HomeMy WebLinkAbout102108 Council MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 21, 2008
SUBJECT: A request for first reading of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008, repealing
and re-enacting Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2005, Vail Village Inn,
amending the approved development plan for Phase III of SDD No. 6,
pursuant to Article 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code,
to allow for the conversion of an existing office and retail space to
residential for an addition to an existing dwelling unit, located at 68
Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (PEC080049)
Applicant: Colondo Company, represented by Sherman & Howard,
LLC
Planner: Nicole Peterson
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
This SDD major amendment ordinance request includes the conversion of
existing office and retail space to residential for an approximate 1,237 gross
residential square foot addition to existing residential unit #110. The proposed
addition is immediately below the existing unit #110 and includes a new exterior
entrance off the pedestrian plaza on the north side of the building, mudroom,
staircase, media room, two bedrooms and three bathrooms. The proposal also
includes the interior reconfiguration of the existing unit #110 level 105.0' and
minor exterior alterations. The proposal does not include any additions outside
the exterior walls of the existing building. The addition area is currently occupied
by three commercial lessees:
1) Digits Nail Boutique (108 net square feet of retail)
2) Portion of Robinson, Mitchell &Associates (115 net square feet of office)
3) Portion of To Catch a Cook(976 net square feet of retail)
4) Miscellaneous - Interior walls to be removed (38 net square feet)
Please see Staff's October 13, 2008, memorandum to the Planning and
Environmental Commission (Attachment A) for plans and additional information.
Since the PEC hearing, Staff received a voice mail from Bob McNichols, who
expressed his opposition to the request. Mr. McNichols stated he would forward
a letter, which Staff will distribute at the Council hearing on October 21, 2008.
II. BACKGROUND
The Planning and Environmental Commission, at their October 13, 2008 hearing,
recommended that the Council approve the request with the following conditions:
1
1. The applicant shall address the illegal demolition of the walkway on the east
side of the subject property, by submitting a Design Review application, prior
to the submittal of a Design Review application for the exterior changes
associated with this conversion.
2. The applicant shall comply with all Building Code requirements for ingress,
egress, and accessibility for Vail Village Inn Phase III which may include
improvements to the public walkway, along the east side of the subject
property, from the pedestrian plaza to Meadow drive. Compliance shall be
demonstrated in conjunction with Building Permit submittal.
3. The applicant shall install a new loading and delivery connection on the west
end of the existing underground parking garage (Under Building No. 1 in
Phase III) that aligns with the Plaza's existing loading and delivery garage
door at the east end of the underground parking garage, accessed off the
South Frontage Road, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 12-24
Inclusionary Zoning, by payment of a fee-in-lieu, in the amount of$37,314.11,
prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5. The applicant shall receive Design Review Board approval for the proposal,
prior to submitting a building permit application.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Town Council
deny the request based on the review criteria and findings found in Section VII of
Staff Memorandum dated October 13, 2008 (Attachment A).
Motion to Deny:
Should the Council choose to deny this amendment to a Special Development
District No. 6, the Department of Community Development recommends the
Council make the following motion:
"The Town Council deny's, the first reading of Ordinance No. 22, Series
of 2008, repealing and re-enacting Ordinance No. 6, Series of 2005, Vail
Village Inn, amending the approved development plan for Phase lll of
SDD No. 6, pursuant to Article 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail
Town Code, fo allow for the conversion of an existing office and retail
space to residential for an addition to an exisfing dwelling unif, located at
68 Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth
details in regard thereto."
Should the Council choose to deny this amendment to a Special Development
District No. 6, the Department of Community Development recommends the
Council make the following findings:
1. Thaf the amendment is in-consistent with the applicable elemenfs of
fhe adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan and is in-compatible with the development
objectives of the Town, based upon the review outlined in Section Vll
of the Staff's September 22, 2008, memorandum to the Planning and
Environmenfal Commission; and
2. That the amendment does not further the general and specific
2
purposes of the Zoning Regulations, based upon the review outlined
in Section Vll of the Staff's September 22, 2008, memorandum to the
Planning and Environmental Commission; and
3. That the amendment does not promote the health, safety, morals,
and general welfare of the Town, and does not promofe the
coordinafed and harmonious development of the Town in a manner
that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its
established character as a resort and residential communify of the
highest quality, based upon the review outlined in Section Vll of the
Staff's September 22, 2008, memorandum to the Planning and
Environmental Commission.
