Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0328 PECJ PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 28, 1994 AGENDA Project Orientation/Lunch Site Visits - Please wear hiking boots. Esrey Vail Mountain School Gross Drivers: Jim and Randy 1 . 12:45 p.m. Public Hearina 2:00 . 1. A request 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 309/1-ot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: William and Julie Esrey Planner: Jim Curnutte 3. 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 Lauterach/BAB Partnership Planner: Jim Curnutte 4. A request for a site coverage variance and a conditional use permit 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 1 5. A request fora rksssio setback variance to allow for an expansion to the residence located at 4295 Nugget Lane/Lot 7, Bighorn Estates. Applicant: Margaret Gross Planner: Handy Stouder 6. A request for a major CCII exterior alteration and setback variance to the Lionshead Center Building to allow for the expansion of the Vail Associates offices located at 520 Lionshead Mall/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED APRIL 11, 1994 7. 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 1 ` 11, 1994 . A request for variances to allow for off-site parking, GRFA 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 ollica TABLED APRIL 11, 1994 9. Approve minutes from March 14, 1994 PC meeting. 2 MEMORANDUM T: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 28, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a major CCII exterior alteration to allow for the expansion of dwelling units at the Lionshead Center Building located at 520 Lionshead Mall, Units 208, 209, 308 and 309/1-ot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Victor Cano Faro, Transcon Investments, Inc., and Jose Luis Chain Planner: Andy Knudtsen DESCRIPTION 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 orksession 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. 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 integrated into the existing building form and will have materials that are consistent with the existing materials of the building. It will be finished with Residential Allowed Existing Addition Total Height 48' 47' 46' Setbacks North 10' 20' 11' - East 10' 43' 192' West 10' 5' 13' South 10' 8' 34' -- Site 28,135.7 sq.ft. 23,827.3 sq.ft. or 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 i 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. 1,532 sq.ft. 29,448.1 or 80% or 69.4% sq.ft. or 73.2% Parking -- reduction of _ 1.5 spaces to total required parking* Loading - no additional - requirement 1 Because units are being combined, there is a reduction in required parK+ng even tnougn (_ H is being added. This is because parking for residential uses is based on the number of units as well as square footage. 2 Ill. EXTERIOR ALTERATION CRITERIA A. Height a ssi : The guidelines for height and massing state that: "building expansions shall aeneraliv 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." Rooting: The guidelines state that: ,'most existing building roofs are high enough to be unseen. here 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. During the worksession or March 14, 1993, the PEC indicated that the flat roof over the addition was acceptable and would meet the standards of this criteria. 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 3 Facades - Transparency: The guideline 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. E. Decks and Patios: The guidelines speak primarily to commercial decks and patios at the ground level for restaurants and therefore do not apply to this remodel. 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. The architects have assured the Town that the existing trees will not be affected by any portion of the addition. 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. 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. e 4 RELATEDISSUES Public r: Public Works has requested that the drains and gutters be connected to an underground storm drain. Since the proposed addition will be connected to drains installed for the commercial addition, the drains for the addition will be directly connected to underground storm drains. Fire Department: The Fire Department has put the applicants on notice that future additions to the building may require that the entire building be retroactively sprinklered, This addition, as proposed, is acceptable. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION c:tpeclmemosVcb.328 r 5 t? 1 $t t t° r $ ?; t'i t }`d. t 1. ?f ? j}4 t ? .t r,} t! ? 