HomeMy WebLinkAboutBell Tower Building (2)lnwn
November 6, 1987
75 south tronlage road
Yail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000 olllce ol communlty developmenl
Mr. Hermann StauferP.0. Box 1188
Vai1, Colorado 8.l658
Re: Signage for the Lancelot Restaurant at the Bell Tower
Bui ldi ng, Vai 1 Vi 1 lage
Dear Hermann:
You have requested that the staff determine the amount ofsignage that you may have on the south sjde of your restaurantwhich fronts along Gore Creek Drive. I have calculated thatthe restaurant has 46 lineal feet of frontage on the south, 7lineal feet on the southeast corner, and 33 lineal feet offrontage on the north (patio area). The restaurant has a totalof 86 lineal feet of frontage which a'l lows for 17.2 square feetof signage. The restaurant is allowed two signs, as it hasthree frontages.
The existing signage for the restaurant .i ncludes a 5 squarefoot sign jn the brass canopy and Z wjndow signs each having .4square feet of signage. If you keep your exjsting signage isit is, the project wilI have 12 sguare feet of remaining-signage. You had mentioned that you would like to do apainted wa11 sign on the south elevatjon. A wall sign may be12 square feet. However, please note that a hanging sign mayhave a maximum length of 10 square feet.
The staff is not allowed to give staff approval to any signthat is over 5 square feet. For thjs reason, if you wish touse al 1 of your remaining square footage, the proposal would
need to be reviewed by the Design Review Board. However, .i fyou propose a sign that is at a maximum of 5 square feet, thestaff will be able to approve your signage reguest.
I have enclosed the sign application and Design Review Boardapplication. Please note that the sign appljcation requires a
$20.00 review fee.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to call
me.
Sincerel v.,) I -'n
IL./ , I t,.t-
lrrrfan fffft.
Kristan Pritz
Town Planner
KP: br
Enc'l osure
TOWN OF VAIL75 S. FROMTAGE ROADVAIL, CO 8L657
970-479-2L38
Valuat.ion:
Job Address:
LocaE.ion. . . :ParceL No..:
Project. No.:
2].0L-082 -63 -013
PRJ99-0318
NOTE: THIS PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON ,JOBSITE AT ALL TIMES
ADD/ALT MF BUILD PERMIT PeTmiT #:B00-0038
Status. - .201 EORE CREEK DR
201 GORE CRK DR (BELLTOWEAppIied..
Issued. . .Expires. .
: ISSUED: o3/28/20o0: O4/20/2000: L0/L7/2000
APPLTCAIVT BROUTN_WOLIN CONSTRUCTIONP O BOX 701_, VAIL CO 81658
COMTRACTOR BROI^IN-WOLIN CONSTRUCTION
OWNER
P O BOX 701, VAIL CO 81658
BELL TOWER PARTIiIERS LTD ONE TI'RT
CREEK vrLr,AcE SrE 505, 3878 oAK LAr,ttN AvtpM(cqflfit. Dgvga+zr
Fir.eplace rnfornacion: ResEricEed: Y *of
Clean-up D
approved
amount
date
Sq Ft:
*Of Gas Logs:
PEE SUUXARY
Description:
REPLACE 3 EXISTING WINDOWS
Occupancy: p'L/82/A3Not. in table!T\pe ConsErucEion: III l--HRType III L-Hour'Il,pe Occupancy:
Phone z 970-949-4L86
Phone:. 970-949-4L86
#Of Wood/Pal1et:
Tocal CalcuLated Fees--->
9 ,025
Reatuaranl Plan Rewiev- - >
DRB Fee---------
Recrealion Fee-- ------- - >
cl.ea-I4t D.po6it-- -. --- - >
Add
Ga6 Appliances:
Building ---->
Plan check- - - >
Inveatigation>
wi.lI cal.1---->
r45 .00
94.25
.00
3.00
.00
.00
.00
100.o0
342 -25
3 42 .2s
AddiEional !'ee6---------> .00
Total PeroiE Fee-------_>
Paymenta-------
TOTAT, FEES---'-- 342.25 BAIANCE DUE---. .OO
Refund
DeptANN ICDept
Dept: PUB WORK Divisi-on:
rr*itt**t*tr**r , , r r * f i * i * * r * l r i r * , * i ., { a * * * * * r * **+l*i*r**a****
See Page 2 of this Documenc for any conditions that may apply to this permit
DE CLAR,AT I ONS
I hereby acknowledge that I hav€ read this application. fiLled out in ful1 the i,nformaEion requirad, comPleted an
Item:051-00
03 /28 /2000Item:05400
03 /28 /2000Item:05600
03 /28 /20OOItem:05500
03 /28 /20oo
BUILDING DEPARTMEI\fl|
'fRM ACE1ON: APPRPI,ANNING DEPARTMEI\TJRM ACIiON: APPR OK PERFIRE DEPARIT{EI{:T.fRM AcEion: APPR N,/APTJBLIC WORKSJRM Accion: APPR N,/A
Dept
APPROVED
: BUILDING Diwi-sion:
: PLANNING Division:
: FIRE Division:
to contpl.y lrith all To{n ordinances and sEaE€ laws, and to build Ehis seruclure
code6, degigTl review approved, Vnifonn Building code and other ordinanceB of che
accurate plot
and plob plan,
subdivision
REQUESTS FOR INSPESXTONS S1IALr, BE MADE TWEr[rY - FOUR HOUXS IN ADIRNCE BY TELEPHOYE
It
Send clcan-Up Depo6its fo: BROWN-!ioIrIN CONST OF OWNER OR CONTRACTOR FOR HTMSE].F AND O'|NER
********************************************************************************
EONDITIONS
PermiE, #: 800-0038 as of 04/20/00 stacus: ISSIIED********************************************************************************
Permit T149e: ADD/ALT MF BUILD PERMIT
Applicant : BROWN-WOLIN CONSTRUCTION
970-949-4]-A6
Job Address:
LocaEion: 2Ot GORE CRK DR (BELI_,TOWER #1)Parcel No: 2101-082-53-01-3
Applied: n/2e/2oooIssued: 04 /20 / 2O0O
To E>cpire , Lo /L7 /2oo'
Description:
REPI,ACE 3 EXISTING V{INDOWS
Conditions:
1.. FIELD INSPE TIONS ARE REQUIRED TO CHECK FOR CODE COMPLTA}'ICE.2. AIL PENETRATIONS IN WALLS,CEIIJINGS,AND FLOORS TO BE SEALED
WITH AN APPROVED FIRE MATERIAL.3- SMOKE DETECTORS ARE REQUTRED rN ALL BEDROOMS AND EVERY STORY
AS PER SEC.310.6.1 0F THE 1997 UBC.4. FIRE DEPARTI,IEITT APPROVAL rS REQUIRED BEFORE ANY WORK CAIiI BE
STARTED.
75 S, Frontage Rd.Vail, Colorado 81657
APPLICATTo\JLL Nor BE AccEpTED rF rNcoMprEnf q? - 03/{
Building Permit #:
97 O- 47 9 - 2149 ( Inspections)
Separate Permits are required for electrical, plumbing, mechanical. etc.!
Office at 97O-328-864O or visit for Patcel #
(.fcer * 2lol- o&L-(.3- o/t)
rob Name: T&l(Tu** o+-f,;. *{VJ!:;*,tX#o'E'6"rc c.&Z, >, . /ntrArust (fr1
Legal Description rct: rt Block: (-$Filing:F'.Af Subdivision:
owneqlaPe' .l4a /Jr, ilr.AddresV 7. o
1 rcai\ t |VPo s _s "ffi
ho ne : g o 6 " 3 7 | - a Ll >>
Architect/Designer: ,Na aL ll Address:Phone:
Engineer: No ne Address:Phone:
Detaileddescriptionof work: F<p/x* 3 t-xiSl,rq I'athnl WnM qltnt).w,;s bth 3 tdentrcal<p<
wi,^)orus- fu1Gg ivar; sA*,fr4 "AJ AftlJJrlh,\ av,^J "tin)n, .t, k rel/eLJ
WorkClass: New( ) Addition( ) Remodel (!) Repair( ) Demo( ) Other( )
Work Type: Interior ( ) Exterior ( ) Both (X)Does an EHU exist at this location: Yes ( ) No ( )
Type of Bldg.: Single-family ( ) Two-family ( ) Multi-family ( ) Commerciatlf Restaurant ( ) Other ( )
No. of Existing Dwelling Units in this building:No. of Accommodation Units in this building:
No/Typeof FireplacesExistinql GasAooliances( ) GasLoqs( ) Wood/Pellet( ) WoodBurninq(
No/Type of Fireplaces Proposed: Gas Appliances ( ) Gas Loqs ( ) Wood/Pellet ( ) Wood Burning (NOT ALLOWED)
Does a Fire Alarm Exist: Yes ( ) No ( )Does a Fire Sprinkler System Exist: Yes ( ) No ( )
CoMPLETE VATUATIONS FOR BUTLDTNG PERMTT (Labor & Materials)
MECHANICAL: $ O rorAl:S g hS9-
REFUND CLEANUP DEPOSIT TO:
General Contractor:
o,tn- lir l,n (;
Contact and Phone #'s:
T2,"4 e 1ffi -1,
Town of Vail Reg. No.:
,t******t *****************************y.*FOR OFFICE USE ONLY**,r*******'!********r!*:f **********t!****
F :/everyonfforms/bldgperm
Questions? Call the Building Team at 479-2325
IOI,V.\i
Department of Community Development
ProjectAddress: Jot E 6ox Crc"kDr. &"tAu* &"f L
/ This Checklist must be ampleted beforc a Buildina Permit apolkation isarcptd.
o Staging plan included (refer to Public Works checklist) No dumoster.oarkino or material storaqe
at
f
!t
o
c
fl
o
// Dr* dFC.< ft"^ fiJi"lo*s
o ,All pages of application is complete
4|, o*" "oo;;;;,*o (ir required) provide a copy or approvat rorm , n 4 n,^,L_ IU Condominium Association letter of approval atbached if project is a Multi-Family cdmplex q) *
o Complete site plan submitted 1! zt
o Public Way Permit application included if applicable (refer to Public Works checklist) /V A
ao
o
Asbestos test and results submitted if demolition is occurring t-1,., ,4* ''Architect stamp and signature (All Commercial and Multi family) t
t),+I-*L.,/ ( nef)allowed on roadwavs and shoulders without written aooroval 17
Full floor plans including building sections and elevations(4 sets of plans for Multi-Family and
Commercial)
Window and door schedule
Full structural plans, including design criteria (ie.loads)
Structural Engineer stamp and signature on structural plans (All Commercial and Multi Family)
Soils Report must be submitted prior to footing inspection
Fire resistive assemblies specified and penetrations indicated
Smoke detectors shown on plans
Types and quantity of fireplaces shown
Applicanfs Signature:
Date of submittal:
F:/everyoneformtbldpermz
B",* -tuk 6J, 7'-
Received By:
BUILDING PERMTT ISSUAITICE TIME FRAME
If this permit requires a Town of Vail Fire Department Approval, Engineer's (Public Works)
review and approval, a Planning Department review or Health Department review, and a review
by the Building Department, the estimated time for a total review will take as long as three (3)
weeks.
All commercial (large or small) and all multi-family permits will have to follow the above
mentioned maximum requirements. Residential and small projects should take a lesser amount
of time. However, if residential or smaller projecls impact the various above mentioned
departments with regard to necessary review, these projects may also take three (3) weeks to
review and approve.
Every attempt will be made by this department to expedite this permit as soon as possible.
I, the undersigned, understand the plan check procedure and Ume frame. I also understand
that if the permit is not picked up by the expiration date, that I must still pay the plan check fee
and that if I fail to do so it may aftect tuture permits that I apply for.
Agreed to by:7,,A; 6rn. B*r,-t-
Print name I n
tililk6,,,^_
Signature
Project Name:
Date:
8"1,t -t nrr.- /$,." .4r'..- hj''n) *'
F : everyone/forms/bldperm3
WHEN A "PUBLTC WAY PERMIT" rS REQUIRED
At tllv lT
PLEASE READ AND CHECK OFF *an OO r*U FOLLOWING QUEST]ONS REGARDING THE NEED FOR A
"PUBUC WAY PERMIT'':
tr
o
o
o
D
Is this a new residence?YES NOX
Does demolition work being performed require the use of the Right-of-Way, easements or
public property? YES NOX
No-x--
YES No )d
Is a different access needed to the site other than the existing driveway? YES
Is any utility work needed? YES
Is the driveway being repaved?
If you answered YES to any of these questions, a "Public Way Permit" must be obtained.
"Public Way Permit" applications may be obtained at the Public Work's office or at Community
Development (a sample is attached). If you have any questions please call Leonard Sandoval in Public
WorK at 479-2L98.
I HAVE,READ AND/ANSWERED ALL THE ABOVE QUESTIONS.
/U-JA9'* E*^,.-at,t^ (^r'/.E^- .
Contractor Signature Company Name
JoborProjectNare' Be// Titt" d$,.'. 4t* L/,n)o*'
Date sisned: z/sl /otl.r-r-
No*-
Is any drainage wo$ being done that affects the Right-of-Way, easements, or public property?
YES_ NO )o
Is a "Revocable Right-of-Way Permit" required? YES Nop-'
Is the Right-of-Way., easements or public property to be used for staging, parking or fencing?YES_ No_10_
If answer is NO, is a parking, staging or fencing plan required by Public Works?YES_ NO_x_
F :/everyone/forms/bldperm4
TVWNOF
PUBLIC WORKS AND THE PUBLIC WAY PERMIT PROCESS
How it relates to Building Permits:
^r A
/[l ^rFill out the attached check list with the Building Permit Aoplication.
If yes was answered to any of the questions then a "Public Way" permit is required. You
can pick up an application at either Community Development, located at 75 South Frontage
Road or Public Works, located at 1309 Elkhorn Drive.
) Notice sign-offs for utility companies. ALL utilities must field verifi7 (locate) respective
utilifles prior to signing application. Some utility companies require up to 48 hours notice to
schedule a locate.
A construction traffic control/staging plan must be prepared on a separate sheet of paper.
An approved site plan may also be used. This plan will show locations of all traffic control
devices (signs, cones, etc.) and the work zone, (area of construction, staging, etc.). This
plan will expire on November lst and will need to be resubmitted for consideration for
approval through the winter. Be aware that your resubmission for winter may be denied
depending on the location of construction.
Sketch of work being performed must be submitted indicating dimensions (length, width
and depth of work), This may be drawn on the traffic control plan or a site plan for the job.
Submit completed application to the Public Work's office for review. If required, locates will
be scheduled for the Town of Vail electricians and irrigation crew. The locates take place in
the morning, but may require up to 48 hours to perform.
The Public Work's Construction Inspector will review the application and approve or deny
the permit, You will be contacted as to the status and any requirements that may be
needed. Most permits are released within 48 hours of being received, but please allow up
to one (1) week to process.
As soon as the permit is approved, the Building Department will be notifled, allowing the
"Building Permit" to be released. Please do not confuse the "Public Way Permit" with a
"Building Permit",
) NOTE: The above process is for work in a public way ONLY. Public Way
Permits are valid only until November 15th. A new Public Way Permit is required
each year if work is not complete. Re-application each November 15th does not
mean an a
I have read and
F:/everyone/forms/bldperm5
TOWN OF
DRAINAGE AND CULVERT INSPECTIONS ARE REOUIRED BY PUBLIC WORKS!
Please read and check off each of the items below:
o The Town of Vail Building Department has developed the following procedures to
ensure that new construction sites have adequately established proper drainage
from building sites along and adjacent to Town of Vail roads or streets.
o The Town of Vail Public Works Department will be required to inspect and approve
drainage adjacent to Town of Vail roads or streets and the installation of temporary
or permanent culverts at access points from the road or street onto the construction
site. Such approval must be obtained prior to any requests for inspection by the
Town of Vail Building Depaftment for footings, temporary electrical or any other
inspection. Please call Leonard Sandoval at 479-2L98 to request an inspection from
the Public Works Depaftment. Allow a minimum of 24 hour notice.
o Also, the Town of Vail Public Works Depatment will be approving all final drainage
and culvert installation with resulting road patching as necessry. Such approval
must be obtained prior to any Final Certificate of Occuoancv issuance.
'2/t..-->irAgreed to by: | | "u['"'J (>ene l5raur"-18."*' ('^)o('" 6-4' t"'-'
Signature
Project Name:Bell \o^* d{$,," ,!r'- (rJ''^l*t
Date sisned: i/r-' '
/l
F:/everyoneforms/bldperm6
Please read and check off eadr of the items below.
(Copies of complete text are available upon request)
CODE 5-2-IO: DEPOSTTS ON PUBLIC WAYS PROHIBITED
r Unlawful deposits: Subject to subsection C thereof, it is unlawful for any person to litter, track or
deposit, or cause to be littered, tracked or deposited, sand, gravel, rocks, mud,.dirt, snow, ice, or any
other debris or material upon any street, sidewalk, alley or public place, or any portion thereof.
a Notice; Abatement: The Director of Public Work may notifi7 and require any person who violates or
causes another to violate the provision of subsection A hereof, or who has in the Director's employment
a person who violates or causes another to violate the same, top remove such sand, gravel, rocks, mud,
dirt, snow, ice or any other debris or material within twenty four (24) hours after receipt of said notice
by the Director of Public Works. In the event the person so notified does not comply with the notice
within the period of time herein specified, the Director of Public Works, or other authorized agen! may
cause any such sand, gravel, rocks, mud, dirt, snow, ice, debris or any other material to be removeo
from any street or alley at the expense of the notified.
D Summons and Penalty: As an alternative to the notice for removal provided in subsection B above,
any person who violates or causes another to violate the same, may be issued a summons to appear
before the Municipal Court of the Town for said violations, and upon being found guilty of a violation
hereunder be punished as provided in Section 1-4-1 of this code.
tr Notice and Penalty: It is unlawful for any person to fail or refuse to comply with the notice of the
Director of Public Works as provided in subsection B hereof, and any such person shall, in addition to
payment of the expense of removal incurred by the Director of Public Work, as provided in subsection B
hereof, upon being found guilty of a violation hereunder, be punishable as provided in Section 1-4-1 of
this Code. (1997 Code: Ordinance 6 (1979).
CODES 7-3A-1 AND 7.3A-3: PARKING OBSTRUCTING TRAFFIC & IMPOUNDMENT AUTHORIZED
u No person shall park any vehicle upon a street or at any other place within this Municipality in such a
manner or under such conditions as to interfere with the free movement of vehicular traffic or proper
street or highway maintenance. (Ord. 2(1968) g 1)
o Whenever any police officer finds a vehicle attended or unattended, standing upon any portion of a
street or upon any place within this Municipalry in such a manner as to constitute a violation of any
section of this Article, or left unattended for a period of twenty four (24) hours or more and presumed to
be abandoned under the conditions prescribed by Colorado Revised Statutes section 42-4-1102, as
amended, the officer shall require the vehicle to be removed or cause it to be removed and paced in
storage in the nearest garage or other place of safety designated or maintained by this Municipality, and
the charges for towing and storage of such vehicle shall be charged to the owner of the vehicle in
addition to a ten dollar (910) impoundment charge. (Ord. 2(1968) g 3: Ord. 28(1981) 5 1)
I have read and will comply with the above code provisions:
F JeYeryone/fo rms/bldpe rm7
' '| O ,E$$lo.'*\" e\g1TnnilNf.Gi Design Revidiil Action Form-st{t "TowN oF vArL iTllfttf.FttAlLlY r\
A Vtr{tr /
ProjectNarne: BelttorverWindows ProjectNumber; PR.l99-0318 ,/ f; n
omer, Address, andPhone: Xe5|:'rl*r" /ll ll^
Amarillo, TX 79105 ll ' L )-a*
Prqect N-alne: Belltorver windows rroJeqt tluliltrcr , r F\rt 7 7-t .' r" ,/' r, n/ Jldlt-
Project Description: Replacement of wood-trim bay windows on east side of ,/ L'j
apartment.
PL"Ltpt- ltlrltL r-',(Jr! r!-J
(806) 374-2422
Architect/Contact, Address, and Phonel as nbove
Project Street Address: 201 East Gore Creek [lrive' Vail
Legal Description. Block 58, Vnil Village Filing #l
Parcel Number: 21010E263013 Building Narne: Belltower condo
Comments: CondominiumAssociationApprovalreceived.
?-;) ,1,/q
Motion by:
Seconded by:
Vote:
Conditions:
Town Planner. Ann Kjerulf
Date: Lll29/99 DRB Fee Paid: $20.00
Project Name: Belltower Windows
Board/Staff Action
Action: StnffApprovedwithCottdition
1. This activity will require a Town of Vait building permit (please call 970-
479-2325 for more information).
ao
BELL TOWER CON DOMINIUIII ASSOCIATION
Ponthous€ Apadment i0100 N. CEntrel, Suite 200 p. o. aor 1f2EE
!^elt]owel Eutlding D.tlrt, Ter.r 70231 Amarilo, Texas 79J0s?0t E.rt Gore Crsek Drive {Zfa, 03i3100 (806l 3JT4_Z4ZIVail, Colorrdo E1657
(s?0) 476-21e5
October 26, 1999
Town of Vail
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Attention Ms, Ann Kjerulf
Re: Bell Tower Associates. Lld.
(Bell Tower Condominium Assocration)
Parcal 210108263013
Lot A Block 5-B First Filing
201 E. Gore Creek Drive
Ladies ancl Genflemen.
Pursuant to my tetter of october 19, 1999, I have enclosed four photographs of thewindow in the BellTower penthouse Apartment.
Please advise if any other information is needed by your department in order for you toprocess our Application for Design Review Approval-
Thank you.
Sincerely,
. )a-0.r* nn addr" T'
Wales Madden. Jr.
mew
Enclosures
cc; Mr. Hermann Staufer
Mr. Dean Macfarlan
,/Mr. Richard Brown
o
BELL TOII/ER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
Penthouro Aprrtment 10100 N. Cenlral, Suite 200 P. O. Box i52E8
Bell Tower Building Dallar, Terar 75231 Amaritlo, Teras 79'105
201 East Gore Creek Driye tr14l 932J100 18091374-2422
Vail, Colorado 81657
(970) 4761125
October 18. 1999
Town of Vail
Department of Community Deveiopment
75 $outh Frontage Road
Vaii, Colorado 81657
Attention Ms. Ann Kjerulf Re: Bell Tower Associates, Ltd.
(Bell Tower Condominium Association)
Parcel 210108263013
Lot A Block 5-B Fir.st Filing
201 E. Gore Creek Drive
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Please refer to the Application for Design Review Approval filed the week of October
11, 1999.
Allof the owners of the Bell Tower Ccndominium Assocation, Mr. Hermann Staufer of
Vail and Bell Tower Associates, Ltd., a Colorado Limited Partnershlp represented by all
of the Partnership parlners, discussed the subject Design Review Aoproval request at
the annual meeting of the condominium Board in vail on october 13, 1999.
This request has the unanimous support of all owners, and your approval is respectfully
requesled.
You have asked for a photograph of the existing casement window, and we will send
this to you as soon as the film is developed.
Sincerely,
\,U clQoA c\ad<\r-' ?f, Wales Madden. Jr.
rngwcc: Mr. Hermann Staufer
Mr. Dean Macfarlan
J Mr. Richard Brown
VA55 5 or-O.r*, (1)
ARTICLE B. COUTMERCTAL CORE l (CCl) DTSTRTCT
SFCTION:
l2-7B.l: Purpose
12-78-2: Permitted And Conditionai Uses, Basement Or Garden Level
12-78-3: Permitted And Conditional Uses; First Floor Or Street Level
12-7B--4: Permitted And Conditional Uses; Second Floor
12-7B-5:- Permitted And Conditional Uses; Above Second Floor
12-78-6: Conditional Uses; Generally
12-78-7 : Exterior Alterations Or Modifications
1 2-78-8: Conditional Uses; Factors Applicable
12-78-9: Accessory Uses
12-78'-10: Lot Area And Site Dimensions
12-78-11: Setbacks
12-7B'12: Height
12-78-13: Density Control
12-78.14: Reconstruction Of Existing Uses; Generally
12-'7B-1 5: Site Coverage
12-78-16: Landscaping And Site Development
12-78-17: Parking And Loading
12-78-18: Location Of Business Activity
12-7B-19: Reconstruction Of Existing Uses; Cornpliance Required
12-78-20: Vail Viilage Urban Design Plan
l2-78-l: PURPOSE:
The Commercial Core 1 District is intended to provide sites and to maintain tle unique character
of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a
predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commerciai Core I District is intended to etrsure
adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings
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
pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and
architectural qualities that distinguish the Village. (Ord. 21(1980) $ 1)
12-78.-2: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES: BASEMENT OR
GARDEN LEVEL:
A. Definition: The "basement" or' "garden levei" shall be defined as that floor of a building that is
entirely or substantially below grade.
B. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be perrnitted in basement or garden levels within a
stru$ure:
1. Retail shops and establishments, including the following:
Apparel stores.
vA565 0?-03A.TXT (20
Art suppiy stores and galleries.
Bakeries and confectioneries.
Bookstores.
Camera stores and photographic studios.
Candy stores.
Chinaware and glassware stores.
Deficatessens and specialty food stores.
Drugstores and pharmacies.
Florists-
Gift stores.
Health food stores.
Hobby stores.
Jewelry stores.
Leather goods stores.
Music and record stores.
Newsstands and tobacco stores.
Sporting goods stores.
Stationery stores.
Toy stores.
Variety stores,
Yardage and dry goods stores.
2. Personal services and repair shops, including the following:
Barbershops.
Beauty shops.
Commercial ski storage.
Smail appliance repair shops.
Tailors and dressmakers.
Travel and ticket agencies.
3. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following:
Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to preparation ofproducts
or-t.r*, (3)
specifically for sale on the premises.
Cocktail lounges and bars.
Coffee shop.
Fountains and sandwich shops.
RestauraDts.
4. Professional offices. business offices and studios.
5. Banks and financial institutions.
6. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in subsection Bl
through 85 of this Section, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title
so long as they do not encourage vehicular trafific.
7. Lodges.
C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted in basement or garden levels within a
structure, subject to issuance of a conditionai use permit in accordance with the provisions of
Chapter 16 of this Title:
Household appliance stores.
Liquor stores.
Luggage stores.
Major arcade.
Meeting rooms.
Multiple-family housing.
Outdoor patios.
Radio and TV stores and repair shops.
Theaters. (Ord. 10(1998) $$2,4: Ord.26(1989) $ l:Ord.21(1982) $ 1(a):Ord.
25(1982) $ 1(a): Ord.6(1982) $ 3(a): Ord.8(1981) $ 2: Ord.26(1980) $ 2: Ord. l6
(197s) $ 3(A)(A): ord. 8(1973) $ 8.200(A)
12-78.-3: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; FIRST FLOOR OR
STREET LEVEL:
A. Definition: The "first floor" or "streer level" shall be defined as that floor of the buiiding that is
located at grade or street level.
B. Permitted Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level within a
strucfure:
l. Retail stores and establishments, including the following:
Apparel stores.
vA555 0?-03A.tr' ,no
Art supply stores and gaileries.
Bakeries and confectioneries.
Bookstores.
Camera stores and photogaphic studios.
Candy stores.
Chinaware and glassware stores.
Delicatessens and specialty food stores.
Drugstores and phannacies.
Florists.
Gift shops.
Hobby stores.
Jewelry stores.
Leather goods stores.
Luggage stores.
Music and record stores.
Newsstands and tobacco stores.
Sporting goods stores.
Stationery stores.
Ticket and travel agencies.
Toy stores.
Variety stores.
Yardage and dry goods stores.
2. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following:
Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to preparation ofproducts
specifically for sale on the premises.
Cocktail lounges and bars.
Coffee shops,
Fountains and sandwich shoos.
Restaurants.
3. Lodges.
4. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses described in subsection Bl and
VA:b5 or-t.r*t (5)
82 of this Section, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-3-4 of this Title so long as
they do not encourage vehicuiar traffic.
C. Conditional Uses: The following uses shali be permitted on the first floor or street level floor
within a structure, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title:
Banks and financial institutions.
Barbershops, beauty shops and beauty parlors.
Household appliance stores.
Liquor stores.
Outdoor patios.
Radio and TV stores and repair shops. (Ord. l0(1998) $$ 3,4: Ord.25(1982) $ 1(b): Ord.
18(1981) $ l:Ord. 8(1981) $ 2: Ord.26(1980) $ 2: Ord.50(1978) $$ 4, s: Ord. 16(1975) $
3(A)(B): ord.8(1973) $ 8.200(8)
12-7B'4: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES; SECOND FLOOR:
A. Permitted Uses; Exception: The following uses shall be permitted on the second floor above
grade within a structure; provided, however, that a conditional use permit will be required in
accordance with Chapter 16 of this Title for any use which eliminates any existing dwelling or
accommodation unit or any portion thereof:
l. Multiple-family residential dwelling.
2. Lodges.
3. Professional offices, business offices, and studios.
4. Banks and financial institutions.
5. Personal services and repair shops, including the fotlowing:
Barbershops.
Beauty shops.
Business and office services.
Tailors and dressmakers.
Travel and ticket agencies.
6. Retail stores and establishments, including the following:
Apparel stores.
Art supply stores and galleries.
Bakeries and confectioneries.
Bookstores.
vAs6s 07-03A.rxr (50
Camera stores and photographic studios.
Candy stores.
Chinaware and glassware stores.
Delicatessens and specialty food stores.
Drugstores and pharmacies.
Florists.
Gift stores.
Hobby stores.
Jewelry stores.
Leather goods stores.
Music and record stores.
Newsstands and tobacco stores.
Photographic studios.
Sporting goods stores.
Toy stores.
Variety stores.
Yardage and dry goods stores.
7. Eating and drinking establisbments, including the following:
Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to preparation ofproducts
specifically for sale on the premises.
Cocktail lounges and bars.
Coffee shops.
Fountains and sandwich shops.
Restaurants.
B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on second floors above grade, subject
to the issuance of a conditional use pennit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 16 of
this Title:
Dog kennel
Household appliance stores.
Liquor stores.
Luggage stores.
i'A5 6 5 or -O. r*, 0)
Meeting rooms.
Outdoor patios.
Radio and TV saies and repair shops.
Theaters.
Type III empioyee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Section 12-13-6 of this Title.
Type IV empioyee housing unit (EIILL) as provided in Section 12-13-7 of this Title. (Ord.
l0(1998) $ 4: Ord.8(1992) $ 20: Ord.25(1982) $ 1(c):Ord.20(t982) $ 5: Ord.8(1981) $ 2:
ord.26(1980) $ 2: Ord. 16(197s) $ 3(AXC):ord.8(1e73) $ 8.200(C))
12-78.-5: PERMITTED AND CO|{DITIONAL USES; ABOVE SECOND
FLOOR:
A. Permittee Uses: The foilowing uses shall be permitted on any floor above the second floor
above grade:
Lodges.
Multiple-family residential dwellings.
B. Conditional Uses: The following uses shall be permitted on any floor above the second floor
above grade, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 16 of this Title. Any permitted or conditional use which eliminates any
existing dwelling or accommodation unit, or any portion thereof, shall require a conditional
use permit. Such uses may include:
1. Remil stores and establishments, including the following:
Apparel stores.
Art supply stores and galleries.
Bakeries and confectioneries.
Bookstores.
Camera stores and photographic studios.
C.hinaware and glassware stores.
Deiicatessens and soecialw food stores.
Drugstores.
Florists.
Gift shops.
Hobby stores.
Jewelry stores.
Leather goods stores.
vAs55 07-03A.rxr (so
Liquor stores.
Luggage stores.
Music and record stores.
Newsstands and tobacco stores.
Photogaphic studios.
Radio and TV stores and repair shops.
Sporting good stores.
Stationery stores.
Toy stores.
Variefy stores.
Yardage and dry goods stores.
2. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following:
Bakeries and delicatessens with food service, restricted to preparation ofproducts
specifically for sale on the premises.
Cocktail lounges and bars.
Coffee shops.
Fountain and sandwich shops.
Restaurants.
3. Professional offices, business offices, and studios.
4. Banks and financial institutions.
5. Personal services and repair shops, including the following:
Barbershops.
Beauty shops.
Business and office services.
Smail appliance repair shops.
Tailors and dressmakers.
Travel and ticket agencies.
6. Theaters.
7. Additional uses determined to be similar to permitted uses descnbed in subsection Bl
through 85 of this Section in accordance with the provisions of Section l2-3-4 of this Title,
so long as they do not encourage vehicular traffic.
or-t.r"t (e)
8. Type III enployee housing unit (EHU) as provided in Section 12-13-6 of this Title.
9. Type IV employee housing unit (EIIU) as provided in Section 12-13-7 of this Title. (Ord.
10(1998) $ 4:Ord. 25(199s) $ l:Ord.8(1992) $ 21:Ord.20(1982) $ 5:Ord.8(1981) $ 2:
ord.26(1980) $ 2: ord. l6(1975) $ 3(AXD): Ord. 8(1973) $ 8.200(D))
12-7B.4: CONDITIONAL USES; GENERALLY:
The following uses shall be permitted, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter I 6 of this Title:
Bed and breakfasts as further regulated by Section 12-1+18 of this Title.
Public buildings, grounds and facilities.
fublic park and recreation facilities.
Public utility and public service uses.
Ski lifts and tows. (Ord. 3l(1989) $ 8: Ord. 16(1975) $ 3(B): Ord. 8(1973) $ 8.300)
12-7B.-7 : EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS:
A. Subject To Review: The construction of a new building, the alteration of an existing building
which adds or removes any enclosed floor area, the alteration of an existing building which
modifies exterior rooflines, the replacement of an existing building, the addition of a new
outdoor dining deck or the modification ofan existing outdoor dining deck shall be subject to
review by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) as follows:
1. Application: An application shall be made by the owner of the building or the building
owner's authorized ag€nt or representative on a form provided by the Administrator. Any
application for condominiumized buildings shall be authorized by the condominium
association in conformity with all peninent requirements of the condominium association's
declarations.
2. Application Contents: An application for an exterior alteration shall include the following:
a. A completed application foml filing fee, and a list of all owners of property located
adjacent to the subject parcel. A filing fee shall not be collected for any exterior alteration
which is only for the addition of an exterior dining dec[ however, ail other applicable fees
shall be required. The ownefs list shall include the names of all owners, their mailing address,
a legal description ofthe property owned by each, and a general description ofthe property
(including the name of the property, if appiicable). and the name and mailing address of the
condominium association's representative (if applicable). Said names and addresses shall be
obtained fromthe current tax records ofEagle County as they appeared not more than thirty
(30) days prior to the application submittal date.
b. A written statement describing the proposal and how the proposal conplies with the Vail
Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations, the Vail
Village Master Plan, Streetscape Vlaster Plan, and any other relevant sections of the Vaii
Comprehensive Plan.
c. A survey stamped by a licensed surueyor indicating existing conditions on the property
'uAs5s 07-c3A.rxr J)
including the location of improvements, topography, and natural features.
d. A cunent title report to verif ownership, easements, and other encumbrances, including
Schedules A and 82(1).
e. Existing and proposed site plan at a scale of one inch equals ten feet, (i" = l0'), avicinity
plan at an appropriate scale to adequately show the project location in relationship to the
surrounding area, a landscape plan at a scale ofone inch equals ten feet (1" = l0'), a roof
height plan, and existing and proposed building elevations at a minimum scale of one-eighth
inch equals one foot (l/," = l'). The material listed above shall include adjacent buildings and
improvements as necessary to demonstrate the project's compliance with urban design criteria as set forth
in the Vail Village Urban Design Cuide Pla4 Vail Village Design Considentions, the Vail Village
Master Plan, the Streetscape Master Plal1 and any other relevant sections of the Vail Comprehensive
Plan.
f. Sun/shade analysis of the existing and proposed building for the spring/fall equinox (March
2llSeptember 23) and winter solstice (December 2l) at ten o'clock (10:00) A.M. and two
o'clock (2:00) P.M., unless the Department Of Community Development of the Town
determines that the proposed addition has no irrpact on the existing sun/shade pattern. The
following sun angle shall be used when preparing this analysis:
Spring/Fall
Equinox
l0:00 A.M.
2:00 P.M.
Winter
Solstice
10:00 A.M.
2:00 P.M.
