HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-09-06 Town Council MinutesMINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 6, 1994
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, September 6, 1994, in the Council
Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mery Lapin, Mayor Pro -Tern
Paul Johnston
Sybill Navas
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg
Jan Strauch
MEMBERS ABSENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Torn Moorhead, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation of which there was none.
Second on the agenda was a Consent Agenda consisting of the following items:
A. Approval of the Minutes for the meetings of August 2nd and 16th, 1994,
B. Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1994, 2nd Reading, an Ordinance amending
Section 18.04.130, Floor Area Gross Residential (GRFA), allowing area within
multi -family buildings to be used for employee housing.
C. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1994, Second Reading, an ordinance vacating the
utility and drainage easement on Lot 6, Bighorn Estates, Town of Vail,
Colorado.
D, Ordinance No. 19, Series of 1994, Second Reading, an Ordinance vacating a
right- of -way and sewer easement, and creating pedestrian and right-of-way
easement, water line easement, public access, drainage and utility easement
by plat.
E. Ordinance No. 20, Series of 1994, Second Reading, an Ordinance creating a
utility easement for the Covered Bridge Building,
A motion was made by Tom Steinberg to approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of items
B and E, Ordinance Nos. 17, and 20, respectively. Jan Strauch seconded the motion. A vote was taken
and passed unanimously, 6-0.
At that time, discussion proceeded regarding Ordinance No, 17, Andy Knudtsen and Mike Mollica
reviewed the details of Ordinance No. 17, Jay Peterson explained that amending the code provided
another avenue to create employee housing units within the town, and using that.approach was less
complicated than going through the variance process. Jay further stated TOV staff and PEC felt
comfortable with Jay's approach. Tom Steinberg expressed two concerns: 1) losing conference space
and recreation facilities, and 2) creating special privilege. Andy stated that Community Development
had been approached by two other complexes interested in converting common space to employee
housing. Jan Strauch moved to approve Ordinance No. 17, with a second from Jim Shearer. Further
discussion centered around hotel conversion, density change, and parking requirement issues. Paul
Johnston called the question. A vote was taken and passed 4-2, Mery and Tom voting in opposition.
Consent Agenda item E., Ordinance No, 20, was then discussed, Tom Steinberg moved to approve
Ordinance 20, with a second from Jan Strauch. Mery requested language be added to assure the
building owner would not remonstrate against the Town. Art Alpenalp stated he didn't feel his client
would have any problem with such language. Tom Moorhead stated that an easement agreement,
which was not a part of the Ordinance, would be entered into and the language would be
incorporated into that agreement, A vote was taken and approved unanimously, 6-0.
Item No. 3 was Ordinance No, Ordinance No, 15, Series of 1994, 1st Reading, an Ordinance
restricting the sale or possession of assault weapons. A motion was made by Paul Johnston, and
seconded Jim Shearer to approve Ordinance No. 15, A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0.
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minute. D9ftlgl94
Item No. 4 was First reading of Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1994, 1st Reading, an Ordinance
amending Chapter 18,04, setting forth definitions for active outdoor recreation, interpretive nature
walks, nature preserves, passive outdoor recreation, private, public, quasi -public, and changing the
section number of recreation structure; amending Chapter 18.36, Public Use District; amending
Chapter 18,38, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District; and creating Chapter 18.33, Outdoor
Recreation District; and setting forth details in regard thereto. [Based on extensive
discussion/modifications/additions from the afternoon's worksession] Tom Steinberg made a motion
to table Ordinance No, 21 to the next evening meeting. Paul Johnston seconded the motion. A vote
was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0.
Item No. 5 was a sign variance request by the Roost Lodge, George Ruther displayed a drawing of
the proposed sign and referenced a memo dated August 17, 1994, to the DRB from the Department
of Community Development. George explained the request in detail and stated that staff
recommended approval of the request. Comments from Council Members included a concern that
granting a variance could set a precedent; proposed sign would be a great improvement; and
possibility of increasing the size of the proposed sign. Paul Johnston moved to grant the sign variance
as recommended by staff. Jan Strauch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed
unanimously, 6-0.
Item No. 6 was the Lifthouse Lodge Appeal, The Town Council wished to review the PEC's recent
approval of setback and site coverage variances and a major exterior alteration in the Commercial
Core II (CCII) zone district for the Lifthouse Lodge, located at 555 East Lionshead Circle, legally
described as a portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead, 1st Filing. Bob Lazier, applicant, Galen
Aasland and Jay Peterson were present. Jim Curnutte referenced two memorandums dated September
6, 1994, to the Town Council from Community Development, and August 22, 1994, to the PEC from
Community Development. Paul Johnston moved to uphold the decision of the PEC; with the
condition that two sets of windows be installed on the east side of the building as shown on the
applicant's color rendering, unless an engineering report reveals that the structural integrity of the
building would be threatened, then one set of windows on the east side of the building will be
allowed. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 6-0.
Item No. 7 Presentations Re: 1995 Contract/Dues/Leases:
a. VVTCB Information Booths and Special Events.
b. ABCRA Information Booths.
Mery stated the Council would hear both presentations, but would not make a decision until a
presentation from the Vail Valley Marketing Board submits its funding request on September 20 at
a Council worksession.
Frank Johnson, representing the V VTCB, presented a proposal to operate the Vail Information Booths,
manage and produce certain Town of Vail special events, and form better events communication and
reservation system for 1995.
. Kate Collins of the ABCRA explained the organization, and presented a proposal to manage the Vail
Information Booths for 1995, and suggested a more regionalized approach to include Avon, as the
information center there was already operated by the ABCRA.
Item No. 8 was a report by the Town Manager. Bob stated he had nothing to add to his
memorandum, which had been included in Council packets.
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made and passed
unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 10:00 P.M.
ATTEST:
10
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Holly L. McCutcheon
Respectfully submitted,
1V�J
,Mery Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutea 09/06/94
MEMORANDUM
TO: Design Review Board
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 17, 1994
SUBJECT: A sign variance request for the Roost Lodge located at 1783 North Frontage
Road/Lots 9, 10, 11, and 12, a resub. of Buffehr Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Julian and Chris Mazili
Planner: George Ruther
t .¢+
..rid<�! <.,r.:•. __.. _., _,.
�va
,,,:>�a.?
�.:.,� ?\,�,.3.....>.,,.xvoc:
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, the Roost Lodge, represented by co-owner Julian Mazili, is requesting a
variance from the Town of Vail Sign Code, specifically from the wall sign 9-inch projection and
maximum 20 square foot size requirements.
The applicant currently has a wall sign which does not conform with the Town of Vail Sign
Code. The existing sign, originally approved in March of 1979, is an illuminated, cabinet box
sign approximately 93 square feet in size and is mounted 5 to 6 feet from the face of the
building wall. The existing sign is located on the south face of the registration building facing
in a southerly direction towards the North Frontage Road and 1-70.
The new sign the applicant is proposing will be displayed in approximately the same location
as the existing sign. The proposed text on the sign will read "ROOST LODGE". The size of
the sign proposed by the applicant is approximately 33 square feet in overall size with the text
being a maximum of 20 square feet in size. Thus, the need for a wall sign, size variance for a
sign greater than the maximum 20 square feet and a variance for a wall sign projection of 5 to
6 feetis required.
