Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-1211 PECPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL I I December 11, 1995 AGENDA Proiect Orientation ! Lunch 10:45 . Discussion of possible procedural changes requiring an additional ILC at the time of foundation inspection - Lauren ie Visits 12:30 p.m. 1. Wimer - 2860 Aspen Labe 2. Tuchman /Hughes - 3110 Booth Creek Drive 3. VAC - 352 East Meadow Drive 4. Meal Ticket Cafe - 244 Wall Street 5. Koenig - 795 Potato Patch Driver: Jim u lic " 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for Additional GRFA to allow for additions to be added to both sides of the duplex located at 3110 Booth Creek Drive /Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing. Applicants: East side -Debra & Ken Tuchman West side -Diane Hughes, Kendall Burney and King Hughes Planner. Jim Curnutte 2. A request for a side yard setback variance to allow for an addition to the Wimer Residence, located at 286OW Aspen Lane /Lot 17, a Resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village 11th Filing. Applicants Frank Wimer Planner- George Ruther 3. A request fora Minor Exterior Alteration and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a new outdoor dining deck for the Meal Ticket Cafe, located along the east "side of One Vail Place at 244 Wall treet/A resubdivision of Lot C, Block 5 C, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Kendra Hoover and Julie Iverson Planner: Randy Stouder 4. A request fora major SDD amendment, located at the Vail Athletic Club/ 352 East Meadow Drive and niore specifically described as follows: parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, commencing at the Northeast corner of said Tract B; thence N 79 146'00" W along the Northerly line of Vail Village, First Filing, and along the Nowlherly line of said Tract B 622.86 feet; thence S 06 °26'52" W a distance of 348.83 feet to the Southwest coTner of that parcel of land described in Book 191 at Rage 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle county Records, said corner also being the True Point of Beginning; thence S 79 °04'08" E and along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feet to the Southeast corner thereof; thence N 62 °52'00" E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of land described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance of 66.78 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said parcel of land; said corner being on the Westerly right -of -way line of Gore Creek Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; thence 1 2713'37" w a distance of 7737 feel along said Westerly right -of -way line of Gore Creek Road; thence N 89 °29'22" a distance of 12.30 feet to the Northeasterly corner of that parcel of land described in Rook 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception Rio. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along the arc of a 37.50 feet radius curve to the left having a central angle of 40 130'00" whose chord bears N 53° °00" w a distance of 25.96 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 73'55'00'W and along said tangent 166.44 feet; thence N 85110'21"W a distance of 50.40 feet to the Northwesterly corner of the Mountain Haus Parcel; thence S 02'18'00"W and along the easterly line of said Mountain Haus Parcel a distance of 100.00 feet to the Southeasterly corner thereof; thence S 45 °13'53" E a distance of 38.70 feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing 30,486 square feet, more or less. Applicant: JWT 1987 Vail Limited artnershi 9 (d/b/ Vail Athletic Club), represented by Stan Cope and Michael Barclay Planner: Mike Mollica, . A request for an additional 250 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area to construct a residential addition at the Cook Residence located at 1012 Eagle's Nest Circle /Let 2, Block A9 Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Sam Cook Planner: George Ruther 6. A request for a worksession for a wall height variance and driveway grade for the Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch rive/Lot 269 Vail potato Patch Subdivisions. Applicant: Eric Johnson for Gary Koenig Planner: George Ruther 7. "Council Reports." . Approval of November 2g 1995 PEC minutes. 9. NOTE: THE DECEMBER 18,1995 PEC MEETING IS CANCELLED Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2114 voice or 479 -2356 TDD for information. FAeveryone\pec\agendasM 11395 pl —. - t, — — .®. ..g. a — 11, —f— .g r ®......o.. ...... ....... .......�.b:�. �, e LPNE f 1C1� r'G ROOF .. ...... e.._.. �ewm.. :.. �.._.w...e ::e..�._�. _.......: _.a._. EN 1 �. :....._ _.. a v...... °_._ .__ — _ _ rya rep Ge �T > L ft. e ELEVATION � SCALE.- //S"=/'—O' N : ALL NEW EX7WRIOR FINISH MAMMALS r MA T N E ISTING FINISHES � "c va ao® oa aa,�e oaoa.o tee. 1 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. 2.4.1 Policy: Commercial in -fill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and treetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village. 3.1.1 Policy: Private development projects shall incorporate streetsca e 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 streetscape feature and shall be encouraged in commercial in -.fill or redevelopment projects." C. The Vail Village Design Considerations "° ining Decks and patios when properly designed, bring people to the streets, provide opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to the liveliness of the street and making a richer pedestrian environment and experience than if those streets were empty. Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to sun, wind, views and pedestrian activity." Isle CRITERIA Upon review of Section 13.60, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the the I opment objectives of the n® The previous section of this memorandum cites several policies of the Comprehensive Plan that support uses such as outdoor dining along major pedestrian ways. Outdoor dining areas, especially those located in the Village Coro, create a distinctly urban ambience along pedestrian ways and should be encouraged by the Town where such activities do not interfere with adjacent properties and uses. The Land Use Plan, the Vail Village Master Plan, and the Vail Village Design Considerations encourage commercial activities along major 2 t pedestrian ways. The Town's goals and objectives clearly support activities such as outdoor dining where they are compatible with adjacent land uses. Staff feels that the proposed standing rail and take -out window will provide desired commercial services to our guests without interfering with adjacent land uses and street activities. The cafe is an existing to-go operation, the standing rail is essential for the convenience of the customer and the success of the cafe. Since the cafe is a take -out only operation, there is no place for customers sit down and eat. Outdoor tables are not appropriate at this location due to conflicts with pedestrian traffic. The proposed standing rail will provide a dining area without interfering with pedestrian activity in the plaza. The plaza area surrounding the cafe is very busy in the morning and afternoon hours due to its proximity to the VA ticket office and the Vista Bahn. The standing rail and take -out window will be extremely accessible for skiers purchasing lift tickets, and getting organized prior to heading up the mountain. 2. The effect the use light and ir, distribution of population, transportation fciliti , utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities Since this portion of the Village Core is strictly a pedestrian environment, the proposed use will not generate any additional vehicular traffic. The proposed dining area will have no impact on the light and air enjoyed by adjacent businesses. . Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, tiv and tri n safety and convenience, r is flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the tr and parking re s® The standing rail is mach preferable to tables and chairs which would block access to the ticket windows and be a nuisance to snow removal operations. The applicants will keep the area clean of trash and debris, and will bus the standing rail and surrounding areas as needed. Several trash receptacles are readily accessible and in close proximity to the dining area. The applicants will also assume responsibility for planting and maintaining the flower boxes along their storefront during the summer season. . Effect upon the character r in i is be located, including cl e and bulk of the proposed in relation t ' surrounding us The standing rail is modest in size, protruding no further than necessary from the storefront. Customers will lean ors, or stand in front of the rail to eat, and will be out of the way of skiers headed for the ticket windows. The take -out window will be accessible to skiers waiting online for tickets. 