
20 Vail Road' Vail
K
,t
5' t.=:"'H;:"ll?uy'ili;ilT":3 :::::;",:fuil3'3ni"lol",l*i'
setback at 9 vail Roid--Holiday House, I,ot B, Vail Village
2nd Fiting.Applicant: Holiday House/Pinnacle Resorts
6. A request for a rnajor arnendnent to SDD No. 4'
Cotdstrearn Condominiums ln order to amend Sections 18.46.090
(B) density, 18.46.100 (B) floor area' 18.46.220 ernployee
housing and 18.46.23o tine requlrements to convert an
existing racquetball facllity lnto an enployee housing unit,
management office, laundry and owner storage area at Lot 53
clen Lyon Subdlvision, 1476 westhaven Drive.
Applicant: Coldstream Condoninlun Association.
7. A request for a setback variance in order to enlarge a
second story housekeeping serrrice room at Montaneros
Condominiuns located at 641 w. Lionshead Circle' Lot 8'
Block l, vail-LLonshead 3rd Filing.Applicant: Montaneros Condoniniun Association
8. A request for a wall height variance and an amendment to the
approved access plan for both lots at 145 and 126 Forest
Road, Lots 5 and 6, Btock 7, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Ron Byrne
A request for a helght variance at 2855 Snowberry Drive' Lot
6, Block 9, Vail Intermountain.Applicant: Doug and Michelle Cahill
10. A request for a height variance in order to erect a
satellite dish and a conditional use to expand hospital
space and add a satellite dish at the Vail Valley Medical
CLnter on L.ots E and F, Vail Viltage 2nd Filing (181 west
Meadow Drive).Applicant: VaiI Valley Medical center
11. A request for a side setback variance at Lot 3, Block 5 Vail
village lst Filing, Unit 3B--ValI Rowhouses, 3o3 Gore Creek
Drive.
Applicant:
L2. A reguest for an exterl-or alteration and a height variance
on tot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly a feet of L,ot B,
all in Block 5-8, Vail Vl1lage 1st Filing' 227 Bridge Street
(Covered Bridge Building) .Appllcant: Hillis of snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Ann &
Associates.
The appllcations and infonnation about the proposals are
available for public inspection in ttre Community Development
Department office.
Town of VaiI
Cornnunity Development Department
Published in the Vail Trail on ,ruly 27, L99o.
9.
Stewart Colton
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE fS HEREBY GMN that the Planning and ironnental
I
Env
Conmisslon of the Town of VaiI sill hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the nunicipal code of the -,..
Town of vail on Augrust 13, 1990 at 2:00 p.n. in the Town of Vail
Municlpal Building. Consideration of:
1. A work session on air qualltY.
2. A reguest for a conditional use pernit, a landscapevariance, and a setback varLance for a renediation systen
equiprnent building at the Alplne Standard Station, part of
Lot A, vail Vlllage 2nd FilLng, 285 S. Frontage Road West.
Applicants Amoco CorP.
3. A reguest for a major arnendnent to SDD No.
1e, part of parcel A, Lionsrldge subdivision, riling 2. (The
Valley Phase III)Applicant: Brad t Susan Tjossen
4. A request for a najor subdlvlsion, to.approve the
prelininary p1an, a request for a variance to the maximun
height for-rEtalning walls, and a request for a variance to
the maximum Percent grade for a road, on a parcel cornmonly
referred to as Spraddle Creek, an aPProximate 40 acre Parcel
located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and
east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Cornmencing at the
Northeast Corner of the Southeast I/4 of the Southwest L/4
of Section 5, Township 5 South, Range 80 west of the 6th
Princlpal Meridian, being an Eagle County Brass cap properly
narked and set, with aII bearings contained herein being
relative to a bearing of S 0o 11r 00rr E between the
Northeast corner of said Southeast L/4 of the Southweet L/4,
and the Southeast corner of Eaid Southeast 1rl4 of the
Southwest 1,/4 being an Eagle County Brass cap properly
marked and set; said Northeast Corner of the Southeaet L/4
of the Southwest L/4 being the Point of beginnlng; thence S
oo 11' oor E along the east llne of said Southeast l/4 of
the Southwest L/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1320.14 feet to
the Southeast Corner the sald Southeast L/4 of the Southwest
L/4 of Section 5i ttrence S 89 47r 48rr Yt along the south line
of said southeast L/4 of the Southwest- L/4 of Section 5 a
distance of 901.00 feett thence N 73 48t 32t' l{ along
Interstate 7o Right of Way line a distance of 2L4.12 feeti
thence N 66 52 | L2tt W along said Right of Way line a
distance of 24L. 1O feet to a point on the west lLne of eald
Southeast L/4 of the Southvest L/4 of Sectlon 5t thence N OO
2Or 31r W along the west line of saLd Southeast 1rl4 of the
southwest L/4 of section 5 a distance of 11.61.66 feet to the
Nortbwest corner of the Southeast L/4 of the SouthwesX l/4
of Section 5 being an Eagle County brass cap Properly narked
and sett thence N 89 41r 12rr E along the north line of Eal-d
Southeast L/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a diEtance
of 1331.0? feet to the Point of Beginning. Said real
property containing 39.55 acres, more or less.
Applicant: George Gillett, Jr.
oo
U*t t,Yp
'l . z)'la .. PEC w uL/it*l-,h
NJ - Ry.t*,* 7i -.o'.''z T*irl 9X. aL fu ,1"'4"ry ft *ft4# O,/vta{*;+ef4,,2 ',&. ,t"2J
Arr-L/ a.o,<>4
/*
,6fud,dr-\r/t*'Ttl ,* f "/ % tE se/sa\ ,*z,t 1l + " fu "1'LN H
4e6J tfr{-"-f-^4L
IF-.,,t o
y* pJ, t.do-40
\d,u, Il,,ffit
'fr[,ud,$.'hr,btb
(lru&i \oo wu.r-&
oN^-nl' - \3 ,U Nob h t Fsb,.h,rll{il
1\€N'..b ba,,\.- foA ?nni,'3 \ ir mors\\urv. odrff^e
VC\"\: pre[B^r 4\pi^o- ac,{on
-o
bhre&'rl ^{-m[.\
\ltc'U€^ . ?\hr^ S^Dt 3-'\ -- n,),1\ qludio^,
\5 S *r-€J
lu r\. t,r; a- Uo.r,\agq- [tPaan I uro^,* \u
ge- o*or"L,*.r^{- i^iD. h,4 5} - doo, u,ot
sap- *t-o_ q\q\cC \na.do\r?- ,
$ io,^.,a,
CVrJ't liVru t\L rt,r,p *( o[u d"t t\b - \Hr ano- \oaici
\ib- " fuc\
aaleal r',,,'.\u [^A i&ddeh;^ u,\or\ ,*,t
ti8^\ \iLe- funfi\'in,r-l, '
un'@.r^l.d -\let yu u.rill t^ore {o Pl% b1 tLn4,Do[I^. I
,*dll1,
,rlv
Date of Conference: July 13, '1 990
Place: Community Development Office
Present: Mike Mollj.ca, Senior Planner
Ned Gwathmey
Re: Covered Brldge Building
Alterations in CC1 and Height Variance
Points discussed:
1. Ned has discussed the Staff's positions per the memo dated
,July 12 with applicant who wants to proceed based upon positive
direction recei.ved in PEC work sessi.on.
2. Improvements on Town property discussion will be scheduled with
Town Council in work session Tuesday p.n. July 17.
In discusslon of the proposed improvements with Mike, Public
Works nixed the proposed alpine garden as they will continue to
stack snow 1n the proposed location.
Also the two trees to be removed and replaced,or relocated will
be the subject of an agreement between the applicant and Tor.tn.
Further, the paved surfaces proposed by the applicant were felt
by the Staff to be too formal and suggested they be nade
gravel.
3. The Staff's position is that they will not support a 12'height
variance in spite of the direction of PEC that a greater height
and sloping roof off Bridge Street was a better alternative
than a 33'wall on the street. (The drawings have been revised
to show a reguest for 8' height variance.) Discussion followed
on the absence of hardship; the applicant's position is that
virtually no improvement can occur without sone variance. The
present outdated building is far lnferior to the surrounding
structures and asks for no more than has been accorded these
buildings.
CONFERENCE MEMO
Date of Conference: JuIy 13, '1990
Place: Community Development Office
Present: Mike Mollica, Senior Planner
Ned Gwathmey
Re: Covered Bridge BuildingAlterations in CC1 and Height Variance
Points discussed:
1. Ned has discussed the Staffis positions per the memo datedJuly 12 with applicant who wants to proceed based upon positive
directi.on received in PEC work session.
2. Improvements on To$rn property discussion witl be scheduled with
Tor{tn Council in work session Tuesday p.n. JuIy 17.
In discussion of the proposed improvements with Mike, Public
Works nixed the proposed alpine garden as they will continue tostack snow in the proposed location.
Also the two trees to be removed and replaced or relocated willbe the subject of an agreement between the applicant and Town.
Further, the paved surfaces proposed by the applicant were feltby the Staff to be too formal and suggested they be madegravel .
3. The Staffrs position is that they will not support a 12r heightvariance in spite of the direction of PEC that a greater height
and sloping roof off Bridge Street vras a better alternativethan a 33'walL on the street. (The drawings have been revisedto show a reguest for 8t height variance.) Discussion followedon the absence of hardship; the applicant's position is thatvirtually no improvement can occur without some variance. Thepresent outdated building is far inferior to the surroundingstructures and asks for no more than has been accorded thesebuildings.
4.
Conference Memo -2-Re: Covered Bridge BuildingAlterations in CC1 and Height Variance
July 1 3, 1990
Flood plain infringements were discussed and the drawings are
revised to eliminate new construction in the flood plain; infact, some exj.sting construction will be elimj-nated at ground
leveI.
View corridor determinatj.ons are j-n process: see enclosed
Ietter regarding the process.
Mike asked Ned to write how this application relates to theVaiI Village Master Plan. (See enclosed narrative. )
Mike asked for the existing commercial sguare footage and
calculations of the proposed areas.
Mike criticized the west elevation which has been revised (see
enclosed).
9. Mike requested that the sun/shade analysis show existing
shadow. The document enclosed shows the shadows generated bythe existing roof and the revised p1an.
10. Mike suggested a model would be helpful . Ned will comply tothe suggestion if time allows.
11 . Mike reguested site area and site coveragle be certified by a
surveyor and this is in the process.
The foregoing constitutes our understanding of natter discussed anddecisions reached. If the interpretation of others varies, please
inform us in writing.
Ned
5.
6.
7.
8.
t\d
CONFERENCE MEMO
Date of Conference: July 12, 1990
Place: Community Development Office
Present: Kristen PrLtz
Mike Mollica
Ned Gwathmey
Re: Covered Bridge Building
Preparation for PEC Hearing
Kristen
1.
initiated the meeting by stating these concerns:
The view corridor analysis must be completed
notwithstanding Dan Corcoranrs letter stating due to
construction/removal of the base point, the work was
impossible.
Moving trees is not feasible/desirable as they arethree-sided; might consider replacements out further withlarge nursery-qrown trees.
Columns cannot be in flood plain without variance in spite
of the fact that a large structure, i.e. the stair, is inthe flood plain and will be removed. ?./In spite of the direction of discussigt(tn the P.E.C. work
session, Kristen stated staff will @6@not consider
supporting height variance of 12'-OFwithout proof ofhardship. She suggested the building be redesigned within
the height even if the commercial space is taken. Slopedroofs are clearly recommended/deslrable.
Sj.te acreage must be certified as well as site coverage.
Improvements on town property must be discussed with TownCouncil; Mike will schedule the discussion if given the
go-ahead.
The commercial square footage existing and proposed must be
determined.
2.
3.
4.
6.
7.
Covered Bridge Building
Preparation for PEC Hearing
Conference Memo
-2-July '12, 1 990
or
now with
signals
Nrt fu"'t\
The Staff had a lengthy list of er reguests/requirements.
stated that the Staff ssed th
concerns in the P.E.e. work session. The Owner is faced
vE-f untimely and unclearfrom Town Officials and Town Boards. The benefits of this projectto the Town are not the purview of the Staff; the choices are toproceed without their positive reconmendations; withdraw completelyor to redesign to comply. The Owner will be consulted as soon aspossible and a decision transmitted to the Staff.
The foregoing constitutes our understanding of matters discussed
and decisions reached.
If the interpretation of others varj.es, please inform us inwriting.
EMGW
Fax to Bruce Amm
July 1 3, 1990
Ms. Kristen Pritz, Director of Community Development
Mr. Mike Mollica, Senior Planner
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road WestVail, CO 81657
RE: Covered Bridge Building
View Corridor Analysis
Dear Kristen and Mi.ke:
Having met with Dan Corcoran and visited the site, we would propose
the follohting:
In that the point from which the view corridor was established
has been removed in the present parking sLructure remodel, we
will have Eag1e Valley Surveying re-establish its horizontal
position. This assumes the Town and the Contractor will allow
us access to that area for a 4 hour period.
Then we will hire a cherry picker vehicle to raise a camera
operator to the level advised by Eagle Valley and take
essentially the same photo as the one on which the view
corridor-was initially plotted.
The outline of the proposal will be shown on the Covered Bridge
Buitding with temporary structure and flagging and will
hopefully be visible from the view point.
Dan Corcoran cannot certify the photo as surveyors deaf in
variances in hundredths and circumstances beyond our controlprohibit establishing a rigid point which no longer exists.
Our feeling is that with the redesign we are developing, we are
unguestj.onably out of the view corridor. The necessity of
establishing accuracy to hundredths wiLl not be necessary.
Ms. Kristen Pritz
Mr. Mike Mollica -2-July 13, 1990
In that there is a great deal of coordinatlon tine and expense
necessary to complele this exercise we would reguest your comfort
wlth the-proposal . Please let rne know if we need to review the
proposed process, visit the site or Town cannot make the site
available.
Slncerely,
ARNOLD/GI{ATHMEY/PRATT ARCIITTECTS, P.C.
lvffi'%
Ned Gwathmey
t
NG/ad
copy to: Bruce ArtlIIt
Dan Corcoran
COVERED BRIDGE BUILDING PROPOSALS
NARRATTVE OUTI.,INfNG APPLICABLE REFERENCES
IN VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
fn the Executive Summary:
"Wi.thin this context the Master Plan is one of several documents
that have been developed to preserve and strengthen the
Tyrolian/A1pine character of VaiI Village while allowing for
limited, highly controlled growth . . . the Master Plan recognizes
the need for growth and redevelopment, but at the sane timepreservation of the 'historical aspect of the Vail Villagle. "'
"From numerous public meetings, a consensus emerged that additional
development was acceptable, even desirable, as long as it did notsignificantly alter the existing character of the Village."
Proceeding through the established goals as lve feel they apply;
Goal #1 : Encourage High Quality Redevelopnent while preserving the
unj-gue architectural scale of the Village in order tosustain j.ts sense of community and identity.
Focus on "encourage. "
GoaL #2: Foster strong tourist industry.
GoaI #3:To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of thewalking experi.ence throughout the Village.
"physically i.mprove existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other improvements."
GoaI #4: ttPreserve existing open space area.rl
Goal #5: Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency andaesthetics of the transportation-and circulalion systemthroughout the Village.
Goal #6: To ensure the continued improvement of the vitaloperational elements of the Vi11age.
DetaiLed examination of the "Land Use Plan" shows that theapplication is consistent; in fact, bringing into complj-ance.
Mixed use emphases are shown to make signj.ficant contributions tothe vitality of the pedestrian experience in the Village.
COVERED BRIDGE BUILDING PROPOSALS PAGE 2
NARRATIVE OUTLINING APPLICABLE REFERENCES IN
VAIL VILLAGE MASIER PLAN
Open space plan calls for area to be plaza with green space which
we are proposing to enhance.
Building Height - 3-4 stories, encourage.Varied roof heights
We propose to have a basement and four floors - the top of
which is included in a sloping/varied roof.
"Height Profile" shows/proposes greater height on Gore Creek than
South towards Pepi's if that is intended.
Under Commercial Core 1 Sub Area #3:
"The traditional image of VaiI . . . mixture of residentiaL and
commerciaL uses" . "with the exception of embellishingpedestrian walkways developing plazas with green space and
adding a number of infill developments, it is a goal of the
community to preserve the character of the viJ.lage as it is
today. tt
The Covered Bridge Building is especially named:
"Although it is a goal to maintain design continulty in theVillage core, there will be change in the core area's builtenvironment. This is mostly due to the number of properties that
have not exercised their full development rights. Most notable
among these properties are the Red Lion Building, the CyranosBuilding, the Lodge at Vail, and the Covered Bridge Building. If
each of these and other properties develop to their full potential,
there will undoubtedly be a significant increase in the level of
development in the Village core. "
We feel this is an opportunity to enhance both the pedestrian andarchitectural experience encouraged in the Vail Village Master
Plan.
TO:
FROU:
DATE:
SU&'ECT:
Planning and Environrnental corumission
Connunlty Developnent Departnent
JuIy 23, 1990
A reguest for a work gession for an exterior alteration
and a helght variance on Lot C and Lt D' and tbe
southwest-rly 4 feet of I€t B, all ln Block 5-8, Vail
village lst Flling, 227 Bridge street.Applicant: Hillls of Snonnass, Inc. and Bruce Anrt &
Associates.
I.DESCRIIITION OF THE REOI'EST
The applicants are ProposLng a uajor redevelopment of the
covered Brldge Building located at.227 Bridge Street. The
proposal calls for major nodiflcatlons to the front entrance
or Lne existlng cornnercl.al spaces, the creation of lower
level conmercLil spaces utrlch would be accessible fron two
stairs directly on Bridge Street, infill on the north and
northwest sect-lons of the existing structure, the addition
of an elevator at the northwest corner of the bullding, and
the addition of two upper floors, predoninantly located
along the rtest section- of the structure. The existing
coveied stalrs located along both the west and north
elevations rrould be renoved. A sprinkler systen for fire
protection wiII be added to the entire building and a1l
exits will be brought uP to code.
The applicants lrave also proposed to upgradg th9 adJacent
pockel-park to the north of tfre covered Bridge Building.
The owner of ttre covered Bridge Building had prevlously made
the foltowing applications with regards to tlre
redevelopment:
1. An exterior alteratlon request;
2. A site coveragte variance reguest;3. A height variance request;4. A landscape variance request; and
5. A floodplain nodificatlon reguest.
The proJect hae been nodified since the last PEc work
sess-ion-and the reguests are notr aE follows:
1. An exterior alteratl.on request;
?. A height variance reguest
The site coverage variance, landscape variance- and
floodplain nodiilcation regueets have been withdrawn.
IT. ZONTNG CONSIDERATIONS
The following is a prelinlnary sunnary of the proposed
redevelopment for the covered Bridge Building. It should be
pointed out that these are Etlll prelfunlnary figures only,
and are subJect to verificatlon fron a regJ.stered surveyor
and the planning staff.
3.
1. Lot Size:
Buildable Area:
2. Site Coverage:
6.GRFA:
41675.32 square feet
4r510.32 square feet
b) Allowable between 33r-43t = 11806
Proposed between 33r-43t = 494
36 ft.
51 ft.
6O* of the buitding nay
be up to 33r and up to
40* of the building may
be higher than 33 r, but
no higher than 43 r.
sq. ft. or 60*sq. ft. or 36*
sq. ft. or 40tsq. ft. or llt
4.
= 2,708
= 1r518
= o Eq. ft. or 0t
= 2'402 sg. ft. or 53t
Existing = osq.ft.
Allonable - 31609 sq. ft.
Proposed = 31609 sq. ft.
Existing - 84t on{6Allowable -pg( ,.bV '"
Proposed =(8J9'
Building Heights: Exlsting G
ProPosed =Allowable =
Roof Area Percentages:
a) Allowable below 33 |
Proposed below 331
c) Allowable above 43r
Proposed above 431
5. Density:
Exlstlng Dwelling units = o
Allowable hrelling Units F 2
Proposed Dwelling Units = 2
7. Courrercial Square trootage:Existing - 9'334 sq. ft.
Proposed = 1O1076 sg. ft.
8. Floodplaln: The existing 100-year floodplaln, as indicated
by fEraA is currently 7.2 inches, vertically, above the
eiisting Erade along the north elevation of the existing-
buildini iall. No iurther encroachnents lnto.the floodplain
are profosed, in fact, a portion of the existing
o
encroachment (covered stair on north elevation) wiII be
renoved fron the floodplain.
IIT. COI{PLTANCE WITH THE PT'RPOSE SECTION OF COI{MERCIAL CORE T
18.24 . OlO hrroose:
The coDnercial Core I District ls lntended to provide sites
and to uaintaln the unique character of the vail Village
CommercLal Area, with i€s mlxture of lodges and conmercial
estabtlshnents in a predonlnantly pedestrian environment.
The cornnercial core I District ls lntended to enEure
adeguate llght, alr, open Epace, and other anenities
approprlate-to ttre penitted tlpes of buildings and uses.
fhe a-ietrict regrulations in accordance with the Vall ViIIage
urban Destgn cuiae Plan and Deslgn Consideratlons prescr 'besite developnent standards that are intended to ensure the
maintenance and preserrration of the tightly clustered
arrangenents of bulldlngs frontlng on pedestrian ways and
public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building
scale ana arctr-itectural qualltles tlrat distingruish the
Village.
IV. PRELTUINARY STAFF COU},TENTS
The staff has reviewed the applicantre Eubmittal and we have the
following concerns reqarding the application:
1.Building height concerns. The proposed rnaxinum height of
the structure would be 51r-7il. The staff prefers to gee the
height requirenents (whlch are id
prerers Eo se
ln Section IIto redesignight variance.
The staff has been unable to L LcaI hardship
and at this tine cannot suPPort licantrs reguest for
acknowledge and suPPort
of
thethe meno) net and encourages the a
roof and upper levels to avoid tld
a height variance, although we do
the upgrade of the building.
The Vail Village Urban Deslgn Considerations, specifically
streetscape Framework and street Enclosurer encourages
buildlngs to be stepped back fron pedestrian areas to
provide-a rconfortablerr enclosure for the etreet.
The Vail Village Master PIan has ldentified thie area as
having an acceltable range of bullding heights in.the 3-4
story-category. A building ttory ls defined as 9r of height
and no roof ls included.
Because there is a 6r dlfference in height between Bridge
street and the pocket park area the applicant-has requested
the staff to relnalyze and lnterpret tthere bullding helght
base elevations will be calculated from.
gr-7n h
Regarding the rneasurenent of helghts on this site, the staff
has made the following lnterpretatlons:
- That the base elevation of Bridge Street will be usedto determine heights for the eastern 50t of the
Etructure.
2.
- That the base elevation
Covered Bridge property
helghts for the western
Landscaping Concerns:
at the northwest corner of thewlll be used to determine
5Ot of the structure.
3.
a) The applicant Le proposing to either relocate the two
Iarge evergreens trees, which are located Juet to thenorth of the exlsting buLlding, or to replace ealdtrees by purchasing two of the largest avallable
nursery grown evergreens. The applicant proposes to
relocate or replace the trees onto the Townrs adJacent
pocket park.
b) Consideration should be given to landscaping on Bridge
Street, along the east elevatlon of the bulldlng.
Architectural issues:
a) The north and west elevations - Perhaps addltional
balconies and/or bay windows can be added to both
elevations to further enhance the buildingre aPPearance
and to provlde additional visual I'nterest. We belleve
the north elevation can be further refined to enhance
the pedestrian experience in the adJacent pocket park
and ie would reconmend that the north wall be stepped
back to provide nore openness in the pocket park area.
b) The east elevatLon - t{e have sone concerns with the' revised front entry and the stairs leading to the
proposed retail Bpaces on the basement level .
Fedbstrian access and views of the retail aPaceB are
dinlnished. The applicant has uoved the connercial
windows on the lowei level further out towards Brldge
Street, however, rtlthout the ald of a nodel lt is
difflcult to determlne lf the propogal le adeguate.
Proposed lnprovenents for the Town of Vall pocket park
irnrnLalately north of the Covered aridge Buildlng. llhe
appLicant -is proposlng to upgrade this pocket park area and
the fown Council, on July L7' L99O' has Eranted the
applicant approval to nove fonrard wlth desigrrs for the park
and to proceed through the planning process.
4.
5.
6.
Staff is of the opinlon that this pocket park should be
designed in a very lnfomal nanner. We have reconnended no
hard surfaces or pathe and a general upgrade of the turf
areas with a few benchee located near the creek. l{e havealso suggested that a nviewing platfornrr be located at the
Bridge Street level and be cantllevered over the existing
retaining wal.I near the Covered Bridge. This would provldefor a seating area, photo point and would also be avallable(with a detachabte railinE) for enow storage during theslnter monthe.
View Corridors--the appllcant has hlred Eagle Valley
Sunreying to certlfy uhether the proposed structure
encroaches into any of the Townrs adopted view corridors.
This infonation shall be required before a public hearlngis scheduled before the PBC.
The followLng subnlttal infornation l,E etilt pending:
a) A scale nodel of the proposal and adJacent pocket
park.b) Certification, by a registered sutiveyor' of thelot size, bulldable area (lot area out of the 100-
year floodplain), and the existing buildings site
coverage.c) Staking of the proposed building.d) Note: AIl roof overhangs and decks, etc. nust be
within the confines of the applicantrs site.
LAt{Psil ffiret-'
I I.IDTRF-ID EE FEI1AO/ED.'' -z's<t4i{z q@A|61l^#)&
AO TE re.Qct&lwg+
- Wttt- A)a t roR wtt{ltl
A\at'l WF.+E
+ lFFl€rATP I'al&H
€t. VALI€ ra bE 4FAVELj
4.tp |F4{-\PFt"'WVAN"ffii,ffiH
no one' HefiTNG' gB1Oi.ff
,7rll3uq'7{Jr 1 AWeer-.
@VW Pfl4r€\'--,>
v*@ 6"tl w
twa\L f@ftcfi lr,Yrlt f".afgeft
7vo7ex'r1 wle
f\t
T
U#fff[rt#W"ilf#.ff..'
PrPbs qlTr-Dl
Date 1'1-'lo
Fevlsed:
'1 't5 '14
/
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
COVERED BRIDGE BUILDING
I
I
.-l*
rLqslrn
lrll
F
F.rtr
F.
tr
rE
ITl,
I
tr
xF
ht4
e
i
lin
ll
il
iIrlll
II
\
/.
I
l
-l
tFrFH
il-
lrr
IFt<IP
l-1
lst-
I
ri
ll
t-f
, tt.$
---'t
ILII
. .,H1H /
g.;,1'
f-4 i
"T'-I
i,F Fi tli Big tli t[
, ll' i
' lil- ;i'. l:,. , i*
F*HH
I':ll
il.l
:.''|
rM ELEVATIONWEST Data 1.ro.ao
Revlsed
-1,.17.P.-J
thcct ttrr$cr
COVERED BRIDGE BUILDING
oo
oor= July 19' 1
C
990
RECORD
RECORD€D $Y; Charlie Raggq
TALKED WtTH: Mr. Martin flil ler
NATUR€ OF CALL:
ROUTE TO:
INCOMING q OUTGOTNG
INFORMATION
R[]'0 , u
TELEPHONE O:T'TVERSATION
JOB NO.: 384-00l '?
OwnrgnlCUrENT: Mr. Bruce Amm
-,,c U.S. Arm_v Colqs- of Enoineers- -legUlaaktry Office, GrandtJ Junction-r!$graOo
MA|N sugJEcr oF CALL: Permit for Dredge'/fil'l on Gore creek
ITEMS OTSCUSSED' Mr' Martin Miller ca'lled to provide an answer to our
I etter
Covered Bridge Store-
Char'l ie Baggs, P.E.
HYDRO-TRIAD, LTD
copy Mr. Ned Gwathme , Architect
Mr. Bruce Anm
M'i ke Mol I i ca
rtt r lr?/7:l
HYORO-TR'AD, L7-D.
oo
On..-rf ,* h*/ ft 4 t> 7d/ /4:^
OC',**4+: .epN lf.T*4
o
0
o
N*-/
oo
- /;/-.Q tA"\ d.c<aza-
l:
ll'
l
1:30
Mike Mollica
2:00
Mike Mollica
Shelly Mello
2:05
2:30
Sandy Blaha
2.40
Steve Barwi ck
Sa11y Lorton
2:55
Steve Barwick
3: 15
3:35
t1i ke lrlo'l I i ca
1.
2.
VAIL TOI.IN COUNCIL
l.lORK SESSION
TUESDAY, JULY 17, I99O
1:30 P.M.
EXPANDED AGENDA
Site Visit
141 East Meadow Drive ' Crossroads Condominiums
(For the PEC appeal to be acted on at the Evening Meeting
tonight.) (App'licant: Sid Schultz for H. t{illiam Smith)
Design Review Board Report
Discussion with State Representative Danny l.ljlliams
Update Presentation on Northwest Colorado Council of
Governments
Discussion of Business License Ordinance
Action Requested of Council: Please see enclosed memo.
Background Rationale: Several local bed and breakfast
operators have recently complained to the Town that the
Town's business'l icense ordinance unfairly exempts operators
of short term rental unjts. Staff recommends a change in
the business license ordinance in order to correct this
probl em.
Discussjon of Supplemental Appropriation 0rdinance No. 24,
Series of 1990
Action Requested of CoUncil: Ask questions and give
direction as desired.
Background Rationale: A supplemental appropriation for the
ffidget is necessary in order to fund
additional items approved by Council.
Discussion of County-wide Bus System
Discussion of a reoue the owners of the Covered Bri dge
Bui roceed throuqh nvotvrng
ifrFrovements Co Ehe-iownEpocket park, which is located
immediately north of the Covered Bridge Building (227 Bridge
Street - Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of
Lot B, all in Block 5-8, Vail Village lst Filing)
(App1icant: Hillis of Snourmass and Bruce Amm & Associates)
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny the request.
Background Rationa'l e: The ownens of the Covered Bridge
@pplications for an exterior alteration
and a height variance. A maior remodel of the building is
proposed and the applicants are also proposing to upgrade
the adjacent TOV pocket park.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the
request.
?
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
fiff^*
Udte
1-o
I
3:40 9. Discussion of lease memorandum agreement for employee
Steve Barwick housing (App'licant: Professional Development Corporation -
Tom Campbe'l'l )
Action Requested of Council: Consider the proposed
ffisdesired.
Background Rationale: The Town of Vail is considering
@ memorandum agreement with Professional
Development Corporation for the purpose of constructing
employee housing on several parce'l s of Town owned land.
4:10 10. Information Update
Ron Phillips
4:15 11. 0ther
4:25 L2. Executive Session - Land Negotiations
Fred Green
t
-2-
'(O\non-\^ *U1bd\t- n otfu- +
te'f'tLY[qt'** *
July 1 3, 1990
Ms. Kristen Pritz, Director of Community DevelopmentMr. Mike Mollica, Senior Planner
Town of VaiI
75 South Frontage Road WestVaiI, CO 81657
RE: Covered Bridge Building
View Corridor Analysis
Dear Kristen and Mike:
Having met with Dan Corcoran and visited the site, we would proposethe following:
fn that the point from which the view corridor was establishedhas been removed in the present parking structure remodel, wewill have Eag1e Valley Surveyj.ng re-establish its horlzontalposition. This assumes the Town and the Contractor will allowus access to that area for a 4 hour period.
Then we will hire a cherry picker vehicle to raise a cameraoperator to the 1eve1 advised by Eagle Valley and takeessentially the same photo as the one on which the viewcorridor was initially plotted.
The outline of the proposal w111 be shown on the Covered BridgeBuilding with temporary structure and flagging and willhopefully be visible from the view poi.nt.
Dan Corcoran cannot certify the photo as surveyors deal invariances in hundredths and circumstances beyond our controlprohibit establlshing a rigid point which no longer exists.
Our feeling is that with the redesign hre are developing, lye areunguestionably out of the view corridor. The necessity ofestablishj.ng accuracy to hundredths will not be necessary.
0( ,*/ 4 /""'A i /*e 4F-o\ Sr^-2 @+
c6rhut4i.- a\ fOV /,wZ/ ///< ,/4\Cil,( fi,tnt
'l , tr.? o
*/ lcL Co**".A (+2q - ?,12^ ,* con)';,-.A.
Ms. Kristen Pritz
Mr. Mike Mollica -2-July 13, 1990
fn that there is a great deal of coordlnation time and expense
necessary to complete this exercise we would reguest your comfortwith the proposal . Please let me know if we need to review theproposed process, visit the site or Tovrn cannot make the siteavailable.
Sincerely,
Ned Gwathmey
NG/ad
copy to: Bruce Anm
Dan Corcoran
,
June 27, 1990
l{r. Mike Mollica, Senior Planner
Conmunlty Development
Torvn of Vail
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
RE: covered Bridge Building Proposed Modifications
Dear Mike:
ilEfl ' ' ,:]19go
Since the extremely informative PEC work session June 25, 1990, we
have revised the plans and application to:
1. Eliminate proposed construction into the flood plain; in
fact, removing the north stair which is presently in theflood way.
2. Maintain existing building site coverage.
3. Increase landscape areas.
4. Make elevations per suggestions of PEC, Jeff Winston, et
aI.
We understand the continuing need for:
'1 . Exterior Alteration request (enclosed).
2. Height Variance reguest (enclosed).
Pursuant to your letter to Bruce Amm June 18, 1990, in light of the
above, we anticipate that you will reguest the following which we
are enclosing:
1 . Roof plan showing all the proposed ridges as \^te11 as
existing ridge lines and the associated elevations. This
roof plan wiII show percentage of roof area constructed to
height of 33'or less, percentage between 33'and 43'and
percentage 43' to 53 r.
Mr. Mike Mollica -2-June 27, 1990
Sun,/shade analysis for the proposed structure.
Proposed west elevation.
Documentation indicating that the proposed structure doesnot encroach into any of the adopted view corridors of the
Town of Vail.
5. A written analysis describing how this proposal complieswith the recently approved Vail Village Master Plan.
6. Proposed Landscape Plan indicating all trees to be removed,as weII as aII nerir, proposed landscapi_ng.
After revi.ewing these applications, could you please let Mr. Arnm
and ne know what meeting schedule lve can anticipate so that he can
make travel arrangements.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
ARNOLD/GWATHMEY/PRATT ARCHITECTS, P.C.
