The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-05-29 PEC0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VAIO May 29, 2018, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Present: Brian Gillette, Brian Stockmar, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, Pam Hopkins, Rollie Kjesbo Absent: Ludwig Kurz 2. Main Agenda 2.1. A request for the review of the following two (2) variances: 1.) a variance from 30 min. Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking; and 2.) a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than one (1) curb cut per unit, located at 2841 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 3, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0020) ApplicantUichael & Yoshimi Moore, represented by Visual I mpax Planner: Matt Panfil (presented by Jonathan Spence) Planner Spence introduced the applicant's request to the PEC. There are two different variances being requested by the applicant, including a variance to allow for more than 10% of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking, and a variance to allow for more than one curb cut per unit. A similar application was presented to the PEC on April 9, 2018. Spence explained that the access to the garage has now been turned, thereby removing the third variance request for minimum horizontal distance between a garage door to the edge of public street pavement. Scott Handler with Visual I mpax, Applicant, presented diagrams and renderings completed to date. Handler explained because of the parking easement, in order for a garage to work within the challenging site, the variance has been requested, plus an additional curb -cut. The garage is designed parallel to the street for ease of turning movements. Handler showed a steep slope exhibit with contours plus photos around the property. He explained that with the challenge of the setback requirements and easements, Visual I mpax designed the house to embed itself within the natural contours of the topography. Handler then showed renderings with the nearby fire hydrant to the east side of the garage. The applicant obtained approval from Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (ERW SD) and Vail Fire Department to build the garage close to the fire hydrant. Commissioner Gillette asked if the current owners have talked with the adjacent neighbors about the parking easement. Commissioner Perez asked if the neighbors would be in agreement with an amendment to the easement. Spence stated the neighbors may not want to amend the easement at this time. Spence mentioned it is not under the PEC's purview to revise the existing easement. At this time, the holder of the easement does not wish to alter the agreement. Commissioner Gillette that stated these are the questions the PEC asked to the previous applicant and still need to be provided answers with: • Have you talked to the adjacent owners? • How many parking spots do the condos next doors need? • How many cars fit on their property? Scott Handler stated his approach is that there would be no space for the adjacent properties to park, if removed. Commissioner Perez clarified the applicant would not be removing two of the four spots, because those belong to the property owner. Commissioner Stockmar summarized that there is a lot of concern about the overall proposal and easement questions that have not been answered. The proposal must meet the requirements of the code. He does not believe the applicant currently has answers to the questions Commissioner Gillette asked. Handler responded that everything about the project is within the zoning code regulations, with the exception of the two variances. He reminded the PEC that this property has been presented to the PEC once before by a different architect. Commissioner Stockmar stated that parking is the major issue and must be addressed with this application before moving forward. Handler responded that the people who own the condo building may not alter their agreement. Spence stated if the easement owner does not wish to alter the easement at this time, then they do not have to alter the private agreement. Chris Neubecker, Interim Director, asked the PEC to clarify their concerns about the application and the parking easement. Commissioner Gillette asked why the applicant cannot flip the garage to the other side to face the existing parking area and move the fire hydrant into the right of way. Handler responded there is a plan to move the fire hydrant in 2019. Commissioner Perez responded to Neubecker and stated two parking spaces within the easement are granted for the applicant, thereby granting the applicant six parking spaces. Commissioner Gillette stated he would like to see pictures of how many cars are currently parked in the parking spaces. Spence stated if the PEC were to table the application, staff would like the PEC to inform them of specifically what the PEC needs to see for this application upon its return. Commissioner Gillette would like to see a better depiction of the easement parking spaces. The two property owners should get together and work out the easement. Additionally, he stated an analysis should be done of flipping the garage. Handler mentioned the owner of the adjacent property does not want to lose their parking. Spence responded to Gillette's previous comment about how Public Works supports the current garage configuration. Handler continued his prepared presentation of 3D renderings as well as a movie to show how the house fits within the natural grade. He stated everything else complies, if he could get the variance for the curb cut and parking. He had a lawyer look at an easement language and the applicant cannot change it unless the adjacent property owner agrees to the change. Commissioner Gillette stated if the applicant flips the garage and takes access from the existing easement, it would minimize the variance request. Commissioner Stockmar agreed with Gillette to flip the garage and move the hydrant, thereby lessening the impact to the development lot. Spence clarified the three things being asked by the PEC. The PEC would like to see: 1. Sketch of the site 2. Photos of site and parking 3. A better understanding of the discussion between the property owner and adjacent property owner. Commissioner Gillette stated the PEC is not allowed to grant a special privilege. The PEC cannot allow private easements to dictate the zoning code. He would like clarity and options shown to the PEC. Right now the PEC does not have the proper information to make a decision. Commissioner Lockman stated it would be helpful to have the adjacent owner at the next meeting. The PEC wants a clearly defined future for the two parking spaces. Hearing from the adjacent owner would be helpful. Commissioner Hopkins suggested if the applicant reduced the size of the turnaround space, it might help if the applicant put landscaping in the area, which now shows 642 SF total of driveway on the existing site plan. She suspects this can be reduced by 150-200 SF if a hammerhead driveway is created. Handler responded that the lot drops off behind the fire hydrant due to the slope. Public Works stated they wanted a 20 foot turning radius. Without the space to maneuver, it would be challenging. Commissioner Lockman asked "what if the applicant amended the easement by giving their two parking spaces away?" Commissioner Gillette responded stating the preference is to provide the condos with four parking spaces and show this through a drawing. PUBLIC COMMENTS Kathy Langenwalter stated that having not seen the previous submittal, would it not be possible to elevate the garage to take care of Public Works concerns and to minimize the footprint? COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Lockman — In agreement with other Commissioners to reduce site impact and land. In agreement to reduce the variances being granted. Wants more clarity of how the other two parking spaces will be used. Handler asked if he were to give away his two parking spaces, does it help his argument? Spence stated the applicant is creating more of a hardship by giving away two spaces. Hopkins — Would like applicant to study the driveway more, either with Langenwalter's suggestion or with Hopkins' suggestion. Kjesbo — Stated the owner of the fourplex owned the adjacent lot created the easement, then sold the lot realizing its diminishing value. Perez — Does not meet criteria to grant a variance. Stockmar — Does not see this as the solution to grant a variance. Two alternatives were stated; either ask to table this item then return with a series of solutions, or ask for a vote now. Applicant requests the PEC to table to June 11 meeting. John -Ryan Lockman moved to table to June 11, 2018. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kurz 2.2. A request for a review of a prescribed regulations amendment to Section 14- 90 min. 10-6, Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to allow the Design Review Board (DRB) to apply different design review standards in situations when two-family dwellings appear as separate and distinct development lots, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0005) ApplicantArosa Partners LLC, represented by Brad Hagedorn Planner: Justin Lightfield Planner Lightfield introduced the applicant's request and provided background information on the request. Lightfield spoke to the history of the subject regulations and how the DRB has administered the regulation. The request has been reviewed by the DRB and Lightfield spoke to their response, including their concerns. Lightfield spoke to how the staff report is structured, weighing pros and cons and not making a recommendation, per se. The applicant, Brad Hagedorn, spoke to his request and how it is only related to separated duplexes and not to other types of development. The request would allow different architectural approaches to separated duplexes that appear to be on separate development lots. Hagedorn pointed out the proposed criteria that would allow such different approaches. He discussed why he believes this in the best interest of the Town to change the regulation. He discussed how he feels that separated duplexes will not improve their properties, pointing to a "prisoner's dilemma". Hagedorn discussed the process of a separation duplex and how this will remove the boundaries to homeowners improving their property. Commissioner Kjesbo spoke to the example provided on Arosa and his thoughts on that case when it came before the DRB. Hagedorn provided a response that he did not feel that approach is optimal. PUBLIC COMMENT Kathy Langenwalter mentioned she came before the PEC as a former PEC and DRB member. She handed out exhibits including a map that demonstrated what lots in her neighborhood could be affected by this change in the code and the concerns resulting from this change. She also spoke to the difference between complementary and unified. She discussed her reasons for objecting to the proposal and the possible results of the change including grants of special privilege, a cluttered visual approach, a decrease in DRB authority, and a change to area demographics. She spoke to what she feels are actually changes to the separation criteria. Dick Cleveland provided comments on the proposal based on his participation on various boards. He cautioned about text amendments that benefit an applicant. He spoke to the improper subdivision of the Arosa property. He discussed the result of the amendment which would be different standards for attached vs un -attached duplexes. Cleveland discussed the history of this issue and how it has largely worked in the past and the unforeseen and foreseen consequences of changing the approach. He stated he does not feel that the changes meet the required criteria for approval and recommended that the PEC forward a recommendation of denial. Jack Snow spoke to his support for the proposal. He discussed what he feels is a misstatement of the intent that this would lead to more separation, although he does not feel more separations are a problem. He mentioned that he feels the request is simply to give the DRB more flexibility and freedom. Ron Byrne spoke to the dilemma in front of the PEC. He discussed Langenwalter's and Cleveland's comments and his understanding of them. Byrne mentioned the need to allow the flexibility and a more subjective approach from the DRB. He stated he feels degradation in quality may result if flexibility is not given. He spoke to the creation of a cyclical process of bad architecture if we are always chasing the architecture of the other unit. Mike Farr spoke to his support of the proposal. Debbie Gibson Curtis, representing others at Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate, spoke to her support for the proposal, especially for those properties along Beaver Dam and Forest Road that deserve some lenience. COMMISSIONERS COMMENTS Kjesbo - Spoke to the importance of compatibility and not the need or desire to match. He does not support the proposed text amendment. Gillette - Agrees with Commissioner Kjesbo one -hundred percent. Feels the photos provided by Kathy Langenwalter and Brad Hagedorn illustrate the problem, not the solution. Perez - Agrees with Commissioners Kjesbo and Gillette but recognizes the hardship when the other owner does not wish to upgrade. She is concerned about unintended consequences that could be seen as a result of the text amendment. Hopkins - Feels that this is a grab of special privilege not to be a duplex She stated she believes the PEC should keep the standards the way they are currently, without the text amendment. Lockman - Has struggled with the request. He believes that with an aging housing stock there will be a need for a change in the regulations. He feels that compatibility is necessary and supports the DRB exercising some flexibility. He feels that the shared ownership issue will have to be addressed at some point and does not support the proposal. Kathy Langenwalter added additional comments concerning how the criteria are actually working. Brad Hagedorn - Spoke to how the incentive to separate duplex units is already in existence in the code and that this proposal does not increase that. He feels that compatible has largely meant matching from his experience. Gillette - Spoke to how the composition of the board has an effect on its outcomes. He feels they are doing their jobs. Stockmar - Spoke to this being a Pandora's box He does not know how many properties will be affected by the text amendment and feels the approach is overly broad. He believes that the current regulations have been largely successful. Brian Gillette moved to deny. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kurz 2.3. A request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements 5 min. by Zone District, Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation and Exclusions, Section 12-18-4 Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district and to allow an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009) The Applicant has requested to table this item to the June 11, 2018 meeting. Applicant flolly Proctor and John Hutto, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker Brian Gillette moved to table to June 11, 2018. Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion and it passed (6-0). Absent: (1) Kurz 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. May 14, 2018 PEC Results 4. Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May 29, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for the review of the following two (2) variances: 1.) a variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking; and 2.) a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than one (1) curb cut per unit, located at 2841 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 3, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0020) ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description PEC18-0020 2841 Basinadale Blvd Variances Staff Memo 052918.pdf Staff Memo to PEC Attachment A - Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment A - Vicinity Map Attachment B - Project Narrative and Responses to Variance Criteria.pdf Attachment B - Project Narrative and Responses to Variance Criteria Attachment C - Plan Set.pdf Attachment C - Plan Set Attachment D - Parking and Access Easement Deed.pdf Attachment D - Easement Deed 0) TOWN OF VAIL " Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 29, 2018 SUBJECT: A request for the review of the following two (2) variances: 1.) a variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking; and 2.) a variance from Section 14-3- 1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than one (1) curb cut per unit, located at 2841 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 3, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18- 0020) Applicants: Michael & Yoshimi Moore, represented by Visual Impax Planner: Matt Panfil I. SUMMARY The applicants, Michael and Yoshimi Moore, represented by Visual Impax, are requesting the review of two (2) variances for the property located at 2841 Basingdale Boulevard / Lot 3, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision: A variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking; and 2. A variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for two (2) curb cuts per unit where only one (1) curb cut per unit is allowed. Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval with one condition (for each separate variance), of this application, subject to the findings noticed in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Michael and Yoshimi Moore, represented by Visual Impax, are requesting the review of two (2) variances in order to facilitate a new single-family residence on the subject property. Please note that the two (2) requested variances include two (2) of the three (3) variances requested in a recently reviewed, but withdrawn, application (PEC18-0012), that was presented to the PEC on March 26, 2018. The primary difference between the applications is that the current application (PEC18- 0020) is not requesting a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minimum horizontal clearance between a garage door (parallel to road) to edge of a public street pavement of less than 24 feet. The applicants have been able to eliminate the need for such a variance by realigning the garage entrance to be parallel to Basingdale Boulevard. A vicinity map (Attachment A), project narrative with the applicants' responses to variance criteria (Attachment B), plan set (Attachment C), and an easement deed between the subject property and the property adjacent to the north (Attachment D, discussed in greater detail in Section III below) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND Based on staff's research, the subject property has been historically vacant. The specific boundaries of the development lot were established with the recording of Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision on September 2, 1971 (Reception No. 117228). On May 30, 1984, the Design Review Board (DRB) approved a duplex on the subject property. However, the duplex was never constructed. The approved duplex had a total of approximately 1,775 square feet of GRFA (code -compliant based on the GRFA calculation methods in place at the time). The primary unit had approximately 1,184 square feet of GRFA, and the secondary unit had 591 square feet of GRFA. The proposed duplex was also compliant with the maximum site coverage and minimum landscaping requirements. On May 6, 1993, an easement (Attachment D) was recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, which created an easement between the owner of the subject property / grantor (Lot 3, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision) and the adjacent property owner / grantee to the north (Lot 2, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision). The document created, "a perpetual non-exclusive parking and access easement, for joint use of a parking area in existence on the easterly portion of Lot 3." Town of Vail Page 2 The grantor of the easement reserved, "the sole and exclusive right to designate two parking spaces within the parking area for the exclusive use and control of the owner of Lot 3." Specifically, parking spaces were, "to be located on the westerly portion of the parking and access easement, and shall be of an area sufficient to comply with the Town of Vail parking requirements." Therefore, the applicants are entitled to the two (2) parking spaces identified on Attachment D. Acceptance of the easement by Lot 2 to the north included a condition stating: It is contemplated that in connection with the construction of a residence on Lot 3, the Town of Vail will require the entire parking and access easement to be paved. Grantor, his heirs, successors, and/or assigns shall pay the entire cost of paving the two reserved parking spaces, Grantee, its successors and assigns, shall pay the entire cost of paving the remainder of the parking and access easement. It is important to note that the size of the entire parking and access easement area that would be required to be paved is approximately 872 square feet. This means that the subject property would already exceed the maximum paving requirements of Section 12-21-12-1-E by 106 square feet (10% of 7,662.2 square feet = 766 square feet). In effect, the language of the easement requires the establishment of a nonconforming site. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 6, Article D, Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District (in part) 12-6D-1: PURPOSE.- The URPOSE: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. Town of Vail Page 3 12-68-5: LOT AREA AND SITE DIMENSIONS.- The IMENSIONS: The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand (15, 000) square feet of buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (30'). Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, eight feet (80) on each side, within its boundaries. 12-6D-8: DENSITY CONTROL.- A. ONTROL: A. Dwelling Units: Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14, 000) square feet. 1. Exception: Properties that meet all of the following three (3) conditions shall be permitted a total of two (2) dwelling units on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14, 000) square feet.