HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-1212 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
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 February 12,1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to The Town of Vail Municipal
Code, Chapters 16, 18 & 2 to allow for modifications to the Sign Code, Design Review,
Commercial Core I, Commercial Core II and Supplemental Regulations.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Randy Stouder
A request for a Major Amendment to SDD No. 32 to allow for the construction of an Employee
Housing unit located at The Cornice Building, 362 Vail Valley Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village
1 st Filing.
Applicant: David Smith
Planner: George Ruther
An Amendment to the Zoning Code, Medium-Density Multi-Family District, adding a provision
limiting the density to eighteen dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. This provision was
inadvertently omitted from Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1991.
Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to an
existing single family residence located at 2299 Chamonix Lane/Lot 7, Block A, Vail Das Schone
Filing #1.
Applicant: Frank D. D'Alessio
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a Minor SDD Amendment to allow for changes to the development plan located at
Millrace Phase 3, 1335 Westhaven Drive/Development Area A of the Glen Lyon SDD (SDD No.
4).
Applicant: Steve Riden representing Gregory Walton
Planner: Jim Curnutte
A request for an interior residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an interior
storage area, located at 1881 Lionsridge Loop #25/Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Matt King
Planner- Lauren Waterton
A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to an
existing unit and a front yard variance to allow for a garage to be located in a front setback in
association with the construction of a new Primary residence located at 325 Forest Road/Lot 18,
Block Z, Vail Village 1 st Filing. .
Applicant: Steve Riden representing Tim Drisko
Planner- Jim Curnutte
J
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 January 26, 1996 in the Vail Trail.
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 12, 1996
AGENDA
Project Orientation / Lunch
• Housing. discussion with Town Council - Andy/Susan
Site Visits
1. Cornice Building - 362 Vail Valley Drive
2. D'Aiessio - 2299 Chamonix Lane
Driver: George
10:30 pm
12:00 pm
1:00 pm
Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a Minor SDD Amendment to allow for changes to the development plan
located at Millrace Phase 3,1335 Westhaven Drive/Development Area A of the Glen
Lyon SDD (SDD No. 4).
Applicant: Steve Riden representing Gregory Walton
Planner: Jim Curnutte
•
2. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion
to an existing unit and a front yard variance to allow for a garage to be located in a front
setback in association with the construction of a new primary residence located at 325
Forest Road/Lot 18, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Steve Riden representing Tim Drisko
- Planner: Jim Curnutte
3. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion
to an existing single family residence located at 2299 Chamonix Lane/Lot 7, Block A, Vail
Das Schone Filing #1.
Applicant: Frank D. D'Alessio
Planner: George Ruther
4. A request for a Major Amendment to SDD No. 32 to allow for the construction of an
Employee Housing unit located at The Cornice Building, 362 Vail Valley Drive/Part of
Tract B, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: David Smith
Planner: George Ruther
qO
J
5. An Amendment to the Zoning Code, Medium-Density Multi-Family District, adding a
provision limiting the density to eighteen dwelling units per acre of buildable site area.
This provision was inadvertently omitted from Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1991.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
6. A request for an interior residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an
interior storage area, located at 1881 Lionsridge Loop #25/Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge 2nd
Filing.
Applicant: Matt King
Planner: Lauren Waterton
STAFF APPROVED
7. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to numerous sections of
The Town of Vail Municipal Code, including but not limited to Titles 2, 16, & 18 to allow
for modifications to the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Randy Stouder
TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 26,1996
8. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion
to the secondary residence located at 275 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 40, Block 7, Vail Village 40
First Filing.
Applicant: Steve Berkowitz
Planner: Randy Stouder
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
9. Information Update - Susan
10. Approval of January 22, 1996 PEC minutes.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
7_4
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 12, 1996
FINAL AGENDA
Project Orientation / Lunch 111:00 pm
• Housing discussion with Town Council - Andy/Susan 12:00 pm
Site Visits 1:00 pm
1. Cornice Building - 362 Vail Valley Drive
Driver: George
Public Flearina 2:00 p.m.
i.
1. A request for a Minor SDD Amendment to allow for changes to the development plan
located at Millrace Phase 3, 1335 Westhaven Drive/Development Area A of the Glen
Lyon SDD (SDD No. 4).
Applicant: Steve Riden representing Gregory Walton
Planner: Jim Curnutte
MOTION: Jeff Bowen SECOND: Kevin Deighan VOTE: 5-0
APPROVED
2. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion
to an existing unit and a front yard variance to allow for a garage to be located in a front
setback in association with the construction of a new primary residence located at 325
Forest Road/Lot 18, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Steve Riden representing Tim Drisko
Planner: Jim Curnutte
MOTION: Jeff Bowen SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 5-0
APPROVED
3. A request for a Major Amendment to SDD No. 32 to allow for the construction of an
Employee Housing unit located at The Cornice Building, 362 Vail Valley Drive/Part of
Tract B, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: David Smith
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Jeff Bowen SECOND: Greg Moffet VOTE: 3-1-1 (Bowen
opposed, Amsden abstained)
APPROVED
4. Art Amendment to the Zoning Code, Medium-Density Multi-Family District, adding a
provision limiting the density to eighteen dwelling units per acre of buildable site area.
TWs provision was inadvertently omitted from Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1991.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
MOTION: Jeff Bowen SECOND: Henry Pratt 'VOTE: 5-0
APPPROVED
5. A request for an interior residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an
interior storage area, located at 1881 Lionsridge Loop #25/Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge 2nd
Filfirig.
Applicant: Matt King
Planner: Lauren Waterton
STAFF APPROVED
6. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion
,to an existing single family residence located at 2299 Chamonix Lane/Lot 7, Block A, Vail
Das Schone Filing #1.
Applicant: Frank D. D'Alessio
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED TO MARCH 11, 1996
7. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to numerous sections of
The Town of Vail Municipal Code, including but not limited to Titles 2, 16, & 18 to allow
for modifications to the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Randy Stouder
TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 26, 1996
8. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion
to the secondary residence located at 275 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 40, Block 7, Vail Village
First Filing.
Applicant: Steve Berkowitz
Planner: Randy Stouder
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
9. Information Update - Susan
10. Approval of January 22, 1996 PEC minutes.
APPROVED WITH CHANGES 04
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
MEMORANDUM
Is TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 12, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for a Minor SDD Amendment to allow for changes to the development
plan located at Millrace Phase IIl, 1335 Westhaven Drive/Development Area A of
the Cascade Village SDD (SDD No. 4).
Applicant: Steve Riden representing Gregory Walton
Planner: Jim Curnutte
1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
Steve Riden, on behalf of the property owner Gregory Walton, has requested approval of several
minor amendments to the previously approved development plan for the Millrace III property,
located at 1335 Westhaven Drive/Development Area A, Cascade Village SDD.
• On February 8, 1993, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved a Major
Amendment to the Cascade Village SDD, in order to allow for the construction of one duplex and
one single family residence on the 0.819 acre (35,676 sq. ft.) Millrace III site. Later that year,
final Design Review Board approval was granted for the project and a building permit was issued
for the construction of the single family residence. This residence has subsequently been
completed, occupied, and subdivided from the remaining duplex portion of the property. On
November 6, 1995, a building permit was issued for the duplex, and construction has been
completed through the foundation stage.
The applicant is requesting approval of changes to the previously approved plans for the duplex
structure. The proposed changes will not affect the footprint of the building, its location on the
site, setbacks or the previously approved maximum GRFA on the property. The proposed
changes do, however, increase the previously approved site coverage on the lot by approximately
100 sq. ft. Additionally, the applicant is proposing changes to the building roof form,
fenestration, exterior building materials and vehicle turnaround area. Attachment #1 includes the
site plan and elevation drawings of the duplex as originally approved. Attachment #2 includes the
site plan, landscape plan and elevation drawings of the proposed building. The proposed changes
to the previously approved plans for the duplex are further described as follows:
Site Coverage Changes - The overall site coverage of the duplex is proposed to be
increased by approximately 100 sq. ft.. This increase is directly attributed to the additional
stone veneer being added to the building and the expanded roofs over each unit's entry
• stairs.
f:\everyone\pec\memos\walton.212
Roof Form Changes - The applicant has changed the previously approved roof plan for
the building by increasing the size of the dormer elements and by providing more
substantial covered entries to each of the unit's main entry doors.