Sun Angle
40o east ofsouth, 50o declination
42o west of south. 50o declination
Sun Angle
30o east ofsouth, 20o declination
30o west of south, 20o declination
g. Existing and proposed floor plans at a scale of one-fourth inch equals one foot (,/." = l') and
a square tbotage analysis ofall existing and proposed uses.
h. An architectural or massing model of the proposed development. Said modei shall include
buildings and major sitc improvements on adjacent properties as deemed necessary by the
Administrator. The scale ofthe model shall be as determined by the Administrator.
i. Photo overlays and/or other graphic material to demonstrate the relationship of the
proposcd development to adjacent properties. public spaces, and adopted views per Chapter
22 of this Title.
j. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Administrator or the
Town Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). The Administrator or the Planning and
Environmental Commission may, at his/her or their discretion, waive certain submittal
requirements if it is determined that the requirements are not relevant to the proposed
development nor applicable to the urban design criteria, as set forth in the Vail Village Urban
Design Guide Plan and Vaii Viilage Design Considerations and any other relevant sections of
the Vail Corrprehensive Plan.
VA5 O:or-t.r"t (11)
3. Appiication Date And Proceduresl(2): Complete appiications for major exterior alterations
shall be submitted biannually on or before the fourth Nlonday of February or the fourth
Monday of September. Submittal requirements shall include all information listed in
subsection A2 of this Section; provided, however, that the architecturai or massing model
shall be submitted no iater than three (3) weeks prior to the first formal public hearing of the
Planning and Environmentai Commission. No public hearings or work sessions shall be
scheduled regarding exterior aiterations prior to the biannual submittal date deadlines. At the
next regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting following the
submittal dates listed above, the Administrator shall inform the Planning and Environmental
Commission of all exterior alteration submittals. The Administrator shall commence with the
review of exterior alterations following this initial planning and Environmental Commission
meeting.
a. A property orilner may apply for a major extenor alteration (greater than 100 square
feet) in any year during which he or she shall submit an application on the February or
September dates as set forth in subsection A3 of this Section. Said application shall be
termed a "major exterior alteration".
b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, applications for the alteration of an existing building
which adds or removes any enclosed floor area ofnot more than one hundred (100) square
feet, applications to alter the exterior rooflines ofan existing building, applications for new
outdoor dining decks and applications for modifications to existing dining decks may be
submitted on a designated submittal datc for any regularly scheduled Planning and
Environmental Commission meeting. Said applications shall be termed a "minor exterior
alteration". The review procedures for a minor exterior alteration shall be as outlined in
this Section. All enclosed floor area for an expansion or deletion pursuant to this
subsection A3b shall be physically and structurally part of an existing or new building and
shall not be a freestanding structure.
c. A single properfy owner may submit an exterior alteration proposal which removes or
encloses floor area ofone hundred (100) square feet or iess on a designated submiftal date
and will be reviewed by the Pianning and Environmental Commission at any of its
regularly scheduled meetings.
4. Work Sessions: If requested by either the applicant or the Administrator, submittals shall
proceed to a work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission. The
Administrator shall schedule the work session at a reguiarly scheduled Planning and
Environmental Commission meeting and shall cause notice of the hearing to be sent to ail
adjacent property owners in accordance with subsection l2-3-6C of this Title. Following the
work session, and the submittal of any additional material that may be required, the
Administrator shall schedule a formal public heanng before the Planning and Environmentai
Commission in accordance with subsection 12-3-6C of this fitle.
5. Hearing: The public hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission shall be
held in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of this Title. The Planning and Environmental
Commission may approve the application as submitted, approve the application with
conditions or modifications, or deny the appiication. The decision ofrhe Planning and
Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council in accordance with Section
l2-3-3 ofthis Title.
6. Complia:rce With Corprehensive Applicable Plans: It shall be the burden of the applicant
to prove by a preponderance ofthe evidence before the planning and Environmental
vAs6s 07 - 03A. rxr c-t
Commission that the proposed exterior alteration is in compliance with the purposes of the
CCl Zoae District as specified in Section i2-78-l of this Anicle; that the proposai is
consistent with applicable elements of the Vail Village Nlaster Plan, the Town of Vail
Streetscape Master Plan, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan; and that the proposal does not
otherwise negatively alter the character ofthe neighborhood. Further, that the proposal
substantially complies with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vaii Village
Design Considerations, to inciude, but not be limited to, the following urban design
cousiderations: pedestrianization, vehicularpenetration, streetscape liamework, street
enciosure, street edge, building height, views, service/delivery and sun/shade analysis; and that
the proposal substantially complies with all other eiements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan.
7. Approval Approval of an exterior alteration under subsection A5 and A6 of this Section
shall constitute approval of the basic form and location of improvements including siting,
building setbacks, height, building buik and mass, site improvements and landscaping,
8. Lapse Of Approval Approvai of a major or minor exterior alteration as prescribed by this
Chapter shall lapse and become void fwo (2) years following the date of approval of the rnajor
or minor exterior alteration by the Planning and Environmental Commission unless, prior to
the expiration, a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and diiigently
pursued to completion.
9. Design Review Board Review: Any modification or change to the exterior facade of a
building or to a site within the CCI District shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in
accordance with Chapter I I ofthis Title.
B. Conpliance Burden: It shall be the burden ofthe applicant to prove by a preponderance ofthe
evidence before the Design Review Board that the proposed building modification is in
corrpliance with the purposes of the CC1 District as specified in Section 12-7B-l of this
Article; that the proposal substantially conplies with the Vail Village Design Considerations,
and that the proposal does not otherwise alter the character ofthe neighborhood. (Ord.
l(1998) $ 1: 1997 Code: Ord.4(1993) $ l: Ord.4l(1983) $ l: Ord. 25(1982) $ l(d): Ord.
21(1e80) $ 1)
12-78-8: CONDITIONAL USES; FACTORS APP LICABLE :
In considering, in accordance with Chapter l6 of this Title, an application for a conditional use
permit within Commercial Core I District, the following development factors shall be applicable:
A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I District.
B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core 1 District.
C. Reduction of nonessential oflstreet parking.
D, Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles.
E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians.
F. Continuance of the various corunercial" residential, and public uses in Commercial Core I
District so as to maintain the existrng character of the area.
G. Control qualiry of construction, architectural design, and landscape design in Comrnercial
Core I Dstricr so as to rnaintain the existing character of the area.
or-t.**, (13)
H. Effects of noise. odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the envirounent of Commerciai Core
I District. (Ord. 16(1975) $ a)
12-78-9: ACCESSORY USES:
The following accessory uses shall be permirted in the CC1 District:
Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the
provisions of Section 12-14-12 of this Title.
Minor arcade. Amusement devices shall not be visible or audible from any public way, street,
waikway or mall area.
Outdoor dining areas operated in conjunction with permitted eating and drinking establishments.
Swimming pools, patios, or other recreational faci[ties customariiy incidental to permitted
residential or lodge uses.
Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary
for the operation thereof. (Ord. 6(1982) $ 3(b): Ord. 16(1975) $ 3(C): Ord. 8(1973) $ 8.400)
12-7B.-10: LOT AREA AND SITE DINIENSIONS:
The minimum lot or site area shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet of buildable area, and each
site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). (Ord. l2(1978) $ 3)
12-7B,-llz SETBACKS:
There shall be no required setbacks, except as may be estabfished pusuant to the Vail Village
Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. (Ord. 21(1980) $ l)
l2-7B.-l2z HEIGHT:
Height shall be as regulated in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design
Considerations. (Ord. 11(1982) $ 2: Ord.37(1980) $ 2)
12-7B,-13 : DENSITY CONTROL:
Uniess otherwise provided in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, not more than eighty
(80) square feet ofgross residential floor area (GRFA) shail be permitted for each one hundred
(100) square feet of buildabie site area. Total density shall not exceed twenty five (25) dwelling
units per acre ofbuildabie site area. (Ord. 21(1980) $ l)
12-78-14: RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING USES; GENERALLY:
If any building or structure located within Commercial Core 1 District on June l, 1978, is
subsequently destroyed by fire or other casualty to the degree provided in Section l2-18-9 ofthis
Title, that structure or building may be reconstructed to the same or substantially the same size,
dimensions, lot coverage, and height in accordance with the procedures outlined in Section
12-18-9 ofthis Title, so lotrg as the appearance of the building or structure is the same or
substantially the same as existed prior to its destruction. (Ord. i9(1979) $ 3(a): Ord. 13(1978) $
07-03A.rxr (1'VA555
2)
12-7B.-15 : SITE COVERAGE :
Site coverage shall not exceed eightypercent (8092o) ofthe total site area, unless otherwise
specified in the Vail Viilage Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. In Commercial
Core I District, ground level patios and decks shall be included in site coverage calculations.
(Ord. 171i991) $ 8: Ord.21(1980) $ 1)
12-7B,-16: LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPMENT:
No reduction in landscape area shall be permitted without sufficient cause shown by the applicant
or as specified in the Vail Village Design Considerations as adopted in Section 12-78-20 of this
Article. (1997 Code: Ord. 21(1980) $ l)
12-7B.-77: PARKING AND LOADING:
OFstreet parking and toading shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 10 of this Title;
provided, that no parking shall be provided on-site. All parking requirements shall be met in
accordance with the provisions of subsection l2-10-l68 ofthis Title. Loading requirements shall
continue to be applicable to properties within Commercial Core 1 District; provided, that no
Ioading areas shail be located in any required front setback area. (Ord. 13(1978) $ 3)
17-7B.-18: LOCATION OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY:
A. Limitations; Exception: All offices, businesses, and services permitted by Sections 12-7B-2
through 12-78-5 of this Article, shail be operated and conducted entirely within a building,
except for perrnitted unenclosed parking or loading areas, and the outdoor display ofgoods.
B. Outdoor Displays: The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front of
the establishment displaying the goods and entirely upon the establishment's own property.
Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets shall not be obstructed by
outdoor display. (Ord. 34(1982) $ 1: Ord. 19(1976) $ 9: Ord. 8(1973) $ 8.51l)
l2-7B.-l9z RECONSTRUCTION OF EXISTING USES; COMPLIANCE
Rf,QUIRED:
Any building or struct\ue located within Commercial Core 1 District may be reconstructed to the
same or substantially the same enclosed floor area in accordance with the procedures outlined in
Section 12-18-9 of this Tirle. The building, however, shall substantially comply with the applicable
provisions of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. (Ord.
2l(1e80) $ 1)
12-7B.-20: VAIL VILLAGE URBAI{ DESIGN PLA}I:
A. Adoption: The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plau and Design Considerations are adopted
for the purposes of maintaining and preserving the character and vitality of the Vail Viilage
(CCl) and to guide the future alteration, change anci improvement in CCI District. Copies of
the Vaii Village Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations shall be on file in the
VA565 o?-oQ.rxr (1s)
Departnrent of Conmnity Dweloprnent. .
B. Revisions: Revisions to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations
shall be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission with official action to be
taken by the Town Council by resolution on a semiannual basis to ensure that the plan reflects
the purposes and intent forwhich it has been adopted. The review an<i action sha[ take place
within thitty (30) days following the public hearing on the applications. (Ord. 2l(1980) $ l)
vA555 0?-03A.TXT (1t
Endnotes
r @opup)
2.Schedules A and B. referred to herein, refer to Schedules A and B ofthe title report.
2 (Popup)
The submittal deadlines conrained in this subsection A,3 are hereby waived for project applications
for the 1998 calendar year.
o
Department of C ommunity Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
www.ci.vail.co.us
July 18,2000
Barbara Meyers
vrA FACS|MTLE - (81 3) 221 -781 0
Re: Belltower Condominiums / 201 E. Gore Creek Drive
Dear Barbara:
The Town of Vail has no record of required approvals lor telecommunications or public
utility equipment al the above-referenced location. Pursuant to your request, the
following is a synopsis of the Town of Vail's permitting requirements for these facilities in
the Commercial Core I zone district:
. A conditional use permit for the installation of public utility equipment, subject to
review by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmenlal Commission.
. Design review approval to ensure compliance with the Vail Town Code, subject to
review by the Town of Vail Design Review Board.
. lf any additional enclosed lloor area is proposed (for associated equipment or
screening), a "Minor Commercial Core I Alteration" approval by the Town of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission is also required.
Relevant code sections are attached for reference. lf you would like to discuss this
matter in greater detail, please do not hesitate lo contact me at (970) 479-2140.
Sincerely,
tr...*-t--- (
Brent Wilson, AICP
Planner ll
{g """r""ro r r*
12-78-5
ration of products speci{ically for
sale on the premises.
Cocktail lounges and bars.
Coffee shops.
Fountains and sandwich shops.
Restaurants.
3. Professional offices, business offic-
es, and studios.
4. Banks and financial institutions.
5. Personal services and repair shops,
including the following:
Barbershops.
Beauty shops.
Business and office services.
Small appliance repair shops.
Tailors and dressmakers.
Travel and ticket agencies.
6. Theaters.
7. Additional uses determined to be
similar to permitted uses described in
subsections 81 through 85 of this
Section in accordance with the provi-
sions of Section 12-3-4 ot this Title,so long as they do not encourage
vehicular traffic.
8. Type lll employee housing units
(EHU) as provided in Chapter 13 of
this Title. (Ord. 6(2000) $ 2: Ord.
1o(1998) $ 4: Ord. 2s(1995) $ 1: Ord.
8(1992) $ 21: Ord. 20(1982) $ 5: Ord.
12-78-7
8(1981) $ 2: Ord. 26(1980) $ 2: Ord.
16(1975) $ 3(A)(D): Ord. 8(1973)
s 8.200(D))
12-78-6:. CONDITIONAL USES: GENER-
ALLY: The following uses shall
be permitted, subject to the issuance of a
conditional use permit in accordance with
the provisions of Chapter 16 ol this Title:
Bed and breakfasts as turther regulated by
Section 12-14-18 of this Title.
Public buildings, grounds and facililies.
Public park and recreation facilities.
Public utility and public service uses.
Ski litts and tows. (Ord. 31(1989) $ 8: Ord.
16(1e75) $ 3(B): ord.8(1e73) $ 8.300)
12-78-7i EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR
MODIFICATIONS:
A. Subiect To Review: The construction
of a new building, lhe alieration of an
existing building which adds or re-
moves any enclosed lloor area, the
alteration of an existing building which
modifies exterior rooflines, the re-
placement of an existing building, the
addition of a new ouldoor dining deck
or the modification of an existing out-
door dining deck shall be subiect to
review by the Planning and Environ-
mental Commission (PEC) as follows:
1. Application: An application shall be
made by the owner of the building or
the building owner's authorized agent
or representative on a torm provided
by the Administrator. Any application
for condominiumized buildings shall
Town of Vail
June 2000
12-78-7 12-78-8
other elements of the Vail Compre- S 1: Ord. 25(1982) $ 1(d): Ord.
hensive Plan. 21(1980) S 1)
7. Approval: Approval ol an exterior 1
alteration under subsection A5 and 46 <K12-78-8: CONDITIONAL USES; FAC-
of this Section shall constitute approv- TORS APPLICABLE: In consid-
al of the basic form and location of ering, in accordance with Chapter 16 of this
improvements including siting, build- Title, an application for a conditional use
ing setbacks, height, building bulk and permit within Commercial Core 1 District,
mass, site improvemenls and land- the following development factors shall be
scaping.applicable:
8. Lapse Of Approval: Approval of a A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commer-
major or minor exterior alteration as cial Core 1 District.
prescribed by this Chapter shall lapse
and become void two (2) years follow- B. Reduction ol vehicular tratfic in Com-
ing the date of approval of the major mercial Core 1 District.or minor exterior alteration by the
Planning and Environmental Commis- C. Reduction ol nonessential off-street
sion unless, prior to the expiration, a parking.
building permit is issued and construc-
tion is commenced and diligently pur- D. Control of delivery, pickup, and ser-
sued to completion.vice vehicles.
9. Design Review Board Review: Any E. Development.of public spaces for use
modification or change to the exterior by pedestrians.
lacade of a building or to a site within
the CC1 District shall be reviewed by F. Continuance of the various commer-the Design Review Board in accor- cial, residential, and public uses in
dance with Chaoter 11 of this Title.Commercial Core 1 District so as to
maintain the existing character of theB. Compliance Burden: 11 shall be the area.
burden of the applicant to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence before G. Control quality of construction, archi-the Design Review Board that the tectural design, and landscape design
proposed building modification is in in Commercial Core 'l District so as to
compliance with the purposes of the maintain the existing character of the
CC1 District as specified in Section area.
12-78-1 ol this Article; that the pro-
posal substantially complies with the H. Effects ol noise, odor, dust, smoke,
Vail Village Design Considerations, and other factors on the environment
and that the proposal does not other- oi Commercial Core 1 District. (Ord.
wise alter the character of the neigh- 16(1 975) S 4)
borhood. (Ord. 1(1998) S 1: 1997
Code: Ord. 4(1993) $ 1: Ord. 41(1983)
Toznn of Vail
1298
o
l\ lrllbEII IOWER
PARTNERS, LTD.
lo'rs'Ta*w /";4,./e
August 7, 1996
Mr. Mike Mollica
Office of Planning
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
t BellTower Building
201 E. Gore Creek Drive
Dear Mike:
I called the Vail Town office when lwas in Vail last w.eek, but it was closed.
As ltold Craig Snowdon, we are changing the ouidoor light bulbs in.the front
of our apartment. The size of the down lights have been reduced fiom sixty
watts to either, forty and twenty-five watts for comparison, and we have
unscrewed the lights in the globes to see what effect this produces. We will
plqy around with the lights ori the back balcony similarly.
When we have finished our experimenting, we will call and arrange to meet
with you to receive your reaction.
Thanks.
Regards,
rgr6-1Q.'r,r^ fAfr4lZ\n.
Wdles Madden, Jr.
mem
.cc: Mr. Craig Snowdon
Rd:
io nn"; f .%* ?--^*^
3838 Oak LaWn Avenue, Suite 400. Dallas, Texas 7 5219 . 214-559-4599 . FAX 214-559-4606
2Ol E. Gore Creek Drive,3rd Floor. Vail, Colorado 81657 .9'10-476-2125. FAX 970-479-0499
PO. Box 15288.Amarillo, Texas 79105-5288. Physical Address: 724 S, Polk. Amarillo, Texas 79101 .806-374-2422. FAX 806-379-7049
--f w",(u_,
Project Application
Date 5,20,76
Proiect Name:
Project Description:
ffiruoran+Fhena
Owner, Address and Phone:
@ooress and Phone:
Legal Description, Lot A ,Blocr 5-B ,rttingV,V;//'-e 14 ,zone CcI
comments: (Zo t e' f- '," C^-/ I Y
Design Review Board
Motion by:
Date
Seconded by:
APPBOVAL DISAPPROVAL
Town Planner
5.2d,7bDate:
$t"t Approval
--
-@:^f,r** .,A' lrWn r rtto -,{ .
7 {,>)n cs ainn4 urst r,oll / 4'l.F. t*1a tol\'
=€ElE-'F,WV|W'"h" ?v)t4ve;'{ffi;'',i*i *"r vo,f it4n ("llar)
1W*,- m--.v1tw lvon E'iulh . rlpllo-
:LL fO\A/tR coNboM/Nl/(,
^Af. i0e/- ,-,t/;{ o,lFfv'/4 di
. I. STA IR
A-l
t-
7I
b
N
22.5
L.C.E. STORAGEUNIT R-I
??.4'
ts. I
UN IT
R-l 3.O
n
.4'
'o
.iSTA IR
R-l
:. ELEVATOR]S C.6 THRU
I tl K-l -JA
*Jb
.hlhn,, hi,U t4 ,r;{frfffi ,.frnF" o tbo1 , +tl/qb
r&n.o L.c.E. DEcK urutrtn-t
La,'hve) | t (
:'
"qF
A.\ $
G
F
2
=o>
n:}OtJ
:}
t!
(.1
J
44,2'
L.C, E. DECK UNIT R.I o
$
iq'L --l' =' -
. P-l'- J\ , rco.7, rf)
//. r' | 9.G'
I.l\ UNIT: R-tB
.t
t-
ll. t' | 9.G'
UN IT
R -IA
I.G'
\a
9.6
I
" Dtgrcx REvrEt{ dua0epprrtcArron ' To$lN or vf{ co
DATE RECETVEDI
OTCE OT DR8 MEETINGI
alttlttttll
Itrtal|lftt
t.
A,
W:
D.IIYPE 0F REvlsttl
-lfarf
Conctrructlon (f 200.00,_Jddicton ($s0.00)J-!dno! llteraulon (f20. 00)
lconcepuual neview ($0)
C'
D.
O.
$,
I.
il.
If Droperty is described by
destript,ion, ptease plovide
co [his applicat,ion.
IDDRD99t
$EGAI/ DBSCRIPTI
$ubCivt'sion
J**ZoNtNOr W+ -
lruO 0F APPIICAI.ITr
MaJllng-
lrlt{E or onNER(s):
B10ck : trh
a neegs and boundE L€gal
on a separaLe theet and aftach
'!.
D.
t
I Atp&ter8rf/Ng :'//,tt/L Nor 8s PnocssgsD r'Irilow ol{lvE8,s Srct'!|fux8
Condoninlun Approval lf appllcable.
DnB FEEI DRB feesr t8 $hown abovc, are to ba pald at the
t,lsre of subrBittal..pf rhe DRB applicat,{on. LaEer, when
applylng for a bullding permil, please ldentlfy bhe accuratevaluaLlon of the proposal, the Tolfn of vall will adjust thefee according to the table bblow, lo ensure the correct feeie pald.
IF8lICAN!t
ft,i,r
',w
I'A
EEE-ECUEUI&T
VALUATION| 0'$ 10,000ii0,00i. $ .5u,00uf50r0o1 ,$ t50r00of150,001 $ 500,000
0500,001 - $1,000,000$ 0ver fl,000,000
DZSTGN 8ln/I8I| BOAXD APPROVAI g'(PIR8S
APDROVI|I, UDII,ESS A DUIIIDING PEFI,|IT ISI9 STARTSD.
FEEI 20.00
$ 50.00
t100.00
$200.00
${00.00
$500.00
OllE YEAI AflPIR FfNNJ
r s F.qEB ANDJONSTR ge!:roN
Post ll'" brand lu transminal momo 76-fl
I.,TST OF MATERIA]]S
{t{Al.lE OF PROJECT:
Tbe following inf,ornation is
Review Board before a final
A. BIIILDII{G IiAIIERIAITS:
reguired for eubnittal
approval can be given:
lryPE OF IIATERIAIJ
IJEGAIJ DESCRIPTION: I,OT_2- BT.OCK 63
STREET ADDRESS:
to the Design
COIJOR
Roof
Siding
other wall Materials
Fascia
soffics
Windowg
t{indow Triul
Doora
Door Trin
Hand or Deck Rails
Flues
Plaehings
Chinneys
Trash EncLosures
Greenhouses
ReEaining t{alls
Exterior Ligbllng
Otber
I,AIIDSCAPING: Nane of
n | .,^
I
ot{q
ttiltz.
, tl , I t tt
44r. fomf'fir .t,
hlz
lla
Designer:
Phone:
B.
o
on*ruv1 {r/rq,nlf^dffd't
'Mtl 6oqt dlov?-bli,r '-#
I
gtoo.1
toww brrrldrrg e Yrr[ {,\onls , r thuo lra* .
'-ufurtw
oflq+iflbrrHrrq [r,],
, 'ifw{o h/rn .
,hilft# hiHrq . rril ,d*{, t tfi"ntt-o'o
F
Jqiffir,rnf
{dt--
I
I
t-
I
t_
I
4M , +/nf7b.
o o
W_AMtr+,n#
f,or"lM
, 1r*ulv, {trrtr bullJrr4 .
na[ oVadrlt'
rufiH0[r
f;Ww,*,|#hI
r--./+-!P et{'?'t t
Snowdon and Hopklns o Architects tF tl
o
Tt T--lIP IKI @F T'RANSNflOT"T'AL
201 Gore Creek Drlve
Vall, Colorado 81657
- WE ARE SENDING YOU I nttacnea n Under separate cover
E Change order
ft erint.
97o476-?,20r
FA)(476-7491
TO
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
tr Copy ot letter
! Shop drawings
(As requested
! Fo, you, ,r"
{For approvat
D For review and comment
tr FOR BIOS DUE
b( Ptans tr Samples I Specitications
Return
-
corrected prints
Submit
-copies
lor distribution
Resubmit-copies for approval
n
!
!
tr
tr
n
!
Returned {or corrections
Approved as noted
Approved as submitted
19- tr PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
the following items:
coPtEs DATE NO.DESCRIPTION
/rlp/lp 2 VWA4ftnlstrilrlL
/4'ltinu /?'i/,
,, b/r#i"o lwy'rm
/llri/1u I W
/r lil1r r '4 7'/+b
I
t, ancloturaa ara not ,a notad. kindlt nolrty ut at oDca.
oft|erf,DJljN I0 s96
FILE COPY
-}3
STAFF PRESENT:
Mike Mollica
Jim Curnutte
George Ruther ,.:-
Dominic Mauriello:,
Judy Rodriguez .'
2:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p'm'
Kevin Deighan has resigned and Greg Amsden was not present'
1. A request for a residential addition utilizing th.e ?59 p.rlinance' located at
748 Potato PatchAot 7, Block 2, Potato Patch 2nd filing'
Applicant: Mario Montalvo, represented by Pat McDonald
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave an oveMew and stated the concern staff had with this application was the
landscaPing.
Gene Uselton had no comments'
Diane Golden had no comments.
Henry Pratt asked George if his would go on to the DRB'
George Ruther said yes, but if the PEC would like additional landscaping to say so now'
Galen Aasland asked if the tree is required to live for a number of years.
George Ruther said that this is a standard requirement attached tb hndscaping.
Pat McDonald, the applicant, had nothing to add.
Henry pratt made a motion for approval with the additional condition that the landscaping be
approved by statf.
The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton.
Mike Moilica asked the PEC to give staff direction on exactly what hey would like to see
regarding landscaping, in case fhis application is staff approved'
Ptanning od Enviromerilat Coomission
Minuter
May 13, 1996 r
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Greg Moffet
Henry Pratt
Diane Golden
Gene Uselton
Galen Aasland
Publlc Hearing
PI.ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMM ISSION
MaY 13, 1906
Minutes
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Kevin Deighan
Greg Amsden
Henry Pratt clarified his motion to note that staff and Sre applicant agree on what landscaping
should be.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0'
2. A request for two residentiat additions utilizing the 250 Ordinance' located at 775 Bptato
patcn [ot 19' Potato Patch' Filing #1 '
Aoolicant: Kirk Hansen & J. Randolf & Kevin Schumacher
Pidnner: George Ruther ..
Galen Aasland abstained, as he has worked with the Hansens on fiis project in the past' .'
George Ruther gave an overview..tfryn rlv.l.ey ol the criteria, staff is recommending approval
no*e-u!r, as obierved at tl1l-g l'riJvisiiby staff 1oday, the applicant will need to modify the exterior
lights on the building before it goes to the DRB'
Nickolas Aaswat, an adjacent property owner, spoke about her concerns with the roof line' The
gable will affect her view of Vail Mountain. :
Andrew Abraham of Morter Architects will be happy to look at the gable if it affects the view' He
will give his clients the option of being good neighbors'
Gene Uselton had no comments.
Diane Golden had no comments.
Henry Pratt said the house is a "wall'on the street. He reminded the adiacent property owner
that the PEC is not in a position to protect views'
Greg Moffet agreed with Henry's comments.
Henrv pratt made a mo1on for approval with the recommendation that ttre appllcant w-ork with the
i,i's'tiObi;d rhrltatt io Oeat vriiin he views and that the applicant work with the stiaff to bring
the lights into comPliance.
The motion was seconded by Diane Golden.
It passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0-1 with Galen Aasland abstaining.
g. A request for a minor subdivision to allow for an amendment to the-platted building
Subdivision.
Applicant: Dr. & Mrs. Steadman, represented by Ric Fields
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave an overview of he request to change the building .""9lof^?-11"^tJ3l"^11"1
neieiuas no nei increase in the total buildable area on the lot. He also stated that he recelve0 a
il;ft;;i "pp;*"ltrom
nJ SpiaOOie Creek Architectural Control Committee. He stated that statf
pterming and Envirmerotel Cmmission
",Y",fftu 2
.{
was recommending approval of the request.
Greg Moffet asked it the applicant had anything to add'
There were no comments from the PEC Board'
Gene Uselton made a motion for approval.
Galen Aasland seconded the rnotion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
4. A request for a minor CCI exterior alteration to allow for the replacement of a skylight'ivith
a roof dormer, ror.t o .t'zoi'e.Goie creek Drive (Bell Towei Building)/A part of Lot A'
Block 58, VailVillage Flrst Filing'
Applicant: Bell Tower Partners, Ltd., represented by Craig Snowdon
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica stated that the applicant is proposing to add 60 sq. ft of additional GRFA' He said
that staff is in support of the diplication with no conditions attached.
Greg Moffet asked for any non-applicant public comments.
There was none.
Henry Pran asked if there was any sign-off from the Condo Association'
Mike Mollica stated that there was a letter attached to the memo from the Condo Association'
and also a letter from Beth slifer, a neighbor, in support of the application.
Galen Aasland asked if the applicant was in compliance with the lighting ordinance'
Mike Mollica said if there was a concern about the lights, he will be happy to check. He will make
sure all lighting meets code.
Henry Pratt made a motion for approval as outlined in the staff memo with one additional
condition that staff will review the e)derior lighting.
The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
S. A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 4840 Meadow
Lane/Lot 2, Block 6, Bighorn sth Addition'
Applicant: John MeschPlanner: Jim Curnune
plenning aod Environmental Commission
Minutes
MaY 13, 1996
..
Jim Curnutte gave an overview of the request and stated that the applicant is not fully utilizing
the 250. He stated tnat sffis recommehOing approvitbecause ttid criteria have been mel He
atso srated that fie appnc;;;'ili;.tJ to oo i_sddt survey, in lieu of th_elopo surv€y as required
ililbiliv;,k;: Ji"iir*-'di"i"o'triitirere witt'be no nelative i1glcts !o anv adjacent propertv
owners. The only "on."ri iiiii n;;E til minor image, 5ut the eEC mry^y5n to leave hat
concern up to the DRB. Aft;hffi;;;tn;itir Fic i'rlv *ant to remove the condition reciuiring
additional landscaPing.
John Mesch, the applicant, asked if we can resolve the mirror image, do we have to go to the
DRB.
Jim curnutte stated that staff cannot approve it because of the minor image issue'
There were no comments fiom tlre PEC'
Henry Pratt made a motion lor approval with the deletion of conditions 2 & 3.
The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton'
It passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0'
6. A request for a worksesslon to discuss a pgposed minor subdivision to allow for a
c-n"nd in tot conriguiation, located at 1794 S. Frontage Road/Lots 2 & 3' Vail Village
West Filing No.2.
Applicant: Antonio & Val Aldrele, represented by Brent Alm
Pidnner: George Ruther
George Ruther reminded the PEC that this was a worksession and he reviewed the memo
ilHA ;il aio OiscusieO the issues of concern that were listed on pages 2 and 3 ol the
memo.
Greg Moffet stated that he wanted it on the record that he owned Lot 11, which was an adjacent
foii6 tne
"ppiicant.
He atso mentioneO that he doesn't see any problem with a conflict ot
interest.
George Ruther stated that a portion of the utility lines are being recommended to be buried'
Breni Alm, project architect, has nothad a chance to talk to Holy Cross, but the applicant would
like to underground a portion of the lines'
Greg Motfet suggested checking with Holy cross to see if an underground tine didn't already
exist.
Henry Pratt mentioned that there would be a cost impact to bring the power line out from the
creek.
Brent Alm said if it only services one house, the applicant will consider burying it'
Ptmiag od Eavirmeotgl Cmoissioo
Milutes
May 13, 1996 4-
FILE {;OPY
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
May 13, 1996
A request lor a minor ccl exterior alteration to allow lor the replacement of a
skylightwith a roof dormer, located at 201 E. Gore Creek Drive (BellTower
Building)/a part of Lot A, Block 5-8, Vail Village 1st Filing.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Planner:
BellTower Partners, Ltd., represented by Craig Snowdon
Mike Mollica
I. DESCRIPTION OFTHE REOUEST
The Commercial Core lZone District requires Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC)
approval of an exterior alteration request prior to the addition of any enclosed floor area to
siructures located within the district. This request is to allow a dormer addition, consisting of
60.3 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), on the fourth floor, or loft level ol the
building. lt is located in residential condominium Unit R-1. The proposed dormer would be
south-facing, towards Gore Creek Drive. In order to add this dormer to the building an existing
skylight will be removed and an interior storage space (less than 5' in height and not considered
CAFAI will be opened-up and converted to habitable space. The 8' roof height of the dormer will
enable this space to be lully utilized as GRFA. Although the roof will be raised to allow tor the
dormer, the exterior walls of the existing struclure will not change. Please see the attached
drawings of the proposed dormer addition tor further details.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this minor exterior alteration request:
1) Zone District:
2l LolArea:
3) GRFA:
Maximum Allowed:
Exisring:
Proposed:
Remaining After Addition:
4) Site Coverage:
Commsrcial Gore I
6,098.4 square feet
4,878.7 square feet
3, 191 .0 square feet
60.3 souare feet
1 ,627.4 square feet
No change in sile coverage will occur bocause ths
dormer addition will be added to lhe loft level, which is
located above €xisting floor area.
o,Parking:The existing GRFA of condominium Unit R-l is
aksady over 2,000 square fset, and th€refore the
addition of 60 square feet will not necessitate the
addition of another parking spaca. ThEreforo, no
monetary contribution into the Town of Vail pa*ing
fund will be required as a result of lhe proposed
dormer addilion.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I
18.24.010 Puroose:
"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 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 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 continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities frlat
distinguish the Village."
It is he statfs opinion that the proposed dormer addition to the BellTower Building
(Condominium Unit R-l), would be in compliance with the Purpose Section of the
Commercial Core I Zone District as stated above. We also believe that the addition will
not negatively effect the scale of the building nor detract trom the overall appearance of
ttre buitding, as viewed from the pedestrian levels of E. Gore Creek Drive or Bridge Street
below.
IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL
The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes three elernents which establish the review
criteria for thii application. The first of these is referred to as the Guide Plan which includes a
number of sub-area concepts, many of which identify potential areas for future development and
other improvements. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations express the large-scale, land
use planning and design considerations, and finally the architectural/landscape consideration€,
which will be reviewedby the Design Review Board, establish the criteria for evaluating detailed
design considerations of a proposal. The Vail Village Master Plan and the Streetscape Master
Plan address specilic goals pertaining to the enhancement of the walking experience throughout
the Village. ln addition, traditional zoning considerations are also a factor in this proposal.
V. COMPLIANCE W!T}I THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
There are no specific sub.area concepts relevant to this proposal.
VI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The lollowing design considerations are a critical element of the Urban Design Guide Plan' They
identify the kiey ph-ysical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to ensure that new
development i3'coirsistent with the established character. The design considerations include the
following:
A. Pedestrianlzation:
The proposed dormer addition will have no impacts on pedestrian traffic flow because of
its location on the fourth level of the building.
B. Vehicular Penetration:
Vehicular penetration and circulation will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal.
C. Streetscape Framework:
The proposed dormer addition will not atfect visual interest and activity along E. Gore -
Creef Cirive and Bridge Street. The dormer should improve the appearance of the roof,
as it will punctuate a large unbroken expanse of south-facing roof area and will break up
the mass of the roof.
D. Street Enclosure:
Due to the location of the proposed dormer addition, and the relatively small size of the
dormer ( 7'wide), it is statf's 6pinion that the proposed addition will not have a negative
impact on street enclosure.
E. StreetEdge:
Staff believes that the dormer addition to residential condominium Unit R-1 will have no
impact on the street edge along the Bell Tower Building'
F. Bulldlng Helght:
Building height will be unaffected as a result ol this proposal'
G. Views and Focal Poinls:
The proposed dormer does not atfect any of the Town's adopted vierv conidors. In
addiiion, the dormer will have no impact on the line-of-sight from eitrer the east or the
west ends of E. Gore Creek Drive.
H. Service and Delivery:
The proposed expansion will not affect current service and delivery patterns.
I
l. Sun/Shade:
There will be no increase in the shadow patterns as a result of this addition, as it is
located within the existing roof area of the building.
J. Architectural/LandscapeGonsiderations:
The statf believes that the architectural detailing of the proposed dormer will have a
positive impact on the appearance of the area as viewed lrom the pedestrian areas
below.
The proposed addition will have no effect on existing landscaped areas on f|e property.
VII. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILL/AGE MASTER PLAN
The following are the goals and obiectives of the vail village Master Plan which are relevant to
this proposal:
Goal #1 - Encourage high quality development while preserving the unique
architectirral scdb of tire Villaje in order to sustain its sense of community
and identity.
1.2 Obiective:
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial
lacilities.
The proposed dormer addition is consistent with the established zoning and the existing uses in
tne d,red. Overall, the staff believes that the proposed 60.3 square foot dorrner addition would
not detract from the appearance of the building.
