Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-0808 PEC L 1 1!i L COMMISSION Augtast 1994 AGFNDA r°ect rie t ti /L.unc 11:00 o 0 Site 1/isits 12:00 pAmw Lifthouse Lodge L'C7stei1o Waters Fernandez Drivers: Andy and Jim Public HggLing 2:00 . 1. A reguest for a worksession for a setback variance to aflow for a new residence at 5128 Gore Circle/Lot 4, Iock 3, ighorn 5th Additionn Applicant: Ghislaine de Teronanne de Fernandezlrepresented by Duane Piper Planner: Andy Knudtsen 2. A request #or a r i for height and density variances and a rnajor CCB9 exterior al#eration to #he L'Ostello building 6ocated at 705 West Lionshead Circ0e/Lot 1, lock 2, 1/ail/L9onshead 3rd Filing, Applicant: Alien, inc./John Dunn Planner: Randy Sfioaader 3. A requesf for a rk es i n to revievv a CCII exterior aIterationg site coverage, and a setback variance to a19ow for a comrnercial expansion to the Lifthouse Lodge Iocated at 549 est Lionshead Circle/Lot 3, lock 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. App9icant: ob Lazaer Planner; Jirn Gurnutte 4. A request for ase#back variances to aBlow for an addition to the residence located at 4237 Colurnbine Drive/Lot 22, Bighorn T'errace. Applicant; Joyce aters Pianner; Andy Knudtsen 5. A request far a conditional use perrrtit to allow #or an expansion to the administration buildin located at 1309 11ai1 Va91ey DriveJlJnplatted parcel iocated north of the I-70 Right- ay, north of Vail Village9 8th Filingm App3icant: Town of Vail, represen#ed by Greg al! Planner: Andy FCnudtsen 1 6. A request #or a setback variance and an amendment to a previously approved plan to ailoan+ fiar #our duplexes fio be corastructed at 1 894 Lionsridg~ Loop/Lot 27, BIock 2, Lionsridge 3rd Filirtg, Applicant; Steve GensierlParkuvood ReaIty Planner: Andy Knudtsen °T L 1 I IT LY 7. A request for a conditaonal use permit to aIlow fior #he expansaon of the ilafi Galf Cotarse clubhouse for new Vail Recreation District o#fice space to be located afi 177$ Vail VaIley Drirre/Part of the north 1/2 of Sectitan 9, T 5S, Fi 80 , 6th P. Town of Vail, Eagie County, Colcsrado, Appiicanto Vail Recreation District, represented by Bill F'ierce Plannera Jirrri Curnutte T° L I 1! L 7m A request to discuss a prev~ous PEC approval regarding the use of zinc on the Lionshead Center Building. Applicant: Bil! Pierce Pganrrer: Andy Knudtsen B. Approve minutes from July 25, 1994 PEG rneetong. 9. Councilllpdate: -Joinf PECJT'own Counci1 worksession -Vail Commons -on August 16, 1994 at 2:00 p.m., Counci! Charnbers. 2 L 1 VI L C 1 1 Augtsst 8, 1994 INUT~S ME F3ERS PRESEN`f EM ERS ABSE T STAFF PRESENT Greg Amsden FCathy Langenwalter Mike Moilica Bob Armaur Andy Knudtsen Jeffi Bovven Jim Curnutte Allison Lassoe Randy Stouder I3aItcan illiarns George Ru#her A request for a work s io for a setback variance to aIIow for a new resmdence at 5128 Gore Circle/Lot 4, BIock 3, ighorn 5th Addition. App9icant; Ghislaine de Teronanne de Fern arrdezlrepresented by Duarae Piper PIanner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo. He explained #hat staff felt that a hardship did exist on this site and that it was up to #he PEC to determi~e whether a hardshap does exist on the site and vuhe#her the amount o# the requested variance was reasonableo Art Kittay, an adjacent property owner, stated that he felt that any hardship which did exist on the site was seIf-imposed. Fie uvas concerned that a setback variance would impac# the appearance of the neighborhood, I-Iarry F1agie, representing hss son ark hiagle, ovvner of 5148 Gare Circie, stated that they vvere opposed to the applicant's proposal to development Lot 4, Bock 39 Bighorn 5th Addition. He stated that the requested setback variance was objec#ionable. randen i8son, an adjacent property owner (5139 Gore Circle), stated that he uvas opposed to any setback variances being approved for this site. obert Shonkwaier9 5118 Gore Circle, felt that the design of the propased horr,e could be reworked so that asetback varian~~ ~ouid be unnecessaryo Fie pointed out that he had recently been denied a setback variance for a fence as the PEC had determined that a hardship did not exist on the site. Andy Knudtsen responded that staff felt #hat the two requests di#fered frorn one another and that r. Shonkwiler's request was for the purpose of Iocating a dog runl#ence in the front setback. FIe stated that it was sta##'s feeling that the dog run could be Iocated eIsevvhere on the si#e without any variances bein required and the logic could not be applied to this case. Planning and EnvironmQntal Gommissian tvteeYing Minutes August 8, 1994 i Duane Paper, the architect for the project, presenfied a hardlined drawing for the PEC members to review. He stated tha# the reason they had requested a worksession ftar this project was to ge# #eetiback from staff, the F'EC and adjacent property owners on how to develop this site so that a6l smdes would be satisfiiede He explained that a hardshep did exrst on the si#e, in that a Iarge portion of the property uvas leacated in a f6oodplain area, Da9ton Williams telt that the hardship was seIf irnposed in that the owners should have knovvn about the floodp6ain area when they purchased the propertyo Ailisora Lassoe agreed with DaIton's comrnents, Jeff Bowen stated that he agreed with DaIton's corr,rr»nts as vvell. Bob Arrriour stated that he wou4d like to see the 20-foot front and 15-foot side setbacks rnaintained and that the site shou4d be developed within the existing zonbng standards, Bill Anderson stated that a limited hardship dad exist on the site and that the #rees should be preserved, but that #he hardship vvas not significant enough to vvarrant a Va9"Iatlce. Greg Arrasden sta#ed that he agreed with the others and #hat the garage needed to be in#egrated vvith the rr,ain part of the site. He fielt that since the site vvas vacanf the applicant had rriany options. Fie added that the applicant consider the rerraovai of the trees instead of a firont setback vari~~~~, with the requiremen# that the trees be replaced at a 1 n1 ratio (liraeal feet in height). Duane thanked the PEC for their cornrnents and said that he wouId rework the design, possibiy returnsng to #he PEG if a variance couId not be avo°sdedP 2, A request for a rk io for height and dens9ty variances and a major CCII exterior alteration to the L'Ostello build°ong located at 705 est Liortshead CircBefLot 19 Iock 2, Vasl/Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant; A1ien9 Inco/John Dunn Planner; Randy Stouder Randy Stouder made a presentation per the s#aff memo. He directed the PEC's attention to Page 89 Sec#ion IXp DIscussion issues. Gary radley, owner of the L'Os#elIo uilding, stated that they were atternpting to ork with the Lionshead tJrban Design Guadelines and the Purpose Section of the Comrnerciai Core II zone district. He stated that there desire was to improve the appearance and quality ofi the L'Ostelfo Building, Greg Arrisden inquired what the current number of parking spaces for the L' stello Building vvas4 Plenning and Environrraenta3 Commission lNaeting tvtinutes August 8,1994 2 Randy Stouder s#a#ed the hotel had sixty-four parking spaces9 before the 1989 approval which rerr'oved the underground parking garage. He was not sure hovv rr'any spaces had been removede Fie aIso pointed out that L'Ostello was to pay into the parking fund fo accommodate the spaces removedn Acontract was executed and L'Ostello defaul#ed after the initial paymenta Tom Moorhead, Tovvn Attorneyy, stated that L° stel~~ owes the 1"ovvn of Vaal approxirnately $1739Q00.00 for past due parking fees as the previous owners had defaulted on a parking pay-in-I~eu contract. Tom sta#ed that he would review corporate documents #o determine if the current ovuner of L'Ostello had any liability regarding the past dtae parking feesa A! Flauser9 rnanager of Vail Spa Condominiurras, inquired what was being proposed with the height for the L'Ostello Building. Randy Stouder stated that the curren# height of the building is 82 fieet and that dorrraers vvould raot exceed this height, but in fact the dormers wotald be 3 to 4 feet Iower than the highest rocaf ridge. Kit _ ill,ams, of ~un Va'.I G~ndominiumsf stated that #hey felt the proposed irnproverraen#s to the L'Ostello Building were positive. He comrriented that the lights #rom the L'Ostello parkirag Iot were rather bright. Dalton Wiliiams reserved his corrarnerats until a Iater time, Allison, Je##, ob and Bill felt that employee housing shouid be provided elsewhere on- site instead ofi eliminated as proposed. Daiton illiams did not feei that variances were v~arranted for this site. H~ suggested that the applicants consider the Special evelopment District process, Gary radley inquired vvhether they could pursue a conditional variance. Greg Amsden stated that granting height and density variances for the L'Ostello sate ccsuBd set a very dangerous precedent since there did not appear #o be a hardship on the site. ike MoIIica stafied tha# staff attempts ta make consistent zoning interpretataons. He stated that asirrailar height variance request was proposed by the auntain Haus condorniniums Iast year and the PEC denied the request, AIlison Lassoe #eIt there vvere no hardships on the site to justify a variance. She stated that the proposed dormers would add #oa rnuch rnass and buik to the L'Ostello Building. Jeff Bowen feIt that the creatian ofi a Iarge condaminwum unit did nat offer any benefit to the Tovvn. He suggested that a combination of smaller condorniniurn units and additional employee housing units would be preferableo He felt that the proposed dorrraers vvere far too big frorr, a rr,assing standpoint. Planning and Environmenial Commission tvleeting nhinutes August 8, 1994 3 Bili Araderson agreed vvith the other corr,rnissioners in that h~ ~ou1d not flnd a hardship ora the site to support the variance. N~ suggested tha# by going underground with the parking, the app6acants ccsuld re1ocate accommodation unigs on the site. F#e stated that the density variance was not as hard to properly justify as the height variance. He feit that a corr3prehensive redevelopment plan for the property wcauld be a worthvvhile exercise to go through. Bob Arrriour stated that adding mass to the existing nonconforming structure would be a grant of special privilege, Greg Arnsden stated that height rrariances are seIdorra granted in the Town of 1laiI ar~~ suggested that the applicant consider the SDD processo He suggested that the applicarst consider shor#er individuai deck configurations. F9e sasd that the proposed dcarmers were quiie rriassive and shouid be reduced in order to eliminate a `gtop heavy„ appearance. Gary rad9ey asked whe#her they should go ahead with the swimrning pool renovation or snould tney r,ola off. Greg Arnsdert suggested tha# the applicants hold off until they had developed a comprehensive rriaster pBan for the L'Ostello propertyo i11 Anderson stated that he disagreed vvith Greg's position and that it vvas his opinion that the neighbors of the L'Oste1io Buiiding would iake to see the swimrr,ing pool renovation corripleted as soon as possiblea H~ ~~~ouraged the applicant #o compiete the plaza renovation and Iandscaping plan #or the propertys 3. A request for a work essi to review a CCI! major exterior aIterafion and site coverage and setback variances to aiiow for a corrnmercial exparasaon to the Lifithouse Lodge Iocated at 549 est Liwrashead CircIelLot 3, Biock 19 Vail l.iorashead 1st Filing, AppBicant: ob Lazier PIanner; Jirri Curnutte Jirri Curnutte rnade a presentation per the stafif memo. FIe stated tha# 387 square feet of site cover~~e was proposed to be added vvith this request. He directed the PEC's atte8 8tio91 L6J PCAge 5, lJe%?tIo1 N pVy Dis6s6Assi9JB 9 ess6.tles iJi lB BW TtG0.db 834e8 tl IbJ. Galen Aasiand, the architec# for this project, stated that they have atternp#ed tss address the issues raised corscernirag thss project from the previous vvorksessionm ith regard to the exterior alteration, he stated that they were stili not interested in changing the antauk restaurant space, gth regard to the sign prograrn9 he stated that the three proposed signs would ail have a consistent frame and lighting and but that dhey vvould Iike the script and letter material to remain unrestricted. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes August 8, 1994 4 Gary Borsh, the manager of the Montauk, stated that he did not feel that a copper #ascia across Montauk would be appropriate, He stated that the Montauk was a seafoodg chain restaurant from the East Coast and that they genera1ly utilized a shake shangle roof. DaIton i9liarns stated he would like to see the bank corner puiled back out of the Pedestrian MaII so tha# it lines up with the planter. He did not have a problem with removing the twtr fir tr~~s and rep6acing them with two deciduous trees. He asked the applicant to consider reiocating the bench on the s1#e as opp~sed to disposing of it aItogether. He stated that he did not have any problems with the increased square #oo#age and associated variancesw He said that he did have a problem with thsngs that had a tendency to get °°piece-mealed" and that he would like to see Montauk tie in with the rest of the Lifthou~~ Buiid°sng. Jay Petersong stated that there were #inancial conssderations attached to their decision not to change the roofi on Montauk. He stated that rents in Lionshead vvere approxirriately one-third of the rents 9n the Viilage and that construction costs for Lionshead were every bit as expensive as those in the 1Ji11age and that changing the roo# on ontauk ccsuld rnake the erat9re project un#easibiea GaIen Aasland stated that they couId have proposed to reroof the Pizza E3akery, arfi and Yeti`s and First ank one store at a time, but they decided to bring thern in aII at once, AIIAson L.assoe stated that she would Iike to see the 1-112 foot eastern expansion on FirstBank pushed back out of the Lionshead aIlo She said that she Iiked the appearance of ontauk but suggested that some sort of copper (i.e, copper gutter) be used on Montauk in order to tie it into the other three shopsa Jeff Bovven agreed with Allison°s commentso He said that the use of copper needed to #iow through the entire building. F9e added tha# he was concerned about increasing the sete coverage on the site. ill Anderson agreed with Ailison's comments. He stated that he liked the existing variation in the fhree shop's themes. He suggested that the applicant consider insetting the entrance way in order to provide some screening. hie thought that at Ieast one evergreen tree shoiald be included in the planter aIong with the aspens. ob Rrmour stated thafi the changes that the appiicant has made are positive since the last F'EC vvorksession. He stated that he was in favor of utiiizing some sort of copper on ontauk to tie it in#o the rest of the building. Greg Amsden agreed that the copper gut#er on the ontauk would be a good solution. He asked for a cIarifiica#ion on the peeied logs on the building, especially for art an Yeti's. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting (vEinutes August 8, 1994 5 Galen AasIand said that aII r~ew Iogs would be the same size as Banner Sports but would be stained vvith a cIear varnishe Bart and Yeti's 1ogs would stay exactly the same as what is aut there now. DaIton 61liarras agreed that Allison`s suggestion regarding acopper gutter vuas a good idea. Allison, ,Jeff9 Bill, Bob and Greg ali felt that the eas# side roof extension was okay the way tha# was currently proposed ar+d that it did not have to go a11 the way to the end of the bu's8dinge Dalton Williams felt that the roof extension should be redesigned to go all the way to the corner of the buildinga DaIton also stated that he did not have a problem should the applicant wish to go #o ard with a possible Ioading variance, shtstaid one be required as a r~sult of the addition, Jim Curnutte stated that the PEC still needed to discuss the pedestrian easementm ike Mollica asked the applicant whether they would be opposed to a pedestrian easement through the Lifthouse site. ob Lazwer felt that the pedestrian easerr~~~t would not chartge the exisfirtg sittaation, sts he did raot have a prob9em with it. Jirra Curnu##e stated that staff wanted to ansure pedestrian access acrass the site, ike MoIlAca state that afi rnaas important for #he Fire Depar#rraent to review this proposal prior to a fina8 hearing be#ore the PEC. Jeff ~owen suggested that a comprehensive sign program be implerriented #or the building and that new tenants be made aware of the prograrn and that #he DFi be ins#ruc#ed accordingly, 4. A reguest for a setback variances to aliovv for an additwon to the residence located at 4237 CoIurnbine Drive/Lot 22, Bwghorn T°erracea Applicante Joyce Waters F'Iannera Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen rnade a presentation per the staff merrso. He stated that sta#f was recornmending approval of the requested setback variances wsth #he five conditions outlined on Pages 4 and 5 ofi the staff rnemow 1 a T'he variance approval shall be contingent upon the DRB approving the 90250' requeS#a Planning and Environmenfal Commission Nieezing AAinutes Augusi 1994 6 2. Prior to DFiB revievv, the appiicant shall redesign the flagstone patio entrance area so that it is Ioca#ed 10 feet from the property line, and confiorms to the setback. 3. Prior to DRB review, the applicant shall amend the Iandscape plan shovving addoti~nal Iandscaping in #he northeast corner of the site. The proposed evergreen trees shall rneasure a minimum cs# 81 9inear feet. 4. Prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy {TCO}, the applicant shall place the two existing overhead service lines below grade. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permitq the applicant shail provide protective fencing around the three evergreens to the north of the struc#ure to ensure that they wigl not be damaged during constructican. Steve iden, the archifect for this project, stated that they planned to bury aII overhead uti6i#y and serrvice Gnes, The PEC mernbers did not have any questions to ask either the applican# or stafif with regard to this proposa1, ob Arrnour stated that he wouid like to see #he one large tree (Iocated to the north) preserved. Jeff owen stated that he had a basic public policy probiern with this project, He #e!t that this was not a proper si#uation for the PEC to grant a setback variance. He said that he couid not f°snd justification for a hardshi on the project. The specific problem was that the setbacks were reduced to the point #hat the neighbor`s property would be encroached upon. Bob Armour rraade a motion to approve this request for setback variances per the stafif merr» includang the five conditions outiined on Pages 4 artd 5 with the additional condition that all overhead utili#y and service lines be buried and that a 6-foot buf#er be provided around the 60-foot ta!l tree, Bob Armour subsequently withdrevv his rraotion fior fur#her discussion concerning pro#ecting the 60 foot tree. Bgll Anderson suggested the wordang 99no structure within the drip line'°. Andy Knudtsen stated that in order to ciarifiy the condition, #hat the dr°sp line was Iess than ihe 6 feet as prerriously cited and the mcare conservative wording vvas appropriate, ob Armour rr,ade a motion to approve this request for setback variances #o alCovv #or an addi#ion per the staff memo outlined on F'ages 4 and 5 with the foiiowing ameradment to Condition 4: Planning and Environmental Gommission nAeeting Minutes Augusi 8, 1994 7 '°Prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy {TCO}, the applicant shall place 1l existing overhead service Iines below gradeo In addition, Condition 5was amended tta the folBowing: BHPrior to issuance of a building perrriit, the applwcant shali provide protecting fencing minimum f f tfro the trun of the 60-f ot t Il ruce to errsure that it will not be damaged during constructiora n th tstaff ill fi I verify fencin ri r t excav ti nm J~~~ owen seconded the motion and a 4-2 vote approved this request vvith Dal#on Williams and Jeff Bovven opposing this request. Dalton ~~~iams stated that he opposed this request due to the six-#oot fencing requirement (for Condition 5) which he felt was arbitrary, Jeff Bowen opposed this request per his reasons outlined prevaously, ike MoIlica suggested that the Town's Landscape Architect be consulted prior to excavation on the sike. 5. A request for a conditionap use permst to ailaw for an expansion to the administration buf9ding Iocated at 1309 Vail Valley DriveJlinplatted parcel locafied ntarth of the 1-70 Right-Of- ay, north ~f Vaii Village, 8th Filinge Applocanfi Towra of Vail9 represented by Greg FIaII Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsers made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated staff was recommending approval o# this request vvith three conditions outlined on Page 4 ofi the staff merno: 1. Prior to DRB revievv, the app9icant shall add to the Iartdscape plan a c1uster of three aspens and four shrubs to the new planter9 irrarnediateiy west of the modt~lar building. 2. Prior to DRB review, the applicant shall subrrtit a lighting plan, irtdicating vvhere the new fixtures will be Iocated and that they conform to the Town's standards fior lighting, 3: The appiicant shaN sprinkie the structure in accordance with U C standards or document that the UBC does not require parkinge Dalton illiams recommended that the RB revievv the Iighting proposed #or this projecta Planning and Environmenia9 Gommission PAeeting AAinutes August 8, 1994 8 ' Je#f agreed with DaIton's suggestion artd sta#ed that the basic issue was that the Tovvn must abide by the Lighting Ordinance. The PEC members stated that the applicant shoaald upda#e a19 existing lights on the administra#ion building and the bus wash so that they are shi~lded. Bill Anderson asked uvhat the real purpose for the pedestriara stai ay vuaso Greg HaII, Town of Vaii Engineer, responded fhe stai ay met Fire Department access req ui rementse Bill Pierce 6nquired vvhether dr~inage problems in the ditch betuueen I-70 and the South Frontage Road would be addressed #hrough this reques#, ike ollsca stated that all's issue did not directly affect this proposal but that if there uvas indeed a problem with dradnage, that it should be addressedo ike requested that Greg Fiaii Iook intcr this situation. Greg responded that the l"ovvn was already trying to soIve this problem by reviewing the vvater lines in the area. Jef# owen made a motion that the request for aconditional use perrnit, to ailow for an expansion to the Publwc Work's adrninistration building9 be approved in accord~~~e with the sfaff rr~emo and vvi#h the three conditians on Page 4o# the staffi memo, with the addit0onal conditaon that the DFi rriust approve the proposed and existang lights on the bus wash and vicinity of the administration buildong9 and that #he ligh#s conform vuith the Town of 1/ail's Lighting CJrdinance. 