Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-0213 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION February 13, 1995 AGENDA Project Orientation/Lunch 11:30 a.m. Site Visits 12:30 pm. Drivers: Andy and Rancl Applicant: Lee Hollis Planner Randy Stouder 0 2 Greg Amsden Allison Lassoe Mike Mollica Bill Anderson Andy Knudtsen Bob Armour Jim Curnutte Jeff Bowen Randy Stouder Kathy Langenwalter George Rother Dalton Williams A request regarding amendments to Chapter 18.71 (Additional GRFA) and Chapter 18.57 (Employee Housing), deleting the section providing for Additional GRFA (the 250) and incorporating the 250 GRFA allowance in the Employee Housing Section of the Zoning Code, to be used exclusively for deed-restricted employee housing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: George Ruther is George Rother made a presentation per the staff memo. Jeff Bowen was concerned about whether the 250 should be eligible for property owners of lots with less than 15,000 square feet. George Luther stated that staff's rationale behind having the 250 available for property owners of lots with less than 15,000 square feet could eliminate potential future variance requests. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES February 13, 1995 Greg Amsden asked Tom Moorhead whether removing the potential for demo/rebuilds from the 250 Ordinance had been considered. Frank McKibben, a resident and real estate agent in the Town of Vail, stated that the 250 Ordinance in the past has allowed property owners to enhance and expand existing residences. He did not feel that the 250 Ordinance allowed excessive bulk and mass. He stated that it was important that the Town of Vail maintain its bed base. Sue Dugan, a resident of Vail and real estate agent in the Town of Vail, was opposr-"- I to the removal of the 250 Ordinance from the Zoning Code. 0 Kathy Langenwalter felt that the word "however" should be removed from Page 6, B-4, Page 8, B-5 and Page 11, B-3. Greg Amsden stated that he was adamantly opposed to the proposed amendments and felt that it was not in the interest of the community to repeal the 250 Ordinance. He wholly supported the 250 being used for employee housing but felt that the elimination of the 250 would be taking away a property right of property owners in t Town of Vail. He stated that four of the seven council members have used their 25"] Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the request for amendments to Chapter 18.71 and Chapter 18.57 of the Zoning Code per the memo, with Kathy Langenwalter seconding the motion. A 3-3 vote denied this request with Greg Amsden, Bob Armour and Bill Anderson opposing. Bill Anderson stated that he was generally undecided on this item until he heard the public input today. He felt it was important that the 250 remain available for Vail residents. Bob Armour agreed with Greg's and Bill's comments. Kathy Langenwalter stated that excluding the 250 Ordinance and considering the potential for 425 square feet in credits, the Town of Vail was consistent with what Eagle County allows concerning floor area. Dalton Williams agreed with Kathy's comments. He felt that the 250 should be used for the benefit of the Town, (i.e. employee housing). A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck at the Covered Bridge Building (Covered Bridge Coffee Shop), located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots B, C and D, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Julie Iverson and Kiendra Hoover Planner: Randy Stouder 0 Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo. Julie Iverson stated that the Covered Bridge Coffee Shop desired outdoor seating and a couple of tables for their store. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES February 13, 1995 2 Kathy Langenwalter asked whether a streetscape bench was to be located in the back corner by Pepi`s as part of the PC approval of the Covered Bridge Building. Julie Iverson stated that she thought that benches would be located adjacent to Gore Creek, PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES February 13, 1995 Greg Amsden, Jeff Bowen and Dalton Williams agreed with Bob Armour's position. Jeff stated that he did not have a problem with one building being painted one year and one building being painted the following year. �1111 II I I I [Eli M MITI Dalton Williams mentioned that he would prefer it if the landscaping north of Building 1 were actually located next to the fence on the north side of the walk but was not adamant about it. He added that he was concerned about the location of the gas meters. Bill Pierce explained that the meters were not a part of this application. He was concerned that locating the trees by the wall could create a "canyon effect". B I ill Anderson favored the trees being located by the fence as opposed to the building. He stated that the PEC reviewed a request to vacate a pedestrian easement recently and that if the applicant locates trees in this area, in the future, the trees could grow to a size that would prohibit the use of the pathway. Dalton Williams made a motion to approve the request for a major CCII exterior alteration and common area and parking variance requests per the staff memo including the three conditions included on Page 13 of the staff memo and the additional two conditions that: 1. The two buildings be painted at the same time and that this be reviewed by the DRB and done in conjunction with the proposed addition. 2. The landscape planter located next to Building 1 must be constructe with the same Perlite and topsoil treatment proposed for the planter attached to the proposed addition. He added that the P was not in agreement with the staff's recommendation of denial for the major CCII exterior alteration per the discussion that had occurred at today's hearing. Bill Anderson seconded the motion and a 6-0 vote approved the major CCII exterior alteration request and the common area and parking variance requests. It should be noted, that Greg Amsden left the meeting at approximately 4:00 p.m and Bob Armour read his comments into the record. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES February 13, 1995 5 4. A request for a worksession for a M minor exterior alteration to allow for an addition to the Golden Bear retail shop within the A and D Building, located at 286 Bridge Street/Lots A and B and a part of C, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Lee Hollis Planner: Randy Stouder Kathy Langenwalter stated that the PEC had discussed the landscaping variance at their project orientation meeting earlier and that it was the PEC's feeling that the landscaping variance could be avoided if the patio area at the back of the property w landscaped more extensively. She requested that the applicant further explain the proposed locations of tree grates. I Gene Geritz, the architect for the project, explained to the PEC why they were proposing tree grates directly in front of the proposed benches. He stated that using tree grates, combined with benches in a repetitive fashion, would draw the pedestrian's interest to the north elevation of the building (where display windows are located). reed with Bill's comments. W 51, 1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES February 13, 1995 6 Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES February 13, 1995 7 Concerning the request for additional GRFA, Bob Armour stated that given the perceived gains that will occur from this project (i.e. additional employee housing), he had no objection to the additional GRFA. The SDD should be revised, he added, so that the proposed structure could not be expanded at a later date. Bill Anderson and Dalton Williams agreed with Bob's comments. Mike Mollica read Greg's written comments which, in summary, said that he was not in favor of the additional GRFA for the free market units. Bob, Bill and Dalton all did not have problems with the proposed building height or the employee housing units. Bob emphasized that the proposal falls under the allowed height of the SDD. Greg Amsden also had no objections with the proposed building height or employee housing units. Bob Armour stated that he did not want to see one single entity buy all the employee housing units, in that it defeated the purpose of "the pride of ownership". PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES February 13, 1995 Greg Amsden would like the proposed landscaping increased to the 50% minimum, per the SIDD. Mike Mollica inquired whether gas fireplaces were being proposed. Kathy Langenwalter explained that fourteen gas fireplaces were being proposed for the free market units. Applicant'. Galen Aasland Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED TO FEBRUARY 27,1995 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES February 13, 1995 10 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MINUTES February 13, 1995 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: February 13, 1995 RE: A request for amendments to Chapter 18.71 (Additional RFA) and Chapter 18.57 (Employee Housing), deleting the chapter providing for Additional GRFA (the 250) and incorporating the 250 GRFA allowance in the Employee Housing Chapter of the Zoning Code, to be used exclusively for deed-restricted employee housing. Applicant: Town of Vail § Planner: George Ruth(M ANNSSF" �: �# FIN* -- --------- Upon review of the PEC's suggestions, staff has made the following changes to the 250 an* Employee Housing Ordinances: Chapter 18.71 has been removed from the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The additional 250 square feet of GRFA has been incorporated into Chapter 18.57 (Employee Housing) under the subsection titled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area for Type 1, Type 11, Type V Employee Housing Units." 2. The intent/purpose statement of the additional 250 square feet has been amended to read: 2 • 3 Chapter 18.57 EMPLOYEE HOUSING Sections: 18.57.010 Purpose. 18. 57.020 Employee housing units (EHU) generally. 18.57.030 Applicability. 18.57.040 Type I - Employee housing unit. 18.57.050 Type 11 - Employee housing unit. 18.57.060 Type III ® Employee housing unit. 18.57.070 Type IV - Employee housing unit. 18.57.080 Type V - Employee housing unit. 18.57 095 Additional gross residential floor area for Type 1, Type 11 and Type V 4 'M 18. 57.040 Type I- Employee housing unit. A. Purpose. To allow for construction of an EHU on lots in the Primary/Secondary Residential and Two-Family Residential zone districts which do not meet the minimum lot size requirements for said zone districts. 0 B. General Conditions. A Type I EHU shall comply with the following general provisions: M L C. Application. Any person who wishes to construct a Type.1 EHU, without requesting the use of the additional GRFA shall submit an application for Design Review Board approval to the Community Development Department containing the following information D Review, The application shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board in accordance with Chapter 18.54-Design Review of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. P N 1 It shall be a conditional use in the single-family residential, two-family residential and primary/secondary zone districts which meet the minimum lot size requirements for said zone districts. 2. It shall be permitted only on lots which comply with minimum lot size requirements of the zone district in which the lot is located. H 0 3. It shall be located within, or attached to, a single-family dwelling or be located within, or attached to, a two-family dwelling pursuant to Section 18.54.050 1 - design guidelines duplex and primary/secondary development. It may also be located in, or attached to, an existing garage provided the garage is not located within any setback, and further provided that no existing parking required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code is reduced or eliminated. 4. It shall not be counted as a dwelling unit for the purposes of calculating density. However, it shall contain kitchen facilities and a bathroom, as defined in Chapter 18.04 - Definitions of the Vail Municipal Code. It shall be permitted to be a third dwelling unit in addition to the two dwelling units which may already exist on the lot. Only one Type 11 EHU shall be allowed per lot. 5. It shall have a GRFA not less than three hundred square feet, nor more than nine hundred square feet. An applicant, however,,shall be permitted to apply to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail for additional GRFA not to exceed two hundred fifty square feet to be used in the construction of the EHU, pursuant to Section 18.57095. The employee housing unit may not exceed the 900 square feet maximum, even if the 250 is used. & It shall have not more than two bedrooms. 7. No more than two adults and one child not older than sixteen years of age shall reside in a one bedroom Type 11 EHU. No more than two adults and two children not older than sixteen years of age shall reside in a two bedroom Type 11 EHU. 8. Each Type 11 EHU shall be required to have no less than one parking space for each bedroom located therein. However, if a one bedroom Type 11 EHU exceeds six hundred square feet, it shall have two parking spaces. All parking spaces required by this code shall be located on the same lot or site as the EHU. If no dwelling exists upon the property which is proposed for a Type 11 EHU at the time a building permit is issued, or if an existing dwelling is to be demolished and replaced by a new dwelling, not less than one of the parking spaces required by this subsection shall be enclosed. A three hundred square feet GRFA credit shall be allowed for the construction of one enclosed parking space for the Type 11 EHU. (Ord. 8(1992) § 4(part).) 