Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-0308 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 8, 1993 AGENDA Proiect Orientation/Lunch 12:00 p.m. Site Visits 12:45 p.m. Gillett Hill Building Nicholas 2 Saabs, 1 Blazer - Tim, Jim and Shelly are drivers. Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. 2:00 - 2:30 1. A request for a major exterior alteration to allow exterior modifications to the Hill Building located at 254 Bridge Street/a part of Lot L, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Blanche Hill Planner: Shelly Mello 2:30 - 3:00 2. A request for setback variances to allow for an addition to Vail Rowhouse Unit 13i1-ot 13, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: N.J. Nicholas Planner: Jim Curnutte 3:00 - 3:45 3. A request for a site coverage variance to allow an addition to the residence located at Lot 8, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing/3090 Booth Creek Drive. Applicant: Rose Foster Gillett Planner: Tim Devlin 4. A request for a wall height variance to allow the construction of hazard mitigation located at Lot 16, Vail Valley Third Filing/2039 Sunburst Drive. Applicant: Mike Grisanti Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO MARCH 22, 1993 5. A request for a wall height variance for a property located at 3130 Booth Falls 0 1 Court/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Piling Applicant: Johann Mueller Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO MAY 10, 1993 6. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 1111480 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: Steve GensierfParkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO MARCH 22, 1993 7. Appoint a PEC Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson for one year duration. Appoint a PEC representative to the Parking and Transportation advisory committee. Appoint a PEC representative to the Arts in Public Places Board. 8. Council update: - Police Building call-up. 9. Schedule PEC retreat. Is 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MARCH 8, 1993 MINUTES PRESENT ABSENT STAFF Diana Donovan Jeff Bowen Bill Anderson Kathy Langenwalter Dalton Williams Greg Amsden Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Tim Devlin Shelly Mello Jim Curnutte Larry Eskwith 1. Starting at approximately 2:05 p.m., the Planning and Environmental Commission was called to order for a request for a major exterior alteration to allow modifications to the Hill Building located at 254 Bridge Streetla part of Lot I and part of Lot C, Block 5-C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant. Blanche Hill Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello made a brief presentation per the staff memo and stated that the staff recommends approval of this request for a major exterior alteration with the eight conditions set forth in the staff memo. Diana Donovan requested to look at a drawing of the proposed windows. Shelly Mello showed the PEC the drawing and explained what staff would like to see done with regard to the window mullions. Jay Peterson, the applicant's representative, stated that the window width is 2 feet. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the issue is whether the PEC thinks there are enough divisions in the windows. She also stated that what the applicant is proposing is a good solution to the window issue. Jay Peterson stated that the white plastic furniture on the west side would be removed from this site. Kristan Pritz stated for clarification that the DRB had rejected the white plastic furniture at the Transportation Center, but it was "still up for grabs" with regard to the Popcorn Wagon. Planning and Environmental Commission March 8,1593 Diana Donovan inquired whether the applicant had any questions for the PEC concerning the eight conditions set forth by staff. With regard to condition five, Jack stated that he had no problem with getting approval for the coin operated ski storage facilities located on Town of Vail property, but with regard to the coin operated ski storage facilities located on United States Forest Service property, they have had approval to use this land since 1976. With regard to condition six pertaining to areas of encroachment, Jay stated that no additional encroachments were proposed under this request and that the encroachments that are already in existence were approved fifteen to twenty years ago. The applicant feels it would be unfair to have to change them now or obtain a revocable right-of-way permit. Concerning condition seven of the staff memo, Jay said that the chicken wire fencing was in place to prevent people from leaning their skis up against the tree. He stated that when skis are left against the tree, they cause the Christmas lights to short out. With regard to condition eight, he stated that the applicant would like to participate in the design of the pavers and the drainage improvements. Kristan Pritz stated that the applicant's involvement in the design of the pavers and the drainage improvements would be implicit. Shelly Mello stated that the staff was seeking a revocable right-of-way for the existing planters and, with regard to bicycles in the summertime, the applicant would need to obtain approval from the Town to locate these in the future. Jay Peterson stated that they would seek an application to deal with the bicycle issue. Diana Donovan inquired what the PEC wished to do with condition six of the staff memo. Larry Eskwith stated that an acceptable method of dealing with encroachments on Town of Vail property is to deal with them at the time the applicant applies for a building permit. Jack Curtin inquired whether condition seven could be done away with and it would be implicit that they (the applicant and his architect) would work with the Town. He stated that he felt three of the conditions were relevant but the other conditions did not pertain to this present project. Diana Donovan stated that some of the items were a sort of "housekeeping" that needed to be resolved and that addressing these issues in this forum was a way to document them. She further requested that the applicant provide the Town with a copy of the letter from the United States Forest Service approving the placement of the coin operated ski storage facilities on their property. Jack Curtin stated that he was not going to agree to the items that he was unfamiliar with (i.e. revocable right-of-way), but that he would work with the Town of Vail for resolution to these issues. Planning and Environmental Commission March 8, 1993 2 Jay Peterson stated that the white plastic furniture would be removed and that the new furniture which would be approved by the DRB. He said that he believes this proposal is positive and offers the Town a lot with regards to improving the area. Kristan Pritz stated that Streetscape furniture is appropriate for this site. Jack Curtin stated that wood or metal furniture would not work because this type of furniture will hinder snow removal in the wintertime. He further stated that if this was to be the case, that tables and chairs would not be put out at all. Jeff Bowen stated that he feels this proposal will be a nice improvement to this area but that he has two hesitancies concerning this request. His first concern pertains to the windows on the northeast side of the Hill Building. It was his understanding that they were to be reduced to 18 inches, but the current plan shows them to be 24 inches. His second concern pertains to the type of furniture placed on this site. He stated that whatever is placed there must be approved by the DRB. Jay Peterson responded by saying that the original windows were drawn at 36 inches and that they had cutback the dimensions to 24 inches, which is as low as they felt they could go. Dalton Williams stated that the 24 inches was significant, and that it was his feeling that 18 inches was enough. With regard the furniture, he stated that the tables and chairs placed on this site do need to be easily movable and conform with the Streetscape Plan and he hoped that something mutually acceptable could be found to resolve this matter. Dalton also added that the power distribution box on the west elevation needs to be worked into the design of the building. Kathy Langenwalter stated that a change in the white plastic furniture should be part of the DRB submittal and that she would feel more comfortable if the windows were pulled back a little more. She said that although she felt this way, she would' not be voting against this request. Jack Curtin stated that if the windows were pulled back any further there would be virtually no room for display in the windows. Bill Anderson stated that he had no major concerns with this request, but that he would like to see the furniture situation taken care of. Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see mutually agreeable furniture placed on the site and that she would like to see the windows pulled back as well. She stated that she would not vote against this request, but that it was her feeling the windows still need to be pulled back because if the windows are built at 2 feet, the view will be affected. Planning and Environmental Commission March 8, 1993 3 Kathy L.angenwalter motioned to approve this request for a major exterior alteration per the staff memo with the following additions or corrections to the eight conditions set 10 forth by staff: 1. That the applicant provide streetscape furniture along the east and west sides. This includes the addition of one wooden bench at the northeast entry and a seating arrangement on the west facade which should include approximately three benches 5-8 feet in length or three tables and chairs (four per table), or combination of the above. This will replace the existing plastic furniture currently used. Kathy added that the DRB would need to approve the proposed furniture placed on this site. 2. That a vertical mullion will be added to the bay window and door sidelights to improve the window articulation. Kathy stated that this condition should be eliminated. 