The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 5 LOT B SLIFER BUILDING 1991-1992 PEC LEGAL--T\.]#* . JBa fuJtr >+,.,*T FC. "^r.- R...'tr-i5 t..^\r-* -t - SL^t Sk"g -1-" b. T1* Sc+* Gttr._t; R"**U [..,-'Lo-'-.r- *-J AJ5**-*f f^.g,^+l o Lo,-y\o-.{s d-.\,-: -l-".-^ ;'l t/*J 1b 8..:t -*--cl *{-.,uo.tt ,Oc\twY#rlxf rt u ol 7l%- -rt; lj!).!l)(ll S-lill.l.'i \.j,ll. (,'.)i.()li-\i)r),\j1(.5- ri{,.1 }-j-() l.rli iiil ..\\ ()\ ltr).\i) . P(). lt()\ lbi- ,\1 ()\. (.()l-oitti)o fii()Ji) qsvf rlN V L I(UNwI-IIN IAL UUIuvl-!J>l"UN tr&L, lvlA I bIf ru!Arlr. eJr!, CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED WTTH BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED. FOUR (4) COPIES OF THE T'OLLOWING I'IUST BE SUBMITTED: j t" ..1 !r:.: ' !THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vailwill hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 ot the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on October 25, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. ln consideration ol: 1' A request for a density variance and a setback variance to allow for an expansion to a residence located at Lot 198, Block 9, Vail Intermountaini2854 Snowberry Drive. 2. J. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow a bay window expansion of Gotthelfs/196 Gore creek Drive/Lots A, B, c, Blocks-c, vailvillage 1st Filing. Applicant: Planner: Applicant: Planner: Applicant: Planner: Applicant: Planner: Applicant: Planner: Millie Hamner, Chris and Mary Ball Jim Curnutte Paul Gotthelf Jim Curnutte Frederick H. Larson, Dorothy H. Larson, Lawrence K. Larson, Frederick A. Larson and Lance V. Larson Shelly Mello John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Development Jim Curnutte Vail Valley Medical Center Andy Knudtsen A request for variances for setbacks, density, parking in the front setback, and a driveway which exceeds the allowable grade for the development of a condominium proiect and an employee housing unit to be located at 44 willow place/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village 1st Fiting. 4.A request for a worksession for variances for road grade and wall heights and a major subdivision (Trapper's Run) to create thirty Hillside Residential tots to be located on Lot 8, Block c, vail Ridge and Lots 16, 19 and 21, section 14, Township 5 south, Range 81 West, generally located north of l-70 and west of the Vail Ftidge Subdivision. 5.A request to relocate the helipad to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot located at 580 S. Frontage Road EasVan unplatted parcel located between VailVillige 7th Filing and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the l-70 right-of-way. 6. A request to relocate the helipad to the west end of the snow dump located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/an unplatted parcel located west of the Town of Vail shops and east of the Spraddle Creek development. Applicant: VailValley Medical Center Planner: Andy Knudtsen 7. A request for approval of the Cemetery Managemenl and Master Plan Report, for the Town of Vail Cemetery to be constructed in the upper bench of Donovan Park located generally southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood and west of the Glen Lyon neighborhood. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen B. A reguest to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved exterior alteration proposal tor tne Stiter Building, 230 Bridge StreeVPart of Lots B and C, Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing. " Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Kristan Pritz it $-i=e,'1 Jcorceruf5 DAVE GORSUCH RON RILEY CHARLES KOCH 263 E. GORE CREEK DFIIVE 228 BHIDGE STREET % GEORGE LAMB VAIL, CO 81657 VAIL, CO 81657 230 BRIDGE STREET vArL, co 81657 HILLIS AKIN 227 BRIDGE STREET vAtL, co 81657 rr fael ta -".U Sa-nr crLl*i'etb THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE 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 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on December 13, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: 1. A request for variances for setbacks, density and parking in the front setback for the development of a condominium project and an employee housing unit to be located at 44 Willovr Place/Lot g, Block 6, Vail Village 1st Filing. 2.A request for site coverage, density and landscaping variances to allow the construction of a new garage and the conversion of an existing garage to an employee housing unit located at 1045 Homestake Circle/Lot 3, Block 1, VailValley 1st Filing. Applicants: Planner: Applicant: Planner: Applicant: Planner: Frederick H. Larson, Dorothy H. Larson, Lawrence K. Larson, Frederick A. Larson and Lance V. Larson Shelly Mello Rod and Beth Slifer Mike Mollica Juanita l. Pedotto Andy Knudtsen 3. A request for a worksession to rezons a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road/more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in lhe Southwest Quaner of Section 14, Township 5 Soulh, Range 81 West of lhe 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a poinl whence a brass cap set for a witness corner for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees 05 minutes 'lg seconds East, 10.76 feel; Thence 183.62 feet along the arc of a curve 1o the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minules 30 seconds East, .181.76 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 2l seconds East, 62.77 teel; Thence 147.43 feel along lhe arc of a curve to the left which arc sublends a chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes I7 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feel; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which arc subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feel; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minules 50 seconds West, 110.5i feet; Thence South 68 degrees t8 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feel; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.00 Feet: Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.19 feel; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minules 33 seconds West, 36.49 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minules 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minues 3l seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) to the pOtNT OF BEGINNTNG. Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Seclions t4-15. (c.L.o. record South 01 degrees 30.2 minutes East) (south 01 degrees s8 minures 32 seconds East Measured) L 4. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved * exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge StreeUPart of Lots B and ^ C. Block 5. VailVillage 1st Filing. Applicant Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Kristan PriE 5. A request to relocate the helipad to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot located at 580 S. Frontage Road EasVan unplatted parcel located between Vail Village 7th Filing and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion ot the l-70 right-of-way' Applicant: VailValley Medical Center Planner: AndY Knudtsen 6. An appeal of a staff interpretation regarding a deed restriction limiting the use of a crawi space at the Todger Anderson residence, located at 1175 Sandstone Road/Lot 1' Block 1, Lionsridge 4th Filing. Applicant: Todger Anderson Planner: Andy Knudtsen 4{;r-"VaF Project Application o^," ny's/fz tNDdrL. ]Projecl Name: Project Description: Conlact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Address and Phone: Legal Description: Lot Com menls: Design Review Board Date Motion by: Seconded by: APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL Sum mary: fr ",u,,Approval F|0v-22-97. SLth| 1?:29 t.liu,o-* ltED rarsl rorn ilr,t DFB lPFl,IOf,TrOll DATE SFPL'ICFTION DATE OS DTTB EHrg ar'&t***oliiJtilii* "o accEBsED vr$irr-ar.r ngcurnnD rNFoRlrntroN rs $usldrE[ED ***ct****** I.FROTECT IIIFpEUAIIAUI F&. t(-*1,*SA, DEgcRrFTroNr F,$Pt#Y FAx No. sotcttr Of YSX$r RECEIYED I MNETING: rerrised gl419L catsRBDo P. EJE P, 0e E. TYPE OF REVIEWi Nett Constructlon C. D. 8, F l'11 ,l:' , l ($ZOo.00) ; -Mlnot AlteratLo$ (S20'00) Addtttsn {850.00} BDDRESS | ?.FQ If psopertY la-deEcrtned.UY des-qrfbttonr Please -Prov*de aEtash to bhis aPPlloation i1 SONINGI i'rneet'e and boundo legaL on o seParete gheet and ,"/t Lo lqant .ob larea. 0E APPTICAI'It t $REERESENTATTVE I +a LE,s,,tD4(ta 5Address: PhonA nust provide a Gurrent utFeF-CTro4JC. NAHE OF ABPT,TICAI'|f !''' MattLns-'*ddress:: rt I. NAI'IE Matl NAI,IE OF OIINERSI Fe'r'llSr-r efi+ 'tSIG'Ntrtrg$S (S) ;(i*.. MBilLnE Addless: ,I . K. condonlnlun' Aplirovar if aFipllcable. DRB FEEI DBs feee, *, $rtooJn abover are to be-p-atd atil'l Liild b-f aunmlitii ir DEB +ppltcatlon' laterr when iilptiiilg i6r-i $uiioln{ permit,- Rrease tdentifv -th€accurat,e valuatlon:of finb propbe-af . The Town of, Vai]' --r r '' +rrdrrar. rlra flro nnLor:dina tO thg t8blg beIOW, t'e I K ffijTlili:'itfiir*i"i:,:in-?Fii:U:il:#tT*::-.;EEti;iEA;iuatton 6r tho proibeir'-rh'-rown -ot vall "iii-i6tust, ihe-iee accorOing.to the table below, tc ensurg ihe poriech f,ee ie paid. ssr SIID: ,F --------- FEE SSHUFUT,E: ! VA1UATION FEEg 6'l's----tO, ooo $ ?0,00 ' ,.Fro,ooi-* ni,qqq $$o'oo t:. $ 50; ool, - $ rso, ooo sloo ' oo *160, ool - $ soo, ooo ' q?89.9q +Foo;oot - *r, qqq, goq $4gg'gg $--oi'er- iir ooo, ooo $soo'oo * DESTEN EEVISW EOilID SPPBSVATJ $XPINE9 QHE YSBN }FEER PINATJ ssDRo\IAr{ sor,usdTiurtri'llqe Fu*uii- rs issunp r'xu coxsrsugtrron rF" f,ffii3{hffiiiilg6t*iolii,lxeTu$iiii- rs issunp r'xu coNs,tsugtrIoN IF EraRrED' *rt, J" lt"*t; wrr'ollr ol't*E-us-u*u'S**r*NO AIP[ICefI0tl t r .,r { " *,, : _, ],:\ ."., :,1,," ., ,; i, | <1 I I I i Irf \ I P, 03 ry92tdAME OF FROJECI; l,EGAt DESCRIPEION| I.,OT* STRFEf SDDRES$: DH$CRTFTION Of PRO{:IEOTt SIANT !{AtERIA!',S I PROFO$bD TREES EXXETING TREES TO BE REMOVED Siding I-l other WaII !4ateslals Fascla sof,f,lt$ $lndows I Tlindow trin DoosS boor Trin HANd bf DECh RBTIB FIUEE f !.ashtngs ChImneys Brash Enclssures Creenhougce, 0theu B.LAt'lD$Cl,PINGl Name of e8ieg one: sE*. [* SUDDTVI$trON The fotrlowlng lnforhatlon l8 Revlew Eoard b€fsre B'final a. BUITJDING l{hTEIIAI/$i Roof | . ai+er leaion , I l-requlred for qirbmittal to the oesl'gn aptiovar cen bq glvent F - BS BE RE}dOVED *rndlcgt€ callpe treeg. fndlcate he F{fr\'-2.2-92 suH I....---:- 'it / a/iL l a.rrl a.hty'e, /9t', 8. We 's7de /o.f* lro* #a /he' 'sau/h /'ee /4 a/ra'e Aertve"'l t:, I I Tf1a. SttPT (4ller.h<n Wrffiw I'iA;;;ldqT;; i ff if I r: .m/ i r tsszva,r,iLta1l* , "* i[ , Varl,€b-a,lbffit i ,*' il, ,4ta -s+ed| Jtut- BensYt I Suhnt,#,rx1 .,b- (hr,ts-{rr:ns -lo 14* ffgn 8*F'l Altn z Behsy 4z,t zrad rt"\ N fT r1'o !/57 tttl/' n/e wt// hu,bui/,,!r,',r,g *w-w,rtdduatiltth gq';/o'il , ,ii o Srrrn, Surrrr & FnevrroN,Iwc. REAL ESIATE BROKERS Ar,{D CONEULTA}JTS 23() BRTDGE STNEET vA - coLoRA DO 81 657 TELEP}IONE .&3t 1762421 TELEFAX 603) 4762658 October 9,79Y2 Mr. TiE Devlin Town of Vail Otfice sf Q6mmrrnity Development 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Tim, Pursuaat to our conversation, I would like to appeat to the Town Council the decision of th_e-Plrnning and Environmental Commissioniegarding the planter on the remodel of tbe Slifer Building. In particular, it is a plaoter about ? x 3' sitriated in front of the Slifer Designs retail store. TVe deleted tho planter and replaced it with two large pots filled with flowers. I presume you have all the documentation aad do not need anything firrther from me.If you do need anything please let me lnow. Best regards, RESft OFFICES IN VAIL AND BEAVER CIEEK TO:, FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department September 28, 1992 l_ieCuesJ lo modify the landscaping ptan associated with the previouslyapproved exterior arteration proposl'tor the srifer Buirding, zio sriog;'StreeVPart of Lots B and C,'Btock S, Vait Viil;g; First Fitiig. Applicant: Planner: Bod and Beth Stifer Tim Devlin On February 24,.1992, tlg.fEg approved an gxlejlsr.atre€lisn.and.a:!!g'-c*-9.I9rqg.9variance reques_t for.rhe srifer auirbing. consi?itiifr-;ih" o-*p;;u"r rs nowsubstantially completed, and at this tiire the ap-plicant is requesting the pEc approve amodilication to tle. qpproved. landscape plan..'dpecifi""Jrv, in" .ppricant is prop,iiing todelete an 18-inch.tall stone'faced ptanter, which rvas to 6e constructed immediately :!Ylh 9f the.g{$ion's entrance door. Tire pranling areain inir pr*t", was to beapproximateff Sfquare feet. The applicant propoies insteal to pl"r" Z to 3 pottedplants in thisYrea. -$r agqrt of rhe redeveropment project, the appricant removed "n ,*,.r(n *J*l)' ;'- Maple lrom their property and instajled'the approved Town of Vail street3cape Master' Ptan paving on ?.1^"T1"_"-rj *" property'wnich they own adjacent to the buirding. Inaddition lo installing the pavers, thd apfticants constructJ'an i'a-incn tall, stone.facedplanter in he area between tha additib; and the Ore Houseis .it"rior deck wall. Thenet planting area in this pranler is.39 square feet. A noweling ciaoappre and rowgrowing junipers have been instailed in this planter II. BACKGHOUND The following in a chronology of events pertaining to this planter: February 24,19g2: The pEC_approved an exrerior arteration and site coverage' variance for the Slifer buitding. The landscape plan that ilasapproved provided for the 1g-inch tall stone;ac;d planter thatthe applicant now wishes to substitute the potted piants for. Anevergreen tree yuas to be installed in the pianter. July 13, 1992: August24, 1992: September 28,1992 A request to modify the landscape plan was heard by the PEC to replace the planter in question with potled plants. The general consensus of the PEC was that the original proposal should be implemented and lhe planter built as designed. The applicant requested to table this ilem until Aogust so that a suitable solution could be reached, and the request to table was granted by the PEC. At this meeting, the applicant proposed to add potted ptants to the area in question instead of building the planter. The pEC was in agreement that the applicant needed to comply with the original landscape plan that had been approved, but would allow for a modification to be made to the proposed planter so that the new windovr that is slightly above grade would not have to be moved. [n constructing the addition, the applicant has installed a window vyhich exlends nearly to the ground on the north elevation of the bay window addition- lt was suggested by the PEC that the bottom of the planter could be excavaled deeper and a tree planted without any exlerior modifications being made to lhe building. Also, the PEC agreed that the planter could be altered from the originally approved 18-inch tall stone-faced planter to a lower height (6-12 inches) and that stucco could be used instead of the stone. The applicant novr wishes the PEC to reconsider allowing for the pots t0 remain in place of the planter. Therefore, the request belng heard today ls to modify the landscape plan assoclated with the prevlously approved exterlor alteratlon for the Slifer Building to allow for the two potted plants to be substltuted for the planter. rir. srAFF REcoMMENpATtoNS The staff is recommending denlal of this request. Although we do believe that the applicant's addition to the Slifer Building is avery positivJimprovement which benefits the Village, the staff feels lhat the installation of th'e originally approved planter is theprefered design solution. The staff also feels that lhe hooiiications to the planter suggested by the PEC at the August 24th meeting would be an acceptabte solution and would not appear lo require any modificationi to be made to ihe window. These suggestions included: 1. excavating._deeper lhan originally intended to plant lhe evergreen, yet not inlerfere with the window that has been instaried crose to gEae; ' 2- reducing the planter wall height from 18 inches to 6-12 inches above grade; 3. to atlow stucco to be used (matching existing) instead of stone on the face of. the planter wall. n*tranalrFq.&l I walls located in the front height, located on Lot 10,B, Vail Village Ridge/2692 rtina Lane. and The T E*$gFy ich exceed 3 feet in of the Town as for the Weimann t 8.A request for a wall construction of two Applicant: Planner: Hanns Tim Devlin Tim Devlin presented the request, regarding the stability of the hillside residence. safety concerns Lane as well Diana Donovan slated that the ng sh not be junipers, but should include plants such as salisberry and erry wiih root systems. Dalton Williams motioned to ove the request per staff memo and Diana Donovan's suggestion of scape change, with Je n seconding the motion. uest with the afore-A vote was taken and it unanimous 6-0 to approve th mentioned condition of plants being used on the te areas. F ight variance from Section 18.58.020 to o A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved exlerior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge StreeUPart of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Planner: I . n6ii and Beth Slifer,.-+ ;:Tim Devlin : '; Tim Devlin reviewed the staff memo wilh the Board. Ned Gwathmey, representing the applicant, asked that the request be considered. Kathy Langenwalter motioned to deny the request because the planter was an important oart of the The planter sh-o-uld be built as-Ll!:z--ll/-LYr=+:-Ler 's' rvv !4rsrrrve vJ rr'v ' -' I I inally proposed 91 modified to decrease the height and allow stucco to be used;to 10. 11. A request for an amendme VailZoning Code. to Chapter 18.57 Employee busing for the Town of Applicant: Planner: Town of V Andy TABLED TO Discussion ol recommendations Meeting. C meetings made at the recent Speak Up PLANNING AND EIIYIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEENNG v rl TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department September2g, 1992 l-r-eluesl to.modify the tandscaping plan associated with the previoustyapproved exterior arteration proiosit'tor tne sner auiroing, ido -ti,on;' StreeVPart of Lots e anO C,'ebcl 5, v"iiViff.g, First Filing. Applicant: Planner: Rod and Beth Stifer Tim Devlin on February 24,1992, tle-fEg approved an exterior arteration and a site coveragevariance request for the srifer Buir'ding. conrrir.tion on the project is nowsubstantially compreted,^and at this time tne ippricant is requesting the pEC approve amodification to the approved randscapJpilan. Speciricarry, ti-re afpii""nt i, proposing todelete an 18-inch tall stone-faced plantei, '"nicn *"r to be consiructed immediatelysouth of the addition's entrance. door. ih" piunting area in this pranter was to be ;ffi',f,'filflt":"::'"tt reet' rhe appricanipiopoies instead to'pi"., e to s ported As a part of the redevet.oOmell p{oigc!, the appticant removed an existing NorwayMapte from rheir DroDerty ano initaiteo'tiie d|roueo rown of viir-di'i""ir.ape MasrerPlan paving on a'portion oi th" prp;r,y';htf,n"y o*n adjacenr ro the buirding. Inlglillt".,installing the pavers,'thd apiricints constructed an 18-inch tail, stone-facedpranter in the area between the addittbir "nolnu ore House,s exterior deck wail. Thenet plantins area in this pranrer.is sg ;q"il [Jt. n rr"*uiing;it;fi and rowgrowing junipers have been insta[ed ilthi.;i;il.r. BACKGROUND The following in a chronology of events pertaining to this planter: February 24, 1992:, The pEc approved an exterior arteration and site coverage. variance.for the Stifer buitding. ffre fanosc"p; ;t"; that wasapproved provided for the 18-incn tat stoneiacS;ptanter tnatthe applicant now wishes to substitute tfre potteO pLnb for. Anevergreen tree was to be installed in tne planter. - / July 13, 1992: August 24,1992: September 28,1992 A request to modity the landscape plan was heard by the pEC to replace the planter in question with potted plants. The general consensus of the PEC was that the original proposal should be implemented and the planter built as designed. The applicant requested to table this item until August so that a suitable solution could be reached, and the request to table was granted by the PEc. At this meeting, the applicant proposed to add potted ptants to the area in question instead of building the ptanter. The pEC was in agreement that the applicant needed to comply with the original landscape plan that had been approved, but would allow for a modification to be made to the proposed planter so that the new window that is slightly above grade would not have to be moved. In constructing the addition, the applicant has installed a window which extends nearly to the ground on the north elevation ol the bay window addition. lt was suggested by the PEC that the bottom of the planter could be excavated deeper and a tree planted without any exterior modifications being made to the building. Also, the PEC agreed that the ptanter coutd be altered from the originally approved 18-inch tall stone-taced planter to a lower height (6-12 inches) and that stucco could be used instead of the stone. The applicant now wishes the PEC to reconsider allowing for the pots to remain in place of the planter. Therefore, the request belng heard today ls to modlty the landscape plan assoclated wlth the prevlously approved exterlor alterailon for the sllfer Buildtng to ailow for the two potted ptants to be substltuted for the planter. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff is recommending denlal of this request. Allhough we do believe that the applicant's addition to the Slifer Building is a very positive improvement which benefits the Village, the staff feels that the installation of the originally approved planter is theprefered design solution. The staff also feels lhat the modifications to the planter suggested by the PEC at the August 24th meeting would be an acceptable solution and would not appear to require any modifications to be made to the window. These suggestions included: 1- excavating deeper than originally intended to plant the evergreen, yet not interlere with the window that has been installed close to gAde; 2- reducing the planter wall height from 18 inches to 6-12 inches above grade; 3. to allow stucco to be used (matching existing) instead of stone on the face of the planter wall. p.ali|r.rEb[cr.S28 A request for a wall construction of two height, located on Lot 10, ht variance from Section 18.58.020 to walls located in the front t*$gPy ch exceed 3 leet in r Lane. tr h' L Applicant: Planner: Hanns and The Town Vail Tim Devlin Tim Devlin presented the request,ing safety concerns of the Town regarding the stability of the hillside residence. na Lane as well as for the Weimann Diana Donovan stated that the not be junipers, but should include plants such as salisberry and root systems. Dalton Williams motioned to the request per staff memo and Diana Donovan's suggestion of Andscape change, with Je unanimous 6-0 to approve seconding the motion. A vote was taken and it with the afore- mentioned condition of plants being used on the areas. with 9. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge StreeUPart ol Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth SliferPlanner: Tim Devlin Tim Devlin reviewed the staff memo with the Board. Ned Gwathmey, representing the applicant, asked that the request be considered. Kathy Langenwalter motioned to deny the request because the planter was an important part of the exterior alteration and site coverage variance granted by the PEC. The planter should be built as originally proposed or modified to decrease the height and allow stucco to be used; to be completed by Thanksgiving 1992. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion, with an unanimous vote 6-0 to deny the request as submitted. 10.A request for an Vail Zoning Code. Applicant: Planner: Town of V Andy TABLED TO 11.Discussion of recommendations regardi Meeting. to Ghapter 18.57 Employee for the Town of 12 meetings made at the recent speak up PLANNING AND EUtr]RONMENTAL COMMISSION iIEETING IER ONS OR (303) 476-1612 PROBLE}IS REGARDXNG THIS TAX, PLEASE HL OUo' IF YOU HAVE ANY CAITIT FOR ABBY OR ro: FROTTi RE DATE: NUT1BER OF FAGES (INCLUDTI{G trOVER): FAx # 4la-ztu- F$t d$IL> >fa ,m T0 4?9?166 fFx ee# eEi - *'/, T.a.,r. fih.' ",F rLA+ i Wv] FLhr-+TE4 l-tAr-+tr4p.ts- {_?e.|,atl eg* E x } t+f r,*JcrTUFFJ i7ahJili 4.urav4' i9fa-v =F LF ft = _!tt =t\ _l +l q) tari P 4x4 lhti'a (e):ta]ir Ft-q+ (rl' --- -+r*@ .\34 I .-,?'s; *"7 P. E] Bl.ttqrJt tJ t9',?-' * +,6,|FatFH +epFFTltlp1ffi ----- ?Er'FrFFr Ftu?-F+ aH T+ryH 1e gawTvsas , rft H ?li+trt-f (-rff.) ^F'^a?Hro;v-f C.rVtf)' "}i - -15'\-t=' Lt\ : fiJprTrLl. E-E+t-rEF> HFTSU _ l4-PQr.lE l-r t-rH Tf+F llJlEE -F.{F+flp-{av fr1wL- aF' ' fuiFrr-r?-f , t4l,p Td.JiuL+f ,,FFTTEAH# AHID HPTE ,' FarJTE Ta vte F*u=;v F++e+tr w1F+,HUF,$'f,Hra'-24 F+F E.a-rAbl I I { u1,,[:'D g\.c.+F e a -=-____.__ I ilrT -,i..'..-.F.l'lL" t V-PHHft 4+uF4EFhv# +AIaVlEF vFWrcfrhfr?- A(a *r,, -Fitr,+Fep* T1+FU41r E v?p.wtt- ?p'veg,-fFlf=Fil f?tT.aV. flA+tEF f'tf4Fl TEFJ ]?tA1+TF4FlAUu€4.t[- {I1E.{ela-g1+-tra x.r,'t I r,taoTurrrJ l'PF,hJ, 4.vr Ftuts1 Ar*, t +l r$ +l q) lafl l..lL 4*b c WrtJ,.L. {+3 {o tt.ntr- (.lt T? -- -_-ErF.' - r 4/+n p14r1a+tQ iilAlJ-, F a)J?ts1tat-l * frv hEpaa.**frF e{.w{f I 't t-l- L $ .ES.l ). tr I t, t- 7. $-Id {}tr! ilF t_l$ .= \t _l (r +ov noe$ eg, r il -i*r"+ tvo ?ryJ lr-tpg -ra a*vff tJahtaw a*veft. P.tf { rr-iv' btQa\ ftae ulP *He + eauvJn?.eol EtJ Tt"'t'd.iLEl'{EI'ta-+? Fofu 4'. 1" 6T tl+ lkl;- -..--...-.,, , . --. .-- T-qlFL r'' gs-- - - i,v.Eh,e Itj(l? ?-'*or;E't-1 +euEF l$\.?€f, F ----F r:l _tt rJ@ :rfr= II*,=E STREET Lg7g1- .sL* Attl G'-tvf'"'r) Hse-b -.EA. +itr-v At oFFIttL8.PEA|4 yat (t-]. vJat'i ZffE*?.*^lufJtk 7L*;. lL.- t - ,---I bbJALB. iF-t'. t? fTft; '. -: tPt+Ai..i EF t .tr BA{? .l Rupr"+Tfre- -AFI!"F.P-lt--|'-J.a-+ Exr+1,".1*lil ParclJl ?F.HE}J vatTl*4Lli5 'tfr.Ot-t-lp lzz411''r-'lHFE.Hhbt AL HALttrE 1'4 X F h7:6 Tp '# Ttr * rp,PVst A.rp €*t+11+.f (TYF,) Ir ETr.-rJeP H€T+LB ;-iiTil THE !il1ETB-.i4L. cFf]-l WV EF " ar*lI-f I t1F? TA.p+,Vt*.ijF l.r++ F.pE'. Ta ?t+hP:*E;w AcaE+*i hL+fe._.-ae E. +avnteF- 'E'E*IO|+ ?- aF'JQ 11 ,*.---+ $flfi+. {r9'xr.)--'}-,-----:ffi'ft.+r.,G"* *4, aWU =fl+{4l4i_l't_Y-F-l :r,-- ?frjfri$td.Mrgl#1.4 4.ur?Fp.' Afe ,'*,^n# eXE nFt& 41 a----'Jalf-l4L ( Fr-Ur Fuu.zrrl- {)'o I (tlt t DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED On February 24, 1992, the PEC approved an exterior alteration and a Site coverage variance request lor ttre Sliler Building. Construction on the project is now substantially completed, and at this time the applicant is requesting the PEC approve a modificatiori to the approved landscape plan, Specifically, the applicant is proposing to delete an 18-inch tallstone-faced planter, whicfr was to be c{nstructed immediately south of the addition's entran6g door. The planting area in this planter was to be approximately 8 square feet. The applicant proposes instead to place 2 to 3 potted plants in this area. As a part ol the redevelopment project, the applicant removed an existing Norway Mapld from their property and installed the approved Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan paving on a portion of the property which they own adjacent to the building' In addition to installing the pavers, the applicants constructed an 18-inch tall, stone{aced planter in the area between the addition and the Ore House's exterior deck wall. The net planting area in this planter is 39 square feet. A flowering crabapple and low growing junipers have been installed ln his planter. BACKGROUND The following in a chronology of events pertaining to this planter: Hreoruaryz4'1eez:JHff #il:"sfl "Trfi l:ll:tiT*kxxx:'ffi"ffii1k approved provided for the t8-inch tall stone-faced planter that the applicant now wishes to substitute the potted plants for. An svergreen tree was to be installed in the planter- *"; i:: ( --_:=::: To: Planning and Environmental Commission b ik:+r't a t* 4 4'n'+/' 'FROM: Community Development Department q y*;, . ,, , DATE: septemberzS, 1992 ,-,*/ +'i',l 741'ta41 w{"'1tt(( p '1.';..-; :'', , '|: / SU&JEGT: A reguest to modify the land/caping plan associated with tre previously "pp'on"i"iti;iG;;6;Zd6fiiiG srirei Buikling, zdo arioge' ^ -#:."^,. a,;t;r,./' Street/Part ol Lots B and C, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. N 4 frl't nt.Y I ^ .'l'/,Applicant Rod and Beth Slifer fi- '>u|y "Planner: Tim Devlin il. o' ilt. July 13, 1992:A request to modify the landscape San was heard by the PEC to replace the planter in question with potted planb. The general @nsensus of the PEC was that the orbinal poposal should be imflemented and lhe planter bulh as designed. The applicant requested to table this item until August so that a suitarble solution could be reached, and the request to table was granted by the PEC. At this meeting, the applicant proposed to add potted plants to the area in question instead ol building the planter. The PEG was in agraemenl that the applicant needed to comply with the original landscape plan that had been approved, but would allow for a modification to be made to he proposed planter so that the neu, window that is slightly above grde wouH not have to be moved. ln constructing the addition, the applicant has installed a window which extends nearly to the ground on the notth elevation of the bay window addition. lt was suggested by the PEC fiat the bottom of the ptanter could be excavated deeper and a tree planted wifrout any exterior modifications being made to the building. Also, the PEG agreed that the planler could be altered from the originally approved l8-inch tallstone-faced planter to a lower height (6-12 indtes) and that stucco could be used instead of the stone. August 24,19€.22 September 28, 1992 The applicant now wishes the PEC to reconsider allowing for the pots to remain in place of the planter. Therefore, the request belng heard today ls to modlfy the landseape plan assoclated wlth the prevlously approved exterlor alteratlon for the Slller Bulldlng to allow for the two potted plants to be substltuted for the planter. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff is recommending denlal ol this request. Although we do believe hat the applicant's addition to the Sliler BuiEing is a very positive improvement which benefits the Village, the staff feels tl'rat the installation of the originally approved planbr is the prefened design solution. The staff also feels that the modifications to the planter suggested by fre PEC at the August 24th meeting would be an acceptable solution and would not appear to require any modiftcations to be made to the window. These suggestions included: 1. excavating deeper fian originally Intended to plant the evergreen, yet not interfere nith the window that has been installed close to grade; 2. reducing the planter wall height from 18 inches to 6-12 inches above grade; 3. to allow stucco to be used (matching existing) instead of stone on th€ face of. the plantef wall, ffiri'ro.\.n ' flfe 't {,1 /'tc rfl wuris agreed the item would be continued to the September 14, 1992 and by theEnvironmenCommission meeting and that the staking would be morning of the 4th. variance to allow a new at Lot 15, Vail Shasta Place. & Peggy Hepler Tim Devlin reviewed the with the Plan Commission, stating that the applicant a setback variance on the primary/secondary unit. Staff generally supported the proposal but that the applicant shift the location of the house four feet to the West to setback encroachment. The addition ot a restricted secondary unit is seen aspect of the project. There was discussion following, whereby members felt that this variance may when he bought the lot what thebe a grant ot special limitations would be. , as the owner , the addition of employee housing unit was seen as a trade-off to the se variance. After more , Chuck Crist made a motion to approve the per the staff memo with the of a sixth condition, that an employee unit must be built if this house as proposed per the staff endation. Greg Amsden seconded the on. A vote was taken and the grf passed 6-1, Gena Whitten opposing. Gena stal the motion was that she felt when a person bought her reason for voting they should have to within the zoning guidelines for that property. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved exterior alteration proposal lor the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge StreeUPart of Lots B and C, Lot 5, VailVillage First Filing. Tim Devlin reviewed the item with the Commission, skting that the applicant was represented by Ned Gwathmey, who was in attendance. Ned stated that Rod Slifer had sent his apologies for not being present at this meeting. The new plan presented was to add additional potted plants to the area in question. The Commission was in agreement that a plan had originally been approved and that the applicant needed to comply with the decision. After some discussion it was agreed by the Commission that the applicant needed to comply with ttre original plan as approved. Ned agreed to submit revised plans to staff for their review. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 6, to remove a previous condition of approvalfor Unit No. 30, Phase l, Vail Village Inr/l00 East Meadow Drivel/ail Village Plaza Condominiums.Applicant: BSCPlanner: Mike rank Cicero Mike Mollica reviewed the request Commission. The applicant, Frank Cicero, A request for a Village Second Applicant: Planner: applicant was in attendance. south side of his property to ||m Applicant: Planner: and his representative, Ken Commission. They gave an Rod and Beth Slifer Tim Devlin attendance and addressed the history of the unit in question, stating fu, &r'> % .:A request to modify the randscaping pran associated-with the previousry approvedexterior arteration prooosar for ttr" 5rii"r'briroin'g, zso Bridge streevpart ot Lots B andC, Lot 5, VailViilage First fifing.- vr'v' Ps"r'..'Y Appticant: Rod and geth SiterPlanner: Jill Kammerer tlnla" i l I I 1 1 I 1 ! I I \.. Jill presented the request to the commission. A discussion foilowed regarding whattvpe or tandscapino rhat shourd or r"quirJ in ;;t;tilJffiH; Bridse streer.The orisinarpran w1s ro,llve il;;;g;;;;'t'i# pranted in the phnter. rhe possibirityof planted pots that wourd be r"rou"o"in iiie'iinte, was discussed. A po, of theCommission was taken al-d lhe gr"uoi.o"r.nr1rr.rry3, that the original proposalshould be impremented. (athy 6il*"ri;;tated that since sne ilai not aore to goon site visits she would abstain tr.rt"."rr""ting or voting. Ned Grathmey, thearchitect on the project, asked tn. commirl-ion ; tn" item courd be tabred at this timeto the tirst meeting in August, so he courd wortr wittr tt " "ppr"*iin'6i.,ing up with asuitable solution' Dalton-william. rio" "-rotion to table this item and reschedule tothe August 10, 1gg2 me_eting. .leff dwen s".Jno"o the motion. A vote was takenand the motion passed s-0, -ritn x"tn/ iuni.nil"rr"r abstaining. A discussion wasl.:l1l:g"fl,.tg the newspaper stands tocate-o in rront or the ore House. rt was ir?:i;j;!..at Rod srirer contacr tne vairijairv and vair rrair anJ asr nem ro remove f"tr"3;,1,3,ilt i1,:T*ff:J::Hlr.,J::1.1*':.0^g,IttrI ly ?r,1eez, meerins. Kathy (1t A vote was taken and the motioni"*i:lgy"._,:lg"j-l.t"r{il;ld;,i=,.Lfi J-".,",i'Uih"t^yu,,X;: unanimously, 6-0. the motion. 9.A request for a work session for allow.the shifting of the buitding amendment to an at The Valtey, development plan to lVl1700 Btock ofBuffehr Creek Road. Applicant: Ed ZneimerPlanner: Andy Knudtsen TO JULY aTTHPEC MEETING 10. for satellite dish antonnas to be Tract D, Vait Village Sth \J' TABLED TO 27TH PEG MEETING E /fiil,qcrs o Kathy Langenwalter moved that Spraddle Creek Subdivision, an t for wall and road grade variances for the 40 parcel located nonh and east of the tial conflict Main Vail[-70 interchange and east of Creek Livery, more specifically described above, be approved per staff memo, and moved the variances expire February 11, 1994, if construction was not that date, and diligently pursued to completion. Greg Amsden Chuck Crist abstaining, due mot10n.was passed by a vote of 5-0-1, with a for the Slifer Building. 230 Bridee Street/Part of l,ots B and C. Lot 5. Vail Villaee First Filine. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Jill Kammerer Jill Kammerer explained the request. Kristan Pritz clarified that the newspaper boxes referenced in staff's memorandum were to be faced with wood. Jill srated staff recommended approval of the rcquests. Ned Gwathmey, the applicants' architect, asked for clarification on the building height. The planning staff and the applicant were in concurrence on the building height. He also asked why the applicants should be made to pay $1,200 to the Streetscape Fund for newspaper boxes. He believed that, since the newspapers received the benefit, they should pay for their own boxes. Rod Slifer explained he had been required to pay almost $20,000 into the parking fund, had needed to provide a title report, a model of the proposed renovation, along with other requirements, and the costs of those items had added up. He objected to paying $1,200 for newspaper stands to be located on his property. He stated he had never approved the placement of the existing newspaper boxes on his properry in the first place. He did not want the stands there, and believed it was onerous to require him to pay for something which reduced his property rights. Kristan responded that the Town was rying to work with the newspapers to have them enclose the stands in wood, in conformance with the Town qf Vail Streetscape Master Plan, but indicated the newspaper companies had indicated a reluctance to do this. She stated the current boxes negatively impacted the streetscape, and were therefore an important part of the improvements. Jill added the Sreetscape Master Plan set fonh that implementation of the specific improvements would occur through a public/private partnership. Ned reiterated that the newspapers were the beneficiaries of the enclosures, and they should pay for the enclosures. Kristan mentioned there were freedom of speech issues surrounding the Town's ability to require the newspapers to move and improve the appearance of the newspaper boxes. However, the Town was still pursuing the option of the newspaper companies also parricipating in the upgrading of the newspaper boxes. Rod again stated his property rights were limited because of the placement of the boxes. He also suggested that, because the entire area benefitted from having the boxes improved, everyone should pay ) Planning and Environmental Commission . February 24,1992. Page 4 a equally. He did not find it appropriate that he should pay simply because he chose to upgrade his property. Greg Amsden inquired as to whether the Town staff designated how the funds placed into the Streetscape Fund were to be used. Kristan replied they did. Greg indicated his preference to designate the funds the applicant would contribute be spent in another manner other than on newspaper dispenser boxes. Mike Mollica indicated it was not imperative to have the boxes in this location. Kristan added the Town would prefer to see the boxes relocated from this area. The Sueetscape Master Plan called out centralized box locations in the Village, one of which is proposed in this area. Ned asked that the reference in the memo be changed in the requirement for landscaping from a Norway Maple to a specimen tree. Jill agreed to that change. Diana Donovan clarified it was to be a deciduous specimen (large) tree placed in the planter, not an evergreen. The applicant and staff agreed. Jill said the applicant had indicated he would work with Sherry Dorward when the project was reviewed by the DRB to finalize the plant material to be installed. Ned indicated the applicant would be responsible for maintenance of the plant material in the planters, including the plant material in that portion of the planter located on Town of Vail property. Gena Whinen agreed with Mr. Slifer on the newspaper boxes, and believed the newspapers should pay for the boxes, as she believed it was a cost of their doing business. Greg Amsden asked that the requested contribution to the Streetscape Fund be used to fund a different streetscape improvement. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the applicants could move the existing ree to a new location, Rod indicated it was his intent to do this, and he was working with the Town Landscape Architect, Todd Oppenheimer, to identify a location to ffansplant the tree. Kathy agreed rvith applicants on the newspaper boxes, and indicated she was concerned about granting a variance and having a dollar requirement associated with approval. She did not like the appearance of "buying" a variance. She believed it was, however, more appropriate to require additional money amounts for improvements in conjunction with an exterior alteradon. Kristan clarified that the donation to fte Streetscape Fund was part of the exterior alteration requsst, and was not associated with the requested variance. Dalton Williams said he did not realize "private-public partnership" meant private parties subsidized newspapers through contributions of use of land. He also believed the requested Streetscape contribution should not be used for the newspaper boxes, as that money should come from the newspaper companies. Dalton also agreed with Kathy about equating variances with money. Chuck Crist liked the proposed addition, and believed it would be a pleasant addition to Bridge Street. He supported changing the newspaper boxes to wood, but was confused by the term "contribution," as the amount appeared to be a tax. I Planning and Environmental Commission . February 24,1992 ' Page 5 J 'o Kathy indicated she believed there were streetscape improvements which the applicant could provide on his properry. In other requests, there had not been on-site improvements applicants could make, and in those instances, it was appropriate to ask for the contribution. She believed this applicant was improving the sree$cape on his property, and did not see a need for an additional monetary contribution. Diana Donovan could approve a $1,200 contribution to the general Sreetscape Fund, but not to be specifically used to enclose the newspaper boxes in wood. Diana did not believe the new landscaping proposed compensated for the loss of a mature nee. She was concerned the Town was losing the softness of its streetscape as more and more buildings were built up to the property line. Regarding the newspaper dispensers, she thought the Town was unable to require the dispensers to be changed by the newspaper companies. She could support a donation of $1,200 to the Streetscape Fund in general, as there were some impacts of the project on the sueetscape, in the form of additional shade and increase in building size. However, she did believe the renovation was attractive. After clarifying that the l8-inch high planters proposed to be consfucted by the applicant were seating height, she concluded by stating the $1,200 donation, in her mind, was essential. Chuck asked what else the Streetscape Fund was used for. Kristan said it was also used for benches, lighting, etc., but staff had specified the newspaper boxes in this instance because they were a high priority item for the Town, and were currently located on the applicant's property. Diana believed there would be a direct benefit to the owner to provide the funds for the boxes, as the public would benefit- Dalton already saw public-private cooperation in the applicants' proposal, and believed the Town was asking for too much. Kristan reminded the Commissioners that other, more modest proposals, had made contributions to the Town for sfieetscape improvements in the past. Rod Slifer asked for consistency, and suggested a standard fee per square foot of expansion. Gena believed the additional shade was something to be concerned with. Although it was minor in this request, and this was a positive addition, Bridge Street was becoming increasingly shaded from the sun. Jill Kammerer explained the formula used to determine the requested amount to be contributed to the Sneetscape Fund. After her explanation, Johannes Faessler, owner of the Sonnenalp Hotel, stated the formula could be prohibitive for a large remodel, and believed this was a tax with another name. He extrapolated that it was costing approximately $6 per square foot addition to contribute to the Streetscape Fund. After funher discussion of the formula used and staff's position, Chuck Crist moved to approve the request for a site coverage variance in Commercial Core I for the Slifer BuiJding, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing, per staff's memorandum. Kathy Langenwalter seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously, 6-0. Planning and Environmental Commission . February 24,1992. Page 6 , I Chuck Crist moved to approve the request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing, per staff's memorandum, with the following elements in the proposall 1. Approval of site coverage variance by the PEC. 2. Payment of parking fee in the amount of $19,672.00 prior to Town issuance of a building permit per the Town's amortization program. Dalton Williams seconded the motion. The exterior alteration was approved, 4-2, with Diana Donovan and Greg Amsden dissenting. Diana disagreed with the exclusion of condition 3, regarding the $1,200 contribution from rhe motion. After the vote, Ned Gwathmey stated the applicants would voluntarily make the connibution to the Streetscape Fund on the condition it not be associated with the newspaper boxes (i.e., to be used for paving), and would continue to work on it. Diana Donovan accepted the offer. 5. Discussion regarding staff decision concerning the conditions of approval for the previouslv apDroved parking. common area and height variances for the Sonnenalp Hotel. 20 Vail Road/Lots I and K. Vail Villaqe First Filing. Applicant Johannes Faessler Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained the revisions, as illustrated on rhe plans, and shown in the staff memorandum. Staff believed the change to the fue access to be a positive benefit. Kristan Pritz explained the plans were brought back to confirm the staff's position with rhe PEC. Staff saw the movement of the Meadow Drive access gate as beneficial. Diana Donovan asked what size the trees in the planter were proposed to be. Andy said the proposal called for 6-8' rees. Diana requested that, if the entrance to the Swiss Chalet were not addressed in "x" number of years, that the applicant be required to improve the area. Johannes Faessler, the owner of the Sonnenalp Hotel, stated that a specific year would not be the right approach, as it was his goal to work with the Town when it made streetscape improvements to the area. staff was not requiring that the plaza be brought back in "x" years. Staff believed the gate work was in place of the plaza consrrucrion. Kristan said this was brought so staff could ensure their interpretation of the conditions was appropriate, and if the Commissioners did not have concerns, no action was necessary. Planning and Environmental Commission . February 24, 1992 , Page 7 o /a/a f*buu/ FROM: DATE: SU&JECT: MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department July 13, 1992 A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with he previously approved exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building' 230 Bridge StreeVPart of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Mllage First Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST On February 24,1992, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance request for the Slifer Building. Construction on this project is now substantially completed. At this time, the applicant is requesting th-s PEC approve a modiftcation to the approved landscaping plan. Specifically, the applicant proposes to delete a portion of the brick paverg, which wrap around a planter to connect it to a drain inlet, and to delete an l8-inch tiall stone- faced planter, which was proposed to be constructed immediately south of the addition's enlrance door. The planting area in this planter was to be I square feet. As a part of the redevelopment proposal, he applicants removed an existing Nonray Maple lrom their propefi and installed the approved Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan paving on a portion of the property which they own adjacent to the building. ln addition to installing tfie pavers, the applicants constructed an 18-inch tall, stone-faced planter in he area between the addition and fie Ore House's exterior dining deck wall. The net planting area in this planter is 39 square feet. A flowering crabapple and low growing junipers have has been installed in this Planter. In constructing the addition, the applicants have installed a window which extends almost to lhe ground on the north elevation of the bay window addition." lf the PEC requkes the applicanl to conform with the originally approved plan, his window will need to be removed and the area where the window was located will need to be infilled belore construction of the planter could occur. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION We believe the applicant has constructed a very positive addition which benefits the Village. However, staff still believes tre installation of the previously approved 18-inch tall, stone-faced planter in this area is the preferred design solution. However, if he Planning and Environmental Gommission approves the landscape plan modification per the applicant's request, staff would recommend the following condition of approval: 1. The applicant shall provide a minimum of two flower pots during the summer in conjunction with this approval. The pots in which the planb will be located shall be a minimum of 2 to 3 foot in diameter/square and approximately 3 feet in height. (The applicant has already complied with this comment. Staff would like to insure that he planters are placed outside the doonrvay each summer.) ry- ryrb 'ze7ez*t ,ri"hU @- dliA Ot* ; Y/i;'6' am ''h'h/ caudk remo461 % -;;';;*.," car '.t'a,*a-;!czj and/erc/' T4--;; * bg uMntr-n;Fmt - 9g-' 7/nfu.4 /of fu-^4, i,,b/.o t)-tLM -^"n*o.*3 e*/.,f?A W'y,+ pdae'- -fd//"fd 4/ -nof .Ka!ur^ f W*:a' stpod fr 'v5#- */- - M u//ec/a> u:2" da&.- frd Sl/. ^ *,tatn*/ ,*7r; t) zondaur-- at/7r'a'zzhrc (fr{ )*+t** - n a)nk'-, V/a,rtkc /ft?3) ttan/d ,-/A^OCy r&uuf_% /b",A_ f4 k/Arf h /aZ/,4 /4, ^g4- - /tlz- i;' Ur'q r'lt r^zd "ul /r,l /'/a /ae'- ,f daa, ooful rfusl - zrq ?b4/ ft{/es //'4.12 - Od"q )" D4'r -tr?/@f 7b thfu767 "'J n* nA/ *'/tto a"a'2xn* b,red - trug*714*07 4.!' rfu a 94ts 'q"'u" lec -- fuffi2,ft?,#%'n?f'#lo*atfu/oaff," 6fp.OZF -' ,, ftr1 { f/4.n/4- cau lana)ru e@- fr ftbQ{rytr*f fr@ }A#- ' fu/r+": motx rbvff:3q W,&6-a ,E*za *u 44&tT July 8, 1992 Ms. Jill Kammerer, Senior planner Community DeveJ-opment ?own of Vail 75 South Frontage RoadVaiI, Colorado 81 657 Re:Slifer Building Modifications Dear JiIl; Per our discussions of the last week,built according to the approved plans 1. The Slifers wished to use a approved by DRB in the last the Slifer Building \,/aswith three exceptions: Crab Apple which was rneeting. 2. The planter to the right of the entry door was replacedwith large pots which are a greater area than theplanter would have been. 3. The Pavj.ng pattern on the North was slightly altered aL ,.the request of Greg HalI accordins to ttre-c6";;;;i;; t;,Ii|.ll},i:,4,facilitate the drainage and snow removal, in the ll[b\ l]Lr field. Unfortunately this conversation did not getback to us so we could inform Cornmunity Developrnent. we reguest that these minor arterations be approved by whateverBoards need their approval on behalf of the Slifers. Don't hesitate to call if you have questions or need additionalinformation. '1 Project Application ero1""r tl"r"' J/l Project Description:j) l')tt, /0y'rt /a,ut::, r> /. ,/ '^Date /,/// /1 Contact Person and Phone Owner, Address and Phone: Architect, Adclress and Phone: ,rt/er/ tiu ,-rl. rt:onfs, /a/ Legal Description:Lol Block Com ments: ,k, ts 8/b5 4ra-tu 7 I 6/ rx /)i?/'lo/ i '/t Design Review Board n/, r..^nero //// I J-- - DISAPPROVAL ,"ll':'i (iull,lri,:tf ,i:'Wt, r'.,t a ; i;,2 ltfrr::,"' t tk|:/' f<- .y'dt:w t --------- Su mmary: E statr Approval June 26, 1992 Ms. Jill Kamnerer, Planner #1Mr. Mike Mollica, Senior pl_anner Town of VaiI Community Development75 South Frontage Road WestVaiI, CO 81657 Re: Slifer Tree Dear Jill- and Mike: The slifers called and want to substi.tute a specimen crabappletree in lieu of the aspen-cluster that was discussed andpresumably approved by DRB. The orlginal plan called for aspeclmen deciduous tree, so we are going back to the originalproposal They have been informed that the crabapple wilr not grow as fastas the aspens and they w111 not, therefore, be forced to pruneto keep light and sun into their new windows. rn addition, thecrabapple Lree is not as messy as the aspen. I understand the Staff will_ considerthey/you will catl if you need moreproblem with this. Slncerely, thls Tuesday, and hopeinformatlon or have a .f ft{ !' '; '\ht'' jf-'\ ht,'-;!',, dt.'- .^: t- '.'-' ,; /)y'&4"1r': ,.'' irn''Joi , :1,/t2-':.' 'r J; THMEY/PRATT CHITECTS, P.C. ward M.Gwathmey EmG/ad copy to: Beth and Rod Slifers o fila : S/tfr,_ aHr" ,tFl';.. ,1,:, ," J,\\ ^uo1. HW . t!;!,!J.) May 4, 1992 Public Servlce Corpany of Colorado P.O. Box 430 Hinturn. CO 81645 Re: Slifer Building 230 Eriilge Street, Vail, Colorailo 81657 To tlhon It llay Concern: Folloring a reeting at the above aildress sitb Gary SalberS (PSCO Leailville),Eric Jobnson (Architect) anil the Contractor (George Sbaeffer Construction),it ras deterlined that tbe originaL intent of the perrit drarings B-25-92, could be coopleted over tbe existing 3" gas line in Britlge Street. An open pit insptction of ths excavateil area arouoil the lanilscape plaater reveaLed the gas line joggirig around tbe Ore House patio foundation and un<ler-lapping the proposed 18" high stone planter by three feet. A shallow grade bean ,as Droposecl, doreled into the patio anil bay rindow foundations spanning over the pipe area, suppoititrg the stone and retaining the lanilscaping. The concrete antl rebar bean roulcl be engineered to supportitself should undernining be requirecl at a futule date for repairs. The contractor ie required to call PSCO should any nicks or other disturbances of the pipe occur iluring construction. The foregoiDg represents ry understanding of Datters <tiscussed and decisionsreached. If the interpretation of others varies, please inforn us inwriting. Sincerely, AR}IOLD/GT'ATIIMEY/PRATT ARCHITECTS, P.C. Jil1 Kanperer - Town of Vail Rod Slifer - Ouner George Shaeffer Construction Planning Ilepartnent - Contlactor Johnson, Architect oo tpr rygeJ_l--- o +' SraAc belh^ T.@. wril t IT,o. wrll t 1r- B.o. wttl Ail(e q{rdit +" et"ne w | +1"t-\ ;;*/ z*$k- fL+.Nl 't/+u F=:=.!.r..!{ cut s{u^e- cY grlda 3rradr- lo&h'r.\ PFfif*1t- \ aft J q?+ Itti^r U ( t tf hrto,^, flrl.) -(ffi'J n7t'ers w g'ilffi +L|trF. A.rlt-OtFlcz 2\o Prl+" Sf r<e'zt- Lr,"f'rrerya,, Ptt"+".. ,Utt t v f +le> Fle s$px8,#:a.-lf r'!''*'t?rr,a ti/ In installments after date, for value received, f promise to payto the order of the Town of VaiL at t.he Office of t.he FinanceDirector, Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado, PROPERTY TOTT,]. PARKTNG FEE Down Payment on the unpaid First install-ment, Second instaLlment Third installnent Fourth installnent Vai1, Colorado $ # /9,672.oo 39 '19 with interest balirnce,payable in yearly $ g6of,lb due and $ 5ll4,7l due and of of s Ll7)1.et PRO.'ECI of ten percent instaLLments as payable on p4yable on payable on payable on DoLLars per annum foLlows: 4 of due and due andof$ rt is agreed that if this note is not paid when due or de6lareddue hereunder, the principal and accrued interest thereon sharr reasonable attorneyrs fees. draw interest at the rate of j.8 percent per annum, and thatfailure to make any paynent of principal or inLerest when due orany default. under any encunbrance or agreement securing this notesharr cause the whole note to become due at once, or the interestto be counted as principlar, at the option of the holder of thenote. The makers and endorsers hereof severally waivepresentment for payment, protest, notice on nonpayrnent, and ofprotest, and agree t'o any exLension of time of payment andpartial payments before, at, or after maturityr-anO :.f this noteor interest thereon is not paid when due, or -suit is brought,agree to pay aI1 reasonable costs of collection, including 6)alEfa,t* z:al! 'frtdq n- Ftvti,ce) a/ rfrrtm oate: /-/Z - ?e Rrr'eI . o - lGa Project Application Project Project Contact Name: Description: Person and Phone /t,up- /t7 (J J,'a^nfu, Arch itect, Address and Phone: - /7A -///" Owner, Address and Phone: &aru 476-)y'z/ Dale /at' bo a Part a/ Legal Descriptio n: tot /ol Z , ito.k 5 , rirtng Comments: zon" €C / Design Review Board Motion by: Seconded oy: o"" .-?'/ 1 /?22 D ISAPPROVALAPPROVAL Summary: Staff Approval FIL T COPY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 24,1992 Present Greg Amsden Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Kathy Langenwalter Dalton Williams Gena Whitten Absent Ludwig Kurz 1. A request to review the proposed Eagle Countv Backcountrv Zone District. Applicant Tom Allender, Eagle Countv Planner Planner: Mike Mollica A worksession on the above item was held prior to the official meeting. Tom Allender of the Eagle County Community Development Depanment and Rich Phelps from the United States Forest Service were in attendance to answer specific questions from the Commissioners and staff. The public hearing was called to order at approximately 2:25PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan. 1. A reouest for a conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast at 5197 Black Gore DriveAleather of Vail Condos, accordine to the plat recorded in Book 238 at Paee 678. Applicant: Linda Dula Stafi Mike Mollica Mike Mollica briefly explained the request. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use permit. Chuck Crist moved to approve the request for a conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast at 5197 Black Gore DriveAleather of Vail Condos, according to the plat recorded in Book 238 at Page 679,per the staff memo. GenaWhitten seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 6-0. Staff Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Jill Kammerer Andy Knudtsen Shelly Mello Amber Blecker Planning and Environhental Commission . February 24,1992. Page 1 t FilinApplicant: Charles RosenquistPlanner: Shellv Mello Shelly Mello explained the request. Staff recommended approval of the requesr wirh the following elements included in the proposal: l. The applicant agrees to contribute $600 to the Streetscape Fund to provide two newspaper dispensers on the Gore Creek Promenade prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. That the required parking fee be paid to rhe Town of vail parking Fund prior to issuance of a building permit.3' The applicant agrees to contribute their fair share of the expenses to correct rhe drainage problems on the east side of the Gore Creek Plaza Building. The total expense for this project is estimated at $4186. The applicant's portion is determined by his percentage ownership in the building. A development agrcement, along with a cash escrow or letter of credit, must be approved by the Town prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, should the d.rainage work not be completed prior to this time. Erich Hill represented the applicants. He asked that the condition of approval which referred to placing $600 into the Streetscape Fund be changed, as the owners preferred to add landscaping around the site. He said a specific landscape plan would be submitted at the finat DRB approval for the project. The general areas where he wanted to add landscaping were at the stair and two other locations. Diana Donovan asked if the owners would be responsible for the maintenance for the landscaping. Erich agreed ro rhat request. Diana requested that the detailing of the decks of the building to be addressed. Chuck Crist asked how much the project was estimated ro cost. Erich indicated the bar addition would be between $8-12,000, and the office was approximately $7-9,000. In addition to those figures, there would be an interior renovation. Chuck explained his question was asked in order to determine the percentage of the cost the Town was asking for in additional improvements. He said the Town had requested approximately 15-2OVo of the cost of the project. Shelly explained the rationale, sndng the amount was linked to the additional square footage being requested, not the cost of the project, and that the parking fee was automatically required by CCI zoning. Chuck responded he wanted to be aware of the cost of municipally-required improvements. Kathy Langenwalter addressed the new window and door, and stated she wanted them to look like they belonged together. In addition, she pointed out that the planter on the south side of the project needed to be addressed, and that care be taken on what was placed there, as it was an over-exposed site and very hot. Diana Donovan summarized the Commission's changes to the proposal as follows: #1 from the staff memorandum would be changed to additional landscaping, to be approved by the Plarning and Environmental Commission . February 24, 1992 . page 2 Design Review Board at final approval. #4 would be added to state the upper deck trims would be researched, and made to conform with previously-approved DRB colors. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for an exterior alteration at BIu's Restaurant, Gore Cleek Plaza Building, 193 Gore Creek Drive/Part of Block 58, Vail Village First Filing, per staff's memorandum, with the change that additional landscaping would be placed on the south side and additional landscaping on the nonh side of the project in place of the contribution to the Streetscap Fund. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 6-0. After the vote, it was requested that staff make sure the rim band on the building and railings were what was prcviously approved, and ensure the addition matched. 3. A request for wall height and road grade variances for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision. an approximatelv 40 acre parcel located north and east of the Main VailA-7O interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Liverv. Commencine at the NE corner of the SE % of the SW % of Section 5, Township 5 S" Ranee 80 W of the 6th P.M.. beine an Easle Countv Brass Cap properlv marked and set. with all bearinqs contained herein being relative to a berins of S00o 1 1'00" E between the NE comer of said SE % of the SW %. and the SE corner of said SE % of the SW % being an Eagle Countv Brass cap properlv marked and set: said NE corner of the SE % of the SW % beine the Point of Beeinnine: thence S00o11'00" E alone the east line of said SE % of the SW % of Section 5 a distance of 1320. 14 feet to the SE corner the said SE % of the SW % of Section 5: thence 589'47'48" W alone the south line of said SE % of the SW % of Section 5 a distance of 901.00 feet: thence N73o48'32" W alone I-70 ROW line a distance of 214.12 feet; thence N66o52'12" W along said ROW line a distance of 241.10 feet to a point on the west line of said SE % of the SW % of Section 5; thence N00o20'31" W alons the west line of said SE % of the SW % of Section 5 a distance of 1161.66 feet to the NW comer of the SE % of the SW % of Section 5 being an Eagle Countv brass cap properlv marked and set: thence N89o4l'12" E alone the north line of said SE % of the SW % of Section 5 a distance of 1331.07 feet to the Point of Beeinnins. Said real propenv containins 39.55 acres, more or less. Applicant: Georee N. Gillett. Jr. Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica explained this was a request for a re-approval of previously granted variances, but was basically a time extension of those variances. The original variances had lapsed; hence ttre request for the new variances. Mike informed the Commissioners that variances granted after January l, 1992 were now valid for a period of 2 years. Staff was requesting an additional condition above those conditions required at the first approval. That condition was that the variance would expire in conjunction with the final plat expiration, which will occur on February 11, 1994. Otherthan that change, the recommendation was to approve the requested variances. Planning and Environmental Commission . Fcbruary 24, 1992. Page 3 Kathy Langenwalter moved that the request for wall height and road grade variances for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision, an approximately 40 acre parcel located nonh and east of the Main Vail[-7O interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery, more specifically described above, be approved per staff memo, and further moved the variances expire February 11, 1994, if consEuction was not commenced before that date, and diligently pursued to completion. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It was passed by a vote of 5-0-1, with Chuck Crist abstaining, due to a potential conflict of interest. 4. A reouest for an exterior altcration and a site coverage variance in Commercial Core I for the Slifer Buildine. 230 Bridee Street/Part of Lots B and C. Lot 5, Vail Villaee First Filin& Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: JilI Kammerer Jill Kammerer explained the rcquest. Kristan Pritz clarified that the newspaper boxes referenced in staffls memorandum were to be faced with wood. Jill srated staff recommended approval of the requests. Ned Gwathmey, the applicants' architect, asked for clarification on the building height. The planning staff and the applicant were in concurrence on the building height. He also asked why the applicants should be made to pay $1,200 to the Streetscape Fund for newspaper boxes. He believed that, since the newspapers received the benefit, they should pay for their own boxes. Rod Slifer explained he had been required to pay almost $20,000 into the parking fund, had needed to provide a title repon, a model of the proposed renovation, along with other requirements, and the costs of those items had added up. He objected to paying $1,200 for newspaper stands to be located on his property. He stated he had never approved the placement of the existing newspaper boxes on his property in the first place. He did not want the stands there, and believed it was onerous to require him to pay for something which reduced his property rights. Kdstan responded that the Town was trying to work with the newspapers to have them enclose the stands in wood, in conformance with the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, but indicated the newspaper companies had indicated a reluctance to do this. She stated the current boxes negatively impacted the streetscape, and were therefore an important part of the improvements. Jill added the Streetscape Master Plan set forth that implementation of the specific improvements would occur through a public/private partnership. Ned reiterated that the newspapers were the beneficiaries of the enclosures, and they should pay for the enclosures. Kristan mentioned there were freedom of speech issues surrounding the Town's ability to require the newspapers to move and improve the appearance of the newspaper boxes. However, the Town was still pursuing the option of the newspaper companies also participating in the upgrading of the newspaper boxes. Rod again stated his property rights were limited because of the placement of the boxes. He also suggested that, because the entire area benefitted from having the boxes improved, everyone should pay Planning and Environmental Commission . February 24,1992. Page 4 equally. He did not find it appropriate that he should pay simply because he chose to upgrade his property. Greg Amsden inquired as to whether the Town staff designated how the funds placed into the Streetscape Fund were to be used. Kristan replied they did. Greg indicated his preference to designate the funds the applicant would contribute be spent in another manner other than on newspaper dispenser boxes. Mike Mollica indicated it was not imperative to have the boxes in this location. Kristan added the Town would prefer to see the boxes relocated from this area. The Sreetscape Master Plan called out centralized box locations in the Village, one of which is proposed in this area. Ned asked that the reference in the memo be changed in the requirement for landscaping from a Norway Maple to a specimen tree. JiU agreed to that change. Diana Donovan clarified it was to be a deciduous specimen (large) tree placed in the planter, not an evergleen. The applicant and staff agreed. Jill said the applicant had indicated he would work with Sherry Dorward when the project was reviewed by the DRB to finalize the plant material to be installed. Ned indicated the applicant would be responsible for maintenance of the plant material in the planten, including the plant material in that portion of the planter located on Town of Vail property. Gena Whitten agreed with Mr. Slifer on the newspaper boxes, and believed the newspapers should pay for the boxes, as she believed it was a cost of their doing business. Greg Amsden asked that the requested contribution to the Streetscape Fund be used to fund a different sEeetscape improvement. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the applicants could move the existing tree to a new location. Rod indicated it was his intent to do this, and he was working wirh the Town Landscape Architect, Todd Oppenheimer, to identify a location to transplant the tree. Kathy agree{ with applicants on the newspaper boxes, and indicated she was concerned about granting a variance and having a dollar requirement associated with approval. She did not like the appearance of "buying" a variance. She believed it was, however, more appropriate to require additional money amounts for improvements in conjunction with an exterior alteration. Kristan clarified that the donation to the Streetscape Fund was part of the exterior alteration request, and was not associated with the requested variance. Dalton Williams said he did not realize "private-public partnership" meanr private parties subsidized newspapen through contibutions of use of land. He also believed the requested Streetscape contribution should not be used for the newspaper boxes, as that money should come from the newspaper companies. Dalton also agreed with Kathy abour equating variances with mone y. Chuck Crist liked the proposed addition, and believed it would be a pleasant addition to Bridge Street. He supported changing the newspaper boxes to wood, but was confused by the term "contribution," as the amount appeared to be a tax. Planning and Environmental Commission . February 24,1992. Page 5 Kathy indicated she believed there were streetscape improvements which the applicant could provide on his property. In other requests, there had not been on-site improvements applicants could make, and in those instances, it was appropriate to ask for the contribution. She believed this applicant was improving the streetscape on his property, and did not see a need for an additional monetary contribution. Diana Donovan could approve a $1,200 contribution to the general Sreetscape Fund, but not to be specifically used to enclose the newspaper boxes in wood. Diana did not believe the new landscaping proposed compensated for the loss of a mature nee. She was concerned the Town was losing the softness of its streetscape as more and more buildings were built up to the property line. Regarding the newspaper dispensers, she thought the Town was unable to require the dispensers to be changed by the newspaper companies. She could support a donation of $1,200 to the Streetscape Fund in general, as there were some impacts of the project on the streetscape, in the form of additionat shade and increase in building size. However, she did believe the renovation was attractive. After clarifying that the 18-inch high planten proposed to be constructed by the applicant were seating height, she concluded by stating the $1,200 donarion, in her mind, was essential. Chuck asked what else the Streetscape Fund was used for. Kristan said it was also used for benches, lighting, etc., but staff had specified the newspaper boxes in this instance because they were a high priority item for the Town, and were currently located on the applicant's property. Diana believed there would be a direcr benefit to the owner to provide the funds for the boxes, as the public would benefit. Dalton already saw public-private cooperation in the applicants'proposal, and believed the Town was asking for too much. Kristan reminded the Commissioners that other, more modest proposals, had made contributions to the Town for sffeetscape improvements in the past. Rd Slifer asked for consistency, and suggested a standard fee per square foot of expansion. Gena bilieved the additional shade was something to be concerned with. Although it was minor in this request, and this was a positive addition, Bridge Street was becoming increasingly shaded from the sun. Jill Kammerer explained the formula used to determine the requested amount to be contributed to the Streetscape Fund. After her explanation, Johannes Faessler, owner of the Sonnenalp Hotel, stated the formula could be prohibitive for a large remodel, and believed this was a tax with another name. He extrapolated that it was costing approximately $6 per square foot addition to contribute to the Streetscape Fund. After further discussion of the formula used and staffs position, Chuck Crist moved to approve the request for a site coverage variance in Commercial Core I for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Str,eet/Part of l,ots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing, per staff's memorandum. Kathy Langenwalter seconded the motion. It was approved unanimously, 6-0. Planning and Environmental Commission . February 24,1992. Pagc 6 Chuck Crist moved to approve the request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Stneey'Pan of Lots B and C, l,ot 5, Vail Village First Filing, psr staff's memorandum, with the following elements in the proposal: l. Approval of site coverage variance by the PEC. 2. Payment of parking fee in the amount of $19,672.00 prior to Town issuance of a building permit per the Town's amortization program. Dalton Williams seconded the motion. The exterior alteration was approved, 4-2, with Diana Donovan and Greg Amsden dissenting. Diana disagreed with the exclusion of condition 3, regarding the $1,200 contribution from the motion. After the vote, Ned Gwathmey stated the applicants would voluntarily make the contribution to the Streetscape Fund on the condition it not be associated with the newspaper boxes (i.e., to be used for paving), and would continue to work on it. Diana Donovan accepted the offer. 5. Discussion reqardins staff decision concerning the conditions of approval for the previously approved parking. common area and height variances for the Sonnenalp Hotel. 20 Vail Roadfl.ots I and K, Vail Villaee First Filine. Applicant Johannes Faessler Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained the revisions, as illustrated on the plans, and shown in the staff memorandum. Staff believed the change to the fire access to be a positive benefit. Kristan Pritz explained the plans were brought back to confirm the staffs position with the PEC. Staff saw the movement of the Meadow Drive access sate as beneficial. Diana Donovan asked what size the trees in the planter were proposed to be. Andy said the proposal called for 6-8' trees. Diana requested that, if the entrance to the Swiss Chalet were not addressed in "x" number of years, that the applicant be required to improve the area. Johannes Faessler, the owner of the Sonnenalp Hotel, stated that a specific year would not be the right approach, as it was his goal to work with the Town when it made streetscape improvements to the area. Staff was not requiring that the plaza be brought back in "x" years. Staff believed the gate work was in place of the plaza construction. Kristan said this was brought so staff could ensure their interpretation of the conditions was appropriate, and if the Commissioners did not have concerns, no action was necessary. Planning and Environmental Commission . February 24,1992. Page 7 6. A request for a conditional use permit to renew and anend a conditional use permit for Lionshead Miniature Golf Course. on parcels generallv located west of Chair 8 (Bom hee Express): more specificallv located on Tracts C and D. Vail Lionshead First Filine. Applicants: Vail Associates/Charlie AlexanderPlanner: Shellv Mello Shelly Mello briefly described the request. Staff recommended approval of the request, as outlined in their memorandum. The applicant, Charlie Alexander, explained how similar projects worked when the facilities were not removed in the winter. When Vail Associates turns the project over for use in the sprin$, the setting up process for the course immediately begins, weather permitting. On October 15, Vail Associates resumes control over the property, and sets up for their winter lift operations. There would be no "down" time. Shelly indicated the course would operate from May 1 through the fall, 9:0OAM-dusk. Kathy Langenwalter asked if there had been neighborhood complaints during its operation the previous summer. Shelly answered none had been received by the Community Development . Department during the first year of operation. Gena Whitten found the course to be verv nice. attractive. and did not senemte excessive noise. Diana Donovan asked if a permanent building was being requested. Charlie said not at this time, because of the application requirements and deadlines for a major exterior alteration. Diana inquired if approving a temporary structure would affect the conditional use permit if a pernanent structure were approved at a later date. Shelly answered there would be no problem with that, and it would not rule out the perrnanent building. She also stated that with the current proposal, the temporary building must be removed prior to ski season. Diana also questioned if the lease with Vail Associates addressed the potential Sunbird Lodge renovation. Charlie replied it did, but illustrated how the course location would not be impacted, due to the fact the maze for Chair 8 would remain in its current location. Charlie did indicate, however, that he needed a 4 year conditional use permit, as his financing had a 4 year payout period, and changing that to 3 years would negatively impact his potential. It would be difficult for him to meet a 3 year payment schedule. Diana asked if the Commission could call up the permit if there were a problem. Shelly indicated they could, if there was a violation of the permit. Mike Mollica indicated the permit could be approved for 4 years, and if the Sunbird Lodge came in for their renovation in that time period, the permit for the course could be re- addressed. Planning and Environmennl Commission . Fcbruary 24, 1992. Page 8 - :, ' :{.':,* I o,," g/4/fz Project Name: Owner, Address and Phone: Project Application Project Description;{ r1*#rzkt' zb 4-{atac& g s%t dPr *a;t rc:'/at/,{''z arrl nar 5SA d;pc*rt"lL Contact Person and Phone Architect. Address and Phone: /o*6d fff / g Legal Descriptio n' tot Zol'( i ebcx Comments: ft/,u,nn l,/*/ l//1% /{4g. ron. Design Review Board o^," S/y'/fz A PPF OVA L DISAPPROVAL A zt/lrra.^.r4 Su mmary:arty'rhazt i -&aFzz+a,t '/a't',&u E statt Approval d/ /nas57, I I DESIGN REVIE}T BOARD IGENDA t|ARcg 4, 1gg2 3:00 P.M.SIIE .i,1ISITS 2:00 P.M. 1 Slifer Buitding - 230 Bridge Street2 Goldf,arb/Rooano Residence - ?93 potato Patcb DrLve AGENDA t.The CIub - New front entry door. 304 Bridge Street/Red Lion Building. MOTION: George Larnb SECOND: Pat HerringtonVOTE: 5-0 TABIED TO }PRII. 15TE MEETING. 2. Willow Bridge - Replacement of existing sLructure.Located on Wi]l-ow Bridge Road, beLween the VillageCenter Condominiums and the Sitzmark Lodqe. MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Sherry DorwardVOTE: 5-0 Approval of miscellaneous details:1. Lighting.2. Sandstone caps.* Railing color will be reviewed by t.he DRB at alater dat.e. 3. Russell,s Deck - Outdoor dining deck at the MMGallery Building. 228 Bridge Street/A part of Lot A,Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing, MOTION: George LambVOTE: 5-0 TABLED INDETINITELY. SECOND: Pat Herrinqton 4. Goldfarb/Romano Residence - New primary/Secondary. 