HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-1114 PECi Visits 1:00 p.m.
Hornestake Condominiums
Texaco
Holiday House
Drivers: Jim and Andy
Pub- - - -i i 2:00 m
1. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a temporary Christmas tree lot to be
located at the Texaco site, 2313 Forth Frontage Road/Tract , Veil Das Schone 1 st
Filing,
Applicants Steve Lincks/Dick Dllling
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
. A request for a minor SDD amendment to the Golden Peak Howe to allow for minor
changes to the previously approved plan for the proposed redevelopment located at
7 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A and Block , Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Craig Snowdon
Planner: Mike ollica
3. A request for a density and GRFA variances to allow for the conversion of the Fulton
Ironworks Restaurant to a residence to be located at 1136 Sandstone Drive, Units A-
109 and A-110/Homestake Condominiums.
Applicant: Karen Bouchard
Planner: Jim Curnutte
A request for setback and common area variances to allow for a revised, expanded
entry on the east elevation of the Holiday douse, located at Vail Road/Lot , Vail
Village 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Holiday House Condominium Association
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
1
5. A request t amend Section 18.57, Employee Housing, t set forth requirements
pertaining t Type VI Employee Housing units and set forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Veil
Planner: Andy Knu tsen TABLED TOD C-- -1-.12, 1994
7. Approve minutes from October 24, 1994 PEC meeting.
Bill Anderson Greg Amsden Mike Mollica
Bob Armour Andy Knudtsen
Jeff Bowen Jim Curnutte
Kathy Langenwalter Torn Moorhead
Allison Lassoe
Dalton Williams
The PEC meeting was called to order at approximately 1:55 p.m. Sine the meeting was
called to order early, the PEC members decided to skip ahead on the agenda to the tabled
items and the minutes from the October 24, 1994 PEC meeting.
A request to amend Section 19.57, Employee Dousing, to set forth requirements
pertaining to Type VI Employee Housing units and set forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED r-- s 12,1994
Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item to the December 1, 1994 PC meeting
with o Armour seconding the motion. A -0 vote tabled this item to the December
1, 1994 PEC meeting.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item indefinitely with o Armour seconding
the motion. A -0 vote tabled this item indefinitely.
3. Approve minutes from October 4, 1994 PEC meeting.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes from the October 24, 1994 EC
meeting with ill Anderson seconding the motion. 4-0-1 vote approved the October
24, 1994 P EC meeting minutes with Kathy Lanenwalter abstaining as she was not
present at the October 24, 1994 P EC meeting.
Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes
November 14, 1994
4 request for a conditional use permit to allow for a temporary Christmas tree lot to be
located at the Texaco site, 2313 North Frontage Road/Tract B, Vail ®as chone 1 st
Filing.
Applicant: Steve Lincks/Dick illing
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that staff was
recommending approval of this request with the four conditions outlined on Page of
the staff memo.
It should be noted that Dalton Williams arrived to the meeting at approximately 2:05
,M.
Bill Anderson expressed concern about the lights and the potential noise of the
generator which were being proposed with this request. He felt that there should be
limits placed on when the lights should be turned off each night. It was suggested that
0:00 or 10:00 p.m. would be an appropriate time to have the lights and the generator
turned off.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve this conditional use permit request per the staff
memo with the additional condition that the lights and generator be turned off by 10:00
p.m. each night and that the generator comply with the Town of Vail Noise Ordinance.
Bill Anderson seconded the motion and a 6- vote approved the item.
. A request for a minor DD amendment to the Golden Peak House to allow for minor
changes to the previously approved plan for the proposed redevelopment located at
278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A and , Block , Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant'. Golden Peak House Condominium Association/Vail Associates,
Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./ argaritaville, Inc.
Planner: Mike ollica
Mike ollica made a brief presentation per the staff memo.
After limited BC discussion, Jeff Bowen made a motion to uphold the staff's approval
of a request for a minor D amendment to the Golden Peak House, to also for
minor changes to the previously approved plan for the proposed redevelopment, with
Bill Anderson seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote approved this request.