- a. eet: a. The property was annexed into the town of Vail with two (2) existing dwelling units on a lot less than fourteen thousand (14, 000) square feet. b. The property as of April 1, 2016, contained two (2) dwelling units on a lot less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. c. At no time between the property's annexation and April 1, 2016, did the property contain less than two (2) dwelling units. 2. Discontinuance Of Exception: If at any time any property as described above develops or redevelops with only one dwelling unit, this exception for the allowance of two (2) units shall no longer be valid for such property. Chapter 10, Off Street Parking and Loading (in part) 12-10-10: PARKING AND REQUIREMENTS SCHEDULES.- Off CHEDULES: Off street parking requirements shall be determined in accordance with the following schedules.- B. chedules: 8. Schedule 8 applies to all properties outside Vail's "commercial core areas" (as defined on the town of Vail core area parking maps I and 11, incorporated by reference and available for inspection in the office of the town clerk).- Town lerk): Town of Vail Page 4 Use Parkinq Requirements Single-family and two-family If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is dwellings less than 2,000 square feet. 2 spaces If a dwelling unit's gross residential floor area is 2, 000 square feet or more, but less than 4, 000 square feet: 3 spaces Chapter 12-17, Variances (in part) 12-17-1: PURPOSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each zone district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements, or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each zone district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits", and by section 12-3-7, 'Amendment'; of this title. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Town of Vail Page 5 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal 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 grant of special privilege. 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. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone district. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. Town of Vail Page 6 Chapter 21, Hazard Regulations (in part) 12-21-12: RESTRICTIONS IN SPECIFIC ZONES ON EXCESSIVE SLOPES E. Site coverage as it pertains to this chapter, as permitted by sections 12-6A-9, 12-68-9, 12-6C-9 and 12-6D-9 of this title is amended as follows.- 1. ollows: 1. Not more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area may be covered by driveways and surface parking. Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code Chapter 2, Definitions (in part) 14-2-1: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS.- Curb ERMS: Curb Cut: The location where a driveway, parking area, or feeder road connects to a public street or feeder road. Chapter 3, Residential and Commercial Access, Driveway & Parking Standards (in part) 14-3-1: MINIMUM STANDARDS.- Table TANDARDS: Table 2 Standard Single -Family, Two -Family Primary/Secondary Curb cuts permitted (number) V. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use Designation Mapped Geological Hazards: View Corridor: Town of Vail 1 per street per unit Maximum of 2 curb cuts per lot 2841 Basingdale Boulevard Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, Block 8, Lot 3 Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential Low Density Residential Steep Slope > 40% None Page 7 Development Allowed / Existing Proposed Change Standard Required Site Area 15,000 SF of 7,662.2 SF Total No Change Buildable Area 2,314 SF of Buildable Area (GIS Estimate) Front (South - Home): 20'-7" Front — 20' Front (South - Garage): 1'-4" Setbacks Sides — 15' N/A Side (East): 67'-2" N/A Rear — 15' Side (West): 22'-10" Rear (North): 15'-8" Building Height Flat Roof — 30' N/A 30' (Flat Roof) N/A Sloping Roof — 33' Density (DUs) Max. 1 0 1 +1 Density GRFA 3,524.6 SF 0 SF 2,689 SF +2,689 SF Site Coverage Max. 20% 0% Max. 20% -20% (1,532 SF) 0 SF (1,532 SF) (+1,532 SF) Landscaping Min. 60% 100% 60% -40% (4,597 SF) (7,662.2 SF) (4,616 SF) (-3,046 SF) Parking & 3 parking spaces 2 4 +2 Loading VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use: Zoning District: North: Med Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Res. (PS) South: Low Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Res. (PS) East: Open Space (Ruder Cemetery) Outdoor Recreation (OR) West: Low Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Res. (PS) VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. Variance 1: Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes Section 12-21-12-E-1, states, "not more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area may be covered by driveways and surface parking." 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed variance to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking is the result of multiple factors. Primarily, the small lot size (7,662 square feet, where 15,000 square feet is required) results in the applicants having approximately one-half (%) the amount of available paved area in comparison to a lot compliant with the minimum site area regulations. Town of Vail Page 8 Also, the proposed variance to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking is a direct result of the relationship of the subject property with the adjacent property to the north. The existing parking and access easement between the two (2) properties requires the entire easement area to be paved if the subject property were to be developed with a single-family residence. Said paving requirement necessitates the variance request as the area to be paved (approximately 872 square feet) exceeds ten percent (10%) of the total site area (approximately 762 square feet). Therefore, approval of the proposed variance allows for the subject property to be developed in a manner consistent with other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Furthermore, the granting of the proposed variance would bring the non -conforming gravel parking area into compliance with Section 14-5-2-A, Other Requirements, Surfacing, Vail Town Code, which states, "all parking areas shall be an approved paved surface." Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal 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 grant of special privilege. Without approval of the proposed variance to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and parking the subject property is rendered undevelopable. The entirety, and more, of the allowable paved area would be occupied by parking spaces, leaving no opportunity, barring the reconfiguration of the parking and access easement, for an access drive to a new single-family residence. If the applicants were required to re -describe the parking and access easement in order to obtain access to the site, the adjacent property to the north could deny the request and render the site undevelopable. Therefore, the proposed variance is necessary to achieve compatible and uniform treatment between the subject property and other properties in the vicinity. Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. 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. The proposed variance to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and parking will facilitate access to the property for the future development of a new single-family residence. The proposed variance will not result in a negative impact on light and air; will not alter the distribution of population; Town of Vail Page 9 will not affect any existing transportation or traffic facilities, public facilities, or utilities; and will not affect public safety in comparison to existing conditions. Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Variance 2: Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Curb Cuts Section 14 -3 -1 -Table 2, states that only one (1) curb cut per unit is permitted within the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The requested variance for a second curb cut is due to the fact that the existing curb cut essentially only serves the adjacent property to the north. Unless the applicants were able to design a site plan that transformed the two (2) westernmost parking spaces within the parking and access easement into an access drive to the site while maintaining compliance with all other development standards (including minimum landscaping, minimum parking spaces, etc.), a second curb is necessary to serve a new single-family residence on the subject property. Creating an access drive from the parking and access easement, as described above, may require the alteration of the existing easement, which may not be approved by the adjacent property to the north. Therefore, a second curb cut will allow for the development of the subject property with a new single-family residence, while minimizing the potential negative impact to the parking for the adjacent property to the north. Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal 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 grant of special privilege. The proposed variance for a second curb cut will facilitate access for a new single- family residence on the subject property. Without a second curb cut, the lot could be rendered undevelopable if the adjacent property owner to the north were unwilling to allow for an alteration to the parking and access easement to allow the applicants to create an access drive from the two (2) westernmost parking spaces within the easement area. Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. Town of Vail Page 10 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. The applicant has designed the garage to allow for head-on access, to Basingdale Boulevard. This garage entrance and access configuration will enhance public safety over previously reviewed development concepts, which required vehicles to back onto Basingdale Boulevard. The proposed variance will not result in a negative impact on light and air; will not alter the distribution of population; and will not affect any existing transportation or traffic facilities, public facilities, or utilities. Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff has provided individual recommendations for each of the two (2) variance requests. Variance 1: Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve, with one condition, a variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking, located at 2841 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 3, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with one condition, this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicants' request for a variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking, located at 2841 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 3, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Town of Vail Page 11 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with one condition, this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission applies the following condition: 1. "Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with one condition, this variance, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated May 29, 2018, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District; 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons.- a. easons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- b. ode, b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variances that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District; and c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicants of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District." Variance 2: Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission approve, with one condition, a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to Town of Vail Page 12 allow for two (2) curb cuts per unit where only one (1) curb cut per unit is allowed, located at 2841 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 3, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with one condition, this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicants' request for a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for two (2) curb cuts per unit where only one (1) curb cut per unit is allowed, located at 2841 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 3, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with one condition, this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission applies the following condition: 1. "Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicants obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with one condition, this variance, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated May 29, 2018, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District; 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons.- a. easons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- b. ode, b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variances that do not apply generally to Town of Vail Page 13 other properties in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District; and c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicants of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Project Narrative with Applicants' Responses to Variance Review Criteria, dated April 30, 2018 C. Plan Set, dated April 30, 2018 D. Easement Deed, recorded May 6, 1993, with the Reception No. 504312 Town of Vail Page 14 I —---------------L--- Mo M 4: 2851 26 r 821 41, �_ t • . mr,1 - f i i I tk 41, V15LIA41, M PAX OF SIGN BIJIL D 303 South Broadway Suite 200-509 Denver, Colorado 80209 (303) 893-0086 April 30, 2018 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: 2841 Basingdale Boulevard Vail Colorado Planning and Environmental Commission: We propose to construct a single-family home and request a variance for: 1) A variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking 2) A variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for two (2) curb cuts per unit where only (1) curb cut per unit is allowed. Reasons for Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. We are confident in the approval of this request, as the town of Vail has previously approved the exact same request on March 26, 2018. The plans for the previous applied variance failed to come to fruition, as that project was abandoned. This lot has historically been vacant since 1971. This property offers multiple challenges to develop, and there exists an unnecessary hardship in the development of this land. Several parties have unsuccessfully been able execute a design that works with the topography with minimal impact to the land around it. Due to the easement, the design of a single-family home will work, however, without the additional driveway space and new curb cut requested in this variance, our proposed design will not work. In addition, the extra 2 parking spots will be provide additional parking for the residence, and will be helpful to maneuver vehicles in and out of the property thus making it more safe to the pedestrian area. The proposed design of this home is similar to other homes in this area, with respect to the contours, blending into the mountainside and natural grade. We allow the existing topography to shape the new structure. Much time and considerations were made to this design, such as a steel grate, like the neighbor utilizes, has been integrated into this design of the rear decking. The weight of this decision hinders the sale of this property, as we are in final stages of purchasing this land. This lot is very challenging to build on, and several parties failed to complete the purchase of this property as a result. Our skill and technical know -how is the critical part in this land development, something other buyers were unable to achieve. In an effort to demonstrate our commitment to this project, a large amount of time and effort were spent to provide you with complete architectural plans and renderings. We feel providing such detail will allow the committee to see our proposed vision for the property. The proposed use of this property is for residential habitancy. This is consistent with the compatibility with neighboring properties. The impact of this land development for the town of Vail will produce additional revenue with regard to the assessed property taxes. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed variance to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking is the result of multiple factors. Primarily, the small lot size (7 ,662 square feet, where 15,000 square feet is required) results in the applicants having approximately one-half (%) the amount of available paved area in comparison to a lot compliant with the minimum site area regulations. Also, the proposed variance to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking is a direct result of the relationship of the subject property with the adjacent property to the north. The existing parking and access easement between the two (2) properties requires the entire easement area to be paved if the subject property were to be developed with a single -family residence. Said paving requirement necessitates the variance request as the area to be paved (approximately 872 square feet) exceeds ten percent (10%) of the total site area (approximately 762) square feet. Therefore, approval of the proposed variance allows for the subject property to be developed in a manner consistent with other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Furthermore, the granting of the proposed variance would bring the non-conforming gravel parking area into compliance with Section 14-5-2-A, Other Requirements, Surfacing, Vail Town Code, which states, "all parking areas shall be an approved paved surface." The degree to which relief from the strict or literal 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 grant of special privilege. Without approval of the proposed variance to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and parking the subject property is rendered undevelopable. The entirety, and more, of the allowable paved area would be occupied by parking spaces, leaving no opportunity, barring the reconfiguration of the parking and access easement, for an access drive to a new single -family residence. If we were required to re-describe the parking and access easement in order to obtain access to the site, the adjacent property to the north could deny the request and render the site undevelopable. Therefore, the proposed variance is necessary to achieve compatible and uniform treatment between the subject property and other properties in the vicinity. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variance to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and parking will facilitate access to the property for the development of a new single-family residence. The proposed variance will not result in a negative impact on light and air; will not alter the distribution of population; will not affect any existing transportation or traffic facilities, public facilities, or utilities; and will not affect public safety in comparison to existing conditions. Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. Should you have any questions, or require additional information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Scott Handler Attachments: Soils Report Survey Drawings/Rendering FLOOR AREA ANALYSIS 2ND FLOOR AREA IST FLOOR AREA FINISHED AREA BASEMENT AREA 11112 SO FT I, 112 SO FT 2, 224 SO FT 465 SO FT GARAGE AREA: 420 SOFT LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT 3, BLOCK 8, VAIL INTERMOUNTAIN SUBDIVISION, COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO CODE USED: 2015 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE SETBACKS: FRONT STREET (MIN): 20'-0" SIDE (MIN): 15'-0" REAR (MIN): 15'-0" LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS ZONE LOT AREA: 7,662 S.F. PRIMARY STRUCTURE FOOTPRINT = 1,112 S.F. ATTACHED GARAGE FOOTPRINT = 420 S.F. MAX. SITE COVERAGE = 20% TOTAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT = 1,532 S.F. TOTAL BUILDING COVERAGE = 20% 1,532 / 71662 = O.lgq (lq.gq%) MAX GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (GRFA) = 46% 71662 * .46 3524 = 3/524 S.F. TOTAL GRFA = 1,112 + 1,112 + 465 = 2168q S.F. MAX PARKING/DRIVEWAY AREA: 10% (7,662 * .10 = 76(o S.F.) GARAGE AND PRIMARY RESIDENCE DRIVEWAY: 642 S.F. PARKING EASEMENT AREA: 872 S.F. TOTAL PARKING/DRIVEWAY AREA: 1,514 S.F. LANDSCAPING $ SITE DEVELOPMENT MIN. = 60% 71662 * .60 = 41600 S.F. STRUCTURES = 1,532 S.F. DECK AREA = 66q S.F. FRONT PORCH = 52 S.F. PAVED PARKING/DRIVEWAY = 1,514 S.F. PLANTING AND LANDSCAPING T.B.D. = 833 S.F. I, 532 + 66q + 52 + 1/514 + 833 = 41600 S.F. 000 i i r.lo.a- r -al �1All P 1F7 -ids — — — — — — — — — SITE PLAN SCALE: �"=1'-0" 0' 5' 10' n �L� En vo 1-zo CN ozoa� Q >< :< CLzu - Cz CL n 30 V OU LL -T o� o N N 0 N Q 0 z O � U co 9N1 O (� Q L I Q EL o�oo� J 0 M U E —o Z o� <1 v 0 w-�6o Q J N W �j�X Z> Lu OL ff� z Y� c N p c>7 i m c) 3 ca 3 U z z 4 Q Q !Z W z w O QC) z — >Z rawQU ^� w �(s)CN> m In O o Q CL > N N88° 58' 34"E 152.74' -------------- ----- -- 1 �n 0 m GN ZZ '01 N o � rn co" 1 � m N �r 1 21'-q" °777777°°777777°°777777°00 16'-113u 0 0 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 x,77770077777700777777007777 #2841 ° 7`a 177770°777777°°777777°°° I °'7°° ' °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° 2 STORY SINGLE T-1070 0°7 'Vv 000000000000000000° - � FAMILY RESIDENCE Ln 4 -IIS'`" 7 0 c+ 07777777777777777 /1 112 SQ FT ��. l\,S) 07 77770 0\V7777° 7 77777700 777 , 7Q\7777777777777 S� 00 ,� 7 m7000°777777° 77 0777 0��777770077 ,x7777 7')Z\77777777 6' 67777 7`\7777007 22'-Ipu 77777 7N7777 77777 '�'\77° O 0 0 7\ 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 c 777777vvvvvv 6' 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 zo �DN77777°° 1 I 77777 1 17777777777 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7°° 7 7 7 7 IV 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1F 77,DECK AREA7o ° o 0 0 (UPPER DECK)° ° 7 , 126 SQ FT ° 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7°° 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 77777777777 25'-I�° 1v 00°777777°° 7 7 7 -7i_oil7 7 7° 22'6u IV ° 15'-0.. REA SET BACK 1 � 1 � SET BACK LINE / 1 I 1 � U LYl 1 UTILITY EASEMENT Lw 1 (7.5' SIDE, 5.0' REAR) w Q 0 1 PROPERTY LINE Nq0° 001 0011E 62.001 SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN sL 04 CV .o I q' -016" m 0 13'-84u 1 0 0 0 0 o ° 0 o , PARKING EASEMENT — — (TO BE IMPROVED BY / RUSH CONDOMINIUMS) / / 420 SQ FT v FIRE HYDRANT �O GARAGE �� \� 420 SQ �FT ? / ° IRON GRATE O ° OVER DRAINAGE o / ° CHANNEL 0 o/° IT ° o 0 / ° ° o / 0 /o o o / o /o o0 / � EDGE OF DR I V ENAY a ° ° / ° ° / PLOWED ROAD o o ° o ° io 0 0 0 °\--� \ — ----- POWER \ o A V A moo, POLE 'Sp \ i otiTs \ 1� II I� I c� I I I I R19'-0" VEHICLE I I \ TURN RADIUS (TYP) OVERHEAD / POWER LINES LLJ p <�� Co Lj O z p 0 0 0 0 QzCL= W� 7V -V-V °°°°°7777°° e -V -V -V -V-V 7- 0000000 00000000000000 7 1700000000000 ,'�7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000 00000000000000 7 1700000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 -V0000000000 00000000000007 7 �00000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0= 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000000 000000000000 � b°DECK AREA00 7°°°° 7 7 7 7 0 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 7 0 170000000000007 000000000000 o7 b (STUDY DECK, 0 77'7"'7777°'7'7'7'7° '7'7'7''7777'7'77^v 71°ABOVE MAIN DECK) 1'6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0° 7 b 77777700777777007 777700777777 i0 B4 SO FT 7 77000700000000007 77777777777777 7 b77777777777 1'7777777777777777777 7 777777777777 177777777777 .