3. That the applicant must conform to all sign code criteria. This would include the reduction of the signage for the Sonnenalp ski storage located on the east side of the building to 112 square feet total with a maximum of one sign. This would need to be reviewed by the DRB in conjunction with this project and altered immediately. In addition, should the Sonnenalp ski storage facilities, on the west side of the building, not fit in the existing location after the installation of the proposed landscaping planter, the staff would be opposed to these facilities projecting any further into the walkway that the current encroachment which extends to the west edge of the tree grates; 4. That all conditions of the approved sign variance associated with this building will need to be met. The applicant will need to amend the sign variance approval for this business in order to allow for any change in signage; 5. That the applicant will remove or obtain approval for all coin operated ski storage facilities not located on the applicant's property. Approval will need to be obtained from both the Town of Vail and the United States Forest Service. Kathy added that the applicant should give the Town of Vail a copy of the United States Forest Service letter for their fife. 6. That a revocable right-of-way permit will need to be obtained for all encroachments, existing and proposed, on the Town of Vail right of way. Kathy added that an acceptable resolution concerning the revocable right- of-way permit be found prior to issuance of a building permit. 7. That the applicant will remove all prohibited materials from the property. Specifically, the chicken wire fencing which attached to the metal railings along the west side of the property. Planning and Environmental Commission March 8, 1993 4 3. That the applicant agrees to allow pavers and drainage improvements to be placed on the east and southeast portions of the Hill Building property in order to implement the Town of Vail Streetscape improvements (i.e. Seibert Circle and pedestrian access to the Vail Mountain) at such time that this project is implemented. Kathy added that the applicant should be allowed to comment on the design for this area to Insure problems are avoided in the design solution. 9. Kathy added the condition that the DR13 look at the power box meters on the west elevation. Jeff Bowen seconded this motion and a unanimous 5-0 vote approved this item. Diana Donovan stated to the applicant that this does not relieve him of any financial responsibility towards Seibert Circle improvements. Kristan Pritz stated that for clarification, condition eight of the staff memo assumes DRB approval. Diana Donovan stated that she would like to make a recommendation that the car that is parked in this area be removed because it does not meet the current demands for the area and contradicts with the intentions of the Design Guidelines and Master Plan adopted in the past ten years. Kristan Pritz added that the staff shall review any documentation the applicant may have on the cars and staff will report to Town Council the results of the research. This is based on the concern that the car does not contribute to the Streetscape Plan and intentions of the Urban Design Guidelines. Dalton Williams added because of the Streetscape Plan and the Design Guidelines, that he would like to see this issue pursued and made a motion on Diana's recommendation with Jeff Bowen seconding and a 5-0 vote by the PEC approved this recommendation. 2. A request for a setback variance to allow for the addition of an enclosed entryway and a new second story deck at the Vail Rowhouse Unit 13/1-ot 13, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: N.J. Nicholas Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that staff was recommending approval of this setback variance request. He stated that staff feels that the setback variance is warranted on this site due to the extraordinary circumstances and physical hardship which has resulted from the way the Vail Rowhouse project was subdivided into fee simple owned lots. He said that the impact Planning and Environmental Commission March 8, 1993 5 of the addition, if any, would only be felt by the adjacent property owner of Lot 12 (Mr. Galvin), who does not oppose this request. The staff recommendation for approval included the condition that additional landscaping be added along the east side of the lot as well as a cluster of trees on the north side. Steve Riden, the architect for this project, stated that he was in agreement with staff concerning the placement of the trees on the east side of the building but that he was concerned with the north side landscaping because it could block Mr. Galvin's view of Gore Greek. He stated that there will be a couple of aspen trees planted on the northwest side of the lot but did not want to plant anymore trees back there. Jeff Bowen stated that a notable cluster of spruce trees should be planted on the southeast side of the lot. Steve Riden stated that he would be willing to add additional landscaping to the east side of the lot and that currently there were only three aspens trees on the property, which are located in a planter on the west property line border. Diana Donovan stated that the landscaping would be looked at again in DRB. Bill Anderson stated that there appeared to be a "hole" at the front of the site with regard to landscaping. Diana Donovan stated that it was her concern that it will "look like a big building failing off its lot" and that additional landscaping was necessary in the front (south) to break up the buildings' mass. Steve Riden responded that he would talk to Mr. Galvin about putting a landscape island between their two properties so that trees can be added to the front of the property. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the first building (Lot 13) is the closest to the road and maybe angling the corners of the deck would soften the building's lines. Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see the angled deck corners as a requirement. Steve Riden responded that he would prefer not to change the deck form and that he would like to pursue the idea of additional landscaping on the front side of the lot by adding a landscape island straddling the Lot 12 and Lot 13 lot line. Jim Curnutte stated that it was important to get the adjacent owner's approval for any landscaping that would affect his property. Steve Riden stated that he did not foresee a problem getting approval from the adjacent property owner. Planning and Envi.......,:.nMal Commission March 8,1993 6 Jim Curnutte inquired whether there was room for the landscaping that Mr. Riden was proposing and still meet the minimum parking space size requirements. Steve Riden responded that if the posts surrounding the parking area were moved there would be space for a landscape island. Dalton Williams made a motion to approve this request for a west side setback variance per the staff memo with the additional condition that a planter with trees and shrubs be placed between Mr. Galvin's and Mr. Nicholas' property and on the southeast corner of the lot, directly behind the parking area and as close to the building as possible. Kathy Langenwalter seconded the motion and a unanimous 5-0 vote approved this request. Diana Donovan added that all corners of this property should have additional landscaping of some form. Dalton Williams stated that DRB will address the specifics concerning landscaping. As an aside item, Diana Donovan stated that she would like to make a recommendation that flowers be removed from Roger Staub Park, which is located immediately east of the Nicholas building, in order to make room for a picnic table and a garbage can. This would make the park more inviting to people and would allow it to be used more. Kristan Pritz then inquired of the PEC that if Todd Oppenheimer did not want the flowers removed but still added a picnic table and a garbage can, would that be agreeable to the PEC. The PEC said that this would be agreeable and unanimously voted (5-0) for this recommendation. 3. A request for a site coverage variance to allow an addition to the residence located at Lot 8, Block 3, Vail Village 11 th Filing/3090 Booth Creek Drive. Applicant. Rose Foster Gillett Planner; Tim Devlin Tim Devlin made a presentation per the staff memo and summarized the applicant's proposed mitigation for the 1 foot overhang. He said that the staff was recommending denial of this request for a site coverage variance on the basis of the strict interpretation of the regulations pertaining to this situation. Diana Donovan summarized the PEC's feelings on this proposal by saying that a unique situation exists in that the overhang was shown on the DRB and building permit plans, and they feel that they can find that a hardship exists. Therefore, they can Manning and Environmental Commission March 8, 1993 7 approve the request for a site coverage variance upon this basis. She further stated that one 10 foot evergreen tree needs to be planted on the site near the transformer. Dalton Williams motioned to approve this request for a site variance with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion, with a unanimous 5-0 vote to approve this item. A condition was added that one 10 foot tree was to be planted in front of the transformer in the front yard. 4. A request for a wall height variance to allow the construction of hazard mitigation located at Lot 16, Vail Valley Third Filing/2039 Sunburst Drive. Applicant: Mike Grisanti Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO MARCH 22,1993 Dalton Williams motioned to table this request with Kathy Langenwalter seconding the motion. A unanimous vote of 5-0 tabled this request until March 22, 1993. 5. A request for a wall height variance for a property located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing Applicant: Johann Mueller Planner: Shelly Mello TABLED TO MAY 10, 1993 Dalton Williams motioned to table this request with Kathy Langenwalter seconding the motion. A unanimous vote of 5-0 tabled this request until May 10, 1993. n 6. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase 1111430 Buffer Creek Rd. Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO MARCH 22, 1993 Dalton Williams motioned to table this request with Kathy Langenwalter seconding the motion. A unanimous vote of 5-0 tabled this request until March 22, 1993. 