Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1995-0313 PEC
E 7. A request for a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core I zone district and site coverage, stream setback and common area variances, floodplain modification and on the third floor and to allow An outdoor dining conditional use permits to allow office deck to provide for the redevelopment of Serrano's, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen 8. Appeal of a staff decision regarding the chain residences located at 483 Gore Creek Drive, Lots 8 and 9, Vail Village 4th Filing. Appellants: Helen Chatfield and Diana Donovan, represented by Jay Peterson Planner- Jim Curnutte WITHDRAWN 9. Approve minutes from February 27, 1995 PEC meeting. 10. Selection of PEC representatives to the DRB for 1995. January through March, 1993 Kathy Langenwalter April through June, 1993 Dalton Williams July through September, 1993 Jeff Bowen October through December, 1993 Greg Arnsden January through March, 1994 Bill Anderson April through June, 1994 Jeff Bowen August through September, 1994 Bob Armour October through December, 1994 Allison Lassoe January through March, 1995 fireg Amsden April through June, 1995 August through September, 1995 Bob _Armour October through December, 1995 17,717 11. Selection of a PEC representative to the Art in Public Places Board. 12. Selection of a PEC representative to the Housing Authority. 130 Overview of the Town of Vail Non-Point Source Water Quality Plan. [7 K S ul ID PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMIS affaxim _�1111 , Ift 131 Andy Knudtsen Trynis Tonso Randy Stouder Jim Curnutte Russ Forrest Greg Amsden presented the three new members. Holly asked them to stand and repeat, do solemnly, sincerely and duly declare and confirm that I will support the constitution of the United States and Colorado and faithfully perform the duties as a member of the Planning and Environmental Commission", term 4 <« « - ©d« of 1997. Members signed forms, 2. Selection of a PEC chairperson and vice-chairperson for the period March 1995 - March 1996. 10 N 4,WWW"MiNad I'' Greg asked the applicants if they had a presentation. Julie Iverson stated that the basi,,m sandwich materials come to the shop pre-prepared and all they do is put the items on bread. She stated that everything was done according to the health code, and that was generation was minimal. Dalton said he wanted one of two things, to either revoke the coffee shop use or to allow for a full scale restaurant use. Dalton said that he was leaning toward revoking the coffee shop use due to the lack of adherence to the no on-site food preparation condition. Bob Armour thought that the building owner should be in front of the PEC if the no food preparation condition is to be removed, in order that they might address the trash removal issue. The applicants stated that they don't feel that food preparation is taking place. They stated that the assembly of sandwiches on-site does not create any more trash than if sandwiches were being brought in pre-wrapped. Planning and Environmental Commission March 13, 1995 Minutes 2 4. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck at the Covered Bridge Building ( overed Bridge Coffee Shop), located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots B, C arl D, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant- Julie Iverson and Kiendra Hoover Planner: Randy Stouder ONTO, W, Henry Pratt stated that he would abstain from the vote since his firm was involved in the 9 Greg Am den requested a 15 minute break before the next item. Planning and Environmental Commission March 13,1995 Minutes 7. A request for a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core I zone district and site coverage, stream setback and common area variances, and conditional use permits to allow office on the third floor and to allow an outdoor dining deck to provide for the redevelopment of Serrano's, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc. Planner: Andy Knudtsen L���r�mp III g- Mark Donaldson discussed the site coverage variance. The developer Will be providing a Greg Amsden asked the PEC for questions. Dalton Williams stated that he appreciated the work Mark Donaldson had done in the past two weeks. Kevin Deighan asked what ceiling heights were in the office space and Mark responded with 8'. HenryPrattasked how the offices could be approved with no exterior light. Mark explained the exception in Planning and Enviromnental Commission March 13, 1995 inut ®s 5 the building code for exterior light. Mark stated they have removed about 1,100 square feet from the building in the last two weeks. Paul Johnston, representing the Christiania Lodge, was concerned about the stream setback. Andy explained the issues between floodplain and stream setback. Paul's ma concern was the sound issue from the dining area and the patio doors around ttwo side of the building. Paul stated that he felt that the decibel level should not be violated and,] noise be self contained. He suggested the sliders be eliminated. Glen Heelan noted they are concerned with the noise issues. While they have had problems previously with Rod Powell, the developer has called for specific buffering noise between