Section 16.04.320 (Definitions) of the Town of Vail Sign Code defines a wall sign as:
"a sign attached to, painted on, or erected against a wall of a building or
structure with the exposed face of the sign in a plain parallel to the base of the
wall and not projecting more than 9 inches from the base of the wall."
. Additionally, Section 16.22.155(B) (Size - Wall Signs - Single Business Use) permits a single
business:
"2.5 square feet of sign for each 5 front lineal feet of the building with a
maximum area of 20 square feet. The combined maximum area for more than
one sign shall not exceed 20 square feet."
If. FINDINGS AND CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL,
Before the Board acts on a variance application, the applicant must prove physical hardship
and the Board must find that,
A. There are soeciai circumstances or conditions aDolvina to the land, buildings,
topooraphv. veaetation, scan structures or other matters on adiacent lots or
within the adiacent right-of-way which would substantialiv restrict the,
effectiveness of the sign in ouestion; provided, however, that such special,
circumstances or conditions are uniaue to the particular business or enterprise,
to which the applicant desires to draw attention and do not apply generally to all
businesses or enterprises.
Staff Response:
Staff believes that special circumstances, applying to the Roost Lodge restrict the
effectiveness of a wall sign mounted 9 inches or less from the building wall and that a
maximum size of 20 square feet, exists. Specifically, the registration building, the
location where the applicants are proposing their sign, has a unique front eave and
front elevation design which would adversely impact the effectiveness of a wall
mounted sign 9 inches or less from the face of the building wall. The front elevation is
nearly all windows. To mount a wall sign would be difficult from a structural standpoint
and would affect the amount of natural light allowed to filter into the registration/lobby
area of the hotel as well as the living space located above the registration/lobby area.
Secondly, the front eave design on the registration building is such that a wall sign
mounted 9 inches from the building face would have a limited view corridor. The front
eave on the registration building is a prow in design, with the eave projecting out at its
greatest point approximately 6 feet. To mount the sign pursuant to Code would, in
essence, bury the sign up underneath the eave, therefore limiting the amount of visual
exposure (see visibility diagram attached).
The Roost Lodge is dependent upon business generated by traffic on both the North
Frontage Road and the Interstate. The proposed sign placement will be approximately
150 feet from the Interstate. Per the Letter Visibility Chart submitted with the sign
application by the applicant, prepared by the Colorado Institute of Technology, the
maximum impact for readable distance of 150 feet would be a letter height of 15
inches. The proposed letter heights for the Roost Lodge sign are 15 inches for the text
"Roost" and 8 inches for the text "Lodge". Again, the applicant has proposed the text
portion of the proposed sign to not exceed 20 square feet.
That special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anvone in orivv
to the applicant.
9
Staff Response:
The current owners of the Roost Lodge purchased the accommodation facility in the
spring on 1994. Staff believes that the applicant did not deliberately create unusual
• circumstances that would not allow him to adhere to the wall sign 9-inch projection
requirement of the Code. Additionally, since the Roost Lodge building was constructed
in the 1970's, prior to the construction of 1-70, it was not of any action undertaken by
the applicant which caused the building to be located the distance it is from the
interstate.
C. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of
this title and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working
in the vicinity, to adiacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare
in general.
Staff Response:
Staff feels that the request for the variance allowing the applicant to construct a wall
sign greater than 9 inches from the wall base of the building and to further allow for a
sign greater than the 20 foot maximum currently allowed by the Sign Code is
reasonable, and is in harmony with the general purpose of the Sign Code, since the
applicant is not proposing to create the text portion greater than 20 square feet. Staff
does not believe the requested sign will be materially detrimental to other persons or
businesses residing and conducting business in the vicinity.
D. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title any
more than is reouired to identify the applicant's business or use.
Staff Response.
Again, as stated earlier in this memo, the applicant is requesting only to erect the sign
far enough from the building to allow the sign to be adequately viewed from the North
Frontage Road and the Interstate, and to have the text no greater than 20 square feet.
The additional 14 square feet of sign area requested by the applicant is mainly for
aesthetic purposes and to create harmony between the sign and the existing
architecture of the front eave.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the requested sign variance to allow for a wall sign to be
mounted greater than 9 inches from a building face and to allow the proposed sign to be 34
square feet rather than the maximum 20 square feet as outlined in the Town of Vail Sign
Code. Staff has reviewed the sign, location, lighting and other characteristics of the sign and
finds that the proposed sign is in harmony with the Sign Code and variance criteria listed
above.
c:lgeorgelmem oslroost.817
3
T
TIII --7R-mod THIi 7 T = G1 '7 H 7 1:HTFf:H .^-.
F c��
HIGHTECHSIGNS.
DATE: July 28,1004
TO: Town of Vail
Design &Review Board
FROM: Larry Ast .
RE: Roost Lod ardship Variance
The new owners of the Ruust Lodge have inherited a sign of approximately 92 square r4et which does not
comfort to size, placement or contemporary standards. They wish High'Tech to fabricate a replacement.sign that
will conform to all aspects of the current sign code. However the following two variances are being'requested.
Variance number nne, Fro3e Mon. The only place for placement of a wall sign on, tho building that can be visibt6
from the east and the wist directions, is in the peak of the registration building. The Tawn of Vail Sign Code,
section 16,04,320 limits wall signs to not projecting more than nine inches from the face of the wall.
The Town of Vail Sign Coda, section 16,20.210 limits wall signs to 20 square feet. i'er the definition in'section
16,04,320, the square footage includes the surround border outside the text.
The new sign is being proposed as shown on the attached drawing. The distance from the. wall to the, frdnt of the
eavos, rarlgel, hum approximaiely 4 to 6 feet. Placement against the wall is not possible since the wall has . .
windows permitting light and ventilation to the second level living unit. Placement against the wall is also not
practical since the sign would not be visible, except for a 10 to 20 degree dewing cgrddor, from the roadway.
From a safety feature, traffic driving, on Borth Frontage Road Wcst, should be able to'sec the lodge nanie with
sufficient time to sign a torn and slowdown safely. A variance as to projection from the wall would permit the`
above goals to be achieved,: In addition, from a structural point, bracing a raceway across the beam (not to
extend beyond the roof line}, and fastening the sign to the supuorting,raceway and to the eaves via hank brash g,
will provide the strength tq support the weight and hold the sign rigid in high wind conditions.
Currently the Roost Lodge has text that is 19" high for the ROOST LODGE, and 10" , high for ECONsa11d1CAL.
LODGING. HEATED POPL, The attached request contains text that is 15" high for ROOST, and 8" high for
LODGE, a significant reduction in size from the existing sign. The area amend the sign [s hexing viewed AS
decorative and not text or logo or anything directly associated with the property, but An attempt to make the sign.
less obtrusive as a sign.
HICHTECHSiGNS P.O. Dox 2688
Production Center Abwa &
Vail, CO 91658
910 Nottingham Road 0110WOod Sprgs.
303,949,4565
SuiItS.2 303.943.6693
FAX: 949.4670
Avon, CO 81620
rill —'J Fc-94 YHI1 7 F77.; H T r: H—rF I: .^, T r--
The sign placement will he a0proximately 150 feet from 170. per the attached visibility chart, maxi)nun: impact
would be reached for Roost, but not for Lodge text. In addition, the colors selecfed are -not the maximum i
Oisibility of red ar black vn white. 1Vlth a placement near the face of the building, (but, inside the two existing
beams), and a 45, degree best viewing angle, at 65 miles per hour a driver would have 125' to see the sign. This : 4
would equate to 1 1 /2 seconds before the driver was past the sign. This property competes with other lodges for
drive by traffic. (the majority of its revenues). The West Vail Lodge and Wepdy's, both nearby business6a, both
have sign, when the perimeter of the sign is measured, exceed the limit set in the ordiriar",
As demonstrated above , the new owners of the Roost Lodge have a hardship that is 'not Caused by them, and
could be corrected by permitting the sign to be attached to the eaves and prciecting beams, as shown on the
attached drawings.
s
!
