Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-0410 PECTHIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE = 140 ill dUculuance witti-5Mi-07T-1-8�b-b.Db-U-o-rYffe—iVFu-n-icipaI U Town of Vail on April 10, 1995, at 2 the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of - 1 A request for a setback variance to allow for the construction of a freestanding garage to be located at 4524 Meadow Drive/Timberf ails Condominiums. Applicant: Richard Vossler, Timberfalls Condominium Association Planner: Randy Stouder 2. A request for a rezoning from General Use District to Primary/Secondary Residential District to allow for the development of a primary/secondary residence located at 967 Vail Valley Drive/Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais for Vail Valley Consolidated Water District Planner: Jim Curnutte 3. A request for a conditional use to allow for an outdoor dining deck for the Daily Grind located at 288 Bridge Street/Lot B, Block 5H, Vail Village 1 st ng. Applicant The Daily Grind Coffee House 40 Planner: George Ruther 4. A request for a major SDD amendment to allow for an expansion to the Glen Lyon Office Bung located at 1000 South Frontage Road/Area #4, Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. Applicant: Bill Reslock Planner: Randy Stouder 5. A request for a conditional use to allow for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit (EHU) to be located at 126 Forest R ad/Lot 5, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. E 0 1 . Briar Patch 2. Glen Lyon Office Building 3. 126 Forest Road 4. Village Center 5. The Daily Grind Drivers Jim and Randy �* I 1 A request for a conditional use to allow for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit (EHU) to located at 126 Forest Road/Lot 5, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. I Applicant The Daily Grind Coffee House Planner: George Ruther 4. A request for a worksession for a major SDD amendment to allow for an expansion to the Glen Lyon Office Building located at 1000 South Frontage Road/Area #4, Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. Applicant: Glen Lyon Partnership represented by Gordon Pierce and Ken O'Bryan Planner: Randy Stoner 0 I 0 F The meeting was called to order by Greg Amsden at 2:00 p.m. HE= A request for a conditional use to allow for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit (EHU) to be located at 126 Forest Road/Lot 5, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. 2. A request for a rezoning from General Use District to Primary/Secondary Residential D e nce located at 967 Vail Valley Drive/Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais for Vail Valley Consolidated Water District Planner Jim Curnutte NAII� 0 Ann Repetti, a neighbor, stated that she was ok with this proposal to change the zoning to primary/secondary and that it would fit well with the surrounding neighborhood. She stressed Planning and Environmental Commission April 10, 1995 Minutes 1 that this would be the most appropriate change to this property and should not be used for anything else (i.e. a bus turn-around, a truck turn-around, or park, etc.). Bob Armour made a motion to approve the proposal request to rezone the property to Primary/Secondary as per the staff memorandum. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion. The request was unanimously approved with a vote of 6-0. 3. A request for a conditional use to allow for an outdoor dining deck for the Daily Grind located at 288 Bridge St,reet/Lot B, Block 5H, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: The Daily Grind Coffee House Planner George Ruther Another concern to staff is the type of materials to be used for the chairs and tables. The tables and chairs are made of plastic. Staff feels that wrought iron or wood tables and chairs would be more appropriate for the Vail Village. Staff is recommending denial of this request. Kaye Ferry, the applicant, stated that they used the planter material that the staff suggested. She suggested that they could use a chain to separate the outdoor dining area from the pedestrian way. She also stated that Curtin-Hill is using the same material for their tables and chairs as she is proposing and feels it is very confusing as to what is or is not acceptable and common around town. ill��ll 1 111MININMI 11111 raye Ferry stated that the lease includes the area from the Rucksack to the front of Max Alexander's store. Planning and Environmental Commission April 10, 1995 Minutes 2 iffiNNIANONSM WONANKOWNIFN Mike Mollica asked the applicant if this proposal had been discussed and communicated to the adjacent shop owners. The major change of placing a barricade and blocking some of the access to the adjacent shops and visibility to the shops could be a major concern to adjacent shop owners. Kaye Ferry stated that four more planters will be added for separation from pedestrian way and very few people walk through this area now. Mike Mollica again asked if the applicant had asked adjacent shop owners about the proposed request. Kaye Ferry stated she felt that was not possible given the lease that she has with the landlord and the space leased to her. Kevin Deighan also stated that another concern is that there will be no place for skis, bikes, etc. to be placed where they are now once the Daily Grind blocks off this area. Planning