Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB090258 Design Review Board ACTION FORM Department of Community Development TOWNVAIL lflT OF V 75 South Frontage Road, Vail, Colorado 81.657 j �f tel: 978.479.2.139 fax: 970.479.2452 r _ web: www.vailgov.com Project Name: DRB Number: DRB090258 Project Description: NEW COMMERCIAL BUILDING: FIRE STATION Participants: OWNER TOWN OF VAIL 07/13/2009 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL CO 81657 APPLICANT BELFORD WATKINS GROUP 07/13/2009 DON WATKINS 231 S HOWES ST FORT COLLINS CO 80521 Project Address: 2399 N FRONTAGE RD W VAIL Location: Legal Description: Lot: A Block: A Subdivision: VAIL DAS SCHONE FIL 1 Parcel Number: 2103-114-1501-9 2103-114-1502-1 Comments: BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: CONCEPT Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 0 (PLAN): DRB approval does not constitute a permit for building. Please consult with Town of Vail Building personnel prior to construction activities. Cond: 201 (PLAN): DRB approval shall not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval, pursuant to the Vail Town Code, Chapter 12-3-3: APPEALS. Cond: 202 (PLAN): Approval of this project shall lapse and become void one (1) year following the date of final approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and is diligently pursued toward completion. Planner: Bill Gibson DRB Fee Paid: $0.00 E 0 a& ro �.;4 fi::i V. ,� ��,� � ��;t �'� � Department of,Community Development 4,. , �_ , , , � � , 75 South Frontage Road . -, , ; h 4 , Vail, Colorado 81657 K � E, ' ' Tel: 970-479-2128 � � ' T r F'ax: 970-479-2452 4 r We• www:vailgov.corn t p ! yy,, a •. • I BPS R is Application for Design Review J JUL 13 2009 Review General Information: A conceptual review may be requested by an applicant -- ?-- L _ _• -• •. ••- • changes are to occur on a property. A conceptual review does not serve as a final approval and an additional applica- tion is required for final review. The conceptual review is intended to allow the applicant to introduce the project to the Design Review Board and receive comments. The DRB does not vote on conceptual ,-views. Fee: $0 Single Family Duplex F---(7-(:c Multi-Family _. Commercial Description of the Request: .je� ^ A.4-10i\ y Physical Address: 2-361_1 N ri!!c e lz.v. tni Parcel Number: 2.103 14 t5 oil (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor a. 970-328-8640 for parcel no.) Property Owner: Tov414 pV \114.11.•,, Mailing Address: 1'5 �jDITI-k 141-P• ail 2.9 \i/1/411.1 CD 81651- Phone: Owner's Signature: 4 Aaet• _ u-- ' ASs(S[t' loML , i ') 6.6.0i D akk Primary Contact/ Owner Representative: �� 1; � ■ - •_ _v• p • \• NTY41.1: Mailing Address: _ • _1 - , . . f 1 . Ca u..itael GO 8 O5zi Phone: 41%10 . t}b 1. poi() E-Mail:dome btnt IVraft. C.OM Fax: For Office Use Only: Cash CC: Visa / MC Last 4 CC # Aut # Check # Fee Paid: Waived Received From: V , Meeting Date: - " S/5-11 DRB No.: ■ : 41.4. sw„ P f :/;i 1 Planner: 'Sg. Project No: F12.,j Qg --0";l Zoning: G —_ Land Use: � �i - Location of the Proposal: Lot: __ _ Block: __-_ Subdivision:lal'l as .7,/1 -, f` " v e 1 TOWN OF VAIL Air 09 Page 1 of 2 Bill Gibson - Re: West Vail Fire Station Comments , From: Tom Kassmel To: Bill Gibson; George Ruther; Greg Hall; Mark Miller; Warren Campbell Date: 11/4/2009 8:16 AM Subject: Re: West Vail Fire Station Comments Also, as a reminder, we will be required to provide a min. 30' easement for shared access with the Shell station on Town property. Looks like room has been provided for this, so we want to make sure we maintain this area at the SW corner of the lot. Thomas Kassmel, PE Town of Vail Department of Public Works Town Engineer 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, CO 81632 Phone 970-479-2235 >>> Warren Campbell 11/3/2009 5:02 PM >>> Mark, Today Tom