HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 5C LOT L HILL BUILDING AKA HAUSERMAN 1984-1985 LEGALta ,t-
COMMITMENT
TO INSURE
This commitment was produced and
issued through the office of
LAND TITLE
GUARANTEE COMPANY
108
VAI]
land Title Guarantee ComPanY
P, O. Box 357
108 So. Frontage Rd. West
Yall' Colondo 81658
Representing:
Jrr-r lr.rsunaruce florvrnaruv or ffirrur.rEsorA
'1;relercag ,
3cNVdnsNl nillvrosrNNrllf ro
^Nvdr
rol
--=Z_f-6,-ryt
',{roleuSrs pozrJoqlns Jorllo Jo
recggo Suqeprle,r r fq pau8rsralunor uaq^\ prlB^ eq 01 'V elnpeqcs w u^\oqs olep eql uo srocgJo poznoqln?
^Fp
sil(q paxUJB
olunareq eq o] IBas pue eru?u elerodroc stI posnet suq Bloseuull^J.;o '(ueduro3 ocuelnsul aPIJ 'CO1IUSHA SSANJIA\ NI
'luaulnrrruoJ slql fq poleloc uoareql a3e31lou: ro lsololul ro el?lse aql onFA
JoJ pJorar go sermbce parnsur pasodo:d eql alep oq1 ol roud lnq Joeroq elep e^rlroJJs eq1 o1 luenbasqns 3utqce11e
ro sptoror crlqnd aqt ur Eurrzadde lsJU 'pelBart '{ue ;r 'sre11eur Jarl]o ro sulrulJ esre pE 'saruelqruntua_'suell"'s]ceJ0o '9
'sproror cllqnd eql Aq u^roqs
lou pu?,rrsl ,(q pasodurr 'peqsruJnJ rolJeeraq Jo erojoloraql T?FaleuI ro roqB]'seJFJos roJ'uoll e o1 lq8u lo 'uefi ,{uV 'n
'sprocer cJlqnd aqt ,{q u,uoqs lou elu qclqli puu esoltslp ppoal sesturerd eql Jo uoncodsul
pue ,{elr.Ins lca ot e qcrqm s1ci3 ,tue prn 'sluaurqcuoJcus 'BorB ur e8ulroqs 'ssu{ ,$?punog uI slJlguoJ 'salcuedolJslg 't
'sp:ocar c;1qnd eql fq ur'roqs lou 'sluourosea Jo sluIBIf, lo 'sluerues?g '7.
'sprocer rqqnd aq1 Iq uanoqs 1ou uolssossod ut sa4red;o srurc1c ro s1q8ry 'I
:8utr'o11og eqt o1 tcafqns osp st luaurl1uluroJ sr-ql
'ol patleJot a,roqu a8ura,ro3 ruo{ suorsnlJxg pue suor1u1ndr15 pu? suorllpuo3 oql |4 pst4uluoc slel}Blu eq} ol uolllpp? ul
sNolld3cx3 cuvcNVls
'luerulrutuoC slul Jo suolstlord eql ol lcafqns als puu uo pesuq
eq $nut luatulluItuoJ sr.q] {q pararoc uoaraql a8etlrour ar.Jl Jo snlels aql Jo Felalq ro o}Btsa eql ol ell$ tt{l Jo snpls eql Jo lno
Erlquu [udrud,3 aqf-fsrif'egs ElArq deur ro erriq,(utu pamsril -pesodord alf fr{f uottrE Jo slr{€IJ ro suol}cu ro uotlcu .,(uy ',
'uleraq paulpotu i(lsserdxa su ldacxa
luaut1ltrluroJ slql;o yud u sp?lu puE ocuoreJer i(q palerod.rorur ,(qaraq are qJJq-,{ pornsul pasodord aq} Jo roAsJ ul roJ-pellJuJ
-uroc iel.1pl-o rJqod 3o uuig aqi 3o a8ure,r63 uorj suopnlcxa
'aqt-prn'suorlilndlls pu? suoltlpuo3 erll pu? suorsr,rord turmsul
aql ot tcafqns sl rQJgqegl qcns pu? roJ pelllruuroc sarcllod ro ,(c11od eql roJ V alnpal{3s uI palEls }unoluB aql peecxe AlIFqeIl rpns
ir{s lueaa ou uI 'luatullturuoS sJql ,(q pararroo uoalorll a8z8lroru io tsalalrn ro alelsa oql eleerc,Io a:pbce o1 (3) lo 'g alnPeqls
ul ,i,oorn suorldlcxo aleunulo ol (q):ogoo:aq slueui4nbar eql qrla flduroc ot (e) qtpJ poo8 ul Suplelrapun ul uoereq ocuefl
.ar q porrncu ssol lentc? roj ,(1uo puE roJ pellprruloc sa1c11od ro .,(c11od Jo ruroJ el{t uI pernsul-Jo uolllul.Jop eql repun pepnlt
-r4 sa;ped rlJns prn parnsul pacodord psueu aql ot ,tguo eg llerls lueullwtuoS slql repun
^uEduroJ
oqr Jo Alllqsrl '€
.suo4e1ndr1g pu? suolqpuoJ aseql Jo I qderEured o1 luensrnd peuncur Ilsnopr-ald
{lrpqun ruorg duzduro3 aql eiaflal lou IIErF }uerupuaua qJns lnq 'fFlnprott? }uaullluruo] sItll Jo g elnpoqts puotu? AEru
udtidoill 1e
"{ueduro3-eq1lro11urir raqgo io iu1e1c dre,rpu 'aiuerqu:ncuJ 'uiJ1 'lcagap qc_ns Iue ;o eSpaproul 1un1cu sarpbce a*'rr
-rallo ,(wduro3 agr l ro'fueduroC slt or otpal,nou4 qcns asolcsrp pqs parnsul pxodo.rd aq111 'aipol,tloul qtns asopslP, os ol
pariisul pmodold iqi'fo arngug i({paipnferd sr ,{ueitilo3 aqi rull-ia iq1_o1 uoiraq mu?fiar Jo 1ce {ue urorj Eulllnsar a8euep
ro ssol {uu rog f1gqe1| uro{ pa^oIIeJ aq gcqs r(ueduro3 eql'8u1trnr ur {uzduro3 oql ol- e8pal^\oDl qrns asolcslp ol llsJ II?IF pu?
,loera! g eFfar{cs u1 ir,uot$-asoq1 ueqt rer{lo lueurlpruo3 sr-qi'xg pira,roc uoiraql ateElrou ro $arolu ro aleTa eqt tu;lra3;e
rinuutrc-qi io ririelc'asrarpu 'acuirqurircua-'ua11 'tralep ,(w go-a3p!1mou1 pnlcu salpbce ro suq pamsul pasodord eq1 31 'Z
.luoumrlsu! {1!rncx :aq1o ro 'poop lsnrl 'lsnJl Jo peap epnlcur sqs 'qaraq pasn uaqn '..a8u3gotu,, IuJal eqJ ' t
SNOIIV'INdIIS ONV SNOIIIONOC
'duedruo3 eql Jo llneJ aql lou sl selcfiod ro {cqod qrns anssr ol aJnIFJ aql lsq} paphord'srncco lsru rt aqrlq r'anssl llBqs
roJ pallruruoc salcgod.ro 1( od eqt ueqa lo Joaleq elBp e llcaJJs or{l IaUp sqluour xls eleuFural Pu?_3s?ot lpqs rapunsreq suou
.uilfqo puu fi;pguf p pue aluurniur alil Jo salcl6d 16,(cqod-qcns Jo eruEnssl aql ot {reutlullord st luaurllururoC snl.
'lusruesaJopuo luanbesqns Aq ro
tuarulpruroJ slql Jo aourn$sl aql Jo auxt oqt ts roqlle 'i(u?duro3 egl ,(q 3oaleq V eF_paqrs q peuosul uaeq 0 Btl roJ pollJururoc
salcllod ro {cgod agt go lunou? eqt pus pemsul posodoJd aq1 3o ,(llruepl oql uaq { ,{Fo a^llcaJJa eq [[?W lueulFuuro3 slrdl
jooroq suorlulnd!1s pue suollpuoC eql ol puu g
pu? y selnpaqJs;o suonpord aql ot lcafqns [p :roJarer$ so8ruqJ pue surnrura;d oql 3o luaur{ud uodn 'V etnpeqcs u.t ol poJraJor
io pauira puii.w q iq"req pere,roc ts3relr4 ro ot?lse aql go aiae8uou: ro .rau.t'd ss 'v alnpaqos u! pau?u pamsul parodord
aqf go ro,ru3 i4 ,y ilnpapg rig'pagguepl se 'ircuemsul alid Jo satcqod ro /trllod slt enssl ol slluuror {qeroq 'uolluraptsuoc
alquhp,r u iog'fueduro3 eqt paller ularaq'uollurodroc eloseurn l e 'VIOSSNNII^{ CO INV6WOC ACNYU1SNI ATIII
sloseuulw'qpdeauulw ;o Aueduo3 ltols e
vrosrNNr[ll ro
^NVd^ol
scNvunsrul rurl
'^oU 046! - lN:ll,Ult ll,llOC NOIIVICOSSV llllJ. CNV1 NVC|Ull lv
aLlz zagz uuo! h I
LTA colYln
SCN{EIII'LE
Tl.lEI
A
I
NT
Aprl lcrtlon No. VO0O6774
For Informrtlon Only
ttoo,00
tr@. o0
1.
2.
3.
4.
St
o
A
- - Cherter -Srncn Fol icv
FR€LII'I REPORT-*TOTAL--
lltth your. r*nlttrncc rlra,lc rcfer to VOOO&I7Ii.
Effcctlvr Setcr SJBUET 06, 1984 et E|OO A,t't.
Pollcv tp bc lraucd, and proporcd Inrurcdr
I'ALTA" Oun*n's Pol icv
Form E-1?7O {Arnrndrd tO-t7-7O}
Fr.opoled InruradI
TBD
Tha cttrtt er lnt*rcst tn th* lend drscrlbcd or referctd to tn thlrConnltncnt rnd qovcr*rd horcin ttr
A FEE
Titl* te th* cstata or lntcrurt covcned hrr*in ig et th+ *ffoctlvedrtr, hcrtof vcrtsd lnr
BLANCHE C. HILL
Thr land rcfsrnrd ta ln thle trEnrmltnant lE ducrtbrd a$ follsurr
A FORTI0N oF Lor c' BL0C|( F*c' vArL vrLLA$Er FIRET FILING, A€UB$IVISIOH rN THg T0sfrtt oF vAIL, cfi[JhtTY oF EAfr-E, sTATg oF cOLOftADo,I'IORg PARTICIJ.ANY IIESCRIBEIT AgI BE€II$IIN6 AT TITE SffJTH€A8T CONhrgN OrTHg l'loRTHl.fEsr CIUARTER aF THE NsRT|f!,fEsr dITARTER oF ggcrlgt'i g,
TqjfNsHIP s SourHr RANGG 8s ttEsrr THENCE ALoNs rHE u.g, FffiEsr€ERVICE BOr.0{nAny s$.rrH 89 BcSRESS /t4 IITNUTES OO gECO}tDg t{E$T A
DISTANCE OF 68.S4 FE6TI THENCE NORTH IO OESREES r$ ilINUTE€ OO
8gCOilE$ I.IE$T A DISTAIIICE S 23.IA FESTT THENCE HSRTH 8$ DESREES 44t{It'lurEs 04 gEcoiln$ }lEgr A DrgrAt{cE oF s,t6 FEETI Tl{€t{cg N$RTH tl
DSSNEEg 07 HIXUTEfi OO $EC(sttDs HE$T A DIsTAhIsE oF 16.4T FEETI THEI'I$E
NORTH 7g tr€GRgEg S3 I.IIT{JTES OO SECONDS EAST A IIISTAT{CE BF S6.?9FEETI TI.ISNCE SOUTH 26 NEONEE6 3I+ ]'IIHUTES OO $ECtrNDS EAST A NISTAfiCSOF 54.07 FEET Tfi THE POINT OF BEOTNNTIIS.
ExcEPTrilS AllD REsEfivrHq uNTo VArL AgsocIATESf ING,, A cs-oRsDo
CORF0RATION' ITs $tJc-cES$oRS ANE AS€I8N$, A NoN-€xCLusIvE FERP€TUAL
LTA CO'.lt'f
8CHENL{.E
Tf4E
AiFl {citlon No. \ls$S677l[
cf,aei#ilT ffi8cnlEfin As F&LOtffir lltTHIr{ Tt{H AFovE EggCnISED
DG8CRIPTIOI{" A tO FEST gAggl'EHTr SSID EAEE|IENT'B fiEHTES-lttffi ST*RTIHSAT A FOIf{T S{ TI€ SASTERLY EfiJITISANY S ASOVE PESCNIEEB FAfiCEL A
CIl8TAlrlsg oF r3.g FEET HmrH 26 DgmEFS F4 HIMJTS* OO ffiffir{F8 ICESTFRg'I TI{E SflJTTSA$ CffiffiR OF EAID PNRCEL T}.ffiIttCE $STJfH 2? D€8NEES 4IilIm.rT[8 AA eEcstlm t€8T A DTSTAIEE tr r3,$S FEST T0 T]€ FSttttT 8r{xtlt{8Otl TIG 8ftJTl{gRLY EfiX{DARY OF SAIn PAnCfiL.
I
r{T
o
fi I
A
LTA COtftr,l ITf.lE
$CHEDTJLE 8.1
(Rcruir*rnrntsl Aprllcrtion Nr. VOOO6774
Thr fElloulnr trc thc r*rulrcmntt to br conplted $ithr
t. Frvnrnt to Er foF tht rc(ount of thc tFantor.r or montlaaort of thcful I conridrnrtlon foF th* ertrte or lntarcct ta br lnrur.ad.
?. Frorcr lnrtnuncnt(r) crnttnr tht c*trtc or lntcrrat to bo lnrunsdnurt bc cxtcutcd rod dulv ftl*d for rcqord, ts-$ltr
NOTET THIS FR{IFERTY IIAV 8E SIJB..ECT TO THg FEAL ESTATE TRAHSFEN TAX
BY VIRru€ OF ITS IHCLU8IO|{ IN TtfE TS!',N 8F VAIL. PU*GHASER tfiOU-BG[}iITffiT THE TOHT OF VAIL REAARNIilO $AIS AS8fiSSHEilT,
o
NT
t
A
LTA COIII,IITIIE
$CI{EDULS E.?
tENccrtlonal Arrl lcrtton No. I&006Z?4
Th* pallcv ot'psllctaE tn bc lrrued urlll contrin sxccrtlonr to thrfolloulnr unlcrr ths cenc.r* dlrrslcd of to the retlrfr,ction of thrCsnranvt
l, Strnd*rd Exccptisne I throurh 3 rr"tntcd on ttr. coveF ;hrrt.
6. Trxcl ud rls*Ermsnti not vct dur or prvr,ble rnd rp*clrl rpttcs&rntsnct yet ccFtlftcd ts thr Trcrgurcr.s offlce.
7, Anv unprld ttxct oF rfr€rsrncnts rrrlnrt srld lr.nd,
e, LltfiF for unprld Trtttr rnd r+u*l* chi,Fierr lf env,
9. RIBHT OF FROFRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODG TO EXTRACT ASID Rg}IOVE HIA ORE
THEREFROfI SHfl.S.D THg SAilE 8E FffUilD TO P€}IETfiATE ffR XHTERSffiCT TIIEFFET.IISE$ AS RES€RVED IH UNITED STATES FATENT RECfiFBEB JTILY Izr I899rIH BOOI( 48 AT PA6E 47S.
10. RIO&IT OF TJAY FOR DITSHES ffi CAIIIAL$ GOI'I8TRUCTED BY THE fi.,T}toRITY oFTHE UNITSB STATES A$ RESERI/€D tN UNIT€D gTATES PATENT BEGOROED dULY13, 189?r IN EOOK *8 AT PASE 47S,
II. R€$TRICTISI{9 }IHIfH NO NOT SONTAIN A FMFEITURE gR FEVERTER 6LAUSE,
BUT E'IITTIHO RESTRICTIOT'ISr IF Aity, FASD (W RACE' IOLOFI, RELIGION,SR NATICINAL ORIOIH, *S C€tfTAtil€S lN IIl$TRl$ltENT REcSRngD AUGU8T lO,r?62n IN ESO|{ 174 AT FAOE t?9,
r2' UTILITY EfisEllENT lo FEET IN trlnrlt AFFSCTINB suB\EcT FRopERTy As
AHOh'T.I gFI T}G RSCTRIT€! PLAT OF VAIL VILLASE FIRST FXLIHS.
13. DEED oF TRU$T DATED AuGL,sT 15' 1983r FRoi,f BLAitcHE c. HILL Ts THEPUBLIC TRUSTEE OT EAOLE CffJIITY FBfi THg USS SF FIRSTFSftfi OF VAXL TO$gclJRE TFE $l'sl oF l?&orooo.oc RgcoRo€n AUGUET 17, lgsir tN FooK 966AT PAOE 97.
SAID DEED ff TRLET T{AS FURTHER GEffI,JRgD IH A$$I&ilI.IgNT OF RSHTSNECORX}ED AIAUST 17, I9BS, IN PDfiK 866 AT FAOE 98.
14. BEED ffi TRlr$T DATED AUsggl 19, 1?gg, FFof't BLAHCHE c. HILL To rHEF{JBLIC TRUgTEE OF gAfi-E Cil.JNTY Fffi THE USE OF FTASTEANK oF VNTL TASECURE THE S1'St OF TIOOTOOO.OO R$CffiBEB ALSUST 17, lg83r IN gffi( 956AT FASE 99.
6AID DEEN OF TRUST hIA$ FIJRTHSR $ECURES IH ASSIGOIIiSNT OF' RENT$
RECORDED At.tstffIT t7, t?€Sr IN BOOK 364 AT PABE TOO,
ls. DEED tr TFrusT mTEn AususT ts, t?B3r FRott BLANGHE c, HILL To TlfrFUELIC TRUETEE OF EAGLE gOUHTY FOR THg USE OF FIRSTSANK OF VAIL TOsEsLnE THE 8ul1 oF fgo,ooo.ao REcmDEs AuGu$T t7, lpas, tN Bsot( g66
AT PAffi [O1.
o
A
I
NT
LTA COI'tllITllE
SCHEDII.E F-2
{Exc*rtLonr} Apl icetl,on No, I/0006774
SAIO ffiFS OF TRI.'ST }tAS FURTHEfi SECIJREN IN ASSIOIIII.ENT OF RENT$RECmmD AtmuST 17, l9s3r IN ffiSt( A66 ST FAOE rO?.
I
NT
I
A
Pl-5- 8/13/84
c0vera earth overed arki no variancesn stze o cn un was 'l n s ponse to nationa economlc cuest that a leqa ument be )U L at rs wou!{i{,wguld not be possible.)could bffights of inaiiiouats
qt
to
sted and th
in and req uest
es. wtaddi t onal
cume n t mentione
addi ti onal
the
comesquare footage could not be-taken a"ay. )
The vote was 4 in favor.with I (piper) against.could have been achfeved withoui ihireaiing the
Piper felt the same improvements
number of units.
Kristan Pritz presentec the request explaining.that it was jn compliance with theintent of the ioning.ror ltru -dci-itiii'i.t,
aia wiirr ir'.-u"nan Design Guide ptanand Design consideritions- -rne-ituii""..o*endation
ru, io, app"ovir witn-+ eigineeringconcernstobereso.lved.beforeabui1dingP9ryitwou.looeissuea.Theissues
includer l. Drainaqe wiii re-insil;';i'iuitaing, i. ir;;u;;e.of an improvement survey,3. issuance of a rivocaore rigrri oi-iiy_p..rit for existing improvement in theright-of-waJ, and 4-..the.encr6achment 6l ryor overhangs muit oe resolved by anagreement letter of ttie adjacent pioperiv owner.
Jay Peterson' reDresent]lg lr,:,applicant, stated that an interior drain would be installedand he talked a iittle about the'haci-ttrut the Town of vail did not plow this area,but that VA and Hiil Buitdjns o*n.ri-ail.
Pierce suggested furning.the roof 45'. Donovan didn,t like losing the views, piper
f,:;'ffioo#l.,ll'l.,ll'iil.,|':"ilf;:ioi irom the councir-confernins iheie ;i;;;; ;;
7. A for 9lF_U=gr:gllelations in Commercial Coron Lot
space.
Vie'le moved and qon seconded rove the st with the conditign that allitems of qoncern sted b.y Pr addres s vote lvas 5-0 in favon.
8.A f. acgommgdation unit condominium conversions for the phase IIation o rri ott rta t l.ionshead T-rcTE aluevetopment District 7.cant: M-rporati on
uest for accommodlrtion unit qondomi n i um conyergion of the VaiI AthleticatSt Meadow Drive.cant:a
ET
be
to
EZ
Jay Peterson' representilg-ll",applicant,, requested.to. table.this. item indefinitely.+ ''iil"
o
I for the Hill Buitdist Filinq to e&fl oor resident
Peter Patten explained that this condominiumization was to further divide the condo-mlnlum conversion oroposal upp"ou"a iiii.y"ur !v.t1e FEc uv converting each accommo_dation unit within'tnb valt hir'i.ii.'cirt-Hor.t" rnto conaoilriniums. He discussed4 conditions of approvat wrrich iiJira-ii- i. --r.i"iiizift"ili
recordins the emproyee
t PEC -6- 8
!:y:j'g-:-:ll:ii::'^:"lii.!-!l lhe 4 units on the top {loor of the hotel, 2) Finar_\:il::.::l ::::"gil.g :i l!:.,"lg"oulrrmenl agieem"ni-""s;"di;;'u.'" ,]lii.lii5,lia'6.l.rl'iiistructure onto Town 9f vall right-of-way,-3) Appropriate linguage within the covenants:jgfr:i:g^:Il.f '.5: T:!riclions.ror tne'aciirrbaaiion unitr-ana irre + aweirins
H:::i^t*t:'S9^!:.!:-Itt!Iiglgd,and 4)-complg!]on,to itre-iatt'iiitio"
"t-il'.'iommunityDevelopment Department, of alt ipplica6te Uijtiajng'ana iir"-coae ieiaiea it.ri.
r a minor subdivision in order to real iqn the lot lines of Lot 6,
a ch conta NS er Buildin
(See motion for tabling fo1'lowing item 11.)
a
uest f-5;-V;
cants:
10.
After some discussion, Rapson moved and Viele seconded to approve the request per
lle_SlqfI r.nemo _with the
11. A ueg! for a front and side setback variance in order to construct a
Appl icants for items
seconded
I0 and
to table
ll requested
items l0 and
tabl ing to
11 . The
the next
vote was
meeting. Donovan moved
b-u tn tavor.
l:Tl-fl!!:n,explained that the staff recommended denial of the request becauselE appeared that there were several other places on the lot where dhe garage couldbe constructed without getting a varianie.' Dick Dilling,-ine appticani, iiatea-!: I:]t anv.other place-on th6 property-woutd uloct< an ipa"trent betow the mainowellrng unrt. He was asked why the garage needed to be'so large, and answeredthat he wanted. to put a work beirch and sn6w urorer in ttre-taragE.' lt was iuggestedthat perhapl lhg.ggtuge cou]d be.designed to be wide rathei thin deep. iip"i"--suggested that Dilling explore additi6nal optioni, and paiten stated'that lhe staffgyta O9 willing to-work i^rittr trim to tind a'solution. Dilling asked to tabte io
12. A st for a rear setback variance in order to nstruct a eonLot3ockGorepl icant: Ric
the next meeting. Rapson noved and Viele seconded io table. -fE_JglC_Eqg_qa.
uest for exterior al terations and for a conditional use rmit for theSi tzma e ln o r to deve commerc i al ce south the lodqe ao put a new aza a sll|lrnm r00 n aDove the commercialspace. App i cant:tzmark Lodge
Tom Braun. explained changes made to the proposal since the previous meeting. Thegyg"lllg had.been pu11ed back 3 to 4 feet, h planter added,'and piper,-itre"irctritect
SLlhi:^tloject'.showed photos indicating whbre the overneaa ano bntianl; ;ffipyt ptantins-;ii iil-fiy+^ n^--..^-Lto Gorsuch, and Patten answered that this was not part of,the iresent-p1an.Pierce pointed out that this side of the street wai very hot aird shade'trees wouldhelp.immensely. Bob Fritch, the appliCint dtd not Iike the condition thai-ne'wourapromi.se not to remonstrate against an improvement district. After discussion, Fiercemoved and ed. to approve the'exterior alteration per the staff reioffiEldationand tha cant not remonstrate aqainst a specia rovement district i
to qpprove the conditional
vote was n Tavor
use permit.
sta
The
t per a nlng. Prerce moved a s0n
abstaining.
The meeting adjourned at 5:30 pm.
vote was 4 in favbFwith Pi per
a
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEl,l
PUBLIC WORKS
'an | /Reviewed nv, Klf oate: B/Z/89
Comments: ,..,,A at<la*il+, A?,!'4 oF ?,-oFs ov€etr+,"6t anr E ozlft AsPcF'.rgs
j---4ae*tr A2 ?rbtk 4)2 EoaF oe| t"'tt.-€ /
-
fr*tt I tt'^',' c"lctcz*tl
j r*u6=t'o t .ir' '
-/\z
-^
c'4''K oF (''o6e futlv€y i.<-, aira-Ft.,+€ l.*o.)€ i 1acnv,o' .t)r( Gt>, Jo@-'J-
ANo &2r43€s, \ ./
(-7- ) ,4". i{o-c- llt+t,"a( { 4J .-!c^, c^d€ oF b*i{/) )^t-rQ tr| 7€1-7 .
4\ F+'v n'+tr€ Arcftr aF .-,av p(E,rr7 r.,t, €, ,s7,t.,L ,n pao,)€-ra,s?-,-/s /* R,e4r or L,.tl\
FIRE DEPARTMENT
PROJ ECT:
DATE SUBI'IITTED:
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
Reviewed by:
Comments:
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
DATE OF PUBLICE HEARING:
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
TO|.IN ATTORNEY
Reviewed by:
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Comments:
U,^\; S.,s$tls
T0: Planning and Environmental
FR0M: Community Development Depa
DATE: August B, 1984
SUBJECT: A request for exterior alterations for HiBlock 5C, Vail Vil'lage lst Filing to addspace. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill
sn{h oif,-h.., d'td*ddAur
located off thilnew bedroom.
Irt
Purpose: The commercial core I distrjct is intended to provide sites and tomaintain the unique character of the vail village cornmercial area, with itsmlxture of lodges and commercial establishments-in a predominant'ly pedestrianenvironment- The Commercial Core I district is intenied to ensurl idequate
]is!t:,q'i.' open space' and other amenitjes appropriate to the permitted types
9LPul ldlngs and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vaiivlllage urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site develop-
me_nt standards that are intended to ensuFe the maintenance'and preservaiion - '
of.the. tightiy clustered arrangements oi uuitoings rronting-on iedestriinwaysand,public greenways, and to eisure continuation of the Ouitainb sca'le and irchi-Eecr,ural quattt'ies that distinguish the village.
III. COMPLIANCE l,jITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
This proposa1 relates to the sub-a4g-9c!g.gp! #]4 for the Vi1'lage Ptaza, (now Founders,Pl aza )
q/"Feature..area paving treatment, central fpc_ql point visible from Gore Creek{tRS: Major land form/planting in Northwest-ior quiet corner, with evergreen
):!199n plant'ing to defineuest edge. llall Street s'tairs, with mid-level jog( lano ln9, op€nS entry areato Lazier Arcade shops.,'
The sal will obstruct the view of Go
j___:_:::_,: =::-:a uJplan for Village Plaza.
r1
second floor residential
Ng,
[du-t'[[,;U.* addition that wou]d create a th.ird'level 6n
iLi,Hlr^ 1. Bu'ild'ing. She woutd also like to enclose arLLvo-l.^\;ildeck is approximately 370 square feet and i
r{\ w nu'l rnlnflnn rfia " ^^^ -;=1;,:_:-: t, - ...!1
The.applicant, Blanche Hill, is requesting to build a 720 square foot bedroomthe existmfit
I. THE PROPOSAL
to enclose an
I ;sTf ff :i T:::l*#""i3$fiu*iol"$, i i$u* buiJding.on the seconETTiooFl-llo%iks wiI l
existing deck area. The enclosed
located on the west side of the
also be added onto existing f'l at roofs
area
wi th
ss ton
b*.,tt/ht/P
pects, the proposa'l does not conflict
Hilr alds] 8/8/84
IV. COMPLIANCE l,iITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATION FOR VAIL V ILLAGE
The
to
of
t\
^^inirns n.
l-
.i.tlll
r_ r t't",.
purpose of the comparison between the proposa'l
show how the new design strengthens or ietracts
the design considerations.
"when exceDtions to t
and considerations is
from the overa'l 1 intent
view
1q \ 1r "J\tr
Pedestri ani zati on:
The bedroom addition and deck enclosure will have minimal , if any,impact on pedestrianization.
B. Vehicle Penetration:
No impact
).,, -Streetscape Framework; f,, , \ .i{l
I
Because the additions are located on the second_fkar, there will* ]ll1]: impact on the qugfity or tne wa!ki-nG6'FieniJ-in ,"rp..r
lg ll9::*pins and sround
d bv additi de on thg
t.
of the mountain.
D. Street Enclosure:
The consideration states that "an external enclosure is most comfortablewhere its walls are approximatel as high as the width of thesppce enclosed.,' The en t enclf (on the west side of the Hill Buffitjr \u Lne we5L :tQe oT Ene ntll uul lc.lngls approximatelv 24 feet
=r:
high, The pedestrian way varies betweenZ5Tee-t t Td-TffEEt t. Ine ex.rstinq roof is alreadv oreater than th,ing roof is already greater than thedesired ratio. The new roof height,"Sl.g_fegt, ,iii*ir" ine ratioFVtrN C T"Aa T6 F -even greater.
.SST flg,wever, the consideration states that "in some instances, the ,canyon,
effect is even desirable--as a short'connecting linkage l.t*e.n larlerspaces to give variety to the walking spaces."- The n6w third level-wlll create more of an enclosed pedestrian way that will connect villagePlaza with the open plaza in riohi of the eonirora uuitaing;i ticket area.
The consideration states thatcri te ri a occrll:__Speci_al_rles i q
crea -defined groui
cons i i qht
E.
_i.
-HilI
Rlrln -"- Rt8/84
V"-" -'-J v v'\
the canyon effect." Ihg.Hill Bui'lding has a.very well defined groundfloor that has many of the elements siggested by"the coniiaerationto cneate pedestrian focus--awnings, buiiding jogs, rommeiiiii -ipile.
5ifti{fil reasentr_:Uggt,enctosure is imptitio"e6sitiveiv uy ihe -
Street Edge
No impact. A't I additions are on the second floor.
iiBuilding Height$ ,4'-
i$''&
F.
h
a
be
henot
to 60% of the buildin be bui]t to htof33f
The existing Hi l'l
up at the ski
the Village from
the Golden Peak
l-East side: 34 feet t, chimney 3g feett , ,N"J]l
l* West side: 24 feet t, shimne! 28 feetr {.,{ptM^u,The proposed addition wiil have a hefsil,pf_il=5_&e-f, 'Th" h"ightis weil within the_ailowabte height-Th-nffia-;iit l. u piichedroof. It will reflect the same Fitcn ana materials of the lower roof.
G. Views and Focal point-s
The bedroom addition will impact views when lookinomountajn.from Village plaza and when looking nack itthe small plaza beh'ind the Hil'l buiding adjicent tohOuSe. ThiS View is not a deqinnnfa.l ,iior^r rn ha hFA. The addition's impact will take away from the viewof the ski mountain to a certain eiteht. ;However,due to the oyqrailthe Hill Bu$ldin the impac!s
H.
T_s
I.
'q#
*. -are-sonewhat,"of,
Service and Delivery
No impact
Sun/Shade \'nt)^'l;p..''\,,{'
The consideration states that "allnot suhstanfially inc shadow ttern on adJ acent
sun/shade shadow between
The addition w nc
shade-aTea is approximatelyrre dsqltrronar snaoe.area is approximately 40 square feet and is locatedin the pedestrian walkway on ti'rb norilrwist corner of the buildinq.r of the building.
,,^d*
Tg
€+ees- Because the space is used only for a pedestrian wly, tne -
additional shade should have a minimai impact.
Hir Bl -4- 8/8/84
V.ZONING CONSIDEMTIONS
Project Statistics
Minimum Side Area: 8,000
Allowed GRFA; 6,400
Exist'ing 2nd Floor 4,082 sfExisting 3rd Floor 696 sf
4,778 sf
Stairwell deduction- 372 sf
Total Existing GRFA
Bedroom addition
Deck enclosure
Total Proposed GRFA 5,54.I sf
sf
4,451 sf
720 sf
370 sf
Allowed GRFA
Proposed GRFA
Remaining GRFA
6,400 sf
5,541 sf
859 sf
This proposal complies with the GRFA requirements for the property. Thetwo new roof overhangs.extend-over the property line approi<imirtety 2 feet.The applicant has received a letter ot igrbemeirt from lhe adjaceni property
owner.
VI.
, ,ieP I"l\d
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
while not sitive f
imnactsl cn proJec snouproject either has no or minimal impact orti ons .ect impa
are con minimal
agai nst every consideration.e
supports the Urban Design Considera-
enlrq-val-af-f hg-srpi.eSt. At i ioilfrbefore the building pbrmit will be
dT*VAil engineering
issued. The issues
concerns must be resolved
i ncl ude:
l. Drainage will be inside of building.2. Improvement survey3. Revocable right-of-way permit for existing improvement inthe right-oflway4. Encroachment of roof overhangs wiil be resorved by an agreementletter of adjacent property 6wner.
The view imlacts addi tiona
5g
g
b'<t
AT
7u)'
=
:"//'J DAtC Q -!pplicat ion May 29,19,_
I.
AI,PLICATION TORM FOR EXTfiI1IOR ALTI]RATIONS
OR MODIFICA'l':iOIlS IN COytl{EnCIAL CORE I (CCr)
This procedure is recluired for alteration of an existing building
vrhich adds Or l:clnoves atry enclosed floor area or outdoor Patio Or
replacemcnt of an e):isting buil-oinq shall be subject to revj.cw by
the Plartning an<1 Environtnctrt.tl Comntj.ssj-c,n-
The application will trot be accepteil rrntil all inforntation is submitted.
A. NA}18 OF APPI,ICAiIII Blanche C. Hil-I
ADL]RES 5--.3 I 1 B.-L]-ds.-e---S!reC!,--Y-aLl co 81657 PHONE 476-5542
Jay K. Peterson
NAME OT' APPLICAi']T'S
ADDRESS P' O'
Ri.JPRESENTATIVE
Box 3149, Vail,co 81658 47 6-0092PHOI{E
c.AUTHONIZNTIOI.I OF I)IiO!?E OW'IER
SIGIiATURE
ADDlTESS
II - Four (i) cc,irics c,f
Jr. Tlrtr ..:ite p)an
of 1," - ?0'; i:
b.l' tlr" Cutirnlu:t j
3r1
D. LOC/i'j'IrJN OF l'RI)ICSAI.,
Al)Ditilss---3ll -Blt-qS-9.--9!r9-ql-Vai1, -co -8-1-611 -- - -
LIlG.p.L DESCi,.lPTIolJ Lot I, Block 5C, Vail- Village First
bc notified.
f . Il.il.']iO\tntlDli'i' 1;1;;1','1''' Cl' i)]l.O1'Hit1'\' SIIOi'iiNG pIiOPIInTY LINDg I'l'lD LOCATION
OF llilJ.Ll)l']i(; l\^i1, rrilY .ti4PIiO\/i:tiliN'I'Ii ()l'l t'lUl t,Al.ll).
G. A l,1S'.C Ol.' li'iin lihlill OI'Oirtllil'lS OF irrl,l, PROPERTY ADJAC;jNT TO TIIE
SUBJIICT Pliopl-1..1':' AND ]'tJLil{ /\l)Dt(LSSli5.
Bridqe Street, Vail, co 81557 p1195g476-5542
Irl----/lr'.lt I t,rlnt,
J-{L L '\1 1 t} "
E. F)itl
,? ofr o o,2 t- /.-tU o7 .Jr4 f
$J C(1 . (,() t>ltts 1u1 for each ;>roper:ty ownor tc)
K ftrV', ru,-
d sj.t--e plan ccntaining the follorvj.rrg informationi ;.'
slral.l be dr.rwn on a sheet size of 24" x 36" at o scalt
variation of the .ql r<:c:t size or scale may bc approved'.
