HomeMy WebLinkAboutLodge Tower Entry 1986o@
In order to facilitate the development of lobby and admin'i strativespaces, an enclosure of 83 square feet has been proposed by the LodgeSouth condominium Association. The enclosure would allow for access tothe new lobby area from the ma'iir entrance to the build.i ng.
Any proposal that adds or removes square footage to a building incommercial core I requires rev'i ew with respect to the urban D-sign GuidePlan. This review process is intended to insure the maintenance andpreservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings frontingon pedestrian ways, public greenways, and to insure continuation of thebuilding's scale and architectural qualities that d.i stingu.i sh thevi11age. Specific review cri teria include the urban Design Guide plan;
the Urban Design Considerat'i ons, and zoning cons.i derationi. Thefollowing outlines this proposal with respect to these criterja.
The urban Design Guide Plan proposes a number of physical improvementsto vail vi11age. Referred to as sub-area concepts, these improvementsare designed to reinforce the pedestrian network and the quality bui1tenvironnent of the vil1age. There are no sub-area concepts relitive tothis proposal .
COMPLIANCE l.lITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The purpose of comparing the proposal with these design considerat.i onsis to demonstrate how the new development strengthens or detracts fromthe overa'l 'l intent of the Vai I Vi 1 l age Urban Des.i gn Gui de pl an. The
Desi gn Considerations include:
A. Pedestrianization
B. Vehicular Penetration
C. Street Enclosure
D. Street Edge
E. Building Height
F. Views
G. Service and De1 iveryH. Sun,/shade
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
I.THE PROPOSAL
III
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
A request for
entry to the
Lodge South Condominjum Assocjation
6-o
+/,K,
V'c
add an enclosed
II
Kt
Y4
an exteri or alteration in
Lodge South condomi nTuni
There are no direct impacts on any of these considerations resultingfrom the proposed development. This is due to the re'l atively minornature of the improvement proposed, as well as the'l ocation of the LodgeSouth Condominiums. Located outside the Village Core and off of anymajor pedestrian way, the criteria considered in the revjew of thisdevelopment are not applicable.
IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Zoning considerations relative to this project include parking and'sitecoverage. Two parking spaces would be removed from this site as aresult of thjs development. As permitted by the Commercial Core Izoning, cash payment to the parking fund wou] d be made to compensate forthis 'l oss. The proposed development does increase the amount of site
coverage on this property, A variance is required for this aspect ofthe development and is covered by the attached memorandum.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff reconmendation for this reguest is approval . It is felt that theaddition will have a positive effect on the structure, while hav.i ng noadverse effects on Vail Vi11age.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPLI CANT:
Plann'i ng and Environmental Conmission
Corununity Devel opment Department
0ctober 13, .|986
A request for a variance from the site
O 4**'lc-c
/ilJ"
t-.*1 ('..t
standards to allow
I.
II
c0vera9e
fon an enclosed entry to the Lodge South Condominiums
Lodge South Condominium Association
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant has proposed a new entryway to facilitate access to lobby
and administrative areas that are being added to the Lodge South
Condominiums. Site coverage (the area of a site enclosed by a structure)is.l imited to 80% of a site in Commercial Core I. The existing Lodge
South Condominium site is 14,950 square feet. As a result of this
proposal , s'i te coverage would increase from 12,969 square feet to 13,052
iquire feet. This results in an increase froml'86-3%t6-57Zlsite
coverage. As these numbers demonstrate, the site is nonconforming at thepresent time. Increasing this degree of nonconforming requires Planning
Commission approva'l . The area in question js a concrete wa1 kway and the
development would result 'i n no loss of landscaped materials.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Cri terja and Fjndinqs. Section 18.61.060 of the Municipal
Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the
requested variance based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the requested variance to other exist'i ng orpotential uses and structures in the vicinity.
As proposed, the addit'i onal development at the Lodge South Condominiums
would not adverse'ly affect existing or potential uses and structures inits vicinity.
The deqree to which relief trict or literal inte retation and
orcement 0 ctTte 0n Is necessarv to atibititanqeatment amonq si tes e vicinit
tta in ect ves o st tle without qrant o
pr'r v r Iege.
