HomeMy WebLinkAboutGore Creek Plaza BuildingTO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning
Conmunity
July 24,
and Environmental Commission
Development Department
1989
for a height variance in order to construct ana Building.SUB.TECT: A requestaddition
Applican
I.DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE
The applicants are requesting a beight variance in order toconstruct an addition to the pentlrouse unit at the Gore Creek
P1aza Building. The reguest would result, in an addition of
approxirnately 756 sguare feet of gross residential floor
area.
The portion of the roof being raised consists of a gableplaced in the north-south direction of the west side of thebuilding, plus the enclosure of a deck with an extension on
the northeast corner. The existing height of the ridge is 48feet, rnaking this building heiqht legal, nonconforrning. Theexisting building slopes down to 37 feet on the north side,
and the portion on the northeast corner where.the additionwiLl be varies from 40 feet to 43 feet.
The gable addition on the west will match the 48 feet of theexisti-ng ridge and will not be higher than the existi-ngridge. The proposed addition on the northeast corner willvary from 44 feet to 49-L/2 feet. The variations in height
on the northeast corner are partially caused by a change ofgrade between Gore Creek Drive and the Gore creek Promenade.
IT. CRITERIA AND FINDTNGS
The main criteria for the variance are compliance with the
Urban Design Considerations relating to height, along withthe standard variance criteria.
Compliance With the Urban Design Considerations for
Buildinq Heiqht in Vail Villaqe
Buildinq Heiqht
The Urban Design Considerations state:
rrBasically, the Village core is perceived as a mix oftwo and three story facades, although there are alsofour and five story buildings. The nix of buildingheights gives variety to the street--which is desirable.
to
A.
Rod and Beth Slif
The heigbt criteria are intended to encourage height
and massing variety and to discourage uniforn buildingheights along the street.
The definition of height shall be as it is in the Vail
Municipal Code. Building height restrictions in
Commercial core I shall be as follows:
1. Up to 60? of the buil-ding (building coverage area)
uray be built to a height of 33 feet or 1ess.
2. No more than 40* of the building (building coveragearea) may be higher than 33 feet, but not higher
than 43 feet....
4. The above heights are based on an assumed 3 feet in
12 feet or 4 feet in 12 feet roof pitches. To
accommodate and encourag'e steeper roof pitches (up
to 6 feet in 12 feet), slight' proportionate height
increases could be granted so long as the height ofthe building side walls is not increased.tl
The percentage of the building over 43 feet is proposed
to be increased as follows:
chanqe in Roof Heiqhts With Proposal
I of roof I of roof above I of roof
below 33 ft 33 ft & below above 43 ft43 feet
Existing L7Z
Proposed LlZ
322
11t
518
722
Although the roof does not natch the proportions forroof height stated in the building height consideration,staff believes that the proposed roof plan roeets theintent of the consideration. The proposed west roof has
a 6 feet in 12 feet pitch which the considerationencourages. Despite the fact that the northeast roofpitch is L/Att in 12 feet, the roof wiII not appear to beflat due to its location on the building. The endresult is that there is variety in building height and
nassing which the consideration strongly supports.
B. Consideration of Variance Factors:
Upon review of Criteria and Finding's. Section 18.62.060of the nunicipal code, the Departrnent of Conrnunity
Development recommends approval of the requested
variance based upon the following factors:
1. 7
vicinitv.
Applicant's Response:
The relationship of building height variance toother structures in the vicinity inplies that the
Gore Creek Plaza building may become a break in the
continuous repetition and will increase interest inarticulated roof forms, add variety and visual
irnpact to the street and pedestrian travel .
Staffts Response:
The height of the Sitznark Building to the west is
50 feet fron the highest point, 43 feet on the east
and south sides, sloping to a sma11 portion on the
west side that is 25 feet hiqh.
The height of the Bell Tower Building is 43 feet onj-ts south, east and west sides and 50 feet on its
north side.
When one considers the heights of the adjacentbuildings, it is clear that the Gore Creek Plaza
Building is in keeping with its neighbors.
2.The deqree to which relie m the strict andteraretation and orcement of aation i.s neces to achi-evefonnitv o treatment amo
sites e vicinit or to atta the obiectives
f tle without of a1 privileqe.
Applicant's Response:
The degree of reguested relief fron the existingbuilding height can be seen in the roof plan heightpercentages. The proposed roof area does not
exceed the present overall height and only exceedsthe roof area above 43 feet bY 218.
Staff Response:
The fact that the adjacent buildings are alsohigher than the Urban Design Guide PIan
reconmendation of 43 feet, makes the request for aheight variance not one of special privilege.
fhe effect of ested variance on 1istron of on, trantraacilitieslic facilitles
ed
3.
ut es, and publ c safety.and
Applicant's Response:
The effect of the requested variance on light can
be seen in the shade and shadow study. The effect
on air, population, transportation. utilities andpublic safety is negligible.
