HomeMy WebLinkAboutBell Tower Building (3)o f'',''o
+t'+'
:
', t 0.9'
f'
gfl']'
4P.:'@, nld,h,
'laail,tour w ,buldhn ' u*ino\ rd don.v|rf ,rylovflp o uvtll4o ' 04tt'o llt 412'-D)t i,inov,l[on'atl horrkinq, orhtfuif,
1trvo '
Snowdon and Hopkins o Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive
Vail. Coloradc
November 27, L989
303 476 2201
81 657
Mr. Peter Patten
Town of Vail Planning Department
75 So. Frontage RoadVai1, CO 8]-657
RE: Bell Tower Building Addition
A part of Tract A, Block 58, Vail Village First Filing, Vail, Co
Dear Peter:
Enclosed are four sets of infornation on our proposed request for an
addition to the Bell Tower Building in vail Village. The applicant,
BeLl Tower Associates, Ltd.., is requesting exterior nodifications and
alterations which requires subnittal of the proposal to the Town of
Vait Planning Department by Novernber 27 , L989, . as per CCI zoning
(Section L8.r4.065). This proposal is requesting changes to the
following six areas:
L. A conditional use Permit (section L8.24.040) for conversion
of existing enployee units, to GRFA square footage for an
additionaL dwelling unit.
2. A Conditional use Permit (section La.24.o3o) for relocation
of an existing out door restaurant/bar seating area along the
pedestrian way of the north side of the Bell Tower Building fron
ground level to 2nd floor.
3. Exterior rnodification and alteration to the south, east,
north and west elevations to acconnodate the addition of allowable
GRFA to the 3rd and 4th floors for an additional dwelling unit and
addition to an existing dwelling unit.
4. Exterior nodification and alteration to the west, east and
north elevations to accommodate conversion of an existing space from
restauranL/bar to retail and the addition of two new retail spaces.
5. A change in site coverage (Section La-24.f50)
6. A change in landscape coveraqe (Section l-8.24.L7O1
Page 2
Mr. Peter Patten
Novernber 27 , L989
These requests fall within the guidelines of the Vail Village Urban
Design Guide Plan and ComrnerciaL Core I zoning; maintain and enhance
the unique character of the Vail village conmercial areai upgrade
portions of the property; and is consistent with the purpose
( Section L8 .24. 01-0 ) of CCI .
The existing and proposed perrnitted, accessory and conditional uses
(Secti-ons t8.24.020 through l-8.24.080) for the basement, first, second
and above second floor Ievel are naintained. However, as previously
noted, a Conditional Use Permit wiII be required to have and operate
the proposed outdoor dining patio (Section L8.24.030) above street
leve1 . This has been encourlged by the vait village Urban Design
Guide PIan, and is consistent with that plan.
The Iot area (6,029 square feet) and site dimensions (97' x 7O') as
per Section 18.24.O9O are above the ninimum required. The setbacks
lsection L8.24. 1-00)r height (section La.24.L2O'), and density control
isection L8.24. 130) hrill be unchanged. AII added square footage is
within allowable (4,808 square feet) standards and proposed as
4,6LL square feet GRFA.
The coverage (Section 18.24.L50) of the property with building, ground
level patios and decks will be increased and there will be a loss of
landsclping and site development (Section LA.24.l-7O) due to expansion
of the uuiraing into the patio area. coveraqe will be increased,
hohtever, the existing coveraqe is over the allowed 41823 square feet
and is non-conforrning.
The loss of landscaping along the north wall of the existing building
at the northeast colner has little irnpact on the overall impression of
the project.
Parking and Loading (Section l-8.24.L8O) wiII be consistent with
existiig conditioni. tto on-site parking is provided, and parking
spaces ior the decrease in restaurant/bar space wiII trade with retail
space, as per Town of Vail standards, and require fewer spaces.
LZrading requirernents would be unchanged and the existing loading zone
along the south side of Gore Creek Drive woutd still service all
portions of the building via the west alley and the Children's P1aza.
Energency access wilf be unchanged, aS no elements of the new design
will-proJect further into driving lanes than presently exist-
The project will comply with Sections 18.24.I9Ot I8-24.200 and
L8.2i.220, and le developed as per the VaiI Village Urban Design Guide
Plan. Considerations of the Urban Design Guide Plan are as follows:
Page 3
Mr. Peter Patten
Novenber 27, t989
1. Pedestrianization is encouraged by reinforcing the edges of Gore
creek Promenade. The present exposure of the building is reduced and
encouragtes the winter use of Gore Creek Promenade as a strongerpedestrian walkway. The developrnent of shop exposure along the northwall adds to the pedestrian scale and the new shop facades wilL draw
people on to other shops beyond the staircase.
2. Vehicular Penetration is unaffected by this expansion of existing
and established uses, and will us all established traffic and accesspatterns.
3. Streetscape Framework is reinforced by brinqing the building
access and display down to grade, where the pedestrian can have abetter interaction with the store fronts. Added visual interest isreinforced by adding activities where they did not exist before along
core creek Promenade and add to the existing dining patio activity
east (Pepi's) and West (Sweet Basil) of the new patio. The landscaped
elenents surrounding the building are reduced in size, but will be
increased in intensity; therefore creating more effective focal points
along the pedestrian routes. With aII of these improvernents, the
quality of the walking experience around this key building in the
Village core is greatly increased.
4. Street Enclosure is improved by extending a one-story base element
around the north side of the building. This lowers the scale of the
building down to a well defined ground floor pedestrian front, and
ties into the open area to the north, giving it a comfortable
enclosure to match sinilar elements on the west (Bluts) and east
(May Pa1ace). The articulated front with its display windows.projecting in and out creates a facade very much in keeping with the
unique pedestrian scale of the Vail Village.
5. The Street Edge is reinforced by the articulated front of display
windows, creating a facade very much in keeping with the unique
character and pedestrian scale of VaiI. The softened (45 degree
angle) corner of the expansion allow for views around the building as
it is approached and leads the pedestrian's view into and up the
stairs.
6. Buitding Height is affected, but the entire expansion is within
the existing envelope of the building. The new roof lines will adc
variety and increase the rnix of building heights which is a desirable
element in the guide plan. The existing roof condition is
non-conforming as 5l-? of the roof area is in the 33 ' - 43' height and.
because of grade change on the north side, the entire elevation
exceeds 50' in height.
Page 4
Mr. Peter Patten
Novenber 27, L989
7. Views are not impacted by the building expansion because all
improvernents occur inside existing building envelopes, and.are just
creating new facades inside view planes of the existing building (see
enclosed sketches).
8. Service and Delivery is unchanged and is consistent with the Town
plan by using existing loading and parking zones presently.established
Itong Gore Cieek Drive, Emergency and maintenance access is not
changed and will continue to service the building and other buildings
beyond the plaza. Trash and some deliveries will still be handled
through the existing service alley along the west boundary of tl-te
propeity, and the building expansion should not interrupt with its
existing use.
g. Sun and Shade are impacted by the expansion of the penthouse along
the north edge of tne buitaing. By raising the northern patio up one
fLoor, we can increase its sun exposures in the late afternoon/early
evening hours of summer. A1so, with the expansion within the already
existing envelope, no additional shading patterns are created on the
pl.aza, or Gore Creek Drive. The pedestrian walkway and staircase-on
the north side of the building are impacted by increasing the shade
pattern by 4.5'.
The owner also understands that with ttre conversion of the ernployee
units to standard dwelling unit square footage, comparables type.units
rnust be brought under coniract prior to the issuing of any building
permits for the penthouse remodel.
Architectural detailing and landscaping considerations will be
addressed during the design review stages of approvals and shall not
be expanded upon at this tirne. I hope the enclosed information is
adequite to begin the review process. If you need more information,
or have any questions on the project, please let me know-
Sincerely,
SNOWDON AND HOPKINS ARCHITECTS
Llnqfthlr/rl
Craig N. snowdonPartner
cNs/s1h
Enc.
"'sNowDoN & HoPKrNs o*l rrarc
201 Gore Creek Drive
vArL, coLoRADO 81657
TO
D
476-220
wE ARE SENDING vou ! Attached f] Under separate cover via
tr Shop drawings
ts Copy of letter
fl'erints
! Change order
{ Ptans
LETTd} @F TIRANSNNOTTAL
tr Samples E Specifications
the following items:
coPtEs DATE NO.DESCRIPTION
4 ll/1,7 /Fl ?'/Xdrlat't'n*'Wthgf hyt flezc/?9 /rff ,,/
ultr / at 4 'Xlh tuthL'I
/f Il,i/il4 t 'afurbdfu4r+ Lznt W i/?tte&d, trurfu ftre/4q:
//lil/str //fro/drnt'f' t,i4 drl &"f/ah'I ritti / gl 4 lffiotr n rili /
/'iiit l t *ir /m
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED
E For approval
as checked below:
fl For your use
! As requested
,l For review and comment tr
D FOR BIDS DUE
tr Approved as
! Approved as
fl Returned for
submitted
noted
corrections
tr
!
-
Resubmit-copies for approval
Submit-copies for distribution
Return
-corrected
prints
19- D PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
REMARKS
tl anctoarraa.ra not aa ^ot d, kindtlt notify ua tt onca'?i0Ducr2|c2 /6_/ |m- co&, t6. 0t1ll
l
TO: Planning and Environmental Cornmission
FROM: Comrnunity Development Department
DATE: Decernber 12, 1988
SUBJECT: A request for condorninium conversion of the Bell
Tower Building.Applicant: Bell Tohrer Associates, Ltd.
I. THE REQUEST
BelI Tower Associates, Ltd. desires to complete a
condominium conversion of the Bell Tower Building in orderto allow transfer of a portion of the building to one ofthe existing commercial tenants. The owner has appliedthrough the Tohrn of Vail subdivision regulations, chapter
L7.26 Condominium conversion. There are no existing
accommodation units within the Bell Tovrer Building, so thespecific section relating to accomrnodation unitconversions is not applicable to this request. There arecurrently existing within the BelI Tower Buitding two
employee housing units. These units, historically subjectto long term lease, will be restricted through condominiundeclarations to remain as enployee housing units, longterm lease only, for a period of l-5 years. This has been
agreed to by the applicant and the staff and will be acondition of approval of this request.
rI. CRITERIA TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSAL
Criteria to evaluate the condominiurnization of the BelI
Tower Building is found in Section l-7.26.060 of thesubdivision regulations which reLate to all condominiumconversions, whether acconmodation units are involved ornot. These criteria are set out for the condo conversionapplication to ensure the perfortnance of maintenanceresponsibilities, to pronote public health, safety andwelfare, to ensure that converted units meet reasonablephysical standards and to protect from unnecessaryeviction the residents of rental units being converted to
condoniniums.
A. Section L7.26.080 of the subdivision regulationsreguires the PEc to consider whether the proposed
conversion is consistent with the following housinggoals of the Town:
1. To encourage continuation of social and economicdiversity in the Town through a variety of
housing types.
Staff Response:
lhe agreenent by the applicant to restrict units
R-3 and R-4 to long term employee housing for a
L5 year period meets this criteria.
2. To expand the supply of decent housing for low
and moderate incorne fanilies.
Staff Response:
This proposal does not change the supply of
housing in the connunity.
3. To achieve a greater economic balance for the
Town by increasing the number of jobs and thesupply of housing for people who will hold
them.
Staff Response:
This proposal does not impact this criteria,other than allowing commercial operators thesecurity of owning their own space.
B. The Conrnission nay require that a reasonablepercentage of the converted units be reserved forsale or rental to Dersons of moderate income.
Staff Response:
The applicant has agreed to restrict the two existingrental units for a l-5 year period.
c. The Planning Cornmission may deny the tentative orprelininary map upon finding that:
1. Based on the information reguired by L7.26.070
and on the vacancy rate for rental housing,tenants will have substantial difficulty inobtaining comparably priced rental housing. arental vacancy rate beLow five percent based onthe most recent Town survey constitutes ahousing emergency situation.
2. The ratio of multiple-farnily rental units wouldbe reduced to less than twenty-five percent ofthe total nurnber of dwelling units in the GoreValley, from Dowd Junction east to the base ofVail Pass, with no replacenent rental housingbeing provided.
Staff Response:
This proposal presents no inpact to thiscriteria.
The Town of Vail Building Departrnent has completed therequired inspection for conversion and all requiredcriteria have been net by the applicant.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH STIPULATIONS OF SECTION ].7.].6.075
The BelI Tower building contains no accommodation units
and is therefore in conpliance with the section regarding
acconmodation unit conversions. The applicant has agreedto a 15 year long term rental restriction to condo units
R3 and R4 which currently serve as employee housing units.
IV. STAFF RECOM},TENDATION
As a condition of approval , the final condominiumdeclarations to be recorded with the plat must contain
appropriate language restricting units R-3 and R-4. This
language will be reviewed by Town of Vail staff prior to
recording of the condoniniun map and documents.
Saf"sf 6.r,t/,a .^V-.-fon f'+"/f
,fclorl<-.Mfa '
Snowdon and Hopkins
201 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, Colorado
January 29 | L99O
Architects
303-476-2201
81657
ltr. Tom Braun
Town of vail Planning Departrnent
75 So. Frontage RoadVail, Colorado 81-657
RE: Belltower Penthouse,/Lancelot Restaurant Additions
Dear Tom:
Enclosed is a packet of inforrnation that you and Peter requested at
ovr L/LI/SO nelting to review the PEC subnittal for expansion. to the
Belltbwe; Building Penthouse and Lancelot Restaurant. At that
neeting you had requested that I provide you with:
l-) View analysis inpacts for both the penthouse and restaurant/
retail expansions.
2) Square footage calculations for the entire building'
3) A roof height calculation based on:
Gore Creek Drive and Children's Plaza as
base elevations.
Reference to elevations along the Gore Creek
Promenade.
a)
b)
4) rnformation on servicer/delivery and comparables'
lile are basing aII of the enclosed infornation on existing
conditions ana our subnittal package of plans and elevations dated
IL/27/8g. To supplement those drawings, I am including a set of
coirdorninium map diawings by Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc. (3 -Sheets)dated February 1988, aid m-isceilaneous Snowdon and Hopkins drawings
indicating sqiar" f6otage calculations as follows for the entire
building.
Basement Floor
Restaurant
Common Mech.
Storage
2948 Sq. Ft.L92 Sq. Ft.600 sq. Ft.
Page 2
Mr. Tom Braun
January 29, L99O
Main LeveJ- (Retait)
shop l-
Shop 2
shop 3
shop 4
Restaurant
office Level
office 1Office 2office 3Office 4office 5
Connon
Penthouse
Rl_
R]-A
R].B
Upper Pentlrouse
Rl_
RlA
2992
450
265
25L
l-98
745
L75
792
240
49L
485
Sq. Ft.Sq. Ft.Sq. Ft.Sq. Ft.Sq. Ft.
sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.sq. Ft.sq. Ft.Sq. Ft.Sq. Ft.
1-849 Sq. Ft.23L Sq. Ft.252 Sq. Ft.
In addition to this existing
an additional 240 square feet
and 2278 square feet of GRFAlevels.
sq. Ft.sq. Ft.
Sq. Ft.
square footage, Ide are still proposinq
of retail space at the basement level
on the penthouse and upper penthouse
TOTAL
483
106
L3745
Also enclosed are two roof plans (existing and proposed) with
surrounding at-grade elevations, and a vicinity map with references
to view analysis photos.
Page 3
Mr. Tom Braun
January 29r l-990
As can be seen in the view analysis photos (numbered L to 11 with
descriptions on rear) vertical boards (with fluorescent orange tips)
were placed at the two outside north corners of the penthouse
addition (flat roofed area), and three vertical boards were placed at
the outer corners of the proposed retail expansion (at the top of
deck railing height). The irnpact on views of and around the
penthouse eipansion are minimal if at all. The rqlginq_e!_lhe_eleped
ion along the_lelqh edge of the thouse mav in factac
west and thru-the Blaza to
Ehe Aas_t. The impact of the retail expansion at gro evel has
mfiInal intrusion on the stairs between the Children's Plaza and Gore
Creek Promenade as already existing elernents such as trees'
buildings, and awnings finit your views from the pedestrian walks and
bridges. The stairs do remain visible to the pedestrian as he moves
along the walkways.
The roof height analysis shows that the existing buiJ-ding does not
conply with tne 60/40 ratio requested by the Town in their
guidetines. At present there is approxinately 4L.52 of roof below
53' and 58.58 above 33' but below 43'. The proposed expansions
change the ratios from 362 of roof below 33' and 64? above 33' but
below 43' in heiqht. Thi o 1 is still 1' to 2' below the
re Creek Plaza recE1y west of
t-ff6-Selltower Builainq; and-as-Etatea aiE based on elevations along
Gore Creek Drive and the Children's Plaza.
The final issue of concern at our meeting was the question of service
and delivery to the newly created retail shops along the Gore- Creek
Prornenade. As was discuised we are anticipating service to these
shops frorn the designated loading and parking zone just south of_the
briilge on Willow eridge Road. fnis is a distance of approximately
300 feet. The onty sirnilar comparisons to other shops in the Village
area are those of One Vait Place (2OO feet) and the Hong Kong Cafe
(230 feet); and some smaller shops within the Village lnn Plaza
cornplex.
As previously noted, we still have sun/shade impact as shown on the
LL/27/Bg sit6 p1an, and will still reguire conditional use pernits
fol the relocalion of employee units R1A and RlB as well as the
relocation of the outdooi patio froro the first to the second floor.
Variances will be required based on your interpretations of the
building height ana Jite coverage (both existing non-conforming
situations) is well as the Town's approval for use of land for the
new staircase serving the relocated outdoor patio.
e west and thru the
Page 4
Mr. Ton Braun
January 29, L99O
This information is being subrnitted for inclusion on yout 2/26/90_
PEC rneeting agenda. If you have any questions, or need additional
information, please let rne know.
Sincerely,
SNOWDON AND HOPKINS - ARCHITECTS
fruaffiilfd,ucraid n'. snodaofi
Partner
CNS/slh
Enc.
cc: Ur. clark Willinghan![r. Hermann Stauffer
\o +sl'1'
5tJ'^ 51.g'
O
oJwolrinq lel<n |"vn
Tr.V. uw\r tq FW lrro.
Mfii. VOh
.
x
L,lrin
+ n.1'
ffl']''1
'hlltaw w ,buldf.to\ , ulcino rd don.V?tl ,qw.4o o "t/tJlolo ' ndto llt <tl2tz'f tt ,',inotvJfon-wl lwpkinq , orrhthilq
^/
i
i
', @.5'
Y
4s's'
G;q''l'-\-1.
FS>-
:f,g-
$-=.o
='€.
-\ \\1 -S
=tr€-F.=-F=+ :5s-\z!-r
'€€-_FE
t .lh.t": ti?"i,L YJi*
't \t 'i.'1 '' t- rt\ '. \ c,'r
. , ,.. /,t,' ,t,./{,q' ',\\'l.t./Y .1
I
'\-
'o |r :,\
e\,.9, .<\ :, 'i _\ \xI \ '-,-? f)5 i,\,!,, j .t \\,
f .i \-r/ * \\li\' ,i
' ' 4a--'r \t, '.. ,i\,
-I'l c'l. \(\r+l \.i- - ,
'l . .'l\J'r
\\
I
\\,
i\\\
i\tl\
t
rrl
A'l e
,l
f
"l*/
\
,{^K#o
I
,./
\
\
\
rr\rt
4,, \
, t r..',t\l
\ $,:;\
i'l tl\
(r A.l .t. ,l\ tl |i- tt \.,I---rr i
.":if\\'
I l; i I \ *:i:lll i ii \ Yilrlll url t \b
I
lY{I
\u
*i:"-; trT. ---
i\ "
I llll
t
tr lli
I ili
ifaiiiiEil -i*-,'
i', \t'l
i-'=r
aeh, ),r \dp.. \z
,/,,'
ii(ll
11"
@
1r'i it .