- i
'r
f
7111 -''PS- 94 T HII 7 T _ �+� H T C:NTFC":H ^-. T ti;N'^i
JOB S
CLIENT R20,5-f
SCALE
a .Till —'7R—o4 7I-l31 7 _ RS H T rH T F f:H .^+ T rN P
SIGNS
• • • •
DRAWING
P.O, I30K 2600 . VA L, CO 01650 , 303.449.4565 . FAX; 303.949.4670
f
LETTER VISIBILITY CHART
READABLE
MAXIMUM DISTANCE
READABLE FOR MAXimum LETTER
DISTANCE IMPACT HEIGHT
100' 30' 3"
150' 40' 4"
200' 60' 6"
350' 80` 8"
400' 90, 9"
4501 100' 10"
525' 120' 12"
630' 159 15"
150, 180' 180
1000' 240' 24"
1250' 300' 30"
1600` 360' 3F
1750' 42U 42"
1 1 M
2500' 600' 60"
NOTE; The following distances will vary apprcxt-
mately 10% with various co'or combinations
5,280' equals one 111 mile . , . maximum distance in
color veould be R or BLACK ulf WHITE back-
ground.
Pfepared Dy the OR1110fria Inf.tl„te of Technology', .
•
JOD # DATE ___Y Sv Ali
` CLIENT CONTACT
SCALE ^— — PHONF
.T III—'9R-9A T HII 1 7 Rs. H T rHTFf[H F =N.�i' F• _ Fq cl
UPITECHSIGNS
i P.6. BOX 263$ . VAIL, Co 01650 , 303.949.4565 . F! 343.949.4670
i�
JOB 9_-, . _ DAr: DY AMr¢/lIl��
Raas-t' LngD
CLIENT CON � cUNiruCr,.hG•y„l'
SCALE PHONE FAX'
1�}
td
4
q
_IR
G' to -1 h'L
G.
SIGN�
DRAWING'
P.O. BOX 2688 , VA1L, CO 81658 , 303.949,4565 . FAX 303.940.4670
:.
R(Doo 2 A
x3SY� �T
113 p
JOB #. RATE BY AiE�..__
CLICNT I�_O�S-�- L_bG[CONTACTIJ,�I�IV�1 } ChlCj y
SCALE PHONE FAX:
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
• FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 6, 1994
SUBJECT: Town Council review of Planning and Environmental Commission's recent
approval of setback and site coverage variances and a major exterior alteration
in the Commercial Core II (CCII) zone district for the Lifthouse Lodge located at
555 East Lionshead Circle, legally described as a portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Robert T. Lazier, represented by Galen Aasland and Jay
Peterson
Planner: Jim Curnutte
....>.... 3..... _:.,.,.,,:....:,.: >...... ,..:,., :.x..x... ........ ... .<,,. .. a......1. :....:.;.,, ,:�:... ...:. .sae«xe`� .«,: :N:,.
:. .,
On August 22, 1994, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved the
requested setback and site coverage variances and a major exterior alteration in the CCII
zone district, The vote was 4-1. Kathy Langenwalter voted in opposition to the motion
because she felt that Montauk and Bart and Yeti's needed to tie in better with the rest of the
proposed remodel. The PEC's approval of the above described remodel was granted with the
following conditions. The conditions listed below are listed as they were originally
recommended to the PEC by the staff. Changes to the conditions of approval made by the
PEG at the August 22, 1994 meeting are indicated in bold type:
At time of building permit issuance, the applicant shall be required to pay into
the Town of Vail Parking Fund. As mentioned in the Zoning Analysis section of
this memo, the parking requirement for the proposed commercial expansion is
2.175 spaces which currently equates to a parking pay -in -lieu fee of
$18,692.82. It should be pointed out that these figures were derived from the
conceptual drawings provided to date, which are not fully dimensioned. The
parking pay -in -lieu fee will be recalculated when a building permit application
and construction drawings are provided for Town review.
2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed addition, the
applicant will contact the Vail Building and Fire Departments to determine
whether or not the proposed addition will require the retro-sprinkler of the
Lifthouse building.
• 3. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a
pedestrian easement across the southeastern portion of the lot to ensure
continued unrestricted pedestrian access through this area.
4. A construction phasing program for the proposed commercial expansion has
not been provided as requested at the March 14, 1994 worksession.
Staff recommends that a detailed construction phasing plan be provided to, and
be approved by, all effected business owners and staff prior to submittal for
building permit. •
There is a note on the applicant's plans that states that the "two surveys used
to create this drawing do not close". Additionally, the applicant's architect has
mentioned that he has field measured the location of the planters in front, and
on the side, of FirstBank and has found discrepancies on the survey. In order
to be assured of the actual location of the FirstBank expansion and planter
revisions, staff believes it is necessary that the applicant provide a new survey,
including a fully -dimensioned and stamped survey in the area south and east of
the FirstBank commercial space. This survey should be provided to staff for
review prior to scheduling this application for final Design Review Board review.
Staff recommends that this application not be scheduled for Final Design
Review Board review until the landscape plan has been approved by the Town
Landscape Architect and that one of the two benches on the east side of the
building be relocated to some other location in the Lionshead Mall in order to
allow for additional planting in this area.
CtA
th1 r1r1h 9Rd Of the-bblildiAg.
The PEC deleted this recommended condition of approval.
�:t vn Awyu^
i1 :e. rpprr.(sd MateFial)
is iligr Gbildelipes. The staff
reserve that 1hk Y c a
The PEC deleted this recommended condition of approval.
oco u nomme m osll Hthous.9m
fc
i< r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
46 FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 22, 1994
SUBJECT: A request for setback and site coverage variances and a major exterior
alteration in Commercial Core II (CCII) for the Lifthouse Lodge, located at 555 .
East Lionshead Circle, legally described as a portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Robert T. and Diane J. Lazier
Planner: Jim Curnutte
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS
Robert T. and Diane J. Lazier would like to construct a 325 square foot, one-story, addition to
the commercial spaces located on the first floor of the Lifthouse Lodge Building. The
proposed changes involve the tenant spaces currently being leased by Montauk, Pizza
. Bakery, Bart and Yeti's and FirstBank. This application will require PEG review of setback
and site coverage variances as well as a major CCII exterior alteration. Each portion of this
request is further described as follows:
A. Setback Variance
With the exception of Bart and Yeti's, the proposed addition will extend the southern
wall of the above -mentioned lease spaces from 6 feet to 12 feet further south of the
existing building facade. Additionally, a portion of the FirstBank commercial space will
be extended approximately 6 feet to the east. The FirstBank eastward expansion will
bring the building to within 8.5 feet of the eastern property line. The applicant is
proposing that the Pizza Bakery portion of the expansion be extended to the south
property line. Setback variances are reauired in order to allow the addition to encroach
9.5 feet into the reauired 10 foot setback on the south side of the buildina. resultina in
a 0.5 setback situation. On the east side. the expansion encroaches 1.5 feet into the
required 10 foot setback. which results in an 8.5 foot setback.