7. Appoint a PEC Chairperson and a Vice-Chairperson for one year duration. Appoint a PEC representative to the Parking and Transportation advisory committee. Appoint a PEC representative to the Arts in Public Places Board. Kristan Pritz stated that the Town is still trying to fill the vacant position on the PEC board and the Town Council will have to approve the appointment. Jeff Bowen made a motion to table the appointment of a Chairperson and a Vice- Chairperson until such time as the vacant position on the PEC is filled with Diana Donovan seconding the motion. A unanimous 5-0 vote tabled these appointments until such time as the vacant PEC position is filled. Planning and Environmental Commission March 8, 1993 8 Kathy Langenwalter stated that she would continue to be the PEC representative to the Arts in Public Places Board. Diana Donovan stated that she was under the impression that she was the representative of the PEC to the Parking and Transportation advisory committee and that if there were no objections, she would continue to be the representative. Jeff Bowen stated that he would serve as Diana's alternate to the Parking and Transportation advisory committee. Kristan Pritz stated that the next Parking and Transportation advisory committee meeting was scheduled for March 18, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. at the Public Works Department. 8. Kristan Pritz gave an update on the Police Building Addition. She stated that the Town Council wanted to try and tie the new addition into the existing Municipal Building and add an entryway to the Municipal Building. She stated that Town Council had approved most of the conditions set forth by the PEC from the February 22, 1993 meeting. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she felt that the PEC's concerns were not strongly communicated to the Town Council at the PEC report the following day and that, in the future, it would behoove the PEC to have their own spokesperson present to address the Town Council on the PEC's standpoint on specific projects. Jeff Bowen stated that he told the Town Council that they were all uncomfortable with the present parking situation at the Municipal Complex. He stated that he agreed with Kathy Langenwalter that at least one PEC member should be present to address Town Council concerning the PEC's position.. Kristan Pritz agreed that the PEC's presence at Town Council meetings is helpful. Kathy Langenwalter stated that it is unnecessary for three PEC members to attend Town Council meetings and that the PEC should decide in advance of such meetings which PEC member will go to the Town Council meeting. She stated that it was her feeling that this decision needs to be formally dealt with. Kristan Pritz also gave the PEC an update on the Gold Peak House. She stated that the encroachments will be discussed after the end of this ski season and that the earliest it would be heard by the PEC was May 24, 1993. Kristan said that Clark Willingham has agreed to another work session with the PEG. Mike Mollica stated that this would probably happen in June. Diana Donovan stated that perhaps the Community Development staff could run the view corridor issue in front of the Town Council. Planning and Environmental Commission March 8, 1993 9 Kristan Pritz said that this could possibly happen at a Town Council work session. 10. Kristan Pritz started a general discussion about a potential PEC retreat that could be scheduled some time after the new PEC member is appointed. She suggested possible topics for the retreat, which included: the purpose of the PEC, planning documents, team skills and communication skills, conflict resolution and listening skills. Diana Donovan inquired what the time frame for such a retreat would be and whether it would be during or after the ski season. Kristan Pritz stated that the retreat might be for one or two days in late April or May. Bill Anderson inquired whether this retreat would be a professional seminar. Kristan Prtz stated that the retreat will involve Community Development staff and maybe John Lincoln from Colorado West or another facilitator. Dalton Williams then suggested maybe a Saturday and Sunday retreat for a total of one to one and one-half days with the DRB and Town Council with both separate and joint meetings between the three boards. Kristan Pritz stated that this could be helpful with respect to communication between the boards. Jeff Bowen stated that all members of the three boards need to be involved in an unstructured gathering where they are all on equal ground. Kathy L.angenwalter suggested that a compromise could be a "miniseries" format where some topics could be taken separately. She stated that she finds the project orientations/lunches with the other PEC members to be helpful because it helps the members' understand one another's philosophies. Kristan Pritz agreed that a "miniseries" approach might be helpful. She then inquired whether the PEC felt that small increments or large blocks of time would be preferable. Jeff Bowen stated that a facilitator that was not affiliated with the Town of Vail or any board would be helpful. A general discussion was held and all of the PEC members were willing to commit at least one day for a retreat. 10. Jeff Bowen motioned that the minutes of the PEC meeting of February 22, 1993 be approved with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. The minutes were then approved. This session of the PEC adjourned at approximately 4:15 pm. Planning and Environmental Commission March 8, 1993 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 8, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance to allow for the addition of an enclosed entryway and a new second story deck at the Vail Rowhouses, Lot 13, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing, Applicant: N.J. Nicholas and Steve Riden Planner: Jim Curnutte 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST The applicants are proposing to remodel the three existing dwelling units located on Lot 13, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing, Vail Rowhouses. Ownership of all three units is currently held by the applicant, Mr. N.J. Nicholas. The remodel involves a new enclosed entryway to the units as well as a new second story deck. Both of these improvements are located on the south side of the building. Also included in the proposed remodel are fenestration changes to the east side of the building and a new deck and various fenestration changes along the north side of the building. In addition to the exterior changes being proposed, a substantial interior remodel is intended for all three units in the building. There will be a significant relocation of GRFA and common areas throughout the units, however, this grooosal does not include a request for additional cross residential floor area fGRFAt beyond what exists on the-Drooerty today L3,505 square feet Please note that since the allowable GRFA is 3,445 sq. ft., the project is currently over the allowable by 60 sq. ft. This situation is considered to be legal non-conforming. The Vail Rowhouses are zoned High-Density Multiple-Family (HDMF). The setback requirement in the HDMF zone district is 20 feet from all property lines. Because of the way the Vail Rowhouse property was originally subdivided (into fee simple lots), resulting in very narrow lots, side yard setback variances are almost always required for any exterior modifications to the buildings. Since Lot 13 is an end lot, and not wedged between other units, there is actually a narrow strip of buildable area (12 feet wide by 73 feet long) that is outside of the 20 foot setback requirement. Although a portion of the new enclosed entryway and second story deck are located within this buildable area, the majority of the addition and deck encroach into the 20 foot west side setback area. The applicants proposed setback variance request does not involve any encroachment into the Gore Creek stream setback, the front setback or the east side setback areas. A portion of the existing deck encroaches 2-1/2 feet into the front yard setback area and 4 feet into the east side setback area. The new deck, which is proposed to wrap around three sides of the new enclosed entryway, will encroach approximately 3 feet into the front setback area. No encroachment into the east side setback area is proposed for the new deck. Section 18.58.060 of the Vail Municipal Code (Balconies, decks, and stairways above ground) allow decks which are more than 5 feet above ground level to project up to 5 feet into a required setback area, therefore it is only that portion of the deck located within the west side setback which is in need of a setback variance, not the encroachment into the front yard setback area. The setback variance request is to allow for a 20 foot encroachment into the 20 foot west side setback area for a new first and second level building entryway addition and a new second story deck. 11. BACKGROUND In the early 1960's, Lots 1-13, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing were subdivided into thirteen separate "fee simple" owned lots. On January 9, 1964 the first six lots were replatted into a condominium. The condominium plat virtually erased the lot lines separating the first six units, however, lots 7-13, which are part of the same building as the first six, remain as separately owned, subdivided lots, and are not part of the condominium association. It should be pointed out, however, that many of the lots (7- 13) have been condominiumized themselves, with two or three units on each. Lot 13, for example, has been condominiumized into two separate properties with the lower property containing two units and the upper property containing one unit. The Vail Rowhouses are considered to be a preexisting, nonconforming use with regard to setbacks, site coverage, minimum required landscaping, GRFA, etc. 111. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Total Site Area: Total Buildable Area: High-Density Multiple-Family (HDMF) 0.1318 acre (5,741 sq. ft.) 0.1318 acre (5,741 sq. ft.) Allowed Density: Existing and Proposed Density: Allowed GRFA: Existing GRFA: Proposed GRFA: Common Area Allowed: Common Area Existing: Common Area Proposed: Three dwelling units Three dwelling units 3,445 sq. ft. (60%) 3,505 sq. ft. (61%) 3,505 sq. ft. (61%) 1,206 sq. ft. (35%0) 610 sq. ft. (18%) 585 sq. ft. (17%0) Required Setbacks: 20 ft. from all property lines 2 Maximum Building Height Allowed Existing Building Height: Proposed Building Height: Allowed Site Coverage: Existing Site Coverage: Proposed Site Coverage: Required Parking: Existing and Proposed Parking: Minimum Landscaping Required: Existing Landscaping: Proposed Landscaping: 48 ft. 36 ft. 36 ft. 3,158 sq. ft. (55%) 1,425 sq. ft. (25%) 1,535 sq. ft. (27%) 6 spaces 5 spaces 1,722 sq. ft. (30%) 2,640 sq. ft. (46%) 2,640 sq. ft. (46%) * With respect to calculating GRFA and common area for this project, the staff used the multi- family system specified in Section 18.04.130 of the Vail Municipal code. In some instances, staff had to interpret where GRFA and common areas were located. Our premise is that any area used by other owners should be counted as common area. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of the criteria and findings in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variance. Staff does, however, have some concerns with regard to the landscape plan being proposed in conjunction with this building remodel. These concerns are addressed later in this memorandum. The staff's recommendation for approval of the variance request is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Although the proposed remodel will expand the building footprint beyond the existing south side walls of the building, the area of the proposed addition is within the current boundaries of the existing deck and stairway on the south side of the building. There will be no increase in the height of the structure and no alteration to the roof with the exception of the new gable roof being proposed over the building entryway addition. Although the proposed first and second level entryway addition does bring the mass of the building approximately 8 feet closer to the front property line, it has been designed to be architecturally compatible with the existing building. Staff feels that the addition of stone at the base of the entryway addition will improve the visual appearance of the building as viewed from Gore Creek Drive. The planting area located along the west property line of Lot 13, which contains a group of small aspens is proposed to be removed in order to accommodate the proposed second story deck. This planting area will be replaced with a new one which includes various evergreen and deciduous shrubs along with annual and perennial flowers. However, no trees are proposed to be 3 replanted into the new planting area. The proposed second story deck addition would appear to encroach into a portion of the view of Vail Mountain from the residence located on Lot 12 to the west. The applicant has provided a letter from the owner of Lot 12 (Robert Galvin) stating that he has reviewed the proposed remodel plans and finds them acceptable (see attached copy of letter). Lot 13 is located directly north of lot J, which is used as a parking lot. The property to the east is Tract C, which is a Town park (Roger Staub Park). To the north of Lot 13 is the Gore Greek stream tract. 2. 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. Staff believes that the applicants' proposed building remodel is not an excessive request for relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulation. As mentioned previously, the 20 foot setback requirement from all property lines leaves a strip of buildable area 12 feet wide by 73 feet long in the center of Lot 13. The location of the existing building on Lot 13 leaves very little room for a building remodel without obtaining a setback variance. Other Vail Rowhouse have received approval of similar setback variances requests for building remodels; therefore, staff believes there is no grant of special privilege with this variance request. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff feels that approval of the proposed west side setback variance request will have no significant effect on any of the above considerations. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. 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. 0 4 b. There are exception 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. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owner's of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Planning staff recommends approval of the proposed setback variance. The required findings necessary for granting a variance are met, in staff's opinion, as discussed below: 1. Staff believes that granting approval of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege as the Town has approved similar variance requests for lot owners at the Vail Rowhouses. The Town has recognized the unusual situation which has resulted from the subdivision of this property into thirteen individual lots, and subsequent resubdivision of the first six into a condominium project, and the remainder into individual condominiums on each lot. 2. Staff believes that approving the variance will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Staff believes that the proposed remodel is a positive addition to the building and enhances its overall appearance. As mentioned previously, there may be a possible visual impact of the proposed second story deck on the view of Vail Mountain from adjacent Lot 12, however the owner of lot 12 has reviewed the plans and finds them acceptable. 3. Staff believes that the variance is warranted because the 20 foot setback requirement on this small, narrow lot creates an extraordinary circumstance and physical hardship which requires some flexibility in the setback requirement. Other Vail Rowhouse properties have received similar setback variance approvals in the past. There do not appear to be any major negative impacts on adjacent properties or safety problems related to the request. As a condition of approval, staff recommends that the applicant provide additional landscaping along the east and north sides of the building, beyond what is currently shown on the landscape plan. Staff recommends that the applicant add a cluster of three aspen trees (3 inch minimum caliper) near the northwest corner of the lot and four spruce trees (6 foot minimum height) along the west property line. Also, the new planting area in front of the building should receive a stone veneer, similar to that proposed for the building addition. 0 5 `11"I Fl- 1-9,Q iii NICHOLAS 745 5TH AV E NYC FAX K 2127596 x25 p, 0 <?r?ti c+7?a?c:cy ROBERT W. G^LVIN 3002 [AST RLWW2MIN RCAD SC6-IA JMBURG, ILLINOIS 60196-1065 March 1, 1993 Mr. N.J. Nicholas, Jr, 745 Fifth Avenue Suite 3400 New Yorks NY 10151 Dear Nick: Tan you for sending the materials on your apwment.. I have no need to engaggc in any detail editing of your plans, if they are its food t ? te from your standpoint I'm con.fident they will he acceptable to my family and me. I hope you are successlul in Proceeding, with your remodeling. Best ??Shes, VII. Galvin R'U (3;ch F y. 0 A ctl'r Yom. • ' ? ?wt'e.i h? f t fk ?} -14 t k-rr k SITS v C d re`a }- ', 1 . -7 "Z: - -J ;;r , . ash s 1? 'p1tS Common ` `1 µ Sauna b z,C'W ER. LE'V r? l CREATION UNIT 31 COM)ACN RE Of ` r _.. Vii! + flue c , x k LOFT LET EL UNIT 2 f l.. _-- wnr?p_. i it 1 ' 1 -L- f v I X 1 h, k' 1 camncan i 1 4 i Z 1 t123I'C i r iA88Y , 47- L_.i? 1 U fhle - .? t -TT ?i ! ? C r yq i n r -- - - IF 1 1 r r y ? 4 4 r Stok Now", E )W..-- J n ;F ;F i s r ?i. r, i. F t 1 W 1 ? S t S i st, y, Exemise f r A .. Z - ?tl.w : 4 E IE El • 1 14 I F ?Z r 1 i • I r n. flue r 1 ? 1 1 r 1 (.?-gyp c 1 c 1 _ r I ?2?N r ¦w i i -- 1 qw? t--?? 1. Tn {? 7 ?F Y f I I ?-- ? ? F3?.w wfupoesXi 1€?S ! f hmw Y-.rck. 11 11 •. ? if ? ? NSW ?.nNCxn.?b ? ??.,... ? ... ? ? ` S i ? I y t lax. 1.0 tom" WgEmm ! SOL i rI NORTH v po*JN tsaavAH J Few PW.4- f t ?- ? t s(s t y a? ism ef`a _ s t,?m! btr+Y1OV44 ? k r p t ? '?t ?? t I I., EAST MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 8, 1993 SUBJECT: A request for a major exterior alteration to allow modifications to the Hill Building located at 254 Bridge Street/a part of Lot I and part of Lot C, Block 5- C, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Blanche Hill Planner: Shelly Mello 1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting to remodel the retail floor area for Curtin Hill Sports. All additions are on the first floor, and involve the enlargement of existing bay windows, changes to entries, and the addition and deletion of landscaping. A total of 195 square feet will be added and 94 square feet will be deleted for a net increase of 101 square feet of retail floor area. The applicant proposes to infill the notched entry door on the northeast corner as well as the 10 notched entry door on the north elevation. 74.5 of 98 square feet of planter box at the northeast entrance will also be removed with the proposal. The applicant also proposes to cut the northwest corner of the building at a 45 degree angle which will remove 94 square feet of floor area, and 57 square feet of landscaping in order to add a new entry which faces Eaton Plaza. This will be similar to the entry treatment located adjacent to this property at Christy Sports. The west entrance will also be infilled for an additional 104 square feet. This addition was approved by the PEC under a separate application in 1992. The previous application moved the doors out to be on the same plane as the building elevation. The current proposal shows windows where the doors were to be located. The additional floor area for this addition has been included in the calculations for this proposal. A total of 69 square feet of retail space will be added by expanding bay windows on the north and west sides of the building. These windows will be cantilevered over existing paved areas and planted areas. While it will not remove existing soil, these bay windows will decrease the amount of plantable area. A total of 175.5 square feet of existing landscaping will be lost due to the enlargement of the bay windows and the other modifications. 