I pr--..,.|_-,-.f ; : ir,ZI l'r -'i r <l:tt] i:t .l +_ r,,6;,',1 u I,
,..'. . ) I . -.-')
.a' . .' .,
)
J
Go'*r6[
O 4-61'1r o
5tJ'^51.9,
oJwd,inq lolq 4"w
T.t.U.ilNAr h fi? ln .
iafii. V\h '
\
+ n3'
1
L',lairs
)
Y
' , rlo.5'.{Br
qlq.l'
+''t'
de,'vdtor-nww
*lrD.3'-r
crl,(,k driva ,
+*+' @' nlr)h,
'wlltarNq,r ,buldlxo\ , tal,qtin0\ C don.V2t[ ,rypY\7 o ur/t]lflo ' nlL'o llt al7t-/\)t t' r
"inovi[on'ail ltoaktnq, orchtht+
SNOWDON & HOPKINS ARCHITECTS
201 Gore Greek Drive
vArL, coLoRADO 81657
> wE ARE SENDING YOU iU nttacnea ! Under separate cover via
tr Shop drawings
I Copy ol letter
LETTER OF TRANSNNITT'AL
tf Plans E Samples ! Specifications
TO
p Prints
! Change order x zttrt*tI
coPrEs DATE NO.DESCRIPTION
I hlIf ,,hryz{n h4tu
/4lior'Ft i Mdn/tt/%ltr &'tvl ,"-a
/I''//>us ffi.,
/lt @r
I li?t /'lt /ffit4o/e,u/l,zs
I tiiit '70 .4//
/iita'i;rt 4 irFS ,',$!1t.
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED AS ChECKEd
E For approval
! For your use
!, As requested
I For review and comment
BIDS OUE
REMARKS
below:
I Approved as submitted
E Approved as noted
E Returned for corrections
Resubmit-copies for approval
Submit
-copies
lor distribution
Return-corrected prints
!
tr
tr
19- tr PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US
COPY TO
SIGNED:
||oqfi?|o2 /@ Ir. ertu, {.r olrtr.,t ancrolrrrgt tra aol aa notcd, klndty novly ua tt onca'
o #,.,'o
uww awF.a
".., I
11.0t * 1:
w.4'
:":.-l
[ou,r Jwl,-
^',..
I
olu'atrbrrr \rl4n +rnn
loV +u\th, flrP ltn,
4ffi Vw
g$,1fll
tt'$
Lo,r,,
tr;.;l*\
f$t"-,l'
x9t.{' .:
r .l l, t
. Ftttldtnnr roof
lofa+o ,'. t/t1'bdftoww,V?)l ,@
+il'
+b0.5
oirtou*owor
+bo$'_*t o.+'
tll'lc
AW
\#:i\
rl6rux drtva b
iqnowAon Nrf Wilyt( o orrhtholq
\
&*
-\4 r-rcu^s i fu-ll ) cr".)
h/6L *rp",lL
?'^' 4--v
\pLo * J" t. '
74' /us.,
. -'f*N -{,n
lp/.-J.n
^
r1,
''4*V,]2
4%2'
+,
&/-
H/,/%;
-j
bu,'/l-,,
O n loaloaApprication D^d llfl'llffi "'
PEC MEETING DATE
APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
./i;"r' ;'
I.This
}li'l'l
A.
procedure ls required for
not be accepted unti'l all
requesting a variance.is submitted.
The appl icationany project
information
NAME oF APPLICANT UIOV Wrllrl
ADDRESS
B. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE
ADDRESS
c.
ADDRESS
PHONE
D.LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
ADDRESS
FROM
LEGAL DEscRrprroN Lor-BLo cr-lL -FrLrNG V?ll t/tlh$ hrtf
-
E.FEE $1OO PAID cK#
THE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE COMMUNITY
YOUR PROPOSAL.
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I,IILL ACCEPT
F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subject property
INCLUOING PR0PERTY 8EHIN0 AND ACROSS STREETS, and their mai'ling addresses.
THE APPLICANT I,IILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT MAILING ADDRESSES.
II. A PRE.APPLICATION CONFERENCE I.IITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED
TO)DETERMINEIFANY'ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS NEEDED. NO APPLICATION l.lILL BE
ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL ITEMS REQUIRED 8Y THE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MKE AN APPOINTI'IENT
I.IITH THE STAFF TO FINO OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REqUIREMENTS.
PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION hlILL STREAI'ILINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR
YOUR PROJECT gV OECRM]XG-THE NUI'IBER OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE PLANNING.AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL },IUST BE
COMPLIED I.IITH BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSIJtrO. ' ,
III. FOUR (4) COPTES 0F THE F0LL01,[NG MUST BE SUBMITTED:
. A. A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED AND THE
. REGULATION INVOLVED. THE STATEMENT MUST ALSO ADDRESS:
l. The relationship of the requested variance to'other existing or potentialuses and structures in the vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation andenforcement-of a specified regulation is-necessary to achieve cornpatibilitvand uniformity 9t treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attii;'ih;'-objecti,res of this title without grant of special privilege.
OVER
o
2-Vari ance
3. The effect of the variance on light and_air, distribution of-population'
irinipoiiition, traffic facilitiis, uti'lities, and public safety.
R- A toooqraphic and/or lmprovement survey at a sca'le of at 'least 1" - 20' stamped'nu-i'c6toi-ado licensed iurveyor lnc]uding locations of al'l existing.lmprove-
illntsl-iniiuOing giaOes and Llevations. -0ther elements which must be shown
lre-pirting and'l6aJing iieas, lngress and egress, landscpped areas and
utility and drainage features.
C. A site plan at a scale of at least l" '. 20' showing existing and proposed
buildings.
D. Al'l pre'lim.inary building elevations and floor plans _sufficient to indicate
ttre iimensions-, general-appearance, scale and use of a'l'l buildings and spaces
existing and proposed on the site.
E. A preliminary tit'le report to verify ownership and easements
F. If the proposa) is located in a multi-family development which has a homeowners
association, then written approval from the association in-support-of.the
projebt musi be received by a duly authorized agent for said association.
G. Any additional material necessary for the review of the application as
determined by the zoning adrninistrator.,
* For interior modificatiohs, dh improvement survey and site plan may be
waived by the zoning adminjstrator. '
IV.T'ime Requ'i rments
The P'l anning and Environmental ,Commission meets
i?-eii[ montt. A comp'lete application form and
ias-described above) must be submitted-a minimum
iEi puulic hearing. No incomplete applications
admihistrator) wii'l be accepted by the planning
nated submittal date.
on the 2nd and 4th MondaYs
al1 accompanying materialof 4 weeks prior to the date of
(as determined by the zoningitaff before or after the desig-
il'
Date of PEC Meeting
APPLICATION FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS
0R I'IODIFICATIONS IN C0MMERCIAL C0RE I
VAIL VILLAGE
I. Plann'ing and Envjronmental Commission review is required for the alterationof an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area or
outdoor patio or the replacement of an existing bu'ilding L0CATED IN THE CCI
DISTRICT. FOLLOI,IING PEC APPROVAL, THE PROJECT MUST BE REVIEWED BY THE DRB.
The application wil'l not be accepted until all information is suhnitted.
A. NAME OF APPLICANT Utlil{ri
ADDRESS
PHONE
I out" orQo t i,ution-)fffil i!--
B.APPLICANT' S REPRESENT O'"'1NOWNAME OF
ADDRESS
PHONE
c.NAME 0F oWNER(S) (
SICNATURE(S)
rint or type)
w0
ADDRESS
PHONE
D.LOCATION
ADDRESS
E. FEE $100.00
THE FEE MUST BE PAID
REVIEW YOUR PROJECT.
OF PROPOSAL: LEGAL
ean kfztft4cr *-9d"'ev
BEFORE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I.IILL
II. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE:
A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH A PLANNING STAFF MEMBER IS STRONGLY SUGGESTED
TO DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I5 NEEDED. NO APPLICATION l,lILL
BE ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL ITEMS REQUIRED BY THE
zONINc ADMINISTRAToR). IT Is THE AppLtcll'tt,s REspoNsIBILITy'T0 MAKE AN AppoINT-
MENT t^lITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS.
PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION I.IILL STREAMLINE THE APPROVAL PROCESSFOR Y0uR PR0JEcr BY-T'ECR-ETSING THE NUMBER or conorrroni or nppnovAL THATTHE PEC MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED I,IITH BEFOREA BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSNED. THE FOLLOI.IING MUST BE SUBMITTED:
A. Improvement survey of property showing property lines and location ofbuilding and any improvements on the iand.
B. A list of the names of owners of a] I property adjacent to the subjectproperty INCLUDING PR0PERTY BEHIND AND ACR0SS STREETS, and their mailing
AddTCSSCS. THE APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT MAILING ADDREsSES.
OVER
a
III' Four (4) copies of a sjte plan containing the following information:
A. The s'ite plan shall be drawn on a sheet size of 24,, x 36', at a scaleOf I'' = 20' SHOWING EXISTING AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE. Avariation of the sheet size or scale may be approved by the CommunityDevelopment Department if justified.
B. The date, north arrow, scale and name of the proposed developmentl,lITH ITS LEGAL DESCRIPTI0N shall be shown on the site plan.
c. The existing topographic character of the site including existingand proposed contours. This condition will only be required for-anexpansion area where there is a change of two flet of grade.
D. The existing and proposed landscaping, patios.
E. The location of all existing and proposed buildings, structures, and improvements.
F. .A title report to verify ownership and easements.
IV. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT IN I,IRITTEN AND GRAPHIC FORM A PREPONDERANCE
OF EVIDENCE BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION INDICATING
THAT:
A. THE PROPOSAL IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PURPOSES OF THE CCI DISTRICT. AS SPECIFIED IN'I8.24.010.
B. THE PROPOSAL SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIES WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESiGNGUIDE PLAN REGARDING;
l. Pedestrianization2. Vehicle Penetration3. Streetscape Framewoik4. Street Enclosure5. Street Edge6. Build'ing Height7. Views8. Sun Shade Consideration
MANY OF THE ABOVE ITEMS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED BY GMPHIC MEANS, SUCHAS SKETCHES, SIMULATI0NS, MoDELS (INCLUDING NETGHBoRING BUILDINGS),
PHOTOS, ETC.
IF THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A MAJOR CHANGE TO THE VAIL
DESIGN GUIDE PLAN, THE PROCEDURE FOR CHANGES ARE NOTED IN
VILLAGE URBAN
SECTION18.24.220(8).
C. THE PROPOSAL IS COMPATIBLE t,lITH THE CHARACTER OF THE
ccr
NEIGHBORHOOD.
V. THE TOI.IN OF VAIL ZONING CODE FOR CCI ALSO DESCRIBES OTHER ZONING ISSUES
THAT THE APPLICANT MUST RESPOND TO IN I.IRITTEN OR GMPHIC FORM.
VI. THE ZONING ADMINISTMTOR MAY DETERMINE THAT ADDITIONAL MATERIAL IS NECESSARY
FOR THE REVIEl,l OF THE APPLICATION
VII. APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERIOR ALTEMTIONS OR MODIFICATIONS IN CCI INVOLVING
MORE THAN IOO SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA ARE ONLY REVIEl,tED SEMI-ANNUA.LY. THEY
NEED TO BE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE FOURTH MONDAY OF MY OR NOVEMBER. THE PECHOLDS A PRELIMINARY REVIEW SESSION WITHIN 2I DAYS OF THE SUBMITTAL DATE.
-
A
PUBLIC HEARING SHALL BE HELD WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE PRELIMINARY REVIEl,| SESSION.
APPLICATIONS FOR THE ALTERATION OF AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT ADDS OR REMOVES ANY
ENCLOSED FLOOR AREA OF NOT MORE THAN 'IOO SQUARE FEET MAY BE SUBMITTED AT THE
REQUIRED TIME OF THE MONTH FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION REVIEhJ.
FOR MORE SPECIFICS ON THE REVIEI,I SCHEDULE, SEE SECTION 18.24.065 A5.
I.Thi s
use.
The
A.
procedure
permi t.
appl i cation
APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERHIT
is required for any project required to obtain
will not be accepted until al'l information is
oate or Apprication llf/L1 l-frI '
a conditional
submi tted.
NAI4E OF APPLICANT
ADDRESS .151.01-
PHINEA--.Wf ,17h
APPLICANT'S
lrl bow,
B.NAME OF
ADDRESS
REPRESENTATIVE
0
c.NAME OF OUNER(S) (print or type)
D.LOCATION 0F PROP0SAL: LEGAL-
F. A list of the names of owners of al'l property. INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHTND AND ACROSS STREETS,
THE APPLICANT I.JILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT
adjacent to the subject property
and their mailing addresses.
OI.INERS AND CORRECT ADORESSES.
II. PRE.APPLICATION CLAUSE
A PRE.APPLICATION CONFERENCE l,lITH A PLANNING STAFF MEI'IBEN TS STNONCLY SUGGESTEDT0 DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIoNAL INFoRMATIoN IS NEEDED. No AppLrcATton wi[r-": qF ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALL ITEMS REQUIRED_BV iiE ZONTNE
fl9U.lNIlIR4I9l)._ II Is THEAPPLIcANi's REspoNsrBLrry ro MAKE An nppornm'dlrr}IITH THE STAFF TO FiND OUT AEOUT ADDITIONAL SUEMiTTN| NEqUTNEMENTS:
PLEASE NOTE THAT A !9!!!IIE APPLTCATT0N r,rrLL sTREAr,tLrNE THE APPROVAL pRocEss
FOR YOUR PROJEcr EY DECRETSING THE NUT'TBER 0F coNDITI0Ns 0F AppRovAL THAT THEPEc MAY STIPULATE. ALL coNDITIoNS oF AppRovAL MUsT BE coMpLIED l.tITH BEFoRE ABUILDING PERI'IIT IS ISSUED.
?noneffi-47bfl41
ol,lNER(S) r .STGNATURE(S)
ADDRESS
PHONE
LOT BLoCK ,5p Fllrr.re V?r vl
ADDRESS
E.FEE $100 PArD cK#BY
THE FEE MUST BE PAID BEFORE THE DEPARTI4ENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT }IILL
ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL.
ove F
tE:z,
-f r"' C'
IfC Feull-(-+t copies of the following information:
A. A description of the precise nature of the proposed
use and its operatlng characteristics' and neasures
proposed to make the use compatible with otherproperties in the vlcinity.
B. A description of how your request complies withVaiIrs Conprehensive Plan.
c. A site plan showing proposed development of ttre site,
lncluding topography, building locations, parking,traffic circulation, useable open Epace, Iandscaped
areas and utilities and drainage features.
D. Prelirninary building plans and elevations sufflcientto indicate the dilnensions. general appearance,scale, and interior plan of aII build.ings.
I NTEP.-OEPARTI'IENTAL REV I EI,IfiPz-Z.Azzefe-
P?.OJECT:
D.4TE SIJSI4ITTED: t".f , ?7
C0|",,IENTS IIEEDED BY:AsAP
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THI PROPOSAL:
DATE OF PUELIC HEARING
n//'h. h //.X 43
PUELIC }IORKS
Reviewed by:Date
Conments:
/ y'tzz'aaJ-zk;zoJ "t/'rtTa d//''zz"z-7e"r'5
). /:/ tZzvD Fz4t q?'4""tc-z-a'74 '"-/ zfu 'cezzzc"'f
3' ,&--r^-rt adt/ /O 57oat "'/zrca& y'ez- a-n' rt r2<- '/-72''//'
72'/43''
/ ' z"/7 -'- /
._ I -,.,.. ?. )/J_r_ ,az.ut azJou*'-4'22 €-oe
51 JZ,-..e- /|tr'D) /'-- u
Connents:
FI RE
POLICE DEPARTI4ENT
a*z- ,rZz Qctro'Ot/
Revieved by:
Connerrts:
Reviewed.by:
Co;-,;ents:
REC ;:tATi Oil DEPART-H:NT
0ate
i
'rt't.
.;j;
,'.,./
Date
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY Gf\rEN that the Planning
Connission of the Town of VaiL wilt hold
accordance with SectLon 18.65.060 of the
and Environmental
a public hearing in
nunicipal code of the
Town of Vail on July 23, 1990 at 2:oo p.n. in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building. ConEideratLon of:
A request for a conditional use permit for a rTelevision
Stationtr in the Cornmercial core II zone district located atI,ot 2, Block 1, Val.l Lionshead 3rd Flllng, Sunbird Lodge,
675 L,ionshead Place.Applicant: Valtr/Beaver Creek Television Network.
A request for an exterior alteration, a site coveragevariance, a helght variance, a landscape variance and afloodplain nodification on Lot C and Lot D, and the
southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B' all in Block 5-8, VailVillage lst Filing, 227 Bridge Street.Applicant: Hillis of snowmass, fnc. and Bruce Amn &
Associates.
A request for an exterior alteration and a landscape
variance in order to construct an addition to the BelI TowerBuilding at 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A' Block 58,vail village lst Filing.Applicant: Hernann Staufer - Iancelot Restaurant
A request for a side setback variance in order to construct
an addition to a single fanily structure 3-L/2 feet into the
western side yard setback located at Lot 16, Buffehr Creek
Subdivision, 1879 tteadow Ridge RoadApplicant: Jerry Farguhar
A reguest for a conditional use per:rnit in order to ex;landoffice space for a magnetic resonance inaging systen and asateLlite dish at the vail valley Medical center, Lots E andF, Vail Village znd Filing, 181 West Meadow Drive.Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
A reguest for a landscape variance in order to provide twoadditional parking spaces on the southern portion of Tract
G, VaiI Village 2nd Filing, 17 VaiI Road.Applicant: First Bank of Vail
A request for a side setback variance at Lots 1-6, Block 5vail village lst Filing, Unit 3B--vail Rowhouses, 303 Gore
Creek Drive.Applicant: Stewart Colton
A reguest for a conditional use pernit and a setback
variance for a remediation systen eguiprnent building at the
Alpine standard Station, part of L,ot A, Vail Village 2nd
Filing, 285 S. Frontage Road West.Applicant: Amoco Corp.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
fifl ^', t, p-.1 ,40-
9. A reguest for a eLte coverage variance at I€t 31' Block 7,vail village lst Filing, 84 Beaver Dam Road.Applicants H. Ross Perot
10. A request for an annenrrrnent to Town of Vail Ordl.nance No. 24,Series of 1983 and OrdLnance No. 28, Series of 1987governing wood-burning fireplaces, gas logs, and gas
appliances.Applicant: Town of Vall
11. A request for a najor aDendnent to SDD No. 16, part ofparcel A, Lionsridge subdlvisLon, filtng z. (The Valley
Phase III)Applicant: Brad t suaan TJossen
L2. A reguest for a variance froro the vaIl helght requirenent onLct 29, Block 1, VaiI Potato Patcht 805 Potato Patch Dr1ve.Applicant: Patsy and Pedro Cerieola
13 A reguest for a major Eubdivision, to approve theprelininary plan, a request for a variance to the maximunheight for retaining walls, and a request for a variance tothe maxinun percent grade for a road, on a Parcel conmonlyreferred to as Spraddle Creek, an approxinate 40 acre parcel
Iocated north and east of the l{aln Vail I-70 interchange andeast of the Spraddle Creek livery.Applicant: George Gillett' Jr.
14. A request for a najor anendment to SDD No. 4, Coldstream
Condoniniums in order to amend Sections 18.46.090 (B)
density, 18.46.100 (B) floor area' 18.46.220 enployee
housing and 18.46.230 tirne requirements to convert existingracguetball facility into an employee housing unit,
management office, laundry and owner storage area at Lot 53clen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drlve.Applicant: Coldstrean Condoniniun Association.
15. A reguest to anend the Vail Municipal Code Section 18.04 to
add a definition for a brew pub and a reguest to amend the
Comnercial Senrice Center Zone District 18.28 to allow a
brew pub as a Perlritted use.Applicant: Dean Liotta
The applications and information about the proposals are
available for public inspection in the Connunity Developnent
Department office.
Town of Vail
Conrnunity Development Departnent
Published in the Vail Trail on JuIy 11' 1990.
