Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0518 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 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on May 18, 1998, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow a US West Wireless and Sprint Spectrum facility, located at 160 Mountain Bell RoadlUnplatted (on the existing Mountain Bell tower). Applicant: US West Communications, represented by Jill Jelinek of Liberty Wirestar. Planner: Christie Barton A request for a side setback variance, to allow for an existing garage in the side setback to be converted to GRFA, located at 5119 Black Bear Lane/Lot 8, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Dr. Ronald Yaros, represented by John Perkins Planner: George Ruther A proposal to amend the zoning regulations to allow single-family and two-family structures to expand by 500 sq. ft. or less in allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), without compliance with certain design requirements; allowing interior GRFA conversions for multiple- family structures; reorganizing the conditional use section of the Zoning Regulations; and allowing Type II Employee Housing Units as a permitted use rather than a conditional use in Single-Family, Two-Family and Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office 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- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published May 1, 1998 in the Vail Trail. r+ yi T0W7VOFVA1L 4 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Updated 5J12 gam Monday, May 18, 1998 AGENDA Proiect Orientation / LUNCH - Community Develooment Deoartment 12:30p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:00 P.M. 1. US West - 160 Mountain Bell Road 2. Yaros - 5119 Black Bear Lane 3. Golden Bear Store - 286 Bridge Street Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow a US West Wireless and Sprint Spectrum facility, located at 160 Mountain Bell Road/Unplatted (on the existing Mountain Bell tower). Applicant: US West Communications, represented by Jill Jelinek of Liberty Wirestar. Planner: Christie Barton 2. A request for a side setback variance, to allow for an existing garage in the side setback to be converted to GRFA, located at 5119 Black Bear Lane/Lot 8, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Dr. Ronald Yaros, represented by John Perkins Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for a minor CC1 exterior alteration, to allow for a change to previously approved plans, located at 286 Bridge Street, A & D Building/Lots A & B and Part of C, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Lee Kirch, Golden Bear Store Planner: George Ruther Ll T0WNV YACL ? 1 Updated 5/12 Sam 4. A proposal to amend the zoning regulations to allow single-family and two-family structures to expand by 500 sq. ft. or less in allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), without compliance with certain design requirements; allowing interior GRFA conversions for multiple-family structures; reorganizing the conditional use section of the Zoning Regulations; and allowing Type II Employee Housing Units as a permitted use rather than a conditional use in Single-Family, Two-Family and Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL JUNE 8, 1998 5. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JUNE 8, 1998 6. Information Update 7. Approval of May 11, 1998 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office 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 479-2358, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published May 15, 1998 in the Vail Trail. 2 0 Updated 5118 4pm PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, May 18, 1998 FINAL AGENDA Project Orientation / LUNCH - Community Develooment Department MEMBERS PRESENT Greg Moffet John Schofield Galen Aasland Diane Golden Ann Bishop Brian Doyon Tom Weber Site Visits : 1. US West - 160 Mountain Bell Road 2. Yaros - 5119 Black Bear Lane 3. Golden Bear Store - 286 Bridge Street Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. 12:38p.m. 1:00 P.M. Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow a US West Wireless and Sprint Spectrum facility, located at 160 Mountain Bell Road/Unplatted (on the existing Mountain Bell tower). Applicant: US West Communications, represented by Jill Jelinek of Liberty Wirestar. Planner: Christie Barton MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7-0 APPROVAL WITH 2 CONDITIONS: That the applicant provide a site specific hazard report before issuance of a Building Permit for the project. 2. That the DRB approve the shed. MEMBERS ABSENT 7OWNO*VAIL Updated 5/18 4pm 2. A request for a side setback variance, to allow for an existing garage in the side setback to be converted to GRFA, located at 5119 Black Bear Lane/Lot 8, Block 2, Gore Greek Subdivision, Applicant: Dr. Ronald Yaros, represented by John Perkins Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Brian Doyon SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED - With direction to the DRB to pay special attention to the tree mitigation. 3. A request for a minor CG1 exterior alteration, to allow for a change to previously approved plans, located at 286 Bridge Street, A & D Building/Lots A & B and Part of C, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Lee Kirch, Golden Bear Store Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 5-2 (Tom Weber and Brian Doyon opposed) APPROVED AS IT RELATES TO THE NORTH ELEVATION WITH 6 CONDITIONS - With a recommendation for staff to give the applicant some flexibility: That a public way permit and a revocable right-of-way permit be executed prior to issuance of a building permit. The public way permit application shall be accompanied by a construction fencing, traffic control, and staging plan. These plans must be reviewed and approved by Public Works and Community Development staff. The applicant shall coordinate and receive approval for all final grading plans for the paver/drain pan repair work from Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shalt also coordinate plans to direct rooftop run-off into the storm sewer system with Public Works. 2. That the applicant prepare and submit a detailed exterior lighting plan for review and approval by the DRB prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 3. That the applicant provide a minimum of two streetscape benches along Gore Creek Drive/Bridge Street prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. That the applicant coordinate irrigation plans and plant material selection decisions with Todd Oppenheimer at Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. On-going maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be required of the applicant. Final Town review and approval of landscaping around the Fire Department connection shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. That payment of the parking pay-in-lieu fee shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit. 2 Updated 5118 4pm 6. That a gable roof form be designed into the proposal over the large display window on the north elevation, to break-up the horizontal eaveline and to enhance the appearance of the improvements. 4. A proposal to amend the zoning regulations to allow single-family and two-family structures to expand by 500 sq. ft. or less in allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), without compliance with certain design requirements allowing interior GRFA conversions for multiple-family structures; reorganizing the conditional use section of the Zoning Regulations; and allowing Type II Employee Housing Units as a permitted use rather than a conditional use in Single-Family, Two-Family and Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL JUNE 8, 1998 5. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner. George Ruther is TABLED UNTIL JUNE 8, 1998 6. Information Update 7. Approval of May 11, 1998 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office 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 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department If MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 18, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for wireless communication antennas with equipment shelter, located at the Mountain Bell tower, 169 N. Frontage Road/ unplatted. Applicant: US West Wireless & Sprint Spectrum, represented by Jill Jelinek of Liberty Wirestar Planner: Christie Barton 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant proposes to install six panel antennas mounted to the existing Mountain Bell tower. The antennas will be painted to match the tower. The equipment shed will also be designed to blend into the background and will not be visible from the frontage road. The construction of the shed will not involve any additional site disturbance, but will be cantilevered over existing concrete areas. The shed will be constructed of cedar siding with a forest green roof to blend into the background. Cellular services and antennas are considered a public utility or service requiring a conditional use permit in this zone district. The proposal includes the installation of 6 panel antennas and a 16' x 18' x 10' equipment shed located on the north side of the existing tower. The employees will snowshoe into the shed in the winter to maintain security, as US West Communications is concerned with the security of the facility. See proposed plans and photos attached. It. ZONING ANALYSIS The subject property is zoned General Use (GU) District. According to Chapter 9C of the Zoning Code, "Public Utility Installations" can be permitted in the GU zone district as a conditional use. Development standards are determined by the PEC. This proposal will add 240 sq. ft. to an existing 8405 sq. ft. of site coverage for a total of 18%. Ill. CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Title 12 Chapter 16, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. TOWN OF Al Staff believes that the proposed use is compatible with the existing telecommunications use, and is generally consistent with the purpose of this zone district . The antennas will be painted a flat (non-reflective) tan to blend in with the color of the existing tower. Staff believes that it is advantageous to accommodate several telecommunications facilities in one location, rather than having many towers throughout the town. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes there will be no impact on the above-referenced issues but will create a benefit in the form of providing additional telecommunication services. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes there will be no impact on the above-referenced issues as the facility will be visited once per month for maintenance purposes. Utilizing an existing structure further reduces impact as the access road is already maintained for the primary use of the facility. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. Staff believes the proposed equipment building has been designed in a way to minimize any detrimental effects. The proposed panel antennas should have little or no effect on surrounding properties and uses and provides for co-location of telecommunication facilities on the same structure. B. Findinas The Plannino and Environmontal Commission ._hall make the following findings before arantinn a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit based on the criteria discussed above, subject to the following findings: 1, That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the-purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purpose of the General Use zone district. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable previsions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. The recommendation is also subject to the following condition: That the applicant provide a site specific hazard report before issuance of a Building Permit for the project. F:\EVERYONE\P EC\MEMOS\98\USwEST.518 E Ll E 0 I f I f V t 3 UA l \ f S.-- PioW Jj , out Ll "0, << mq , 3s VS1 1,Q i MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 18, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance, to allow for a residential addition to the Yaros residence, located at 5119 Black Bear Lane/Lot 8, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Dr. Ronald Yaros, represented by John Perkins Planner: George Ruther DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a side setback variance to allow for the conversion of an existing garage, located in the sideyard setback to Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA). According to the official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the applicant's property is zoned Two-Family Residential. Pursuant to Section 12-6C-6 (Setbacks) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the minimum side setback for a structure zoned Two-Family Residential shall be 15 feet. The applicant is proposing to convert an existing garage to GRFA and subsequently construct a new front entry addition and a 545 square foot garage. The new front entry addition and garage will be located within the required building envelope on the property, and therefore, not require a variance approval. Pursuant to Section 12-8-5 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the existing garage located in the required sideyard setback is a legal, non-conforming situation. In order for the applicant to convert the garage to GRFA (change the use), a variance must be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. According to the plans proposed by the applicant, approximately 19 sq. ft. of the existing garage area is located in the required sideyard setback. Therefore, a variance allowing 19 sq. ft. of GRFA in the required sideyard setback must be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission to allow the applicant to proceed with their proposed plans. Upon review of the Town file by staff, it is not clear as to why the existing structure was built within the 15' required side setback. It has been suggested by the applicant's representative, during prior applications for development on this site, that a possible surveying error took place during the siting process of the residence prior to construction. This presumption has not been substantiated by staff. 11. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 11, 14.4 sq. ft. / 0.253 acre Zoning: Two-Family Residential 0 f:\everyo n e\pec\m e m os\ya ros. 518 TOWNOFYAIL Standard Allowed Existina Prooosed GRFA: 3,179 sq. ft. 1,681 sq. ft. 3,065 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 2,196 sq. ft. NIA 2,196 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 40' 20' Side: 15715' 37.5' 2075.5' Rear: 15' 42' NIC Parking: 3 spaces (required) 3 spaces 3 spaces Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 12-17-6, Variance Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested side 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. Staff believes the applicant's request for a sideyard setback variance will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity of the Yaros residence. Since the applicant is proposing to convert an existing garage, which is already constructed in the sideyard setback to GRFA, and not proposing to build an additional structure in the setback, staff believes that the effects of the variance will be minimal. 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 is requesting the minimum amount of deviation from the sideyard setback standard to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. The existing residence is already constructed in the setback and the current proposal only proposes to convert existing garage area to GRFA. Pursuant to the non-conforming use section of the Municipal Code, in order for the conversion of garage area to GRFA to take place, a variance approval must be granted. Staff does not believe that an approval of the applicant's variance request will result in a grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the existence of the existing residence in the required sideyard setback is a unique circumstance, which warrants the granting of the variance request, f:\everyone\pec\memos\yaros.518 2 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 variance will have little, if any, effect on these factors. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followino findinas before arantina 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 and 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance, to allow for the conversion of existing garage area to GRFA. Staff believes the applicant's variance request meets the criteria and findings, as outlined in Section 111. of this memorandum. Specifically, staff believes: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two-Family Residential Zone 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 of the Yaros residence. 3. There are exceptions and extraordinary circumstances and conditions applicable to the applicant's site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two-Family Residential Zone District. Specifically, staff Ll f:\everyone\pec\memos\yaros.518 3 believes that the location of the existing structure in the required sideyard setback, and the fact that the applicant will not be increasing the existing legal non-conformity, but instead, simply converting an existing garage to GRFA and subsequently constructing a new garage and front entry addition within the required building envelope is a practical difficulty. Should the Planning and Environmental choose to grant an approval of the applicant's variance request, staff would recommend the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following findings: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two-Family Residential Zone 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. 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. 4. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. f:\everyone\pec\memos\yaros.518 4 Greg Moffet seconded the motion as amended. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 5-0-1. Henry Pratt abstained. 5. A request, for a setback variance to allow for an addition to the existing residence located at 5119 Black Bear Lane/Lot 8, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Ron and Chris Yaros Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request with a change of 4 112' setback instead of the 4' as stated in the Memorandum. Staff was recommending denial. George pointed out that an unfavorable letter was received from a neighbor to the east of the lot in question. Mr. Yaros also presented George with a letter in support of the side setback variance. Ron Yaros, the applicant, stated he has spent a lot of time trying to enlarge his home using an old survey. The present survey was different from the one he used and shows all the lots were shifted in the subdivision. John Perkins, the project architect, explained that Ron wanted an additional bath with the new bedroom. It just made sense to expand the living room to the northwest. The breakfast nook was structurally necessary to support the new bathroom and fixtures. John Perkins said they could add onto the other side, however it would detract from the front entry of the house. Ron Yaros mentioned to add onto the other side of the house you would have to put plumbing in where no plumbing exists. Marty Sullivan, representing the adjacent Wren House, said that the Wren House had no problem with it at all. John Perkins stated to move the addition to other side was a hardship, due to the location of the trees. Jeff Bowen asked how long the applicant has lived there and why he didn't have a survey of the lot. Ron Yaros said 10-11 years and that he had no survey. Greg Amsden said he doesn't think it is necessary to encroach into the setback. Jeff Bowen said that setbacks are important and the applicant is already into the setback. To further encroach is not something he can agree to. Greg Moffet mentioned that setbacks are there for a reason. Henry Pratt agrees with the others and that it increases the pressure on Lot 9 and also adding GRFA in a setback constitutes a special priveledge. It's unfortunate, since it's an improvement. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 14, 1995 Kevin Deighan said a more appealing plan doesn't constitute a hardship. John Perkins said because of the interior traffic flow there is not another way to design this addition. Bob Armour said given the Town's rules, there is not a hardship. Under the guidelines and codes we can't come up with a hardship. There exists a non-conforming situation. Greg Amsden suggested tabling this indefinitely. Jo Pcrkit?a said-Ron could-h?i--? deck-wh ch could,, go ,10' im?jthe_side stetback. Henry Pratt suggested converting the garage and building a new gura?c.' Mike Mollic\ ?- _ a said to table it to a specific dat+;;. Jeff Bowen made a motion that it be tabled to the second meeting in September. Bob Armour said it would give the applicant time to withdraw since PEC does not look favorably on this application'. Jeff Bowen amended his motion to table the request to the second meeting in October. Bob Armour seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 6. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for an addition to the Town of Vail Public Works Administration Building and a renovation to the Transportation and Fleet Maintenance Buildings located at 1309 Vail Valley Drive/on an unplatted tract, located north of Vail Village, Eighth Filing. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen briefly gave an overview with the criteria. Staff feels there are four key criteria that are quite significant. Staff would like to see a better landscaping transition around the snow dump. 29 spruce need to be relocated and an adequate transition between the older and newer, part of the berm. Staff would like to see housing on the site. Staff is recommending approval, with the conditions in the memorandum. Bob Armour asked for questions on the following: Guest parking, landscaping, lighting and details. Bob Armour would like an identification sign for Phase 1 . Larry Grafel wanted the sign to be interior rather than on the Frontage Rd. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes .9 August 14, 1995 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 18, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a minor exterior alteration in Commercial Core I to allow for changes to the previously approved front entry addition plans to the Golden Bear Store, located within the A & D Building, at 286 Bridge Street/Lots A & B and Part of C, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Lee Hollis/Golden Bear Store Planner: George Ruther BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST On October 27, 1997, the applicant appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) with a request for a minor exterior alteration and a site coverage variance. Upon review of the criteria and consideration of the factors outlined in the Municipal Code, the PEC unanimously approved the applicant's request with several conditions. In deciding upon the request, the PEC found that the proposed improvements to the Golden Bear Store complied with the minor exterior alteration criteria and that the site coverage variance did not result in a grant of special privilege, would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the strict and literal interpretation of the site coverage regulation would result in a practical difficulty upon the applicant inconsistent with the Municipal Code. A copy of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated October 27, 1997, and a copy of the approved October 27 meeting minutes have been attached for reference. On January 12, 1998, the applicant again appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) with a similar request. Again, upon review of the criteria and consideration of the factors outlined in the Municipal Code, the PEC unanimously approved the applicant's request. The changes to the January 12, 1998, proposal were in response to direction the applicant received on November 5, 1997, when the applicant appeared before the Design Review Board (DRB) for consideration of their request. A copy of the January 12, 1998 Planning and Environmental Commission memorandum and the approved January 12 meeting minutes have been attached for reference. On April 20, 1998, the Town of Vail Community Development Department issued a building permit to allow for the construction of the improvements approved on January 12, 1998. The issuance of the building permit was conditioned upon the applicant agreeing to complete all the work indicated on the January 12, 1998 approved plans, should the current request be denied by the PEC and/or the DRB. E TO0*YA10 4 The applicant has again made changes to the previously approved plans. The majority of the changes to the previously approved plans appear along the north elevation of the building. According to the applicant, the changes are necessitated by the need to reduce the structural upgrading required by the previously approved plan. The previous plans would have required substantially more construction to be completed in order to structurally support the wood awning addition. Staff believes that the changes made to the previous proposal are positive and continue to be consistent with the minor exterior alteration criteria prescribed by the Municipal Code and outlined in Sections III thru VI of the October 27, 1997, staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission. Staff does believe, however, that the current changes are significant enough to warrant a reaffirmation of the proposed minor exterior alteration request approval for the Golden Bear Store. A reduced copy of the amended plans have been attached for reference. 11, STAFF RECOMMENDATION Minor Exterior Alteration The Community Development Department continues to recommend approval of the request for a minor exterior alteration in Commercial Core I to the Golden Bear Store. The recommendation for approval is based upon the staff's review of the minor exterior alteration criteria outlined in Sections III thru VI of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated October 27, 1997. Staff continues to believe the applicant's amended proposal meets each of the criteria. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to again grant an approval of the amended minor exterior alteration request, staff would recommend the following conditions: That a public way permit and a revocable right-of-way permit be executed prior to issuance of a building permit. The public way permit application shall be accompanied by a construction fencing, traffic control, and staging plan. These plans must be reviewed and approved by Public Works and Community Development staff. The applicant shall coordinate and receive approval for all final grading plans for the paver/drain pan repair work from Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall also coordinate plans to direct rooftop run-off into the storm sewer system with Public Works. 2. That the applicant prepare and submit a detailed exterior lighting plan for review and approval by the DRB prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. 3. That the applicant provide a minimum of two streetscape benches along Gore Creek Drive/Bridge Street prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. That the applicant coordinate irrigation plans and plant material selection decisions with Todd Oppenheimer at Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. On-going maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be required of the applicant. Final Town review and approval of landscaping around the Fire Department connection shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit. 2 5. That payment of the parking pay-in-lieu fee shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. That a gable roof form be designed into the proposal over the large display window on the north elevation, to break-up the horizontal eaveline and to enhance the appearance of the improvements. C 11 f:ieveryonelpec\memos\gofdbear.59 8 3 a. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 27, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a minor exterior alteration in Commercial Core I and a variance from Section 18.24.150 (site coverage) to allow for an addition to the Golden Bear Store located within the A & D Building, at 286 Bridge Street/Lots A & B and Part of C, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1st'Filing. Applicant: Lee Hollis/Golden Bear Store Planner: George Ruther i. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS Minor Exterior Alteration The applicant is requesting approval of a minor exterior alteration in the Commercial Core 1 Zone District to add 68 square feet of commercial floor area to the Golden Bear Store, located on the first floor of the A & D Building. The request involves relocating the entry to the store from the west side of the building to the northwest corner of the building, adding commercial floor area adjacent to the entry, reconfiguring landscape planters, and replacing the awning and sign. The applicant also proposes to repair the concrete brick paving and the drainage pan along the entire storefront and to install streetscape landscaping and benches in accordance with the Town's Streetscape Master Plan. According to Section 18.24.065, Subsection 3b, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, in part, "Applications for the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred square shall be deemed a minor exterior alteration." Since the applicant is proposing to add 68 square of enclosed floor area (<100 square feet), the staff has concluded the application to be a minor exterior alteration. Site Coverage The applicant's proposal to add 68 square feet of commercial floor area increases site coverage by 68 square feet. According to Section 18.24.150 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, in part, "Site coverage shall not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the total site area unless otherwise specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations." 10 Currently, there is 5,854 square feet or 79.77% site coverage on the applicant's property. The proposed addition would result in 5,922 square feet or 80.70% site coverage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting approval of a site coverage variance of 52 square feet or 0.70%. x II. ZONING ANALYSIS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this CCI minor exterior alteration request: Development Existing Proposed Standards Allowed Develooment Develooment Site Area: N/C 7,338 sq. ft. total NIC (all buildable) Setbacks: None N: 1/2' N/C Required S: 1/2' E: 10' W: 1/2' Height: 33'/43' (60%/40%) N/A N/C Site Coverage: 80% or 5,870 sq. ft. 79.77% or 5,854 sq, ft. 80.70% or 5,922 sq. ft. (+68 sq. ft.) Parking: 1 space for each 300 N/A 0.23 spaces` sq. ft. of net retail floor area Landscaping: No reduction 64 square feet - 4 tree grates 159 square feet - 13 tree grates without a variance 96 square feet - 3 planters 118 souare feet - 7 planters, 160 square feet - Total 277 square feet Total (on-site = 153 sq. ft.) (on-site = 186 sq, ft.)(+33 sq.ft.) (off-site r 7 sq, ft.) (off-site = 91 sq. ft.)(+84 sq.ft.) *At this time, parking pay-in-lieu spaces are $16,905.05 each, plus the percentage the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of the City of Denver has increased over each successive year. The applicant will be required to pay into the Town of Vail Parking Fund. The amount of the fee will be determined based upon the parking fee that is in effect at the time that a building permit is applied for. The applicant's proposal generates a fractional increase of 0.23 parking spaces,'which will be paid-in-lieu at the time of building permit issuance. This proposal results in a net increase of approximately 117 square feet of landscaping. Most of the landscaping proposed will occur off-site and within Town's right-of-way. According to the Municipal Code, off-site landscaping cannot be counted toward meeting the landscape standard of "no reduction". Thus, the applicant's proposal technically only increases landscaping by 33 square feet on the property. Ill. APPLICABLE POLICIES OF THE VAIL VILL.Ar_F MASTER PLAN AND THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN A. Vail Land Use Plan "Goal 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 residence. 2 I t Goal 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. Goal 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. Increased density in 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. Goal 4.3 The ambience of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality)." The applicant's plans for the expansion of the Golden Bear and the remodel of its storefront reflects a high quality redevelopment proposal that should enhance the commercial viability of the Golden Bear without adversely impacting other commercial and residential uses in the vicinity of the project. The proposed redevelopment is in harmony with Goals 1.1 and 1.3. Goals 4.1 and 4.3 express the desirability of accommodating additional commercial growth in the core areas of Town, such as Vail Village and Lionshead. The proposed redevelopment is in harmony with these goals as the Golden Bear is located at the intersection of Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street within the Village. All of these goals note the importance of evaluating commercial expansions so that the ambience of the Village and the identity of Vail are preserved. The quality features of the redevelopment will be discussed, especially in regard to their compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, in the following sections of this memorandum. Goal 4.1 states in part, that "future commercial development in the core needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery." One of the few issues related to the proposed redevelopment is a need to maintain emergency vehicular access along Gore Creek Drive adjacent to the storefront. The proposal involves adding planters along this elevation and installing streetscape trees. All would be contained within the confines of the existing concrete drainage pan along Gore Creek Drive. The pavers and the drainage pan define the street edge in this area. Adequate street width is maintained for Fire Department access. B. Vail Villaae Master Plan The goals, for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. Each major goal focuses on a particular aspect of the Village community. "Goal 1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain a sense of community and identity." The proposed remodel involves quality design details such as the addition of ornamental display cases, increased transparency to attract pedestrian attention, and reorientation of the entryway to the corner of the building focusing on the intersection of Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive. The addition of streetscape trees, benches, and planters for annuals and perennials enhance the building's north elevation. A new awning reflects the gabled 3 x ) C roof forms along the north elevation and draws the first floor commercial out from under the domination of the upper floor. "Goal 2 To foster a tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole." The proposed expansion will enhance the existing commercial use and promotes year-, round economic health and activity by implementing many of the streetscape objectives along Gore Creek Drive. The addition of streetscape shade trees, and benches improve the aesthetic appeal of the Gore Creek Drive storefront, and provide a place for pedestrians to rest and take in the street life during the warmer summer season. "Goal 3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village." As discussed in Goal 2 above, the proposed remodel includes the implementation of many of the Streetscape Master Plan elements. The addition of benches, trees, repairing of pavers, and the addition of landscape planters certainly enhance the pedestrian experience along the Gore Creek Drive frontage. The greater transparency of the windows and the addition of display cases should draw the pedestrian up to the storefront to gaze inside. "Goal 4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities." The proposed building expansion displaces the existing landscape planter at the corner of the building. Additional planters are proposed along Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive. To compensate for the displaced planter, six trees in four-foot square tree grates have been added along both streets and three trees in grates have been added on the patio area adjacent to Mill Creek. The applicant proposes to add thirty-three square feet of green space on-site and eighty- four square feet of green space off-site. "Goal 5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village." The proposed remodel should have no effect on transportation and circulation in the Village. The implementation of the streetscape trees and benches provides an improved pedestrian atmosphere along Gore Creek Drive. "Goal 6 To ensure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village." The proposed improvements do not impact access, maintenance and delivery activities in the vicinity of the project. The proposal will improve existing conditions as the applicant proposes to eliminate existing drainage problems. Roof drains along the north elevation will be hidden in the building wall at the awning, and will be routed under the pavers discharging directly into the existing storm sewer system. The applicant also proposes to regrade low areas where water currently stands and improve the overall drainage of the concrete paver area and drainage pans along the store front, so that drainage enters storm sewer inlets as originally planned. The applicant has agreed to repair broken 4 heating elements under the pavers so that the entire paver area will be equipped with a functioning snow melt system, providing a safer environment for delivery personnel and pedestrians. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF COMMERCIAL CORE I ZONE DISTRICT According to Section 18.24.010 of the Municipal Code, the Commercial Core I District is intended to, "provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." The reorientation of the entry to the Golden Bear, along with the implementation of streetscape improvements, will enhance the pedestrian environment. The remodeled storefront improves the quality and aesthetic appearance of this entire corner without interfering with the light, air and open space enjoyed by surrounding buildings and uses. The proposal meets the site development guidelines expressed in the Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. The proposal improves building scale by emphasizing the ground level retail area and reducing the building to a pedestrian scale. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN The proposal implements all of the recommendations of the Streetscape Master Plan for this property. Seasonal seating and landscaping will be added along the Gore Creek Drive frontage, brick pavers and drain pans will be repaired, drainage will be upgraded and additional seasonal color will be added through the reorganization of planters. The Streetscape Master Plan specifies three additional tree planters, containing deciduous trees, along Gore Creek Drive. The applicant proposes five additional deciduous trees in tree grates along Gore Creek Drive, one along Bridge Street and three along Mill Creek. V1. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN. CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE Design Guide Plan In the sub-area concepts, Gore Creek Drive/Bridge Street Sub-Area, Item No. 17 states "street access opened." This recommendation may pertain to pedestrian access along Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street or to access into and out of the A & D Building. Either way, the current proposal improves upon the existing situation. This comment could also refer to fire and maintenance access (vehicular access), which will also be maintained at its current level. 5 Vail Villaoe Desion Considerations The following is a discussion of the application's compliance with the Urban Design Considerations and the architectural/landscape considerations expressed in the Vail Village Design Considerations planning document. Urban Desion Considerations A. Pedestrianization: Pedestrian-only Streets Bridge Street is a pedestrian only street with a strong delineation of street edge expressed by existing tree grates, planters and small benches. One additional tree in a grate is proposed along Bridge Street and five along Gore Creek Drive will help define the street edge adjacent to the new entryway. 2. Pedestrian Streets-limited vehicular traffic Gore Creek Drive is a 25 to 35-foot wide section of asphalt, with an additional 6 to 8 feet of concrete pavers on each side. This width is more than adequate to accommodate the current mix of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. B. Vehicular Penetration: "in conjunction with pedestrianization objectives, major emphasis is focused on reducing auto penetration into the center of the Village... Road constrictions, traffic circles, signs and other measures are indicated in the guide plans to visually and physically discourage all but essential vehicle penetration." Adding streetscape trees along Gore Creek Drive will visually constrict the roadway. Planters are strategically located along the building wail with streetscape benches located between tree grates. C. Streetscape Framework:. "To improve the walking experience, to give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered: Open space and landscaping 2. Infili commercial store fronts" Relocating the entryway to the corner of the A & D Building, popping the storefront out and adding display cases oriented toward the intersection of Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street will focus visual interest on the Golden Bear Store and the A & D Building. The addition of landscape planters and streetscape trees along Gore Creek Drive significantly improves this frontage by softening the two-story building E a • 6 sJ facade. The addition of an awning further accents the first floor retail element, pulling it out from under the second level offices, creating interest and focusing the attention of the pedestrians. D. Street Enclosure: The proposal will not directly affect facade height. The addition of an awning and trees will help enclose Gore Creek Drive and will give it a more pedestrian scale. The proposed improvements will provide a softer, more defined feeling and will add three dimensional variety along the A & D Building's north elevation. E. Street Edge: "Buildings in the Village Core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street." The proposed streetscape improvements and addition of the awning will add irregularity to the Gore Creek Drive frontage. Existing jogs in the building will be maintained, although altered slightly at the northwest corner of the building. The proposal includes planters that are strategically located along the north elevation with benches interspersed between landscaped areas. This, along with the gabled effect of the awing, significantly improve the irregularity of the streetscape along Gore Creek Drive, which will help the pedestrian quality of the space. to F. Building Height: The application does not impact this consideration. G. Views and Focal Points: The application does not impact this consideration. H. Service and Delivery: A loading zone exists along Gore Creek Drive adjacent to the Mill Creek Court Building. The proposal will have no impact on existing loading and delivery services. Sun/Shade: Due to the existing height and orientation of the building, the addition of the proposed awnings and building area will not extend shadows or interfere with adjacent property's light. Architecture/Landscaoe Considerations A. Roofs A minor roof extension is proposed. The new roof area will not be seen from the street level and does not alter the existing roof forms at the A & D Building. 7 I I E B. Facades "Materials Stucco, brick (or stone), wood and glass are the primary building materials found in the Village. Of the above materials, stucco is the most consistently used material." The proposed design maintains the dominance of stucco with the contrast of river rock veneer on low landscape planter walls. The existing stucco color, off-white, will be maintained, but the trim colors will be changed from blue to forest green. The new awning is also proposed to be a copper patina. The proposed rock veneer on the planter walls will match the stone that currently exists on the Gorsuch storefront (a picture of this stone work is enclosed). The applicant prefers the rounded, irregular river rock over the existing rock at the A & D Building. According to the applicant, the existing stonework has a rectangular, manufactured look. The proposed stonework will replace the existing stonework on all portions of the A & D Building. "Color For wood surfaces, trim or siding, darker color tones are preferred. Browns, grays, blue grays, dark olives, slate greens, etc. Stucco colors are generally white beige, pale gold, or other light pastels. Bright colors should be avoided. Generally, to avoid busyness, and weak visual interest, the variety of major wall colors and materials should be no more than four nor less than two in each case. A color/material change between the ground floor and upper floor is a common and effective reinforcement of the pedestrian scale of the street." The applicant's color palette of muted grays and beige (river rock), dark green (windows, wood trim, storefront door and awnings), and off-white (stucco) are in harmony with the color guidelines. The applicant's proposal will add green to the existing colors of brown, gray and blue at the A & D Building. The materials will be stone, wood, copper and stucco. Thus, four basic colors and four basic types of materials are proposed. "Transparency As a measure of transparency, the most characteristic and successful ground floor facades range from 55% to 75% of the total length of the commercial facade." The proposed transparency is approximately 50% of the building facade. This is slightly below the range indicated above, but the applicant is proposing improvements that will draw attention to the storefront area such as the river rock faced display cases on each side of the entry door. The additional ornamentation, the awning, streetscape benches and landscape planters, along with the reorientation of the entryway to the corner of the building, will draw pedestrian attention to the building. 8 0 "Windows For close=up casual pedestrian viewing, windows are typically designed to human-sized dimensions. Ground floor display windows are typically raised slightly, 18 inches plus or minus, and do not extend much over 8 feet above the walkway level." The proposed windows are at a pedestrian scale. The planters are 1.5 to 2 feet high and windows are 6 feet high, for a total height to the top of the windows at 8 feet above walkway level. "Glass areas are usually subdivided to express individual window elements and are further subdivided by mullions into small panes which is responsible for much of the old world charm of the Village. Windows should give a pleasing rhythm with horizontal repetition of single window elements especially over long distances avoided. Bay and box windows are common window details which further add variety and massing to facades and are encouraged." The proposed windows have a pleasing rhythm and symmetry in both location and size. Mullions are used to divide the large glass panes into small panes. Bay windows and projecting display cases are designed to accent the entryway. "Doors Is Like windows, doors are important character and style giving architectural elements. They should also be somewhat transparent on commercial facades and consistent in detailing with windows. As an expression of entry, shelter and welcome, protected entryways are encouraged. Doorways may be recessed, extended or covered." The entryway consists of double glass doors in the same style as the windows with mullions dividing up the large glass plates. The doorway is recessed and covered with an awning, providing a protected entryway. C. Decks and Patios No decks or patios are proposed by the applicant. D. Balconies No balconies are proposed by the applicant. E & F. Accent Elements and Landscape Elements The accent elements are in harmony with the recommendations of the Design Guidelines. The colors and materials proposed are consistent with colors and materials used across the street (Gorsuch). Lighting along the storefront has not been finalized and will need to be approved by the DRB before a building permit is issued for the project. 9 G, Service This consideration is not applicable to this application. V11. VARIANCE CRITERIA 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 site coverage variance. The recommendation for approval is based upon on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes the variance request will have no negative impacts on the relationship to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity of The Golden Store or the A&D Building. The request for the additional 52 square feet of site coverage will result in an improved streetscape and pedestrian experience along Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive and will not interfere with the operation of the existing businesses on adjacent properties. 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 the title without grant of special privilege. The staff has worked with the applicant to reduce the amount of deviation (+0.70°/x) from the site coverage development standard. Staff believes the applicant is requesting the minimum amount of relief from the site coverage limitation to obtain compatibility and uniformity amongst the sites in the vicinity of The Golden Bear. Staff does not believe that the granting of the variance request will result in a grant of special privilege since the intent of the development standards is being met. The site coverage limitation of 80% was intended, in part, to ensure that an adequate amount of the site was left undeveloped to permit areas for landscaping and streetscape. The applicant's request to increase the site coverage percentage by 0.7% does not have any negative impacts on the landscape area of the Golden Bear Store. In fact, the applicant proposes to increase the net landscape area on the property by approximately 33 sq,ft. and to implement the recommended actions in the Streetscape Master Plan. Staff further believes that the request does not constitute a grant of special privilege since the addition proposed by the applicant furthers the goals and objectives of the master plans of the Town of Vail without resulting in negative impacts on adjacent properties or uses. As discussed in Sections ill, IV, V, & VI of this memorandum, the applicant's proposal implements many of the recommendations proposed in the Town's Master Plans. As stated in the Vail Village Master Plan, 10 ,. "Vail Village has not escaped the aging process. There is a need to encourage the contiuned upgrading and enhancement of existing lodging and commercial facilities within the Village in order to maintain the unique character that is its main attraction." Lastly, staff believes that while it is always possible to design and construct a building that is in full compliance with the Zoning Code, it is not always practical or reasonable to do so. Staff acknowledges that the applicant could redesign the addition and eliminate 52 square feet of site coverage. However, the design and construction of the existing building corner is not condusive to substantial changes. Staff believes that such a change would negatively impact the applicant's use of the Golden Bear Store. Staff feels that the benefits of the addition outweigh any possible negative impacts. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes the variance request will have no negative impacts on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. B. The Plannino and Environmental Commission shall make the followino findinos before arantino a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation 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: The strict and literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. There are exemptions 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 district. 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. E 11 . 1 E Vili. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Minor Exterior Alteration The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for a minor exterior alteration in Commercial Core I to The Golden Bear Store. The recommendation for approval is based upon the staff's review of the minor exterior alteration criteria outlined in Sections III thru Vi of this memorandum. Staff believes the applicant has met each of the criteria. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the minor exterior alteration request, staff would recommend the following conditions: That a public way permit and a revocable right-of-way permit be executed prior to issuance of a building permit. The public way permit application shall be accompanied by a construction fencing, traffic control, and staging plan. These plans must be reviewed and approved by Public Works and Community Development staff. The applicant shall coordinate and receive approval for all final grading plans for the paver/drain pan repair work from Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall also coordinate plans to direct rooftop run-off into the storm sewer system with Public Works. 2. That the applicant prepare and submit a detailed exterior lighting plan for review and approval by the DRB prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. That the applicant provide a minimum of two streetscape benches along Gore Creek Drive/Bridge Street prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. That the applicant coordinate irrigation plans and plant material selection decisions with Todd Oppenheimer at Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. On-going maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be required of the applicant. Final Town review and approval of landscaping around the Fire Department connection shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. That payment of the parking pay-in-lieu fee shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit. Site Coverage Variance The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a site coverage variance to allow for an increase of 52 square feet, or 0.70% of site coverage, over the allowable. The recommendation for approval is based upon the staffs review of the variance criteria and findings outlined in Section Vil of this memorandum. The staff believes the site coverage variance should be granted since the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege to the applicant, nor will the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor will it be materially injurious to other properties in the vicinity of The Golden Bear Store. The staff believes the site coverage variance is warranted for the following reasons: That the granting of the site coverage variance allowing for an increase in site coverage by 0.70% does not result in a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation on other properties in the Commercial Core I Zone District. 12 0 . 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor will it be materially injurious to the adjacent properties or uses in the vicinity of the Golden Bear More. 3. That the strict and literal interpretation or enforcement of the 80% site coverage limitation would result in a practical difficulty inconsistent with the objectives of the Commercial Core I Zone District development standards and the goals and objectives of the Master Plan documents of the Town of Vail. Opec\memosigoldbear.o27 E .J 13 x Ik/ v? vr` r? ? r. -VjV_ GF-Rttx G, to%jp p!A EUGF_t4E CIF"tTZ ti r a . R O B E R T S O N M I L L E R T E R R E L L ARC1tITrCTS, PC The Golden Bear Addition and Remodel A1D Building Vail, Colorado The following is the response required in conjunction with our application for exterior alterations in commercial core Vail Village. Commercial Core I (CCI) District Paragraph 18.24.010 The attached drawings clearly demonstrate the proposal's conformance with the purposes of the CCI. Pedestrian Environment The re-orientation of the entrance to the square and the addition of substantial landscape areas and benches will enhance the pedestrian environment. Lizht Air and Open Spaces The proposal will not effectively reduce the volume of space along the two pedestrian streets or the square, and the addition of the awnings will articulate the space and create focal points at the pedestrian level. Urban Design Guide Plan Sub- Area Concepts #9 Transparency increased and pedestrian scale #11 Limited building expansion - fagade Transparency increased to strengthen pedestrian activity #15 Entry oriented to intersection #18 Increased ground floor transparency Pedestrianization The quality of the pedestrian way is increased through the addition of the planters and awnings. Vehicle Penetration Not applicable. Streetscape Framework Landscaping has been added to enhance the framework and additional articulation added to the building to create additional visual interest and activity. Post office Box 7630 Telephone: (970) 949-0916 Avon, Colorado 81620 Fax: (970) 949-1017 Internet: http://vail.net/rmt E-Mail: rmt@vail,net It R O B E R T S O N M I L L E R T E R R E L L 40 A R c if I T E C T 5, P C Street Enclosure The general characteristics of the "outdoor room" are unchanged. Awnings have been added to create a pedestrian focus and divert attention from upper building heights. Street Edae The shape of the building now has additional articulation with irregularities, jogs, and landscape areas to create greater visual interest. Additional textures have been introduced and the awnings will create welcome protection from rain and snow when "window shopping" or simply pausing while walking through the Village. Views The addition will not adversely affect the long views down Gore Creek and Bridge Street. From a distance, the eye will be directed down the street, and while closer, the awning and articulated windows create focal points. Sun/Shade Due to the existing height and orientation of the building, the addition and awnings will not extend existing shadow patterns. Facades Material / Color The design maintains the dominance of the stucco with the contrast of the river rock and landscaping. The stucco will remain off-white with trim and awnings of forest green. The material palette is limited to avoid "busyness" and the awnings reinforce the pedestrian scale. Windows and Doors The doors and windows are articulated and will be painted a green-black for richness and to reinforce the Village's old world character. The entry is recessed and covered to enhance the sense of shelter and welcome. The orientation of the square also reinforces this sense. Accent Elements Awnings, landscaped areas with annual color flowers and accent lighting are all utilized to create visual interest and texture. Rounded cobbles (river rock) are used on the entry columns to create additional texture and interest. The cobbles are used on several buildings in the area, including the Sonnenalp and the clock tower building. Post Office Box 7630 Telephone: (970) 949-0916 Avon, Colorado 81620 Pax: (970) 949-1017 Internet: http://vail.net/rmt E-Mail: rmt@vail.net I 4 ROBERTSON MILLER TERRELL 0 - Aitcii ITECT5, P C Vail Village Master Plan Introduction - Upgrading buildings Encourage continued upgrading and enhancement of existing commercial facilities to maintain unique character of the Village. Goal # 1 The proposal is a high quality redevelopment which enhances the architectural scale of the Village, and helps reinforce its identity. Goal #2 The proposal will enhance the commercial viability of the Golden Bear. Coal #3 The walking experience is enhanced by the orientation of the entry to the square, the addition of the awnings and planters, and the greater transparency and articulation of the windows and doors. Gal #4 Substantial additional areas of "garden space" have been added. Gaal #S Not applicable. Girl #6 Minor improvements (landscape planters) are proposed on the Village right of way in a manner which will not interfere with snow removal, maintenance, fire access, etc... Heated sidewalks are provided. Yost Office Box 7630 Telephone: (970) 949-0916 Avon, Colorado 81620 Fax: (970) 949-1017 Internet: http://vall.net/rnit E-Mail: rmt0vail.net i R O B E R T S O N M I L L E R T E R R E L L AitcniTECTS, P C Streetscave Master Plan In addition to the issues raised in the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Village Master Plan; the Streetscape Master Plan identifies the following issues to be addressed: Existing palestrian character to be maintain&and vVvn ldmti y Q rrcrnities for adding Lan- scape pockets. More seating areas are nax& Roof drains to be collated and nrn tamlergtozM to stoma drain. These issues are addressed by the proposal and most have been commented on earlier in this discussion. In addition, benches are included in the planter design and the roof drains will be directly connected to the storm drains. The following additional specific recommendations are made: More uniform paving materials - concrete unit pavers. Addition of planters and trees. Removable planters with seating on south side of Gore Creek Drive. The property already has concrete unit pavers with heating. Additional landscape areas with trees and flowers are a part of the plan, and sufficient room has been reserved for the addition of removable planters with seating along the south side of Gore Creek Drive. ? L • C] Post Office Box 7630 Telephone: (970) 949-0916 Avon, Colorado 81620 Fax: (970) 949-1017 Internet: http://vail.net/rrnt E-Mail: rmtdvail.net I R O B E R T S O N M I L L E R T E R R E L L A izcii IT1:CTS , P C The Golden Bear Landscape Infol.Litation A/D Building Vail, Colorado Tree Wells (5) Size - 3' square Type - Flush cast iron grate Contents - 4" (min) cal. Aspen Raised Planters (6) Size - Varies Type - Raised concrete / stone veneer Contents - Annuals and perennials including, but not limited to the following -Geranium -Pansies v Post Office Box 7630 Telephone: (970) 949-09 16 Avon, Colorado 81620 Fax: (970) 949-1017 Internet: http://vail.net/rnit E-Mail: rmt@vail,net r I'LL 1 t? nL t" S1 `.7 t-l^y Lx. • GOF SUCIA LID T • . aF a aF a9 V. 0K.-e WXt YTIM? ?XYi1Ls ^' llfw ?LA NTati ? ? 1 4 `t1 v "? `6aaown AGAR STo IL.a 4 ? f 4 i 1 a r 4 r II _"-1.?G hU-ILDIWCT . 5 1 7 E P L A N Its.*- I'-p- E (: COLD E N BEAR ADDITION b REMODELING C-L*e8E DER-iTT3 hih TNG CweXIT3S eg-OUP ..","tap W Rp 1S 1 c t j3•. t ,.?w ar s.as ietveo t , ?? i !f'. , 4 M 14 wL? i ,n wi?LT P,tf4Y t ? ?? twi OF iNtT4 itVF2t t`il NZ ?` ??;???? 'Q (_"", .fir' ?r •.+. ,. ?'Y PLAN I* ? t ?e+iK sTea. s[owa E?r1'M 2?t ;6. 4? TFX.a CMT65 +4LhM 6 F NORTH ELEVATION • P L A'N • f 4IrL. t+- f - = * - laWwp't CA lk - & New t aoo" •-•• i'?. E N T R A N C E R A N C E E L E V A T I O N E t ? I --° ubw r:4`,'il P L A N ...- 1 `' PVAetTt3- +- H%W Out%.] *AS; M" P..ONT WEST ELEVATION GOLDEN BEAR THs GGFJT- GRDuP tSfrEN6 CtEP1( A17 "o,ev, 16 045 ss Ft=r^tg Mnt4 1 0L7t THF' t:FR T Yi MRn!4 P P"tlt i Fax Nate 7M ? 4s 6v 2,-,r / T3dn 7 M11i Ta y ¢ KtOrq ?sL?7n v b Y6c{ t +nYt*a+ t?s.ai?r> 049 C" ?,,A f} rt.,. t Fa+ X T.i?,lv+? t fix I (tenu?.tua. M+' A . OY 1 C_.'+J6I?S?A.Cs44 x s r i 45?cejt:?" 11th ? ??+ t.:??. 0 r{ri;:f?" ? .r Fugr r F ?r '..^., r aS,Y?j t r},.:'?Rf .r ?-- EXISTING ENTRY AND AWNINGS EXISTING CORNER STOREFRONT AND AWNING • GORE CREEK DRIVE ELEVATION GORE CREEK DRIVE ELEVATION L'I 0 u ?.?. sr Ni?rl1?? N r E5 i; CORNER OF BUILDING AT GORE GREEK N DECK AT GORE CREEK yjr { x i' w ?J -?tjva ! W OUT ©F OF AT AR K VIEW a1. J • 0 g 11 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 27, 1997 Minutes C MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Diane Golden Gene Uselton John Schofield Ann Bishop MEMBERS ABSENT: Galen Aasland STAFF PRESENT: Susan Connelly Mike Mollica Andy Knudtsen George Ruther Lauren Waterton Dominic Mauriello Judy Rodriguez Public Hearina 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for approval of a major exterior alteration, to allow for the construction of a new entry and common area in the Treetops I building, located at 452 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Treetops Condo Association, represented by Larry Barnes Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments. William Pierce, on behalf of the applicant, had no comments. John Schofield had no comments. Gene Uselton had no comments. Greg Amsden inquired about the existing landscaping in front. Bill Pierce said there were pine trees. Ann Bishop commended the applicant on the improvement. Diane Golden had no comments. Greg Moffet stated for the record that this application was consistent with the purpose statement in the CC2 Zone District. Dominic Mauriello stated that the applicant would bring the lighting into compliance. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 1 f Greg Moffet suggested making the lighting a condition. John Schofield made a motion for approval with 1 condition that the exterior lighting of the entire structure be brought into compliance with the Town of Vail code. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0, 2. A request for approval of a minor exterior alteration in CC1 and a site coverage variance, to allow for the renovation of the exterior and improvements to The Golden Bear, located at 935 S. Frontage Road, #302/ Lots A&B, Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: C. Lee Kirsch, represented by Frederick W. Dietrich Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo and said that this same request was approved in 1995, with the addition of the site coverage variance. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Paul Miller, representing the Golden Bear, asked if the streetscape benches were in addition to what was on the landscape design. George Ruther said, yes. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. Ann Bishop applauded the applicant on the improvements. Diane Golden stated that the project met the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan. John Schofield asked the applicant if he agreed with the staff conditions. Paul Miller stated in order to address the intersection, the need was created to bring the building forward. John Schofield said the intersection caused a special circumstance which would allow granting a variance. Gene Uselton asked if the conditions were acceptable to the applicant. Paul Miller said, yes. Greg Amsden had no comments. Greg Moffet said that this request met all the criteria. He said that there was more latitude in the CC1 to grant variances, with regards to the special privilege issue. He said the goals and objectives would result in a practical difficulty. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 2 11 Ann Bishop made a motion for approval with the 5 conditions, in accordance with the staff memo. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a bed and breakfast operation, located at 1477 Aspen Grove/Lot 3, Block 2, Lionsridge 4th Filing. Applicant: William H. Miller Planner: Lauren Waterton Ann Bishop recused herself, as she was representing a gentleman who was employed by the applicant. Mike Mollica gave an overview of the staff memo and said that there would be 3 additional cars on the site and that staff was recommending approval with 3 conditions. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments. Will Miller, the owner of the property management company at Montaneros, said this use lessened the impact versus renting the property out short-term. He said he secured different vacation parties through the management company for short-term rentals. He said short-term occupancy allowed in the house was 10-12 persons, plus the housekeeper, generating more cars than what would be generated by 3 couples if the, use was a bed & breakfast. He stated that he would be in residence on the site. He explained that vacant rooms were rented out in the summertime with one person per bedroom. He stated that based on the number of houses on the street, he was not overloading the street and would be accountable, since he would live on the premises. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Tom Hughes, President of the Aspen Grove Homeowner's Association, stated they were against this use. He said the intention of this neighborhood was to be a single family neighborhood and he had not heard one positive comment about the request. Peter Kyle, a next-door neighbor, said he was planning on selling his home and the B&B would have a negative impact on the sale of his house. Carroll Orrison, the owner of the 2nd house built on Aspen Grove Lane., said the area was isolated from the city and he thought the area should only have single family homes. Tom Hughes said that Tract B included this private road. He said he represented the ownership and they kept it plowed and maintained. He said since they owned the road, they wanted to keep it private. John Schofield questioned if the road access was owned jointly by the 11 owners and controlled by the Association. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 3 Tom Moorhead said he reviewed the declarations and although the road was privately owned, there were no restrictions in the declarations and the road was described in the declarations as a public road. He said if the road had been described as a common area, then this application would require permission. John Schofield questioned a public road privately owned by the association. Tom Moorhead explained that the application would have required the Association's signatures. Tom Hughes said Tom Moorhead was correct, but a majority rule had the ability to change the declarations. John Schofield said the PEC didn't have the ability to change it and under the criteria, the Association didn't have any authority now. Gene Uselton asked who owned the road. Tom Hughes said the Homeowner's Association. Gene Uselton said he thought Mr. Miller should have the approval of the other property owners. Tom Moorhead said the Association declarations did not have any control over the use of the road, only the maintenance. He again explained that the road was not a common element and therefore, without control, although it could be changed. He said the Association did not have any direct authority to control the use of the road. 0 Gene Uselton asked if this was a legal matter. Tom Moorhead said the Town of Vail did not enforce private covenants. Greg Amsden asked about the definition of Section 18.04.110, as referred to in the memo. Mike Mollica read the definition of 18.04.110, what constitutes a family and explained the Section's intent was to define how many individuals could occupy an individual dwelling unit. Greg Amsden asked if this was zoned single family. Greg Moffet stated this use was permitted. Diane Golden asked if Will Miller had an EHU with a separate garage. Will Miller said, yes. Diane Golden asked if there would be three B&B bedrooms downstairs. Will Miller explained the traffic pattern of the B&B users if this was approved and said a VA employee lived in the EHU. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 4 • I I 0 Diane Golden said she was sympathetic to both parties, but the Town has made a statement that B&Bs are permissible. Will Miller said that directly across the street was a multi-family project and this use wouldn't change anything and he would go back to 3 roommates in the summer. Diane Golden said a conditional use permit could have conditions to see how it goes. Greg Moffet said the PEC could sunset this. He said, knowing some of the players with small children, the elected officials said B&B's were a desired usage for every zone district. He said that the conditions were clearly met and it was unfortunate that the neighborhood couldn't get together. He said more covenants could be deployed, but as it appeared, this was a case where the PEC was compelled to grant approval. Greg Amsden asked for information about the kitchens. Will Miller said the 2nd floor kitchen was not installed. He said it was a rough-in and contingent on what happened with the usage. He said it had only a microwave and a sink. John Schofield made a motion for approval with the condition that an approval would not be required by the Aspen Grove Lane (Lionsridge Filing No. 4) Homeowner's Association and that the conditional use permit will expire in one year from the date of approval. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-1-1, with Gene Uselton opposed and Ann Bishop recused. 4. A request for a major amendment to SDD #4 (Cascade Village), to allow modifications to allowable GRFA and building height limitations, located at 1150 Westhaven Lane/Lots 39- 1& 39-2, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Timothy Pennington, represented by Diane Larsen Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Diane Larsen, representing the applicant, concurred with the staff's recommendation. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none. Ann Bishop had no comments, but thanked Mr. Norris for his letter that described the history. Diane Golden had no comments. John Schofield had no comments. Gene Uselton had no comments. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 5 Greg Amsden said he was involved in the changing of the GRFA in the code and saw no negative effect in Glen Lyon. Greg Moffet agreed with Greg Amsden, but asked to applicant to please not come back with snowmen boilers in the setback. Ann Bishop made a motion for approval with one condition, in accordance with the staff memo. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 5. A request for an amendment to Section 18.54.050 J (Design Guidelines - outdoor lighting), to allow for the exemption of low wattage lighting from the outdoor lighting regulations. Applicant: Roy & Paula May, represented by Dale Smith/ Fritzlen,Pierce, Briner Planner: Lauren Waterton Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo and explained that this was to allow low level lighting to make a property safer, after the DRB final review. He then explained the new language. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. John Schofield thought the 25 watt output was on the low side and he thought it should be in the 40 watt range. He said stairs typically have wattage in the 40-60 watt range. Gene Usenon said this was a sensible proposal. Greg Amsden said he was in favor of this, as it was a safety issue. Ann Bishop had no comments. Diane Golden agreed with the safety issue. Greg Moffet said he agreed with the safety issue. John Schofield made a motion for approval with a change in the language to include a maximum initial lumen output of 400 (or equivalent to a 40 watt bulb). Gene Usenon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 6. A request to review a draft of the proposed Vail Strategic Housing Plan, which is intended to set the direction of the Town in its effort to address locals housing. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Andy Knudtsen Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 6 0 Andy Knudtsen gave an overview of the staff memo. He said he was hearing from the shop owners that they couldn't get employees and that they were closing early with customers left outside, so this was affecting the economic viability. He said the focus of the plan was to make decision making easier and that they were focusing east of Dowd Junction for housing. He the described the nature and background of the plan. Greg Moffet asked Andy how much of Timber Ridge was master leased by VA. Andy Knudtsen said he didn't know, but the management was concerned about too much concentration from VA. Greg Moffet said his experience with VA was that housing was used like a college dorm, with 3 employees to a unit. Andy Knudtsen mentioned that Pitkin Creek Park units were deed restricted, but since restrictions were lifted, Pitkin was in demand by second homeowners, as it was so close to Denver. Ann Bishop asked if any investigations were going on regarding EHU's up on Forest Road. Andy Knudtsen said he found "signs of life" in all deed restricted units when he drove by, with one exception and is still having a problem with the Cappy residence. Ann Bishop asked Andy if he was following up. n 0 Andy Knudtsen said yes, with the 24 EHU's which require occupancy and that he was getting an update from County and sending out letters shortly, to all owners who said they had EHU`s. Ann Bishop said that the enforcement issue was the most important and there was only one sentence in this document pertaining to that. Diane Golden asked about the response from the last letters sent out and if people really filled the questionnaires out. Andy Knudtsen said he did not have the specific numbers, but would get back with Diane with the answer to her question. Andy Knudtsen said that the Housing Authority came about in place of a funded staff position, but that Council wanted to be more involved. Greg Amsden said it was political with the new Council. Andy Knudtsen said the Housing Authority was not disbanded, as it was to be kept available for bond issues. Diane Golden asked what the City Market units were rented for. Andy Knudtsen said he would report back to Diane. He also said that Eagle Bend in Avon had very high occupancy rates. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 7 Gene Uselton asked about the Red Sandstone project. Andy Knudtsen said the project's construction costs came in higher than expected and that all the units would have been deed restricted. Greg Moffet asked if table 3 showed a compounded, average or annual rate. Andy Knudtsen said he believed it was compounded. Gene Uselton concurred. Greg Amsden said he thought table 10 was high. Andy Knudtsen said he wanted the PEC input for additions to the plan and what to elaborate upon. Ann Bishop was curious about the wages. She asked if the Town was making any effort to meet with employers to discuss the wages, as there was a huge problem. Andy Knudtsen said the Town should pick the issues to address, knowing that resources are limited, and not all issues could be addressed. Greg Amsden stated that because the housing supply was low, there was enough demand for high rents. Ann Bishop said there were 3-4 roommates per unit. Ann Bishop said there should be discussion regarding wages, as obviously there was a huge difference with the amount of money people made here. John Schofield said the hourly wage was on the low side, but the average ski instructor was also a waiter, etc. Ann Bishop said there may not be much rental available, but what's available was of poor quality. John Schofield said a qualitative factor should be in the document. Greg Moffet stated we should be having code compliance with building codes with more inspections. John Schofield said we had slumlords and the Council had not done anything with enforcing the Uniform Building Code. Greg Moffet said if units were condemned, there would not be any employee housing. Ann Bishop said if we were known for dumpy rentals, we should begin to change our focus towards clean and affordable rentals. C LI Greg Moffet said if an illegal dwelling unit was condemned, then it would be sold, demolished, and there would be no more housing. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 $ John Schofield said the Council would have to decide to either take a heavy handed approach or provide incentives. Andy Knudtsen said adding UBC inspections to the staff workload would bite off more than we could do right now. He said that the City of Boulder requires landlords to be registered. Greg Amsden said that everything that has sold recently has been improved, so why would the Town spend their dollars to cure their share of the market. Gene Uselton said he recognized the need for the Town to provide housing within the Town limits for essential employees (e.g., police, fire fighters, bus drivers, snow plow operators); but, for seasonal workers who are not employed by the Town of Vail, it made economic sense to consider working with the private sector to develop high density housing in down valley locations such as Berry Creek and to promote an adequate transportation system. Diane Golden said workers should live in Vail and be a part of the community. She said good examples were the Public Works site and Vail Commons. Gene Uselton asked why seasonal employees had to live in Town. Andy Knudtsen said that jobs were available down valley and that employees living down valley would end up working down valley. Susan Connelly stated why would you drive through Dowd Junction if you didn't have to. Greg Moffet stated, as a former commuter, if you want to impose that on the employees who serve you in the Town, then you had to foot the cost. He said the public sector in this Town can find workable solutions. He said seasonais were needed in Town who were not exhausted all the time and for example who would have keys to the water main maintenance when pipes break. He said the private sector would not work. Greg Amsden said you can't blame the private sector, because it's only now that the public sector has done anything. He said that no one did anything years ago. Ann Bishop encouraged the Town Council to hire an enforcement officer and impose heavy fines. She said if we were going to have old employee housing, then lets have good quality. Andy Knudtsen asked the PEC what direction they would like the Town to go in creating housing. Diane Golden said she would like to see the Town concentrate east of Dowd Junction and agreed with Ann regarding follow-up enforcement. She stated that Vail Commons added to the viability of the Town. John Schofield disagreed with Ann regarding enforcement, and would rather encourage incentives, such as tax credits. He thought the market would go away, if incentives were not given. Ann Bishop agreed with tax breaks as incentives, but with an enforcement component and also consistent employee housing with old properties that have not been inspected, is Planning; and Environmental Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 9 Gene Uselton didn't think you could impose market solutions on anyone. 0 Greg Amsden said, regarding Category A, that land needed to be prioritized to find out which parcels offered the most units. He suggested the Town participate in bond related financing and give developers incentives. He said it was too late to discuss growth management and to focus on the SDD projects or the high density. He said the Town needed to get creative with Timber Ridge now and look into a joint venture with private funds. He said the Town couldn't create the 198 units that would be lost with Timber Ridge. He said Timber Ridge needed to be gutted and upgraded. He said with regards to deed restrictions, to put a dollar amount on incentives, i.e., we will pay x-number of dollars to deed restrict and renovate the unit. He said another incentive might be to waive the building fees to upgrade. Greg Moffet said, regarding the land issues, there were great opportunities for the Town to get involved with more housing stock. He said every business owner would like to have a unit for their employees. He suggested that the Town acquire units to sell to the owners of businesses with a deed restriction and that the community had to help solve the problem. He agreed with Greg Amsden on the inclusionary zoning. He said that most of the high density in Town was in pretty bad shape. Greg felt that employee housing had to be a part of the Lionshead redevelopment and part of the equation with inclusionary zoning. He said, as a Town, our focus should be housing in Town and he was not interested in creating down valley ghettos requiring bussing employees: He said he didn't want a retirement community, rather to diffuse the housing in Town. He said with interregional cooperation, we would never get anything done. Gene Uselton said that deed restrictions would be more acceptable to private lenders, if they could be tied into an appropriate index, such as the CPI, rather than a 3% limit on appreciation. Greg Amsden asked Andy about the lending prospects with deed restrictions. Andy Knudtsen said there was no problem. Greg Amsden said with new housing, there should be an incentive to build another unit on a single family lot. He said to make it sellable for the people with a deed restriction on the lot. John Schofield said to develop packages to include financing, bonding, tax credits, abatement of fees up front, etc., so people wouldn't have to come up with cash dollars. Greg Amsden said Berry Creek should be considered to trade for a West Vail parcel. Greg Moffet said there should be heavy focus on the Vail Tomorrow actions and housing solutions which should be integrated into the Master Plan. 7. A request for a major amendment to SDD #f4 (Cascade Village), to allow for a revision to the development plan for the Glen Lyon Office Building site, located at 1000 S. Frontage Rd. West/Lot 54, Block K, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Gordon Pierce, AIA Planner: Dominic Maurieilo TABLED UNTIL. NOVEMBER 24, 1997 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 10 E 8. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of the Alpine Garden Education Center, located at 620 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Alpine Garden Foundation, represented by Helen Fritch Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, 1997 9. To approve, deny, or modify an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Booth Falls Townhomes rockfall mitigation wall, located at 3094 Booth Falls Court/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Village 12th. Applicant: Booth Falls Condo Association Planner: Russ Forrest TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, 1997 E 10. A request for a major exterior alteration and a variance from Section 18.26.070 (Setbacks), to allow for construction of a parking garage at The Lionshead Inn, located at 705 S. Frontage Rd./ Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing. Applicant: Lionshead Inn LLC, represented by William Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 10, 1997 Greg Amsden made motion to table item 7 until November 24, 1997 and items 8, 9 and 10 until November 10, 1997. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 11. Information Update Susan Connelly announced that tomorrow at Town Council, financing alternatives for Lionshead would be discussed and that Barb Schofield would be one of the panelists. Susan Connelly announced that the Chamber of Commerce and Board of Realtors were holding a "meet the candidates" night on Wednesday, from 7-10 pm. Susan Connelly announced the November 1, 1997 "Hollyween" fundraiser. 12. Approval of September 22, 1997 and October 13, 1997 minutes. Greg Moffet and John Schofield had changes on the October 13, 1997 minutes. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 11 Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the September 22, 1997 and October 13, 1997 minutes. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0-1, with Gene Uselton abstaining, as he was not present. Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 4.45 pm. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 12 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 12, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a minor exterior alteration in Commercial Core I and a variance from Section 12-78-15 (site coverage) of the Municipal Code, to allow for an addition to the Golden Bear Store, located within the A & D Building, at 286 Bridge Street/Lots A & B and Part of C, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Lee Hollis/Golden Bear Store Planner: George Ruther 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST On October 27, 1997, the applicant appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) with a similar request. Upon review of the criteria and consideration of the factors outlined in the Municipal Code, the PEC unanimously approved the applicant's request with several conditions. In deciding upon the request, the PEC found that the proposed improvements to the Golden Bear Store complied with the minor exterior alteration criteria and that the site coverage variance did not result in a grant of special privilege, would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the strict and literal interpretation of the site coverage regulation would result in a practical difficulty upon the applicant inconsistent with the Municipal Code. A copy of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated October 27, 1997 and a copy of the approved October 27 meeting minutes have been attached for reference. On November 5, 1997, the applicant appeared before the Design Review Board (DRB) for consideration of their request. Upon review of the proposal, the applicant and the Design Review Board agreed that various changes should be made to the proposal to improve the overall design and function of the addition. The applicant has made the following changes: * A more "permanent" appearing roof/awning has been added. * The roof/awning design has been amended to ensure proper drainage and improved display window opportunities. * The window fenestration has been amended to relate better to the existing second story windows. * Heavy log timbers have been added to support the roof/awning. * Landscaped areas have been relocated to improve window display opportunities. * The use of copper shingles as a roofing material. The changes recommended by the DRB, and agreed to by the applicant, do not affect the previously approved site coverage variance or alter the interior floor plans of the addition. The site coverage variance was republished for this meeting by the staff in the event the requested changes impacted the previous site coverage variance approval. The applicant has since made the requested changes. Staff believes that the changes made to the original proposal are positive and continue to be consistent with the minor exterior alteration criteria prescribed by the Municipal Code and outlined in Sections Iii thru VI of the October 27, 1997, staff memorandum. Staff does believe, however, that the changes are significant enough to warrant a reaffirmation of the minor exterior alteration request approval for the Golden Bear Store. A reduced copy of the amended plans have been attached for reference. For Zoning Analysis information please refer to the October 27, 1997 staff memorandum. Please note however, that the landscaped area square footage figures have been reduced slightly from the previous approval. The reduction of two square feet of total landcaping is a result of improving access to the jewelry display windows for "window shoppers". The landscaped areas associated with this proposal are 153 square feet of on-site landscaping (no net loss from the existing condition) and 122 square feet of off-site landscaping (31 square foot increase from October 27 approval). 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Minor Exterior Alteration The Community Development Department continues to recommends approval of the request for a minor exterior alteration in Commercial Core I to The Golden Bear Store. The recommendation for approval is based upon the staff's review of the minor exterior alteration criteria outlined in Sections III thru VI of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated October 27, 1997. Staff believes the applicant's amended proposal meets each of the criteria. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the amended minor exterior alteration request, staff would again recommend the following conditions: 1. That a public way permit and a revocable right-of-way permit be executed prior to issuance of a building permit. The public way permit application shall be accompanied by a construction fencing, traffic control, and staging plan. These plans must be reviewed and approved by Public Works and Community Development staff. The applicant shall coordinate and receive approval for all final grading plans for the paver/drain pan repair work from Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall also coordinate plans to direct rooftop run-off into the storm sewer system with Public Works. 2. That the applicant prepare and submit a detailed exterior lighting plan for review and approval by the DRB prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. That the applicant provide a minimum of two streetscape benches along Gore Creek Drive/Bridge Street prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. That the applicant coordinate irrigation plans and plant material selection decisions with Todd Oppenheimer at Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. On-going maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be required of the applicant. Final Town review and approval of landscaping around the Fire Department connection shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit. 2 5. That payment of the parking pay-in-lieu fee shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit. Site Coverage As stated previously in this memorandum, the October 27 site coverage variance approval has not been impacted by the applicant's changes, Therefore, the Community Development Department would recommend that the Planning and Environmental Commission find that no action needs to be taken on this part of the request and make a motion to that affect. cApec\memos\goidbear. o27 E 3 APPROVED BY THE' TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING AND MEMORANDUM ENVIRONMENTAL COMMI 'r TO: Planning and Environmental Commission IDATE: to Z? ?? FROM: Community Development Department PLANNER 61c F t uTE4d6e DATE: October 27, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a minor exterior alteration in Commercial Core I and a variance from Section 18.24.150 (site coverage) to allow for an addition to the Golden Bear Store located within the A & D Building, at 286 Bridge Street/Lots A & B and Part of C, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Lee Hollis/Golden Bear Store Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS Minor Exterior Alteration The applicant is requesting approval of a minor exterior alteration in the Commercial Core I Zone District to add 68 square feet of commercial floor area to the Golden Bear Store, located on the first floor of the A & D Building. The request involves relocating the entry to the store from the west side of the building to the northwest corner of the building, adding commercial floor area adjacent to the entry, reconfiguring landscape planters, and replacing the awning and sign. The applicant also proposes to repair the concrete brick paving and the drainage pan along the entire storefront and to install streetscape landscaping and benches in accordance with the Town's Streetseape Master Plan. According to Section 18.24.065, Subsection 3b, of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, in part, "Applications for the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area of not more than one hundred square shall be deemed a minor exterior alteration." Since the applicant is proposing to add 68 square of enclosed floor area (<100 square feet), the staff has concluded the application to be a minor exterior alteration. Site Coverage The applicant's proposal to add 68 square feet of commercial floor area increases site coverage by 68 square feet. According to Section 18.24.150 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail, in part, "Site coverage shall not exceed eighty percent (80%) of the total site area unless otherwise specified in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations." 40 Currently, there is 5,854 square feet or 79.77% site coverage on the applicant's property. The proposed addition would result in 5,922 square feet or 80.70% site coverage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting approval of a site coverage variance of 52 square feet or 0.70%. 0 11. ZONING ANALYSIS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this CCI minor exterior alteration request: Development Existing Proposed Standards Allowed Develooment Develooment Site Area: N/C 7,338 sq. ft. total N/C (all buildable) Setbacks: None N: 1/2' N/C Required S: 1/2' E: 10' W: 1/2' Height: 33'/43'(60%/40%) N/A N/C Site Coverage: 80% or 5,870 sq. ft. 79.77% or 5,854 sq. ft. 80.70% or 5,922 sq. ft. (+68 sq. ft.) Parking: 1 space for each 300 N/A 0.23 spaces" sq. ft. of net retail floor area Landscaping: No reduction 64 square feet - 4 tree grates 159 square feet - 13 tree grate4 without a variance 96 square feet - 3 planters 118 square feet - 7 planters 160 square feet - Total 277 square feet - Total (on-site = 153 sq. ft.) (on-site = 186 sq. ft.) (off-site = 7 sq. ft.) (off-site = 91 sq. ft.) *At this time, parking pay-in-lieu spaces are $16,905.05 each, plus the percentage the Consumer Price Index (CPI) of the City of Denver has increased over each successive year. The applicant will be required to pay into the Town of Vail Parking Fund. The amount of the fee will be determined based upon the parking fee that is in effect at the time that a building permit is applied for. The applicant's proposal generates a fractional increase of 0.23 parking spaces, which will be paid-in-lieu at the time of building permit issuance. This proposal results in a net increase of approximately 117 square feet of landscaping. Most of the landscaping proposed will occur off-site and within Town's right-of-way. According to the Municipal Code, off-site landscaping cannot be counted toward meeting the landscape standard of "no reduction". Thus, the applicant's proposal technically only increases landscaping by 33 square feet on the property. Ill. APPLICABLE POLICIES OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND THE VAIL LAND USE PLAN 0 A. Vail Land Use Plan, "Goal 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 residence. 2 Goal 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. Goal 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. Increased density in 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. Goal 4.3 The ambience of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved (scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality)." The applicant's plans for the expansion of the Golden Bear and the remodel of its storefront reflects a high quality redevelopment proposal that should enhance the commercial viability of the Golden Bear without adversely impacting other commercial and residential uses in the vicinity of the project. The proposed redevelopment is in harmony with Goals 1.1 and 1.3. Goals 4.1 and 4.3 express the desirability of accommodating additional commercial growth in the core areas of Town, such as Vail Village and Lionshead. The proposed redevelopment is in harmony with these goals as the Golden Bear is located at the intersection of Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street within the Village. All of these goals note the importance of evaluating commercial expansions so that the ambience of the Village and the identity of Vail are preserved. The quality features of the redevelopment will be discussed, especially in regard to their compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, in the following sections of this memorandum. Goal 4.1 states in part, that "future commercial development in the core needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery." One of the few issues related to the proposed redevelopment is a need to maintain emergency vehicular access along Gore Creek Drive adjacent to the storefront. The proposal involves adding planters along this elevation and installing streetscape trees. All would be contained within the confines of the existing concrete drainage pan along Gore Creek Drive. The pavers and the drainage pan define the street edge in this area. Adequate street width is maintained for Fire Department access. B. Vail Village Master Plan The goals for Vail Village are summarized in six major goal statements. Each major goal focuses on a particular aspect of the Village community. "Goal 1 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain a sense of community and identity." The proposed remodel involves quality design details such as the addition of ornamental display cases, increased transparency to attract pedestrian attention, and reorientation of the entryway to the corner of the building focusing on the intersection of Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive. The addition of streetscape trees, benches, and planters for annuals and perennials enhance the building's north elevation. A new awning reflects the gabled 3 0 roof forms along the north elevation and draws the first floor commercial out from under the domination of the upper floor. "Goal 2 To foster a tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and viability for the Village and for the community as a whole." The proposed expansion will enhance the existing commercial use and promotes year- round economic health and activity by implementing many of the streetscape objectives along Gore Creek Drive. The addition of streetscape shade trees, and benches improve the aesthetic appeal of the Gore Creek Drive storefront, and provide a place for pedestrians to rest and take in the street life during the warmer summer season. "Goal 3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking experience throughout the Village." As discussed in Goal 2 above, the proposed remodel includes the implementation of many of the Streetscape Master Plan elements. The addition of benches, trees, repairing of pavers, and the addition of landscape planters certainly enhance the pedestrian experience along the Gore Creek Drive frontage. The greater transparency of the windows and the addition of display cases should draw the pedestrian up to the storefront to gaze inside. "Goal 4 To preserve existing open space areas and expand green space opportunities." The proposed building expansion displaces the existing landscape planter at the corner of the building. Additional planters are proposed along Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive. To compensate for the displaced planter, six trees in four-foot square tree grates have been added along both streets and three trees in grates have been added on the patio area adjacent to Mill Creek. The applicant proposes to add thirty-three square feet of green space on-site and eighty- four square feet of green space off-site. "Goal 5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency and aesthetics of the transportation and circulation system throughout the Village." The proposed remodel should have no effect on transportation and circulation in the Village. The implementation of the streetscape trees and benches provides an improved pedestrian atmosphere along Gore Creek Drive. "Goal 6 To ensure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the Village.," The proposed improvements do not impact access, maintenance and delivery activities in the vicinity of the project. The proposal will improve existing conditions as the applicant proposes to eliminate existing drainage problems. Roof drains along the north elevation will be hidden in the building wall at the awning, and will be routed under the pavers discharging directly into the existing storm sewer system. The applicant also proposes to regrade low areas where water currently stands and improve the overall drainage of the concrete paver area and drainage pans along the store front, so that drainage enters storm sewer inlets as originally planned. The applicant has agreed to repair broken 4 heating elements under the pavers so that the entire paver area will be equipped with a functioning snow melt system, providing a safer environment for delivery personnel and pedestrians. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF COMMERCIAL CORE i ZONE DISTRICT According to Section 18.24.010 of the Municipal Code, the Commercial Core I District is intended to, "provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." The reorientation of the entry to the Golden Bear, along with the implementation of streetscape improvements, will enhance the pedestrian environment. The remodeled storefront improves the quality and aesthetic appearance of this entire corner without interfering with the light, air and open space enjoyed by surrounding buildings and uses. The proposal meets the site development guidelines expressed in the Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. The proposal improves building scale by emphasizing the ground level retail area and reducing the building to a pedestrian scale. V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN The proposal implements all of the recommendations of the Streetscape Master Plan for this property. Seasonal seating and landscaping will be added along the Gore Creek Drive frontage, brick pavers and drain pans will be repaired, drainage will be upgraded and additional seasonal color will be added through the reorganization of planters. The Streetscape Master Plan specifies three additional tree planters, containing deciduous trees, along Gore Creek Drive. The applicant proposes five additional deciduous trees in tree grates along Gore Creek Drive, one along Bridge Street and three along Mill Creek. VI. COMPLIANCE WITH THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GU DE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL. VILLAGE Desion Guide Plan In the sub-area concepts, Gore Creek Drive/Bridge Street Sub-Area, Item No. 17 states "street access opened." This recommendation may pertain to pedestrian access along Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street or to access into and out of the A & D Building. Either way, the current proposal improves upon the existing situation. This comment could also refer to fire and maintenance access (vehicular access), which will also be maintained at its current level. 5 Vail Village Desion Considerations The following is a discussion of the application's compliance with the Urban Design Considerations and the architectural/landscape considerations expressed in the Vail Village Design Considerations planning document. Urban Desion Considerations A. Pedestrianization: Pedestrian-only Streets Bridge Street is a pedestrian only street with a strong delineation of street edge expressed by existing tree grates, planters and small benches. One additional tree in a grate is proposed along Bridge Street and five along Gore Creek Drive will help define the street edge adjacent to the new entryway. 2. Pedestrian Streets-limited vehicular traffic Gore Creek Drive is a 25 to 35-foot wide section of asphalt, with an additional 6 to 8 feet of concrete pavers on each side. This width is more than adequate to accommodate the current mix of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. B. Vehicular Penetration: "In conjunction with pedestrianization objectives, major emphasis is focused on reducing auto penetration into the center of the Village... Road constrictions, traffic circles, signs and other measures are indicated in the guide plans to visually and physically discourage all but essential vehicle penetration." Adding streetscape trees along Gore Creek Drive will visually constrict the roadway. Planters are strategically located along the building wail with streetscape benches located between tree grates. C. Streetscape Framework: "To improve the walking experience, to give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system, two general types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered: Open space and landscaping 2. Infill commercial store fronts" Relocating the entryway to the corner of the A & D Building, popping the storefront out and adding display cases oriented toward the intersection of Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street will focus visual interest on the Golden Bear Store and the A & D Building. The addition of landscape planters and streetscape trees along Gore Creek Drive significantly improves this frontage by softening the two-story building 6 facade. The addition of an awning further accents the first floor retail element, pulling it out from under the second level offices, creating interest and focusing the attention of the pedestrians. D. Street Enclosure: The proposal will not directly affect facade height. The addition of an awning and trees will help enclose Gore Creek Drive and will give it a more pedestrian scale. The proposed improvements will provide a softer, more defined feeling and will add three dimensional variety along the A & D Building's north elevation. E. Street Edge: "Buildings in the Village Core should form a strong but irregular edge to the street." The proposed streetscape improvements and addition of the awning will add irregularity to the Gore Creek Drive frontage. Existing jogs in the building will be maintained, although altered slightly at the northwest corner of the building, The proposal includes planters that are strategically located along the north elevation with benches interspersed between landscaped areas. This, along with the gabled effect of the awning, significantly improve the irregularity of the streetscape along Gore Creek Drive, which will help the pedestrian quality of the space. F. Building Height: The application does not impact this consideration. G. Views and Focal Points: The application does not impact this consideration. H. Service and Delivery: A loading zone exists along Gore Creek Drive adjacent to the !Mill Creek Court Building. The proposal will have no impact on existing loading and delivery services. 1. Sun/Shade: Due to the existing height and orientation of the building, the addition of the proposed awnings and building area will not extend shadows or interfere with adjacent property's light. Architecture/Landscaoe Considerations A. Roofs A minor roof extension is proposed. The new roof area will not be seen from the street level and does not alter the existing roof forms at the A & D Building. 7 11 B. Facades "Materials Stucco, brick (or stone), wood and glass are the primary building materials found in the Village. Of the above materials, stucco is the most consistently used material." The proposed design maintains the dominance of stucco with the contrast of river rock veneer on low landscape planter walls. The existing stucco color, off-white, will be maintained, but the trim colors will be changed from blue to forest green. The new awning is also proposed to be a copper patina. The proposed rock veneer on the planter walls will match the stone that currently exists on the Gorsuch storefront (a picture of this stone work is enclosed). The applicant prefers the rounded, irregular river rock over the existing rock at the A & D Building. According to the applicant, the existing stonework has a rectangular, manufactured look. The proposed stonework will replace the existing stonework on all portions of the A & D Building. "Color For wood surfaces, trim or siding, darker color tones are preferred. Browns, grays, blue grays, dark olives, slate greens, etc. Stucco colors are generally white beige, pale gold, or other light pastels. Bright colors should be avoided. Generally, to avoid busyness, and weak visual interest, the variety of major wall colors and materials should be no more than four nor less than two in each case. A colorimaterial change between the ground floor and upper floor is a common and effective reinforcement of the pedestrian scale of the street." The applicant's color palette of muted grays and beige (river rock), dark green (windows, wood trim, storefront door and awnings), and off-white (stucco) are in harmony with the color guidelines. The applicant's proposal will add green to the existing colors of brown, gray and blue at the A & D Building. The materials will be stone, wood, copper and stucco. Thus, four basic colors and four basic types of materials are proposed. "Transparency As a measure of transparency, the most characteristic and successful ground floor facades range from 55% to 75% of the total length of the commercial facade." The proposed transparency is approximately 50% of the building facade. This is slightly below the range indicated above, but the applicant is proposing improvements that will draw attention to the storefront area such as the river rock faced display cases on each side of the entry door. The additional ornamentation, the awning, streetscape benches and landscape planters, along with the reorientation of the entryway to the corner of the building, will draw pedestrian attention to the building. 