'sll Anderson seconded the motion and a 6-0 vote appraved this i#ern, 6e A request for a setback varmance and an arnendment to a previously approved plan tca aIIow for four duplexes to be consfiructed at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, BIock 2, Lionsridge 3rd Fi6ing, Applicant; Steve GenslerlParkvvood Realty PIanner: Andy Knudtsen TABL 1 IITLY Jeff owen made a motmon to table this item indefinitely vv9#h ob Arrrrour secon ing the rr,otion. A 6-0 vote tabled this iterri indefinitely. 7. Arequest #or a conditional use perrnit to aiiow for the expansion of the Vail GoI# Course ciubhouse for r~ew Va°sl Recreation Disfrict office space to be Iocated at 1778 Vail ilalley riveOParf of the north 1/2 of Section 9, T 5S, R$0 , 6th P. m, Towrt of i/ail, Eagl~ ~ounty9 Colarado, Applicant. Vail ecreation istrict, represented by iI! Pierce Planner; Jim Curnutte TABLED 1 I I'T LY Planning and EnvSronmental Gommission nrieeting Iviinutes AugusY 6, i994 9 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table th3s item 6ndeffnitely with Bob Armour seconding the moticsn. A 6-0 vote tabled this item indefinitely. 8. A request to discuss a previous PEC approval regarding the use of zinc on th€; Lionshead Center Bu61ding, Applicant: Bili Pierce Planner; Andy Knudtsen Bill Pierce requested to change the prevlously approved zinc #ascia bands to copper fascia bands for the residential portion of the Lionshead Center Buildingo He felt thafi this copper band would tie together the Iower Ievels of the buildinge Jeff Bowen rr,ade a motion that the zinc fascia band be changed to capper. ob Armour seconded the motion and a 3-3 vote resu9ted in a deraial. After sorne discussion, Jeff Boenren rr'ade a motion that the zinc fascia band be changed to copper fascia band with Bola Armour seconding #he motiono A 4-2 vote approved this request. 9. Approve minutes from July 25, 1994 PEC rneeting, Jeff Bovven made a motion to approve the rrainutes from the July 25, 1994 PEC rrseeting with Da9ton illaams seconding the motionA A 6-0 vote approved the July 25, 1994 PEC rneeting minutesn 10, Council Update: •Joint PEC/Town Council worksession - i/aii Commons -on August 16, 1994 at 2;00 p.m,9 Council Charnbers. P9anning and Environmental Commissioii Meeting Minutes August 8, 1994 10 MEMORANDUM TOo Planning and Eravironmental Commissaon FRC7 : Community Development Departrraerat DAT'E: August 3, 1994 SU J~CTo A request #or a r ion for a setback variance to a61ow #or a new residence at 5128 Gore Circle%Lot 4, Block 3, Bighorra 5fih Addatiora. Applicant: Ghislaine de T'eronanne de Ferraandezirepresented by D~ane Piper Planner; Andy Knudtsen 1. PROJECT I 1 The architect for the project, Duane Piper9 has reqtsested a worksession w`sth the PIanning and Envirrrnmental Cornmission (PEC). FIe is in the enitial sfiages of hos design work and wouId like to unders#and if #he PEC believes a hardship on the site exists, pricsr to Duane doing development drawiragse As this 6s a worksession, staff thought it was appropriate for the archatect to be able tca discuss the optmons vvith the PEC. A bubble dravvang is attached to the end of this rnemo showing a general schema#ic 6ayout of the proposed res6dence. Prior to a firaa6 hearing of the site9 this drawing wiii be refined and vvill be a hardline dravving showing exact dimensions of the proposed residence. The schematic drawing shows a pian for a majority of the house to be Iocated on the eastern portfon of the site. A detached garage will be ]ocated on the vvestern por#ion of the site between two existing evergreerr treess The Iovver branches uvould have to be cut off of the trees to accomrr,odate the garage. The site is 22,350 square fieet, fthss, 14,666 square feet is iocated in the floodplain. f the remaining 7,684 square feet, 50% or 3,850 square feet is located outside the setback area. These numbers are prelirninary and must be confirmed by a surveyor prior to fina1 hearing. Sta## has calculated these numbers for discussion purposes only. 1111. ZONING STATI i Zonirtga SingBe Farnily ResidentiaB Lot Area: 22,350 square feet* Aliowed Proposed Heigh#: 33 feet (sIoping roof) n/a GRFA: (.25)(12,500) nla +(.10)(9,850) + 425 4,535 square feet Set ackse n/a Fronta 20 feet Side: 15 fieet Rear: 15 feet Site Coveragee 20% or 4,470 square feet n/a Landscaping: 60% or 13,410 square feet nia * us# be con#irrned by a surreyor Ilim I I i Staffi believ~~ ~t would be helpfui for the applicant9 and the newghborhood, if the PEC considered the following questions; 1, Is there a hardship on the sste and does st vvarrant a variance? Staff reccsgnizes that 3,850 square feet of the total 22,350 square feet site rnay be developed without a variance. The rest of the Iot is ei#her in setback area or fioodplain. Given these constraints4 staff believes that a variance is vvarrantedo 2. How much encroachrnent should be aIlovved and vvhere should this occur on- site? Staffi believes that it is critical that the exis#ing trees be preserved. Prior to the applicant pursuing the design to 9ocate the garage between the tuvo trees, staff would like rnore information from the architect understanding how construction could occur in this area and still preserve the treesa Another concern staff has vvi#h ioca#ing the garage between the three existing trees is that they would have to be 89iirnbed upB'. An aIternative rnay be to consolidate the structure on the eastern portion of the site and allow some encroachment into #he front se#back, 2 1 hat is a reasonable front setback? On sate visits, please be sure to compare the exist6ng front setbacks in the neighborhood to the one proposed for this site. IVe 1T 1 FINDINGS Upon revievv of Criteria and Firtdings, Section 18,62,060 of the iJaii unicipal Code, the Community Development Department recornmends approval/denia6 of the reques#ed variance based on the fo1louving factorsa A. Consideration o# Factors: 1. T r I ti + f t re t v ri c to t rxi ti r te ti l use n tr Ctures irt the viCir?it s 2e The re t hic r li f fr t trict n Iit r I i ter ret tio nd enfi rcement f cifi r I ti i nece ry t c ive compatibiii#y and ta if r ity f tr te t among site irt t vi inity r t a## i the o jec#ive f thi titl it out rant f special rivi#e a 3. T ff ct f the re u st v ri nc n 1i t and ir, i tri ti nof I ti rtp tr n rt ti rt and traffic fcilitie , public fciliti tilities, rt u 1ic s fe#yA B. Th~ ~9~r~ning ~r~d Environrn~nt~l C~rnrn~~~i~n ~h~ll rr~ak~ the foilova+ing hpd~g0 before 1. That the granteng of the var°sarace vvili not ccanstitute a gran# of special riviiege irsconsistent wa#h the Iimitations on other properties cIassified in the sarne district, 2. That the granting of the varaance vuill not be defirimen#aI to the publac health9 safety or vvelfare, or materiaily anjurious to properties or improvernents in the vicinity. 3. Tha# the variance is warranted for one or more of the foliowing reasonse a. The strict Imteral interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulafiion would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsisterrt with the objectives of this titlee be There are exceptions or extraordinary circurrrstances or conditiorts applicable to the sarne si#e of the variartce that do not app'Y 9enera#ly to other properties in the sarr'e zone. 3 C. The strict wnterpretation csr enforcemen# ofi the specified regulation wouId deprive the appl~~ant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other propert6es in #he same district. V. CONCLUSION As this is aworksession, sta#f has no formal recomrriendation. i/Ve believe the PEC should discuss the criteria and fsnd6ngs listed above and provide #eedback as tra whether a hardship exists ort the site and if the amcsunt cs# the requested variance is reasonabie. c:lpec\memos\fernan de.80$ 4 _'a ~f pw+aa5 ']mtlu : . . oaeII . aav~'. °°~gPeB~'%A da a~aa~ aYe ~a a~~anos p~ue • aenanaav aB ~°9~~~ S~ Y T dw Sa a P D~ dq spas n~ Lmr.ana aS'8dea~ "p{4a amYa dJTxama ZAaaaq oP,'e?~sal°'J 3e mas98 ~48 . . )a maeey aV~ aoqaes 6eaeaeqBea soCOaang pua°4 x°Rsswusa9 °E u4of °8 , . axvaa.asava3 s,xaaan~na • S 10 7 r. ~3 9HOp=3DVx,a1~ ~ 1t38 f] ' ,b0'961 ~,91,SbeS2 S nnaoa csn.~i~M aaas u~a i / O .a ae a / • ' owdm~s~~Za~oo~~ae°AO'i / m0ai a3lvlDaa3lNi) M~4'M ODOl9 na3n OOi ' ~ 3xu 0'v ~ / y p / / ~9 - J w~ r+ O Q ~ . a ~ ~ I o m g % , o Y ~ 1 ~ » ~ n X33AlbZaOU .__f~ A (~B 9p 3%03 3MAtlOd - m m y ~ 3NV! 6'do ' ic ~ ' ~ ' OI I ' raoIsiniaens >1332iO 3aoD 3aM p o 1 , ~~we . S1 9il ~ \ ~ M„Bl,SOmS2 5 ~ = sv . . _ ~ ~ , - ~ ~ . _ < _ _ ~ , . • v ' ~~~1 • , ~t~ff° d'°~.,~(~~ tl~ ~ , a . ~ , 00, . ~ _m - _ _ . ~ aMw ~ . : . - ~ . _ : ~ . . . a~ . ' ` , _ , • ~ " . a _ , . , . - . . : ; ~ , - . - r,- _,r, ~ ' ~ • , . ~ . , . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmenta! Commission FFiO : Community DeveIopment Department DATE; August 8, 1994 SIJBJECl°: A request for a wor si n tor height and density variances and a major CCII exterior aIteraticsn to the L°Ostello Buildirag Iocated at 705 est Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Iock 2, i/ail/L6onshead 3rd Filing, Applicant: Alien, Inc./John Dunn Planner; Randy Stouder L PROJECT I TI The appl~cant is requestirag approvai of a density variance, a hesght varaance and a rnajor ex#erior alteration to aIlovv for the addition ofi one free rnarket residential d+nrelAing urtit on the top IeveI of the L'Ostello Burlding. The applocant is proposing to expand the residential area of the L'Ostello Buiiding by cortverting the top floor from conference faci9ities to a single duvelling unit. The additional square footage will be accorramodated by add°eng dorrners to both the north and south ssdes of the building. The maxirnum build9ng height vvill not change from the current height of $2 feet. However, the dormers vvill puncture the roof plain and add rr,ass9 bulk and GRFA above the current height lirn6tation of 48 feet, Thus, a height variance is requsred. The addition of one dvvelling tanit to the property requ'sres a density varoance since the hotel is already over the rr,axirnum density (nurnber of units) aIBowed for this property, 111. BACKGROUND A. The 19q9 aro,p2s~LI in 1989, the L'Ostello uflding received unanimous Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approval fior an ex#er9or aIteration, height and density varaances in order to construct a project which included a conversion of fifth f1oor con#erence space into three accomrriodation units. L'OsteIlo a8so received approval #o convert o first flaor accommodation units to rraeeting roorr' space and to convert the basement garage into a mixed-use area that woiald include bakery and kitchen support for the restaurant, offices for the managernent, arad aworkout facility for the guests. Th'ss project a8so invoBered adding dormers to the south e6evation of the building in a sirnilar fashion #o the currerat propcasal. in revievuing C.'Ostello's 1989 application for a enss#y variance, staff noted that the varsance was appropriate and justified based on the recognized need to ad hotel roorr,s to the bed base in core areas of the T°own. S#aff no#ed that other properties including the Sitzmark, Christiania and T'ivoli Lodges had also receive density variances in order to aIlow increases in numbers of accommodation units. Staffi cited several points from the Vail Comprehensive Plan and the Vail Land lJse Plan that supported the decisirano Stafif aIso noted that the previous density variance approvals included at least one additional employee housing unst °sn each case. Thus, staffi recommended as a condition of the 1989 approval, that the PEC require that L'Ostello provide one deed restricted ernployee housing uraat. 1n support of the height variance, staff ncsted that the ex6stmng height of the building, being above the current heighf res#riction in this zone district, presented an unraecessary hardship to L'Oste61o that would prevent them from rernodel9ng the upper floor. Staf# feIt that the additiora o# dormers at a height Iess than the current maxirriurn height of the btailding was appropriate and vvould in°tprove the aesthetic appearance of the hotel. Sfaff felt that the proposed improvements were in harrnony with the guidelsnes established for the Loonshead area. Sgaff feIt that the other fmprovements being proposed vvith the application, including a new entryway for the north e1evation, and a comprehensive iandscaping plan for the property9 along vvith necessary maintenance type improverrten#s were very positAve components of #he applicatione In the end, only a portion of the approved project was completede The garage was converted arod the entry eIernent vvas added. !t is unclear from the record as to whether the emp6oyee unit was ever created and the appropriate deed restrictions filed. But, at is cIear that the top floor conversion and the dormers were never added, and the first floor units were not converted to con#erence spaceo The land~caping pian was never corrrapletely omplementeda B. The 1993 Pro osal In 19939 the appl'scant proposed #o expand fhe residen#iai area of the L' stello Building by approximately 2,000 square feet. The request en#ailed a height variance and dorrr,ers simi1ar to the 1989 proposal. However, the 1993 proposal invoiered the remtaval of thirteen accornmodatiora units on the floor below the top floor con#erence levelo The application involved creating four o-Ievel, free market dvvelling units, utilizing the tvvts fop floors of the hotel. In revieuving that applicatfon9 staff felt that the exterior a6teration criteria vvere general3y met, but stafif couId not fiind any physical hardship that ~ould aIlovv for the approval of the height variarace. Staff also noted that the Land lJse PIan did not support the conversion of accommodatiora units to condorriinium or dwel6ing units Staft cited Cornprehensive Plan policies vvhich en~ouraged maintenance of the existing bed base or the creation of additional accommodation units in the core areas of the l°own. Staff stated that there vvere other portions of the property that could be developed within the zoning restrictions applicable to the property, and9 thus, cou9d not support the redevelopment proposal which involved a height variance. Staff revmewed the 1989 proposal rooting that in 1989, staffi had dif#iculty justifying the hesght variance, but beiieved that the increase in accornrnodation units was a berrefit to the cornmunity as a whole and that the application as a whole vvould be an irnprovernen# to the community and was supported by the Land Use Plan, !n 1993, s#affi recognized that the praposa9 would be a positive irriprovernent to #he building architecturally, but feIt that st was important ta recogngze that the existing building vvas 2 34 feet over the allovvable height. Staff fe9t that it was inappropriate to alIow a building to ancrease its nonconformity, especially in light of the fact that the 1993 proposal was not ira keeping weth the Corriprehensive Plan goals caf rria°sntaining or adding to the accomrr,odation unit bed base in the core areas. Staff feIf that the decrease in accornra~odativn units vvas a critica9 difference betweera the 19$9 and 1993 proposals and therefore did not support the 1993 proposal, The PEC agreed with the staff posation on the height varaance and a motion for denial was unanimously approved. III. ZONING CY 1 Listed belovv are the pertiraent zon°sng parameters that regulate developrrient in the Comrrriercfai Core II zone d°astrict, Developmen# Standards Existing DeueloJoment Proposed Developmeni Site Area: IVot applicabie under 40,367 sq. ft. 40,367 sq. ft. development siandards. Setbacks: 10 feet IV: 65 feet No change S: 43 feet E: 24 feet W: 9.1 f2ei Height: 48 feet 82 feet 82 ieet GRFA: 32,290 sq. fi. 18,009 sq. ft. AU 18,009 sq. ft. Al1 (no change) +602 s~. ft. excess cammon area + 4,580 sq. ft. DU 18,611 sq. N. 22,5$9 sq. ft. C9nits: 25 DU's per acre or 23 Dt1's 52 AU°s 26 DU's) 52 AU's + 1 DU or a total ofi 27 DU's Gommon Area: 11,302 sq. ft. (35%) 11,904 sq. ft. {87%} 8,959 sq. ft. (28%) Restaurant: N/R 6,142 sq. fi. £,142 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 30,275 sq. ft. 67752 sq. R. 6,752 sq. it. Parking: Restaurant: Per Cmde 24.7 parking spaces 24.7 parking spaces AU: Per Code 38.8 perking spaces 38.$ parking spaces DU: Per Code + 0.0 parkinq spaces + 2.5 arkinq spaces 63.5 parking spaces 66.0 parking spaces 1Vo APPLICABLE I i V 1L COMPREHENSIVE L L BBPoIicy 1.3 T"he quality of developmenf shou6d be rnaintained and upgraded wherever possiblee Po9icy 1.12 Vail should accornmodate most of the additaonal grovvth in existing developed areas. PoIicy 2,2 The ski area, owners of fhe business community and l"own leaders shouBd vvork together close9y to make existang facilities of the Town ~un~~~on more efticaently. 3 Policy 3.1 The hote6 bed base should be preserved and used more effiiciently. PoIscy 3.3 Fiotels are importan# to the continued success of the Tovun o# °Vaii, therefore, conversion to condominiurr» should be discouraged. Policy 4.2 Increased density rn the Core areas is acceptable so Iong as exsstAng character of each area is preserved due to the irrzplementation of the lJrban Design Guide Plan and the Vail i/iIlage Master PIan. Policy 5.3 Affordabie employee housfng should be mad~ available through provate e##orts assisted by limited incent9ves provided by the Town o€ Vail with appropriate restrictions. Policy 5.5 The housing base should be preserved and upgraded, Addit6onal empioyee housing needs should be accomrnodated at various sites throughout the comrraunity.,, The qtsoted Comprehertsive PIan po9icies noted above indicate #he Town's desire for quality grauvth and redevelopment in existing Core areas of #he Town, l"hese policies alsa note #hat a cooperative partnership needs to be formed betvveen the Tovvn and its business communi#y to aIlow fior more efficient use of the existing hotel bed basee It is aBso clearly stated that affordable empioyee housing needs to be provided through private efforts and eracouraged by the Tavvrt, °The proposed developrraent wou8d increase density in the Core area, and is considered by staff to be an improvernent to the building from an architectural standpoin#, The Cornprehensive PIan poiscies cited above c9early support redevelopment if the appropriate zoning parameters can be met. Flowever, sta#f fieeis #ha# any increase in residential density, especoally free market units, should be accompanied by a proposal to add or irnprove the err,ployee housing base. V. COMPLIANCE 1 1 1 L CORE 11 cti n 18.26.010 r e: „l"he Commerciai Core 11 district is intended to provide si#es for a mixture of multiple dvueNangs, Iodges and cornrr,ercaal estab3ishrr'ents in a clustereci, unified development. Comrnercaai Core II district in accordar~~e with the Vail Liorashead Urban Des'sgn Guide Pian and Design Consideraticrns is intended to ensure adequate iight, air, open space and other arrienitses apprapriate to the permitted types of building and uses and to rnaintain the desirable qualities of the district by estab9ishing appropriate site developmen# startdardsa„ The proposai generally complies with this sectionm 4 Vla LI i GUIDELINES A, ei h# and s an : hi{e the application does not increase the rraaximum height of the building, it does increase the overall rnass ofi the building by raising the eave line of the roofi and increasing the mass and bulk of the building an its top filoor. Stafif recognizes that it 6s difficult to irnprove projec#s vvhich are nonconforming in regards to height, site coverage, and a91owable GRFA. hiowever, staf# #eeIs that it is irnportant to rr,aintain the current development standards on projects such as this one which is far in exce~s of the current height restrictaon. Staff recognizes that there are other portioras o# the praperty that couId be developed and st611 meet the zoning standards. S#afif recognizes that this vvould entail a major redeereloprraent of the property, which might include derr»Iition of a portion of the existing structure or at least a rr'ajor remodeling effort. B. Roofs: The proposai would add dormers to the existing gable roo# form, a traditional Vail s#yle of archi#ecture that is more at horrne in the ililiage Core or the Iovv density residential areas of the Towno l°he LOOnshead Des6gn Guidelines state that gabled roof forms shouid be avoided in the Lionshead area due to the more con#emporary appearance of most of the btaildings. This guidelirae, however, is not applicabie since the building currently has a gable style roof. AIso9 this guidelwne may not be in harmony with the recent0y restated visian of the `fown C~uncil for redevelopment in the Lionshead area in a rnor~ European aIpine character. T"he proposed addition of dorrners would obviousiy change the appearance of the south eIevatiort of the building. !t is staff's belief that it vvould improve the appearartce of the building in general. The smalier individual gabl~s wouid add variety to the Iarge gabled roofi #hat is currentfy existing9 breaking up the Iarge continuous mass ofi the currenf roof forrn. However, the gables add significantly to the rnass and bulk o# the building and a redesigrs to reduce this irnpact should be considered. The roof rriaterials are proposed tcz rnatch the existing roof vvhich is red tileo C. c e - 31 / tr cture ; The southern waII of the structure will not be changed, only the top floor roof forrn will be changed. Thus, this criteria is raot applicable. D. Facades - 1'r r c : The transparency o# the upper level will be increased with the addi#ion of the dor ers. Aiso, the guidelines in #his section speak to ground ievel addi#ions or remodels and are generally not appiicable ta this appiication. 5 E. cks an t; s: The proposal would add Iarge decks or baiconies to the top fIoor where #hey do not currently exist. ost of the discussion under this gtaideiine section deals with ground level decks and patios and thus9 are not applicable. F. cce t I e tse h1o change is proposeda G. L ndscape Eleme ts; The applicant has recently received approvaB to remodel the pool/plaza Ievel south ofi the existing hotel building. T"he approved p9ans are a major redeve1opment to this area and wouId provid~ ~substantial irr7provernent to the property by lovvering existing high retaining vvaBls and improving the pedestrian scaIe of this portoon of the property. Along with the proposal to redevelop the pool area, the applicant also proposed the same comprehensive Iandscaping package that was proposed with earlier applications in 1989 and 19930 oth the pool area redevelopment and the Iandscaping proposal were approved vufth conditiaras by the Design Review Board (DRB) on June 15g 1994e Staff reco nizes that the Iandscaping and the redevelopment af the poo1 area vvill provide significant improvements to the property if they are carried through to fruitaon. Fi, rvice n !iv ey4 Staff does not beiieve that there vvill be any ancrease or modification to the existing seroioce or delevery as a result of this application, VIl. T I i I L There are no subarea concepts for the property ~n which L' stello is iocated. Ilio HEIGHT VARIANCE The aIlowed height o# structures in CCII is 48 feet grom the existing or proposed grade, whichever is rraore restrictsven The applacant has designed the adde#ion ir~ a way such that the maximum ridge height is not increased, l"he current height of the building is approximate6y 82 feet. This proposal increases the amount of roof above the height restriction by raising the eave lines and there#ore, a height variance is required. IT° I FINDINGS A. Consideratson of Factors: 1. e rl#i n i f t r te v ri ce t ter xi ti r t ti I uses and str ct re i te vici At o 6 The proposal does not hav°e any maJor arrapacts on the existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The addition will increase buildang area above the height limi#, but will have little or no irripact on vievvs from adjacent properties. Staffi feels that the architec#ural and site improvemen#s to #he property being requested by the applicarat, along with the improvernents that have already been approved by the DB, would have a positive effect on surrounding properties. 