Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 DRB Staff ApprovalsProject Application Date 1 / Project Name: d S Project Description: X Contact Person and Phone /n _ e r �( Owner, Address and Phone: me+; - C;" TNT x Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Comments; , Zone �i Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Summary: Town Planner Date: SCI Staff Approval Project Application � �4 Project Name: Project Description: Ricci Bedroom Addition Date Sept. 20, 1984 Add 16' X 16' Bedroom addition to existing home. Contact Person and Phone Allen Tafoya 949 - 1809 (H) Owner, Address and Phone: T.-1. Ricci 2576 Davos Trail, Vail, Co. 476 -6813 _ Architect, Address and Phone: _Allen Tafoya 949 -1809 Vail Das Schone Two Family Legal Description: Lot 5 Block E Filing _ Filinci 1 zone EA Sec. Comments: Design Review Board Motion by: Seconded by: APPROV Date DISAPPROVAL Summary: r ner Staff Approval Date: Project Application Date Project flame: Project Description: Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot 2� mg Comments: Design Review Board , Zone Date Motion by: Seconded by: Ll iROVA DISAPPROVAL Summary: Town Planner Staff Approval Date: .,-0 P roject Name: j Project Description: Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: i I Descri Legal tiow Lot p Comments: Pr o j ect •. e Date �: mm T Block Filing , Zone - Design Review Board Date Motion by: _ Seconded by: APPROVAL Summary: DISAPPROVAL Tow Planner Date: Staff Approval Project Application Date J6 Project Name: Project Description: Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Descripti n: Lot Comments: k Filing i7 , Zone Design Review Board Date Motion by: _ Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL u i W 10 Date: .. I Project Application Date February 4, 1985 _ ` Project Name: Addition to the Jim & Nancy Gibson Residence Project Description: An 'A' Frame Garage & Master Suite Add. to Existing 'A" Frame Contact Person and Phone - Tim Boyle or Mark Mueller @ Boyle Engn. 476 -2170 Owner, Address and Phone: Jim & Nancy Gibson #2 Wellesley Place, Edina, MN 5 5436 612/933- Architect, Address and Phone: Boyle Engineering, Inc. 143 E. Meadow Dr., Vail, Q0 81657 476 -2170 _ Legal Description: Lot 7 Block 1 Filing . Bighorn ^5 Zone Comments: A smaller version of this addition was submitted to the DRB and approved on July 7_, 198 2. This new plan is very similar to the one previously reviewed except that it is 13' longer and in cludes a deck on arade and additional plantin s of aspen tre s . Design Review Board Date k Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL r Summary: "^ ' & Tow nner Staff Approval Date: Project Application Date Project Name: Dem , se 's Unit Vail Trails Chalet West Unit # 11 Project Description: Paint trim on front door and front deck, also rear deck, balcony, and stairs Contact Person and Phone Rocky mountain General, Paul Sokol Su.pr. 949 -0292 Owner, Address and Phone: J E d Dempsey 16482 Barnstable Circle, Huntin ton Harbour, CA 92649_ Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Unit #11 , Block Flling Trails Chalet -4. Zone Comments: Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL Summary: I0 DISAPPROVAL Project Name: k Project Description: —4—S Contact Person and Phone Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Comments: Project Application Date Block Filing , Zone Design Review Board / Date � F Motion by: _ Seconded by: iROVA DISAPPROVAL To Planner U Staff Approval Date: Project Application W . Project Name: Project Descrip Contact Person and Phone K 0 Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone- Legal Description: Lot Comments: Block Filing , Zone Design Review Board � r - Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL i w"v Plar%ner Staff Approval Date: Date Project Application Date Project Name: Project Description: Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Comments: lock t"W DY'/ Filing Zone Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL Ir— C'--I 1 DISAPPROVAL Date: Project Application 1 { f Date Project Name: Project Description: Contact Person and Phone l tt Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Comments: • . Zone Design Review Board Date Motion by: _ Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL (, 1 Summary: P iA l Ton Planner Staff Approval Date: the ptlMeryrvaJ i Project Name: Project description: Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Comments: Summary: Block _- Piling Project Application Project Application Date Project Name: Project Descriptiom Contact.Person and + f i 1 Owner, Address and Phone: If s Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot _ Comments: Block Filing L M 10 Date: — nor Project Application Date " Project Name: 9A U Project Description: LGUN CrV Contact Person and Phone D 4 ALJ 60 A I L ifA�A'E ' Owner, Address and Phone: — E 3Z•Z Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Block Filing p��ti =- ,Zone Comments: Design Review Board Date lie Date: r. Project Application Date Project Name; r-i'� c' Project Description: �C �l e _ i < Contact Person and Phone G'^� f Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: L�k Legal Description: Lot JJA Block Filing Zone Comments: {{ II k k Design Review Board Date 314 s Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL ' h� cn�e J F 4, Summary: n , %t.2s1k'Tkc CA'L%. 1S C-- VNV / r- J 1 L -3 1 I* VI are- c' - at- Project Application Project Name: Project Description: �' �� r�,l� G�• #� e Contact Person and Phone ( Cr c xx/±f7 l.�7I__. IZ1_n Date — -,5-, Owner, Address and Phone: 9 y V Y M S . F X0yN ' ' " � __V A-1 L Q -13G Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lott f Block Filing , Zone Gomments: IVER IS 32 1NG� #1Gf4 . 1 ;T LvAJ� AT k R 5-F AR E R i mv s MA-R MA-Re 1S 4 4 Date Motion by: _ Seconded by: Design Review Board APPROVAL Summary: DISAPPROVAL �& kA_ Town Planner Date: b Staff Approval Project Application Date i Project Name: ' Project Description: - - -- - - - -- - -- — Contact Person and Phone 1: /* K Owner, Address and Phone: 1 70 20 (0 Architect, Address and Phone: �' ?A– Legal Description:. Lot Block Filing Zone — Comments: Design Review Board Date Motion by: _ Seconded by: APPROVAL a DISAPPROVAL Date: Project Name: Project Description: Contact Person and Phone Project Application e 7 kE� C �� � r [�'�/� D tM ti v► tv w�.� Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone Comments: 407- Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: Summary: DISAPPROVAL Town Planner Date: ❑ Staff Approval Architect, Address and Phone: a- tA-hi yin w Project Application Date Project Name: Project Description: Contact Person and Phone 0 NO Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Comments: , Zone Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL summary: own Planner Staff Approval Date: V/ Project Application 4l Date 7 — T Project Name: ff Project Description: Contact Person and Phone 'r s A4 Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: �A r L 1 I , Legal Description: Lot _ J Block Filing Comments: i ,:1c .J one . Design Review Board C L Date Motion by: _ Seconded by: Town Planner Date: pf�f APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL I summary: v staff Approval Project Application Date • Project Name: LL- 9 'k C! ;� Ad o mc� ) Project Description: — AnNnok-- CL� Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: k=ltl � zr= d-! 