Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0314 PEC• • W Amok PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 14, 1994 AGENDA Protect Orientation/Lunch Site Visits Plavec Lifthouse Lodge Covered Bridge Mountain School 4335 Bighorn Road Schonkwiler Drivers: Randy and Mike 11:00 a.m. 11:45 a.m. Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a proposed minor subdivision located at 4316 Strearnside Circle West/Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Walter Kirch Planner: Randy Stouder 2. A request for a variance to allow for a 6 foot fence located in the front setback located at 5118 Gore Circle/Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn 5th'Addition. Applicant: Robert Schonkwiler Planner: Randy Stouder 3. A request for a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots C and D and a part of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and East West Partners Planner: Mike Mollica 4. A request for a worksession for a major exterior alteration, site coverage and setback variances for the Lifthouse Lodge commercial area, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing/549 West Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Bob Lazier Planner: Jim Curnutte 1 n 11 5. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Block 5, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Kristan Pritz 6. A request for a worksession for variances to allow for off -site parking and GRFA and a garage in the front setback, and site coverage to allow for a new ' Primary/Secondary residence located at 1799 Sierra Trail/Lot 17, Vail Village West 1st Filing. Applicant: George Plavec Planner: Mike Mollica 7. A request for a worksession for a variance from Section 18.69.040 (Development Restricted) of the Vail Municipal Code to allow for the construction of buildings on slopes greater than 40% located at 4335 Bighorn Road/Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Filing. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/BAB Partnership Planner: Jim Curnutte 8. A request for a worksession for a major CCII exterior alteration and setback variance to allow for the expansion of dwelling units at the Lionshead Center Building located at 520 Lionshead Mail, Units 208, 209, 308 and 309/Lot 5, Block 1, -Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing. Applicant: Victor Cano Faro, Transcon Investments, Inc., and Jose Luis Chain Planner: Andy Knudtsen 9. A report to the PEC regarding the February exterior alteration submittals: A request for a variance to the Gore Creek stream setback, common area variance and a major CCI'exterior alteration to allow for an expansion to the Gasthof Gramshammer Building located at 231 East Gore Creek Drive/Lot H, Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer Planner: Andy Knudtsen 10. A request for a wall height variance and driveway slope variance to allow for a driveway to exceed 10% located at 2445 Garmisch Drive/Lots 10 and 11, Block H, Vail das Schone 2nd Filing. Applicant: Steve Sheridan and Adam Szpiech Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO MARCH 28, 1994 K 11. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an expansion at the Vail Mountain School located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Fred Otto, representing the Vail Mountain School Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED TO MARCH 28, 1994 12. A request for preliminary plat approval of a major subdivision (Trappers Run) on Lots 16, 19 and 21, Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located north of 1-70 and west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Development Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO APRIL 11, 1994 13. Approve minutes from February 28, 1.994 PEC meeting. 14. Council Update: -Lindholm Land Discussion, March 15, 1994. -Town Council and PEC joint discussion of Category III on March 22, 1994 Council Worksession. -Golden Peak House Town Council discussion - demo/rebuild. 15. Reminders to the PEC: -Trappers Run is scheduled for PEC review on April 11, 1994. -Need to discuss date for "ski day" in April. 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 14, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision located at 4316 and 4336 Strearnside Circle West/Lots 2 & 3, Bighorn Subdivision 4th Filing. Applicant: Walter Kirch Planner: Randy Stouder 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing a minor subdivision in order to relocate a common property line between Lots 2 and 3, Bighorn Subdivision 4th Filing (The applicant owns both lots). No additional development rights (units) or density will be created by the proposed re-subdivisjoh. If the subdivision is approved, the applicant will construct a new home for himself on lot 2. The proposed subdivision (see attached reduction of the final plat) adds approximately 3,000 s quare feet of area to Lot 2 and reduces Lot 3 by the same amount. The applicant has located the proposed lot line so that each new lot meets the dimensional requirements of the, so Two Family Residential zone district. The proposed residential construction on lot 2 will not require any variances. The proposed subdivision will correct an existing nonconformity on Lot 3. The existing house on that lot is located 12.9 feet from the common property line between lots 2 and 3. The applicant proposes to move the property line further north, creating a full 15 foot setback for the existing home on Lot 3, thus removing a nonconforming situation. E III. ZONING ANALYSIS The applicant proposes to demolish the existing home located on Lot 2 and build a larger permanent residence for himself. No physical changes are proposed on Lot 3. The applicant has stated that the re-subdivision is necessary to improve the geometry of the lot and provide the desired house site. As a result of the subdivision, lot 2 gains 2944 sq. ft. of area, 1,171 sq. ft. of which is buildable not 100-year floodplain); 319 sq. ft. of allowable GRFA; and 590 sq. ft, of allowable site coverage. The home proposed for lot 2 will utilize 81 sq. ft. of the additional GRFA and 83 sq. ft. of the additional site coverage generated as a result of the subdivision. The applicant's GRFA and site coverage are slightly above what would be allowed without the re-subdivision. The remaining GRFA is available to Lot 2 for future construction. Im A. Lot 2 (60% minimum) B. Lot 3 Net Change +2,944 sq, ft. +1,171 sq. ft. + 319 sq. ft. + 590 sq. ft. Proposed Home Construction 27,430 sq. ft. 19,230 sq. ft. 5,605 sq.ft.(238 under) 4,980 sq. ft.(18 %)(506 under) +1,766 sq. ft. 20,013 sq. ft. (73 %) Existing Lot Proposed Lot Existing Lot Proposed Lot (Allowed /Required) (Allowed /Required) (Allowed /Required) (Allowed /Required) Lot Size:* 24,486 sq. ft. 27,430 sq. ft. Buildable Area:* 18,059 sq_ ft. 19,230 sq. ft. GRFA ** 5,524 sq. ft. 5,843 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 4,896 sq. ft. 5,486 sq. ft. (20% maximum) Landscaping: 14,692 sq. ft. 16,458 sq. ft. (60% minimum) B. Lot 3 Net Change +2,944 sq, ft. +1,171 sq. ft. + 319 sq. ft. + 590 sq. ft. Proposed Home Construction 27,430 sq. ft. 19,230 sq. ft. 5,605 sq.ft.(238 under) 4,980 sq. ft.(18 %)(506 under) +1,766 sq. ft. 20,013 sq. ft. (73 %) Existing Lot Proposed Lot Existing Home (Allowed /Required) (Allowed /Required) Net Change Construction Lot Size:* 20,794 sq. ft. 17,850 sq. ft. -2,944 sq. ft. 17,850 sq. ft. Buildable Area:* 16,221 sq. ft. 155050 sq. ft. -1,171 sq. ft. 15,050 sq. ft. . GRFA: ** 5,179 sq. ft. 4,860 sq. ft. - 319 sq. ft. 3,880 sq. ft.(980 under) Site Coverage: 4,159 sq. ft. 3,570 sq. ft. - 589 sq. ft. 3,029 sf (16 %)(541 under) (20% maximum) Landscaping: 12,476 sq. ft. 10,710 sq. ft. -1,766 sq. ft. 13,456 sq. ft. (75 %) (600% minimum) Required setbacks are 20', 15', 15'; Height is limited to 33'; Parking required is 2.5 spaces. The house as proposed meets the parking, height and setback restrictions above. *The lots meet the minimum requirement of 15,000 square feet of buildable area. * *The GRFA numbers include credits except for garages. III. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA The Subdivision Regulations and the Zoning Ordinance, establish minimum standards for the creation or modification of lots. The Subdivision Regulations allow for the division of existing lots or the creation of new lots from previously unplatted property. However, the regulations require that new lots meet all the applicable, standards of the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance establishes the dimensional requirements of a lot, i.e. minimum size and configuration, minimum road frontage, yard and creek setbacks, landscaping and site coverage percentages. The Ordinance also establishes design review criteria that guide house design and site development. The table above summarizes the dimensional requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and relates these requirements to the proposed lot configuration and house construction. The revised lots created by the subdivision meet or exceed all these dimensional requirements as shown above. Subdivision requests are evaluated for compliance with the purpose statements of the General Provisions in the Subdivision Regulations (Section 17.04.010(A,B,C)). The purpose 10 statements are quoted below and followed by an analysis of the applications conformance to the each statement. "17-04.010 Purpose: A. The subdivision regulations contained in this title have been prepared and enacted in accordance with Title 31, Article 23, part of C.R.S., 1973, for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of the Town of Vail, Colorado. B. To these ends, these regulations are intended to protect the environment to ensure efficient circulation, adequate improvements, sufficient open space and in general, to assist the orderly, efficient and integrated development of the town. These regulations also provide for the proper arrangement of streets and ensure proper distribution of population. The regulations also coordinate the need for public services with governmental improvement programs. Standards for design and construction of improvements are hereby set forth to ensure adequate and convenient traffic circulation, utilities, emergency access, drainage, recreation, and light and air. Also intended is the improvement of land records and surveys, plans and plats and to safeguard the interests of the public and subdivider and provide consumer protection for the purchaser; and to regulate other matters as the town planning and environmental commission and town council may deem necessary in order to protect the best interests of the public." aThe proposed subdivision will not adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the Town's residents. It realigns a lot line between lots 2 & 3, both owned by the applicant. The subdivision will not require the extension of roads or utilities, since the site is already served by a public street, and utilities are already available at the site. The proposed house construction on lot 2 provides ample off-street parking and driveway area, and will not effect traffic circulation patterns or emergency access on Strearnside Circle West. The Fire Department has reviewed the proposed development and can provide emergency services to both lots. The subdivision and proposed house construction respect existing drainage easements, floodplains and creek setbacks. The site plan and house design are respectful of the surrounding neighborhood, the Gore Creek riparian area and the large trees that dominate the site. The subdivision does not create any additional density or additional development rights thus, its impacts on the public infrastructure will be minimal and have been accounted for. The applicant has submitted the final plat, in the appropriate form, for signatures and recordation if the subdivision request is approved. The subdivision regulations are further intended to serve the following specific purposes (17.04.010(C)): "l. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required." • 3 Staff Response: One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations is to establish basic ground rules for the review of subdivision requests. These ground rules are readily available to the public, and the applicant has been made aware of them. "2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land." Staff Response: The subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance establish development standards that impose a certain order and predictability on land development. Predictable development helps avoid conflict with adjacent property owners, since they know ahead of time what level and type of development will occur around them. The proposed subdivision is a lot line adjustment that provides a more favorable geometry for the building envelope on lot 2. The improved geometry of the lot will allow the applicant to develop the size and style of house he desires. The applicant's proposed development meets or exceeds all dimensional requirements of the Two Family zone district in which it is located. The lot split and house development are in line with what one would expect to occur on the subject property. The response from the neighboring property owners (see attached letters) has focused on the issue of tree preservation. The neighbors place a high value on the heavily wooded riparian area, and are concerned about any trees being removed along this stretch of Gore Creek. is However, they respect the applicant's right to develop a reasonable house on lot 2. Tree preservation has also been one of staff's major issues with the application. In response to staff's and the neighbor's concerns over tree preservation on lot 2 and following DRB conceptual review, the applicant eliminated a large room off the back of the house and reduced the garage by one parking space. He also moved the entire house forward on the lot to further reduce impacts to the large spruce trees along Gore Creek. These changes will lead to the preservation of an additional eight trees, several of which are larger than one foot in diameter. The applicant has also revised grading for drainage purposes around the side of the house to reduce impacts to the root zones of several trees to be saved. The design of the rear patio area has also been altered to decrease impacts to nearby trees. Additional discussion of this issue is contained in item #7 below. 3. "To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land." Staff Response: Subdivisions should not adversely effect property values of adjacent land. The value of a lot, and to a greater extent the value of a neighborhood, is in large part dependent on the level and type of development within it. The applicant has taken care to limit land disturbance and tree removal to the minimum necessary to construct a reasonably 0 4 sized single family home on lot 2. The back of the proposed house is located 40 to 65 feet from the edge of Gore Creek. All required yard and creek setbacks have been respected, and the proposed house will be surrounded by a large number of mature spruce trees. Thus, the value of the subject property will be increased without adversely effecting adjacent lots. 4. "To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives." Staff Response: The proposed subdivision complies with the zoning ordinance as demonstrated in section 11 o ' f this memorandum. The land is zoned and planned for single or two family residential development, and adjacent properties are developed with single family or duplex homes. 5. "To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision." Staff Response: Public facilities such as schools and parks should not be effected by this subdivision since it does not create additional units or density. 6. "To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures." Staff Response: The applicant has submitted accurate survey information on both lots. Existing and proposed conditions are accurately depicted and presented in the appropriate format, including a final plat containing the appropriate certifications for recordation if the subdivision is approved. The proposed construction does not involve street construction or major utility work. The proposed driveway meets the appropriate width and slope standards. 7. "To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land." • 5 Staff Response: Gore Creek flows along the, southwest property line of lots 2 and 3, and Bighorn Creek flows along the northwest property line of lot 2. Bighorn Creek confluences with Gore Creek in the northwest corner of lot 2. Both lots are impacted by 100 year floodplains. The riparian areas are characterized by old growth spruce trees. The trees along this stretch of Gore Creek are generally between 1 and 3 feet in diameter. Lot 2 contains a total of approximately 85 trees. The landscape plan shows that the proposed construction on lot 2 will require the removal of 14 trees, 8 of which are greater than or equal to I foot in diameter. The most significant trees to be removed are a grove of 6 large spruces that are located directly behind the existing house. These trees range from 1-3 feet in diameter, with an average diameter of 2 feet. Staff (including Todd Oppenheimer) has explored alternative development scenarios with the applicant such as moving the entire house up to the front property line which would require a setback variance. Todd Oppenheimer also questioned whether this solution would save these trees as the root system for the largest tree would probably be effected by the alternative designs explored to date. The applicant has carefully designed a house to fit his needs while preserving the character of the riparian area. The 100-year floodplain, the 50 foot setback from Gore Creek and the 30 foot setback from Bighorn Creek, the side and front setbacks define the building area for lot 2. Staff believes that the applicant has made a strong effort to design the house in a manner that is environmentally sensitive to the riparian area. However, grading and construction impacts intrude into the stream setbacks in two places, and may impact several large trees located within 2-8 feet of the limits of disturbance shown on the construction management plan. Staff will continue to work with the applicant to refine the site development and construction management plans to reduce site disturbance adjacent to trees to be saved. The applicant proposes to save many of the trees located in the portion of the lot that fronts on Strearnside Circle West. The applicant also proposes to plant a 12 foot spruce along with wildflowers in the island located in the circular driveway. Staff believes that these efforts are positive, and help to preserve the character of the neighborhood. The applicant has been investigating the possibility of moving some of the trees that would otherwise be lost as a result of the house construction on lot 2. As shown on the landscape plan, the applicant is considering moving several small trees and half a dozen larger trees (diameters from 0.6 to 0.8 feet) which are currently located in the area where garages are proposed. If the applicant cannot move these trees due to excessive cost or physical reasons, the applicant is would consider planting some new trees. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the requested minor subdivision which relocates a common property line between Lots 2 and 3, Bighorn Subdivision 4th Filing, as shown on the Final Plat prepared by Stan Hogfeldt of Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc (see attached reduction). Staff believes that the subdivision criteria have been met, as discussed above. The • 6 subdivision removes an existing setback nonconformity on lot 3, and the resulting lots conform to all the dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance.The proposed building site on lot 2 provides a level of environmental sensitivity that exceeds what could have occurred under existing development rights on the existing lot configuration. However, staff is still concerned about tree preservation on lot 2 during the construction process. If it is the Commissions desire to approve the proposed subdivision, Staff recommends that the following list of conditions be attached to the approval motion. Prior to the issuance of any building, two mylar copies of the resubdivision plat (see attached final plat reduction) shall be provided to the Department of Community Development for recordation. No construction or other land disturbing activities shall occur on either lot without prior review and approval by the Design Review Board, and without the issuance of required building permits. 2. No construction activity or site disturbance shall occur outside the "limits of construction disturbance" on lot 2, as shown on the Construction Management Plan prepared by Zehren and Associates, Inc. (dated 1/3/94). The limits of construction disturbance shall be surveyed and fenced prior to the commencement of any construction activity on lot 2. Snow fencing shall be used, and shall not be removed until construction is complete. Community Development staff will inspect the fencing prior to the issuance of any building permits for lot 2. The areas of construction disturbance that encroach into stream setbacks (as shown on the Construction Management Plan) shall be reduced to the extent possible. 3. The proposed irrigation system shall be installed so that the roots of trees to be preserved are not harmed. The alignment of the sanitary sewer system shall be as shown on the Construction Management Plan; any changes in final alignment shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Staff. 4. The applicant shall relocate quality vegetation contained within the limits of construction disturbance as feasible. As an alternative, the applicant shall plant spruce and evergreen trees in the front and side yards, adjacent to the garages and circular driveway, to provide screening of these areas when viewed from adjacent properties. The applicant shall work with staff to determine the final disposition of tree relocation/replacement efforts. 5. The applicant shall maintain native vegetation within the stream setback areas Areas within the stream setbacks shall not be seeded or sodded with turf grasses. Opec\m em os\kT rch.31 4 0 7 TO: Planning Attn: Randy Stouder Date- March 10, 1994 Subject: 4316 Streamside West I conducted a site visit on February 23, 1994 to 4316 Streamside West and reviewed the proposed plans for the new Kirch residence. I have the following comments based on this review. 1) Given the snow on the site it is difficult to determine whether obligate species exist on the site. I would recommend another site visit in the spring. I did notice to the north of the existing residence alders and willows along the road. It appears that they run along a drainage and should not be directly impacted by the development. However, this should be verified in the spring. 2) The proposed layout does a fairly good job of respecting the riparian area along Gore Creek and Bighorn creek. I would recommend that native vegetation be maintained between the residence and Gore Creek. 3) The major impact is the loss of approximately 16 mature Engelman and Blue Spruce on the site. I strongly concur with Todd's comments to relocate trees where possible 4) 1 would also request that no disturbance during construction occur between the proposed building envelope and the Gore and Bighorn creek. This means no dirt, debris, vehicles, or building materials in this zone. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding my comments. If possible, I would like to visit the site again in spring to review vegetative impacts and the presence of wetland species. E I jr� ii f Of 60 It i O testa C=/ \ `Gowecurx \0 \\k k � o 0 \ o t a —�' cuu tlxc • � ° rnar��•c�) i—t uo YWr nam tW►i e a YAgtD to totmrd tam sbotw scale: 1 /e' -1'-a` 93839W V Ly . ON- e , v }• ;^ -- "Aql' iue %wpm{ ,awew ; h z" tkS , z= n. LIJ ruwm Ca se c10, 0 / / a p 4 r. taeay. bow fi °J¢'f� ®4Ct 0M0= /fC 0.s % l ��, • I \ OAO to tN _�.._ —..,. �'� i�fgWiXtfX.,,,,,r'f �./ f/ /f ` l i 1 — Y — � •r \ - �rr � +rr w t 1✓� {l \�' '� \� Qom• �4� \ t ;.c a \Cclrl'7 ` \�i° \t 1 • \\ Y flY�D �� \\ �(i e • �w.�a � �' romY CUM a t, a.• ° MOM: 7�sr�q� �\ `�'y�`4`., ` • ��' / \ \ape K1vaaW,. _Pitt eoc IM K er FSE�Aw V- un awe armhub • / \� VMV9�/PG��liIYLK�W MII \\ Ocr IWYY7771M1MV2CG iia Gtr6cr� i1 � f k I77Ww7Km'a11aN.W - ►crielDM � —(} �\ � �� / �G�9udrx pasrearnr�pxwsNCO- Ilc[�e[VAS —• a wmscAK rtM �--- YAfIN�i�v foot � s� va-:r�cr ' `� 9A C�* a ae 4 �f f / i• / / / �--e -- �--� o a } ' f�el�'`— �/-�i� ® 1 r so "We iCAffl ey f Do � � .� �� � {�f 0 i •� ,� .�•� -r •ry.+�o.� .� " -fitjbt 1.7N. � � ,.. � y I/e .�..�. �� � � / .._.._. �-- 0�.�'+'j�,`, ^' J •\��`� \fie � \ Ka \ ` �W 4 OW ox o.Y Wt /� i \� W r �r •. \ / Y« eti mot\ {I� r `�O .r auto i ,7�iktll� � .t` � `a.. � bY:�:- .+:p 'fh[O � `.sr J .� .M- ►as.7+C? 7�..y. rarmtp �� • 9.0 W MEW- 0) r'f+�'«+anV. . - `� �.+ �� •. ,�P°r t. • ' \ t �wa�mvaua a /�(w r.w� a� � warm ermces tk�' . ,'A •'h •k � n � .� �7C�fL "`��C/aW�br{. RYn YWVhk. (�z. \ � \ ! 4c+wantaauiowown- acw ®w► -- -C} ! CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN cc Yd> ---ID n= 11AuN �r�a+ MID"Wo La" at R� n. pc�yra 8 { .i• s Lar if rau. r. for wn a �..aa uiur w.w.w� _LOT 2_ w�iww nuo- a.x r..n Y i1Ger nrx {m M b 1Lw ti n ouu •.w FINAL PLAT, AA. RE SUBDIVISION OF ' LOTS 2 & 3, BIGHORN SUBDIVISION FOURTH ADDITION TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO • ww{.ns w � • LOT ♦ CUIINIGVi V RIrGlI}r w tivRWlt 11115 mRPIGR ��i� xlf w e wu Ili ► wr wr wY�u'aY�.�Fy ue vw..�`i` u/ e.`x b ��I�v� plpv - Ru. ¢x.l }I.} wt Iv IrF Iv..aw4 x �w MtvH Fr r♦ SIwM. W al • 1 ywCy rtlraH �. b - Aa4 SY�'Cw.R. Giwr��kaprw{ui u 3 1dR: , r M u• - • •• ro �.Y�1 �J•I.�iOYnr4uw +rill b.���x� �•� laM } rI i, bya.. t rx.f ♦ �r{a{w. rybyy w w. aila.`i.HV N c a r i . w ryln}. rr.ir —' {a {.faianwrd ravM .. Mr.0 M y�r wu6i�. Glwaa • .• L�nn�r.....0 W.4w �a1M w..N +lMwrr. �_ }aNr 4rrr /. Glw.rw r • Mw.ar • a� rryr4M � .�.�..`.�_�� wus ¢ - Cu arl�rl4a a[ rwyirH nparr.4. « od u way..a al Y r� r,}{.s .rr N . W.r fa,a c {.�m.•+...o ri w ra.a.rn} rl.r o w r a •r Eras Z...r.l d O.M w -,_.. N r }.}.. 1111, HH r..,. naYnu ..r r�Yfr ✓ xur..{ irY+.M�I r.u. aM xMUM a. r+rw.f ✓ av aury.rlYY IIN 4.4f r ix ir.r+w �.o.y \ \\ '__ �14i Y .u1.11 N wwM rY� Mw M �rl ®Q - raver} VKMia to Yx Y ` Ya1i"li 4114'1[ R+•I.ru4N Ir rr}u11w�1: I�'¢YH M 14rw{rra M r{W 1W r}wrraF ra ~` IrrM wls e.... M IF }.¢., l,q, Ilr� O`x�iw.� W Ir��•�� wlb. Ilrq w"m MWER K 1. [111 W Ia1111111 M OMI—"& �.m RAalt}R •!upow Mr rMa INi w wwrN YN 1M r bJ rIr1Y W VICINITY MAP 1148 V is Yw� 1.aa.al cw. w{a Wu M WI r r.. w 0 1 IIR114 ' Aw krY.x} YrrlvC.wi tl4u1MM Wiq W Nu �. V - - � - - 4 SwCVrls r�I1Hi. IrH'.