levels, All night club operations will be in the basement. Planning and Environmental Commission March 13, 1995 Minutes 6 Ron Riley, representing the Gold Peak House commercial uses, said that he would like Serranos to ?.d » . ed at the same time as their building to resolve many issues. He would like to see the h»: » «o bridge street redeveloped and feels it currently is an embarrassment to the Town. ».. y<¥ like improvements from Serrano's to be in place before the fall of 1995. Glen Heelan, the applicant, stated that he would resolve the noise :on Bridge Street. Also, he and his architects have worked with staff and Jeff Winston in the last two weeks and reduced the number ? «« w> < from 18 to 7. He stated that he would like to build © building in the summer of 1995. With further delay, they may have to postpone construction of the building. Glen Helan thanked Andy for his assistance in the past two weeks. Mark Donaldson » » »w.:» e bar will be in the basement and the setback encroachment is below grade. The trash chalet will be moved inside and noise will contained inside. Greg Amsden asked for PEC comments at this time. Jeff Bowen thanked the architect for his time and successful ®s in reducing the mass of the building. «21 «§ expressed problems with the site coverage and setback variances. Jeff stated that he would vote no on this item and would no22 «« »» site coverage or stream setback variances. Jeff had a problem with the office space but that was all. DaltonWilliams thanked the architect for the paver walkway behind the building. Dalton was concerned with the internal door on the third level going from the reside i ntal portion into the office space. corrected himself from an earlier statement and said that music would be in the basement and on the dining deck. Kevin questioned what they could build without a variance and Andy stated that 750 square feet would have to be eliminated from the building above grade, which was approximately 250 from each floor. Henry Pratt did not support offices as presented. He did not have a problem with the stream setback in this case, as long as it was below grade and no degradation of the stream bed occurred. Henry had a problem with the variance for site coverage. He also recommended operating hours be required for the deck. • Planning and Environmental Commission March 13, 1995 Minutes 8 U-1 I KI 119 -9 8. Future operation of the exterior decks shall be in compliance with all municipal noise ordingnces. Planning and Environmental Commission March 13, 1995 Minutes 9 v Planning and Environmental Commission March 19, 1995 Minot ®s 10 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: , Community Development Department DATE: March 13, 1995 SUBJECT: A request to eliminate a previous condition of approval at the Covered Bridge Building (Coffee Shop), located at 227 Bridge Street/Lots B, C, and D, Block 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing Applicants: Julie Iverson and Kiendra Hoover Planners: Paul Reeves and Russ Forest On October 24, 1994 the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed the trash removal plan for the proposed coffee shop at the Covered Bridge Building, The PEC approved the plan and imposed the following condition of approval: A compromise was reached that required the Covered Bridge Building and the Coffee Shop to prepare and follow a trash removal plan. The PEC approved the Coffee Shop and the trash removal plan on October 24, 1994, with the condition noted above restricting on-site food preparation. Paul Reeves, the Town's Environmental Health Officer, has performed routine health inspections of the Coffee Shop and has closely monitored the trash removal operation for compliance with the approved trash removal plan. His memorandum is attached. Paul's observations reflect positively on the management of trash at the Coffee Shop. He states that the small scale of on-site food preparation has not presented a trash removal problem. Therefore, staff recommends that the original condition of approval be modified as follows: If trash' removal problems arise as a result of the on-site food preparation, staff will bring this item back to the P for reconsideration. 0 F:\everyone\pec\memos\coffee.313 The PEC added one additional condition of approval, that the restaurant be limited to only pre- prepared foods. The condition was in reference to concerns about the quantity of garbage that would be generated if foods were prepared on site. February 13, 1995 Randy Stouder To' "m of Vail 75 Seth Frontace R Vail, CO 81657 COVERED BRIDGE COFFEE Call in fee or lunch order! 7- Espresso Drinks - Featuring '1 orr°efazio e Italia Shy 1 Tall (<6EF- �-, C-71- I FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 13, 1995 SUBJECT: A reques!fora 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 i Vail Village Master Plan "2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activities that are compatible with existing land uses. 3.1 Objective, Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by 0 landscaping and other improvements. 