HomeMy WebLinkAbout121608 Council MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 16, 2008
SUBJECT: A request for second 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)
Since the December 2, 2008, Town Council hearing, the applicant has changed
the proposal to include a 964 square foot, deed restricted employee housing unit
(EHU) on Bellflower Drive. The applicant is required to provide the equivalent of
123.7 square feet of EHU floor area under Section 12-24 Inclusionary Zoning,
Vail Town Code. The applicant is proposing to offer 38.9% of the 964 square
foot unit, or 375 square feet of the EHU (3x the required square footage), as part
of this proposal, which is 251.3 square feet more than the requirement. The
remaining 589 square feet (964 square foot unit — 375 square feet in this
proposal = 589 square feet remaining) of the EHU shall be credited in the
applicant's mitigation bank, under Section 12-24-7 Mitigation Bank, Vail Town
Code.
1
II. BACKGROUND
The Plann_ing and Environmental Commission, at their October 13, 2008 hearinq,
recommended that the Council approves the request with conditions
The Planning and Environmental Commission voted 2-1-1 (Kurz opposed, Pierce
recused) to forward the recommendation of approval. The two votes
recommending approval are summarized below from the meeting minutes of
October 13, 2008:
Commissioner Tjossem, believes fhaf 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 difficulf to predict fhe Solaris funnel 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 approvals of 2nd and 3rd
sfory commercial conversions to residenfial.
The one vote (in opposition to the motion) recommending denial is summarized
below from the meeting minutes of October 13, 2008:
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.
The Town Council, at the October 21, 2008 Council meeting, approved
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008, on first reading with the following conditions.
Updates regarding the following conditions are stated after each condifion
in bold italics:
1. The Vail Village Inn Homeowner's Association 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. The Design Review Board at their November 19, 2008
meeting approved the demolition of the walkway on the east side of
the subject property, rendering this condition unnecessary.
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, a�ong the east side of the
subject property, from the pedestrian plaza to Meadow drive. Compliance
shall be demonstrated in conjunction with Building Permit submittal. The
Building Official, in his October 20, 2008 email to Staff states, in
2
summary, that any addition/alteration to the site will require 20% of
the construcfion project cost to be spent towards accessibility
(Section 3409.5 and 3409.6 IBC) because the subject building #2 is
not handicap accessible. The monies collected thru this
requirement may be spent anywhere on site, that increases
accessibility fo building #2 (not necessarily for the public walkway
along the east side of the subject property). The email renders this
condition unnecessary.
3. The applicant shall install or cause to be installed, 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. The applicant has submitted
a building permit application (B08-0398) to construct a new garage
door connection at the location specified in the above condition.
The permit application is in review, awaiting further information from
the applicant.
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. The applicant has
stated, at previous meetings, that they are willing to pay the fee-in-
lieu for the Inclusionary Zoning requirement. It was suggested, at
the December 2, 2008 Town Council hearing that the applicant shall
increase the amount from the required 10% of net new residential
(123Jsf x $301.65 = $37,314,11) to 50% (618.5 x $301.65 =
$186,570.52) as a proposed public benefit.
5. The applicant shall receive Design Review Board approval for the
proposal, prior to submitting a building permit application.
6. The applicant shall facilitate the dedication and recording of a public
easement over the existing pocket park located directly north of the
proposed front door of Unit #110 in a form acceptable to the Town
Attorney. A copy of the recorded easement shall be submitted in prior to
release of the Building Permit. At the November 4, 2008 meeting,
Town Attorney, Matt Mire, stated that this condition is not
enforceable by law, rendering this condition unnecessary.
The Town Council, at the November 4, 2008 meeting tabled Ordinance No. 22,
Series of 2008, on second reading and requested Staff provide an analysis of the
public benefits of the project.
As stated above, at the November 4, 2008 meeting, Town Attorney, Matt Mire,
stated that the condition to facilitate the dedication of an easement over the
existing pocket park, was not enforceable by law. This conclusion was a major
concern for the Council, and therefore they requested an analysis of other
developments and the proposed public benefits.
The Town Council, at the December 2, 2008 meeting tabled Ordinance No. 22,
Series of 2008, on second reading and requested the applicant reconsider the
public benefits associated with the proposal.
At the December 2, 2008 Town Council meeting, Staff provided a report of recent
3
development public benefits and minutes of the November 4, 2008 Town Council
meeting for the Council's review. Staff also gave a presentation explaining the
applicant's proposed loading and delivery improvements, inciuding a
delivery/wheelchair lift and garage door connection on the west end of the
existing underground parking garage, which were proposed as public benefits.
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's October 13, 2008 memorandum to the Planning and Environmental
Commission.
III. PUBLIC BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Does the proposed public benefit of providing an accessibility and
delivery lift that strengthens the connectivity and pedestrianization
of SDD No. 6, Vail Village Inn and additional EHU area (251.3 square
feet over the requirement) outweigh the adverse effects of
converting 1,237 square feet of commercial space to residential?