1 7 060 Type III ® Employee housing unit. A. Purpose, To allow for the construction of EHUs in multiple family and mixed-use zone districts, B. General conditions. 3. It shall be counted as 0.5 dwelling units for the purposes of calculating density. The number Type III of EHUs shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of the conditional use permit review process set forth in Section 18.60.060 - Criteria - Findings. 4. It shall have a GRFA of not less than four hundred fifty square feet and not more than nine hundred square feet. 5. It shall have kitchen facilities and a bathroom as defined in Chapter 18.04 - Definitions of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. 6. It shall have no more than two bedrooms. 7. No more than two persons for each bedroom located therein shall reside in a Type III EHU. 8. It shall'be required to have one parking space for each bedroom. However, if a one bedroom Type III EHU exceeds six hundred square feet it shall have two parking spaces. Any guest parking requirements shall be determined by the . Planning and Environmental Commission as a part of the conditional use permit review process set forth in 18.60.060. 9. It shall not be entitled to additional GRFA in accordance with Section 18.57095 Additional Gross Residential Floor Area for Type /, Type // and Type V Employee Housing Units. 10. GRFA shall be determined as set forth in Section 18.04.130 B. of this code. 11. A Type III EHU may be rented in compliance with Section 18.57.020 or it may be sold, transferred, or conveyed separately from other dwelling units or employee housing units that may be located on the same lot or within the same building in which the Type III EHU is located so long as it meets the following da conditions- 18.57.070 Type IV - Employee housing unit. A. Purpose. To allow for the construction of EHUs in multifamily and mixed-use zone districts which are similar to studio dwelling units. B. General conditions. 1 It shall be a conditional use in the Residential Cluster, Low Density Multiple- Family, Medium Density Multiple- Family, High Density Multiple- Family, Public Accommodation, Commercial Core 1, Commercial Core 11, Commercial Core III, Commercial Service Center, Arterial Business District, Parking District, Public Use, and Ski/Base Recreation zone districts. 2. It may be constructed on legal nonconforming lots and sites as well as on lots and sites which meet the minimum lot size requirement in the zone district in which it is located. 3. It shall be counted as 0.333 of a dwelling unit for the purposes of calculating density. The number of Type IV EHUs shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission as part of the conditional use permits review process set forth in Section 18.60.060 - Criteria - Findings. 4. It shall have a GRFA of not less than two hundred square feet and not more than three hundred square feet and shall include a bathroom and a kitchenette as defined in Chapter 18.04 - Definitions of the Vail Municipal Code. 5. Each building which contains a Type IV EHU shall contain a storage locker not less than five feet width x six feet height x five feet length (one hundred fifty cubic feet) in size for each Type IV EHU contained therein, and not less than one washer and dryer for common use by each eight EHUs located therein. In no event shall less than one washer and dryer be provided in a building with less than eight EHUs. 6. No more than one person shall reside in a Type IV EHU. 7. It shall be required to have one parking space. Guest parking requirements shall be determined by the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with the conditional use permit review process set forth in Section 18,60.060 Criteria - Findings. 8. It shall not be entitled to additional GRFA under Section 18.57.095 Additional Gross Residential Floor Area for Type /, Type // and Type V Employee Housing Units. 9. GRFA shall be determined as set forth in Section 18.04.130 B. of this code. (Ord. 8(1992) § 4 ( ad).) Hit] 1 5ZO95 Additional Gross Residential Floor Area for Type 1, Type If and Type V Employee Housing Units. Before such additional GRFA can be granted, the Type /, Type // and Type V EHLI shall meet the following criteria: L A. The employee housing unit shall be deed restricted as set forth within this Chapter (Employee Housing). ff, B. Proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA under this provision shall comply with all Town of Vail zoning requirements and applicable development standards. If a variance is required for a proposal, it shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission pursuant to Chapter 18.62 before an application is made in accordance with this chapter. Any single family dwelling or two family dwelling which is totally demolished or removed shall; (1) be replaced with any prior existing nonconforming uses or development standards totall y eliminated; (2) obtain a building permit within one year of final Design Review Board approval or the approval for additional GRFA shall be voided; (3) be allowed a maximum of the GRFA allowable by zoning, plus a maximum of two hundred fifty additional square feet. C. Adjacent property owners and owners of dwelling units on the same lots as the applicant shall be notified of any application under this chapter that involves any external alterations to an existing structure, Notification procedures shall be as outlined in Section 18.66.080 of the zoning code. D. If any proposal provides for the conversion of a garage or enclosed parking area to GRFA such conversion will not be allowed unless a new garage or enclosed parking area is also proposed. Plans for a new garage or enclosed parking area shall accompany the application under this chapter, and shall be constructed concurrently with the conversion. E Any increase in the parking requirements as set forth in Chapter 18.52, due to any GRFA addition pursuant to this chapter, shall be met by the applicant. F. All proposals under this section shall be required to conform to the Design Review Guidelines set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Any Type I, Type // and Type V employee housing unit for which an addition is proposed shall be required to meet the minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with this section, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing dwelling unit and site, including landscaping to determine whether they comply with the design review guidelines. Staff shall determine if there are any deficiencies