7 ( 1 q[x> Architect, Address and Phone: C' CI"A� Nk Legal Description: Lot Comments: Block Filing , Zone Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL C& Summary; A JAL__ &P to Li- /I r - r. c� � � , -A u. Ytn � r_ - J Nc � c� t7_ i n� S r n r N U2, 1 ~ . li • Town Pla er Staff Approval Date: Project Application Date Project Name: Project Description: L ' t Contact Person and Phone - ✓- owner, Address and Phone: — Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Block , Filing Zone Comments: CA �' t 'r npsinn Rpniaw Roard DISAPPROVAL Summary: Date _T(S - — rCti TO: Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 29, 1985 SUBJECT: Sign Variance Request for the Vista Bahn Express Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. I. REQUEST Vail Associates, Inc. is proposing to locate the Vista Bahn Express at the base of Giant Steps in Vail Village. Due to the fact that the Town of Vail sign code does not specifically address this type of structure, it is necessary for Vail Associates, Inc. to request a variance for the signage on the lift structure. The signage will include: East elevation, 17 square feet of signage that states "Vista Bahn Express" West elevation, 17 square feet of signage that states "Vista Bahn Express" North elevation, 10 square feet of signage that states "Vista Bahn" 1_0 Two lift numbers indicating that the Vista Bahn is number 16 with each "16" symbol being 1.5 square feet. Total signage = 47 square feet. II. BACKGROUND The applicant has provided the following reasons as to why this signage is appropriate for the Vista Bahn Express: " Background There will continue to be two chairlifts in Vail Village for the public to use out -of --the valley. The Mid- Vail Vista Ba hn lift will be a covered detachable lift with more than twice the hourly capacity of chairlift 41, and will be able to deliver people some 20 minutes faster to Mid -Vail than via chairlifts #1 and #2. The Vista Bahn /chairlift #4 detachable route will also facilitate yo -yo skiing from the summit to Vail Village and that Vail Village will become the preferred up- mountain route. Special Circumstances A practical difficulty is caused by the shape of the sructure and its location. Skiers will approach the lift from several directions. Accordingly, signage will be required on three ( 3 ) sides of the lift terminal. The circumstances are unique in that the Vista Bahn lift is the only covered detachable out -of -the valley lift and via signage, in part, needs to be differentiated from fixed grip chairlifts. The color scheme and graphics selected for the Vista Bahn will be utilized for the three other detachables to be built this summer and for additional detachables planned in the near future. The special circumstances were created by the applicant only to the extent that Vail Village was the original base of Vail Ski area. General Harmony We feel that no aspects of this proposal are detrimental to the neighborhood or to the public welfare. In fact, the new lift and associated signage will have a positive impact on our skiers and the public welfare by providing more expedient access up the mountain. We do not feel that the variance applied for is any more than required given the circumstances. . Other Factors With the advent of the detachable lifts, greater emphasis will be given to names of the lifts. This situation largely determines the square footage required for signage on the Vista Bahn." III. FINDINGS AND STAFF RESPONSES Before the Board acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove physical hardship and the Board must find that: A. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures, or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right -of -way, which would substantially restrict the effeciveness of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enter- prises. Staff Response: Staff does feel that the Vista Bahn Express is a special circumstance in that it is a structure and use which is not addressed in the Town of Vail sign code. Section 16.20.050 Free Standing Signs for Single Business Use and section 16.20.120 Public Information Signs of the Town of Vail sign code are probably the most similar sign categories with respect to the Vista Bahn Express signage. In the Free Standing Sign Category the maximum square footage is 20 square feet with a maximum of two signs subject to review by the Design Review Board. In the Public Information Sign category, both the number and size of the signs are subject to the approval of the Design Review Board. However, the purpose of public information signs is to display community posters, handouts and cards identifying community activity, special events and personal infor- mation. Staff feels that the Vista Bahn Express does not fully meet the definition of a public information sign. It is evident that the Vista Bahn Express requires special considerations for signage even though this type of structure is not addressed in the sign code. The Vista Bahn Express must be easily identified by many visitors to Vail who are often times very unfamiliar with the layout of the ski mountain. it is staff's opinion that the Vista Bahn Express certainly requires signage, however, the 47 square feet of signage could be reduced in such a way that the visitors are still able to identify the lift. 47 square feet is more than twice the square footage normally allowed under • the sign code for a business that is the sole occupant within the building. B. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant: Staff Response: Some type of variance is necessary in order to allow any type of signage for the Vista Bahn Express. Staff does feel that a variance is warranted, however a variance of 47 square feet is unnecessarily excessive. C. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons working or residing in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general: Staff Reponse: The 47 foot variance is somewhat in conflict with the general harmony of the purposes of this title due to the fact that the sign code allows for a maximum square footage of 20 square feet. 0 D. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title any more than is required 0 to identify the applicant's business or use: Staff Response: S taf f feel s tha t the proposed 47 square foot sign variance does go beyond the general intent of the sign code. The Town of Vail sign code states in Section 16.16.010 that the sign location, configuration, design, materials and colors should be harmonious with the majestic mountain setting and the alpine village scale of the Town. Section 16.16.020 states that the sign should not visually dominate the structure to which it belongs or call undue attention to itself. Staff does realize that some type of variance is warranted for the Vista Bahn Express. It is felt, though that a 47 square foot variance does conflict with sections 16.16.010 and 16.16.020 by being too large in comparison to other Town of Vail signage. E. Such other factors and criteria as the Design Review Board deems applicable to the proposed variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION.' The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the 47 square foot sign variance for the Vista Bahn Express. Staff also agrees with the applicant that there are special circumstances unique to this particular structure due to the fact that the name of the lift must be clearly identifiable by skiers in the general vacinity of the Vista Bahn Express. Staff believes that smaller signs on the lift would be more in compliance with the Town of Vail sign code and still provide the necessary identification for skiers. . r Sf S b p. TO: Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 29, 1985 SUBJECT: Sign variance request for the Inn at West Vail Applicant: Inn at West Vail (Raintree Inn) I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting variances from the following sections of the Town of Vail sign code for Commercial Core III: 16.22.140 B. Size. Maximum area shall not exceed 20 square feet 16.22.140 C. Height. No part of the sign shall extend above 25 feet from the existing grade or the plate line of the building, whichever is more restrictive. 