'M use, and will provide an attractive and enjoyable location to have coffee and enjoy the street life. Although the seating area does not provide mountain views, it is located adjacent to the main pedestrian entryway to the Village. The alcove provides protection from the wind and receives morning sun. -mum Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: 1 Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. 3 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Since this portion of the Village Core is strictly a pedestrian environment, the proposed use will not generate any additional vehicular traffic or parking needs. The proposed dining area will have no impact on the light and air enjoyed by adjacent businesses. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. The outdoor dining tables would be located on Covered Bridge Building property and thus will have no impact on snow removal, traffic flow and access along this section of Bridge Street. The area where the outdoor dining tables are proposed to be located, will be privately maintained. Staff and the PEC have expressed concern that if the chairs are left outside late at night, that bar patrons might congregate at the tables and disturb lodge guests in the area. Staff is proposing a condition of approval that would require the applicants to take the chairs inside at 10:00 PM. Hopefully, this will avo the potential problem of bar patrons disturbing lodge guests. R 11 3. -That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. For the PEC's reference, the CCI purpose statements and Conditional Use Permit purpose statements have been cited below. The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that this request for a conditional use permit meets the criteria and finding sections as discussed above. Staff also finds that the proposed use and location are in accordance ■ or Mom roll Ayw�l zo Id. 11 0. No tu E-1 El TO- Randy Stouder Town Planner FROM: Julie Iverson Covered Bridge Coffee SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow f ®r an outdoor dining deck at the Covered Bridge Building (Covered Bridge Coffee shop), located at 227 Bridge Street. In reference to the last PEC meeting, there were several concerns brought up by board members regarding this request. I would like to address those concerns, and have also attached a scale sketch of the proposed outdoor tables and chairs. I hope I have address all of the existing concerns regarding, this request. If additional information is needed, please let me know. Thanks Randy. FEB 2 7 1995 'tj V 'iV�t L V i- EAST WEST HospiTA-LiTy Randy Stouter Town of Vail. Community Development Dept® 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 8 658 U] P.O. Box 5480 - Avon, CO 81620 (303) 949 -5071 ° Facsimile: (303) 949-5526 Printed on recycled paper Randy Stouter Town of Vail Community Development Dept. 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CC 81658 Dear Randy, I have met with the Covered Bridge Coffee Shop owners to discuss adding two tables in lieu of the single bench that was a part of the planning commission approval. It is my understanding that the T.O.V. would like to see the Bench moved to the Pocket Park instead of deleting it. 11 P.0, Box 5480 -,Avon, CO 81620 (30 3) 949-50-1 1 - Facsiinile: (303) 949-5526 @ Printed on recycled paper El v r� • a, February 27, 1 995 Randy Stder Town Planner FROM: Julie iverson Covered Bridge Coffee, SUBJECT- A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining decd at the Covered Bridge Buildincg, 'severed Bridge Coffee sheep); located at 227 Bridge Street. ry i 1A d' } e y///y. ��..ti _ f i d l F � „�• � '_ ""9 ,. �.„ A „-mss f,* .�,✓ F r, t "J r`' .4t, x 2 r ee Y 5 f Aid �� �✓ 3 /�"§ Qj#�, f ,,�j fix. �q ", �' f 9 BERM 6e A request for a front setback variance to allow for the redevelopment of a residence located at 226 Forest Road /Lot 11-A, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant; John Krediet, represented by Steven Riden Planner: Randy Stouder FROM: Community Development Department I= SUBJECT: A request for a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core I zone district and site coverage, stream setback and common area variances and condition use permits to allow office on the third floor and to allow an outdoor dining deck, to provide for the redevelopment of Serrano's, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing. I Applicant: Margretta B. Parks and Vail Associates, Inc. Planner- Andy Knudtsen 2. The building has also been reduced in size on the southeast corner. Enough of the building has been eliminated in this area so that the utilities do not need to be relocated. All of the existing trees south of the site will remain except for one spruc,'-, and one aspen, which will be transplanted to the stream tract. Staff would like to 1 0 11 4. The amount of landscaped area on-site has been increased. Since the building has been cut back at the northeast and southeast corners, there is more room for landscaping on-site. The architect has taken advantage of these changes and provided planters in these locations which include 5 aspen. Staff believes that locating the trees next to the building is an improvement that will help soften its appearance. 5. The floodplain modification is no longer needed. Due to the reduction in building size at the southeast corner, all improvements would be made outside the floodplain. 