2.
3.
4.
M
Enclosures:CC1 Alterations
Height VariancesFour Sets of Plans
sun/shade AnalysisLetter from Glen Ellison regarding moving thespruce away from the North Wal1.
For your records/reference the drawings whichdiscussed in the June 25 PEC work session.
two blue
were
Ned Gwathmey,
NG/ad
Exterior Alterations
18.24.065
13.24 .010
oat. orQpl i cati on-.,11msl5+Jg9!-
Date of PEC Meeting .-lulv 23 * 1 990
APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR ALTEMTIONS
OR MODIFICATIONS IN COMMERCIAL CORE I
VAIL VILLAGE
I. Planning and Environmental Cormission review is required for the alteration
of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area or
outdoor patio or the replacement of an existing building LOCATED IN THE CCI
DISTRICT. FOLL0I.IING PEC APPR0VAL, THE PR0JECT MUST BE REVIEI,IED BY THE DRB.
The application will not be accepted unti'l a'll information is submitted.
A. NAME 0F APPLICANT Mr. Bruce Amm, Bruce Amm & Assoc. PTY LTD.
ADDRESS P.o. Box 62
Pymble, New South Wa1es, Australia 2073 PHONE
B. NAME 0F APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Ned Gwathmey, Arnold,/Gwathmey/
Pratt Architects, P.C.
ADDRESS 1000 South Frontase Road West, Vail I CO 81 657
Pi.l0NE 476-1147
c.NAME 0F ollNER(S) (int type) nir is of Snordmass
STGNATURE( S)
ADDRESS
D.LOCATION
ADDRESS
285 Brid e Street Vai-1 co 81657
PHoNE 476-4182
0F PR0P0SAL: LEGAL Lots B,C,D, Block 5-B, Vail VilJ-age
First Filing
E. FEE $100.00
THE FEE MUST BE PAID
REVIEl^l YOUR PROJECT.
ered Bridqe Buildin
PAID cK#
BEFORE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I,IILL
BY
II. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE:
A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED
TO DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED. NO APPLICATION l,lILL
BE ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL ITEMS REQUIRED BY THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THE APPTTcRI'IT's REsPONsIBILITY.TO MAKE AN APPOINT-
MENT I,IITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REqUIREMENTS.
PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION WILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS
FOR YOUR PROJECr ev-DEeRtrAStNG THE NUMBER 0F coNDrrroni or nppnovAL THAT
THE PEC T|AY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED I.IITH BEFOREA BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSTM" THE FOLLOWING MUST EE iUBI'TTTEO.
A. Improvement survey of property showing property Iines and location ofbuilding and any improvements on the land. Ea91e va11ey survey enclosed.
B. A list of the names of owners of a'll property adjacent to the subjectproperty INCLUDING PR0PERTY BEHIND AND ACR0SS STREETS, and their mailing
AddTCSSCS. THE APPLICANT t,lILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT MAILING ADDRESSES.
Don Galgon and Tom Backhus, Slifer' Smith & Frampton
OVER
III. Four (4) copies of a site plan containing the following
ccI
i nformati on :
x 36" at a scale
TO THE SITE. A
the Community
THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN
NOTED IN SECTION
A.- _The site plan shall be drawn on a sheet size of 24',of l" = 20' SH0WING EXISTING AND PR0P0SED IMPR0VEMENTSvariation of the sheet size or scale may be approved by
Development Department if justified.
B. The date, north amow, sca'l e and name of the proposed development
l.lITH ITS LEGAL DESCRIPTI0N shal'l be shown on the'site plan.
c. The existing topographic character of the site including existingand proposed contours. This condition wi'l I only be reqiired for-anexpansion area where there is a change of two fiet of jrade.
D. The existing and proposed landscaping, patios.
E. The location of all existing and proposed bui'ldings, structures, and improvements.
F. .A title report to verify ownership and easements.
IV. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT IN WRITTEN AND GRAPHIC FORM A PREPONDEMNCE0F EVIDENCE BEF0RE THE PLANNING AND ENVIRoNMENTAL CoMMrSsroN iHoicAiiruelftAl:
A. THE PROPOSAL IS IN CONFORMANCE I,III'H THE PURPOSES OF THE CCi DISTRICT- AS SPECIFIED IN IB.24.OIO.
B. THE PROPOSAL SUESTANTIALLY COMPLIES WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGNGUIDE PLAN REGARDING:
l. Pedestrianization2. Vehicle Penetration3. Streetscape Framewoik4. Street Enclosure5. Street Edge6. Building Height7. Views8. Sun Shade Consideration
MANY OF THE ABOVE ITEMS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY GRAPHIC MEANS, SUCHAs SKETCHES, SIMULATIoNS, M0DELS (INcLUDING NEIGHBoRING su1_Dlt{eij,
PHOTOS, ETC.
IF THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A MAJOR CHANGE TO
DESIGN GUIDE PLAN, THE PROCEDURE FOR CHANGES ARE18.?4.?20(B).
C. THE PROPOSAL IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHAMCTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
V. THE TOI.IN OF VAIL ZONING CODE FOR CCI ALSO DESCRIBES OTHER ZONING ISSUESTHAT THE APPLICANT MUST RESPOND TO IN I.IRITTEN OR GRAPHIC FORM.
VI. THE ZONING ADMINISTMTOR MAY DETERMINE THAT ADDITIONAL I'IATERIAL IS NECESSARY
FOR THE REVIEl.l OF THE APPLICATION.
VII. APPLICI.TICI'IS i:OR. EXTERIOR ALTEMTIONS OR MODIFICATIONS IN CCI INVOLVING
M0RE THAN 100 SQUARE FEET 0F FLooR AREA ARE oNLy REvTEt,tED sEMr-ANNUAlli. rnevNEED T0 BE SUBMITTED BEFoRE THE FoURTH MoNDAy 0F MAy 0R NovEMBEi. iHE pEi
H0LDS A PRELIMINARY REVIEt,J SESSI0N WITHIN 2l DAYS 0F THE s[aMifinr'DirL.- n
PUBLIC HEARING SHALL BE HELD WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE PRELIMINARY REVIEI.I SESSION.
APPLICATIONS FOR THE ALTERATION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT ADDS OR RIMOVES ANY
ENCLOSED FLOOR AREA OF NOT MORE THAN IOO SQUARE FEET MAY BE SUBMITTED AT iHE
REQUIRED TIME OF THE MONTH FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION REVIEl'|.
FOR MORE SPECIFICS ON THE REVIEt,l SCHEDULE, SEE SECTION 18.24.065 A5.
A.
5.
c.
Adding 3740 sguarepresently none in
feet GRFA as allowed in two units (there is
the buildi.g).
on does not infringe into the View Corridor, is still
Iower than adjacent propert,ies.
Adding to and reorganizing commercial space per enclosed plans;
moving existing store front back from Bridge, giving better
visual pedestrian access to both Levels: Basement and 1st
leveI .
Refurbishing and renodelling the building, adding fireprotection sprinkLer systeml bringing exits to code, improving
circulation and modifying exterior, with new stone, stucco, anda nevr Class A shake shingle roof.
IV. WRITTEN AND GRAPHIC PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE
A. The proposal is in conformance with the purpose of the CCI
District as specified in 18.24.010.
Existing use: commercj-al to be maintained; exposure improved,quality of storefront and building improved and unique
character of Vail Village enhanced. No appreclable differencein the arrangement of building fronting on pedestrian andpublic greenways and no change in building' scale. The
architectural qualities of this existing building will be
radically changed and, we hope, improved.
B. The proposal substantially complies with the Vail Village Urban
Design Guide Plan regarding:
1. Pedestrianization:
Proposal improves, makes accessible a park that otherwise
does not alter existing pedestrian flows. Formalizes
existing haphazard use of paths.
2. Vehicle Penetration:
No change.
3. Streetscape Framework:
GreatJ-y improves existing out of date and out of character
design. Radical improvement of view experience at openingof Covered Bridge, the entrance to Vail with essentially a
new refurbished building.
4. Street Enclosure:
Should remain as is now; probably more interesting.
5. Street Edge:
More variegated, transparent, and visibl-e.
6. Building Height:
Increased but back at a distance and angle which will not
affect Bridge Street.
7. Views:
Vlews from upper 1eve1s of Ron Riley's and Slifer building
to west could be reduced. Sonnenalp views barely changed.
8. Sun/Shade Considerations:
Pocket park winter sun presently blocked by existingbuilding; no effect of addition in winter. Sun on Bridgenot altered until the lower angle is reached.
C. The proposal is compatible with the character of theneighborhood. ff it is presently compatible, it will continueto be so. Other buildings in the area have been refurbished;it is time for the Covered Bridge Building, the first structure
you encounter after coming through the Covered Bri.dge, thegateway to Vail V11lage.
LAND DESIGNS gY ETLISON & CO.
June 27, 1990
Mr. Bruce Amm
P.O. Box 62
Pymble,
Sydney,2073
N.S.W., Australia
RE: The Covered. Bridge Build.ing
Dear lvlr. Amm;
The advantages of moving the large Englemann Spruceat the above mentioned site, seems beneficial and outweighsthe initial investment and risk. The first part of thisl-etter will briefly i-nform you as to the advisable techniquesin moving such large trees and the benefits and limitations
encountered to transplant. The second part will provide
you t^/ith a cost estimate.As we spoke during our on si-te visit on Tuesday June26, 1990, we agreed that the move of these trees make fora scaled and finished statement, and will provide a great
sense of aesthetic value. Thus the bold design approachof transplanting the trees, as opposed to typical wholesalebulldozing is favorable. Information provided tome throughThe Associated Landscape Contractors of America (ALCA)
suggests that large plant material in all finished projectshas proven to be an advantage in the marketing of real
estate.
Also through the association and Rocky Mountain TreeExperts of Denver, Colorado experience has supported the
claim that survivability usually exceeds 909 of the total
transplanted materj-als. Conditions and operations influencethe success rate remarkably.A11 of the standardtransplanting concerns should be honored: the selectionof the plant species for ease of transplantability, thespecifis health of the plant, season of the year, and thesite conditions of the source and new location. It is ny
recommendation and a preferred horticultural method to handtlig these trees rather than the use of a tree spade. Theheight of the trees, the weight (estimated 11,000 lbs.),the 8 to 13 inch trunk diameter, and sinply the extremevaluable character of the trees are reasons for hand digging.
However hand digging is a more expensive technique ratherthan the use of a tree spade.
Fl.()- Elclx 2877 . VArLr CCTLclFAtrlcl A165A '(3cl3t E .[9 -17OCl
June 27, 1990Mr. Bruce Amm
Page 2
To decrease the risk of tree mortality, the following
process is commonly used but should always be practiced.
At the new site, the previously dig recei-ved hole should
be prepared with a mixture of peatmoss, soil and a balanced
organic fertilizer, then mixed with water to form a slurry.
The slurry mixture is forced to fill any voids around the
root bal1, virtually eliminating all of the air in the
pocket.
The need for guying and staking of these trees will depend
upon the success of the dig and how tight the ball stays
during the move. Following its move, a standard watering
schedule should be established for the first two years.
To help the trees along during the first year' foliar misting
with a nutrient solution can help irnprove the trees overall
appearance.
Other than costs involved to move the trees, other
Iimj.tations at this point seem slight. The species of the
treesi spruce, allows ease of transplantability because
of its nature to grow numerous fiberous roots at the soil
surface, unlike the problems commonly found in transplanting
trees with a deep tap root. It first appears that the health
of the trees are good, however positive visual appearance
does not always provide accurate information thus additional
testing should be provj-ded prior to digging. Since the
construction of the project shall proceed the coming August'
a fa11 dig or after August is a common practice at this
altitude. The trees being located next to the road on 1evel
ground, will help in working around them and maneuvering
them. However because the site is located at the edge of
core Creek and within a mountain valley. the possibilities
of large boulders or J.arge quantities of river rock are
unknown. These site conditions could hamper or completely
abort the digging of the trees.The costs of moving trees of this si-ze, range from
$3,500 .00 to $4 ,000.00 each depending on the height'
fulIness, and caliper of the tree. Depending on the fj.na1
landscape design, the necessity to store and maintain the
trees during construction is a possibility. If sor
additional crane operations and handling for heeli-ng-in(temporary dug pit and mulching) watering and cabling will
increase the cost by about $500.00 each.
June 27, l-990Mr. Bruce Amn
Page 3
Given worse possr-Dre case:five trees and storing and maintaining them on the site
for about six months, the following costs can be real-ized.
Hand-dig and transplant
Heel-in and store
Itlaintenance fee over 6
sotfAL
2 Englemann Spruce
months
$8,000.00
$t , oo0 .00
$1,2oo. oo
$10,200.00
An offset to the costs involved for the move of these
trees is long term maintenance costs. Larger trees once
established, are more self sufficient in drier climatest
thus realizing a savings in vrater usage and labor costs
associated during maintenance.
If you have any more questions or if I can be of any
further assistance, please do not hesitate to caII me.
Sincerely yours,
Land Desig{ts by ElLison & co.
Qwr,+p*W-(fr"tt n. nYlison ,
GEE/jrj
o
July 9, L990
Mr. Ned Gwathney
Arnold,/Gwathmey,/pratt Architects, p.C.
1000 South Frontage Road WestVa11, CO 81,658
Re: Covered Bridge Building
Dear Ned,
Thls retter is in response to your request to determine if theproposed expansion to the above buil-ding wourd infringe in the Townof Vail designated view corri.dor from View point *1 at the villageParking structure. View point #l- has been removed during tfieexpansion of the Parking structure. rt will be impossible toanalyze your request until the expansion of the parking structureis conplete and we can re-establish Vj_ew point #1.
we will be happy to work with on this project at that tlme. pleasecall if you have any other questions.
Si-ncerely,
Va11ey Surveying, Inc.
41199 Highway 6 & 24, Eagle-Vail
Post Off ice Box 1230
Edwards. CO 81632
303-949-1406
Eagle
President
C
-. l
Height Varj-ance
18.24.120
I. This
will
A.
Appl ication
PEC MEETING
DateOjtg" 2s, 'tssl
DATE .rufv 23 , 199Q
APPLICATIoN FoR A VARIANCE ./ \.
@er3h* Ua*,rnce.)
Bruce Amm, Bruce Amm & Assoc. PTY LTD-
for any project requesting a variance. The application
all information is submitted.
ADDRESS P.o. Box 62
procedure is required
not be accepted until
NAI4E OF APPLICANT MT.
B.
Pymble, New South Wales, Australia 2073 PHONE
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTNIIYE NEd G"th@
Pratt Architects, P.C.
1000 South Frontage Road West, VaiI , CO 81 657
PHoNE 476-1147
c.NAME 0F ol.lNER(S)pri nt )llis of Snowmass, Inc.
S
ADDRESS Bridge Street, Vail, CO 81657
NAME OF
ADDRESS
PHoNE 476-4182
D.LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS Covered Bridge Building
LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT BCDBLOCK 5-B FILING Vail Village First Filing
E. FEE $]OO PAID cK #_ FRoM
THE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I{ILL ACCEPT
YOUR PROPOSAL.
F. A'list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subiect proPerty
INCLU0ING PRoPERTY EEHIND AND ACRoSS STREETS, and their mailing addresses.
THE APPLICANT I.IILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT MAILING ADDRESSES.
II. A PRE.APPLICATION CONFERENCE I,JITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER IS STRONGLY SUGCESTED
TO]DETERMINEIFANY'ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED. NO APPLICATION I.IILL BE
ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL ITEMS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRAToR). IT IS THE AppLICANT'S RESP0NSIBILITY T0 l,rAKE AN APP0II{TI4ENT
I.,ITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS.
PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION }IILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR
YOUR PROJECT SV OECTESIFTHE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE PLANNING
ANO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONOITIONS OF APPROVAL I.IUST BE
COMPLIED l,lITH BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT I5 ISSiiED..
III. FOUR (4) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING MUST 8E SUBMITTED:
A. A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE VARiAiiCE RIqUESTED AND TiiE
REGULATION INVOLVED. THE STATEMENT MUST ALSO ADDRESS:
l. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
Z. The degree to which relief from the strict or'literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatib'i'lit
and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the variance on light and air, distribution of population'
transportation, traffic faci'litiis, uti'l ities, and publ ic safety.
J ,,
Time Requirments
The P'lanning and Environmental Commission meets
of each month. A complete application form and
(as described above) must be submitted a minimum
PEC public hearing. No incomplete applications
administrator) wi'll be accepted by the plannlng
nated submittal date.
Vari ance
on the 2nd and 4th ibndays
a'll acconrpanyi ng materi al
of 4 weeks prior to the date of
(as detevmined by the zoning
staff before or after the desig-
4. How your request compfies with Vail's Comprehensive Plan.
B. A topographlc and/or lmprovement survey at a scale of-at least l'- 20' stamp,t by a'Colorado llcensed-surveyor inctuding-locations of all.existing lmprove-
ments, including grades and elevations. 0ther elements which must be shown
are parklng and-loading areas, lngress and egress' landscpped areas andutility and drainage features.
C. A site plan at a scale of at least l'r ' 20' showing existing and proposed
bui I di ngs.
D. Al1 preliminary building elevations and floor plans sufficient to indicate
the iimensions, general-appearance, sca'le and use of all buildings and spaces
existing and proposed.on the site.
E. A pre'liminary title report to verify ownership and easenents
F. If the proposal is located in a multi-family development which has a homeowne,
association, then written approval from the association in support of the
proJebt must be received by a duly authorlzed agent for said assoclation.
G. Any additional material necessary for the review of the application as
determined by the zoning administrator..
* For interior modifications, an improvement survey and site plan nay be
waived by the zoning administrator.
IV.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE NATURE
OF THE VARIANCE
A.1 The relationship of the reguested variance to other existing orpotential uses and structures in the vicinity: The building
has allowable GRFA of 3740 sguare feet and none of this is
being used at present. To enable its use and also to redevelop
the existing retail space, a height variance is being sought.
Height regulations allow for 60t of the building to be at 33'
and 40* at 43' measured from the existing grades prior to the
construction of the buildlng. No attempt is being nade to have
the height variance measured from Bridge Street. To the height
specification, it would tower over Bridge Street, right at the
entrance to the shopping precinct immediately after crosslng
the Covered Bridge itself. The remodel redevelopment has been
designed so that it follows the existing sloping roof line of
the building and sits well back from Bridge Street. The visuaLeffect from Bridge Street itself will be almost negligible andfrom the Covered Bridge the pleasing features of the building
which will" be in keeping wj-th the Bavarian style of Vail will
fill in the yellow painted.gable end to the north of Pepi'sbuilding. The height of the redevelopment will be lower thanthat of Pepils at all times and wiLt not encroach into the view
corridor at any point. Similar buildings j-n CC1 are higherthan the variance sought. The variance request follows ourpreviously submitted proposal and the P.E.C. work session of
Monday, June 25th. ft is amended to comply with all
suggestions and reguests made by the P.E.C. at that session, aswell as those of Jeff lfinston and Town Officers.
2. The degree to which rel.ief from the strict or literallnterpretation and enforcement of a specific regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment
among sites in the vicinlty or to attain the objectives oftitle without grant of special privilege: the number of casesin CCI whlch have had sinilar variances are numerous. Theapplication improves the vicinity, removes an unsightly
dilapi-dated and outdated structure and results in a pleasing
redevelopment at the strategic entry point to the Village. The
proposed pocket park will be a feature in addition to thebuilding and which when completed will provide visitors to the
Town with a year-round facility as wel-1 as a possible
commencement point to a streamside walkway.
3. The effect: on light and aj.r will be ni1 - see submissionattached; on distribution of population - an additional two
condominj-ums are proposed with a maximum of three bedrooms
each; on transportation, traffic facilities and public safety,there will be no effect.
4. The request complies with Vail's comprehensive plan and in factbrings a building which does not comply wj-th a number ofsafety/structural codes into compliance as well as introducinga fire sprinkler system into an old wooden structure which at
one time had a serious fire.
PUBLTC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the Planning and Environnental
Connisslon of the Town of VaiI wiII hotd a public hearing in
accordance wlth Section 18.66.060 of the municipal. code of the
Town of Vail on JuIy 23, 1990 at 2:OO p.m. ln the Eown of Vail
ttunicipal Buildlng. Consl.deration of:
A reguest for a conditional use pernit for a ttTeleviEion
Stationft in the Cornnercial Core rI zone district located at
I,ot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing, Sunbird Lodge,
675 Lionshead Place.Applicant: Vailr/Beaver creek Televieion Network.
A reguest for an exterior alteration, a site.coveragevariince, a height variance, a landscape variance and a
floodplain nodification on Lot C and Lot D, and the
southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all in Block 5-B, VaiL
Village 1st Filing, 22? Bridge street.Appllcant: BlUlc of snowuaas, Inc. and Bruce Ann &
Aeeoclates.
A request for an exterior alteration and a landscape
variance in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower
Building at 201 core creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 58,
Vail Village lst Filing.Applicant: Hermann Staufer - Lancelot Restaurant
A reguest for a side setback variance in order to construct
an aaaition to a single family structure 3-L/2 feet into the
western side yard setback tocated at Lot 16, Buffehr Creek
Subdivision, 1879 Meadow Ridge RoadApplicant: Jerry Farquhar
A request for a conditional use permit in order to expand
offiCe space for a magnetic resonance irnaging systern and a
satellite dish at the vail VaIIey lledical Center, L,ots E and
F, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 181 West t{eadow Drive.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
A request for a landscape variance in order to.provide two
addifional parking spaces on the southern portion of Tract
G, Vail vitlage 2nd Filing, L7 Vail Road.
Applicant: First Bank of Vail
A request for a side setback variance at Lots 1-5, Block 5
Vail Vll.l-age lst Filing, Unit 3B--VaiI Rowhouses, 303 Gore
Creek Drive.Applicant: Stewart Colton
A request for a conditional use pernrit and a setback
variJnce for a remediation systen equiprnent building at the
Alpine Standard Station, part of Lot A' Vail Village 2nd
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
5.
7.
Filing, 285 S. Frontage Road !{est.Applicant: Anoco corp. ,frfl .' t /iVta,l4e
tl1lt l7ctll!
8.
,X, # fr?*r, atute1.t-
9. A request for a sLte coverage variance at L,ot 31, Block 7,
Vail village lst Filing, 84 Beaver Darn Road.Applicant: H. Ross Perot
10. A reguest for an amendment to Town of Vail ordinance No. 24,
Series of 1983 and ordinance No. 28, serieB of 1987
governing wood-burning fireplaces, gas logs, and gas
appliances.Appllcant: Tow:r of VaIl
11. A request for a naJor anendnent to SDD No. 15, part ofparcel A, Llonsridge subdivisLon, Fillng 2. (The Valley
Phase frl)Applicant: Brad t Sugan TJossen
L2. A request for a variance fron the wall helght requirenent on
T-ct- 29, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch; 805 Potato Patch Drive.Applicant: Patsy and Pedro Cerisola
13 A request for a najor subdivision, to approve the
preliminary plan, a reguest for a variance to the naximum
height for retaining walls, and a reguest for a variance to
the maxinun percent grade for a road, on a parcel comnonly
referred to as Spraddle creek, an approxirnate 40 acre parcel
located north and east of the l,lain Vall I-70 interchange and
east of the Spraddle Creek Ilvery.Applicant: George Gillett, Jr.
14. A request for a major anendnent to SDD No. 4, Coldstrean
Condominiuns in order to anend Sections 18.46.090 (B)
density, 18.46.100 (B) floor area' 18.46.220 enployee
housing and 18.46.23o tine requirenents to convert existing
racguetball facility into an enployee housing unit,
nanagement office, laundry and owner storage area at Lot 53
Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 lfeEthaven Drive.Applicant: Coldstrean Condoniniun Association.
15. A request to anend the Vail l{unicipal Code Section 18.04 to
add a definition for a brew pub and a request to anend the
Conmercial Service center Zone Dlstrict 18.28 to allow a
brew pub as a pernitted use.Applicant: Dean Liotta
The applications and infonration about the proposals are
avail.able for public inspection in the Conmunity Developnent
Departnent office.
Town of Vail
Conmunity Developrnent Department
Pubtished in the vail Trail on July 11, 1990.
Iten No. 11:A recruest for a conditional use pernit for a deck
expansion at the Sweet Basil reEtaurant, located
on Tract A, Block 58, Vall Villaoe lst Filinq. 193
East core Creek DrLve.Agpllcant: Kevin Clair/Chuck Rosencrul-st
This iten wasften No. 12:
A.Covered Bridoe BuLldLncr - A recruest for an
and a floodplaln nodification on Lot C andLot D, and the southwesterlv 4 feet of Lot B.all in Block 58. vail- Village 1st Flllng, 227
Brl-dqe Street.Aoplicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and
Bruce Ann & Associates.
B. llontaneros - Lot 8, Block 1, Vail-Lionshead3rd Filinq. 641 W. Llonshead Clrcle.Applicant: Montaneros Condo. Assoc.
l{ike Mollica explained that the reguest lras to schedule a reviewperiod. Staff reconnended a 90 day review period for the covered
Bridge Building and a 6o day review period for the Montaneros.
A motion to set the review neriods as recornrnended by staff
was made bv Kathv warren and seconded bv atim Shearer.
VOTE: 6.0 IN FAVOR
Iten No. 13:A reouest for a variance fron the wall heioht
recruLrement on Lot 29. Block 1, VaiI Potato Patch;
805 Potato Patch Drive.Appllcant: Patsv and Pedro Cerisola
Iten No. 14:
Applicant: Hernann Staufer - Lancelot Restaurant
A notion to table Iten No.s 13 and 14 to Julv 9. 1990 was
nade bv Kathv Yfarren and eeconded bv Dalton Willians.
sithdrawn, no action was taken.
Villacre lst Filina.
VOTE: 5-O fN FAVOR
20
t t'
Jin Shearer - Is in favor of bulldingt up the comnercial areasin Llonshead, but believes that linited sales tax
would be generated by this proposal-.
- believes that an upper floor location would be
nore appropriate and feels that an upper floor
would provide a better backdrop of the ski areafor the T.V. studlo.
- believes that tlre proposed use does have
uarketable value for the Town of Vall but feelsthat we must guard agaJ-nst setting a precedentnith this propoeed use.
- agreeEi with Kathy Warren regarding Section
Le.24.030(C-6) and stressed the need to protect
against setting a precedent and feels that he wasvoting strictly as a Plannlng Connission nenber
and not with his emotions.
Diana Donovan -belleves that once this use is listed as aconditional use it would be very dlfficult to denya request for such a conditional use.
- agrees with Kathy l{arren and Chuck Crist
regarding Section L8.24.030 (c-6).
Ludwig Kurz - agrees with the staff that we cannot afford toset a precedent with the proposed change and isnot in favor of the request.
Dalton Williams- believes tbat this proposed use would produce
very beavy pedestrian traffic in Lionshead, which
would generate sales and sales tax.
- believes that this is exactly what the Town ofvail wants.
-believes that people will show up for this
proposed use. Feels that this is a rrdynaniterr
idea.
-believes that this J-s a proper conditional use.
VOTE: 4-2 I{ITH DALToN WILLTNIS AND CHUCK CRIST OPPOSED To
THE DENTAL
19
ft
Present
chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Ludwig Kurz
Jim Shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton Willians
Members Absent
Connie Knight
PLAI{NING AlfD ENVIRONI'TENTAL COM}fi SSION
JtNE 25, 1990
StaffKrlstan Pritz
Mike l{olllca
Shelly llello
Andy Knudtsen
Penny Perry
In the interest of tine, work sessions were held prior to the
public hearing beginning at 12:4O p.n.
A recruest for a work session on the Sonnenalp Fedevelonnent and
proposed Special Developrnent District at 2o Vail road. Part of
Lot L, Block 5-8. vail villaoe lst Filincr.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties. fnc.
Kristan Pritz explained that the request was for the
redevelopment of-the sonnenalp property and a proposed Special
Development District. She gave a brief summary of the-request
and reviewed the zoning analysis. She revlewed those items
related to the project found within the Vail Village llaster Plan
including Sub-Aiea #1-3, emphasizing Goals & PoLicies, an{
fllustra€ive Plans. She alio provided corresponding preliminary
staff conments. Kristan then ielayed conments made by the Fire
Department and Public Works. This was a work session, Eo no
recomnendation was made.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained that they
weie before the board on a prelirninary basis and sinply wanted
conments and suggestions so-they could move ahead with the design
process.
Irene Westby, manager of the Tal.isman, explained that the owners
had discussed ttre proposal , though not ln depth, regarding
coordination with the sonnenalp on landscape and parking. As the
manager, she would encourage the board to nove faster. They do
have concerns with parking, J.andscape and fire access.
Jay explained that he had net with the president of the
associition and the Sonnenalp had offered access through the
Sonnenalp structure.
Marllyn Fletcher, a Talisnan condoninium owner, felt the proposal
was very nice looking. She was concerned about the setbacks and
ingress/eqtress.
Kent Rose, speaking for hinself ae a Council lilenber, felt thatthe zoning analysLE found wlthin the neno was well prepared. Inthe future, he would llke to Bee a conparison of the SDD vlth thevlllage ltlaster Plan aE well. He sugg€Bted to KrLstan to add thlE
conparison to the present chart. He etated that the additlonal
comparison could help hin lean uore favorable toward the proJect.
As it was currently depicted, the proJect looked too large.
Iarry Esknith explained that he would prefer that the Council
menbers not participate ln the PEC ueeting. The council is aquasi-judiclal board and he felt their participation could causeIegal problens.
Diana asked if they could speak ln a general senee or at a
ninl.mum ask questlons, and Larry sal.d nyes.n
lilerv Iapin felt that page 2 of the nerno was the key. When an SDDis proposed, there should be trade-offs. He wanted to know what
these trade-offs were. He felt that staff presented the trade-offs in respect to the Marriott proJect well. Regarding theMarriott project, he felt that too nuch tLne was spent comparingthe original application to the current proposal . Uerv agreedwith Larry Eskwith, that the Councilrs conments should be lfunitedat this point. The council waE in a quasi-judicial role.
Kristan explained that the Plannlng Connlssion eLnply wantedgeneral conments and iesues that the council felt needed to be
addressed.
Lynn Fritzlen asked lf staff could restate the purpose of
applylng underlying zoning and Kristan e:qrlained that there werebasically two reasons. The first was to identify the usesposslble on the site and the second was used to compare the
proposal with the underlying zoning requirenents whlch PEC and
Council always reguest staff to do.
Jay Peterson addressed the trade-off issue. He stated that the
Sonnenalp building could meet the PA criteria, however, the
building design would become a terrible bulky naEs Ln the niddleof the lot. He also felt that the proposed use of 99t hotel
roons waa a trade-off. Also, the proposal was not far over GRFA.
The current proposal was at 32 units per acre compared to the 25
units per acre called for under PA zoning.
Peggy osterfoss stated that lt would be helpful Lf all partles
concerned had a copy of the Vall Village llaster Plan.
Jin Shearer felt it was extrenely inportant for the Sonnenalp to
work with the Talisman regardlng parking and landscaping. lle uas
concerned about the Ludwig deck and its inpact on the creek area.
He also wanted to see the enptoyee housing lssue addressed. He
was very concerned about the height creating a crowded feeling on
Meadow Drive. He underEtood Jayrs comnente regarding the bulk in
the niddle of the lot, but felt that the nass could be pulled offof lteadow Drive and a nore attractive valk created. He felt the
approach would create nore lnterest for the retall area. .firn
also felt a phaslng plan was needed. Jirn ll.ked the Lncrease in
lodging units, underground parking, and felt that the Faesslers
were good managers. He had Bome concern about the amount ofretail space and denslty. He prefered the tower as anarchitectural feature aB opposed to a nbuildingrt providing living
area in the tower.
Kathy l{arren asked if the staff could total aII the sg. footage
calculations (GRFA, Accessory etc..) on the charts in the future.
From what she could quickly calculate, the proposal was over PA
zoning by 25t. Kathy felt she could not eupport setback
varLances for Vail Road, Meadow Drive or the stream and she feltthat the heights called for by the Master Plan should be adheredto. Though slightly under on site coverage and over on
landscaping, the landscaped area is private and should be opened
up and more invltlng to the public. creek access is inportant.
Kathy felt enployee housing was necessary and would like to seeit on site. The Tallsrnan parking should also be addressed. No
variances on parking should be given. Iodge use is very good.
She is looking for the public good J.n respect to the project.
Kathy felt that, because it was a hotel , she was not as concernedwlth units per acre as she was with GRFA. she did not see muchin the way of benefits for the Town.
Jay, in response to the employee housingr issue, stated that the
Faesslers own zl units in solar Vail as well as some units in
Bighorn.
Chuck Crist stated that he had always wanted to see the site
developed. He had concerns about the tower. He stated that he
was not as concerned with setbacks with the exception of Meadowdrive. The mass on Meadow Drive needs to be broken up. The loss
of landscaping is a problern. He also would like to see ernployee
housing incorporated into the project on Eite. He felt that the
Town would be losing green space and the stream would be blocked
fron the public and he Liked the anount of retail space proposed.
He liked the underground parking.
Da1ton rras very concerrred with the setbacks as they related to
the transfer of open space from public areas to private areas.
The 20 foot Eetbaif nuit be naintained. The benm, per the vall
Village Master PIan, should be kept. He felt that the building,
along }leadow Drive, should be stepped back In order to avoid a
ncanyonrr affect. He did not feel he could approve the reguested
setblck variances. The parking for the entire project including
TalLsnan and Sniss House rnust be addressed.
Dalton continued by quotlng the Valt Village l,taster Plan Sub-Area
#1-5 wtllow Bridge Road Walknay aa etating:
iA decoratlve paver pedestrLan wallnray, separated fronthe street and accented by a strong landecaped area to
encourage pedeetrian circulation along ueadow Drlve.