16.22.140 D. Number. One sign. 16.22.140 R. Location, parallel to the exterior wall of the individual business or organization, adjacent to the North Frontage Road, subject to the approval of the Design Review Board. The Inn at West Vail is changing their name to the Raintree Inn. This variance request is to replace the existing signage with the new Raintree Inn logo. The request entails two 71 square foot wall- mounted signs and one 13.9 square foot sign identifying the main entry. Total square footage requested is 155.9 square feet. The two wall- mounted signs will be placed in the same location as the existing Inn at West Vail signs. The sign on the south elevation is 48 feet above grade, the sign on the east elevation is 32 feet above grade. II. BACKGROUND The existing signage on the building consists of two 90 square foot wall- mounted signs along with a 13.9 square foot sign over the main entry. Total existing square footage is 193.9 square feet. This signage was in existence when the area was annexed into the Town of Vail. At the time of annexation and zoning, the Town of Vail sign code was amended to include a separate category for Commercial Core III. Included in the development of the Commercial Core III sign code was a provision allowing for a 5 year amortization period of existing non - conforming signage. This amoritzation deadline is December 31, 1985. At this time all properties in the area, including this building, must be in conformance with the sign code. Under the current sign code for Commercial Core III, the Raintree Inn --Inn at West Vail building would be allowed the following signage: As an individual business within a multi - tenant building, the Raintree Inn would be allowed one sign, maximum size 20 square feet, maximum height 25 feet above grade. The building would also be allowed one building identification sign as described in Section 16.22.015 of the sign code. This sign could be a maximum of 20 square feet not to exceed 25 feet above grade. The Commercial Core III sign code was designed to facilitate identification of individual businesses by local traffic and to discourage individual businesses from orienting their signage toward I -70. Through recent discussions with the Town Council, the Community Development staff has initiated a study of the CCIII sign code. This study may possibly result in changes to the sign code for Commercial Core III. In order to facilitate the name change in a timely manner, the Raintree Inn -Inn at West Vail is requesting this variance to retain the approximate square footage, height, number, and location of the existing signage currently on the building. The only change in the existing signage other than the name and the logo is a reduction of 38 square feet. III. FINDINGS AND STAFF RESPONSES . Before the Board acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove physical hardship and the board must find that: A. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right -of -way which would substantially restrict the effeciveness of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. Staff Response: The sign code for Commercial Core III was developed to allow adequate signage for a community - based, automobile oriented commercial facility. We feel that there are no special circumstances or unique conditions that apply to this property that would preclude a sign of allowable size from adequately serving that purpose. The sign code or CCIII applies to all businesses and enterprises within the district. 0 B. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant: Staff Response: As Section A relates to A, we feel there are no special circumstances for which a variance should be granted. C. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. Staff Response: The staff feels that this request goes beyond the intent of the sign code and the zone district and will be detrimental to the neighborhood and the community by setting a predecent. The Community Development staff feels that this request is not in harmony with the purposes of the sign code. It is merely a request to legitimize the existing signage and to facilitate a name change. D. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. Staff Reponse: As previously stated, the intent of the sign code is to facilitate adequate signage for community based, automobile oriented facilities. This variance departs radically from the intent of the sign code. The current CCIII sign code is not designed to facilitate identification of individual businesses from I -70. The zoning and sign code of CCIII are designed to encourage a community oriented commercial plaza that is recognizable from I -70 as a commercial and retail area that as a whole can function as a draw for the traveling public on 1 -70. As the sign code is currently written, this request does not meet the intent. E. Such other factors and criteria as the Design Review Board deems applicable to the proposed variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The Community Development Department staff strongly recommends denial of this proposed variance. The current sign code will allow for a maximum of 40 square feet counting both the business . identification sign and the building identification sign. The proposed variance request is for 155.9 square feet, a reduction of only 38 square feet from the existing signage. The staff P c r 1 feels that this variance application makes no attempt to meet the sign code and that approval of this variance could preset a standard that could compromise any study of the existing sign code and also set a precedent of approving existing signage that could adversely affect the amortization process. �1 L� • Project Application Date May 15, 1985 Project Name: — Project Description: Contact Person and Phone TORRISI ADDITION 97 sf addition to ex isting condominium unit. Dave Peel, PEEL /WARRE ARCHITECTS, 476 -4506 Owner, Address and Phone: Richard M. Torrisi FULLER AND COMPANY One Park Central, 1515 Ara ahoe Street Denver Colorado 80202 292 -5700 Architect, Address and Phone: EEL/WARREN ARCHITECTS, E.0. Box 332Q,__VaiJ, Colorado 3 6 Vail Village First Zone HD M/F Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Comments: Addition located within footprint of existing deck. All materials, finis trim, paints and stains, and detailing to match existing. Design Review Board // Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL DlSAPP ROVAL • Date: '�'6 Project Application 1 Date , Projec Name: /rJ� ©D�' /��i��OC," c(d(����/iC� /�� "L//�•' Project Description: Contact Person and Phone ` Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Comments: Block Filing , Zone Design Review Board Date Motion by: _ Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Summary: A Staff Approval �1 Town Planner Q I "" Date: A Staff Approval Project Application + �j Date �` � � �" Project Name: iA- C /S in it, F Project Description: �]if, !!�N Contact Person and Phone n p — y_ 719 - 7y7 Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Comments: Block Filing , Zone Design Review Board Date Motion by: _ Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Summary: aS Svb mt tfiVC� . tow Date: Zntanner Staff Approval Project Application Date . P.5 Project Name: 6 Project Description: Contact Person and Phone �/ D - 776 — q363 Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot —_ , Block Filing t II)L)KAI IAA&W, &,..t, __ , Zone Comments: �f Design R eview Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL, DISAPPROVAL Summary: 0 pv — Town Planner Date: �' Ig * Staff Approval Project Application Project Name: z Z4 Date r� Project Description: Contact Person and Phone 9 Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Comments: " I z Filing , Zone - Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Summary: !1 Town Planner Date: )� Staff Approval Project Application p Date o S Project Name: Project Descrip Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone Comments: Design Review `Board Date MA J.A. 3 F Motion by: Seconded. by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL d 0 Summary: 1 LI Town Planner Y Staff Approval Date: 2 � � � Project Application Date ltl.v - a✓ /I ts ---� Project Name: O 0 r 1EQ I l' S Project Description: � �sJ1 -�� f l.