793 Potato Patch Drive,/Lot 25, Block 1, VaiIPotato Patch; MOTION: Pat Harri n.r+ /.\r.t SECOND: Sherry DOrward \ tal l1E . E -n Approved subject to applicant modifying plans at timeof building permit. to comply with the Town Engineer'srequirernents and GRFA requirements. MM .TK e 5. Slifer Building - Slifer Collection. JK t 230 Bridge Street/Lot B & a part of Lot C, Block 5Vail village lst Filing. MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Sherry DorwardVOTE: 4-0 Approval subject to installation of landscapej.mprovements per DRB discussion. No new awnings or signing approved with thls application. Ned Gwathmey abstain as he represents the applicant. 6. Lionshead Miniature Golf - Permanent facility. SMTract D, Vai.L Lionshead lst Filing.MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: TABLED IO !'NRCE 18TB MEETING. '1 . Di.scussion on neon/gas fil1ed lighting and signage. SM MEMBERS PRESENT: @MEEQAW: George Lanb Sherry Dorward Ned GwathmeyPat Herrington Diana Donovan (PEC) STAFF APPROVALS: Charles Residence - Port.able Hot Tub. 767 Potato Patch Drive,/T,ot 34, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch, Unit #6. Hubcap Brewery c KitchenlThis Wicked West - New Awning. 143 East Meadow Drive,/Crossroads MaII. SunbursL, LoL 4 - Boiler enclosure. 1825 Sunburst Drive/LoL 4, Vail Val1ey 3rd. . Remax - New Sign. 143 East Meadow Drive/Crossroads Mall. Massa Residence - Portable Hot Tub. 400 Vail valley orive/Tyrolean Inn, Unit #7. 1st Bank of Vail - Sign. 17 Vail Road./Lot G, Vail ViIIage 2nd Filing. tuy' /6nv/kl 7 97aa : il17 rd frMt Pa& /f I Rtula / frlj */. / * 1art1h h/6 nyn to a/1tr'* r'*r")ar afirAel -/are fu confu l/ ffiffi"/on'*nc<)'t"-€d'v?'aooar-n''oo?'f C/,,ML ,-fl,{a o(/, ,"--,,.-r,aaru) /t?*&ut alnt/ &/aoo ' ry Wr- ;/-to'zzn 'J*z- h*ovf:" bffi 6a,.-,, 6n/ov aoptz( kbl**- 73aat/ av'ztLt^ u' 6;v-,^) --wtp yasl aTVac ")1i' oo{'Tt'fgWy W;;, ,,, ,,l,io* -'no/ btfzttrcz/- c" /ossaft .,- o ,t-1le- aafrz<t-.*f^ ?K-uiu-f a lw uau-lJ.f 12oo fr!Ft,', -'?/!S' f"'V'fun"-1' /s'&:- /g*Mrw b,r'* 'fr#{ rff#T{"itry;'g ;i f &z' fiq, f//ao ts faz,/afuc b"fiZa//J.1Wtu" , , -/ '.;-4i,ae4Y+* fu-.."hA' A**- # 4 st- -oH u/ 'T'ftl"rar re/k'a - /,|**f.Z-Y- -syz'"'z-rfrafuxr lasoo e I 'ff'%/ffitrffi;;;% o*"i tu&r/ 2 'Vi')"r,c7'V,r* o: aro o"ou'of*@l : ,&/ac A fut 4 . ,., --" /.a--/ o;//(Afi"/ 1 7zlruc n Yez -':-tff/, ' 'ont,l/ urt/r, ' t'ar/t/ drr'l/ szftr'r' dz'6 ' ,t-."--Ury- ffu, --t?o -rn/,fi; /7:*/ / l''4rs n,rE qphbt, '*/:uu / ^'byyni: 4 -el-e,zut a(l */n# 'on tuY u'tr' /a'oua'nc4; '1 Tytz- "/v) P J&19+ u"- gt SENI- EI:T3{.iLb GOUNTT ; z-lu-uz ; t[:tu ;iJua6z6 {ztJ tl o uuit+ auzlot i F u/ o rm-0 E. tDDlEr(xr tsotggc. z.oe.o2 l. 09.0a gDEqIgIC 16) ConstruetLon of drrestructures wlthin ttreaddl.tton to nther cofttely onstrustLon are adeguatadvcrEe lrpact upon ths Clno5- affrya/a/o -rb o*12-zlaafioo /2 a-r'( rt ron c'inrarn berg r @t bulldl.nEs, or oilrer Zone DiEtrLct. Ih, the appllcant nustBoard shall find thatreeultlnE fror thetl-gated, resultirrg and and nffi,fa #ata,/td>J p"t h'nnz'U Q,, ? rr-ryrl' znol M//w d42- tto*,t'/' I -' Gftq <e?r v t- 'r / 'D"/* bztattA'a f.-- p**t rzaefrZ e-T y'zhos''P un-'' n2'1aa6 i nn! N, 3 'aJ{l f, il il II t TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance and an exterior alteration for the Slifer Building, located within the Commercial Core I zone disgict, 230 Bridge Street, Lot B and a palt of Lot C, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing Applicanu Beth and Rod SliferPlanner: Jill Kammerer I.DESCRIPTION OF TTIE SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE AND THE EXTEzuOR ALTERATION REOTIESTS \ to add 57 sq, ft. of site couerag'g to the Slifer Building in order to tional first floor@isplayar6ifor the Slifer Collection retail new second floor office space above the existing Slifer Collection x. 11'-6" wide x 28' tall addition would be located on the front (west) facade of the existing Slifer Collection retail space enrance (see attached plans). The applicant also proposes to jg$!-l anareagenerally in the sam_e'l,qgggqn as the existing entrance to the Slifer Collection retail space which is currently covered by building above. Because the area to be infilled is located under a cantilevered area, this new 27 sq. ft. entry vestibule is already included in the site coverage calculations and therefore will not increase site coverage. The Slifer Building is located in Commercial Core I. The maximum site coverage allowed in this zone district is 807# The existing building's site coverage is 92.17o. under this proposal, site coverage would increase to 93.9Vo. Therefore. in order to allow the construction of the additional site coverage of 57 sq. ft.. the applicant is requesting an increase in site coveraee of 1.87o. In addition to this request for a site coverage variance, the applicant is also required to obtain ar exterior alteration approval prior to the issuance of any building permit. business-- 4#,rue+ tM6\" / As a part of the redpvelopment proposal, the applicants propose to remove an existing ; Norway Maple andY newspaper boxes from their property. However, the applicant will i install the approved Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan paving on propeny which they { I I own. In addition to installing pavers, the applicants will construct 2 stone faced planters with a total net planting arca of 47 sq. ft. Although the Streetscape Master PIan shows 4 newspaper boxes located on Town land adjacent to the Ore House Restaurant deck, the text recommends newspaper dispenses boxes in the Village be consolidated in a few centralized locations. IL BACKGROIJND On November 13, 1989, the Planning and Environrnental Commission (PEC) reviewed and approved a site coverage variance and an exterior alteration request for the Slifer Building for a 93 sq. ft. addition at this same general location. The proposed addition was subsequently approved by the Design Review Board (DRB) on November 29, 1989. The PEC approved site coverage variance expired on November 13, 1990, and the DRB approval expired on November 29, 1990. In January of 1991, the Town's definition of site coverage was changed. Under the new definition, cantilevered areas and covered walkways count as site coverage. For this reason, the existing site coverage numben in this memo will not correspond with the 1989 memo. Under the 1989 site coverage and exterior alteration approval, the existing site coverage was calculated at897o and the proposed and approved site coverage was92Vo. In August of 1991, the PEC denied Super Stars Studio's request for a site coverage variance for the consulction of two bay windows at the Gorsuch Building, located in the Commercial Core I zone district, based on the findings the property is not encumbered with a physical hardship or unique circumstances and the project docs not me€t the findings for a site covemge variance. UI. ZOMNG CCINSIDERATIONS Lot Size: Zoning: Site Coverage: Allowed: Existing; 3,210 sq. ft Commercial Core I SOVo or 2,568 sq. ft. 92.Wo or 2,956.7 sq. ft. (which is 388.7 sq. ft. over the allowed site coverage) f Proposed: Parking: l. Hrigt t, ol' * 939V0 or 3,013.7 sq. ft. (which would be 445.7 sq. ft. over the allowed site coverage) *A portion of the area to be infilled under this redevelopment proposal will not contribute additional site coverage because the space to be ffilled is alleady covered by the second floor of the building. The applicant will be required to contribute $19,672.00 to the Town of Vail parking fund. The proposed addition will require 2.459 parking spaces. The parking fee for office space is also $8,000.00 per parking space. The formula for parking spaces associated with office use is as follows: 548 sq. ft.l250 = 2.192 x $8,000 = $17,536.00. The parking fee for 1 commercial parking space is $8,000.00. (80 sq. ft./300 =.267 x $8,000 = $2,136.00) Total parking fee = $2,136.00 + $17,536.00 = $L9€?.@ Maximum allowable heighc Building height restrictions in Commercial Core I are as follows; l. Up to 607a of $e building (building coverage area) may be built to a height of 33 feet or less. 2. No more than 40Vo of the building (building coverage area) may be built higher than 33 feet, but not higher than 43 feet. Proposed height lffiVo of the height of the building, once the addition is consfucted, will be a height of 33 feet or less. 0Vo of the height of the building, once the addition is constructed, will be a height of greater than 33 feet. Existing maximum height: 28 feet IV. EXTERIOR ALTERATION REOUEST COMPLIANCE WITII THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I 18.24.010 Purpose: "Thc Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I Disaict is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buitdings fronting on pedestian ways and public greenways, and to ensurc continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." \Az' /t Staff believes this proposal is in conformance with the intent of the purpose section of the Commercial Core I zone district as stated above. V. REVIEW CRITEzuA FOR TI{E EXTERIOR ALTERATION REOIJEST The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes three elements that establish lhe revipur criteria for thiJapplication. The fust of these is r"fe , a number of sub-area concepts, many of which identify potential arcas formre development and other improvements. Secondly, the Urba4 express the large scale, land use planning and design considerations, and finally argllectur4landSca which will be reviewed by the Design Review Board, establish the criteria for evaluating detailed design considerarions of a proposal. The Vail Village Master Plan and Town of Vail Streetscape Maser Plan also address specifics@menrol m.€ti6"- must be considered in this application. In addition to these master plans, zoning considerations are also a factor in reviewing this proposal. VI. . EXTERIOR ALTERATION REOI]EST COMPLIANCE WITH T}IE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE There arp no specific sub-area concepts relevant to this proposal, 4 VII. EXTERIOR ALTERATION REOI]EST COMPLIANCE WTTH TI{E URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The following design considerations are a critical element of the Urban Design Guide Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to assure that new development is consistent with this estabtshed character. These considerations include the following: A- Pedesnianization: This exterior alteration will have no impact upon pedesuian circulation within the Vail Village area. The addition*E{l gh the increise in window areaffiiriti inio rhe store, installation of the recommended Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan improvements, facade articulation and landscape improvements. B. Vehicular Penetration: Vehicular penetration and circulation will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal. C. Streetscape Framework: Streetscape framework identihes two alternatives for improving the pedestrian experience in the Village. These include the development of open space, including landscaping along pedestrian routes and the development of infill commercial storefronts along pedestrian corridors. While landscaping can provide a softening of buildings and a colorful framework, commercial infill can provide activity generators and visual interest for the pedestrian. The staff believes this propqg4[_gi positively to the overall pedestrian experienCE Ts previo[S mentioned, under the--' sparency of the shop frontage, the proposed planters and paver design visual interest to the area. Further, the proposed streetscape improvements conform to the recommended strreetscape improvements set forth in the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan. D. Street Enclosure: The purpose of this consideration is to maintain a comfortable relationship between the width of stre€ts and the height of buildings. The proposed addition is not designed to step back. However, the street width measures2T fent from the bottom of the Slifer Building steps to the bonom of the Covered Bridge Building steps which is the widest portion of Bridge Street. For this reason, staff believes a comfortable relationship between the width of the street and the height of the building will be maintained under this design. E. Street Edee: This criteria cncourages buildings in the Village Core to form a srong but irregular edge to the streer Under this exterior alteration proposal, the Slifer Collection retail space will pmject out from the building an additional5'-0". Th_glqpsedjddtiell @ its glass-walled facade and inegular building line. The $ftall plaza area and cxtensive of the pedestrian envircnmenL Staff believes that this modification will have no transparcncy negative impact on the street edge. ,F. Buildine Heieht: The proposed addition will have a maximum height of 28 feet. The maximum height of the existing building is 28 feet. The maximum allowable height for a sloped roof in CCI is regulated by the Vail Village Urban Design Cuide Plan and Design Considerations. Building height restrictions in Commercial Core I shall be as follows: 1. Up to 6AVo of the building Ouilding coverage area) may be built to a height of 33 feet or less. 2, No more than 4O7o of the building (building coverage area) may be built higher than 33 feet, but not higher than 43 feet. The existing roof height in the area of the addition is 22'-6". Therefore, the proposed addition will exceed the existing roof height by 5'-6". The height of the building is in conformance with CCI zoning requirements. Steeply pi@ n is 1212, in keeping with the Design Considerations. Views and Focal Points: The proposed expansion or rt points. (Please see the attached letter @February 17,1992.) Service and Deliverv; view conidors, nor fhe proposed expansion will not affect current service and delivery patterns. o I. Sun/Shade: The proposed addition yilllas!41sq. ft of additional shadow onto Bridge Street (see attached roof, shadffi- -- J. Architecture/LandscapeConsiderations: The staff believes the architectural detailing and increased transparency resulting from the redevelo,pment of this rctail space and the landscaping and streetscape improvements will have positive impacts on the appearance of this area by adding visual interest to the space. The applicant has indicated one 5"-6" caliper Norway Maple will be removed under this exterior alterationy'site coveragc variance re@ment proposal, the applicanq propose to rcmove an existing Norway Maple from their property. However, the applicant will insta! the approved Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan paving on propetty wIiA -'-----:-:i-'-. to installing pavers, the applicants will construct an 18-inch stone faced tall between the addition and the Ore House's eiterioi dinin The net planting proposes to install a3*-eal_i!Ql_ specimen ree and ground cover in this planter. An additional l8-inch tall stone faced planter will be constructed immediately north of the addition's 6ntrance-doorlThe ner planting area in this planter 1rrlje81q.!"{esulting in a total o3 47-$!.!.-e[_new planting area. Currently, 7 newspaper dispenser boxes are located along the southem edge of the applicant's property, in part on the applicant's property and in part on Town-owned property. The applicant will require these boxes be removed from their property under this redevelopment proposal. Although the Streetscape Master Plan shows 4 newspaper boxes located on Town-owned land adjacent to the Ore House Restaurant deck, the text recommends newspaper dispenser boxes in the Village be consolidated in a few centralized locations. Staff believes the construction of a planter in the area where the newspaper dispenser boxes are currently located is appropriate. Staff recommends the applicant contribute $1,200 for the purchase of 4 Sreetscape Master Plan approved newspaper dispenser boxes. VM. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES OF TI{E VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Goal #2 - To foster a stong tourist indusny and promote year-around economic health and viability for the village and for the community as a whole. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be enconrage to provide acrivity genemtors, accessible grein spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. Goal #3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the exisring pedesrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver Eeaulents, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.1.3 Policy: Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. The proposed infrll is generally consistent with established zoning and the existing uses of the area. The addition will provide inter€st and activity to an area which currently experiences limited activity. IX. SITE COVERACE VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the follorvins factors: A.Consideration of Factors: l. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. To the north, south, east and west are restaluant, retail, commercial and office uses. To the west, across Bridge SreeL is the Covered Bridge Building and Gasthof Gramshammer which contain a mixture of retail, restaurant and lodging uses. To the south is the Clock Tower Building which has the Ore House Restaurant on the fint floor. To the north is the Gallery Building which has Russell's Restauxant on the first floor. To the east are the Vail Rowhouses. Staff believes the proposed site coverage variance request, in conjunction with the proposed exterior alteration, would not negatively impact other potential or existing uses and structures in the vicinity. In fact, staff believes the variance, if approved, would create a more enjoyable pedestrian environment which would add to the visual interest of lower Bridge Street. Also, this requested variance would not block or impede views from any sunounding properties. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The section of the Code relating to site coverage in CCI states: "18.24.150 - Coverage. Not more than eighty percent of the total site area shall be covered by building and ground level patios and decks unless otherwise specified in the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations. (Ord. 21(1980) $ I (part).)" The wording of this section of the code is unclear. The October, 1991 Development Code Revision Report, Phase I, proposes the intent of this section of the code be clarified. The specific language on Page 85 of the Report pertaining to the clarification of this language and the staff recommendation is as follows: ''ISSUE As written, it is unclear whether the Guide Plan is to be used to review proposals that exceed 807o site coverage, or whether standard variance criteria are to be used. ALTERNATTVES The issue is similar to setbacks in that the intent of the Guide Plan is that site coverage be determined by the pEC relative to a project's compliance with urban design standards. As with setbacks, there will be cases where one site may w rant more site coverage than another in order to achieve the goals of the Urban Design Guide plan. For example, the benefits from improved streetscape enclosure may outweigh the impact of site coverage over 802o. Language in this section should be amended similar to the setback section, RECOMMENDED AMENDMEIT{TS To 18.24.015 Site coverage shall not exceed eighty percent of the total slte area, provided however, that site coverage in excess of eighty percent may be approved by the planning and Environmental Commission based on compliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide plan and Design Considerations. The determination of allowable site coverage shall be made in accordance with the extedor alteration review process ai prescribed in section 18.24.090(4)." The staff believes that approval of this request would not be a grant of special privilege. we believe the variance is appropriate because the pioposed add.ition will bring the slifer Building into greater compliance with the UrLan Design Guide Plan considerations than the existing strucfure, and no negative impacts are associated with the proposal. Compliance with the Guide plan Cglsjderations is an important goal fordevelopment in the Village. In addition, t}e previously approved proposal which required a site touerug" variance utilized this review process. For these reasons, we believe a departure from the general zoning standards is waranted in this situation. 