�� 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 ° DECK AREA7°o°o°0°7 0 7 . av 7 7 7 ' o° o° o° o° o°o°'7 0°0°0°0°0°0°0°0°0°0°0° 7 v 32' --Qu 77777777777(MAIN DECK) 77777 7 7777777777777 7177777777777 677777777777' 543 SO FT 7777777777777777777 1700077700000 7 0 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 V 7i7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1°000777° 77700°0077700°0077700°00777 7 T7°0077700000 1 ,677777777777777 7777777 7 7777777777777 V 7177777777777 '0 0° 0 0 0 7 7 7°° 0 0 0 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 0° 0 0 7 7 7 0 0° 0 0 7 7 7 7 �° 0 0 7 7 7 0 0 0 0 0 °777777°°777777°°777777°00 16'-113u 0 0 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 x,77770077777700777777007777 #2841 ° 7`a 177770°777777°°777777°°° I °'7°° ' °°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°° 2 STORY SINGLE T-1070 0°7 'Vv 000000000000000000° - � FAMILY RESIDENCE Ln 4 -IIS'`" 7 0 c+ 07777777777777777 /1 112 SQ FT ��. l\,S) 07 77770 0\V7777° 7 77777700 777 , 7Q\7777777777777 S� 00 ,� 7 m7000°777777° 77 0777 0��777770077 ,x7777 7')Z\77777777 6' 67777 7`\7777007 22'-Ipu 77777 7N7777 77777 '�'\77° O 0 0 7\ 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 c 777777vvvvvv 6' 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 zo �DN77777°° 1 I 77777 1 17777777777 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7°° 7 7 7 7 IV 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1F 77,DECK AREA7o ° o 0 0 (UPPER DECK)° ° 7 , 126 SQ FT ° 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7°° 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 77777777777 25'-I�° 1v 00°777777°° 7 7 7 -7i_oil7 7 7° 22'6u IV ° 15'-0.. REA SET BACK 1 � 1 � SET BACK LINE / 1 I 1 � U LYl 1 UTILITY EASEMENT Lw 1 (7.5' SIDE, 5.0' REAR) w Q 0 1 PROPERTY LINE Nq0° 001 0011E 62.001 SITE IMPROVEMENT PLAN sL 04 CV .o I q' -016" m 0 13'-84u 1 0 0 0 0 o ° 0 o , PARKING EASEMENT — — (TO BE IMPROVED BY / RUSH CONDOMINIUMS) / / 420 SQ FT v FIRE HYDRANT �O GARAGE �� \� 420 SQ �FT ? / ° IRON GRATE O ° OVER DRAINAGE o / ° CHANNEL 0 o/° IT ° o 0 / ° ° o / 0 /o o o / o /o o0 / � EDGE OF DR I V ENAY a ° ° / ° ° / PLOWED ROAD o o ° o ° io 0 0 0 °\--� \ — ----- POWER \ o A V A moo, POLE 'Sp \ i otiTs \ 1� II I� I c� I I I I R19'-0" VEHICLE I I \ TURN RADIUS (TYP) OVERHEAD / POWER LINES LLJ p <�� Co Lj O z p o? � z L O Q�:) QzCL= W� >- CL — LLI CL Fy p 30 V �fYti�cjjw V }moo LLJ Lu Lu W �LLo o Z) N N 0 N Q 0 Z 0 U 9N1CL L � J i Q a o�ooU) J w W > 7 nop�6F- O m IV Z Q O N C(1 a V 0 W �>,c Z LL, OL Nw c< z i \ c)> / �3 ca 3 U z z < Q 1) i1 Q- W Z w W < C O z LLQ— U o w J ^� w �cnCN> (-n O cn m c 3 U o� In O o Q ri > IN �>-z�� LLI n o zOQ�oO O Q z Cw >- L — LLI p 30 V c) �fYtiT:cjjw V }�O LLI m O O 0 w N N O_ N O Q O Z O cy- U (� Q 9N1 O OL L 44 �Q a oCNoo� J LLJ co 7 non« m 0 C(1 M0 a V �o�� Q J N W �j 48' -016" 561-3211 1� IST FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 4"=1'-0" i -81-211� PORCH o m 4" CONC SLAB .4 ON GRADE V-411 8' -08" 0\ FAN 1LY ROOM/ BEDROOM I� LCONC RETAINING �I ------------ -----------L---IL---L WALL =!N V �fYti�cjjw V >0 Luw I L I L - - - - Lo 04 N N V-411 8' -08" 0\ FAN 1LY ROOM/ BEDROOM I� z �I ------------ -----------L---IL---L >_ CL — Lu Q�- Fy-n 3 0 V �fYti�cjjw V >0 Luw Lu Lu W Co CL L I L - - - - 141-21" 4 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SCALE: a"=1'-0" MURPHY BED v� 4 IST FLOOR AREA: 11253 50 FT -q1_8911 8' -0811 �9 BATH s (TILE) p - 3'-0"5. FURN EJECTOR J UTIL PIT /STG BASEMENT AREA: 465 50 FT � >_ :Z LU n z C)CN z0Q�o0 O <6 CL Lu >_ CL — Lu Q�- Fy-n 3 0 V �fYti�cjjw V >0 Luw Lu Lu W Co CL X 0 N N O_ N O Q O Z O � U 9N1OL L0 # I Q a o�oo� J W co > 7 non« 0 m U —o Z oo�� a V 0 w-�6o Q J N W �j 6" K—STYLE GUTTER W/ 3x4 DOWNSPOUT EA END THIS WALL (TYPICAL) 21-011 ---------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- oO DD <6CL wo >_rL — Lu �mE: F„N-13�— CL n 30 V LL UA V > w CYLu LumW� OH z Luo N N o_ ------------------------------------------- N a I ° 212 ELEVATION V NORTHWEST II 2I -0 L SCALE: 4"=1'-011 STUCCO — N ` 1010101 GARGAGE NORTHEAST ELEVATION SCALE: 4"=1'-0" °CONCRETE--,-, �'� FDN WALL °a11° 4 ° a° a a a METAL FASCI 7IglA'-(.!" MAX wrT nF c;TR211r. W n 7,gO3'-8i" 2ND FL SUBFL Lu 7, g02'-84" IST FL BRG O m o Q 13 Q3 Lu z 12 RECLAIMEDT WOOD SIDING Q Z Lu ac 7,8g3' -7k 2ND FL SUBFL 7, 8q2' —62" BSMNT BRG alO O I I — 0 m 0 I co STUCCO 11 ti : I= WtO NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!i NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN INNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN INNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNI INNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNI ■■I�■■I� -..-..I- SWIM mommoomm 1IN GARAGE BEHIND i!Ti!;WI0x45 STEEL BEAM FASCIA% _RECLAIMED. WOOD SIDING r--------------- W 10x45 STEEL BEAM O SUPPORT i 0 -------------- - - - - - - ---------------- STUCCO z EXPANSION O II 10 JOINT (TYP) I I I I I I I ----- ---------- Nd 7,gOq'-10" 2ND FL BRG 71888'-10" 2ND FL SUBFL 7, 8q7' —qi" IST FLOOR BRG 7 SSS' -81," IST FLOOR T.O.S. NORTHEAST ELEVATION SCALE: 4" =1' -0" NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 4"=1'-0" �>_z�Lu n oO zOQ�00 oCN <6CL wo >_rL — Lu �mE: F„N-13�— CL n 30 V LL UA V > w CYLu LumW� OH z Luo N N o_ N a I ° ° I --------------------------°--� a NORTHEAST ELEVATION SCALE: 4" =1' -0" NORTH ELEVATION SCALE: 4"=1'-0" �>_z�Lu n oO zOQ�00 oCN <6CL wo >_rL — Lu �mE: F„N-13�— CL n 30 V LL UA V > w CYLu LumW� OH z Luo N N o_ N Q 0 z 0 V 9N1 Lo I 'Q EL o�oo� J LW co M 0 —o Z oo�� a V 0 � w-�6o Q J N W �j�X Z>< � o ;oma N �< z � N � O I CIS i c)> 3 CID 3 w U z w � z wJ� O � lY � wO Q w 0 u LL O �/ N O oz�� rice CN> W O c�j cn \ 3 U 01 In Q) o Q a > I(j) RECLAIMED WOOD SIDING FRONT ENTRY ELEVATION SCALE: 4 "'=I' -O" SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE: 4"'=I' -O" I I I I I I I I � I I I I I I I I I I I I � r --Ill � J SOUTHEAST ELEVATION SCALE: i"=1'-0" 4" STEEL SHADOW BOX (4) SIDES DID 7z J-Px I f�5T000O�"' RECLAIMED WOOD SIDING GARAGE ELEVATION SOUTHWEST SCALE: 4"'=I' -O" STUCCO STUCCO EXPANSION JOINT (TYP) I I I I I I I ELEVATION - GARAGE SOUTHEAST SCALE: a"=1'-0" RECLAIMED WOOD SIDING BAND 6" K -STYLE GUTTER W/ 3x4 DOWNSPOUT EA END TNIS WALL (TYPICAL) 6" K -STYLE GUTTER W/ 3x4 DOWNSPOUT EA END THIS WALL (TYPICAL) RECLAIMED WOOD SIDING BAND 6" K -STYLE GUTTER W/ 3x4 DOWNSPOUT EA END THIS WALL (TYPICAL) RECLAIMED WOOD SIDING BAND � >-z�LU 0 ozoSzo o QzCL �- >- rzgw n Cz CL 30 V �fYtiLu �cjjw V }�O Lu m CL U- 0 � LU O N N O N a 0 z 0 � U 9N1 L �Q EL C) o�o�o 43 LL J LWco 7 n C) c 0 M U —o Z oo�� ,0 a U w-o�� Q J N W �LLI j�X z Lu OL i \ Q / m3 ca 3 w U z w � Qr Ln z wJ� O � lY � w0 Q w o u LL O �/ N O � � rice CN> W O c1� m In O o Q ri > IN 4'-0" CANT ELITE B41C W/ OLED PAR 20 8 O WATT 500 LUr POSITION PER BACK SPAN PER STRUCTURAL ELECTRICAL ROOF FRAMING PLAN DRAWINGS BEARING 2x6 2x8 NAILED TO EPDM ROOFING 52n WALL BELOW q2° ML EA SIDE UP AND AROUND FOR RECESSED SO UNDER FACIA --i�� SOFFIT METAL LINE OF SLEEPER LINE OF SHEATHING 11-7/8 TJI ROOF JST ROOF OVERHANG DETAIL SCALE: I"=1' -O" 4" STEEL PLS WELD CONNECT POWDER CC FLAT BLS .�Q rK P m RECESSED - RECLAIMED WOOD SOFFIT I' -1113" 16 51" 2 BEARING 2x6 WALL BELOW ML RIM SUBFASCIA 3111 2 FASCIA Z(2ETAL ) 9-1/2" ML BIFOLD DOOR VALANCE W/ LED LIGHT STRIP DETAIL SCALE: 3"=I'-0" SOFFIT METAL FACIA METAL TO COUNTER FLASH EPDM AND SOFFIT METAL m m MINT MINT o- ' m m MINT MINT MINT MINT 11 SECTION VIEW NEAL CLAD FASCIA METAL RAIL DETAIL SCALE: I"= I' -0" I" TREX DECKING ON TREATED 2X8 FRAME 16" O.C. STUCCO ON FACE (2)q-1/2" ML BEAM DECK FASCIA DETAIL SCALE: I'Y' -O" I" TREX DECKING ON TREATED 2X8 FRAME 16" D.C. DECK FACIA FLASHING L— (2)q-1/2" ML BEAM DECK FASCIA DETAIL SCALE: I"=1'-0" 2x2 STEEL POST (TYPICAL) 4"x4" STEEL BALUSTERS (TYPICAL) 6"x1l" PLATE TOP VIEW METAL FIN DETAIL SCALE: ]"=I'-0" 211 211 714 S2vo azo o Szo zo<�J o QzCL w Ir - >_ CL W :T co r-:Tm„-'3CzCL 2x2 STEEL m �fYtiLu �cjjw V }moo POST - o� 0 (TYPICAL) MIN MINT N N o - i m�v cY1 mm 4"x4" STEEL BALUSTERS _ MINT 0 (TYPICAL) MINT N METAL _ '"m GRATE W10x45 SECTION VIEW I BEAN FASCIA 6"x1l" PLATE TOP VIEW METAL FIN DETAIL SCALE: ]"=I'-0" 211 211 714 S2vo azo o Szo zo<�J o QzCL w Ir - >_ CL W :T co r-:Tm„-'3CzCL w Cz CL n 30 TOP VIEW �fYtiLu �cjjw V }moo Co CLU Lu W - o� 0 N N 0 N WIOx45 ELEVATION VIEW u L LU n S2vo azo o Szo zo<�J o QzCL w Ir - >_ CL W :T co r-:Tm„-'3CzCL w Cz CL n 30 V �fYtiLu �cjjw V }moo Co CLU Lu W - o� 0 N N 0 N Q 0 z 0 � U aNi O N Q L N J �Q ELQ�64 oo�o J W (:o W > _ — N 7 non« 1 0 M V —o Z oo�� a V 0 w - Q J N oz, �o W Coj�X Z ff�W z Y� c i \ m o> / �3 •� 3 ca 3 U z w QQL0 I co �n w CQ � O — wQ < < w 1� Q O z Z LL O �/ N O owl � � Q ACV > W O c�j m In O o C) a> I() TOPOGRAPHY Lot 3, Block B Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision TSS, R8 I W, 6TH P.M. County of Eagle, State of Colorado W co V) co _o Z S87° 40' 06"E 91.72 Z `mss CP 00, 00. Spike and cap in tree stump L)eck Site Benchmark North Rim Sewer MH_ s '.C1 Utility Easement per plat (7.5' side, 5.0' rear) \ w o L 79.83 Out FES Lot 4 1 Set approximate lath on top bz.uu— S43` 16' 25"W of 8' pile of 0rWew0y 8.58 snow and \ 7g02 ,0y1 ice \ \ 1 oti 24" RCP\\13* \ \, 2" aluminum \ �\ � disc F, Rock Wall, Guard Rail along driveway co 10' Drainage `off Easement per plat O Found #5 rebar with 1-1/2" (approx) aluminum cap stamped PLS 5933. o Set PLS 37934 as noted. Lot 9 Building Stairs LEGAL DESCRIPTION., N Lot 3, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, According to the recorded N7,, 48' 41"E plat therot,- County of Eagle, State of Colorado. 160.1$ 01 0 o, c0r. NOTES: 1) Date of Survey: January 7th and 8th, 2014 SPECIAL NOTES: 1) Legal descriptions for parking easement and drainage easement could not be located. Location shown is approximate and should be verified prior to any design work Lot 2 or construction. 2) Parking easement allows two spaces at the east end of Lot 3. (Book 608, Page 231 May 6, 1993) Rush Condominium Association. lo'0026.. 14 E N88` 58' 34"E Stairs 152.74 #5 rebar and cap o;\��` \ / � o-- Lot 3 0.1759ac a$5 284 I Power Pole 900 - 01,3/4" brass tag N90° 00' 00"E, 00 OH. 12" Aspen -Posted 2821 1. t i OQQ �N �6 NOTICE: According to Colorado law you MUST commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon. 2) Property Address: 2841 Basindale Blvd (not posted) 3) Basis of Bearing: Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision- Block 8 Final Plat recorded September 2, 1971 at Reception #117228. Original boundary monuments found as shown hereon. 4) Elevations are based on the site benchmark shown hereon. 5) Record information and easement information based on the aforementioned final plat and Title Commitment #V50037770 dated 1-13-2014 provided by Land Title Guarantee Company. Contact the Town of Vail for additional information prior to any design work. Edge plowed road 6) Due to the presence of 2-3 feet of snow, some physical sG features may not have been located. Basindale Blvd Ij elevations +- 0.2' due to snowpack and ice. LEGEND: Property Line Easement Line - - 5' Contour 1' Contour Centerline Ditch — — — Overhead Power OH -OH - Aspen Tree (trunk size) 12" Pine Tree 12" Site Benchmark CER TIFICA TION c� U Z J Z OLu 'aO NvaU U o :) �Q F- inJ O U POST OFFICE BOX 5023 EAGLE, COLORADO 81631 P 970 47I 0905 a Z_ Lu m m a z Lu U Z 0 CO 0 O Z Lu OU m 0 J = 00 IL > a 0 0 I, John D. McMahan, a Professional Land Surveyor licensed under the laws of the State of Colorado, do hereby certify to Jake Rugge-Price that the contours as shown hereon, are based on a field surveyperformed by me or under my direct supervision on January 7th and 8th, 2014, and are accurate to the best of my knowledge and belief. o Wo RE $ • � zs 37934 z: o t r_AN� �JQ John D. McMahan P.L.S. No. 37934 0 Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor JD McSnow, LLC SOB No- 2014-002 SHEET NO. -`.� LfFi'VEYING $4L UlInNS WAM R� 1 I �� ■ 1■■i -- • -1 �1 •� 1 ,mom 1momor- . ■.■ MMI ■1 `.. 7 16 _ 11 —n 1' • INON1 ■ � r.� �.1 1 1 1 91 1 • _ L 7� Amon— r i %LM GOA L • • -a— wp r 46 ad • �■ Slim WE 0006- Ewa 101111111111111111 Mill A -W i Kill iq bq am INS III Northeast View 1 1 111 1 III ■`•• � �IIIII •. r ■ I .II; �IIIII ■■■� 1 . M MENEM mmadIIIII +11111 �.uul �unl u�unl in %mmmIIIII�� I 1. ilnll� IIS I i 'I I SII - IIS 11,IIS iii ■. �I1� M _ �•:��II�I111 II Sued i `. VIII ■� VIII � .il � r. ■III II11 �II_1�1 II �I �i ■ III' H11 �- III■ill ■�II1� 1M■-OEG - II II 1 ppr _-W 1 I Northeast View ti orth mm e w I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 I ■I, � HHl 1111 I � I 1 1 � I I I 1� r�■ - 1 1 ■ 11 1 1 ii I —I ■ 1 I 1 I_ I MENOMIN■■ MENEM 1 I 1-I� � I I I 1� ■ -�■ � ■ 1 I I ■ 1 . I_ ■ — r 1 I I — ■ ■ 1 ��11� �� 1 I Irl � � � I ■■I1� =� III mommommom —I 11. -1 I ■ 19M 1 11� _ —` Ir s■�■I I or - ■ ��!!!! III ■II ■II■I ■I ■U■ II■ m M 0 • •1 ! ISI � r -I � .i � 1 1�- Imo— •� , 1 I ■ .I I ! L �■ r �u �u � 1 1 , - I - I I L li -� - ! I �11�1 X11 X11 � 1 1 . 1 ■ 1 1 I 1 I� �� I —111 I X11 r_11 � � ■ - 1 1 7 — I II I I ■ � � • IFF .-F I. SSS 11■- �- � � � . 1 I �r. 1 1 ~• � L 1 1' • ' 1 - , 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 •i. i , 1.1 t h w e s,,,,,.. t " I := d rL, 1 � - i 0 Sou iew s ' _ r r'1 _1 rlll.l��l■ ' !�� 1 Z 1- i J r�111J1�.1� •• � �. 77 � � 11. 1 1 - 1 1 .11.1�.1� -•1 11 J� �I 1 11 1 ` -' •~ 1� � • 1 � ■ � j L. �' -til'• • •1 IL� IL~ �IL • 1 ti;ti� ' 1 1 �.- I •. �•1 II I } a 1 I I S gq■ ' Ippol� ilp� + . - Z _� rest View ho III' j � 11 111 •-1 _ , 1. 1 •i. i , 1.1 t h w e s,,,,,.. t " I := d rL, 1 � - i 0 Sou iew s ' _ r r'1 _1 rlll.l��l■ ' !�� 1 Z 1- i J r�111J1�.1� •• � �. 77 � � 11. 1 1 - 1 1 .11.1�.1� -•1 11 J� �I 1 11 1 ` -' •~ 1� � • 1 � ■ � j L. �' -til'• • •1 IL� IL~ �IL • 1 ti;ti� ' 1 1 �.- I •. �•1 II I } a 1 I I S gq■ ' Ippol� ilp� + . - Z _� rest View 1 . .................. r Z r k ivaTO9 ■ ► Ci Ah Ah k k iva T4 09 0 Ll re Ah f f de` ti 4-P _ 11 0 rr' f' d �� r � •r r ' 1 � •t � r x z f • { r r - _ .�' 0 r mile Ik.MIZ- %; 11 41 5E-- 0 Arial 1 -- i 1 r .ti 1 r r. �II ice. 'ZL060 Iti - r1 J !moi iAol 1 L r r - • .ti I• ti r q�q %% PEI w w w L9 �- ■ Sof312 8-60 1-231 D510,5193 14x45 or .'s NEC J. pr!;M T EAGMS COUNTk 01,ERK, CO OYAW 15.00 4 4., » A" MW my was valiisJk as A 0.00 T 74! Iia" Dd1TUr Jit. r ii mse addXesw IS P.D. box 190, Feil, colotado #:652 .(hrtreindrter referred to as "GrAntor"), for Teat Dollars a d. otttV a arA val.;table rnrsidaretion, tine re-ceipt of thick is ho rsby ---- s. Swwrw ram—�-•: r+as..-c aranr ZI&I auifnlA�o. �il_kwx_ _-�C•./lYL�yw�y.Y�W4frt -..� - #r++rtra.r y..�r+�i _ . RAJC1iTION, it colar...a6o Iron-Vrotit Cb]�,tot:atiossra ti�'Oi+i e i ' "ia- ;4� 2B2x • isui1ndala Blvd., Vail, Colorado 87.63?. (herfa ttw in the - rM3?skTw4 ka. at Ar-ralitee"), the fo -1exinq real property aitwata CtMM-_y of teole..';3t%t* of -Colorado, tin -wit. >1 peurptta�al nate-ayrrlt;siwe Palrkisw, and 30ce$r- *Assrs�nt, for Ioice- uat of a p4L+CYr4 4k]C' o In txistO :ce On the sastrsrly pa 43.= Gf • X&t; �� 3, Rjoc: rt, Vasl i;ttsrtsount&tn_ t} vel.opmant Stbd;xisicM . STA ., a*taztapsitt to tat 9, Hack .ail Trters=ntaYLn Su fviaiatt, arui as mare *ally c3ssrscM;4 swt_ tore_ �M_ • thr .�- -. - -got *A;X L� `:" i'bua irsasttor specifically rametvir:g the role a.A exclusive right iessatytaat• tw' parking rtpA;�:*g ssrlthin the patrk" area rOV tom ;. = rsuixcafvs vee And contrtrZ Qf tha zKaner At► 3,3 solo B,i3 - : ICz&��sfslrt 11-ty lop"nt ailAls kion. Su#t Parking spscas to xacwxsd. an thA wastarly =rLlan of the parking e00d rt+d shsli ba ax-1,an teras Sutf i dent to r"rrwly srit?s Vigi1 psr" r*W 4 rmonts. z.'q •1. z` %Np"w-r &U "Id aia_u;ax i:er_"itamentf and appatrtenkoe" thor*W jW,. 6C Ln atyatiw tn)-*t`tk1ni.rjq., and the rwarsxon and rwmrsi i *40*,taijer a d re minders, von". issues a" Protist t hOrOOf, Arai 411 t'�* - lts, Yiee� : title; i.ntQrasrt, chits 6P4 "a:t[t.-i trhstSO6V&r1 of the arqoweL, •ifter In late rr i . iw.; i ty of, in and ice the above-i,omislid-- rema ftp Sntarant, with On .-ertlii tasranta mrd xppurtmmarrmn, XXvX jum-Tea wLv ttx- s�+ec, togatchs r win all 74171 singuUT thea *OWUWgs &Ad prlvkladsasr x.!Wirounto belonging or iiz anytrist! thertata jppertainjW. aro all the estate, right, title, lrret:est and cssti>ts . �a3c, of tb* Cxantor, eithvr In law or *ty4ity to the only proper us&, b 0fi:. arA L-azoor of the c-r3titee, lts :.ucceosaes Arrd assigns sZ1C4 iter•, his heirs, successurs, andfor assigns, xhal.l not aract Year .._��r.: �.ra a ,�s!•..fin "d rr[ a!'msntat-e- 7i]NtSYtYkT4W7L T .T Ri}�A IkC '.XttFi t� _ th• abols-ts+sri taei iaszestssst. and Cr�sri�a :shdt1 z. bo I3 al�ls I c>i: "air '46�.� c f th—pt xyeL wee Ac-2sspti?mC* of this raa.zes'rnt by arenter- Shall cnassfit-ure their I- ht sLtch time and in tltr event ilea.; the easesent desar.inad h*roirt shbil be abanloRed, Gzantea's real praparty interest in the f+t"ment shall i djatnly revert Va and be tIaZtpr nerged with the *arvlent estate. 2. The parkirij arras. coratructed an the move-deaaribed eae—ni ent xhal.l bs aai,ntained, aro[ repaired Sr. a fir�stalaas vann.r, condi iOn as:0- aappenrancw� 3t #s cant.smpj. .ted that In oannectitnr; with the cGnstruction 4 LtuC!TiI lt��i�li`s�i$i'i!, :1�3 parki.rg arm aceesye rrmsemrnf to be pavAd. Grantor, his heirs, stu stustozs, and/or assigns 0 -hall pay the vnklxe r-Ost: of rravinq the twO .xessersred paxkinq aoajrest, +srantae, its Oucr,0;35 'rs and a.Ralarns, small pay the e;itixa cyst; al paving th% ramaindsr of tie parking and access ' a�asrrsaszr4t. 3. The Granter_ agrees to fully i$jde=ify, sage and keep t%e Grantor harnless from any and all Clair -S tar damage to real and lxer-junai praperty and injuries or d2atJw suffered by persons On said prOPV—I-ty during the term of this earem-ent, and in,iuding hilt not limited to tike responsibility for enforcement and control of access ri►ghrs- SZC-Mrj VM DELIv, Er) this 1""'* day of _� - _ ._ y -► � 4�J3 . iso. - COUNTIr or ] AMA 3 The rarogoing rlaspemert Dced ;ras sutscrib-ai ad zvorn to t*for* na _ this ..eh dhy of qac , 1993 by Ross D4ViO; 41r, i--itnw4a vy hated and officia3. seal. --�� ldetiary 2 City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May 29, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for a review of a prescribed regulations amendment to Section 14-10-6, Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to allow the Design Review Board (DRB) to apply different design review standards in situations when two-family dwellings appear as separate and distinct development lots, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0005) OTTOCHMFNTS- File Name PEC18-0005 Section 14- 10-6 Residential Development Text Amendment Staff Memo.pdf Attachment A Proposed Text Amendment.pdf Attachment B Applicants Cover Letter.pdf Attachment C Applicant s Response to Approval Criteria.pdf Attachment D Letter of Support - Architects.pdf Attachment E Letter of Support - Contractors.pdf Description PEC18-0005 Section 14-10-6 Residential Development Text Amendment Staff Memo Attachment A_Proposed Text Amendment Attachment B_ Applicant's Cover Letter Attachment C_ Applicant's Response to Approval Criteria Attachment D_Letter of Support - Architects Attachment E_Letter of Support - Contractors 0 TOWN OF VAIL � Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 29, 2018 SUBJECT: A request for a review of a prescribed regulations amendment to Section 14-10- 6, Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to allow the Design Review Board (DRB) to apply different design review standards in situations when two-family dwellings appear as separate and distinct development lots, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0005) Applicant: Brad Hagedorn Planner: Justin Lightfield I. SUMMARY The applicant, Brad Hagedorn, requests the review of a prescribed regulation amendment to Section 14-10-6, Residential Development, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-3-7 C2, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to allow the Design Review Board (DRB) to apply different design review standards in situations when two-family dwellings are approved as a separated duplex and appear as separate and distinct development lots. The intent of the amendment is to provide opportunities for the DRB to consider lot - specific circumstances that would allow for the construction of residences more suitable to a neighborhood's character. The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) is asked to review the proposed code language changes submitted by the applicant, provide feedback and suggestions, and forward a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial to the Vail Town Council for the proposed prescribed regulations amendment. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Throughout the design review process, the DRB and applicants alike have noted challenges that arise when detached two-family dwellings must comply with unified architectural and landscape design. This requirement is questioned when building sites are separated by distance, topography or vegetation, making the two sites appear as separate and distinct development lots. The applicant, Brad Hagedorn, is requesting a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to clarify and codify existing and proposed residential development design review standards and guidelines. It is the intent of the amendment to alter the design review standards applied to separated two-family dwellings that appear as separate and distinct development lots in order to allow for distinct architectural and landscape design among each dwelling. Currently, the Vail Town Code, 14-10-6: Residential Development, requires that all separated two-family dwellings utilize unified architectural and landscape design. The proposed amendment is designed to give the DRB flexibility to apply a different set of criteria in situations where varied architectural design of separated two-family dwellings would possibly benefit the community and improve the character of the Town of Vail. The three purposes of the amendments are to: Further the purposes of the DRB's design review standards by giving the board more flexibility in a set of unique situations where the Code is currently deficient. 2. Better achieve the Town of Vail's goals to be a residential community of the highest quality by allowing for the construction of high quality residences that reflect changes to neighborhood character that would not be possible under the current Code. 3. The amendment promotes the harmonious development of Vail by allowing the DRB to consider lot -specific circumstances that would allow for the construction of residences more suitable to a neighborhood's character. III. BACKGROUND Development Standards • In 1997, the Town staff initiated "DRIP", the Development Review Improvement Process, which involved Town boards and interested members of the community to clarify standards and improve the review process. • On May 17, 1997, the first draft of the Development Standards Handbook was presented to the PEC in the form of a work session as a result of the DRIP process. • The following were goals of the DRIP effort: 1. Clarify all aspects of the Development Review Process so that it is more efficient and predictable. 2. Consolidate, clarify, and define development standards so that both Town staff and customers have a clear understanding of what is required in order to build or redevelop in the Town of Vail. 3. Educate the users of the process on the need to accept responsibility for providing complete and accurate submittals and required revisions in a timely manner in order to fully benefit from the Development Review Process improvements. Town of Vail Page 2 On July 12, 1999, PEC voted 4-0 to recommend to Vail Town Council of the Development Standards Handbook. • On September 7, 1999, the Vail Town Council voted 5-0 on the first reading of Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1999, amending Title 12 Zoning and Title 13 Subdivisions of the Code, and creating a new Title 14, Development Standards, providing for the establishment of development standards for property in the Town of Vail and providing for the adoption by reference the Town of Vail Development Standards Handbook. • On September 21, 1999, Vail Town Council voted 4-0 on Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1999, on second reading to amend Title 12 Zoning and Title 13 Subdivisions of the Code, and creating a new Title 14, Development Standards. The Development Standards were created to help protect property values, ensure the aesthetic quality of the community, and ensure adequate development of property within the Town of Vail. Throughout the creation of Development Standards, Staff utilized model codes, professional reports, and standards from other communities in the evaluation of the standards now in Title 14. While the Development Standards have been followed, there are a handful of nonconforming detached and attached two-family dwelling sites, which at time of redevelopment will need to comply with the Title 14, Development Standards. While the DRB board members change as terms expire, Title 14, Development Standards have provided a framework for the DRB through rules, regulations, and standards over time. Any modification should be reviewed to continue to purpose of the Development Standards with framework for the DRB's review of development plans to ensure compliance with the Town's design guidelines and Development Standards. Any reduction in the framework could potentially lead to less continuity over time for the DRB. Currently, detached two-family dwellings are required to be compatible with one another within a development lot, their surroundings, and with Vail's environment. In essence, this has created and sustained the look the Town has today. It is important to note, buildings must not look exactly alike to be compatible. The current guidelines leave as much design freedom as possible to the individual designer to create structures which are designed to complement both their individual sites and surroundings. The DRB has the authority to guide applicants on compatibility through proper consideration of scale, proportions, site planning, landscaping, materials and colors, and compliance with other guidelines in Title 14. The Town of Vail has been utilizing Development Standards for many years and they have been a stable tool for the success of harmonious design the Town is often regarded for present day. Town of Vail Page 3 Design Review Board Review On February 21, 2018, the applicant had a work session with the DRB to discuss the proposed language of a separated two-family dwellings text amendment. The DRB, with public comment, provided their feedback to the applicant, highlighted in Attachment F. The general consensus of DRB was that the proposed text amendment is not necessary or consistent with design criteria for the Town of Vail. If a detached two-family dwelling is on a development lot, similar design criteria should be followed per the current design guidelines for the Town of Vail. Additionally, the DRB was concerned that the proposed text amendment could open the doors to a much greater number of architects and developers requesting a separation request. While staff did not request a formal recommendation, a straw poll was taken. Rollie Kjesbo moved to oppose the request to change the code language to Section 14-10-6, Residential Development, the Code. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The unofficial vote passed (3-1) with Pete Cope opposed and Andrew Forstl absent. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Title 12 — Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code Chapter 2, Definitions (in part) 12-2-2: DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS.- DEVELOPMENT ERMS: DEVELOPMENT LOT: A delineation of property that may include one or more structures and/or lot(s) that collectively share dimensional and/or design standards or guidelines. Examples include, but are not limited to, a duplex property containing two (2) dwelling units, a condominium complex of one or more buildings or a multi -unit townhome style development that share dimensional (GRFA, site coverage, etc.) and/or design (unified architectural and landscape design) standards or guidelines. DWELLING, TWO-FAMILY. A detached building containing two (2) dwelling units, designed for or used as a dwelling exclusively by two (2) families, each living as an independent housekeeping unit. Chapter 3, Section 7 Amendment (in part) A. Prescription: The regulations prescribed in this title and the boundaries of the zone districts shown on the official zoning map may be amended, or repealed by the town council in accordance with the procedures prescribed in this chapter. B. Initiation.- 1. nitiation: 1. An amendment of the regulations of this title or a change in zone district boundaries may be initiated by the town council on its own motion, by the Town of Vail Page 4 planning and environmental commission on its own motion, by petition of any resident or property owner in the town, or by the administrator. 2. A petition for amendment of the regulations or a change in zone district boundaries shall be filed on a form to be prescribed by the administrator. The petition shall include a summary of the proposed revision of the regulations, or a complete description of proposed changes in zone district boundaries and a map indicating the existing and proposed zone district boundaries. If the petition is for a change in zone district boundaries, the petition shall include a list of the owners of all properties within the boundaries of the area to be rezoned or changed, and the property adjacent thereto. The owners' list shall include the names of all owners, their mailing and street addresses, and the legal description of the property owned by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed envelopes to each owner to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. The petition also shall include such additional information as prescribed by the administrator. Chapter 6, Article D, Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District (in part) 12-6D-1: PURPOSE: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The two- family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. Title 14 — Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code 14-10-1: PURPOSE: This chapter provides the design review standards and guidelines for development in the town of Vail. Actions of the staff and the design review board shall be guided by the objectives prescribed herein, the Vail Village urban design considerations and guide plan and the Lionshead redevelopment master plan, and by all of the applicable ordinances of the town and by the design guidelines in this chapter. 14-10-2: GENERAL COMPATIBILITY A. Structures shall be compatible with existing structures, their surroundings, and with Vail's environment. It is not to be inferred that buildings must look alike to be compatible. Compatibility can be achieved through the proper consideration of Town of Vail Page 5 scale, proportions, site planning, landscaping, materials and colors, and compliance with the guidelines herein contained. B. Any building site in Vail is likely to have its own unique landforms and features. Whenever possible, these existing features should be preserved and reinforced by new construction. The objective is to fit the buildings to their sites in a way that leaves the natural landforms and features intact, treating the buildings as an integral part of the site, rather than as isolated objects at odds with their surroundings. 14-10-5: BUILDING MATERIALS AND DESIGN C. Same Or Similar Materials: The same or similar building materials and colors shall be used on main structures and any accessory structures upon the site. Translucent components of greenhouses shall be exempt from this requirement. D. Colors: Exterior wall colors should be compatible with the site and surrounding buildings. Natural colors (earth tones found within the Vail area) should be utilized. Primary colors or other bright colors should be used only as accents and then sparingly such as upon trim or railings. All exterior wall materials must be continued down to finished grade thereby eliminating unfinished foundation walls. All exposed metal flashing, trim, flues, and rooftop mechanical equipment shall be anodized, painted or capable of weathering so as to be nonreflective. 14-10-6: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT A. The purpose of this section is to ensure that residential development be designed in a manner that creates an architecturally integrated structure with unified site development. Dwelling units and garages shall be designed within a single structure, except as set forth in subsection B of this section, with the use of unified architectural and landscape design. A single structure shall have common roofs and building walls that create enclosed space substantially above grade. Unified architectural and landscape design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, roof forms, massing, architectural details, site grading and landscape materials and features. B. The presence of significant site constraints may permit the physical separation of units and garages on a site. The determination of whether or not a lot has significant site constraints shall be made by the design review board. "Significant site constraints" shall be defined as natural features of a lot such as stands of mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses and other natural water features, rock outcroppings, wetlands, other natural features, and existing structures that may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of a lot. Slope may be considered a physical site constraint that allows for the separation of a garage from a unit. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to request a determination from the design review board as to whether or not a site has significant site constraints before final design work on Town of Vail Page 6 the project is presented. This determination shall be made at a conceptual review of the proposal based on review of the site, a detailed survey of the lot and a preliminary site plan of the proposed structure(s). C. The residential development may be designed to accommodate the development of dwelling units and garages in more than one structure if the design review board determines that significant site constraints exist on the lot. The use of unified architectural and landscape design as outlined herein shall be required for the development. In addition, the design review board may require that one or more of the following common design elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining walls, walkways, landscape elements, or other architectural features be incorporated to create unified site development. V. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT The following amendments are proposed with new language in bold and items to be removed designated by a strikethre g 14-10-6: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. A. The purpose of this section is to ensure that residential development be designed in a manner that creates an architecturally integrated structure with unified site development. Dwelling units and garages shall be designed within a single structure, except as set forth in subsections B, C, and D of this section, with the use of unified architectural and landscape design. A single structure shall have common roofs and building walls that create enclosed space substantially above grade. Unified architectural and landscape design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, roof forms, massing, architectural details, site grading and landscape materials and features. B. The presence of significant site constraints may permit the physical separation of units and garages on a site. The determination of whether or not a lot has significant site constraints shall be made by the design review board. "Significant site constraints" shall be defined as natural features of a lot such as stands of mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses and other natural water features, rock outcroppings, wetlands, other natural features, and existing structures that may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of a lot. Slope may be considered a physical site constraint that allows for the separation of a garage from a unit. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to request a determination from the design review board as to whether or not a site has significant site constraints before final design work on the project is presented. This determination shall be made at a conceptual review of the proposal based on review of the site, a detailed survey of the lot and a preliminary site plan of the proposed structure(s). C. The residential development may be designed to accommodate the development of dwelling units and garages in more than one structure if the design review board determines that significant site constraints exist on the lot. Except as set forth in Town of Vail Page 7 subsection D, the use of unified architectural and landscape design as outlined herein shall be required for the development. In addition, the design review board may require that one or more of the following common design elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining walls, walkways, landscape elements, or other architectural features be incorporated to create unified site development. D. The design review board may find that there are conditions where a unified architectural and landscape design may not be required of separated two- family dwellings. For unified architectural and landscape design to not be required of a separated two-family dwelling, one of the following conditions must be demonstrated. 1. Where slope of the terrain creates significant elevation differences between separated two-family dwelling units, causing them to appear as separate and distinct development lots; 2. Where access to separated two-family dwelling units is taken from different streets, causing them to appear as separate and distinct development lots; or 3. Other conditions, as determined by the design review board, that cause separated two-family dwelling units to appear as separate and distinct development lots. VI. REVIEW CRITERIA Section 12-3-7(C)(2) of the Zoning Regulations identifies the criteria that the Planning and Environmental Commission must consider before making a recommendation for a change to the text of the code. These criteria include the following: 1. The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations; and Support: The proposed text amendment could enhance the Town's appearance by encouraging property owners to upgrade their homes. It would also allow the updating of aging structures where one owner cannot convince the other unit owner to upgrade the other dwelling unit, which is a problem according to some property owners and architects. This text amendment meets the following purpose of the zoning regulations: 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. Possible Effects: The proposed text amendment would remove the requirement for design consistency for separated two-family dwellings, which is currently required by the Code. The existing Town of Vail Page 8 code was specifically enacted to create consistency and harmony of design within development lots. Consistency promotes a coordinated and harmonious development of the Town and helps to conserve and maintain community design qualities and economic values. The existing development standards help protect property values, ensure the aesthetic quality of the community and ensure adequate development of property within the town of Vail. In addition, the proposed amendments may encourage more property owners to seek approval to separate their dwelling units, contradicting the purposes of two-family zone districts. 12-1-2 A General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. 12-1-2 B 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. 2. The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town; and Following is one of the relevant goals of the Town's Comprehensive Plan: Vail Land Use Plan 1. General Growth / Development 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. Support: The proposed text amendment seeks to clear language in the Code. The architects support (Attachment E and Attachment F), discourages separated two-family dwelling requirements to match the design of thei rupgrade existing structures by establishing and contractors who have signed letters of believe the way the Code is currently written owners from improving their homes, due to attached duplex neighbor. Some property Town of Vail Page 9 owners and architects have stated that sometimes both two-family dwelling owners are not always ready to renovate simultaneously. Possible Effects: The quality of development could be upgraded through discussions with the neighbor to bring both residences into an updated, compatible design. Through an upgrade such as new construction or renovation of separated two-family dwellings on a development lot, the development lot as a whole is maintained and upgraded, which has been done for many years in the Town of Vail. Additionally, units do not have to be identical. There are a variety of methods where separated two-family dwellings can be maintained and upgraded through design, even if only one half wishes to upgrade. 3. The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable; and Support: The amendment is in response to lack of flexibility within existing regulations. Units constructed in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s are beginning to show their age and require replacement or remodel. While the Code originally may have been intended to address the simultaneous construction of separated two-family dwellings, it did not necessarily envision the scenario in which individual units would need to be replaced or improved decades later. If requests came forward for replacement or new development of a separated two-family dwelling, the proposed language allows for different design review standards in situations when two-family dwellings appear as separate and distinct development lots. These regulations would apply to situations that could arise in the coming years within the Town of Vail. Possible Effects: Approving the proposed text amendment could open the doors up to architects, developers, and homeowners first applying for a separation request (14-10-6(B)), followed by the request for different design. This is currently not the case, because separation of two-family dwellings offer little incentives to developers; however, new applications could arrive as a result of the proposed text amendment. 4. The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives; and Support: The amendment provides opportunities for unique situations where separated two- family dwellings face conditions such as slope, access taken from different streets, or other conditions while limiting possible adverse effects on neighboring properties and community aesthetics. Town of Vail Page 10 Additionally, the proposed text amendment does not alter Section 14-10-6(B), the standard required to approve a separation request for a two-family dwelling, This code section demonstrates that there is still a land use regulatory framework beneath the proposed amendment that will continue to further the intent of Vail's development objectives. Possible Effects: The municipal development objectives were created to help protect property values, ensure the aesthetic quality of the community, and ensure adequate development of property within the Town of Vail. While the Development Standards have been followed, there are a handful of nonconforming detached and attached two-family dwelling sites, which will be required to follow adopted codes at the time of their redevelopment. Otherwise, the proposed text amendment could allow the nonconforming properties to remain out of compliance with one another's design. The appearance of compatible residences on the same development lot could change over time with the proposed text amendment. 5. Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the analysis of the review criteria contained in Section VI of this memorandum, and on the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission make a recommendation to the Vail Town Council to approve or deny the proposed Prescribed Regulations Amendment to 14-10-6: Residential Development related to the regulation of 14-10: Design Review Standards and Guidelines related to conditions for separated two-family dwellings where a unified architectural and landscape design may not be required. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for Prescribed Regulations Amendments to Section 14-10-6, Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to allow the Design Review Board (DRB) to apply different design review standards in situations when two-family dwellings appear as separate and distinct development lots, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 18-0005). " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of approval to the Vail Town Council for the proposed Prescribed Regulation Amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: Town of Vail Page 11 "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of the Community Development Department memorandum dated May 29, 2018, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town, and 2. That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations, and 3. That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to recommend denial of the proposed text amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of denial to the Vail Town Council for Prescribed Regulations Amendments to Section 14-10-6, Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to allow the Design Review Board (DRB) to apply different design review standards in situations when two-family dwellings appear as separate and distinct development lots, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC 18-0005). " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to forward a recommendation of denial to the Vail Town Council for the proposed Prescribed Regulation Amendment, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VI of the Community Development Department memorandum dated May 29, 2018, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- That inds: That the amendment is inconsistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and are incompatible with the development objectives of the town,- and own,and 2. That the amendment does not further the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations, and Town of Vail Page 12 3. That the amendment does not promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and does not promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality. " VIII. ATTACHMENTS A. Proposed Text Amendment, 14-10-6 Residential Development B. Applicant's cover letter, dated February 12, 2018 C. Applicant's response to Prescribed Regulations Amendment Criteria, dated April 20, 2018 D. Letter of Support — Architects E. Letter of Support — Contractors Town of Vail Page 13 PEC18-0005 Proposed Amendment to Residential Development Standards Existing Code Language: 14-10-6: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: A. The purpose of this section is to ensure that residential development be designed in a manner that creates an architecturally integrated structure with unified site development. Dwelling units and garages shall be designed within a single structure, except as set forth in subsection B of this section, with the use of unified architectural and landscape design. A single structure shall have common roofs and building walls that create enclosed space substantially above grade. Unified architectural and landscape design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, roof forms, massing, architectural details, site grading and landscape materials and features. B. The presence of significant site constraints may permit the physical separation of units and garages on a site. The determination of whether or not a lot has significant site constraints shall be made by the design review board. "Significant site constraints" shall be defined as natural features of a lot such as stands of mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses and other natural water features, rock outcroppings, wetlands, other natural features, and existing structures that may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of a lot. Slope may be considered a physical site constraint that allows for the separation of a garage from a unit. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to request a determination from the design review board as to whether or not a site has significant site constraints before final design work on the project is presented. This determination shall be made at a conceptual review of the proposal based on review of the site, a detailed survey of the lot and a preliminary site plan of the proposed structure(s). C. The residential development may be designed to accommodate the development of dwelling units and garages in more than one structure if the design review board determines that significant site constraints exist on the lot. The use of unified architectural and landscape design as outlined herein shall be required for the development. In addition, the design review board may require that one or more of the following common design elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining walls, walkways, landscape elements, or other architectural features be incorporated to create unified site development. (Ord. 29(2005) § 82: Ord., 9-21- 1999) Proposed Code Language: 14-10-6: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: A. The purpose of this section is to ensure that residential development be designed in a manner that creates an architecturally integrated structure with unified site development. Dwelling units and garages shall be designed within a single structure, except as set forth in subsections B, C, and D of this section, with the use of unified architectural and landscape design. A single structure shall have common roofs and building walls that create enclosed space substantially above grade. Unified architectural and landscape design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, roof forms, massing, architectural details, site grading and landscape materials and features. B. The presence of significant site constraints may permit the physical separation of units and garages on a site. The determination of whether or not a lot has significant site constraints shall be made by the design review board. "Significant site constraints" shall be defined as natural features of a lot such as stands of mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses and other natural water features, rock outcroppings, wetlands, other natural features, and existing structures that may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of a lot. Slope may be considered a physical site constraint that allows for the separation of a garage from a unit. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to request a determination from the design review board as to whether or not a site has significant site constraints before final design work on the project is presented. This determination shall be made at a conceptual review of the proposal based on review of the site, a detailed survey of the lot and a preliminary site plan of the proposed structure(s). C. The residential development may be designed to accommodate the development of dwelling units and garages in more than one structure if the design review board determines that significant site constraints exist on the lot. Except as set forth in subsection D, the use of unified architectural and landscape design as outlined herein shall be required for the development. In addition, the design review board may require that one or more of the following common design elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining walls, walkways, landscape elements, or other architectural features be incorporated to create unified site development. D. The design review board may find that there are conditions where a unified architectural and landscape design may not be required of separated two-family dwellings. For unified architectural and landscape design to not be required of a separated two-family dwelling, one of the following conditions must be demonstrated: 1. Where slope of the terrain creates significant elevation differences between separated two-family dwelling units, causing them to appear as separate and distinct development lots; 2. Where access to separated two-family dwelling units is taken from different streets, causing them to appear as separate and distinct development lots; or 3. Other conditions, as determined by the design review board, that cause separated two-family dwelling units to appear as separate and distinct development lots. Brad Hagedorn PO Box 3745 Avon, CO. 81620 February 12, 2018 Town of Vail 111 S Frontage Rd W Vail, CO 81657 Re: PEC 18-0005 To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this letter in support of the application for PEC 18-0005. This application is for the requested amendment of the Town of Vail code, section 14-10-6: Residential Development. The intent is to alter the Design Review Board (DRB) standards applied to separated two-family dwellings that appear as separate and distinct development lots. Currently the Town of Vail code requires that all separated two-family dwellings utilize "unified architectural and landscape design", regardless of any mitigating circumstances that may make this standard inappropriate. The requested amendment is designed to give the DRB flexibility to apply a different standard in situations where varied architectural design of separated two-family dwellings would benefit the community and improve the character of the Town of Vail, specifically when they appear more as two distinct single-family homes. In the situations that the requested amendment addresses, varied architectural design is a more appropriate standard and allows for a more harmonious development of the community than the use of unified architectural design. The situation in which the applicant has personal experience with the limitations of the DRB standard as currently written is with 2658 Arosa Dr. The lot at 2658 Arosa is the undeveloped secondary portion of a Two -Family Primary/Secondary lot. The primary portion of the lot is a pre- existing home at 2610 Arosa Dr that was constructed in 1982. The lot has a steep slope, and if a home were to be built on the vacant lot, the base elevations of the homes would differ by —30' of elevation change. The two portions of the lot also take access from different levels of a switchback at the beginning of Arosa Dr, one driveway to the north, and one to the south. If a home were to be built on the vacant portion of the lot, a casual observer driving through the neighborhood would not think that the two homes were associated in any way. They would appear as two completely distinct single-family homes. The home on the vacant lot would be more visually tied to its adjacent neighbors to the east and west, than to its technical lot -mate above it to the north. The applicant began looking at building a personal primary residence on the vacant lot at 2658 Arosa the fall of 2017. Through conceptual review meetings with the DRB, the applicant discovered that the DRB would be obligated to apply a standard of "unified architectural and landscape design" between the proposed structure and the existing home at 2610 Arosa. Even given the unique circumstances of the lot, there was no mechanism in the code to allow the DRB to apply a different standard of architectural design, and the new home would have to mimic the design of a home built almost four decades ago. In those meetings, the DRB expressed their frustration with the way the code was written, and stated that they have encountered similar situations, but the current language has left them "with their hands tied." If the proposed amendment were passed, it would allow for the construction of a higher quality residence that better fits the current character of the neighborhood than the code would currently allow. The neighborhood has changed substantially since 1982 when the existing residence on the lot was built, and forcing the design standards of a new home built in 2018 to match the existing home would be doing the community a disservice. While the applicant believes this is a potent example of why a code change is justified, he also fully understands that this is a personal experience, and that code should be written with the broad goals of the Town of Vail mind. Accordingly, the proposed text amendment was developed and written through months of collaboration with Town Staff, local professional land planners, and local architects. Local architects confirmed the DRB's sentiment that there are other situations in the Town of Vail that would benefit from this amendment. Also, it was written narrowly in scope to apply only to separated two-family dwellings that appear as separate and distinct development lots. The goal is to allow the DRB flexibility in applying their design standards when separated two-family dwellings appear to be independent single-family homes as opposed to related duplexes. In these cases, it makes more sense to allow varied architectural design between the two units in order to allow for higher quality development that brings more visual interest to the neighborhood. Otherwise, the DRB is forced to apply a unified standard that creates two independent structures with identical design, which to the casual observer may seem visually awkward and degrade the character of the neighborhood. It is the applicant's belief that the code amendment should be approved for the following reasons: 1. The amendment furthers the purposes of the DRB's design review standards by giving it more flexibility in a set of unique situations where the code is currently deficient, as written. 2. The amendment better achieves the goals of Vail to be a "residential community of the highest quality" by allowing for the construction of high quality residences that reflect changes to neighborhood character that would be forbidden under the current code. 3. The amendment promotes the harmonious development of Vail by allowing the DRB to consider lot -specific circumstances that would allow for the construction of residences more suitable to a neighborhood's character. Thank you for your time and consideration of this amendment. It is the applicant's hope that you will approve this amendment to give the DRB much needed flexibility to allow for the continued development of Vail as a world-class mountain community. Sincerely, Brad Hagedorn Brad Hagedorn PO Box 3745 Avon, CO. 81620 April 20, 2018 Town of Vail 111 S Frontage Rd W Vail, CO 81657 Re: PEC 18-0005 To Whom It May Concern: Please accept this letter in support of the criteria outlined in Town of Vail Code Section 12-3-7-C- 2 required for consideration in the approval of the proposed text amendment regarding design standards for separated duplexes. Section 12-3-7-C-2 states that "Before acting on an application for an amendment to the regulations prescribed in this title, the planning and environmental commission and town council shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested text amendment:" Below please find these factors, along with support for how the proposed text amendment upholds each: "The extent to which the text amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations " In Section 12-1-2, the Purpose of the Town of Vail zoning regulations, one of its stated purposes is "To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town." The proposed text amendment directly furthers this aim by giving the DRB flexibility to approve designs of high-quality separated duplexes that would currently by barred under the code. As currently written, the Vail code requires a separated duplex owner wishing to make improvements to his or her home to match the existing design of their duplex -mate, regardless of how out outdated or aged it may be. Even if the side of the separated duplex wishing to be improved upon was constructed after the other half of the separated duplex, the new structure must match the old one, essentially forcing its design to go back in time to when the other half was constructed. This forces a separated duplex owner wishing to improve their home to potentially perpetuate outdated design choices, or as is currently happening across Vail, simply discouraging an owner or potential buyer from improving a home at all. By adopting this amendment, the Town of Vail would enhance its appearance by allowing separated duplex owners who wish to improve their homes with modern, updated design, and improved materials to do so. It would also incentivize the updating of aging structures that are currently trapped in limbo, due to the code as currently written. "The extent to which the text amendment would better implement and better achieve the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives, and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town" The third stated goal of the Vail Land Use Plan under Chapter II is that, "The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible." As written, the Vail code is obstructing this goal by discouraging separated duplex owners from improving or upgrading their homes, due to being tied to their duplex -mate in design. Some parties have stated that the goal of the language as written is to ensure that both sides of a separated duplex are brought up to spec together. But given the realities of homeownership, where some owners have the funds to improve their homes, but others do not, this is simply not happening. The applicant is aware of at least two other on-going situations where this is occurring. And as a result, separated duplexes are being left to age and deteriorate, even when some owners are eager to improve their units. This amendment would remove that obstacle, opening the path for many units around Vail to be upgraded and improved. "The extent to which the text amendment demonstrates how conditions have substantially changed since the adoption of the subject regulation and how the existing regulation is no longer appropriate or is inapplicable" The simple fact is that Vail is beginning to age. Units constructed in the boom era of the `70s and `80s are starting to show their age and require replacement or remodel. And the original developers who constructed these separated duplexes are long gone, with the properties in question left with different owners of each half, each with their own motives and financial situations. So while the code originally may have been intended to address the simultaneous construction of two separate duplexes, it did not envision the scenario in which individual units would need to be replaced or improved, decades down the road. And thus, given the common situation where an owner wants to improve their unit, but their duplex -mate does not have the means to, the code has created a roadblock to the improvement of the character and quality of a unit in Vail. As it stands, the Vail code has created a prisoner's dilemma that disincentivizes either owner from making any improvements to their unit. This amendment removes that roadblock. "The extent to which the text amendment provides a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land use regulations consistent with municipal development objectives" The municipal development objectives state that their goal is for Vail to be a "residential community of the highest quality." Forcing an owner of a separated duplex wishing to improve their unit to match the design and materials of decades ago is not consistent with promoting development of the "highest quality". Rather, it is regressive and can have very real impacts to degrading the character of a neighborhood, when instead it could have been a vast improvement. It is also critical to note that, even if a different architectural standard is allowed between separated duplexes, the code still requires that "Structures shall be compatible with existing structures, their surroundings, and with Vail's environment." So even with the proposed amendment approved, the new or updated structure would still need to be compatible with its neighbors, and the DRB would still exert strong control over its design. Also, the proposed text amendment does not alter the standard required to approve a separation request for a duplex. So there is still a high bar to clear before a duplex can be separated in the first place. This shows that there is still a strong land use regulatory framework beneath this proposed amendment that will continue to further the intent of Vail's development objectives. "Such other factors and criteria the planning and environmental commission and/or council deem applicable to the proposed text amendment. " Outside of the prescribed criteria for approval, it should be noted that this practice of allowing different architectural standards for separated duplexes has been occurring in a de facto sense in some respects for years now. While different DRBs have taken different views on the matter, in a single afternoon of searching, the applicant was able to find ten examples of existing separated duplexes in Vail that have radically different architectural design between each side. This shows that the proposed text amendment is addressing a need that has been satisfied "off the record" for quite some time. "That the amendment is consistent with the applicable elements of the adopted goals, objectives and policies outlined in the Vail comprehensive plan and is compatible with the development objectives of the town" Please refer to the response regarding the second criterion listed above. "That the amendment furthers