B. Site Coveraae Variance
Under the CCII zone district, the maximum site coverage allowed on this lot is 14,231
square feet (70%). On March 25, 1991, setback and site coverage variances were
granted in conjunction with the major exterior alteration request related to the addition
of the Banner Sports commercial space. The approved addition resulted in a site
coverage allowance of 15,114 square feet (74%). Under the current redevelopment
proposal, the building's site coverage would be increased an additional 383 square feet
to 15,497 square feet (76%). Therefore. a site coveraae variance is reauested in order
to exceed the existing site coveraoe on the lot by 383 sauare feet.
I
C. Maier Exterior Alteration
This project is located in the Commercial Core 11 (CCII) zone district, which requires
that any exterior expansion of 100 square feet or greater be reviewed by the PEC
using the major exterior alteration criteria. The total net floor area of the proposed first
floor commercial expansion is 325 square feet.
The applicant is proposing to use building materials that match the addition that was
recently built on the west side of the Lifthouse Lodge building (Banner Sports)., The
addition will incorporate a stone base that will match the rock on the nearby planter
retaining walls, and will include a stone cap to match Banner Sports. The applicant
proposes to use smooth log pillars to delineate the window areas in the FirstBank
addition and the Pizza Bakery addition. The existing log pillars on Bart and Yeti's will
remain as is. A stucco texture will be added to the building's facade for the FirstBank
addition as well as the eastern wall of the Pizza Bakery addition. The proposal calls
for a metal roof which wilt match the Banner Sports addition. This metal roof will be
located above Pizza Bakery, Bart and Yeti's, FirstBank, and will also wrap around a
majority of the east side of the building where a revised entryway will be provided over
the existing access door on the east side of the building. All building addition colors
are intended to be painted and stained to match the Banner Sports addition.
The area to the southeast of the Lifthouse Lodge building is generally considered, and used,
as a part of the Lionshead pedestrian mall. Staff is not aware that a pedestrian easement has
been granted across the Lifthouse Lodge property for the use of the public, although it has •
historically been used in that fashion for many years. Staff believes that it is appropriate to
request that the applicant provide a pedestrian easement across the southeastern portion of
the lot to assure continued unrestricted pedestrian access through this area.
The Vail Fire Department has expressed some concern with maintaining adequate access into
the Lion's Pride Court area to the east of this building. The Fire Department has also
indicated that it may be necessary for the applicant to retro-sprinkler the entire Lifthouse
Building as a result of the proposed addition.
11. BACKGROUND
On March 14, 1994 a worksession was held with the PEC to discuss the proposed building
alteration (see Attachment #1 - Minutes from March 14, 1994 PEC worksession). During the
meeting, the PEC and applicant discussed the proposed remodel and ways to improve the
original proposal, including building layout, use of building materials and accents, use of
consistent roofing materials throughout the building, window treatments, landscaping
requirements, signs, etc.
On August 8, 1994 a second worksession was held with the PEC (see Attachment #2 - draft
copy of Minutes from August 8, 1994 PEC worksession). At this worksession, the PEC again
discussed the proposed remodel and reviewed the changes made since the previous meeting
The PEC members felt comfortable allowing the applicant to proceed to a final review at the
next PEC meeting, provided that certain changes were made in response to the comments
discussed at the meeting.
0
9
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
The following summarizes the relationship of the redevelopment proposal to the CCII zone
district development standards. The project's departures from the CCII zone district standards
are highlighted in bold type.
Allowed per
CC11 Zoning Existing Project Proposed Addition
Site Area: 0.467 acres Same Same
or 20.334 sq. ft.
Site Coverage: 14,231 sq. ft. or 70 % 15,114 sq. ft. or 74 % 15,497 sq. it. or 76%
'Setbacks: 10' on all sides, unless N: 0' N: T
otherwise specified in the S: 0.5' S: 0.5'
Vail Lionshead Urban Design E: 15, E: &5'
Guide Plan and Design w: 0' W. 0'
Considerations.
Building Height: 45' for a flat or mansard roof NIA 16.5 feet
48' for a sloping roof
-Parking: Varies according 10 the NIA 2,175 additional parking
proposed use of the property. spaces required.
Loading: Per the TOV Required: 1 Required: 1
Loading Standards Existing: 0 Existing: 0
Landscaping: 4,066 sq. fi, required (20%) 1,312 sq. ft. gross (6.4%) 1,325 sq. ff. gross (6.5%)
3,253 sq. fl. softscape 499 sq. ft. softscape 512 sq. ft. softscape
(planting) (planting) (planting)
813 sq. ft. hardscape 813 sq. ft. hardscape 813 sq. ft. hardscape
(pavingldecks) (paving/decks) (paving/decks)
'The building setbacks on the north and west sides of the existing building will remain unchanged under this redevelopment proposal. The
existing 0.5' building setback is a result of a setback variance granted in conjunction with the Banner Sports commercial space addition in 1991.
-The provision of 2.175 additional parking spaces is required as a result of the proposed addition. The applicant must pay into the Town's
Parking Fund per the Pay -In -Lieu Program. On July 19, 1994, the Vail Town Council raised the parking pay -in -lieu fee to $15,000.00 per space
(Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1994). However. Section 2 of the Ordinance states that the new fee shall only apply to development applications
submitted for Design Review Board (DRS) and Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) review after July 27, 1994• Since this
redevelopment application was submitted prior to that date, the pay -in -lieu fee is currently calculated at $8,594.40 per space. As currently
calculated, the parking requirement of 2.175 spaces equates to a pay -in -lieu -fee of approximately $18,692.92. As provided for in Section 1 of
Ordinance No. 10, series of 1994, this fee will be automatically increased annually by the percentage the consumer price index has increased
over each successive year.
—Affhough the property currently has approximately 3.986 square feel of hardscape, only 813 square feet or 20%, may be used for calculating
the minimum landscaped area requirement. The landscape requirement for this project is explained in more detail in Section IV C of this memo
(Compliance with the Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead).
3
IV. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
A. Compliance with the Commercial Core II Zone District Purpose Statement
As stated in the Zoning Code, the purpose of the CCII zone district is as follows: •
"The Commercial Core If zone district is intended to provide sites
for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial
establishments, in a clustered, unified development. Commercial
Core II district in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban
Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to
ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities
appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses and to
maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing
appropriate site development standards."
Staff Response:
The staff believes that the proposed first floor commercial addition to the
Lifthouse Lodge complies with the purpose statement of the CCII Zone District.
B. Comoliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead
The sub -area concepts which are in the vicinity of the proposed Lifthouse Lodge .
commercial expansions are as follows (see Attachment #3 for a map of the area):
Concept 7: "Lions Pride Court should be opened to free access to Lionshead
Court. Planting area reduced and relocated to about Lionshead
Arcade building to provide screen buffer for restaurant and force
traffic flow out of the shadows and into the sunny area of the
court. Sculpture focal point.
Concept 17: "Planting to screen non-commercial areas and make visual green
link between plazas.
Concept 18: "Commercial expansion (one-story) to emphasize pedestrian
level. Patio area enlarged slightly for additional dining space ( a
sun -pocket area), and wider, inviting steps which can also be
used for sitting function.
Staff Response:
The staff believes that the proposed commercial expansion serves to carry out
the goals identified in the above listed sub -area concepts of the Urban Design •
Guide plan.