and Environmental Commission April 10, 1995 Minutes 3 10 Bob Armour asked the applicant to clarify whether she stated that the Daily Grind has been using this property for four years. If this is so, then the Daily Grind has been using this area without a conditional use permit. Kaye stated that she has had no control over this. Once customers leave the shop, she can't tell customers to leave the area. She thinks Barry Florescue (the owner of property) owns the benches etc. Jeff Bowen stated that before the Daily Grind was in this space there were no tables and chairs in this area. Greg Moffet stated his main concern is making sure the Sunglass Hut has access to the pedestrian area. Kaye again stated that the owner, Barry Florescue, is going to take care of this issue. Will chairs at the Daily Grind would be considered to be remote from the front of the Daily Grind. Other restaurants in Town have better access to their outdoor dining decks. Bob also stated that he doesn't like the plastic material of the tables and chairs. Henry Pratt stated that he felt that a more formal fence or separation is required. He also has the same concerns regarding notification of adjacent shop owners, material of the tables and chairs, etc. Greg Amsden stated he is in favor of an outdoor dining area. The applicant needs to definitely show more delineation of separation and/or fencing. The applicant needs to close in the outdoor dining area so that customers stay on property while consuming alcohol purchased from the Daily Grind since this request is for more of a private use and not public anymore. Greg Amsden stated that the Design Review Board (DRB) will want more than just plastic tables and chairs. He also reiterated that people need to have direct access to Sunglass Hut and the other retail shop. The applicant needs to make sure the other retail shops are not blocked. The PEC needs more factual information and the applicant needs to refine the plans showing a more defined delineation of space. Planning and Environmental Commission April 10, 1995 Minutes 4 Greg Moffet stated that a landlord has a stake in this property. He would like to hear from the landlord as to what the chain of command is for the area outside the shops. Jeff Bowen asked if all the adjacent property owners are notified. Mike Mollica stated that the adjacent property owners are contacted but not necessarily the retail shop owners. Mike stated that this request needs to be taken a step further and felt that the adjacent retail shop owners should be notified. Kevin Deighan asked if Tom Moorhead could clarify of how adjacent property owners and retail shop owners are notified. How does it work? Tom Moorhead came into the meeting and stated that the Town gives property owners notice because we can verify ownership. Since we can not verify retail shop ownership, we do not notify them individually. Kevin Deighan asked Tom Moorhead if the retail shop owners have the same rights as property owners when you lease the space. Planning and Environmental Commission April 10, 1995 Minutes 5 George Ruther stated that when staff receives a more delineated site plan for this request, he will send it to the Fire Department for their comments. Jeff Bowen made a motion that this proposal be denied. Bob Armour seconded. Kevin Deighan wanted clarification. Kevin didn't want the applicant to go through this whole process again if the proposal was denied now. The vote was 2 for denial and 4 against denial. Jeff Bowen made another motion that the request be tabled for two weeks or for an adequate amount of time so that the applicant can submit an adequate site plan to staff so they can have adequate time to review the revised proposal before the next meeting. Greg Moffet seconded the motion. Unanimous vote to table this request with a vote of 6-0. Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request for two weeks or an additional period of time if the PEC agenda is substantial and that it would be an undue burden. Bob Armour seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0 with Henry Pratt abstaining due to a conflict of interest. W1. A request for minor subdivision to amend the location of the platted building envelope6 located at 1374 and 1378 Sandstone Drive/Lots D & E, Briarpatch. Applicant: Jim Gulda Construction for Briar Patch LLC Planner: Jim Curnutte 0 Jeff Bowen made motion to approve the changes per the memo with the condition listed in the Planning and Environmental Commission April 10, 1995 Minutes 6 staff memo. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. The project received unanimous approval with a vote of 6-0. 