Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-0407 DRB DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING � i` April 7, 2010 �NCouncil Chambers 1T ! 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 PROJECT ORIENTATION 1:00pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Tom DuBois Pete Dunning Brian Gillette Rollie Kjesbo Libby Plante SITE VISITS 2:00pm 1. Lopez Residence— 1370 Sandstone Drive 2. Vail Corp —560 East Lionshead Circle (Chair 8) 3. Solis Residence—2180 Alpine Drive 4. Wells Residence— 5030 Prima Court 5. Timber Ridge Village Apartments — 1280 North Frontage Road Discussion of the Town's adopted design guidelines and standards (60 minutes) George Ruther started out with an overview of the purpose of the discussion. The purpose of discussion was to get feedback from the Design Review Board members on questions regarding the adopted policies, procedures and guidelines and standards enforced by the Board. He stated that several of the Board members had inquired about a number of the interpretation of the guidelines and standards and some of the Town's policies. Specifically, members had asked about the interpretation of the connection guidelines for Primary/Secondary development, the interpretation of architectural compatibility and unified architecture requirements, the need for tree revegetation on platted lots, the use of synthetic exterior building materials, joint owner signature requirements, the interpretation latitude of the Board when applying policy and guidelines, etc. The Board began the discussion by highlighting concerns with the codified language regarding the requirements for duplex units to be designed within a "single structure" with "enclosed space substantially above grade". Two recent duplexes which were attempting to achieve minimal connection on sloping sites and the Board struggled as there were differing opinions on what the language meant and how it should be applied. Questions such as "What is substantial?" "Does the connection need to be Gross Residential Floor Area or can it be solely the garages?" were asked. It was pointed out that there were potentially some inconsistencies with how single-family and duplex structures were treated. An example of a single family that was approved which had a minimal connect to a wing of the home may not have been approved by the Board if it were a duplex. George Ruther provided some history on the Primary/Secondary Zone District and the fact that the secondary unit has grown over the years from a smaller caretaker unit to being allowed to be up to 40% of the allowable GRFA. The Board then discussed the requirements of "compatibility" with regard to unified architectural design within a duplex or larger multi-family development. There were concerns raised over the ability for a single owner to Page 1 make improvements to their unit if joint property owners would not sign-off or were not interested in making improvements to their unit. Some members felt it was unfair to penalize a single owner wishing to make improvements when joint property owners were unwilling to cooperate or make improvements at the same time. Tom DuBois suggested that "compatibility" does not mean that the same materials appear in equal quantities on both units. He believed it may be appropriate to have stone only on one unit in a joint development. Elements such as fascia, paint colors, windows, etc. may be adequate to tie a structure together architecturally and allow one owner to make more significant improvements. Brian Gillette stated that he generally agreed with Tom. He questioned the role of the DRB in preventing one owner from completing improvements simply because the joint owner did not approve. He also believed that the interpretations of the Board may actually change over time or from Board to Board as a response to changing conditions. The next topic was a discussion of the quality of materials that were being required. It was suggested by the Board that the quality of materials may not be stringent enough to ensure long lasting materials. There were concerns that previously cementitious siding products were not permitted to be install lower on facades were people could see and touch the product. It was previously only permitted above 35 feet to meet Building Code requirements. There has been a concern that cementitious products appear to be failing on several projects with regard to holding paint and the material separating. The Board asked staff to develop a list of projects and the associated Design Standard so that conversations can occur around those areas. The example of the Dobson Ice Arena and the reflectivity of the metal roof was provided. It was suggested that maybe there should be a black and white maximum reflectivity for roofs in the Design Standards. A more quantifiable standard would be more easily and consistently applied. The conversation continued by discussing how to balance environmental sustainability with architectural quality. Maybe roofs should be required to be super-insulated to avoid needing more reflective roofs. George Ruther inquired as to how the Board felt about the character of the Town and whether that character was positive or negative and going in the right direction. The Board unanimously felt that the character of the Town was what it should be and that it was heading in the right direction. It was discussed that one of the great thing about the character of the Town was that not all houses were required to look so similar that no distinction was possible. It was a positive that the Design Standards did not include provisions for only a single stone, siding material, limited palette of colors, a single roof material, etc. George Ruther inquired as to the regulations regarding development respecting the site and land forms. The Board discussed that with property values what they are that it is no surprise that developers and homeowners want to build all the Gross Residential Floor Area they are permitted and maximizing site coverage, setbacks, and height. Some members felt that to expect that a new residence being built to be reconstructed in substantially on the same foot print as the previously existing home to preserve trees was not realistic and too restrictive. The conversation then lead to a discussion about the landscaping requirements found in the Design Standards. It was generally felt that there should be greater clarity in the policy of how trees that