HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB070476Jtr$"it?-& t?:4 -o ?,@/@2
v
Nwo
o
\Jo
eee,tcrton ftr Dclgn Rrirw
oronrrCarr|QDa4.hd
tt tqdr FgI! q, $1 Obcrc U[5tlfr Du/rrt:lt E ril.rr9trfir
*f,ri!.*6.||
abdrbrtd
al tlF]lq|ngf,en rwFr|rf lEF tt|Dru- Frr !c rDiEf r tff|e tn*ilF(Er. te|tED!-!|Int' rrtrlrltllulrl|rlEut'a!trrutEr:-|r|tEE xr Trur b Dryr EG|ICl! E qt, Ul| f rqrfl hfrdol 5dd !r!r qrn* Oruafrn D.rfr.t fh.
D.!lE rrw D rrF b ts rrttt ot tlr -rdr Cbd f{tt !! t||lfE nt AHrr.Et ffi.Hr tt fut tsI
-
r fffl F|lrr I H d ora'Ichr crrH *|hd|rtrJt rFrnt
Ldior-urtnlgilt J*,|L.*F,{;,. qaa'rHo.t'. qE ,4ra ULt- -rffirrn-ltqnd*t' t+ L+rf r\As ?O f i'/
rrriln: 42Om4?, (ffi qbo.br:9?D32!.*rohrprdrp,)
lorltS R4
irr(rldornr(rl:
MJ
.tl|utofr*n({!
hr^|#c
rtlryltll-
l|1.otftrdhlrtr-$lr
J( oncr*drrrtr
.D hxr€frhoiffil
o riFt[lrbr(|n|ptttl'/stlnq
tr ltrffin(5lC.{.ir}nr50
{ ArqruriloOn-|r
El sFfrttq-
l. A!|'.SFr]rE,dbil*rf!.15h'f6SD ttulhrru|crrrt|Elcfinffilda|lD ilrrhflllrFt n biabd|Ib tr,cffi tqrrcl ha Grub zs tfr r h5a tlnlr!b!a).(fi Rttt6rlrDrtr.r'.irlrl||nrE[rq rrr6rlEr Flllla. -Er -'!E, !- rG trtrEE rtsliltrr|}-.ll! Rtfu drFbutf rdfrhrqrst} rdrr,.tr!fic fiho, ||rh aacgq Lti-.3ing hct rdnErt*.G,ll0 turc*hbfil.ha.' .Fd bt ftlf,nirl t stbrytFl-ur.lbFr
TOTF{. P.O2
SEP-lB-E€trt l4!= Ftrtrtlr v ,o?"*.**,
Soptrdcl$20fi
Torn dVdl, Colcrdo
thi.ltiltr bbbU &p Twn ofVril thrt tr Crolrr l{mcrman'
Arooirrdo rprowr 6c chnpl infu phr frr &. oos rod Eaingru*
nmoddr.
Sha.rdy,7+
fo$crAulcrron
frtcidnt
Crgolrr Homo*rr' AE ocirtiorr
P. L,,T
o
+fflaaaaatlf*lff*|laaat*a+**tft++atl*+faalatfatal*+tt*rlff+l'la'i+ffa*aaaaaaat*f***++a++faaa*aa
TOWNOFVAIL, COI,oRADO Stat€m€rf*faalllffal*ata+t*aaf+**al*+a*raalt*ff*f*lt*+faa++afattaa*ta*aaaf*atff***tt+ttt*f*a*t*taaaaagtatement lltrnber: R070001803 Anount: s20.00 09/Lo/2oo7L0:53 AIrl
Payment Method: Check Inlt: dIB
Notatlon: 14576/FRITZL,EN
PIERCE
Perrnit No: DRBOTO4?5 lype: DRB-Chg to Appr plans
Parcel No: 2103-121-0100-7
SitE AddTESS: .],190 CASOIJAR DEI.| NORTE DR \TAIIJ
Location: 1190 CAAOLAR DBt IIORTE DRrVE
Total Feea: $20.00Thi6 Palment: $20.00 Total ALtr PrntE: $20,OO.Bala.uce: 9O . O0
+ttfffla*t*t**a+t+aa|}*aaatfall*a****tal+ttt|'flatt*l**aalt+ttt+*+ftafflaa+a**+t++++at*rr**at*
ACCOT]NT ITEM LIST:
Account Code Description Current Pmts
DR OO1OOOO3IL?2OO DESTGN REVIEW FEES 20.00
@4 OI FFOPOaED
ILOS AEOVE
-€
il ^. i .
AS"m\A_/
PLAN NORTH
OAER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
DES
STAFF
o,to24t
Flrrx oIGOK ooHr.Crrgcz101
IJJUz|IJoa
IJJ
IJJV)
Uz
e,IIJ
co
d^
3HH"
;asi6 398
E9UE
e;=:
ARCH ITECTS
nff.Tgt ffi
lr-or rec r-ewr- |t--ll-+
tA200l
o Cffi^LA1
Depotment of Commwtity Developnent
75 Soath Frontage Road
Vail, Colordo El657
97U479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
www.ci.vail.co.tts
. ACTIONT1ORM
Februry 15,2006
RE: PBC05-0096
On February 13,20fl6, the Plaming md Environmcntal Conmisrion @EC) UPruLD
the odrninistator's determin4ion of an inconplete qplication byavote of tGl (Kjesbo
recwcd).
