HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEC120042 PEC120043 applicant's presentation to PEC 11/26/12Slifer Residence
•Height Variance
•Exterior Alteration
•250 Addition
Planning & Environmental Commission
November 26, 2012
Introduction
❖Rod and Beth Slifer, Owners
❖Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group
Location
2012 photo of the Gore Creek
Plaza Condominiums.
Applications
❖250 Addition - Property is eligible for a 250 sq. ft. addition
❖Height Variance - Existing building exceeds height
limitation, no higher than existing
❖Major Exterior Alteration - alteration of roof lines in
Commercial Core 1 zone district requires an exterior
alteration
Height Limitation
❖Building height limitations - provided in Vail Village Urban
Design Guide Plan
❖Adopted in 1980, approximately 11 years after the
building was constructed
❖Height limitations
❖33 ft. to 43 ft. up to 40% for the building footprint
❖33 ft. or less to 60% of the building footprint
Existing Plan
Deck at level
below
Existing
deck
Existing
Proposed Plan
New deck to match
deck below
New floor area
Proposed
Side by Side
ProposedExisting
Zoning Analysis
Zoning: Commercial Core 1
Land Use Plan Designation: Village Master Plan
Current Land Use: Residential/Commercial
Development Standard Allowed/Required Existing Proposed
Lot Area: 5,000 sq. ft. 7,553 sq. ft. No Change
Setbacks:
Front:
None Required
14’-20’
No Change
Sides:
None Required
0.5’-10‘
No Change
Rear:
None Required
0.5’-3’
No Change
Building Height:
33’ or less 60%
33’ or less: 17%
33’ or less: 17%
33’-43’ up to 40%
33’-43’: 11%
33’-43’: 5%
> than 43’: 72% > than 43’: 78%
Site Coverage: 6,043 sq. ft. (80%) 6,084 sq. ft. (80.6%) No Change
GRFA: 6,043 sq. ft. (80%) 6,043 sq. ft. (80%) 6,293 sq. ft. (83%)*
Parking: 6 spaces 5 spaces No Change
(residential) (residential)
*GRFA for allowed through the “250 Addition”
Complies with all other zoning standards
Height Analysis
Sq. Ft. of Roof
Below 33 ft.
% of Roof
Below 33 ft.
Sq. Ft. of Roof
Above 33 ft. &
Below 43 ft.
% of Roof
Above 33 ft. &
Below 43 ft.
Sq. Ft. of
Roof Above
43 ft. &
% of Roof
above 43 ft.
Existing 911 17%595 11%3,896 72%
Proposed 911 17%255 5%4,246 78%
Allowed by
Code 3,241 60%2,160 40%0 0%
Height Analysis
❖When the height limits were adopted in 1980, this building
was already 11 years old
❖Rendered non-conforming with regard to height
❖Building is currently 50 ft. at its maximum height
1989 Variance & Exterior
Alteration
❖Similar request to today, just
on the east portion of the
building
❖Staff recommended approval
❖Planning and Environmental
Commission approved 4-0-1
Location of 1989 Height
Variance
Criteria for Review of
the Height Variance and
Major Exterior Alteration
Criteria 1: The relationship of the
requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
❖The heights of buildings in this
vicinity vary greatly but few meet
the height limitations set forth in
the Urban Design Guide Plan.
❖Buildings along the Gore Creek
promenade are nonconforming
with regard to height, primarily
due to the significant change in
grade from Gore Creek Drive
down to the Gore Creek
promenade. Grade change from Gore Creek
Drive to the Gore Creek Promenade
Heights of Buildings in the
Vicinity
North elevation of the
Sitzmark Building - 50 ft.
East elevation of the Bell
Tower Building - 50 ft.
South elevation of the
Village Center Building -
77 ft.
Criteria 2: The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to
attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
❖The proposed addition has been designed to minimize the
variance to the extent possible.
❖Designed with a flat roof form, matching the addition that
was done in 1989, and a deck has been added to maintain
the visual interest of this elevation.
❖This, along with the comparison of this building height to
the surrounding building heights, none of which comply
with the height limitations, makes this variance request not
a grant of special privilege.
Criteria 3: The effect of the requested variance on light and
air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety.
❖A sun shade analysis has been provided particularly focusing
on the effects on light and air on the Gore Creek
promenade.
❖Effects of this addition are minimal and have no substantial
additional impacts on the promenade than what exists
today.
❖No effect on the distribution of population, transportation
and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety.
Sun/Shade Analysis
Existing Sun/Shade
Effect
Proposed Sun/Shade
Effect
Criteria 1: That the proposed exterior alteration is
in compliance with the purposes of the CC1 district
as specified in section 12-7B-1 of this article;
❖The proposed addition will match the exterior material and
architectural character of the existing building.
❖The unique character of this building will be preserved,
adding interest to the architectural qualities that distinguish
the Village.
❖The proposal is in compliance with the purpose of the CC1
zone district.
Criteria 2: the proposal is consistent with
applicable elements of the Vail Village master
plan, the town of Vail streetscape master
plan, and the Vail comprehensive plan;
Vail Village Master Plan
Objective 1.2: Encourage the upgrading and
redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities.
Policy 1.2.1: Additional development may be allowed as
identified by the Action Plan and as is consistent with the
Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan.
Policy 1.4.2: The Town may grant flexibility in the
interpretation and implementation of its regulations and
design guidelines to help protect and maintain the
existing character of Vail Village.
Vail Village Master Plan
❖With the exception of
embe!ishing pedestrian
walkways, developing plazas
with greenspace, and adding a
number of infi! developments, it
is a goal of the community to
preserve the character of the
Vi!age as it is today.
Criteria 3: And that the proposal does not
otherwise negatively alter the character of
the neighborhood.
❖The heights of buildings in this
vicinity vary greatly but few meet
the height limitations set forth in
the Urban Design Guide Plan.
❖Buildings along the Gore Creek
promenade are generally
nonconforming with regard to
height, primarily due to the
significant change in grade from
Gore Creek Drive down to the
Gore Creek promenade. Grade change from Gore Creek
Drive to the Gore Creek Promenade
Criteria 4: Further, that the proposal substantially
complies with the Vail Village urban design guide plan and
the Vail Village design considerations, to include, but not
be limited to, the following urban design considerations:
pedestrianization, vehicular penetration, streetscape
framework, street enclosure, street edge, building height,
views, service/delivery and sun/shade analysis;
Urban Design Guide Plan
❖Height - the Urban Design Guide Plan indicates that the
Village Core is:
...perceived as a mix of two and three story facades, although there are
also four and five story buildings. The mix of building heights gives
variety to the street - which is desirable. The height criteria are
intended to encourage height and massing variety and to discourage
uniform building heights across the street.
❖The proposed height, while in excess of the height
limitations, furthers the desire for a variety of height and
massing.
Criteria 5: And that the proposal
substantially complies with all other
elements of the Vail comprehensive plan.
❖The proposal is in compliance with all applicable sections of
Vail’s master planning documents.
Letter of
Support
Adjacent Property Owner
at the Sitzmark Lodge