Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0122 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail wilf hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on January 22, 1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance to allow for an expansion to an existing single family residence located at 2299 Chamonix Lane /Lot 7, Block A, Vail das Schone Filing #11. Applicant: Frank D. D'Alessio Planner_ George Ruther A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance to allow for an expansion to the secondary residence located at 275 Beaver Dam Road /Lot 40, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Steve Berkowitz Planner Randy Stouder A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance and a density variance to allow for an expansion to an existing unit located at 1568 Golf Terrace /Unit #48, Golfcourse Townhomes, Sunburst 3rd Filing. Applicant: Bob Trotta Planner: George Ruther A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance to allow for an expansion to an existing unit located at 2801 Basingdale (Camelot Townhomes - Unit A) /Lot 2, Block 8, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Jamie Turner Planner_ Dominic Mauriello A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance to be used in the construction of a Type I EHU in a new Primary/Secondary residence located at 1875 West Gore Creek Drive /Lot 24, Vail Village West 2nd Filing. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais Planner: George Ruther A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance to allow for an expansion to an existing sduplex unit located at 2850 Aspen Lane /Lot 17, Resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village 11 th Firmg. Applicant: Frank Wimer Planner: George Ruther A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance to allow for an expansion to an existing unit and a front yard setback variance located at 325 Forest Road /Lot 18, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Steve Riden representing Tim Drisco Planner: Jim Curnutte A request for a Minor SDD Amendment to allow for changes to the development plan located at Millrace Phase 3, 1335 Westhaven Drive /Development Area A of the Glen Lyon SDD (SDD No. 4). Applicant: Steve Riden representing Gregory Walton Planner: Jim Curnutte Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2114 voice or 479 -2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published January 5, 1996 in the Vail Trail. MEMORANDUM 40 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 22, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for Additional GRFA, utilizing the 250 Ordinance to allow for additions to be added to both sides of the duplex located at 1568 Golf Terrace /Unit #48, Golfcourse Townhomes, Sunburst 3rd Filing. Applicants: Bob Trotta Planner: George Ruther I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created Chapter (18.71) of the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." This Chapter allows for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to be added to a dwelling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met. The purpose of the Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwellings units, which have been in existence for a period of at least five years, by is permitting up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit. In August 1995, the Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Series of 1995 which amended Chapter 18.71, for the purpose of eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a dwelling unit is "demo /rebuilt." This Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. With this proposal, the applicant is requesting to add 250 sq. ft. of GRFA to Unit #48, at the Go.lfcourse Townhomes. The proposal uses the 250 allowance to remodel an existing crawl space located behind the garage. The crawl space has already been finished out by a previous owner, however, no approval was ever granted, nor was a Building Permit ever issue by the Town for the work. The applicant wishes to use the 250 allowance to remodel the existing space and add a new bathroom, as well as bring the dwelling unit into compliance with the Municipal Code. To bring the property into compliance with the code, a portion of the existing finished out crawl space must be removed. As currently constructed, more than 250 square feet of the existing crawl space area has been converted to GRFA. The applicant proposes to remove the excess GRFA by constructing a wall to partition off the crawl space. This solution has been used in the past to resolve similar problems. The applicant had originally submitted an application requesting a density variance. The purpose of the density variance was to allow that portion of the existing crawl space ( 59 sq. ft.), which is • over the allowable GRFA, to remain. After discussion with staff, the applicant has withdrawn the density variance request as a means of resolving the GRFA overage. I1. ZONING ANALYSIS Unit # 48 at the Golfcourse Townhomes meets all applicable standards as outlined in the Special Development District #8 Ordinance, and are eligible to apply for the additional, interior, 250 square feet of GRFA. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect upon the existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures • As the request is for an interior 250, the proposed remodel will have minimal impacts on the site, and neither drainage nor grading on the property will be affected. The only exterior change to the building resulting from this proposal will be the installation of an egress window well on the south side of the dwelling unit. The Homeowner's Association has granted approval of the window well installation. i 2. Impact on adjacent properties Staff believes that the proposed addition will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties. 3. Compliance with the Town's zoning rquirements and applicable development standards Section 18.71.030 (E) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any dwelling unit that proposes to use Additional GRFA shall comply with the standards outlined in the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. Upon inspection of the site by staff, we find that this property is - in compliance with each of the applicable standards listed above. As discussed earlier in the memorandum, the interior of the dwelling unit is nonconforming as it relates to GRFA and the previous completion of the crawl space area. With this 250 request, the applicant proposes to bring the allowable GRFA within the unit into compliance with the Municipal Code. is 0 B. Findin The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for Additional GRFA. Staff believes that the review criteria have been met as discussed in the memo. Regarding the findings, staff believes that finding B1 is met as the proposed addition will not negatively impact the existing site. Finding B2 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposed additions will not negatively impact adjacent properties. Finding B3 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposed interior remodel will comply with all zoning requirements and applicable development standards. • 27' -11" WINDOW WELL MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 22, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance to allow for an expansion to an existing unit located at 2801 Basingdale (Camelot Townhomes - Unit 4) /Lot 2, Block 8, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Jamie Turner Planner: Dominic Mauriello 2�lA' ` :•.