;
Please see the attached StaffMenrorandum and AgendA boft datcd Fcbrury 13, 2006
for detailcd infornation.
trro,*r^"o
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
February 13,2006
An appeal, pursuant to Section 12-3-38, Appealof Administrative Actions,
Vail Town Code, appealing a staff determination of an incomplete
variance application, 1146 Casolar Del Norte Drive/Lot A7, Block A9,
Casolar Vail, and sefting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC05-0096)
Applicant Eric Beringause, represented by Fritzlen Pierce ArchitectsPlanner: Matt Gennett
|il.
SUBJECT PROPERTY
The property for which a variance application from the Gross Residential Floor
Area (GRFA) standards of the Residential Cluster (RC) zone district was made
is focated at 1146 Casolar Del Norte Drive/Lot A7, Block A9, Casolar Vail. More
specifically, Unit 64, 1190 Casolar Del Norte Drive, Casolar at Vail
subdivision was the subject property of the variance application withdrawn due to
its incompleteness.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION JURISDICTION
Pursuant to Section 12-3-38-1, Appeal of Administrative Actions; Authority, Vail
Town Code, the Planning and Environmental Commission has the authority to
hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or interpretation by
any Town of Vail administrative official with respect to the provisions of the Title
1 2, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code.
PROCEDURAL CRITERIA FOR APPEALS
Pursuant to Sections 12-3-3V2 and 12-3-38-3, Appeal of Administrative Actions;
lnitiation and Procedures, Vail Town Code, there are three basic criteria for an
appeal: A) standing of the appellant; B) adequacy of the notice of appeal; and C)
timeliness of the notice of appeal.
A) Standinq of the Apoellant
The appellant has standing to appeal the administrative decision related
to the straff determination that the application made on behalf of Eric
Beringhause by Fritzlen-Pierce Architects, December 12, 2006, lor a
variance from Section 12-6E-8: Density Control, Residential Cluster (RC)
zone district, Vail Town Code, did not contain sufficient materials for
review and must therefore be withdrawn.
o
tv.
B) AdequacvoftheNoticeoftheApoeal
The application for this appeal was filed by the property owner of Unit 6A,
Lot A7, Block A9, Casolar Vail, Mr. Eric Beringhause. The Appeals Form
and the materials required for its submission have been determined to be
complete by the Community Development Department.
C) Timeliness of the Notice of Appeal
The Administrative Section of the Town's Zoning Code (12-3-38-3,
Procedures) states the following:
"A written notice of appeal must be filed with the Administrator or
with the department rendering the decision, determination or
interpretation within twenty (20) calendar days of the decision
bcoming final. lf the last day for filing an appeal falls on a
Saturday, Sunday, or a Town-observed holiday, the last day for
filing an appeal shall be extended b the next business day. The
Administratofs decision shall become final at the next Planning
and Environmental Commission maeting (or in the case of design
related decision, the next Design Review Board meeting) following
the Administratofs decision, unless the decision is called up and
modified by the Board or Commission."
The applicant submitted a complete appeal application within the twenty
(20) day requirement.
NATURE OF THE APPEAL
On December 12,2006, William Pierce of Fritzlen Pierce Architects, on behalf of
Mr. Eric Beringhause, filed an official appeals form to the Town of Vail
Community Development Department. The nature of the appeal is generally
described below.
The appellant is appealing the following administrative determination:
1) lt was determined by Staff that the appellant's application for a variance from
Section 12-6E-8: Density Control, Residential Cluster (RC) zone district, Vail
Town Code, was incomplete based upon Section 12-17-2, Application
Information Required for a Variance application (see Attachment A, staff lefter)
because it lacked the following, required application materials:
A stamped, topographic survey of 1146 Casolar Del Norte Drive/Lot A7,
Block A9, Casolar Vail, for use in calculating build-able site area and
subsequently, the allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for the
entire site. Staff cannot use anecdotal information or make assumptions
based upon historical records to determine what is existing floor area, or what
the actual allowable GRFA for this development site.
Complete floor plans, efsting and proposed, drawn at an appropriate scale
.lor loJ[falves of the existing duplex 9n Lot 6 in order for Staff to accuratelyiffiinffihat remains with respect to not only
GRFA, but other such parameters as site coverage, landscape area,
v.
setbacks, and any other zoning standards which might also require a
\Nariance.
o Accurate, verifiable calculations of the total amount of existing GRFA on the
entirety of what is known as Lot A7, Block Ag, Casolar Vail, in order to
determine whether a variance from the GRFA restrictions of the Residential
Cluster (RC) zone district is required in this instiance. Without knowing the
actual constructed amount of GRFA on site, Staff cannot accurately
determine what amount of GRFA, if any, remains for the development site.
The appellant's statement as to the specific nature of the appeal is attached
(Aftachment B), as is documentation of his research into the Town's legal files for
the subject property (Attachment C).