6. A request for a major exterior alteration to allow for the expansion of La Tour Restaurant and the Gotthelf's Gallery and a conditional use permit for a modification to the outdoor dining deck, located in the Village Center Building, 122 East Meadow Drive/a portion of Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Fred Hibberd, represented by Craig Snowdon Planner George Ruther Pam Hopkins, the applicant's representative, stated that the applicant can comply with these conditions. Bob Armour expressed that he wants the PEC to get away from approving "blanket" conditional use permits without stipulating a time limit, possibly a year, on all conditional uses permits. Bob itated that in the future the PEC will take that direction. Planning and Environmental Commission April 10, 1995 Minutes 7 13 11 El Mike Mollica explained to the PEC that the Fire Department will only allow annual and perennial plants in the landscape planter. The Fire Department will not allow any large shrubs or trees that will obstruct the access to the stand pipe. 7. Approval of minutes for March 27, 1995 meeting. Jeff Bowen made a motion that the minutes to the March 27, 1995 PEC meeting be approved as written. Bob Armour seconded the motion. Unanimous approval with a vote of -0® 8. Town Council update: Vail Commons Mike updated the PEC on the Vail Commons project, a nd explained that the field developers was narrowed to four teams. Jeff Bowen stated that one of the difficulties in comparing the proposals is that they aQ' all very different designs. Each proposal has merit but regardless of who is selected, there will need design changes. I Jeff Bowen stated that the EHU proposals will have to be looked at closely. Jeff Bowen asked if Kevin Deighan would join the Vail Commons Task Force. Planning and Environmental Commission April 10, 1995 Minutes 8 Kevin said he would be glad to join the task force. The Ruins Mike Mollica stated it went to Town Council and was approved on first reading with the recommended PEC conditions of approval. Staff was instructed to work out the details and the developer is to look at taking one of the lockoff units and convert it into an EHU. Mike Mollica explained that the PEC approved this proposal weeks ago and the Town Council called it up. This proposal was also approved by DRS. Basically, there were minor changes to the approved plan. Jeff Bowen assumed the applicant would, in fact, move the stand pipe, based on Fire Dept. approval. 0 Mike Mollica explained that the Fire Dept. will probably approve it with the conditions stated above. Mike also explained that Pam Hopkins was not at the last meeting and she was taking a shot at saying the applicant will move the stand pipe but he felt that the applicant, in the past meeting, was not interested in moving it. General discussion ensued regarding stand pipe issues and DRS approvals. Greg Amsden asked if the Fire Dept. is subject to DR B approvals. He expressed that the stand pipes were very unsightly and could be placed in better areas. How can they just put it anywhere? 1111115 ;'101111111MIN I flmm� Mike Mollica said that was okay. Jeff Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Bob Armour seconded the motion. Unanimous approval with a vote of 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 pm. Planning and Environmental Commission April 10, 1995 Minutes 9 TO - Planning and Environmental Commission DATE April 10, 1995 In September and December of 1992, the Town Council passed Ordinances 9 and 27, Seri of 1992, to create a new Chapter 18.57 - Employee Housing, to provide for the addition of 10 Employee Housing Units (EHUs) as permitted or conditional uses within certa n zone str cl within the Town of Vail. The definition in that ordinance states: In this proposal, the applicant is proposing to construct a Type 11 employee housing unit on a portion of the second level of a new primary/secondary residence. The employee housing A, will be approximately 450 square feet in size and will include one bedroom, one bathroom an a kitchen/living area. One enclosed parking space will also be provided for the EHU. I F3 11. ZONING ANALYSIS Allowed /Re g2u!irLed per P/S zoning Site Area: 0.3611 acre or 15,730 sq. ft. ffgm�� Same laim 2,325 sq. ft., or 14.8% 11,658 sq. ft., or 74.1% Parking 7 required 7 proposed Setbacks: Front: 20' 20.5' Side: 15' 34' - west Side: 15' 34' - east Rear: 15' 33' *This figure includes two 425-square foot credits plus two 250-square foot allowances for the U. **Since the area beneath this house and parking area exceeds a 30% slope, the site the t t coverage allowance is reduced from 20% to 15%. Additionally, no more than 10% of 0 site area (1,573 square feet) may be covered by driveways and surface parking. ON 2 NOW It is likely that there would be one additional vehicle associated with this residence. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact on the above-referenced criteria. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which th����� I ed use in relation to surroundi The scale and bulk of the existing structure is very similar to those in existence in the surrounding neighborhood. Since the proposed employee housing unit will be located within the building, it would not appear to have a negative effect on the scale and bulk of the residence in relation to surrounding uses. The subject property is zoned Primary[��� b. It shall be permitted only on lots which comi?ly with minimum lot size reguirements of the zone district in which the lot is located. At 15 square feet in size, the lot meets the minimum lot size requirements in the Primary/Secondary zone district. C. It shall be located or be located p!lrsuant to Section 18-54.05QJIL, 0 3 Prim locat o existin do is reduced or eliminated. The proposed Type 11 EHU will be located within the primary/secondary residence. AMR= IMMIUR1111�, EMBODFULOMM, IMMUMIM111 The EHU is 450 square feet in size. The applicant has submitted an application for 500 square feet of additional GRFA utilizing the provision which allows for the use of 250's "up front" when creating a new Type 11 EHU. No additional 250's will be allowed on this property in the future. f. It shall have no more than two bedrooms. INSURERS 40 4 9. No more thgp_yo 2 adults and one 11 child not older than LJ ............ L sixte oorn T e 11 EHU. No more than two (2) adults and two (2) children not older than sixteenll§LLears of age shall reside in a two J21 bedrggpjlyp�g 11 EHU. Since this unit is a one (1) bedroom Type 11 EHU, the first part of the above listed regulation wiN be complied with. Since no dwelling units currently exist on the property, the applicant must provi:le one enclosed parking space for the proposed EH U. Pill 1 That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code. IV. STAFF REQQMMENDAI�J RI! I I 11�� I I � I I � I � I I � I �� I I I I � I! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 ; % I 050�� 4D 5 1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the proposed structure, the applicant shall sign a deed restriction using the form provided by the Town of Vail. This document will be recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office and will require that the employee housing unit be permanently restricted for employee housing. Please note that under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the approval of a conditional use permit shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion, or the use for which the approval has been granted has not commenced within two years from when the approval becomes final. f: everyo ne \lau ren \memos \byrne.410 rl • 6 MEMORAN-DUM e TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 10, 1995 SUBJECT: A request to rezone Tract C, Vail Village First Filing/967 Vail Valley Drive from the General Use Zone District (GLID) to the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District {P /S). Applicants: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, represented by Pat Dauphinais Planner Jim Curnutte On March 7, 1995 the Vail Town Council approved Resolution No. 5, Series of 1995 which authorized the change to the Vail Land Use Plan from Park to Low Density Residential. Resolution No. 5 contained five conditions which must be addressed by the applicant prior to the transfer of ownership of the property. Development Existing General Standards Use Zone District Allowed Uses: Examples include: public and private schools, public theaters, churches, hospitals, public recreation facilities, etc. GRFA: To be determined by the PEC. Setbacks: To be determined by the PEC. Site Coverage: To be determined by the PM Landscaping: To be determined by the PEC. Building Height: To be determined by the PEC. Zone District Two dwelling units in a rin - '11awww'MM Single Family or Primary/Secondary; and a Type I I EHIJ. 15,000 sq. ft. of buildable area, 30 feet of minimum frontage, and must be each side) within its boundaries. The following criteria and findings shall be used in the evaluation of the zone change request: A. Suitability of the proposed f %. 4 1 2 appropriately be located in the same district. The two family Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District is » ».<© to insure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling unit, commensurate with single family and two family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards." B. Is the amendment proposal presenting a convenient, workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives The staff feels that the proposed Primary/Secondary zoning designation would consistent with adjacent land uses. The proposed use of Tract C, for either a single family residence or a : primary/secondary building, will be compatible with the character of the neighborhood in terms of density, scale, mass and bulk, an general site planning. ? >< >f 222%2¥ 111x 11111! 0 3 or primary/secondary structure and that the property appears to be the logical western terminus of the adjacent Primary/Secondary zoned residential neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed rezoning would appear to carry out the following goal statements contained in the Vail Land Use Plan: Staff recommends approval of the requested rezoning of Tract C, Vail Village 7th Filing from the General Use Zone District to the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. Staff believes that the proposal meets the zone change criteria, as addressed in Section IV of this memorandum, and that the Primary/ Secondary Residential Zone District designation is the more appropriate zone district for the uses which are anticipated for the property. H 0 4 s,� tr�f�. 1r �i(�y�W� s� y ■ r n �t yi j1'�1t�i1 777-. �ti��FiFd I MM r" t N c c. a r" t N �./ 0 A x Luc scvr €brNO TOr�a O�° V „.L EA .