4 a ! \, p?$r®A •?1P ? y ±}? jrrlt ?' ? 111i??? }i, tit, l'`??1 $???'?S'i}, }$,?i•11 s i??• i•1 ?t. S?',`';''t. t \ ? \ \\'•$?4 ?.??. ? ? ?r ? ,?-?'_" _...-. 11.? S{ ?4?'$.??t?t1? :(:r3$ l? ' 1 4 r\ t {1 ., )l qtr ti t8 •.:1 } 11bJaa? ?t 4 tt `,'s ? "• "'`??° o .1 s' •a':,_.i,: St?. , ?y.?,t`sii i ?? '" w.. t t} t 'r >iS tr ; ?1 ' ? ? ?. t.' •,.,._.,...+^^"""?. i t i 1 t li t? t ' (4 ?, \ 4-+ti t i .t '. S t ?? t J lJ ? It +tyS tsis ?s)i t+ s $ s `•?1 ,.,. .:-? ..C ?=-•"°. ,-.«. . "?-?.` $f ,- :? l? •.y.:... ,?-(" , ? . }, y i }, ?'' ! t ;sip' y ` _.,._. ....;?_a1- ._..-.: . ??.;....? ?;s:n? -.". e - j - 9 r ?? 7l { ? ? 1' 555 4, r 111 ?1 11 x. i 1•' i ' "' '``?? 3 4• ;t? {'71:11,,,, , Ail ?{ ,., ,;, :} {' '?•;( Is { ,', is ..t., ;;+tt U 11j, 1ji 4L d • s ENCLOSE DECK ' J _ X?S-,'G CLOSE T? NEW MSTR. BORM. _\,/c* tea. 1 + K? NEW BORM. 2 R? 1 CL NW ? II f ; .v. ;! EX,SsrO dA 6£W ENTRANCE 70 _ - - 12' __- 1 11 NIT } EXISTING COMMON CORRIDOR STAIRWAY KITCHEN ii y . JJ u _ V °T` -- UNNG RM. -- a/ li a UNIT }208 & 204 II /a u NEW EXIST'G u DINING RM. 11 I 11 HANDRAIL NEW DECK 11 O 42" ==XtST"G CLOSET, - -__.- EVST'G CLOSET ---------. 1-10 1/2' ENCLOSE DECK 7-1 1/4" ?0'-8" ?. 14'-D. i 94'-O" 4i SECOND FLOOR PLAN UNIT #208/20(, SCALE 1/8" - Y-0" \. Y j 94._D.. "i 14'_D» 14.-0.< • 1 O a S ClOSE1 a ? .? UNIT #,Nog 47 aNH n r I4 n+ v o EXISTING C 0'' 1 1 V Xi TCHEN 1 dl EXISTING COMMON CORROOR 4t \,.J NANORAtt , Ex1TiN1 ft}MM ST RWAY » O 42°' UNCOVERS cm_ -X. KITCH - ECK UNIT 70 O 3G9 _ ,... yz+,n i 1 UNIT /308 ' J V \\ a. ! p SrtEEV?? lll___......111 Aaovr o . d UNIT 1208'5 'O DECK BELOW NEW BEDROOM EXISTING BEDROOM EXISTG LIVING RM. ??- I EXtST'G CLOSE- ,XISi'C Ct.,® 1 4 o 1-10 1/2- 14* THIRD FLOOR PLAN UNITS SCALE 1/8" = 1'-O" ?_. 14-0" 14._G.. 14._0., t .? . i i n r o? OPEN TO BELOW Fl 1 LOFT OF j3D9 „y EXIST`O LOFT OF EXISTING DECK FOR n EDt OF EXIST"G UNIT / 308 LOFT j3OS ROOF DECK ® .y NEW ROOF DECK OPEN T BELOW XOW 0 14' 14•_0•' I 14'-O" LOFT LEVEL PLAN UNITS #308 8c X309 SCALE 1/6' - 1'-0" .j i r e. iK a !i?l 4U I NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 0 0 a Q orr.® eenieae p sear r w rw aa.+? p mow. n 0 Z O 11.1 U d J at 4 = Z U) w Z ® w J sc -t N :o ?p z W a U Z ?.{ z Q J ?y IZ F?-t w cr- tll D r-+ U w U d MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 28, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for 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: AB Partnership Planner: Jim Curnutte 1. i I The purpose of the Hazard Regulations section of the Town of Vail Municipal Code is to: The applicant has stated that the 40% slope area on this portion of the Lot 4 is not a naturally occurring situation and is 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. if. BACKGROUND Also, the PEC discussed the Town Engineer's request to receive a road maintenance easement across the northern portion of the property which would cover the existing encroachment of Spruce Way onto the property. The applicant agreed to provide the necessary easement as requested by the Town Engineer. Total Buildable Area: Density: *GRFA: Site Coverage: 20,308 sq. ft. 9 DU's per buildable acre or 4 DU's 6,992 sq. ft. 35% or 12,331 sq. ft. 40% or 14,092 sq. . 35 feet for flat or mansard roofs 38 feet for sloping roof Front: 20' Sides: 20' Rear: 20' 79% or 27,811 sq, ft. 36 feet sloping roof N: 2' S: 117' E. 20' . 20' There is currently a 400 square foot shed on the property which will be removed when the project is constructed. IV. CRITERIA I EVALUATING THIS Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship o the requested variance to other existing or potential uses n structures i the vicinity. a 3 . The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites i the vicinity or t attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. It would not appear that the applicant is requesting undue or excessive relief from the 40% slope requirement nor would it seem that a grant of special privilege would be provided to the applicant by granting the requested variance. The effect of the requested variance o light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, an public safety. Due to the isolated location of this particular lot and its access from Spruce ay as opposed to Bighorn Road, staff believes that the proposed buildings will have no impact on any of the above criteria. B, The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findings before arantina 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. 