Fenestration Changes - The placement of all previously approved windows is generally
unchanged with this application, however, the quality of the windows has been
significantly improved, (ie. more divided lights, more variation in shapes, etc.).
Building Material Changes - The applicant is proposing to significantly increase the
amount of stone on the building, as well as to provide a richer palette of building materials
throughout, (ie. upgrades to window trim, eave details, balcony railings, entry columns,
garage door upgrades, etc.).
Vehicle Turnaround - The vehicle turnaround area for the north side of the duplex has
been relocated from the south side of the driveway to the north side of the driveway. This
change will provide for additional landscaping in front of the building, as well as an
improved sidewalk leading from the driveway to the main entry stairs.
II. STAFF DECISION
Staff has reviewed the applicant's Minor SDD Amendment request and has approved the changes
requested pursuant to Chapter 18.40.100 (A) of the Vail Municipal Code. Staff has found that
the proposed changes do not alter the basic intent or character of the approved Special •
Development District and that the proposed modifications are consistent with the design criteria
of the SDD. Staff has attached the following conditions to the approval of this Minor SDD
Amendment:
In order to insure compliance with the Town's lighting ordinance, the applicant
will provide detailed information regarding all proposed exterior lighting prior to
the placement of any exterior lighting on the building or property.
2. Prior-to the Town's issuance of a T.C.O., the property owner will provide the
Town with a letter indicating that if the 12' access easement, located along the
north property boundary, is ever needed by the Town, he agrees to relocate his
driveway turnaround space to the opposite side of the driveway and to relocate the
landscaping currently shown within the easement. Said modifications will be made
solely at the owner's expense.
is
f:\everyone\pec\memos\walton.212 2
•
•
I
t
I
G?
?1P- -
t
?yJy cL? 1lb'? - ?
K04M=?1' - l /
dr\, ? ?_-„? • s)•?.'-.ewu wile' _ .IPA'
Z
f P
(? t Q
/I f
~~ \ ?\\ 1 \\ 4 ? - l Vr
kil-
VI 44ilitj `? I' bt-
`31t? t
plx u„ f
rr
,yJ N H
re6 ? r
rrs ?'? 1
?w
r -
South
• East
Nortl1 I
1 y-,?, ?,,?I ? •_ Lr •, t1 1 ? ?? i ? f
ISO. ? L a! 11 ?,'. IIn ? I lil?ill?
r
CCC 1? 4 yy-. .,. II,. .pk r
West
1* 4:
res n
w?cx v
/Y}4L 7
HM 4.11
7
I
,c.7 ?
UP
Kdea??nr
a
r? to V?5m:?
Ur ?h Ib??
c?Rgte
H 1?
Zo-
t t ?
•?yy3vT'
'' ?? C r y '` ? r t
`/' f 0 {
?cr trV ? `? - ? 0- tA
.?? ?? ', A I I l/ ,
'I t
p jj?? • % f
6
(
IWI
n. •
V
? t A s
site
QAO
a
xw? ?
o:Q
arw
W
•
N' y w
10,
J f}t?ap?ryaae? ` ._ s e _ ??.:
G' Ca.IGR9T0 J ?l ? W, b
uonc vun?. ?wr
u> cUlCb- \ _ \
017
1 \.
9 otrlrse } i \\ «e h\ / Z rd
5,.,A
x
"Of
'o W.4
Z :A
{..?e \ \ \\ '? ti \ ,' f 'Sgt T
i?+• ? YMiei It \\ ?\ i \ ' ?_ ??.?,??y.?6'? NIM.
' \? \\? ' • ? \ \ teyc, re • ' ( ? ? ,?IYFlR dC iRNit h?+Yr'?ri Mrr?? C ? - ? µL?
??, \ \\ Ct ! ? { rgv.* b, a.TVUnw?.,glrlyi7r. wvs/yeslvsua wRd?t
j r1At? [4r. va-,)
'L ?A I A\ ?\ ?? } a tee. + w .R ruKe+w **+ (3 w wr )
\ \\" . \\
9dtedc- ?pe c Ll
IS a. arm ELIU `
TA.IYD.
r Nlaa eLr e
an, r "h
MUM al
®m
ARlOi.-
-
Lr
L_
=
06 mom Frei
, TT ,
GPM "Wit
¦ n ~ FrelA
M mom AI
M _a
NOUN,
r W PAWN a"
1/O?r toDl /laltlt `
?TfR e!
=
PM
low
W ~ "D
Lel7.1 Lem.
T.O.rLT nw-Le w
rlc r IRONS `
"N" "No""
eletr Lem \
T.O.rLW ow L!'
t NEW LAIi --- -
T.OdLT em'-r L/r
ItIKN t1AR
1'ILON? e
raawlnr ael.ne? ;
t
_ L4.L Lt1s. ,,,?
Laa11jo WAR _W
_ LOM
T.O.NLi saw-W
or TA.Ie! - _ - _
eQe•?
riT
e1eeR .1/SJ1N --_
wsl aR1w
LATRI1a
w m Cow
TLte
li
m now Pin`
/OO de
LNm ? 00%"
M QOM TRIM _
Lo- a1Llen_ Lir alone
IrM I.M.
---
T.e.rLr eeu•-LS Lro ?--?-
I
• DIM om arr"WR Wrong
W meL
4- et1N1 W aDaH. so
I
IMCID
v- MUM HI 1101 b"
INN MAJ1.1 INILILt
iemsw 1101 m1w1e
I
sue I
twin or
/
own "I'M-
tlOa w1ea1 NT• _
t a1M7 LAYa.
T.O.ILT Nrl'-le 1T
ILt /
eineroi wt=
errro'
1
_ now al "L=
? 1® ?a
/ e1W
Or6
lala o PAML7RLOK1
M
a w A
a M FAM
M
W L?IIO PAM
m L
L1?1 1.? w° m
L ILTP Now 0
_ •- TA Mr erl•-r W
._ oar.t 6Alalf?
wrm ovm
Irele •Yli
Gai ., .. . ? aLILLr
OROEIL
eNta W
OUR
w'
TaaeR
rotes
L _4r
® ILIA Lem e
I '? )-1 \T.O.1'LT eOM'-le IT
Item OdY1.
uu Qav. wo
awfN tLLrea
1 I NTD1a Ta.R
i t ] 1 -LA DEM OI0U0
{ w anon TRW
1+] efDeeAtlw!
LA PC" elwn
?Ir R _l I_ .1. _ I O QYMI AIM
T.O.N. MOr•-r
L110JKr eltl plods
A LeaoR Atm
m- awiaL LM $aim
n.LeNloa law= N01IeA
BAST ELEVATION rxLreneoelaweL
t14.. I- -'s,
Rot cow now
GI%W rANDa
I S
r
9
I 1
\\ - wKM .Ri Wa
\\\\? r wA TOTYI
rae I
rw mel "n
wa
r Leaar
Woom SILL
sopm
SOUTH ELEVTION
------------
0
L
1-9
- t
- .vim
Eau
Il11?11. ?. ?? ; ??
\I IT, I k
w QDM SID"
to a l4m
oupwm Olaf It !
Lue mM loom
Newt
- -- VA.O. elt`•-r
r
A
e
r
r
W0
a
a
Qty
o?a
F?
M ?
?, ds
?W v t+
W M, M
FxOil
•r?
r?dT?rr
ALT. LIMY
A4
•
Iw wr?i
OEM
mm a60?
am 0tw
w mW r0001.. ~U
rR r ow"
0E00-..