Loss of parklng will need to be relocated on site.tr
Dalton felt that the ingress,/egress ahould be on the east sLde ofthe Sonnenalp by Village Center (Swies House) and the planter
along Meadow Drlve nust etay. Dalton also felt that the buitding
should be pulled back to buffer nol.se fron bus trafflc. He feltthat the gate should be noved east and felt that the mass and
bulk was not conpatlble wlth East l{eadov Drlve. Dalton felt thatthe {8 foot height regulrenent ahould be strictly adhered to, a
lo1 | tower was out of the questlon and the Klng LudwLg deck
should be stepped down towards the creek. The deck creates too
nuch of a wal1. Dalton felt that the enployee housing should beon-site and that the proposal was taking open space and
landscaping away from the public. The applicant should put inpublic spaces, like a strean walk. He conmended the Faesslersfor being excellent hoteliers.
Ludwig conplinented the FaeEslers for runnlng a ilclass
operation.n Ludwig Kurz felt the proposal needed a cornprehensive
parking plan as well aE an access study. He felt he could give
some leeway with the helght and mass, however, the building still
needed work. Ludwig felt that the walkway and loading area werein confllct and need a better interface. Jay Etated that the
loading area lras located by default. Ludwig also felt that theinternal open space uas naximized at the sacrifice of areaa along
Meadow Dr. and VaiI Road.
Diana stated that the proposal disregarded the Vail Village
Master Plan. She questioned whether parking for conmercial would
be accessible and resenred for conmercial . Jay sald space would
be nade available to customers. She felt that the building was
beautiful but would be nore appropriate on large acreage. Diana
felt that a atreanwalk should be proposed and the parking
Eituation concerned her.
Jay explained that he felt the parkl.ng regrulations pertaLned tosnaller hotel rooms. The proposed parking would work slmilar to
Crossroads and the gate would be relocated. Diana felt that the
Ioading needed to be either moved away fron the ereek or
improved. Parking for Swiss House and Talisnan needs to be
figured out. The role of the TalLsnan also needs to be defined.
Enployee housing nust be addressed - perhaps per:manently restrictwhit sonnenalp already has for ernployee units. She felt it was
irnportant to know what the Talisrnanrs intentions were soon and
what would be done. Diana also had concernEi regarding the
setbacks along Meadow Drive and Vail Road. She didnrt have a
problen with a varlance for an architectural statement, however,
Ltre treigtrt ln general nust be reduced. Diana was concerned
whether an SDD lras realy necessary. She questioned the benefit
of the proJect to the public and stated uore general public
lmprovernents were needed.
Kathy lfarren felt that the trash sltuation needed to be addressed
ana Lnat the applicant needed to goften the approach at the
pedestrian fev-ei. She also felt that nes enployee houslng units-needed to be addressed in addition to those already owned. She
felt the connercial square footage also contributed to enployee
housing demand.
ilay felt that an additional ernployee unit requirenent would be
peializing the applicant for hlving th9 foresight !o pu19!ai9 the
inits. tie applilant purchased thi Solar Crest units with the
intentlon of L6npleting the redevelopment currently proposed.
Ton Steinberg conmented that he felt the.proposal was golng in
the correct direction. He also agreed with Diana that he was not
sure an sDD ltould be needed.
Mike Moltica explained that the applicants were proposing a major
redevelopnent o? the covered Bridg- Building. The propos-al
called f-or najor modifications to-the front entrance of the
existing corunlrcial spaces, the creation of lower level
corr"tcial spaces, tniiff 6n the north and northwest sections of
the existing- struiture, the additlon of an elevator, and the,
addition of two upper iloors. The reguest involved 5 separate
appllcations, an eiterior atteration reguest, a_ site coverage
viil"ttce request, a height varLance reguest, a Landscape variance
r-guest, and a fioodplain nodification request. Mike reviewed
tn6 appiicable zonin-g consideratlons and gave prelininary staff
cornmenls. since thii was a work Bession, no staff
recommendations were made.
Kathy Warren asked shat the allowed GRFA was and Mike explained
that the survey was not fl.nished and therefore calculations were
n"€-naa" rttn i"gard tc GR3A, Ned Gwathney, project architect,
felt that they would be within what was allowed.
Ned e:<plained the changes that were made since the staff nemo was
writteir. The only issie he fett that the PEC night be concerned
iuout was the neiint of the new roof line. The new proposal. did,
however, elirninat6 the flat roof design. He explained that the
adjacent properties were built prior to the enactnent of the
height restrictLons and nost were above the height of the present
covered Bridge BuLlding. t{ed etated that the proposal would bein line wlth the surrounding properties, and that the deelgn dldnot negatlvely affect adjacent propertles. In fact the proposal
could enhance the adJacent properties, for exanple, the nes roofuould Bcreen nPeplrs wall.H
Ton stelnberg, slttlng in the audience, eaid he felt he would
have no obJections to the height variance due to the fact thatthe roof would acreen Pepirs wall.
Datton WiLlians encouraged worklng with the pocket park and
extending the strean walk down to the end of the property ll.ne,if at all possible, eo that it could be continued ln the future.
Chuek Crist asked if they would be l-ncreaslng connon space and
Ned ansnered trno.rr However, there would be no decrease ln connon
space either. Chuck asked how the height related to the grade
found on Brldge street and Ned answered that Bridge Street ls 6l
hlgher than the grade used to calculate height. Ned also wanted
Chuck to bear in uind that the bullding was stepped back, hencethe trighest point would be 50f off of the street.
Chuck explained that he liked the proposal . He would lLke to see
more flower boxes and perhaps a more fyrolean look.
Ludwlg Kurz felt the project looked good. He questloned whether
there was any opposltion to the proJect and l{Lke explalned tbatthe propos'al had not formally been publiehed since tlrls was
sirnply a nork session. Mike explained that he dLd have oneletter at that time fron Rod Slifer in favor of the proposal .
Kathy lvarren asked, if they renoved the building area by thepark, highlighted in yellow on the plans, including the rearstair, if the project would be ln conpliance wlth el.te coverage.
She also stated that she was not comfortable sith the helght
variance but if the Town could end up sith a nore usable public
park she could conslder the helght variance. She was not
confortable with the site coverage variance. Kathy felt she
could not object to the exterlor alteratlon, lt was a nuch needed
inprovenent.
Kathy questloned whether the pocket park was identified ln thevail village Master Plan and Mike explained that it was not
addressed. Kathy was concerned about the Bridge Street accesa to
the park and wanted to see nore detail.
Jin Shearer felt the proJect was good lookl-ng. He llked the rooflines and would like to Bee rnore planter boxes. He stated that
the reason behind a variance is to improve the property. He
would like to see irnprovements to the streamwalk and to see all
evergreens saved or 4 put in for the 2 taken out. He felt there
night be a problern with the floodplain nodification. He was
concerned with the elevator shaft and water seePage. He had no
problen with the helght. He would rather have an attractive roofline. He was satlsfled vith the looke of the proposal . He felt
the staff and board needed to look at the vl.ew corrldor. Heliked the way the proposal tlered back from the street sith the
height.
DLana Donovan felt lt would be wonderful to get a wallnray to Gore
Creek Plaza. She felt Lt would be nice to have jogs, and bay
windows on the north eide of the building. she felt the accessto the park needed to be more entlcing. She was not sure about
the height. Trade-offs and other considerations such as
screenLng Pepirs bullding would be a help. she would have a hard
tine supporting the proposal lf the evergreen trees were renoved.
Mlke explal.ned that the Towr I€ndscape Architect felt the trees
were.very healthy and would last many years.
Diana suggested the use of pavers rather than asptralt in front of
the building.
chuck Crist asked about the aluninun siding that was originally
proposed and Ned explained that the siding had been changed to
wood.
The Publlc Hearing was called to order at 3:10 p.n. by Diana
Donovan, ChaLrperson. Connie Knight was absent. In the interestof time, the board skipped to Iten No. 4. The applicants for
Items No. 2 & 3 were not present.
Item No. 4: A recnrest for a conditional use permit for ?construction sta<ring area. located iust uphill' of
the Golden Peak snowmakincr purnphouse. Tract B,Vail Village ?th Filinq.Appll.cant: Vail Associates, Inc.
Shelly Mello explained that Vail Associates was requesting a
conditional use pemit for a sunner seasonal staging area at the
Go1den Peak base area for the construction of the Far East
Restaurant. The area was located Ln the Skl Base Recreation zone
district. In this zone district, trsunner outdoor Storage for
ltountain EgulpDentr is an allowed conditional use. The proposed
use would be for an office trailer, 12 enployee parking spacesfor the summer of 1990 and 25 parking tpaces for 1991. A lirnited
anount of construction naterials would also be located at the
etagJ-ng area. The construction trailer and the building
materials would be removed by Novenber 15th of each year. Shelly
explained that staff was concerned about parking being located onthe site and suggeeted the posslblllty of located the parkJ.nguphill on county land or an alternate area such as the West DayLt. The staff reconmendatlon was for approval with condltlonsas found within the neno.
Joe Uacy e:<plained that the reguest yas nade Ln order to
constrnrct a 5OO eeat reetaurant at the Far East. He stated thatVail Associates had received at leaet 2 other conditional usepermits and had no conplal.nte. They dld not want to take parklng
away fron the publlc by parklng thelr ernployeee ln publlc parklngareas. The new VlIIage Parklng Stnrcture had created a parklng
Bhortage.
Jack Hunn explained that part of the goal was to have vistbllltyfor delivery trucks. The other reason was to have a collectLngplace for enployees in order to llnit the nunber of vehLclee onthe mountain. The appllcant had originally looked at uel-ng the
West Day Lot. However, when the Town of VaiI decided to go forthwith the parking structure expansion, it was felt that this lot
would be needed for publlc parking.
Joe l.lacy clarified that the staglng area was actually downhlll ofthe purnphouse. Kristan Pritz noted that the proposal had statedspecificatly that the staging would be uphill.
Ildwig Kurz asked if any of the area would be fenced or screened
and Jack Hunn explalned that the storage area would not be
screened.
Ludwig saw no problens with having both the Etorage area andparking on the site. He underetood the hardship of staging fron
two areas.
Diana Donovan asked why vail Agsociates did not wiEh to use the
Eagle County area uphill slnce it was already graveled and
graded.
Dalton Willians had no problen wlth delivery and staglng but
wanted the parking hldden. He also wanted to know why the staff
conditions of approval lncluded revegetating after the firstyear. He felt Lt would be a waste of tine and money, for the
area sould be used for skling in the winter and reused for
staging the next year. He felt it would be sufficient to
revegetate in the fall of 1991.
Jin Shearer asked why the request was for 12 cars in 1990 and 25in 1991 and Joe lilacy explained that the finish construction which
would be done Ln the second year required nore employees. Jin
cornnented that the biggest problen would be how the slte would
look fron I-7O.
Item No. 11:
lhis iten was rl.thdrawn, no actLon yas taken.Iten No. 12:
Applicant: uontaneros condo. Assoc.
l.tike uolllca extrrlained that the reguest was to schedule a reviewperJ.od. Staff reconmended a 90 day review period for the Covered
Bridge Buildlng and a 60 day revlew period for the l{ontaneros.
A.motion to set the review oeriods as recommended bv staff
was made bv Kathv warren and seconded bv Jlm shearer.
VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVOR
Item No. 13: A reauest for a variance fron the wall height
recruirenent on L,ot 29, Block 1. vail Potato Patcht
805 Potato Patch Drive.ApplLcant: Patsv and Pedro Cerisola
Iten No. 14:
Creek Drive. Part of Tract A. Block 58. Vail
Villacre lst Filinq.Applicant: Hermann Staufer - Lancelot Restaurant
A motion to table ften No.s 13 and 14 to JuIy 9. 199O was
nade by Kathy l{arren and Eeconded bv Dalton l{illians.
VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVOR
20
Jin Shearer - Is in favor of bullding up the connercial areasin Lionshead, but believes that lirnited sales tax
would be generated by this proposal .
- belleves that an upper floor location would be
more appropriate and feels that an upper floor
would provide a better backdrop of the eki areafor the T.V. studio.
- belleves that the proposed use does havemarketable value for the Town of Vail but feelsthat we must guard against setting a precedentwith this propoeed use.
- agrees with Kathy warren regarding Section
L8.24.030(C-6) and Etressed the need to protect
against setting a precedent and feels that he wasvoting strictly as a Planning Conmission mernber
and not with his ernotions.
Diana Donovan -believes that once this use is listed as aconditional use lt would be very difficult to denya reguest for such a conditional use.
- agrees with Kathy l{arren and Chuck Crist
regarding Section L8.24.030 (C-6).
Ludwig Kurz - agrees with the staff that we cannot afford toset a precedent with the proposed change and isnot in favor of the request.
Datton Willians- believes that this proposed use would produce
very heavy pedestrian traffic ln Lionshead, which
would generate sales and sales tax.
- believes that this Ls exactly what the Town ofvail wants.
-believes that people wiII show up for this
proposed use. Feels that this is a rrdynamiterr
idea.
-believes that this is a proper condLtLonal use.
VOTE: 4-2 WTTH DALTON WILLIAITIS At{D CITUCK CRIST OPPOSED TO
THE DENTAL
19
BO: Planning and Envlronnental ConmlEslon
FROM: Connunity Developnent Departnent
DATE3 June 25, 1990
SURTECT: A requeEt for a work eession for an exterioralteration, a site coverage varlance, a heightvariance, a landecape varLance and a floodplainnodiflcation on lot c and Ipt D, and the eouthvesterly4 feet of Ipt B, aII ln Block 5-8, Vail Village lstFiling, 227 BrLdge Street.Applicant: Hillis of snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Ann &
Assocl.ates.
I. DESCRIPTION OF TIIE REOUEST
The applicants are proposing a naJor redevelopnent of the
covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street. Theproposal calls for naJor nodifications to the front entranceof the existing cornrnercial spaces, the creatlon of lowerlevel commercial spaces which would be accessible fron twostairs directly on Bridge street, infill on the north and
northwest sections of the existing structure, the additionof an elevator at the northwest corner of the building, and
the addition of two upper floors, predoninantly located
along the west section of the structure. The owner of the
covered Bridge Building has made the following applicationswith regards to the redevelopment:
1. An exterior alteration reguest;
2. A site coverage variance request;
3. A height varLance request;
4. A landscape varJ-ance request; and
5. A floodplain nodification request.
II. ZONING CONSTDERATIONS
The following ls a prelininary sunmary of the proposed
redevelopment for the Covered Bridge Buildlng. It should be
pointed out that these are prelinlnary figures only' and are
subJect to verification from a regi.stered sunreyor and the
planning staff.
1. Slte Coverage: ExiBting = 84t
Allowable = 80t
Proposed = 92*
3. GRFA: Exlstlng = 0 eq. ft.
Propoeed - 3r74O eq. ft.
4. Flood Plaln: The existing 100-year flood plain, as
lndlcated by FEUA le currently 7.2 Lnches vertically
above tlre exiEting grade along the north elevation ofthe exLsting bulldlng wall. Approval by the Army corpsof Englneers and FEl,tA Bhall be requLred.
III.
18.24.010 Purpose:
The coDnercial core I District is lntended to prov5.desites and to naintain the unique character of the VailVillage Connercial Area, with its nixture of lodges and
connercial establlEhmente in a predoninantly pedestrian
environment. The conrnercial Core I District is
intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and
other anenlties approprlate to the pernitted tlpes ofbuildings and uses. The dietrLct regrulations in
accordance with the Vail ViIIage Urban Design Guide
Plan and Design Considerations prescrl.be site
developnent standards that are Lntended to ensure the
naintenance and preaenatLon of the tlghtly clustered
arrangenents of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways
and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of thebuilding ecale and architectural quallties that
distingruish the Village.
IV. PRELIMINARY STAFF COI,TMENTS
The staff has reviewed the applicantrs submLttal naterials
and we have the following concerns regarding the
application:
2. Building Heights: Exleting =ProPoeed =Allowable =
36 ft.
48 ft.
6Ot of the building
uay be up to 33r and
up to 40* of thebullding nay behlgher than 33r, but
no hlgher than 43r.
Iarge evergreen trees adjacentof the building.
l.oo-year floodplain.
1. The renoval of the twoto the north elevation
2. Encroachnent into the
3. Architectural issues:
a. A proposed flat roof design.
4.
b. The north elevation wall - se believe does not
enhance the pedestrlan e:qrerience in the adJacent
pocket park. t{e feel that this north wall Ehould
be stepped back to provlde Dore openness ln the
pocket park area.
c. We have some concerns with the revised front entry
and stairs leading to the proposed retail Epaces
on the basement level . Pedestrian acceEs and
vl.ews of the retail spaces are dininished.
d. The staff feels that the trbrokenn top dormers of
the building need work. tfe feel that they are
uore contenporary Ln look as oPpoEed to the Urban
Design Guide Planrs suggested tyrolean style.
e. Iarger overhangs should be proposed on thebullding. We also have sone concerns with regardto the extent and placenent of the glazing on the
east elevation.
f. The staff is concerned with the proposed aluminurnstore fronts. We believe the use of aluminum notto be acceptable in the ViIIage and would
reconnend a change to this proposed naterial .
fmprovements on Town of VaiI land innediately north of
the Covered Bridge Building (pocket park). The
applicant is proposing to upgrade this pocket park area
and the Planning Department has hired Jeff Wlnston of
Winston and Associates to act as Town Consultant in the
redevelopnent of this pocket park site. Currently'
there is no design for the pocket park.
Sun/shade issues--staff has requested a sun/shade
analysis.
Building helght concerns. Staff prefers to see the
height requirenents net and encourages the applicant to
redesign the roof to avoid the height variance.
View Corridors--the applicant has hired Eagle VaIIey
Engineering to determine whether the proposed structure
encroaches into any of the Townrs adopted view
corrLdors.
In sunmary, the applicant ls requesting three variances
and a floodplain nodification. staff strongly
encourages the applicant to redesign the proposal in
order to avoid the nunber of requests.
5.
6.
7.
8.
PIANNING AI.ID ENVIRON!,TENTAI, COUUISSION
June 25, 1990
10:30
12:3o
1: 3o
SITE VISITS
Site Visits
A request for a work
and proposed Special
Road, Part of Lot L,Filing. (site VisitApplicant: Sonnenalp
sesslon on the Sonnenalp remodel
Development District at 20 Vail
Block 5-8, Vail Village lst
#1)Properties, rnc.
A request for a work cegElon f,or an exterioralteratlon, a elte coverage varlance, a height
variance, a landecape varLance and a floodplainnodification for the Covered Brldge Buildlng, Iocated
on Lot C and lot D, and the soutlrwesterly 4 feet of Lot
B, all ln Block 5-8, Vail Villaqe lEt Filing, 227
Brldge Street.Applicant: Hillie of SnowDasa, Inc. and Bruce Ann &
AssocLates.
2:00 Public Hearing
a')
lr)
4.
Approval of minutes from June 4, 1990 and
June 1L, 1990 meetings.
A request for a conditional use permit to
allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lots 6 and
L/2 of 5, Block 5, Vail village SeventhFiling, 1119 E. Ptarmigan Road.Applicant: Monie S. BeaI
A request for a conditional use pertnit to
allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lot 8, Block3, Bighorn Subdivision, 5th Addition' 5198
Gore Circle.Applicant: John and Paula Canning
A request for a conditional use perrnit for a
construction staging area, located just
uphill of the colden Peak snowmaking
pumphouse, Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing.Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
A request for a side and front setback
variance in order to construct a garage on
Lo|- 7, Block 3, Vail village 9th Filing, 898
Red Sandstone Circle.Applicant: Paul Testwuide
5.
WITHDRAWN
,O o reguest for a front ""0"r variance and a
creek setback variance for Iot 6, VailVillage tteat, Flling No. 2, L755 West core
Creek Drive.Applicant: Dan and Karen Forey
7. A request for a conditional use permit and aheigtrt varl.ance in order to construct an
antenna at the Vall l{uniclpal building, 75
South Frontage Road.Applicant: Town of Vail Pollce Departnent
8. A request for a eide yard setback variance at
4247 Colunblne Drive, Unit il20, Bighorn
Terrace.Applicant:,fohn Nilsson
9. A request for an anendnent to SDD No. 23,Vail Natlonal Bank, Part of Lot D, Block 2,Vail Village 2nd Filing, 108 S. Frontage Road
Ylest.
Applicant: Vail National Bank Building Corp.
10. A requeBt for an amendment to the Townrs
zoning code to add oTelevislon Stationrr as afirst floor, or street level floor,conditional use in the Connercl.al Core ff
zone district, Sectlon 18.26.040Applicant: Vail/Beaver Creek Television
Network.
11.. A request for a conditlonal use pernit for a
deck expanslon at the Sweet Basil restaurant,
Iocated on Tract A, Block 58, Vail Village1st Filing, 193 East core Creek Drive.Applicant: Kevin Claire,/Chuck Rosenquist
L2. Scheduling for exterior alterations in
Cornnercial Core I and Conmercial Core fI, forthe following properties (60 to 9O day study
period) :
A. Covered Bridge Building - A request for
an exterior alteration, a site coveragevariance, a height variance, a landscape
Q1-,/o^, -
variance and a floodplain modificationI',/ c*..f ' on l.ot C and f,ot D, and the(/ southwesterly 4 feet of Iot B, alL in- Block 5-B, Vail Village l'st FiLing, 227
Bridge Street.Applicant: Hillis of Snonmass, Inc. and
Bruce Ann & Assoclates.
ltontaneros - Lot 8, Block l, VaiI-
Lionshead 3rd Filing, 64L tf. LionsheadCircle.
Applicant: llontaneros Condo. Assoc.
B.
bo-?+
o
TO:
EROM:
DATE:
SU&TE(II3 A requeat for a sork geseion for an exterioralteratl,on, a site coverage variance, a heightvariance, a landEcape variance and a floodplainnodification on I€t C and I.ot D, and the southwesterly4 feet of Lot B, all ln Block 5-8, Vail village lstFiling, 227 BtLdge Street.Appllcant: Hillls of Snownass, Inc. and Bruce Ann &
Associates.
I. DESCRIPTIgN OF THE REOUEST
are proposing a naJor redevelopnent of theBuilding located at 227 Bridge Street. Thefor rnajor modificatioqq_lo_Jhe front entranceof the ex ETreaFlon of lower
eve access:i.blrfroE two
sectlons of the st
C addition of two upper floors, predoninantly locata cture. The owner of the
Covered Bridge Building has made the following applications
wj-th regards to the redevelopment:
1. An exterior alteration request;
2. A site coverage variance reguest;
3. A height variance requesti
4. A landscape variance request; and
5. A floodplain rnodificatLon request.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The following ls a prelininary summary of the proposed
redevelopment for the Covered Bridge Building. It should bepointed out that these are prelirninary figrrres only, and are
subJect to verLfication fron a registered surveyor and theplanning staff.
The applicants
Covered Bridgeproposal calls
on
and
Vrl,ly /l^' t -?'*'a 0) f'/^- e- aoXi.
Planning and Envlronnehtal Connission
Cornnunity Developnent Departnent
June 25, 1990
1. Site Coverage: Existing - 84t\- Atto*'abie - 8ot > 8% tProposed = 924/
2.Building Heights:a 36 ft.s 48 ft.
= 60t of the bullding
uay be up to 33t andup to 40t of thebuilding nay behigher ttran 33 | , but
no hlgher than 43r.
Exietlng
Proposed
ALlowable
3. GRFA:
{llo-lVe
Exlstlng = 0
Proposed = 3t74O
sg. ft.sq. ft.
4. Ftood Plain: The exigtlng fOO-year flood plaln, asTtrfca€dtfTy FEUA le curr-ntly 7.2 Lnches vertiially
above the exLsting grade along the north elevatLon ofthe existing bulldlng wall. Approval by the Arny Corpsof Engineers and FEl.tA Bhall be required.
III. COMPIJIN{CE WTTH THE PI'RPOSE SECTION OF COM!.TERCIAL CORE I
18.24.01O Purpose:
The Conmercial Core I Dlstrict is intended to provldesites and to naintain the unigue character of tlre VaitVillage Comnercial Area, with its nixture of lodges and
comnercial establlshnents Ln a predoninantly pedestrian
environment. The Connercial Core I District iE
intended to ensure adeguate light, air, open space, andother amenities appropriate to the permitted tlpes ofbuildings and uses. The district regrulations in
accordance wlth the Vail VilLage Urban Deslgn Guide
Plan and Design Considerations prescribe sLte
development standards that are Lntended to ensure the
maintenance and preserrration of the tightly clustered
arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways
and public greennays, and to ensure continuation of thebuilding scale and archl.tectural qualities thatdistinguish the Village.
IV. PRELIUINARY STAFF COUUEN.rS
The staff has reviewed the appllcantrs submittal materials
and we have the following concerns regarding the
application:
1. The removal of the two large evergreen trees adJacentto the north elevation of the building.
2. Encroachnent into the 100-year floodplaln.
3. Architectural issues:
a. A proposed flat roof design.
4.
o
b. The north elevation wall - we believe does not
enhance the pedestrian experience in the adJacentpocket park. lfe feel that thiE north sall should
be etepped back to provide Dore openness in thepocket park area.
c. tfe have Eome concerns with the revised front entry
and stalrs leading to the proposed retail spaces
on the basement level . Pedestrian access and
views of the retail apaces are dfuninished.
d. lllre staff feels that the rbrokenrr top dorners of
the building need work. We feel that they are
nore contenporary ln look aB opposed to the Urban
Design Guide Planrs suggeeted tyrolean style.
e. Larger overhangs ehould be proposed on thebultding. tfe alEo have sone concerns with regardto the extent and placernent of the glazing on the
east elevation.
f. The staff is concerned with the proposed aluninunstore fronts. l{e believe the use of aluninun notto be acceptable in the Village and would
reconmend a change to this proposed naterial .
Inprovenents on Town of Vail land itnnediately north of
the Covered Bridge Building (pocket park). The
applicant is proposing to upgrade this pocket park area
and the Planning Department tras hired Jeff l,ilinston of
Winston and Associates to act as Town Consultant in the
redevelopnent of this pocket park site. Currently,there is no design for the pocket park.
Sun/shade 1e_9ueS--staff has requested a sun/shade
-_'-.i-.---'...--anarysrs.
Building heigh!' conce_!!rs. Staff prefers to see the
ffi and encouiages the applicant to
redesign the roof to avoid the height variance.
View Corrl.dors--the applicant has
EnglneerfiATo determi-ne whether
hired Eagle Valley
the proposed structure
adopted viewencroaches into any of the Townrscorridors.
fn sunnary, the appticant Ls reguesting three varLances
and a floodplaln nodification. Staff etrongly
encourages the applicant to redesign the proposal in
order to avoid the nunber of requests.
5.
6.
7.
o
/EC- C-"^tJ T
o
.-t
G,' 29,?o
,L 24.-41-'.
F"rtJ
aA.Q4.
/,ra& M\1 /-e4
o
o"' -4,- ?3-r/2I s4.
o
@
- cafitrJ--arrt
z.A-*A.^<^ N..o*v
N-,1- tZ *^4
= Gae+fr a? ry 5-{ @^tt47
*//21i4- /tui*fli % /,42q ?.k-
2 h%.1
, - f ry?,,- *t-**-r&, *^/ 7
54 . / rr-f
4 *4 ch-u;..
o o
P?.OJECT:
D.(TE SU3I,IITTED:
COI.'U..IENTS HEEDED BY :
ERIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
POLICE DEPARTI,IENT
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
DateRevier,red by:
Comlerrts:
REC.::3ATi OI{ DEPARn.::NT
Revieaed.by:
Co;;,ents:
Da te
./
o
INTER.OgP.qRTIIENTAL REVI El.l
PROJECT:
D.frTE SUgl4lTTEDz (-. /: ?o __OF PUBLIC HEARING
CCIf/'ENTS llEEDE0 BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
F"/fr*^ dAaah^ , a;& %* /ltZ//tr
PUELIC IIORKS
Revierrred by:Date
Conr,ents:
POLICE OEPART]4ENT
Revieved by: Date
"E_/zo.7
o..!s-trE rE;r. eJ. I'liL-( ,rt - I^.'(? f,atUB (> , ./ -,2 t,/-,.,a
Con'nents: Q ataa/ dz:--vtrr,.q -?z)a/.Er?//l--e- zzze<trazd'lo 'ttztzzz' O"
(.,
J:V.a.,,tz<;'/2 d7 r'-avt 77'a'a>fz"o''-zT ' , ./
Z) ,a,,rz<- &laezo'J fc>azn ,'?/z/rt- /3e- '47taA' S),/*.ron-e., ,,,1,7r,,oL.-r, Jry", ,/* /* .7*:*o-::tr
4)ru. OIl7Z,r7 ?/oL *' n::"-; 'At'nd'rz z=aiv7?/o/? 5/4/4 ouBr<'-'Jc sr
5 ) /z "
u, -z- / zm izo't R /'Z-6n Jt2 a''- s a'g'f"v 7- 6-t-/ 4"t-4/?- d: 4 z- e ztze y'
i2 Vl^o- -/ p.n", a'^t cft"dun,o4 'Q'*a"'n) 'azao/'
7) CLt=s ./ s-^atJVVr a'zr/ u'<z'z.s (? e4 zn-)'^'S z.taJ'a 'a'/a'/s'-4trt-
Conr:lerrts:
Q+ to. *,('^ ^ 4"h\
'ti.t.
.ij;
Revieaed.by:
CO;--rents:
(
Date
a
" b,cMr " l&r=p
o
# 4 r'4"4.L
f
rNo lrra^A **-il \lc.\ od
{hWuc*qe tl 'h + rpi
'\U\
odfotr^ru'{\,
I i rtrU- \sL fu hdi.t,f"L-' dMan t N\00f audilt,rte- 0t
'l[ ",$:Km' {bqbi't ssuc MDIil''-"
lnel\rud \nnp: n.iNint0,.. o@\'oftt, riD\ or4ir;laAu C\ro*,,e
iffi"yt\Tq",$*$Pgdu to ai\ +.M-uh\
' lN.ra, dar,.. owtr lolojl - {rrntp0 rlin&,,'ls.
'ii6r\ ,$fulahoh lrdlr^ dsftroh J,
. i l ullnMJ- t €tu{r'Nu^rk ruc-M rlo.L y\rrtt-t +lrooo. or-r
I I
toW I!.r}2$ top q\ *){$a -. +ca4a}oida9 u'ecindar/
llol*W U\ra* odpad b8pnd-
'iindd[ t-o{ \-l \ r ,
oli^i"utP dr 4"4m.,t
lown o
?5 rodh f?ootrg. t!.dt|ll, colo'rdo tl35t
(!Grr.?$2roo
To3 T\e.- SsoQe S"^*
*x'f/nt/' ,At--- ^tr' t )Ylr \-/
l---"-
rA'( PEONE IIRIIISITITIAI. AEEEE
raxPEotrBrssrBER: o\\ -t\-) -q\1 -eR3t
$c.o\\,.
GOITPNW IIAUE:
SRO!{:
tt\
DATE: DI\<\qO
tfo. oF PAGES IN DOCITUENT (Ncfll IXCU'DTNG GOVER STEEET) 3
ncran\-
RESPONSE NEQI'IRED?: \\O
\snm av: { esnt4 rnr'nrsror xutagR:3oar{11-)\38
\
IFOWN OF VltIL tAlf PEOIIE lfitUBER3 303-119-2157
75 south lrontage toad
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 4792138
(303) 479-2139
June l-8, 1990
otlice of community development
Mr. Bruce Amm
Amm and AssociatesP.O. Box 62
Pymble, N.S.W. 2073
RE: The Covered Bridge Building
Dear Mr. Amm:
Thank you for your letter dated June L2, L990 with regard to your
proposed redeveloprnent of the Covered Bridge Building in Vail.
The Departrnent of Community Development has been working withyour architect, Ned Gwathmey, and to date the followingapplications have been submitted to our department:
1. Exterior alteration reguest.
2. Site Coverage variance reguest.
3. Landscaping variance reguest.
4. A floodplain roodification request.
We have scheduled a prelirninary hrork session before the Planning
and Environmental Commission on June 25, 1990 and that rneeting is
scheduled to begin at 2:00 p.n. This will be a work session only
and as such a formal vote from the Planning Commissj-on will not
be given. It is our desire, at this meeting, to give the
Planning Commission an overview of the project and a general
update of the issues and concerns that we as the Planning Staff
have identified. The project nay be scheduled for the July 9th
PEC meeting only if all subrnj.ttal requirenents (listed beJ-ow) are
received by June 21st at 8:00 a.n. If this deadline is not net,the project will not be published for the July 9th neeting.
Letter
Bruce Anm, Page 2
In order to complete your application, the Planning Staff is
requesting the following subrnittal inforrnation:
1. In order to determine building heights we will need a
roof plan showing all the proposed ridges as well as
att the existing ridge lines, and their associated
elevations. This roof plan should indicate the
percentage of the roof area that will be constructed to
a height of 33 t or less and the percentage of the roof
area that will be between 33r and 43r in height.
2. Please depict graphically the sun/shade analysis for
the proposed structure.
3. A proposed west elevation drawing is needed.
4. Documentation shall be reguired to indicate that the
proposed structure does not encroach into any of the
adopted view corridors of the Town of Vail.
5. A written analysis describing how this proposal
complies with the recently approved vail village Master
Plan shall be reguired as a part of this subnittal.
6. Due to the request for the floodplain modification, in
accordance with Section L8.56 of the Town Zoning Code,
an environmental irnpact report shalf be required. For
your convenience, I have attached a copy of this
Section of ttre Townrs Zoning Code. The purpose of this
environmental inpact report request is to establish
that the proposed alterations and rnodifications to the
existing structure wilt not have an adverse irnpact upon
adjacent properties, nor ni}l the redevelopment
increase the quantity or velocity of flood waters.
Section L8.69.o47 of the Town's code shall also apply
to your redevelopment. This section is also attached.
7. Proposed Landscape Plant indicate all trees to be
removed, as well as a1I new' Proposed landscaping.
8. Complete stakJ.ng of the site, and roof, for the PEC
work session.
9. Improvements on Town of Vail land (pocket park);
approwal from Town Council , at a work session, will be
required to proceed through the planningJ Process.
Letter
Bruce Anm, Page 3
A copy of this letter will be forwarded to Ned Gwathrney. I will
attempt to set up a rueeting with Ned to discuss tlre above named
issues. At this time, the Planning Staff has not forrnulated aposition on your project. once the applications are complete,
the staff will then be able to formulate a more definitiveposition regarding the design of the proposed building.