90 square feet of new planting beds are proposed. There is a net loss of 72.5 square feet of planted area. Horizontal mullions will be used on the bay windows and door sidelights. On February 22, 1993, the PEC reviewed this item in a work session. At this time, there were four concerns regarding the proposal. These were as follows: 1. The narrowing of the passageway between the Christy Sports business and the Curtin Full Building by the addition of bay windows, 2. The deletion of landscaping on the northeast corner of the building at the existing entry; 3. The window articulation on the proposed window and door areas. 4. The current condition and appearance of the west elevation, including the Sonnenalp ski lockers as well as the temporary seating fixtures; The applicant has addressed these items by decreasing the bay window on the northeast side of the building by approximately 9 to 12 inches. The applicant has also proposed to keep approximately 24.5 square feet of landscaping at the northeast entry also. Mullions will be used on the bay windows and door side lights dividing them into three sections. No vertical mullions are proposed. The applicant proposes to install a streetscape bench at the northeast entry adjacent to the planter located on Town of Vail property. There are no signs proposed with this application. All requests to change signage and to amend the approved sign variance for this property must be reviewed by the Design Review Board. 0 Il. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Lot Size: 8407.8 sq. ft. Zoning: Commercial Core 1 Site Coverage: Allowed - 6726.24 or 80% Existing - 5963 or 71% Proposed - 6022 or 71.6% Parking: .33 parking spaces The applicant will be required to contribute $2693 to the Town of Vail parking fund. The proposed addition will require .33 of a parking space. The parking fee for retail expansions in Commercial Core I is $8000 per space. Ill. EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes three elements that establish the review criteria for this application. The first of these is referred to as the Guide Plan which includes a number of sub-area concepts, many of which identify potential areas for future development and other improvements. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations express the large scale is 2 land use, planning and design considerations and architectural/landscape criteria for evaluating a proposal. The Vail Village Master Plan and the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan also address specific goals pertaining to the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village that must be considered in this application. In addition to these master plans, zoning considerations are also a factor in reviewing proposals of this nature. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND CONSIDERATIONS: There are three specific sub-area concepts in the Urban Design Guide Plan relevant to this proposal. They are as follows: 10. Seibert Circle. Feature area paving treatment. 11 10A. Mountain gateway improvements. Landscaping screen, minor plaza, pedestrian connection loop to Wall Street. 11. Limited building expansion/improvements. Increase facade transparency on south side to strengthen pedestrian activity, with entry to street. Potential expansion of building to south property line. Additional vertical expansion may be considered on south end of building to improve street enclosure proportions but must respect designated Hill Street - Gore Range view corridors. Potential second level open balcony deck (sun pocket) to restore activity to street lost from ground floor terrace. The first of these deals with improvements to Seibert Circle. The plan calls for paving improvements in this area. This design concept is also repeated in the Vail Village Streetscape Plan. Due to the scale of this project, and the fact that no departures from CCI zoning are required, the staff feels that it is inappropriate to request the applicant to contribute to the Siebert Circle fund. We feel that the applicant should be asked to further the implementation of the Streetscape Plan in other areas. Concept 10A discusses mountain gateway improvements. This calls for increased landscaping, a minor plaza and pedestrian connection loop to Wall Street. This concept does relate to this proposal as it suggests that landscaping should be maintained in the area between The Golden Peak House and Curtin Hill Sports. The current proposal will decrease the amount of landscaping in this area by 63 square feet, but the applicant has pulled the proposed northeast bay windows back in order to maximize the planting adjacent to the bay windows while still accomplishing the goal of increasing the transparency and available display area. The northwest bay windows have not been modified since the PEC work session. Sub-area Concept 11 relates to building expansion improvements on the south side of the Curtin Hill Building. It discusses the desire to increase facade transparency on the south side, to strengthen pedestrian activity, and also discusses creating additional entries on the south side. The proposal includes a new entry on the southwest corner of the building which is a positive addition to this corner. This proposal does not include any other improvements to this elevation. V. EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE: The following design considerations are critical elements of the Urban Design Guide Plan. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to assure that new development is consistent with this established character. The Design Considerations of the Urban Design Guide Plan relating to this site are as follows: 1. Pedestrian ization This exterior alteration will have a positive impact upon the pedestrian circulation within Vail Village. The addition will add interest to the pedestrian area by increasing the window area transparency and visibility into the store, installation of recommended Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan improvements, window articulation and landscape improvements. 2. Vehicular Penetration While this application adds additional floor area, it is not anticipated that it will increase the demand for service and delivery. 3. Streetscape Framework While landscaping can provide a softening of buildings and a colorful framework, commercial infill can provide activity generators and visual interest for pedestrians. Increased transparency of shop frontages, planting and landscaping, paving design, all add to the visual interest of buildings. The application includes all of these items. 4 There is a net loss of 72.5 square feet of planted area with this proposal. While 175.5 square feet of existing landscaping will be removed, an additional 90 square feet of new planting will be installed on the west side of the building. The staff feels that an adequate amount of landscaping has been maintained on the property to meet the guidelines. 4. Street Enclosure The purpose of this consideration is to maintain a comfortable relationship between the width of the streets and the height of buildings. The proposed addition does not increase the overall height, however, it does decrease the perceivable width of the alleyway between the Plaza Lodge Building and the Curtin Hill Building. The applicant has minimized the depth of the display bay windows in order to allow for existing landscaping to remain, and to minimize the impact on the street width. For this reason, staff believes a comfortable street width will be maintained. While the proposed bay windows project an additional 2 feet into the corridor, they are semi-transparent and do not project further than the deck/roof overhangs above or past the planter edge below. 5. Street Edae This criteria encourages buildings in the Village core to form a strong but irregular edge to the street. Under this exterior alteration proposal, there will be increased projections by the use of bay windows. They will project approximately _ feet from the building face. The proposed addition will meet the street edge criteria with its glass walled facade and irregular building line formed by the bay windows. The staff believes that this modification will have no negative impacts on the street edge. 6. Buildina Heiqht The applicant does not propose to increase the building heights with this proposal. 7. Views and Focal Points The proposed expansion does not effect any adopted or proposed view corridors nor does it effect any focal points. 6. Service and Deliverv The proposed expansion will not effect the current service and delivery patterns. It does not propose to increase the demand for service or delivery. 9. Sun/Shade The proposal will not cast any additional shade on any of the public ways surrounding the building as the improvements are all located on the first floor. 10. Architecture/Landscape Considerations The architectural/landscape considerations discussed in the Urban Design Guide Plan specifically speak to window and door details in the Village. In this regard it says: 0 5 "In addition to the general degree of transparency, window details are an important source of pedestrian scale giving elements. The size and shape of windows are often a response to the street adjacent. For close-up casual pedestrian viewing, windows are typically sized to human-sized dimensions and characteristics of human vision. (Large glass store fronts suggest uninterrupted viewing from a moving car. The sense of intimate pedestrian scale is diminished.) Grand floor display windows are typically raised 18 inches and do not extend much over 8 feet above the walkway. Ground floors which are noticeably above grade are exceptions. The articulation of the window itself is still another element giving pedestrian scale (human related dimensions). Glass areas are usually subdivided to express individual window elements and are further subdivided by mullions into small panes which is responsible for much of the Old World charm of the Village. Similarly, windows are often clustered in banks juxtaposed with plain wall surfaces to give a pleasing rhythm. Horizontal repetition of single window elements especially over long distances, should be avoided. Large single pane windows occur in the Village and provide some contrast, as they are generally consistent in form with other windows. Long, continuous glass is out of the character. Say, bow and box windows are common window details, which further variety and massing to facades and are encouraged. Reflective glass, plastic panes, aluminum or other metal frames are not consistent in the Village and should be avoided. Metal clad or plastic-clad window frames, having the appearance of painted woad have been used successfully and are acceptable." In addition, the Urban Design Considerations also specifies that decorative door treatments are desired for Vail. In regard to landscaping, the Urban Design Considerations say this: "Opportunities for planting are not extensive in the Village, which places a premium on the plant selection and design for the sites that do exist." 