6. A request for a density and GFA variances to allow for the conversion of the Fulton
Ironworks Restaurant to a residence to be located at 1136 Sandstone [give, Units A-
109 and -110/Homestake Condominiums.
Applicant: Karen Bouchard
Planner'. Jim Curnutte
Planning and Environmental Commission MinUtes
Novmn?her 14, 1994 2
Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was
recommending approval of the requested density and GRFA variances per the staff
memo with the two conditions contained on Naga 5 of the staff memorandum.
general discussion ensued between staff and the P EC members whether to proceed
with this item as the applicant had not yet arrived to the meeting.
Bob Armour made a motion to table this item until such time as the applicant could be
present at the meeting. Allison Lassoe seconded the motion and a 5-1 vote tabled this
item, with Jeff Bowen opposing.
Jeff Bowen was opposed to the tabling of this item because he felt it was the
applicant's responsibility to be present for the meeting.
7. request for a setback variance to allow for a revised, expanded entry on the east
elevation of the Holiday House, located at Vail Road/Lot , Vail Village 2nd Piling.
Applicant: Holiday House Condominium Association
Planner: Andy Knutsen
Andy Knu tsen made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was
recommending denial of the requested setback variance as it is staff's opinion that a
physical hardship does not exist on the site and that the expansion could occur at
other locations on the site.
Bruce Gillie, representing the Holiday House Condominium Association, explained to
the P EC the reasons they were proposing to expand the building in this area. The
reasons centered on structural "givens" of the existing building. Specifically, they
would not have to move any weight bearing walls.
Bill Anderson agreed with staff's position that no physical hardship was present on this
site and stated that there were other locations on the site where the expansion could
occur.
Bob Armour, Jeff Bowen and Allison Lassoe had no further comments regarding this
request.
Dalton Williams stated that he agreed with ill's comments.
Kathy Langenwalter agreed with the staff's position and added that she felt there was
space on the northeast side of the site where expansion could occur.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to deny the requested setback variance per the staff memo
with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 6®0 vote denied the requested setback
variance.
Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes
November 14, 1994
. Bill Anderson initiated a discussion about wood-burning stoves. He felt staff (Russell
Forrest and Paul Reeves) needed to research this issue and possibly amend the Town
of Vail fireplace ordinance.
. A discussion with born Moorhead concerning the procedure for approving a request
when the applicant is not present. The C wanted to discuss this issue because it
became a concern in conjunction with Item on this agenda.
Jeff Bowen felt that the PEC should proceed with its decision on a request even if the
applicant is not present.
Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes
November 14, 1994
MEMORANDUM
Applicant, Steve Linckslick illing
Planner, Andy Knudtsen
Im DESCRIPTION
In 1991, the Town approved a conditional use permit for Richard Matthews to operate a
Christmas tree lot on this site. The use was conducted that season but Mr. Matthews did not
reapply for conditional use permits for ether years. No complaints were filed, nor were there
any problems associated with the 1991 Christmas tree lot.
Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 16.60, the Community Development Department recommends
approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors,
A. Consideration of Factors:
it objectives of
Relationship rl impact of the use on de,
the Town.
Section 13.30°010, the purpose section of the Heavy Service zone district
states the following:
2m The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, arks and recreation
facilities, n other public facilities needs.
Staff believes that the proposed Christmas tree lot will not have negative
impacts on any of the criteria listed above.
3. Effect upon traffic i particular reference _, _ re :3ti ,
automotive pedestrian safety n convenience, traffic flow and
control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from
street parking areas.
Concerning parking and traffic, the Town Engineer has recommended that the
customers for the Christmas tree lot pull directly off the Frontage dad, up into
the front of the lot. The Town Engineer believes that the proposed parking plan
is adequate given the size, scale, and duration of the use.
4. Effect upon t character of t r i which the proposed use is
to be located, icl i scale bulk ft the proposed u i
relation surrounding uses.
Staff believes that the proposed Christmas tree lot will contribute to the festive
character of the area for the month of December, We believe that many of the
items typically associated with Christmas tree lots (trailers, overhead lights,
signage, etc.) are not included in this proposal and as a result, the quality of the
proposal will have a positive effect on the surrounding area.