Lv Dr:vclcpnrcnt Dril)(rrtmcnt- if just j f ied i
I
>+l{^aq'^i
,'[D/ lDb]bui
trdrttqr?s+
aJil,li^ +f,Q+ hdrqou.'--
,--*-- Utto /&Ltja;^,--uu[qr,w
Ut*tfnu 6L{A: brttoD o-o""U*Xtt $'?" lntr''t"t'tl
S , t?18)+dl^{.,:ib- rJg
i
r,rluf ort s ,{ s'rfina" bl
l6d ortc\
S]hdi^!da.l ./f,,o firo-t +\[' I $o\"u'r(too n:fr
'fli\\ frddrf^, ll,fr alrm- fl*d.lrlel
-//. \
J- inl rr^d
fo'[,r^q trtt/r$ot
2 /'{oo lt[. r1ntutp '
UU
,L,
4 [l^N' @"*{ r:{1., r*) 6o *t}^ .(oe
^t ::'ooJn*{f
oa
May 15, 19BI
Sguare Footage Computations
l-st,Floor Site Coverae€ =x,80% = 4612 sq. ft. drossabg-y-e__-l.9t flooi
oo
J "-a.,
l'.5tas 3q. Ft. rrEsidential floor
(inc stairwells)(rnc stairwells)
area allowed
= 5171 sq. ft.
= 4257 square
Proposed Greenhouse _ OProposed Dining room = 64Proposed 3rd fir uAr, = z)d
784
, Total above lst flr w/proposed = 5498 sq. ft.ul_.ess stairwells ( 2nd flr & abv)House = I73APt. = 754Toral = 177
Therfore g'ross residential fLoor area = 54gB _ 327
Less apartm,]nt = 914 sq. ft.
Tl:i"t"r" gross residenriat ft-oor area = 5t7t _ 9]4
\compare to 4612 allowed = 3.i5 sq. ft. under)
I
.ui".loj -:-)+ored Floor existiii' =-.;;6;Ear 47T4
L
ADDEIIDUM TO
APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR MODIFICATION
I.Conformance with the Purposes of the CCI District
AsstatedinSectionlB.24.0lo,theCommercialCorel
District is intended to provi-de sites and to maintain the unique
character of the vail village commercial area with its mixture
of lodges, residential dwellings and commercial establishments
in a predominately pedestrian environment.
The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure
adequate light, air' open space and othbr amenities appropriate
to the permitted types of buildings and uses' The District
Regulations, in accordance with the VaiI Village Urban Design
Guide Plan and Design considerations, prescrlbe site development
standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and
preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings
fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure
continuation of the building scale and architectural quality that
distinguish the Village-
Theproposedalterationscenteraroundtwominoradditions
to the existing building:
A. An exPans ron
amount of 120 square feet.
wi I f enhance the exPerience
Hill Building.
of an existing bedroom in the approximate
The expansion of the existing bedroom
offered to residents residing in the
B. A partial encLosure of an existing deck area which
will help solve an existing snow build-up probl-em, not only for
the second-floor residents in the Hill Building, but also for the
commerciaL space on the ground level.
Since the proposed afterations are extensions and
enhancements of existing uses, the Urban Design Guide plan wilf
not be changed in any respect, but made more effective.
fI. Vai-l- ViIlage Urban Design Considerations As They Applyto Proposed Al terations
A. Pedestriani-zation. The proposed alteration which
encl-oses a portion of the deck on the second floor of the Hi-ll
Building will further facilitate and enhance pedestriani_zation
between the Hill Building and One vail place by reducing the amount
of drifting snow in the pedestrian way. The proposed,alteration
and enlargement of an existing bedroom will have no effect on
the pedestrianization of CCI.
B- Vehicfe Penetration. The proposed alterations
..-^,,i,l^ €^- *^ -Jlt j+i^h-t ^^.i -.r-^ rf rralri,^la nan,=f ra1- inn nn r^ri l Ir iJI ,IIL,' q'LTLIJ- LI\JlICtI PU.T I] L5 L
the additi-ons create more vehicufar trips lnto CCL
C. Streetscape Framework. The proposed new additions
will have little effect on the streetscape framework, except
in a positive sensc in that snow build-up in a pedestrian way will
be }essened by the semi-encl-osure on the west side of the building-
2.
The additions will provide an enhancement to the variety of open
and enclosed spaces, which wirl create a strong framework for
pedestrian walks, as well as visuar interest and activity.
D- street Encl-osure. From Desi"gn considerations, section D,
Street Enclosure, we quote the fo1 lowinq:
"Vlh j-1e bui lding f acadeuniform from buildinoprovide a com fo rt ab l-estreet. "
heJ-ghts shoul-d not beto building, they should
enclosure for the
and
"Pedestrian streets are outdoor roons, whosewalls are formed by the buildings. Theshape and feel of these rooms are createdby the variety of heights and massi_ng (threedimentional variations) which si-ve much of thevisual- interest and pedestrian scafe uniqueto Va1l. "
and
"An external enclosure i_s more comfortablewhere its wa11s are approxirnately one-hal_ fas high as the width of the space enclosed.,'
rn respect to the new proposed additions and the structures around
it' both existing and proposed, which will define and create this
space, the increased height for the HilI Building (which is
approximately 31.5 feet above ground ]eve1) will enhance the
existing plaza area at a closer conforrnance with the street
enclosure section of the vail village urban Design considerations.
The new height of the Hirr Building wilJ- still be considerably
fess than what is aflowed in ccr. Roof lines at the completion of
the addition will be a combination of fl-at and pitched roofs
which currently exist and which will be added, which will provide
?
v'isual interest for the plaza area, The proposed additions have
no effect on street edge, in that all additions are on the second
and third floors of the existing building- The existing building,
along with the proposed alterations, will provide irregular
facade 1ines, buildi-ng jogs and landscaped areas which give life
to the street and visual interest for pedestrian trave].
E. Building Height. The maximum Proposed height for the
proposed addition is 31.5 feet above street level. one Vail Place
is 40 feet in height, the main Lodge building is 56 feet in
height and the new additj-on proposed for the Lodge, ca1led the
International Wing, will be a two and three-story mix, with a
maximum height on the south side of 40 feet. The Zoning Code
Section L8.24.120 defines the heiqht requirements for CCI, and
aI1 proposed heights are wel-1 below the requirements specj,fied in
the Vail ViIlage Urban Design Guide PIan and Design Considerations-
F. Views. The most significant and obvious view
corridors have been designated by the view corridor restriction
ordinance which was adopted some time ago by the Town Council.
The view from the plaza over the Hill Building was studied at
length by the Town CounciL and was specifically not included in such
ordinance. The views rvhich were protected by the ordinance were
selected to be preserved due to their significance, not only from
an esthetic standpo j-nt, but also as orientation reference poj-nts
to help the guests determine their location. The view which we
are intruding into was not given the same significance as other views
and, therefore, not protected by the ordinance.
The Design Considerations are a broad overview of
Commercial Core T and designate the design criteria for eight
different categories of concern. Views are merely one of those
categories. The view corridor ordinance was reviewed in light
of the effect it would have on the seven other categories and,
therefore, the view over the HilI Building was deleted fron the
ordinance. No one category operates in a vacuum without affecting
the others and, therefore, the intrusion into the views over the
IIi1l Building is warranted because the proposed additions enhance
and satisfy the other categories of the Design Considerati-ons
in the best possible manner for the Town.
The real objective of the Village Plaza and CCI in
general is to present desirable and inviti-ng commercial activities
and residential facili-ties in a charming and effective building
frame, including mountain views, rather than to merely feature
a side-l"ong view of the mountai-n per se. Canopies, awnings'
arcades and building extensions provided by the existing Hill
Buitding and af1 proposed alterations help create a pedestrran
focus which miticTate the intrusion into the existing views over the
HilI Building.
G. Sun Shade Considerati-on. The sun shade study previously
crovided shows little or no effect on the Village Plaza area.
Tn surunary, as Vail Village Design Considerations state:
"The Design Considerations are intended to serve
as guideline design parameters. They are not
seen as ricid rules or cookbook design elements
to bring about a homogeneous appearance in Vai1."
q,
The intention of the proposed alterations is to address the
spirit of Vail as it exists and to enhance and extend that spirit
by improving residential living in Commercial Core I and to solve
snow build-up areas in pedestrian ways.
6.
lo
May 15, 1981-
Square Footage Computations
lst Floor Si.te Coverage = t S'|OS sq. Ft.x B0% = 4612 sq. ft. Gross residential floor area allowedabove Ist floor
2nd Fl-oor existing = 4Ol8 (inc stairwells)3rd Floor existing = 696 (inc stairwelts)Total 47L4
Proposed Greenhouse = OProposed Dining room = 64Proposed 3rd flr bdrm = 7207&
Total- above lst flr w,/proposed = 5499 sq. ft.
Less stairwells ( 2nd flr & abv)House = 173Apt. = 154
Tota1 = 327
' Therfore gross residential froor area = 549g - 32? = 5121 sq. ft.
Less aparLm,,'nt = 914 se. ft.
Therefore gross residential froor area = 5171 - 9f4 = 4252 squarefeet
(compare to 4612 allowed = 355 sq. ft. under)
{mdu
pnffiornr..
d'\\
6?
K{ft
guJ
tu$-u&--(urw-or-w{rr\
l Dr.t* an lag ^il&t\ \bRn
TO:
F ROM:
DATE:
SUBJ ECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Corrnunity Development Department
July 19, 1984
Exterior alteration request to add approximately
of commercia'l space and a rooftop pool and plaza
Appl i cant: Bob Frjtch ,,
3600 square feet
at the Sitzmark Lodge
I.THE PROPOSAL
Proposed js a one-floor cornmercial expansion in front of the Sitzmark Lodge.
The commercial space would be bui'l t over an area now used for 7 surface parking
spaces and would also necessitate the removal of 3lodge rooms (see accompanying
memo). Atop the proposed addition would be a pool and p1 aza area. Modification
to the entrance to the Sitzmark is also an element of this proposal .
...: .,,.JIi, C0MPLIANCE l,llTH THt PURP0SI SICTiON 0F C0I'IMIRCIAL C0RE I ZONE
I
The Conrnercia.l Core I distri ct is'i ntended to provide sites and to maintain
the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of
lodges and conrnercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment.
The Commercjal Core I district is intended to ensure adequate 1ight, air, open
. space, and other amenities appropriate to the pennitted types of buildings and
1.i..ri'9335. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design
...,s..- Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescni be site development standards that'i' are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly \
clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public !.reen-ways, and to ensure contjnuation of the building scale and architectural qualities
that distinguish the vil lage.
This proposal js in compliance with the purposes outlined for CCI.
II]. COMPLIANCE I^IITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
This proposal most d'i rectly impacts the Guide Plan's Sub-Area #25. Concepts
#24 and #26 are also.to be reviewed.
Sub-area Conceot 424
Service/Del ivery/Trash zone (screened).
park.
The existing trash area is enclosed, andPotential for a pocket park in this area
Potentjal for multj-use as a pocket
the delivery area is fajly unobstrusive,is not great.
sitOk -2- 7/1s/84
Sub-Area Concept'{25
commercjal Expansion--one story tO provide active facade to pedestrian street'
help reinforce connectjon of Gore Cieek Drive to Willow Bridge Road.
Proposed js indeed a 1 story commercjal expansion as.called out in this concept'
fne expansion is propose{ 1ir extend essentially out to the property line.in two
pf'u..1'ii"uting a'neiriy a*tined street _edge albng Gore Creek Drive. As stated
in concept 25,-th'i s proposa'l wi11 hopefuliy strengthen-the connectjon betleen
Gore Creek Drive and'Wiilow aridge Rbad. ltris woutO also reinforce the
;p.A.it.iun Ioop" toward Crossroids. Establ'i shing the.network of pedes.trian
',[;;ii;i'iil u pi!*uiv ouiective of the Urban Design cuiae Plan for the Village
Sub-Area Concept #26-
Basement delivery corridor (foot), to Gore Creek Pjaza Building to be preserved,
extended east when Possible.
Thjs corridor will not be disturbed wjth the proposal'
t 1,COMPLIANCE I,l]TH URBAN DTSIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAI
The following design considerations are
physical features of the Viliage. It_is
stiate that this proposal substantially
or that the proposal does othenvise not
I-ood. How this proposal relates to the
A. Pedestrianization
identified as the primary form-giving
the burden of the appl icant to demon-
compl ies with these considerations
alter the character of the neighbor-
9 considerations is summarized beiow.
Gore Creek Drive is a heavily used pedeStrian corrjdor. As mentioned
earl.i er, the Gujde Plan enco-urages the development of an jnjElrgq-lngcjeg.
network of pe_des.trjaI jdgJ_s, This proposaL should-stfgrytL,e'1$e--gonnection
U-etnaen- eo-re -CneeL<-Oii_yg--q;! .!rli I I ory pr'!dge-[91d-'- therebv i mprov i ng our
existing pedestrian network.
lllhile Gore Creek Drive js also used as a del.ivery area and for vehicular
entry into the Vjllage, inere should still be $[PJe rpom ]e-f! j1-t!e.
road to accommodate both pedestrians- and vehic Ies'
B. Vehicular Penetrat.ion
The commercial space wjll result in an increase to service deljveries
at the sitzmark. However, this increase sh-ould not be-s,jgnjfjcant-uhan
comoared to the amount of'deljveries t-hat *ke p1 ace a1'l a'l ong Gore Creek
Ori ve. The el i mi na ti oq-o-f -the 7 surf iceLiark j-1tq -spaqe5. wi I l,^l-o{!Yit'
ieouie vetricut u. punuiQiion into the Vil-l age ionsioera[1y. Overal I ,
this proposal shollO have a positive impact !y leducing the amount of
vehjcles in the Vi11age.
sifark -3- 7 /1s/84
C. Streetscape Framework
The exi sti nq pl anter on the east end gf-_ile_,gltzmglk_w'i r r remajn.Additlonal Frinter rdx.s ure piar,r*a tor the building,, iuEi-uti'ongGore Creek Drive. A sma'l_ljo_cket qf_open_space-_ltiU-be created
. on.tbe !.J_! e_!{ of t6e commercjal expalsjo_n- Hil;ver; this areais proposed tEb-e errc'l osEd with a ca-ntiGvered roof form. paverl usedrn t_ro1t 9l t[e a{-{!!!o! ryr_l] qxtgnd qt leqs!-_to_the_front proper-ty .!ine.
The infill of a commercial store front will improve the "walki4g_experiqrce"and g'i ve continuity to the pedestrian way. This is a dramage-improvementover the area as it is now..
Street Encl osure
The existing situation at this site is not good. A broad expanse betweenthe multi--story Lodge promenade and the sitimark gives-ihe-pedestr.i ana sense of being unenclosed. _ T[is exp-4ns_io_n=uilI]n.lp_lo__a,!I,e tf,uareq9_!y__c_reating a more comfortabIe enclgs11,e fg1t1e-_-peOestriin anO_b.rjng
s t1e e_! _e4 c_l e s u re mo re i_n]irc uit_11 t rr a*a eillea_y'2-s -i'it i*.
Street Edge
Th'is proposai is unique fn that the store front facades are irreqularwi-th qucfr-v-ailgty_ (in ihe form of windows unt .ntrrravrffinii" uuir.same trme being tied_together with a 3,_4' fascja icross much_ol_theaddition, tthite-fheluitaing-"jog-s- give visijai intireii'io-t-hilicade,they.do not provide enough sfiace ior iunctional activjty pcckeEs asment'ioned by the Guide pian. The cantilevered roor wiii iiso leavethese pockets in the shade for much of the dav.
D.
E.
F.Buildi nq Height
Tf'.tg-is1io issue with respect to the height of this proposal. t.lhireit will have a flat roof form, the design-does not upieu" incompatiblewith the existing structure.
ViewsG.
The pedestrian is afforded a dramatic view of the Gore Range from Gorecreek Drive- l{hi'l e this view is not siqnificantly impactei from Gorecreek D.ive, there is_an impact to the iedestriin"";iii;d-;p wiilowRoad onto Gore creek Drive- The roof ol4erhang piqi".lr- 6ui into tire_:j:: jl?l Sradually_emerges as_'one foilows a patn iounding th;-;o;;;,"
Il9T_,*l,ow,srrdge Road onto Gore Creek Drive. The more inis ioot iinecouro De purred back, the less the impact will be on this view.
There is also a verv
Tlr,!s view-is o1g of .
pleas'i ng slp_rt-rang_e_rr jew ns one follows_t'hjs course.
!!_e tt1 et edg_e_ down Gore Creek Drive. The curvil inear
e,,,',^ -r- t/rvlv+
gtre_qt_scape torl:l_i{}iildings along Gore Creek Drive s_e1ve to_1u11tbe pedestrian further down the "oai jusi ii-"ijtij""i dy_ure Guide ptan.The roof overhang wouta oustrr.t *,1 p.a.rii;..i; 'iriti;r
view of thisstreet edge as one rounds the corner onto Gore Creek Drjve.
H. Service and Delivery
3..*{+}5gnr''
The proposal cal I s existing trash housinq toother p'l ans are proposed
= 1? addjtionai spaces= / spaces
l9 total
for theroof. No
this proposal_-r,r_il l not iUp_lc_!
It
..- \ ;
\
.l6.9 or l7 additjona) spaces
STAFF RECOMMENDATIOIY
staff recommendation^ol ,llr.re9g9st is for approval. r,te are. excited that somethingwill happen on this.site-that wrrlr-ue'a positive addition io both the sitzmarkand the viliage, whire eriminaiing iie""*isting parking in this area. Thereare two issues that we feer merit't;;; discussion by the pEc. fhege_ r_.pc_1qde,t'[egotentia'l blockage,:t y1uy-t iv-in" roof overhans unJ tie streetedge fornrdby the bui lding's facade.. wh'e-ie i'iu'gun"ru,y support.i ve of the proposar , weiffl,J:5Tl3liil'ril'1f,.t:"ffiff,in-il'.!u u.uas t-hat ffi;ii rlsurt ovei^ari in in ''
I. Sun,/shade
Located on the north side of the street,
-!-q! 9! slgde gl,o_nj Gor;e Creek orive. ---
ZONING CONSIDEMTiONS
A conditional use oermit is required any.time_a lodge room is removed from
lii !!fi l l;, lll i,'il'i;:i,liii.;"i'iti; ; ;.1' :*I--li!s ..oo's, reduc i ns
recommendation-on ihe conoitional use oJJrrr]tt
accompanying memo for our
This proposar is in compriance with ail other zoning considerat.ions. Oneissue that w'r be aoarlsseJ-ir'irrit"oi parking. The appricant has agreedto pay into the parking rund ror-tile iet reouction of spaces on s.i te. Thesenumbcrs break down as follows:\-
3600 sq ft commercia'l additionloss of 7 on-site spaces
reduction of required parking as aresult of eliminating 3 lodgd .ooil, _ 2..| spaces
be remodeled with
rel ati rr9 .!o_se_rv i ce
One.condition of approval for the applicationparticipate in and not remonstrate igainst aand when one is formed for this area and thatapproved.
Sitzmarf-5- 7 /1e/84
'is that the appl icant agree tospecial improvement distiict jf
the condjtional use permit is
No construction (improvements) will be allowed in Town of Vail right-of-way.
ADDENDUM TO
APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR MODIFICATION
I. Conformance with the Purposes of the CCI District.
As stated in Section L8.24.010, the Commercial Core I
Distri-ct is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique
character of the Vail Village co4mercial area with its mixture
of lodges, residential dwellings and colnmercial establishments
in a predominately pedestrian environrnent.
The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure
adequate 1ight, air, open space and other amenitles appropriate
to the permitted. types of buildings and uses. The District
Regulations, in accordance wi-th the Vail Village Urban Design
Guide Plan and Des.ign Considerations, prescribe site development
standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and
preservation of the tiglltly clustered arrangements of buildings
fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways. and to ensure
continuation of the buil-ding scale and architectural quality that
distinguish the Village.
The proposed alterations center around two minor additions
to the existing building:
A. An expansion of an existing bedroom in the approximate
amount of 720 square feet. The expansion of the existing bedroom
will enhance the experience offered to residents residing in the
HiIl Building.
B. A partial encl_osure of an existing deck area which
will help solve an existing snow build-up problemr not only for
the second-floor residents in the Hil_I Building, but also for the
commercial space on the ground level.
Since the proposed alterations are extensions and
enhancements of existing uses, the Urban Design Guide plan will
not be changed in any respect, but made more effective.
II. Vail Village Urban Design Considerations As They Applyto Proposed Alterations
A. Pedestrianization. The proposed alteration which
encloses a portion of the deck on the second floor of the Hill
Building wilI further facilitate and enhance pedestrianization
between the HiIl Building and One Vail Place by reducing the amount
of drifting snow in the pedestrian way. The proposed alteration
and enlargement of an existing bedroom will have no effect on
the pedestrianization of CCI.
B. Vehicl-e Penetration. The proposed alterations
provide for no addit.ional points of vehicle penetration, nor will
the additions create more vehicular trips into CCI .
C. Streetscape Framework. The proposed new additions
will have litt1e effect on the st.reetscape framework, except
in a positive sense in that snow build-up in a pedestrian way will
be lessened by the semi-enclosure on the west side of the building.
2.
The additions will provide an enhancement to the variety of open
and enclosed spaces, which will create a strong framework for
pedestrian walks, as well as visual interest and act.ivity.
D. Street Enclosure. From Design Considerat j-ons , Section D,
Street Enclosure, we quote the following:
"Idhile building facade heights should not beuniform from building to building, they shouldprovlde a comfortable enclosure for the
el-raa_l- ll
and
"Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms, whose
wa1ls are formed by the buildings. The
shape and feel of these rooms are createdby the variety of heights and massing (three
dimentional variations) which give much of the
visual interest and pedestrian scale uniqueto Vail. "
and
"An external enclosure is more comfortable
where its wa1ls are approximately one-half
as hlgh as the width of the space enclosed. "
In respect to the new proposed additions and the structures around
it, both existing and proposed, which wilt define and create this
space, the increased height for the Hill Buildinq (which is
approximately 31.5 feet above ground level) will enhance the
existing plaza area at a closer conformance with the street
enclosure section of the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations.
The new height of the Hill Building will still be considerably
less than what is allowed in CCI. Roof lines at the completion of
the addition will be a combination of flat and pitched roofs
which currently exist and which will be added, which will provide
visual interest for the plaza area. The proposed additions have
no effect on stneet edge, in that all additions are on the second
and third floors of the existing building. The existing building,
along with the proposed alterations, will provide irregular
facade 1ines, building jogs and landscaped areas which give life
to the street and visual i-nterest for pedestrian travel.
E. Bui-lding Height. The maximum proposed height for the
proposed addition is 31.5 feet above street Ieve}. One Vail Place
j-s 40 feet in height, the main Lodge building is 56 feet in
height and the new addition proposed for the Lodge, called the
International Wing, will be a two and three-story mix, wlth a
maximum height on the south side of 40 feet. The Zoning Code
Section 1-8.24.120 defines the height requirements for CCI, and
all proposed heights are well below the requirements specified in
the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations.
F. Views. The most significant and obvious view
corridors have been designated by the view corridor restriction
ordinance which was adopted some time ago by the Town Council .
The view from the plaza over the Hill Building was studied at
lengt.h by the Town Council and was specifically not included in such
ordinance. The views which were protected by the ordinance were
selected to be preserved due to their significance, not only from
an esthetic standpoint, but also as orientaLion reference points
to help the guests determine their location. The view which we
are intruding into was not given the same significance as other views
4.
and, therefore, not protected by the ordinance.
The Design Considerations are a broad overview of
Commercial Core I and designate the design criteria for eight
different categories of concern. Views are merely one of those
categories. The view corridor ordinance was reviewed in liqht
of the effect it would have on the seven other categories and,
therefore, the view over the Hill Building was deleted from the
ordinance. No one category operates in a vacuum without affecting
the others and, therefore, the intrusj-on into the views over the
Ilill Building is warranted because the proposed additions enhance
and satisfy the other categories of the Design Considerations
in the best possible manner for the Town.
The real objective of the Village Plaza and CCI in
general is to present desirable and inviting commercial activities
and residentj-al facilities in a charming and effective building
frame, including mountain views, rather than to merely feature
a side-long view of the mountain per se. Canopies, awnings,
arcades and building extensions provided by the existing Hill
Building and al 1 proposed alterations help create a pedestrian
focus which mitigate the intrusion into the existing views over the
Hill Bui-ldino.
G. Sun Shade Consideration. The sun shade study previously
provided shows little or no effect on the Villaqe Plaza area.
In summary, as Vail Village Desigtn Consi-derat.ions state:
"The Desi-gn Consj-derations are intended to serve
as guideline design parameters. They are not
seen as riqid rules or cookbook design elements
to bring about a homogeneous appearance in Vail."
5.
The int.ention of the proposed alterations is to address the
spiriL of Vail as it exists and to enhance and extend t.hat spirit
by improving residential living in Commercial Core I and to solve
snow build-up areas in pedestrian ways.
6.
H.-
&s *i
Kenneth Redcling
CREATIVE PHOTOGRAPHY
1 Wall Slreel
P. O. Box 717
Vail, CO.81657
T
lrlr
J*!lt
fi#t
Kenneth Redding
CREATIVE PHOTOGRAPHY
1 Wall Street
P. O. Box 717
Vail, CO. 816s7
_., rt
:"//,
AI'PLICATION FORM
OR MODITICA'I:IOI\S IN
oDatc o[..ipplication
FOR DXTIJRIOR ALTIIRATIONS
coyd.,lrlRcrAl coRll r (ccl)
May 29,
buildingpatio or :
review by
l98i
I.This procedure is rcquired for alterati.on of an existing
vhich adds or relnoves atty enclosed floor area or outdoor
replacemcnt of an e>listing buil<iirrg shall be subjecb to
the Planning ancl Environrnental Comntj.ssj-<rn.
The application will trot be accepted until all inforntation
A. NAI1X OF AI)PLICAII'I Blanche C. Hill
ADLTRESS--_tlt_B"-Irds_e__ql_r.cc!4_-v_eiIJ co _B l6s7 PHONB jl76-554 2 - -
Jav K. PetersonB.
c.AUTTIORIZATIOI'I OF
NAj.4B OI' APPLICLiiTIS RBPRESENTATIVE
ADDRESS P. O. Box 3149, Vail'co 81658 PHOI{E 476-0092
SIG}IATURB
ADDlTESS
D. LOCATI{JN OIJ ]:ROT'CsAI.,
E. i')iLl ,f?tflo o,)c- I.ZA o7 J4/
$l 0 0 . Ci 0 llrrs I Bq f or each proper:ty own(:r to
ov${ER
Il Bridge Street, Vail, CO 81657 Pnoxe476-5542
AIIDRESS___3-r1__Blt_q.S_e___q!-Ie-9!r_Vai-l,_Co_8_l_6ll
LIlGp.l, DESCP.IPTIOIJ Lot I, Block 5C Vail Village First
bc notified.
F. Il"iPliovn[1El:i'i'l liii]|,Il:)/ Cf I'li0i'l"lRT\l SIIOI^JfNG PIIOPIIRTY I,INDS AI'ID LOCATION:..::
OIJ DU].I,D1,].IG AI{f) /\iIY :TI4PIIOVI'IlIINTTJ ()Iq TIIE ,L,AT.ID.
',G, A l.,lsr olilritn ],lAl.iri or oi\t{ntis oF Al;1, pRopERTy ADJAciiNT To rtIE 'i
SUBJtrCT PROPiilit:Y AND lllLilr i\llDll[SSliS. . .r:*. .,r.1', .' tr"R
II. four (4-) cc,pics <if a sit:e plan ccntajniuq the follorvi.ng information, ,ft1'
' .l.rj;
Jr, Tht: sitc p)-an sl'rall be clrawn on a sheet size of 24" x 36" at a scale
of 1" = 20r; a var.iation of the slrce:t size or scale may be aPProved:r:i
by the CorirnurljLy Devclcpment Deprrrtrncnt if justj.f iedt ''1.i
.i
' 1,.
.:
'
nate olpplicatior',- ruav-a9,' r.98j
APPLICATION FORM FOR EX'IfiI1IOR ALTERATIONS
OR MODIITICA'I'-rOI{S IN COI'MERCIAL CORE 1 (CCI)
I.Thisprocedureisrequiredfora1teratj'onofanexistingbui1ding
vrhich adds or rernoves any enclosed floor area or outdoor patio or
replacemcnt of an existing buildirrg sherl} be subject. to revj-ew by
tlre Planning ancl Environrnental Comntj.ssj.<rn.
The application will not be accepted uni,il all inrorntation is submitted.
A. NA}M OF APPI,ICAIII]Blanche C. Hill
B.
ADDRESS___I-1.*-BtidS_e__g!rce!..__Y_Ai_1r90-81657 PHONE 476-5542
NAME OI' APPLIC/I.NT'S REPRBSENTATIVE
ADDRESS P. O. Box 3149, Vail,
Jav K. Peterson
AUTfIORIZATIOI'I OF PITOPERT:Y OVINER
SIG}{A'IURE
co 81658 47 6-0092
PHOt\iE
c.
D.
ADDi(BSS 311 Bridqe Street, Vai1, CO 81657 pnOnr:476-5542
LOCA'I'IfJN OIT J]ROT'CSAL
ADDRESS*___3-11__Bj1-qs_e___9!re-eL-lld[_99_U_61]
LIIGa.L DESCP,IPTIOIJ Lot I, Block 5C VaiI Village First
&'za o7 .J,4 /,( 4'/-', Ju.-
D. F]IL]
,g'74 loo'2c'
$1C0.00 \>lns lrJc for e;ech prope.!:ty ovrn(:r to bc notified.
F. Jl,iPI{O\/llNlBli'L' liiilt"ru)/ o}' I)}{C)r,i"il{:t\: siioi{ING PlroP,.iRTY f,INDs AND L()CATIoN
OI' BU.ILL)ll{(j /\ilI) .{\i,lY :i}4PROVIillllNTIi (JFl l'}IE ]-,Al{D.
G. A I]IST Oit ifilrl l',r'Al.rl: oI. oi\t{.n]rs oF lrr-,1., PRopBRTy ADJAciiNT To TIIE
SUB.'IECT PI1OPJ]I(]::I' AND lHLlI{ ADDITISSIJS. .,r.,
,j,
II. Four (4) cc.rpics of a sit:e plan c,-rntajni-ng the followi.rrg information, ']{'i:"i
,\, Tllc sriLc pJ-an shal1 be <lrawn on ir sheet size of 24" x 36" aL a scalq'of 1." = 20'; a var:.iation of the .sircet si"ze or scale may be approve4.'11-by tite Conunun5.Ly Develepment Del)irrtmcnt- if justi.fiedi ''i''',.
:l:
'
I
tl
I
ADDENDUM TO APPLICATION
Addresses of Adjacent property Owners
1.Vail AssoeiatesP. O. Box 7Vail, CO 81658
Plaza Lodge, Inc.P. O, Box 68vail, co 81658
Golden Peak House
278 Hanson Ranch RoadVaiI, CO 81657
Lazi.er Arcadec/o Bob LazierP. O. Box 62'1
Vai-1, CO 81658
v,:-=*t,-LJ
1, u N PrI*-
K.-- ))J-\/
z.
\$o{ fo"Au'\roc 62Y' UuJ u*-
IuU\.iut$"
ntFr// /\. - I I '_ 4 v //L-.1,J.
$oL\oCq
l/'
?d.'
Itl'l I vvlV\'t'(
!
?{
a
l4ay 15, l9B1
Square Footage Computations
I -:-..
{', :'. ,i -('i ''
lst Floor Site Coverdge = t SZ6S Sq. Ft.x- 80% _ a6r2 sq. ft. Gross residenfial froor area ar]owedabove lst floor
2nd Floor existing =(+qil Xinc stairwetls)3rd Floor existing = 6fd (inc stairwellsiTotal m
Proposed Greenhouse = OProposed Dining room = 64 ..Proposed 3rd flr bdrm = 72O ''
784
tl,... .. r..
Total above lst ftr w,/proposed = 549g sq. ft.
Less stairwells ( ZnA flr & abv)House = 173APt. = J.54Total = 327
Therfore gross residential floor area = 5498
Less aparLm,tnt - 914 sq. ft.
Therefore giross residential floor area = 5l7Ireet
(compare Xa 46L2 allowed = 355 sg. ft. under)
- 327 = 5171 sq. ft.
- 9I4 = 4257 aguare
May J5,l98t
Response to Application Fonn for Exterior Alterations
ntr$'ti-
Secti on
Secti on
A.
D
D.
E.
Setti on
Secti on
A.
B.
B
E.
p,
U
Secti on
Sect i on
I - NA (by c)ient)
II
Forwarded May 5, 19811,
Include( in "A,,above.
NA Pqo L\ocor'.
Refer'po Seqtion I II below re size.NA fuu*Atc{t\
Included ih ;'A,, above.
III - See attached sheets (Attachment,
iv
NA
NA
Refer
Refer
NA
Refer
Refer
Refer
V-NA
VI-NA
pages AT-'l and AT-2)
to rnodel . R,oA lofi'q$rtto model. 1\*r\t.t
1\"u\til",[to model and "drawi nqs.to model. U,tJrl\ r^to model.lrr.l^{l\rq$\
(by client) uL
(by client; ok'
\q
t
Attachment --- Response to section III of the Application Fovm forExterior Al terations
L Conformance with the purpose of the CCI district.
/4. 18.24.010 purpose - Refer to Section II below.
/s. .|8.24.0& permitted and conditional uses - second Floor - Allowed#1 - multipte famitv ""siaeniiir o*"iiins.
Jc. r8.24.050 permitted and conditional uses - Above second Froor -Allowed - #t muttiple family resiaeniiai aw"iiins.-'
D. 18.24.i20 Height - Allowed 38'; proposed 32, (35, Chimney).
E' 1'8-24-130 Densitv contror - Firit Froor site coverage = 5,765 sq.ft' x 80% = lz6rt sq. ft. gross residentiai-tioo"'ii'"u arlowedabove first floor-
Second floor existing = 4,0l8 (including stairvells)Third floor existing- = _ =699 iinctratng ;i;i*;ij;iTotat TJT{
Proposed:Greenhouse = 0 (not fully enclosed to weather)
D'i ni ng Room = 64Third Floor Bedroom = 720
rora | 794
Total above first floor with proposed = 5,49g sq. ft.
Less stairwells (second f'loor and above)House = 173Apt. = t 54Total m
Therefore gross residential floor area = 5,49g _ 3Zl = 5,17.1 sq.9fry:: to 4,612 (S59 over) less apariment = 914 sq. ft.' '
Ineretore gross residential floor area = 5,14.| - 914 = 4,257 sq.Compare to 4,612 (355 under)
May .15, l9Bl
II. . Substantia'l compliance with the Vail Village
A. 18.54.050 lrtaterial s to be Submi tted
I. NA2. NA3. Fonvarded May 5, l98l (Site plan)
ft.
ft.
AT-I
Urban Desiqn Guide.
fstt"r tD tu. tdq'
a
4. NA5. Forwarded May 5, 198'l (Floor plans and Elevations)6. NA7. NA8. NA
B. .|.8.54.070 Design Guidelines - Subsections A through u refer todrawings and model submitted.
t_
AT.2
Orro, Pnrnnsorrr & Posr
aTT0trINEYS AT LAw vaiL NATIoNAL BANK BUrLarNq
JAy K. pETERsoN posr oFFlcE Box 3149 (3o3r z176-0092
wllLrAtJr J. Posr vaII_, cologADo al65a-314g EAGLE VArL PROFESS|ONAL BUTLD|NG
(3 03) 949-53AO
September 5, l9B4 "-":j.?l:'.:::::
'I'OWn Or Val-1
Planning Department
75 South Frontage Road WestVai1, CO 81657
Attention: Peter Patten
Re: Expansion of the HillBuilding - 311 Bridge Street
Dear Peter:
Pursuant to your request, the owner of the Hi-Il Building locatedat 311 eridge Street, has authorized me to add, as a condition lof approvaf to that certain Application dated May 29, IgB4, suchcondition of approval as follows:
The owner of the building located at 311 Bridge Street, Vail,Colorado, hereby agrees to participate in and not remonstrateagainst a special improvement distrlct if one j_s formed forVail Vi11age.
Sincerely,
JKP:mec
\j
-!|.{^^..
f"F.,ory, PETERSoN & Posrv'v
TO;
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning and Environmental Commissjon
Cormunity Development Department
March 24, .|986
A-request for exterior arteration of the Hir Building on Lot 1,Block 5c, vail vil1age First Filing to encros" e*iitiig-..ionofloor deck space and to add a thiri story.Applicant: Blanche C. Hjll
COMPLIANCE I,{ITH THE URBAN D IGN GUIDE P FOR V IL VILLAGE
I. THE PROPOSAL
The applicant,^Blanche c. Hi'r 1, received approvar from the prann.ing andEnvironmenta'l commission on January J.3, rgbb to encrose 433 square feetof deck space on the west side of the second floor of the H.iri euiraingand to add a third story bedroom of 972 "qrir" ieet. The currena "proposal represents a modification to thii approval. wfrife ilre Uuildingand addition foot print remain rerativerv ilr!"sir", this proposaientails-a major change to the facade treitment of ine southwest area ofthis bujldino.. The.net change in square footage js an Allditiona] R6
C:t:ll:,fe9t.6eins added il_Ih; second rever. The new facade entajrs the\ removar ot the,overhanging second and th.i rd story balconies and thel-- introduction of " ner il"iiri;i; ir the form of a stucco war.
