Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-0810 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 August 10, 1998, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, In consideration of: A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for an addition to a two- family residence, located at 1337 Vail Valley Drive/ Lot4, Block 3, Vail Valley First- Filing. Applicant: Spad International, represented by Railton-McEvoy Architects Planner: Christie Barton A request for a setback variance and additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a living room addition, located at 1241 Westhaven Circle/ Lot 44, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Howard & Cathy Stone, represented by Michael Hazard Planner: George Ruther A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for an addition and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a Type II EHU (Employee Housing Unit), located at 443 Beaver Dam Road/ Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing. Applicant: Beaver Dam, LLC, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther A request for a site coverage variance and a setback variance, to allow for a revised west entry addition at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1 st. Applicant: The Mountain Haus, represented by John Railton Planner: George Ruther A request for an amendment to Special Development District No. 4 (Glen Lyon), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site, located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic MaunellolGeorge Ruther 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 July 24, 1998 in the Vail Trail. TOWqhl't 11 Updated 7128 1 pm PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, August 10, 1998 AGENDA Proiect Orientation / LUNCH - Community Develooment Department 12:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:00 P.M. 1. Glen Lyon - 1000 S. Frontage Rd. West 2. Spad International - 1337 Vail Valley Drive 3. Vail Village Club - 333 Bridge Street 4. Mountain Haus - 292 East Meadow Drive Driver: George 1 2i (VOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00-6:30 p.m. Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a bedroom and bathroom addition to a two-family residence, located at 1337 Vail Valley Drive/ Lot4, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing. Applicant: Spad International (Zevada), represented by Railton-McEvoy Architects Planner: Christie Barton 2. A request for a setback variance and additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a living room addition, located at 1241 Westhaven Circle/ Lot 44, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Howard & Cathy Stone, represented by Michael Hazard Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for an addition and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a Type II EHU (Employee Housing Unit), located at 443 Beaver Dam Road/ Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing. Applicant: Beaver Dam, LLC, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther TOW OFldI !'? ! Updated 7/28 fpm 40 4. A request for a site coverage variance and a setback variance, to allow for a revised west entry addition at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: The Mountain Haus, represented by John Rallton Planner: George Ruther 5. A worksesaion to discuss an amendment to Special Development District No. 4 (Glen Lyon), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello/George Ruther 6. A worksession to discuss the remodeled entryway with additional GRFA and site coverage variance, located at 333 Bridge Street/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Vail Village Club Planner: Christie Barton 7. A final review of a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Interfaith Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/ Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Vail Interfaith Chapel, represented by Gwathmey/Pratt Architects Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 24, 1998 8. A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court/unplatted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 24, 1998 9. Information Update 10. Approval of July 27, 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 Published August 7, 1998 to the flail Trail. v 2 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL. COMMISSION Monday, August 10, 1998 FINAL AGENDA Proiect Orientation t LUNCH - Communitv Develoement Department MEMBERS PRESENT Greg Moffet John Schofield Galen Aasland Ann Bishop (left at 4:30) Brian Doyon Tom Weber Site Visits : 1. Glen Lyon - 1000 S. Frontage Rd. West 2. Spad International - 1337 Vail Valley Drive 3. Mountain Haus - 292 East Meadow Drive I Driver: George Updated 7/28 l pm 12:00 p.m.. 12:45 p.m. NOTE: If the PEG 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 additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a bedroom and bathroom addition to a two-family residence, located at 1337 Vail Valley Drive/ Lot4, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing. Applicant: Spad International (Zevada), represented by Railton-McEvoy Architects Planner: Christie Barton MOTION: John Schofield SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. That the plywood siding be removed and the siding upgraded to meet the minimum requirements in the Design Guidelines (Title 12, Chapter 11.5.C). 2. That the chimney be brought into compliance with the Design Guidelines. 1 MEMBERS ABSENT Diane Golden TOW,k OF b4& Updated 7128 1 pm 2. A request for a setback variance and additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a living room addition, located at 1241 Westhaven Circlet Lot 44, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Howard & Cathy Stone, represented by Michael Hazard Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED 3. A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for an addition and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a Type 11 EHU (Employee Housing Unit), located at 443 Beaver Dam Road/ Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village Third Filing. Applicant: Beaver Dam, LLC, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Ann Bishop SECOND: John Schofield VOTE 5-1 (Galen recused) APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a Type II, Employee Housing Unit deed-restriction with at the Office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. 2. That the applicant submit a revised site plan to the Town of Vail for review and approval illustrating the location of the seven required parking spaces on-site. The one required parking space for the employee unit shall be enclosed and located within the existing garage. 4. A request for a site coverage variance and a setback variance, to allow for a revised west entry addition at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: The Mountain Haus, represented by John Railton Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Ann Bishop VOTE: 6-0 APPROVED WITH 2 CONDITIONS: 1. That an easement agreement be executed with the Town of Vail. 2. That there be a defined ADA access and in the future, if greater ADA access is required, it come out of the applicant's space and not encumber on the Town's space. 2 I x. Updated 7128 t pm 5. A worksession to discuss an amendment to Special Development District No. 4 (Glen Lyon), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello/George Ruther WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 6. A final review of a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Interfaith Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/ Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1St. Applicant: Vail Interfaith Chapel, represented by Gwathmey/Pratt Architects Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL. AUGUST 24, 1998 7. A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Fails Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court/unplatted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 24, 1998 8. Information Update 9. Approval of July 27, 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 0 3 41 A MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: August 10, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for an addition to a two-family residence, located at 1337 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Valley 1 st Filing. Applicant: Spad International, Ltd., represented by John Railton Planner: Christie Barton 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing to add a 248 square foot residential addition to the existing residence (north and east sides of the duplex) located at 1337 Vail Valley Drive. An addition to increase the living space of the bedrooms on the first and second floors and an addition to expand the bathroom on the second floor is proposed. The existing deck will be rebuilt on the new addition. All deck railings will be upgraded to redwood rails (with steel railings on the stairs). A landscaping plan is included to screen the new addition. The duplex has plywood siding on the upper level of the building. The existing house was constructed in 1972 and therefore qualifies for additional GRFA under this ordinance.. With the exception of the plywood siding, the existing duplex conforms to the Zoning Regulations. II. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 20,961 square feet Zoning: ,Two-Family Residential Allowed/Required Existing, Proposed Remaininq GRFA (w/250's): 6,545 sq. ft. 5,818 sq. ft. 6,066 sq, ft. 479 sq. ft. Unit 1 (w/250): 3,2725 sq. ft. 3,060 sq. ft. n/c 6 sq. ft.' Unit 2 (w/250): 3,2725 sq, ft. 3,100 sq. ft. 3,350 sq. ft.` 0 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 4,192 sq. ft. 3,886 sq. ft. 4,036 sq. ft. 154 sq. ft. * The house was built under different GRFA regulations, hence the discrepancy between the allowed and proposed square footage. QVAIL TOW1 t 11L CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Chapter 15-5 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the request-for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: stina topopraphj vegetation, drainaae and existinq 1. Effect upon the exi structures. Staff believes that the proposed addition will have no negative effects upon the existing structure or upon the existing vegetation in the area. Staff does not believe there will be any noticeable negative effect upon topography or drainage. Staff believes the proposed improvements will be in keeping with the neighborhood and the community 2. Impact on adiacent properties. The addition should not adversely affect views, light or air enjoyed by adjacent structures. Staff believes that the proposed additions will not have a significant impact on adjacent properties. The improvements face the golf course and blend in well with the existing structure. 3. Compliance with the Towns zones requirements and applicable .. ... deveiooment standards. The Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be required to meet the Town of Vail Design Guidelines as set forth in Chapter 11 of the Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with Chapter 15, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep- of the existing single family or two family dwelling and site (including landscaping) to determine whether they comply with the Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. Upon review of the applicant's request, the staff has determined that the proposal is in compliance with the Towns zoning requirements. The existing plywood siding needs to be removed and upgraded to meet Design Guidelines. The landscaping improvements will improve the screening between adjacent properties. 2 B. Findintas: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the request for an additional 248 square feet GRFA under the 250 Ordinance to allow for a residential addition at 1337 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 4, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing. The staff recommends that the PEC make the following findings: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. is 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. The staff recommends that the PEC make the following condition: That the plywood siding be removed and the siding upgraded to meet the minimum requirements in the Design Guidelines(Title 12, Chapter 11.5.C). 0 F: everyone,l>ec;memose98,spad.810 3 VAIL. GOLi LOJ1K'i?og.o a_ y tl?C, ,?µ y i 4S! ? G-'? T JI.JC rn --- O}C Z-0 0 oil _r g 12?P5t ? ??j - 0 1 `? f((f j i?.,? f r O -,-•-"`" ? O ( - :----- ¢eMOV>~ EXtSYVI?-°i t£L%K:, r?._. ? '7`-c-?...?, i ?? ? /? 61 fIEVJ 57CYii: ?tthli-'S "PAT.'S.