��r � CL Lo n. Contact Person and Phone 1 & K-e � Ge. t t7 D Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Block Filing 1 Wt 1� 01 [� y r " zon l2- t Comments: W A�-j Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL Summary: i f� Vf6 - Town Planne Date: -- k I - ) 9 DISAPPROVAL A staff Approval Project Application Date Project Name: Qa- &-r Project Description: Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Comments: Block Piling , Zone Design Review Board Date- Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL Summary: 1• DISAPPROVAL Project Application Project Name: Project Descrip ' it c; f� IZ SL E �l - oc�>r ► ►U �s�c= / c i 5 - r-5 - -rx) C Contact Person and Phone 34� - -- — C O S o .-r i L c es 33 Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: " - Legal Description: Lott Comments: .b ti ,-�b , Block Filing _ Zone 10 Motion by: _ Seconded by: Design Review Board APPROVAL Date DISAPPROVAL Summary: • l Town Planner Date: Staff Approval Date Project Name; Project Description: Contact Person and owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: 1 -1 n-rinfl^n- I At L ) • Motion by: _ Seconded by: Block Filing APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL , Zone B -.-- Summary: 1 Town Planner Date: Staff Approval , Project Application Q` Date 6 117 Z v� °PjY�, Design Review Board Date " S i Project Name: Project Description: Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: - — -'/ Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone Comments: Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL Summary: Project Application Date Town P anner Staff Approval DISAPPROVAL Date: _ �� Project. Name: Project Description: Contact Person and Phone � ac � 2 to ( a i Owner, Address and Phone: %J 1 nor s Project Application 1 1 1 Date T I 2 Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot _, Block Filinq Y� Zone Date Motion by: Seconded by: n 000niin i Summary: DISAPPROVAL Town PI nner L % Staff Approval Date: Design Review Board Project Application Date _ 7117/8 5 Project Name: Project Description: 0 G �` Contact Person and Phone A4 r LAI --- Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Comments: Block Filing , Zone Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Summary: t- +! {`f 1 Town Planner Staff Approval 1Li Y1,M C Project Application ID Project Narne: Project Description: Contact Person and Phone 1 ' a � Owner, Address and Phone: � i�� � � 1 2 l yn -- Architect, Address and Phone: IS Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL Date 114CAPPPDXIA1 Summary: —0 — '(i 1 Town Planner Date: L 1 7 Design Review Board x Staff Approval r Design Review Board Date g ; Mgtj�n by Seconded by r T APPRQVAL , ; DISAPPROVAL Summary'. - 7 Staff A . pprovai .; A ' Town ,Planner ," y , - i Project Application Date Project Name: Project ■ Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: _ Architect, Address and Phone: lid Rl� Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Comments: . Zone Design Review Board Date Motion by: _ Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Summary: Town Planne Date: �91taff Approval Project Application Date Project Name: Project Description: t Contact Person and Phone ` f♦ Owner, Address and Phone: J- Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Comments: Block Filing L I , Zone . Design Review Board Date Motion by: _ Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Summary: V\ f Date: i Torn PIInner � Xstaff Approval Project Application _ Date .Project Name: °� "` �/ a Project Description: A fitt ' LlIrc., Contact. Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: / I` let A, lav&- IDA Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot / Block Filing Comments: ; � &rlf°Q// e"� l4y- .� `S— Zone &92-'1 0 , 16 —Cla • Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL Summary: DISAPPROVAL ivy/ f � �f h, Town Planner Date: x Staff Approval Project Application Date I* Project Name: Project Description: Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: 15: :�y < /`1 Legal Description: Lot Block Design Review Board Filing , Zone Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL Summary: DISAPPROVAL Val {� Town Planner a f Approval Date: Project Application Date . Project Name: Project Descrip Contact Person Owner, Address and Phone: ✓� �� ���� �� Architect, Address and Phone: 71 � f, i Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone Comments: ' Design Review Board Date )iv,,. Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL Summary: Town Planner Date: DISAPPROVAL Staff Approval Project Application Project Name: Project Description: Contact Person and Phone ��^� - i^ � —6667— — Owner, Address and Phone: • Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot , Block Comments: .0 dAk Filing , Zone Date 7 /71 Design Review Board DISAPPROVAL Town Planner Approval Date Project Application rlata I Project Name: Project Descrip 'Mur & Contact Persor � Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: is Comments: 1 Zone - R Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Summary: T n Planner qI Date: X Staff Approval Project Application Project Name: Project Description: Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Comments: 7nnA -- Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: Date APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Summary: Town Planner Staff Approval am Date: TO: Design Review Board FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 3, 1985 SUBJECT: Sign variance request for the Inn at West Vail Applicant: Inn at West Vail (Raintree Inn) I. REQUEST The applicant is requesting variances from the following sections of the Town of Vail sign code for Commercial Core III: 16.22.140 B. Size. Maximum area shall not exceed 20 square feet. 16.22.140 C. Weight. No.part of the sign shall extend above 25 feet from the existing grade or the plate line of the building, whichever is more restrictive. 16.22.140 D. Number. One sign The Inn at West Vail is changing their name to the Raintree Inn. This variance entails removing the existing Inn at West Vail and Best Western signs that are currently displayed on the building and placing one Raintree Inn and one Best Western sign on the south elevation of the building at the current location of the Inn at West Vail sign. The size of the Best Western sign is 35.8 square feet, while the Raintree Inn logo is 77 square feet for a total request of 112.8 square feet. The height of this signage is approximately 48 feet above grade. II. BACKGROUND is The existing signage on the building consists of two 90 square foot wall- - mounted signs along with a 13.9 square foot sign over the main entry. Total existing square footage is 193.9 square feet. This signage was in existence when the area was annexed into the Town of Vail. At the time of annexation and zoning, the Town of Vail sign code was amended to include a separate category for Commercial Core III. Included in the development of the Com- mercial Core III sign code was a provision allowing for a five year amortiza- tion period of existing non - conforming signage. This amortization deadline is December 31, 1985. At this time all properties in the area, including this building, must be in conformance with the sign code. Under the current sign code for Commercial Core III, the Raintree Inn /Inn at West Vail building would be allowed the following signage: As an individual business within a multi- tenant building, the Raintree Inn would be allowed one sign, maximum size 20 square feet, maximum height Inn West Vail Sign -2- 25 feel; above grade. The building would also be allowed one building identification sign as described in Section 16.22.015 of the sign code. This sign could be a maximum of 20 square feet not to exceed 25 feet above grade. At the Design Review Board hearing of June 19th, the Inn at West Vail presented a sign variance request of a total of 1.55.9 square feet with signage in several locations. That request was tabled to allow the ap- plicant time to amend the request. At that time direction was given to the applicant by the Design Review Board to study the possibility of utilizing just one location for requested signage and reducing the requested sign to the 40 to 50 square foot range. III. FINDINGS AND STAFF RESPONSES Before the Board acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove physical hardship and the board must find that: A. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right -of -way which would substan- tially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question; provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular businss or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or enterprises. 0 Staff Response: The sign code for Commercial Core III was developed to allow adequate signage for a community- based, automobile oriented commercial facility. At this time the staff and Town Council are reviewing the sign code for the Commercial Core III area. The general feeling is that there may indeed be special circumstances in the CCIII area that may warrant an increased allowance of signage. The present request of 112.8 square feet goes beyond the amount of additional square footage that the staff and Town Council are currently considering. Furthermore, at the previous Design Review Board meeting, the board's direction to the applicant was to present a request in the 40 to 50 square foot range. Staff agrees that there are special circumstances, however, the situation does not warrant this degree of additional signage being requested. B. That ,,special circumstances were not created by the applicant -or anyone, :i n :privy to the applicant: Staff Response: Special circumstances involved in the evaluation of this variance request were not created by the applicant. These special circumstances are a result of the character and.nature of the area and its proximity to I -70 and the North Frontage Road. • Inn West Vail Sign -3- 7/3/85 C. That the granting of the purposes of this title, the persons residing or to the neighborhood, or Staff Response: variance will be in general harmony with the and will not be materially detrimental to working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the public welfare in general. The staff feels that this request goes beyond the intent of the sign code as well as our current study, and will be detrimental to the neighborhood and the community by setting a precedent. The Community Development staff feels-that this request is not in harmony with the purposes of the sign code. D. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use. Staff Response: • The current CCIII sign code is not designed to.facilitate identification of individual businesses from I -70. The zoning and sign code for CCIII are designed to encourage a community - oriented commercial area which as a whole is recognizable from the Interstate. Even though the staff is considering increasing the signage allowances of businesses in this area to facilitate better identification of the commercial area form I -70, this request does not meet the intent of the current code. E. Such other factors and criteria as the Design Review Board deems applicable to the prposed variance. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of this proposed variance. While we feel there are circumstances such as building size which warrant some relief from the existing regulations, the requested square footage grossly exceeds the allowance through the Town's current sign code and also exceeds the square footage allowance which is being discussed under the current study of the CCITT sign code. Staff feels that approval of this request could set a precedent that would damage the integrity of the current study of size allowances for signs in the Commercial Core III area. At this time this request does not represent a reasonable solution toward a compromise wherein the need for building identification is met and the intent of the existing code is respected. Project Name: Project Description: Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Block Filing } � , Zone tj tj Comments: `l 1 A I - S s Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by; APPROVAL i Summary: Town nn r Date: I Project Application Date DISAPPROVAL Staff Approval Project Application Date $�UP 8S Project Name: am C. ` v Project Description: Contact Person and Phone c 5- Owner, Address and Phone: An Architect, Address and Phone: AAW&l 'e— Legal Description: Lot Comments: Block Filing , Zone Design Review Board Date Motion by: _ Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Summary: 7To:wnP Staff Approval Date: Project Application 0 Project Name: el Date C71) / Project Description: `4� Contact Person and Phone f 1 1 � — — — Owner, Address and Phone: G Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Block. Filing s r ' t Zone • Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL Summary: Date DISAPPROVAL �e R? cts �r Town Planner Date: Design Review Board Staff Approval Project Application Date Project Name, Project Description: Contact Person and Phone �,(/76 677& Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: C Legal Description: Lot Block t� Filing V -4 VA � ��?— Zone Comments: 01 Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Town Ptanner atf Approval 2 Date: Project Application Date Project Name: i Project Description: Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: ' A Architect, Address and Phone: -1, .)' -'& —/ —! Legal Description: Lot ..— r Block _ Filing Comments: A ��" , Zone —21.�— Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Summary: 7 4dK b e wn Fianner Staff Approval Project Application u Date Project Name: 0 " 0 y� 57 At, 1. Project Description: �. /. Contact Person and Phone 4 Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: " ® , Block -� Filing �7 o n iG f S ZpgB N r •/* Legal Description: Lot Comments: Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Summary: Town Planner Date: -- Staff Approval Project Application / Date - 44 /�� Project Name: ov i J Project Description: Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone` � / , y _ Architect, Address and Phone: ;ao2T ca l a- v/- L rr 14 Legal Description: Lot Block ~ � Filing �`� ? >�li -- , Zone Comments: Design Review Board 1 Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Town Planner Date: Staff Approval I Project Application Project Name: Project Descrip Contact Persor Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Descrintion: Lot Comments: Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL Summary: DISAPPROVAL Town Planner Date: -- - A Staff Approval , Block , Filing , Zone Project Application Date Project Name: T- lC2 L2m t Project Description: L k(_ - -- 6ZC Contact Person and Phone n Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone -- Comments: Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Summary: • Staff Approval Town Planner r t _ Date Date fU — 2 `- S , G -Z do2 Motion by: Seconded by: DISAPPROVAL Staff Approval Project Application Date i Project Name; Project Description: Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: _ Architect, Address and Phone: Leaal Description: Lot • Block Design Review Board Date I* Motion by: _ Seconded by: PPROVAL Filing , Zone DISAPPROVAL Summary: . n P I `J Town Planner Date: �Approval US.0v�L 2 '� aauuj�umol Isnoaddy jp3S ❑ 1} AaswwnS - 1VAOUddVSIa IVAOHddV :Aq papuoaaS Aq uoijoylf �I 91,8c] pae08 MGIAOa uBisea �-.s :Sauawwoo - -- auo 6ui�id �luol9 lo'l :uopdposaQ p6a • auNd Pu ssaaPPH 'lualiyoay .:auoud pus ssaJPPV 'Jaumo - AV D a3e� 5 uopeolIddd Joatoad auoud Pus uos.