on-site with respect to the Design Review Guidelines, and shall require that they be brought into conformance during construction. Examples include overhead utility lines, unpaved driveways, etc. No temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this chapter until all required improvements to the site and structure have been completed as required. G. The provisions of this section are applicable only to GRFA additions to Type 1, Type // and Type V employee housing units. No pooling of gross residential floor area shall be allowed. No application for additional GRFA shall request more than two hundred fifty square feet of gross residential floor area per Type /, Type // and Type V employee housing unit. C. Procedure. The following procedure shall be followed by anyone wishing to obtain additional GRFA pursuant to this section: IN- MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission ISYN I SUBJECT A request for a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core 11 zone district and parking and common area variances for a proposed building expansion at the Lions Square Lodge, located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing, 1 st Addition. Applicant: Bill Pierce, representing the Lions Square Lodge Condominium Association Planner: Jim Curnutte Bill Pierce, on behalf of the Lions Square Lodge Condominium Association, has requested Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) review of a proposed major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core 11 (CC11) zone district and parking and common area variances, for a proposed building expansion at the Lions Square Lodge (located at 660 West Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing, 1 st Addition). I IM 11 11111iiiq rt In addition to the major exterior alteration application, the applicant is also requesting variances to exceed the maximum square footage of common area allowed on the lol and to deviate from the Town of Vail parking standards, These requests are describei in more detail as Corr mom Area Variance t#Mff1ffWCPM1 NOMMUTMEMIM 0 2. Parking Variance 9 ' 4' M III ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Commercial Core 11 (CCII) Lot Area: 1.8 acres or 78,416 square feel The bold text indicates the development standards which require variances SHRE1 3M M Allowed/Required Existing bLZoning Development LM2�ied Development Height*: 45 feet for flat or mansard roofs Approximately 65 feet to the highest No changes proposed 48 feel for a sloping roof point of the stair tower Setbacks*: 10 feel from all properly lines N: 11 feet No changes proposed S: 6 feet E: 3 feet W: I foot GRFA: 80% of buildable area or 62,733 sq. ft. 94% of site or 73,660 sq. ft. No changes proposed Common Area: 351® of allowable GRFA or 21,957 sq. ft. 46.1% of allowable GRFA or 28,917 sq. ft. 48.7% of allowable GRFA or 30,552 sq. ft. Dwelling Units: 25 units per acre of buildable site area 81.5 units on Lot 1 (66 DUs and 31 AUs) (Phases 1, 11 & 11) No changes proposed or 45 units for the site 27 units in Phase IV which is located on a different lot Site Col 70% of the total site area or 54,891 sq. ft. 531 % of the total site area or 41,650 sq. ft. No changes proposed Landscaping: 20% of the total site area or 15,683 sq.fl., 23.2% of the total site area or 18,244 sq. ft 22.9% of total site area or 17,990 sq. ft. Parking­. 190 spaces required 94 parking spaces (66 surface spaces and 95 parking spaces (67 surface spaces and 28 enclosed spaces) 28 enclosed spaces) Loading: 1 loading berth required No loading berths currently exist No changes proposed SHRE1 3M M Staff believes that the proposed addition to the Lions Square Lodge complies with the purpose statement of the CCII zone district. The Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan identifies the right-of-way between Phases 1, 11 and III and Phase IV as a major Lionshead Mall entry (southwest mail entry). The only sub-area concept in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Lions Square Lodge is Concept Number 29 (see Attachment #3 for a map of the area) which suggests: "Strong landscape planting to reinforce entry identity, with tree planters to soften alleyway and introduce meander to pathway," 6'_�E - - = Staff believes that the applicant has adequately responded to staff's, DRB's and PEC'S recommendation to soften the appearance of the pedestrian walkway along the northern side of Building 1 with the addition of a 3-foot wide landscape planter. C. CornDliance with the Urban Exterior Alteration Criteria T he following design considerations are critical elements of the Urban Design Guide Plan and provide the criteria to evaluate new proposals: 1. Height and Massing 5 The applicant is proposing a flat roof on the proposed building addition. The roof will have two skylights in order to add additional light into the lobby area and some existing offices. The roof will be surfaced with brown, concrete tiles. The applicant has stated that there will be no mechanical equipment located on the roof of the proposed building addition. The proposed building addition will displace the current "trellis" and timber planters which are located on the piazza in front of the existing lobby. The applicant points out that this addition greatly improves the visibility of the main entry, which is currently recessed and difficult to locate for those not familiar with the facility, Staff believes that the metal roll-up doors on the east side of the addition have a rather "industrial appearance" and would recommend modifications to a softer, more compatible, building material. 1 1 1:11 Jill 1111111111 OE 1 �! 5® Decks and Patios: The only significant accent element proposed in conjunction with the building addition are the two skylights on top of the flat roof. Staff believes that these skylights, especially the larger one located directly over the lobby, add an interesting element to the addition and will be even more attractive when lit up 2A night. M The easternmost ramp leading to the upper parking area will be flared out to provide a new guest drop-off aisle in front of the new lobby. The driveway flaring will encroach into an existing landscape island and will require the relocation of a large evergreen tree. This tree will be moved to the west end & the parking lot as shown on the site plan. Staff believes that the appearance of the piazza area would be greatly improved by the addition of a full landscape planter in front of Building 1 and the addition of a bench or two along the northern edge of the piazza. 