3- The effect ofthe requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, pubtic facitities and utilities, and public safety. The applicant proposes to install streetscape elements in conformance with the adopted Town of vail Streetscape Master plan. The requested variance will have no impact on any of the above-mentioned criteria. 10 findings before granting a variance: B. 1.That the granting of the variance will not constitute a glant of special privilege Inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same disrict. That the gfanting of the variance will not be detimental to the public health, saf"ty ot welfate, or rnaterially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title' b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone' c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district' X. STAITF RECOMIvENDATION Staff recommends approval of the site coverage variance as requested. We feel that the Vail Village area has unique development considerations and that approval of this variance would allow the Slifer Building to be brought into greater conformance with the Urban Design Guide Plan. Staff believes the application is not a gant of special privilege, will not be denimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the uicinity and that the site coverage variance is warranted for the following reasons: l. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical diffrculty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 11 The staff recommendation is for approval of the requested exterior alteration with the following conditions: 1. Approval of site covcrage variance by the PEC. Z. Payment of parking fee in the amount of $19,672.00 prior to Town issuance of a building permit per the Town's amortization prograrn. " 3.:' Contribution of $1,200 to the Town of Vail Streetscape account for the , ^0 purchase and installation of 4 newspaper boxes at a location to be determined\ in Vail Village. The review of the Urban Design Giteria and the Vail Village Master Plan goals show that the proposal is in conformance with the applicable sections of these documents. Staff believes the redevelopment of the Slifer Building facade, which includes allowing the front of the Slifer Collection retail space facade to be moved forward five feet, will be an additional activity generator for the Bridge Sreet area and will improve the area's general appearance. c:\oecvn€mos\slif€r.224 t2 a- tt p.l+t ..u.*,. I v .Jl r,e t| t- ,1, j. , J s'"I l-!-{(r' E ,i* r' '7?\+!3 ItJ'pr F{ v.F F: UR 6Ixt. I l-rEls {qFF+iilF *u +l *$ li I$$rs {- sf:I [-rl: OF .sL 3EL(r -a .I T Hit $ i= .3. I i J\"lsO-Fi S d .iori g"liB \i\! i iil" $$S: S = N\{ $*l i= DT0{ t"l:dlll ! { |-{ -l t!1 L_r, Tl 0 v f, jI rl_.$ ol { s: Il \ \ $t : I\ i tdi tr dg( .rt f'l pT ETag 5tt Itc,o 2 9 oulJJ0{J Pe JC1o, s f f F* .zo c: E !:o aE-'ul lr ID -- q a 1oo ,"-iiI l!' }Tz{'E. !*d.[l;, ill$ r$i!F>IJ6AEIJ tFI r* i1 Etti E'$$t$ii t 1,IID.: iitrlrS ? :- 't.-r-F ! E . '',ll f \ \ I- h.-_' *-!z\ z,<Jo.' UJFg, llr- |\' t t a_ A I \q'9 frt4*"lg;ot'rt1tJllol iEti t2 llf 2ll'oIt iFli r. t/ir il il* /# l7 -aTC.''.-....'' s-o .!- |rt 0il o d .a .j ItI0){rt PI |: t u FoJ I l .: ",. 1 us I Nf, ll 1 +r I A F.oJ t\1 t, t tl. !r It i ": i :- 1 r{|\, 8l {, FI $ $ EI att't + -L !t ${ Dt] $ e ${L *l \ rq $5$t -i ir'11 \ r.lrz:<.J G ul lu Euto-o.l 1 i lr 1z NOt; .lf \H : 2oF4I E1:lr a ITFi f---o ll EI|r|ittl r l, I tl =r,\,/-fr EIT-. o, od LUo E U' .: -1_IL IL $ // E u, =o YooJ O Ax. 4 //j/"r' /' 't .=..- /..:. /\ ,/ /\ r< (t =oJfo Eu,g g) l-l---:-;-:-;=; -.r , lV I I-1 |'slFIIxtYi^Tru"ft*r'il d $:sftI(r'1'|L\ r .4 4,, "t.. /' { I xu -'i'lr: ' rll s':rs,f7 "J: .\ \ t\ _1 .li February 1.7, 1992 Mr. Ned Gwathmey Arnold./Gwathmey/Pratt Architects p.C, L000 South Frontaqe Road l{estVail. CO 81657 Re: Slifer Building - Vail Village Dear Ned. Per your request f have reviewed your plans for the expansi-on ofthe above building to consider any possible encroachurent into therevised View corridor *1 currently being considered by the Town ofVa11, Your expansion is shown as being no higher than the existingridge line for the Slifer Building that Lies just norLh of theproposed expansion. The revised View Corridor in this area followsthe ridge ]ine of the clock rower Building to the south of theSlifer Building. Your expansion, as $hown on the plans you haveprovided, would not encroach into the proposed View corridor *1.This opinion is not based upon a field survey, but upon existingdrawings and photographs. Please call if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Eagle Va11ey Surveying. fnc. q-$R\ Dan Corcoran, PLS President 41 199 Highway 6 & 24, Eagle-Vail Post Off ice Box 1230 Edwards, CO 81632 303-949-1406 o s r|i\ ,.:r| oI ,} .l'a TIN6 t TO: FROM: DATE: SUEJ: Planning and Environmental CornrnLssion Courmunity Development Departrnent November 1-3, l-989 A request for a site coverage variance at the Slifer Building (230 Bridge Street), Lot B, Block 5, VailVillage First Filing.Applicant: Slifer Designs--Rod and Beth Slifer DESERIPTTON OF VARTANCE REOUESTED Slifer Designs is preparing to open an interior designretail store out of the space previously occupied by I'Club Vailil on Eridge Street. The applicants are requesting to expand the footprint and nodify the west facade of theSlifer Building to accommodate this new business (see attached staff menorandum for the exterior alterationrequest). In order to expand the building footprint of theS1ifer Building a site coverage variance is reguired. The site coveracre numbers are as follows: Allowable: 2568 sq ft or 80* of the siteExisting: 2860 sq ft or 89?*Proposed. 2953 sq ft or 92? * The. proposal is for an additional- 93 square feet of site coverage. The requested variance is frorn Section 18.24.L50 of the Townof Vail Municipal Code which states: rrNot more than 80? of the total site area shall becovered by buildings.....l rI. CRITERIA AND FINDTNGS Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Conrnunity Developnent recomrnends approval of therequested variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors;: I. The relationship of the requestedvariance to other existino orpotential uses and structures inthe vicinity. I. \ v'e It is the staffrs opinion that the reguestedvariance, in conjunltion with the pro$osed sitermprovements related to the exterior alteration,would have no adverse effect upon the use of anyadjacent properti.es. In fact, we feeL that thevariance, if approved, would create a noreenjoyable pedestrian environrnent wbich wouLd addto the visual interest of lower Bridge Street.Also, this requested variance would not block orinpede views fron any surrounding properties. 2. TIrp degr?e to which relief frorn the strict andIiteral interpretation and enforcenent of a The staff believes that approvaL of this requestwould not be a grant of special privilege. Wefeel that the variance is appropriate because theproposed addition will enable the Slifer Buildinqto be rnore in conpliance with the Urban DesignGuide Plan than the existing structure currentfyis. Conpliance r,rith the Guide plan is the mostinportant aspect for developrnent in the ViIJ.age,and it is for that very reason that we feel adeparture from the general zoning standards iswarranted in this situation. The effect of the recruested variance on liqht andair, distribution of population, transportationand traffic facilities, public facilities andutilities. and public safetv. 3. The staff finds that have no significantconsiderations. the requested variance willeffect upon any of the above rv. IIr. Such factors and criteria as the cornrnission deens applicableto the proposed variance. FTNDTNGS That the granting of the variance will not constitute agrant of special privilege inconsistent, with thelinitations on other properties classified in the sarnedistrict. specified requlation is necessarv to achiEe o That the granting of the variance will not bedetrimental .to tlre public health, safety or welfare, orrn-ateriaLly injurious to properties or iirprovements inthe vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or rnore of thefollowing reasons: The strict or literal interpretation orenforcement of the specifled regulation wouldresult in practical difficulty or unnecessaryphysical. hardship inconsisteni with the objeitivesof this title. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances orconditions applicable to the sarne site of the variancethat do not apply generally to other properties in thesane zone. The strict interpretation or enforcenent of thespecified regulation would deprive the applicant ofprivileges.enjoyed by the ownLrs of othei-properties inthe same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATTONS The staff recomnends approval of the variance as reguested.we feel that the vai] Vilrage area has unique devel6prnentconsiderations and that appioval of this viriance wouldallow the Slifer Building Lo be brought into moreconformance with the Urban Design euide plan. I^-.v To: ?he planning and Environrnental comrnission FROM: Connunity Developrnent DATE: Noverrber 13 , 19g9 suBJEcr: A request for an exterior alteration at 230 Bridge street(Slifer ?_ui_tdj;nS), Loi-e, Block 5,-v"ii Village FirstFiling, in ordei'fo con=truct a ;r ;il;r" foot addition.Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer I. THE PROPOSAL The appri".l! l=.requesting an exterior alteration and additionat the sr-irer suirdfns "n i"ia-g"-;;;;;i,-iii"r, if approved wourdincLude a shop front i""i"r"" ind an aa&ition of 93 square feetof floor area., This.shop was previo".iy-i"ised byrrClub vail.,,,essentially a tee_shirt itop., However, with the completion ofthis exterior arie;;l;";";i int"rior design rerair. srore,sirnilar to ,The rinishini roucn" wilr be operated out of thespace. This exterior alteration calls for the following siternodif ications: - The addiLion of brick pavers imnediately in front of theshop; this wourd. replaie the exisii;t-;;""rere surface.- The addition of two planter boxes t;d ; bench; to belocated in the srnaLl courtyard aa;iceni to the storeA11? F\'v.. vr I .- The existing maple tree wiLl remain in its currentlocation.- However, the uppii.u"[-ir-prop"sing to prune thetree to allow for greater storefront iris-iUif i[V. - II. ZONING CONSTDERATTONS The following sunrnarizes the zoning statistics for this exterioralteration request: 1. Zone District: Cornrnercial Core I 2. Lot Area: 3,2L0 sq. ft. 3. Site Coverage*; Allowable =Existing =Current proposal =TOTAL 2,568 sg. ft. = g0? 2,860 sg. ft. = 89?93 sg. ft.2,953 sq. ft. = 922 See attached staff memorand.umvariance.for the reguested site coverage t o Parking: The proposed require 0.31contribute torequirenent. III. Tv THE URBAN DESTGN DE PI,AN v. Tbere are no sub-area soncepts which relate directly to thisarea of the Vi).lage. Pedestrian i zation: ?his exterior alteration wil.l have no impact uponpedestrian circulation within the vail village area. Vehicular penetration: This addition wi]I have no irnpact upon vebicularpenetration within the Vail Viltage area as sridge streetis generally classified as a pedeitrian-only str6et. A. B. i -.v 93 square feet of additional floor area willparking spaces. The appticant has agreed tothe Town parking fund to rneet this 18.24.010 Purpose: The Commercial Core I district is intended toprovide sites and to rnaintain the uniquecharacter of the vail Vittage Comrnerciat Area,with its nixture of lodges ind cornmercialestablishments in a predoninantly pedestrianenvironnent. The Comrnercial core i District isintended to ensure adequate light, air, openspace, and other arrenities appropriate to thepennitted types of buildings-lnd-uses. Thedistrict regulations in accordance with the VailVillage Urban Design Guide plan and DesignConsiderations prescribe site developrnenistandards that are intended to ensure thernaintenance and preservation of the tightlyclustered arrangements of buildings fronting onpedestrian ways and public greenways, and toensure continuation of the building scale andarchitectural gualities that distinguish theVil1age. rt is the staff's opinion that this proposar is in conforrnancewith the intent or lne purpose sectiin irr trre commercial core rzone di-strict as stated above. DESTGN DERATTONS i o c.Steetscape, Framework : The Design considerations strive to improve the quality ofthe _walking/pedestrian environment by prornoting €ne use oflandscaping along pedestrian routes lnO tne cr6ation ofplazas. and park green spaces as open nodes and focal pointsalong those routes. The Design Considerations also suggestthe infill of conmercial storefronts at key J.ocations iiongpedestrian routes to add street rife and visuar interest tothe Village. The staff feels that this proposal will contributepositively to the overall pedestrian experience. Theproposed planter boxes, bencb and paver design, atong withthe preservation of the existing maple tree, -will create asrnall plaza area which we believe wlII enhance the lowerBridge Street area. Street Enclosure: The guidelines ernphasize that building facade heightsshould not be uniforrn fron building to building and thatthey shouJ.d provide a comfortable enclosure foi tne street.This proposed expansion will provide tbe recommendedstepped-back appearance to the west elevation of the SliferBuilding and staff believes the SLifer Building will be inconformance with this design criteria. Street Edqe: This criteria encouragQfuildings in the Village Core toforrn a strong but irregllar edge to the street. The proposed addition will neet this criteria with itsglass-walled facade and irregular building line. The smallplaza area and extensive window transparency will also addto the visual interest of the pedestrian environment. Buildinq Heiqht: The proposed addition will have a maximurn height of 10 feetand will have no irnpact on overall building height. Views and Focal points: This proposal. will have no impact on views. Service and Delivery: No irnpact. The existing service/delivery a1ley on the eastside of the building will not be affected. Sun,/Shade This proposal will not substantially increase the spring orfaII shadow patterns on adjacent properties or on BridgeStreet. D. G. H. I. o The staff recommends approval of this reguest for an exterioralteration. we feer trrlt ttre proposal c6nprte- ritn urr of theapplicable Design consideratioirs br tn" vair vit1age urbanDesign PLan. The staff recomnendation for approvar incrudes the conditionthat the companion apprication-tor a site co"-"ig" variance beapproved. e dlon, //"4 ./e ^7y^,.{ 4 ,"la 7, ^ f"n ( 6*jr, Ova * /r* *4 /'e f"'-e,/ / ^ 4 / -tu"f o tl{*- - fW - ,tr"*'A / c.o'//'too-4 Jt-<: Urb, +{- ril '(ru--- r/,4 t/ze fup ETNCA Fr(te'nFl6 *oxle Ur\LL /{+eJf; r-,,r+ir.'dffi ffi "t oo t I I d 9lJ hl frlsl 5trlja cttr{L?stir' / r 1l-\ I ll N--€rr:.5fi.r-z r-rff-.. rowI __ il , L_ i.'a.,*.cv5D ):Rcftffr'-ryE: trcw{D AFTlli'ltr{- i,!J J 4. tr{q-e #n 7\lqTft.Vt (n'L.P* ?TIMYZDtz?P+..=, 7Y b '--), /^t7lAW FxirSfrt^te, \\AiJ-. P' bgFE+V\W U.F.TI<O TEg Tob7 ?FVN?D \l o;'Nt., tu6b e f*v>p4exALT Ut-l= -i b?i-alFDlNAruD tylTi{ fo\ AJ &71...'tUL-r AN-t, rF?trf- '17' .q lclt/ vLrl7a bg 9-a-fu TdF:6tr, IL ) ltl - 4j !il{=rIg Ns \D 0 r,l t, c $' 7. P frri'' tfi$$ s$rf oOeedl utlrct d'T $ Cl $uJp$ Jt -$f I CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM Date of Place Between Re Conference:11 February 1992 Town of Vai.l Community Development Office Jill- Kammerer Ned Gwathmey Slifer Building PEC Application JiLl calLed this meeting to say the Staff is supportlng theapplicatlon and discussed the following points: View Corridor Ned will check Corky's prog,ress in deterrnining whether theproposal will be out of this view corridor now that Co.gncil has approved the view corridor modifications. \pFF,-"-^SH Sprinklers Because we may have three communicating 1eve1s, l4ike MeGee feelssprinklers may be reguired. Ned pointed out that the conditionshave not changed and will contact McGee to get a ruling. Revokable Right of Way permit This permit will be reguired for a planter on Town propertyprior to buiLding permit. Plants Plants shown must be installed by Owner/Applicant even thoughis on Town property. Sherry Dorward will be consulted for types / spec ies /spec imen. it Conf erence itlemorandum Re: SIif er Buildi-ng February 12, 1992 Page 2 Drawinq changes for cLarity: Drawing 1 - Correct foundation plan to comply with new design. Drawing 2 - Show Bridge Street property line. Show double soldier course tangent to property lines. Consider specimen Mountain Ash as per Westin. Drawing 3 - Show new design. Drar^ting 4 - Show existing Slifer Building entry eLevation. Add divided lights on window at entry. SLone veneer shown.Gutters and roof drains shown. Drawing 5 - Modify shadows for new design. Consider showlng Clocktower shadow for comparison/scaLe. (Pr6coq^*P 1 This work will be done and resubmitted to JilI for the nexthearing. The foregoing represents my understanding of matters discussed and decisions reached. ff the interpretation of others varies,please inform us in writing. EMG copy sures to: Rod and Beth Slifer r ,4. FI[. E COFY PLANNING AND EI.IVIROMT{ENTAL COMMISSION February 10,1992 Staff Kristan his Mike Mollica Amber Blecker hesent Greg Amsden Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Ludwig Kurz Kathy Langenwalter Dalton Williams Gena Whinen The meeting was begun at 2:05PM. 1. Swearing in of new Commissioners. Martha Raecker, Town Clerk, sworc in Greg Amsden, Diana Donovan, Ludwig Kurz and Dalton Williams to the Planning and Envilonmental C.omrnission. Each new Commissioner read the oath of office. 2. Election of Chairman and Vice-Ctrairman. Chuck Crist nominarcd Diana Donovan to serve as Chairperson of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. Dalton Williams brought up the question of moving the chairmanship to different individuals each election. He thought it might be beneficial to having the responsibilities exercised by different people, so they could obtain a better understanding of the position. Greg Amsden believed that was a good idea to investigate. Kathy Langenwalter raised the issue of the term length for the Chairperson. She wanted clarification of whether the term was one or two years. Kristan Pritz was not sure, and asked that Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, be brought in to address the question. Greg, as a courtesy, asked if Diana was, in fact, interested in remaining as Chairperson. She indicated she was, and would accept the nomination. Kathy supported Diana's nomination, stating that Diana made a good Chairperson, and maintaining her chairmanship would give important continuity to the Commission. Ludwig agreed, saying that Diana had shown silong leadership and a great understanding of the issues. Larry Eskwith came into the meeting at this point. He said there was nothi4g specific ln. the Code concerning a maximum term length, but did indicate the Code specified an annual appointment with re-appoinfinents being acceptable. Planning and Environmenal Commission . Februry 10, 1992. Page I ,. There being no further nominations, the selection of Diana Donovan to serve as Chairperson for a period of one year was unanimously declared. Gena Whinen nominated Chuck Crist to serve as Vice-Chairman. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Dalton Williams nominated Ludwig Kurz to serve as Vice Chairman. Dalton's motion was seconded by Kathy Langenwalter. After a secret ballot, Amber Blecker declared that Chuck Crist had been elected as Vice-Chairman of the Planning and Environmental Commission for the following year. At this point, Gena Whitten left the meeting. 3. A reouest for an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance in Commercial Corg I for the Slifer Building. 