2. h e re t ich r iief fr t trict and iit r 1 int r r t ti n n e f rc e t of specif'e regul tion is neces ry # ac ieve compati ility rt nifi r ity f tr tent among site irt t vicirti#y r#o ttain t jective f#hi titl ithout r t f ecial rivilegen S#a#f feels that granting a height variance to aiiovv top fIoor dormers for the addition of one free rnarket condominsurn unlt vuould be a grant of special privsiege. Staff fee6s #hat there is iottie to no justificatson for the requested height variance. Staff aIso believes that if this he°sght variance vvere granted, that there vvould be no reasonabie criteria to prevent other structures in the vicinity from proposing simiiar height varaances. Staff feeis that granting a height variance for the addi#ion of one free rnarket unit is not appropriate and is not justified in this caseo edeve9opment could occur on the property vvithout breaking the plane of the current roofm Other projects that have received height and density variances, involved the addition of accommodation unlts and employee housing units, thus enhancing the cornmunity bed base. 3s The ff ct f te r uested v ri ce rt li ht and air, i tri #i nof population, tr rt ti n rt tr ffic #cali#ie , ta lic fi ciliti rt tiliti s, rt u lic f tyo The application vvill not have any rr,aJor impact an any of the above criteria. B. The Plann6nci and nvironmental Cornrnission shall rnake the foIlowing findings before 1. That the grantrng of the variance vuipl not constiftate a grant of speciai prAvilege inconsisten# vvith the lirnitations on other proper#ies classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the varian~e wa61 not be detrirnental ta the publcc health, safety or welfare9 or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. °fhat the variance is vvarranted for one or more of the fo81owing reasonsm a. T'he strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified reguia#jon would r~sult in practical difficuity or unnecessary physicai hardship irtconsistent with the objectives of this ti#Ie. 7 b, T'here are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site ofi the variance tha# do not apply 9enerally to other proper#ies ira the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or en#orcement of the speclfied regulation vvould deprive the applicant o# privileges enjoyed by the ovvners of other properties in the ~ame districta Im I I ISSUES 1, The current use of the top fiioor conference space is fior temparary employee hotasing. This unit is an i18ega1 unit without kitchen facilwties, and currently house, the assistant manager. `fhe applicant is proposing t~ ~~nvert fhis space to a free market res9deratial dwelling unit. This is not acceptable to sta#f. I# the PEC finds that a height variance is justi#ied, the sta#f feels that ernpioyee housing should be prov6ded eIsewhere ort-site, 2e The applica#ion proposes to ct~nvert hotel conference space to dweiBirag unit space. Does this conversion meet the def0nation of condorriinium conversion? If so, Chapter 17.26 of the Subdivision egaalations wou1d apply (see attached) and the issues vvhich vvotaBd be raosed during the review of that sec#ion arvould need to be addressed by the applicant. 3. Is an existing nanconforming situation such as a height overage, grounds or justification for a variance? Has the appiicant proven a physical hardship? 40 lJnder what conditions, if any, would the P~~ support the applicartt's request to add a firee rrtarket dvveli9ng unit to the L'Ostello hotel? 5. Is the variance process the appropr6ate process under vvhich the proposed rerraodel should be considered. The SDD process °ss anather vehicle which could be used to review the projecto An SDD would a96ow flexibi4ity #o assess the application based on its merits or benefits to the comrnunity, The variance criteria are very specific and restrictive, and do not allovv the l"own the fireedom #o negotiate vvith the applicarat to provide the best possible solutions to prob6ems raised durdng the revievv of the redevelopment proposal for this property. However, it shouid be noted that the l"own Councii recently discussed same concerns they had with the SDD process, The Caunci9 requested that staff discotarage applicants from proposing use of the SDD process for the tame being. 6. Regarding the exterior alteration9 s#aff feels that the size and length of the dormers are excessive, and perhaps unnecessary as related to the addition of a single resident6a1 dweIRing unet on the top fioor. Staff feels that at a rninimurra, the number of dormers should be reduced and that thear rr,ass and bulk should aIso be reduced by elirriinating the portion of the gabled roof that overhangs the deckso Stafi# also feels that a different deck configuratwon and would heip reduce the rnass and bulk and irnprove the appearance of the proposed alteration #o the top floor. 8 7. Have public health9 safety, we!#are issues related to the Unsforrra Building Code ~IJBC) been adequately addressed at L'Ostello. Sfa## notes that severa0 improvements could be made to the property fo bring substandard iterr» into corripliance vvith the current lJBC. This may include retro-sprinklering the entire building. 8. The surface parkong lot on the north side of the buiiding has an excessive slope and presents an unsafe condition during #he uvirster moroths when ice and srtaw is on the ground. Staff feels that this parking Iot, ~s weil as the driveway aIong the east side of the building, could be improved to provide safe access to the prcrpertye The Public Works Departrr»n# is requesting several site irnproverrients includfng curb and gutter and possibly adding a storrr~ ~ewer to the property. Shou8d the request for curb, gutter and storrra sewer be applied to #his property as a condi#ion of approval? 9. The exterior finishes are currently irs a poor state ofi repair. Staff fee8s that #he entire exterior of the building shouid be Iooked at and #hat a!l defwciencies in the exterior fnishes should be rectified as a part of this exterior a6teration requesto 10. Rs a result of the 1989 approval, a beiow ground parkong garage vvas eliminated. The applicant was required to provide for parking through the Tovvn's pay-in-Iieu process. A contract was executed with the ovvners of L'Ostello and the first of fve payments vvas received by #he l`own. The owner then defaulted on the contract and currently owes the Tovvn a significant surn of rnoneya 9 a-: i ' ~ I ~'7'~6•~'~;~~a6 i I --~-u-_.li._.._~. i! i ~ i' i' ~ ii ~ ..~'_'I~~ T~I i I _ . i . . , . I 7..~~ i L I Il j ~ . ~ ~ ! Al~w ~oasth EIevation ~ ~ - , . ,...E~/ L... -L____." . . ^ r-T IL7-7-j , i ~ ~ ~--.9 - I ,~,~¢q I I -i--- ~ I I Ne or~h EIeva#ion . ~ -o , ' a a - b " = ~ • ~J ~F 7 ~ ! ~ad~ , • u~ ~ ~w~ ~'t j` r,~ . , ' ~d°~ 5ei , , ~ . ~ ~j~• I y k~~'~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . _ ~ _ ~ ~ M1 I E'_~.~r ~ . _ . r~~~~,R .~s~ ~ . : . . . ' I ` ' ~ , ~ ~ ~~~y . : ~ ~ : aea ~ . . . . ~ ` - c~•:.j } . . . ~ . ' ....,v,_.. . . ~ V : ~ ~ .,r.,~~~ l: ~ f° f . . ...f , . {9 ~ 4 BEST C - Y AVA I L A L F ~ ~ • ° ~ 'X , 00 + • . ° . i Twi~ w ~ , _ . ~ e~ ~ h . . . • • ~ -"t-p 5 . ~ .c. ~ ILJU ; ~ ~ i ~:ev ~ m~A ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ • ~ a $Q~ ~ , - ~ . . - . . . ~..Y ~ m ~ ~02ees~. . . i ~ Y• ~ ~ ~ : . . ~g 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~~t ~ievafil~n___ _ 95°~1~~°" ~ i + ~ . t---r---- , _ ~ ' I i I u ol ~ . . i ' ) . EZD ~ - E=]Fl ( I , r 9 A ~ ' ! . . . _ :.i ~ C~" ~ Exis$TClg F6fth FlooP P af8 _ 2 i 1_ ~ _ ----t- _ _ _ _ ~ , _ + - - - - - - ! ~ ~ a --s~= - =4--,~~-~•-~=_ ~ _ ' i iL~ r i ~---r-@-~-- IL ~--::-7 - , li ! ~ rr~~;~==--i~_'~ ~ e ~ - ~ ~ r ' -e P. i r.~Y?.r°Y; i'iY?~ ' \ e 1 . _ 'A7 4 . Ei ; U~--{-- - - - _ _ , a ; , . ~ ~ , ~ \ 1_-- _ _ _ _ . . r ~ ~ ~~v F ~ j ~ ~ - ~ hlow Fifth Floor Plarr - revised 10/5J92 App1ication Date May 23, 1994 PEC MEETING DATE , PIBI TI0N E'OFt A V IANCE I a This proceciure is required for any project ~e ue variance e 'I"h~ application wi.ll not kae accepted ur~til all informata.on is subrrittedm A. NAT~E OF AP£'LTCANT A1ien, Sncm ADDI'`PSs 705 W. Z,ionshead Circl.e Vai1., CO 81657 PHONE 303 476-0300 B. N1'iME 0F APPI,ICAN`I°'S REI'fZESEN`IaA'I°IVE JQhrz W. Dun2`t ADDRE;S 108 S. Froratage Road W. Suite 300 Vail, Colorado 81657 PI-iONE 303 476-0300 A li en, nc . aii Cm NI1ME OF OWNER(S) (typ~ o pri.n~:) .~listair Company, L~.mi~.ed OT~11~ EF~(S) S I Gt~T~. ~.7 RE (S) ADDRESS clo John W. Djan,, 10088 Sm Frontage Road W. #300 Vail yColorado 81657 PIiONE 303 476-0300 D. LQCATION OI' PROP{JSAL o LEGAL DESCRIPTTO2o7 o LOT 1 BLOCK 2 FILINGVai1/Liqnshead Third Filing ADDRESS 705 W. I,ionshead Circle, tTail, CO 81657 E a FEE $250.00 PAID *-gVcK BY ~ THE rEE MUST BE L'AID BEFORE THE COMMIJNITY DESIELflPMENT - DF'PARTMEN`I' WTLL ACCEP'TB YOt3R PROPOSAL. T° a ;t~amped, addreJsed envelapes of the namev of owners of a11 property adjacerat to the subject property INCLUL7TNG PIZOPER'I°X Z3EHINI3 AND ACROSS STFtEETS, anci a list of their names and rnailing addresses s THE APPLICANT 4JILL I3E RESPOIVSII3ZE FOIZ CORRECT MI1ZI,TIVG ADDRESSES a II. A pre°applicata.on conference with a planning ~taff member strongly suggested to determine if any additional a.nformation is neededo No application will be accepted zznless it is camplete (rriust include all items requixed by the zoning adrriinistrator)m It is the applicarat' s responsibility to make an appointment with the staff to fa.nd vut about dddit.ional submiLtal requirements o III oPLEASE NOTE THPT A CO LETE API'I,ICA.TT0N WILL STRE T,INE THE APPFZOVAL PROCESS FOR YOUR PI-tOJECT BY DECIZEAiIIeIG THE IVLIMBER OF CONDITIfJNS OE° APPR0VAI, TI-IAT `T'i-iE PLANNIiVG AND ENVIRflNIv1ENTJ3L COIb7id1ISSIOh1 (L'EC) Y STTPULATEa L CC3NL7ITION~ OF AI?PT3OtIXeT, WMT RP. t°°nrAPT.TPn ra°rmr-a Pr: r. nuP a ~ ~lO~f ~ ~ ? BA°~j~/ vQ.3' a ~+r vs . ~ , a X ~y~ L'Ostell t5 l ~ 4~ 705 W. Liorlsliead Cz.t'cle ti'ail, C ~ ~I ~ Al1.e31 IIleo May 13, 1994 ll t~ Fi T~ 1~1 ~ d _ Alicn Tnc:m 7~, i°c:ciucsti a lipag1jt ~ari,~n.ce foz° the L°C)steIlo lioteI. Oi°dis~ance Spction 28925mU9t1 I,triats tize I~.eiglzt c~f a st r4t~°~; tca 4~i'-i7"A `~P~e existiz~g strttcfit~°~° is 74°-S~ ab~~e the lcab2~}° 1pvr~l. °~'he ~ ° fifth f'ooi° a e tbe lcobk,y as aiow beneath the gat11ed reaof-0 Althozrgl-~ ~ -~dc3ed ivstli lzr-nitec3 clei°estoz-y slaylight. i,ngs the space is vrazc} of vi -°3e `1'he cvz1 a-sion of t:1ae top floor from mee1.big aM stcag°age ilooi3is to d.c4e2}ing-tniiYs necessitai:es the DtT1?y°tcri°iiig of the roof pJ.ane to allc~iv lighto (as reqtri.t°ef3 by the i.,t130 as :II s~s to ps- 'c3.k= view°s of Vai1°s 5pectacula° nat.uraI setting. °I°'he p posed r f a~~eratioxa cs°aiI 7aot exceeci the heigl-it csf the existing st.ruct ; the tiew t°ocaf Nvill be a n-.ia iti? .i of W°1.080 a})Uve the lobBJ;}t .IeVE'.lm . . The prs~presecl aIterativ»s ic3d°ess botll the Nc8a°t.h a.nd Soczt.li fg:ceL of the stmctii,e. Sited o» the r=;stlic•es[ ~xis the ho9e1 backs 3-ijt~3w~Av 70 to ti-ae Not°gh. F°r°o-Odizpg tz dca 7cr anc3 extencling the porticni of the trppr.r° i-oof ecnac2irJrates the existing vlesv e>$' the z;ov., blai-id guid ttap-h~lvy rtrvcl=F>. Add1Tig domZEHt°:; r-i1o7ag the soutliszde, breaks tlic t?izfldi.nes rxZass into ss7i.-ller compc~nenrs. 1'}3e;,e cozrzpanents defirie :j» ar4orac3ual Laiits - a on ic2n vocab€rlai°v thr°ougliout t`ail ti',11,age Vz'il Lionshear.le T"he c;v~.,t•all rffet:t.-i o1" the aIter:itjon o2l the s ottr:s'.trtg =xrea is minzrital, 'I°lae rinaxt pr°ofo ici effp-ct as visual. `I'he mc,clalic;,tiotZ alte''s t?se character aric1 perceptican oF the buil.c3ir'g whicli vziries "rith disg,:111ce fi-olai the vtrtJ.`.t.1-n°e. The ti?ig•gable vi:a-uc#.tL?°e:recc=c:es freas-sl -,°amt° d reat35 as ui edge to tlie nF ar paJ;sei•by %n.-aier°eas tbe p:°taposed r°r.ofline, ti'it.11 the. adr3.`ttiott of s]onne1°s, is i:rw.i.,Jcarmed isito a fcae°ni c}:z_°actc:risi:itd oi' c3t,:elliiag, 1'efleciing tlze Wzldi??g's usea s mentionea ab~%v-, the. roof mvc3iflcation brt-aks klle liateal pl<mof tlie, roof tnto snivller `I°'he gruat??° t~-ic distzir,(P, ta°ozra the stz-tta:ture9 the i-iior~ appai°ent rand ex3g-gez`ateti the exisi.iaig, roo1` p1ane becomcz.q Tiys breakitig the plartic into coanponents, the r f becciiies less t~~ ~~avy azid provsdes shapes r7,c,i°c sensit.ave to pedv3t.zi.as, sciie atlcl aestlzet;~csa St?t`z°ouridirag Iike-use st.?ucttn°es incic3cna~Mly xat,ge fronl i.h?:ee to eight 6tr.,z°ies ~.~ad are t'f siniilar maferisils. ik the f~~tt~:g•st?~~r~, t~~Y ~;e,~est~°ian xts~ c~~0 mc°slc BS nc't r~laer~;~l at the ~t°c~~ld leve?, ~`lle le,l)rrlCIz~ c~f the ~9?¢e tto &~e cc~nipletcd in 1~9J4 pending I~~t.T3 C~iial ap~az°a3), h~iweset00 c~iil, ~,'he , lo~,met`t s~a3l 1~~~~ae a c3t°- Zatic impi°csvenier~t; ~.t the pedestr2an sca1e ailcl i~rali ea~.cotz~°ige ~.tse asH ~ C~~?"'~°~° as, 'C~4' a 37°ao2°a? fl31Ee1"f°~t127g S~?c"iceffl.l.' LISC..'Ts c~I1C~ tSI.iJ.oC~ke2'sa eifect of lig}at c~~itl-in ita t~14a strctctxr'e is ft°e~'ae~sdc~crsiy i~s~pi'ove<1 aic~ the ef9ec~: o~ the c~ci:-3id~ i~tde oi° zzcr efa'ect. `T'I1e ~°t)oC alteY°~.t1C~t2 oil t}°te 37&33°t~3 Tate Clf t~1e T~TI3ldI31gj1°~).1 eXt~z~cl ~.1~e sY±aclcs~.v ~t sebTii~air~g ,aic~ erzdi~.g of ea<:eh c~ay~ (1ess so iI?. the s ei' zocJzltla~s t1~m in. the ~t~irstei ~~,ont.h5a) ~t~s° the overall. ;~~sof ~3eigh8 c3t~es iioL s~a.c?•easee the itic~reased shact~~a z~sll ~be nZirt,.~.~.lo "I'he t o~~ rh~: sc>zrth sici.n inaill be leess a.,s the altet a~.i~, ~c~Il th1°a= the ra~~jcarity c~f° the s~,ad~v at cT'eat~ ot,to t.he a'oofa ThC:i°e Z'.1II be 11CA efrect o11 ftl2a, dist.a •ihcitioil of popuIaticarsq r,r F,tiblrc safetyo The Contractor sh.all 3 take evezy p1°a:C6t1It,loT1 foc• tI'~° pLZblicas safetv dcr.rb»g conaCa°crction, Transport;aCion wi11 Yc. cleci•e-isccl bec:r:u,De of the reductitszt 1.r1 the 13ct??`rber° of its. : A _ raewisstd 9I26194 Date t3f Applicatson May 23, 1994 _ Date of PEC Meeting A L! °fI F XTRI ALTE °fi IFIC TtQ S 1 OMMERCiAL, CORE 11 L1ONSHEA IF°1anning and Environmenta8 Corrarnission review is required for the alteration of an exasting buiiding which adds or removes any enclosed floor area or oufdoor patio or the replacerr3erat of an existing bui1dang 9ocated in the CCI1 Distrlct. FOLLC.3WlNG PEC A$ PROVALq THE PROLDE4.9T BbSUST BE 0 6EVIEb%ED BY Ti 3E DESI9.AN d IEVaEtlM BOARD (DRB)e . 7°he application wil1 not be acce te tantat aIl infor atlon and fees are submi#ted. A. NAtViE OF AF'PL1CANT° ~racADDRESS 705 W. Lionshead Czr.cle Vail, CO 81657 i'HOPfE 303 476-2050 B. NAME OF APPL! A~$REPRE RITt ~IE John W. Da~nn of D~zz~n, Abplanalp ADDF~ESS ~ ntage oa C r~s~~nse~1, P~ C~ Vail, CO E3657 PHOPVE303 476-0300 C. f4AM~ BUiLDlNG OVVNER(S) (Prirtt or Type) Alien, Inceand Alistair ~ompany , L.i-ma. e i Fl~f ADDF3ESS c oJoh W. Dunn 108 S. Frcan-tacare Poad vd4 300 Vazl, CO PHONE 303 476-0300 (Condorniniurn Assoclation approval vvill a1so be required9 if appl3cablem) D. LOCA1`iON CJF PROPOSAL; LEGAL DESCRIPT°1C7No Lot l, Block 2, Vail/Lionshead Third Fi1.ing AppRES;; 705 W. Lionshead Circle, Vail CO 81657 E. FEE - $200°oa (LEss THAN 100 SQ. p) x $500°oo (MORE THAN 100 s Q. FTa) z PA,D $n'~D CK BY ~ TFiE FEE MUST PAiD BEF RE THE C MM11N1 DE1tELOPME(VT DEPARTMEN`f ILL ACCEPI° YOtJR PR F' SALm . il. PRE-APPLlCAT10N CONFERENCEa A pre-application conference wifh a p1anning staff member as strongly suggested to cietermine if any additionai inforrr'ation 3s needed. No appiscatson wil1 be accepted unless it is complete (must include all items required by the zoning administrator). It is the appiicant's responsibil9Yy #o make an appointrnent w?th the staff to #ind out about addltional submittal requiremen#ss 111< F'LEASE NOi° Ti-IAT A C LTA,PPL1CAl°lON ILL STREAMLlrSc Tl-!E APPROVAL PROCESS FOR YOIIR PROJEC7 BY DECREAS1NG THE iVIJMBER OF CONDITIONS OF APF'FiOVAL 1°HAT THE PEC MAY STIPllLATE. ALL, CONDITIONS OF APPFtnvAl M11.q°T RF COMPL1ED WITH BEFORE A BU1LD1NG PERMIT 1S ` stpllo 1 705 W. LionsheacI Cit°c1e vail, C Al ien Inc. _ Niay 23,1994 The pix?r,ost-:d altt=r°atzu2 of the L°Ostel.lo I-~~~e! itlcItii3e?~ i1~ertit1g tZ~~ top tivo 1evels of the stt-c~~tLwe t(I h1°o -str,) - y dualli3ag unitsA pr°ovidiz?g additional fire safety d providing m.iscell anec,:czs sit~ imp3°ovEment.s suc:h a5 the additic,oi of ctu°Yr gt,tttere Fl.azp impz`bvemenfis wiII be c:omp1-ete<3 in 1~'1~-1 pending I7Rlr fii7ztl. ;-~pprova6o These two il.tsora crr,°`rent.I,' encornpass }icateI rc~~ins ort the. Iou~es° 1evei aiad mee2ing, rvoi-ri azacl stm~age arl t;be tzrs~pet° leveln `rl1e m6~in h~h-~v, spa~~ss of the dwei3i.ng zrrii~s,,,.°i11 be located an the .~er 1evel whicI1 as c e.ratly ca?e spaceaBy aItering the r°e3of stTztct `vhi3c-, maintainin?° the e.irtTezit l,eight, the livin~ ~~~~~,5 wall be, pr°mric~~d wi th natura2 ifght as we1I :Ls vim" towai°c1E, ttie r~~omitains. T'ie existing struc:l.trre, cuz-r~-r'tlv ctsed as a3°aotcI alongtkit,h tiiziiRg anei bat° aI°~~ on the Iohby 1eve), . tTfletts zhe buiir3ing's u,3e4 "'h~ f~,°r~~ cs3~ tl~c st7°itctxu-e is a b~.~.sic a°tc~.z~gzrl~°~° box ~~~t~~ projevtin~ b-1cnnies ahoTa°e9 MTakiik~,p fi.i°e siaixs at eit.lbcs° eni1 dso-me breaks in the i;at plane aIorig the 9eb}~y level, °I`he mairi level garov °sr,3~~ triei{Ts in ar,.d Fz°~iT3 the lobby vAth sTot°efropt. `rtc3ows9 cti°I'erea5 t13euppea° floors havea grcgster i•aiio of wa11 to t~°andu°sv are~ ap . pxoprfate3v teradiiig itself to g.`E:i4t.e8" pI'IS7a`SCJy. Tli~- hoa°izmtal b~ndirit: of' rhe laot-1 rooin halcoi'ieg 5uggests ac;ces odation ,raits. Tl'eexzstin~; rr~of a gr~bae ~2tz°czct.: c~it1~ cterestot°~ a?~an~° the x~o~°t.},. ~ici~°4 7'he ffis€: phasc: e-9' tlic t-tpork, td°rt- plaza imptwei2xcl-its tviIl encts mige pedesti°ian aci:zvity, by pr°cavidieig a more orf,~4enized hierarct°ay of pr°izriar3a and uecondray spaces. The bt•eak.ing down p1 t~,e rtr,w ta11 concz`ete retr,iiiing tivalls irato sma).ler stegp~d walls soi`te.ned by kmdsvaping wiit Jraiv 2?~~e floor eIe", tS.ozi clo~er tca 0.a1,reet level anti eaacotiarige ped~st.s°i f?ot~~. The a-oof alteratican wzil reclr-fiize t1he btta.lcling°~ chang-P, ara czse ora the t~p pol•tioii f.rL,. ~~M•,Tpiallodation uniYs to dwel?ing° rmits by br°eaking the roo.f plame intc: fo ° ccsmponen~s or fo ci~nellan~° rn,it.s ma tyT>i.cal e:T,res=sicm folmd throughotxt Vaii Vitt~e anci Z1ail Laonsheado The z,1teratioi' %°ill not 1i-ave w-z impact P-t the pedeStz°iazZ sr,ale with the exCeptioz2 of the tristtai it»pr-oveznerct. of the +sf7ine. T'he Uuilc3.ings hcsrizonk:al ~dfv, the street enclasime & streetscape fraizzmork, agaiTi, is not. iz-opacted.. T'h~ existzng balcony nhove the Iobby IeveI presvides a pec?eq ti°im1 erripIovusis alaarg the jal~za. The al.teration occirs abov-e the canopyn the ba1coni.ezi, wlr1 t}'e cxist.itag rcaof° e(lge. The qLialit), of lighr a,d ~xithin th:e st.t'tzetTAs°e k.s ~~~emez,r!ous.ly in-iproved zaZd the effect on tl3e oir.t,;ide 3'M little or not ei"fect.s The caf aIt.eratiora. of g17enort-h f.ace of the bv.~ldkgi6lI extend r"r-se shacicxi9 r~t #f,'e beginnzr~z aiid endii2g o.f each day (.less so iii thc- sc =et° izloz~ths than iti the wintermonths,) B'eca e a}ie overa11 of height does isot iYlcrea,.~e, the izacrea.sed shadov.= `l.l be mini -a1, TI~e effect on the sozatl-i cide i,-itl he IE:ss m tk'e a1tei°ation ~°ill i.hr the majoIlty of t.}ie sla ws it creates back ni-ito ~l,a i°oof. ~ Vie, a1terataon wsll open the top floos° creat;ngvzeAs to the 2ntaimtainss T'he existiz7g .f°ene'#.z aticsri is liialloMng oniy viecvs UPWair°dse ~ # . ~~m~~ ~ ~ ~ ~:a 01 ~ ~ I'D ~ ___P--- _ k '•J~?,~%``.~? ft ~i~ `1 b~ ~ s^ . r' ~°~~~~yr lsrl ~ ~ 4 ~ w S ~t ~q rrl' ,•f ~r ~ 1 k~~ ~ ' 4 5 dt 9~~~ d ~ A cjt3 { /Pa. ~ p L i , e4 ~0 0 °f' j t ~ ~ P AAA t j- `^a~`'"'^° i _ I ~ ~ ~ t 1L12) 1 00 " C4 V) Ln s } e sd 1? Vl? of r- ~ ~ ~CT Q cri c o-- ~ ~ _ _ ~ - ~ , s e + ~ cl~ ~ ~ ~ID P ~ +d7 ~s r I ~ zz~ ta ~ 8 I ; I e$ . a ~ . , _ i UUTT sTvcco. a ~ UoTTA Ce>LO c~ I a ~ ° o t'- At, . ' " 0 ~ • ~ ~ t!3 fr ~ , , , ~ ~ cn r- - ~ ~ . ~ ~ ' I ~~J ~ CD Vk- ~ 4 a ~ ~ t , ~ fl 4 6rA • ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ rs ~ ~ c-m \e-Aa a 'p w a,~ ~ ~{1 r . ~ ~ Q 114 e. W_.. 7 ~d 4 e~v l A._ Al 1 LA~ q~ 'a ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ LrI t- ;Z1 ~ ~ 0 ~ f ~ ~ t7 Y~.d'°.• e.`~ ` 9 ~4 0) .~g,1 ~ e\ qe d ~ ~,,~~^e, ' ~r p d ~ ~a ' ' . , ' ~ ~ ° ~ y;KA r ' ~9'~ . , ~ • , , 4 6 , ~ ~ ~ /°q 0. ~ r° l '«•°8°' % i ~ e r~'F ' . '~q ~ , ~ °r`. o ~ _ . I~ • . ' 4 ~ . i. ~ E8VlOB"iA88D1.7 • TOm P1anning and Environrraental Commission FROM,e Ccarnmunity Dc-vefopment Deparirnent DA°TE: July 12, 1993 a . SUBJECTs A request for a height vadance and a maJor exterior aJferation of the L`Ostel6o : Condom?nium Building located at 705 VVest Lionshead Circle/Lot 39 Block 2, Vai! L3onshead 48h Fiignga Applicanta L'Osfello Condominiums P1anner: Sheily Mello !o DESCRIPT!ON OF TF3E RE t3EST'S ?°he applicant gs proposing to expand the residential area ofi the L'Ostello Building by 2,059 ?