REQUIRED ACTION
To Uphold/Overturn/Modify the administrative action.
Section 12-3-38-5, Findings, details the requirements for action taken by the
Planning and Environmental Commission as follows:
"The Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review
Board in the case of design guidelines) shall on all appeals make specific
findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it.
These frndings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and
conditions imposed by he requirements of this Title have or have not
been met."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission upholds the administrative action which determined
that an application for a variance was incomplete and therefore unable to be
effectively processed, and was therefore subsequently withdrawn. In accordance
with the information presented in this memorandum, and the exhibits attached
hereto, staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission
makes the following finding:
1. That the Community Development Departnent Aministrator has
apprcpriately determined that the application for a Grcss Re5idential
Floor Area (GRFA) variance submifted on behalf of Mr Beinghause of
1190 Casolar Del Nofte Drtve, Unit 6N Lot A7, Block Ag, Casolar Vail,
lvas incomplete and had to be withdrawn by he Administrabr.
ATTACHMENTS
A. Staff Letter of Incompleteness and Withdrawal dated January 4,2006
B. Appellant's Representiative's Response to Staff Letter
C. Documentation of Appellant's Representative's Research
vt.
vil.
JAN.1E,a0A5 6:A6Pfl N0.25? P,?/Z
Appeals Form
, Drpiltrient of Comrnunity Developmant' 79 South Frontage Road', VsU c.clondo 81657
tel: 970.479.2139 tux: 970.479'2452
web: Ulry41ligqrcgtr
General lnformsdon:
ThiS form iS required br flltng an appol of a Sbff, Daslgn Review 8oard, ort Planning and.Envilontneobl
Commigsion acioddeclslon, A complete fonn and rssoclated r€quiren€Jits must be submlt&d to tiB
Communlty Dcwlopmcnt Department within twenty (20) alendar days ot'the dlsputsd adion/deqson,
Doec thir appeal involve a specific parccl of lanoz(y6D(no)
If yrr, rru you .n td.sent Froperty own.r? (yes)@
Daleof Acdon/Dcclsion:
Board or Staff p€Fon rcndcring action/decigon!
Nrme of Appclbnt(s):
Hrlllng Addrcs$:
LEr$&
",f 1t'o*l-'gruuEton, Aaa!-te-y'A LLegal Drscrlption of
Apprllrnt(r) 9igneturr(s):
Subnittel Regulremerrts:i. On e separtte she* or $parate sfree$ of paper, prcvide a d€tailed oglarutbn of hour yotl are rn
"aggrlsred or udw|taly rffectcd p€con',
2. C;; separate theet or separ-ae sh€6 of paper, spEcfy the predse nature of the €ppeal. Please
citt gpedflc code g€dlons having rclevance to $e action beirB appealed.
3. provide a llst of names snd addiesses (both mailirg and physiaal Eddress€s In Vall) of all owners of
grcperty whc are the subJed of the appeBl and all edjacent property owrEnJ (including ownets
who6e propcdes arc €8para)€d from the subject property by a right'of'way, stream, or other
inlervening bailier),4. Povide starnped, addrusstd envdopes for each proPerty omcr liste.d in (3,).
(Attach 6 list of moru sp€ce is t€qulr6d).
PL€ASE SUEMTT THIS FOR''{ AND ALL SUSMMAL REqUIREUETTS TO:
TO^,N 0F vAlr" o€PARTMENT OF @MMUNn'Y DeIELoPMEIIT,
75 SO|JTH FROMrTGE ROAo, VNL, C(xORAoo 81657.
.*
RECEIUEO
JANIIlIf,
F iLs€lr\cd.vlFORMSIAFpLtC'vcFprtlr.dos
80PyFIL T
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2138
FAX 970-479-2452
www.ci,vail.co.us
/:
.fftar:hment: A-
I
Jarr'tery 4,2006
William Pierce
Fritzlen-Pierce Architects
1650 East Vail Valley Drive, Fallridge C-l
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Bill,
As we discussed this aftemoon, I am returning the variance application submitted by your
firm on behalf of Mr. Beringhause because staff has determined its contents are
incomplete. The status of the application will be entered into our system as being
'$ithdrawn"
The following materials are the minimum required to adequately analyze a variance
request such as the one made on behalf of Mr. Beringhause:
o A stamped, topographic survey of 1146 Casolar Del Norte Drive/Lot A7, Block
A9, Casolar Vail, for use in calculating build-able site area and subsequently the
allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for the entire site;r Complete floor plans of both sides of the existing duplex on Lot 6 drawn at the
appropriate scale; andr Accurate, verifiable calculations of the total amount of existing GRFA on the
entirety of what is known as Lot A7, Block A9, Casolar Vail, in order to
determine whether a variance from the GRFA restrictions of the Residential
Cluster (RC) zone district is required in this instance.
Please do not hesitate to contact me directly if you have any questions regarding this
letter or the applicatiou requirements for a variance request. I look forward to speaking
with you soon.