4
C. Compliance with the Urban Desion Guide Considerations for Lionshead and
Exterior Alteration Criteria
The following design considerations are critical elements of the Urban Design Guide
Plan and provide the criteria to evaluate new proposals:
1. Height and Massing:
At one story, the height and massing of the proposed addition is. consistent with
the architectural guidelines for Lionshead. The addition is also good, in staff's
opinion, in that it helps to add visual interest on the first floor and breaks up the
massing of the existing building.
2. Roofing:
The Lionshead Design Considerations state that flat, shed, vaulted, or dome
roofs are acceptable for building expansions while discouraging gable roof
forms. A peaked roof is proposed over the entry to Pizza Bakery, Bart and
Yeti's and the FirstBank entryways. The style of these roofs is intended to
match the recent approval for Banner Sports which is located on the
southwestern side of the Lifthouse Lodge Building.
The Lionshead Design Considerations set forth metal as an acceptable roofing
material provided that it is ribbed or standing seam and a dark color. The
applicant wishes to have a metal roof on the FirstBank, Bart and Yeti's and
Pizza Bakery portions of the expansion, as well as the roof which wraps around
the eastern side of the building. This roof will be a standing seamed metal roof
and will be a dark bronze color. The roof on the Montauk portion of the
expansion is proposed to remain cedar shakes. A copper gutter and flashing is
proposed to be added to Montauk's fascia in an attempt to architecturally tie
together the metal fascia of Banner Sports and Pizza Bakery, which are located
on either side of Montauk.
Staff believes that the roof on the proposed addition is generally consistent with
the architectural guidelines for Lionshead. However, staff would recommend
that the east side roof addition be extended all the way to the northern end of
the building, rather than terminating above the east side access door. Staff has
included this in the conditions of approval at the end of the memo.
3. Facades - Walls/Structures:
The materials proposed to be used in the remodel (wood, glass, stucco) are
encouraged in the Lionshead Design Considerations. The stucco texture and
• color will match the stucco on the existing structure and the window and door
trim color will match the color of the window trim on the Banner Sports portion
of the building. The applicant proposes to use peeled log pillars to delineate
the new commercial spaces. These pillars will be sealed with a clear water
seal and will not be stained to match the Banner Sports pillars. Log pillars will
also be used to divide the window areas at FirstBank and Pizza Bakery, The
36-inch base of the FirstBank and Pizza Bakery addition will be faced with
'• stone to match the nearby planters. These walls will be capped with a
sandstone cap. Although staff would prefer that the stonework be carried
across the entire remodel area, the existing exterior wails of Bart & Yeti's are
not proposed to change in conjunction with this major exterior alteration
request.
All of the colors and materials to be used in the addition are generally
encouraged under the Lionshead Design Guidelines, and will relate well to the
existing structure. Through the use of these materials and colors, the addition
will avoid having a "tacked on" appearance.
4. Facades - Transparency:
The Lionshead Design Guidelines call for transparent store fronts as they are
"people attractors and give a pedestrian, open, public character to the street."
The proposed addition provides many divided light windows and, in fact,
includes the addition of windows along the east side where there are currently
none. The glass in all proposed windows will be clear, not tinted. The divided
light windows are most prominent at the entry doors to FirstBank, Pizza Bakery
and Bart and Yeti's. This feature helps to differentiate these commercial
spaces from others on the property and provides a more prominent sense of
entry to each. The Lionshead Design Guidelines suggest that the further •
subdivision of windows and doors into smaller panes is desirable in order to
increase pedestrian scale. Although the applicant has added divided light
windows to the building, in response to previous PEC comments, the PEC
should decide if additional division of windows is necessary. These glass areas
are not currently used for the display of merchandise.
5. Decks and Patios:
Approximately 310 square feet of the existing patio area in front of Pizza
Bakery and FirstBank will be removed by this addition. Although a portion of
the Pizza Bakery patio area is currently used for outdoor dining, none of the
patio area in front of FirstBank is used for dining purposes. Bart and Yeti's has
blocked off the FirstBank portion of the patio from their dining patio in order to
comply with liquor licensing requirements. Staff believes that the loss of this
patio area is not significant and is an acceptable trade -oft for the benefits
associated with the proposed expansion.
6. Accent Elements:
The accent elements associated with this addition include signs, light fixtures,
and two terra cotta windows on the FirstBank portion of the addition. The
exterior light fixtures will match those which exist on the Banner Sports portion
of the building. Three new signs are proposed to replace the existing signs at
Pizza Bakery, Bart and Yeti's and Firstbank. These signs will be located
directly above the business entry doors and are incorporated into the metal
fascia of the building. These signs will be indirectly illuminated from a source in
the soffit area above the signs. The proposed signs will have a common metal
frame, however, the applicant is proposing that each individual shop owner
would have no restrictions with regard to the materials, colors, letter style, etc.
proposed to go into each of these spaces, with the exception that piexiglass
signs not be allowed. The final "sign program" will be further reviewed by the
DRB.
7. Landscape Elements:
Under this redevelopment proposal, the existing planter south of FirstBank will
be reduced in size by approximately 13 square feet. None of the existing trees
located within this planter will be removed. Additionally, the existing planter and
seating area on the eastern side of the building is proposed to be significantly
reconfigured as a result of the FirstBank commercial area expansion and the
application of the metal roof along the eastern side of the building. In addition
to the existing 3-inch and 3-1/2-inch caliper aspen trees which will remain in the
east side planter, two 2-1/2-inch caliper aspen trees are proposed to be
planted. One of the two benches adjacent to the planter is proposed to be
relocated as a result of the proposed planter expansion.
Subarea Concept # 17 of the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan suggests
• additional plantings in the area of this expansion in order to screen non-
commercial areas and make a visual landscape link between plazas. The
addition of plants and planting areas on the east side of the building would
carry out the intent of the Lionshead Design Guide Plan and help create a
sense of enclosure, create shade, and soften the starkness of the building and
adjacent plaza area.
According to the Zoning Code, the definition of "landscaping" not only includes
planted areas and plant materials, but it also allows for up to 20% of a
landscaped area to be "hardscape". "Hardscape" would include walks, decks,
patios, terraces, water features and other similar features. Since the minimum
required amount of landscaping for the Lifthouse Lodge property is 4,066
square feet and up to 20% of that figure, or 813 square feet, may be
"hardscape", the remaining 3,253 square feet of required landscaping must be
in "softscape". As shown in the Zoning Analysis, this property is already
nonconforming with regard to meeting the landscape requirement (and the
minimum percentage of "hardscape" and "softscape"). Although the proposed
commercial expansion will reduce the amount of "hardscape" landscaping on
the property by approximately 370 square feet, the amount of "softscape" is
being increased by 13 square feet. The addition of 13 square feet of
"softscape" will bring the property further into compliance with the
minimum requirement. The 370 square foot reduction in "hardscape" on the
property is not a zoning issue.since only 813 square feet of the "hardscape" on
the entire property may be credited toward meeting the minimum landscape
requirement.
Currently, the Town of Vail plants and maintains {including watering} all of the
planters along the Lifthouse Lodge Building. The Town Landscape Architect
has some concerns with regard to the proposed amendments to the planting
areas along the east side of the building. He would like the PEC to be aware
that the proposed revisions to the planters, and the addition of the roof to the i
east side of the building, will destroy the existing plants in these planters. To
date, he has not approved the landscape plan provided for the reconfigured
planting area on the eastern side of the building. Therefore, staff would
recommend that this application not be scheduled for final Design Review
Board review until the landscape plan has been approved by the Town
Landscape Architect.