are removed should be replaced. In the past there was a general rule of thumb that trees should be replaced foot-for-foot on the site until the site could handle no more plantings. There was discussion that the minimum sizes required should be larger than six feet for evergreens and two inches for deciduous. Page 2 Brain Gillette pointed out that the Design Standards are intended to provide latitude to architects and that the Board should not quantify too many standards or thus the result will be homes that appear more similar. He pointed to the Purpose statement of the Design Review Chapter of the Code. Section 12-11-1: Purpose A. Attractive Attributes Recognized: Vail is a town with a unique natural setting, internationally known for its natural beauty, alpine environment, and the compatibility of manmade structures with the environment. These characteristics have caused a significant number of visitors to come to Vail with many visitors eventually becoming permanent residents participating in community life. B. Area Character Protection: These factors constitute an important economic base for the town, both for those who earn their living here and for those who view the town as a precious physical possession. The town council finds that new development and redevelopment can have a substantial impact on the character of an area in which it is located. Some harmful effects of one land use upon another can be prevented through zoning, subdivision controls, and building codes. Other aspects of development are more subtle and less amenable to exact rules put into operation without regard to specific development proposals. Among these are the general form of the land before and after development, the spatial relationships of structures and open spaces to land uses within the vicinity and the town, and the appearance of buildings and open spaces as they contribute to the area as it is being developed and redeveloped. In order to provide for the timely exercise of judgment in the public interest in the evaluation of the design of new development and redevelopment, the town council has created a design review board (DRB) and design criteria. C. Design Review: Therefore, in order to preserve the natural beauty of the town and its setting, to protect the welfare of the community, to maintain the values created in the community, to protect and enhance land and property, for the promotion of health, safety, and general welfare in the community, and to attain the objectives set out in this section; the improvement or alteration of open space, exterior design of all new development, and all modifications to existing development shall be subject to design review as specified in this chapter. D. Guidelines: It is the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as possible to the individual designer while at the same time maintaining the remarkable natural beauty of the area by creating structures which are designed to complement both their individual sites and surroundings. The objectives of design review shall be as follows: 1. Recognize the interdependence of the public welfare and aesthetics, and to provide a method by which this interdependence may continue to benefit its citizens and visitors. 2. Allow for the development of public and private property which is in harmony with the desired character of the town as defined by the guidelines herein provided. 3. Prevent the unnecessary destruction or blighting of the natural landscape. 4. Ensure that the architectural design, location, configuration materials, colors, and overall treatment of built up and open spaces have been designed so that they relate harmoniously to the natural landforms and native vegetation, the town's overall appearance, with surrounding development and with officially approved plans or guidelines, if any, for the areas in which the structures are proposed to be located. Page 3 5. Protect neighboring property owners and users by making sure that reasonable provision has been made for such matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, the preservation of light and air, and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. At the conclusion of 60 minutes it was decided that staff would need to return at a future meeting as more time was needed to discuss policy issues and would need to return with some materials to aid in discussion. PUBLIC HEARING — TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:00pm 1. Swearing in of new members Lorelei Donaldson 2. Nomination of Chairman ACTION: Pete Dunning Appointed as Chairman MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Plante VOTE: 5-0-0 3. Nomination of Vice Chairman ACTION: Tom DuBois Appointed as Vice Chairman MOTION: Gillette SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5-0-0 4. Timber Ridge Village Apartments DRB100079/45 minutes George Final review of new construction (employee housing development) 1280 North Frontage Road/Lots 1-5, Block C, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing 1 Applicant: Vail Timber Ridge, LLC ACTION: Tabled to April 21, 2010 MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Plante VOTE: 5-0-0 5. Vail Fire Station DRB100037/ 30 minutes Bill Final review of new construction (fire station) 2399 North Frontage Road West/Lot A, Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 2310 Chamonix Road/Parcel B, Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Belford Watkins Group ACTION: Approved MOTION: Gillette SECOND: DuBois VOTE: 5-0-0 6. Adair Residence DRB100074/5 minutes Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (exterior materials) 3035 Booth Falls Road/Lot 12, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 13 Applicant: Pure Design Studio ACTION: Approved MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 5-0-0 7. Lopez Residence DRB100067/5 minutes Bill Final review of an addition (dining room, bedroom) 1370 Sandstone Drive, Unit 8/Lot G-3, Lions Ridge Filing 2 Applicant: Michael Hazard ACTION: Approved MOTION: Gillette SECOND: Plante VOTE: 5-0-0 Page 4 8. Solaris DRB100072 /5 minutes Warren Final review of a sign application (exterior signs) 143 East Meadow Drive/Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Solaris Property Owner LLC, represented by Michael Suman ACTION: Approved MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Plante VOTE: 5-0-0 9. Vail Corp DRB100056/ 15 minutes Rachel Final review of a minor exterior alteration (mini golf course) 560 East Lionshead Circle (adjacent to Chair 8)/Lot 2 and Tract B, Vail Lionshead Filing 6 Applicant: Jeff Babb ACTION: Approved with conditions MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 5-0-0 CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall install all fully cut-off light fixtures less than 18 inches above grade. Lights shall be turned off when the miniature golf course is closed. 