Matthew R. Gennett, AICP
Community Development Departrnent
Town of Vail
Offrce: (970) 479-2140
Fax: (970) 479-2452
{g*nouor^"o
;|'o
ERC
Attachment B
ARCHtTL\-rJ
vAtL. coLoRAoo
Lynn frilzlen, AlA. ,Architect
Wrlliam f. Pierce, Architect
Kathy fleslinga, Business
Manager
January 10, 2006
FRITZLEN PI
Matthew R. Gennett, AICP
Department of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Your letter ofJanuary 4,ZOOG
Application for Variance, Beringause Residence, Ulnit 6A, Casolar Vail
Matthew,
In accordance with Chapter 3 of Title l2 (12-3-3) of the Town Code, and on
behalf of my client, Eric Beringause, I would like to file a formal Appeal of the Staff
Decision to "withdraw" my application for a Variance, submitted on December 12, 2005,
due to the determination that the contents are incomplete. lt is my opinion that the
material submitted does meet the submittal requirements for a Variance. I would like to
have this appeal heard by the Planning and Environmental Commission at their next
meeting, January 23, 2006.
It is clear that numerous Zoning Reviews have been performed and numerous
Building Permits issued throughout the Casolar Subdivision that are based on a
maximum GRFA of 1690 sq. ft. as defined in the Subdivision Covenants. In fact in early
1995, a "250 square foot addition" was permitted on this Property in that it was
determined that the 1690 sq. ft., as well as the allowed 225 sq. ft. were used. lt was
agreed, at that time, with the addition of the 250 sq. ft., there was no additional square
footage available for this Dwelling.
It seems that the Staff, based on the material requested in your letter, is
attempting to determine if there is existing GRFA available in the Subdivision. lf there is
GRFA the Staff feels it would not be necessary to provide a Variance for Mr. Beringause's
Addition.
ln my opinion it is inappropriate to require my client to evaluate Zoning
characteristics for the entire Casolar Subdivision.
l. There are Four Unbuilt Dwelling Units in the Casolar Subdivision. How would
GRFA be assigned to these Units, assuming that there were GRFA available?
2. lt would be and highly invasive, and potentially illegal for Mr. Beringause to
calculate the GRFA of Units that do not belong to him. The new methods of
calculating CRFA exaserbate the difficulty of the calculation. Original and
I650 East Vail Valley Drive, Fallridge C*1,
Vail, Colorado 81657
P: 970.476.634?
F:970.476.4941
t: info@vaila rchitsc ts,com
w\4,w.vai larchitecls.com
o
RCEFRITZLEN PIE ARCHITECTS
VAIL, COLORADO
existing grades as well as room heights over I 7 feet would need assessment.
It seems unnecessary to discuss the cost of such an evaluation.
3. lt seems possible, at considerable expense, to determine the exact "Build-
able Area" for the subdivision. My question remains: Without the answer to
Item I (above) and the onerous calculations described in ltem 2 (above), what
value does the topographic survey and "Build-able Area" provide?
ln closing, I believe there is sufficient basis for my request for a Variance based
on the historical reliance on the GRFA limit of 1690 sq. ft. throughout the Casolar
Subdivision.
Please feel free to contact me on this matter and I look forward to the PEC
hearing on January 23,2pO6.
',.,,.
Hand delivered January 10, 2006
1650 East Vail Valley Drive, Fallfidge C* l,
Vail, Colorado 81657
P:970.476.6342
r:970.476.4941
E: i nfo/iDvailarchitects.com
www.vailarchitects.com
'2
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING
February 13,2006
PROJECT ORIENTATION - Town Gouncil Chambers. PUBLIC WELCOME 1:30 pm
1. Staff memorandums were discussed with Commission members; no direction given.
MEMBERSPRESENT MEMBERSABSENT
Dave Viele Anne Fehlner-Gunion
Chas Bernhardt
Doug Cahill
George Lamb
Rollie Kjesbo
BillJewitt
Site Visits:
Driver:
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm
1. A requestforfinal reviewof an appeal of an administrative action, pursuantto Section 12-3-3,
Appeals, Vail Town Code, appealing the staff determination of an incomplete development
application, 1146 Sandstone Drive/Lot A7, Block A9, Casolar Vail, and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (PEC05-0096)
Applicant: Eric Beringause, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects
Planner: Matt Gennett
AGTION: Upheld Staff Determlnation
MOTION: Jewitt SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 5-0-1 (Kjesbo recused)
Rollie Kjesbo recused himself from the item as he has a conflict of interest.
Matt Gennett gave a presentation per the staff memorandum.
Bill Pierce, representing the applicant, handed out a document with multiple exhibits and gave a
presentation regarding the overall subdivision. On the map presented it was identified that there
are several homes constructed on the site and two lots which are plafted but not constructed.
The applicant stated that the items being requested by staff are too onerous and an invasion of
privacy in order to do GRFA calculations for other units. He stated that the Town's legal file
clearly identifies that there is no GRFA remaining and
Arthur Beringause, father of the applicant, stated that the cunent residence is small and difficult
for his disabled son to maneuver around the home. He would like to make some changes to
their existing home in order to make it easier for his son to come to the house. Not asking for
pity or empathy or money just the ability to make some minor changes to their existing house.