6. The mechanical equipment has been designed within a chimney feature. All mechanical equipment will be located within, or immediately behind, a stucco chimney element. 7. First floor site coverage now measures 83.9%. This does not reflect basement square footage. To accomplish the proposal described above, a CCI exterior alteration and the following three variances are required: 1 A setback variance for an 11 -foot encroachment into the 30-foot stream setback for Mill Creek (for the basement floor only); P! 1112111mli�; �i 3. A variance for common area of 78.9% ( Also, the following two conditional use permits are required: 1, An outdoor dining deck on the second floor; and 2. Office space on the third floor. 2 Ile ZO ANALYSIS Zoning: Commercial Core I (CCI) Lot Area: 4,646 square feet The bold text indicates the standards which require variances. Allowed/Required Existing December 19, 1994 Proposed Proposed Zonin Development Proposed Develo went Februar 27, 1996 March 13, 1995 Height: 60 %, or 33 feet or less Approximately 25 feet 60.1% at 33 feet or less 59.6% at 33' or less 60.0% at 33' 40 %, 33 feet to 43 feet 39.9% at 43 feet or less 40.4% at 43' or less 40.0% at 43' Setbacks: Per the Vail Village N: 1 N: 1' N: 1' N: 1 Urban Design Guide Plan S: 2.5 S: 0' S: 0' S: 1' E: 0' E: 1' E: 1' E: 1' W: 0' W: 0' W: 0' W: 0' GRFA: 80% of site or 0 sq. ft. 3,618 so.. ft. or 77.9% 3,650 sq, ft. or 78.6% 3,507 sq. ft. or 75.5% 3,716.8 sq. ft. Common Area: 35% of allowable GRFA 0 sq. ft. 2,397.0 sq. ft. common area 3,389 sq, ft. common area 3,446 sq. ft. common area or 1,300.9 sq. ft. 91.8 sq. ft. unused GRFA - 66.8 sq. ft. unused GRFA L222.8 sq. ft. unused GRFA 2,298.2 sq. ft. or 613% 3,322.2 sq. ft. or 89.1% 3,236.2 sq. ft. or 89.4% Dwelling Units: 25 units per acre or 0 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit 1 dwelling unit 2.6 for the site Site Coverage: 80% of the site or 3,476.5 sq. N. or 74.8% 90.5% or 4,206.5 sq. ft. 4,393.5 sq. ft. or 94.6% 3,900 sq. ft. or 83.9% 3,716.8 sq. ft. + 168 sq. ft. off -site trash chalet 3,644.5 sq. ft. or 78.4% Landscaping: Per the Vail Village hardscape - 769 sq. ft. x 20% = 154 sq. ft. hardscape - 176 sq ft x 20% = 35 sq ft hardscape (498)(.20) = 99.6 Urban Design Guide Plan softscape - 49 sq. ft. softscape - '250 s ft staff unable to measure softscape = 215.0 total - 203 sq. ft, total - 285 sq ft Total: = 314.6 Parking:" Per the Town of Vail Restauranl /Bar - 27 spaces required 55.2 spaces required minus the existing 48.6 spaces 42.7 spaces Parking Standards parking requirement of 27 for a net 27.0 spaces - 27.0 spaces requirement of 28.2 spaces. 21.6 spaces 15.7 spaces Loading: Per the Town of Vail One required, none provided One required, none provided. No One required, none provided. No One required, none provided. No Loading Standards (1 berth) changes to loading and delivery status. changes to loading and changes to loading and delivery status. delivery status, delivery status. Mill Creek Setback: 30 feet 30 feet 24 feet 19 feet 19 feet Total commercial area: nla 5,082 sq. ft. 10,945 sq. ft. 10,065 sq. ft. 9,391 sq, ft. Total floor area: nla 5,082 sq. N. 16,960 sq. ft. 17,104 sq. ft. 16,044 sq. ft. "As this property is located in CCI, all parking that is required for the project must be provided by paying into the parking fund. The applicant shall be required to pay the parking fee that is in effect at the time the building permit is issued. 9 III. URBAN DESIGN CRITERIA RELEVANT MASTER POLICIES A. Vail Villacie Urban Design Guide Plan The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Flan specifically addresses the Mill Creek stream tract east of the Serrano's Building as follows: Concept 8 - "Mill Creek walking path, Nest Side Mill Creek math completes linkage from pirate ship and mountain path to Gore Creek Drive." Staff believes that this walk should be an extension of the recent improvements made to the ill Creek Curt Building and adjacent stream tract. Staff recognizes that it is a mutual goal among the developers, Vail Associates, and the Town of Vail to create a new pedestrian link from Hanson Ranch Road to the Vista Dann ski base. 1. _ - A niz ti n: The Vail Village Urban Design Criteria state that: "a major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways." 4 10 2. Vehicular Penetration: Staff believes that the proposal is consistent in the goal of eliminating vehicles from the Vail Village Core. 3. Streetscape Framework. The building will present a three-story facade along Hanson Ranch Road. It wW include an outdoor dining deck on the second floor, an easily recognizable main entrance to the building from Hanson Ranch Road, and public art adjacent to the front entrance. The public art will be in the form of a large wall graphic painted on the first floor exterior wall or possibly a sculpture located in front of this wall. Staff believes that these elements fulfill this criteria as the proposed isuilding will create new commercial activity and give additional interest to the ;-treet life. E- I I MMMMM�=M The proposed building height is consistent with the goals of the Design Considerations. Although there is a small portion of the roof which is flat (approximately 300 sq. ft.), the architect has done a