Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-1025 PECPLANNING VI T L COMMISSION October 2, 1993 AGENDA 2. A request for a worksession for variances for setbacks, density, parking in the front setback, and a driveway which exceeds the allowable grade for the development of a condominium project and an employee housing unit to be located at 44 Willow Place/Lot 9, Block • Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicants: Frederick H. Larson, Dorothy H. Larson, Lawrence K. Larson, Frederick A. Larson and Lance V. Larson Planner: Shelly Mello Shelly Mello stated that staff was uncomfortable letting the applicants use the additional 250 GRFA for this project. She said that Tom Moorhead had slated that t intent of the 250 Ordinance did not allow the 250 to be used for exterior modification *n multi-family buildings. He stated that they were attempting to explore different avenues for this project. He stated that they are trying to open up the center part of this site and that they were trying to follow the direction given on the previously submitted plans by Ned Gwathmey which attempted to create common area for this site. He stated that they would like feedback from the PEC concerning where to go with this project. Kathy Langenwalter asked the PEC to focus on the five concerns that staff has listed on Page 1 of the staff memorandum. ! Planning and Environmental Commission October 25, 1993 2 I I !I I I III I R I I I I! I ..r. I I I I I I I I I! I I III I I Jill Rick Travers, representing Bishop Park, stated that he would like to see the mass of the building move to the south, and the roof line be more varied. El Kathy Langenwalter stated that she did not want to see the building extended past the existing foundation on the east side. 9 V'L C&I I IIJ 111-3 t-01 employee housing unit for this project. Diana Donovan stated that she felt that using common area for an employee housiri unit could be feasible. Jeff Bowen stated that he was concerned about the 250. He added that he was concerned with the employee housing unit because it increases the overall units of the site from four to five. Dalton Williams stated that it used to be that people used to do things that d rect y benefitted the community and that this was no longer the case. He stated that he felt that people should be more willing to contribute to the community when projects are proposed in respect to employee housing. Hank Caldwell inquired whether the proposed Chapel Bridge would effect the road configuration for this site. Kristan Pritz responded that she did not believe that the bridge would effect the roa configuration and that the Public Works Department would work with the applicantsi Planning and Environmental Commission 0 October 25, 1993 4 Kathy Langenwalter stated that possibly a piece of artwork could be placed at this location. She said that it could be a hanging piece and that the verticality of the space could frame such a piece. Bill Anderson stated that it has been his experience in dealing with projects that sometimes there are items which cannot be completed the way in which they were originally planned. Bill Anderson stated that he would like to see the shrub that is to be located in the planter by Russell's be some sort of evergreen as opposed to a potentilla type of shrub. Diana Donovan stated that she did not feel that what the applicant had worked out with staff was the right solution for this matter. She said that she would like to see some type of original planter located in this area with some sort of vegetation to soften the artwork that could be located in this area. Jeff Bowen stated that he basically concurred with the staff. He added that he felt some sort of statue in the space would be appropr ate. solution to the landscaping at this location had not been found sooner and that it had go been brought before the PEC once again. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she would like to see a "fun and lively" piece of art located in this notch. IE Bowen seconding this motion. A 5-0 approved the minutes from the October 11, 1993 PEC meeting. Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that the DRB should consist • six mem ers, t e our M+ air members and two PEC members. He said that the two PEC members could rotate the DRB meetings so that one person did not have to attend both meetings each., m,*nth. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she felt that it was important that there was continuity in the representation of the PEC at DRB. She said that a possible solution would be to schedule items on the DRB agenda that had PEC issues to be at the beginning of the meeting. Dalton Williams stated that he felt that it would be helpful if the staff prepared a one page memorandum for DRB projects so that the DRB members are aware of what th - d - concerns • the project are. Kristan Pritz stated that it would not be possible for the planners to do even a onIM , memo for each DRB project because they do not have the time to NO Q-uch an undertaking. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the DRB should be able to function independent of whether a PEC member is at a DRB meeting or not. Kristan Pritz stated that the Design Guidelines were on the 1994 budget and that the PEC should think about whether they would like to see the DRB have more members. Jeff Bowen stated that the reason he brought this issue up is that there are some big projects that will be in front of the DRB in the near future and that the DRB and PEC could c1 me from different perspectives. [7 SUBJECT: A request for rear setback and density variances for the Hamner Residence located at 2854 Snowberry Drive/Lot 19B, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Subdivision. Applicant: Millie Hamner Planner: Jim Curnutte Allowed: *Existing: Proposed: Site Coverage (20 Allowed: Existing: Proposed: Total: 1 unit (on lots less than 15,000 sq. ft. in size) 2 units no change % of total site area): 2,674 sq. ft. 1,092 sq. ft. 128 sq. ft. 1,220 sq. ft. aim Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variances based on the following factors: 1 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Rear Setback Variance Density Variance F'61 I 0 Rear Setba I ck VariA Density Variance 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. I MF IIIIFIR III IMI I I I I I I I I I - --- - ----------- b. There a: 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. 