It is important to consider that the property is developed overi ts
allowable s'i te coverage at this time. The proposed development would
increase this situation by on1y.5% This in itsel f does not create just
cause for granting this vari ance. However, the Lodge South CondominiumswereatonetimeiportionoftheLodgePropertim
subdivision of this o pmen I
III.
IV.
n a nonconTorm l n s i tuati on It is feltthat thi s subsequent subdi vi si on-hlE- ciEa-phys ica1 hardship thatjustifies the granting of this variance.
The effect of the r uested variance on li ht and i stri buti on ofation. transportation and tra c facilities anduti I i tj es, and publ i c safety.
None of the above elements are affected by this proposal .
SUCH OTHER IACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO
FI NDINGS
Ihe Plannjng and Envjfonmental .Conm'i ssion sha'l I make the followjngfindings before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of specialprivilege inconsistent wjth the limjtations on other propertiesclassified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or material 1y injurious to propertjes or
improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the fo1 lowing reasons:
The stri ct or literal interpretation and enforcement of thespecified regu'l ation would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives ofthis title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditionsapplicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generallyto other properties in the same zone.
The stri ct or literal interpretation and enforcement of thespec'ified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same distr.i ct.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of this request. It is felt that theadditional site coverage being added to the property does not createsignificant impacts and is not a grant of spec.ial privilege whenconsidering the subdivision of this property.
V.
t
C'
Duane Piper expressed appreciation forand staff. He stated that he stil't hadfollow existing land uses but real .ized
out.
Vi el
Use
sh
wit
motion was
concern l n
Lesliers help as well as the Task Forcea concern that the plan seemed tothat we were, to a large extent, built
Peter told the board that there were at present at'least g0 single fami]y lotsover 30,000 sq ft within the Town which irad not yet 1.., urilt lpon. H"".iii.othat the staff did recognize that the trittsiaei i"".-r""ri|'a potentia.r fordevelopment, but that open space was a very valuable land irse io" ih"-.ormunitvas well.
and Hobbs seconded to recommen Town Qgqncil that the Landasres en t e adopted w c nan qe that on pase 7. 3.t was su es Ee at c I ude e fact that there
that was un
the s area owners. V.i el eerstooanof nee tobea ressed. The votecasti n e c l ssenat the mot on did no i ncl ude e recommendation o r-tL<l I
to
nT
en space tween San EO ne ooEn cree
2-equest for exteri or alte tion and for a site cove ra e variance inorder to con on to the e South condomi n i ums.
um ssoc iat ion
Tom Braun presented t}-d sa1 beginning with the request for exterjoralteration. He pointed-out that at[nough"anv-p"opo..i'itli aaas or removessquare footage,to a building in CCI reqlires-rlvi!w-*i tlt r".p".t to the UrbanDesign Guide Plan sub-area-ioncepts, there were no sub-area concepts relatjve;i ';;; -u';;"-j.lis'
l^nnciianrfianc na-"1+:-- c-^- !L9:l:j1"1:tl:l'.I::i]!_ins-from the deve.lopr"nt aI"-io ir,.-"iriii"l,iv"irTilj"nature of the improvement as wer as the rocat.i on "i p""pi,rir
Public Hearing:
l. Approval of minutes of September 22. 19g6 Donovan moved and Hobbsseco ted. Voie'was o_0.
Zoning considerations include parking and s.i te coverage. Two parking spaceswould be removed as a result of the leve'l opment, "na-ii.r, payment to theparking fund would be made to compensate for thjs lo.r.- --
The property is developed over its allowable site cov.grage at this t.ime. Thesite coverage would increase .6%. At one time the ro?ge"ioutf, Condominiums'--were a portion of the !ods9 prop"rties. A subsequent iuuaivision or tnli -
property followed the development of the Lodge south condomin:umi re.utting inthe nonconforming situation. It is felt thai this subsefuent subdivision hascreated a physical hardship that justifies the granting di-it" u"ri"ni". it'Jstaff recommended approval of the s'i te coverage variance and the exter.i oral terati on .
The architect of the project answered questjons.
Hobbs moved and Viele seconded to approvg both lequests due
approva t .