--7 a tmv, -f}"'L'L-'- ,:JC1?T„'t1G NtZW O.N. GARaGS DOOR n Ci ? C-v- 13,.,ck? RO,-r ovtOl?htaG H'GIGi'kT ?L.ErtR.RNGL r f a i UJ GExksTlNG 6,AR AC S k ? i LU U5 1 . ?r Wrz, ?7'H Ran. ` e' y! A i` a? Ewq4 LOWER FLOOR PLAN;// = f-U? l_ L AREA. tQ lk:,t'CN 1 ?? aUP d if ? 1 e? i E NI b??- -- 6a E I - „DN'i"?• PAST PAA ._. _. -T7, PO K? - - F f,?=7. f ? t • c?t?:C- RIA -7 1, t " • i Off 4 lot R??4? _? ? f AF7 t7 n 1 >=F A ? 3r ? _. 9 ? 4 ?. MIDDLE FLOOR PLAN ?' ?i` ^F1E1^J 6q rr&- , "TU e 5 c:E3?kR ctK..a s. f^?ZJwOOjJ RAIUltG 1 wg 2- 3X6 £'. ?. c 1,r't12 ?wtTi+ 2,?,a :r,?y ?x4 k t'.$ 1<!Gh't SfDa cA- j -r,? tom. ?,nr? ? zn6 m ccx!"?• I f x \(? - - SL- 'T-- PAVING T E a f . ,. L li _ b r ON pEr-k Wn Gc f'f'EFZ x S i zhl 13-r-6, WITH j c aF? s7 -r?t:rss. xx? t ? now wt?w CON C, ??.? v?tac.? w/ Irv • ?. VItj"..O-AJ 7 7?1 t r-T L-J 4. 41 ?... ?,.e.e •u. I y. iy?Al ?. dasd,rm.Y.u a:?.i u,.s w? z.i?. .u+..N.?n.l k I 'i ? ti, ?a..., NORTH ELEVATION 0 10 _ rz_ tt N ?I I 1 A • -=C-?,T,v. C 2 5 C:'r3?hfZ, ?S _. Fr--'UW oV 6AJL406b 3xr6 2 5 cS? ? P It T P- ':A 1 :x? ?,cam J;z ,c SAr T 711 ,K fl? F..,, PEt.Z j r i L-1-IL L ?- r ?rtt KEVi ?.tE L ST N TN I R f - J:71 y ..L ?? f 7bhJ? ?P' a EAST ELEVATION o' ???NORTH ELEVATION 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 10, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit and a request for additional GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance to allow for a ski room and dormer addition, located at 443 Beaver Darn Road/Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing. Applicant: Dick and Donna Strong, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicants, Dick and Donna Strong, represented by Jay Peterson, are requesting a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 12-13-5 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to allow for the construction of a Type 11 employee housing unit and up to 240 square feet of additional GRFA to allow for the construction of a ski room and dormer at 443 Beaver Dam Road. The applicants are proposing to construct the Type 11, employee housing unit in an attic area over the garage. The attic area has already been converted to GRFA utilizing the interior conversion provision outlined in the Zoning Regulations. The employee unit will be approximately 681 square feet in size and will contain complete kitchen and bathroom facilities. One parking space will be provided for the unit in the existing garage. The applicants are also proposing to add approximately 240 sq. ft. of additional GRFA to the existing residence. The additional square footage will be added on the main level and upper level of the house. On the main lever, a 209 square foot new ski room is to be added to the north side of an existing two-car garage. On.the upper level, an existing dormer in the master suite will be enlarged by approximately 31 square feet. The dormer is located on the south side of the house. II. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Lot Size: 31,799 sq. ft. /0.73 acres Standard Allowed Proposed Site Coverage: 6,360(20%) 6,265 sq? ft. (19,7%) GRFA: 5,510 sq, ft. 5,750 sq, ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' N/C Sides: 15715' N/C Rear: 15' N/C Parking: 7 required 7 (1 required enclosed space for the EHU) Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Upon review of Section 12-16-6, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on a conditional use permit application, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) shall consider the factors with respect to the proposed use: Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. When the Town Council adopted the Town of Vail Affordable Housing study on November 20, 1990, it recognized the need to increase the supply of housing, The Town encourages EHUs as a means of providing quality living conditions and expanding the supply of employee housing for both year-round and seasonal local residents. Staff believes the proposed EHU will have a positive impact on the Town's housing needs by potentially providing housing for up to two adults and one child. 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 that there will be little impact from the proposed Type 11 EHU on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. 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. It is likely that there would be one or two additional vehicles driving to the residence, and a slightly larger parking area. Staff feels that this would be an insignificant impact on the above-referenced criteria. 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. 2 The scale and bulk of the proposed structure is similar to that of other structures in existence in the surrounding neighborhood. The addition of the EHU will not significantly effect the mass and bulk of the existing residence since the EHU will occupy the existing attic space over the garage. 5. Employee Housing Units may be allowed as a conditional use in those zone districts as specified by Title 12 of the Vail Municipal Code for Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1992, Employee Housing and shall be subject to the following conditions; a. It shall be a conditional use in the Single-Family Residential, Two-Family Residential and Primary/Secondary Residential zone districts. The subject property is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. b. It shall be permitted only on lots which comply with the minimum lot size requirements of the zone district in which the lot is located. The minimum lot size for a Type 11 EHU in the Two-Family Residential zone district is 15,000 square feet of buildable site area. The applicant's property has 31,799 square feet of buildable site area. C. It shall be located within, or attached to, a single-family dwelling or be located within, or attached to, a two-family dwelling pursuant to the Zoning. It may also be located in, or attached to, an existing garage provided the garage is not located within any setback, and further provided that no existing parking required by the Town of Vail Municipal Code is reduced or eliminated. The proposed. Type 11 Employee Housing Unit would be located within the building above the garage. d. It shall not be counted as a dwelling unit for the purposes of calculating density. However, it shall contain kitchen facilities and a bathroom, as defined in Chapter 12-2 - Definitions of the Zoning Regulations. It shall be permitted to be a third dwelling unit in addition to the two dwelling units which may already exist on the lot. Only one Type 11 EHU shall be allowed per lot. The proposed employee housing unit would be the third dwelling unit on the site. It would contain a full kitchen and full bathroom facilities. 3 e. It shall have a GRFA of not less than three hundred (300) square feet, nor more than nine hundred (900) square feet. An applicant, however, shall be permitted to apply to the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail for additional GRFA not to exceed five hundred (500) square feet to be used in the construction of the EHU. The applicant is proposing a 681 square foot employee housing unit. It shall have no more than two bedrooms. The proposed employee housing unit complies with this criteria. g. No more than two (2) adults and one (1) child not older than sixteen (16) years of age shall reside in a one (1) bedroom Type 11 EHU. No more than two (2) adults and two (2) children not older than sixteen (16) years of age shall reside in a two (2) bedroom Type 11 EHU. Since this unit will function as a one-bedroom, Type 11 Employee Housing Unit, the first part of the above-listed regulation will be complied with. h. Each Type 11 EHU shall be required to have no less than one (1) parking space for each bedroom located therein. However, if a one (1) bedroom Type 11 EHU exceeds six hundred (600) square feet, it shall have two (2) parking spaces. All parking spaces required by this Code shall be located on the same lot or site as the EHU. If no dwelling exists upon the property which is proposed for a Type 11 EHU at the time a building permit is issued, or if an existing dwelling is to be demolished and replaced by a new dwelling, not less than one (1) of the parking spaces required by this paragraph shall be enclosed. A 300 square feet GRFA credit shall be allowed for the construction of one enclosed parking space for the Type 11 EHU. The proposed employee unit would have one (3) enclosed parking space in the three-car garage. B. Consideration of Factors Reaardina Grantina GRFA Under the 250 Ordinance: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 4 1. Effect upon the existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. The proposal will not negatively impact the existing topography and vegetation on the site. The area of construction forthenew exterior addition was regraded when the residence was originally built and is relatively flat. Staff believes that the proposed addition will not significantly affect the existing site topography, vegetation, drainage, and existing structures. 2. Impact on adjacent properties. The addition should not adversely affect views, light, or air enjoyed by adjacent structures. Staff believes that the proposed additions will not have a significant impact on adjacent properties. 3. Compliance with the Town°s zoning requirements and applicable development standards. Staff believes that an approval of the additional 240 sq. ft. of GRFA will not have any negative impacts on the applicable development standards of the Town. 0 VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of both the conditional use permit request for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit and the additional GRFA. Staff's recommendation for approval is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section III of this memorandum. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the applicant's requests, staff would recommend the following findings be made: 1. That the requests comply with the review criteria outlined in Section III (A) and Section III (B) of the staff memorandum dated August 10, 1998; and that there will be no negative impacts of the proposal on the goals and objectives of the Town. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission grant an approval of the applicant's request, staff would recommend the following conditions: That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall record a Type 11, Employee Housing Unit deed-restriction with at the Office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. 2. That the applicant submit a revised site plan to the Town of Vail for review and approval illustrating the location of the seven required parking spaces on-site. The one required parking space for the employee unit shall be enclosed and located within the existing garage. 5 -.. I 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 10, 1998 SUBJECT: A request fora setback variance and a site coverage variance to allow for the y construction of a west entry remodel to the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East M Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1st. Applicant: Trevor Bradway, represented John Railton. Planner: George Ruther DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Trevor Bradway, owner of Unit #101, Mountain Haus Condominiums, represented by John Railton, is requesting a setback variance and site coverage variance to allow for the construction of a new west entrance into Unit #101, Mountain Haus. The new west entry is intended to improve access into Unit #101 which is a commercial spaces within the Mountain Haus, as well as improve the fire safety of the building. The new entry will replace an existing sliding patio door and deck. The new entrance will be consructed in conjunction with the improvements that are already underway to the Mountain Haus west entry. Similar to the ongoing improvements, much of the new entry is proposed to be constructed on Town of Vail property within Slifer Plaza. If approved, the applicant will be required to execute a easement agreement with the Town of Vail. No additional trees will be removed as a result of this request. According to the Official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the Mountain Haus is located in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Pursuant to Sections 12-7A-6 and 12-7A-9 of the Municipal Code, the minimum side setback shall be 20 feet and the site coverage shall not exceed 55% of the total site area. The existing west side setback, in the location of the new entry addition, is one foot and the existing site coverage of the Mountain Haus is approximately 77%. The new entry addition is proposed to extend out from the building 4 feet and add approximately 30 square feet of additional site coverage. Therefore, the proposed improvements will result in a new west side setback of zero feet and the site coverage percentage will be increased to 78%. Since the minimum side setback for the Mountain Haus is 20 feet and the maximum site coverage is 55%, and the applicant is proposing to increase to existing non-conformity, a side setback variance of one foot and a site coverage variance of 1% are required. A copy of the plans and a letter of explanation from the applicant has been attached for reference. 