VIII. STAFFRECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation is for approval of the requested minor CCI exterior alteration. A
review of the relevant Urban Desiln Criteria and the Vail Village Master Plan Goals and Policies
indicate that the proposal is in conformance with the applicable sections of these documents.
f leveryone\pec\memos\belllower.51 3
,4
I UW tK UUI
A PART OF LOT o, O.H UUt
VAIL VILLAGE FIRS
TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUI
(!owN oF vAlL,A PART OF LOT O
,f:t
t3t ttaart Ll.llloa
rfi4!
( TOI'N OF VA
A PART 0F Li
tantr
tc3 art|l at 3.1
- rr.rl 'rr
n laarc
ag3 I,txrlr II,-r!-'l
coRe cREe,. DRlv€ t"
-;ggI t/t coalr ttttror tla.
'h4trrla' btr'rlJ ira ' .
,11V. 7lu trr A'-!,' .,... 1tis7 - lltf,ltb,
?df$rlt Srt ' H'* tb
'.lu I't nh'rl
!!3 acr||al r- ltcra.lrt G.l
tal.traa |.n t.r .
tart ftl! sal.
?WfrfrW
fl$d'*,ry
's€.E rct
o
FL. PLAN FOR OIM.
VIEW X X I
A-l b
sroRAcE AREA Ir{oT HAS|TASLE I
)f
D
ctgNt 70uNtT &Low
UNIT J
1.
,242tlE1t.a.? te-rl I.,HAETAELE)
UIV/T ,?'/ rcLAtV
(RJA I{OT XAETTASLEI
GN'fOUN/7 E CLOW
UNIT
DI
DLOFT LEVEL
lvonl . llnllb
c
.O ftvn)
otlTLthte oFUTIIT EELOW
.lnilhutg [rirldirrt '{rrl ,hlowdo , lll= ltt-Dt' ,
.str\r
ara-)
T
i
F-.tr
t
-I
e.
s
,
i
cTb5a
r!
:
-i
c
6.f,-.T
1--1-
-.*
1
(
H
oF9fd
r.i Ej3
,9e
(DTE
t
3
9'
qlltEUFr|oF
3
,o'lt
F|r) l)
2[ g
,q'z t,
I
U
l..
:\0
N
0
o
,L'ct
F<
=-e
,99
h
l..
)r
,su
\>
3a ;
,3',€
5!gE
-*+
$E
oo
orteliq hqrl4rq tri
4rAq,
o
xM,t/lWlrrnt
*nrLiol cqth dlovttliu '
cYt1f,1\sfio o
vrctr, ovwltloNtM!hf ryffi'o
trWw,*ilnh|
ta*i,g wt -rhdF
6ffi,
owfhlP-borri
"VA'W,4.dtq'
hsr
r ' .t | 'l I .
'1tr*toh It(W butl4t$ '
.boilhn,r hlrHl , Yq[ .alon4o '
l'tAY- 6-96 ttO|^{ 1 2= Sh'|Ol.lDoN tL HoF
April25, tg96
FT Fdl4' Wlttrw
t'U/A{,U-YJ
o:o
t(ro
Designs E &^{),. c/t%To
@; sr.r'awtlq
Slificr Desigrrr, Inc. I Shftt Dssi6na - Retail, Iuc.
Mrs. Wales Madden, Jr,
PO Box 15288
Amfrillo, Texae 791 0$5288
I
DeAr Abbiei
Sincerely,
J*h
ThJnks for your letter and request for our approval of your dranges to the Bell
Tower Building.
Rod etopped by Craig'e orffioe and told Craig that wE havc no objeotionl at all.
Good luck wlth getting the necessary Torvn of Vail approvals; the dormer should
be an improvsmont to the exterior and interlor,
Beth Slifer
President
BS/aef
VriUBmvcr Crccly'Acp"n
lE2 Ayon Rond
P.O. Bor 55{0
Avon, Colondo 81620
970,9*9,1631 Fu 970.9{9 I I22
A Coll mll l'ctpor.t'rn
o
Bnr Townn
FARTNERS. tlD.
ADnl 6- lltlrll
BELL TOWER CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
BY:
IVh. Walcs lvladdcn, Jr.
.TOWN OF YAIL .
c/o Cbaig Snowden
Bell Towcr $rrilding.'z0lBcorcChockDrivc :vqil CO 8165?
Re: Application br exterior alterations
Core I, Vail Village
Snowdon and Hopkins o Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive
Vail. Colorado 81657
970 476-2201FM 476-7491
Apri 1 12, 1996
Lauren Waterton,
Pl anner; Town of Vaj I
Department of Community Development
1 10 S. Front age RoadVail, C0 81657
Lauren lrlaterton:
.",-:.'r'"i1"'i'"
/-: .,' 'z.
/") 9.;.-,* 1-u-7- '''7''' '-t2' r.:''<- ') . :,
"1.-'.{ |.) '!it
..-.
7.'
Attached is a submittal for a minor alteration to the Bel'l Tower
Bujldinq in C.C.I. The Condominium Association wishes to replace
an existing skylight unit (which presently is leaking and overheatsthe existing bedroom) with a roof dormer as shown on the attachedsketches. This dormer would be built over ex'i st'i ng structural
beams (6X16 at 6'-6" o.c.) and be no higher than the exjst'i ng ridgeof the building. The shed type roof dorner would match allexisting materials and finishes and allot. for a conventional
operab'l e window unit to the bedroom. This dormer would extend tothe south wal I of the existing storage area to al low for maximumpotential for window, while not extending into the vaulted ceiling
space of the area below. A window shelf (39" a.f.f. ) would becreated over the storage area and no additional habital spece
(above 5') would be created.
This proposal would conform with the purposes of C.C.I. as noted in
18.24.0'l 0, and would actually reduce roof mass and provide added
detai I to the Vi 1l age image.
As for the Vajl Village Urban Design Guide Plan' the 8 issuesj nvol ved ( Pedestri anizati on Veh i cl e Penetrat i on, Streetscape Frame-
work, Street Enclosure, Street Edge, Building Eci ge' V'i ews and Sun/
Shade Analysis) are unaffecteC by this proposal.
The proposal complies with the Vail Viliage Master Plan and Street-
scape Master Plan and reinforces the desire to upgraCe existingbuildings, while preserving the unique architectural scale of theVillage and improving the qual ity of existing residential unjts inthe V i1l age core.
The arch'i tectural image is consistent with adjacent properties
(Gastof Gramshammer) and is very compatjble with the character ofthe neighborhood.
o
Thls proposal allows the owner to improve their property without
impacting the community in any fashion. I hope you will be able to
review and approve this proposal at your 5/13/ 95 PEC meeting. If
you have questions on this natter or need additional information'please contact me or my office.
si
Snowdon
..-- - r- I
Bell Tower Penthouse Dormer
57
57
AdJacent Property 0wners:
* Gore Creek Plaza Condo Assoc.c/o Vail Mgmt., 201 Gore Creek Drive' Vai'l' C0 81
* Creekside Condo. Assocl ationc/o Vail Mgmt., 201 Gore Creek Drive' Vail, C0 81
* Lodge at Val I124 Gore Creek Drlve, Vail, C0 81657
* Lazier Bui lding
386 Hanson Ranch Road, Vail, C0 81657
* Gastof Gramshammer
. 231 E. Gore Creek Drive, Vail, C0 81657
* Bridge Street Building ConiJominiums
ZEt srtdge Street,-Vail, C0 81657
t
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that rhe Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail
wil hotd a public nearing'in'iiCorOance *nn $ectioriie.e6.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town
;i7;i ilfi;trs, Gesl;i too P-M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of:
A reouest for a densitv variance to allow for the construction of additional GRFA' located at
3130 Booth Falls CouiVLot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing.
Applicant: Brent and Barbara BinghamPlanner: Dominic Mauriello
A request fora residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at
748 Potato PatchAot 7, Block 2, Potato Patch 2nd filing.
Applicant: Mario Montalvo, represented by Pat McDonaldPlanner: George Ruther
A request for an amendment to the previously approved site-dev.elopmentplan tor the Innsbruck
Meadows SuMivision, tocated al2i72-2892' Kihhickinnick Road/lnnsbruck Meadows.
Applicant: Innsbruck Meadows Development, represented by Bob Borne
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance,located at 4840 Meadow LaneAot 2'
Block 6, Bighorn Sth Addition.
Applicant:John Mesch
Jim CurnuttePlanner:
Planner:
A request for a minor subdivision to allow for an amendment to the platted building envelope'
locatbd at 1299 Spraddle Creek Drive/Lot 1 1, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision.
Applicant: Ric FieldsPlanner: George Ruther
. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed minor subdivision to allow for a change in lot
confiluration, located at 1794 S. Frontage'Road/Lots 2 & 3, Vail Village West Filing No. 2'
Applicant:Brent Alm
George Ruther
A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow for the reptacement of a skylight with a roof dormer,
- {cated at 201 E. Gore Creek Drive/A part of Lot A, Block 58, Vail Village First Filing.
1ftp,,..nr, urarg snowdenPlanner: Mike Mollica
A request for an inferior remodel utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1081 VailView Drive
#1 09 B/Hornestake Condominiums.
Applicant:Rebecca JaffePlanner: Lauren Waterton
A request for residential addilions utilizing the 250 Ordinance; located at 775 Potato Patch
Potato Patch #1.
' Applicant: Schumacher / HansenPlanner: George Ruther
/Lot 19,
Arequestforaminorsubdivisioltoa|lowforlgYseintheproperty|ine|ocationbeMeenLots2
a 7, iocated at2446atd il'56-ii'';mfif ftqn-gtliiJioci-eliiesubdivision of Vail Das Schone'
Fitins No. 1 and Lot z, " ,ili[oj"iiii'. 6i ro6-e' s a'iiii]''bidtk a' vait oas Schone Filing #1'
Applicant:
Planner:
Karen Scheidigger
Jim Curnutte
A request for a buitding height variance, |ocated at 1339 Westhaven Circ|e/Lot 23 G|en Lyon
Subdivision.
Applicant:
Planner:
BillAnderson
Dominic Mauriello lllllllllll
Sion|anquageinterpretationavailab]euponrequestwith24hournotification.P|easecal|479-2114
voTce or'+zgrz356 TDD for infotmation
Community Development Department ..
Fu6iistreO nptil 26,'1996 in die Vail Trail'
:ni' t
,rrLd l26r9a
Bi::iffifi:3fi^n;wb
APPUCATION FOR DfiERIOR ALTERATIONS
OR MODIFICATIONS IN COMMERCIAL CORE I
VAIL VILLAGE
Plannlng and Envlronmental Commlsslon revlgw b regulred lor th6 alteratlon ol an
exlsting building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area or outdoor patio or the
replacement ol an exlsting bullding located in the CCI District.
FOLLOWING PEC APPROVAL, THE PROJECT MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE
DESTGN REVTEW BOARD (DRB).
The appllcatlon wlll not be acoeptod untll all Informatlon and fees aro submltted.
A" MME OF APPLICANT BELL TOWER PATTI!.\ERS' LTD
ADDRESS?.o\ EffiBrbS -70 ) .r-lB. NAME OF
IIAME OF BUILDING OWNER(S) (Prlnt or Type)rSru To,rn,o\ Pqfiil\ERs LTo
STGNATURE(S)
ADDRESS P
Grurns, \r{C CIE|$ERflL hF{n\Eq
(Condomlnlum Aseoclatlon approval wlll also be requlred, lf appllcable.)
cIELL Towtr( cor\Dornr,\$,.lfi RssrJ.^t+:!L e
E.
D.LOCA OF
THAN 100 SO. rr.)
THAN 100 SA. FT.)
PAID $- CK #- BY
THE FEE I'UST BE PAID BEFORE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT WILL ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL.
PRE.APPLICATION GONFERENGE:
A preapplication conferencE wlth a plannlng staff member ls strongly suggested to
delermine if any additional information is needed. No application willbe accepted
unless it is complete (must include all items required by the zoning administrator). lt is
the applicant's responsibility to make an appointment with the stall to lind out about
additional submittal requirements.
PLEASE NOT THAT A COMPLETE APPLICAT]ON WILL STREAIvILINE THE
APPROVAL PROCESS FOR YOUR PROJECT BY DECBEASING THE NUMBER OF
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE PEC MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS
ISSUED. THE FOLLOWING MUST BE SUBMITTED:
A" lmprovement survEy of property showing property lines and locailon ol bullding
and any lmprovements on the land.
\
c.
1il.
FILE COPY
T0,WT,I OFVAIL
75 South Fronnge Rood
Vail" Colorado 81657
970-479-2 I 3 8/479 -2 I 3 9
FAX97M79-2452
May 23, 1996
D e p artment of C ontmunity D evelopment
Hermann Staufer
Lancelot Restaurant
201 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Proposed modifications to Lancelot Restaurant
Dear Hermann:
In response to your conversation last week with Susan Connelly regarding the process for
modifications to the Lancelot Reslaurant, I have outlined the process below. lt is my
understading that you wish to remodel the interior of the restaurant (including the kitchen) and to
expand your existing dining deck. The process for each project is listed below. You may wish,
but lt is not required, to proceed separately with each project.
Interlor remodel of kltchen and dlnlng room
lf there are no exterior changes, and no expansion to dining area, only a building permit is
necessary. Contact lhe Town of Vail's Environmental Health Officer, Paul Reeves (479-2333), to
discuss modifications to kitchen prior to submitting for a buiHing permit.
Expanslon of exlstlng patlo
Modifying the existing patio requires a modification to the existing Conditional Use Permit and a
Minor Exterior Alteration approval from the Planning and Environmental Commission. The
process for approval is as follows:
1) Submit an application for a Conditional Use Permit and a Minor Exterior Alteration
t0 the Department of Community Development.
2l After the application is submitted, you must request from Town councilto proceed
through he process with your application. Because you are proposing to expand
the patio onlo Town of Vail property, the approval to proceed is necessary. This
can be done at a Council worksession.
9) Approval ot the Conditional Use Permit and the Exterior Alteration by he Planning
and Environmental Commission (PEC).
4l Approval of all exterior changes by the Design Review Board (DRB).
5) Modification to your existing deck lease with the Town ot Vail. Contacl Town
Attorney, Tom Moorhead (479-2107') for more information.
{2*tn"uoruo
Board, afteryou have received approvalbythe PEC and DRB. The Liquor Board
meets on the second Wednesday of every month. Contact Town Clerk, Holly
Mccutcheon (479-2136) for more information.
7) Once all of the above has been approved, submit for a building permit. Contact
the Building Liaison Officer, Dan Stanek (479-29211for information regarding
requiremenF.
lf you have any questions regarding this process, submittal deadlines or requirements, dease
feef free to contact me at479-2128.
Sincerely,
brr'r(r- fubkr+tl-'
Lauren Waterton
Planning Liaison Officer
cc: Susan Conn€lly, Dircclor of Community Dgl,€lopmenl
i' .,.afrf$rr O Iryln-r=,tfe-t=
'lAtt /1 , lljrJz/1511c fP\4ilALA
O ru-J",fu)*"Ury^"+uk"n'- rr'"- '
7ffi'4d;*";Yffi
'/tL--5823:
u
' nA \-/ - ttaqQ€
faz-s ftrtrtl"-)
la*xasr- \---ry //
u,<h.a-t x^l@"-^
/,f-a
l'' (-
s(n= ) -ffi*
/t"*-^N.U u--rt1 rV-;W,.(<: tla/4/-?4
L.
---L-
I
I
--t
:, T-l)-O''.,O+Og
a\\v __\\- \
D
D
BSt
TOWN
I UVV LH UUI .
A PART OF LOT o, BO
VAIL VILLAGE FIRS
OF VAIL, EAGLE COUI
(TOWN OF VAIL)A PARI OF LOT o
,f:t
--? €;c.LS-_
,l$gt
coRE cRgErt DRlvs t",#
trt 'rac, La.lllca
( TO'YN OF VA
A PART OF Li
ttL tantlr|' trtt
tc3 ll|l tff I'l
ff>-
lcg Iaurrl. II,! --t
:l'Ottur btrrlJjrqr '
, 1lV, Yl"n ' trr 'ht'!.' ..-.' 7bo\ ' 4lttllb'
!,firr{1,rtJ|.o, Hr* 5b ,{u I't Rlr,rt*|,fl r nplzlg
rr3 |.t||ar rttrt. trr !.1l|I aaallrat3 t lr'itlaatItll
Ittrt t llar .lcr3 llf
133. lLL l|[ C. | .
ts ttct tt lra
A-l
-{
Dt
)M
C
.. srali
R.l
, E, ELEVATOR
,irs c.6 Tl{Ru
12 A R-l -JA -Jb
:LL TOWtrR CONT'OMIAI/U,bl
c 5_ STA|R
UNIT
R-IB
.5'
N
.l'9.O'
{9
UNIT
R.IA
.g'
{ls
9.
,s. t'
UNITR-l 3.o
.4'
r5.a'
iqf- -:,./ -
Itg.o' !\"-- LtiJC * Ft-q aUe !
''' L.qE. sroRAGEUNIT R-I .r' !,
t
L.C.E. DECK UNIT R-I
t6'S'.6'ftva) :
2t
n>;<o]rr!
'
#.2'
L.C.E. DICK UNIT R.I otl
,hlhwr hirUr,il ,u;,(ilffi ,.ffr6. ,1bA , *tttl1t,
tSEE l3l FL. PLAN FOR OlM.o VIEW X X
D
sTonacE AREA I
''IOT
HAEITATLE I
]'o"1 *JD
\a
A-l
DI
A ntlrcI 6nrt
tj.4''' 4,8LOFT LEVEL
.lnrflhurrr [irldi,rl .(trl ,hlrralo , trr= lr'-t" , olvlll . ilnl1b
# t 70uNtT aElow
UNIT
at*t.t,-/'h ,^'r/ \
-,XAETASLE)
UN|T R.I C'CLA/V
(F.IA T{OT HASITASLEI
otLEN 'fl'
UNIT DELOW
UNIT
V/7- R- / 1twz *- r'firFr
UA/t7' t?- / B6LOW
fc
o<lTLthle oFUNIT AEL&V
.DF^a
t-at-\l
I
!FaIF
a
-I
jP,
i
-
t
cTIt5a
€
:ai
e
ff5-vl-a t-a-
-
$
{
H
|D_
uc
t,1 6
Earz.3(-'
ttdJlrl
tiq
J o
GaF-f
lr'|dj
r.i !9zJ3
o
a
HI
u:J
,z'et
E<
3E
'c
q
r(
o
F3
LiE!3
{n*\\$
*lt4 {',\Oe
1( rtsss+
5!rF''_'t+
$E
v*( ilyh,u,
-l-
I
.ffiu*J hirHq . nil ,d-{o . Tru-rf-rt o
l-
I
L-
I . pn'{rol hf*_l*t Fhn,
o
g*rhvst {r/rq,frffiuffi$'t
'?t"rL:wl oe'&
'lwn-fii, '-#
I
ttoo.1
lhu- llng' , 1WW rrrr[ ,4orz4o ,
rtffi, o?wldt,
$mrt0hr ryffiv
trWn",4flh|
@n',$r
JR#
,k/i./riwv bid/lin , vql ,nlon4o ,: v+" fr-q' " qoq ' *lnl7u:
, u*wu {hnn bnrlJrrig ,
o qbaq 'Ilnl7u,
---^.
T
Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro TemLynn Fritzlen
Jlm G'lbson
l'lerv Lap j n
Robert LeVine
Peggy 0sterfoss
None
Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
RrclrPJ 21€so
MINUTES
VAIL TOI,|N COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 7, I99O7:30 P.ltl.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town7:30 p.m. , in the Counci'l Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TO}II{ OFFICIALS PRESENT:
There was no cltizen particlpation, the first ltem on the agenda.
Next was l public hearing on the 1990-91 parking po'l icies. Stan Berrynan gave anintroduction to the hearing.stating the Pirking-a;rd Traniportation naiiior;- - '
Committee had met several iimes to-discuss recommendationi tor tfrese-poii.i"..Arnold Ullevig then gave an. in-depth presentation regarding ttre proposea poiiii.tand the reasoning fon the changes from the current piactic6s. Hi then heia aquestion and answer session wiih Council and the pubtic. Trevor Bradway feli tnepoficies were discriminatory against Village worf.irl "nA ttot" who had [atd inio theparking fund for parking spacei in the Viliage Transportation Center. Josef Staufercommented that making employees (who get off-work at 2:00 a.m.) park in iora Firtwas unfair. There was some discussioi regarding employees getli;lg off at iite-'
IgYItl,"nd whv coupons worked well before-and s6me beoite tritea t6 get ria Ji-tnem.Mu.ch discussion by the public and council ensued regarding pros and-cons. RobLeVine made a motion to tab'le the item and send it Sack t5 Ltre Advisory Commiiteefor further review. Tom Stelnberg seconded the motion. -Jtm ejbson stited he-wanteoto pass the program with the following conditions: Iift restrictions on tht vittagtparking structure parking; parking frie at Ford Park; and other modifications to bemade as the program.went along. He felt thls was a itep in the.igtt aireiiion.Mayor Rose explained why he felt it should go back to tire conmjttei. A vote wastaken and the motion.passed 5-2, with Lynn Fritzlen and Jim Gibson opposea.- ionPhi'llips asked council to specifically name the items ihey fe'lt the llvisorv -
Committee should review. Lynn Fritzlln felt the added stiess on emp'loyees [ecauseof the parking and housing situations was bad, and the plan could trltp-Uy proviainga pass specifically targeted.to Village employees. Rob'LeVine thoughl t[e'VillageTransportatlon Center could be shared by a'fii.st come, first served-basis by accessor pricel include the coupons at a reas6nable rate; ina tirere ue one pass wjttr norestrjctions for.$750,.thit the person could come ind go is tre preii*h.--m"vo" hor.remarked since the audlence felt the blue parking passEs wouta iromoi.-rot.'i""r inthe Vill.age than the coupons, he felt a coinbined-window sticker'and coufon-progratwas good and would work. He added he did not think there should be any'sunfr"r-charges for the Village parking structure, and was not sure differentiit-rites oneverything ln the Village struiture was pioper. Jim Gibson itroushi i uiu.-oii"-should have "a number of times used" and'not "number ot-aiyr.i;--Fiissv oitJ"Fi".connented the audience wanted to have the ability to do whit thev iiiteU ind-pirkingwhere they wanted, and paying more was not an issue.
The third 'ltem was a Consent Agenda of the following items:
A. Approval of Minutes of July 3 and 17, 1990 Meetings
''
",3l3ill$ialii:l3ariiiiitiFtil?;iiriet!4q1tg,i8i,et$:ilffn':lll{lln,"rcontrol for the prftnaiji/s6condary"ioriC'"dtstrlit (Appltcait: f6wn of Viit)
Council was held on Tuesday, August 7, 1990, atof the Vail Municipal Buildins.
C. Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1990, second reading,supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vaii
an ordinance maklnggeneral fund, capltal
trn i o proiects fund, Communities for Drug-Free Eagle valley fund, special parkingassessment-fund, Vail marketing fuid and thi real esiate ir"nli!r't.i, tunjiof the.1990 budget and the finincial ptin ior the Town ot viii, io'torado;and authorizing the expenditures of siid appropriationr-".-""i'firtnnereln.
D' ordinance No. 29, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance amending theplan document of the Town of vali employees' peiitor ptiil-iii ifiii.s- - -
forth detalls in regard thereto.
E' ordinance No. 29, Series of-1990, second reading, an ordlnance amending theTown' s,p:lt ::-1lg,Fi re-.pensi on pi an aoiumeni-suujei[ io-ippi:J".i"'uvsixtv-five.percent (65%) of the' Townir ioiii"-"ni firemeni-ina-i.itingforth details ln regard thereto.
F' ordinance No. 30, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance amending thetrust agreement pursuant to the iown of vail emiioii.ii-pljnliJn-pian; andsetting forth details in regard thereto.
G' Reso'lutlon N9. 19r Series of 1990, a resolution authorizlng certain Townemployees and offlcers to sign ctr6c[s ariwing-on an operaling-account to beopened bv the Town at the FiistBank or viit ind furthLr auttririiing certa.inemployees of the Town to make deposits in saia account.
H' Resolution I'lo. 19, Series of 1990, a resolution authorlzing the Town ofvail to :l!_i :"I" deposit vault at ttre rirsigank of viii-anJ-auirrorizinscertain-officers to sign a lease therefor, to-terrninate the-i."i", tosurr€nder the box' return the keys, and release the Bank from any'liabilityin connection therewith.
Merv Lapin made a motion to approve.the Consent Agenda as presented. Tom Steinbergseconded the motlon. There was no discusslon uv council oi irre prUiic.-"A-vote wastaken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0. rlnn Friizren rras iut oi ttre room atthe moment.
Next was -Ordinance-No.. 25, Series of 1990., Fd'6;btfil-Tiltidlirg| qn or-dlnance amendingSitocl'al Develooment o'tsirici'Ho;=zi;'ure virr;niitonii,iiiir'iirii;i;;i;;''!ettineforth the details in-regard tt'erelo] -iiivi"'io"!=r!"i'tLe tul tjt'te of theordinance. Mtke Mo'lllcaitated the only-ch.ng. r"d"-.ince first reiaing-wis unaerSection 4.E. A new paragraph had ueen iaaeJ.- L;;;t iskwith then discussed vailAssociates' waiver of right'of reverter clause whici Jim Gibson r'aa quJiiiJned atthe first reading... Jay. Peterson, representing ttre-ippticanl, t.u.-ui.iiriritainformation regarding-the parking siiuatton, inu aiJ"iot feei ltre orainini";, n.nparagraph 4-E. was fair. After iome discusiion bv Councif anA-Jiv,'a'molion toapprove the ordinance on second reading with the iuaitionat tanguiie wii-miae uvMerv Lapin. A second came from Rob LeVine. n voie wis taken aid lrre motiJn passed5-2, with Tom Steinberg and Lynn Fritzl"n opposeO.-
-'--
Flfth on the agenda was 0rdln_ance No. 22, Serles of 199(ordinanie-i'.'iiiiil,siio'il;Fij*"iiriiry ,.r.rred ro as .ftrf#irtati?ffllFi3i;;r;r"nothe development plan in accoidance wiih ctripie" i8.40; lrre viii-mijniiipii'coo";and-setting forth.details.'in.regard thereto' (714 l,eat Lionstreia cirfie,"lits 4, 7,c, D, Block 2, vail-Lionshead 3id Fitins) (Aipiic;;a; -lq-k iorporaiion'_-xiis.,Morcus and Marriott corporation). rne iutt'tiiie-wii-read by I'tiyor-nose. "jim
Gibson made a motion to'tablerthls ltem untri'irre iJptir[.r-i'eiiiitid;;;uie;-per Ithe appllcant's r€quest. Rob LeV'lne seconded the motion. rrtstan'Fif[i-"i'pl"rn"a'what rezoning the appllcant_was trying to change to and why. n votl'wi. i"[.n anothe motion passed unanlmously 7-0.
Next. was-0qdlnance' l{o..1 27,- Serles of 1990f flrst reading, an ordlnance amendi nqchap,ter.ls-04 of the vall Munlcipat coal 5y ttri-aaaiiili'or sec[ro;]8.0,i:itiiiirbri:]pub$ and amendins Sectjon 18.28.b30 0f the-trtuni.iJii-iJa.-i"-il:;;;-'i;;.;;;:''=" rpermitted use in the comnercial Service center ionJ aiiiriii;-ir"naiiig'c[.ii.t18.28.040 of the Va'll. Municipal Code bv ttri iauiiion-oi-ar"w pubs that se'n beerwholesale and Brew Pubs whlch sel'l fifieen-piriiii-"f ihe manufactured beer or alefor off-site consumptlon as conditiona'l usei to itre-Corrnercial Servlce Center zonedistrlct; amending chapter 18.28 of the Vaii trr"iiipii'Code to pnovtae ieriainrestrictions in the operation of a Brew pub; ind ieliing forth ietalia i; rJgarothereto. The full.title was read by mayor noi".'-n"Jv lnuotsen gave brlefbackground information on. the requeit. -He stated $rrie crringii iJ ir'e doue wtrictrhad to-happen regardlng this reqlie.i for a urew-pru, ii lt had to be defined; 2)council had to make a brew pub d use by rigt'i;-.a[a-i)-ir,.v rria io iiai. rpriiti.
-2-
(
'1 item for conditional use. After some discussion, Andy then answered'questions ofCouncil. Merv Lapin then made a motion to approve,rt[e ordinance, which Jim Gibsonseconded. Larry Eskwith suggested combinjng the lh{to\ditional uses shown in theordinance 'into only one. Merv then amended his m-oUI6nA approve the ordinance anto combine both conditiona'l uses into one. and Jim ailddedllis second. A vote was
nto only one. M6rv then amended-hls iofitrnA approve the ordinance andboth conditiona'l uses into one, and Jim ailddedllis second. A vote wastaken and the motion passed unanimous'ly 7-0.
tfi1S second. A vote wasui;** Avo'Ee
appr{ve requests forSeventh on the agenda was anlippe.'1i,rsf:,the, PEC decislonlto appt'f,v"exterio\alteration and landscape variance ln order to construct an addjtjon to theLancelot Restaurant at the Bell Torer Bulldlng:'located at 201 Gore Creek Drive (Partof Tract A, Block 58, Vail Village 1st Filing) (Applicant: Hermann Staufer,Lancelot Restaurant). Kristan Pritz gave background information on the exterioralteration request and explained why staff recommended approval with two conditjons:
l. The appllcant nust remove rai'l ings surrounding the patlo from November 1to
May I of each year.
.2. The applicant must participate ln a proJect lnvolving the property owners
and the Town's Pub'l ic llorks Department ln an effort to resolve drainage problems
adJacent to the Bell Tower Building. These dralnage problems are a result of the
undirected drainage off of the bui'lding. Staff does not feel that the appllcantshould be required to provide the so'l ution individually. However, staff feels it isfair to require him, as a property owner ln the building, to participate and pay forhis fain share as deemed by the bullding association. Any drainage improvements
necessitated by the deck enclosure shall be addressed by the applicant ln the Design
Review Eoard submittal and building permit plans.
Kristan then revlewed the landscape varlance request and explained the reasoning forthe request. She stated the staff recommended approval of the variance, and
reviewed the P'l anning and Environmental Commissionrs vote for appnoval of 5-2.
Kristan answered questions of Council. Peggy Osterfoss felt these were good ideasfor the area. Tom Steinberg cormented there should be an agreement with the
app'l icant that he pay a parking fee, and if Council amends the ordinance and
increases stated fees sometime during the next year, he would be increased as well.
Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to uphold the PEC's decision to approve an exterioraddition to the Bell Tower Building, finding that the granting of this variance
would not constitute a grant of special privilege, and was substantiated by the VailVillage Master Plan which encourages a wide variety of activities, events, andstreet life along pedestrian ways and plazas, and inc1 uding the condltions requiredin the staff memorandum dated July 23, 1990. The motion was seconded by MervLapin. A vote was taken aid the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Peggy 0sterfoss
then made a motlon to uphold the PECrs decisjon to approve a variance reguest to
reduce the landscaping to increase the Lancelot's deck. She stated the granting ofthis variance wou'l d not constitute a grant of special privilege, and was in
compliance with the Vail Village Masten P'lan, and {ncluding the conditions that the
landscaplng be added between the two bui'l dings,bench/possi bl e
I andsidpeil"area. Tom Steinberg seconded e motion.taken and
motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Next was an-rdiipiil?5t"One-"ipprovillof the proposed residence -at 3010_Booth CreekDrivq (Lot 4,'block 3, Vai'l'Vi'llage 1lth Filt;g) (0rrrner: Gebrge pi'rCaulttns,tJr.)i rShelly Mello gave background lnformatlon regarding the request. Ellot Goss,
an architect representjng the Caulkins, presented the Council with drawjngs of the
bui'lding in quest'ion. Kristan and She'lly then answered questions of Council.
lrlerner Kaplan presented to Council for thelr revlew photographs of residences ln the
neighborhood, stating reasons why he was opposed to the building of the new hom€
next door. Harry Frampton, a neighbor, requested Council overturn the DRB decision
because he felt the Swiss style chalet in a contemporary neighborhood was totally
out of place, plus the house needed a garage. August Grassis and Byron Rose,
neighbors, supported Mr. Frampton's statements. Pepi Gramshanmer felt the house wasfine and should be approved, that everyone shou'ld have the right to buj'ld his/her
own home. George Caulkins read aloud a letter he received from Rod Slifer in
support of the chalet style as far as real estate price was concerned. After much
dlscussion by Councl'l , staff, and the pub'l lc, l,lerv Lapin made a motion to uphold the
DRB decision with the condltlons the shutters be done in a solid color, a
landscaping plan be incorporated on the open area, and a two car ganage be put on
the property. Rob LeVine seconded the motion. Ned Gwathmey stated how the DRB had
come to its decision. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-3, wlth Mayor Rose,
Tom Steinberg, and Lynn Fritzlen opposed. Mike Cacioppo gave reasons why he was
against the Counci'l 's decision.
ot
the
-3-
rl
At thts time, Councl] declded to take the last two items out of order to expeditethe last item a member of the publlc was waltlng to address. Therefore, actlon onproposed 'lease between the TOV and the Eagle County School District for a playgroundat the Red Sandstone Elementary School site at 551 North Frontage Road was'neii.There was no discussion by Council or the public, except to delete the staff
recommendation that the lease be conditioned on the School District renewing theTown's ldase on the elementary school gyn. Merv Lapln made a motion to appiove thelease agreement, which was seconded by Jim G'ibson. A vote was taken and the motion j
passed unanimously 7-0.
Discussion regarding an appeah.of,rarDRBrdeclslontonrthegtlittemyerjresldenqe whichlncluded a new detached garage and gondola bulldtng and'a''revised front eritry (338
Rockledge Road; Lo! 1, Block 1, vail valley 3rd Filing) (Applicant: iln. lliltemyer)was next. ttllke Mol1lca remarked this item, which had been approved by the DRB, had'been called up by the Council. He presented drawings of the plans and a scale modelof the detached garage and house. Mlke added it had been a unanimous decis'lon toapprove the plans by the DRB. Ned Gwathmey, Chalrman of the DRB, gave additionalinformation regarding the plans and DRB's reasoning for the declsion made. JohnI'llttemyer also added background informat'lon. Ned ihen answered questions ofCouncll. Lynn Fritzlen made a motion to uphold the DRB decision, whlch peggy
Osterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-1, with Merv Lapin
opposed.
There belng no further buslness, this meetlng was adJourned at 12:15 a.m.
submi tted,
ATTEST:
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
\
Resoectfu'l1y
PamelaA. Brffi
-4-
REVTSED 7l23l9O
TO3
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Planning and Envj.ronmental Coururission
ConmunJ-ty Development Department
Jul.y 23, 1990
Proposed Addition to the Bell Tower Building at 201
Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 58, VaiIVillage lst Filing.Applicant: Hermann Staufer/Lancelot Restaurant
on February 26, 1990, the PEc reviewed a proposal for the Bell
Tower Building which included a ground level retail expansionalong core creek Pronrenade and additions to existing residential
developnent on the upper floors. A landscape variance, heightvariance, exterior alteration, and conditional use permit werereguested. The staff reconmended denial of the proposal due tothe negative impacts that the proJect would have on the overallfabric of the village. The item was tabled by the applicant anda nelr proposal was submitted.
?he current proposal to the Betl Tower building involves only aground level restaurant expansion along the Gore Creek Prornenade.
The nature of the proposal requires the review of two separaterequests. These requests include an exterior alteration which is
reguired in the Cornmercial Core I zone district in order to add
enclosed floor area to an existing structure and a variancereguest to reduce landscaping on the site. No site coveragevariance is needed on thj.s appJ.ication because the existingoutdoor deck is considered site coverage in CCI . Therefore, thecovering of the area with a building will not increase the
nonconformance of the site in relationship to site coverage.
However, a variance to reduce the landscaping will be necessary
because the brick pavers that will be removed on the outdoor deck
and planter area are considered part of the landscapingrequirernent.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Planning and Environnental Connission
Cornmunity Developnent Departnent
July 23, 1990
A variance request in order to reduce landscape area atthe Bell Towei Buitding at 2ol Gore Creek Drive, Partof Tract A, Block 58, ValI Village lst FiJ.ing.epplicant: Her:mann Staufer/Lancelot Restaurant
I,ANDSCAPE REOUTREUEN?S IN CCI ARE AS FOLIFWS
The applicant is reguesting a variance to decrease the
landsllped area of fne Bell Tower Building il connercial
core I. currentlv 14.5t of the site Ls considered to be
J.andscaping. The-pio!-osal would decrease this to 10.2* by
eliminating ZSg_1:q, ft. of existing paved patio area.