{ r Wv_ tr r bll /Ifr{� W _ ' r1Y.... w I..M w wrl. wrwaMwxl tw. w+wr rls I!!1[lY•1 W/RWR . - 1 �FrM. lY pi t a . ri1UMr1 la1 Irr.rw• IvsaM ✓ WIYIGR � RIRMIb 1®IWR4Rt O IRI O Illgi IuA r N 1aa YI FWY Y 4xnu� Mav wx I{av a 4v. N vovlr4 u la{4.n. rxaM. a4usaM r4 wrtr� ' WT 2G-1 � wr. vlr aw y tiaaawavWa (nrluy r Yr{v .4 [lil• ip� r IrrPlui �v Mi , ��p1wM i�IFriw. a 4Nr Wt .a rYaa M rr Ia ravaW rrrr r wY1 P�� Y u1 arw �rVwauYr u1 rarrlGaly pr4� Yoa f awvaws M r.waW u vM u 1 ra�. Cw ylr.k. � v Iellwr N. � nMiirYr,a x a1n aw ra. aC.Wkya CH ,.ri r iwxarae{} ac Wu xY.f4 // 61 $MMASIM t'M F W i. I.dawr WYnua }rw Wlila. o. ary r waval r wMxx{a A {rI• RE$51DONiS3O¢I OF LOT :0 � ) . / 41 b w E14..i4rwrr races l.¢ r au w /In M Ya Ly1�tNMCV1i41w.b. ' S 6 bccrM. xryxx} f�YA soar. r lea. 4 rvt4ar Inrrr 1 wrr rri w M fal �Ca �. 4, V }.I., x%. SIHY r Nnn V /rw 4r lOT 20-2 rFN7p•9e' '! vura w wYS rlar row Wr w W a41r r • riul r1f�NNrrr{r M kau�Y ]. ilyo. W.rx.r (arw - - 6 ECI ml`+aar ws"�i.'u. w�ul� �.�i rnr{.j .tr.,.l4i�h`wr ��'j� '�na�x ax:1 A' - _ �' �-- K 79.00 Rr4 \� • `jf lai `Ql ^ur'¢r.i{H Il M MYK txrwev .e! r � wa M F'kr{xrva r IMar Ir'i1MU r uH raY / w w{uM u WrrM a aW vS4rar1xl rvN ar' « u f '�� ru�MCq Oy'a_ O^' wivwl CAS ��'i� /IWw Ya avrw{{ � � �•` raYo-!+•ra b 1 ••+�mo�w x Ir Iaux4 a.a wrNwe H . Ibr aaxa..R re aC.41{M, ltl br M 9.�....{,..,w�.wYv. 11R (� r¢) W IwM \ wmlH rna ,._,. wr r 4.1.. 1111. .S gr .u� iv'HMS�v`r`.ux �litra l i yvn� w� uYa tw.w M+uaw N am Srs Irrn.4i r,Yr \ -. .\ �� ¢.x v¢ ua I Wx} i H•s•M 4 f x..kvx11. ,�� i rlaw {/Myna LOT i Rr • V \ Ul Wra },ou ry v� Yr V yq IMx�iy vp1 a.4 ♦ 06. 101V RSn r—m— r b!1 11 a{1 uu W{I. d IIWI I�r v�rrlauY {a u M 4swt ) iwul 4Y•rar. IN } . y{4 ttr4w{4r CMSh Yrr4 LM i - NY tWrorw{u }r{4 Yul M Ilr rkrrvu rrxrai Maur M4a {r Iw O wr M x r !v Lrur{a.f. rw aKrr M W oraY W p i1iS6 Pa.`a J 'wMti.IxY i1,F1 K iiJ �'17'E• t41 r \' s f�dwr IwM `pw.rlr.wsaYii ° - ai~rLL w. tx{urr irrvlVV. 4a. )1) na4ca�� x 1.'r Yli .i }.M l}} of u raM x {arlvwav a rwwN a bW If N SY ]!. EM \�° • f I RQ i acHOw FsrAtLS it _ '¢!f t1 R W$C4R s }W F4} alli aYY4Ci'n irW o } SCAW 1• - 3w R lDE S/ j /LOE SJ / M MRN ESTATE$ �. LOT 6 { .Lot 7,' REUMDMWH OF LOTS 10 Z 11 %! f 4 is rrna -wn . - i A& IH, NN11 Y- % r, .. xrawre, r..wr..nry a. rN wiM i..mi -✓ Wfr Y W FyJla u M 1�_ w._�. It .Ya r nwl Hwv kw 41.1 wuT1:.i'�iaFN: Wu1` ' i[t Iw'rMb1 M ...�..•.�..... .k•. ItL b r MYaxi ar aMIrI1r14riarr t{H.►a ✓ r.n. ri1 r 4 4.}.a nn. • LOT ♦ _ - - `� � ¢ait r•i "RIIIF WR �r.{W M1w i41f • ¢ - Ru. ¢x.l }I.} wt Iv IrF Iv..aw4 x �w MtvH Fr r♦ SIwM. W ' - � �i1r1 xav,C.wa r rrinavnpvl blrr -H wv1 � MY �.Y�1 �J•I.�iOYnr4uw +rill b.���x� �•� ryln}. rr.ir —' GI`xl 1~...k. plwW - i A& PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 14, 1994 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Greg Amsden Allison Lassoe Kristan Pritz Bill Anderson Dalton Williams Mike Mollica Bob Armour Andy Knucltsen Jeff Bowen Jim Curnutte Kathy Langenwalter A request for a proposed minor subdivision located at 4316 Strearnside Circle West/Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Walter Kirch Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was recommending approval of this request with the five conditions outlined on Page 7 of the staff memo: 1 Prior to the issuance of any building, two mylar copies of the resubdivision plat (see attached final plat reduction) shall be provided to the Department of Community Development for recordation. No construction or other land disturbing activities shall occur on either lot without prior review and approval by the Design Review Board, and without the issuance of required building permits. 2. No construction activity or site disturbance shall occur outside the "limits of construction disturbance" on lot 2, as shown on the Construction Management Plan prepared by Zehren and Associates, Inc. (dated 1/3/94). The limits of construction disturbance shall be surveyed and fenced prior to the commencement of any construction activity on lot 2. Snow fencing shall be used, and shall not be removed until construction is complete. Community Development staff will inspect the fencing prior to the issuance of any building permits for lot 2. The areas of construction disturbance that encroach into stream setbacks (as shown on the Construction Management Plan) shall be reduced to the extent possible. 3. The proposed irrigation system shall be installed so that the roots of trees to be preserved are not harmed. The alignment of the sanitary sewer system shall be as shown on the Construction Management Plan; any changes in final alignment shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Staff. Planning and Environmental Commission March 14, 1994 4. The applicant shall relocate quality vegetation contained within the limits of construction disturbance as feasible. As an alternative, the applicant shall plant spruce and evergreen trees in the front and side yards, adjacent to the garages and circular driveway, to provide screening of these areas when viewed from adjacent properties. The applicant shall work with staff to determine the final disposition of tree relocation/replacement efforts. 5. The applicant shall maintain native vegetation within the stream setback areas. Areas within the stream setbacks shall not be seeded or sodded with turf grasses. Randy added that the applicant had no objections to the conditions provided by staff. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approved this request for a minor subdivision per the staff memo with Greg Amsden seconding the motion. A 5-0 vote approved this request. 2. A request for a variance to allow for a 6 foot fence located in the front setback located at 5118 Gore Circle/Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Robert Schonkwiler Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that staff was recommending denial of this request and that the fence be removed from the front setback. He added that several residents of this neighborhood had contacted the Community Development Department to complain about the fence. Robert Schonkwiler, the applicant, stated that he was not before the PEC to argue about the location of the fence. He said that he received contradictory information from staff concerning the proper location of the fence. He added that the reason he was requesting the variance was because he was concerned that if he moved the fence the full 20 feet out of the front setback that there is a four foot ridge present on the property which would require that the fence be even higher. Mr. Schonkwiler was concerned that such a location would require the removal of several large evergreen trees. He said the reason the fence was erected in, its present location was that it seemed to be the only practical location on his property. He stated that he was before the PEC to request some relief from the 20 foot front setback requirement. He said that he disagreed with staff's contention that no other fences exist in his neighborhood. Tom Hopkins, a neighbor, stated that he was opposed to the request. He said that the fence negatively impacts the appearance of their neighborhood. Arthur Kittay, a neighbor who lives to the west of the applicant, stated that the applicant's fence negatively impacts the appearance of the Gore Circle Drive neighborhood. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 March 14, 1994 2 Eric Berg, a neighbor, stated that he does not understand why the fence has been allowed to remain in place as long as it has. He said he was opposed to the granting of a variance for this fence. Jeff Bowen stated that the fence did not comply with the Town of Vail's Zoning Code and therefore would need to be taken down. Greg Amsden stated he was not in favor of the fence and that it needed to pulled back to the 20 foot setback line. He said that any fence to be erected on the site would need Design Review Board approval. Bob Armour stated that he would like to see the fence pulled back to the 20 foot setback line. Bill Anderson stated that he had no further comments. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she had no further comments and that she did not feel that a hardship existed on the site. Kristan Pritz suggested that should the PEC vote against this request that they should put a time limit as to when the applicant should make application to the DRB. Jeff Bowen stated that he would like the fence to be removed within seven days from today's date or else the applicant be cited for violating the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Kristan Pritz stated that the applicant would have the right to appeal the PECs decision to the Town Council within ten days of today's meeting. Jeff Bowen made a motion to deny the applicant's request for a variance to allow a 6 foot fence and that the applicant has ten days to remove the fence with Bob Armour seconding the motion. A 5-0 vote denied this request. 3. A request for a major CC] exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots C and D and a part of Lot B, Block 5-8, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and East West Partners Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that the number of required parking spaces would be fine tuned at the time of building permit. He summarized that staff was recommending approval of the request and that it meets the nine criteria listed in the staff memo. He stated that staff was recommending six conditions in conjunction with the approval for this project. Sidney Schultz, the architect for this project, stated that the applicants did not have any problems with the six conditions outlined in the staff memo. Planning and Environmental Commission 10 March 14,1994 -:93 Jeff Bowen was concerned about the presence of a trash truck on Bridge Street as a result of this project. He also was concerned that should a restaurant be proposed to be located in the Covered Bridge Building at some future date, that it be required to come back before the PEC. He added that the construction staging for the project was also a concern to him. Ross Bowker, of East West Partners, stated that during construction they would leave a minimum width of 12 feet on Bridge Street. Kristan Pritz stated that the applicant has been working with Community Development and Public Works and that all parties agree that Bridge Street needs to remain as open as possible. Jeff Bowen stated that with the continuing work towards increasing summer business, he did not want to see Bridge Street become a "battle zone" during the summer months. Kristan Pritz stated that staff and Town Council shared the same concern. Jeff Bowen stated that he would like to see some limitation placed on the amount of time that Bridge Street would be "cut off". Peter Dan, of East West Partners, explained to the PEC how they envisioned the staging area to function. Greg Amsden stated that he would still like to see Pepi Gramshammer work with the applicant to resolve the trash issues that exist for this site, but that he would not vote against this project if a resolution could not be reached with Pepi. Harry Frampton, of East West Partners, stated that he had met with Pepi and Peggy Osterfoss earlier and that it was possible that Pepi would agree to some "creative trash solution". He added that it did not appear that Pepi was planning to redevelop his building this year. Kathy Langenwalter inquired how far in front of Pepi's building would the fence be located. Mike Mollica stated that the fence would be located approximately 15 to 18 feet out in front of Pepi's building. Greg Amsden stated that he was not opposed to the proposed construction fencing. Bob Armour stated that he agreed with Greg concerning the construction fencing. He said that he did not want see anymore truck traffic on Bridge Street. He stated that he was hopeful that Pepi would work with the applicants towards a solution to the trash issue. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 March 14,1994 4 Bill Anderson stated that he was opposed to trash trucks using Bridge Street and that trash should be hauled to the intersection for pick-up. He said that he agreed with the six conditions staff outlined in the staff memo. Kathy Langenwalter stated she did not have problems with the proposed construction barriers. She suggested getting school children involved with painting the fence for something fun and creative. She stated that trash trucks on Bridge Street should not be allowed and that the applicants should submit an acceptable solution to this issue at the time of building permit. She stated that the PEC was not opposed to a restaurant in this location, but that at present, the trash situation did not seem to lend itself to restaurant use. Kristan Pritz stated that it was not the deliveries that were a concern but that removal of trash was an issue. The applicant would need to utilize the Town of Vail loading areas. She stated that a trash removal plan for a future restaurant, could be brought before the PEC. Bill Anderson made a motion to approve the request for a major CC[ exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building per the staff memo and including the six conditions contained in the staff memo, with the addition of condition 7 that: "No motorized vehicle be allowed to use Bridge Street for trash removal. He added Condition 8 that: "The PEC would need to review the addition of a restaurant as tenant space and its proposed trash removal plan." Greg Amsden seconded this motion and a 4-1 vote approved this request with Jeff Bowen opposing because he did not feel the proposed construction staging plan was appropriate for Bridge Street and that a coordinated development plan needed to be done for the Gramshammer and Covered Bridge Buildings. 4. A request for a worksession for a major exterior alteration, site coverage and setback variances for the Lifthouse Lodge commercial area, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing1549 West Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Bob Lazier Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo. He reviewed the three requests (setback variance, site coverage variance, and major exterior alteration). Jim reviewed the criteria to be used in evaluating this proposal with the PEC. Galen Aasland, the architect for this project, stated that they were attempting to improve this site through this proposal. He explained the rationale for the proposed rekord doors proposed for Pizza Bakery and Bart and Yeti's. Ross Davis, owner of Bart and Yeti's, stated that he was concerned that there be an efficient construction process so that his business is not negatively effected. Planning and Environmental Commission March 14,1994 5 Kathy Langenwalter said that the construction plan is also of interest to the PEC and that it should be explained in detail at the final review as the last project for this building dragged on too long. Jay Peterson stated that they were aware that a construction phasing timeframe would have to be worked out so that shop owners and other retail space owners could plan accordingly. Bill Anderson stated that he would like to see a copper roof utilized across the whole roof of the building. He felt that the transition from the copper roof to the shake shingles was awkward. He added that the copper roof was fire proof. He liked the idea of expanding the planting on the east side of the building. He added that he did not particularly like the idea of the painted mural. He said that divided light doors would help the customer perceive where the entrances were. Bob Armour stated that part of the problem with the existing building were the inconsistencies and that he wondered whether the proposed 8 foot rekord doors would add to this concern. He said he would like to see the roof materials tie together over the whole building. He said he did not have a problem with the requested setback and site coverage variances. Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the overall continuity of the storefront improved. He said that he was not in favor of the additional door heights and felt that the proposed roof materials were inconsistent. He liked the east side of the building and agrees with the mural idea or large trees in the expanded planter. Jeff Bowen agreed with Greg's comments, however, he was not in favor of the proposed painted mural. He was in favor of additional large trees on the site. He said that he was opposed to the 8 foot doors. He said that the building needs consistency and that a copper roof all the way around would be positive. He said that he did not have problems with the requested site coverage or setback variances. He pointed out that the building needs a comprehensive sign program. Kathy Langenwalter said she would like to see a roof overhang located above the Pizza Bakery to increase the appearance of depth to the entry. The roof overhang needs to occur on their property. She added that she would like the heavy log detail at the Pizza Bakery brought down to the ground. She said she would like to see the wall squared up between the Pizza Bakery and Bart and Yeti's as well. She added that a consistent roof and fascia along the entire expanse of the building would be positive. Along this line, she said she felt a sign and awning program for the building would also be helpful. Concerning Bart and Yeti's, she said she would like to see an entrance created for the restaurant. She also did not care for the exposed log ends beneath the roof. Concerning First Bank, she felt that the diagonal entrance may not be appropriate for this space. She felt the design was a little too "cutesy". She said that carrying the roof along the side and additional landscaping on the east end was positive. She stated that she would like to see the benches kept as a part of the project. Concerning the 8 foot doors, she stated that if the transition could be better Planning and Environmental Commission I March 14,1994 6 integrated, that she did not have a problem with the concept. She told Galen to show more detail in the next set of drawings. Ross Davis stated that he would not be opposed to some sort of gable roof over his entry or the use of copper. Galen Aasland stated that the 45 degree angle allows them to stay away from the large pine trees in front of the First Bank. Kathy Langenwalter stated she was not completely opposed to this approach but that it needs to be more integrated with the rest of the building. She added that there were options for this area. Overall, she said that there many positive components to this project but that there needed to be greater integration. All members agreed the copper roof band made sense. 5. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Kristan Pritz Beth Slifer presented drawings of banners that were proposed to be located in the space and explained their proposed position. She asked the PEC whether they would be in favor of a skater sculpture being placed beneath the banner. Greg Amsden stated that he was in favor of the banner with the skater approach. Bob Armour said that he liked the skater. Bill Anderson stated that he like the banner but he liked the idea of a planter. Kathy Langenwalter commented whether the impact of the sculpture would be lost in the space. She felt that even with the sculpture, some plantings should be located along the base of the sculpture. Both Slifer was concerned that people would walk on plantings placed at this location. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was in favor of flowers in the summer and some sort of holiday theme during the winter. Jeff Bowen made a motion that the skater sculpture be installed and that either a vertical or horizontal banner be installed above the sculpture. A 3-2 vote approved this request with Kathy Langenwalter and Bill Anderson opposing. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 March 14, 1994 7 6. A request for a worksession for variances to allow for off-site parking and GRFA and a garage in the front setback to allow for a new Primary/Secondary residence located at 1799 Sierra Trail/Lot 17, Vail Village West 1st Filing. Applicant: George Plavec Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica made a presentation per the staff memo. Erich Hill, the architect for the project, stated the reason they are proposing, the parking on the Town of Vail right-of-way is that the hill slopes approximately 16 feet vertically and 20 feet horizontally before it meets the property line. He said that they were proposing to step the building down the hillside. He said the reason they were proposing to locate GRFA under the garage was to minimize the mass of the building and disturbance to the site. George Plavec, the applicant, stated that the more the building is moved down the hillside, the more aspen trees would need to be removed. Erich Hill said he attempted to "twist the primary and secondary buildings around the existing trees in order to minimize the number of trees to be removed as a result of this proposal." Bob Armour inquired whether the utilities would be located downhill. Erich Hill responded that this was correct and that a few more trees would be lost as a result of this. Dick Gustafson, owner of Lot 41, Vail Village West, Filing No. 1, stated that a hazard study done by Lincoln and Devoe found that the lots in Highland Meadows and Vail Village West Filings No. 1 and No. 2 are located on unstable ground. He added that in 1982 the Town had a drainage and slope analysis performed for this area. This study recommended that this area be left as open space or that serious consideration be given to any development on lots in these subdivisions. Dick was concerned that any construction on this site could be hazardous. He said that he was forewarning the Town about future hazards to this area should a slide occur. Marc Lashovitz, a homeowner in this neighborhood, stated he was concerned about the proposed parking in the setback. He said that the current parking situation in the area is already difficult and he is concerned that this proposal will increase congestion to the area. He was concerned about fire truck and snow plow access in this area. Dave Austin, a neighbor, stated that there is an existing on-street parking problem and that he is concerned that this project could increase the on-street parking issue. He would like to see the parking pulled off of the right-of-way. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 Match 14, 1994 8 Erich Hill stated that a slope stability analysis would be performed during the construction process if the building official deems it necessary. He said that he had spoken with Gary Murrain about this project and that Gary did not feel a preconstruction analysis would be necessary. George Plavec purchased this lot from John Perkins who had a soils analysis conducted in October of 1993. The analysis recommended a 4-inch perimeter foundation drain and catch basins may also be needed. Bill Anderson stated that traditionally he has been opposed to variances for off-site parking because it does not seem to work because guests inevitably will come to the homes and park out on the road. He said that he would like to see the parking placed on the site. He said that he was in favor of the 24 feet rule that Greg Hall has recommended. He said that the impact of this proposal could be reduced by utilizing the crawl space as GRFA. He felt that the minimum amount of site coverage would be the best way to build on this site. Erich Hill stated that they were attempting to do this via the three stories proposed for each structure. Bill Anderson stated that he could go along with the front setback variance but not the off-site parking variance. Bob Armour stated that the garage unit should be moved back further so that an off- street parking variance would not be necessary. He wondered whether a single family residence on this property would help reduce the impacts on this site. Mike Mollica stated that due to the small lot size, the DRB has criteria which determine whether a primary/secondary building is appropriate for the site. Erich Hill stated that another reason primary/secondary units are encouraged is in order to provide employee housing units for the Town. Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the structures consolidated. He said he would prefer to see a third garage unit and to got more of the appearance of a single family structure. He said he would like to see the parking on their property. He said he was not as concerned about the soils analysis because he felt that the hazards were manageable if properly dealt with. He said that cuts should be minimized. He said the secondary unit was a concern to him due to the parking issues in the area. Jeff Bowen was concerned that parking on Town property was a special privilege that was not appropriate to grant. He felt that this property may be better suited for a single family unit which would reduce the parking requirement. He said that he was in favor of employee housing and that if a secondary unit was desired, that the two structures would need to be consolidated. Erich Hill stated that consolidating the two structures would not decrease site coverage and that the building footprint would still be approximately 2,000 square feet. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 March 14, 1994 9 Kathy Langenwalter felt that the parking requirements should be met on the property. She said that she was opposed to an off -site parking variance. She felt that a hardship did exist on the property and that she could see reason to grant a front setback variance. She said she would like to see the buildings consolidated and she would like to see the impact of the buildings minimized. She agreed that this was a difficult site. Regarding parking, she was concerned about additional parking being located on the street. Dick Gustafson said he was concerned that the soils test performed for this site was not detailed enough to address the bedrock and geologic hazards. He was most concerned that the Town's own 1982 study recommending that mitigation occur on this site prior to any construction. He felt "the Town should purchase such dangerous lots as open space to protect the community." Kathy Langenwalter stated that the PEC was considering the off -site parking and the front setback issues only. 7. A request for a worksession for a variance from Section 18.69.040 (Development Restricted) of the Vail Municipal Code to allow for the construction of buildings on slopes greater than 40% located at 4335 Bighorn Road/Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Filing. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/BAB Partnership Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that the purpose of this worksession is to familiarize the PEC with the issues and the applicant will be requesting a variance at the next meeting. He said that staff feels that a hardship does exist on the site. Jim stated that staff is concerned with the preservation of as many trees as possible on the west side of the site. Mike Lauterbach stated that he would like to save as many trees as possible but that he is not sure it is possible. He thinks that two trees will have to be removed no matter what he does. Jeff Bowen stated he would like to see the building pulled back. Jim Curnutte inquired whether the PEC would like to see a landscape plan at the next meeting to see how the applicant proposes to replace trees that are lost. Mike Lauterbach stated that the building could conceivably move back. He said he would commit to saving two clumps of trees and try to work with two others. Greg Amsden inquired whether the applicant has considered detached garages. Mike responded that this would not work with the configuration of the buildings. Bill Anderson inquired whether there would be off -site parking concerns. Planning and Environmental Commission March 14,1994 10 Jim Curnutte responded that Greg Hall was requiring 24 feet between the edge of pavement and the garage doors so all parking in front of the garages is entirely on-site. Mike Lauterbach stated he may be able to have the surveyor certify the original topographic survey for the lot which would make the variance a moot point, because the original grade of the lot was less than 40%. Bob Armour inquired whether the power line would be buried at the south end of the property. Mike responded that the power line would be buried. Kathy Langenwalter requested that if the variance was needed for this project, the applicant flag which trees on the site would be lost. 8. A request for a worksession for a major CCII exterior alteration and setback variance to allow for the expansion of dwelling units at the Lionshead Center Building located at 520 Lionshead Mall, Units 208, 209, 308 and 309/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Victor Cano Faro, Transcon Investments, Inc., and Jose Luis Chain Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated the applicant has scaled back the proposal quite a bit since the previous worksession with the PEC. He said that the proposed mass is consistent with the rest of the building and steps up nicely on the upper floors. In one area, however, staff would like to see the building set back 2 feet from the edge of commercial in order to provide relief, buffer the aspen tree, and provide a clear break for the materials. He said pulling it back 2 feet would simplify the solution. Concerning roofing, the western portion of the building would benefit by having a roof similar in pitch to the rest of the addition. This would create a more finished appearance and integrate the roof with the rest of the building. He said staff is in favor of the proposed copper fascia band. Bill Pierce, the architect for the project, stated that they would like to keep the extension out to the 8 foot level. He felt that the flat roof was more appropriate. Kathy Langenwalter stated that it was hard to get a feel from the site visit and the drawings how much physical interference there will be with the wall and the existing aspen. Bill Anderson stated that he liked the flat roof form because it tied into the previous remodel and that reducing the width of the second and third stories was unnecessary. He was concerned about the different use of materials from the commercial to the residential addition, and therefore, would like to see zinc. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 March 14,1994 11 Bob Armour stated that the materials should either tie in or be different. He said he would like to see a peak on the third story roof. Greg and Jeff agreed with Bill's comments. Kathy Langenwalter felt that the zinc fascia bands needed to be carried through. She suggested that possibly reusing the sandstone or wood siding would be more appropriate than using a different metal such as copper. Bill Pierce stated that the owners preferred to use copper but they could go either way. Kathy felt that the zinc fascia band would integrate the commercial and residential additions. Bill Anderson stated that he does not want to argue for zinc or copper but the obvious way to integrate them is to use what is already there. Jeff Bowen stated that he was concerned that the existing awnings on the commercial addition were too bright and that softening the colors could eliminate the "slickness" of the commercial remodel. He was more in favor of awnings that were soft, like that found on the Trail's End. Bill Anderson stated that the owners would be open to these suggestions. Kathy Langenwalter stated she was concerned that the one aspen tree be preserved. Bill Pierce stated that they intended to save the tree. As this item was a worksession, no vote was taken. 9. A report to the PEC regarding the February exterior alteration submittals: A request for a variance to the Gore Creek stream setback, common area variance and a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for an expansion to the Gasthof Gramshammer Building located at 231 East Gore Creek Drive/Lot H, Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer Planner: Andy Knucltsen Kristan Pritz stated that staff has received an application to enclose a parking lot behind the building. Kathy asked if there would be any major issues. Kristan stated that staff was concerned with the Gore Creek stream setback variance but had not started to review the request. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 March 14,1904 12 M Andy Knudtsen stated that the owners of the Creekside Building had contacted him and said that they are concerned with the proposed exterior alteration to the Gasthof Gramshammer Building. 10. A request for a wall height variance and driveway slope variance to allow for a driveway to exceed 10% located at 2445 Garm isch Drive/Lots 10 and 11, Block H, Vail das Schone 2nd Filing. Applicant: Steve Sheridan and Adam Szpiech Planner: Andy Knucltsen TABLED TO MARCH 28, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item until March 28, 1994 with Greg Amsden seconding this motion. A 5-0 vote tabled this item to the March 28, 1994 PEC meeting. 11. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an expansion at the Vail Mountain School located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Fred Otto, representing the Vail Mountain School Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED TO MARCH 28, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item until March 28, 1994 with Greg Amsden seconding this motion. A 5-0 vote tabled this item to the March 28, 1994 PEC meeting. 12. A request for preliminary plat approval of a major subdivision (Trappers Run) on Lots 16, 19 and 21, Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located north of 1-70 and west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Development Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO APRIL 11, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item until April 11, 1994 with Greg Amsden seconding this motion. A 5-0 vote tabled this item to the April 11, 1994 PEC meeting. 13. Approve minutes from February 28, 1994 PEC meeting. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 28, 1994 PEC meeting with Greg Amsden seconding the motion. A 5-0 vote approved the minutes from the February 28, 1994 PEC meeting. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 March 14, 1994 13 14. Council Update: -Lindholm Land Discussion, March 15, 1994. -Town Council and PEC joint discussion of Category III on March 22, 1994 Council Worksession. -Golden Peak House Town Council discussion - demo/rebuild. 15. Reminders to the PEC: -Trappers Run is scheduled for PEC review on April 11, 1994. -Need to discuss date for "ski day" in April - April 15, 1994 was selected as the PEC ski day with Diana. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 March 14, 1994 14 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 14, 1994 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Greg Amsden Allison Lassoe Kristan Pritz Bill Anderson Dalton Williams Mike Mollica Bob Armour Andy Knudtsen Jeff Bowen Jim Curnutte Kathy Langenwalter A request for a proposed minor subdivision located at 4316 Streamside Circle West/Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Walter Kirch Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was recommending approval of this request with the five conditions outlined on Page 7 of the staff memo: Prior to the issuance of any building, two mylar copies of the resubdivision plat (see attached final plat reduction) shall be provided to the Department of Community Development for recordation. No construction or other land disturbing activities shall occur on either lot without prior review and approval by the Design Review Board, and without the issuance of required building permits. 2. No construction activity or site disturbance shall occur outside the "limits of construction disturbance" on lot 2, as shown on the Construction Management Plan prepared by Zehren and Associates, Inc. (dated 1/3/94). The limits of construction disturbance shall be surveyed and fenced prior to the commencement of any construction activity on lot 2. Snow fencing shall be used, and shall not be removed until construction is complete. Community Development staff will inspect the fencing prior to the issuance of any building permits for lot 2. The areas of construction disturbance that encroach into stream setbacks (as shown on the Construction Management Plan) shall be reduced to the extent possible. 3. The proposed irrigation system shall be installed so that the roots of trees to be preserved are not harmed. The alignment of the sanitary sewer system shall be as shown on the Construction Management Plan; any changes in final alignment shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Staff. Planning and Environmental Commission Match 14,1994 4. The applicant shall relocate quality vegetation contained within the limits of construction disturbance as feasible. As an alternative, the applicant shall plant spruce and evergreen trees in the front and side yards, adjacent to the garages and circular driveway, to provide screening of these areas when viewed from adjacent properties. The applicant shall work with staff to determine the final disposition of tree relocation/replacement efforts. 5. The applicant shall maintain native vegetation within the stream setback areas. Areas within the stream setbacks shall not be seeded or sodded with turf grasses. Randy added that the applicant had no objections to the conditions provided by staff. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approved this request for a minor subdivision per the staff memo with Greg Amsden seconding the motion. A 5-0 vote approved this request. 2. A request for a variance to allow for a 6 foot fence located in the front setback located at 5118 Gore Circle/Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Robert Schonkwiler Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that staff was recommending denial of this request and that the fence be removed from the front setback. He added that several residents of this neighborhood had contacted the Community Development Department to complain about the fence. Robert Schonkwiler, the applicant, stated that he was not before the PEC to argue about the location of the fence. He said that he received contradictory information from, staff concerning the proper location of the fence. He added that the reason he was requesting the variance was because he was concerned that if he moved the fence the full 20 feet out of the front setback that there is a four foot ridge present on the property which would require that the fence be even higher. Mr. Schonkwiler was concerned that such a location would require the removal of several large evergreen trees. He said the reason the fence was erected in its present location was that it seemed to be the only practical location on his property. He stated that he was before the PEC to request some relief from the 20 foot front setback requirement. He said that he disagreed with staff's contention that no other fences exist in his neighborhood. Tom Hopkins, a neighbor, stated that he was opposed to the request. He said that the fence negatively impacts the appearance of their neighborhood. Arthur Kittay, a neighbor who lives to the west of the applicant, stated that the applicant's fence negatively impacts the appearance of the Gore Circle Drive neighborhood. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 March 14, 1944 9 Eric Berg, a neighbor, stated that he does not understand why the fence has been allowed to remain in place as long as it has. He said he was opposed to the granting of a variance for this fence. Jeff Bowen stated that the fence did not comply with the Town of Vail's Zoning Code and therefore would need to be taken down. Greg Amsden stated he was not in favor of the fence and that it needed to pulled back to the 20 foot setback line. He said that any fence to be erected on the site would need Design Review Board approval. Bob Armour stated that he would like to see the fence pulled back to the 20 foot setback line. Bill Anderson stated that he had no further comments. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she had no further comments and that she did not feel that a hardship existed on the site. Kristan Pritz suggested that should the PEC vote against this request that they should put a time limit as to when the applicant should make application'to the DRB. Jeff Bowen stated that he would like the fence to be removed within seven days from today's date or else the applicant be cited for violating the Town of Vail Zoning Code. is Kristan Pritz stated that the applicant would have the right to appeal the PEC's decision to the Town Council within ten days of today's meeting. Jeff Bowen made a motion to deny the applicant's request for a variance to allow a 6 foot fence and that the applicant has ten days to remove the fence with Bob Armour seconding the motion. A 5-0 vote denied this request. 3. A request for a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots C and D and a part of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and East West Partners Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that the number of required parking spaces would be fine tuned at the time of building permit. He summarized that staff was recommending approval of the request and that it meets the nine criteria listed in the staff memo. He stated that staff was recommending six conditions in conjunction with the approval for this project. Sidney Schultz, the architect for this project, stated that the applicants did not have any problems with the six conditions outlined in the staff memo. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 March 14, 1994 K, Jeff Bowen was concerned about the presence of a trash truck on Bridge Street as a result of this project. He also was concerned that should a restaurant be proposed to be located in the Covered Bridge Building at some future date, that it be required to come back before the PEC. He added that the construction staging for the project was also a concern to him. Ross Bowker, of East West Partners, stated that during construction they would leave a minimum width of 12 feet on Bridge Street. Kristan Pritz stated that the applicant has been working with Community Development and Public Works and that all parties agree that Bridge Street needs to remain as open as possible. Jeff Bowen stated that with the continuing work towards increasing summer business, he did not want to see Bridge Street become a "battle zone" during the summer months. Kristan Pritz stated that staff and Town Council shared the same concern. Jeff Bowen stated that he would like to see some limitation placed on the amount of time that Bridge Street would be "cut off". Peter Dan, of East West Partners, explained to the PEC how they envisioned the staging area to function. Greg Amsden stated that he would still like to see Pepi Gramshammer work with the applicant to resolve the trash issues that exist for this site, but that he would not vote against this project if a resolution could not be reached with Pepi. Harry Frampton, of East West Partners, stated that he had met with Pepi and Peggy Osterfoss earlier and that it was possible that Pepi would agree to some "creative trash solution". He added that it did not appear that Pepi was planning to redevelop his building this year. Kathy Langenwalter inquired how far in front of Pepi's building would the fence be located. Mike Mollica stated that the fence would be located approximately 15 to 18 feet out in front of Pepi's building. Greg Amsden stated that he was not opposed to the proposed construction fencing. Bob Armour stated that he agreed with Greg concerning the construction fencing. He said that he did not want see anymore truck traffic on Bridge Street. He stated that he was hopeful that Pepi would work with the applicants towards a solution to the trash issue. Planning and Environmental commission Match 14, 1994 IH Bill Anderson stated that he was opposed to trash trucks using Bridge Street and that trash should be hauled to the intersection for pick-up. He said that he agreed with the six conditions staff outlined in the staff memo. Kathy Langenwalter stated she did not have problems with the proposed construction barriers. She suggested getting school children involved with painting the fence for something fun and creative. She stated that trash trucks on Bridge Street should not be allowed and that the applicants should submit an acceptable solution to -this issue at the time of building permit. She stated that the PEC was not opposed to a restaurant in this location, but that at present, the trash situation did not seem to lend itself to restaurant use. Kristan Pritz stated that it was not the deliveries that were a concern but that removal of trash was an issue. The applicant would need to utilize the Town of Vail loading areas. She stated that a trash removal plan for a future restaurant, could be brought before the PEC. Bill Anderson made a motion to approve the request for a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building per the staff memo and including the six conditions contained in the staff memo, with the addition of condition 7 that: "No motorized vehicle be allowed to use Bridge Street for trash removal. He added Condition 8 that: "The PEC would need to review the addition of a restaurant as tenant space and its proposed trash removal plan." Greg Amsden seconded this motion and a 4-1 vote approved this request with Jeff Bowen opposing because he did not feel the proposed construction staging plan was appropriate for Bridge Street and that a coordinated development plan needed to be done for the Gramshammer and Covered Bridge Buildings. 4. A request for a worksession for a major exterior alteration, site coverage and setback variances for the Lifthouse Lodge commercial area, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing/549 West Lionshead Circle. Applicant: Bob Lazier Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo. He reviewed the three requests (setback variance, site coverage variance, and major exterior alteration). Jim reviewed the criteria to be used in evaluating this proposal with the PEC. Galen Aasland, the architect for this project, stated that they were attempting to improve this site through this proposal. He explained the rationale for the proposed rekord doors proposed for Pizza Bakery and Bart and Yeti's. Ross Davis, owner of Bart and Yeti's, stated that he was concerned that there be an efficient construction process so that his business is not negatively effected. 10 Planning and Environmental Commission March 14, 1994 5 Kathy Langenwalter said that the construction plan is also of interest to the PEC and that it should be explained in detail at the final review as the last project for this building dragged on too long. Jay Peterson stated that they were aware that a construction phasing timeframe would have to be worked out so that shop owners and other retail space owners could plan accordingly. Bill Anderson stated that he would like to see a copper roof utilized across the whole roof of the building. He felt that the transition from the copper roof to the shake shingles was awkward. He added that the copper roof was fire proof. He liked the idea of expanding the planting on the east side of the building. He added that he did not particularly like the idea of the painted mural. He said that divided light doors would help the customer perceive where the entrances were. Bob Armour stated that part of the problem with the existing building were the inconsistencies and that he wondered whether the proposed 8 foot rekord doors would add to this concern. He said he would like to see the roof materials tie together over the whole building. He said he did not have a problem with the requested setback and site coverage variances. Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the overall continuity of the storefront improved. He said that he was not in favor of the additional door heights and felt that the proposed roof materials were inconsistent. He liked the east side of the building and agrees with the mural idea or large trees in the expanded planter. Jeff Bowen agreed with Greg's comments, however, he was not in favor of the proposed painted mural. He was in favor of additional large trees on the site. He said that he was opposed to the 8 foot doors. He said that the building needs consistency and that a copper roof all the way around would be positive. He said that he did not have problems with the requested site coverage or setback variances. He pointed out that the building needs a comprehensive sign program. Kathy Langenwalter said she would like to see a roof overhang located above the Pizza Bakery to increase the appearance of depth to the entry. The roof overhang needs to occur on their property. She added that she would like the heavy log detail at the Pizza Bakery brought down to the ground. She said she would like to see the wall squared up between the Pizza Bakery and Bart and Yeti's as well. She added that a consistent roof and fascia along the entire expanse of the building would be positive. Along this line, she said she felt a sign and awning program for the building would also be helpful. Concerning Bart and Yeti's, she said she would like to see an entrance created for the restaurant. She also did not care for the exposed log ends beneath the roof. Concerning First Bank, she felt that the diagonal entrance may not be appropriate for this space. She felt the design was a little too "cutesy". She said that carrying the roof along the side and additional landscaping on the east end was positive. She stated that she would like to see the benches kept as a part of the project. Concerning the 8 foot doors, she stated that if the transition could be better Planning and Environmental Commission 0 March 14,1994 6 integrated, that she did not have a problem with the concept. She told Galen to show more detail in the next set of drawings. Ross Davis stated that he would not be opposed to some sort of gable roof over his entry or the use of copper. Galen Aasland stated that the 45 degree angle allows them to stay away from the large pine trees in front of the First Bank. Kathy Langenwalter stated she was not completely opposed to this approach but that it needs to be more integrated with the rest of the building. She added that there were options for this area. Overall, she said that there many positive components to this project but that there needed to be greater integration. All members agreed the copper roof band made sense. 5. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and C, Block 5, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer Planner: Kristan Pritz Beth Slifer presented drawings of banners that were proposed to be located in the space and explained their proposed position. She asked the PEC whether they would be in favor of a skater sculpture being placed beneath the banner. Greg Amsden stated that he was in favor of the banner with the skater approach. Bob Armour said that he liked the skater. Bill Anderson stated that he like the banner but he liked the idea of a planter. Kathy Langenwalter commented whether the impact of the sculpture would be lost in the space. She felt that even with the sculpture, some plantings should be located along the base of the sculpture. Beth Slifer was concerned that people would walk on plantings placed at this location. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was in favor of flowers in the summer and some sort of holiday theme during the winter. I I Jeff Bowen made a motion that the skater sculpture be installed and that either a vertical or horizontal banner be installed above the sculpture. A 3-2 vote approved this request with Kathy Langenwalter and Bill Anderson opposing. Planning and Environmental Commission & March 14,1994 7 6. A request for a worksession for variances to allow for off -site parking and GRFA and a garage in the front setback to allow for a new Prim ary/Secondary residence located at 1799 Sierra Trail/Lot 17, Vail Village West 1st Filing. Applicant: George Plavec Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica made a presentation per the staff memo. Erich Hill, the architect for the project, stated the reason they are proposing the parking on the Town of Vail right-of-way is that the hill slopes approximately 16 feet vertically and 20 feet horizontally before it meets the property line. He said that they were proposing to step the building down the hillside. He said the reason they were proposing to locate GRFA under the garage was to minimize the mass of the building and disturbance to the site. George Plavec, the applicant, stated that the more the building is moved down the hillside, the more aspen trees would need to be removed. Erich Hill said he attempted to "twist the primary and secondary buildings around the existing trees in order to minimize the number of trees to be removed as a result of this proposal." Bob Armour inquired whether the utilities would be located downhill. Erich Hill responded that this was correct and that a few more trees would be lost as a result of this. Dick Gustafson, owner of Lot 41, Vail Village West, Filing No. 1, stated that a hazard study done by Lincoln and Devoe found that the lots in Highland Meadows and Vail Village West Filings No. 1 and No. 2 are located on unstable ground. He added that in 1982 the Town had a drainage and slope analysis performed for this area. This study recommended that this area be left as open space or that serious consideration be given to any development on lots in these subdivisions. Dick was concerned that any construction on this site could be hazardous. He said that he was forewarning the Town about future hazards to this area should a slide occur. Marc Lashovitz, a homeowner in this neighborhood, stated he was concerned about the proposed parking in the setback. He said that the current parking situation in the area is already difficult and he is concerned that this proposal will increase congestion to the area. He was concerned about fire truck and snow plow access in this area. Dave Austin, a neighbor, stated that there is an existing on-street parking problem and that he is concerned that this project could increase the on-street parking issue. He would like to see the parking pulled off of the right-of-way. 10 Planning and Environmental Commission March 14, 1994 K� Erich Hill stated that a slope stability analysis would be performed during the construction process if the building official deems it necessary. He said that he had spoken with Gary Murrain about this project and that Gary did not feel a preconstruction analysis would be necessary. George Plavec purchased this lot from John Perkins who had a soils analysis conducted in October of 1993. The analysis recommended a 4-inch perimeter foundation drain and catch basins may also be needed. Bill Anderson stated that traditionally he has been opposed to variances for off-site parking because it does not seem to work because guests inevitably will come to the homes and park out on the road. He said that he would like to see the parking placed on the site. He said that he was in favor of the 24 feet rule that Greg Hall has recommended. He said that the impact of this proposal could be reduced by utilizing the crawl space as GRFA. He felt that the minimum amount of site coverage would be the best way to build on this site. Erich Hill stated that they were attempting to do this via the three stories proposed for each structure. Bill Anderson stated that he could go along with the front setback variance but not the off-site parking variance. Bob Armour stated that the garage unit should be moved back further so that an off- street parking variance would not be necessary. He wondered whether a single family residence on this property would help reduce the impacts on this site. Mike Mollica stated that due to the small lot size, the DRB has criteria which determine, whether a prim ary/secondary building is appropriate for the site. Erich Hill stated that another reason primary/secondary units are encouraged is in order to provide employee housing units for the Town. Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the structures consolidated. He said he would prefer to see a third garage unit and to get more of the appearance of a single family structure. He said he would like to see the parking on their property. He said he was not as concerned about the soils analysis because he felt that the hazards were manageable if properly dealt with. He said that cuts should be minimized. He said the secondary unit was a concern to him due to the parking issues in the area. Jeff Bowen was concerned that parking on Town property was a special privilege that was not appropriate to grant. He felt that this property may be better suited for a single family unit which would reduce the parking requirement. He said that he was in favor of employee housing and that if a secondary unit was desired, that the two structures would need to be consolidated. Erich Hill stated that consolidating the two structures would not decrease site coverage and that the building footprint would still be approximately 2,000 square feet. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 March 14, 1494 RE Kathy Langenwalter felt that the parking requirements should be met on the property. She said that she was opposed to an off -site parking variance. She felt that a hardship did exist on the property and that she could see reason to grant a front setback variance. She said she would like to see the buildings consolidated and she would like to see the impact of the buildings minimized. She agreed that this was a difficult site. Regarding parking, she was concerned about additional parking being located on the street. Dick Gustafson said he was concerned that the soils test performed for this site was not detailed enough to address the bedrock and geologic hazards. He was most concerned that the Town's own 1982 study recommending that mitigation occur on this site prior to any construction. He felt "the Town should purchase such dangerous lots as open space to protect the community." Kathy Langenwalter stated that the PEC was considering the off -site parking and the front setback issues only. 7. A request for a worksession for a variance from Section 18.69.040 (Development Restricted) of the Vail Municipal Code to allow for the construction of buildings, on slopes greater than 40% located at 4335 Bighorn Road/Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Filing. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/BAB Partnership Planner: Jim Curnutte 10 Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that the purpose of this worksession is to familiarize the PEC with the issues and the applicant will be requesting a variance at the next meeting. He said that staff feels that a hardship does exist on the site. Jim stated that staff is concerned with the preservation of as many trees as possible on the west side of the site. Mike Lauterbach stated that he would like to save as many trees as possible but that he is not sure it is possible. He thinks that two trees will have to be removed no matter what he does. Jeff Bowen stated he would like to see the building pulled back. Jim Curnutte inquired whether the PEC would like to see a landscape plan at the next meeting to see how the applicant proposes to replace trees that are lost. Mike Lauterbach stated that the building could conceivably move back. He said he would commit to saving two clumps of trees and try to work with two others. Greg Amsden inquired whether the applicant has considered detached garages. Mike responded that this would not work with the configuration of the buildings. Bill Anderson inquired whether there would be off-site parking concerns. Planning and Environmental Commission Ib March 14,1994 10 Jim Curnutte responded that Greg Hall was requiring 24 feet between the edge of pavement and the garage doors so all parking in front of the garages is entirely on-site. Mike Lauterbach stated he may be able to have the surveyor certify the original topographic survey for the lot which would make the variance a moot point, because the original grade of the lot was less than 40%. Bob Armour inquired whether the power line would be buried at the south end of the property. Mike responded that the power line would be buried. Kathy Langenwalter requested that if the variance was needed for this project, the applicant flag which trees on the site would be lost. 8. A request for a worksession for a major CCII exterior alteration and setback variance to allow for the expansion of dwelling units at the Lionshead Center Building located at 520 Lionshead Mall, Units 208, 209, 308 and 309/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Victor Cano Faro, Transcon Investments, Inc., and Jose Luis Chain Planner: Andy Knudtsen 10 Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated the applicant has scaled back the proposal quite a bit since the previous worksession with the PEC. He said that the proposed mass is consistent with the rest of the building and steps up nicely on the upper floors. In one area, however, staff would like to see the building set back 2 feet from the edge of commercial in order to provide relief, buffer the aspen tree, and provide a clear break for the materials. He said pulling it back 2 feet would simplify the solution. Concerning roofing, the western portion of the building would benefit by having a roof similar in pitch to the rest of the addition. This would create a more finished appearance and integrate the roof with the rest of the building. He said staff is in favor of the proposed copper fascia band. Bill Pierce, the architect for the project, stated that they would like to keep the extension out to the 8 foot level. He felt that the flat roof was more appropriate. Kathy Langenwalter stated that it was hard to get a feel from the site visit and the drawings how much physical interference there will be with the wall and the existing aspen. Bill Anderson stated that he liked the flat roof form because it tied into the previous remodel and that reducing the width of the second and third stories was unnecessary. He was concerned about the different use of materials from the commercial to the residential addition, and therefore, would like to see zinc. 10 Planning and Environmental Commission March 14, 1994 11 Bob Armour stated that the materials should either tie in or be different. He said he would like to see a peak on the third story roof. Greg and Jeff agreed with Bill's comments. Kathy Langenwalter felt that the zinc fascia bands needed to be carried through. She suggested that possibly reusing the sandstone or wood siding would be more appropriate than using a different metal such as copper. Bill Pierce stated that the owners preferred to use copper but they could go either way. Kathy felt that the zinc fascia band would integrate the commercial and residential additions. Bill Anderson stated that he does not want to argue for zinc or copper but the obvious way to integrate them is to use what is already there. Jeff Bowen stated that he was concerned that the existing awnings on the commercial addition were too bright and that softening the colors could eliminate the "Slickness" of the commercial remodel. He was more in favor of awnings that were soft, like that found on the Trail's End. Bill Anderson stated that the owners would be open to these suggestions. 0 Kathy Langenwalter stated she was concerned that the one aspen tree be preserved. Bill Pierce stated that they intended to save the tree. As this item was a worksession, no vote was taken. 9. A report to the PEC regarding the February exterior alteration submittals: A request for a variance to the Gore Creek stream setback, common area variance and a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for an expansion to the Gasthof Gramshammer Building located at 231 East Gore Creek Drive/Lot H, Block 5B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer Planner: Andy Knucltsen Kristan Pritz stated that staff has received an application to enclose a parking lot behind the building. Kathy asked if there would be any major issues. Kristan stated that staff was concerned with the Gore Creek stream setback variance but had not started to review the request. Planning and Environmental Commission March 14, 1994 12 Andy Knudtsen stated that the owners of the Creekside Building had contacted him and said that they are concerned with the proposed exterior alteration to the Gasthof Gramshammer Building. 10. A request for a wall height variance and driveway slope variance to allow for a driveway to exceed 10% located at 2445 Garmisch Drive/Lots 10 and 11, Block H, Vail das Schone, 2nd Filing. Applicant: Steve Sheridan and Adam Szpiech Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO MARCH 28, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item until March 28, 1994 with Greg Amsden seconding this motion. A 5-0 vote tabled this item to the March 28, 1994 PEC meeting. 11. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an expansion at the Vail Mountain School located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/Part of Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Fred Otto, representing the Vail Mountain School Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED TO MARCH 28, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item until March 28, 1994 with Greg Amsden seconding this motion. A 5-0 vote tabled this item to the March 28, 1994 PEC meeting. 12. A request for preliminary plat approval of a major subdivision (Trappers Run) on Lots 16, 19 and 21, Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located north of 1-70 and west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Development Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO APRIL 11, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item until April 11, 1994 with Greg Amsden seconding this motion. A 5-0 vote tabled this item to the April 11, 1994 PEC meeting. 13. Approve minutes from February 28, 1994 PEC meeting. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 28, 1994 PEC meeting with Greg Amsden seconding the motion. A 5-0 vote approved the minutes from the February 28, 1994 PEC meeting. Planning and Environmental Commission March 14, 1994 13 14. Council Update: -Lindholm Land Discussion, March 15, 1994, -Town Council and PEC joint discussion of Category III on March 22, 1994 Council Worksession. -Golden Peak House Town Council discussion - demo/rebuild. 15. Reminders to the PEC: -Trappers Run is scheduled for PEC review on April 11, 1994. -Need to discuss date for "ski day" in April - April 15, 1994 was selected as the PEC ski day with Diana. 10 Planning and Environmental Commission 0 Match 14, 1994 14 E 11 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 14, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a variance to allow a 6 foot high fence to remain in the front setback located at 5118 Gore Circle Drive/Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Robert Schonkwiler Planner: Randy Stouder 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE Section 18.58.020 (Fences, Hedges, Walls and Screens), Paragraph C, states that "fences shall not exceed 3 feet in height within any required setback area and shall not exceed 6 feet in height in any portion of the site." The applicant constructed a 6 foot high fence within the front setback, and is requesting approval of a variance to allow the fence to extend 3 feet above the maximum fence height of 3 feet. 1111. BACKGROUND In the fall of 1993, Mr. Robert Schonkwiler constructed a 6 foot high fence on his property at 5118 Gore Circle Drive. The fence was constructed using rough hewn cedar posts and a cedar top rail with a thin see-through 2-inch by 4-inch wire mesh screen. The fence is built along the front and east side property boundaries, and encloses the flatter areas of the east side yard and front yard. The Department of Community Development received a complaint regarding the fence and conducted a site visit to the property in late November of 1993. On December 1st and again on January 7th, the Department of Community. Development sent letters to Mr. Schonkwiler stating that an unpermitted fence had been erected on the subject property. The letters questioned the appropriateness of the fence materials and stated that approval of a variance would be required to allow this 6 foot fence to remain in the front setback area. Mr. Schonkwiler was asked to submit a variance application to the Department of Community Development by January 24, 1994, which the applicant did. 11111. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Section 18.54.050, Design Guidelines, gives the following guidance relative to the issue of fences: 11F. Fencing/walls. The placement of walls and fences shall respect existing land forms and fit into land massing rather than arbitrarily follow site boundary lines. Fences shall not be encouraged except to screen trash areas utility equipment, etc.. 2. Design of fences, walls, and other structural landscape features shall be of materials compatible with the site and the materials of the structures of the site ... No chain link fences shall be allowed except as temporary construction fences or as required for recreational facilities." The fence is located in the front yard along the front property boundary, and is highly visible from Gore Circle Drive and surrounding residential properties. Staff has received written objections from seven separate households along Gore Circle Drive in the vicinity of the subject property. The objection letters cited problems with fence materials, fence height, fence location (front yard), and the general appropriateness of this fence in this neighborhood and in the Town in general. Mr. Schonkwiler has stated that he has no problems reconstructing the fence using alternate materials to satisfy the concerns of the neighbors. However, he has expressed the desire to keep the fence at its present location and at its present height. Mr. Schonkwiler feels that the fence installation occurred in the only feasible or practical portion of the lot, and that the 6 foot height is necessary to properly contain his black lab from jumping over the fence. Staff requested that Mr. Schonkwiler reduce the size of the fenced area by removing the fence from the front setback, and Mr. Schonkwiler stated that he felt that the fenced area was already small enough and that reducing it further would not allow his dog enough room to exercise effectively. Mr. Schonkwiler has stated that the present location of the fence encloses the only area of his lot that is flat enough and dry enough for his dog to exercise in. Staff concurs that the entire rear portion of the lot is wetland and Gore Creek floodplain, and indeed the wetlands do come right up to the back porch and the footings that were poured for the deck. This land is too wet and environmentally sensitive to install any kind of fence for a dog exercise area. That leaves the front and side yards. The western side of the house has insufficient space outside of the front setback to accommodate the dog exercise area. However, staff feels that the eastern side and front yard areas of the lot 2 E have sufficient room to provide for a dog exercise area located completely outside of the front setback area. Therefore, staff is recommending that the applicant pull the fence back to the front setback line, which is 20 feet off of the property line. This would allow the applicant to install some landscaping along the street side of the fence to help screen the fence and help blend it into the wooded appearance of the neighborhood. Staff feels that approving the variance would set a negative precedent for the Town. Staff also feels that if this variance were granted, that several other properties in the Town would likely take advantage of the opportunity to install fences in front yards. 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. There are no other fences in the front yard areas along Gore Circle Drive. Staff does not feel that there is any hardship related specifically to the subject property that would warrant the granting of the variance. Staff agrees that approximately two-thirds of Mr. Schonkwiler's lot is floodplain and wetland. However, staff feels that there is sufficient room to provide a fenced dog exercise area in the eastern side yard of the property without intruding upon the front setback. 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. Staff does not believe that the granting of the requested variance would have any adverse effects on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Mr. Schonkwiler feels that he is acting as a responsible dog owner by providing a fenced area and not allowing his dog simply to run free throughout the neighborhood. Staff recognizes this attempt by the applicant to be a responsible pet owner, however, there is always the option of walking the dog on a leash as a means of providing exercise for both the dog and the dog's owner. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a 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. 9 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. 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending denial of the proposed variance. Staff feels that granting a variance to allow the fence to remain would constitute a grant of special privilege which is inconsistent with the limitations that other properties in the neighborhood have abided by. Staff does not feel that imposing a strict literal interpretation of the fence height limitations of the Zoning Code would result in any practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship to the applicant. There is sufficient room on the property to provide for a small exercise area for the dog, outside the front setback, and there is also the option of taking the dog for a walk or run on a leash. There are several other properties in this neighborhood that share the same site characteristics, i.e., a majority of the rear portion of the lot is consumed by floodplain and wetland area. Staff does not feel that this is sufficient hardship to grant the requested variance. For all these reasons, staff is recommending denial of the variance as proposed. If it is the desire of the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) to approve the requested variance, staff recommends that the fence be pulled back a minimum of 10 feet from the front property line and landscaping be added in front of the fence, between Gore Circle Drive and the fence, to help screen the fence and soften its appearance. Staff recommends that evergreen trees and shrubs be placed strategically along the front of the fence so that the fence is screened from adjacent properties. Staff also recommends that the fence be pulled off of the side property line to allow for the installation of landscaping materials along the eastern property boundary. 2 T DR A It I A GE E A SEMEN A' ' '1 F ", , C I NlJr 11 L 0' RVLY; (i4—()9 —qr, ,--I hl� w I IMPROVEI I here) for survey I upon f, I Ines. I furth, this da vithin encroac premises sign of as note. Date: ARL WITNESS Cl RNI R b fn January 21, 1994 Ms. Shelly Melo Town Planner Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 RE: Variance application, for Fence at 5118 Gore Circle Vail, CO 81.657 Dear Ms. Mello, Enclosed please find an application for a variance that you requested. I hope everything is satisfactory. The reason for the delay had to do with the holidays and a death in the family. Please accept my apology. As you know, I authorized Top Notch Fence Co. to install the fence only after checking with them as to whether a permit was necessary. They told me no. I obtained their name from the Vail phone book and was assured that they "did a lot of work 10 in Vail". Unfortunately the information provided to me was incorrect and I should have contacted the Town of Vail. Time was critical as it was already snowing in the valley when the fence was going up. No work has been done on the fence since notice was given to me by the Town of Vail about this problem. The fence is constructed of ceder posts and top rail with a very thin "see through" 211 X 411 wire mesh screen. I hope something acceptable to every body can be worked out. Thank you for your assistance. Sincere 11 . Shonkwiler Application For A Variance, 111,A,1, thru 4. � °'E rs U 9 91- 10111 1) The fence is located entirely upon my property and extends to the easterly property line, the northerly property line and parallel to the east edge of my existing driveway. 2) 1 am requesting a 6 font fence to be located within the required 20 foot front set back. The site is comprised of approx 2/3 flood plain. 3) The effect upon light, air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, and utilities would be none. The impact upon public safety would be positive because the use of the fence is for the sole purpose of preventing my dog from running loose in the Town of Vail. Currently many dogs run loose in East Vail and are a potential danger to residents safety and also to wildlife in the area. 4) The only place to put a fence on my site is in the side /front yard. The area is part of the Gore Creek flood plain /riparian area. The only place to put the fence is out of the flood plain area. This, 1 believe complies with the Vail comprehensive plan and allows for families with pets to live and use the valley without interference to wild life, neighbors or motorists in the area. There currently are many dogs running loose in the area. The reason for the extra 3 foot in height is because of the snow. Anything less and the dog would be able to just walk over the top. (please see enclosed pictures) 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-21381479-2139 FAX 303-479-2452 January 7, 1994 Mr. Robert Shonkweiler 2005 10th Street Boulder, CO 80302 SENT VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RE: Unpermitted fence at 5118 Main Gore Drive Dear Mr. Shonkwfler: S L Department of Community Development On December 1, 1993, 1 sent a letter and application material for the unpermitted fence at 5118 Main Gore Drive. At this time, the office of Community Development has not received any application. 16 1 am writing to inform you that a variance application for the fence in excess of 6 feet in height in the front setback must be submitted to our office by January 24, 1994. If the application is not submitted by this date, our office will have to cite you for noncompliance with Section 18.58.020 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code which states: "Fences, hedges, walls and landscaping screens shall not exceed three feet in height within any required front setback area, and shall not exceed six feet in height in any other portion of the site, provided that higher fences, hedges, walls or landscaping screens may be authorized by the zoning administrator where necessary to screen public utility equipment. No barbed wire or electrically charged fence shall be erected or maintained." We wish to work in a cooperative manner with you. In addition, a Design Review Board application, will be required for consideration. Should you have any questions, please contact myself or Randy Stouder at 479-2138. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Sc, /.� " -'-'j S �h , 5elly Mello Town Planner xc: Randy Stouder Mike Mollica 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-21381479-2139 FAX 303-479-2452 E E December 1, 1993 Robert Shonkwiler 2005 10th Street Boulder, CO 80302 RE: Unpermitted fence at 5118 Main Gore Drive Dear Mr. Shonkwiler: Department of Community Development As we discussed, an unpermitted fence has been erected at the above property. An application would need to be submitted to the Town of Vail Design Review Board, which you will find enclosed. Chain link and materials of this type are prohibited. In addition, a site plan would need to be submitted which would verify the fence location and property lines. It would appear that the fence is within the 20 foot front setback. Fences in excess of 3 feet in height are not allowed in the front setback and fences in all other areas of the property may not exceed 6 feet. Enclosed please find copies of the applicable criteria for an application of this nature. Please contact me at 479-2138, should you have any further questions regarding this issue. Thank you. — -< � — '� -+ I I : 7 E. F I N 0 L- A Y - C R 1 9 9 &C0 P � rat Mr. Randy Stouder Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr. Stouder: Notice has been given to me as to a Public Hearing on February 28, 1994. 