°qv,-s.ry {r,ry+ '7°$ary r(o''~C'`~v'G 4dd;le°IrI ~;ri11 rrs tron~9n(i on 9f°;n ser°nnp ln,er5~ nf t3°~o bt?slt{1?l,?n api . , b y,d ' ~ (i 1^, ~ include cotiverting exisiing conference area and accor-nniodation uriits ort ttie 4oueth and liftii floors to ddlBeiling unitsa The additianal square footage wa1l be accommodated by adding dormers to both the norfh and sou#h s?des of itae buiidiraga °The rii irr~~rrn building height will no# change as the radge height of the building does r~ot irrcrease. ~The existirag m irnurn building height is 82 feeta The dorrrrers wili be at approxlmafely the sarne Ievel as the existing ridge lines The specifsc modi;ications to the project include the followinga i. The addition of dormers to the iop f1oor which w191 ad 2,209 ~quare feet of fioor areao 29 °fhe removal of fourteen accommodafion un6. The addition of four free market dweliing units wlth three 10 4. The combinaiion of two accommodation tanits into asing1e accornmodation SUitem 5, Landscaping of the nor#h and south berms, 6. The renovation o# the pooi area. Th~ swirnaning pool will be rerncaved and replaced with landscaping and an otatdoor spa. 7. The #ifth #1oor con{erence ar~a wi11 be removedm °There wiii be no remaining confierence area in the busldingm In order fo achieve the reneuation of thfs buidding, the applicant must obfain approval ofa 1) request for a height varrance as the additional building being constructed wi1l be above the 1 t a!lowed hesght of 48 feet, and 2) a Commerciai Core 11 exterior alterationm lid BACKGROUND !n 1989, the L'Oste9lcs propert}a received an exterior ni#eration and heighf and densify varfances in order to construct a profect which included the conversi9n of the fiith floor conference space into three accorrtmodation tanitse on the first fioor two accommodation units wouid be removed and converfed to meeting room space and the basement garage wauld be converted to t comrnon area. This project was accomplished by adding dormers 1o the buiiding whrch did not exceed the exasfing building height of approximatefy 82 #eet. 7°he dormers were located on the south facing poriaon of the buiidingb _ densdty variance was also re u?red at that time as the project exceeded the a11owabie . derastfiy o twenty-three dwe111ng unitsa The sfaff recommended approva& of th~ hei htand d: r~st v~rrar~c~s t xP rir mca or~ea prt~val ihe ~s~c~ or~ the rec0 r~aneed to ~dd h 0rr~s ia th~ bed bas~. !t v~~s r~oted ~t th~t ti~ra~ i~~ cathe r pr~pe rties incJ~dir~g the ~i tzmark, Christian ia and Tivoii 1 0 ge s had also re ceived r~~ity variances in order tt~ accc~r~rtiod~.te ir~creases in accorr~rrjodatior~ ur~3#s. With the ,epproval of the variar~cea the io11ov~ing cor~dftions ~~ere ~,ppiieda 1, An emnlnvp.p hoiisjna i'~~t was provided. The employee ianit resfrictiflnS are ~ ' iile at Eagle Courttya iiiis uAait taed i",ui cutatii tcrwascas caelisilyo 1 2e That gas fareplaces be used in the three r~ew accommodation uni#s on the p floorm ~~v ~ W3th the extedor aiteration requests a nevv entry was added to the north efevation. A comprehensive Iandscape pian aisa was approved. VVhen the garage was coraverfed io accessory uses, sixteen on-site parking spaces vvere removed and cornpensated for b y paymen# into the parking funda ._In the end9 0nly a p~rt?~~ ~f this appli~ata~r~ v~a ~ com~let~ds 1°his ir~ciuded the coraversion oi fhe gMe the addit ion o# th ~I~rra~r~# a~d the filir~g ~f e restricti~r~s for the erra~p oye ~ ~n itm ~r the dc~rrr~ers ar~d ~c~nve rslc~n 0 co r~'eren~~ space t rrtmodataon units nor the 9andscapsng e ements o te app ~ rt w~r~ completed. At the fime that this application was being discussedy it was stspulated that a letter of credit wou1d be provided for the cost of the landscaping work prior to the release of 1"GO`s for this building. At the tirne that the app}icant requested TCO's, a 1etter of credit was obtairred frorrt the owner. Nowever, due to the barrkruptcy of the prev~ous appi:cant, ih9s ietter was never co11ected upon nor was the work cornpleteds The r~ew owners of the property are now piannang to change the appiicatlon to a11ow for dwe(ifng tanits versus accomrnodation unifs on the fifih floor as previously approved. The iandscaping rs included in the cur;ent appiicat±can. There are no changes proposed for the rest of the building except the combining of two accomrnodati9n units into one unite 2 !f!. ZON1NG ANALYSIS L.zs#ed below 1s the zor;ang ana(ysis ALLOWED DEVa EXiSTING i'RQPOSED . STAivDARDS DEVELCFP?CiJT DE°JELGr=1tilEtJi S9te Afea: 4{),357 sq, ft. 40,367 sq. ft. 40,367 sq, f$ Seibackse 10 ft. noathm 65 fte no change sovih; 43 K, ' east: 24 ft. tvesi: 9,1 9t. Hei9nta a$ sc, 82 tt, max. 82 ft4 max, . GRFAa ' 32,293 sq. fto (80%) 18,003 sq, ft. Al1 + 13,426 AtJ +$,374 Dt! = 602 exeess corrrmon area 21,804 sq. ft. + = 16,611 sqe fta 130 GXcess r-ommon ° 21,939 sq. ft. Unats: 25 unats per acre 59 All or 25.5 DU + 37 F,!! or 19,5 DU + 23 tanits 1c-mp ttniF 4[JU {3 LO} = 22.5 DU a- 3 emp ucai2 Employee D'rwellirlta Utai;~: -J- t (363 ;;4. f1.) 1 53 ;,y. (tj {.°6PfltT10i1 Ate8; 390302 Sti. $4, (35%) 11a904 Sq. ft. 11,432 sg. ft. ° Rc-staurantlComrnerciaH: -0m 6,142 sq, ft, 6e142 sq, ft, Sita Cavetagee 30,275 sq. ft, &e752 sqo $t. 6,752 sq. 9t. Paa§Cing: 63,85 spaees 62.63 spaces }ialls!Mech: °o° -0° Restaurant° 24.7 parking spaces 24.7 parking spaces Fall> 98.15 parking spaces 27.93 parking spaces DUo -0- parking spaces 10 parking spaees Emp tlnitse 1 ~~r~:na sp~ces 3 pa~~in~ sP~~e~ 1'oiai Parkirsg: 63,55 paMng spaces 62.63 parking spaees lVp APPLICABL POLiC1ES IN 1'FiE VA(L COMPREHE SfV PLA AND LAND L1SE PLA E2iigy 3j The hotel bed base should be preserved and used rnore efflciently. E2ii~ 3°he Viilage and Lionshead are the bes# locat3ons for hotels to serve fhe tufure needs of ihe destinatlon skierss Poliqv 4.2 lncreased dens3ty in 4he core areas is accepfable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved due to impiementation oi #he llrban Desigr~ Guide Plan and Vaai Village Master PIane 3 Eali~ ,Affordabie employee housing shotald be rnade avarlabie #hrough private efforfs assisted by llmited incentives provided by the Town of Vai1 with appropriate restrictionsn Policv 5.5 The existing employee housinq base shoufd be preserved and upgradede Additional employee housing should be accotnmodated at various sites fhrotaghout the communitya In the Land L1se f'iany the L'Osfelio site is 19sted, as a resort accorrlmodatlon and service areaa } It clearly statesa "ihese are the ar~~s where hofel uses wiil be concenfrated during the planning period, reflecting the community's goals to ctancentrafe hotels w°sihin the core aream'A ttVith Comrnercjal Core !I zoniragp the pro}ect is a11owed to have twenty-three dweliing un1fs or forty-sisc accomrttodation uni#sm The exisiing project has fifty-one accommodai3on units. This results in the exssting building being over the a.llowabie dens)ty by 2.5 dwelling urr1#s or five accQmmodation unitse The remodef wou1d have a net decrease of three dwefling units bringing it into conformance 11ri1h3n the allowed density of twenty-three dweiling uni#sA This is accornplished by the rernoval of tharteen accomrnodaiion taraifs or 6.5 dvvel9i~g units and the conversion of Mo accommodaiion unifs fo one single unrtm There is a raet decrease of seven dwelling units or fourteen accommodation uniiso The applicant is proposing to substetute the accomrrr»dat°son «nfts wlth fiour dwellinq units wiih one iockoff a#fiached to three of the unifse U1ilik-e iile pIi;vlUtrs p9irptasiii, is a-atJ aaei;d ft3f ii leet)vaisy 'Jc"3tlra&"s(,im a.le:s: lo af;{; ua;Cr(;d:ase a3i overall densitya V. COMPL1ANC~ ~ITH T°FiE PIJRPOSE SECT"fON OF ~OMMERCIAL CflRE 11 "Section 18,26.010 -Purp2se 1 he Commercia3 Core 11 Distdct is an#ended to provide ~Res for a rnixture of multiple dwellings, lodgese and cornmercial establlshments in a clustered, unified deveIopmento Commercial Core 11 District in accordance rprith the Vajl Lionshead tJrban Design Plan arad Design Consideratians is intended fo insure adequate iight9 afrH open space and other amenities appropriate to the perinitted types of buildings and uses and to main#ain the desirable qualities of the distric# by establishing the appropdate sife development s#andards.°, °fhe proposa6 gerteral(y complies with thrs section, however, we are concefned about the reduction on the number of accommodaiion uniisa C---°- iJlm LIONSFiE;4 iJRBAN D S1GN GlJlDEL! ES A. Neiqht and MassiM. VVhele the application does not increase the m irrr»m height of the buiidinge it does increase the overall mass of the bui(ding by raising the eave line of the roof and increasing the mass and bulk o# the building on its top floor. T'he staff recognfzes that it is diffi?cuft to improve projects which are nonconforrrling in terms of the devefopmeni standards such as height, site coverageB GRFAm etc, Howevera staf# fiee1s that it is important to ma1nta±n standards on pro;ects such as this one wh[ch are aIready in excess of their zoningo The staf# recognszes that oiher ) trtjr~~~ ~f t?,~ c°~u1d 4 be devef~ ed and sti1l rraeet the zo~~~~ - In 1989a ihe staff dld support ar~ 2pplicaric~n similar to this proposal ~ti~~:ich used ~~rrr3ers on thfs buiiding #cs accommodaiQ an increase in accornmodation units. A# that ~ time9 Ah4 sIGdII Cd{Sl/ 9e8t SIIQt IL %vQs UiIdIieSAlt tV IUsIIi'y Gd heigII` Y4/4UiBce, but believed that ~he increase in accommodation units was a benetit to the corramunity as awhole which s supporied by the Land llse Plano Whsle s#aef feefs fhat thas proposal would be a positsve jmprovernent 'lo the building archisectu raily, iare aeel that it is impor#ant to recognize 'khat the exis'iing bullding is 34 feet over ihe allowed heighin We find #hat it is i'na ppropreate #o a11ow a buildenc~ tra continue to incdease to accarnmodate ~ om lar~ a i 1 r! ir~ res ecf to the r~eed t~ r~serve a6 lfll~t~\1~ I~t~~ll1~ tJfi3lS ~nd conference space, B. Roofltlaa There woufd be no change to the roo,enga The mate~als wilf rraaech the ex1s'Lang roof which rs red t11e. C. Facade Wail S#ructures, There will be no change #o the building at the ground Ieveim Oniy thp- facade of the fiffh floor wi11 be changedo The changes »gill consis# of the addition of bay vrindowsa l"he building w3li remain fiinished with stuccom D. Facade The transparency of the upper Ievel will be incrcased with the addition of the dormersm Because this addstion is at the flfih fIoC9f a this criter?a is not appiacable. l"his criteda addresses concer~s wiih first floor retasl areas. E. Decks and Pafios, l°he exisiitag pati~ the souih side will be redesigned9 bUt Clo addltlofial deck of patio ws1l be added, F. Accent Eiementss hJo changem G. Landscaoe E1ementso T"he applicant Is proposing to ins#a13 a landscape plan simslar to that tivhich was approved with the 1989 applicationm The appl3cant has received approval from the Co1orado Departmeni of Transporfatzon for the proposed landscapang aIong the ~orth be adjacen# to the South Frontage RoadW T°he applicant 3s also proposing to fandscape the berm on the souih side of the propeatym Should the height vadance and 5 exterior aiteration request be approved, the sfaff wouId like to see the Iandscaping on ihe south berrn encreased wiih addit:onal decidua~s arad evergreen treesm H. Service and De1iverv. Sta#f does not believe that there will be any increave in service or delivery as a result of this applaca#ion bQcause the number of units wi1l not be increasedo VI1e SUB AREA CONCEPTS C3F THE LlONSEiEAD LlRBAN DES1GN GC11t7E PLA l`here are no sub area concepts for ihe property on which #he L°Osiello project 3s located. VJfIo NESGHT VARIANCE The aIlovred heigh# of s#ructures in CCii is 48 feet from the exisiing or proposed grade, Lti?h8chever is rnore restrict3veo The applicari has designed the addiiion in a avay such fhat ihe m imurn ridge height is not increaseda The current heaght of the building is approxlmatefy $2 feete The proposal does increase the arr»unt of roof that tPt=ould exceed the a11owed height by raising the eave Ianeo There;ore a height variance is required. Criteria and Findi~~~ ~ Upon review of Crlferia and Findings, Sec#lon 18.62.060 ofi #he VaiI Munacipal CodeH ihe Co(('t1mun(fy DeveIop3Tief1t Depaf$ftleflt fecot8°it71ends qedliaJ Ot the requested varaance based on the folfoi1'ing factorsa A. Censideraf3on of Factorse 10 The relationshfp of the requested varrance to other existing or potential uses and s2ructures in the viciraitye The proposai does not have any major impacts on the existing or po#ential uses and striac#ures an the vicgnity. The additiort wi11 increase buiiding area above the height limi# which may arnpact vietivs from adjacent properties to a certain extente although the overall r1dge height does not increaeeo The Iandscaping improvemen±s wall be posl'live and are neAded, Z The degree 2o which relief from the strict and literal interpretation 'kJ and enforcement of a specified regulation as raecessary io achieve compatibility and uniforrnity of ireatment among s'stes in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilegem i With the 1989 appl3cation9 additional accommodatlon un6ts were being acquir~do In this proposai, ihe t~u~rtber of accort~rnoda#ior~ ur~its is decreased by four#eer~ unitso The s#affi feels that this is acr~fical ditference betweer~ the applicationsm ~ Lp~ The staff finds that fhis proposal is not consisten# dAriYh the obJectives ot the ~ Land lJse Plan. v °~hel~#~~f ~it~ds that th~re ar ciated ~~~`iih thls ° a rad th~t t9~e gr~nting 9f a variance for h~i ht rtirould be a rar~t of s ~c°sa! r~vil~ V~ 0b v prole~ s th~t h~v~ r~cel~~e~ varaances `or expansions of this nature, addit(onai accommcadation unais have been acquirsd for the communfty bed baseo Wtth this applications faurteen accomrnodation uniis wili be rerzioved and four dweliiii uniis ~ad Tlee ~ iicant nas r~~t pr~ osed tc~ de~d retitn~fi th~s~ ~~its ~r i n ~ 6 LII~4I6dC~~ ~PbPhich r~q~ir~ it~~t ~he ~r~it~ b~ r~r~~~d d~rin ~~rta~~ peri~d~ of th~ gar, ' J°i°he eta1$ finds 4t difficult #o support an appliCa#iot1 of th9s natuCem 3~~wa-ver, the stalif wcauld suggest tha# the applicant consider pursuing a Spec9=1 Development Distdct zoning Due io the difference 1n reti,iew cri#eria, the staif verou9d be better ab1e #o review the app9lcat:on based on its rr;eritso With an SDD application, ihe sLCsIf v9'fluld suggeest that the applicant conslder restric#ing the remainder of the accommodation ur?iis pe ar;ently to rental units ar2d efirninafe the possibility cf ccndominium convrrsion fcr these uni'ksa We %°rotald aIso l'Ike io sev additional r ea,,,ployee uni#s added to the projec#. Some or a!i of the d%veilarag uni#s may be yx aPPropdate to deed resirset so ~hat these units are required io be renied tivher~ the o~+~r~ers are not usir~g their unats durir~g speclflc $If~te .~`refloL~S. By taking this approach where there is a publtc benefi#, ihe sta;f would, beier be ab1e fa ~ i,lild~aldcl ad6 u~J~a~t,ataUi! ~'aa~AC..aa uc;vie.a~tiJ.a avaai s<v 164o0t~la6 Jtc.aat.es<ava. °the effect of the requested var?ance on light and azr, distribu{ion of populatiors, tCanSpof°tatlo(i at7d $Caafic faciiities, public facil'aties and utilities, and public safety, The app1icataon wa11 not have any major 3mpact on any of the above critedaa B. °The Pfann1na and Er,vironrnenta( Commission sha9l make the #o11owing findin~~ ~ -Q before arantina a varjancem 1 . That the grar,ting of the variance will not constitute a grant of specSal rU,ou pravilege inconsistent wsth ihe limifations on oihet propetlies ciaSSified in the same disfricte 2m That the gran'iing of the variance wili not be detrimen#a! ~o 'the public healths safety or welfarea or maYeria1iy injudous to properlties or fmprovernents in ihe vicinitym 3. 1°ha# the variance is warranted for one or more of the foI1owing reasonso aa l"he sfrict 13feral inferpre#aaion or enforcement cf the speci#ied regulatIon wouid resu1t in practicai d;rflculdy or urrnecessar/ physaca{ hardship Snconsistent with the objectives of this title. bs There are exceptioras or extraordinary circtamstances or conditions applicab1e fo the sat'ne site of the variance that do not . 7 aPp'Y 9enera1ly to other properties sn the same zoneo C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specifaed reguIation wou1d depdve the appli nt of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other propertie,s in the same districto IXa CONCLtJSIO , Staff recommends denial of the reques#ed exterlor afteration and height variancee Whfle the staff ;eels ihat the criferia of the exfedor aIteration are generafly met9 we do not bel3eve ihere is a physical hardship which ~~ouid aJlflw for the approval of the hesght variancen =u,t- e 19se PIar~ does not support the cor~versior~ of hofel/accorr~rnoda#ion units to d~~~ellir t e~ t aih~r ~ ~r~~r~t~ ~f ihe L~~d tJse fare r~ot befng mete As stated ln a 1etter from staff dated July 10g 19899 the s#aff wouid direct 'khe applicani to consider pursuing a rezonfng to Special Deveiopment Distracte VVith ghts QfoCeSS, the app;icant cou1d address issues such as the restdction of accommodatSon uni'ks and the creation of addltional ernp(oyee hous3ng unatsa With public bene#3ts 6uch as thesey and a1so ccnsiderang the review criteria of the Specia! Deveiopment zone distr+ct, the staif rsdouid consid?r an appJlCa${OCl w}11Ch lS I(l eXcesS the helght af"Id whlcIl ad(js (j1ti'eJJIiIg LJfl9is. c;1pecVnemcsl1cs1e11o.712 8 ~ ~.;-r- ~ ?EG°~ r.~'^ r.:.~L~-i ~ ?+~:%a ~ . . . 4.:,°s;i°. " g;.G`.. °`~~".e=-`- ~ ° ~ %x° ~A~'~'~,J~ ° ~ .o.__..._ ap~°1°l,> ~'bl_°-•`°'~l • e ."~.r.-r•=°;f'~°,..a:~~.,,~ , ~~~it, • . l ~ ~ °q`.~,.'.:~i,ms^t-- . st~ ° cv; /J p ~,e`~ ` .~~~~P~q?~ ~J? ~~°~6 , IA' e ~y N m w' ~ / ~ ~.~w..a ~ ~ s i.~„a~ ~.~°„s~ C~~ : _ B s S ••t+ i ~ ~ . J j'°~~~~o0•a. e i ~ 8 e ` ~ ~ot~v =~~et' • `~~s ~ ee p-0lg~ M199 . ~ 4 ~r e +%o.d~ aaa ° .i . . . ~,.YdC.:Y.A ~`y~e J^`~ }o• ~ w i «T° ~~"L/`sca «.~`.°.1•.alY.~ Q"1 °K~ . x~~9 '1 4 r~ ,m c~n,~ ~ ' 0 ~ f ~ ~ ~ ~x' . • . °*«d.+~~>" ° ~t~I ~ •te /e'i 'p}I 'JI i ~T , ~ ~ .r,-. i:l.`~,~ . Y . ~ICs. ~p., • ~ v,4 •aw.~.a r~ ^~:m;;;p~ 1~e..° ;.v.~:m`. o ~ .~~.•~q9 }t ~ r~,Pr,ra , . q `°'d d 6 ~ ~ ~a ~ ~ p , , ~ ~'v~ e ~ °Tm/.'f a e`{ .S5 d ~^.~~r'~:~. ) ~ , , 9 7 ~ °51 p ~ , ~ va .8 ~ °y ~ ' °Y~ , ~b . ~ - „~t~:i~'~'~ ~~`«i A A 7 ~ ~ t:r, ;.n 4-i4,~'a~ , ~ ° p+„cd ' ' • ~ I • ~ ~ 6. ~ r-T ; ° ; :3 .?3 mtz•s' ' ~ ~ ~a L°°~~,.~ ~ ~~C~• ! , i1r_ ~4 ~ _ s . ~ , ~ ' ~ e:'~^;'~e:'si6~a~d_9g °1 =:,'xr..•'"• -`,~v .e e. ; . I d 4 a > °a . 4~~?° ~ i . . ~64LA "q,-~'G42.~,~6 > 3 J s - . `Aa ~ 1 ,t r e8_ •~'a~eA^re°e:~'p~d°Y~~a0. ~~°ev5~~~:° L~s~9'~a 9a~~~`~'°s , g y,~ ,v .a 0 y p~8h°;La~ •y„d'T',°'° taM ~l e.,? . °.t r . a i ; ";M i ~ a ~ j i ~ i ~ ~ - a~` . ~ . g o - L J- e 1 A, ~ m r~•r-~~ ~V~g:~- ° ~ . . . ~ c~,~.-~.s i ~ ° . • . . - - - - - - - - ~ 1_ - - - - - - - ~r lc~l~L - - I ILI a9 , 4 9-c6, u,?, 9 5"0~ ''R b 9A6r~»Gtl. M&Jm6/' _ _ _,p, Y < ° • , , 9~ , ~6,T ~ . . ~ ~ . w_ . ~ - ~ . ~ . ew orth EIevatiorr f , .e ~ . . ° • ~ e• ~ ~ a a ~ ' ~ ~ ~ . , . . . ti V . , . . . . . . . a . . : • ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ , . ~ . . ` ~ ' . . ~--s e e m ' ~ o ~ . : ' ~iF•'r! e ~Z e • ~'+9 w~-"+~/, ~ m • ' . ~'~;~e,•.' a • ° . . . . ~ ~ V.~d.;~ ~-cJ~~.o e.m.. . ~.e ~ , . . ' d ~ . y d o~ • ~ . m ' C-C~~ ~~°°CJ~ ~ • , , . (~y~."_,T° ~.c..:~° a ° . ' "~°a.1i~?: [e •p.: cil . ~J ~r.° . - o ' . . . ; .0 : , e • . . ° . e (2D ~ . ~ . , , - __i~ . . .o . . ~ - , a . _.a:I ~r_~~~ ~ ~ j o ~ 0 x a ' _ ~ i ~ n ci ! ! I$ 1 ^1yJi~~°`9~~ ~la ~I! !4 9 I<~~~e. g ~~~~g~at~i186~ t ~ITAI~_ I ITt 1• M I a Ps° ° ~s~- a . . ~ o • . . . • . . . ~t ~ . - - . . _ , 9 e ~ ~ ~4 ~ ' ~ • LJL o . < J,, ~ l' 9 1 1! ~ ~ . ~°,n FCe._° V C~ ! ~ ~ j ~ • , --7. 8"e.. . - i d , .~.p.°°':a'.qa 'T g ~ ~ _~Y''R.q9 B ' • . L-LUA L L] .,.:~F:.$ i o-..()Qm ~ 4 , nk Iocations with Ba1l Anderson seconding this motiona A 5-0 vo#e approved this request. ptana Donovan recommended that the applicant consider some form of guardrail, 169 A request for a height variance and a masor exterior a1teration of the L'Ostello Cortdorninium Building iocated at 705 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1,BIock 2, Vail LPonshead 4th Filsnga , Applicanto L'Ostello Condomfniums ' P9annera Sheily Melio Shelly elfo made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that sfaff was . . recommendang denial of the agplicant's requests for a major exterior alteratfon and Awall height variancem Jay Pe#erson, the representative fior L'Ostello Condorr}ir~iums, stated that the current proposal is similar io the 1989 proposala He asked the PEC to consider whether the requested he6ght variance made serase from an aesthetic point of viewo He poin#ed out that the height variance was the only variance beang requested for #his project. F°#e said that he felt that this proposa9 meets criferia #1 and #3 in the staff rnemo. He stated tha# he disagrees with staff concern°sng crlteria #2 arad that the PEC needs #o consjder the height of other buildfngs in the area which do exceed the aIlowable height. Bi19 Anderson asked whether #he L'Ostello would be converted entirely to condominium unstsW Jay Peterson stated that there rs the possibality that this could happen since there ?s no criteria for hotel rooms as there is with a ladge in the Pub1ic Accommodation zone district. Diana Donovan commented that a great deal of work would be needed 9n order to convert the hofel rooms into seiiabie condominium units, Ai6ison Lassoe inquired how many parking spaces there are #or the L' ste11o Build°snga Jay Peterson responded that there are approx°amately enty parking spaces dessgrrated for the L'Ostello buildin . Jeff Wright, Genera6 anager for estination Resorts, Inc,, stated that he was concerned vvfth the parking, the height variance and the additional buik being proposed for this site. Fie added #hat landscaping on ihis sste has been a probiern in the past and tha# he is glad to see that this proposal wifl address this issuee He said that the south berrn on thls site has been consldered °°the biggest eyesore in Lionsheada" rs right said that he would like #o see the height varoance denied and that he wouId lfke to see the north and south berms cleaned up4 Pianning and Environmenial Commission Jtaly 12, 1993 1 AI Hauser, General anager #or Vaal Spa, stated that he wouId like to see the L' steilo site address the landscaping a~sueo Jeff Bowen stated that he is concerned wcth the vofume of the buildrng and with the converssorr of accommodation units to dwel9ing unatso He said that it was his feellng that #our dorrraers is excesssveg A61Sson Lassoe stated that she agrees with Jeff Bowen's comments concerning the bulk and mass of this proposala She sa?d that possibly two or three dorrriers couId work for thss project in respect to design but tha# four dormers were too many. She added that she was aiso concerned about the parking for this sitea B's!I Anderson stafed that he agrees with Jeffs and AllissonQs comments concernzng . . bulk and mass. He added that he ls not sn favor of dormers being used for the L°Osteilo Buiidingm sana Donovan stated that she agreed with the other PEG members comments and added that the L°Ostello Buiiding is Iocated on a hi!l and due to this, the building appears to be higher thart it actuaily ise Kristan Prftz inquired why the Ietter of credit from 1989 was never acted on. Shelly Mello responded that the check for the fetter of credat bounced, Jeff ~owen made a motion to deny this request for a major exterior alteration and height variance per the staff merno and the #indings that the mass and bulk proposed for th?s site is excessives that the proposed increase in heighf for the L'Oste91o Building is unacceptable, and there is no physical hardship. Bil! Anderson seconded ihis motion and a 5-0 vote denied this request for a major exteraor a1teration and a height VafdanceQ Prsor to the be inning of the nex# i#em, Jeff owen made a rr»taon that Diana Donovan act as chairperson of the PEC, as Kathy Langenwa6ter fs the archatec# for the request. ill Anderson seconded the motion and a 3-0 vote a&Bowed Diana to serve as