Approxirnatefi !9-sg.*ft. of the existing planter to the west
w11t also be removed (9.5 sq. ft. of stone wall and 9.5 sg.ft. of soil). 165.5 sq. ft. of the exterior deck area will
remain with 65.5 sq. ft. of the deck on the applicantrsproperty and 1OO sq. ft. on Town of VaiI land-
The landscape definition states that a naxinum of 208 of thetotal landscaped area for a s5-te nay be used for lrcore
development such as walks, decks, terraces, water features
and other like features. (Section 18.04.200)
Also, section L8.24.170, Landscaping and Site Developnentfor Cornmercial Core I states:
rrNo reductlon in landscape area shall be peruritted, without sufficient cause shown by the appJ-icant or' as specified in the vail village urban Design
Considerations. r!
Below is a surnmary of how the site relates to the limit on
hardscape that cair be considered as landscaping and the reductionin planted material:
I.
I
(
Lot Size: 6,L44.16 ag.
Existing landscaping:
ft.
785 sq.
9OO sg. ft.
I
hardscapented ar
IT. CRITERIA AND FTNDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Sectl_on 18.62.060 ofthe Vail Munlcipal Code, the Departnent of ConnunityDevelopnent recoqmends approval of the requested vaiiancebased upon the following factors:
Proposed landscaping 504.5 or 83t of hardscape104.5 or 17t of planted naterial509 sq. ft total or 10.2* of site
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relaFior,rship of the recruested variance toother. e:4gting or potential uses and structuies lnthe vicinity.
While architecturally a fine building, the BeIlTower property iE lacking in landscape features.It should be noted, however, that this situationis not unigue to the Bell Tower Building. TheI{all Street Building, the corsuch BuiLding and theA & D Building are other exanples of propertiesthat do not have a great deal of on-sLte landscapeimprovements. In.nany cases, the landscaping
_ .'... which does ocqur is located on Town owned-land or
boards to deternine the relative inportance ofeach consideration involved in a given situation.
The staff feels that the request to renove ;*%i:;:"ft. of paved area is not excessive and that theusefulness of the existing 437.5 eg. ft. patio islinited because of the northern exposure. Therequest will not have any negative affect onadjacent properties. The benefit of therestaurant infill outweighs the Ioss of hardscapepatio.
The renoval of a snal1 portion of the planter (9.5sq. ft. ) should also have llttle negative Jrnpacton the area. The applicant proposes to add norelandscaping in this planter including f tree.
In addition, the open grass area on the north sideof Gore Creek Pronenade provides a uniguesituation in the Village in that lt Ls one of thefew najor landscaped open space areaE in thisotherwise developed area. This greatty nitigatesthe lack of landscaping associated with thebuildings along core Creek Pronenade.
nn''(''"*t4
The dearee to which relief from the strict andliteral interoretation and enforcenent of asrrecifLed reoulatLon is necessarv to achieve
2.
conoatibilitv and unifornitv of treatnent arnongsiteE in the vicinity or to attain the oblectlvesof this title without qrant of special privilecre.
staff believes that the applicant has shownsufficient cause to reduce the planted area by 9.5sq. ft. The CCI landscape section specificallyrelles on the Urban Design Considerations toprovide a gruide in decision-making. As stated Lnthe exterlor alteratl.on memo, the proposal
conplies with the considerations. In addltion'the applicant is upgrading the planter by adding atree which will have nuch nore landscaPe inpactthan the present 9.5 sq. ft. in the planter.Staff could have reguested that the applicant pull
back the expansion by two feet to ttre east.
However, our opinlon is that no significantbenefit is gained by this change.
The effect of the requested variance on liclht andair. distribution of population, transportation
and traffic facilities, publ-ic facilities andutilities. and rcublic safetv.
The proposal would not affect any of the abovecriteria.
III. REI..ATED POLICIES IN VATL VILI.AGE MASTER PI.,AN.
GoaI # 3 of the VaiI Village Master Plan states:
rrTo recognize as a top priority the enhancenent of the
walking experience throughout the Villagerr. Relatedobjectives and pollcies include:
Related objectives and policies include:
3.
3.1-
3.1.3
objectivePhysicatly irnprove the existing pedestrian wallnraywith landscaping and other inprovenents.
PoIicvFlowers, trees, water features, and other
Landscaping shalt be encouraged throughout the
Town in locations adJacent to, or visible fron,publlc areas.
one may argTue that the addition could in fact be considereda physical irnprovenent to the pedestrian streetscape. It
should be noted that the applicant annually does a great
deal of tandscaping to the area with colorful planter boxes
and planted pots.
outdo-or_dining is an inportant streetscape featureand sball be encourage in conmerciat infllt orredevelopnent proJ ects.
Tle.proposar is encloslng an existing dining deck that haslirnited use. Both the northern e4toiure ani ttrererationship of the existlng deck wittr ttre interl.or of therestaurant llnit the uEe of the patio. The instarlation ofrekord doors on the north elevation, will Lncrease thelivelihood and_activity of this deck by increasing thetransparency of the facade which is especiarly inportantduring the winter nonths when the outdoor dining ieck isunusable.
rV. FINDTNGS
Oblective
Encourage a wide variety of activities, eventa,and street llfe along pedestrian ways and plazis.
Policv
There are exceptions or extraordinarycircumstances or conditions applicable to the samesite of the variance that ao not apply generallyto other propertieE in the same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcenent of thespecified regrulation would deprive the applicantof privileges enjoyed by the ormers of ollrerproperties in the sane district.
3.3
3.3.2
A.
B.
That the granting of the variance will not constitute agrant of special prlvllege inconsistent with thelirnitations on other properties ctassified in the samedistrict.
That the granting of the variance will not bedetrinental to the public health, safety or welfare, ornaterially lnjurious to properties or inprovements inthe vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or nore of thefollowing reasons3
1. The strLct literal interpretation or enforcementof the specified regulation would result inpractical-difficuLty or unnecessary physicalhardship inconsistent with the objectives of thistitle.
c.
3.
o
V. STAFF RECOIT{MENDATToN
The staff reconnends approval of the requested landscapevariance. The applicant tras shown both-sufflcient cauae for the9.5 sg. ft. reduction of softscape and the renoval of paved paiioarea per the urban Design considerations. The code reiies oir tneurb?n Design GuLderine consideratLons to be the crlteria foranalyzing a request to remove landscapl.ng. We feel that theoveralr benefits of the proJect clearly outweigh the removal oflandscaping (paved and planled).
Jy Pekww tr6^
[,nudw q' t4cod. add-thrvu ,r-.cf
I ,r ii"" Fr* \t0"tcttiy* Wry-n, ffir-
'&tvk^{v\utLt+ '
c9.la tcXeu v
Ye,,wtgtyg,
\r\M\4)A
, drd,n(h srA'c !(ofl(t{,[u{L wdl
, \l'( I ['1 ICJL a'A!'tt\UUu+'{'-
6/]d. re t'f7+ntt t81.--
WOr-Ktlg&',,'/ f
F U/d
{rr| .-/wrttr n1 ,
Daltc*',
wtt-t.,sa-nLr1 6Lt sf&(T,s y<osowz
V\^J-IA tJroUJ9 1*,fiJd, yenrwp b**\
v^c4vr bv<- 5'(\,o1t/ d" diltnS 1v1 ryr'1ferr-
wcvev- ) irn ywed r* PtN
0"^,X-' elylLr+lr., wtvtd+"ctt"PL
\LP ' ry{.e,,-t&
C\r,r,t ck- vadk wwlt'u^'M
gyn: t\ z/ v*'+"1 Vltl yxt ^nAxw1L.Cvn:,^ -/ \^,i*"! \Atl Nl\\.ry'-EWLz - r/i \[1 n.d,rt" L.[n 4 ulay
V,MW- d,s&) N\'ol *t
"'Yb"
ute'et c^'-]-
*l-+ l,a.'t.,C 9C a-{zr v'' z'1 0'5 fvr-,. r- r''at.u!
(ltuut:erd l^,.1-.rp,,1,, ft"t, ' r\c r edl'u-c,h ci''r 01, .lawds*{'n*\dburu+
o,t..rt' ;"::n;il \,,.'lJ':I,' wu"'^- iwtlrt'4
Wl ^irrtv--
-_ ):n^, :-K y, gLt-u,?.'u1p N^-ti.-av )$, Attr-r,\rl 't r a,n-;-
Pwrc&fa. ( 'l
)
e4
a
n
ir 1tI '.fai l'- )
oo
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Planning and Environnental Conmlssion
Cornmunity Development Departnent
,fuly 23, 1990
A requeat for an exterior alteration in order toconstruct an addition to the Bell Tolrrer Buildinglocated at 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block58, Vail Village lst Filing.Appllcant: Hermann Staufer/Lancelot Restaurant
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REOUEST
Approval of an exterior alteration request is reguired for anyaddition of enclosed floor area to structures in the Connercialcore I zone distrlct. The propoEal includes a 272 square foot,ground floor expansion of the Lancelot Restaurant adJacent to the
Gore creek Promenade. The expansion includes moving the facade8.5 feet towardE Gore Creek Pronenade and adding rekord doors andglass roof producing a glass front. The new enclosure iscompletely on private property. The area is currently used as adining patio. 165.5 sq. ft. of exterior deck will remain with
65.5 sq. ft. of the deck on the applicant's property and 100 sq.ft. on Town of Vail tand. The depth of the outdoor deck will be6' and will have 4 tables.
REVIEW CRITERTA FOR THIS REOUEST
The Val.l Village UrbaD Dealgn Plan includes three elements thatestablish the review criteria for this application. The first ofthese is referred to as the Guide Plan which includes a number of
sub-area concepts, many of whllc6-Tdlenti'fy potential areas forfuture developrnent and other inprovenents. Secondly, t39- U-Q3!
Degign Considerations express the large scale, land use planning
ana-EeEi-gn'cb-nsiaerations desired in the vitlage. And finally,architectural/landscape considerations, which will be reviewed by
1n6- oesign Revibw Boaid,- establish the criteria for evaluatingdetailed design considerations of a proposal .
r.-The Vall VlllaE. lttst€r PlaD also addresses specific goals
-rpertaining to the enhancenent of the walking experience
throughout the Village that nust be considered in this
-application.
In addition to the Guide Plan and the Vail Village Uaster Plan,traditional zoning considerations are also a factor in this
proposal . Please refer to the acconpanying nemorandun that
addresses this zoning issue.
THE VAII, VILI,AGE I'RBAN DESIGN GUIDE PI,AN
There are no specific sub-area concepts relevant to thisproposal .
VATL VILI,AGE DESTGN CONSIDER,ATIONS
The following desJ-gn consideratione are a critical element of the
Urban Design PIan. llhey ldentify the key physicalcharacteristics of the Vlllage and provide the tools to assurethat new development be consistent with this establlshedcharacter. These considerations include the following:
A. Pedestrianization:
This proposal does not directly affect or change theexisting pedestrianization systero ln the Village inthat it does not increase the encroachnent of thei ' building into the Gore creek Promenade walkway. Theaddition nill have a ml-nLmal encroachment Lnto the view' ,,'' " from the top of the Ctritdrenrs Fountain stairs down! onto Gore Creek Promenade. The applicant has nl-ninLzedthe inpact by using a pitched glass roof on the front.,1 of the addition. This will allow some transParency
through the enclosure to the Gore Creek Promenade
behind.
B. Vehicle Penetration:
vehicular penetration, or circulation, will remain
unchanged as a result of this proposal .
c. Streetscape Frarnework:
streetscape franework identifies two alternatives for
improving the pedestrian experience in ttre Village.
These lnclude the developrnent of open sp,ace including
landscaping along pedestrian routes, qnd lhe
deveJ.opnent of infitl connercial storefronts alongpedestrian corridors. tfbile the landscape inprovements
Ean provide a softenin{ of buildings and a colorfulfranework, the com:nercial infill can provide activitygenerators to give streetlife and visuaL interest tottre pedestrian. The proposed restaurant infill alongthe Gore creek Prornenade will provide such an activitygenerator. while the existing dining deck couldprovide such activity during the summer, its poor northfacing location (relative to sun exposure), has
resuLted in the deck having little success in providing
such activity. This enclosure would rnake the dining
are rnore useful year round, while rnaintaining an opendining area during sunmer nonths due to rekord doors
being proposed along the entire north elevation.
D.
The additlon of glass rekord doors and a glass roof totle facade, which are comnonly used in the Vlllage,will add transparency to the front of the restauiant.This feature will greatly add to the llvelihood of thisarea by allowing for greater visiblllty into theinterior of the restaurant in the winter.
The staff feels that this J.s a great improvement overthe exlsting facade of the restaurant whlch provideslinited visual acceEsibitity. In the sunner, the doorswiLl allow the restaurant activity to extend out ontothe deck area. The success of the doors as a method ofadding vl.sual interest and also creating successfuldining deck space can be seen throughout the Villageand Lionshead (ie. Blurs, Up the Creek, Vendettars,etc) .
STREET ENCIOSURE
The purpose of this consideration is to maintain aconfortable relationship between the width of streetsand the height of buildings. The one story restaurantexpansion along the Promenade will establish a moredesirable rrhuman scalerr on this side of the building.Because of the extensive use of glass on the front ofthe addition, the inpact of the addition will beninirnized in regards to street enclosure.
STREET EDGE
There are no standard setback requirernents forbuildings in VaiI Village. Rather, proposals arelooked at with relatj.onship to the site and thesurrounding developrnent to ensure a strong street edge.A strong street edge does not iurply perfectly aligned
lacades along entire street widths. Rather, slightlyirregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscapeareas create life and visual interest for thepedestrian. The addition will fill the void along coreCreek Promenade which occurs on this portion of tireLancelot during the winter months of the year when thedeck is not used for dining but rather for snowstorage. The proposal will bring the activlty of therestaurant closer to the pedestrian on a year roundbasis instead of just durlng the summer nonths.
Buildino Heicrht
Buitding height is unaffected as the one-storyexpansion is below 33 t in height.
E.
F.
G.Views and Focal Points
The proposed expansion does not inpact any of theadopted view corridors. one view conslderation was thevantage point foru the top of the staircase betseen theChildrenrs Fountain and the Gore creek Pronenadetooking west. The view of these EtairE ie inportant toprovide pedestrians wlth a point of orientatl.on as they
meander through the Village. This additlon will have avery linlted inpact on views from the top of the stalrstowards tlillow Bridge. The applicant has nininized theimpact of the addltion by ltnittng the size of the
expansion and proposing a glass roof form thatpreserves nost of the views towardE the Gore CreekPronenade. The enclosure also has no maJor l-npacts onthe etalrcase up to the Childrenrs Fountaln from the
Gore Creek Promenade.
Service and Deliverv
The proposed expansion wiII not require any additionalservice or delivery. The seating capacity will not be
increased due to interlor renodeling whlch will removetables fron the existing interior of the restaurant.Although the applicant will not be adding any eeatingcapacity, he will be adding 86.5 Bq. ft. of floor areato the restaurant (272 sg. ft. of new dining area less
185.5 sg. ft. to be renoved by a kitchen expansion =85.5 sq. ft. of new restaurant floor area). Theapplicant wiII be reguired to pay a $2r162.50 Town ofVail parking fee as a result of this additl-on.
Sun,/Shade
There will be no significant increase in the shadowpattern as a result of this addition becauEe theaddition is within the existing ehade pattern of theBeIl Tower Building.
Architecture/Landscape Considerations
These designof the Designis inportantroofs.
considerations are tlpically the purview
Review Board. However, in this case itto address the consideration pertaining to
H.
r.
J.
As stated in the guidelines, roofs within the Villageare tlpically gable in fom and of noderate to lowpitch. The proposed low pitch roof forim is in keepingwith the other restaurant expansions Ln this area (i.e.Blurs and Up the Creek). The applicant has worked veryhard in developing a roof form which does notdrastically depart frorn the existing roof forns in the
vlllage. The staff feels that the detailing of theroof wll.l successfully tie the addition to the existingbuilding and that the forn will be harrnoniouE with the-exlsting streetscape.
A landacaping variance Ls necessary in order to do thisexpanEl.on. The addition wiII renove 253 sg. ft ofpaved area and 19 sq ft. of planter area decreasingthe amount of landscaplng fron 14.6* to 10.2t. The-appllcant has proposed additional landscaping for thewest stone planter.
RENTED GOAI,S AND POLICTES OF THE VATL VII,IAGE }fASTER PI,AN
coal No. 3 of the ValI Vlllage Master plan statess
ItTo recognize as a top priority the enhancement of thewalking experience throughout the Village. I
ReLated objectives and policies include:
3 . l- ObJective:Physically inprove the existing pedestrian ways bylandscaping and other improvements.
3.1.1 Policv:Private developnent projects shall incorporatestreetscape inprovements (such as pavertreatments, landscaping, lighting and seatingareas), al.ong adjacent pedestrian ways.
Although the proposal is renoving outdoor dining area, thisaddition will actually increase ihe success of tne existingdining deck.. Becauae the patio is north facing it is unusibleduring the winter and has linited use during the spring, sunmerand fall. The use of rekord doors and a glass rool as theprimary,elenents of the elevation will provide a transparencywhich will a1low greater visual access lo the interior-of thirestaurant. Thie is especially irnportant during the sinter whenthe north facing outdoor patio is not used. The existing facadeof the restaurant does not provide such transparency. fheaddition will inprove the streetscape of this- area Ly addingvisuar interest to a void area of core creek promenade which seeslittle activity much of the year.
Although the proposal will be removing landscaping, it is thestaffrs opinion that the proposed irnpiovements to-the streetscapefraneworF outwelgh the inpacts of removing bardsaap€ typelandscaping, i.e. brick pavers.
Oblective
Encourage a wide variety of activities, events,and street life along pedestrlan ways and plazas.
3.3
3.3.2 PolLcvoutdoor dining is an inportant streetscape featureand ehatl be €ncouraged ln connercial infill or
redevelopment.
The proposal is enctosl.ng an exl.stl.ng dining deck whlch
experiences linlted succesg. Both the northern exposure and therelationship of the exlstlng deck with the interior of therestaurant lirnlt the uee of the exieting outdoor area. The added
transparency gained fron thls addition and the proxinity of the
new interior space to the pedestrlan way le especlally lnportantduring the fall, winter and spring when the deck is practically
unused. The increased visual accees to the interior actlvity ofthe restaurant whlle the outdoor deck is not Ln use wLl.l havepositive irnpacts on the livellhood of the area.
STAFF RECOM!{ENDATTON
The staff reconmendation is for approval of the reguestedexterior alteration with the condltlon that the landscape
variance be approved. The revl.ew of the relevant Urban DesignCriteria and the VaiI Village Maeter Plan goals shows that theproposal is in confontance wl-th the appllcable sections of thesedocunents. The staff would like to further reconmend that the
PEC require the applicant remove railings surrounding the patio
from November L to Uay 1 of each year.
In the past, infill proJects of thiE type have been supported. Wefeel that the proposal has rnalntal.ned a eufflcient operable
outdoor dining area and the deslgn of the addition is consistentwith the roof forms ln the Village area and nore speclfically
Gore creek Pronenade. The staff feels that this proposal has
naintained the design elements of both the Bell Tower Building
and core Creek Pronenade whlch ls critical to the streetscape
framework of the area. The exLstlng Bell Tower Building typifiesthe desired character of the buildlngs in the village and thls isin keeping with that character. In addition, the Etaff findsthat additions of this tlpe along Gore Creek Pronenade and in
other area of Town are quite successful In provlding enhanceuentto walking areas throughout the year.
The staff would recomnend that the PEC require' as a condition of
approval, that the appJ.icant participate in a project i.nvolvingth- property owners and the Townts Public works Department in aneffort to resolve severe dralnage problens adJacent to the Bell
Tower Buildlng. These draLnage problems are a result of the
undirected dral.nage off of the building. l{e do not feel that theapplicant should be reguired to provide the solutionlndividually. However, we feel it is fair to requJ.re him, as aproperty owner In the bullding, to participate and pay for hisfair share as deemed by the bulldlng association (see attachedIetter forn T.o.v. Public Works Department).
I
I- --+
?a,9r'a7L,N,1l4
-ql F - ---r;-+
il1
s7' s2)i;21-114 o
6
'ET
t=
$
iloR-
s:
xi
.t-tIiIJ
I)\ll.
W gt,w
- ,trtt 13>ar''?F.t-a-t]a?e
4.32f+r
[L
Litn
LF
[arLJ
Ci( -r'
'4t.a) a ja a r'l
t5 rcsth tront go noad
Y.ll, colot.do El ast(soitlat$215t
d.p.rtm.nt ot publb uorlttr.n poddoi
Uay 31, 1990
TO: Eulldlng owners:
FRO}T:
RE:
\z\rl1989
atohn calt ltlountaineerlng & Blus Restuarantc/o Vail ttanagenent ConpanyTlnber Haus ^.,Astan Berrlrnan, Directot /lVJhtbl lc lforksr/Transportat I onBrick Pavers ln the Gore Creek Prouenade
*t**t*****l*********f***t*****ta*******lt***tr****ttt***aaitttltt
our DepartDent bas conpleted an lnvestigatlon ot brlck pavera whlclrhave heaved Ln the Gore Creek Prornenade. We have deternined thatLaproper root dralnage froD the buildl.ngs abutting the plaza lsthe priuary cause of the fallure of brLck pavers.
Five roof dralns exlst between the Tinber ltaus bullding and Blus.One downspout exists on the west end of Blus. Trro roof dral.ns arelocated on the weet end of ilohn Galt. All of the above dralns arenot properly tied lnto a aysten rhlch blpassee the plaza. Thedrains deposlt nrnoff dlrectly onto the brlclr plaza area. Olrertlne, thls dralnage hac undernined several areaa of brlck pavers.
The only permanent solutlon to the probleus occurrlng ln the plazats to correct the tuproper root dral.nage coul.ng off the prlvatebulldlngs.
lltre lown of Val.l proposes to coordlnate and perforn thc rorknecessatT to corroct all the drains and relnir all affected brlckpavera. lfe have prepared cost estl.nates for each of the prlvatebulldings. lbe lorn ls rllling to begln vork on these proJ-cts assoon as we have entered lnto letters of agreenent wlth the propertyouners or Danagers. Pl.ease call ue lf you have guestl.ons or needany additional Lnfornatlon.
j'-
ffiffi'; ",
:.1$-tt:iili;"iiili:J:"::to:1'.1:
:ti!'.,tr'.,. S
" 'r':' "!l' .;: 1r;-t)
\/, H i,,tL q'[lE-["ii'rl ' F
. 'l'":.ll 1,,r .. ' F=.-{t-}.'', @r-{ #.: l9llj!i,1, U!
.' .:i;..:i, lif,ll."i,[i ; '
' " '<, , "r i,i'"'" ;i.. ' 'r: ,:|i. ,: '.:.'; .,ii :,.1.i;, j:.i :11., j.; . . .
:
' " '! i .' ,'ir i/'"' rri , rlri .it. :.r.;: ll .:
' i;, r'l "',,tr. ,-r I r:!;..:.r-rj. !..i
ffi,ffi,i
II
I
:t'
;
@
E]
,:qq..
TO:
FROI,!:
DATE:
RE:
Planning and Environmental Conmisslon
Connunity Development Departnent
July 23, 1990
Proposed Addition to the BelI Tower Building at 201
Gore Creek Drj.ve, Part of Tract A, Block 58, vailVillage lst Filing.Appticant: Hermann Staufer/Lancelot Restaurant
On February 26, 1990, the PEc reviewed a proPosal for the BelI
Tower auilding which included a ground level retail expanslon-
along Gore Crtek Prornenade and additions to existing residentlal
developnent on the upper floors. A landscape variance, -heightvarian-e, exterior alteration, and conditlonal use pernit were
reguested. The staff recommended denial of the proposal due to
the negative irnpacts that the proJect would have on the overallfabric-of the vlllage. The itern was tabled by the appl5.cant and
a new proposal was subnitted.
The current proposal to the Belt Tower building involves only a
ground level restaurant expansion along the Gore Creek Promenade.
The nature of the proposal reguires the review of two.separate
reguests. These requests lnclude an exterior alteration which is
reguired in the Corutercial Core I zone district in order to add
enClosed floor area to an existing structure and a variance
reguest to reduce landscaping on the site. No site coveragevaiiance is needed on thii application because the existing
outdoor deck is considered site coverage in CCI . Therefore, the
covering of the area with a bullding will not increase the
nonconformance of the site in relationship to site coverage.
Horrrever, a variance to reduce the landscaping witl be necessary -..f1 Arbecause the brick pavers that will be removed on the outdoor dec\iffif
are considered part of the landscaping reguirenent. f'-rila-
tIii
\u r,t ,elt r 1oi co,y\ L ton'oi&)ed
nduc{oxi" flo,rrJC{
oq i-&2,
/bq- { or 17 olo
Fv' \cl ,Ya
2_r
TO:
FROI,!:
DATE:
RE:
Planning and Environmental Connisslon
Cornnunity Development Departnent
.fuly 23, 1990
A variance request in order to reduce landscape area at
the BelI Towei Building at 201 Gore creek Drive, Part
of Tract A, Block 58, VaiI Village lst Filing.epplicant: Hetmann Staufer/Lancelot ReEtaurant
I.LANDSCAPE REOUIREUENTS IN CCf ARE AS FOLL,OWS
T-A ^flTth" apprlcant is
landscaped area Tower Build decrease thein Conrnercial
Core I.
Bv
@states:
65.5
rrNo reductlon in landscape area shalJ- be pernitted
without sufficient cauEe shown by the applicant or
as specified in the vail village Urban Design
Considerations. rl
sq. ft. of the exterior deck area will renain with
sq. ft. of the deck on the applicantrs property and loo65.5 ft.- on Town of Vail- tand.
requestingof the Bell a variance to
Ne,o"
arrgiFraras-, ,rTlrale t \.E\,rL- , lrs e-ve ,J**ures.fdfurrently ia.ot of the site is considered to be
Ean-AGAFt'ng.,,.Ihe pioposal would dggg5:ase this -!'o ]o.rz-t-bgletirninalin6 frZ sq. fL. of existinf+frtio areactv4-ra${-pl;;;;;;i;;IErv-ig Ec. rt. or the exisilns planter to the wbst
Irii] be-remoieu @)S. ft. of stone wall and e.s sg. f..,:t
ffif, s.24.u0, randscapins and site Deveropme ^gMr
dPiil+l
IT. CRITERIA AND FINDTNGS
Upon review of Criteria Findings,Section 18.62.060
the Vail Municipal Code,of Connunltyf the
wdc
Development recornnends
based upon the followi rs:requested variance
of
2.
While architecturally a fine building, the BeII
Tower property is lacking in landscape features.It should be noted, however, that this situationis not unique to the BelI Tower Buildlng. Bhel{all Street Building, the Gorauch Bulldlng and theA & D Building are other exanples of propertiesthat do not have a great deal of on-site landscape
inpgovenents. fn nany cases, the landscaping
which does occur is located on Town owned land oris in right-of-ways. It ls the role of the review
boards to deternine the relative importance of
each consideration involved in a given situation.
The staff feels that the request to remove 272 sq.ft. of paved area is not excessive and that theusefulness of the existing 437.5 sq. ft. patio islinited because of the northern exposure. The
request will not have any negative affect on
adjacent properties.
n addition, the open grass area on the north slddof Gore Creek Pronenade provides a uniguesituation in the Village in that it is one of the
few najor landscaped open space areas in this
othernise developed area. This greatly rnitigatesthe lack of landscaping associated with thebuildings along Gore Creek Pronenade.
The deqree to which relief frorn the strict andliteral interpretation and enforcement of a
specified requlation is necessarv to achieveconoatibilitv and unifonnitv of treatnent,ano4o
dris\|ng \nfrofifres\u9ant d{qa do\s/ noQJ PfeBent/ ) a sufficieit c-ausE in thE staffrs opiiion. ',,^i.{u{b Tffi* q4( beJllnr +\^l 1Y 11f
t,ca^.-{B\ht.',ln-
i,M$i,\fth$" ffi * ffi i\,tf i'rffi-fr rd^,$fi.0:5'5," ffi-\;f.$ i,"U, K**T trllltil ffitr*)
fl *,ffd$ft . H,:affiffi ., iax,nd A*"'Jfffi1tr$* $Trrilffi*S\
utilitles. and public safetv.
The proposal would not affect any of the abovecrl-terIa.
IIT. REI,ATED POLICTES TN VAIL VILI,AGE ITTASTER PI.,AN.
Goal # 3 of the Vail village Master Plan states:
rrTo recognize as a top prlority the enhancement of the
walking experience throughout the Villagerr. Related
objectives and policies include:
Related objectives and policies lnclude:
3.1
3.3
3.3.2
obiectivePhysically inprove the exlsting pedestrian walkwaywith landscaping and other Improvenents.
3.1..3 PolicvFlowers, trees, water features, and other
landscaping stral.I be encouraged throughout the
Town Ln locitions adjacent to, or visible from,public areas.
one may argure that the addition could in fact be considereda physical inprovenent to the pedestrian streetscape.
HerJevsrr lr thls c t. It should
be noted that the applicant annually does a great deal of
landscaping to the area wl-th colorful planter boxes andplanted-pots. rhe
obiective
Encourage a wide
and street tlfe
PoIicy
variety of activities, events,
along pedestrian ways and Plazas.
outdoor dining is an inportant streetscape
and shall be encourage in connercial inflll
redevelopment projects.
featureor
The proposal is enclosing an existing dining deck that has
IimLted use. Both the northern exposure and the
relationshlp of the existing deck with tlre lnterior of the
restaurant linit the uge of the patio. The installation of
rekord doors on the north elevation, rtill increase the
livelihood and activity of this deck by increasing the
transparency of the facade which is especially inportant
during ttre winter nonths when the outdoor dining deck is
unusable.
IV. FINDTNGS
A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute agrant of special privilege inconsistent with thetinitatlons on other properties classj-fied in the sanedistrict.
B. That the grantlng of the variance will not bedetrinental to the public health, safety or welfare, ormaterially injurious to properties or inprovenents Lnthe viclnity.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of thefollowing reaaons:
1. The strict l-iteral interpretation or enforcementof the specified reguJ.ation would result inpractical difflculty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of thistitle.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circunstances or conditions applicable to the sanesite of the variance that do not aPpty generallyto other properties in the same zone.
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of thespecified regrulation would deprive tbe applicantof privileges enjoyed by the owners of otherpropertJ.es in the sane district.
@ lk otp I t re,,J lw rlal^ Ul L rur#lt\ rr <- /- ," ;,1/ i .n/J.,ntt n n ^nJ ^ta'.,).0 ,
a!"afu
+ta f. f r { *d":.+;y r{"i#"4";;'d-'t'Ku'!' & /nFA pl ta o<a'T, -t-t"' i";d; U,! rillrllo/|ry'. f// Aq 4' hJl<
' t), Ji .tr "a.(old, q' 1) :,"1!,rtr#frW%ffia Nq/r!414* N/r^/xL A^Maf'n'r,TY.+mrt"TM4 ) ^,,/4a t a!.aru ffiW*J,/ tu /r)C,q&1, ^4t4,y/'Ir- tr'*tr r/' arry,'n Ai-d u{
V
A',*d/
n
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Planning and Environrnental Connission
Conrmunity Development Departnent
JuIy 23, 1990
A reguest for an exterior alteratlon in order to
cons€ruct an addltion to the Bell Tower suilding
located at 201 Gore creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block
58, Vail Village lst Filing.Applicant: Hetmann Staufer/Iancelot Restaurant
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED, REOUEST
Approval of an exterlor alteratLon reguest is reguired for any
abhition of enclosed floor area to structures ln the Cornmercial
Core I zone district. The propoeal includes a 272 sEoare foot'
ground floor expansion of the Lancelot Restaurant adJacent to_the
6ore Creek Pronenade. The expansion incLudes rnoving the facade
8.5 feet towards Gore Creek Pronenade and adding rekord doors and
glass roof producing a glass front. The new enclosure is
cornpletely on prlvate pioperty. The area Ls currently used.?: a
dining palio. 165.s se. it. of exterior deck will remal'n wlth
65.5 sq. ft. of the deck on the applicantrs property and 199-tq.ft. on Town of vail land. The depth of the outdoor deck will be
6r and will have 4 tables.
REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REOUEST
The vall vl.llagc urban Deslgn Plan includes three elements that
establish the ieview crlteria for this application. The first of
these is referred to as the Guide Plan which includes a number of
sub-area concepts, nany of which identify potential areas for
future development and other improvenents. Secondly, the Urban
Design Considerations express the large scale, land use Planningand design considerationl desired in the Village- And finally,
architecf,ural/landscape considerations, which will be reviewed by
the Design Revlew Boaid, establish the criteria for evaluating
detailed design considerations of a proposal.
The Vall vllltgs l,tatt.r PltD a13o addresseE speciflc goals
pertaining to the enhancenent of the walking experience
throughout tfre Village that nust be considered in this
application.
In addition to the Gulde Plan and the vail Village l{aster Plan,
traditional zonJ-ng consideratlons are also a factor in this
proposal . Please refer to the acconpanying nenorandun that
addresses this zoning issue.
THE VAIL VILI,AGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PI,AN
There are no specific sub-area concepts relevant to this
proposal.
VAIt VILI.,AGE DESIGN CONSIDER,ATIONS
The following design considerations are a critical elenent of the
Urban Design PIan. They ldentify the key physical
characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to assurethat new developnent be consistent with this establlshedcharacter. These considerations include the following:
A.Pedestrianization:
B.
c.
This proposal does not directly affect or change theexisting pedestrianizatl-on systen in the Village inthat it does not increase the encroachnent of thebuildlng into the Gore creek Pronenade wallalay. Theaddition will have a nininal encroachrnent lnto the view
fron tbe top of the Chlldrenrs Fountain stalrs down
onto Gore Creek Promenade. The applicant has nLninizedthe inpact by uslng a pitched glass roof on the frontof the addition. This wlll allow some transparency
througtr the enclosure to the Gore Creek Promenade
behind.
Vehicle PenetratLon:
Vehicular penetration' or circulation, vill remain
unchanged aB a result of thls proposal.
streetscape Frameltork:
streetscape framework identifies two alternatlves for
inproving the pedestrian experience in the Village.
fhLse inituae the development of open apace including
landscapJ-ng along pedestrian routes, and the
development of infill conmercial storefronte along
pedestiian corridors. wtrile the landscape inprovements-an provide a softening of buildings and a colorful
framework, the comnercial lnfill can provide activity
generators to give streetllfe and visual interest to
the pedestrian. The proposed restaurant infill along
the Gore Creek Pronenade will provide such an activity
senerator. While the existing dining deck could
irovide euch activity during the sunner, its poor north
facing location (relative to sun exposure), has
resulted in the deck having llttle success in providing
such activity. This enclosure would make the dining
are more useful year round, while naintaining an oPen
dining area during Eumner months due to rekord doors
being-proposed along the entire north elevation.
D.
The addition of glass rekord doors and a glass roof to
the facade, which are comnonly used in the Village,wlll add transparency to the front of the restaurant.
This feature w-iU. greatly add to the livelihood of this
area by allowing for greater visibl'lity into theinterlor of the restaurant ln the winter.
The staff feels that thls is a great improvenent over
the existlng facade of the restaurant which provides
Iinited viEual acceEsibility. In the sunner, the doors
w111 allow the restaurant activlty to extend out onto
the deck area. The success of the doors as a method of
adding visual lnterest and also creating successful
dining deck epace can be seen throughout th9 Village
and Lionshead (ie. BIu's, Up the Creek, vendettarE'
etc) .
STREET ENCIOSURE
The purpose of this consideration is to maintaln a
corfortlble relationship between the width of streets
and the height of buildings. The one story restaurant
expansion along the Promenade rrill establish a more
deiirable f,hunin scalerr on this side of the buildlng.
Because of the extensive use of glass on the front of
the addltion, the inpact of the addition wilt be
rnininized in regards to street enclosure.
STREET EDGE
There are no standard setback reguirenents for
buildings in Vait Village. Rather, proposals are
Looked at wlth relationshlp to the site and the
surrounding development to ensure a strong street edge.
A strong sfreet edge does not inply perfectly llfg":afacades-along entiie street nidths. Rather, slightly
irregular facade lines, building jogs, and landscape
areat create life and visual interest for thepedestrian. The addition witl fill the void along Gore-creek Promenade which occurs on thl's portion of the
Lancelot during the wl.nter months of the year when the
deck is not used for dining but rather for snowstorage. The proposal will bring the activity of the
restairant cloler-to the pedestrian on a year round
basis instead of Just during the sunmer months.