3 e B. md�n s The Plannin and rmvironmental Co mission shall make the folio in finin before ranting d conditional use ermit: 1. 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. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff feels that this request for a conditional use permit meets the criteria and finding sections as discussed above. The proposal achieves the objectives and adheres to the design guidelines for outdoor dining areas expressed in the various sections of the Town's Master Plan. Staff has included conditions pertaining to the operation and maintenance of the outdoor dining area so that the health, safety and welfare of the general population will not be adversely impacted by the proposed use. In accordance with these conditions, staff is.recommending approval of the conditional use permit and minor exterior alteration so that the Meal Ticket Cafe may be allowed to install and use the proposed standing rail and take -out window for the purposes of outdoor dining as shown on the attached site plan. The staff requests that the P EC place the following conditions of approval on the conditional use permit: 1. The outdoor dining area shall be limited to the take -out Window and standing rail only, as shown on the approved site plan. No chairs , benches, stools, outdoor signs or displays of any sort shall be allowed. Access to the tickets windows shall be maintained at all times. 2. The dining area shall be maintained free of trash and debris at all times. The dining area shall be checked regularly and cleaned throughout the day. Lack of compliance with this condition shall result in the immediate termination of the conditional use permit. . The applicants shall plant annual flowers in the existing planter boxes along their storefront each Spring, and shall maintain these flowers throughout the normal growing season. 4. The Design Review Board shall review the proposed materials, and general aesthetics of the proposal in accordance with Chapter 18.54 ( esi n Guidelines) of the Municipal Code, 4 art w , 'form as Exhibit B, attached to this memorandum. 24, On July 1995, the Planning & Environmental Commission held a worksession to discuss possible a endments to the 1993 approved development plan. A copy of the meeting minutes are attached to this memorandum, as Exhibit D. Subsequent to this July PEC meeting, the applicant requested that the Major SDD Amendment request be tabled, in order to allow them to make adjustments to the application. At this time, the lie t is prepared to is requesting a Major Amendment to the 1993 approved , to allow for the redevelopment `f the it Athletic I, , located at 352 East Meadow Drive. The proposed amendments to the 1 3 ap rove SDQ include the followings ® The creation of three additional accommodation units ( U's) -liar a total of 55 AU's'for the SDD. The creation of one additional dwelling unit U) - for a. total of four DUs for the SDD. The expansion of the spa lounge to the south, over an existing skylight, (190 square feet of floor area). This expansion does not count as additional site coverage sine there is existing floor area beneath this space. This is the only proposed change to the "general footprint" of the 1993 approved structure. • The reconfiguration of the north facing, upper-level dormers. Nine gable dormers are no proposed in this area, and are similar in architectural design to the previously approved south-facing dormers. The 1993 approval included nine "articulated" north-facing dormers. The addition of a north - facing 5th floor clerestory (as suggested by the EEC in July). The south-facing dormers have been slightly modified. Additionally, the south-facing inverted dormers ( "roof cutouts"), originally approved in the center -most area of the roof have been eliminated. ® Although the overall mass and bulk of the proposed structure has not changed to any significant degree, an internal reconfiguration of the spaces has occurred. The details of this reconfiguration (area calculations) are included as Exhibit A. In summary, the applicant is proposing an additional 1,7 square feet of gross floor area, to be located within the building envelope of the 1993 approved plans. Relating to building height, all the proposed dormers (north and south facing) will meet the 1993 approved axi urn ridge height elevations. ® The reconfiguration of the interior spaces has resulted in a decrease in the required number of parking spaces. The 1993 approval required that nine additional parkin spaces be added to the existing 19-20 space garage, This SDD amendment request requires tour additional parking spaces, which are proposed to be provided within the existing aria structure. All of the proposed site and build in improvements (including streetscape improvements, landscaping, etc.) associated with the 1993 SDD approval remain intact. A detailed 2 The 1993 approval included a series of "articulated" dormers on both the north and south elevations of the structure. Staff believes that the 1993 architectural approach was very successful in that it not only broke up the large expanses of roof area, but it also allowed for a very attractive interior room layout. Additionally, the design kept the shading on East Meadow Drive to a minimum. Although the project architect is now proposing more traditional ale -style dormer, the staff continues to be comfortable with the design approach, and we believe this change ill improve the overall "alpine character" and quality of the building. Staff does, however, have some concerns with the proposed changes to the overall architectural character of the building. The project architect is proposing to eliminate the previously approved stucco on the exterior of the building, and is now proposing to side the building with a mixture of oversized wood shingles, board and batten siding, redwood trim and a new stone base. A new shake shingle roof is also proposed. According to the project architect, the propose "rustic mountain lodge" design is intended to mimic the architectural style(s) used for buildings such as the Clubhouse at Cordillera, the Old Faithful Inn (Yellowstone National Park) and the Boathouse at Saranac Lake (New York). Please see exhibit E for reproduced photos of these properties. The staff's concern is that this design style has not historically been utilized in the Vail Village area, and although we are not apposed to a. "new" design approach, we are concerned with the precedent setting nature of the issue. We encourage the PEC, are subsequently the DRB, to carefully review the proposal with regard to the overall character of the building, andspecifically, to review the proposed exterior materials.. One additional detail relates to the two existing condominiums in the project (third and fourth floor locations). These two condominium owners do not wish to modify their exterior deck rails to conform with the new deck rails proposed for the balance of the building. Staff believes that all the deck rails on the building need to be consistent and we will recommend this as a condition of approval. B. Uses, activity and density i r vi compatible, _ efficient and workable relationship wit rr u i activity. The general uses within the redeveloped Vail Athletic Club (VAC) are not proposed to change, Given that the applicant is generally working within the confines of the 1993 approved uil in envelope, the staff views the addition of three accommodation units to be a positive element of the proposal. Short -term accommodation Units are strongly recommended in the Vail Village Master Plan, as discussed later in this memorandum. It should be noted that one additional dwelling unit is also proposed at this time. While the staff would refer that this unit be an accommodation unit, we also recognize that the existing VAC has a total of nine dwelling units, and that the SDD proposal calls for the elimination of five of those units. When viewed as a whole, this is a positive step, in staff's opinion. Staff recognizes that approximately 1,7 square feet of gross additional floor area is proposed to be added as a part of this amendment application. We feel that the project architect has been very creative in the overall design and layout of the interiors aces, and has now maximized the full floor area potential within the 1993 established uil ing 4 3 the ambiance of the Village is important o the identity of Vail and should be preserved. (kale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.) ® Affordable employee housing should be made available.through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions, 5—.