+ad IosluoO uoi}dijosaQ loaload F :awsN }oafoad io :area 1enojddy j)e ;S Jauueld umol TdAOUddVSla a�ep IVAOdddV :Aq popuooeS :Aq uol;oyq pae08 MOIAea ufiisea :sluowwoo auo7 ' 5u111d Moo18 10-1 :u011dinsaO le581 :auoud pue ssaappy 'loa}luoay auogd pue ssaappy `J&UMO los.iad ;oe;uo0 01 Jiaosaa 1081oad :aweN 1 uoileoilddd 10010M IenoJddV j;elS� J@U :a ;ea 7 6 C)l :AaeuaurnS v xi 'lVAOUddVSIO IVAOWddb :Aq popuooeS aAq uol;oIN a #sa paeoa MOIAOa u6isa© :s;uawwoa auo 6uilld ' �loolg ' ;o :uol ;dposaa lefa- auogd pug ssaappy ';oa;iyON :auogd pue ssaappy 'aaumo • auogd Pug uosaad ;og;uo0 vy :uol;dijosaa ;oafoad �l /cJ 1 :awel\I ;oaload o 1 uolpoilddd 1000ad Jenoaddy gujS x IVAOdddVSIO - V X01 It C suoz ' )Iowa 9 �— :sluawwoo 10 :uoijdijosaa JU60 :auoUd Pus ssaippy '1301i40ay auogd pus ssaippy `JOUMp Jauueld umol 1 \ i Idnoaddd paeo8 nnainaa of isa© Q�S alep uoileoilddb #Oa .Ioad auoud pus uosJad toe ;u00 :uoi#diaosaa jaafoad :auaeN }oafoad 0 Aq papuoaaS - :Aq uoiloyq alsp JeAoaddy ilslS IGi Jauusld.umol AjewwnS - IVAOUddbSfp IVAOdddV :Aq popuooag — :Aq uoiloW also p.+eoe nnaina11 uCisaa k� y :sluawwoo auo lol :uoildlaosap ls6a WO uoileoliddd }oaioad auoyd pus uosaad losluoO :uoildiaosap loafoid ' :awsN loefoad l :auoyd pus ssaappy 'laal!gDAV (XA&M Isnaddy guts aauueld uMOI TdAOaddVSIQ IVAOadd'd ale(] pae08 AROIAOa ufiisaQ :Aq popuooeS — :Aq uo!joiN auoz - } :sluawwoa 6uIIIj ' sloo1e job :uol}duosaa Is69 :auogd Pus ssaaPPV '100PLIDN auogd Pus ssaaPPy `.40uMo auogd Pus uosaad } 01 ?}uo0 also AaswwnS a uoileoilddd IOGIO Jd uolldlaosaa 10afoad -- :awsN 40910M .� 11 :also lenoaddy ; ;elS�r Jauueld unnol ! - lbAOadddSld ale(] Aq popuooeS _ :%.q uoi;oiN pae08 MOlAaa aisea �/ auoz :auoyd pue ssaJPPV 'loai!UoJd — :auoyd pue sseAPPV '49UMO 'auoyd pug u0saad ;ae ;uo0 u C)l :uoiidiaoseo ;oalo.�d :aweN 139foad a ;e(] IVAOaddV uoiluoilddd 10810M / - _ 1 • • . • .- • Ienaaddy } }ejS tau eG 1 unno j r , - IenOHdddSaa 7dnoaddd Aq popuooaS + q uoiloW a;ep pie08 nnainaa uBisea , auoz ' gaaags abpr.zg 8ZZ Ve pa -.L-aaT asr ;jo :sIuauaWOO 6ulp-1 10-1 :uoi;dlaosap lebe :9uo4d Pus ssaaPpd 'IOEWL JV OSZ8 -9Lt T ?P11 '*49 :auoyd pue ssaappy 'JOUMO a pT � OGZB -9L'b uaggTx W auoyd PUB uosaa }o T a :uoiadiaosa(] }oafoad • a u2 S xaxoJg ;Dge4Sg T::aa :auaeN }aafoad . Ea uoileoilddd loatoad lows 75 south frontage road vall, Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 office of community development TO: Town Council FROM: Department of CommunityDevelQpmeent DATE: October 25, 1984 . RE: Kittay Design Rev iew• Board Appeal • a 0 Please note that this item is scheduled for your review Qn NQvem�er< 6thO984, I have included this information in thts weeks packet so you have. ample, time to visit the site. r would encourage you to take a drive out to East Vail to look at the proposed site. Please feel free, to call Tom with. any questions you may have. " .1 ♦ii��ek iiil�ii ♦r� i ° � ♦OliVeee �y,r.. • �,.. i�i � ° e i � ceii lllsa -. ��r� �ioy �tcni..,. . ♦� ii♦ ri.��.l�i'r0 ivy -��` 1 �' � -i+ iii�•.e +4�/ iie/ ►ri�le.e ♦�1 ►eei r.ii►eari � V i • � 1J ♦1 ;1ve1i1e ♦tl Y _ 641"N =41T i!� ,► i� •�i / i ! i .` �� ? i ii i re'leiief�'i �1 ♦i1lerile. r ♦ ♦u1 ►eiGe�► f ♦ilieerOi01 /1l,►�►ii1*'W 0e• Tei i,r' i L�x r ♦ei�e� ees elieea� i' 4A.iI IJi1 f P ♦ n i l ♦ � ► ♦ ti . /�4il1• ♦� INS/U� w 0 a fowl 75 south frontage road vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 TO: Town Council FROM: Department of Communi;tj Development DATE: November 6th, 1984 office of community development RE: Appeal of the Design Review Board's deci;si.on to deny an appl icatton for a satel l i'te antenna, dish at 50.89 Gore Circle, Vail, ColoradQ. APPLICANT: Arthur O ttay Background on this request. This submittal was made_ Qn be.h.al f of the. applicant by Richard 1'rw 'n President of Universal TVR. Systems (,see attached material for a site. plan and perspective drawing of this: proposal), Proposed by the applicant is a satellite dish ( - 8.5 1 ` i;n di;ameter), mounted on a pole reaching a maximum height of 2V'. The.appli'cation was reviewed by the Design Review Board at their Qctober 3rd, 1984, meeting, The action taken by the Design,Review Board was to deny this submitt4l citing the proposal to be.incompati with sections: 18.54.05 C. 7, and 18.54.050 F. 3. The motion, which passed unanimously, was made by Richard Matthews: and seconded by Rick Baldwin. Findings of the Board The motion for denial specifically cited two sections of the Design Review Guidelines. These were: 18.54.050 C.7 Roof top heating and air conditioning equipment, large vent stacks, elevator penthouses and similar features should be avoided, however, if necessary, shall be designed to be compatiable with the overall design of the structure or screened from view. Roof top antennea shall not be permitted unless as allowed under a conditional use review as specified within the zoning code. 18..54..050 F. 3 Satell dish, antennas and 0 l. s tructure.s. sha.i l not be permitted unless. su bsta.n.t.ial l y screened from view by fences, berms, or landscaping. The majority of discussion centered around the latter of these two sections. The determination was made by the Board that this proposal was not substantially screened from view. One Board member expressed concern over impacts on the neighbors immediately to the east of the. Kittay residence. All Board members expressed concern over the proposed height of the dish (22 " in the atr). Staff Recommendation On This App The staff strongly supports the decision of the Design Reyi.eW Board and recommends the Council uphold th.ts dectston. Wh.i'le. the Guidelines do not prohibit satellite dishes, they do require that they. be `s- ubstanti'ally screened" from view. The staff feels strongly-that the i:nterpetati'on of "substantially screened" be taken as it is. written. Th.i:s provi;si`on is extremely important in assuring that satellite dishes and similar structures are located to minimize their visual impact. To fully understand the impact of this decision on the. applicant, it i.s • necessary to look at the intent of the Design Gui'deli Generally speaking, the objectives of the �uideli:nes are to protect and enhance the natural landscape, allow for development in harmony wi'th the desired character of Vail, and protect neigh.bortng property owners from impacts of design not adequately covered by other regulations. Taken a step further, the guidelines require that each building site tn. Vai;l be developed with respect to the characteristics of that site.. Th.i.s holds true for the construction of a new residence as well as for the installation of a satellite dish. The chara.ctertsti.cs of the Ki'ttayy site, require, a di'sh_ to be located in the front yard or atop a 19" , tal l pole. This results in a situation where the installation of a dish cannot be accomplished on this site in a manner compatible with the Guidelines. U AUDIO- VISUAL ELECTRONICS September 21, 1984 Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. West Vail, CO 81657 To Whom It May Concern: The specs for the Arthur Kittay job are as follows; 1.) Antenna installation will not exceed 22' in height. 2.) The diameter of the Antenna Dish is 8 3.) There is no exsisting underground utility system nor any sprinkler system. 4.) No shrubbery will be removed nor planted.-. - 5.) The center of the Antenna Pole is located 9' E. off the NW corner of the structure. Sincerly, Richard A. Irwin Presidents -e� y k! J i J 1 : I s e f Lam( �vY P.O. Drawer J . Edwards, Colorado 81632 • 3031926 -3299 EEC will _ ` `I ........... 