I PuBLrc Norrc't
NOTICE IS IIEREBY GfvEN that the Planning and Environmental
cornnrission of the Town of Vail wilL hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18.65.050 of the munj-cj-pal code of the
Town of Vail on June 25, 1990 at 2!o0 p.m. in the Town of VaiI
Municipal Building. Consideration of:
1. A request for an exterior alteration and a landscapevariance in order to construct an addition to the BeIl TowerBuilding at 201 core creek Drive, Part of Eract A, Block 58vail ViIIage 1st Filing.Applicant: Hernann Staufer - Lancelot Restaurant
2. A reguest for a conditional use permit toallow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lots 6 and L/2 of 5, Block5, Vail Vlllage Seventh Filing, 1119 E. Ptarrnigan Road.Applicant: Monie S. Beal
3. A request for a conditional use pernit toallow for a Bed and Breakfast at Iot 8, Block 3, BighornSubdivision, 5th Addition, 5198 Gore Circle.Applicant: John and Paula Canning
4. A request for a conditional use pernit for a constructionstaging area. Located just uphill of the Golden Peak
snowuaking pumphouse, Tract B, Vail village 7th Filing.Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
5. Prelininary review for an exterior alteration in Cornnercial
Core I, for the following property (60 to 90 day studyperiod);
Covered eridge Building - I,ot C and l,ot D, and the
southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, aII in Btock 5-8, VailVillage lst Filing, 22'7 Bridge street.Applicant: Hillis of Snowuass' Inc.
6. A reguest for a variance from the wall height reguirenent onIrtt 29, Block 1, vail Potato Patcht 8o5 Potato Patch Drive.Applicant: Patsy and Pedro cerisola
7. A request for an amendnent to the Townrs zoning code to addrrTelevision Stationtr as a conditional use in the Conmercialcore II zone district, Section 18.26.010Appllcant: Vait/Beaver Creek Televj-sion Netnork.
8. A request for a conditional use permit for a deck expansionat the Sweet gasil restaurant, located on Tract A, Block 58,vail village lst Filing, 193 East Gore creek Drive.Applicant: Kevin Claire/Chuck Rosenquist
vr.4v A *go co,,/ @-c-r,,a4*c* {/,r/?a
9.A reguest for an amendment to SDD No. 23, Vail National-
Bank, Part of Lot D, Block 2, VaiI ViIIage 2nd Filing, 108S. Frontage Road West.Appllcant: vail National Bank Building Corp.
10. A request for a side yard Eetback variance at 4247 ColunbineDrive, Unlt #20, Bighorn Terrace.Applicant: John Nilsson
11. A reguest for a front setback variance and a creek setbackvariance for Lot 6, Vail Village West, FLling No. 2, L755
West Gore Creek Drive.Applicant: Dan and Karen Forey
L2. A reguest for a conditional use pennit and a height variancein order to construct an antenna at the vail uuniclpalbuilding, 75 South Frontage Road.Applicant: Town of VaiI Police Departnent
13. A reguest for a najor subdlvision, a request to approve theprelininary p1an, a reguest for a variance to the naxirnumheight for retaining walls, and a request for a variance tothe maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel commonlyreferred to as Spraddle Creek, an approxirnate 40 acre parcel
located north and east of the Mai.n Vail I-70 interchange and
east of the Spraddle Creek livery.Applicant: George Gillett, Jr.
14. A request for a work session on the Sonnenalp renodel and
proposed Special Developnent District at 20 Vail Road, Partof Lot L, Elock 5-8, Vail Village lst Filing.Applicant: sonnenalp Properties, Inc.
The applications and infornation about the proposals are
available for public inspection in the Conmunity Developnent
Department office.
Town of Vail
Conrrunity Development Department
PubliEhed in the vail Trail on June 8' 1990.
PUBLIC NOTICE
NoTIcE Is IIEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environnental
Conmission of the Town of vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18.66.050 of the municipal code of the
Town of Vail on June 4, 1990 at li.!!9--pr-g- in the Torrn of Vail
l{unicipal Building. Consideration of:
1.A work session for a najor subdivision, a request for a
variance to the maxLnurn height for retaining walls, and a
request for a variance to the maxinum Percent grade for a
road, on a parcel connonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an
approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the
MiLn vail I-70 interchange and eaEt of the Spraddle Creektivery. Conmencing at the Northeast corner of the southeast
L/a oi the southwest 1,/4 of section 5, Township 5 south,
ninge 80 west of the 6th Principal Meridian, being an Eagle
County Brass cap properly narked and set, with all bearings
contained herein being relative to a bearinq of s oo 11r 00rr
E between the Northeast Corner of said southeast L/4 of t}re
Southwest L/4, and the Southeast Corner of said Soutbeast
L/4 of the Southvest L/4 being an Eagle County Brass capproperly marked and seti said Northeast corner of the
soultreast L/4 of the SouthweEt- L/4 being the Point of
beginning; thence s oo 11r oOn E along the.east line of said
soitheas€ L/4 of the southwest L/4 of section 5 a distance
of 1320.14 feet to the Southeast Corner the said Southeast
L/4 of the Southwest L/4 of Sectlon 5t thence s 89 47' 48n w
along the south line of said Southeast L/4 of. the Southnest
L/4 of Section 5 a distance of 9o1.Oo feeti thence N 73 48r
3-2t'w along Interstate ?O Right of l{ay line,a distance of
2L4.L2 feet; thence N 65 52r 12x W along said Right of way
line a distance of 24I.10 feet to a point on ttre west line
of said Southeast l/4 ot the Southvest L/4 of Section 5;
thence N oo 2or 31rr W along the vest line of said Southeast
L/4 of the Southvest L/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1161.65
feet to the Northwest corner of the Southeast 1rz4 of the
Southwest L/4 of Section 5 being an EagLe County brass cap
properly marked and seti thence N 89 41t Lzt' E along the
norln llne of said Southeast L/4 of the Southwest L/4 of
Section 5 a distance of 1331.07 feet to the Point of
Beginning. Said real property containing 39.55 acres, moreor less.Appticant: ceorge Gillett, Jr.
A reguest for an exterior alteration and a landscape
variance in order to construct an addition to the Bell Tower
Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A' Block 58
Vait Village lst Filing.Applicant: Clark willinghan / BeII Tower Associates, Ltd.
2.
1.rc,r!x, kr-il\creiAsq'"'Q\ o^N '/'U /qO
3.3"ffi$"itl:"?".3'313T:: !i. "}.i".?iH ::l::::"Hl'ti:" .;;a-;-r;a."ri-i"" a variance fron the paving requirement and
di" i."aJcaping requirenent at 149 N' Frontage Road, an
i-ripf"it"a-eiie-c"donly referred- to as the l{ountain BeIl
eile north of r-7o and west of the uain vail I-70
interchange.Applicant3 ABc Sctrool .
A request for a conditional .use.per:nit to allow for a Bed
ina-iilarfast at Iot 78, Vall Village lqth Filing, e3o B
Fainay Drive.Applicint: Nancy ll. Rondeau
A request for a side and front eetback variance in order to
cons€ruct a garage on Lot 7, Block 3' vail village 9th
Filing, 898 Red Sandstone Circle'
Applicint: Paul Testwuide
A request for a variance from the nininun lot Elze on a
rc""",if of land described as that unplatted.pfa! of the
il;il;;i i7;-";-ahl-soutrreaet L/4 of section 1, ronnship 5
south, Range er t";i, of the 6ttr Princlpal t{eri|}"t' Iying-
noiinlrfy 5r trre r,ioir's niage-t9oP as Ehown of-the recorded
;1;t-;-fne-lionrs Ridge subdivision recorded July 25, L969'
in "a=" 2, Drawer L, and Book 215, at page 649'.
appiicanti e. r,. sfraplro t co', i colorado Nominee General
PartnershiP.
An appeal of a decision of the zonlng aarnLnistrator'
p"r"-"i"t to Sectio"-ie.ee.03O of the-zoning code, regarding-s""tiottt 18.26.03O and 18'26'o4o of the zoning code'
"p""ifi"ally as it relates to Permitted and Conditional Uses
l't, ttr" Sunbird lodge, located in the Connercial Core II zone
district, 675 Lionshead Place'
If;iiili: BilI Perkins, President of ctrannel 8'
ArequesttoamendSectionls.l2.o30oftheVaill{unicipal-d"a;=g; provide iJr sea and Breakfast operations in the Two
Fanily R-esidentiaf (R) District'
Applilant: Toltn of Vall
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The applications and information about the proposals are
available for public inspection ln the Connunity DeveloPment
Departnent office.
Town of Vail
Cornmunity Development Department
Published in the Vail Trail on l'!ay 18, 1990'
AAfvvt-
Planning and Environmental Comnission
September 28, L987
STAFF PRESENTPeter Patten
Tom BraunKristan PritzBetsy Rosolack
PRESENTJ.J. CollinsDiana DonovanBryan Hobbs
Pan Hopkins
Peggy OsterfossSid SctrultzJirn Viele
A fqquest. fgr a coldi!,iolal use perrnit to estabtish anoutdoor dj.ning deck e! the Kowloon Restaurant Located atthe WestApplicanf: Kowloon Restaurant
Kristan Pritz stated that this item was tabled. until the nextmeeting.
The rneeting was called to order at 3:OO p.M. by the chairman,Jim Viele.
est to amend Ordinance 37, Series of 1983toerezoninq of Lot I, Block 1, BicrhornSubdivisionFirstAddition
2. A request for an exterior alteration of less than j.OOs_gu de of
lne=Appli_cant: Bell To\^rer Associates, Ltd.
Kristan Pritz explained the reguest. pam Hopkins removedherself fron the table, as she was the archilect on theproject. J.J- colrins moved and Diana second.ed to approve thestorage locker per the staff merno dated g/z!/87. The vote was6-0-L in favor with paur abstaining.
3.
Torn Braun explained that in l-983 this property was subdividedinto two single farnily.rots with three-conait-ions of approval ,including the restriction that there be only one drivei^riry to '
serve both lots.
Jim Sheahan showed the site plan and stated that he fert theadditional driveway with the proposed landscaping would be animprovement over the original-plin.
Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to reconmend?pproval of the project to the Town Council . The vote was 7-0in favor of approval.
;Iames Sheahan
4. A requegt_for a conditionar use pernit in order to operate
Tom Braun showed floor plans and explained the differencebetween storage and commercial storage. Cornmercial storageinvolves the leasing of space to tenants located. off-site forthe purposes of storing materials or goods. Jin Morter,representing the architect, nentioned that the space being usedby Charliers would be increased, which would decrease thecommercial storage to approxirnately 1600 square feet.
Diana wondered if one of the proposed three tenants coulddivide his space up and lease the divided spaces to severalother people. Jin Sheahan, orrner, replied that he had beenapproached by several peopre asking to do this and had turned.thern down- Tom added that the whote intent of liniting thenumber of tenants to 3 was to avoid having rnore tenants. Hesuggested nodifying the conditions of approval to handle therestriction.
Diana moved and seconded to approve the reguest forthe conditional [Ee-on Tne lower level or tne concert Har]-Plaza with a rnaximum of three tenants and witb theunderstanding that none of the storage would be sublet toadditional tenants. The vote was Z-O in favor.
5.Ar est for a rninor subdivision in order to create twoProon Lot 4, BI 4, Va Villa e 3rd
FApplicants: Ben and Martha Rose
The applicant, through the staff, reguested this iteur betabled, as they had to be out of town. Diana moved and peggy
seconded to table this iten. The vote was Z-O to table.
The meeting adjourned at 3:30.
The members were told of an upcorning public meeting on october7 at Manor Vail to update the public on capital inprovementprojects in Vai1.
Oowrv oF vA tL )A PART OF TRACT A
e."
I ttrt'oov
l1 2
za.oottI@
-el
o-
lB.2'
-.1
FOUR STORY WOOD EUILDI N6
EUILOING ADDITTON
(ONE STORY I
\
\
L
NIII-o\
j_,..-
\OUTLII{E OF BUILDTNGAT GRADE
BUILDI
0tTtoN
twml
dtut\6A
INE
RE
irtt,
v
Iv
NE OFIE AD
irttwt
Vuil
Ivw
nr0
uil,
c0t
OUT
8EF
Lpl
Tow
ry\, a
OUTLI
BEFOI
,T
W
Lo(
ovl
)lTt,
Yl
W
rd{?b
t
a
0
o.
-lbo-
(EOGE OF STAIR FOLLOIVSPROPERTY LIT,IEI
n0r
t\ ' ,ro*t" \.,-\ l
PATIO AREA
wt
a
,
tvWlll)'
plwt q'v ,lWlq \
)'1,Vr9 tvywl no. q46 drkd t/r,lsl,
WW{vW
fifitloo"E
t-- 1;'---'
,/ r.e,
,'' l'o
l] eurlren t
'r--rr-t
ql:?ll'l"=,lo'-0"cO
DR\VE ( 40')
("
SNOWDON AND HOO:
ARCHITECTS
2Ol Gore Creek Driv'
vAtL, coLoRADO 816]'
(303) 476-2201
PtUf,l loal /A€tgl rE, Gda.'. ls 0t|ll
,BELL TOWER - BUILDING ADDITION
Addresses of Adjacent Property Owtter:
Lazier Arca{q Euildinq - Lot C, Block 56' VV lst (225 WalI St.)
ffidominium Association. c/o Brandess-Cadmus Real Estate. 281 Bridge Street. Vail, Colorado 81657
Lodge at vail - Lots A & B, Block 56, vv ]st (I74 E- Gore Creek
Dr ive ). The Lodge at Vail. I74 East Gore Creek Drive. Vail, Colorado 8I657
Gore CreeB Pl4?a Buildinq '. A Part of----TI93 E. Gore creeE Drive)Tract A, Block 58. VV lst
. Dlr. Charles Rosenquist. 193 E. Gore Creek Drive. Vail, Colorado 81657
Gasthof Gramsha.mmer Lodqe - Lots E,F,G'H'I, Block 58. VV lst (231
E. Gore Creek Drive). Mr. Pepi Gramshammer. 231 E. Gore Creek Drive. Vai1, colorado 81557
Casino Building - Lots D'E,F, Block 5c' W lst (250 Bridge
Street ). aridgestreet Condominium Association. c/o Brandess-Cadmus ReaI Estate. 28I Bridge StreetVail , Colorado 8I657
Tract A,BLock 5B, VV
. Peter Switze. 611 IrIigei-sarnford, It228
National Bank B1d9.'street
61 I01 [&r tL' lr'lt tr
. Board of Managers. Creekside Condominium Association. P.O. Box 1528 - 386 Hanson Ranch Road. Vail, Colorado 81558
International Chlldren's Foundain Plaza - A part of Tract A.
Block 58, VV Ist riling. Town of Vail. 75 So. Frontage Road. Vail, Colorado 81657
\'\rr
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GMN that the Planning and Environrnental
Conmission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the rnunicipal code of the
Town of Vail on September 28, l-987 at 3:OO PM in the Town of VaiI
Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
L. A request for an exterior alteration of less than l_OO square
feet to locate a storage locker on the west side of the Bel1
Tower Building at 20L East core Creek Drive.
Applicant: Bell Tower Associates, Ltd.
2. A request for a conditional use permit in order to operate
corn:nercial storage in the Concert Hall plaza Building on Lot
1, Lionshead 4th Addition.
Applicant: Vail Investment Co.
3. A request for a minor subdivision to create two
Prirnary/Secondary lots on Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd
Filing, 443 Beaver Dam Road.
Applicants: Ben and Martha Rose
4. A request to amend Ordinance 37, Series of 1983, pertaining
to the rezoning of Lot I, Block l, Bighorn Subdivision, First
Addition.
Applicant: James Sheahan
The applications and information about the proposars are available
ln the zoning adninistratorrs office during regular office hours
for public inspection.
TOI{N OF VAIL
COMMT'NITY DEVEIOPIIENT DEPARIIIIENT
TIIOMAS A. BRAI'N
Zoning Administrator
Published in the Vail Trail on Septenber 11, Lgg7.
a
APPIICATION FORIIT POR EXIERIOR ATTSRATfO}IS
oR MODIPICATTONS IN COMMERCIjAL CORE I .(CCI)
This procedure is reguiretl for arteration of an existi.ng buildingwhich adcls or renoves any enclosed floor area or outd.oor patio oireplaeement of an existilg buililing shall. be subject to r-view bytbe Planning and, Environmental Corrnission.
The application wift not be accepted until all information is subrnitted.
4,. NA}{E OF APPLICANT
ADDR-:SS /OI rnut\lf
7tr/0/
NAIt,lE OF APPLICAIiIT IS R!PRXSS{TATTVE
ADDRESS l/v/eaoN'|/b' 4o/
NAI.IE OF OWNER
STGNATI'RE
ADDRESS lnr
D.I-.OCATION OF PROPOSAL
.r.
B.
c.t.fitl/i
sloo.oo pArD CL flagg
ADDRESS
TEGAI DESCRIPTION
I}IPRO\TEMENT SURI,EY
OF BUILDING AIID A}IY
OF PROPERTY SHOWING PROPER,TY
IMPROVEMENTS ON IIIE IAND.
'otk 6,fr 15/ frlt h/orr/t
T f\^ n .n ? .rrr!!rt-t1.r, Jvtl
ila'/s,z
G. A LIST OF THE NADTE OF O}INERS OF A].,L PROPERTY ADJACENT TO T}iESUBJECT pROpERTy and their mailing addresses.
ar. Four (4) copies of a site plan containing the folrowing informaiion:
A. The site plan shall be drawn on a sheet size of z|n x 36', at a scareof r'= 20t; a variation of the sheet size or scale may be approvedby the Conmunity Developrnent Department if justified;
Pn'ro
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB.TECT:
Town Council
Cornmunity Development Departrnent
;ruly 2l- , L987
ItCaIl Uprt of a PEC decision to approve a conditionaluse permit and exterior alterations at BlursRestaurant. Applicant: Blurs Restaurant
Tlis reguest involved the enclosure of an existing outdoordining deck and the subsequent expansion of a dining deck thatis predominantly on To!'rn of vail 1and. This past winter, theTown Council gave.the applicant the opportuniLy to proceedthrough the Pranning comrnission review process- for irnprovernentson Town.property. The proposal was approved by the llanningcommission by a 3-z-L vote. The propoiar has 6een calred uffor further review by the ?own councir. Two retters conceri.ringthis proposal are attached for your review.
There are a variety of issues related to this proposal that areoutlined in the attached memorand.ums. These center around thethe enclosure of a dining ileck, expand.ing a dininq deck on Townland, and the appticants' involvernent in the upgrading of thecore creek Promenade. staff feels strongly that thii proposalstands on its own merits in terms of design and cornplilncL withapplicable review criteria. The council is encouraged touphold the decision of the pEC.
t
fiof
msha
:3$
jfa mm0r, trnf.Tslephone: 303/476-5626
j 'eDr Gramshammer
;'lheika Gramshammer
.July 2, 1987
: is granted this request it will
'ra'l k al'l around his patio and it,rs flow of foot tarffic along the
231 East Gore Creek Drive
Vail, Colorado 81667
Counc i l
3i657
.r!:
: confirm in writing my protest concerning BIurs: cf his porch and then extending the porch out onto
.,/ay on town property.
,rg is: if B'l u's wants an open porch he should keep itli is now. But it is not fair that he wants to enclose:'r and take more town property for additional open seating.
mean the pedestrianswill prohibit the
ri ver.
like to ask the town council to 1ook very seriously
, i matter
,
':r s lr amme r
Fountain Cafe & Restaurant
223 E. Gore creek Dr.
Vail, C0.81657
July 2, 1987
To the Vail Town Counc'il
Vail, Co. 81657
Gent'l emen :
I would like to take this opportun'ity and 1et you know my
feelings about the 81 u's porch enclosure and extension of
his porch onto town property.
It simply is not fajr that Blu's should be granted an
extension of his porch out beyond of his present boundaries.
This would mean the people walking along the river have to take
a detour around his open porch. If 3lu's wants to enclose
his porch, he wil'l 'loose the outdoor seating, otherwise he
should stay as is.
:
Please consider thjs matter carefully, since jt cou'l d happenin the future that other businesses come up with the same idea.
Are we to loose the open frontage area along the river?
Thank you for your consjderation.