Th'is proposal also includes the construct'ion of the Urban Design GuidePlan concept l0A invorv'ing the creation or a peaesirian warkway,/p1azalocated to the south of the Hi.t1 building.
The commercial core I district is intended to provide sites ancr tomaintain the unique character of the vail vilrls".orr"rlilt area wittrits mixture of . lodges and commerc.ial establ isr,menti-in-i-pi.oorinantlypedestri an environment. The commercial core I distriit-.i ! intended toensure adequate light, air and open space, and other amenitiesappropriate to the permitted types of buiidings
"na ,ieil'-The districtregulations in accordance with ltre vail v.i llaie uru".-o.rign Guide planand Design considerations prescribe site development .iinairo, that areintended to ensure the maintenance and-preservation of the tighilyclustered arnangements. of buildings fronting on p"a..triii*"v, .nopublic greenways, and to ensure c6ntinuation or irre uriiJiiis scare andarchitectunal qualities that distinguish the viffige.--
This proposal 'is substantially in compliance with the intent of the ccldi stri ct.
II
III.r
I
I
This proposal relates to sub-area r0A. This sub-area concept refers tomountain gateway improvements and describes elements such-ii a landscapescreen, minor p1aza, and a pedestrian loop to
'uall
street. The areaspecified for sub-area r0A is on rand currenily unoe, ioniror of the
r
I
I
l
United States Forest Service. During the approva'l process for the
previously approved alteration, the Forest Service had indicated that
they would allow no improvements with regard to this sub-area concept.
The applicant has now secured permission of the Forest Service to
construct this sub-area concept.
COMPLIANCE l^llTH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and the
considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts
from the overall intent of the Desiqn Considerations.
IV.
A.Pedestrianization. This proposal affects pedestrianizatjon
iffiusF-iEe creation of Sub-area Concept 10A- As described above,
this sub-area refers to mountain gateway improvements and
describes elements such as a landscape screen, minor p1aza, and a
pedestrian loop to Wall Street. }le feel that creation of this
sub-area will be a positive contribution to this area of Vail
Vi1'l age. We do feel , however, that this area could be
strengthened by some modification to the proposed design.
The proposed design shows the stucco wa11 wrapping around the
southwest corner and following the property line to the east. If
this south wall were to be pulled in toward the building more, it
would allow for more landscaping and perhaps some bench seating.
This would be more in keeping with the plaza/walkway concept of
the sub-area as opposed to strjctly a pedestrian 1oop. Enclosed
with this memo is a copy of the sub-area concept as detailed in
the Urban Design Guide Plan. We also feel strongly that the brjck
pavers should continue around the south end of the bujlding to the
junction of this plaza/walkway with Bridge Street. The design
proposed details pavers only at the southwest corner, w'i th the
rest of the walkway as asphalt.
Veh icul ar Penetration.No impact.
Streetscape Framework. As previously descri bed in the January 13,
1986 memo, the quality of the pedestrian experience w'i ll be
somewhat impacted by additional shade in the area of Le Petite
Cafe (see sun/shade analysis) and the ticket offices and also by
some blockage of views of the mountain as one enters Founders'
Plaza from the north. The most notable effect upon the
streetscape framework of this current proposal is the removal of
the second story decks on the west elevation of the building. The
current storefront of Vail Ski Rentals js heavily shaded and has
the appearance of being recessed because of the overhanging second
story balcony. }{e feel that the elimination of this second level
baicony is a positive contri bution to the appearance of this
commercial store front.
B.
a.
D:- Street Enclosure
F
--'<-=>
F.
H.
I.
Service and Delivery.No impact.
Sun/Shade. This current proposal
sun/shade than that of the January
The Consideratjons state that, "An external enclosure js morecomfortable where its wa1 ls are approx.imately 1/Z as h.i gh as thewjdth of the space enclosed.u The Des.ign euldelines alio statethat a ratio of 1:1, height to width, cieates a'canyon effect."
The he'ight of the addition on the Hill Buitding will be 30 feet tothe eave line. The height of One Vail place ji 28 feet to theeave line. The plaza wjdth varjes from 33 to 42 feet, thuscreating a ratjo that var.i es fron Z/3:l to l:.l. The stucco wallrises from ground to a height of 23 feet in a continuous p1ane.At 23 feet above grade, the building steps back g feet to creaEe athird level deck. The eave'l ine, at 33 feet above grade isstepped back 8 feet from the first floor building eige. Bymaintain'ing the footp'int of the third floor froil tni previous
submittal , the architect has maintained the mitigation that thestaff f el t acceptab'l e j n the prev.ious des i gn .
street Edge' 0ther than the jog for vail sk'i Rentals'entry, thisproposal presents a fai11y monotonous street edge. The inclusionof door and w'i ndow awnings, as well as flower b6xes will beessential to the appearance of thjs facaoe.
sub-area l0A affects street edge and has been adressed previous'lyin this memo.
Building fgight. In-commercial core i, up to 60% of each build.i ngmay be built to a height of 33 feet or less and no more than 40%9I:".! building may be higher than 33 feet, but not highe; than43 feet. The ridge hejght of the proposed addit.ion js 5Z feet.This height does meet the 60/40 cr.i terja as described. The newroof will be a pitched roof. It will reflect the same p.i tch andmaterials as the existing roof forms of the building.
Views and Focal Points
This proposal entails no furthe.impacts upon views than that ofthe January 13th proposal .
K "r-)s*"
$\
G.
entails no further impact on
13th proposal .
V.
Project Statistics.
Allowable GRFA:
Existing second floor:
Existing third floon:
Total existing
Stai rway deducti on
Total existing GRFA
6,400 sq
4,082 sq
696 sq
4,778 sq
372 sq
4,451 sq
ft
ff
ftft
ft
ft
Proposed 3rd fl oor
addi ti on
Proposed 2nd floor
deck enclosure
Total proposed GRFA
Al lowable GRFA
Proposed GRFA
Remaining GRFA
972
519
sq ft
sq ft
5,942 sq ft
6,400 sq ft
5,942 sq ft
458 sq ft
VI.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval . The only
changes in the current proposal as opposed to the approval of Januaryl3th that relate to the Design Consideratjons are the removal of the
second level deck and the creation of Sub-area Concept LOA. Theintroduction of new material and facade treatment will need to be
reviewed by the Design Review Board and really do not apply to these
Design Consjderations. llle feel that the removal of the second level
decks improves the first level commercial property, a1 though it leaves
the west elevation of this building with very ljttle rel.i ef to a heightof 28 feet. hle feel that the creation of Sub-area Concept 10A.i s a veryposjtjve contrjbution to this area of Vail Vi11age, and the modjfi-
cations suggested to the design will certainly enhance this major
gateway from the mountain into Vai1 Vi11age.
The staff would recommend the following conditions of approval:
l. That the applicant will not remonstrate against a special
improvement district if and when one is formed for Vail Vi11age.
2. That the applicnat will construct all improvements outside oftheir property line (Sub-area 10 pedestrian and landscape'improvements) as approved, tota'l 1y at their own expense.
3. This approval is valid for a maxjmum of three years from the dateof PEC approval .
t
._j
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning and Environmental Commissjon
Community Development
January 13, 1986
A request for exterjor
8l ock 5C, Vai I Vi 1 1 age
deck space and to add
alteration of the Hill Bujlding on Lot 1,lst-Fjl ing, to enclose existin! Znd floora third story. Applicant: glanche C. Hill
Department
I.
II.
The.applicant, Blanche c. Hil.l , is requesting to enclose 433 square feetof deck space on the west side of the-seconu-floor of the iiri guirdingand to add a third story bedroon of 972 square feet. it. p.opor"d th.i rdstory addition is rocated on the southwest area of the buiia.ing. 0n -
september 23, .|985 the.pranning commriiion heard a iir,.ii""'iroposar.Following the recommendation u! tne riirt, the apJri."tion ilas den.ied bythe Plann'i ng commission. ttre F'r anninj commission decision wassubsequently appeared to the rown couicir. ihe-iour.ii']rpp".ted theposition of the staff.and the pranning commission. concerns of the staffand the Planning commission revoived irouno the creation of a canyoneffect and additionai sun/shaae impaci on the One Vair prace praza.
The current submittar represents a revision of the buiid.i ng sens.i tive tothese concerns.
Purpose: The commercial core I District is intended to provide sites andto ma'i ntain the unique character of the vair virlage comierc.i ar area withits mixture of-lodges and commerciar eitautishments in a predom.i nantiypedestrian environment. The commerciii'core I0istrict is intended toinsure agig'1t9 f ight, air, open-ipi.J'"no other amenitiei appropr.iate tothe permitted types ot buiidingr
"i J ,r"r. The district regulations inaccordance with rhe vair viraie urban-o.iigr"Gri;;"pi;; .ii or.isnconsiderations prescribe site i.u"iopr.nt standards that are intended toinsure the maintenance and preservation ot ine iishtil-.riri"..aarrangements of buiidings fronting on pedestrian wiy.'una--puuii.greenways and to insure continuation oi the buildini scaie"anaarchitectural qualitjes that distjnguish the V.i 11age.
This proposal is substantially in compliance with the intent of the ccldi stri ct.
{
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
IV.
This proposal relates to the sub-area concept 10A. This sub-area conceptrefers to mountain gateway improvements and describes elements such as a
landscape screen, minor p1aza, and a pedestlian'loop to Wali Street. The
area specified for sub-area 10A is on land currently under control of the
United States Forest Service. The current Forest Service posit.i on onthis property is that it will allow no improvements with regard to this
sub-area concept. The Community Development Department would requestthat if this sub-area is ever developed, that the owners of the Hill
Building not remonstrate against any special improvement djstrict that
may be formed to complete such improvements.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and the Considerationsis to show how the new design strengthens or detracts from the overallintent of the Design Considerations.
Pedestri an i zati on
The third story additjon and second story deck enclosure w'i l1 have
minima1 if any impact upon pedestrianization
B. Vehicular Penetration
No impact.
Streetscape Framework
Because the addiLjons are located on the second and thjrd f'l oors, therewill be'l ittle jmpact on the quality of the walking experi ence with
respect to landscaping and ground level commercial infill. The quality
of the pedestrian experience will be somewhat impacted by addit'i onai
shade in the area of Le Petite Cafe (see Sun/Shade analysis) and theticket offices and also by some blockage of views of the mountain as one
enters Founders' Plaza from the north.
Street Encl osure
The Considerations state that "an external enclosure is most comfortable
where its walls are approximately l/2-1 as high as the wjdth of the space
enclosed." The Design Guidelines also state that a ratio of l:1, heightto width, creates a "canyon effect." The height of the addition on theHill Building will be 30 feet to the eave 1ine. The height of One Vail
Place is 28 feet to the eave lJi6l-TEFiTIE-fidth varies from 33 to 42feet. This creates a ratio that varies fron 2/3:l to I:'l .
A.
c.
D.
,
(This considerat'ion was a major concern of the staff in reviewing theseptember 1985 submittal . in the current submittal the architect hasreacted to these concerns by pulling the third floor addition and balcony
!39! annroximately 4 feet from the iorrespond'ing bal.onv on the second
I]?9t- , uy stepping back the third floor living area, bilconies and roofI'rne' rhe architect has greatly rnitigated the concerns of the staff. Theorig'i na1 submittal showed a thiee st6ry vertical plane from the p1aza.This revised submittar presents a more gentre uuiiaing mais, with thebuildings stepping away from the plaza irea as it rises. It.i s ourbelief that_the orig'inar concept was for the praza to-present a gatewayinto the vi11age. The community Development staff feers that thisdesign, while meeting the objeciive of Ine property owner. is more inkeeping with the original concept of this piaza.
Street Edge.
No impact. All add.i tjons are above ground level .
E.
G.
In commercial core I, up to 60% of each buiiding may be buirt to heightof 33 feet or less and no more than 40% of "u.h"uriiairs-riv be higherthan 33 feet, but not higher than 43 feet. The ridge rt.ight of the,proposed addjtjon is 37 feet. This height does meel the 6OICO crjteriaas described. The new-roof wiil be a pitcnea toor. il-*iir refrect thesame pitch and materials of the existing roof forms on the building. -
Views and Focal points.
The proposed addition will slighily impact views of vail Mounta.i n fromthe Founders'Plaza area.- Howeverl this view is not a designated viewcor.idor, aithough we feel it is an important cons.i deration. This viewallows visitors an opportunity to orient themserves wiit regaro to vairMountai n.
The view from seibert circre looking west to vaii Mountain.is adesignated view corridor. .The prop6sed addition uo.r not project intothis view corridor. The addition ;s most visibre from the Miil creekcourt Euilding looking west. There is a substantiar addition of burk andmass projected into this view. However, views of the forest above havebeen maintained.
Service and Del iverv
No impact.
l.{
I. Sun/Shade
The Design consideration states that "aii _new or expanded buiidj ngsshould not substantialry increase_the ipring and fari ,rr.ar" pattern on
"{i?g?nt properties or on the public riitrt-ot-way.,, Th.is requestedaddit'i on will increase.the shadow pattern in the plaza area, according tothe December 21 study diagram. l'rhile;e do have some concern over thenegative effects of this itrauing on ".tiuity on the piiii,-we oorecognize that the redesign efforts of the architect wilr resurt insubstantially less impact than the originaf submjttal.
v.ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Project Statistics
Al lowable GRFA
Existing Znd floor
Existing 3rd floor
Total existing
Stai rway deduction
Total existing GRFA
Proposed 3rd floor
addi ti on
Proposed Znd floor
deck enclosure
Total proposed GRFA
Allowable GRFA
Proposed GRFA
Remaining GRFA
6,400 sq ft
4,08? sq ft
696 sq ft
4,778 sq ft
372 sq ft
4,451 sq ft
972 sq ft
433 sq ft
5,856 sq ft
6,400 sq ft
5,856 sq ft
544 sq ft
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Qepartment recommends approval . As a 2nd and
3rd story addjtion, there are really only two considerations that are
impacted by the proposa'l . A'l though this project still has some impact on
the One Vail Place plaza area through the Street Enclosure and Sun/Shade
design considerations, we feel that the architect, through this design'
has attempted to respect the Street Enclosure and Sun/Shade design
considerations and has attempted to mjtigate previous concerns of the
staff. ll|e feel that by stepping the buildjng mass away fron the plaza
area, the original concept of the plaza as an open gateway jnto vail
Village has been maintained.
.-iI .,
"''.l:.',
;lS'r--'\'.,L-i
:a
I
I
t.t;l
I
a.ir{
1-i
',4
;!::..' .
\'. 1' :
,i
ir r,
"i .
::';-,
ll:'
l.i':
rl{i
i:\
i; l:
'i: I
,tj'.i'j6'*i,:
-:- i' j.'I
r..:'; ,.!,' '.;'
l;"-;
?.tiri
*,1::;11
oo
,/-._.-t| /-<
s\___-f_-_+
@'t{+r / l___*
+tL ' t
*,---J>-1
SU
KDt------1
frthQ!''
rfiJ\r.-T t-"?t f''t,wn)\J T,'
ffi{il
l.-\}.-__ ---_
r-. \
e
F_-==;,'
r:"-{
Y(r
0q
"l9xo-4!s
f,Eq.tA e
+
tAsJ
.F)__JJ9
J.:'i1)-3
$
lfriJ
i$
!1ii
gt
$j
v
E
0
.q'j
;d
-o,tC-)
1Irsr\
F,dT.
-./l 6
unJ.rn-
X{arch 31, 1986
*
Mr. Gary Murrai-n
Town of Vail Building
75 S. Frontage Road,
Vai- 1 , Colora-d,o_
Hill Building Addition and Remodel
Dear
It is our intent to construct the above project beginningin late Apri1.
To date plans are under design and will be available forpermit review and application by mid-Apri1.
The owner has requested that we begin some minor demolitioninside the upstairs apartment starting the week of April 1st.
tr{e are requesting your approval to accomplish this demo-lition.
Until the ski area closes, we plan todebris prior to the ski lifts openingafter they have closed in the evening,designated building parking area onlyparking.
Please review this request and adviseacceptable or if further arrangements
Thank you for your consideration and let us know if you
have any questions. Feel free to contact me at 476-7497.
Sincerefv.
DUDDY-,VriLr, cffimucrroN, rNC.4j4. *_
H.I{ . Pierce
Proj ect l,lanager
HWP/sace: I'like If i11is
ia
i**.\.
Department
West
make all removal ofin the morning or
and use thefor our truck
us if this p1a.n is
need to be made.
General Contractors. Engineers .1000 South Frontage Road West, Suite 202 . Vail, Colorado 8.1657 . (303) 476-3082
lKx
j! !11,\ i-.:,1 i! r. :; i I i l '\ l, i '
Ur. cary Murrain
Chief Builcling Official
Vail Building Department
75 south Frontage Road
vail, co 81657
RECORD OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
February 5, 1986
Gary Murrain of vail Building Department and Mike Beyer
of lloward C. Dutzi & Associates, Inc.
,.---Referencei (E|II Buil-ding Addltion )\-\
r spoke with you to request design information. You inforrnecl me that
the 1985 edlition of the UBC is currently being enforced. I asked
about design snorr toad for roofs and you told me it was 8O psf. Alsot
snow load retluctions for duration are not allowed for woodl
structures. Accoraling to yoor the minLmua basic wind speed and
exposure condition is 40 ruph, exposure "C" although a higher tiind
speedt nay be used. The 1985 UBc Table No. 23-F does not list a basic
wincl speed lower than 70 mph. AIso' Figure No. 4 - Basic Winil Speedls
in Miles Per Eour - on page 23-4 of the 1985 UBC has an 80 nph contour
in the vicinity of Vail-, coloraalo. For our ilesign' we have used the
8O rnph basic winil speed. You also inforraeil me that there are no
specific requirements for consideration of drifing for snow loacls and
that the snow loact may be reiluceil when consl-dering seismic loails' but
that you would neecl to review a set of ilrawings to cletermine the
amount of reduction. I toldl you that I woulat design for selsmic using
full snow load.
Date:
Between:
1!jr7\ir\1il)l
"i \ ii
Hill Bullding Addition
February 5, 1986
Page T"bro
We have been informed by the architect tbat the Vail Builallng
Depart*ent has an addendum to the 1985 UBC that is enforceal in your
jurisdiction. If possibl"e, we woulil appreciate receiving a copy for
our use.
Prepared by:
#->5y'"-Mike Beyer y'P. E .
HB:mw
cc: Beardsley AssocLates, Architects
12528
ll () l\'-t R I) (" t) t: 't' z 1
& ASS()CL.l, l'IiS, I'r-C.
aIE UIV fl-tq"
It.zl,b6
s,.
$
2_
I
E|lsl
LE
o
,c\
\J
v-2
F
s
r\
\l\
J
s
o
ot'lv n/}v fl,Nfr
WFn*q e711vDt@ 4ftrwA
ffvl#v ffurfrA> /"r+fwd
ft"& ff>r+* a#oaA
n-h-h\
ftLDb-
i
kl DI
nL w4t23Nca
aAe {Alv WO
>'trWlv #Wa
Wwq W(ry- a1wv4
Vll4frty4
ffi ffi4aV.,fulr**v a+d4WprJ ?lfiA?fH
---ns
fUlA
bo1.
LL TTAPE ilal 06
'\€;-
ftia
HPq'
aiv vAfL ?th/.o
7'+z*
+tAwA
butv21r1^ 4rfwd
++t+wrA?Wn>
(fafryv
Dltu -u-s
HILL 4?+rPzllca Itzl'bb
,,'...
$
_\
(
tr\--z_
ilJ5o
-JJ
s
s
&ss
J
$
&
E
N
o,
\
s\-
sI
&L
-
*
\
\
.\
s
$h
{t
sz.
$
il
n
_\
=s
-JJt
b\r
ration in CC
oor at the
4.xter i or al in order to enclose a deck and
ridqe Street. Va
cant:anche C.
Rick Pylman showed the model and expiained the modificat'i on to the proposal
since it was presented to the PEC on September 23 and denied. Now the Znd and
3rd floors were stepped back although the height was the same as the first
proposal . Peterson mentioned that the height was below that which is allowedin CCI although there was still some impact on sun/shade and street enclosure.
Pylman had a letter from Ron Riley supporting the addjtion. After more
discussion, it was felt that most of the concerns had been answered.
Viele moved and Schultz seconded to the reouest er the staff memo
anuarv l3 on that the 'i cant part ic CI. LE
n and not remonstrate a ta sDecl a rovement district if and when one
ormed.vote was 7-0
Reouest for a conditional use permit to ex and the Potato Patch
Restaurant b nc luol nq condomlnlum u
el I -He a qenera l partners
Kristan Pritz explained the request and stated that with the addjtion, 4 more
parking spaces would have to be provided. Peterson disagreed with the need fora letter of credit to cover the additional parking spaces. Pritz responded bystating that jf the 4 additional parking spaces could be found be restriping
the 1ot, no letter of credit was needed. Donovan suggested setting a deadlinefor restriping. Pritz suggested that the restriping could be shown on a siteplan and the restriping done in the spring. Then if it is decided to build 4
rnore spaces, a letter of credit could be required w'i th the temporarycertifjcate of occupancy. She felt it was logica1 to have a time frame.
none against with Viele a sEa ning from the vote.
est for a densi tv vari ance in order to vert storaqe into an
ovee hous nq unit of souare feet at est Mea rlve adow
ace Co cant: Pol lv Bianton rOOKS
6.
Tom Braun explained the request and reviewed the memo adding that the applicant
must present a written agreement with the Town that this unit would remain an
employee unit and the agreement be recorded with the Eagle county clerk and
Recorder.
Peterson explained that the space was a1 ready jn the building, so no building
was being added. Patten mentioned that this was the type of employee housingfelt to be the most desirable: there was no expansion of the building and it
was integrated within other housing, not segregated.
Pam Hopkins wondered why enclosing a deck was considered a grant of specialprivilege, but that this was not. Braun answered that this was a benefit tothe Town, and Patten responded that thjs was existing space that the communityfelt this type of use should be promoted.
van noved an
l1
Schultz seconded to rove the st per e staff memo
ted Januar e approv
A uest l;r amend the devel o nt pl an of rossroads and for setbac
var ances 0roer to enc lose an exist ck area an add other
ou 00r at cant:uest
Peterson asked to table th is i tem to 2/24.
7.
Donovan moved and Viele
favor of tabl i n
ded to table this to ?24/86.
agai n
The VOIE WAS
KrjstanPritzexpla.inedtherequestemphasiz.ingthatthema.inreasontogo
through the test.i ng "i tn" protective *"iiing ias to. see whene additional
;;;k;;; .l"ra-ui pi"..a-ior'specia'l events sich as the world cup. Ron
phillips, Town Manager, answered questioni.- Piper asked about the cost of the
matting, and phirrips'iesponded ttiat it ioit $tr,ooo for 9100 square feet, but
did not know the cost of plowing ana insiattaiion by the.Town employees' He
said that it would be removed ai soon "r-[frrt" was iny thaw, on or about March
1. It would be open any time for anyone to use and intensive use would be
encouraged for the test.
Donovan wondered if this was the most practical place as far a buS service was
concerned and felt il,at-rii hour bus r"rui." was not enoughduring non-peak
hours. She asked if the same buses wouta Ue used as are-used for the golf
course and stan e"rrvrui,-d'i'r..[ot-or puutic works, replied that the same buses
would be used. Donovan asked how p.opi. *outl set'from the'l ot to Golden Peak'
She felt that people-*ouia not walr. on irr"-p"ih-on." it thawed, but would walk
on the pavement. pniiiipi replied that ihe'bike path could not be used because
it has been torn up and lttat ltre lot wouldn't be used-once-the snow melts'
Donovan replied tnat it was likely that irt. r"lit would hold heat. If the sod
is damaged, it cannot be replaced and. used the same year-and it was important
not to damage tne summer business. Sfr"-siaila that ihe Town must plan a long
range parking faci1ilt. D;;";an felt a first class resort must not resort to
surface Parking.
Phillips replied that th'i s test was a use question-and the Council would
examine the use trrit.r'. -Pi;;; iit"a ii-ttere would be an.analysis of the use'
numbers,etc.andPhil,lipsrepi.iedthat.trrerewouldbeafo]lowupreportonthe
effectiveness of the matting. Donovan-"t["4 if we needed to put specific dates
on the use, and was't;i;-i;"was.impossiute to use specific dates because use
depended upon the weather. Donovan tt"["J in"i ttt"'would vote for the use th1 s
year, but may not for other Years'
8.Are est for a conditional use rni t 1n order to rmi t
rK'r nq us on an rea x 5u'on the
ench of Fo own o Va
Bri ner movej and Hopkins seconded
he vote was -0 rn T avor .
The meeting adjourned at 4:35 Pm'
the for this ski sea5g!-onl
a
Pl anning and Environmental Commissjon
January 13, 1986
l:30 pm Site Visits
3:00 pm public Hear.ing
l. Approval of minutes of meeting of December g, lgg5.
2' Request.for a conditional use permit and for a condominium convers.i onpermit in order to convert the'Fal l Line apartments into time sharecondominiums. Appiicant: Kaiser E. Morcus
3' Request for an exterior alteration in order to add 180 square feet tothe Treetops Plaza building. Appi-icant: pierre iafei,-iia.
4' Request for an exterior alteration in CCI in order to enciose a deckand add a third floor at the Hill Building,311 Bridge ti"".t, Vait Vi.l1age.Applicant; Blanche C. Hill
5' Request for a conditional use pgryit to expand the Potato patch Restaurantby including condominium unit if44. - --
Applicant: Campbell/Hei1man, a general partnership
6' Request for a density variance in order to convert storage into angmployee housing unil of 900 squire ieet at 44 r,lest Meadow Drive.Appl icant: pol ly Broors
To Be 7' A request to amend the development p'l an of crossroads and for setbackTabled varidncei i;;;;;; io enclose an existing deck area and to add otherrutdoor dining at Burger King. Applicant: Snowquesi
8' Request for a conditional use permit in order to permit temporary publicparking^using a protective matiing on un area 200'x 50'on'the upperbench of Ford park. Applicant: io*n oi Vutt
,,, ,!,
(i,4 vL
,,1./l./TO:
FROM:
DATE:
ext alt vail vill
Planning and Environmental Commiss.i on
Community Developnent Department
January 13, 1986
The current submittal represents a revision of the building sensitive tothese concerns.
0\
SUBJECT: A request for exterior alteration of the HilI Building on Lot 1,
81 ock 5c, vai1 vi11age lst FiIing, to enclose exist.i n! 2nd fIoordeck space and to add a third story. Applicant: Blanche c. Hill
I. THE PROPOSAL
The applicant, Blanche c. Hi.|1, is requesting to enclose 433 square feetof deck space on the west side of the second fioor of the Hili Bu.i ldingand to add a third_story bedroom of 972 square feet. The proposed thi;dstory addition is located on the southwesr area of the buiiainE. 0nseptember 23, .l985 the pranning commission heard a similar profiosal.Following the recommendation by the staff, the application was'aenieu lythe Planning commission. The p] anning cornmission decision wassubsequently appealed to the Town couicil. The council supported theposition of the staff and the Planning Commission. Concerns of the staffand the Planning commission revolved iround the creat.i on of a canyoneffect and add.i tjonai sun/shade impact on the One Vajl place plaza.
II.
Purpose: The commercial core I District is.i ntended to provide sites andto maintain the-unique character of the vail v.i 11age commercial area withits mixture of lodges and commercial establishmenii in a freaominantlypedestrian environment. The commercial core I District is .i ntended toinsure adequate 1ight, air, open space and other amen.i ties appropriate tothe permitted types 9f lui1d]ngs and uses. The dist.i ct regurations inaccordance with the VaiI village urban Design Guide piun
"ni Oesignconsiderations prescribe site development standards that are intended toinsure the maintenance and preservation of the t.ightit itusiereoarrangements of buiidings fronting on pedestrian iays-and publicgreenways and to insure continuation of the building scale andarchitectural qualitjes that dist.inguish the Vjllagi.
This proposal is substantially in compliance with the intent of the ccl
d istri ct.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
This proposal relates to the sub-area concept 10A. This sub-area concept
refers to mountain gateway improvements and describes elements such as a
landscape screen, minor p1aza, and a pedestrian loop to !'lall Street. The
area specified for sub-area 10A is on land currentiy under contrci of the
United States Forest Service. The current Forest Service position on
this property is that it will al'l ow no improvements with regard to this
sub-area concept. The Communjty Oevelopment Department would requ:st
that if this sub-area is ever developed, that the owners of the Hill
Building not remonstrate against any special improvement district that
may be formed to complete such improvements.
IV. COMPLiANCE WITH THE URBAN OESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The purpose of the compari son between the proposai and the Considerations
is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall
intent of the Design Considerations.
A. Pedestri an izati on
The third story addition and second story deck
minimal if any 'impact upon pedestrianization.
B. Vehi cul ar Penetration
encl osure wiI I have
c.
No jmpact-
Streetscape Framework
Because the additions are located on the second and third floors, there
will be little impact on the quality of the wa1 king experience with
respect to iandscaping and ground level commercial infill. The quality
of the pedestrian experience will be somewhat impacted by additional
shade in the area of Le Petite Cafe (see Sun/Shade anaiysis) and the
ticket offices and also by some blockage of views of the mountain as one
enters Founders' Plaza from the north.
Street Encl osure
The Considerations state that "an external enclosure is most comfortable
where its walls are approximately l/2-1 as high as the width of the space
enclosed." The Design Guidelines also state that a ratio of i:1, height
to width, creates a ncanyon effect." The height of the addition on the
Hill Buitding will be 30 feet tq !!q eeye-l- C=- The height of One Vail
Place is 28 ieet to the eave IiIilTEETJIE-ilidth varies from 33 to 42
feet. This creates a ratjo that varies fron 2/3:l to l:1.
E.
This consideration was a major concern of the staff in review'i ng theseptember 1985 submittal . In the current submittal the architect hasreacted to these concerns by pulling the thjrd floor addjtjon and balcony
back approximately 4 feet from the corresponding balcony on the secondfloor. By stepping back the third floor living anea, balconies and roof1ine, the architect has greatly mitigated the concerns of the staff. Theoriginal submittal showed a three story vertical plane from the p1aza.
This revised submittal presents a more gentle building mass, with thebuildings stepping away from the plaza area as it r.isis. It.i s ourbelief that the original concept was for the plaza to present a gatewayinto the vi11age. The community Development staff feels that thisdesign, while meeting the object.ive of the property owner, is more inkeeping with the ori ginal concept of this plaza.
Street Edge.
No impact. All additions are above ground level .
Bui idins Heisht
In commerciai cone I, up to 60% of each buiiding may be built to heightof 33 feet or less and no more than 40% of each-building may be higherthan 33 feet, but not higher than 43 feet. The ridge iieight of theproposed addition is 37 feet. This height does meet the 60/40 criteriaas described. The new roof w.i ll be a pitched roof. it wjll reflect the
same pitch and materials of the existing roof forms on the building.
Views and Focal Points.
The proposed addition will siightiy impact views of vail Mountain fromthe Founders' Plaza area. However, this view is not a designated viewcorridor, although we feei it is an important consideration. This viewallows visitors an opportunity to orjent themselves with reqard to vail
Mounta i n .
The vjew from Seibert Circle looking west to Vajl Mountain js adesignated view corridor. The proposed addition does not project .i ntothis view corridor. The addition is most visible from the Miil creekcourt Bui'l ding looking west. There js a substantial addition of bulk andmass projected into this view. However, views of the forest above havebeen maintained.
Servi ce and Del iverv
No impact.
Sun/Shade
The Design consideration states that "all new or expanded buildingsshould not substantially increase the spring and fai I shadow pattern onadjacent properties or on the public right-6f-way." This requestedaddition will increase the shadow pattein in the plaza area, accord.i ng tothe December 21 study diagram. while we do have some concern over lnenegative effects of this shading on activity on the plaza, we dorecognize that the redesign efforts of the architect will result.i nsubstantial ly less impact than the original submittal .
u.
H.
T
ll ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Project Statistics
Allowable GRFA
Existing 2nd floor
Ex i st'i ng 3rd f I oor
Total existing
Stairway deduction
Total existing GRFA
Proposed 3rd floor
addi ti on
Proposed 2nd fl oor
deck encl osure
Total proposed GRFA
Allowable GRFA
Proposed GRFA
Remaining GRFA
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
6,400 sq ft
4,082 sq ft
696 sq ft
4,778 sq ft
372 sq ft
4,451 sq ft
972 sq ft
433 sq ft
5,856 sq ft
6,400 sq ft
5,856 sq ft
544 sq ft
The Commun'i ty Development Department recommends approval . As a 2nd and
3rd story addition, ther. are really only two considerations that are
impacted by the proposal . Although this project still has some impact on
the One vail Place plaza area through the street Enclosure and sun,/Shade
design considerations, we feel that the architect, through this design'
has ittempted to respect the Street Enclosure and Sun/Shade design
considerations and has attempted to mitigate previous concerns of the
staff. h|e feel that by stepping the building mass away from t,he plaza
area, the orig.i na1 contept of the p'l aza as an open gateway into Vai'l
ViIIage has been maintained.
ext alt vail
t .
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
::i::
till.
Community Development
January 13, 1986
A request for exterior
81ock 5C, VaiI Vi1lage
deck space and to add
Department
alteration oflst Filing, to
a third story.
vi I I
Planning and Envi ronmental Commjssion
the Hi I 1 Bui ldi ng on Lot I ,
enclose existing 2nd fIoorApplicant: Blanche C. Hill
I. THE PROPOSAL
The applicant, Blanche C.1<reof deck space on west of AS nd floor of the
Hill,
si de
feet
September 23,__198_5_!he_Planting C!.mrdssion heard,a.rirnilan profrnsal .Following the recommendation by the staff, the app1.i cation was denied bythe Planning commission. The planning commission dec'ision wassubsequently appealed to the Town council. The council supported theposition of the staff and the planning commission. concerns of the staffand the Planning comm'i ssion revolved around the creation of a canyoneffect and additional sun,/shade impact on the One Va.i I place plazl.
e proposed thirdstory addition is located on the southwest area of the buildinq. 0n
The current submittal represents a revjsion of the building sensitive to
ese
COMPLIANCE tliITH THE CCI CODE
Purpose: The commercial core I District is intended to provide sites andto maintain the unique character of the vail Village commerc.ial area w.i thits mixture of lodges and commercial establishmenti .i n a predom.i nantlypedestri an environment. The commercia'l core I Distr.i ct .i s intended to'insure adequate 1ight, air, open space dnd other amen.i ties appropr.iate tothe permitted types of bujl{ings and uses. The district reguiations jn
accordance with the vail village urban Des.i gn Guide plan ani Designconsiderations prescribe site deveiopment standards that are intended toinsure the maintenance and preservation of the tightiy ciusteredarrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways-and publicgreenways and to insure continuation of the building scale andarchitectural qualities that distinguish the V.i Ilage.
Th'i s proposal is substantially in compliance with the intent of the ccldi stni ct.
III
IV.
COMPLIANCE I4IITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAiL VILLAGE
This proposa'l relates to the sub-area concept 1Q4_. This sub-area c.oncspl
refers to mountain gateway irnrrrovements and descr,f!qC_qlg[gn.!9"--aqglt---a5 a
l andscapq edes The
area sDecr r'lified currentiy under control of the
United States Forest Service. The current Forest Service position on
this property is that it will allow no improvements with regard to this
sub-area concept. The Community Development Oepartment would request
that if this sub-area is ever deveioped, that the owners of the Hill
Building not remonstrate against any special improvement d'i strict that
may be formed to complete such improvements.
COMPLIANCE l,'ITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The purpose of the comparjson between the proposal and the Cons'iderations
'i s to show how the new des'i gn strengthens or detracts from the overall
intent of the Desion Considerations.
A. Pedestri ani zati on
The third story addition and second story deck enclosure wilI have
rn'i nimal if any impact upon pedestrianization.
B. Vehicular Penetration
No impact.
Streetscape Framework
Because the additions are located on the second and third floors, there
will be little impact on the quality of the wa'l king experience with
respect to landscaping and ground level commerc'ial infill. The quality
of the pedestrian experience will be somewhat impacted by additional
shade in the area of Le Petite Cafe (see Sun/Shade analysis) and the
ticket offices and also by some blockage of views of the mountain as one
enters Founders' Plaza from the north.
Street Enclosure
The Considerations state that "an external enclosure is most comfortable
where.i ts walls are approximatelf l/2-1 as high as the width of the space
enc'l osed." The Design Guidelines also state that a ratio of 1:l' he'i ght
to width, creates a ncanyon effect." The height of the addition on the
Hill Building will be 30 feet to the eave iine. The height of One Vail
Place is 28 feet to the eave ljfilTFE-E-jiI-ilidth varies from 33 to 42
feet. This creates a ratio that varies fran 2/3:l to l:.l.
n
I
I
\
\
{t'\
This consideration was a major concern of the staff in reviewing the
September 1985 submittal . In the cur!"ent submittai the architect has
reacted to these concerns by pulling the third f'l oor addition and balcony
back approximately 4 feet from the corresponding balcony on the secondfloor. By stepping back the thjrd floor living area, balconies and roof1ine, the arch'i tect has greatly mitigated the concerns of the staff. Theorigina1 submjttal showed a three story vertical plane from the plaza.