Buildinq Height
Building height is unaffected as the one-story
expansion Ls below 33r in height.
E.
F.
G.Views and Focal Points
The proposed expansion does not inpact any of the
adopted vLew corridors. one vl.ev consideration was the
vantage point form the top of the staircase between the
Childrenrs Fountain and the Gore Creek Pronenade
tooking west. The view of these staLrs ls lqportant to
provide pedestrians with a point of orientatlon as they
neander through the Vlllage. Thls addition w111 have avery llnited lnpact on vlews fron the top of the stairs
towirds WiIIow Bridge. The applicant has nlnlnized the
lmpact of the addition by liniting the size of the
expansion and proposl,ng a glass roof form that
preaerives most of the views towards the Gore Creek
Dronenade. The enclosure also haB no naJor Lnpacts onthe staircase up to the Childrenrs Fountain fron the
Gore Creek Promenade.
Service and Dell.verv
The proposed expansion will not reguire any additional
service or delivery. The seating capacity w111 not be
increased due to interlor renodeling which will removetables from the existing interior of the restaurant.
Although ttre appltcant will not be adding any seatingcapacity, he will be adding 86.5 sq. ft. of floor areato the restaurant (272 sq. ft. of new dining area less
185.5 sq. ft. to be rernoved by a kltchen expansion =86.5 sg. ft. of new restaurant floor area). The
applicant will be reguired to pay a 92,162.50 Town ofvlil parking fee as a result of this additlon.
Sun/Shade
There will be no signifLcant increase in the shadowpattern as a result of this addition because the
additlon is within the existing shade pattern of the
BeIl Tower Building.
Archltecture/Iandscaoe ConsLderations
?trese design conEiderations are typicalJ.y the purrriew
of the Design Revlew Board. However, in this case it
is iurportant to address the consideration pertaining to
roofs.
As stated ln the gruidelines, roofs within the Village
are tlpically gable in form and of noderate to lowpitch.- rne proposed low pitch roof foln is ln keeping
ilitfr tne othLr iestaurant expansions in thls area (1.e.
Blurs and Up the Creek). The applicant has rorked very
hard in developLng a roof forn which does notdrastically depart fron the existing roof forms in the
H.
I.
J.
ViIIage. The staff feels that the detailing of the
roof iitl successfully tie the addition to the existingbuildlng and that the- fom wlll be harmonl'ous wlth tlre
existlng streetscape.
A landscaplng variance ls necessary in order to do this
expansion-,-ees
r andscapdrng+Jb,erlfgEF requl-rl-ng a varl.ance. Theiaattroir wiil renovru ie. rt-or paved areaalA t446 (a'lprqqdecreasing the amount of landscaping from 14.6t to10.2t. The applicant has fll-+)roposed ryy.'additionallandscapLng for the west etohe planter.
RELATED GOAL,S AND POLICIES OF THE VAIL VfLIAGE UASTER PIAN
Goal No. 3 of the ValI village Uaster Plan stateE:
trTo recognize as a top priorlty the enhancernent of the
walking experience throughout the Vlllage.rl
Related objectives and policles include:
obiective:fhysicafly irnprove the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and otlrer irnprovenents.
Poll-cy:private development projects shall incorporate
streetscape improvements (such as pavertreatnenti, Iandscaping, lighting and eeating
areas), along adJacent pedestrian nays.
3.1
3.1.1
Although the proposal is renoving outdoor dining area, this
addition will aclually increase the success of the existing
dining deck. Because the patio is north facing it is unusable
during the winter and tras linlted use during the springr- Eumner
ana fill. The use of rekord doors and a glass roof as the
primary elements of the elevation will provide.a transparency
irnicfr tlitt attow qreater visual access to the interior of the
restaurant. Thls-|s especially lnportant during the winter when
the north facing outdooi patio ls not used. The existing facadeof the restaurant does not provlde such transparency. Thg
addition wlll inprove the slreetscape of this area by addingvisual interest Lo a void area of Gore Creek Promenade which sees
Iittle activity nuch of the Year.
Although the proposal will be renoving landscaping, it ls thestaffrl opinion Lnat tne proposed inprovenents to the etreetscape
franework outweigh the inpacts of removing bardloapo tlpe
landscaping, i.e. brick pavers.
3.3
3.3.2
obiectlve
Encourage a vlde variety of activitles, events,
and street life along pedestrlan ways and plazas.
Policvoutdoor dining ls an inportant streetscape feature
and shall be encouraged in counercial infill or
redeveLopnent.
The proposal is enclosing an existLng dlnlng deck which
experiences lirnited success. Both the northern exposure and therelationship of the existing deck nith the interior of the
restaurant lirnit the use of the exiBting outdoor area. The added
transparency gained frorn thiE additl,on and the proxinity of the
new interior space to the pedestrian say is especially inportant
during the fall, wlnter and spring when the deck Ls practically
unused. The increased visual access to the lnterior activity ofthe restaurant while the outdoor deck is not Ln use sill havepositive impacts on the livellhood of the area.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff reconmendatLon is for approval of the requestedexterior alteration wlth the condition that the landscape
variance be approved. The revl.ew of the relevant Urban Designcriteria and the Vail Village l{aster Plan goals shows that the
proposal is in conformance with the appllcable sectLons of these
docurnents. The staff would like to further reconnend that the
PEc require the appticant remove railings surrounding the patio
from November 1 to Uay L.c hU oarl^- W,
In the past, infill proJects of this tlpe have been supported. I{efeel that the proposal has maintained a sufficient operable
outdoor dining area and the design of the addition is consistentwith the roof forms in the Village area and rnore specifically
core Creek Pronenade. The staff feels that this proposal has
maintained the design elenents of both the BeIl Tower Buildlng
and Gore Creek Promenade whlch is critical to the streetscape
framework of the area. The exlsting BelI Tower Building tlpifiesthe desired character of the bulldings in the Village and thiE lsin keepj-ng with that character. In addltion, the staff findsthat additions of this tlpe along Gore Creek Promenade and inother area of Town are qulte successful in providlng enhancementto walkingt areas throughout the year.
The staff would reconmend that the PEC reguire, as a condition of
approval, that the apptlcant partlclpate in a proJect lnvolvingthe property owners and the TownrE Public Works Departnent in aneffort to resolv€ severe drainage problens adjacent to the BeIl
Tower Bulldlng. These drainage problems are a result of the
undirected dralnage off of the buildlng. tle do not feel that the
appJ-icant should be regulred to provide the solutionindividualty. Eowever, we feel it ls fair to require him, as aproperty owner in the building, to participate and pay for hlsfal.r share as deened by the bullding association (see attachedIetter forn T.O.V. Public Works Departnent).
_1,,
?'_i
?arLtcr'aa
_{
I
I--+
a.l lll ,
s7^ /';p1fi6 o
./.1
+- - ---t;--+ i
6-q
Tt=
$
ilo. 13-
F:
H
,F
Tiil-ro
ftT,
l-i-, it{..'.,r-
l.
- -r:: 11F.,ffi tt ::;i ;;$l -::'
)(- ).,: ,-rj. r ;. I r,nt'-T.:.':
' -ll^jll
fi <i],;:;ir;.,.. jp)_
jr'..
-
:l
iJ
' :..:
:- '.1.'r * r ..:)-.."- ,,
11.1i.,.-?; l:i :;+r-;, r. .
.,'.'.
':..
t.tI
I
I
I
I
-l
-{
Wfu^N
r*38t ."
rti-fl-t
LF
[atLf
t
I
F-
@
ul
I,\
' /vy' Tt"'r^ HdA'
lr;rotnzorrr*u'in'5)
PLN{NING AND ENVIRONI,IENTAI, COMMISSION
SePtenber 24, 1990
Presentchuck CristDiana Donovan
Ludwig KurzJim Shearer
Kathy warrenDalton Williarns
Uembers Absent
Connie Knight
The meeting was
Chairperson.
Item No. L:
StaffKristan Pritz
Mike MollicaJill Kanmerer
ShellY Mello
Andy lGrudtsen
Penny Perry
called to order at 3:25 p.n. by Diana Donovan,
chuck Crist and Dalton l{illiams asked Penny to make changes on
pages 10' 11, and 14 and Penny agreed'
seconded b altoa t{llLi
VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVOR
ften No. 2:
villaae lst Filinq!Applicant: AxeI Wilhelnson
JiIl Karnrnerer explained that thissite visits.
public connents.
Jim Shearer stated that he
planting and KathY warren,
agreed with hin.
iten had been discussed on the
The board felt they were comfortable with the reguest per the
staff memo.
Diana asked if there ltere any couments from the public or the
applicant anal Ned Gwathmeyr.lepresenting the applicant stated
ff,;t-ih; applicant agreed-with the staff meno' There ttere no
liked the ProPosal with the nost
cnucX Crisl, lnd Diana Donovan all
PEC Uinutes
9/24/90 Meeting
Dalton liked the proposal wLth the mostagreed with Dalton but felt he could bethe proposal with the nost landscaplng.
VOTE: 6-0
Item No. 3:
Eynnetry and Ludwigeasily swayed to support
18.46.090 (Bl densitv and 18.46.100 (Bl floorarea, at Ibt 53 GIen Lvon SubdiviEl_on, t4Z6Westhaven Drive.Applicant: Coldstream Condomlnlun Association.
Shelly Mello presented the proposal for staff. She explainedthat the applicant was reguesting a najor amendment to SDD No. 4--Cascade Village, Area B - Coldstream Condoniniuns. Theapplicant was proposing to anend SectLon 18.45.100 (B) Floor Areafrom 65,000 sg. ft. GRFA to 67,930. Shelly reviewed thebackground_of the proJect and rationale behLnd the reguest.Shelly reviewed the zoning considerations, criteria, anddevelopnent standards used in evaluatlng SDD amendment requests.staff recomnendation was for approval wlth the conditions -found
within the nemo.
Erich llill, archl-tect representing the applicant, explaLned thatKevin McTavish, nanager of Coldstream, wiehed to explaln thereasons for not going forth with the enployee unlt.
Kevin I'lcTavish stated that the council would requlre a recreationfee in an exorbitant amount to be paid at the tl.ne an enpLoyeeunit would be conpleted. The fee made the cost of conptetlng anemployee unit cornpletely unreasonable.
K?tl.ry warren asked Kevin if he would agree to the site coveragelirnitation called out in the staff memo. Kathy felt thatenclosing of garages would be an asset and wanted to giveflexibltity to the applicant that allowed such an enclosure.
shelly Merlo felt that it wourd be possible to word the conditionin order to exclude the enclosure of carports as counting towardsite coverage.
6-,
Present
Chuck crlstDiana Donovan
Connie Knight
L,udwig KurzJin ShearerKathy lfarrenDalton ttillians
In the interestpubllc hearing.
PI,AIINING AIID ENVIRONI,TENTAL COI,II,IISSTONJuly 23, 1990
Egaf€Kristan Pritzuike ltollicaShelly ltello
Andy KnudtsenJiIl KanmererBetsy Rosolack
Penny Perry
Susan Scanlan
of tfune, work eeEslons were held prior to the
A lrork session for an anendment to Town of Vall ordinance No. 24.
Senies of 1983 and Ordinance No. 28. Series of 1987 qoverninq
wood-burnincr fireplaces, gas logs. and qas appliances.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Susan Scanlan presented the proposal as per the staff meuo.
285 S. Frontacre Road West.Applicant: Amoco Coro.
lom l{cQurdy, representl.ng the Amoco Corporation, responded to the
issues addi6ssed in the neno explainlng that contanination was
found on the Gateway site. However, they dld not yet know the..
extent. After tatk]ng with staff, Amoco chose the proposed slte
because it would caus6 the least hardship for all concerned since
any other location deleted parking spaces. Regarding alternate-
neihods, the proposed design was ihe lest for the situation. It
was posslble they would need larger wells, however, they trad
alre-dy allowed for additional Bpace in the room for an
addttional air stripper. Amoco originally proposed to use a
portable building. -he sald ttrat etaff had connunicated concernsItrat a portable iuilding would not meet design crlteria.
negardi-ng the use of tht Gateway site rather than the Alpine
Stindard-site, the present owner did not want them to use the
baeement as was origlnally planned. The ouner had expressed
concerns of liability and parklng.
1
A work sessl.on for a conditional use permit an4 a,setback
Chuck Crist asked how noisy the system would be and Tom UcCurdy
explained that the only noise would be generaled.by a compressor.
rhe conpressor would be wlthin an enclosed building and the
irnpact would be ninlnal' He felt the noise fron the highway
would be more obtrusive.
Chuck then asked, lf the problem sas nore extensive thanoriginally thought, would Anoco have to bulld another station
else vhere? Fron what dietance could the wells be punped?
Tom t{ccurdy explained the wells could prtnp up to 200-250 feet
alitay.
Dalton and Ludwig had no comente.
Diana asked how deep they tested the water and Ton McCurdy
explained they test anywhere fron 20 to 40r bel'ow the ground
surface.
Diana also asked how nuch water would be processed in 1 day and
Tom Mccurdy explalned that the systen proceased 35 gallons per
minute. bianl was concerned about how the Water and Sanitation
department would handle the situatLon and how it nould affect the
Townrs water supply. Ton lllcCurdy explained that the water would
be discharged to the l{ater and Sewer plant and the water plant
discharged to the Townrs streams. He did not feel that 35
gallons a minute would affect the water supply.
Kathy Warren asked Tom Bri.ner, the architect for the proJect, if
they would be able to berm on either side of the building and Tont
stated ttysstt, on the sides but not the front or rear.
Diana felt that the applicant should consider extra insulation to
nitigate the noise. She asked Kristan if this would be an
oppoitunity to clean the island/atea-up and Shelty reminded Diana
ana tne bolrd that there iE a possibility of a sidewalk as well.
Ton UcQurdy explained that there was an unldentified easenent and
Diana felt that it was an issue that staff could handle and
inform the board if it wouLd be a problen at the next rneeting.
shelly felt that the Town needed to see the final reports when
they -ane out before nakinq a reconnendatlon and Tom tlcgurdy
did;trt feel the flnal reports would affect the location of the
building. He felt the present neeting nas to center around tbe
aesthetics, noise etc.
Chuck crist asked hov the air dl-scharge was done and if it
required stacks. Ton litcQurdy extrllalned that vents would be used.
chuck also wanted to know if there would be an odor and Torn
McCurdy explained that the odor would be no nore than the gas
station itself.
Bruce Gilly, representing !'!re Holldav HoY?31 "-!?!:d that the
onners were worried abou€ the property value golng down due to
iii"-"""i.rlnation that appearei tb be-under the Holiday House-. -building. rhey woula ffii to see the area cleaned up' -They did
ri"t-t.-X""* fi there was danger. They dldn't want to find gas
in their laseneni.--ie askedr-lf they used the existing wells,
ft"*-[t. plpes wouta be laid ind fon itcCuray explained that the
plpes wouta all be undergrounded.
Jin Shearer asked if the fumes fron the alr dlscharge would be
fl.anmable and Tom McCurdy anEwered rrn6.rl
Dlana Donovan stated that in general she felt the proposal was a
trnecessary evil.i
The plannlng and Envlronmental cornnission public- meeting was
called to order al z:30 p-n. by Dlana Donovan' chalrperson'
Since the neeting was running late, Item No' 1 was postponed to
the end of the meeting.
Item No. 23
Mike t{olllca explained ttrat the appligalt? were requesting a ..
variance from a naxinum allowable-iralf beight to provide for the
c""siruction of "-ii.r =i"gie ianify hone. -The variance requested
would arlow ror waii n"igf,tt rangiirg from 3 -e"99 to 1o'5 feet in
rr"ight. rne aveiiee ;r"i. of th6 l6t beneath the proposed
ie=iaen"" and driv6way wis approxLnately 5o*: rn order to access
the site, the applicants .o"re prologing-a drl.veway with a rnaxinuut
giiae-oe 'e*. f[r-"-"i"if reconrn-endition-was for approval of the
variance request;d-iJr " maximum wall height of 10.5 feet Bcr--the
ir"*iiie= ""bhitt"d.--stirf believed the r-quest would not be a
ffiif"ii"g" ind would not be detrimental to the
p"lir. teaitrr, ,.i-ty-or-welfare. The to.pographic conditions of
i11g-iit! Jreaiea-unilf,t" developnent consideiations, and.the. staff
believed that a niiasfrip woutd-be imposed upon tle applicant if
the strict and l-ig!';f interpretatioir of the zoning.code-v:t:--t'
be enforced. me-iinaings sirpporting the varlance included IV A,
B, and C2.
Pan Hopkins' representing the applicant, agreed.wlth the staff
presentation. srre-eipiiined thil, as the.arctritect on the
;;;j;A;-!rr"-t"i"a vi-ry hard.to airoid askJ-ns for a variance.
Hortever, "*""tt"r'.t" eofi testing deened the varlance reguest-
necessary. Pam ;r.pi;i;"a trre €ype of naterl'als to be used in
"o""tt".ting the;iii ana showed-photog-raphs 1nd e4anples' ilt"
added that the .ppii"""C had upgridea tfre Iandecaplng slnce the
original proPosal.
chuck crlst asked what color the wall was proposed to be and Pam
answered trgreY. rl
ConnLe ltnight explained that she had seen Georges Boyer' -an;-j;Anl pioperti-o*"i, { trtg room earller and asked if he was
i"i-"i rsiftrit tie piop6Eal and t{ike explained that he wanted to
nake sure tne none i""'ptoposed solely on the ownergr land, that
it would not encioacfr tirtdthe open space tract innediately
adJaeent, which it did not.
Condition:
5 12r-14r Enqleman spruce
2 12!-14 I Blue SBruce
6 3n-4rr caliPer AsDen
VOTE: 7-0 IN FAVOR
Item No. 3:
Andy Knudtsen presented the proposal explaitilg,that the
applicant proposed to build i sun room on an exieting deck- in- -;;;;r-;-h-is-Eineie fanily residence. The sun room would be 16
i!"i lV 12 feet ina woufA be located Ln front of the ll'ving room
of the residence.---fft" existing structure currently encroached -3r-6il into the west side yard ietback and the applicant proposed
to align the new-iaattiott-with the existing house, creating a
Einllar setback encioactrnent. The staff reconnendatlon was for
"ppi""if-"f the r-questea variance. Because the existing house
,i's i" the setback-creating a physical hardst-tlp, the owner
i.="*.a--i.ii"f from the strict setback reguirenent. The
variance would ""i-U" a grant of special privilege as the tlpe of
;ii;;ti;"-ri"-:""tification for other variances ln the.past.--
There would Ue no-n-gative inpacts on adjacent propertl-ee. The
ielated finding included Iv A' B' cl and c2'
Meadow Rid<re Road
uark t{ueller, a loca1 engineer representlng the.applicantl --
"xpi"fn"a trrit trre dlEtaice frorn Lhe property line was actually
8.5 feet rather than 11.5 feet.
Kristan asked lrlark to o<plain how tlre inconsistelcy occurred and
ii;;i-;i?iainea that, at -ttre tirne of the applicarion, they vere
unable to find tfre-introvement Burrrey. ThLy- had slnce located
it and found tne -aisc-rlpatt"y. fne aistance-between the buildings
would be the same.
IJudwig Kurz asked if any trees-would need to be relocated and Jim
r;;;iif,J---tu ,iyes;, irriv would be moved to tlre front of the
lrome.
Krlstan explained to the board tttat etaff was still supportJ-ve of
the variarr"" "t"i irto"gn ine orlginal flgures were not correct'
fi; ;t;il--j""ifiicatioi to support the pioposal was due to the
i""t-if,"-"6atttot would not encroach any further. than the
!"iJtiiig ;"iiei"; ;;e-; ieisonaure setblck was still maintained
with the request.
Conditions:
1.slte
VOTE: 7-O IN FAVOR
Iten No. 4:
Mike Molllca presented the proposal for staff explalning that the
lppiicant naa propo""a i. tbcaie a televlsion studio in the
iliti"a rodge irnfln was located within the CornmercLal Core II
zone district. r,ir[rri"-tte zone district, television statlons
were an allowable-"sE "" flrst ffJor wLtir an approved conditional
useper.mlt.rneusehadrecentlybeenaddedtottrezonlngcodely-t-n"-"pprov"f of ordlnance No. 23, Series of 1990 by the Town
Eiruncf r 'o'n lury ti , tggo. The ordinance required that any
approved televiEion station have a productlon roomr/studio which
woufa be vlslble fron the street or pedestrian nall, and that the
television statl.on be trcablecaEtfr only. The staff found that the
request net the Conditional Use penmit criterla and reconnended
approval of the rrcablecasttr tlpe of televislon studio.
BilI Perkins, the appllcant, agreed sith the staff presentation.
Chuck Crist asked t{ike for ctarlfication on the parking fee
reguirenent. He wondered why had the space not been required topat a parking fee in the past, if In fact lt had not. l'like-xlrfatnea that, ln the past, a portion of tbe space had been
considered retail as oPposed to off,ice space. Retall sPace had a
different parking fee requirenent fron offlce space.
Diana asked the applicant what would happen during off-seaEon andBitl Perkins explained that the statlon would renain on the alr.
Hol,rever, the norning show would be deleted for off-season and
infornation that IocaIE would be intereEted ln would continue.
Connie ltnight asked why satellite dishes lrere not included in the
ordinance and Bill Perkins explained that there were aeparateguidelines controlling satellite dishes and that T.V. stations
should have to go through the same procedures as the rest of the
zone district.
Connie then asked what was going to happen when the Sunbird Iodge
was redeveloped and Bill Perkins explained that the statlon would
need to find a temporary operating space. However, the new plans
would be designed to acconnodate a T.V. Station. BilI expanded
on the issue -tatlng that he would hate to pay a parking fee when
he knew that the redevelopnent of the Sunlcird would include
parking facilities.
Kathy Warren was concerned that the back portion of the floor
plan called for splitting a window with franing and asked if
whoever nade the motion would nake a particular reference that
the area be reviewed carefully by the Design Review Board.
shearer.
VOTE: 7-O IN FAVOR
lteLNo--5r landscape v.rlance ln order toaddition to the Bell Tower Buildl.ncr at 2Ol Gore
Creek DrLve. Part of Tract A, Block 58' Vall
T\LE COP\
Shelly Mello presented ttre proposal for etaff-explaLning !.hat the
PEC reviewed i proposal for the BeIl Tower Building on February26, L99O shich included a ground level retail expansl'on,along
Gore creek Pronenade and aaaitions to existing residential
development on ttre upper floore. The current proPosal to theBeII Tower bullding -involved a ground level restaurant e:<pansion
along the Gore Creek Promenade. The nature of the proposal
required the review of two separate requests l-ncludlng an
ex€erior alteration reguest and a request to reduce landscaping.
The landscaping varianCe was necessary because the brick pavers
would be renoved on the outdoor deck and a portion of a planter
because of the deck enclosure.
The staff recornmendation was for approval of the exterioralteration reguest with the condition that the landscape variance
be approved. rhe staff reconmended that the PEC require the
appl-iLant to remove the railing surrounding thb patio fron
tlovenber 1 to May I of each year. Staff also reconnended that
the applicant be-regulred to-particlpate in a proJect involving
the pi-operty ouners-and the Townrs pultlc Works Departnent in_an
effolt Lo resotve severe drainage probleros adjacent to tbe Bell
Tolrer Building.
The staff felt that the proposal had uaintained the design
elenents of both the Bell Tower Building and Gore Creek Pronenade
which was critical to the streetscape framework of the area. In
addition, the staff found that additions of this type along G9r9
Creek Pronenade and in other areas of Town were quite successful
in provJ.ding enhancement to salkl.ng areas ttrroughout the year.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained that there
weie two basic reasons wtry the appllcant was proposing the
expansion. The first was-that the kltchen needed to be expanded
and the second was that the patio had never really worked due to
the north exposure. He felt that, in the beglnning, no one.liked
to see a patio space enclosed. However, with the introduction of
Rekord do-ors, a ieck could be enclosed with the opportunity to.
open the arei up as weather pernitted. He felt the inprovements
were positive.
Ifldwig Kurz felt that the staff recommendations were rnisleading
ttrroultr the use of adjectLves and adverbs. He llked the proposal
and was in favor of the proJect.
Dalton Willians agreed he would tike to see the railings renoved.
He also wanted to see snon and debris rernoved daily. It didnrt
make sense to hin to have the entry door recessed. He felt by
bringing tlre door fonard, the applicant could make the area noreinviting. He asked Etaff why the deck was not counted tosard aparking-fee ln the past and Krlstan explained that decks dld not
have a-parklng fee requirement while enclosed space did.
Dalton felt the proposal would be a good inprovenent and
supported the project.
Chuck Crlst asked the staff to explain the difference betweenrrllardscape and Livlng landscape.o
Kristan explaLned ttrat, in the code, 20t of landscaping ls
allowed to be trhardscaper, le paversr Eidewalke, etc. rn cclthere rras no overall * of tandacape requJ-red for a site. ccl
zoning stated rrNO REDUCTION" in landscaping should be allowedwithout sufficient cause and conpliance with the Urban Design
Gul-de Plan.
Chuck asked the applicant if the flat portion of the roof was
proposed to be gravel and Hernann Staufer answered that theportlon of the roof that is flat would be netal' natching theskylight franing.
Chuck then asked about the railings and flower boxeE and Hermann
stated ttrat he put the flower boxes out every year. Chuck
encouraged the continuation of flower boxes, hanging plants andgenerally supported the proposal .
Kathy warren quoted the zoning code as stating "No Reductionrr of
land-caping without nsufficl.ent cause.n she did not feel there
was sufiicient cause. She felt the code inferred 20* of the site
should be landscape as the site coverage t was 80t. As far aa
she could calculate, the area under review was down to 1.7t
landscaped area. She conmented that, in reviellng ninutes fron
the explnsion approval in L987 ' every ConrriEsioner had made
statenents regarding the landscaping. She didnrt feel the
e:<pansion needed to encroach further.
Hemann asked Kathy to inagine the bullding without planter
boxes, hanging baskets etc. The pavers/hardscape was covered up
durlng the winter. The proposal was losing pavers and adding
transparency and he felt the transparency would liven up the areayear round.
Kathy warren stated that she supported the Master Plan Policy No.
3.3.2 regarding Outdoor Dining as a streetscape feature.
Honever, other exanples (1.e. Blurs and Vendettas) were open for
lunch and the Lancelot Restaurant itas not.
Jim Shearer agreed that the raillngs should be removed during thewinter. He santed to see the landscaping on the west end
inproved even though the land waE not owned conpletely by the
applicant.
Jin Shearer asked Hetnann if he was going to conslder opening the
restaurant for lunch and Her:mann replied that the kitchen was toosnall presently, but that wlth a larger kitchen he could be openfor lunch. Jin then asked what would happen with the grutter and
heating with a flat roof and Craig snowdon responded that theroof was really not flat. It had a sllght slope and it was
heated.
illn felt that Lnproving the drainage on Gore Creek Prornenade
should be made a part of the approval . Craig said that the
paving system at Iancelot Restaurant was four years old-and they
Lad nEvei had any problem with lt. All the other bulldings on
the Gore creek Pionenade had to do below grade dralnage. All the
buildings in the area would lrave to partlcipate in the cost to
complete the drainage.
Kristan felt it dld need to be part of the approval and stated
the rnemo included thls condition of approval . It rras a
publicrzprivate effort. Hernann replied that he wouldparticipate.
Jln sald that he was in favor of the proposal because the
restaurant already used the deck space and because they were
using Rekord doors which they could keep open, and it increased
the iivelihood of the village. He felt that the increase in
transparency was positive and that the western planter should be
improved.
Connie Knight had no problens with the Lancelot exterior
alteratLon request. However, she felt dlsillusioned !y-tnebuckled paverJ and felt that the Lancelot should participate in
the restoration of the area.
KrLstan explained to Connie that It was hard to force the
applicant to participate unless all partles in the area agreed.
Th- appllcant was agreeing as a condition of appro-val topartilipate when thE work-was done and Craig.snowdon explain-ed
Lfrat tfrl proposed work would not hinder the inprovement of the
buckled pavers.
Connie santed to know where the snow would be stored and lt(ristan
explained that the hrblic Works department would have to ]lft and
truck it out.
Diana felt that, in reality, all the appllcant would have to do
is put Rekord doore at the ixistlng exterl'or wall. She did not
support the staff reconmendation. She fel't there ttas not
sufficient cause for a landscape variance. 1]he reasons used to
Justify the variance were the same that sere Etated for the
iaattt-on in 1987. To Dlana, thls neant the needs should have
been rnet in 1987. she could not suPPort the use of public
property for a deck and there wae easentlally no landscaping.-
itoirer iaskets were great Ln the Bummer but the building was bare
ln the winter. she did not belleve sufflcl.ent cause had been
Ehown to remove the landscaPing.
Chuck CriEt asked Lf the planter to the weet could be expanded to
the north and Craig etated lt would be possible if the Town vould
allow the expansion slnce it was Town proPerty.
Kristan wanted to clarify the staffrs posl.tlon. She reiteratedthat the staffrs posJ.tion waE not to allow the landscape variance
sirnply because there was no landscapi{r9 on other-buildingsneaily. Ehe nain reasons for supporting the variance are that
the pioject meets the Urban Design Considerations and that the
renoval of the landscaping had been compensated for by the
addition of a tree in the west planter.
Dalton l-iked the idea of Rekord doors and felt that by going outfurther, onto Town property, they would be left open nore often
as heat from the building would make the apace more useable. Hefelt the increase of transparency was also a good inpact.
Discusslon of the motion:
It was also reconnended that the appl.icant extend the westplanter onto Totiln of Vail property if the Council would apProve
the encroachment.
felt that pedestrian flow would be blocked by the planter in
winter.
Diana stated that the motion was to pursue the possibility, that
the appllcant needed to work on a solution.
Hermann felt lf a tree was planted that he would like to walt
until after the paver work was done.
VOTE: 5-2 IN FAVOR WITH KATHY WARREN AND DIAI{A DONOVAN
AGAINST.
itaythe
seconded by Jin Shearer.
10
A notion to apnrove a recruest for an exterior alteration per
the etaff neno with the followlno condltlons was nade by Jin
Shearer and seconded bv Dalton WillLans
Condltions:
VOTE: 5-2 IN FAVOR WITfl DIANA DONOVAN AND KATHY WARREN
AGAINST.
Item No. 6:
!.. Ttre appll.cant renove the deck rallLnq between
Novenber 1 and t{av 1 of eac}r year and remove snortfron the area on a daily basis.
2.
Applicant: First Bank of Vail
Andy lGudtsen presented the proposal for staff explaining thatthe appllcant r,tas requesting a variance from the landscape
standards to add two cornpact car spaces to the parking area southof the 1st Bank building. Three aspen and two sPruce trees would
be relocated and 189 square feet of landscaping would be removed.lhe staff recommended denial of the request stating that the
reguest wouLd be a grant of special prlvllege and had a negative
irnpact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic. staff recomnendedthe restriping of the south lot and renovlng the sign adjacent to
the parking that stated trPrivate Parking, Unauthorized vehicles
would be towed.rl
craig Snowdon, representing the applicant, explai.ned that First
Bank had a constant short-tern parking problen and the proposed
location was the only feasible location.
Regarding the signage that related to the back parking, he said
they could look at signage for the parking and could do thereslrlping of the parfing tot. He felt two additional parking
spaces rtere a posltlve aspect for the publlc use and I't would
also help the First Bank.
Dalton was not ln favor of restriplng. He felt there was just
enough space to park now and that standard size cars would try to
use the snaller spaces.
11
Kathy lfarren opposed the decrease of landscaping. She said thatstriping at an angle would help, then the care would have to turn
arou-nd by the durnpsters. Andy stated that the staff suggestionto restripe would result ln epaces with 9 foot widths, which
would not be subEtandard.
Diana felt she would rather see treee than two nore parking
spaces.
A uotLon to denv a request for a landscape varLance per tbestaff netno was nade bv connle Kniaht and eeconded bv LudltLg
Kurz
VOTE: 6-0-1 TTITH JII.T SHEARER ABSTAINING
Item No. 7:
Postponed to the end of the neeting to be tabled.
ftem No. 8i
Rowhouses, 303 Gore Creek Drive.Applicant: Stewart Colton
Staff explalned that the applicant did not have condoniniun
approval and requested the iten be tabled.
Jin Morter addressed the board and stated that they dld not wantto table the iten. He claimed that the condoniniun declarationsstate that, if the applicant did not have an answer within 1o
days, approval was to be presuned. Jim mentioned two concerns of
adjacent property owners.
Kristan responded, explainlng that the staff received an unsignedletter with two conceins. She sald that condomLniun assocl-atLon
approval rtas very inportant and a signed letter of approval wascritical.
Jin uorter Eaid that the adjacent property ownerrs concern uas
the third level deck which he offered to remove.
L2
Ross Davla, repreaenting Mr. tlatson, an adJacent -owner{ fett that
the plans ioofla good. He was concerned about scheduling of the
consiructLon. Url Oavis suggested that the applicant was asking
for an unnecessary setbact iirlance from a non existent lot line.
He further suggested that the lot llnes had been vacated via a
1964 condominium naP.
Krlstan stated that she hras sorry that the proJect had been
affected but felt that the staff could not ignore the fact that
they had not received a Letter of approval from the condoninlun
ass6clation. Krietan added that she- felt ttris was a civll issue
that the owners needed to reeolve before the staff reviewed the
request. She concluded that the etaff wished to table until the
luiust 13th PEc neeting. Andy lnvited !tr. Davls to present. hlg
na€erial for further study prlor to the next ueeting. She tol'd
Jin Morter that he could go to the Design Review Board for a
conceptual review on August lst lf he wished.
VOTE: 7 - O TN FAVOR OF TABLTNG
Iten No. 9:
Road.ADDlicant: H. Ross Perot
DLana asked the applicant if the stakes outlining the footprint
of the house uere Lurrent, and Jin l'lorter answered rrno.rl
Discussion centered around whether the board was comfortable
enough to proceed though the stakes were not current and it was
decided to proceed.
l{lke Uollica explained that the applicant was requesting a.site
"o.r""ig" varlanie to allow for the-construction of a neY single
iinfiy-none, with an attached three-car garage.- The existlng
singf-e faniiy hone on the site was proposed to.be denolished, due
to itructurai. concerns with the foundation. Given the steep
slopes on the lot, the site coverage requirenent of the property
was-Iinited to 15i. Because the slopes exceeded 30*' the
applicant was allowed to locate the garage within the front
EitUacf area without a setback variance. Mike reviewed the
triElJry of the project, the zoning analysisr -and the criteria and
iinaf"is appticifli to-the proJect. ThE staff reconmendation was
for apfrovii. Staff beLievla Lne lot was encurnbered with a
physical hardship, due to the extreme slopes on the Eite. staff
13
also believed that the granting of the variance would not bedetrimental to ttre public health, safety or general welfare ofproperties or personE in the vlclnity. For thoBe reasons, stafffett tnat it would not be a grant of epecial pri.vi-lege to approvethe varlance request.
Jin t{orter, the architect representing the applicant, explainedthat the site had a hardshlp. Given the opportunity, the
applJ,cant would prefer to put the garage under the house. In
order to do this, the house would have to be ln the frontsetback. As the detaited plannlng began wlth the previous
proposal, they found it inpractical to rernodel. The currentproposal net all other requl.renents. As ltLke had stated' they
could build a carport and lt would not count aE site coverage.Jin pointed out tree locations and offered to replace any treesthat would not have been removed by the previous plan.
Chuck Crlst asked if the area across the street would still be
revegetated as in the previous proposal and trin answered ttyes.rr
Connie Knight asked why the PEC did not revlew the 250 reguest
and Kristan explained that the 250 reguest was not part of thesite coverage variance which should be looked at on its ownmerit. Jim Uorter stated that lf they were not to recelve the
250 request, they nould delete a loft bedroon on the top floor
and therefore site coverage would not change.
Jirn Shearer was concerned about landscaplng. He wanted to be
sure that the appllcant would Eave aE nany trees as possible. Hefelt that the excavation of the home presented a high risk to
many of the trees on site.
Jlm Morter explained to JLn Shearer that they had looked at nanydifferent scenarioE and the current proposal was the beEt. The
trees to the northeast of the house would have a big irnpact if
removed.
Kathy warren felt that the applicant should be requlred to
extensively landscape due to the loss of rnature landscaping andJin Morter agreed.
Ludwig Kurz felt that the applicant should keep all poseible
trees-with the condition that any danaged trees be replaced with
mature/substantial trees.
A motion to approve a Eite coveraqe varl-ance oer the staff
neno with the followinq conditions was nade by Kathv l{arren
and seconded bv Connie Kniqht.
Conditions:
14
o
The Eite of the exietLnq etructure be taken back to
natural grade and landscaped.