Sincerelv./ ,'r/aae
lllaria Erb
Founta'in Ca fe
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Connunity Developrnent Departrnent
June 8, L9B7
rIr. !'RBAN DESTGN GUrDE PrnN
The two elements involved in this proposal are theenclosure of a portion of the exisling aining patioadjacent to Bluts and the expansion oi the eiistingoutdoor dining area. The design of the patio enclosurerncorporates a glassed roof with totally operable walls onthe south erevati-on of the restaurant. Another aspect ofthe encrosure incrudes an airrock entry vestibule in thelocation of the existing restaurant. the dining patioexpansion is located predorninantly on Tov/n prop6rty.Earlier this year, the Town Council granted-elitls theopportunity to.proceed through the revrew process withthis basic design. The potential expansio-n of this diningpatio was planned for and incorporatld into the overalldesign of the core Creek promenlde,
suBJEcr: A request for an exterior alteration in commercialCore f in order to enclose an existing dining deck atBluts Restaurant located at i.93 East Gore CreekDrive.Applicant: Blurs Restaurant
r. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
o
II.
As outlined in the zoning code, review criteria forrequests of this nature are established by the VailVillage-Urban Design Guide plan. The ernpfiasis of thisreview is on the projectrs compatibility with both theUrban -Design Guide plan and the Vail Villaqe DesignConsiderations. Detailed architectural and lands6apeconsiderations becorne the purview of the Design ReviewBoard if this project is approved. The planningcomrnission is arso charged with addressing standard zoningissues not covered in the Urban Design crrid" pt;;:
Expressed asPlan identifyfabric of theidentified inproj ect.
Sub-Area Concepts, the elements of the Guidephysical inprovernents to improve the overallt1|1age. There are no specific proposalsthis elenent of the plan relativl to tnis
{t
Ttt (C
Pe9.egtrianization: This consideration is intended toreinforc-End-EIlEnd the quality of the ped.estrianrswalking experience throughout tle VifIagL. the-proposedpatio expansion encroach;s into the exiSting wafiiway, nor,,referred to as the core creek promenade. rfris rinklge isa key element to the success of the pedestrian system inthe village. rf approved in conjunclion wiitr irnirovernentsto the promenade, a 10 foot width will remain auiing tnosetines when the patio is in place. This 10 toot wiatn i=over a span of 32 feet. Rernaining portions of the:romenade are generalry 15 feet in wiatn. rt is felt thatver such a short distance that this reduction in width isrtot a detriment to_the rnralkway. To the contrary, stafffeels that the activity provid.ed by the dininf &eck workswell with the narrowinq oe the sidewalkrs wia€fr. Itiltgltfd. ho noted that tle 'aiting enclosure of the patio isremovabr.e and during winter nonth-d-Ehe-Ealradav i,ririlre+KlFy lf:_11IInaintain its t_5-Toot width.
These urban Design considerations address large scale randplanning- issues, as well as form giving """=i,i.riiiorr=that go beyond the property lines-of tfre project proposal.These considerations contain the followini:
StT?glsTpe Fr$e : While.there rnay be slightmodrtrcacJ-ons to the randscaping of this deck, 4 streettrees.have been proposed to nitigate the loss of tneexrst:.ng wooden planter. Coupled with a new planterlmnedratery west of.the patio and dining encrosure, thistreatment will provide a colorful franework alonq thisp:*i::_"f_tl: promenade. rhe hish desree of tiin=parencyr-nnerent in the greenhouse enclosure will provide visible-a9!,iv1ty for the pedestrian on the pronenad.e. Inaddition, the operabLe front walls ina aining ae;f wiffprovide outdoor act.ivity when feasible. o""iaii,- ttr"
lJopos1r. will improve the street-scape frarnework for thisarea of the prornenade.
(
Street Enclosur
considerationsthere is a nicein conjunction
Because of the open space directlyproperty, the street enclosureare not directly applicable. However,stepping effect created by this expansionwith the Sweet Basil proposal.
?:r??!^Egq.:. While rhe overalt appearance of rhe warkwayr.s ri.near, there is a fair anounl- of variett il;"; in thebuildings along the prornenade. to a srilni'a"gi;., thepatio enclosure eliminates a stighg "iqgii i"-[f,;-;"ildinsforrns along the walkway. Honeth5te="1 fn"-i_ri"g"i".
facade lines of this streetscape are rnaintained andreinforced by this patio "*p.nlion as welL as the LancelotPatio.
Buildinq.Heiqht: There are noto building height, as a result
restaurant will bE Tncreased,increased number of deliveryservice this expansion.
Sun/Shade: As was the case withenclosure is designed in cornpleterecommendations made in the Guide
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
the seating capacity for theit is not anticipated that ntrucks will be needed to
Views: Vielrs are not irnpacted by this proposal .
Service and Delivery: While
considerations applicableof this proposal.
Sweet Basil, thiscornpliance withPlan.
v.ZONTNG CONSTDERATIONS
|$$it_i9nal. parking demands created by the enctosed spacevtrrJ.. be met by-paynent into the Townrs parking fund. Theexact amount will be calculated at the tirne oi buildingpennit.
(:
Staff reconmendation for this request is for approval .while this recommendation, along-witn tne Sweei'nasifrecommendation, are_ contrary to other actions by the To\,/nconcerning deck enclosures, staff feeLs this pr6posal iswarranted. Our position is based primarily o-n tir"northern exposure of the deck. rn- additi"i,, -in.- rarls onthe north elevation are totalty operable. ilur= h."dernonstrated their desire to o!en- their e"i=iing operabrewalls when weather permits. This creates a ""ty pi"""i.rge-xpelience and, in fact, allows for rnore peopte't'o enjoy-the feel of outdoor dininq. This increases Lhe sense ofactivity along the street on a year around basis.
Another consideration relative to our support of thisenclosure is the patio expansion. While iocateapredorninantly on Town land, the outdoor Aininq-irea isbeing rnaintained. However, there is a dire"i'irpu"t ""!}1e patio expansion with respect to the exisiinf'watXway.without improvernents to the iralkway, the width 5t tn"sidewalk wourd be reduced at its nirrowest point-to sfeet. This is unacceptable, and rmprovements to thewalkway are required to faciritate lnis proj..i-proposar..Given the level 0f inprovements on both sides of thisproperty, it is reasonabre t,o expect a sinilar ireatrnentalong this frontage.L,
(Another consideration not directly applicable to thePranning cornmissionrs review is tire iiiiing-ireatmentproposed to define the deck. The staff na6 a sijniricantconcern over the w-o-?g-.tt railing treatment and qu6stion itsappropriateness. with a few eiceptions, ri""gh'i-iron hasbeen used to define^Igny of the rlcent aining-aecfexpansions in the village. Another design coisiaerationfor. the appricant is thit the railing a5tininc-the aeckrnust be removable. While supporting-th"-;"i;.;;; and thelrasic footprint of .the "*p.r,!iorr, statf "u"rroi-=.rpport thedesign of the railing as proposed.
The staff would encourage the planning Cornrnission toadopt the following conditions of appioval:
l-. The walls on the north elevation be totaltyoperable.
2. The-applicant consider design alternatives for therailing treatrnent to be subiitted "i oni-r"ii"r,.
3. Sidewalk improvernents consistent with the Gore CreekPromenade design be made in conjunction with-ttrisproposal . Consistent irnprovements shall rneanidentical materials and d.esign. The upgrading of thewarkway sharr be nade over the entire i6ngttr of theGore Creek plaza building frontage ana snitl be donein.corjunction with consi.ruction-ana expansion or trreexisting patio.
(
(
.{
L
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FRoM: Community Developnent Department
DATE: June 8, 1,987
suBJEcr: A request for a conditional use permit in order toexpand an outdoor dining deck at Blurs Restaurantlocated at i_93 East Gore Creek Drive.Applicant: BIurs Restaurant
A.Effects of vehiculaf traffic on ConmerciaL Core Istrict:
There are no effects upon vehicular traffic relative tothis proposal .
Reduction of vehicular traffic on Commercial CoreDistrict:
r. CRTTERTA TO BE ADDRESSED
while all significant issues relative to this project havebeen addressed in the exterior alteration memorandum, thezoning code reguifg= 1. separate conditional use approval forthe expansion-of the.dining patio. The forrowing criterii -
are to be used in this review.
B.
This,proposal will not reduce nor increase vehicul_artraffic into the core.
D.
c.Reduction of nonessential off-street
There is
Control
no effect on this consideration.
of delive and service vehi-cles.
There is no anticipated increase in the frequency ofdeliveries to this establishment.
E.Development of public spaces for use b destrians.
As indicated in the exterior alteration nemorandum, asignif icant. irnprovement t,o the exist,ing illk;;t-;ir:_ u"done. in conjunction vrith this proposal. rf alirovea anaconstructed, the applicant is Lo be commenaed'ior hisparticipation in this public irnprovement. Whilenecessary to facilitate the patio expansion, the levelof irnprovement is of high quifity and consistent sriththe inprovements on adjicent prolerties.
Continuance of the various cornrnercial residential(o lic uses Commerci.al core I Dist-ct so as to and
7,
t
(maintain the existin character of the area.
G.
As expressedstaff feelsthe level of
Staff recommendation forthe conditions outlined
in the exterior alteration memoranduro, thestrongly that this proposal will increaseactivity along the pronenade.
The sidewalk improvements are of the highest quarityfound in the-Village, the landscape impiovementsmaintain or irnprove the existing ianas-caping -i tn"patio, and.the de:+91 of the enilosure i3 afr improvementover existing conditions of this property.
rT. STAFF RECOMMENDATTON
this reguest is for approval as perthe exterior alteration rnemorandum.
t
9oltfol _quality__of construction, architectural design,and Lan
-\
l
PRESENTJ.J. Collins
Bryan Hobbs
Pam Hopkins
Peggy Osterfosssid schultzJim VieleDiana Donovan
Planning and EnvironrnentalFebruary 9, L987
Commission
STAFF PRESENT
Tom BraunKristan Pritz
Rick PylnanBetsy Rosolack
1. Approval of ninutes of Januarv 26, l-987.
Diana Donovan noved and Bryan Hobbs stinute nsabstaining.
Arest
Tower Bu
Torn Braun presented theelevat.ions. He reviewedConsiderations for Vail
proposar,showed site plans andthe criteriaVillage, and
est for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core l-or a con tional use nermit order to danand construct another din deck on the BellInc.
and Urban Designconditions of approval .
Craig Snowdon, architect for the proposal , went j-nto detait aboutthe project. He showed fl-oor pfans, landscape plans, elevations,perspectives and a model . Pam Hopkins abstained from cornment andvoting. Sid Schultz asked if the patio on core Creek Drive couldbe accessed from the street and was toLd that there would be agate on Gore Creek Drive for access, but that most traffic wouldbe through the nain restaurant entrance.
Diana Donovan had mixed emotions about the project. She felt theBell Tower Building's architecture was distinctive. Donovan didnot feel that brick pavers were landscaping, especially in thewinter time. She was concerned with the current trend tocontinue moving buildings closer and closer to public spaces andfelt that the trend was not a good one for the Town in the longrun. She also suggested heating the walkway because of the icingof the walkway on the creek side of the building.
Snowdon replied that the drainage problem would be rnitigated bythe rernodeling, and drainage would drain away from the building.He showed on a site plan where the interlocking pavers would beplaced. Donovan asked that the signing of the restaurant bebrought up to code with the remodeling of the building.
Peggy Osterfoss stated that she liked the proposal , but wanted tosee a net gain in landscaping, especially on the east end.Snowdon replied that that would be addressed on the Design ReviewBoard level . He suggested putting in a few more substantial treesrather than 6 snall ones. Snowdon indicated that they would follow
7
a
this up at Design Review Board.not visible half of the time.
He felt that low profile planting was
Discussion followed about the promenade area near the creek. Tomexprained that the sitzmark Lodge wanted to upgrade their property nearthe creek while doing other renodeling, and with the BelI Towerproposal, the staff felt that this would be a good time to look at thewhole area. Tom Braun added that if the owners of all three propertiesdid not agree to a cornprehensive irnprovernent prograrn that the BeIITower would be done as a part of this approval . Jeff Winston was doinga design which would show the entire area.
J.J. Collins felt landscaping vras important, and pointed out that
much landscaping on Bridge Street had been obliterated. Jim VieLe feltthat a lot could be done to make the landscaping more visible and feltthat Dianars idea had much merit, which was to have heated pavers andto drain the building. He referred to the Urban Design Guide documentsand felt that the patio on Gore Creek Drive should be raised a little.Snowdon stated that he could raise the patio about 3 or 4 inches, butnot anymore because of the existing building.
Diana Donovan felt that there was nothing to draw peoplers attention tothe stairs near the creek side of the building, and suggested perhapsplacing light posts with hanging baskets to add sorne kind of freignt.
Pam fert that the walkway behind the building could have light posts tomake it nore inviting.
Craig snowdon said that that was a main consideration when talking toilu:s Eeglery owners. He suggested that perhaps the property ownerscoufd i6-EEE-pavers and the Town of Vail furnish the liglting ana
I
benchescould be
that Jeff Winston would design. Diana felt that this areaa showcase.
Jack curtin. representing Mrs. Hitr, stated that Mrs. Hill wanted hirnto ask--EEE-board to consider landscaping very closely, and not to allowasphalt to come up to the building as near the Red Lion. He then saidthat loading and unloading must be considered when there r,'rere nore andmore expansions. curtin felt that perhaps the project could be put onthe back burner unEFEe loading ana aetivery froUtems lrere solired.
Diana felt that people would not wander in and out of the area with thetrees that were planned to be in grates. snowdon replied that thisdesign was Jeff Winstonrs, and that it was not a final solution, butwas showinq that-TEe pafTo area was to be opened up. It was to befurther addressed at DRB. Ton Braun added that although street treesand a railing had been suggested, the applicant could come back if theboard was uncomfortable with the design. viele felt that the overallsolution should be looked at to be sure there was no reduction oflandscaping.
Hobbs moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request for an exterioralteration per the staff memo dated 2/9/87 with the conditions in thememo. The vote was 4 in favor, 2 against (Donovan and Osterfoss), with
PEC 2/9/87 -2-
7
Hopkins abstaining.
Hobbs moved and Schultzconditional use pennitconditions in the memo.abstaining.
a
seconded to approve theper the staff rnemo dated
The vote was 6 in favor
request for a2/9/87 with thewith Hopkins
3.Are est for a setback and sLze varlance in order to install- asatellte receivin sh eaEer ]-n sl_ze an the maxirnum allowedat 227L North Fronta dba
KVMT rad
The applicant was not at the rneeting, so this item was tabled until theneeting of 2/23.
4. A request for ann exterior alteration in order to add nore than
LOO square feeE-To the Plaza Lodge building located at 281 BridgeStreet. Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd.
Tom Braun explained the request and showed site plans and elevations.He reviewed the project with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plan,Design Considerations and zoning. He followed his explanation with thestatement that the staff was not able to support the proposal aspresented and recommended denial. The staff felt strongly that, in itspresent state, the existing Bridge Street frontage of the Plaza Lodgebuilding is the essence of what is encouraged in the Urban Design GuidePlan.
Craig Snowdon showed site plans, elevations, perspectives and a model .He also strowed photos indicating that most pedestrians used the streetrather than the sidewalk. Snowdon stated that the stairs andlandscaping'were actually a barrier and discouraged the pedestriansfrorn using the sidewalk. He added that the retail shops were too farfrom the pedestrians in the street. Snowdon pointed out that theproposal would provide a continuous walkway for the pedestrian. Theplan was to line the walkway with lanterns and hanging baskets.
Jack Curtin stated that this proposal was similar to the Bell Towerproposal in that there was not enough landscaping. He felt that thehanging baskets would only provide some landscaping fron mid-July untilSeptember. Curtin felt the need for trees for relief.
Jack Canpbell agreed wiLh Curtin. He added that much landscaping wasnot taken care of or was not the right type for the mountains. He feltcare was irnportant. John Brennan, manager of Vendettars, spoke insupport of the proposal.
J.J. Collins asked for more infornation on the walkway and street onthe Bridge Street side of the building. Snowdon stated that the streetwould be 5 feet wider than it is at present, that about 35? of thepresent landscaping would be 1ost, and that he felt tbe sidewalk wourdbe used more when it was at the same leve1 as the street. Collins thenasked the tenants present what their experience was with regard to
PEC 2/9/87 -3-
a :a
pedestrian access at present. John Carnpbell stated that the sidewalkat present was not used to dodge delivery trucks. He felt that sorne ofthe charn of the VilJ-age was that pedestrians were wal-king in thestreet and competing with traffic, unlike Lionshead. He felt thatpeople liked to walk in the street. It was his feeling that thesidewalks were used to access shops or to window shop, not as an accessto the street.
George Knox stated that the Rucksack was a good example of pedestrian
access right off of the street and the Lodge promenade was a good
exarnple of a pedestrian barrier. He noted that when people walk past ashop, ttrey rarely turn around and walk back to the shop.
Sally Cornwall of the Younger Generation stated that she has both a
Lionshead store and one in the Village and that people in Lionshead canwalk right in off of the rnall, whereas the pedestrians in the ViIIage
were deterred by the stairs. She added that the alley to WaIl Street
was used because there were no stairs involved.
Peggy Osterfoss stated that she was basically in favor of the proposal ,and was also in favor of not eliurinating the landscaping. She was infavor of removing the trucks which she felt did keep people out ofstores more than the stairs did. She wanted to hear nore opinions onthe proposal because the proposal included such a long expanse ofBridge Street and she did not want to rush into a decision. Bryan
Hobbs liked the way the proposal changed the street scene but wasdisturbed by the loss of landscaping. Diana Donovan felt that thereshould be a compromise between what is existing and what was proposed.
She felt the proposal did a lot for the Plaza Building on the BridgeStreet side, but felt the proposal night impact the street too much.
She did not support the enclosure of part of Vendettars deck, becausethey first asked for more deck on Town of Vail 1and, and now wereasking to enclose part of that deck.
Sid Schultz had no problem with the deck, but did have with the retailexpansion. He felt the steps could be redesigned, and added that inthe summer they were highly used. Schultz felt that the Town should
make certain that landscape areas were rnaintained. He felt that if thesidewalk is dropped to street level , the trucks would block visibilityof the stores. Schultz stated that a 5 foot sidewalk would be 2 feetin the winter. Jim Viele aqreed that the proposal did a 1ot for thebuilding. He felt a good job must be done with whatever landscaping
was left. He was not sure if he trad enough information to make adecision, and felt he needed more infornation on traffic, loading andlandscaping. Viele had no problem with the deck enclosure ofVendettars. He added that this was the 7th or 8th rnodification to thePlaza Building and felt it must be tough on the neighbors to haveconstruction every year on the Plaza Building.
snowdon stated that the majority of the outside work would be done byJuly 4. He restated the boardrs concerns to be the reduction inlandscaping and the nearness of the retail stores to the street.
snowdon asked if he could separate the proposal of Vendettars deck frornthe proposal on the Bridge Street side, and Viele explained that it was
PEC 2/9/87 _4_
r
The Iandscaping and the bench is a
it will be completed this fall as
transDlant the tree, (bY the waY'
aspen and not an evergreen). I wi
myse I f so the T.0. V. wi I I not have
th i s.
ii -,
Lancelot obligation, and
soon as it makes sense to
it is supPosed to be an
I I complete thi s Project
to waste any time on
,|'s0
Loncelot Inn 205 Eost Gore Creek DrMe P. O. Box 1188 Voil. Colorodo 81658 (303) 476-5826
August 29,1991
Dear Shel ly;
Thankyou for your Ietter of July 24,1991. I hope I've
stated often enough to make sure to keep the landscaping
and the drainage of the Gore Creek Promenade a separate
issue. I am on record with the planning commission and the
Belltower Condo-Association that we will participate on
resolving the drainage problem on Gore Creek Promenade'
0f course we would like to see a set of plans for the
project as well as bids.
Thankyou for your cooPeration !
Yours Sincerely,,",(kr
/ao
a("Todd 0ppenheimer
Pete Burnett
April L8, 1991
Ms. Shelly Mello
Town of VaiL Department of
Community Development?5 South Frontage RoadVail, CO 81657
Dear Shelly:
As per our discussions, I agree to provide one sitting bench andtree to be located in the open space area north of the Gore Creek
Promenade once a plan has been developed and implemented by the
Town of Vail.