230 Bridee Str€et/Part of Irts B and C. Lot 5. Vail Villaee First Filins. Applicant Rod and Beth SliferPlanner: Jill Kammerer Kristan Pritz explained that this item was requested to be tabled due to the Town Council's action on a view corridor ordinance. In addition, staff would be nquesting a change in the criteria for a site coverage variance to be evaluated under in the Commercial Core II zone district in order to allow for the Urban Design Considerations and Guide Plan to be a factor in the evaluation, as staff believed it was a more appropriaE standard than a flat 80% site coverage requirement. Diana Donovan asked what the 80%. sie coverage limitation woultl stand for under the proposed changes. Kristan answered that it would be a guideline. Kathy Langenwalter inquired if a variance would still be necessary if a project in this zone district exceeded 807o site coverage? She also asked if this would basically only change the criteria under which a variance was considered. Kristan said she was correct that the variance and the Urban Design Considerations and Guide Plan would be used to review a site coverage variance request. Kathy Langenwalter moved to table the request for an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance in Commercial Core I for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C,l.ot 5, Vail Village Fint Filing until February 24,lgg2. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion. It unanimously passed, 6-0. 4. Appointment of PEC mernber to serve on the Water Ouality hoiect. A discussion was held regarding the membership of this group and its objectives. It was decided to hold the decision on this appointment to a later time durring the meeting. 5. Appointment of PEC member to serve on the Housing Auttroriw. Ludwig Kurz indicated his continued interest in serving on this boud. He was appointed by acclaim of the Commission. Planning and Environmental Commission . February lO, 1992. Page 2 ;<1 PUBLIC NOTICE 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 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on February 10, 1992 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: A request for an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance in Commercial Core I for the slifer Building, 230 Bridge streevPart of Lots B and c, Lot s, Vait viilage First Filing. Applicant: Flod and Beth SliferPlanner: Jill Kammerer 2. Any items tabled from the January 27, 1992 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Information on the listed items is available at ihe Community Development office in the Vail Municipal Building during regular office hours. TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Published in the Vail Trail on January 24, 1992. * vlr- ,fia*^- ,r,,1 fr/u''er,r,j*' ?ug;L^ I - ,?.'i- {1 ;t- ,7h 4 r!-c 'r1- 1 Dave Gorsuch 263 E. Gore Creek Drive Vail, CO 81657 Rod and Beth Slifer 230 Bddge Street Vail, CO 81657 lliJ$r'fl".,"* Vail, CO 81657 Charles Koch c/o George Lamb 230 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 Hillis Akin 227 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM j Date of Conference:31 January 1992 Jill Kammerer Ned Gwathney SLifer Building - PEC Schedule Between Re Ned called to determine the next step/schedule in the reviewprocess. JiIl said the View Corridor hearing scheduled for4 February in Council work session could affect the project. The final hearing for the S11fer BuildJ.ng is scheduled for10 February 1992. Pursuant to discussions and written responses to the Staff/Winst.onts comments, Ned will move the bay window south 1'-0" toenlarge the space between the existing cylinder and the proposed bay. Jill reguested these and the other changes discussed be rnade andthey receive multiple copies for the fire department and townenglneer's review. The foregoing represents my understanding of matters discussedand decisions reached. If the interpretation of others varies,please inform us j-n writing. EMGw January 29, 1992 Ms. JiIl Kammerer, Pl-anner #1 Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road WestVaiI, CO 81657 Re: Slifer Building Remodel Response to Vlinstonrs Critique/Sketches Dear JIII: Pursuant to our discussions regarding your/Winston's suggestions, this input is untimely, and as such, costly to theclient. Assuming these sketches are your posltion, we wouLdlike for you to consider our point of view. Beginning from the north, the suggestion to move the door southto increase the planter is good. We will propose this to theclient. Moving Lhe bay window to the south creates a train wreck on theroof. The reason we kept space north and south of the proposed bay was to al-low for snow shed and dripping on the Slifer'sproperty, not the neighbors (i.e. Gorsuch). We request that webe allowed to keep the proposed bay where presented in the pEC work session. fn regards to the planter sketched by Winston, the purpose ofthis costly remodel is to J.mprove the cornmercial exposure. Weproposed to increase the planter to the south per the enclosedsketch. ff you feel the extension of the existing, ugly stonewill "tie it togetherr" we will propose this to tle ctient. Every commercial tenant/client f have dealt with either asarchitect or DRB member has resisted planting in front of commercial windows. Lionshead was remodeled to qive better Ms. JiII Kammerer January 29r 1992 Page 2 vlsible access to the faces of commercial wlndows. The planters were removed or moved out into the maIl. The recently approved Red Lion landscape plan has virtually no planters and good commercial exposure. I do not understand why our consultant for streetscape does not understand this basic fact. Enclosed find our alternative plan which maintains the same amount of landscape that Winston proposed but aIlows people the pleasure of looking into windows unspoiled by dirty snow, frozen plants, cigarette butts, and enpty cans. Don't hesj.taLe to call after you have had a chance to review this. We w1lL/can arrange a meeting with the Slifers. Sincerely, ARNOLD/GWATHMEY/PRA ARCI{TTECTS, P.C. ard M. Gwathmey, AIA EMG/ad Enclosures copy to: Rod Slifer +O ,YN rpir ##, vt, H Ff;r# ."i ;; . ffi i1t. :.1 .,'i'J,'-_;,- ;l.ry . ir ':.'.-;...1r:: rft-iii *'titl- .'$1,. "'i . r ":i. ffi $-t ;l' 'x'i i..::.' .,!1r., llii W!t! i+''i.'"tt i"i. i'i;l';' , ;ii ttt fii i$s H$ '11*ji lr', $* ffi ffir,4:I!.E rn ,,,i I Fa. Fr r1 )! {.'13, ,t ffi,';.f.,{' :irifI.. '' .:..11 ". t; i;,,. . ri',,'r :tii.r'i'''r': "itl'$li:i i ' ,,t!). " ',* " rn, .''.,i:j{:iT4 . ' ,, ;1;''li " : i+l - ..'. t'i' ii,i:*,fr _ .:t.! {'' *r.rlI r,F "l t.r **. F"t$on frf ,f+* id lltc-u l-4E uJ: u+ iJuit q.lJ oI I I H INS ] UN_f1SIiUI, TFI I E.D z E- s+ 3 .fr R+F F ={itl-J s F sa >+z? T . Ua*g',?e.??lOfhv*lt- FAILll'Jat 7p* -eF -nzA:?FtlF( VVtTtAJp(9xw11&z ?fie-'leEF**bz) | \r\ ua'A qTorl7 \^te To r1t-rc+J a{e,Tl -77$-€ (t) a rt ei?%rt-l€A \ I' =r -lt$ fl A 'a?ee l,?4'1u qrLl EF?- Frfl $p;;1aHfqp,,p1#l/rdfi6l l" NE1^{ PAY l^llNR2hl L/\IJE2 +€A?e-?'-hHT* 4aeATtN $l6tl-l? - t tt'-b'l 4?'* w*teEg-4da? FFvv TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department January 13, L99Z A request for a worksession for a site coverage variance and an exterior alteration for the Slifer Building, located within the Commercial Core I zone district, 230 Bridge Street, I.ot B and a part of Lot C, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing Applicant Beth and Rod SliferPlanner: Jill Kammerer I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REOUESTED The applicant proposes to add 57.5 sq. ft. of site coverage to the Slifer Building in order to construct 53 sq. ft. additional first floor/display area for the Slifer Collection retail business and 538 sq. ft. of new second floor office space above the existing Slifer Collection retail space. The 4' deep x. 11'-6" wide x 28' tall addition would be located on the front (west) facade of the existing slifer collection retail space entrance (see attached plans). The applicant also proposes to infill an area generally in the same location as the existing entrance to the Slifer Collection retail space, which is covered by building above. Because the area to be infilled is located under a cantilevered area, this new 28 sq. ft. entry vestibule is already included in the site coverage calculations and. therefore will not increase site coverage. The Slifer Building is located in Commercial Core I. The maximum site coverage allowed in this zone disrict is 807o. The exisring building's sire coverage is92.Lvo, under this proposal, site coverage would increase to 93.9vo. Therefore, in order to allow the In addition to this request for a site coverage variance, the applicant will also be required to obtain an exterior alteration approval prior to the issuance of any building permit. II. BACKGROUND Other Town departments have not yet reviewed the proposal. On November 13, 1989, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed and approved a site coverage variance and an exterior alteration request for the Slifer Building for a 93 sq. ft. addition at this same general location (please see the attached memo). The proposed addition was subsequently approved by the Design Review Board (DRB) on November 29,1989. The PEC approved site coverage variance expired on November 13, 1990, and the DRB approval expired on November 29, 1990. In January of 1991, the Town's definition of site coverage was changed. Under the new definition, cantilevered areas and covered walkways count as site coverage. For this reason, the existing site coverage numbers in this memo will not correspond with the 1989 memo. Under the 1989 site coverage and exterior alteration approval, the existing site coverage was calculated at 89Vo and the proposed site coverage was 9ZVo. In August of 1991, the PEC denied Super Stars Studio's request for a site coverage variance for the construction of two bay windows at the Gorsuch Building, located in the Commercial core I zone district, with the findings the Foperty is not encurnbered with a physical hardship or unique circumstances and the project does not meet the findings for a site coverage variance. M. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Lot Size: Zoning: Site Coverage: Allowed: Existing: Proposed: 3,210 sq. ft Commercial Core I 80To or 2,568 sq. ft. 92.lVo or 2,956.7 sq. coverage) ft. (which is 388.7 sq. ft. over the allowed site 93.9Vo ot 3,014.2 sq. ft. site coverage) (which would be 446.2 sq. ft. over the allowed *A portion of the area to be infilled under this redevelopment proposal will not contribute additional site coverage because the space to be infilled is already covered by the second floor of the building. Parking: The applicant will be required to contribute $19,496.00 to the Town of Vail parking fund. The proposed addition will require 2.435 parking spaces. The parking fee for 1 commercial pa*ing space is $8,000.00. (85.5 sq. ft.l300 =.285 x $8000 = $2,280.00) The parking fee for office space is also $8,000.00 per parking space. The formula for parking spaces associated with office use is as follows: 538 sq. tt./250 = 2.152 x $8,000 = $17,216.00. Total parking fee = $2,280.00 + $17,216.00 -- $19196.00 IV. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSIO.N l. Is there a physical hardship which warrants the ganting of a site coverage variance? The section of ttre Code relating to site coverage in CCI states: "18.24.150 - Coverage. Not rnore than eighty percent of the total site area shall be covered by buitding and ground level patios and decks unless otherwise specified in the Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations. (Ord. 21(1980) $ I (part).)" The Vail Villaee Urban Desisn Guide Plan: The design considerations arc a critical element of the Urban Design Guide Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to assure that new development is consistent with this established character. The design considerations of the Urban Design Guide Plan relating to these site coverage variance exterior alteration requests are as follows: A. Pedestrianization B. Vehicular Penetration C. Streetscape Framework D. Street Enclosure E. Street EdseF. Building Heieht G. Views and Focal PointsH. Service and Deliverv I. Sun/Shade 2. J. Architecture/LandscapeConsiderations Will the proposed addition encroach into any of the Town's adopted view corridors? The existing maple tree will need to be removed under this proposal. To compensate for the removal of this tree, the applicant has proposed to construct a 45 square foot planter between the addition and the Ore House's exterior dining deck wall. The net planting area in the planter will be 37 square feet. In this planting area, the applicant proposes to install two, 3-4 inch caliper aspens and ground cover. To further compensate for the removal of the existing maple, the applicants propose to install the Town of Vail Streetscape Plan's approved paving on property which they own, adjacent to the building. Currently, 7 newspaper dispenser boxes are located along the southern edge of the applicant's property, in pan on the applicant's property and in part on Town-owned property. Should these boxes be consolidated into sFeetscape approved dispenser boxes, moved off-site, or should some variation of these two altematives be pursued? The proposed addition will cast 147 sq. ft. of additional shadow onto Bridge Street (see attached drawing). Are the proposed design and the resulting streetscape modifications acceptable? 4. 5. 6. clpec\neno$slifer, I 1 3 i\'frr Jrlflnt {*,^n tl.,iQ1J- Di--.-',u* , a $s\#e-L +ea- s ru&j"- pl*&I nl.ui, t k- rhcrmoil 54e1i'\0bf${'e o flt \ 6ina libo w,hdu,,., U'r'p/ ravsna-dn oJr,* O*pr&/ fl;,n,Va+ sDDtWA oo e/r\ iry'1;en,W* U' U Xt^M "oqt + *fl& -l*ft*bruu - 're{4+r+r bnub . fid,^ Dio^zu rilor,.,,rro\Ar" ii!-! J,,,, , U;_-J CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM Between:Ji11 Kammerer Mike MollicaShelly Mel1o Ned GwathmeyEric Johnson Place : Date . Re: Town of Vail Conmunity Development Offi_ce January 3, 1992 SIifer Building Remodel Pre -Application Conf erence Ned described the proposal with changes per the encrosed plansand compared this proposal with that wtr:.ctr was approved severalyears ago. The design reguested by the owner has changed andthe approval time has lapsed, thus a nevT application iirequired. o varlance for site coverage - ,Iill reguested a survey of thesite and certified site coverage whlch has been d.one andwirr be derivered. rncrease 1n si-Le coverage is less thanwas prevlously approved; the applieant must, however, provehardship and present the requiiea narrative. previouslv approved variance of 99 SF would be reduced to +,/- 60 Si'.The redesigned storefront entry infill is in an existingsite coverage area (under a cantilevered second leve1structure ) . o View corridor - ,JilI asked Ned to get Eagle Valley surveyingto confi-rm that the proposed pLan does not infringe lnto- th6vlew corridor. (Corky said Kristen must get back to hlmconcerning approval of the view corridors before he couldmake a determination. ) o Newspaper Dispensers on private property - Owner regueststhese be Located elsewhere in an iniormition kiosk per ToV. o Landscaping - removal of existing maple tree and replacementwith two 3" aspens in a row (19" height) pranter area withadditional shrubbery and perennial flowerl . continuati_on ofmatching stone for seating waLl adjacent to ore House patio. Conference Memorandum@,January 3, '1 992 Page 2 o Street Paving - TOV to submit detailed Master plan January 17. Coordinatlon of paver and border brickIocatj"ons along the property line. The existing drainageswale and storm grate should be integrated. o Additlonal Commerclal Sguare Footage - the proposedtwo*story bay wlndow projection is also part of the additionto Sl1fer, Smith & Franpton offices on the second floor (+/- 540 SF). Slifer Design will increase +/- 90 SF. The foregoing represents our understanding of matters discussed and decisions reached. If the interpretation of others varies,please inform us 1n writing. EMG Hh w / #^, "^A.fu"hr,;"a* \' 6'q*) "A CONTERENCE MEMORANDUM Between:JilI Kammerer Mike MollicaShelly Mel1o Ned Gwathmey Eric Johnson Place : Date : Town of Vail Comrnunity Development office January 3, 1992 Slifer Building Renodel Pre-Appl j-cation Conference Ned described the proposal with changes per the enclosed plans and conpared thls proposal with that which was approved several yearsr ago. The design reguested by the Owner has changed and the approval time has lapsed, thus a ne\d application is required. o Variance for site coveragle - Jitl requested a survey of thesite and certi.fied site coverage which has been done andwill be delivered. fncrease in site coverage is less than was previously approved; the applicant must, however, prove hardshlp and present the required narrative. Previously approved variance of 99 SF would be reduced to +/- 50 SF. The redesigned storefront entry infill ls in an existingsite coverage area (under a cantilevered second levelstructure). o View Corridor - Jill asked Ned to get Eagle Valley Surveyingto confirm that the proposed plan does not infringe into thevies corridor. (Corky sald Kristen must get back to him concerning approval of the view corridors before he coul4 make a determination. I 4/ew dacu,z*t/ rtcedt4 hc 4o@n.'/ .€/'2rzrz'4^ , ..atarn'dbr 4aeazra/ r az/?tc/ ac€al<y 2/trzdzaozt Nenspaper Dispensers on private property - owner r"guJ"tr TEthese be located elsewhere in an informatlon kiosk per TOV. L3ndscaping - removal of existing maple tree and replacementlrlth tso 3" aspens Ln a low {18'r heightl planter area withadditlonal shrubbery and perennial flowers. Contlnuation of natchlng stone for seating wall adJacent to Ore llouse patio- Re o o Street Paving - TOV to subrnit detailed Master Plan January 17. Coordination of paver and border brick locations along the property Ij.ne. The existing drainage swale and storm grate should be integrated. o Additional Commercial Sguare Footage - the proposed two-story bay window projection is also part of the addition to Slifei, s;ith & Frampton offices on the second floor (+/- 540 SF). Slifer Design will increase +/- 90 SF. The foregoing represents our understanding of matters discussed and decisioni reiehed. If the interpretation of others varies, please inform us in writing. Conference MemorandumSlifer office Building January 3, 1992 Page 2 EMG ffib atla.A tA N 4 r': ran,r'-' vfl|l t / tv. /. MODIFTED APPLICATTON FOR EXTERTOR ALTERATIONS OR MODIFTCATTONS IN SITE COVERAGE ADDTTTON - O SOUARE FEET . SQUARE FOOTAGE ADDITTON - 561 SQUARE FEET RE: SLIFER BUITDING - BRIDGE STREET MODIFICATTON The need for this application has evolved from a collection ofexisting circumstances reguiring architectural mitigation. The recessed condition of the retail storefront creates a shaded andpoor exposure sltuatj-on. The rear common access easement, being enclosed for obvlous winter conditions, greally reduces the availablersquare footage on the site.1 6rr€ cot/€&6€ Concerning the issue of the common access easement, thefollowing calculations will show no increase in aIIowable site coverage. Existing Site Area 32'l 0.0 SFExisting Site Coverage (898) 2860.0 SF Common Access Area 344.5 SFModified Site Coverage (7Bt) 2515.5 SF Proposed Addition 57.5 SFModified Site Coverage (808) 2573.0 SF ?he design intent is to project a bay window on two levels toincrease visibility and square footage. The additionalIandscaping will compliment and provide continuity in publicgreenways. We feel this project ensures the preservation ofclustered bui.lding arrangements, scale and architecturalqualities fronting Bridge Street. A. Evidence that proposal is in conformance with the purposesof the CC1 District as specified in 18.24.01 0. See enclosedplans and elevations. B. The proposal substantially compli-es with the Vail Village Urban Deslgn Gulde Plan regardlng: 1. Pedestrianization The proposed addition is entirely wlthin the buildlngproperty lines and does not extend into the BridgeStreet corridor further than the existlng cylindrlcalform and the existing planter and garden waIIs of the Gorsuch building. See site p1an. The Owner feels thatthe pedestrian flow is not inhibited by the addition. Application for Exterior AlterationsSlifer Building - Bridge Street Page 2 2. 