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. Overall, the staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment application ' meets the goals and policies of the Land Use Elan as described above. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The staff believes that the 1993 approval for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club carried out many of the goals and objectives contained in the Vail Village Master Plan. Additionally, the staff believes that the current Major SDD Amendment proposal also furthers the following Master dart's goals and objectives: Goal #1 -Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the pillage in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. bjective 1. - Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. Goal #2 - To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year -round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole. Obiective 2.1 - Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. Objective 2.3 - Increase the number of residential units available for short ter overnight accommodations. olicv 2.3.1 - The development of short term 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. iective 2.5 - Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests. olicv 2:5.1 - Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities and other amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as a part of any redevelopment of 6 H. Functional and t ti landscaping in r to i i preserve l features, recreation, views and functions. Again, the staff believes that the proposed Major SDD Amendment ill have no impacts on this criteria. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship t t the development of the ci' I development district. ' The applicant has not proposed that the construction of this project be phased. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is for approval of the applicant's request for a Major SDD Amendment, to allow 'for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Clow We believe that the proposal meets the review criteria for Major SDD Amendment applications, as detailed in Section III of this memorandum. We also believe that the Major SDD Amendment request is in compliance with the goals and objectives of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, as well as the purpose section of the SDD Zone District. The staff recommendation for approval carries with it the following conditions, 1. That the applicant permanently deed restrict the 55 accommodation units as short-term rental units, and that the 55 accommodation units shall not be subdivided in the future to allow for individual ownership. The con o iniu declarations for the Vail Athletic Club shall be amended to'include this requirement. These items shall be completed prior to the Town's release of any occupancy permits for the building. 2. The applicant shall execute and have recorded at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office, the Town's Type IV Employee Housing Agreement for the four employee hoosin units proposed in the structure. This shall be required prior to the Town's release of any occupancy permits for the building. 3. Construction drawings, for all the site ` l nnin /str et ca e improvements included as a part of this project, shall be submitted for the review n approval by the Town Engineer. This shall be required riot to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit for the project. . That the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the Design Review Board, carefully review the architectural character of the' building and the details and materials which are proposed for use on the exterior of the building. 5. That all the deck rails on the exterior of the building be consistent with regard to design, material and color, and that this requirement shall include the two existing condominiums on the third and fourth floors of the building. 6. That this application shall conform to Chapter 1 .40.124 (Time Requirements) of Ab VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB - DECEMBER PARKING 1995 PROPOSED 1993 APPROVED SPACES FLOOR AREA FLOOR AREA DIFFERENCE UQUIRED EU (GRFA): - 1,295 S. Ft. 1,353 Sq. Ft.* - $5 Sq. Ft, 4.0 AU (GRFA): 24,895 Sq. Ft, 24,657 Sq. Ft.* + 211 Sq. Ft. 46.555 ICU (GRFA): 8,312 Sq: Ft. 6,252 Sq. Ft.* + 2,060 Sq. Ft. 5.5 (Includes lock -offs ) Common: 15,054" Sq. Ft. 14,265 Sq. Ft.* + 759 Sq. Ft, 0.00- Club, 21,609 , Sq. Ft. 20,551 Sq, Ft. + 725 Sq. Ft. 0.00 Garage: 4,750 , Sq. Ft. 5,512 Sq. Ft: - 732 Sq. Ft. 0.00 Restaurant (Gross): 3,265 Sq. Ft. 3,285 Sq. Ft. - 17 Sq. Ft. 16.5 (net public areas) Meet' glConf 1545 S Ft. 2.727 Sa, Ft.* - 1:152 S . Ft. 6.437 Totals: 50,761 Sq. Ft. 75,992 Sq. Ft, + 1,769 Sq. Ft. 52.292 - 75.440 (existinglgr dfathered) 3.552 = 4 Existing 1993 Approval* 1995 Proposal # ICU's = 9 (2 with lock -offs) 3 (2 with lock -offs) 4 (2 with lock -offs) # AU s ** 25 52 55 x # EU's * ** 4 4 T e lV) H Total Density - 24.33 3033 32.53 H * Per Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1993 a ** A%J's constitute 0.5 of DU -for calculating density * ** EHU's constitute 0.33 of a ICU - for calculating density fbueryona4niko \vac.avpd EXHIBIT Highlights pf the1993 SDD approval: 1 Decrease the amount of GRFA allocated towards ellin units and increase the amount of GRFA for accommodation wits® 2. Decrease the number of dwelling wits and increase the number of accommodation units. . Encroach further into the front setback with entry and second-story ' ation unit as well as an addition to the restaurant to the east of the entry. . Increase corn on area while decreasing the area allocated towards accessory uses an athletic club use. 5. Add dormers to the building on the north and south side which do not exceed the existing ridge height of the building. Insert decks into the roof structure on the south elevation. . Increase the amount of site coverage as a result of the new entry and restaurant addition square feet }. 7. Add terrace and expand dining deck on south elevation. . Removal of deck on the south elevation which currently encroaches onto public land. . The applicant is roposin to meet the incremental increase in parking requirements. There is an existing deficit of 53.44 spaces on the site. The new parking is located in the following manner: spaces built underground below the entry spaces added by relocating an existing ski storage area spaces added by relocating the laundry room 1 space added along the south side of the parking structure s ®aces in cenraE area of �arkino structure total 10. Change exterior maateriais of building. This includes stucco, w trim, ,deck railings and a wood shake roof. 11. Add streetscape improvements. These include: a 6 foot heated concrete paver walk along West Meadow Drive, an 8 foot heated concrete paver walk along Vail Valley Drive extending over the Gore Creek bridge and street lamps. The pavers on the bridge will not be heated. 12. Relocation of existing trash area and removal of the existing trash facility which is encroaching onto adjacent properties. 1. The applicant proposes to provide one two-bedroom employee housing unit within the Town of Vail which will be restricted according to the Town of flail employee ousin requirements. 