HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 5 LOT A UNIT A GALLERY BUILDING AKA P & R CONDOS RUSSELLS LEGALDesign Review Board iot A
ACTION FORM
Depatment of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road, Vail, ftlorado 81657
teli 970.479.2139 fax: 970.479.2452
web: www.ci.vail.co.us
Prcject Name: DRB Number: DR8040119
Project Description:
INSTALL NANA WINDOWS ON FRONT OF BUILDING (WEST BRIDGE STREET SIDE)
Participants:
OWNER P & R PARTNERS-VAIL LLC 04/09/2004 Phone:
228 BRIDGE ST
VAIL
co 81657
License:
APPLICANT P & R PARTNERS-VAIL LLC 04/09/2004 phone:
228 BRIDGE ST
VAIL
co 816s7
License:
ProjectAddress: 228 BRIDGE STVAIL Location:
RUSSELL'S RESTAUMNT
Legal Descriptionl Lot: A Block: Subdivision: P & R CONDOMINIUM
Parcel Number: 210108257001
Comments: SeeConditions
BOARD/STAFF ACTION
Motion By: Actaon: STAFFAPR
Second By:
Vote: Date of Approvall. O4l29l2OO4
Conditionsr
Cond: 8
(PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written @nsent of Town of
Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s).
Cond: 0
(PLAN): DRB approval does not constitute a permit for building. Please consult with
Town of Vail Building personnel prior to construction activities.
Cond: 201
DRB approval shall not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval.
Cond: 202
Approval of this project shall lapse and become void one (1) year following the date
of final approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced
and is diligently pursued toward completion.
Cond: CON0006399
5,
I0I4'Nm
-B\.'c\. S-
b.-\ \).t\.E $
That the applicant add trim around the window on the south elevation along the down
stairs entrance to the bar (Hypnotix) that matches the trim detail of the windows
onteh second floor, Further, the wood cladding around the new windows shall match
the color of the existing trim (dark brown). All stucco patched areas shall be
painted to match the existing color of the building,
George Ruther DRB Fee Paid: $25O.O0
Application for Design Review
Eepadment of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657
tel: 970.479.2139 tax: 9i0.479.2452
web: www.ci.vail.co.us
General Information:
All projects requiring design review must receive approval prior to submitting a building permit application. please
refer to.the submittal reguirements for the particuli, upprouat that is requesiea. en i'pprication for Design Reviewcannot be accepted until all required information is receved by the Community owilbpment Department. Theproject may also need to be reviewed by the Town Council and/or the plannini and invironmental Commission.Design review approval lapses unless a building permit is issued and dnstruction commences withinone year of the approval.
(Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970-328-8640 for parcel no.)
Phone:
RECEIVEI]
ii',T * $ ;0r,,
Name(s) of Owner(s):
Owner(s) Signature(s):
Name of Applicant:
Mailing Address:
E-mail Address:
Type of Review and Fee:
n Signs
E Conceptual Review
tr New Constructionn Addition
{Mino, Alteration
(multi-fami lylcommercial)
fl Minor Alteration
(single-family/duptex)
U Changes to Approved Plans
tr Separation Request
$50 Plus 91.00 per square foot oftotal sign area.
No Fee
$650 For construction of a new building or demo/rebuild.$300 For an addition where square footage is added to any residential or
commercial building (includes 250 additions & interior conversions).$250 For minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as,
reroofing, painting, window addiUons, landscaping, fences and
retaining walls, etc.$20 For minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as,
reroofing, painting, window additions, landscaping, fences and
retaining walls, etc.
$20 For revisions to plans already approved by planning Staff or the
Design Review Board.
No Fee
----{ocation of the proposal:
Physical Address:
Page 1 of L3lLLlL7l03
/yrb.
-ss\o
rc
Parcel Detail
E lerted officials,6r.County s€ruices 'F Visitors s C ommunity .rs
Page I of2
I Hant i
E **.ltfi *tffi Ll.rl\'l"rY
ltihomelHl site indr*1ffi co'rntv co!-rtactslg SEARCH
Eagle County Assessar/Treasurer
Parcel Detail Information
AssessorlTreasurer Propety Search I Assessor Subset Query | Assesscr Sales Search
Sasic Building Characteristicr I Tax lnformation
Sales Detail I Value Detail I ResidentiallCommercial lmproveftlent Detail I Land Detail
Owner Name and Address
Legal Pescription
AURANT/BAR FURNITURE, FIXTURES
PMENT
Location
property Tax Valsation :nformation
O D.R,R. lNC
co 81657
BR]DGE ST UN]T: VA]L
http://www.eagle-county.com/Goodtums/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber:P020299 0410912004
Parcel Detail Page2 of2
Sale Date:
Sale Price:
Basic Building Characteristics
No Building Records Found
Tax Information
Number of Comm/Ind Bui
$ 1,012.01
($1,012.01)
$910.74
( $910.74)
Tog of Page
Assessor Database Search Options I Treasurer Database Search Options
Contact us by phone: (970)328-8640, in Colorado (800)225-6136
By mail: Eagle County Assessor, 500 Broadway, PO BOX 449, Eagle, CO 81631
Or by email
The Eagle County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices make every effort to collect and maintain accurate data. However, G
Software and the Eagle County Assessor and Treasurer's Offices are unable to warrant any of the information herein cor
Copyright @ 2001 Good Turns Software. All Rights Reserved.
Database & Web Design by Good Turns Software.
http://www.eagle-county.com/Goodtums/assessor/Parcel.asp?AccountNumber-P02O299 04/09/2004
revised 9/a/gt
DATE APPLICATTON RECETVED :
DATE OF DRB MEETING:
rsrs *"or*rffiillliL, "TINTIT.. AI,.I REQUIRED INFORMATION**********
PR,.OJECT INFORMATION :
A. '. DESCRIPTION:
or Alterat,ion
C. ADDP€SS :
onceptual Review
D. LEGAT DESCRIPT LoL Block
Subdivi-si on ?z
If property is desdribe by a meets and bounds legal
andide on a separate sheetron.
'- /^ZONING. C(-
LOT AREA: If requi d,app.licant.
1oL Area.
must provide a cuffentstamped survey sh
DRB APPLICATION - TOWN OE V]\II, COTORAq9-,,}
MAR 2 r99{
ACCEPTEDrs suB$tr
T
($20.00)
($0)
description, please prattach to t,his applice
r
G.NAME OFMailing
APDT,T
Addres
T
K.
NAME OF I+Y Y CANT' SMail
'o.
I. NAME OF
*sr
MaiLi
rnn_lggEpurE=
VALUATION0 - $ 10,000$ 10/ 001 - $ 50,000$ 50,001 - $ 150,000
sl_50,001_ - $ 500,000
$500, 001 - $1,000,000$ over $1,000,000
Condominium Approval if applicable. \\
DRB FEE: DRB fees, as shown above, are to ne &iathe tlne of submittal of DRB appli"it.io". --I,;N
applying for a building permitl please iaenriiy\accurat.e valuation of the proposal . The town 6fyi1] adjyst. rhe fee_accordins-r,o the rabr; terow,ensure the correct fee is paid.
ctL
, when
he
fPli',\:')
FEE
$ 20 .00
$ s0.00
$r-00.00
s200.00
$400.00
$500.00
* DESIGN REVIEW BO}RD APPROVAT, EXPIRES ONE YELR AT'TER TINAI,, APPROVAT UNLESS A BUI.I,DING PERMIT,IS-TSSUED AI{D COWSIRUCTTONSTARTED.
**No :lPPr.rcATroN wrLrr BE PRocEssED wrrHour oIvNER' s srcr,IAruRE
1
gk"kl^rs sn(af!
lc+keP b{.
F*", (o'
!-Lotl
?pJ-i, ^fv4'qF'19
tjrt{ /'., L .|..1d,
B. TYPE OF,REVIEW:
Nehr Constt'riction ($200. 00)
\.Addition ($50.00)
II. PRE-APPL]CATTON MEETTNG:
A plg-?pplication meeting with a member of the planningstaff is strongly encouraged to deternine if any additlonarapplication information is needed. rL is the aipJ.icant'sresponsibility to make an appointment wit.h the slaff todetermine if there are additional subnittar requirements.Please note that a coMpLETE application wirl streamli.ne theapproval process for your project.
III.
A.
R
a
In addition to meeting submittal_ requirement.s, theapplicant must stake and tape the pioject site toindicate property lines, building :.ines and build.ingcorners. A11 trees to be removed nust be taped. A1lsite tapings and staking must be completed prio. to theDRB site visit - The applicant must ensure Lhat st.akingdone during t.he wint.er is not buried by snow.
The review process for NEW BUILDINGS normalty requiresthro separate meetings of the Design Review eoard; aconceptual approval and a final approval . Applicantsshould plan on presenting Lheir development broposal ata minimum of two meetings before obtaining finaiapproval.
Applicants who fail to appear before the Desi.gn ReviewBoard on their scheduled meet.ing date and who have notasked in advance that discussi-on on their item bepostponed, will have their items removed from t.he DRBdocket until such time as the itern has beenrepublished.
The following items may, at the discretion of thezoning administrat.or, be approved by the CommunityDevelopment^ Department staff (i.e. a formal hearinobefore the DRB may not be required):
a. Windows, skylights and similar exterior changeswhich do not alter the existing plane of thebuilding; and
b. Building addition proposals not, visible from anyother lot or public space. AL the tirne such aproposal is submit.ted, applicants must includeletters from adjacent propert.y owners and/or fromthe agent for or manager of any adjacent
condominium association stating the associationapproves of the addit.ion.
If a property is located in a mapped hazard area (i.e.
snow avalanche, rockfall, flood plain, debris flow,wetland, etc), a hazard study must be submitted and t.heowner must slgn an affidavit recognizing the hazardreport. prior. to the issuance of a building permit.Applicants are encouraged to check vrith a Town plannerprior to DRB application to det.ermine the relationshipof the property to aLl mapped hazards.
For alL resident.ial_ const.ruction:
a. Clearly indicate on the floor plans the insidefaee of the exterior structural walls of thebuilding,. andb. Indicate wit.h a dashed Line on the sit.e plan afour foot distance from the exterior face of the'building walls or supporting columns.
E.
G. If -DRB approves the application.with conditions ormodifications, alt conditions of approval must beresolved prior to Town issuance of a bui.lding permit.
o '{%,'/%,),'
Design Review Board lA+ h, Bloc'A5
ACTION FORM
Depaftment of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81657
tel: 970.479.2L39 fax: 970.479.2452
web: www.ci,vail.co.us
DRB Number: DRB040405
RECOVER E}CSNNG AWNING AND TO ADD NEW AWNING OVER THE WEST FACING WINDOWS,
WITH NO NEW GMPHICS
Participants:
OWNER P & R PARTNERS-VAIL LLC 0B/1212004 Phone:
228 BRIDGE ST
VAIL
co 81657
License:
APPUCANT P & R PARTNERS-VAIL LLC 08/1212004 Phone:
Location:
V4il Yiua;e I
P & R CONDOMIXIUM
I0llilv
Project Namer RUSSELLS CHANGE
Prcject Description:
228 BRIDGE ST
VAIL
co 81657
License:
ProjectAddress: 228 BRIDGE STVAIL
RUSSELL'S RESTAUMNT
5tegal Descraption: Lot: A Block: Subdivision:
Parcel Number: 210108257001
Comments: see conditions
Motion By:
Second By:
Vote:
Conditions:
BOARD/STAFF ACTION
Action: STAFFAPR
Date of Approvalt 0910U2004
Cond: B
(PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of
Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s).
Cond:0
(PLAN): DRB approval does not constitute a permit for building. Please consult with
Town of Vail Building personnel prior to construction activities.
Cond: 201
DRB approval shall not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval.
Cond: 202
Approval of this project shall lapse and become void one (1) year following the date
of final approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced
and is diligently pursued toward completion.
Cond: CON0006570
That the under side of the awnlng over the entrance be covercd with the same
material to screen the framework concunently with the rest of work
Plannen Matt Gennett DRB Fee Paid: $20.00
Jul 21 04 11:24a s?0-328-68eO
Appiication for DesiEn R.eview
Department of CcmmunitY Develcpmenl
75 South Frontage Road, Vaii, Colorado 81657
tel: 970.479.2139 :x: .a7O'479'2452
webl www.ci.vail.co.us
General :nformationl
All Drolec-,s reouiring design review rnust receive approval prior'!o gubmittinq a building permit application' Please
refer !o rhe submittal l..qu'r.*"nii for tire particutai apprwal that is requested' An apglication for Design Review
c:nnot be accepted unnt ait reouired infcrnnation rs receivecj ry -rhe aommunity Development Depanment' jlle
project may slso need to be reviewed by the Town Council_ ancj/or ihe Planning and [nvtronmental commission'
Design review approval r"o"a= unfor i iruitUing permit is issued and construction commences within
oneyearof theapproval. .-a +y> Tf; AITGoV€-> P{Zl.>>iC--,|
the Requestl
Location of the Proposal;r-ot' /[
Fhysical Adcjress: 2.
Parcel No-: ?-
Flnn i e Egan p.2
I0l4{ilj
4Af 4^,l.1"L
(
Eagle Co. Assessor at 970-328-8640 for parcel no')
;t
G*J
&\
Zoning:
Name(s) of Owner(s):
2-?--a iDtr-4 sfMailing Address:1{-u
Owner(s) Signature(s):
Name of Applicant:
Phone:
iriailing Address:
E-mail Address:
Type of Review and Feer
tr Signs
! Conceptual Review
D New Construction
C Additioo
= f4inor Alte.ation
/ y\Jltt-f aff. tty / commercial )
"frffi\i:#i;lt,,".,
{ U.ngus to Approved Plans
l] SeoaEtjon Requesr
Phone:
Plus $1.00 per square foot of total sign Erea.
For cons;iruciion of a new building or demo/rebuild.
(qn
No Fee
s650
$300
5250
$20
Fax:-----TEcrrvrn
For an additton where square iootage is added to any resldentlal or
commerciai builciing (includes 250 additions & interior conversions)'
For minor changes to buildings and site imProvemenb, such as,
reroofing, painung, window addiuons, landscaping' fences and
retarning walls, etc.
For minor changes to buildings and site improvements, such as,
reroofing, painting, window additlons, landscaping, fences and
retaining walis, etc'
520 For revisions to plans already approved by Planning Staff or the
Design Review Board.
No Fee
i"h.( @ Q.rq-:JJr:ff'::H"* cnecr.No.: /6L3 sv, A
A€pti€rticn Dad: q -lt-6 ? DRB No.:-
JUL-Z7-ZAA4 t2:28 978 328 6A2e Qq.,/P.A2
oo
nlie ecan s1328-6823
// //N?/{.{ /u/?'r?a/^^
#,e e%e- o4urrf ur{ GA-L "U(n
c',.- ?" unliu (lf l'*^3^"\ %
. t , -*d -p, rv/L,^C-rqo ,/-"/r^
tnl-/'I t,hra{n- I*- A*iYL 'pa- t4
p.5
c4
JUL-14-7AA4 11 :q?
P.3s?0 -328 -6820
-\.
(l
r
-\-
s/Js
=sS
i.
P.A39529?A 328 6828JUL-1.4-2AA4 11:s?
Jul 14 Ort ll:OZa7
R
\)
\a
'll\j
N
\i
$N
+(g
{4\)\
T
)$
F
q-.$-,
oz
L
=E
LrJL
f*.*
i
F
U)ulE
a.0o,
c;
luJa
J
{!(
a;
c!
oulullJ-
F
=E
LU
o-
-?-bl'Ie I b f\ils : {"qffi#X
\+
I(\
I
z
Ha
z
$J
9ILu-o(,z
=
UJ
lin||llIFloFI;
El3utl J
=laol06ilz
=16
q)-6;
o.:oE
<ri o)
€io-Q\,3
cJ!o.Y'aa';q
E(g-oc?3vro
jF
Fg
o)_.soCnto(l)N()
-: E,3=
Foi
ebl!€oo
9:
P€oo
3o6oD
o.E
fdI
6S
f€
!:)
-E59
99
tr6-.?
u, \t.';
-sE
rD 1': o
'=g)(,l*ip;rOcEO6
coa.9; I
c.= Otsfco:{E
c-o
e:5
:€PE >=c96'- o. -c
d.E =EEA
+OOitso
Eoetq! f.:- (!
o-(! cL
$Eg
oP o-Ego(ECE6:EE;oc*
E F.E;o
6 6.-trc;o
- - -c.d)o-
s,F g
E 5'=E3;.o(q:c-=!;E3i8
-e6 e
9lEol
cEg
-o(6
\to\
==tr,o-ozo
Yo
atlr()z
Jo-
ItF
UJ
t!
z
o
=J
J
(J
z
o
UJ
=
ulqJ
lJ-z
tr
uJEol!
o
3
UJtlll
z
6u,
o-IJ
z
tll
x
F
ulo
FrFI
(J
F]
F.]H
U'
llJ
uJ
TL
F
=d
uJo-
J
Fol-
z
f36
gJ
gJ
z
@
f
z
't_o
UJ
=
NOllvntvA
I
I
E-r I4l
JJ.t I>lzl
RI
I,al
I
3lHI
(Jl
".1zt c)
EIE
3l*.xt<F]IF]lid
HleF{latid
HIE
-
=o
z.o
Fo
EI
uJ
?
IJz
UJ
=>G
-f.Y)
6t
=toc\l
zz9o
:< -.riodFEoo1>9Cl\JZ
lJ- <oq
*EFO
dG'l
z
tr
IL(r
o
oE
UJ
E-
o-
J
2
E
o
XX
zoF
uJ
J
=u]z
Lzlz9,a<oo<
Efi2G
xr!6o<z
Fz
(52
.:F
d6-tr
lrJl
q,
U)ulzYII
ulo- lL:o
lt
(.,)
=3
F
UJ
It---t-
t-
I
l"lt-lzltrtFl?I?IFIJI@t@l
ilr-l
zl
zl
.. >louto
uJ
UIzoF
I!
0,
J
z
tr
o
tl
^ll5tlotl
=ll
]
tl
ltl
'll
Ftl<tl
IJJ IIrtl
z
Y
cc
o_
oz
T
UJ
=
J4
d
rqFl
3
z
tL
I
J
(o-
F
J
3E
z
ts
a
r.-l}l
ii
z
|t\\o
I
|\
-1
:()
a
r.q
qasJ
=
F-l
E
F
rlH
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l",laI 11,
to
t<
=t -..1el atrt =
z.l
ol
uJl
5l
;l
zl
FIFr=tr
olzl
H|JI
?l>l
tl-lol
zl
3lolFI
E
tlIrl('lF-l
H:l
ilelH .l L.lZ o| r.-5 lul L^ol El r..c)JtlJ 3l sI rr-l o'q2l
HFI i
rlti
l.ltzllol
lHl
lslI ttllol
del i =tr
I
I
I
I
dl
=.1ol
uJl
:l
<l>l
lr.lol
3l gol urFI F
(r
lrJz
=o
F
C)
uJ
E
<FCQ
l,.lJ <zEUJF(rzo
<o(JF
,r,- ot<i\(r
u,J =G
('O,z t-
=#!zr.! o
*N:ZF7a)
=#92>U
E t.
:^\JZ
<Qa?.u.] ,^-1
ut
(D
oFrX>:E
uJo. cr)
tr NrO orliEl
8Eltfrl
-' ?ibkz.o
-t<AO..., =E,E
d=
.}Fr+<ts
z._o\J ;-ze
60
=z:)f,JO
&rrE!
F
l|lo-
t!oEE2zE<tLf€fra9T' iTF9EdE irE f;=(, * ii'iE
=FE 65!! EurEX(!r x>E--Fo. .io-i!i
uJ
--D
F
=Elrl
o-zoF(J
:)EFazoo
(9z
o
co
n
*
INSPE
.' :
CTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
*
I-.(trtrA.\ | I l--
PERMIT NUMBER OF PBOJECT
READY FOR
LOCATION:
JOB NAME
INSPECTION:MON
oor. ,,1 l i(. /,
479-2138
liJiiri
gUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
O ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
O FRAMING
r_r ROOF A SHEER- PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION
tr SHEETROCK
O POOL / H. TUB
NAIL o
tr
o FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr.TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
O ROUGH O EXHAUST HOODS
ts CONDUTT tr SUPPLY AIH
tr
tr F.INALa rI FINAL
yt tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
RECTIONS:FIRECTIONS:
INSPECTOR
Plan Review Based on
the 1991 Uniform Codes
NAME: RUSSELS BOIIJR DATE:9-22-94
ADDRESS:228 BRIDGE ST CONTRACTOR: SNOWCOUNTRY
VAIL, COLORADO ARCHITECT: NONE
OCCUPANCY: A ENGINEER: NONE
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION: V-IHR PLANS EXAMINER: DAN STANEK
CORRECTIONS REQUIRED
The items listed below are not intended to be a complete listing of all possible code
requirements in the adopted codes. It is a guide to selected sections of the codes.
The following is not to be construed to be an approval of any violation of any of
the provisions of the adopted codes or any ordinance of the Town of Vail.
1. COMBUSTTON ArR rS REQUTRED pER SEC. 607 OF THE 1991 UMC.
2. INSTALLATION MUST CONFORM TO MANUFACTURES INSTRUCTIONS AND TO
APPENDD( CHAPTER 21 OF TI{E 199I UMC.
3. GAS LINE TEST AND INSPECTION IS REQUIRED BEFORE CONNECTION
oF ANy EQUIPMENT pER SEC. 1206 OF TI-IE 1991 UMC.
4. GAS APPLIANCES SHALL BE VENTED ACCORDING TO CHAPTER 9 OF THE
199I UMC AND SHALL TERMINATE AS SPECIFIED IN SEC. 906 OF TI{E
1991 UMC.
5. BOILERS SHALL BE MOUNTED ON FLOORS OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE
CONSTRUCTION UNLESS LISTED FOR MOUNTING ON COMBUSTIBLE
FLOORING.
6. FIELD INSPECTION IS REQUIRED FOR CODE COMPLIANCE PER SEC. 305
OF TI{E 199I UMC.
7. WHEN NEW FTECTRICAL LINES ARE REQIIIRED WORK MUST BE DONE BY A
LICENSED ELECTRICIAN.
"ibr,t'ii *i llail
#FFfilii i:#pY
lh,{fr,//'/z .42ry'
CONSTRU
CATI
J ApplrcArroN MUsr BE FTLLED our cor,{pr,ErEI,y oR {01-t0}d$|,,[i[tffiJr"o
f,*
******************* * * * ** ** ** PERUIT' INFORMATToN ****** ** ******** ** ** *** **** *:r
7&t#m
4.rffLTOWN OF VAIL
PERMIT APP
$
' 5[r 2f isii
T#
[ ]-Building t{-pr ing [ ]-Etectrieat f{-Mechanical [ ]-other
Job Name:Job Address:
r.,,egat Description: Lot_1L arccxl Firing
owners Nane i [)n- . i2 ; | . ,,, /, ,." ,.(, ., tAl&d,1,
Architect:
-
'l
Address:
Ph.
Ph.
ceneral Description:evi
#*u"t
and tlpe of Fireplaces: cas Appliances
{*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * VALUATTONS
[ ]-Repair [ ]-other
of Acconmodation Units:
Gas Logs_ t{oodlpeJ-let
I{ork class: [ ] -New t(l _arteration I J
Nurober of Dwelling Units:
BUTLDTNG:
Address:
Electri.caI
Address:
Contractor:
Plunbing
Address:
lfechanical Contractor:Address:
* * ****** *** ** ******** ** *********FORBUTLDING PERMIT FEE:
PLUMBING PERMTT FEE:
II{ECITANICAIJ PERMIT FEE:ELECTRICAI, FEE:
OTHER TYPE OF FEE:
DRB FEE:
Nunber
:--fz.. "; /.U, t///4o{_CLEAN-UP DEPOSTT:
TOTAL
BUTLDTNG:
SIGNATURE:
ZONTNG:
SIGNATIIRE:
*** ******** * ******** **** ** * ******
ELECTRTCAL: $OTHER: $MEcraNrcAu sffif TOTAL: $
CONIRACTOR TNFORI,IATTON ******* ** *********** *******
Town of Vail Req. NO.Phone Number:
Town of Vail
Phone Number:
Reg. NO.
Town of Vail Reg. No.p-t1ePhone Nurnber: 92+ -1T
Town of Vail Req. NO.Phone Number:
oFFrcE USE ** ******** ******* * *************
BUTLDING PI,AN CHECK FEE:PLUI'fBING PI,AN cHEcK FEE: TMECHANICAL PIAN CItEcK Fnn 7*
RECREATION rEil IT;I*IC /( I -
-Additional
Contractor:
?.rt *n-f /:(n s{a,*,*9-zr ?/fr / (.urs z 25,*BJu il --
Frtor!-t W(sr''^
-Y6L,
t@**al cun@nrty I c' 4 l,*,^
' Dlvdoomont
toproveO
Ur:tred'
PLn
t-
-
U
I 'iS14
Valitiii'/ oi Fli ; rii
S'f{. slld {;l 1i i-, , :1.
; #il ir,,,,1,i. t6li $fpt
fne l$unncr 0t g!'arrting 0{ a p€r:l',t Ot dl:.itoval 0l t;ins anil
imcir,iatiom tha-fi nol te consir$cd-lo i-r+-e- {itilnit !ci. 0t a|l
aboroval of. arw vio'lation of any cf lns ;mvilions ol lliit codc
iiianv oitter'otoimnc$0{ tns lurisdiralion Thc it$t'flca of
i e.rmif oased upon ptanr, rpcciticationr and otlnr dru ihll
rnt provent thc building official lrom thclrft?,l nfufyqJl
'lota.l: ..
,orr' 4-zzti(
ofticial lrom thc|-rft?f rrqukitE tlr
rvridie" o{ srroru in-seid 01il13, lOc'lftortlins fid ol*
5S':
---251'
-45vz4y.v
21"Tbyyri *F\(r.:ii
LllL - ooSo
? zr-gyYA,\t=-- -lU q/,L\r,,,"r ,* *Z---6w<n^--"
.l n.-F{" t1 ' tl I rt vvrJ /t4 {U44atW 'Ww hU,.f e-l
- tt A , ft , A __ A a<+u: '@fy,a4/_ t1io4^ LDdJt. a_ Te_V"h w l_tut5
lz-.i la,--.a A ,r.-, -a- l .A n 0h-t ler' avtr {w1 l* l-*fi ",1-I,r,,{* t L)e* 6-4_(
-7-luJ,-
o o
16'.;,"; ;i \:si!
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
ALL CONTRACTORS
TOWN OF VAIL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MAY g, 1994
WHEN A "PUBLIC WAY PERMIT'IS REOUIRED
P|easeanswerthetotlo@ardingtheneedfora"Pub|icWayPermit":
i,FIAYEs NO
1) ls this a new residence?
2) ls demolition work being performed
that requires the use ol the right
of way, easements or public property?
3) ls any utility work needed?
4) ls the driveway being repaved?
5) ls difierent access needed to site
other than existing driveway?
6) ls any drainage work being done
affecting the right of way, easements,
or public property?
7) ls a "Revocable Right Of Way permit"
required?
8) A. ts the right of way, easements orpublic property to be used for staging,parking or fencing?
B. lf no to gA, is a parking, staging
or fencing plan required by Commjnity
Development?
lf^y?Y. "Ty"t?d y"s to any of lhese questions, a "public way permit" must be obtained."Public way permit' appiications miy ue'ootained at tre'puoric work,s ofiice or at
9.o.TT',ritv Deveropmenlllryl nli":.rr o"esrions prease cail charrie Davis, rhe Townof Vail Construction Inspectoi, al4Zg_2155.'