K., Greg, George, and myself met to do a quick review of the conceptual plans you showed to Council on October 6, 2009. We met to do this review in order to get you some higher level comments on the project that can be considered as the designers are preparing the complete submittal package for final review by the Planning and Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board. The following is a list of the comments that you can forward to your design team. If there are any questions please tell them not to hesitate to contact the correct parties in either planning or public works. By addressing these comments know it is our hope that it will reduce the changes that need to be incorporated at a later date. 1) Provide a detailed analysis of the number of people on the site and in the resident lodging in order for the PEC to determine the appropriate parking requirements for the functions in the structure. Provide documentation that the 23 spaces shown on the plan are adequate. 2) Show snow storage for the site in the Code required amounts for the surface areas that are heated and unheated. On the site plan show heated and unheated areas. 3) Provide information and reasoning for having the majority of the parking across a drive lane for the employee residences that will be crossing this site. There is concern about pedestrians crossing this drive lane. 4) Provide details on how the grade connection will be made from the fire station site to the drive lane for the employee housing units to the north. There is concern over going from a 2% grade on the fire station site to a 8% grade at the property line to reach the residential site. 5) Provide information detailing compliance with the interior surface landscape requirements for the parking lot associated with the fire station as found in Title 14. 6) Confirm that the proposed curb cuts are in the same location as submitted and approved by CDOT. 7) Provide details on all exterior lighting on the structure and in the parking areas. file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4AF138... 11/04/2009 Page 2 of 2 8) Confirm that the proposed facility will be able to contain all the fire elements currently being stored out at the public works shops. 9) Provide details on the ability to provide utility stubs for the residential site tot he Frontage Road to avoid tearing up improvements to install these in the future. ie. sewer, storm sewer, electric, water, etc. 10) Provide details on how pedestrian circulation will occur within and to adjacent sites. 11) Provide details on all off-site improvements. such as a sidewalk along the Frontage Road connecting to the bus stop, etc. 12) Provide all required plans to have a complete submittal for review 30 days prior to the actual hearing dates. Plans to be included are drainage, site plans, surveys, elevations, etc. Greg, George, and Tom, please correct me if I captured any of these comments incorrectly. Mark we all look forward to helping the Fire Department achieving its dream of a new fire station. Sincerely, Warren file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4AF138... 11/04/2009 .4* 4 j 0 c 0 cow MEETING MINITITES o 0 co O Date: 1/8/10 Archileciure Attendees: Pam Brandmeyer Planning Bill Gibson George Ruther Interiors Tom Kassmel Mark Miller Mike McGee Paul Anderson Glenn Palmer Don Watkins Subject: Coordination with Chamonix Master Plan Vail Fire Station#3 Vail, Colorado Project#09083 By: Don Watkins The purpose of this meeting was to review concerns of the Town of Vail staff with regard to compliance to the Chamonix Master Plan.The following items were of note: 1. Don acknowledged receipt of the memo from Bill Gibson to Mark Miller dated Jan. 5th,2010 outlining concerns related to the proposed site development of the fire station site compliance to the requirements of