3. Vehicle Penetration The proposal use does not require any additional vehicular service. The new shop will be serviced from Lhe a11ey on MiLL Creek Just as it is now. See enclosed letter Beth Slifer to Peter Patten. Streetscape Framework Applieants feel t,hat the streetscape will be enhanced by the proposal. the existing elevation and the space in the recess is presently dark and inhospitable. The addition of display windows, lighter colored trin and siding, and new ground paving wilt bring the exterior of thls portion of the building into the guallty 1eve1 of other recent infill additions on Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive. Street EnclosureApplicanls feel that the street enclosure w1Ll not be adversely affected by the modification. The space will be perceived the samei however, the rnicro environment created by the addltlon wiLl" be more j.nteresting. 5. Street Edge The edge of the street will be effectively the same; the walls on the edge will be more interesting and fresher. 6. Building neight The ridge of the bay window addition is the same height above Bridge Street as the high polnt of the Sfifer Building. Therefore, the overall building height remains unchanged. Views Not affected.See above. 8. sun,/Shade Consideration Due to the north-south orientation on Bridge Street and the fact that the proposal does not extend out west of the existing cylindrical projection, the midday shading has not been greatly added to (see study). Alsot conditions in the afternoon are not changed. The only minor effect is a short period around 10:00 a.m. whenthe sun is between the point where it is intercepLed by the existing 15' high north-south elevation of theSlifer Building. A1I of this is already in shade due to the much higher existing Gorsuch building. The net effect of the proposal regarding shading is negligible. 4. Application for Exterior AlterationsSlifer Buildlng - Bridge Street Page 3 No changes to the VaiL Village Urban Design Plan are proposed and the proposal w111 be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. PLease make note of the precedence established by similarexistlng projections in CC1 (see photos). The fact that this project had been previ.ously approved (PEC - '11113/89 and DRB - 11129/89) indicates a positive response to this improvement and its overall effect on theBridge Street environment. The request is sirnply a continuationof that intent. Thls modified request entails no additionalsite coverage varianee. The project rvouLd be at the 80E aLl.owed. .qa- I ldbre t \tg{fuNrb-d fr 4a *gt /#w- rehi. tb zawa Jqfr Jo/LU -aapshrza h o/C- 2 ttt%dntA q h*"a 'r g//cz'<-' . ^'tt ..t./ ./cd/// ,Yt!.<-z- zK a- O /'37'9/ tt''/uz &nriadc& nno*"r) 6 Wfr*- ft/&t-h / S/an-t7 S/"{/%/rfrnu h -so",}l = 2;*t'. .'i.t) la//*z- ?br) -nozt /, nr? a6' ,{d qd.d 4-/rtmsl 'n"afilLl; * ^i t,"trd*t.'-' ^ (^"{le- ya€u* ,l('t '1. lnow fu.,.' vrtrrd,wrt l, S. x UlrL.lL 'r unndar<r'fud,0-- - ul,,t'Jo{ 4A 4.*' ^ 0a*{+ pta,r'la.s a;-U* tk 7/a*kt' /",u-F* ,/ szat4r..r1 a/'l.-,l.-- 6"rffgs:rn57taa*un4 fucA,/uLta.'/ tt-tL /".V-F_ ' 5It ry?, fi, d_.1-- Aftfts-t;, ;S+l4.fettt ) M/%,2L qwrx . a/Cu4>1-.. ./,/ tsJt,t- totou-*, -6aa* -' a,vt^." ,,,/* %*&?,.Et16qiri -.nr'4rndatdlh1 s*"** r-' n tno/ I At. i,-Ytu*t*-,c //a/ aaryq ,4f /"r*{-,t/ y' r,i,4., - y'/ fa-rl J,-d<"fur,,{ u ' ?'Pt -mt+{ de7;t/'nV rt i/rktus * a,a*;-y?f, ' ( 'r r?ed &nutrt ol//am7,g &;f :'Mz /,;/e.g .-' 2 G"."a gfu --it*t la n* a,fuiZ' 'P/aor/at ,t/ 5 "ar**rrc{ zbd€?.' -tdrg- ,tur,o4 /o*L erdo-c oR o/-cufri:u- Jq,q bdz-'u,r;az/ "tur/ird'q4. ./'t\ ry/|, ,/4qt 4,o.r "v ,..U Ux.+t L(/tgrag-L- ov.zqlreu w-vv, svev l- Lffiry '-' ttoler\ /" dxllqk- 'ffioirl r%urtLt/- f@, ot .// // *g ,4 ld ,,/,U,+aca 3e -Ow*,u, e#tar2a>=> Pnft bau/c/*,t rrt",Ji re: [;-"1L-...--- nee.r-,t #t t'{** fAt,/tr4' J <nad b/daXf /a /?2/22o1g 6/?aD et -*df afea)ftdd ac/ ot fgerl rwa-tgtz^J -,*-na (mryt- .+.4'aff/4&'fupot' Aena/€" tPlc m4 kt/" 'f0C md k// ''.. 'alt&- ) danou" &tlqa w{ . / '""wilt$ryrV-t#trfs ^2, :;ffi'fw]-Wftnt- la-uitW'" "W ""i-"mffi:-ryffiw--': dtg/ oHer\| HilrusrfB{l}GJ E .q -.t['r*od lornstr ' TY":W, ; ' "e-"" . 4: .1 ttu r;;"7t;ti '0f1.,' /lt't""i I 4,-",...,I A 4 /rw{:i!':"' ;' , j?\ .'t,/- . i' ' ; .'. t// \J!' ,l ,' .,t ,tr/(i',/bl l. ; /' /,/ ,i;':i ;{' ' t/.,,/i; ,.',. . :i',t t ,'ti'' ) ,.'!( /',) :) /,t f- , i .r".iNt" , . r., 2 -..tt, il 'w rryt '#-,Hl- fiu'dsldi;fiffi;ffi^"' 'n'tlgI" -- '*"* "i .:-:-ll !t"r "."^,_g; t- PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January.13,1991 MINUTES Ffl. t 80Py PRESENT Chuck Crist Diana Donovan Connie Knight Ludwig Kurz Kathy Langenwalter Gena Whitten Dalton Williams STAFF PRESENT Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Andy Knudtsen Shelley Mello Betsy Rosolack The meeting was called to order by the chairperson, Diana Donovan. Dalton Williams had been appointed by Town Councilto replace Jim Shearer until February. WORK SESSION 1. A request for a work sesslon for an exterlor alteratlon and a slte coverage varlance ln Gommerclal Core I for the Sllfer Bulldlng, 230 Bridge StreevPart ot Lots B and G, Lot 5, vail vlilage Flrst Flling.Appllcant: Rod SilferPlanner: Jlll Kammerer The work session was led by Kristan Pritz. Kristan showed a drawing indicating areas of infill and expansion, as well as elevations. She explained pavers would extend to the end of the Clock Tower stone wall. Kristan listed the items for discussion. The first conc€rned whether or not there was a physical hardship for the variance. Other concerns were encroachment into any adopted view corridors; the removal of the maple tree with replacemenr of 2 aspens and ground cover in a planting area; where to place the newspaper dispenser boxes; the amount of additional shade which will be cast onto Bridge Street; and whether or not the resulting streetscape modifications are acceptable. With regard to the view corridor, the surveyor was rechecking this, and the applicant would respond after receiving the results from the surveyor. Ned _Gwathmey, projeci architect, made three responses to the question of physical hardship. The flrst was.that the protrusion of the building limited the exposure of the retail space. By bringing out the retail area, this would improve. Ned then pointed out the area being inlilied was on the top level surrounded by walls. Due to all the additions surrounding it, this area was covered with snow and in poor technical condition. Ned also felt there was a precedent for bay windows in the core area. { The deck to be construcled at Russell's Restaurant was discussed. Beth Slifer felt the deck would turther decrease the visibility of Slifer Designs. Rod Slifer expressed an interest in getting rid of the newspaper racks. Connie Knight wondered if people gening newspapers from the racks would then notice the Slifer Design store, but was told the racks did not help in this regard. Proposed was a bench incorporated with the planter. Rod felt the lool additions would be lower than the roof line of Gorsuch, but this would be checked. Diana pointed out that the covering of Gorsuch windows would have to be worked oul with Dave Gorsuch. A question concerning the caliper of the existing tree followed. lt is approximalely 5"-6' in caliper. Ned lelt the tree was in a poor place with relation to the windows. The Slifers proposed the installation of two aspen of 3"-4" caliper in the planter. Diana wondered why the maple lree was not just transplanted. Beth Slifer responded this tree was very messy. Rod felt it was too large for its location, and shed for several weeks each fall. Diana felt a substantial tree was needed, and preferred one larger tree to two smaller trees. Gena liked the architecture. However, with the anticipated construction of Russell's deck, she was concerned about everyone on Bridge Street moving outward toward the street. Kristan replied the statf was concerned about being consistent with respect to past decisions made on site coverage variances. She pointed out the staff had just told Paul Golden he could not increase his site coverage for two bay windows. G)trt:l' i: .l':'':.."': I Connie felt the ridge line was also crucial. She asked for dimensions of the increase in shadow. Ned replied it was 5-1/2' - 6' deep. Connie asked that it be drawn with other .shadows along Bridge Street. She liked the architecture. Kathy Langenwalter was concerned about the news dispensers. Kristan mentioned there had been talk of combining the racks into one wooden dispenser and perhaps moving them to another place. Kathy also felt a model would be helpful. Dalton had no problems with the proposal. Diana again expressed the desire for a "significant" tree. Kathy wondered if a different type of tree other than aspen could be used. Kathy moved and Chuck seconded to reeommend to the Town Gouncll that the Councll deslgnate locatlons lor newsracks and limlt the newsracks to those locatlons. The vote on thls motlon was 7-0 In favor. PUBLIC HEARING 1. A rcquest for a conditional use permlt for a modular offlce traller at 846 Forest Road/Lot 31, Vall Vlllage 2nd Filing. Appllcant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanltatlon Distrlct Planner: Shelly Mello SSIVI SOSSY_NOISNI PIi0d 100 [ [ 69 Ebb E0E ]E : E0 B?-I0-ZE6 t a0d t00 sOSSY-NOISNIt.l @o [16S 6tb 800 SE:60 8e-10-e66I - ,-# #"w FI*.g-4 r *'fqp r{ , tltwr-,f- r.!' {f -lf ,tl I t r t ltl - -Y* iltF*"" I,[89sod [00 S3l-YI3OSSV-NOISNI II Ebt 808 g0:80 8e-10-aBEt " o ffgr NO\l r 81991 November 18, 1991 Town of Vail Department of Community Development75 South Frontage Road WestVail, CO 81657 Re: Slifer Building Exterlor Alterations To Whom It May Concern: Pursuant to your "revised g/4/91 Application for ExteriorAlterations in cc1 , " we reguest a pre-application conference forconsideration of the enclosed design. A previous sinilar applicatlon r,vas approved by p.E.C. and DRBpursuant to Mike Moll"icats August 5, 1991',letter to me, and hasexpired. The current proposal is sirnilar in location, we areassuming a whol-e new application is required. concurrently, weknow as before we must file for a site coverage variance ai tneexisting structure exceeds the allowable. We feel this is a more compatible design and will add to thepedestrian experience on Bridge street. on behalf of the owner,we would like to address the process to avoid the usualglitches, flood plain studies, etc. I look forward to hearing from you so we can make the24 November deadline. Thanks for your continued cooperati.on. Sincerely, OLD/GWATHMEY/PRATT ARCHTTECTS, P. C. ward M. Gwathmey, EMG/ad Enclosure copy to: Beth and Rod Slifer 1k ffi cte,n bta beLo^ *^pn#".t I,&rdJ PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and EnvironmentalCommission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on January 13, 1991 at 2:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. Consideration of: 1. A request for a work session for an exterior alteration and a site coveraoe variance in Commercial Core I for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge StreeuPart of LotJA and C,l.s( 5, VailVillage First Filing. /Focrc' Applicant: Rod sliferPlanner: Jill Kammerer A request to amend the Town of Vail zoning code regarding minor exterior alteration procedures in Commercial Core I and Commercial Core ll, Section 18.24.065 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure, and Section 18.26.045 Exterior Alterations or Modifications - Procedure.Planner: Jill Kammerer A request for a variance from the maximum allowable driveway grade at 16 Forest Road/Lot 1, Block 7, Vail Village 6th Filing.Applicant: Ron ByrneiJay peterson staff:Jill Kammerer/Greg Hall 4- A request for a density variance in order to allow an addition to an existing non- conforming structure at 854 Spruce CourUa part of Lot 12, VailVillage gttrFiling. Applicant: Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Broughton/Steve ShanleyPlanner: Jill Kammerer 5. A request for a major amendment to Phase lV-A of Special Development District No. 6, vail village Inn, 100 East Meadow Drive/Lot o, Block s-D, vailvillage 1st Filing.Applicant: Josef StauferPlanner: Mike Mollica A request for a conditional use permit for a modular office trailer at 946 Forest Road/Lot 31, Vail Village 2nd Fiting. Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation DistrictPlanner: Shelly Mello A request to allow a change to an approved development plan, Tracts A and B, a part of Parcel A, Lions Ridge Filing No. 2, commonly referred to as The Valley, phase il.Applicant; Crossview at Vail properties, Inc./Steve GenslerPlanners: AndyKnudtsen/Kristanpritz A request for a side setback variance at 254 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 4, Block 1, vail Village 6th Filing. Applicant: Wiiliam SheppardPlanner: Andy Knudtsen 2. 3. 6. 7. 8. 9. A request for a setback variance and conditional use permit to allow a tow which will transport people and supplies from the garage to the house al 2701 Davos TraiyLot 15, Block B, Vait Ridge. Applicant: Brian and Sonja CraythornePlanner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO JANUARY 27,1992 MEETING. Information on the listed items is available at the Community Development office in the Vail Municipal Building during regular office hours. TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Published in the Vail Trail on December Zl. 199i. 4t c---}-..9. JBa fuJtr :+^""S Cu'-,v-t -t-- SL*^t Skfl -1-" b- Tk SciL Gltr.t; G"t*U I c.-"-"uso-,-..o, *-O F6-^* F*-^.. rt-.^[" AJj..--^* l.-.--gr^ +i o Lc>y.-!'{s d*.^-!-: 'T;.-^ 5J /*i 6 8-.t -=-,cl +D t^N*t j le- : -i tL' n,,, /"lin/b' Urw- Ae+ &*ey ia, u tlc C-\,pe\j"-p- rlxf rt u>f I rtr l;|,!l)(il STlll li'i \r^11.. r.\)i.i )li\i)t) Bl(.{- f.i{).i I .r-(r.!rJi lijl ..\\ ()\ ll{ ).\l) , p(). li()\ l{, t- 1\'()\. (.()l_()K\l)O iiiolil o TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT OF COMMIJNITY DEVELOPMENT S^ALES ACTION FORM COM. DEV. APPLICATION FEES0l 0000 41330 0l 0000 41540 I,INIFORM B1JILDING CODE0l 0000 424 15 I,NIFORM PLIJMBINC CODE0l 0000 42415 TJNIFORM MECHAMCAL CODE0l 0000 42415 01000042415 0r 0000 42415 OTHER CODEBOOKS 01000041548 )GROX COPIES / STUDIES0l 0000 42412 0l 0000 42371 OFF HOI.JRS INSPECTION FEES 01000041412 0r 0000 41330 01000041413 zful^ ffi^,, J t-orilF.l sF |JFl I l- l'liscel laneous Csh i 1- 1!--cr I 14: ?9:5S F*':*ipt * SSB*'83 tttrrr'untS riH*4:1fi SLIFEE ['E5I G]l5rf,0l4f{ ['Er'J firrr':run't t'errde r*d .r Irem Paid fflBfiBE4l3;l$Sriifi 758' 68 'ih*ng* ret u rn*'l ') i:' :: i: -l-HFlts'll{ lff}Lf Tsur cashier STEPHffllIE FEE 738.68 ANUnt Paid revised 9l4l9L a Tt€ Le\lePX€'4+ IJDV m?l pEC MEETING DAT1. //B,lf a ly'orks$t?n,) FOR I T'ARIINCE for any Project requesting a- -will n6t- be accePted until aII A. NAME OF APPLICANT €Lr ADDRESS L& RralF€ a.f. \,4At,@ pnownSlb4W\ rrhru, U\161 etro"" 41O' tl4l OWNER(S) (tYPe SIGNATURE (S) PHONE PRoPOSAL: -I,EGAL DESCRIPTION: I€t ea.t'F F;|?J*VT; II. A pre-appfj-cation conference with a planning.staff member is strongly- suggested to determine if any additional informatior,'Is needed. No application wiII be accepted unless it is complete (nust include all items required by the zoning adminlstrator). It is the applicant's responsibirity to make an appointment wlth the staff to find out about additional submitLal requirements ' III. PLEASE NoTE THAT A CoMP],ETE APPLICATIoN WILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS T'ORTOU-N PNOJECT BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL T}IAT THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION (PEC) MAY STIPULATE' ALL coNDIT]oNSoFAPPRoVALMUSTBECoMPLIEDWITHBEFoREA BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED. Application Date .EPPLTCtrTION I.This procedure is reguired variance. The aPPlication information is submitted. LOCATION. OF BitrgK L{t ADDRESS FEE $250.00 cK# THEFEEtdl'srBEPAIDBEFoRETHECoMMUNITYDEVELoPMENT PNPERTUTIIT WILL ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL. F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to t.he subject property INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHIND AND ACROSS STREETST- an-O tteir mailing addresses,' THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT MAILING ADDRESSES. FOUR (4) COPIES OF TIiE FOLLOWING MUST BE SUBMITTED: A. A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED AND THE REGULATION ]NVOLVED. THE STATEMENT MUST ALSO ADDRESS: l,, The relationship of 'ti:e requested variance to other existing -or potent-iai uses and structures in the wicinitv. \ U/;L e/-T rNTER-DEPARTMENTAL REVTEW 1 d-, Planner : C HEARING n/ e/Eq 74c/d '{,.7 An 7s NEEDED BY: BRIEF \DESCRIPTION OT' THE PRO PUBLIC WORKS RevJ.ewed by: Conments: Date ! ,"1 /1:.,, FTRE DEPARTHENT Reviewed by: Conments: POLICE DEPARTMENT Revlewed by: Conrnents: RECREATION DEPARTHENT RevLewed by: Comments: vzt,/zttzraz-, #ny'c{ r'" // ez-t y't//li-t ,"4"i '":/ ''"' ' -/:/ /) ...ts -;'t-. '.!|'"'/' r'4USf .*l7l i 'g;tv7.',./u //4,t,),: ,{:' '/ilS ffil ;:. .e/ //tJtr- y'l ) y'i ! .: ;t ' !; .! t.. '-|,t?r' '. '. ' .".,- \*-.' Date r Date: revlBed 3/11/91 Date: -cr1S/r. su NEEDED B EF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAIJ: rNTER-DEPARTHENTAL REVIEW DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING Planner: t/ttC 4BA 'a)J a;hlzz/.n Ae,r PUBLTC WORKS Revlewed by: Comments: POLICE DEPARTMENT RevJ.ewed byl Conunents: RECREATTON DEPARTMENT Revlewed by: Comments: Date: Date: revised 3/Ll/gL Datel pArD $ 5oo cR # 42/B THE FEE UT'SI BE PAID BEFORE THE COMMUNITY DEVEI,OPMENT DEPARTMENT WILL ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL. PRE_APPLICAT ION CONFERENCE : A pre-application conference with a planning staff member is strongLy suggested to determine if any additionaLinformation is needed. No application wiII be accepted unless it is complete (must include all items required bythe zoning administrator) . It is the applicant'sresponsibility to make an appointment with the staff to findout about additional submitlal requirements. PLEASE NOTE THAT A COUPLEIE APPL]CATION WILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR YOUR PRO,]ECT BY DECREASING THE NUMBER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE PEC MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED. THE FOLLOWING MUST BE SUBMTTTED: A. Improvement survey of property showing properLy lines and location of buildinq and anv improvements on the 1and. B. A list of the names of -rwlrrers of all property adjacent to the subject properly rNcLUDrNc PRoPERTY BEHTND AND ACROSS STREETS, and their mailing addresses. THE APPLICANT WILL,/BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT MAILING -_ ---- - --:- -:- . 100 s0. FT.) 100 sQ. Fr.) By S/4:t *A,szat a,e /,/',/f'7/ - 2r+ NDV lfi )AVa,rVV/ Fevt ra,t i;' : t' 4tl/ * 2 t'r 4t t- )"'r :; /','1 /4.sy' s/ez ,45 revised 9l4l9L Date of Application Date of PEC Meeting APPI,ICATTON TOR EXTERIOR JII,IERAIIONS OR IIODITICATIONS IN COMMERCITL CORE I VA,IL VILI.AGE Planning and Environment.al Commission review is required for the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area or outdoor patio or the replacementof an existing building located in the CCI Districl . FOLLOWING PEC APPROVAL, THE PRO.]ECT MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD (DRB). The application will not be accepted unit all information and fees are submitted. A.NAME OF APPLICANT ADDRESS B.NAME OF APPLI , S REPRESENTA ADDRESS C. NAI',IE OF OWNER(S) srGNAruRE (S) ADDRESS PHONE LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:LEGAL DEscRrprrou tAE[ T Ldfi.B1L,<t ADDRESS $2OO.OO (LESS THAN e€ n x $500.00 (MORE THAN II. 11r J;flk-e -l ov October 27, 1989 Ned Gwathney 1000 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81557 Re: Slifer Building {r,ot br. Slifer/l,tcBrj-de subdivision) Dear Ned, Per your request f have calculated. the.area of the parcel of Iand occupied by the Slifer eutlatng and the area of the footprint for the buildinqi. The ateas are as fol-lows Lotb-3210SF Building tq/covered entry - 2E60 SF Please call if you have any guestions. Sincerely, {aSfe Valley Surveying' Inc.\\n\)t$G€eoe**> Dan Corcoran, P.L.S. President /- !t:,F- 41199 Highway 6 & 24 Eagle-vail .Post Ofiice Box 1230 klwards, CO 81632_.^.rnA ,