I have read and answered allthe above questions.
Contractor,
o Date
o
Job Name s Signature
PUBUC WAY PERMIT PFOCESS
How it relates to Building permit:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
lf yes was answered rg 3ny of the above questions then a ,pubtic way permit" isrequired' You can-pick up an
"Jpr,rotio" ar either community Deveropment,tocated at 7s s. Fronr'age nbao o#[i6wo*s, ro"r"o ai iioJVair vailey Drive.
Notice sign offs for
'tirity.
companies. Art utifities must fierd verify (rocate)respective utirities prior ro signinj
"ppii""tion. s";;
"ii,ry-;ffianres require upro a 48 hour notice to schedute i t,i&i"'.
A construction tratfic control plan must h pi:lll'r9 o.n a separate sheet of paper.This plan wiff show rocarions oi
"iitr"tn-",i,,1i.1oevices tsigni,tnrr, erc.) andthe work zone, (area of construction, ,iiging, ,t".t
sketch of work beinq perfor.med must be submitted indicating dimensions (rength,
ilSi*,1flir:t ''i*t' ir'is ;;fi;G;n on the r"m" L"i,or pran or a iite
submit compreted apprication to the pubric.[grk,, otfice for review. rf required,rocares wit be schedured forrhe Town or Giier""trdffi#l'rru;ion crew. Thelocates are take place in m, ,o*ing;;;;"y require up to 48 hours ro perform.
The Pubric work's corstruction Inspeclor wiJlleviey the apprication and approveor disapprove rhe oermit. vou wiii-fe co-nt"Lro
", to *," siJtu. ano any changesthat may be needed. turos pririi. "i#r"lr"o within a8 n*r, JLing received,but please allow up lo one week to proorr.
As soon as permit is orocessed, a copy wilrbe faxed to community Deveropmentaflowing rhe "Buirdino e-egir-{ il;[#;. prease do nor.oniir" the "pubricway permir" w'h a "-Buirding nermr:fi" i"1"" on a project sire itserf.
Note:
'The above process ls for work in a right-or-way onty.
*Pubtic Way permlt,.
"*
'A new public Way permit is required each year.
75 3outh lrontage road
vlil, colorado 81657(303) 479-2L38 ot 479-ZL3g oftlcc of communlty deyQlopmant
BUILDING PERI{IT ISSUANCE TII{E FRAME
If this permi.t requi.res a Town of vai'r Fire Departnent Approval ,llg: l:.1''s,, ( pyll t g p:$ I ".ri"* una'ipp"ouui, -u piiii,iiill'beparnnentrevrew or Heat th Department.review, -rni' a-""uid ;i-il;,';"it aing
3Soiffi,E'fu"11: .tttr.ted time ror'.-totar ".ui"n-il.v..Lil,"s rons
Al'l commerciar aarge-31 small ) ana at murti-family permits w'l1have to folrow the ibove.menti6neJ-muiirrr requirements. Residentia.land small projects should t"[;-;-i";i!"'amount of time. However, ifresidential or smal'lgr,projects imJaci the various above mentioneddepartments with rega.rd' to-nii..i"ii-ieuien, these projects mayalso take the three week period.
Every attempt will be made by this department to expedite thispermi't as soon as possibli. " -'i'- YbFs' e.''E,.e Lv E^PeurEe EI
I, the
frame.
undersigned, understand the plan check procedure and time
r
frrr,rrkt tt
q- z1 _fr
sheet wa i-tuFiEi-Tib-tfiEDate lJoiR
Devel opment Departrnent.
?5 south ,rontage m.d
vail, colorado 81657
(3o3) 479-2t38 or 479_2139
TO:
EROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ottlce of communlty developmenl
ALL CONTRACTORS CT'RRENTLYL REGISTERED !{I15I TIIETOWN OF VAIL
?owN oF VArL PUBLIC WORKS/COMMITNITY DEVELOPMENT
UARCH 15, 1988
CONSTRUCITON PARKING & MATERIAL STORAGE
rn sunnary, ordinance No. 5 states that it is unlawful for anyperson to titter, rrack or a-fosit.;;t-r;irl-rJti, sand, debris;:,ffi*'+3ii"r'l!t.l3i3s_ 91asyr tlip=t""3, ;;;idif' tou"ts and
ii*.=f.:ti *fiti".f,tl"iil"'11=li$iltl5i ;:i"t";l,fi*j-,,
1ni i ;;e i;;;":"i, ii"i! li,r.:Eff ":#l:i l"'"f .;i'i.i:;:1"*i, "'
Public !{orks oeparinent. --pIi=lns rouna ,ril,f"ti'g this ordinancewilr be siven a-za rrour ".i#;;';otr.""1i-;;;;;'."id rnareri_al.rn the event the person so notitiea.does not compry with thenotice within the 24 frour tine JngcgfieA, tfre pu6:.ic WorksDepartment will ""r"""-=lii-iltlii"i-ii-irrJ';*;=" of personnotified' The provi=i""=-Jr-ifi=
"rainance stri* not beapplicable to cinstruction, -r.irr"t"nge
g5 repair projects ofany street or alley ", i"y'"liiiir"= in the right_a_way.
$3ri"fiil"?;3til:1"" *". 5 in furl: l1:1"" stop by the rown of
"""p"i.ii;;":"Tfl?X*:il":: obtain a copv' rirani vou ror your
Read and acknowledged by:
ositioffndlEGisf!
Frr* g-a-q/(i.e. contractor, owner)
, ... ,l
APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE PERMIT TO ERECT OR MAINTAIN
A STRUCTURE ON A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.THIS FORM CANNOT BE REDUCED
(Please type or print) Fence
Wall
Landscaoino
Other ' - X
Ittl r, lr..--nATtr Il I llo l9 )
(lf necessary, attach
OWNER OF PROPERTY PIR e s"5
NAME OF APPLICANT
ADDRESS A2-8 I,L{Jfn'w , Co
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY TO BE SERVED:
DESCRIPTION OF STRUCTURE OR |TEM(S) tNTO RtcHT-OF-WAY:
Attach plans showing encroachment, prope
meters, manholes, any other affected appurtenance in the project area (to scale or
dimensioned) and section(s) as well as etevations (if appticabt'e).
Does structure presently exist?
Proposed date f or commencementjGonsiffi n
In consideration of the issuance of a revocable permit for the structure above indicated,
applicant agrees as follows:
1. That the structure herein authorized on a revocable permit basis is restricted
exclusively to the land above described.2- That the permit is limited specifically to the type of structure described in this
application.3. That the applicant shall notify the Town Manger, or his duly authorized agent, twenty-four hours in advance of the time for commencement of construction, in order that '
- proper inspection may be made by the Town.4. The applicant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Town of Vail, its officers,
employees and agents from and against all liability, claims and demands on account ofinjury, loss or damage, including without limitation-claims arising from bodily injury,personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damige, or any btner loss ofany kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in-any manner co.-nnected withapplicant's activities pursuant to this permit, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused inwhole or in part by, or is claimed to tie caused in wndtetr in part by, the act, omission,error, professional enor, mistake, negligence or other fault of ihe applicant, hiscontractor or subcontraclor or any officer, employee or representative of the applicant,his contractor or his subcontractor. The applicant agrees to investigate, handierespond to, and to provide defense for and'defend against, any such liability, claims, ordemands at the sole expense ol the applicant. The ipplicant ilso agrees to bear a1other expenses relating thereto, including court costs and attorney's iees, whether ornot any such liability, claims, or demands alleged are groundless, tatse, or fraudulent.
Applicant agrees to procure and maintain, at its own cost, a policy or policies ofinsurance sufficient to ensure against all liabitity ctaims, oeminoiano other obtigationsassumed by the applicant pursuant to this paragraph 4.
Applicants further agree to release the Town of Vail, ils officers, agents and employees
from any and all liability, claims, demands, or actions or causes oiactions whatsoever
arising out ol any damage, loss or injury to ttre applicant or to the applicant's property
N lc. !<-'s
t
5.
caused by the Town of Vail, its officers, agents and employees while engaged in
maintenance or snow removal activities or any other activities whatsoever on Town of
Vail property, streets, sidewalks, or rights-oFway.
That the permit may be revoked whenever it is determined that the encroachment,
obstruction, or other structure constitutes a nuisance, destroys or impairs the use of
the right-otway by the public, constitutes a trafi;c hazard, or the property upon which
the encroachment, obstruction, or structure exists is required for use by the public; or it
may be revoked at any time lor any reason deemed sufficient by the Town of Vail.
That lhe applicant will remove, at his expense, the encroachment, obstruction, or
structure within ten days after receiving notice of any revocation of said permit.
That the applicant agrees to maintain any landscaping associated with the
encroachment on the right-of-way.
That in the event said removal of the encroaciment, obstruction, or structure is not
accomplished within ten days, the Town is hereby authorized to remove same and
have the right to make an assessment against the property and collect the costs or
removal in the same manner as general taxes are collected.
That the applicant has read and understands all of the terms and conditions set forth in
this application.
Special conditions:
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
^
tt/1e113
DateSignature of Properly O,vner
(lf joint ownership, both signatures)
APPROVED:
;. *l
/t./6.73
Date
u.tb. 73
Date
-/,/-,za'f3
Date
7t
^l^tl?Date
Project Planner
n a frf Ae.
SUBDIVISION
irOB NAI'{E
IOT BLOCK FILING
ADDRESS
The location of utirities, whether they be main trunk rines orplgPg:?d lines, must be app:oved and v-erified Uy ifre followinfutilities for the a"conpanyi.ng site plan.
Authorized Siqnature Date
U.S. West Cornmunications
1-8 00-92 2-L9 B7
468-6860 or 949-4530
Public Service conpany
949-57 BL
Gary Ha1l
Holy Cross Electrj.c
949-5892
Ted Husky/Michae1
Heritage Cablevision
949-553 0
Gary Johnson
NOTE!
Upper Eagle Valley Water
& Sanitation District *
47 6-7 480
Fred Has1ee
Assoc.
Laverty
T.V.
These verifications do not relieve the contractor ofhis responsibility to obtain a street cut permit fromthe Town of Vail, Department of public Wori<s and. toin any fubticright-of-\.ray or easernEnt-jn-ThE-Eown oi vail.- ibuildinq.permit is not a street cut permit. a ltreetcut permit rnust be obtainea sepiratefy.
This forn is to verify service availability andlocation. This srould be used in conjunction withpreparing.your utility plan and schedulinginstallations.
* Please bring a site plan when obtaining Upper Eagle Val1eywater & sanitat,j.on signatures.
oz
F
G
IJJ
ol
ol
I
UJ
UJtl-
tr
=t
UJ
-,
t9rtiltllol| 'olal '-llq9l
tHl
1-.1 '-llullI ..1db{
--l r-:l
cl 'rJlr{ Filq'-ll
>t Jlq€l
IIb0 oJlqg
'"1 ].,l
I'-l trl(d..{,
| +Jl lral .'rl og Bl o'4 lnl
q cx'I,q.q!lqo6l Ll Jd.q c'l aJH .-{ S.r
rl
l-' tk< ro
locaIorl co rl' o\.F-1 | |F{r F.- |
| , --,ir4l rl
I
I
Irl-
r 1l?
.V,< .r{ | tr(116 '-{ i!?
Fr*- i. =i::6 gt=
-19 '; =grd +l:dri H, z
oulFoz
z
o
.J
.6
zz
;- tD c tl!6xE.e ld
rfr;:fi\li
EEffg$F
:EfEi{F
i*FgENT
i! i.: € tE?
(EXo*r,
f E ='gI:o'-oo
:E.E H!,
:iEE;C; o o tr Yi
e*Ig€
=l6i;.-:rl
Eia;sHl
$ffEFli
i5$8fi51
u-1\t \t
N
L
UJ
=o
f
:<
UJ
z
eF
uJ
oz
6
=o-
2
=
lrJL!(z
tr
rue.
UJ
3
IJJ
5
LIJ
z06ulo
6
o
)
z
X
F
ruv))
U>ul
UJ
F
=
IIJ
F
F
z
d
=:)
to
(Jul
IJJ
oz
=f
2-
tu
NO[Vn']vA
rll +rltl .-11
-.1t !r Idt -l
,Cl 'FlllJl \rl.r{l Fil
Fl '-rl
rol 5lBt Iol ql'ol ol
'r-ll dtl
Fl "dl
J'dldI
+rl +Jlol lrl'-ll ol
ot IItrlajl olut Irsl ol
-ll t{lpt olol olEt .dl
;
=Zr!oo6z
=o
a
o
J
ulz(u
>d
-I
z
T;\ o-
FYac'
=rxvvzLL<
'.' :qv
FOic.i
{D
a
a
q.,
]J
U)
-t
-{(0o
a
-l
IE
t{
cc
o
z
tr
f
o-
=
E
I
E
<&
Ltlg.
Ita
l<t:
oo
z
F
pr
5
:i
;lL! |zl
.. >lo
uJoul
uJzaF
(r
t!
o-
J
z
E
o
z
lFtf
t(tlz
<lFiz
lo
F
at)
ll-<oulr
r1J(L
F
l
CE
I
l
Lzl
2oootrur<(Jo<
=fr>r-o .-'O*OO<z
Lz
-.1 Tdo3tr
zla
zY(-)
IF
E
Jo
UJo
z
E
o-
sr
H
t-l
F_
Lc)O(o
UJ
Eodlo
zo
F
UJY
UJ
dI
F
tr
UJ(L
lJ-
ILo
O
I
4o(J 6r
<i:
;-:H
Lu@soJ
c.l
fl
zG
-1 i.r
co L!
PtnL]L ]
t
(r
uJd
uJ
z
fg)a
o
cr
cc
o,
JFt! i-
h=
o- uJ>(!Or!o r.\
-(!:>-fiF
=l!
IJJ
tI}
F
at
c
o
o
ot
o(t
o
ts
=&,
1|.I
o-z
9F()fEFazoo
tt gr
2E
z
=<
=z
O- t-L
Ll[]xrP
F
AJ
lltltllr IItrlql "4
t_.:lY --ld'=lr3l| *'l
l>lrl
I
IlotzF --:
J IJ-
J<O<, u)
tJJ LIJ--r O
llltt toll lt^| | .i --r! +rl-+i r rnl II I l\o| | qrlI I bot -I t'dt *I l.FllI I tr|!>l Fql
l0r i Il-{icol col.-l I c-,i I L.l
l0r I c',rl \o
| | | FrItrl (/t co
ldl Hl -rllol '-lil elsl=l J >lfl s;
(d
|.'l
+Jo
qJ
r-i
r-t
CJa
ui
z
o
uJz
=
lltlil-titiI o'4I rJJlI oalto
sl 3=
lrtltlt-l-t rl+Jl o\ |u?l *o Itrl -r Iot I(rt Al
t:l zl r.^
3l El :Bl crl oll-..rlll
fil 3l $l-1t r|-t I&l ol Itzl .l
dE|;lLLI Fl Fl
lltt
|]toll=ltolI U.lll:l
lslI u-lloltzl
HiI E
lttl
tltoll=llolI tlll
l5l
lsltbt i
dFl El
.lolzl
ol
ql
<l>l
rJ-lol
zl
3l
9{FI
I
I
I
.l
=.1
fll
1l
al>l
'.1
el i=c
tr
F
uJ
=I()
<F
t!<zEUJFAZ
O
<o(JF
=<ir(r
=z."L
Eg9
=#=tr:2.
C)
dx
:a F-7<)
=#iz
=g
o
o2
ol
;
f
f *': ct -I I;E ifisisi| - 0-.J .r' o,I r rn.- cr,C
| €t sE*)
f ri:if l
l,"ic56\\
fi=Ei;5ifi.i;E!:rH;3:s'l \
{ ;f ;; s\i
fi =!FrE:I F:: iE.i ;s:.;i\n; .9: F 9 d v Ii c. rJ c-= |I o:- o 6G ! O-n-=-obE X
=f ;€J x
;o'"oocr= F.9O;E;E-> - rJ .' L.J c i :;
- C.: (J ::
-E*iiel:=ig
E :'iI5I Eii-lE:isgi:5sR" Y o=r i'a:ocrlFi"ir-:::f,s
-
(J G::
F.--.t.-*Ca.J
E( rjr<u cP:..J
-= < cJ
-- c'u-* c l
d . :-lo c Elu_ .-..r L I
^ e.l-ol; - -looJl
tr.t D C.r I
.=oal.- u €lYt - ol
- F UI
cr Y,--f
= ,*- c.l
C) o., .J I_t" c_r lrd;-lit-_regIi
Ld l:
= . .ll
T_ c..J l_
<(l
t4lv)q
caO:< u,i'c I
=^ s
=>< ;i-:-;;CJ:i r,J o
=_-
F'.-tE:,., I
:-q
== >
E3:Ist^l*<3o-.:
=-oc-'-F
-:-a i-rJi:
:- ut
.o
I
F-
\o
\)
\J
\
u,!
mo?
2
F
o-
IU
ulql
totb,lx
'16lot-
lll
l3
.., Itrv
inE:14<
lltttlr!Jl
i3l
t<lliltcltlt:
r!1 |
rul
tFt
I
o
llllJrltc-ll-ltltl| .,I
0i
<lii
Lal:l
I
I
I
l
c
^tllr-
t'**trl
ti^tl;itr'< I
r9tl,b lllcll
r<ll
tc
t<
I
!
E
A='iE/^l,J .l=f \.v-\9 -
>l
.i
z
;
.o
(J()
I
II
att
f,()
x
3
=E:JOl'i o. 0-'1 f,
=g E
9un5bsua>(JFOj a\i
o
UJ
u,ul
v,t-
UT
J
I
I
II-dl?
-lo
UJA(>o
o
u-
+<
-: ur-=
i tr I
f,
n-
a^
=
&
1-
Itl
o-
Li-
LLJ
-)
llrl
UJ
LULt
J
o
x
TU
I
c
()
c.
=
C)
Y(]
A.
=
c.
:
a
tr.,
rurr
x o rr vrir va
J
rl
\l
:<
d
I
I
I
J
5 U
IJ
F
c.l
i5 ll
-- ir c?< lr s
-G l' -i;: r- lrFUz ll o:g
li
;o;<
o()
Lu
t!
J<CJ
u] uJ
-rO
t..q l.,u, 4
Design and Review Board
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage RoadVail, CO 81657
Dear Board Members;
Sonetimes it works. Our proposal to open the north side ofRussellts restaurant was reviewed by the board on April ?th. Ourproposal for a deck, to accommodate the outside hanging windows,was rejected. Normally the turned down applicant becomesdiscouraged, upset and very frustrated with the whole process. you
have to understand that the applicant appears before you fearingthat you might not let him do what he has already decided to do. Inour case, however, the no vote was followed by some very positiveinput. Sa1ly Brainerd went out of her way the next day, offering
some specific ideas for the project.
We have redesigned the project, putting the railing detail to theinside of the windows, therefore elirninating the need for enyoutside apparatus whatsoever. The resulting design is creaner andachieves our objectives much more effectively than our originalproposal . The community and Russellts were better served by yourt'Nott vote.
You have agreed to serve in a sonewhat thankless capacity. As aresultr r feel it's only fair to share in detail our very positiveexperience before you.
Thanks for the help,
T?onald H. X?,\'y
RHR/c1h
Jllr, . !.,tr, ,I
lr
April 19, 1993 ,,Iri, r,
'+<,
RonaLd H.
Russell t s
d
228 Bndcrc Stneet, Tail, 9olotr ado B t 6 s7 . 3 o 3 -47 6- 3 r oe / 4 r 50
'",t
., I Project Application
on" fi ,;( '/,. t?23
Project Name:
Project Description:
Contact Person and
Architect, Address and Phone:
Phone
Owner. Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot A Btock 5
Commenls:
,7snq (C .Z
Design Review Board
Dale
Molion by: An ,"-t
Seconded q, ?rtnl-'-4-
5-O DISAPPROVAL
'2?-+ , -// ,',""4 /--Z b
Summary:
Town Planner I Statt Approval
Io
: fu".b*"-A----:*)bg--
_-__2 - 3@,
o o
€egotDina'rf
J--ef\5?-
t=*J\ "[.\t" Jtil h.r- N
rf--!t- llll' -iI-Llt II-l
-ll
$r
Fncktnq sPolc€
fur yurU
acaYd,lorn
trlitrrfit/gtCJS
redttd dscb
c"*:r,huclton sdotrtned
b.tnnag,r o+iseinS
buildas* s$En
AU$IE,LLS
SKEfCH SEcTiCM
02:00 P.M,
Ken Hughey
1.
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MARCH 23,1993
2:OO P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
EXPANDED AGENDA
TOV Fifteen Year Employee Recognition Presentation:
' Lieutenant Gorey Schmidt, Police Department.
02:10 P.M.
Mike Mollica
Ron Fliley
2.Discussion Re: Request to proceed through the planning process
to locate a safety railing and Rekord doors on TOV property at
Russell's Restaurant, in the Gallery Buibing, located at 228 Bridge
Street. Applicant: Ron Riley.
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny a request to proceed
through the planning process. Design Review Board (DRB)
approval is necessary to allow the modifications to the bui6ing.
Backqround Rationale: The applicant is proposing to add Rekord
doors and a safety railing to the north elevation of the Gallery
Building, facing Gore Creek. The TOV owns the stream tract and
the existing building face is located gl the northern property line.
The proposed Rekord doors would be located over TOV land when
the doors are open and stacked, Additionally, the safety railing
would be located over TOV land.
Stafi Recommendation: Staff recommends the project be allowed
to proceed through the planning process (DRB).
02:25 P.M.
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Josef Staufer
02:55 P.M.
03:05 P.M.
03:10 P.M.
Tim Devlin
3.Discussion Re: Request to amend a condition of approval for the
Vail Village Inn Special Development District, 100 East Meadow
Drive, Lot O, Block 5-D, Vail Village 'lst Filing. Applicant: Josef
Staufer.
Action Requested of Council: Discuss the applicant's request to
amend the condition of approval.
Backqround Rationale: Joe Staufer is requesting to amend a
condition of approval related to covering the costs for the relocation
ol the Ski Museum. Please see the attached letter from Joe
Staufer which explains the request in detail and the SDD ordinance
(page 7/provision 10) which explains this condition. To change this
condition of approval a major amendment would be necessary.
PEC Report.
DRB Report.
Discussion Re: TOV's proposed new revocable right-of-way permit
process.
Action Requested of Council: Review and comment on the new
revocable R.O.W. permit process proposed in the memo to Council
from Community Development dated March 17, 1993.
Backoround Rationale: The Torvn Attorney is currently in the
process of drafting an ordinance to address two types of revocable
R.O.W. permits, as discussed in further detail in the attached memo
to Councildated March 17, 1993. Please see lhe attached minutes
from the March 1, 1993, Mill Creek CourUTed Kindel Park meeting.
We are anticipating bringing the ordinance to Council for first and
4.
5.
6.
o
and April
03:40 P.M.
Tim Devlin
04:10 P.M.
Dick Duran
Gary Murrain
04:40 P.M.
Steve Thompson
05:00 P.M.
8.
second reading on April6, 1993,20, 1993, respectively.
Slaff Recommendation: Provide input on the proposed change to
TOV's revocable R.O.W. permit process.
7. Discussion Re: Four new view conidors and the appointment of a
Councilperson to the Task Force on View ConiOors.
Action Requested of Council: Appoint a Councilperson to the Task
Force on View Corridors.
Backoround Rationale: Please see the memo to Council from
Gommunity Development dated March 17, 1ggg, regarding View
Gorridors.
Discussion Re: NWCCOG Elevator Inspection program Letter of
Agreement.
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny/modify Agreement.
Backoround Rationale: In 1992, Building lnspectors in Region Xll
approached lhe NWCCOG Board of Directors and requested the
implementation of a regional elevator inspection program to enforce
the American National Institute A17.'|-1 Safety Codes for elevators,
escalators, dumbwaiters, and moving walks. (DRCOG has been
operating a similar program for over ten years and has found it to
be a cost-effective alternative for their local govemments.)
Presentation of TOV's 4th Quarter '19g2 Financial Report and roll
fonrard requests.
Action Hequested of Council: Review and approve the 19g2 roll
fonrard expenditures for supplemental appropriation.
Backqround Rationale: Several departments are requesting that
unspent appropriations from 1992 be rolled into .l993 for
expenditure.
Information Update.
Council Reports.
Other.
Executive Session: Legal Matters.
Adjournment.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
**:St**+*******
NO VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION IS SCHEDULED FOR
Tt ESDAY,3t30/93.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL OVERVIEW WORK SESTiIONwfLL BE oN TUESDAY,416lg3, BEG|NNTNG AT 6:s0 p.M. tN Tov couNctL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETINGwlLL BE oN TUESDAY, 4/6/9it, BEG|NN|NG AT z:30 p.M. tN Tov couNctL GHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSIONwlLL BE oN TUESiDAY,4/13t93, BEG|NN|NG AT 2:00 p.M. tN Tov couNctl GHAMBERS.
C:\AGENDA.WSE
* {€ * * {€ {. rF {. * {. * * * * *
revised 9/4/9L
DRB APPLTCATION - TOWN OI'VAII,COLORJADO
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED :
DATE OF DFTB MEETING:' -
:.trJT
I.
**********
ISIS APP],TET,TION }TXLL NOT BE ACCEPTED
t NIIL eI.L REQUIRED INFORIIIATTON rS SUBMITTED**********
PROT]ECT INFORMATION:
nA. DESCRrprroN: Yr.+ tckr.r"A /nr rs f w I t*-
B.TYPE OF REVIEW:
Nen Const,ruction ($200.00) X Minor ALt.eration ($20.00)
Addition ($50.00)Conceptual Review ($0)
C. ADDRESS:
D. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:Lot Block
Subdivision
att.ach to this application.
ZONING C
LO? AREA: ff required, applicant. mustst.amped survey showing lot area.
If property is describeil bydescription, please provide on
meets anU bounds l_CLL vua separate sheet and
B)rFi
P"Y,',irxqh^yuy a
'4{|o-
E.
NAME OFMailing APPLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE :Address:
I.NAME OF OWNERS:
*SIGNATURE (S) :Mailing Address:
will adjust. t.he fee according- to the t.able below, toensure the correct fee is paid.
Condominlum Approval if applicable.
DRB FEE; DRB fees, as shown above, are to be paid atthe tine of submittal of DRB application. Liter, whenapplying for a building permit, please identify theaccurate valuation of the proposal . The fown of Vail
J.
V
',#ngU'n
FEE SCHEDULE:
VALUATION,s 0 - $ 10,000$ 10,00L - $ 50,000$ 50,00r- - $ 150,000
$150,001 - g 500,000
$500,001 - s1,000,000I Over $Lr 0001 000
* DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAT. EXPIRES
APFROVAI, T'NI..ESS A BUILDTNG PERMIT TS
ONE YEAR AI.TER FINAIJ
ISSUED AND CONSTRUCTION
lwfuuFEE
$ 20.00
$ 50.00
$100.00
$200.00
$400.00
$s00 .00
STARIED.
**NO APPI.TCATION WILIJ BE PROCESSED TIITHOST OWNER'S SIGNATURE
,l
current
NAME OF APPLICANT:
Mailing, Adflreqs:
rs
t
I1. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING:
A pre-application meeting with a member of the planning
staff is strongly encouraged to determine if any additionalapplication information is needed. It is the applicant'sresponsibility to make an appointment with the staff to
determine if there are addit,ional submittal requirements.
Please note that a COMPLETE application will streamline the
approval process for your project.
III. IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING ALL SUBMISSIONS TO THE DRB:
A. In addition to meeting submittal requirements, theapplicant must stake and tape the project site toindicat.e property lines, building lines and buildingcorners. All trees to be rernoved rnust be taped. A11site tapings and staking must be completed prior to the
DRB site visil . The applicant must ensure that staking
done during the winter is not buried by snow.
