The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-0826 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY 00 PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on August 26,1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for an interior remodel to add a bedroom and bathroom of approximately 250 square feet, in the existing basement utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1588 Golf Terrace/ Vail Golf Course Townhomes, Unit 40. Applicant: Richard Callahan Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for a wall height variance to allow for a retaining wall to exceed three feet in height in the front setback located at 425 Forest Road/Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: Sara Rockwell, Jean Paul and Pam Beneducci Planner: Dirk Mason A request for a major SDD amendment to allow for the enclosure of a roof deck located at 12 Vail Road/Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st/Vail Gateway. Applicant: Vail Apartments, Inc. Planner: George Ruther A conceptual discussion regarding the display of banners for quasi-community events and activities. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Lauren Waterton The applications and information about the proposals are available in the project planner's office during regular office hours for public inspection, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published August 9, 1996 in the Vail Trail. Agenda last revised 8/19/96 4pm PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, August 26, 1996 AGENDA Proiect Orientation / Lunch - Communitv Development Deoartment 12:30 pm Site Visits 1:15 pm 1. Lodges @ Timber Creek - 2853 and 2833 Kinnickinnick Road 2. Vail Gateway Driver: George Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for height and front setback variances to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3. Applicant: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz Planner: George Ruther 2. A request for a major SDD amendment to allow for the enclosure of a roof deck located at 12 Vail Road/Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1st Applicant: Vail Apartments, Inc. Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a variance to allow detached garages in the front setback, located at 2853 and 2833 Kinnickinnick Road/Lots 7 & 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain/Lodges at Timber Creek. Applicant: Jim Marx Planner: Dominic Mauriello 4. A conceptual discussion regarding the display of banners for quasi-community events and activities. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Lauren Waterton 5. A request for an interior remodel to add a bedroom and bathroom of approximately 250 square feet, in the existing basement utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1588 Golf Terrace/ Vail Golf Course Townhomes, Unit 40 Applicant: Richard Callahan Planner: Lauren Waterton 0 STAFF APPROVED Agenda last revised 8/19/96 4pm 6. A request for a wall height variance to allow for a six foot wall in the front setback located at 425 Forest Road/Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sara Rockwell, Jean Paul and Pam Beneducci Planner: Dirk Mason WITHDRAWN 7. Information Update - Vail Tomorrow 8. Approval of August 12, 1996 minutes The applications and information about the proposals are available in the project planner's office during regular office hours for public inspection, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published August 23, 1996 in the Vail Trail. 0 Agenda last revised 8/22/96 11 am PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, August 26, 1996 AGENDA Proiect Orientation / Lunch - Communitv Develooment Deoartment. 12:00 pm Site Visits 12:45 pm 1. Lodges @ Timber Creek - 2853 and 2833 Kinnickinnick Road 2. Vail Point - 1894 Lionsridge Loop 3. Vail Gateway Driver: George Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for height and front setback variances to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3. Applicant: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz Planner: George Ruther • APPROVED with 6 conditions (variance is for Unit #7 only - 12') 2. A request for a major SDD amendment to allow for the enclosure of a roof deck located at 12 Vail Road/Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Applicant: Vail Apartments, Inc. Planner: George Ruther RECOMMEND APPROVAL 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a variance to allow detached garages in the front setback, located at 2853 and 2833 Kinnickinnick Road/Lots 7 & 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain/Lodges at Timber Creek. Applicant: Jim Marx Planner: Dominic Mauriello APPLICATION WITHDRAWN 4. A conceptual discussion regarding the display of banners for quasi-community events and activities. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Lauren Waterton 40 TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 9,1996 Agenda last revised 8/22/96 11 am 5. A request for an interior remodel to add a bedroom and bathroom of approximately 250 square 49 feet, in the existing basement utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1588 Golf Terrace/ Vail Golf Course Townhomes, Unit 40 Applicant: Richard Callahan Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 6. A request for a wall height variance to allow for a six foot wall in the front setback located at 425 Forest Road/Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sara Rockwell, Jean Paul and Pam Beneducci Planner: Dirk Mason WITHDRAWN 7. Information Update - Vail Tomorrow 8. Approval of August 12, 1996 minutes TABLED until September 9, 1996 The applications and information about the proposals are available in the project planner's office during • regular office hours for public inspection, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published August 23, 1996 in the Vail Trail. 0 MEMORANDUM 0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 26, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development District (SDD) #21, located at 12 Vail Road (Gateway Building, Unit #5)/Part of Lot N and part of Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Steve Riden, representing Vail Apartments Inc. Planner: George Ruther 1. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND On April 5, 1988, the Vail Town Council approved Special Devel.r...ent District (SDD) # 21, (Ordinance # 9, Series 1988), authorizing the construction of the Gateway Building in accordance with the approved development plan. The Gateway Building was constructed in 1990, and contains a mix of retail, restaurant, and residential uses. The SDD approval allowed for the • construction of twelve dwelling units, consisting of not more than a total of 13,000 sq. ft. of GRFA. The developer chose to construct only seven dwelling units, with a total square footage of 11,999 square feet to date. Thus, 1,001 square feet of the approved GRFA, and 5 dwelling units, were not constructed. In the fall of 1995, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), and the Design Review Board (DRB) approved an interior remodel of Unit No.5 that converted vaulted areas over the dining room and bedroom, into usable floor area, and removed the ceiling over the living room creating a new vaulted area. The floor area calculations confirm that this interior remodel added 356 square feet to the unit. Thus, the total GRFA contained within the building is now 12,355 square feet. The applicant is now proposing to enclose a portion of an existing exterior deck, along the east side of the upper level of Unit No. 5. The applicant wishes to extend an existing gabled roof to the east (out over the deck), install new walls and windows to produce an "atrium- like" addition to the unit. The proposed addition results in 460 square feet of new GRFA. Thus, the new total GRFA for the Gateway project would be 12,815 square feet. The applicant has staked out the proposed addition. The staking is visible from the south end of Craig's Market parking lot and from the western half of the south roundabout at the main Vail interchange. 40 F:\everyone\pec\memos\gateway1.826 11. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL. 0 The proposed amendment described in Section I of this memorandum, is considered to be major amendment to the approved SDD #21. According to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, a major amendment is defined as: "any proposal to change uses, increase gross residential floor area; change the number of dwelling or accommodation units; modify, enlarge or expand any approved Special Development District (other than minor amendments as defined in subsection 18.40.020B)." Since the. applicant's proposed addition involves an increase in gross residential floor area, the proposal is required to follow the major SDD amendment procedure. The PEC shall provide a recommendation to the Town Council regarding the proposal. The Town Council shall review the proposal via two readings of an ordinance. III. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA As provided for in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code, there are nine SDD review criteria which are to be used to evaluate the merits of a proposed major SDD amendment. The review criteria, and the staff's analysis of the proposal's compliance with the review criteria, are as follows: • A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Two main issues will be discussed under this criteria. The first is related to the impacts of the proposed addition on views of Vail Mountain from the roundabout area. The second is related to the compatibility of the proposed addition with the architecture of the existing Gateway Building. The view issue was discussed during the PEC and Council reviews of the initial Gateway Building proposal in the late 1980's. The impacts of the building's roof line on the view of Vail Mountain from the original four-way-stop were the subject of much discussion. A view analysis was requested by staff and provided by the developer. That analysis compared the impacts of the roof lines proposed at the Gateway Building with the approved development plan for Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn. As a result of the view analysis, the roof line of the Gateway Building was modified. The eastern-most ridge line was lowered and the gap or "notch" between the eastern ridge and the western ridge was widened. Lowering the eastern ridge had a positive effect on views, and the notch between the two main ridges also improved the view of Vail Mountain fiu?,. the four-way stop. A copy of the view analysis is attached to this memorandum. 0 F:\everyone\pm\memos\gatewayl.826 2 The Town recently completed the construction of a modern roundabout at the main Vail interchange. The roundabout effectively replaced the 4-way stop. The geometry and function of the roundabout is dramatically different than the 4-way stop. Thus, staff re- visited the view impacts of the Gateway Building related to the proposed addition. The addition will encroach into the notch between the two main ridge lines on the building. Staff did both a drive-by and a walking analysis of view impacts from the south roundabout area. We concluded that although the addition encroached into the notch between the ridge lines, the impacts on views to Vail Mountain are relatively insignificant. The majority of the ski mountain remains visible over the top of the Gateway Building. The view through the notch is very small and is visible only for a few seconds when driving around the western half of the roundabout. Given the fact that. cars in the roundabout are continuously in motion, staff feels that visitors to the Town of Vail will be more intent on watching what is happening with other cars, or trying to determine which exit to take, rather than attempting to look through the notch on the Gateway Building to see Vail Mountain. The second issue regarding this criteria has been adequately addressed by the architect, with one exception. The addition will extend the existing gabled roof form over the deck, and the architect has chosen materials and colors to match the existing finish materials on the building. A large section of windows have been incorporated into the south roof line to allow light and air in the addition and to take advantage of the southern solar exposure. This will give the addition a significantly different look than the remainder of the building. • Staff is concerned with the architectural compatibility of this element of the design. The Vail Village Design Guidelines states that designs should: "...avoid roofs which tend to stand out individually or distract visually from the overall character {of the building}." Staff believes that the window/roof design of the addition is distracting to the overall character of the south elevation of the building. Staff feels that the addition will not add significantly to the mass and bulk of the building. The proposed addition will not extend the building height above its existing maximum height of 54' (south elevation). Elevations and sections of the proposed addition are attached to this memorandum for reference. Staff feels that the proposed addition will have little, or no impact on surrounding properties, buildings and views. The proposed addition is in harmony with the existing structure in regard to architectural design, scale, bulk and building height, with the exception of the large, "greenhouse type" windows on the south elevation. • F:\everyone\pm\memos\gateway1.826 3 B. C. D. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. is SDD # 21 authorized a mixed-use development including residential dwelling units. The original approval allowed up to twelve dwelling units with a maximum GRFA of 13,000 square feet. If this proposal is approved and constructed, the Gateway Building will contain 12,815 sq. ft. of GRFA within the seven existing dwelling units. Since the original SDD anticipated a mix of uses including residential uses, and since the 1,.?,r,osed addition will not exceed the allowable GRFA authorized in the original SDD, staff feels that the proposed use and density are compatible, efficient and workable with the surrounding uses and activities. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52. Parking requirements for SDD #21 were based on the Code requirements in the Off-Street Parking section of the Zoning Code. Based on the cu..,ut mix of retail, restaurant, and residential uses, the parking requirement is 95 spaces. A multi-level parking garage was constructed underneath the Gateway Building that accommodates 95 parking spaces. The additional square footage being requested by the applicant does not increase the parking requirement for Unit 5, since this unit is already at the maximum parking requirement of 2.5 spaces. Thus, no additional parking is required by the proposed addition and the project meets the current off-street parking requirement. The proposal does not impact the loading requirements for the building. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies • and Urban Design Plans. VAIL LAND USE PLAN The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process for new or amended development proposals. The staff considered the following Land Use Plan Goals/Policies during the original review of the proposed SDD. Staff believes that these goals and policies continue to be applicable with regard to the current major SDD amendment proposal: 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. l .12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill areas). 4 2 Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so long as the existing character of each area is preserved through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. • F:\everyont =\memos\gateway1.926 4 Overall, the staff believes that the proposed major SDD amendment application meets the • goals and policies of the Land Use Plan as described above. VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The Gateway Building is located at the northwest corner of the area considered in the Vail Village Master Plan. On the Master Plan map, the Gateway is part of Area P, the "periphery/surrounding area" of the Village area. The Land Use Plan, completed after SDD #21 was approved, acknowledged the SDD approval noting that the Gateway site would be developed as a mixed-use project. The Gateway Building is noted as Study Area 1-11, the Gateway Site, in the Land Use Plan. Study Area 1-11 of the Land Use Plan states: "If existing approval expires (SDD #21), this site should be studied to determine best use. Preservation of the view corridor from the 4-way stop to Vail Mountain (relative to the Vail Village Inn Final Phase), is essential, as is a substantial plaza/green space area on the northwest corner." As discussed in Criteria A above, staff has reviewed the file and attached a copy of a View Analysis that compares the approved Gateway roofline with the approved Vail Village Inn Phase IV expansion. Staff feels that the construction of the roundabout has changed the area of the 4-way dramatically and that the roundabout has created a more efficient traffic • flow. Staff feels that the area in and around the roundabout is not conducive to pedestrians lingering and viewing the mountain and feels that views of Vail Mountain, through the notch in the Gateway Building, are not as important as they may have been when the Land Use Plan was originally approved. Staff believes that significant views are still available over the top of the existing Gateway Building, and that the proposed addition would have little, or no impact on the overall view. The Building Height Plan shows the Gateway Building at 5 stories, and indicates that it does not conform to the plan (story height at 9 feet). The elevation of the existing ridge is 54 feet above grade along the south elevation. The applicant wishes to extend this ridge line approximately 28 feet to the east. This will raise the height of the building in the notch area. Staff believes that the additional height is not detrimental given the mass, bulk and height of the entire building. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. This criteria is not applicable. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. • l':\everyone\pec\memos\gateway1.826 5 The applicant proposes to extend the existing western-most ridge line of the Gateway Building approximately 28' to the east. Extending this ridge line would cut into the notched out area between the western and eastern ridges. Staff feels that this will not adversely impact the aesthetic quality of the building or the community in general, even though a minor portion of the view of Vail Mountain would be eliminated. After reviewing the case files including the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council memos and minutes from the original public hearings on SDD # 21, staff believes that much of the discussion over views was related to a concern of a very large building replacing a very small building. During the discussion of the original SDD, an Amoco Station was present on the site. This was a one-story building that allowed for significant views over its roof flu-t., the area of the 4-way stop. Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn had not been constructed, and views of the lower portion of the mountain still existed. The PEC and Council members were reacting strongly to the significant loss of views resulting from the approval of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn. The Town officials simply did not want to loose any more of the mountain view from the 4-way stop. Thus, it is understandable that the building height and its impacts on views was thoroughly discussed at that time. Staff feels that the change in conditions at the main Vail interchange (i.e. roundabout construction) combined with the existing location of the Gateway Building and its roofline have made the view issue clearer. Staff feels that the notch between the eastern and the western ridges on the Gateway Building is no longer as important a view as it was considered during the original SDD discussions. Thus, staff feels that the proposed addition does not significantly alter the building design or significantly impede views of Vail Mountain from the entryway to Town. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. This criteria is not applicable at this time. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. This criteria is not applicable. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. This criteria is not applicable to the request. • F:\everyone\pec? nemos*awway1.826 6 0 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a major amendment to SDD #21, to allow for an exterior addition to Unit No. 5 at the Gateway Building. Staff believes the proposal meets the review criteria for major SDD amendment applications, as detailed in Section III of this memorandum. 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 overlay Zone District. Staff is concerned that the south elevation of the proposed addition is not architecturally compatible with the remainder of the building. Staff recommends that: The PEC require the Design Review Board to closely review the proposed south elevation of the building and insure that the addition is architecturally compatible with the remainder of the building. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to recommend approval of the applicant's major SDD amendment request to the Vail Town Council, staff would recommend that the PEC make the following findings: 1. That the requested major amendment to Special Development District #21, has been reviewed in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, and that, the proposed amendment is in conformance with the review criteria evaluated in Section III (Special Development District Criteria) of this memorandum, dated August 26, 1996. F:?,- yonelpe6MeMf&*aW1Vay1.826 7 -4121 EVEN •) A M E S• R I'D E POST OFFICE BOX 3238 VAIL, CO. 81658 j Charles & Irmgard Lipcon 430 N. Mashta Drive Miami, FL 33149 January 22, 1996 Re: Vail Gateway Unit #5 Dear Mr. & Mrs. Lipcon, On behalf of Mr. Karl Kerhman we are enclosing a proposal to enclose a portion of the roof deck of Unit #5 at the Vail Gateway Building. The Town of Vail is requesting each Owner of a unit within the building agree that they have no objection to the addition. We are also enclosing for your convenience a form letter, should you care to use it. Please note that the addition has no effect on any other unit in the building and in no way compromises the status of the existing property. If you need any further assistance or explanation on this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Steve James Riden A.I.A. Enclosures: 2 • 0 • FAX 949-0304 • MEMBER OF AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS (970) 949-4121 V "E V E N) A M E S • R I D E FAX 949-0304 POST OFFICE BOX 3238 i- • VAIL, CO. 81658 Planning & Environmental Commission Town of Vail 111 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail, Colorado 81657 August 14, 1995 Re: Proposed office/greenhouse and deck addition of Gateway #5 Dear Members of the Commission, The proposed office or greenhouse addition, of the Gateway Plaza. Unit #5 involves the expansion of 30 sq. f3. onto the existing deck. The roof line will match existing roofline. The office will not block any views of other units. The existing sliding glass door and adjacent window will be replaced with a larger window to allow light to the living room below. Best regards, • Steven. James Riden AIA Architect 0 • MEMBER OF AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS • • Dear Mr. Riden, I have reviewed the documents you sent me and have no objection to the proposal to enclose a portion of the deck indicated adjacent to Unit #5, Vail Gateway Building, Vail, Colorado. Date 11 ?? Name Unit # Vail Gateway Vail, Colorado C 0 Dear Mr. Riden, I have reviewed the documents you sent me and have no objection to the proposal to enclose a portion of the deck indicated adjacent to Unit #5, Vail Gateway Building, Vail, Colorado. '?" nf '. ? Name Unit # 3 Vail Gateway Vail, Colorado Date i ?ZS/5 6 LI Dear Mr. Riden, I have reviewed the documents you sent me and have no objection to the proposal to enclose a portion of the deck indicated adjacent to Unit #5, Vail Gateway Building, Vail, Colorado. l ?, ??', % Date Unit # Vail Gateway Vail, Colorado 0 =4 oC--47comc iv= ?1CVCIV JhN9tb KlLtlY HtH fi{ 383 949 2..384 P.81 On ba alf of the Vail Ca . , . Condominium Associatwo, approval u hmeby $IV= fir Vail Apart-- 4 Inc. owner of Unit #5, to cndom a k? , , of the exzng roof deck area adjacent to the upper levW of Unit 05. I have reviewed the proposal docimmats MW have no objection to the proposal as r.to we. Also I b,.. I 1 allow the um of the . square footage available to enclose this portion of the dock L - r` of the VaH date Gateway Cacidam'nit m Association TOTAL P.01 • 07/18/96 13:30 TX/RX NO.1241 PAR TOOQJ VO??1T7 i?T??LfiF04 Yt I 4 'Rn QP17.7110. Encroachment of Approved VVI Phase 4 Encroachment of Initial Vail Gateway Submital Encr achmen of Val Gat way 3/28/88 ? I •ti '' •:•Y f !..... y . .. aih••. • r•e:. ?4 r a,Iq? , Y •. 'd. ti I I ••i i i • JJ ti: • t? 9 tt a r• 1 :• ..t i . rti.. s -?f _ \ --_ I - ? ? IIR7i0 Htl?[Ir IY? LUi ?w/NrT wlwlr IC? L.At ` _ i _ ?•••• ? 7a ?• w1A77r Atli RIL RM R? LOi \ LIVM ROI ? - - ?- - ALnw AAlmwl \ I n ?'• r !/ta T.GJAgflr Comm bvLL !1[IKIr 11N1R lGI1fA wDow Rww M mo ? v IA1, - Iww IMLL rlr 2 SECTION i 'AC KAOI OMa _ 11IRW mm W/T11r IM.9RIMA 4RC0. m ARNTir RO' LW exammt lfp Dom awlll r-`-. 1lfMM wM MIIO01 °T , S ?/ •? -WLIr ?IC? LYE RM WH WHEW -- -- 1 F A?AUAI/ NEW ,r w AIIwrIR nlem MILL tr•a waL I . ?m ! r - - - ( A111.cM eal..T LC.d, vA r Mnm° / - ? T.e.awnr ww Iw+. / . \ML Un"XaJW? rr wLL ? ? ?AMwir ? "`??? ? A.I.rwLr ?- WIT w i1w11YL ww gAAMAQIL /WMbltl 7110 1 NNW M Amw mm re"m-Mor I 3 PARTIAL ELEVATION C FLOOR PLAN C u'•`t•'• ur•1•e { -? mulm 701 0MIMM ?l - /WITwrxmv 1=a / Mlawn W JLU JW W W { 4 j ? I I I I I I I ® SOUTH ELEVATION w 0 ADDITION M A M 1 . Qia, M Q yeti .0 w 00 c .got a "A' 0 0 U ? a . ? 0 W n> H ?+ =mn=?r r=s r•IS?s s a..aw a 7, w. wn. n 4 wr.?.+w n a R>R n A6 IMYy mr?f• Y•P ?Luw /r 1 L. I ?J ILLJ 3 M II I I ? I ? SOUTH ELEVATION vr. v ?e• I Mll.r MtICW r r roles YYow" r ommm Or MYmmr 11111141101111 \ "W-W 1 1 ' I d I I I L-1 ___-_J L_1 Iq? m ?c 1.°"eeL'7 NYf YMAM all mill C&D i NORTH DORMER f/NN. t• •O• UNIT 15 1111" Marital 10? tA.tSllrllr am m Him= AN oewua MCA A .. ???® ? r r rr /? •a••.rl?rr I I I I - - - - - - - - - ---- I 1 I I t I rwi.Irl WEST GABLE UNIT V U*-. 11- .w 1- - nn weY MIMOI?? 1 -MIMiOI 10 r rvl[e ? I 1!N MIIOdY? ?? nn ?. lww utaunlo onaw w~ IMIN wma YIaM r 4 EAST ELEVATION /DECK PARTIAL ELEVATION- SW DORMERS UNIT 5' O 114-- t•b• 1",-7' O• 4 v M M Q H ON M v 0 <o14 a'0 0 xv n? O W a> H V a?. A .aa ?w v ? M.ILI.? . S ralw ?...,.. Mm. mmia1 IN1 mxA Im WAR amomm Y! 10 IO111N M MO. Nall MlMXM NJO MILL II= tYMR1w mlmO . wN imltta ` MW NINCON ?