This revised submittal presents a more gentle buiiding mass, with the
build'i ngs stepping away from the plaza area as it rises. it is ourbelief that the original concept was for the plaza to present a gatewayjnto the Vi11age. The Communjty Development staff feels that this
design, wh'i 1e meeting the objective of the property owner. is more in
keepi ng with the ori g'i na1 concept of thi s pl aza.
Street Edge.
No impact. Al 1 additions are above ground level .
BuiIdins Heisht
In Commercial Core I, up to 60% of each building may be built to heightof 33 feet or less and no more than 40% of each bujld.i ng may be higher"than 33 feet, but not higher than 43 feet. The ridge hejght of the
proposed addjtjon is 37 feet. This height does meet the 60/40 criterja
as descri bed. The new roof will be a pitched roof. It wili reflect the
same pitch and materials of the ex.i st.i ng roof forms on the building.
Views and Focal Points.
The proposed addition will slightly impact views of vail Mountain fromthe Founders' Plaza area. However, this v'iew is not a designated viewcorridor, although we feel it is an important consideration. This viewaliows visitors an opportunity to orient themselves with regard to vail
Mounta in.
The view from Sejbert Cjrcle'l ook.i ng west to Vail Mountain js a
designated view corridor. The proposed addition does not project intothis view corridor. The addition is most visib'i e from the Mill creekCourt Building iooking west. There is a substantial additjon of bulk and
mass projected into this view. However, views of the forest above have
been maintained.
H. Service and Del iverv
No inpact.
I
/ L Sun/Shadet_*tt ,1" Design considerat'i on states that "alI new or expanded bui1dingsshould not substantiaily jncrease the spring and fail shadow pattirn onadjacent properties or on the public right-of-way." This requestedaddition will jncrease the shadow pattein in the plaza area, accord.i ng tothe December 21 study diagram. hJhile we do have some concern over thenegative effects of this shading on activ.i ty on the p1aza, we dorecognize that the redesign efforts of the architect will result.i nsubstantial ly less .impact than the orig.i nal submittal .
E.
V.ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Project Stati stics
Al lowable GRFA
Exi st'i ng Znd f I oor
Existjng 3rd fIoor
Tota'l exi sti ng
Stairway deduction
Total existing GRFA
Proposed 3rd floor
addi t'i on
Proposed Znd floor
deck encl osure
Total proposed GRFA
Al lowable GRFA
Proposed GRFA
Remaining GRFA
6,400 sq ft
4,082 sq ft
696 sq ft
4,778 sq ft
372 sq ft
4,45.l sq ft
972 sq ft
433 sq ft
5,856 sq ft
6,400 sq ft
5,856 sq ft
544 sq ft
VI STAFF RECOMMENDATION
.
l
The Community Development-./epartment recommends approval. As a 2nd and
3rd story addition, therd are really only two considerations that are
impacted by the proposal . Although this project still has some impact on
the One VaiI Piace plaza area through the Street Enclosure and Sun/Shade
des.i gn considerations, we feel that the architect, through this design,
has ittempted to respect the Street Enclosure and Sun/Shade design
considerations and has attempted to mitigate previous concerns of the
staff. llle feel that by siepping,the building mass away from the plaza
area, the originaT ioncept of the plaza as an open gateway into Vail
V i 1 l age haS- been ma i nta ined.
-- i:.r.A1{r,t'f 1'a-r^^12^5V<f'- o1"'^6\.
trD d^/ c^ y'.ck c>/ s)b c'r'uz-'W -A.
I
Alice Cartwright ment'i oned again
from the clubhouse to Golden peak
Diana mentioned agajn her concern
the creek and traffjc congestion.
parking away from the base of the
van moved and Schul seconded to d the request based on the f t that itd not meet cri te r use permit. The vote was 5 .i n avor 0nlaand l nst.
6.Prel imina review of exterior al terati ons concern.i nq:
Treetops, Ljonshead
H'il l Bui l di ng, Vi l l age
Hong Kong Cafe, Viilage
Pl aza Lodge, Vi I l age
Viele and Donovan sec nded to make Tre s and the HiII Bui]din 60 dastudandthe Plaza e and the Hon Kon e9 slu e votewas 6-0 in
The meeting adjourned at 4:50 pm.
FaJ/
c
o.
that really all VA needed to do was get a bus
and that would help out greatly with park.ing.
about the steepness of the road's drop off to
She feit that empioyees need to accept
mountai n.
negat'ive impact upon the park. She stated that the curve worked for the number
of vehicles in the summer seasonal use that was reouired for the amphitheatre.
She also felt that the drop-off from the road down to the creek was very
dangerous for drivers. She emphasized that the traffic from the parking 1ot
would create congestion on the Frontage Road. She stated concern about
pedestrians walking from Manor VaiI to the lot in the dark. She summed up her
comments by stating that she felt that to approve the request would be a grant
of special priviIege.
Sid Schultz: Sid asked about the number of parking spaces VA owned in
Lionshead. Macy stated that there were 120 spaces in the North Day lot and that
this proposal was merely making up for the loss of employee parking due to the
Golden Peak conversion. Shultz stated that he felt that VA should be
responsible for providing parking like other employers/businesses, and should
look at long term solutions. He stated that the proposal was a short term band
aid solution.
Pam Hopkins: Pam asked at what level the Town Council had discussed thisproject. Staff responded that as iand owners, the CounciI had given their
approval to allow the application to proceed through the conditjonal use process
at Planning Commission. She suggested that perhaps the $20,000 for the road
could instead pay for a bus driver to handle the route from the golf clubhouse
'l ot to the mountain. She asked Joe Macy why the golf c1 ubhouse lot was not
used. Joe stated that it was inconvenient for the empioyees. She was also
concerned with the possibility of drjvers sliding into Gore Creek, mud during
nice winter weather, and other traffic concerns. She pointed out that if by
chance this js not a b'ig snow year, the lot will become very muddy.
Duane Piper: Duane asked Joe Macy when VA would like to begin work on the lot.
Macy stated that construction would take approximately 10 days and that they
would like to beg'i n as soon as possible. VA hoped, if the request was approved,
that they could use the lot by Chri stmas, 1985. Duane asked if there was
light'i ng on the Manor Vail bridge. Staff responded that there was no lighting.It was stated that if the road was constructed, construction may be possjble for
the amphitheatre throughout the w'i nter. This construction would involve
bringing in fill for the amphitheatre. Duane asked if the Manor VaiI parking
lease would cont'i nue if this proposal was approved. Joe responded that they did
have a lease agreement with Manor VaiI for 30 spaces and that the 30 spaces are
a1 located per department according to numbers in each department. Duane felt
that the parking task force recommendatjons and the Vaii Assocjates'decision to
ailow parking at Golden Peak were good decisions, but that to turn around and
request to use public property to make up that need was questionable. He
questioned the actual benefits to the Town. He felt that the loss of the curve
'i n the road was a problem, however he felt that the revegetation plan was a
definite p1us. Duane suggested that perhaps the land for parking could be
leased from the Town and the money would then be used to develop the lower bench
according to the master p1an. He also felt that more control at the entry wouid
help the proposal and that perhaps the lot should only be used for VA peopie to
make it easjer to distinguish employees from day skiers. Macy responded that
the proposed lot realiy would be a benefit to the entire community and not iust
Vajl Associates, as it would help out with our short term parking needs. Duane
stated that it is probable that we were looking for short term solutions through
out .l989 blorld Championships. Joe again expressed VA's concern over iong term
parking solutions. Duane also agreed that parking was very important but that
we need to take great care in the solutions that we come up with.
o
?ffwqvflA,
44+ttNq aoptb
lnmY+Fl ftWi=Tftu,ll" )7a',
Il.4.b5
atf
f.lr,{.1<
t
o
\
:l
,t,_:,:l
5s
$$
r\
3
J
s
oilE nrtL 3,N6
?DhW,\
ELDa.
I
{ffr\lylq ffafa* 4+\wA
D
LL F44I"9NCZ ila1 s6
ail€ {av fi}a6
Atrwtr4 qwt
7vW- fu^wd
r+$A
D*q
I f' t-'. v)od
"l^AruLLW;Pv
---n-$
4,lE \/All- fu&
'\€r:
ft,*++
H^eq.
W-qNq a,Jtt*ub1 +rapn
'flvS+ov Wf* ++w6
?wav a#pav4
nhh
nil.L \f4PaNlE
ail:v VAIL ffir?
burtpYYl^ *trw')
1Wm+> +taw,a
futr+
wa4-
mft4
l1e7
qo#,
?T1
(fe7as;
DIAt -rs
ll4ybb
*lnwrl
H[Lt ?E+IPENCT
R.onaldH.XQ;t y
January 6, 19B6
Town
Town
Vail Planning ConurissionVail Offices
of
of
fl'" w
Sirs:
r have reviewed the plans for the Hill Buirding porch enclosureandaddition'Ifininothingorsuuiianceobjectionab1eabout
the project
When the impact of a project on the public interest is a deninimus, the rights of the property iwner nust prevall. There_fore, as a neighbor, I encourage you to support the proposal .
Respectfully,
Ronald H. Riley
Los Anigos
Baxter t s
The Slope
Childrents Corner (real estate)
cc: Chrj.sty Hill
RHR: cns
228 Bndge Streer, Qail, 9olorado 8t6s7 , 3oSt4764toeloolo
$
-JT\
F
N
o,(_
s\.-
--l
*s
0
t\
\l
.{-
nJ5c
IJ
$I
&
s_
+
\
\
-\
s
$k
\
sz-
$
il
AJ
=s
IJ
HL
sL
et
^V'-i*v
frje--
N'.-\\511
W
a
=
--'--
1f14, fturnW? r2t 'Wffi66*
< i\r_i
^. -q
..
.(/)ft a u ------->
\)
--!
o
attt, -/rtv I
7if--
ffianor4
ElETtk4 f,Ii-Uwltrffi?ukx;5''#&,N,}/I \tu''- ' -
I'J\t
4,tilr- ey 1 fr,
A17'= I
=-''-
o{v Jrlv d'va.
hwTtdtlw
7441ril4 -#Ks,tiww(t^ ttt )J trv | . '. tA tF) t
tt- ^-A ,rt I t/lvtav!
tV'
-:-tcz t I l
rynaN4 noflltW /rt\W
{d. 11 xx,.t 'r.4 i,E- / 4eq /71
f,
\
L
\s
\
JN
-]-2-o\-.+
=s
s
N
$NNJ
=.tl
w
EX:
l[J-
+,ob
\
NI':f'
K;s
\rk
$l
\
<,
s
z.
\
s
$
/\
$
-\s
i+
\
sx\I
\,v
/4\
i
i
I+rl-\t
lqJl
I
I
1l\:\-. \t\
\L
/
that sun/shade shatl be considered and shatl inttuence themassing of the building. Staff is requesting that the massing otthe buitding shouLd be stepped back to avoid the Sun,/Shadeimpacts as nuch as possible. Staft is certainly not trying todeny the owner's right to develop the property. staff is aLsotrying to avoid any type ot impacts on the Seibert Circl-e areadue to the ner"r addition.
Donovan stated that she was concerned about the canyon eftectglven the new proposal. Hohrever, she did feel that this hras abetter proposal- than the prevj,ous proposal, but that thls proposalneeded some improvement. Sid Schul.tz had no real probLem withmost ot the addition. He did feeL that the deck and balcony onthe west side of the building emphasized the mass of the building.The additional- shade did not create a concern for him. DuanePiper asked if there were any comments from the audience.Michael Staughtonr property manager for the Ore House anct Baxterrsfelt that the GuideLines were deslgned to guide. His opinion wasthat a proposal f ei-t into a grey area with respect to the Guide-.Lines that the PLanning commission shourd side with -the o$rner ' sright to deve ]op property
Jay told the board that the pro3ect was not maxed out at al,r incommercial as there is no restriction in Commercia 1 Core I. Hestated that he cour.d turn the project into a commerciar. buildingand then add the GRFA on top ot that square tootage. Jay feltthat he wou-td geE the same algument from the statt it he were totry to shift his proposal over to the east side of the build_ing.He stated that the staff would be concerned from the shade onthis side of the building and impacts on Seibert Circle. Jayadded that it seemed that .staff was treating the importance otviews differently between the previous proposal and the presentproposal- Kristan pritz responded by sayrng that the views \.re retreated basica-Lly the same in the o.Ld proposa I as in the newproposal. fn both sltuatlonsr the vrews vrere impactedr howeverrthey were not approved view corridors. she a.lso stated that theshade was increased by on]-y '/ square feet i.n the previous proposar.
Donovan stated that she felt that the casino and A&D Buirdings onBridge street were too c]ose. she dld not want to see this typeof thing happen again as far as street encfosure wa6 concerned.alay stated that glven the HirL proposalsr the Founders' pJazaadjacent to the vait Associates' ticket area diminished thei.mpact ot the street encr-osure. He pointed out that on Bridgestreet you did not get the benefit of any large open prazas iog].ve relief to the high buildings. Jlm Viele moveo Eo approvethe request !rhlch was seconded by S
reoues ted e motron Lncl-ude a statement that the applicanti./ould not remonstrate against a speciaL improvement distrj-ct.
,f im vieLe amended his motion to include this statement. The votewas 2 j.n favor, 2 asarnsc.A tie vote is a vote of deniat.
4.A request to amend Sectlon 16-A4 ot the Munj-cj-paI Code
the third story addition. Jay Peterson responded by saying that
the owner did not want to cut into the vaulted ceiling directly
beLow the addition. For this r€dsorlr the new addltion is approx-
imately five feet greater than the adjacent northeast portion of
the buitding. He aLso stated that they cou.ld not step back the
bedroom from the west facade as it would significantly decrease
the bedroom spa ce.
Piper mentioned that the impacts to the shade condj-tions did not
seem to be aLl, that significant. He also was sensitive to the
property ovtner's development rights. He stated that his concern
was tha t the mass seems to be the greatest prob.l-em and has quite
an impact upon the pedestrian area. Jay responcled by saying that
the existing roofl-ines in his opinion l-ooked very peculiar and
that the mass ot the building in the new proposal tends to
organize the roof lines ln a much better manner visuaLly.
Peter Patten clarltied the statt's posLtLon on thrs proposal by
stating that the staff certaln]y apprecj.ated the devel-opment
rights ot the owner. He emphasized that the Urban Deslgn Guide
PLan rnra s not a vehicle for denying owners their right to develop
their property. He sald that the GREA is being a-tmost maxed out
in that onfy 377 square feet of GRFA would remain on the property
atter the proposal was buitt. Certainly additional commerciaJ.
space is possibler howeverr zoning standards would aLso have to
be maintained. He claritied that statt is not picklng out only
two items from the list ot urban Design considerations. In tact,
only severa-l ot the considertions happen to apply to this prop-osal
as it is on the third story of a building. Many of the urban
Design Considerations address street level additions. Do to thls
factr many of the urban Design considerations do not apply to this
particular propo6al-. He reiterated that street enclosure and
sun,/shade vere the two Design Considerations most impacted by
this proposa 1.
With respect to street enclosurer Patten expla j,ned that this
Considerati-on real]y had to be looked at in a three-dimensiona l
r"ray. The probLem is that the exlsting one 'Vail PLace has a 3,/4
to l ratio to the streeE. In other wordsr a canyon effect 1s
already bei.ng imposed on the street by One vaiL Place. The Hill
Building will onJ.y increase this canyon effect with thj-s addition.
The Consideration states that "An external encl-osure is most
comfortabfe where its waLls are approxima t.e fy ha.Lf as high as the
width ot the space enclosed. " The height ot the addition on the
Hi. 11 Building will be 3{n feet to the eave line. The height of
one Vait Place is 2a feet to the eve lrne. The pl-aza wldth
varies from 33 to 42 feet. This creates a ratio that varies trom
2/3: I to I:I. Patten sald that the previous proposaf focussed
the mass of the buLlding 1n a sma.Ller area. He stated that the
canyon ettect dld not extend afong the bui-tding to such a degree
as in the ner^r Proposal.
Patten said that the Sun,/Shade Considerations specificaJ-Iy states
PLanning and Environmenta-l Commission
September 231 I985
PRESEN?
Diana Donovan
Duane P1per
si d schut- tzJim Viele
ABSENT
Eric Afteldt
Tom Bri.ner
Pam Hopkins
STAF'F PRESENT
Peter Pa tten
Tom BraunKristan Pri tz
Ri ck Py.Lman
l. Approval ot minutes ot September 9 1985. Atne ej'The minutes were approved 4-0.
motion to approveby Diana Donovan.
2-ointment ot member to Dqq tor October, November, December.
Diana Donovan nominated Tom Briner to be the new DesignBoard member for Octoberr November and December. Duanevol-unteered to be the alternate member. This was approveq
Revlew
Pipe r
4-t0.
3. A request for exterior arteration in order Eo add a thlrdstor
Rick Pyrnan gave the staff presentati-on for the Hirr, Buirdingaddition. The applicantr Bl,anche C. HiJlr is requesting t;encl0se 43b square feet ot deck space on the hrest slde ot thesecond tLoor of the Hilr Buirding and to add a third storyaddi-tion ot L'142 square feet. The proposed thr_rd story addltionis l-ocated at the southwest area ot tne building. The staft'sprimary concerns were lrith the proposal,s impact on Sun,/Shade andstreet Enclosure. staff recommended deniii. ot the proposar.slaff felt that the project e/as not in compliance with the vaijviJ-Lage Design considerations by its effect upon street EncJ.osureand by the additional shading due to the bu_tk and mass ot thedesign. In the staf f 's opinionl the design made very littleattempt to respect the streer Encl-osure Design considerations orto maintai.n the originar design of the plaza area. The additi.onot a two-story eLementr totalling three storles golng straight upfrom th9 property Iine at the Iocation ot the existing deci<compromi ses the open feerlng ot the southern edge ot thls prazawhich is the major gateh/ay to VaiI Village
?
Jay Petersonr representat]'ve ot the applicant, made a presentation
as to why the proposal was a positive improvement to the vi]Iage.
.lay Peterson stated that the halt to one ratio for Street Enclosure
stated in the Urban Design Considerations was very dif f icu-Lt to
achieve. He stated that the canyon area whrch has a ratio of.87
to f real-ly is only about 5 feet in length. He felt that this
area really dld not have a great impact on the overall pIaza. He
stated that a pedestrian focus would be maintained by the awning
on the west side ot the Hi.|-l Buildr-ng facade. He did not feel
that the proposa I created a solid $raII area and also that the
upper decks would have f losrer boxes and would add to the pedestrian
experience on the west si.de of the building-
With respect to the Sun,/Shade consideration, Jay Pe terson felt
that the Sun,/Shaale issue reaLfy only had to be addressed at L22Ul4
noon. Jay Peterson had.submitted a Sun,/Shade analysis that began
at nine and went on into the afternoon. Jay agreed that shade
was substantially increased during the hours ot 9 and L0 in t}]"
morning. However, in the afternoon he pointed out that no
increase ot shade occurred. He added that staft's suggestion to
shift the addition over to the east side of the building would be
very ditf lcul-t due to structurai prob-Iems, possfbie vlew encroach-
ments on the vie\r corridor, and a slmilar sun,/shade problem. Jay
stated that Vaif Assoc:-ates hacl no problem with the deck overnang-
ing onto Vait Associates' property. According to Jayr Larry
Lich-titer said that the additional shade may aftect snow removal-
and skiers during a portion of the morningr but in generalr he
hacl no major problems wrth the proposal.
Jay pointed out that in his opinion the existing approved pfan
blocked vle\,ts up to the sht mountaln much more than the nel/
proposal. He emphasized that the new plan was trying to respect
the vlew corri.dor. He gave examples of many bu11drn95 in Town
which he fe.Lt ha cl significant impacts on the street enclosure.
The A & D Builcling and Wal.l Street were mentioned as examples of
encJ.osures similar to the type of street enclosure that would be
proposed s/i th the HiJl Building exterlor alteration. He emphasized
that Mrs. HiIl uants to simply maintain a viable residence in
Commercial Core I. She is not asklng for a maximum height or a
maxlmum GRFA.
Jim Viele found it hard to believe that the sun was in the area
of the plaza on December 2l-st at 9:00 am. It seemed to viele
that the sun r.rouLd probably be behind the mountain at this time
on December 2lstr the longest day of the year. Jay responded
that, yesr this area is catching sun on December 2l-st. Viele
stated that there were good arguments on both the applicant's
as well as statt's side ot the issue. He tett strongly that the
applicant had an inherent right to deve.lop the property. He
stated that he was inc-lined to vote for approva I ot the project-
Duane Pi.per questioned why the northeast portion ot the building
vhich hras at three storles etas not at exactly the same heLght as
E.
F.
thj.s plaza area.
Street Edge. No irnpactground Ievel .
BuiJding Height. In Connnercial Core T, up to 6Og ofeach building may be built to a height of 33 feet orIess and no more than 4Ot of each building may be higherthan 33 feet but not higher than 43 feet. fhe ridgeheight of the proposed addition is 37 feet. Thisheight does meet the 60/40 criteria as described. Thenew roof will be a pitched roof. It will reflect the
same pitch and material.s of the existing roof forms.
VieYs. -and Focal Points. The proposed addition willslrgntly rmpac t vi ews of Vail Mountain from the Founder s,Plaza area. However, this view is not a designatedview corridor, although we feel it is an imptrtantconsideration. Thi s view allows visitors an oppor tunityto orient themsel.ves with regard to Vail Mountain.
The view from Seibert Circle looking southwest to VaitMountain is a designated vjew corridor. The proposedaddition does not project into this view corridor. Theaddition is most visible from the Mill Creek CourtBuilding looking west. Tlrere is a substantial additionof bulk and mass projected into this view. However,views of the for est above have been maintained.
A1 I additions are above
H.
I.
No impact.
Sun/Shade. The Design Consideration states that ,'all
new or expanded. buildings should not substantiallyincrease.the spring and fall shadow pattern on adjacentpr oper t i es or on the publ ic r ight-of-way. " Thi srequested addition will increase the shadohr pattern byapproxima tely 350 squar e feet according to the December21 study diagram. The l4arch/September diagram indicatesthat the size of the shadow would nearly double,sf.rg{inS a large amount of the plaza area. This shadingwill have a considerable negative effect on the peopllgathered to purchase lift tickets and also on theoutdoor dining area of Le petite Cafe. We feel thatthis addition does substantially increase the shadowpatterns in this plaza and does not meet the intent ofthese design considerations.
t
v.ZONI NG CONS IDERATT CITS
koject Statistics
Allowable GRFA,6,400 sq ft
Existing 2nd floor,Existing 3rd floor,
Total '
Stairway deduction,
Total existing GRFA
Proposed 3rd floor
addi tion
Proposed 2nd story
deck enc losur e
Total proposed GRFA
Allowable GRFA
Proposed GRFA
Remaining GRFA
4,O82 sq ft
696 sq ft
A,-% sq-Tt-
372 sq ft
4,457 sq ft
1,742 sq ft
430 sq ft
6,023 sq ft
6,400 sq ft
6,023 sq ft
377 sq ft
VT. STAFF RECOMMENDATIChI
The community Development Depar tment r ecommends denial.
This project would have significant impacts on the Gre Vail
place ptiza area. This proposal is not in compliance wittr
the Vaif Village Design Considerati.ons by its effect upon
street enclosure and by the additional shading due to the
bulk and mass of the deiign. In the staff's opinion' this
design makes very littl.e attempt to respect -the street
enclosure design cbnsider ations or to maintain the or iginal
design of the plaza area. The addition of a two-story
element, totaling 3 stories going straight -up from ,theproper ty line at the location of the existing decl( comPromlses
ttre-op"t feeling of the southern edge of this plaza which is
a major gateway to Vail Village.
IV. qOMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL
The purpose of the compar ison between the proposal andconsiderations is to shord how the new design sir eng thens ordetracts from the overall intent of the besign Considera_tions.
A.
B.
The third storyminimal if any
No impact.
c.streetscape Framework. Because the additions arelocated ffid third floors, there wilr be
Pedestrianization.
enclosure wrll havetriani.zation.
Vehicle penetration.
addition and deckimpact upon pedes-
1it_tle impact on the quality of the walking experience
Yi!h respect to landsciping and ground level commercialinfi.l I . TLre quality ot tf,e peddstr ian exper ience wil Ibe impacted by additional shade in th; area of LePe_t_i.te Caf e (see Sun/Shade ana 1ysi. s) and the ticketoffices and a.lso by some bloc*age of views of themountain as one enters Founder s' plaza fr om the north.
The Considerations state that ,'anexteLnal enclosur e is most comfor table where its wallsare -approx.imately l/Z as high as the width of the spaceenclosed." The Design Cu-iaelines also state that arat_io of l:1, height to width, creates a ,,canyoneffect." The height of the addition on the HiIlBuilding will be 30 feet to the eqve line. The heightof frre Vail pface is 28 fffi line. Thepl aza width varies from 33 to 42 feet. This creates aratio that varies fiom 2/3:l to l:1.
The Guidelines state that in some instances the ,,canyoneffect" is acceptable such as a short connectinglinkage between larg er open "p-""". The area betweenthe Hill and the ere vair ptaie buirdings adj."".rt tothe proposed addition is not an area wher e we feel the"canyon effec t" is acceptable. Ilbst of this area isnot a waLkway, but a very active public plaza. Theticket window area may be the *osi highry -utirizea
plaza in VaiI Village dur:ing the winter season. Inaddition to the ticket office area, ther e is also angutfogr dining deck for Le petite Cafe. It is ourbelief that this addition would create a very negativeimpact upon this plaza. The Ore Vail place buitdinoopens to a wider plaza area as it nears the mountain aidoes the current design of the second story of the HiltBuilding. It is the staff,s position that a three_story facade on this area of tne Hift building willseverely detract from the or: iginal design go5ls of
Str eet Enc losur e.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
t
Pl anning
Communi ty
September
A r eques t
on Lot 1,existing
AppI icant
and Environmental Cornmi ssion
Development
23, r985
for exterior alteration of the Hill Building
Block 5C, Vail village lst Filing to enclose
second floor deck space and add a third story.
: Blanche C . Hi 11
THE PROPOSAL
The applicant, Blanche C. Hi11, is requesting to enclose 430
squar e feet of deck space on the west side of the second
floor of the Hill Building and to add a third story bedroom
of I,142 square feet. fha proposed third story addition is
located at the southwest area of the building.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CCI ZOtr{E
IIT.
Purpose: The Commercial Core I District is intended to
provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the
Vail Village commercial area with its mixture of lodges and
commercial. establishments in a predominantly pedestrlan
environment. Ttr e Commercial Core I District is intended to
insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities
appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses'
ttE aistrict regulatlons in accordance with the VaiI Village
Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe
site development standards that are intended to insure the
maintenanee and preservation of the tightly clustered
arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and
public greenlrrays and to insure costinuation of the building
lcale ind architectural qualities that distinguish the
Vi l lag e.
This proposal is substantially in complj.ance hlith the intent
of the zoning for CCI district.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
This proposal relates to the sub-area concept 10A. This
sub-ar ea concept refers to mountain gateway improvements and
descr ibes elements such as a landscape scr een. minor plaza,
and a pedest::ian loop to Wall Street. fhe area specified
for Sub-ar ea lOA is on land currently under control of the
united states For est service. The current Forest service
position on this property is that it will allow no improve-
ments with regard to this sub-ar ea concept. The Corununity
Development Department would request that if this sub-ar ea
is ever developed, that the owners of the Hill Building not
r emonstr ate ag ainst any special improvement distr ict that
may be formed to complete such improvement s '
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Town Counc i L
Community Development
October f5, 1985
AppeaI ot a Planning Comml ssion decis j.on
a request for exterior alteration of the
Lot 1, Block 5Cr Vail Vitlage lst Filing.
AppJ.icant: BLanche C. Hill
ot denlal for
Hill Building,
I.THE REQUEST
As outlined in the attached memorandun to the Planning
Commission dated September 23, 1985, thi-s request was to
enclose 430 square feet of deck space on the west side of
the second story of the HiIl euilding and to add-a third
story bedroom l tL42 square feet. The proposed third story
addition is located at the southwest area of the building'
The staff recommendation for this request ltas for deniaf'
It r.tas felt that this project L/ould have significant negative
impacts on the One Vail Place plaza area. Staff feeLs that
this proposal is not in compliance with the Vail Village
Oesign Considerations regarding street enc-Iosure and the
effect of the additiona] snading due to the buLk and mass of
this design.
rI ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMI\'IISSION
A Planning Commission motion for approvaL resulted in a 2-2
vote. A tie vote is a vote ot denial. Those PJanning
commission members voting against the motion indicated
concern over bulk and mass and the impact to the pedestrian
areas. These Planning Commission members felt that further
design work coul-d alteviate these concern6.
A},IENDED ADDENDUM FOR
APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR MODIFICATION
I. Conformance with the purposes of the CCI District.
As stated in Section ]-9.24.010, the Commercial Core I
District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unigue
character of the Vail Village commercial area with its mixture of
lodges, residential dwerlings and commercial establishments in a
predominately pedestrian environment.
The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure
adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate
to the permitted types of buirdings and uses. The District
Regulations ' in accordance with the vail village urban Design
Guide Plan and Design considerations. prescribe site development
standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and
preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings
fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure
conti-nuation of the building scale and architectural quality that
distinguish the Village.
The proposed alteration centers around. a minor ad.dition
to the existing building:
A. An addition of a third bedroom in the approximate
amount of 1,142 square feet. The addition of the third bedroom
will enhance the experience offered to residents residing in the
Hill Building.
B. A partial encrosure of an exi-sting deck area in the
approximate amount of 430 square feet which wirl help solve an
existing snow buil-d-up problem, not only for the second-floor
residents in the Hill auilding, but also for the commercial space
on the ground l_eve1 .
Since the proposed alterations are extensions and
enhancements of existing uses, the urban Design Guide plan wil_l
not be changed in any respect, but made more effective.
II. Vail Village Urban Design Considerations As They App1y toProposed Alterations.
A. Pedestrianization. The proposed alteration which
encloses a portion of the deck on the second floor of the Hill
Building will further facilitate and enhance pedestrianizati.on
between the Hill Building and one vail place by red.ucing the
amount of drifting snow in the pedestrian way. The proposed
addition of a third bedroom wil_l_ have no effect on the
pedestrianization of ccl .
B. Vehicle Penetra.!!e4. The proposed alterations
provide for no additionar points of vehicle penetration, nor will
the addition create more vehicular trips into CCI .
C. Streetscape Framework. The proposed new additions
will have littre effect on the streetscape framework, except in a
positive sense in that snow buiLd-up in a pedestrian way will_ be
lessened by the semi-encrosure on the west side of the building.
The additions will provide an enhancement to the variety of open
and enclosed spaces, which wilr create a strong framework for
pedestrian walks, as well as, visual interest and activity.
D. Street Enclosure. From Design Considerations,
Section D, Street Encl_osure, we quote the folJ_owing:
and
and
and
and
and
and
"Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms, whosewalls are formed by the buildings. The shapeand feel of these rooms are created by thevariety of heights and massing (threedimentional variations) which qive much ofthe visual interest and pedestiian scaleunique to VaiL."
"Whil-e building facade heights should not beuniform from building to building, theyshould provide a comfortable enclosure forthe street. "
"An external enclosure is more comfortablewhere its walls are approximately one-half ashigh as the width of the space enclosed."
"If the ratio falls to one-quarter or less,the space seems unenclosed. "
"If the height is
comes to resemble
greater than the width,a canyon. "
ir
"In actual application, facades are seldomuniform in height on both sides of thestreet, nor is this desired. Thus, somelatitude is appropriate in the application ofthis L - to - 1 ratio. Usinq thl averaqefa91$e height of both sides wfur senE;fiystill be a guide to the rcomfortablenessr ofthe enclosure beinq created."
"In some instances, the tcanyonr effect isacceptable and even desirable - for example,as a short connecting linkage between laigerspaces - to give variety to the walkinqexperience. For sun,/shlde reasons, it isoften advantageous to orient any longersegments j-n a North-South direction. Longcanyon streets in an East-West directionshould generally be discourased.,r
and
"When exceptions to the general heightcriteria occur, special design considerati_onshould be given to creating a well-definedground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcomethe canyon effect."
and
"Canopies, awnings, arcade and buildingextensions can al-L create a pedestrian focusand divert attention from upper buildinoheights and 'canyont effectli, -
The proposed. new addition, the existing HiII Building, and One
vail Place witl define and create the street enclosure between
one vail Place and the Hil-l- Building. The Hill- Building will be
30 feet at the eave line, One Vail_ place is 28 feet at the eave
1ine, while the plaza area is 43t in width, giving an approximate
ratio of 2/3 to 1.
The guidelines state generally LhaL I/2 to I is a
comfortable enclosure, r/4 to I being too unenclosed and greater
than l to 1a space starts to resemble a canyon.
' fn the present application we are at a ratio of 2/3 Lo
1' which farls within the general parameters of a comfortabre
enclosure
In addition, while this application creates an
enclosure far from the canyon effect, the guidelines state that:
"...the 'canyonr effect is acceptable and evendesirable - for example, as a short connectinglinkage between larger spaces - to give varietyto the walking experience. For sun,/shade reasonsfit is often advantageous to orient any 1ongersegments in a North-South direction..."
rn the present case the walkway wi1 r guide the pedestrians from
Founder's Plaza to vail Mountain, a short linkage between J-arger
spaces running in a North-South direction.
In addition, canopies, arcades, building extensions and balconies
surrounded by flower boxes all create a pedestriants exphasis
area which diverts attention from upper building heights,
pursuant to the guidelines.
E. Street Edge. The proposed additions have no effect
on street edge, in that all additions are on the second and third
floors of the existing buil-ding. The existing building, along
with the proposed alterations, will provide irregular facade
lines. canopies, building jogs, brick pavers and landscaped areas
(both at street level and by flower boxes on the upper levels),
which give life to the street and visuar interest for pedestrian
travel .
F. euilding Height. The maximum proposed height for
the proposed addition is 35 feet above street 1evel . One Vail
Place is 40 feet in height, the main Lodge building is 56 feet in
height and the new addition proposed for the Lodge, ca11ed the
International Winq, will- be a two and three-story mix, with a
maximum height on the North side of 40 feet. The Zoning Code
Section 18.24.I20 defines the height requirements for CCI , and
all- proposed heights are werl betow the requirements specified in
the Vail Village Urban Design Guide plan and Design
Considerations.
c. Views. The most significant and obvious view
corridors have been designated by the view corridor restriction
ordinance which was adopted some time ago by the Town council.
The view from various poinls over the Hil"l- Building were studied
at length by the Town council and were specifically not included
in such ordinance. The views which were protected by the
ordinance were selected to be preserved due to their
significance, not only from an esthetic st,andpoint, but also as
orientation reference points to hel_p guests determine their
location. The views which we are intruding into were not given
the same significance as other views and, therefore, not
protected by the ordinance.
The view from Siebert Circle between the Hill Building
and the Golden Peak House is protected by a view corridor and we
do not project into it.
The view from Millcreek Court Building looking West. is
somewhat affected, but the majority of the view has been
retained.
The view of Vail_ Mountain from Founderts plaza has been
greatly increased from our previously approved submittal.
The view from Vail Mountain looking North over the Hil_l
Building is somewhat affected; however, the vast majority of the
view has been retained.
(For a vi-sual representation. please refer to the
photographs. )
The Design Considerations are a broad overview of
commercial core r and designate the design criteria for seven
different categories of concern. views are merery one of those
categories. The view corridor ordinance was reviewed in light of
the effect it would have on the six other categories and,
therefore, the view over the Hill Building was deleted from the
ordinance. No one category operates in a vacuum without
affecting the others and, therefore, the minor intrusion into the
views over the HilI Building is warranted because the proposed
additions enhance and satisfy the other categories of the Design
Considerations in the best possible manner for the Town.
The real objective of the Village in general is to
present desirable and inviting commercial activities and
residential facilities in a charming and effective building
frame, including mountain views, rather than to merely feature a
side-Iong view of the mountain per se. Canopies, awnings,
landscaping and building extensions provided by the existing Hil_l
Buil-ding and all proposed alterations help create a pedestrian
focus which mitigate the minor intrusions into the existing views
over the Hill Buildino.
H. Sun Shade Consideration. The new sun shade studv
does show an effect on the area between the HiLl Building and one
Vail Place in the earl-y morning hours with a rapidJ_y decreasing
effect, as our effect on the area in the morning is approximately
the same effect as One Vail place has on the area in the
afternoon. The prior sun shade study shows no effect on the
Founderrs P1aza area with the current proposal , while our
previously approved plan did have an effect on the area.