0 f:\everyone\pec\memos\mtheus.413 I TOWN OFV II. BACKGROUND Can Tuesday, July 14, 1998, the applicant's representative met with the Town Council. The purpose of the meeting with the Town Council was to seek the Town Council's permission to proceed through the public planning process. The Town Council's permission is required, as the applicant is proposing to construct the new entry on a portion of Town of Vail property within Slifer Plaza. Upon hearing the applicant's request, the Town Council granted its permission to proceed through the planning process. The Council identified the following three issues which need to be addressed during the review process: 1. Trees 2. Trees 3. Trees Ill. VARIANCE 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 setback and site coverage variances. The recommendation for approval is based 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 that the requested setback and site coverage variance will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on the other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity of the Mountain Haus. The new entry was designed in conjunction with entry improvements currently underway and the Town's improvements to Slifer Plaza. The location of the improvements will not hinder pedestrian circulation in Slifer Plaza. Pedestrian safety may actually be enhanced as the new entry will improve the access and improve fire safety within the building. As mentioned previously, if approved, the applicant will be required to execute a easement agreement with the Town of Vail. Staff is concerned with the proposed location of the new entrance into the commercial space. The new entrance will be significantly screened from pedestrian view by the large existing trees in Slifer Plaza. This will make it very difficult to provide all important display window frontage for the space. While we are not suggesting that the applicant not pursue this request, we would like to provide notice to the applicant regarding the difficulties of locating the entrance in the proposed location. The applicant has proposed a new display window on the building. The t.\everyone\pec\memos\ mthaus.413 2 III window is to be located on the west side of the building between the entrance to Unit #101 and the new west entry to the Mountain Haus. The display would require the removal of a proposed aspen tree which is to be planted upon completion of the Mountain Haus entrance. The purpose of the tree is to help provide vertical screening of the Mountain Haus. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve . compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes the applicant has requested the minimum amount of relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback and site coverage regulations necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity among sites in the vicinity of the Mountain Haus and within the Public Accommodation Zone District. The proposed entry will only encroach one foot further into the setback than the building currently encroaches in the location of the entrance. Other areas of the building on the west side encroach further into the setback, and in fact, some areas are off the applicants property and onto Town of Vail property. In terms of additional site coverage, the new addition, while more permanent and substantial nature, results in a slight increase in site coverage. Staff believes the additional site coverage is warranted and will not result in a special privilege as the Mountain Haus was constructed prior to zoning. The relationship of the existing structure to the current development standards prohibit the applicant from ever constructing improvements to the building without a variance. Staff believes this to be an extraordinary circumstance or exceptional condition. 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 variances will have little, if any, effect on these factors. B. The Planning and Environmental Oom fission shall make: the following findings before orantina a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons 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. f:leveryonelpeclmemoslmthaus.413 3 k 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 The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback and site coverage variances. Staffs recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the Criteria and Factors outlined in Section III of this memorandum. Should the Planning and Environmental choose to grant an approval of the applicant's request, staff would recommend the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following findings: That the granting of the setback and site coverage variances donot constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the setback and site coverage limitations on other properties in the Public Accommodation Zone District. 2. That the granting of the setback and site coverage variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of Unit#101, Mountain Haus. 3. That the setback and site coverage variances are warranted since the strict interpretation or enforcement of the setback and site coverage regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Public Accommodation Zone District, as the Mountain Haus is an existing building constructed prior to Town's adoption of zoning regulations. E f;\everyonelpec\memos\tnthars.413 4 C7L tU E "....56 ?• r? PT, 1,AArci t t art `? ? ui?tY Q C I att lhtti i A1"t-MAY r ,,V,k,LK WAY i 5 It's _- 1 2 F` ENTRANCE PLAN /*k ? ILOU I)p Ll E 4w E BCI Ej El n- ?Ncc.aSUR? `Fb EX i S7rN v 4 C ? f ,t F I-TD OIAM EXIS-rtNG Wtr?D??. ! 70 t?r?r?nc??r Z CON'Grra C,T' S771c1,-",V/!?y' • f ? I ?I I ? t I f , r I f f ' Y • 0 pECEIVED JUN Trevor & Celeste Bradway PO Box 2583 Vail, CO 81658 (970) 476-1117 Pax (979) 476-3264 June 1, 1998 Mr. Rob Ford, Mayor VAIL TOWN COUNCIL Town of Vail, Vail, CO 81657 Deference; Mountain Haus West Side EntrancelBradway Addendum Request for permission to use Town of Vail Land Dear Rob: Sam and I are owners of four commercial Mountain Haus condominium units which are adjacent to Slifer Plaza and right next to the proposed new Mountain Haus west entrance. You are probably familiar with the Mountain Haus Associations' request for land to construct their new west side entrance which I believe has already been approved by Council. The Mountain Haus' proposal was recently amended slightly to better suit the needs of adjacent unit owners including ourselves. Both we and the Mountain Haus would prefer that our customers access our facility from the outside rather than through the building and Fire Marshall Mike McGee also sees the relocation of our present main access (now inside the building) to the outside as a significant fire safety improvement. Our architect came up with what we all believe is the best approach to this which is reflected in the enclosed elevation and plan. As you can see, our entrance access would be separate but integrated with the Mountain Haus access and our walk and steps would be architecturally compatible. We are aware of the concern about exiting trees and landscaping and, while our small addition to the Mountain Haus plan is some five to six feet from existing trees, we are retaining the services of Mark Stelle of Precision Tree Works to amend his previously submitted report to take our plan into consideration. It appears that we only require a few hundred square feet additional to that which has already been approved and we would hope this may be accomplished through an minor addendum or revision of the ground lease agreement between the Mountain Haus and Town of Vail. We expect our small walk and steps would be Mountain Haus common elements (as would the entrance) and they would be the sole lessee. MHOI MPS 611199 4 PAGE TWO OF TWO PAGES Our end of the overall West Entrance construction project is relatively minor and we would expect to have everything completed this fall if not sooner. We have been working with George Ruther on all this and will stay in close touch with him. We and our architect are available for any questions you or staff may have. _,,- e look forward to your favorable decision on our request. Best Tre,Por & Celeste Bradway Ene/ Elevation and Plan Copy/ George Ruther Pile/ Mountain Haus West Entrance MH14I 11 MHoII W'PS 6/1198 I R 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 10, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance and additional GRI?A utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an addition to an existing residence, located at 1241 Westhaven Circle/Lot 44, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Howard & Cathy Stone, represented by Michael Hazard. Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicants, Howard and Cathy Stone, represented by Michael Hazard, are requesting a side- yard setback variance and up to 170 square feet of additional GRFA (250). The variance and additional GRFA are requested to allow the applicants to construct a living room addition to their residence located at 1241 Westhaven Circle. The proposed new living room addition would be located on the west side of the property, within the required, 15-foot, side-yard setback. The addition would encroach up to 7.5 feet into the side-yard setback and is proposed to be 170 square feet in size. The total area of the living room addition proposed in the setback is approximately 85 square feet. Due to the orientation of the existing structure, the new living room addition would not be visible from Westhaven Circle. Additionally, the applicants are proposing to convert several crawl space areas to GRFA utilizing the interior conversion ordinance. The crawl spaces that are to be converted to GRFA are located on the lowest level of the residence. The total area to be converted to GRFA is approximately 237 square feet in size. The interior conversion will have no impact on the setback or site coverage figures. A written description from the applicant, and a copy of the plans have been attached for reference. Since the applicant is proposing a reduction in the minimum side-yard setback (15 feet) to 7.5 feet, and an increase in GRFA utilizing the additional 250 GRFA, a side-yard setback variance of 7.5 feet and an additional 170 square feet of GRFA must be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. 11. ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 17,908 square feet Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential 1191 TOWNO WAIL I Allowed GRFA: 5,140 sq. ft. (w/250)** Setbacks: Front: 20' Sides: 15' Rear 15' Existinq 4,885 sq. ft. 21' 51'/15' 35715' Proposed 5,055 sq. ft. N/C 51'/7.5 N/C Site Coverage: 20%, or 3,582 sq. ft. Parking: 3 spaces required 16%,, or 2,735 sq. ft. 3 1710, or 2,910 sq. ft. 'N/C ** The total allowable GRFA sq. ft, equals the existing sq. ft. plus 250 sq. ft, allowable by ordinance. Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Reoardino the Setback Variance: Upon review of Section 12-17-6 of the Vail Municipal Code, Criteria and Findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variance based on the following factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Setback Staff believes that the proposed residential addition will be compatible with the surrounding development. The additional mass and bulk that is proposed is similar to that enjoyed by surrounding homes in the area, and will not be visible from Westhaven Circle. The applicant is proposing to construct the addition up to 7.5 feet into the required, side-yard setback. The proposed building location will result in a distance of approximately 7.5 feet from the fireplace chimney of the building to the side (west) property line. 