According to 12-9A-9 Special Development (SDD) District, Development
Standards, Vail Town Code, the public benefit of a project shall outweigh the
adverse effects of the deviation, as stated below:
12-9A-9: Special Developmenf District, Development Standards
Development standards including lof area, site dimensions,
setbacks, height, densify control, sife coverage, landscaping and
parking shall be determined by the town council as part of the
approved development plan with consideration of the
recommendations of the planning and environmental commission.
Before the town council approves development standards that
deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined
that such deviation provides benefits to the town that outweiqh the
adverse effects of such deviation. This defermination is to be
made based on evaluation of the proposed special development
district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in section 12-
9A-8 of this article.
The applicant is proposing additional GRFA (1,237 square feet) which is the
deviation from the approved SDD No. 6, Vail Village Inn development plan. Staff
believes the adverse effect of the proposal is the loss of commercial space on
the pedestrian plaza.
For comparison purposes, Staff has created a table, below, that includes the
previous two conversions within SDD No. 6, Vai► Village Inn. The table compares
each of the project's conversion area, linear feet on a pedestrian plaza, deviation
request, adverse effects and public benefits with estimated dollar amounts.
4
Project Converted Linear Deviation Adverse Public Benefit
Commercial Feet on Requested Effects
Square Pedestri
Footage an Plaza
Ordinance 2,132 (700 70 feet Additional Loss of None ($0)
32, Series sf on GRFA commercial
of 2003 pedestrian space on a
Conversion level) pedestrian
(Alpenrose) plaza
Ordinance 1,158 (107 18 feet Additional Loss of �245 sf of heated paver
No. 6, sf on GRFA commercial streetscape on Meadow
Series of pedestrian space on a Drive (245 sf x$110
2005 level) pedestrian per sf= $26,950)
Conversion plaza
(Phoenix
Risin
Proposed 1,237 (All on 12 feet Additional Loss of Accessibility and
Ordinance pedestrian GRFA commercial delivery lift
No. 22, level) space on a (--$41,200) &
Series of pedestrian Additional EHU area =
2008 plaza 251.3 sf over
requirement (251.3 x
$301.65 per sf=
$75,804.64)
Total = $117,004.64
Staff believes that if the Council chose to approve the request, then the public
benefit should outweigh the adverse effect of losing commercial space on the
pedestrian plaza and that the public benefits should further the goals and
objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan, stated below. The proposed
accessibility and delivery lift could be considered a public benefit that furthers the
goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan, stated below:
Vail Village Master Plan
Mixed Use Sub-Area #1 (Includes SDD No. 6, Vail Village Inn)
The Mixed-Use sub-area is a prominent activity center for Vail Village. It is
distinguished from the Village core by fhe larger scale buildings and by the
limited auto traffic along East Meadow Drive. Comprised of five major
development projects, this sub-area is characterized by a mixture of
residential/lodging and commercial activity.
It is also a long term goal to strengthen the connection between this area and the
Villaqe core area by reinforcinq the established pedestrian linkacaes.
Pedestrianization in this area may; benefit from the development of retail infill
with associated pedestrian improvements along Easf Meadow Drive and the
development of public access to Gore Creek.
Mixed Use Sub-Area #1-1 Vail Village Inn
Final phase of Vail Village Inn project fo be completed as esfablished by
development plan for SDD #6. Commercial developmenf at pround, level to
frame interior plaza wifh greenspace. Mass of buildings shall "sfep up" from
existing pedestrian-scale along Meadow Drive to 4-5 stories along the Frontage
Road.
5
Parking and Circulation Plan
The pedestrian plaza that fronts the subject commercial area, is highlighted as
part of the Village pedestrian network, illustrated in the Vail Village Master Plan —
`Parking and Circulation Plan' (below). The proposed accessibility and delivery
lift addresses pedestrianization and connectivity within SDD No. 6, Vail Village
Inn.
t �q
..� - � � ' �`��—��'�.'�����'�� �Y�.::.Yr 6`.,ti+.+s w.v+`._���-i�''i r ��•.
{ , g r v�vu��ti ..
ti`r'6, .. . M „o, ^-Q�� �+ �}����-�'.L s'�.�".'�� '_,.� i
w�. ra 9-:. .r+..:+�� rvr..x�` c+ .T ', j P .�h _
+ —r �
�- �'F —
9r. .;;,,�:' -- -� '
. ..• �� .
,. �_�a� , ,
�,_ �, .,;:.•:r.',
. . .,L '• ��. ......... !!! • -a. ... J
.' e., �.. .5�f'�.�S...Y�r�.e� . �
d .f�' i�— .u. . .. �
. . S . ... �_ �kr ��5'
P��... ���p _ _...,,1 �. — m�� '�-s�� '_� . �..1 Sr��P�� eL
d����`� �—�'��-. . J � �..��� _ ��_ �, � I ' �r'�
� � .
o r � — � �;+ �I J � '
J� _� P`�
�. �F �� ��a.+�� � �.€wr�� I ...