chai erson of the P C, }Cathy abstained from the votem 17. request for a site coverage and wall height variance to aliow the construction of a garage at 2942 BeIlflowerlLot 8, Bfo~~ VaII I91te8°9Y1o1Jf3ta1(8a PPlicanta Sallie Dean and Lar ousch Plannero Ti evlin Ti Devlin made a brief presentation per the staf# memo and stated that staff was recommending denaal af the varsance requests for sIte coverage, se#back, and wa![ height based on the s#aff"s effort to be consistent with #heir pasi decisions addressing sirrai8ar situationsv He added that it was the staff's feeling thai this project as presented does not meet the variance criteriam F'lanning and Environmental Comm°sssion July 12, 1993 11 ~ m . fpl(~ ~+d& p~ ~ 9 L .d.l.0e PladEddddg ad,Ld S.aYiJ...6baaA6uddtal 5..ed36 issiWl& ~ FRLlMa C0.Jd M&A.bS..y dJ'G.'tlel6Jp868LdPt Depid.3m 4d.1A34.b8t a 10 DA`I'E: J111y 24, 19$9 ~~p~ ST7BJECTo A request for a density variance and height vari ce r ~h e Enza.an Lodge at 705 West Lionshead Circ1e, Lot 1, Blc~ck 2, ~ tTail Lionshead Thi.rci Fa.li.rag. , Applicantz Enzian Lcadge, Alana E ities Corporati,ora, A New Ytar}c Corpor~tiori I. THE REQUEST ~ A. Height Variance: ~ The applicant is requesti.ng height and derasity variar~~~s in ui orc~er to remode1 the Enzian Lod~~. The variances are necessary in order to convert the sixth floor cor~~ererace space (1,081 square feet) to three accommodation una.ts haviz~g the f°ollowin~ ~qu~~~ ~~otagea West tlni.t 893 sqm ftm Center unit 1,011 sq, ft. East unit 93 qft . A vari,an~e to Secti ~118, 26 .090 of the Commercial ~ore II Zone District is necessarym For a flat roof or mansard roof, the heigh~ ~f building shall not exceed 45 feet. For a sloping roof, thg bgj h#° shall not exceed 48 feet. These restricti.ons pertaa.n un ess csthe ise specified by the Vaa.i Lionshead Urban Design Gua.de Plan and Urban Desa.gn Considerationsa S In order to allow for the addi.tional square footage fcar the accommodation uni°ts, three da mers are added to the roof. The do ers shA eci the hei ht of the existing ~ buil~~ng 4~rhi~h is a r~ ' feetp Tree ormers a~°e l~cate ort e south £acing portior~ ~f the roofa ° B. Densi.ty Variancet A variance is also requestes3 froxn Sec°tion Control. This sec°ti.on states that : - Tota1 densa,ty shall not exceeci 25 dwelling units per acre of buildabl~ site areao as this review allows for more flexibilitym However, the density increase is minimal and other properties have been allowed to increase the density on their projects if accommodation units are buzlte Similar density varzances ave been ap roved for the Sitzmark Christiania and Tivo 'm Given these previous approvals, staff believes that the variance request is not a grant of speczal privilegea C. Effect of the re d~~~~~~uj~~~~~~~~~ and traffic fa c i lit i~~, blic safetV. Height varianceo . The sun/shade study indicates that are no significant impacts on light and air. m There are no impacts. D. Policies in Vail'~ Use Plano Point 3.1 ed and used more eff is~ Point 3.2 The Village and Lion~hda d are, for h e s o serve the future needs of the destination ~kiers4 Pognt 4m2 3ncrease densit ~s t e ex~~ char~~ ~ of each area is preserved through ~mplementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Village Master Plana Point 5.3 Affordabl~ available throu h e ff ort~ `~~t~d incent~v~~, p~ovide~ by th~ '1v wi~~ anop~~at~ r~~ r~~~ions. Point 5.5 The exgsting employee housing base should be preserved and upgradedm Additional employee housing needs should be acco odated at varied sites throughout the community. In the Lionshead Plan, ~he En z ian site is listed as a resort accom~odations and se ice area , It clearly stateso These are the areas where hotel uses will be concentrated.during the planning period, . reflecting the community goa1s to concentrate hote2s within the core areas. (Pg. 36) ZONING SU 'RY ENZT DGE Planning and Environmental Co dission Ju1y 24, 19$9 Zone: Ca ercial Core II Lot area: .9267 acres or 40,367 sq. ft. Allowed Exi~ __EKo 2sed . GRFAv 32,294 19,476 21,605 +2,211 comoover 23,826 Common Areaa 6,459 5,319 $,670 prop. =61459 2,211 adcied to GRF"A i7ensity: 46 aouo 52 aati. 53 a.t1. or or or 23 dmts 26 dmti. 26m5 ci.us Setbacksv Front 10 fta sam~ ~am~ Side 20 ft, Rear 20 ft. Height: 48 fta 82 fta 82 ft. TOz PlAnna.ng and Envi.ronmental Cornrni~sion ~um FR0Mm ~ommunity Development Dep~rtmerat DATEa July 24, 1989 SL7 ECTa A reques°~ ~or an exterior a1terati,on in carder to cor~struct improvements to the Enzian Lodge at 705 West La.onshead Circ1e, Lot 1, Bloc}c 2, Vai.l Lionshead Third F"ilinga , App3.i.canta Alrata E ities, A New York Carpcar~tion I. I7ESCRIP'T'ION 2F EfQIJEST The Er~zian Lodge is p~oposing to rnake the following changes to the projecta A. Add a new on the n~~°°th elev~.~t3.car~a The exte~°ic~~° ex~sa71sioz~ 1.s 42 s a~°~ fee~~ B, Construct an area adj acent to the unc~erground garage which will be tzsed for ei.ther accessory lodge use, void spac~~ or ~ perhaps an employee housing urait0 The square footage is 130 square feet. C. Adci a comprehensive landscape p1arx ~or °the entire propertyo The followi.ng improvements are a1so proposed for the 2odgem However, a11. ~f these changes occur withira the exa,sta.ng walls of t2ae lodge. These portions of the reznode1 are included in the znemo to provi~~ ~ full understanding of °the extent of the remodel. The sixth floor meeting space (1,080 s are feet) wi1l be redesigned into three a~~~ ~~ata.ora units havir~~ a tota1. ~ are footage of 2,840 s are fee°t. a LB) On the fix°st fl~or, two accommodation uni.ts wi13 be removed (6°71, sqare feet) and converted to r~~~ting room space. ~ CThe basement flocar a.s presently a garage. There are approxi.mately 16 parkirag spa~~s withi.n thi.s area, plus a latxndry area. The ocaraer has proposed to convert °thi.s area into accessory 1odge taseso _ Hall/storage 1,250 sq. ftm . Recreati.on/fitness 1,392 sq. ft. Office/Lo~~e mgt. 578 s 0 ft. Restaurant accessory use 1,461 ~ . ft. Iaatxndry 324 sq. ft. I3ouse}cee in 275 sq. fte Total 5,280 sq. ft. This portion of the p-roposal does not re ire any approvals from Planning Co issi,ono Please see the attached letter which Roofs Most of the comments for this consideration re1ate ta first f1oor expansions. The remodel does meet the re irement that, "it is important to integrage e~ ansions with existing buildings so a~ avoid a patch work, tacked on ~1~t for io~s ea p t is h~ped that a11 expansions wi appea~ to h~~~ been pa~t ~f the original design of each building." The new entry and changes to the roof comply with this criteria. The dormers also meet the comment that "where main building roof p1anes are highly visible from the ground, expansion should match that pitch. "All roof pitches on th~ s],~:iilli h 2 2- T~~ ~lq ificart ip acts on sun shade or views as documented sJ1Cd 1 -es. Facade/Walls-Structures This guideline encourages the use of concre~e, concrete block, glass, metal, stucco, and wood for construction. The Enzian Lodge proposed to continue the use of stucco and wood in th-e remodel. Facades and Transparency This section states: Ground floor commercial facades should be proportionate1y more transparent than upper floors. ' The remodel inc1udes adding new w3ndows on the south and east elevations adjacent to the paol. Even thou hthis area is not a commercial storefront, the increased-transparency will impr6ve ~he ap n~a Decks and Patios This criteria states that decks and patios, particularly ~o~r dining, encourage a strong street life and should be promoted in any remode1. In respect to the Enzian Lodge, the pool/patio area will be improved by adding . 1 landsca ing and by adding new stucco to retaining wallsm ccent Elements . Not applicable. Landsc~~~ This criteria emphasizes the importance af a strong 1andscape plan for any project0 The applicant is propasing an overa11 landscape lan with emphasis on the steep bank adjacent to the parking area on the north side of the building. This bank presently has no 1andscapin an is very visible from the Frontage Roadm _Tlie proposed land~ e this a ` ith the Town ai landsca e lan and will also screen thg--pA.K~ °c vi ew "Z- f Cd -7 P3anning and Envs.ronmental, Co issi.on JuI.y 24, 1989 PRES~NT STAF°F P?ZESEiVT L7iana Donovan Peter Patten Parn Hopkins Bet~y R0so1~ck Sid Shultz Kristan Pritz P~gg~ ~~~erfoss Rick Pylmarx Chuc}~ Crist . The Planning and Environmental Co i~~~~n m~eting began with a pazblic hearing for the Vaa.l Vi13age Master Plan at 1:00 p.m. . The regularly schedu1ed Planning anci Enva.ronmental Co. mission meeting began at 3 :50 pem. Diana Donovan acteci as chairperson in Jim Viele's absence> Iten, Ncse 1 An appeal of the staff decision on Gross Residenta.al F'1~or Area (GRFA) fos° the Chester x°esider~~e under corIs°tr~~tion on Lot Larry Eskwith, the Town Attorney requ~steci the 5.tem be conti.nued ora Aug~st 7, 1989 at 10:00 a.m. because of the amount. of time that wouIci be involved in the discussion. The applicant approved of tYae req~~st and agreed ta the new mee°ting ~ate and time. Item Nos 2 A re ~or a heiqh~ri.~r~c~ iHteration in order to cor~struct an addit~on ~o the Gos°e Cree}c Plaza Betsy Rosolac}c made the staff presentati,on. She started wa.th a descriptior~ of the exterior alteration request, first noting a change in the plans as made by the appl icant . The change would exclude the bua.lding of ~ ~ate originaIly px°oposed. She then proceeded to cover zoning considerations as per the staff memoe Concerning the I7rbarz Design Consideraticans of sun/shade, she explained that there was an i.mpact on this criteria and referr~d to the sun/shade sketch included in the s°taff znemoo The s°taff reco`mend~tion was for approval with the following two conditions as per the staff meznoa 1. The applicara~s agree to corastruc°t the improveznents an the at°tached drawing and pay for all the improvements at their ex~ense. ° 2. The applicants agree to not remons°trate against a special improvement district i,f and whea~ ed for tlail Villages . wou1d be of 1itt1e usem He went on to say that if the deck was extended to the back of the house as suggested by the planning staff instead of in the proposed area, there would be more of an impact on neighborse The propased deck site is we13 screened from the neighbors. In summary, Grant asked that the request be approved as submitted. Chuck Crist said he supported the project as proposed. Pam Hopkins agreed, as did Sid Schultzo Peggy Osterfoss saad the proposal made sense, especially since a neighbor had written a suppoative 1etter. Diana agreed with FeggYm A motion was made by Pam Hopkins for a~~~l submittedA Chuck Crzst seconded the motion. Vote: 5-0, a1I in favor. Item No. 4 A re est for a densi~y and an exterior alterati~n -for the Enzian Loqae Lionshead C~rc3e 1 Block 2 Vail Lion shead Th ird F ilip_qm A licante T3, zian Lod e The staf£ representative ~ Kris ta Pri~~~ The re est involved an exterior alteration request as well as a height and density requestm She began the.presentat3on by reviewing ~he exterior alteration requesto Referrin Kristan described the proposa1 which included -r , l'u'ests to add anew entry on th~ 521 r e e~ation, canstruct ~n ea 0 be us ed for accessor oI:Iae use ~r ~oid s-Da e a~~ a ~onpre ens 1 an scape plan for the entire propertya She further e ~ne addit~ona c a a~nd did not require any approva3s from the PEC. Kristan explained that the staff approved the removal of appraximately 16 spaces in the basement. The owner shall be required to pay into the parking fund for the 16 spaces. She referred the PEC to her 1etter explaining the staff position on the parking issue dated Ju2y 10th 19$9 to Jay Petersona Kristan stated that the proposal was in compliance with the Purpose Section of Commercial Core II and went on to cover the criteria effecting the compliance with Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead. Tn keeping with the height and massing critersa, Krzstan said the new entry on the north e1evation would be anice improvement in appearance. Relating to the facades and transparency criteria, Kri~~~n inentioned that the applicants would be expanding the glass area which is anecessary improvementa The proposed landscape plan will comply with the Town of Vail 1andscape plan and is considered by the staff to be an important aspect of the proposalm Kristan stated that the staff strongly supports the exterior aItexation requesg as the proposal wou1d add many needed improvements to the existing property. The staff is also very supportive of the landscape plan which would be amajor upgrade for the sitea After completing the exterior alteration request description, Kristan explained that aheight variance and adensity variance wouid be x9 9> s F = . _ necessary fcsr the proposal. The hei.ght of the dc~ ~ ers can the top fIcaor would zaot exceed the existing heiqht of the builciirag. The density ~ari.ance was fc~~ .5 dwel3.a.r~g units. In reviewing the crs.teria fcar both variaraces, Kra.stan said the the height vari.ance made no sa.gna.fi.cant impacts on the criteria, anci t2aat the density vari.arace had 1i.tt1:e impacta The staff recom~aer~c3ata~on was for app~°~ava]~ ~rith the ~.~ao follo~~.r°ag ~cc~r~cli-~iox~sv 3.. An ernployee hot~siz~g ur~it sh~.11~ be p~°ovided ~ai~.hi,r~ the b~z.~ld~r~g~ 2. The t~iree ~tew acco~nmodation ur~its wi.ll have gas fa,replac~~ p~~ towz~ of Vail orc~ir~anees gcavera~a n fa.~°eplacesa Jay Feterson acteci as representative for the appli.cant. F?e stated that ~ hc~~zsin and hac3 no rnnzn for 3a~zz~.ding an eznplsayee housa.ng f,, . ~f "~~~e" problems . dealing with ventilationo He explained that the upgrading and landscaping proposals wou].ci be enough of a benefit tc~ the community and that an emp1oyee liotzsing unit would not wor3c or~ sitee Dean Ko1l, an architect from 2~hren & Associates, explained that the exi~ting mechanical vents were currently undersized and as is fua~ctional and apprcpriate for the hotel-. He sai.d °that addiz~~ emp1.oyee units would create the need for maj or snecharaical rewoxk a Chuck Cra.s°t asked if maintenance. of the-buiIdi.ng wou1d be included in the proposal. Jay P~~erson answered that a1l necessary repai~s would be dorae. Chuck said he supported the proposal without the addition of an enployee unito PaIn Hopkins agreeci with Chucko Sid ~chultz al~o agreed. PeggY osterfoss estioa~~d the location of the landscaping proposed. She as}c~d if i.t woaxlci end on the ban}c along the F"rontage Road adjacent to Vail Spa . A discussican regarding laradscaping took p1ace between Jay, the PEC me ers, an~ ~enbers of the staff concerning the di.fficulties of landscapirag on the steep bank. The staff and PEC snembers agreed that laradscaping was a very iznportant issue and shou1d cover as much of the banked area as possiblea Diana Donovan supporteci the general i ea of emp1oyee housing but didn't see that it was a reasonable re est for this proposal. She said she would rather see "tgreat" landscapingm A snoticir2 f2r a~ rayal was made for the exteri.or a1~erataort reguest by PeggY Osterfoss. The moti.on was seconded by Pam Hopkins m p Vote: 5-0, all in favore A motion f2r appr~~al for the height an densa.ty variar~~e request was made by PeggY flsterfoss, excluciing the staff recommendation for empioyee housing, and inciuding acondition that the appli,cant work with Vai1 Spa to landscape the maximum amount of larad possib2e on the bankm PeggY a3so reques°ted that the DRB carefully reva.ew the Iandscaping plann Pam Hopkins seconded the motion. Vote: 5°°0, a11 in favor. e. . - . _ . . CONDOMRqIUMS *AND CONDO . CONVERSION5 . . - 17.25. 9 eserve . e . 17.25. i i is y , _ i isfon. a ° ist t r's cYSio . may b a eale t ' t PEC in ac r c ` it t e ~ ce'dures -set~ forth in- Secti n 1 a .030 of the Vail iMunicipal. w(r:- (1 ) o) 17. . Filing.and i . e deg ent of co x developrnent will record e plat and yrelated I covenants ~ i 1 County cIer or r, - o v r, lat r subdivided land shall be recorde Iess ' t e tm rec r i , the s subdivider rovi s - it c ificati r t 1 tr srer's f ic i ic ti t v r applicable ts c s ivi . ~ l , I° years i I t aL ear i 1c I° 1r 1S granted, ve been paid. Fees rec r 1 S l1c t. The . c 12 I veIO e Z epartment . 0 retain e mylar cfl e Iat r theg r or s. ( 0 18(1993) : r . 25(1989), _ Chapter . 17.26 CONVERSIONS . Sections: 17.2 . 14 Purpose. 17.26. ° j ~ . 17.26.030 Preliminary a . 17. . Final . ~ 17. .050 Rev1 . --Conversion to- condo iniu s. - 17. . Additional i ii. . conversions. 17. w I 1 1 . . 17 .2 6. 080 Action on preli inary a. 17. . Preliminary i . 2g8c (V °l I1-16-93) SUBDIVISIONS ' • 17.26. 3 . , . . - .17.26,11inal a approva1. ' 17.26.120- Su division public report. _ _ _ . n.. 13 0 - rovement securi , 17.2 .13 xe tions, • 17.2.6.140 - lica iI%ty.- a . -26. I I , IB I . e , . 37;26. 1 urpose. , - . ae. ordinance codzfied in this chapter h been adopted in cc I' ce wit 1° v2SIQ of the Local Govemment Land S ontrol Enabll ct o , Y m . 29-20-101 eta Seq. OT° g l i S elled out m . a . 29-20-104 t Iat c ° i v 1 e ts ic yr s lt i si ii t change i t o 1 tion of t t t c 1 t e impact the thereof town and the s 0cy areas. The t the i s that r e c 0 T i 1s c teI° 1 necessary r ttection of the 0c he , s welfare t ccomplis following purposes: A. To ensure the performance of m ° tenance responsibilities in condo° i s and c verted condo m i s, and t ro t the ublic health, s ; (t/ail l ig16-93) . - , ° . - a . i d' 6 Ct)T~DOMlNit1 5AND COiv'DOMtNitJM C'ONVERSIONS B. mi°o ensure that reratal uni€s bein~ car~vtrted to coridomanic~rns meet reasonab3e physical standards as required by su ivision and building codes adopted by the ta~~n; C. Ta psotcct frorr' unnccessary evaciion the residl-nis of rental units being convcrted t+s condorniniurns, artd to assist thesc residents in rrseeting tfieir futiare housing needso D. 3°o prese e a reasoraabie balance in the owr;ed ti>ersus reratai housang mix and to mairsta3n the suppiy of 3ow to rnoderate income units available in the town; E. To rrionitor the supply of Jcaw to moderate incorrae units so that the towra riaay take ineasures to avoid a worsenin$ ~ housing crasisv . f (Ord. 2(I983) § 1 (Part).) ~ i. 17,36.024 ernitions9 The foltcswing definitions shall apply to the in;erprczatiora of • . this chapter: q A. °eBylaws," as uscd in this chaptcro shall refer to the tsylaws of the unit owners' assoc3ation or corporation, B. "Corrrrrrunity apartmer,i" means a dtvelopmcnt in wh?ch there is an undiv3dcd interest an the land coupBed with the r`sght of exciusive occcspancy of an apartrnent located xhereinm Cornmunity apartmcnts shal9 be subject to the samc resiricd tions arcd conditacaras set for2h in thas chaptcr for condomiraiurn ' units, . C. m'Condorraiz~ium conversion9e means the dcveloprnent or use af the land and eX15$STIg StftlclLtee5 aS a cE?Y1dUIT11IlIlIft1 project regardless of the present or prior use of such lands arrd structures, and regardless of whethes substantial improvc- mcnts havt becra rr'ade to such structuresa s°aCondominium projeet" means the cntire pat°ccl of rcal propcrtys inciuding aII structures thercon, to divided into - two or marc csraits for the purpose of constructang or converting ex'ssting structures to condorniniurn uniis. . E. "Condo iraiurtS unit" rneans ara indivaduai air spa~e uniz together wath the iaxtcrest in the common clemenzs appurtezsant to such unico ; ~ F. A eBdeclarati~n" is an instrumcnt rccordcd pursuant to the ~ ; - ~ . 248m 1 e SlJ(.3L11 Y dSL4JNS . . B ~ statutcs of the statc and which def-ines the character<duration, . . . ' rzghts, obii$ations, and lirrritations of condomirciurr, owncr- : ship. °t'he dectaration shatd ertcittde all restriczaons, lP itat3ons a73d 5pec}s ICat3onS w}11c}8 171~y be Feqi12i ed by the pianning and Gnvironr°dentat som mssiora or° town coczncil, includ°sng prov?- sions reiativc to timc-sharing esiates, ticcnscs or fractaana3 fees; and ahc procedure frr amendments of the declaration which requires appccrval of the town, G. An'°individua! air space unit'econsists of any encIosed room or rooms occupyang all or parz of afloor or floors of a bui)din3 of ane os° rracrrc floors to be used for r-Isidcntsaf, . a pr€sfcssional, co crcial or industrsal purposcs, which has ' acecss to a public street. H. e&N2csderate income"shal[ be as defined fro:n timeto tamc bv the cc~unca1. ~ {C?sd. 2(1983) § i (gart)a) 1?a25a434 retimi y mip. ' A11 proposed condaminium projects shali subrrzit the pretimi- nary maps cortaining the inforrr;ation and requirtrraents spccified in Chapter 17o tb as rraay be applicable to the proposed condcam"snium projerte In addition 2o that inforrraatiorae the preliminary map for the condomirsitam project shall ir°.cludee A. A rr'ag showing ail common areas and usages of the' building and grounds9 and plens for the if'ateTiof davision of the building show?ng horizontat and vertical boundarees of all unitsa B. A copy of the declaration appiicable io the condominium prolectm . C. A copy of the b}•lawso °The byiaws shall contain the information d required by the Condorr;zinium Owncrship Act of the State of Colorado. Al1 condcaminium projects shail comp3y with th3s . reqrairerncnte (Orda 2(1983) § 1 (Part).) 17a25s440 Ftn$I 2g. e . The iinal map for the condominsurrs project shall ~ontain ali inforrnation required by Chapter 17.16 as the sarrre rraay bc applicablc to the condorninia:rri grojecta ln addition, tf thcre are (Viffi 5-3- ) 298-2 e o , . . . ~ . . , ~ONI?OMINIi1MS ANI~ ~ONT7OMI21ItJM Ct)i°dVERSIONS ` any restrectivc coveraants, condiiions Ur reszrictirsrts oihcr thar-i specified in the dcclaratian9 ihey shall be fi1ed concurrently with the fnal map. (Orda 2(1483) § I(part).) ~ 17a26,050 eview procedure. The review procedure for condosriinium projects and conda- miniurn conversions shall be in acccsrdance with the procedcares fcsr subdivisiorss as specified in this title, (Ord. 2(1983) § i(Part).} 17.26.460 ConvQSSion to condorniriums> (n addition to any taiher app3icab1e requircrnents cosatained in this chapter, condomanium cor,version projects shafl comply with Sections 17,40.0$0 through 17.40.130. (Ord. 2(14$3) §I (part)a) 17m26.470 Adsiiiioeaa1 requfre enfs - Condom'iniu corsver- Stot25o 1°he applicanz proposing to cnake a condorrainiu conversion shall provide the following docurnentat'son with the prel?rnirsary rnap: A. A condominium conversiora report frcm the town bui3ding ir;spector on the condition of ihe buildsng, listing aI1 buiiding code viotationsa fire code vioIations and reiated violations which are decrimental to the health, safety and weIfare of the public, ahe o>vvnersm arsd ahe occuparc€s of 3he buildang, °The ° applicant shall have availabie and shail provide copies of this . report to a4l prospective ptarchasers oCcondorniniu un?ts or araterest in the condorr'iniis project; B. A report of the proposcd conversion, incttading the foiltswirsg informationa : ! m Lcngth of occupancy of present tenants, - 2, The household composition of present tenantso 3. Current rental rateso whether rents include or excfludc uti9itiesa date and the arr°iouni of last rental frrcrease, e 4s A sumrnary of the proposed ownership of the aanitsa if the units will be sold as timemsharc or interval ownerships; thr . approximate proposcd sale price of units and financ?ng ! arrangerrtents to be provlded by the applicant; ' 298-3 (vais , 1ais-8s) ~ 1 i a e StJBDIVISIONS 4 C. P1 s d descriptio showir~g how ihe followz~g will R rformedo 1. Ail site work shall br~~ght tzp to cszrrent town stand ds unIess a variancm therefrom is gr ted to the appiicani by the iown cour~cil in accorc1 with the varian proceduses of thas Tiile 17. 