David Viele asked several questions regarding the possible re-plafting of the property. He
personally feels like requesting a resubdivision and asking for any associated variances
regarded to have the plat comply with the Residential Cluster zone district.
Page 1
Matt Gennett, stated that with the minimum lot size and minimum buildable lot area required in
the Residential Cluster District it would be difficult to re-subdivide the parcel and have parcels
which comply with the zoning.
George Lamb believes there is a historic lineage leading to 1690 as the maximum GRFA. With
lhe 225 and 250 having been built it is clear that the unit is over 1690 and the ability to come in
for a variance is there. However, a survey of the immediate area will be needed to establish
height, site coverage, etc.
Bill Jewitt discussed the desirability of the association providing the survey. He feels a survey is
absolutely needed and is tom over whether or not 1690 sq ft of GRFA should be used as the
standard. He further suggested doing the survey and determining the allowable GRFA. Then
dividing the allowable GRFA by the number of units and that would give the allowable GRFA for
each unit. No use of GRFA by one unit would negatively affect another unit. This would require
proper notification of all members of the association.
The Commission directed staff to go back with the applicant and develop some fair and
reasonable options. ln general, the Commissioners stated that a topographical survey was
necessary.
2. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-16, Conditional
Uses, to allow for the temporary use of the tennis facility for conferences and conventions,
located at Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, Area A, 1300 Westhaven Drive,
and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC06-0002)
Applicant Vail Cascade Resort and Spa, represented by Don MacLachlan
Planner: Matt Gennett
AGTION: Approved with condition(s)
MOTION: Viele SEGOND: Jewitt VOTE:6-0-0
Matt Gennett gave a presentation per the staff memorandum.
The applicant was not present.
Jim Lamont, representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, asked about what could be
done if parking became a problem. He also asked about how the traffic impact fee is assessed
to a project which gets a yearly CUP to increase the number of trips.
The Commissioners supported approval of the conditional use permit with the condition specified
in the staff memorandum.
3. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan, pursuant to Section 2.8, Adoption and Amendment of the Master
Plan, Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, to amend the Lionshead Study Area Boundaries
and Chapter 5, Detailed Plan Recommendations, to include the study "West Lionshead'area,
generally located at 646, 862, 890, 923, 934, 953, 1000, and 1031 South Frontage Road
WesULot 54 and Tract K of Glen Lyon Subdivision, Tracts C and D, Vail Village Filing 2, and
several unplafted parcels (a more complete legal description is avaihbb at the Community
Development Department), and setting forth detrails in regard thereto. (PEC06-0008)
Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company, Town of Vail, and Glen Lyon Office Building
General Partnership
Planner: Wanen Campbell
ACTION: Tabled to March 13, 2006
MOTION: Lamb SEGOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 5-0-l (Viele recused)
Dave Viele recused himself from the item as he is one of the applicants.
Page 2
.-
irEtv v
wards
' Ti I keneier
or lulillcr
Co rcoran
Duane PiPer
Jirn }lorgan
The neeting tras called to order by the chairnan, Gerry ltlhite'
1.-. ApprovaL of r.rinu!es-of Deccmber 8. 1980 necting'
lloger, Vote n'45 unallrmous.
Dan rnoved to
linox dcn s it contl'ol variance Ca-solar II, tlcsub Lot A-7 Lionsrj dge.
Peter Pattcn explained that this was first brought to a PIC neeting j'n october' 1980'
The events vrc:re compl icated, anci there iras a baiic di-sagrer:rent in the Sequence of event
betrr'ccn the Torr,n of Vait staff and Mr. l'hrox. tle explaincd -Lhat Jirn Rubin had written a
rnemo r.,-hich i)eter read: "he (lino-x) clear'ly under-stotd the 1400 sq ft per unit and the r
for- the sl.ope analysis. IIe i1etr ihat it ir., .qt to- lirn to allocate the squaie footage i
Casolar II. lle was ,l*u"r totd that he could tianfer €.{tra squ4ls tootage. floin .Casoiar l
peter cxplairrcd a teiif=ftot Diana 1'oughi11 <ta.ted Januar-y 8; 19Sl distributed just be:{
the neeting.
Diana: As I see it, part of the disagrcnrerrt j.s t'rirether the Town had the responsi'bilit1
to enfor:ce the co./enalrts or trhatever, pcitai-ninp, to thc GIIFA' As I renenbcl' the vrhole
thing as i1. r.rent thru the oriSinal apploval, i.s that the Tom in fact requircd that cer
thirrgs be prit in tirc covc)rart;, an,i ii sales contracts elxl a nrtntbe:: cf other things' s<
iirri'irr"ii;;;;il in fact "r,io."o the GiiFA so t';e v.'culdutt cnd up t:ith problens latcr'
Ge::4,: llhat ycu arc refcrrini{ to al:e the restrictions j.tr t-ertns of 1:ct.a1 size.
Diarra: No, thc maxinttin 6llFA per unit. I looked back at sorne of the files' and I think
if you looll at ti,at]'-iouiii fi"a ny ol'iginal notes on tltc col'enants, rnaking ccrtain rct
ments in ternrs of changeS in the covereaiits sc that tlrere t'ras a rna-xil::uie GRI:'{ 1:er unit si
in the covctlants.