B. Findings
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
-wanting a conditional use permit:
That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of
the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
111® RECOMMENDATION
STAFF That the applicant secure a Home Occupation Permit an use not more than
500 square feet of the interior of his residence (garage) for storage of
Christmas trees.
2. That small white decorative lights may be used on u to four trees in front of
the Christmas tree lot. Overhead strings of lights shall not be used.
3. That the approval is valid for the month of December, 1994 only. If the
applicant would like to return and conduct a similar operation next Christmas,
another conditional use permit will be required at that time.
4. That split-rail fencing be installed on all sides of the Christmas tree lot.
c:lpeclmemoslxmas11.1 4
3
®5a ?
W `S
sva ®r&
IL. g&4 CHO
mar
,9JCs
t° T
?r 59LR U t
I'
-V "
°7 G? w ,lea
g3 VyS1
PAS ??914F-
g94Z HP? ?
?v
t.0
ewA'l
O
?a
6H
d
0
x
z
?lw
4
s
000
?,,?, s?
LpaA?
k 00'DSP
rA
?? sbks-Ps'1,?r8
ta
??
g ry
1
LIGH cop 0
PLA'1`4
Sfl
gy?n
a--
A-
Al
'flu
qO&V
to 1165 lfa'04 WOO
-? W° emu.
V
cr-
lull
? 4 14„
6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FRO : Community Development Department
Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Association/Vail Associates,
Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./ araritaville, Inc.
Planner; Mike ollic
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
On November , 1993, the Town Council approved (y a - vote) Ordinance No. 28, Series
of 1993 on second reading. This ordinance specifically provided for the establishment of
Special Development District No. 31 (Golden Peak House) and adopted a development plan
for Special Development District No. 31. Additionally, this ordinance rezoned a portion of
Tract E, Vail Village 1st Filing, from Agricultural and Open Space zoning to Commercial Gore I
zoning. The Town Council also upheld the Planning and Environmental Commission's (PEC)
approval of a Commercial Core l exterior alteration request, a minor subdivision request and a
request for an encroachment into View Corridor No. 1
On December 1, 1993, the Design Review Board ( ) conceptually reviewed the Golden
Peak House redevelopment, Since that meeting, the applicants have not requested to be
scheduled before the DRB for a final hearing.
On arch 15, 1994, the Vail Town Council, upon the recommendation of the Town Attorney,
determined that the olden Peak House redevelopment could be a " emo/rebuild" project
without further review by the P EC and/or Town Council. Although originally intended to be a
substantial remodel, this approval would allow the developers of the Golden Peak House the
ability to demolish the existing structure and to rebuild the Golden Peak House from the
round up.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
STAFF DECISION
The staff believes that the proposed changes to the olden Peak House development plan
will have a positive impact upon the basic intent and character of the approved DD. We feel
that the changes would be consistent with the design criteria as listed in the DD chapter of
the Town's Zoning Ordnance and specifically, Section 18.40.100(A), and have approved the
applicant's request.
The Town's Zoning Ordinance provides the C the authority to uphold, overturn or modify
the staff's decision.
cApec\memos\goid pk11.14
2
MEMORAt'T' _
INTRODUCTION
Over the years, very little construction activity has taken place at the Homestake
Condominiums, with the exception of seven "250 square foot addition" requests which were
processed during 1993 and 1994. These `°250'x'° were all for the purpose of extending
existing second story loft areas. These internal additions ranged from 5 square feet to 130
square feet in size and have added approximately 700 square feet of C F A to the property.
III. ZONING ANALYSIS,
The following zoning analysis provides a comparison between the existing development can the
property, the ® development standards allowed through zoning, and the resulting
development standards if the requested variances are granted, T statistics shown in bold
represent areas where variance from Zoning a i requested.
Development Existing
Standards Conditions
Lot Area: Approx. 59,285 sq. ft.
*Density: 64 snits
**G FAa Approx. 35,065 sq. ft.
Setbacks: Front: 72' (N)
13' (S)
Sides: 18' (E)
120' (w)
Building Height: Approx. 47 feet
Site Coverage: Approx. 14,000 sq. I'L
***Parking: 65 - 70 spaces
with
MDMF Proposed
Zoning Variance
No change No change
183 U's per acre 5 units
or 24 units allowed
35®1 or 20,750 sq. ft. pro w 40,795 sq. ft.