'T"nc i~~~ ~ouncil rrAay, i#' rt deems necess , reqcazre add`ztional parkfrg . facilitie-s to meet requirerr:zcnts of owners d ests of the corsdo ` °um u °ts, 2, Co tions of vioflations crted in th~ ~orido 'niurr~ ~onversion report by the buztding inspeczcar, 39 Ccrrtcio iniu prcrj shall az3 i currenF t3niform Bezilcf- ° in$ Code quIrements for heat a~d fire det IQn de4'I s ,d syste a (Ord, 29 (1483) § Ie Ordo 2 (I983) § 1 (p I7a26s075 ondo e °u c~~~~ersion. Arey applicarat seekirag to convcrt any accomm aiion unit withfn the towra shall corrtgiy with the requirc ent.s of thas section. The sequirc ents coniai;aed in thxs scctzon shail not applY to structurts or bualdings whzch cor,taan two un?ts or ;esse A. °T'he requirert,ents and cesiz°ictions hercin containeci shati inctudcci in the corsdominiurrt deci ation for tt;c project9 and fiicd of reccard wiih ttte Eagic Countyclerk and order. Thc condomznium uniz.s creai shall remain in ihe short tc , . , 2984 e . . a . . . . _ . ' . . . . _ . . . . . . . b . , a . ~ { . s i - cONDOMtNIUMs AND CONDOMtNtt~~I CONVERstONs ` rerraal ra-aarket to bc used as terriporary accomrnodatians . available to the Qeneral public. 1. An owrseres personal use of h3s or her canit shail be restricted io twerriy eighi days during the seasonat period crf Decernber 24th tss Jarsuary lst and February lct to Niarch 20th, ! his seasonat pes'iod is hgreinai'ter referred. to as "high seasora." 4°Owner's personal use" shall be defined as owr~,er°s occupancy of a unit or non-paydng guest of the owner or takang the un;t off of the rental arkez during the seasonal periods referred to herein fcsr any reasrn other than for necessary repairs tivhich cannot be postponed or which may make the unit unrerstable. Occupancy of aun3t by a lodge manager or st-aff empioyed by the Iodgeg hovvever, shall r°bot bee restrieted by this section, 2. A violatiort of the o,-vner's use resiriction by a unit owner shail subject the owner 2o a daily assessrnerdt rate by the condo inium associatacan of three tirres a rate consid-Ired Po to be a reasonable daily rental rate for the unit at the time of the v3olatic~~, w?rich assessrnent when paid shall be corn on e1ernents of the cssnciominicams. AIl surns assessed a2ainst the owner for violatic;i of the szwner°s personal use restriction and unpa;d shall constitute a lien for the b~~efit of the condorniraium associatisn on that owner°s tartits dvhich lien shail be evidenced by written noaicc placed of record in the offiee of the clerk and recorder of Eagle Couney9 Colarado9 and which may be coIlccted by foreclostzre9 on an owner°s corzdornirtiurr' tinit by the association in iike rrianner as amortgage or deed of trust on real propertya The condorniniu associa- tion's faiiure to enforce the owner°s personal use restricw tion shall give the town the right to enforce the restriction by the assessment atad the Iien provided for hereunder. If . the tawn eraforces the restriction9 the tcrwn shal3 receive the funds coliected as a result of sasch cnforcerr,ent. In the event litigatiora resiatts from the enforcernent of the restraction, as part of its reward to the prevailing pariyy, the coiart shall award such party its court costs together ; ~ with reasonable attorney°s fees incurred. ` . ; 298-5 ~ f g~'<att i2•9<K7y P - i ; St3BDiVISiONS ~ i ~ ~ ( ~ e°_: - . . ~ 3. The town shall have the right to require frorn the , ccsndocrziraium assoc3aiion an annual repcart of owner's personal use dur?ng the high seasons fcsr aIl converted condorniniurri units. 4. °the converted iodge units shall not be used as perrr'aneng residencese Fcsr the pur-oses of this sectitan, a person shall be p;estarrred to be a permanent resideni if such person has resided in the unit ' frsr six consecutive rritaraths notwithstandirg frorrt time to time dazring such six month period the person rnay briefly dwe11 irt other pwaceso B. Any iodge lacated wathira the town which has canverted accommodatiora units to condominiums staali continue to , provide custonnary lodge faciaaties and services includzng a customary marke.ting progra;n, C. The ccarsverted condominium units shall remain avaiiab;e to the general iourast rrsarketo if unsoad tharty days after recordsng of the condom?niuo rnap9 the unsold eon- verted condominsurr's shaIl be required to be furnished and made avai3ab1e ttr the gereral iotari5l r1-8arket wbthirs ninety days after the date of recording of the condo- rrafniism snap. This requirerztent may b-, riet by inclusion cf the units of the condominiurri projeci ai cornpara,ble rates, in any iecal reser-.,ation syszem for the reniai of lodgc or condominium units 3n the town. D. 7`he corrirnon areas of any lodge with Ganverted units shall rernain coirimon areas and be rrtaintained ira a rrdanner consisterat with ias previous character. Any changes9 ::Itera- ° iions or renovatiflns made to eamrrton are shail not dirninish the size or quality of the cammon are a E. Any accorr,snociation aarits thai were utiIized to pravzde ~ hssusing for emp3oyees at any time durrng the three ycars previous to the date 9f the appiicatiart shail rc ain as e plo}°ee unzts for such duration as rnay be required by the planning and environmental comrzlission or the town courscil, F. Appl°acab?fitye Ail conditions set forth within this section shail be rriade binding on the appiicanta the applicantes successors9 hdgrso personal representaiives a.nd assigns and thall ~overn the property whlch is thc sub;e; i of the applacaciort for the Ibfe 29$mb . (v;su 12-1-87) . ~ . ~ . . . . .4 . . . . . . . : .ar . • . . 4 B . CC?NDOMtNIt1MSANDCONI)OMlNlUM CO?JVEitSiONS 01 the stsrvivor of the present town ccuncil pius tweraty-one years. Conversion of accorramodation un:ts Iocated w3thin a lodge pursuant to this sectiono shall be modi'llied on3y by the writ;e;s agreerraent of ehe town eouncil and the owner or owners of the units which have been converted into condo- fT33i1flLIT715. e d urr3entscreatingandgoverninganyaccom modam tion unit which has been converted inio a CoildoITlinitit7l Shall be rnadified by the own,:rs of such uraits only wizh the prior written approval of the town counci1, G. Procedure, The conversion of an accorrimodaxion unit in an existang lodge shaJl be acctsrnp3ished pursuarrt tcr ihe szab- d3V353ot3 review process. The appiicant shail provide the foIlow°ing documentation to the town ai the tirne of the applicazion to coravert accorrrr;odation unats located in a iodge to condominiurr~ 'unitse I. c raof of owrsershipa 2. Site in>>entory for the property 'sndicating an detail the actual location of any arnenities serving the lodgcs . 3. Aff3davic of services provided as is called for in sub- ~ paragraph 2 above; 4. Designaticara and description of a31 ernployee unatsm Sa Plan of 3zraproverrients to be rnade to the property along . with eszirnated costs therefor. { rd. 21(1987) 1m3m Orda 2(1983) § 1(part),) 17026,480 Action on pre1i In$ry map, A. Ai the hearing on the preliminary mapa the pianning comrrris- sion shall consider whether the proposgd canversion is consistent with the foliowing housing goals of t~~ ~own; 10 7`o encourage continuatian of social and economic ° daversity an the town through a variety of housing types, . . 2. 7°o expand the supply of decent housing for low and moderate arscorne fatnslies9 3. °I°o achieve greates° tconomic balance for the tovvn by increasing the raurnbe, ofjobs arad the supply of housing for peoplc who wili hold therrs, ~ B. 7°he corramissaon tnay require that a reasonabte percenzage of s the conveated units be rescrved for sale or rental to persons of I rnoderaze incomt, , , , . ; ? 29fi-7 ~ . avad iz-A.Vf :k a t ~ i SUBDIV°fSl(3NS ~ . j C. The planning comrnission rnay dersy the tentat°sve or prelimi- e.. ' nary znap upon finding that; ' - ' 1. Based ora the inforrrtation required by Sectiort t i'.40.070 and or? the vacaracy rate for rental hausing, ienarrgs will haaae substantial difficsalty irz obtaining corr3Farably priced rental housing. A rentat vacancy rate below fve percent based on the most recerst zown survey corrscitutes a housing emergency sftuaiion, 2. `i'he ratio o#° rriultiplepfamiiy rentaI uriits would be reduced z6 ?ess than twenty-f?ve percent of the totat nurnber of dwel3irag zan;ts in the Gore Va1Igy, frc,rn Dowd Junction east to the base of Vail Pass, w1th ncr replacement rentai hous?ng being provided, gOrdn 2(1983) § 1 (Part),) i7a25o094 Prelirriir?ary pazblic repor2o - A. No Iater thara fave days af°ter the fiixng of an applica2ion for conversion, the applicant shali ncatify the tenants of the proposed condosaiiniurn conversion and report tcr the piart- r„ng comrriissgon at its public hearingq the appresximate numbvr of tenarts desiring to coravert to condominiurr€ ownership, B. Exastang tenants shall he rtot3fied of the proposed sale pricea Each tenant shali have a ninety-day n9riassagrtable option zo purchase their rarsiz at this prelimirtary market valueo °rhe preliminary market vatue sha±i be a fair markei vadue for the unita and i{ the planning commission deterrnirtes that the prelirrainary rnarket vatue was too high, the appl3cataorz tx1ay bb deniedm (Ordo'2(d983) § l (Part),) 17.26a100 Fsnal ag. The finai rraap to be fited by the applidani shall contain the inforrr,ation required by Seciion 17.16.130 relatirsg to suh- divgsions as the same may be applicable io the condtsmlniuTTi projecte In addition io that ?nformatian, the applicant sha!l obtain the foilowing certif-icatian to be filed with the finai rnap: 298oS tvism?'zmr-x7; . ; ; CO"NDOMtNtt1 S ANI3 CON~OMIh1ItJM CONi'ERSIONS 17.26.110 FIn&1 map zpgrof°&!a No final ar partial map sha.ll b-c appraved until the stification required in SecYiora 17.40.100 zs obtained. {Ordm 2(I983) § 1 (Part).) 17.26,I20 Subdnvissor~ pub?ec report, A. T}Ie SUbdiviSlon pilblic fepOXt ShaII 51aYG I}lat saies are subjbct to occupancy by the exssaing teriant for inir°sety days from the date of issuar:ce of said report. Withira five days af issuance of the subdivzsion pubiic sepori, the appIicani shali nctify the teraar:ts of the followinpa: . 1. 7-he date of issuance of the reporta 2. Thc right of occczparacy spccified abo`°e; 3. That no regair or rerrtodellir~g wi!1 begin ur?til at Ieast thirty days after the datc of the assuance of the subd'avision publmc report9 or the datc of nazifeation, whrchevcr is iater. B. Copies of said notices shall be fi3ed with the department oi ~ cornrnunity dcveiopment at the iime the notice is iven to the _ tenants, In the case ssf a conversion project ccans?sting of four . garce3s or lcss, the applicant shall ttacet this requiremerd ° withzn five days of the approval cf ihc final rriap. ~ (Ord. 2{3983} § l (part).) , 17,26,130 I pcovrmcnt s~cur?tym A. `3`he planrsirag ~ommission and the town council may requase a sccurity to be postcd by the appiicant which shael consist of one or rrsore arrangcrnents which the council shall accept to sccczre the actuai cost of canstruction of such public irriprovc- mcnts as Mrc rcquired by the ordsnanccs of the iourna The ImpT0vcznent sccurzty ay inctude any one or a combinatian of the types of seccarity mr col9atcral Iisted in this paragraph, and the applicant may subst3eute securrty in order to rclease portfons of the condominitsrn projeci for sale, °i°he iy sof ` j rollateral whach rnay be used sccurity are as foftows: ~ 298m9 Cv ) ~ ~ ~•4 0 . . ' , ~~J. . ' . .e~ . • . . • • . . . y ° b . t . . ~ B . 1 ' ~ONDOMINI0.lMal AN~ ~~~~OMINIUNI A.O.$rVERSgONS ~ Receapi of a condominiurn report from the bumlding 3nspector af the town stating thaa condornirrium structure and units are in ccsnforrnance with the €own buildang codes, fire codes and other related codes adoptgd by the town or the Vaii fire protectflon district, or that a2reements have been entered 'anto with the towra 0 f Vail fire protection disirict concerningsaad Structure and units, ~ . {Orda 2(1983) § , (part),) ~ . e . ~ ~e , . 9 ~ . j ~ : . ° ~ • t , . f° . 4 . •-.o~ 298-Ra ; ; . ('VeeiJ I9o147) r 1 a 5UBDIV1~~~~S _J . A q , . i a s q lo fZestrictions on the conveyance, saie or transfer of any ; . unit wathor~ the ccsr~dorr~?nscarr~ prc~ject as s~t fo~h os~ the ~nal rr~apo 2. Pesforrnancc of property bocid9 3. Private or public escrssw agreement; 4e L.aara commizrraent- : Sa AS53gfItI"lC111S of IeceflvableSe 6. Licns on property; , 7e i,etters of credata 8. Deposits of, security fundsa or other similar surety . agreerraents, . B. Security other than plat restrictions9 required under the irriprovement sectsrity< shall equai in vaiue the cost oC the irrrproverr}ents to be comp3eted but shall not be required csn • the portion of thc condominiurra project saabject to plai restr?ctions. `I°he courzcil shall noz reguire• security with coi9atcra1 arrangements in excess oi thc actual cost of constrc;ction of the iinprovcrnenxse The amount of sccur'sty znay b-c ancrcrnentally redu d stabdivision or condominiu irnprovcmer2s are cornpleted. (Orde 2(1983) § 1 (part),) 17e2b.t35 £xerrintzonao ° . l'he terrns of thgs chapter shall not apply to deveiopments or . 9tructures crf twa unias, (Ord. 2(I983) § I(part).) 17,25.140 AppJtCaFJElit}'m 1'hc terrns of this chapter shail bt applicabHe io condominiu projccts that are comrncnced or convertcd after the effcctive date of the ordinance codificd 'tn this chaptera { rd, 2(1983) § I (part).) (van 5.3.&3) 298-10 . a - - . : ~ CONDONfMUMS . ~ . . ; . 17.2 .15 ilin and recor in . _ The e t c i ev 1 e t ° 1 record I r Iat~ o'c t it t I c1er . . , - recar er, however, o Iat or s ivi e land s 1 e recorde uI1leSS mor to the e e I° coI' i , e S iV2 r I' videS t Town y of i1 z a ific., tion from e I e r$s . office i icati that 11 a-d v Ir tes a Iic Ie t sc su ivi e 1 , for years prior to that ye i ic arov is granted, ve bee o e s for recordin s applicant. The co u i ev 1opme t epartme t iU retai ylar copy o Iat or thee recor ss (Ord. 18(1993) s) . 298-10a (VaiI 11m16-93) MEMORANDUM °TO: Planning and Environrrnental Commission FRCa : Community Development Departmerat DAl`E: August 1994 StJBJECI`; A request for setback variances to a91ow for an addition to the residerace Iocated at 4237 CoIumbine Drive/Lot 22, B`sghorn Terrace, Applicant; Joyce Wa#ers Plannera Andy Knudtsen tm PROJECT 1 T°I The owner of the property described above, Joyce aters, is proposing to expand half of the duplex by approximately 727 square feet. Most of the addition will occur to #he rear and side of th~ existing duplex. The applicant is requestsng variances ta the setback standard to aIlovv for #he addition, 7° ruir t c r f tn 1l sides f t rerty an t applicant i r i set ck r n in fr 1# 1 feeta T°he specifac varwance requests are as #oIlcavvs: •T"he front setback is required to be 20 feet and the applicant is proposang 13a25 feet; •The side setback as required to be 20 and the applicant is proposing 13,25 feet. •The rear setback is required to be 20 feet and the applicant ss proposing 12 feet. -1n addition, there is an entrance patio which would be required to have a 10 foot setback anci the applicant is proposfng 6-112 feeta °fo allow the expanssoro, the applicant has request to use a portIon of the "250"e As this is an existing duplex oIder thars five years, the duplex is eligible for a 250o The Code states tha# the Design Revievv oard (DRB) shall rev6ew the 250 request after any variance is reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Comrrsission (PEC). If the variance is approved, it should be contingent on the DRB approving the 250. Staff has provided a condition ofi approval at the end of the mema stating this. Currentiy, the owner uses parking spaces located to the south and north of the unit. Tvvo spaces are required with both the ctarrent amoun# of GFA as weil as the proposed arnount of GRFA. There is no net increase in the parking requirement, t this time, fhe tvvo required parking spaces are not iocated entireiy ort #his site. However, since there is no change in the parking requirerr'ent9 the exmsting parking situation can continue to function as it does at this tirne and Iegally fulfi6l the parking requirementa 7"here are #wo separate overhead utility iines which provsde service to this unit. The architect has said that, as part of the construcfiion, the overhead lines vviii be buried. This is a requirerr,ent and is 8isted at the ertd of the rrraemo as a condition of approval. There are seven evergreen trees in the area to the north of the structure that may be affected by the additiona Staff believes that it is critical that three of these trees be protec#ed dur°sng construction. These includ~ evergreens #hat are 60 feet, 12 feet and 5 feet tall that have grown in a clustero There are four other trees uvYaich rraust b~ cut downo These include 40 feet, 20 feet, 15 feet and 6 feet taIl evergreens. There is also one 2-inch caliper aspen wh'sch will be cut downo The applicant os proposing to add eight aspen and two Iodgepc?Ie pine. Staff will discuss the Iandscaping in greater detaai Iater in the merrio. ila Z 1 1° TI °TI Beg!ai~~ P; c~~ased Zorring: Medium Density Multi-Famaly (MDMF) No change Lot Size: 0.0661 acres ar 2,879.3 sq. ft. No charage Height: 35 feet 25.7 feet GRFA: 1,007,8 sq. ft. + 225 credit 1,458 sg. ft. + 250 = 1,482.8 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20 feet 13.25 feet Side: 20 feet 13.25 feet Rear; 20 feet 12 feet Site Coverage: 45% or 1,295e7 sq. ft. 31% or 903 sq. ft. Landscapirag: 30% or 863a8 sq. #t, 44.6% or 19284 sq. ft. Retaining Wal1 Heights: 3 feet/6 feet 2 feet Parking: 2 existing 2 required ErivironmentalHazards: NQne n/a IIL I 1 FINDINGS tJpon revievv of Criteria and Findings9 Section 18.62.060 csf the Vail unicipal Code, the Community Developrnerat Departrnent recornmends approval of the requested variances based on the following factorse A. Consideration of Factors: 1, The r!#i i f t r ted v rianc t # rexi tin r t ti I u s and strtac#ur i the vici it s T'he property is within a development that is zoned ediu ens6ty ulti- Farr,ily. Cornpared to the surround8ng properties in East Vail4 it is a higher density and the residences are cIoser together than moste ath this addition, the distance between this un6t and the neighboring units would be 22 and 28 feeto n a vicinity map provided by the architect, distartces betvveert nearby existing structures are shown to be: 2 1 e ighorn Condorriiniums to Unit 23; 20 feet. 2a Unit 8 to Unit 9; 14 feete 3. Unit 15 to Unit 19; 1$ fiee#. 4. Unit 20 to Unit 21: 15 feet, Staff believes that the proposed distance es consistent with the separation found betvveen existing units ira this development. Staffi believes the most important issue dea9ing with the corripatibility of the addition to the surrounding properties invcslr!es landscaping, The proposed site plan shows fiour nevv aspen to the west, four r~ew aspen to the north, arrd tvua new Iodgepole pines to the northeast. There will be several {arge spruce trees rerr»ved at the rear of this property, Staff beloeves that the cluster o# three evergreens with heights of 60 feet, 12 feet, and 5 feet should be preserved. During construction, the appBi~ant shauld provide fencing to protect these trees. There are four other trees, vvi#h heights of 40 feet9 20 feet9 15 feet and 6#eet that vuill be cu# dovvn. Staffi beiieves that the applicant should be responsible for replacing these trees at a 1:1 ratioe For every Iinear foot of tree cu# downg the sarne amount should be replaced at the rear area of the site. This vvould result in a total o# 81 linear feet of new spruce treese The two Iodgepole trees shown on the iandscape plan may be counted as part of the 81 feet, This Iandscape requirement has been included as a condstion o# approval, Ther~ ~s a proposed $Iagstone patio that will be added in the front areae Staff has recommended that the patio conform to the 10 fioot setback. At this time, the patio is proposed to esetback 6-1/2 feet frorn the property linew e believe that the patio couId be reduced so as to provide a 10 foot se#back from the property Iane, and therefore not require a setback variancee 2. e de r t ic rli f fr t trict and Ii# r 1 i t r r t ti n and enf rce t f e ifii r ta1 ti i c ry t c i v c ti ility rt if r it f tr t t among ite i# vicr wt r t att i te jectiv f t i titl it t r t#speci I rivil eo Concerning hardship, sta#f be60eves that #he method by anrhich the development rrvas originally piatted resu9ts in a practica1 difficuity, Property Iines were set in such a way that aImost ali additions to these duplexes require variances. There haere been nine setback variance requests in the past vvithin this developrrient. !n general, staffi has supported these variances based on the platting attern. For ghis particular Iot, the area on-site that is not in a setback is approximately 40 square feeto Since a majority of the site is in the setback area, arsd since there is available GRFA a variance is warranted, in staff's opiniona 3. The ffect f t r t v ri c li t and ir, i tributr f population, tr n r# tw tr ffic fcilitie , public fciliti tiiiti , n u lic s #etym 3 There is no impact from the requested addition on the crateria listed aboveA B. The Pfaraninq and Envaronrrtental Corrtmissiora shall n`take the fgILo~~~ before 1. That #he granting of #he variance vuiil not constitute a grant o# special privi9ege inconsistent with the 69mita#ions on other proper#ies cIassified 9n the sarrte district, 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrirnentaf to the pub3ic health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvernents in the vicinity. 3. That the var?ance is warranted for one or more of the following reasonsa aa The strict literal interpreta#ion or enforcement ofi the specified reguiation would result wn practica8 difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship incons6ster~t with the objectives ofi this title. b. There are excep#ions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app9icable to the same site of the variance that do not applY generally to other properties in the sarrae zonea c. l'he strict interpretation or enfarcerraent of #he specified regulatson wouid deprlve the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same distr9ct. IV. STAFF TI Staff recommends approva9 0f the request as it rneets the criteria as d~~cussed above and, in staff's opirsion, also meets the #indingsa Specifical9y, staff bel~eves that Finding 1 is rr'et in that the variance is no# a grant of special privilege. Other properties in the surrounding development have received setback variances in the pasto Concerning Finding 2, s#a#f believes that there will be no irr,pact to pub6ic health, safety or weBfare as a result o# the additiono Concerning Finding 3, stafif beiieves that 3b is met with this request as the p9atting pattern of the development is an extraordinary circumstance that warrants a varsance. Staff recomrriends approval of the variance wsth four conditions: 1, °fhe variance approval shall be contingen# upon the DRB approving the °°250°' requesta 2e Prior to D review, the applacant shall redesign the flagstone patio entrance area so that it is lacated 10 feet frorn the property line, and conforms to the setback. 