According to the Design Considerations, we do not have
any effect on adjacent properties during the Spring and Fa11
shad.ow pattern at noon.
The guidelines state that:
"In all building construction, shade shallbe considered in massing and overall heiqhtconsideration. Notwithstanding, sun/shadeconsiderations are not (emphasis added) in-
tended to restrict building height allowances.but rather to influence the massincr ofbuildings. "
One of the reasons for changing our design was to
enhance the shadow area on Founderts plaza throughout the day in
exchange for an increased shadow for a short period of time in
the area between One Vail Place and the HiIl Building.
If the mass was shifted to the East on our current
proposal , the afternoon shadow would be adverselv affected on
Seibert Circle.
SUB AREA CONCEPT lOA
The 10A sub area concept calls for a landscaping
screen, minor plaza and pedestrian connection loop to Wall_
Street. The applicant agrees to participate in such
improvements; the extent of such participation, however, is
dependent upon the final design and cost of the improvement and
upon consent by the Forest Service. In addition, this area is a
part of the drainag:e area which will be reworked as part of the
overall drainage plan in connection with the vista Bahn ski lift,
so the final topography of this subconcept area is unknown at
this time.
In summaryr 4s Vail Village Design Considerations
state:
"The Design Considerations are intended toserve as guideline design parameters. Theyare not seen as rigid rules or cookbookdesign elements to bring about a homogeneousappearance in Vail ."
The intention of the proposed al-teration is to address the spirit
of Vail as it exists and to enhance and extend that spirit by
improving residential living in commercial Core r and at the
same time not adversely affecting the pedestrian experience of
the Villacre.
b\s
s-
5$
s
$6-=-
e
C
ltlf-wl, rtw t
l
l'*la'
$
1r&
J-; -*-
\C
-J
s
N
s$s
$\{
l
oo
F\\.]Jt:
l----- *
I
b
, ;$$I -t\i is-s i
| +- -1_
JI
I
1.1-
issl
Fd l
l$+r_
\
\
2-lr\
i5
I
rS
lorl(T---
aNLUAL fttwz
,a^wnil4 pntv"tilA
?fu?P"?t) ADrrvl trltooN
qtswtA
I t4nt D TW\7L*LL h6
aNLUAL f1rce.
nfv+
htw-.
hq+I ftuA h)wCtl4 aApaA
?be4+go mnal l-ilbwd ,
,OIA DM
1nw ?e4DAfL 14
ANLUAL TIrvL
Vfwntb Htuvhh 4,A$wA
??aFE rP lg4ttal tilAwd
^M
-oLJu
Hlw wt?L*^fl
ANLUAL flrcz.
ffi ?rtqilq A)tvdVa +tlw{
1,./tL4*Nc^ Dtr,aw
rlw WtDa4t?
ANLUAL TLEE
ffi
i.*i
?f-VTvtq
FFOWW
?UI'PUJA
Mn0l
/c+Awbl
.l4+barl
+fifpovl D
nW Wl
or*
6t2\
i
n8ffin8ffil'&an$ lz trtlt-l) ^eq$dtEgl r".\lP' I llW-A\-nk4 +#wr/
ffi (PWW ;ptf,al ,r+p,)
+itwA DtNnfN
lllu, rr4l
otJ,* U/i,L fuvr
Wvra,q a)wtk4
Af'4lwrJ ar+clwvJ
.fYI
l{lw rc^>^ffifilW l-Lzl/t-t'tr'l' q1
lffiWaw
ir
1-E
::Ya
${
/' .1 -d u -->
i
l1
FROM 3
DATE:
Town Council
Commu n j- ty Development
October L5, l985
SUBJECI: Appeal ot a PLanning Commission decision ot deni.a-l for
a request for exterior alteration of the HlIl Buildingr
Lot 11 Bl-ock 5Cr Vai-L Village lst Filing.
Appficant: Blanche C. Hill
r.THE REQUEST
As outlined in the attached memorandum to the Planni-ng
Commission dated September 23, 1985, this request was to
enclose 430 square feet of deck space on the west side of
the second story of the HiLl Bui. lding and to add a third
story bedroom ItI42 square feet. The proposed thrrd story
addition is focated at the southwest area of the building.
The staf f recommendation for this request was for denial.
It was felt that this project would have significant negative
impacts on the One Va j. 1 PLace plaza area. Staff feels that
this proposal is not in compliance wj-th the Vail Village
Design Cons j-derations regarding street enclosure and the
effect of the additionaL shadinq due to the buLk and mass of
this design.
II- ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
A Planning Commission motion for approvaL resulted in a 2-2
vote. A tie vote is a vote ot denial. Those Planning
Commission members voting against the motion lndicated
concern over bulk and nass and the impact to the pedestrian
areas. These Planning Commission members felt that further
design work couLd al,leviate these concerns.
FROM:
DATE:
SUB.JECT:
Planning and Environmental Commi ssion
Communi ty Development
September 23, 1985
A request for exterior alteration of the Hill Buildingon lot 1, Block 5C, Vail Village lst Filing to encloseexisting second floor deck space and add a third story.Applicant: Blanche C. Hiff
II
I.THE PROPOSAL
The applicant, Blanche C. Hill, is requesting to enclose 430
squar e feet of deck space on the west side of the secondfloor of the Hifl Buiiding and to add a third story bedroomof 1,142 square feet. Ihe proposed third story addition is
.l.ocated at the southwest area of the building.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CCI ZONE
Purpose: The Commercial Core I District is intended toprovide sites and to maintain the unique character of theVail Village commercial area with its mixture of lodges andcommercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrianenvironment. Th e Commercial Cor e f District is intended toinsure adequate light, air, open space and other amenitiesappropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses.
The district regulations in accordance with the VaiI Village
Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribesite development standards that are intended to insure themai.ntenance and preservation of the tightly clusteredarrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways andpublic greenways and to insure continuation of the buildingscale and architectural qualities that distinguish the
Vi 11ag e.
This proposal is substantially in compliance with the intentof the zoning for CCI district.
I]T. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GU]DE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
This proposal ,.elates to the sub-area concept lOA. Thissub-ar ea concept refers to mountain gateway improvements and
descr ibes elements such as a l andscape screen, minor plaza,and a pedestrian loop to Wa11 Street. The area specifiedfor Sub-ar ea 10A is on land currently under control of theUnited States For est Service. The current Forest Serviceposition on this property is that it will allow no improve-ments with regard to this sub-ar ea concept. The CommunityDevelopment Department rdould request that if this sub-ar eais ever developed, that the owners of the Hill Building notr emonstrate against any special improvement district that
may be formed to complete such improvements.
C OMP LI ANC EIV.WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR
The purpose of the comparison between the proposal andConsiderations is to show how the new design strengthens ordetracts from the overall intent of the Desiqn Considera-tions.
A.Pedestrianization. The third
encl.osur e will have minimal iftr iani zation.
story addition and deckany impact upon pedes-
D.
B Vehicle Penetration No impact
Streetscape Framework. Because the additions arelocated on the second and third floors, ther e will belittle impact on the quality of the walking experiencewith respect to landscaping and ground level commercialinfill. The quality of the pedestrian experience willbe impacted by additional shade in the area of LePetite Cafe (see Sun/Shade analysis) and the ticketoffices and also by some blockage of views of the
mountain as one enter s Founder s' Plaza from the north.
Street Enclosure. The Consider ations state that "anexternaL enclosure is most comfor table wher e its watlsare approximately l/2 as high as the width of the s-paceenclosed." The Design Guidelines also state that aratio of 1:1, height to width, creates a "canyoneffect." The height of the addition on the Hi11Building will be 30 feet to the eave line. The heiqhtof ore Vai I Place i s zs r-t to the eave I ine . ir,eplaza width varies from 33 to 42 feet. This creares aratio that varies fr om 2/3:l to l:1.
The Guidelines state that in some instances the ',canyoneffect" is acceptable such as a shor t connectinglinkage between larg er open spaces. The area betweenthe Hill and the Gre Vail Place buildings adjacent tothe proposed addition is not an area where we feel the
"canyon effect" is acceptable. Most of this area isnot a walkway, but a very active public plaza. Theticket window area may be the most highly utilizedplaza in Vail Village during the winter season. Inaddition to the ticket office area, there is also anoutdoor dining deck for Le petite Cafe. ft is ourbelief that this addition would create a very negativeimpact upon this plaza. The One Vail place building
opens to a wider plaza araea as it nears the mountain asdoes the eur:rent design of the second story of the HillBuilding. It is the staff's position that a three-story facade on this area of the Hill building will
sever e.1 y detract from the or iginal design goals of
E.
F.
this plaza area
Str eet Edg e.
ground I eveJ. .
No impact. A1 I additions are above
In Conunercial Core f, up to 60t ofeach building rnay be built to a height of 33 feet orless and no more than 4Ot of each building may be higherthan 33 feet but not higher than 43 feet. The ridgeheight of the proposed addition is 37 feet. Thisheight does meet the 60/40 criteria as described. The
new roof will be a pitched roof. It will reflect the
same pitch and materials of the existing roof forms.
Views and Focal Points. The proposed addition willsrrght-ty rmpac t views of Vail Mountain from the Founder s'Plaza area. However, this view is not a designatedview corridor, although we feel it is an importantconsideration. This view allows visitors an opportunityto orient themselves with regard to Vail Mountain.
The view from Seibert Circle looking southwest to VailMountain is a designated vj.ew corridor. The proposedaddition does not project into this view corridor. Theaddition is most visible from the Milt Creek CourtBuilding looking vrest. There is a substantial additionof bulk and mass projected into this view. However,
vi.ews of the for est above have been maintained.
H.
r.
Service and DeI iverv.No impact
Sun/Shade. The Design Consideration states that ,'all
new or expanded buildings should not substantiallyincrease the spring and fall shadow pattern on adjacentproperties or on the public right-of-way.', Thisrequested addition will increase the shadow pattern byapproximately 350 squar e feet according to the December
21 study diagram. fhe I'tarch/September diagram indicatesthat the size of the shadow would nearly double.shading a large amount of the plaza area. This shadingwill have a considerable negative effect on the peoplegathered to purchase lift tickets and also on theoutdoor dining area of Le petite Cafe. We feel thatthis addition does substantially increase the shadowpatterns in this pl aza and does not meet the intent ofthese des ig n considerations.
ZONING CONS TDERATI CNIS
Proj ect Statistics
Allowable GRFA, 6,400 sq ft
Existing 2nd floor , 4,OAZ sq ftExisting 3rd floor , 696 sq ft
b,\t1cr .{(o"-,{{^,{-
b,c>j ui\\'- *d[th.-'u-'-
!---.-
\1a ieruoi' vr''-\ Ci'e+
deck enc losur e
Total proposed
Al lovrabl e GRFA
Proposed GRFA
Remaining GRFA
Tota L ,
Stairway deduction,
Total existing GRFA
Proposed 3rd floor
addition
Pro;rosed 2nd stor y
4776 sq-Ti-
372 sq ft
4'451 sq ft
1,742 sq ft
430 sq ft
GRFA 6,023 sq ft
6,400 sq ft
- 6,023 sq ft
377 sq ft
VT. STAFF RECOMMENDATICAl
The Community Development Depar tment r ecommends denial.
This project would have significant impacts on the Gre Vail
Place plaza area. This proposal is not in compliance with
the Vail Village Design Considerations by its effect upon
street enclosure and by the additional shading due to the
bulk and mass of the design. In the staff's opinion, this
design makes very little attempt to respect the street
enclosure design considerations or to maintain the original
design of the plaza area. The addition of a t\'ro-story
element, totaling 3 stories going straight uP from theproperty line at the location of the existing deck compromises
the open feeling of the southern edge of this plaza which is
a major gate$ray to Vail Village.
T-tk au -----5
o o
--...'-."
e{t+tnJ4 ffi
"glyfi"F&--
'f$ry-Y"-''
-
4t
1fv, f.ycrflw? /21
o
ovJ V d'roa
AwTtdafiry
pAail4 W
rynaN4 fl,of\Ne /*\W
ftJ. a1 '.^r,4 'trl ti,d_ / <eef fli
o
.-.=---
v-
I
\I
I
\
\\
.-?.---.--j-.
\
\
\
\
L-_
t- /Ail ?Mv..t\{1. Jr tv
tI/ r'
--t
\
\
\
L--
jf---If
=--Pa-
r'HFWTJ DM
J,sl>ay qf,vl,@ffiw
h-k
\_
\
<,
q
ss-*r
-\
cII'
Fs
$
-Js
\\
\-
o
$NAZJ
EdXJI_J=
rz
{r
\
$
c_
\
s
$
\
-D
\ss
triti*__Jititl Ii?
oo
--J
ll
\
NI
:s
I \
d-d
crr r
sNo
ss
1t7
\
\
E
$
d_t
rFl
\t_{\*'
PRESENT
Diana Don ova n
Duane Piper
Sid Schultz
Jim VieIe
ABSENTEffiTrterat
Tom Briner
Pam Hopkins
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Pa t ten
Tom BraunKristan Pri tzRick PyJ.man
1.
the
The
2.
Pl-anning and Environmental Commi ssi on
Septenber 23r 1985
1985. A
seconoeo
motion to approveby Diana Donovan.
intment ot member to DRB tor October November, De cember.
Diana Donovan nominated rom Bri.ner to be the new Design Revier"iBoard member for octoberr November and December. Duane piper
vorunteered to be the a-Lternate member. Thi-s was approved 4-o.
3- A, request for exterior ar-teration in order to add a thrrdstory to the Hil
Rick Pylman gave the .staff presentation for the Hill Buildingaddition. The applicant/ BLanche C. Hill, is requesting toencLose 43{a sguare feet ot deck space on the west side ot thesecond tLoor ot the Hill Buil_ding and to aald a third storyacldLtion oI 1r142 square feet. The proposed thlrd story adctitionis Located at the southwest area of the building. The staff'sprimary concerns were with the proposal's impact on Sun,/Shade andstreet Encl-osure. staff recommended deniai of the proposal.staff felt that the project was not in compli-ance with the vailvilrage Design considerations by its effect upon street EncLosureand by the additionar shading due to the bulk and mass ot thedesign. In the staff's opinionr the design made very Llttleattempt to respect the street Enclosure Design consrderations orto maj.ntain the original design of the plaza area. The additlonot a ts/o-story efement, totarling three stories golng straight upfrom the property tine at the location ot the existing deci<compromi ses the open feeling ot the southern edge ot this plazawhich is the major gatelray to Vail ViL]age.
Approva t minutes ot September 9minutes
minutes
made by Jim Viele and
approved 4-0.
Jay Peterson, representatlve ot the appticant, made a presentation
as to lthy the proposal was a positive improvement to the Village.Jay Peterson stated that the hait to one ratio for street Enclosurestated in the Urban Design Considerations was very ditticul-t toachj.eve. He stated that the canyon area whtch has a ratio of ,g'/to f rea1ly is only about 5 feet in length. He felt that thisarea realIy drd not have a great impact on the overalJ. plaza. Hestated that a pedestrian focus would be maintaineO by the awningon the west side of the Hirt Buj.lctlng facade. He did not feelthat the proposaJ created a soJ.id waLl_ area and a.Iso that theupper decks wourd have f lo$rer boxes and wourd add to the oedestrianexperience on the west side of the building.
With respect to the Sun/Shade consideration, .fay peterson felt
that the Sun/Shade issue really only had to be addressed at l2:obnoon. Jay Pe terson hao submi. tted a Sun,/Shade anaLysis that beganat nine and went on into the afternoon. Jay agreed that shadewas substanti.all-y increased durrng the hours ot 9 and lto in themorning- However, j.n the afternoon he pointed out that no
increage ot shade occurred. He added that staf f .s suggest j-on toshift the addition over to the east side of the building would bevery ditficult due to structuraL problemsr posslble v]-ew encroach-
ments on the view corridor, and a slmifar Sun,/Shade problem. Jay
stated that vail Associates had no problem $/r th the deck overhang-ing onto Vail Associates' property. According lo Jayl LarryLichliter said that the additional shade nay aftect snou, removal_
and sk j-ers during a portion of the morningr but in general; he
had no major problems L/ith the proposal.
Jay pointed out that in his opinion the existing approved plan
bl-ocked v].er./s up to the sk]' mounta]-n much more than the newproposal. He emphasized that the new plan was trying to respect
the vrer./ corrldor. He gave examples ot many buiidings in Tor{rnwhich he felt had significant impacts on the street enclosure.The A & D Building and Wa]1 Street were mentioned as examples ofencLosures si"milar to the type of street enclosure that would be
proposed with the Hil.l Bu j--tding exterror alteratron. He emphastzedthat Mrs. HiIl wants to simply maintain a viable re6idence in
Commercial Core I. She is not as.krng for a maximum height or a
maximum GRFA.
Jim Viele found it hard to betieve that the sun was in the area
of the plaza on December 21st at 9,Og am. It seemed to VieLe
that the sun woul-d probably be behind the mountain at this time
on December 21str the longest day of the year. .tay respondedthatr y€s, this area 1s catching sun on December 21st. Vlele
stated that there were good arguments on both the applicantrsas wel.l- as statt's side ot the issue. He felt strongly that theappLicant had an inherent right to develop the property. He
stated that he was incLined to vote for approval ot the project.
Duane Piper questioned why the northeast portion ot the building
!'rhich was at three storLes was not at exactlv the same he]-qht as
the third story additron. Jay peterson responded by saying thatthe owner did not want to cut into the vaulted ceiling directlybelow the addj.tion. For thj"s r€asonr the new adctition is approx-imately five feet greater than the adjacent northeast portion ofthe building. He also stated that they couJ.d not step back the
bedroom from the west facade as it woul-d siqnificantlv decreasethe bedroom spa ce.
Piper mentioned that the impacts to the shade conditions did not
seem to be aLl that signlficant. He also was sensitive to theproperty owner's deveJopment rights. He stated that his concernttas that the mass seems to be the greatest problem and has quitean impact upon the pedestrlan area. Jay responded by saying thatthe existing roof li.nes in his op j.nion i.ooked very pecul-iar andthat the mass ot the buil-ding in the new proposal tends toorganize the roof lines in a much better manner visua.l 1y.
Peter Patten cLarltied the statt's position on this proposat bystating that the staff certainly appreciated the devel-opmentrights ot the owner. He emphasized that the Urban Design GuldePlan was not a vehic.le for denying owners the j-r right to deve-Loptheir property. He said that the cR[,A is belng almost maxed outin that only 377 square feet of GRFA would remain on the propertyatter the proposar was built. certain.ly additionar commerciaLspace is possibler however, zoning standards would aLso have tobe maintained. He clarltied that staft is not picking out ont-ytwo items from the list ot Urban Design Considerations. In fact,on-Iy several ot the considertions happen to appry to this proposalas it is on the third story ot a buj. lding. Many of the UrbanDesi-gn considerations address street LeveL additions. Do to thisfactr many of lhe Urban Design Consideralions do not appLy to thisparticuLar proposal. He relterated that street enc-tosure andsun,/shade Lrere the two Design Considerations most impacted bythis proposal.
ulith respect to street encl-osure, patten expJ-ained that thisConsideration really had to be looked at in a three-dlmensionalway. The problem is that the existing One Vail place has a 3/4to I ratio to the street. fn other vrordsr a canyon effect isarready being imposed on the street by one vall prace. The HitlBuildlng wilI only increase thls canyon eftect with thls addition.The consideration states that "An externaL enclosure is mostcomfortabLe where its walls are approximately halt as high as thewrdth ot the space enc-Iosed. " The herght ot the addition on the
Hi.1 1 Building wilJ. be 3A f ee t to the eave line. The height ofone vail- PLace is zB teet to the eve l-rne. The plaza widthvaries from 33 Lo 42 feet. This creates a ratio that varies from2/3 3l- to L:1. Patten sard that the prevlous proposal focussedthe mass of the burlding in a .smaLler area. He stated that thecanyon effect dr.d not extend along the buiLding to such a degreeas in the new proposal.
Patten said that the Sun,/Shade Considerations specitically states
tha t Sun/Shacle sha1l be considered anct shal-t intluence the
massing of the building. Staff is reguesting that the massing of
the buiLding shoul-d be stepped back to avoid the Sun/Shade
impacts as much as po66ible. Staft is certainfy not trying fo
deny the olrner's right to develop the property. Staff is also
trying to avoid any type ot impacts on the Seibert circLe area
due to the new addition.
Donovan stated that she was concerned about the canyon eftect
given the new proposal. Howeverr she did feel that this was a
better proposa-l than the previous proposal, but that this proposal
needed some i.mprovement. Sicl Schultz had no real problem with
most ot the additlon. He dicl feei that the deck and baLcony on
the Lrest side of the bullding emphasized the mass of the bui.l-dj.ng-
The addi-tionaL shade did not create a concern for him. Duane
Piper asked if there vere any comments from the audience.
Michael Staughton, property manager for the Ore House and Baxter's
felt that the Guidelines were designed to guide. Eis opinion r'tas
that a proposal feJ.l into a grey area wlth respect to the Guide-
li.nes that the Planning Commission shouLd side with the owner's
right to deveLop property.
Jay told the board that the project hras not maxed out at afl in
comrnercial as there is no restriction in Commercia 1 Core I- He
stated that he cou.ld turn the prolect into a commercial building
and then add the GRFA on top ot that square tootage. Jay feLt
that he wou-ld get the same argument from the staff it he r"tere to
try to shift his proposa1 over to the east side of the building.
He stated that the statt would be concerned from the shade on
this side of the building and i.mpacts on Seibert Circle- Jay
added that it seemed that staft was treating the importance ot
views differently between the prevj.ous proposal. and the present
proposal. Krlstan Prltz responded by saying that the vr.ews were
treated basicaLLy the same in the o.ld proposaI as in the new
proposal. In both situations, the vrews were impactedr hovever,
they were not approved vier,, corridors. She also stated that the
shade was increased by onty 'l square feet in the previous proposal.
Donovan stated that she feLt that the casi-no and A6D BulLdings on
Briclge Street h'ere too close. She did not want to see this type
of thing happen again as far as street enclosure was concerned.
Jay stated that given the Hill proposalsr the Founders' Plaza
adjacent to the VaiI Associates' ticket area diminished the
impact ot the street enclosure. He pointed out that on Bridge
Street you did not get the benefit of any Iarge open plazas to
give relief to the hlgh buitdings. Jlm Viele moved to approve
the request whlch hras seconded by Sid SchuItz. Peter Patten
ta the apPlicant
wou-ld not remonstrate against a specia-l improvement district.
Ji-m Viele amended his motion to include this statement. The vote
was 2 rn favor, 2 agai.nst.A tle vote is a vote ot denial.
4. A reguest to amend Section !6.1i4 ot the Munr !rye l__Cegs__ry
United StaLes
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
Holy Cross
Ranger District
P.0. Box 190
Minturn,
Colorado 81645
Reply to: 2720
Date: Sept. 26, 1985
Mr. Rick Pylman
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vai1, C0 81658
Dear Rick:
This letter is in response bo your request for comnent on Branche Hirlrsrequest to add a third sfory at 311 Bridge Streel (the Hitl Building). As f
understand fhe location of that building, a smalL portion of the south end ison bhe White River National Forest, and is covered by a special use permit.
Our long range objective is to reduce the complexity of such permits, and wherepossible to eliminate them entirely. Ms. Hillrs proposal is inconsistent wlththat policy, as it would add height to the existing building. Tn addition, the
added height wouLd increase shading in a heavily used pedestrian area.
Therefore I recormend that the Town of Vail deny l,ts. Hi.ft's request.
r apologize for not attending the hearing on this proposal , but there were some
schedule conflicts. If the hearing results in further consideration of fhe
proposal , I will be happy to participate in future discussions."xb,c 4J/
DAVID A. STARKDistrict Ranger
FS.620O.28{7.82)
Orro, Pnrnnson & Posr
FREOEFICK S. OTTO
JAY K. PETE RSO N
WILLIAM J, POST
ATTORNEYS AT I,Aw.
POSI OFFTCE BOX 3t49
vAIt, COLORADO 8r65a-3149
VAIL NATIONAL AANX BU ILO ING
(3O31 47€-OO9e
EAGLE VAIL PROFESSTONAL BU ILOI NG
{303) 949-5360
OENVER DIRECI LIN E
(303) 5?3 - 59e 6
September 24, 1985
Mr. Peter Patten
Town Planner
Torn of Vai.l
Vail, C0 81657
RE: Hill Building Application
Dear Peter:
The undersigned, as the representative of Blanche C. Hill in herapplication for an exterior nodification for the Hill Build.ing,hereby appeals the decision of the Planning Conunission, which tookplace on September 23, 1985.
S incere 1y,x6dffi-
PETERSON & POST
\ailAsts,Lrc.
Creators and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creek
September 23, 1985
Peter Patten
Town Planner
Town of Vail
RE: Building Expansion
Dear Peter:
Pursuant to my conversation with Jay K. Peterson, as attorney for
Blanche C. Hi'll, and review of the plans subm'itted to the Town of
Vai1, Vail Associates hereby consents to an encroachment of a thirdf'loor balcony located on the southwest corner of Lot C as shown onthe attached survey and marked in red.
Sincerelv. .\d z\\2, -ffi,^r/ffi1U"*-" I I' -,/
Larry E.(ticnliter
Senior Vice President
Vail Associates, Inc.
Encl osure
LEL/vgb
Post Office Box 7 . Vail, Colorado 81658 . (303)476-5601
\
s/20/8s
Phone call from Dave Stark, U.S. Forest Service
The Hjll Building is partially on Forest Serv.ice property.
The Forest service is trying to reduce private ralititiei on public
lan{-gn{ is opposed to any addition that woutd add to privatefacilities on Forest Service land. Therefore, they arb opposedto the Hill Building addition.
lr
Planning and Environmental Commission
Cormuni ty Development Department
August 8, .|984
A request for exterior alterations for the Hill
Block 5C, Vail Village lst Filing to add second
space. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill
fL
TO:
FR0M: "
DATE:
SUBJ ECT:Building on Lot L,
floor residential
{,
I. THE PROPOSAL
The applicant, B'lanche Hill, is request'ing to build a 720 square foot bedroom
additjon that would create a third level on the existing west end of the Hill
Building. She would a'l so like to enclose an existing deck area. The enclosed
deck is approximately 370 square feet and is located on the west side of the
buiJding.onthe second f'l oor. Two decks will also be added onto existing f1 at roofslocated off the new bedroom.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CCI ZONE.
Purpose: The Commercial Core I district js intended to provide sites and to
maintain the unique character of the Vail Viliage commercial area, with its
mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian
environment. The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequateIight, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted typesof bujldings and uses. The district requlations in accordance with the VailVillage urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site develop-
ment standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation
of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways
and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and archi-
tectura'l qualities that distinguish the rillage.
This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the zoning for the CCI district.
IIi. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
This proposa'l relates to the sub-area Concept #.|4 for the Village P1aza.(now Founders'
Plaza).
"Feature area paving treatment, central focal point visible from Gore CreekDrive. Major land form/planting 'in Northwest for quiet corner, with evergreen
screen p1 anting to defjne west edge. l,la'l I Street stairs, with mid-level jog
landing, opens entry areato Lazier Arcade shops."
The proposal will obstruct the view of Golden Peak from the !'Jall Street stajr
area (see view section). In other respects, the proposal does not conflictwith the plan for Village Plaza.
Hill B0 z- s/s/84
ru.
The purpose of the comparison between the proposal andto show how the new de!.ign strengthens-or heti.aiii ird*considerations isthe overall intentof the design considerations. -
A. Pedestrianization:
The bedroom addition.and.deck enclosure will have minimal , if any,impact on pedestrianlzation. --
8. Vehicle penetration:
No impact
c.
D.
Streetscape Framework:
pecgqle-the additions. are located on the second fIoor, there willbe 1 ittle impact on the qriiiiv-or-ih"' *uir,ing.91n.riir.J'in ..rp..tto landscapinq and grounci tevei iomm"icial infill. The quality ofthe pedestiiai exoeiie;ai !,iii u"-l'iiipi.dq r, uaaiuinir'ituoe on s6gi?"li:.;il;i1;: " *," nuiidin;".;':ffiii it,6"i *i'ii,,i.nii. of the view
Street Enclosure:
The consideration states that "an externa'r .encrosure is most comfortab.rewhere its walis are.approximiteiy.jli-i, high as the width of thesppce enclosed." The encrosed deck'irrourj not-iriJ.t"ir,""street encrosurenegatively. The existing "ooi (on"il,e-west siae 6i-irre"ilrit euitoing;ts approximatelv 24,feet-r. high. The pedest"ian way-vi".,j", o"t*""n25 feet i to 35 feet-t. rne Eiistiiis ii,or is alreaiy greater than thedesired ratio- The new roor treight,'ri.s r""tl'niii'*l*E ii" "u.ioeven greater.
However, the considellljon states that ,,in some instances, the ,canyonleffect is even desirabre--ut -i-iho"i-connectils
ii.iig.-oitween rarger
:,?ggr:. !g,give varietv to the walking-ipaces." The new third leverrvr r create more of an encrosed peoeitrian-way that "iir
-lonn..t
villageP'laza with the open ptat;-i;-i;";;-;i";h" Gondota build.ins,s ticket area.
a
The. consideration states .that ',when exceptions:Ii!:ria occur, special aeiisn lJniij"riuon,create a wel'l-defined ground-ftoor peOeitr.ian
to the general heiqhtshould be given to
emphasis to overcome
Hi?dg -s- B/B/84
iii.ilt{:i frll"fii;r ,ln;n:'11.ff;l!ilr !l:,u ue,v we,r derjned sround= !o *eate pul.it"iui,_fg:y::-;;;;il;: ;l??;il3or3{,ln:"consideration-
-
r 5:l.'li;;: reasons, street "ili;;;;; rs impacted poritiv"lji;rl ;ffi"".
E. Street Edge
No impact. A.il additions are
:1t
,n. second ftoor.
F. Bui lding Height
I! gCI "up to 60% of theor less and no more thanreer,-but not higher thanEUl aOing are;
l3;' S;';nlt,??,?il'*J.,: l?;fl!:43 feet. rne exritin! [.isii;''.r
of 33 feet
than 33
the Hi 1'l
5l:l :iq.r 34 feet t, chimney 38 feet=west side: 24 feet t, chimnei il i;;;=
-tt_-rrre proposed addition.,w.ill.have.a height of 31.5 feet. The height.rs n'e' within ,nu u]Joyl?rJ-f,"igf,i.'rri9 n"1, roof wi' be a pitchedroor' it wiri refrect the same piiir, ira materiars of the rower roof.
Views and Focal points
The bedroom rddjlj:l-"i11 impact views when looking up at the skimountajn from Vi.llas:,0]l.i..ilqil; lookins bacr< it thrtne small ptaza.behind ine-Hii'i 6,jioing.adjacent ro r;ii.nXillinF.l[*il3iii;, Ji;: ;i"T' ii:!tu f ;Jnrr ;il;fu";;;t'i
ff #,'"f",il.;L'ri"#.', n
zuti*:fi :l'i:iii tr, rli;nil,;iitff:',$Hirl,,*,ir, :ff."lnrul*ou.,.
H. Service and Delivery
No rmpact
I. Sun/Shade "
Ili ffi:i:;illi?,1 :ll!.' that "arr new or expanded buirdinss shourdp"op""ii.i ;;";i;:';;;ii,lii,il:l'fftjilhtlll n::::r";rujrju.untllrnlshade shadow.betwben lrirfn-iiit ana September zi.t,f.v 7 feet.tne additionul tlu.l:.,a""a ir-ipp.Jiti'ute'ry 40 rqru..-i.It and is rocated+il.':;.1"1:;l::'1.'':' flii, il, Ili:f "[yt'i co"nri-oi ir,'E u, i r or ns.alqgs. eecauie ir," ,pii""ir'ri.i"{ir,lrl_909. not have any sittiiiadditionar shade shoura r,uu. ;";;r;;;{ lfifulrl"o.rtrian way, the
Hi?ds -4- s/B/84
Existing Zna ftoortxisting 3rd Floor
Total ExistinS GRFA
Bedroom addition
ueck. enclosure
Total proposed GRFA
Allowed GRFA
Proposed GRFA
Remaining GRFA
VI.RECOMMENDATION
V. ZONING CONSIDEMTIONS
Proj.ect Stati$tics
fjlirurl Side Area: 8,000Hrrowed GRFA: O,+OO
4,082 sf., - 696 sf4;m sr
Sta_invell deduction_ 372 sf
sf
sf
i t Fa'l r.al5 I Sf
720i st
370 sf
5,54.l sf
{
6,400 sf
5,54.l sf
859 sf. .. -:_- ._,:'This proposal complt:: :ill-tne GRFA. ".q:l:fl:lts.ror the property. Thelwo new roof overhangs-extend ov"r'i'"'il"oper.ty-iinl'upp"oiiruteiy 2 feet.;ff"i:o,icant has received " l;i;;"";; Isr".*ui,t f;;r-;;;_;iJacent property
-,.
Jt^rr
Staff recommends aooro:r]_91 this proposS]..._-o!!lng"nt upon the applicant
:i*;ift+iflililrsJil lir:ru;'Ji'ffij;n ;l:'iii':rrii::*;.r;' ox%ir,,tjilT!9.t "i;;;; ;;;'ff'";n;ilf,,:i ffil:i.l-'g::r;, .'.'i"lJIlderation. TheIl9ls. -Because the overatr p"Jj.ii'T;;":i :lp!9rts.the urban Desisn'ionrij."u_approvar or the proiect.-,nri iJ*ri;"'il;;i HriffJllffi,J;:f recofimendsDet.re the building-permit wili b; i;r;;". rhe issues in.ru[!] musi-l'i-resolvea
l. ?::jl:g. wilt be^i.nside of buildine.:. rmprovement survey
: ff:'iiffjl9f3;'r-..t permit ror existins improvement in+' i!!i3l'lT"lii3l.ll'1,^3;:lii"ff,llrr be resorved by an asreement
g
lG6
de
b'6M
V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Project Statistiis
Hirrdds
TE. Ll'{51
rrq a
Li aO
-4- B/8/84
Mi nimum
Al I owed
Ex ist ing
Existi ng
Side Area: 8,000GRFA: 6,400 od[,f,o^' YIA-'
d@!Lrvv!.%,/i'<-
sf
2nd
3rd
Floor 4,082 sfFloor 696 sf 6.,a3 in pr"4 6(i4
V/E-ti.lAter telt
4,778 sf
Stairwell deduction- 372 sf C.trrc
u)>7
3-7 7
Total Ex'ist'ing GRFA
Bedroom addition
Deck enclosure
Total Proposed GRFA
4,45I
tzu
J/U
5l
sf
5,54.l sf
Allowed GRFA
Propoied GRFA
Remaining GRFA
6,400 sf
5,54.l sf
859 sf
This proposai complies with the GRFA requirements fortwo new roof overhangs extend over the property i.i neThe applicant has received a letter of hqreement from
owne r.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval .of this proposal contingent upon the applicantmeeting the.engineering concerns. 'Thb view 'impacis and'additionil 40 sq ft.of shade, while not positive for the community, are considered to be minjmalimpacts' Each project should be revjewed against every consideration. Theproject either has no or minimal ihpact or supports the Urban Des'i gn Considera-tions' Because the overall project impact is'ilositive, staff recofrmendsapproval of the project. All Town of Vail engineering concerns must be resolvedbefore the building permit will be issued. Tie issuei include:
the property. The
approximately 2 feet.
the adjacent property
'ln
agreement
1. Drainage will be inside of building.2. Improvement survey3. Revocable right-of-way permit for exjsting improvementthe right-of-way4. Encroachment of roof overhangs will be resolved by anletter of adjacent property 6wner.
Date: 10/9/85
TO','i\ cOU:lClL tCEt;D..\ tiIOUEST
COM DEV
I.
II
Item/Topic:
fpp.ll of pEC decision to deny a request forthe Hill Building. Apptlcant: Blanche Hill
Action Requesied of Council:
To review the proposal and the pEC0r-reverse the pEL decision-*iO.-onapprovat resulred tn a Z_i v:i;;: ";i
minutes and make a decision to, upholdSeptember 23, 1985. A motion ;;;-'-tie vote is a vote of aeniii.' '-'
l,lect ing Date: l0l15/ eve
an exterior alteration of
the Torvn ttanager
III. Background/Rationale :
The applicant reque.i: tg.enc'rose 430 sguare feet of deck space. on the.west side oftne second froor'or rhe Hirr uuiiairg ii'q,p.auJ-a-*,iii^rif"v bedroom or 1,142square feet. The oroposed rhi;;'rioiv"uoaitior-ii i;;;;J,1. ,n" southwest areaoi the buirding. ine stiir-r..rri."iition.for this;;;;;t was ror denia..r.It was felt that this-project;;;i;'il;e signiricint ,JJIiir" impacts on theune vait prace plaze area. stati'ieeis"*rai ttrii-i.pii"i,is not in compriancewrth the Vait Vittuo:,?::rn"-Cr.iil".iirrlr.r*nu.dins street encrosure andJffi'illl"# i;,3 ffg?;i;" iit".i"Ji'if;J'aoaiti6;ui ;fia;ini'i," to the burk
Those Planning connnission members voting against.the motion indicated concern:I:i,f'J5.l':"li:'.ii:,*.ilfi:: :S;:li,i+,ii,ili."lllilln **v-iui; ;;ilil;
IV. Staf f Reco::re:rCatlon:-
See above.
v.Assurances ([J Legal , E Dngineering, f] FinanceE Outside proiessiona:_; .