The area across Beaver Dan Road be reveqetated.
VOTE: 7-O IN FAVOR
Kristan reconnended that trees on the site be photographed and
sizes detetmined before a buildlng penult is released so that i
trees dle due to construction, there would be agreenent on size
and tlpe replacement trees.
Item No. 10:
1.
2.
3.
as a pernitted use.AoPlicant: Dean Liotta
Andy Knudtsen presented the proposal for staff explaining that
the-applicant i.ras proposing Lo -hange the-zoning code to allow a
Urew puf as a use by light in the Commercial Service Center zone
district. The requEst was to deflne the brew pub use in the
deflnltion sectioi of the code, list the uae as a pernittgd !:ein the csc section of the code, list the use, with llnited off
site sales, as a conditional use in the csc Bection of the code,
and incLude a paragraph' also Ln the csc section, regarding
operating charlcteiisliis. Andy revlewed the background research
that had been done and the appl-icable crlterla and fJ-ndings.
The staff recornnendatlon was for approval of the reguest'
Andy, at the request of Iarry Eskrrith, clarified^the difference
letiien on-site-consunption,-retail sales for off-slte
consumptlon, and wholesale saleE.
Krlstan felt it was inportant for the board to understand that
the brew pub use was Lntended to be acceseory to a restaurant.
Dean Liotta explalned that he r'as not planning on brewing 9n a.
conEtant baEls-. He wanted to brew 3 to 5 times per week (Brewing
took approximately ?5 minutes) and he would like to be able to
Urew airitng normai working hours. If lt becane a problen in the_
future, he-would be happy-to change the hours of brewing.- He had
been given a 1000 Uarrel-a year cap. He stated he would hate to
15
be at loo0 barrels on Decenber 15 and be forced to go 2 weeks
without business. He asked shat would happen in that sl.tuatLon?
Kristan explained to Dean, that if he was that close to his cap,
tre could come back and request a higher caP.
Dean felt that the sale to a restaurant patron that took a 6-pack
home should be considered on-site sales. Kristan stated that,not only restaurant patrons buy beer to take out, but others
would use the pub as a liquor store and it would createadditlonal traffic.
Diana felt that If the pub was golng to have both sales for off-site consunption and wholesales, they should be consl.dered as two
separate conditional uses.
Dean showed the board pictures of what the eguipment looked like
and how it would be laid out on the site.
Kristan suggested that if the odor was a problem, the staff(T.O.v.) could initiate a code change. Dean agreed that he would
cornply with future odor control ordinances.
Kathy warren suggested that the issue be discussed when he cane
to tle board for a conditional use pennit for off-site sales.
A notion to reconmend approval to the Town QouncLl per
Exhibit A of the staff neno with the followinq changes was
nide bv Kathv Warren and seconded bv Chuck Crist
The barrel per year ca|) be l-ncreased to 15oo.
3. The Section on Conditional Uses--(Ll be anended so that
sales for off-site consumption and wholesales be
separate conditional uses.
VOTE: 7-o fN FAVOR
Item No. 13:
1.
2.hours be deleted.
nodification on l,ot C and Lot D' and the
& Associates.
16
Mike Mollica presented the proposal for staff. He explained the
changes that had been made ltnce the tast work session includingroof-height percentages, the adJacent pocket park (Town Council
had given pennisslon to proceed wlth design), the removal of
sLdeialks to give a nore lnfornal access' and nodlfications to
the retaining waII near the Covered Bridge.
Dalton suggested that the Town move/dunp the enort elserthere.
l.like explatned that the staff interpretatLon of heightrestrictLons would be spllt 5O/5O with the 50t to the east takenoff of Bridge Street gr-ae and the SOt to the west taken from the
grade fron the northwest corner of the building. Theinterpretation was taken from how past situations were handled.
Ned Gwathney, representing the applicant, felt that the-grade
from Bridge-street should-be used entirely. The elevation from
Bridge Stieet was clearly the elevation that was inportant.
Regardless, they would still need a variance.
Kristan e:<plained that in order to allow the Covered-Bridge
Building t6 use the Bridge street grade for deter:mining height
the etaif would have to allow the same grade to be used
throughout the Village. Doing that would create future problerns.
Dalton Willlans felt that, if the applicant stayed withln tbe
height gruidelines, the result would be a nassive buildlng
erontinq the road and a big yellow wal.l (Pepi's Building) vlsibte
to the north.
Kathy warren stated that she did not see a physical hardship to
Justify granting the variance.
Ned Gwathney reviewed the village Master PIan points which he
felt relatea to the proJect, stating that the Master PIan calledfor the stepplng down oi buildings fron the rrontage Road-and
called for l- 3 to 4 story building ln the vlllaqe. Ned feltthat the existing site was a hardship. They were in the
floodpLain, the bullding ltself was in bad shape, the cost of
denolition and redevelolnent was a hardshlp. The existing
bullding did not meet safety concerns.
Diana Donovan felt that the floodplain seened to be the only true
physlcal hardship she could see. She asked what the Bqt1arg
io6tage of the aiea of the existing building that was within the
ttoodflain and Ned Gsathney ansltered tr60 sq- ft.rr. Diana felt
she rnight support a height-variance for not encroaching into_the
floodpiain. -biana felt that the other hardshlps that Ned had
llstei were self Lnposed in that the owner was aware of them when
he purchased the building.
Jin Shearer stated that he had been trying to weigh the pros and
L7
cons of the project. He felt that, personallY, -he cane up rlth
more pluses than ninuses. He felt-that the project vould be the
chanc-e to ask the Town to find a dlfferent location to dunp snow.
He felt that the buildlng was the flrst inpreasion of Vall
Village and dLd not feel it was deeirable to have the bulldings-all the eame sl-ze. He llked the pocket park deslgn and inproved
eafety features. There was no doubt that the proposal yae above
the allowed height by the difference of grade to the rear. He
was in favor of the comnerclal epace downetairs.
Connie loight stated that orl.glnally she had thought rrnot nore
downtown i;filln. However, after ualking around the buildJ-ng she
realized it did need help. She did feel the proJect was stlll
too dense.
Kathy warren felt the proposal was for 5 levels not 4 and that
the lpplicant could get closer to the hetght called for in the
code.- She did not see a physical hardship.
Diana Donovan felt the project was rrgood and badrr. She needed
Dore reasons before she could support a variance. She felt, lf
the applicant would drop the creek sLde elevatlon down, theproje-t would be closer to receiving her support.
Diana asked what percent of the roof was too tal} and the merno
said 53* and Bruce Ann replled that the greatest percentage of
the roof rras an area below 33t and that they were moving that
area to the back so that nost of the unused volume was toward the
back.
Diana replied that it was really not the Boardrs absolute right
to trade in this area.
Dalton agreed with the staff. He felt the appllcant was 99ing to
have to llve with the rules. Maybe stepping down fron Pepirs
buitding would also help the height situation of Pepirs roof. Heliked the design of the Project.
Ludwig asked if there was consistent interpretation of the
gradei, and Mike replled that there had been and Krl'stan and Tom
6raun had conferred-as to shat had been done in the past. Ludwigfelt that it was an irnprovement to the building but felt that the
helght was still a number one concern.
IGistan sald that a couple of Board mernbers asked if the
applicant was going to consider an sDD. she sald that it was an
oilton but thaf it-rras not an easy Process gither. - Ned repliedtirat underlying zoning would still have to be considered.
Kathy said that, with an sDD the applicant could probably use
18
Bruce Annra argument regarding novlng the nass of the lower roofto the front of the bulldlng and the masg of the higher roof nextto PepLrs.
Connie said that she would vote against an sDD.
Dlana polnted out that under the existlng zoning only the height
needed nltlgation. illke explained how the aunteyor would
deternine the View Corridor from the demoll-shed parkingstructure. Bruce tnn felt that they were clearly out of the View
Corridor and Mike eaid that lt didnrt apPear that the proJect
would go into the View Corridor, but that verificatlon was
required.
Kristan sald that ehe santed to be sure that Ned knew all of the
other options. Ned asked for a definltlon of rrhardshipr and
KrLstan explalned the definitlon.
Item No. 7:
Item No. 11:
Item No. 12:
A motion to table itens NO. ?' 11. and 12 to the Aucrust, 13,
1990 neeting was nade bv Kathv warren and seconded bv chuck
Criet.
VOTE: 7-O IN FAVOR
Annllcant: Vail Va1lev l{edlcal Center
19
Iten No. 1: Approval of ninutes fron the itulv 9. 1990 meetinq.
Ttre folloyl.ng changes were requeeted:
Page 2--change oRudyn, twice ln the first paragraph to Ludwig.
Page 2--strike trand second home rentalr!
Page 7--add rrentire Cascade SDDrr under the sq. ft. calculations.
An infomal discuesion followed concerning staff nemos.
20
TOWN COUNCTI, AGENDA REOUEST
Request forar nust be given to the Secretary to the Town ltanager
by 8:00 a.m. Thursdavs.
Date2 7/25/90 Dept.3 Conm Dev lleeting Datez 8/7/90
Site Vislt: 20 ninutes Work Session:g Evening lteeting: X
Approxinate length of tine iten will require: 30 ninutes
I. Iten/Topic:
Council Appeal of the PEC decl-sion to approve requests foran exterior alteration and landecape variance ln order toconstruct an addition to the Lancelot restaurant at tbe Bell
Toner Buildlng located at 201 core Creek Drive, Part ofTract A, Block 58, VaiI Village 1st Filing.Applicant: Her:mann Staufer, Lancelot Restaurant.
II. Action Requested of Council:
Uphold/overturn PEc approval of expansion.
III. Background Rationale:
On July 23, L99O the PEC approved by a vote of 5'2 a requestto expand the Lancelot Restaurant by 272 s,q. ft. onto anexisting deck. The reguest involved an exterior alteration
and a landscape variance. The PEC recomrnended that the westplanter be irnproved if the Town Council would allow the
landscape inprovenent on Town land. Kathy warren and Diana
Donovan opposed both requests because they did not seesufficient cause to warrant the removal of the planter areaor pavers. They also felt that the proposal was not in
keeping with the ttaster Planrs intent. On July 24, L99O,
the Council voted to calt up for further review the PEc
approval of the two requests.
IV. staff Reconmendation: staff reconmends approval of the
landscape variance and exterior alteration request.
v. Assurances ( Icgat, Engineering,
-Finance,
outEide Professional)
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
F€:
PlannLng and Environnrental Cornrnission
ConmunJ.ty Developnent Departnent
July 23, 1990
Proposed Addition to the Bell Tower Building at 201
Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 58, VailVillage 1st Filing.Appllcant: Hermann Staufer/Lancelot Restaurant
On February 26, 1990, the PEC reviewed a proposal for the Bell
Tower Bullding which included a ground level retail expansionalong Gore Creek Pronenade and additions to existlng residential
development on the upper floors. A landscape variance, heJ.ghtvariance, exterior alteration, and conditional use pemLt wererequested. The iten was tabled by the applicant and a newproposal was subnitted.
The current proposal to the BelI Toner building involves a ground
LeveL restaurant expansion along the Gore Creek Pronenade. Thenature of the proposal reguires the review of two separaterequests. lhese reguests include an exterior alteration which isreguired in the Cornmercial Core I zone distrLct in order to add
enclosed floor area to an existing structure and a variancereguest to reduce landscaping on the site. No site coveragevariance is needed for this application because the existingoutdoor deck is counted as site coverage in CCI . Therefore, thecovering of the area with a buildlng will not increase the
nonconfornance of the site in relationship to site coverage.
However, a variance to reduce the landscaping will be necessary
because the brick pavers that will be renoved on the outdoor deck
and planter area are considered part of the landscaping.
To: Planning and Environnental Comnission
FROM: Connunity Developnent Departnent
DATE: ifuly 23, 1990
RE: A variance request to reduce landscaped area in orderto enclose a portion of a dining deck for the Iancelot
Restaurant at the BeIl Tower Building at 2O1 Gore CreekDrive, Part of Tract A, Block 58, Vail Village 1stFitlng.Appllcant: Hernann Stauferr/Iancelot Restaurant
I. IANDSCAPE REOUIREMENTS TN CCT ARE AS FOIJIPWS
The applicant is requesting a variance to decrease the
Iandscaped area of the Bell Tower Building ln Connercial
Core I. Currently 14.6t of the site is considered to belandscaping. The proposal would decrease this to 10.2t byelininating 253 sq. ft. of existing paved patio area.Approxinately 19 sq. ft. of the existing planter to the westof the dining deck will also be removed (9.5 sq. ft. ofstone wall and 9.5 sq. ft. of soil). 165.5 sg. ft. of theexterior deck area will remain with 65.5 sq. ft. of the deck
on the applicantre property and 1OO s_g..ft- on Town of Vail
land.
The landscape definitlon states that a maximun of 2ot of thetotal landscaped area for a site nay be used for rrcore
development such as walks, decks, terraces, water features
and other like features. (Section 18.04.200)
AIso, section L8.24. 170, Landscaping and Site Developnentfor Conmercial Core I states:
rrNo reductlon in landscape area shall be pernittedwithout suffLcient cause shown by the appllcant or
as specified in the Vail Village Urban Design
Consl-deratl-ons. rl
Below is a sunmary of how the site relates to the linit on
hardscape that can be considered as landscaping and the reductionin planted naterial:
Iot Size: 6tL44.16 sq. ft.
Existing landscaping: 786 Eq. ft. or 87t hardscape
114 sq. ft. or 13* Planted area
9OO sq. ft. total or 14.6t of site
Proposed landscaping 504.5 or 83t of hardscape104.5 or 178 of planted naterial609 Eq. ft total or 10.2t of site
II. CRTTERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Sectlon 18.62.060 ofthe Vail Uunicipal Code, the Departnent of Cornnunity
Developnent reconnends approval of the requested variancebased upon the following factors:
A.Consideration of Factors:
fhe relationship of the requested variance toother existinq or potential uses and structures inthe vicinity.
while architecturally a fine building, the BellToner property is lacking in landscape featuresper the Town of Vail Code. This situation is notunigue to tbe Bell Tower Building. The Wal.lStreet Building, the Gorsuctr Building and theA & D Building are other exanples of propertiesthat do not have a great deal of on-site landscapeinprovements. In many cases, the landscapingwhlch does occur is located on Towrr owned land oris in right-of-ways. ft is the role of the reviewboards to deterrrine the relative lnportance ofeach consideration involved in a given situation.
The Etaff feels that the reguest to remove 272 Eq.ft. of paver area is acceptable as the result willbe a deck infill sl.nilar to other projects such asBlurs and Up the Creek which rneet the Village
Urban Design Considerations. The reguest will nothave any negative affect on adJacent properties.
The removal of a portion of the planted area (9.5sq. ft.) has been mitLgated by the applicantrsproposal to add more landscaping lncluding onetree to the planter. Staffrs opinion is that thlslandscape proposal will trave a positive J-mpact onthe Gore Creek Promenade.
The dearee to which relief fron the strict andIiteral inter?retatLon and enforcement of aspecLfied recrulation is necessarv to achievecbmpatibLlitv and unLfornLtv of treatment anong
Staff believes thatsufficient cause to
1.
2.
the applicant has
reduce the planted shownarea by 9.5
sq. ft. and planter t alI by 9.5 sq. ft. The CCI
landscape section specifically relies on the Urban
Ilesign Consideratlons to provide a grulde ln
decislon-naking w.hen revLewing any request to
renove landscaping ln the Core. As stated in theexterior alteration memo, the proposal conplieswlth the consl.deratl.ons. In addition, theappllcant le upgradlng the planter by addJ'ng atree Ln the planter. Staff could have requestedthat the applicant pull back the expansion by twofeet to the east ln order to Eave the plantedarea. However, our oplnlon LE that no
landscape beneflt or lnproved bulldinggained by this change.
Goal # 3 of the Vall Village Master Plan states:
ItTo recognize as a top priority the enhancenent of the
walking experLence throughout the Villagerr- Relatedobjectlves and policies include:
3.1 objectivePhyslcally inprove the exLsting pedestrlan walkwaywith landscaping and other improvenents.
sicmificantdeslgn ls
3.
Tbe proposal would not affect any of the abovecriteria.
III. REIATED POLICIES IN VAIL VIIJLAGE !i{ASTER PLAN.
3. 1.3 PolicvFlowers, trees, water features, and other
landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the
Town in locations adJacent to, or visible fron,publlc areas.
The proposal does conflict sith 3.1 and 3.1.3 in that aportion of the existing planter is removed. However, the
appllcant has proposed to compensate for the renoval of aportion of the planter by adding a tree and more
landscaping.
3.3 Oblective
Encourage a wide variety of activities, €vents,
and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas.
Pollcvoutdoor dining is an iroportant streetscape feature
and shall be encouraged ln cornmercial infill or
redevelopnent proJects.
3.3.2
The proposal Ls enclosing a portion of an existing dlningdeck. The northern exposure linLts the year round use ofthe patio. The lnstallation of rekord doors on the northelevation, will increase the llvelihood and activity of thisdeck by increasing the transparency of the facade. A openair dining deck alEo renains given the a<panslon.
IV. FINDINGS
A. That the granting of the variance will not constltute agrant of special prlvllege lnconsistent with thelinitatlonB on other propertleE classl.fied ln tlre samedistrict.
B. That the granting of the variance wl.ll not bedetrimental to the public health, eafety or welfare, ornaterially injurious to properties or improvements inthe vicinity.
c. That the variance is warranted for one or nore of thefollowing reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcenentof the specified regulatS.on would result lnpractical difficulty or unnecessary physlcal
hardship inconsistent with the obJectLves of thlstltle.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinarycircunstances or conditions appllcable to the aamesite of the variance that do not apply generallyto other properties in the sane zone.
3. The strict interpretation or enforcenent of thespecified regrulation rrould deprLve the appllcantof prlvileges enJoyed by the owners of otherproperties in the same district.
V. STAFF RECOMIi{ENDATION
The staff reconnends approval of the requested landscapevariance. The applicant has shown sufficient cause for the 19sq. ft. reduction of planter and the renoval of paved patio areaper the Urban Design Considerations. The code relies on the
Urban Design Considerations to be the criteria for analyzing arequest to remove landscaping. We feel that the proJect neetsthe Urban Design Considerations and that the applicant hasnitigated the loss of 9.5 rq. ft. of planted area by the additionof a tree and landscaping (flowers, shrubs) to the planter.
TO:
FROl,l:
DATE:
RE:
Planning and Environmental Conmission
Conmunity Developnent Departnent
ituly 23, 1990
A request for an exterior alteration in order toconstruct an additlon to the Bell Tolter Building
located at 201 Gore Creek Drl-ve, Part of Tract A, Block58, VaiI Village lst Filing.Applicant: Hermann Staufer/Lancelot Restaurant
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REOUEST
Approval of an exterlor alteration request is requlred for any
addition of enclosed floor area to structures in the Cornnercialcore I zone district. The proposal includes a 272 square foot,
ground floor expansion of the Lancelot Restaurant adjacent to the
Gore Creek Promenade. The expansion includes moving the facade
8.5 feet towards Gore creek Pronenade and adding rekord doors and
a glass roof. The new enclosure is conpletely on privateproperty. The area is currently used as a dinlng patio. 165.5sg. ft. of exterior deck will remain with 65.5 sg. ft. of the
deck on the appllcantrs property and 1OO sg. ft. on Town of Vailland. The depth of the outdoor deck will be 6 feet and will have4 tables.
REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THTS REOUEST
The Vail Vlllage Urlran Deslgn PlaD includes three elements thatestablish the review criteria for this applLcation. The first of
these is referred to as the Guide PIan which includes a number of
sub-area concepts, nany of which identlfy potential areas for
future development and other Lnprovenents. Secondly, the Urban
Design Considerations express the large scale, Iand use planning
and design conEiderations desired in the Village. And finally,
architecturalr/landscape considerations, which will be reviewed by
the Design Review Boaid, establish the criteria for evaluatingdetailed design considerations of a proposal .
The Vall Village ltastor Plaa also addresses speclfic goalspertaining to the enhancernent of the salking orperience
throughout the Viltage that must be considered in thi's
application.
In additlon to the Guide Plan and the vall Village l{aster Plan,traditional zoning considerations are also a factor in this
proposal . Please refer to the accomPanying menorandum that
addresses this zoning issue.
THE VAIL VILI,AGB URBAT{ DESIGN GUIDE PI,AN
There are no specific sub-area concepts relevant to this
proposal .
VAII VILI,AGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The following deslgn consideratlons are a crltlcal elenent of ttre
Urban Design Plan. They identify the key physicalcharacteristics of the Village and provide the toolE to assurethat new developnent Ls consiEtent with this establishedcharacter. These considerations include the following:
B.
c.
A.PedestrianLzation:
This proposal does not directly affect or change theexisting pedestrianization systern in the Village inthat lt does not increase the encroachnent of thebuilding into the core creek Promenade walkway. Theadditlon will encroach into the view fron the top ofthe Childrenrs Fountain stairs down onto Gore Creek
Promenade.
Vehicle Penetration:
Vehicular penetration, or circulation, will remain
unchanged as a result of this proposal .
Streetscape Frameuork :
Streetscape framework ldentlfies two alternatives for
inproving the pedestrian experience in the Vlllage.
These include the development of open space Lncluding
Iandscaping along pedestrian routes, and the
development of infill conmercial storefronts alongpedestrian corridors. While the landscape improvements
can provide a softening of buildings and a colorful
franework, the cornnercial lnfill can provide actlvity
generators to give streetlife and visual interest tothe pedestrian. The proposed restaurant Infill along
the Gore Creek Pronenade could provlde such an activitygenerator. l{hile the existing dinlng deck provides
such activity during the sunmer, its north facingIocation (relative to sun exposure), has resulted inthe linlted use of the deck. This enclosure would nakethe dining area more useful year round, whilernaintaining an open dining area during sunmer nonths
due to rekord doors being proposed along the entirenorth elevation.
D.
The addition of glass rekord doors and a glass roof tothe facade, which are conmonly used in the Vlllage,will add transparency to the front of the restaurant.Thls feature adds to the livellhood of tttis area by
allowlng for greater visibillty into the interlor ofthe restaurant in the winter. In the summer, the doorswilL allow the reEtaurant activlty to extend out ontothe deck area. The success of the doors aE a method of
adding vLsual interest and also creatLng succeeEfuldining deck space can be seen throughout the Village
and L,ionshead (1e. Blurs, Up the Creek, Vendettars,etc).
In sunmary, staff finds this deck enclosure supportable
because lt le a north facing deck, a ueeable outdoordining Bpace wllt still renain after the enclosure, andthe rekord door design is incorporated in the renodel .
STREET ENCIOSI'RE
The purpose of thie consideration iE to nalntain a
comfortable relationshlp between the width of streets
and the height of buildlngs. The one story restaurant
expansion along the Prornenade will establish a nore
rrhuman scalerr on this side of the bullding.
STREET EDGE
There are no setback requirements for buildings ln Vailvillage. Rather, propo-als are looked at with
relationship to the site and the surrounding
development to ensure a strong street edge. A atrongstreet edge does not irnply perfectly aligned facadee
along entire Etreet widths. Rather, slightly irregular
facade lines, building Jogs' and landscaPe areas createlife and visual interest for the pedestrian. Theaddition wiII fitl a portion of the deck along Gore
Creek Prornenade. Deck area Ls still naintained with
the proposal. The proposed deslgn creates a stightly
irregrutir street edge which conplies with thiscriterla.
Buildina Heiqht
Bulldlng height is unaffected as the one-atory
e:<panslon ie below 33r in height.
E.
F.
G.Views and Focal Points
The proposed expansion does not Lmpact any of the
adopted view corridors. one view consideration was the
vantage point for:n the top of the stalrcase between theChildrenrs Fountain and the Gore Creek Pronenadelooking west. The view of these stairs ls inportant asit provides pedestrlans wlth a polnt of orientation asthey walk through the Vi1lage. This addition wLll havea slight funpact on long range views fron the top of thestairs looking towards Willow Bridge. The enclosurehas no inpact on the view fron Gore creek Pronenade upto the Childrenrs Fountain stal.rcase.
Service and Deliverv
The proposed e:<panEion wl.Il not require any signiflcantadditional senrice or delivery. The seating capacityis elightly Lncreased due to lnterior remodellng whichwill renove tables fron the exlsting interior of therestaurant to allow for an expanded kitchen. Theapplicant sill be adding 85.5 sq. ft. of floor area tothe restaurant (272 eq. ft. of new dinlng area less185.5 sq. ft. to be removed by a kitchen expansl.on =86.5 sg. ft. of new restaurant floor area).
The applicant will be required to pay a 52,L62.50 Townof Vail parking fee as a result of this addltlon.
Sun/Shade
There will be no increase in the shadow pattern as aresult of this addition because the addition is withinthe existing shade pattern of the Bell Tower Building.
Architecture/Landscaoe Considerations
These design considerationsof the Design Review Board.is inportant to address theroofs and landscaping.
are t1pically the purrriew
However, in this caEe itconsideration pertainlng to
H.
I.
J.
As stated in the guidelinea, roofs sithin the Vill.ageare typically gable in form and of noderate to lowpitch. The proposed low pitch roof forn is in keeplngwith the ottrer restaurant expansl.ong in thie area (1.e.Blurs and Up the Creek). Ttre staff feels that theaddition is cornpatible with the exLsting buildlng andthat the roof forn will be harmonious with the existingstreetscape.
A landscaping variance ls requested for this expansion.
The addition will remove 253 sq. ft of deck paver area
and 19 sg ft. of planter area decreaslng the arnount of
landscaping fron 14.6t to 10.2*. The aPplicant has
propoeed additional landscaping for the west stoneplanter (Please see attached landscape variance meno).
REIJ\TED GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE VAIL VILLAGE UASTER PLAN
Goal No. 3 of the Vail Village l,[aster Plan states:
rrTo recognLze as a top prlorlty the enhancenent of the
walking experience throughout the Village.rl
Retated objectives and policies include:
ob'lective:Physically lrnprove the exiEting pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other inprovernents.
Policv:Private development projects shall lncorporate
streetscape inprovenents (such^as paver
treatments,- landscaping, lighting and seating
areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways.
3.1
3.1.1
The proposal is removing outdoor dining area. The use of rekord
doors and a glass roof as the prlnary design elernents of the
expansion will provJ-de greater-transparency and street activity.this is especially important during the sinter when tlre north
facing outdoor patio is not used. The conbination of the rekord
doors, expansion of enclosed dining, and renaining deck area will
inprove tle streetscape of this area by adding vl.sual interest to
Gore creek Promenade.
3.3
3.3.2
Obiective
Encourage a wide variety of activities, events'
and street life along pedestrian says and plazas.
Policvoutdoor dining is an Lnportant streetscape feature
and shall be encouraged in connercial infill or
redevelopnent.
The proposal is encloslng a portlon of an existing dinlng deckwhili mlintalning some open iir dining area. This results ln 253sg. ft. of pavers and 19 sq. ft. of planter (9.5 wall and 9.5
pfanted arell being renoved. The appllcant proposes to rebuild
the ptanter wall and add a tree to the existing planter. Staffrs
opinion is that the new tree, design of the enclosure and
a-ssociateddeckrneetthepo1icytoencoura9e@comrnercial infill.
STAFF RE CO!,TI'IENDATION
The staff reconmendation is for approval of the requestedexterior alteratl.on contlngent upon the landEcape variance belng
approved and condl-tLons llsted below.
1. The staff will require the appllcant to remove raillngs
surrounding the patio from November 1 to }lay 1 of each year.
2. The staff requires that the applicant participate in aproject involvlng the property owners and the Townrs hrbllc
Works Departnent ln an effort to resolve drainage problens
adjacent to the BelI Tower Build1ng. These drainageproblens are a result of the undirected drainage off of thebuilding. We do not feel that the applicant should be
required to provide the solutlon individually. However, wefeel lt ls fair to regulre lrin, as a property owner in thebuilding, to particlpate and pay for his fair share aE
deemed by the buildlng association (see attached letter fomT.o.V. Public Works Departnent). Any drainage inprovements
necessitated by the deck enclosure strall be addressed by theapplicant in the Desigm Review Board subnittal and buildingpennit plans.
The review of the relevant Urban Design Criteria and the VailVillage Master Plan goals show that the proposal is in
confornance wl-th the appllcable sections of these documents.tfe feel that the proposal has naintained a sufficient operable
outdoor dining area and the design of the addition is consistentwith the Urban Design ConsLderations for the Village area. Theproposal is also in keepinq vith the design of Einilar deck
enclosures along core creek Pronenade. The staff finds thatadditions of this tlpe along Gore Creek Promenade and in other
area of Town are quite successful in providing enhancenent to
walking areas throughout the year.
(i ( -r.
tt. :? C,CC, I
7F roslh lronlrgo ro.d
nll, colorrdo ElC5?(so3l47$21tt
d.p.rtmant ot Duulc rod(|/trrmpottrtlon
ltay 31, l99O
TO:
FROU3
RE:
vArL1989
Bulldlng owners:John Galt l,tountalneerlng & BIus Restuarantc/o Vall l,tanagenent ConpanyTlnber Haus ^-AStan Berrlman, Director flVJPnbl tc l{orks,/TransportatlonBrlck Pavers ln the Gore Creek Pronenade
t**aa*****rtltt***t*****t***tttttit****at**ttrt**ttl*tata**ltattt
Our Departuent has conpleted an lnvestlgatlon of brlck pavere whlclrhave heaved Ln the Gore Creek Prouenade. l{e }rave determlned thatLnproper root drainage fron the bulldlngs abuttlng the plaaa lsthe prinary cause of the falltre of brl.ck pavers.
Five roof drains exlst betseen the Tinber Haue bullding end BIus.
One downspout exiets on the west end of Blus. Ttro roof dral.ns arelocated on the weet end of John Galt. All of the above dralns arenot properly tied lnto a ayeten rhlch blpasses the plaza. Thedralns depoelt nrnoff directly onto the brlck plaza area. qter
tl.ue, thl.s dralnage has underulned eeveral areas of brlck Pavers.
Ttre on!.y pernanent eolutlon to tlre problens occurring tn the plaza
Lg to.correct tlre Lnproper roof dralnage cornlng oll tlre prlvate
bulldlnge.
lllre losn of Vall proposes to coordl.nate and perforn the rork
necessarT to correct all the dralns and repatr all aftectcd brickpavers. tfe have prepared cost eetlnatee for cach of the prlvatebulldlngs. The Town is rllllng to begln work on these proJects as
soon aB se hbve entered lnto letters of agreenent vlth the property
owners or lanagers. Please call ue lf you bave guestlone or needany additl.onal Lnfonatlon.
II
I
$="
@D
u]
,:\'
w
?LA
ata
f- - ---tf-+f
I
I,l
-l
s+ *tlvz,;a.
6+
E
t=
{
dt
F:',ft
t't!I.t
I
W At'w
- a.3t 134c.'??.1'1-l{^Pb
.bwsM)tF3\
t+.Lat+'
iril'
. tf {l :
*
}
*
i'OUN GALT
Repalr tco roof dralns and tle inInstall one catch basln and nrn
Pavers.
BUIIDING
catch baslne.15 ft. of dralnage plpe under
Dayllght plpe ln grass ar€a.Regrade q1d resod grlsg over to accouodate drainage.Repalr all affeeted brlck pav€rs.
Lbor t [aterlal payable to the l8orn of Vall g1SOO.OO
tl|t*t*taltttatttat*lla*t*ttt**tal**ttrt**ttt*ttrattraatrtrtt*r*i*r
BIUS UIIIDIXC
fnstall tro catch baslns and tle ln roo! dralnaqe.rnctall r0 ft. of_drarnage prpe under rirJi piviie ana planter.Dayllght plpe ln grasa area. -
Regrade and resod gras? area to acconuodate dralnage.Repair all affected brlck pavers.
Irbor t Iaterlal payablc to the Toun of Vall gzt8OO.OO
ttttaattaa*tlttrrt*tt*tatala**at****i***t*****aa**arrtt*a*t*t*tt*
TII.IBER EAUS UtrI,DIItc
Tle flvc roof dralna lnto two catcb baslnr.fngtall tuo catclt baeins.Inetall 65 ft. of dralnage plpc under brlclc paverr.Dayltght plpe tn graca aiea. -.
Regrade and rctod grasa area to acconnodatc dralnago.RepaJ.r all affecteA Urlcf pavera.
Iabor t ttaterl.alc payablc to the Town of Vall S6900.O0
o
11: 30
1: oo
1: 3O
3:00
SITE VISTTS
TABLED
1.
2.
3.
4.1
Io
PI.ANNTNG AI{D AIN'IRON!.TENTAL CO!{I'ISSTON
JttNE 4, 1990
Site Visits
Revl.ew Air Quality sunrey questions.
A $ork session for a najor subdivieion, a request for a
variance to the maximum height for retaining walls, anda reguest for a variance to the naxlmurn percent gradefor a road, on a parcel connonly referred to as
Spraddt-e Creek, an approxinate 40 acre parcel located
north and east of the Main Vail r-70 interchange andeast of the Spraddle Creek livery.
PubIic Hearing
Approval of minutes from lilay 14, 1990
neeting.
A request to anend Sectl.on La.L2.o3o of theVaiI l,lunicipal code to provide for Bed and
Breakfast operations ln the Two FanilyResidential (R) District.Applicant: Town of Vail
A request for an amendment to an existing
conditional use pernit in order to add 868sg. ft. to the daycare facillty at 149 N.
Fiontage Road, an unplatted site conmonly
referred to as the Mountain BeII site northof I-70 and west of the Main Vail I-70
interchange.Applicant: ABC School.
A request for a side and front setback
variance in order to construct a garage onIpt ?, Block 3, Vail viUage 9th Filing' 898
Red Sandstone Circle.Applicant: Pautr Testwuide
I
o o
5.A request for a variance fron the uininum lotsize on a parcel of land described as thatunplatted plat of the southeast L/4 of the
eoutheast V4 ot Section 1, Township 5 south,
Range 81 west, of the 6th Principal l{eridian,Iylng northerly of the Lionrs Rldge Ioop as
shown of the recorded plat of the Lion's
Ridge Subdivlsion recorded JuIy 25, 1969, in
caBe 2, Drawer L, and Book 215, at Page 649.Applicant! A. L. Shapiro & Co., A Colorado
Nominee ceneral Partnership.
A request for an exterior alteratl.on and a
landseape variance in order to constnrct anaddition to the BeII Tower Building at 2o1
Gore creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 58Vail Village 1st Fillng.Appllcant! Hemann staufer - Lancelot
Restaurant
6.
.'OHI| GAIJT ET'IIDING
Repair two roof drainE and tie ln catch baslns.rnstaLl one catch basl.n and nrn ls ft. o! dralnage pipe underpavers.Daylight plpe ln grass area.Regrade and reeod grisg over to accornnodate drainage.Repair all affeeted brlck pavera.
IEbor t ltaterlal payable to the Town of Vall 91800.00
t*att***tt**lt*l******t**t****tt***********a*a*tt*t**ttt*** *ai***
BII'S HTTLDI}IG
fnstall two catch baslns and tle ln roof drainage.rnstall 40 ft. of drainage plpe under brlck pavtrs and planter.Dayt.ight pipe ln grass area.Regrade ?nd leeod Erass area to acconnodate dral.nage.Repalr all affected brlck paverE.
Iabor t ltaterial payable to the Town of Vatl $48oo.oo
ta**al**l**ttllla***:t*|tt*******t*******t*t*****ttt***t**i****a***
TIIIBER EAUS 4rILDII{G
1!1e flve roof dral.na Lnto tno catch basLne.Install trro catclr basl.ns.rngtall 65 ft. of dralnage plpe under brickDayftght pipe ln grass area.R€grade and reeod grass area to acconnodateRepalr all affected brlck pavers.
Iabor t llaterlals payable to the Town
Pavera.
drainage.
of Vall $6e00.00
oo
d<
PI.AI.INING AND ETWIRONIIENTAL CO!.TI.TISSION
FEBRUARY 26, L99O
Present
Chuck CristDiana DonovanConnie l(nightLudwig Kurzilin ShearerKathy WarrenDalton l{illians
StaffKristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Tom BraunShelly Mello
Betsy Rosolack
The Planning and Envl-ronmental Conmission meeting was called toorder at 3:00 p.n. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson.
ftem No. 1: Approval of minutes for Februarv 12, 1990 rneetincr.
Motion for approval of minutes with corrections was made bvJim Shearer and seconded bv Dalton Williams,
VOTE: 7-0INFAVOR.
Iten No. 2: A recruest for variances from tbe side and rear
setbacks to allow for the expansion of an existincr
horne on Lot 5, Block E, Vail das Schone Filing No.
l-Aoolicant: Tom and Nancv Ricci
Mike Mollica explained that this was a reguest for a variance forthe east side setback only. This was dj.scussed on the site.