8 f « 1 1 1111 * 1 - - MMM I I PFFF �12= , - ffMRMU*j= Although the applicant has submitted a new "future phase © e plan" for PEC review, which shows revisions to the parking lot, landscape islands and a revised entry planter, this plan is not a part of this application. It is being provided to show the PEC members what the Lions Square Lodge is considering for changes to the property in the future. Due to problems with the Association covenants, the applicant is u «2« ;« convey a formal peesran easment to the Town, for the walkway north of Building 1, as requested by staff, PEC and DRB. However, they have agreed to sign a a » ® of agreement to allow for the continued use of the property as a public pedestrian way. 8. Service and Delivery -1 ---- « - 61 F Isea In IMM711I.Ta 7NF7opo c7rili area ana parking variance requests: a. The relationship of the requested variance to other existin"of or potential uses and structures in the vicy. I. Common Area Varianqq_Bg �uest The proposed addition of approximately 1,635 square feet of common area will increase the mass and bulk of the existing building. However, due to its proposed location, staff does not 9 believe it will have a negative effect on surrounding properties and uses in the vicinity. Since the addition will be located directly above the Wildwood Conference Room, it will not add any additional site coverage to the property, b. The degree to which reliet trom the strict and literal interpretation and entorcement ot a specitied regulation iz-t necessary to achieve compatibility and unitormity ot treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives ot this title without grant ot special privilege. 10 IF C. 'the effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The variance request for additional common area has no impact on the above-listed issues. 2. The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make thg_fqj!g� a. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. I The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. ii. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. iii. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Staff recommends approval of the proposed common area and parking enclosure varianc requests. We feel that the proposed lobby expansion is necessary for the appropriate functioning of the Lions Square Lod I ge and that the addition of one surface parking space not detrimental to the property as a whole. Staff is recommending the following three ............ conditions of approval: 0 I Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Lions Square Lodge Condominium Association shall sign a letter of agreement authorizing the continued public use of the walkway north of Building 1. -IMMMM 4. Facades - Transparency. 213 F IN TO: Lions Square Lodge File FROM: Jim Curnutte DATE January 4, 1995 SUBJECT: Design Review Board meeting minutes of conceptual review of Lions Square Lodge major exterior alteration application On January 4, 1995, the Vail Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed the conceptual drawings for a proposed building addition and site improvements at the Lions Square Lodge Condominiums. Jim Turner, General Manager of the Lions Square Lodge Condominium Association, was present at the meeting along with Bill Pierce and Dale Smith, architects with Fritzlen, Pierce, Briner. Bill Pierce started the discussion by providing the DRR with a summary of the proposed project. Bob Borne believed that the proposed building addition was. too big and asked if the condominium unit owners in the immediate vicinity had any problems with it. Jim Turner responded that all members of the association have been provided with drawings of the proposed addition and nobody has expressed a problem with the application. Bob Borne asked if each condominium unit owner in the project was notified of this application. Jim Curnutte stated that the Condominium Association are the applicants in this particular request and therefore it is not common practice to notify all owners of property in a condominium association when they are actually the applicants of the proposed addition. Jim did point t that all property owners adjacent to Lot 1 have been notified of this request. Mike Arnett asked if the applicant would consider adding landscape planters along the east side of the addition in order to break up the large stone wall. He pointed out that the planters did not have to be very wide but at least large enough for a flower bed. ATTACHMENT #1 Bill Pierce pointed out that he had some concerns with adding a landscape planter along the Bob Borne pointed out that the comments from Jeff Winston should be seriously taken into consideration by the applicant. Bill Pierce believed that there were some good comments made by Jeff Winston. Bob Borne agreed with Greg Amsden in that the building addition looked very commercial. He 10 suggested that the applicant attempt to make the addition more alpine to fit into the existing building. Jim Turner stated that people had always used the sidewalk to access the gondola area but he is not aware that a easement exists for that use. Mike Arnett suggested that the applicants may want to propose granting an easement to the Town for that purpose. Mike again suggested the addition of a sloped awning or a sloping roof around the perimeter of the building addition and pointed out that the sloping roof did not have to go over the entire addition. 2 Bill Pierce did not feel that a sloping roof worked for a number of architectural reasons as well as their attempt to preserve the views of condominium owners in the area. He did not like the idea of adding a sloping awning or what he called a mansard roof around the perimeter of the addition but did suggest that there is a possibility of adding a small sloping roof to approximately one-third of the eastern side of the building which would shed toward the east. The DRB in general did not care for that suggestion and felt that they would rather have a flat roof than one-third of the roof sloping toward the east. Mike Arnett suggested that additional mullions be added to the windows. He pointed out to the applicant that they did not feel that the addition had to match exactly the existing building but what they were looking at did not seem to quite work either. Sally Brainerd suggested that the applicants deal with the parking lot in conjunction with this application. She pointed out that her biggest concern was the cantilevered awning at the entryway. Sally suggested the applicants consider more traditional construction. Hans Woldrich had two concerns with this application. One is that if this addition is going to set the tone for what is going to happen to the building in future, then that is a problem because what he is seeing does not appear to be a part of the future Vail experience. His second comment was to suggest planting along the wall of the addition or benches and to also consider bringing more landscaping into the piazza from the north. Mike Arnett again reiterated that now is the time to include a new entry feature for the project into this application. Bob Borne asked if any mechanical equipment whatsoever was going to be located on the roof of the building. Dale Smith responded that all mechanical equipment related to the building and the addition would be located internally. Bill Pierce again tried to get clarification from the DRB regarding the possiby of a slopEJ , 00f over the eastern one-third of the building addition. Most of the DRB members did not feel that that idea was appropriate. 