Staff Response:
The factor to be considered here is the effect onfight and public facilities. The proposal will add
151 square feet of shadow to the Gore Creek
Promenade, while adding approxinately 150 square
feet of pavers further west. Please see
accompanying nemo.
III. Such other factors and criteria as the cornnission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
IV. FINDINGS
The Plannincr and Environnental Commi-ssion sha11 make the
followinq findinqs before qrantinq a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant
of special privilege inconsistent with the linitations onother properties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrirnental tothe public health, safety or welfare, or materially injuriousto properties or improvenents in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of thefollowing reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement ofthe specified regrulation would result in practicaldifficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistentwith the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circurnstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variancethat do not apply generalJ.y to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcenent of thespecified regulation would deprive the applicant ofprivileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties inthe same district.
v.STAFF RECOITMENDAIION
The staff recomends approval of the reErested variance
because it brJ,ngs tlre roof more into conpliance nith the
Urban Desigm Considerations and conforns to the variancecriterla. The fact that the adjacent properties are also
higher than the height reconmended in the Urban Design Guide
Plan negates the issue of special privilege.
oF 4a
t. ._,)-
Planning and Environnental ConmissionJuly 24, L989
PRESENI
-Diana
Donovan
Pan HopkinsSid Shultz
Peggy osterfosschuck Crist
STAFF PRESENTPeter Patten
Betsy RosolackKristan PritzRick Pyhnan
The Planning and Environmental connission ureeting began withhearing for the Vail Vitlage Master Plan at 1:OO p.n.
The regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental. Conruission
began at 3:50 p.m. Diana Donovan acted as chairperson in Jim
absence.
Larry Eskwith,
August 7, L989
be involved inand agreed to
Item No. 2
a public
neetingVieIe's
(o
Item No. 1 Ana 1 of the staf decision on Gross ResidentialFloor Area GRFA the Cbester resloence unoerconston Lot l-9 Block l-1 Villaqe FirstFilinq, 395 Mitt Creek Circle.Applicant: Mr. E. B. Chester
the Town Attorney requested the item be continued onat 10:00 a.m. because of the amount of tine that wouLdthe discussion. The applicant approved of the requestthe new meeting date and tirne.
A reguest for a heiqht variance and an exterioralteration in order to construct an addition to the Gore
Creek Plaza Buildinq at L93 Gore Creek Drive.Applicant: Rodney and Beth Slifer
Betsy Rosolack made the staff presentation. She started with adescription of the exterior alteration request, first noting a changein the plans as made by the applicant. The change would exclude thebuilding of a gate originally proposed. She then proceeded to coverzoning considerations as per the staff memo. Concerning the Urban
Design Considerations of sun/shade, she explained that there was an
iropact on this criteria and referred to the sun,/shade sketch includedin the staff memo.
The staff recommendation was for approval with the following twoconditions as per the staff memo:
1-. The applj-cants agreeattached drawing and
exPense.
2. The applicants agree
irnprovement district
to construct the improvements on thepay for all the irnprovements at their
to not remonstrate against a specialif and when formed for Vail Village.
Betsy continued the presentation of the Slifer request with anexplanation of the height variance request. She referred to an
attached table in the memo, explained the criteria, and then gave the
reconmendation for approval . Betsy also circulated photos to the board
members.
Ned Gwathney spoke as representative for the applicant. He offered achart for viewing to avoid any confusion on elevations. He reviewedthe chart and answered questions of the PEc nembers. He also showedthe Snowdon and Hopkins plans of tbe project.
Peter Patten noted that the attached sun/shade sketch in the height
variance meno was inaccurate. Tbe correct sun/shade sketch was
included in the exterior alteration memo.
Peggy Osterfoss thought the proposal would be an improvement and as
presented would offer appropriate nitigation.
Sid Schultz had no guestions.
Pan Hopkins agreed with Peggy and said that the height did not botherher. She had no problens with the reguest.
Diana Donovan had no problens with the reguest.
A motion for approval of the exterior alteration reques.t was made by
Peqqy Osterfoss, with two conditions of approval as per the staff memo.
Parn Hopkins seconded the motion.
vote: 4-0-1 Chuck Crist abstaining.
A motion of approval for the height variance request was nade by PanHopkins. The motion was seconded by Sid Schultz.
'i
Vote: 4-0-l-
Iten No. 3
Chuck Crist abstaining.
A recruest for side nt setback variances in orderto construct a and decks on Lot 4, Block E Vaildas Schone F
Jud thN chols
Rick Pylnan described the reguest while referring to the plans. Hebriefly covered the criteria and gave the staff reconrnendation of
approval . However, he stated, the staff could not support the proposed
seating area and suggested it be eliminated fron the request.
The applicant's representative was crant Riva. He handed out a letterto the PEc Board from an adjacent property owner in support of theproposal . He explained that the encroachnents involved were necessaryto allow access to the garage and said the proposal would rnodernize the
horne. He further explained that the main reason for the proposal was
due to a problem with ice forming around the front door. Concerningthe seating area, Grant explained that without a seating area, the deck