good job, in staff's opinion, making this portion as small as possible. In the last few design iterations, this element has become smaller and smaller. Staff compared the proposed section of the Serrano's building to the Golden Peak House. There is a difference in floor-to-floor ceiling heights and the maximum ceiling height in the penthouse. The Serrano's structure is six inches larger on each level than the Golden Peak House. If the structure were redesigned to match the Golden Peak House, it could be reduced by 2.5 feet. 13 A detailed analysis of the adopted view corridors have been done. Though this building comes close to the adopted view corridor boundaries, there is no encroachment. The Urban Design Guidelines not only identify adopted view corridors but also state that: 6 9. Sun/Shade: The sun/shade impacts to the surrounding properties will increase, For the Spring and Fall equinox, half of Hanson Ranch Road will be in shade at 10:00 a.m. By 2:00 p.m., the street will not be shaded, but the walking path will be. Shading at the Winter solstice will be much more significant. The roof is proposed to be tar and gravel which is consistent with criteria stated in the Guidelines. The proposed roof pitch is a 3:12, which is consistent with the Guidelines, which calls for roofs ranging from 3:12 to 6:12. 7 a ■ Most of '® windows are made up of the small panes which staff believes is consistent with the Guidelines and makes for a more attractive building. The trim around the windows will be a significant feature on the building, which is ,21so consistent with the Guidelines. A dining deck will be located on ».w—» elevation of the second floor. The Guidelines call for dining decks to be elevated few feet above the pedestrian walk to allow diners to view the street activity. The Guidelines do not speak to second floor deck There are three components of the landscape plan associated with this project- Three other planters will be located next to the wall of the building. The wide planter, approximately 3 feet in depth, will include four shrubs and two aspen. Staff believes that the vertical landscaping located up against the building on Hanson Ranch Road will help soften it. I MINIMPIM is 9 A A G. Vail Village aster Plan Goal 1® Encourage high quality development while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.21 Policy: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the action plan and as is consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and bran Design Guide Flan. 1.3 Objective: Enhance new development and redevelopment through public improvements done by private developers working in cooperation with the Town. 1® ®1 Policy: Public improvements shall be developed with the participation of the private sector working with the Town, 2.2 Objective: Recognize the "historic" commercial core as the main activity center of the Village. 2. .1 Policy: The design criteria of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide plan shall be the primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and character of the core area of Vail Village. 2. 3.1 Policy: The development of short terra accommodation units is strongly encouraged, Residential units that are developed above existing density levels are required to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them available for short term overnight rental. 2.4 Objective: Encourage the development of a variety of a new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. 10 11 M 71- 021 11 2.4.2 Policy: Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guests and the community shall be encouraged. 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 3.4.1 Policy: Physical improvements to property adjacent to the stream tract shall not further restrict public access. 4.1 Objective: To improve existing open space areas and create new plazas with green space and pocket parks. Recognize the different roles of each type of open space in forming the overall fabric of the Village. M 0 El I Eil 4.1.3 Policy: With the exception of ski base-related facilities, existing natural open space areas at the base of Vail Mountain and throughout Vail Village shall be preserved as open space. 4.1 ®4 Policy: Open space improvements including the addition of accessible green space is described or graphically shown in the Vail Village Master Plan and/or Urban Design Guide Plan, will be required in conjunction with private in-fill or redevelopment projects. Vail Village Master Plan - Land Use- Mixed Use - This category includes the "historic" Village Core and properties near the pedestrianized streets of the Village. Lodging, retail, and a limited amount of office use are found in this category. With nearly 270,000 square feet of retail space and approximately three hundred and twenty residential units, the mixed use character of this area is a major factor and appeal of Vail Village. Vail Village Master Plan - Conceptual Building Height Plan: 3 to 4 stories is, M IV. HISTORY OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES At the request of the PC, staff researched the histories of several buildings surrounding the Serrano's site: WIEWIW_�-�W October 8, 1984 - The PC approved a CCI exterior alteration. No variances were