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 a grant of special privilege. Setback The requested side-yard setback variance is warranted. Staff believes there are unique circumstances and extraordinary conditions which impact the applicants' lot. Staff believes that the existence of a platted and recorded twenty-foot wide water and sewer easement and a required ski lift setback and easement significantly reduces the developable area of the 2 . r applicants' property. The total lot size is 17,908 square feat. An analysis of the impacts of the easements on development revealed that the developable area of the property is approximately 5,109 square feet (28%). The developable area of the property without the easements and factoring in only the area of the required setbacks is 6,414 square feet (36%). Staff feels that the easements have a significant negative impact on the developability of the site. Staff reviewed the final plat for the Glen Lyon Subdivision and does not believe that any other platted lot in the subdivision is as negatively impacted as Lot 44. Overall, staff believes that there would not be a granting of special privilege if the variance were approved. 1 The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Setback Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal, if constructed, on the above-referenced criteria. B. Consideration of Factors Reaardina Grantina GRFA Under the 250 Ordinance Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect upon the existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. The proposal will not negatively impact the existing topography and vegetation on the site. The area of construction for the new exterior addition was regraded when the residence was originally built and is relatively flat. Staff believes that the proposed addition will not significantly affect the existing site topography, vegetation, drainage, and existing structures. 2. Impact on adjacent properties. The addition should not adversely affect views, light, or air enjoyed by adjacent structures. Staff believes that the proposed additions will not have a significant impact on adjacent properties. 3. Compliance with the Town's zoning requirements and applicable development standards. Staff believes that an approval of the additional 170 sq. ft. of GRFA will not have any negative impacts on the applicable development standards of the Town. According to the applicant's representative, in order for the applicant to add the proposed 170 sq. ft. of additional GRFA to the existing 3 I property, a setback variance must be approved. Staff believes that, in this instance, the additional square footage can be accommodated on the site and that the variance will not result in a grant of special privilege. C. The Plannino and Environmental Commission shall make the following findinos before arantino a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variance and the additional 970 square feet of GRFA utilizing the 250 Ordinance. Staff's recommendation of approval is based upon the review of the criteria and factors outlined in Section III of this memorandum. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the applicant's requests, staff would recommend the Planning and Environmental Commission make the following findings: That the granting of the setback variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Glen Lyon Special Development District. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or will not be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity of Lot 44, Glen Lyon Subdivision. 4 • r 3. That the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the setback regulation results in a practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Municipal Code or the Glen Lyon Special Development District. 4. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties in the Glen Lyon Special Development District. 5. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the setback regulation deprives the applicants of development privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Glen Lyon Special Development District. 6. That the addition of 170 square'feet of additional GRFA does not negatively effect the existing topography, vegetation and drainage on Lot 44, Glen Lyon Subdivision. 1-1 • 5 I . Michael Hazard Associates Architecture Planning VARIANCE REQUEST Stone Remodel Lot 44, Glen Lyon Subdivision 1241 Westhaven Circle Vail, CO 81657 Zoning: Site Area: Maximum Site Coverage: Existing Site Coverage: Proposed Site Coverage: Maximum GRFA: Existing GRFA: Proposed Add'l GRFA: P.O. Box 1068 Vail, Colorado 81658 303.949: 4958 Fax 303.949.4838 Primary/Secondary .4111 Acre 17,908 S.F. 3,582 S.F. 2,580 S.F. 2,735 S.F. 4,890 S.F. 4,885 S.F. 155 S. F. The remodel, as proposed, will require the granting of a variance so that the new Living Room extension can be allowed to encroach into the 15' side yard setback (12-6D-6) a distance of approximately 5'4" In addition to the standard front (20'), side (15') and rear (15') setbacks, the subject site is further encumbered by a sewer easement (20' to either side of the centerline) along the rear of the site and a ski lift setback, inboard of the side-yard setback to the Northeast. The effective net buildable area counting only the standard setbacks is 11,597 S.F.. As a result of the easements and additional setbacks the effective net buildable area is reduced to 5,151 S.F.. - This site, due to the extraordinary easements and setbacks described above, has a net buidable area that is less than one half the comparable area of the surrounding sites with normal setbacks. Further, the Ski Lift Easement, to the Northeast has forced the home to be offset to the Southwest, immediately adjacent to the side yard setback. v n Given the roof configuration and strict geometry of the present home there is no other practical solution, that is acceptable to the Owners and will allow them to adequately expand their Living Room. v CURVE DELTA RADIUS LENGTH ,Q C1 3'53'04" 295.00' 20.00' C2 29'25'02" 80.00' 41.07' Q sA. LOT 43 CENTER LINE ? r CHAIR urr zo ` SCALE : 1" = 20' CHAIR LIFT ???--- 5EtBACM /?. h s SEER Nk EASEUEN! OT ary. ?l1 l? LOT' 44 R. 4111 A STRFEL ADDRESS-:itt #STHAVEN CIRCLE REI, w+LL EASEUENr / G ,? ? S7I f Ji a. ORA'.EAL `i ,ELEC. HAND 80. k15ER fEtE RISER V .b` ?SE%ER 4N1 S_ Fb R7,+ h,;• \\ ' c:°. CHAIR zai. ev tow£R 3 11t ESE' ( .", '? `+L"aFC T3 , / SEE DE-STOR f ? .GCO*CA ; _ AD a.N k 169:Y U' REt LL LP SE%ER o \ ?b A'E. LAl L S 2A' £ SExENT ?' 4 -Lj s C) Do 16ss ? ' 4 ' '97 j° ql 7't V i^+ER v '35A= z i PR.Pr..SE^ +L'AFmN A ?t s. x MIRRANG DETAIL LOT 45 g? BLDG PV£RHkn6-- 16 e. I.Y' BLDO. rIE%A .tvcHOm OVERHANG, . p07T1' IV b SG73 3' f TOP OF RIDGE VLNt ) .'s }' C'= 8079:3' G VAIT k Z1, 1, ='TtE- Y4Ft =SN ,o E+GLE-MAIL R.? eG.lll LS% C.: 6U632 i (3O3Y4+9-+a06 NOES Ik DACE O S1R1E1: %/13/94 PROFOS€O ADOITION ADDED' 7/13/98 2j SURCETDR HAS UADE NO INAST'GAIION OR INDEPENDENT SEARCH FOR EASEUENTS OF RECORD (OTHER THAN PLATTEO), ENCUMBRANCES, RE5trt A HP TITLE DENCE. OR ANY OTHER FACrS - MA! AN An ACCURATE AND ND CURRENT EN 'IRE SEARCH MAY DISCLOSE 3j NOVOE ACCORDING tO COLOR- LAW YOU -UST CODUENCE ANY LOG+L ACFCN BASEO UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY -11N THREE "EARS AFTER 1. FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT . NO EVENT, MAY ANY AC,,. BASED UPCN ANY DEFECT tN MIS SURVEY BE CONnENCED UORE IN AN TEN YEARS FROU ME DATE OF ME CERTIFICATION SHO%M HEREON STAN HftFE. caORADO,j; .l T^Q.i a?_`r DATE: :??it/sr ' - EXHIBIT - PROPOSED ADDITION LOT 44 AMENDED PLAT GLEN LYON SUBDIVISION TOWN OP VAIL EAGLE COU,"Tf, COLORADO WN4 ICKE IOII Y(%3. 151! I . • rit l11 Lwmwx --. rrrmwr.w--. , L. 45 j12ASnaRalfia`css F.Yt6.;r 1. F. YY??rvn rmmr ??? k6lZrlAQli lA20/Mrl Mf.H S.f. PLAN M...rrs«wwr .ltit Aa.. n,wR l.r. . ca.w. reroir. -Ca+rM?' 7.flf 2.l. rafA: l.wo ir. CFA: Y't aRlA: l,pr r.l. 11r 1. F, i lrzcm maim ASfOQAT J F.,- - rwM.w !a tw M. Ttt M1 0 THE O W ST AEMOOLL s• - m•a :HX!T ME?H.KT , BEDROOM / E 4 1 BEDROOM ! S PRMM KWRER ROOF PLAN 0 LIVING ROOM ti THE STONE REMODEL ? ¢ l?tat i e<nn.=s¢ cu¢.. \ // vm, comra¢ \ - MICIIAEL f I HAZARD BEDROOM a F ASSOCIA aaa TES E Ifl - 'va , `-• •» ) G`a`..^ aara:aaa:iea"0e i 4fY1N0 ROOM ? ?. tie. m.R, _.-?\\ • ? °eo.o.e ? _ f . ? _ _ __ 1. >". ? m ea as LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN / UPPER LEVEL GARAGE PLAN WALL lrQr NQ sH '1' Y?L'M&Lit Pldlt X§R8 N1f IYRii PfdN M1ftB A, 2 3 • 11 • N.. ..l. CmF:70-- ---- _ ---- ------ ------ ------------------- ----------------------- WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION wu /.'. 1- w - IN. +•_,- a t X s 1 h - - - -_ - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - EAST ELEVATION >riae: v.' - t? w Ra.USo-ea Pwa1 Ru . THE STONE REMODEL w, as gce R.ae crr: Ciao Li- on 3xDdS.ia.: katL Coinr.do MICHAEL HAZARD ASSOCIAM T4- H¢x k066 Velf, C4 sieee aiodaaaaae : eo4.dac.aeaa sxGss huw57d MEMORANDUM TO: . Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 10, 1998 SUBJECT: A worksession to discuss an amendment to Special Development District No. 4 (Cascade Village), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello/George Ruther DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing to amend SDD #4, as it relates to the Glen Lyon Office Building property, Area D. The applicant is proposing to construct a 8,161 sq. ft. (gross) office building on the east end of the site and a 6,408 sq. ft. residential duplex on the west end of the site. The proposal is substantially less development than previously approved for Area D. The proposal also includes extending the existing parking area to accommodate the new parking requirement, aligning the entrance of the parking lot with that of the Vail Professional Building directly across the street, and re-stripping of the traffic lanes on the S. Frontage Road to accommodate turn lanes and bike lanes. The original Cascade Village SDD was approved in 1976 and has since been amended several times. The development plan approved in 1988 for this area included additional office space and a micro-brewery. Please refer to the Description of the Previous Approval and the Zoning Analysis for a comparison of the previous approval to the present proposal. II. DESCRIPTION OF PREVIOUS APPROVAL Staff has summarized the information for the Cascade Village SDD that pertains to Area D below: Permitted Uses: Business and professional offices. Please note that other uses are also listed as allowed in the SDD. 2. Density - Dwelling Units: Three dwelling units are allowed, two of which shall be employee dwelling units. } 3 4. 5 Density e GRFA: The GRFA for the EHU"s are to be a minimum of 795 square feet and 900 square feet. These dwelling units shall be restricted as Type III EHU's. The free market unit shall not exceed 1,630 square feet. Commercial Square Footage: Total office area for Area D shall not exceed 32,314 square feet. The existing building is 14,000 sq. ft. in gross area. Setbacks: Setbacks shall be as indicated on the approved development plans, which are as follows: N: 2 feet S: 8 feet E: 30 feet W: 15 feet Gore Creek: 50 feet 6. 7. 8. 9. Height: A maximum of 51% of the roof can have a height between 32 and 40 feet. A minimum of 49% of the roof area shall have a height under 32 feet. Site Coverage: No more than 37% of the total site area shall be covered by buildings. Landscaping: 60% of the area shall be landscaped. Parking: A minimum of one hundred spaces shall be located in the parking structure. Parking shall conform to Town of Vail parking requirements. Please note that there are other standards regarding parking tied specifically to the operation of the micro-brewery. C C 2 Ill. ZONING ANALYSIS The development statistics for the proposed buildings in Area D are shown below: Standard Allowed by SDD (oreviousivj Prooosed Difference Height: 51 % max. 40 feet 37739.4' (office building) NA 49% max. 32 feet 35' (duplex) Setbacks: Per development plan: NA N: 2 feet N: 29' (existing) S: 8 feet S: 14' E: 30 feet E: 25' W: 15 feet W: 16' Stream Setback: 50 feet from centerline 52' NA Site Coverage: 37% or 28,974 sq. ft. 15% (11,648 sq. ft.) -17,326 sq. ft. Landscaping: 60%© or 46,985 sq. ft. 59% (46,202 sq. ft.) , 783 sq. ft. Parking: Per Town of Vail regulations 66 req./65 provided 1 space Commercial Floor Area: 32,314 sq. ft. 22,161 sq. ft. total -10,153 sq. ft. Density: 1 free market DU allowed 2 dwelling units 1dwelling unit 2 EHU's required 0 EHU's -2 EHU's GRFA: DU - 1,630 sq. ft. 6,408 sq. ft. 4,778 sq. ft. EHU's - 1,479 sq. ft, total min. 0 sq. ft. -1,479 sq, ft. Loading and Delivery: 1 berth required 0 provided -1 berth Interior parking/ Landscaping: per code 310 sq. ft. (1.6%) -8.4% 11 3 IV. DISCUSSION ISSUES 9. Building Height Building height is one aspect of the proposal that exceeds the development standards listed in the SDD. For the 1988 approval of the micro-brewery, building height standards were as follows: • Maximum of 51 % of the roof was allowed to range from 32 feet to 44 feet. • A minimum of 49% of the roof was required to be less than 32 feet. The applicant is proposing a building that is 39.4 feet tall. Should the applicant design the buildings consistent with this requirement or is a standard height limitation more appropriate? The Arterial Business Zone District (across the street) has a similar standards for building height. That district requires that 30% of the building under 32' and 70% up to 40' in height. Should this also be applied here? 2. Landscaping and Parking The Zoning Code requires that an area equal to 10% of the paved parking area be accommodated within the parking area in order to breakup the large expanse of pavement and provide landscaping to reduce the overall scale of the parking area. The site, as currently planned, does not provide a significant buffer between the parking area and the Frontage Road. In fact, none of the landscape landscape buffer along the frontage is provided "on-site." Staff believes the interior landscape standard should be applied to this proposal as is applied to other projects throughout Town. The implication is that the applicant will need to reduce the number of parking spaces and hence must therefore reduce the amount of building floor area proposed on-site. Additionally, the staff belie the applicant should meet the code with regard to the number of parking spaces provided. 3. Architectural Character The applicant is not proposing any improvements to the existing building. Staff believes that architectural improvements should be made at this time to the existing building in order to improve its appearance and to improve the architectural quality and style of the site. 4. Loading The proposal will provide 22,161 sq. ft. of gross office area on-site. The Zoning Regulations require one loading berth for office uses in excess of 10,000 sq. ft. in gross floor area. A loading berth is required to be 12' wide and 25' long. The proposed plan does not include a loading berth. Loading and delivery is currently accommodated off of the Frontage Road. Should this requirement be met? 5. Employee Housing The applicant is not proposing any employee housing units in conjunction with this proposal. The scale of the project and the type of use proposed will not generate as many employees as the previous approval, as that project included a micro-brewery and restaurant. However, the office use proposed will generate the need for employee housing. The previous approval required 2 EHU's. A recent study (June 1998) on Town of Vail businesses shows that offices in Vail, on average, operate with 5.86 employees per 1,000 sq. ft, of net leasable floor area. With other SDD projects the Town Council has required that 30% of the demand generated be accommodated either on-site 4 or off-site, in the form of deed restricted housing. The accepted standard for minimum square footage of housing required per person is 350 sq. ft. If we apply these numbers to this project we find the following: Entire Development: ? 16,494 sq. ft. (net leasable floor area) x 5.86 employees/1,000 sq. ft. -'96.65 employees ? Employees to provide housing for = 96.65 x 30% = 29 employees ? Translates to 10,150 sq. ft. of housing (14.5 two-,bedroom units at 700 sq. ft. each) New Impact Only: i 5,400 sq. ft. (net leasable floor area) x 5.86 employeest1,000 sq, ft. 31.64 employees ? Employees to provide housing for = 31.64 x 30%e = 9.5 employees ? Translates to 3,325 sq. ft. of housing (5 two-bedroom units at 700 sq. ft. each) Is it appropriate to evaluate the employee housing impacts of this development and to require employee housing? Is this evaluation a substantial departure in philosophy from the previous approvals (although the previous approval was made 10 years ago)? Staff had recommended that the applicant provide at least one EHU on-site, based on the previous approval, however, recent SDD's have been required to provide housing more in concert with the impacts generated (i.e., Austria Haus). Provide the applicant and the staff with direction on this issue. 01 6. Utilities The previous approval for this site required that all utilities be placed underground. Staff continues to believe that this should be required. This improvement should either be completed as part of this project or the applicant shall install the proper conduit with this development and provide a cash deposit or letter of credit insuring the under grounding within a reasonable period of time. 7. Snow Storage The current standard for snow storage being utilized by staff is an area equal to 30% of the paved parking area. These areas cannot conflict with trees and other impediments. The currentplan does not accommodate snow storage. Staff believes that snow storage areas must be provided on-site. These areas must be logically located given typical snow plowing operations. 8. Trees There are numerous large trees located on-site. The proposed plan develops very close to these trees. Staff believes that the development must observe these trees and must provide a detailed plan for ensuring their survival. Staff believes that no grading, paving, or disturbance should occur within 15' of the base of these trees and that a tree expert shall evaluate the effect of this development on the trees. n 5 V. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST 0 Title12, Chapter 9 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code provides for the establishment of Special Development Districts in the Town of Vail. According to Section 12-9A-1, the purpose of a Special Development District is, "To encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land, in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design character and quality of the new development within the Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a Special Development District, in conjunction with the properties underlying zone district,. shall establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the Special Development District." The Municipal Code provides nine design criteria, which shall be used as the principal criteria in evaluating the merits of the proposed Special Development District. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with each of the following standards, or demonstrate that one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. This criteria is provided for your information. Staff will fully evaluate these criteria upon final plan development. A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Title 12, Chapter 10, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. D. Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design Plan. Vail Land Use Plan The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as the Town's policy guidelines during the review process of establishing or amending Special Development Districts. Staff has reviewed the Vail Land Use Plan and believes the following policies are relevant to the review of this proposal; 7. General Growth/Development 1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. L? 6 I.? 1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water, and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgrade whenever possible. 1.5 Commercial strip development of the Valley should be avoided. 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas (infill). ' 3. Commercial 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 4. Residential 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth .should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. E 5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites throughout the community. E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic circulation. H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions. 1. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Vl. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed amendment to SDD #4, staff will not be providing a formal staff recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a staff recommendation at the time of final PEC review. 11 F:\EVE RYO N E\PEG\MEMOS\98\GLOB,803 7 GLEN LYON OFFICE BUILDING 1000 South Frontage Road West Suite 200 Vail, Colorado 81657 970-476-6602 July 13, 1998 Dominic Mauriello Town Planner 75 S. Frontage Rd. W. Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Dominic: For the past two years the ownership of the Glen Lyon Office Building has been studying alternative development scenarios for the completion of the site. We appreciate the patience and helpfulness of the Town planning staff in reviewing the proposed plans. The site's development constraints have been unusually difficult, caused largely by the importance of protecting Gore Creek and by the frequently divergent objectives of CDOT and the TOV with respect.to South Frontage Road traffic management and bike path. For these and other reasons off site costs for the project have become very high. The site is presently approved for an additional 21,000 square feet of improvements. Existing approvals permit an office/restaurant/micro brewery complex. The proposed plan would reduce the additional improvements to 12,000 square feet (a 43% reduction). The proposed plan provides a significantly smaller scale project and will result in a greatly reduced level of activity on the South Frontage Road. The previously approved project included a requirement for employee housing. This made sense because the project would be generating employment. The revised plan will not generate employment, other than for construction. The architects have thoroughly studied whether an employee unit could be added to either the office addition or the condominiums. The various development constraints make an additional unit impossible at either site. We would be happy to provide the studies that confirm this conclusion. Because of the significant reduction in improvements, the constraints on including an.additional unit, and the fact that the revised proposal will not generate employees, we request relief from the previous plan's employee housing requirement. The revised proposal will provide a much smaller project and very strong architectural quality. It will also provide a small amount of much needed office space within Vail, which may deter certain office tenants requiring expansion from moving down valley. Sincerely, Glen Lyon Office Building By. Andrew B. Norris General Partner AlMOOMMIL i SITE PLAN APO Vi••k'.C' / 0511-0 GORE tll\ \IV wo.m Pierce, Segerberg k Associates Architects ,comas a? Co Lm 8 U- o D o 1 Z LL) a..p..a..../ oaEEK V a?.: r/ro/rs k v+.N.e s.: ime?oo Gb,ekw i'r. a E Mumma 76M IX A*I I Inch = 40 It - - G/1M FM[ YMq'O N IICYEW (TM}? f - "' J GpR€ '? NO Tt WMetrr kM4 etten++ n Y CMw CRrtanTrilrWMNkn rNa repWre W rk.er. MIt etatterk urt.ra r S^Y n ere N w Y T t Wvtew aw enrW b N eWeM.N w WOF 4r hmut nt, aMFl W JF>gt. 1 M MMMin Nwt 4t eenlreek n w ewsFltrrt wF rk w.w W aN Yt eMNk .rtNt RS rN *.w kkrkr? www tees M • taMMS n eetrwr Nk w trrs W mnwrunt N w M'rM. W b tttl urk Sw ta.rb4t N teMtY JT }Mtn t4M M C ? MAten?t N FaSrtrF. M Mrn r pY>}t>. N Ie.r et Mwrt ir. b fre r4M.k, wM-N-er yrbe CWrw M erk t etb N wktat rbkte wreck b 4M, nikrt rkY1 eriNMwt llk rskr ?..?t.t. rr•eur> ewfkkrrkn rsnb Srekk. bM er?Mlk+ qY N ?TMn? YTEFr? W r tteMbr ?wi..r?.u.r 'Wkww Mkt Mt rN1MNt. M?t/eN+M eN brbY, ?. tlberr..? r *rw?rr . fwWk . M iket W YMFe. Erkaitriet ins N rrt er r..?r wrwrt w.el p e4bnM H Mk CeMrer.r. Cetrww.. Wt Rw W (t}sS,M w etrt..t rNt ..t (+I ? N M. w Yk M w M eFktta F: >ti w r.rMt .? w r. rer.wr w.a r nrlW W tttepek M,.NfCMrM tekrenrk N wr.t r urrt n.r r s-+?.-iµ?w arw.•r Ake M?YtrtFFrWaewrwtMR (mO?tyrk?yas FIWn? w.'+?. eji?rr? ?er?uu[L0.> SOWS 4tetekut eErkr!gent w tM r.rai ?~M rr r _.r kk nlnt!.?4 1Mi WMUw' Met f!wt W rr. .w wi?rrwr M u-.r+?w ~4Mr >.+r E.t W?iw _ .t?yWitr?M.eM 'kWkr.. • .. rww ...+ti. en W, rw of fr ti t? .a ? coYr t?~rk .N ?T eNrF! Y! witw?S` M M +~.. WiI s CDDt'• Flkt krYkk lerwtt K !kb r.ekttk tY rt Qkr. M M WMw peke eetkF M lert FnS?kee MIMM Fnrwen tIC N MetaiF L Irk Qnww kr rkk4t r ., wteM eM kk Etnr. EOOt FtOr On y Fr!tt.wnF 4L' M r.eN y enn Iet b kk N SeeFewtnn 4lwetetebr M kb4ek N Yn iy.?? rlt teMrrw'kn M !t erws I.kr N kr wtek.S Ae Crkwbr r? wSkrM V W! tiler tlrM Ft!t.kwM uL M kk Eww. Loc. ?F?et ?M WO u ESrSrMt N W er n Yweta. w r-eM. WeM. rt r k r ar.MU.t es t aretew r S^r'eY N rnt irwkyYer M K Erwsr? etnvterur ekSerrweM..a Mp?t eNe, w,r r .artoris 'w Carta W. A. F*lkrr r ?? rW.N Ms?b. A R e sr. 1M Mk ».rr.ket wk .Me r, r IS 0. k er WYet?'?r b vwrw N Mk W. neW W 5FTM4mM FewVeweh M. eYVw rer NteN rM/tt Mr ewNlrf Fser ? Yr?+M rte. 1[ Wekelr kW wM..N MY ewss. M t+•wMe W ntterkn Nrt re tese.erl M erYS M YSrM V N 4N • er eMt r tlerrk ttF rses M W kM M rwlwYrrF rterek w pNklteM N kiter0.nkteM w WrSr E.ttxt+t N lrnMwM. Y N rnrkw YrLeF,ebe. k+s'e4 ekrerr, r tavr a.r ratF kr wVenr.N N r . SNN, WweM (EFIk). G?rr erwykf CrrkNr. Loves R.ikn M lbet r kir Coves Okrnrnt N UMwtwkl rMwr terkt M Y A Crrwsrk k erkebM wrrY w Err W wr Egi.rr.# YL erMeneray >4 lek WYxkr kke renkn k4nW tttuttt rwrra4 eNree. W rMkt Sbenkrkt r. .rerF. b Yeket. nek. « ubry # 11u WkMV k..4 W 1 ww1e1M ekun?erk b?WNR.r'MY ? eM eNrnM terTn,eW W p es rerAtw ..wNa +w?M ewK •?+ef. N knwrt r r+.ert we. M1w Cawter wtY rr watfw !?w Y aMe .raei Yr.?erte W tew IetnekM St.Itwnfkn kN Nser ewterMt4.eMr b eM # M Oa.'t,.rrr+k4 M ttelrkee Natet rw # M Enrwr w .w rw wMke w wts.wir ererN 4er w?.kkk.0.r? r Nan W ner, r aw r eMrt b rMtt'tt N NwCn r?.. teeter ..r ..... ..wry w cyrw.. er krr N .t r .. N yr.n ?? ? rw r FN pMe> er.w+.. h k ti cr+?.ervt irerWYn?te..{(. W _ _ N aF er.a?M?kM rk rekY t•rktt r?eGtw SE M+ _w. hr r rk..rw_Sf?! O.wr ..r?.v...M. ? « esn«ry a. N NeM.. I+.nrt.F Wei vew orr.` »? ...?.?. ep. u A ? Y „ H F?ten. ?ta? u n.._+. r .??. yrM.F. ` r y?'ixe Grte??t r SF. ?" _ Netwt Ok . try M M N kkCeektitN't tt?ter eNr b ewi t.rr.??-kWr epkR IY. M 1?) ar w • b4Nt4 A. SY.0.ti M+w_e krwh!F M kr Drw et Ywlt. ew: FS} er?FN plot i Ylir Osretw. 1ti kerb` W ekwleM N.Mwt tews N.bwSkrwNk W.Gnu .ever Yew k SwwawwM N eNkt.upM # k erw ektast M erneF x errtl ew. M rJwnvM N 1. Ykuw. N MeN w rr?etette werinF b M w.?'t W EEEYr a z w W Z 0 w z z I W Q €3 z z D- Vl 0 N 0 °o x4 C ma U na _..041[; alert 1p e SHEET - --- I- -? --? . ---------- ---------- , t ! t 1 t k t [_- ----------- =- - - -- ------------ r--_ Q :_:-:- LEVEL ONE FLOOR. PLAN tT) ba'.r•W \IV ? ! a k a n a 4 -----==----- - - - =}--- ----- - ---- - L------_-I---__-. - _ f, ? o t F _ V 9 AiD LEvEI? TWO Fl; OOR: PLAN /T W r.i' \w Pierce, 11"TM NCim 3egerberg & Associates • Arcbitects P.C.-MA w ?u w ?? n m1t t -O i Inaz C7 Q m u- © ©? z" 0 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN ND I!i'WP_p' z u Iarc r/tmne A+1 ? Nc FT61t00 ?D." y n If Cw*4 7 b 1+ a • • Ncw olwt+'te. Lj n q 4 1 q ?} V i i ------ C - - = -t e LEVEL TNREE FLOOR PLAN IM.ASTM NOTES _ ______ t NOTS6 f Slft.- i y f / 4 I t ft I ?i5 y ? _ ..-- tt -- ----------------------------------- ------------------------- PLAN W wrenr Pierce, Segt1=21 k AII?eC?6te5 Architects P.C.-MA maw xmm?n r qr qr ?+r e?w? q+ t ti ryqr/.. M a m D6 Zlu 0 Z Lit _, u a? ,none I i MJwI lbc ?r+011W -? 1- br, 7C .. ..f W, Is e.K of 1A2.2 t. Aft A 4 X[A:: 4X? X7?4 - Ali ya.•.!'-Q• _, I 1' r,-'NNORTN ELEVATION 0 ATO f WEST ELEVATION us.-P-0. i ? ?41 I s =_____-___________ _______ ! SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION ? ATi V1".r-Q" Ali Va".I•-Q. fwTm No?" O - Pierce, 9egerberg k Associates Architects P.C.-LU a Co w L.L p 08 0 w? u jmi i/ R/M Pl*d sR 17043M a.- !f fi 6.d" w. ss shwa or All Ids& ang WAFM -wI- FACW ?? N•.7.r ............... . l . ........... YZ"f lTr1'.Tt,`r".'1'Tt d Q QSUILDING SECTION NP.II -T. j SUILDINS SECTION V<•.P?W v? a L? V W Q Zu 0 z w _J' BUILDING SECTION AA3 1f4'.i"-O' Pierce. ?,qd Segerfierg & Assaeistea Architects F.C.-Alai +eaaitens ??1e r.. wr i Isw: rent Fnl+et ? uae:ae D- y: m { ..7.s I ` 3b.K of A AM ???c• tall, Pierce, Segerberg k Associates Architects P.G-A.LA. rw..aa a7anois --------------a t r ?4 x ?N w i 1 a r F t ?i----------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - r r F ry, -1-r N X N F rr ,r;',x 4L1 1? 6FDIYIP'11 .-? YxN {. } leDltlOt1 ? { W.-r Q ? MU.N 1.07!1 COVDIO ? • P'OR:H VIN\ aw ? i F + { T O 1 ? - 4Y OlJ4Elm YCI-N R?f:M PfJNC l C UFMINEO Y?CE flf .l W-W / BASEMENT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN axa vµ.r-a• I?i 0 0 Q 0Z uj ..J V u, n NOW DNS 7/16/!0 anew yt lC (2.ck.N "r. a u«7 a, A2.1 • • New U•+p\*.3K . 1 M[GUAi1CAL it m O%6%6 mx* Y' ? I }? 1 F Ell] _ i I t 1 f ? ? F Y Ai wA a n n . e -. 1 m ------------------ ? 1 ' errtler 1 1 ? tt- et n+s'rr ---4 f 1 ? : (Q!nRy LEVEL FLOOR PLAN qua vs•.r-o- e ruw.wlcu y Pierce. gegerberg k Asaaetntcs Architects P.C.-ACA . , ....ac rl. calms 1?pS?yiNy????M xt? M W z 0 4 b- O 0 J z 61.1 J U RnWoec . Pee}et 1fc 1'iwi:W W. tc W. go sb"t of A2;.2 vow d ?. 1A SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN Alf W.1`4r l/ Pierre, Stgtrberg k Associates Architects rw.ac almoal s r r,,,.. rr r to W 0 a: I a? ?o o? v . • `C6x1[.C y 0 of A2•3 0 twtu&u. Pft" 0000^.* Bit3'-1" { Y /f ?! I t I [HIHI n , Ipl-?iWat ED E_ l 1 l w ,.?? Pierce, Segerherg k Associates Architects P.C.-RLR us rtvna ?r +w. wr ??r F!I(D6'-0 -Sa o- 8ID9d'-b? (A L.U 0 3g 0? F7 z C j J Z t3J FJ? e0ei NORTH ELEVATION a,n va^. e.o? I i- - ?I ?[V, ??f?IVl?f" I?II??1 N?II`??111 ? ??1?]II 'IDlldal?'"@???I SOUTH ELEVATION A'fI! L'4'.V.p' BIID6'-® J[Lulu ft f AM E aw- --rya An. b : TC Chi b}: a Si of Azfa ' L I itn.a ,? C?i? ?# &413•-'t" Pierce; 3egerberf & Aewcia ea Architects P.C-Lu ue rum >mnow W E- o 0 Z W MrW- amsa'-6?, amen -bk 6TARIM **d 1. lloaoo tinw.?t iC ae.a of A3.2 WEST ELEVATION A,a v,?.r-e•. Q EAST ELEVATION t 6.4IWOE LEVEL IM'-i:_-"'^ ILEVATICN "'W SUfLDINCs SECTION pAIRArdE?rEVEt ?'-l'_-,_ ELEVATION M'-D' Q BUILOI14G SECTION W-r-u' mmm? Ld Pierce, - Segerberg It Associates Architects P.C: AA.L Ru94i RI0000 dr ddr hW V © o ..t .z W V P,*d E. rrwsao l End. 7 TC sldK a A4.1 i i y / ? J?IJl? V ..__LIYM1l3?Sva. IOd'-O' ELEVATION W-dr' i ?14 ]3 y - ELEVATION w-b' u d ELEVATION 061-6' 1 u i? l? ELEyArlatn'.s' 0 0 13e, 1?pkic. IF 1 5 I 1 -_ +!_ _It -.- c ? 771 w(i orfrcc i? F ? MCfX ? ]i? 11 LOWER LEVEL PLAN MEN z f OFFM ovncz OfFKE o"Im MAIN LEVEL PLATY Pleree, St;trbtra do A Ararilt moil tnstelsr AfGNITlffa¦f tGNNINC Na.c«-wrw. - tur..? ..,r etr w.•..e«..w rrn - »Nrurur z p? M# ? W Gi. 01 z 0 a In { ?crr.tra y'. 1 2 ! C t t V it G ROOF PLAN 1/81-1`-0' g e o , ro'..o" . IF]R' .. .. LO'•O,. .. ..Lo'G?._... ?.. .Ld`-o' ._. :..___.cQ'-?__. ?}.p?__. _.... ?_ t v a ? eft 11 ? ? 9 ? f r? •? s? v .. UPPER LEVEL PLAN Pierce, Se;erbert Associstes, Architects ?.C:=A.I.A. A.C.T.M t - aFrsiion°. wras+ _ •r?rw-.?r-e. t...»anr >tMM. - Lwnr.CWN`?f - TMN,F)11f - v it M? W O ?.t Jim • ?lropofm. ' ?Drv.nly: C-- yG I-, _= 2 2 • • E+?+s+r? 6wW81. • MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council FROM: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Team DATE: August 11, 1998 SUBJECT: Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan A. Purpose of Worksessicn and Evening Meets ig: The purpose of this worksession is to get direction on the building height alternative to include in the master plan for Lionshead. The general direction that was given at the Council's July 14, 1998 worksession was to develop some alternatives that focused on the building height of 82.5' (5 stories plus and roof). Staff has prepared 4 alternatives that revolve around a building height of 82.5'. The general consensus was to also eliminate the bonus criteria. The Council was not unanimous on the direction that was given. Two Council members (Kevin Foley and Mike Jewett) stated they felt more comfortable with 71', which represents 4 stories plus a roof. Five Councilmembers (Navas, Ford, Arnett, Kurz, and Armour) gave the direction that 82.5' as a height limitation was appropriate. Additionally some members believed that some portions of buildings could exceed the 82.5' limitation, as long as an average building height of 82.5' was achieved. B. Goals and Policy Objectives of the Lionshead Master Plait , Objective 1. RENEWAL. AND REDEVELOPMENT Lionshead can and should be renewed and redeveloped to become a warmer, more vibrant environment for guests and residents. Lionshead needs an appealing and coherent identity, a sense of place, a personality, a purpose, and an improved aesthetic character. Objective 2. VITALITY AND AMENITIES We must seize the opportunity to enhance guest experience and community interaction through expanded and additional activities and amenities such as performing arts venues, conference facilities, ice rinks, streetscape, parks and other recreational improvements. Objective 3. STRONGER ECONOMIC BASE THROUGH INCREASED "LIVE BEDS" In order to enhance the vitality and viability of Vail, renewal and redevelopment in Lionshead must promote improved occupancy rates (i.e., "live beds" or "warm pillows") and the creation of additional bed base through new lodging products. TOWN OF Udlt Objective 4. IMPROVED ACCESS AND CIRCULATION The flow of pedestrian, vehicular, bicycle and mass transit traffic must be improved within and through l_ionshead. Objective S. IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE The infrastructure of Lionshead, including streets, walkways, transportation systems, parking, utilities, loading and delivery systems, snow removal and storage, and other public and private services must be upgraded to meet the capacities and service - standards required to support redevelopment and revitalization efforts and to meet the expectations of our guests and residents. Objective 6. CREATIVE FINANCING FOR ENHANCED PRIVATE PROFITS AND PUBLIC REVENUES Redevelopment in Lionshead must be undertaken in a financially creative, but feasible, manner so that adequate capital may be raised from all possible sources to fund desired private and public improvements. C. What Happens Next? Once Council provides direction on a height standard, staff will begin drafting the master plan document. This document will then be reviewed by the PEC and Council. Following adoption of the master plan, staff will begin implementation ordinances which will get into the details and specifics of the code language and also provide an opportunity for public and Council input. D. Lionshead Master Plan Bulldnq ,Neiaht and Mass Prooosals DesignWorkshop, July 29, 1998 1. Building Massing Principles- Apply to all Alternatives The following building mass principles shall apply equally to all buildings in all the alternative building height proposals outlined below. Please note that while these are perhaps the most critical architectural building mass principles, thev do not constitute the comprehensive guidelines to be included in the final architectural desien guidelines. 1. On all property edges fronting a primary retail/pedestrian street, 50% of the total building face shall have a maximum 16' eave height, at which point the building face must step back a minimum of 12' (see figure A). 2. On all property edges fronting a primary retail/pedestrian street, 50% of the total building face shall have a maximum 36' eave height, at which point the building face must step back a minimum of 12' (see figure A). 2 3. On all property edges fronting either the ski yard or the Gore Creek corridor, that are not already designated as a primary retail/pedestrian street, building faces shall have a maximum eave height of 48', at which point the building face must step back a minimum of 12' (see figure B). 4. On any property edge not meeting the above situations, the building faces shall have a maximum eave height of 60', at which point the building face must step back a minimum of 12'. 5. Notwithstanding the above setback requirements, there shall be no vertical face -reater than 35' on a building without a secondary step in the building face (see figure C). This requirement is intended to prevent large, unbroken.: planes in the middle of the building face, to further mitigate the visual impact of the building height, and to provide for higher quality and more interesting articulation of the structure. It is recommended that no minimum or maximum dimension be placed on this secondary step, but that the developer must demonstrate that the intent of the design pldcl nes have been met. 6. All buildings, regardless of permitted building heights and massing principles, shall conform to all established public view corridors. 7. In accordance with existing Town of Vail code, special "landmark' building elements, such as chimneys, towers, or other landmark architectural forms, may exceed the maximum ridge height, subject to approval by the Design Review Board. This provision is intended to provide for architectural creativity and quality of building form, and shall not be used as a means of circumventing the intent of the building height limitations. 8. For major-roof elements, the minimum roof pitch shall be 6/12. On a typical double loaded building mass (65" wide), this minimlam roof pitch would result in an approximate eave height corresponding to the following ridge heights: a. 55' eave for a 71' ridge height b. 66' eave for a 82.5' ridge height c. 78' eave for a 94' ridge height d. 89' eave; for a 105.5' ridge height 11 11. Building Height Zone Descriptions The following areas within Lionshead are designated for the purposes of building height and massing only. These areas have been delineated based on input from both the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the Vail Town Council, recognizing that different parts of Lionshead are able to appropriately support different building heights and masses. In addition, all parts of the Lionshead study area on the south side of Gore Creek have been removed for purposes of this building height discussion. The three building height areas are as follows (see figure 1): 1. Area `1'- Constituting Lot 4, Block .l, VaillLionshead first filing, and Lot 2, Block 1, Vail/Lionshead third filing, this area of the Lionshead core has been identified as a priority area for the location of a high-end resort hotel product. 