- .?? MP W Y I? Him= A m MMlCYIC 1 bm VAWM 0IM 1?01MD WT N OM Ll Li I :I- ----- ------'-- -------- L_i -----?L_ LMRIT M.vI _J I -__J L_-_JL-__J L M '-MINN300 r,.a,,,l O NORTH DORMER UNIT ?i -41 Coo M Y FAOCNW ?M O r^.C ' MILAN ? ? ° M. " >` e ? e a+ a yeti qo ?O N z e° .?.? ood C W w.4 N 0 5 R +e W cl w ll 01:11M AT ...1.R • aaRn? ? • Ir.r.Iw ? • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 26, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a variance to allow detached garages in the front setback, located at 2853 and 2833 Kinnickinnick Road/Lots 7 & 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain/Lodges at Timber Creek. Applicant: Jim Marx Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting variances to allow the construction of a detached parking garage. The request is to construct 6 garage spaces now and 4 additional spaces in the future. Two specific variances are requested including a variance from the front setback requirement of 20' for the Residential Cluster (RC) zone district and a variance from Section 18.14.040 Accessory Uses which allows attached garages as an accessory use in the RC zone district. • The proposed garage is located 12' from the front property line, (see the attached plan). The proposal will impact the existing number of parking spaces located on-site by reducing 10 surface spaces to 6 enclosed parking spaces now and providing 10 enclosed spaces in the future. Phase I of the Lodges at Timber Creek has 10 units requiring 20 parking spaces and the site contains 26 parking spaces. Therefore, this Phase of the Lodges will have 22 parking spaces (26 in the future) if approved. Phase II of the Lodges at Timber Creek has excess surface parking. The RC zone district requires that at least one parking space per dwelling unit be an enclosed space. The existing Phase I development is nonconforming with respect to this requirement. The proposal will make this development less nonconforming and the second phase of the garage request will make the development conforming with respect to enclosed parking. II. ZONING ANALYSIS This analysis shows the limiting zoning parameters derived from either the annexation agreement or the RC zone district and the November 13, 1995 amended development plan. Zoning: RC ALLOWABLE/REQUIRED 11/13/95 APPROVAL PROPOSAL Site Area: 222,849 sq. ft. nc nc Buildable Area: 166,277 sq. ft. nc nc GRFA: 45,169 sq. ft. 12,212 sq. ft. 26.257 sq. ft. 38,469 sq. ft. nc Density: 24 multi-family DU's 10 multi-family DU's 12 duplex DU's 4 Tvoe III EHU's (1/2 unit each) 24 DU's total nc Height: 33 ft. 31'-6" Lg. DU's nc 29'-4" Sm. DU's nc Site Coverage: 57,712 sq. ft. 24,445 sq. ft. 26,049 sq. ft. Parking: 20 spaces' 26 spaces (existing)' 24 spaces" (26 spaces future)' Enclosed Parking: 10 spaces 0 spaces 6 spaces (10 spaces future) `Phase 1 only. III. ISSUE S FOR DISCUSSION Detached Garaaes The applicant is proposing to vary from the RC zoning requirements which recognize only attached garages as permitted accessory structures. The staff encourages property owners to provide enclosed parking. Staff believes the concept of a detached garage is appropriate for this zone district where structures are clustered. Front Setback Variance The applicant is requesting a front setback variance to locate the detached structure within 12' of the front property line (20' required). Staff believes this request should not be approved. There is ample space on the site to locate the proposed structure and meet all setbacks. The staff finds no hardship of any kind affecting the location of the proposed structure. Staff believes it would be a grant of special privilege if this request were to be approved. • • f:\everyone\pec\memos\timberc.826 2 On-site Parking • The proposal will eliminate 10 surface parking spaces and provide 6 enclosed parking spaces for a net loss of 4 parking spaces with the existing request. The future phase of this garage request will provide 10 enclosed parking spaces with no net loss of parking. The site contains areas for surface parking, however, none of this parking is delineated. The site is currently in excess of the required parking and therefore staff believes the proposal will not negatively impact the number of required parking spaces on-site. Staff also believes that all of the surface parking located on-site should be clearly delineated. Landscanina The proposal will modify the landscaping located on-site. The existing landscape area affected by the proposal is 780 sq. ft. The first phase of the garage (6 spaces) will provide 1,774 sq. ft. of landscape area (994 sq. ft. additional). However, the second phase of the garage (10 spaces) will only provide 758 sq. ft of landscape area (22 sq. ft decrease). Therefore, the applicant, prior to final review, must provide either an additional 22 sq. ft. of landscape area or provide an analysis of the landscaping located on-site. The code requires that 60% of the site be landscape area. Also, the applicant has not provided a proposed landscape plan with this request. The proposal includes some regrading within an area adjacent to a large tree. Staff believes a landscape plan, a landscape analysis, and a tree preservation plan should be provided for final review by the PEC and the DRB. Architectural Comnatibilitv The proposed structure contains some log elements and wood (log veneer) siding. The Lodges at Timber Creek development contains log structures. Staff believes the detached garage should be designed to be more compatible with the existing structures on-site. The detached garage should be a log structure. Staff believes that the PEC should recommend that the DRB to take a close look at the architectural compatibility of the proposed structure. Dumnster There is an existing dumpster within this parking area which is not screened and not indicated on the site plan. Staff believes that this dumpster should be fenced and located within the confines of the site. It should also be appropriately screened with landscaping. The applicant should include this item on the site plan and landscape plan for the site. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The code criteria for the review of such a request are provided for your information. Since this is a worksession, staff has not addressed the specific criteria. A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. f:\everyone\pec\memos\timberc.826 3 2. B. V. 3 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. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantino a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that doe 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed variances at the Lodges at Timber Creek, staff will not be providing a formal staff recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a staff recommendation at the time of final PEC review. A C f:\everyone\pec\memos\timberc.826 4 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 26, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for height and front setback variances to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3 (Vail Point Phase III). Applicant: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz Planner: George Ruther 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. General Description Steve Gensler and Steve Katz are proposing to construct four, triplex units on Phase III at Vail Point. Phase III is zoned medium density multi-family. The four, triplex structures will be served by a common driveway, 22' wide, with an emergency vehicle turnaround at the south end of the driveway. There will be a total of 12 dwelling units comprised of 21,614 sq. ft. of GRFA . The units will • range in size from 1,783 sq. ft. to 1,804 sq. ft. Staff will discuss specific components of the development under the analysis in Section IV of this memorandum. The applicants are proposing to construct two of the four structures ' he required, 20' front setback. One of the structur encroaches up t 12 i to Ihe front setback, while the other encroaches up t V to the setback. al 28 sq. ft. of building footprint area will be in the fron setback. According to Sectio 18.18.060 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the minimum front setback ror structures built in the Medium Density Multi-Family Zone District shall be 20'. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance from Section 18.18.060, to allow for the construction f two Mtructures to encroach into the 20' required front setback, up t 12 an " 9' espectively. The applicants have stated that the location of Lionsridge Loop in proximity to the northerly property line warrants the granting of the requested variance. A letter from the applicants addressing their position on the variance has been attached for reference. The applicants had originally requested a building height variance to allow one of the four, triplex structures to exceed the allowable building height of 38'. The applicants have since withdrawn their building height variance request. Therefore, staff will not be addressing the building height issue in this memorandum. 0 B. Process When Vail Point was annexed into the Town of Vail, the Annexation Agreement dated July 17, 1979, (Book 428, Page 936) stipulated that there would have to be a review of each proposed site plan by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), the Vail Town Council and the Design Review Board (DRB) for each phase of the Vail Point project. Though the process is similar to a Special Development District (SDD), the proposal is not an SDD. Furthermore, the annexation ordinance did not specify review criteria. However, applicable criteria for this project include the standards for the Medium Density Multi-Family Zone District, general goals addressed in the Town of Vail's long-range planning documents and the Design Review Board Guidelines (Chapter 18.54) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The annexation agreement permits 15 dwelling units and 19,462 sq. ft. of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), plus credits of 225 sq. ft. per dwelling unit for Lot 27. Under the proposed design, there are 2,700 sq. ft. of credits as there are 12 dwelling units. By adding the credits to what is allowed, the total allowable square footage for Lot 27 is 22,162 sq. ft. of GRFA. II. BACKGROUND OF THE VAIL POINT PROJECT The Vail Point Townhome development (formerly Talon Townhomes), Phases I, II and III, was annexed into the Town of Vail on July 17, 1979. Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1979, addresses the annexation. Upon annexation into the Town of Vail, Lot 27 (Phase III) was designated Medium Density Multi-Family zoning with the conditions outlined in the annexation agreement. The review process was defined at the time the project was annexed into the Town of Vail, as • described in Section I of this memorandum. The Vail Point Townhome development is comprised of three phases. Phases I and II are located on Lot 1, Block 3, which is on the north side of Lionsridge Loop, and Phase III is located on Lot 27, Block 2, which is across the street, on the south side of Lionsridge Loop. According to the annexation agreement, Phases I and II were approved for 48 dwelling units, while Phase III was approved for a maximum of 15 dwelling units. The. list below summarizes the history of the Vail Point Townhome Project: Phase I Phase I, as constructed, includes 20 dwelling units having a total GRFA of 27,759 sq. ft. It is completed and final certificates of occupancy have been issued. Phase II As originally approved, Phase II called for the construction of 20 dwelling units having a total allowable GRFA of 28,045 sq. ft. In September of 1989, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a modification to the plan to decrease the number of dwelling units by one and increase the total GRFA allowed by 750 sq. ft. This approval resulted in the overall total allowable GRFA for Phase II to be 28,795 sq. ft. The 750 sq. ft. of additional GRFA granted by the Planning and Environmental Commission to Phase II was required to be deducted from the total allowable GRFA for Phase III. 2 0 On June 8, 1992, Steve Gensler proposed a modification to the approved plans • for Phase ll. This plan was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and was subsequently constructed. It included a total of 28,682 sq. ft. of GRFA in 18 dwelling units. The difference in GRFA (113 sq. ft.) was to be transferred back to Phase III. A large portion of this was used at a later time by a 96 sq. ft. interior expansion to the Katz residence in Phase II. The 96 sq. ft. expansion left only 17 sq. ft. of GRFA to be transferred back to Phase III. Construction in Phase II is not complete. Phase III Originally, there was 19,445 sq. ft. of allowable GRFA (plus credits) allocated for Lot 27 (Phase III). The total allowable GRFA has been increased by 17 sq. ft. to 19,462 sq. ft. plus allowable credits. There is a credit of 225 sq. ft. per dwelling unit for units constructed in this zone district. On June 13, 1994, Steve Gensler appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission with a request for a worksession to discuss the construction of four, duplex units on Phase III. At that time, the applicant was proposing to reduce the total density on the property from the allowed 15 dwelling units to 8 dwelling units. The Planning and Environmental Commission discussed at length the site plan for Lot 27. Of most importance, was the preservation of the existing landscape improvements, constructed by the owners of the Cappstone Townhomes, along the southerly property line of Lot 27. Additionally, the Planning and Environmental Commission was interested in seeing the developer keep a minimum of 15' of separation between each structure constructed on the property. The Planning and Environmental Commission did discuss the possibility of granting a front setback variance to allow several of the structures to encroach into the front setback, in order to preserve the existing landscaping along the southerly property line. It is important to note that the discussion was preliminary, and a more specific application would need to be submitted for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Planning and Environmental Commission was specifically concerned that the applicant needed to exhibit the existence of a physical hardship, allowing the granting of a variance at the time of final review. On June 13, 1994, a motion was made to table the discussion to the July 27, 1994 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. On September 12, 1994, the applicant requested that the item be tabled indefinitely, to allow the applicant time to address the numerous issues identified by the Planning and Environmental Commission. On August 12, 1996, Steve Gensler appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission with a request for a front setback variance, to allow for the construction of two of the four structures to be built in the required, 20' front setback. One of the structures was proposed to encroach up to 19' into the dtld front setback, while the other structure was proposed to encroach up to 17' into Z?V the front setback. A total of 832 sq. ft. of building footprint area was proposed to 0,bq ,ad be built in the front setback. r?- After a lengthy discussion on the proposed front setback variance request, which included public testimony from adjoining property owners, the Planning and 3 Environmental Commission voted unanimously to table the applicant's request to a subsequent meeting, to allow the applicant time to redesign the site plan. The Planning and Environmental Commission members agreed that a hardship • existed on the property, thus permitting the applicant to encroach into the front setback, however, the Planning and Environmental Commission members did not feel that the hardship warranted a 19' and 17' encroachment into the front setback. The Planning and Environmental Commission requested that the ` \ applicant reduce the amount of encroachment into the front setback. A copy of the draft August 12, 1996 Planning and Environmental Commission minutes \ addressing the applicant's request have been attached for reference. 111. ZONING ANALY!M Legal Description: Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 3/1894 Lionsridge Loop (Phase 111). Zoning: Medium Density Mufti-Family (MDMF). Lot Size: 2.103 acres (per Eagle Valley Surveying) or 91,637.2 sq. ft. Allowable GRFA per Talon Townho me records: 19,462 sq. ft. of GRFA + a credit of 225 sq. ft. per constructed dwelling unit or 22,162 sq. ft. Development Standard Allowable Prooosed Height: as, 37.5' Density 15 D.U. 12 D.U. GRFA: 162 22 ft 2 6 ft , sq. . 1, 14 sq. . Setbacks: Front: 20' 8' Side/Side 20' 23' Rear: 20' 24' Site Coverage: 45% or 41,236.7 sq. ft. 15% or 13,716 sq. ft. Retaining wall heights: 3'-6' 6' Parking: 2 per dwelling unit 2 enclosed spaces per dwelling unit IV. CRITER IA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 4 9 Phase III of the Vail Point Townhomes is approved, per the Annexation Agreement of 1979, for 15 dwelling units and 22,162 square feet of GRFA. The proposed density of Lot 27 (Phase III) is compatible with the density of the other multi-family projects in the vicinity (Vail Point Townhomes Phases I & II and the Capstone Condominiums) The applicant has proposed to construct 12 dwelling units comprising approximately 21,614 square feet of GRFA. The applicant has proposed to construct the four, triplex buildings as far to the north as possible to maintain an adequate separation between the Capstone Condominiums to the south, and to preserve the existing landscaping and landscape improvements ,encroaching on to Lot 27. This has been proposed as a result of worksession meetings with the PEC in June of 1994. In order to maintain the existing landscaping and provide an adequate separation between the proposed structures and the existing co miums to the south, the applicant has proposed to encroach up 12' i to the 20' front setback. Staff believes the requested variance is reasonable, as the applicant's lot is severely impacted by steep slopes and encroachments onto the property. Approximately 1.265 acres (60%) of the total 2.1037 acre lot has slopes greater than 40%, or is within required setback areas. Staff further believes the requested variances will have minimal, if any negative impacts on the existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Lionsridge Loop is constructed within a 70' wide right-of-way. The actual width of pavement is 22' to 24' . The road, as constructed, is all the way • to the north side of the right-of-way, and therefore, approximately 50' of right-of-way is located between the edge of existing asphalt and the applicant's north property line. Staff believes that the 50' of vacant right- of-way will act as a sufficient buffer betwee ail Point PhasesTan?-> ?- - 011 Lionsridge Loop and the proposed structures. 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. Staff believes the applicant has requested the minimum amount of relief necessary from Section 18.18.060 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to attain the objectives of this title without resulting in a grant of special privilege. Setbacks are intended to provide, in part, minimum separation between structures and uses, and to insure adequate light, air, and open spaces and maintain desirable residential qualities. Staff b ves the requested variance to encroach into the front setback up t6,1236 in concert with the intended purposes of setbacks. Staff further believes that there are extraordinary conditions and circumstances (steep slopes, existing landscape encroachments, proximity of Lionsridge Loop) that apply to the applicant's site warranting a granting of a setback variance. 0 5 Staff has had conversations with the applicant regarding the slight shifting of structures to reduce the encroachment into the required setback area. Staff would suggest that the PEC discuss with the applicant the ability to reduce the amount of setback encroachment through slight site plan modifications. 