V W/i L.Ir 0a17E-- '
on OEYE 00E -?
07m nAM14
on&
1111 LAaTMY
wwr71E r10
r0000r10O 010LOE
w COM 1010
W ae1?10
w am" TACK
lr aMML L_
Nil MP IND
MINIMUM to= rtcmlm
corm or
LOW OM. w71 cmm sold.
00TEL/LAl Oi
?UIN.umm
T.O.RT 0a•-LO LA
Elu en1 wo
OaT1 RwIMi=
Nis ol01 mll?`-
0 FORT Lam
T.O.RT 4OW-l0 L/r
MUMM
WNW UML
T.C.E7o 014-W
r,r enmo NiEIO - - -
UP -,Raw
010'0
L 1 {IPM LIME.
' 7 1
T.D. RT lal'-10 1/r
?? 7 I 1 L.
TEST ELEVATION
0
•
_ a aL POMPEII O&OVI
T.0.14w
j
------ WRM POP
Vm
own v E
•
noaa
- 000101,
-- L wr 94300
'
'
miall
?O
am
Nil Effimm
w OSCAR Poll
w stow raou
? w0 COOM rA001A
® w mw +Niw
w o OAQIIE
W DOW rlaan
TrEa or
c
w
i ao
0EE
. 11?L
• - - - - lR7t t1tlL ?
~ T.0.FLZ 01r-10 1T
n WWI
? I
NORTH ELEVATION I
-L--------------------------
rs r 0we0 Nino.
0wmw E0MP
F-iW a OMAN,
ra0ELT7a ouni E
"War IaLR. 1
T.O.F_w aw-to w
L00t llln. 0
T.O.EJE 01P-r
w 0101 71Uw
r! mIN H
? rur os® wEa.
V
O
to i L 1101 /
0010'?r /
OOTM OIL
r vlEE -.
a7a
Niar Pen ,C
ow.llLilr
Ei mw r7oLL ?
?M
- b
? y
. ?w
7ri
i
M
M
lJ
e
W O
a
a ?
A .r
0
0.4
LW .a t,
W w N
l•xs
•ec?irae-
?A s.. n+ n
LLMO:
LT 0011•-10 Ur 0
L+w Wom.
1.0.0 001r..o'0 A5-
M
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: February 12, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an
expansion to an existing residence and a variance to allow for a garage to be
located in a front setback, in association with the construction of a new primary
residence, located at 325 Forest Road/Lot 18, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Steve Riden representing Tim Drisko
Planner: Jim Curnutte
•
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS
The applicant, Tim Drisko, is requesting Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) review
and approval of a 250 addition to an existing residence and a front setback variance associated
with the construction of a new residence on Lot 18, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing, 325 Forest
Road. The existing dwelling unit on the property has been in existence since the early 1960's
and therefore, is eligible to apply for a 250 addition. The applicant intends to remodel the
existing dwelling unit in such a way that the final amount of GRFA in the building does not
exceed 40% of the maximum amount of GRFA allowed on the property, thereby allowing the unit
to be considered the "secondary" unit. It is then, the applicant's desire to construct a new
"primary" dwelling unit on the western portion of the property. Additionally, the applicant wishes
to utilize the GRFA currently located under the existing two-car garage on the remainder of the
site and therefore, intends to infill this area to remove it from consideration as GRFA.
The 250 addition and the variance requests are further described as follows:
250 Addition - The existing dwelling unit on Lot 18 is 2,857 sq. ft. in size. As mentioned
above, it is the applicant's desire to remodel this dwelling unit in such a way that it will be
considered the secondary unit on the property. This reclassification of the building will
allow for the construction of a new primary dwelling unit to be built on the western portion
of the property. According to the Primary/Secondary Zone District requirements, the
secondary dwelling unit on this property cannot exceed 2,248 sq. ft. (40% of total allowed
GRFA). If the 250 addition is approved by the Planning Commission, this dwelling unit
may have a total GRFA of 2,498 sq. ft. In order to comply with this maximum GRFA
figure, it is necessary to remove some portions of the existing building from consideration
as GRFA. The applicant will accomplish this by removing the mudroom on the lower level
of the building and converting this area to outdoor patio space and by converting an
existing bedroom on the second level into the new entry deck area. When remodeled,
the total GRFA of the residence will be 2,473 sq. ft.
is f:\everyone\pec\memosVftisko212 1
Variance Request - The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a two-car garage to
be constructed in association with the new primary dwelling unit. The garage is proposed
to encroach 19'6" into the front yard setback. As indicated on the attached site plan, the
proposed garage is to be located within 6" of the front property line and accessed from
the east via a heated driveway, currently designed at a grade of 11.5%. In justification for
the proposed front yard setback variance, the applicant's architect has stated that:
"the extreme steepness of the approach to the setback, efforts to save some very
large trees and the narrowness of the remaining parcel to be developed, has
limited solutions appropriate in resolving the specific design issues. The proposal
will be limited to the solution shown, otherwise, a very expensive and potentially
inoperative and possibly massive structure would be required just to allow access
to the site. The design criteria solution that I am suggesting will also keep the
new residence from encroaching upon the views of the adjacent properties, by
maintaining an open space on the north portion of the site."
II. BACKGROUND
On September 8, 1986, the PEC reviewed and approved a front yard setback variance request to
allow for the construction of a new two-story, two-car garage in the front and side setback areas
of Lot 18. The approved variance allowed the garage to encroach V into the 15' side yard
setback and 10' into the 20' front yard setback. The PEC felt that there were physical hardships
on the site that necessitated approval of the setback variances and recognized that the approval
would be consistent with previously approved variances along Forest Road. The PEC approved
the variance unanimously, by a vote of 6-0. Due to construction errors, the building was
constructed further into the side yard setback than originally approved by the PEC and on April _ •
20, 1987, a second variance was granted for the garage. This variance allowed the already
constructed garage to encroach 12-1/2' into the side yard setback. This modification to the
previously approved variance was also unanimously approved by the PEC by a vote of 5-0.
On July 26, 1993, the applicant submitted an application for setback and site coverage variances
for a project very similar to the one being proposed today. The application presented at the time
showed a minimal connection between the new building and the existing dwelling unit. However,
since the applicant felt that this was not the best design solution for the property, the variance
requests were withdrawn.
On August 16, 1995, the Design Review Board approved a separation request, to allow the
proposed primary unit to be detached from the existing dwelling unit. The Design Review Board
based their separation approval on the preservation of mature evergreen trees, significant slope
constraints and the interior lay-out of the existing building.
On January 22, 1996, the PEC held a worksession to discuss issues related to this application.
The items discussed at that worksession included the proposed location of the primary unit
garage access, the removal of GRFA under the existing two-car garage and the proposed
maximizing of many of the properties development standards. The PEC discussed the pros and
cons associated with accessing the primary unit garage directly off of Forest Road, as opposed
to side loaded from a heated driveway. The PEC felt that the applicant's proposed design
provided a more aesthetically pleasing building, as well as greater opportunity for landscape
screening and additional on-site parking and vehicular maneuvering area. With regard to the
proposed removal of GRFA under the existing garage, the.PEC had suggestions as to how the
structure might be modified to accommodate the fill necessary to remove the GRFA. The PEC .
also suggested that the applicant explore a way to create an EHU in this area. Lastly, the PEC
fA-ery__: __=oe\driako.212 2
recommended to the applicant that since he was proposing to locate the primary unit garage on
the front property line, maximize the GRFA on the property, build to the maximum building height,
retaining wall height and driveway grade, that he consider reducing these maximums slightly, in
order to allow for errors which may occur during the project's construction.
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
Zoning: Primary / Secondary
Lot Area: 0.598 acres / 23,078 sq. ft.
Allowed/Reauired Existina Prooosed
Building Height: 33 ft. 29 ft. (existing building) 33 ft. (new building)
GRFA: 5,658 sq, ft. ` 3,427 sq. ft.- 5,658 sq. ft.