1 Will not be able to attend this meeting, but iten, #5 regarding the fence at 5118 Gore Circle is of great concr � to me� I am the homeowner directly across the street at 5119 Urore Circle and can see this fence from anywhere on my property as well as from inside my house. "bat k you for this opportunity to express my views on this matter. If anyone has any furllmr quostioin, please call me at (303) 745-1858 Erik L. Criss 1�1 February 23, 1994 J.E.WAGNER P. O. 130X 17620 DENVER, COLORADO 80217 [RE 'D FEB 2 5 1994 Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail Vail Municipal Building Vail, CO 81657 Dear Members of the Commission: This letter is in reference to Item #5 that appeared in the Public Notice of your hearing on February 28th at 2:00 P.M. I am sorry that I cannot appear at the hearing, but due to commitments that take me out of town, it simply isn't possible. I trust that this letter will bear some weight at the hearing. My wife and I own a house at 5168 Core Circle, which is two houses east of the Schonkwiler residence that is requesting a variance for a fence. As I am sure you are aware, the fence has already been erected, though not totally completed. I can understand Mr. Schonkwiler's desire to have a fence for his dog, but the fence as presently erected is totally out of keeping with the nature of the neighborhood. The height of the fence, materials used and its contour make it very unsightly and out of place in the neighborhood. ,I sincerely hope that the commission denies the request for a variance. Very truly yours, J. E. Wagner JEW: dp 1-1 11 11 11 Nowell R. May 5188 Gore Circle Vail, Colorado 81657 (303) 476-1621 FAX (303) 476-1645 January 3, 1994 Community Development Office Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Rd Vail CO 81657 Gentlemen/women: Enclosed is a petition signed be some of the neighbors on our street (and near it in the case of Main Gore) regarding an illegal fence recently constructed by one of our neighbors. I did not write this petition and not all of us agree on the wording but we all do agree that it is inappropriate and no variance should be approved and the fence removed. Please advise me when the hearing is to take place so that we can be heard. Very truly yours, JANUARY 1, 1994 TOWN OF VAIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NAME PRINTED NAME SIGNED ADDRESS PHONE E El JANUARY 1, 1994 TOWN OF FAIL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We the undersigned wish to state our position that we are totally apposed to any variance being granted to ROBERT SHONKWILER that would a-Ilow him to Install a 6 foot high fence on his property located at 5116 Gore Circle, Vail, Colorado. Said fence, which has already been installed, is an "eyesore" to the ent�.re neighborhood both in its size and in itE; design. Mr. Shonkwiler is knowledgeable about building in the State of Colorado and is aware of approvals required for Installing something that would require a variance. His complete disregard for his neighbors is evident in the manner in which this fence was installed. NAME PRINTED NAME SIGNED ADDRESS PHONE Ar-a y " V-& 44A Y , --- ^ — ��ev ,;,04�7 -2� 7,' EITZL7-:y 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 14, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots C and D and a part of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and East West Partners Planner: Mike Mollica I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants are proposing a major redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street. The project would be considered a "demo/rebuild" which would involve the demolition and removal of the existing structure and the construction of the proposed building on this site. The proposal calls for major design modifications to the front entrance (east elevation) evation) of the existing commercial spaces, the creation of lower level commercial spaces which would be accessible from stairs directly on Bridge Street, the infill of the northwest section of the property, the addition of an elevator at the west end of the building, and the addition of two upper level floors to accommodate one condominium. The exterior materials proposed for the structure would be predominantly stucco and wood, with a wood shake shingle roof. A snowmelt system would be installed in all pedestrian areas on the property and the snowmelt system would also extend to the two exterior stairs (sandstone) on Bridge Street. These areas would be finished with concrete unit pavers, in the approved Streetscape design. As a result of the two previous PEC worksessions, the applicant has shifted the entire structure back to within 6" of the western property line, and has further shifted the fourth and fifth floors to the west approximately 4'. The Bridge Street (east) elevation of the structure is now proposed to be located approximately 7 feet back from its current location. The fifth floor has been modified to provide an east-facing "double dormer", which further conceals the flat roof portion of the structure. As a part of this redevelopment, the applicants have also proposed to upgrade and improve the Town's adjacent pocket park to the north. The original design for the pocket park was completed by Winston and Associates and has been recently modified by the staff and Todd Oppenheimer, the Town's landscape architect. Final Design Review Board approval of the pocket park design shall be necessary. E Also included in the redevelopment, the entire structure would be brought into compliance with all of the current building and fire codes, (the building would be fully sprinkled). Due to this project's location within the Commercial Core I zone district, approval by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) of a major CCI exterior alteration is required. The staff has reviewed the applicant's submittal, and agrees that the proposal as redesigned would comply with all of the Town's development standards for the Commercial Core I zone district. No variances or view corridor amendments are required for this redevelopment. - On August 27, 1990, the PEC approved a major CCI exterior alteration for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building. • On August 29, 1990, the Town's Design Review Board (DRB) granted final design approval for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building. Although there is no time limit or expiration for the previously approved major exterior alteration, the final ORB approval for the redevelopment has expired. - On February 14, 1994, the PEC held a joint worksession with the ORB to review the major CCI exterior alteration proposal. • On February 28, 1994, the PEC held a second worksession to review the major CCI exterior alteration proposal. • On March 2, 1994, the ORB held a conceptual review of the project. 11 K C1 III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following is a summary of the development standards for the proposed redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building: COMMERCIAL CORE I EXISTING PROPOSED ZONING PROJECT PROJECT Site Area: N/A 4,675 sq. ft. 4,675 sq. ft. Buildable Area: N/A 4,518 sq. ft. 4,518 sq. ft. Setbacks: Per the Vail Village Urban N: 0' N: 1' Design Guide Plan S: 1' S: 0' E: 7' E: 14' W: 0" W: 0' -6" Height: 60 %: 33' or less 43' to ridge 60:5 %: 33 ft. or less 40 %: 33 ft. - 43 ft. 39.5 %: 33 ft. - 43 ft. Common Area: 1,265 sq. ft., 762 sq. ft. 1,265 sq, ft., or 35% or 35% of allowable GRFA GRFA: 3,614 sq. ft. or 80% 0 sq. ft. 3,614 sq. ft., or 800% Units: 25 units per acre, 0 units 1 unit 2 units for this property Site Coverage. 3,740 sq. ft., or 80% 3,650 sq. ft., or 78% 3,726 sq. ft., or 79.7% Landscaping: Per the Vail Village Urban Same Same Design Guide Plan Parking: Per the Town of Vail Required: 22.1 spaces Required: 28.1 spaces _ Parking Standards Loading: Per the Town of Vail Required: 1 Required: 1 Loading Standards Existing: 0 Existing: 0 Commercial Uses: N/A 8,867 sq. ft. 7,671 sq. ft. Gross Floor Area: N/A 9,629 sq. ft. 12,550 sq. ft. C1 IV. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL The nine criteria for Commercial Core I exterior alterations shall be used to judge the merits of this project. In addition, the PEC shall also utilize the Vail Village Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the Streetscape Master Plan and the purpose section of the Commercial Core I zone district. As stated in Section 18.24.010 of the Town's Municipal Code, the purpose section of the Commercial Core I zone district is as follows: "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 prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village." The Planning Staff finds that the Covered Bridge Building application for a major exterior alteration meets the Commercial Core I purpose, as stated above. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN Although not specifically categorized as a sub-area, the Covered Bridge Building is specifically identified in the Vail Village Master Plan as follows: "Although it is a goal to maintain design continuity in the Village core, there will be change in the core areas built environment. This is mostly due to the number of properties that have not exercised their full development rights. The most notable among these properties are the Red Lion Building, the Cyrano's Building, the Lodge at Vail and the Covered Bridge Building. If each of these and other properties developed to their full potential, there will undoubtedly be a significant increase in the level of development in the Village core." , There are many goals, objectives, and policies which are identified in the Vail Village Master Plan that are applicable to the development of the Covered Bridge Building. The staff feels that the following specifically address this project: Goal #1: Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural- scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. • 4 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.3 Obiective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1.3.1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town. Goal #2: To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and 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 greenspaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 2.5 Objective: Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation, and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. 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. 3.4 Objectives: Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways and accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. 5 3.4.1 Policy: Physical improvements to property adjacent to stream tracts shall not further restrict public access. Goal #4: To preserve existing open space areas and expand greenspace opportunities. 4.1 Obiective: Improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with greenspace and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. 4.1.2 Policy: The development of new public plazas, and improvements to existing plazas (public art, streetscape features, seating areas, etc.), shall be strongly encouraged to reinforce their roles as attractive people places. The staff believes that the proposed redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building would further the above Vail Village Master Plan goals and objectives. V11. COMPLIANCE WITH THE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN The Streetscape Master Plan concepts identified for the Covered Bridge area include the following: 0 "Stairs connecting Bridge Street to the pocket park and Gore Creek on the north side of the Covered Bridge Building are needed. The pocket park should be improved so that it could function as a picnic area or performance site in the Village," The Streetscape Master Plan addresses paving treatments in the Village as follows: "The demarcation between the public right-of-way and private land may be appropriate to dissolve or ' emphasize, depending on the individual project site. The result will be to create a varied street color and texture that allows private property owners creativity, but also establishes a comprehensive design context to work within. The primary paving material for the right-of-way area of the Village core is recommended to be the rectangular concrete unit pavers. The herring bone pattern, which is proposed for most areas, is edged by a double soldier course. The intent is to satisfy the need for a simple streetscape treatment without being monotonous. The double soldier course also creates a point for starting and stopping pavers proposed by private developers that will be compatible with the overall phased paving design." Although the specific details of the proposed streetscape and pocket park design are described in Section VIII of this memorandum, overall, the staff believes the proposed improvements make a positive contribution to the quality of the area and are in compliance with the Town's adopted Streetscape Master Plan. 0 6 0 VII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE 0 The Urban Design Guide Plan Sub-Area concepts identified for the Covered Bridge area include a pocket park to the north of the site (with benches and planters). A "feature area" with specialty pavers is also identified for a small area immediately southwest of the Covered Bridge. The staff believes that the applicant's proposed modifications to the Town's pocket park, including the viewing platform adjacent to the Covered Bridge and a new entry stair into the park, are in conformance with the Urban Design Guide Plan Sub-Area concept and are a positive public improvement. VIIIII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE The following are the nine Commercial Core I exterior alteration design criteria, as listed in the Urban Design Guide Plan, to be utilized by the Planning & Environmental Commission when evaluating CCI exterior alteration proposals: A. Pedestrianization Staff believes that the proposed redesign for the Covered Bridge Building will improve the pedestrian ization in the lower Bridge Street area. This section of Bridge Street is basically a car-free pedestrian area, however, due to the large numbers of pedestrians utilizing this area at peak times, it is not unusual for the street to become congested. The modifications proposed for the Covered Bridge Building, as well as the modifications proposed for the adjacent Covered Bridge pocket park, would improve pedestrian circulation and would also provide additional public seating areas. The project architect has designed the building so that it would meet all the current ADA requirements for disabled access. A "lift" would be located at the southeast corner of the property, adjacent to the south side of the main entry stair to the second floor retail level. The lift would be located behind a raised planter, which will assist in screening the lift from Bridge Street. The lift would provide disabled access to the lowest level of the structure, as well as to the pocket park. From the lowest level, it is possible to access the main elevator at the rear of the building. All levels of the building, with the exception of the fifth floor, would be accessible from this elevator. Staff has suggested that the design of the "lift" be modified to better reflect the alpine character of the Village, and the applicant has agreed to modify the design, subject to final Design Review Board approval. At the request of the DRB, the applicant has redesigned the southeast corner of the site to eliminate the exposed lower level commercial space, from the main stair, south to the Gasthof Gramshammer. This area has been filled so that the Bridge Street elevation would extend up to the face of the building, thereby enhancing the pedestrian experience. This area would be finished with concrete unit pavers (with integral snowmelt), in the approved Streetscape design. A raised stone planter would be added in front (east) of the lift, and a bench would be added to the area. 7 Staff believes the proposed new pedestrian access into the Covered Bridge pocket park, as well as the proposed safety railings, will be a major improvement over the 0 existing conditions. B. Vehicular Penetration As recommended in the Urban Design Guide Plan, and in conjunction with the peclestrianization objectives listed above, the major emphasis regarding vehicular penetration in the Village is focused on reducing auto penetration into the center of the Village. Loading and delivery for the Covered Bridge Building is currently, and will in the future, be handled in the same manner as any other building within the Village core. All loading /delivery vehicles are required to park in designated loading /delivery zones. Hand carts are then necessary to transport the goods to the individual businesses. One particular concern that staff, and the PEC, has identified has to do with trash pick- up for the Covered Bridge Building. Because the only legal access for this site is via Bridge Street, staff is concerned that trash pick-up would occur on Bridge Street. Staff believes that this would be very undesirable, given that lower Bridge Street is considered a "no-vehicle" area. As discussed in more detail under the Service and Delivery section of this memorandum, the staff would strongly recommend that the owner of the Covered Bridge Building discuss with the adjacent property owner, Pepi Gramshammer, the possibility of allowing for service access through his site. C. Streetscape Framework The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan recommends that it would be desirable to have a variety of "open and enclosed spaces, both built and landscaped which create a strong framework for pedestrian walks as well as visual interest and activity." Further, the direction of the Guide Plan is not to enclose all Village streets with buildings, nor is it desirable to leave pedestrian streets in an open and somewhat undefined condition. Staff believes that the applicant's redesign for the Covered Bridge Building creates a positive streetscape framework for the lower Bridge Street area. Along with an enhanced pedestrian experience in this area, the redevelopment would also create new commercial activity generators (i.e. additional street life and visual interest) with the addition of the "visible" lower level commercial spaces. In order to provide a visual connection between the lower level retail commercial shops and Bridge Street, the applicant has shifted the east elevation of the structure approximately 7 feet back from its cur ' rent location. This not only provides for a visual connection but it also allows for landscaping to be located in front of the building. The staff believes that the exposed lower level commercial spaces, at the northeast corner of the structure and along the pocket park, work well given the lower grades in the pocket park area. We support the DRB's request to infill the southeast corner of the site to eliminate the exposed lower level commercial space, (from the main stair, south to the Gasthof Gramshammer). Staff does not believe that split-level commercial provides a comfortable enclosure for 0 the street, and also does not provide the character and "Village feel" that the Design Guidelines recommend. Staff agrees with the DRB, that the infill of this area will enhance the pedestrian experience along lower Bridge Street. With regard to the architectural considerations, the staff has reviewed the project with the Town's design consultant Jeff Winston (Winston and Associates). The initial design concerns identified were that the majority of the structure's mass and bulk should be concentrated on the western half of the property. Additionally, staff felt that the building should step down as it approaches the eastern portion of the property (Bridge Street). Further, staff felt that the overall roof design should be simplified and that the proposed fifth floor should 'be architecturally integrated into the rest of the structure. Staff had also expressed concern regarding the relationship of the proposed fourth and fifth floors to the existing Gasthof Gramshammer lodge rooms (and exterior decks) to the south. Since the two PEG worksessions, the applicant has modified the building's design to reduce the length of the solid wall, which would have extended out (east) approximately 8', from the edge of the Gramshammer fourth floor deck. At the request of the PEC, the applicant shifted the entire structure 5' to the west, to within 6" of the western-most property line. Additionally, the Covered Bridge Building's fourth and fifth floors have been pulled back, to the west, approximately 4', so that any potential negative impacts to the Gasthof Gramshammer would be lessened, or eliminated, and so that the relationship of the Covered Bridge Building, to Bridge Street, would also be improved. D. Street Enclosure In order to provide a more comfortable street enclosure in the lower Bridge Street area, the PEC recommended (at the initial worksession) that the applicant consider shifting the building to the west. The applicant has complied with this request and has shifted the building approximately 5 feet to the west, up to within 6 inches of the western-most property line. This modification, coupled with stepped-back fourth and fifth floors, provides an external street enclosure which adds visual interest, and according to staff, provides a very comfortable pedestrian scale, which is the desired condition in the Village. Due to the Covered Bridge Building shifting to the west, the staff would recommend that the exposed northeast elevation of the Gasthof Gramshammer, adjacent to Bridge Street, be finished with stucco and painted to match the Gasthof Gramshammer. It is also recommended by staff that Mr. Gramshammer consider adding a retail window in this wall area. E. Street Edge As previously mentioned, as a part of this redevelopment, the applicants have proposed to upgrade and improve the Town's adjacent pocket park to the north, as well as the building's frontage on Bridge Street. A total of three, raised, stone-faced planters would be located along Bridge Street. In addition, two new planters would be 9 added at the lower retail level elevation, (please see the landscape plan). Plant material proposed for the planters would include 3 Aspen, 4 Juniper, 7 Chokeberry, 3 Alpine Current, 10 Kinnickinnick and assorted mixed-perennials. To further the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations, the staff would recommend that the applicant consider the addition of flower boxes to the balconies on the building. The design for the pocket park calls for the creation of a viewing platform/seating area adjacent to the Covered Bridge. The Streetscape Master Plan recommended benches, .lighting and paver design would be utilized. A new entry stair into the park would be constructed at the southeast corner of the park, which would provide vide pedestrian access to the park and to the lower level commercial spaces in the building. The entire park area would be re-seeded and irrigated as a part of the proposal. In order to accommodate the redevelopment, the applicants have proposed to remove the two existing evergreen trees which are located adjacent to the north elevation of the building. These trees are very close se to the building and have grown "one-sided". The Town's Landscape Architect, Todd Oppenheimer, believes the two trees could not be relocated successfully. No other vegetation is proposed to be removed with the construction. The Town will be responsible for maintenance of the planters located up at the Bridge Street level, as well as maintenance of the planter and landscaping in the pocket park. The developer of the Covered Bridge Building will be responsible for maintenance of the lower level planter in front of the building. F. Building Height The Vail Village Master Plan has identified this property as having an acceptable building height in the range of three to four stories. A story is defined as 9 feet of height and no roof is included. This property is unique in that there is an ' 8-foot difference in elevation between Bridge Street and the pocket park area north of the property. During the review of the 1990 redevelopment proposal, the applicant had requested that staff analyze and interpret where building height base elevations would be calculated from. In 1990, the staff made the following building height interpretations, and these interpretations were subsequently upheld by the PEC: That the Covered Bridge Building site be divided equally, beginning at the northeast corner of the property with a line running diagonal to the southwest corner of the property. The staff and the PEC believe that this analysis provided for a fair and equitable review of building height because it allows for the Bridge Street elevation of the structure to be based upon the grades on Bridge Street. It also allowed for the elevations of the building which front north to the pocket park, and west to Pepi's parking lot, to be based upon existing grades in the park area. E 10 2. That the base elevation of Bridge Street (8,161 feet) will be used to determine heights for areas of the building which fall into the southeastern 50% of the divided property. 3. That the base elevation at the northwest corner of the Covered Bridge property (8,153 feet) will be used to determine building heights for the northwest 50% of the structure. During the PEC's 1990 review of the Covered Bridge Building redevelopment, the drawings were submitted, and were certified, showing that the proposed design could be built within the parameters of the height interpretation, and that the building would not encroach into any Town adopted view corridor. It was in late 1993 that the staff learned that the 1990 approved drawings were not accurate and that the structure could not be constructed without a height variance and a view corridor encroachment. Although the staff continues to believe that the above interpretation was an equitable solution to a difficult problem, (given the unique topography surrounding this structure), the staff has acknowledged that this interpretation has driven a design solution for the site which does not appear to be compatible with the design standards for the Village. From a design perspective, and from a practical point of view, staff believes that a majority of this building's upper level mass should be located towards the rear or western portion of the site. However, the 1990 building height interpretation listed above forces a design solution with a majority of the building mass centered on the property. This is necessary in order to meet the 60-40 roof area percentages. During the February 14, 1993 PEC worksession, the PEC again reviewed this issue, and subsequently determined that the building height base elevation for the Covered Bridge property could now be calculated solely from the Bridge Street elevation (8,161 feet). This PEC decision was based on the understanding that the applicant would redesign the structure so that the entire building would be shifted back approximately 5' to the west, and additionally, that the 4th and 5th floors would further step back to the west. G. Views and Focal Points View Corridor #1 is the view corridor from the steps of the Vail Village Transportation Center extending over the Village towards Vail Mountain. This view corridor was intended to provide unobstructed views of Vail Mountain and key architectural features such as the Clock Tower and the Rucksack Tower. As proposed, the highest point of the Covered Bridge Building's redesign would not encroach into any of the Town's adopted view corridors. In order to avoid a view corridor encroachment, a portion of the fifth floor is designed with a flat roof. Although this has been a very difficult design problem, the staff believes that the redesign of the fifth floor roof form, and the addition of a "double dormer" adequately conceals the flat roof from most pedestrian areas adjacent to the building. Because the project architect has recently redesigned the roof form, at the request of the staff and PEC, the staff is comfortable delaying the view corridor certification until Building Permit. 