-E COre'tiTY, COLOR,a 0 4W MEMORANDUM TO Planning and Environmental Commission DATE. April 10, 1995 SUBJECT A request for a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining area for the Daily Grind Coffee Company, located at 288 Bridge Street/Lot B, Block 5-H, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant Barry Florescue (property owner) and Kaye Ferry Planner: George Ruther The applicant, Kaye Ferry, is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining area at the Daily Grind Coffee Company. The outdoor dining area is proposed in the existing plaza immediately to the west of the Daily Grind Coffee Company adjacent to Bridge Street. Thd plaza area is not owned by the applicant. However, the applicant has entered into a lease agreement with the property owner for the use of the plaza area. v, The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vail Municipal Code. In addition to the conditional use criteria staff has included criteria from the zoning code, the Vail Comprehensive Plan, and the Vail Village Design Considerations as we believe this will help the PEC in its evaluation of the request. An outdoor dining patio on the "first floor" or "street level" shall be permitted in the CCI zone district subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with provisions of Chapter 18.60. For «. » -- reference, the conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that Several elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan indirectly address outdoor dining areas, The relevant elements and sections are listed below. B. 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 landscaping and other improvements. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development objectives shall incorporate streetscape improvements such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.3 Objective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. 3.3.2 Policy Outdoor dining is an important street cape feature and shall be encouraged in commercial in-fill or redevelopment projects." C. THE VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS is According to the Vail Village Design considerations, Ki H 01 a A. Consideration of Factors: the Town. 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. The proposed outdoor dining area use will have little or no negative impact on the items listed above. I t Propost ning arita us i t Morriont - M items listed above. 21 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff is also concerned with the lack of adequate trash removal in the area. According to the applicant, the tables will not be serviced by wait staff. Therefore, patrons of the Daily Grind will be left with the responsibility of maintaining the outdoor dining area and keeping it free of trash and debris. B. Wdings granting a conditional use permit That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Staff recommendation for this request is denial. The reasons for the denial of this request are based on the possible negative effect the proposal will have on the adjacent retail shop to t e north of the Daily Grind Coffee Company as well as the use of plastic tables and chairs. Staff finds that the applicant's request does not comply with Criteria A. 1 & 4 and that Finding B. 2 has not been met. Staff does believe, however, that the overall concept of an outdoor dining 5 A deck in this area, if modified, would have a positive effect on the Village in general. The Town's goals and objectives clearly support activities such as outdoor dining decks where they are compatible with adjacent land uses. 0 L k 5����7 �4�5�� j '� �E3 rt � s *'r ��r�Ffi r} iry . . . . . . . . . . . 0. i UA-" J.: 7 sqjk 02 WAM A Y '41 1A i ply L7 FX i EPA v i too 0A L .7 QU_� Awpovi A S 7 T�R 1 :7 1 'T" - I, OWN .011; 0 i J- - va"TA, - 57- V, AN POST SAW 4 n� Yi zsi 77j� i r pp � z .. gg F a � j x _ 1 v � I8 dam. #; metro i S' All e $ '� i ,F - . Y d �v� g )a✓;'�' »cr � � . Td `TS.w^+ �5.�:',m - k � �'� . -� ,' '�. •ate c �.,rry C' `�...� �. ( S �-- -"e.�' °.•�.""" _ °' i y - t p ' "':fig ..-... ?•. ' s w- r y - 4) d on 0 TOWN OF VAIL [Y FAX 303 1 -479-2452 March 29, 1995 Kaye Ferry The Daily Grind Coffee Co. 288 Bridge Street Vail, CO 81657 RE- Conditional Use Permit for Outdoor Dinino e:!> EH SRI] Departnient of Community Development Thank you for your Planning and E nvironmental Commission application for the proposed Conditional Use Permit for outdoor dining located at 288 Bridge Street. Upon preliminary review of your application, staff has identified several concerns. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of staff s concerns with your proposed plans. Below is a listing of staff's concerns: 3. According to the plan submitted, the outdoor dining area will be located on property not owned by the Daily Grind Coffee Company. Therefore, please provide a letter of approval of the request, as submitted, from the owner of record for the property you are proposing to place the outdoor dining area on. 4a As discussed during our previous meetings, the plastic tables are not an acceptable material in the staffs opinion. You may wish to revise the proposed plans to incorporate wrought iron or possibly wooden tables into the plan. Again, in the past, the Planning Commission as well as the Design Review Board have not looked favorably upon the use of plastic tables for outdoor dining, The concerns listed above are for your information only. You may, or may not, wish to act upon any of the staff s concerns. However, please be aware that as currently proposed, staff will not be able to provide a recommendation of approval to the Planning Commission for this request. If you wish to revise your plans to address several of the concerns listed above, I will need to see revised plans for the proposal by no later than 5 00 PM., Monday, April 3, 1995. If you are unable to meet the deadline established, please do not hesitate in giving me a call. I will be more than happy to establish a different deadline if necessary. Again