4 3. Prior to DB review, the applicant shal1 amend the Iandscape plan showing additional 1andscaping in the nor#heast corner o# the site. The proposed evergreen trees shall rrieasure a rninimum of 83 linear feeta 4. Priar to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of C)ccupancy (TCO), the appiicant shall place the tnio existing overhead serrvice lines beiovv grade, 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide protective fencing around #he three evergreens to the rrorth of the structure to ensure that they vvill not be damageti during construction. c: \psc\m e m os\wate rs.808 5 ~ \r ~ t 4;n \ lk~ . . ~ t ~ ~ ; v~- ~ i • ~ . ~1 L YC'3t _ fT- , l~ ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ Ju l.AP.IC 4E~ 5 sk..; ,'t ? . , ~ v ~ I9 % t \ , ~ ' ~ t . . ' . .r. ~ ~Y. , , ra - > i v v1 « ` ~ ~ ~ ~ rti ~ a4E~! ~o.~ j U;! I t f- d T\j ` i f . ~ tiiG~Pf~i i 1 Cst FlooC l n ~ 14. o- . 1 t € ~ i` k - '''Ili lil , ~ VjEI,C)t11 ~ } ii t ~~fEl i ~ ~~i}~ ~ ~ ; 4f k f ~ I t ~ 4 ~ ff ~ I ~ ' i 6.~w13'~. j LF S . . . Floor Pl . ~ t , X l ~ t s~~; ' x , . , ~ ~~•~tiy.+~~~ - " ,e ~ i 1 . q .d m s.. . ~ ES C it k ~ k ; ~ ~ ~ ~ _ . , 4 ~ ~ ; - ~ . ~ t - • --a , - . 1.~.~. I i 4 ~ ~ P ~ i _ _ _ . ~ ~ E~I - ~ E I ~ ~ ~ ~ i, i ~ 11i, 11 1! I i-- , f r ; L--! E ~ ~ . . . f. a v tion t-, I E , ~ , r li 77TT, i i~~T11i~ , j I! 77ii f'- JI; , ~ t Wes Elevati , , i ~ ~ _ i , 4 ~ ~ ~ I ~ , i 13J1~ "~i ~ outh Elevat3o11 RS ~ ~-r- ~ ~ ~ I~L.._~ , ~ ..A.m.~.. _ i i~ I , ' ~ I I ~ ~ , ~ II ast EleVafilo ` y~ ~.r MEMORANDUM TO; P9annong and Environmental Commission FROM; Comrnuraity DeveIopment Deparkment DATE; August 89 1994 SU JECl"; A request for a rksessio to dsscuss proposed setback and site coverage varwances and a rr»jor exterior aIteration in Commercial Ccare 11 (CC11) for the Lifthouse Lodge, Iocated at 555 East Lionshead Circle, 9egal9y described as a portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Vai1 Lionshead 1st Filing, Appl0can#: Rober# T. and Diane J. L ier Planner: Jim Curnutte 1, DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Robert T. and [7iane J. Lazier are requesting a vvorksessson with the F'Ianning and Eravironrrten#al Comrniss°son (F'EC) to d~~cuss their proposed changes to a portion of the Lifthouse Lodge Buildang. The applicant vvou6d like to construc# a 334 square fioot, one-story9 add'ataort to the comrnercial spaces Iocated on the first fioor of the Lifthouse Lodge uildingn The proposed changes iravolve the tenant sp~~~~ currently being ieased by ontauk, Pizza Bakery, Bart and `(eti's and FirstBanko Thss application wili require PEC review of setback and site coverage variances as well as a major CCII exterior aIteration. Each portion of this request is further described as follows: A. Setback Variance l"he proposed addition will extend the southern vvall of the above-rnenticsned Iease spaces from 6 feet tcs 12 feet further south of the existing building facade. Addmtaonally, a portion of the First ank corrirriercia1 space vvill be extended 6 feet fo the east. The applicant is proposang that the Pezza akery portion of the expansion be extended to the south property lirae. The First ank eastvvard expansion vviil bring the building to within 8,5 #eet of the eastern property line. Setback variances a91ow the addition to encroach 10 feet i~t~ th~ r~~a~'sred 10 f~~t ~~tback ~n th~ ~~~th sAde of the btaaldir~q gxpan~i~o n encroaches 1 5#eet into th~ r~~uir~d 10 f~~# setb~~k wh~~h resul~~ in ar~ 5 #oot setback. B. Site Covgraqp~~ tJnder the CCll zone district, the maxirritsm site coverage aliowed on this lot is 14,231 square feet (70%), n arch 25, 1991, setback and site coverage variances were granted in conjunction with the exterior alteration request related to the addition of the 1 anner Sports cornmerciaB space. The approv°ed additaon resuited in asite coverage aIBowance of 15,114 square feet (74%)a Under the current redevelopment proposal, the building's site coverage wauld be increased an additional 387 square feet to 15,501 square feet (76%). in order to exceed the C. ajgr Ext~~~ This project is Iocated in the Commercial Core II (CC11) zone district, which requires that any exter6or expansion of 100 square feet or greater be reviewed by the PEC using the exfierior ai#eration criteria. The tota9 net fIoor area of the proposed corrimercial expansion gs 334 square feet. lio Z ! LY I The follovving surrirnarizes the relationship of the redevelopment proposal to the CCI! zone district deveBopment standardsa The project's departures frorr, the CCii zane district standards are highlighted ira 1 ty . AlBowed per 22I Zo~ Existinq Project Pro osad Addition Site Area: 0.467 acres 5ame Sarne or 20,334 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 14,231 sq. ft. or 70% 15,114 sq. ft. or 74% 85,501 sq. ft. or 76% *Setbacks: 10' orr all sides, unless N: 0' N: 0' othervvise specified in ihe S: 0.5' S: 0' Vail Lionshead Urban Design E: 15' Ea 8o5' Guide Plan and Design W: 0' VV: 0' Considerations. ""Parking: llaries accarding tg the N/A 2.22 additionai parking prapased use of ihe property. spaces required. Building Neight: 45' for a#!at or rnansard roof hI/A 16.5 feeY 48' for a sioping roof '""Larrdscaping: 4,066 sq. #t. required (20%) 1,312 sq. ft. grass (6.4%) 1,358 sq. (i. gross (6.6°/Q) 3,253 sq. ft. saftseape 499 sq. ft. saftscape 545 sq. ft. softscape (planting) (planiing) {planting} 813 sq, ft. hardscape $13 sq. ft. hardscape 813 sq. f4. hardscape (paving/dscks) (pavingldecks) (pavsng/decks) "The building setbacks on the north and west sides of the existing building vuili remain urrchanged under ihis redeve6opmen# proposal. The existing 05 buildirrg setback is a result o# a seiback variance granted in corrjurrction wiih the Barrner Sports comrvrerciai space addition in 1991. "°The provisian of 2.22 additional parking spaces is required as a result of the proposed additinn. The applicant must pay intca the Tovurr's Parking Fund per the Pay-in-Lieu Pragrarr'. Orr July 19, 1994, thQ Vail Town Council sagsed the parking pay-in-iieu fee to $15,000.00 per space (Ordirrance iVo. 10, Series a# 1994). Nawever, Sectisrr 2 of the C7rdinance siates that the new fee sha11 only apply €o developrneni applicataorrs submitted for Design Review Board (DRB) and Plannirrg and Environmental Corrarnission (PEG) review after July 27, 1994. Since this redevelopment app6cation was submitted prior to that date, the pay-in-lieu fee is currently calcu6atsd ai $$,594.40 per space. As caiculated, the parking requiresrreni of 2.22 spaces equates to a pay-irt-iieu-fee of approxisnately $19,079.57. i'he parking requirernent fcsr Yhis project is discussed in rnore detail in Sectiora IV (D9scvssion Issues) of Yhis rnema. **'Although #he properBy curren#ly has approximately 3,986 square feet of hardscape, an6y 813 square fee# rnay be used #or caiculating the minirnurrr Iandscaped area requirsrnenf. The landscape requirement fior thss project is explained in mere detail in Sectiora IV (Discussion lssues) o# #his memo. 2 li1Il° 1 T 1 L 7'I 1 L A. C~rripBiance vvith the Commercial Core 11 Zone District E2rp222S~~ As stated in the Zoning Code, the purpose o# the CCIf zone district is as followsa `aThe Ccamrnercial Core II zone district is intended to provide sifies for a mixttare of multiple dwellings, Iodges, and comrnercial establishments, in a cIustered, unifiied developrr,ent. Corrirrtercial Core II district in accordance vvith the Vail Lionshead lJrban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to ensure adequate light, air9 open space and other amenities appropriate tcs the perrni#ted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable qualities of the district by establishang appropriate site development standards.,' B. Complian~e with the llrban Design Guide Pian ftar Lionshead The sub-area concepts which are in the vicinity of the proposed Lifthouse Lodge comrraercia6 expansion: Concept 7: "Lions Pride Court shou6d be opened to free access to Lionshead Courto Planting area reduced and relacated to abut Lionshead Arcade building to provide screen buffer #or restaurant and force #ra#fsc #low out of the shadows and into the sunny area of the court, ~culpture focal point, eedLd510.oept 19. 99PIanting to screen non-comrnerciai areas and make visua1 green link between plazas. Concept 1 8: °'Gommercial expansion (one-story) to emphasaze pedestrian Ievei. Pateo area enlarged slightly for additiortal d6ning space {a sun-pocket area)9 and wider, inviting steps which can aIso be used for sitting function. C. rations for Lionshead and Exterior Alteration Criteria Although the staff will no# specifgcaliy address each of the eight exterior aiteration criteria for this worksession, the criteria are 9isted belovu: 1. Heigh# and assing; 2. Roofs: 3. Facades - allslStructures: 4, Facades - Transparencya 3 5, Decks and Patios: 6, Accent EIementsa 7, Landscape EIements; 8. Serrvice and Deliverye D. Compliance with the Varaance Criteria The #oIlowing criteria are to be used in rev~ewing proposed se#back and site coverage variances; 1. Consideratson of Factors: a. °The relationship of the requested variance to o#her existang or potentaal uses and structures in the vicini#y, b. T"he degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulatoon is raecessary to achieve compatibility and caniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this fetle without grant of specaal privilege. C. The ef#ect of the requested variance on laght and air, distribution o# population, trarasportation and traf#ic faci6aties9 public facilities and tatiiities, and pubiic sa#etyo 2. l'he Plar~r~ir~~ and ~~v~r~~rn~ntai ~orr~ isso~~ ~h~ll m~~k~ th~ #~~I~~nrira f~r~~ir~~~ before grantina a variance; a. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant oP special privolege inconsistent with the Iimi#ations on other propertses classified in #he same district. b. That the grantsng of the var6ance will not be detrimental #o the publac health, safe#y or vvelfare, or aterially injurious to properties or irnprcavements in the vicinitya C. That the variance is warranted far one or more of the foilovving reasons; i. The strict literal snterpretation or enforcement of #he specified regulation would r~sult in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent vvith the objectives of this tstle, ii4 There are exceptions or extraordinary cArcurnstances or conditoons applicable to the same site of the variance #hat do not aPPlY 9enerally to other properties in the sarrie zone. 4 iiie The stricfi interpretatson or enforcement of the specifiaed regulation wou9d deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the ovvners of other properties in the same dis#ricg. IVm 1 t ISSUES Since this is a worksession, there is no formal sta#f recomrraenda#ion at this tirr,e. Flowever, the sta#f has identifiied the #oIlovvwng i~~~~s which we would 1ike to discuss further with the PEC and applicant; 1. Comments from Previous PEC Worksession - On fVlarch 14, 1994, the PEC h~~~ a warksession to discuss an earleer version of the proposed building aIteration (see Attachment No. 1- inutes firom March 14W 1994 PEC worksession). During the meeting, ~everal of the business owners affected by the proposed rernodei expressed a concern that the timing of the constructian process did not negafiively effect their businesses, The PEC rr,embers felt that a construction phasing program was irnportant and should be explained in detaal at the final review. To date9 no constructiorr phasing plan has been provided for staff or PEC review, The PEC expressed concerns with the fact that a copper roof was proposed over the Pizza Bakery and FirstBank exparasions but no# the Moratauk or art and Yeti`s expansions. The new submit#aI shows tha# the copper roof wiil be carried over the Bart and Yeti's addition, }ret the applicant is still proposing to feave the existing wood shake shingles ort ontatak. The PEC stated that they liked the idea of carrying the roof along the east side of the building but vvere concerned about the loss of Iandscape planter area and recommended that the appiicant expand the planters as much as possible to allow for the planting o# trees along the east side of the buiiding, The PEC preferred the planting of trees9 to add onterest to the east side o# the building, as opposed to painting a mural on the wall. The applicant has expanded the planter in one area, however, this has resulted in the Ioss of one of the two benches currently located on the east side of the buildinga Additionally, the r~ew plan shows that the roof ficsrm along the east side of the building terrninates at the door on the east side of the build°sng and does not extend a91 the vvay to the end of the building, T"he PEC felt that the diagonal entrance to the First ank vvas awkward and rnay not be appropriate for this space. The First ank entrance uvill be realagned to eIsminate the diagonal and it will face south tovvard the mail. The PEC feit that more divided Bight windows, especia91y at the entry doors to the businesses, should be provided. Some divided light windovvs have been provided (see eIevation drawongs). All members of the PEC feit that a cornprehensive sign prograrn should be incorporated into the redesign. The applicant has submitted conceptua6 drawings of a comprehensive sign program. 5 2, D~~i~n C~rn~~t~bil~t~ th~ ~dd~ti~r~ woth th~ ~xi~~ir~q ~saaldinc~ - 1"he Design Considerations recommend that coranections of roofs to existing buildings shall respect any existing stresng archstectural iines and shaBi emphasize the importance of integrating expansions vvith existirtg buildings so as to avoid a patchwork, or 'atacked-on'° qua9ity for Lsorashead. Expansions should appear to be part af the original desigrt of each buiBding. Staff believes that the prcaposed addition's cortnection to the existing building, at the f1oor Ieorel of the second story decks, is visually pleasing and will eliminate the canfilevered appearance of the second story decks. F#Ithough staff feels that the prtsposed addition does integr~~e we1l with the existing buiiding, uve have some ccancerns with how the individual tenant spaces integrate vvith each ofiher. a. Pr~~~~~d R~ofi - The Lionshead Desagn Consideratsons state that flat, shed, vaulted, or dorrie roofs are acceptable for builtling expansions rnrhile discouraging gabie roof forms. A peaked raof is proposed over the entry to Pizza Bakery, Bar# and Yeti's and the FirstBank entryvuays. The style of these roofs is intended to match the recent approvai for anner Sports which is 6ocated on the southwestern side of the Lifthouse Lodge Busldinge The applicant wishes to have a metal roof on #he First ank, art and Yeti's and Pizza Bakery portions of the expansion9 as well as the roof which wraps around the eastern side of the building. This r~~f will be copper, which vvould weather natural9y. The Lionshead Design Considerations set fiorth rrr»tal as an acceptable roofing rrraaterial provided that it is ribbed or starading seam and a dark coIor. The roof on the Montauk portion of the expansion is proposed to remain cedar shakesm be Buildinq_Eacades -Staff has suggested that the applicant consider adding divided iights to the panes of glass sn the en#ry doors of the First ank, Pizza Bakery and art and Yeti's additions. This wou9d differentiate these doo ays frorrt others on the property and provide a rnore prominent sense of entry to each o# the commercial spaces. The Design Guide PIan suggests that the further subdivision of vvindows an doors into smaller panes is desirable in order to increase pedestrian scale. Although the applicant has added divided light windows fo the building, the PEC should decide if additional division of windows is necessary. These glass areas are not used for fhe dispiay of merchandise. C. Gom~rehensive Sign_fLogram -S#aff v~ould no# consider the signs being proposed with this application to be a comprehensive sign program, since it only 9rrvolves three out of the six businesses on the cornmercial Ievel of the Lifthouse Lodge, The 6 ~~gn plan shows that signs would be airectiy above tr,~ ~~~iness entry ways and would be incorporated in#o the copper fiascia of the buiiding. These signs are presposed #a be backlit. The corrceptual site plan submitted to date does not includ~ sufficient information to deterrriine the proposed sigra face materfals or colors, d. Eastern Expansion of FirstBank - Although not clearly shovvn on the site p8an, the south and easterra expansion of the FarstBarak portlon o# the building is proposed to encroach approximately 1 foot onto the pedestrian maII. Staff vvould recommend that no portion of the buiiding expansion encroach into the pedestrian mall. 3. Setback and 5ite - As previously stated, Subarea Concept #3 $of the Urban Design Guide PIan for Lionshead speclfically caIIs for a one-story corrimercial addition in the area vvhere this expansion is proposecio The cornrrtercial space expansion will create rreuch needed pedestrwan Ievei fnterest along the south and east facades of the building and bring the building down fo a more corrafortabie hurnan scafe. Staff believes #hat granting the setback and site coverage variances will have a positive irrapact on existing and potential uses and structures in the vicsnity. e also believe that the Lionshead lJrban Desigra Guide Pfan takes precedence over #he Zoning Code in guiding the staffs position on #hese two matters. The patio area in frorat of ontauk, Pizza Bakery, art and 1'eti9s and FirstBank has previously been expanded, as suggested in the Guide P1ara. S#aff does not believe that the 1oss taf this patao area (310 square feet) associated with this expansion is significartt and is an acceptable trade off for the benefits mentioned previously, 4. Landscqpg AmeadM~g~ -Subarea Concept # 17 of the Lionshead Urban Design taide PIan suggests additional plarttwngs in the area of this expansiort irt order to screen non-co mercsal areas and rriake a visual Iandscape link betrveen pi as. At this time the applicant is proposing ta add only two trees (10' spruce) and no shrubs to the existing p9anters on the south and east sides of the baaildingo Additiortaliy, the proposed roof addition on the east side of the building will result in the removal of the tvvo existing aspen trees and effectiveiy preclude the p9anting ofi any trees aiong this side of the building, vvoth the exception o# the srraaBl planter expansion where the tvvo spruce trees are proposed. The Town of VaiI definition ofi °°landscaping" no# only inciudes planfied areas and plant rnateraals, it also allows for up to 20% of a iandscape area to be 89hardscape89 96HardscapevB vvould fnc&ude walks, 0.BeSsiisy pG$6'osy i6l68a6oesy WYater fea#ures and other sim€lar fea#ures, Since #he minimurn required amount ofi 6andscaping for the Lifthouse Lodge property is 49066 square feet and up to 20°14 of that figure9 or $13 square #eet9 rnay be "hardscape'°, the rernaining 3,253 square fee# o# required Iandscaping must be in °'softscape". As shown in the Zoning Analysis9 this praperty is already nonconforming with regard to 7 rneetirrog the Iandscape requirement (arsd the minirrium percentage of ,°hard~cape" and °'softscape"). Although the proposed commerc6a1 expans6on vvill reduce the arnount of "hardscape" IandscapQrag on #he property by approxsmately 310 square feet, the amount of '°softscape°a is being increased by 46 square feet. T°he addition of 46 square feet o# "saftscape°° will bring the property further into c+ampliance vvith the minimum reqtairernenfi. The 310 square foot reduction in "hardscape" on the property is not a zoning issue s9nce oniy 813 square feet of the °°hardscape" on the entire property may be credited tovvard meeting #he minimurri landscape requarement. Al#hough a laradscape variance is not required in conjunction vvith this development app3ication, staff would again recommend that adddtiona1 B9softscape" be provided by expanding the arnount of planter area on the east side of the building. The FirstBank cornrrtercial addition will also irnpact existing landscape planters. Hovveverg this impact will r~suBg era the addation of 46 square feet of planting areaa Sta#f has suggested that the applicant consider enlarging the planter on the eas# side of the btailding to aIlovu suffcient room to plartt trees and rraaintain seating. This vvould carry out the intent of the Lianshead Design Guide PIan and help create a sense of enclosure, create shade, and soften the starkness of the east side of the building and adjacent plaza area. e believe this is apprapraate as trees are being removed and sste coverage and setback variances are being requested, The Town Landscape ,Architect has some concerns with regard to the proposed amendments to the planting areas along the east side of the building. Currentiy, the Town o# 1iaii piants and rnaintawns (oncluding watering) all of the planters aIong the Lifthouse Lodge Building, T"he Town Landscape Architect uvould like the PEC to be avvare that the proposed revisions to the planters and #he a dstion ofi the roof to the east side of the building will destray the exestirag p1ants an these planterso Since the applicant will be respons4bie for replacing aIl landscaping in these planters9 including irrigation systems, it is necessary #hat the final design drawings include a detaaled Iand~cape and irrwga#ion plan showing #ree Iocations, species and size9 flovver Iocatrons, specaes, size and spacing; and irrigation head Iocations, type, and size. Addationally, the Landscape Architect recommends aspen trees be used instead ofi the proposed spruce #rees. The use ofi spruce tr~~s will discourage flowers frorn growing under the trees. 