Motion to Approve:
Should the Council choose to approve this amendment to a Special
Development District No. 6, the Department of Community Development
recommends the Council make the following motion:
"The Town Council approves, with conditions, the first reading of
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008, repealing and re-enacting Ordinance
No. 6, Series of 2005, Vail Village Inn, amending fhe approved
development plan for Phase lll of SDD No. 6, pursuant to Article 12-9A-
10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, fo allow for the conversion
of an exisfing office and retail space to residenfial for an addition to an
existing dwelling unit, locafed at 68 Meadow Drive/Lot O, Block 5D, Vail
Village Filing 1, and setfing forth details in regard thereto."
Should the Council choose to approve this amendment, the Community
Development Department, consistent with the Planning and Environmental
Commission recommendation, suggests the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall address the illegal demolition of the walkway on
fhe east side of fhe subject property, by submitting a Design Review
application, prior to the submiftal of a Design Review applicafion for
the exterior changes associated with this conversion.
2. The applicant shall comply with all Building Code requirements for
ingress, egress, and accessibility for Vail Village Inn Phase lll which
may include improvements to the public walkway, along the east side
of the subject property, from the pedestrian plaza to Meadow drive.
Compliance shall be demonstrated in conjuncfion with Building Permif
submittal.
3. The applicant shall insfall a new loading and delivery connection on
the west end of the existing underground parking garage (Under
Building No. 1 in Phase lll) that aligns with the Plaza's existing loading
and delivery garage door af the east end of fhe underground parking
garage, accessed off the South Frontage Road, prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 12-24
Inclusionary Zoning, by payment of a fee-in-lieu, in the amount of
$37,314.11, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
5. The applicant shall receive Design Review Board approval for the
proposal, prior to submitting a building permit application.
3
Should the Council choose to approve this amendment, the Community
Development recommends the Council makes the following findings:
1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of
the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan and is in-compatible with the development
objectives of the Town, based upon the review outlined in Section Vll
of the Staff's September 22, 2008, memorandum to the Planning and
Environmental Commission; and
2. That fhe amendment does further the general and specific purposes
of the Zoning Regulations, based upon the review outlined in Secfion
VII of the Staff's Sepfember 22, 2008, memorandum to the Planning
and Environmenfal Commission; and
3. That the amendment does promote the health, safety, morals, and
general welfare of the Town, and does not promote the coordinated
and harmonious development of the Town in a manner that conserves
and enhances its natural environment and its established characfer as
a resort and residential community of the highest quality, based upon
fhe review outlined in Secfion Vll of the Staff's September 22, 2008,
memorandum to the Planning and Environmenfal Commission.
IV. ATTACHMENTS
A. Staff memorandum to PEC dated October 13, 2008, including plans
B. Staff Supplement memorandum to PEC dated October 13, 2008,
including applicant response and additional citizen letter.
C. Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008
D. PEC October 13, 2008 minutes
4
Attachment D:
DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
October 13, 2008
1:OOpm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Bill Pierce Sarah Robinson-Paladino
Rollie Kjesbo Scott Proper
Susie Tjossem David Viele
Michael Kurz
Site Visits:
1. Village Inn Plaza, 68 Meadow Drive
2. Lionshead Public View Corridors, Lionshead Village
45 Minutes
1. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major
amendment to Special Development District No. 6, Village Inn Plaza, pursuant to Article
12-9A, Special Development District, Vail Town Code, to allow for the conversion of an
existing office and retail space to residential for an addition to an existing dwelling unit,
located at 68 Meadow Drive (Village Inn Plaza)/Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1,
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080049)
Applicant: Colorado Company, represented by Sherman & Howard, LLC
Planner: Nicole Peterson
ACTION: Recommendation of approval, with conditions
MOTION: Tjossem SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 2-1-1 (Kurz opposed,
Pierce recused)
CONDITION(S):
1. The applicant shall address the illegal demolition of the walkway on the
east side of the subject property, by submitting a Design Review application, prior
to the submittal of a Design Review application for the exterior changes
associated with this conversion.