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. The staff believes the requested variance to encroach into the front setback will have positive impacts on existing development in the area. Staff believes the variance will allow for greater separation between the ,proposed structures and the Capstone Condominiums, without negatively impacting Phases I & II of the Vail Point Townhomes to the north. B. The Planninn and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before arantino 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. 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: 0 a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a variance from Section 18.18.060 to allo the c nstruction of two structures -to encroach into the 20' required front setback up toan 9' spectively. Staff believes the applicants have met the Findings necessary for t e Planning & Environmental Commission to grant an approval of their request. Specifically, staff finds that the applicants have met Finding B.1 in that the granting of the requested variance will not'result in the grant of special privilege. Finding B.2 has been met, in the opinion of the 6 0 staff, since 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; and that Finding B.3(b) has been met since there are extraordinary circumstances, in the form steep slopes and existing landscape improvements, which precludes the applicant from developing the lot to its full potential. Additionally, Finding B.3(c) has also been met, since,the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the other property owners in the same district. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the requested variance, staff would suggest that the PEC find that: 1. 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 zone district, and; 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, and; 3. That the variance is warranted since the strict literal enforcement of the front setback regulation would result in an unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Chapter 18 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: • 1. That the applicant schedule a hearing before the Vail Town Council for review of the proposed site plan, prior to appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board, as required in the Annexation Agreement of July 17, 1979; and 2. That the applicant verify the vacation of the 15' wide, utility easement along the northerly property line prior the appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board; and 3. That the applicant receive Town of Vail Public Works Department and Town of Vail Fire Department approval of the proposed site plan prior to appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board; and 4. That the applicant install a construction fence, along the 40% slope line and the area around the existing landscape improvements, to protect these areas during the construction process, and that said fence not be removed until all driveway and building construction is completed. 0 7 5 ? L?O°? / LIONS All A '?? c- 1 i s L ? \?\ \ h 1. lw '? ,., \? /• Ill '? ?i ? , i ??1? SITE P1..A.9 *2 - , • 0 s; * v' 3 j• j r` '-? 1045 .x`p; J r " \ \? X ?? , ?.. ?'N,.-•, ?? ? }- y`"' ?,? , - I j+ r ^,w.>, ?^ \ • F?lar? r ? } ?--- -? -?.i ''' ";?' ? y..." --L yy? .. .? •? ?? ?- ? "`;' ? ??+?4 ?,? !! .{ `? ? ,,.'? ?, } /?. ? `II "yj/ 'mfr,"? A (? ? /mss- j \ '" + SITE P Wax- AN x , ?e as ??= LOT 27,BLOCK 2, LION'S RIDGE 5UBDIwAON, FILING NO 3 TOWN O s?a_E COLORADO EAGLE COUNT'Y' <,pti smkk? 29:8 ? J • f i!i+ pe we / N 48' 19"02? E ` ?? r! / ?? r a.c .rea R/OG _70'19.09" 2885 ` e ..?. q.e..?. q=2a?.2} 1=303.40 ,r vwr/+ ?=ao•2t'oo' '\? s•Fy 400p ?c•28an Am65.00 ,' CB,N BS'nB'S6• E LOT 26 ??559g w.ct. 60..4 o..n'\ /bg01 ?" t,rn 1 29.86 I ? ?\ _ (70" •c=so.22 ? \ 1 R.O.W.) s N 33'34 3" _ f^P ? \ .A??b? g09 ?^\? f \? N 58't<'a3' w ? ? ?? B 25 9FF \ ?? \? `lJ ? ? LOT 27 .yx w4 _ p=•3500 /; ? \•\ .?? \\.. \.?\ \\. ?, aM+IW j /i \ l=8i 3t i?.c ?. ea 08 t•.? ?? `\ \ \•\•\ "? ;\ I `/'M./?n _7.`9. E `95' A5 24 C=85 cats Jq•a3 o,.ec / ?? \ ._??ti?\ ???\??\\ \?'--?? ? _ _ t, „e„l ? 1?,, )[___ .-. ? .. -71 V\ 25" W - ep6 •,,,'\GJ, ,.. LOT 21 Lrj7 20 51? P, AN ? Of BUFFER CREEK -t° 3C - 1 RESllB0wf5tpN /t ® ID ® '® ' ® ® II II p u 1. li I ? I L t? ?LL BACK ELEVATION BUILDING 0 19• - 1'-0' LEFT SIDE ELEVATION BUILDING B 114'- 1'-0' eN i 114': SlyilplNG 9 0 0 a n Liu uu na as A800 -F. I }ll-_ ffo a ao F ao I, BACK ELEVATION _ BUILDING A 114'- Nr i__ I?Illlll? LEFT SIDE ELEVATION, BUILDING A W - Vo .lL! ? I. ?' ? ? I ! I i I??.?.?„..--+?• ii ? ? i ?` I. Iii ' ?, ' l, T Q u r u lu .i l , P..I,'IHT SICIE ELE`/A7)CN BUILDINGA 1/!'. 1'-(" -juu u= FRONT ELEVATION BUBDIN0 A Vs' =11-T 0 ?e 0 9 _ /1-7-T-- i?? 1 I MI I - 'I / o I I I WrAft t r _` j -1111 I ? 0'? RYtl __0 --? O 77 ] 'I a ? ]: I =' .' I I • I I ?? t { SEDROWN yr I? I UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 6UILPINO 0 W - T-0' 0 H ? ? I DININ ? \\I WANG AREA WANG AREA .?--_ -------a- 010 7 DI=PA ? I 6 I ? LIVING AREA KrTa*N DINNINGGAR ,,,jam o =. tf LIVING AREA R----------_z- sr at RA'o1,. ?, ? TOW e _ /VazyV we?s?rn t ?N °o CS9? z• _ \ .a1I A .?. I .- ]0 MASTER -1 ZiT& I I ? = ??y _ v,{ J. ?IWrslEn Mnl _ 7 1v !w ' eE Roots ?? wwstFn e?n? - _ 5.S1SSS ? ? -? . it d 31 z? I _- MAJN LEVEL FLOOR PL?N rwtsas%tn vr.,•a • J - ---------- ?? I I I ----- p ? I mews III I `? vwar I I I I 4 1111 j . cawe,ela r______________ ? m?yp I I I I I ; ? ri+sE1 I I 1 1 I I ?? ` J111? f I I G/V2AGE I ? ? `? rreexno = I` ? r-- ? y 1 r-3r r?._?r sr r ? I 6• -a1 I ? I I ? I mMS I I _? I - ------------------- cuRr " 1 1 1 _ \ f _ ^ I I II GA77AGE C r•1•CELM -11r MAO, --------------- ENTRY '_ oi Ti J I I I I I I I I - ? Po LOWER LEVEL FLCOR PLAN UUW"Utl 1w • --------- ---- i O I ASTER SWE QlAr C i I - " - _ ,- 8EDROWa - I I IASwR SURE t? c u _ n II _ 1F T sr ,._i. _ z• ?1? _ _ av. s• ??-ur ?_ s.-a °Y -srr_eJ 6._r .-z. ,•1 .-, •_I ? ? r`r• ._o• y h.-, q r-v ? -s• vnor v v ?_-_ _ __ __-_ __-- ___---_J 1 .--------------_ --_ __- .-_-- E - eEOROaMra • ? I I ' STAM I _ I 1 III __ y I I ? I S I ____ _________ ? __ .--n__ _____I it ? ?• I - Iii.. _ ... ,.. _ ... _ I .t r.- qt, I I. UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN evagrw A va• - ra• ?ll Q 0 0 0 I dr _ p DINMO AREA I n v. UyI???? F-al I I ? y J - 31?. ??0 SI _ DINING e I I i DINING AREA I ? r nnT ?' W - -_- --___`_ - "' _ -- ?- Bc.,..A]S2 BEDROOM 93 j UVING AREA 4 I E 6 9F! MASTER SUITE va] J I BEDROOM#2 e SEDROOM N3 j .".mow E91S? wl zm MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PL1VQ1 BINDING A IW .1'-0' i a I u ------------ -- --- f S f y ?I J I --------------- I ------------ ? x u x 8 fl a >RN?s I I GARAGE '? ` - cw?Y I I I ? oa.acn nt - IJ? I.1'6UN /? J- ---------- - ?r F-9 Z?=L?3 = GARAGE r 31 ?3Y -iY I' I ?e. e. i 1 r ?rf ---------. _'--'-------------- _ GARAGE BfNME I 001OYR Y I Z VJ?El ?I F,'Ql»q 5?? cY SY? to-I• 'I ` - - - - - - - - - - - - i i r2L - - ------- 11 i - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - .? Ik? yII Z ?.e? ., r LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ob BURDW A 111• • 1'-V S ?I I 4 h K N i ? II ? - !I oa I LOT 27, LLC VAIL, COLORADO July 15, 1996 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Attn: Mr. George Ruther Re: Property Line Set-back Variance Dear Sir: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing users or structures in the vicinity will have no adverse effect whatsoever. I am requesting the ability to maximize the buildable area of the site. Lionsridge Loop when constructed is outside the road right-of-way to the north. Therefore, Lot 27, Block 2, Filing 3 northern most property lines are in excess of 50' off the road. • Our request is to be able to build up to the northern property line which will allow for more spacing between four triplex buildings being proposed. The 20' set-back requirement is to provide some buffer between roads and developments. Allowing this variance will still provide a 50' set-back from Lionsridge Loop. In this case the variance will actually improve spacing and allow more buffer from Cap Stone, which is along the southern property line of Lot 27. The property is zoned medium density for development of up to 14 dwelling units. Our proposal is reducing by two the number of units while using the GRFA square footage allowed. Enclosed for your review is the site plan with improvement elevations. As this request relates to property line set-back variance the exterior design of the units will add some Gables to the front of the buildings. This will be shown in the design review board submittal. Thank you for your consideration of our proposal. Sincerely, Ssler APPRQTEPSEP a 9 IN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • August 26, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Henry Pratt Susan Connelly Greg Amsden Mike Mollica Galen Aasland Dominic Mauriello John Schofield George Ruther Gene Uselton Judy Rodriguez Diane Golden Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for height and front setback variances to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3. Applicant: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz Planner: George Ruther • George Ruther gave an overview of the request. At the August 12, 1996 PEC meeting, the applicant had requested variances of 17' and 19' respectively, to encroach into the front setback. After a lengthy discussion, the PEC voted unanimously to table the request until the applicant redesigned the project with less encroachment into the front setback. The PEC was generally agreeable to permitting some form of encroachment, but agreed that the amount requested was excessive and needed to be reduced. George went on to explain that the applicant had come back with a reduction from 17' and 19', to 12' and 9' of encroachment. Buildings have been shifted on the site plan. One of the concerns from the 1994 request and the August 12, 1996 PEC meeting was the emergency vehicle turnaround at the southerly portion of the site. The developer has pulled the turnaround out of the setback area, in order to provide snow storage, which the Fire Department has approved. There are three 10' tall Lodgepole trees that need to be moved. It is up to the PEC to decide a location on the site that would work, so the trees can be preserved on the property. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant was here. He was not present. Greg then asked for any public input. Phyllis Mango, owner of Capstone #1, reviewed what happened 2 years ago when the Commission met. Mr. Gensler has not increased the space between the buildings, nor has he stayed away from the gardens. He wants to move trees, that are 15' tall, only 5', which is not much of a move. He plans to put them on boulders. Trees do not grow on boulders. We would like to suggest not moving the trees. In 1979, Rocky Christopher planted those trees as a barrier to benefit both parcels. I have a letter here from him and from Mr. Toffel to do so. Capstone has an implied easement to use that property. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 1 Greg Moffet asked if the document had been recorded? Phyllis said, no. Greg Moffet said then that was a legal issue between the parties and that the PEC could not recognize anything that was not recorded. Phyllis Mango said at the last meeting it was implied that we were trespassers. We were granted the licensed easement from Mr. Toffel. We spoke with him in Tucson. Those are our trees. You can't take away someone's license. I ask you to search your conscience. This is an issue of only 5', but it has a huge impact. I ask you to stand by your environmental titles. Greg Moffet asked for any other input. Steve Gensler said we have tried to redesign the project to get as far away from the front setback as we could. As far as Capstone, we readjusted the buildings and only need to transplant one tree. We went over the new drawings with the Vail Point owners. We wanted Buildings 7, 8 and 9 to slide into the setback. We are only taking away the highway view from the Lionsridge Loop homeowners. The problem with the homeowners is the tot lot. They don't want it, but prefer to store snow there. The tot lot is sitting right next to a cliff. The only way to get a CO is to get signatures from the homeowners stating that they don't want the tot lot. They deserve to have COs. We would like to put snow next to Building # 7, storing it on our property down below instead of building more units there. We have tried to listen to comments from the PEC in our redesign. • Galen Aasland stated there was a hardship because of the steepness of the lot. With regard to Units 1, 2 and 3; there is no hardship and therefore, no way to support a variance. I would like to • see you address the trash issue and snow storage better. You can't put all the snow in the hammerhead. A suggestion for Unit #7 might be to take off the dining room . I feel sorry for the Capstone units. The Capstone owners have been given a gift for many years. It will cost Capstone some money to deal with this, since Mr. Gensler has a right to develop his property. I would like to see as much landscaping maintained there as possible. Diane Golden would rather have the front variance and leave 7, 8 and 9 where they are. Phyllis, with regard to Capstone, it is beautiful back there and lovely and I feel they will be able to keep everything, except some of the trees. I agree with Galen as it is the developer's right. John Schofield echoed the comments. Rocky Christopher knows enough about real estate to have recorded the document. Buildings 1, 2 and 3 are ok. Gene Uselton asked the developer if he considered interchanging Units 1, 2 and 3, with 11 and 12? Steve Gensler said 1, 2 and 3 don't bother anyone. I would like to use wider units for profit reasons, but if narrow units are the only way to get this approved, I will do narrow units. Gene Uselton asked if snow storage would be a problem down on Buffer Creek and how is garbage removed from each unit? Steve Gensler said, yes, garbage will be removed from each unit. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 2 is Greg Amsden paralleled John Schofield's comments regarding rearranging 1, 2 and 3. You must architecturally modify the product to keep it out of the setback, based on the developer's desire. Greg doesn't have a problem with 7, 8 and 9. Greg Moffet said specifically 10, 8 and 9 reduce the total variance. Now you need to make the Unit 1 encroachment go away. Building # 7's encroachment is ok, because of the hardship. Regarding the landscaping,in the back; if Phyllis thinks they have an easement, then they must go and find out. As it stands here, it's a straight case of private property. Mr. Gensler has a right to do what he wants. I get the feeling from the commission that Unit #1 has an encroachment that must go away. George Ruther said the location of Buildings 1, 2 and 3 becomes a DRB issue. The 3 trees that are proposed to be moved on the site plan, can be moved 5'. Is that plan acceptable, or would the PEC desire the trees to be moved somewhere else? Greg Moffet asked for inch for inch tree loss mitigation which is appropriate for the DRB to handle. Greg Amsden asked Phyllis if she might want the trees moved onto the Capstone site. Phyllis Mango said the purpose of the trees was to be a shield between the parcels and would just like them to survive the move. Steve Gensler said we would work with Capstone to move the trees. Greg Moffet said the trees need to live, or be replaced. • Diane Golden asked if the trees could be moved anywhere on the property or on Capstone's property? Greg Moffet said it's up to Steve where the trees go. Phyllis Mango wants a working solution and would like to have the trees higher up on the wall to benefit the new owners. Steve Gensler said since they are Capstone's trees, Capstone can move them wherever they want. He doesn't want to be responsible for the trees. Phyllis Mango asked about the bonding issue. Greg Moffet said we require a bond sufficient to have the trees live, or be replaced. We do transplant a lot of trees; it's not uncommon. Phyllis Mango said it negates that idea, if he's putting it in our laps. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval to grant a variance for Unit # 7 for only a 12' encroachment, because it meets the variance criteria . Before the applicant goes to the DRB, they need to submit a snow removal plan, bond for 3 evergreen trees for a period of two growing seasons, assure no stone wall, on Mr Gensler's property, be at a height greater than 6'. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 3 Gene Uselton seconded the motion. Galen Aasland amended the motion to add that the staff recommendation, on page 7 of the staff memo, be included in the motion. Gene Uselton seconded the amended motion. Greg Moffet stated so included and so moved and asked for any other input. Gene Uselton said that it was reasonable and equitable for the Capstone residents to have the opportunity to move the trees where they like as an alternative to the bond. Galen Aasland said the bond was required of Mr. Gensler, if he moved the trees. George Ruther said if Capstone wants to move the trees at their own expense, Steve Gensler would grant them the right to come on to his property to do so. Staff would not enforce the bonding on the developer, if Capstone moved the trees onto their property. Galen Aasland asked if Mr. Gensler would be subject to the replacement of those trees on his property, if the trees were removed from his property? Greg Moffet said we are referring to the trees as Capstone's trees. We are not making a judgement as to who owns those trees. John Schofield said we would allow Capstone to move the trees at their own expense. Greg Moffet said that that was implied in the motion. . The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Phyllis Mango asked who will move the trees? Mike Mollica said that Steve Gensler would determine that and present it to the DRB. 2. A request for a major SDD amendment to allow for the enclosure of a roof deck located at 12 Vail Road/Lot N, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Applicant: Vail Apartments, Inc. Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request and presented the two main issues; the view from the roundabout and the compatibility of the addition with the architecture already existing on the Gateway Building. We have received an approval letter from the Vail Gateway Condo Association for Unit 5 to enclose the exterior deck. The Association has no objection to this proposal. Greg Moffet said because it is an SDD, there is not a cap on the GRFA. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes August 26, 1996 4 George Ruther said the 4-way stop no longer exists. The PEC looked at the site today and with • the continuous motion of the roundabout, the view loss is insignificant. According to the Design Guidelines, the roof addition should not stand out. Staff said glass is being added to the roof of the building. There are no impacts on the adjacent properties in the area. Staff is recommending approval with the one condition, on page 7 of the staff memo, accompany that approval. Steve Riden said there is some confusion about the additional GRFA. We are approaching the 13,000 sq. ft, but haven't reached that yet. The roof glass matches the glass on the roof that is already there. Greg Moffet asked for any public input. John Dunn, representing the owner of Unit 2 (the Knightbridge Corporation), stated the Condo Association letter of approval is questionable. There has never been a meeting of the condo owners to discuss this. The consent that was presented here was given by Leo Palmos. The meeting to discuss this last week was canceled. The meeting that was required in 1992, never happened. Leo Palmos in his capacity as an original director, when providing an expansion of one of the units which increases the size of the unit, should increase their share of common expenses. He needs to adjust the elements of the common areas and needs to have the owners have a meeting. This matter can be cured if a condition is attached, that the condo declarations be amended (we do not support the application since we want to protect our interests). Mike Mollica had a concern with the Town requiring the amending of the declarations if the Town of Vail is not a party to the declarations. He recommended to the PEC that they do not make this as a condition of approval. We have a letter from Leo Palmos approving this request. It is up to • the owner to amend the declaration; it is not a requirement of this request. John Schofield, although agreeing with Mike, is sympathetic to the developer. We don't have to address that here, but advised Mr. Dunn to make sure that Mr. Palmos follows up. He has no problem with the proposal and no problem with the additional GRFA. Gene Uselton mentioned that there were letters from units 1, 3 and 4. Unit #2 is missing. He wants to wait to have letters from all the condo owners before proceeding. Greg Moffet said visually the roof is much more exposed but he supports the proposal. Galen Aasland said GRFA for new additions is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. I like the glass on the roof. Diane Golden agreed with Galen on the GRFA and asked if we were to assume that Mr Palmos was representing the condo owners? Mike Mollica said we have not had a problem with Leo Palmos in the past, representing the Association. We are not here to debate the validity of the Association letter. This is not a question of notification to the adjacent owners. Galen Aasland asked if Mr. Palmos was a representative for the whole building or just the commercial space? • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 5 Mike Mollica said Leo Palmos has made it very clear in the letter that this was a residential expansion. John Dunn's request is likely to be agreed to by Mr Palmos; 1 just don't want it as a • condition. Galen Aasland said there may be several Condo Associations. George Ruther stated that he requested a letter of approval from the Condo Association. Diane Golden asked what if Unit 2 is opposed. John Dunn said Unit 2 would prefer that changes not be made and amendments to declarations be addressed. John Schofield said you have recourse to go to the Town Council. Mr Palmos allows the square footage in the last sentence of his letter. Greg Moffet asked if additional GRFA is by right because of being in the SDD? Mike Mollica said by requesting a major SDD amendment, you are allowed to request additional GRFA. Because this is a SDD, you have the ability to request as much GRFA as you want. Greg Moffet said what's approved is what's approved. Gene Uselton asked if they are alleging that Unit 2 will be harmed? John Dunn said if there is no amendment to the declaration, we will have to pay for these improvements. • Greg Moffet said ramifications on the view corridors are limited at best. The windows, after visiting the site, seem to have no impact. The Condo Association is clearly an issue, however it is not in our purview to address it here. That's why there are lawyers. I am not comfortable with conditioning this approval. Greg Amsden made a motion for a recommendation to Council with the staff recommendations and no conditions. The motion was seconded by John Schofield. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Galen Aasland said we would like to see, before another proposal comes forward, which Condo Association the applicant is from. Don't you have to get an approval from the Condo Association? Mike Mollica said if there is one. It's clear that there's only one Condo Association for the Gateway. George Ruther said he asked for a Condo Association letter in January and this is what he got. Greg Amsden mentioned that Leo Palmos doesn't state his title in the letter. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 6 • 3. A request for a worksession to discuss a variance to allow detached garages in the front • setback, located at 2853 and 2833 Kinnickinnick Road/Lots 7 & 8, Block 4, Vail intermountain/Lodges at Timber Creek. Applicant: Jim Marx Planner: Dominic Mauriello Greg Moffet asked if we can have a worksession without the applicant? Dominic Mauriello suggested that the PEC consider withdrawing this item, as the original application was made in January and the applicant has failed to show up at several meetings. Staff and the PEC have spent a considerable amount of time reviewing this item at public hearings. John Schofield made a motion to withdraw item no 3. The motion was seconded by Greg Amsden. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 4. A conceptual discussion regarding the display of banners for quasi-community events and activities. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Lauren Waterton . TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 9,1996 5. A request for an interior remodel to add a bedroom and bathroom of approximately 250 square feet, in the existing basement utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1588 Golf Terrace/ Vail Golf Course Townhomes, Unit 40 Applicant: Richard Callahan Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 6. A request for a wall height variance to allow for a six foot wall in the front setback located at 425 Forest Road/Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Sara Rockwell, Jean Paul and Pam Beneducci Planner: Dirk Mason WITHDRAWN 7. Information Update - Vail Tomorrow Susan Connelly shared with the PEC the current list of endorsing organizations for Vail Tomorrow. She mentioned that Dave Corbin has rescheduled the VA picnic, so as not to conflict with the Imagine Vail Tomorrow event. Susan asked the PEC if they received their postcards? C7 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 7 The conference requires a big commitment in time. However, the investment is necessary for any pay-off. Susan said it will be on a Saturday from 8am - 5pm, but she promised the PEC that • they will not be bored. There will be a huge history wall displayed with a timeline. People will be asked to fill out a card on the timeline and put it next to the date. The beginning of the conference is a report on what has come out of the roundtable discussions. We have had 80- 100 responses so far from the newspaper surveys. There has been a 4,000 card mailing to second homeowners. Chris Cares, who is compiling the results, said there has been a very rich response. Our outreach to the community is not typical. We are trying to encourage everyone to share their voice. Ethnic or age groups that are not typically brought into the process are interested in being held responsible, (i.e., the Hispanic population). The conference will be made up of small groups with recurring themes from the 1 st step. What things should not change and be preserved? Friday nite is a kick in the pants Park City charismatic speaker speaking on change in Mountain Resort Communities. It's reality therapy. We will videotape the day and replay it on Channel 5. We are nervous about recruiting and getting people out on a Saturday. Are there any questions? Gene Uselton said contacting the 2nd homeowners was a good thing to encourage them to be part of the process. Susan Connelly said that Chris Cares was amazed at how quick the responses were coming back. Greg Moffet said the focus group deserves a pat on the as second homeowners were very complimentary. Susan Connelly said the outreach by personally conveying the message has been very well received. The Generation X group had gotten excited by what they said to each other, not by is what was being told to them. Susan Connelly then passed out an informative article by James Rauch (which was unrelated to Vail Tomorrow). 8. Approval of August 12, 1996 minutes Mike Mollica asked the PEC not to vote the minutes approved until the next meeting, as Dominic Mauriello and Mike Mollica needed to make changes. Gene Uselton made a motion to table the August 12, 1996 minutes until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Galen Aasland. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Greg Amsden made a motion to table item no 4 and to withdraw item no 6. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 8 • The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton. it passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 26, 1996 9