7-Z mmt r� l �X r_ s • i Is ,t towl box 100 veil, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 department of community development Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation 10 Duane Davis QR-153a Al Fuelling -5*F4- Lonnie Holt ?6 -% ' Vail Cable TV Gary 476 -5377 Public Service Company Gary Hall 949 -5781 Mountain Bell Don Gress 949 -4531 Holy Cross Electric P.O. Box Y, Avon, Co. 81620 Box 336, Vail, Co. 81657 Box 430, Minturn, Colo. 81645 Drawer N, Avon, Co. 81620 Ted Huskey 949 -5892 A'r Western Slope Gas Harry Moyes 468 -2528 Box 1828, Dillon, Co. 80435 Vail Valley Foundation Board of Directors President Gerald R. Ford Robert E. Barrett Jack Crosby H. Benjamin Duke, Jr. M E M O R A N D U M Harry H. Frampton III John Horan -Kates William J. Hybl Charles D. Lewis Robert Pritzker Parker Jay Pricke TO: Vail Design Review Board James D. Robinson III Vail Town Council Fitzhugh Scott Planning & Environmental C.¢Itplission Thomas J. Watson Jr. I , FRCM: John Horan-Kates DATE: November 30, 1984 SUBJECT: Ford Amphitheater Des4 n Workshop As you may have heard, the Foundation recently selected Morter- Fisher Associates to proceed with the design of the Ford Amphi- theater facility. One step in this process will be to hold a public Design Workshop for the purpose of receiving your input and getting your reaction to specific ideas on how the Amphi- theater should look and function. Jim Morter calls the work- shop an "on -site design process" because it is highly interactive between the architectural team, his group of consultants and contractor, together with interested people like yourselves, performing arts operators and promoters, managers of the facility as well as a wide array of interested Vail citizens, We hope that you will be able to attend for at least an hour or so on Wednesday, December 5. The workshop will begin at 9:OOAM at the Vail Library. Hope to see you then. JHK /pv • A Colorado Non Profit Corporation Organizing athletic, educational and cultural events in the Vail Valley Post Office Box 309 . Vail, Colorado 81658 a (303) 949 -4922 0 Board of Directors President Gerald R. Ford Robert E. Barrett Jack Crosby H. Benjamin Duke, Jr. Harry H. Frampton III John Horan -Kates William J. Hybl Charles D. Lewis Robert W, Parker Jay Pritzker James D. Robinson III Fitzhugh Scott Thomas J. Watson Jr. • is Vail Valley Foundation M E M O R A N D U M TO: Vail Design Review Board Vail Town Council Planning & Environmental. C nFa.ssion FRCM: John Horan -Kates / I / (�� DATE: November 30, 1984 SUBJECT: Ford hitheater De Workshy As you may have heard, the Foundation recently selected Morter- Fisher Associates to proceed with the design of the Ford Amphi- theater facility. One step in this process will be to hold a public Design Workshop for the purpose of receiving your input and getting your reaction to specific ideas on how the Amphi- theater should look and function. Jim Morter calls the work- shop an non -site design process" because it is highly interactive between the architectural team, his group of consultants and contractor, together with interested people like yourselves, performing arts operators and promoters, managers of the facility as well as a wide array of interested Vail citizens. We hope that you will be able to attend for at least an hour or so on Wednesday, December 5. The workshop will begin at 9:00AM at the Vail Library. Hope to see you then. JHK /pv A Colorado Non Profit Corporation Organizing athletic, educational and cultural events in the Vail Valley Post Office Box 309 • Vail, Colorado 81658 • (303) 949 -4922 r - - I lowl 75 south frontage road vaii, Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA DECEMBER 5, 1985 2:OOPM • 1. Mountain Haus Deck Enclosure Vail Village 2. Bj Ani Furs Awning and Sign Vail Village office of community development 3. Village Center Building - Evaluation of Completed work in comparison to Design Review Board approved proposal. 40 �1 taws _ 75 south frontage roan vail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -7000 1W office of community development December 5, 1984 Buff Arnold. 1000 South. Frontage Road - West vail , Colorado, 81657 RE A &DBu1ldiIng Summary of Design Review Board Meeting, November 21, 1984.. C Dear Buff, The A & D bui :ldi'ng was given prel imi_nary approval :' t the November, 21, 1384, Design Review Board meeting. The.followi:ng comments were made by the Design Review Board and should be considered in the project' design for the next Design Review Board neeti:ng; DESIGN DETAILS 1. Street lighting along Gore Creek. Dri :ve may be appropriate, Street lighting may be needed especially i'n the. two patio areas. 2. The roof element that would house the restaurant venting could reflect an arched roof design. The arched roof element may look more appropriate. 3. More detail is needed on the south elevation. This concern was also raised by the Planning and Enviromental Commission. 4. On the northeast corner of the building, the Design Review Board would like to see a detail on the transition between the siding and stucco. It was suggested that the stucco wall could be brought forward. 5. More Detail on the metal band extending around the building should be provided for the next meeting. The Design Review Board would like to make sure that the metal will hold the paint. It was mentioned that the metal would probably be a factory finished piece. Members of the board also stated that the metal band should not be too glossy. 6. A sign program should be submitted for the next meeting with details on sign brackets and necessary lighting. • 7. Details on the methods used to control dra.i.na.ge and. snow shedding, particularly over - pedestrian ways should be provided. 8. Design details are need for the west patio railing surrounding the dining area, the east patio wall and restaurant railing, and canopy entry for the bar and restaurant on the west. side of the building. 9. The pavers along the north side of the building need to be pulled out an additional one foot. 10. Landscaping: The Design Review Board strongly agreed with the planning Commission and Town Council that landscaping was desperately needed along the north facade of the building. It was suggested that trees could be used around the corner area by the deli. Details of tree. vaults and planters should be included in the next submittal. Water features should also be emphasized. The Design Review Board stated that the Town needs to enhance the existing water features i.n the village. The Design Review-Board strongly recommended that the staff evaluate alternative loading posi so that landscaping would be possible on the north side of the building. Any opportunity to integrate trees on the east patio should be examined. • 11. The entrance to the retail space that is located just to the north.of the west patio area should be pulled back to where it was ori:gi_nally located on the Planning Commission approved plans. In addition to the Design Review Board comments, the Planning Commission also stipulated that their approval was contingent upon the foi.lowi;ng conditions being met: 1. A pedestrian walkway and intensive landscaping will be provided along the north side of the building subject to the approval of the Town of Vail Public Works Department. 2. A pedestrian easement will be provided along Mill Creek. 3. Approval of the encroachment upon Town of Vail land along bill Creek as well as a subsequent approval of a flood plain modification request will be submitted if necessary. 4. A section of the new wall along Mill Creek on the north end will be removed to facilitate snow removal in this area to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. 5. No additional drainage along Bridge Street or Gore Creek Drive should occur above and beyond the existing situation. 