B. The review process for NEW BUIIDINGS nornally requirestwo separate meetings of the Design Review Board: a
conceptual approval and a final approval . Applicants
should plan on presenting their development proposal ata minimum of two meetinqs before obtaininq final
lz"rrtrr.rrra'l
C. Applicants who fail to appear before the Design Review
Board on their scheduled rneeting date and who have not
asked in advance that discussion on their item bepostponed, will have their items removed fron the DRB
docket until such tine as the item has been
republ ished.
D. The following items may, at the discretion of thezoning administrator, be approved by the Community
Development Department. staff (i.e. a formal hearing
before the DRB nay not be required):
a. Windows, skylights and sinilar exterior changes
which do not alter the exist.ing plane of t.hebuilding; and
b. Building addit.ion proposals not visible fron anyother Lot or public space. At the time such aproposal is'submitted, applicants must includel-etters from adjacent property owners and./or fronthe agent for or manager of any adjacent
condominium association stating the association
approves of the addition.
E. If a property is located in a mapped hazard area (i.e.
snow avalanche, rockfall, flood plain, debris fIow,
wetLand, etc) r a hazard study must be submit.ted and the
owner must sign an affidavit recognizing the hazardreport prior. to the issuance of a building permit.Applicants are encouraged to check with a Town Plannerprior to DRB application to determine the relationshipof the property to al} mapped hazards.
F. For all resldentlal const.ruction:
a, CIearIy indicate on the fLoor plans the insideface of the exterior structural walls of thebuilding,. andb. Indicate with a dashed line on the site plan afour foot distance fron the exterior face of thebuilding wa1ls or supporting columns.
G. If DRB approves the application with conditions ormodifications, all conditions of approval must beresolved prior to Town issuance of a building permit.
[''0, I l, l7? I
l-rlz-
lyr,r. ll, /'i''1 /
;,1,'l
I
I
i
il
rROY E. WOOTEN ANL' AS$OCIA'TES
CorrsulUng Engineors
lB34 S. V/right Street
tit(EwooD, cotoRADo 80228
(303) 980.S603
" or*.r rr r, -EE-N,-- o^r.3-trq?
JOO
6HEqr NO.
crgchED eY
t,LIVE Lo4Os
E"'rt (s"0")
1na tr*^1pt7
li^Jbfir,w(qwe)
/qhroor(r^tu)
a)to/onot
ftry'
Stol?+u
2ttD,/]n:J
/fr
gdnilr
I
,\/t.:J 2tttt Fxvt*
: f "P
NA.L
w
Nou-
zilD
/, nlo
-4.r.' /?'e'
N tzxzC'i< i llF..-/ ; n 6Y q " (r t4':, ' illi -r--1""-€x'l?"lc(fu'lr'fll'isrl,hl:rfii . .i.",. : :. ;
/:.;,'sr
4"no
7a7a.
/etspsr'
/5f V=
/oy'27*
/op*r
/aPr/:
/aptr
:
/4a'Qd
6)<0 !ryP* tu)
&,qroJ !*'tt'
Cortsultlng Englneers
1834 S. Wrlght Sireet
uKEWooD, COL0RADo 80228
(303) 980.8603
/l
I
I
I
I
:*{
$ -rc
{"t..r
$$
'-*.h\ii
,+\llf
-:' "i
I
4t'-a
'.r, ' ir3!n rtl!'rtnr r.. 'k,': i,+Ji:
y
t ROY E, WOOTEN AND ASSOCIATESv Conrulling Englncorr
,r*J+''1"" * n.ilTd ol' #t$*tto'o"r'o' u
(303) 980j8603q
,or73tttetl!-,Qi|Isu6il lJo
*rru rro""------J&A- ws ,3'/t-21
6HICXrO gY oArt-,rrth
l-,
II tl
..P)
;3q
T
3
(\sd\i
-\
$111s/tN6._
Ithnoaxlf -
tl*a r&llFn"Etl ):
, 4e an o t a^J, l/tt a.o oc,
/ttt7+tt /,a l.l*rt--
ta tt!'o!/olp1 .
I
I
' .,f,?:/4
.\+<.
f'$:'
Exr t7 5+r
6ur - ta,'/z*l
.}l
..t
| -41:{:j
, i i('.lrt't trl.!l. $* i
,t
Ao, I
+tttzt!g-#.-ef,ol-.*.
', 'r'rr.":,,f:r;:ru:
%
INSPECTION
i^T /TOWN OF
REQUEST
VAIL
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
CALLER
TUES WED AM .PMMON
il i 1-.i-,
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL N UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
D ROUGH / WATER
D FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
n ROOF & SHEER.- PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION
O SHEETROCK
tr POOL / H. TUB
tr
FINAL D FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER tr HEATING
"tr ROdGH O EXHAUST HOODS
B CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE
DATE
INSPECTION REQUEST
!. li ( t r
INSPECTION:
JOB NAME
MON TUES
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT TOWN OF VAIL
THURREADY FOR
LOCATION:
-\ rra( L*,:*' '
BUILDING:
O FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
D UNDERGROUND
N ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATERtr FRAMING
n BOOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL tr
lJ
-
r *:--7 " ,'---\ -. I I 'r lffFtNAL I L.t ,'FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr n
FINAL FINAL
fi'neenoveo
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
'R[C'it{ov i; Dge
To Whom It May Concern I
Nick's cannot cover the bathroom floorsuntil the concrete is conpletely curedconcrete floor. Conpletion is expectedcured.
November 19, Lg92
with quarts epoxy flooring
or it will not adhere toas soon as the concrete is
FOR, NICK'S:
,c
I I
Project Application
o^r" f,E' 3, 1'72
Project Name:
Project Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone: ) r/^- ?eAa
Lesal Description, Lot A ,ancx 5 ,rr,.sV,V,iil?' I4 .zone CCTI
Comments:
Design Review Board
Dale
Motion by:
Seconded rv, H-ea-zu.t4^
AFEA€U*L 5^O @L
D sratt Approval
$-fo4
_ iulruEn a Surn[,^,Fr€, )
.i li
o
/f d-- ob;'^"-; *
O/"f f tr-e/- -hh tu fttr-& /*J - + d...- .7*, ^n o,o &4r .b
4144
/
- rnoA .fu ^r,*^4//u
LWA2ti.
,e T#j
oo
2'/7.?z K^r*A^ b'J b(6 6",
/*tu/r/ i< a^-f&*^J ctu".\ -fl.e a*heS.
/1 "/Pr{ - c-a'.*jaz,- ,t-z A
/.^'U", 4-*'/A
"ffi:d e( /.k%- / /* aa4--@,
tA€ f-r?- *4a*t-**/ ..nw-
^
/ .,r-,bz-.
^"/i -7
- 'dr/ /4 h/--Th rt@-- -* ,frJ-. >* f"h,z/ ? Eal' Lr/ Fa-&.,,
LICETION -
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED :
DATE OF DRB MEETING:
i****:t**** ,.1
TEIS APPLICATION YTILI. NOT BE ACCEPTED
UNTIL ArL REQUr**O**t*XO*T?LJTON rS SnBl{rrTED
o
APP
PROJECT INFORMATTON:
A. DESCRIPTION:
9/4/91
:'.,),'
I.
Ell;q,-r e z
TYPE OF REVIEW:
New Construction ($200.00)Minor Alteration ($20.00)
Addition ($50.00)Conceptual Review ($0)
ADDRESS:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
/Block J
Subdivision
If property is descrj-b5d by a meets antf bounds leqaldescript.ion, please provi-de
attach to thj-s application.on a separate sheet and
E. zoNrNG , CCT
must Drovide a current
D.
F.
NAME OF APPLICANT:
LOT AREA: If required,
stanped survey showing
applicantlot area.
Mailing Address:
H.NAME OFMailing
APPLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE :
Address:
J.
K.
I.NAME OF OWNERS:
*SIGIIATIIRT (S) :Mailing Address;
Condominium Approval if applicable.
DRB FEE: DRB fees, as shown above, are to be paid at
the time of submittal of DRB application. Later, when
applying for a building pernit, please identify the
accurate valuation of the proposal . The Town of Vail
will adjust the fee according to the t.able below, to
ensure the correct fee is paid.FM
FEE SCHEDULE:
VALUATIONI 0 - $ 10,ooo$ 10,001 - $ 50,000
$ 50,001 - $ 150,000
$150,001 - $ 500,000
9500,001 - $1,ooo,oo0$ Over $1r000,000
* DESIGN RSVIEW BOARD IPPRO\TAI EXFIRES
APPRO\TAIJ UNI'.ESS A BUILDING PERMIT IS
FEEs 20.00,c-7--7. \\{._.9_:l/
$100.00
$200.00
$400.00
$s00.00
ONE YEAR AI'TER I.INAI
ISSI'ED A}TD CONSTRUCTION IS
STARTED.
**NO APPLICATION 9TII.I. BE PROCESSED SIITSOUT ONNER'S SIGXATURE
Phone
LIST OF MATERIA],S
NAME OF PROJECT:
LEGAL DESCRIPTTON: LOT BLOCK
STREET ADDRESS:
SUBDIVISION
DESCRIPTION OF PROTIECT :
The following information is
Review Board before a final
A. BUILDING MATERIALS:
Roof
Sidi-ng
Other Wall Materials
Fascia
Soffits
Windows
Window Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Flues
Flashings
Chinneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
Other
required
approval c
TYPE OF
for submittal
an be given:
MATERIAL
to the Desiqn
COLOR
LANDSCAPING: Name of Designer:
Phone:
PLAI.IT MATERIALS: Botanical Name Common Name Ouantitv Size*
PROPOSED TREES
EXISTING TREES TO
BE REMOVED
*lndicate caliper for deciduous trees.hes. Indicate Minimum caliper forheiqht for coniferoustrees.
l'o'w''J'ta4dt/^- -
/"-/ *y4
,v\124^
T-= fua-* c-#^
= -.6r-r^ *; /*n-*,/
I eLANT MATERTO: Boranicar Name commoOa*e ouantitv size*
PROPOSED SHRUBS
EXISTTNG SHRUBS
TO BE REMOVED
*Indicate size5 qaLlon.of proposed shrubs.
Tvpe
Minimum size of shrubs is
Square Footaqe
GROI'ND COVERS
soD
DMJIJ
rYPE
OF IRRIGATION
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSION CONTROL
LANDSCAPE LIGHTING: If exterj.or lighting is proposed, please
show the number of fixtures and locations on a separauelighting pIan. Identify each fixture from t.he lighting planon the list below and provide the wattage, height abovegrade and type of light proposed.
OTHER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retaining walls, fences, swimmingpools, etc.) Please specify. Indicate heights of retainingwa1ls. Maximum height of walls within the front setback ii3 feet. Maximum height of wal1s elsewhere on the propertyis 6 feet -
n
I'r' t
FIL E COPY
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 7. 1992
7:30 P.M.
A.regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, January 7, 1ggz, at 7:30 p.M., in the Council
Chambers ol the Vail Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT:Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Jim Shearer
Jim Gibson
Rob LeVine
Bob Buckley
Tom Steinberg
Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
The first item on lhe agenda was Citizen parlicipation, of which there was none.
Second on ihe agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting ol four items:
A. Approval of Minules ol December 3, 1991, and December 17, 1991, evening meeting minutes.
B- Ordinance No. 48, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 18.60.080 -
Permit lssuance and Efiecl of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, and Section 19.62.090 _
Permil lssuance and Effect of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and setting forth details in
regard thereto.
C. Ordinance No. 49, Series ol 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Chapter 18.60,
Conditional Use Permits, Section 18.60.020(G) Application - Contents and Chapter 18.62, Variances,
Section 18.62.020(F) Application - Iniormation Required; and setting lorth details in regard thereto.
D. Ordinance No. 50, Series of 1991, second reading, an ordinance amending Section 3.52.060 of the
Town ol Vail Investment Poliry, and setting torth details in regard thereto.
Mayor Osterfoss read the titles in full. Jim Gibson moved to approve all items on the Consent Agenda, with a second
from Rob LeVine. A vote was taken and the molion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Item N0. 3 was Ordinance No. 1 , Series of 1992, first reading, an ordinance declaring lhe inlention ol the Town Council
ol the Town ol Vail, Colorado, to create a Local lmprovement District within the boundaries of the Town of Vailfor the
purpose of converling existing overhead electric facilities lo underground locations; adoption of details and
specificalions therefore. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full, Larry Eskwith reviewed the history ol this ordinance.
When Town Council passed a resolution to proceed with a hearing to obtain input lrom the property owners in the
propsed Dislrict, informalion was reviewed re: original request for formation, associated costs, and the proposed
formula for assessmenl. lf it was decided the Distrir:t should be formed, individual property owners would be formally
nolilied aboul a separale hearing at which they would be advised ol their specific assessment. Larry said, before
moving to assessments, the f irsl step was lo form the District, and that would be up lo the Town Council after hearing
public input. Larry stated assessments were not part ol the tax bill, bul would be issued by the Finance Department
ol the Town of Vail. The billcould be paid either within thirty (30) days in its entirety, or spread out over twenty (20)
years, according to stalute. Peggy Osterfoss asked for public input. Speaking against the ordinance were Jeff Bowen,
Roger Tilkemeier, John C. Ohrt, Dr. Steven Thompson, and Tony Reilerson. They agreed the undergrounding would
be aesthetically pleasing, but lelt the estimaled assessments were too h[th, and ihey felt everyone who wouldbenefit
should pay. Speaking in favor of the concept, but not the economics, was George Lamb. Larry and Greg Hall
explained how properties were selected to be part of the proposed District. Greg noted there were lour (4) types of
property owners in the area: (1) vacant lots, (2) existing residences wilh underground service connecled 1o an
underground primary system, (3) existing residences with underground service connected to an overhead primary
system, (4) and properties having overhead service @nnected lo lhe overhead primary system. He said of the 42
a 'l*
selected lots, there were actually 73 services or meters, and the cost would be for each meler. Greg explained vacant
lots and houses already connecled to the underground system did not add cosl to the Districl because the District was
p'tcking up only secondary costs. Upon future construction, owners would pay on a per lot basis, Also speaking in
favor of tormation ol the proposed District was Art Abplanalp, speaking lor Landis Martin and Jim Schink, residents
willing to be included in the District for aesthetic and safety reasons although their lols had no overhead utilities. Greg
stated lhe amount absorbed by Holy Cross would be $70,000, making the total project cost $240,000. Dean Gordon,
from Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc., said his engineering lirm had been working with Town staff to deline the scope
and limits of the Distdcl and identily the cosi associated with it. He explained it the proposed District was lormed at
$ome point in the fulure, the total cosl could never be assessed to the Disirict at a higher ligure than what was
represented to residents of the Dislrict during this public hearing or at subsequent public hearings lor individual
assessments. As a result, he felt il was necessary lo be conservative but realistic in calculating the total estimated
cost. He said the $1 70,000 represenled costs in four areas: (1 ) the actual conslruction cost ol the secondary service
lines and lhe division pint between primary service and secondary services, (2) adminisiralive costs, (3) bond costs,
and (4) engineering costs. Holy Cross would be responsible for the transformer; beyond the transformer was
secondary service, with costs for calculation of the individual assessmenls from that point. In response to a citizen
requesl lor the Town ol Vail to pay lor this improvement, the Mayor restated the request had come from the
neighborhood. Ron Phillips stated there was no stafl advocacy lor the project and the staff had resisted getting
involved with this because of the extensive time commitmenl it entailed. Nancy Gibson spoke about the process over
lhe past 2 ll2years, and her current attempts, along wilh Dave Rogers, to gel recent ieedback. She said she realized
$2500 could be a hardship to a lot of people in the project area, and one of the reasons for approaching the residenls
about splitting the costs equally was to help defray the high co$ s0me homes would have. Peggy said the first thing
l0 be decided was whether there was interesl in lorming the District. Secondly, they would iron out the fairness and
equity issues. Al Weiss, although not involved wilh this issue at the present time, said he could foresee a luture time
when formation of other Special Districts would be requested lor the same purpose, and he wanted to know, it once
a Special Distdct was e$ablished by ordinance, there would be recourse lor residents or would residents have to
accepl whatever assessments were set in such olher Special Districts. Larry stated if a differentlorm of assessment
than had been suggested was selected, il could be incorporated into the neit step. Larry advised Council there was
a formal stepto set a certain date for another hearing, as required by statute. Council agreed to set March 3, 1992,
as the daie for anolher public hearing. Notice about that hearing would be prepared and sent to residents as required
by statute. Ron Phillips said there were possibly three viable formulas lor alternate methods of dividing up the project's
cosl and suggested Council allow slaff 2-3 weeks t0 develop those to bring back for discussion. Bob Buckley stated
there was a very real hazard with overhead powerlines breaking in the mountains. Rob LeVine stated it required more
than a simple majority to go fonivard with this, although he shared Bob's leelings about the aesthetics and salety
concerns. Furlher, he said he was interesled in expanding the Districl to include some ol the lots not included at a
different assessed level. Merv lelt there was a benefil to be had by all by lorming this District, including the vacant
lots and those who have akeady undergrounded because o{ the aesthetic aspect, but he wanted to be able to offer
an alternative to fully underground and encapsulate the power lines, not just mmpress the equipment into above-
ground green lransformer boxes. Peggy's impression was lhere was support lor undergrounding. The question u/as
about the lairness ol the allocation ol the costs. Merv Lapin moved Ordinance No. 1 be continued until the March 3,
1992, evening meeting, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vole was taken and lhe motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
A five minute recess was taken.
Item No.4 was Resolution No. 1, Series of 1992, a resolution designating a public place within the Town of Vail lor
the posting ol notice for public meetings of lhe Vail Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, Design
Review Board, and olher boards, commissions, and authorities of the Town of Vail. Mayor Osterloss read the title in
full. Merv Lapin moved lo approve Resolution No. 1, with a second from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
Item No. 5 was a Public Hearing commencing a needs assessment for Heritage Cablevision. Mayor Osterloss
explained Council's action was 1o listen to public input relating to the future needs ol lhe Town of Vail cable television
system. Larry Eskwith clarified lhis was the first slep in the formal renewal process of the cable franchise agreement
with Heritage Cablevision. He emphasized there would be further evaluation of the cable company's performance by
the Town. lf the Town did not accept the proposal, an administrative hearing would lollow, but that was not carte
blanche lor a municipality to reluse to renew the lranchise. Larry stated Heritage had asked the Town to instilule the
formal renewal process bul also asked lhe Town to pursue informal discussion with them. Al Weiss briefly explained
the reasons tor his discontent wilh Heritage Cablevision. Merv Lapin asked Larry what the Town's powers were and
what the Town could do in terms of rates or programming underthe present franchise agreement with Heritage. Larry
said Heritage had the right to impose a 5% increase per year, and with regard to the programming mix, the Town had
the right to designate the $pes ol programming the Town wanted broadcast, adding Heriiage muld change the stations
on the cable, but they had to keep generally the same mix approved when the tranchise was entered into, and they
have done that. There were lour (4) specific reasons not to renew the franchise, and these do not have 10 do with
whether the cable company had raised rates. He spoke bdefly about the Federal Cable Television Act of 1983 and
pressure Congress was reacting to from cable operators who maintained they were concerned because ol the amount
of regulation they felt municipalities were placing on them. The Act deregulated all municipalities' abilities to have
much influence on cable rale slruclure, and it became much more dillicult not to renew a lranchise. For municipalilies
similar to Vail, one ol the biggest problems was compelition was very limited. ln the last franchise agreemenl, they
agreed Vail is in an area known as an area without effective competition, which meant they could no loriger raise ratei
withoui the permission ol the Town except to the extent oi 5%. Lany added that was dbfined by iedeial law, but in
order to prove Vail is an area without effective competition, the Town would have to go through a process which
Heritage said was unnecessary as they would stick 1o the agreed annual 5% increase. larry stated iouncil needed
to determine if the Town should demand more lrom Heritage in terms of upgrading the system technically. Merv was
particularly exasperated by the fact the Town did not even have the alternative of having free TV due to the
mountainous conditions and wanted staff to solicit opinions from E.B. Chester and Jack Crosby. Jim Gibson asked
Hon Phillips lor an update on competitor who had expressed interest in a franchise in Vail. Ron stated lhe interested
party wa! asked lo bring the Town a proposal but had not. Ron said he believed the reason a proposal was not
submitted was because a great amount of the {ee lor the channets the interested party wanted to put bn a separate
syslem were controlled by the same company as Heritage. The price lor lhat was moie than the inierested party felt
he could afford for the investment needed for the inlrastruclure. Rob LeVine conlirmed thal, and emphasized it was
not the Town being unwilling lo issue a franchise, Jim Gibson recalled lhis potential franchiser was planning on using
a wireless reception and lransmission method. Rob recalled that also, but poinled to the exoense involved with thai
and the potential franchisee would still have to buy lhe service as it originated from TCl. Jim Gibson and Merv agreed
lhe monopoly Heritage had was abusive and should not exist, but Peggy noted the free market just does not eiist in
this case. Ron lell a replacement program lor cable cunenlly buried should be considered because ihe cable now
installed was nol technically advanced and was old. Al Weiss asked ii Heritage Cablevision was obliged t0 produce
an audit of their books to the Council. Larry said the Town can ask lo review an audit. Larry felt it wis imporlant to
get an audil of whal the Town had and ils quality. Merv Lapin moved these proceedings be conlinued indelinitely.
This continuance may include, but shall nol be limited to the following: (1)The taking of additional evidence from
citizens of the Town, (2) The mailing of appropriate surveys to the citizens of the Town, {3) Obtaining reporls from
engineers and other consultants relating to past performance of the cable operator under the existing franchise, and
helping to identify appropriate luture cable-related communily needs and interests. Jim Gibson seconded the motion.
A vole was iaken and lhe motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
llem No. 6 was an appeal by applicant of a denial by the PEC regarding a request for a Conditional Use Permil for
an outdoor dining palio for Russell's Restauranl Deck at The Gallery Building, 228 Bridge Street; a part of Lot A, Block
5, Vail Village Firsl Filing. The applicanVappellant was Fon Riley/D.R.R., Inc. Mike Mollica said the proposal was in
two phases with the applicant proposing a "winler version" of the dining deck on TOV property, as well as a'summer
version." He reviewed a description of the proposed deck use, background information, related policies in the Vail
Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, criteria and findings, and staff recommendations
as fully detailed in the Community Development Department's memo to the PEC dated December 9, 1991. Mike
Mollica noted one of the key issues ol the project was the nanowing of Bridge Street at the proposed deck site. There
was discussion about the specilic measurements of various areas on Bridge Street. Mike spoke about three issues
staff had with the project: (1) There would be a constriction or narrowing of Bridge Street creating possible pedestrian
salety issues, specifically in the summertime, (2) Public Works expressed concerns about street sweeping in the
summertime, and (3) Staff had concerns regarding views. Mike said stafl recommended denial ol the request as they
did not feel it had mel lindings 3 and 4 in the December 9, 1991 , memo. Mike said staff discussed an option they
could supporl, basically the 'winter version'oi the deck. Stafl could supporl that with two conditions of approval,
although the PEC had voled 3-1 for denial. Mike said staff was very positive aboul dining decks and understood their
economic necessity. The applicanl, Ron Riley, addressed the issue of a slreel constriction, and said he would redesign
the deck to avoid problems with the Fire and/or Police Departmenl. He believed the encroachment oJ the summertime
version deck was minor, stressing lower Bridge Streel was sterile, and the dining deck would add interest 1o help the
area t0 come alive. He felt, due to the popularity of outdoor dining, a reslaurant was almost required to have a dining
area outdoors. He telt his business could no longer survive only during the winler, and he wanted some viability for
summer. Patios on Town property were all over, and he lelt they were called for in the Master Plan to help bring a
slreel alive through interaclion. After lurther discussion aboul seating capacities for the summer and winter versions,
Kristan reiterated staff's position was more than ,just concern aboul the constriction and the design ol the deck, there
was concern about views which would be obstructed by the deck, but she felt it could work. She wanted Council to
know this was important, as this was the kind ol issue looked for in urban design guidelines and concepts relaled to
the Village regardless ol what store or lype of business would be in lhere. Merv Lapin moved to approve lhe
applicant's request and overlurn the denial by lhe PEC based on lhe lindings listed on page 7 of the December g,
1991, memorandum items 1,2, and 3, that are necessary for a conditional use permit and lhe conditional use permit
be lor one year. Furlher condilions to meet conditions I and 2lrom the staff recommendation were the applicant was
to be responsible for cleaning the street from the edge of the bridge to the end of his building on a daily basis, such
sweeping to be linished by 8:00 A.M. the next morning, and snow from the deck would nol be cleared onto the
adiacent Town rightof-way, prelerably, the applicant was t0 r,vork oul anangements to have snow privately hauled lrom
the sight, and the applicant was lo install 2-3 aspens in the planter north ol the proposed dining deck. Jim Shearer
seconded the molion. The applicant agreed to mntribute to general upkeep of the street area, but noted aspen trees
previously planted in the planter north ol the proposed deck had died, and asked for flexibility to plant something else
equally attractive. Peggy requested the DRB decide that issue, and to look into seeing that adequate lighting in the
area was addressed. Peggy recalled Merv's motion to overlurn the decision by the PEC, with findings and conditions
as stated in the siaff memo, with a primary additional condition being the deck be approved for one year on the
summer deck and a permanent approval on the winter deck, and the radius of the deck be pulled back 15 feet. A vote
was taken, and the motion passed unanimously, 6-0.
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed unanimously. The meeting
was adjourned at 10:45 p.m.
Respectf ully submitled,
&
Margardt A. Osterfoss, Mayor
ATTEST:
M*
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Minul€s tabn ry Dorianno S. Doto
c'$ltN$JAt't7.92
o
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1gg2
7:30 p.M.
EXPANDED AGENDA
7:30 p.m.
7:35 p.m.
Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer
Steve Thompson
7:45 p.m.
Larry Eskwith
8:45 p.m.
Larry Eskwith
1.
2.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.
Consent Agenda.
A. Approval of Minutes of December 3, 1gg1 and December
17, 1991 evening meeting minutes.
B. Ordinance No.48, Series of 19g1, second reading, an
ordinance amending Section 19.60,090 _ permit lisuance
and Effect of the Munlcipal Code ol the Town of Vail, and
Section 18.62.080 - permit lssuance and Effect ot the
Municipal Code of the Town of Vail; and setting forth
details in regard thereto.
C. Ordinance No. 49, Series of 1g91, second reading, an
ordinance amending Chapter 19.60, Conditiond tJse
Permits, Section 19.60.020(G) Apptication _ Contenb and
Chapter 18.62, Variances, Section 19,62.020(F)
Application - Intormation Required; and setting iorth
details in regard thereto.
D. Ordinance No. S0, Series of 1991, second reading, an
ordinance amending Section 3.52.060 of the Town of Vail
Investment policy, and setting forth details in regard
thereto.
Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1gg2, first reading, an ordinance
declaring the intention of the Town Council of the Town of Vail,
Colorado, to create a Local lmprovement District within the
boundaries of the Town of Vaiifor the purpose of converting
existing overhead electric facilities to underground locations]
adoption of details and specifications theref-ore. (See copy ofPjr9llc Notice posted/pubfished/maited regarding formiilonof this Locat tmprovement District.)
Easholound Rationale: This is the next step in the formation of aLocal lmprovement District for the purpose of converting existingoverhead electric facilities to underground locations forl portiori
of the Big Horn SuHivision.