requested. Site coverage was proposed at 79.0%. The exterior alteration was approved with the condition that a floodplain modification request be approved by the Town prior to construction. May 8, 1985 - The P approved a floodplain modification for the A & D development. No stream setback variance was required. February, 1995 - Applicant proposes expansion to Golden Bear. Proposed site coverage is 79.95%. & Red Lion _Egjldih Concerning site coverage for the Red Lion redevelopment, the proposal included 50 square feet of additional site coverage. However, as part of the redevelopment, 27 square feet of existing site coverage was to be eliminated. As a result, there was net IN increase of 23 square feet of site coverage, At the time of the proposal, the existing Red Lion Building had a site coverage of 83%. Though the staff recommendation for the site coverage variance request was denial, the PEC ultimately approved it. November 2, 1993 - Town Council approved a Special Development District for the Golden Peak House. This included, among other things, a site coverage request which exceeded the 80% allowed in CC]. At the time of the proposal, the existing, Golden Peak House on the existing lot had a site coverage of 91.6%. Under the approved plans with the expanded lot, the site coverage will be 94%. D. Curtin Hill _g!jiidin March 8, 1993 - The PEC approved a CCI exterior alteration for this building. Site coverage at the time of this proposal was 71 %. The approved site coverage is 71.6% E. Christianjg_jgd� Under the Public Accommodation zone district, allowed site coverage is 55%. On March 23, 1992, Town Council approved a Special Development District allowing the Christiania to expand from 32% to 39% site coverage. F Slifer BUE j [E a ■ HIE 11 11 August 12, 1991 - The PEC denied a request for a site coverage variance at the Superstars Studio within the Clock Tower Building. The PEC found that the property was not encumbered with a physical hardship. The existing site coverage was 87%. The request for an additional 28 square feet would have put site coverage at 87.2%. The staff recommended denial and the PEC concurred. The Covered Bridge building ©« »222®2 for redevelopment in 1993. The applicani originally requested five variances and a floodplain modification, but ultimately 4e2igne4 a building which conformed with all zoning standards. The project was approved »4r received its' TCO. I Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 1842.060 of the Vail Municipal Code ' the - Community Development Department recommends approval of the common area variani .?nd denial of site coverage and stream setback variances based on the following factor . & Consideration of Factors: 1 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the common area variance is not excessive. Due to the exiting requirements of the Uniform Building Code, the applicant has had to dedicate a certain portion of the floor area to hallways and stairwells. We believe the impacts to surrounding properties from the common area are minimal. IN 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicini or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. I Staff believes that there is no physical hardship which would justify a site coverage variance. In the research provided in the previous section, staff believes the A & D Building and Covered Bridge Building are the two projects that are the most like the Serrano's proposal. Sin these two buildings were demolished, and ® developer was working I with a vacant site, there were no existing constraints which could be viewed as hardships. It is important to note that ultimately both buildings conformed to zoning and did not require variances. The Slifer Building has received a site coverage variance. On February 0 16 a R changes recommended by a consultant regarding the way the Municipal Code should be rewritten. Though the Code was not changed according the recommendations of the consultant, and cannot be used to justify a variance, staff believes that the proposed Serrano's building is in compliance with the Urban Design criteria at this time. In summary, when considering the Serrano's request, staff must rely on the physical constraints of this site only and not look towards precedent. Since the site does not have a physical hardship, staff recommends denial of this portion of the request. EMEMMMI, Staff believes that there is not a physical hardship on this site which would justify encroaching into the stream setback, We acknowledge that the impacts from this encroachment are few and also that this site is small. The applicant has said that expanding out into the stream setback area is critical, because the site is small. a 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 1 11111 il�llll a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or . conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 0 Site Coverage E Finding 132 is met in staff's opinion as there would be no impact on public health, safety or welfare. Staff believes that Finding 133 cannot be met for reasons outlined in the paragraph above. MMMINVOMM-111 18 13 C7 El A. Consideration of Factors: 'I Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. Office Use of Third Floor Staff believes that providing additional office space in the Village broadens the number of users within the Village and helps fulfill the goals of the development objectives. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. IIMEMM 0 19 11 0 2 O C1 1 That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which i) would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. JIM Outdoo[_g1pjng_2ggk VIII. FLOODPLAIN MODIFICATION There is no longer a flood plain modification requested with the proposed development. Vill. CONCLUSIM. H El El Chart I m® Floor Area 13 - % Iia5E 3111 ��- �� i M'�s� I 1�1 ' ':� II � p � ✓ATI 'vI gl y tl xsr. u*ru� - xvArca 116T 16ULGII INJ y d ION '[O i 94 � �,c., -, 'if` = — 5 5✓ 6 Sei.KA1KP'o � To Lcr>=n Lrvn aeAr -. _ r FJR � AJ`Yx.AW Al+➢ 5 4 R5 4�R \ r%�''' ]1ST. 1,Ti OF � I� OF �IL�INL j E, _ 5'E 5'"A � EX�.S a° SPR.K,E I 5 ArG>ARGS"� 5_Ll€O &NL - �5��V + u K 4 ;'n ,�5 pA� }��^'S %� fI Y A 4..u.iA:� 1 :.y 1Si..� ..:t ��.i' ".� �d11S \ ! lCk L _ / JI5T 8 SccJ%E - -.4'C. 'a, :D ...d17(C- A, r 7 T sT. «• sveu.E l \I I \.;' eoTE .w b-n 'o '—' 'G` �/� ,.'}N2J ..898 s C —Y rhs 41--_ .--• — i A �EVTM �I mom• / /%' %/ ` /J /ems �� _. ! Nfl— `HIS SITE PLAN 15 EAS'eD ex�5r. :,oNro�s �, �✓ � glv° 9 5 / /� N \r R MOUNTAIN N INE RAIC,° uNE P.GOOPLAIN � `_ / �°"m• "p \ TORO�6RAFHIG MAP NAM D: vor k - IF LIN�xO 2 FO ECT N N0. g4A405, RATS ISSUED: 12-11,-q4. 878 p� c �Y GRAPHIC SCALE 8179 a 10 0 '.0 c � _ li ;n Ax,.A R PR`F 04P Eh 1 h t F-7 F , F 2-. V:L 5H 'i 5 2 SF. -10 SF. 5ECCO Fl. 36% a6 F SF E THIRD l � F 30 ^>fF.F 15-1S OTAL I117 SF 3:155 IF ^32a , 5,= 6� �LEV V=aOMP ^roR —5' 5 t he L +uSTi!J6 �U.64. yEST. I 1 A R c —O Tl - DOLT? !. KR =GAi1NG -:£R 119 G. ` 1 I IA FI2 R4 M1t7 ME'i'.F ' ! �- IN6 °cT. Ub4. I t'11 I I � I I t I A —R-ES 5KI ` `o - � ❑ -<, LOCK ®fib RA* ARU .:I S5 FLOOR —A= W'Ib SF. ' I WALL AT KLLUR � / { ii L- - - - - -- , / — \ aac> =RTr Liter NN O Zz Yu; FLOOR AREA C Wi &�, AlaA :,OOK AK A BAAENCHJT -EVE- 4357 5 283 S.F. FIR5T'-E,EL 3F.8! 5F. 3V1 S.F. 1b0 SF. 5L N I VEL 3&,£ U, 2020 5F 7& U. HRrl LEVEL 3614 5F. 504 s F 505 SF, L-l!A 1536 5F 63E SF TOTAL 55 -2-2-F 15,-r3 5F 3;324 SF Ao v LIB J, 75� 17 R 0 7 'I :IFTT (C(a KILL -ANTEl < i � � FLOOR AREA CALCULATON5 NET klEA f X� AFZA 5F. 12bE 5F. X W FR�T LE\ —B- 5�el: IF 32- b05- " LEVEL 36�6 Ill. 2920 S.F. -.16 S.5. 'N R_7 L1,FL Ebl4 F. 31G2 51� P. LEVEl- 153o I 15 � -`d-, y -T. v=5T -1 RESTA !RA'J i � ( ' �i (MLW = �j �C-EN Jq A/ CD Rl 5; yID �. F�ao� AAA ca�F.rioNs ` I �' � � ,, "` ,�I �} �t .J I_:'FL ='_YJF- P.�A �'.X1R A�vA P�'Y✓� haA i � I I � � F�x�IE ✓ ' 4� 5 3�6 y F 1 2�T' 11 I! 10 < 5F tA Kt FLaJC ARE=. = a 5 F. 1 i I E, FL .A a I't I � 'i 717 rx I + ' a -- \\ — I ----------- l 8 'I Z 1, (t ' ; 1� �'� - 0 F,,P4PHTC ;Ch F ILOOR AREA A-GULAT ONS yT EA5E�: LITVF1 455 F IOL-, 5 2aa 5.F. P,R5T LEVI Dbi 5F, 512 5. lvo 5F. 51(,ON0 -EY L 3646 E.F . 212D 5 F, I(, 5p. E%I:L ?b;, 5c` .,P. SP 5324 5P E-R T Lle A/10 L91 I w 00 21 5 =_� A ^:u^5 GPNiIh v�L ^E?v °E ?ti f!OU� i i c° 8 ® � a �� � °o °w G JT� z �R C �� �0+�� 'Z3 � 8 i �. �� � u !i —A' 4 teANC -rya it MIT—L — III 1 1 1 1 I ' l [ t 1 v I I I 7T:I_ ET], 117 it ji f10i u - - -T, 71 1 j �JO:,� L LLLII�l - �-Uz 11 1 IL 111 VIII III' L -J11IL J i III I I Aj L00 -1 F I � • � .vzV�L ® ryi� 8 0 V ANN Q� O� ' j� LL '�`''� �����'� ��I������1 � ��'�� 4i U G C O 8 �a `� O�t:LINE ^T f-C1=,T— U,4LL am Her wean iulp LILDINCx BECTON LO--<N SILFaT O'S CANTINA LEA I I I I --- 77 PLANT LEGEND 0 4 17 �i'��r�`pIAA 't'6 25 �'oTbiTtLV .�TS1:k,�' 0 4 toTO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM- Community Development Department DATE: March 13, 1995 granted. Section 18.71 .020 requires that variances be approved by P prior to the DRB reviewing the project, when both approvals are needed for one project. 185.7 square feet of floor area will remain for future expansions, assuming the variance is granted by the PEC and the 250 is granted by the DDB. The staff has researched projects in which similar requests were made, and has summarized them below, At the Mumma residence, the applicant re age quested and was granted a 1% site cover variance in order to construct a garage addition on a lot that exceeds 30% slope. The 1% overage on site coverage amounted to approximately 99 square feet. The interior dimensions of the approved garage measure 20 feet by 20 feet, for a total interior area of 400 square feet. The garage contributed 442 square feet toward site coverage. 2 0 Ricci Residence the proposed variance is for 3.9% (433.6 square feet). The garage For comparison purposes, The interior dimensions are 21.75 by 24.0 contributes 557 square feet towards site coverage. The total interior area of the garage is 521.5 feet (With a small angle cut out of one side). square feet. IV. ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 11,242 square feet Zoning: Primary /Secondary Residential Allowed Proposed Height: 33 feet 33 feet GRFA: 2,810.5 + 425 + 250 = 3,435.5 sq. ft. 3,3299.8 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 21' Front: 20' Sides: 15'/15' Sides' Rear: 23.. 