Additional comments regarding architecture, site planning and the
design for the adjacent pocket park wiJ.l be forth corning shortly.
The Town has contracted with Jeff Winston, of Winston and
Associates, out of Boulder, Colorado to assist with the review of
the project. Prelininary comments are expected from Jeff on
Tuesday, June 19th and once received will be forwarded to you as
soon as possible.
I look forward to ureeting you at the Planning and Environmental
Cornruission rneeting on June 25th. Should you have cornments or
questions on any of the above, please feel free to contact me.
My phone number is 303-479-2138.
Sincerel-y,
Mike MollicaSenior Planner
EncLosure
ruJ* fr"a*
Ned clrathney
Ron Phillips, Toun ltlanager
8 61 2 4494836 Bi)E Frlrl & nssc
Bruce Amm & Assoclates PtY. Ltd'
1l ' v.:ornr,fnled in Nf,w Soulh WnleBl
,rrrr{y'rn rrt
A;.(
12/46 ' ra
02s
TEL: SYDNEY 449'9852
FAX: SYDNEY 449'4836
Ron Phillips Esq.,
lown flanager,
Iown of Vatl l2th June, 1990.
Uear 5ir,
By now you wtll ne acquainted with ihe proposecl redevelopment
ot the Covered Brrdge BuilcJtng in Vail [C I
ln my capacity as iornt owner and redeveloper of the building I
naturally hzr.,p,r qreat interest tn the prolect Toclate I have
been t,:1,' re that I have spokert with that it is a good
pro.1ec.t, . 1|y ira:,etl and that it wtll errhance the town As you
are well awai rojects of this nature need careful planning
prior to therr submissiorr to authorities tf allrequircments are
t0 be r:-rrrplieci wrth Io thrs end much work has been done
t(rdate ano we are preparecl to meet with atryone necessary t0
as., ' rr rts srnooth pl ogress
It rs our wtsh tltat constructton commence early this Summer,
parttcularly as thet'e aie a number of other projects in the town
and it. will be to everyone's advantage if all the work is
completed as s00D as possible. To this end and as I believe that
tis
rrv rntention t.o travel from Sydney to Vail f0r that meetlng'
;riurally, I willbe available to discuss any matters relating to
the butlding, pr0posed park 0r any related tssue. Elecause of
ttme and distance I would sincerely appreciate it if you could
advrse ma ot what ttmirrg, or indeed any additional submission,
I can reasonably expect to errsure the smooth progress of the
project as it ts my desire to cornply as quickly as frossible with
all requlations
P.O. Box 62.
PYMBLE. N.S.W.2O73
Bruce Amm
12/96 '99 14226 8 6! 2 4494836 BRUCE FHI'I & F55Co
Bruce m & Assr*r:ilates FtY. Ltd.
o
Am
TEL: SYDNEY 449'9852
FAX: SYDNEY 449.4836
(lncotgorclod In New 5or,:t ;'aler)
FACSIMI LE TRANSM ISSION
P.O. BOX 62,
PYMBLE. N.S.W.2073
.l
Ff RM: I O,..r- a+ UA, u .
n fi r- ,17r{ -ro: KOp It p1.U'*O+ E SA' I DATE: 1z' -- f,*xrrr$ tctcto
FAX NO: h*lq - ?15'? .
NO.OFPAGES: Z.
6 r+rrr*r.F, Ytr ta tL0-/t*X /f Y trttx
It'9-+-r b }:rrle
on- 6t-z-11u1-L736.
oll rg r rvrE-Au+Tra*J1{t-
bt 1? cr.rr,r+.r',*r a<r \A ,
z ta ftae+ co\E
E/+f.d.,-"-a,/l
/] lll
[*M,,,,',-
lt Incomplete pl6es6 advlro by ringlng 449-9852
HYDBO.TRIAD. TTD
1310 Wadsworth Boulevard. Surte 100
Lakewood, Colorado 80215
Telephone 303/238-6022 FAX 303/238-6382
June 8. '1990
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Grand Junction RegulatorY Office
764 Hori zon Drive
Room 211
Grand Junction, Colorado 81506-8919
Attn: Mr. Grady McNure
Subject: Covered Bridge Building t'lodification, VaiI, Colorado
Dear Mr. McNure:
As I discussed with you by telephone, here is the information regarding the
subject project as it relates to Gore Creek. We have enclosed a site map plus
three photographs of the area.
The modification wi'l 'l extend into the existing 100-year f'loodplain by about
four feet along the northwall, and about sevan feet at the north-west corner of
t,he structure. Ia have made a basic hydraulic analys'is and flnd therE will be
no measurable impact on the 100-year fiood water f'lon. This has been reported
to the architect and to the Town of Vail.
In-so-far as wetlands are concerned, the following data regard'ing the areas
of improvement are furn ished:
vegetation: Lawn, p'lus planted evergreens and a few o1d-growth trees'
Soils: Regraded and natural materiajs - f'l uvial va1 ley deposits.
Hydraulic/Hydrologic: Al1 f'lood flows of 1o-year magnitude' or less, flow
within the channel. The 100-year f'low reaches the
building edge in places, up to a depth of 0'6 feet'
There wlll be no dredge or flll activlty. The site of.this nork does not
appear to us to meet any of ine retlands definition cr'lteria; horever your revlew
iii conctusions wouldbe apprEc'lated. I trill be g]ad to answ€r any questlons you
may have.
l.lr. Grady l.lcNure
June 8, 1990
Page 2
CCB: JM
Encl. :
xc:
Thank you for your asslstance.
, Arnoldllr. Bruce Amt,
384-001
w/o Encl.
SlncerelY Yours'
Charles C. Baggs' P.E.
Senior Water Resource Englneer
'ffi tArchltects, w./o Encl.
(1)
(2)
Site tlap
HYDRO-TBIAD.LTD
1310 \{/adsr,vorlh Boulevard, Suile 100
rt. ) .. i , Lakewood, Colorado 80215
fit.
June 5, 1990
Mr. Mike MolIica
Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Town of Vai l
Vail, Colorado 81657
Subject: Covered Bridge Store Modification
Dear Mr. MolIica:
0ur firm has been requested by Arnold Gwathmey Pratt, Architects, to revievt
the Covered Bridge Building f{odifications project as it re'lates to the Gore Creek
Floodplain. The property is located primari]y on lots C and D, Block 5-B' Vai'l
Va'lley First Filing. Gore Creek lies adjacent to the north boundary of Lot B of
this property. A map of the immediate area is enc'losed.
|Je have made a pre'l iminary analysis to determine what impacts the proposed
modifications may have on the 100-year f'loodway, and on properties in the
immediate area. The existing structure is in contact with the 100-y€ar
f'loodplain boundary along part of its north wall. The external modifications
include straightening and 'lengthing this wal1, such that the area in contact vrith
the boundary will be affected.
The boundary wjl'l be changed in two specific ways: First' an abrupt 3.8
foot displacement'in the existing north rva'l 'l is to be eliminated, which wil1
narrow the floodplain width from approximately 85 feet to 81 feet over a distance
of about 24 feet. Second, this wall wi'l 1 be extended to the west about 15 feet'
which wj'l I p'lace the corner of the modified bui'lding about seven feet into the
floodplain, measured perpendicular to streamf low di rection'
We have compared the water surface leve'ls for the 100-year flood under
before-and-after conditions for this reach of the stream. This analysis has
utilized basic continuity conditions on'ly, and has not included computer-based
watersurface profile computations. Due to the smallsca]e of the modifications,
the use of a computer-based water surface profile program wou'ld not be of any
Mr. Mike Mollica
June 5, 1990
Page 2
value. The input data variations are so smalI that there wou'ld be no differencein the program's outputs.
Our concluslon, uslng basic hydrau'lic engineering relationships, is that
there wlll be no detectab'le dlfference ln the water surface elavatlons between
exlsting and modified conditlons. In theory, the most extrsme rise would be
about 1/4 lnch - if the modifications were a narrowing only. However this wi'l 'l
be offset by the streamlining effects of the modifications. By eliminating the
break in the building walI the flow resistance wjlI be reduced, which should
lower the water surface slightly. Thus, any change in flow conditions, depths,or widths of floodway, are 'in reality too smal I to measure.
l{e recomnend the Town of Vail recognlze thls project as a no-lmpact actionjn-so-far as flood hazard zone effects are concerned. l{e wi lI be glad to meet
with you or discuss the subject further at your convenience.
Sincerely yours,
TRIAD, LTD.W.,fu
Senior Water Resource Engineer
CCB: Jm
Encl.xc: l.lr. Ned Gwathmey
Mr. Bruce Amm
384-001
oo
d'pJ ts"U*e R.-;214
6. /7. 7a \flf r rtz/"q:
e b" ,,-t dz<y+ ^- /4t ."4r/ 4r -,^////
14
=J
oI
[/
(
,
I
I
I
l
I
I
II
I
o
o
/
I
06 -9 -g
'Qz7 'ovrzt -oao,u-/s2
V)tnalzv '2/N al'Vtz 7J H
06'9 -7 'QrA
aJ SztO?oDNl
JJ
t
G
utot;
toE
blrb
ho
b
n,
o\
A/
i
o
J
IL
o
I
I
0
o
o
J
tL
b
aJ f---
/
:(
/xtj-/\I i( \t 2tI b?/ uf/8
FJ
tcUI
lro
tr,
19olrl
rQ-ntF9lro
B"E>ourOJJ
u.t l!
,A'
)c
q
t
-J
\
\
I
o,a
YOFtr{t,
l|| lr,
d3_ot<r9<o
fre
8TIg'
e"cnoo
3EJlrt!c,
t\
I
I
$/
ll.
lWr..ira"
5,,
i,,).,doty-
:i
isJrr{t{
a g.,.q
rEaJ!J
bz
"l)
oID
F
tr,Jo
t)
o
o
May 'l 5, 1 990
Mr. Mihe Mollica, Senior Planner
Community Development, Town of VaiI
75 South Frontage Road WestVaiI, CO 81657
RE: Proposed Modifications to the Covered Bridge BuildingApplication for Exterior alterations or Modificationsj.n Commercial Core 1, Vail Village
Dear Mike:
Enclosed find the Application for the above project. The owner j.s
anxious to get this on the P.E.C. docket and to proceed as soon aspossible, feellng this would be a good summer to complete work inccr.
Prlor to the actual hearing we will provide:
Certiflcation that the proposal is not within the viewcorridor.Certification of the existing site coverage.
Further, we wiII file for what we anticipate to be the variances:
Site coverage.
Landscaping.
The implications of a very minor encroachment on the flood plain isbelng evaluated by Hydrotriad. Should a hydrology study berequired j.t w111 be authorized and provided to you.
Please let me know if the zoning adrninistrator needs additionalmaterial for the review.
7
Mr. l{ike Molllca
Pl.ease let me know if
comprehendible as we
Sincerely,
ARNOLD / GWATHMEY / PRATT
-2-
the Appllcation isare anxious to make
May 15, 1990
not complete or fullythis as clear as possible.
ARCITITECTS, P.C.
trk/r
Ned Gwathmey
NG/ad
Enclosures: Four copies of Site PIanSite Inprovement LocationSite Topographic PIan byTitle ReportList of Property Owners
copy to: Bruce AmmHilIls
Tom Backhus
and BuildingCertificate
Eagle Valley
Plansby Eagle Valley
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
PUBLIC NOTTCE
NOTICE IS HEREBy GfvEN that the Planning and Environmental
Conmission of the Town of VaiI will hold a pubtic hearing in
accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the
Town of Vail on June 25, 1990 at 2:oO p.n. in the Town of VaiI
llunicipal Buildinq. Consideration of:
A request for an exterior alteration and a landscape
variance Ln order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower
Buitding at 201 Gore creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 58Vail Vill.age r.st Filing.Applicant: Hernann Staufer - Iancelot Restaurant
A request for a conditional use pennit to
allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lots 6 and L/2 of 5, Block
5, VaiI Village Seventh Filing, 1119 E. frtatrorigan Road.
Applicant: Monie S. Beal
A request for a conditional use pernit to
allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lot 8, Block 3, Bighorn
Subdivision, 5th Addition, 5198 Gore Circle.Applicant: John and Paula Canning
A request for a conditional use perrnit for a construction
staging area, located just uphilt of the Golden Peak
snorrnaking pumphouse, Tract B, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
Preliminary review for an exterior alteration in Conmercial
Core I, for the foLLowing property (60 to 90 day study
period) :
covered Bridge Building - I.ot C and L'ot D' and the
southwesterly a feet of L.ot B, all in Block 5-8, VaiI
Village 1st Filinq, 227 Bridge Street.Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, fnc.
A request for a variance from the wall height reguirement on
Ifit ig, Block 1, VaiI Potato Patch; 805 Potato Patch Drive.
Applicant: Patsy and Pedro Cerisola
A request for an anendment to the Townrs zoning code to addilTelelision Stationrr as a conditional use in the Cornrnercial
Core II zone district, Section 18.26.O10Applicant: Vail/Beaver creek Television Network.
A request for a conditional use permit for a deck expansion
at the Sweet Basil restaurant, located on Tract A, Block 58'
Vail Village 1st Filing, 193 East Gore creek Drive-
applicant: Kevin claire/chuck Rosenguist
6.
7.
8.
*2",1tr1,#
c-./7n*'Cb4( .-L,4-, c.r.-.,- ,1, 1r ,
9.A request foian anendrnent to SDD No. 23f vaiL NationalFiling, 108Bank, Part of Lot D, Block 2, VaiI Village 2nd
S. Frontage Road West.
Applicant: Vait National gank Building Corp.
10. A request for a side yard setback variance at 4247 CoLunbine
Drive, Unit #20, Bighorn Terrace.
Applicant: John Nilsson
11. A request for a front setback variance and a creek setback
variance for Lot 6, Vail Village West, Fiting No. 2 ' L755
West Gore Creek Drive.Applicant: Dan and Karen Forey
L2. A request for a conditional use pernit and a height variancein order to construct an antenna at the Vail Municipalbuilding, 75 South Frontage Road.Applicant: Town of Vail Police Department
13. A request for a rnajor subdivision, a request to approve theprellninary plan, a request for a variance to the naximum
height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to
the naxirnum percent grade for a road, on a parcel cornnonly
referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approxirnate 40 acre parcel
located north and east of the Main vail I-70 interchange and
east of the Spraddle Creek livery.Applicant: ceorge Gillett, Jr.
14. A request for a work session on the Sonnenalp remodel and
proposed Special Development District at 20 vail Road, Part
of Lot L, Block 5-E, Vail Village lst Filing.Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc.
The applications and infornation about the proposals are
available for public inspection in the Conmunity Development
Departrnent office.
Town of Vail
Corununity Developrnent Departrnent
Published in the Vail trail on June 8, 1990.
Date of lpi i.ution
Date of PEC Meeting
APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS
OR MODIFICATIONS IN COMMERCIAL CORE I
VAIL VILLAGE
I. Planning and Environmental Commission review is required for the alteration
of an eiisting building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area or
outdoor patio-or the replacement of an existing building L0CATED IN THE CCI
DISTRICT. FOLLOWING PEC APPROVAL, THE PROJECT MUST BE REVIEI'IED BY THE DRB.
The app'lication will not be accepted until all information is submitted.
A. NAME 0F APPLICANT Mr. Bruce Amm' Bruce Amm & Assoc. PTY LTD.
ADDRESS P.o. Box 62
Pymble, New South V'lales , Austral i a 207 3-PHONE
B.APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Ned Gltat!1mey, Arnold/GwatNAME OF
ADDRESS
Pratt Architects' P.C.
1000 South Frontaqe Road West, VaiIt CO 81657
c.NAME 0F OI.INER(S) (print oq type) HilIis of Snowmass
SIGNATURE ( S )
ADDRESS 285 Bridqe Street, Vai], Co 8i657
PH0NE 476-1147
D.LOCATION
ADDRESS
PHONE 476-4182
0F PR0P0SAL: LEGAL Lots B,C,D, Block 5-8, Vail Village
First FiIing
Covered Brj-dqe Bui]ding
E.FEE 'Lt/)CK# sz-rv
MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT l.lILL
YOUR PROJECT.
ev-4L&!!!4
THE FEE
REV I EW
iI. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE:
A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE t^lITH A PLANNING STAFF MEl4BER IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED
TO DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED. NO APPLICATION |.IILL
BE ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL ITEMS REQUIRED BY THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE AN APPOINT-
MENT t,/ITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS.
PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION WILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS
FOR YOUR PROJECT EY-DEm'EASING THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT
THE PEC MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE
A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED. THE FOLLOWING MUST BE SUBMITTED:
A. Improvement survey of property showing property lines- _and location of
OuitAing and any improvements on the i1i16.'nagre valley survey enclosed'
B. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subiect
property INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHIND AND ACR0SS STREETS, and their mailing
addresses. THE APPLICANT tIILL BE RESP0NSIBLE FOR C0RRECT MAILING ADDRESSES.
Don Gatgon and Tom Backhus, Slifer, Smith & Frampton
OVER
crI
III. Four (4) copies of a site plan containing the following information:
A. The site plan shall be drawn on a sheet size of 24" x 36" at a scaleof l" = 20' SHOWING EXISTING AND PR0P0SED IMPROVEMENTS T0 THE SITE. Avaniation of the sheet size or scale may be approved by the Community
Development Department if justified.
B. The date, north arrow, scale and name of the proposed development
lllITH iTS LEGAL DESCRIPTION shal] be shown on the site plan.
C. The existing topographic character of the site including existing
and proposed contours. This conditjon wjil only be required for an
expansion area where there js a change of two feet of grade.
D. The existjng and proposed landscaping, pat.ios.
E. The location of al1 existing and proposed buildings, structures
and improvements.
F. .A title report to verify ownership and easements.
IV. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT IN WRITTEN AND GRAPHIC FORM A PREPONDEMNCE
OF EVIDENCE BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION INDICATING
lftAt:
A. THE PROPOSAL IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE CCI DISTRICT
AS SPECIFIED IN IB.24.O'IO.
B. THE PROPOSAL SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIES WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN OESIGN
GUIDE PLAN REGARDING:
l. Pedestrianization2. Vehicle Penetration3. Streetscape Framewofk4. Street Enclosure5. Street Edge6. Bui ld j ng He'ight7. Views8. Sun Shade Consideration
MANY OF THE ABOVE ITEMS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED
AS SKETCHES, SIMULATIONS, MODELS (INCLUDING
PHOTOS, ETC.
BY GRAPHIC MEANS, SUCH
NEIGHBORING BUiLDINGS),
t,-
V.
IF THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A MAJOR CHANGE TO THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN
DESIGN GUIDE PLAN, THE PROCEDURE FOR CHANGES ARE NOTED IN SECTION
18.24.220(B).
C, THE PROPOSAL IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER OF TIJE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE TOI.IN OF VAIL ZONING CODE FOR CCI ALSO DESCRIBES OTHER ZONING ISSUES
THAT THE APPLICANT MUST RESPOND TO IN WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC FORM.
VI. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY DETERMINE THAT ADDITIONAL MATERIAL IS NECESSARY
FOR THE REVIEt^l OF THE APPLICATION.
VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS IN CCI INVOLVING
MORE THAN IOO SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA ARE ONLY REVIEWED SEMI-ANNUALLY. THEY
NEED TO BE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FOURTH MONDAY OF MAY OR NOVEMBER. THE PEC
Htr.DS A PRELIMINARY REVIEl.l SESSION l,|ITHIN 2I DAYS OF THE SUBMITTAL DATE- A
PUBLIC HEARING SHALL BE HELD WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE PRELIMINARY REVIEt^I SESSION.
APPLICATIONS FOR THE ALTERATION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT ADDS OR REMOVES ANY
ENCLOSED FLOOR AREA OF NOT MORE THAN lOO SQUARE FEET MAY BE SUBMITTED AT THE
REQUIRED TIME OF THE MONTH FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSiON REVIEl^l.
FOR MORE SPECIFICS ON THE REVIEl,l SCHEDULE, sEE SECTION 18.24.065 A5.
June 1 , 1990
Mr. Mike Mollica, Senior Planner
Conrnunity Development, Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Proposed Modifications to the Covered Bridge Building
Variances for 18.24.150 Coverage
18.24. 170 Landscaping
Dear Mike:
As per our pre-application conference, please find an Application
for two varj.ances, check for $200.00 as required and four sets of
plans.
The bulk of this material is duplicated and is part of the
information submitted with the Application for exterior alterations
in Commercial Core 1, Vail Village.
rt
m*Oi'
Please let me know if the zonj-ng administrator needs additional
material for the revi.ehr.
Sincerely,
ARCHTTECTS, P.C.
NG/ad
Enclosures
Copy to: Bruce Amm
As part of this proposal ,
;::i#:: L -',2'.'11'.1;3 ;:;il33r.n Reducri3p\ication 0.,"O 6-1-so
PEC MEETING DATE 6-11-90
APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
This
wil I
A.
procedure is required
not be accepted until
NAME OF APPLICANTMT.
for any project requesting a variance. The application
a'l'l information is submitted.
Bruce Amm, Bruce Amm & Assoc. PTY LTD.
I.
ADDRESS P.o. Box 62
B.
Pymble, New South Wal-es, Australi-a 2073 PHONE
NAME 0F APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVENed Gwathmey, Arnold/GwathlnqY
Platt Architects, P.c.
ADDRESS 1OO0 south erontaq
PH0NE 476-1147
NAME 0F ol^|NER(S)(type or print)Hillis of Snowmass, Inc.c.
q
ADDRESS 285 Bridge Street, Vai1, CO 81657
pHoNE 476-4182
ffi#\
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS covered Bridge Building
LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT BcD BLOCK s-B FILING First
PAID ZOO,O!cK #_izrJ_ rnon A*4/6,-d+ //-d
---T-
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IIILL ACCEPTTHE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE
YOUR PROPOSAL.
F. A'list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subject property
INCLUDING PR0PERTY EEHIND AND ACROSS STREETS, and their ma'i1ing addresses.
THE APPLICANT I^IILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT MAILING ADDRESSES.
Enclosed
II. A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE l,lITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED
TO.:DETERMINE IF ANY'ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED. NO APPLICATION I,'ILL BE
ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL ITEMS REQUiRED BY THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO I'IAKE AN APPOINTI4ENT
I.IITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS.
PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION 1.lILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR
YOUR PROJECT EY OECTMIX_-6 THE NUI'1BER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE PLANNING
AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE
COMPLIED t.lITH BEFORE A BUILDING PEMIT IS ISSNED.
III. FOUR (4) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING MUST BE SUBMITTED:
A. A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED AND THE
REGULATION INVOLVED. THE STATEMENT MUST ALSO ADDRESS:
'l . The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential' uses and structures in the vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve cornpatibllity
and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain*tle
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the varjance on light and air, djstribution of population,
transportation, traffic faci'l ities, utilities, and public safety'
B. A topographi. l!a/o. improvement survey at_a scale of at'least l" - 20, stampeci' by a Colorado licensed surveyor including locations of al'l existing Jmorove-ments, including grades and elevations. 0ther e'lements which must-be shownare parking and loading areas, ingress and egress, landscBped areas andutility and drainage features.
C. A site plan at a sca'le of at least lrr= 20r showing existing and proposed
bu i 1di ngs.
D. Atl preliminary building e'levations and floor p'lans sufficient to indicate
the dimensions, general appearance, scale and use of a'l I buildings and spacesexisting and proposed.on the site. 4 Sfl-s lpLW6r>
E. A prelim'inary title report to verify ownership and easemenrr
tff-* -
F. If the proposa] is'located in a multi-family development which has a homeowners'association, then written approval from the assocjation in support of theprojebt must be received by a duly authorized agent for said association.. Not applicab,le
G. Iny additiona'l material necessary for the review of the application as
detennined by the zoning administrator..
* For interior modifications, an improvement survey and site plan may be
waived by the zoning administrator.
4. How your request complies w'i th VaiI's Conprehensive Plan.
Vari ance
on the 2nd and 4th llondays
al1 accompanying material
of 4 weeks prfor to the date of the
(as determined by the zoning
staff before or after the desig-
IV.Time Requ'i rments
The P'l anning and Environmental Commission meetsof each month. A complete application form and(as described above) must be submitted a minimum
PEC public hearing. No incomp'lete applications
administrator) will be accepted by the plann'ing
nated submittal date.
i'
Varj.ances Requested
A.18.24.150 CoveraExistlng Coverage
Allowable 80t
Proposed
The infil1 proposed occurs on the West, presently a fenced storage
area and North, replacing an unsightly stair and changing the North
elevation making for more open, hospitable entrance to Vail. TheEast/Bridge Street wall will actually be moved back for better
exposure to both floors. The building was sinilar to what we are
proposing before a 1982 remodel .
The building is bordered on three sides by open space: lfestparking, North town property and East by Bridge Street. Bulldingout to the property line seems a natural means of improving the
commercial experience per the design guidelines.
A.1 The relationship of the reguested variance to other existing
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity: no
appreciable change. The uses remain the samei the basicbuilding outline remains the same. A slmilar relationship
stays to adjacent properties.
The degrees to which relief frorn the strict or literalinterpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment,s among sites in the vicinity or to attain theobjectives of this titl-e withoul grant of speci-al privilege.
The number of cases, according to Staff, in CCl which have
had similar variances is numerous. The application improvesthe vicinity, removes unsightly, inaccessible al1ey-1ike
areas making them useful.
3. The effect of the varj.ance on light and aj.r is documented inthe Reguest for lvlodification in CC1 . The park to the north
is already in shade in winter, and the proposed constructionwill not appreciably alter these conditions.
Page 2
1. Distribution of population
TraneportationTrafflc facilitiesUtllitiesPubllc Safety
-no-no-no-no-no
effect
effecteffect
effecteffect
4. The reguest complies wlth Vail's Comprehensive Plan to theextent the bulldlng presently complies.
MINNESOTA
T|TLE 4\
5440 Ward Road
Arvada, CO 80002
120-0241
3300 So. Parker Rd., Suile 105
Aurora, CO 80014
75t-4336
I 810 30lh Street
Boulder, CO 80301
444-4lOl
200 Norlh Ridge
P. O. Box 2 280
Breckenridge, CO 80424
453-22s5
5l 2 Wilcox
Castle Rock, CO 80104
6I8-636 3
212 Norfh Wahsatch
Colorado Springs, CO 80903
634-4821
Commitment To Insure
lssued through the 1ffie of:
P. O. Box 5 440
Denver, CO 80217
321-1880
8621 E. Hampden
Suile 100
Denver, CO BO23l
750-4223
8333 Greenwood Boulevard
Denver, CO 80?21
427-9353
I201 Main Avenue
Durango, CO Bl30l
247-586Q
7700 E. Arap.rltoe Rd.
5u ite I 50
Englewood, CO B0l l2
770-9596
3600 So. Yosemile
Denver, CO 802 37
694-2837
| 08
LAND TITLE
GTJARANTEE
COI4PANY
South Fronlage Road W.
P.O. Box 357
Vail, CO 8l 658
476-2251
3030 S. College Avenue
Suite 201
Fori Collins, CO 80525
482-9015
710 Kipling Slreet
Lakewood, CO 80215
232-31 | |
3609 So. Wadsworth
Suite I l5
Lakewood, CO 802 35
988-8 5 5 0
I1990 Granl Slreet
Suile 220
Norlhglenn, CO 80233
452-Ot 49
19590 Easl Mdin Slreel
Parker, CO 801 34
841 -4900
108 South Fronlage Road W.
P.O. Box 357
Vail, CO 81 658
476-2251
LAI.{D'l'rT|.E
GUAI:lANf,rt-t:
COMf:ANY
ALr^O"oMM,.rMENr O ; r
SCHEDULE A
Application No. Vl-4Bl-L
For fnfornation Only
},OT C & D COVERED BRIDGE STORE
- Charges -
ALTA Owner Policy 12,737,oO
$2o. ooTaxcertit:-torol--
g2,7s7.oo
With your remittance please refer to VL4Btl_.
L. Effective Date: January 24, l99O at :l:OO A.M.
2. Policy to be issued, and proposed fnsured:
rrALTArr ohrnerts policy $l_,4oorooo.OoForm B-L97O (Amended LO-1"7-7O)
Proposed Insured:
BRUCE Aljlllt ',
3. The estate or interest in the rand described or referred to inthis conmitment and covered herein is:
A Fee Sinpte
1. Title to the estate or interest covered hereLn is at theeffective date hereof vested in:
HTLLIS OF SNOWMASS, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION
t. The land referred to in this commitment is described asfollows:
LOT C AND LOT D, AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY 4 FEET OF LOT BI ALL INBLocK 5-8, VArL VILLAGE FIRST FILING, Acccr.rtDING To THE RECoRDEDPLAT THEREOF, COUNTY oF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO.
)AGE 1
ALTA
a
o-coMMrrMENT
SCHEDULE B-].
(Requirenents) Application No. V1481-1
2.
3.
The following are the reguirements to be complied with:
L. Payment to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors ofthe fu]l consideration for the estate or iirterest to beinsured.
).
Proper instrument(s) creating the estate orr interest to beinsured rnust be executed and duly fited t.)).. record, to-wit:
RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST DATED August lo, 1.984, FROM HILLIS OF SNOWI{ASS,INC. TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF EAGLE COUNTY FOR THE USE OF JOHN A. DOBSON
AND CATHERINE M. DoBsoN To SECURE THE sUM oF $1,90e,593.77 RECoRDED August13, L984, IN BOOK 392 AT PAGE 295.
SUBORDINATTON AGREEMENT IN CONNECTTON WITI{ SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDEDAugust 04, 1'987, rN BooK 467 AT PAGE 22i- AND RECoRDED AUGUST r7, t9B7 rN
BOOK 468 AT PAGE 63.
SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS ASSIGNED TO UNITED BANK OF DENVER NATTONALASSOCIATION, CO-TRUSTEE IN ASSIGNMENT RECORDED August l-5, l-988, IN BOOK 489AT PAGE t_12, AS TO AN UNDTVTDED 1/2 INTEREST.
RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST DATED August 03, Ig87t FROM HILLIS OF SNOI,{MASS,rNC., A COIORADO CORPORATTON TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF EAGLE COUNTY FOR THEUsE oF vAfL NATTONAL BANK To SECURE THE sUM oF g255,ooo.oo RECoRDED August04, L987, IN BOOK 467 AT PAGE 220-
SUBORDINATTON AGREEMENT IN CONNECTTON WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDEDAugust 04, 1987 | rN BooK 467 AT PAGE 22r- AND RECoRDED AUGUST L7, l-987 rNBOOK 468 AT PAGE 63.
SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS FURTHER SECURED TN ASSIGNMENT OF RENTS RECORDEDAugust l-7, L987, fN BOOK 468 AT PAGE 52.
RELEASE oF DEED oF TRusr DATED August 03, LgBg, FRoM HrLLrs oF sNowMASs,INC. ' A COLORADO CORPORATION TO THE PUBLTC TRUSTEE OF EAGLE COUNTY FOR THEUSE OF VAIL NABIONAL BANK TO SECURE THE SUM OF $4OO,OOO.OO RECORDEDSeptember 26, L999, IN BOOK 5j_4 AT PAGE l_45.
TERMINATION OF FINANCING STATEI',IENT FROM OMNTSPoRT CoMPANY D/B/A THE SNUGCOMPANY' wrrH wElr,s FARGO BANK, N.A, THE sEcuRED pARTy, REcbRbED November10, L988, IN BOOK 494 AT PAGE 985.
)AGE
oALTA COMMIT14ENT
i
SCHEDULE B-]-.
(Requirernents) Application No. V14811
7. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS, CONDTTTONS AND
PROVISIONS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.
8. WARRANTY DEED FROM HTLLTS OF SNO9MASS, INC., A COLORADO CORPORATION TO
BRUCE AMM CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY.
)AGE 3
t ,' t
(Exceptions) Application No. Vl-481-1
The policy or policies to be issued will contain exceptions to thefollowing unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction ofthe Cornpany:
L. Standard Exceptions l- through 5 printed on the cover sheet.
6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special
assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer I s office.
7. Any unpaid taxes or assessnents against said land.
8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any.
9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THEREFROM SHOULD THE SAME BE FOUND TO PENNTRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREMISES
AS RESERVED fN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDT1D July 1-2, 1-899, IN BOOK 48 AT
PAGE 475.
1-0. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
UNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN UNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED JuIy L2 , 1-899,IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 475.
11. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHTCH DO NOT CONII'ATN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CI,AUSE,BUT oMITTTNG RESTRICTIoNS, IF ANY' BAS?D oN RACE, cor,oR' RELIGToN, oR
NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAfNED IN INSTRUMENI'RECORDED August J-0, 1,962t IN
BOOK 1.74 AT PAGE 179.
12. EXISTING LEASES AND TENANCTES.
o!ALTA COMMTTMENT
J
SCHEDULE B-2
)AGE 4
\
Project Application
lt Jctzc'l 5-l eDIt,l(Dale | \.(.,' Y.. cl.- t s (/
proiectName: N lr Nl ' I'Jerccg" .-Sr<,'J
projeci Descrip,,o", RA-n f U :S*+ap
owner Address and phone: I ' 1. [, R ulorv
{oo Lrop"pvor" |-ku-4zt. sodl
Architect Address and Phone:(A ur:-
Legal Description: Lot Block 7;tinn Co'tEesP Eetrxg SrunE, 2t;af;"-
Zone'.ccl
Zoning Approved:
Design Review Board
Date
Motion by:
DISAPPROVAL
Chie{ Building Otficial
\
PI"ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October'27, L980 3:00 P.M.