Front: 20' no change
Sides: 20'
Rear: 20'
Maximum 38 feet no change
40% or 23,715 sq. ft. no change
136 spaces required no change
*Although the building was built to provide sixty-six dwelling units, Units A-109 and A-110 have historically been
used as a bar/restaurant. The lower portion of Unit -102 is being used as the Homestake Condominium
Association offices. However, a dwelling unit still occupies the upper half of Unit 5-102.
**The figure for existing GRFA was derived by assuming 63 units at 600 square feet each = 37,800, plus the upper
level of Unit 13-102 at 365 square feet = 38,165, plus seven "250 additions" totalling 700 square feet, for a total of
38,865 square feet.
***Parking on the Homestake Condominium Association property consists of thirty-two carport spaces and
approximately thirty-five uncovered surface parking spaces, however, since the parking lot is unstriped, it is difficult
to determine exactly how many existing parking spaces there are. Wherefore, staff believes there is a total of
between sixty-five and seventy parking spaces on the property.
2
has a parking requirement of two parking spaces, there is no increase in the total number of
parking spaces required t accommodate the new use.
1 CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of the Criteria and Findings found in Section 13.62.660 of the Vail Municipal
Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested
variances based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors-
1 , The relationship of h r me variance other existing or
potential uses and r -re in the vicinity.
Staff Response:
degree 2. The hie relief from t trio n literal interpretation
and enforcement of specified regulation i necessary t achieve
compatibility uniformity treatment among sites in t vicinity
or t attain the objectives of this title without grant of special
privilege.
Staff Response:
request because the C? F zone district currently does not allow restaurants
and bars as an allowed use. The applicant is requesting to remove a
nonconforming use of the property and, in its place, install a use that is
compatible with the purpose statement, and is specifically listed as a permitted
use, in the 1V1 zone districts
3. T effect of t a t variance on light an air, distribution
population, t--- wm? tin n traffic facilities, public facilities n
utilities, and --afety.
Staff Response"
S. The Plannino and Environmental Commission shall make the followincl findings,
before orantina a variance:
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 district.
. 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"
as The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that o not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district.
V. STAFF TI
Staff's recommendation for approval includes the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall remove all exterior mechanical equipment and "decorations"
which were related to the use of this property as restaurant (i.e. signs, kitchen
related venting and mechanical equipment, storage area below the north side
stairwell, etc.).
2, Before a building permit i approved to convert the restaurant into a dwelling
unit, the applicant shall receive R approval of all exterior modifications
required by Condition 1 above, and as may additionally be proposed by the
applicant.
c:\pec\memos\bouch 1 1.14
5
I
v IJ'?4
L.C.E.
P A T 1
P
a
a'
®4110
•G
0
c.cs. ,..c. E. t r,a?c®c c.cs.
®micgav °+" 8m660uY 3LE. saa.coav
®mtcow
l3m6COaY BaECOaY
a=e' e> z=e'
11. ...11 saacour sa66o++v
UNIT UNIT a's arl ze'
faoosl >«. .?» UNIT UNIT ®® .,.. _.9: g''/y -... ]:g,g®m° a n •a' ,tE. E.E
A210 A209 A205 A205 sa?to.r sm6c onY
s' s
UNIT A207
f 'd 4208 A207
A204 A203
_ _ _ . iP-
r.®®.. --- --- - _ - _ v UNi7 UNIT {
1? A202 A201
n ?y v.? ?...py $«
IWSOtB ?'A.?I??a IWaW^)?? IGC S,PE mr m.m `? /? ? m°-_1-___. __ :..- a _ -It s_ _® 16I .n re
o s-o-q 1.6E s,mlWwmv m.> -°- t
61
® 1 1 6L4 Stn?awa+ a-+
SECOND- FLOOR l ?