Request formby 5;00 p. m.
must be given to the Secretarv toon Thursdays.
SrgnJ.Lure
I
Ernp t sl!!
o
TO:i): cOU::CI L ..\CE:iD..\ tlICU:ST
I.I tem/Topic :
III.
- .l
Background/Rational e :
IV. Staff ReconnenCation:_
. V. Assuranses 0= Legal ,l--T EnEineering, Efl Outside professional).
/W""t of q W.^^.'n G*ror'. Arcrsron$ de^,o\ g-.r
q fqlresf S"r er{-€r*r- ltt*r,^k,r,-. sF r\q-d,n f,r,ld,. t,bFlr&,r1SC,
II. Action Requested, of Council:
Qt[ "r b.r.e,lLr",. S*** 'G,*u*".o".-_ d.nc,6rrn.,
\
.'
ILt_ *No*-.t- r: r.1,xsk1 b ero\ogq* c{Bo s1.+,"f 1"L sF'<
o\ t{^0- L^re+ sr|"- oF t-Le-\crrcr*6tt "y oF +f..a- tLl( 6r,tJ,1 ,a^cl
tD aeJd e. {^.r[ skvy bdr.ra^^. coF'tirqa sT.C+. Tt.^ palat"d
t\-.& Stt o.A[rhr^. r: [oc.,Lrl et t{^z- fptl^,l^.esF q,"i^, oF
t{,.,4- h",tA.*.
++ A h.*^,,& Q,*^,sarn ywtto".. Ar as,erre\ ,rcsottc{ t'^ {
a-a \k{4-. A \* ..,r{* ,t q vo{'q .e d.e^,"t.
Request form must be given toby 5:00 p.m. on Thursdays.
Fin:rn''o
to the Tou.n Ilan!\ ger
€r,a:,'J<--
fhn Qanrar'rrur L4^ J
CrllrttLrut r+ rA( ,;:: o
AN ORDINANCE AIUENDING THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN
DESIGN GUIDE PLAN - DESIGN CoNSIDERATIONS I
VIEIT SECTIOI{ :\).D YIIjW CORII_ITl.rl lt.\P TO RL-l)t,CE
THE NL:;;ijllR Cl' :,1.\Juii VL.i! L:,JliirIuolls AND TO
ELINIINATE MINOR VIBW CORRIDORS; AND SETTING
FORTH DBTAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
WHEREAS, the revision to the view section of the Urban Design
Guide Plan - Design considera.tions and. the view corridor L{ap has been
under study by staff, Planning and [nvironmenta] commission and rown
Council for a considerable time perioci; and
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town councir that preservation
of certain existing view corridors is essentiar to the character of
Vail as a mountain resort: and
WHBREAS, the preservation of such views will protect the
munici-palities attraction to tourists and visitors and, therefore,
enhance and proteet its economic vitatity.
IYHEREAS, it is the opinion of Council that the several most
important view corridors be entirely preserved as they exist; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recom-
mended a.doption of the nine view corridors, one focal point and
amendments to the langua"ge in the view section to the Council,
NOIY, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOI{N COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL:
Section 1
Section G. Views of the Vail Village Design
hereby amended to read a"s follows:
G. VIEWS AND T'OCAL POINTS
Considerations is
Va,ilf s mounta"in/va-11ey setting is a funda,mental part of its
i,i :iili:"'*The most signif icant and obvlous vlew corrid.ors have been designated'.,),",*+.!3T.. on the View Corridor Map (an element of the Vail Village Urban Designli :i.a-+# l; l-Iramework Plan) a.nd photographlcally d.ocumented (photoi on file in.1,:r',?,.]t -.i'- +r"o ra^hm,,*.i {--- r\__,_1
,l;,'.:.
. i_, --E"- -----!,ila Ine.uornrnunity Development Depa"rtment). However, the vj-ew corridors.
! ;:;,5i{.,U: . depicted on rhe maps and in t
;.:.'.;1*.1f, ,',,, priority should be gj.ven to an analysj-s of the impatt of the
-,:,1;; .,.-^'i ; proiect on views from pedestrian areas, whether designated or not
:*:t .e;.-', '--il;,'ii;;: . The views designated to be preserved. ,originate from either major'..,.-t:-:l-.t'- pedestrian areas or public pla.zas. They are views of the ski.:).;:'.':.." mountain, the Gore Range or the Clock Tower,The views of the ski slopes and of the Clock Tower which wereseLected to be preserved were chosen due to their significance,not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientationreference points to help the guests determine their location,
);-..-...,t^f, -..-.-A?q: of . course, looking east irom the Vail Vil1age area oner-?'>-- tr{^4L -a';lT:] r \,r l liLru.I Figr .lLr|. l!-LllE Yit-E l, II9III LIICi VatI Vltlage afea Onet\ { :l:Y: the dramatic core Bange providing some of ihe most beautifulscenic views anywtreie.
E
iq*mi---
c CI cl
-2-
The official photographs and field surveys of the view corridorsand focar point contain the area to be protected. No eneroachmentwill be allowed above the top of the blick and white rine on the .',:. ;-
photographs or in the protected area as depicted by the field ,.,,,r::..,,surveys. The field surveys are on file with the Department of ,r.i,:i:r_,i.i.r,
community Development and will be used to aid staff and appllcants',,,',in determlning the specific dimensional restrictions produted bv :|:.:''the view corridors. Minor modifications to tte roois';;-;;il.;il".Jt-i,(i:e. a new frue) located above the line ma.y be permltted if appro-,, ..priate approvals from the community Development Department are -.,
,"1.i1,i,.
,
' 's:)i';obtained. . ,{
To demonstrate the impact on other views, a1l submittals should. "'' 'include a visual impact analysis. This analysis could be in the ,,.for:m of sketches, photographic overlays, phoiographic touch-Dps, 'i:'::
mocieLs, or other simulation. techniques, A mea.ns of demonstrati-ng :
'in the field (on site) the impact on views wirl also be required iby the zoning administrator-
As circumstances affecting views change, such as rezonj"ngs, variancesin height or ne\r buildings, the view corridors will be reviewed and,if necessa.ry, revised. rf a conflict exists between the maximumhelght allowed and the view corridors, the more restrictive regulationThe forrowing is a listing and verbal'description of the adopiEa-"i-r.rview corridors and focal point i 4pp1y.
NO. DESCRIPTION
This view occurs from two flights of steps above the photographicpoint on the south side of the vair rransportation center. rheview is significant in tha.t it conta"ins the clock rower and theRucksack rower as foca.1 points, but also is oners first view ofthe ski slopes as one comes out of the Transportation center.
This is a significant view because it allows one to seeslopes from upper Bridge Street a.s wel-l_ as directing oneticket and lift facilities in the Viltaee.
This is a view of the Gore Range'from Hanson Ranch Roadeast of the l{il1 Creek Bridge a"nd west of the Mill Creek
Thj-s is probably the best known and most spectacular view inthe V1l1age area. It is looking east to the Gore Range from
Gore Creek Drive between The Lodge at Vail retail shops andthe Gore Creek PLaza Building. The Clock Tower is a focalpoint in this view.
the skito the
j ust
Court Bldr
':./
r!,
rl
-3-
ONCE IN FULL, tnis 5t 6 day of d- , 1988.
r
hefd hereon on ttle -?/-e/ day of
r)
A public hearing
, 1983, at the
Vai1, Colorado, in
AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
Section 2
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision
sha1l not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this :
ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed ' '
thisordinance,andeachpart,section,subsection,Sentenee,c1auseor phra,se thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, -
.sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared linvalid. , '-, .,,,
Sect ion 3 t,;;1 ,, ,
'..:li
The Town Council hereby flnds, determines and declares that .:l
this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and
we1fareoftheTownofVailandtheinhabitantSthereof.'.
Section 4
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of
the Vail Municipal Code a,s provided i-n this ordinance shall not
affect any right which has accrued, any duty lmposed, atrY violation
that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
Commenced, nor any other action or prggeeding as commenCed under Or
by vi-rtue of the provision repealed or repealed or reenacted. The
repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FINST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
shall be
regular meeting of the Town Council
The Municipal Building of the Town.
ATTEST:
of th
Q,,wn
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING
--D -A t:n:.s 4/-a/ dav of
/ .=-)
ATTEST:
,1983
PameLa A. Brandmeye
ifer,
Jnuu,ld I g'42Xflta-il-/.a, -z:
a j'*lwrn'l
AN ORDINANCE AIUENDING THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN
DESIGN GUIDE PLAN - DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
VIEW SECTIO\i :\:;D YIEW CORIr-IDa.n l.l.\p TO Rll)t;CE
THE NUlriiiliR C.'f' :.tiJuii VL,_iV C\Jiiit:l_rolis AND ,Ir)
ELI[!II{ATE MINOR VIEVI CORRIDORS; AND SBTTINC
FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
1YHEREAS, the revision to the view section of the Urban Design
Guide Plan - Design considerations and the view corridor L{ap has been
under study by staff, Pranning and Environmental commission and rown
Council for a considerabte time perioci; and
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town council that preservatj-on
of certain existing view corridors is essential to the character of
Vail- as a mountai-n resort: and
lIHEREAS, the preservation of such views wiIl protect the
munieipalj-ties attraction to tourists and visitors a"nd, therefore,
enhance and. protect its economic vitalj-ty.
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of Council that the several most
important view corridors be entirely preserved as they exist; and
IfHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recom-
mended adoption of the nine view corridors, one foca,1 point and
amendments to the language in the view section to the Council,
NOIV, THNREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOI{'N COUNCIL OF THE TOIYN
OF VAIL:
Section 1
Section G. Views of the Vail Village Design Considerations is
hereby amended to read as follows:
G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS
The views of the ski sropes and of the clock rower rvhich rvereselected to be preserved were chosen due to their significance,not only from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientationreference points to help the guests determine their rocation.
-.r*19, of. course, looking east from the Va.i l Village area onevr'ews the dramatic Gore Range providing some of ihe most beautifulscenic views altywhere
I!lt\
c ai rl
-2-
The officlal photographs and field surveys of the vj,ew corridors
and focal point contain the area to be protected. No encroachmentwill be allowed above the top of the black and white line on thephotographs or in the protected area as depicted by the field ..,.r,...',.surveys. The field surveys are on file with the Department of ',r,rii,t:i,i..Conununity Development and will be used to aid staff and applicants ....-,in determining the specif ic dimensional restrictions produced by ii'.:1.,the view eorridors. Minor modifications to the roofs or structures r,
(i.e. a new flue) located above the line may be permitted if appro-,..priate approvals from the Community Development Departnent are -, iilii, .obta.ined. .:,": ii,:.i1:1.,.'
To demonstrate the impact on other vj-ews, all submittals should "i|i''
:l:
include a visual impact a"nalysis. This analysis could be in the ,,,. ':
form of sketches, photographic overlays, photographic toueh-ups, ',' .':,,-moclels, or other simulation techniques. A means of demonstrating l: :
in the fieLd (on site) the impact on views will also be requiredby the zoning administra.tor.
As circumstances affecting views change, such as rezonings, varianeesin height or new buildings, the view corrj-dors will be reviewed and,if necessa.ry, revised. If a conflict exists between the maximumheight allowed a-nd the view corridors, the more restrictive regulationThe following is a Listing a"nd verbal description of the adopted willview corri-dors a,nd f oca,1 point :
NO. DESCRIPTION
apply
This view occurs from two flights of steps above the photographicpoint on the south side of the Vall Transportation Center. Theview j-s signiflcant in that it contains the Clock Tower and the
Rucksack Tower as focal points, but also is oners first view ofthe ski slopes as one comes out of the Transportation Center.
2 This is a significant view because .it a1lows one to seeslopes from upper Bridge Street as well as directing oneticket and lift facilities in the Vi1la"oe-
the ski
to the
This is a view of the Gore Range'from Hanson. Ranch Road just
east of the Mill Creek Bridge and west of the M111 Creek Court Bldt
This is probably the best known and most spectacular view in
the Village area. It is looking east to the Gore Range from
Gore Creek Drive between The Lodge at Vail retail shops and
the Gore Creek Plaza Building. The Cloek Tower is a focal
point j-n this view.
':/
,,!
'l
o
\
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
of thi.s ordlnance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision
shal1 not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordj.nance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed
this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, cLause
or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
seclions, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be deelared
The Town Counc.il hereby
this ordinance is necessary
welfare of the Town of Vail
sha,l1 be held hereon on t]ne 4,/.ay' day of
r)
A publi-c hearing
, 1983, at the
Vai1, Colorado, in
AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
day of , 1983.
,r - ----t rl
-3-
Section 2
invalid.
Section 3
finds, determines and declares that
and proper for the health' safety and .
and the inha"bitants thereof .
Section 4
The repea] or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of
the Va11 Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance sha11 not
affeet any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation
that occurred pri-or to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other actlgn Or proceeding a.s commenced under Or
by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed or reenacted. The
repeal of any provision hereby shaIl not revive any provision or any
ordi-nance previously repealed. or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE IN FULL, t:n:',s {L4
regula"r meeting of the
The Municipal Building
Town Couneil
of the Town.
of
ATTEST:
Q^rb,q
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND
th is
RBADING
.7/-a/
Pamela A. Brandmeye
t/\Jti,Nlil l.V\Jutd.,',t
PameIa A. Branomeyer,
ATTEST:
75 south lronlage road
vail, cotorado 91657
(303) 476-7000
July 21, 1986
Mr. Jay Peterson
P.0. Box 3.l49Vail, Colorado 8.|658
Re: Hill Building
Dear Jay:
At the Design Review Board
tabl ed to al I ow subm.i ssi on
1. Fi nal color scneme
2. A complete landscape
3. An updated materi a'l s
As discussed with the board,structure and fabric as welldate. A final approval forto temporary certificate of
contact me.
Sinfe/ely
offlce ol communlly development
meeting_of,July 16, .l986, the H.i ll Bu.i lding wasof the fo1 |owing items:
and paver plan
list and landscape p1 an materials l.i st
we will defer final submittal of the awning
as the tree protectjon metal work untjl a laterthese items for these items wjl l be required prior
occupancy. If you have any questions, please
Ri ck
Town
RP: br
Py1 man
Pl anner
llti'o5,!l3iFl1i" ,
STREET AOORESS:.
DESCRIPTION OF P
The fo'll orvi ng
Board before
A. . BUILOING
Roof
MATERIALS: TYPE
required for submittal by the applicant to
can be fiven:
the DeiiEir Review
COLOR
trd4(ry f2-- PH.-L^ L{
'c/a\n? u
B . LANDSCAP I IIG :Name of Designer:' pnone:
PLANT MATERIALS:
PROPOSED TREES
Botanical Name Common Name
L I)|Ilttr IKEE) lU
BE REiiOVED
Quani ty Si ze*
hei ght for coni fers .
[p7flol(sioins
. - . 0ther l,lal 'l Materi al s
cl .. \)trxro - \L-er C[*t(
' lYl'' Fasci a
. Soff i ts
!li ndorvs
l.lindow Trim
' Doors
Door Trim
'Hand or Deck Rails
Fl ues
F'las hi ngs
Chimneys
. Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
0ther
information is
a fina'l approval
LIST OF I,IATERIALS
OF MATERIAL
*lndicate cai i per for deciducjous trees.Indicate
EXISTING SHRUBS
TO BE Rii'lOVED
'[.vpe Souar: Footaqe
GROUND COVERS
s0D
SEED
TYPE OF
IRRI GATION
TYPE OR I'IETHOD OF
EROSION COIITROL
C. 0THER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retaining vta11s, fences, slimming pools, etc.) Please specify.
- .1,
LIST OF MATERIALS
Si di ng
0ther }Jall Materials
l.li ndows
llindow Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Fl ues
Fl ash'ings
Ch i mneys
Trash Enc'l osures
Greenhous es
0ther
B. LANDSCAPING:Name of Designer:- phone:
PLANT MATERIALS:
PROPOSED TREES
Botanical Name Common Name
To be moved
To be moved
EXISTING TRETS TO
BE REMOVTD
see above
*Indicate caliper for deciducious trees.
NAME 0F pRg.rECT: Hill ExPanslon
r rnir -nrscRiPTIoN:
iin'Err-noonrsS, ltt nrEEffiGEf
-' -
DESCRIPTION OF P ans r-on o third floor and renovot a portion ot groun
The fol lowing.information ls required for submittal
Board before a final approval can be fiven:
A. BUILDING I'IATERIALS: TYPE OF MATERIAL
RoOf Bu1lr up/gravel.
by the applicant to the Design Review
COLOR
Red/Brown to match
exlst ing
ray / nlue
Cedar Board and. Batt exis t ing
S tucco Off Whlte
(knocked down dash)
Cedar exist 1
teT & G Decklng 'exidting
Wood/Clad.exis t ing
E EO TIEI
Wood exis t lng
wood/c1ad exlstlng
raylBlue to mat
Cedar to rnatch exlstlng exls t ing
N/A
Sheet lletaL @
exls t lng
_. Red (used) to matchBrick existing
N/A
N/e
Tan/Brown to natchATrnings exls t tng
ay Eo ma
Slze*
Po tent l11a
Sprude
Flowerlng Plum
15 5 ga1lon
exlstlng 12
exis.tlng 4rl
-?|:.-..':-
ca1.1pc
Indicate height for
a
coni fers .
(over)
Fasci a
wobd/C1ad extsting
- PLANT I'IATERIALS:, ''\.. (con''/
cuo Qq
EXISTING SHRUBS
TO BE REMOVED
GROUND COVERS
Botanical Name Common Name Si ze
Tvoe Square Footaqe
s0D
SEED
TYPE OF
IRRIGATI ON
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSION CONTROL
c.0THER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retaining
i) Retainlng wa11- (dry Laid fleld
swimmlng pools, etc.) please specify.wal I s, f --nces ,
s tone)
2) Brick pavers to match existing.
rt
Ill -'l
H"'-' l$.->rui)1s-r6 -
a
: K.5.r 1.5 = G3--75
t7* rA ?"q\
j4r f_. ._, , ,,!.f,
f^r5q
_r
1.1t.5
L
Pam Hopkins felt the the narrow bus lane would not bedifficulty walking along East Meadow Drive.
Peter talked about future parking needs and how the Town can't afford to havethe private sector's lack of pariing compound the skier park.ing problem. Hepointed out that the parking structures are filling many'more days each skiseason and this trend.i s 1ike1y to cont.i nue.
09nova1 _suggested a a sensor gate to keep out illegal parkers. piper statedthat this would be an improvement over what was thire now. Sjd wondered jf thenarrowed bus route planned in the aborted sDD could be done now. pattenreplied that it wouid depend upon funding. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney,stated that the boand could require that the Sonnenalp puy ron"y into tleparking fund.
Sid explained that the front desk personnel park cars for guests when there jsa problem. He felt that if the guests did not complain, tte system must workal ri ght.
Vi e moved and Hopkins seconded to a
n ne condi t
good, as one already had
uesE as submi ted with the
L0 woul sta at the
ree
n erm it a cat l on
ot with
6 in avo r n0ne
d cant be reQu l re to Va arki n unces at atever t e rat are at
an wou state t ta qate AS e case o e ical center -
aqa l ns with S ul tz tainin
4.A reouest for an exteri or alteration chanqe theul toln ate a
0
me
ll1!"u LrdL Lne appr]canf, nad received approval from the pEC on January 13,.1986 to enclose 433 square feet of deck space on the west side of the r".onafloor and to add a third story bedroom of 972 rqr"". i;;i.- The currentproposal represented a modjfication of a facade change on the southwest part ofthe builling, with an additjonal g6 square feet be.i nd added to the secondlevel-_-The new proposal also included the construction of the urban DesignGuide Plan concept l0A^involving the creation of a pedestrian walkway/plaiilocated to the south of the Hiti auilding. Pylman reviewed the compliance withthe urban Design considerations for vail-villige- t,|ith reipect to btreet Edge,Pylman stated that the proposal presented a fairly monotonous street edge andneeded door and window awnings as well as flower 6oxes. The otnerconsiderations were in compliance with the Urban Design Consjderations for VajlVi I 1age.
There followed discussion of the sub-area concept 10A. Donovan felt that thereshould not be an opening behind the wail into dead ena spaie. Beardsrey, thearchitect-for the proposal , stated that the opening couta ue screened off.Donovan a'l so d'id not like the design combining the"new design with the oldbui1din9. Beardsley_stated that tie originai-des.ign nra-print.rs with thegreat degree of complexities of balconies, etc. He stated that he wascomfortable with the comb'i nation of the two designs. liper-astea if the wallcould be moved back to increase the size of the itu.". [e wonoerea what the
Rick Pylman explained the request and showed elevatilns'ana"liG*p"T"*-;;
:!1!.9 that_the applicant had received approval from the pEC on Januarv l3
Pec 3/24/86 -3-
line of the wall was tied to, and Beardsley responded that jt was tied to theForest service property line. He added that the wall could be moved back, butthat he wanted the added room to get to the shops. piper felt that placing thewall on the property line was a b'i t arbitrary. Beardsley replied that perhaps
the plaza area could be increased and add benches, etc. -piper asked if'there
was any possibility of moving the split rail fence farther south, and Beardsley
responded that there was no reason not to. Jay Peterson stated that the Forestservice was reluctant to allow one to do much on their land. Briner felt thedesign as presented was fine. Donovan wished to ask the DRB to check to see ifthe wing wall made the pedestrian feel that he didn't want to continue wal king
around it. Hopkins wanted to see the space behind the wall closed off, as jt
could easily become a "rape corner.',
Bri4g!".moved ald-$chultz seconded to approve the proposal with the staff
conq r Elons as t0llows:
-ntw.illnotremonstrateagainstaspecia1improvement
district if an when one is formed for Vail Village.
2- That the applicant will construct alf improvements outside of theirproperty line (sub-area 10, pedestrian and landscape jmprovements) as
approved, totally at their own expense.
3. That the approval is val id for a maximum of three years from the date of
PEC approval (March 24, .|986).
The vote was 6 jn favor. none against and Viele abstaininq.
uest to nd an ex 'i red a roval for an addition to the Glen
canr:an I n0
Tom Braun explained that in January of .1983 the PEC approved an amendment to
SDD4 to allow for a proposed expansion to the Glen Lyon 0ffice Bui'l ding which
consisted of changing the front setback from 20 to l5 feet and changing the
allowable square footage from .|3,000 square feet to 25,000 square feet within
Development Area D. Approvals of development plans in SDD's are valid for aperiod of 18 months from the date approval was obtained, wh.i ch meant that
approval for the proposed expansion to the Glen Lyon 0ffice Building expired in
July of .|984. The current request was to extend the approval for another lB
months. Braun showed elevations, sections and site plans of the proposed
addi ti on .
Donovan_mgved and,Hopkins seconded to recommend to the Council to extend the
appfoval fgr Development Area D of SDD4. The vote was 6 in favor, none
against, with Viele abstaining.
Cascade Villaqe
PEC -4- 3/24/85
L:30 p.m.
Si te Vi s'its
r't<L 4
tt
6) Sonnenalp Sign
Tract C Vail
W,r,u
,
Ct=ung,,,til, a*ttl,
Lyrts a"- gto,Jc'r box '
Design Review Board ttl^!lr->4fu- erc+fl4c[n^qes.
Ahhir re ioor | .=t I r ) )--Rprit ro, rseo l- t+wLo lcx+r,ftt )--
3:00 p'm' i ' tw ,*inl"ur*a a'l^taa-1'ht*, ek,,r11n^y,^nShaah4,
yg' Erttlc u,^la+ aywne*iJ- w t^d,rus.and t2661 wal!-.
Hiil Build.ias Remode'l . 'Sfurihh* - "fwog"im;t*,xrffiq 6^4funi;- - o- ati*t. t,
(4-o) 'fuirL (Na,uQ ,, ,Gmnotr_.,o.1 xy*rn{r,n{r.^
Ski Club Vait Remodet \ rasl/sk+ut.lal*h f-r*zl%-,(ki;--'uL\"*k-A o
Shapiro Residence Addjtion
_ Lot L Vai I Val 1ey Znd -1548 Spr j ngh.il I Lane
Ir(urDG g*tQ.tt+[.
(ua- ro; (=,O
Karats,.Village.Center 81dg. Vail Village
J-o (ue -at)
Bighorn Lodge 4J.45 Bighorn Road
,,Lots 6 &.7 Block 7 Bighorn 3rd addition
(V-!J - tJG) ?rcli^,ti"atnt \fi^otr,LG-o) r
rrc{
1)
2)
3)
4)
E\
/,cI 7)
8)
Village 1st 242 East Meadow Dr.
Q;4 9chvATz-
-ftblQd-
22 Glen Lyon Residence
Lot 22 Glen Lyon 1380 Westheven Cjrclea( ( rta -ut)r\'(4-o t\,
Bossow Residence
Lot 1 Block 1 Vajl Valley 6th 486 Forest Rd.
rt
/r tK 9) Irwin Estate
Lot 49 Glen Lyon, Westhaven Circle
Lodge Entry Color Scheme
0ld Business
Lodge Entry Col or Scheme
New Business
Members AbsentMembers Presentqq @r€r (Wol+o*Sg6
Eu)
N6
lypyA.^r'h"9)Staff Present
fu*^lbpVt^s
rt
Proiect Application
Proiect Name:
Project Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
LesalDescription: r-ot l arocr, S(. , ,,',^n ilr/ \$- fiq^f. , zonecl-l
Comments:
Design Review Board
Morion by: c'\^fAqn{ry
t
secondednv, V,/APPcrr...J
o"," lllt,l'o<-
DISAPPROVALAFPROVAL
Summary:
rlJ ttF A +Srs o F ,-.,{c{ tlF ff,,r P,,(r-(d\.Lr ry Ldrrcl*
\
United St ates
Department of
Agr icu l ture
Fores t
Service
Eoly Cros s
Ranger District
P.0. Box 190
Minturn,
Colorado 81545
Reply to z 27OO
Date: March 21 , 1986
Mr. Jay Peterson
Otto, Petersonr & Pos t
P. 0. Box 3149
VaiL, C0 81658
Dear Jay:
Tbis Letter is to confirm and document my deci.sion regarding your plans for
reuodeling of the Ei1L Building. The issue is the occupancy of llational Forest
lands for placement of s idelralk pavers betweeD the private land and the
existing bicycle path, a strip of land approximately 50 feet long and varying
from 2 to l0 feet vide. Your proposal is a minor and inconsequential use ofthis land and therefore I do not intend to issue a permit. This letter servea
as the authorization for use of the land.
There are several. requirements that I have aaked you to fulfill:
1. Prior to beginning tbe work, verify with Vail Associates, Ioc. that thefacilities you propose to place on the Forest will- not interfere with their
permitted ski area developments and activities. A letter from Vail-
Associates is needed to confirm their agreement.
2. Upon conpletion of the construction, please provide ne sith an as-built
plan of the waLk and associated iuprovement.s, showing their relationship to
Che Eill Building, the boundary betrreen public and private land, and the
bicycle path.
I appreciate your tirely inquiry about this remodeling activity. The
improvements your propose will inprove the utiliEy, drainage, and esthetics of
the area on the south end of the Ei1L Building.
Sincerely, / ,l+-). ) /- 4,i'--.'((t,.,rq ( t .'/t'tx--
DAVID A. STARK
FS.620O-28(7-82)
-T j=a;l;' ;;1""rt
"tu,J.,
t.,u oulPIFit(j a'J:l
oii;:::i < ;:
1 (',i:
Reply
Date:
Mr. Riek PYlman
Town of Vail
75 S. Frcntage Rd.
Vai1, C0 81658
Sincerel"Y,
Dear Rick:
This letter is in response to your request for cor,rnent o.n-Blanche Hill'S
request to add a thirb story-al,:ff Siiile Sii'""t (the.Hill Building)' As I
understand the location of Lhab buildingl a smal1 porLion of the south end is
on the',,lhite River National Forest, and-is covered by a special use perrnit'
Our long range objective is lo reduce fhe complexitv of such perr'ritll-i!9 llil"posslbli Lo eliminabe then entirely. Ms. Hillts proposal-.is inconsistent witn
that policy, as it would adci height to Lhe existing building' - fn addition' the
added heighl, would increase shadi;rg in a heavily used pedesirian area'
Therefore I reccmmend thab bhe Towi of Vail deny Ms._Hillts requesl'
I apologize for not atLending the hearing on this proposal , but there were scns
scheCul-e confllicts. If the fiearing r""uit" in further consideration of lhe
proposa'l , I will be happy to parlicipate in fubure discr-issions'
&n-,^.--b p
DAVID A. STARI(
District Ranger ,
F5.OZ -\.J Z:' _clar
F<_ -
- ''''_\
-€,
. - --i<
il
f'r---- -_-
+ffi8(l
d4 Plnol + -<-w*a+--e-*"!e=- nJdrL---*- --
.U S"(t*",*--/.
+-b,^no^
I-- fra-al
Cay^lt Lrq a
lJeE-
,,L
Jitt
o(
AMENDED ADDENDUM FOR
APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR MODIFICATION
I. Conformance with the purposes of the CCI District.
As stated in Section 78.24.010, the Commercial Core I
District is intended to provide sites and to maintai-n the unigue
character of the Vail village commercial- area with its mixture of
lodges, residential dwellings and commercial establishments in a
predominately pedestrian environment.
The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure
adequate J-ight, air, open space and other amenities appropriate
to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District
Regulations, in accordance with the Vail ViJ_lage Urban Design
Guide Pran and Design considerations, prescribe site development
standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and
preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of build.ings
fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure
continuation of the building scale and architectural quality that
distinguish the Vil1age.
The proposed alteration centers around a minor addition
to the existing building:
A. An addition of a third bedroom in the approximate
amount of r,r42 sguare feet. The addition of the third bedroom
will- enhance the experience offered to residents residinq in the
Hill Building.
B. A partial enclosure of an existing deck area in the
approximate amount of 430 square feet which will help solve an
existing snow build-up problem, not onLy for the second-fLoor
residents in the Hill Building, but also for the commercial space
on the ground level-.
Since the proposed alterations are extensions and
enhancements of existing uses, the Urban Design Guide Plan will
not be changed in any respect, but made more effective.
II . Vail Vill-age Urban Design Considerations As They Apply to
Proposed Alterations.
A. Pedestrianization. The proposed alteration which
encl-oses a portion of the deck on the second floor of the Hill
Buil-ding will further facilitate and enhance pedestrianization
between the Hill Building and One Vail- Place by reducing the
amount of drifting snow in the pedestrian way. The proposed
ad.dition of a third bedroom will have no effect on the
pedestrianization of CCI .
B. Vehicle Penetration. The proposed alterations
provide for no additional points of vehicle penetration, nor wilt
the addition create more vehicular trips into CCI .
C. Streetscape Framework. The proposed new additions
will have littl-e effect on the streetscape frannework, except in a
positive sense in that snow build-up in a pedestrian way will- be
lessened by the semi-enclosure on the west side of the building.
The additions will provide an enhancement to the variety of open
and enclosed spaces, which will create a strong framework for
pedestrian walks, as wel-I as. visual interest and activity.
D. Street Enclosure. From Design Considerations,
Section Df Slreet Enclosure, we quote the following:
and
and
and
and
and
and
"While building facade heights should not be
uniform from building to building, they
should provide a comfortable enclosure forthe street."
"Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms, whosewalls are formed by the buildings. The shape
and feel of these rooms are created by thevariety of heights and massing (three
dimentional variations) which give much ofthe visual interest and pedestrian scale
unique to Vail-. "
"An external encLosure is more comfortable
where its walls are approximately one-half as
high as the width of the space enclosed."
"If the ratio fall-s to one-quarter or less,the space seems unencl-osed. "
rrlf the heiqht is greater than the width, it
comes to resembl-e a canvon. "
"In actual application, facades are seldomuniform in height on both sides of thestreet, nor is this desired, Thus, somelatitude is appropriate in the application ofthis k - to - 1 ratio. Usinq the averasefacade height of both sides wil-t qenErally-
still be a guide to the rcomfortablenesst ofthe enclosure beinq created."
"fn some instances, the tcanyont effect is
acceptabl-e and even desirable - for example,as a short connecting linkage between largerspaces - to give variety to the wal-kingexperience. For sun/shade reasons, it isoften advantageous to orient any longer
segments in a north-south direction. tong
canyon streets in an east-\n/est directionshould general-J-y be discouragled. "and
"When exceptions to the general heightcriteria oceur, special design considerationshould be given to creating a well-definedground floor pedestrian emphasis to overcomethe canvon effect."
and
"Canopies, awnings, arcade and buildingextensions can aI1 create a pedestrian focus
and divert attention from upper buildingheights and 'canyon' effect."
The proposed new addition, the existing Hill Building, and One
Vail Place wi-Il define and create the street enclosure between
One VaiL Place and the Hill Building. The street enclosure wil-l
guide the pedestrians from Founderts pl-aza to Vail Mountain, from
a large open space to al-l of Vail Mountain. While the street
enclosure is far from the "canyon" effect, the guideJ_ines state
that:
"the canyon effect is acceptable and evendesirable - for exampJ_e, as a short
connecting linkage between l_arger spaces',
The enclosure is al-so in a north-south direction, which is
advantageous.
The new height of the Hill Building wil1 stilL be considerably
l-ess than what is allowed in CCI . Roof l-ines at the completion
of the addition wiLl be a combination of flat and pitched roofs
which currentJ-y exist and which will be added, which will provide
visual interest for the street enclosure.
E. Street Edge. The proposed additions have no effect
on street edge, in that all- additions are on the second and third
floors of the existing buiJ-ding. The existing building, along
with the proposed alterations, will provide irregular facade
lines, canopies, building jogs, brick pavers and l-andscaped areas
(both at street leveL and by ftower boxes on the upper leve1s) ,
which give life to the street and visual interest for pedestrian
travel.
F. BuiLding Height. The maximum proposed height for
the proposed addition is 35 feet above street level. One Vail-
Place is 40 feet in height, the main Lodge building is 56 feet in
height and the new addition proposed for the Lodge, called the
fnternational- Wing, wiII be a two and three-story mix, with a
maximum height on the north side of 40 feet. The Zoning Code
Section L8.24.120 defines the height requirements for CCI , and.
al1 proposed heights are well below the requirements specified in
the Vail Village Urban Design Guide plan and Design
Considerations.
G. Views. The most significant and obvious view
corridors have been designated by the view corridor restriction
ordinance which was adopted some time ago by the Town Council.
The view from the plaza over the HilI Buil_ding was studied at
length by the Town council and was specificarly not included in
such ordinance' The views which were protected by the ordinance
were selected to be preserved due to their significance, not only
from an esthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference
points to help guests determine their location. The views which
we are intruding into were not given the same significance as
other views and, therefore, not protected by the ordinance.
The Design Considerations are a broad overview of
commercial core r and designate the design cri-teria for seven
different categories of concern. views are merel-y one of those
categories. The view corridor ordinance was reviewed in light of
the effect it would have on the six other categories and,
therefore, the view over the Hill Building was deleted from the
ordinance. No one category operates in a vacuum without
affecting the others and, therefore, the minor intrusion into the
views over the Hil-l Building is warranted because the proposed
additions enhance and satisfy the other categories of the Design
Considerations in the best possibl-e manner for the Town.
The real objective of the Village Plaza and CCI in
general is to present desirable and inviting commercial
activities and residentiaL facil-ities in a charming and effective
building frame, including mountain views, rather than to merely
feature a side-long view of the mountain per se. Canopies,
awnings, landscaping and building extensions provided by the
existing HiIl Buil-ding and alJ- proposed alterations help create a
pedestrian foqus which mitigate the minor intrusions into the
existing views over the Hill Building.
H. Sun Shade Consideration. The new sun shade studv
d.oes show an effect. on the area between the HilI Building and One
Vail Place. Our effect on the area in the morning is
approximatety the same effeet as One Vait place has on the area
in Lhe afternoon. The prior sun shade study shows no effect on
the Village Plaza area,
In summary, as Vail- Vil_Iage Design Considerations
state:
"The Design Considerations are intended toserve as guideline design parameters. Theyare not seen as riqid rules or cookbookdesign elements to bring about a homogeneous
appearance in Vail_.',
The intention of the proposed alteration is to address the spirit
of Vail as it exists and to enhance and extend that spirit. by
improving residential- living in commercial core r and to solve
snow build-up areas in pedestrian ways.