2. The applicant shall comply with all Building Code requirements for ingress,
egress, and accessibility for Vail Village Inn Phase III which may include
improvements to the public walkway, along the east side of the subject property,
from the pedestrian plaza to Meadow drive. Compliance shall be demonstrated in
conjunction with Building Permit submittal.
3. The applicant shall install a new loading and delivery connection on the
west end of the existing underground parking garage (Under Building No. 1 in
Phase III) that aligns with the Plaza's existing loading and delivery garage door at
the east end of the underground parking garage, accessed off the South Frontage
Road, prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 12-24
Inclusionary Zoning, by payment of a fee-in-lieu, in the amount of$37,314.11, prior
to the issuance of a building permit.
5
5. The applicant shall receive Design Review Board approval for the proposal,
prior to submitting a building permit application.
Commissioner Pierce identified he had a conflict of interest on this item and recused
himself from the hearing.
Nicole Peterson distributed a Supplemental Staff inemorandum and brought attention to
the illegal construction that had occurred on site, the week prior. She informed the
Commission that Staff was recommending that this application be tabled until such time
as a Design Review application could be submitted in regards to the illegal walkway
demolition.
Tim Devlin of Sherman and Howard, representing the applicant, stated the
circumstances behind the construction that had occurred on site. He stated that Deanne
Hall, the president of the Vail Village Inn Phase III, had apparently requested the work
be performed without the knowledge that a Design Review application was necessary.
A Design Review application has been forwarded to the association president for review.
The Commissioners spoke with each other and it was determined that they would hear
the application and if necessary they would place a condition on any motion directing
Vail Village Inn Phase III to correct the situation with regard to the walkway.
Nicole Peterson continued with her presentation per, explaining the Staff inemorandum
and stated that staff is recommending denial of the application.
Tim Devlin continued with his presentation drawing attention to the table contained in the
Staff memorandum which compared the proposed application to those previously
approved. He utilized several boards depicting floor plans to make several points with
regard to the frontage of retail being removed and the amount of square footage on the
ground floor. He continued by going through the memorandum's background on
previous residential expansion approvals. He pointed out that his client would propose
to utilize the pay-in-lieu option to mitigate the employee housing mitigation.
Jonathan Stauffer, representing the subject property owner, gave some background on
the events leading to the illegal construction. He further stated that the owner of
residential unit#110 (subject of addition/ conversion), occupies his unit the entirety of
the winter season. Thus the unit is a hot/warm bed during the ski season.
Commissioner Kjesbo, asked what Staff would think if the application did not include the
Digits Salon and a portion of the Real Estate office.
Warren Campbell, Chief of Planning, stated that Staff did suggest utilizing only the
interior portion of`To Catch A Cook.' He stated that planning staff would review the
application differently, if that was the proposal; however, he did not commit to any
recommendation that would result.
Ken Bridges of Blue Line Architects, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on
the reasons behind the layout proposed. He pointed out the traffic flow within the unit
and the need for the stairs to be located in the space proposed.
Joe Stauffer, owner of the commercial space to be converted, stated that there had been
an office use in the real estate space since the start of the project and that he believes
6
the subject area has very little pedestrian traffic.
Rob Robinson of Robinson Mitchell and Associates (subject Real Estate office) stated
that he would like to stay in the Village. He added that he has received very little walk-in
traffic at his office in the years he's been there.
Commissioner Kurz, stated that he has not served on previous Commissions and
therefore, cannot comment on how the precedence of retail to residential in this area
came to be. He added that he could not predict the amount of pedestrian traffic in the
future, as a result of the Solaris tunnel. He stated concern that this is a permanent
change and does not believe the application adheres to the Vail Village Master Plan.
Commissioner Tjossem, believes that this area is not vibrant and there is a precedence
for conversion set. She believes the conversion is appropriate.
Commissioner Kjesbo stated that he agreed with Commissioner Kurz, that it is difficult to
predict the Solaris tunnel effect on the amount of pedestrian traffic in the plaza. He also
stated that his vote of support, if a motion where made to forward a recommendation of
approval, would be based on the opinion that the `To Catch a Cook' retail space is a
second story retail area, and thus is comparable to the previous approvats of 2nd and
3rd story commercial conversions to residential.
7