Setbacks:
Front: 20 ft. 38'*** 6"
Sides: 15' ft,/15 ft. 72741' 15793'
Rear: 15 ft. 62 83"
Site Coverage: 1,616 sq. ft.(20%) 2,110 sq. ft.(9.1%) 4,097 sq. ft. (17.70%)
Landscaping: 13,847 sq. ft. (60%) 20,100 sq. ft. (87%) 15,400 sq. ft. (66.7%)
Parking: 6 spaces required 3 spaces provided 7 spaces
* This figure includes a 250 square foot allowance, subject to approval by the PEC.
** This figure includes 2,857 sq. ft. of GRFA in the existing dwelling unit and approximately 570 sq. ft. of GRFA located on the first
level of the two-car garage structure.
`** These figures represent the setback for the existing residence. They do not include the setback variances which were granted
for the existing two-car garage and were explained in more detail In the background section of this memoranda.
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Variance Criteria and Findinas
Upon review of the Criteria and Findings outlined in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variance based
upon 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.
Although the two-car garage for the primary unit is proposed to be located within 6". of the
front property line, the top of this garage will be approximately 9' below the pavement of
Forest Road. Due to this drop in grade and the substantial landscaping proposed on the
front and western side of the property, staff believes that the impact associated with this
variance request is minimal. Additionally, allowing the applicant to place a fairly significant
portion of the building within the front setback area will help keep the entire structure as far
south on the property as possible. This building placement will have significant visual
benefits to the property owner immediately to the west.
•
f:\everyone\pec\memosWrisko.212 3
f
.
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 treatme?
among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of
special privilege.
The strict and literal enforcement of the 20' front setback would push the garage back 20'
from the front property line. Although GRFA could be located on top of this garage, staff
believes that complying with the setback requirement would cause portions of the structure
to be located further north on the property. The request, as proposed, is taking advantage of
a flat bench on the property which was created in the past in order to provide access down
to a garage located immediately adjacent to the existing dwelling unit. Keeping the
proposed primary unit on the flat bench will have substantially less site impacts to the
property and, as mentioned previously, will reduce visual impacts to the neighbor
immediately to the west.
Additionally, the Town has historically been very supportive of garage variance requests in
the front setback along Forest Road, due to the nature of the existing road alignments and
topographical constraints in the neighborhood. To approve this request would be consistent
with previously approved variances and would not be a grant of special privilege.
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 proposed garage addition will not have a negative effect on the above mentioned
criteria.
B. The Plannina gnd Environmental Commission shall make the following findinas before arantino a
variance: 41
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.
•
fAevmyon: v-...emos\&Ao.212 4
r
2..50 Addition Criteria and Find! nos
Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department recommends
approval of the request for Additional GRFA based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission
shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use:
1. Effect upon the existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing
structures.
•
The existing dwelling unit is being remodeled in such a way that portions of the
building are actually being removed so that the final size of the building does not
exceed 40% of the total GRFA allowed on the lot, plus 250 square feet. The
changes to the existing residence include a new walkway and bridge on the south
side of the building. This walkway will allow the main entry to the building to be
relocated from its current location on the lower level, to the second level of the
building. In addition to the bridge, the new entry feature will include a covered entry
and deck. This new open deck area will replace an existing bedroom and bathroom.
On the first level of the building, a portion of the existing mudroom will be converted
to outdoor patio area. Staff believes that the proposed remodel will have minimal
impact on the site's topography, vegetation, and drainage. Although four evergreen
trees will be removed to make way for the new access to the existing building,
including one large evergreen tree which will be relocated to an area north of the
existing garage, these impacts cannot be directly attributed to the 250 portion of the
remodel. Staff believes that the proposed landscape plan adequately compensates
for the loss of these trees.
2. Impact on adjacent properties.
Staff believes that the proposed 250 addition to the existing residence will not have a
negative impact on adjacent properties. As mentioned previously, although this
dwelling unit is proposing to fully utilize its`250 allowance, the building is actually
being reduced in size in order to make it the "secondary" unit on the property.
3. Compliance with the Town's zoning requirements and applicable development
standards.
Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any dwelling
unit that proposes to use Additional GRFA shall comply with the standards outlined in
the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping,
undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property.
Upon inspection by staff, we feel that this property is in compliance with the Town's
zoning requirements and all applicable development standards. Additionally, staff
believes that the landscape plan, proposed in conjunction with the redevelopment of
this property, will actually be an improvement over what currently exists.
•
f:\everyoneVecNni=os\&iako.212
5
B. Finding.
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting 40
approval for Additional GRFA:
1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively effect
existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures.
2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively impact
adjacent properties.
3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all Town
zoning requirements and applicable development standards.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for a front yard
setback variance and additional GRFA. Staff believes that the Review Criteria have been met, as
discussed in the memorandum.
With regard to the variance Findings, staff believes that Finding B.1 is met and that the approval of the
requested variance, in order to locate a garage in the front setback, is consistent with previous approvals
along Forest Road and would not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on
other properties classified in the same zone district. Finding B.2 is met, in staff's opinion, since the
proposed variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity and Finding B.3 (a,b &c) is met in that there are extraordinary
circumstances and conditions applicable to this lot that are not indicative of the majority of lots in the
Primary/Secondary Zone District (ie. extremely steep slopes off of the road in front of the property, as well
as very steep slopes along the middle section of the property).
With regard to the Additional GRFA Findings, staff believes that Finding B.1 is met as the proposed
remodel of the existing dwelling unit minimally impacts the existing site. Finding B.2 is met, in staff's
opinion, as the proposed remodel will not negatively impact adjacent properties. Finding B.3 is met, in
staff's opinion, as the proposed remodel complies with all zoning requirements and applicable development
standards. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance and 250 addition with the following
conditions:
1. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit for the property, the applicant will provide stamped
Engineered drawings indicating how the existing two-story garage can be structurally altered
to allow for the infill of the area on the lower level that is currently existing GRFA.
2. The applicant will obtain staff approval of the site and landscape plans prior to DRB review
of this application.
•
f:\everyone\pec\memos\drisco.212 6
r
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Develuru.ent Department
DATE: February 12, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for a Major Amendment to SDD No. 32 to allow for the
construction of an Employee Housing unit located at The Cornice Building,
362 Vail Valley Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: David Smith, represented by Tom Braun
Planner: George Ruther
1. BACKGROUND
The establishment of Special Development District (SDD) #32, the Cornice Building, was
approved by the Vail Town Council on April 5, 1994, ( Ordinance #7, Series of 1994). This
approval set development standards and requirements for the redeveluy?ent of the Cornice
Building located at 362 Vail Valley Drive. The expressed purpose for the creation of the Cornice
• Building SDD was to allow for greater flexibility in the redevelopment of the property and that
certain public benefits would be realized through the creation of the SDD.
As part of the original SDD approval, the developer agreed to provide three, permanently
restricted employee housing units. The units are to be located within the Town of Vail limits,
close to a Town of Vail bus route and are to be rented at reasonable market rates. Additionally,
the units are to always comply with the Town of Vail housing ordinance requirements, as may be
amended from time to time. Each of the three employee units are to be deed-restricted and
available for occupancy prior to a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy being issued for the
Cornice Building.
On May 26, 1994, the Town issued a building permit for the demolition of the original Cornice
Building and its subsequent reconstruction. Construction on the Cornice Building is nearly
complete, with only a few minor improvements in need of completion. To date, two of the three
required employee units have been completed and permanently restricted in accordance with the
original SDD approval. These include a new employee unit constructed within an existing duplex
in the Pitkin Creek Meadows area of East Vail, and a new employee unit located within 'a new
duplex in the Golfcourse neighborhood. The third employee unit was originally planned to be
located at the Vail Racquet Club. The applicant's plans to deed-restrict that unit did not work
out, and the applicant is proposing to construct the last of the three required units in the Cornice
Building.