thank you for the Planning and Environmental Commission Conditional Use Permit application for the proposed outdoor dining deck at the Daily Grind Coffee Company. if you have any questions or concerns with regard to the information addressed in this letter, as always, please do not hesitate in giving me a call. I can be reached most easily during regular office hours at 479-2138. f,\gcorgc\]ctter\fcrry.330 MEMORANDUM TO. Planning and Environmental Commission 111111® DESCRIPTION OF PREVIOUS SDD APPROVAL Staff has summarized the information from the Cascade Village SDD that pertains to Area D below: 2. Density - Dwelling Units: Three dwelling units are allowed, two of which shall be employee dwelling units. (See Section 18.46.090(D)). Rill 4. Commercial Square Footage Total office area for Area D shall not exceed 32,314 square feet. 5. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as indicated on the approved development plans, which are as follows: N: 2 feet S: 8 feet E 30 feet W: 15 feet Gore Creek: 50 feet* OWN IM 6. Height A maximum of 51% of the roof can have a height between 32 and 40 feet. A minimum of 49% of the roof area shall have a height under 32 feet. 7. Site Coverage: No more than 37% of the total site area Shall be covered by buildings and parking structure. 8. Landscaping 60% of the area shall be landscaped. The SIDD has several significant development standards that apply to future development. Below are salient points from the previous SDD: 1 The developer's drainage plan shall include a provision for prevention of pollution from surface runoff. 2. The developer shall include in the building construction, energy and water conservation controls as general technology exists at the time of construction. 3. All parking structures shall have pollution control devices to prevent oil and dirt from draining into Gore Creek. • 3 E E7,71 Proposed Phase 1 44 feel 0 aa�...:. MM M Proposed Phase 11 31 feel 1,181 sq. ft. I berth Total {Phases I &_1_11 N/A N/A N/A 12.1 % or 9,523 sq. t N/A 7 short (Phase 1) 2 short (Phase 11) 22,991 sq. ft. 2 EHU's 719 sq. ft. short 5,987 sq. ft. I berth Allowed by_SDD Height: 51 % max. 40 feel 49% max. 32 feet Setbacks: Per development plan: N: 2 feel S: 8 feet E: 30 feet W: 15 feel Stream Setback: 50 feet from centerline Site Coverage: 37% or 29,010.9 sq. ft. Landscaping: 60% or 47,044.8 sq. ft, Parking: Per Town of Vail regulations (100 spaces enclosed) Commercial Floor Area: 32,314 sq. ft. Density: I free market DU allowed 2 EHU's required GRFA: minimum size for the two employee units shall be 795 square feet and 900 square feel. Common Area: 35% of 32,314 square feel or 11,309.9 square feel Loading and Delivery: 1 berth required Proposed Phase 1 44 feel 0 aa�...:. MM M Proposed Phase 11 31 feel 1,181 sq. ft. I berth Total {Phases I &_1_11 N/A N/A N/A 12.1 % or 9,523 sq. t N/A 7 short (Phase 1) 2 short (Phase 11) 22,991 sq. ft. 2 EHU's 719 sq. ft. short 5,987 sq. ft. I berth 2. SITE PLAN - PHASE I STREAMBANK PROTEQT jON B. LANDSCAPING The Town Engineer has identified a possible problem with the roadway configuration which could affect the landscaping across the front of this property. Public Works has not signed off on the relocation of the bike path and the proposed road section, and CT needs to be brought into the review process before we can proceed further. 9 D. OTHER A. STREAMBANK PROTECTION 6 'Lid- 2:2 2 For the 1988 approval of the micro-brewery, building height standards were follows: Maximum of 51% of the roof was allowed to range from 32 feet to 40 feet. A minimum of 49% of the roof was required to be less than 32 feet. ■ 8. EMPLOYEE HOUSING M As this is a worksession, staff does not have a formal recommendation. We believe the applicant should address the issues identified in this memo, provide the appropriate drawings at the recommended scale, and return to the PEC at a later date for either a second worksession or for a final recommendation. 0 HIII 11 • • • sm L.O.& . . . : .\ /��« :../ � � � �/ \ � w Pierce, S.S. \/\ A- \ \� \ \ \\ 1! , z �-' =» I| = BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN - EXISTING & PROPOSED [_ J DIZ, 3 -13 - % T. S— !-I-- & Mchit-u P.C.. J. D— 9Y: CIDCCxae q-. 7 {i A5 THIRD FLOOR PLOUN — PROPOSED A l lW=4 I I SITE SECTION SW: ta3ry_o' ll� A6 Phase H Ph— I ,,,,�, :�& .:.>.. .................... >�.:: >..... . . ......:, :�..: .:..:..�:........�..:: .�..�..... .. ... .......� v . . . . y w, .2:... .. ...«xw..� .: . : . ... . .. .. 019091 MOO WEST ELEVATION 1-1- �- Fx im PD 9 EAST ELEVATION 1/8 M Eu SOUTH ELEVATION MEMORANDUM 16 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 10, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to relocate a fifteen foot wide drainage easement and to modify building envelopes D and E at The Residences at Briar Patch, a resubdivision of the Briar Patch Condominiums, located at 1378 and 1374 Sandstone Road. Applicant Jim Guida, on behalf of The Briar Patch L.L.C. and The Briar Patch Condominium Association Planner: Jim Curnutte • north side, adding 48 square feet to the size of the envelope; building envelope E will be shifted to the northeast 1.4 feet; and the 15-foot wide drainage easement oc lat ed betw een is the building envelopes will be shifted 1.21 feet to the north, in order to remain centered between the two building envelopes. The residences