Milk�'° � r�,,�� r �,xae irw �� 1 �., . A !� s�
� � �" � ._ �F 'r�j� � � �,.� v _ "_".— I :}�� a,
�r� J P��j le• ,'.� I_ } �1 � .��hvrS�'
�� 1 �. 4��• 4 ' I .• �AJ ri't ,'f�
F2 V A�,';° Iy �
�' S5 � r���p� J , Ih�� h" �•"�,Y . .. �• � `v. 1;. ' k��
1 I ;
f�' i� `I !L. ,• +aG ��'• '- �.''�� I #:c.f,x I�.'� I . -� _�„' .
,° � ,�• 'Y��'~ ' ti Iy .. 1 .
� .� :�: �,�r� P��.4 !I.. — r 4�... .. - �
,i, � ' �y �• I �i'• fl s� g..
� I � �
� � �1 �a
� �.� i 4: �;` `.1 � ~�+. � ;r�J�',�
— .-J ��� '°���` � ;i 'x ; � _ �'_ -
� � , ������-.��.,�F��� �_� � ,.�_� ` ��:�= �-,
�: � w �' . � t— ' �
��{{ , F titM1i}-+J-4 �TA r6.k�4+ 5 '` '�. �S• 4.f,•` +fi � ~ �
• ��_ .
� � �' �
� � � �e� °��•rA �r
I ���°}7� _r �!,>���#7�'S � '~ ,l ��' 2 �� �++� A
� }�_ _ - . �,�`° f' 1 �' '�'���
A � � � v' v. -...
�
i . ,�.��.� � < <5 � ��� �:
�� _ }*
�,• . � //
* �'Cti-`"��� �'k , ,�, •�
f �' � °.{,C., �f�.y, 1�/ L � ., , �: !g 5 '�L,e'`k4
� � s��-. If . �+ s ."°.. +y d l/ 'Sk �}' 4 .:�,�� /+ � . ' 1
�.. _ 1 � ..• .
�'..,,� i "•. -:,k�tPal„ ' ���RCk'49.f�4N ���',� � �:'Sw �•-� ��
,r r� • ��s�:��wr � .�� �
� �.� ���
�+ r'y'�+�' � �. �.�~ � "ti..•'r_�,,��f i�°: �..���_�i � � ��;�
'I �. '— � .� � f� �ti S a � _� �.�� 5 �'
� � ,4 ti; t'.'
. i�q � ���.. ��. . . .. �t .���� i. . 4i �� � '� .'.�'
The above Parking and Circulation Plan illustrates the `Village pedestrian
network' as designated in the Vail Village Master Plan. The circle is the area of
the proposed conversion from commercial to residential. The shaded line
running east/west thru the circle is a designated `walking path.' The Vail Village
Master Plan states the following, regarding the Parking and Circulation Plan:
Aesthetic, as well as functional considerations are important to the Village's
circulation system. A lonq standinq qoal for the Villape has been fo improve the
pedestrian experience throuqh the development of a continuous network of paths
and walkways. As a result, the irregular street pattern in the Village has been
enhanced with, numerous pedestrian connections linking "plazas with
greenspace" and other forms of open space. Located in and alonp this network
are most of the Village's retail and entertainment activities. While fhe majority of
fhe circulation system within the Village is in place, a number of maior
im,nrovements are proposed fo reinforce and increase existinp pedestrian
connections, facilitate access to public land alonp stream tracfs, and further
reduce vehicular activitv in the core area.
6
IV. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL
Should the Council choose to approve this amendment to Special Development
District No. 6, the Council may make the following motion:
"The Town Council approves, wifh conditions, the second reading of
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008, repealing and re-enacting Ordinance
No. 6, Series of 2005, Vail Village Inn, amending the approved
developmenf plan for Phase lll of SDD No. 6, pursuant to Article 12-9A-
10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, fo allow for fhe 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."
Should the Council choose to approve this amendment, the Council may make
the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide a recorded deed restriction,
acceptable to the Town Attorney, for an employee housing unit on
Bellflower Drive thaf is a minimum of 964 square feet, acceptable
to the Zoning Administrator, prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
2. The applicant shall install an accessibilify and delivery lift located
near Osaki's, prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of
occupancy or certificate of occupancy. The applicant shall submit
a development plan that reflects the locafion, installation
specifications and documentation for the maintenance and repair
of said accessibility and delivery lift, for review and approval by
the Town Attorney and Zoning Administrator, prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
Should the Council choose to approve this amendment, the Council may make
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 compatible with the development
objectives of the Town; and
2. That fhe amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of
the Zoning Regulafions; and
3. That the amendment promotes fhe health, safety, morals, and
general welfare of the Town, and promotes the coordinated and
harmonious development of the Town in a manner fhaf conserves
and enhances its natural environment and its esfablished
characfer as a resort and residential community of the highest
quality.
IV. ATTACHMENTS
Ordinance No. 22, Series of 2008, second reading
7