1. Approval- of minutes of meeting of 10/13/80.
2. Assign member to DRB meeting.
3. McDonatd. setback varianceSite 15, Casolar VaiI II
4. Knox, density control variance
Casolar II, Resub Lot A-7 Lionsridge #J-
5. Amendments to Zoning OrdinancesHeight, Density and Water Quality
6. Amendments to Cond.itional Use Criteriaof Zoning Ordinances
Published in the Vail Trail, October 24, 1980.
t Project Applicatlon
/
Project Name:
Proiect D€scription:
Owner Address and Phone:
Architect Address and Phohe:
/c'ht-rO't 2n r'
Legal Oescription: Lot Block Filing
Zone:
Zoning Approved:
Design Review Board /o- zf
=t/ ),
Motion by: 6.,-
seconded ,rt fun*/<n-'
DISAPPROVAL
Chief Building Official
MTNUTBS oF pr/{Nltc /\ttD ENVTRoNMENTAL coMMrO\o* MEETTNG
MondaY, October 13' 1980 3:00 P'M'
I\TEMBERS PRESENT
Gerry White
John Perkins
Dan corcoran
Ed Drager
Roger Tilkeneier
Gaynor Miller
Jim'Morgan
COI]NCIL MEMBER
BilI wilto
STAFF PRESENT
Dick Ryan
.lim Rubin
Peter Patten
Betsy Rosolack
d
The meeting was cdlled to order by Gerry White. Dan Corcoran moved the
minutes of the Sept I meeting be approved, seconded by Ed. Drager.
5-0 in favor (,JIm Morgan and Gaynor I'lil1er hadntt arrived yet).
2. Miskell greenhouse addition, Ilot 2, Block 2, VaiI Village 13th'
setback variance request.
Peter patten presented the staff's feelings as written in the memo ma:led
to the Cornmisiion, recommending denial. whitney Miskell distributed r-ore
information including a letter from the neighbor to the east approvj-ng
the greenhouse. Dan Corcoran felt it would be a positive additio:r io
"
.u"iy plain East side of the house. John Perkins said he was the original
designer, and although he would abstain from the vote, agreed with Dan.
Roger T. moved that the variance be opproved, Dan seconded it. The vote
wai: in favor, t(Gerry) against. Gat;or=Estained, since he did not hear
the discussion.
3.AdditiontoVi11acecenterBui1dingD,requiri
Jim Rribin said a survey had been- complet,ed to see if the proposal
would interfere with the bus lane, and explained the differences in this
proposal . He pointed out the 5 conditions listed in the meno that the
staff \^tanted to see implemented if approval was granted. He felL that
the plan was in basic Lonformance with the Vait Village Urban Desigrn Guide
PIan and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations. The 2 smaller unit's
that were reqested by the staff in the original proposal were discussed.
Cecil Dodson, presid-nt of Village Center Condominiumn Association, eldgs
A,B & C questibned approval of twice the square footage as proposed in
the Urban Design cuiaa Plan. Dick Ryan replied that the Urban Design Guide
Pl-an dj-d not dictate exact plans, but was a guide on1y. Mr. Dodson protestec
the two stories, but stated that he approved the improvement of the area.
John Perkins felt that the massing helped to make the transition from one
story to the present two story building. Mr. Dodson asked if it was worked
withln the Urban Design Guide Plan. G,erry White replied that the UDGP
provided the guide. Oictc added that .Teff Winston had reviewed this proposal
presented the first time, but not the 2nd one. John P. questioned the
iandscaping of the area to the east, and if the ornrners would work with .leff
of\ that. Fred Hibberd replied he wou1d, aclding that the Ist plan had the
same footp::int, then he tiiea to please othbrs by chanqing the elcvations-
In doing so, one owner had to exchange l}:irs view for additional space.
Addition to Vill-age Center BuiLdinq D, requiring both a Densitv-Ccntrol
i on appf qyqlZ--Be]liF eq- P roEg s3-'
(pec-2- L0/1sl80 O
Fred Hibberdrs statements on t:he 5 conditions were:
1. he wasn't looking for a condo to market2. he'd like to continue to to work further with Jeff Winston
3. the bus lane does encroach onto his property' but it and the walkway
work well and he will dedicate the necessary land for them
4. agrees with this
5. .agrees with this
Ed Drager didnrt agree with having a second storyr since a 1 story was
shown in the UDGP. ,fohn Perkins stated that the design cannot be sel:
at the scale of 1"=200', nor square footage specified. Gaynor Miller felt
that, in working with Fred for L-L/2 months, that this was a much better
design and that it would blend. in very vrell, adding that the Town needs
buses and walks and a compromise should be made. Roger T. added that the
Location was very visible. and that when the commission had visited the
site that they had agreed that a one story building didn't look right
at that location. Gerry agreed and stated that he felt it was in keeping
with the UDGP.
Roger moved for approval subject to the 5 conditions in the memo, John
seconded. Vote was 4 in favor, 2 against. (Dan a Ed against) . ifi:n abstaine,
since he didn't hear the full discussion.
4. A Cond.itonal Use Request for the Covered Bridge Store !q-a:l1ow the
Jim Rubin summed up the memo, stating that the staff was in favor of
approval, for the ieasons stated in the memorandum. Ed Drageg asked how
one could say that there is no way one can keep people living in the
core area--did that mean no one wanted to live there? He fel-t it was
inconsistent with the prior case where the staff is insisting that an aPartl
go in to make something look better because people will want to live there.
Jim Rubin felt that the apartments were in two different locati-ons.This one is right across from 2 night clubs with more commoLion at thislocati..on *r
John Dobson stated. that Bridge Street is a heavily traveled area in Vail
Uses of this type have been granted. In the early days, it made sense'
but doesn't nor. to any where near the degree. Gorsuch, the Bank bui-lding,etc. have done the same thinq. There are perhaps two long term spaces
in the core, and precedent, has been esLablished. Long term has not
worked out. Dan Corcoran . then added that the Town is being
sued by a property owner who considered just the opposite, that his proper-
ty !,tas guite valuable, namely the tower over the Rucksack. They certainly
woul-dn't want that conversion. He stated that he was on the Planning
Comnission when Lhe conversion came through with the apartments that
used to be above the Liquor Store and he opposed that.
John Dobson asked ifconditionaluses were granted to the Ore House Building,
the Cyrano building, or for Gorsuch. He repeated that the precedent
had been established and that long term housing simply does not rvork
out in thaL area as it once did. He read the purPose of the CCI zone
district.
Jim Rubin reiterated one,statement that Jbhn D had made; that there
are no control-s that woul.d require those units to be long term. Johncould rent them out short term.
-PEC-310/15/80
Gerry White stated that the history of downtown Vail had been one o:both granting and denying use for just this kind of thing. There isthe concepg e1 horisonLal zoning that was d.ealt with a long time agoin an effort to keep the mixture "in the downtown area. He stated th:tthe was much more conversion to cornnercial space on every lever, wichtalk of the Gashof Gramshammer being converted to commercial spacethroughout. He fert that this was a sort of death knelr for the co:-earea. He felt very strongly that cornmercial space shourd be on grcuniIevel and the second level should be residenti_1l
Bill'wilto mentioned that one prior conditional use was granted becau-"eit-was felt thaL no one wanted to live there, but the fact was, therenters enjoyed the apartment, so it was suitabre for some. ,'Not
desirable housing,' he felt was incorrecE..
There was some talk of asking John to restrict John Dobson's otherapartment to employee housing if this conditional use were granted,but it was felt that conditional use had nothing to do wit,h employeehousing, and John fert arso that that rule shouid have ueen apbti3ato others as well, if the commission was going to expect it ot-him.
Gaynor Miller moved to approve the request, John perlcins secondedit. Gaynor voted for it. but the other members voted against, so thevote was 2 -5 against.
5. Request for a front setback varj_ance for Jerr@a Cai
Peter Patten presented the material from the staff, and recommendeddenial . steve Boyd, the contractor for the project, explaining thatthe owner wanted a covered parking area where h6 now ha& gravei parking,that was encroaching 6'or 7' onto the setback. John perkins fell tnatto deny this didn't make sense, and discussion followed about whetherit was better esthetically to permit a garage to hide the cars completely.
John moved to grant the variance as long as a garage was constructed.,seconded by Roger. The vote was tied with Dan-absiaining. John,Roger,and Jim Morgian for, Gaynor, Gerry and Ed against.
Roger moved to deny the carport, seconded by Gaynor.For denial were Jim, Gaynor, cerry and Ed.- ,John and Roger againstdenial . Request denied.
,6. t District 4 (sD4), theCascade Lodge
Jim Rubin presented the matetlal from the staff, and recommended approval.He explained t.hat the design seemed appropriate and.that the incrlasewould only be one foot. Andy Norris strowea drawings.
Roger movcd for approval subject to the pranning and Environmentalcommission's granting of the Arnendment to the H;ight section of sD4.Ed seconded, and the vote was 6-0, unanimous, Dan abstaining.
PEC-10-15-80 -4
7. Amendments tg Zoning Ordinances
Audience participation was requested first. George Boyer, Betty Thomas,
Mason Thomas, John Drywalker, paura Lalrier, Andy Norris, stewart Bi-oi,n,Charlie Powers, Fitzhugh Scott, Joe MonLana, Stuart Holland, Deancanada, and Kathy warren spoke in opposition to the amendments. Theirconcern dealt with the fact that they thought. their property was beingdevalued, some felt the decision was arbitraryr sorle felt a-40E slopeshould be buirt upon. sandy Milrs took exception and stated that altshe could hear was "you are taking from me" instead of looking at thedesirabirity of these changes for the whor'e valley and being positive,
Afterward, the commission members stated their feelings:
Ed Drager: Many of these ideas have been discussed for a long time-
We must have done many things right.
Dan: As the document is now, Irm against not counting the 40E. Infavor of new definitions of GRFA, for proposed changes in density control .
Jim: Height wel-l- taken care of, hirlside deveropment questionable.
GRFA not greatly changed, against not counting 40t, for section IV.
,fohn: Doesn't feel density control section needs to be changed. fromwhat it is now. Height. limitation have been scared of; footprint fine,at one time had'308 as cut-off point, GPSA - careful-- sometimessecondary unit woul-d be cut down to be very smal_l unit.
Roger: our concern is to get a document. to control visual impact,we need more work done. However, r get concerned about all commentson values. rf one had bought property even 6-8 months agof one wou1d.have experienced an increase in value. r agree that it is importantthat values continue-
Gerryr we are primarily dealing with space. r feel 40t slope should"not be omitted. I like GRFA. Concern about values.
Roger moved to table the meeting to October 27, John seconded itUnanimous, 6-0 (Gaynor had left) .Roger was selected to attend the DRB meeting on Oct. 15.Ed moved and Roger seconded to continue the rest of the agenda unt,ilthe next meeting.
lll
F
F
t
i.t a
t<3
: <I;
:a-.7;i.
<:,-^
z;s
=E6trteB@urE
59f<.ozdlZa
Fll\]tt'+ tl-\ll >llG\' | |>J_ { | |(ttl
-tl
=s6 ll'l'' Ixlxl
= =7 |o oo Itr^-tnzlX: Z:l IF 9 "E62Z gE
?= 6.9o q i*lnJ:i.r|:F 2l'. '1 ri.r IdNOl
IoP
c?
sI
I
I
oz
L
=E.
uJ(L
Jz
z
ze
d)o>z
."i5
=ni
d;=
o
o
o
ott
F=
=tY
ou--otr r,ro=tr>-tF
z
F
uJ_')
o
E,.L
otI
i
UJ
Eo
F
=Elrl
o-z9F
C)f
E,Fazo()
t_'1tlu
-E
i
Eal0t!l
r-l-l
El
Hl
o(J
=
:
F
)
'ctoEc)E
!o+,U'
(ug)
1t
!
oLo
o(J
u;
z
d)
I
z
c
o
a
-o-
t tr
IL
l"
I
d
RI
Jl )r<l ==l o
l{-lvlqq'l0ll4
qc
(u
@
IL(uE
=d
=E
lJ-
!U
oo
a
=
I
o-
F
c
u,J
Goo
=
al
uJl
1l
<l
>l ]J:
I
=(.)
Ll.l&oo
E
!.
E.t!z
=
F
LU
EI
<F
oa c)l,! <zELUF(aZoo
<o(JF
i-<
y2
rF
zt-
>D
JZo-9
<;YF2()<s
-,2
=g
cIl
P
oz<Oa^ A
a t
EAt]
I(lql
rrl
|cl
*1
I
I
oz
F
uJ--')oE.
tl-lF
o
h
EE
u.l
Jzoz
=e>z
(! u-
J<<.\(J(J=
=Ee
dd=
t.:lL-tt]
ID
E
o
o
qt
.:
==C.ro iir(t;-
:: u..l
c>rF
tg
qrt
o-zIF()
:)EFazo()
,,<--\,/ '^_1"4/'AE\ . ,/l=
ic
,
z
E
=
uJ
,
= ..: r.^<F1<:
=F2l-F--(- :
< . - ?.F
rf ,i a*r-u!{::
x^JY.r7i.it
=<c2.a=?27)>?<==xFF::q
<Jr)?.4;;I3i
;<1,
liu',"<a> -!a<a-ti,in:<rl < t ..,1
I
I
I
I
I
tgr
lo
I
I
I
I
I
I
rcl
lI
lC'
tzlo
I
I
I
l_
,t-
lo
I
I
I
I
l*
,9t<
cc
laz
t=to
l2
U'
LJ.l
LU
LL
Ll-'
NOllvn'lv^
;l
=zz-r-=!z3 f;5 $6^>Tae,o>s;68
iEH;g:<t
3ZZrL
x o- A=Xr>Y;ool
<llocz>-(J
^ ;\ a6> xr!<oq ILu ':93 sFoa
i (\r (,
=$s
coo
I
LjJlEI
cJlolil
sl
l
I
I
I
Ittl
fllEIot .
ol<l
-4
st
olLlltrl
ol<l
al
=lIL
F
LULI
E
z
J
ui4
LlJl
xl
al
>l
UJ
z
co
_-)
l-
g
b2
(j
t
(J
E.
zo
2
I
LU
2
zj-
=<ZE
JZ
d
F
oa
Fz
J
9
uJ
J
LU)
LlUt l
ui' 2 -.'Ciri.\tlr|r'f i'-Fl||
DATE
Fr' ?i f.- rf {tFr't rFrFtrir!' ' G-rrFa
rNsP0TroN REouEsr '
VAIL
READY FOR INSpEGT|ON: .MON rUES wED @ FRt ------@ pM
LOGATfON: t' r3 fd tr t
(-
.,4L
JOB NAME
OWN
Sr
T
CALLER
OF
BUILDIIIG:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL tr ROUGH / D,W.V.
T] ROUGH / WATEBtr FRAMING
tr INSULATION
-
tr GAS PIPING
tr SHEETROCK NAIL tr POOL/ H. TUB
-tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELEGTRICAL:MECHANICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER tr HEATING
f(noucn mq '- /?.,,- . 'l ' /-' tr EXHAUsT HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
APPROVED
GORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr FEINSPECTION REQUIRED
oerc /1 . /t- W rNspEcro
rNsPeTroN REeuEsr.
VAIL
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
JOB NAME
INSPECTION:
CALLER
/'----\MON TTUES )t-........2-
BUILDING:
D FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
FOUNDATION / STEEL
FRAMING fI ROUGH / WATER
INSULATION
SHEETROCK
tr GAS PIPING
NAIL tr POOL / H. TUB
FINAL
tr
tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
q(lorn"
/tr HEATTNG
/4 ="*or",HOODS
,tr CONDUIT 424 sueelv ntn
tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
APPROVED
CORBECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED BEINSPECTION REQUIBED
DATE INSPECTOR
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
JOB NAME
TNSPECTION: MON TUES WED THUR FRI AIT,'I -, PMV
Z?'ett
CALLER
BUILDING:PLUMBING:
{roorrrucs / srEEL -
,tr FOUNDATION / STEEU
tr UNDERGFIOUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V,
tr ROUGH / WATERtr FRAMING
tr INSULATION tr GAS PIPING
tr SHEETROCK NAIL tr POOL / H. TUB
tr tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MEGHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr ROUGH D EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr
I
tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
APPROVED
)RRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
:l
A ft^
tO z i,lt /V,lDArE \U/- lr\ iv INSPECTO
t
Publication Date
TOWN OF VAIL
APPLICATION IIOR .
CONDITIONAL USE PENMIT
Application Date &P ,--lQEo
Public Hearing Date
of
of
Applicant
Owner if different from APP1icant
,|{rlu 4trName
Narne
caJceo votr
Mailing Address
Telephone
Legal Description:
| , | '\ I
tot (1p-, Block 5p , r'11ing * I V-U ' l/
ylvr 4 *olt6 l
property s unplatt metes &bounds descr ption as ex t)
Application is hereby made for a Conditional Use Permit to a11ow: tAE
].na
APPLICATION WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY THE FOLLOWING:
1. Hearing Fee - $SO.OO + 15p for EACH addressed envelope'
2. A LIST OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTIES within 300 feet in a
single-Family Residential ; Tn'o-Family Residential ; or Two-Family
Primary/secondary Residential Zone Distri.ct; or adiacent to
the subject property in all other Zone Districts.
The owners List sha1l include the names of all owners and the
lega1 description of the proP-e-rty owned by each- Aeeempe+ying
ttr+*-tsf--sfri'tf-Oc-prre-- rddT-6-s s ed e n ve I op es a I on g w i t h
Cert i f ieates *'an'd- tetrrrn-'R'eee'i?ts-proper 1y f i 1 ]ed out to e ach
anunep-r*.-These fonns can be obtained from the u.s. Post office.
3. Site P1an, 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 vleinity.
\S4o so rr) +o eonqzec'rt sa.AeE-
Zone
t.- -t t."-o.a'
dz:
1-
I
,lL
U{
Best
coPY
Available
- ,,"*
.'" ( t.E,
- -a \-tl
.--.. ^-F>-1"-_:*1
:1/).al*\ r\eGbf9
:.*xh
;\;r'''J/|
i':a" ,c--_:t_-..-.i..;, '.-\ i / :..: i
t'r
-!
" -l'
a
:1
ntt?
-o
li\
.'i(.
'riar
Aoortowa-
APPt tctrtort
t@
ERarHms
?EP}4lr
Dossor,l Bnornr,ns
2.27 BnqE S7'
aF*+aara-7o. VAIL. CoLoRAoo 81657
11r1p6p5..4",ATTaA Re : DoB=>l'J
R eofjPlrr b{AL USE
t) ArriAc€+cr ?FoPe ourNeEs"
NoETft" T.*lt-l N A*t-c l€/,.f ..p'D AAJD
+' ?=TifA"+"*;;'!i,,,
soltrH -' Qea,'+= rtAM *-: -:--=- -.,1r,n,"'&}'**Ea.srr AcROis BR tqE =ti:*Q-,r'{- *,,,,,
:l f'S";,, #f li; "'
:'
i f i -"; ;*U;
wF6r : ?AeH /ArG A :?i. :#;-; r, /;,.,u-'(tr1,
..?:==f"7::.) ..6"5 r.- D-
A ?PowgP DsE I3' @E c>,*t'\Eecr&c-'
s?Fc>, tra PPOBAIYE TerJAArr t3
A \.)EEDLEW:*( =ifu2P' Strtl ugE'
PF sI2xE ts co*^PATtF,LE- qrrtFh
o.rr{t t 1rffi f rr mrrcPr AY /rpD
(gitc]E--e TlolLD,,ufs rA' t*a coutqeeqAL
Coe'E Aesa.
E) lttE 1tz'ffco.l) oe 1+lts Ae^ffiwElsf
*vtg .?t e<t LV *zo{ e Ber DqE
S1fL dt- X ve*f FRa eo*f tts(E
Masr ?o." ="=]o:::st'i I:::"
a+- 'q"4-g,{raztx
vrLLnl=, itt Ycndere) 1r l-ese
?t,c\ la+ vrrblc As A *rcE €R
(pt t q- L. ^ Tles 3D ExrcF- t D tj€
fo 1sc@AatNf NtqntTrTle t''la,t..sE '
TUrs Ytas€ 19 9'FNFr>*ZE$ Vl
o
,. ":"";T,::::":.,"",
PFoerc EFnEr?Tct? Oz L4rt &Y Tf(e
Q*e AFFA v/* T.+5l @-tsero Befra,
8ta\ ehTerrnrl ora ceAv lq -the-
flevee*c 1<'Vr*vFAArrs l+rP tsAEs
/ls .tlrc f ntlq E>n+r€- aReA
A)VeecedenT 'Pe cha' tn€ q use
6)F SPACE 6Rt qtuact'Y JDrF5.'qrJ,eD
'E>c, ""**
l'leu F .FIS toel*rrr Az-
srzAa =
-rL srtlE @ee ABr* Lt
lluE.uu esr* E LlsA aD '
€.tacr{rorosc . E:r u3ljft
srpEET€ :f,PrrtrE tLoel>
cltl'{ MEP 'lACo
effia*v coAt't'ee.(A t-' oN
lUirr r- 'srleFEir l-e{=t-
uc e e{" S: :EL'ji:?:/*Lla E€-r a-e rZ
&l4s'17pelAL -
,-.1^, <. atttLDlE
eoN4M eQ'ltAt'
Sooe o=
Cot1.l 5;r,,4,lAt-
=.=,:-o,-','<e-
gO t t-?t*
-As crn' =l-slrset Y2 = F'A< E
c)FF t c7 elt p 51'aRA qf--'
@
5) \,Ue, vapaJ$:u'1 suel,rrr +H*1?
" " ""'"TT,:::::": ., ".,
be<,4i.x= 'of '+(n ct-\AAr€.gD usE
&f.rD NAr U ?el= ',ate -t# E CotUt-t'eP6/4c'
C;ol?e *l , +h€ che flge /ht us€ wt'
T<eap u Esr 15 1O*P,AT ler-E t{)tlrFt -TI{E
Ai"E-\ AMD Wlt-r- gxH*}laE tf5
Fss EN-t-/ Aoc7 sAoPP)r"(9 ALto @ill v'ee.cIAL
NArUP=.
@B#-t,BR61+{EP.S'.
,/
AA, A. ?.eltr,sa,r'J
C ATFf Ee lt-t E
I'ly nane l s ilohn Dobaon . My rt f e, Cather lne . and
Brldge Street. knowrr as Ehe Covered .lrldge Store
I own the bulldlne at 227
Bul ldlnc.
on Uctober 14. l9B0 the l']lannlng and [nvlacnrnenEal Conrnlsslon denled our
request for a condltlonal use permlE Eo cont/erE an aparEment from resi-
dentlal use Eo conmerclal rrse.
As provided ln the e:<lsti' ^ Comnerclal Core Area I zoninl ordinance, we
respectfullt' appeal that declsion to Ehe Town Councll, and ask that our
request be aonnoved.
Irr its rnemorandurn ro Ehe t'lannln,l and l-nvlronmental Commlssion daEed
.-)ctohei' 9. 1o30. Elre I-)eparf nent of llonmul i tir DeveloDment recomrnended
anoroval of ou:' request. In iis mer,Drandun the staff resDonded to Ehe
s':ecif ic devclot):renE facEors rririch are apollca)le under sect ion 4 cf rhe
ordinance, .\ coor,' of thls rne norandr.rn is included rrith Ehis apoeal.
'fhe ,lannin- and linvironmental- Comnlssion did :roE address icself Eo eacll
of Eht specific develonment facEors lisEed in the ordinance iEself, buf
I bel leve it r,'ould be fair to srate that the com'nisslonf s concerns we.e
in Et'o a!'eas.
I ) t'.at the proFosed chani:e of u.se rrould remo.re an anartnenE f rom use
as an ernolovee housinl unlt
2) t'hat rhe conversion of the unit to corinercial sDace r:onld seriously
harm Ehe cofiEnerclal core area bv diluEing Ehe mlxture of comi-rcial.
lonr Eei'm res lden: ial. and lod-in- 5oaco in that area.
i'he orCinance lnvolved does not concern i,;se1f riith r?ernplol'ee housinq"l .
l)errnitted rrses lnclrrde elEher lon-.' :enn cr sltorc term houslng. and con-
dit lonal rrse-s include conrnercial use. Therefore althoueh a .-:eneraL con-
cern for i:'re emDloyee ho::sinj: p(o|blet.is understandable, I irould s'-rbmit
fhat it ls not qe!'mane i:o the issrre ln Ehis lns ance,
'Ilhelr other prlaelgfl concern I germane to the lssue and I would like to
address lE. and the past and present condltlons in Ehe core area.
At thls polnE Ehen. oerhaps a brief revlew of the Core Area I zoning isin order. partlclllarly regardlns the use of rfloor above street levelrr
s Dace ,
Varlous zoning ordlnances have governed the core area in the past. Prlorto 1975. v*tcn the present zonlng ordlnance becarre effect lve, it vas posslbleto change !'f loor above street levelrt space from resldentlal Eo conune::clal
vtlEhout a condltlonal use oermlE. A large anount of such space was con-
verE€d durlng thls perlod. tlnder"the present ordlnance, perrnltted andcondltlonal uses for each f,loor are speclflcally lisEed. lle are concernedhere only L'lth Ehe floor above street level.
iullctlngs ln Core Area I alone 3ilage Sereet and Core Creek Jrlve consisE
bas i cal ly of three Eypes.l) I-odges and Condonlnlums ; .euch as The l-odge, 'fhe l,laza. GasEhof
Crieshatdner etc.
Excluslnely co@rclal bulldtngs - slrcts as ti..r- Caslno (C,artonrs )and the Jl lfer lulldln..:
Suildl,ngs rhlch at one tin havc lscludcd both conere{aI spacr
and llvlng quertara fir th. nf,lar tb('ul! streGt.r level.
;:
2\
3)
foltorlng bulldtnga fall tnEo Eh.t thtrd crtogorryt) Tho Corrcred Brldge rutldlng
2 ) Ttre Ore house
. 3) ttre Clock Toner
4) fne A i D lJulldlng (llqLor store)
5) The Qucksack rlulldlns
6) itre l.ed Llon tsulldlnq
7) ihe:1t11 Bulldtng
8) The Cyrano -iull.dlng
9) Ihe Lazler Sulldtng :
l0) The '-lcre Creek l,laza Butldlnq
It) Tfre 'iell Tover jullJ lnc
.hat ar-e the current uses €or the labove che streetrr level of rltese btrildings?
Mrs.Chrlsty ::111 llves ln her apartmenE on the second f loor: lf her building.
Ilrs .Joan Ii i 11 ocor.rples an aptrEnent on the second and th lrd f loor of the
Plaza bui [d lns.
Stnce 1975. under the current zonlnt ordinance. chere have been Erro aopllca-
Elons for conditlonal use nermits to convert aDartrnent s rrace on the abovethe street level in Core Area I Co conmerclal space. iloth of them irave treer.l
approved.
Jre r.ras ln the Clock fower: 3ulldlng, or.ned bj Jo)n ';c:;,ride oi .tscen. jlhe
other \tas ln cire A { D'(liquor store) bulldinr. In both cases tlre ormersclted the increasin; nolse and conj?est lon ln the lmnedlate area as render-lng thd soace unsultable for long Eerm leal{enElal use.
fhls ls oreclsely the sltuatlon :?e clted ln cur re.quest r.,'h lch rras denied..and lt can certainly be stated that those conditicns have onlv :rorseneclslnce 1978
So now a surwey of resldentlal use of rtabove the streetllevel sprcelndlcates that none of the space,wlth the exception of the ijill apart-
ments.ls belng used as resldentlal houslng.In fact ln all of the Core
Area I on the above rhe streeE level.chere are only these cno apartrnents
occupled as res ldenc-es;
lloweder. ln the other
floor srrace has been
Thls certalnly lndlcares that.restdentlal space on the above
nlne bulldlns:s. all the Itabovc rhe sE!eet.' lcvel
e:fabllshed as corr-nerclal sDace.
due
the
to fhe, present nature of Ehe co.re area.
sfreet level ls no lonller vlable.
the nature of th€ arca ln.whlch our bulldtng ig located ls not only changlng -lt EE chan/ed. Thls rrea serves as the shofptng, eatlng, drlnklnc,ren3Grtrin-nent center and bus lness center for hundreds of thousanas of people durlng. the crourse of the year. It ls adJacenc to the parklnr structureo the trans_portacton cenler and the shuttle bus sEops. In rhe cgse of our apartnenc, avery larle psrcentage of the people who shop. eatr or drlnk ln the coreaf€a pass dtrecEly under lE on lhelr vay to or frorn the parklng structureor thc shuft le buscs - and they do tt froa early mrning'ao ""rf:, ,Drntng,And note too the apartn nts tmdlatly adjsc€nt to seveial of vallrs rDstpoptrltr rertrurants and bari,
lil'rbtr trrrf,ftc, t$lr utrj, thlr mep*loq,!|a rierlofrd ot the
Succcsc of thr core erea.
rrelt rru3t be brtsy to be
As one of Ehe rllo coltllrclal clntcrs of Vell' errch
succcssful ' and ln a resort conrdun I tlt rhey rust
scrve the publ.tc not oflly durlnr dayttm hours. bur far lnto the nldlt
' as '.rc11. It seerns obvlolr:. however. that such an area carurot renre r.rcll
ae a re.eldent lal area. ilhat has heplened. unde rst anclably. ls that pcoPlr
have sounht quteEer llvln: quartors by movlng furcher from the congertod
rrsa - elther verrically or horlsontally.
It t:nrst certa lnlT bc aclcnosledted too Ehat e@nonlcal f actors are lnnolved.
lh€ to Rhe Ereruendoirs ''!'ortth of thc ia I I arca. tlrere has b€on iireat PFa8surc
to provldc r<rre co-flnerclal soace, ln Ehe. core area and of course thls spaca
iras been I lnl:ed b,' denslr,'r reg.ulaElons as :.re11 as l;7 use rc:'ulsc ions.
30 lt has lnevltabl.i :'osrrlter! :xflt sDacc orl::lnal ll' l-'ul lt for lonx tcrl:l
liousln: units in t;:e core l:as decrea.sed due to thc j:acto?:s outllned above,
and the value crl' cor,rrerc la I space has tncreascC - and rents and tlxeg as
rrell, 'i,ut ar:aln. there ls noEhtni lnherently r:ront: -rifh Lhls. ,lhe commnity
needs Eo frrovldo its clt:lzens and vlsltors rrleh che l)esf . tnost dl.rerslfled
and rost efftclent conurcrcait centers pos:;lble for nan'r rcasons t
'he town .overnnmet has r'rlsel'r :'eco,rnlzed Ehe rrotrlen of increased nolss
and conrlest ton ln t:ie' core arca ir.r' lrcreas lnr resErlct lons on autotrKtt lve
access to lt. And thls ls as lt should tre - hut a:aln. tt lessene tire vatuc
of the area for rerlderE lal use b)' llnrltinr or den./lnl access !o res I dences
by autorpblle l,v occupants. -uests. dellvery seflices etc.
flr.stuqnar,,,. I rpuld :;ubnlt ttnor, th. core area las chaniled :rtEh Ehe ctrEg
and that tt has adaDted uell. to. tts baalc funct lon - ri'at of 6n atcractlv.,
O.lltllly locrEed connre rc lal af,ea cronslstlal of shops, resEauranta. enter-
tll.ntnsnt facllltles. serrlce buslnesies. and lodqlnq accor.pdaclons.
i
Soner of these obriervatlons have' been faetual and sone phllosoohleal. I
lrelleve uoEh approaches are lnDbrEant. $5 uuet undersEand holr tshe core
41e1, las cvolved. l,fiat lts erd::nl fun+tlons are. enq,,fuEure funcrlonc rrlll
..-.:..ii,.."r..r.ri:,.r.-,.1::.'i
be.
.J
' .r',.. r " r i::: , ':" !lg,nSqqd to our request fon e Condltto.nal u-se Pernllrt'3.8ubmlE thrt
aqplf0rgrbld' precedent haa bcec, establl€hed by acttons of the Plannlng
. erf,.Env\onaental ComnIgg.lon roC thc T*rn Counctl,andrgrrtn Dre lnPort. eli$r Enffrpqlentrl co'Illtgs-lon qofl.thc Sarn Counctl,aDd.e'itro.tFre lnPortenly
, ''Gll!t.thi pr-oposed use sltr1 anlraflac rathar than detrect frgpgthe |ror,both
:,.,|S:fXq4tlo,a ttd ln splrltt ' ...; :"t ;i -+: .
o
PUBLIC NOTICE
NorrcE rs HEREBY crvEN that the Dobson Brothers have appried
for a conditional use permit for the covered store Building, Lots
c & D, Block 58, to al1ow the conversion of 540 sguare feet of
apartment space on the second floor to colunerciar space. Application
has been made in accordance with section 19.60.020 of the vail
Municipal Code.
A Public Hearing will be held in accordance with section
18.66.060 of the Municipal code on october 13, l9g0 at 3:00 p.r,l.
before the Town of vail planning and Environmentar commission. said
hearing will be held in the Vail Municipal Building.
The application and information relating to the proposed change
is avairable in the zoning A&ninistrator's office during reguJ-ar
business hours for review or inspection by the public.
)^,^^(.-,]-,-Jim Rubin
4
/onLng Administrator
TO}'IN OI' VAII,
DEPARTMENiIT OF COTT{I{UNITY DEVELOP}IM.IT
Published in the VaiI Trail, September 26, 1990
Itl
\'
=oz.-o\J:-zz
coo
=zt:)
O- l,!
:E=
dd=
TNT
oz
F
C)
UJ-)oE
o-
o)lil
NI
JIr{l
Iuko
t-
=tulL
l!
uJc
F
co
E
o
0)
Btt
'Et
E
Eoc)
o
E
=G
lrJ
o-zo
1-()
=&Fazo()
oz
F
Eul
o-
I
l,,
.F
t3
I
I
I
I
l!!H=1:!f;
-kQ.9
<:9zF
'<yl .^;r!t;!-6ooYo
HE;:li
$*rrg ii
'tsE E: lgqs 3i t:
E5
=q6 6bE
E I 3 6rG9. of,ri
2: 6.189 rci
b { :BHil frZi5 frd(\o
z
;iY
=EafEqP;b&
i=itsP<ozroZ:
(,z
Jtr
I
I
I
Y,J
d]
)
F{
FHn
U
E
5
di
=
rr
+u
FI
il
UJ
=z
.pa
(!)
tt
trl
U)
tuE
=
s
*$
F tr
.a
UJEoo<l
-J
>l
f
o-
F()
z
E
=g
an
UJ
oo
J
tr
<n
t/J
o
I
=tr
a
uJ
oo
J-
=tr
U)
UJEoo
1
g
UJe
o
a
=
-o-
F
IJJz
=o
F
UJF
-
t
--.r O<FEO
r.u <ZE
T.IJ Ftrt zo
JE<o()F
T<
-ir (E
-.