14. Additional landscaping on the north and south sides of the building. VAIL ATHLETIC L Greg sden Ekes the new architectural design said at DRB will fine tune it Mike ollica stated that the clerestory was recently added to the plan. _ Michael Barclay said e clerestory would not be covered snow most of e time, as skylights would- Henry Fratt likes e dormers, but prefers the 1993 fenestration. The dormers are too close - together and he feels will present a leaking problem. He thinks the shed dormers detract from the desiga- DaltomWilliams said e clerestory on the roof adds architectural interest on the roof. The 1993 4e cutouts the roof didn't work very e alton reminded everyone that the Town rules for SDD required PEC to review the architectural details. Jeff en, notwithstanding the fact that he liked the 1993 version, felt the new design was quite nice. has a problem r��i e second sty res t expansion ' a it doesn't see t fit e rest of the building. It seems too massive. Michael Barclay stated that the vegetation was thick and would cover it® Bob Armour thought the restaurant area was a little too high. Henry a pointed out that in e 1993 design there were punched windows and now there is a window all® He felt it wasn't consistent. Dalton Williams asked if e pavers on Gore Greek bridge would be heated® Mike Mollica said the walkway to the edge of e bridge would be heated, but not the bridge itself. H.c also said ere would be brick pavers that would match the Town's Streetscape Pl Bob A=our asked if there was anything else to give direction to the applicant to look at® Michael clay had one comment about the restaurant windows. Most of the facade is window or is mirrors,,vhat is on the south side® They wanted to introduce more wood to breakup e stucco. Bob Arrmour thought the DRB would have some problems with the restaurant design d he directed the applicant to explore more options. 4® est for a major SDD amendment to allow for the expansion o e Glen Lyon Office g Binilding, located at 1000 S. Frontage ®/ ea D, Cascade Village Alpplicant Gordon Pierce for Glen Lyon Partnership PItanner. Randy Stouder Jcff Bow-cn made a motion to table this until August 14 Planning and Environmenial Commission Barclay, Architect 235 East Eleventh Street EXHIBIT E (6 pages) ) New York, NY 10003 212 -598 -0492 December 2, 1995 Mike Mollica Community Development Teri of Vail' Vail, CO 51657 re: Vail Athletic Tub Dear Mike, Enclosed are "in progress" 1/4" elevations of the south, east and north elevations of the VAC. Hopefully these will provide sufficient detail for you and the staff to clearly understand my proposal for the outside of the VAC. My proposal calls for replacing all of the stucco at from the first floor up with either wood shingles, wood trim (car metal trim detailed and painted to appear to be wood) or board and batten. Most of the east, north and west elevations of the VAC as it exists today would become sheathed with oversize :(approximately 9" exposure) wood shingles. The new der ers will be sheathed with a rough -faced board and batten. The south side of the building, as a consequence of its almost continuous porch or windows, will be a combination of wood trim and steel painted to read as wood. The handrails on the south side of the building will be steel with 1 " square ballusters and 5" spaces. On the north side of the building, the handrails will either be steel or wood slats 5 112" wide with 112" spaces. These will be painted or stained to appear to be the same shade of redwood. I've also enclosed photographs of some of the buildings that are similar to certain aspects of my proposal for the outside of the VAC. Old Faithful Inn, Yellowstone National Park (color and black and white) - for the the massing, trim and use of oversize wood shingles Boathouse at Saranac Lake, IVY - for the trim details and the variety of different exterior woods The Clubhouse at Cordierra - as an example of a mostly wood exterior and for the combination of board and batten and wood shingle I hope this is helpful. I'll call Monday. t Michael 6 • at 9 1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 27, 1993 (, cti , 1993 are In bold.) SUBJECT: A request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more specifically described as follows: parcel of land in 'tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said 'Tract B; thence N 79,,46'00" W along the Northerly `S line of Vail pillage, First Filing, and along the Northerly line of said Tract B 622.66 feet; thence 06026'52' W a distance of 346. 83 feet to the Southwest corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191 at Rage 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102976 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also being the True Point of Beginning; thence S 79 004'06'° E d along the Southerly line of said parcel 200.00 feet to the South6ast corner thereof; thence N 62 052'00" E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of land described in Book 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1971 in the Eagle County Records, a distance of 66.76 feet to the Northeasterly corner of said parcel of land; said corner being on the Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; thence N 27 013'37°' W a distance of 77,37 feet along said Westerly right -of -way line of Gore Creek Road; thence N 69029'22 W a distance of 12.60 feet to the Northeasterly corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102976 in the Eagle County Records; thence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along the arc of a 37.50 feet radius curve to the left having a central angle of 40 130'00°' whose chord bears N 53 °40'00" W a distance of 25.96 feet to a point of tangency; thence N 73055'00 W and along said tangent 166.44 feet; thence N 65 010'21" W a distance of 50.40 feet to the Northwesterly corner of the Mountain Haus Parcel; thence S 02 016'00 W and along the easterly line of said Mountain Flaus Parcel a distance of 100.00 feet to the southeasterly corner thereof; thence S 45 013'53" E a distance of 36.70 feet to the True Point of Beginning, containing 30,466 square feet, more or less. Applicant: Vail Athletic Club Planner. _ Shelly Mello 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW The applicant is requesting a review of the proposed establishment of a Special Development District ( ) for the redevelopment of the Vail Athletic Club located at 352 East Meadow rive® The Vail Athletic Club is located on the southwest corner of Vail Valley Drive and East Meadow riv at the Otto of Blue Cow Chute® The property is currently zoned Public Accommodation and is considered to be nonconforming ith regard to development standards. The applicant has indicated that the u ose of requesting for this property is t0 improve the appearance of the building and site as ell as ke it a more viable hotel® The proposal includes the deletion of six dwelling units, the addition of twenty-four 1 The greatest impact in shade is seen on the west wing of the building. On December 21st, the proposed building ili cast shadow onto sidewalk. On September 21st, the increase in shade in this area will be 11 feet and does ° not cast shadow onto the sidewalk. It should be noted that the existing building casts shadow beyond the sidewalk into the street in the center of the building n east wing. In the center and east wing, the ition l shade cast will be 5 feet 6 inches t accordingly as a result of the dormers. The applicant proposes to heat the paver sidewalk which will make this area safer for the pedestrian. The staff feels that the increases in sae have been minimized to a point that is acceptable. h On the north side of e building, the applicant proposes to add a two and half story entry area to the building. The entry has been lowered by two flours from the original proposal. The design of the entry minimizes the massing impacts of the element and does not add any more shade to the street. uiEdistu ootoriht The applicant proposes to increase the building footprint by 450 square feet to allow for the restaurant addition and entry. Staff does not have a problem with the restaurant addition as no landscaping is removed. The entry will remove two to four trees which the applicant has agreed to relocate or replace. Streetggape The applicant has proposed to install required streetscape improvements discussed in section Vill of this memo. This includes a heated paver walk along Vaii Valley Drive as well as a heated payer walk along the south side of East Meadow give. The driveway t the garage will also e heated. In general, the project is sensitive to adjacent properties through the use