5. Park~~~ - As mentioned in the Zoning Analysis section of this rroerr», the parking requBrement for the proposed commercial expansion is 2.22 spaces which equates to a park9ng pay-mn-iieu fee of $1 9,079.57, It should be pointed out that these #igures were derived from the conceptual dravvings provided to date, vuhich are not fu61y dsrnensioned. The parking pay-in-lieu fiee will be recaiculated when a building perrnit application and construction drawings are provided #or `fown review. °fhe 1laii ?'own Council recentBy approved an increase in the parking pay-in-i~eu fee from $8,594.40 per space to $15,000n00 per space, I~owever, Section 2of the Ordinance states that the new fee shall only apply to development applications submitted for Design 8 Review oard (C9RB) and Pianning and Environmental Commission (PEC) review a#ter July 27, 1994. Since this redeveHopment applicafiion was subrnitted prior fio that date, the pay-in-lieaa fee is caDculated at $8,594.40 per space. As provided for in Section 1of Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1994, this fee wall be autorr'aticaily increased annuaily by the percentage the Consumer Price Index ofi the Coty of Denver has increased over each successive year. The off-street parking and Ioading section ofi the Zczning Code requires tha# one loading berth be provided fior the first 10,000 square #eet of commercial floor area plus an additional berth for each 5,000 square feet of tota1 f1oor area pn excess of 10,000 square feefia At this time, staff cannot tietermine vvhether or not this proposed expansion vvou9d require the addition o# a loading berth can this property si~~e we do not have sufficient as-built drawings of the building in order tta make that de#ermination. Staff vvould request that the appE~cant provide as-built dravuings ofi #he cornmercial area of #his building in order for staff to determine the bui9ding's ioading berth reqtairement. 6. Fire Departrnent Concerns - The 16ai1 Fire Department has expressed sorrie concern vvith rXtaintafning adequate access into the plaza area to the east of this building, and are opposed to expanding the existing planters in any way. T°he Fire Department has aIso indicated that it may be necessary for the applicant to retro-sprinkler the entire Lifthouse uildsng as a resu9t of the proposed additiort. The applicant is working with the Fire Departrnent to determine the required access vvidth and fire protectson requirementso 7. Pedestrian Easement - The area to the southeast of the Lifithouse Lodge building is general6y consmdered, and used, as a part of the Lionshead pedestrian mall. Staf# is not aware that a pedestrian easerr,ent has been granted across the Lifthouse Lodge property for the use of the public, a1though it has historical9y been used in that fiashion for rnany yearse Stafif believes that it is appropriate to request that the applicant provide a pedestr4an easement across the southeastern portion of the lot to assure contincaed unrestricted pedestrian access through this area. V. STAFF IONS Since this is a vuorksession, no for a! staff recommendata~n will be provided at this torr,e. h9ovvever, staff requests that the above-listed issues be disctsssed uvith the appifcan#s9 so that they have specifac direction on hovv to proceed. If the applicant wrshes to receive #ormal PEC revievv of this r~quest a# the August 22, 1994 rraeeting9 aII revised information must be provided to staff no 1ater than August 15, 1994. c:lpec\memos\I ifthous.80$ 9 . Attachment #1 - (minutes from March 14, 1334 PEC 43orksess? , Bill Anderson stated that he was opposed fo trash trucks using Bridge Street and that trash should be hauied to the intersection for pick-up. Ne said that he agreed with the six conditions staff outlined in the sta#f memoe Kafhy Langenwalter stated she did not have prablems wi#h the proposed construction barrsers. She suggested getting school chmldrera snvoived with painting the fence for sorr»thing fiun arad creatwve. She stated that trash trucks on Bridge Street should not be allowed and that the app6icants shcataid stabmit art acceptable so8u#ion to this isstae at fhe t?me of building perms#. She sta#ed that the P~C was not opposed to a restaurant in this location, but that at present, the #rash si#uation dod not seem to iend itseif to restaurant useo F4ristan Pritz stated that rt was not the delsverres that were a concern but that removai of trash vvas an isstaea The applicant would need to utslize #he Town o$ Vas6 loading areas. She sta#ed that a trash rernoval plan for a future restaurant, cota1d be brought before the PEC, Bi11 Anderson made a motion to approve #he request for a rnajor CC! exterior alteration to aIlow for the redeveiopment of the Covered Bridge Building per the staff memo and includfng the six conditions contained in the staff merraoq with the addi#ion of condition 7 that; B9No mo#orized vehfcie be a61owed to use Bridge Streei for #rash removaim He added Condif6on 8 that; °'The PEC wouid need to review the addition of a restaurant as tenant space and its proposed trash rerraovai p1an.eB Greg Arrasden seconded this motion and a 4-1 vofe approved this request wefh Jeff ~owen opposing because he d?d no# feel the proposed construction staging p1an was appropriate for Bridge Street and that a coordfnafed developrnent plan needed to be done for the Gramshammer and Covered Bridge Buildings, 4. Arequest for a worksession for a major exterior aIterationa site coverage and setback varaances #or the'L:i#thouse L6dge commercial area, Lot 3, BIock 1, 1fail Lionshead lst Fsling/549 West Liortshead Circle, Applicant; Bob L ier Planner; Ji~ Curnutte J!m Curnutfe rnade a presentation per the sfaff memoa tie reviewed the #hree requests (setback varlance9 site coverage variance, and rnajor exterior alteration). Jim reviewed the criteria to be used in evaluatang thss proposal with the PEC. Galen Aaslarad9 the architect for this project, stated that they were attempting to irnprove this site through thls proposaia Fie explained the rationale for the proposed rekord doors proposed for Pfzza Bakery and Bart and 1°eti's.. oss Davas, owner of Bart and Yeti°s, sfiated that he was concerned that there be an effcient consiruction process so that his business is nat negatively effected. Plaaaroing and Envbeoaamenta! Corre¢nissagn Maecn 14, 1ss4 5 Kathy Langenwaiter said that the construction p1an is aIso of interest to the PEC and that it should be explained in cietail at the final review as the iast project fbr thas buIlding dragged on Too loraga Jay Peterson stated that they wer~ aware that a construction phasing timefrarne would have to be worked out so that shop owners and other retail space owners couid plan accordingly9 Bill Anderson stated tha# he ~rou1d leke to see a copper roof u#iiized across the whole roof of the building. He feIt fhat the transitaon from the copper roof to the shake shingies v~~~ awkwards He added that the copper roof was #ire proofa He liked the idea of expanding the plantgng ort the east side of the buildinge He added that he did rtot particuiarly like the ?dea of the painted mural. He said that divided light doors . . ~ould he)p the customer perceive wherb the entrarac~s were. Bob Armour stated that part of the problem with the ex6sting building were the 6nconsistencies and that he wondered whether the proposed 8 foot rekord doors would add to #h1s concernm He said he would like to sae the roof materials tie together over the who1e buiidinge He said he d9d not have a problem with the requested setback and site coverage varianceso Greg Amsden stated that he wou1d like to see the overall contsnuity of the storefr~nL' improved. He said that he was not in favor of the additiona6 door heeghts and felt that the proposed roof rraaterials ervere inconsisient. Fie iiked the east side of the bui6ding and agrees wi8h the mural idea or {arge trees in the expanded planter. Jeff Bowen agreed with Greg's comrnents, howevera he was not in favor of the proposed painfed murale He was in favor of additionai large trees on the site. He said that he was opposed to the 8 goot doorsm He sa%d that the building needs cons?siency and that acopper roof ali the way around wou1d be positivee He said that he did not have problerns with the requested site coverage or setback variances. Ne pointed out that the building needs acorraprehensive sagn program, Kathy Langenwalier said she wou1d like to see a roof overhang focated above the Pizza Bakery to jncrease the appearance of depth to the entry. The roof overhang needs to occur on thear properfy. She added that she would like the heavy Iog detaal at the Pizza Bakery brought dowra to the ground. She said she would Iike to see the wa8i squared up between the Pizza Bakery and Bart and Yeti"s as we1f. She added that a consistent roof and fascia along the entire expanse o# the bu°sldang would be positiveo Aiong this Iine, she said she felt asign and awning prograrn for the building wouId aiso be he3pfuL Concerning Bart and Yeti's, she said sh~ ~ould 8ike to see an entrance created for the restauranto She also did not care for the exposed log ends beneath the roof, Concerning First Bank9 she #eIt that the diagonal eratrance may not be appropriate for thss space. She fe1t the design was a iittle too '°cutesy,°a She said thaf carrying the roof aIong the s6de arad additional 1andscaping on the east end was positive. She stated 2hat she would like to see the benches kept as a part ofi the project Concerning the 8 foot doors, she stated that if the fransition cou1d be better Piararaiaag and Ersvironrraentat Coeeserslssmora tAaaeh 94, 1994 6 integrated, that she did not have a problem with the concepta She told Galen to show more detail in the next set of drawings. Fioss Davis stated that he would not be ogaposed to some sort of gable roof over his entry or the use of cappere GaIeri Aasiand stated Y9zat the 45 degree angme aliows them to stay away from the large pine trees in front of the F'frst Bankm Kathy Langenwalter stated she was not completely opposed to this approach but that it needs to be mor~ integraied with the rest of the buildingm She added that there were optioras for thss area. Overall, she said #hat there many positive cornponerats to this project but that there needed to be greater iniegrationm Ail rnembers agreed the copper roof band made sensee 5e A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved exterior aitera#ion proposai for the S1ifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots and C, BIock 5, Vall Village 1 st Filing. Appl~cants Rod and Beth Slifer P1anner: Kristan Pritz Beth Slifer presented drawings of banners that were proposed to be Iocated in the space and explained Fhear proposed pos6tion. She asked the PEC whether they would be in #avor ofi a skater sculpture being piaced beneath the baranerm Greg Amsden stated that he was in favor of the banner with the skater approach, Bob Armour said that he Iiked the skater. Bi11 Anderson stated that he like the banner but he liked the idea o# a pfan#er, Kaihy Langenwalfier commented whether the impact of the sculpture wou1d be Iost in the space. She felt ihat even with the sculpture, sorrie piantings shou4d be Iocated along the base of the ~culptureo eth SISfier was concerned fhat people would walk on plantings p1aced at fhis Iocation, Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was in favor of #lowers fn the surnrrser and some sor# of holsday theraae during the wintero Jeff Bowen made a motion #ha# the ska#er scuipture be installed and #ha# e3ther a vertical or horfzontal banner be lnstalled above the scu1ptureo A 3-2 vote approved this request with Kathy Langenwalter and Bi11 Anderson opposing, P9araraing and Envieonrraera9a6 Cornmissiora Maech 14, 1994 7 ! ~ i 1 ~ ~ . j ! I ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ` _ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ . ~ ~ ,4:5 ra: ~p 3 ~ # 3 LA ~ ~ ~ 4. ~ , ~ - - 04 e . , ~ Ul" . . i _..1. 3 U . ~Li U ~ - ~ s I S~U HEAST" ELEvA°ria N €AST EL£VA71C)PI ~'Z 3 ~ r ° ~J~' M~ ~ , , - --I _ - - , _ - ~ - _ _ - ~ i w ~ j 0 0 m ~!I ~ il-. 4~-- _ - ~ ~ / ` f r ~ 0 " . , t . i . LL~ i ~ ~ _ ~ _ . ~ ~ l r ~ dR 785'9~ i a76JVTH GeLEVAT06JN a n ! I 1 ; ~ , ; ; ~ 6>7 .p.,.,4 i) ~ ~ I ~>w~ ~.~:Y ~.,~~.~.-wv. ~ ~ •~a °w.-et~ , i' ann.y ~ °o-r Li ~fl-A~~~.-._ \ ~I ^P l I 0 LU ~ XLZN.~--. k-a4 O: . . b~ ~ . - - ~3~ S1T'E PLAN g - ~ci ~ U ° ~ ~tiJ 1 441 8 ` ` • ~ ' ~ ~.1 w,. ~ 1044 • ~ r" a o a \ ~ We" ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ MEMORANDUM l"O: Planning and Environmentai Comrraission FRO ; Community Development Department DAl"E: August 8, 1994 SllBJEC1`: A request for a ression #or a conditional use perrnit to ailovv for an exparssion to the admsnistration building Ioca#ed at 1309 Vail VaIfey Drive/tJnplatted parcel iocated north of the 1-70 Right-Of- ay, narth of l/ail Village 8th Filing. Applicant; Town of Vail9 represented by Greg Ha81 F'Ianner; Andy Knudtsen 1. PROJECT I °TI `fhe PubGc Works Department is proposing to expand their adrrtinistration offices by adding a rraodular building on the west side o# the exdsting o##Ace building, The rnodular building will be 65 feet long and 2$ feet wide. I# will be finished to rnatch the existing administration building. The siding will be board and batten and will be stained the same color. The rocaf will be built up to the sarne pitch #o match the existwng roof. The Publoc orks site is zoned Pub1ic Use Districte Public buildings and grounds are fisted as a conditioraai use ira this zone dastrict. As a result, this proposal requAres a ccsnditional use approval by the Planning and Environmental Comrnission (PEC). 9n October of 1993, the T"ovvn Council approved a rriaster plan for the Public orks siteo The Master Pian caiied #or an expansion to the Public Works administration building as part of the iast phase. Pubiic Works would 8ike #o consoBidate #heir administration sta#fi prior to the ten to fifteen years it would take to reach th~ ~inal phaseo At #his time, T"odd Oppenheimer, #he Town's Landscape Architect, and Terri artinez, the Asswstant Tovvn Engineer, are Iocated in separate buildings #rom the rest of the administratson sfaffi, l"he rnodtalar building will aIIow the staff ta uvork in clcrser proximaty. The rnodular buildAngs are seen as an interirr, step that will ailow thern to consolidate the staff novu9 without rearranging the prioritoes or the phases of the aster Plan. The majority o# the area where the rnodular building will be Iocated i~ currently used for parking. l"he employees who use this area for parkeng will be required #o park dovvn below along the berm. Though a majoroty of the area for the modular building is flat, the northern port6on is sIoped and will require site work and excavation. °The applican# is planning to construct a re#asning wall three #eef taII to allow for the modular building. 1 1111m ZONING LYSI Zoninge Pub3ic Use District Th~ Public Use Dmstrict lists public buildings and grounds and public service faciii#ies as conditional uses in this zone district. AIl other development standards are determined by the PECn Illa ITI FINDINGS lJpon review of iectaon 18.60, the Comrnunity Developrr,ent Department recommends approval ofi the condational use permit based upon the following factorsa A. Cortsideratiort of Factorsw 1. Relatsorrship and impacf of the use on development objectoves of the Tovvn. Stafif believes thaf the proposal is consistent vvith the developrraent object3ves of the Town and is in compliance vvith the Public Works Master Plan. The Master PIan has called for the expanswon of the administration offces. Since this expansion was to take place in the last phase of the overall development of the Public Works site9 there is an interirn so3ution needede In ari effort to consolidate staff, they will be locatfng the rnodular building adjacent to the existing offices. lJltimately, the modular building, as well as the exist6ng offices, wiil be replaced with a permanent buildingo In additiort9 a goal o# the Land lJse Plart cail for #acilities such as these. GoaI 6.1 states that "Services shou#d keep pace with increased growth". Staff believes tha# the services Ptablic orks provides to the communaty are a re#Iection of the growfh and size of the community. The expanded adrriinistration bsailding should assist the Public orks Department to provide irraproved services to the comrnunity. 2. The effect of the use on 9aght and air9 distribution of poptalation, transporta#ion facilities9 utilities9 schocals, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Sta#f believes that aray effect #rom the proposal will be posftive (hovvever sma11) on transportation facilities, ut°slities, parks and recreation faciiities as #his is the administration building which provides support for #hose services, 3. Effect upon traf#sc with particular re#erence to congestion, automotive and pedes#rian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverabi9ity, and rerriovai of snow frorral the street and parking areas. 2 Pedesfrian safety and convenience as welE as traffic control will improve at the Pubiic Works site as there will be three parking spaces reserved for visitors at the c6osest 1ocatoora to these buildings. In addition, there will be astaircase added immediately south of the addition to accomrraodate pedes#rian access, 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 surround3ng uses. Staff believes that the character of the area will improve as a result of these changes. The rriodular building will be sided with board and batten siding to match the existing building. A roo# will be buiwt an the rraoduiar structure to match the existing roo#. Laradscaping will be added around the site to irr'prove the appearancee Twenty-eight aspens will be added on the berm adjacent to 1- 70e Five aspens will be added to the area immediately south of the administration building and a raevv planting bed will be created ors fhe west side of the modular buildirag. The applicant has agreed to put in a cluster of three aspen and #our shrubs in the nevv planter (this is not shown ora the drawings but appears as a condition of approval), in addition to these irnprovernents to the aesthetics, the applicant will be regrading the hiliside behind the adrninistration building to dsrect debris flcaw avvay frorn str~~tures. The regradong will be done in accordance vvith a report from Art Mears attached to the end of this memo. Staff believes that this will be an irraproverraent in safety for the siteo The regrading behind the buildings will be done at a 2m1 slope, This is the maxirnurn ailowed by the Design Revievv Guidelines, There will be a 3 foot tall retaining wall constructed to the rear of the proposed modular building at the base of the regrading area. The Fire Departrnent continues ta require that this bu9lding be spriraklered. If the applicant cara document that the Uniform Bui6ding Code (IJBC) does not trigger a sprinkling requirement, staff will waive #his requirement. At this time, it is a condition of approvaB. B. Findings The Planninq and Errvironrriental Corr, ission shall make the foilo~~~re aranta~~ ~ ~~nditior~~i ta~~ ~rrrnit; 1, That the proposed Iocation of the use in accord with the purpases 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 Iocat°son of the use and the conditions under which it vvould be operated or rnaintained wouid not be detrirnental to the public health9 safety, or welfare or materiaBly injurious ta properties or dmprovements ira the vicinityo 3 3. That the proposed u~e wouid compiy with each of #he applicable provisions of the condi#ional tase permat section of the zoning code. IV. CONCLUSION Staff recommends approval of the conditionai use, e believe that it fulfilis the criteria as disctassed abovee 6ra ~ddition, staff be6ieves that 6t rneets the findings. Speci#ically, Finding 1 is metg in staff's op§nion, as fhe proposed use and location is in carnpliance vvith the purpases of the zone distroct. Finding 2 is rnet9 in staff's opinion, in that there wmll not be a detrirr»ntal impact to public heal#h, safety or we1fare. Finding 3 is rrtet, as the propcasal is mn compliance vvith the zoning standards of the PUD zone districto ThereforeP staff is recommending approvai with the foliowing conditions; 19 Prior to Design Revievv Board (DR ) revievv, the appiicant shall add to fihe Iaradscape plan a cIuster of three aspens arsd four shrubs to the r~ew plan#er, irnmediately we~t of the modular building. 2. Prior to D revievv, the applicant shali submit a ligh#ing pian9 indicating where the new fixtures vvili be 1ocated and that they con#orm to the Town's s#andards for lighting. 3. The applicant shall sprinkBe the sfructure in accordan~e with #JBG standards or docurnent that the U C does not require sprinkiing. c:\peclmemos\pu bwks.808 4 A Ut~ ~ 1 1994 E U do MEARS, $ =e...s.q RNC0 Natua°a3 H d5 Ccaiasul ts 222 East iuc fAve. C's isoo. Colorado 81230 303 - 641 •3236 Jcsly 23, 3994 Mr, Ci~~g Ha11 Town EDgineer °Town of VaiI 75 South Frontage Iroad Vail, CO 81657 Dear Mr, I-Iall; At your reqasest, Iconducted asit~ ~spection of the propx,sed office expansgon site at the public works eenter an 3u1y 19, 1994, e pu se of this szte inspection was to evaluate the praposed debris flow deflection st cturee e followiDg su arizes the my observations and COncluspons, a. e building site laes withiza a "moderate hazard9W debris flow azea, as indrcated on 'I'own of Vail hazard aps. A. moderate h ard debris flow acea is defined as an area that can ,`...experience property damage throu flood°ang9 ezosion and i gact of uddy water, soii, xock, and debris,'° ealluvial fan above the building site is characteristic caf fine-grained deposits anci sa11 rocks that should no# prodcsce large ° pact ]oads when incorporated ° to flcsws, therefore ill €aot constitute a significant hazard to }eople. F'ur#hermore, study of aerial photographs dating to 1939 shows no evidence of recent debsis flo activigy fhis century. b. Adequate protection from the rare debris flows can be achieved by buildirig atrerach/be structure as located on the attached figureo is st cture will protect the bufldiDg from ail r~~~onably foreseeable debris flows. Extraordinary (but extre ely rare) flow may overtop the be and reach the office extension9 but such evenfs are so unlikely that they are not considered ia Iand-use pia ing and ez~gineezing at Vai1e c. e propo d diversion st ctuxe wi11 not defiect the flow toward adjacent psivate property, an accordance with Vail Hazard Regulations Sections 18.69.052 [C] (b). e diversion st cture will, however, redirect the flow slBghtly to the west here it wi11 deposit in the parking 1ot. Pleas~ ~ontact me if you have any questicsns, Sineerely, N Lo Arthur 1, Mears, P.E. Avalanche-contrrol engzneer Mass Wastrng • Azalaraches a AvralancheCoaafrolE nesrirag ~ , - Qf qne cccst o# the llc~ditch SY o~sYd be sed locatias~ flom CIC~t15 E10WS' 6Y~St 5I5 ~aezsilaz t° trc 6 thc additio~itch and m~~t b~ a}ovc the l ~ atc,dY in Pace. ° a ~ ~ ~ j ~ O t ~ ~ ~ } • d+, ~ ~ P ~ ' e 0 - - - - - ~ - _ , - ~ , - - - ~ - - - ~ - - - - - - - ~ ~ _ , - - - - - - - - - - ~ - r : ~ i - - - - - _ _ - - - - , r _ - - _ - - - , - - - - - - r " ' " - - - - _ _ ~ s - ' " - ' ~ - _ , ~ - " ' - - - - - - , - - - - - " ~ _ ~ - - - _ - . - - " r----~----- ~ - ' _ ~ ~ - - - ~ ~ - " ' ~ - ' - _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ ~ ~ _ ~ i / - - _ _ - " ' - _ i i ~ - - ~ - - _ . - - - ' ~ ~ - _ - - i ' ~ ` ~ " ti - - - - - - ~ - - - op ~ - _ _ , I ~ I ` ~Owl AIM For~~~ ptcctLw ~ . , ADDffVN ~ i ~l\\ ~ACVrAr(5) - - ~ = ; `i J,,~ , ~ i , -------.1 -axas___- 1 ~ _ ~ ~y i ~ - ~ - - - f ~ , r - , t---- - - , r l- - - - - _L - - _r~_ - - - ~7 r Awk i ~ ~ ; I t~ ~ rTTITT'n ~ i t ~ I Tf:~T I i I n - $ _ . ~ ~ ~ CaVAT-IOIV