Staff believes that the layout of the east side planter would be improved by the
reduction of the bench length from 8' to 6% or the relocation of one of the two
benches to some other location in the Lionshead Mall.
8. Service and Delivery:
Service and delivery will not change as a result of the proposed addition. The
Off -Street Parking and Loading section of the Zoning Code requires that one
loading berth be provided for the first 10,000 square feet of commercial floor
area, plus an additional berth for each 5,000 square feet of floor area in excess
of 10,000 square feet. The applicant's 325 square foot commercial addition will
not trigger a requirement to provide an additional loading berth. •
D. Comoliance with the Variance Criteria
The following criteria are to be used in reviewing proposed setback and site coverage
variances:
Consideration of Factors:
a. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
Setback Variance Reauest
Staff believes that the proposed setback variances will have a positive
impact on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Subarea Concept #18 of the Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead
specifically calls for a one-story commercial addition in the area where
this expansion is proposed. The commercial space expansion will
create much needed pedestrian level interest along the south and east
facades of the building and will bring the building down to a more
comfortable human scale.
The proposed addition would appear to have a positive impact on
surrounding properties and pedestrian areas while insuring that
maintenance and safety functions (i.e. fire access) can still occur.
• ii. Site Coveraae Variance Reauest.
As previously stated, Subarea Concept #18 of the Urban Design Guide
Plan specifically calls for a one-story commercial addition in the area
where this addition is proposed. Staff believes the granting of the site
coverage variance will also have a positive impact on existing and
potential uses and structures in the vicinity. We also believe that the
Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan takes precedence over the Zoning
Code in guiding the staff's position with regard to the site coverage and
setback issues. The patio area in front of Montauk, Pizza Bakery, Bart
and Yeti's and FirstBank have previously been expanded, as suggested
in the Guide Plan. Staff does not believe that the loss of this patio area
(310 square feet) associated with this expansion is significant, and we
feel it is an acceptable trade-off for the benefits mentioned previously.
b. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to
attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
i. Setback and Site Coveraae Variance Reauests
Staff believes that the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan takes
precedence over the Zoning Code in guiding the staff's position on this
matter. The Guide Plan specifically calls for the addition and
landscaping improvements which is proposed under this application.
c. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
Setback and Site Coverage Variance Reauests
The staff finds that the requested variances will have no negative effect
on any of the above considerations. In fact, staff believes that the
proposed addition of landscaping will improve the Lions Pride Court
pedestrian/gathering experience, while not impeding snow removal or
safety access to the mall and surrounding buildings.
2. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findinas
before arantino a variance:
a. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
b. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: 0
The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
ii. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
III. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for variances to the south and
eastern setbacks and the site coverage variance based on the Findings a, b, c - li. Staff also
finds that the project meets all of the CCII exterior alteration criteria set forth in Section IV of
this memorandum. •
Staff's recommendation for approval includes the following conditions:
At time of building permit issuance, the applicant shall be required to pay into
the Town of Vail Parking Fund. As mentioned in the Zoning Analysis section of
this memo, the parking requirement for the proposed commercial expansion is
2.175 spaces which currently equates to a parking pay -in -lieu fee of
$18,692.82. It should be pointed out that these figures were derived from the
conceptual drawings provided to date, which are not fully dimensioned. The
parking pay -in -lieu fee will be recalculated when a building permit application
and construction drawings are provided for Town review.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed addition, the
applicant will contact the Vail Building and Fire Departments to determine
whether or not the proposed addition will require the retro-sprinkler of the
Lifthouse building.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide a
pedestrian easement across the southeastern portion of the lot to ensure
continued unrestricted pedestrian access through this area.
4. A construction phasing program for the proposed commercial expansion has
not been provided as requested at the March 14, 1994 worksession.
Staff recommends that a detailed construction phasing plan be provided to, and
_ be approved by, all effected business owners and staff prior to submittal for
building permit.
5. There is a note on the applicant's plans that states that the "two surveys used
to create this drawing do not close". Additionally, the applicant's architect has
mentioned that he has field measured the location of the planters in front, and
on the side, of FirstBank and has found discrepancies on the survey. In order
to be assured of the actual location of the FirstBank expansion and planter
revisions, staff believes it is necessary that the applicant provide a new survey,
including a fully -dimensioned and stamped survey in the area south and east of
the FirstBank commercial space. This survey should be provided to staff for
review prior to scheduling this application for final Design Review Board review.
6. Staff recommends that this application not be scheduled for Final Design
Review Board review until the landscape plan has been approved by the Town
Landscape Architect and that one of the two benches on the east side of the
building be relocated to some other location in the Lionshead Mall in order to
allow for additional planting in this area.
7. Staff recommends that the metal roof along the eastern side of the building be
carried all the way to the north end of the building.
8. At the conceptual DRB review of this project on August 17, 1994, the DRB
requested that all the existing T-111 siding (which is not an approved material)
be removed, and be replaced with a siding material which would be acceptable
to the DRB and which meets the Town's Design Guidelines. The staff is
recommending that this be a condition of the PEC approval.
c: �peck.memos%[A h o us.808
m
t
goy.
a µor aYaY
O r .
m r
m :
L N
> m
r
D r0.
m O
50
m
r
o.
—.—..� fir6� H -IA71M ��Jti IrH
qMl
NVId MIS ry
. � --- Lam`
i-.-----
I-
ZVI
ICJ
0 0 0
51
LJ
a
- 0
EAST ELEVATION
SOUTHEAST . ELEVATION
1-0 vwe
L-=-
T-.is I
is
SOUTH ELEVATION
I-) if"..
Mr Inn Islno
77
I
J
LY
fit
SITE PLAN
(D' 'I.-
;Tl.t.lta�'..��r-iv2,z-.M�,-�-f-�-&.,,
11
.DETAIL
(D SECTION
*",
0
DETAIL
40
i., 6j
SECTION
d
ll
II
0
ii
0-
I
- -- - - - - - - -
Z
LANDSCAPE PLAN
0
Attachment #1 '"j
(minutes from March 14, 1994 PEC Wc,_.csessi�
Bill Anderson stated that he was opposed to trash trucks using Bridge Street and that
trash should be hauled to the intersection for pick-up. He said that he agreed with the
six conditions staff outlined in the staff memo.
• Kathy Langenwalter stated she did not have problems with the proposed construction
barriers. She suggested getting school children involved with painting the fence for
something fun and creative. She stated that trash trucks on Bridge Street should not
be allowed and that the applicants should submit an acceptable solution to this issue
at the time of building permit. She stated that the PEC was not opposed to a
restaurant in this location, but that at present, the trash situation did not seem to lend
itself to restaurant use.
Kristan Pritz stated that it was not the deliveries that were a concern but that removal
of trash was an issue. The applicant would need to utilize the Town of Vail loading
areas. She stated that a'trash removal plan for a future restaurant, could be brought
before the PEC.