0 F.\EVERYONE\PEClM OS\CORNICEFI2
II. DESCRIPTION OF i nv, REOUESTJ .
The applicant is proposing a Major Amendment to Special Devel?,Y..?ent District #32, in
accordance with Section 18.40.100, Amendment Procedures, of the Vail Municipal Code. A
Major Amendment is being proposed to allow for the construction of a Type III, Employee
Housing Unit within the Cornice Building, and to allow for greater flexibility in the outdoor
lighting requirements than is currently allowed by the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance.
Emvlovee Hous• a Unit
included within the ground level of the newly constructed Cornice Building is a crawl space of
approximately 259 square feet in size. The applicant is proposing to construct the new employee
unit within the crawl space area, as well as extend a portion of the building out underneath an
existing second-floor cantilever. When cv pleted, the total square footage of the ?..wloyee unit
will be approximately 387 square feet. The only changes to the exterior of the building will be the
in-fill of the area beneath the second-floor cantilever, the addition of three new windows on the
east elevation of the building and the installation of an entrance door with sidelights on the south
elevation. The applicant is proposing to match the exterior changes with the existing architecture
and building materials.
Once completed, the employee unit will be permanently deed-restricted in accordance with the
requirements of the original SDD approval and is intended to satisfiy the requirement as the third
employee unit.
The original approval of Special Development District #32 restricted density to one dwelling unit,
and limited the Total Allowable Gross Residential Floor Area on the property to 2,000 square
feet. With this application, the applicant is proposing to deviate from the original SDD approval.
The applicant is r,,,Yosing to increase the number of dwelling units on the property to 1.5, and
increase the Total Allowable Gross Residential Floor Area to 2,387 square feet.
The applicant is also proposing to deviate from the on-site parking requirement established by the
underlying zoning of High-Density Multi-Family (HDMF). According to the HDMF zone district,
75% of the required on-site parking must be enclosed within the main building. With this
proposal, the applicant is proposing to enclose 66% of the on-site parking within the main
building.
Qutdoor Ligliigg
The applicant is also proposing to amend Special Development District #32 to allow for greater
flexibility in the outdoor lighting regulations for the property. On May 18, 1993, the Vail Town
Council aj F.?,ved Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1993, setting forth standards for regulating outdoor
lighting in the Town of Vail. According to the approved Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, in part,
one (1) outdoor light source is allowed per one-thousand square feet of total lot area. In the
opinion of the applicant, it is not practical to be required to adhere to this requirement because of
FAEVERYONETEC M0S\CORNICE.F12' 2 0
the unusually small lot size of the Cornice Building property. As shown below, the total square
• footage of the Cornice Building property is 3,659 sq. ft. Based upon 3,659 sq. ft., the building is
allowed only four outdoor lights. According to the applicant, four outdoor lights are not enough
to adequately light the exterior of the building. The applicant would request that he be permitted
to install a total of twelve outdoor lights on the property. This would allow the property to be
adequately lit for safety and aesthetic purposes without resulting in the undesirable side effects of
too much outdoor lighting. The applicant is proposing to install twelve outdoor lights; seven of
which are recessed niche lights in the stairway and balcony walls, two are fully cut-off recessed
can lights installed in the soffit and three are surfaced mounted light fixtures. All of the proposed
light fixtures comply with the Source Lumens limitations of the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance. An
approval of this outdoor lighting request will void any previous approvals granted for lighting on
the property.
•
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
Address: 362 Vail Valley Drive
Zoning: Special Develupment District #32 *
Lot Size: 3,659 square feet/0.084 acres
ALLOWED
Setbacks: as indicated on the
approved development
plan
Height: 33 feet
Density: One (1) single-family
dwelling unit **
GRFA: 2,000 sq. ft.
Site
Coverage: 38% or 1,397 sq. ft.
Landscaping: 40% or 1,464 sq. ft.
EXISTING
Front: 13'
Sides: 2711'
Rear: 2.5'
33 feet
One (1) single-family
dwelling unit
2,000 sq. ft.
38% or 1,397 sq. ft.
40% or 1,464 sq. ft.
PROPOSED
no change
no change
1.5 dwelling units***
2,387 sq. ft.
no change
no change
0 F:\EVERYONE\PEC%IEMOS\CORMCE.F12 3
Outdoor
Lighting: One (1) outdoor light
source per one-thousand
square feet of lot area
fourteen outdoor
light sources
twelve outdoor light
sources as indicated
on the amended
development
plan.
Parking: Two (2) interior spaces Two (2) interior spaces Two (2) interior
spaces + one (1)
exterior space
* The underlying zoning for Special Development District #32 is High Density Multi-Family (EDMF).
* * According to the approved SDD, the maximum GRFA for the Cornice Building shall not exceed 2,000 square feet. This
figure is the maximum GRFA that will be allowed on the lot. An additional 250 square feet of GRFA, per Chapter 18.71 of
the Vail Municipal Code, shall not be allowed on this site, now or in the future. A 600 square foot _, jit for a two-car
garage shall be allowed in addition to the 2,000 square feet of GRFA allowed on the site. The red density for the
Cornice Building shall be one (1) single-family dwelling unit.
* * * According to Section 18.57.060(B)(3), Type-III Employee Housing Units, of the Vail Municipal Code, a Type III Employee
Housing Unit shall be counted as 0.5 dwelling units for the purpose of calculating density.
IV. SDD REVIEW CRITERIA
In reviewing the applicant's y.,.vosed Major Amendment to Special Develup...ent District #32,
the staff relied on several relevant planning documents to fv...alate a recommendation. The
Town of Vail Municipal Code and the Vail Village Master Plan were used to analize this
proposal.
Town of Vail Municipal Code
According to Section 18.40.020(C) of the Vail Municipal Code, a Major Amendment to an SDD
is defined as:
"any proposal to change uses; increase gross residential floor area; change the number of
dwelling or accomodation units; modify, enlarge, or expand any approved Special
Devel.,ru.ent District other than a minor amendment."
Staff has determined that, since the applicant is proposing to increase the total amount of GRFA
on the property from 2,000 square feet to 2,387 square feet, and increase the number of dwelling
units within the building ffv. one single-family to a single-family and a Type III employee
housing unit, this request is a Major SDD Amendment.
Section 18.40.080 of the Vail Municipal Code, Special Develup..ent District Design Criteria,
establishes nine criteria to be utilized by the Planning and Envir ..?. ental Commission when
•
•
F:\EVERYONE\PEC1&IAMOS\CORNICE.F12 4 0
evaluating the merits of Special Develuy,_..ent District proposals and/or amendments. The
• . following is an evaluation of the nine design criteria by staff:
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.
This design criteria is relevant to the applicant's proposed amendment to construct a Type
in ?....1,loyee housing unit in the existing building and to increase the total number of
outdoor lights on the properly than would otherwise be permitted. The construction of
the c,..Floyee unit will have minimal, if any, negative effects on the above-listed criteria.
The new unit will be constructed within the existing footprint of the building. Therefore,
the additional bulk and mass being added will not be readily noticable. The portion of the
employee unit constructed under the second-floor cantilever is designed to match the
existing architecture and fenestration of the building. The new front entry to the employee
unit will be slightly recessed to provide articulation and shadow/shade and to avoid the
creation of a large flat wall. All construction associated with the new employee unit will
be built with materials to match those existing on the building. The new construction will
be most visible from the streamwalk along the south side of the property.
Regarding the proposed exterior parking space, the applicant has proposed to increase the
amount of landscaping immediately adjacent to the parking space in order to mitigate any
• visual impact associated with a vehicle parked in the space. The applicant is proposing to
relocate three existing Red-Twig Dogwoods and replace them with three Mugho pines.
The Red-Twig Dogwoods will be replanted to the north of the parking space. The
property owner will continue to be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the
landscaping on the property as required by the original SDD approval.