Dan: As you recall, then, thcre was a tnaxirrt n, aud evelr- though the Torn-rcvicwed everi
brrj,lding thrt ccmes titrough, crrcn if an)' ollc ol' t\{o ot tiu'ee of tlroso bui}clings l\'cl'e o1
and yere appr.qvcd as bcing ovcr:, they r,'trcntt beiirg approvcd as individual' tircy wcrc I
hplliing agaitrst the gr':rnd total?
Diana: Thc ua1'I rent'trbel. it, it was on a pcr unit thing bccause it r"rs dividcd into '
or parccls lrrrd that the nra-tintirrrr GIIFA applici by urlii, to cach unit, and th:rL thcre was
a unit nxx r.ttthcr thnn ir totirl rrlax.
Darr; so if the Totrlt epllrovccl ?00 cxtllr fcct' oll l)ilrccl I ?' or tt'lrrtcvcr' tltt: ntrnbcts arr
th:rt didn,t thcn ltrtoti:itticalll'colnc ofi of thc l:rst per'<:cl to bc ttcvcloPcJ'j li cach o:
r,rrs in<livirhrlrllI rcvicivctl $nd if al:JrIoYctl, thxt rt'rS not Soingi to affcct thc l st tltlit
Sctting bttiIt?
Dj:rna: That rs thc rluy I rcr:renbcr lt.
rLANN ING
1981
ANt) TNVIRON|U[I{]NL
3:00 p.m.
CO}.$IISSION MEETINi;
l:;-,*- Attachment: C--
STAFI.' PRESENT
Dick Ryan
Peter Patten
BetsY Rosolack
COUNCIL REPRESEi\ITATIVE
Bill lirilto
approve, seconded bY
Q*&AA=
SINGLE-F'AI"IILY RESIDENTIAI,, TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAI-, & TWO-FAMILY
t{t'
SECONDARY/RESIDENTIAL ZONING CHECK LIST
LegaL
Owner
Description lar A-? /-LorsBna+ t t
jpel Architect F{+po.:, e^ .'rt"n.r,
* = Ol<-
*= OtC
Parking:
COMI{ENTS:
L'
+5rr
Slope ActuaL
Avalanche
Flood Plain e
tl>Slope
CreekDistance from
Trees Remqved
zone District fu Proposed use ?",rLaa
Lot Area ,*rr'7 4 Height (Actual)
Setbacks:
Distance Betvreen
G.R.F.A. Allowed
Primary Unit
Site Coverage: Allowed-Lot Area
Landscaping: Required-tot Area
, sides lf4
aes 6R
Aqtual:.-itbf-
6fiEFE.R.F.A. Aciual
Secondary Unit
Required 4 * Actuar 7'"ltfFn
Drive: Slope Permitted
Environmental/Haz ard :
tilT
Admini'strator
Zoning
Date
Legal Description:
Owner
Zone District
ZONE C}IECK
for
P/S ZONE DISTRICTS
Fil ing
Archi tect
lEh/l t3
SFR, R,R
0Lot / B]ock.r_-
Proposed Use
3F' Proposed 9!'l
....-*..'..'.','-
Setbacks: Front-Required 20' Proposed
Sides-Required l5' Proposed
Rear -Required l5' Proposed
l.latercou rse-requi red Proposed _
Ar'fovred fu?a/ u/{
Primary A'llovred _
Secondary Al lowed
S'ite Coverage: Al I owed
GRFA:
GRFA:
Landscaping:
Parl,.ing:
Requi red
Requi red
Primary
Secondary Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposcd
Propc: ed
ActualDrive: Slope Permitted.
Environmenta'l/Hazards: Av.l'lanche
Fl ood Pr'ain
S.l ope
Slope
Zonin$:Approv Drio.
I
Dl sapprovcd
/l/e(r!
fibn
i
F
1
z
a
t
7t2
-<P
<r:;i!F
{i';^;2
;3 <
XFF
iit
a9a.
<3
€
\
$..
r$
,(tS
1$
R
t
I
I
$l,.dl\1
i\r'>-
I
(.o
€
tc
c--,
z
(J
=z
E
F
t
z
o
zz
z
z
1<(no
=z
(L lJ-
t4,"x9
=a-=6d=
o
o.'
o
.g
3!-F=Etyo;ioi
orr-
ar;E>tF6
c,tt
z
F
ul_-')
o
Iolcolrl
!-{ |.-r Itl@l
I
uJ
F
F
=E
UJ
o-zoF(Jf
E,Fazo(J
nrn
ea:-€
I
U)ul
tl.JtLt
E
UJ(L U'
UJ
uJ
LL
=
=trl
)
F
l-
z
=f
Lg
z
F-
uJ
uJ
6
=g
uJ
z
6
o
t
=
z
l
z
ro
=
E
z
o
=l
co
IU
LIJ
F
'tJ>
o
z
E
f-
=
zz
sEAa-o f
-25-P= S )Ee
P 3 EOAeSEo9
e 8 ,i3- -x rUE2 E=d ef <* FHEgE=955
o(Jo-z(J
z:z
tr
o
z
F
Jfaz
z
;
E
o-
z
Eoo
z
k-E
LIJ
FJ
YE
=Zu-
6zt ox;i trC,'
Eo.