Motion for approval per the staff rneno was nade by Kathv
warren and seconded by Connie Kniqht.
VOTE: 7-OINFAVOR.
Iten No. 3: A recruest for a side setback variance for Lot 6.
Block 2. Vai] Villacre Sixth Filing.Applicant: Clinton G. Arnes, Jr.
APPLICANT WAS NOT PRESENT fABLED WITHOUT VOTE
Iten No. 4: A recnrest for a side setback variance. for a
garaqe and storacre roon for a new residence, onLot 15, Block 1, VaiI Potato Patch.Atrrplicant: Bruce Kasson
Shelly Mello explained that a residence had not yet been
constructed on the site and that a hardship could not be found
since the storage could be built elsewhere.
ject, rt"t.Onat the applicantTom Briner, architEct for the Pro'wanted to take advantage of this steep site and nake a garage
with one space for vehicles that were not used very nuch. Hestated ttrat this was not storage but actually a three car garage
and showed a nodel . He said that the third car would be mostlyin storage and the variance that was being requested would be
underground.
Kathy asked, rrl{hy not just shift the hone 7 feet to the left?rr andBriner claimed that more trees would be lost this way.
Diana said she felt the only way she could slmpathize vith the
request was if the footprint of a hone were narked on the plat
showing which trees would be lost.
Dalton felt that he could not Eee any hardship on an unbuilt lot.
l,lr. Briner said that not everything was black and white. He feltthey were not doing anything disastrous and that if nore treeswould be saved, he felt the Planning Conmission would eupport it.
Connie said that she didnrt have any problen with the property
variance as it was underground, but that at a later tirne the
onner may want to add to the top of it.
Motion for denial per the staff meno was made bv Daltonl{illians and seconded bv Jim Shearer.
VOTE: 7-OTODENY
Iten No. 6: A request for an amendment to Snecial DevelonmentDistrict 23 and a oarkinq variance to allow for anoffice expansion, to the VaiI National BankBuildinq at 1208 south Frontage Road West, aresubdivision of part of Lot D. Block 2, VaiI
Jin Shearer removed hirnself fron the Board due to a conflict ofinterest on this iten.
Tom Braun explained that at the last neeting the Planning
Connission had asked to have more information. one of the thingsthey had wondered about was whether or not the Town could ask the
Bank to have more parking than was actually required. LarryEskwith stated that the parking for the bank was consistent withthe parking code and that we could not ask for more.
The staff was still uncornfortable with the proposal. according toTon. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that the
bank had between llarch 15 and l,larch 20 to exercise their option.
He repeated that he felt the conditions asked for put then in the
same position as the hospital . If the hospital parking was notstarted they can't occupy their nelt space. He felt the sane
should be applied to the bank. He added that by the tine of a
TCo for the bank in JuIy the parking structure would be under
way.
Kristan stated that a TCO for the hospital addition would not be
released until they have obtained a building permit for their
parking structure.
Chuck asked whether or not the Highway department had okayed the
new proposal. Kristan replied that they had no problern with it.
Connie stated that she was unconfortable with the tirning that theparking needs to be in place.
Kathy said she felt that the cart was before the trorse and thatthe application should come back after the parking proposal is inplace.
Motion for denial was nade bv Connie Kniqht and Eeconded byKathv Warren.
Discussion contlnued before voting. Diana asked if the banksould connit to 12 spaces. Jay felt this was unfair to requireparking beyond what was required by the zoning code.
Diana asked about the access from the bank to the parkingstructure and Kristan replied that tbe access is fron the frontof the structure down to the bank but ttrere is no bridge. Kathy
foresaw great problens.
Dalton asked whether there would be a connection betneen the two
underground parking lots between the bank and the hospital. itayreplied that if they were connected, they would lose spaces inthe hospital parking lot.
VOTE: 2 - 4 - 1 KATHY AND CONNIE IN FAVOR OF DENTAI-,
Motion for apnroval of a reconrnendation to the Town Counciloer the proposed modified conditions was made bv Chuck Crist
and seconded by Ludwiq Kurz.
Conditions: 1. As proposed bv tbe vail NatLonal Bank inthe memo dated Februarv 22, 1990 from Jav
Peterson to Tom Braun.2. The Town Attornev shall review thepurchase or lease aqreement bethteen the VailNational Bank and the vail vallev l,ledical
Center.3. Five spaces rather than 4 soaces be
purchased.
VOTE: 4 - 2 - 1 WITH JIM SHEARER ABSTATNING.
Iten No. 5: An amendnent to Special Developrnent District 4'
Cascade Villa<re. to arnend Area D, Glen Lyon Office
Buitdinq at 1O0O S. Frontaqe Road W., Lot 54. Glen
Lvon Subdivision.Aoplicant: Gten Lyon office Building - A Colorado
Partnership.
Kristan Pritz described the proposal including a reguest to notbuild the parking structure durLng Phases I and II. Phase I
would include an office expansion. The lot is narrow andexisting trees dictate where the parking lot would have to belocated. She referred the board to the TDA parking analysls.
She showed which trees would be lost or moved.
Kathy asked if ttrere would be valet parking during peak tines.Kristan replied that there would be.
Kristan expJ.ained that the staff was recommending approval withthe conditions on the previous neno plus the conditions on thiE
meDo.
Kay Saulsbury from Colorado ltountain College explained that CtilC
has a parking shortage which seena to increase. she felt thatthe present parking does meet the Town of Vail standards but thatit is still not enough. DLana eaid that unfortunately it does
meet the Town of Vail standards and that there ls nothing theycan do to increase it.
Chuck asked if the parking structure would be constructed with
PhaEe III and Kristan replied that it would.
Dalton felt that there should be a condition that if the Brew Pubis opened during the day on weekdays the parking structure would
be constructed. Kristan stated that was already part of the
phasing plan.
Kathy asked Andy if he would go along with the conditions and
Andy replied that he would. Diana wondered bow the Pub could be
prevented from opening for lunch during the week without aparking structure in p1ace. Andy said he could not open duringthe day and weekdays because the tenants of the office building
had been pronised parking and he would be cited by the Toltn ofVail.
Andy Norris agreed that parking per the ToV reguirements would be
provided on site for the east buil-ding no matter what. He agreed
he would have to decrease office sguare footage or add
underground parking to neet the requirernent.
Irfotion for anproval was made bv Kathv Warren for
recommendation to the Town Council rcer the staff nernos with
two added reconmendations to the list of 8 as follows:
9. The Beer HaIl would not be open durincr the week davs.if the Beer HalI is opened for weekdav use, the narkingstructure must be constructed.
10. Emplovee units would be restricted permanently.
The motion was seconded bv Chuck Crist.
VOTE: 7-OINFAVOR
Itern No. 7 A recruest for a conditional use pernit to nodifvan outdoor dining deck, an anendrnent to
Applicant: Clark Willinqhan/Bell TowerAssociates. Ltd.
Chuck Crist left for a short while.
Tom Braun stated that there were four separate reguests. Anexterior atteration to add enclosed floor area, a heightvariance, a variance to reduce landscaping and a conditional usepermit to establish an outdoor dining patio on the second floorof the building. Tom showed elevations and site plans.
Tom first explained the reguest for an exterior alteration. Itwas for three things: the addition of a dormer on ttre fourthfloor of the building along Gore Creek Drive, the addition of afifth floor and expansion of the fourth floor on the north sideof the building and a 270 square foot ground floor retailexpansion adjacent to the core Creek Promenade with therelocation of an existing dining deck to a roof top dining deckabove the proposed expansion. The residential addition would addone dwelling unit to the property and a total of 2 r 278 squarefeet of GRFA. Tom reviewed the Vail Viltage DesignConsiderations with respect to the exterior alteration. Thepedestrianization and vehicular penetration are not affected bythe proposal . With regard to streetscape framework, the proposedretail infill along Gore Creek pronenade will provide an lctivitygenerator to give street life and visual interest. Ton statedthat the dining deckrs location would have little success inproviding such activity. I{ith regard to street enclosure, thedorner proposed for the south side of the building would notchange the street enclosure along core Creek Driveappreciatively. The one store retail expansion along thePromenade would establish a more desirable rrhunan scaler! on thisside of the building but any perceived reduction in nass on thisside of the buil.ding is negated by the introduction of a fourthand fifth floor.
Street Edge: Slightly irregular facade lines, building jogs, andlandscaped areas create life and visual interest for thepedestrian. The proposed retail expansion is consistent withthis criteria. The addition is slightly recessed frominprovements of the Gore Creek Plaza building. Any certainrhythn has been established along the entire length of the
Prornenade.
at 201 Gore Creek Drive.
Building height: Height variance is reguired to allow additionsto the upper floor on the north side of the building. Theexisting building is non-confonning with respect to allowablebuilding heights. The proposed addition would increase the
degree of non-confomity. Ton felt that one must conslder thefurplications of this proposal as it relates to future developnentapplications. If approved, the proposal would introduce a fifthfloor element along the Gore Creek side of the building and anaddition of tlris nagnitude is inconsistent with the Urban Design
Guide Plan as well as the height plan outlined in the recently
adopted vail village master Plan. Tom then discussed vLews andfocal points and then discussed serrrice and delivery.
Sunr/Shade issue: Tom stated that the Design Guidelines say rrAll
new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the
sunmer and falL shadow pattern on adjacent properties or thepublic right-of-wayrr. Ton said that the proposal would increase
shade along the Pronenade, the shadow pattern at 12:00 noon on
March 21 and Septenber 23 would be 4 L/2 feet in width. Thisinpact is both unnecessary and unacceptable to the staff. Tonrsnext concern riras the arctritecture/Iandscape considerations. Hestated that it was important to address this consideratl.onpertaining to roofs. Staff felt that the flat roof was out of
character with the Village and the manner in which it was
proposed displays little to no relationship to existing roofforns on the building. The staff reconnendation is for denial ofthe requested exterior alteration. The staff feels that whilethe proposed additions rnay benefit the owner and the tenants itwill do little to benefit the overall fabric of the Village. TheVillage is based on a very delicate balance between tbe built
environment, open spaces and space between the buildings and itis felt that this building has reached its optinun level of
development.
Craig Snowdon, an architect representing the appJ,icant, statedthat the dining patio has been reduced to a little hole. The sun
on the deck would be increased by raising it to the second floorlevel . Those on the deck would also have a better view of both
core Creek Prornenade and tbe childrenrs Plaza. Craig felt thatthe first floor retail space was a definite plus. He stated thatpeople do not look up when they are close to a building. Hestated that the fiftb floor would not be viewed at all. Theclosest view would be fron nridge street. Regarding the height
along Gore Creek Drive, the height conplies with the Urban Design
Considerations for the Village. Craig also said that the Gore
Creek Plaza building had set a precedence, therefore the BeIl
Tohrer building would not be increasing the situation.
Regarding Service and Delivery, Craig said that there were 230feet from delivery point at l{illow Bridge loading area wtrich was
comparable to the One VaiI Place Building and the Hong Kong CafeBuilding. l{ith regard to sun/shade, the 5th floor does not
increase the shade. The 4th floor roof does affect the
Sun/Shade. with regard to the architecture, steeper roofs could
have been designed but woufd have made it much nore of a heightproblen. With regard to restricting the two enployee units
permanently, Craig asked if this had been done any other place in
the Village. He felt that it seened extreme. Regarding
Iandscape reduction, Craig felt that there was more tolandscaping than dirt. He stated that the orJner regularlyinvests $5,OOO per year on landscaping for such things as windowboxes, flower baskets, ChrLstnas lights etc.. Craig felt thatthe section of landscaping being used was not highly vlsible. Healso inforned the board that presently the owner of the Bell
Tower owns part of the property that the publlc stairE are on.
He also pointed out that ellninatlng the patio at grade willincrease the Pronenade area by 1OO to 125 feet. He felt thatreplacing the landscaping with stainray had very little irnpact onthe view. Hennan Staufer, who owns the restaurant, felt that the
Iandscaping was a trade-off for staimays that work the sane as apatlo.
Rod Slifer, who owns tlre unit on the top floor of the building tothe west of the core Creek Plaza building, said his concern waswith the top floor addition on the north side of the building.His view has already been inpacted by a vent on the roof of tbeBelI Tower Building, and if tlre addition was approved, his viewof the Gore Range would be totally blocked. He requested thatthe current design be moved back 10 feet which would allos hin
enough view to satisfy hirn.
Craig replied that the addition would infringe on Rod Sllferrsview but that it would not totally block it. Rod disagreed.Pepi Gransharnmer then spoke frorn the audience. He ltas concernedabout the height and the number of variances. He said that ifthe buildings keep on increasing in s|ze, it would destroy the
Town.
Kristan explained the height lirnitations to hin and pointed outto him that the staff was recornmending denial of this project.
Kathy wondered whether or not a site coveraete variance wasreguired. Ton explained that patios and dining decks count assite coverage in CCI so that the discrepancy uas not gettinggreater. Kristan added that the staff had looked at this veryclosely. Kathy agreed with the staff on this proposal and didnot feel that this was an appropriate expansion in an appropriateplace. She said that perhaps the Gore Creek Plaza did set a
precedence, but she didn't see why the Town must continue withanother similar expansion. Kathy said that fron the ltay Palacethe visibility from the 4th and sth floors was apparent. she didnot feel that the roof structure was appropriate and was
concerned about the design of the retail deck.
Jin had no problen with the retail addition, but he did have aproblen with the upper rrskyscape[. Connie agreed with Pepl thatif the Town kept growing it would die. Regarding enployee
housing she felt that it could be kept at 15 years.
Craig snowdon said that he was willing to replace the units priorto the issuance of a building pernit somewhere else in Vall. witha deed restriction. This would have to be reviewed by the etaff.
ConnLe asked Hernan how the waLtresses would get to the deck.
Ludwig did not feel that growth would kil1 Vail , but that Vail-did need checks and balances. He stated that if tlrer€ waa a
precedence set, one dld not have to perpetuate thLs. Ludwlg alsofelt that the BeII Toner Building was an attractive one atpresent and that the addition night destroy the quality.
Dalton also discussed the Gore Creek Plaza Building roofaddition. He felt that it was ill advised and that now that itis constructed he felt that we should not repeat this error.
DaLton felt that the angle of the addition could be changed sothat it would not affect the vies through the stainray.
Diana felt that the existing nassing rtas appropriate, that it wasthe end of a row of buildings and a very pretty building. Her
concerns were that one more unit would increase vehiculartraffic, that the ernployee units nust be permanent, and that the
second floor railing blocked views. She had no problen with theretail infill, and Diana asked for clarification on sitecoverage. Ton reptied that the site coverage was non-conformingat present and wasnrt changing. Diana felt that when one asksfor this number of variances, the proposal could be inproved.
craig Snohrdon asked to table the iten.
Motion for tablinq was nade bv Kathv Warren and seconded by
Connie Knidht.
VOTE! 6-oINFAvoR.
ftem No. 8: A recruest to amend a Soecial Developnent Districtfor the Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5. VailVillage Fifth filinq at 365 Gore Creek Drive.Applicant: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. Hill
Family.
Connie Knight renoved herself fron the board due to a conflict ofinterest.
Kristan explained changes since the last review. She said the
applicant had rotated the building slightly to decrease the
encroachrnent to the east.
Pan Hopkins, the architect on the proJect, said that because ofthe conmon easement for the swinming pool and the recreationanenities, the building was pushed as far west as possible. She
showed thj.s on a site plan.
BiIl Hanrnon, a resident of the Vorlaufer, was concerned thatthere would be a decrease in hotel roons, he felt that hotel
rooms were inportant and disagreed vith the wording of keys
versus lock-off rooms. He said this is a similar situation tothe Raurshorn when it converted from a hotel to condoninlums. He
was also concerned about the flat roof.
Greg Stutz, representing the Vorlaufer condorninium ownerE andUr. and Mrs. Chandler and l{r. and t{rs. Carol, said he felt that
he wanted more time to analyze the request or else have the roof
rnoved 10 feet lower. He Eaid he had not had sufflcient tine tosit down and talk wlth the architect. Since the building is notto go up till 1991, he would like rnore tiroe to look at it. l{r.
Chandl.er said he bought his Vorlaufer unlt 21 years ago and has
been able to watch the torchlight parades. l,[r. Carol said the
sane thing.
Don Hare, representing the Garden of the Gods, said that he had
two or three neetings sith l{r. Carol . The plan had been reworked
and they had done as much as they felt they could do in stayingwithin the setback restrictions that exist on the building now.
Dan said that they would like to go ahead with the plan. Theyfeel that they have stayed back as far as they can.
titr. Stutz asked that if Special Developruent District had expired,
how could this be an amendment to the SDD. Kristan replied thatthe saroe process was used. He explained that he felt it should
be advertised as a new Special Developrnent District.
Chuck Crist returned at this tirne.
Diana asked if it was legal to proceed. Iarry responded he feltthat it was legal to proceed. This was strictly advisory and
would go to the Town Council. More dLscussion followed
concerning whether this was an amendrnent or a new Special
Developnent District, Kathy stated that if this was a newSpecial Development District she sould change her approach to theproblem. She felt that what was being done to tbe property sasto the neighborsr benefit. she also felt that the setbackvariance could have been done within the present zoning.
L,udwig felt that the deveLopers had worked with restraint andsensitivity in light of what could have been done. He wonderedif extra tirne rnight be appropriate and that they would have a
chance to look at the proposal again. He stated that he had an
opportunity to look at the view fron the vorlaufer and that theresas no question that the views were lmpeded. However' he feltthat the developers were using sensitivity in moving thebuilding.
Diana felt that the Garden of the Gods vas doing a good Job with
the proposal. She stated that if the Garden of the Gods wereconstructed up to their setbacks, it would be a wall toward theVorlaufer. she said according to the guidelines the board vould
have no reason to say no to the proposal . She added that there
rrere no private views in Vall . She sondered if an sDD waa
necessary for this proJect. Kristan replied that the stafflooked at it as a brand new proJect wben they were told that thebuilding would be torn down. The first guestion they asked was
why have a Special Development District.
Kathy asked if a SDD nas leaving options wide open. She also
wondered why it was necessary. Larry Eslcwith replied that the
Town was getting benefits with a SDD. This way the staff has theability to supervise the architectural design and that a conplete
developnent plan had to be reviewed by the staff so that there
was Dore control with the SDD.
The appJ.icant asked to table to lllarch 26.
The rnotion for tablinq to March 26 was nade bv Kathy Warren
and seconded bv .fim Shearer
VoTE: 5 - o - 2 with Chuck Crist and Connie Knight abstainina.
Iten No. 9:A work session to discuss an exterior alteration.a stream setback variance. a site coveraqe
variance, a conditional use for a deck enclosure
and a new outdoor oatio and an amendnent to the
View Corridor for the Red Lion Buildin<r. (3O4
Bridoe St.lApplicant: Frankie Tang and Landmark Prooerties
A work session - no minutes taken.
a work session for Special Development District22, Lot 1- 19, Block 2. Lionsridcre, Filinq No. 3.Applicant: Pat Dauphinais
A work sessl.on - no minutes taken.
Itern No. 10:
TO:
FROI{:
DATE:
RE:
Planning and Environnental Conmission
Conmunity Development Departnent
February 26, 1990
Proposed Additions to the BelI Tower Bullding at 20L
Gore Creek Drive.Applicant: Clark willinghan/8e11 Tohter Associates,
Ltd.
Proposed additions to the Betl Tower building include a ground
level retail expansion along the Gore Creek Prornenade and
additions to existing residential developnent on the upper floorsof the structure. while this proposal involves one property andis being reviewed as one application, the nature of the proposal
requires the review of four separate requests. These reguests
include:
1. An exterior alteration to add enclosed floor area to
the existinq structure.
A height variance in order to add additional floor areato the building.
3. A variance request to reduce J.andscaping on the site.
4. e conditional use perrnit in order to establish an
outdoor dining patio on the second floor of the
building.
Fron a procedural standpoint, each of these requests must be
addressed with its own memorandum. There is obviously a great
deaL of overlap between each of these four requests. While each
application is- addressed individually, the Planning Connission is
encouraged to consider the collective inpacts of the proposal
when evaluated as a who1e.
2.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Planning and Environnental Conrnission
Community Development Department
February 26, 1990
A request for an crsterior alteratlon Ln order toconstruct additions to the Bell Tower Building locatedat 201 core Creek Drive.Applicant: Clark Willinghan/Bell Tower Associates, Ltd.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REOUEST
Approval of an exterior alteration request is required for anyaddition of enclosed floor area to structures in Vail village.The major elements of this proposal include:
t. The addition of a dorner on the fourth floor on thebuilding along core Creek Drive.
2. The addition of a fifth floor and expansion of thefourth floor on the north side of the building adjacentto the core Creek Pronenade.
3. A 27O square foot ground floor retail expansionadjacent to the Gore Creek Prornenade with therelocation of the existing dining deck to a roof topdining deck above the proposed expansion.
The residentiat addition will- add one dwelling unit to theproperty and a total ot 2278 sguare ft. of GRFA. The proposal iswithin the allowable GRFA and unit linitations. As proposaed,the property would have a total floor area of 161025 sq. ft., ofwhich 464 sq. ft. is GRFA.
REVTEW CRTTERTA FOR THTS REOUEST
The Vail- village Urban Design Plan includes three elements thatestablish the review criteria for this application. The first ofthese is referred to as the Guide Plan which includes a nunber ofsub area concepts, rnany of which identify potential areas forfuture developrnent and other improvements. Secondly, the UrbanDesign Considerations express the large scale land use planning
and design considerations desired in the village. Fina1ly,architectural/landscape considerations establish the criteria forevaluating detailed design considerations of a proposal .
fn additj-on to the Guide Plan, traditional zoning considerationsare also a factor in this proposal. Please refer to the
accornpanying memorandums that address these zoning issues.
THE URBAN DESIGN GUTDE PI,AN
There are no specific sub-area concepts relevant to this
proposal .
VAIL VILI,AGE DESIGN CONSIDERAIIONS
The following design considerations are a critical element of the
Urban Design Plan. They identify the key physical
characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to assure
that new developrnent be consistent with this establishedcharacter. These considerations include the following:
A. Pedestrianization:
This proposal does not directly affect or change the
existing-pedestrianization systern in the Village.
B. Vehicle Penetration:
Vehicular penetration' or circulation, will remain
unchanged as a result of this proposal .
c. Streetscape Framework:
Streetscape frarnework identifies two alternatives for
inproving the pedestrian e:<perience in the Village'
ThLse inctude the development of open space and
J.andscaping along pedestrian routes, and the
developtnent of infill commercial storefronts along
pedestiian corridors. While the.landscape iruprovenents
Lan provide a softening of buildings and a.colorful
frarnlwork, the conmercial infills can provide activity
generators to give streetlife and visual interest to
the pedestrian. The proposed retail infill along the
Gore creek Promenade iill provide such an activitygenerator. While the existing dining,deck could
frovide such activity, its poor I'ocation (relative to
sun exposure), has rLsulted in the deck having little
success in providing such activity.
D. STREET ENCIPSIIRE
The purpose of this consideration is to naintain a
corntortaUle relationship between the width of streets
and the height of buildings. The donner proposed.for
the south side of the building will not appreciativeJ-y
change the street enclosure along Gore Creek Drive'
The one story retail ex;ransion along the Promenade will
establish a iore desiraLle rhunan scalerr on this side
of the building. Houever' any perceived reduction in
mass on this side of the building is negated by the
introduction of a fourth and fifth floor.
E.STREE]r EDGE
There are no standard setback requirelnents forbuildings in Vail Village. Rather, proposals arelooked at nith relationshlp to the site and surrounding
development to ensure a strong street edge. A strongstreet edge does not inply perfectly allgned facadesalong entire street widths. Rather, sliqhtly irregularfacade lines, building Jogs, and landscape areas createlife and visual interest for the pedestrian.
The proposed retail expansion is consistent with thiscriteria. The addition is slightly recessed from
improvements on the core Creek Plaza building, and acertain rhythrn has been establiEhed along the entirelength of the Promenade. The new ding deck, wbil.elocated on the second level , will also contribute tostrengthening the street edge with activity along the
Promenade.
Buildinq Heiqht
As outlined in the acconpanying memo, a height varianceis required to allow additions to the upper floors onthe North side of this building. The existing buildingis non-conforming with respect to allowable buildingheights. The proposed addition would increase the
degree of non-confornity. Please refer to the
accompanying height variance nemo for additionalinfornation on this request.
Many of the older buildings in the Vail Village exceedpermitted building heights. one must consider theinplications of this proposal as it relates to future
developnent applications. If approved, this proposal
would introduce a fifth floor element along the Gorecreek Side of the building. An addition of thisnagnitude is inconsistent with the Urban Design GuidePlan, as well as the height plan outlined in therecently adopted vail village Uaster PIan.
Views and Focal Points
The proposed expansions do not inpact any of theformerly adopted view corridors. Another view
consideration was that of the staircase between theChildrenrs Fountain and the Gore Creek Promenade. The
view of these stairs is irnportant to provide
pedestrians with a point of orientation as the neander
through the Village. Not only will- this be unaffected
by the proposed retall expansion, dining activity onthe roof top of this expansion may serve to draw thepedestrian fron the Childrenrs Fountain down the stairto the Promenade.
F.
G.
,s'y tt'f.l
/{\J +(,,ttf ,r{{ t(
\€o CSrv
H.Service and Deliverv
The introduction of one or two new retail shops along
the Promenade will requl.re addltional delivery and
senrice. The nearest-loading zones are located along
Gore Creek Drive adjacent to the I-,odge and on Willow
Bridge Road adJacent to the Sitzrnark Hotel . The
distince to these toadlng zones is arnong the greatest
found in the Village. Pioviding a delivery point
through the buildiig was evaluated, but was found to be
unfeasible.
ST'N/SHADE
Design Guidelines state that rrall neit or expanded
truildings should not substantially increase.the sumrner
and fali shadow Pattern on adjacent properties or- the
public right-of-way". Development proposed-for the
irpper flo5rs of the BeIl Tower building wiII cast
iirlreasea shade along the Pronenade. At 12!00 noon on
March 2L and Septernb6r 23, the shadow pattern would be
4.5 feet in wialn. This furpact is both unnecessary and
unacceptable.
As stated in the Guidelines, it is not the intent of
Sun/Shade consideration to restrict building |eightallowances. Rather, they suggest ways to design a
building wittrout l-ncreasing shadow patterns' Tl"
aesign 5f tnis proposed addition lras not responded to
this criteria ln an acceptable roanner'
These design considerations are tlpically the purview
"i-[tt" oesign Review Board. Eowever, in this case it
is inportan€ to address the consideration pertaining to
roofs.
As stated in the guidelines, roofs within the Village
are typically gable in fotm and of moderate to low
pitch-.- freeitinding shed roofs, butterfly roofs and
iiat roots can be f5und but are generally consldered to
6ilut of character and inappropriate' Not only is the
flat roof form proposed with this building out of.
character witfr tnivillage, the nanner in which it is
piop"t"a displays little-to no relationship to existing
roof forms on the building.
I.
J.
OTHER CONSIDER,ATIONS
In December of 1988, the Bell Touer building received approval to
convert ttre building to condominiun ownership. there are two
srnalL studio units in the building that have historically been
used as employee housing. As a part of this condo conversion
approval , the applicant has agreed to restrict the use of these
two units to employee housing for a period of 15 years. The
proposed remodel would eliminate these two enployee units. Asiucfi, the applicant needs an amendment to the previous condition
applied to the condo conversion approval .
The applicant has agreed to acquire a new unlt(s), prior to.the
issuance of a building permit, and record the same restrictionsliniting their use to enployee housing. The staff feels thatthis is an acceptable solution, provlded that the unit(s) are
located within tbe village or Lionshead core areas and arerestricted pemanently as euployee housing units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recornrnendation is for denial of the requested exterioralteration. A review of the relevant Urban Design Criteria (and
the requested variances), indicates a nunber of shortconingsrelative to building height, sun/shade irnpact, off-site
improvements reducing landscaped area, and overall design.
rn evaluating this request, it is important to take a look at theexisting level of developnent on this slte. The property isessentiilly built out to property lines on all four sides and isbuilt to a height in excess of what is pemitted under existingzoning. The additions proposed would exasperate these
conditions.
It is not the staff's intent to be overly crltical of the
existing structure. In nany ways, it typifles the desired
character of the buildings in the Village. However, the proposed
additions go beyond what is appropriate on this site.
At some po5-nt, the Planning Cornnission nust ask itself thequestion of rlhen to draw the line sith tbis tlpe of infill
developurent. VaiI Village is based on a very delicate balance
between the built environnentr open sPaces' and space betweenbuildings. Sinply stated, this building has reached its optirnurn
level oi developroent. While the proposed additions may benefit
the owners and tenants' they will do little to benefit theoverall fabric of the Village.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Coronunity Development Departnent
February 26, L99O
A request for a helght variance I'n order to construct
an ad-dition to the BelI Toner Building at 201 Gore
creek Drive.Applicant: clark willinghan/Bell Tolder Associates' Ltd'
DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REOUESTED
Additions to the upper floors of the BeIl Tower building
include a fourth floor dorner on the south side of the
building (along Gore creek Drive), and a larger-addition to
the norfh side of the building. This larger addition
introduces a fifth floor element from the Gore Creek
promenade side of the building. By definition, the dorrner
along Gore creek Drive does not necessitate a variance. The
variince reguest before the Conmission is for the addition
proposed to the North side of the building.
Building heights in the village are regulated.in a manner
that is intended to encourage height and rnassing variety
and to discourage uniforn building heights along the street.
The building height restrictions are as follows:
1. Up to 60 I of the building (building coverage
aiea) may be built to a height of 33 feet or less'
2. No more than 4ot of the building (building
coverage area) nay be higher than 33 feet but not
higher than 43 feet.
t:ne 6O/40 split is designed to encourage varied roof heights
irotg'Uuifaings. The a6solute highest point of a building
p"rrnitt"d by ioning is 43 feet to existing grade. This
lroperty is-unique in that existing grades 319nS. Gore creek-arive aird the children I s Fountain area are I feet higher
than the grade along the Gore creek Promenade. with respect
i" Ini= aiplication] iu,provements proposed to the south side
of tne luiiaing are'meaiured relative to Gore Creek Drive
and improvemenfs on the north side of the building are
measured to the Gore Creek Promenade.
The existing structure is legal/non-confoming because
existing heights exceed that pernitted by the Urban Design
Guide Plan and the zoning code. As submitted by the
applicant, 58.5t of the existing roof is over 33 feet and
less than 43 feet, and 41.5t of the roof is below 33 feet.
The proposed expansion would increase this discrepancy to
64* of the building being above 33 feet and below 43 feet,
and 36t of the roof being below 33 feet. These calculations
are accurate with one exception. The existing roof, when
measured from ttre Gore Creek Prornenade, is 44.3 feet inheight. The flat roof elernent proposed on the North side ofthe building neasures 51.7 feet to the Gore creek Promenade.
This is 8.7 feet over the maxinun threshold of 43 feet. In
sunnary, this request is to increase the percentage of roofheight beyond the 60140 split' and to also approve abuilding that is over 51 feet in height at variouslocations.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 ofthe Vail Municipal code, the Departrnent of Cornmunity
Development recommends denial of the requested variance
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the reauested variance toother existinq or potential uses and structures inthe vicinitv.
The height variance is resulting in a directinpact to pedestrian activity in the Village bycasting increased shade on the Gore Creek
Prornenade. However, of greater concern is the
long range inpact this decision may have on other
development proposals in the Village. The Village
core is perceived as a mix of two to three story
facades, and ttre ValI Village Master Plan hasproposed general building heights of three to fourstories. This proposal would introduce a fivestory element along the Gore Creek Pronenadeelevation. Sinilar proposals on other buildingsin the Village could establish a dangerous trendthat would potential.J.y change the character of thebuilt environment of the ViIIage. The design
controls outlined in the zoning code and the Urban
Design Guide Plan are intended to establish a
maximum building volume. This proposal is not
responsive to those paraneters, and presents aIegitinate threat to the existing character of the
Village.
2.
3.
one justification for the proposed addition is
that the property is within its GRFA allowances'
None the i"t-s, it should be understood that sinply
having atlowable GRFA to build does not assure the
appli6ant the righ! to develop this square f99!age
i's'pioposea. G-appricant his chosen to utilize
itr"-ipi"" within thl-existing buitding with three
full iloors of restaurant, retail , and office
space. This square footage does not count as
e'nfe. As such, -the building lras excess GRFA that
rii U" utilizid. As stated, the proposed addition
doEs not cornply with the general parameters
establishea ioi building volurne. The obvious
alternative for the applicant is to reallocate
Jiirtitg uses and develop additionat GRFA in space
that is-now used for cornrnercial purPoses' There
is ctearty no physicat hardship to substantiate
this variance request.
utilities. and Public safetv.
The reguested height variance would increase
shadow-patterns oi ttr" Gore Creek Prornenade' This
inpact is addressed in greater detail in the
exterior alteration memorandurn.
III
The illustrative height plan of the vail village ltaster Plan
recomnends three to iour-story buildings. The proposed
addition would add a fifth floor element to the structure.
This propot"i-i"- inconsistent with the designed building
heights as outlined VWP.
IV. FINDINGS
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
giant of ipecial-privilege inconsistent with the
iinitationl on otirer properties classified in the same
district.
A.
B.
c.
That the granting of the variance will not bedetrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, ormaterially injurious to properties or improvernents inthe vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of thefollowing reasons:
1. The strict llteral interpretation or enforcernentof the specified regulation would result inpractical difflculty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the obJectives of thistitle.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstancest or conditions applicable to the sarnesite of the variance that do not aPply generallyto other properties in the same zone.
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of thespecified regulatlon would deprive the applicantof privileges enjoyed by the owners of otherproperties in the same district.
STAFF RECOT{MENDATTON
The staff can find no bases to support this reguest. Thereis cLearly no hardship evident to allow this development,
and there are legitinate impacts that would directly resultfron this proposal . Staff recornmendation is for denial of
the requested height variance.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
PlannJ.ng and Environrnental Conmission
conmunity Development Departnent
february 26, 1990
A variance requeBt ln order to reduce landscape area atthe Bell Tolter auilding at 201 Gore Creek Drive.Applicant: C1ark Willingharn/BelI Tower Associates,
Ltd.
1. The relationshiP of the recruested variance to
other existinq or potential uses and structures in
the vicinity.
While architecturally a fine building' the BeIl
Toner property is lacking in landscaPe features.ft should be noted, however, that tbis situationis not unique to the Bell Tower Building. The
WaIl Street Building, the Gorsuch Building and the
A & D Building are other exarnples of properties
that do not have a great deal of on site landscape
inprovenents. In nany casesr landscape
I. LANDSCAPE REOUIREMENTS IN CCI ARE AS TOLIPWS
L8.24.170 Landscapincr and Site Developnent.
No reduction in landscape area shall be pennittedwithout sufficient cause shown by the applicant or asspecified in the vall Village Urban Design
Considerations.
By definition, landscaped areas include wa1ks, decks,pitios, terraces and sinilar features. A retail expansion
proposed along the Gore Creek Promenade vould eliurinate 240
sguare feet of patio area.
A stair case and walkway to access the deck are Proposed on
Town of Vail land. These improvements would eliminateplanted area and also constitute a net reduction in
landscaped area. Whil,e this is technically not theapplicants land, these improvements must be considered
because they are an element of this overall developrnent
plan.
II. CRITERIA AND FTNDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the Vait Municipal Code, the Departnent of Corununity
Development reconmends denial of the requested variance
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
2.
improvenents are located on Town land or right-of-
ways. The intent of the Urban Design Guide Planis to consider buildings and landscape
irnprovemente with respect to how they relate to
each other, and not dwell on arbitrary property
lines.
The rernoval of the ithardscapetr patio feature is
not a najor issue with the staff due to the
northern exposure, replacement of the deck on the
2nd floor retall infill. However, reducing the
size of the planted area for circulation to the
proposed dining deck is of great concern. While
on Tonn of Vall land, this snall pocket of
qtreenery provides one of the few landscapefeatures for this property. The removal of this
landscaped area ls inappropriate.
The deqree to which relief fron the strict andliteral interpretation and enforcement of aspecified recrulation is necessarv to achievecornpatibility and uniformitv of treatrnent.anolq
Cites in the vicinitv or to attain the obiectivesof this title without qrant of special privileqe.
The loss of landscaping is no greater than is whatis necessary to provide access to the new diningdeck. However, it nust be understood thatcirculation to the new dining deck could beprovided in a nunber of different ways. one
obvious alternative l-s to design circulationwithin the existing buildlng. This alternative
would reduce the anount of dining deck area aswell as the amount of new retail space that could
be leased. Hence, the circulation is proposed on
the exterior of the building in order to maxinize
leasable and usable square footage within thebuilding. There is no physical hardship tojustify this request other than the applicantsdesire to maxirnize the efficiency of their
proposed development plan.