Resolution No. 1, Series of 1992, a resolution designating apublic place within the Town of Vail for the posting of noti-ce forpublic meetings of the Vail Town Council, ptanning and
Environmental Commission, Design Review Board, and other
boards, commissions, and authorities of the Town of Vail.
3.
4.
pass Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1gg2 forming this Local
lmprovement District or move not to form sarie.
8:50 p.m.
Larry Eskwith
9:20 p.m.
Mike Mollica
9:50 p.m.
5.
Action Requested of Council: Pass or deny Resolution No. 1,
Series of 1992.
Backoround Rationale: State law requires the Town to designate
a place for posting public notices of Town of Vail meetings at its
first regular meeting of the year.
Statf Recommendation: Pass Resolution No. 1, Series of 1992.
Public Hearing commencing a needs assessment for Heritage
CableVision.
Action Fleouested of council: Listen to public input relating to
future needs of the Town of Vail cable television system.
Backqround Rationale: This is the first step in the lormal
renewal process of the cable franchise agreement. (See copy of
Publlc Notice posted/published advlslng the publlc of thls
hearing to commence proceedings for the purpose of : (1)
ldentifying the future cable related community needs and
Interests; (2) Reviewing the performance of Heritage
CableVision, Inc., the cable operator under the current Town
of Vail franchlse.)
Appeal by Applicant of a denial by the Planning and
Environmental Commission regarding a request for a Conditional
Use Permit for an outdoor dining patio for Russell's Deck @ The
Gallery Building, 228 Bridge Street; a part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail
Village First Filing. (ApplicanUAppellant: Ron Riley/D.R.R., Inc.)
Action Requested of Council: Upholcl/overturn the decision of
the PEC.
Backoround Rationale: The PEC, at their December 9, 1991,
public hearing, denied the applicant's request by a vote of 3-1.
Staff Recommendation: Please see the enclosed staff
memorandum dated December 9, 1991.
Adjournment.
6.
7.
C:tAGEN DA.TGE
o
1-o*",-- ere
-)Wa-rJ4 /n-&i..,A^; ,, -&d /s'
70_+ fr,*; ry ae.L,td,,r
I lEc
t
l, rl , ?z
btuRry-
/rlo"^- -
Srr- - ^J-l o - .-.-l -e--Un "JL f)LZe - f o'-\ & >nB ,
e^+ t,2 a.,-,( i * %-"*-)
Lt// 'k A n.*- ,r.c+1 oJ^L , -h -r/a -)d ^-t 4>z/ '--7/- t aA ttltu "fu-* T# try4
adrJ-rt.,&'
-._--.-...:rC ?f-A""; "?-e-.. aEu* 4 , + FA^t
4ru@*< % @&tu rf a
'W^-& ^kJ ,^r-d .fr
lzryl $ El"d^4*
l1x^rt/
(%t^ - c4Et;,(4 a- u;zgp
"( v-/ zh >nZ.
Rp^*r*
tt l^, /| 1..+,O Iv u trL \-? \-'/':
I
Ronaldll.R*ry
December 11 , 1991
Mike Mollica
Town of VaiI
Planning Department
75 S. Frontage Road
VaiI, CO 81657
Dear Mike,
As Itn sure you are aware I I arn disappointed w j-th the Planning
Commissionls decis:ion on Russellts deck. Consequently, I would like
the issue to be appealed to the Town Counc i-l in hopes that they
would see the issue dj fferentl l'.
Please give me a call over the mechanics of the appeal-.
Sincerely,
Ronald H.
RHR,r c t h
228 Bndge Street, TaiI, S,olorada I t 6sZ . 3o3 /47 6-3 t ogt ooio
t
TOr
MEMORANDI.]M
Planning and Environmcntal Commission
Comm unity Dcvclopment Department
December 9, 1991
A requcst for a conditional use pcrmit for an outdoor dining patio for the
Gallery Building (Russell's Restaurant), located in the Commercial Core I zone
district, 228 Bridge StreeVa part of l,ot A, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant Ron Riley/D.R.R., lnc.
Planner: Mikc Mollica ,
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
?tr i\r5
I. DESCRIPTION OF TI{E PROPOSED USE
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for a 173 sq. ft.
outdoor dining deck at Russell's Restaurant, located in the Gallery Building in Vail Village.
Thc Gallery Building is in the Commercial Core I zone disrict, which rcquires a conditional
use permit to add an outdoor dining deck. The deck is proposed to be located along the west
elevation of the Gallery Building, and would be located entirely upon public right-of-way.
The applicant is proposing a "winter version" of the dining deck, as well as a "summer
version." The winter dining deck would be pennanent and would extend ovt3'-g#'' from the
existing face of the building. This is the same distance that the two existing Town planters
extend out from the face of the Gallery Building. The proposal calls for a "temporary" dining
deck for the summer season. The summer dining deck would extend out a total of 6'-9" from
the face of the building, or an additional 2'-l1vz" beyond the winter deck. At the tightest
point, the summer deck would reduce the width of Bridge Street to approximately 13'-6".
The summer deck would include a removable steel railing system, as well as a rcmovable
floor system for the deck. Both versions of the deck (winter and summer) would be
cqntained within a 3th-foot high steel railing system. The floor system of the dining deck
would be located at the same elevation as the existing floor of the interior of Russell's
Restaurant. As it relates ro the elevation of Bridge Street, the floor syst€m would be located
approximately 2 feet above the existing asphalt. Rekord doors would be added to the west
elevarion of the Gallery Building to provide access to the dining deck and to crcate a more
open, airy feeling to the interior restaurant. The applicant has also proposed to wrap the
summer deck with redwood flower boxes. Additionally, a free-standing bench would be
added to the area at thc southeast side of the covered bridgc (to compensate for the rcmoval
of the bench on the west elevation of the Gallery Building).
Since the November ll, 1991 PEC worksession, the applicant has modified the proposal in
the following manner:
' The deck has been pulled back, from the entrancc to the Gallery Building, by
approximately 6'0". A ponion of thc existing Torvn planter, which includei
the Gallery Building's fire deparrnent water connection, would remain.
(please see attached sire plans.)
' The nofthwest corner of the deck would be angled more sharply to furthcr
reduce the decks intrusion into Bridge Stneet.
' The floor_1ca of the proposed dining deck has been reduced from 207 square
feet, to 173 square feet.
II. BACKGROUND
on october 22, 1991, the Town council (by a vote of 6-0) unanimously approved Ron
l*V- t request to proceed ttroueh the plannins process for a condition"t use permit. This
initial_approval was required because at or trrJ proposea improvements for thi outdoor dining
deck for the Gallery Building would be located within ttre pubtic tigtrt-of-way, and on Townof Vail property.
Staff has measured some of the existing dimensions of the "usable right-of-way" along Bridgp
Street. The results are as follows:
l. Existing interior width of the Covered Bridge = l0 feet.2. Existing width of Bridge Sreet between thJ Gallery Building (includes Town
planters) and the pocket park = 16 feet.3. Existing lidth of Bridge Street between the Covered Bridge Building steps and
rhe Slifer Building StGpS = 27 feet.4. Existing width of Bridge Street between Pepi's Bar and Restaurant entrance
and the steps at the Gonuch Building = 24 fext.5- Existing widthof Bridge Street between the Gorsuch dining deck and pepi's
dining deck = 21 feet.
The PEC initially reviewed this request on November ll, 1991. This was a worksession and
the draft minures of the meeting are attached to this memorandum.
t
uI.
There arc no specific Vail Village Urban Design Guidc Plan sub-area concepts which apply to
this proposal. However, the Vail Village Design Considerations specifically addresses dects
and pados as follows:
"Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring pcoprc to
the sreets, oppomrnities m look and be looked at, and generally contribute to
the liveliness of a busy street-making a richer pedesuian e*petieoce than if
those streets were empty.
A review of successful decks/patios in vail rcveals several common
characteristics:
- direct sunlight from 11:00-3:00 increases use by many days/year and
.
protects from wind;
- elevated 2 feet to give views jglp the pcdestrian walk (and not the
reverse);
- physical separation from pedestrian walk of 3-5 feet (planter bener than
a wall);
- overhang gives pedestrian scale/shelter.
Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to:
- sun- wind
The Vail Village Master Plan does not contain any specific sub-arca concepts which directly
relatc to this proposal. However, the staff believes that the following goals and objectives, as
stated in the Vail Village Master Plan, are relevant to this proposal:
"@!..1[l - Encourage high quality redevelopment whilc preserving the unique
architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of
community and identity.
1.2 Objective:
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residcntial and commercial
facilities.
Goal #2 - To foster a sEong tourist industry and promote year-around economic' health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole.
2.?^1 Policy:
The design criteria in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan shall
be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural
scale and character of the core area of Vail Village.
2.4 Objective:
Encourage the development of a variety of a new commercial activity where
compatible with existing land uses.
2.4,2 Policy:
Activity that provides night life and evening entenainment for both the
guest and the community shall be encouraged.
Goal #3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking
experience throughout the Village.
3.1 Objective:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other
improvements.
3.1.1 Policy:
Private development projects shall incorporatc strEetscape improvements
(such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along
adjacent pedestrian ways.
t 3.3 Objective:
Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and street life along pedesnian
ways and plazas.
3.3.2 Policy:
Outdoor dining is an important str€etscape feature and shall be
encouraged in commercial infill or redevelopment projects.
Goal #6 - To ensurc thc continued improvement of the vital operational elcments
of the Village
6.2.2 Policy:
Minor improvements Qandscaping, decorative paving, open dining
decks, erc.), may bc permitted on Town of Vail land or right-of-way
(with review and approval by the Town C-ouncil and Planning and
Environmental Commission when applicable) pmvided that Town
operations such as snow removal, steet maintenance and fire
depanment access and operation are able to be maintained at current
levels. Special design (i.e. heated pavement), lnaintenance fees, or other
considerations may be rcquired to offset impacts on Town services."
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends
denial of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of
the Town.
As stated in the zoning code, the Commercial Core I (CCI) Zone
District is intended to "provide sites and maintain the unique character
of the Vail Village commercial area, witlr its mixturc of lodges and
commercial establishments in a predominantly @esnian environment.
The CCI district is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and
other amenities appropriate to 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 insure the maintcnancc and
preservation of the tightly clustered arrangement of buildings fronting
on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to insure continuation of
t
3.
the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the
Village."
Generally, the staff believes that thc applicant's proposal complies with
the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master
Plan as indicated in Section trI of this memorandum. We believe that
outdoor dining decks, associaed with a restaurant, ar€ an appropriate
site development in the Village core.
The applicant is proposing to add redwood flower boxes around the
perimeter of the dining deck, however, one Town of VaiI planter will be
lost in its entirety, and another partially rcmoved
The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schoolq parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
It is thc staff opinion that the proposed outdoor dining deck will have
no negative effects upon any of the above listcd criteria.
Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, Faffic flow and
control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the
street and parking areas.
It is this criteria with which staff has the most concern. With the
summer deck in place, Bridge Stneet would be narrowed down, at the
tightest point, to a width of approximately 13'-6". The staff is vcry
conccrned with further constricting Bridgc Street and with creating a
choke point at rhis very heavily used area ofthe Village. This section
of Bridge Street is considered by staff to be a nansition zone for
pedestrians, bicyclists and rollerbladers acccssing the Village corc.
Narrowing the width of Bridge Strect is a concem and pedesrian safety
is a major issue, especially given the wide variety of users in this area,
and the fact that thc western edge of Bridge Sreet drops off into the
pocket park (there is no guard rail).
The Public Works Department maintains that street sweeping will
become more difficult with the proposed summer dining deck in place.
The Fire Department concerns and issues, which were identified at the
PEC worksession, have all been resolved,
Crrr*4 tb'
" ,r\
W'(,2'')
t 4.Effect upon the character of the area in which the propmed use isto be located' including the scare and butk ofthe pioposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
The staff is still concemed with the overall acsthetic appearance of the
dining deck (during the summer season) and its pot"ntiat for partially
blocking views both up and down Bridge strect. wc are con'cerned'
with the potential for blockins views of rhc covered bridge (from thesouth). We believe that with the curve of Bridge Sreet and thc angte
o{ tfe 9oy_ered bridge as ir crosses Gore Cteek, that the easrcrn porion
of the bridge may be paniaily screened with the proposed Oinin! Aectin place.
The staff believes that the addition of Rekord doors to the GalleryBuilding w!l] be a very positive addition, not only to the buildinj, but
alsg g the village. Rekord doors, by increasing the visibliry or-dining
activity, will add to the street life and visual intiresr.
The addition of a bench, adjacent to the iovered bridge, will be apositive amenity and will add to the pedesrian environment and
character in the Village.
That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of
this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which tte iirc is
Iocated.
That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which itwould be operated or maintained would not be derimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
That the proposed use would comply with cach of the applicable
provisions of this Ordinance.
B.Findines
4
V.STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff is recommending denial of the applicant's rcquest for a conditional use
permit, as we believe the request does not meet findings 3 and 4 as outlined in the
above section of this memorandum.
Although the staff cannot support th\e applicant's request as prcsented, the staff would
be able to support a scaled back version of the proposal. We believe that a dining
deck which extended out 3'-9t4" from the west elevation of the building (to the face
of the existing Town planters), would be acceptable. This type of expansion would
have no impact on the existing pedesuian flow along Bridge Sueet. Wc believe that
an outdoor dining deck in this configuration would allow for approximately three to
four, rectangular dining tables. We also feel that a dining deck in this configuration,
with the reuactable Rekord doors, would provide the outdoor dining experience that
the applicant desires. The staff would also suggest the addition of an awning, on the
facade above the retractable doors, to add more color to the face of the building.
If the PEC approves either the applicant's request for the outdoor dining deck, or the
staff's suggestion for a scaled back version of the dining deck, the staff would
recommend that two conditions be placed on the approval as follows:
1) That the applicant agree drat the dining deck will not be cleared of snow onto
the adjacent Town right-of-way, and that the applicant work out some
arangement to have snow privately hauled from the site.
2) That the applicant install 2-3 aspens in the planter nonh of the proposed dining
deck.
tt
I
* PEC ,wte
\-1 -t f /^-J
.l
rfi rr olrirttr6 r,.rsiin,, ::.rl rryrl!,ir: /r v
'dcl--
* Eindabi ictsl
ndurd ilo,rs .[>rcs di-Etrc€-rDs ct /truiq.S c+d Rv{.l -^_
@
l'0r'iT,
V
l)
s{
U
q/
Y
$
(\
\i, .isrllr(' C;At-l;Ean
r.,,t L5 | lJe
ErJ!,gEt-!'3 BE6tAUaF$f
shAe RU1
G t.
('ov e<..!
?Fe?a +Z>+lT>PLFHJ,*
?aEe E?>
c6E rD l8e. Furtat{,
I
,il I
frI il7ll N
rt!* i
*Ift$
"lE$:
$l#
fltrdidl
$"1
.s.
t trairer' Mr. Matthews repeated he wourd onry have 40 trees on tre lot.
BI]AFT
Richarct indicated the trees to be sold would be attached to rebars which had been poundedinto the ground. In response to a question trom cnucr crlsr, nrcnaro'ii.,oi."t"o the bannerwould be attached to the trailer.
The state requires the trailer be set back 50 feettrom the. North Frontage Road right of way.Bas:d:n hq lite plan,.it appeared ttre satesiiailer wourd be approximately 50 feet from theroad' Gena whitten believed lt looked a iittle rignt.' srre reqGseo inl ,err of the survey bepresented- Kathy was concemed about knowing where tne pioplrtv rine *as, so that thecommission would know.where the tiJleiwas actuaily proposed to be located and to insurethe business was rocated entirery on welr vair 1exac6 ;r-"p"rty-fir;in tn" state dght o,y.aY..ot on adjacent pro?erty. Kathy also asked hoyv tre lence would be stabitized. Mr.Matthews said it woutd Ue.imcned to f-Gf Oy btack ties.
Diana Donovan believed.it was important that everything be rocated on Mr. Matfrew,sproperty' and that the tsairer be removed as soon dtrer dnrisrral as possibre. Dianasuggested all material be removed from the site by oecemuei iesr. -ilr.
Matthews stated hehad no intention of leaving..an4hing up atter-Cnrisimas but he ras ,eiuctant to committing to
Smovilq everything from tre site by December 26th as inclement weather coutd make itimpossibte for him to compty with this OeaOfinJ.
Jill reminded the PEC that based on ordinance 43, series of .|991 which will allow plantproduct businesses in the. Heavy service zonJoisincr, he ;ite ;usibJ cuaned with 72 hoursof the date the conditional use permit expireJ.
-
Kathy asked that the fen-ce be kept in a straight, verticat position. she thought it would benice if the trailer had a red door.
Mike Mollica presented the request. As this was a worksession, no staff recommendation wasgiven, but staff raised severar issues for discussion. Appricants Ron Riley ancr MikeStaughton were present for the cliscussion.
Ron Fliley pointed out that the. deck wo_uld only be used for 90 days in the summer, ancl didnol believe it would obstruct views on Bridge street. He believed a summertimeencroachment ot 2''117a- was- minor, stresling the fact that rowei eriole Street was .sterile,.
lnd thai the. dining deck wourd add interest tithe area. He berieved that, due to thepopularity of outdoor dining, a restaurant was almost required to have adining area ou6oors.Mr' Riley advocated the deck since othenrise there was-no visual penetration into the GalleryBuilding, and because of lhat, people coulo noi tett there was a restaurant contained srerein.
Ludwig Kuz was concerned about narrowing Bridge Street, stating it was easily one of the
2.
o
most congested areas a great deal of the time. He was not convinced this was the best use
of public land, Mr. Riley reminded the Commission trat this request was only for a 90day
period each summer. He explained that, in the summer, people walk more slorly than in the
winler.
. Jim Shearer was concemed with the use ol public land. He wanted to get Pete Bumett's
opinion on cleaning the streets. Mike said he had spoken wifrr Pete, and Pst€ indicated that,
il the deck was in place, he south end of Bridge Street would require hand sweeping. Ron
Riley said the distance across Bridge Street would be 13 feet. Mike Staughton said the Town
did not clean the slreets every week, but only 2-3 times per summer. Mr. Riley said he could
build the deck so it could be removed for street sweeping.
Jim discussed the sterility ol that end of Bridge Street. He asked what $e Town ol Vailwould
gain from the proposal, and suggested Mr. Riley could do something to make the area more
inviting.
Ghuclc Crist agreed with Fon Riley regarding the sterile look, and liked the concept of a
removable deck. He was concerned with the loss of two Town of Vail planters, as well as the
bench"between the planters. He indicated the bench had trequent use. Ghuck also was ln
favor of narrower streets and the proposed rekord doors.
Ron Ritey was frustrated because no service trucks were allowed on this end of Bridge Street,
and indicaled the upper end of Bridge Street became much more restricted when service
trucks were making deliveries than his proposal would make he area.
Gena Whitten believed that this was an important entrance to the town, and Mr. Riley could
achieve the transparency with a 3-foot wide deck and rekord doors, which would have the
feeling of an outdoor deck without going onto public land. She felt this was very valuable
space.
Kathy agreed with Ludwig and Gena, stating that rekord doors would give b€tter exposure to
the outside and better planters could be designed. Kathy could not support the construction
of a deck on public land, not wanting to further constrict the area. Fon Riley indicated the
location of the restaurant's restrooms created an interior constriction, and rekord doors alone
would not achieve his objectives.
Diana could not support a deck on public property, but suggested pulling back he deck. Jim
could also support such a revised proposal. Jim reminded the Commission that the Town was
running out of Village restauranls, and believed undulation on that side of the street was
important. He strongly supported retaining restaurants in the Village core areas, especially
restauranis at street level. However, in this particular situation, he was concerned about
potential bottlenecking.
Fon Riley indicated he would investigate other possibilities to ensure he did not restrict the
area and would look for a proposal which would enhance the area. He suggested a 90-day
trial basis.
Chuck supported this use for public land, as it would increase he vitality of an area which was
tnlIll' t
r--i
lcJ
UJ lP li tuu
.l
DMAFT
Andy Knudtsen presented the request. stafi supported tre proposed amendmenl.
chuck crist asked if this amendment would ailow more fian one agency per property. Heasked for a simplification of the wording.
Diana Donovan was concerned with the wording regarding the term of the lease. sherequested lhat section be simplified. She believed tanOscaping should be required. KathyLangenwalter did not think an amendment addressing tanoicaiing would be necessary, as it
was. add.ressed in the parking section of the code. AnOy pointld 6ut that the parking jeaion
dealt only with new parking lots. Diana believed me ro-wh shoutd have the aUiiity tdreqrii"additional landscaping for this tlrpe ot use.
Chuck Crist moved to recommend that Town Council approve the request to amend Section18.52' Off-Street Parking and Loading, of the Town's ziiing ordinance to allow car rentalbusinesses to lease parking spaces in the Commercial Cor6 lllzone district, incorporating theCommission's concerns into the ordinance regarding the ability of the Town to requirelandscaping., allowing the length of lease to ringe from 1-12 months, anct limiting 'each
property within CClll to a maximum of one agency with a maximum of 15 cars. -Jim Shearerseconded the motion. lt was unanimously approved, 6_0.
cunently 'ugly and dead.'
Mike Mollica summarized the Commission's position and stated some of the members had
difficulty in supporting this use of public land.
1.4:rqouest,!o amend s=ection i8.s2. oft-street parkino and Loadino. ot the Town's
gonLmerciat Core iltzone district
Apolicant: Peter Jacobs of Davs lnnPranner: Anclv Knudtsen
Apolicant: Vail Vallev Consolidated Water DistrietPlanner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica explained the request. Staff recommended approval of the request with theconditions listed in the memorandum.
Discussion ensued regarding whether the proposed structure should become a shelter forgolfers or a utility building which disappeared inlo the willows. Kent Rose, engineer for fieproject' indicated the proposed building was 14'x 24', and the size was neceJsary in order to
2.
,'('
ia'!
Diana also did not want the project to have the impact that the Dauphanais subdivision did,
with large homes crowded together. She asked that any trees which would be lost be marked
with taoe.
Randy did admit that there were only two places where the grade would catch up with the
trees, so some trees would be lost.
Kathy asked for sections of the site, including midway positions. More discussion fol6wed
conceming original and proposed grades. Randy explained that three units would be entered
at the garage level, and either step up or down. Kathy felt depending upon how the
architecture was handled, the ultimate height would not be different lrom the original proposal.
Flandy stated that the height was being tied to the original contours.
Diana felt the proposal would relate to the existing buildings better if trees'were left to hide
some of the development. She felt the neighbors needed to get their concerns to lhe
developers as soon as oossible.
PUBLIC HEARING
The public hearing was called to order at g:00 p.M. by the chairperson, Diana Donovan._-...-.-
1. A requesj for a conditionalu€ permit for an outdoor dlning patlo for the'Galbry
--qt+ldfng-tRussell's RestauranQ, bcated in the Commercial Core I zoneEstilct,. 228 Bridge StreeUa pait of Lot A, Block 5, Valt Viilage First Fiting.
Applicant: Ron Riley/D.R.R., Inc.
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike mentioned the Board had made a site visit prior to the meeting. He listed the changes
made to the proposal since the last work session. These were listed on page 2 of the $affmemo. Mike stated that the staff could not support the request because they had concerns
with criteria 3 and 4. He showed site plans and elevations and said all concerns of the Fire
Department had been resolved.
lf the PEC approved either the request for the outdoor dining deck or the staff suggestion for a
scaled back version of the dining deck, the staff recommended that two conditioni fe placeO
on the approval as follows:
l. That the applicant agree the snow from the dining deck will not be cleared onto the
adjacent Town right-of-way, and that the applicant will work out some private
arrangement to have the snow hauled from the site.
2. That the applicant will install 2 to 3 aspens in the planter north of the proposed dining
deck to compensate for the loss of the Town planter.
Flon Riley, applicant, discussed the angle of the deck at the north end. He stressed that his
architect had incorrectly drawn the site plan and that the minimum width of Bridge Street
would be 15 feet, and so streel width would become a non-issue. Flegarding criteria No. 4,
, frt't
'ti,(,(
Mr. Riley felt the impact on the view corridor was balanced out with the fact that there was
compliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations and the Vail Vil6ge Master
Plan.
Ron Riley felt the area was not as congested as the area at the top of the street. He lelt the
use of the 3'- 9-112 'fall-back" position would look like an 'after thought". He explained that it
takes at least 2'- 9" for a seating space. In answer to a question conierning whelher or not
the Flekord doors would be open in the winter, Ron answered that they wou'id not because of
the cold, but perhaps they would be open for a few hours on warm spiing days.
Ron was asked how he lelt about placing an awning over the deck, and responded that he
would consider this, for an awning would add color.
The Board was asked for questions and comments. Connie stated that if the restaurant
expansion was not successful, the Town had no assurance that the space would not be used
for retail, such as a T-shirt shop. She felt that the area would be very congested, as it was
already congested. Mr. Fliley felt that adding 2' - 1 1.s' was not a major constriction.
Chuck asked if lunch would be served, and Riley was not sure, but said the bar would be
open for cocktails in the afternoon. Chuck was basically in favor of the expansion because
that entrance to Vail was "sterile" and the expansion would be positive. He was concerned
about the lack of landscaping, and felt some landscaping should be added in add1ion to thebench- Chuck asked how snow would be handled, and hitey replied he would not have a
truck come in to haul snovv away, but would leave the snow on lhe deck.
Kathy felt she could not support the request because the addition would be entirely on public
right-of-way. Kathy quoted from the Vail Village Design Considerations which statlO, "Dining
decks and patios, when properly designed and sited...". She felt the deck was nol properly'
sited, and the deck would not add to the liveliness of the street during the day, since lunch
would not be served. Kathy said one criteria for a successful deck iJtne pnylical separation
ol the. deck from the pedestrian, and this deck would not result in a good aesthetic
experience.
Ron replied the deck would be 18" off of the ground, while the Red Lion was 3' or better.
Kathy felt Rekord doors and awnings would accomplish the same attention to the restaurant
as the deck expansion and she could not support the request to use public right-otway.
Diana. agreed with Kathy. Flon replied he would be pleased if Kathy and Diana were right. He
added that, in reality, attention to the restaurant would work only if iomeone were actuillyoutside. To diners inside of the restaurant, if they see some diners outside, it is as thougn
they are partly outside, also. He added extra tables themselves were not as important as
having people sitting outside.
Diana mentioned according to the guidelines, decks with planters, etc. were more viable.
Michael Staughton, Ron Riley's manager, stated the necessary space needed for dining tables
and chairs was greater than 3' - 9". Discussion followed concerning different conligurations of
chairs and tables. Diana did not feel the proposed patio met the criteria for succeslful patios.
She added enclosure had a lot to do with whether or not a patio was successful or not.
Connie felt the deck would add liveliness to the core, but that maybe liveliness could be
obtained with a smaller deck. She wondered if the location of the interior bar could be
changed. connie felt public land was sacred, and could not support the proposal.
Diana wanted to convey to the Town Council the feeling that only the winter deck size should
be considered (per the staff recommendation), because the summer deck would not besuccessful. Chuck stated that if the restaurant did obtain approval lor only the winter deck,
the applicant could instead just build Rekord doors.
Kathy wanted tfre Town Council to be aware of the concern of the loss of Town of Vail
landscaping, connie added that her vote against the deck would also be based on
congestion in the area.
Kathy moved that the request be denied because it did not meet the necessary criteria.
Connie followed with a second. The vote was 3 in favor of denial, and 1 (Chulk) against.
Kristan reminded the applicants that they had 10 days in which to appealthe decision to the
Town Council.
Item #2 was taken out of order.
3. A request by Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanltatlon Dlstrlct to dlscuss the
definition of temporary structures.