11 H. Service and Delivery Per the Town Code, an additional loading space is not required for the redevelopment. No loading area exists for this site. The proposal includes a trash room to be located at the rear, or west, side of the building. Trash pickup is proposed via Bridge Street, as this property has no legal access through the rear, or Children's Fountain area. Again, it is strongly recommended that the applicant discuss with Pep! Gramshammer, owner of the property to the west, the possibility of allowing for service access through his site. Pepi Gramshammer has recently submitted plans to develop his property (currently a surface parking lot), by adding an enclosed parking garage with approximately 8 lodging rooms and two condominiums above the garage. 1. Sun/Shade The applicant has provided a sun/shade analysis for the winter solstice (December 21st), and for the spring and fall equinox (March 21st and September 21st). The analysis was conducted for the existing building and the proposed structure, and revealed shading patterns for 10:00 AM, 12:00 noon and 2:00 PM. The proposed structure will cast increased shade patterns on the adjacent pocket park site to the north and northwest. The staff believes that this additional shade will have minimal impacts due to the fact that the area of the additional shading is mainly to the northwest of the building, and this area is heavily landscaped with large, mature evergreen trees. There will be some additional "late day" shade (2:OOPM) cast on approximately 4 square feet of Bridge Street, in the area of the proposed new stairs to the pocket park. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building. The staff finds that this redevelopment proposal, over the course of two PEC work sessions, has developed into one which is in compliance with the Urban Design Considerations for Vail Village as well as the other Comprehensive Plan elements described in detail above. Staff believes that the project will have a very positive effect on lower Bridge Street and the entry to Vail Village. The staff's recommendation of approval includes the following conditions: That prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit for the redevelopment project, the applicant shall verify that the proposed roof design does not encroach into View Corridor No. 1. This work shall be completed by a registered surveyor in the State of Colorado. 2. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) for the redevelopment project, the applicant shall post a bond, cash escrow, or letter of credit, in an amount necessary to insure the completion of any outstanding improvements, not completed 12 at the time of the requested TGO. Said guarantee for completion of any outstanding improvements shall be in accordance with Section 17.16.250 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. 3. That prior to the Town's issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) for the redevelopment project, the applicant shall grant a pedestrian and landscape maintenance easement to the Town for the purposes of pedestrian access to the pocket park and maintenance of the planters and pocket park landscaping. 4. That the applicant add "divided lights" to the retail doors on the first and second levels of the structure, subject to DRS approval. 5. That the applicant add flower boxes to the balconies on the building, subject to DRB approval. 6. That the exposed northeast elevation of the Gasthof Gramshammer, adjacent to Bridge Street, be finished with stucco and painted to match. It is recommended by staff that a retail window be cut into this wall. cApec\memos\bridge.314 13 c�l PROPOSED COVERED BRIDGE BUILDING B RI D G E S T R E E T I)�' 1 1 }� n.x'r�A-ss,aaia 1 " PLANT SCHEDULE '_; \ 1 \� � I �E,._�iH'Ni a fflM L "NAf18 am WE P�iw h•muldd.• A +F�n 1 T cJ. 1u+l+nn.amm�rl. emn�m lwp.e a rs '(j � q�i YIW I[ mD� Sc�ul�z `� � 1 ` A aw.tMwwmw T.:Nfb,JCf •9 � ! r. r r�f i ^�( SM6lLYGBP.Rib lkgpA[H65 - i pYdTINd1R16 T(YREFfAIY ( �� M Mounbh AN Su6n•aolwiyr i J•oL 1 1 1 - -- _T •wry... NOTE: •Yp i -- u!tfe vrw..vx H,MGD p ynud pYmbnf •re•. LrlWba +od •eo-4 duo euv cn •.upruu nns•mn aol E.ww.bW by Mf Tmvnq VW r Eud " PLANT SCHEDULE '_; \ 1 \� � I �E,._�iH'Ni a fflM L "NAf18 am WE P�iw h•muldd.• A +F�n 1 T cJ. 1u+l+nn.amm�rl. emn�m lwp.e a rs '(j � q�i YIW I[ mD� Sc�ul�z `� � 1 ` A aw.tMwwmw T.:Nfb,JCf •9 � ! Q aw.•yb.,m ups. c•...re. a .s i ^�( SM6lLYGBP.Rib lkgpA[H65 - i pYdTINd1R16 T(YREFfAIY �� M Mounbh AN Su6n•aolwiyr i J•oL - -- _T •wry... NOTE: •Yp All plmf bd•reu dull rxe(raT drMdedhW.uy baf mufil 41 All ar•+dns lHe•. mdlmemnl•I•dull me,v deip •ubm•Y l.dyxm mva.3c`.O wd •.m \\ bwer pl filly d•irv.alb Mt bore kwl. flullawmminfp.em .aMm,ied bdvG n.d NWp.Dwlmnf and duo km•InYLLe.d by mr C.wn.d &Idtebssidinp; •ll w.. p ynud pYmbnf •re•. LrlWba +od •eo-4 duo euv cn •.upruu nns•mn aol E.ww.bW by Mf Tmvnq VW r Eud ,i l- W co uj �ifi in S 0 - - - -- -' -- �� Q o 0 Qf - -- w �1 O 1 � i 1 1 TX' pbe.dit 4 yywU ,. Lfl , az � � `� ,a+.0 ore nor•. �r •..wd a V - .� '�'• t •n • nA�•v .,u. JA...aCAS .t.c.• w _.. �❑,AVlupi y� 4`,•.11.11TUr l/vlrtKRXt[ � \ 1 Re.• d: �� `.. "44.,r. F � ti � ru xa �ewr•�te �6 ��A 1l 5'•.h'15 rt.ff \ \ \ •GAy yV'MAf. � V � V •'Yrrisd ls.- d...s�' -- �' et sx..a .rtivNdrot' a.a ,+_ �.,, r3 K -e LD A✓.LL..'iY4(HU rF'Fr APL `1tGY_r�eN,tr �a4lVMa ^fE`L rJ+,••eu„Hl[.r[d�`A_St:G Lp.K -f J W-2Y Y,R64Y,M{} A -�� vttrtod•xt rao<�was er^_-µ rte,. Awro. �t+s' COVERED BRIDGE - ,r • a • 0 a 0 .rA"' .vvilu -.*' frr t,c� an uur uar, umca Planter Sections- /�71'wa.ras�'at.4. .!'.w vrnw+w �4. zr`aaotue+wa. fah N 6t vt+0/'J r, !4J 51Itt Rr�b+u. uve 1p`tr LWDfhN Hb MlsOl lM�Mi11 Mon —. 4m%js M}gf�J Or, 0-f"Lei "at&" at u.0 Stair Section 1/2"-l'-O' �. m Retaining Wall Section__ P aftthmey 0 Z_ C] Ld Cd w cl� o Ld Q�o m CD C] � LJ � � N W mat.. , f� Awl Kam" _ f O i fo' O �. a TV C] DECK 0 81'- 8 -7/2" / DECK 0 91' -7" — i RIDGE 8196• —p' l ROOF ® 8200' 1-6" VA CONSTRUCTION 1 W ( FIELD OFFICE w lz o - 0 tl � 1 F, V9 IT, l 0 CS DECK 0 9l' -7" DECK 0 81'- 8 -11/1" TREES TO BE REMOVED LOT B CONSTRUCTION w CRANE — � ( CRANf PAVERS (HEATED) !!! � REF. LANDSCAPE PLAN VIN FOR MATERIALS do QUAN"ES UP UP m FLOOD PLANTER PlA1�'i Pr3- ABLE PLANTER PA HERS LC+F D N26 °4T'E LOT C eli ( Q o� D Ora 61 1 j` • tY9, Tf T T 71 rV T.-7 CN m Tti -s—" i'ii1fF F?i_"rl FL 62.0-0'-Co'l 4—,- X Ell 1 -Twa a- , _i 8i81 v-I 4p -Twa a- , l 0 f a C 4 CY f�AH'3H�M1u1Efi L� lr .w tT' 0° 6` tip _a LEa 81` LEti 8I L- E+ 81� 8 {G' L. iw ✓t5 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 14, 1994 SUBJECT: A request fora worksession to discuss proposed setback and site coverage variances and a major exterior alteration in Commercial Core 11 (CCII) for the Lifthouse Lodge, located at 555 East Lionshead Circle, legally described as a portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Robert T. and Diane J. Lazier Planner: Jim Curnutte X :-X . . .. ...... ........... ........... .................. . .. ...... ....... ... .. .. . .... ... ............ ........... . . ................ I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Robert T. and Diane J. Lazier are requesting a worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) to discuss their proposed changes to a portion of the Lifthouse Lodge Building. The applicant would like to construct a 580 square foot, one-story, addition to the commercial spaces located on the first floor of the Lifthouse Lodge Building. The proposed expansion involves the I tenant spaces currently being leased by Montauk, Pizza Bakery, Bart and Yeti's and First Bank. This application will eventually require PEC review of setback and site coverage variances as well as a major exterior alteration. Each portion of this request is further described as follows: A. Setback Variance The proposed addition will extend the southern wall of the above-mentioned lease spaces anywhere from 6 feet to 12 feet further south of the existing building facade. Additionally, a portion of the First Bank commercial space will be extended 6 feet to the east. The applicant is proposing that the portion of this expansion, in the area of Pizza Bakery, be extended to the south property line. The First Bank eastward expansion will bring the building to within 9 feet of the eastern property line. Setback variances are reauired in order to allow the addition to encroach 10 feet into the re aired 10 foot setback on the south side of the building, resulting in a 0 setback situation. On the east side, the expansion encroaches 1 foot -into the reauired 10 foot setback, which results in a 9 foot setback. B. Site Coverage Variance Under the CCII zone district, the maximum site coverage allowed on this lot is 14,231 square feet (70%). On March 25, 1991, setback and site coverage variances were granted in conjunction with the exterior alteration request related to the addition of the E Banner Sports commercial space. The approved addition resulted in a site coverage allowance of 15,114 square feet (74%). Under the current redevelopment proposal, the building's site coverage would be increased an additional 610 square feet to 15,724 square feet (77%). Therefore, a site coverage variance is requested in order to exceed the existing site coverage on the lot by 610 square feet. C. Major Exterior Alteration This project is located in the Commercial Core 11 (CCII) zone district, which requires that any exterior expansion of 100 square feet or greater be reviewed by the PEC using the exterior alteration criteria. The total net floor area of the proposed commercial expansion is 580 square feet. 111. ZONING ANALYSIS The following summarizes the relationship of the redevelopment proposal to the CCII zone district development standards. The project's departures from the CCII zone district standards are highlighted in bold type. Allowed per CCII Zoning Existing Pro'ect Proposed Addition Site Area: 0.467 acres Same Same or 20,334 sq. ft. Site Coverage-, 70% or 14,231 sq. ft. 74% or 15,114 s% ft. 77% or 15,724 sq. it. Setbacks- 10' on all sides, unless N: 01 N: 01 otherwise specified in the S: 0.51 S: 01 Vail Lionshead Urban Design E: 15, E: 91 Guide Plan and Design W: 01 W: 01 Considerations. **Parking: Varies according to the N/A 4.265 additional parking proposed use of the property. spaces required, —Building Height: 45' for a flat or mansard roof N/A 16.5 feet 48' for a sloping roof *—Landscaping: 813 sq, ft. hardscape 3,986 sq. ft. hardscape 3,406 s% ft. hardscape (paving/decks) (paving/decks) (paving/decks) 3,253 sq, ft. softscape 499 sq. ft. softscape 512 sq. ft. softscape (planting) (planting) (planting) 4,066 sq_ ft. required (20%) 4,485 sq. ft. gross (22%) 3,918 sq. ft. gross (19%) *The building setbacks on the north and west sides of the existing building will remain unchanged under this redevelopment proposal. The existing 05 building setback is a result of a setback variance granted in conjunction with the Banner Sports commercial space addition in 1991. **The provision of 4.265 additional parking spaces is required as a result of the proposed addition. The applicant must pay into the Town's Parking Fund per the Pay-In-Lieu Program. The parking requirement is currently calculated at $8,594.40 per space. As currently calculated, the parking requirement of 4.265 spaces equates to a pay-in-lieu-fee of approximately $36,655.12. If the parking pay-in-lieu fee is changed prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project, the new fee will be assessed at the time a building permit is issued. Even if no changes to the parking pay-in-lieu program are made, the fee will automatically be adjusted per the Consumer Price Index on January, 1995. The parking requirement for this project is discussed in more detail in Section IV (Discussion Issues) of this memo. ***The 16.5 fool maximum height of the addition will not change the maximum building height of the existing structure. 41 ****The landscape requirement for this project is explained in more detail in Section IV (Discussion Issues) of this memo. 2 CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL A. Compliance with the Commercial Core 11 Zone District Purpose Statement As stated in the Zoning Code, the purpose of the CCII zone district is as follows: "The Commercial Core 11 zone district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments, in a clustered, unified development. Commercial Core 11 district in accordance with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards." B. Compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead The sub-area concepts which are in the vicinity of the proposed Lifthouse Lodge commercial expansion: Concept 7: "Lions pride court should be opened to free access to Lionshead Court. Planting area reduced and relocated to abut Lionshead Arcade building to provide screen buffer for restaurant and force traffic flow out of the shadows and into the sunny area of the court. Sculpture focal point. Concept 17: "Planting to screen non-commercial areas and make visual green link between plazas. Concept 18: "Commercial expansion (one-story) to emphasize pedestrian level. Patio area enlarged slightly for additional dining space ( a sun-pocket area), and wider, inviting steps which can also be used for sitting function. C. Compliance with the Urban Design Guide Considerations for Lionshead and Exterior Alteration Criteria Although -the staff will not specifically address each of the eight exterior alteration -criteria for this worksession, the criteria are listed below: 1. Height and Massing: 3. Facades - Walls/Structures: 0 3 E 11 4. Facades - Transparency: 5. Decks-and Patios: 6. Accent Elements: 7. Landscape Elements: 8. Service and Delivery: D. Compliance with the Variance Criteria The following criteria are to be used in reviewing proposed setback and site coverage variances: 1. Consideration of Factors: a. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. b. 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. C. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 2. The Planning findings. i and Environmental Commission shall make the following finclin before granting a variance: a. 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. b. 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. C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: i. 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 ii. 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. iii. 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. IV. DISCUSSION ISSUES Since this is a worksession, there is no formal staff recommendation at this time. However, the staff has identified the following issues which we would like to discuss further with the PEG and applicant: 1. Landscape Amendments - Concept # 17 of the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan suggests additional plantings in the area of this expansion in order to screen non- commercial areas and make a visual landscape link between plazas. At this time the applicant is not proposing the installation of any additional trees or shrubs to the existing planters on the south and east sides of the building. Additionally, the proposed roof addition on the east side of the building will result in the removal of the two existing aspen trees and effectively preclude the planting of any trees along this side of the building. The First Bank commercial addition will also impact existing landscape planters. However, this impact will result in the addition of 13 square feet of planting area. Staff has suggested that the applicant consider enlarging the planter on the east side of the building to allow sufficient room to plant trees and maintain seating. This would carry out the intent of the Lionshead Design Guide Plan and help create a sense of enclosure, create shade, and soften the starkness of the east side of the building and adjacent plaza area. We believe this is appropriate as trees are being removed and a site coverage and landscape variances are being requested. The Fire Department has expressed some concern with maintaining adequate access into the plaza area to the east of this building. The applicant is working with the Fire Department to determine the required access width. The Town of Vail definition of "landscaping" not only includes planted areas and plant materials, it also allows for up to 20% of a landscaped area to be "hardscape". "Hardscape" would include walks, decks, patios, terraces, water features and other similar features. Since the minimum required amount of landscaping on the Lifthouse Lodge property is 4,066 square feet and up to 20% of that figure, or 813 square feet, may be "hardscape", the remaining 3,253 square feet of required landscaping must be in "softscape". As shown in the Zoning Analysis, this property is already nonconforming with regard to meeting the landscape requirement and minimum percentage of "hardscape" and "softscape". Although the proposed commercial expansion will reduce the amount of "hardscape" landscaping on the property by approximately 580 square feet, the amount of "softscape" is being increased by 13 square feet. 5 The addition of 13 square feet of "softscape" will bring the property further into compliance with the minimum requirement. The 580 square foot reduction in "hardscape" on the property is actually not a problem since only 813 square feet of the "hardscape" on the entire property may be credited toward meeting the minimum landscape requirement anyway. Therefore, it is staff's opinion that a landscape variance would not be required in conjunction with this development application. Staff would again, however, recommend that additional "softscape" be provided by expanding the amount of planter area on the east side of the building. 2. Design Compatibility of the Addition with the Existing Building - The Design Considerations recommend that connections of roofs to existing buildings respect any existing strong architectural lines and emphasizes the importance of integrating expansions with existing buildings so as to avoid a patchwork, "tacked-on" quality for Lionshead. Expansions should appear to be part of the original design of each building. Staff believes that the proposed addition's connection to the existing building at the floor level of the second story decks is visually pleasing and will eliminate the cantilevered appearance of the second story decks. Although staff feels that the proposed addition does integrate well with the existing building we have some concerns with how the individual tenant spaces integrate with each other. a. Proposed Roof - The Lionshead Design Considerations state that flat, shed, vaulted, or dome roofs are acceptable for building expansions while discouraging gable roof forms. A peaked roof is proposed over the entry to Pizza Bakery as well as the First Bank entryway. The style of these roofs is intended to match the recent approval for Banner Sports which is located on the southwestern side of the Lifthouse Lodge Building. The applicant wishes to have a metal roof on the First Bank portion of the expansion as well as the roof which wraps around the eastern side of the building. This roof will be copper, which would weather naturally. The Design Considerations set forth metal as an acceptable roofing material provided that it is ribbed or standing seam and a dark color. The roof on the Bart and Yeti's, Pizza Bakery, and Montauk portions of the expansion is proposed to be cedar shakes. b, Building Facades - Staff has suggested that the applicant consider adding divided lights to the panes of glass in the entry doors leading to the First Bank, Pizza Bakery and Bart and Yeti's additions. This would differentiate these doorways from ' m others on the property and provide a more prominent sense of entry to each of the commercial spaces. The Design Guide Plan suggests that the further subdivision of windows and doors into smaller panes is desirable in order to increase pedestrian scale. 6 These glass areas are not used for display. Staff wishes to point out that the rekord doors proposed for the Pizza Bakery and Bart and Yeti's additions are 8 feet high, in order to allow as much light as possible into these spaces. The PEG should consider whether or not the proposed height of these doors is compatible with adjacent commercial spaces and consistent with other elements of the facade in design, character and materials. 3. Setback and Site Coverage Variance Requests - As previously stated, subarea concept #18 of the Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead specifically calls for a one story commercial addition in the area where this expansion is proposed. The commercial space expansion will create much needed pedestrian level interest along the south and east facades of the building and bring the building down to a more comfortable human scale. Staff believes that granting the setback and site coverage variances will have a positive impact on existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. We also believe that the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan takes precedence over the Zoning Code in guiding the staff's position on these two matters. The patio area in front of Montauk, Pizza Bakery, Bart and Yeti's and First Bank have previously been expanded as suggested in the Guide Plan. Staff does not believe that the minimal loss (580 square feet) of patio area associated with this expansion is significant and is an acceptable trade off for the benefits mentioned previously. 4. Parking Requirement - As mentioned in the Zoning Analysis section of this memo, the parking requirement for the proposed commercial expansion is 4.265 spaces which equates to a parking pay-in-lieu fee of $36,655.12. It should be pointed out that these figures were derived from the conceptual drawings provided to date, which are not fully dimensioned. The parking pay- in-lieu fee will be recalculated when a building permit application and construction drawings are provided for Town review. The Vail Town Council is considering an increase in the parking pay-in-lieu fee. If this increase is approved by the Town Council through adoption of an ordinance prior to the time a building permit is issued for the proposed commercial expansion, the fee identified in this memo will be adjusted accordingly. 5. Painted Mural - The Design Guide Plan recommends the judicious use of colorful accent elements including painted wall graphics, scrollwork, etc,. Staff suggests that the PEC and applicant consider the possibility of adding colorful graphics to the east wall of the Lifthouse Lodge Building in addition to the roof and landscape elements mentioned above. 0 7 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS Since this is a worksession, no formal staff recommendation will be provided at this time. However, staff requests that the above-listed issues be discussed with the applicants, so that they have specific direction on how to proceed. If the applicant wishes to receive formal PEC review of this request at the April 11, 1994 meeting, all revised information must be provided to staff no later than March 21, 1994. cApec\memasWithous.314 :1 • 8 • � SITE t9LAP1 _ r \ice, w wu[cx ua 99 areaaag1 rsvurtw +�. �6A. I I r7l". �P—to,T-tc, i SOLI THILUMM SOUT�ieAST ELEVATION F� - '114,77 f— Logs + 11 d� Ma q4' -4A SITE PLAN nj p* � `ca ste -- vz i SOW l iip' p" '�t 76­'� Ll irmo a�a cs Ali 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 14, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for a variance to allow for off-site parking, and a front setback variance to allow for GRFA and a garage in the setback, for a new Primary /Secondary residence located at 1799 Sierra Trail/Lot 17, Vail Village West 1st Filing. Applicant: George Plavec Planner: Mike Mollica The applicant, George Plavec, is requesting a variance to allow for off-site parking, and a variance to allow for a garage and GRFA to be located in the front setback to provide for the construction of a new Primary/Secondary residence, to be located at 1799 Sierra Trail. The applicant proposes to construct one free market primary unit and a permanently restricted Type I Employee Housing Unit (EHU). The property is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential and is currently a vacant lot. The property is located on the downhill side of Sierra Trail and the site contains many mature aspen trees. The southern property line for Lot 17, in the area from which access would be taken, is located approximately 20 feet horizontally from the edge of the existing asphalt, and 12 feet vertically. The average slope in the area between the edge of asphalt and the applicant's property line exceeds 60%. Due to the steep slopes on this site, the applicant is proposing a design which would provide a bridge over the area from the existing edge of asphalt to the face of the garage. The two-car garage would be located almost entirely within the front setback. The total parking requirement for this project is four parking spaces. Two parking spaces are proposed to be located on-site (within the garage), and the remaining two parking spaces would be located to the south of the garage doors, on the bridge located on Town of Vail right-of-way. The staff has determined that this lot is not located in any geologic hazard zone (rockfall, debris flow, or snow avalanche). 11. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this request: A. Zone District: Primary /Secondary Residential so 0 B. Lot Area: 0.233 acres /10,149.5 square feet 0 C. Density: D. GRFA: Allowable: Proposed: E. Site Coverage*: Allowable: Proposed: F. Parking: One free market dwelling unit and one Type I EHU 3,387 square feet 3,387 square feet 2,030 square feet (20%) 2,022 square feet (19.9%) 4 spaces are required *The staff has calculated the average slope beneath the building and the parking areas to be 28.25%. Because this average slope is less than 30%, the applicant is allowed to construct up to 20% site coverage. Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Because this is a worksession, the staff will not address each of the Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code. The staff has provided the variance review criteria below for the PEC's evaluation: A. Consideration of Factors: 1 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 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. 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. 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. P-11 a 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. 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. 