of appropriate architectural design and massing as well as landscaping, activity n density is provide compatible, ici nt and workable relationship wit urr un in uses and activity. The applicant proposes to increase the total density of the project by six dwelling units. This includes the removal of six dwelling units well as the addition of twenty-four accommodation units® Of the nine dwelling units on-site, six are currently restricted.per the Condominium v r i requirements. There are two existing units which are free market and e applicant wishes to retain one additional unrestricted unit. The staff feels that because this unit is already restricted that it should remain available for short-term rental according to Section 17.26 of the Subdivision Regulations, Condominium Conversion, or an employee housing unit should be provided in place of the restricted unit as was allowed with the Vail Village Inn Goodes space. The staff out refer to see an additional stated ov , the staff weld like to see one more employee unit provided in order to lift the use restriction on the proposed dwelling unitm C. Compliance with rkin and loading requirements as ou lin in Chapter 18.52. i1 Currently, the applicant proposes to maintain all of th e existing ri lines 9 1 bi ctive 2, - Encourage the evelo ent of fford 1 housing units through the efforts of the private sector. iective . - Employee housing units may be required s part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over that allowed y existing zoning. Goal #3 - To recognize as top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the village. " iective 3.4 Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walkways an accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and stream access. ; Goal #5 - Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village. oiic�a 5 ®1.1 - For new development that is located outside of the Commercial Core 1 Zone District, on -sits parking shall be provided (rather than paying into the parking fund) to meet any additional parking demand as required by the zoning code. Policv 5.1.5 - Redevelopment projects shall be strongly encouraged to provide on er round or visually concealed parking. 'ective 5.2 - Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the use of private automobiles throughout Vail. Although this location is not addressed in any sub-area concept of the Vail Village taster Plan, it is discussed with regard to the height of buildings. The Vail Village Master Plan specifies that buildings adjacent to Gore Creek should have a'height of four stories. The existing building is four stories along East Meadow Drive. The proposal builds into the existing roof to form fifth floor. This is being accomplished by adding dormers, infillin portions of decks on the south side, and using existing common area and ea space in the roof form. None of the ridge lines will be increased and all of the existing eave lines will be maintained. This application addresses the four Vail Village Master Plan goals which are applicable the site. It also meets the twelve policies and objectives which are applicable. Ill® STREETSCAPE MASTER The Streetscape Master Plan points out that traffic on Vail Valley Drive is very heavy throughout most of the year. It is especially heavy in the morning and late afternoons during e ski season, and evenings and weekends during the summer months. Pedestrian traffic has increased ec dse of the expansion of the Village Parking Structure and the creation of new ste exit portal from this facility at Vail Valley Drive. Specific improvements for Vail Valley Drive in the area of the Vail Athletic Club include the addition of an 8 to 10 foot wide heated concrete unit paver walk on the est side of Vail Valley rive extending over the 7 erC�r i° 1 lit improvements The to t be extensive, they will focus cardiovascular increasing the spa and rs and windows along the south wall of the upper level in order to introduce more natural light into. club. Most areas of the club stay e® floors We will be adding new t the upper health club level weight room and e existing racquetball court. We will be creating t c ll at the lower health club level. Tnterior b s_- Our SDD proposal will create the need for an additional cars to be parked on ST �tC® We will be relocating a por °o ° facility t for additional cars and eliminating two storage to t cars. The remaining cars will be accomodated within the existing garage through e e °car I � T rcav i� We will be creating e w double-high hotel double- lobby and lounge area which connect to the new hotel/health club entry. There will be a new open stair to balcony _above o y at the second oor° We will be renovating revising °s m conference room e t or, adding a e boardroom t o second floor creating room along e south side the first floor of e We will be relocating two employee units from e fourth r to e first floor. The other two employee relocated to the third floor.' These be maintained on-site, as per a previous agreement, for e life of the structure. We will be eliminating 6 e,-,dst° 's and a dding 24 new AU's to create a new room ' of ' '® The average size of our new hotel room square feet square feet from 424 square feet All of ° hotel rooms renovated. o be renovated r® • G ,< * -M 67,. - P�-, a Al m l�14' D® w�' MAIL ATHLETIC CWB F2M Mmd� D-v� Vak Ccdw�b _S h S. Elevation Kas maa+ EL K.e4aro6 -1 4J4�7 1114a - h, —Tllll A A 7 `� Fm- d m H ��sL� ®a 13 0 EIIIIIII TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 119 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a Planning and Environmental Commission review of the staff Zoning Analysis which was completed for the proposed Cook residential addition, located at 1012 Eagle's Nest Circle/Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing, Applicant- Mr. Sam Cook Planner: George Ruther On September 6, 1995, the Design Review Board (DRB) conceptually reviewed the proposed residential addition. At that meeting, the DRB recommended several minor changes to the landscape plan, The changes included the transplanting of several tree that were I proposed to be removed, as well as reconfiguring the new driveway to preser the existing trees near Homestake Circle. On September 20, 1995, the DRB granted a final approval for the proposed residential addition using two-250's. Changes had been made to the floor plans to resolve the GRFA and connection issues, as required at the time of Conceptual Review. Additionall changes had also been made to the landscape plan as recommended by the DRB. The DRB approval carried with it three conditions. The conditions were as follows: I That the applicant transplant two spruce trees on the north side of the existing residence as indicated on the approved landscape plan. 2. That any trees removed and not transplanted, or any transplanted trees that die within one year after transplanting, be replaced at a 1:1 (caliper-inch) ratio. 3. That a construction fence be erected, and remain in place at all times during construction, to protect the existing vegetation to the north, on the adjoining lot. On September 27, 1995, the Community Development Department received a letter from adjoining property owners Thomas and Florence Steinberg. The letter from the Steinbergs was an appeal of the DRB approval pursuant to Section 18.54.090 of the Municipal Code (see Attachment 3). The appeal was scheduled for review by the Vail Town Council on October 17, 1995 40 On October 17, 1995, the Vail Town Council granted an approval to a request by Mr. Cook for an extension of the appeals process. Mr. Cook was requesting an extension t the appeals process due to the unavailability of his legal representation at the October 1 1995 Town Council meeting. The hearing was extended to the November 21, 1995, Vai Town Council meeting. On November 21, 1995, the Vail Town Council heard the appeal of the DRB decision of September 20, 1995 (see Attachment 4). After a lengthy discussion on the issues, it was determined that the item needed to be remanded to the PEC for additional review. This decision was made since the appellant was not appealing the Design Review Board decision, but instead, appealing the Zoning Analysis interpretation made by the staff. K W777� 0 I Sides: 15' 34758' 15758' Rear: 15' 15' 15' Site Coverage: 20% or 3,896 sq, ft, 3,177 sq, ft. 3,747 sq. ft