4 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. STAFF Ti. 1. That the westernmost duplex be shifted approximately feet further to the east in order to FM 5 1 a' t a? a %rt 4, I s fr . t s tt ' e 1 _ can . •_ _g L? SS ._.. _ v,AsraF { t?j i t m ?j ? i j ¦ 0 i T r k ? I 1: i 01.u. -w, i §f V A I so A MEMORANDUM Applicants: William and Julie Esrey Planner. Jim Curnutte 1, DESCRIPTION Staff was originally concerned that amendments to the platted building envelope would allow for encroachments of the building and future additions to go into the new areas that are currently restricted by the building envelope lines. In response to this concern, the applicants have agreed to add a note to the plat which states that no GRFA or building site coverage will ever be allowed to be located in the expanded building envelope areas. 111. BACKGROUND The Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision is zoned Hillside Residential, and is generally located northeast of the main Vail 1-70 interchange. The final plat for the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on February 11, 1991. This final plat included the location of site specific building envelopes for each of the fifteen building sites within the subdivision boundaries (includes caretaker building site). On July 12, 1993, a minor subdivision was approved by the PEC to move the lot line which divides Lots 14 and 15, as well as modify the building envelopes on both lots. The purpose of this minor subdivision was to enlarge Lot 15 so that it was more in line with the sizes of adjacent lots and so that it could be utilized for the construction of a primary residence with a caretaker unit. Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS As mentioned previously, no portion of the building or future additions will be allowed to be located within the expanded building envelope areas (GRFA or site coverage). Although this request does not affect any of the below listed zoning criteria, staff is providing this zoning analysis in order to give the PC an idea of the size of the existing structure on the lot. Lot Area: Contiguous Buildable Area Building Envelope Size: RFA Allowance: Allowed per DD ooroved Plan 34,118 square feet 31,448 square feet 11,007 square feet 5,823 square feet Site Coverage: 4,973 square feet I MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA Existing per Approved uildina Permit same One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that minimum standards for a new lot must be met. Although this building envelope amendment essentially involves a minor replatting of an existing lot, there is no other process for review of such a request other than the minor subdivision process. As a result, this project will be reviewed under the same criteria used for all minor subdivision requests. The first set of review criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision application are as follows: A. Lot Area • 2 B. Frontage The Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the Hillside Residential zone district have a minimum frontage of 50 feet. Lot 15 currently has a frontage in excess of 50 feet and the proposed building envelope amendment will not affect the frontage of the lot. C. Site Dimensions The Vail Municipal Code requires that each site be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. Lot 15 currently meets the size and shape requirement for lots in the Hillside Residential zone district and the proposed building envelope amendment will have no effect on the size and shape of the lot's boundaries. The second set of criteria to be considered with minor subdivision request are outlined in Section 17.16.110 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations, and are as follows: The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: 1. 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. Staff Response: One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any development control, is to establish basic ground rules with which the staff, the PEC, applicants, and the community know will be followed in the public review process. Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision or a resubdivision of an existing parcel or parcels of land, it is the appropriate process to amend a platted building envelope. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent land. Staff Response: The proposed building envelope amendments would not appear to create any conflict with development on adjacent land. Staff has received a letter from the Spraddle Creek Estates Architectural Control Committee as well as a letter from Ron Oehl, owner of Lot 14, located immediately to the west (Attachments 5 and 6). Both the Architectural Control Committee and 3 the adjacent property owner have no objection to the proposed building envelope amendment. (See attached copies of letters). 