1-t- z.
-rO
E.(Jozle?
=E]Fd6
*6YF
=2i(r
/\ t-Y,z
=g
E.
E i.rgi+Eaz<(JqgEnn
F!F i'F*..n'"Eri{fp:qg![F$[ri?f y4lsi.viwr irsS;.l
lNsPEtror.r REQuEsf '' -
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
JOB NAME
MON
CALLER
TUES WED
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMB!NG:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr
X
X
tr
tr
FOUNDATION i STEEL tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH /WATERFRAMING
INSULATION
SHEETROCK
tr GAS PIPING
NAIL tr POOL / H. TUB
FINAL
tr
tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr
tr
tr
EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
O DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
DATE /2 INSPECTOR
5u!cr,trJFjr':<r |. / t-
- <or
:l:?
T]:XTE"9Yu:z - <:: <ozAr.z=;9<;Yl.F CU <(,<uq:c,:i:'1r5i;<u.'tJSra-f:i;io>_<O:-uro tj(<)
t!,
ozo-z
z
I
1.,,
ti
I
I
F.(
a-
o
(,
=zo
I
I
atlj
TUu-b
CEujo-
{
o
P.;
t.lj
o-
I
I
I
I
I
I
(/,
trJ
tU
r-L
L
E
LU
J
l--oF
F6
lrro
l;
oc.(o
.l)
;
9
u,
F
{:
O
9
(9
J
Ic
(J
UJ
t:
tr,
o-
o
5
(t
::
:)
vO
O
(,:o
f
J
.{
t2(:
F(J
r.rortvn lvn ||l
tn
F(u:lo
F
o
7-
It'
I
I
oz
2Utul 3vro
PIZ tt><:\c.E))5h
tA t-t!, .(
&, ol
a4Lz:Jzotr
o ./.Oj2O
=o<)CE
o !!l<rl
J
oz
c.otrt
lrl
o
l
?o
F
z9
(r
(ll
u,z
(J'z
a ;.FUSu.
4doF tl't ul+ccecElrrOO
TZ()
FtdZJ:)s(roze.
=.iEt|-t - -)iqoo(ro
fo
fE(J
U'
F
f=-+j-.-
I
Ibi
i=6
I --"
I
l=l9l8 giE Plur(,
ls !
ll!iF 5l> oI r-- olj ri
ulf
.(
G'
\'q
N
(\l
tU
UJu-
(I
F
F
6I
&urF
n
o
.{
o
c
t-
LU
:E
z,O
F
Jf(n
z.
zIu',:o
rc
:J zozo9Z7ol (f>zl:fJOo- .rt
NL-]Dhr;
tl,(L
lr.
C)
I T.,n
t.
c(l
Eo.o
4.,
tu-tt
cJ
E
Eo(J
o
(:
t:
(t()().(:(ikd::;: ai
irir
ttt
Y,9
F
aJ
--J*<rro-:xJF:
t,.,
(,
.-:
*tt.
rNsPEtnoN REeuEsr '
DATE _
CALLER rt ;
"t'READY FOR INSPECTION: MON TUES WED THUR FRI .-, }, ' il AM I.. PM
LOCATION:
OUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
BUILDING:
EI FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
D FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATERtr FRAMING
tr INSULATION tr GAS PIPING
tr SHEETROCK NAIL tr POOL / H. TUB
tr tr
D FINAL tr FINAL
ELEGTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
G ROUGH D EXHAUST HOODS
b CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
,APPROVED tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIR
z/
INSPECTORDATE
Minutes/Regular mee
2l September 1976
Page Two i r -+ CI
0RDINANCE N0.26, Series of 1976, "An 0rdinance authorizing the sa'l e and issuance
of general obligation refunding bonds, dated November 1,1976,'i n the orincipal
amount of $6,345,000, of the Town of Vail, Co] orado, for the purpose of refunding
general obligation bonds, serjes l'.larch 1,1974, outstanding in the amount of
$5,485,000 and general ob1 igation bonds, serjes December 'l , .|975, outstanding
in the amount of $860,000; providing for the establjshment of an escrow account
for the payment and redemptjon of the outstanding bonds to be refunded; prescribing
the form of said bonds; providing for the levy of taxes and for the applicatjon
of certajn sales tax revenues to pay sajd refunding bonds and the interest thereon;
and prescribing other details jn connectjon therewith", was introduced on second
reading, and the tit'le was read into the record. l4r. Bernste'in explained several
routine amendments to clarify the ordinance. He added that the refunding will
save the Toyrn $600,000 in debt service over the next fjve years. He also announced
that Bosworth-Sullivan was the lorvest bidder for the bonds. Councilwoman Klug
moved to approve the ordinance on second reading; Councilrnan Heimbach seconded
the motion';'aI'l nresent voted in favor; and the motion carried. The Town Clerk
was instructed to have the ordinance published in full,
ORDINANCE No. 27, Series of 1976, authorizing the issuance of Specia'l Assessment
District bonds, vras'i ntroduced on first reading. Mr. Minger read the tit'l e into
the record: "An ordinance authorizing the issuance of Special Assessment bonds
of the Town of Vail, Co'l orado, jn the principal amount of $540'000, for Town of
Vail, Colorado, Street Improvement District No. 'l ; prescribing the form of sajd
bonds; providing for payment of the principal thereof dnd the interest thereon;
and making provision for other matters relating theretor'. He explained the
expenses re'lating to the Special Improvement Djstrict to date and stated that
the Town of Vai'l would save $280,000 over the life of the bonds. Councilman
Hejmbach moved to approve the ordinance on first reading; Counci'lnran Ruder
seconded the motion; al 1 present voted in favor; and the motion carried. The
Town C] erk was instructed to have the ordinance pub'l ished in full.
0RDINANCE l,lo. 28, Series of 1976, arnending Ordjnance No.9, Series of 1975,
increasing application fees for liquor and fermented ma'l t beverage'l icenses;
was introduced on first reading. Mr. Rider stated that the license fees had
been changed by the .|976 General Assemb'ly and that this ordinance would bring
the Town up to date with the Statutes. Councilman Donovan moved to approve the
ordjnance on first reading; Councj'lman lJilto seconded the rnotion; all present
voted in favor; and the motion carried. The Town Clerk was jnstructed to have
the ordinance published in ful'1.
RES0LUTION No. .l9, Series of 1976, awarding purchase contract for Spec'ia1
Assessment District bonds, was introduced and explained by t'lr. Bernstein.
He stated that the resolution vrould award the contract to Boettcher & Co.,
who vras the lowest bidder at 8.5%. He also read the title of the reso'l ution
into the record: "A resolution awarding the purchase contract for Special
Assessment bonds of the Torrrn of Vai'l in the total principal amount of $540'000'
for Tourn of Vai'l , Colorado, Street Improvement Djstrict No. 'l to the best bidder
therefor". Councilman Donovan moved to approve the resol ution; Counci'lwoman
Klug seconded the motion; al'l present voted jn favor; and the motion carried.
The-Town Clerk was jnstructed to have the reso'lution oub'l ished in full.
With regard to A & D Enterprises reouest for a conditional use oermit, Jim
Lamont explained that A & D vrished to use residence soace above the Liouor
Store for office space, stating that the residential space, fronting on the
corner of Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive, r,,as too noisy for resjdential use
an-\.ray. He stated that the Planning Commission had recommended aoprova'| . ..
Councjlman Staufer feared that an unwise precedent would be set, but Mr. Rider
stated that a precedent vrou'l d not be binding. Councilman Donovan moved to deny
the reouest; Councilman Staufer seconded the motion; the vote was 4-3 against
the motjon; and the motion failed. Councilman Hejmbach then noved to grant
the request; Counci'lman Wi]to seconded the motion; the vote was 4-3 in favor
of the'motion with Counci'lmen Donovan. Staufer and Ruder voting against; and
the motion carried.
l,lith regard to the Cornjcers request for a conditjona'l use permit, Diana
Toughill explained that the reouest was to use one of the aoartments for a
reai estate and on-sjte management office. She added that the Planning Cornmis-
sion and the staff had both recorunended denial of the reouest. Counci'lman
oo
I.
I'c*/-r 7lI
t,
;.
I
I_ !-1,
I
f%L1 , t1'2s-/t/u- B-Ja
^gt
-, /'rk-t-//*f
/-@"
t1-7 6
,
7-3' u"Is PFq
L/c ak4$
Gu-t-*A ^n-\
(9/ r I )a
9-(
-t
a
DaLe
r.Lrsr or [.tAT]]nIALS
NAMD OF PROJICT
DESCRIPTION OF PNOJECT
LEGAL DEscRrPTro" 4'z'"(i'r *tt'd : '
r.'.
"'BLOCK,'
Fr
FILING
LU't isl,gu-:
The
to
A.)
following information
the Design Review Board
BUILDING MATEBIALS:
Roof
Siding
Other 1{a11 Materials
Fascia
Sof fits
Windows
Window Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Tlues
Flashings
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
Other
is required for submittal by the Applicant
before a final approval can be given.
Iv!e--ef-Ue!-eri-c-f Color
(4,',.ai Vrrow '',
i {^/l,
N42+{. i Wooc+
B.) PLANT MATERIALS(Vegetative, Landscaping Materials including Trees, Shrubs,
and Ground Cover)
Botanical Name Connnon l{ame Quantity Size
t r'Va. ;l r-.i, ,.
-/'
e Page 2
Plant Materlals Continued
BotanicaL Name Corunon Name
OTHER LANDSCAPE FEATURXS(Retaining Walls, Fences, Swinming poo1s, etc.)
(Please Specify)
Size
c.)
Quantity
T,Tl".l IJdLL:
oorrorQ"vl'* BoAnD cIIEcK Lrsr O
finrrat65,
DEScRrprroN orr pno.rrcl Eel.l L{l\!'1l{'tl,fu
---ar-
74
t.
$-f
NAME OT PROJTCT
LIGAL DESCRIPTION BLOCK FILING
Prelim Final
Approval APProval
A. Building Considerations
Building Location on
Site
Building Con f iguration
Appropriateness
with Neighborhood
Height
Mass
Roof tr'orms
Use of Materials
Choice of Color
Energy Efficiency
B. Site Consideration
Disturbance of Natural
I'eatures
Access onto Site
Snopf Removal
Vehicular and
Pedestrian Circulation
Landscaping Plan
Grading Plan
Erosion Control
Irrigation System
Exterior Lighting
Retaining Walls
Accessory Structures
C. Miscellaneous consideraEions
Other Corunents
Comments
D.
FINAL APPROVAL
Zonlng Administrator
c
.9F(g
o
r.u
Design Studios in California and Colorado / P.O. Drawer 2239/Yail,Colorado 81657/(303)4764315
$
$
\
\
{
\
F
$J
$
\\)
Ns$
\
{
t
$
TL
h
LI\$
=
stss'\ L
Design Studios in California and Colorado / P.O. Drawer 2239lVail,Colorado 81657 / (30314764315
oo
New display window
er
Ski r
at lF^Jtl , l\ou
r, "{ 1.i.r
.t
!-
t
Project Application
Proiect Nam€:
Project Description:
Owner Address and Phone:
,:,iJL-rt€ a
{,iA.U ,lt57
- /t.:Architect Address and Phone:
Legal Oescription: Lot
Zonel.
Zoning Approved:
Design Review Board A,
o",. Dfr 9, ,':/'r',
!
DISAPPROVAL
Chief Building Off icial
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning .Commission
FROMI Department of Community Development
DATE: August 26, 1976
RE: A & D Enterprises to Allow Conversionof Two Dwelling Units to a ReaI Estate Office
The staff has reveiwed the conditionar. use permit request
according to secti-on 1g.600 of the Zoning ordinance and have the
f ol j.owing comments:
REQUEST; The apprlcant has requested that two existing
dwelling units consisting of approximately 9oo square feet each,
located on the second floor of the A & D Building be converred to
a real estate office. The request would not requj-re a parking
variance.
1. FACTORS:
A. Relationship and impact of the use on developmentobjectives of the Town.
B. ?he purpose statement of the Horizontal Zoningordinance is to maintain the mixture of the rrariouscommerci_a1 , residential, and public uses in Com_mercial Core I- so as to protect the existingcharacter of the area.
Our principal concern with the converstion of thistype of unit (GRIA_l,gOO square feet) is tha.t l-ong_term lrousing is relatively rare in tile CCf area.Of the totat estimated GRi.A atlocated to drvellingand accommodation units., Iong_term rental housingaccounts for only approiimately 157o of the totaL
9:tiTalgd square feet in CiI. These units constitute
-,"1 9T.tlre sq. ft. allocated for this type ofowerl j-ng unit. Due to the limitetl aveiiab-ilityof this housing type, we believ. it *"ui;-h;;;significant impact on the desirable mix thatcurrently exists in CCL
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUMMARY
JULY 24, 1975
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Dudley AbbottBill HeimbachBill Hanlon
Gordon Pierce
Dave Sage
Jen }'lrightBill |rJilto
PARKING VARIANCE - McBRIDE BUILDII,IG
John McBride has asked the planning commissjon to grant him a var.iance for.3 parking.spaces in ordertoallow him to convert two of his dwelling unitsin the clocktower Building to office space and/or retail space. He felt thatthe_ up-coming Horizontal Zoning amendment to the Zoning Orbinance ultimatelyunuld be a needed thing, and that one of its purposes -I trying to retain soilegf ll,g "village flavor" by requiring cond'itibnai use permiis io" u ihinge-oi-dwel'l ing unit to cormercial space -l was a good thing. However, dwelliigunits in the core are not really as desirabie to liv6 in as they seem -- hehas a couple of units that he can't rent because of the noise flctor of thestreets.. One suggestion he made to the commission was that people should beallowed to convert dwelling space into commercial but that person should alsobe.required by the commission'to keep at least one dwelling unit in theirbuilding -- the size of the unit strolto be relative to the-floor ptan or tnebuilding.
since Mr. l4cBride did not have a definite idea of what he wanted to do withhis present dwelling space, he withdrew nis application for a parking varianceand he asked the Planning Commissjon to consiibr his new appliiationl *f,"n f,e-submits it, on its merits alone and not on precedents set bbfore it.-
HORIZONTAL ZONING - DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
At the last work session of the Town council a question was raised as to thevalidity of the present criteria and findings of the Zoning 0rdinance ur if'"Vrelate to.the up-coming Horizontal Zoning ii respect to chinge of uses. JimLamont had prepared a memorandum to the Flannjng commission 6utlining a sug-gested.approach to this problem (memo attached)l The planning commiision -
responded positively to. Lamont's suggestions and directed him-to come up witha solution to their problem within sixty days.
ELECTION OF A NEI,I CHAIRMAN
Attached is a letter from Gordon Pierce resigning as chairman of the planning
commission. BilI tlilto made a motion that Bill Feimbach be elected newchairman; Dave sage seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion wasapproved unanimously. Dud'l ey Abbott was elected vice-chairman.
As there was no further bus'iness to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 PM.
/_ 4e ,?7,4_JL-\
MINUTES
PLANNING & ENVIRONI{INTAL CO},IIIISSIONJune 13, L97B
COMI,{ISS ION IIIBI{BERS PRESENT :Ed Drager, Chairman
Sandy I'vli 11s
Gerry White
Pam GartonScott Hopnan
Bon Todd
Diana S. Toughl11
Allen Gerstenberger
STAFF },IEI"{BERS PFESENT :
The meeting was brought to order at 3 P.l{, on June 13,1978,
Before the first item on the agenda was di.scussed, Scott
Hopman made the ilotion asking for reconsideration by the TownCouncil or that 1ega1 action be taken by the Planning & Environ-
mental Commission against ti:e Tolvn Council to ask for reversalof the decision concerning the Torvn Council approval of a
Gross Residential Floor Area Variance for the iltebster Residence.This Itlotion seconded by Ron Todd and the Cornmission vote was
unanimously in favor of this l{otion. Roger Tilkemeier lvas absent
The first itemVail on the agenda, Brubaker Lot C. Resr-rbdivisionof Lots 8-l-0,Vi ll age 7th Filing - Request for Setback
Variance.
Bill Pierce of lvlorter/Todd Partnership li,as present as
representatlve for Earl and Letha Brubaker. Their requestfor a Setbacl< Va.riance is because of the exist'ing trees and
topography of the site, and they want to remove as few of thetrees as possible. llr. Pierce explai-ned the layoub of the site
and the residence confi.guration, he advised the Commissj-on tha.tthe building will be in excess of the approved distance bet'lveen
buildings requirement.
Gerry White asked whether the neighbors approveri of thelocation of the residence on the lot and Dizrna Toughill stated.that the adjoining property owners have been notified by 1egsr1 notice.
It rvas noted that tire Department of Community Development recomrnendsapproval of this variance.
Pan Garton made the lriotion .for approval of a Setl)ach Variancefor the Brubaker Residence located on Lot C, Resubdivision of Lot.s8-10, Vail VilIage 7Lh Filing, accorcling to the criteria and findings
as set forth in the memorandum preprred by tire Deparinrent of
Community Development dated B June 1978. Seconded by Scott Hopnau
and unilnirrrously applovecl by votc, Ilon Tod.cl ;Ll,rstaining clue toconflict of interest.
The second item on thc agellda \t'as Va.il Associates - Requestforlluilclins Bul.k Controf Variance to allow ur:rv ivarchouse f ar:i1itv
Pir 1 Olclri'ay addrcsscct tlre Corurrrissiorr rvith tlri.s requcl;t. He
explaincd the prolrosal as replacing tbc shar:lis and trailers
o
NG
o
ONMINUTES - PLANNI
Po,
& ENVIROM,TENTAL COl'{llISSI
6/t3/78
and added that V. A. is remodeli-ng the other buildings forlift maintenance and one for winter equipment storage andmaintenance. The Conditional Use Permit has been approved by thePlannlng & Environmental Commission and the Town Council. IIealso explained that if the request for Builcling Bulk ControlVariance were not approved it would be very costly to design a
warehouse to meet this zonj-ng requirement. The Department of
Community Development memorandum recommends approval of thisrequest.
Gerry lfirite asked that there be a condition made that theuse rvbuld remain as pr.oposed, and that any change would requirethey come before the PEC again. Diana Toughill feels this istaken care of wittr the approval for a.ny change of use *-hj-chrequJ-res a Conditional Use Permj-t.
Gerry I'tthite then macle the l,lotion to approve the request forBuiJ.ding Bulk Control Variance to all.ovr a nev rvarehouse facilityat Vail Associa.tes, Inc., shop site pursuant to the conditionsset forth in the Department of Comnrunity Derrclopment memorandumdated 9 June 1978. Scott Iloprnan seconded the Llotion and the
Comm-lssion voted unanimous approval.
Number 3 on the agenda, John tr{cBride - Request for Conditional
Use Permit to allow conversion-of apa.ITm-6nt ffi
-
retail space on a second ffoor.
John tr{cBride addressed the Commission rvith his request.
He explained that Gorsuch Ltd., was interested in expandingthe retail space for their store o:: perhaps office space.They i.vere concerned that perhaps this would exceed ttre limits forthe tnaximum space for the store, but wanted to find out aboutthis, he was advised that the ordinance rvas amended so thatindividual shops are not limited i-n area. i.Ir. ilcBricle does notcare whether the spaee stays as hoLlsing, but he feels that housingunits are getti.ng squeezed cut in the Village Core because ofincreased taxes and high rents.
The Department of .Community Development has recornnendedapproval , Scott Ilopman stated that he kno*'s of a number of
apartments in the Core, but feels concern about going completely
comnrercial . Pam G:r"rton remi-nded tire commission that these requests
have been taken on one at a time each on their orvn indivi-d.uzrlmerits. Sandy lr{ills then a.sked about wlrethcr there may be a
change in the use of the Nu Gnu space? Ivlr. i,lcBride stated thathe had hoped fol a change but there is a long-term leaseinvolved her:e. After further discr,ission Pam Garton s,-tated thatto her recollection no tenants or tenters have appeared befo::ethe Commission to complain about any of the changeovers in CCl .
Ron Todd then made the l\lotion to approve the reqrrest for aConditional Use Pernrit to allow convcrsion of an aparttnent unit
t MTNUTE' - pLANNTNo?o*ur*.NI''DNTAL
"on,r,rrrroro
o
Pg.3 6/1s178
to office or retail space on the second floor and that the requlre-
ment be macle for trvo offsite parkiug spaces and paid for lvith
the same provisions made for Cyrano's and the llong Kong Cafe.
Gerry l{hite seconded the },lotion, the Comrnission voted
5 members in favor and Sandy Irtills opposed. This will no\v go
to the Tovrn Council for the offsite parking assessment to be
set by the Council, probably at $1 ,000 per space. They will
hear tlris at their meeting next Tuesday (6-20-78).
Item number 4 on the agenda, 'fsamasfl'ros, Lot 1
10th Filing - Request for Setback Variauce.
Dr. Tsamasfyros addressed the Commj.ssion and gave them some
of the background of the 1ot. He explained that he has been
given approval by the X{etropolitau Recreation Distrlct and is
requesting the setback of 40 feet because of their request that
the resj-d.ence be set back from the golf course for safet.y leasor.s.
It was noted that the Department of Community Development has
recommended approval of this variance.
Ron Todd made the Motion to appr:ove the request for Setback
Variance for the Tsamasfyros Residence, Lot 1, Vail Vi-l1age 10th
Filing according to the Departrnent of Communit-rr Developnetrt memo-
randum dated B June 1978. Pam Garton seconded the ilIotion and
the Commission voted unanimously for approval .
The fifth item on the agcnda, qy_qlenrs;*!1g-',-Pgfg-e.-]--L--EiAbgJ.q
Subdivision and Ef:'qlf - ]!gg3egletr with drawrr bY the
appliczlnt.
Gerry lVhite macle an official i'lotion tha.t the request for a
Building Bulk Control variance for'systenrs Inc., Parcel A, Big-
horn Subdivision anci Bighorn Subdivision First Addition be
withdrarvn as requested by the applicant. Ilotion seconded by
Ron Todd and approved unanimously by the Commission.
Number 6 on the agenda, Vail Associates, Inc-. .-[t-g-q-i!9-g!-for Conditional Use Perriit to alloiv tenlpolary pu
Jim Clar:k reprcsented Va,il Associates with this request.
He explained the proposal for this lot to be located at the
rvest end of LionsHea.cl . This temporary lot rvoufd be for the
day slij-er and employees. It was fu::[]rer explained that tlre Ulark
expansion rvi.l-l take 126 parliing spa.ces a,ncl another 35 leased
spaces on tire Lionsllt'ad Plaza, site that h:rcl been tlsed bl' V.A.
employees will be lost. I{e explained to the Conr:,iission that the
visual funpact rvitl bc minirnal tvith snorv berluing proposed to be
donc arouncl the lot and that it is a great distance frotn the
residential units in the area.
t
I[EilIORANDUM
TO PLANNING & ENVIRON},{ENTAL COIIMISSION
FROM DEPARTI,fENT OF COTII,IUNITY DEVELOPI{ENT
13 June 19Zg
JOHN^ilcrjRrDE RTjeUEST I,ORA.\D OFTSlTL' PAR{]NG
DATE
REF
CONDITIONAL USE PERJ\IIT- ITIcIIRIDE BUiLDING
Jorrn LIcBr:tgg,'ru" rcqucsted a.condi-tional use ^permit to a110wan existlng drvfJJltts unit ro"iteo on 're "..ona rroor ofapproxinratelv
_1 110 _=q. f t.-;;-;" converted to more commercialspace for Gorsuch, Ltd. at -trris^time
trrey rrave not decidedwhe,rer to use trre sp"ce "" Jiii"" silace or aaartional retailspace' The corrvel;irn t" oiir.J" conrmerciat use wouf cr r:equireffiJT"::.t;;.t;:":rrsite p";k;;; spaces tor rvriicrr council
Ife have wrestled with t'e empl0yee housing in trre vailvillage core for. many year*. - i-r.; _a.urt"-rri;,,;.;, tong,
_?l.o3l, ji,J"inli "1f; S, r:*:
-li: n.i.n.
.
uorizon t Ji iJi i,e ordi nan cecontrol ""n''ni.i.i-::r["i3; "i"s";r. r;,Tju'i;,?"*H;";;""=
felt that with the pai=rge ot tr.-1 ."dinance the problem woul.be solved. The-n.p'."i",Ji; ;i ;;"_unity Development feelsthere is a sisnificant sociat *,ra ""o,i6r,;;.;;":;;fety benefitll, l!.rl"i,?"o3"l""tre r"ii_iin,!""o"idents
"""rpii ng dwelIinedeari "iu'' i.i!"5ittii",?rlJlot" aeveropeo-ii-il'ro be---^'o
.n. SSIuoili-Jf;rl":..!:.i^"no .o,'t.i.lyg" tg be horv to substantiatein- t r,e
-in i ii,i,.n^f
" liirl ii i:;i ig "i;1 i-, " r; i, li. l;'iliiT:t",;;.rong-term dwelling.units-srJuii".ur"in. But, we"nave no meansto make a non_int::=;:"g;;;;i;"1. o,,1y "*pe"ience to date.Again' we suffer.from a lack ot the-t""i.-J"-i"iJ". objectivemethod of evatuattng -inai;i;";i lpprications.
The follorirF. is offered at least. as a step to provide a,t;J'1":f.':i';::it"" ;;-;;i;hiiu'."n base a o"ir"ioo. we berievetun a.*uiiai ^. 5=lii';li" li;'l?rjl, l*ffi "i: ;:;:;*. ir::,ilinj" "u""discussion to date ir,.t *u-ri.t"aurrriti.r* ;;i;;;i" ror judgingthe merits of certai" .iupJ.-Ji^oiopo".d
changes in use. Nowthat the parking issue- rris trnaiiy been resoived in cc1 ,eacn application must_be ;";;i;iiy.considerea on its own merit.The basic motivat ine t"".J*u;;i;;' tnu i,o-r JJrr*t ri',onrn* ordinancer''as a recognition that 10ng-term housi'g i' the area is beneficial
ilIET{ORANDUM
Pg. 2
ttt"Br i de ftL-qucst for
Offsite Parking
Condi,tional Use Pernit &
- tr{cBride Bldg.13 June 1978
tothel-realth,safetyandwelfareoftheconrmunity.\|'edonot believe that tf'ls iftifos"pity has beerl altered since
the ord'lnance was adopied' If rve do not have agreement as
to these underlying ;';;;;;tpr-tit"' ttt"tt the ordinance should
be seriotrsly recon"i;;;;;_".nd a'nended. \1'e lrave SI]ent con_
siderable t j_nre in t"ving-t" isolate this request f roni other
sirnilar applicatlons in the area' some of rvhich have been
approved'indsomettt"i"i'""e;;;;'denied'\t'ecannotrelvon
experience f rom ottrei -"o*',.,'it ies, because ther:e is no otlrer
comparable' Strould ifti" t"q"est be.granted' it must be proven
that any mi_tigatio" ;;;;"i-i;o.rro not-substantiallv iuiprove
the living quatity "i- ii.l-rr""-ana t-hat the unit is not
essential to the ft<:"itr'l-"titty'- a19 welfare of the neighbor-
hood-Thepotential-i;i";;;i^igltrrgrreducingthedwellins
unj-ts in the tttt" *""i---Le ct""tu1ly considered'
The staff has revieled the Conditional Use Permit rcquest
accordingtoSectlo.'i;.60ooftlreZorringordirrancearrdhavethe following comments l
FACTORS
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development
objectives of the Town'
The applicable development objective under the Horizontal
Zoning Ordinance ttrai is oi "o""t-tn^in the request is the
continuance of the various comlnercial ' residential ' and
publicusesinco*"'Li"lCorer'o"iiomaintaintlreexisting
eharacter of said area '
Our principal- concern with the conversion of this type
of unit (GRFA o"tt i6o6-;A' ft') is that it is a relativerv
rarehousingtype.-oi_ttretotalestimatedGRFAallocatedto dwelling or acco*i"a"ti"" units '(263'796 sq' ft' or
64.627o or total "'ti;;;;;-;;' rt'-in 9cr)' Tli: l:::t"s
tvpe accounts for ";;;;;;t;ierv
25-units'or less- than 10%
of the total ""ti*"ff,a":;':'-;;:"
in ccr. Due to the llmited
availability of thi; t,ol,'i.,,g tyPe: we believe it would have
significant impact ;t-;;; aEsiiaure mix that is currentlv
exrsting in CC1 '
2. Affect of ttre use on light.and air' di'stribution
of populati;;,-ii"i=p"t?"tion facilities' utilities'
schools, parks and recreall,on facilities' and other
public t""iriiits-ana public facilities needs'
1 our princi-pal concern under this factor would be the
' distribution of ptpii"iitn'- wt believe that the size of
thisunitwouldbeconducivetoencouragementofpermanentresidents to use th;-;;ii; which we feel is desirabre'
\
\{EI,lORANDUM
Pg' 3
IlcBrlde Request for
Offsite Parking
Conditional Use Permit &
- h{cBride B1dg.
3.Affectupontraffi.c,rvithparticularrefercnce
to congestion, autotnotive and pedestrian-safety
and convenicnce, traffic flow and control ' access '
ntaneuverabi 1ity, and removal of snow from the
streets and Pa l'ki ng areas'
IVe foresee no nlajor collf lict ivith these consider.ations;
hoivever, the .t=u .o,rid involve additional delivery traffic
it tttu ipu"" is used to exlrand Gorsuch Ltd' retail space'
4. Affect upon the character of the area in which the
proposed. use is to be located, including the scale
and bulk oi tt. proposed use in relation to surrounding
uses.
I{e see no conflict rvith this provision except as out-
l ined a"bove.
5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission
deems applicable to the proposed use'
Prevlous applicants have complained of the noise problem
emi'ating fromlhe Nu G'u which is located below the drvelling
unit in question.
It is of concern to the staff that several changes
have occurred wiihin the McBride Building and in the A & D
erlifAittg within the last several years' f 1 1974' an
additional?5osq.ft.wasallocatedfortheCountryFlair
shop rvhich had been a dwelling unit' In 1975' a request
was made to convert an additional 1764 sq' ft' This proposal '
wastaterwithdrawn.Adwellingunitwasconvertedtostoragej""t-prior to ttre adoption of t[e Horizontal Zoning amendment.
conditional use Permits in ccl also require that we review
the following development factors in accord with Section
ra.24 -o70.
t3 June 1978
1. Affects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core 1
district.
2. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I
district.
3. Reduetion of nonessential off-street parking'
4. Control of delivery pick-up, and service vehicles'
(
o
IlEIUORANDUM
Pg. 4
llaBride Request for C<>nditional Use Permit &
Of fsite Parking - IIcB::ide Bldg. 13 June 1978
5. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians'
6. Continuance of the various conlmercial , residential ,
and public uses in Conunercial Core 1 district so as
to mij.ntain the existing character of the area'
7. Control quality of construction, architectural dcsign
and l.andscape design in Commelcial Core I district,
so as to maintain the existing character of the a.tea'
8. Affects of noise, odor, dust, smoke and other factors
on the environnent of Contmercial Core 1 district'
The follorving is a surunary of those j-tems we feel are
extremely importint to consider as they apply to the above
factors.
1, Noise is one of the major problems facing residents
in the coTe area rvhich contribute to a negative residential
environment in the Core.
a. Delivery vehicles;
b. Restaurant and bar noise;
c. Service vehicles;
d. Pedestrian traffic;
e. Late night drunks.
The two major sources of noise irritation to resi-dents
in the area are restaurant and bar noises due to live or
amplified music which eminates from open doors and windows
or inadequate sound proofing, as well as late night drunks.
A fairly comprehensive study was conducted in 19{6.
which indicated that sound Ievels on a 24-hour basis' in
the area were :
Decibels*
30-40
41-50
51-60
6L-70
7t-80
30-40
41-50
5r-60
6L-70
71-80
ease day
50%
48%
1otLlo
o.9%
o.r%
from 2nd floor
50%
40%
8%
L.e%
0
& D B1dg.
% of time period*
50%
45%
47o
o.9%
o.r%
% of time period
1-7 P.M. 7 P.M. - 3 A.M. 3-:9 4:[l:
\.
50%
497o
o.e%
o.r%
0
ofAlworstmeasured
MEIIORANDUIvI
Pg. 5
IrlcBride Requcst -tor
Offsite Parking
Conditional Use Permit
- McBride B1dg.13 June 1978
&
Noise Levels for a 24-hour Pe{is4
dB \laximum 80
dB lrledium 45
dB ]r[inimum 32
2. Traffic.
a. Parking: The permanent residents of the area
currently rrave tie-p-"oui"t of finding adequate parking
for their ,t.,:-i.]^--t'ite iact of aclequate parking for
the full-time residents diseourages prospective
tenants from living in the area'
b. Deliveries: I{e feel that more traffic is
p"of,"frv-".""1"4-by permanent residents in this instance
since ttre proiJJ"a" tintrrr"rcial space is an expansion of
an existing bt";i;;""-""a-tu""1d not require new tvpes of
deliverY vehicles in the Core'
After careful consideration of the impact of the conversion
of this unit, ""a iii-i""to"t' the Department of Community
Development recommu"O"-"pptoval- of ttr-e Conditional Use
Permit and furth.;-;;;"ffi;nds that offsite parking be
assessed for 2.pt."" in the same-manner as Hong Kong Cafe
and CYrano's.
(
. PUT1LIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the Dobson Brothers have applied
for a Conditional Use Permit for the Covered Store Building, Lots
C e D, Block 58, to allow the conversion of 540 square feet of
apartment space on the second floor to commercial space. Application
has been made in accordance with Section 18.60.020 of the vail
Municipal Code.
A Public Hearing witl- be held in accordance with Section
18.66.060 of the Municipal Code on October 13, 1980 at 3:00 P.M.
before the Town of VaiL Planning and Environmental Commission. Said
hearing will be held in the Vail Municipal Bui1ding.
The application and information relating to the proposed change'(
is avhj-lable in the Zoning Adminj-stratorts off ice d.uring regular
business hours for review or inspection by the public.