n
° 3$
37=3+}
B
C 9
RESTAURANT 1-
1` Pwa?C Pmi?O
A 109-1 10
Pm.r{• ? P.tE a
V7
ti
D I D I ®® .m.®._ 3 I w.® UNIT JN,T
®"? b ? A+06 A105
UNIT „Ni.T jm
Pa;< ® iem Af08 AI07 --- __ _
® 8
Pa r P
_. •?r,
Aac1[ :ate
I L-7,
e
JN§ UNIT
A'Ca A103
_
® UNIT IT
A102 A101
._ -- A -- al _ _ a
_________-
®._® -r l.ry .r its
•??W »f z- * d«
vice. I as ac
? _ uEC.+a w,cmE ?ex. sra,awm. m ,
-FIRST FLOOR ?= ®_,. ?§I!II°>
A I
- -3=q° : a a r
? y?i{luc
??.c.E. ° e
gam. ... ea >+ .e ^ e ie ac®: >..,
0eq _/
° NOTES:
I GC.E.) C-ENERAL COMMON E L E M ENT
I L.C EJ LIMITED COMMON ELEWENT
CEILING HEIGHT FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS 15-6•=
ExeERT As tVDIcAT .1)
(®) CEILI%G HE?UHT 149 WITHIN DASHED INE5
lEH) CEILING HEIGHT
IF) G.CE FIREILA?F
?? o SuWVE.a 4G) GCE MEC H4NII_AL F®U£
•q rWi4G0. 60tgWmDq TYPICAL un tT WALL DIMENSIONS: SE- '.:N%T5 •+214 AND A201,
?- ELEVATIONS BASED el; u.S.G.S. ( ATuM. SEE SHEET 3.
B
i
b EtEY. pas,.s,' '
9ElEY. ®a®e.a s
UNIT UNIT
UNIT UNIT +z A308 A307 UNIT UNIT
A310
? A309 A306 A305
?
dEl£V. waSa. ce'
?e gEifr Y. 6a Ja.tm' fflEV
iEt£V.»>9a?K EIE V. paY4.9,
9fyEY, paaa.a s' ?
UNIT
. UNIT
A208 A207 UNIT UNIT
q. UNIT UNIT A206 A205
A210 A209
dELEV. pzYS ie
r
° s'+
«? - >>° gElE.v eax,.,a
? EIEY. pzaa.oi
} f?oef) t
E?EV wfiW rS t EIE Y. eat9. Si
¢¢ EIEY. ®ats.®®' > UNIT UNIT
$$ Y AIDS A107 UNIT UNIT
RESTAURANT A 109-HO . AtO6 A105
LGd
?oe41a Dt?°
? ?d ° r ®. 9
,Ob sp
, ,y ,
.
9§
a ELEV.®80>.me ?Q
?,°`•€m. W8t14 fi+' ? °
+J
Y?
® .s
E14b ®t Oabt' °
>
° 9
a
LB
SECTION A-A
Afa6E: lip a 1°- 7
r-B
d
¢ g
a
1
1
i
¢ESEY. pa<>.so
UNIT UNIT
A304 A303
w UNIT
' A302
P e
?°
d ELE V. H2 Ja.t0
Ii ?
f cLC V. eaa,.6a
UNIT UNIT
A204 A203
UNIT
A202
9 ?
BELEa, Ha, c.vo
g 9EL¢v. Ba,s.co°B
1
UNIT UNIT J
. A104 A103 11
UNIT
A102
' ? ? ?® a 1E?EY. waoaro n4
(
UNIT
A301
UNIT
A201
UNIT
A101
p.
y.e.E. LlL$. tl
B+LfauY ? Ba famY lL£. LLb
Dalf aN9 Bel CauY
_ a?®' ae1 a-w' a=B° )rl a: e.
+•z- o a ?.
' 1v? cal y.fs.
h B>vt0»b BayfamY
A n B+LCO,+Y BelcomY 1
& w®° R« UNIT UNIT w ®a ,r1 z-B°
«A370 A309 UNIT UNIT p 7 °`a l,cs :.cx.