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. °0 CRAVEL PARKING AREA e �� \ h COMMON PARCEL O.276 C. STAIRS Ceres � - -, ,; \ \ � \ / ter r� � ®"` � � � ®` �``• ! ` /, .,,.v i CRA4vL WALK PLAY AREA .. d t 4 Oo "!Q, LOT IS Q �� / � �� PARCEL A :, 1 > 0.416 C7Gres RETA1.41NC WALL 0 , E+N', a ® EXISTING BUILDING \�A \ �S �• F� �� BRICK WALK �• d ..PARCEL 60UNDARY AS PLATTED � Co ExrRr s. .. �} m 10.40° °! PARCEL E 0.016 tl! BRICK vazr ENTRY ��� cores T- 1 s 1 RETA!,mNC WALL, Li �t y:} I MEMORANDUM Em MI, SUBJECT: , A request for a worksession for variances for setbacks, density, parking in the front setback, and a driveway which exceeds the allowable grade for the development of a condominium project and an employee housing unit to be located at 44 Willow Place/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicants: Frederick H. Larson, Dorothy H. Larson, Lawrence K. Larson, Frederick A. Larson and Lance V. Larson Planner: Shelly Mello The applicant is requesting a series of variances to construct a four-family dwelling unit, with partially below grade structured parking and one employee housing unit on the property listed above. The variances are necessary for the following: U N • Density: GRFA: unavailable 7,553 sq. ft.*` 8,527 sq. ft. "* (974 sq. ft. over allowed) Dwelling Units: 1 7 4 + 1 Type IV FHU = 4.33 Common Area: 0 35% of allowed GRFA 1919 sq. ft. or 2,643.5 sq. ft. (724 sq. ft. remaining) Building Setbacks: 8' north 20 feet on all sides 76" north 20' south 20' south 11' -6" east T6" east Deck Setbacks: 4' north 15 feet for deck 4' north 5' above grade 76" east Underground Parking: None No parking 11 spaces underground allowed in 20 foot front setback Parking: 2 surface 11 spaces; 11 spaces underground 75% enclosed Height: below 48' 48' 48' Landscaping: 8,889 sq. ft. 3,776 sq. ft. 6,251 sq. ft. or 49.6% or 70% or 30 °1° Landscaping does not include at -grade decks or driveway. The applicant would propose to use the 250 - additional GRFA and the remaining common area for GRFA, therefore the allowable GRFA as proposed would be 7553 sq. ft + 724 sq. ft. remaining common area + 250 allowance = 8527 sq. ft. 2 Ill. RELATED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN This site is specifically addressed in the Vail Village Master Plan, The PEC should consider the Master Plan's goals and objectives when reviewing this request. The following excerpts specify the goals, and objectives and sub-area concepts for this site. Goal #1 Encourage the high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. Objective 1.2 Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the village. Objective 501 Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities. • 3 r] The PEC should consider the following Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code when considering this project. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make th� followingjjngjnga_�� granting a variance: M 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. • 4 V. STAFF CONCERN& 1 Setbacks The staff is concerned with the applicants proposal for encroachments into setbacks for both the building and the decks. The staff believes that as proposed, the building will ° ©- significanti i»?2 upon the pedestrian experience along Willow Road. We feel that %f+ »«2§ ©:- »w: Park, which uses a variety of ridge heights adjacent to Willow Road in order achieve the pedestrian scale. In this proposal, the building appears to be much more massive due to the scale of the elements and to the lack of terracing as seen in Bishop Park. The staff feels that the eaves should be lowerek»«» el as the ridge height for the area with ©* setbacks and adjacent to the roadways. The shading of this building on adjacent properties and public roadways will be extensive because the bulk of the building ©l« -4 «t4 e adjacent to the street. The staff feels that the building should be terraced in order to both reduce ©e shade impact as well as bring the building down to a more pedestrian level. C. All or part of an airlock within an accommodation or dwelling unil } i u1. L1„., z Lai -I' f / r r t _.t � w uj 4 "'SITE PLAN • • • SUBJECT: A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/ art of Lots B and C, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing. U m e constructed an 18-inch tall, stone-faced planter in the area between the addition and the Ore House's exterior deck wall. The net planting area in this planter is 39 square feet. A flowering crabapple and junipers have been installed in «» »?: «t<=31111111 1101 1 :1111,11 1 1 � » it February 24, 1992: The PEC approved an e xterior alteration and site coverage variance for the Slifer Building. The landscape plan that was approved provided for the 18-inc2 tall stone-faced planter that the applicant now wishes to substitute the potted plants for. ©° evergreen tree was to be installed in the planter. 2 r 0 TABLED TO OCTOBER 12 8. A request for a wall height variance from Section 18.58.020 to allow for the construction of two retaining walls located in the front setback which exceed 3 feet in height, located on Lot 10, Block B, Vail Village Ridge/2692 Cortina Lane. Applicant: Hanns Weimann and The Town of Vail Planner: Tim Devlin Tim Devlin presented the request, explaining the safety concerns of the Town regarding the stability of the hillside beneath Cortina Lane as well as for the Weimann residence. Diana Donovan stated that the landscaping should not be junipers, but should include plants such as salisberry and choke cherry with adequate root systems. Tim Devlin reviewed the staff memo with the Board. Ned Gwathmey, representing the 10. A request for an amendment to Chapter 18.57 Employee Housing for the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andv Knucltsen