1 LJ • 0 These conditions should be addressed in your submittal Please let me know when you would like to schedule the comments, please contact-me as soon as possible. Sincerely, Kristan Pritz Town Planner KP/ rme for final review. proposal for final • 0 T . w C) LL r.2 F4 Q o 0 r� i 3/26/$1 DRB PROCESS Upon receipt of submittals for DRB, the following steps must be carried out; 1. Every document received must be -dated and stamped received. 2. The package must be checked to make sure that it is complete. Use, the plan submittal check list for this 3. After checking package and accepting it for review: 1) Record plans in log book; 2) File materials list, plan submittal check list, utility verification form (or letters), and engineering check list in either the lot -block file or project file using 2 hole fastener; 3) Place plans and file.in the appropriate DRB bucket. 4. Planner in charge of DRB then routes the plans to Public Works for their review. S. When plans are returned, planner completes zone check on plans and places zone check in file. 6. Plans go to DRB and are either approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved. 7. After plans are either approved or disapproved by DRB, a letter must be sent to the applicant stating exactly what was either approved or disapproved. 8. The plans are to be stamped approved or disapproved and are to be logged in the roledex. 9. At the time plans are submitted for a building permit, they must be checked against the DRB approved set of plans and either accepted or rejected. Also at this time, an address must be assigned to the property, and they must be sent to the Fire Department for their review prior to issuance of a building permit. 10. Planner in charge of DRB has the responsibility to conduct various site inspections to make sure that the building, architecture, and landscaping is completed as approved. These should take place at the time of rough frame inspection and again at temporary /final_C. of 0. 11. Landscaping and paving should be required to be completed at the time of final C.O. during the months between June 1st and September 31st. From OctoDer 1st to May 1st, a temporary C.O. can be issued for a period of not more than 8 months for the completion of landscaping and paving. A calendar should be kept for the purpose of recording the date by which a project must be completed. i e SAMPLE DRB APPROVAL /DISAPPROVAL LETTER DATE • TO: name address FROM: Departmen of Community-Development /Peter Jamar RE: DRS Submittal of (date) (property) Dear At the (date) Design Review Board meeting, your e of roject} was approved. GRFA submittal for ( t y s ft total; sq ft primary unit, approval was for move on q sq ft secondary unit. With this approval, you may to working drawings and plan check submittal. Sincerely) PETER JAMAR Town Planner Design Review Board meeting, your submittal At the �^ roved. was disa for {type of project} p (explanation) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board meets the ist, 3rd and 5th Wednesday of each month, usually 2:00 p The Town Planner does the plan checks and oversees the meetings. a list of meeting Give the Transportation department g dates, so that they can arrange to have a Lift Van ready to be picked up. Pick up the Van the morning of the meeting. for site visits which usually begin at 1:00 p.m. Return it that afternoon. If someone wishes to come before the Design Review Board, give them the packet of instructions titled, "REVISED DRB PROCEDURES AND INSTRUCTIONS ". The deadlines are. listed along with the meeting dates. All materials listed must be submitted in order to be accepted and in order to be scheTuled for meetings and to meet publishing deadlines. After the necessary materials have been received and it is determined that the applicant can appear on the DRB meeting,h have them fill out) a Project Application. It is important to get an address and phone number on the application when scheduling Projects. These will be needed for follow up letters. a nd for questions you may need to ask them later. Upon receipt of submittals for DRB, the following steps must be carried out: Every document received must be -dated and stamped received. The package must be checked to make sure that it is complete. Use the plan submittal check list for this After checking package and accepting it for review: 1) Record plans in log book; 2) File materials list, plan submittal check list, utility verification form (or letters), and ���,pc+ engineering check list b ,\\ i either the lot -block file or project �Cfile , �using 2 hole fastener; . / T J Qih a �-, T ,�rt - ' ` . c Gd st meeting he �� The DRB agenda must be publishe in the Vail Trail d the week before each p given to the Vail Trail�K originals of the agenda are filed in the DRB book and..one cotheday before, the Town one to the Town Planner. The day e . final agenda meeting ag with a section for "Members Present ". Planner will help you decide on the (See Attached). The original is given to the Town Planner before the meeting along with several copies and the Project Applications. The DRB members are called the: day before each meeting to let them know the time that they should come. Usually there are site visits which begin at 1:00. Check this each time with the Town Planner. It is always good to reach each member to make certain that there is a quorum'.(4 make a quorum). One member of the Planning and Environmental Commission is on the DRB and can be included in the quorum. The day following the meeting, the Town Planner will give the secretary all the plans an,Vtapes from the meeting along with the Project Applications and�'Agenda with comments on it. A letter must be sent to each applicant stating exactly what was approved or disapproved. The agenda is filed in the DRB book with the white copy of each. Project Application. The yellow copy is filed 'in the permanent puilding file, the pink copy is either given to the applicant at the DRB meeting, or mailed to them later. REsults of each project are listed'on index cards in card file, and the plans are listed on the roledex and marked as such in the log book. A" Occasionally the Zoning Administrator or Plan "Staff- Approves" a project. He will give *U- tha Prniect AT)vlication and_ it is handled in the same manner as above. � 0 f 10WO of MIR box 100 nail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 Allen Butler lodo Lionsridge Loop Vail, Colorado 81657 department of community development April 30, 1981 Re: Chase Residence Lot 7, Blk A, Vail Ridge I I s Dear Allen, At the April 29 meeting of the Design Review Board, your submittal for a residence on the above property was given preliminary approval. Some of the changes suggested were that you use tinted glass, that you try to mitigate the side retaining walls, put more thought into the landscaping, consider moving the building 8' -10' closer to the road (the garage can be located in the setback), and that you change the color of the retaining w a l l s . We will expect you to contact us when you wish to be rescheduled. Since Y, PETER JAMAR PJ:bpr f NO • i low box 100 nail, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -5613 Gordon Pierce and Associates 1000 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 department of community development April 30, 1981 Re: DRB Submittal of 4/29/81 Lot 20, Glen Lyon Dear Gordon, At the April 29 meeting of the Design Review Board meeting, your submittal for a duplex was approved as submitted with the substitution of four Y -4" aspen for those listed. Approval was' for, a Primary /Secondary residence with a total GRFA of 4116 sq ft: 2687 so ft prim ry, and 1429 ft secpnd�ry. With this approval, you may lisdve on. to working drawings and plan (_ submittal. Sincere PETER_ JAMAR Town Planner PJ:bpr