NOTICE IS HEREBY
Tor.vn of Vail wi]
of the municipal
the Tor'rn CounciI
PUBLIC NOTICE
GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the
I hold a public hearing in accordance with Section .l8.66.060
code of the Town of Vail on 0ctober 13, .1986 at 3:00 PM in
chambers in the Vail l'lunicipal Bullding.
1.Request for exterior alteration and for a site coverage variance in
order to construct a small addition to the Lodge South condominiums
'l ocated on a portion of Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing'
Appf icant: Lodge South Condominium Association
Request for an amendment to the zoning code in order to add commercial
storage under conditional uses and hea'lth clubs under permitted uses in
Commerci a'l Core I I I zone di stri ct.
Applicant: Vail Mall Joint Venture
Request for an amendment to Special Development District #5, vail Run,
in order to add surface parking on the south side of the building'
adjacent to the North Frontage Road.
Applicant: Vail Run Resort Community
Request to apply the Parking Zone District and for a mitror subdivision
for a triangular unzoned parcel of land located on the North Frontage
Road and bounded on ty,,o sides by Breakar.lay llest condominiums, section
12, Township 5 South, Range 8l l'lest, State Highvray Parcel 24.
Applicant: l,lil'l iam I. Fleischer
5. Request for a conditional use permit in order to change the use of the
0ld Toirn shops located on a part of Tract c, vail Village second Filing.
i,lew uses vlould include a weight roon, indoor recr"eational activities
area and storage.
Applicant: To'rn of Vail
The applications and infornation about the proposals are available in the
zoning adminis'urator's office during regular offjce hours for public
'i n:: pect i on.
2.
5.
4-
TOI]N OF VAIL
COI'iitUNITY DIVELOPI'IENT DEPARTMENT
THCIIAS A. BRAUN
Zoni ng Admi ni strator
Published in the VaiI Trail on September 26, .l986'
t84A ACACTA CIRCI"E . S|,ITE A-2q)
EL PAsO. TEXAS 799T2. (9t5)58l€l6l
22,1986
'.:,..
ou
ln
to
cc: Allce Snavety
Stan Cope
C . D. Ihurcan
erriclc&Schaefer
.i..'-
'a,la
ACAclA CnCIE. $J!TEA-2XXI
EL PASO. TEXAS 799I2(915)5tl€l5l
.: authorized, after the e:rplratLon of 30 daye fron dH.sapproval, tpl,use these' funds to restore the property to lts orLglnal conditlon. If the plans are
Allce Snavely
. Stan Cope iC.D. Duncan
r.This- procedure is reguired for alterationwhich adds or removei urry'.r,"io".a ftoo, urepJ-acement of an existiig building shallthe Planning and Environmental_ Commission.
APPI.ICATION FORM FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS
OR MODIFICATIONS IN COMII{ERCIAL CORE I (CCI)
a
Date of application Sept. 15, 19g6
of an existing buildingrea or outdoor patio orbe subject to review bv
The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted.
A. NAI,IE OF AppLrcANT Lodge South Condominiums
ooo*tt HoNE 476_4644
NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIV.R- | ha r tps trncan
ADDRESS HONE 524_7574
c.NAME 0F 0WNER (print or tvpe )
SIGNATURE .A-r
ADDRESS PHONE
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL
-
ADDRESS
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
/a'FEE sloo.oo pArD CPr qDql I q,t5 g(r :ffU" ,,
IMPROVEMENT SURVEY OF PROPERTY SHOWING PROPERTY LINES A}ID LOCATIONOF BUILDING AND ANY IMPROVEMENT;--ON THE LAND.
G. A LIST OF THE NAME OF OWNERS OF ALI PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THESUBJECT pRopERTy and their-mailing addresses.
rr' Four (4) coPies of a site plan containing the following information:A' The site pran shall be drawn on a sheet size of 24,, x 36,, at a scareof l'" = 20'; a variaiio"-"r the sheet-":.". or scare may be approved.by the Cornmunity o.".frp*"nt, Department if justified;
B.
l:.
F.
Application rJ"*terior Alterati-o. or rSlr.,CCf page 2...