on building envelopes D and E received final DRB approval on March 20, 1994 and the residence, with an employee housing unit, on building envelope C received final DRB approval 2 <2 une 1, 1994. The location of the building envelopes shown on the plans presented to the DRB were based on a survey of the envelopes that was conducted during the early stages of the subdivision review process. Is 2 changes to the plat would not effect the DRB approved plans for the buildings. After several additional revisions to the proposed plat, staff approved it for signature by all necessary parties, including the Chairperson of the PEC. On October 5, 1994 the Subdividers Agreement and the Minor Subdivision Plat were signed by the Town. Although this request does not affect any of the below listed zoning criteria, staff is providing this zoning analysis in order to give the PEC an idea of the size of the existing structures located on building envelopes D and E. GRFA Allowance*: Different for each building envelope 2,340 sq.ft. 2,380 sq.ft. WOWN Site Coverage: Different for each 2,340 sq.ft. 2,380 sq.ft, building envelope Not including a 225 square foot credit for each unit. 0 3 A. Lot Area B. Emntage C. Site Dimensions The subdivision purpose statements are as follows Staff Res Donse . One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any development control, is to establish basic ground rules with which the staff, the PEC, applicants, and the community know will be followed in the public review process. Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision or a resubdivision of an existing parcel or parcels of land, it is the appropriate process to amend platted building envelopes and relocate easements. 0 4 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent is land. 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Res Staff believes that this proposal will not be detrimental to the value of land throughout the Town, nor in the immediate area. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff believes that the proposed building envelope and drainage easement amendments will not preclude a harmonious, convenient and workable relationship among land uses consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. This purpose of this section of the subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address large scale subdivisions as opposed to this particular proposal under consideration. We do not believe that this proposal will impact any of the above facilities. 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures. M This is an inherent goal of the subdivision regulations and legal descriptions will be provided on the plat for all of the proposed changes. • 5 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natural resources 40 throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land. Staff Resoonse Staff supports the applicant's proposed building envelope and drainage easement amendments. There are no trees located in any of the areas where the building envelope is proposed to be amended. II!, FAeveryone\pecVn emos\Briar.41 0 0 6 c� im N m m 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission M DATE: April 10, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a major exterior alteration and a conditional use permit in the Commercial Core 11 zone district for a proposed building addition and outdoor dining patio at the Village Center Building, located at 122 East Meadow Drive/Block E5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant Fred Hibberd, represented by Lee Neely of Snowdon/Hopkins Architects Planner: George Ruther Lee Neely, on behalf of La Tour Restaurant, Cleone's and Gotthelf's Gallery, has requested a major exterior alteration and a conditional use permit in the Commercial Core 11 (CCII) zone district, for a proposed building addition and an outdoor dining patio at the Village Center Building, located at 122 East Meadow Drive/Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing. In addition to the restaurant and the retail uses in the Village Center Building, other uses within the building include residential and professional office. • 1 11. ZONING ANALYSIS The following summarizes the relevant zoning statistics for this request: A. Zoning: Commercial Core 11 (CCII) rlmllm��� C. Setbacks No changes proposed. EISS��M Allowable - 23,064 square feet {701® of total site area) Existing - 15,526 square feet (47.1%) Proposed - 16,031 square feet (48.6%) Remaining - 7,033 square feet 2000�7 La Tour Restaurant addition - 98 sq. ft./l 5/8 Gott elf's Gallery addition - 131 sq.ft./300 sq.ft. Cleone's bay window - 12 sqa ft./300 sq.ft. Total required Loading: No change. WISMI WE IFIN The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The emphasis of this review is on the proposal's compatibility with the zoning code, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the Vail Village Design Considerations and the Vail Comprehensive Plan. development. The CCII District in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Guide Plan and Design Considerations is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable quality of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards." An outdoor dining patio on the "first floor" or "street level" shall be permitted in the CCII Zone District subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60. For