I am also willing to comrnit funds for my appropriate share to thedrainage improvement program for the Gore Creek Promenade area
once a plan has been developed and implemented by the Town ofVaiI.
Lancelot,' Irle-.
Hermann Staufer
o
Leg;l:
Address:
In installnents after date,order of the Town of Vall atBuilding at VaiI, Colorado,
ProJ ect :
Colorado,
for value received,the offlce of the
111l
j 49{}:'.-
f pronise to pay to theFinance Director, trlunicipal
Bldg. Perult No.:
--Dollars,
Down Parrn""x Z16€,
with interest of ten percent per annun on the unpald balance, payable inyearly lnstallnents as follows:
The first installnent of
the second installnent of $
the third l-nstallment of $
the fourth installurent of $
g
"15
b due and payabte on
due and payable
due and payable
due and payable
It is agreed that if this note is not paid when due or declared duehereunder, the principal and accrued interest thereon shal} draw interestat the rate of 18 percent per annum, and, that fallure to make any paynentof principal or interest when due or any default under any Lncunbrance oragreernent securing this note sha11 cause the whole note to becone due atonce, or the interest to be counted as prJ-ncipal , at the option of theholder of the note. The rnakers and endorsers hereof severally waivepresentrnent for palrment, protest, notice on nonpalnnent and of protest, andagree to any extension of tine of payment and partial palments before, at,or after naturity, and if this note or interest thereon ls not pald whendue, or suit is brought, agree to pay all reasonabl.e costs of collection,including reasonable attorneyrs fees.
on
rILE COPY o ^ r/P
pupFr
hwn
75 loulh lront ge road
Y.ll. colorado 81657
(3dl) 47F2138
(3Cl) 479'"|39
olflce ol communi$ development
July 24, 1991
Mr. Herman Staufer
P.O. Box 5000
Vail, CO 81658
Re: Landscaplng/Dralnage on Gore Crcek Promenade
Dear Herman:
Atkched is a receipt for your recent down payment of $500 for the landscape and drainage
improvements on Gore Creek Promenade. Todd Oppenheimer, the Town Landscape
Architect, has indicated that the cost ol a bench and an evergreen tree would be
approximately $.|,000, including installation of the plant material. The landscape and drainage
improvements will be installed when the Promenade is renovated, either this lall or in the
spring. A final cost estimate will be available at that time and fonvarded to you. At that time,
we will ask you tor the balance of your portion of the cost of the landscaping and drainage
improvements.
Again, thank you for your cooperation in this project. Your adclition looks great!
Sincerely,
/n /t,t'Tfwl
ShGlly Mello ITown Planner I
lab
Todd Oppenheimer
Pete Burnett
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Town Council
Cornrrunity Development Department
Septenber 28, L987
A request for an exterior alteration ofsquare feet to locate a storage lockerside of the BelI Tower Building at 2OLCreek DriveApplicant: Bell Tower Associates, Ltd.
less than L00on the westEast Gore
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The owners of the BeII Tower Building would like to createa storage locker for condominium owners. The locker wouldbe located below the existing stair at the southwestcorner of the property. The locker is 27 square feet. Itwill have a stucco board finish on the frarning and door tomatch the existing building.
II. VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATION
Pedestrianization
Not applicable.
Vehicular Penetration
Not applicable.
Streetscape Framework
Not applicable.
Street Enclosure
Not applicabLe.
Street Edge
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
o
Views
Not applicable.
Service and Delivery
The enclosed area will screen the storage rnaterials frompedestrians walking by the building. The existing greasevat that is stored in this area will be removed.
Sun,/Shade
No inpact.
IIT. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The allowable site coverage for the property is 41933square feet. The existing site coverage j_s 4rg05 squarefeet. With the addition, the total site coverage becones4,832 square feet.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff reconmends appro-ua1 of the request. The screeningof the storage area will be a positive irnprovenent to thearea.
'\/
t*o*?R8'i|frpxrt'ts
201 Gore Creek Drive
vAtL. coLoRADO 8r657
(3O3) 476-22OL
(\
J OB --jg-t :- *-
SHEET NO.
--
,
CALCULATE; b: ---
CHECKED AV-
'?o
rluf,tn t /i6/rE. c,ft. &r ool
t
t1 .z'
?4.oo'7e;@
9.t--
--l
\
\
\I
z
EID
l:
t(
!r
2-tfn,
3.1
t\D!'@-
II
\
I
I
\
(9r
-lbo :ffitrI*iwtr#
o"rarl, (Iv*s, 7
etf,qVfVl,V)'
a
,
plwt 6'b ,lWl4
'1,VW turry no.#q duM t/nftt,
ifli?-oo"E
I
o
.o4 tMW{vw ,/ ,.d
r.o
(EDGE OF STAIR FOLLOWSPROPERTY LINE}
t \ ' ,ro*"'(o-l
lo'- b"
^ll?Y%,.'rJf,f 'o
+r.oo''t.
18.2'
FOUR STORY WOOO BUILDI NG
BUILDING ADDITION
(ONE STORY I
OUTLINE OF BUILOINGAT GRADE
OUTLTNE OF BU IL DI NGBEFORE AODIT ION
i-\ tto*tt" 'L--,t-'
i{,"uy
ob"lv l" --
tu---rfi"-
GORE
n*') owER Asso lt erm, LTD.
207 E. Gote CteckDt.
Yail, Colotailo 87657
303 476-2725
please feel free to call me at
advance for you assistance with
Yours very trrrlyr
V"xt (;u^'
Vicki Kinslow
Bookkeeper forBeIl Tower Associates, Ltd.
7300 Bryan Towet
Dallae, Texae 75207
274 744-5577
June 18, L987
Mr. Tom Braun
To$rn of Vail
75 South Frontage RoadVail-, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Braun:
Enclosed please find encLosed a copy of the signed notefor the Town of Vail and also a copy of the check we sent asour first installment. The check was hand delivered some timethe week of May 10th.
If you have any questions(2L4') 979-2558. Thank you inthis problem.
enclosures
Property:Bell Tower
9e 740.OO Vail , Colorado,ltay 10
fn installments after date, for value received,order of the Town of Vail at the Office of theBuilding at Vail , Colorado,
I pronise to pay to theFinance Director, Municipal
I L987
with interest of ten percent peryearly installments as foltowi:
Eiqht Thousand Seven Hundred Fo
the third installment of
the fourth installment of
----DoIlars,
annum on the unpaid balance, payable in
The first installnent of $r 748.00 due and payable on
the second installment of S 2 205.77 due and payable
payable
payable
$z 205.77 on
5,/LO/A7 ,
s/Lo/8a ,
5/Lo/8e ,due and
due and$z 205.77 on 5/LO/90 .
with the entire unpaid batanid 6r $z,2os.7z due and payable on s/Lo/gL.
rt is agreed that if this note is not paid when due or declared duehereunder, the principal. and accrued iirterest thereon sha1l draw interestat the rate of 18 percent per annum, and that failure to make any paynentof principal or-interest when due oi any default under ..ry itcur6rln.. o"agreement securing this note shal-l cause the whole note t-o becone ctue atonce, or the interest to be counted as principal , at the option of theholder of the note. The makers and end6rsers-heieof rev"ritiy rii.r.presentnent for paynentr -protest, notice on nonpaynent and of protest, andagree.to any extension of time of palment and plrliar palments-beiore, at.,or after maturity, and if this note or Lnteresl thereoir is not liia "u"r,due, or suit is brougtrt, agree to pay all reasonabLe costs ot ciiiection,including reasonable attorneyrs fees.
*\'t{}
4."rt tT" .1Um
1uf r- lf r
conversio"l' the Belr
iates
Rick {rlrnan p t. He stated that the applicanthad agreed e housing units for employee housingfor 15 years for R3 and R4. Rick reviewed the criteria andstated that aLl building code reguirements must be met. JayPeterson stated that the building Iras not rrentirelyr up to code.Peter Patten clarified the employee housing question.
Diana moved and Grant seconded to approve the request per thestaff memo with two conditions: J.) final condominiumdeclarations to be recorded rnust cont,ain appropriate languagerestricting Units R-2 and R-3. This language will be reviewedby Town staff prior to recording. 2) The applicant mustsatisfy the building inspection report requirements. The votesras 7-0 in favor.
5. Pfelirnilarv hearincr to determine review period for exterioralterations in Cornmercial Core I.
Mike Moltica presented the Sitzrnark Lodge application andreconmended a 60-day study period. Diana moved and Grantseconded to approve a 50-day process for the Sitzmark. The votewas 7-O in favor.
Discussion followed concerning exterior alteration reviewperiods. Sid questioned whether tlrere should be a restrictedtine period in which CCI exterior alterations can be considered.Diana felt applicants should plan ahead. peter felt that if thechange is significant, the Novenber and May deadlines usuallyworked. He felt it night be a hardship for smaller projects,
however.
Jin felt there nay be room to rrliberalize the windowrr forsubmittals, possibly keeping construction out of the busyperiods. Peter stated that the present method worked well forregulating the construction when there ltrere many projects. Dianasuggested putting a notice in the newspaper as a reminder tothose who may be contemplating construction.
Hospital Expansion Discussion
Pan asked about height limitations. peter responded that therelrere no development standards, but that the pEC reviews a sitenaster plan and can develop standards for the long run on thissite.
Diana felt only one parking structure was needed, not two.
PRESENT
lL.rrirrg and Environmental ?rr*r"=ion
Decenber 12, 1988
Diana DonovanBryan Hobbs
Pam Hopkins
Peggy osterfoss
Grant RivaSid SchultzJin Viele
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele.
1. Approval of minutes of Ll-,/1-4 and 1L,/28.
Bryan Hobbs moved and Jin Viele seconded to approve the minutes.The vote was 7-O in favor.
2. A request to zone a recentlv annexed parcel commonly knownas the Ulbrich propertv, Lots 1ReffififfiI-pplicant:,lohnulbrich
Rick Pylnan presented the request. He stressed that this wasnot a subdivision relluest at this tiroe. Furthermore, the staffrecommendation of approval was not a guarantee of a specificdensity or level of development, nor guarantees that theproposed access to the property will remain unchanged.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, had nothing to add tothe presentation.
Diana Donovan moved and Peggy seconded to approve the zoning.
The vote riras 7-O in favor.
est r alteration in comme Core Ior the :ersten
Rick presented the reguest. He explained that the area that theapplicant wished to enclose currently existed as a sky light atgrade level which allowed light into the lower restaurant level .He stated that the existing landscaping would be saved. Rickalso added that the staff requested that the exi-stingIandscaping be preserved as a condition of approval . Hereviewed the memo, listing the criteria of approval .
Mike Hazard, representing the owner, agreed to guarantee thernaintenance of the landscaping. Diana moved for approval withtwo conditions. l) A 2-year guarantee of the trees and 2) thatthe DRB review the landscaping. Peggy seconded the raotion. Thevote was unanimously in favor.
STAFF PRESENTPeter PattenRick grlnan
Mike MoIIica
3.
PEC Mlnutes
9-24-79-4age Six O -)./rrt"o" elT
5..) Getti 011 Site contlnued
Gerry lJhlte said he feels that the archltect pald too little attentionto the way people see this slte vhen they drlve by. It definLtely. oeeds nore landscape, a drop in the elevation, and a redesl.grr of the
parklng.
, Item #2 vas blscussed at thls polnt.
2.) Resubnittal of Landscaplug Plan for the Schober Building *
Jlm Rubln explained the Staff feelings on this. Craig Snowdon
.rnade his presentation.
Sandy Mi1ls said their prevLously approved landscape p1-an.is non-conforming, and by approving the new plan they would be approving sonething.. !, that ls even rnore non-conf orrnlng.
Gerry White m,de a notion for denlal of the revised landscapeplan for the Schober Buildlng. Jin Mo rgan seconded the motlon.
The vote wae unanimous.
Ron Todd told Craig Snowdon thls can be appealed to Councilwithin ten days.
The neeting adjouroed at 4:56 P.M.
.FI
o METTIORANDUM
TO: PLANNING A}ID ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FRO}I: DEPARTMENT OF COMI4UNITY DEVBLOPMENT
DATE: 9-2L'79
RE: Request to amend the Landscaping PIan approved for
the Schober (BeIl Tower) Building as part of the
Conditional Use Permit.
REQUEST
The reguest is to nodify the landscape plan for the North side
of the Bell Tower Building to Permit a nine foot wide outdoor
Patio along the North side of the building (by the Lancelot
Restaurant) and to move the landscaping further to the North.
The new landscaping as presented would be a smaller area thanthe one previously submitted and extends approximately four
feet onto Town of Vail property.
BACKGROUND
The expansion of the Schober Building was approved by the Planning
and Environmental Comrnission on April 10. 1979. The proposed
revision was determined to not need a new Conditional Use Permit
but. to need an Amendment to the one previously granted since the
expansion itself was not what was being changed.
RECOI,IIVIENDATION :
The Department recomrnends that this reguest not be granted.
Until Lhe Urban Desj-ng Plan is finished, we do not think that theplanted areas should be allowed to extend into the Town Right-
of-way. Another concern is the decrease in the size of the
landscaped area that would result frorn this modification. The
site prior to the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit was
non-conforming in terms of landscaping, with the expansionactually making it more conforming by having a 10 foot landscapedstrip from the building to the pedestrian walkway. The addition
of the patio would, contrary to the original p1an, not decreasethe amount of non-conformity on the site.
We would also like to thank Craig Snowdon and Pam Hopkins for
their assj-stance in redesign the Creeksj-de Steps and coordinating
the landscape plan for the steps with that of the BeII TowerBuiIding.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Department of Community Development
9-20-79
Public Hearing and Consideration of Amendment
to the Oevelolrent Plan for Employee Itousing
Located on tots Cl throirgh C5 of Lionsridge
Filing No. 1, Located along the North Frontage
Road, to allow for a Managerts Unit'
STATISTICS
APPLICANT: Chris Dittmar
AREA: 10.05 Acres
ZONING: Special Development District
EXISTING LANDUSE: VACANT
PROPOSED USE: 198 Two Bedroom Rental Units for Employees and
one Managerrs Unit.
REOUEST:
The reguest is to amend ordinance no' 7 of L979 to allow a
.managerrs apartment in the recreational building. This raises
the unit count to 199 and raises the GRFA by 1443 square feet
for a new total on the project of l-49,943 square feet' The
new unit afso raises th'e pirking spaces provided ftom 297 Eo 298 '
BACKGROUND:
The Managerrs apartment is to serve as a control unit for the
entire site. The building in which the manager will reside
(the recreation building) will contain fire alarm systems for
the entire complex, a1-1-mail- boxes and laundry facilitiesr
besides the recreational rooms.
REVISED PLAN:
The revised plan for the recreation building shows the managerrs
living quarters on the second floor of the two-story building
with itre garage for the unit on the lower floor, adjacent to
itt" .o**oi fa6ifities for the tenants of the complex. The upper
tFl
PEC Memo-LionsridiE Ct-C5
9-20-7g--Page Tvto
Revised Plan Continued
floor is at grade with the road on the interior of the complex
while the rear of the building-the south side, is at grade with
the frontage road. The laundiy and mail room are above the garage
on the upp6r floor with access from the interior road. The garage
would have access, although not explicitly shown in these revised
plans, fro:n the entrance ioad to t-he complex, which comes off the
North Frontage Road.
The owner of the project has agreed to foLlow the same guidelines
with this manager-rs init as th; tenantrs units concerning the
twenty year restriction on condominiumization' The plan shows
a unit of four bedrooms along with three bathrooms and the
dining, living and kitchen areas.
One concern is that four bedrooms and three bathrooms consisting
of 1433 square feet of GRFA are too much for a manager's
apartment. We feel two bedrooms and two bathrooms with no more
tiran 11000 square feet of GRFA should be plenty: we would also
like to see a guarantee that only the manager of the project and
his/her family be housed in the unit.
A second concern is that there should be more area for the
recreation room and less storage space. The plan now shows
more than 828 sguare feet of storage while.only 456 square
feet of indoor iecreational area. The siting of outdoor
recreational facilities such as the proposed voll-eyball and
baskeiball courts are also not shown on the submitted plans.
There also needs to be one additional parking space provided
for the manager's unit.
A third concern with the revised plans involves the location
of the nanagerrs garage with respect to the rest of the building's
facilities. We f6e1 lhat ttr" manager's garage should be located
On the same level with the unit and therefore ' recommend reversal
of the garage and storage area with the laundry and mail rooms.
Thus, the girage access will be from the north side of the
building aia tie complete manager's residence will be contained
on the rlpp"- level. So that the tenants can retain good access
to the 1lundry and mail rooms (high traffic leve1 areas), we
would suggest Lhat the stairway on the west end of the building
dovm to the lower level be enclosed.
Final}y, we would suggest that with the above revisions there
rnight be room to install some of the storage area lost on the
bottom floor on the top floor with the decrease in square footage
in the manager's residence.
PEc Memo-r,ionsr iagCcr -c s
9-20-79--Page Three
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Devleopment recorunends approval ofthe amendment to the development pJ-an for employee housing attionsridge to allow for a manager's unit with the following con-ditions:
f.l Assurance that only the ntrnager of the comPlex
and his insnediate family, if any, live in theunit.
2.1 The garage/storage area and the laundry,/mail box
areas are reversed by floor.
3.) The recreation area is significantly enlarged.
4.) That the stairway on the west end be enclosed.
5. ) That a revised site plan be submitted which shows
revised, garage access, location of outdoor recreationfacilities, and the indication of one additionalparking space.
6.) The unit be reduced in size to 1'000 sguare feet
with no more than two bedrooms and two bathrooms.
Ts
MINUTES
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COUUISSION
IIEETING OF Aprl1 10, 1979
COM!{ISSION MBMBERS PRESENT:
Ed Drager
Jack Goehl
Ron Todd
Gerry lJhite
Sandy MiLls
Roger T i lkeme ie rJln Morgan
STAFT MEMBER:
Jln Rubin
The flrst item on the agenda: Ast/Klefuner DuPlex Requestfor Varlance, Lot 14, VaLi Mradows lst Filing, was wlthdrarf,n by the
applicant.
The second lten on the agenda: Fitzhugh Scott - Resub-divlsion of Lots 10 & 11, Block 1, Val1 Village lst Filing to correct
Jiu Rubin presented this to the Commissl-on, and after
sone discussion, the Motion was nade by Ron Tocld to approve theresubdlvision of Lots 10 & lL, Block 1, VaiL Village Lst Filing to
correct the location of a 1ot 1ine. Roger Tilkemeier seeonded theMotion and the Comnissloo vo!ed unanimous approval.
' The thlrd ltem on the agenda: Prelmlnary reviett of the
Firsc Phase of a Torcnhouse Project on 5.6 acre unplatted parcel- in Bighorn
Mr. Steven llannon, Presldeni of Landmark Properties waspresent to address the Commission along with Ron McCaughan and their
architect.
Jim Rub in explained the Flrst Phase is for 5 duplex parcels
as part of a 30 unit Townhouse project whlch will- be called Sundial.Mr. Rubin explained that the parcels wl11 be sold separatel-y as dupl-ex
home sites. Jim explained that he had dlscussed this concept withLarry Rider, Town Attorney and that the staff feels this is anadvantageous way of handling the project as it nill allow flexibilityon the l-ocation of buildings. Tovnhouse declarations for this project
were then discussed. These declara tions provJ.de legal access tothe 5 parcels, as well as size restrictions. Jlm Rub in requested thatmore spec j.f ic restrict ion s in regard to Setbacks, Height r Slte
Coverage, Landscaping and Parking be included in these decl-aratlons.
The site plan was presented to the Courmission. Afterfurther discussLon, the Motion was made by Gerry hlhite to approve theflrst phase of the Sundtal Townhouse project with the conditlon thatthe deveLopment restrictions of the Two-Farnl1y Resldential Zone DistrlctLn regard to Setbacks, Ilelght, Slte Coverage, Landscaping, and Parking
Pa.ge 2.
MINUTES-PEC
4-LO-79
be lncluded Ln the Townhouse declarations for this Flrst Phase.
Ron Todd seconded the Motlon and the Conmlssion voted unanimous approval
The fourth iten on the agenda: Re-Application for a
Conditlonal Use Permit for the Schober Bullding in Commercial Core I.