the Chamonix Master Plan. Don reviewed site planning considerations made during development of the design outlined in his e-mail to Mark on Jan 6th. Town staff indicated the item of greatest concern is the grade differential between the fire station site and the housing site which affects the required drive connection to the Frontage Road. Mark shared concerns that all appropriate TOV staff needs to commit to P.O.sox,3n6 attending each design meeting in the future to ensure we are aligned with the Fort Collins,CO 80513 ph.970.407.0070 Chamonix Master Plan as well as all other applicable TOV requirements. George indicated that there was no need to revise the Chamonix Master Plan at this time.All attendees concurred that the changes made to the original Master Plan were cost effective and provided for a more efficient site plan/design 2. George indicated that he wants to feel certain that one parking space is provided for each anticipated occupant of the fire station. There was discussion of the possibility of providing some tandem parking similar to that used at the main station. 3. George was concerned that the residential access drive is loaded with parking spaces. Tom indicated that this had been discussed during design of the fire station site and that,while not ideal, it is not without prescedent at other locations in town. It seen as a good trade-off to other positive considerations such as allowing for drive-through apparatus bays. To reduce potential conflict between parked cars and traffic,Tom required a 28 foot wide drive. 4. With regard to the grade differential between the two sites, Don presented a conceptual sketch that slightly revised grades on the residential site and provided for steeper grades at the fire station site. He indicated the concept is not presented so much as a final solution as an approach to compromise between both sites. Paul suggested grading at the residential site might work better if the main drive were at the south edge of the site and rose along the grades(rather than across grades)and the upper drive was terminated with a cul-de-sac at the west end. Glenn noted a concern with regard to maximum dead-end length of drives but Mike indicated that current Vail standards allow for a longer dead-end. George indicated they had looked at a solution similar to what Paul was suggesting but had found it could be detrimental to the number of units he can accommodate on the site. He noted that they are already looking at reducing the number of units on the site from what was proposed in the master plan due to high costs of tall retaining walls. He felt the drive elevation of 34.50 where the drive crosses the common property line was important to maintain. 5. Tom presented an alternative approach to the fire station site layout(see attached). This included moving the building closer to the south property line which allows for the 9%grade from the residential site to be carried onto the fire station site taking up some of the differential. This concept also moved some of the parking off of the drive to the north property line. The positive aspects of this approach was that it provides for less parking backing onto the access drive and could allow for the building pad elevation to be lower than was proposed in Don's sketch. Paul noted it could also allow for a straighter access . drive. It was noted that moving the building to the south also results in moving the building further out of the hillside which would mean shorter retaining walls (lower cost). The building could also potentially then be moved further to the west which could allow for a wider buffer along the east property line and less impact on existing landscaping. George noted that if he is losing mature landscape at the south property line, if is important to maintain the landscape along the east line. The downsides to the scheme were the close proximity of the building to the south property line and the need for more retaining walls at the north side of the property. Bill indicated that a wider setback of the building would be required and would allow for better landscaping opportunities. George agreed that more space is needed at this location for landscaping buffer and snow storage. 