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. ZMMMKRR�_ • � The staff has identified the following issues and/or concerns which we believe should be a basis for discussion: A. Does the PEC believe that there is a physical hardship on this property, and that there are special circumstances on this site that are unique to this property, such that support for the variances can be granted? Staff feels that consideration should be given to the steep slopes on the site, and the distances (both horizontally and vertically) between the existing edge of asphalt and the , applicant's southernmost property line. The staff does acknowledge that cutting a driveway onto this site would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, and that wall height variances and perhaps a driveway grade variance would be necessary in order to accomplish any type of reasonable grade for a driveway. B. The applicant is proposing to locate approximately 320 square feet of GRFA under the garage, within the front setback. The staff believes that there may be a benefit in granting the applicant a front setback variance, to construct GRFA in the front setback area below the garage, to minimize disturbance on this steep site. One issue that staff would raise, is should the applicant be requested to further consolidate the overall site planning of the project (i.e. further consolidation of the primary and the secondary unit). C. Should the applicant be requested to eliminate the secondary unit in order to minimize site disturbance and reduce the total parking requirement (to two spaces)? This would eliminate the need for an off-site parking variance. D. There are six mature aspens located within the building footprint,, which are proposed to be removed as a part of this development. Additionally, seven to eight mature aspens, located very close to the building footprint, may also need to be removed due to the construction. ,C] There is a natural bench on this site, upon which the applicant proposes to locate the structure. Staff believes that the structure and site planning should be designed to preserve as many aspens as possible, and to keep the structure on the natural bench of the site. Is the overall site planning of the property acceptable to the PEC? E. The Town of Vail Engineer has requested that should the PEC consider approval of the applicant's request to locate parking within the Town of Vail right-of-way, that the garage be located a minimum distance of 24 feet from the edge of asphalt. This request is based upon the Town's needs for snow plowing and snow storage. The current design proposes a distance of approximately 20 feet. The staff will not schedule this item for a final review before the PEC until the following items are submitted in order to complete the application: 1. An updated survey, which shall be stamped by a registered surveyor within the State of Colorado. The survey shall indicate all vegetation with a 4-inch or larger diameter. 2. Hard-lined floor plans and site plan. The floor plans shall be modified to reflect a design which does not exceed the maximum allowable GRFA for the site. 3. The site plan shall indicate all ridge lines for the roof, with associated elevations, to ensure that the structure meets the maximum allowable height of 33 feet. 4. A landscape plan shall be submitted. 5. A grading plan shall be submitted. 6. The setbacks shall be indicated on the updated floor plans in order to determine the extent of encroachment of the GRFA into the front setback. cApec\memos\p1avec.314 :7 4 X74 lC'O v .r � j° 'iceJt • ,s S rr� PL-A tJ. Z- R INO o) Ktrt44sp i below / 1�`. �.! 233x45,5,0 _ t ; r, PAR, Ahte-,N 5U { A��V�� WET, VA1�, Lv i r • - ,sato,a}1 2� Z x20 r76 _ 351 ��a,a,�� :2 q �z z 15 z5, Ll k[faL i4 °X Z3 Zn 2x21 =4fa.Z ztxx� i i is �,asT �Jrat`°1' lC�1�1 M Ll 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 14, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a variance from Section 18.69.040 (Hazard Regulations - Development Restricted) in order to allow for the construction of buildings on slopes greater than 40% at 4335 Spruce Way/Lot 4, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: BAB Partnership Planner: Jim Curnutte 1, INTRODUCTION The applicant is requesting a worksession to discuss a proposed variance in order to allow for the construction of two duplex buildings on land which has a slope greater than 40%. Section 18.69.040 of the Town of Vail's Hazard Regulations states that "no structure shall be built on a slope of 40% or greater except in Single Family Residential, Two Family Residential, or Two Family Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. Lot 4 is zoned Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF). The applicant has stated that the 40% slope area on this portion of the Lot 4 is not a naturally occurring situation and is a directly related to the construction of Spruce Way. The applicant contends that the slope of the area on which he wishes to site his two duplex buildings was 30%, or less, prior to the construction of the road and therefore he should not be penalized for an artificially created slope situation. The purpose of the Hazard Regulations section of the Town of Vail Municipal Code is to: "Help protect the inhabitants of the Town from dangers related to development of floodplains, avalanche paths, steep slopes and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which may be subject to flooding and avalanche or which may be geologically sensitive; and further to regulate development on steep slopes; to protect the economic and property values of the Town to protect the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with floodplains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity in slopes; to minimize damage to public facilities and utilities and minimize the need for relief and clean up operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where floodplains, avalanche areas, and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and to promote the general public health, safety and welfare." The Town defines slope as "the gradient or configuration of the undisturbed land surface prior to site improvement on a site, or parcel which shall be established by measuring..." Although the 40% grade of the land area along the northern portion of Lot 4 does appear to have been created by road construction, the applicant is unable to produce a topographic survey of the lot prior to road construction. Therefore, we are unable to confirm that the undisturbed land surface prior to site improvement was less that 40%. The applicant must apply for a variance from Section 18,69.040 in order to allow for the construction of buildings in this particular area of the lot. 111. ZONING STATISTICS Allowed under LDMF Zoning Proposed Lot Size. 0.81 acre or 35,231 sq. ft. Same Total Buildable Area: 20,308 sq. ft. Same Density: 9 DU's per buildable acre 4 DU's or 4 DU's *GRFA: 6,992 sq. ft. 7,850 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 35% or 12,331 sq. ft, 16% or 5,800 sq. ft. Landscaping: 40% or 14,092 sq. ft. 78% or 27,530 sq. ft. Building Height: 35 feet for flat or mansard roofs 36 feet 38 feet for sloping root **Setbacks: Front: 20' N: 25' Sides: 20' S: 117' Rear: 20' E: 151 W: 15' *The applicant has indicated that his drawings were primarily intended to show how the structures were proposed to be cited on the lot, and their associated mass and bulk. He is aware of the maximum GRFA allowance on the lot and will show compliance with the Code at the next PEG meeting. GRFA is discussed in more detail in Section IV (Discussion Issues) of this memo. There is currently a 400 square foot shed on the property which will be removed when the project is constructed. "The applicant was unaware that the setback requirements on this lot were 20 feet. He has stated that he will show compliance with setback requirements at the next PEC meeting. 2 11 E Ill. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL Although the staff will not specifically address each of the variance criteria at this time, they are listed below for the Planning and Environmental Commission's (PEC) review. A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 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. 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. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a 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. 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. 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. V. DISCUSSION ISSUES Since this is a worksession, there is no formal staff recommendation at this time. However, staff has identified the following issues which we would like to discuss further with the PEC and applicant: 3 1. Proposed Building Type Related to Zoning - As mentioned in the Introduction section of this memo, the applicant is proposing to construct two duplex buildings on this property. The Hazard Regulations, from which the applicant is requesting a variance, does allow for the construction of Single Family, Duplex and Primary/Secondary structures to be built on slopes greater than 40%. The regulations, however, specifically state that this exception applies only to properties zoned Single Family, Primary/Secondary Residential and Duplex. All other properties which have zoning designations other than the three previously mentioned would be restricted from development in 40% slopes per the strict literal interpretation of the Code. If this property were subdivided into two duplex lots, the development, as proposed, would be allowed without a variance. However, since it is zoned LDMF, the structures do not automatically have the right to build on slopes greater than 40%. Staff believes that this portion of the Code was written for the purpose of precluding substantial site disturbance which results from the construction of multi - family units or the clustering of large numbers of single family and duplex units. However, staff believes that due to the large size of this particular property and the limited number of dwelling units, and buildings proposed, the imposition of this particular code requirement may be overly restrictive. 2. Effect of the Proposed Building Location on Existing Vegetation - The vegetation on this particular lot is rather sparse. There are a few clusters of large evergreen trees located along the western property line. The applicant is proposing to place the westernmost duplex in such a location that many of these trees would need to be removed. The applicant has indicated that he has explored the option of moving the western duplex further to the east, but feels that the buildings would be too close together. The applicant has indicated that he would be willing to compensate for the loss of trees with substantial landscaping on the property. However, to date, staff has not had the opportunity to review a proposed landscape plan. Additionally, the applicant was unaware that this property has 20 foot side yard setbacks, which will cause the buildings to be moved 10 feet closer together anyway. This being the case, staff would recommend that the applicant agree that no disturbance will occur to the existing trees on the west side of the lot. Staff would like to see a more accurate identification of all tree locations on the site plan. 3. GRFA Exceedance - The applicant's conceptual drawing shows that too much GRFA is proposed for this site. Staff would suggest that the length of the proposed buildings be reduced in order to bring the GRFA into compliance with the Code and reduce site disturbance at the southern end of the proposed buildings. 4. Road Right-of-Way Easement Request - Aspen Lane currently encroaches onto this property approximately 7 feet. The Town of Vail Engineer has requested a road right-of- way easement across the northern portion of this property. The applicant has agreed to this provision and is showing a 5 foot road right-of-way easement along the northern portion of the property. However, it does not appear that 5 feet is sufficient width to cover the existing road encroachment on the northwest side of the property. Staff would recommend that the easement be adjusted to enclose all portions of the Spruce Way encroachment on the property. 4 If the applicant wishes to receive formal PEC review of this request at the March 28, 1994 meeting, all revised information must be provided to staff no later than Friday, March 18, 1994. c:\pec\memos\bab.314 E 11 9 -LOT S \` � pgb'47'90 'E 160.00 LDF 9 — — — - -- -- LOT 4 L 110,52 T 56-47 L ---177 .,` +`` � �`` „- \\ ^\ \ .•` ',' ' i ��-- f -- �! � � y _'''io` l `� .� � � 1l •r •1 •i ,.. .iii =C9 • �. �.mx a r o nrWr+ - I ter' `• �` _ 7 i i-f 1r A ! ;I Ml 1,7 7 fl t� - k bi 4 Tr 7 ft 7—T7 �� ;� �4 � s• t tk� ral �= 7 ,��� ..._. __. k �sr------- -�i' —i —ai __e! ,;.,i_�.�L' 1a1 a+;- t.�±�� �!i,.;._rva4'��t� 1��_,f a It T.t7j } M � /�-q (d Le- c) -e L LOT 4 BLOCK 3 AACNIDED PLAT BIGHORN SUBDIVISION THIRD AIt R. I bf-9 ---------- \ \� « � L-e L) -e,(--, MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 14, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for a major CCH exterior alteration to allow for the expansion of dwelling units at the Lionshead Center Building located at 520 Lionshead Mail, Units 208, 209, 308 and 309 /Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Victor Cano Faro, Transcon Investments, Inc., and Jose Luis Chain Planner: Andy Knudtsen 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST There are four dwelling units on the west end of the Lionshead Center Building which make up this exterior alteration request. The owners of the units have tried to coordinate their expansions and are all co-applicants for this exterior alteration. Since the worksession on February 14, 1994, the applicant has reduced the size of the proposal. The expansions on the west side of the building have been cut back on the second, third and fourth floors. The area over the Garfinkle's entrance has been cut back on the third and fourth floors. On the south elevation, the new deck area has been eliminated. The cantilever over the Younger Generation space has also been eliminated. Units 208 and 209 are owned by the same individual and are proposed to be combined. The north balcony will be enclosed and combined with the clearstories for a total of 119 square feet. The south balcony (102 square feet) will be enclosed and a new expansion over the roof of Garfinkle's (647 square feet) will connect the two units. The total GRFA proposed for the second floor is 868 square feet. Units 308 and 309 will also be expanded; however, they are separately owned and will not be connected. These units each have two levels and are located on the third and fourth floors. The balcony on the north elevation for Unit 309 will be enclosed (88 square feet). The loft on the fourth floor for Unit 309 will be expanded by 108 square feet. The main living level of Unit 309 on the third floor will be expanded by 227 square feet. The main living level of Unit 308 on the third floor will be expanded by 261 square feet. The GRFA to be added to these units is proposed to be 684 square feet. In total, there will be an additional 1,552 square feet of GRFA. No setback variances are required. The materials which are proposed are different for the two different portions of the addition. The southeastern portion is more integrated into the existing building form and the E E materials will be consistent with the existing materials of the building. It will be finished with vertical cedar siding and shake shingles that will match. The western portion, over the Garfinkle's and Younger Generation space, will have materials similar to the first floor commercial expansion on the northern side of the building. These will include Colorado buff sandstone, maple colored window mullions, and copper fascia bands. (The homeowners did not want to use the zinc fascia band, which was used for the commercial addition.) 1111. ZONING STATISTICS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request: 1. Zone District: Commercial Core 11 2. Lot Area. 0.923 acres or 40,205.9 square feet 3, Proposed Addition: 1,552 square feet *Statistics for the Vail Associates commercial addition will be provided at a later date. "Because units are being combined, there is a reduction in required parking even though GRFA is being Added. This is because parking for residential uses is based on the number of units as well as square footage. 2 Proposed V.A. Allowed Existing, Commercial Residential Addition* Addition Total Height 48' 47' 46' Setbacks North 10, 20' 11, East 10, 43' 192' West 10, 51 13, South 10, 81 34' -- Site 28,135.7 sq.ft. 23,827.3 sq.ft. or sq.ft, 0 sq.ft. 23,827.3 Coverage or 70% 59.3% sq.ft. or 59.3% Landscaping 8,038.8 sq.ft. 6,432 sq.ft. soft no change no change no change or 20% 1,607 sq.ft. hard minimum 8,039 sq.ft. total (maximum hard landscape is 1,607 sq.ft.) GRFA 32,155 sq.ft. 27,916.1 sq.ft. no change 1,532 sq.ft. 29,448.1 or 80% or 69.4% sq.ft. or 73.2% Parking to be determined reduction of -- by the PEC 1.5 spaces to total required parking ** *Statistics for the Vail Associates commercial addition will be provided at a later date. "Because units are being combined, there is a reduction in required parking even though GRFA is being Added. This is because parking for residential uses is based on the number of units as well as square footage. 2 EXTERIOR ALTERATION CRITERIA A. Height and Massing: The guidelines for height and massing state that: "building expansions shall generally be limited to one story and two stories as indicated on the guideplan, or as can be demonstrated to have a positive visual and functional impact." Though there will be additional GRFA created on the second, third and fourth stories, staff believes that the proposal is generally consistent with this criteria. A majority of the mass will be created in a form that inconsistent with the established pattern of the Lionshead Center Building. As a result, most of the new floor area will not appear as additional height or massing. The area on the second and third floor that extends out over the Garfinkle's entry and the Younger Generation commercial space will appear as additional mass, but staff believes that it will improve the appearance of the western elevation. This portion of the proposal steps back in such a way to break up the western elevation. However, staff believes that an additional step back is needed for a portion of the addition. Currently, the northwest portion extends approximately 8-1/2 feet from the existing elevation. Staff believes that it should be cut back by 2 feet in order to provide some relief. Please see the attached floor plan with staff notes. B. Roofing: The guidelines state that: "most existing building roofs are high enough to be unseen. Where main building roof planes are highly visible from the ground, expansions should match that pitch." Another guideline states that: "it is important to integrate expansions with existing buildings so as to avoid a patchwork, "tacked on" quality for Lionshead. It is hoped that all expansions will appear to have been part of the original design for each building." Staff believes that the two guidelines stated above call for roof pitches to be consistent and call for additions to appear integrated into the building. We believe it is critical that the addition above the Garfinkle's entry be finished with a roof that matches the pitch of the rest of the Lionshead Center Building. We believe that this will make it more integrated and will make the addition seem more compatible. 0 3 C. Facades - Walls/Structures: The proposed material to be used on the eastern portion of the addition will be cedar siding to match the rest of the building. The western portion of the addition, over the Garfinkle's and Younger Generation space, will be similar to the commercial addition on the north side of the building. There will be Colorado buff sandstone used as a base course on each level; the windows will be made from copper and maple colored mullions; and there will be a metal fascia band on the top of each level. Instead of the zinc used previously, the property owners have requested a copper fascia band. Staff believes that using materials similar to the commercial addition will work well for the portion of the addition over the Garfinkle's and Younger Generation space. Though the Colorado buff sandstone has been a successful material used elsewhere on the building, it may be more appropriate to be used only on the first floor and not the upper. stories. Staff is open to suggestions regarding the materials. D. Facades - Transparency: The guidelines states that: "second stories are typically more residential, private and thus less open." Staff believes that there is a good mix of transparent and solid planes in the architectural design. 0 E. Decks and Patios: The guidelines speak primarily to commercial decks and patios at the ground level for restaurants. F. Accent Elements: No accent elements are proposed. G. Landscape Elements: A landscape plan, showing the existing trees, has been provided on a drawing with the floor plans. One tree is located close to the improvements. Staff has loo_ ked at this tree and believes that it will not be impacted, particularly if the portion of the addition is stepped back two feet. H. Service and Delivery: Service and delivery for the building will not change to a degree that a new loading area is required per the Town's zoning code. 0 4 IV. SUB-AREA CONCEPTS There are no sub-area concepts which pertain to this type of request. Three concepts pertained to the one story commercial addition that was built last summer. V. RELATED ISSUES The Fire Department and Public Works Department have provided their comments relating to this addition. Public Works: 1. Provide roof drainage plan. Fire Department: 1. May need to expand scope of fire sprinklers to 100% of existing building, including all interior condominiums, corridors and commercial space. 2. Disclose future expansion plans. V11. STAFF ANALYSIS As this is a worksession, staff does not have a formal recommendation to the PEG. Staff believes that the proposal is a significant improvement from the previous design. We believe that it is generally consistent with the guidelines; however, prior to returning for a final hearing staff believes the architect should: 1 Design the roof form above the third story so that it is consistent with the rest of the Lionshead Center Building; 2. Create a step in the western facade by reducing the width of the second and third story additions by 2 feet; and, 3. Refine the materials to be used on the portion over the Garfinkle's and Younger Generation space. 4. Address the Public Works and Fire Department concerns. cApp6memos\1cb.314 • 5 X4 1 ENCLOSE DECK q t 1 Ali -�� XIST`G CLOSE NEW MSTR. BDRM. x 1 1 NEW BDRM. 2 `l CL. ,I D " NEW - - It tt 0 it NEW BDRM II 1 G A n it it II nl u 1 A tt EW ENTRANCE YO EXISTING COMMON CORRIDOR 12 D UNIT #208/209 EXI TING COMM t I U _ ° ST RWAY I KITCHEN _.� .. mANG RM. u II UNIT #208 & 209 It - p 11 It 11 NEW i;- EXIST'C - - - II DINING RM. I HANDRAIL NEW DECK II 42" XIST'G CLOSET EXIST'G CLOSET 1' -10 1/2" - ENCLOSE DECK - t 7'-.1 1/4, '-8" SECOND FLOOR PLAN UNIT #208/20 ..t. SCALE 1 /8" m 1'_0" - �fl; ri 7 J THIRD FLOOR PLAN UNITS � A SCALE 1 /8" = V -0" 11 11 Ll 'i LOFT LEVEL, PLAN UNITS #308 & #309 SCALE 1/8" = 1-0', 11 EXISTING COMMON CORRIDOR - 7-1 1/4"J, - O'-g'r ��'-�' �.r -14•., p.. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 28, 1994 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Greg Amsden Bill Anderson Bob Armour Jeff Bowen Kathy Langewalter Allison Lassoe Dalton Williams Kristan Pritz Mike Mollica Andy Knucltsen Jim Curnutte Randy. Stouder Kathy Langenwalter called the meeting to order at approximately 2:00 p.m. Holly McCutcheon, the Town Clerk, swore in Bob Armour, the new planning commissioner. A request for a variance for required parking to be located off-site for a single family residence located at 2642 Cortina Lane/Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge. Applicant: Hans Wiemann Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo. Staff recommended approval of the requested variance. Steve Isom, the architect for this project, presented a site plan for the PEC to review and explained where the proposed parking spaces were to be located. Greg Amsden asked Steve how high of a retaining wall would be necessary if the parking spaces were located west of the garage. Steve Isom responded that the retaining walls required to locate the parking on the west side of the garage would not require a wall height variance. Bill Anderson stated that he would prefer to see the parking located on-site to the west of the garage. Bill Anderson stated that a three car garage would add significant mass and bulk to the site. Bob Armour stated that the third parking space should be located on the west side of the house. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 February 28, 1994 Greg Amsden agreed with Bob's comment and added that a variance was not warranted for this site. Neighbors spoke against the proposal Kathy Langenwalter stated that the applicant is withdrawing the variance proposal and will provide an uncovered parking space on the west side of the two-car garage. She asked Randy to inform the Design Review Board about what occurred at today's meeting concerning this item. 2. A request for a side and rear setback variance to allow for an expansion to the existing residence located at 2757 Davos Trail/Lot 1, Block F, Vail Das Schone 1 st Filing. Applicant: Juergen Krogmann and Monica Roth Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo. Staff recommended approval of the requested variance with conditions as outlined in the memo. Steve Isom, the architect for the project, stated that they were proposing to enclose the airlock on the southwestern corner. He said that there would be no change to the exterior. In addition, he stated that they were proposing to construct a second floor over the existing garage. Steve stated they would remove an interior stairway in order to enlarge the existing master bedroom and create the primary unit as upstairs. Jeff Bowen stated that he did not have a problem with this proposal. He said that he would like to see access for a fire truck created. He felt that this proposal was positive for this site. Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with Jeff's comments and added that she would like to see additional parking space on the site. Kathy Langenwalter added that the additional parking space should not be located next to the garage. Steve Isom stated that Condition #3 of the staff memo would be difficult to meet. The PEC decided that Condition #3 would be eliminated. Bill, Greg and Bob had no further comments concerning this proposal. Jeff Bowen stated that Condition #3 should be deleted unless it was required. Kathy Langenwalter asked that the four evergreen trees be relocated so that the trees would be located along the back of the proposed addition. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 February 28, 1994 2 Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the requested side and rear setback variances 10 per the staff memo with Conditions 3 and 4 being deleted as conditions of approval. Greg Amsden seconded the motion and a 7-0 vote approved this item. 3. A request for a worksession for a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for the redevelopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots C and D and a part of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and East West Partners Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica made a presentation to the PEC and stated that the purpose of this worksession was to discuss the progress that has been made with the requested major CCI exterior alteration. He stated that the fifth floor was a significant issue on this site. Jeff Winston, the Town's design consultant, stated that he had spoken with the applicants and staff several times since the February 14, 1994 PEC worksession. He said that there were still some concerns with the proposed mansard and flat roof forms. Mike Mollica stated that fifth floor double dormers would be repeated on the backside of the building as well as the front. Jeff Winston stated that the double dormers were positive. He stated that in his opinion, a view corridor encroachment still appeared to be the most favorable solution for this site. Ned Gwathmey stated that they would like to find a solution that would allow the applicants to proceed with construction activity on April 15, 1994. He stated that he felt that he had designed a solution that would work for the site without necessitating a view corridor encroachment. Bill Anderson stated that the double dormer approach was positive. He stated that the architects had done a good job modifying this request since the February 14, 1994 PEC worksession. He stated that changing the fifth floor roof line was an improvement. He said that he would support a view corridor encroachment for this site. Bob Armour stated he would be in favor of a view corridor encroachment. Kristan Pritz suggested that the PEC keep the view corridor encroachment criteria in mind, during this discussion. Mike Mollica reviewed the five view corridor encroachment criteria and the purpose section of View Corridor #1 to the PEC. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 February 2B, 1994 3 After hearing the criteria, Bill and Bob stated that they were still supportive of the view corridor encroachment. Greg Amsden stated that he would support a view corridor encroachment as long as the Covered Bridge Building's roof line did not extend past or above that of the adjacent Gasthof Gramshammer Building. Jeff Bowen stated that he agreed with Greg's comments. He stated that a sloped roof would be preferable to a flat roof and that the addition of the double dormers-was positive. He said that he would support a view corridor encroachment. Allison Lassoe stated that she favored the peaked roof but preferred no view corridor encroachment. Dalton Williams stated that either of the two roof forms were acceptable to him. He added that a single peaked roof was preferable to a double dormer approach. He said that he could support a view corridor encroachment. Kathy Langenwalter felt that the double dormer/flat roof design would be acceptable, as the flat roof would not be visible, and further stated that she would not support a view corridor encroachment. Ned Gwathmey stated that they would pursue the double dormers. He said that he would prefer not to pursue the view corridor encroachment. Pepi Gramshammer stated that he was concerned with the ice build-up between the two buildings and that he would like to see this issue addressed along with the current, request before the PEG. Ned Gwathmey stated that they would slope the roof away from Pepi's building to solve the ice build-up problem. Greg Amsden inquired what Pepi was proposing to do with the back of his building. Kathy Langenwalter asked Pepi if he would work with the applicants on the exposed front wall area (on Bridge Street). Ned Gwathmey stated that the building has a trash holding room for the entire building and they will have the ability to bring trash around the building and bring it up on the lift. He stated that trash cans would not be left on Bridge Street. Kathy Langenwalter suggested that the Covered Bridge Building could be restricted so that a restaurant could not be located on the site, due to the extensive amounts of trash generated with such use. Ned Gwathmey stated that he would need to discuss this issue with the applicants. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 February 28, 1994 4 Dalton Williams asked Pepi how he proposed to take care of trash for his building. Pepi stated that he did not have enough room on his site to got involved with the trash situation at the Covered Bridge Building. He stated that he did not feel restricting restaurants in the Covered Bridge Building was appropriate. Mike Mollica asked Pepi whether he would consider allowing the Covered Bridge Building owners to have access to trash trucks via his property. Pepi stated that he was completely opposed to becoming involved with the disposal of the Covered Bridge Building's trash. Jeff Bowen stated that he would like to see the trash disposal for both buildings coordinated in such a way that trash trucks would not be on Bridge Street. Dalton Williams stated that he did not want to see the PEC put a use restriction on a building that could not be removed in the future. Allison Lassoe stated that she was concerned about the trash trucks coming down Bridge Street. She stated there were also safety issues associated with a trash truck backing down a narrow road. She stated that a deed restriction (for use) did not seem necessary at this time. Jeff Bowen stated that a partnership between Pepi and East West Partners to address trash disposal, would be beneficial for all concerned parties. Greg Amsden felt that East West Partners would address trash disposal properly, as they do in Beaver Creek. He stated that a deed restriction was not necessary. Mike Mollica stated that staff was concerned that the proposed window design may not meet the Design Guidelines for the Village. Kathy Langenwalter stated that the upper floor windows possibly could be broken up but that retail windows needed to be able to be retail windows, i.e. the panes should provide for the display of merchandise. Other commissioners agreed with Kathy. Jeff Winston stated that the small window panes that are present on many of the buildings give Vail a unique feeling. He stated that small window panes should be located around doors. It was suggested that the applicant use smaller panes on the doors. 4. A request for a worksession for a proposed minor subdivision located at 4316 Strearnside Circle West/Lots 2 and 3, Block 4, Bighorn 4th Addition. Applicant: Walter Kirsch Planner: Randy Stouder Planning and Environmental Commission 0 February 28, 1994 5 Handy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that the applicant had worked hard to come up with an environmentally sensitive site plan. Randy noted the discussion items at the end of the staff memo. Greg Amsden stated that this request was positive. Bob Armour agreed with Greg's comment. Allison Lassoe and Jeff Bowen did not have additional comments. Dalton Williams stated that he was in favor of this request. Kathy Langenwalter agreed with Dalton's comment and told the applicant that he could come back before the PEC on March 14, 1994 for approval of the requested minor subdivision. 5. A request for an SDD to allow for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building and a conditional use for the off -site relocation of three existing employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically described as follows: A part of Tract "B" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Filing; thence North 79146'00" West along the Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract "B "; thence South 10 114'00" West along the Easterly line of said Tract "B "; a distance of 198.31 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Tract "B "; thence North 79°46'00" West along the Southerly line of said Tract "B" a distance of 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence north 09 110'07" West a distance of 41,67 feet; thence South 88 °27'11" West a distance of 75.21 feet; thence South 2701337" East of distance of 77.37 feet; thence North 57 124'00" East a distance of 58.11 feet, more or less to the true point of beginning. Applicant: David Smith Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that the lot is zoned High Density Multi - Family and is nonconforming with regard to lot size, which is 3,659 square feet. He stated that the proposal involves the demolition of the present building and the construction of anew building. He stated that this project will utilize all available GRFA on the site, as well as a 'x250" allowance, which brings the total GRFA of the proposed building to 2,445 square feet. He stated that there were three deviations from the underlying zone district which the PEC should consider along with this request. These are locating a single family residence within the HDMF zone district, building encroachments in the lot setbacks, and parking in the front setback. He stated that staff was recommending approval of this request for the establishment of a Special Development District with the four conditions contained on Pages 13 and 14 of the staff memo. Tom Braun stated that this site was challenging to redevelop but that he felt that what was now being proposed would be a positive improvement for the site. He stated that they would locate and permanently restrict three employee housing units off -site. He pointed out that all three required parking spaces are located on -site. He stated that they would prefer to keep the building height at 35 feet. Planning and Environmental Commission February 26, 1994 6 Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association, stated that the Homeowners Association did not feel that a SDD was appropriate for this site and that the granting of a SDD on this site would essentially be a grant of special privilege. It was his opinion that revisions to the HDMF zone district to allow single family dwellings was more appropriate for this site. Kristan Pritz stated that staff looked at changing the uses in the HDMF zone district and that the Cornice Building was a unique situation and that it did not seem justifiable to change the zoning ordinance to accommodate one site. Dalton Williams stated that he liked the building design but was concerned that this appeared to be "spot zoning" for the gain of an individual. He stated that variances seemed to be a more appropriate process for developing this property. Allison Lassoe stated that this site was ideal for the SDD concept because there did not seem to be a zone district that fits this property. She stated that she would like to see the building height reduced to 33 feet. She stated she would like to see three individual employee units as opposed to one three-bedroom unit. She stated that there was a good possibility that the eventual owner of this property would have at least one vehicle larger than what the existing turning radius is proposed to accommodate. Jeff Bowen stated that he appreciated Tom's organized presentation of this project. He stated that this property was unique but that he had concerns about a SDD being approved for this site. He stated that he was in favor of the building height being reduced to 33 feet. He said that a hardship does exist on the lot but pointed out that it has always been present at this site. He was concerned about the employee housing being located off -site because the Cornice Building itself was an ideal location for employee housing units. He stated he would ' like to see employee housing units added to our existing supply, instead of merely deed restricting existing employee housing. Jeff said that parking on this site was still a concern to him and that he would feel more comfortable with limiting on-site parking to one or two parking spaces and paying into the parking fund for the third parking space. Greg Amsden stated that the square footage was okay and that the building height was okay at 35 feet. He felt a SDD was appropriate on the site and that a finding of a hardship was not necessary in order to approve a SDD. He did not foresee that parking would be a problem for this site given the ownership pattern. Bob Armour would like to see the applicant abide by the building height for single family building or stick with the High Density Multi-Family uses allowed, but not take advantage of both scenarios. Bill Anderson stated that he felt the building height should be reduced to 33 feet. He said the proposed parking plan was positive, but he has the same concerns with people backing into traffic at this location. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 February 28, 1994 7 Kathy Langenwalter asked staff whether a 250 request would be allowed on this site in the future even though it would seem they are taking advantage of the "250" now. Jim Curnutte stated that the building is over five years old and that a 250 is available for this site now, and that no additional 250 could be applied for in the future because it is proposed to be used in conjunction with the construction of the new building. Kathy Langenwalter inquired whether future development rights would be restricted on this site. Kristan Pritz stated that per the current HDMF zoning, the site is not eligible for single family credits, nor are multifamily credits allowed. She said that the only credits this project is getting is parking. The SDD ordinance would limit the GRFA as proposed. However, the owner could request an amendment to the SDD in the future. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was originally opposed to an SDD on this site but is now comfortable with the proposal as is, but that the building height should be reduced to 33 feet. She felt allowing single family units in HDMF made no sense. The fact the existing allowable number of units is in nonconformance with the HDMF zoning makes this site unique. Allison Lassoe stated that no exterior parking on the site should be allowed. She added that some sort of block may be necessary to prevent the general public from using the driveway as a turnaround point. Greg Amsden stated that he preferred the enclosed parking scenario and that restricting external parking would be difficult to enforce: Kathy Langenwalter told the applicant that the consensus of the PEC was to reduce the building height from 35 feet to a maximum of 33 feet. Tom Braun stated that this was acceptable to the applicant. Jeff Bowen stated that the employee housing issue still needed to be addressed. He said that the new employee housing needs to be better than What presently exist ' s and that the employee housing units need to be units that were not previously used as employee housing units. Dalton Williams emphasized that this proposal results in a loss of employee housing units, Greg Amsden said he disagreed vehemently with the proposed additional conditions regarding employee housing units were excessively restrictive and that even if the applicant found units that are being rented to employees now we would benefit by permanently restricting them for such use in the future. He felt the additional condition reduced housing for guests. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 February 28,1994 3 Jeff Bowen stated that other proposals create employee housing and the Town encourages this and that the Cornice Building should be handled in the same manner. He wants to ensure that housing is created for employees. Tom Braun stated it would be difficult to create three additional employee housing units. He said that wherever the employee units are created, the Town would benefit from the permanent restriction of these units. Bob Armour stated it was important that the employee housing units be located in the Town of Vail. Kathy Langenwalter stated that a minimum of two units, providing at least three bedrooms, would be the criteria for the employee housing units. Bill Anderson made a motion to approve the establishment of a special development district for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building with the four conditions contained on Pages 13 and 14 of the staff memo and two additional conditions that the building height be limited to 33 feet and that the employee housing units must be a minimum of two units with three bedrooms and two kitchens. Allison Lassoe seconded the motion. A 5 -1 -1 vote approved this request with Dalton Williams opposing per the reasons stated above and Bob Armour abstaining. Jeff Bowen requested that his comments concerning employee housing be forwarded to the Town Council. 6. A request for a minor subdivision and to rezone a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road/more specifically described as follows: A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness corner for the West Quarter of said Section 14, bears (North 29 degrees 28 minutes 51 seconds West, 1073.08 feet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minutes 02 seconds West, 915.96 feet Measured); Thence North 74 degrees 05 minutes 19 Seconds East, 10.76 feet; Thence 183.62 feel along the arc of a curve to the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88 degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181,76 feel; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East, 62.77 feet; Thence 147.43 feet along the arc of a curve to the left which arc subtends a Chord bearing North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to the right which arc subtends a chord bearing South 47 degrees 20 minutes 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South 14 degrees 25 minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet; Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes 91 seconds West, 320.00 feet; Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds West, 50.00 feet; Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feet; Thence South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet; Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West, 337.72 feet; Thence (North 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds East, 130.00 feet Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minutes 31 seconds East, 129.75 feel Measured) to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Sections 14-15. (G,L.0, record South 01 degrees 30,2 minutes East) (South 01 degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured) Applicant: Juanita 1. Pedotto Planner: Andy Knudtsen It should be noted that Greg Amsden stepped down from the PEC in order to represent the applicant for this item. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 February 28, 1954 9 Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was 10 recommending approval of this request to rezone a tract from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi-Family and a minor subdivision with the six conditions contained on Pages 11 through 13 of the staff memo. Rick Rosen, legal counsel to Greg Amsden, stated that he would be making the applicants presentation rather than Greg to avoid any possible conflicts of interest. He stated that the architecture within this project was consistent. He stated that this plan will improve access for adjacent property owners. He stated that the applicant will not be able to comply with Conditions 3 and 4, Pages 13 and 14, of the staff memo. Rick said they would like Condition 1G reworded so that they do not have to come back before the PEC until the first unit has been built. He asked whether the phasing plan could be reworded so that the designations of specific building footprints are omitted in favor of number of structures. He also asked that decks be allowed to be closer than 15 feet apart, Benji Amsden stated that they were proposing to clean up the stream area and make the area available for access by the residents. Kay Cheney commented that she did not see an advantage of massing two units together. Jo Brown stated that she was in favor of duplexes as opposed to a "lot of cookie cutters" type units. Greg Amsden stated that they are looking for a development with a variety of structures. Jo Brown stated she still has concerns about the road cut on Bellflower. Rick Rosen pointed out that road cut currently exists. Bill Anderson stated that he disagreed with staff's position regarding Conditions 3 and 4 concerning the clustering of units and combining driveways and said that he agreed with the other conditions of the staff memo. He stated he agreed with the staff's interpretation concerning the need for a minimum 15 foot separation between structures and decks. Benji Amsden stated that it would be difficult to incorporate this condition into the project at this stage and that they had been working with 20 feet. Bob Armour stated that a minimum of 15 feet separation should be required between structures. He said that this proposal seemed to blend nicely with the existing neighborhood and was in compliance with the Land Use Plan. Jeff Bowen and Allison Lassoe had no further comments. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 February 26, 1994 10 Dalton Williams stated that Conditions 3 and 4 should be omitted from the PEC's approval of this project and that he did not favor curb and gutter but would defer to staff on that issue. Kay Cheney stated that the gutter that has been installed along Basingdale has been a positive improvement to this area. Dalton Williams stated that the requirement for 15 feet minimum separation was reasonable. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she agreed with the 15 foot requirement and that she would like to see the driveway for Building Envelope 1 moved closer to the intersection in order to increase green space. Greg Amsden stated that the Town Engineer would need to approve such a change. Benji Amsden asked the PEC for additional input concerning future shifts in footprint location for this project. The PEC did not have a problem with staff approving changes up to 10 feet. Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to approve this request per the staff memo and added that the PEC would like condition 3 omitted. Condition 4 should be changed to require a reduction in the amount of pavement. She said that garages would be a minimum of 480 square feet and that a minimum of 15 feet be required between buildings. She continued and said that staff could approve relocations up to 10 feet, that the phasing language be changed to reference total number of structures, and that condition 1 b be changed referencing the timing of surveying for building locations. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion and a 6-0-1 vote approved this request with Greg Amsden abstaining from this request. 7. A request for a major CCI exterior alteration for the Laughing Monkey to allow an addition to the south side of the Creekside Building located at 223 East Gore Creek Drive/a part of Tract A, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Jose Guzman Planner: Andy Knudtsen It should be noted that Kathy Langenwalter stepped down from the PEC to represent the applicant for this item. Andy Knudtsen made a brief presentation per the staff memo. He said staff was recommending approval of this request with the four conditions contained on Page 7 of the staff memo. Andy added that staff felt this proposal was positive. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 February 26, 1494 11 Kathy Langenwalter stated she had spoken to Todd Oppenheimer about the 35 foot tall spruce tree and that he believed this tree had a 50-50 chance of surviving the transplant. As a result, her clients want to simply replace the tree with a 16 to 18 foot spruce. She felt the posting of a bond to cover the cost of replacing this tree if it dies was inappropriate. One of the conditions which related to small pane windows was discussed briefly. As this issue had been thoroughly discussed during the Covered Bridge Building review. The conclusion to that discussion was applied to this project. The requirement for adding small panes was left up to the architect's discretion and DRB. Dalton Williams made a motion to approve this request for a major exterior alteration to the Creekside Building per the staff memo and the four conditions with Condition I being modified to read that the 35 foot tree be given to anyone who wanted it and a bond not be required to be posted as long as an 18 foot spruce tree would be planted. Condition 3 was modified to leave the design of any small pane windows to the discretion of the architect and DRB. Conditions 3 and 4 — , relating to parking and landscaping, were included in the motion per the staff memo. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion and a 6-0 vote approved this request. 8. A request for a variance from Section 18.69.040 (Development Restricted) of the Vail Municipal Code to allow for the construction of buildings on slopes greater than 40% located at 4335 Bighorn Road/Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Filing. Applicant: Michael Lauterbach/BAB Partnership Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO MARCH 14, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item to the March 14, 1994 PEC meeting with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this request until March 14, 1994. 9. A request for a variance to allow for a 6 foot fence located in the front setback located at 5118 Gore Circle/Lot 3, Block 3, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: Robert Schonkwiler Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED TO MARCH 14, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item to the March 14, 1994 PEG meeting with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this request until March 14, 1994. 10. A request for a wall height variance and driveway slope variance to allow for a driveway to exceed 10% located at 2445 Garmisch Drive/Lots 10 and 11, Block H, Vail das Schone 2nd Filing. Applicant: Steve Sheridan and Adam Szpiech Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO MARCH 14, 1994 Planning and Environmental Commission 0 February 28, 1994 12 E Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item to the March 14, 1994 PEC, meeting with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this request until March 14, 1994. 11. Approve minutes from February 14, 1994 PEC meeting. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 14, 1994 PEC meeting with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote approved the minutes from the February 14, 1994 PEC meeting. 12. Appoint Chairperson and Vice Chairperson for PEC. Kristan Pritz stated that Kathy Langenwalter was appointed Chairperson on June 14, 1993 and that this appointment was good for one year. She said that the appointment of a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson would be scheduled for the June 13, 1994 agenda. Planning and Environmental Commission 0 February 28, 1994 1 3