8 "Windows For close-up casual pedestrian viewing, windows are typically designed to human-sized dimensions. Ground floor display windows are typically raised slightly, 18 inches plus or minus, and do not extend much over 8 feet above the walkway level." The proposed windows are at a pedestrian scale. The planters are 1.5 to 2 feet high and windows are 6 feet high, for a total height to the top of the windows at 8 feet above walkway level. "Glass areas are usually subdivided to express individual window elements and are further subdivided by mullions into small panes which is responsible for much of the old world charm of the Village. Windows should give a pleasing rhythm with horizontal repetition of single window elements especially over long distances avoided. Bay and box windows are common window details which further add variety and massing to facades and are encouraged." The proposed windows have a pleasing rhythm and symmetry in both location and size. Mullions are used to divide the large glass panes into small panes. Bay windows and projecting display cases are designed to accent the entryway. "Doors Like windows, doors are important character and style giving architectural elements. They should also be somewhat transparent on commercial facades and consistent in detailing with windows. As an expression of entry, shelter and welcome, protected entryways are encouraged. Doorways may be recessed, extended or covered." The entryway consists of double glass doors in the same style as the windows with mullions dividing up the large glass plates. The doorway is recessed and covered with an awning, providing a protected entryway. C. Decks and Patios No decks or patios are proposed by the applicant. D. Balconies No balconies are proposed by the applicant. E & F. Accent Elements and Landscape Elements C The accent elements are in harmony with the recommendations of the Design Guidelines. The colors and materials proposed are consistent with colors and materials used across the street (Gorsuch). Lighting along the storefront has not been finalized and will need to be approved by the DRB before a building permit is issued for the project. 9 G. Service This consideration is not applicable to this application. VII. VARIANCE CRITERIA 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 site coverage variance. The recommendation for approval is based upon 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. Staff believes the variance request will have no negative impacts on the relationship to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity of The Golden Store or the A&D Building. The request for the additional 52 square feet of site coverage will result in an improved streetscape and pedestrian experience along Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive and will not interfere with the operation of the existing businesses on adjacent properties. 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 the title without grant of special privilege. The staff has worked with the applicant to reduce the amount of deviation (+0.70%) from the site coverage development standard. Staff believes the applicant is requesting the minimum amount of relief from the site coverage limitation to obtain compatibility and uniformity amongst the sites in the vicinity of The Golden Bear. Staff does not believe that the granting of the variance request will result in a grant of special privilege since the intent of the development standards is being met. The site coverage limitation of 80% was intended, in part, to ensure that an adequate amount of the site was left undeveloped to permit areas for landscaping and streetscape. The applicant's request to increase the site coverage percentage by 0.7% does not have any negative impacts on the landscape area of the Golden Bear Store. In fact, the applicant proposes to increase the net landscape area on the property by approximately 38 sq.ft. and to implement the recommended actions in the Streetscape Master Plan. Staff further believes that the request does not constitute a grant of special privilege since the addition proposed by the applicant furthers the goals and objectives of the master plans of the Town of Vail without resulting in negative impacts on adjacent properties or uses. As discussed in Sections III, IV, V, & VI of this memorandum, the applicant's proposal implements many of the recommendations proposed in the Town's Master Plans, As stated in the Vail Village Master Plan, 10 11 "Vail Village has not escaped the aging process. There is a need to encourage the contiuned upgrading and enhancement of existing lodging and commercial facilities within the Village in order to maintain the unique character that is its main attraction." Lastly, staff believes that while it is always possible to design and construct a building that is in full compliance with the Zoning Code, it is not always practical or reasonable to do so. Staff acknowledges that the applicant could redesign the addition and eliminate 52 square feet of site coverage. However, the design and construction of the existing building corner is not condusive to substantial changes. Staff believes that such a change would negatively impact the applicant's use of the Golden Bear Store. Staff feels that the benefits of the addition outweigh any possible negative impacts. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes the variance request will have no negative impacts on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followino findinas before arantina a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation 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 and 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 exemptions 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 district. 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. 11 11 Vlll. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Minor Exterior Alteration The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for a minor exterior alteration in Commercial Core I to The Golden Bear Store. The recommendation for approval is based upon the staff's review of the minor exterior alteration criteria outlined in Sections 111 thru Vl of this memorandum. Staff believes the applicant has met each of the criteria. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the minor exterior alteration request, staff would recommend the following conditions: That a public way permit and a revocable right-of-way permit be executed prior to issuance of a building permit. The public way permit application shall be accompanied by a construction fencing, traffic control, and staging plan. These plans must be reviewed and approved by Public Works and Community Development staff. The applicant shall coordinate and receive approval for all final grading plans for the paver/drain pan repair work from Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall also coordinate plans to direct rooftop run-off into the storm sewer system with Public Works. 2. That the applicant prepare and submit a detailed exterior lighting plan for review and approval by the DRS prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. That the applicant provide a minimum of two streetscape benches along Gore Creek Drive/Bridge Street prior to issuance of a building permit. 4. That the applicant coordinate irrigation plans and plant material selection decisions with Todd Oppenheimer at Public Works prior to issuance of a building permit. On-going maintenance of all landscaped areas shall be required of the applicant. Final Town review and approval of landscaping around the Eire Department connection shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit. 5. That payment of the parking pay-in-lieu fee shall occur prior to issuance of a building permit. Site Coverage Variance The Community Development Department recommends approval of the applicant's request for a site coverage variance to allow for an increase of 52 square feet, or 0.70% of site coverage, over the allowable. The recommendation for approval is based upon the staff's review of the variance criteria and findings outlined in Section VII of this memorandum. The staff believes the site coverage variance should be granted since the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege to the applicant, nor will the granting of the variance be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, nor will it be materially injurious to other properties in the vicinity of The Golden Bear Store. The staff believes the site coverage variance is warranted for the following reasons: That the granting of the site coverage variance allowing for an increase in site coverage by 0.701X-, does not result in a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation on other properties in the Commercial Core i Zone District. 12 11 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, nor will it be materially injurious to the adjacent properties or uses in the vicinity of the Golden Bear Store. 3. That the strict and literal interpretation or enforcement of the 80% site coverage limitation would result in a practical difficulty inconsistent with the objectives of the Commercial Core I Zone District development standards and the goals and objectives of the Master Plan documents of the Town of Vail. cApec\memos\goldbear. o27 13 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION October 27, 1997 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Galen Aasland Susan Connelly Greg Amsden Mike Mollica Diane Golden Andy Knudtsen Gene Uselton George Ruther John Schofield Lauren Waterton Ann Bishop Dominic Mauriello Judy Rodriguez Public Hearina 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. A request for approval of a major exterior alteration, to allow for the construction of a new entry and common area in the Treetops I building, located at 452 E. Lionshead Circle/Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing. Applicant: Treetops Condo Association, represented by Larry Barnes Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments. William Pierce, on behalf of the applicant, had no comments. John Schofield had no comments. Gene Uselton had no comments, Greg Amsden inquired about the existing landscaping in front. Bill Pierce said there were pine trees. Ann Bishop commended the applicant on the improvement. Diane Golden had no comments. Greg Moffet stated for the record that this application was consistent with the purpose statement in the CC2 Zone District. Dominic Mauriello stinted that the applicant would bring the lighting into compliance. Plannine and Environmental Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 1 Greg Moffet suggested making the lighting a condition. John Schofield made a motion for approval with 1 condition that the exterior lighting of the entire structure be brought into compliance with the Town of Vail code. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 2. A request for approval of a minor exterior alteration in CC1 and a site coverage variance, to allow for the renovation of the exterior and improvements to The Golden Bear, located at 935 S. Frontage Road, #302/ Lots A&B, Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: C. Lee Kirsch, represented by Frederick W. Dietrich Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo and said that this same request was approved in 1995, with the addition of the site coverage variance. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Paul Miller, representing the Golden Bear, asked if the streetscape benches were in addition to what was on the landscape design. George Ruther said, yes. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. Ann Bishop applauded the applicant on the improvements. Diane Golden stated that the project met the goals of the Vail Village Master Plan. John Schofield asked the applicant if he agreed with the staff conditions. Paul Miller stated in order to address the intersection, the need was created to bring the building forward. John Schofield said the intersection caused a special circumstance which would allow granting a variance. Gene Uselton asked if the conditions were acceptable to the applicant. Paul Miller said, yes. Greg Amsden had no comments. Greg Moffet said that this request met all the criteria. He said that there was more latitude in the CC1 to grant variances, with regards to the special privilege issue. He said the goals and objectives would result in a practical difficulty. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 2 October 27, 1997 Ann Bishop made a motion for approval with the 5 conditions, in accordance with the staff memo. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0 3, A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a bed and breakfast operation, located at 1477 Aspen Grove/Lot 3, Block 2, Lionsridge 4th Filing. Applicant: William H. Miller Planner: Lauren Waterton Ann Bishop recused herself, as she was representing a gentleman who was employed by the applicant. Mike Mollica gave an overview of the staff memo and said that there would be 3 additional cars on the site and that staff was recommending approval with 3 conditions. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments. Will Miller, the owner of the property management company at Montaneros, said this use lessened the impact versus renting the property out short-term. He said he secured different vacation parties through the management company for short-term rentals. He said short-term occupancy allowed in the house was 10-12 persons, plus the housekeeper, generating more cars than what would be generated by 3 couples if the use was a bed & breakfast. He stated that he would be in residence on the site. He explained that vacant rooms were rented out in the summertime with one person per bedroom. He stated that based on the number of houses on the street, he was not overloading the street and would be accountable, since he would live on the premises. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Tom Hughes, President of the Aspen Grove Homeowner's Association, stated they were against this use. He said the intention of this neighborhood. was to be a single family neighborhood and he had not heard one positive comment about the request. Peter Kyle, a next-door neighbor, said he was planning on selling his home and the B&B would have a negative impact on the sale of his house. Carroll Orrison, the owner of the 2nd house built on Aspen Grove Lane, said the area was isolated from the city and he thought the area should only have single family homes. Tom Hughes said that Tract B included this private road. He said he represented the ownership and they kept it plowed and maintained. He said since they owned the road, they wanted to keep it private. John Schofield questioned if the road access was owned jointly by the 11 owners and controlled by the Association. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes October 27, 1997 3 '1' ie C o cj- - e n 13e?.r Exterior Remod:-,--,,l { RM1 Robcrtson Miller Terrell *Ii tects Post Office B0 7630, At an, Ca R 1'67 hrttrte (97FS} 94)-try G Fax (970) 99-1ft17, f?- fail ea (.nce I" T • t a RMI' Mm-k PC." ,, c) t j( ?° r'4r.aTax O7 f) r ;(Y7C f} (? ? 4 I 7 ?- S ?? r :s?;;x?.:-r/s.:,?,f ;...::z...r.,-, «<,.,. •.,..,r .t..,,, ,.c? f"c:E??=?^?:_.___....--? ?=-.=` 'C''4;C4??4r C/ ! r ?y s..a .ora. MsrP r..nn;+.c •OOfC „ , )( V Wr,.nnr.•n T f•.wr?t ? ? ? YtYt ( • ? •.a t1a ../rr f•.•rd•. M •M• f vw .h tit•rY: ?. Iffa[.OrM IL.Y fP rfJf ../M TMM ..•.M t.+• ?.-^^' 'Y?'}tYl ? y Tar Na .r".Hw rn.f •./rr y..i.w M M, .. / f }( SI C`jNl[ .a M, f...r..r w w n ../a r..r.r.• .. w l7? rII JI1 Ww fr•nr4 M ,rr. j? j?t ?.I rglN q/..rR twDTC`YPrO K,+C'Il Jl.J M1 rw.rw M .4. ?f { x: ? ? .... Y SS{ c'? O »a u+ro <r Too?f wa..aa > b +./M .....rar.. w MM rT.a Nf r M +r. . C: { w.na t ? ? oe v?•y`• Y, ??? ? i i ? f YC t ? i JCJ e C Yi rti ri?r•tT j? ?? nnc><u4,s.: rood ••.. ,f C?C \?`i?SC?Y'?Y _ . Y' LFf>?'?. ?Cr t tlrY Y(,r4 tj,f (??'Yi \f= f', SUE ? ...r PLAN eh Sito Pan A 1.2 it//fi /iv.?;r?;i i.._?..?.2/:•,F it f-? k / ....`T.`? t i I! Irf I?f to l /w }rt t Iv \ / ------------ a) RAF; cod- Frltr'y Finn ! / t L- 4 c. :k s Q t i i, Flatx inn a) }r ? r r ?? ? r E> ? I Ft,? p ??, ` 4 Ia i r ? r k ?f ? r r r'' Ir - i ?t 1 RMr A-W?k PC A?Of ?yw {ip/ rlwYwn SIAM r? 9 W I- ?? nw ci.czm.r: wmr FLOOR PLAN ? . A2.1 0 9 9' RMI' >o_,p 4wapWwal.p • • ?iwt ' STAW L q4 ?V J' J.Y %J .4 ?! l/:•'dy?a/ii::a: i,i1'!.?'w.-rrf :'??v?o-+f,'IYk..'1.;? fi•. .SYd;•L?. h,'F'Ah Y?Y(J't•'F 1if^„ :??ZSZ',u.-??7 •? (?htj I'JlNt?i/.fi.f ?rf•••f'J•-i7:t?. ... ..• ..r..,.i...ine,lf:nlFb.. a*/A/ftf'W? ?? \\\' ? n?uL +o RW ? ???. ? `-!• v ? 1 ! { ?Cib 1Y? 1001 ROOF PLAN {k L 2./? u -- - - RM Amw-u? PC t Ilk k V ?Brid9e Street) Fl lilt _ }il?}?i IIIJ ?I _ t}li?ii' ? I! :41 fhFtorftT (rore_Creek Drive) Elevation -i EXTERIOR ELEV. 0* f!"=0 Eletavton All ? ANF%b, P -11= RM1 glad a PC p?.1aw 1TAW Rio! oK n{qr 41ir Oop-- t nntrv ,qtrr Rum.aun tffi? ? t ??/t Y art ?cyW;? i• rt??a A U rsHVi RM4ii T.._?_ rV v nt PtgniQr R -F, ?? Q+M`11JY -'- 1 R e5-l? ,4vE t,,11- }x??1 W r?-1 4 0 4 A A WALL sr.MTONS A4.1 , a a ` Px*?ED JAN 6 1998 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 12, 1998 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Susan Connelly Greg Amsden Mike Mollica Galen Aasland George Ruther Gene Uselton Judy Rodriguez Diane Golden John Schofield Ann Bishop Public Hearina 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for approval of a minor exterior alteration in CC1 and a site coverage variance, to allow for the renovation of the exterior and improvements to The Golden Bear, located at 286 Gore Creek Drivel Lots A&B, Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: C. Lee Kirsch, represented by Frederick W. Dietrich Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Paul Miller said, regarding the landscape issue, that two trees were added in the southeast portion of the property. He said the trees did nothing for the streetscape, but were necessary in that location, as there was no other opportunity within the property boundaries to fulfill the landscape requirement. Greg Moffet asked if there was any public comment. There was none. John Schofield asked George about Condition # 3. George Ruther explained the condition. Gene Uselton had no comments. Greg Amsden had no comments. Galen Aasland said he would like to see a better landscape plan. Ann Bishop had no comments. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 1 January 12, 1998 Diane Golden had no comments. Greg Moffet said the request met the criteria for the CC1 Zone District. John Schofield made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo, with a change to Condition # 3 to state that the benches be in place prior to the issuance of a TCO. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant was required to have a copper roof. George Ruther said the copper roof was not required and could be part of a condition. John Schofield amended his motion to state it was the applicant's choice to have a copper roof. Ann Bishop seconded the amended motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 2. A request for a building height variance from Section 12-76-12, to allow for an increase in the 60/40% building height ratio for the Gasthof Gramshammer, located at 231 E. Gore Creek Dr./Part of Block 5B, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer, represented by Kurt Segerberg ' 0 Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 26, 1998 3. A request for a density variance from Section 12-78-13, to allow for the construction of a two-bedroom dwelling unit, located at 227 Wall Street (Hong Kong)/Lot B & C, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st filing. Applicant: ASI Vail Land Holding, L.L.C., c/o Base Mountain Sports - Brett Barnett, represented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 26, 9998 4. A request for a setback variance, to allow for a revised parking lot, located at 4192 Spruce Way/Lot 5, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: Altair Vail inn, c/o Mary Herzig, represented by Prudential Gore Range Properties. Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 26, 9998 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 12, 1998 5. A request for a conditional use permit to construct four multiple-family dwelling units and variances from Section 12-7E-8 (Building Height), Section 12-7E-11 (Landscape Area) and Section 12-7E-7 (Setbacks), to allow for commercial and residential expansion, located at 143 E. Meadow Drive (Crossroads East Building) / Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 St. Applicant: Crossroads Plaza, Trevina L.P., represented by Bill Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 26, 1998 6. A request for additional GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a garage addition with office space above, located at 4532 Streamside Circle/Lot 15, Bighorn 4th Addition Applicant: Edward Padilla, represented by Kathy Langenwalter Planner: Reed 06ate WITHDRAWN Ann Bishop moved to table items #2, #3, #4, and #5 until January 26, 1998. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 7. Information Update Susan Connelly handed out the upcoming Lionshead Redevelopment schedule as approved by the Town Council. She also included a letter from Kezziah Watkins with information on where Vail Tomorrow would go. Susan then went over the press release regarding Slifer Plaza. 8. Approval of December 22, 1997 minutes. Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the minutes of December 22, 1998. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1. (Ann Bishop abstained). 9. Verify PEC representatives for 1998 DRB meetings. John Schofield volunteered to be the DRB representative for the 1 st quarter. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval of John Schofield. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 12, 1998 3 S > i Ann Bishop made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 2:15 pm. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 4 January 12, 1998 ABBREVS. u o«w war, w.«e m?oc+t Lei a.W.? wwm.l'", ow +?ss *om.+n ..«vs SYMBOLS nx... OW anw aswmn wawa aswxa. Mu :c,wn .C?.7 .wuc:rna ?t JY7"Y lsu avHw`/Ai+ /,? oco i Miss uc'w' x w "" em (?7 «nra xwmnon ,wc ?- ssmw x.box rn.es R.uw .neo, ? arnro. ksRx..i nsvAm, a«w s,w...i ?? osvAnw <c.... xxwf +? av?.cma+ cm 00 4 arc, ?+aww ?? tAAM .CONCRETE } «um stud wAu ?.......,....: sTa4 s. ..om (nmC«) ?^ --?- ? KYW000 ? ?PIJr.SIfA(ONNfSt51000 1+.. GATTM ro. ?Y MOO MSULA.O i CN.O. E INDEX .a: x.acc+.+awAna. arwnar run xc: s Acs uo«c / as nAn .ss .om sw, .ZZ M1tFCrz0 CGNC >U« As+ a,ulot ncvAnws , «vs sscmn .as auxs ss., rw,o.sw run .no mow norzs u, sni cvuc ocnns Dl-,C ',TORY ,.II iK CIX#X YA. ?? uuo ca.un.oa wsa pn} w-ons A110rIL Mvwa w,0 Kxfli Y?1 ? ?nc.rrAs vtlA 00.0x/40 MYZO hsM sn-sn. I?Ml?la ?? s X11 0¢+MZA ar.s xr'wn ro rax N .n. cttm.na nuA Cssci r.s-sroe [tA Amass, PC o+..wnos SCAM `??Vtl V Q w. dr) A?w T ?k yr. T ittd0'gi- ?R nOmCC+AY MIN ixA2 CD aeArN.n PROJECT Ik,FO. A.O.2 10 11 11 Ll RMr A.hb? PC 1Y) Y? Y!Y Aa4pOAO??H' 1 fw dIO MLIgY 6? ?11MM SYAW ?, 2.2r2ar fnm ' ' s }c E 4r, y t fC 4 CC t i ? r f r c {tC ti S ?4? C Ir Sllr f t fS ,f Yom. i ;+,.m Ua rYn2 q rn? ? ? 1 ?Jww rap /.?.. mrrw? tars2? O a1f mV®rt14 M 6.. IrMr 'rn6?Y. rw..a •r 2 !? i6n lEi .rMCr,ra .yY1, ru+n m eYme.m.x? .ao. DEMO PLAN ALI RMr ?C A.WWtk PC 1Ohfnt titl. xwlml o.?r STAMP zt xrn??? PNOVFp1V ?.t r4 ?Y' ^-c- µ ?. w ? • r j?;r? f r @a q.vn T?'t Q) T ??Np x+ 7iLY mEF ME PLAIN A1.2 .M- R L1 PC Y nom - -- W Sf64.8?- B 6?t.41 .8164,66 ENTRY ' IJ[ ? F -fit ? ?. Wnu X{\ FM1N ? x8T64,29 ???nnn?{{ ti ,Q €0FE UfCR6EK -.,, _ `? E 164.16 "8164.35 ? ? _ t?7QE 8t55.96 EOGF GRK/136 t. wA€I FxtSt1NG 14 NVC tNV C)UI- 8/64.81 \ 8164,06 - ENTRY: 816<,00 ' r ?N• fJd?[CTIM ' ///'cRhiE FL 8165.57 8161 OO \ -AU IGT TAK "r 1 ttl T 4FkK/1}01. WALL ?\ ?? lint! [nNr. Ut Ni?Nk w k € CON Rf 1%151INC /( /FyTy 4.f11 itF 1It Hitt ` / M84M. f?' 4 V i)tAMt. fj 11 !NV M / f ri"X? f \ cMA= Trxuaottirt?ii?c d t? / ?( )! t ?oc 3 °""?" I Y i.. ti ?IEA7 THE ni,Y1t 1 nl4 Ncr iNV IN .?u L`U [ r / PAQ4CE it ow PYO OFAN PPE. y ..; am OUT ¢) , I 1 t n r 1N t nl)avt c uruc . vANBT64.9 Hftt W 0 x ? ? 64E>6Y N 1 r F 1 ,14 8164.56 x6164.37 TO r? Rw?V, 5 rX] L 411 M [ WT ? f1 ? {? •. (l fYWfil t) !fA )(ilfit TS S6x t3C)i. CYI 4N k 1 T ???_?_ -6uAtt ti tttna.9+ Yme it oink pw oaw vrc t- WT. 6". 0163:00 nwncsw nw 64i - H01i r wfi Cf Kw m 63.76 6 011AKAM PM 'lmsmxv: Wit billow GRADING/ CIVIL 6i1C Ri mmm _ PLAN 61K !ix at" pn ia/ - @$5 G / ayiL PLAN A1.3 .W-__ r 1 • ALL INTERIOR CA INI TRY- \ €INISH CARPENTRY IS TOc DE DESIGNED AND EXECUTED BY CABINET MAKER fl !I GI LI II I{ z ? ' r r f r-wy r-N'uwsa.+A ?..ae Q);Wo Entry El n CWRtYARD t t IF- -W-, F F t _ ?- m ?x m.i..w aww mnr.c?a.? -? _y... i F ? _ A I J t? -1 4 ^? A a 's Ri.Yl 1 M YSMa Awa O•Y.M. YIYL TY?'?q II. bMMiai nJJtt MI.+a 1TA OI V fU n. ar ?.Ya Z ?pv T n xr T nY.TM4k hi1A m LOY•a nmfrm MY. IS111•f Y,r FLOOR PLAN ?y A2.1 • i • RMr M C INl ?k ltlero. PC !04}Ff! Aw1GWyF?tlb ]YQ? ?Mallt s..Y""T. a... .?a, STAMP ?v q ROOF PLAN .A2.Z R1.Y11 kwtiOla?fYO ??1gE1.YYpY? 6?.. R+Mlgyl SfAmp 1? c 9 PflRefleeted Ceiling Pier mx? , i I t? ?????I11???11 .?fff 1110 REFL FG. GEU ING PLAN ,?A??^yGN L"?.3 RM L =d.s, en,rc AwhdfwY.??Op ra s«n,? SrAw f / n? I- J-1- t t. mNort fQor= Creek Drive) Elevation L7? I ?M *1 GRNorthRWeat (Front) Eewtior ct 0 N V ?u t? nonrr mu M? F3XTERIOx ELEV. A3.1 f - ' k rr' It ,, RM i Ar.bb.lk PC A..?tvww?lbtl ?Ha ((?1Y'I1pV?MMIi !?f rr?r+ltw STAMP v , ` r I J= ar),.rs , +/,',me 0 P rp P(,FY rrrY. CMS 1 f m?nn Colu f } a? r Rttmc,w PFi% lIWS Qf - nmz,n,v. lm1? WALL jWnONS AA4.14p 0 0 0 --yp ??ew ru N< tiY man+w.a ra[-.- ? 1 f t a'r mn. uve.-- "...? ? LTBki &I WETAIL O ENTRY PIER ?"L O CO (MN .? -i6.:. 7, 1, A.N*.tk PC • W Pep r Y?_ ? mt o^a ?? ' SPANP ?gnat ar S:LAIt' Q1 W ? ?J ?R46* [(L O PIER { r--^1 T - , R ) 6+i E ? 1ttiR @ DETAILS A4.2 I-. r RECEIVED MAY 1 1 1998 n FIELD CONTAINER COMPANY, L.P. May 5, 1998 Larry Field Chief Executive Officer Sent Via Fax Vail Town Council 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Sir: I own a home on West Forest Road in Vail, and am writing to you to voice my strong opposition to the current effort to develop the land upon which the tennis courts are located. The tennis courts are directly below my home and any building on the tennis courts would be would dramatically change the nature of the neighborhood. The residents of Forest Road suffer from a density problem as it is from the CATS coming down the road to access the mountain. Additional traffic from more buildings would be horrendous. I will do all in my power to oppose this revision and encourage all of my neighbors to do the same. Very truly yours, /pm 1500 Nicholas Boulevard Elk Grove Village, Illinois 60007 Telephone 847.956.3226 Facsimile 847,956.9250 Sheldon D. Munach, M.D. IS56 N.W. 183rd Terrace Pembroke Fines, Florida 33029 Vail Town Council c/o Suzanne Silverthorn Fax (970) 479-2157 To Whom It May Concern; mti?A*.16 apn.. ri.w. F16+. ..wA-*.. «.. i{... 197-$1 ---A --- -1-- t i. r r . •.w.. .... .. ?""ANN% JUU Av, "a.c UPUUM LOU LUC Ytait utasttr plan. 1 wourp De remiss It A didn't respond. I stated my opinion in the first correspondence that I felt that "money" was the prime mover In this activity. I can appreciate the bid by Big Moneys interest to totally obliterate the Small Money (and their pristine view) of the mountain that attracted them to Vail in the first place. This is sort of like the old song by Barry Belafonte "Your fathers not your father, but your mother don't care. BUT WE DO CARER Someone out there has decide to "Rundle" Stage .Ili and Stage IV to farther perpetuate their act of RAD- gjjjU Stage III is key. and to dilute this In tantamount to D tp im. It almost sounds as if the decision has been made, and hoping that they can get the community to rubber stamp their action. The environmental impact will be immense. Vail had contaminated water I am told by reliable sources but managed to keep it low key. I can imagine crow severe health and services will pressured should this all come to pass. I implore you, don't let this to happen. DU NOT "BUNDLE" STAGE M AND IV is This is too important to make a charade of. Sincerely. Sheldon D. Munach, M.D. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 18, 1998 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT Greg Moffet Galen Aasland Diane Golden John Schofield Ann Bishop Tom Weber Brian Doyon Public Hearinq MEMBERS ABSENT: The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Dominic Mauriello Christie Barton George Ruther Judy Rodriguez 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow a US West Wireless and Sprint Spectrum facility, located at 160 Mountain Bell RoadlUnplatted (on the existing Mountain Bell tower). Applicant: US West Communications, represented by Jill Jelinek of Liberty Wirestar. Planner: Christie Barton Christie Barton gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland had no comments. Ann Bishop had no comments. Diane Golden said her only concern was its proximity to the pre-schools. Jill Jeliinek, with Liberty Wirestar, said the project had met federal standards, so the threshold of emissions was safe. Diane Golden asked if the schools had been notified. Christie Barton said, yes. Tom Weber asked about noise emission. Jill Jelinek said the equipment building would have cooling machinery, but no noise would be emitted. Brian Doyon had no comments. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes May 18, 1998 1 I so John Schofield said the DRB should look at the design. Greg Moffet asked about the painting and if this would look like a satellite dish, Jill Jelinek explained how fiberglass could be painted to match. Christie Barton advised the PEC that staff was planning on staff approving the shed. Galen Aasland said the DRB should approve it. Ann Bishop made a motion, in accordance with the staff memo, with the additional condition that the DRS approve the shed. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 2. A request for a side setback variance, to allow for an existing garage in the side setback to be converted to GRFA, located at 5119 Black Bear Lane/Lot 8, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Dr. Ronald Yaros, represented by John Perkins Planner: George Ruther Greg Moffet said to reflect in the record, that there was no applicant or public present for this item, George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Tom Weber asked about the additional 19 sq. ft. George Ruther explained that this was a legal non-conforming situation and that it was being expanded upon, by converting the garage to GRFA. Brian Doyon would like to add a condition that the aspen and evergreens to the west be replaced per caliper, as construction would damage the evergreens and they would probably blow over within 5 years. George Ruther suggested that in the past we have requested that a tree arborist give a report. John Schofield had no comments. Galen Aasland agreed with Brian's comments. Ann Bishop agreed with Brian Doyon and said that the evergreens could be negatively impacted. Diane Golden had no additional comments. George Ruther said the tree concern could be directed to the DRB. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes May 18, 1998 2 Brian Doyon said he was comfortable with the DRB addressing the trees. Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, per the staff memo and with direction to the DRB to pay special attention to the mitigation of the trees. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 3. A request for a minor CC1 exterior alteration, to allow for a change to previously approved plans, located at 286 Bridge Street, A & D Building/Lots A & B and Part of C, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Lee Kirch, Golden Bear Store Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Paul Miller, an architect representing the Golden Bear, said there needed to be discussion about the 6th condition in the staff memo. He said the applicant had budgetary constraints. Greg Moffet said budgetary constraints would not be an issue. He then asked for any public comment. There was no public comment. Galen Aasland said that since this was the most important corner in Town, the PEC would ask for an appropriate dormer to be incorporated into this project. Paul Miller said initially there was an approval for canvas awnings. Shelly Mello, with R.A. Nelson said the owner is struggling with this corner, as the landscaping was turned down because of the roadway and she said some concession needed to be made to make this project work. She explained that this proposal was for the north elevation and the applicant wanted this completed by the 1 st of July. Paul Miller asked if braces could be attached for support. Galen Aasland suggested tow braces and a dormer. Paul Miller said a gable dormer with a sheer cantilever would need steel in the wall to support it. Galen Aasland asked if a post anchored onto the planters, attached to the exterior wall would work. Shelly Mello stated it would be in the right-of-way. Greg Moffet asked about columning out of the planters. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes May 18, 1998 3 Galen Aasland still said a dormer should be required, as this was such an important corner. Ann Bishop had no comments. Diane Golden would like to see a dormer and no canvas. Tom Weber stated for the record, that he was working with Shelly Mello on another project, but that it would not influence his comments on this project. He felt a dormer was not the only way to break up the eaveline. Brian Doyon said a dormer should be required, as well as a landscape feature. Shelly Mello said the first five conditions in the staff memo had been met. John Schofield said something had to be done to break up the eaveline, but this was not the only option. Greg Moffet stated for the record that the Golden Bear was a customer of his, but that there was no conflict. He asked Tom, short of requiring a gable roof form, how the roofline could be broken up. Tom Weber suggested the applicant go to the DRB with this proposal and the DRB would suggest ways to break up the roof line. Greg Moffet said the PEC should not punt this to the DRB and the PEC should look at it again. Tom Weber said he would be comfortable with a break up of the massing and with further articulation, if this goes to the DRB. Galen Aasland said this was an appropriate mass. George Ruther went over the 1/12/98 proposed elevations and explained the DRB was looking for a more permanent form of roof that was sensitive to drainage. He said the DRB suggested smaller windows with added articulation over the windows to add rhythm. Paul Miller said an overframe could be created. Shelly Mello said the Town had not allowed the applicant to put any structures in the right- of- way. George Ruther said an easement agreement could be executed. Galen Aasland said the fascia was flush with the eaveline and asked if the applicant was comfortable with adding a dormer. Shelly Mello wanted a dormer without timbers, but with two columns instead. Galen Aasland made a motion, in accordance with the staff memo and with a recommendation to staff to give the applicant some flexibility. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes May 18, 1998 4 Ann Bishop seconded the motion. George Ruther said the DRB would have to review this application. Tom Weber again, said there were other ways to break up the line and he had trouble with the condition requiring a dormer, which might be of a lesser quality. George Ruther reminded the PEC that two of the three dormers would match . Paul Miller said the owner wanted to eliminate the proposed window from the previously approved west elevation. Tom Weber asked if the owner instructed Paul to take it out. Greg Moffet said the PEC would see this again, since there was a change on the approved plans. George Ruther said it was his understanding that the west and front were supposed to stay the same and that is why he commented on the dormers matching. Greg Moffet said the dormer couldn't be removed from the west elevation. Galen Aasland clarified his motion, with an amendment that stated that this application would not address any changes made to the previously approved west elevation and that the only thing the PEC was voting on was the north elevation. The motion passed by a vote of 5-2, with Tom Weber and Brian Doyon opposed. 4. A proposal to amend the zoning regulations to allow single-family and two-family structures to expand by 500 sq. ft. or less in allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), without compliance with certain design requirements; allowing interior GRFA conversions for multiple-family structures; reorganizing the conditional use section of the Zoning Regulations; and allowing Type 11 Employee Housing Units as a permitted use rather than a conditional use in Single-Family, Two-Family and Primary/Secondary Residential Zone Districts. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL JUNE 8, 1998 5. A request for a worksession to discuss a major amendment to SDD #4, to allow for a fractional fee club and a change to the approved Development Plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Dr., Westhaven Condominiums/ Cascade Village Area A. Applicant: Gerald L. Wurhmann, represented by Robby Robinson Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL JUNE 8, 1998 v Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes May 18,1998 5 Ann Bishop made a motion to table items #4 and #5 until June 8, 1998. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 6. Information Update Dominic Mauriello reminded the PEC of the Council worksession on 6/9/98 and the Lionshead Master Plan breakfast on 5/27/98. 7. Approval of May 11, 1998 minutes. Diane Golden had no changes to the April 27, 1998 minutes. John Schofield made a motion to approve the minutes as read. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. John Schofield made a motion to adjourn. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes May 18,1998 6