.-' I
r FR0M:
DATE:
T0: Planning and Environmenta'l Commission
Community Development Department
August B, .|984
SUBJECT: A request for exterior alterations for the Hill Building on Lot L'
glocli 5C, Vajl Village lst Filing to add second floor residential
space. Applicant: Blanche C. Hill
I. THE PROPOSAL - ,}.*-__'_.
The applicant, Blanche Hill, is requesting to build a 720 square foot bedroom
additibn that would create i ttrira'level 6n the existing west end of the Hill
Building. She would also like to enclose an existing deck area. The enclosed
deck is'approximately 370 square feet and is located on the west side of the
bujtding.onthe second floor- Two decks will also be added onto existing f1 at roofs
located off the new bedroom.
{,
, II. -COMPLIANCE }IITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CCI ZONE.
Purpose: The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to
maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its
mixture of lodged and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian
environment. Tfre Commercial Core I djstrict is intended to ensure adequate
,1ight, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types'of-buildings 'and uies. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail
V'i11age ur6an design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site-deve1 op-
ment standards that are intended to ensure the majntenance and preservation
of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting,on pedestrianways
and publii greenways, and to eisure cont'inuation of the building scale and archi-
tectura'l qualities that distinguish the ui11age.
III.
This proposal is jn comp'liance with the intent of the zoning for the CCI district.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
This proposal relates to the sgb-area Concept #'|4 for the Vjllage Plaza (now Founders'
Plaza).
"Feature area paving treatment, central focal point visjble from Gore Creek
Drive. Major land form/planting in Northwest for quiet corner, with evergreen
screen plantjng to definb west 6dge. I.lall Street stairs, with mid-level iog
landing, opens entry areato Lazier Arcade shops."
The proposal will obstruct the vjew of Golden Peak from the l^lall Street stajr
area (see view section). In other respects, the proposal does not conflict
wjth the plan for Village Plaza.
Hjlr B1+- 8/8/84
.. 1V.'
The purpose of the comparison between the proposal ana consjderations isto show how the new.deiign strengthens or iteti"aili irom the overa'lt intentof the design considerations.
fi;,,r -.".1
t\
ll t." l,
''
i\11"i i 1,J.,,' .
A. Pedestrianization:
The bedroom addition.and deck enclosure wil.l have minimal , if any,impact on pedestrianization.
B. Vehicle penetration:
No impact
c.Streetscape Framework:
Because_the add.itions. are Iocated on the second f1 oor, there willbe Iittle impact on the quaiiiv-ot-lne'watking experience in respectto landscapino and ground tevei iommeiciar iniitr. rne-quility ofthe pedesti^iai exoeiien.." ry_i!i u"-lliipii_ted by addirionar 'ihaoe on rhei?"li5";:,;iffi: b' the buiidin;;; :ii;ii-id6";;il'iii.r.igl or the view
Street Enclosure:
The consideration states that "an externar -encrosure is most comfortablewhere its wans are,approiimiteit.iii-;, high as the width of thesppce enclosed." The encrosed dick'strouta tJt-i-ii.t'ir,""street encrosurenegativelv. The existing rooi (Jn'fire-west sioe bi-itre"iliit guitoing)is approximatelv 24.feet"t high)-'rhe-peoestrian way varies between25 feet t to 3s feet t. ftre Eiistiri ioor is already greater than thedesired ratio. The new ,^;; ;;i;iil'si.s feet, wil maxe the ratioeven greater.
However, the consideration states that "in some _instances, the ,canyon,effect is even desirabre--at -i-ihort-Jonnecting
liriif"-oitween rarger
:P99.:. tg,give variety to the walking spaces."' fne ndw iniro revetw., r create more of an encrosed pedeitrian way that wiil connect villagePlaza with the open ptazi-i;-i;o;;-;;'ihe eondora bui.rding's ticket area.
n
The. consideration states .that ,,when exceptions:li!:ii. occur, special aefisn .oniii""utionscreate a well-defined ground-floor peaeitrian
to the general heiqht
should be given to -
emphasis to overcome
the canyon effect.',floor that has many
!o Create pedestria"n
For these reasons,:r addition.
Hiltls 4- 8/8/84
The Hil'l Buildinq has.a.vgry well defineo groundof the elements siggested bv"il,.'.on'iij"ration
_focus--awnings, buiidins. jo"ss; ;dil;;;.I space.stre.et e1cl9lure rs tmpact6o.,il.iffi;iy'by the
E. Street Edge
No impact. All additions
r' ^ 'r..r. trul torng Height
impact
I. Sun/Shaite
are on the second floor.
A
In CCI "up to 60% ot.the buildinS may qg,built to a height of 33 feetor ress and no more than +oz ri"irt.-'nrl,oing may be higher than 33ffiil;tl|t.lot hisher ttran +5 iu"i.'- ite existing heishis or the Hirl
,East side: 34 feet t, chimney 3g feettWest sjde: 24 feet t, cf,imnei i; i;;.=
The proposed addition.will_have a height of 31.5 feet. The heightis wer within the arlowinrii-r.,"iir.,il'"ih* n"* roof wiil be a pitchedroof' It will reflect ttre iame ii'i.rr and materials of the rower roof.
Views and Focal points
The bedroom addition will impact views when 100king up at the skimountain from vitage plizi'ffi"il$"irf*ng uact at the Virage fromthe smatt plaza behind uie-Hii'i iliiittrg'adjacent to rhe Goioen peaknouse' This view is,noi a,gg:isfi;;i'iiew to-be preserved under rhe urbanff.;fl: !illo;,i]il;, The-aadiiioiii"i,pi.t [].rl Fk*,away from the view
i:,;i*:ii:tli;i3' fi?, i ff ;tt; tnlij"if;; otru;r:i;,,0*,H :ff";ifu;ii,...,
Service and DeliveryH.
No
The consideration states that ,,at.new or expanded buildings shourdnot substantially incrlase ttr. ip"i;;"ril lan shadow patt6rn on adjacentpropertr.es or on the putiic n.0.il.,,,ir,.,,]aiirign w!ll i.ncrease rhesun,/shade shadow betwben r,r.r.r,-iiit ilii liir*oer 2rst by 7 feet.The-additionat striJe'ii:l tr .pp..i;ilri.iJ'*u square feet and is rocated' in the pedeJt"iiii-"irlway on.thb'il;;ffi;t corner of the buirdins.L The-area-serves is a p.ui,strian-wiJ,-ilri'io.r_not have any sittingaregi: Because the sbice_it ,i"J-iirv"ior"u.peoestrian way, theadditional srraae-itrouij nuu. a minimal impact.
Hil-lds -4- 8/8/84
$;t,'
This proposal comp'It11 wiftr \he GRFA requirements iorlI9 !"w,roof overhangs extendi,oier rhb nr^^h6F+r, .r;-^
l,H"llo
t i cant
-
r i i'i"i" i ulj=l" r ;;;;".ff ill!:;:il. t iff_
the property. Theapproximately 2 feet.the adjacent property
V. ZONI
Minimum
Al I owed
Pro tatistics -
g,000
6,400
sf
sf
Irv(,a ) |Exlsttng 3rd Fl,oor , ,696 sf1 4,779 sf
Stajrtv€t I deducd\on _ 372 sf'\',
lotat txi.t-i;a npri\. A AE1 ^.r
Bedroom- add.i tion ,
Deck. enclosure
Total Proposed GRFA 5,'I ^c| 5t
Allowed GRFA
Proposed GRFA
Remain'ing GRFA
6,
5;541
859
ov'/ner.
.,..-.'''.*.'.1.:+'"*.*=-.:-
VI.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
staff recommends aooroval of this propos?]...-g!-tjngunt upon the applicantmeeting the enginebi^'ing.conceini. 'ihE"uiew.impacts and.additionar 40 sq ftor snade, whi'te not poiitiu"-ioi'tn""io*u"itv, -ire .orriii..a to be minimairmpacts' Each oroiect should r" .Jri."!d-against every consideration. Thepfoject either iras'no or minrmii i;;;;'.. supports *ri, uroan Design considera_trons' Because the overari.p;9j";;T;ia91 is positive, stafr reconrnendsf,liiil'lntilii,ffi';:h,,i;i, i;fi
'?i.Hji
"uflijij:l';i:1ru: must be reso, ved
l. ?::il:g: yiil le^i.nside of buildins.:. rmprovement survey --.'-.'.:
: if;:Tiff;l:|;;"i--.r permit for existins improvement in4' f!;i3l'lT'lirll.;l'1'3;:ii;.ff,x1il be resorved by an asreement
I
Project Application
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Addr€ss and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone
-
Comments:
Design Review Board
DISAPPROVAL
E statt Approval
Project Applicatlon
Proiect Name:Hill Building Expansion
Date 0B /L6 / B4
Hill Building ExpansionProject Description:
Contact Person and Jay K. Peterson 476-0092
Owner, Address and Phone:Blanche C. HilI, 311 Bridge Street, Vail, CO 81657
47 6-5542
Architect, Address and phone: Beardslev Associates Archi-tects 13 South Te on Street,
rinqs, CO 80
Legal Description: Lot L Block. 5C ritinsVail Vif laqe lst ,76ns CCI
commenls: A11 materials and colors to be used will match the exi-stinq
Design Review Board
n
Motion by: Ko?Vf-t
seconded r fnarupf,0
Date
DISAPPROVAL
Town Planner E statr Approval
l.
ADDENDUM TO PROJECT APPLICATION FOR DRB(Blanche C. Hirl)
Roofs
Form:
Pitch:
Overhand:
Composition:
Stepped Roofs:
Materials:
Construction:
2. Fascades
Materials:
Color:
Transparency:
trrTindows:
Doors:
'l'r t-m :
Gable
3.5/r2
4 feet a\/era.rp: fascia is thick and wide
Varied but simpl" "o*poi=ition of roofplanes to enhance existing roof pJ-anes.
Roofs are stepped to reflect variationsin height.
Built-up roof wj-th gravel to matchexisting.
Attention has been paid to insure thatroofs will drain to the interior of thebuilding (drains being currently inplace) with a snow melt system where needed.
Current exterior drains on north and
west portion of the building will be
replaced with interior drains.
Board and bat to match existing.
Blue/gray with white trim to match
exi sting.
Littl-e transparency because additionis on second and third floors. Moreprivacy is needed because addition isresidential and, therefore, less open.
Windows are to match existing.
Wood patio doors and style and railindividual doors to match existinq.
Cedar painted white to match exi-sting.
Trim is used as a framing el-emenL toprovide visual interest.
3. Balconies
Cofor: Blue/gray to match existing.
Size: Ner,,/ north side balcony is 10' x 12,
and 7t6" x 3t6". lrlew balcony off
bedroom addition is 12' x 10r6".
I.lass: I,lassive yet transparent to allow thebuilding to be somewhat visible behind.
Materials: Cedar post with narrow cedar rails to
match existinq.
Constructj_on: New balcony floors are roofs ofexisting structure.
4. Decks and Patios NA
5. Accent ELements Existing awnings and canopies wj-1l
remain except as modified by theaddition or west balcony.
6. Landscape Elements NA
"7. Service NA
2.
I
INTER-DTPARTMENTAL REVI EI.l
PROJ ECT:
DATE SUBMITTED:
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
PUBLIC WORKS
Reviewed by:
Comments:
DATE OF PUBLICE HEARING:
Date;
Date:
Date:
Date:
O Eow . /g'vrnrr f-sz
- l2,tgr, ,- flzo Pe-rztv'
Q!./ p.-u; ALn)-,,u?
#
4ccfi el t $ /t^t|- e>'J(?'o/T{tl rn('t"'/J o*' 7 o
iF< ( uo taro oaex- If k-G|
$) Z'Uc, FJ<z4e'x' €\Jc'Eo'+cr/zo+ <.2- f S -94a 't <-P Ze- 4 cr c)t'/6>c
'74zov,< T,f€ f r*4 rze 1:ra <J C>// 4cfeXo r-
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
TOWN ATTORNEY
Reviewed by:
Comments:
Reviewed by:
Comments:
Date:
o
Bu ilding Expansion
LI J'o F trH fdR lrlLS
li,\l'Jt: 1)ii i't(0,;iicl'ftlt_L
LI;(:Al, DI:l;Clttl)'fl0N: L0'l'L UI,OCK 5c tjl. tlic Vail village lst
L)l:scl{ll,,fl(l;'l ol; PR(}JI;C'f Expansion of Bedroom and Greenhouse Addition
Thc fol lor',ing infornatjorr islloard bcl'ore a final approval
A. BltlLnIi{(; MA1'ERIALS
Iioo f
Siding
Other ltal l lvlateri.al s
Fas c ia
Soffits
Windows
Itlindow Trirn
Doors
Door Trin
Hand or Deck Rails
Flues
Flash:'ngs
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhorrs es
Other
B. LANDSCAPING
Name of Designer:
Phone :
PLANT MATERIALS
reqlr ir.cd for subrni.ttal by
can be givcn:
Type of lrllrterial
thc applicent to thc Dcsign llcvielv
Built-up roof with gravel. surface to matchEFfs-ttn
Ecgtd and bat, stained blue/gray to match
exr_st'rng
Extension of existinq
Galvanized metal painted charcoal to match
exr_ st't_ng
None
Common Name
Color
Cedqr (post and narrow rail_) painted blue/gray
-=.-__.
to match e*lSE -
NA
TREiS
Botanical Name
NA
Quantj ty Si ze
None
Cedar painted white to match exi_sting
Cedar palnted white to match existing
Wood (Pe11a)inted white to match existinq
Cedar painted whj-te to match existing
Wood (Patio) and style and rail single
Cedar painted white to match existing
Used brick to match existinq
Beardsley Associates Architects
L-635-1421
SHRUBS NA
GROUND NA
COVERS
SEED TYPE NA
TYPE OF NA
SQUARE FOOTAGE
SQUARE FOOTAGE
SQUARE F0oTAGE
SOD NA
IRRIGATION
TYPE OR METHOD NA
OF EROSION CONTROL
C. Other Landscape Features (retaining wa1ls, fences, swimming pools, etc.) Please specify.
NA
COMMITMENT
TO INSURE
This commitment was produced and
issued through the office of
LAND TITLE
OUARANTEE COMPANY
l|i Land Tith.Gu";"olt".?rco'o"t
108 So. Frontage Rd. West
Vail, Colorado 81658
Representing:
f rrr-r
I
nrsu naruc e
f, o rvr nar.rv or lfl r r.r ru EsorA
,tJeleIcaS_,=z.r-6re_
vrosiNNr[1ll ro rr'rvarnrof rcNvunsN I nrrl
racg.;o Burleptp,r e ,(q pou8tsralunot uoqlr\ prp^ eq ol'V einper{rs ul u^\ogs a}?p oqt uo srotuJo
oluneror{ eq ol lees pue alueu alerod:oc sll posnec seq elosauulq 3o ,{ueduro3 oJuernsul aFII
',troluu8rs paz oqtnB roqlo ro
pezuoqinB ^lnp slr ^q
poxuJe
.COAUAHA\ SSANIIA\ NI
'lustul uluoJ srql fq pore,roc uoereql eBeSuotu lo lsoJalul Jo alelso oqt enF^
roJ plocor 3o salnbce pernsur pesodord oql rlup oql 01 JorJd lnq Joeraq alup e^tltoJJo oql o1 luanbasqns 3utqre11e
to splocer cqqnd aqt ur Surreodde lsru 'paluarc ',{u? Jr '$e}l8ur rsqlo ro srurel3 asra^pE 'soouEjqtun3uo 'suoll 'slceJec S
'sprocar c11qnd oqi ,{q u,uoqs
lou pue ,r\?l {q pesodur 'psqsrurnJ rog?aroq ro e.roJo}eregl Fualeiu Jo Joq?[ 'socl^ros roJ 'uall e o1 1q3u ro 'ua11 ,{uy 'n
'sprorar rqqnd aq1 ,{q u,lrioqs lou eJE qJlq/t\ puB ssoltslp plno.n sastrue:d eql Jo uollJedsur
pue ,(arr.rns lcarJoJ E qrtq/$ slceJ ,{uu puz 'slueurqceorcue 'eore ur aSelroqs'seuq frzpunoq ut slcluuoJ 'selJuedoJJslq '€
'sprocor cqqnd eq1 fq umoqs 1ou 'sluoures?o Jo stulBlt ro 'siuoluosBg '7
'sprocat c1lqnd aql ,{q u,uoqs 1ou uolssessod ut satlred;o srurelc ro s1q31g 'l
:8uno11og agl ol lcalqns osl? sr luotlltr,uuroJ slt{l
'ol perreJel eaoqu a3era,ro3 uo4 suorsnlcxg pue suorlelndqg pue suorltpuoJ rql 14 pal48luoc slallEu aql ol uoJllppu ul
SNOIIdSSXI OUVONVIS
'lseulluuloJ sIr{l Jo suors!^ord aqt ot tcefqns are pu? uo ptseq
aq lsnu lueullutujo3 slql fq pate,roc uoataql a8eSgour oql Jo snlels aql ro lseralq ro elelsa eql ol ellll eql Jo snl?ls eql Jo lno
Erirsuz ,,{ueduro3 aqtlsurets iq.rq ,(uru ro e,riq ,(uur pamsril pasodord ag1 1uq1 uopte Jo slq8P Jo suollsz :o uol}ce ,{uV 'i
'ureJeq pelJlpolu ,{lsserdxa se ldacxa
luou$guu.to3 srql Jo ued E eppu pue acuaraJer i(q palurodrocur ,{qa.raq are qJIq_A\ palnsul pasodord aql Jo ro^EJ u.l roJ-pallluJ
.uro" iegcllod ro ,{irlod go urirg aqf;o a8ere,r63 urorj suo;snlcxa aqt'pue suoltzlndrls pu? suoltlpuoC eql pu? suolsl^ord trnrnsut
aqt q iifqns s1 ,,fi1qeq qcns !uz'ro; peprurur-oc saicllod ro-,(cq1od all roJ v elnpews u pat?ls lunous aql paecxa i(1!1qeq qcns
Ipqs luarre ou ul 'luarulturuo3 qq1 ltq peJe oJ uoalerll a8uSlroru ro lselalw ro aletse eql a]?aJJ ro arlnbcs o] (r) ro 'g aFpar{ts
of riroo,t, suopdacxa et?urullo ol (q) ro goeraq sluaurarrnbar eql qll^r ,(1duoc og (u) qlpJ pooS ut EullzgaPun ul uotreq etuull
-al u poJJn3uI ssol pnlc? ro; {po pu8 roJ pallTuJuroc sa;c11od ro fc11od Jo urroJ ogt u! parnsul _Jo uorllulJap 3ql rapun paPnlo
-rn sarired qcns pud pernsuf palod6rd pauriu aql ot Iluo aq [[sqs luoulluru]oC sr-ql :apun ,(ueduro3 aq1 jo ,(11tqei1 't
'suorlepdrgg pu? suolllpuo3 aseql Jo t qderBrred ol luensrnd perrntur ,(pnon-erd
I11pqe11 urory {uedruo3 eql a aJler lou 1?r{s }uarupueu? qcns rnq lriau1frocci luaurlruru:o3 slqi Jo g elnpaqts puaure ,(uur
uriiirio'ill 1u
-rtueduro3-aq1''ra11eri reqlo io -ruw1c
aira,rpe 'acuurquncu5 'u5q 'lca;ap qe_ns i(ue go e8pa;,trow1 1en1ce sertnbce esvrr
-raq1o ,(uedruo3 aql g ro 'fu8druoC eql o1 aSpal,roul rlrns esolosrp n?qs parnsul pasodord aq1 31 'a8pelmool qrns asolcslp os ol
perirsul paeodold iqi 3o arnpe3 ,{q pa5pnfard s1 ,{uedriroJ aqi rualxa aqt ot uoareq aru?Jler Jo 1ce {ue uror; Euplnsar e8eurep
ro ssol fue rog,(trpqe;1 uorJ pe^aflar aq geqs fueduro3 eql'tullrrn ur {ueduro3 eqt o} e?pal/t\oDl qrns asolcslp ol ltBJ Bqs puB
.yoara! g epiaqi$ q';mo,ir'"roqr ucql rarpo luau:11uruio3 sJrp r(q poraaoc uoaraql a€e8lrou ro lsarolur ro oleTo eqt Eupca;3e
r-o11erureq1o ro ulzlc es.la,rpe'acuzrqurircua''uaq '1ca3ap ,{ue go'a8p61,r'ou1 pnlce sarmboe ro seq Pemsul pesodord aql 31 'Z
'luaurnrlsur ,{lgnras roqlo ro'peep lsrul'lsnrtJo peap epnlcq 1?qs'uoraq pasn utq {'..a3et1roru,, urre} oqJ. 'I
sNo|lv]ndtls oNV sNorrloNoc
'r{uedruo3 eql Jo llneJ er{l lou sl sa1c11od ro ,(c11od qcns enssr ol amlnJ aql ler{} pepl ord 's.mcco lslu rt aller,q^\ 'enssl lleqs
roJ pellnuuo3 sarclod ro fc{od aql ueq,{ lo Joorar{ olBp a^rlroJJe eql raus sq}uour xrs elEuJurel puB-3ssec llel{s ropunarerl suon
.eilfqo pw r(1;gqef ge pue a-cuerniur efp go sa;c116d 16 ,{cr1od- qcns Jo aru?nssr aq1 ot ,{:eulurilard st 1ueur11uurof, slql
'luatuosaJopue lu0nDesqns Aq Jo
tuaulluuroC sql Jo ocu?nssr aql Jo eurl oql lE rsrllro '{rnduro3 aqt ,(q goaraq V aFleI{cS u pauesu ueeq a Bq roJ pollururol
sarollod ro ,(c;1od aq1 go lunoluu erp puB palnsul pesodord eq1 ;o ftpuaP! aql uaq,$ .{po e,n1co;;e aq neqs lueullFuuloC EtlI
Soaraq suorlqndlls puu suolllpuo3 aql ol PUB I
pu? y s3lnpsqcs 3o suorsl,rord oql ol lcalqns n? :roJoreql so8nqc puu sulnrutatd aql 3o 1uaur,(ed uodn 'y alnpaqcs q ol paJJEal
io prqdso:p 1iuii.q1 * iq"r"q par€Aoc tsaratrn ro elBlse
"q1yo
aiSu8trotu ro reuar'o sE 'v alnpeqcs ut peureu pamsul pesodord
eW lo'rongJ uI .y ilnpapg u! peguuepl sE'ecuumsul elli Jo sarclod ro ,(c11od stl enssl ot slnuuot dqaraq 'uotlelappuoc
elq?nF^ e ro3'{uudtuo3 eqr paIIEc qaraq 'uorlerodrot e}oseuu i e'VIOSgNNII^I dO ANVdI IOC AJNVUpSNI ATI11
elosouulw'slpdeauulw lo Aueduoc lcols E
vros3NNrfill ro
^NVdwoN
rcruvunsNl srll
'^au 046! 'lNSl lrlt twoc Nolrvlcossv ll'llll oNv] NvSlu3hlv
auz zagz |.uroj mtJ
1.,
.:'
Fi i... -i tl j-: t.r Ft J.r .L i I=i [: l..i "i
I r.:.1 Jl.;r iil.-lt- i:.:. il
ltr- r-. I :i ,,. * i :r ,::, i1 i',i,-. " ....1,'r{ ii.}..1., rr,ili. -t".:
F':l In,1:,:t..rra.l. :r n!.! l_.r:l l,.
- tl. l-r fl. r s,J :. -
i-lltl-iia f Fr,::r I ir.i.
irftl:.i... I ll !::Ef:,r:ri";j-f qi:i i-j{i _ {::i-j
-" -- l i:! ff,r. ...., -.. :ij j. ii,-,. {:ri-!
LJit l'r ','rrr.L r I ilitrr j. l--t*ncr.' r,l *asi? r +i:::1. t!i ,Ji )r-ri-i,:;i iir..-.,::,..
r',€{:i?r::.ii "..r: l..r.rt+.x Hj_1,.i!_i;,T 1-:- :i,ii:4 ,=r.L i:i: i.ili i::r. i'i .
Ii'-:1i';, f,i L,* j s:.:.r.:r,J. .i.ri,J F i :--j i:r i-r c .-. ,-i J r,e r..1;;,J:
"rill-4" l:11:rr?+r'. :i f:',::, I i_r: i.I;,::'irii I]-. 1,:1,?{l i r.lir|l .r,.a.,:i tl lt-r,.-l ./_.ri-ji
i r;- r;r ;:r,i 5; ;-, '-1 f 11 5 r1 r'. .,., r.l r
I Iiii
-i ji:' ,::'i: {.;,i|* ,:i j. ir rr:r,,=::t rrr t. Irc I;,irr ,:i rJ.i,::,:r. jrr;,,:l r:,r f .,:j f rti-.i,;j,-j 1:,", j. r.., llri:;l,l;,:, r,iTr j. ttt;.li-;t i.n,.l ,.- i:, \-:1: r. T i! fi.*r.+ i n r;!
{+ i:ii.i::l
-i r't-l* t. ':' f ir,: *r'1:;l.i:i ir irrtr:r *-.: f {,:,,ji:,r{rtJ h.:i. ,: -l ft :i:.i ;:i.i: .r; r-j,J: sr !;,i*,: i: i !..rdnt.n il+!-+r,:1: V*Ftril ,::i i.J-i:
f..AFir:,i::1.. :L *
F1... Al' ji::}..:l:: r:: , l"f I l-- 1....
l:ftfti.:[.:i .,i i
HL.i!l".ii....i.ii:: i"-. i..l.i. l_.1. irrlr../r:_t [i]_i:!i.l:.-*:i.!ir: i_., iifit.t:::i:l--,:f,;Fr!,|!
J'l-r * 'l a.n,i f- r-1 .f rt!-.r.+!:tl t,r !ri t,hl. s r:-:,r;-r,ri! itnii:r-i.h i -.. ,j+.:,:i. j i:r i:,_l :,i: .i:*l I *::l.ti
f irilii..I:;i- :r *
i.1i'i:.j|]i.l.'l.i..ii.:i'j:r.L.I:l.l'.L.:.*i''tJi:':i.::|:i'|'.':.|"J4r].Lr.',|:|..|'..H!']ij:i,i:i.'ir..::.i''i-.1.i...1''jj::i.
::il..JIii_t l irr l::; i t_;l.i -i i..l l'l-it:: l'',t!i1.J
i'iLjRF'F,iiF:T1:L.t|LAiiY]-.lr.-:i.:|;i]Lii,i,:if-..'',',.-ili[:
i',!i j!11 ll ["1.l.,|.:ii'||!;i.i:!:f|.]:]:i:.|L!T,|-|.g#l|,.li.:i|-i:iit,'J..::;;il
::;EF-iV:i frH: Ft._tl. !i..iflgity ::;r.:,!,!j-l-l j::i,:;j l-ii:;i:,r:.,F.r:,i:; 4..- ,"i | ",.1..r1-i::t;; i.ii.i t::[a.,_iliLi,;; :.if 1i-l- iiL1Ii..|.6*|..|i:f|-]Fl.'l::.i.-dg:.q11-,''.it|l;.|'J]::i::1.,]!..ii:;'l.'.l]'i:]j.']i]:,i'.ii:li:..l:]::';i.l';]i.\ii..|-|.
1i F. ,,.:1.:.t f.j l-! r;; i4!:-r:: r A
il ,
.-l
ai i... -i A i_.. i..i 1": i'', .l i i-i i.:. I..l i
:i:.r.,. l'.ti: [ji.-1 i.,.. i;:
g;s1::; l i r:;,r i- j. i,r: i',i,,,. ! !{..!t.,i.ri:.':.rji.--:,:
F|I|'!!..|Tti::i{.]j||:;[.|-'|'.liii-i:;;i.]i::.::;'i/ilr-.-:.I.*t''jl.-,;.i:j]:i:',."J.'|:i::l:I:
l'i[i]|11';.1;;ij.:||.l.1.i!Lil-l::l:;iJ,J::ir::.L.:|:.i|,4j':l!;l..Jf:-:;T
l\ji!i:.li.J.:?i:ir'li:-i':j.:.]|j.F:.ii.r:.:il"l
i;'i:'[..l;l'!.Ji]]l,.]|':i::.:::;l"li.|.|i-i
f_i;j tj,:,i.:, " i:17 li:Jri,:: -f -i.i..t i.j.il:r. F,U I i,l I t_;rj r;iFr i:; I t.!td I i,jii..
L:i]!:'f.it]Tj.|.jt]A|i|i-igi';.:,1::.;111;t".'j:tt*L.li\|-l'Lr\rlt.i:]'L,fi]:;.;:;i:i':|]/+l.*'::;.
f:..Fi::ii:f'!Lf! i l-ij:f;i-:i;] l lrJ:Ll Ai:i F: {il- L.!:.il,l:::;r l.J i. lr.ll i.i -l'i.lL. Aiir..rtri::. Llil:r::i{,F: ,i. Eiii:.IiirH:::!:'.]l;:rF.i-Ii.-iI..J,i1jl]FF]i:l.i:li::.i;;-;1.."g.'"':}i][l|::A:::[:
r:iT' 1: i::L-iJ!1j-i tJlJ '!'li[ ['ii.;; r[:EL,..i [.ii:.ij.ri,.rl1f:;iy r-J;::. cirii:1,./i;.. l..i::r1;;,-.1" | ij[i.j Friiili.]i:i... J:.:
l'lI|'j!'-|-t'E.!:;:'.::.:'::;i:i:l..ii11i1l::;;|"j[]::;-f
ilf.'l -!"f.lla-:::ir-'!l,.j"fl..ltrFrt .Y Fjr-.it..ti.jfifriiy l't[. 1::;,1, 1J., f.:,*j::ii.:i::l_..
F t+i;ii.. i:: i.... ;: ,
|.'..t.-;li.-,!{L|:ll::i.:::::;l.:.,'jii.tL.1,'.t|-t.'irl'ji:,i'.i|i:::.l"
Rl!r_.i...:1-:;1,1:-Ti ir:,t._fi i" Tl.:i..j.iil.jt.,jI:" {:::,t..t1,.i-iy lll;: 1:riit..jl...f:, ,;; i/-i.l.th i:,F. i-.:i_il.-l:,i:tF:i!j:{ "
Tlir, i:,:' I i:",t,ri. i.i:" ;.:, j-* .i: f,!:-. r*ni-itr*ti;.ii-,.iti..r i..,i it.rl ,::,tiTrFl i*,J n:,i.ir :
:i. ,. i"::'ii., ii;a: ir t.
*:r'iii r:: !:rir:i i ti*r; i..i.,.;,11 i:,'i1- i: ir.,: 11 : i-*i,;, r,j. i rr'r\i:i i:r: i: i.: j:r, !:,:ii :r firaui.."..i,,
..]::''i::,r,1,i::..11J:i.fl!il"ft.i]|:*i:'|i3.rl.'i':+itIl|:;i:lll:'
ifjr.jjij t L'* ,::,,.: *,-jt..ti-!+* i;,. t-r i::l {ll-! -I..,.- lri -1 ii r-r 1- r.'f. i.ii::,.:: !jr-,_l , .j-,::.._l:r:tt;
ir i.. -l $: :_-r '; l-i t..i _1 -l
.;.i-- i:i;.i.ji.:t...i:: Il _ .!
i; f;l.i' .: ; ! i. i .*, rii ,r r: | :-. ,:
I-i i; i.l I
i.!ri" i :. ':';i 1- i ,i|i l.i,:,. !.ii:;I.i1.!i:r,,r.i"{1-.:,::
-i ili: Il!:{ri- [::i-lF;ii''!-iiA:.!aai:i:i:.: -i!r':]i
1,1 i': L.r A l. 1.., f'!-jliL: iii;r:lE' l. i :i:.!-i!,.!l.,lr-. :iJ
l-] 1l;::;[..::. :]:j';i:. ii-i "
l"ii_!T[:.i _]-i-iL:_.i Frii*F.i::F;t !"t.. l"tily rji:. :;r:r.tFt._ii::i.: | .lr-:
:rf rrrl.!;:fl.jF- rJr I1:r; Iirf.l..t,..l:i:j i.r-r1..1 ',' t'l j.l,ji::: ti.-jt.ji,.l
i.:!-'l.l-l /:it".:'i -ri-lrr
T Llit:,; r.:,i. vi: L i.- ftrj.tj;Aii;..r:i I.lr:i t::jr-i _1. l.r
F 1... l- f: i: t.r i'i I'i .i: -i
::,i-:i...il:i!!. ii. t-- ijr -:ii
i l:i..,.,: * p t i *ii::.,,
I'i i:r f,j 1
t'.:: o e ! .i :: ;i. {: .i ,.:r |r !',1 ,:, . l-l t-t 1. ! t_:i:':, J j.:i .- -;:
f !rr1 Fr:, I j.,::i i:.' r' FrtI i_ r- i.;._:"1r {;ri i.,.: i:.Sr.l*,1 ur i. l l !: r, !-: t,?. i. !-: *:!:. ,: r F .i: : r.:: l-! ::. l,:! .Lir*
j:'jl I ':'Lri.rii i..filij!:: tij.u s.*.r.;c ;r.f.F r;l j.g;=4;;1,J i, j: t:r th* :,*.i; if. i:i.r,. j. rir.: r:. l: .f i-:r'.
l:: r-, fi j:: ,1. r! '!. :
-i." :::;tf.Ii,Ji]!".,J [-:.::.:;'::irj E:f i,,i.ig J. tiir,:,r_iI{Fr ".]:l i::,-. .
!-i l:..r_i,.i ,i t-r ti.r* i:,-,,....1j,f f i-r.i:iit f.,.
i;. " l-;1.::::*ti ari,.i at:+::*rri.:i1 f: rr*t ,-i?.1. ,:l r_ri? ,ir. p,,.q,,.q.1, i* ,ii, ,l f F.::, j: rit I ;i.r.;,.:: F jii..i:...i ir..ir!,::'t' i i:t r:i,r'f j. f j.t,:J tr., f fu.* T r. * a. s r..r r € i. . g ,::,.1; i: j.,:,.:"
Frr'r' ut-iFr.i.,l |,'.'r..,.,. i+ l. ,ii- i. t- ti i* F r; |Ii * t..r t!: a.*ai f! !t ;-ai.,.i .i a.r: .:i .,
1.....1. -irl'.: i!:'i t.tfi!-!.i.d r*;it,*"r ;.!-,,i ri A Ui.;1 t. ,:: i-r,t !- !:r,,: F r i.i ;r.1r.,.,,
i{Il:.;|-l.il-lf;F:,|:i']-li:.i:;.J[:."r,1:!i:i:i..!!::A("]r;]r.di:l|;ri...i.'!['E.Tl;:';11;:;.6,'.'
1"H!:Fi[FFtLJ!'J1iJ-|1.!l-.|i-J..|-fl.J;:;:;;Ai"1F.I'iFjrri'1i'.ii.i|,|
l''F;:[.i'l I:t::f.:j A;--: F:H:iirir/'ii1j ItJ i_li.J.t. l'.r:.lr
:i t j irilr-li.:: "ri.:;i; r:il' Frilt:il._ 47lt "
7"
ilr ,
-lij"
T|,Ji:l..li..!Il.':,I'i:-:iTA'].r;;A:1;r:;;p..1-:;;.il;'';1::'i],1.i.ii'-ii..|i.irIj::].l.il.'[,:;;
'.i.:i., j,iai'.,i{:,, .L!',1 llr_ia-r ,: 4:::t in"t f..,ql:;I: 4.7f;.
j.:l,.|;i*'::;lh.j'j.-,l.rl.:jF'i,::i,.']|-ii.'i,jiil--l]..i|:!l.ii:iTA|{AF:!:]RFL:
ljj..i-rL'iil.i.1,.l".{!'.ll]F;ii::;;:i|';1.l.:l.]L-lf..j:...'?1:ri...t'iY"
l-.1liltAi'{l:;i]ij'i...!:,,-jii-ij'i1i?f::;r.-:r..it';1gJ1.lt.iiIi.-.'lIt'..i';:'T|;:i.iiiE'i''|T;ji:i_':!ilI:i:i:{|..ll,;;111;;..'-.'.'