3 r 5. The PEC advised the Vail Valley Medical Center that they will be responsible for removing the existing helipad west of the Municipal Building Annex and revegetating the site as part of a permanent helipad location to be proposed on the roof of the hospital. Jeff Bowen amended his motion accordingly. Michael Halpert requested that an EIS should be done for the Ford Park site, but the I staff and the PEC did not believe additional environmental studies were needed for this site. 3. A request for a worksession for a major CCII exterior alteration and common arl variance to allow for a lobby expansion for the',,Lions Square Lodge located at 6 6 West Lionshead Place/Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing. Applicant: Lions Square Lodge, represented by Bill Pierce Planner: Jim Curnutte Jini Turner, General Manager of Lions Square Lodge, stated that they would be willing to talk to the Phase I Homeowners Association about granting a public pedestrian easement to the Town. Jim Curnutte suggested that the applicant should add this to their application. Kathy Langehwalter stated that she would like to discuss the common area variance request first and then get into the site and architectural issues. Bill Anderson stated that he felt that an exterior alteration for this site was desirable and that he was in favor of the common area variance. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 9, 1995 M ATTACHMENT #2 Bill Anderson was concerned about the "big old bunker wall". He asked Bill Pierce if the wall could be softened. He asked whether the applicant ad considere using smaller window panes on the front of the building. Bill Pierce stated that they were considering smaller windows with copper mullions, some stonework between windows, and breaking up the expanse of the wall with a landscape planter. Kathy Langenwalter inquired about the wainscot. Bob Armour suggested that the applicant take this opportunity to redo the surface parking area. He questioned whether the proposed exterior alteration was alpine in character. He asked the applicant what the future direction of the building would be. Bob Armour did not feel that the proposed exterior alterations had an alpine character, and questioned Mike Mollica as to the status of the design guidelines for Lionshead. Mike Mollica stated that the existing guidelines do not stress alpine design in Lionshead. He said that Town Council was interested in amending the design guidelines to include alpine character but that the process for implementing these changes had not yet begun. The project has been funded for FY 1995. Greg Amsden stated that he would like to see the master planning done now. He felt that the stone wall was excessive. He felt that the use of a light colored stucco would lighten up the courtyard area more effectively. He felt that additional signage on the property would benefit this property. Jim Curnutte stated that because the number of required parking spaces is more than one, the required number of parking spaces as a result of this project, will be rounded up to two parking spaces. Dalton Williams agreed with the other PEC members comments. He would like to see a master plan done for this site. He was interested to know what Vail Associates plans for this area were (i.e. Sunbird and Gondola Building). He suggested that the applicant find a way to get the two required parking spaces on the site. -- He also suggested making the skylight on the roof of the addition bigger. I 0010 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 9, 1995 Planning and Environmental Commissi ®n Minutes January 9, 1995 ATTACHMENT #3 TO Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Departmenj DATE: February 13, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for a CCI minor exterior alteration and a landscaping variance to allow for an addition to the Golden Bear retail shop within the A & D Building, located at 286 Bridge Street/Lots A and B and part of C, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1st Filing. El Although the applicant is actually providing more landscaping than currently exists, most of the proposed landscaping is located off-site. Thus, the applicant is requesting a landscaping variance for a net decrease in on-site landscaping of 75 square feet. 1 Goal 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. Goal ®1 Future commercial development should continue to occur 2 Goal 4.3 The ambience of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality)," All of these goals note the importance of evaluating commercial expansions so that the ambience of the Village and the identity of Vail are preserved. The quality features of the redevelopment will be discussed, especially in regard to their compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, in the following sections of this memorandum. Goal 4.1 states that "future commercial development in the core needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery." One of the few issues related to the proposed redevelopment is a need to maintain emergency vehicular access alon I g Gore Creek Drive adjacent to the storefront. The proposal involves adding planters — along this elevation and installing streetscape trees. All would be contained within tile confines of the existing concrete drainage pan along Gore Creek Drive. The pavers and the drainage pan define the street edge in this area. Adequate street width is maintained for Fire Department access. 3 "Goal 3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village." "Goal 4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities." The proposed remodel should have no effect on transportation and circulation in the Village. The implementation of the streetscape trees and benches provides a distinct more pedestrian atmosphere along Gore Creek Drive. I "Goal 6 To ensure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village," • 4 Ell COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF COMMERCIAL CORE I i0_ DIST 11 111 F, VI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS F OR VAIL VILLAGE In the sub-area concepts, Gore Creek Drive/Bridge Street Sub-Area, Item No. 17 states "street access opened." This recommendation pedestrian along Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street or to access into and out of the A & D Building, proposal p o the , comment refer .. maintenance also w e d at its current level. 