In the staff's opinion, the additional outdoor lighting being proposed by the applicant will
not adversely affect adjacent y..,.,erties, nor the community in general. The request of the
applicant to be permitted to install twelve outdoor lights on the property, rather than four
as regulated by the Outdoor Lighting Ordinance, does not create a conflict with the intent
of the ordinance.
B. Uses, activity, and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable
relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
With regard to GRFA and density, the applicant is requesting an additional 387 square feet
of GRFA, and an increase in density of 0.5 dwelling units more than was originally
approved by the Town Council. The staff believes the proposed increases will be
compatible with surrounding uses and activities. Properties in the immediate vicinty are
zoned for higher density and more intensive use. Prior to the original Cornice Building
being demolished, one dwelling unit and three, studio-size apartments existed on the
• F.TVERYONETECIAMOS\CORNICE.F12 5
property, and at one time in the past, eight, studio-size apartments were on the property.
Additionally, an employee unit in this location will be attractive to persons working in the •
Village, as well as to persons working elsewhere in Town, due to the convenient access to
the Town's bus system.
As stated earlier, the staff is comfortable with the request for additional outdoor lighting.
The applicant is not requesting an exorbinant amount of lighting which may otherwise
adversely impact adjacent r.yYerties or result in undesirable side effects.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52.
An increase in GRFA and density will result in an increase in the parking requirement
associated with the property. Currently, the arr. Ved SDD allows for 2,000 square feet
of GRFA on the property. According to Chapter 18.52 of the Vail Municipal Code, the
parking requirement is two spaces. The existing garage cu..,.utly provides two enclosed
parking spaces and the driveway design will accomodate a third exterior space on the west
side of the building. According to the p.?operty's underlying zoning of HDMF, 75% of the
required parking shall be enclosed within the main building. With this proposal, 66% of
the required parking will be enclosed. After exploring other alternatives, staff is
comfortable allowing one exterior parking space on the jpwperty in the area identified on
the site plan. Modifying the existing garage to accommodate a third enclosed parking
space will cause significant structural constraints. The building is designed with a
structural beam running north-south through the garage to a supporting column
constructed where the new garage door would need to be placed. The only way to
provide a third enclosed parking space would be to completely reconstruct the gararge.
Allowing the applicant to pay-in-lieu of providing a parking space on-site does not
resolve the parking need generated by the employee unit. While it may be possible to
restrict any employee parking on the site, it creates an enforcement problem In the staff s
opinion, we would be creating a regulation that is difficult to enforce since it is likely the
tenant will have a vehicle and need to park it somewhere and it does not address guest
parking.
This design criteria is not applicable with regard to the proposed outdoor lighting, and
therefore, need not be addressed.
D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, To y?..
policies and Urban Design Plans.
Vail Villagg,Master Pign
Goals for Vail Village are addressed in the Vail Village Master Plan. Staff has identified
the following goals, objectives and policies as being relevant to this Major SDD
Amendment request:
•
F:TVERYONETECkNfEMOS\CORMCE.F12 6
Goal #1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique
• architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of
community and identity.
1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential
and commercial facilities.
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.
2.6 Objective: Encourage the devel.,l ent of affordable housing units
through the efforts of the private sector.
2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing units may be required as part of
any new or redevelup...ent project requesting density
over that allowed by existing zoning.
2.6.2 Policy: Employee housing shall be developed with
appropriate restrictions so as to insure their
availibility and affordability to the local work force.
The staff continues to believe that the overall redevelopment of the Cornice Building
• meets many of the goals, policies and objectives of the Town's adopted Master Plans.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the
property on which the Special Development District is propoesd.
There are no natural and/or geologic hazards, nor is the property effected by the Gore
Creek 100-year floodplain.
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.
The site plan and building design of the existing building will be altered minimally with this
proposal. Staff does not believe that the changes proposed are significant enough to effect
this criteria.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and
off-site traffic circulation.
Attached for reference is an on-site parking and circulation plan. The plan indicates the
location of the exterior parking space for the employee unit and the turning movements
required to get vehicles out of the garage spaces without needing to back out on to Vail
• Valley Drive. This plan has been reviewed and approved by Greg Hall, the Town
F:\EVERYONETECtAIBMOS\CORMCEFI2 7
Engineer.
It does not appear that the addition of an employee unit on the property will have any
negative impacts on the traffic flow on Vail Valley Drive. The driveway was originally
constructed far enough fr.,. the nearby intersection to insure adequate sight lines for
vehicles leaving the property.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and
preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
Given the scope of this p..?rosal, staff believes there will be minimal, if any, impacts on the
above-ref,,.,uced criteria. The applicant has agreed to mitigate any visual impacts of the
proposed exterior parking space by increasing the amount of landscaping along the west
side of the property. As with the original approval, 40% of the site will continue to be
maintained as landscaping.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and
efficient relationship throughout the development of the Special Development
District.
The above-referenced criteria is not applicable to this application.
•
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends a proval of the r,.Yosed Major Amendment to Special Devel,,.F ent District
#32, the Cornice Building. We find that the applicant's proposal to construct a Type III employee
housing unit and increase density to 1.5 dwelling units in the Cornice Building, increase the Total
Allowable Gross Residential Floor Area on the property to 2,387 square feet from 2,000 square
feet, r.,, vide 66% of the on-site parking enclosed in the main building rather than the 75%
required by the underlying zoning, and be permitted to install twelve outdoor lights on the
FAV,erty, are all in c?,..vliance with the Town of Vail Municipal Code in general, and specifically,
meets the goals and objectives of the Special Develo.F ..ent District as described in this
memorandum.
is
F:\EVIItYONEMC\AIEMOS\CORNICE.F12 8
•
•
A I/ BRAUN ASSOCIATES, INC..
PLANNING ant COMMUNI'I Y DEVELOPMENT
February 8, 1996
Gearge Ruther
Town, of Vail
75 %uth Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
RE: Cornice Building
Drar George:
Enclosed you will find d revised set of plans for the Cornice Building SJA) amendment. The
following changes have been made:
1) Plans lave be on labeled "1996 SDD Ammndmont-Addition of EllU,,
2) Notes have been added indicating three red-twig dogwoods to be replaced by three mugo
(dogwoods to be relocated un sitc)
3) Exterior lighting is indicated on building elevations, and
4) The south elevation has been modified to reflect the fcnwUratiori inclicrdLud un the ntaut 1CVCI
floor plan.
I have discussed the lighting issue with Jim and we have made the following changes:
I) One of the small decorative lamps mounted on the column at the main entry to the building
will be removed.
2) A small wall mounted lamp located at the man-door to the garage will be removed.
3) All other lights to remain, these lights include:
• Four recessed safety lights located on the main exterior stairway,
• Three: ru;e sed safety lights located on the second level balcony,
• Two wall-mounted decorative lamps located on the west elevation,
• Two rect,-ssed "cans" locate in the soffit above the garage, and
• nne %Tnall devnrat?vc. lamp mounted on the miumn at the main entry to the building.
The building will have a total of twelve exterior lights, however it is important to note that
seven of these lights are recessed safey lights that arr: virti?, lly tmnoticrahle from off the
site. There will now be only five surface mounted light fixtures, two of which are recessed
cans.
i hope this information is acceptable to you and the rest of the staff. Thanks for the opportunity to
resolve this issue via the SDD process. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions.
Siac:efely,
Thomas A. Braun. AICP
Minturn Ironworks Building
• 201 Main Street, 2nd floor
Port Office Box 776
Minturn, Colorado 81645
Phone - 9M.SZ75797
F" - 970,8Z7.5507
TOTRL P.01
t C5,'
/stir / ? ? _ ', :••t?.
}. LNG WA XD oNrw OR GRMf ?.
. A'?l1+1 1 9 1 A1NK wp yf`.iC
man
L`Xltifl- ( law atwln
8'aFl?c. 41-n' x1W?E fStw&wutJV myCr./mev/cn MK • ? .?? / / / ? / •? ? ?' ?.tIvRTH
Arl
IP' IL'IY.ES? 4N01r! ??MNiE l ?• /// /?? / / /i i ?? .r:
/
aim
><Igio ?? AM04OMCNT; A44.-MOW OP R..H.?.L t r
1
I?cunxY two
DAVID W LLIAM
--d? .
?• •U ?'Y " V ??. .. ._. ... .. .. ?.... .... ... .r ....... . .. ...... .. u* .. y ;?? ?. ,ms's.: Y
•
U G A-T IN G LV-GE N x)
Re cessc2l Cwn l..'?9?t
1')%(, 'SO P AME>4PMe &-M, .- VrrioM OF E ?4 U-
Fmag N+LN 1116P
'Ll .11 -1
r
%
O? -?.+o l1? '
r
?• q s
a?t?"NEwttr
1? [
NILW ftaftva- W1y.9- AMO
FT0.,eynenCr'k;w+, wac.+ queY,wa
saiM EL wnON
JAN24. 1494
DAVID WILLIAM HAASE ASSOCIATES
Iry/0MN0Y1lW0111V? NpNAlIt10NT? I1NN01??1?11 11e?IM?MM
&vwawu Y.
P
1
.41?. ..1..1? ?••' n .l. \A• 1.. 1 1 a
1 _
t
?v?.Ni (,E P?t.ll l_Dllly
1,"& spa i mawomm . Awrri a1= a H L.
PF$P11f4RY 1411)Or
L
'??. ? .?•W O \ S' 1
.1 A
w 1
'
M ,
0.
M:
0
11
r ?
j
\' 1 t
o, .
i
2
WEST ELEVATION
SUt_6 'Ru I'•d ti
JAN 24. 194 4
DAVID WILLIAM HAASE ASSOCIATES
1111011ANOVNWO'IVf MO??AM1011h,ILLIN01??N11 pMIM?NM
•
•
,V
P-7
1
C'
? 1.
?. -
i
{
LpR..?....IIL? ?1--D1Nv o nr?,?s
??ro goo ee.?r.?+?M?.rs'? saurr?v..? >_
P is t WHO
jk:
j., A
- tt-??
- ont ??l
u1 G+ve, Mr-I. ar
kJ cc
,jet=',', ?•^ ?,? ?' '
... r job ._. t{ u...... NOM EtFVAT10N
JAN24{I?j4
. DA aLr HNQK s • SO 004
mqf, 16 pu ~owpt4P-w T, -wrr AA e7F B H LL
r-004t"AA-Y w9u
0
yl
??JLA.A. -,L- %4AA La-d A-.. AA... t--!, 1. AL,...ww..A IA
?, ti.'L_._..... . u......l.Mt..L ? ?A._.... 1 ? .L,a A .
•l w Aid -. 4- •L..tA - ].. .._ _.aa. L. ...A A . ..
•-LA.% .,.
?lA.i .A A.A..L_ ti ik ..l
N M t .MA..il....v?..JIL,.
A 1A 1/ t. IL r.
.
l ?.?.... ` .--
f.r-U 0.
- - 1 ..--
_
} J c
4w 0
\ II
t _
Ile.
NEW G%0-V*40R. MW.a-
-m m ^.m.+4 r-Ke--Tuta
b 0
1`On
F?ENI419N4 -- -
m tow w+uu6,
!vjNw wo. ffe"r
.J 1 x co%p C45
ENST ELEVATION
JANZ1. licit
DAVID WILLIAM HAASE ASSOCIATES
m?w?MOlrwwoMlrt rwN•?wn?,n?wtoa?a prNw+w
• i
.n
G??-JI(?E E?t11L.D1??C?
Y/9(I ADO AHEIJDMR? A4XqTj? OF rM LL
f???`I 174 V
CARKA „I:..,
W;I%d ,
AN M.1".4 -'
one
•. 1? ..1;r }? Sy..
0
S7FIAL
p'0
n4v. SI m s r
-Ir
1-1000' ot
.0000"
/ /' ,'00-
le,
i // ,? /
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 12, 1996
RE: A request for an amendment to Chapter 18.18 (Medium-Density Multiple-Family
(MDMF) District), Section 18.18.090 (Density Control) of the Vail Municipal Code,
adding the density limitation of 18 dwelling units per acre of buildable site area.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic F. Mauriello
•
I. INTRODUCTION
The Community Development Department staff discovered that when Ordinance No. 16, Series
of 1991, was adopted it inadvertently omitted the density provisions which limit the density in the
district to a maximum of eighteen (18) dwelling units per acre of buildable site area. Staff is
proposing this amendment to correct this oversight.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A draft ordinance is attached showing the proposed amendment. Staff recommends that the
Planning and Environmental Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendment to
the Town Council.
f:\everyone\pec\m dmford.212
is
ORDINANCE NO.
Series of 1996
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.18, SECTION 18.18.090 DENSITY
CONTROL, MEDIUM-DENSITY MULTIPLE-FAMILY (MDMF) DISTRICT OF THE
VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.18, Section 18.18.090, of the Vail Municipal Code describes the
Density Control of the Medium-Density Multiple-Family Zone District; and
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1991, inadvertently omitted previously existing
language regarding density control; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail has
recommended approval of the amendment to Chapter 18.18 of the Vail Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the interest of the public health, safety, and
welfare to amend said Chapter of the Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
r
Section 1. •
Chapter 18.18, Section 18.18.090, of the Vail Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
18.18.090 Density control.
A. Not more than thirty-five square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be
permitted for each one hundred square feet of buildable site area, provided however, that
single family and two-family dwelling units constructed in the Medium Density Residential
District shall be entitled to an additional two hundred twenty-five square feet of GRFA per
constructed dwelling unit. Total density shall not exceed eighteen dwelling units peracr:
of-buildable site area.
(Note: -REMAINDER OF SECTION REMAINS UNCHANGED")
Section,
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason
held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each
part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one
or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. •
Section 3.
04 The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and
proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 4.
The amendment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as, provided in this ordinance shall
not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the
effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as
commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision
hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless
expressly stated herein.
Section 5.
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repeater shall not be construed to revise
any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE
IN FULL, this day of , 1996. A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held
at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the _ day of
, 1996, in the Municipal Building of the Town.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
0 Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ, ADOPTED AND ENACTED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED 40
PUBLISHED (IN FULL) (BY TITLE ONLY) THIS DAY OF 1996.
Robert W. Armour, Mayor
ATTEST:
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
Il-wv WmNndmlad.98
0
WPIOTIbFEB 1190
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 12, 1996
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT:
Greg Moffet Dalton Williams Mike Mollica
Greg Amsden Jim Curnutte
Henry Pratt George Ruther
Jeff Bowen Judy Rodriguez
Kevin Deighan
Public Hearing 2:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 pm.
All were present except Dalton Williams.
1. A request for a Minor SDD Amendment to allow for changes to the development plan
located at Millrace Phase 3, 1335 Westhaven Drive/Development Area A of the Glen
Lyon SDD (SDD No. 4).
Applicant: Steve Riden representing Gregory Walton
Planner: Jim Curnutte
• Jim Curnutte gave an overview and said that staff recommended approval.
Greg Moffet asked if there was any public input.
Jeff Bowen made motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo.
Kevin Deighan seconded the motion.
Henry Pratt asked if we were upholding the. staff's approval of the request.
Jim Curnutte said yes.
Jeff Bowen rephrased his motion to state approval of the request with the conditions stated in the
staff memo.
Greg Moffet asked if there was any discussion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 12, 1996 1
low K a dillIM0114
2. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion
to an existing unit and a front yard variance to allow for a garage to be located in a front
setback in association with the construction of a new primary residence located at 325
Forest Road/Lot 18, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: Steve Riden representing Tim Drisko
Planner: Jim Curnutte
Jim Curnutte gave an overview of the staff memorandum.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Steve Riden, representing Tim Drisko, showed the PEC members a new landscape plan and
explained the retaining walls and how they would affect the existing trees. He. stated that the
applicant was also looking at the ramifications of filling in under the garage. He reminded the
PEC that the applicant is under the height restriction and not pushing the envelope and is also
under the maximum grade of the driveway.