.1 :i rl:,-,::j, :!. I..i J1r: -1i.,: t :/ jl. Fl-!- F,Afirr 1. :.r,:i ,.
f.!l:!TEt .i-TF-l'l::: :.)l' lil ,+ruil .l 1. ...1::.;:.l:.,-1 !, I,61i:{r:..i;1..;:, t ii_ilj .":
1"]'"|'''il-IL..j...l.'.Y't:.p,::iE.|"|F.h|"|:;''iF'l:'l:i-ii}....i:lj.j|:;
FrF:|:];]'i';|;il.Y1-1::j::;iJ::"|t,li..l!:li.'|.|i.JI..:;1{:i:]L'-it.;I':i:i
L :3, [:.f,I:-.:i:ii.ri-li::i.l:'i
ir!-'ilj.'J,I.i:i;]l.ii'..ii.i:ii..|i]i_il..1L:fl::E.l'lj:|.'i-|l'::ii.-l:!i''j!.:iTlil:::iiJl'.i,T.i.ji:i::.i.,Y
::;;i,l}-l''.]i:::l:.'.i|]iii:,ii:'F:F'i-l.ii}':.:i,r:;i..ii.iirll.'l
l',ir--i ,, :1j,.:;,: iiY l:-ir:ii.;ti .l:i tAl._i.-F:y L,i\lG I i,i[l_-f": ]. l...lii ir EUFi,llT I l,.ir.i, : l,ir-: ,,
],4"F-ri{:irii,lFli.:li|'iHi'lr-[|F]:ti-'|:iL'I,.i,i!''jI':i
ia*i:iT fir'.ilt t,iE::,1- i_r:r i 1.. I i,,ii-:r::;:
'.-lljrl , lilr-l " ';'::1.?' Fiv,' i.r'{i;:ii..t-l: r"/tll.. L-l:. y [:.i.Jii ]. l.lr.i:.i:;r.1. lijr::i l, ,rri. if:tr.-,i:..y.i idll r i. i..!i-:,,
i5"
:::;f fiV.l. !...tLr i:,irii" jf:',;i ij/l i
l.jL-;, ,:r'.:j.I Fjy i:.'At:ji. ij tjiil".i..fr!, t.i,.,i:;:ilt[.f:i?Il.ji.:i i]i ::;t-tiir/,ETIf,:r:r!. Ijrlt__: ,,
*-il :: E.l'iL: f'j l- :.r :::i :::l-l t.,t l"4i.;
!.:Ai.il"[:: i.'tl]l-.i-.[ / l::f-,!i:;,i.i;J:::i:::FfrllL:; ;;:. ]::i..tj:,,r,,i". i.ii.!i.,, .Ll,.li:,,
ii i._ f i:i i-: i:i i.J l.i .t I ,J i:. i..l 'j"
:::, I i..li: I..ti- !l .l:. In *",jl
i [:i ., : ,:: ,: r. !: :i. i:, it :-i I iirr.' ji.,:.:'':.i. j
::-1 i: l- i. ifi:i::
a-!-i llilijii:,:r7,,
::i.qjlilF,:FI-i|:li:-i.i;iL.::::;-i..i.iA:jF.i'!|l
l;its.r::r:'ijf ii[it:i &l-!r.:t._i:;;"i- 1. t ') i::i131.;:, I i1 Fi:..ii:tt:: i:t.i:,i.: r-t-l- l:,A j-.ii.i: ,.r::; ,
.i ll: ,
F.|.itL'Jl::1.}]L-!:::l'H.l:-':i::.!::!:p;!:ii'.'!:i:i|:|l.li'J..iYi:l:li;t'i'i'ii::Li:;:ii::i':,i::
:::;:jr_::r-li;jf
Al_ pA!::!:i iit?.
ij.-\,iJ.'iJ:::|.':i:r::J'}|:!F-rFiL']:rlT|dfj]!I..t-li:.i:.!'i::F(::']!Il-.:l'..;J.iE:.i:,|r1,*::;:::;
:;:El:'i..:lii:ii:.F i:i !.-!!::: l-l::-.; f 1 ;.'- j.,:l:rlt.::j r .l ij Ei!.:,:.:i:. :;.*,,i:, A-i- l:,&t-ii.;: .t. r.ri_r.
iri,'lFi'.':[i.:i.J:;:1..il|;ii::i::i:F:i:Aj-ji-HI:.[:li.,'|''].1/
:i:.;ii:l.li:ii: -l i Il: :::;!- li,i
A i i:,i:il.:;. !. i_r.1.
"
];:;f)].I.-j1'.ji::F.t.il:lr'.'l'|i!-.!:'1i.I.LjF::*.Fl'.l|;lTHHF'i:';1...'...'*'*-
tiE'::r-rFif-:5li Flt.ii.i t,.!:;:; l- .1. -t . l.:t:::;., I fi FJi_i!:ti:: .;::l:.i: AT F.r:lr:if;- i i i .., ,
f'lr_rl l:: .L TF-:t';:; j :,f,.- j..:r i:iF-F:.;j.i-::l- i..i:ri:il:.:H.L .,.r.
:;:i.i..TE|]l"i'i"i':iJi.Ji]III|:'ij:;f-;I',jI.!!:,r.:J-.i'!jL,:;Ii-!hl::.fll;;]i;!.:ili:i{:jIi:::;;'',]il
Ffri1.'.|:i:':i.!l'.fi:ii-.'iI''rF-ll;:...i:i]:*:.i.|'il..l[.ii..ii:.|*l:':r'j'J.iFii:'i:|:ii1Ili:i.l
ill-.li:-'i.:: :.::;l::i ri l- !-'#lt.:,[: ii.i_r 1 ,
.;;::'i"[:;|il::I:il"]fi1-:i"ij'1|li..jl.il;.:
/:ii.j[|F1l1ILll:]{i:::;i'l;ii;:'k,iF|i:;::;j'.il:iliji'li:|i{ji4r,F;i:i,'1.:J-.4k.i'.]f
t'{i-.r" ,;'.i;i;:' Hy i::{ii_il_.Lr: \iF1l...t._[:y E.l,lii i 1,1gEq; g;:i i!$I] .:.i-iijt\.rf. .i i. l.ii_i :1, l.!ir:..
,;:.:.li:i'{t''f;-;p1;..;i'11,;pI1i.]-l''iJ:::]li-..iii---.i.ili',ii';.
-].l'''ii]li;:i:::;':'A:1j|'||.;:i!;]E.:;:::;[A.::i:i"ii:|'.l-
,-.''",11;:.[tl:il..i'[:.-]|:iiJ]'..jU-1}':;7L1'1i::F1i:ii.'.i:-!riiL.|.."[Yi:'i''i:::i:|'lIl]1i;;.Ii
L f{r.: "
:;j:.:r "
A,,'i.:.,ji;Ii|-rj|.'i|:-:H,;:i:::.l.ij.i.'i''.|i:i.1',j|j!:,LlL:l'..]i
|'..l:::ii::|.li'l''F'i;;i..:'''||.|..ii':;
:g::l{J':r, i:){_}r'.i, rJi_i j:it:f t.it.ir.,i--f. i..ji:igFr"lqf [ ].n, 1.,:.,.1,:r, : f,l li{:1ilii::j:.::j.4t Ai. F,A!:jp: ,i. r,,-i,
f{l..ll.t:: ; j: -ii:.l"1tl; .,::r:i. ;,:":j 1-r i.:: F: i: t::-i. f}{lFi!:.ti::L. :,:j
(
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Pl anning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
August 8, .t984
A-request for exterior alterations for the HillBlock 5C, Vail Village lst Filing to add secondspace. Applicant: Blanche C. HiIl
Bui'ldi ng on Lot L,floor residential
I. THE PROPOSAL
II.COMPLIANCE l^JITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CCI ZONE.
III.E9MPLIANCE WITH E URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The.applicant, Blanche Hil1, is-requesting to build a 720 square foot bedroomaddition that would create i ttrtra'tevet 6n tne eiistini wJst end of the Hi1Building. She would also like to enclose an existing aeit irea. The enclosed9"gf'ir approximately 370 square teei ina ir located on the west side of theDUlJqlng'on the second floor- Two decks wil'l also be added onto exjsting flat roofslocated off the new bedroom
Purpose: The commercial core I district is intended to prov.ide sites and tomaintain the unique character of the Vail Vilfage -omreriiai a""u, with itsmixture of.lodges and commerctar eiiaoiishmenti"in-t p;il;intntrv peJJsiiianenvironment. The commercial core I district is intenbed to ensure adequate
lisll:.,1]l:^ol:l slace, and othei imeniiies approp.iate t0 the perm.itted types9I-gurrolngs and uses. .The district regu'lations in accordance with the Vaiivillage urban desiqn guide ptan-ina-aeiign consiaerations prescribe site develop-ment. standards thai aie intendea io "nrrie the maintenance and preservation
::.,tfrij9ht1v_clusterea.aruangem.rti "i buirdings iionling-on pedestrianwaysdnq.puDllc greenways, and to ensure continuation of the Uuitainb scale and irchi-tectural qualities that distinguish ihe-viitage.
This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the zoning for the CCI district.
This proposa] relates to the sub-area concept #14 for the village plaza (now Founders,Plaza).uFeature area paving treatment, central focal point visible from Gore creekDrive. Major land iorm/p1 antins in-No"ttwest ior quiet corner, with evergreen:::g::-ptllljls tl defihb west 6ase. -r,larr Street siuiis,-*ifi,-mia:r'evei jos-tanolng, opens entry areato Laziei Arcade shops,', '
The proposal will obstruct the view of Golden Peak from the t4.|all Street stairal99 (:ee view section). rn 0fi,""'respJcts, the proposar does not confrictwith the plan for Vi[ige ptaii.- '--'"
Hi 1t -2- eleleq
IV.COMPLIANCE I,IITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATION FOR VAIL VILLAGE
o
The purpose of the comparison between theto show how the new design strengthens orof the design considerations.
proposal
detracts
and
from
considerations is
the overall intent
Pedestri an i zati on:A
i:r
The bedroom addition.and deck encrosure wirl have minimar, if any,impact on pedestrianization.
Vehicle Penetration:
No impact
Streetscape Framework:
Because the additions are located on the second floor, there willbe little irpuc!-gn_lhe quaiiiv-or-il,e walking experience in respectto landscapino and grounci levei commerciar iniirr.- ftre'quarity ofthe, pedest.iai expei'ience wiii ue-impa-c_ted by additionar shade on thenorthwest corner or tne builaing on:r,liii-st"6"i *i'l'iJ.rage of the viewof the mountain.
D. Street Enclosure:
The consideration states that "an external enclosure is most comfortablewhere its wails are. approximateiv ilz-ur-r,i;r;-;;-ii,;
"iou, ot th.spgce enc'losed." The enclosed dick should not-irpact'iie street enclosurenegativerv. The existing roof (on tte west iiae 6i-ir,i"Hiii eririi'rg)""'=is approximatelv_24 feet't rrigh.
-"rhe pedestiiin wuv-ui"res between25 feet l to 35 feet i.- ih.'Eiirtiiig roof is atready greater than thedesired ratio. The new "di h;i;hil:t.s feet, wiil maxe the ratioeven greater.
However' the consideration states that,'in some instances, the,canyon,effect'is even desirable--ur i-sr'o"l connecting rinkage between largerspaces to give variety to the walking spaces.',- The n6w tn.i ra revetwill create more of ai enctoiei pedestrian way that wilr connect viilaqePlaza with the open plaza-in-irof,i-ot the Gondola building,s ticket aria.
The consideration states that "when exceptionsllilgria occur, special aeiign iJnrij.rition,create a well-defined ground"ftoor peJeitrlan
to the general heiqht
should be given to -
emphasis to overcome
Hirfrag 4- a/B/84
the canyon effect." Ih* Hiil Buirding has.a.very weil defined groundfloor that has manv of the erementi iigt.rtua by"the .oniii..utionto create pedestria-n focus--awnings, buiiaing jogs, commercial space.l:[,ti;;: reasons, sreet "ncroiiri ii'irpait.i"ilritil;ii',y the
E. Street Edge
No impact. All additions are on the second floor.
F. Bui lding Height
In CCI ,,up to 60% of theor tess and no more thanfeet,.but not higher thanBuilding are:
building may be bujlt to
40% of the building may
43 feet. The exiitinq
a height of 33 feet
be higher than 33
heights of the Hitl
The height
be a pitched
the lower roof.
feet t, chimney 38 feettteet t, shimney 28 feett
The proposed addition_will have a height of 31.5 feet.is well within the ailowabf l-f,.:gt,i. ''ii. n." roof witlroof. It will reflect tfre iame iii.n and materiats of
Views and Focal points
East side: 34
West side: 24
(
u.
H.
I.
The bedroom addition wiil impact views when looking up at the skimountain from Vi rlage,plaza ano *rren iooking back it-ir,"'viilage fromthe small praza uerrina tt'"-Hii'i iiiiiiirs adjacent to the Gorden peakhouse' This view is-noi i ;;;is;;i; iiew to_ne preserved under the urbanDesign Guide ptan. rne aoaiiioi;'i"irpi.t wilr take away from the viewof the ski mountain 19.3 4t!"i; ;"i;;;.- ;il;r;;i;l"to'ii,," overarlcontribution of the Hitt eu$idirg-l,i-ii" pedestrian experience the impactsare somewhat offset.
Service and Delivery
No impact
Sun/Shade
The consideration states that "at new or expanded buirdings shouldnot substantialry increase the_iprins"una falr shadow pattdrn on adjacentproperties or on the publi.c R.0.l..l. ifrJ"aAaition will increase thesun/shade shadow betwben uarch 2iit ani septemuer 2rst by 7 feet.The.additional.shade,area is ipproiirriely 40 square feet and is rocatedln the pedestrian walkway on ti.rb norlhwesi corner of the UuitOing.The area serves as a-pedistriun-wav,-uri Uo", not have any sittingareas' Because the space is used i,nrv-io. a peaestiiinl"uvl *,.additionat shade shouiJ-;u;; ;-;;";;;i .irou.r.
Hilftao -4- B/s/84
V. ZONING CONSIDEMTIONS
Project Statistjis
Mjnimum Side Area: 8,000
Allowed GRFA: 6,400
Existing 2nd F]oor 4,082 sfExisting 3rd Ftoor .#jf
Stairwell deduction- 372 sf
Total Existing GRFA 4,451 sf
Bedroom addition
Deck enclosure
Total Proposed GRFA 5,54] sf
-c5l
5l
720 sf
370 sf
Allowed GRFA
Proposed GRFA
Remaining GRFA
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
6,400 sf
5,54] sf
859 sf
This proposal complies with the GRFA requirements for the property. Thetwo new roof overhangs.extend_over the property tine afpioiimatetv 2 feet.The applicant has reieived a retter-oi Sgrbemeirt rrom the iajaceni F"op""ivowner.
staff recommends approval of this proposar contingent upon the applicantmeeting the.enginebiing concerns. 'Thb view impac[i ina'iJaitiona] 40 sq ft-of shade, while not poiitive for the iommunity, ."" ionsiJ"red to be minimalimpacts. .Each project shourd be reviewed agai;si ev""v-.oniideration. Theproject ejther has no or minimal impact or iupports thi urban Design consiJera-tions. Because the overalt_project' impact is' bositive, itiit recommendsapproval. of. the project. Rti rown or Viji ;si.il;jil'.oni.rn, must be resotvedbefore the buitding permit wiil be issued. rfre rssuei inliro",
l. ?I3i!ug. wilt be inside of bui.ldins.z. lmprovement survev3- Revocable right-oi-way permit for existing improvement inthe riqht-of-wav4. Encroaihment "l-nol overhangs will be resolved by an agreement'letter of adjacent property 6wner.
(
(
(
d
I
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVI El,|l
PROJECT:7z-c- 4j /,4"4-1rz-J
DATE SUBMITTED:DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
PUBLIC WORKS
Reviewed by;
Comments:
{'",F d,livrc-\e.
FI RE DEPARTMENT ../
Reviewed by: /Z:5a2"
Date
,72 "e-*4 tZ"'-
) -f r-3 ,ezzza€
Z--e 7: <:- e.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
Date
tu* \.''..--'1"_'..,"4, ,ht=nli,|\
f'l' lt "nu<[ {)r^.n- /1.,1 j')|..q-
hrt,-\ r1ic.'t
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by;
Comments:
Date
Date o}pplication May 27, LgBs
APPLICATION FORM FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS
oR MODTF]CATIONS IN COMMERCIAL CORE I (CCI)
This procedure is required for alteration of an existing buildingwhieh adds or removes any enclosed floor area or outd.oor patio oireplacement of an existing building sha1l be subject to review bythe Planning and Environmental Commission
The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted.
A. NAME OF APPLICANT Blanche C. Hill
PHONE 476-5542
B.NAI\,IE OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE Jav K. pererson
ADDRESS p.O. Box 3149. Vail . CO 81658 PHONE 476-0092
NAME 0F 0[^INER (prin
SIGNATURE
I.
c.) nlanche C. Hill
ADDRESS 3lt Bridge Street, Vqi1, CO 81657
D.LOCATION OF PROPOSAI
PHONE 476-5542
ADDRESS 311 Bridgq Srreet, Vail
reet . Vail. CO 81
E.FEE
F
ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lor I, Btock 5C Vail Village First
$100.00 PAID
r1\lq ) [e'f
l
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY
OF BUILDING AND ANY
OF PROPERTY SHOWING PROPERTY
IMPROVEMENTS ON THE I,AND.
/.'5o4
LINES A$ID LOCATION
A LIST OF THE NAME OF OWNERS OF ATL PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THESUBJECT PROPERTY and thei r ma i f .ing addresses .
rr' 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 1" = 2O' i a variation of the sheet size or scale may be approvedby the Community Development Department, if justified;
G.
I
Application folxterior Alterarion or r,rof. CCI page 2
B. The date, North arrow, scale and name of the proposed development
shall be shovm on the site Plan;
C. The existing topographic character of the site including exisbing
and proposed contours. This condition will only be requred for
an expansion area where there is a change of two feet of grade;
D. The Location and size of all existing and proposed buildings' struc-
tures and i-mprovements;
E. The existing and proposed landscaping;
F. The location of all existing and proposed buildings' structures
and patios or decks.
III. The applicant sha1l submit in written and graphic form, a preponderance
of evi<lence before the Planning and Environmenlal Commissj-on that
the proposa] is in conformance with the purposes of the CCI District
and. that the proposal subsLantially complies with the Vaj-1 Viilage
Urban Design Guide Plan.
A. If the applicant is proposing a major change.in the Vail Village
Urban Design. Guide PIan, the procedures for change are noted in
Section L8.24.22Q (B).
IV. The applicant'must a1 so submj-t wriLten and graphic supporting materials
that the proposal substantially corlpl"ies \^rith the fol-lowinq U::ban
Design Considerations section of the Vail- Vi],lage Design Considerati-on'
A. PedestriilnizationB. Vehicle Penetration
C. Streetscape FrameworkD. St.reet Enclosure
E, Street EdgeF. Building Heightc. ViewsH. Sun Shade Consideration
Many of the above items .should'be addressed in some giraphic means
using sucir tools as sketches. simulations, models (including neighboring
buildings) , photos, etc
V. The Town of Vail Zoning Code for CCr also describes other zoning issues
that the applicant. must respond to in written or graphic form.
VL Applications for exterior alteratj-ons or moclificatio;rs in CCI catr' are only reviewed semi-annually. They need to be submj-tted before. the fou.rth Monday of May.or November. For more specifics on thereview schedule, see Section L8.24.065 A-5.
o
ADDENDUM
APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR I"IODIFICATION
I. Conformance with the Purposes of the CCI District.
As stated in Section L8.24.010, the Commercial Core I
District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique
character of the Vail Village commercial area with its mixture of
lodges, residential dwellings and commercial establishments in a
predominately pedestrian environment.
The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure
adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate
to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District
Regulatj-ons, in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design
Guide Plan and Design considerations, prescribe site deveropment
standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and
preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings
fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure
continuation of the building scale and architectural- guarity that
distinguish the Village.
The proposed alteration centers around a minor addition
to the existing building:
A partial enclosure of an existing deck area which
will help solve an existing snow build-up problem, not only for
the second-floor residents in the Hill Buitding, but also for the
commercial space on the qround Ievel.
Since the proposed alteration is an extension and
enhancement of an existing use, the urban Design Guide ptan wilr
not be changed in any respect, but made more effective.
fI . Vail Village Urban Design Considerations As They Apply to
Proposed Alterations.
A. Pedestrianization. The proposed. alteration which
encloses a portion of the deck on the second floor of the Hirl
Buildi-ng wil-r further facilitate and enhance pedestrianization
bet\'reen the Hill Building and one Vail- place by reducing the
amount of drifting snow in the pedestrian way.
B. Vehicle penetration. The proposed alteration
provid.es for no additional points of vehicle penetration, nor
wil-1 the addition create more vehicular trips into CCf.
C. Streetscape Framework. The proposed new addition
wil-l have littre effect on the streetscape framework, except in a
positive sense in that snow buil-d-up in a pedestrian way wirl be
lessened by the semi-enclosure on the west side of the buirding.
The addition witl provide an enhancement to the variety of open
and enclosed spaces, which will create a strong framework for
pedestrian warks, as welr as, visual- interest and activity.
D. Street Enclosure. From Design Considerations,
Section D, Street Enclosure, we guote the fotlowing:
"while building facade heights should not beuniform from building to fuifAing, theyshould provide a comfortable enciosure- forthe st,reet. ,'
and
"Pedestrian streets are outdoor rooms, whosewalls are formed by the buitdings. the shapeand feel of these rooms are created by the
variety of heights and massing (three
dimentional_ variations) which qive much ofthe visual interest and pedestiian scaleunique to Vail_. "
rn respect to the new proposed addition and the structures around
it, both existing and proposed., which will define and create this
space, the increased height for that section of the Hill Building
(which is approximately 23 feet above ground level) will provide
the enclosure for the short connecting linkage between l_arger
spaces, i.e. the Plaza Area and vail Mountain. The new height of
that section of the Hilr Building will stil1 be considerably less
than what is arlowed in ccr. Roof rines at the completion of the
addition will be a combination of frat and pitched roofs which
currentl-y exist and which will be added. The proposed additions
have no effect on street edge, in that all additions are on the
second floor of the existing buil-ding. The existing buirding,
along with the proposed alteration, wirr provide irregurar facade
l-ines ' building jogs and landscaped areas which give rife to the
street and visual interest for pedestrian travel .
E. Buil_ding Height. The maximum proposed height for
the proposed addition is 23 feet above street rever. one vail
Place is 40 feet in height, the main Lodge building is 56 feet in
height and the new addition proposed for the Lodge, carled the
rnternational" wing, wirl be a two and three-story mix, with a
maximum height on the south side of 40 feet. The Zoning Cod.e
Section r.8.24.120 defines the height requirements for CCI , and
all proposed heights are well below the reguirements specified in
the Vail Village Urban Design Guide plan and Desiqn
Considerations.
7
F. Views. There wil-l_ be no impact on views.
c. Sun Shade Consideration. The sun shade study
prevj-ously provided shows no effect on the Village plaza area.
In sunmaryr as Vail Vill_age Design Considerations
state:
"The Design Considerations are intended toserve as guideline design parameters. Theyare not seen as rigid ruLes or cookbookdesign elements to bring about a homogeneous
appearance in Vail ."
The intention of the proposed alteration is to address the spirit
of Vail as it exists and to enhance and extend that spirit by
improving residential living in commercial core r and to sorve
snow build-up areas in pedestrian ways.
75 south trontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
September 27, 1985
ollice of the town manager }:
Thank_you.for your corunents regarding the reguested addition
!0 ll'l Bridge Street (Hilt BuiTding). This dpplication was
denied by the Planning and Environmental Commiision on
September 23rd. The applicant has appealed this decision.This item will be heard by the Town bbuncil on 0ctober 15at their regular evening meeting.
Dave StarkDistrict Ranger, Holy Cross Ranger DistrictP.0. Box .|90
Minturn, Colorado 81645
Re: Hi'lI Building
Dear Dave:
Si nc
Ri ck
Town Pl a nner
RP: bpr
{.-
misleading.
After discussion by Council, Kent Rose maoe
was seconded by Gail l^Jahrl.i ch-Lowenthal . A
unanimously 6-0.
Page 9, Section 4, first sentence chanoed toeach Bond upon presentation and surrenjer atPaying Agent.
(4a^<J4 /d// {/ss'
read: ... registered owner ofthe principai office of the
The taxable property upon wh.i ch
series of Outstanding Bonds is
or expanded buildings should
shadow pattern on adj acent
I tt-- ----
Page 6, last paragraph changed to read: ... of moneys legally avai'l ablefor allocation by the Tor^rn, including imounts on deposit in reserve fundsfor the 0utstand'i ng Bonds. as a suppiement to the proceeds of the Bonds,for the purpose of paying the pr.i ncipal of. premium if any, and interest onthe 0utstanding Bonds at their respective maturit.i es or dlsignated pr.i orredemption dates.
.+.
(
Page 11, last sentence changed to read: ... owner upon presentation andsurrender at central Bank of Denver, a banking cor"poration, in Denver.Coi orado. ori ts successor, as pay.i ng Agent.
Page 28. Section 24 A. changed to read:levies are being made for payment of each'i denticai, and the ...
6. Page 30, insert after Section 27 an additional section to read:
Section 28.0fficial Statement. The prel im.i nary 0fficial Statementdated__..-:-:-_'t985.relatingtothe.issuanceoftheBondsishereby authorized and approved. The Toin council hereby authorizes thepreparation and distribution of a final Official statement., and anyAddendum thereto as may be necessary (the "0fficial Statement,'), uv ttre
lyl:h?t:"_in conjunction wjth an ofier of the Bonds to the public. TheOfficial Statement shall contain any addit.i onal or updated information sothat it will not contajn any untrue statement of a materjal fact or omjt tostate a mate.i al fact necessary in order to make the statements madetherein. in light of the ci rcumstances in which they were made. not
a motion to approve the ordinance, which
vote was taken and the motjon passed
The next jtem was action q1_{qq_qgfldjlC !4estrian easement and encroachmentagreement. Kristan pritz g ur.nt ina-|f,"easement. She noted that Larry Eskwith had reviewed both documents and that staffrecommends approval . Jay peterson and otto stork gave their thoughts on thedocuments. After much discussion by Council, Kent Rose made a roiion to approve thelicense agreement and easement. Gall Wahrl ich-Lowenthal seconded the motion. Avote rr'a s taken and the motion passed unanimouslv 6_0.
The fifth jtem on the agenda was the apoeal foral rerati on. Ri ck Pylman detai I ed i nformati on ondenial . He also noted the following findings;
the.Hill buildinq exterior
the appeal and why he recommends
1. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban DesignGuide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site develofiment standaristhat are intencied to jnsure the maintenance and preservation of the tight,iyclustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestr.i an ways and publicgreenways and to insure contjnuation of the building scale andarch itectural qual .i ti es that di sti ngui sh the V.i l 1aqi.
?. The purpose of ihe comparison between the proposal and Consideratjons is toshow how the new design strengthens or detracls from the overalI jntent ofthe Design Consideratjons.
3- The Design Considerat.i on states that "alI newnot substantially jncrease the spring or fallproperties or on the public right-of-way. "
Jay Peterson, representing Blanche Hill, gave reasons why the appeal shou.l d beapproved' Peter Patten-further explajned reasons to deny the appeal . After mucndiscussion by council, cclleen Kline made a motion to apirove the appeal andoverturn the PEC decision. Hermann Staufer seconded the motion. A vote was takenand the motion fai Ied 2-4, with Mayor Johnston. Kent Rose, Gail l,,lahrlich-Lowenthal,and Dan Corcoran opposing.
The next ite; r.;as the appointment of election judges for the regular Municipalelectjon on llovember 19. 1985. The suggested juoies u1.r"-Citny Rossi, Joan carnie
-?-
t
PRESENT
Diana Donovan
Duane P j-pe r
Sid Schultz
.tlm Viele
ABSENTffitterot
Tom Br iner
Pam Hopkins
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Tom BraunKristan Pri tzRick Pylman
-t.
the
The
2-
PIann j. ng and Envj-ronmentaL Commi ssion
September 23, 1985
1985. A
seconded
mot].on to approveby Diana Donovan.
approved 4-0.
intment ot member to DRB tor October, November, December.
Dlana Donovan nominated ron Briner to be the new Design ReviewBoard member for Octoberr November and December. Duane p j-per
vo-lunteered to be the al-ternate member. Thi-s was approved 4-o.
Are uest for ra E 10n in order to add a thr. rdscorto the '.4 |r]-dge Stree t.App can t :anc e H]'I -r.
Rick Pylman gave the staft presentation for the Hill_ Buirdingaddition. The applicantr B.1-anche C. Hilt, is requesting toencrose 43a square feet ot deck space on the r^rest side ot thesecond tloor ot the HiIl Buitding and to add a thirct storyaddrtion ot Lr-[42 square feet. The proposed th].rd story additionis Located at the southwest area ot the buj-lding. ?he staft'sprimary concerns were with the proposalrs impact on Sun,/Shade andstreet Enclosure. staff recommended deniar of the proposa-t.staff fe-Lt that the project was not in compl-iance with the vailvill-age Design considerations by its effect upon street EncLosureancl by the addltionai shadi.ng due to the bulk ano mass ot thedesign. fn the staff's opinion, the design made very littleattempt to respect the street Enclosure Design considerations orto maintain the original design of the plaza area. The additionot a two-story el-ement' total-ling three storles gor.ng straight upfrom the property line at the Iocation ot the existing deckcompromi ses the open feellng ot the southern edge ot this plazawhich is the major gateway to Vail Vi. llage.
Approva -t minutes ot September g
m].nute6 was
were
made by Jim VieLe and,minutes
(-I
'Jay Peterson, representatlve ot the appLicant, made a presentation
as to r.rhy the proposa f was a positive improvement to the Vlllage.
Jay Peterson 6tated that the hatt to one ratio for Street Encl-osurestated in the Urban Design Considerations was very ditticuit to
achj-eve. He stated that the canyon area which has a ratio of .8'/
to L really is only about 5 feet in length. He felt that this
area really d1d not have a great impact on the overalL piaza. ile
stated that a pedestrian focus wouLd be maintained by the awninq
on the we6t side ot the Hill Bu j..t ct]-ng facade. tle d j"ct not f eel
that the proposal created a solid lraIt area and also that the
upper decks wouLd have f l-or^rer boxes and nould add to the pedestrian
experience on the \"re€t side of the building.
With respect to the Sun,/Shade consideration, Jay peterson fett
that the Sun,/Shade issue real-fy onfy had to be addressed aL Lzrgfl
noon. tlay Peterson had submitted a Sun,/Shade analysls that began
at nine and went on into the afternoon. Jay agreecl that shade
was substantially increased during the hours ot 9 and 19 in thernorning. Howeverr in the afternoon he pointed out that noj,ncrease ot 6hade occurred. He adcled that staf t's suggestion to
shift the addition over to the east side of the building would be
very ditficuLt due to structura-I probLems r possrbl€ vien encroach-
ments on the view corridor, and a slmilar sun./shade probl-em' Jay
stated that Vail Associates had no probLem v/rth the deck overhang-
ing onto Vail Associates' property. According to Jayl Larry
Llchiiter said that the additional shade may aftect snow remova-l
and skiers during a port j.on of the morningr but in genera-I , he
had no ma]or probJems with the proposal.
Jay pointed out that in his opinion the existing approved plan
blocked vie$rs up to the skr mountain much more than the new
proposal. He emphasized that the new pLan was trying to respect
the vr.evt corrrclor. He gave examples ot many bu j. ldings in Tor.tn
which he felt had significant impacts on the street encLosure-
The A & D Building and Wa]l Street we.re mentioned as examples of
enclosures similar to the type of street enclosure that would be
proposed r^rith the HiJ.l Building exterror alteratlon. He emphasized
that Mrs. Hill trants to simpl-y maintain a viable residence in
Commercial Core I. She is not asking for a maximum height or a
maximum GRFA.
rTim Vi.ele found it hard to believe that the sun v.ta s in the area
of the plaza on December 2Lst at 9:90 am. It seemed to VieLe
that the sun r"rould probably be behind the mountain at this time
on December 2lstr the longest day of the year. Jay responcled
thatr Y€sr thls area 1s catchlng sun on December 2Lst. Vlele
stated that there were good arguments on both the applicant's
as hre1l as statt's side ot the issue. He felt strongly that the
applicant had an inherent right to develop the property. He
stated that he was inc-Lined to vote for approval" ot the project.
Duane Piper questioned why the northeast portion of the building
r.rhich was at three stor].es was not at exactly the aame helght as
l
the third story additron-_ Jay peterson responded by saying thatthe os/ner did not r"rant to cut into the vaulted ceiting- aiiecttybelow the addition. For this reasonr the new addition is appror_imately five feet greater than the adjacent northeast portion orthe building. He also stated that they courd not step back thebedroom from the west facade as it would si"gnif icantly decreasethe bedroom spa ce .
Piper mentioned that the impacts to the shade conctl t1ons dld notseem to be all- that significant. He aLso was sensitive to theproperty owner's deveJ.opment rights. He stated that his concernwas that the mass seems to be the greatest probrem and has quitean impact upon the pedestrian area. Jay responded by saying thatthe existing roof r-ines in his opinion looked very pecu.r.iar andthat the mass ot the bui"lding in the ner^r proposar- tends toorganize the roof .r.ines in a much better mannei vi-sual.t-y.
Peter Patten claritred the statt's posi.tlon on thr.s proposar bystating that the staff certainty appreciated the olveropmenirights ot the owner. He emphasized that the urban Design cuideP]an was not a vehic.re for denying owners their right to develop
ih.l5 property- He said ttrat tne GRFA is belng almost maxed outin that on.[y 377 square feet of GRFA wourd remain on the propertyatter the proposal was buitt. certalnty adcrr tionar commercia_[space is possibleT howeve r, zoning standards wour.d also have tobe maintained- He ciarltted that staff is not picking out ontytwo items from the List ot urban Design consideraiions. rn factlonly severar- ot the considertlons happen to apply to thls proposalas it is on the third story ot a ouilding. - - t'tiny ot th; urbanDesi-gn considerations address street level additions. Do to thrstact, many of the urban Design considerations do not apply to th]-sparticul-ar proposal. He rer t.erateo that street enclosure andsun/shade lrere the tr"ro Design considerations most impacted bythis proposa l.
with respect to street encr-osure, patten exprained that thisconsideration rearly had to be .looked at in a three-dimensionaLvay. The prob-lem i-s that the existing one va11 place has a 3/4to l ratio to the street. rn other wordsr a canyon effect isalready bei.ng imposed on the street by one vait prace. The H111Burlding wilr onry increase thls canyon effect with this addition.The consideration states that "An external enclosure is mostcomf ortabl-e vhere its waLls are approximateJy harf as high as the
'^ridth ot the space enc]osed." The herght oi tne addition on theHill BulLding wiLl be 3a feet to the Lave line. The height ofOne Va]-l- Place 1s 2A teet to the eve l. 1ne. The ptaza widthvaries from 33 to 42 feet. This creates a ratio that varies trom2/J: I to L:l-. patten sard that the previous proposal, focussedthe mass of the building in ii smar-r-er area. nd stateo that thecanyon ettect d1d not extend along the building to such a degreeas in the new proposal.
Patten said that the Sun,/Shade Considerations specr-f ical-Iy states
{
tha t Sun,/Shade ahall be considered and shaLl intluence the
massing of the building. Staff is requesting that the massing ot
the building should be stepped back to avoid the sun,/Shade
i-mpacts as much as possible. Staft is certainly not trying to
deny the onner's right to deve]op the property. Staff 1s also
trying to avoid any type ot impacts on the Seibert Circle area
due to the ner"i additi.on.
Donovan stated that she was concerned about the canyon eftect
given the new proposal. However, she did feel that this was a
better proposa-[ lhan the previous proposaL, but that this propos,ir
needed some improvement. Sicl Schultz had no rea.L problem with
most ot the addition. He drd fee-L that the deck and balcony on
the west siale of the building emphasized the mass of the bullding.
The additional- shade did not creaCe a concern for him. Duane
Piper asked if there were any comments from the audience.
Mlchael Staughton, property manager for the Ore House and Baxterrs
felt that the Guidellnes were designed to guide. His opinion was
that a proposal fel'l. into a grey area w j.th respect to the Guide-
lines that the Pfanning Commission shoufd side with the owner's
right to deveLop property.
Jay to-[d the board that the project was not naxed out at all in
commercial as there is no restriction in Commercia l- Core I. He
stated that he could turn the project j.nto a commercial building
and then add the GRFA on top of that square tootage. Jay felt
that he would get the same argument from the staft it he r'rere to
try to shift his proposal over to the east side of the buifd_j.ng.
He stated that the statt would be concerned from the shade on
this side of the building anct impacts on seibert circ.Ie. Jay
added that it seemed that statt was treating the importance ot
views differently between the previous proposa I and the present
proposa-1 . Kristan Pritz responded by saying that the vlews were
treated basically the same in the otd proposa I as in the ne\'/
proposal. In both sltuations, the vlews were impactedr howeverr
they were not approved view corridors. She afso stated that the
shade was increased by only 7 square feet in the previous proposal.
Donovan stated that 6he feft that the Casino and A&D Buildings on
Bridge Street were too cfose. She dr.d not want to see thls type
of thing happen again as far as street encfosure was concerned.
Jay stated that given the HilL proposalsr the Founders' PLaza
adjacent to the vall Associates' ticket area diminished the
impact ot the street enc.losure. He pointed out that on Bridge
Street you did not get the benef j-t ot any large open pfazas to
give relief to the high buildings- Jim Viele moved to approve
the request \"/hich was seson-de-d by,Si,d Scr.ru+!z-, Peter Patten
ludeffi the apPlicant
r"rou ld not remonstrate again'st a special irnprovement district.
Jlm Vie.le amended his motion to include this statement. The vote
was 2 in favor, 2 againse.A tie vote is a vote ot denial.
4.A reouest to amend Section 16 b4 ot the Munici I Code