Cralg Snowdon nade his Presentation to the Connlssion. This
second proposal cuts out alot of the square footage that r^tas presented
wlth the first proposal. They now propose to add 1,859 sq. ft., vhich
Ls 1,100 sq. ft. less than the flrst proposal. He again told the
Coumlssioo that they will be adding to all five levels of the building
but wl11 be reducing the northern extension considerably. lle also
dlscussed the Public/Prlvate Jol-nt Venture application with the Commisslon.
This appllcatlon is for benches and pl-anters along Gore Creek Dr .,
and the Fountai.n Plaza wtth addltional plantings on Town property by
the Creekside stairs,
The 4th 1evel has been changed from what $ras Proposed at
the prellninary dlscussion. The owner norr proposes to put ln
kl.tchenettes and loft bedrooms in the accommodation units and usethese two units f or employee housing. The shop owner and the or,Tner
of the restaurant have already expressed interest in leasing these units
for thelr employees. Ron Todd asked whether the owner will commit Ehese
units under the saue criteria as other employee housing units which
will remain as long-term rentals for a 20-year period?
It was the Commlsslon members feeling that these unitsshould meet this criteria. The orrner discussed this with the Commission
and stated he had no problens with this commitment as long as hecan come back and change the use of the units if the situation requiresit. The ovner was told that Larry Rider, Town Attorney, rvil1 draft
the conditions for the employee housingl BS 3 deed restriction, or
soneth.ing in this order.
Ed Drager stated that Pepi Gramshammer had sent a l-etterto the Commission in opposition to the additions to buildings inthe Core. Mr. Gramshammer lras present. and spoke to his concerns f orbuilding out in the Vi.l1age.
' Mr. Drager explained to Mr. Grarnshammer that the Planning
& Environmental- Comnissi.on in dealing ryith the Conditional Use Permitprocess, needs to review all the criteria set doun in the Town of VaiLZoning OrdLnance and that each project must. stand on its own. Hestated that the Schober Building had been turned down the first tlmeit vas presented. He assured Mr. Gramshammer that not all- .-expans ion swill be approved and each would have to be reviewed on its own merit.
Any of the proposals that will be brought to the Planning CommissionwiLl have to show beneficial effects throughout, and the Commission
w111 adhere to strlct standards for any additional- construction in theVillage. However, he added, there has to be changes from time to tirne.
Roger Tilkemeier stated that the Commisslon had been told by LarryRider, that. the Conditional Use. Permits do not set precedent, and sothey are not bound to approve all proposaLs for additions to the
bulldings in the Core.
?rq
Page 3
UINUTES-PEC
4-LO-7 9
Mr. Gramshammer was stil1 very concerned about the effects
of Lncreased traffic, more dellvery trucks and .the trash problems.
lle stated these problems are very severe Dow.
Ron Todd assured Mr. Gramshammer that the PlannLng &
EnvironmenEal Coromission has these very same concerns. The oltner
of the restaurant in the Schober Building, Herman Staufer' then spoke
to the Commission. He a1s6 has the same concerns as Mr. Gramshammer,
but he believes that the owner of the Schober Bullding has a very good
attitude about hls building, and is wllling to enhance the aPPearance
of his building. This eantt help but to improve the apPearance of
the Village as a whol"e.
Gerry Whlte then made the Motion to aPProve the Conditlonal
Use Permlt for the Schober Xuildlng in Commercial Core I as presented.
Ron Todd seconded the Motion. Sandy Ml11s then made the commen t
that wlth the reduction in square footage, where it does not affect
the view corridors, and fits ln wel-1 with the exlsting structure; she
feels thls second proposal does meet the criteria set forth ln the
Zonlng Ordinance and that the PEC has examined it thoroughly. The
CommissLon voted unanimous approva1
The fifth iten on thefor a Conditional Use Pernit ln agenda: Creekside Buildin
Commercial Core I
The applicant has requested that this be postponed untilthe next regularly scbeduled meeting of the PJ.anning & Environnantal
Commission on AprLl 24, L979
The slxth item on the agenda:Plan. The appl-lcant has requested thatnext regularLy schedul-ed meeting of the
Commission on Aprlt 24, L979.
The seventh item on the agenda
deck for Manor Vail which would encroach
P1-anning & Environment a1
' Discussion of a_grolirsgonffieim Tract
ment
tand
Jirn Rubin explained to the Commission that they need todiscuss thls and make their recommendations to Ehe Town Council.
A representative from Manor Vail rras present to explainthis proposal to the Comnission. Jlrn Rubin explalned to the. Commisslonthat the staff is concerned with any encroachment on public'ways. Sandy
MiLls stated she feels this encroachment shouLd not be al1owed.
Ron Todd made the Motion to recommend to the Town Councildlsapproval of the proposed outside deck on Manor Vail that would
encroach on Town of Vall Stream Tract 1and. The Motion seconded by
J4ck Goehl and the Connission voted unanlnously to recommend disapprovalof this proposal.
Page 4
I,IINUIES-PEC
4-LO-79
The etgbth lteu on the agenda:
Venture Fundlog Recouuendatione. Theee
Theee recoomeodatlona are in a aeparate
lleetlng adJourned 6:15 P.M.
Publtc lPt|vat,eweie dlscusged lu
report.
9;,oe; -64J;+
I
i
| 'r IV-''DaLe
LIST OF MATERIALS
NAME OF PROJDCT
LEcAL DnscRrprrot{F&Lk_ror b k BLocK
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
FILING
The follorving informationto the Design Review Board
A. ) BUILDING MATERIALS:
Roof
Siding
Other lfa11 Materials
Fascia
Sof fits
Windows
lYindow Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Flues
f'lashings
Chimneys
Trash Ene.losures
Greenhouses
Other
Botanical i{ame
is required for submittal by the Applicantbefore a final approval can be glven.
Type of Material Color
axtrrt^b
lJb
7pb
It lrvt rt .
oAzut'n' r-rn' n - <TA^JU- rr, l.,tA(41 Exl1fiu
B.) PLANT MATERIALS(Vegetative,_Landscaping Materials including Trees, Shrubs,and Ground Cover)
uwD I M,6TH- - DkpL'|D,M+T/ " EY4fil,ldT?ll-l :
xtsTl^b
Common Name
,n, n^ rrtnr
Quantity
-LQ-2b_
u0_
I
9_
t0 _-
Size
U6it',
bqJ
oaJ_-7_
'li hd;-
ffiwIata
,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
3. )
4.)
MEMO
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF COIUIvIUNITY DEVELOPMENT
APRIL 6, T979
STAFF RECOMI\IENDATIONS FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSION MEETING ON APRIL l.O, L979
1.
2.
) Ast/Kleimer Duplex-Application has been withdrawn-
) Fitzhugh Scott ResuFdivision
Thj-s resubdivision is to legally record a change in the
1ot line between Lots 10 and 11 that happened about fiveyears ago. This change in the lot line makes Lot 11 more
conforming than it presently is.
Staff Recommendation: ApProval
(McCaughan Townhouse Proiectr
This is the Iirst Phase of the proposed 33 unit sundial Project
on a 5.6 unplatted parcel in Bighorn. The First Phase is the
creation of four building envelopes similar to the Casolar-
del-Norte Snbdivision. The building envelopes are for duplex
sites, and are different from the casolar subdivlsion in tlrat
the),r inslude both land for the buildings and areas around
the buildings. IVe feel that this is a better concept than
the sma1ler, more defined buildi.ng envelopes in that there
is more flexibility for the placement of buildings.
ft is, hoivever, a Townhouse concept, with these four sites
a part of the overall townhouse development. This has been
discussed with the Town Attorney, who has no difficulty with
the concept.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Schober Building-Conditiqnal Use Per:mit
This is a resubmlttal of a Conditional Use Requestthat was denied by the PEC on I{arch 13, 1979. Thisapplication has been revised considerably, rvith the
square footage addition of usablc space reduced from
2,9OO square feet to 1,859 square feet. The major
change, as shown to you on March 27, J-979 , was a
Memo to PEC
4-6-79
Page Two
decrease in the extension of the building on the
North side.
Another change has been added to this application
sirrce you saw it two weeks ago. This is the conv-ersion
of the-tvro roorrts-inio fwo:",tifoy." housing units by the
smal1 kitchenettes. The proposal that you saw on a
preliminary basis two weeks ago had these two rooms
converted into a Condominium Unit. With a comrnitment
of the owner to keep these units as employee housing
for a 20 year period, we feel that this latest proposal
is superior.
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Creekside-Conditional Use Permit
Postponed until APril 24, L979
Lionsridge Employee Hor-rs1l1g ryq;isell
Postponed until April 24, 1979
addition of
5. )
6. )
7.) Manor Vail Deck &eqqeE!
This matter was forwarded to you by the Town Councll '
The request ls for a redwood deck behind the lrlanor Vail
Buildines that would extend into the Town of Vail Stream
Tract Lind. This deck would be placed on the hillside
overlooking the stream and would be used as a meeting
area f or business groups staying at the lr{anor Vai 1 Lodge '
The deck would be constructed in such a way that little
grading rvork would have to be done on bhe bank.
Staff Recommendation: Disapproval
We feel that this would set a negative precedent on the
use of streamside 1and. This streamside fand should be
open for use by the general public, and should not become
restricted private space for any one entity.
8.) Public/Private Recommendations
There rvi11 be specifi-c reconmendations oD al1 the projects
available Monday at noon.
I
420,6
__ _ !2_L6_ d6pl44 %ihh
--vlMB---b-XaO-
' 46 f 12,6
LA\:VUrD(
[,llBo* t?
460
*-67b
- 1ai
240AJ'
-Ab'-
F]
PITBLIC NOTICE
NOIICE IS HEBEBY GMN that Craig Snowdon,
Architect, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to construct
an addition to the Schober Building located on a part of Lot A'
Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Fil ing and in a Couuercial Core I
zone district. Application has been made in accord with
Section L8.24.O85 of the Municipal Code.
A Public Hearing will be held before the Town of
Vail Planning & Environmental Commission on April 10' 1979
at SzOO P.M. in the Vail Municipal Building. Sai-d hearing
will be hel-d in accord with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal
Code.
TOWN OF VAIL
oF co ITY DEVELOPMENT
ist
in the
ator
Vail Trail March 23, 7979
James A.
Zoning A
Published
.tr'il\ trlttlliru,5rns
ba:5-, rorvn couNcrl
'qgiur,an MEETTNG
APRrL 3, L979
7r30 P.M.
The vail Town council covened for its regular meeting at 7:30 pm on
Tuesday, April 3, Ig7g, in the Town council chambers of the vai-l
Muni-cipal Building.
The following Councilmembers and Mayor Rodney Slifer were Prescnt
John Donovan
Paula Palmateer
Tom SteinbergBill wiltoScott Hopman
Bob Ruder
Also present was: Town Attorney Larry Ri-der
The first matter for council r s attention was Resolution No. 9, scries
of l-979, directing that July 1, 1980 payment on va1 d'Gore property
be put in 1980 nudget was inlroduced by laayor Rod Slifer. Larry Rider
addiessed this Resolution. There were no questions from the Council'
councilmember scott Hopman moved to approve the Resolution No.9i
Councilmember Tom Steinberg seconded Lhe motion. AII present voted
in favor and the motion Passed.
Resolirtion No. 10, series of I979, adopting official Zoning Maps
for the Town of Vail, colorado was introduced by Mayor Rod slifer.
Jim Rubin Zoning Administrator stated that this maps woufd _cost
$30 for the set of 10 pages or $3 per Page. Th95e was no discussion
or questions from the touncil. Councilmenber BiIl Wilto moved to
.ppiot" Resolution No. 10; Councilmember Scott Hopman seconded the
*-oilo.,. A1l present voted in favor and the motion passed.
The council then undertook consideration of Resolution No. 11, series
of 1979, approving a lease between william F. Fox Trustee for Fitzhugh
Scott granacfritdr6n's Trust and the Town of Vail for a part of an
existing garage and a wal1 located in the Town of Vail right-of-way
was inLioa.,rcea by Larry Rider, Town Attorney. After some discussion
it was decided t6 strick the word Town Manager and insert the word lvlayor'
councilmember Bob Ruder moved Lo approve Resolution No. 11 as amended;
Councilmember Tom Steinberg secondlh the moti-on. A11 present voted in
favor and the motion Passed.
The next item on the agenda was discussion concerning changg_t!9
parking variance fees. The council wants Lo up the fee to $5,000
i"r =pi"" instead of the 91,000 it is now. After a lengLhy discussion
between the council and the public it was decided that the council
would adopt the fee increase by Resolution on April 17, 1979 at the
night *..ii.,g. Councilnrember John Donovan moved to approvg th9
raie chan'e 6y Resolution on the April 17th meeting; Councilmember
Bob Ruder-seconded the motion. e1i present voted; six in favor and
I (Tom Steinberg) oPPosed.
The council then undertook the matter of adopting the Development
plan for special Development Distri-ct #3; Pitkin creek Park, Inc.
The preseniation was given by Jay Peterson along with Chuck Anderson
who walked the Councii throu-gh the plans; Chris Sivertson, landscaping;
1- a
HITCH ENTERPRISFS, INC.
P.O. BOX 1308 * 309 NORTHFTDGE CTBCLE * GUYMON, OK|-AHOMA 7394? * 405-338-8575
October 3L, L979
Mr. James A. RubinZoning Administrator
Town of VaiIBox 100Vai1, Colorado 81657
Dear Jim:
Craig Snowdon has forwarded to me your letter of October
16th concernJ.ng the parking assessment for the Bel1 Tower
BuiJ-ding. I will have to admit that the $30,000 figure-
shocked me. we were told when we originated the expansion
plans that we would need 5 spaces at $11000 each as is in-
dicated in Section l-8.52.150(2)B of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code which you enclosed in your letter to Craig.
I have no real argument over the increase from 5 to 6deficient parking spaces but I was not aware that the feefor parking spaces had been increased from 911000 to $5.000.Please advise as to when that legal action was taken and
whether or not it applies to expansion projects which were
already begun, if that is my case.
I will be in Vail this next Monday, November 5th with
my checkbook in hand and would l-ike to resolve this matter
at that time. Please contact me through Craig Snowdon on.
Monday.
Yours very trulyr
Clark S. Willingham
CSW/ss
THE HITCH FAMILY AeF|IEUSINESS CC'MPANIEE!
NIAK MANAoEMENT C^TTLE BIJYING| CSATTLE FEEE ING' BEEF PACKINO FAFIMINO
MASTER COMMODITIES, INC, FIVE FLAGS CATTLE CO., INC. HENRY C. HITCH FE€OLOT, INC. BOOXER CUSTOM PACKING COMPANY, INC. HITCH FARMS, INC.
NATDNALWESTERN MANAGEMENT,INC. NO MAN'S LAND CATTLE CO. MASTER FEEOERS, INC. CLOVIS PACKING COMPAiIY. INC. MASTER LAND CO., LTO.
WESTERN TRIO CATTLE COMPA].IY H.W.H CATTLE CO., INC. MASTER FEEDERS II, INC. MASTER GRAIN CO.
o
box 100
vail, colorado 81657(303) +7e5613
lmn
Craig Snowdon
Architect
Box'1998
department of community dwelopment
lthrch .|6, ]979
of the Planning & Environmental
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Snowdon:
- Enc'losed is a copy of the MinutesConrnission meeting of lrhrch is,-igiijl "'
_ As you are aware, your requestfor.the Schober Building *ui'ai,ni"a. -'ii"""
period, to March 26, 1gig, in wtrtitt-vou'candecision to the Town Couniil. -" r'--
for a Conditiona'l Use permit
is a ten (10) day appealsappeal the Conrnission's
ENC
f
I,IEMORANDUM
TO
FROI4
DATE
REF
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION AND TOWN COUNCIL
DEPARII4ENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/JIM RUBIN
16 HARCH '1979
COI'{'IENTS FROM THE PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
ON THE CONOITIONAL USE PERMIT REqUESTS FOR THE. SCHOBER BUILDING AND THE HILL BUiLDING IN COMMERCIAL
CORE I.
The fo'l'lowing are a conpilation of comments that were requested
from the Planning & Environmental Conrnission members on their reasonsfor their votes on the two Planning & Environmental agenda items mentioned
above.
I hope that these corrnents begin to define what types of
expansions and improvements are desired, and what criteria should be usedin reviewing these expansion and improvement proposais.
SUMMARIZATION OF STATEMENTS FROM THE PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Telephone Conversations with the members on March '15' 1979.
The secretary was asked to ca] 'l each member and ask for their reasons for
ejther denyi-ng or approving the requests for Conditional Use Pernits on
the Schober AuitOing and the Hi'11 Bui'lding in Comrnercial Core I.
Sandy Mills:
Her nnin reason for denial of the cuP for the schober Bujlding
was the size of the addition. She is also concerned about the additiona] condo-
minium units being proposed. She feels that the building is,not stepped.
back far enough anO'wiit impact the view corridor. She has looked into the
density of this particular building and finds that the Schober Build'ing
is one with the most dense F'loor Aiea Ratio in the Core. She is in agreement
with the Director of Conmunity Development, that po1 icy statements must come
out'of more study of the Zon'i-ng 0rdinance, the Conditional Use Permit criterja
and the work don! in Growth lulanagement. She feels there should be some incentive
for people to cl ean-up their buiidings, improve them and so on, but there
must"re'regulations sbt forth to prevent more and more density in the Core.
Her reasons for approving the plans for the Hill Building' is
that along with her studies oi'other buildings in the Core, she knows they
are under-their al'lowab'le Gross Resjdential F'loor Area (GRFA)' the addition
is very sma'l 't and wi1l not impact a vievl corridor and the proposed changes wi'l 1
improve the Iooks of the building.
Ed Drager:
His rnin reason for denia'l of the Conditional Use Permit application
for the Schober Build'ing 'is the increased density of the building.
He feels that construction wi'll be detrimental to the traffic
f1 ow, and the increase 'in density wi1'l produce more traffic, additiona'l
parking requirements and he'could not see where they were improving'the de1 ivery
and loading zones to take care of this increase.
He feels it is detrimental to the character of the Core (Vail Village).
He fee'ls there wjll be an environmenta'l (light & air) impact during and after
construction. it was his feeling that there would be a minimal impact on the view
corri dor.
The increase in commercial space will produce more emp'loyees' more
employee traffic and the necessity for more de'l ivery vehicles into the area.
In conc'l usjon he stated that these addit'ional impacts rr€ severe enough to warrant
denial of the application
0n the Hill Building, he feels the impacts are very minimal.
They are asking for a sma'l I amount of addit.ional square footage and that
with this additjon they are still under their a'llowable Gross Residential Floor
Area (GRFA). The addition will not impact the view corridor or change the character
of the surrounding area.
Jack Goeh'l :
0n the Schober Building Conditiona'l Use Permit request, he feels it
will increase the amount of vehicular trafiic in the area. The increase in
'-tlr--
Page 2
Surmarization of
ilarch 15, 1979
o
statements fnrm the Planning & Environmenta'l Cormission
shop and restaurant space will not reduce or maintain the present level of vehicu'lartraffic. Development of public space: There is no public space on that property.
Quality Control of Construction: The design is very good and he was impressed
with the presentat'ion and feels the modifications do produce a better lookingbuilding. However, he feels there is no need for a larger building on this
site due to all thd impacts that wi'll qccur. The elevator tower would be aslight obstruction:to the view corridor on the street side.
I
0n the'Hi'11 Building, his vote for denial was because he did
not approve of the construction design on the north side of the building especial ly.
He feels the increased space on the north side would reduce the view corridorslightly and would impact the traffic pattern in an already congested area.
Roger Tilkemeier:
His reasons for voting approva'l on the Conditional Use Permitfor the Schober Bui'lding is that it improves the appearance of the building and
the areas around it that are very unattractive. It was h'i s judgment thatit does not notably obstruct the view corridor. They are withjn their
Iegal rights to have the three condominium units in the building. And, he
approved of their increasing the pedestrian area around the building by putting
in the arcade/walkway in the front of the building.