the PEC's reference, the conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that: TWIF T" • Staff believes that the applicant has responded to the landscape concerns ff ft identified in the Vail Village Urban Design Guid e e Plan. Additionally, sta els t landscape planter and water feature will enhance the outdoor dining and pedestrian experience of the area. I C. &Cio"milance with the Urban D eri Alteration Criteria. M!11111111�11 b. Traffic penetration I d. Street enclosure 0 I The building height proposed by the applicant is in keeping with the intent of the Vail Village Design Considerations. The height of the proposed addition will be significantly less than the overall height of the existing building. Staff believes the applicant has done a good job of matching the scale of the addition with the existing scale of the building. M� The Vail Village Design Considerations stress the importance of views in the Village. As proposed, the addition will not encroach upon any of the established view corridors. Imam MII-q 9 M • 5 the glockenspiel. Staff finds that the roof forms and roof materials proposed b Is the applicant are in compliance with the architecture landscape considerations �I the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. and windows on the restaurant addition. d. Decks and Patios e. Accent elements NOR that the flags be regularly maintained to insure a quality visual appearance, 40 Additionally, the applicant has proposed, although not as a formal part of this application, to possibly introduce painted wall graphics to the building. f. Landscape elements 40 Several elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan indirectly address outdoor dining areas. 9 H iMm"o. The relevant elements and sections are listed below: MIMMEMH1��� "2.4 Objective Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activities that are compatible with existing land uses. E-1 3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements. 341 a1 Policy: Private development objectives shall incorporate streetscape improvements such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas along adjacent pedestrian ways. 3.3 Objective: Encourage a wide variety of activities, events and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas. 343.2 Policy: Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be encouraged in commercial in-fill or redevelopment projects." STAFF RESPONSE Upon review of the objectives and policies identified in the Vail Comprehensive Plan, staff believes that the applicant's proposal achieves each of the objectives listed above. The following criteria are to be used in reviewing the proposed conditional use permit request for an outdoor dining patio 0 8 A. Consideration of Factors. 49 1 Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of populatio transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreatio facilities, and other public facilities needs. l Staff agrees with the applicant that the effect of the use on light and air is increased by the outdoor dining area moving to the north. By moving the existing outdoor dining area to the north, much of the shaded areas caused by the higher roofs to the south are eliminated. 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 proposed outdoor dining area use will have little or no negative impact on t zbove listed items. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to the surrounding uses. and chairs on the outdoor dining patio. It has been the Town's policy to have wood or wrought iron tables on outdoor dining decks. It is has been the opinion of the PEC and staff that wood or wrought iron outdoor dining furniture enhances the appearance of the pedestrian areas in general. PMMIAL 1 That the proposed location of the use in accordance with the purposed of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would b,-- operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. Staff believes that the overall concept of an outdoor dining patio in this area would have a positive effect on the Village in general. The Town's goals and objectives clearly support activities such as outdoor dining patios where they are compatible with adjacent land uses. Staff finds that the applicant's conditional use permit request complies with Criteria A. 1, 2, 3, & 4 and that Findings B. been met. Is 20 Snowdon and Hopkins 9 Architects Is 201 Gore Creek Drive 303 476-2201 Vail, Colorado 81657 March 29, 1995 Mr. George Ruther Planner Community Development Department Town of Vail 111 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Following is an explanation to Part 111, 1, a-d of our Application for Conditional Use Permit to the PEC. b. The effect of the use of light and air is increased by the outdoor dining area moving to the north out of much of the shaded areas caused by the higher roofs to the south and closer to the pedestrian flow and interaction. C. There is no effect on traffic congestion, automotive or pedestrian safety because the outdoor dining area is back away from the street and into an area of building surrounds. 2 B Is If you have any questions or need additional information concerning this matter, please feel free to call me. Sincerely, SNOWDON AND HOPKINS - ARCHITECTS J. Lee Neely 11 E`1- 0 0 0 R R� f :r x x x ,_ aF i x•5 � L I .r4 0 0 0 R d f it ■ ,! ! / k � 0 `2%\