Bill Anderson made a motion to approve the request for a major CCI exterior alteration
to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building per the staff memo and
including the six conditions contained in the staff memo, with the`addition of condition
7 that: "No motorized vehicle be allowed to use Bridge Street for trash removal. He
added Condition 8 that: "The PEC would need to review the addition of a restaurant as
tenant space and its proposed trash removal plan." Greg Amsden seconded this
molion and a 4-1 vote approved this request with Jeff Bowen opposing because he did
not feel the proposed construction staging plan was appropriate for Bridge Street and
that a coordinated development plan needed to be done for the Gramshammer and
Covered Bridge Buildings.
4. A request for a worksession for a major exterior alteration, site coverage and setback
variances for the Ufthouse Lodge commercial area, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st
Filingl549 West Lionshead Circle.
Applicant: Bob Lazier
Planner: Jim Curnutte
Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo. He reviewed the three requests
(setback variance, site coverage variance, and major exterior alteration). Jim reviewed
the criteria to be used in evaluating this proposal with the PEC.
Galen Aasland, the architect for this project, stated that they were attempting to
improve this site through this proposal. He explained the rationale for the proposed
rekord doors proposed for Pizza Bakery and Bart and Yeti's.
• Ross Davis, owner of Bart and Yeti's, stated that he was concerned that there be an
efficient construction process so that his business is not negatively effected.
Planning and Environmental Commission
March 14. 104 5
integrated, that she did not have a problem with the concept. She told Galen to show
more detail In the next set of drawings.
Ross Davis stated that he would not be opposed to some sort of gable roof over his
entry or the use of copper.
Galen Aasland stated that the 45 degree angle allows them to stay away from the
large pine trees in front of the First Bank.
Kathy Langenwalter stated she was not completely opposed to this approach but that it
needs to be more integrated with the rest of the building.. She added that there were
options for this area. Overall, she said that there many positive components to this
project but that there needed to be greater integration. All members agreed the copper
roof band made sense.
5. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved
exterior afferation proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and
C, Block 5, Vail Village t st Filing.
Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer
Planner: Kristan Pritz
Beth Slifer presented drawings of banners that were proposed to be located in the
space and explained their proposed position. She asked the PEC whether they would
be in favor of a skater sculpture being placed beneath the banner.
Greg Amsden stated that he was in favor of the banner with the skater approach.
Bob Armour said that he liked the skater.
Bill Anderson stated that he like the banner but he liked the idea of a planter.
Kathy Langenwalter commented whether the impact of the sculpture would be lost in
the space. She felt that even with the sculpture, some plantings should be located
along the base of the sculpture.
Beth Slifer was concerned that people would walk on plantings placed at this location.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was in favor of flowers in the summer and some
sort of holiday theme during the winter.
Jeff Bowen made a motion that the skater sculpture be installed and that either a
vertical or horizontal banner be installed above the sculpture. A 3-2 vote approved this .
request with Kathy Langenwalter and Bill Anderson opposing.
Planning and Environmental Commission
March 14, 19"
ATTACHMENT #2
(Draft copy of minutes from August 8, 1994, PEC Worksession)
parking, the applicants could relocate accommodation units on the site. He stated that
the density variance was not as hard to properly justify as the height variance. He felt
that a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the property would be a worthwhile
exercise to go through.
16 Bob Armour stated that adding mass to the existing nonconforming structure would be
a grant of special privilege.
Greg Amsden stated that height variances are seldom granted in the Town of Vail and
suggested that the applicant consider the SDD process. He suggested that the
applicant consider shorter individual deck configurations. He said that the dormers
themselves were quite massive and should be reduced in order to eliminate a "top
heavy" appearance.
Gary Bradley asked whether they should go ahead with the swimming pool renovation
or should they hold off.
Greg Amsden suggested that the applicants hold off until they had developed a
comprehensive master plan for the L'Ostello property.
Bill Anderson stated that he disagreed with Greg's position and that it was his opinion
that the neighbors of the L'Ostello Building would like to see the swimming pool
renovation completed as soon as possible. He encouraged the applicant to complete
the plaza renovation and landscaping plan for the property.
3. A request for a worksession to review a CCII major exterior alteration and site
coverage and setback variances to allow for a commercial expansion to the Lifthouse
Lodge located at 549 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Bob Lazier
Planner: Jim Curnutte
Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that 387 square feet
of site coverage was proposed to be added with this request. He directed the PEC's
attention to Page 5, Section IV, Discussion Issues of the staff memo.
Galen Aasland, the architect for this project, stated that they have attempted to
address the issues raised concerning this project from the previous worksession. With
regard to the sign program, he stated that they were still not interested in changing the
Montauk restaurant space. With regard to the sign program, he stated that the three
proposed signs would all have a consistent frame and lighting and but that they would
like the script and letter material to remain unrestricted.
• Gary Borsh, the manager of the Montauk, stated that he did not feel that a copper roof
across the Montauk would be appropriate. He stated that the Montauk was a seafood,
chain restaurant from the East Coast.and that they generally utilized a shake shingle
roof.
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Mmutes
August 8, 1994 4
Dalton Williams stated he would like to see the bank corner pulled back out of the
Pedestrian Mall so that it lines up with the planter. He did not have a problem with
removing the two fir trees and replacing them with two deciduous trees. He asked the
applicant to consider relocating the bench on the site as opposed to disposing of it
altogether. He stated that he did not have any problems with the increased square 16
footage and associated variances. He said that he did have a problem with things that
had a tendency to get "piece-mealed" and that he would like to see Montauk tie in with
the rest of the Lifthouse Building.
Jay Peterson, stated that there were financial considerations attached to their decision
not to change the roof on Montauk. He stated that rents in Lionshead were
approximately one-third of the rents in the Village and that construction costs for
Lionshead were every bit as expensive as those in the Village and that changing the
roof on Montauk could make the entire project unfeasible.
Galen Aasland stated that they could have proposed to reroof the Pizza Bakery, Bart
and Yeti's and FirstBank one store at a time, but they decided to bring them in all at
once.
Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see the 1-1/2 toot eastern expansion on
FirstBank pushed back out of the Lionshead Mall. She said that she liked the
appearance of Montauk but suggested that some sort of copper (i.e. copper gutter) be
used on Montauk in order to tie it into the other three shops.
Jeff Bowen agreed with Allison's comments. He said that the use of copper needed to
flow through the entire building. He added that he was concerned about increasing the
site coverage on the site.
Bill Anderson agreed with Allison's comments. He stated that he liked the existing
variation in the three shop's themes. He suggested that the applicant consider
insetting the entrance way in order to provide some screening. He thought that at
least one evergreen tree should be included in the planter along with the aspens.
Bob Armour stated that the changes that the applicant has made are positive since the
last PEC worksession. He stated that he was in favor of utilizing some sort of copper
on Montauk to tie it into the rest of the building.
Greg Amsden agreed that the copper gutter on the Montauk would be a good solution.
He asked for a clarification on the peeled logs on the building, especially for Bart and
Yeti's.
Galen Aasland said that all new logs would be the same size as Banner Sports but
would be stained with a clear varnish. Bart and Yeti's logs would stay exactly the
same as what is out there now.
Dalton Williams agreed that Allison's suggestion regarding copper gutter was a good
idea.
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes
August 6, 19N
Allison, Jeff, Bill, Bob and Greg all felt that the east side roof extension was okay the
way that was currently proposed and that it did not have to go all the way to the end of
the building.
Dalton Williams felt that the roof extension should be redesigned to go all the way to
the corner of the building. Dalton also stated that he did not have a problem should
the applicant wish to go forward with the loading variance, should one be required as a
result of the addition.