the general and specific purposes of the zoning regulations" Please refer to the response regarding the first criterion listed above. "That the amendment promotes the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town and promotes the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that conserves and enhances its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of the highest quality." Simply put, Vail is aging, and owners of separated duplexes need the flexibility to upgrade and improve their units without being shackled to the outdated design and materials of their duplex - mates, who are often not in a position to improve their units along with them. By approving this amendment, Vail will ensure that when owners of a separate duplex desire to improve their unit and upgrade its design with modern architecture and materials, they are able to do so. This will ensure that Vail continues to develop and evolve in the best way possible through changing times. Thank you for your time and consideration of this amendment. It is the applicant's hope that you will approve this amendment to give the DRB much needed flexibility to allow for the continued development of Vail as a world-class mountain community. Sincerely, Brad Hagedorn Town of Vail Town Council RE: Text Amendment PEC 18-005 Proposed amendment to residential Design Standards Regarding Separated Duplexes To Whom It May Concern, As concerned architects who have worked extensively in the Town of Vail, some of us for decades, we would like to take this opportunity to address the issue of material and design conformity between legally separated duplexes. As you are well aware, there is a growing and looming issue as Vail ages and existing residences require renewal and basic updating. Since so many of the properties in Vail are duplexes this creates issues and problems between neighbors if one side is either unwilling or unable to upgrade their unit. The current guidelines to the DRB forces the motivated side to match architecture that may be decades old. This creates numerus conflicts and disincentivizes homeowners from upgrading their homes. Fortunately, you can solve this issue for a subset within the duplex and primary secondary zoning. A number of duplex or P/S zoned units have been legally separated. We believe these should be addressed as individual units from a design standpoint. It simply does not make sense for two freestanding units, especially those built or rebuilt decades apart to use the same forms, building materials or details. For example, a buyer of a detached duplex today who desires a contemporary home should not be forced to build a log structure if the units are separated. The issue is further compounded by inconsistent enforcement in years past. Currently, the review board has the authority and obligation to make sure that all homes in Vail are compatible, as stated in the opening paragraph of the Design Review Standards and guidelines. (Emphasis added) A. Structures shall be compatible with existing structures, their surroundings, and with Vail's environment. It is not to be inferred that buildings must look alike to be compatible. Compatibility can be achieved through the proper consideration of scale, proportions, site planning, landscaping, materials and colors, and compliance with the guidelines herein contained. As you can see from above, allowing the DRB to judge a detached unit on its own architectural merit will in no way restrict them from considering compatibility with the other side of the duplex (or any other portion of the neighborhood). If the individual situation is such that the DRB thinks it better that the units match, so be it. However, the DRB should be given the latitude to review individual units based on their own merits, and not necessarily the specifics of one neighbor. Treating detached duplexes as individual units only makes sense. These homes live, function, and appear as individual units. We believe having them designed as individual projects, rather than a portion of a larger structure is far more desirable for the town and the general public. Discounting this approach because it would create a haphazard or incentivize people to seek detached duplexes simple does not hold water. This will allow the review board to approach each unit on its individual and unique merits and it remains within the DRB's purview to address any issue of compatibility to avoid a haphazard or hodge-podge approach, just as they have since the inception of the DRB. As to this promoting people to pursue detached units, we believe that is a very good thing. We believe two smaller well-designed homes can present a much more human scale than one large structure. While this may incentivize homeowners to seek a separation, we believe the standards for the separation should remain. It is not the intent of this letter to request that the standards for creating a detached duplex be lessened, only that the individual units be judged on their own merits where appropriate. In summary, we do not see a down side to this common-sense approach. The DRB maintains all the control they have always had, but it allows the separated projects to be approached in a unique architectural fashion and judged according to the Town of Vail guidelines above without the influences of what may be a dated vocabulary. This only makes sense. Sincerely, Jack K. Snow A.I.A. - RKD Architects Kyle Webb A.I.A. - k.h. webb Architects Michael Suman A.I.A. - Suman Architects Tom Cole A.I.A. - Shepard Resources Hans Berglund A.I.A. — Berglund Architects Stephanie Lord -Johnson - Berglund Architects Sally Brainerd - RKD Architects Adam Harrison - Shepard Resources Heather Barrie Assoc AIA - k.h.webb architects Lauren Walton AIA - k.h.webb architects Stacey Goehring Assoc AIA - k.h.webb architects Debra Monroe Assoc AIA - k.h.webb architects Rick Dominick - Dominick Architects Michael Hazard A.I.A. — Michael Hazard Associates Dennis Anderson A.S.L.A. Dennis Anderson and Associates Tab Bonidy, President, NCARB TAB Associates Inc. Greg Macik, NCARB TAB Associates Inc. Adam Gilmer A.I.A. — Berglund Architects Keegan Winkler A.I.A. - Berglund Architects Chris May A.I.A. - Berglund Architects Jim Buckner A.I.A. — Zehren and Associates Town of Vail Town Council RE: Text Amendment PEC 18-005 Proposed amendment to residential Design Standards Regarding Separated Duplexes To Whom It May Concern, This letter is in support of the above Text Amendment. As members of the construction and building community we support maintaining strong property values and a solid construction market that this text amendment would help protect. We see the potential for damage to both without this being enacted. The flexibility within this amendment allows the Design Review Board to continue to protect the neighborhoods of Vail, as well as construction and trade without stifling creativity. This protects the freedom of choice for our clients without sacrificing guidance of the Design Review Board. This is a common-sense approach solution that allows clients to build a home of their choice but ensures that it is still respectful of the neighbors. While the local construction market is strong at the moment we are all too aware of how that can change. Removing road blocks, while maintaining reasonable design control is something we support. Sincerely, David Hyde, President Shaeffer Hyde Construction Kevin O'Donnell, President Beck Building Company Jon Stevenson, Project Manager — Shaeffer Hyde Construction Heather Duncan, Project Manager — Shaeffer Hyde Construction Travis J. Cremonese, Project Manager — Shaeffer Hyde Construction Rob Fawcett, Project Manager — Shaeffer Hyde Construction Mike Farr, Owner - Pure Woodworking City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: May 29, 2018 ITEM/TOPIC: A request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements by Zone District, Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation and Exclusions, Section 12-18-4 Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district and to allow an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet , located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/1-ot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18- 0009) The Applicant has requested to table this item to the June 11, 2018 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: File Name PEC18-0009 Proctor Variance staff memo.pdf Attachment A Vicinity Map.pdf Attachment B - Applicant Narrative PEC18-0009.0 Attachment C Proctor Variance Plan Set PEC18-0009.pdf Description PEC18-0009 Proctor Variance - Staff Memo PEC18-0009 Proctor Variance - Attachment A - Vicinity Map PEC18-0009 Proctor Variance - Attachment B - Applicant Narrative PEC18-0009 Proctor Variance - Attachment C - Plan Set TOWN OF Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 29, 2018 SUBJECT: A request for review of a variance from Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009) Applicant: Holly Proctor and John Hutto, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker SUMMARY The applicants, Holly Proctor and John Hutto, represented by Martin Manley Architects, are requesting the review of a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, for the property located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive / Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses). The variance would allow for the construction of a crawl space with an access opening (door) larger than 12 square feet, which is the size limit to qualify as crawl space and thus not count as GRFA. Based upon staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends denial of this application, subject to the findings in Section VIII of this memorandum. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Holly Proctor and John Hutto, represented by Martin Manley Architects, recently obtained approval of a Design Review Board (DRB) application (DRB17-0392) to construct a 225 square foot storage space at the rear of the home, under an existing deck. Approval by the Design Review Board was conditioned upon the storage space being limited to no greater than five feet (5') in headroom, with an access opening of no larger than 12 square feet. This was done because any crawlspace or storage space over five feet (5') in headroom, or with an access opening larger than 12 square feet, is considered gross residential floor area (GRFA). There is no available GRFA remaining on the property, and since the site is nonconforming on the density (dwelling units per acre), the GRFA could not be used even if there was remaining GRFA. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow a crawl space access opening (door) larger than 12 square feet. The proposed access door is 24 square feet. A vicinity map (Attachment A), project narrative with applicant's responses to variance criteria (Attachment B), and plan set (Attachment C) are attached for review. III. BACKGROUND This application was last reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on April 9, 2018. During that meeting, some PEC members asked for more information on the purposes of the zoning ordinance, and discussed the potential for a rezoning rather than a variance. Other Commissioners discussed the requested size of the access opening and if the opening size was excessive relative to the allowed opening size. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff finds that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Title 12 — Title, Purpose and Applicability 12-1-2: PURPOSE A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes.- 1. urposes:1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Town of Vail Page 2 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. Title 12 — Article D, Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District 12-6D-1: PURPOSE The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The two- family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two- family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. Title 12 — Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) 12-15-1: PURPOSE This chapter is intended to control and limit the size, bulk, and mass of residential structures within the town. Gross residential floor area (GRFA) regulation is an effective tool for limiting the size of residential structures and ensuring that residential structures are developed in an environmentally sensitive manner by allowing adequate air and light in residential areas and districts. 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions.- A. xclusions: A. Within the hillside residential (HR), single-family residential (SFR), two-family residential (R), and two-family primary/secondary residential (PS) districts.- 1. istricts: 1. Gross Residential Floor Area Defined: For residential uses, the total square footage of all horizontal areas on all levels of a structure, as measured to the outside face of the sheathing of the exterior walls (i.e., not including exterior wall finishes). Floor area shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical spaces, vents and chases, storage areas, and other similar areas. Garages; attics; vaulted or open to below spaces; basements, crawl spaces, and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, or patios shall be included as floor area, except the horizontal areas of a structure as set forth herein shall then be deducted from the calculation of GRFA. Town of Vail Page 3 a. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in the definition above. Excluded areas as set forth herein, shall then each be deducted from the total square footage. (1) Enclosed Garage Area: Enclosed garage areas of up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two (2) vehicle parking spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by this title. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located in a garage and which are twenty five percent (25%) or more open to the garage area may be included in the garage area deduction. Interior walls separating the garage from other areas of a structure may be included in the garage area deduction. (2) Attic Areas With A Ceiling Height Of Five Feet Or Less: Attic areas with a ceiling height of five feet (5) or less, as measured from the topside of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the structural members of the roof directly above. (5) Crawl Spaces: Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve (12) square feet in area, with five feet (5) or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. Crawl spaces created by a "stepped foundation", hazard mitigation, or other similar engineering requirement that has a total height in excess of five feet (5) may be excluded from GRFA calculations at the discretion of the Administrator. Title 12 —Variances, Vail Town Code 12-17-1: Purpose.- A. urpose: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the Town of Vail Page 4 applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each zone district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements, or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each zone district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditional Use Permits", and by section 12-3-7, "Amendment", of this title. 12-17-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ACTION.- Within CTION: Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the application. The commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the application. A variance may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the commission may prescribe. 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS.- A. INDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance.- 1. ariance: 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 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 grant of special privilege. 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. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Town of Vail Page 5 B. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not generally apply to other properties in the same zone district. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. Title 12 — Nonconforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements 12-18-1: Purpose This chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses and structures by prohibiting or limiting their enlargement, their reestablishment after abandonment, and their restoration after substantial destruction. While permitting nonconforming uses, structures, and improvements to continue, this chapter is intended to limit enlargement, alteration, restoration, or replacement which would increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the development standards prescribed by this title. 12-18-4: Uses The use of a site or structure lawfully established prior to the effective date hereof which does not conform to the use regulations prescribed by this title for the zone district in which it is situated may be continued, provided that no such nonconforming use shall be enlarged to occupy a greater site area or building floor area than it occupied on the effective date hereof. Any subsequent reduction in site area or floor area occupied by a nonconforming use shall be deemed a new limitation, and the use shall not thereafter be enlarged to occupy a greater site area or floor area than such new limitation. (Ord. 29(2005) § 40: Ord. 5(2001) § 5: Ord. 8(1973) § 20.400) Town of Vail Page 6 V. ZONING AND SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Existing Zoning: Existing Land Use Designation Mapped Geological Hazards: Mapped Floodplain: View Corridor: 2014 West Gore Creek Dr., Unit 5 Vail Village West Filing 2, Lots 41-43, Unit 5 Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) Low Density Residential None Yes, western corner of lot not impacting development None Development Allowed / Existing Proposed Change Standard* Required Site Area 15,000 SF of 39,403 SF Total No Change Buildable Area 21,257 SF of Buildable Area Front — 20' Front (N): 9' Front (N): 9' Sides — 15' Side (E): 11' Side (E): 11' Setbacks Rear — 15' Side (W): 49' Side (W): 49' No Change Deck — 7.5' Rear (S): 9' Rear (S): 9' Flat Roof — 30' Building Height Sloping Roof — Unknown No Change No Change 33' Density (DUs) Max. 2 29 28 No Change Density (GRFA) 9,014 SF 15,873 SF 15,873 SF No Change Site Coverage Max. 20% (7,881 SF) 16.4% (6,466 SF) 17% (6,691 SF) +0.5 % (+225 SF) Landscaping Min. 60% (23,641 SF) 62.3% (24,562 SF) 61.7% (24,337 SF) -0.6% (-225 SF) Parking & 51 parking 32 33 +1 Loading spaces (*Note: This chart includes development standards for the entire development lot for The Hamlet Chalets and Townhouses.) VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Land Use: Zoning District: North: Medium Density Residential Residential Cluster South: Low Density Residential Eagle County Zoning - Residential Suburban East: Low Density Residential Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential West: Medium Density Residential Residential Cluster VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code. Before acting on a variance application, the PEC shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: Town of Vail Page 7 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed access opening larger than 12 square feet will have no significant impact on other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The benefit of the proposed larger access opening would be increased functionality, improving the ability to store items that might otherwise remain outdoors, such as a picnic table or deck furniture. Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal 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 grant of special privilege. Relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulations is not necessary to achieve compatibility or uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. Granting a variance for the larger access opening does not help to achieve compatibility or uniformity of treatment among sites in the area. Staff finds that there is nothing unique about this property that warrants a variance for the size of the access opening. While we agree that the access opening greater than 12 square feet would be convenient and would make the storage area more functional, it is not necessary to achieve compatibility or uniformity of treatment. As a result, staff finds that proposed larger access opening would create a special privilege for the applicant. Staff finds the proposed variance does not meet this criterion. 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. The proposed variance will not have any significant impact on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities or utilities. By granting the variance, the storage area will be more functional, which may help to improve public safety by allowing the applicant more space to store items out of public view, which may potentially reduce clutter and opportunities for theft in the area. Staff finds the proposed variance meets this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Town of Vail Page 8 VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends the Planning and Environmental Commission deny the applicants' request for a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009) Denial Motion: Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission denies the applicants' request for a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions to allow for an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: 'Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vll of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated May 29, 2018, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds.- 1. inds: 1. The granting of this variance will constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is not warranted for the following reasons.- a. easons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship Town of Vail Page 9 inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- b. ode, b. There are not exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variances that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District, and C. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District." Approval Motion: Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approve, with conditions, a request for review of a variance from Section 12-15-3, Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions, Vail Town Code, to allow an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009)." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission applies the following conditions: 1. `Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve, with conditions, this variance, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission make the following findings: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated May 29, 2018, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: The granting of this variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District, Town of Vail Page 10 4. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: d. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code,- e. ode, e. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variances that do not apply generally to other properties in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District, and f. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two -Family Residential (PS) District." IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicant Narrative ("Application for a Variance"), no date. C. Plan Set, prepared by Martin Manley Architects, and dated 03-28-18 Town of Vail Page 11 , f �1 •fir � .- � . r' 4000 Ida rt \ y, ob, \ AT -:-• \`14 , f �1 •fir � .- � . r' 4000 Ida rt \ y, ob, \ AT r I ATTACHMENT B - APPLICANT NARRATIVE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE A. Name and address of the owner and/or applicant and a statement that the applicant, if not the owner, has the permission of the owner to make application and act as agent for the owner. John M. Hutto and Holly W. Proctor, 2014 West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 11, Vail, CO 81657 B. Legal description, street address, and other identifying data concerning the site: Hamlet Townhouses 5 and 6, 2014 W. Gore Creek Drive, Vail, CO Parcels # 2103-114-18-008 & 2103 -114-18-009 C. A statement of the precise nature of the variance requested, the regulation involved, and the practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title that would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation. Applicant requests a variance from the restrictions in place with respect to the size of the access opening to the crawl space that is limited to 5' in height under the Two -Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) zoning applicable to the site. The size of an access door under these regulations is limited to no more than 12 square feet. Applicant requests the ability to construct a door that is the height of the storage space (5') and 6' wide (double doors of 3' each). The storage area is designed to enclose the area under a deck which sits approximately 8 feet off the ground due to the existing natural grade. The storage will not be climate controlled or otherwise habitable nor is it intended for any use other than storage. This request is predicated on the practical difficulty that is imposed by the GRFA restrictions that limit the height of the storage area to 5' in height; a door opening of only 12' feet further inhibits the usability and functionality of the storage area, intended to house sporting gear, furniture, lawn, landscaping and snow removal equipment, and other household items. With access to the storage limited to such a severe degree, many of these items will be left outside and exposed, thereby creating an eyesore for the project and community as well as a safety concern resulting from the unnecessary risk of theft or damage. With respect to the relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity, the proposed access opening of greater than 12 square feet will have no have an adverse impact on such uses or structures. Relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation will, in effect, allow for compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity. Across Gore Creek, Casa Del Sol is a multi -family project zoned Residential Cluster. Directly across West Gore Creek Drive, Ptarmigan Townhomes is a multi -family project zoned Residential Cluster. For some reason, the Hamlet was zoned under the Primary / Secondary designation, which in turn imposes an undue hardship by requiring conformance with P/S restrictions on an existing multi -family project. Had the Hamlet been zoned in a way that was consistent with sites in the vicinity, i.e. the neighboring developments including Casa del Sol and Ptarmigan Townhomes, the Applicant would be permitted a storage space of 250 square feet and a door of appropriate height. The Applicant seeks no "special privilege" in this application yet requests consideration that would be granted had the zoning been correctly applied. The hardship imposed by the existing zoning designation essentially penalizes the Applicant for owning property that is part of a 29 unit complex (originally 30) and yet is zoned for Primary / Secondary use. Finally, the proposed opening will not have any significant effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, pubic facilities and utilities and public safety. The proposed access, by increasing the functionality of the storage area, will in fact, enhance public safety by mitigating the risk of vandalism and theft at the property and for the neighborhood. D. A site plan showing all existing and proposed features on the site, and on adjoining sites if necessary, pertinent to the variance requested, including site boundaries, required setbacks, building locations and heights, topography and physical features, and similar data. The site plan has been provided under the previous Application for Variance. E. Such additional material as the administrator may prescribe or the applicant may submit pertinent to the application and to the findings prerequisite to the issuance of a variance as prescribed in section 12-17-6 of this chapter. Please recall the buildings on site were built in 1971 under Eagle County jurisdiction. The Hamlet was a replat of Lots 41, 42, and 43 of the Vail Village West Filing 2 that was recorded in 1965, under Eagle County Jurisdiction. Those lots were later platted as The Hamlet in 1975, under Eagle County jurisdiction. This property, along with others in the neighborhood, were annexed to the Town in January 1986 (Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1986). The neighborhood was subsequently zoned by the Town to Primary Secondary Two - Family Residential in March of 1986 (Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1986). In this case, as noted above, it is not understood why the Hamlet was singled out under the Primary / Secondary zoning designation while the neighboring multi -family properties were more appropriately zoned under Residential Cluster. Given the fact that the annexation took place in 1986, it is unlikely we will determine the basis for the designation, however, the Applicant requests that this variance be considered in the context of the hardship imposed as a result of zoning that was and is incongruent with the existing improvements as well as the fact that this request does not reflect the Applicant seeking special privilege, but rather treatment that would be consistent with that granted to owners of similar properties in the vicinity. F. A list of the owner or owners of record of the properties adjacent to the subject property which is subject of the hearing. Provided, however, notification of owners within a condominium project shall be satisfied by notifying the managing agent, or the registered agent of the condominium project, or any member of the board of directors of a condominium association. The list of owners, managing agent, registered agent or members of the board of directors, as appropriate, shall include the names of the individuals, their mailing addresses, and the general description of the property owned or managed by each. Accompanying the list shall be stamped, addressed envelopes to each individual or agent to be notified to be used for the mailing of the notice of hearing. It will be the applicant's responsibility to provide this information and stamped, addressed envelopes. Notice to the adjacent property owners shall be mailed first class, postage prepaid. Managing Agent for the Hamlet Association: Eileen Jacobs, Mountain Caretaker, Inc., PO Box 1093, Eagle, CO 81631 Hamlet Association Board President and Owner of Hamlet Townhouse #3 & Hamlet Chalet #1: Harold Jorck, West Gore Creek Drive, Unit 2, Vail, CO 81657 G. If the property is owned in common (condominium association) and/or located within a development lot, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or applicable owners' association shall be required. This can be either in the form of a letter of approval or signature on the application. (Ord. 27(2016) § 7: Ord. 29(2005) § 39: Ord. 24(2000) § 2: Ord. 49(1991) § 2: Ord. 50(1978) § 15: Ord. 30(1978) § 2: Ord. 8(1973) § 19.200) This Approval Letter has been delivered. co 66 00 0 N 00 N co 1. LOWER LEVEL 1/8" 1'-0" I� III II II II II II II II II II II II 2. MAIN LEVEL U 1/8" = 1'-0" 2. MAIN LEVEL U 1/8" = V-0" ROOF 1 51.1 SF 3. UPPER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" Area Schedule (Gross Building) Name Level Area GARAGE APT 9 ACCESS. - Not Placed APT 7 1. LOWER LEVEL 355.5 SF APT 10 34.4 SF -- 356.7 SF GARAGE 1. LOWER LEVEL 497.8 SF NEW STORAGE 1. LOWER LEVEL 225.6 SF APT 8 2. MAIN LEVEL 625.6 SF APT 9 ACCESS APT 8 34.4 SF Apt 11 2. MAIN LEVEL 625.6 SF APT 12 ACCESS 625.6 SF 34.4 SF APT 9 3.. UPPER LEVEL 372.2 SF APT 12 UNIT SEPARATION WALL 372.2 SF M L� 0 BE REMOVED O X co m E N Apt 11 � L o a� a 625.6 SF W 0 CL N p U� APT 12 ACCESS = 1..` 0 �__ �__ 34.4 SF 2. MAIN LEVEL U 1/8" = 1'-0" 2. MAIN LEVEL U 1/8" = V-0" ROOF 1 51.1 SF 3. UPPER LEVEL 1/8" = 1'-0" Area Schedule (Gross Building) Name Level Area GARAGE Not Placed Not Placed APT 7 1. LOWER LEVEL 355.5 SF APT 10 1. LOWER LEVEL 356.7 SF GARAGE 1. LOWER LEVEL 497.8 SF NEW STORAGE 1. LOWER LEVEL 225.6 SF APT 8 2. MAIN LEVEL 625.6 SF APT 9 ACCESS 2. MAIN LEVEL 34.4 SF Apt 11 2. MAIN LEVEL 625.6 SF APT 12 ACCESS 2. MAIN LEVEL 34.4 SF APT 9 3.. UPPER LEVEL 372.2 SF APT 12 3. UPPER LEVEL 372.2 SF Grand total: 11 3500 SF Area Schedule (Existing GRFA) Name Level Area APT 7 1. LOWER LEVEL 355.5 SF APT 8 2. MAIN LEVEL 625.6 SF APT 9 3. UPPER LEVEL 372.2 SF APT 9 ACCESS 2. MAIN LEVEL 34.4 SF APT 10 1.. LOWER LEVEL 356.7 SF Apt 11 2. MAIN LEVEL 625.6 SF APT 12 3. UPPER LEVEL 372.2 SF APT 12 ACCESS 2.. MAIN LEVEL 34.4 SF Grand total: 8 2776.5 SF Area Schedule (Site Coverage) Name Area SITE COVERAGE EXIST 1320 SF ROOF 1 51.1 SF ROOF 2 3.3 SF SITE COVERAGE NEW 213.8 SF Grand total: 4 1588.1 SF 00^ ICt"r AI A MM ATI\/C J PROCTOR RENOVATION "THE HAMLET" TOWNHOUSE UNITS 5 & 6 2014 W. GORE CREEK DRIVE NOTE: THE TERM "TOWNHOUSE" IS BEING USED AS AN ADDRESS LOCATION AND DOES NOT ADEQUATELY MEET THE CODE DEFINITION OF TOWNHOUSE. PLEASE SEE CODE SUMMARY FOR MORE DETAIL. {3D} Copy 1 U -1. 1 ht UVVIVtK F'KUF'UJtJ HIV HL I LKH I IUN I U I ht bUILUINU BY REMOVING A UNIT SEPARATION WALL AND CREATING A SINGLE DWELLING UNIT OUT OF TWO EXISTING DWELLING UNITS. 2. THE UNITS 8 AND 11 WILL BE COMBINED BY ABANDONING THE PROPERTY LINE. 3. INTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE KITCHEN UPGRADES AND A NEW GAS FIREPLACE. 4. EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE UPGRADE OF WINDOWS/DOORS AND ADDITION OF TRANSOM WINDOWS. 5. A NEW DECK IS PROPOSED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING. A NEW RAILING TYPE IS PROPOSED FOR THE OLD AND NEW DECK. 6. REPLACE NEW DOORS ON MAIN LEVEL - ALL TO MATCH AS 6 PANEL DOORS. SCALE 111 to, qD� U /AAAI ET DI A -r AREA OF COMBINED LOTS: 9,106 SQ. FT. EXISTING BLDG FOOTPRINT ABANDON LOT LINE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION NEW STORAGE ADDITION: 214 SQ. FT. NEW DECK ADDITION 20 4- V)L SW Lori LDI 4) ❑v30551'46 HE ibR LOT 41 of. R =18991' �638g• COM MONDRWtWAr EASEHIkT AREA a _ IVE HISTORICAL CONTEXT NOTE: THE THREE "TOWNHOUSE" BUILDINGS OF THE HAMLET WERE ANNEXED INTO THE TOWN OF VAIL WITH 6 DWELLING UNITS EACH. THE THREE "CHALET" BULDINGS OF THE HAMLET WERE ANNEXED INTO THE TOWN OF VAIL WITH 4 DWELLING UNITS EACH. EXISTING BUILDING r VICINITY MA x La V 0 N v P - WEST VAIL Vol. 1 � Sheet List Sheet Number Sheet Name Al COVER SHEET A2 FLOOR PLANS A3 FLOOR PLANS A4 ELEVATIONS A5 SECTIONS A6 DETAILS A7 AREAS PROJECT SUMMARY Owner: Holly Proctor 909 S. Clarkson St. W Denver, CO 80209 H W W 303-859-3369 J hollyproctor@msn.com Architect: John G. Martin AIA - Martin Manley Architects co o PO Box 4701, Eagle, CO 81631 office: 970-328-0592 Q john@martinmanleyarchitects.com Builder: To be determined Location: 2014 W. Gore Creek Drive #5 and #6 LL O Hamlet Townhouses 5 and 6 Vail, Colorado Parcel # 2103-114-18-008 & 2103 -114-18-009 N (Units to be Combined) CODE SUMMARY This project falls under the iursidiction of: The Town of Vail Design Review Board and Building Department The 2015 International Existing Building Code (IEBC 2015) The 2015 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC 2015) Class of Work: Residential Renovation / Alteration Type of Occupancy: R-2 (Apartment Houses) Type of Construction: Type V -B (Non-Sprinklered) Levels: 3 -story (Non -Conforming) The Building is essentially a mirror-image duplex with a property line running through the middle. It was designed and built with 6 separate apartments on three levels making it non -conforming as a duplex or townhouse by modern code. The lot line is proposed to be abandoned and two dwelling units on the main level combined by the removal (alteration) of a separation wall. This will make the building a 5 -unit apartment building and will fall under the IEBC2015 as an occupany classification of R-2 non-sprinklered. There is also proposed the elimination of shared entrances thus creating separate entrances for all the units of the building. The work being proposed falls under the "prescriptive" option for alterations in section 403 of the IEBC 2015. The alteration work is making the building better from a code standpoint by reducing the number of dwelling units as well as eliminating shared exits. The building as originally built is 3 -stories in height. This is another non-conformance from the 2015 code. An R-2 non-sprinklered building may not be more than 2 stories in height (see table 504.4) however the NS (non-sprinklered) value is only for use in evaluation of existing building height in accordance with the International Existing Building Code. Since the remodel work is categorized as interior "alteration" only and does not affect building height or stories in any way, the non -conformity does not get worse and can remain. FIRE DEPT. SUMMARY Town of Vail Fire Dept. Notes: Smoke Detectors and Carbon Monoxide alarms must be installed IN ALL DWELLING UNITS, and be installed per 2015 IFC and VFES fire alarm installation standards. A monitored system is required. ZONING SUMMARY TOWN OF VAIL ZONING DISTRICT: Two -Family Primary / Secondary Residential (PS) Area Calcs use assessor's square footage for the Hamlet Enclave SITE AREA (TOTAL) = 39,403 S.F. GRFA SUMMARY: 46% SITE AREA < 10,000 S.F. = 4,600 S.F. 38% SITE AREA < 15,000 S.F. = 1,900 S.F. 13% SITE AREA < 30,000 S.F. = 1,950 S.F. . 6% SITE AREA 9,403 S.F. = 564 S.F. TOTAL GRFA ALLOWED = %014 S.F. TOTAL GRFA EXISTING = 15,873 S.F. (NON -CONFORMING) SITE COVERAGE SUMMARY: SITE COVERAGE ALLOWED = 7,880.6 S.F. (20%) SITE COVERAGE EXISTING = 6,466 S.F. SITE COVERAGE NEW = 214 S.F.. SITE COVERAGE TOTAL = 6,680 S.F. (CONFORMING) LANDSCAPE AREA - NOT APPLICABLE BUILDING HEIGHT MAXIMUM = 33 FEET BUILDING HEIGHT PROPOSED = 29'-9" FEET PARKING - EXISTING 6 UNCOVERED SPACES EXISTING 1 COVERED SPACE TOTAL SPACES = 7 0 N ci 0 W H W W J E W O U 0 co o (C) �E CM O U q Q N W U co U O U LL O C) !E a� L W > O >, N 00 Ln w (1) 0 Z I U Ln N co cooE ON M L� Q O X co m E N � L o a� a W 0 CL N p U� 0 N ci 0 H W W E W O U 0 co o (C) .O --1-5 N 06 CIO Z LO > L C) N 00 O o ON N O L o � Q) L U W 0 CL N p U� 1..` 0 �__ �__ (D L 4--1 � 3: E 0 N N a)O Lu L � . G 0 Z 0 N ci X X X H W W E W O U co o (C) .O --1-5 N 06 CIO 2! LO > L C) N 00 ON N O L o � Q) L U W O N p U� 1..` 0 �__ �__ (D L 4--1 � 3: E 0 W N a)O L � 0 N ci X X X H W W E W O U co o U o a Q N V co ao w 0 N 00 N co 4 I 1 (SEE SOUTH ELEVATION) 2 A5 VENTS A5 J A5 ANICAL NOTE: I Q STUCCO I THE XISTING MECHANICAL WALL OVER CMU BOIL 1 FINISH I BASE OARD HEAT WILL REMAIN. BASE WALL 1 IN RE DECK ABOVE A6 VENT ® I 10'-0" I 1 MEET ON -COMBUSTIBLE AND I LU E - * CLOSET WALLS REMOVED. REMOVE CLOSET PERATION CODE EXISTING REQU EMENTS FOR THE FLUES ACTIVE 1 EXISTING STRUCTURAL B CES MECH. I EXPOSED CONC WALL m p N 10'-0" I 11 I' a 1 EXIST. I NEW STRUCTURAL I GAS I 1..` I NEW STORAGE I POST 6X6 F RED FIRED FURNACE 1 N r0n v AREA Lu 1 N G UNHEATED i ii I SPACE ; � I i i NEW GRAVEL WALK 2 I ESS THAN 5'Q ; A6 N tr IN HEIGHT (SEE I p. ILL 11 i BEAM ABOVE 1c__j I I I I I I I w z I I i i DECK ABOVE I °o 101-0.. i EXIST. c c o EXIST. I I EXIST. \ BATH I o KITCHEN APT.7 I - 5'-0° -6°1 FIRED \ o STUDIO 000I I TO REMAIN 00 I I 1 I I I I 1 - EXISTING I I 1 MECH. O O I 1' 1 1 I a ACCESS DOOR 1 JI 0' 2' 4' THIS SECTION OF�oo DECK (ABOVE) BUILT' WITH TREATED U - EXIST WOOD SLEEPERSJ,�c BATH ON GRAVEL BED. I I I I --�--- EXISTING STAIRS W NEW RAILING 11 11 11 14R @7 5/8" I DOOR OPENING TO BE REPLACED WITH WALL. (SEE SOUTH ELEVATION) 2X4 W/ 5/8" TYPE X GWB EACH SIDE. SLAT VENTS N J 2X6 WOOD STUD ANICAL NOTE: I Q STUCCO I THE XISTING MECHANICAL WALL OVER CMU BOIL RS FOR THE HOT WATER FINISH I BASE OARD HEAT WILL REMAIN. BASE WALL 1 IN RE ------- 1 VENT ® I 10'-0" I 1 MEET ON -COMBUSTIBLE AND I LU E - * CLOSET WALLS REMOVED. I i PERATION CODE EXISTING REQU EMENTS FOR THE FLUES ACTIVE 1 NEW CHIMNEY. 1 MECH. I I EXPOSED CONC WALL m p N 0 a a 1 EXIST. I U) I GAS I 1..` I NEW STORAGE I F RED FIRED FURNACE 1 N r0n v AREA Lu 1 N G UNHEATED i ii I SPACE ; � II 2 I ESS THAN 5'Q ; A6 N tr IN HEIGHT (SEE I p. SECTIONS) z I I I EXIST. \ I GAS I FIRED \ I FURNACE I I 1 - EXISTING 1 1 MECH. I 1' 1 1 JI CANTILEVERED 1 BEAM ABOVE 0' 2' 4' THIS SECTION OF�oo DECK (ABOVE) BUILT' WITH TREATED U - EXIST WOOD SLEEPERSJ,�c BATH ON GRAVEL BED. I I I I --�--- EXISTING STAIRS W NEW RAILING 11 11 11 14R @7 5/8" EXIST. FJUES REROUTED 1 INTO NjVV CHIMNEY ABOV f EXIST. o KITCHEN 0 0 27'- 6" GARAGE TO REMAIN. NEW POST AND BEAMS ADDED TO WALLS AND CEILING 0 APT 10 STUDIO TO REMAIN /3\ A6 UP — I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 I A5 I I EXISTING ASPHALT PARKING AREA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o � I W 1 � I - oa 4"� EXISTING STAIRS (ON -GRADE) 14 R @ 7 5/8" i u u u u Illi i d 61 d i i i//�/ 16' 1. LOWER LEVEL 1/411 = 1'-0" cy cy A6 MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING NOTES ANY UPGRADES TO THE BOILERS AND HOT-WATER BASEBOARD SYSTEM IS TO BE DESIGN -BUILT BY THE MECHANICAL SUB -CONTRACTOR. THE MECHANICAL FLUES ARE TO BE RE-ROUTED THROUGH A NEW WOOD - FRAMED CHIMNEY AND MUST MEET APPLICABLE CODES FOR CLEARANCES AND FIRE -SEPARATIONS. ANY RE-ROUTING OF, OR NEW, WATER AND GAS PLUMBING LINES SHALL BE DESIGN -BUILT AND DETERMINED BY THE PLUMBING SUB -CONTRACTOR. DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE TOWN OF VAIL BUILDING DEPT. PRIOR TO RECEIVING A BUILDING PERMIT. lil-ma 4'- 6 1/4" 4'- 6 1/4" 4'- 6 1/4" 4'- 6 1/4" 3-013/16" 3-013/16" 3-013/16" 2'- 9" 4 1 REPLACE OLD RAILING 2 I W/ NEW TENSION CABLE I?A5A5 I A RAILING TO MATCH1 -------- ---------- — — I I I I I 9'- 6 3/4" 3'-01/4" 3'-01/4" 3'-01/4" EXISTING DRIP-THRU r--- DECKTO REMAIN I I I I 4X4 WOOD P0; (PRIMARY) 1X1 WOOD P0; (SECONDARY) NEW TENSION CABLE RAILINC W/ WOOD TOP RAIU ATNTAI 3Axi1,W >T >T 1►1:k/11A/11AaB]xo]LMMI REDWOOD DECKING OVER SLEEPERS OVER V W.P.MEMBRANE ON SLOPING PLYWOOD ON 2X12 SLOPED JOISTS V W 00 rn EXISTING ROOF ABOVE TO REMAIN UNCHANGED EXISTING STONE RETAINING WALL 0' 2' 4' 114'1- 0" I I I H ��I� REMOVE EXISTING DECK, REPLACE W/ NEW 1 LARGER DECK NEW '-0" X 7'0" ENTRY DOOR (ALL NEW DOORS TO MATCH 6 PANEL) REMOVE DOOR AND REPAIR WALL W/ 5/8" TYPE X DRYWALL I REPLACE EXISTING DOOR NEW GUARDRAIL 1 T-10" T-10" EGRESS FOR APT. 9 NEW HANDRAIL Al I I I I /3\ TO A6 1 PARKING 1 1 14 R @ 7 5/8" LOT BELOW REPL�CE WINDOW I DOOR OPENING TO BE REPLACED WITH WALL. W DBL. DOORS I 2X4 W/ 5/8" TYPE X GWB EACH SIDE. SLAT VENTS N J ME ANICAL NOTE: I Q 0 THE XISTING MECHANICAL r_____� GARAGE i F BOIL RS FOR THE HOT WATER I I BASE OARD HEAT WILL REMAIN. TO BE RESTORED AS A GARAGE: IN RE OUTING THE EXHAUST*WALL REMOVED. i i VENT THE CONTRACTOR MUST *DOOR REMOVED. MEET ON -COMBUSTIBLE AND OF WALL AND LU E - * CLOSET WALLS REMOVED. FIRE PERATION CODE * GARAGE DOOR TO BECOME REQU EMENTS FOR THE FLUES ACTIVE IN TH NEW CHIMNEY. 