2. The applicant shall install wildlife resistant trash containers on site to match existing trash containers in the vicinity, or shall remove all trash daily in compliance with the Vail Town Code. 3. The applicant agrees, if deemed necessary by the Town after a joint site visit once the snow is melted, to relocate/regrade the east end of the Gore Valley Trail within this project area to provide the safest reasonable configuration to accommodate site distance and provide a reasonable grade for the bike path in this area. 4. The applicant may make minor changes to the layout of the golf course holes and shall submit an as-built plan to the Town of Vail prior to final inspections. Should Town Staff deem the changes to be significant, the Applicant shall submit a changes to approved plans application for review. 5. The applicant shall install signage along the pedestrian path crossings per the Town of Vail's sign program for the Gore Valley Trail. Signage on Gore Valley Trail shall be considered "Government signs, including directional signs, to control traffic or for other regulatory purposes" and shall be exempt from the review process. The applicant shall submit an application for signs for all other signage on site, including the Business ID sign. 6. The applicant shall install fencing along the Gore Valley Trail a minimum of two (2) feet from the edge of asphalt and shall maintain fencing during the summer months each year that the miniature golf course is operational. 7. The applicant shall paint crosswalks on the Gore Valley Trail at each crossing within the Miniature Golf Course. 8. The applicant shall submit a weed management plan and gain approval of this plan by Town Staff prior to construction. The approved plan shall be implemented during construction to remove and/or control all noxious and invasive plants. 9. Approval is contingent upon PEC approval of a conditional use permit for this project. 10. The Design Review Board further recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission further review the potential conflict between the Gore Valley Trail and the golf course. 10. Wells Residence DRB100066/ 10 minutes Rachel Final review of a minor exterior alteration (deck, stairs, windows) 5030 Prima Court/Unplatted Applicant: Stephen Wells ACTION: Approved Page 5 MOTION: Plante SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 5-0-0 11. Solis Residence DRB100082 / 15 minutes Rachel Conceptual review of new construction (single family residence) 2180 Alpine Drive/Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1 Applicant: Blueline Architects ACTION: Conceptual, No Vote 12. Information Update—Vail Racquet Club deck rails Bill STAFF APPROVALS Schulte Residence DRB100023 Rachel Final review of an addition (bedroom, bathroom) 3094 Booth Falls Road, Unit 9/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 12 Applicant: Holly & Heinz Schulte, represented by TrD Architects Oliver Residence DRB100051 Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (deck) 3977 Lupine Drive/Lot 1A, Block 1, Bighorn 1st Addition Applicant: Bart Thomas St Louis/Vail Connection LLP Residence DRB100052 Warren Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping) 5030 Prima Court, East Unit/Unplatted Applicant: Stephen Wells Streamside Circle Partnership LLLP Residence DRB100055 Rachel Final review of a minor exterior alteration (hot tub, patio) 4327 Streamside Circle West, West Unit/Lot 6, Bighorn 4th Addition Applicant: Eric Pollack Snowsports LLC Residence DRB100057 Rachel Final review of an addition (two additions) 63 Willow Place, Unit 2/Lot 2, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: KH Webb Meadow Drive Ventures Inc Residence DRB100058 Rachel Final review of an addition (loft) 100 East Meadow Drive, Unit 18/Lot 0, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing Applicant: John G Martin Bruce A.L. Willard Living Trust Residence DRB100060 Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (exterior lighting) 454 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 5, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 3 Applicant: Lynn Fritzlen Ramshorn Lodge DRB100061 Warren Final review of changes to approved plans (landscaping, patio) 416 Vail Valley Drive/Lot A, Block 3, Vail Village Filing 5 Applicant: John Milligan Page 6 Northwoods DRB100062 Warren Final review of a minor exterior alteration (deck) 600 Vail Valley Drive/Unplatted Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Red Sands Corp Residence DRB100063 Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (skylight) 100 East Meadow Drive, Units 25 & 26/Lot 0, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Cheedle Residence DRB100064 Warren Final review of a minor exterior alteration (doors) 4514 Meadow Drive, Unit 1003/Unplatted Applicant: Ankerholz Inc Landmark Condos DRB100065 Bill Final review of changes to approved plans (landscaping) 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Millrace Condos DRB100068 Rachel Final review of a minor exterior alteration (windows) 1320 Westhaven Drive, All Buildings/Lot 4, Cascade Village Applicant: Fritzlen Pierce Architects Woodings Residence DRB100069 Bill Final review of an addition (entry) 1694 Matterhorn Circle/Lot 12, Matterhorn Village Applicant: THD Colorado Lunar Vail LLC DRB100070 Warren Final review of an addition (combine two dwelling units) 434 South Frontage Road East, Units 101 & 102/Lot 1, Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail Village Filing 5 Applicant: Triumph Development Mountain Haus DRB100075 Rachel Final review of a minor exterior alteration (re-paint) 292 East Meadow Drive/Lot 5, Part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: KH Webb Vail Mountain Lodge DRB100089 Bill Final review of a minor exterior alteration (re-paint) 352 East Meadow Drive/Part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Carl Cocchiarella 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 call 479-2138 for information. Page 7 Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Page 8