Jim Curnutte stated that the PEC still needed to discuss the pedestrian easement.
Mike Mollica asked the applicant whether they would be opposed to a pedestrian
easement through the Lifthouse site.
Bob Lazier felt that the pedestrian easement would not change the existing situation,
so he did not have a problem with it.
Jim Curnutte stated that staff wanted to insure pedestrian access across the site.
Mike Mollica stated that it was important for the Fire Department review this proposal
prior to a final hearing before the PEG.
Jeff Bowen suggested that a comprehensive sign program be implemented for the
• building and,that new tenants be made aware of the program.
4. A request for a setback variances to allow for an addition to the residence located at
4237 Columbine Drive/Lot 22, Bighorn Terrace.
Applicant: Joyce Waters
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was
recommending approval of the requested setback variances with the five conditions
outlined on Pages 4 and 5 of the .staff memo:
1. The variance approval shall be contingent upon the DRB approving the
"250' request.
2. Prior to DRB review, the applicant shall redesign the flagstone patio
entrance area so that it is located 10 feet from the property line, and
conforms to the setback.
3. Prior to DRB review, the applicant shall amend the landscape plan
ii showing additional landscaping in the northeast corner of the site. The
proposed evergreen trees shall measure a minimum of 81 linear feet.
4. Prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO),
Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes
August B, 1994
ATTACHMENT P 3.
(LIONSHFAD DESIGN GUIDE -PLAN)
ua
a.._..-_.....
Lli
............ . ..
t.
Vail Recreation
DISTRICT
i
292 W. Meadow Drive
•Vail, CO 81657
303-479-2279
September 6, 1994
FAX: 303-479-2197
Mr. Bob McLaurin
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
Town of Vail Manager
479-2450
75 South Frontage Road
SPECIAL EVENTS
Vail, CO 81657
479-2465
MARKETING BRANCH
Dear Bob:
479-2446
As you are aware Frank Johnson and I have met several
VAILGOLFCLUB
1778 Vail Valley Drive
times to review the role of our two agencies with regards to
479-2262
community special events. It is our opinion that the Vail
Recreation District should continue to administer sport and
GOLF & PARK
MAINTENANCE
recreation related events while the Tourism and Convention
1278 Vail Valley Drive
Bureau is better suited to manage more community oriented
479-2262
events.
FORD PARK
TENNISCENTER
This premise is being wholeheartedly supported by the
700 S. Frontage Road
479-2294
Vail Recreation District Board of Directors. It appears that this
is in line with what the special event committee determined to
JOHN A. DOBSON ARENA
be best after their trip to St. Moritz.
321 Liorshoad Circle
479-2271
Thus, the Vail Recreation District is not interested in
VAIL YOUTH SERVICES
bidding on the 1995 management contract for Vail America
395 E. Liowhead Circle
479-2292
Days, Vail Oktoberfest, Christmas in Vail, nor Winter Carnival.
The District will continue with all of the running races, Lacrosse
VAIL NATURE CENTER
Shoot Out, 4th of July Youth Dancing in the Streets, Duck
Vail Valley Drive
479-2291
Race, and all other previously sponsored sporting events.
In addition, we would like to formally bid on a Memorial Day
celebration. We have been accepted as a stop on the
Champion International Whitewater series and propose
hosting the event Memorial Day Weekend. The district is
requesting funding in the amount of $10,000 for the event.
Previous funding was $6000 for the event but with the demand
• on labor, the event actually costs the district money to
organize. Although we are asking for more money for the
Memorial Day event we are not requesting the $5,000
previously appropriated for Labor Day. The Duck Race and
Labor Day activities have proven to be very successful and this
"seed" money is no longer required.
Uail Recreation
DISTRICT I�
W. Meadow Drive
�292
Vail, CO 81657
303-479-2279
2
FAX: 303-479-2197
If the Tourism and Convention Bureau chooses to
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES
administer the canoe and kayak event as well, that would be
479-2450
acceptable to the Vail Recreation District.
SPECIAL EVENTS
479-2465
Please feel free to contact me at convenience should you
MARKETING BRANCH
your
479-2446
have any questions and/or concerns.
VAIL GOLF CLUB
1778 Vail Vaiiey Drive
479-2262
Since -ely,"
GOLF & PARK
MAINTENANCE
1278 Vail Valley Drive
479-2262
i
FORD PARK
Rob Robinson
TENNISCENTER
Executive Director
700 S- Frontage Road
479-2294
IOHN A. DOBSON ARENA
321 Lionshead Circle
479-2271
VAIL YOUTH SERV ICFS
395 E. Lionshead Circle
479-2292
VAIL NATURE CENTER
Vail Valley Drive
479-2291
r-bmel
0
P
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Vail Town Council
FROM:
Robert W. McLaurin
Town Manager
DATE:
September 2, 1994
SUBJECT:
Town Manager's Report
Police Addition
As you are aware, the new police addition is complete. For the past few weeks (as you have
heard during the Council meetings) the contractor has been remodeling the existing police
department space. The remodel should be substantially complete about mid September.
The project continues to be within the budget approved by the Council last year. The project
budget is attached for your information and review. As indicated on the budget, the total budget
approved by the Council was $3,701,986. Of this amount $30,000 was allocated for modifications
to the west entry and $10,000 for a walkway along the south side of the Frontage Road.
Because the roundabout project will involve a minor relocation of the Frontage Road, we have
deleted the sidewalk from this project. This sidewalk will be incorporated into the roundabout
project.
We are continuing to work to develop a design for the west entry. I am currently working with
Pam Hopkins to develop another conceptual design for your review. At this point these
improvements will be constructed next Spring. You should also be aware that it is unlikely the
$30,000 will be enough to fund the improvement to the west entry envisions by the PEC and the
DRB.
Because these items have been deleted from the contract, the total budget for this project is
$3,661,986.
Staff Retreat
I have scheduled a staff retreat on October 15, 1994, The purpose of this retreat is to enhance
the sense of teamwork of the senior staff, develop the staff's understanding of the use of self
directed work teams, and to begin to develop a set of organizational value for the TOV
organization. Dick Bowers who is the City Manager for Scottsdale, AZ will facilitate this retreat.
Fire Station Studv Uodate
In 1990 the Town commissioned a study to assess response times and to determine if an addition
fire station was needed in West Vail. This was conducted by Bill Gay of Washington, D.C.
Response times collected in the study indicated that an additional station was warranted.
As you are aware, a major issue of the Vail Commons plan is whether to allocate a portion of the
site for a fire station. In order to accurately determine the need for this station, I have asked Bill
Gay to update the 1990 study. This study will involve constructing a simulation model to
determine the demand for this station. The study will estimate the cost of constructing and
staffing a new station. The original study did not analyze the impact of an underpass on
response times. It is my feeling (and hope) that an underpass will reduce response times to a
point where a new station is not warranted. It is also my feeling the long term cost of an
underpass will be significantly less than the cost of constructing, maintaining and staffing a new
station.
This study will begin in late September and will cost approximately $9,000. It will be funded from .
the money allocated for Vail Commons.
Meetinq with Eacle Countv Commissioners
As you are aware I have been meeting with Jack Lewis to improve our working relationship with
Eagle County. We have tentatively scheduled a meeting with the Commissioners and the Council
for Tuesday, November 1st. The time and location for this meeting has not yet been determined.
Neither has the specific agenda.
RW M/aw
40
G: T~mgr.rpt