0 Bridge Street is a pedestrian only street with a strong delineation of street edge expressed by existing tree grates, planters and small benches. Two additional tree grates are proposed along Bridge Street and five along Gore Creek Drive will help define the street edge adjacent to the new entryway. C. Streetscape Framework: "To improve the walking experience, to give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered: 1. Open space and landscaping 2. Infill commercial store fronts" streetscape trees along Gore Creek Drive significantly improves this frontage by softening the two-story building facade. The addition of an awning further accents the first floor retail element, pulling it out from under the second level offices, creating interest and focusing the attention of the pedestrians. I 'The proposal will not directly affect facade height. The addition of an awning and trees will help enclose Gore Creek Drive and will give it a more peclestria scale. The proposed improvements will provide a warmer, softer, more defin feeling and will add much needed three dimensional variety along the A & D Building's north elevation. I "Buildings in the Village Core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street." F. Building Height: The application does not impact this consideration. G, Views and Focal Points: The application does not impact this consideration, H. Service and Delivery: A loading zone exists along Gore Creek Drive adjacent to the Mill Creek Court Building. The proposal will have no impact on existing loading and delivery services. 0 7 Arch itectu re/Landsgqag_g2naiderations A. Roofs A minor roof extension is proposed. The new roof area will not be seen from the street level and does not alter the existing roof forms at the A & D Building, B. Facades Stucco, brick (or stone), wood and glass are the primary building materials found in the Village. Of the above materials, stucco is the most consistently used material." "Color 9 7 "Transparency As a measure of transparency, the most characteristic and successful ground floor facades range from 55% to 75% of the total length of the commercial facade." For close-up casual pedestrian viewing, windows are typically design to human-sized dimensions. Ground floor display windows are typical raised slightly, 18 inches plus or minus, and do not extend much over feet above the walkway level." I 9 The entryway consists of double glass doors in the same style as the windows with mullions dividing up the large glass plates. The doorway is recessed and covered with an awning, providing a protected entryway. No decks or patios are proposed by the applicant. D. Balconies No balconies are proposed by the applicant. 3. a. What is proposed for exterior lighting? Sign and entryway lighting? b. Specific dimensions for the planters, along with detailed specifications for landscape materials, tree grates. Irrigation and maintenance needs must be provided by the applicant. C. Commitments to repair the pavers, upgrade drainage, and repair heating elements beneath the pavers need to be expressed on the site plan. 10 I • Ywm�g BEMGH -- t+E e« 5°et tt�6 PPP+£ 36` PAK 7T N O R T H E L E V A T I O N �9 6 g$ - P L A N n EXISTING E STOREFRONT AND AWNING a I "", EXISTING T 0 MEMORANDUM WN MIPIWRMOWa The applicant is requesting a major SIDID amendment for » ! W «d& <t: Condominiums site. This is one of the parcels located within Area A, Cascade Village, SIDD #4. In 1982, the Town issued a building permit for this site and construction started. After a foundation and first floor parking structure had been completed, construction stopped. The current proposal is to complete the work, taking the existing improvements and using them as the first floor. In addition to the modifications requested regarding density, the applicant is proposing slight modifications to the architecture, landscaping and site coverage requirements. The SDD required 50% oft site to be landscaped. The applicant is proposing 47.9%. The site coverage limitation is 35% and the applicant is proposing 36.7%. These aspects of the request will be discussed in greater detail later in the memo. El 4 Ile DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS Lot Area: 0.35 acres or 37,026 sq. ft. Zoning: SDD Previous Proposed SDD Plans Plans Height: 55' 47' 55' GFA: Free Market: 22,500 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 26,264 sq. ft. EHUs: 6 400 sq. ft. 26,660 sq. ft. 7104 sq- ft- Totala 26,900 sq. ft., or 76% 26,660 sq. ft., or 72% 33,966 sq. ft., or 92% Density: Free Market: 20 dwelling units 0 dwelling units 14 dwelling units EHUs: 10 EHUs 20 EHUs 16 E 30 total units 20 total units 30 total units Setbacks: 20' on periphery* 39' 24' of the property Site Coverages 35% or 12,959.1 sq. ft. 34.3% or 12,666 sq. ft. 36.7®/ or 13,596 sq. ft. Landscaping: % min. or 16,513 sq. ft. 41.2% or 15,243 sq. ft. 47.9®/ or 17,767.4 sq. ft. Retaining Walls: 376' none proposed none proposed Parking: 75% shall be enclosed 37 interior (78 %) 36 interior (80 %) 44 spaces required 10 exterior 9 exterior 47 total spaces 45 total spaces* Employee Housing: minimum of 8 units 20 units; however deed 16 EHUs, similar to minimum of 648 sq. ft. restrictions are not clear Type III restrictions should not count towards density or GRFA "SDD requires a setback measurement on the periphery of the SDD. Staff has measured one setback, which is the distance between the building and the north property line. The northern property line is the only one which also is the periphery of the Area A of the SDD. El 4 Ill. SDD CRITERIA As this is a worksession, staff does not have a formal recommendation. However, we have provided the criteria below. A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter M52. D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plans, E Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect t property on which the special development district is proposed. I 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. IV. STAFF COMMENTS 0 K The SIT allows various options regarding the employee housing and the floor area associated with the housing. It is clear that the SIDD allows up to ten employee housing dwelling units and 6,400 square feet of floor area without diminishing the development potential of the free market units. However, it re wires that eight dwelling units at a minimum of 648 square feet each (or 5,184 square feet total) be included as employee housing in any project. This allowance and requirement should be used in evaluating the request for additional floor area for both the free market and employee housing units. M I I I I III I I I III I I I I 1 Ii IN, ,. D. Berm/Overhead Ufilijy_L�nes It is important to note that the SIDID requires 50% of the site to be landscaped. The applicant is proposing 47.9% of the site to be landscaped. Staff believes this difference may be justified if the improvements discussed above regarding the grading and landscaping in the right-of-way are accomplished. F. Architecture A have a standing seam metal roof, stucco walls and metal railings for the balconies. Staff believes that the architect should provide more details regarding the proposed materials to better understand the project. Details of the railings, fascia, eave overhangs, window trim and chimney caps should be provided. 