?=a(uez,
-:cfru
z
=i. o-
a<tz>-Oct(Jz
o-Y
.i<\i
lrtltttltllltlI'll6l
-l d6g
l"lll
Iol1lotz
F-
Ju-
j
It
5.t,
{f,
ui
=z
=
Q
llJ
Fo
E
tr
?
(L
u,
U.|
q
J
E
a
UJe.6
Jq
trl tr
o
uJ
o
=
sl
al
<l
=
IJJg.6
)
C
F
UJ
o
:E
G
Iuz
=
uJ
ET
<FE().r.! <zE
)
1t-
=sJZu-o
O
<=:lF?a)
=<
Y,Z
=g
E ;,
l-o2<Oo?.:io
-<
;F
l" o
8EA
/77/k/ 4
Category Number oate 4 -5*14
Project Name:.
Building Name:
froject Description:
Owner. Address and Phone:
ArchitecVContact, Address and Phone:
J,J
Legal Description: Lot 4p Block
Proiect Street Address:
Comments:
Zone District LC
Motion by:Vote:
Seconded by:
I Approval
! Disapproval
,Astaff Approval
Conditions:
Town Planner
DRB Fee Pre-paid
:-/'f&4 5
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 I 38 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
February 10, 1995
Department of Comnrunity Deve lopment
Mr. Eric Beringouse
1190-A Casolar Drive
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Lot 6, Casolar Del Norte
Dear Eric: &O
In response to your letter dated February 8, 1995, lwant to clarify what the GRFA potential is )et
for your residence. Each side of a duplex within Casolar is entitled to 1,690 square leet of
GRFA. In addition to this, both dwelling units of the duplex are allowed a credit of 225 square
feet, for a total of 1,915 square feet. As part of your application to remodel the crawl space,
your architect will need to provide as-built drawings, documenting how much of the allowable
GRFA has been used. Any portion of the total 1 ,915 square feet that has already been used
wiil not be available for your remodeling project.
Concerning the portion of your request that would utilize the 250, the GRFA allowance will
probably not be available in the future. As we discussed, the Town Council will be reviewing
an ordinance that deletes the 250 option in the near future. I expect that if you can complete
an application submitted no later than March 1st, you would be considered "grandfathered".
Please call me if you or your architect have any questions about this information.
Sincerely,
,'1 ! 1,. !,,t i v' i
;ilri. 't .l4 t"- "l
Ahdy Knudtden
Senior Planner
t
xc:Peter Koliopoulis
Lauren Waterton
George Ruther
o
SFR,
ZONE C}IECK o-
for
P/S ZoNE DISTRICTS
|rfmary
Secondary
T 'r '/
i
't,t t
-
NAV O
R,R
Legal
Otlner
/Description: Lot U Block _
Architect /'f"-i l/,'t
Zone District ?r ' 7\ t
Proposed Use /2u?/4X
.'../. :.....-..!44ryfr- Height A1'lowed 30' Proposed
Setbacks: Front-Required 20' Proposed
Sides-Required l5' Proposed
Rear -Required 15' Proposed
$laterccurse:required -ru-Proposed
GRFA:Al'lor'red i /--%
Site Coverage: Alloived
Landseaping:
Parking:
,/ a_Requ'ired (tO'/a
Required Z, ,1 CJ{-.
f.ttDrive: SIoPe Permitted I ',/e
Propos ed
Propospd
Pro;6sed
Proposed
Proposed
Propcsed
ActuaISlope
Environmenta'l ,/l{azards: Aval anche -
Flood Piain
Sl ope
lznr
Firins C/tpt
*/.t(J lL-
Zo:ting:irpp:'ovcr!,lD'! s a. | ) !)rot' tu D.:t.r :
ao J.
/78/vI 7
I
t
I-. I
,ZJNE CIJICK
fors:8, R, R P/S Zot{r
fuuL t
I] ISTRICTS
Legal Description: Lot _ B.lock Filing
o*.", lttlff/rus//ftGrE nrchiit:cct 1fi
Zone'District 'a Proposed Use
Lot Area
-
teight Al]ol.recl
Setbacks: i'ront-nequirJd 20't'--Fro]ibsea
Sides-Requirecl 'l5, proposed
Rear -ReguireC '15' proposed
llatercou r.s e-requ i re c.l 'propos ed
GiiFA:
GRFA:
Al 'lor,;ed
Primaril, Al l orqed
Secondary Al'lor.red
Site Coverage: Alloived
i9,Proposed
Primlry
Propos ed
Propcs ed
Landscaping:
Parking:.
0orrnrcnts:
Required
Required
Secondarl, proposed / /q 7 _
Slope
Proposed
Proposcd
Propl;: ed
Actualfirive: Slope perrnitted
lnvironnienta'l/llazarcls: .Avn'lanche
Flood P'iain
'Slope
7c:r i /l1r1rl'p1','..,
kfre,MLffiye Dtia,
lf --
tE
E.IFtaz
l=to
tz
/T€4 8
I
f\l
\\l
-\Lq{
\totu\
I
-
z.