0 6 pffet Fivr6 prtd-•--ir.0t,I lip l- Ira,xd= I,--r5 frw'r r?rcf7 L'I'll o r ; R f F1 box / Oil Grt3 (j 0+.er 1 II J ( t t+/?t ?.?r 6 ( GtY3?.?1L'.+t•i:pn?di R°{X?i?ipy tl .T $L'rTa 2L D p . • "zi, ta I ne applicant does a good job at providing landscaping during the summer months with flowers and other plantings. It is the staff's feeling that this effort with the landscaping which will remain are sufficient. The staff recognizes that the removal of some portion of landscaping is necessary if the bay windows are to be expanded. However, we feel that the benefits gained in the other areas of the review criteria mitigate the lass of landscaping. We believe the window treatments now comply with the design considerations and request that a vertical mullion also be used in addition to the proposed horizontal mullions. 0 7 VI. EXTERIOR ALTERATION REQUEST COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE 1 Section 1 8.24.010 Purpose: "The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The District regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribes site development standards which are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." The staff believes that this proposal is in conformance with the intent of the purpose section of Commercial Core I zoning as stated above. VII. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Goal #2 -To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health viability for the village and for the community as a whole. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial infill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. Goal #3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent pedestrian ways. 0 8 3.1,3 Policy: Flowers, trees, water features, and other landscaping shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations adjacent to, or visible from, public areas. VIII. RELATED GOALS OF THE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN The following items are discussed in the Streetscape Master Plan and relate to this project. "Seibert Circle is proposed to be replaced by a large planter that is surrounded by low steps for informal seating. A large "specimen" evergreen tree should be maintained in the Circle. Seibert Circle's focal point could be a fountain or an artwork feature that will be visible from much of Bridge Street. One theme currently being discussed is a public art project honoring the 10th Mountain Division. Seibert Circle's ability to be used as a performance site should also be considered.,, The staff does not feel that it is appropriate to require the improvements for Seibert Circle in conjunction with this project. However, we do feel that the applicant should be responsible for providing street furniture around the building to further the implementation of the Streetscape Plan. This would include the use of the furniture in a seating area on the west side of the building and a bench on the east side at the entry. The applicant has agreed to installing the bench on the north side, but not on the west. IX. CONCLUSION The staff feels that the concepts of the proposal are good. We feel that the increase in transparency of the building is a positive addition to the area. While the application does remove landscaping, we feel that it is appropriate considering the entire proposal. The staff would recommend approval of the application with the following conditions: That the applicant provide streetscape furniture along the east and west sides. This includes the addition of one wooden bench at the northeast entry and a seating arrangement on the west facade which should include approximately three benches 5-8 feet in length or three tables and chairs (four per table), or a combination of the above. Please see the attached cut sheets. This will replace the existing plastic furniture currently used; 2. That a vertical mullion will be added to the bay window and door sidelights to improve the window articulation; 3. That the applicant must conform to all sign code criteria. This would include the reduction of the signage for the Sonnenalp ski storage located on the east side of the building to 112 square feet total with a maximum of one sign. This would need to be reviewed by the DRB in conjunction with this project and altered immediately. In addition, should the Sonnenalp ski storage facilities, on the west side of the building, not fit in the existing location after the installation of the proposed landscaping planter, the staff would be apposed to these facilities projecting any further into the walkway that the current encroachment which extends to the west edge of the tree grates; 0 9 4. That all conditions of the approved sign variance associated with this building will need to be met. The applicant will need to amend the sign variance approval for this business in order to allow for any change in signage; 5. That the applicant will remove or obtain approval for all coin operated ski storage facilities not located on the applicant's property. Approval will need to be obtained from both the Town of Vail and the United States Forest Service; 6. That a revocable right-of-way permit will need to be obtained for all encroachments, existing and proposed, on the Town of Vail right of way and; 7. That the applicant will remove all prohibited materials from the property. Specifically, the chicken wire fencing which attached to the metal railings along the west side of the property. 6. That the applicant agrees to allow pavers and drainage improvements to be placed on the east and southeast portions of the Hill Building property in order to implement the Town of Vail Streetscape improvements (i.e. Seibert Circle and pedestrian access to the Vail Mountain) at such time that this project is implemented. Please see attached plan. The staff feels that if all of the above conditions are met, that the application does meet the criteria for an exterior alteration and the items listed in the comprehensive plan. The staff is also concerned with a longstanding issue which remains on this site. This involves the parking of a vehicle in the right-of-way which is associated with the use of this building. While the staff does not feel it is appropriate to associate this issue with the approval or denial of this project, the staff feels that this issue should be addressed and would like further comment from the Planning and Environmental Commission on this item. 0 10 Et?riYtl,lW1?M^¢^KK' K1'Cb'A°wtWSw• rtwJM1? w BASMM1 ? 1 r^ I ,-, 'tY; i F.! '? i + 1 i i? ?:•:.•,,,. .art'?..!-, t? { i-a-- i t s ..{- e'F FEle ex? arn.aw t t? ( .+ i 4-'e } _ Z- CF1- ! _. J. ?. t..-.-•ib.s?.J ?1.? 1 f ?? Imo. ? ? i? ?1 .: ? 4` _I ? U a.}py y t ? t ? - ^:. ,/,.k, . _ - ?xoi4 ww ?. e.,.rh.m+• f - '` ?e.rra wo:r ?? w?3H"°"" ?? ????:=?==-s? ? j"? ? E ? ? .ate.. - ?4-,?•'+f.. -? ... ^? 5 (r ? u. ? iar sv.r (H i?`1 /a I 1 ? i w.^ f ts?ll i. ?_ t b r "` Y I> 4. rr 'r- . _.`.°. - • ,?--?-?..... _.. 111 = ?? 5 I? ?: _.- .. . y ? gyp. , .. .. .. f ?" ?°?} _w.fFK4•RSi»?gNfn? ? ?.u. .. \'- k` ? Y ° °` t ''Y( 'i wr.r?a''ai?uw. ,.. f ..°.-K?M'r a"wn' ?, ? ;:. . ?? ?V? T . _ Nary (? ? ?.?x f? II? _ ?1 1 t? x I 1 lT , 4+?ATtJN oY' 1J`NNF}?2s ?? ' ' F'w.•v 71 N4 l.Ylrr?J ' y r ?W?'?t.L j bfw.?iNY' .N•?ic; .. ? ? r ?/ ? r f;WNttJLYY?TNL7? µ.w' bt.CYV Lopjjeg two . W ?7• vl.,E?VA'IKN w pWC M w? r GtCrL'T"I; I?Si ??0{?llJra•{ S ?`"?? ? , ??;. . ??, rrt+ri GrcGK Zt?M-, -• ' t:.;t'•i? bWF CSC I??TIP1E? ._.. F?.=?1oVZtJ r _ .0 fi?rtNE? OL-Tel> t??a bWf.rNa1. u?V/toN7 ?ltant h? -G yv,nu.. wf &WW/ tA?"rt7u?}-? ? W wrrvP r.+P IZ ?ddd{L?+? WP" CftK ----...-__ - ? el-i-IIIIm n P.u j f =m TE 1 -'L l • ? ? i N?w,w+l+?N , ; ?`??, ?? 1 t ? a ? l ? ? • 1 -"?'• '? -??a"?-ate h a if 1i ? Y .'°? ?nN'a lLM71N wF f w E 4;aE taw is E P WiJ 2 p?W ppY WJ3J'hG l ?M4'ING, HfM1, WCaY W Yrp?c+•?/vT?O. u?.'+FAENLN CM.? Wo - ,. ><EM1!-tb 9Kc r4tt -0 WY.NJ Y•?'o 9 ,?5JT 'NOfas Fiir+^ P:Nibd • TO P? w '.lwWrK{ ' ?.-Utgv Nsw 4wcoae ?"av'.oN2P erArtr 1 N . .r-iaY. ? Ox ?c firrs?tt M4L l ,;JC-Mi GIRO °.h+`rti3b!a'T y'tw+;GiC ED ??"?-r'.. 4;gd74. P;'+EttN ?,JB cJr.YJ. Eins',7?i3 YxbRF 1Ti91, f34,+'C` RWiBH ?) ?y yam. pc?(i "?u K2,M/.?N . • }b fAR.'io' MArcN' b'itl?? {{ 11 ..._ 1 ' q? NE'.N 5 td,raNY -- ---• -- - ` aY' U r;; , w Cam.. Ju' ILL \ ?6JC'vN -t2 VSp.I -4 MW? NNC'?y`+ { -' - - t / ' 1? li AS' 6hY Wt i Ex.c+';ad c.;4b nA:? b --,. •nwa?, 1 , ?t: P i _._._I - L.. ? I s r. 1 cew w.n++ Mw?orrroNS ? .x.,. ,i {t' true -FF -- !?? 11 hi As t.... ? {?-w, `.r.7 11 x > r?aa%w.P.. •NJ'ar .2?'t wank wYtw} pa}v a#t: ue a, `? RISK Ncw BuNff rrv0 C.W vn!+cmv 7- P. ,Ajtb . I M1UNq bE TIeN !aE S ION• -rX3z-;p. =t so MNF+ TO M1sM Ilti ^A 4 A.°•JAG 1'i fxPCV?P C6'f Na - P3X mAWvP:,.1. NC'ty ?NrY 6pY Wm? ???Y 6a ?`wr<?y ;?.+ly3o w;,Vx Maw z•?trrigs 1 'r -? ----------------------------- ._. tf l._ ,.? `tNc'iv PfOf1wC.'Me! Le?le P=?4'RC? P.?N •-K• - IN?ffYl.Fa$$f"-I'{?+.'YL&VYrd? CN'urM?'Ee Z VMS - - _ _' PatNT Fln? tiA°cN.'P? H:.m.116tf .5.` JhNUleh'Y 21v. WR gy r?ts?yty 25, t9i'? • rx.; v?..