Landscaping: 60% or 11,688 sq. ft. 13, 933 sq. ft. Garage Credit: 1,200 sq. ft. 503 sq. ft, 975 sq. ft. (600 sq. ft. per unit) Required _ Prgggsed Enclosed Parking: 6 6 4 mam I Q L. C f:\everyone\pec\memos\Cook.d! 1 SEP-27-95 WED 16:59 STEINBERG 11 C Tom Moorhead stated that this should be referred to the PEC for their review of the staff zoning analysis. Rick Rosen asked for a motion and a vote on the DRB decision that they were there for. rmaras a reggy Usfe V-d T--- C,,..g E—mg Ming A9inute® 3 i 121195 k Peggy was asked to leave the meeting to canvas the election votes at this time, Paul Johnston moved to recess this issue until the Town Attorney could do some research and until Peggy returned to the meeting, Sybill Navas seconded this motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. (Steinberg recused, and Osterfoss out to canvas election votes). At this time Tom Steinberg rejoined the Council at the table and they went on to the next item on the agenda. George Ruther asked the Council to approve, approve with conditions or deny the applicant's sign variance request. Section IV of the staff memorandum to the Design Review Board (dated 11/15/95) includes staff's recommendation on the proposed sign variance request, Staff is recommending denial of the requested sign variance, Staff has reviewed the sign variance application and believes that the applicant has not met all the criteria listed in Section III, Findings and Criteria for Approval, Specifically, staff believes that the applicant has not adequately addressed findings A and C. Craig Klemz addressed Council stating the need for the sign being that the public was confused as to the nature of this building. Discussion continued as to placement of the sign. y is ing e At this time Peggy Osterfoss returned to the Council table, Tom Steinberg stepped down, and Council went back to item No. 7 on the agenda regarding the Cook residence. Tom Moorhead gave a recommendation on the process that would be appropriate, V-9 T- C--d E-M, M.6.9 M- 11121195 a MEMORANDUM TO- Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 11, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for a wall height variance and driveway grade variance for the Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision, Applicant- Eric Johnson for Gary Koenig Planner: George Rother The applicant, Eric Johnson, representing the property owner, is requesting a worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) to discuss a wall height and driveway grad variance for a new Prim ary/Secondary residence currently under construction on Lot 26, Block Vail Potato Patch. A Building Permit for the primary/secondary residence was issued on April 2 1995, and construction on the project has proceeded since that date. �I n retaining wall along Potato Patch Drive, as a means of resolving the gravel shoulder issue (see Attachment 1). The retaining walls along the north side of the driveway, however, are still over three feet in height. NOMMEMEN WIffil NNINEW's No A. Pursuant to Section 18.62.060 (Criteria and Findings), before acting on a variance application, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance- 1 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; 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traff ic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; 0 E 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons- a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specifi regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this titli b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district, ill i Pill 111 1111111 i iiiiiiii in glill A. According to Section 17.28.330 (Construction Design Criteria) , "the maximum grade for a private driveway is 8%. However, maximum grade for driveways may be up to 10% if the Town Engineer's approval is obtained. If the driveway is proposed to be heated, the grade may be up to 12% if the Town Engineer's approval is obtained." South Side The applicant has indicated on the submitted plans that the top row of boulders will be removed from the retaining wall south of the driveway. The removal of the I 11�111�1111111 I 2. Finished Driveway Grade r7J mffmmffu�m lfimmm�.M�. �lm� V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION C 0 0 meeting, all revised information must be provided to the Community Development Department staff no later than 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 2, 1996. 11 I RE: Koenig Residence Primary/Secondary Residence Improvements 795 Potato Patch Drive Vail, CO 81657 VARIANCE STATEMENT We feel these matters and the consequences to the home owners shall have no effect on the light, views and safety of the public and will in fact remedy and stabilize an ongoing erosion problem. Respectfully Submitted, Eric Johnso,(n: hitect ERIC JOHNSON ARCHITECT, P.C. As property owner of the above residence I have been informed, understand and accept the conditions, negotiated resolutions and future responsibilities associated with this variance application. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Gary T. Koenig, Owner (Primary) Dated ----- 7 ---------------------------------------------------------- R t Dowie, Owner (Secondary) Dated MW Mi TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Public Works Department DATE: December 69 1995 SUBJECT- Konig driveway variance 1. The architect is requesting a variance for a driveway grade which exceeds the maximun grade allowed by 2%. a] III® Upon review of Section 17,28,330 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Public Works Department recommends denial of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. No variances for driveway grade have been granted since 1991 when the To began to enforce the ordinance, All driveways that have been built since then have been in conformance with the Town standard. C. Allowing the driveway to remain at 14% will potentially cause problems with sight distance for smaller cars coming up a steep driveway, It may also cause the current owner and any future owners problems with bottoming out or scraping if they drive larger vehicles on the drive. tA El H E-11-1111-1 111 1-1 1 L Quality stonework - General masonry Concrete flatwork - Excavating November 27, 1995 Town of Val I Community Development Planning Staff 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Attn: Mr. George Ruth ?ke: Koening Residence 795 Potato Patch Drive, Vail, Colorado I - U NNUMAM�j i%II5WM'111%"1 M1 1*117.771 Beehive Construction, on November 3, 1995 Grades were set by the Contractor, checked by our crew and the Architect with the Owner present. To the best of our knowledge the 12% grade was set. There was no tolerance due the actual elevations of the road and garage. I Ray informed us of the drive failing a subsequent survey, two (2) - 10' sections exceeded the desired slope by a small margin. The drive contains extensive reinforcing, hydronic snow melt and exceeds 13" of,concrete in some areas (to meet the grade requirement). It was designed and built to last. We would hope that a variance may be granted. Please take into account the close tolerance of the site and the technical aspects of construction in considering the request for a variance. Thank you. cerely, rimbo Cason 4j.� r President e � _ _m _� D �_a � �, a� _ -' - 4 Cason Masonry & Constructiolo Quality stonework e General masonry Concrete flatwork a Excavating Re: Keening Residence 795 Potato Patch Drive, Vail, Colorado Dear Sir, We placed and finished the concrete driveway at the Keening Residence for Ray Kutash, Beehive Construction, on November 3, 1995. U, I We would hope that a variance may be granted. Please take into account the close tolerance of the site and the technical aspects of construction in considering the request for a variance. Thank you. cerely, mbo Cason President Jimbo Cason * Mobile 949-8718 ® 303-926-3315 * P.O. Box 156 ® Edwards, CO 31632 The additional step required for the project planner to review the ILC will add time to the building process. This may be perceived as an additional burden to doing work in the Town of Vail. 11111MIMRWI�' 3. There will be additional costs involved in requiring another ILC. In checking with various surveyors and contractors, this will add $1,000 to $1,500 to the project. 