Fred Haslee and Terry Nowlan from the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District
explained that more room was needed for employees and the District proposed using a
temporary building for 11 months until permanent otfices could be constructed in thjspring
and summer. They showed photos and site plans. Kristan said the question was, was thii atemporary building, and if not, would a variance to the DRB development standards which
disallow aluminum, steel or plywood siding be necessary.
Terry Nowlan pointed out that the building had been changed since they had last talked with
[r!sta!' and the siding would be wood with asphalt shingles and would also be skirted. lnlight of this new information, Kristan felt a variance was nol necessary. Fred Haslee reminded
the board and staff of the wooden temporary buildings which the Town had allowed VailAssociates to use at Golden peak.
Fred added that since the UEVW&S was a district, perhaps the Town could waive theprocess. lt was suggested that the attorneys for the Town and for the UEVW&S get together
to decide this.
Oo(
R 't*"/i;nu#-atu /b4 /*/
/
7A Pr<
Rrr. - Mr"f, "> -Ze*X b,- ?" r,> //^-/A 6
n t /12 -, *Cr{,bJ wi4 ,rii'v= ,h*J T Kor'" ,.0
K,.d7
ffi
@*
t*J*- ) 7o- lt _ -,-*n<//) r..* 'r.(;x df -*-
fu./7 u
- G"2"( ,k a-.*f4z-/ ,-/, f tk tul-AE*J i'J
oot-
- ll.r"-t /t-n\z f ^ /,tr-- @
R,1- y.k
C/".*4 - zry!
tJo{e, i -l @,""")
I
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDT.'M
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Departrnent
December 9, 1991
A request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining patio for the
Gallery Building (Russell's Restaurant), located in the Commercial Core I zone
district, 228 Bridge Sreet/a part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail Village Fint Filing.
Applicanu RonRiley/D.R.R.,Inc.
Planner: Mike Mollica
I. DESCRIPTION OF TIIE PROPOSED USE
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for a 173 sq. ft.
outdoor dining deck at Russell's Restaurant, located in the Gallery Building in Vail Village.
The Gallery Building is in the Commercial Core I zone district, which requires a conditional
use permit to add an outdoor dining deck. The deck is proposed to be located along the west
elevation of the Gallery Building, and would be located entirely upon public right-of-way.
The applicant is proposing a "winter version" of the dining deck, as well as a "summer
version." The winter dinirrg deck would be permanent and would extend ontS'-gr|" from the
existing face of the building. This is the same distance that the two existing Town planters
extend out from the face of the Gallery Building. The proposal calls for a "tempomry" dining
deck for the summer season. The summer dining deck would extend out a total of 6'-9" from
the face of the building, or an additional z'-llrt" beyond the winter deck. At the tightest
point, the summer deck would reduce the width of Bridge Street to approximately 13'-6".
The summer deck would include a removable steel railing system, as well as a rcmovable
floor system for the deck. Both versions of the deck (winter and summer) would be
contained within a 3rh-foot high steel railing system. The floor system of the dining deck
would be located at the same elevation as the existing floor of the interior of Russell's
Restaurant. As it relates to the elevation of Bridge Street, the floor system would be located
approximately 2 feet above the existing asphalt. Rekord doors would be added to the west
elevation of the Gallery Building to provide access to the dining deck and to create a more
open, airy feeling to the interior restaumnt. The applicant has also proposed to wrap the
summer deck with redwood flower boxes. Additionally, a free'standing bench would be
added to the area at the southeast side of the covered bridge (to compensate for the removal
of the bench on the west elevation of the Gallery Building).
a
Since the November 11, 1991 PEC workscssion, the applicant has modified the proposal in
the following manner:
' The deck has been pulled back, from the entrance to the Gallery Building, by
approximately 6-'0". A ponion of the existing Town planter, which includes
the Callery Building's fire deparnnent water connection, would rcmain.
(Please see attached site plans.)
' The northwest corner of the deck would be angled more sharply to further
reduce the decks intrusion into Bridge Street.
' The floor area of the proposed dining deck has been reduced from 207 square
feet, to 173 square feet.
II. BACKGROUND
On October 22, 1991, the Town Council (by a vote of 6-0) unanimously approved Ron
Riley's request to oroceed throush the Dlannins process for a conditional use permit. This
initial approval was required because all of the proposed improvements for the outdoor dining
deck for the Gallery Bui.lding would be located within the public right-of-way, and on Town
of Vail properry.
Staff has measured some of the existing dimensions of the "usable right-of-way" along Bridge
Street. The results are as follows:
L Existing interior width of the Covered Bridge = 10 feet.2. Existing width of Bridge Street between the Gallery Building (includes Town
planters) and the pocket park = 16 feet.3. Existing width of Bridge Street between the Covered Bridge Building steps and
the Slifer Building steps = 27 feet.4. Existing width of Bridge Street between Pepi's Bar and Restaurant entrance
and the steps at the Gorsuch Building = 24 feet.5. Existing width of Bridge Street between the Gorsuch dining deck and Pepi's
dining deck = 21 feet.
The PEC initially reviewed this request on November 11, 1991. This was a worksession and
the draft minutes of the meeting are attached to this memorandum.
't
ru.
There are no specific Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan sub-area corcepts which apply to
this proposal. However, the Vail Village Design Considerations specifically aadrcsses Aicis
and patios as follows:
"Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to
the streets, opporrunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to
the liveliness of a busy street-making a richer pedesuian experience than if
those streets were empty.
A review of successful decks/patios in Vail reveals several common
characteristics:
- direct sunlight from 1l:00-3:00 increases use by many days/year and
prorects from wind;
- elevated 2 feet to give views into the pedestrian walk (and not the
reverse);
- physical separation from pedestrian walk of 3-5 feet (planter better than
a wall);
- overhang gives pedesrian scale/shelter.
Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to:
- sun- wind
a
The Vail Village Master Plan does not contain any specific sub-area concepts which directly
relate to this proposal. However, the staff believes that the following goals and objectives, as
stated in the Vail Village Master Plan, are relevant to this proposal:
"@!1[! - Encourage high quality redevelopment while p,reserving the unique
architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of
community and identity.
1.2 Objective:
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial
facilities.
Goal #2 - To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-around economic
health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole.
' 2.2.1 Policy:
The design criteria in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan shall
be the primary guiding document io preserve the existing architectural
scale and character of the core area of Vail Village.
2.4 Objective:
Encourage the development of a variety of a new commercial activity where
compatible with existing land uses.
2.4.2 Policy:
Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the
guest and the community shall be encouraged.
Goal #3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking
experience *roughout the Village.
3.1 Objective:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other
improvements.
3.f.1 Policy:
Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements
(such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along
adjacent pedestrian ways.
4
3.3 Objective:
Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and sEeet life along pedesrian
ways and plazas.
3.3.2 Policy:
Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be
encouraged in commercial infill or redevelopment projects.
Goal #6 - To ensure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements
of the Village.
6.2.2 Policy:
Minor improvements (landscaping, decorative paving, open dining
decks, etc.), may be permitted on Town of Vail land or right-of-way
(with review and approval by the Town Council and Planning and
Environmental Commission when applicable) provided that Town
operations such as snow removal, street maintenance and fire. department access and operation are able to be maintained at current
levels. Special design (i.e. heated pavement), maintenance fees, or other
considerations may be required to offset impacts on Town services."
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends
denial of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Relalionship and impact of the use on the development objectives of
the Tovm.
As stated in the zoning code, the C.ommercial Core I (CCI) Zone
District is intended to "provide sites and maintain the unique character
of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixrure of lodges and
commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment.
The CCI district is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and
other amenities appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses.
The district regulations in accordance wittr the Vail Village Urban
Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site
development standards that are intended to insure the maintenance and
preservation of the tightly clustered :urangement of buildings fronting
on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to insure continuation of
3.
the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the
Village."
Generally, thc staff believes that the applicant's proposal complies with
the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master
Plan as indicated in Section trI of this memorandum. We believe that
outdoor dining decks, associated with a restaurant, ate an appropriate
site development in the Village core.
The applicant is proposing to add redwood flower boxes around the
perimeter of the dining deck, however, one Town of Vail planter will be
lost in its entirety, and another partially rcmoved.
The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
It is the staff opinion that the proposed outdoor dining deck will have
no negative effects upon any of the above listed criteria.
Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and
cnntrol, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the
street and parking areas.
It is this criteria with which staff has the most concern. With the
summer deck in place, Bridge Street would be narrowed down, at the
tightest point, to a width of approximately 13'-6". The staff is very
concemed with funher constricting Bridge Street and with creating a
choke point at this very heavily used area of the Village. This section
of Bridge Street is considered by staff to be a uansition zone for
pedestrians, bicyclists and rollerbladers accessing the Village core.
Narrowing the width of Bridge Street is a concern and pedestrian safety
is a major issue, especially given the wide variety of users in this area,
and the fact that the western edge of Bridge Sueet drops off into the
pocket park (there is no guard rail).
The Public Works Department maintains that street sweeping will
become more difficult with the proposed summer dining deck in place.
The Fire Department concerns and issues, which were identified at the
PEC worksession, have all been resolved.
l-4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is
to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding usies.
The staff is still concemed with the overall aesthetic appearance of the
dining deck (during the summer season) and its potential for partially
blocking views both up and down Bridge Street. We are concerned
with the potential for blocking views of the covered bridge (from the
south). We believe that with the curve of Bridge Srect and &e angle
of the covered bridge as it srosses Gore Cleek, that the eastcrn portion
of the bridge may be partially screened with the proposed dining deck
in place.
The staff believes that the addition of Rekord doors to the Gallery
Building will be a very positive addirion, not only to the building, but
also to the Village. Rekord doors, by increasing ttre visiblity of dining
. activity, will add to the s$eet life and visual interest.
The addition of a bench, adjacent to the covered bridge, will be a
positive amenity and will add to the pedestrian environment and
character in the Village.
B. Findines
The Plannine and Environmental Commission shall make the following findines before
sranting a conditional use permit:
l. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of
this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the pubtc
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of rhe applicable
provisions of this Ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request fo. a conditional use
permit, as we believe the request does not meet findings 3 and 4 as outlined in the
above section of this memorandum.
Although the staff cannot supPolt the applicant's request as pr€sented' the staff would
be able to support a scaled back venion of thc proposal. We believe that a dining
deck which extended otrt 3'-915" fmm the west elevation of the building (to the face
of the existing Town planters), would be acceptable. This type of expansion would
have no impact on thi existing pedestrian flow along Bridge Sreet. We believe that
an outdoor dining deck in this configuration would allow for approximately three to
four, rectangular dining tables. We also feel that a dining deck in this configuration'
with the retractable Rekord doors, would provide the outdoor dining experience that
the applicant desires. The staff would also suggest the addition of an awning, on the
facade above the retractable doors, to add more color to the face of the building.
If the PEC approves either the applicant's request for the outdoor dining deck, or the
staff's suggeition for a scaled back version of the dining deck, the staff would
recommend that two conditions be placed on the approval as follows:
l) That the applicant agree that the dining deck will not be cleared of snow onto
the adjacent Town right-of-way, and that the applicant work out some
iurangement to have snow privately hauled from the site'
2) That the applicant install 2-3 aspens in the planter north of the proposed dining
deck.
IV.
raitior br.hrtnt
.-..-.1$! * nirldabl 4crsn
+!t6E!
l ctr
Td!o^ ra ,
--rrBft(jJo
V
l)
0-,a{
U
v
q,
\)
q
\
shAe BU1
l.{SflHtr GAL:-?3?
('rv e<.!
7He?e eZ>}?[-FN
c"o,ElED FB|DeE. EiJ[-brl.$
+il i
*|, $
$lll ol-t/ i
frilr-"t ]
l11: -4
9\\-{iL
*[tpirq
sliiffi
"hq
J\i/i*-',
frlffiF
$t*tii
dt
LtrJ
;-a--J" Er\l:ffi| g;
\t /tu-ffil I '-t\\ lgll i*,\\ ltHJ-titl\\-,-]@1iY.-!
! trailer, Mr. Matthews repeated he would only have 40 trees on the lot.
BIiAFT
Richard indicated the trees to be sold would be attached to rebars which had been pounded
inlo the ground. In response to a question from Chuck Crist, Richard indicated the banner
would be attached to the trailer.
The slate requires the trailer be set back 50 feet from the North Frontiage Road right of way.
Based on the site plan, it appeared the sales traiter would be approximitely s0 feet from theroad. Gena Whitten believed it looked a little 'tight.' Sne requbbteO tne rest of the survey bepresented. Kathy was concerned about knowing where the pioperty llne was, so that $e
Cornmission would know where lhe trailer was ddually propise'O tobe located and to insure
lhe business was located entirely on West Vail Texac6 irolerty and not in the state right ofway or on adjacent property. Kathy also asked how hd tehce-would be stabilized. Mi.
Matthews said it would be.attached to T-posts by black ties.
Diana Donovan believed it was important that everything be located on Mr. Matthew'sproperty, and that the trailer be removed as soon after christmas as possible. Diana
suggested all material be removed lrom the site by December 26th. 'lrIr.
Mailhews stated hehad no intention of leaving.anything up after Christmas but he was reluctant to committing toremoving everything trom the site by December 26th as inclement wealher could make itimpossible for him to comply with this deadline.
Jill reminded the PEC that based on Ordinance 43, Series of 19g1 which will allow plantproduct businesses in the Heavy Service Zone District, the site must be cleaned wiih 7z frours
of the date the conditional use permit expires.
Kathy asked that the fence be kept in a straight, verticat position. She thought it woutd benice if the trailer had a red door.
2.
Mike Mollica presented the request. As this was a worksession, no statf recommendation wasgiven, but staff raised several issues for discussion. Applicants Ron Riley and Mike
Staughton were present for the discussion.
Ron Riley pointed out that the deck would only be used for g0 days in the summer, and didnot believe it would obstruct views on Bridge street. He believed a summertime
encroachment of 2'-1 1Yz" was minor, stressing the fact that tower Bridge Street was 'sterile,.
and that the dining deck would add interest to the area. He believed i-hat, due to thepopularity of outdoor dining, a restaurant was almost required to have a dining area outdoors.Mr. Riley advocated the deck since othenryise there was no visual penetratioriinto the Gallery
Building' and because of that, people could not tell there was a restaurani contained ffrerein.
Ludwig Kurz was concerned about narrowing Bridge Street, stating it was easily one of the
|:\|:\NT:tr:,
ti I t:t /t\ t: iiL'I UJ L-J LJ U
most congested areas a great deal of the time. He was not mnvinced this was the best use -..
of public land. Mr. Riley reminded the Commission hat this request was only for a 90day
period each summer. He explained that, in the summer, people walk more slorvly than in the
winter.
"
Jim Shearer was concemed with the use of public land. He wanted lo get Pete Bumeft's
opinion on cleaning the sireets. Mike said he had spoken with Pete, and Pete indicated that,
il the deck was in place, the south end of Bridge Skeet would require hand sweeping. Ron
Riley said the distance across Bridge Street would be 13 feet. Mike Staughton said the Town
did not clean the streets every week, but only 2-3 times per summer. Mr. Hiley said he could
build the deck so it could be removed tor slreet sweeping.
Jim discussed the sterility of that end of Bridge Street. He asked what the Town of Vail would
gain from the proposal, and suggested Mr. Riley could do something to make the area more
inviting.
Chuck Crist agreed with Ron Riley regarding the sterile look, and liked the concept of a
removable deck. He was concerned with the loss of two Town of Vail planters, as well as the
bench between the planters. He indicated the bench had trequent use. Chuck also was in
lavor of narrower slreets and the proposed rekord doors.
Ron Riley was frustrated because no service lrucks were allowed on this end ol Bridge Street,
and indicaied the upper end of Bridge Street became much more restricted when service
trucks were making deliveries than his proposal would make the area.
Gena Whitten believed that this was an important entrance to the town, and Mr. Riley could
achieve the transparency with a 3-foot wide deck and rekord doors, which would have the
feeling ol an outdoor deck without going onto public land. She felt this was very valuable
space.
Kalhy agreed with Ludwig and Gena, stating that rekord doors would give better exposure to
the outside and better planters could be designed. Kathy could not support the construction
of a deck on public land, not wanting to further constrict the area. Ron Riley indicated the
location of the restaurant's restrooms created an interior constriction, and rekord doors alone
would not achieve his objectives.
Diana could not support a deck on public property, but suggested pulling back the deck. Jim
could also support such a revised proposal. Jim reminded the Commission thal the Town was
running out of Village restaurants, and believed undulation on that side of the street was
important. He strongly supported retaining restaurants in the Village core areas, especially
restaurants at street level. However, in this particular situation, he was concerned aboul
potential bottlenecking.
Ron Riley indicated he would investigate other possibilities to ensure he did not restrict the
area and would look for a proposal which would enhance the area. He suggested a 90-day
lrial basis.
Chuck supported this use for public land, as it would increase the vitality of an area which was
currently'ugly and dead.'
Mike Mollica summarized the Commission's position and stated some of the members had
difficulty in supporting this use of pubtic tand.
1.
DMAFT
A rqouest.to amend section 18.52.of|-skeet parkino and Loadino.of the Town's
r=onir]o orCilrE|tce to
"llo* c"r rentatbrsin"ss"r io M
Commercial Core lllzone districi.
Aoolicant: Peter Jacobs of Davs InnPlanner: Andv Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen presented the request. stafi supported tre proposed amendmsnt.
chuck crist asked if this amendment would allow more than one agency per property. He
asked for a simplification of the wording.
Diana Donovan was concerned with the wording regarding the term of the lease. she
requested that section be simplified. She believed ianOscaping shoutd be required. Kathy
Langenwalter did not think an amendment addressing tanOicaping would be necessary, as tt
was. addressed in the parking section of the code. RnOy pointbct out that the parking iection
dealt only with new parking lots. Diana believed the Town should have the a|itity to-require
additional landscaping for this type of use.
Chuck Crist moved to recommend that Town Council approve the request to amend Section18.52' Ofl-Street Parking and Loading, of the Town's z;ning ordinance to allow car renlal
businesses to lease pariing spaces i;'the Commerdd Cord lll zone district, incorporating the
Commission's concems into the ordinance regarding the ability of the Town to require
landscaping, allowing the length ol lease to range from 1-12 months, and limiting eachproperty within CClll to a maximum of one agency with a maximum of l5 cars. Jim Shearer
seconded lhe motion. lt was unanimously approved, 6-0.
Apolicant: Vail Vallev Consotidated Water DistrictPlanner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica explained the requesl. Statf recommended approval of the request with theconditions listed in the memorandum.
Discussion ensued regarding whether the proposed structure should become a shelter forgolfers or a utility building which disappeared into the willows. Kent Flose, engineer for theproject' indicated the proposed building was 1 4' x 24' , and the size was necessary in order to
2.
fl,f4rl(rca
rNTER- DEPARTI'IENTAL REVIEW
*l l^4-
fi'-Uj" *k^"
c1,41ITj*, z
A^lP ""-(/t' 'h*APROJECT: r\,AO
DATE SUBI{TTTED: 12, 2-.q I DATE or PUBLIC HnanJNc
COI{I'{ENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
T)2.-[. ,!on,
44* ".-vn *F
Dates
ltur--t,l tr< 1-.-f.z-)oul .
Date:
Date:
n-l/JKuna+J /-{e/u-ut
tr
\fQ- t'',to .t- [ - F {X* J.._ [
FIRE DEPARTI-{ENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Revl.ewed by:
Conments:
RECREATION DEPARTI.TENT
RevLewed by: _Comments:
A^ )-Q.nc,te". uln
an"t'-''
revleed 3/IL/9L
Date:
O rr. ('tdtttcA
INTER-DEPARTMENTAI, REVIEW
PROJECT;Rrr-*Z-' "bP-/
DATB SUBMITTED: 12.z'NI DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMI'IENTS NEEDND BY:
-
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
PUBLIC WORKS
Revlewed byt
connents:
Date:
,/r
'-ts.-'' ,(*,.t,.'-. 1i ,,.';:'.,/ 9-'r.'4) tt ')/t
Date:
f)-lt[\ -earra.""4 il-Q.-t/I
' Totn
9r,.^- -6f ^,V(ouu- r-4 f^-ffi/.
Date:
,l't/|','.V.'''
.,r-:-::1) .'
Lt:
Reviewed by:
'fr" ry co,"-&-;
POLICE DEPARTMEN"
Reviewed by:
Comments:
RECREATION DEPI\RTI.IENT
RevLewed by:
Connents:
revlsed 3/LL/9L
Date:
N&b;fr""-ry ffi^"3w
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of he Town ofVail-will hold a public hearing in accordance witn Section 1g.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on December 9, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail MunicipaiaunOing.
Consideration of:
1' ( plrt) Joint worksession between Town Gouncil and Planning and Environmental
commission to discuss Forest service rand ownership adjustmint.Presenters: Bich phelps/Mike Mollica
A request for a change to an approved development plan, Tracts A and B, a part ofParcel A, Lions, Ridge Fiting No. 2, commonly ietenei to as The valley, phase il.Applicant: Crossview at Vail properties, lnc./Steve GenslerPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
3' A request for a conditional use permit tor an outdoor dining patio for the Gallery
Building (Russell's Restaurant), located in the Commerciaiiore I zone district, 22g
Bridge StreeUa part of Lot A, Block S, Vail Village First Filing.Applicant: FlonRitey/D.R.Ft.,tnc.Planner: Mike Mollica
4' Discussion with Telluride Planning Commission and staff concerning planning issues.
5' Any items tabled from the November 25, 1991 planning and Environmental
Commission meeting.
Information on the listed items is available at the Community Development otfice in the VailMunicipal Building during regular office hours.
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Published in the VailTrail on November 22,1991.
ill-E coPIr
fi r','M,\
Y u ,'$l
,'il"' t\\n');;,1f r'\W
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environrnental Commission
Community Development Department
November 11, 1991
A request for a worksession for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining
patio for the Gallery Building (Russell's Resuurant), located in the Commercial
Core I zone district, 228 Bridge StreeVa part of lot A, Block 5, Vail Village
First Filing.
Applicanu RonRiley/D.R.R.,Inc.
Planner: Mike Mollica
I. DESCRIPTION OF TFIE PROPOSED USE
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for an approximately
200 sq. ft. outdoor dining deck at Russell's Restaurant, located in the Callery Building in Vail
Village. The Gallery Building is in the, Commercial Core I zone district, which requires a
conditional use permit to add an outdoor dining deck. The deck is proposed to be located
along the west elevation of the Gallery Building, and would be located entirely upon public
right-of-way.
The applicant is proposing a "winter version" of the dining deck, as well as a "summer
version." The winter dining deck would extend o\t 3'-911" from the existing face of the
building. This is the same distance that the two existing Town planters extend out from the
face of the Gallery Building. The proposal calls for a "tempomry" dining deck for the
summer season. The summer dining deck would extend out a total of 6'-9" from the face of
the building, or an additional 2'-llt4" beyond the winter deck. The summer deck would
reduce the width of Bridge Street to approximately 13 feet.
The summer deck would include a removable steel railing system, as well as a removable
floor system for the deck. Both versions of the deck (winter and summer) would be
contained within a 3tf-foot high steel railing system. The floor systern of the dining deck
would be located at the same elevation as the existing floor of the interior of Russell's
Restaurant. As it relates to the elevation of Bridge Sueet, the floor system would be located
approximately 2 feet above the existing asphalt. Rekord doors would be added to the west
elevation of the Gallery Building to provide access to the dining deck and to create a more
open, airy feeling to the interior restauant. The applicant has also proposed to vrrap the
summer deck with redwood flower boxes and to place a large flower pot on the nonh end of
the deck.
rr.EACKGB9IJND
on october 22,lggl,the Town council (by a vote of 6-0) unanimously approved Ro1
Riley's request to proceed throueh the pla4ninq process for a conditional use permit' This.
initial approvat ,"as pq,ffi b"ca*e "tt of the proposed improvements for the outdoor dining
deck foi the Gallery UuitOing would be located within the public right-of-way, and on Town
of Vail property.
Staff has measured some of the existing dimensions of the usable right-of-way (the distance
between buildings) along Bridge Stneet. The results are as follows:
l. fiisting width of the C;overed Bridge = 10 feet
2,ExistingwidthofBridgeStreetbeweentheGalleryBuilding(includes
planters) and the pocket Park = 16 feet
3. Existing wiath oisridg" Str""t between the Coveied Bridge Building steps and
the Slifer Building steps = 27 fevt
4, Existing width of Bridge Street beween Pepi's Bar and Restaurant entrance
and the steps at the Gorsuch Building = 24 feet
5. Existing *iOtn of Bridge Street between the Gorsuch dining deck and Pepi's
dining deck = 27 feet
There are no specific Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan sub-area conccpts which apply to
this proposal. However, the VaIl Village Design Considerations specifically addresses decks
and patios as follows:
"Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited' bring people to
the stre,ets, oppo.toniti"t to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to
the liveliness of a busy street--making a richer pedestrian experience than if
those streets were empty.
AreviewofsuccessfuldeckslpatiosinVailrevealsseveralcomlnon
characteristics:
- direct sunlight from l1:fi)-3:00 increases use by many days/year and
protects from wind;
- elevated 2 feet to give views into the pedestrian walk (and not the
revcrse);
- physical separation from pedesuian walk of 3-5 fcet (planter better than
a wall);
- overhang gives pedestian scale/shelter.
Dccks and patios should be sited and dcsigncd with due consideration to:
sun
wind
views
pedesrian activity"
The Vail Village Master Plan does not contain any specific sub-area concepts which directly
relate to this proposal. However, the staff believes that the following goals and objectives, as
stated in the Vail Village Master Plan, are relevant to this proposal:
"@!-.1[! - Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique
architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of
community and identity.
1.2 Objective:
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial
facilities.
Goal #2 - To foster a sfiong tourist industry and promote year-around economic
health and viabiliry for the village andfor the community as a whole.
2.2.1 PolicY:
ThedesigncriteriaintheVailVillageUrbanDesignGuidePlanshall
be the pdmary guiding document to p'reserve the existing architecnral
scale and character of the core area of Vail Village'
2.4 Objective:
EncouragJthe development of a variety of a new commercial activity where
compatible with existing land uses.
2.4.2 PolicY:
Activity thaiprovides night life and evening entertainment for both the
guest and the community shall be encouraged'
Goal #3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking
experience throughout the Village'
3.1 Objective:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other
imProvements.
3.Lf Po[cY:
private deveiopment projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements
(such as p"u"it .u*nti, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along
adjacent Pedestrian waYs.
3.3 Objective:
Encourageawidevarietyofactivities,events'andstr.eetlifealongpedesrian
ways and Plazas.
3-3.2 PolicY:
Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feaftrc and. shall be
encouraged inlommercial infill or redevelopment projects'
Goal#6-Toensurethecontinuedimprovementofthevitaloperationalelements
of the Village.
6.2.2 PolicY:
tvtinor impr&ements Qandscaping, decoraliyg gaying' open dining
decks,etc.;,maybepermittedonTownofVaillandorright-of-way
<*itft t"ui"* anf upptouat by the Town Council and Planning and
ry.
Environmental Commission when applicable) provided that Town
operations such as snow removal, sEeet mainEnance and fire
department access and opemtion are able to be maintained at curent
levcls. Special design (i.e. heated pavement), maintenance fees, or other
considerations may be required to offset impacts on Town services."
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
The following are the criteria and findings which shall be utilized during the final
review for this conditional use permit. Upon rcview of Section 18.60, the Community
Development Departnent will recommend approval or denial of the conditional use
permit based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the
Town.
2. The effect of the use on tight and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities needs.
3. Effect upon traflic with particular reference to congestion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and
control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the
street and parking areas.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is
to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses.