=
=E
Lu
!II:r
:;3;=
lisiE
<o!
a;t
NO[Vn]vA
(r
LUzL!
eo*
=;P=co^r
x(t,
ct5o
vl+tc(l,
+Jv,o
E
L(o
aa
G'q)
LU
z
co
I
I
I-l
=l.gl-r-l.rtl
FIol.nlrdlct'
z
tJ_
d
I
i
I
6
lltttlart I+rl Icl Iql
Ft ti.nl I o.(ul
=l Ist I,-rl Itltt I.El I
-l tdol t4v|l Hldt xcrt xlJ<l>t I<<=aE(J
I
I
L
l"
Ij
(t,
14
CIclq
l>gE
tltltltt.{l(,t I
-l-ll
ilet I.nt Istlotlol Itua-Fl t4
EI Ho1 xtt<ladtrt E
atlr!t
8l
1l
<l
=l
FO
uJ
='r
<F
lrJ <zc.uFaz
c
u.JJ
F
Fz
O
'^:>H
=<-ft
J-Iz
O
F()
Fz
9z
-r
O
fll
E i.
=
rJ z.
O
F-
{c
O
z
F
r.lJ-)
ol@trl
r-r I.-{ |1lorl
I
I
UJ
Jz
z
zz
=z
o- u-
J."i6\J\J=z=-;FS
di=
at
lu
=e
otl*,o
cr;E>tF
F
=E
lrJ
o-zo
F()fEFazo()
E!D
-et AED
-
/H4Q
SINGLE FAIVIILY RBSIDENTIAL AND RES
p8
Legal
Owner:
DescriPtion:
Eeigbt:
Setbacks:Required - Front 20,
Site Coverage: Allosred - Lot Area
LandscaPing: Required
Parking: Required
Drive:' S.t ope Permitted
Parkiug and Drives llus't
Envir onme nt aL f Ha4ar d :
Equals Buildable Area:
'
-t.lActual .Ja -'
I M;J,
- Lot Area . x
a\ Actual
€ o/"
t;VL
ih"t..Arehitect :
zone District t R( Projrosed use:
Lot Area:Minus Hazatd Area:
sides ro' * Yf ,Rear}
Actuat - Front At , sides le, I8 ,Rear
Distance Betrryeen Buildings: Required l1't Actual aj
G.R.F.A. Allowed: Buildable Area x % = 338_e_ Actual 53) (
o'+Y->
lso
=oK
ot-p-
ia
Slope actuar O K
Be Paved
Avalanche fiO
Flood PLaln no
Slope n O .
Distance lron Creek 49
Trees Removed yto
Comments:
dministrator
An,3,31t x, [s =
flfloq'to
'^ Or
-r
'--
- zoitE cHEcK -' --;-=-: na^ lOfor
sFR, R, R P/S ZoNE DiSTRICTS
,i{Eho"*.ffiFirins P/ ',ta'' ''
(ltgLlf /A/(/ Architect tr4{/ /t,vaS€11
t
Descri ption:Legal
Ormer
!
I Zone Distri ct l( C- ' ' proposed use bu FL t J/
. Rear -Required '15 ' Proposed , 'Y4
llaterccurse-required ./UA Proposed ,-l-'
GRFA:. hilor'red ltAfq " ' =GtO
GRFA: Primary A'l i or,red
Secondary Al'lorved
Site Coverage: Alloived
Landseaping: Required
Parking:Requi red
Secondary Proposed
Propos ed
Proposed
Proposed
Proposcd
Propc: ed
ActualSlope a6
Environmenla'l/llazards : .Av.:'l anche
Flood Plain
Sl ope
Conments:
Zd:r'!nc : Agrp:'ovcil,tD'i s.:1r1lr'o;cti- D.:t.-':
sFR,
zoNE cilLCK
forR, R P/S ZoNE D ISTR ICTS
r-
rlB"4 l/
Legal Description:
0wner
L& q Blo"k / Fi.rins
Archi tect
./2
Zone Distri ct _ L proposed Use
Lot Area ______= _ Height A.ltowed 30,
-
Setbacks : Front-Requ i rJa- 2o i'-*pro-plsea
Sides-Required .l5, proposed
Rear -Required l5' proposed
blaterccurse-required proposed
GRFA:. Allovred I O"o
GRFA: primary A''ovred /b^ primary proposed k/7
secondarv A'ro'red - /(f0 - secondary proposed iti)-
S'ite Coverage; Alloived ZA u proposed
Landscaping: Requ_ir ua 6O tr6 proposarl
Parking: Required
a
Pronl;: ed .r
Drive: Slope pernirted 6 k "Iope Actual,t-v -.v ess
Enrrirorrmental/Hazards: Av.:lanche
Flood Plain
S'lope
Cormrents.:
Zcr;ri nq ; i:pp:.ov,til,/Di si.p1.rro..'cti Dotc: