Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-0710 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE 1S 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 an July 10, 200, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In considers#ion of: A request far a sign variance, from Section 11-48-19 (BJ(4), to allow for a third business identification sign, located at 4b8 Vail Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurant)ITract F, Vail Village 5'" Filing. Applicant: Larkspur Restaurant & Bar Planner: Brent Wilson A request for a major CC1 exterior alteration and a variance from Section 12-7B-12 (height), to allow for a dormer addi#ion, located at 183 Gore Creek Drive (Sit mark Lodge}/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant: Sitzmark Condominium Association Planner: Brent Wilson 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. Please cal! 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpre#atian available upon request with 24 hour no#ification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Heaeng Impaired, far information. Community Development Department Published June 23, 2000 in the Vail Trail. ~~' ~. .~ TOWN OF VAI1. '~ 1 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE Monday, July 1d, 2ddd PROJECT ORIENTATIQN 1 - Cammunlty Development ^ept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm AO Training Session -Variances :3d min. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. Larkspur Restaurant - 458 Vail Valley Dr7ve 2. Vista Bahn Building - 333 Hanson Ranch Road 3. Sitzmark Lodge _ 183 Gore Creek Drive Driver: ~3 NOTE: if the PEC hearing €::~tLnds until E 00 p. m ,the board will break far dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. A request for a sign variance, from Section 11-48-19 (B}(4), to allow for a third business identification sign, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurant}ITract F, Vai! Village 5t~` Filing. Applicant: Larkspur Restaurant & Bar Planner: Brent Wilson 2. A request for a major CC1 exterior alters#ion and a variance from Section 12-78-12 (height), to allow for a dorme+r additi~~n, located at 183 Gore Creek Drive {Sitzmark Lodge}/Lot A, Block 5B, Vaiil Village 1~` Filing. Applicant: Sitzmark C.and~mi~7ium Association Planner: Brent 11Vilson 3. A requ•~st for a conditional use permit, to allow for the establishment of outdoor patio dining and seating, located a': 333 Hanson Ranch Road (Vista Bahn ~uilding)lLot C, Block 2, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant: i=;cn:o~~~:v arsd Company Planner: Allison Ochs 4. A request for a variance from Section 12-6F-6, to allow for a garage addition, located at 4718 Meadow Drive/Tract B, Bighorn Townhomes Subdivision. Applicant: Bill i~ernardo, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Planner: .~,iiison Ochs TABLEQ UNTIL .IDLY 24, 2000 .~~r`. ,~ ro~,~~ al< ~,~ 5. Information Update 6. SELECTION 01= PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT DRI3 FOR 2000- Caug Dahill - Jan-Apr. 5. '00 Chas Bernhardt - Apr 19, '00 Galen Aasland - fVlay 3, `flfl Brian Dayon - May 17, 'd0 11Io Re,p - Jun 7; `QO Tom Weber - Jun 21. '40 Jahn Schofield - Jul 5, '00 - Jul 19, `00 - Aur, 2., 'd0 - Auc~ 16, '00 - Seri ~. '00 - Sep 2d, `Ofl Jahn Schofield - ^ct-C7ec '00 7. Approval of June 26, 2000 minutes. The applications and infer motion about the proposals are available far public ir~spectian during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 7~ South ~rortage F~oaei. F~lease call 479-2138 for information. Sign language inter pretation a+raiiaole upon request ~n~ith 24 hour notif::cation. Please caN 479-2355, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, far inform.a~ear. Gamrnunity Develos~mer.t Department Published July 7, 2~J4Q in the ~.~<~~° T rai! • • • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING RESULTS Monday, July 10. 2000 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1 -Community Devefopme~nt Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME '12:00 pm ACJ Training Session -Variances :30 min. MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden Brian Doyon Site Visits 1. Larkspur Resfaurant - 458 Vail 'Ja{ley Drive 2. Vista Bahn [3uiiding - 333 f~ansrn Ranch 'Road 3. Sitzmark Lodge - 183 Gore Creek Drive Driver: Brent NOTE: If the PEC hearing Extends until 6:00 p.m.. the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. 1:00 pm Pu#~IIe Hearir.4 - T~vtir,~ ~,;uncil Cc~arr.E:~:rs 2:00 p.m. 1. A reques fcr a sign variance; from Section 11-48-19 (B)(4), to allow for a third business identification sign, located at 45€i Vail Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurant)ITract l=, Val] Village 5cn f=i!ir:g. Ap;_iivr:nt: Larkspur RestaurGnt & Bar Planner: Brent Wilson TABL>B.D I.tNTIL .JIJLY 2~, 2000 2. A request for a rna;or CCt rxte~,;.~r alteration and a variance from Section 12-7B-92 (height, to allow fcr ~ ~+orr:e! aclr,?i~iion; IacafiLd gat 183 Gore Creek Drive (Sitzmark Lodge)fLat A, BlociC 5B, Vail Vi!!age 1't r;ling. Appli^ant: Sitzmark Cond©mirtium Association f'!~~~~r!e;: 3rr~n° Wilson tL~'7TIC?N: Briar. t, ~`~oro S1=COND: Diane Golden VC)TE: 4-0 AP~`RD~IEG' -- r~l.~~:1~~R Ct;1 E);TERIOR ALTERATION MCITIC^!: 3riar; '~^;~:,+-~ 51:;~.,C?'~D: Chas Bernhardt VC3TE: ~-0 AI''~r~Cx.rEQ - ti;;'~,i~:4ANCE • Y` ~ lY 7+~~~, lY t V f71T• V~ Y~LL MEMBERS ABSI=NT John Schofield f~oug Cahill Tom Weber 3. A reauFSt ''or a cr,rriitionai ~.~sF ;:^° rmit, to allow for the establishment of outdoor patio dining and seating, located at .333 Hanson Ranch Road (Vista Bahn Building)JLot C; Block 2, Vail Village 1S` Filing. Applicant: R6rnon©v and Company Pfanne,-: ~4;C~R~n C7chs M©TIO~d: Brian J:~;~on S=~OND: Chas 13emhardt ~/G7E: 4-0 /4Rf~l~O'iiEl~ ~~i"~.~ 'i ~~;OItJLITIfJPJ: 1. ~i hat the c~-::rig xs snvri:sr.~:::c to the west end of the stucco pilaster. 4. A reeiuest for a var~ancv from Section 12-6F-6, t© allow for a garage addition, located at 4718 Meadow Drive/Tract B, Bighorn Townhomes Subdivision. Applicant: ~~r4 Bernardo, represented by Gwa#hmey Pratt Schultz Planner: Anrson Ochs TABLED UNTI~_ :lIJI,V 24, ~pU3? J. lrlfGrmatlor. ~.lp.."C~c ~° 6. SFE...Er:TiON C3~:- ~E:C REPR,ESCi`lTATNE AT ®R8 FOR 2Qt)0- Doug Cahill - .tan-Apr. 5, 'CI(I r?~as I~Qrnhard. - Apr 1g, 'C)D Glen ~+asiand - dl,tay 3, `{]() Brian Dovon - i~,llay 17, 'QC) ;Jn .yep - .l~~r~ %. `(ICI Tom "V1+eb+=r - !4'~. 21, 'gg ,}~:h(+ CrhnYi~i,rf - ,:1.~ ~, 'QCI Chas Bernharc't - Jul 19, `C)0 {'~..g; ~ , 'Clfl - Seo F, 'CIO ~- ~~ 20, 'oa .~~:nn S^l7ofield - Cct-Dec 'DO 7. Apnrav~i Cf June ~~, 20[ICi ~~tinutes. The appiicatic;~s any: i~fvrmation about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours it TIM pro;ec. ~!araner'J offi.:e heated at the Town of Vail Community Development Departn~er,t, 7.~ Snuth ,~rc~~,t~,ge Road. ,=teMse call 47g-2138 for information. Sign language intczrprstation 2~1Giabie upor, req.-r witt, 24 hour notification. PEease cal! 479-355, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for inforr7aticn. Community Develoarnent D:~p~- trr ent • z Jul . 1. ~QC'~~ v ~ ~ 8?~i L~~KS~~'R RE3 ~ AJR~Iv 6 • larkspur °' Allr. Brent Wilsr~n Town of Vaii Community Development Fax: 479-21 ~0 ~.~ ~,,, ~ ~8ar Arent, Ivc:c~lr F'. Please delay may application forthe stun variance for Larkspur Restaurant to July 24. Unfortunately, i am unable to attend t'be meeting on July 10`h and feel it is import&nt I am able to represent ~arltisp~:r in parson. Thank you far your consideration. Sincerely, [~!a cy ~ween a. ~.. ~. =. ,<... ~$S~c~IJ fE3 fl t'~"1'l F.i l'~. t9~ Golden Peak Lodge 458 Vail Valley Carve Vail, Cd 81657 Rrs;aurant 970,479,8450 Market 970.<79.8455 Fax 970,479.8452 I~r;espurv~il,corn iMEhAORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRAM: Community Development Department DATE: July 10, 2000 SUBJECT: A request far a major CC1 exterior alteration and a variance from Section 12-7B-12 (height}, to allow for a dormer addition, located at 183 Gore Creek Drive Sitzmark Lodge}ILot A, Block 5B, Vail Village 151 Filing. Applicant: Sitzmark Condominium Association Planner: Brent Wtilson I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Sitzmark Condominium Association, represented by Bob Fritch, is proposing to add a dormer to an existing multi-family residential unit at the Sitzmark Lodge. The building was constructed prior to the adoption of the °Commercial Core I" zoning in Vail Village and it currently exceeds the allowable building height. Therefore, additions of grass residential floor area (GRFA} on the upper levels that increase building height require the granting of a variance. 'll. REVIEWING BOARD R{7LES Order of Review: Generally, applications will be reviewed first by the PE'C for impacts of the prop©sed variance and then by the DRS for compliance of proposed buildr'ngs and site ,planning.. Planning and Environmental Commission; Action: The PEC is responsible for final approval/denial of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specifiied regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic #acilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. • 4, Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Design Review Board: Action: The DRS has NO review authority on a uariance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRB proposal for: -Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings -Fitting buildings into landscape -Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography -Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation -Adequate provision far snow storage on-site -Acceptability of building materials and colors -Acceptability of roo# elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms -Provision of landscape and drainage -Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures -Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances -Location and design of satellite dishes -Provision of outdoor lighting -The design of parks Staff: The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines- Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. Town Council: Actions of DR8 or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision, III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIC}N MA.1QR EXTERIOR ALTERATiflN The Department of Community Deueiopment recommends denial of the applicant's request for a major CC1 exterior alteration to aNow for a dormer addition, subject to the following findings: That the proposal does not substantially comply with the Val] Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations, with specific reference to the building height objectives outlined in the Vail Village Design Considerations. -2- BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE. The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the applicant's request for a variance from Section 12-7B-~ 2 (height}, to allow far a dormer addition, subject to the following findings: That the granting of the variance would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. IV. MAJOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION -REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a request of Phis nature (additions of ,100 square feet of floor area} are established by the Vail Town Code. The emphasis of this review is on the proposal's compatibility with the zoning code, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the Vail Village Design Gonsiderations and the Vail Comprehensive Plan. A. Compliance with the Town of Vail Zoning Code COMMERCIAL GORE I ZONE DISTRICT Pursuant to Section 1$,24.01 Q of the Town of Vail Municipal Cade, the purpose of the Commercial Gore 1 Zone District is, "To provide sites and maintain the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, i with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core 1 zone District is intended to ensure adequate Iight, air, open space, and ether amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings arrd uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." A major exterior alteration involves any addition of greater than 100 square feet of floor area within the CC1 zone district. The following development standards apply to this request: PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL, USES: AI30VE SECOND 1FLOOR Permitted Uses: Lodges. Multiple-family residential dwellings. Conditional Uses: Retail stores and establishments Eating and drinking establishments Professional offices, business offices, and studios. Banks and financial institutions. Personal services and repair shops, including the following: Theaters. -3- Type I11 employee housing unit ~EHUj Type 111 ernpfoyee housing unit (EHU) SETBACKS No required setbacks, except as may be established pursuant to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. HEIGHT Building height regulations in the CC1 zone district are addressed specifically in the Vail Village Design Considerations. The plan requires that 60% of the building may be built to a height of 33 feet or less while 40% of the building may be built to a height of up to 43 feet- Currently, the Sitzmark Lodge exceeds allowable height per both ratios. Staff believes this proposal would exacerbate the existing inconsistency between the Sitzmark Lodge and the building height guidelines for Vail Village, Therefore, staff believes this proposal is inconsistent with the objectives for building height outlined in the Vail Village Design Considerations. Allowable Height: Up to 43 feet Existing Height Max,): 57.1 feet Proposed Dormer Height: 52.5 feet DENSITY C4NTRC?L The CC1 regulations allow/require a maximum GRFA ratio of 8{1°!° and a maximum density of 25 units/acre. This application involves the utilization of approximately 256 square feet of "available" GRFA. The building is in conformance with the requirements #or density (both GRFA and units/acre). SITE COVERAGE The code allows a site coverage of 6a% of lot area. This proposal will not add any additional site coverage. The existing building conforms to site coverage restrictions for the CC1 zone district. LANDSCAPING AND SITE DEVELOPIUIENT Landscape objectives are outlined in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. However, this proposal will not impact those objectives. PARKING AND LQADING This proposal will not trigger the need for any additional parking or loading at this site. 13. Compliance with the Vail Village Urban Desfan Guide Plan Staff believes this proposal is consistent with the "Gore Creep Drive/Bridge Street Sub- Area"' objectives outlined in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. C. Compliance with the Urban Design Considerations far Vail Village and the Exterior Alteration Criteria.. -4- • 1. Urban design considerations. a. Pedestrianization b. Traffic penetration c. Streetscape framework d. Street enclosure e. Street edge f. Building height g. Views Staff response -Building height regulations in the CC1 zone district are addressed specifically in the Vail Village Design Gonsideratians. The plan requires that 60% of the building may be built to a height of 33 feet or less while 40°~`0 of the building may be built to a height of up to 43 feet. Currently, the Sitzmark Lodge exceeds allowable height per both ratios. Staff believes this proposal would exacerbate the existing inconsistency between the building and the building height guidelines for Vail Village. Therefore, staff believes this proposal is inconsistent with the objectives for building height outlined in the Vail Village Design Considerations. Staff does not believe this proposal will impact any of the other above-listed objectives. 2. Architecturalft_andscape considerations. a. Roofs b. l=acades c. Balconies d. Decks and Patios e. Accent elements f. Landscape elements g. Service Staff response-Tho Vail Village Urban Design Considerations state that "far any single building a varied but simple composition of roof planes is preferred to either a single or a complex arrangement of many roofs." Staff believes this proposal complies with this element of the design guide plan. The Town of Vail Design Review Board, at its June 215` meeting, found the proposal to be in compliance with the Town's guidelines far raaf elements. Staff does not believe this proposal will impact any of the other objectives outlined in the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. D. Compliance with the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan.. Upon review of the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, staff has determined that na recommended improvements or opportunities are directly related to the applicant's proposal • s E. Compliance with the Vail Comprehensive Plan Vail Village Master Plan The Vail Village Master Plan has been adapted as an element of the Vaii Comprehensive Plan. The Vail 'Village Master Plan is intended to guide the Town in developing land use laws and policies for coordinating development by the public and private sectors in Vail Village and in implementing community goals far public improvements. Most importantly, the Vail Village Master Plan shall serve as a guide to the staff, review boards, and Town Council in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. For the citizens and guests of Vail, the Master Plan provides a clearly stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the Village will grow in the future. lJpon review of the Vail Village Master Plan, the staff believes the following goals, objectives and policies are relevant to the applicant's request: Goal #7 Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. t .1 Qbiective: Implement a consistent Qevelopment Review Process to reinforce the character of the Village. 1.1,1 Policv: ©evelopment and improvement projects approved in the Village shalt be consistent with the goals, objectives, policies and design considerations as outlined in the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban Design Guide Plan. 1.2 Qbiective; Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. 1.2.1 Palicv: Additional development may be allowed as identified by the Action Plan and as is consistent with the Vai! Village Master Plan and lJrban Qesign Guide Plan. VI. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE REQUEST' A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina Variance Reauests: 1. `The relationship of the requested variance to ether existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The existing Sitzmark Lodge building, although non-conforming with regard to building height, is surrounded by buildings that are as large or larger in scale.. The rJesign Review Board found the proposed addition to be acceptable in terms of bulk and mass. Staff believes the proposed roof bump-out may help #o break up some of the existing roof plane on the building. The use of the subject property multi-family residential) is consistent with the uses outlined for Vail Village and the Commercial Core I Zone pistrict. • 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and liters! 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 ofi special privilege. The "Srecial Privileoe" and "Hardship" Issues -The Planning and >rnvironmental Commission has consistently held that non-conforming properties constructed legally prior to the adoption of zoning experience a hardship when more stringent regulations render a building non-conforming (Maynor tf1 g/®Q variance, for example). However, all properties within Vail Village are subject to the height previsions in the Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations. Staff believes any proposals for additional height should conform to the standards that are applied throughout the CC1 zone district. Therefore, staff does not believe this proposal meets the above-referenced criteria. Section 12-18-5 of the Vaii Town Code states that "structures or site improvements which do not conform to requirements for setbacks, distances between buildings, height, building bulk control, or site coverage. may be enlarged; provided that the enlargement does not further increase the discrepancy between the total structure and applicable building bulk control or site coverage standards; and provided that the addition fully conforms with setbacks, distances between buildings, and height standards applicable to the addition" The intent behind this clause is to encourage the elimination of non- conforming properties through large-scale redevelopment. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe this. proposal will impact any of the above-listed facilities. New proposed building elements will be lower than the existing roof ridge of the building and will be set back a minimum of 34 feet from property lines and 5f feet from the street edge. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Since this proposal is located in Vail Village, it is subject to the criteria and guidelines described in the Vail Master Plan and its assorted Vail Village elements. As mentioned previously, staff believes that the proposal does not substantially comply with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design Considerations, with specific reference to the building height objectives outlined in the Vail Village Design Considerations B. The Planning and ~nv9ronmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: - „_ 1. That the granting of the variance will nvt 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 ar welfare, or materially injurious to properties ar improvements in the vicinity. 7 3. That the variance is warranted for one or mare of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would resuit 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. 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. • 8 • ,~ ~~ ~~cf~ ~ u ~ a ~ ~ooo _; ,, S~fzrn~~i~ Lodge SITZMARK AT VAIL REQUEST' FQR A DORMER ADDITIQN The following statements address the nature of the variance requested and the relationship ofthc requested varisulce to other existing strf~ctttres in the vicinity. • There are only two buildings adjacent to the Sitzmark in the same zoning district -Gore Creek Plaza and the Lodge at Vail, Gore Creek Plaza, to the east, is the same height as the Sitzmark. About ten years ago considerable amount of their roof was raised, up to their ridgeline. "the Lodge at Vail exceeds the current zoning and is higher than the prapc~scd dormer on the Sitzmark_ The ridge line of the dormer is hvo and a half feet below the existing Sitzmark ridgeline. • There is na effect an light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traClic facilities, utilities, and public safety. • "I'herc is no effect on Van's Camprellensive Flan. This application is made under the dt~rrncr addition provision.. The impact is only positive with respect to the neighbors. The view frorrr the Gore Creelc Plaza penthouse living room window is now a very large gravel roof with numerous pipes and ventilator outlets {see picture # 1). With the dormer addition, their view will improve dramatically {see picture #2). The Lodge at Vail, Village Center, and Diva ;\lorth Condominiums will. have a small, but positive, immpact by breaking up the roofline. The Summers Lodge to the vtirest will not see the dormer addition. C: It is the feeling of the applicant that tltie addition of the dormer is in keeping with the objectives of the dormer addition provision in that it will improve the appearance of the building to the public and the adjacent buildings. The small height addition requested snakes the total height of the Sitzmark less than the building next door and is in keeping with the height of the adjacent b~uldings. Year Around Resort Lodging 188 Gore Creek t7rive • Vail, Cafarado 81657 • (970} 476-5001 • FAX (970) 476-8702 J .. ~ - r _ tr~r. __ r.~ - ~a . --, • - p: ~__ ~. . ,: U.~, r ~. - _ ~'~ ~_- ~T -~- ~~ ~ ~ , • • • • Taken s-randar~g on lodge promena~ wall ;~- ~--- ,, {~ { N ~ ~- i r ~r ~'~ '. '~ ,~_ ~~~ ~ )~ ~ --_ ®_- I I I \_ ~ i ~'~~ ~I V~ C'.1I ~',~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~ ,~ 11+ y y 1 1, I ___ 1 ~ _ ,~ ~~~ . - ~~ i ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ -~ ~ -__ ~- I _~ ~ J ~'. ~~L I J ~~ <_`` -l L_..-1. 1 I ~ t r' "`~ ~ _~ f --~-.. 4 ~ ~f .~ _~ f-•,,~~~ ~__i ~~ ~--- s,.. ~~e r~ t ~r ~;I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~~~~ • • • .~ 1 ,'~ ~ ~ ,V ~.~ r i r t` ~~ +~ ~~ ~~ t, I,+' 1j ~~ t ~? ~ff~ Ir fJ~ ff1 ~~ f f ~ff' )! ~f 1 i j i it i E 0 f+, i L_J~ ~ ~~i ~-~ '~~~ '~ ,~_ ~-~ f 1 %~'~~ ~_ ~ l , ~_L II _~ _~~ ~~ ,' i" ~~fJ ~d ~~ i ~~ .~ G ~ 1 ~`J~ r' 1 t~~ I` /`,~ `.... L... Ce U7 c ~ Vie, ~J _. i"C 4. C.: f1- O h- Lti C7 J c F-° ~ ~. C.~ C) l~ U7 U7 i- ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ w ! ~~~rl ~ I _~ ~1 ~ '~ ^~`C~~~ I - - - i ~ ~ - --- - _ ----------. r - - i ~ t J y -Jl ..Yy~J l ~ ~_ ~n lJ ~~ .: ~. `j ~-~i~ ~ ~ L~ Q i - -- - f ~ r~ '. W f > ~.` ~ ~,~ L`) e -_ ``~~ i -~ /~ t 1 i~ r"^l r"~ `~r' • • • 3uly $, 200tJ Tnwn of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road. West ;'ail, C(~ 81f57 Ladies anti Gentlemen: We are the neighlaors east of t]~ae Fritch's proposed bathroozr: additian. We look out over their very unattractive roof and are very supportive of their addition. as eve feel it will enhance our view dr3rriatically. The fact that the building exceeds the current height Limit does not bather us. In [act, when we remodeled ten years ago. we had the same issue... We Nape the planning commission approves the Fritch's addition. An.y way we can keep g®ad people in the town of Vail and accomx~~odate their reasonable needs is very important. Best regards, E]iaabetil W. 5lifcr • M1rMOi~ANI]UM Td: Plannin and Environmental Commission 9 FRDM: Community Development Department DATE: July 10, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for the establishment of outdoor patio dining and seating, located at 333 Hannan Ranch Road (Vista Balm Building)/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1s~ Filing. Applicant: Remonov and Company Planner: Allison (Jchs ~ESCRIRTION OF THE REQUEST The Vistsa Bahn Building is proposing an outdoor dining deck to be located at 333 Hanson Ranch Rd. f Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1S`. The establishment of outdoor patio dining is a conditional use in the CCI Zone Distriot. The deck addition will allow for outdoor seating for the Tap Room Restaurant. The deck addition will be reviewed by the Design Review Board for compliance with the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. Il. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit to allow for the establishment of an outdoor patio dining deck, based an the fallowing findings and the criteria outlined in this memo: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning Cade and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated ar maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. '~,, r X14 ti Ta{~' fly tlAb ~ • Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this conditional use permit, staff recommends the following condition: t, That the deck is shortened in compliance with the Design Review Board's conceptual review of June 21, 2fl(}0 4see plan). III. ROi.ES OF THE REVIEWING BOARDS Planning and Fnvironmenta! Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating this conditional use permit application for: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. 2. Effect of the use an light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs. 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 streets and parking areas. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which she proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. 5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission. deems applicable to the proposed use. 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental impact report is required by Chapter t 2 of this Title. 7. Conformance with development standards of zone district Desion Review Board: The Design review Board is responsible for evaluating the Design Review application fora 1. Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings 2. Fitting buildings into landscape 3. Configuration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography 4. Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation ~. Adequate provision for snow storage on-site 6. Acceptability of building materials and colors 7. Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms $. Provision of landscape and drainage 9. Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures 10. Circulation and access to a site including parking, and site distances t 1. Location and design of satellite dishes 12. Provision of outdoor lighting 13. The design of parks IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAJL. USE PERMIT Upon review of Chapter t 6 of the Zoning Regulations, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit request to allow for the establishment of the outdoor dining deck at the Vista Bahn Building 'based an the following factors: A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Tawn. Staff believes the applicant's proposa! is in concert with the Town's development objectives and will have minimal impacts on existing or potential uses in the surrounding area. The following development objectives of the Town are listed in the Vail Village Master Plan and staff believes are relevant to this proposal: 2. i Recognize the variety of land uses found throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with. these established land use patterns. 3.3 Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and street life along pedestrian ways and plazas 3.3.2 Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be encouraged in commercial infill or redevelopment projects. 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transports#ion facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. Staff believes that the proposal will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on the above-described criteria. 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes there will be minimal, if any, negative impacts on the above-described criteria ~#, 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 surraundiing uses. Staff believes that the proposa! has many positive aspects and that the character of the area will be enhanced as a result of the proposed improvements. Las Amigos has an outdoor dining deck similar to the proposed Tap Room deck, As this site is adjacent to the ski yard, staff believes this will be an amenity to the public. However, staff recognizes that there are residential uses adjacent to the proposed outdoor dining • deck. A61 Town of Vail noise ordinances are applicable to this site. As a conditional use permit, the Planning and Environmental Commission has the ability to revisit the conditions imposed upon it, should any conflicts arise between adjacent uses, 3 B. i~~NUr~vGS The Pianninp and Env'rranmentai Commission shall make the foilow'rna findings before arantina a conditional use Hermit: That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning cads and the purposes of the district in which the site is Cflcated. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated ar maintained would Hat be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable pravisians of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. • • 4 -~~ .......r •~-- av ri Y '° t .~ ~~ • 4. ~ ! - ~ .v 6 i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~. . ' i .'. .,~ ; ~. ~ ~, ~4` ~ ~t ~~, ~- ~i ,i -_ ii'~~ i!, r s°` c t -' ' ', k j ~ '~ ~'~ ~ i. b '.-S i--:'.a ~_ G I ~ I C~ ~bl~lf,13~ x I e--~~-_.. _ ~' ~ -~ ~ ~„~ ~`1 a ~~ R~~y[~ k. /ALL, ..~.ti t X cs l ~'. i ''+'~ _ ,,~ ._ a __ _-~~ ~ Ic,9° ~~ } E - ~ ~ ~~ - ~~ i- ! ~- + - ~' ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~ F ~ r'~ ! ;! i ... ~ . i~ ~.~. .tli I APL L~r ;~ s ~~. ti~ y'ti. ~~ ~ . i, ~11'~ //'''' qL < _ _ ~rtF f r y~~°~ 6+! { J f C'. r F i `~` L ~ L' ~ •~ :~ l r r • ~~ rte' t.~ ~~ %.. ., ,,. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 1 Q, 2QQQ Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT Galan Aasland Chas Bernhardt Diane Golden Brawn Doyon Pu#lic Hearing MEMBERS ABSENT: Jahn Schofield Tom Weber Doug Cahill Galen Aasland called the meeting to order at 2;Q0 p.m. 2.00 p.m. A request. far a sign variance, from Section 11-48-19 (B}{4}, to allow far a third business identification sign, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurant}ITract F, Vail Village 5=f' Filing. Applicant: Larkspur Restaurant & Bar Planner: Brent Wilson • Brian Doyon made a motion to table this item until the next meeting. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 2. A request for a major CC1 exterior alteration and a variance from Section 12-7B-12 (height}, to allow far a dormer addition located at 183 Gore Creek Drive (Sitzmark Lodge}lLot A, Black 5B, Vail Village 15l Filing. Applicant: Sitzmark Condominium Association Planner: Brent Wilson • Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff mama. Galen Aasland said that Slifers, Papa's, Lodge at Vail, Vista Bahn Building and the Bridge Street Lodge had requested height variances in the past. He said he wanted to know their outcomes, in order to be fair to the applicant. George Ruther explained the height variances that had been requested and granted in the past. Galen Aasland' asked if there was any applicant comment. Bob Fritch said his proposal was consistent with the master plan and said that the dormer would break up the rooflane making it more interesting. He said that they were consistent with the building next door with relation to height and that no view would be blocked. Galen Aasland asked if there was any public commen#. Galen Aasland stated that the PEC would now take a minute to review the Slifer and Gasthaf Gramshammer prior variance requests. Brian Doyon asked if the applicant had any GRFA left. Brent Wilson said they had 11QQ sq. ft. of GRFA lef#. Planning and Environmental Commission Evlinutcs 7iEfy l 0, 2000 STAFF PRESENT: George Ruther Brent Wilson Allison Ochs Judy Rodriguez V ~~ Brian Doyon stated that the existing building was the hardship. He said if the applicant wanted to use up the allowable GRFA, he would have to go up, sine he was surrounded by buildings. I can see granting this using ;he existing building as the hardship. Bob Fri#ch said there were 35 lodge roams and 1 residential unit. Brian Doyor7 explained since they couldn't go out the sides, he could see giving a height variance. GaiPn Aasland clarified the different uses in the building. He said the hotel units were seen differently than the condo units. Chas Bernhardt said the Sitzmark was built prior to the current zoning, and so it was not a grant of special privilege. ©iane Golden agreed with Chas. Galen Aasland said the Slifers were approved in 1989 and denied in 1998 because they were asking for density. He said it appeared fhat the Slifers were given an approval in '$9 because they weren't asking for density. He said the building was built before zoning and the height would not be affecting anyone. He said however, that if this was in the front raw Pike Cyrano's, he wouldn't vote far it. Brent Wilson suggested making two separate motions with this ref~uest. Brian Doyon said he would like the DRB or staff to make sure it did not exceed 5`. i3ob Fri#ch said the gable was up to 9' from the slab and less than a foot and a half on the sides Galen Aasland said they were comfortable with 52 '/~ `. Brian Doyon made a motion to approve the majcr CC1 Alteration, subject to the finding on page 2. Mane Gofden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote at 4-{l. Brian Doyon made a motion to approve the variance with required findings on page 7 & 8. Chas Bemhardt seconded the motion. The motian passed by a vote of 4-0, 3, A request for ~ conditional use permit, to allow for the establishment of outdoor patio dining and seating, located at 333 Hanson Ranch Road {Vista Bahn Building}ILot C, Block 2, Vail Village 15' Filing. Applicant: Remanav and Company Planner: Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything #o add.. Terrill Knight explained his rendering to the REC and said he still had to go back to the IIRB and address the access below. 2 Planning and ~nviranmentai Commission Minutes July l0, 2(10 ~ Galen Aasland asked if there was any public comment. He said;.. for the record, that Tom Moorhead said residents in the CC1 Zone district could expect a restaurant use, He said the PEC would weigh the impacts of this proposal to protect the adjacent's property. He mentioned that the neighbor was providing some of the 4' separation from the neighbor's deck. Diane Golden said a server station in that location would be worse than a table there. Galen Aasland asked if the planter was 1' wide. Allison C3chs said it would come out 9 sq. ft. from the wadl and there wouid be 707 sq. ft. of deck area. Diane Golden stated that they were cgose to the neighbor, but mentioned that nobody had heard from the neighbor either way and also outdoor dining decks were encouraged. Brian Doyon said he was ;n favor of this. He said he disagreed with the DRB and still thinks it should go out from the eastern side and should pull back and said he encouraged an irregular deck. Chas Bernhardt agreed, with Brian, specifically with regards to pulling away from the ofher deck some more. He said if the deck started just east of the copper roof, then it would. have adequate separation from the unit next door and wouldn't infringe on the fight and air below. He said he also liked an irregular deck. Terrill Knight said the Di~t3 was thinking smaller. Diane Golden said she read a letter of opposition from the Bridge Street Lodge. Allison C~ehs said staff would recommend approval if the deck was made smaller. Brian Doyon said if the two squares were taken off that run perpendicular to the building than it would provide the buffer #hat was needed. Allison Cchs said the PEC needed tv focus on the use and impacts and let the DRB review the architectural details. Galen Aasland said tables would look into the adjacent property owner's living room and so what the PEC was asking for was a reasonable buffer. He said if more space was added to the east he would be fine with that space, but a 1' landscape buffer was not sufficient. He said his choice would be to have the juncture be stucco. George Ruther clarified that the point east of the door was the approximate location where the deck wouid terminate and summarized that the PEC wanted nothing further west of the stucco pillar. Brian Doyon made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo, with the condition that the deck be shortened to the west end of the stucco pilaster. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. 4. A request for a variance from Section 12-fit=-&, to allow for a garage addition, located at 4718 Meadow DrivelTract B. Bighorn Townhomes Subdivision. Applicant; Bill Bernardo, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Planner_ Allison Qchs 3 Planning and Environmental Commission Minut~5 Iuly 1 c1, 2(1(1(! t TABLED UNTIL JULY 24, 2000 i Chas Bemhardt made a motion to table the above item. 'I Diane Golden seconded the motion. ~ II The motion passed by a vote of 4-d. 5. Information Update Russ Forrest gave an update on the Community Facilities,. in terms of the three developed uses on the site and encouraged the PEC to participate. Russ gave an update on an administrative change to DRB applications. He said effective May 1st, bath signatures would be required on an application for Parcel C lots. He said he would like to discuss with the PEC having the same requirement for parcels just A and B lots. Tam Moorhead said property rights would be a concern with A and B parcels, as far as GRFA and it was not within our rights to determine property rights and available GRFA. Brian Doyon said a lot of work won't get done since a !ot of neighbors don't like each other. He said the PEC was not here to pass judgement and until they resolve their problems, he didn'# want to see them. Tom Moorhead said since ii was a tremendous time allocation on our resources, he would like to come up with a procedure to bring the parties together. Brent 'v1lilson said, for the record, that he had received 14a emails from the FerrylRepetti i situation. Brian Doyon suggested getting the signature of the neighbor before coming in, as it was wasting staff and the PEC's time. Chas Bemhardt agreed that it had to be settled before coming in. Galen Aasland summarized that it was very appropriate on an ABC property, however AB properties may have individual property rights, so it may be overstepping the Towrrs right to da this. However if it was to be adopted, it should be a fair due process with written notice. 6. SELECTION OE PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT DRl~ FOR 20fl0- Doug Cahill - Jan-Apr. 5, '170 Chas Bemhardt - Apr 19, `00 Galen Aasland - May 3, `DO Brian Doyon - May 17, '{lQ No Rep - Jun 7; 'C}0 Tom Weber - Jun 21, 'd0 John Schofield - Jul 5, '00 - Jul 19, `00 - Aug 2, 'DO - Aug 16, 'U© - Sep 6, '00 - Sep 20, `fl0 Jahn Schofield ~ - Oct-Dec 'QO Chas Bernhardt volunteered to be the PEC rep for DRB for July 19'h. 4 Planning and Environmental Commission Mir~utcs 7uly 1 f), 2(70 7. Approval of June 26: 2fl00 minutes. Brian Doyon made a motion to approve the amended minutes. Chas Bernhard# seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-0. Diane Golden made a motion to ad}ourn. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 4-©. The meeting adjourned at 3:3~ p.m. • 5 Planning and Environmental Commission 'vtinuies 3uly 10,?~Q(l