Henry Pratt stated, as he said in the worksession, he likes the design of the garage entrance. He
is not comfortable with the house that close to the property line and asked if it couldn't be pushed
back 4'. He is still worried about the tree, in front of the existing residence, surviving with the
retaining wall as planned. He would like to see a condition of approval based on the tree living or
being replaced with one of the same size, which might be impossible.
Steve Riden suggested that the new retaining wall could be built behind the existing one and
then the old one removed after construction.
Henry Pratt said that might work.
Jeff Bowen asked what would happen if the applicant pushed it back by 2'?
Steve Riden said the farther down on the site he goes, height would then become an issue.
Jeff Bowen agreed with Henry and said just 6" from the front property line is a problem.
-Steve Riden said. perhaps we could go back a foot.
Kevin Deighan and Greg Amsden had no comment.
Greg Moffet said thank you to Steve Riden and to keep an eye on that corner of the lot and that
two out of three items being below the maximums is a good thing.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the request as per the staff memorandum.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
Greg Moffet asked if there was any discussion. There was none.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
•
is
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 12, 1996 2
3. A request for a Major Amendment to SDD No. 32 to allow for the construction of an
Employee Housing unit located at The Cornice Building, 362 Vail Valley Drive/Part of
Tract B, Vail Village 1 st Filing.
Applicant: David Smith
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave an overview and noted that on page 8 of the memo, staff recommended
approval, since the request met the goals and objectives of the SDD.
Tom Braun, representing the owner, can't find a better place for an EHU. To keep an EHU on
the property would be a wonderful thing.
Kevin Deighan had no problem with the addition of lighting in the applicant's request, but has
concerns with parking. It is a difficult situation and will only get more difficult.
Tom Braun explained where the third parking space will'be for the EHU and when there are no
cars in the other spaces, it is easy to turn around. Based on the speed limit of the road and sight
lines, it works. We can't insure the PEC how internally it will work; who will have parties with
extra cars, etc. The requirement is for three spaces. It is possible to back out, but the only
potential problem is backing out in the direction to go to Gold Peak.
Greg Amsden said there is less chance of backing out with the addition of the EHU. He asked
why the applicant choose not to locate the EHU off-site.
Tom Braun said the applicant had difficulty in finding off-site units available for an EHU.
• Henry Pratt agrees with Greg Amsden that the parking doesn't work. He wished we could find an
alternative to employee parking. If a guest pulls in, the employee can't pull out. A parking pass
by the Town is not ok with the staff because of the enforcement issue.
Tom Braun said the code does not require cars to drive out, rather than backing out. There are
not a lot of choices.
Jeff Bowen said Henry Pratt and Greg Amsden described his thoughts. Jeff has serious
problems with this use on this particular property. The potential problem is that it is too crammed
up. He has a problem with the EHU in the lower area from an architectural standpoint, although
he is a strong supporter of in-town employee housing. He had no problem with the lighting
addition.
Greg Moffet said that the lighting is fine. Unlike the other PEC members, he likes filling in the
cantilevered portion of the building with employee housing. He feels the parking problem will
resolve itself. The owner may even buy a parking pass for the employee if it becomes a problem.
He did ask if the parking space could be lengthened.
Greg Moffet said he would vote for approval on this request, if the parking space could be fixed.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 12, 1996 3
Tom Braun mentioned that in the past there have been 8 and 4 units located on-site without
parking at all. Perhaps there should be.no cars on-site for the employee. He doubts that a guest
and an EHU space is ok on a 3,600 sq. ft piece of ground. It may cause difficulties or conflicts at
certain times, such as when there are parties, etc. It is not mandated in the zoning code. There
are adequate sight lines. The benefits outweigh the parking problem. The hill on the road slows
down traffic. Tom mentioned that the site had been approved with a 3-car garage in the past. In
the past there were units that were only 202 sq. ft. small boxes.
Jim Curnutte noted that the units that existed on the property had expiration dates.
Tom Braun mentioned that there would be 3 EHU's in perpetuity with approval of this request.
Henry Pratt said it would be worth putting a no car parking restriction on the EHU unit. It wouldn't
have to be enforced.
Mike Mollica said there is a requirement that the owner do a report on an annual basis. We
could have the owner sign an affidavit. Mike has a problem with attaching a condition that can't
be enforced.
Henry Pratt said it forces the employee to park elsewhere.
Mike Mollica advised then to do away with the space and to add landscaping.
Henry Pratt thought a threat would be enough for enforcement.
Greg Amsden said he would not be voting on this request because of a possible future conflict.
George Ruther added for the record that he wanted to make it clear that requesting the 12 •
exterior lights would make any previous lighting approval null and void.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to deny the request regarding the EHU but approve the lighting.
There was no second to the motion.
Jeff Bowen then made a motion that the request for the EHU be recommended to go to Council
with the condition that the EHU not be available for sale.
Greg Moffet seconded the motion.
Greg Moffet asked if there was a passage into the main dwelling from the EHU.
Tom Braun said that there was a passage through the garage because the washer and dryer
were located there.
Henry Pratt asked if there was a restriction on the lightposts for the lights
George Ruther noted that the amended development plan becomes the document of record.
Jeff amended his motion by stating that the outdoor lighting be modified as stated in the memo.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 12, 1996 4
Mike Mollica stated that if a door from the EHU into the garage connecting the two units is not
appropriate, it should be a condition that it be removed.
Jeff Bowen amended his motion to include the removal of the interior door.
Greg Moffet seconded the motion.
The motion passed with a vote of 3-1-1, with Jeff Bowen opposed and Greg Amsden abstaining.
4. An Amendment to the Zoning Code, Medium-Density Multi-Family District, adding a
provision limiting the density to eighteen dwelling units per acre of buildable site area.
This provision was inadvertently omitted from Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1991.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Mike Mollica gave an overview on behalf of Dominic Mauriello. Because an inadvertent error
was made, the corrected ordinance needed to go to PEC and then to Council.
Greg Moffet asked if there were any questions or public comment.
Jeff Bowen made a motion that the Ordinance be recommended for approval in accordance with
the staff memo.
Henry Pratt seconded the motion.
. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
5. A request for an interior residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an
interior storage area, located at 1881 Lionsridge Loop #25/Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge 2nd
Filing.
Applicant: Matt King
Planner: Lauren Waterton
STAFF APPROVED
6. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion
to an existing single family residence located at 2299 Chamonix Lane/Lot 7, Block A, Vail
Das Schone Filing #1.
Applicant: Frank D. D'Alessio
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED TO MARCH 11, 1996
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 12, 1996
5
7. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to numerous sections of
The Town of Vail Municipal Code, including but not limited to Titles 2, 16, & 18 to allow
for modifications to the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Randy Stouder
TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 26,1996
8. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion
to the secondary residence located at 275 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 40, Block 7, Vail Village
First Filing.
Applicant: Steve Berkowitz
Planner: Randy Stouder
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
Jeff Bowen made a motion that items 6 and 7 be tabled.
Kevin Deighan seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
9. Information Update - Susan
Mike Mollica, on behalf of Susan Connelly, said there was no information update.
10. Approval of January 22, 1996 PEC minutes.
Greg Moffet had a change in the minutes on page 6 in the 9th paragraph to change from Greg
Moffet to Greg Amsden.
Jeff Bowen had a change on page 5 of the minutes to strike the last sentence before item #6.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the January 22, 1996 PEC minutes as changed.
Kevin Deighan seconded the motion.
The minutes were approved as changed by a vote of 5-0.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Henry Pratt seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
The meeting adjourned at 2:48.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 12, 1996
6
•
•