._di ®ay cony s+L Cawv
A306 A305
UNIT JNIT
A308 A307
ILI UNIT 6'N!Y
" r ______. 1__Il)__ A304 8303
UNIT UNIT A
a _ a-a ?n n
. ® b a-e aH
.a .a IrYelc+:t ?"m 302 A301
f.LE. SialWwar a-9 C -_._____- _______ '_ alLE SJn ?Wwar +-a _
ILI
"'! ycE. s*a?WwaY +® ®_fi ?mm N___ ___.__®_b __ _®_ ____®__ _
ILI ILI
c' I rz-? z-p"
c o ®L.cs. sYa?aw+Y w-a
Dn ? b ,a) t ? N Y
Ili au Uef SYBIWwyyaY + ,
THIRD FLOOR ? ? 1111
NOTES:
S GCE') GENERAL COMMON ELEMENT
(L.C.E.) LIMITED COMMON ELEMENT
CEILING HEIGHT THIRD FLOOR 15'6, EXCEPT
AS INDICATED
(L) CEILING HEIGHT 1415 WITHIN DASHED LINES
(G) G.C.E. MECHANICAL FLUE
g (F) G.C.E. FIREPLACE ,
® Ww lama suavEY ca. TYPICAL WALL DIMENSIONS: SEE UNITS A310 AND A309
® EW,sea, coyoW+? ELEVATIONS BASED ON U.S. G.S. DATUM. BENCH MARK LOCATED ON FIRE PLUG AT
.. ,_ SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT A-7. BLOCK A, LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION.
BENCH MARK ELE VAT, ON 8771.48 FEET. °'
THI
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 10, 1994
SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance to allow for GRFA to be located in the front
setback for a proposed structure at 2340 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 49 Dyck 9,
Vail Intermountain.
Applicant: Daniel Frederick
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
DESCRIPTION Since the time of the approvals by the REC and DR B, the applicant has had the drawings
reviewed by structural engineers. They have made recommendations that modify the original
design that include one level of RFA above the garage. Because the lot is 36% slope, the
retaining wall at the rear of the garage would be approximately 17 feet tall. As a result, this
rear wall was approximately the height required for a second level.
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Lot Size:
Zoning:
Height:
GRFA:
Setbacks:
Front
Side:
Side:
Rear:
0.64 acre or 28,039 s q. ft.
Primary/Secondary Residential
Allowed
33'
Approved Mav 9, 1994
32.5'
Proposed October 10, 1994
32.5'
6,753,9 sq. ft,
20'
15'
15'
15'
1,071 sq. ft.
4' for garage, 20' for home
62'
35'
65'
815 sq. ft. (3%)
27,044 sqa ft. (96.4%)
2 spaces
1,413 sq. ft.
4' for garage, 20' for home
62'
35'
65'
815 s% ft. (3%)
2 spaces
Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal ode, the
Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based
on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance other existing
potential uses and structures in t vicinity.
Staff believes that the relationship between the requested variance to other
structures in the vicinity is positive, in general, we believe that locating the
garage at the street level with a 4-foot setback will entail less site disturbance
than locating the garage higher on the lot, behind the front setback, and
constructing driveway from the street level u to a higher elevation.
2
3. The effect of the squested variance on light ire distribution
population, t-r cti traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and ?'?ls? -af t
The lanninq and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before arantino 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 district.
. 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 literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that o not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district.
® STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The boulder walls and foundation of the garage and house must be designed
by a registered professional engineer.
Z The utility service line for the garage and house shall be buried underground.
3. The applicant must secure a public way permit prior to applying for a building
permit.
4. The applicant must provide a detailed drawing of the driveway showing a 4-foot
wide valley pan and a maximum of an 3% slope from the edge of pavement to
the garage slab.
4
c:\pec\memos\irdrik 7 0.10
Ica
l N
A 4-1
c,'' r? { n
?r d ?
C
-? - El
111 0, 1
_-
71
-- c - -?- -._ ._. _.. ?"°? G+,d?a t?t?'-c® ^9 'erg{'.-???°?ts»?? -- __.__.. _. __.-? __ ? _ l __ ?--- _..
L{j +
--
_r
b
a #
t`
r1?2"° °'a ?' 11
r
_I, ij- ED -
-
m? - i , L'--i -_fl
t, I ON-