1, The building, including the garage, must be sprinklered. 2. Easement needed for 24-inch corrugated metal pipe crossing the site. 3. Provide curb and gutter next to sidewalk for the entire length of the property. 4. Drainage appurtenances should be considered to redirect water flowing off hillside toward the building. 5a Prior to issuance of building permit, civil engineering plans for road improvements must be reviewed and approved by the Town of Vail Engineer. Staff believes that there are a few details which need to be resolved prior to a final review. Should an easement for the bike path be dedicated to the public? 2. Should the alignment of the path be modified, so that it is easier to connect to the path adjacent to the creek? 3. Should the applicant be required to extend the sidewalk beyond the bike path? cApec\nnernos\ru ins. 213 M, M W'm MILLRACE C.M.C. BUILDING man= LAND DESIGNS , YELIASON. INC, 3 d 0 13 2 0 tj 2 w 3: w u m i OR p I 0 10 . z 0. Z LU In 8 5 Z� 0. V Z� IMM, ELEVATION - r W, Isamm on"i 0 Z 8 0 b4 Q MR SOUTHEAST ELEVATION TYPE III EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNIT RESTRICTIVE COVENANT WHEREAS, Is the owner of certain property ("the Owner ") described as: relating to the owner of the residence into account: business pursuits, employment, income sources, residence for income or other tax purposes, age, marital status, residence of parents, spouse and children if any, location of personal and real property, an motor vehicle registration. 4. The Type III EHU shall not be divided into any form of timeshares, interval ownership, or fractional fee ownership as those terms are defined in the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. 5. No later than February I of each year, the owner of each employee housing unit within the town which is constructed following the effective date of this chapter shall submit two copies of a report on a form to be obtained from the Community Development Department, to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail and Chairman of the Town of Vail Housing Authority setting forth evidence establishing that the employee housing unit has been rented throughout the year, the rental rate, the employer, and that each tenant who resides within the employee housing unit is a full time employee in Eagle County. 6, The owner of each EHU shall rent the unit at a monthly rental rate consistent with or lower than those market rates prevalent for similar properties in the Town of Vail. 7. The Town of Vail Housing Authority will determine the market rate based on the study of other units of comparable size, location, quality and amenities throughout the Town. The market rate shall be based on an average of a minimum of five rental rates of comparable units. If the unit is not rented and is not available at the market rate it shall be determined to be in noncompliance. In addition to any other penalties and restrictions provided herein, a unit found to be in noncompliance shall be subject to publication as determined by the Housing Authority. 2 • • My commission 6pires: cAhousingXadmiMEHUIIJ ® I m 9 0 0 I I i � I fl, r I • ._ - _: r — - __ __ _ I ( � l 4 I -� - _ � �"- �[7� �. nr w.. tai .. .__ All _ 0 iiL 1' � t PAT z217 � • • +J :p r i n a +- ® f .. .. Ito ... " - .•rte g _ a. _ E y .n r a - _ P .�+s.awa~n. —eta J constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of temporary certificate of occupancy for the Cornerstone, Millrace III, Millrace 1V, Westhaven Condominiums, Waterford buildings, or Cascade Club addition. 2. The developer s ll construct ' `sidewalk that iris at the entrance to e Cascade Club along etavn Drive and extends to the west in front of the Westhaven building to connect with the recreational path to Donovan Park. The walk shall be constructed hen a building permit is requested for Westhaven Condominiums. The sidewalk shall be part of the building permit plans. The sidewalk shall be constructed subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for Westhaven Condominiums. . The developer shall provide 100 -year floodplain information for the area adjacent to the Waterford and o ers one buildings to the Town of Vail Community evelopment Department before building e its are released for either project. 4. The conditions for Area A in Sections 1 .46.020 B, 1 .46.1 A. 1 ®7, 18.46.200 A - F, 1, J, 16.46,210 C, 1 ®, and 1 .4 .220 shall be set forth in restrictive covenants subject to the approval of the Town Attorney and once so approved shall be recorded on the land records of Eagle County. The developer shall be responsible for submitting the written conditions to the Town Attorney for approval before a building permit is requested for the Cornerstone, or Millrace III, or Millrace IV, Westhaven Condominiums, or Waterford buildings, or Cascade Club Addition. . Millrace 111 a. The developer lllr 111 project understands developers of the Waterford r located In agreed !fill specific obligations setforth In r 1 F rim C enter) 4 , 500 `! or scenario 2 4500 0 Gym rias ks I TOT 22. Soenariol ®5 F rim C enter) 4 , 500 `! or scenario 2 4500 0 Gym rias ks TOT 22. Soenariol ®5 Scenario G . Plaza Web U orTR DU GRFA Com n - te S uare Feat Parkin sea a S tructured Park In TOTAL 4 Tl U 1114 ® 5 Q 16 525 ® 21 3 MAXIM aty p af t� S so Pkn s W Lkea been camlod for i mu PL9( mquinment is bond an do &M MM b 8t Bu GfGw P wkln t ®Toul r Wi dcnsuy III ;I111 lig 1 111111111 111 111liIIIIIIIIIIII I the Upper Eagle Valley area. In order to help meet this additional employee housing need, the shall build a minimum of 8 .,employee dwelling units within Area A Westhaven Condominium buildiniO within the Cornerstone Building and 2,within the Waterford Building. lach employee )dwelling Unit in the Westhaven Condominium Building shaithave a minimum square footage of U restrictions shall apply to all employee dwelling units except for those units in the Waterford and Cornerstone Buildings. The employee dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented for any period spimmommom pl ,� a