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: Staff believes that this proposal will not be detrimental to the value of land throughout the Town, nor in the immediate area. 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: Staff believes that the proposed building envelope amendment will not preclude a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. . To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate an 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: This purpose of the subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address large scale subdivisions as opposed to this particular proposal under consideration. We do not believe that this proposal will impact any of the above facilities. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. Staff Response: This is an inherent goal of the subdivision regulations that has little specific reference to this particular application. 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. 4 Staff Response: RECOMMENDATION V. STAFF The staff is recommending apgroval of the applicant's request for minor subdivision to amend the platted building envelope on Lot 1, Spradle Creek Estates Subdivision. We believe that the applicant has met the review criteria as outlined in Section IV of this memorandum. The staff recommendation for approval carries with it the following conditions: 1. That the applicant agree to provide a minimum of thirty additional tree plantings along the south and west sides of the building. These plantings will be in addition to those currently • 5 'REC'D E S 1594 10- February 22, 1994 Town of Vail Planning Commission 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Ladies and Gentlemen: P. O Box 11315 Kansas ON MO 64112 Telephone (913) 624-3738 Fax (913) 624-8387 We wish to amend the platting of the building envelope for Lot 15, Spraddle Creek, to accommodate a proposed change in the deck directly in front of the southwest end of our house, which is currently under construction. The reasons for seeking this change are the following: 1. Make the west half deck similar in design to the east half deck as it runs along the front of the house. It would make the decks more symmetrical, while still providing enough space for an eating area outside of our sun porch and kitchen. 4. We plan to plant some additional trees between our decks and the road to minimize the visual impact of the road to us. This also would soften the look of our house and decks to approaching vehicles, etc. Thanks very much for your consideration. Sincerely, Wiliam T. E y 0 0 s? ro? AMENDED FINAL PLAT, LOT 15, FIRST AMENDMENT TO SPRADDLE CREEK ESTATES TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE CO 9 COLORADO lr??? ??d mom VAP +o,.n r ..v a. aw rcr ?r? ? w w.r wss w ,.:.a. ras t +f+ m ro+ wsr ar a ?,? m. ??wra M R=50,00 L=34.5'1 SPRADDLE CREEK ROAD T=1-,,97 (50' R.O.W.) LC=33,83 CB-S 7024'53° E ? 0" ° ' ?r \ J _ N 89 23 3 E 62.00 \ / N 89°48'49' E - 15.000 ` LOT 14 '- zo 2 o ?- ^ .zi. en . - 3w 'tl t='S°35'25' ? ? <v 3` `S?" ft=147.00 1=40.00 ?'P ? ?. * .Teo, .a.so ' i ? i #q S3, 7=20.72 ? Oa 00 ?9? "'' LC=34.88 CB=S 6042'55 E LOT 15 !d ? ? ?a i. z,>ss.' ? _ r " a sas?9 ?? a LOT 10 ?. e, , ? = R ? B5.0^v ? _ =133.36 -`? T=59.73 ?C 4C 9 CH=N 7„ 34''I6" W 4?eEk f=27°73'35 r_ R=225.000 4g ROAD L-106.92 7=54.45 4 '36 E5°Sg. ±C-105.9? ' °3' W CB=N 80°36 32 w (50. CrFH:ri[cYt - ' ?t ]b. ? th' S'1. tlaDe mime l 945 ne an nec£v5 araae. L!r k artl a¢cectl¢c, ewto? U ^..19 Cacces, 'na?e a' !¢ss. t- -7 . "S C c .+ ces ac .n.c .radar easener.. ace .......... ------------- OvKF?. ?... „ii,n _- Hv __________________________. -_.. - ------------------ :w.urv ?r _--_-___.-_ .:. ----------- :---- . a°. - - ---------- --------- ----------- - ---- ---------- --- °.. aa_ •cao,e U¢ ..a s " •'?q t ¢ suaa ....,.n c ?ooo .. .c ;_uPi?'t. . .n.x ..nay !e, res are+ e.a?."eo on .. tc --------------- ---------- - ---- ---------- ---------------------------- ----------- ------------------------ va'e??. ?c6i5N. rte< ,."<+vanv S.9ra<?rce! --------------------- ------- - - -------- • 1 C .i. T'F? -r'-?l?L, f?F-? tic. U? .?• ,.; -_?+ ?, ? ? ?f- ?? ? ?4 ` I • ?' ? _ `? ri. -- \ C. '? ? i Vie..' a.o : ? / J ?„ ,? \ "? \_ ?c ? ` ? ??? ? ?,Y i \? •? \\ ^? _ \ .fit ?\`?? ? ?X fit ?l? S ??p? l i • So. I • 6,-It- ct ,? 7361 e? tfNG ?cck 1 ?? ` • i ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE March 16, 1994 Mr. & Mrs. William Esrey 2624 Verona Road Shawnee Mission, Kansas 66208 Ref. Building Envelope t 15 Spraddle Creek 9 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Esrey: At their February 14, 1994 and March 15, 1994 meeting the ACC reviewed the corner of your balcony overhanging Lot 15's building envelope. The ACC, acting as the counsel of design at Spraddle Creek, has no aesthetic objections to the encroachment. Y.O. Box 1976 • Avon, Colorado • 81620 + Phone (303) 949-0257 • rax (303) 949-1080 02-25-1994 10:12RM FROM GEO SHAEFFER CONSTRUC TO 1212758083209 P.02 ^F' .,..1, _+,.,n ,. ... v. .. ?S . . - .?. _., ... .... ..,. .? ..i." .?... .mv? ........ ....... ?.. ,. ,, ,.., gyn. .r_? sw»..?...,...i..?cL,.,..?.u.. _. _?<i., .. an.., .??.1na.wn.............i .._.,. ., ..,. ?... ..s._.. .. .. ,. .,? Mr. Ronald Oehl 791 Park Avenue New Y6rk, NY I I Dear Nk. : Feel free to call with any questions. Sincerely, t HAE.E CONS UCTION COPA 7WE Project a ager D Isw MEMORANDUM TO: Manning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 28, 1994 The applicant is requesting the conditional use permit and site coverage variance to allow for the proposed additions as described above. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an additional 990 square feet of site coverage (0.4%). II. BACKGROUND • restrictions were lifted from the property. In February 1989, a major expansion was approved. The major expansion included construction of a gymnasium, third floor classroom area and a gymnasium lobby. The gymnasium and some of the third floor classroom spaces were the only items that were actually constructed related to the 1989 expansion approval. 111. _ ZONING STATISTICS The Vail Mountain School is requesting a site coverage variance. The allowable site coverage for the site is 13,344 square feet (5%) and the existing site coverage is 21,256 square feet (8%). The Mountain School is proposing an additional 990 square feet of site coverage (0.4%) which, if approved and constructed, would put the total site coverage at 22,246 square feel (8.4%). Lot Size: 6.122 acres or 266,674 square feet Reauired/Allowed Existina/Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20' Front: 90` Side: 15' Side: 100' Side: 15' Side: 570' Rear: 15' Rear: 142' Height: 33' 27` Parking: Determined by the PEC. 84 parking spaces (no change) Site Coverage: 13,334 sq. ft. (5%) Existing School: 20,404 sq. ft. Historic Cabin: 852 sq. ft. Proposed Addition: 990 sq. ft. Total Proposed: 22,246 sq. ft. (8.419/6)* *Site coverage variance is requested. IV. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. As is clearly demonstrated by the various approvals granted by the Town of Vail previously, the Town feels that the Vail Mountain School is an appropriate use at its current location. The library and classroom expansions were is 2 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, arks and recreation facilities, an other public facilities needs. The proposed expansion will not increase the number of students, and thus should not impact transportation facilities, utilities, or other public facilities, such as parks and schools. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of no from the street and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 3 west sides of the property. Staff has proposed a condition that would require the applicant to provide landscaping adjacent to this addition to help mitigate any visual impacts to the surrounding residences. The proposed additions are small relative to the existing buildings, and will be constructed to match existing architecture and materials. B. Findings The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followino findings before granting a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. V. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval 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. The gymnasium addition connects two existing covered entryways to the gymnasium along the western side wall. This one story addition will be partially hidden by the steep hillside along the north side of the soccer field, but will still be visible from residences along the north and west sides of the property. Staff has proposed a condition that would require the applicant to provide landscaping adjacent to this addition to help mitigate any visual impacts to the surrounding residences. 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 requests variance on light an air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. As discussed in the Conditional Use Criteria section of this memorandum, staff believes that there will be little or no impact on transportation, traffic, public facilities and utilities and public safety. No change to the student population, parking, or vehicular access to the property is proposed. 8. l°indinas The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before arantina 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. s 5 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. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the site coverage variance and the conditional use permit with Staff recommends that the following conditions of approval be imposed: 1. The applicant will propose and implement a landscaping plan to help screen the bathroom/storage addition. The landscaping plan shall include a minimum of four trees and foundation plantings, to be installed along the west wall of the addition. 2. The existing three spruce trees along the east wall of the library shall be transplanted if feasible, or replaced (with like kind, size and number) to a new location adjacent to the east wall of the proposed library addition. 6 Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not commenced within two years. cApec\memoslmtnschoo.328 06 7 HZI ,u r /r /zz 1 !_. s UWn,, Seel 74/v 363 \ SCALE 1 30' W U. L \\ w U. O DATE OF SURVEY: 12 /29 / 87 (TOPOGRAPHY) > O { O Z ? ?{ ^ LOT 5 DATE OF UPDATE 3/15/94 f I.L.C. ONt Y! >y / NOTE 3.0 SNOW OERTN AT TINE OF UPDATE ? C O e TOPOGRAPHY wAS NOT UPDATED I i 1 pp, "O; LOT 4 ail '',1?1 WdUUL° TRACT L S 79-29,,32 ,.E 111 B UTILITY E4SEM E,vT GASION PET WALL ` COVERED - _ ..,?_` j 20 (yt ENTRI STUCCO WALL 8381 //p J 1, 9: RET. NGIL RET 'xALL Zp O ®q 9. 9 "' ',y » PET, w4L6 _ o O ROOF l OvwG. by a 13.2' w 611... ...? ?TAIR l o e' ccnc a-C p6.'?ROOF ovNO 210' r ? 1/ ` ' 1 O / `??:8' DECK SCnOCI o 1 ry' F- IS PILL AR'^?"? 120 ? DEC- ! _WI (TYR-1 O ?7 ` cA.,N p\ r °' f - 6 I F- e! f/ oo/ ?_3, ?.YY 188n M 492 2S 3' FIRE a- rrD. 2,89 ?? e£Na J r _ L .., FLAG ?p \ R_Lx\ (O GRILL EDGE PLO.ED 0 U77L1TY EASEMENT DRIVE 20.33 N 8Ta \ I \ j??`" -_. ,30 00 • - 33,05 29465'? ELa 1 zs.so' _ R=19080' ELEC. L=72400' t Q ?\ R-62 93 f^®,?..,TgRN,y i I \\ 74.42 0 1 s s i 1 1 1 i S h { Y a L4 1 ' M ? ?-?J 1Jl r / 1 f tli ?4 El i s? Ce?Ma ?0 • • a _- ?? r 1,5Yi IHI, ? ut-1 CI {tiTJr t N 0," L J ! o a =a I C it - 71 i. r - GYM i??I UI'1 DTI ?II?(TI?r-} t MEMORANDUM • • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 28, 1994 SUBJECT: A request fora orsssi on a front yard setback variance to allow for the construction of an addition to an existing residence located at 4295 Nugget Lane/Lot 7, Bighorn Estates. Applicant: Margaret Gross Planner, Randy Stouder 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST 11, ZONING STATISTICS The subject property is located in the Two Family zone district. The following table outlines the requirements for this zone district. Allowed/Required Existing Proposed Lot Area: Not Applicable 17,767 sq.ft. 17,767 sq.ft. Height: 33 feet - feet - feet GRFA: 4,452 sq.ft. 1250 sq.ft. 3,383 sq.ft. (+ 133 sq.ft.) Setbacks: Front: 20' Front: 5' Front: 4'* Sides: 15' Sides: 8'/144' Sides: 8'/144' Rear: 15' Rear: 56' Rear: 56' Site Coverage: 3,553 sq.ft. (20%) 1,806 sq.ft. (10.2%) 1,954 sq.ft. (11%) Landscaping: 10,616 sq.ft. (60%) 15,730 sq.ft. (88.5%) 15,582 sq.ft. (87.7%) Parking: 2.5 spaces 2 spaces 2 spaces** *Setback variance requested for addition of 1 square foot of encroachment. **Existing nonconforming situation. 1 CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance t other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree t which relief from the strict an literal interpretation and enforcement of 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. • 2 Staff agrees that the property is constrained, however, staff is still concerned with the size of the proposed addition and its potential impacts to the existing vegetation. We believe an entry could be added beneath the existing roof over the front porch. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light n air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the folloina findings before arantina a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 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. • 3 I DISCUSSION ISSUES The following issues have been identified and should be considered for discussion by the PEC. 1. is the scope of the proposed construction and its location appropriate? 2. Can the proposed addition and the deck be constructed without significant impacts to existing vegetation? 3. If the scope of the proposed addition is appropriate, what type of landscaping does the PEC feel is appropriate and where should it be located on the property? cApec\m emus\y ross.328 is 4 • `. ,? i =O=r t w t c Y \ 1 1i- . v s l l v T t O ITION i js 0 Greg Amsden Bill Anderson Kristan Pritz Bob Armour Dalton Williams Andy Knudtsen Jeff Bowen Jim Curnutte Kathy Langenwalter Randy Stouder Allison Lassoe request for a major CCI I 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 309/1-ot 5, lock 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Piling. Bob Armour said he would like to see consistency and have the building tie together with the zinc. Greg Amsden, Jeff Bowen, Allison Lassoe and Kathy Langenwalter had no further comments. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the request for a major CCII exterior alteration per the staff memo with the understanding that the zinc fascia band was acceptable. Bob Armour seconded the motion and a 5-0 vote approved this request. 2. A request for a minor subdivision to allow for the relocation of a building envelope located at 1314 Spraddle Creek Drive/ Lot 15, Spraddle Creek Subdivision. Applicant: William and Julie Esrey Planner: Jim Curnutte 9 Planning and Environmental Commission March 28,1994 Kathy Langenwalter stated that she would like to see the landscape plan. Jim Curnutte showed the approved landscape plan to the PEC. He stated the applicant would provide an updated landscape plan once the present request before the PEC was approved, and the owner finished discussions with B and B Excavation as to how that area of the lot will be regraded. Jeff Bowen asked the PEC members if they would like the DRB to review the final landscape plan with their direction that a certain number of trees be planted along the south and west sides of the building. Jim stated the applicant was proposing to plant mixture of coniferous and deciduous trees. Bob Armour suggested that the grading situation should be resolved before a specific number of trees is recommended to be planted on this site. Kathy Langenwalter suggested that the PEC come u with a number of trees to recommend that the applicant plant. Greg Amsden suggested that eight to ten evergreen trees be included as a part of the recommendation. Kristan Pritz stated that there is already a disturbed area located to the west of the house and that the staff envisioned the thirty trees to be planted along the west side of the house and wrap around the deck rather than just being planted on just the south side of the house. Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that the fifteen additional trees would be necessary for screening purposes. Allison Lassoe stated that she felt a minimum of eight to ten evergreen trees would be acceptable to her out of a total of thirty trees. Greg Amsden and Jeff Bowen agreed with Bob Armour's comment. Planning and Environmental Commission March 28, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the request for a minor subdivision per the staff memo with the addition to Condition 1 that ten of the thirty trees be evergreen trees. Allison Lassoe seconded the motion and a 5-0 vote approved this request Bob Armour said he was concerned about future building envelope amendments and that the approval of this amendment should not be viewed as meaning all future amendments would be acceptable. He encouraged staff and DRB to make sure that strong landscape plans are required for these lots because of the high visibility of the structures. 3. 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 Luterbach/BAB Partnership Planner: Jim Curnutte Bob Armour asked if the proposed garages were for two cars. Bob Armour made a motion to approve the request for a variance from Section 18.69.040 per the staff memo and the two staff conditions contained on Page 5 of the staff memo based on the fact that the PEC believes that the 40% slope is a manmade condition. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion and a 5-0 vote approved this request. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission March 28, 1994 4. request for a site coverage variance and a conditional use permit to allow for an 46 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 Randy raised a question about staff Condition 1 which called for landscaping along the Greg Amsden stated that he agreed with Pam concerning Condition 1. Bob Armour also agreed that Condition 1 should be eliminated from the approval of this item. Jeff and Allison had no further comments. Kathy Langenwalter agreed with Greg's and Bob's comments. She felt the DRB should review the site plan for landscaping issues. Prior to the motion, Planning Commission members discussed the proposed addition. The members felt that the proposed expansion was modest in size and would fit in well with the existing building. The commission felt that the scale of the proposed addition was well within the scale of the overall school building. They felt that the proposed additions would blend in well with the existing building and would be well screened from adjacent neighbors by the existing building. The staff noted that the proposed expansion was very similar to an expansion that received a site coverage variance in mid-1992. The previous proposal also involved expanding the library and classroom area to the east. As a result of the comment made by staff regarding one citizens concern over the rockfall mitigation berm, the commission asked several questions of staff. Commission wanted to know what the condition of the existing rock fall mitigation berm was, and whether the berm was still necessary since the Town had constructed a larger rock fall 0 Planning and Environmental Commission March 28, 1994 4 5. request fora rssio setback variance to allow for an expansion to the residence located at 4295 Nugget Lane/Lot 7 Bighorn Estates. Bill Hein stated they were attempting to preserve as many trees as possible on this property and that only two trees would be removed with the proposed construction. He stated that they would be modifying their proposal so that the proposed expansion would extend to within 5 feet of the front property line. Bill also discussed possible roof changes that would be part of this request. Greg Amsden said that he was not opposed to the deck as long as the evergreen tree could be saved. Jeff Bowen stated that he did not have any comments. Allison Lassoe said she did not have any further comments. Bob Armour asked how far up the tree would need to be limbed to allow people to move around the tree on the deck. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission March 28, 1994 5 Bill Hein stated that the tree would need to be trimmed up maybe 5 to 6 feet above the deck level. He said the applicant wanted to have a deck that would allow her to take advantage of the sun. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was comfortable with the proposal and that she felt that there was a hardship on the site. She said that she was concerned about the proposed roof materials, but that was a Design Review Board issue. She said that she felt it was important to keep the encroachment to 5 feet. Kristan Pritz stated that any privacy screen more than 3 feet in height would require a variance. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she would like to see the mass and bulk for this addition minimized, and for that reason, she would like to see the privacy screen eliminated. Kathy said that a guardrail would be acceptable not to exceed 3 feet in height. Bill Hine stated that he would work with the issue of trimming the tree and the issue of the guardrail for the deck. 6. request for a major CCII exterior alteration and setback variance to the Lionshead Center Building to allow for the expansion of the Vail Associates offices located at 520 Lionshead Mall/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED T IL 11, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request until April 11, 1994 with Greg Amsden seconding this motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this item to April 11, 1994. 7. 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 T APRIL 11, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request until April 11, 1994 with Greg Amsden seconding this motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this item to April 11, 1994. 8. A request for variances to allow for off-site parking, GRFA 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 TABLED TO APRIL 11, 1994 9 Planning and Environmental Commission March 28, 1994 6 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request until April 11, 1994 with Greg Amsden seconding this motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this item to April 11, 1994.. 9, Approve minutes from March 14, 1994 PEC meeting. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 14, 1994 PEC meeting with Bob Armour seconding the motion. A 5-0 vote approved the minutes from the March 14, 1994 PEC meeting. 11. Kathy Langenlter stepped down from the PEC to discuss proposed changes to the approved development plan for Timber Creek. The PEC did not have any problems with the proposed changes to the building footprints and said staff could handle the adjustments to the site plan. • 9 Planning and Environmental Commission March 28, 1994 7