The effect of the recruested varlance on licrht andair, distribution of oopulation' transportation
and traffic facilities, public facilities andutilities, aM
The proposal would not affect any of the abovecriteria
3.
III RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL VILLAGE I.IASTER PIAN.
eoal # 3 of the Vail Vlllage lilaster Plan states' rrTo
recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking
experience throughout the ViJ-1agett. Related objectives andpolicies include:
Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian
waLkway with landscaping and ottrer improvements.
Policv: Flowers, trees, water features, and other
lands-aping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in
locations adjacent to, or visible fron, public area.
one may argue that the walktfay and stairs could in fact be
considered-decorative streets-ape elenents. However, inthis case their purpose is not to serve the public interest,
but rather the developers interest. Trees, plantings and
flowers are a preferrLd alternative for treatment in this
area as opposed to additional paving surfaces.
IV. FINDINGS
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with thelimitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
That the granti.ng of the variance will not be
detrinental to the public health, safety or welfare' or
naterially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
fo1J-owing reasons 3
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcementof the specified regulation would result inpractical difficulty or unnecessary physical
lrardship inconsistent wittr the objectives of this
title.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the samesite of the variance that do not aPply generally
to other properties in the same zone.
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant
of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the sane district.
A.
B.
c.
V. STAFF RECOUTdENDATTON
The staff recomendE denial of tbe propored landscape varLance'
While generally eupportive of the lnflll over the sxlstlng patio'
tne stitf cann6t aEcept the lntroductlon of hard aurfaces on an
existing planter.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Planning and Environnental Conmission
Community Development Department
February 26, L99o
a conditlonal use petnlt ln order to construct a second
floor dining patio to the BeIl Toser Building at 201
Gore Creek Drive.Applicant: Clark Willingharn/Bell Tower Associates,
Ltd.
The proposed dining deck would have no effect on vehicular
traffic in the Core area.
Reduction of vehicular traffic on CCI District.
The proposed dining deck will have no reduction on vehicular
traffic in the core area.
This proposal does not affect any existing parking on the
property.
The Lancelot restaurant currently operates a dining deck at
ground level- located along the Gore Creek Pronenade. As
proposed, a retail expansion would be built over this diningpatio and a new dining deck would be located on the roof of the
proposed retail expansion. The proposed roof top deck would be
lpproximately 470 square feet. The existing ground level deck is
approximately the sarne size.
Proposed access to the new deck would be from a new walk-way
Leading off of the childrenrs Fountain area and a circular
staircise that would lead from the Gore Creek Promenade level up
to the new deck. The circular staircase is located entirely on
Town land, and the walk-way from the childrenrs Fountain is
predominantly on Town land. The Tordn council has not approved
Lhis proposal , however, they have granted the applicant
permiisi6n to proceed itrrouqh the piocess for review of this
development plan.
CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL
There are seven specific criteria to be used when evaluating
conditional use permits in ccl . These are as folLows:
A.
B.
c.
d
D.
E.
F.
Control of deliverv, pick-up, and senrice vehicles.
The proposed dining deck is equal in size to the existingdining deck. As such, there shouLd be no increase in dernandfor delivery or service to this location.
Development of nublic spaces use bv pedestrians.
The proposal does not effect public spaces, nor does itinclude the developnent of public spaces for use bypedestrians.
Continuance of the various. commercial . residential andpublic uses in CCI District so as to naintain the existingcharacter of the area.
outdoor dininq patios are a vital elenent to the characterof the Vail ViJ-lage. This ralses the issue of whether ornot it is appropriate to relocate this to a roof-toplocation. The existing deck lacks direct exposure tosunlight, and as such, has historically been used onlyduring the evening hours in the suntner months. I{hen
compared to other decks in the Village, this dining patio isnot in an ideal location. The relocation of the deck is notconsidered to be a detrinental change to the Village.
As outlined in CCI zoning, dining patios and decorativepavers are considered landscape features. Fron a technicaLstandpoint, the retall expansion at ground level isresultinq in a net reductlon of landscaped area on the site.In addition, the proposed steps and walk-way on Town landwilt reduce the planted area adjacent to the site. The lossof planter area necessitated by the location of the stairsis significant and is addressed in greater detail in theexterior alteration memo and the landscape variance request
memo.
STAFF RECOIIIMENDATION
fn concept, the staff is supportive of the deck being relocatedtop a roof top location. However, the circulation irnprovernentsproposed for Town land have negative effect on the overallappearance of this project. For this reason, the staff
recommends denial of this conditl-onal use pernit.
control crualitv of construction, architectural desiqn. andlandscape design in CCI District so as to naintain theexistincr character of the area.
G.
oo+t'.t'
,t- +*:'-[*w J'F
\. -.-.- -l ^^ -l
aifiov *ows,
T
| - rlaitt ,
qlcffhoh, trollln hw
loV +uvwtlr\fhl*,
4ffi Vw
g9i,1l
+1r'
400.5
+b0.1
I
{9o.+'
, bdlloww. lonrl.drno , r00l plqn " rrt't(
' vatl I oolorT4o ou vtl lp iln
vv) oro^ firive, t'
'"nowAon nA ltWKMq ,orrhthdq
Snowdon and HopP.ins r Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive 303 476-2201
Vail, Colorado 81657
April L5, L990
Mr. Tom Braun
Town of VaiL Planning Department
75 So. Frontage RoadVail, CO 8L657
RE: Lancelot Restaurant Expansion
A part of Tract A, Bloak 58, Vail village First Filing, vail, co
Dear Tom:
Enclosed are four sets of information on our proposed request for an
addition to the Lancelot Restaurant in VaiI Village. The applicant,
Hermann Stauffer, is requesting exterior modifications and alterations
which requires sulmittat of the proposal to the Town of VaiI Planning
Departnent as per CCI zoning (Se-tion L8.24.065). This proposal is
requesting changes to the following three areas:
1. A Conditional Use Permit (Section L8.24.030) for partial
enclosure of an existing outdoor restaurant/bar seating area along the
pedestrian ltay of the north side of the Betl Tohter Building.
2. Exterior rnodification and alteration to the west, east and
north elevations to accommodate conversion of an existing patio to
restaurant space.
3. A change in landscape coverage (Section L8.24.L7O)'
These requests fall within tbe guidelines of the VaiI Village Urban
Design Guide PIan and Commercial Core I zoning; naintain and enhance
the rlnique character of the Vail Village conmercial area; upgrade
portionJ of the property; and is consistent with the purpose
(section L8.24.010) of ccl.
Page 2
Mr. Tom BraunApril l-5, l-990
The existing and proposed perrnitted, accessory and conditionaf uses
(Sections L8.24.020 through L8.24.08O) for the basement, first, second
and above second floor level are maintained. However, as previously
noted, a Conditional Use Permit wiII be required to nodify the
proposed outdoor dining patio (Section L8.24-030).
The lot area (61029 square feet) and site dimensions (97' X 70') as
per Section 18.24.O9O are above the ninirnun required. The setbacksjSection L8.24.LOO)r height (Section L8.24.1-20)t and density control
(Section t8.24.1-3O) !"ill be unchanged.
The coverage (section 1.8.24.LsO) of the property with building, ground
Level patios and decks will be unchanged, however there will be a loss
of f'landscapingrr and site development (Section l-8.24.L7O) due to
expansion of the building into the patio area.
Parking and Loading (Section l-8.24.L8O) wilf be consistent with
existiig conditionl . No on-site parking is provided, and parkl{t9
spaces ior the change in restaurantTbar space will trade with kitchen
elpansion, as per t5wn of Vail standards, and require no additional
splces. f-,oaaiirg requirements would be unchanged and the existing
16adin9 zone al6ng €he south side of Gore Creek Drive would still
service all portions of the building via the west alley and the
Children,s P1aza. Emergency access will be unchanged, as no elements
of the new design will project further into driving lanes than
presently exist.
The project wilt conply with Sections L8.24.L90, 1-8.24.200 and
L8.2A.21O, and le developed as per the Vait Village Urban Design Guide
Plan. Considerations of the Urban Design Guide Plan are as follows:
1-. Pedestrianization is encouraged by reinforcing the edges of Gore
Creek Promenade. The present exposure of the building is reduced and
encourages the winter use of Gore Creek Promenade as a stronger
pedestrian walkway. The extension along the north wall adds to the-pedestrian scale lnd the new facade wilt draw people on to other shops
beyond the staircase.
2. Vehicular Penetration is unaffected by this expansion of existing
ana estaUtisneA uses, and will use all established traffic and access
patterns.
Page 3
l{r. Tom BraunApril 15, l-99O
3. Streetscape Framework is reinforced by bringing the building down
to grade, where the pedestrian can have a better interaction. Addedvisual interest is reinforced by opening up and expanding the existing
dining activity toward the walkway. With all of these improvernents,the quality of the waLking experience around this key building in the
Village core is greatly increased.
4. Street EncLosure is inproved by extending a one-story base element
around the north side of the building. This lowers the scale of the
building down to a vte1l defined ground floor pedestrian front, and
ties into the open area to the north, giving it a confortable
enclosure to match sirnitar elements on the west (Blu's) and east
(May Palace).
5. The Street Edqe is reinforced by the front windows, creatinq a
facade very much in keeping with the unique character and pedestrian
scale of Vail.
6. Building Height is un-affected, as the entire expansion is within
the existing envelope of the building. The new roof lines will add
variety and increase the mix of buildinq heights which is a desirable
element in the guide plan. The existing roof condition is
non-conforrning is 5l-* of the roof area is in the 33 ' - 43 ' height and
because of gride change on the north side, the entire elevation
exceeds 50' in height.
7. Views are not impacted by the building expansion because all
irnprovements occur inside the existing building envelope, and are just
creating a new facade inside view planes of the existing building.
8. Service and Delivery is unchanged and is consistent with the Town
plan by using existing loading and parking zones presently,established
itong eore Cieek Drive. Emergency and naintenance access is not
changed and will continue to service the building and other buildings
beyond the p1aza. Trash and deliveries will still ,|a handled through
the existing service alley along the west boundary of the property,
and the Uuitaing expansion should not interrupt with its existing use.
g. Sun and Shade are not irnpacted by the expansion along the north
edge of the building.
Page 4
Mr. Tom BraunApril 1-5, L990
Architectural detailing and landscaping considerations will be
addressed during the design review stages of approvals and shall not
be expanded upon at this time. I hope the enclosed inforrnation is
adequate to continue the review process. If you need more
inforrnation, or have any questions on the project' please Let me know.
Sincerely,
SNOWDON AND HOPKINS ARCHITECTS
Craig N. Snowdon
Partner
CNS/s1h
Enc.
APPLICATION FOR
OR MODIFICATIONS
VAIL
out. ort tication--;4fJlf4l
-Date or erc neetins 4lltf 1t
EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS
IN COMMERCIAL CORE I
VI LLAGE
I.Plann'ing and Environmental Commissionof an existing bui'lding which adds or
outdoor patio or the replacement of an
DISTRICT. FOLLOWING PEC APPROVAL, THE
review is required for the alteration
removes any enclosed floor area or
ex'isting building LOCATED IN THE CCI
PROJECT MUST BE REVIEI^IED BY THE DRB.
The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted.
A. NAME OF APPLICANT
ADDRESS
B.NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE
ADDRESS ril
C. NAME 0F OhJNER(S) (print or type)
STGNATURE (S )
ADDRESS
pnontJlh_-74!x_
D.LOCATION
ADDRESS
0F PR0POSAL: LEGAL ?
E. FEE $100.00
THE FEE MUST BE PAID
REVIEl.l YOUR PROJECT.
BY
II. PRE-APPLICATION .CONFERENCE:
A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER IS STRONGLY SUGGESTEDTO DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED. NO APPLICATION I.IILLBE ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL ITEMS REQUIRED BY THE
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY'TO MAKE AN APPOINT-
MENT WITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS.
PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION hlILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS
FOR YOUR PR0JEcr BY-D'ECRFASING THE NUMBER 0F coNDITToNS 0F AppRovAL THAT
THE PEC MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFOREA BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSMD. THE FOLLOI.IING MUST BE SUBMITTED:
A. Improvement survey of property showing property 'l ines and location ofbuilding and any improvements on the land.
B. A list of the names of owners of a'l I property adjacent to the subjectproperty INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHIND AND ACROSS STREETS, and thejr mailingAddTCSSeS. THE APPLICANT l.lILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORREcT MAILING ADDRESsEs.
pnonEflb -53LL
PHONE
PAID cK#
BEFORE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT l,tlLL
OVER
ccI
III. Four (4) copies of a site plan containing the following information:
A. The site plan shall be drawn on a sheet size of 24" x 36" at a scaleof l" = 20' SHOWING EXISTING AND PR0POSED IMPR0VEMENTS T0 THE SITE. Avariation of the sheet size or scale may be approved by the Commun.ityDevelopment Department if justified.
B. The date, north arrow, scale and name of the proposed developmentll|ITH ITS LEGAL DESCRIPTION shail be shown on the site p1an.
C. The existing topographic character of the site including existing
and proposed contours. This condition will only be required for an
expansion area where there is a change of two feet of grade.
D. The existing and proposed 'landscaping, patios.
E. The location of all exist'ing and proposed buildings, structures. and improvements.
F. .A title report to verify ownership and easements.
IV. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT IN I.IRITTEN AND GRAPHIC FORM A PREPONDERANCE
OF EVIDENCE BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION INDICATING
THAT:
A. THE PROPOSAL IS IN CONFORMANCE I.IITH THE PURPOSES OF THE CCI DISTRICT.AS SPECIFIED IN 18.24.0'IO.
B. THE PROPOSAL SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIES WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAI{ DESIGNGUIDE PLAN REGARDING:
I. Pedestrianization2, Vehicle Penetration3. Streetscape Framewofk4. Street Enclosure5. Street Edge6. Build'ing Height7. Views8. Sun Shade Consideration
MANY OF THE ABOVE ITEMS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY GMPHIC
AS SKETCHES, SIMULATIONS, MODELS (INCLUDING NEIGHBORING
PHOTOS, ETC.
IF THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A MAJOR CHANGE TO
DESIGN GUIDE PLAN, THE PROCEDURE FOR CHANGES ARE18.24.220(B).
C. THE PROPOSAL IS COMPATIBLE I.IITH THE CHAMCTER OF
MEANS, SUCH
BUILDINGS),
THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN
NOTED IN SECTION
THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
V. THE TOI.IN OF VAIL ZONING CODE FOR CCI ALSO DESCRIBES OTHER ZONING ISSUESTHAT THE APPLICANT MUST RESPOND TO IN WRITTEN OR GMPHIC FORM.
VI. THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MAY DETERMINE THAT ADDITIONAL MATERIAL IS NECESSARY
FOR THE REVIEt,l OF THE APPLICATION.
VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFICATIONS IN CCI INVOLVINGM0RE THAN .|00 SQUARE FEET 0F FL00R AREA ARE 0NLY REVIEWED SEMI-ANNdAaLi. +revNEED TO BE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FOURTH MONDAY OF MAY OR NOVEMBER. THE PECH0LDS A PRELIMINARY REVIEW SESSI0N WITHIN 21 DAYS 0F THE SUBMiTTAL OAIE.- n
PUBLIC HEARING SHALL BE HELD WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE PRTLIMINARY REVIEW SESSION.
APPLICATIONS FOR THE ALTERATION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT ADDS OR REMOVES ANY
ENCLOSED FLOOR AREA OF NOT MORE THAN IOO SQUARE FEET MAY BE SUBMITTED AT THE
REQUIRED TIME OF THE MONTH FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION REVIEhJ.
FOR MORE SPECIFICS ON THE REVIEl.l SCHEDULE, SEE SECTION I8.24.065 A5.
I.procedure
Permi t.
appl ication
APPLICATION
is required
wi l'l not be
)I
Date or Application 4/11l1D
,l
Date of PEC Meerinq 4l'tlloll
-
FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
for any project required to obtain a conditiona'l
accepted until all information is subm'i tted.
Thi s
use.
The
A.
c.
NAI4E OF APPLICANT
ADDRESS ' ,HoNEjlb.'W_
B.NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE
(
ADDRESS
q,vht
enoue 'ltfufufuL_
D.LOCATION
ADDRESS
E. FEE $'IOO PAID
THE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE
ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL.
cK#
DEPARTI4ENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WILL
adjacent to the subject property
and their mailing addresses.
OI^INERS AND CORRECT AODRESSES.
II. PRE-APPLICATION CLAUSE
A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBEN TS STNONOLY SUGGESTEDT0 DETERMINE IF ANY ADoITIoNAL INFoRMATIoN Is NEEDED. No AppLIcATton wii-.: qF ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INcLUDE ALL ITEMs REqUIRED_BV iHE zoIlnel9!I.NIiIR4i9B)._ II_l! THEAPPLIcANi's nEspottsIBLITy To MAKE An nppornmerlr}IITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REqUIREMENTS:
PLEASE NOTE THAT A !9I!!EIE APPLTCATTON l,,rLL STREAT,|LTNE THE APPROVAL PROCESS
FOR Y0uR PR0JEcT BY-DECREASINc rHE NUI'IBER oF coNDrrroNs 0F AppRovAL THAi THEPEc MY STIPULATE. ALL coNDrrloNs oF AppRovAL MUsT BE coMpLIED uITH BEFoRE ABUILDING PERMIT IS ISS'I]ED.
F. A list of the names of owners of all property. INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHTND AND ACROSS STREETS,
THE APPLICANT t.lILL 8E RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT
PH}NE4lh-'1,101
NAME 0F 0!.INER(S) (print or type)
or,rNER(s) : .SIGNATURE(S)
ADDRESS
LEGAL-
0\te.t"
G:U
-t-eIIf,' F€ur-f+t copies of the following information:
A. A description of the precise nature of the proposed
use and its operating characteristics, and neasures
proposed to make the use conpatible with otherproperties in the vicinity.
B. A description of how your request courplies withVail !s Comprehensive PIan
C. A site plan showing proposed developuent of the site,including topography, building locations, parking,traffic circulation, useable open Epace, Iandscapedareas and utilities and drainage featu,res.
D. Preliminary building plans and elevations suffLcientto indicate the dinensions, general appearanc-e,scale, and interior plan of all buildings.
o
D.ATE SU3I.IITTED:
C0l'!','El{TS llEEltD BY:
IITTER.OEP.qRTHENTAL REVt El.l
ffi,Lg
DATE oF PuBLrc HEARTNI:%12?O e PEC
BRIF.i: DESCEIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
7
a /k>2e4,.r2ed
Rd!..iEfTi 0?l DEPART!.::NT
i
't r.
.j-:.
Revlewed.by:
Cg;,ents:
cLE 4/ztqaknfzq fWawar fu "",/*/,^-L)
dl*t ; Lo,^^ tat*ote J
(I renoc/el
J/ - arsurooni^-fu, "//%
/" reet pl"",t
ffi .-/z'rnpc/p- ne,/zac/e/ ,77 sF7dz4'- /2(mav4/'
atcussruary hg ,s az at/rrnar/e/4s -rrzuzLr-
/a.( ri aaf.Zzz,Vtcr'Cc/
Reviewed by:
PUBLIC UORKS.//
P.eviered byzJ:J
Contents:
FIRE DEPI.RTI.iENT
Wr.
{tu/TrrzO
Date
Date
Corrnents:
POLICE DEPART]4ENT
Revielred by:
Connerrts:
Date
Date
SENJ BYsA ; B-3@-9@ 9:5?AN ' 21.4979?54?)343 4?6 t6L?iE 2
3N Cfif,ccnac,oata
gcvrnt^h lloor
Dp,lht,Trxas73207.ltll
2t18s5-3706
August 30, 1990
Mr. Axcl lltilhelmrcn
c/o Arnold, Guntbmcy, Pratt
1000 S. FtootsSc Roed West
Vail" Coloreito E1657
Tbc proposed c.harycs to the cxterior of rpacc c-2 (onently thc Timbe.rhq*), Pa
thc cobitr desig" of thi ncw sigu for Vail M6uatainccring as &t forth iu thc drawinp
from Arnold, GwEthney, Pratt Architecls are hcreby approvcd.
t andlord: Bell Tovcr Associatca, Ltd.
TOWER ASS&rATES, LTD,
!01& Gorr CrYckDn
Yall, &lorp/lo t7637
g0g 17&r2s
Bcll Tqwer Condominium Associatiou
II
It'
*
$". i
+tl
f
Lf
.t
'{lrl-TsI|l
t
13
I[
$tk
TZ
s
t
.,1-F(t
5a
I
I
I
I
I
+
k
$
L
t
t
L
JFl.-lGt+rl
FllI
I,a
s
oI
3*
ftt
a--- J+
t\
r-lr----Ti
.l ro-<r.___t+
I. t'
I
3l - 171
rl
I
t
l'l
:tl
.a-
r-t
{
trftil$
iffi
uffi
rtIL=sSs
{.
ri*
.-
\t
trr
.l
I:.
I
I
J
It
t[
\,:
'1L .
tlu
$Ii
itlI l\
,ti:.;,
i
I\..t.
$1;
lll
'li";l .l
l1
.,,1(t-|II'Ii-. i
+Hl
\
n
.'
i{.
I
..t'l tr
t
F"-
$?
TT T
oo
st
$
"..1
JF
-t
,-l
L
*I
II
I.l'I
-1.al>
.l
.ft
f
I
I
Il
I
1
rfit'1,:
rk
t$i
t--slr''t
f$
I+,atIt-ar
,l
I
I
{
I
+---J+
I
1l - 171 ' r''-fat*a----
it
D
F
5
tl
\
:
T
i
I[i
t.,':t- .,'{
,i, I
:',, ; 'i, : j :.,. i:::: l :lit';:ii,,1rf$it!;1;fffiii,r,
o
fr
.4,!-
-tl\(
or.\i\\
d)
.$
fJr{a ._arI
'rl I
rt
lnt
I
\
\
rf
rl
iii
iit
J\
I
I,l
i
--lI
1
I
I
-J
r! .-
-----
f,.
I
t
\r
r
\.
_\
I
1
If
{
(
o
*
I
{..f
August 30, 1990
Ms. Shelly Mello, Planner #2Town of VaiI Community Development75 South Frontage Road West,Vail, CO 81557
RE: Application for Exterior Alterations in CC1VaiI Mountaineering Store - Bell Tower Building
Dear Shelly:
Enclosed find the Bell Tower Condominium Association approvalIetter for the above project, and the Application for ExteriorAlterations for the same. The application is to remove 22 sguarefeet, a protruding display window.
The purpose of this application is to lmprove access and vlsibilityfor the new tenant, Vail Mountaineering. The alterations proposedare more typical of the existing buildlng than the currentconfiguratlon (see northeast shop entry).
Dontt hesitate to call if you need additionaL information.
Sincerely,
ARNqLD/GWATHMEY/PRATT ARCHTTECTS, INC.I tllt\ Bv
t vr-
Ned Gwathmey, AfA
NG/ad
Enclosures: $100 Check - Application FeeApplication Forn4 Copies of DrawingsList of Adjacent Property Owners
Preponderance of Evldence
September 20, 1990
Ms. Jil1 Kammerer, Planner #1
Town of Vail Community Development75 South Frontage Road WestVaiI, CO 81557
Re: Application for Exteri.or Alteration inVaiI Mountaineering Store - Bel] Tower
Dear JiIl:
Pursuant to our discussion yesterday, please
the above project revised to show a pLanter
Fol$o.f
ccrBuilding
find the drawings ofon the south end of theentry.
The owner has agreed to leave the windows per the DRB application/
approval .
Don't hesitate to call if you have further suggestions orguestions.
Sincerely,
ARNOLD/GWATHMEY/PRATT ARCHITECTS, P. C.
Ned Gwathmey, AIA
NG/ad
Enclosure
Tree /o Frtdtu)-/,{r,2
t"*loatrcnjfi( ,r, ?
,lI
F
il9)
\DC
\vYa-,
1
t-\1e:tt{${^a l,
$
\,.,rP\s -2- 5z (LxPN'-o)>--
\0\)c)-,6s
=oft#l
$i
ealg{l
$i
9*
44a
-.Q-%.tr*cEo-
o+
d-
o
o=lrb
t[J tt
m=$
I brr-g
NF1/1dW -]ly^
H
E
6
3'
s
H
R
s
P
tu
E$
s9
.{g
EiE
t6
F
/tL\tr
F1
P
$
F\)
d
, \'lz
E-+t.\iuri
il
.\=--sbr
nr,X\"\t\lL
l>rr-g
rl
Ki
s
P
\\
R
[$
E$
s
$
/trb\fr
rO\) cl
6*<o0
Hr
s
H
ea6{
E;
Qr
o
a
R
;lf -s:
E+
Nh/AilaW 1lY^
H
:
&
3
$
E
?H
;E
Jg
$
Hr
P
$
ft
d
{
')J)
F
il
I
+,\, 4''-_n _b.?l-'| +3,--
tlv*---L_---l
-J/
^l6l
H4
6l
I
/(L
F\tr
R
$
P
tu
E$
r0\) cl
6*<o
ru
Hr
s
ffi
ee6t
E;
9*
o
I l>rr-s
N1y,5tflaw ,11y1
f\
iB
NE
FA
sD
€g
H;t
Jg
$
t TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE!
Plannlng and Environmental Conmission
Conrrunity Developnent
Septenber 24, L99O
A request for an exterl.or
l{ountaineering Ln the Bell
Creek Drl.ve, Part of Tract
::::,""_,,"!::c,Pr
Departnent
Tower Building, 201 GoreA, Block 58, ValI villagelst Fillng.Appllcant: Axel Wilhelnson
r. DESCRTI{TION OF THE REOUESE
The VaiI t{ountalneering (formerly the Tinberhaus) is locatedat the southern end of the BeII Tower guilding just west of
the ChildrenrE Fountain.
PEc approval of an exterior alteratlon request is requlredfor the additlon or renoval of any enclosed floor area tostructures located within the ccl zone district. Thisproposal calls for angling of the north wall of the southern
ground level display window, changing out existing windows'
and the addition of another entry column to match anexisting entry colu:nn. Approxinately 11 sq. ft. of window
display area is removed to allow for the remodeled entry.
eaa-itionally, the removal of the portion of the window wiII
necessitate-a nodification to the existlng roof line. No
landscaping will be removed as a result of this proposal .
It ls the appllcantE hope that the renoval of the northernwall of the southern window and the addition of anotherentry column will Lncrease the vlsibility of the storers
entrance to pedestrians arriving frorn the eouth.
II. BACKGROT'ND
On Augtust 29, l99O the oesign Review Board approved new
signage and changing out the existing windows.
IrI. COUPLIAIICE WITH THE PURTDSE SECTION OF COU}IERCIAL CORE T
18.24.010 Purpose:
The conmercial core I Dlstrlct ls intended to provJ'de
sitee and to nalntain the unique character of the Vail
Village Conmerclal Area, with its mixture of lodges and
conmeicial establishments in a predonlnantly pedestrlan
environment. The Conmercial Core I District is
intended to ensure adequate llght, air, open space' and
other anenities appropriate to the pennitted tlpes of
buitdings and uses. fne alstrlct regulations in
aectrdance with the VaiI Vlllage Urban Design Guide
, Sqil\atta Deslgn Consideratl.ons prescribe siteri"flpelopnent standards that are intended to ensure thetirintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered{o,:iu
t
arrangementE of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways
and publl.c greenways, and to ensure continuation of thebuildlng ecale and archl.tectural quallties that
distinqrulsh the Village.
The propoeed Vall ltountaineering entrlmay/renodeling projectis in compllance with the purpose of the CCI zone district.
The addLtion will not negatively affect the scale of thebuilding and slll inprove the overall quality of the space.
IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR TIIIS PROPOSAL
The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes threeelements that establish the review criteria for thisapplication. The first of these is referred to as the Guideplln which lncludes a number of sub-area concepts, rnany of
which ldentify potential areas for future developrnent andother inprovenents. Secondly, the Urban Design
ConsLderatLone express the large scale, land use planning
and design considerations, and finallyarchl.tectural/landscape considerations which will be
reviewed by the Design Review Board, establish the criteriafor evaluating detailed design conslderations of a proposal .
The vail Village ltaEter Plan also addresses specific aoalspertaining to the enhancement of the walking experiencethroughout the Village that uust be considered in thisapplication.
V. COMPIJIANCE WTTH THE URBAN DESIGN GUTDE PI,AN FOR VATL VTLI,AGE
There are no speciflc sub-areas relevant to this proposal .
VI. COIIIPLTANCE WTTfi THE T'RBN{ DESTGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VATL
VIIJ,AGE
the followl.ng deslEn considerations are a critical elementof the Urban Deslgn Plan. They Ldentlfy the key physical
characterlstlcs of the Village and provide the tools to
assure that new development be conEistent with thisestabll.shed character. These consideratl.ons include the
following:
A. PedeEtrLanLzatl-on:
rhe propoeed facade alteration will have no impact onpedestrlan traffic flow.
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
G.
ll.
Vehicular Penetration:
Vehicular penetratlon or circulation will remain
unchanged aB a result of this proposaL.
Streetscape Frannework:
Streetscape framework ldentifles two alternatives for
inproving the pedestrian experience in the Village.
These lnclude the developnent of open Epace including
landscaplng along pedestrian routes and the developrtentof lnflll connercl.al gtorefronts along pedestriancorridors. Although the proposed alteratl-on does not
propoae connercial inftll but rather the renoval of
ioumercial area, staff bell.eves the alteratlon w111
have no negatlve inpact on existing pedestrian activitygeneration. The window change wiII not alter.shop
irontage transparency. Window openlngs.and light sizewlll renain unchanged. The appllcant simply proposes
to flip the three snaller panes fron the botton of the
window openlng under the larger pane to the top of the
opening above the larger window pane. This proposed
wlndow nodiflcation will match the window treatment ofthe adJacent (north) conmercial space.
Street Enclosure:
street enclosure will renain unchanged as a result ofthis proposal .
Street Edoe:
The facade alteration wlll have no effect on streetedge. All existing edge of building and edge ofplinter lines adJa-ent to the street and the pedestrian
corridor will renain unchanged.
Bul-ldl-nq HeLsht:
Building helght will be unaffected.
VLewE and Focal Pol-nts:
The proposed expansLon does not affect any adopted view
coridors.
Senrice and Deliverv:
The propoBed expanEion wlll not affect the current
serrrLce and dell-very patterns.
I. Sun/Shade:
There will be no increase in the shadow pattern as aresult of thiE addltion because it ls wlthin tbeexlsting ehade pattern of the building.
J. Archl.tecture/Iandscape ConsLderations:
Theee deslgn considerations are tlpLcally the purviewof the lleslgm Review Board. The realignment of aportion of the existlng box window will neceEsitate aninor nodlflcation to existing roof llnes.
covered entrance ways and landscapinlt areas are
encouraged under the vail Village urban DesLgn Gul.dePIan. Thls design element will be l-ntegrated into theVaiI litountaineering exterior alteratLon. Although the
covered entrance way currently exlsts, staff believesthe additlon of a colunn to uatch the existingsupporting column will inprove the synmetry and balanceof the entry way, more clearly define the connercial
space entrance and inprove the visual appearance of the
facade.
lthe propoaed alteration will not lnpact existing
landscapLng.
VII.
GOAI, #2: TO FOSTER A STRONG TOIIRIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE
YEAR-AROI'ND ECONOUTC HEALTII AI{D VIABTLITY FOR THE
VIIJAGE AIID FOR TIIE COMMT'NITY AS A WHOLE.
2.5 OblectLve:
Encourage the continued upgradJ-ng, renovation and
maintenance of existing lodging and connercialfacilities to better serve the needs of our
guests-
2.5.2 PolLcv:llhe Town will use the naximun flexibilitypossJ.ble in the Lnterpretation of building
and fire codes in order to facilitatebullding renovations wlthout compromisingIlfe, health and safety considerations.
VITI. STAFF RECOIiII,IENDATTON
staff recomenda approval of the proposed facade alterationwith the conditlon that if and wben a special improvenentdistrict is establl.shed for Vail Village, the applJ.cantshall not renonstrate against the fornatlon of salddistrict. The proJect neets the design consideratLons as
described above.
.\
tr
tkh
___Ti..
.l 5
--...----*
t.l.!
I
\g\
N
_{
\
+
s
t
II
l$
rF
lftt'
l$
+
ItI
3.
h3rtrs
it
ri*
EII
"*
st,q
f-bI-ts
{r{qr
:
I
)
ttla'*
I
ilo
:HI
Itffi r':r
\t
N
t
\
tt
s
Lv)st
NR
HR
o(i
t\.
s&
is$
t2'/-
iE6'{N
t$rt +r'
tir$
ii.$
/\
t\t\
71
It
i
\
II
i
'--'l
tI
I
IIJ
I
I
rL$
*
'r-r.--{-\|.
o
ii
.i[.,*$
1
'l
l
I
$tb
{s
r
t'N,l\,1-
F!a
$$
$z
't
II
.,1
I
'--1
I
1
I
I.lJ
l
R
N
sl0t
tvlI$
a\
tii
iitnLJta
LJ
I -+l
Mi
l
rf
l*'
lii
+
tI
i
Ga
sHi
IIII
)
!-t
a \+
\ftIf-sItrs$
/\
I
it
ri*F*l
',$z
s
7.q
No\J sL-7, )1i--3l/\ F
\1R
r-!_lsl
i
C.
8\,ts
&
$
$
N
st
$"
Rea
{
\v
3
J+
I
sl - s7l
ntt,.:i)
ir
T,s
E
;1
,l 5 ---?._ _ _td
:i..., ^ri,ll.r:
I'it!l
:t
I
1l'
,iil
iI.*;,
ti'\
t 21'49792542)I @ . 21.49?9254?) 343 4?6 1612rs 2 |--^lnilt TowER Assocraros, LTD.
841l, futcCrrekDr.vall Colorr.do t7637
N9 a7h2r25
100 Ctr?ccnzCnltra
Ssvcntf, floortulltt, Tlrr,r 75201'ltll
,r4 8E5'37M
August 30, 1990
Mr, Axel lvilhelmsen
c/o Arnold, Gunthmcy' Pratt
1000 S. Froutrgc Road Wcst
Vai[ Colorailo E1557
Tbc proposcd changcs to thc cxterior of ryacc C'2 (arnently thc Timbcrbrys),..od
thc color afi .i.itp of thi ncw rign for Vail Miuutainccriqg as lct fotth in thc drawiags
ftom Arnold, Gwatlrmcy, hEtt Arcbitecis are hcreby approved.
-'l /// I f/:
b<:i -1 1,,'7;"?-'f l'.) !,2 .'a. i ,"-t ',
f >7r/; y'/.1/
,// o:r' , dt 24- t
Lardlord: Bell Tower Associatcs, Ltd.
;: ) "'/ )u
Bell Tower Condominium Association
(!,-il{ i-)sftr)lillttr
f lL\T\i
\|
1t
.t
-TlLr
z.-fIr\+-
I
L
!-t
t
rFi
-lrrl
.:
rl
srt
t
F
$Tti
T
t
I{ra
$tk
frE=
H,
Ss$
iI
ri*
Bll
Iaq
INd
zehq
Ks
o
I:l
I
a---J+
I+
f-P1l - 171
It
r____ Ti...l > --"+.- ---q{
t.l
t
+t
$
Ff
a-
E!:'
'6,
ilo
iHl
tt$
na
I.[ti
,ilt-i.. i.1i:,;
k
$
!-L
t
Ar
Fl-
4r",.'l'"r',1 a
rtt
i*
i$
-lfl
-lC
-t.r||*
i". i
+H[
\
I+
I
I
I
I
I
I
_$
H$
he
H$
.'t't tT
3
!
!
ra
It
"ars't''l
t
F:
l3
T
fli|
{s
III
I
I
I
I
E[
$
I
I
l
I
v
.lttF
c
os-:
s
+---JI
t ,t
. rt 'll .' rr:. .!'.I'!F,llar
i?.{
.1?
t's' f\-.
ra
t\
I
d
?i-..ki+
!*itI
\
:
T
)
II
tr!'
--Lrl'
'!l i"..
1l - 171 ' rt-F
Itl.- -i?:
t\
\
I
"lGIt
I
I
\
\
T
\
os\ic\
ts
he
6S
q
i
J
i--..J'_l
I
I
,llJ
ltl
r\
tii:hl
$$[
-----I
I
I
T
\&
:s
L\:r-
L
)-
.h,
t,\-
\,'
f,
I
$
r\
iii:hi
$[
o
l
a'