1 1 I EXIST. FJUES REROUTED 1 INTO NjVV CHIMNEY ABOV f EXIST. o KITCHEN 0 0 27'- 6" GARAGE TO REMAIN. NEW POST AND BEAMS ADDED TO WALLS AND CEILING 0 APT 10 STUDIO TO REMAIN /3\ A6 UP — I � I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 3 I A5 I I EXISTING ASPHALT PARKING AREA I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I o � I W 1 � I - oa 4"� EXISTING STAIRS (ON -GRADE) 14 R @ 7 5/8" i u u u u Illi i d 61 d i i i//�/ 16' 1. LOWER LEVEL 1/411 = 1'-0" cy cy A6 MECHANICAL AND PLUMBING NOTES ANY UPGRADES TO THE BOILERS AND HOT-WATER BASEBOARD SYSTEM IS TO BE DESIGN -BUILT BY THE MECHANICAL SUB -CONTRACTOR. THE MECHANICAL FLUES ARE TO BE RE-ROUTED THROUGH A NEW WOOD - FRAMED CHIMNEY AND MUST MEET APPLICABLE CODES FOR CLEARANCES AND FIRE -SEPARATIONS. ANY RE-ROUTING OF, OR NEW, WATER AND GAS PLUMBING LINES SHALL BE DESIGN -BUILT AND DETERMINED BY THE PLUMBING SUB -CONTRACTOR. DRAWINGS AND CALCULATIONS MAY BE REQUIRED BY THE TOWN OF VAIL BUILDING DEPT. PRIOR TO RECEIVING A BUILDING PERMIT. lil-ma 4'- 6 1/4" 4'- 6 1/4" 4'- 6 1/4" 4'- 6 1/4" 3-013/16" 3-013/16" 3-013/16" 2'- 9" 4 1 REPLACE OLD RAILING 2 I W/ NEW TENSION CABLE I?A5A5 I A RAILING TO MATCH1 -------- ---------- — — I I I I I 9'- 6 3/4" 3'-01/4" 3'-01/4" 3'-01/4" EXISTING DRIP-THRU r--- DECKTO REMAIN I I I I 4X4 WOOD P0; (PRIMARY) 1X1 WOOD P0; (SECONDARY) NEW TENSION CABLE RAILINC W/ WOOD TOP RAIU ATNTAI 3Axi1,W >T >T 1►1:k/11A/11AaB]xo]LMMI REDWOOD DECKING OVER SLEEPERS OVER V W.P.MEMBRANE ON SLOPING PLYWOOD ON 2X12 SLOPED JOISTS V W 00 rn EXISTING ROOF ABOVE TO REMAIN UNCHANGED EXISTING STONE RETAINING WALL 0' 2' 4' 114'1- 0" I I I H ��I� REMOVE EXISTING DECK, REPLACE W/ NEW 1 LARGER DECK NEW '-0" X 7'0" ENTRY DOOR (ALL NEW DOORS TO MATCH 6 PANEL) REMOVE DOOR AND REPAIR WALL W/ 5/8" TYPE X DRYWALL I REPLACE EXISTING DOOR NEW GUARDRAIL 1 T-10" T-10" EGRESS FOR APT. 9 NEW HANDRAIL Al I I I I /3\ TO A6 1 PARKING 1 1 14 R @ 7 5/8" LOT BELOW REPL�CE WINDOW x x x W/TRANSOM 0 N J UP TO O O J u - Q 0 APT. 9 CODE NOTE: NEW LAR ER WINDOW STAIRWELL WALLS HAVE - - - - - - 00 U O AND TRANSOM TO U � O EXISTING 5/8" THICK ■ W REPLACE EXIST. DRYWALL BOTH SIDES ■ 00 OF WALL AND LU E - ------------------------------ Ln N co 00 E 0 UNDERSIDE OF STAIR. -- --- ---`--- EXISTING ADD NE DBL. WINDOW - - - - - - BEDROOM AND AND TR NSOM - _ _ = BATH TO TO MAT H EXISTING REMAIN NEW D OR AND TRANSOM TO REPLACE WINDOW ----------------------------- _______ IRE -ROUTE EXISTING MECH. COMBINE KITCHENS e� FLUES FROM BELOW I I REPLACE MOST ITEMS DESIGN BY OTHERS NEW DIRECT -VENT GAS FIREPLACEI DESIGN TO BE DETERMINED UPON 1 DESIGN -BUILD DEMO OF BRICK FIREPLACE i I FUEL -GAS, 1 PLUMBING, AND 1 L MECH. BY OTHERS REMOVE BRICK FIREPLACES i I — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — O IJ 0 --------------------- --J 1 I MOVE PARTY WALL i 0 COOKTOP IN / POST TO REMAIN i ISLAND W/ RE: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER I DOWNDRAFT CENTERLINE OF NEW i VENTING STRUCTURAL BEAM I 1 IF- - - - i REF. ADD TR NSOM ABOVE _____EXISTIN SLIDING GLASS DOOR____ --- ---� CEI ING TIMBER BEAM TYP --- NEW__NEW OFFICE WALL N =_ -- EXISTING ALIGN W/ BEAM ABOVE BEDROOM AND NQN-STRUCTURAL 2X4 WOOD BATH TO STUD PARTITION WALL W/ 5/8" - - - - - - REMAIN DRYWALL EACH SIDE. --------- -------- ----------- 8'- 0" NEW Z_0 POCKET CODE NOTE: DOOR NFW nFFICF STAIRWELL WALLS HAVE ADD TRAN OM 1 ABOVE EXI T WINDOW I — — — — — — — — — — (_ — I L I --------------- -----------------� I I i 2. MAIN LEVEL 1/411 = 1'-0" 16' EXISTING 5/8 THICK UP TO DRYWALL BOTH SIDES APT. 12 OF WALL AND UNDERSIDE OF STAIR. ABANDON LOT -SPLIT LINE TO PARKING LOT BELOW REPLACE EXISTING DOOR T-0" X 7'-0" EGRESS FOR APT. 9 REMOVE DOOR AND REPAIR WALL W/ 5/8" TYPE X DRYWALL NEW T-0" X 7'0" ENTRY DOOR (ALL NEW DOORS TO MATCH 6 PANEL) 0o T_ N M x x x W 0 N J i E O O J u - Q 0 (c) �E M O (D U Q a) W U 00 U O U � O U� a� L ■ W V_ c 5) >, ■ 00 � LU E ■ _ Ln N co 00 E 0 co Lo 0= —a o m x co E m p N 0 a a > U) 0o T_ N M x x x 0 N i E O O J u - Q 0 (c) �A a) 06 c Lo L 00 O o 0 N p N 0 U > U) 1..` N r0n v Lu a G 04.0 �w � G O N N O z 0o T_ N M x x x 0 N i E O O J u - Q 0 (c) �A a) 06 c Lo L 00 a 0 N p N 0 U 0 U) 1..` r0n v a G 04.0 �w O N N 0o T_ N M x x x co z J a N i E O O J u - Q 0 U 0' 2' 4' 8' 4. ROOF LEVEL 1/4" = 1'-0" Q co co 66 w 0 N 0000 N co 16' EE 0' 2' 4' 8' 3. UPPER LEVEL 1/411 = 1'-0" 16' W J �E CM O O U a LU 00 U U o(l) � U� U O a� L ■ O j W , ■ t V- W N ■ I Ln co ti Z U N oo E co Q O co X rn 0 E a O ■ LO Co // L 00 i 0� O � p N 0 U L) '� a U) 1..` 0 � L �—� 0 - Ca w N N O L � n o � ¢ coC; x0 z= 00 Lu N M x 1C z J a M L- � � E O O J u- Q 0 U N G O Z N M x 1C z J a M L- � � E O O J u- Q 0 U EXISTING EGRESS �F EXISTING EGRESS �mwm STING GRAVEL EXISTING VERTICAL WOOD SIDING 2 A5 4-j Ll-�-] u [REPLACE NEW OODOOR STING GRAVEL 4 A5 Plate F 2 NEW RAILING AT EXISTING DECK TO MATCH 3. UPPER L NEW TENSION WIRE RAILING $ 3X4 WOOD TOP RAIL 4X4 WOOD POSTS (PRIMARY) NEW , 1X1 WOOD POSTS (SECONDARY) WINDOW SEE DECK & RAILING DETAILS 4 p NEW W.P. DECK 'late Height 20'-0" 'ER LEVEL 8'-11" NEW TENSION CABLE GUARDRAIL AT EXISTING DECK IAIN LEVEL 0" ;AIL RAIL 3LE TO MATCH ELEVATION NORTH 1/4" = 1'-0" Q co 66 w 0 N 00 N co ELEVATION EAST 1/411 = 1'-0" 3 A5 Plate Height 20'-0" 12" 2" D EXISTING VERTICAL WOOD EXISTING ExisT. SIDING WOOD VERTICAL SIDING L NEW CHIMNEY W/ IMPROVED FLUE TERMINATIONS AND FLASHING Plate Height 20'-0" ELEVATION SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" ELEVATION WEST 1/411 = 1'-0" 1 2 4 W O A5 A5 A5 W J W Q� c o U 0 a �E M O O U Q Q co 66 w 0 N 00 N co ELEVATION EAST 1/411 = 1'-0" 3 A5 Plate Height 20'-0" 12" 2" D EXISTING VERTICAL WOOD EXISTING ExisT. SIDING WOOD VERTICAL SIDING L NEW CHIMNEY W/ IMPROVED FLUE TERMINATIONS AND FLASHING Plate Height 20'-0" ELEVATION SOUTH 1/4" = 1'-0" ELEVATION WEST 1/411 = 1'-0" c N M d O W O J E W J W Q� c o U 0 a �E M O O U Q a) Lu CU M U 0q) U � O U� a� L W O j , c ♦• Lo W N I Ln N co 000E L'ZU co O X co E r m O L o a1 a W o a o U) c N M d O O E W J W Q� c o U 0 a 4-5 a) CIO Z Lo L C) c 00 O = o ON N O L o � L U W o a o U) r1/ O _a O is N O N N � Lu L � . G O Z c N M x x x O E W J W Q� c o U 0 a 4-5 a) CIO 2! Lo L C) c 00 ON N O L o � L U W o a o U) r1/ O _a O is W O N N � L � c N M x x x co Z O a E W J W Q� c o U 0 a 12 2 UPPER LEVEL 8'-1111 III;=1= IIII■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■11� 11■■■■■■III�UII■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■II '1 11� II 1 L�Mm '1m I lllll"=1�1' 1' 1 1 __II'.______.ACCESS DOOR .___r. -��-- (SEE SOUTH•NEW STORAGL .RAVEL __ _____� Section 4 1 Section 1 1/411 = 1'-011 1 /4" = 1'-011 66 00 0 N 0000 N co Section 2 1/4" = 1'-011 ate Height 20'-0" =R LEVEL 8'-1111 ,,IN LEVEL 0" _=R LEVEL -8'-1111 MAIN LEVEL 0" LOWER LEVEL � Section 3 1/4" = 1'-011 ?late Height 20'-0" 'ER LEVE 8'-1111 AIN LEVEL 5 IIl 0" /ER LEVEL 5 Il -8'-1111 W J �E M o O U Q LU M U U ow L U0 Elm 0 O 2 L W v- O ■ Lo w _ co Z U N ao00 E ui X co 0 E a Q SS O N 06 Lo L 00 0 Ill v- 0 � p N L) '� a U) I..L 0 � L :_� 0 E N N 0 a) L � n 4 o y o �Zv� v 0 CD— co w coco 2 N M 0 N Z O L E U W 0 U z O o w � O 0 z N M x 1C N Z O L E U W 0 U Q C) L0 co 66 00 0 N 00 N co (V N (V � M `Y' 2 1/2" X 3 1/2" WOOD CAP (SLOPE TOP) (V N co CON 2X2 METAL POSTS 04 N TENSION WIRES PASSING THRU PRE- M co N DRILLED HOLES IN POSTS 2X6 RIM SPANS BETWEEN POSTS (V (V e MM, W.P.MEMBRANE OVER FLASHING W/ DRIP EDGE NOTHING MUST PENETRATE MEMBRANE. N V. 2X6 REDWOOD DECKING ATTACHED TO TREATED SLEEPERS M p 2X6 SLEEPERS W/ RIPPED BOTTOMS i Lo 2X12'S SLOPING - 1/4" / FT. 7` 4 11 14 FT DISTANCE CANTELIVER OVER BEAM a STRONG POST ATTACHMENT TO HOUSE WALL CONC. WALL W/ STUCCO FINISH RE: STRUCTURAL DWGS. 7Z AT LONGEST POINT RE: STRUCTURAL DWGS. a a 4 a o� DECK & RAILING DETAIL - NEW LOCKING■ WAT MEN UP V UND OPEN JOISTS FROM BELOW, (NO SOFFIT) TENSION CABLE RAILING SYSTEM "FEENEY RAILINGS" OR SIMILAR 3D View 1 2 1/2" X 3 1 j CAP (SLOP TENSION U THRU PRE - IN POSTS 2X2 METAL EXISTING STRONG P RE: STRUC EXISTING DECK & RAILING DETAIL - EXIST 1" = 1'-0" 2. MAIN LEVEL — o„ — 1 EXISTING POST NEW NEWEL POST NEW 4X4 NEWELL POST (TYP) BOLTED TO SIDE OF STRINGER NEW WROUGHT -IRON HANDRAIL (MEET IRC 2015 REQS) ATTACH TO NEW GUARDRAIL TENSION CABLES EXISTING METAL TREADS EXISTING STRINGERS NEW 1/2" METAL RODS WHICH SPAN BETWEEN EXISTING STRINGERS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE 4" SPHERE CODE REQUIREMENT FOR OPEN TREADS. TYPICAL EVERY RISER. 1. LOWER LEVEL 3 STAIR SECTION - EXTERIOR 1/2" = 11_ovv EXISTING POST DRILL HOLES FOR TENSION CABLES NEW POST KNIFE PLATE CONNECTION AT BASE Co N M d O W O J W c 0 E U 0 Q_ �E M O O U aLu N CU 00 U 0(l) 0 � O U� a� L ■ W O j , ■ 00 V_ co ■ Z _ U Lo N co 00 E ON co Lo 0= Q O rn X co E N _ m O L o � a W c/ CL a 0 U) Co N M d O O W c 0 E U 0 Q_ N 06 Z Lo L C) c 00 O_� = o ON N _ O L o � L U W c/ CL a 0 U) 0 1..` r0n v V G O is N O N N Lu L � . G O Z Co N M x x x O W c 0 E U 0 Q_ N 06 ! Lo L C) c 00 ON N O L o � L U W a 0 U) 0 1..` r0n v _a) G O is W O N N L � Co N M x x x N J H W c 0 E U 0 Q_ Chalet 1 = 2,643 s.f. 4 apartments PLAT Cop! 12" = 1'-0" Q C) L0 co 66 00 0 N 0000 N co Chalet 3 = 2,254 s.f. 3 apartments &.30.51'4He eta R ■169.91' r CF! = 1,439 s.f. 3 apartments ZONING SUMMARY TOWN OF VAIL ZONING DISTRICT: Two -Family Primary / Secondary Residential (PS) Non -Conforming density SITE AREA (TOTAL) = 39,403 S.F. GRFA SUMMARY: 46% SITE AREA < 10,000 S.F. = 4,600 S.F 38% SITE AREA < 15,000 S.F. = 1,900 S.F. 13% SITE AREA < 30,000 S.F. = 1,950 S.F. 6% SITE AREA 9.403 S.F. = 564 S.F. TOTAL GRFA ALLOWED = 9,014 S.F. TOTAL GRFA EXISTING = 15,873 S.F. (NON -CONFORMING) SITE COVERAGE SUMMARY: SITE COVERAGE ALLOWED = 7,880.6 S.F. (201/6) SITE COVERAGE EXISTING = 6,466 S.F. SITE COVERAGE UNUSED = 1,414 S.F. Townhouse 6 = 1,380 s.f. 3 apartments Townhouse 2 = 1,433 s.f. 3 apartments Townhouse 5 = 1,380 s.f. 3 apartments swoon Lot 4% U Townhouse 4 = 1,621 s.f. 3 apartments l� 1 Townhouse 3 = 1,650 s.f. 3 apartments EXISTING GRFA TOTAL = 15,873 S.F. SITE AREA TOTAL = 39,403 S.F. W J �E CM O CD U aLU co t CU Oq) F � U� U O ai L (1, >W , co E ■ co U N co �Q o xco i- 0 E a a O ._ 06 Ln L 00 i 0� L6 O � p N o U L) a) 3:U) L.L O L �—� Oa) Ew N � O � Ppb * -L o¢ y U �C� � CD 00 co 2 N M O a W E 0 U Q_ Z O = o N W (Y G 0 z N M x 1C a W E 0 U Q_ a I ' I ' I � I EDGE OF CREEK APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE / / OF CREEK EDGE OF / CREEK PARCEL BOUNDARY GRAPHIC SCALE 10 0 5 10 20 ( IN FEET ) 1 inch = 10 ft. F, 40 i \-50' CREEK SETBACK i UNIT 5 OUTLINE OF BUILDING NOTES: UNIT 6 1) THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS EXHIBIT IS TO SHOW THE LOCATION OF GORE CREEK AND THE CREEK SETBACK IN RELATION TO UNITS 5 & 6. 2) NOTICE: ACCORDING TO COLORADO LAW YOU MUST COMMENCE ANY LEGAL ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AFTER YOU FIRST DISCOVER SUCH DEFECT. IN NO EVENT, MAY ANY ACTION BASED UPON ANY DEFECT IN THIS SURVEY BE COMMENCED MORE THAN TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF CERTIFICATION SHOWN HEREON. G : SPD o/Yr, 30091 :-o-lo- 28/20171.-'- o- /28/20171. - �'4L L A�� Q L, Ln 0 0 a• n v 0 rn N x O J J p00 10r-4 10 � �p Z � O i� • 07 aQ 4J j O H Q) N I O o � o O Z � 2 Q W 0 0 O W� l m w m � � � s O U F—I �I O O Q) N I o � o Z � 2 Q W 0 0 O m m � � s O U City of Vail, Colorado Logo VAIL TOWN PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: ITEM/TOPIC: May 14, 2018 PEC Results ATTACHMENTS: File Name Description Pec results 051418.pdf May 14, 2018 PEC Results 0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN OF VA10 May 14, 2018, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 Call to Order 1. 1. Present: Brian Gillette, Brian Stockmar, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez (arrive 1:05 PM), Ludwig Kurz, Pam Hopkins, Rollie Kjesbo Absent: None 2. Site Visits 2.1. 175 Forest Road - Venerable Residence 3. Main Agenda 3.1. A request for the review of variances from Section 14-10-4-C, Architectural 30 min. Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows, Etc., Vail Town Code, pursuant to Section 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow a deck and accompanying staircase more than five feet (6) above ground level to project more than five feet (5) into the required front (south) and side (east) setback, located at 175 Forest Road/Lot 26, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0015) Applicant:Ed & Amy Venerable, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Matt Panfil 1. Approval of these variances is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal; and 2. The applicant shall clearly demonstrate, via an I mprovement Location Certificate (ILC), to the Community Development Department prior to requesting a final planning inspection that improvements have been constructed per plan. Panfil introduced the request to the PEC and provided the board with background information. Panfil discussed the demo/rebuild provisions of the code. Commissioner Perez requested clarifications if additional variances are required. Kyle Webb, representing the applicant had no presentation. Commissioner Gillette asked about the height of a wall shown on the plans. Kyle responded to the commissioner's questions. Commissioner Hopkins asked for clarifications concerning the setbacks. Panfil provided information related to inquiries from neighbors. Gillette asked if a supporting post under the parking deck might be appropriate. Stockmar and Kjesbo concurred. Public Comment: No members of the public spoke. Commissioner Comments: Lockman- Supports the request as a result of the topography. Hopkins- Agrees with Mr. Lockman Perez - Concurs with other commissioners. Kurz- Agrees with staff and supports the proposal. Gillette -I n favor of application and feels it meets the criteria. Recommends that the DRB consider a supporting column under the deck. Kjesbo-Agrees with staff and Gillett's recommendation concerning the supporting column. Stockmar supports the application and the forthcoming motion. Ludwig Kurz moved to approve with conditions. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.2. A request for a review of a prescribed regulations amendment to Section 14- 5 min. 10-6, Residential Development, Vail Town Code, to allow the Design Review Board (DRB) to apply different design review standards in situations when two-family dwellings appear as separate and distinct development lots, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0005) The Applicant has requested to table this item to the May 29, 2018 meeting. ApplicantArosa Partners LLC, represented by Brad Hagedorn Planner: Justin Lightfield Brian Gillette moved to table to May 29, 2018. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 3.3. A request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements 5 min. by Zone District, Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation and Exclusions, Section 12-18-4 Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district and to allow an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet, located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009) The Applicant has requested to table this item to the May 29, 2018 meeting. Applicant flolly Proctor and John Hutto, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker Ludwig Kurz moved to table to May 29, 2018. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (7-0). 4. Approval of Minutes 4.1. April 23, 2018 PEC Results 5. 1 nformational Update 5.1. Eagle River Valley Housing Needs & Solutions Update Kim Williams, representing the Eagle County Housing Department, presented the results from the recent housing demands analysis. Commissioner Gillette inquired about the relationship between job creation and housing units. Tori Franks with Eagle County Housing Department discussed the how units relate to employment numbers. Gillette -Why is overcrowding a problem? Franks spoke to true overcrowding where it has impacted quality of life and how it is a percentage of total overcrowding. Gillette asked for further clarification about the "Catch Up" slide. Franks provided additional information. Gillette asked how many units were created in recent years. Williams responded, less than 200 units. Perez asked for clarification on what is considered affordable in Eagle County. Franks responded that there are a number of different definitions for different programs/situations. Perez spoke to the problem in the housing community of interchanging the terms workforce housing and affordable housing. George Ruther spoke to deed restrictions in the valley and their acceptance by the community. Williams discussed findings from a recent survey regarding various strategies to increase the amount of workforce housing in the Eagle River Valley. Neubecker asked for a description of the difference between inclusionary housing and residential linkage. Ruther stated that the residential linkage assumes the creation of jobs based on residential development. Gillette stated that this question and survey should be oriented more to people providing and building housing, not residing in the housing. Gillette pointed to the need to ask the right questions to the right individuals/groups. Le. ask developers about fee waivers and density bonuses, not residents. Perez asked how Middle Creek was received by the community. Ruther responded that it depended on what angle you were looking at it from.... neighbors, future users, employers etc. Stockmar-Asked how we educate our full and part time residents about the issue. Ruther-Spoke to the recent NIMBY Jamboree. Stated that when the issue is personalized more people become interested in the issue. Williams returned to the slide presentation and discussed the existing tools and their support. Stockmar inquired about interjurisdictional cooperation. Williams spoke to alignment and discussions that are occurring and related successes. Lockman asked how policy considerations are brought to fruition. Spoke to the challenges facing renters. Ruther spoke to the upcoming meeting between the Town Council and the VLHA. Spoke to past "No's" such as "The Town of Vail never sells land" or "The Town of Vail does not spend money outside of town boundaries" Perez asked about rental properties, whether owned by the Town of the VLHA. Ruther spoke to the issue and that if the VLHA owned units that additional bonding opportunities might exist. Lockman spoke to the divergence of quality and quantity. Spoke to the need for rental properties to improve. Ruther spoke to the direct and indirect results of some regulations. Gillette spoke to looking at the existing housing stock vs new units. Spoke to buying deed restrictions on existing units. Ruther spoke to the Vail Indeed program. Stockmar spoke to his concern about the aging population and the aging of the housing stock. 6. Adjournment The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department Ad #: 0000246608-01 Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM Your account number is: 1023233 PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein, that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 5/25/2018 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 5/25/2018 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 5/29/2018. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 5/29/2018. �1 Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 JEr 1 LYA�'I rt4Lals�6 rebrarew RuaL�.D. RUFE:7F Lgt{1RADU ppTARY'[7 2d 1fdOg938A' N'/00A�4;SI�H %'%171lw4FliGi16T9,21�' TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 29, 2018,1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Uruler 2. Mein Agenda 2. 1, A request for the revlew of the following two (2) variances: 1 J a variance from Section 12-21- 12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Veil Town Goda, to allow for more than ten prem.. (10%) of the total site area to be tl by tlrive IyT5 and.urtace parking; and 2.) a ce from 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than one (1) curb cut per unit, located at 2841 Basingdale BoulevadlLot 3, Block 8, Vail Inter- - Developmen[Subdivision, and... ng forth details in regad thereto. (PEC1 B-0020) 30 mu n Appllc— Michael & Y..himi Moore, represented by Visual Impax Planner: Mott Parul 2.2. A radius. for a revlew of a prescribed!regula- tions amendment to Section 14- 10-6, Reside.iel Devebpmen , Vail Town Code, d allow the Design Review Road (DRB) to apply different design review standards in situations when two-family dwellings appear as Bepamtea ntl distinct development Iota, and ..dung forth details In regad thereto.(PECI B- 0005 a0 min. Applieant: Arose P.— LL , represented by Bred Hagedorn Planner: Justin Ughtlield 2.3. A request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Rep i ems is by Zone District, Section 12-153 DeibRien, Calculation antl sions, Section 12-184 Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 1], Variances, Vail Town Cotle, to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in es Of the amount permittetl by lot area and di9riof and to allow an access opening to a awl space of greater Iran 12 square lest, loeat- ed at 2014 We. Gore Creek Drive Ung 5ILot 41- 43 (Hernial Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and .ening forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009) 5 min. The Applicant has req ... ted to table this item to the June 11, 2010 meeting. Applicad: Holly Proctor and John Hutto, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Chns Neubecker 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. May 14, 2018 PEC Results 4. Adjourn—M The applications and information about the Propos- als are available for public inspection during regu- larori- hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The tion andlthe site veli s061a1p thede the publicahearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department True. and oder of items are approximate, subject b change, and n t be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Pleasecall 711 for sidn anguage interpretation 8 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department ==the the Vail Daily May 25, 2018 Ad #: 0000239361-01 Customer: TOWN OF VAIL/PLAN DEPT/COMM DEVLM Your account number is: 1023233 PROOF OF PUBLICATION VAIL DAILY STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE I, Mark Wurzer, do solemnly swear that I am Publisher of the VAIL DAILY, that the same daily newspaper printed, in whole or in part and published in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation therein, that said newspaper has been published continuously and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice and advertisement as requested. The VAIL DAILY is an accepted legal advertising medium, only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home Rule provision. That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 insertion; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 5/11/2018 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 5/11/2018 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 5/23/2018. Mark Wurzer. Publisher Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 5/23/2018. �1 Jerilynn Medina, Notary Public My Commission Expires: August 3, 2020 11 811_y 1LYrt4L als�6 rebrarew Rt1gr�.D. iGFF:7i Lgf,{14PD(3 ppTARY'[7:ldlPkOg938g' N'/ Cf,Y�;SIOH %'%T'71lw4AliGi15T9,2�' TOWN OF VAIL THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vailwill hdd a publk: hearing In ecwrdance '2"section 12-3-6, Vail Twvn Code, on May 29, 2018 at 1:00 Pm in fite Town of Vail Municipal Building. A request for the retie. of the fdlowing two (2) s: 1.) a ce from Section 12-21-12, Restricfions in Specific Zones on Ezcessive Slopes, Vail Town CM., to allow br more then ten p nt (10%) of the Ntal site area robe wv- ered by dr'nawars and suAaca parking: and 2.) a ce from Section 143-1, Minimum Stand- ards, Vail Town Code, to alb. br more than one (10 wb cW per unit, located at 2: nasingdale 99 ulevarcVI_. 3, Block 8, Vail Imermountain De- velopment Subdivision, and seting bM details In regerd thereto. (PEC16-0020) Applkant: Michael 8 Yoshiml Moore, represent - d by Visual Impex Planner: Man Panfil The .0icauons end information about tha oro Sign language interpretation ilable upon re- quest Ig 2a -hour noVficatl., dlal 1I1. Publishad May 11, 2018 in the Vail Daily. 0000239361