6. It was agreed the next steps should include: a. Glenn looking at opportunities on the housing site to reduce the grade elevation where the access drive crosses the north fires station property line. Glenn was also going to see if the driveway location where it crosses the north property line could be shifted to the east as close as possible to the NE property corner. b. The fire station design team working with Bill to come to a conclusion on the parking count Once these tasks are complete,the fire station design team will revisit the site design along the lines of Tom's concept. It was noted this process will likely delay the proposed design documentation schedule for the fire station. These meeting minute notes were prepared by Don Watkins of Belford Watkins Group Architects. Any person attending the meeting who notes any inaccurate statements or has a question regarding any of the action items is to contact me at (970) 407-0070 within five (5) calendar days of the distribution date. Otherwise it is deemed the contents of the minutes are correct. Cc Mark Miller Anne Gunion Marc Sacconi Peter Monroe Paul Anderson v>a W.10-ngv...7... ;•1 I , :, _.-t.ii :.i ifi 1st ij i i Oil 110 Pi illi lipe, - I-c z At - . .„1 fl .;la - iii'.1-1 _ lel ol., lith r-lai :gni a,lit, UP1111 A IA ..f.ii ,— 7ct ;-,' 1 i 1 1 11 1 k. ( ) 1 i , . 111. ,F00 I i , 1 11 I 1,4 nil ._. I-N,\\:\---:::--•.:'---i r... , 1 1 -..--- ■ i . . •..] ,. 1 . . , \ \, : \ 1‘ ■ , \ \ i , \ , , \ \\ \ • . , 1 .... ^C.C. , \ i i 1 t ', k 1 1 t 's _...—' -----„,_ \ I ■ t I \ A {—7----- i \ \ i \ I \ /1 \. 1 . , • 1 .. , , } / / ‘, , 7, ,„.- ,--- _.,,--- i-7,---,---- ----::..,-----7 --------c-----„-,:-\-- , ,... . „,/ / 11 ..... „ • \ , \ ',„ ,1- --'" co 1 I i /I!.:,,,, -_,,,, , \ ‘4,-4,--7, - i.• -• lc'\'t -•':,,- --. \ \ 1 - ,.....' Of,. ,-, :' -.1.00ergi -,,Aft,i$: ' -: = ' V, % h .....44.._\• :---, , --;\ • f . CY) .L. ,,ri • 1■77•4111.■• -4 — • \ 1 , '' , , 1 datILL_.411■.411111111•1511W "" ,,_ \ ic,r. ■ vcr, \ \ „ t, 1 r-- , 0:01 • •, \ :\ \ \ ‘ \ 4 "- •11 0,.... 4,,----,1' 44 . . . . ,-.:4 1 ,.... \ 1, . ,.......- , , .„,,,. , , lag" ni eir im , or,e „1 --. -----"' 1" ''\-• `,..-N, --''''''''\ WI\tallTit OW Z.,-rc ,.....,„\r , 2 . ,. ..„ r,..‹. ., ... \ . tziov ., : ----.'11 -.IIIII , *--•N., \N.-. :;',,,.%N.<■ .',''''-\:\. 'N's , ‘..‘ iliff Mi, NN.--,,--, N-<..--,-, .\---s — N , ;-,z-----,./ ''‘;‘ .•:,.‘, .........'..%. '',V.,: K:-.*--, 'Nb, --.....,...-„::-... -.......mt .., .-,,-;.. -•:-.-ss--, --..:.:,::--,:s-,\,-- E.,-;.:-.. -N„--ms, 11, um= .__, , kW ....., -.... - -.- "\-...-:-,...„., ,,,.. , \‘-. \N-,..-;---, --,-....,-.:-.-- - ,Q-,::::--L.,:;-\\:, -,-. -.- N\ ' •_.-----\ '` -- ‘ ,- '• . - - . S.--: '' '..--- - ----------4— ---- . — N, .--, ---.,--z---,„ N'- -.- -,e---; '\:::..\ -,:-.:-;:\\, ,...,<N,:l..., •-„..„,-,,.:,,,,,,>'b--,, ,- , -,...---„--„,_ —------.__________ ., ... ! \ „\-,,,, ,,,,i,-,-.<9,--------,'-y--- ---- --::::--::::--- -------------------------------'---------2- . , \ ,\ , \ 1 ,,,=,. ,, \, \i \,:,,s7,:r„,,,,: i •,..,N, .„.,s.'-:„:;::--:;„,--/ ,,, ---\ t-------—- , ,i„ \.,.k.:‘,:c..,\—. \ ----„.--_-_:=1-----:.------ - , \ \''\-..':•\‘':A-s'-..- , . \ ‘...,\ ,c;--,(.--,>--,/ .__, -, .......,, „.. ....,_ ---.).-_------ "---1:.:::-..-:::- \ ,s,:--. -r-:--;<.,'--- . ,, --- 1---- „„ ......-2,-N...,--„.:-1-,:,:..,,,.• .."\ , . N ..- \ (...' \ \ \ \ / -- -1 / \ \ \ . l \ \ \ / \ / \ \ ' 0 \ / ,t.-- .:' ' . , . ., 'tt.