2. Area `2'- This area constitutes the Lionshead resort core (excepting Area `I ), plus the residential properties south of the parking structure. This area consists of retail on the ]'floor and primarily residential (condos) on the upper floors. While not targeted for a new hotel as Area `I ', the future redevelopment and/or renoratzon of these properties is critical to the eventual implementation of the master plan 's objectives. 3. Area `3'- This area constitutes the northern periphery of the Lionshead core, adjacent to the frontage road, as well as the area west of the Lionshead core. Based upon previous PEC and Town Council meeting input. this area has the potential to support greater building height and mass than areas `I 'and '2'. 111. Building Height Alternatives- Alternative A 1. Area "1" and Area "2" See Figure D a. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, the maximum ridge height of any building shall not exceed 82.5' b. Regardless of final built height, no building shall have monotonous, unbroken ridge lines, but shall provide visual interest thrr' igb the use of varied peak heights, roof forms, gables, and other appropri,, , architectural techniques. 2. Area "3" See Figure D a. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, the maximum ridge height of any building element shall not exceed 94' b, Regardless of final built height, no building shall have monotonous, unbroken ridge lines, but shall provide visual interest through the use of varied peal: heights, roof forms, gables,. and other appropriate architectural techniques. 1V. Building Height Alternatives- Alternative B 1. Area "1" and Area "2" See Figure E a. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, the following height limitations shall; apply to the remaining building area: b. The average height of the building may not exceed 82.5. c. Any percentage of a building that exceeds the average building height of 82.5', a minimum of this same percentage of the building must decrease in height by at least the same vertical distance d. The absolute maximum height of any building shall not exceed 94' . Area "3" See Figure E a. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, the following height limitations shall apply to the remaining building area: b. The average height of the building may not exceed 94'. c. Any percentage of a building that exceeds the average building height of 94, a minimum of this same percentage of the building must decrease in height by at least the same vertical distance. d. The absolute maximum height of any building shall not exceed 105.5' 9 W Building Height Alternatives - Alternative C 1. Area "I" See Figure F This area of Lionshead, (constituting Lot 4, Black 1, Vad/Lionshead first filing, and Lot 2, Block 1, VaillLionshead third filing), has been identified by the Master Plan as a priority area for the location of a high-end resort hotel. Towards that end, and in . consideration of the potential program regtiiremenL c?f the desired hotel product, the following building height parameters are pr oposed, subject to the approval of a. conditional use permit (note- if f `the above described hotel product is not part of f'the development application for this area, then the conditional use permit would not be met. and the height limitations will be the same as for area 2): a. After meeting the building step-hack requirements outlined in section A above, 60'/4 of the remaining building; shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 82.5 feet b. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, 40%, of the remaining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 94 feet. 2. Area "2" See Figure G a. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above;. 40% of the remaining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 71 feet. b. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, 60% of the remaining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 82.5 feet. 3. Area "3" See Figure G a. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, 40% of the remaining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 82.5 feet. b. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, 60% of the remaining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 94 feet. 6 V!. Building Height Alternatives Alternative D 1. Area "I" and Area "2" See Figure H a. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A alcove, 30%a of the remaining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 71 feet. b. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above.. 40% of the remaining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge beight of 82.5 feet c. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, 30%0 of the remaining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 94 feet. 2. Area "3" See Figure H a. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, 30% of the remaining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 82.5 feet. b. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, 40% of the remaining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 94 feet. c. After meeting the building step-back requirements outlined in section A above, 30% of the remaining building shall not exceed a maximum ridge height of 105.5 feet. File: F:\everyone\dom\honshead\98\lion8-11 o At fUAN V I F??i t ? «t{'C? ? AfL&A5 pF it*' A-t F-r-,tA1t, t-IV'- ' f ,q oAt. AF%P-AS ©t Sts d, A Ht Al •tAlt... ? srv[t?t& 5ttowm cy V,0\?o 1ti f-- 4y' t"'tiN 15ull.pit44 tlAs51NAi 's1NG IG vF-f- A C r w ?T it D t iz t A N 5 t(L G P't Ai«Ae-- of iu' MAK Ht oP ?•?x H alf, At-- P- AS I? 1 n o? J w 14 li? tt) tti' rs?N . , 019 tj? 'r 12.'? IN Iv ID ?, ?U??.br?a t1?sslNG. r.i 14 f- IeA Uf-F- • A-r FuAwl V lf=w AoRO? O-rwlr f Si<f `fARp PNIONTAUf-S GAP aCrt EXG A 42 ' G o $?,ti,oW. R E R aK GoJt.NtDoR A or e 4 fi` E t 4,?kV PU ! LD t NGi flAS.s.I N? ?'?'?iNGi P4t'?t r- 14,u itz G c 1 N Ami tioN 'to oTfIg,R N a Bt.t>A t`A a PS. r WT P-X c .p 3S `. HlGlk H't' - ST"s .a 4y hoax htt p?K, ps ( t4 IA"Nit'N' '..- ci E rr+ a it) t, vk-T 5 V4 fpfk- -4 f, vj-vl?p WA 14, % lofks 1-7 ?v I ts? Ass?M(A ::, Ir 11 orn tpaO? t4r?6,tAtj-ts Ot j ? tN 0461 too 1?° GA?Gs? ! t,L., 4 At (Po-l# t,WVL F,-tqu jH?t' 94' At 40 t t 1 ?LOU I4?A 4?A, At qo f ?,U VA ?? lwec y- L,VNGA g.rvuf- L-'s? 614 E i a c? t'tA ttlur''y (?.tDaE• FfEtl.?11'? C1ax t ,AAdf,? 14ts ptt Mink v aq A A ANf- # • x`'114 g 106tf- }tt~.1 a•% - - 5'1"1' Al 51. ,-^ s^ ---tlA* At l a*4 Hot 464 ?o a r ? a- j5Ujj.j>jt4C* MASSS1NIA Pf?JNC-JrLf.-s . F16A U?E-' (AVt'e. F-t`lAtI'QF- G1. AND G3 u ip H W. 3 ?. '7A VkA ??art 1rt?'? ?? ! r4p? '%S) At 1 04 o tAtA 4,-A ?u Ctrp ?? G [ N 1 c", t4fA N (AW" _ d ? ? F Zvi 1 _? - ifl l ? / ? f E F C 1 ( ? t [ k _ flI ?f t 4 1 F ( t J l?J( !J - f ?/ j 1 U/ / l ( ! f t I C in ' I f -v r?- OOP a -.. t f 0 0 AREA T AREA T !AREA 3 Figure I- Building Height Areas C F PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 10, 1998 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Moffet Galen Aasland John Schofield Ann Bishop Tom Weber Brian Doyon MEMBERS ABSENT: Diane Golden STAFF PRESENT: Christie Barton George Ruther Judy Rodriguez Public Hearinq The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 2:00 p.m. A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a bedroom and bathroom addition to a two-family residence, located at 1337 Vail Valley Drivel Lot4, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing. Applicant: Spad International (Zevada), represented by Railton-McEvoy Architects Planner: Christie Barton Christie Barton gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. John Railton said he had a problem with the requirement of the siding to be replaced, because the adjacent did not want to and that the siding showed no signs of deterioration. Tom Weber said the neighborhood had a standard of quality that needed to be upheld, and that is hard with neighbors that don't see eye to eye. He said he felt the siding appeared to be deteriorating. Brian Doyon said it was an appropriate idea, as butting up old material with new material would not match. He said the PEC could deny the 250 request if there was no new siding. He said the chimney needed work done and he would like to have the chimney restuccoed , repainted and cleaned up. John Schofield asked if the applicant would replace the siding on their half only. John Railton said, yes, but the owners of the other half of the duplex would not cooperate. John Schofield said the way the code is written, it referred to the property and he would like to see the siding replaced on the applicant's property only. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 Brian Doyon said he was referring only to the applicant's half. Galen Aasland said siding should be replaced on the applicant's half only, but it would have to be compatible with the whole building. Ann Bishop agreed with Galen's comments and said that perhaps there would be enough shame involved to get the other owner to upgrade. Greg Moffet asked if there was a specific ordinance requirement to bring it into compliance with the design guidelines. George Ruther said that all the non-conformities on the property must be brought into compliance. John Schofield said language was taken out of the ordinance that applied to the property and it only applied to the applicant's property. Greg Moffet said it was a policy and not compelled by an ordinance. He said he could see granting this with the applicant upgrading his portion of the structure only. Brian Doyon wanted the chimney to be upgraded. John Schofield made a motion for approval with the additional conditions that the siding be compatible with the adjacent property owner and that the chimney be upgraded. George Ruther said this would set a dangerous precedent, because the Town's definition of property did not distinguish two property owners. Greg Moffet said the PEC could provide an interpretation, and the PEG was not compelled to require the entire property to be upgraded. George Ruther said the interior conversion and design review trigger ordinance did not address the 250 and that under the additional GRFA section of the code, it said that any dwelling unit must meet the design guidelines. He said that Section 12-15-5 and Section 11-5-C stated plywood siding shall not be permitted. Greg Moffet asked how the sections of the code were applied to a duplex. Galen Aasland said he would like Tom Moorhead's opinion. John Schofield withdrew the motion pending Tom Moorhead's opinion. Greg Moffet said there was no statutory compulsion for the PEC to require the adjacent to bring the property up to code. Tom Moorhead read the GRFA definition. He said that before 250 could be granted, the single- family or the two-family dwelling unit must be brought up to code. Greg Moffet said it left it open to interpretation. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 2 Tom Moorhead read the Design Review Guidelines and said two-family dwellings were referred to as a single dwelling and had been interpreted that way in the past. Galen Aasland asked if the materials had to be the same. Tom Moorhead said materials weren't addressed and exterior painting had been required to be done at the same time. He said that historically, we had dealt with both sides of the duplex at the same time and to make it contrary was an interpretation that had not been made. John Schofield made a motion that the siding be removed and upgraded and that it be compatible with the neighbor's siding and that the chimney be upgraded. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. Greg Moffet said the neighbor's needed to be on board with this program with no deviation and the Town's interpretation had to do with additional square footage regarding the GRFA ordinance. John Schofield said the intent of the motion was to replace the siding with stone, wood etc. Galen Aasland said we could be opening this up to approve other applications. Russ Forrest said that Council, clearly in their minds, thought the whole unit would have to upgrade, but Council did indicate an interest in one structure upgrading and not the other and that it would be clarified in the code sometime in the future. Tom Weber said he was concerned, for the record, about setting a precedent. He said the PEC was not in the business of architectural review, but in code review. The motion failed by a vote of 2-4, with Greg Moffet, Galen Aasland, Tom Weber and Brian Doyon voting against. Greg Moffet said the elected folks have made the law and that they have spoken clearly that this was not a circumstance that had a provision for a variance. He said if the PEC denied the application or approved the whole property, it could be appealed to the Town Council. Brian Doyon asked if the other half received their 250. George Ruther said, yes. John Railton asked how the other half of the duplex got a 250 without upgrading. Greg Moffet advised the applicant to find out how the other half was granted a 250 without upgrading the siding and stated that it could be a precedent. Galen Aasland said that this was probably done before the PEC reviewed 250's. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 3 John Schofield made a motion, per the staff recommendation, to meet the findings on page 3 of the staff memo, with the additional condition that the chimney is brought up to date. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 2. A request for a setback variance and additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a living room addition, located at 1241 Westhaven Circle! Lot 44, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Howard & Cathy Stone, represented by Michael Hazard Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant or public had anything to add. They did not. Galen Aasland said that this lot was encumbered by the chairlift easement. Ann Bishop said she supported this project. Tom Weber said he was having a hard time with this addition that would not affect the setbacks. Brian Doyon said he was having a hard time with this addition in the setbacks, as the applicant still had room to develop elsewhere on the site. He said that the floorplan didn't work, was not the DEC's concern. John Schofield said the extensive easement on this lot was a practical difficulty. Greg Moffet agreed with John and said that a further distinction with the Quale property was that it was a setback variance and that he would just barely vote for approval. Galen Aasland said he agreed that the Quale site coverage variance was different than asking for a setback variance. John Schofield said that had the easement not been there, the house would be 20' to the other side. Tom Weber said the addition could be put in another location, as it now sat closer to the neighbor. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo. Ann Bishop seconded the motion, The motion passed by a vote of 5-1, with Tom Weber opposed. 3. A request for additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for an addition and a request for a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of a Type II EHU Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 4 (Employee Housing Unit), located at 443 Beaver Dam Road/ Lot 4, Block 4, Vain Village Third Filing. Applicant: Beaver Dam, LLC, represented by Jay Peterson Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo and said the applicant would be constructing another dwelling unit on the property. Tom Weber asked if an EHU required them to have enclosed parking spaces. George Ruther said, yes, for a Type II EHU. Galen recused himself, as the applicant was using some of his drawings for this application. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant or public had anything to add. Ann Bishop said she approved of this project, but she brought up several projects in this area that were granted Type 11 housing units that were not being used for Type II EHU. Tom Weber had no comments. Brian Doyon had no comments. John Schofield agreed with Ann and asked for Council to move ahead with enforcement of the EHU's. Ann Bishop made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-1. 4. A request for a site coverage variance and a setback variance, to allow for a revised west entry addition at the Mountain Haus, located at 292 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village 1st, Applicant: The Mountain Haus, represented by John Railton Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. John Railton, the architect, stated he would just answer questions, but added that no further trees would be removed and there would be no impact on the existing trees. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 5 Galen Aasland asked if there was a 2nd access in the area for the ADA access. John Railton said the west entrance does not provide ADA access, but the north entrance did. Greg Moffet asked if the interior access was an ADA access. Galen Aasland stated that access to the commercial was through the front door. Ann Bishop had no comments. Tom Weber said his firm represented the Mt. Haus, but stated he saw no conflict and said he had no comments. Brian Doyon asked why the PEC was seeing this again. John Railton said the new entrance removed the stair access and in order to access you would have to go outside the building. He said the Fire Dept. encouraged an additional escape. He said the space had a commercial-type use and needed an independent access, in order to keep the Mt. Haus residential component separate from the commercial . Brian Doyon said he was at a loss as to why another entry was needed. John Railton explained the second entry. Tom Weber asked how they were providing vertical circulation with this application. Brian Doyon asked why they were getting rid of all the plantings with an unnecessary access. 0 George Ruther said the display window would need to have vertical screening. Greg Moffet said the Village Master Plan encourages street level retail. Brian Doyon said the original application had a ton of landscaping and he said he found no justification for removing all the original landscaping. Greg Moffet said initially there was no retail and clearly retail was keeping in greater compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan. Brian Doyon said this would be an entryway to our Town and should be held to a higher standard. He said the Town would not gain anything by adding the walkway and it looked like two separate projects. George Ruther said one ornamental tree (that would be relocated) and two aspens would be lost and this application needed an easement agreement between the TOV and the applicant. John Schofield said the easement should be a condition. Greg Moffet said that this was a unique property and Brian made a good point, it being an entryway into the Village. He said it was important for the DRB to take a strong look at it. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 6 Tom Weber said the main issue was to provide an additional exit and that was why he supported it. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval with the condition that an easement agreement be executed with the Town and that there be a defined ADA access and in the future, if greater ADA access is required, it come out of the applicant's space and not encumber on the Town's space. Brian Doyon said he wanted the DRB to take a strong look at this. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 5. A worksession to discuss an amendment to Special Development District No. 4 (Glen Lyon), revising the Glen Lyon Office Building site (Area D), located at 1000 S. Frontage Road West/Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building Partnership, represented by Kurt Segerberg Planner: Dominic Mauriello/George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo. Brian Doyon said employee housing units had to be in the Town. John Schofield said by gaining office space, we could be flexible in the height. Greg Moffet agreed with Galen putting in office space and having employee generation less than 30% not necessarily being on-site. He said if it was less than 30%, then the housing should be in Town. George Ruther summarized the employee housing and that because of office space, there could be flexibility in other areas. Greg Moffet recommended getting a gut check from Council, as they were not as favorably disposed as we are. He said utilities must be underground and no parking spaces lost due to snow storage and that tree removal was a concern. Andy Norris said they had regarded hauling, as space was constrained for snow storage. Greg Moffet said enforceability was an issue with hauling snow. Andy Norris said allocating parking spaces for snow storage would be expensive. George Ruther said the Municipal Code grants 48 hrs. before the snow needed to be hauled from the parking spaces. (worksession - no vote) Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 7 6. A final review of a conditional use permit for a proposed addition to the Vail Interfaith Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road/ Tract J, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st. 0 Applicant: Vail Interfaith Chapel, represented by Gwathmey/Pratt Architects Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 24, 1998 7. A request for an amendment to a previously approved plan for the Timber Falls Development, located at 4469 Timber Falls Court/unplatted. Applicant: RAD Five L.L.C., represented by Greg Amsden Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 24, 1998 John Schofield mad a motion to table items 6 and 7 until August 24, 1998. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 8. Information Update Russ Forrest gave an updated on Lionshead stating that Council wanted 5 stories plus the roof; He said alternatives were prepared using the PEC's input. Greg Moffet said the PEC wasted countless hours to be disregarded by Council told Russ to pass this onto Council that the PEC were volunteers. John asked if they addressed the issue of existing buildings to be torn down and rebuilt to their original height. Russ Forrest said Council was looking at 33% more density. Greg Moffet asked about street orientation and if Council disregarded what the PEC suggested. Russ Forrest said Council did not disregard what the PEC suggested. Greg Moffet asked about the north-south orientation above the 4th floor. Russ Forrest said within the design standards, there would be a strong orientation north-south. Galen Aasland said we needed to encourage office space; not just condos and ski shops. Russ Forrest said Council was not comfortable with the bonus element. Galen Aasland said we are creating Beaver Creek. Tom Weber said we would lose tenants, if we don't provide office space. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 -* ? . , V Brian Doyon said they needed to make a decision on height. Greg Moffet stated again that the PEC spent too many hours to be disregarded. He said strongly not to make them squander time that could be spent making money or spending time with our kids. Russ Forrest said the relationship between the PEC and the Council was the bigger issue and that Council really did appreciate the input. He said that Council needed to understand the frustration that the PEC has. Tom Weber quoted Ludy as saying that the "PEC was refusing to roll up their sleeves and work and was just giving people what they wanted, Tom Weber asked how they came up with 82.5'. Russ Forrest explained. Greg Moffet said it was interesting that Council hadn't requested the PEC be at the worksession tomorrow. Brian Doyon suggested letting Council make a decision and that the PEC had done their job. Tom Weber mentioned that Council overturned a recent DRB request and he would like to be informed of these things. Russ Forrest asked if the PEC wanted to be faxed Council agendas. He then gave a heads up to the PEC regarding the employee generation, John Schofield said he wanted Council to look at the 250 Ordinance. Galen Aasland said most 250's could be handled by the DRB. Greg Moffet asked Russ for any further thoughts regarding the noise on 1-70. Russ Forrest said he talked with Tom Moorhead and Greg Morrison. Brian Doyon asked for a draft of a letter to CD©T. Tom Weber asked about the quality of water draining into our streams. Russ Forrest said the next step would be for regulations and policy issues. Tom Weber said he would support this effort. Russ Forrest asked if the PEC would like a worksession on this. The PEC said, yes. 9. Approval of July 27, 1998 minutes. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 9 t,,. John Schofield made a motion to approve the minutes as amended. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-0. Galen Aasland made a motion to adjourn. John Schofield seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 5:15 p.m. E Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 10, 1998 10