The clate, North arrolv, scale and name of the proposed developmentshall be shovrn on thc site plan i
The existing topographic character of the site including existingand proposed contours. This condition will only be requrcd foran expansion area where there is a change of tvro feet of grade;
The rocation and size of arr existing and proposed builclings, struc-tures and improvements;
E. The exj.sting and proposecl landscaping;
F. The location of ar-r ekist,ing and proposed buirdings, structuresand patios or decks.
rrr. The applicant sha1l submit in written and graphic form, a prepond.erance
. of evidence before the Planning and Enviroimental Commissi6n thatthe proposal is in conformance with the purposes of the CCI Distric+-and that the proposar substantiarry compiies with the vail vij_1ageUrban Design Guide plan.
rf. the applicant is proposing a major change in the vair Vilraqeurban Design Guide plan, the procedures toi irrange are-not;a-;-Section L8.24.220 (B) .
IV' the applicant'must also submit written and graphic supporting materialsthat the proposal substantially conplies r.riih in- to:-1"vj-ng ur:banDesign considerations section of the vail village Desj-gn co;rsjderation.
/n
I B.
c..
D.
A.
A. Ped.estrianizationB. Vehicle penetration
C. Streetscape FrameworkD. Street EnclosureE. Street EdgeF. Building Height :
G. ViewsH. Sun Shade Consideration
l'lany of the above items .shourd'be addressed. in some graphic meansusing such tools as sketches, simulation", *o,t.js (iicfuAi"g-;"ignboringbuildings), photos, ecc
1t The Town of VaiI Zoningthat the applicanc muse
VI . APpI j-cat.ions f or cxtcrior altcraL j.ons' afe only reviewcd semi_annually. Theythe fourth Monday of May or Novemlcer.review schedule, see seition 1g.24.065
Code for CCf also describes othcr zoning issuesrespond to in written or graphj.c form.
or nroclificatio:rs in CCI canneed to be submitted beforeFor more specifj.cs on theA- 5.
ARTICLE "G'!eo.r[ffiTTeuS-ownnns
1. RIVA RIDGE SOUTH
Dr. Eugene PerleDept. of Geography and Urban Planning825 State Hall
Wayne State UniversityDetroit I"lT.. 48262
2. RIVA RIDGE NORTH
l,!r. A.P. AndrikopoulisP.O. Box 788
Cheyenne, WY. 82093
3. THE LODGE APARTMENT CONDOMINIUMS
Dr. ilames B. Cavanaugh
554 Dorset RoadDevon, PA. f9333
4. LODGE PROPERTIES INC.
Eric Woit S.P.V.P.
Sea Co. Inc.
1155 Ave. of fhe Americas,
New York, N.Y. LSA36
5. NATIONAL FORREST SERVICE.
HoIy Cross Ranger StationPost Office Box LL9OMintdrn CO. 81645Attn: Dave Stark
PART III
Lodge South Condominiums is planning on removing thestorage lockers and the fence on the East side of themain entry. The lockers would be replaced by a lobbyarea and an administration area. The new addition wouldnot intrude on any of the existing pedestria4 orvehicular ways that already exist. Tfre new compositionof the fascade will greatly improve the aesthetics ofthe building as shown on the submitted elevations.
PART IV
A. PEDESTRIATIIZATION: Ttre new addition wouldintrude on any of the existing pedeetrian vraye.
not
B. the vehicle penetration would be unaltered by theproposed addition.
C. The new addition should give the pedeetrian bettersense of visual interest. fhe landscaping wouldnot be affected by the addition, however- futureplans would include introduction of additionalIandscaping.
D. T'he street enclosure would not be affected, howeverthe pedestrian emphasia area would be enhanced bythe addition.
E. T'he street edge would remain the same.
F. The building weight vrould remain the same.
G. The views of the proposed addition would remainunaltered.
H. The sun shade consideration would not be affectedby the proposed addition.
PART V
P":?::e the project for the most part would congist ofrntr.rr and reuse of existing -area within the buildingenvelope, we feel that th€j addition would only improvethe generpl appearance of the building. purthei lh" ,r"*utacade. and entry treatment will rnake the building moreappealing for it,s users as well as the adjacentproperty orrrners. l