• R.?Vi+nlct? ti L 414 4 4 F =it.L trl REx? ? .. x!'114 I 1 -t 3n f_F { sa G'lTc- PAN IE i? 1 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 22, 1993 (revised memo for March 8, 1993) SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an addition to the residence located at Lot 8, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing\3090 Booth Creek Drive. Applicant: Rose Foster Gillett Planner: Tim Devlin 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a variance from the maximum allowable site coverage to allow for a second floor addition to cantilever out one (1) foot over the existing footprint below. The addition has already been constructed, and is explained in further detail in Section II of this memo. The single family residence is located at 3090 Booth Creek Drive, and the property is zoned Two-Family Residential District (duplex). The maximum allowable site coverage for the Two-Family Residential zone district is 20%. For this 14,280 square foot lot, 20% of the lot area would consist of 2,856 square feet. Before the second floor addition was constructed, the property had 3,353 square feet, or 23.48%, of site coverage. The already built second floor addition adds 62 square feet of site coverage for a proposed total of 3,415 square feet or 23.91%. A variance is required for the additional .43% of site coverage. The existing GRFA for the structure is 3,917 square feet, including the second floor addition already constructed; 3,995 square feet of GRFA is allowed on this site. Therefore, with the second floor addition, the house is 78 square feet under the allowable GRFA. IL BACKGROUND When the house was constructed, the Town's site coverage definition did not count cantilevered spaces. In 1991, the Town's site coverage definition was changed to include cantilevered areas, and as a result, the existing residence had a site coverage of 3,353 square feet (23.48%©), 497 square feet over the allowable 2,856 square feet (20%). is I I Approximately '706 square feet of GRFA was added to the residence in December 1992 in a second story addition that was supposed to have been built completely over, but not to extend past, the existing building footprint below. However, it came to the attention of the Community Development staff during final inspections for the remodel on February 12, 1993, that the addition was built cantilevered out 1 foot over the existing structure below, thereby increasing the site coverage by approximately 62 square feet. A variance has not been obtained for this increase in site coverage, and the applicant has agreed to explore options to remove 62 square feet of site coverage from somewhere else on the house if a variance can not be obtained. This possible solution was discussed at the February 22, 1993 PEC work session, and the applicant and Mr. Gwathmey agreed to explore removing site coverage from somewhere else on the site. Since then, Mr. Gwathmey has submitted to the staff a letter (dated March 2, 1993 - please see attached) stating that "short of the trellis and the area of the stone pilasters which seemed important to the commissioners present, nothing pops out as expendable" to remove site coverage. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to mitigate the 1 foot overhang of 62 square feet by planting three evergreen trees - one each at 6, 8 and 10 feet in height. The attached site plan shows the proposed location of these trees. Please note that since the last PEC meeting, the applicant has withdrawn the request for a site coverage variance for a garage addition. Also, the proposed "loop" driveway with two curb cuts has been withdrawn. At the February 22, 1993 PEC meeting, the PEC asked the staff to review and report on specific variances that have been granted "after the fact" or where extenuating circumstances were considered. In response, the staff has researched and summarizes the recommendations and the PEC's findings for the following projects. This list is not exhaustive but does include projects the staff could remember during the recent past. 1.) Lot 3, Block 2 Vail Potato Patchn54 Potato Patch Drive: A request for an appeal of a staff decision concerning GRFA in excess of the allowable for the site. The applicant was Michael Lauterbach. During March of 1990, the DRB granted final approval for a primary/secondary residence to be located on the above-referenced lot. The drawings submitted to the DRB indicated that the project had approximately 300 square feet of excess GRFA available. Approximately one week after the DRB's approval, the Town issued a building permit for the construction of the project. Modifications were made to the approved DRB drawings, however, a building permit was issued. The modifications included the addition of approximately 500 square feet of additional GRFA. This additional GRFA 2 put the structure approximately 200 square feet over the allowable GRFA for the site. It should be noted that at the time the building permit was issued, the Town was not aware that modifications had been made to the drawings. On August 3, 1990 a stop work order was issued by the Community Development Department. The reason for this stop work order was that the project exceeded the allowable GRFA for the property. During the following two weeks after the issuance of the stop work order, the applicant attempted to resolve the GRFA exceedance with the Town staff. Although the applicant was willing to "comt Lumise" on a solution regarding the excess GRFA, the staff's position was that it was not within their administrative power to negotiate such a solution. The staff position was that the project must conform to the allowable GRFA on the lot, and additionally, the staff felt that the zoning code does not provide the staff any discretion to approve any GRFA overage. On August 27, 1990, the PEC reviewed an appeal of a staff decision regarding the exceedance of GRFA for Lot 3. After hearing the applicant's request, the PEC voted 6-1 to uphold the staff's decision. The Town subsequently released the stop work order and the applicant modified the structure to conform with the GRFA ordinance. Once this was completed and the project was inspected by the Town, the entire stop work order was released and the project continued. 2.) Lot 6. Block 7. Vail Viliaae First Filina/146 Forest Road. A request for a wall height variance was made by the applicant, Ron Byrne. During August of 1989, the Design Review Board granted final approval for the design of a new primary/secondary residence on the above-mentioned property. At the time of this approval, the applicant's drawings indicated that the project could be completed without any variances. During the construction of the project, it became apparent to the project architect that the retaining walls which were designed to support the driveway and the parking area could not be constructed without exceeding the maximum 3 foot wall height within the front setback. The applicant then applied for a wall height variance. In September of 1989, the PEC (and subsequently the Town Council) approved the applicant's request for a maximum wall height of 9-feet 6-inches within the front setback. During June of 1990, the Department of Community Development realized that the retaining walls were not being constructed according to the approved PEC variance, and a stop work order was issued by the Town. The applicant subsequently applied for a wall height variance to the PEC. Prior to the PEC's review of this variance request, the staff informed the applicant that the Planning Department would be unable to support the request for an additional wall height variance and suggested 3 that the applicant propose to modify the walls so that any negative impacts on the neighborhood would be minimized. Although the majority of the walls had been constructed, the applicant did propose to remove portions of the retaining walls and to heavily landscape the bases of the retaining walls. The Planning and Environmental Commission ultimately approved the applicant's modified request, and the stop work order was lifted. The applicant then proceeded to remove portions of the retaining walls, as approved by the PEC, and eventually landscaped the project. During July of 1991, a Final Certificate of Occupancy was issued on the project. 3.) Sonnenalp Hotel: A request for a setback variance for an already constructed portion of the hotel. When this project was reviewed by the staff and the PEC, variances were requested and granted for height, parking, and common area. In addition, significant portions of the existing building were already located in the side setback, and when the building was demolished the basement area that encroached into the setback remained intact. Although none of this basement area was removed during redevelopment, its area was expanded, resulting in a larger amount of area being located in the setback. Please note that the new area of encroachment did not increase the distance of encroachment into the setback. It is important to note that the additional encroachment was indicated on the approved building permit plans. The encroachment was shown on the floor plan but not the site plan, similar to Gillett situation that is now being reviewed by the PEC. At the time the Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) was completed for the project, the staff detected the increased area of the setback encroachment and required the applicant to apply for a variance to the PEC. The staff recommended approval of the variance based partially on the fact that the amount of the encroachment into the setback was not being increased. The PEC approved the variance per the staff recommendation. 4.) Lot 6. Block 9. Vail Intermountain) 2855 Snowberrv Drive (Cahill Residence): A request for a height variance for an already constructed house that exceeded the allowable 33 feet height. The applicant received DRB approval for a single family residence to be built on the property. However, during construction of the house, the location was shifted (without DRB or staff approval) approximately 11 feet by the applicant to avoid a 40 foot tall evergreen tree. Subsequently, when an ILC was completed for the project, it was discovered that the house was four (4) feet over the allowed height. Since height is measured to the more restrictive of existing or proposed grades, and the ridge of the structure was moved over an existing drainage swale, the height of the ridge was 37 feet from existing grade, but below 33 feet from final grade. 