5' Rear: 15' Site Coverage: 20% or 2,246.4 sq. ft. 23.9% or 2,662 sq. ft. Landscaping: 60% min-or 6,745.2 sq. ft. p g 6,598 sq. ft. - soft (58.7 %) 191 sc1. ft. -hard 6,789 sq. ft. - Total (60.4 %) Retaining Wall Heights: 6 feet 6 feet Parkin g: 3 spaces required 4 spaces proposed 0 2. The degree to is relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title grit Oat grant of special privilege. M, E 11 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, SGUy or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reason'M a. The strict literal :z+ « ement of © specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this »le a 3. That the variance approval is contingent upon the Design Review Board (DRB) making the necessary findings and granting the "250" to this w4 »2© If the DRB does not grant the 250", 2 »:2 &»w approval shall be void. Mlllll. . ...IIMI 0 5 S ft St, ti nd gjY J -' � �8 Atd ,, 1 �� � `�' � 1 I r. 1 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM' Community Development Department DATE: March 13, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance to allow for a major remodel and addition to the existing primary residence located at 226 Forest Road/Lot 11-A, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: John Krediet Planner, Randy Stouder The applicant is proposing a major remodel of the existing primary residence. The proposa involves filling-in approximately 2/3 of the existing carport with new GRFA, and constructing a buried garage with a two-story addition on top. The garage addition would be connected to the main house by a two-story enclosed walkway. The garage would be accessed with a new, relatively flat driveway (see attached site plan). The existing chimney is located within 5 feet of the front property line, in the front setback, at the second level oft house. Thus, the existing front setback 0 1 encroachment, related to the chimney, is 15 feet. The request to widen the chimney at the second level does not produce further encroachment toward the front property lin but it does add GRFA and additional mass and bulk within the front setback and thus requires approval of a front setback variance. YVO _RKSESSION ISSUES12127195 PEIR At the previous meeting the PEC gave the applicant specific direction. The PEC was unanimous with regards to the following: ZON NG CONSIDERATIONS Ills j The property is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential, with a site area of 22,263 square feet. Allowed/Required Existiaq Proposed GRFA: Primary: 3,111 sq. ft. 2,196 sq. ft. 3,361 sq. V Secondary: 2 215 S_9L ft: Ift. 4,071 ft. _ i&Z§_ so. ft. 5,236 sq. ft. Total Allowable: 5,326 sq. ft. sq. Site Coverage: 4,453 sq. ft.(20%) Primary: 918 sq. ft. Primary: 1,994 sq. ft. (+ 1,076 sq. ft.) Secondary: 1 096 s Secondary: Total: 2,014 sq. ft. (9-05%) Total: 3,090 sq. ft. (1188%) Landscaping: 13,357 sq. ft. (60%) 19,444 sq. ft. (87.3%) 18,368 sq. ft. (82.5%) Height: 33' 34.7— 34.7— Setbacks: Front: 20' 7' (second level building overhang) 6.5' (carport infill plus stone veneer)*** 5' (chimney) 5.0' (chimney -widen 2.5 feet sideways) 6.5' (arches and columns-first level facade widened) Sides: 151/15, 151/18, 15'/18' 67' Rear: 15, 67' Parking: 4 spaces required 4 spaces provided 6 spaces proposed (2 enclosed) * Use of a 250 additional GRFA allotment for the primary unit is proposed in order to preserve the secondary units remaining GRFA (up to 40% If approved, this remodel to the of total allowed GRFA plus the 425 sq.fL credit). The secondary unit has not used its 250 GRFA allotment. primary unit will use up all the available GRFA and all of its 250 GRFA allotment. ** current height limit and is thus legal nonconforming by 1 7 . The applicant does not propose to alter Existing ridge on primary unit exceeds that of the existing roof that is nonconforming. All additions to the structure conform to the current height restriction. portion *** The applicant is requesting variances of 13.5', 15' and 135 into the front setback for the carport infill with stone veneer, the chimney widening, and the addition of supporting columns/arches, respectively. 2 Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18,62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variances based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 0 IM by staff and the PEC, Granting a setback variance to infill the carport is considered by staff to be acceptable since GRFA already cantilevers ove r this area. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safetY. Staff feels that the addition of the garage and new driveway are positive improvements that will improve public safety, since the current unsafe driveway configuration and slope will be eliminated. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin fin in s P9! ti 20� variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasond M Final Design Review Board (DRB) approval of an additional 250 GRFA allotment shall be obtained. 4 2. Final review and approval of the site plan by the Public Works Department shaV U 0 0 0 FOREST ROAD (50' R -0.W_j LOT i. 1'en " d a® ,... x i LOT 13 LOT 10 �iv.en ,o uo za r�oA�web � wuwo,e wa LOT 9 —A yyfl�Ry � �1i751 91TT i`Y�T1 19, 6i.QCK 7 ownxer a VI4no "hoa r^flir+?nan u� m ra 0 0 1� m u� ,.. - (i b tax i xm . t egaifin,fo-i.. .J m�r!mocq+- �'A�L 0 0 -" s g x - -- -_ — as s . i� rah i r i Wa e oao -� -qg Aim �! 41b.Ld C m - i __ z ZXT5 nil a C9 --r