I
Jiur Rubin
Zoning Administrator
TOWN OF VAI],
DEPARTMB.TT OF COMMIJNITY DEVELOPMNT
Published in the Vail Trail, SePtember 26, 1980
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTfCE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Dobson Brothers have appU-ed
for a Conditional Use Permit for the Covered Store Building, Lots
C & D' Block 58, to allow the conversion of 540 square feet of
apartment space on the second floor to commercial space. Application
has been made in accordance with Section 18.60.Q20 of the Vail
Municipaj- Code.
A Public Hearing will be held in accordance with Sectj-on
18.66.060 of the Municipal Code on October 13, 1980 at 3:00 P.M.
before the Town of Vail Planni.ng and Environmental Commission. Said
hearing will be held in the vail Municipal Building.
The application and information relating to the proposed change
is availabl-e in the Zoning Administrator's office during regular
business hours for review or inspection by the public.
Jim Rubin
Zoning Administrator
TOWN OF VAIL
DEPARTIT,IENT OF COMMUNITY DEVDLOPMENT
Published in the Vail- Trail, September 26' 1980
o
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Dobson Brothers have applied
for a Conditional Use Permit for the Covered Store Building' Lots
C & D, Block 58, to allow the conversion of 540 square feet of
.apartment space on the second floor to cofiunercial space. ApPlication
has been made i-n accordance with Section 18.50.020 of the Vail
Municipal Code.
A Publ-ic Hearing will be held in accordance with Section
18.66.060 of the Municipal Code on October 13, 1980 at 3:00 P-M.
before the Town'of VaiI Planning and Environmental Commission. Said
hearing wiLl be held. in the Vail Municipal Building.
The appJ-ication and information relating to the proposed change
is available in the Zoning Adninistrator's office during regular
business hours for review or inspection by the publ-ic
Jim Rubin
Zoning Administrator
TOWN OF VArL i
DEPARTMENT OF COMMT'NITY DEVELOPMET{T
Published in the Vail Trail, SePtember 26, 1980
o
Covered Bridge Store Conversir
I,iailed to: Eoard of llanagers
Creekside Condo Assoc
P.O. Box 1528
Vail
Mr. Peter Switzer
511 Illinois National Bank Bldg
228 South Main Street
Rockford, IlI 611-01
Ron Riley
4494 Streamsid.e Circle
Vail , Co 81657
.--Jowrle Ore Holrse)
Rod Slifer
Box 1248Vail, Co 81657
Pepi Gramshanmer
231 East Gore Creek Drive
Vail, Co 81657
Dobson Brothe;r e 6 urt-'-
227 BrLdge StreetVail
,Jfu -1,1,|lf
Legal D€scription: Lot
Zoning Approved:
Design Review Board i/*/ /ta"'Date
APPROVAL olsorr"ouo.
Zoning Administrator Chief Building Official
Prolect Appllcatlon
Owner'Addr€ss and Phone:
+'7L-/Lhc
Architect Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot Block Filing
Zonel.
Zoning Approved:
Design Review Board
Motion by:TodJ
tt'1
lfa,.Kav
APPROVAL
. Seconded by:
DISAPPROVAL
(J,r^ q.vl-^
o(t^
-s*r'o^
Zoning Administralor
oz
tr
=E
uJ
9Hit=
rrEiF_<9r9
< .. ) 2 t-:cFF <.,Flra
=irilista::?:.'<ozd
^zzA)i::se
<a|Jrz:rili;
:<a <E3si3Iir<cO> -o<ci'a,a =<d<>r
l9J
I
!
I
I
I
l-
r(J
rtr
ILL
lotzlo
tJr-
I
I
l.,,
tkto
I
I
I
l.
rlJIE
E,rFl9z
IE
lotz
z
iii Y;d6f+.,^o
di u.t K-=+YOtr.()<oz
:<Go
=zzu-oooh o- 4=
==>Ytr I oE
6687- CozXtr<oq iH6 r.
=R 2
HNO
o
=u-
J
F
ul
=z
dl
-')
u]
z
UJ
oo
J
-
t =E
TL
uJ
oo
)
a
Io-
L(J
E
c
tn,raruEoo
J
aE
=trtr
a
UJEo
=
tr
uJ(roo
=tr
LU
o
a
=
o-
L E.
LU
oo
T(L
L
O
t
TJJz
=
IJF
T
t
<F(ts()
TIJ <zE.u7 |(J
<oOF
-<
I 12t UJO
Ectozt
ZE
JZo-O
<^
=Fz()<#*triz
=g
L.ori\
=O-zt
oz
F(J
uJ-)oGo-
u.lF
o
=z
zed]o>z
(L u-
."i6
=^83
;H=
rntr
E
-E
ts
=E
uJI
TL
uJ(L
F
co
Ecloo
6t
.E
t
E
Eot
o
go
E
.9tLoT'
F
=E
lrJ
o-zIFo
:)E
V,zoo
ntrE
'7'7 -t ' i-D;
WN OF VAIL
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
JOB NA
CALLER
INSPECTION:MON TUES WED
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:" i 'l
O UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
t
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
tr INSULATION
tr SHEETROCK
tr GAS PIPING
NAIL tr POOL / H. TUB
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELEGTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANIGAL:
D HEATING
tr EXHAUST HOODSROUGH
tr
tr
tr
SUPPLY AIR
tr
tr FINAL FINAL
F APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
D DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
,/ ,-, >1;
DATE ,/ "// - - ",/'' 1NSpECTOR
o INSPETON REOUEST
,orr!-/3-79 JoB NAME
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
,a
CALLER
TUES WED
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
O ROUGH / D.W.V.
D ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
INSULATION tr GAS PIPING
POOL / H. TUB
FINAL
O HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
APPROVED tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
/tlJ.- ....-.'r..;r,' , .o.INSPFCTOR -A .
ti! Pthatt/vail
\
DATE
,a i,
//4r^- ,pr^h &=r* J.^L /"^-t/td-,L--,rr/"- ; C-rt&k,Ar{;4y-//fu* /
s
h-k
i1a
tlJt!ll.
F
=u
uJ(L CN
I.JJ
uJu-
F
=E
UJ
J
oe.
odl
=g
uJ
z
6
UJ
F
G
LIJ
z
6J
=oJ
co
(,z
6
=o-
u,llJtt
d
F
Fa
6
2
a
.6
UJF
3
Ea
uJ
z
E
o
z
F
E
u,lFJ
zz
<9&.-urdf
^2EoP=E;qE93F04enEo9roErlzf
,nOZt>-a?
= t EHF2 g=d. e=<PFEe.9r=955ooorz<)
z3z
Eo
==o
zo
J
.J'tz
uJ
J
:<
-Z!-
6z59
Eoa
uJo
uJz
lll
--
= lll
=co
z
F^
aAz>-Oc)(Jzt!<v=
LY>x
.j.i
z
tr
J
o
uJ
z.YIrF
rli
=z
c0o..)
a
uJeoo
J
=E
F
C)
EFz
z
I
tI,
=
t-E ir
UJ+E ,.o ,2
<o(JF
FS
;F-ztro
(Joz*
=#f,F4Zt.LO
F()
tFz
Fo
I.IJt-
-
tU)
o
C'I
=
oz
E
=d
u.lo-
oz
F
C)
uJ-)ot
o-
ulF
o
Jzoz
ze
coo>zf>
r-P
..i5
=-r=-r -': t!6d=
co
E
CLo
c,
o
=,zc3t-E:-E=8H
6 lt-
PO5ptr>rF
F
=Elrlo-zoF(JfEFtnzoo
trtrtr
!!!
-rl
Il..'.
fProject Applicalion
JG.- tt{tl
| ..,1 i .
Zone:
Project Nam6:
Project D€scription:
Owner Address and Phone:
Architect Address and Phone:
Legal D€scription: Lot
. -;L
g /so /to
'.!tu+* o
Zoning Approved:
cfi
Design Review Board
Motion by: {9 | oonfi tt /
GortaqSeconded by:
o^," t)/ 4 /, ,r
DISAPPROVALAPPROVAL
Ve Seaia
Chief Building Otficial
J\ -e.._ei-L^\ r
_-s
\J
db\ai{*\ ,St
p
5
*F
V\
\
$
sl
\o
\)
o
'tt
ri
EI
DESICN REVIE1V B!4RD
DATE OF IVIEETING:
IIEMBERS PRESENT:
ACTION
SUBJBCT: ]
TAKEN BY BOARD-:
MOTION:
VOTE: FOR:
APPRO\TJiD:
SECONDED BY:
AGAINST:
ABSTENTION:
DISAPI'jP.OV[D:
--
P,o.tsc+ l\1)-
t
Fz
o
!lz
3
e
F
z
F
aI
B
z
O
ttlh
t
z
lrl
Qz
z
z
'F.
rt
F
Fq
F,:
F9
AFF ,_,<::
.U, a
2<
zzc<Fr<oOA
tcA.o<()
2,a
FHa><o
tr{
ut
ut
z ulF
6
t
at
!
.E
=tr=Hl-Gto
==^=_il
o
lt
J
aF
F
UJ
F
J
J
F
tr
IIJ
E
J
z
Y
{
FQ
u-
llJ
utIt
u,t
2
J
9
u
UI
Jul
E
E
IIJ
z
f,o
:
E
?4g,l
Gg
z
F
F
u,lFJ
<t
3
u,lz
F
z
uJ
gJ
utoE
tc
u,lF
3
=F
EI
|ll
Yz
E4
qJ
a,
UJ
E
2
F
Ful3
ll,l4
oz
F
@
o
UJ
Eoz
F
l0
Eoo
o
t0
lto
F
o
u,
oz
!z
(9z
)
z
UJ
UJ
Y
3
z
F
tr()
ul
J
IIJz
ltl
(\
ul
o
@
z
c
N
n
\-l
=
;
tr
F
z
o
lJ,/
F;
z
F
o
IJJF
o
uJ
J )
a
E
TC]IIHCUV
Fa
Fz
I
9Jz
'
rrl
h
z
F
F
z
az
z
2
'h
F
'
i1
F
qt
a
z
F.
f,l
tr
I'l
F
F.
F
IIlF
F
z
z
F
()
F.
a
*
UJ
cc
uJ
zf,
llloz
s
F2tu
=uJ
Q
Iu
F
ut
cc
)t!
llJ
F
J
F
!J
tc
c
Jtt
F
t
\)
<)
a\
N
t
E
tr
ut
0.
o
z
I
o
Jf
o
=
l!e
-,-eF
I
Itt
?YE
F
t!l!o
z
6
o
q
t!
t|-o
oql
llt
t!
Y
u,lIoz
)4
b
E
u,l
=
o
uJ
zo
oo(
c
uJFJ
3
uJ2
z
IJJ
uJ
G
Ftt
z
F
q,
uJt
(J2
UJtt
utYo
Ett
z
tr
uJ
oz
c
o
o
uJ
lI-
6
tu
o-o
att
ll,Jtz
ul
It
s
llJ
E
Eoo
FIt
A
tt
l!
oz
z
z
)
z
NOlMlVn
!J
o
o
q.
z
N
l>l\./
:
=
2
tr
F
zo
ILo
ur
Y
G
3
z
F
=o
gl
J
utz
llJ
z
F
9
tl
ul
IIJ
o
a
E
Q
r!
:
oz
=tt
t
V
i,
n
F
J
e"4 4J+fr
to,.rX l?.zs-.\(/x t^)= ////. rz(yg, " o)
/373.r3
z? /2t3'/3
Jo X /?'{
Uo,r f to)/.3 €,*.-
:%4ryrc?r!r!3"?r'
971 ,oo I
f7/'' o^.
(to€''o)
tJ92 od X3 =///?.oo
L r - /- s--(
3oo
COVERED BR I DGE STORE ADD IT IOi'I
SUM14ARY OF ADDENDUI"I TO VAR IANCES
Res i dent ia I Floor A rea:
f. In original building - 2 apartments with 1,393. l3 square feet.
2. In building and aPProved addition for which variance was
originally granted - 2 apartments with 1,233. 13 square feet.
3. fn iinal proposal and original building - 2 apartments which
contain a lotal of l,l4l.l5 square feet.
Addendum to parking variance:
l. First addition p ropose d and va r la nce apProved - 960 square
feet for a tota I of 3 pa rk ing space v a r i a n c e / e xe m p t i o n .
2. Second proposal which is 489 square f eet larger \,rould require
an additiona I l.6l car v a r i a n c e / e xe m p t i o n . Th is mad be
done as an addendum fo the first variance,/exemption.
Addendum to bu i ld ing bu lk confro | :
l. original appl.i.cation was for a wall approximately 52 feet long
(already existing) which was being made more nonconforming
because it was to be higher. The ordinance allows a 50r wall
without a l0r jog. This was granfed by the Planning Commission
and the Council.
2. The new proposal has a wall approximately'7Or long without a
jog and the original variance must be amended.
Rrr, oEc 10ls74 O rNspec{bru
oo1e lC.: liar- '24 roe
FIEBUEsiT
VAIL
TIME RECEIVED ..<.AIVD PM CAL
Efornen lr-e*- Q"..rdtr E(ponnnl LocArtoN
o4 "J Fit':>''e*'-
READY FOR INSPECTION
WED rnr l\-i' AM PMTHUR
El-eppRovED E orsnppRovED ! nerNSPEcr
fl uporu THE FoLLowrNG coRREGTToNS:
CORRECTIONS
DATE li 4- -- <:.)
Rtt DEO 5 $74 tNspEcl.,N FIEGIUEST
TOWN
onre.?, lJi-c 7A ,or"ot
TIME REcErvEo i ' .:.'... /'-lit'pM cALLER
E orxen
MON
GOMMENTS:
E pnnrrnl. LocATroN
READY FOR INSPECTION
(--wED . )THUR
'EottRovED E orsnppRovED ! nerNsPEcr
! uporrr THE FoLLowtNG coRRECTIONS:
CORRECTIONS
TNsPEH#N'tntAEBUEsr
ealg -< { L<- ?4 JoB
rME REcErvEo 8'rn (|.fuen
n orHen .Ste"-I penrrel LOCATION
READY FOR INSPECTION
c€-.WED THUR rar Ar AM PM
futrp RovED
Buporu rHE FoLLowrNG
E orseppRovED
CORRECTIONS:
E nerNsPEcr
coRRECTTONS ../
--'1
DATE
rrusFecroR
PLUMBING/MECHANICAL
TOWN OF VAIL
O io-r, - r.
FEFIMIT
t<-
4"
e c.- t-<- C ^ <-
- ]-. /c:-
w
Cou.r"J
ER ,-1. h n D-b s c.r) ADDREss 8.,.{-ro 3l>"*f
- B* n.l l- l2l.^b,4., - pHoNE eJ)-{s-a
# lo) Fna-
OF BUILDING:sJ=--
oF woRK: E ruew E eoornoru REMODEL E NEPEIN
RIprloNoFWoRK: rY\d'c- fi..- [,ne - tJC(-.,- s'alc- rv)ov<--
MEGHANICAL: NUMBERNG: NUMBER -P
VALUATION $ALUATfON$ Ja <rcr, I a
PERMIT FEE
TOTAL FEES: $
oArE 2 De- -7 +
RU tl0v 251974
24 .roe rrr
TIME REcErvEo iC>'.:*: d
EOUEST
E ornen
, MON ,, TUE
COMMENTS:
n panrral LocATroN
READY FOR INSPECTION
WED THUR FFI | 'r*'.AMr'PM')
)E APPBoVED E orsappRovED ! nerNsPEcr
tfr"LJ UPON THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS:
CORRECTIONS r
orre 25 N r,..; "? 4
ou fru zotst4 tNsPEciloru F|EEUEST
VAIL
onre l9 l.*lo',,r 74
TIME RECEIVED
G,
*t l fl pannnl LOCATION
BEADY FOR INSPECTION
WED T}IUR FRI
EFAFFRoveo IorsareRovED
D uporrr rHE FoLLowrNG coRRECTToNS:
CORRECTIONS
fl nerNsPEcr
( n.- .,'-'a'.'
, ir',. -'t:? >'">' ,'"--'--. t Lt ,rNsPEcroR \-*...
o
PLUMEIINGI/MECHANICAL PEFIMIT
TOWN OF VAI L
ll -tt-t t -
,U/t\
NAME Co.cvtd T3"d".- Sft''-
ER J,hn D'(rs.,-', ADDRES' U-,1 (.(., -J.,
" T3.:rnctf tlcof,n., - pHoNE g*l-{5(
OF BUILDING:
oF woRK: ! ruew D aoornoru ff*rtooel fl neprtn
lr,ovl he-#t^7 eau, p^.nf
PLUMBING: NUMBER MECHANICAL: NUMBER IA<T5 - M
VALUATION $vALUArfoNs J ooo'-)
REMARKS:REMARKS:
-l
PERMlT FEE PERMIT ,r, (( /s'4,xv \tr/'.\{N\
ilh\.\
oere lt l*!sr-r 7f
,*=*frlT -g:Ll1Esr
TOWN O
..'.').oere I i.l 1''. r..,.i ?',1-
T|ME RECETVEO ..t),&> AM pM
E orxen
MON
COMMENTS:
E panreu LOCATION
READY FOR INSPECTION
WED rat A'r en ff),'ill\<
Wepp RovED
El uporrr rH€ FoLLowrNG coRRECnoNS:
! orsaerRovED E nerNSPEcr
CORRECTfONS ,'--, 7 ,---;r,., ,/. ]':;
':t //. c.: zr, .-'.:/,' - f - , - ., .. .- t' ., .,). ..tt 'i -
--_--l-++-..=
Frtr tt 7 Et4 rNsPErllo*FIEOUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
DATE / l\--]:'U /4f- J(
rME REcErvEo 9'c"r iA'ilDpM
,tn)rtlE i. ,,- z
CALLER
E orren fl pnRrrnl. LocAroN
READY FOR INSPECTION
1-r",is)
! nerNSPEcr
INSPECTOR
I N s PErto^l- gT3,3tl ='VAI L
oarc ?'t C)"-T 7*
rlME REGEIvED .q,'3..,, /'6ti)PM
! orxent PARTIAL.
READY FOR INSPECTION
WED THUR
LOCATION
MON
COMMENTS:
5@ FRI AM PM
-, '.t
EI-A?PRovED E orsappRovED E nerNsPEcr
El upolr rHE FoLLowrNG coRRECnoNS:
CORRECTIONS
RU ocT181974
rNsi"=.to* FtEBUEsir
TOWN OF VAIL
-,2(:
TtME REGElvEo 8:.ac, rlaMrPM L,', 'lQ-.si-'.,.r+.-CALLER
E orsen
MON
COMMENTS:
TUE
E penrrnr.LOCATION
READY FOR INSPECTION
THUR
.EJnppRovED ! orsneeRovED fl nerNsPEcr
t-Tt
- I-J. UPON THE FOLLOWING CORRECTIONS:
CoRRECTIONS r .. ,,,. *, ,.
INSPECTOR
DATE
/
Rrt ocT 151974
Town of
nI,NCTRICAL
Vail
PERMIT tou N*&t xo*,!. .B,, Jn {W. o.e .(l'JLiI;o,,* -
Erectricar contnctor...A)-eJil IE./e.t..a.;.c.....8^..c..:....-.......-.
APPROVALS
e. ..0.'s*#
FORM IS TO BE POSTED (,1{
SITE DURII{G CONSTRUCTIO]I
24 HOURS ADVANCE NOTICE
REQUINED FOR INSPECTIONS
N9
Building Valuation
Electrical Valuation
Permit Fee
64
s..............-........-.. .
s..(...8-a0.-o.0
$.... ...Z-!t.t..Y..Q
Inspection Fee S.-..--.2Y-.,.--p-..0
rota,Fee @p
o,r" p na.. a#-.../.Y., .7 -{...........
Received "r.........,.L\-L Pl5/7/
Date
15....d'-.r-... 7.+........
Date
THIS
JOB
tra 3. t, fi!a!ta( !n., !allvaa t!l!tl
trs
F;i9
(
+
ts
=E
u,to
Y()
LllI
C'z
Jc
zotroiu)!FY4
dH
o
ur
ur
oozl
ur
C'2g
E
v,Fzut
Euto
uJ
o
F
c
uJE
E
lt
ti
trz
E
E2
'E
E&
tr
z
o,
trth
oz
Hr{'.>Irr{FAEc.tr_k9
;;8F5o
orMahc6ntJQZ<
E;2ig{8i8<oE
:d;;AO:<a
Ei g.o
-HHA><o!l,qc<E{F}:
utE
Fo
Fot-
ul
G
GooJtt
J
FoF
!t
tr
ul
0.
oz
-o
Jl
o
=<
1r-et
-,-etF-
G
E
uJE
zo
F
oo
2o
F
tr
u,lFJ
3ulz
F
2f
o
UJ
lt
6
IIJ
o.ta
ahE
u,l
J2
tc
att
utE
t!
oF
2
(,2
tto
z
ttt
(,G,
rtN
UIFozo9
et(0i
<6
g
loc0
oz
4
C)t
(\l
2o
FotaFo2o()
tt
ul4
F
2o
F
o
a
tto
ulF
o
DESIGN REVIEI.I BOARD
0F 6EETItiG: Septernlg1-!trr*!174DATE
MEI4BTRS PRESENT:
SUBJECT:
ACTION TAKEN BY BOARD:
MOTION
VOTE:
; sEcoNDED sv P-t a)
(-J
APPROV ED:
DISAPPROVED;
SUli,i'IARY:
Rouff . Bill nZ-
-.a
Parker, Lou ,./
-,.. /Sage, Ttave i/Alf; fa*n",
COVERID BRIDGE STORE ;
NST:
approve
s
$-
ao;i
c:rzo
E
EEzt
!l
t
z
C'
at
Fr
o
2
ae
z
z
E
ttl
ti !r
!.. :ieEvF '.t&l lr
:.!i
-@e
2<'qazzo<isoEicdc
<o
2ut
Feo><otsEts <.
+
F
=culo
J
o
e,
c
voul
o
z
JA
zotro
KHYA
=3ato
ot
11
Ftq
UT(,z
:<E
vt
z
!,1
Eulo
ul
o
t-
|llE
E
oJtt
!
a:=r= lrlolreto
-==oE'I
-.-f
o
F
E
ul4
(92
oJ
f
F
z
C)ur
Jul
c
o!J(,EoIt
2o
oo
FF
E
uJFJ
B
1|lz
ott|lJY
=G4
at
IJJe
l!
IF
=t
c,
=
=ILo
oz
oz
o
J
lotto
!,1
3
l(.'
ul
o
(,
o
Afo
IE(,
o2
al(Jt
$l
zo
F
C'3cFulzo(,
llo
Lllq
F;
vEo3
1lo
2o
t-c
EottD
ulo
i
i
I
a;x
=c03o.
(UJ LU I
id
..'.'-..
r\ ;t I
; ARCii ITiCT
:GAL DESCII IPT I O:I
iE ZO|{E QC T ; ?ROPOSED USE(S)
tsTAilCE
i I GHT:
UILD
equi
ITE
ING BULK COIiTROL:
, A.ctual sq. li./,O7/'Q0i
1+
J*
Af lowable rnaxirnun tength /2f , Diagona | /6O
rr., Actu .,,-." o t4:1t"
, -.-- tr
(, 1
Zoning Adminisfre
Chairman, Des ign Rev
a\^r^iew 3oa rd
Da teTow n Engir,eer
l,layo r
)T stzE /,62s1 -Sa ; FROTJTAGE
:TBACKS: Required - FronI 1) , Sides O - - A ' Rear
Actua I , sides 4" --2--, P'ear 1_'
h-1-r. --rr Dr'tl n trln(.uL I ir!.Elr cuILL/ilt,Jv.P'eouired -O , Aciu-i
- Front f '/ "
.4*r:ac*r'erd-Height Al lowed J{, Actual 32.7
5.n.r.4., ,8 Ratio, Allowable sq' ft'
)l4l.iERC IAL FLOCR A?3A: Percen ia3e a I lowab I e---, A | !owar le sq
Aa*rr=l <n f+I1\-luqrJ\i.
red 0ffsets /O 5-O , Actual length ?21 , DiaEonat 3? -;
COVERAGE: Allowabl" ?O 1,Allowable Sq.11. (2o7'77, Actual
Actual sq. tt, 3f0s1
:ON ING APPROVAL
rEs tGN REV tEl't B0ARD APPROVAI
,TILITIES APPRCVAL
:NV I ROI',ll'lENTAL I i'iPACT APPR0VA'L
SEABLE OPEN SPACE: Required 3O D so-
Ground Leve | /{O 'fA $, Coiron 22s- ,/,f i;
ANDSCAPII'JG: P.equi red - /0 tr, - /b7"?tq' ft', Actuet ---------'X .6i?i^:.:'^;-
ARKIrf G AND L0ADtNG: No. Requi ,.a ?,7/ , No. Actua t a/ria* i1N-ot'"'o[";'Y
----=; t la- t^silgsVar te {e'e ! YA;t r- . 4 /7
ra*nlAa a a!-
)ate S ubm i
)ate Submi
Date Sr,br',ri
Extens i on
by Sect i on
C0Mi':El'lTS:
f or Zcn i
tor ues I
for Envi
n g Re v i ew
gn Review
ronmenia I
tte d
tte d
+*a i
of
Dea d I ine
Dead I ine lai'e
lmpact Rev,i
to
ew Dead l ine
as Ferrit:eC
of 0rdinance llo.
date
8 (Series of 1973).
item
COPY
I
-,,{
/tzfi&
@t gJ-"". Qrea-,
d--:
7C.'a
/q.b x do,f,
Qr.o rrc.r)
/ta'7\"tttl,L1
llt,to)
--'t o 7/,7.o
4J FA (u/re)
t7-X /7' 'e-'ti.7t->\l/e
4C5n
14,'al =
ryt
lo o s'A'
eC7'?7
loru e n
Saae a. , M a)al +
1 rc-6,? +tzJ
L/ r2.3 a qdcl,l,iu
/"5
7 272r,Jo
r tr7,,ct
(rttl s-a)olr,t' x z r. s-
HA',{') r.t /gs
/o7/,?o
A qq,t?
J,,o7y,oo
2, o 7/,oo
t 7)'oo *o *c. I
7 oa4 ;4
I o7l ' i o
| 3fq,1?
n t2,3 a
Itl.lo
4, )t./,27 X,?f v / /77-f,to
r/tqa,27
ory
Az-
34,
':-
t6,
37
-
,lr-"ft - V2.7
5t+-?.etg,E^1g,
,t x t/t'r
J z X 4t'tf,
2r/ tv,f
7,r x /6rx/
to,r x '/
t )-a t'. rP
( //f,ro)
6 ?r4,oY
rNsPE.rT^luu
TOWN OF
2 I t974
FIEOUEST
VAIL
DATE -' i'r /r JOB NAME '
TIME RECEIVED AM PM CALLER
fl orxen
MON
COMMENTS:
E
E pnnlel LocATroN
READY FOR INSPECTION
THURTU
APP ROV E D
E uporu THE FoLLowrNG coRRECTToNS:
CORRECTIONS
! orsappRovED E nerNsPEcr
',,tDATE '-'l ,|,,, i'o\;
-
INSPECTOR
I
tr
2
c
E
EIz
B
E
c
tr
z
att
9E!Ei
iIE;EtsE^AC
HHE;H
i;iEN
*iliN
+
=u,l
2o
2W
..a l.YC--i lu
ol!
Gul
ooz
ul(,2
3E
oFzul
=u,lo
Ll,l
IF
G
|llG
Goo-ttt
lu
IE
FoJ
J
oF
u,lE
lEooJ
J
o
!
E
tru
o
t9
z
-oIf
o
-l
lro
-,
-etF
G
A
uJ
.E
E2IF
oo
zo
F
e,
u,l
1-J
3rtz
F
2
IJ
!,1
ur
E
oul
C'Eo
GIu
oF-
l
(9z
f
tto
2
c4tr
E-
=-t+
>(,('!
:tN |r|-
=o2o9-o-ot
2o
Fct lla=EOFlEa0
^>696f
tl|)4(Jtt
;ii
YEo
=tto
2o
F
Eov,ltlo
2o
(,
J
A.A
tto
uJF
o
\'\-t
\( Nqr
I\T C''
I^
.I
\=
\rdY\i. H
N
{
$(
N/
a
\
-.A
(
\I
R
DESIGN
DATI OF I"IEETII{G:
MEI4BERS PRESEIIT:
REV I EI.I BOARD
Auqust 8. 1974
Ruoff. Bill
Abbott. Duoley
Hanlon, Blll
AETiOl,t TAKEN
SUBJECT:
I]Y BOARD:
. sage, uave - aar)L,,
COVERtD BRIDGE ST0RE - front and rearafterat.fonw/ -v
MOTI0N to
VOTE:
APPROV ED:
DISAPPROVED:
ECONDED U' -
7
n.rrrt ^n't|rr' f,nr l-I'la ql TpULVLLIi t lL'l I l'''./ L I l,iL \..lLr I
PRO J ICI'
O'JNER/D
SUtsi.I I TT
EVELOPER
I AL D*TE
- DATE PROCESS 'I3 DAT;
ENT IT IES RECE IVED DEA]L INE CCI'IF'.ETEi' S IGi']ATURE REI'1ARI''iS
47/-..-1e-
PRE L I l'l I\ARY STAFF - / ./)-z -z / ' .+ -PEVTEW 1-/J^'7t
I.,IASTER PLAii
LAIIDSCAP i113
RECREATIOi'I
6r,ttr'\tlTltrq
ENGR. CHEC K
DES IGN cHEcK / t. (2412:+r'
ENV IRONMENTAL
IMPACT REV IEW
ENV IRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT
zoN ll,lc CHECK 4-rt-'7{
PLANN. COt'1i\4. 14trn n t nrucu
-coND
lT IoNAL USE
d-f-?q J-4r-''efufu,^.iF/
Tov'tN couNclL , - ,, , -a +,./nrviEw-- - 4q-2r' 4,',22-7<-
-1zzt47e.//a;DESTGN REVlEw . tltt fu *.iZ*?:1i 3
l, :,,^:,. "" + ;ffi fuv ";--a' ;2ry r@,'/
F INAL ZON I NG
REV lEV,t
,.€utto I NG DqPT.
.,,P L AN CHECK
MECH/PLBG.
,,rGcrn tcal
PUBL IC WORKS.
aHZ
,dae oeet
. PUBL ICAT I ON DATE 4- /? -7/
/('
HEARINc optt ,f-?'74
4 -z- 74 ne
FEES:TYPE
VAR IANCE
COND. USE
ENV I R. I MPACT
.dnlt cHEcr
,afcREnt ioN
/oo.oo *--(
At40ul.lT DATE PA ID RENlARKS
},PE R N1 IT, B LDG
PLUMP ING
7 urcrnit tcal
Ktxntcat
dot,L) reie,t
OTHER #1 aa
I TNsPEJ.N
oare I i-. -';"1 ..: ' '/'.li
TIME RECEIVED AM
JOB NAME ;.. ...' . it. ti- ,;... i, :' -'";
.
TOWN OF
HEEUEsiT
VAIL
| -,.
PM CALLER
E orxen
MON
COMMENTS:
TUE
I penrrnt- LocATroN
READY FOR INSPECTION
WED THUR
,ffi areRovED E orsappRovED D nerNsPEcr
E upon rHE FoLLowrNG conRECTToNS:
CORRECTIONS
DATE r- tb-7+
INSPECTOF
t
Oatobcr 18, 1t73
Iryor Joba A, Dobeoa
Tho Covlrrd Brldgc gtorc
Yrll, Colondo 8166?
Bc: Dcrl*l Bcvlcrr - Storelront Baodcllae Plang
Dcer [r, Dobeoal
Plcrte bc advlrad tbst tb€ Dollt! Bcvla Bortd, at tbclrmctlD8 ou Oot&or 16; 1979, har oouldcrcd your plemlor rrrcde-Ila3 your ltoretroat fld rpproved tbe frnc r|pr.l.ltod.
ftrnt you tor your aooXlcrBtlott.
Elaoerely,
DIBIGN NTVIEI BOARD
Xrdtnc I.Srcrctrry
/nm
Io!r@,
JS*
%r' fu* Vou'frd. fa/d b e v7n- rur."-'
/)U.1 n 4.//tr- "- L -s-/*cr,ta -^4-lt *.rttd-b fu-ao
( S /r""ztt,aat4 .. ,'. ,'Z--taA-6-@ Vb&zu'
"4/' ('/'
Cy'ut, Jt/- frd. -/ia"Z-/e,f1-,-
ootobsr 18, lo?t
Iryor Johl A. Dqbrolthe Covcrrd Brldgc StorcYell, Golorrdo 8166?
8e: Dcrkn 8evlon - Storefroat Reoodellnr Plenr
Drer Ir. D,obaon:
Plcrre bc rdvtccd tbrt tbe Doalgn Bcvlct Botrd, et tbolructltrg or Octob.r 1!, 1973, hrr aorrldcred your pluclor rcodcltng your otorefrout rnd rpprovsd thc lrno taprcrcntrd.
ttlnt you lor your cooDsratlon.
Stncerely,
DESIGS NBVIBT SOATD
lrdlao I. Iooeoo.t}ccretrry
/lm
U"-Vor* '6"4'-/"- d(.*-
Yo
UJI
C)
z
F
uJ
z
ul
z
t
zlll
E|ll
ul
IJJ
J
t!
EI2
=
z
IJJ
G
,
!JE
J
tt
a
F
!
ErIl
o
o
z
-0J
-3
o
=
LLo
=,
=eb
zt
IE
e
F
ttIIo
oz
oJ
FQ
tttt
E
IIJ
z
J
@
v,
uJ
llJIt
Y
uJ
z
Jo
UJ
z
F
o
F
z
aulJ
UI
oul
It
Frl
=F
(9
tu
z
9F
E
cul
at)
u,lt
zo
F
ulq
IJz
o
lq
!J
JY2
E
o
!J
tt
lll
d
z
Ftt
Fql
3
UJ
o
tt
Az
z
z
z
G-
-3
>ocl
2o9
-v,
=
2
Fq*n6
9o->o:bf
|llfo-o>uFO
;.i
v
G
3
tt
z
F
E
t4
uJ
J
ul
)
t!