4 The staff recommended denial of the height variance, but did note that certain unique hardships (i.e. a Swale) did exist on the site. The PEC approved the request for a height variance by a 7-0 vote, citing that the intentions of the applicant were good and that circumstances related to this project were unique. The PEC specifically noted that the height was below 33 feet from final grade and that this was important in their decision to grant the variance. 5.) Chester Residence: The issue of GRFA was decided through the court system and was never addressed by the PEC. However, the owner, E.B. Chester, did submit a variance request concerning walls and fences which had not been constructed per the approved building permit plans. Some of the walls were allowed to remain while others were reduced in height. Landscaping was used to mitigate the visual impact of the walls. Changing grades, the need to create a parking area, and minimal visual impacts were cited by the staff as being reasons to support the variances. Staff did ask the applicant to bring the front yard gate columns into more confu., wance with the 6 foot height limit. The request was approved by the PEC per the staff memo by a 5- 1 vote. It should be noted that the second floor addition for the Gillett residence was approved by the DRB on December 2, 1992. At the time the application and drawings were submitted by the applicant's architect, issues concerning site coverage were discussed, and the architect submitted a letter to Community Development staff stating that site coverage would not be increased by the addition. This letter to staff from Mr. Ned Gwathmey dated October 30, 1992, is attached for review. The cantilevered space was indicated on the DRB and Building Permit plans by the architect. During the review of the floor plans for the project, the increased site coverage area of the addition was not detected by the staff. During the final inspection for the addition on February 12, 1993, the cantilevered space became an issue because it was realized that an unauthorized increase in site coverage had occurred. 111. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this request: A. Zone District: Two-Family Residential (duplex) B. Lot area: 14,280 square feet C. Density: No change proposed D. GRFA: Allowable GRFA = 3,995 square feet Existing (and total) GRFA = 3,917 square feet Remaining GRFA = 78 square feet 5 E. Site coverage: Allowable site coverage Site coverage before any additions Existing (and proposed) site coverage with 2nd floor addition F. Larking: * Includes already constructed second floor addition, IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 2,856 square feet (20%) 3,353 square feet (23.48%) 3,415 square feet (23.91%) No additional parking is required for this proposed expansion. Upon review of the criteria and findings set forth in Section 18.62.064 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Depm Unent recommends denial of the requested variance. This recommendation is based on the criteria and findings as follows: A. Variance Criteria: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The staff feels that the second level 62 square foot overhang addition does not adversely effect existing or potential uses in the vicinity. It is important to note that before the addition was built, the existing house exceeded the allowable site coverage by 497 square feet, a result of the cantilevered spaces that did not count as site coverage when the house was constructed but do count under the revised definition of "site coverage". The staff also notes that the 1 foot overhang occurs at the second floor, and feels that the actual physical impacts on the site are less than if the site coverage increase had occurred at ground level. 2. 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. The applicant's representative (Ned Gwathmey) acknowledges the fact that he assured the staff that the addition would not add site coverage, not realizing that the floor plans had been revised by his office to add the 62 square feet of • 6 site coverage. The staff, in subsequent review of the project, did not detect the overhang until final inspections were being made on the addition. The staff does believe that there is a self imposed hardship on the part of the applicant (or representative), and that site coverage could probably be removed from somewhere to provide a solution. The staff could not determine a unique site constraint warranting flexibility or a recommendation of approval. 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. The staff does not feel that the proposed variance would have a substantial adverse effect on any of these items. B. Variance Findings: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal into., t,.etation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. 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. C. 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. The applicant has asked the staff to remind the PEC that only one of 3 a, b, & c above has to be met, not all . 7 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff is recommending denial of the request for a site coverage variance because it is felt that the variance findings discussed in section IV B 1 and 3 a, b and c have not been met. The staff does believe that 62 square feet., or some portion thereof, could be removed from somewhere within the structure, for example from the eastern portion of the first floor in the area of the master bedroom closet. This area will be pointed out on floor plan to the PEC at the March 8, 1993 meeting. The architect for the applicant has asked the staff to look at the possibility of removing the trellis covered walkway, which currently exists on the north side of the house, to decrease the site coverage on the property. The staff's interpretation of trellis coverings is that they do not count as site coverage, an inte.pictation of the site coverage definition that has been applied to various properties in the past. The definition of site coverage is as follows: "Site Coverage" means the ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any building, carport, Porte cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway as measured from the exterior face of perimeter walls or support columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, deck or walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or deck shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the lower balcony, deck, or walkway. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of roof overhang, eave, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet from the exterior face of the perimeter walls or supporting columns. The staff feels that the trellis as it exists does not count as site coverage, and therefore would not decrease site coverage if it were removed. The applicant would like the PEC to review the staff policy regarding this interpretation. Please note that under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the approval of a variance shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion within two years from when the approval becomes final. 8 61 .. •::/? ?4 ..'? ,.i7'+e 4e.}l 11-1 r i [' 1"?-.'R r4 .. .'?.,- .. ? ? ... ? ;=r. .. . .-.5? ?... _:. Rs'n. fi' it? •?? •+ . R CQ? ?•' ? ,?wA ...r•.'ti,I _,.«...,.,?: ? w?,,.X°""°:"''".,? y ._ .. i ? L,R ? t 5 i 'lr`? } 1 t `Si ,ry }y-- Q 1 +f ?.L t? . `? ' t .tall a't - e 4 -44 +4r- } I }'?,cF? 'd??, ,•p•.,. _ 'Y t r .?. ( t .... -.,? ;.. ?4.r? 1.' :?"i?++; ,r+ y .---+?e. t??wx.?i+9o'3t"?,?H6 +'.` y.+e.iJ. r__"?}yh:r ._.: _.M.w„?4 u, w ?7.`?.'T_7^Mr+'y-v..•W^wtpt'er^.*.e`+u^Mk?rMerVV3.. ? .i L? a-A tit) : lo C?z?c ?aM, f h k October 30, 1992 Mr. Tim Devlin Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Re: 3090 Booth Creek Drive proposed Modifications in Excess of Allowed GRFA DRB Submittal Dear Tim: is After our pre-application conference, we have modified the plans and completed documentation for the two required submittals. We understand that the hearing date is 2 December and that we could hear both 250 and DRB issues, We are not increasing site coverage or exceeding GRFA plus 250. The other known aspects of the ordinance are met. Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions. Sincerely, THMEX/PRATT ARCHITECTS, P.C. and M. GwathmeA /AIA EMG/ad Enclosures copy to: Rose and George Gillett -' S 1 F i ?ttC i tax. I fir! i'? ? ??,• -r AZ) -': RECD ! '. 2 1993 March 2, 1993 Mr. Tim Devlin, Planner Town of Vail Community 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 #1 Development West Re: Gillett Residence - Certificate of Occupancy Dear Tim: Following the PEC Work Session 22 February, Rose Gillett and I studied the plans to see if any site coverage could be removed to offset the addition of the 62 square feet of the overhang. Short of the trellis and the area of the stone pilasters which seemed important to the Commissioners present, nothing pops out as expendable. We would like to propose that the request for additional site coverage for the garage increase be dropped and that a variance for the 62 feet of site coverage for the cantilever be granted. We will propose to mitigate this by adding three evergreen trees in the yard per the enclosed plan. A whole different approach to this dilemma could be taken: As Kristan pointed out in the hearing, the Gilletts' additions were built in accordance with the plans submitted to the DRB and the Building Department. Per 18.54.100 Enforcement, "It shall be the duty of the property owner or his authorized agent to notify the department of community development that such work is ready for inspection in order to ascertain compliance with approved plans. If the project is found upon inspection to be fully completed and in compliance with the approved design review application and plans, the community development department shall issue a final certificate of occupancy." (10 tzt) w Mr. Tim Devlin 2 March 1993 Page 2 In either case, please advise on the direction Staff would have us take. If necessary, we will make a formal application for a variance. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, /GWATHMEY/PRATT/SCHULTZ ARCHITECTS, P.C. L Edward M. Gwathmey, AIA EMG/ad Enclosures copy to: Rose Gillett