In.regard to the Hi'lI Building, he felt the improvement ofthe building wi'l'l give a continuation of the shopping experience at this endof the street by moving the garage, 'it will draw people through and around to
the shopping availab'le to them at the top of the street. The building is
under its allowable.Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) even with the addition.
The design is consjstent with the existing building. The neighbors did notobject, and it does not obstruct the view corridor at this end of the street.
Jim Morgan:
0n the Schober Building, Mr. Morgan was most concerned with the
addition of residentia'l space and the conversion of the two accorrnodation units.into dwelling units, He also felt that there was too much conmercial and office
space being added, but did think that the general design was appropriate
and that some of the proposed changes were worthwhile.
0n the Hill Building, Mr. Morgan abstained from voting due to aconflict of interest, but had favorable conments about the proposed addition.
He felt that the changes would enhance the upper Bridge Street area, and would
be an improvement to the existing building.
.U
Snowdon and Hopkins o Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive
P. O. Box 1998 Vall, Colorado
I{arch 14, 1979
CNS: rng
gog 47&2201
81057
Mr. Jin Rubin
Zoning Administration
Torvn of Vail
Box 100VaiL, Colorado 81657
Gentl emen:
On March t3, 1979 an application for a conditional usepermit for expansion and renovation of the Schrober Building
was presented to the Vail Planning Connission. The proposed
r.iork was within existing Town of Vail rules, regulations and
ordinances and was endorsed by the Town staff. The Planning
Cornnnission, however, arbitrarily and capriciousLy denied theconditional use pernit. Before considering costly and un-wanted 1ega1 remedies the applicant hereby forrnally requestsrevierv of this action by the Town Council.
I gratefull-y acknowledge the presence and input of the Tor,m
Council menbers at the neeting. The presentation before the
Town Council rvill be basically the sane. A11 plans are in nyoffice on the north end of the Schrober BuiLding and I wouldappreciate the opportunity to conduct specific on-site in-spections of the project.
Sincerely,
/wrl&wlt'o
Craig,tN. Sno*.lon
Snowdon and llopkins Architects
MINUTES
PLAI'IN ING &
MEETING OF:
c0lt4Issr0N Ed Drager
Sandy Mills
Jack Goehl
Roger Tilkemeier
Jim Morgan
Gerry t.lhite
Ron Todd
Dick Ryan
Jim Rubin
ENV I RON MENTAL .COMM I SS I OI.I .
March '13, 1979
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Absent:
STAFF MEIVEERS PRESENT:
The meeting was brought to order by Chaimnn Ed Drager and
was folloved by an intioduction by Dick Ryan, Director of Cormunity Development.
He spoke in regard to the first three items on the agenda. He reeommends that
a Workshop be estab'l ished regarding the grovlth in Commercial Core I involving
the staff, CCI merchants, the Planning & Environmental Cornrnission and Council.
He would'like to see a direction in poficy resu'lt from this Workshop. Dick
also comrpnted that he fee'ls more detai'l is needed from the appljcants on their
proposa'ls, especially in view of those that are being heard today on buildings
in Cormercial Core I.
The first item on the agenda is a request for a Conditional Use
Permit for the Sdhober Building in Commercjal Core I
Craig Snowdon, Architect is representing the owner in this request.
He introduced the owner of the building, Mr. C'l ark Willingham. He exp'l a'ined
his proposal to the Commission with f]oorplans, site plan and model of.the building.
He further explained that they propose to add 2,900 sq. ft. onto five levels
wtrich wi'l'l include expanding the restaurant, ski shop, office space and fiving area.
0n the second level they also plan to open up the display area by pul'ling the
building back about five feet, creating a covered walkway/arcade and putting
in an elevator from this level to the offices and living quarters.
He then eiplained the site changes they are proposing which inc'lude
enlarging the planters on Gore Creek Dr., and along the creek s'ide, they wouldlike to apply for the Public/Private Joint Venture so that the Town and the owner
can work together on the landscaping and the stairway replacement on that cornerof the building. He fee'ls that the building does not affect the view corridor,
sJnce it will be stepped back bn the creek side corner. A deck wil'l be added to
the 4th f'loor, and the elevator tower is located on the street side.
Jim Rubin then gave the surmary of the staff recomrendations.
He stated there were changes in the square footage that is ljsted in the staff
remo, those changes are: on the first floor the additional square footage is
700 sq. ft.,2nd floor,266 sq. ft.,3rd f'loor,992 sq. ft., and the 5th floor,
937 sq. ft., which totals 2,895 sq. ft. He then went through the factors that
are listed in the memo and stated that the staff reconrnendation is for conceptual
approval .
-.''"r*'
ry2
MINUIES - PEC
3-]3-79
Ed Drager then aSked for questions from the Commission. Jim Morgan
asked about the parking requirement. Jim Rubin stated that before the buildingpermit can be issued, money has to be paid into the Parking Fund. The parking
requirement has been figured at l0 spaces.
!lr. Ryan to'ld the Cormission that Counci] has not stjpulated thefees' and that recommendations wi1l be made to Counci'l for any increase in the
amount per space that needs to be made.
Mr. Snowdon added that a'loading zone now exists outSide the building
which will not be changed and the alley way-wil1 be cleaned up along with theconstrrction on the building.
Mr. Morgan continued that he opposes the increased density. Mr.
Snowdon stated that the on'ly change of use wi'll be in the'living units, thatthere wi'l'l be no new shops. They will only add space to the existing offices
and restaurant. Mr. Ti'lkemeier feels that the prrposal improves the northside of the building, especially the patio area.
Questions were then taken from the publjc in attendance. Pepi
Gramshammer questioned whether the building wil'l infringe upon public property?
Mr. Snowdon stated that they wi'l'l not be building on any public property. Pepi
continued that he is against enlarg'ing the building and enclosing everything.
There were Town Council nembers at the meeting. Councilman Donovan asked whetherthe elevator shaft/tower is within their property lines? Mr. Snowdon answeredthat it is within the property'lines. Further discussion of the building being
non-conforming and the addit'ion making it more non-conforming ensued.
The Council members and the Connission then discussed the considerationof the Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and that a 1.5/l FAR had been talked about but notadopted. Mr. Drager added that the Planning & Environmenta'l Conrnission havethe Conditiona'l Use Permit for control purposes, but that perhaps the factorsthey are concerned with here are not a proper handle on the problem where everynook and cranny can be closed up. He contfnued that if this application is approved,it can be assured that there will be many others coming in wjth similar requests.
lrlr. Snowdon stated:that there are many buildings in the Core thatcou'ld be improved-, and he fee'ls their design is a-vast impiovement to the presentbuilding. Councilman Steinberg is concerned that the addbd square footage'willconstitute the need for more employees. Councilman Hopman is concerned aboutthe view corridor, and that with expansion throughout the Core, they couldlose al'l the views throughout t'he Vi'l1age.
Jim Morgan stated that he js concerned about the entiretorn up with al'l the construction this sunner.
Core being
Counci'lman Wilto stated that the Floor Area Ratio was turned doum
because they wanted to give people the opportunity to come through the Commissionwith p'lans for their buildings and that there shouldn't be a pro6'lem with settingprecedent because the Cormission has to look at these p'lans on a case by case'baiis.Councilman Ruder feels the building design .is good, bul is concerned abbut morekitchens and bedrooms, that this will have an undesirable impact. Mr. snowdonstated that the building profile was designed so that the addition doesn't look
"tacked on." Mr. l,lillingham, the new owner of the bui'lding, then addressed the
*u-
o' L,.
Pg. 3
MINUTES. PEC
3-13-79
Cormissjon. It is his fee'ling that he has purchased a good building and that his
proposal nnkes the building much more attractive.
li/tr. Tilkemeier asked whether the owner has the right to make
condominiums out of the accommodation units and does the Cormission have control
over this proposed change? Jjm Rubjn answered that this is their right'
they are permitted thr:ee units by the size of the Lot.
Mr. Til kerlreier made the Motion to approve the Conditiona'l Use Permjt
for the Schober Building in accordance with the recormendations from the Department
of Connunity Deve'lopment and with the comment that the north side of the bui'lding
wi'll not impact the view comidor. For'l ack of a second, the Chairman, Mr.
Drager seconded the Motion. The Cormission voted one in favor of the Motion'
Mr. Tilkemeier, and four votes in opposition, Mr. Drager, Sandy Mills' Jim ltlorgan
and JackGoehl. The Conditional Use Permit request is denied.
Mr. Drager jnformed the app'licant that he can appeal the decjsion
to the Town Counci'l .
Mr. Snowdon asked the Cormission the reasons for denial? He felt
that there had been no negative feeling on his preliminary presentation.
Sandy Mi'l'ls answered that perhaps initially there was a pos'itive- reaction from the Corunission, but that at'least for her, she has been thinking
about the additional square footage that would require additiona'l employees. Thatthis is the first building to come through with a proposal of th'is type in the
Vil1age, and they need time to.look at the Vi'l1age as a whole; and that lookingat the project as a community benefit, she doesn't feel that this proposal would
be a benefit to the community.
Mr. Pau'l Johnston of the Christiania Lodge then spoke to the Cormission.
He stated that'in the case of hjs 1odge, there are rooms on'ly and no services.
He feels that the Village does need an increase in services, especial ly restaurants.
He would be unhappy to see the Jown zone for day skiers on1y, and that some expansionis a good idea. i ,
The second'item on the agenda, Creekside Building request for a.
Conditjona'l Use Permit in Commer:cia'l Core I.
.lay Peterson, Attorirey at Law is representing the owner in this request.
They propose to enclose the patio deck of the Watch Hill Oyster C'lub restaurant.
They propose a greenhouse effect, and contend this would in no way shut off the view
and that it would make the patio more viab'l e. It cou'ld be used in inc'l ement weather
and at night. There is also the problem of the retail space below the deck that
are having'leakage problems, and they have been told that only enclosing the deckwill eliminate these problems.
Mr. Tilkemeier asked about the pitch of the roof. Mr. Peterson statedthat there is not a great angle to the roof, but that engineer.s have been consulted
on this. Mr. Tilkemeier fee'ls the biggest problem is with snow coming off the roof
of the main building onto the plexiglass and that this cou'ld be a dangerous situation.
oPs.4'
l'IINUTES-r,EC
3-13-79
Mr. Morgan is a'lso concernedabout this problem. Mr. Tilkemeier added that they nnyhave-to go with large skylights rather than entjre plexiglass roof. The Conmisiiont'tould'l ike to see the engineer's report relative to-the design of the "greenhouse"addition. The commission suggested'that this matter be tabl6d. llr. Drigerfeels there will be an impaci-on the Chi'ldren's Fountain pedestrian area-andMr. Goehl is concerned about the added seating capacity aird tts potentialyear round use. Mr. l,'lorgan again stated that-he does not approvb of the design.He doesn't fee'l thatlit ties in with the.roofline of the Uuiiaing.
tabled until the Planning & Environmental Conmission meeting on March 27,1979.
The third.item on the agenda, Hi'll Building request for a ConditionalUse Permit in Commercia'l Core I.
Mr. Jack Curtin was present to represent the owner. Mr. Curtinadvised the Corrnission that Mrs. Hil'l has wjthdrawn her plans for the tower asfirst proposed. she-is asking to trade the garage space for the cormercialspace and to gain 361 sq. ft. She a'lso proposes-to bnclose her deck to add spaceto the kitchen. He.expla_ined to the Commis'sion that this is a one-fami'ly aweiting.He had a model of the building and drawings to present to the commission-.
The Commission asked whether surrounding building owners had anyproblems with the proposed addition. Mr. Curtin pr6duced leiters from the 6wnerof the Red Lion Inn and the Mil'l Creek Court Builiing, and stated that no one was
1n-gRposition to the proposed changes. Jim Rub'in adiised the Connnission ttrit itreHiIl Building is'sti'll under its ailowab'le Gross Residential Floor Area (eiFn)with the addition. Sandy. Mil'ls expressed the concern that the garage is'locaiedin.a high traffic area. Mr. Curtiir feels that changing tfre'lociiiofr of the-giiagetakes it out of a higher traffic area.
Roger Ti'lkemeier made the Motion to approve the Conditional Use Permitfor.expansion of commercial and residentia'l space"in the Hill Building in accordwith the recommendations in the memo from the'Department of Conmunity"Oeveiopmentdated lvlarch 2-, 1979,'inc'luding the changes made 6y the applicani ind"n;ai;g ih;withdrawal of the variance request for ihe toler. Jim Mbi^gan seconded the-trhtion.The corrnission voted I members in favor, Jack Goehl opposei and Jim firg;n --
abstaining because of a confl ict of interest.
The fourth item on the agenda, request for the rezoning of Lot I,Vail Villaqe 2na Filinq (old rirehouie siie[T-
Mr. Drager.sayg lhg background on the sale of the property and itspresent density_whidrr ti Hisr' De;aiti Nriii:Fa*iiv-iinmFi. The Town councilhas asked the Planning & Environmentil Conmission-for this rezoning or itre property.Two Councilmen llere piesent., _Mr. Hopman and Mr. Ruder. r'rr. nuder dxpf uin"a'if.,ltthe Counci'l voted to.send this rezoiring request to the P1 anning & gnvironmentaicormission. It is his.feeling that th6 vail rire protection oisirilt (vFpoj-cannot
lay that this.parcel will not-be needed by the District for ever more, and ttrat itls not correct for a.pub'l ic body to give up their land. They are parlicularlyconcerned about the density zoned foi this'parcel. They wani.it tb go throug-h aI1 theproper channels.
"-'!!--
, .J
Pg.5
MINIIIES-PEC
3-13-79
The Planning & Environmenta'l Cornmission fe'lt that they are not a
proper forum to tell the VFPD what to do.
Jay Peterson spoke for the person who is contract'ing to buy theland. He statLd that Mr. Prado submitted his bid for $620,000. 0n January 16,
1979, the Town Council met with the Fire District and d'iscussed the sale and
the Tovm of Vail decided not to do anything about the land. He fee'ls that down-
zoning this parcel now would be ridiculous. He has been present through several
down zonings through:the years, and nothing was done on this parcel.
. Roger Ti'lkemeier stated that the Planning & Environmenta'l Cormission
had heard the plans for the sa1e, and he was not in favor of it. Bob Warner
a board member for the VFPD was present and explained that the Distrjct was very
up front with their p1 ans for the sa1 e and have gone through a1 1 required
procedures.
Sandy Mills stated that shedid
Coranission shou1d take action to change theto rezone just this one site without 'looking
owned land.
not fee'l that the Planning & Environmental
zoning. She doesn't think it rnkes sense
at al'l Town of Vail and District
Mr. Drager stated that it was not brought to the Planning & Environmental
Gonnission's attention that this parce'l (which is pubfically owned) was zoned HDMF
during the last downzoning done, and it should have been downzoned at that time.
A woman (who did not identify herself), but lives in the Villa
Cortina is very concerned about the increased density in this area. She
brought up the problem the Vi1la Cortina had when the Ist Bank came through
with their proposed addition, and she is aga'inst addjtiona'l build'ings in this
area. Mr. Gordon Bri'ttan spoke to the Commission. He would like to see this
meeting held up until the legal counsel for the Town of Vail can be heard with
his explanation of the situation.
Sandy Mills nnde the lvlotion that the recormendation from the Planning
& Environmenta1 Conmission to:the Town Council is to leave the zoning of Lot I,
Vail Village 2nd Filing as High Density Multi-Family (H0Nf) based on the factthat it wou'ld be unfair to single out this parcel for rezoning as the Vai'l Fire
Protection District had come in good faith, and the sale of the land should stand.
Roger T'i'l kerneier seconded the l'lotion. Four members voted in favor of the l,lotion,
Jim Morgan opposed.
;
The staff wi1'l be horking on an inventory of publically owned land
and wi1 'l present this to Council and the Planning & Environmental Comm'ission
on April '10, 1979.
The fifth item on the agenda, Variance request for the Mueller Residence'located on Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch 2nd Filfhg.
Tom Briner; Archjtect is representing this request. He explainedthat they would like to add an additional 40 sq. ft., to the secondary unit of the
duplex in a Prinnry/Secondary zone district. The Commission asked whether he can
prove a hardship? He stated that the hardship wou'ld be economics. The developer
feels that it uaruld be a much more marketable product with the additional square feet.
Pg. 6
!MINtJTES-PEC
3-13-79
Sandy Mills explained that the Conrnission is required to follow
,the parameters of the Primary/Secondary zoning, and that.approval of this request
rurould be a grant of special privi'lege which they cannot do.
,After further discussion Jim l4organ nnde the l''lotion to deny the
',variance nequest for the Mue'ller Residence located on Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch
Znd Fi'l ing.' Sandy Mills seconded the Motion and the Commission voted unanimously
to deny t6e variairce request. . Mr- Briner was given notice that he can appeal
to the Town Council ,.
,Jim Rubin, explained this to the Commission by showing-the site.
plan ,with the Plaza area, easements and 'l ocation of firelanes. After further
&iscussion, Sandy Mi1'ls nnde the Motion to approve the resubd'ivision of Gondo'la I
iParcel, Loi C, Biock 5-C, Vail Vil'lage 1st Filing. The lt4otion seconded-by
*lim Morgan, the Conrmission voted appioval with one abstention, Roger Tilkeme'ier
ibecause of a conflict of l'nterest.
llhe 7th item on the agenda, Amendment toltte 8r Cqsolar 9el No!"te
Subdivision. Jim Rubin explained-to the e
lin :angle-of the bui'ld'ing evelope, it wil l not' affect distance between -bui.ldingsor setbacks in any way. After some
fto approve the amendment to Site 8,
Sandy Mi1'ls and unanimously approved
lllbeting adjourned at 6:25 P.M.
discussion a Motion was made by Jim lbrgan
Casolar Del Norte Subdivision, seconded by
by the Commission.
t!r:
I o
I'EIfiMNDUM
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF COI4MUNITY DEVELOPMENT
'l MARCH .|979
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR THE SCHOBER
BUILDING LOCATED ON A PART OF LOT A, BLOCK 5-B'
VAIL VILLAGE lst FILING
These factors are:
A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Conrnercia'l Core I District;
B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I District;
C. Reduction of non-essential off-street parking;
D. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles;
E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians;
F. Continuance of the various commercial , residential , and
public uses in Cormercial Core I District so as to maintain
the existjng character of the area;
Contrcl quality of construction, architectural design, and
landscape design in Conmercial Core I District so as to
nnintain the exist,ing character of the area;
Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on
the environment of Corrnercial Core I District'
TO
FROM
DATE
RE
INTRODUCTION
'This is the first application that has come before you under
the new procedures for the expansion of buildings in CCI as estab1ished by-
0rdinancb No. .|3, Series of'1978. This 0rdinanie (which is enc'losed) requires
a Conditiona'l Use for any en'largement or expansion'of floor area' either commercial
or residential, in Conrmeicjal Core I. The other change enacted by this 0rdinance
prohibits on;site parking in Comrr:rcia'l Core I and establjshes a parking.fund
in which the app'libant must contribute an amount of money per space whjch js
determined by the Town Councjl.
There is in Conrmercial Core I, a spec'ified list of factors which
must be considered in reviewing Conditiona1 Use App'lications. These factors,
listed below, are what wi'll be-considered in revievling all applications of this
type.O
G.
H.
0n the general review of this application and other expansion
requests in Cormnercia'l Core I, the Department of Community Development believes
that the Zoning Ordinance presently permits the expansion of bui'ldings in CCI,
as long as the expansion does not have a discernable negative impact on the specific
factors listed above. If expansions are not desired, we be'lieve that a further
modifjcatjon of the Zoning 0rdinance is required.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
' The Schober Bui'lding is the building 'located on the west side
of the Chi'l dren's Fountajn contain'ing the Lancelot Restaurant, the Ski Ske'ller
Ski Shop, offjce space, one condominium unit and two accormodation units.