IJJ
lll
J
a
=
ul
=
o
=It
YJ6
i\i
\,
I ,.,
"tlara t"
LIo
o
I
Ii
I
I
|'
$rut-'['fi:$4#*'ro;"'t
i;,8,1 .,, :,; i i.,i,|ii ,".*il
H*i*$*H#*#
lL.H* l*;u;;F*$'
. i' :-ii*;1.r+.cr:" ;-:._"! l a s:t-;rli;. *l*. :1i ; -..-9i
'[,i+.$t#*:*ff '*:.1:,i'i'fi .f;Ti ,''.
in;-i .F:b'-:S:Ji;+;'-.i !).-.i;-.':
[ "pf li;,:r ; -;: *',r'"ri:': -,' +''t+r"+ :i'" -"'r(-'*r* t \ t'It- ;t l"! i"i',.'ll $ 'j, :i,-.iIt t:1 I i, '',+iv $ iJl'*I ir f irj
su,tfiNc PERMTT APPLI
/,Ftt I
Jurisdiction
Applicant to complete numbered spaces only.
,Lot l/ ML
1,,
qlse: artacr eo sxeerl
MAIL AOORESS :\ ZIP
MAIL ADORESS THONE LICENSE NO,47^5'ti'
AiCHITEC' OA. OES ICNER MAIL AODFEsS PHOIIE LICENSE l.lO.
ENGINE€R MAI L ADDRE9S PII OI{ E LtcENSE l{ O.
USE OF 6UILOING
8 CIas o{ worK: N NEIV N ADDITTON tr ALTERATION E] NTPNIN tr MOVE f] REMOVE
l0 Change of usd
l1 Valuation of work: $,eeu,, rer4y' '.r rt" ! ''
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Size of Bldg.
(Total) Sq. Ft.
Firs SDrlnkl€rs
Requlrsd lyes ENoo"^ory&;"'
N OTIC E
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REOUIREO FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMB-
ING. HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUC-
TION AUTHOBIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHTN 60 DAYS. OR IF
CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ESATOOruCO TON E
PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COM.
MENCED.
SOIL REPORT
OTHER (Sp€clfy)
WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED IIN THIS SPACE' THIS IS YOUR PEBMIT
PLAN CHECK VALIDATION cK. M,O.PERMIT VALIDATION "fury
INSPECTOR
FROM: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF BUILOING OFFICIALS
'
!O SO. LOS iOELES
'
PA5ADENA. CALIFORXIA 9tIO!Form lqt.l $69
,f o
STATE OT COI.ORADO
COT'NTY CF EAGLE
#;,
rtFr ^ ""
DECLARATION CT LAND. ALIJCCATION
1r /
^
/L vL'4n 4 ?o fr<.'a , DE[rg firet duly ec'or! upon oath,
depoee aad eay that the following etatemcntg are true and correct
accorCing to rny best knowledge, information and belief' to wit:
t. That thie gtatement ig rnade ln conjunction with the filing of an
application for a building permit to the Town of lVail and to comply with
thc requircmente of Article VII, Section 3, Ordinance Number ? (Seriea
of 1969) Zontng Ordinance for the Town of Vall.
Z. The
ae follows: .(Dcecrlption
criptlon. )
feet, and the propoeed bullding containe
of area as defined in ttre aforeeaid Z.oning
4, The propoeed building, ae it relatea to the buitding sitc area,
)) ss.
I
The foregoing affidavit and declara
Bwoan to before me, i notary prblic, by
da\7 of {9#r
and
thig
dcecrlption of thc builfling-site for the propoeed building ,.rrr.rr/ 0"4;,{noitt,v , 2l/ '{ear a iuqar slr.ie
=n{ 4-- ._,op Rd4
r may be attached or aurvcyor'e map may be uaed to aho{r doa- J'- f
3. The propoaed buildiag sltc containa square
and the oroooaed bulldins contalne Qf -/ aquare feequare feet
complies to the Floor Area Rptio for the zooing whlch appliee to thc
building site, as defined in the aforceaid Zoning Ordinance. I
OWNER
NOTARY PI'BLIC
'{qii'"
A+rn . ct{* 't
eubecribed
ru'tf,^c PE IT APPLI loN /a 67-r
Jurisdiction
Applicant to complete numbered spaces on!$.
EE A'TACHED SHEEI)
ZIP PHON E
7 5?e LtcENSE l{ O,
AR CH ITECT OR DESIGNER L It ENSE NO.
MAI L ADOF ESS PI']OIIIE LrcENSE r{ O.
,.U5E OF BUII.DINC
7
8 ctas of work: dilgw tr ADDITI0N tr ALTERATT0N El REPAIR tr MovE tr REM0VE
10 Change of
eeeun ree /)l1 Valuation o{ work: $AJ
SPECIAL CONOITIONSI
Slze ol gldg.
(Total) Sq. Ft.
OFFSTREET PARKI NG SPACES:
NOTICE
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REqUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMB.
ING. HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUC.
TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR IF
CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A
PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COM.
MENCED.
NOTTHE
TING
TYPE OF WORK WIHEREIN OR NOT.PRESUME TO GIVE
PROVISIONS OF AN'
SOIL REPORT
WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED (IN THIS SPACEI THIS IS YOUR PERMIT
PLAN CHECK VALIDATION cK. M.o. cAsH PERMIT VALIDATION
{-/t
'/ '/rNSPEcroR //
FO'M IOO.1 9.69 REORDER FROM: INTERNATIONAL CONFEFTENCE OF BUILDINO OFFICIALS ' !O 30.
/-^A-4r/4A
LO3 FOELES
'
FASADEXA. CALIFOFNIA 9IIOI
o it \\'' kit\
,, 'ra *\'ai 7' \.Lt'u lrl-!.irlo
;* t,, \ Xt'';], fi,, \ ,\!\iI lti 1 ',\'7 'ist l',,.\ \,-*ffi:7,');,=S'{a-1''
,,..*" \ ;'i
$*'' - . ti, ,,. )g* i,r$i , ,')
"1,
j-
', -$* l^u:.'{i-,ffii i!-f{ ,*' :-ili;i;'Hr r -i, _ ;i ., -* :,: .1-1. "-,l .f s.. .-/.91 _,'1,rr I{+ --l k:-i# i;)}r ,
,O1."."__il-'XS_ . \, cfi, :
rJ; r. yf* 't ;il a,,F'fii,i*lj'\\ \i tt[,r' /i i' ;r Q*, i, I i., r.
, . *,. y{ t$.o .\ Lil, i*,I "{ ', iii^i $
,,.\l'. /i;--$''fii^ i*-
tt: ''S ";,-'ir-'-' oa-' 1i , Y, , .l:;,Pt;t '- -','
,,! ,\ t'f '" '
"'/''' tS'/' !t ,/.t- ,qiV' r!' 1 ", \' ',". ' .^ ;i 5 \
---'4:i;rYN- : i,, I lNiiri!\.
u'I.,t ii\1'\ti ' o r: ,l
,'. \ r '\ l', il
.rii :rt+-$d * *
t g'TT,gj-r,$;t
'h ,$il +*:-,
*f.S S Li:.tr
tX*i3! tu*fr'
I '; * k gJ -J\t', -t'-
\'I
' ,"*t \
*ii**, 'i \
\ t{^-r- 't-
' ,'.r-*si
--Hitffi:':FL'i7'^
,'l{ +l ,::g e*4;"
._\ile;,;t(.., 't',,
,t*f '6'{$^ -
;l'; '-:-t \i''
,,,n. ,\ \
/'
a'\ri
-i
''j *.:ri\
i t:\s
i $',1bs \i\. S?
ti$[V <r s
sFlebR\i
it^i Hf
!- - l}'.t
lr}{3il iiI.. 'J)
i'"S'l-\$..-
i.E:;fNr{i f,r+ ,.-to$f$
! ,\r-l---
ffRi,ii lL:rFs:lI li.r;.-11*$,
i ifi: r.i*;is!t i {}rr
,t._ \ s9
ir^ -*: 'q
rtfl lk- .,
$t$i; Ltr
'{ lJ- *
v€"Btso4
YCi i{i:
L't t
\
i
I
I
I
i
\
i
\
\
l_
. :-li\\\
\.
-|L i \{J -/\
t "$ ,'i )ro iii,'*:d 'i li', il iiil'
ii1
.4t
'....- ,'*\,.,.\,, ,'r',I ]\nti.*l:-t* o€
u'#,/' -."
It
, \.'9 ' ./
.t"dt I I''.;;y, , \.., nf :'. t.
' "t' i t,:. i:/
tbl'* ts'
"l-il . ..",.*--'Y,/
:,yg gg\vfi(
, . 1--*t
\.
,l..--.',, ;i-'*.li' rot, I,
1., 1r&iti l:c'r;ffi
A't l,t a\ .!
- \:' .1g- \'. ,,
it';,' ^ tj 't F\ /t
t'Si -',r.\'Y'' q
.9'A^/
1i'
_;t
t'-
,:
\
\
'1
\ ,,,,,,
,
\\.1
\) o.
;lb
U^
.t
ctt-\-
rN\
<ll
'l
1r;
; 'i
't t
:. !.
:'{',,{
|:
l
'!
I.I
tl'I
?owirl oF vAr 10
DAILY BUILDING INSPECTTON REPORT
Dt -L-LeJ-tL6 ' -(A
Perrnit *", lZGb
sJalrr c**b f 6*ttor frnrthcJ
1ssued,6/afflDate Issuea,:7f 5/ 11
Remarks
rr,ro?no PE IT APP
(((. / -
loN /a I
Jurisdiction
to complete numhered spaces onJy.
WHEN PROPERLY VALIOATED (IN THIS SPACE} THIS IS YOUB PERMIT
EE ATTACHED SH E ET)
ZIP PHONE
)""s t r LICENSE NO.5
ARCHITECT OR OEsIGNER L AODRESS PXONE LICENSE NO.
LtcEtr9E NO.
USE OF BUIIDINC
8 CIASSOf WOrK: (.ruEW tr AOOITION tr ALTERATION tr REPAIR ! MOVE tr REMOVE
10 Change of"use from
Change o{ use to
,.^*,. r.a/l , f,-I I Valuetion of work: $ ,,
Slze ol Bldg.
(Total) Sq. Ft.
Flro Sorlnklers
Requlred flyg5 flle
OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES:
NOTICE
SEPARATE PERMITS AHE REOUIBEO FOB ELECTRICAL, PLUMB-
ING, HEATING. VENTILATING OF AIR CONDITIONING.
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL ANO VOID IF WOBK OR CONSTRUC.
TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR IF
CONSTRUCTION OR I1'ORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONEO FOR A
PERIOD OF I2O DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COM-
MENCED.
TYPE OF WORK WIHEREIN OR NOT.PRESUME TO GIVEISIONS OF ANY
I HEREBY CERTIFY THATAPPLICATION ANO KNOW '
ALL PROVISIONS OF LAW!
INED THIS
CORRECT.THISFIEDR
PERMIT uot''7::,,2,'"21 cAsHr"FILE
EtutLDtNG OFFtCtALS a tO 90. LOs iOELES a pASADENA, CALtFOiXtA 9llol
PLAN CHECK VALIDATION
TE 1,4P.
REOROER fROM: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE OF
M.O.CASH
r
Form lOO.l 969
,r*ofRo PERM'Torr'.fr,* lzsT
Jurisdiction of.
I
Applicant to comptete numbered spaces only.
q
F
D
Ft
It\
$'{
h
\)
3e,baF st-opL
1[see rrrecx eo sreerl
owr{ ER \\ ./z V'"DoBe.o-'/Tocarrl oF 1,/V7L
ZIP PHOXE
Bo"r 296 /17e ^22.7 LICEXSE NO.3 H LftqL-*d
ARCHIIECI OR DESIGNER
-......--
EII C INEER MAI L AODRE3S PI{O*E LICENSE NO.
MAt L AODiESS BiatcB
U5E OF BUILDING
8 CIas oI worK: E NEW 6NOOITIOH tr ALTERATION tr REPATR N MOVE tr REMOVE
I Dsrcribework' RCC.i<tAl a fr&r
10 Change o{ use from
Change o{ use to
PERMfT FEE /,, A 0| 1 valuation ol work: g +q C . '-
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
Size ot Bldg.
lTotal) Sq. Ft.
Firs Sprlnklers
Requlred [y65 fl11e
OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES:
NOTICE
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REOUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMB.
ING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONOITIONING.
THIS PEFMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUC.
TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR IF
CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A
PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTEF WORK IS COM.
MENCED.
SOIL REPORT
WHEN PFOPERLY VALIDATED (IN THIS SPACEI THIS IS PERMIT
PLAN CHECK VALIDATION cK. M.O. CASH
INSPECTOR
REOiOEi FhOM: INTERNATIONAL CONFEFENCE OF BUILOTNC
PERMIT
N'
VALID
OFFIC!A
r")p
Form LOO.l 969 !o 30. Los FoEL€s a PAsaoENA, CALTIORTTA 9l lol
- tt :.i
Io-O-. -. t2 r 7
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION / ,*
Jurisdiction "
VW
to complete numbered spaces only,
?R'4. E s'7 c'i\r
I DEsai.1[see rrtacn eo sxe:t;
z V,Dot;D,r MAI L ADORESSor)-'J oF VlrlL ZIP PHOI'IE
s 11 L &r;' p.";;Zo. lia 4 ril".it.z LICENSE NO.
AF CH IIEC T OR OEsIGNEF
4 -"'"*-
LICENSE NO.
MAIL ADDF ESS PHONE LICENSE NO.
MAI L AODRESS BFANCH
USE OF BIJII.DI N C
8 ctassofwork: flNEw Zlnootrtoru trALTERAT|0N !REPAIR !MovE trREM0VE
Describework: Qelcrr,y' c 4pft'/Z h"t(na:v7
l0 Change of use from
PERMITFEE l0' Ot'1 I Vaf uation of work: $ I+tl S ' -
SPECIAL CONDITIQNST
Size of Bldg.
(Totar) sq. Ft.
Flre Sprlnklers
Reoulred lyst flnqPLANS CHECKED BY:
OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES:
NOTICE
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REOUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUM8.
ING, HEATING, VENTTLATING OR AIR CONOITIONING.
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUC.
TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCEO WITHIN @ DAYS, OR IF
CONSTFUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A
PERIOO OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COM-
D
READ AND EXAMINED THIS
E TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT.TOINANCES GOVERNING THIS
TOR OR AUTHOiIZ
MENCED.
I HER€BY C
APPLI CATIO]ALL PROVISTYPE OF W(HEREIN OR
PR
WHEN PROPEBLY VALIDATCD IIN THIS SPACEI THIS IS YOUS PEBMIT
PLAN CHECK VALIDATION PERMTT "^''"[';i)
pri" ,,t ,"T;tzt
M.O.
TE [4P F ILE
REORDER FROI,: INTERNATIONAL CQNFERENCE OF BUILOING OFFICIALS '
!O 90. LOs NOALE9
'
PA3ADEI{^, CALIFORNTA 9IIOIForm 1OO.1 969
oF VAI LO
INSPECTTON REPORT
TCIVN
DA]LY BUILDING
2aaa$o |3Axltr.Building:Contr.acto"t LAeESgo
Pe::mit *", lZb7 Date Issu"u,4U/l
dcg,$13, lq-?f flb.tle\ED
u . u. t_ssued:
o
Remarks
]O\JVN oF VAI LI
DAILY BUTLDING INSPECTION REPORT
QBit,raint'
Permit
Osr,
' o rt. 24,7 o
t010 94
COVEE ED
). oob i
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND
'O'*'O*''Vail. Colorado ---------'--'---19 -
Perneit is hereby granted------'-
to occupy the building as.-.----',--------
on Lots ----, Block----- - -" Addition'
Located in .-----.--.--.-- -- zoning district'
The address known as --------.--.--
Applicar-rt shall maintain said buildir-rg in accordance with all
present or future ordinances with respect to sanitation, buil-
din.g and zoning.
Building Official
6eco t,rle Pcza, r - tto Fgt t €eAdr€ Fuut'f
HA?F Po7 3c€ ,) taitewa, F€ o!"'c' t e';;; i- apo-rwi 'rcrt'tT tssi'vFa ufl6t -pa'r'
Ol4rE Odn P.57ido.
7(o^,-s.
1fVr'J 1
.h-
C.0. Issuedz fi^1_l lp{T,1rDate Tssued,: OCf, 17,1O
BR(DC€ crbRtr contnactor:RFINCEKT
t(,1i; '7tl)ttt*) a V-s- r. ie-u- -
| 1..u 1'-' 42 ,
,, 11 | ^ 1llAa a 1,.'I A,r Ct, ,
At/+
{ ,J },a-,,'l r .*t-(Ln.. .
d OUr )^-L\
'<2,-u,,{(
" "1:s '
c4, ro ^*
<x-., {-.,t,24"
i...-\o
--1T-r ry,wAf".r.^ s ltrvq-F' r
a lt-----cL G iFrg J ' . lr t( y'arl -3.7/r. z
t5 | zr--^4-
/lna*f,
-71*-' 0'
4
/
//
Tfuo-47J*.o l9o',{} 'llc la' az
a*,7 ,d *. ?7 * /
. f 4Z-cZz
q?xzo= f/d
/t?o
e770 fu
a*t/A- --7ryW
fu /--*> 4t
a
€/F/4
*?ry,= tt.33
= _i.7 o
/8' rs
,r,tJl*o PERMTT orr'.lroN
Jurisdiction of towx or vArL
icant to complete numbercd spaces only.
I
9?00f
LOI?Gl7s
{[see lrtrcx eo sxeer]
I OE5CF.
2 John A. Dobaoa Veil, Colo:nado 81867
FHONE
f?t-1509
t'iil; A. Ralnrckl, .rr. c#Ti"""i.Ll, colorado els[?
r-rc€NsE No,
r70-t708
ARCHITECT OF O E5IGN ER
4 ltanold Canrcr
LICENSE NO.
r?8-E105VaLl, Colo:r.ado 81367
ENCINEER
5 Aarold Crwer ilTi.i"ioro,rado 8lfi 6?
L ICEN 5E NO.
{78-$106
MAIL ADORESS IiANCTI
U5E OF BU ILDIN G
8 ClassofworK: trNEW EAODITION trALTERATION trREPAIR NMOVE IREMOVE
9 Describework, Add lrOoad flOor to oxlttlng bulldLng
10 Change of use from
o."r,t rr.?1.0{I t Valuation of work: $ lC ,300!0
Hlil'v t h!,.ff:l:"""" F
SPECIAL CONDITIONS:
ii',,",ii311", gagr
Fire Sprlnklgr5
Requlred E\/es lNoAPPLICATION ACCEPTEO 8Y:{zpg No. of
Dwellln9 Unlts
OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES:
NOTICE
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE HEOUIREO FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMB-
ING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONOITIONING.
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTRUC.
TION AUTHOHIZEO IS NOT COIVIMENCEO WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR IF
CONSTRUCTION OR WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A
PERIOD OF 12O DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COfuI-
MENCED.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REAO AND EXAMINED THISAPPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT.ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNING THISTYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIEDHEREIN OR NOT. THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOTPRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THEPROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATINGCONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
S IGNA'TURE OF CONTiACTOR
ZONING
WHEN PFOPERLY VALIDATED (IN THIS SPACEI THIS IS YOUR PERMIT
PLAN CHECK VALIDATION
' TEMP. F ILE
REORDEF FROM: INTEFNATIONAL CONFEFENCE OF BUILDING OFFICIALS
PERMIT VALIDATION CASH
Form 1OO.l 9-69 . 50 SO. LOS ROBLEs '
PASAOENA, CALIFOiNIA 9I I OI
aa
ltr. Ilanofd R. Carvcr
Anchltsct AfAP.tl. Box 795Vail, Colorado 81657
SUB.TECT: Covened BnidRe Store
Gcntlemen:
Octoba:r'?8, 1970
Persrlt No. 9?09t
Tn rcviewing your plans for the above nentlonad eubJeet,
th. folloning ltens shall be eor:rected:
A. Table llo. 5-Affi-6*enii'fficrmitted in exterior walls when lcse
than-flvc-feit (5') ftrcn pnopentv llnc. Exhaugt
fan ln tollet shall be axhaustad to wast wall.
Bi Scction 1105' aa anendcd-[i-sF- frA-ileiTiIEIoi--s-Fal1 be pnovided bv noang
of wi.ndowe or skyllghtl with an anea not 1e88 than
one-tcnth (1/10) of the total floor alrea' onQ-
half <112, of shlch ahall be openable. Artlflcial
Iight and nechan{cal vantllat{on (not Lcas than
two (2) changes of alr oen hour) mav bG lnstalled
ln lleu of natunal alr.
C. Table !{o. 5-effiE:f-ffitTs over elx thoueand equane fcet
(6,000 sa.ft.); then'efore, addl'tion ia Type V
one (1) hour. A1l intcrlor" gypboand eha1l be a
rnlnlmun of five-eighths lnch (5/8") and extcrion
ehall bc a nlnlnurn of onc-half lnch (112", ' both
wlth an appnoved one (1) hour flne ratlng.
D. Section 3302(a) and ?able 33-A
second floon'
^-.v
Thle ltttor bcooncs a pat{ of. the planr_end sp.clflcetlonl
lg apDndvod. Your prelent pcrnlt lc a 'Pnococd At Youn Otrn
[f"it'ani, tc hcrcby'canectri. I !ttl1 laeue ]Qua flne! PGr:,
nLt ,rpon rppllcatton at,whleh tlurc your fcq of 9106.30 chau
bc pald.
Rrspactfully '
" Covcnad 8r:ldgr Store
octoba? 26, l3t0
Page 2
TOI|X OF VAIL
,Ed Strtrblc 'Bulldlns Offlclal
ES/ah
oo: Heyoi if . A. Dobaon
Janer A. Relnel<1., Jr.
suittNo PERMTT orrr,&t,oN
Juridiction of TOWN OF VA]L
t to complete numbered spaces only.
I
97094
L0/26/70
penv'rr ree l l,OJ
Dlvlsion 2
Max.
Occ. Load
Firg Sprlnkl6rs
Required [y6, !11
PLAN CHECK VALIDATION
INSPECTOR
REOhOER FROM: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AF BUILOING OFFTCIALS
'
50 30.
Covered
WHEN PROPEBLY VALIDATED (IN THIS SPACE} THIS IS YOUR PE
PERMIT VALIDATION
OFFSTREET PARKI NG SPACES.
Uncovered
t
Pr
oH
C-t
o
(,
o(t
a
1[se: rrracr eo s*eer1I oEscF.
2 John A. Dobson 476-5509Vail, Colorado 81657
CONTRACTOR MAIL AOORESS PHONE LICENSE NO.
3 J"r"" A. Reinecke, Jn. Const. Vaif, Color:ado 81657 476-5708
4 Ha::old Canve:r Vai1. Colo:rado Bl-657 476-5105
5 Hanold Car.ve::
LICENsE NO.
476-5r_05Vail. Colonado 81657
USE OF AUILDING
8 Glass o{ work: N NEW D ADDITION tr ALTERATION tr REPAIR ! MOVE tr REMOVE
9 Describework' Add second floo:r to existing building
l0 Change of use from
Change ol use to
11 Valuation of work: $r_8 . 30 000 PLAN cHEcK rEe 35€O -
OccupancyG.oup F
SPECIAL CONDITIONST
Saze of Bldg.
(Totar) sq. Ft. 6 854
4tr4
APPBOVEO fOB ISSUANCE BY:ers
NOTICE
SEPARATE PEFMITS ABE REOUIREO FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMB.
ING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONDITIONING.
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORKOR CONSTRUC.
TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR tF
CONSTRUCTION OB WORK IS SUSPENDED OR ABANDONED FOR A
PERIOD OF 12O DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WORK IS COM-
MENCED.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE READ AND EXAMINED THISAPPLICATION AND T<NOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE ANO CORRECT.ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND OROINANCES GOVERNING THISTYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFTEDHEREIN OR NOT, THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOTPRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THEPROVISIONS OF ANY OTHER STATE OR LOCAL LAW REGULATINGCONSTRUCTION OR THE PERFORMANCE OF CONSTRUCTION.
SIGNATURE OF CONIFACTOi OR AUTHOiIZED AGENT (OATE]
SOIL REPORT
Fofm 100.1 9.69 ELE5
'
PAsADENA, CALIFORNIA 9I1O
TOWN OF VAIL
Building Permit Supplement rAl
Pnoject
r,
above nentioned pnoject
unde::stand in full the
Building Code (UBC):
A. Sec.302(a)
B. Sec.302(c)
C. Sec.304,.
D. Sec.305
Date
do heneby cer"tify that I have read
fol-lowing excenpts fnom the Unifonm
App:roved plans and specifications shaIl
not be changed, modified, on altered with-
out autho:rization f::om the Building
0fficia1.
No penmit presuming to give authority to
violate on eancel provisions of this Code
sha11 be valid. The issuance of a pernit
shall not prevent the Building 0fficial
fnom thereafter nequiring the cor::ection
of ernor:s or firom preventing building
operations being carried on when in vio-
lation of this Code on of any other or-
dinance of the Town.
Inspection ca::d shall be read and fi11ed
out in ful1 whene nequir:ed. No work shalL
be done beyond the point indicated; and
signed by Inspector. fnspection card
sha1l be maintained until Ce:rtificate of
Occupancy has been issued and then retunned
to Building Tnspection Office.
Building Officia] shal1 be notified, in
wniting, of any pontion of the stnucture
on building to be pne-fabnicated off-
site. Suci p:re-fabnication facilities
shall have a centificate of appnoval fnom
ICBO on be inspected by the Building
Official pnior to the starting of work.
l? 70
the
and
of
\
CERTIFIED BY:
f
gurr#No PERMTT APPLrcATroN,a eoqqJurisdiction of
t to complete numbered spaces only.
I
WHEN PROPERLY VALIDATED (IN THIS SPACE} THIS IS YOUR PERMIT
E
A.'K
rJ
C{
p
:4/L, \ _c,<-.".
I D ESC R,1f]see rrrrcneo sxeery
2ilr.'as,65'as/ laiz liz .;'5..(J t
AR CH IIEq,' OR OESIGNEh
GINEE VA IL AODR ES 5 PHONE
MAIL ADDRE SS BRANCH
8 Class of work: I NEW ,(nOOtrtoru tr ALTERATI0N fl REPAIR D MOVE tr REMOVE
10 Change o{ use from
Change of use to
I 1 Vaf uation of work: $ /4, =O., . ()C,
SPECIAL CONDITIONSI Occupancy /Grou p l-
Size of Bldg. | .\.. :(Total) Sq. Ft. l2a'. I
No. of -,t
Storl€s l'
Fir6 2.Zone
use i1 i-ZoneTION ACCEPTED 8Y APPROVEO FOR lSSUANC€ BY:
NOTICE
SEPARATE PERMITS ARE REQUIRED FOR ELECTRICAL, PLUMB.
ING, HEATING, VENTILATING OR AIR CONOITIONTNG.
THIS PERMIT BECOMES NULL AND VOID IF WORK OR CONSTHUC-
TION AUTHORIZED IS NOT COMMENCED WITHIN 60 DAYS, OR IF
CONSTRUCTION OR WORK ISSUSPENDEDOR ABANDONEDFOR A
PERIOD OF 120 DAYS AT ANY TIME AFTER WOFK IS COM-
MENCED.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REAO ANO EXAMINED THISAPPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE ANO CORRECT.APPLICATION AND KNOW THE SAME TO BE TRUE ANO CORRECT.ALL PROVISIONS OF LAWS AND ORDINANCES GOVERNTNG THISTYPE OF WORK WILL BE COMPLIED WITH WHETHER SPECIFIEDHEREIN OR NOT, THE GRANTING OF A PERMIT DOES NOTPRESUME TO GIVE AUTHORITY TO VIOLATE OR CANCEL THEPBO\,{'ifINS OF ANY OTHER STAIE: OR LOCAL LAW REGULATINGCoNSTEXJCT I ON O R_.I+{€-+EfiFO-trMANCE OF CONSTR UCT I ON.
GNATURE OF CONTRAC TORSIGNATURE OF CONTRAC TOR OR/TTHORJZED AGEN T
HEALTH DEPT.
FIRE DEPT.
SOIL REPORT
PERMIT FEE
Olvlslon
OFFSTREET PARKING SPACES:
Covered Uncoverec,
Max.
Occ. Load
Flre Sprinkl6rs
Requlred E\l,cr
Not R€qulrrd
IAN
PLAN CHECK VALIDATION cK. M.o. cAsH PERMIT VALIDATION cK. M.o. cAsH
NO ef/4ectr - F€ a//LL 8€ PA/a /,ut/6-/ Ft*/.+<--Pe?nrT /ssa@ ,{"r."ro^ €J %',{-<a
Form 100.1 9-69 FEORDER FROM: INTERNATTONAL CONFERENCE 0F BUILOING OFFICtALS a SO SO, LOs FOBr-ES a FASADENAT CALTFOFNTA 91t01
hr,tO Sre AF;e
64-t:y tj;,w' -- 4b15,
fRtlwtrP {af€ aurr4aAitE
$rr'.".p'nbLg; sffE AftEA
= ff)'1, 4Cl5 = SJ4os.f
= Y&rb'St,ff
- 4610
Av*-tE-( s( V,^/-t-?, \/ U-eT eLl?!?,fi{4,
F-? rv,\r!, vrLLAa9 ,7r*tr flulJb.
a. ,coJe,. h)Pw1 ATE zAy'aac
LIST OF SUBMITTAL DOCUMENI"u
1- s*t2'gt{a ttTe fr.rf.l1- ?rupry alv Tur.tJ
s - e4zang\( fLaNt - ,vv?L. 4b fl.AFJ
5 - Lev")- 1*t6t rLANI
a - LvvvV fircW n4l
7 - l.V'/?l- @K n"Atto- Kq F,ar.l
q - vAfi ?rauAlta^J
'a-$e4.rt vleu4vF
rr - vr6b" ,svva(eAe- ?rfv oieYav a'f"xV'pv
extzf\b f,*t-lz Q A*vqta*,
rw. rc?vta+? apflTf*
\ *'.
6({/ fT:&oo' SQrr
| * 4*io : '/ 36126 t,f*.LI.129Vr.'Pt g _€'f<FA = -,p}'t" Cl
f{4t-Q:;vl) €Klq '2. ":: zt6+ Efua 5f-.w 'Fg5ll?/pl'1A1, uilrT5 ?- ffiffauo I
kX[-,T'lNcz @A ''l1Et<7:4^L-
fr<0YC 5e.) Cc^
^h^ZKoWL--
arfv ll*+il ta vhsw dr)
Vfa ?)o)t ? )plaaK-(4+L af Y",lv 1&E(at-bru,* ftaf q ,utrly.ryTv)
Dl,c
Best ?gwe 'lrtrrCopitt
26"4fE
-lrd'
I9-
t'',:l;'
. !:,
.0ilt-h
tl
(\
s
(i.
tti:-{lr,ltb^
c
\, or.'-,.'
|ffrr:,r
ryl
7.21
N26041'E
/9\
^xy;#'
t--
garail-2:2o
Revised:flTffD4-.-..*
1- tb'9o
EXTSTTNG $rTE pLAN
COVERED BRIDGE BUILDINO.
Avaitable
J,lufr[)c,n
]Jt-tPscarg ffiwr*zEl=t€ru
TO pg gaxt*dq-p ffi.aBl EUJ# t-E17t'1p{tr13 o .i ..
6F.-renXm-e1 1;lr'4, TFEs,.
4.'lEW AlfiN'E #Ffl+J ffiEt)- \ylw AUD'A| roR wl$rq<rcvvN
6Na/V 5W.+€,,
1, FP1'dl@ I.AA/H
4.bfr,yw3e -lyqlt FgMPVApt&- -tiA{fi<Al' r&' A(Lt653fb wlNii-r
3l'.|flN STpFe€ AF6q., .5.6lTe l-lr,+{f]N.o F#-lot^FaaNilqabJf 1 AnezlFtgitF '
-pvrtJ 7re7ercffCL1V1y162 frSrE
ftfro# 1341.{
+1d4r''rlt aFqA.
f'w7se'f( Lrils I ,.-\
r@rc*Lrcffift
a,st
s\
t\$
\$tl
T
uwrc
?W(*xv fawhl ?rQrvfl\
lalsl +o-of?-<
\)
c=t"
a't .\\.)
a\tr
\\\
ff{>ftcba'w(6
P{5F'
4
buw qr1 o la.rr.
jjjl w
,
It'
I
I
't
I,l
'l
| ,a.
-{to)
v
46\$F4AV WS
Sfmt l*rnos
--o
.*-'--@
PFPIFIE€r Ng^*HWt& ArF '.
Strtt lfurrltir-
i
I
I
I
I
5
-.4
., I
'
fqeo")
Fh.rr l$rtu.,
6
n* fg,ovl
7,t|,20
1'78"ro0.7'"o
0 'Zl''') o
LEVEL FOI,R PLAN
COVERED BRIDGE
Wffi@frtro€u).s3-'|-, .-,',TfrTr q/,
;Fla &'d# W,M> OS'ANp4s, '61t, 5'h
w'6t63
q- fu'L,oF. ?Q"h
) ANfA:@
Zi*l Boo{ AneA
=io32far)i9o
- tlzb f at 2'12o
I
Fffi AF€,A . - ?tl1 s,7.'APAqeG Eara^, 33 r' t111 s.FatrA OY W 1A'lo 16' = Fo J,?
liilli
.l-
f'l >
l-H
'lplrrt :
l<
tr
lsf.
ri
FIr
1'
e+Ot Ageif,{/(Ax.,
flitt
litil
1.ru
l
Sheot ltlrnot,.
'L--..f
I
r+{
I
I
I
I(7
tti '
f,'{ i\ltt I
Rt$
;
.|\
She€t Jrluttri
ll rl\;- ' - -r.l-1\ 1it I
I i r----rJ
T- --j lT f--7 t:ililil,llL-r i+r | ,i
4 uaun ^{F(
10
ltr-
15
t
lFE
FtFl$IE
"J*=
ll lE-tl
e lfir'lr
lr
lo
lr
11
tl
Tl-fil- ft?t'+q-{+u
-r . . . I
[\\) aracerF{ALLi}+W ?P?paBD
G\t
\T
\'$
$rtNIT
hfiPeW c,s+T Aa
( rlrp cs z-t / ffif
ERrJ tt Jo>(
+a\ flr:t-A
p?tMe