B. Findings
The Plannins and Environmental Commission shall make the followine findings before
granting a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of
this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfarr or materially injurious to propenies or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this Orrdinance'
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Since this is a workscssion, there is no formal staff recommendation at this time' However'
the staff has identified the following issues we would like to discuss further with the PEC:
1. The overall aesthetic appearance of the dining deck (during both the summer-
andwinterseasons)u''oitspotentialforpartiallyblockingviewsbothupand
down Bridge Stneet.
2. The constriction of Bridge sneer with the summer deck in place, Bridge.
street would be nanowed down to a width of approximately 13 feet. Is tltis
acceptable? Safety is an issue, given the high use of Bridge Sneet by
pedestrians, bicyclists and rollerbladers'
3. The removal of two Town-maintained planters and the removal of an existing
wooden bench.
4. public Works Department concerns include drainage issues and street sweeping
concems.
5.FireDepartmentconcernsincludethepossible.obstructionoftheFire
Depanment water connection currently located on the west wall of the existing
planter. Additionally, the Fire Department has concerns regarding the possible
i-pacts upon ingress and egress to Nick's'
please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Znning Code, the approval
shall lapse if construction is not commenced within one year of the date of issuance and
diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not
commcnced within one Year.
clpcc\ncrnosVussell.Nl I
{)
Fc
f0a
F-r
-(
a
\J
F
-+
s/+-=\o
Fz(
+d6:6S15js
$i$
llt
F
F
)?)) ?>d01
@_!
-n
q
I
1
a
r'
o
E*
.4
$l
-ql
di
EI
.El
Ft
d)
.e<'sE!t
,?-a'3
Gr
lEc
:$*
Eis
Jri\l
3r
&
?6 + /"';'r 7
fi,r.t-ee; /.J o,- T.r-./aa 9rt."J
a-lJ^, t/ Bq./-tleY! 3.1.4 t.
o
rttr-/.- .? E? l- wct*t+t tay_,I l.- s"
o
r5&.'-t
.t"7 /*".41 ,h f".fr4 42"-Z-(,6' -Vg T"'--- Z'*/ !
--/ bz^
cn^*'4 W
- faz-
I tal;r.
ANY /
*
ANY / /,3 +<.-"+z(*"^-l /^>A, .* P6*,
7
Kage L.
ba.-* 5.
- ^4^'* K*^/-'.1 /"rr4-
bp*-, a-4-ea4 '-/ b;-^ -
---fa
oo
,--4.0x
5.4 ts+A
l
I
l.
oo
R "tzn/ "*/a-*a+ - h rE/4
I?'r/[/
TrA I /t* t"h'/b /'#'
@ il1 I c ,,h-t rr-J/tu'*$ **fJ
JL
*
ft*A^,"ar/b* eT T"-/V/ 5-8'T^h
26'? f x 4.,! ={tzr.*/f fr
Gallery Building (Russell's Hestaurant), located in the Commercial Core
I zone district, 228 Bridge StreeUa part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail Village
First Filing.
Applicant: Ron Riley/D.R.R., lnc.
Planner: Mike Mollica
7. Revienr of Town of Vail Zoning Code Phase I Report. The document
summarizes proposed changes, alternative solutions, and a
recommended amendment.
Applicant Town ol Vail
Planner: Kristan Pritz
K xW* E-',,"- ^ ofl S/fr ur#,tr#,ff*/
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 ol the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on November 1 1, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A request to amend Section 18.52, Off-Street Parking and Loading, of the Town's
zoning ordinance to allow car rental businesses to lease parking spaces in the
Commercial Core lll zone district.
Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Days InnPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
2. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a well water treatment facility in the
Agricultural/Open Space zone district, generally located south of the Vail Golf Course
bridge on Sunburst Drive, and more specifically described as follows:
To be located within 100{oot radius from a point on the right bank ol Gore Creek
whence the northwest corner of Section 9, Township 5 South, Range 80 West, 6th
P.M. bears North 73 degrees West, 2,080 feet.
Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water DistrictPlanner: Mike Mollica
3. A request to amend Chapter 18.62 - Variances, and Chapter 18.60 - Conditional Use
Permits of the Town ol Vail zoning code relating to notification of adjacent property
owners.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Jill Kammerer
4. A request tor a conditional use permit to allow for the sale of used cars, 2293 N.
Frontage Fload WesUgenerally located at the Vail 66 service station, at the northeast
corner of Chamonix Road and North Frontage Road, Tract A, Collins-Wirth
Subdivision.
Applicant: Garrett and B.J. SmithPlanner: Jill Kammerer
5. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I for Vail Ski Rentals in the Hill
Building, 254 Bridge StreeVPart of Lot L, Vait Vittage First Fiting.
Applicant: Blanche C. HillPlanner: Shelly Mello
6. A request for a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining patio for the Gallery
Building (Russell's Restaurant), located in the CommercialCore I zone district,228
Bridge StreeVa part of Lot A, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Ron Ritey/D.R.R., Inc.Planner: Mike Mollica
7. Review of Town of Vail Zoning Code Phase I Report. The document summarizes
proposed changes, alternative solutions, and a recommended amendment.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Kristan Pritz
8. Any items tabled from the October 28, 1991 Planning and Environmental Commission
meeting.
tD -/s -4t[h
Inlormation on the listeOls is available at the Community OeOpment office in trre Vait
Municipal Building during regular otfice hours.
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Published in the Vail Trail on October 25, 1991.
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEII
PRoJEcT: R^*-<+ "b-loern sunu
couMENTs NEEDED By! d;T-:i, onlrtr ro" pun@
BRr EF DEs cRr prr oH or-Eiia-lniE6Efi?-
p,Ua,x ry U "* -t3,** sA,
PUBLTC I{ORKS
Revl€wed byrCo[mentg!Date !
-rrni nepanrueHr) -_-..".Revlesred by: ,z r\et.!____ Oate :
nt ', */ .1 S' " ,.t I
6" D,/
lhlttithurn-
lrv i
,tfc/' a
o(ta
1/ lu"d L -
-'.- fhe D. k--
the
€c k^
t,r/ llr/ry tntt)lK Lron'tt.
\
s j b,r:,5
rs
l*L
comhentg !
BECBEATIgN pEPrtRTtrEnT
Revler.red by:
ConrBenta:
revlged 3/tt/gL
C" <-r rR +
Date:
Date:
u\rcd. Bibg € ,i".5 {"x\-*".--.- s\"r)
o
rNTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
PRO.TECT:
DATE SUBMITTED: DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COT.IMENTS NEEDED BYt Oct. io. t?1 (
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
O*,b/+r",, b"-, eJ 6,F- T lt-rA S.{ ,
U
Date!
PUBI-I]C WORKS
Revlewed by:
Conments:
Date:
.-'t-l/ [\'.'
?r
!/'/ /
-:--\,
ll K-
L/v/ i'lLl: t:T)
L,{ \-i. :, ,'.t nt', 'atr
t"'
Date:
Comrnents:
revised 3/LL/9L
.,/"'--/--/"FIRE DEPARTI.{ENT
/ Reviewed byz Z-\ comrnentsL---/
\\-..4-
f,tlltihur,,t ti{ t//' ;u,Jr/,
tr* "rr-r* 7-a .'n-,^)./,Q " lV*Jo" '
e"'- -f*. -,-./ -ttt44tLq2 N*;r/4 4*.*"_+ ^\
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comrnents:
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by: _Date!
it, .,t) i'. i'*1.
INTER. - DEPARTIIENTAL REVIEW
RUSSEL,S DECKPROJE
DATE SUBM]TTED:
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF OESCRIPTION OF
OUTDOOR
MIKE
ocToBER 30,1991
THE PROPOSAL:
DINING DECK ON BRIDGE STREET
PUBLIC WORKS BRAKEReviewed by Dote:
Comments:
THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO PUBLIC WORKS FOR TTIE
FOLLOWING REASONS: ;1) I}IERE WILL BE ORAINAGE PROBLEMS WITHIN THE ROADWAY.2) THE DECK wLL CAUSE sN0w REMoVAL PRoBLEMS.3) THE ROAO WDTH RESTRICT1ON W'[J, CAUSE CONGESTION AMONG
THE PEDESIRIANS.4) PUBUC WORKS DO NOT WANT TO G|VE Up THETR RTGHT-OF-WAY.
ocToBER 30, 199'l
- S.fr'eX,
FIRE DEPARruENT
Reviewed by
comrnents:
Dote:
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, l9€1
10:30 AM
EXPANDED AGENDA
10:30 a.m. 1. TOWN COUNCIL TOUR OF PROPOSED CORDILLERA
COt'lSTRLJCTlOlrl SITE
Action Requested of Council: Please arrive at the Municipal
Building in time to depart promptly at 10:30 a.m. The tour begins
at 11:00 a.m.
2:00 p.m. 2. Executive Session: Personnel matters
3:00 p.m. 3. Vail Valley Conference and Performance Center Steering
E.B. Chester Committee Report
Action Requested of Council: Receive and discuss the report of
the Vail Valley Conlerence and Performance Center Steering
Commiftee.
Backoround Rationale: E.B. Ghester, Chairman of the Steering
Committee, will present progress to date on this proposed facility.
3:30 p.m. 4. DRB Report
3:35 p.m. 5. Request to locate a dining deck on Town of Vail land for
Mike Mollica
Kristan Pritz
Russell's Restaurant in the Gallery BuiHing at 228 Bridge Street
(Applicant: Ron Riley)
Action Requested of Council: Give approvd6sEl to the
applicant to procee.d through the planning process for a
conditional use permit.
Backqround Rationale: The applicant is proposing a dining deck
on the west side (Bridge Street) of Russell's Restaurant. The
deck extends approximately 7 feet onto Town of Vail land. The
entire 7' x 33' deck would be located on public land; the existing
planters are on Town property. The narrowest point between the
deck and west side of Bridge Street is 13 feet. Public Works and
lhe Fire Department need to review the request.
Staff Recommendation: Statf recommends that the project be
allowed to proceed through the planning process.
t-lL,,wfl tnTl , n ^'ful'\J
0..-
3:50 p.m. 6. VRA Office SPace Lease
Ron Phillips
Action Requested of Council: The VHA has requested the
Councit consider some changes to the previously approved
lease.
Backoround Rationale: After the new VRA Chairman was
etecteO, ne took the lease to an attorney for revizur. VRA has
asked for changes to be made as outlined in the attachments'
Ron felt the changes were unnecessary since both the VRA
Board and Town Council had approved the lease as written'
VRA is now asking the Council to consider these changes.
4:00 p.m. 7. Review of Stephens Park Easement to Holy Cross Electric to
Larry Eskwith move overhead power lines to new location.
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny easement'
Backoround Rationale: ln order for work on Stephens Park to be
compteteO, Holy Cross must move its overhead power lines'
Statf Recommendation: Approve easement.
4:20 p.m. L Horse-Drawn Carriage lssue
Ken Hughey
Larry Eskwith
11. Other
12. Adjournment
Action Requested ol Council: Provide information to staff on
Councitt Oesire as it relates to horse drawn carriages in the
Town of Vail.
Backqround Rationale: The two existing contracts regulating
horse drawn carnagG expire at the end of fris month. Statf
would like directionfrom the Council as it relates to regulating
carriage company use of Town streets' etc'
4:35 p.m. 9. Appointment of Member of Eagle County Recreation Auihority
Ron Phillips
Larry Eskwith Action Reouested of Council: Appoint a member of Council to
act as TOV representative on the Eagle County Recreation
Authority Board.
Backqround Rationale: The Authority formed by Eagle Coynty
government to purcnise the Berry Creek Sth Parcel from the
town is to be managed by a Board of Directors' Each
participating government has the right to appoint one member of
the Board.
4:50 p.m. 10. lnformation UPdate
C:\AGENDA.WS
Prolect Name:
Project Descrip tion: fu1 (./',*, Avf .t ,
C foq
[Zroo*lio's 4* ^
owner, Address and phone: F-oa R ,1. 1 ql e - /t r r)
Project Applicalion
?6acs
o^" {/s or/q r
aS-<- ,.ay'r-<.<,,r-
Contact Person and Phone
Architect, Address and Phone:
Filing Zone
-
"t\ -,4'r,-"t+..1 oto un 'e-unt
Design Review Board
Date
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL D ISAPPROVAL
Su mmary:
ou", {/s o/ q t
J;rr
,d a,"u ApprovalTown Plan ner
1l't-7.." r:,[ ltv, i.'ttJ
II RE?[4AY24tesi
(Plcaee Prlnt or TlPe)
NAI{E OF PRqIEqI
II^}IE OF OI|NER
ttoxtagil ot olxlR
TPPIIC.ATION DATE
ItcN/trNrllo l?PLr cllroN
iq./ / I
\'i t, \'r
IDCITION OF DRq'EEI
DESCRIITION OF PROJEEI
t.')1-1KT
THE FOII€I{ING INTORilATION 16 BEAUIEED FOR SUBI{ITTAL EMllE
iiFlrcexr pRIoR To rHE nrQursr aBrHc scnsoutED EEFoRE THE DEsIGll
REVIEI{ EOARD.
t. DESCRIFTIoN oF TltE slcN/AItNING (FREE ETAIIDING, tlA!I,,
PROJEqTING, DTC), INCIUDE EIGN IIESSAGE.
{T-(u-
ltltE oF pERsoN EuBtfrTTrtf g llltrt+,i,t- '>ik'etrrn) EryloneJl;-tc s"-
lDDnDss '^,< e:i*^+t tf Vlni'lt (a 4( 't-
,
B.EIGN OR AT$IING ITATERIAT
* l|frf(tlt,9 t.\il\ttt6 frI\tft!,,'.)\' '171/lfd iS C-;-liL'
c.SIZE OF OIfERALL sIGN, SIZE OF I.ETTERING AIID II}CO
1 "ri- - *l' K, lr""
D.
3.
ITEIGHT OF SICN TBOVE GR,ADE
DESCRIBE L.IGrmINC (EXIETINC OR PROFOSED)
CONDOITINIT'}T ASSOCIATION APPROVAI' (ITTACIII
./
AREA. PAID Il CK
F.
G.
t|.FEE: 120.00 PLus ll.OO PER SqIIARE *o|,u}" r!,.t$
3.l.
5u
6.
N/t+
Lr'
-5--
1.
2.
Elte Planiili"ii"-tir lhoulng .xact locatt'on of slEn or
lwnlng on the bulldlng
ii-iliiitrptrs rtrouinl-riopo99d locatlon
Colorcd acal. drawhE Yn;!tr-
siipil-oi proporcd latcrlalr- - iulr':i:t'u 4JJ't tJi
il;-t6r-Ptf ot. rtgn lf avalrable
tENGTtr or BuErNESs tRoNrrGE (Fr)
'!l
Slgn Adnlnlttrator
t
If thtg appllcatl.on requlres a reparate revlew by any local, State orFederaf ag.ency- other than the loyn of Vall, the appllcatlon fee shall belncrcased by $200.00. E*anples of guch revl€r, aay J.nclude, but lre noteltnited to: Colorado DeparLncnt of Blghsay Access pelmlts, Arny Corps ofEngineers {011 , etc.
Ihe applicant shall be responsLble for paytng any publishl.ng fees rhtchare in excess of 50t of the application fee. I,f, at the appllcant'sleguest, any nrltte! ls postponed for hearlng, causlng the matter to bere-pubIishgd, then, the entire fee for such re-publicatlon shatl be paidby the applicant.
Applications deemed by the Comnunity Develo;Nrent Department to haveaignificant desi.gn, Iand uee o! other :lssuee rhich may have a eignS.flcantlmPact on the corununlty nay reguire revlen by consultants othe! than townstaff. Should a deterrnination be made by the town staff that an outsideconsultant ls needed to revlew any appllcatlon, the Conununlty Development
may hire an outside consultant, j,t shall estiRate the amount of rnoneynecessary to pay hlm or her and this amount shall be forwarded to the
Town by the appllcant at the tirne he files his application with the
Cornmunity Development Department. Upon cornpletlon of the review of theapplication by the consultantr BDy of the funds forwarded by theapplicant for palment of the consultant whlch have not been paid to theconsultant shall be leturned to the applicant. Expenses incurred by the
Town ln excess of the amount forwarded by the applicant shall be paid tothe To$n by the applicant wlthin 30 days of notlflcation by the Town.
- :l
I
lor tl6| fPPlfcrfiTls
tDra rlryllcrtlonr tor rlgtr 18. tuE,ltt d, tlr tollorln3
latonrtton lr trg'ttnd:
l. I co4rlrtrrl dga/rratry rppllcrtlon (rttrcbrdf .
2' I lttr plur rbarlq tb glEt locetloa rilrr thr rlgntr to Dr locrtrrl. -
!. I ttbotogrrpb lt plrtDlr rndl lutrahg drvrttsr lbovlngtbl locrtlon ot llr Drolprrd rlira.
f . I tcrledl €nrtng rrbtcb drtrllr tbr 6rrl9n ol tbr rlgn,
m tcllours
Colorrdl rxrctlY u rlgn ulll Dr.i-iiit o! latrilrlr t6 br urll tn llgn (rrtrl,
uoodl, canvls, Dalnt rtc.!
PhotoEraph of ltcn lf rvatlrblr.einclililcttrrlng ttyl. ud tlll.
5. If rn rualng !'r proporcd, rubult drarlngr- rloutng-
liaE€ri lo-*-ma ilcir thr rralng t-r rttrcbrd to tbr
ruflarir rnd lor t!: rralng lr to D. conrtsuEt.d.
i6. Ocsertitton o! ltghtlng tbet ulIl De urcil ln;;;i'xff i; ;ituE--iign- 9r rplDs'. . ry Pl-org:l"i-Trvning, ltghttng lr aot ellouldl to rblm tDlougD tDC
entfri'eralng dfcn crltr unduc rtttntlon to tbc
burlnerr.*-ilghlini lay-rpotltglrt only tbr rctuel tlgn
lcttrrlng on tb. rmlnE'
l. Gbect rlgn codc - ?aslty l{r'.bclght r--='i. il ,p.Erilc. vrry-i--lcn a;irEn 1''.L2t, coartnctto' !!y
drlrY tb: rgPrarrl c-l youl tlgilr'
3. -llrlrtr:r lrontrgr ot Dualnrtt'
tEE: I l2o.oo rsPlJef,ltolt t|EE IIIL !E IECUIIID l3 !r IIDA ot
lPPtSef,TloN.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
llay 24, 1991
P&R Condo As soc iat ion
228 Bridge StreetVai1, CO 8165?
Town of Vail
RE; Awning Application
This is formal approval by p&R condominium Association toRusseLl-'s to put up ( i.f approved ) proposed awni-ng.
Sincerely,
R # tr,"
Ron Ri1eyff
Presidentv
a
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Gallery Building File
Andy Knudtsen
May 10, 1991
Proposed Deck Adjacent to Russell's Restaurant
Staff has determined that this request is not an allowed use and cannot be approved because
the proposed deck would have been located in Agriculture/Open Space zoning. The design of
this deck, at this time, was such that it could have encroached 10 feet into the Gore Creek
setback and probably could have been built without needing a setback variance. An updated
survey would have been needed, showing that the current Gore Creek stream selback is the
same a that shown on the 1981 survey. More importantly, because the deck would have
been located on the north side of the building, it would have been located in the
Agriculture/Open Space zone district, which does not list decks as either an allowed or
conditional use. Because of the use is not allowed, staff has not scheduled the proposal for
any public hearing.
F'
FILE COPY
75 south lronlage road
vait, colorado 81657
(303) 4792138
(303) 47$2139
April25, 1991
office of community developmenl
Mr. Ron Riley
228 Bridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Russel's Deck Expanslon Adlacent to the Gatlery Bullding
Dear Ron:
The Town received your application for a variance on April 22, 1991, and though most of the
required iniormation was included, there are four outstanding submittal requirements which the
Town will need before the proposal can be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental
Commission.
1. The planning staff will need an elevation showing the north side of the Gallery Building
and the proposed deck. This information is important to the planning staff to determine
the height of the deck above grade. In your application statement, you made a
reference to the code section which allows decks less than five feet in height to
encroach into a setback. Staff would like to verify the deck height using the elevations,
as well as understand what the building will look like after the deck is built.
2. The planning staff will need a site plan showing the proposed deck in relation to he
information on the survey. From a brief analysis of the survey, it appears the deck
may not encroach into the setback. In our previous telephone conversations, I
understood you to tell me the building itself already encroached into the stream
setback. The survey shows there is a space between the building and the Gore Creek
stream setback which may be able to accommodate the proposed deck without a
variance.
The title report you submitted shows that PNR Enterprises owns the property. Please
provide us with information showing that you have the authority to sign for PNR
Enterprises.
Please pay the $250 application fee if we determine that your proposal needs a
variance.
4.
r'^.
Mr. Ron Riley
April25, 1991
Page 2
At this time, staff has tentatively scheduled this item for the May 20 PEC meeting. In order to
stay on that agenda, please provide this information by May 6.
lf you have any questions, please call me at 479-2138. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
lab
cc:Peter Jamar
Andy Knucl6en
I
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
'i 1toPROJECT:
DATE SUBI,TITTED:DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COU}{ENTS NEEDED BY':
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAIJ:
8,';tl
6"t4"
PUBLTC woRKs t
Date:
tLd /u y*-rt"-- /*-d ftE'q ,,tttl tf /'Q
Ba,l/.n1 / A fI* 4i^<4',./t 4df"4
Revlewed by:
Conments:
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Connents:
RECREATION DEPARTI.TENT
Reviewed by:
Conments:
revised 3/Ll/gL
Mc6w
rutVs
Date:
7
L . -/ ".,..
4--'
??r ,3r.'...- - fl.-.' .- L2
.L
Date:
Date:
-* 7L"r1', (.r. ,.,,ur/u,s
i; /\)r'-i'/-. (nttrrnj
-D.,t & 6" k f"t t\)1,(" z4-t t
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVTEW
BRIEF DESCRTPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
Ar/t'fu;tl rtrl /14 $,'* ld ?ue r, t'l '/ trk
(otkn $*;1r1;,r 1 /,t lL
-
dyr-<a-.ut< aAfa./
__ ____ / 0
PROJECT:
DATE SUBI,'ITTED:
COMI'{ENTS NEEDED
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PUBLIC WORKS -
Reviewed by: Date:
Comments:
FIRE DEPARTI{ENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Connents:
RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Comments:
revised 3/LL/91,
Date:
Date:
Date:
\
I (-"' l:' f ,. I Lul .-(, z4*t t
Appl i cati on
PEC MEETING
'April 22, L99t
o
0ate
DATE s/zo/q/
APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
I. This procedure is required for any project requesting a variance.will not be accepted unti'l all in?oirnaiion is'submitied.
A. NAME 0F APPLICANT Russellts ResLaurant
The app'l i cation
ADDRESS 228 Bridge srreet
Vail, CO 81657 PHoNE__9.9:4Ug-
B.NAME OF
ADDRESS
APPLICANT'5 REPRESENTATIVE Ron Rile
228 Brid e Street
c.NAME OF oHNER(S (type or print
s
ADDRESS 228 ltri.d
LOCATiON OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS 228 Bridge sEreer
PHoNE 476-4rso
PHoNE +zC-*U_
D.
LEGAL DESCRII-TION LOT A BLOCK 5 FILiNG_v911 villase 1sr
E.FEE $IOO PAID cK#FROM
THE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTI'IENT I{ILL ACCEPT
YOUR PROPOSAL.
adjacent to the subject property
and their mailins addresses.
MAILING ADDRESSES.
F. A 'list of the names of o..,rners of all property
INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHIND, AND ACROSS STNLTTS,
THE APPLICANT I,IILL BE RESI)ONSIBLE FOR CORRE'f
II. A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE }IITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED
TO.:DETERMINE IF ANY'ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TS HETOTO. NO APPLICATION I.IILL BE
ACCEPTED UNLESS IT_Is_C0MPLETE (MUsr INcLUDE ni- iiius RTQUIRED gy rHe zoNrNGADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THE APPLiCANT'S RESPONSIBI'ITY TO INTT AII APPOINTMENTI.IITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL R'AUTREIISNTS.
--
PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION l.lILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCTSS FOR.
YOUR PROJECT av-orcnEn5ifFrHE NUMBER 0F coNDrrrons-or nppnovAL THAT THE pLANNiNc
AND ENVIRONHENTAL COMMISsION MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE'-
COMPLiED I.IITH BEFORE A BUILDING PEMIT IS ISS'I.M'.-_
III. FOUR (4) COpiES 0F THE FOLLOI,|ING MUST BE SUBMITTED:
A. A HRITTEN STATEHENT OF THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE VARIANCE REqUESTED AND THE
REGULATION INVOLVED. THI STATEMENT MUST ALSO ADDRESS:
1. The relationslin of th,r.requested variance to other existlng or potenga'luses and structures in the vicinity.
. ?, The degree to-whtcn r: r€I rl"gill rrlg tEHct 0r litsril intErpretrtion and. enforcement.of :,stgg!1 ted.regulatlon ls.necessary.to ailrieie iompittUiftt,and uniformity of treatment ailong sites in ttre viiiniti or-to iitiin'[f,eobjectives of this tit'le without grant of special privilege.
3. Thr rffrct of thr vrrJrncl On llght tnC tirr Cirtributjen ef populrtion,
transportatlon, traffic faclllilEs, utjlliles, and publJc safety.
APPLICATION FOR 5OI GORE CREEK SETBACK - GALLERY BUILDING
Purpose:
The Applicant reguests a variance from section L8.sg.3oo of the vailMunicipal Code in order to allow an outdoor deck to encroach into therequired setback to a greater degree than that alrowed by theprovisions of Section LB.58.O5O.
Backqround:
rn accordance with the vail village Master plan, the Town of vai] hasrecognized that ttoutdoor dining is an irnportant streetseape featureand should be encouraged in commercial inrirr or redevelopmentprojectstr. The applicant agrees with this concept and betieves thatthe addition of an outdoor dining deck onto the GalleryBuilding/Russellrs Restaurant would be a positive benefit to theatmosphere and streetscape of VaiI Village.
A physical hardship to the construction of this deck withinestablished setbacks exists due to the fact that the existing exieriorwall of the building is currently located approximately 41'-from thecenterline of Gore Creek on the northwest corner of th6 fuifainf andapproximately 45r on the northeast corner.
Section l-B-58.o5o allows decks to encroach into a required setback notmore than ten feet. Therefore this would leave only one foot in whichto construct the_dlning deck on the northwest cornei of the buirding.rn order to be efficient and to allow roon for outdoor dining iablesand circulation the deck is required. to be at least 6.5'wid6. Thiswould require a variance of 5.5r into the stream setback beyond whatwould be allowed. prease see attached site plan for furtherinformation.
-t
FILE C8F$'O
75 south trontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 47$,2138
(303) 479-2139
April 11, 1991
office ol community dorelopment
Mr. Ron Riley
228 Bridge StreetVail, CO 81657
Re: Rugsel-'s Deck Expansion Adjacent to tbe GalleryBuilding
Iloa r 12nn.
r wanted to forlow up the conversation we had Aprir 2, 1991 withthis let.ter. rn that conversation, we agreed that the proposeddeck at Russelts will require a variance from the planning-and.