3. Require an ILC only for projects that are within 5 feet of any setback line, or have a driveway grade greater than 10%. For projects that are well within these parameters, the Department of Community Development could waive the requirement for an ILC at the foundation inspection stage. 'A E TO: All Architects, Contractors and Surveyors Doing Work in the Town of Vail FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 3, 1991 SUBJECT: Survey Requirements Of the seven policies listed below, five simply clarify the pieces of information the Town currently requires. The last two pertain to projects involving setback or height variances or those built by owner/builders. 3. Roof Heicrht. On the ILC, the surveyor should note the roof material (if any) on the highest point of the ridge which exists the day of the shooting. The planner will add the dimensions of all other materials (except a cold roof vent) which will be built in the following weeks. For example, if only the ridge beam 4. Setbacks. When specifying the distance of a setback on the ILC, note the material existing on the structure the day of the shooting. Planners will then add any wall material to what is shown on the survey in order to determine the final distance of the setbacks in the same way that will be. dome for height. If ledges or supports for rock veneer or any other facing material have been built into the foundation, measure the setback to that exterior point (see diagram below). Final distance will be measured from the outside edge 0 of the exterior wall material. 4U"aAm I 5. !Benchmark. On the ILC, identify the benchmark used for the basis of the elevations. If the same benchmark is used throughout the construction process, the measurement of a building should be consistent. As long as the same benchmark is used for every shooting, the building can be measured accurately and should not exceed the height limit. Items which make good E�� H benchmarks are sewer inverts, section corners, and property corners. Do not use manhole rims, the asphalt in streets, or fire hydrants. B. Survey Requirements for Projects with Variances and . Recommendations for Owner/Builder Projects For owner/builders, the Town strongly suggests that A registered surveyor stake out the foundation prior to s • • Submittal Deadlines and Meetiing Dates SubmIMI-0gaMne MEEIN-0 DATE December 11, 1995 January 8, 1996 December 26, 1995 (Tuesday) Jamary 22, 1996 January 15, 1996 February 12, 1996 January 29, 1996 February 26, 1996 February 12, 1996 March 11, 1996 February 26, 1996 March 25, 1996 March 11, 1996 April 8, 1996 March 25, 1996 it 22, 1996 April 15, 1996 Kfty 13, 1996 April 22, 1996 May 20, 1996 May 13, 1996 J 10, 1996 May 28, 1996 (Tuesday) Jkune 24, 1996 June 10, 1996 Uy 8, 1996 June 24, 1996 Aity 22, 1996 July 15, 1996 August 12, 1996 July 29, 1996 August 26, 1996 August 12, 1996 September 9, 1996 August 26,1996 September 23, 1996 September 16, 1996 0clober 14, 1996 September 23, 1996 Clictober 28, 1996 September 30, 1996 01c1ober 28, 1996 October 14, 1996 November 11, 1996 October 28, 1996 November 25, 1996 November 11, 1996 December 9, 1996 November 18, 1996 December 16, 1996 December 16, 1996 January 13, 1997 December 30, 1996 January 27, 1997 ..The submittal deadlines are February 26th and September 23, for major exterior alterations in the CCI and CCH zone districts which* February 12, 1996 11. Add or remove 100 square feet or more of enclosed floor area; or 2. Calls for the replacement of an existing buildling. Exterior 21terations in CC[ or CCH which do not meet the above criteria shall follow normal PEC submittal deadlines listed above. 1996 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD Submittal Deadlines and Meeting Dates PLEASE NOTE: Starting January 8, 1996, complete applications are due in the Office of Community Development NQ-LA1Efi!hAN-12!QQ-NQ-QN on the submittal deadlines below: 5 ubmn alDtadlin -e DATE ETING D- December 11, 1995 January 3, 1996 December 26, 1995 (Tuesday) January 17. 1996 January 8, 1996 February 7. 1996 January 22, 1996 February 21, 1996 February 12, 1996 March 6, 1996 February 26, 1996 March 20, 1996 March 11, 1996 April 3. 1996 March 25, 1996 April 17, 1996 April 8, 1996 May 1, 1996 April 22, 1996 May 15, 1996 May 13, 1996 June 5, 1996 May 28, 1996 (Tuesday) June 19, 1996 June 10, 1996 July 3, 1996 June 24, 1996 July 17, 1996 July 15, 1996 August 7,1996 July 29, 1996 August 2l.1996 August l2,1996 September 4, 1996 August 26, 1996 September 18, 1996 September 9, 1996 October 2, 1996 September 23, 1996 October 16, 1996 October 14, 1996 November 6, 1996 October 28, 1996 November 20. 1996 November 11, 1996 December 4, 1996 November 25, 1996 December 18, 1996 December 9, 1996 January 8, 1997 (2nd Wednesday) December 23, 1996 January 15, 1997 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission DATE: December 11, 1995 SUBJECT- A request for a side yard setback variance to allow for an addition to the Wimer residence located at 2860W Aspen Lane/Lot 17, a Resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village 11 th Filing, Applicant- Frank Wimer Planner: George Ruther The applicant proposes to finish the exterior of the residence with building materials and colors which match existing materials and colors. By doing so, the addition will not appear to be "added on" to the building. Instead, the addition will appear as though it were constructed -at the same time as the rest of the structure (see Attachment 3). 111 MW '-' 0 Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS Legal Description: Lot 17, a Resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village 11th Filing. Lot Size: 17,269 sq. ft. /0.3964 acres Zoning: Two-Family Residential Use: Dwelling Units Allowed Existing Proposed GRFA: 4,827 sq. ft. 4,013 sq.ft. 4,384 sq.ft. (including credits) Site Coverage: 3,454 sq. ft. 2,420 sqft no change Setbacks: Front: 215' Front: 23.5' Sides: 57°/12.5` Sides: 57712.5' Rear- 65' Rear: 65' Parking: 3 spaces 3 spaces 3 spaces Upon review of the criteria and findings contained in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested side yard setback variance based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors.- 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential us and structures in the vicinity. i To mitigate any visual impacts caused by the proposed addition into the setback, the applicant has agreed to add two new 6' to 8' spruce trees. The new trees will be located to partially screen the proposed addition from the south. f:\ everyone \pec \rnernos \wimer.d11 2 0 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibili and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. I Staff does not believe that an approval of the requested variance will result in the grant of special privilege. The applicant is asking to fill in under an existing cantilever that was constructed in the setback, completely out of his control. 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 does not believe that the requested side yard setback variance would have any affect on the above referenced criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make 0 arantina a variance: MI 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. 1111111FRIM 11111FIVIRMINI I 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. f:\everyone\pec\memos\wimer.d1 1 0 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the requested variance, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following condition: That the applicant submit a landscape plan illustrating the location of two new 6' to 8' spruce trees. * According to Section 18.62.080 of the Municipal Code, approval of the variance shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion within two years from when the approval becomes final. 11 f:\everyone\pec\memos\wimer.d1 1 4 M� w 71 cy') im N m r a O i i mV a \ o 0 t p sb a It °® 1 1p rte\ 0 1 1 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 11, 1995 q 4 1 1 A request for; I - %dditional GRFA to allow for additions to be added to both sides of the duplex located at 3110 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11 th Filing, 49 Applicants- East side-Debra & Ken Tuchman West side-Diane Hughes, Kendall Burney and King Hughes Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte summarized the request and said that staff recommended approval with one minor condition. He said that staff feels comfortable with the request since it is a straightforward application. Rick Rosen, the legal council to the Hughes, said both parties have reached an agreement. III I MORRIS Jeff Bowen made a motion that the request for additional GRFA for additions be approved per the staff memo. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 2. A request for a side yard setback variance to allow for an addition to the Wimer Residence, located at 2860 W Aspen Lane/Lot 17, a Resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village 11 th Filing. 0 Applicant: Frank Wimer Planner: George Rather Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 11, 1995 Greg Amsden and Kavin Deighan agree that no trees should be a condition of approval. Jeff Bowen made a motion for approval of the request with the exception of adding the t the applicant's discretion. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 3. A request for a Minor Exterior Alteration and a Conditional Use Permit to allow fc outdoor dining area for the Meal Ticket Cafe, located along the east side of One Place at 244 Wall Street/A resubdivision of Lot C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing Applicant- Kiendra Hoover and Julie Iverson Planner: Randy SLouder Julie Iverson, co-owner, said Mrs. Hill leases the space to VA and in the summer has given them permission for tables, but said it is ok for a railing now. Greg Amsden is in favor of the use, but said the applicant needs to work with VA regarding policing the trash. He agrees that tables in the summertime are appropriate, but would requi separate approval by e_ at a later date. I Jeff Bowen is stronoly against the proposal for several reasons. The proposed area is too small to service anyone or to set anything down. This area is narrow and too heavily used and would create further congestion. He is worried about the trash. The bank already has a trash problem. His vote would be against the request. Dalton Williams expressed the same concerns as Jeff Bowen. He feels that there will be a problem with the take-out window and people trying to get into the VA offices. A line forming at the take-out window would interfere with people trying to use the VA office. Henry Pratt said he has concerns, but it is a good use of the area. Condition No. 5, along with constant scrutiny by staff and PEC, will hold it in check. el Greg Moffet agrees with Henry Pratt. Greg suggested that the applicant may want to put trasht receptacle cutouts under the counter. Planrring and Environmental Conunission Minutes December 11, 1995 Applicant: J 1987 Vail Limited Partnership, (d/ /a Vail Athletic Club), represented by Stan Cope and Michael Barclay Planner: Mike Mollica Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 11, 1995 Ill L. E- El Michael Barclay offered to answer any questions about the project. -a- 0- M- Dalton Williams said he agreed with Henry. A hotel in town is Much needed and he has no problem with the density increase. He cannot approve a project that does not have consistent architectural skin on the outside. Larry Eskwith, an attorney for one of the unit owners, spoke on behalf of the owner that wants to keep the exterior the way it is. Michael Barclay feels the same as Dalton Williams and Henry Pratt and suggested meeting with the condo owners to convince them it is not an unreasonable request and that the new exterior will not diminish their view. Larry Eskwith said he believes in keeping the architectural integrity on the outside. Dalton Williams said he has a problem with shingles on the outside because it "feels US western rather than alpine." Michael Barclay said it is a great building with shingles. He agreed it would work in a pine tree environment, but not in Town. He did want to try something new in Town. He will reintroduce the stucco to reach the same aesthetic level as he had with the shingles. Jeff Bowen had nothing to add. He said there is a different philosophy back east with a shingle exterior. Jeff said the 1993 building was what a lot of time was spent on, Aesthetically, he prefers the 1993 building. a9zor-gum Lynn Fritzlen, a local architect, is glad to see the VAC upgrade. Shingles are associated with unusual aethestics and plasticity of form and she is not in favor of them. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 11, 1995 Jeff Bowen made a motion to recommend to Council that it be approved subject to the conditions in the staff memo and that an additional condition be that the shingles be removed and the exterior be ?!w to stucco and that condition No. 5 include not only the deck rails, but the exterior skin. Dalton Williams seconded the motion. I Jill! III I II Applicant- Sam Cook Planner: George Ruther Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 11, 1995 6 George Ruther gavean overview and said the Steinbergs were appealing the staff's interpretation of the Zoning Analysis. The Steinbergs were not present and were appealing that a third dwelling unit on the property was the concern they had, since only two dwelling units were allowed. Staff was recommending upholding the staffs zoning analysis. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 11, 1995 11111plill 1111111 Dalton Williams said the wall height is to keep the neighborhood from looking like a bunch of walls. Dalton is not concerned about the wall except for safety reasons. He thinks a guardrai would make it safer. The Town goes bonkers over driveways. The Town gave an extra 2% grade allowance just so we would never have to grant another variance. You can't add 3"-4" concrete without sloughing off. I Ray Coutash said he is low in the driveway relative to the slope of the driveway, George Ruther said the bottom needs to come up to lesson the grade at the top. Dalton Williams said he is not in favor of granting a variance for the driveway. NO N�w Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 0 December 11, 1995 8 Greg Amsden agreeb with Henry Pratt to go with the existing walls to save the landscaping. As for the driveway, he agrees with Dalton. When the extra 2% grade was allowed, it was supposed to give leeway. Greg has a tendency to be lenient with it. Kevin Deighan would like to see some type of solution between staff and the applicant. He has no problem with the retaining walls. He would like to see an Engineer's certificate saying the retaining walls will hold. Greg. Moff et said the retaining wall problem is the result of procedure. There is a somewhat contradictory Zoning Code. Greg's concern is hearing about it after the fact and not before it was put it. He agrees with Henry to terrace as much as possible to save trees. He is also sensitive to the safety issues with the driveway. He agrees with the guardrail or rock wall on the south side. He would like to see an attempt made to get the driveway within code. Jeff Bowen stated that one of the problems that exist on Potato Patch, and Garmisch as well, are that rock walls present a terrible safety issue. High retaining walls present a safety threat for children falling off. He wants an engineer to say the retaining walls will last a long time and at a height that a car or child will not fall off. He will let the driveway issue go. Greg Moffet stated this is a worksession, Ray Coutash assured Jeff that the heat in the driveway does work very satisfactorily. It has melted a 3' snowdrift. 0 George Ruther asked the PEC for direction. Terry Martinez stated that we do need a 2' shoulder and slope. A 2' rock wall would launch vehicles. Recovery on a 2' shoulder could happen, but there is no guarantee. Steep grades on driveways encourage people to park on the roads, rather than in the driveway, which presents a problem for snowplows. George Ruther began the summarization of the direction. George Ruth said it is impossible to police whether heated driveways are turned on. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 11, 1993 George Heather had pieliminary conversations with the Fire Department. They feel the house needs to be retrosprinklered, Henry Pratt said one of the conditions of approval should be that the Fire Department may not be able to access the house, Eric Johnson (architect) said the owners have signed a waiver absolving the Town from any liability. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 11, 1995 M