I
o
Theproposedexpansion'is.pr,imarily.onthenorthsjdeofthebu.ilding
in a northeriy-ai".bliil itfi;;d ltre Creet<). ihere is a]so.a small addition
on itre east side ot ifre'-f-incelot, and the addition of a loft and storage u"9u .,
above the condominiuil';.;i'i;iihin-lh. building). Another.proposed..c.lla.nge to the
building is the "onuf"iion Ji xn;j two. aciommoOltion units by the addition of
kitchens into two O*irfii"nbi,niii. (Since this does not invo'lve an increase in
square footage ano iJp""rn"iti.a by thi Densitv Section of the Zoning 0rdinance'
ii-ii-"oi 6;i ;i til ;;bii;iion"n"ing consi-dered_lgdav.) rhree other add'itions
are an elevator tower oi'tne south sid6 of the building-r frew exr;erior stairs
on the north side ot't[e [iiifOing, ana tie aaOitions o"fdec.ks on the west and north
elevations. These tnrie-aaAitioni-also do not add useable floor area so are not
oart of the appli.uiion.--if'ey-are, however, part of the general redevelopment
br tne buildiiril being considered.
DCD-MEMORANDUM
PS. 2 - Schober Building CUP
The fol'lowing is a floor
(Lancel ot)(Ski Skeller)
Offices )
Condomi nium)
TOTAL
The proposed addition of the Lancelot space was-part of the .
origina't uppii.Stifinl-Oui-*ignt not happen at this time. .If it does not
h;p;;;'it-;lij U"com6 i coveiea but opbir patio area. It is, however, the intent
oi'ine'appticant to tiv" tt" enclosure'of ihe-pat'io (y!t!_3-greenhouse effect)
ioniiAeibii at this tine-instead of a potential separate applicat'ion jn the future'
CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS
' A. Effects of vehicular traffic on cornprcia'l core I District;
. llle do not.believe that vehicu'lar traffic in ccl will be affected
by th'is application
. g: ReOuctfon of vehicu'lar traffic in Cottrnercial Core I District;' C. Reduction of non-essentia'l off-street parking;-
D. Control of a"tivery, p'ickup, and service vehicles;
3-1-79
by floor breakdown of the existing building:
3,020 sq. ft.
3,218 sq. ft.
2,500 sq. ft.
2,500 sq. ft.
ll,23B sq. ft.
671 sq. ft.
538 sq. ft.
938 sq. ft.
697 sq. ft.
2,844 sq. ft.
'lst Fl oor
2nd Fl oor
3rd Fl oor
4th Fl oor
'lst
2nd
3rd
Loft
TOTAL
The total additional floor area being proposed is:
i-\t l.F'loor (Lancelot)
FIoor (Ski Skeller)
Floor (0trices)
& Storage SPace
\.,Ne also do not fee] that the proposed addition wil'l have a noticeab'le
impact on these factors.The addition of the conmercial and restaurant space
w-
,l
DCD-MEMORANDUM
i 'r'Pg. 4 - Schober Building CUP
presently not one of the better ones within Commercial
o
Y.ir UU t lL, -
1-- i:- ur,'- .:- . l : '.''-', ,--':',
tJ. t=Lrl,rr-ll lvli \tl rtirr'-
.ri r-..--.--i ..i ;..i:,..,1^\' ,.;^i.t, 'Lr. tJultLlUl \rr (rcl,i-: jt 1;rvi\grr '_
i,h a'ls.r dc not iee . th:'r- ih; Pri,. -
3-]-79
the overal'l appearance of the bui'l ding.
odor, dust, smoke, and other factors
of Conwercia'l Core I District.
negative effects that this expansion
Core I area. We
feel that this redesign enhances
H. Effects of noise,
. on the environment
l.fe do not foresee any
will have on these factors.
RECOMMENDATIONS
ln conclusion, the Department of Conmunity Deve'l opment recorunends
approval of this Conditional Use Request in concept. lrle do not feel that this
proposal has a negative effect on any of the factors considered. Qur prirnry
concern is that more time needs to be spent on integrating the proiect with
the Creekside Stairs, and the space that would remain between the stairs
and the bui'lding. The Department shou'ld also receive information on the
rnterials to be used on the building and make sure snow remova'l and drainage
wi'll'wor.k.
t ^!.1 .'-- :.-* r,-L.i- .',-'-!-i lt:rL wr.. \' (.'li. r,.r'
(')
o,
PIJBLIC NOTICE
NoTIcE fs HEREBY GIVEN that Craig Snowdon, Architect,
has appLied for a conditional- use Permit to construct an addition
to the Schober Building located on a part of Lot A, Block 5-B1
Vail Village First Filing and in a. Commercial Core I Zone
Dlstrict. Application has been made in accord with section 18'24'085
of the MunicipaL Code.
APublicHearingwillbeheldbeforetheTownofVail
Planning & Environmental Commission on March 13, L979 at 3:00 P'M'
in the vaiL Municipal Building. said hearing wilL be held in accord
with Section l-8.66.060 of the Municipal Code'
TOWN OF VAIL
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPIMNT
/)A
//"r/rrz- 4.ft--z\//
UJames A. Rubin
Zoning Administrator
Published in the Vail Trail February 24, L979
PI'BLIC NOTICE
NoTIcE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Craig Snowdon, Architect,
has applied for a Conditional- Use Permit to construct an addition
to the schober Building.located on a part of Lot A, Block 5-B'
Vail Village First Tiling and in a- Commercial Core I Zone
District.Applicationhasbeenmadeinaccordwlthsectionls.24.oSS
of the MunieiPal Code.
A Public Hearing will be held before the Town of Vail
Planning & Environmental Commission on March 13' 1.979 at 3:0O P'M'
intheVailMunicipalBuilding.Saidhearingwillbeheldinaccord
with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code'
TO1IIN OF VAIL
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DE1IELOPMENT
fu*-f,.&--G;l/ames A. Rubin
Zoning Administrator
Published in the Vail Trail February 24, 1979
NOTIFICATTON 2-22-79
Charles Rosenquist
Box 686Vail , CoIo. 81657
For: Gore Creek Plaza Bldg
Creekside Bldg.
"!lF
Name
Name
TOWN OF VAIL
APPLICATION FON
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
Application Date
Publication Date
Public Hearing Date
Applicant
Owner if different irom ApPlicant
Mailing Address
Telephone
Legal DeseriPtion:
prcipert s unpfatted subm metes
Application is herebY made for a Conditional tlse
of
of
,r/nilocde.
AescrTpilon as exhib f\
Permit to al1ow:
' , Block O'b, Filing
Dis
APPLICATIoNWILLNoTBEACCEPTEDI]NLESSACCoMPANIEDBYTHEFoLLoIIING:
1. Hearing Fee - $SO.OO + $1'40 for EACH addressed envelope'
2. A LIST OF THE OIVNERS OT.THE PROPERTIES WithiN 3OO fEEt iN A
single_Tarnirv nesidential ; T*":i';;iiy-nesioential ; or Two-Familv
Primarylseconaa"iv-nttiat"iial Zone District; or adjacent to
the subie"t p."pl'"ty i" all -other Zone Districts'
TheOwnersListshalli'ncludett't"un't""ofa11-ownel:sandthelega1 descripiion of the propettv "*n"A by each' Accompanying
thislistshallbepre-addressedenvelopesalongwithCertifj-ca't". "ia-nttt'"n neceipis p"op""iv fi1led out to each
owner. rnese iott" ""n ue outain^ua fr.orn-the U'S' Post office'
3. Site Plan, floor plan and other documents as required by the
Zoning Administrator
4. A description of the precise-nature of the prooosed use' its
operating erra"acterisiics and measures proposed to make the
use compatible with other properties in the vicj-nity'
MINUTES
PLANNING &
MEETING OF:
Commission
Staff Present:
ENVIRONTiENTAL COTIMISSION
FebruarY 13, 1979
3:00 P.M'
Members Present:Ed Drager
SandY Mills
Roger Tilkemeier
Ron ToddGerry Wlrite
Jim Itlorgan
Pam Garton
Jim Rubin
The f irst item on the agen{a was .!191lTil=aTY ?i::9
ot ilre neaeveropmlnt'oi'r9qi*-p-g+bl ro* Haried of-Ta"iT Associates' rnc'
rvas present to addresE the commission' He clescribed the lilaster
Plan for Gold P.;;';;;'"pr"i"'a !l:.::l;"1:^1":*'Tll3"il*rf,3u:l?:";?l-'?i: ;;:;iti.=^6i3"""i'"r"alo' lack or room in the
Bratskeller, the';;;;'iot * Sma11 l{orld Nursery' 'improving and
enlarging the public restrooms "nO t"i"t:Ii1l^i1|ing ticket
windows, replacirig-it'""t"i"1 stairs and increasing the ar:ea for
ski instructors.'"n""!t'o*ta tnt colmis=ion a rough site plan
and explai.ned that -*iif' the enlargemel!.of tle^facility' some
parking places ttv r"-i"=l ' r"t ttat thts was contingent upon
ForestServiceapproval.otherp'opo""ochang.es-includedrelocatlonof a tennis court, addition ot u"iit"i-vo11ev"ba11 court, and a
oedestrian way for better access to the facility'
He explained that George Ger.rin developed the site
olan and Gordon Pierce, the p"eri-iiiary-tuildi|8 nlan' He further
Lxplalned tirat tnlr:;-;';"iA b; thr;; avenuesot flow into the
builcling tto* nusJ"-""4--a"op-off-;;";;.'--ihe plan' is to use the
she11 of the .*i"iing- tafetlria b;ii;;;c within the new building'
He then advised ;;;"3"ili;;i;; tir"t-irtei rval!.to incorporate
four luxury "o.roo*iniums within, tir" ""ru" buil ding. He f urther
explained ttrat in J;;;H"; to- the surrounding nei-ghbors' at
1r{i11 Creek circle ;;; M;;;" vail' "i"' ' they ha"d recelved verv
positive reactioi io ttttit plans' -;; it"tub the view from illill
Creek should not be impacted at a1l with the proposed building
being only 3O in"f,es-i'igher than "ifte'existing- building' Because
of improvements i"-aeti'E", these neighbors will have an even
better view corridor'
Roger Tilkemeier stated that it is Jelt that more parlcing
is needed at cora-i;;k";;a ir,*t it"*""r0 not be a good idea.to
reduce the parking there because of the special events' raclng
programs and trre iifts that draws so many sl<iers into that area'
Ron Todd asked why the condominiums are being j.ncluded
in the Plans?
I(r. I{&rned explained that the project won't work rvithout
the condominiums bo<:ot"L of the ;;";;-"i t6nuv vA will necd to
expend on otllcr pr:ojects' .The t;i;-.;i the conclominlums is necessary
to helP PaY for the exPanslon '
il?fifir3t - 'LANNTNG
& EN'TR.NMENTAL coMMrssroN 2-13-79
After further discussioi,:l:^:":Tt?;:":"ffi:hil?After further discussron Lrrc ndominiums that
expressed their :;!i:h-:;,:i:":ti:li:? :i tl: i!;;;;;;l-i:,
;:31:" ;::"::?i;.:0
""
:iH *:' :::i':"H:il+,:i, :1" o"ii?,Y:illr i:
ffi*t ilHt:i;i:il' "3."bi!i:?il"l;" "ii:"il1,**tr": ru:'"{'T;l:fi:a:x,"i::l:x'l,l[f, '' f,t' "?:!t:lil 3i.::ii';H*:;i3 H-:;,:::l''ffi '"'
lli * ;:l ilEu.i,l?'*:iTt'il:'13-a"i;;;" ;o -
"ii"* the condomin iums'
Mr. Harned expresseO fril^3yprise that the Commission
would be in oppo"ition 1o these plans'
Discussion
dilrli"iol *ltl the exceptlon or ;;;;"tir.v-*""rd be opposed to
;;;;;;;ined frorn "oTTtlli:i:,,?l.n to a1lorv trre conabmi"iums'
%nowdon,Architect,lvaSpresenttorepreSentthe
building, s owner .
"-ii;""ipta.: ned rl' ti,,!""i"*i::t?:, that the building
is under new owner=iiip-"'"0-ttre ne'ri o'un"' *9q19'Iife to make some
changes to the o'iiliis' Therc *;";;";; toaitiot'"1 square footage
added to the o"riiiiu'.'-M.. sno*oii^l*iiuin"o l-:.:hu commission
that the uuiroing*3iil g;, .i**#i::li;r:;:lt::;:l 33I'.l;l:ii:,
itlillt:*":i'3.:o:*:"i!;l lrlil-;'";;;';e";el'a retair space adcled
and some additronai office tp"t"'- in the top floorit:t:";:"::
:li::i.i:"i;l.*: l;i *";llkrl] i"T"i?::l -idl:::::.hii:"lli:":'remoder tne larelst-portio" i=-].1"'.;3ri"3:::iit,t'?;'=' rhe owner;;;-;;" '":1. or,l':":tiii ffi :il";ffi;'';; p.rhaps a bel1 torver'
would also like
Jim Rubin explained^to the Commission^that a Conditional
use Permit *o"ri"i' ;;;;;;;9^t:l ;i;;.-projectl ':d that thev
would be requir.a-io pay into ttr."il^"tr.ing Fund:-o= i" thc case
ror addition" *ilni; -cci'
-11 *": ;;;i;ifieo tnit"lt'?'=;;; ;:I:1"*"
H:'*"::;li :ir ;ili.tll -liil: :ll I'rl''*ii :l:i::.1* :.1 k" *t'""
;;; ;;il!-b'ro'" the commiP:ion
recommendations l""tt""i"g the proposal'
rn answer to a question from tltq gt*Tlssiou' Irlr' Snorvdon
stated that the oOOition i" ptop""ti-would be an additional
5,soo to 4,500 sq' ft'
Jim Rubin explained to the CoTti:"]'?lt''tn^t this building
wi11 be settin g'i';';;;a;;l- ano-tt''--nl:i:"1,^):t ll"l:Ii l3 ll'uu"u"'
roorea at verv,"i;:;iiilir"li'"l3li3':lli^llt.:I'l tr'.'t no zonins
concerned about
re gulat ionsluoul i^'i"'"ii" i"t"a tti" ii't- pr <'pose rt expatr s i ot-t'
Mr' Snowdon told the Commission tlll.tnt ori'ncr is
interestea :'" i"iiii"iltt "or'ttti"iiou
done tlris vcar'
Pam Garton cruestioned whetrtor ' ll'l''Y?:tX'li!tl ]lLit "
improvdmcnt to"i^ne-'r'"iioing' but addcd that ttrr'r
"4W@
Page 3
MINUTES - PLANNING & ITNVIRONMENTAL COMT,TISSTON
Ordinance
Juogment that can be made until a more formal plan is available.
Sandv Mills agrees with pam, and in acldition wouldreal1y like to check ouf tno riu*.orridor to make sure there wirlbe no negative impact from the Fountain praza. she is also questioningthe fact that patios seem to be of great ""ir", especially d.uringthe summer rnonths. The fact that ttris pati.o is on the north sideof the building rvhere there is--iimrtea sun time mav be a validreason for enclo$ing it.
IRoger Tilkemeier cloesnrt hlve any negative feelingsabout this project. He feels ihat the patio at its present locationmay be detrj-mental and that enclosing ii lvould rol." it more attractive.Adding the condominiums rs " cor,"""n. He feels that with all thetime and effort that went into crowth Management, further densityis counter producti'e. tn reterencc to the proposal for the bell rowerf or the ef evator , he doesn ' t t;;i this wi 11 f 1y. I\Ir . Tr- rkemeieralso stated that the addition oi fireplaces is a dead issue.
Gerry White questions whether the proposal is rea1lya betterment of the community anJ is concernla i.uout the visual corridor.Jim tr{organ was concernecl about the core Village being torn up through_out the summer months, noting that trre Goncrori r buiJ.ding renovationwill be done this surT[ner- Ron Todd spoke farrorabry on the proposa],feeling that it would help th- "pp.o"rn"e of the building.
IrIr' 'snoivdon has his office in the building, and he isinterested in the- pr-oposal especially since he feels 1t would cleanup the lines of the uuitaingr^break up the roxln.ss tlrat exists norvand make it a much more attiactive structure.
2-73-79
.:.The thir:d item on the agenda- was Amendments to tbe Zoningwhich included the foll5rving:
Elnrination of Distance Be uilding fiequirements.Af ter discuEEiEn, s rvill be enoughprotection, a1'ong yrtf.the_Design Revicw soord p;ocecrures that wirlmore closely revieriu site plans ind the location of the structures onthe site
A Motion rvas-made by Roger Tilr<emeier to recommend approvalof the Elimination of DistancL gut*oun Building Requirements fromthe Town of vail Zoning oroitiance. The Motion rvas seconded by RonTodd and the commissiori vcited o-i", ilre recommenJatron and GerryIlthite voted in opposition.
necui r%r Lanclscal41g.Jim Rubin EIFtTi'eA m"t re landscaping pl:rnsubmitted to the Desi6ln Review lloard. The staff wourd set the guide-litres for commj'ssion'ipproval in regard to the.mount of the bond th&twill be set. rt was diicusscd that an <,'stim.te f rom the landscapershould be submitted arong wrtri irre 1*ndscapi'g p1an to help i'decidlng the amount.or tiie bond ihat rvilr ic ieli,,i".o for cu.cli landscapingplan su'mitted. rt was arso occioeo tha.t trre
'aviug
or drivervay
Paee 4
MINUTES - PLANNING
installation should
t onA "ttorrld be 150%
& ENVIRONMH{TAL COMMISSION
ra
2-16-79
be added to this ' Ed Drager felt that the
of the estimated cost'
Gerry Whj-te macle the -Motion to recommend approval of '
reouiring pu"tott"i"! u"toi"g fgr-landscaping and drivelvay pavrng
improvements. ritl!'^l,I"ti"" te"onota-ty -nogl'r f ilkemeier ' The
coi,mission votedi; T;;';oititi"*ith Jim Morgan voting in opposition'
I t^ Drnrzi <inn of Lone-Term
Jim
would like to
this Provision
Pam Garton
Jlm further
of density, with the
use of the units'
Densitlj Increases for the Provislon of Long-Term
Rental Un!ts '
Rubin explaineit to the Commission that the Council
see a policv ,urtut! ;;; ;;;;rs that are added throush
be subtracted by ac:ti"l"iti land or future down-zoning'
had to leave the meeting at 5:10 P'M'
explained that this is similat,lo t transfer
communi-ty lraving"tll"-Ott"rmlnation cver the
ReouirJ-ng Empfoyee Housing for Commercial Projects
Genera t i-n
After dj-scussion ' Ed Drager asked' y!"!11" it would be
better to make any density i.ncrea";-tnout this-provision a conditj-ona1
use and look at it project uy proi;.;.. .n" 1":1: there l'ould be
a better control 0r'ii"li-nu;ared in this manner. The commission
aqreed this was,i-"*".r-r-ent idea ""0-itrtt it should be added to the
63"iiii"";i u;; sections of the ordinance'
Gerry lVhite had to leave the meeting at 5:30 P'M'
:
A lrlotion was made by Ron Todd to recommend alloiving
densrty increases'^t"r--tii. prorri"ion ol long-term rental units through
the conditional i";-.";{ion or tnl'-zlning -ordlnance and according
to the memorandu;;";;;ited bv th; ;;;;;!l:i!-:t-comrnunltv Development'
TheMotionwassecondedbyRogerTilk.emeieranc]theCommissionvoted
unanimous approvpl of the recommenda'tion'
)mmission felt this item should '^After discussion ' the Cr
be tabled. rhev''t:;;-;h;;; ;;;'-;;-yfl^:':*iolil; :H:ll.?;-ol:.t"".=::.:?ll;t*r.ilnit'liilt'l"iliuli'It";pi;;" a1d tlren changins to
another type of u""-*[:-"t' coulcl t";;;;;"u-r'igrt"" or lorver number
of emploYees.
Ron Todd made the l{otion to table trny reconmendation for
requiring employe'e housing tot <:o**utciar p"oiLcts gencrating more
than ten emplovees' The ii'lotion ;;";;;;;aio irv Jim tr'lorgan arrd tire
C"r,"i-ri"n iotbci unanimously to table this item''
Ileeting adjourned 5:45 P'M'
f. o. 6"
{7C- c1o s3
z ste ls cFf-^To t7-- -f-Lt t r.
d - Jb Fr- ---Yal:- apt
?
iq
(p-
2Q7
lr,
4o
o
drl, /f \cu 1,t 6
o
0r,,, n
*"'/"
6o"J
,1 re"
\t/Jo,fui_//:att
//
o o