Environmental Commission (pEC) because it would be located withinthe 50t Gore Creek setback.
since that conversation, staff researched the Gallery Buirdingfile and found some information regarding the flood ptainadjacent to the site. On Februaryl 22, 15g2, the planning andEnvironmental commission approved a frood prain modificaiion forthe site. rnformation provided by Hydro Triad showed severaldifferent options (some.including-a deck simi_lar to the one youare proposing at t.his time). Reading the ninutes from thisneeLing, it appears that Lhe option which was approved. was a bermbuilt between the building and the creek. our uirderstanding fromreading the.report is that the berrn will protect the buirdiigfrom potential flood waters
For your current proposal, staff wirl need to see an upd.ate ofthe material in the fire which was provided for the 19-g2 floodplain modification. we would like to know where the flood ptainline wilr be in relation to the proposed deck pylons and supportbeams. we encourage you to use Lhe- existing iniormation as abasis for the update. staff does believe, f,oorever, that theinformation as shown in the file at this time is not specificenough- our concern, as r am sure you are aware, is tnat a deckencroachment, specifically the support structure below the deck
Mr. Ron RileyApril 11, 1991
Page 2
may trap debris in a flood situation. Any structure built in theflood plain does requj-re a fl-ood plain modification approval bythe PEC. I have enclosed Lhe code section for this review if you
need it.. Please see the highlighted sections.
Pl-ease be aware that if the pEC does approve the setbackvariance, your request would require a Design Review Boardapproval, as well as a Town Council approval, since the deckwould encroach onto Town owned land.
Pranning staff has the understand.ing that you are evaluating thepotential of PEC approvar and are waiting to make an applicition.If you need any other information from staff, please do nothesitate to contact us at 479-2138.
/*r+\
/ab
Enclosures
udt
)o
3^ lY-rt
/Jitl
{.4) h.-f iS /LLr (:,/.--l-/,t./---./ / / .'s lT<&-1 trn, f
k, fu,,
LLt u / 77w(
/L .r/tza-,<
-zkr'-,^lo"(
oL .1, ,)^. lL-
t/r
f ,tu-r V5r
/^/, o4*
,/ I -:?/rar /, {Jql
0/lu-r
//-4
u/*/ a /,ay'
<{
^)l5D,
' -<o,-< l\s 6.,/rl ,u
L a- us( [,{
;3 .,u"7c+)ce dl
-a.l6o,/
t"/ /_.L
f//.f,rno< Anf\r /24' -
\
\A-'"
Wr,#
d{t'
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
llioRK SESSION
TUISDAY, MARCH 12, 1991
1 :00 P. M.
EXPANDED AGENDA
1:00
Kristan Pritz
1:05
Shelly Me11o
1: 10
Greg Ha11
Aw
,lFf,'
3:00
Steve Barwick
Andy Knudtsen
1.Planning and Envi ronmental Comm.i ssion Report
Design Review Board Reoort
Town Council,/Plann'i ng and Environmental Conmission JointMeeting Regarding Comprehens.ive Master T.ransportation Study
Acti on uested.of Council: Have Councjl brought up r,ospeed on the study -nd rnake recommendations to it beiore it
2.
?
'\,il--
,"1;/
\f
goes to PEC and Town Councjl for adoptions.
9acfqround Rationale: The parking and Transportat.i onAdvisory Committee has worked wjth the consuiting firm ofFeldsburg, Holt and Ulievig over the iast year on the Town
9t Vltl's Comprehensive Master Transportatlon Study. TheCommjttee has recommended that the plan .i s completi up tothis point, and would ljke to update the Council andPlanning commission on the report and also receive feedbackfrom the Council and Commiss.i on. The report covers fiveareas, which include: 1) Vail Village Goods Del.ivery; Z)Publjc.Parking Facjlitjes and Operations; 3) Transit Syrt.r,Operations; 4) I-70 Access/Frontage Road Improvements; and5) Recreation Trails Interface
Sales Tax Exempt Group pol.i cy
\
A
2-
Actjon Requested of Council:addrttonaI direction from the
qual i fi cati ons for tax exemor
procedures.
Town Staff would like
Town Council regarding
status and enforcement
\ \\
\sN
Backgrourld Rationale: Certa.i n charitable organizat.i onsare granted tax exempt status when conducting business inVail. It is estimated that 945,000-950,000 ;f sa1 es taxrevenue is lost annually due to these exemptions. Thjs jtemis being brought before Town Councjl .i n order to furtherclarify certajn polic.i es and procedures.
Deck Expansjon onto Town property for Russell's Restaurant
4ctjo! Bequested 9f Council: Give prel iminary approval/oenrar-to 11",9 applicant to proceed through the planningpnase tor this project. If conceptual approval is given,the applicant_wj11 proceed wjth the request, providingfloodplain information and addit.i onal survey information.
B?ckgrguld Rationale: The deck would extend off the northsrde of Russell's Restaurant onto Town of Vail propertyadjacent to Gore Creek. At th.is time, staff has ,lueritquestions about this proposal . Questions .i nclude:
1) l,lill the expans.i on encroach into the floodplajn or the50-foot Gore Creek stream setback?2) What are the other Town Departments' Concerns?3) What Iandscaping should be added? Should the streamtract be left open? Should be deck be reduced in size?
\ $) ,-J)*,* {t}:
a
3:45
Shelly Mello
3: 50
Mike Mollica
4: 10
5.
4) Are there any easements that cross this parcel in the
area of the deck?5) How does the deck impact the pocket park?
Staff Recommendation: Community Development staff
recommends that the proposal be allowed to proceed through
the review process, with the understanding that
the applicant address all of the questions l isted above.
4. Vacation and Abandonment of Easement located between
Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive and Villa Valhala
and Garden of the Gods
Action Requested of Counc'i l: Approve request.
Background Rationale: AlI uti1ity companies involved in
this easement have relinquished any right to use. It
appears that the ut'i lities were vacated in 1967, but the
Town never 1ega11y vacated the easement.
Staff Recommendation; Approve the request.
Vail Vjllage Inn - Special Development District #6
Di scussi on
Action Requested of Council: Josef Staufer, President and
ManaSinS Diieitor of the Vail Village Inn, has requested to
appear before the Council to discuss the possibility of
modi fy ing Condi ti on No. 7, as I i sted i n Ord inance No. 14,
Series of 1987, Section 11 (See attached).
Background Rationale: Staff has informed Mr' Staufer that
ffited in ordjnance No. 14, series of 1987,
are still valid and would apply to any redevelopment at the
VVI. Before proceeding through the SDD-Maior Amendment
process, Mr. Staufer would like some direction from Council
regarding the conditions, specifical1y Condition No. 7.
Joint Town of Vail/Avon Town Council Marketing Board
Presentati on
Informatjon Update
0ther
Executive Session - Legal Matters
6.
7.
6.
9.
-2-
Date:March 7, 1,991" Dept.:Com. Dev. Meeting Date:March 12, 1991
Work Session: X Evening Meeting:_
Approximate length of tine itern will reguire: l_5 Minutes
f. Iten/Topic:
Deck_expansion onto Town property for RusselUs Restaurant.Applicant: Ron Riley
Staff questions include:
l-. WilI the expansion encroach into the floodplain or the50, Gore Creek stream setback?2. llhat are the other Town departnent concerns?3. What landscaping should be addedi should the srreamtract be left openi should the deck be reduced in size?
Request form must be given to the Secretary toby 8:00 a.rn. Thursdavs.
IV. Staff Recommendation:
Conrnunity Development staffwith the understanding thatquestions listed above.
II. Action Request of Council:
Give prerirninary approval/denial to the appricant to proceedthrough-tle planning phase for this proje-t. ff concLptualapproval is given, the applicant will precede with therequest, providing floodplain information and additionalsurvey information.
III. Background Rationale:
At this tirne, staff has several questions about thisproposar. Assuming the applicant can address these concernsand obtain approval for any variances that rnay be needed,the expansion appears reasonable.
TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA REOUEST
the Town Manager
recommends conceptual approval ,the applicant address all of the
oo
-
,o
f,tut'; L-L
*,' C*l *.f (*-L
I od
1 r (1^-a y'*,,
I a 9n'n'-1
I ,h lu,r"yr^1t'-a
I
i
I
I
t* Jar
tlr( ..rl g
,/ L.
/ f fu i, ";,
n,l ,.-t" ! ,(a.r r'r'i tk.''-l .
h'{ ./,L. rtik }c.
ft,o{.
S 4.Lr{'e -,t/A-'a4-a / r.r a tt*.--*f
f-r'o,tnJ e.,L- ,$1-,s *1
h.n* tr'u " 4I
I
I.-t
I
I
I
I
i
o
DRB APPLICATION - TOWN OF VATL, COI,ORADO
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED:
NATE OF DRB MEETTNG:
**********
TtrIA APPI,ICATION NII,I, NOB BE trCCEPTED
ItNTIr, tl,r. REQUIRED TNFORil.ATION IS SUBUITTED**********
PROJECB INFORI.IATION !r.
A. DESCRTPTION:
Restaurant.
Put 10tx 35' deck on the north side of Russell'-q
B.TYPE OF REVTEWS
New Construction
c.
D.
x Minor Alteration
Addition Conceptual Review
ADDRESS i 228 Bridge St., Vail. Coloredn Rl6q7
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot a Block s
Subdivision Vail Villaqe First Filing
ff property is described by a meets and bounds legaldescription, please provide on a separate sheet andattach to this apptication.
ZONTNG: CCIE.
G.
H.
F.
r.NA},TE OF OWNERS:
D.R.R. Inc.APPLICANT:
Address:228 Bridge St. Vail, Colorado 81657
Phone 476-6700
NAME OF
Mailing
I,oT AREA: If reguired, applicant
starnped survey showing lot area.
must provide a current
see survey
REPRESENTAIIVE: Ron Rilev
same
NAI'{E OF
Mailing
APPLICANT I S
Address:
Phone 476-4750
Michael Stau tonlRon Rile
EIGNATURE (8I 3Mailing Address: 22
Vai1. Colorado Ptrone
J. Condorninium Approval if applicable. approved by p
K. DRB FEE:building permit.
FEE SCHEDULE:
VALUATION
$ o-
$ lo,ooL -I 50,001 -
$150,001 -
$500,001 -$ Over
$ L0, oo0
$ 50,000
$ 150 | 000
$ goo, ooo
$L, ooo, ooo
$1, 000, 000
FEE
$ 1.0. oo
$ 25.00
$ 5o.oo
$r-00. o0
$200, o0
$300. Oo
*NO APPIJICATIO}I TIIJI' BE PROCEESED TTTIIOUT OIINERIS SIGNATURE
II, PRE-APPI,ICATION IiIEETING:
A pre-application neeting with a rnenber of the pla111ng
stlrr il- strongly encouriged to determine if any additional
apptication iniorr,ioli.,.. ii ,.eeded. rt is the applicantrs
reiponsibility to make an appointnent with the staff to
detlrmine if there are additional subrnittal requirements.
Please note that a CoMPLETE application will streanline the
approval. process for your project.
I11. IMPORTANT NOTICE ITEGARDING ALL SUBUISSIONS TO THE DRB:
A. In addition to meeting submittal reguirements, the
applicant nust stake ind tape ttre project site to
inaicate property lines, trultaing lines and buildinq
corners. -A11 traes to be removed must be taped. All
site tapings and staking must be cornpJ-eted prior to the
DRB sitL visit. fhe applicant nust ensure that staking
done during the winter is not buried by snow.
B. The review process for NEW BUILDINGS nornally reguires
two separate rneetings of the Design Reviel, Board: a
conceplual approval-and a final approval . Appllcanls
shoull pfan on presenting their development proposal at
a rninimirn of two meetingi before obtaining final
approval .
c. Applicants who fail to appear before the Design Review
Solrd on their scheduled rneeting date and ltho have not
asked in advance that discussion on their iten be
postponed, will have their items removed frorn the DRB
aocfet until such time as the itern has been
republished.
D. The following itens may, at the discretion of the
zoning adurinistrator, Li approved by the Cornnunity
Devel5pnent Department staii (i.e. a fornal trearing
before the DRB maY not be required):
a. Windows, stqrlights and siurilar exterior changes
which do nol alter the existing plane of the
building; and
b. Building addition proposals not visible from any
other t6t or public space. At the time such a
proposal is subrnitted, app)-icants must include
Ietters fron adjacent property owners and/or frorn
the agent for or nanager of any adjacent
condominium association stating the association
approves of the addition.
E. If a property is located in a mapped hazard.area (i'e'
snow avalanclle, rockfall, flood plain, debris flow'
wetland, etc), a hazard study must be-subnLtted and the
owner urust sign an affidavit recogniqing the hazard
report prior €o the issuance of a building pernit'
epificai'tts are encouraged to check with a Town Planner
piior to DRe appLicati6n to determine the relationship
ot ttre property to al-l- mapped hazards '
F. For all residential construction:
a. clearly indicate on the floor plans the inside
face oi the exterior structural walls of the
building; andb. Indicat6 with a dashed line on the site pLan a
four foot distance fron the exterior face of the
building walls or supporting columns'
c. If DRB approves the appl_ication with conditions orrnodifications, all conditions of approval must beresolved prior to Town issuance of a building perrnit.
rV. NEW CONSTRUCTTON
Three copies of a recent topographic survey. stanped bya licensed survevor, at a scale of Ltr = 20i or lirger,on which the following information is provided:
1. Lot area.
2. Two foot contour intervals unless the parcelconsists of 6 acres or more, in which -ase, 5rcontour intervals may be accepted.
3. Exist,ing trees or groups of trees having trunkswith diarneters of 4tt or more, as measured frorn apoj-nt one foot above grade.
4. Rock outcroppings and other significant natural_features (large bouJ_ders, interrnittent streams,etc. ) .
5. Hazard areas (avalanche, rockfa11. etc.),centerline of stream or creek, required creek orstream setback, L00-year flood plain and slopes of408 or more, if applicable.
6. Ties to existing benchmark, either USGS landnarkor sewer invert. This information should beclearly stated on the survey so that all
measurement,s are based on the same starting point.This is particularly irnportant for height - -
measurement,s. See policy On Survey Information,for more inforrnation regarding surveys.
7. Locations of the following:
A.
a. Proposed surface drainage on and off site.Size and type of drainage culverts, swales,etc. must be shown.
b. Exact location of existing utility sourcesand proposed service lines fron their sourceto the structure. Utilities to include:
Cable TV
Telephone
Sehrer
Water
GasElectric
c. Property lines - distances and bearings andbasis of bearing nust be shown.
d. Proposed driveways - percent sJ.ope and spotelevations must be shown.
e. AIl easements (Title report must also includeexisting easement locations)
8. Existing and finished grades.
9. A11 existing and proposed improvements includingstructures, J.andscaped areas, service areas,storage areas, wa1ks, driveways, off-streetparking, loading areas, retaining walls (with topand bottorn of wall spot elevat,ions), and othersite inprovenents.
10. Elevations of top of roof rldges (wi!h existinq
ana proeosea aiaaes strown unaernealt]) ' .TheseeGGEions and grades must be provided, in order
for the staff to deterroine bullding height' Al-l
ridge lines should be indi'oatic.'on Lhe site plan'
Eleiations for roof ridges shall also be indicated
on the site plan with corresponding finished and
existing grade elevations.
lL. Provide spot elevations of ttre street, and a
minimun oi one spot elevation on either sLde of
the lot, 25 feet out from the side property lines'
L2. Driveway grades may not exceed 8* unless approved
by the Town Engineer.
tr4ndscape Plan (1rr = 2Or or J-arger) - 3 copies required
1. The following infornation nust be provided on the
landscape pLin' The location of existing-4rl
dianetei oi larger trees, the location, size,
spacing and tlpt (common and latin name) of all
existiig and pioposed pJ-ant material' A11 trees
to be sived ana to be removed must also be
indicated. The plan must also differentiate
between existing- and proposed vegetation'
2. Complete the attached Landscape materials list'
3. The location and type of existing and proposed
watering systerns to-ue ernployed in-caring for
plant rniteiiat following its installation'
4. Existing and proposed contour lines'
NOTE: In order to clarify the inter-relation of the various
development proposll cornponents, please- incorporate ?:
much of ttte iuove inforrnition as possible onto the site
Plan.
c. Sicrn off from each utility conpany verifying the
e and availabilitY (see
attached) .
B.
D.
E.
A prelirninarv title rePort must
subrnittals, to insure Propertyof aLL easements on ProPertY.
Architectural Plans (L/Au : L)
accompanY a).1
ownershiP and location
or larger) 3 coPies
required.
1. Scaled floor plans and all elevations of the
proposed. deveiopment. Elevations must show both-xisting and finished grades.
2. one set of floor plans must be rrred-linedrr to show
how the gross residential floor area (GRFA) was
caLculated.
3. Reductions of aII elevations and the site plan (8-
L/2t x LL'tl for inclusion in Desigl-Rgview -!?ard,lbc, and/or Town Council memos sha1l be reguired'
4. Exterior surfacing materials and material colors
shall Ue spe-iti"6 "" the attached materials list.
This mater-ials l-ist rnust be completed and
subnitted as a part of DRB application' Color
;hi;;' -=iaittg sinples etc. ' ihould be presented to
the- Design Review Board neeting'
C\
6il'r\|(,(w
rA&qtntI
otddootng,
F. ?one check list (attached) nust be cornpleted if projectis located withil the Sing1e-Fanily, fiiurary/seconAiryor Duplex zone districts.
c. PhotoS of the existing site and where appLi.-*Lle, r.rfadjacent structures.
H. Th-e Zoning Adrninistrator and/or DRB nay reguire thesubnission of additionat plans, drawinls,specifications, samples and other nateiiits (includlnga nodel) if deened necessary to determine whdther aproject will cornply with oelign Guidelines.
MTNOR ALTERAIIONS TO THE EXTERTOR OF BUILDTNGS.
Photos or sketches which clearly convey the redevelopnentproposal and the location (site pran) or tue redevel-opnentproposal may be submitted in lieu of the rnore formal_requirernents set forth above, provided all irnportantspecifications for the propoiai including colbrs andmaterials to be used are suUrnittea
Vr. ADDITIONS - RESTDENTIAL OR COI,IMERCfAL
A. Original floor plans with all specifications shown.
B. Three sets of proposed floor plans (L/Ar, - 1t orlarger) .
c. Three copies of a site plan showing existing andproposed construction. rndicate roof ridge elevationswith existing and proposed grades shown underneath.
D. Elevations of proposed addition.
E. Photos of the existing structure.
F. Specifications for a1l materials and col_or samples onrnaterials list (attached).
At tle reguest of the Zoning Adninistrator you may also berequired to submLt:
G. A statement fron each utj-lity verifying location ofservice and avaj_lability. see attaLhed utilitylocation verification form.
H. A site improvernent survey, starnped by registeredprofessional surveyor.
f. A preliminary titLe report, to verify ownership ofproperty, rrhish lists all easements.
VTI. FINAL STTE FI-,AN
once a building permit has been issued, and construction isunderway, and before the Building Departnent will schedule afrarning inspection, two copies oi an- fmprovement LocationCertificate survey (fLC) stanped, by a rLgisteredprofessional engineer must be subrnitted. The followinginformation nust be provided on the fLC:
A. Building Location(s) with ties to property corners,i.e. distances and angles.
B. Building dimensions to the nearest tenth of a foot.
c. Atl utility service line as-bullts, showing tlpe ofnaterial used, and size and exact location-of-Iines.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
Drainage as-builts.
Basis of bearing to tie to section
AtI property pins are to be either
stated on improvenent survey.
All easements.
auilding floor elevations and all
with existing and ProPosed grades
lines.
corner.
found or set atrd
roof ridge elevations
shown under the ridge
VIII.CONCEPTUAL DESIGN REVIEW
A. Submittal requirenents: The owner or authorized agent
ffig design approval as. prescribed
by this'chipter raiy suuiit plins ior conceptual review
f! tfre oesiln neviLw Board to the Departrnent of
CLrununity D6veloproent. The conceptual review is
intended to give-the applicant a basic understanding of
the compatibility of tieir proposal.with the Townrs
Design Luidelinel . This procedure is recommended
prirnirify for applicationl nore complex than.single-
ianify aira two-tinily residences. tlowever, developers
of siirgle-farnily and two-farnily projects shall not be
excluded frorn tire opportunity to request a conceptual
aErifi i""i"*. couriiete appiications nust be subnitted
10 diys prior to a lcheduled DRB meeting'
The following inforraation shalt be submitted for a
conceptual review:
1. A conceptual site and landscape Plan at a minimum
scale of one inch eguals twenty feet;
2. conceptual elevations showing exterlor.materiaLs
and a aescription of the chaiacter of the proposed
structure or structuresi
3. Sufficient information to show the proposal
compties with the developrnent standards of the
zonL district ln which the project is to be
located ii.". cnna, site coverage calculations'
number of Parklng sPaces, etc');
4. Conpleted DRB application form'
B. Procedure: Upon receipt of an application-for
conceptuar ae-sign-itvilw, the Deirirtrnent of conmunity
Devel6pnent strail review'the subrnitted materials for
general ""tpiii""e with the appropriate requirenents of
[he zoning ioae. If ttre proposa]' is in basic
"otpii.n"6 with the zoning-code reguirements' the
proiect shafi be forwaraed to the DRB for conceptual
review. ri-itre application is not generally in-ottri.tce wlth z-oning code requirements' the
ippii""tion ina subrni€tat nrateiials shall be returned
t-o- ttre "ppii--ttt titrt a written explanation- as to why
the cornniririiv neveloprnent Departnent staff has found
tne projeci--not to bi in cornFtiance.with zoning code
reguireients. once a complele application has been
iedeived, the DRB shall review the subnitted conceptual
review alplication and supporting rnaterial in order to
determine whether or not the project general-1y cornplies
with the design guidelines. The DRB does not vote on
--nceptuar rtiieis. The property. owner-or his
repre'sentative shall be p-reslnt lt tne DRB hearing.
I,IST OT UATERfALS
NAME OF PRoJEcTs
IEGAL DESCRTPtION!
STREET ADDRESS:
LOT_ BI6CK SUBDIVISION
DESCRTPTTON OF PROJECT:
The.following infornation isReview Board before a final required for subnittal_ toapproval. can be given:
TYPE OF MATERIAL
the Design
COI6R
A. BUILDTNG MATERTAIS:
Roof
Siding
Other WaIl Materials
Fascia
Soffits
Windows
Window Trirn
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Flues
Flashings
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
Other
,l
B.LANDSCAPING: Name of Designer:phone:
PI,ANT }IATERTAIJS:
PROPOSED TREES
Common Name Ouantity Size'tBotanical_ Name
VWIL--
EXISTTNG TREES TO
BE REMOVED
*rndicate caliper for deciduous trees. Minirnurn cariper for- -inji cate hEGFffi= coniferoustrees. Mininurn heiqht for coniferous treei is 6 feet.
I t,l
pl,ANT I.{ATERIALS: Botanical Name Conmon Name Ouantity Size*
PROPOSED SITRUBS
EXISTING SHRUBS
TO BE REIIIOVED
*Indicate size of proposed shrubs.
5 qallon.
uinimun size of shrubs is
lvpe Square Foota€re
GROUND COVERS
soD
SEED
TYPE
OF IRRIGATION
TYPE OR IIETHOD OF
EROSION CONTROL
c. oTHER LANDSCAPE FEATI'RES (retaining walls, fences' swirnming
pools, etc.) ;1"i"1-"p""iry. rt'ai6ate heights of retaining
walls. ltaxirnurn height of wlifs rnrithin the front setback is
3 feet. Maxinun height of walls elsewhere on the property
is 5 feet.
L/,. ta, -/ - / t")t1.-l-ntl
Is L
7t
j1
(
,l L.s"\
i'l !
i IJU'
zf'13" tt t'
(
'tlt - I'- -'-
Project Application
Project Name:
Project Description: _
Contact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot Block Zone
Com ments:
Design Review Board
Date
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
Summary:
Town Plan ner E statt Approval
I
qlI
/0
\4
trl
?(-\J
,!
t
,}{.-,
Appl ication Number
tf*fr,
SIGN APPLICATiON
Fee Paid *Zo.ao
Date
Name of Project
Name of Person Submitting \M^.cK \^lartf,^Phone 4n 6 b-|oo
Location of Project
Description of Project
Vb.t^- \
The fo1lowing
to the Design
Sign submittal
jnformation is required for
Review Board before a final
fee is $20.00.
submittai by the app'licant
approval can be given,
A. Sign Materia'l _i
I-l
iI
r
B. Description of Sign _ilA e,rn tJ
\
.!
I
c. size or sig. ^$t uor,a(^ ZYz-f?t \a"^,,Uf^.
Length of Frontaqe (Ft. )
Comments
n
t-
2. Drawings sFoffi exact location3. Phctogr"aphs showing proposed locETJiE-4. Actual siqn4. Actual sign _5. Co'lored scale drawinq
MATERiALS SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION
1. S'ite Plan
6. Photograph of sign
Approved for DRB Submittal
5rgn AomlnIsrrator
D'isapproved for DRB Sunm'ittaT-
Sign Administrator
o
o
E
J
+fE
tuL
=G
froE
d
ILrG
INs
9D
J
aaoooooooooolo!ooooi drt-icod+r;(r) C-{ C'{ Ol Fl rl rl N
aoaooooqu?cqqqqact(oN|.oo)st(r) (r) ot ot c.{ t .{
co
c
F
86,'!)-U^cr.ri;tLd):a'-(l)XYEP^cnH-o".E6oPHoF:Y{6XEEEIJ EE 5(JIIJujCD:E(/')mo
(D,
I [i=EEfu,
X=-oEiEFichSxDb.e;;.eE'qrEiSoB=Tr-
(l)
o;
5 5 5 5 E : 2 g
5FF.E .6 q - qt ; E;==5 3 EE i = r-
oceEE Eg iggEEEg€ ; qq;sEEE*sF: -EEEEEgE I 3EE 8I3IEI3 B65555 E 5 o ;a
ooETI
=
ot!
=:o-*
=EDE
=E'lrJ
E
o.
gEgHEHH
*6d d==Pg f
;"Fo
#EA:5do"q6g;
o oFIo!lro
!f5It
FII
E'o
(/)
o!)Fgt
u,
.D
lDa
{.
o
{
o
o\
t
d
*'
ID
tsPPO@r\'loOoooooNNNNN
l' P !,r-t(O{q(n('l
too
ilc
s
o
*riq=.
d" dd;E<\O) ..+t.dQ+qE
ril:il.l{! odqoo'gR
Y' ql
5
a)o
(D
6<oc()o.
$F
3
QIJoI
-
=loT-,
Ioooo
-rra
lo S.trNN(Jl ('l
P
s,,*.1
(Jl
oI5ooII!lI*IIoo
$i +E si ${3s #* i3 rF:l i'( I a-3+ t"= Efe *a
=_. 3 io 3=7 q ;g 6(D
b' =
q^ 5'€R5B-8E9.
='€-.)=lq_q. r S:o,-6s3F-a ctoqQ9.o'J
=e5-o8ooEg9=
oE3B6'i6oE
OtOo'
==ocL€9.<Aro(D<(DTd?BaC ,ri4i['=
aA'
oP(Dtoo
E P!65r.odI: ?6:r+4er
oo
do.d5
"&*{oo
Pts
:.t F)N{uc'l
oIIco
o
-co
-o
PFPtsPtsF(!oS(,tolNo
\bi$i$ieitbuogtororoo
l\) tsF ts ts(t (})o o ulie b\ \ i(' (Jl('t (''t (,|
=o9
^E E.
rsi
taFlF8E€Eoorr.E
I
s
EI 'trn(!
#8RT
Hdgl
FB
(DEa€'
(Dto
=I: d;'TE
Eg
AR3d(D
x(rt trEE dHo J0,- 9=E *=
=0QgE'
4. ql
d5'<FcOgs
6Q
BT'tx
-t*5C'o=Eq
EBog
$
?
o
co6'QFciOR5E!,o::oEL*a
AET50)
ofo.
EoUYdoC,x-
(t
$
?
T
rJso1't5F;F5()*soEf-a.h
qoq6tt=
(t,
oo
3sao
6'f
oc
tr-o
oII
-IIof,o5
6',9FSrg 3F gE f,s3r qi i= 3FaE flg sd 4eaE EE 9= AedE :E F QF5 .D ;5lg g. -r o
=.6 R e IB5 H fi g
FoUi
=r6of0qocqes?d"Esr;sfis!.=B'.F-BgoocaegfiHs;io'iicEEf!Dto
fo.
E
3o5
=3oo0)'..|rxFoo(D
'-}t+,1!!!
C,ooo(Do
tsPoo\b('to
FFooi$b(ro
=o
(,'
f,
ct
oroF
q
DtrFHMTMtrNT Ftr@MMUNITV DtrVtrL@FMENT
XXXXXXX sALEs AcroN FoRM
01 0000 413J0 COI{. DEV. APPUCATION FE=S
1 0000 41540 ZONING AND ADDRESS MAPS
01 0000 42415 lSBB UNIFOR}I BUILDING CODE
1 0000 42+15 1988 UNIFOR},I PLU.\{BING CODE
1 0000 +2+15 I98B UNIFOR}I MECHANICAL CODE
0t 0000 4?+15 I988 UNIFORII FIRE CODE
'l 0000 42+15 1987 NAT]ONAL zuCIRICAL CODE
1 0000 42415 O'IHER CODE BOOKS
1 0000 41548 BLUE PRINTS (MY1_ARS)
01,0000 42112 xERox coPlES ./ sruores
I 0000 42371 PENALTY FEES / RE-INSPECT.IoN
1 oooo +.rtiz OFF HOURS INSPECTION FEE
CONTRACTORS UCENSES fEES
1 0000 41330
0l 0000 41413 .SIGN APPLICATION
u"4.tuLy''s bnnq I
.;"r
-rcrLtht EF LJtrt I1_
Hiscel lanenug Eash
r-11-il1-:rii l.l:l{':li:l
F.:P':eiF,t # Bf,*::tU
Hcc,:unt # i:l.l # llEr]
F, R, ,fi:. l l.{r: "'ilF.i'{u FrlFrEtl
llrrr*un 1. l.*rrd* t'p,l ..: :E . tjE
l ren paid flrnnun t Paid
Blt3BetB4l+lSEgFJ .i:8.118
l:h.:nge r* t u rnFd :] i:j ' i:il'j
-THFI}.IH \/ELI
rrr,:u r c.:=hi*r 5T
--{
Project Application
Project Name:
Project Description unltex ;:.brl-c qtitil 4 .06 {;f
Contact Person and p6onu rliruc.' Ailen 422--i949
Owner, Address and Phone:
Date u r' r.a
ilusse]--i 's 8..,t A'dning aud gi
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot Block Filing Zone
-
Comments:
Design Review Board
Mdian bv: Si
Seconded by: iie rr i n gr- nn
APPROVAL
conse-r appre.'eI 5-0
Date
DISAPPROVAL
Su mmary:ei:rnittril ,
Town Plan ner E Starf Approval
Fee Paid
Application llunber
RE['COnT16i.nl
Date October 16,1989
Nane of Project Russellts Bar & Restuarant
Name of Person Subrrritting Bruce D. A11en Phone 422-7949
Location of Project 288 Bridge St
Oescription of Project Entry Awning w/signage convex style
The fol lowinq inforrlabiorr i s requi red for subnri ttal by the appl icantto the Design Review Board before a fjnal approval can be given.
Sign subnrittal fee is $20.00.
A. Sign Material Unitex fabric, burgundy /13398 body; ran 1t'4284 sjgn
B. Description of Sign Russellts Bar & Restuarant...logorr in tan
C. Size of Sjqn 1t3r x 3r3!r - 4.06sq/ft
D. COnntcntS Awning to be downlighted with an enclosed soffit
I'IATERIALS SUBI4ITTED I^JITH APPLICATION
1. 5i te Pl an2. 0rawings s6owlng-exact locatjon3. Photographs showing proposed locatfion-
SICII APPLICATIOII
4. Actual sign _5. Colored scalE-ZFawinA-6. Photograph of sign
Sign Adrninistrator
Approved for DRB Subnrjttal
Disapproved for ORB SubnrittiT-
S iqrr Adrrtinistrator
) 4..' !L, Ll "r.lz-l t' J
Ia f-". r_ :Srz O,-, )
nrh1X, ,'a /*r .- /L -.,"--T /r*..-, p.-t--T- l1.r--l-u,. r.,r,-
-/ - ---:-
\An\Aun
REALEST{IE
228 BRIDGE STREET
vAtL. coLoRADO 81657
(3O3) 476-82sO
-BROKERS INC.
0ctober 26, LgBg
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage RoadVail, C0 81657
Attn: Planning Commission
To Whom It May Concern:
This will inform you that Vajl Valley Real Estate Brokers,Inc. has no objection to the awning purposed for Russell's
Restaurant by P & R Enterprises, providing it does not
change the existing sight lines to our existing signage.
)r ncere ty,
Ellen B. McKibben
Vice President
cc: P&REnterprises
f's
I
.l'l
II
I
rtMT:
t--r!
nfr7
,1sbe : ft"= 72"
Sl3u: /s"df')c 3'3' .#otl
tl t, g 1-'
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
I
REQUEST
A TOWN OF VA|Ls-L.) ({-}.24o--1r-.*rf-JOB NAME
MON
CALLER
.:U"
INSPECTION
INSPECTION:
BUILDING:
E] FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr FOUNDATION / STEE_tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
. ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION -tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL tr
tr
tr FINAI-
tr
n FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr SUPPLY AIR
tr
tr FINAL
{eeeoveo'/fi
ooRnecrrol,rSi
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
INSPECTOR
oz
F
=EulI
oc{
at,Itl
Lr.l
lJ-
F
=
uJ
NSN
o\
-+
c.^l
ltl
FINH
FI
tsv7z
lfJ
lo
Js
ltIL
z
f
uJ
o
lolprtt-xl>
Et=6t
=-loolc61l<c>lz
=16
l!
Ea
=I
c
uJz3o
o
c)
o
c
o
O
o,
==f
E
:)
3o';
o
c
'o
d)
ut
o)E
(J
c
.9
.9
a
6
'=
olN
^v,
;
F
o)-c
o
o)
=o()
f
o
v,
-c,
!'
-o
o
(!
lt
=
'= g, (,
F6 Eio(g
F.9 R
EFE
E.= E
dl(dca-;- 6.o
='oFd'f =c9c
dd=_'E >9 (!=(ucs
E=o
=q*tq= i.=- 6
CL€ O-
de6lre a-
= o--6E
EE b
o oE
igF!:::
PPC(! 0'-
9.,9:g,tu!
ol;
=6>,c-=v;tr(J'- /'roE 6
.bt e9E oEEE.!-od)
-o(E
.ir\f -+$
F
=
UJ
o-
z
J
l
co
x
1-
z
J
EF
z z
uJ
=
uJ
uJ
z
tr
lr.1
UJ
o
3
uJ5
lJ.l
z
=uJo
F
trlo
o-li
t!
o
x
F
LIJ
f
tf)
|lJul
lJ-
F
=Et!d
J
F
F
z
o!
CD
F
i.LJ
UJ
z6
3
E
)
(J
z
=
NOTIVntVA
I
I
l=
IEl.'
IF
tF
I-..2
:<FEgr
|rF
ZU
E!EoFl?<xz
<F
oa Fr
uJ t-{
7.A
N
zz
tr^6
XlF9oaoz!oir()z
t!<
uJ tagE
FO
-;<ri
=>E
z
F:
lJ-
a4
UJ
o-
F
(\
E
(!
uJ
oa
z
E
o
X
D4z
tr
E
UJF
BqJz
I
I
g)tzfz
Ful<(Jo<
>ii>;Ru-5d<z
Lz
Oz
-Fd6
=dOT
zr<
rl
=lzl
.. >l
UJ
uJ
uJz
U'F
E.
u,l[L
zI
=oo
uJl
T!
a
z
(.)
IF
z
F
Jloz uJ
z
Y
IE
z
F
.J
t!
I
z
LO(o
\\J
O
t,u
tr
at)
dlo-)zo
FIlltY
UJ
.D
Ft
luoTL O\
"O,= -rl19,I.il6*lo.l. E{lrRl
uJ Y..t-ry'^ Flv'zo
z
=<>z
JO
CL LL
Ji*oo=
=E'=dd=
F
cc
u,i(L
L!oz
troct
o
t
E
IL
JFuJ:h=-i(IduJ>aLo|!9o
-uJ:>ilF
ftr
uJt0
o
co
E
o
c,
o
.:cf
E,
oIJ
o
c€'
E
o.Lott
t6EEl€
-E
F
=Elrl
a-zoFofEFozo
C)
n!!
*-
oz)
tr
lltl.l lo(Jl .lOZiH I f'-Frl st | \ottlEltrl l\oEal(, | +A'A I dtHlr lp1 |>i- IFllco IFllN IHIc..r IHl Int utl
I tll r{zt etHol cl<fl q"gl
4E.()
H
d
(/)
EE
<n
FlFf
<n(A
il
z
m
_-'t
tltlll,ll"tl
IJI qtitu{tdto
=l Ifl95
lltlIIlltltlloltlllflllallJltall>lI lr-l
t3>l 3lEl Ol
IIF Iut IHIF J>t rlP4l\t I
rd lc't I-l-'I,^,tlEt .lol olzl zlfll olAl ull c{I El F_kl I Jl c.ldl
=lYEl alE-l zl -d3lqoltrl Fl
tltllltllol| =.1totI rullll
lsl
lbllzl
Et xtu-t Fl
I
I
I
I
I
.lol
=,|
uJl
5l
<I>l
rLlolzl ..t
il F
ar
-..r O<F(r(JL!<zE
.aZ
c)
J
(J
F
uJ
J
LI,,
>H
=<AE
-J t-:zrl.o
(J
ot-o
0(Fz
o
c ).,
=F-o2
J<Oau)t! llJJO
[ffitr
I
)\{
vl
\:,
z
o9za
=<dP
O(JZ_-e
35
=uJ6tu
n&
tr:
ulo.lt
zulEOz2F{a66eE9!irb9EE
=>
=uJ-E b=O:JliE :TE EbI Etuc xo-E X>t q-
D-i)i
ul
F
$r
$..1 |
q
E
=E
lrJo-zIFc)fE
Fa
zo(J
l!tJ
o-
E
=c
UJG
g*iiEs
fE E"t"E }(
EE E :e'i
E$E€E:
6*E.9.:66Rd
gEE;E q
EiHEE;
€ [g:5 =_*1.
;
]ZZtLo ool-^attz
a e =EtnoEz>(J8 I A.E<3: 3$H trF.6 Eif .\t g,t
t
>G
-E(n
= f"t r.Q
= \9\!D zl
., >l
llJ
uJzo
Iu
J
z
F-
)
Iz
Oul
=D
oz
Lt-
I
I
d
J
.\,
$\\
J
ui
=z
nl l
)t
"l
\JI\ol
iI
:NJ
'\]\!.1
\
t
UJ
=z
d.
^Jtlt
ttJeoo
J
T
co
.5
\!F.
-A
J
*
n
Ig
atatl
UJE
I
o.
F
C)
Ic
lt
az
cittl
tLoz]oF
*l
{\l
ilaol
${
d
=q
lll
\?
\-
f\A
oz
oluG
4
oz3oF
r,.J
l*f-
N
\;r
I
\J\\-
$
u
|l
:g
oz
ctItle,
ozioF
te
II
oz
oll,l
J
ltoz;oF
oz
I
.E
J
oz3oF
tl.,
utF
d.
uJz
=o
FoltJ
ts
C)E
E
-rO<FGQuJ<2e
ItZ-oo
JGgtt<
trl ---z6oto
(,
zo
=
c
)
i.)
z
i5
2a)
=<t=tr
E=
=u
s5l
=+E5=.
8l
J<()ffilJO
-)<)<l<xx,
t
INSPECTION
TOWN OF
t
REQUESTVAIL rNUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE J -,/J -F'o JoB unue -.(tiZz
5
READY FOR
LOCATION:
WED THUR FRI
----
PMINSPECTION:
BUILDING:
O FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
E UNDERGROUND
O ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATERtr FRAMING
n ROOF & SHEEF- PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
N SHEETROCK NAIL tr
tr
tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP, POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
O ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
F4={ppnovEo
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
7, /1<).ts^tE td__-(__=ajL(r INSPECToR
FINAL INSPECTION'S COMPLETED
The below items need to be complete before
g'iving a permit a final C of 0.
Please check off in the box provided.
FINAL PLUMBING
FINAL MECHANICAL
DATE:
ELECTRICAL
FINAL BUILDING TEMP0RARY C of 0
,M ,r*rrFrcATE oF occupANcy
oxe' 2 _lJ€o
o
L4 tLnnI | \V
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
l!''' : \\\\\.\l'
TNSPECTTON REOUESi
TOWN OF VAIL
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
JOB NAME
INSPECTION:MON
CALLER
TUES WED THUR FRI
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
B FOUNDATION / STEE-
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATERtr FRAMING
- ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING O GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEEI.fiOCK
ELECTRICAL:
N TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT D SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL
APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
oarc /y'?7' ff rNSpEcroB
INSPECTION
TOWN OF
I
!
REQUEST.
VAIL
DArE (t la I JoB NAME
tI
t-|
CALLER
READY FOR INSPECTION:.4,q9 rHUR F.n"u$,n'-o- nv
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
LOCATION:
tr APPROVED tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION BEQUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
uNLocKEP &,,<a,t6 Bu6E S fu*S
lr CrDArE l\ - LZ --x'1 tNSpEcroR
I N SPE g:rl O N_ R F,Q U EST.
oor. lr l?\ JoB NAME
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:THUR FRI \nr$ins: - nv
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT TOWN OF
BUILDING:
O FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
- tr UNDERGROUND
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL tr ROUGH i D.W.V.
tr ROUGH i WATER
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD'NAILING tr GAS PIPING
rrusullroN tr POOL / H. TUB
D FINAL
tr HEATING
N EXHAUST HOODS
N SUPPLY AIR
APPROVED D DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
CORRECT]ONS:
E
INSPECTOR
nffis*op
PERMIT NUMBER OF PR ECT
INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL\r
DATE
READY FOR INSP
LOCATION:
JOB NAME
tv"t7^THUR FRI @PM
fi eveaoveof D DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEET
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
E ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
D FRAMING
- ROOF & SHEER
" PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
O INSULATION POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
tr HEATING
tr EXHAUST HOODS
SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL
INSPECTOR
P,i6s'oP
oz
ts
=t
lrJG
U'
uJ
IJJll-t
=E
IJJ
o-
N\U I
I
I
3t
cl'"
.-"r I
"tHo\.<lo
-l
I
I
-lt-.1.
e,l
9l-
-r(rdl()ortrFrlll';o
l(9,2
ulF
lflil5r. l z
Ele
Htq
3l=ol.6ilzzl3
€tulz3o
urIF
2
?
:
tl
\J
ITJ
att
=
Gotr.
EoFo
trFzoo
o
EEutz3o
l!o
c2
J
'J.14'na
v,Iq
4"47
't+tl+'tt
rlf,IT
ili
c
ctlgt .lO,YEE
Es
8g
aG6.9
R;q:\u\ -€..eN
sF)€3\N \) .- tr
-e E\)
EK
$egO#E
PE
:€a
80 2'oorlio.E i
EE!
Ee''a.6 k
E-=.4
aJy'
Egd,
eE ts
It O. a"56 b
iE r
:EEgtDo
E:OctOO;E
FE;odgwE\F>=g(s
o'5
5;
E€ooE9'-oo-5i
=-E6d
EE-e8o(!Ct;c
P5
-€
FEae+,co'-ae
o, .rf;-cr.=d'o>6=
Eco5
,io69EoEEo ctr()6
E
E
ct
E
o
(g
E
o
.s
o.E
.s
o
!g
io
o
.9
CL
o-
G'
.2t
E(l
E
o
ql
:6s
oo)E
-q
'o
!()(!
oo
oG
c.!@
.af.it N
F
CN
{a
E
=E
UJc0z
6
g
uJ
z
ot
Fo
uJ
tr
(9zo
=
J
9z
UJ
=
ulltlu.z9F
u,lE
llJ
oE
o
co
3g
lLlEzg
u,ut
F
oo-
u,l
o,
2
uJJ
x
F
ultttl
an
uJ
UJl!t
=t
UJo-
J
FoF
oz
6I
6
o
e,
c)Iu
u,
z
cl
=
J
J
e
=
()
uJt
Fl
F
H
NOTMlVA
u.
E-.r
tr
z
F,r
z
z
H
;
;ZztLo ooF-atzg 5 =9E P OE.r, o c,E:r g5= Hu-<9C iEF frqq eiN(J
=>E
_IFil
=aOAr
tu
z
tr
tt
o-
ulo-
F
o
(\
I'J
J
2
E
+
<-zIF
c
UIF
3
UJz
tltltltl
Fz
zI <,1<oo<
5UxrrX.i<z
Ez.
9z
-F
fio3trOI
uJfJJ
IE
(r,
v,
UJzYo
=
UJ
F
t
o
3
xX
o)
Jl<l
=l
zl
.. >loulo
UJutzot
ar
UJo-
z
EoH|z
Y
r
(\
I
HHH
al f,?1kl t=lil 5 | -
|
?t P | ; I (E
O
?-\,OO
1-,
14/,6
&
A
a/1
z
01
@
.i'
Fr
u.lF
u)oo?zo
F-o.ulY
uJo
oF
F
=trut
o-
l!o
o-oo
I
LrJFoz
IJJF
o
grD
E
EIt
o-tt
EgE<ttf€ul99E
'e.EE
=>E d=E FEE ^=o--c Ebt iurE l*t q*oi!i
ulo
F
z
oPze
coo
=z=:fdP
EE=a;3
E
=Elrl
o-zIF
C)3GF(nzo(J
F-
Jl!
az
Hv)
a
FJ
a
i,i
=zo
-1
I
Ilo
'1lrlH | --1-lf
ti1 l\oCJI+AIEFl Ig. l-lcolc.llorl
ttlt4-tu r-.1qHq<
H>J>g5
E
uJ
E
4
(D
F.
I
|..-\a
il
;t
dl
HI:l
5l
H
I
I
e, l-ll
t-{ I-l
I
dl
=.1olt!|.--rGlrnJl\o
<J\T>l I|rIY'gx
FI
H
H
Fl
Fd
l'<tEx
E<
F4
F4
ts4m
3
z
,i
Hz
E
trlz
A
F-l
F{
F{}(
N
r\
Icl\
I
I
ol
IJJItrl
JI
al>l
tl-lol
zl
3lg
I
I
Jollr|I
ccl
il
H'
2F
s3>F.-6o
E
F
z
oEtil,!
\JZ
mffin
oz
ts
=G,
UJo-
o'
U
oa
I
I
I
I
0 UI
{
rl
q ill
ri'l
I
[]Jd
_,t$ lg I 3
liglirliI TEiEEE IFl€uE:aa li
s;:**Jla
i3=,.*vJE
iw
fFiggidEq€: ii! i'E
Fgi:€
Ela;p
iFsig
|il''1|
Er
3
gl
0q
I
I
81.
fr
I
]
qJti,z
!(J
UJ
oz
u
F()
rl,,
lr,
z
1
Iz
Iou,
lt
UJ
z
F
uJ
o
totoat<
l@l3IUI5luJ
z(,
-V,
F
3
z
x
F
u.lo
ll tJ,
ll l!.llutlrLlr-
l=l
Ir.ulo-l
,l<lFI
!, tlt- tl
(,
l
J
IEFc,
uJJu,
(,z
=
c
J
cz
(.,
lLlI
\/
pr-lF I ;6 tzt=3 ,316NOuvnlv^
2oFo.{5Eg2?s?o(r=ra<oo-pEtoFO
.. a\j
,fer
>lE
,.\l''
t=J |r,| A=g(c
t!
;iEI(Jl
_lo-lrl
2o
il
tl
llj
.. >la
UJ
LUzol-:
u,
)
z
tr
6o
1r,
c
loltturlztxl()
Itr
I
It
l.
2loltrl1l
6lzl
-il 1
ril Iill r^ll 3llz
iit ? Iiil 8:
iilsEilltriil r l
: ll ./t
ill ir
ll ?:
ll s g
il " r
'l 2.
q,
C). TLaoo
o
l
t
c.{I-.{
$4
zx
z
J
:
il,
lliIr
rl,
li
t\
IF
lolutF
l"
:I
z
4
€
.t
LrlHY
I I
u,
tro
c0o-t
zo
F(L
u,v
IIJo
oF
ts
E
uJ
o-
bgl,l rl6:-lo'l
rQlgt,
sE
,
zo9zE
cDo
=ztJd8
L:Gt!&tto.4 ul5ttEZE<cf,o.t6.niPe.rb9.:.E
:o.l>F dEIF h>fH =o(l; E4l: O tale ool9 irul
E FiIar-!*=
u,
c.,
G'
9trtr
F
EEtrf
o-zoFL)3GFazo()
r.t
L
o
o
'-zo
z
l,lJ
!204,*;^oES-:_?z
,i Y
:<
-".r O<F
trJ <
r,u F
F(J
t.lJ
==<J
rllz
=
tlJ
=zoo..|
,i
t-1
iu
EEi
;HF
BISrr
I
(r-
','"' )
tUt
D
i.l
Roy E. tVooten ano Rssociaf
. r Consulting Engineers r
1834 S. Wright Street
LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80228
(303) 986-0929
. &ryt Rtxey
Jt+e.s,,,8 ru,ifr ssq|
?tnxrsl i; &z /ka e/<r*"u'd
6"U'Ey &oznillu, zz? 8,z,tveS,/ e/]ad{k&l (?>f;:ad
8rus7
A l- -\fu. y'lrl a.tr=4 /JLtqoi +tc t y'a2_ lJtnz-ter.:*7r. J.
Z3z Erztpaa,JTzaT, Mrt
g, 1,^/.r,7s^)
' { /+w,Ze;,o ,/1. }/*- fu;.,./< Da",te /r-, ,&,*ap*J7f,ga On ./trz- SnJe-7 ts^**r, ,/,* &,-t^roz- /ttt+.*7;7a fl*r,yg4q*u*r-p7 /!!ot C,* (h*<.d:t/e- Tzocn- ,F**Iz /<),+tz_,
fapn*a-- E I n"'* Alta, v/+t-7 /zts| (/l*.*** &uZ /+hrQ'N*r,-
&t dl,+A , J,7y.rr7s ,l 6 "t .ltr.t 6ntzrry::- fi'ea //rt."-- r+/nzlbaz- KtT.ttazJ fr:y7paa47 ,fu7.; Sa-,:7tan) Zi/ j'<a) frr:2,^75
fu- 7'4+ Ap /rt/q /r'-.'taa-; fr J7*uqa'rz: &*uryt
Ttm+a*t Zzczar+r.azn /.u- Zk: ar, I /.t*zrrc a,a- tH EX:Z
W Va-rn Z*7rruz-/rr,v Diz ,fr.p-*a 52a,, x ,Glr,
Ole-h7./,
,/ / ;-)/.: /.+: /*lat.r'r;L dE &.sn2d,,r,/e {i.., t aF'L ,rn-+zt-r- 6 7r= d.,*zr+ il*zz- I Zt l.a ! S.rrstfuttfrriE /tl.* ul1es7 /<-hzz-, fr* /tJez"t /, Cn> fu"-r* , tuftscq!.tt*l
ry k/*4^) (3^") ,E"":J.ri, &p/:vs / 6x& /2,7 ZzraT{ A ,1 ' ',t4nrs , &*t Or /tr+ je*r,Jt Eu-z* y' A^ta_ /Za6 p /n
/arrrr ak7 (az,l*- _ 7,ri EV.7u -z - ) 7+x 7lr, H,,uo, rq/1 ,J ,/A ,.t / '- t'- / - /-r:L-1'4'{t Q'f/r7
-n4+ No7 ,Qp6qoa/e ft &**.,7 fu^" bn" Errrz*_ fu fipzv* c?*
fawrr+ ;24,44c4;s 1' N " K /s Sfr.,o1 A^: I 4-d-/4^/'/"/--rST.xtOttp l/2s.e. lJtzaz lr Ant rs /r* EasTtdl td*f 7 / frro*uq
Orrt (U,t) 6",,1/+j&ry d2..17 S.t,n.y Al' /tz /r!-f 'do
, r ' 6a7/E Efua,Nea/^/4 /*r,-//--- |2. 7t/ro
75 south tronlage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-7000
RUDER-RT]NECKE CONSTRUCTIIN
4496 E. Meadow Dri veVail, Colorado, 31657
RE: ORE |'{OUSE RESTAURANT
Permit #1472
Dear Bob,
The temporary certificate of occupancy has expired as
Please see the copy of the inspection that was done onthe corrections are listed on the inspection sheet.
Please contact me to set up anothelinspection on this
Your cooperation is appreciated.
Bu'i ld j ng Inspector
GM/rme
ENCL.
ofllce of communlly development
February 29, 1984
of February i
January 20,
project.
, 1984.
1984,
MhOre House - Vail
SBD Vail - Inc.
23 November 1981
Mr. Steve Patterson
Bui.lding Supervi"sor
Town of VaiI
75 South Frontage Road
Vai1, Colorado 81657
Dear Steve:
As you ate aware we had a small but potentially dangerous firesituation here at the oTe House last satuiday night. stEps were takenthen and arrangenents have been made to completely resolve- any futuredanger.
As a result of_ this incident, we have been inforned by our landlord,Ron Riley, that we have failed to meet certai.n qualifi-cations electxicaliy,as specified by the Town, for the restuarant. s'pecifically, that wenever passed an electrical inspection on a very small renodel job under-taken last- spring. As I am sure you recalr it involved simpry installinga new prefabricated stainless steel salad bar in place of the old oneand a snall remodeling of the existing bus station. ilIe did not changeany existing walls nor did we require any change whatsoever in ourelectrical status quo for cornpletion of ine prJi""t.
- Following instructions fron your office you were notified that theproject was complete and we were ready for inspection and whatever elsewas necessary to insure the return of our building permit deposit ($100.00).our deposit was Teturned several days later and r aisurned all requirenents-had been met. r was extremery upset to find out today that we were beingheld in violation.
The electrician on the job during the remodeling was Bob price, alicensed enployee of the New Electric conpany. Today he expressed iome the belief that an electrical inspection should not have been requireddue to the nature of the changes. Tirat. is to say there were no changes inthe existing electricar structure of the restuarant for the project.A1so,. today, I spoke wi-th Gary I'furrian who remenbers doing tire inspecti.onfor the Town and passing it.
I was 1ed to believe by the nature of the deposit a*angernent thatall requirements by the Town would have to be rnet before I would receiven1 r.efu1d, Seeningly, this was not the case. It has Ron Riley, ownerof the building, Scott Hopnan, ohmer of the restuarant, and nyselfextremely concerned.
Box 996 / Vail, Colorado 81557 / 303-476.5100
If r have failed in any way to meet the requirements as specifiedof the Town Building Department I would like imrnediately to rnake thenecessary arrangernents to correct any situation we night be void in.rn the event we are not in violation, I wourd expect Ind appreciate aletter to that effect. whatever the case, it is our wish io ct earthe si-tuation up as soon as possible.
I would appreciate you help in this matter.
Sincerely,
i) n\
-{."..-t U^\&,.k*
-L^rry Rr\derson
General Manager
Steve Patterson
Building Supervisor
23 Novenber 1981
Page 2
LA: nrc
cc: Richard Kaplan, Town Manager
Dick Duran, Fire Chief
Dick Ryan, planning Direct.or
Ron Riley, Landlord
Scott Hopman, Owner, Ore House Restuarant