�:SC$Y .�. : i i }y l •: •�`�.• ., ai}i� :x .:., .... •.,•::.., • •. . , , tom•. xrtt };a�: u :: <,< ' ... .. .:`�i>:' . ..Sc turd :S , . Y e'�l4 ...., .. .. .. .. ..ti ..::,;•)Ye: I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created a new Chapter (18.71) to the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." The purpose of the Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwellings units, which have been in existence for a period of at least five years, by permitting up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA (beyond the maximum allowance) to • be added to a dwelling unit. Certain criteria must be met in order to allow the additional GRFA. In August 1995, the Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Series of 1995, which amended Chapter 18.71 by eliminating the &bility to use the additional GRFA when a dwelling unit_ is a "demo /rebuild." The 1995 Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. With this proposal, the applicant is requesting to add 250 square feet of GRFA by converting current crawl space to habitable area in Unit 4, Camelot Townhomes. The exterior of the structure will be modified by adding a sliding glass door and a walkout to the rear of the structure. Neighboring units have similar doors and walkouts. See the attached drawings for more detail. 11. ZONING ANALYSIS Camelot Townhomes were constructed under the jurisdiction of Eagle County in 1974 and hence the lots are nonconforming with respect to lot size, setbacks, and buildable area. This request will not further impact these nonconformities as the remodel does not extend beyond the existing building envelope. The site has paved parking and landscaping on the site. All utilities, except cable television, are located underground. The building is constructed with T -111 siding. Staff finds it unreasonable to require the upgrading of the siding on the building and the placement of the cable television under the ground (and roadway) at this stage, as this is likely the last unit to convert crawl space to GRFA. There are four units with adequate crawl space to convert to habitable area on this site. Of the four, two have already converted the crawl space under previous Town regulations. The remaining unit has a large rock in the crawl area which makes it • difficult to convert the area. I Ot There is an unscreened trash receptacle located on the site, which staff believes should be upgraded. The ordinance specifically addresses the issue of trash receptacles. Staff is • recommending that screening for this receptacle be provided as a condition of approval. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department recommends approval of this request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect upon the existiing_topographv vegetation, drainage and existing structures The proposed additions will have minimal, if any, negative impact on the site, and neither drainage nor grading on the property will be affected. 2. Impact on adjacent properties The proposed remodel will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties. The proposed window and walkout will remove or cover existing exposed cinder block wall, which will improve the appearance of the exterior of the structure. • 3. Compliance with the Town's zoning mquirements and ap lip cable development standards Section 18.71.030 (E) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any dwelling unit that proposes to use Additional GRFA shall comply with the standards outlined in the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. The site has paved parking and landscaping on the site. All utilities, except cable television, are located underground. The building is constructed with T -111 siding. Staff finds it unreasonable to require the upgrading of the siding on the building and the placement of the cable television under the ground (and roadway) at this stage, as this is likely the last unit to convert this space to GRFA. Although the site does not meet the bulk and density standards of the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone district, the site exists as a legal nonconforming site and the improvements do not increase the nonconformity of the site. • K B. Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively affect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will comply with Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards as they apply to nonconforming sites and structures. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for Additional GRFA with the condition that the trash receptacle be adequately screened from view subject to DRB review and approval. Staff believes that the review criteria have been met as discussed in the memo. Regarding the findings, staff believes that: finding 131 is met, as the proposed addition will not impact the existing site; finding B2 is met, as the proposed addition will not negatively impact adjacent properties; and finding B3 is met, as the proposed addition complies with the zoning requirements and applicable development standards as they relate to . nonconforming sites and structures. F:\everyone\pec\memos\turner.j22 • 3 a I t 7 nn �•+ t VaL;� 5y9 - 011 77 390 - x slo 1 aq m ob:[c - P�AAC„ r w _.. _ V M ` LO r i `.� 5�-or� e\ • 1 rJ N IT 0A . IL -- t - 1] MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 22, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance to be used in the construction of a Type I EHU in a new primary /secondary residence located at 1875 West Gore Creek Drive /Lot 24, Vail Village West 2nd Filing. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais Planner: George Ruther I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance #4, Series of 1985 which created a new Chapter 18.71 to the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA." The purpose of the additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwelling units, which have been in existence • for a period of at least five years, by permitting up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA (beyond the maximum allowance) to be added to a dwelling unit. Certain criteria must be met in order to allow additional GRFA. In August 1995, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance# 6, 1995 which amended Chapter 18.71 of the Municipal Code. In part, Ordinance #6 eliminated the ability to use the additional GRFA when a dwelling is a "demo /rebuild ". This ordinance also requires that all requests for additional GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). With this proposal, the applicant is requesting to use all 250 sq. ft. of the 250 allowance in the construction of a Type I Employee Housing Unit at 1875 West Gore Creek Drive /Lot 24, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. On November 12, 1995, a fire caused extensive damage to the structure built at 1875 West Gore Creek Drive. Rather than attempt to repair the fire damaged structure, the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and rebuild a new primary /secondary residence. Since the applicant's lot size is less than 15,000 sq. ft., the only way a second dwelling unit is permitted on the lot, is to deed - restrict the second dwelling unit as a Type I Employee Housing Unit. According to Section 18.57.040 B4 (Type I Employee Housing Unit, General Conditions), "an applicant shall be permitted to apply to the Community Development Department of the Town for additional GRFA not to exceed 250 sq. ft. to be used in the construction of the Employee Housing Unit." f:\ everyone \pec\memos \dauphinais.122 1 In this proposal, the applicant wishes to construct a 727 sq. ft., Type I Employee Housing Unit above the garage of the new primary /secondary residence. The applicant will be deed - restricting a 171 sq. ft., enclosed, one -car parking space for the use of the occupants of the Type I Employee Housing Unit. The applicant's proposed floor plans and building elevations illustrating the Type I Employee Housing Unit have been attached for reference (see Attachment 1). II. ZONING ANALYSIS Legal Description: Lot 24, Vail Village West 2nd Filing Lot Size: Zoning: Use: GRFA: Site Coverage: Setbacks: Front: Sides: Rear: 10,682 sq. ft. /0.245 acres Primary/Secondary Residential Primary/Secondary Dwelling Units Allowed Proposed 3,771 sq. ft. 2,136 sq. ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. /15ft. 15 ft. 3,714 sq. ft. 2,136 sq. ft. 20.5 ft. 15 ft. /15 ft. 61 ft. Parking: 5 spaces 5 spaces • III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Chapter 18.71 (Additional GRFA) the Community Development Department recommends approval of this request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: 1. Effect upon the existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures: In the staff's opinion, the additional 250 square feet of GRFA being incorporated into the new primary /secondary residence, will have no negative effects upon the existing topography, vegetation, drainage or other existing structures in the area. The proposal calls for regrading of the existing site. The changes the applicant is proposing with the regrading will result in grades that comply with the 2:1 maximum slope. Currently, grades existing on the site are in excess of the 2:1 slope standard. With regard to vegetation, the applicant is proposing to save all of the existing-trees on the site, with the exception of one, 3 " -4" caliper Aspen on the east side of the existing residence. Two existing fir trees on the southwest corner of the lot, and six mature spruce trees on the northwest corner of the lot will be saved. The applicant has agreed to take tree preservation measures during the construction process and will install a construction fence around the trees that are to be saved prior to the Town's issuance of a Building Permit. It is the staff's opinion that with the removal of the existing structure and the construction • of a new primary /secondary residence, the area in general will be improved. Staff feels that the proposed new primary /secondary residence, including the 250 addition, will conform architecturally with the West Vail neighborhood. f:\ everyone \pec\memos \dauphinais.122 2 • 2. Impact on adjacent properties. In the staff's opinion, the proposed new primary /secondary residence, with the 250 addition, will not have any negative impacts on adjacent properties. As mentioned above, the existing structure will be removed and replaced with a new primary /secondary residence. The applicant is proposing adequate parking, per the Municipal Code, to accommodate vehicles parking on the site. The additional 250 sq. ft. proposed by the applicant will result in a minimal increase in the bulk and mass of the new structure. 3. Compliance with the Town's zoning requiremgnts and applicable development standards. Section 18.71.020 (f) of the Municipal Code requires that: "any dwelling unit that proposes to use additional GRFA shall comply with the standards outlined in the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines (18.54). These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance and upkeep of the property." Upon review of the proposed plans by staff, the new landscaping plan for the property will be in compliance with the landscape standards; the utility line servicing the structure will be underground; the new paved driveway will reduce the total amount of asphalt existing on the lot; and it is expected that the general maintenance and upkeep of the property will meet Town of Vail standards. • Additionally, the property will be further brought into compliance with the zoning requirements of the Municipal Code. At this time, a 10'x 10' outdoor storage shed is located on the property. The storage shed currently exists in the 50' stream setback. With this application, the applicant's proposal includes the removal of the exterior storage shed from the property. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's request to Utilize the 250 Ordinance in the construction of a new Type I Employee Housing Unit at 1875 West Gore Creek Drive /Lot 24, Vail Village West 2nd Filing. Staff believes that the review criteria have been met as discussed above in the memorandum. Regarding the findings, staff believes that; Finding B1 is met as the incorporation of the additional 250 sq. ft. of GRFA will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on the existing site; Finding B2 is met as the 250 addition will not negatively impact the adjacent properties; and Finding B3 is met, as the proposed 250 addition and the Type I Employee Housing Unit will result in the complete compliance of the site with the Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. 7 f:\ everyone \pec\memos \dauphinais.122 • �, .. d; ''�`r" `t r � . � . s ,j�, J . ?1h Z" ��4 ff' _.'4.r, • , a� ` q .- .S �t .`�' 't� � yM , .��"5,+ �� r � fi..a ,••r'�n+� �,' s � rN. a e , � .,,.,• • �. Av ' .�`Srt"•f�•••!^"I' ..�� I � -? ~• �' * ►1, •�r� t ». �l , :_s � � . @� ts� .• t xa�'�.. �3�..�t <- t - 4 •A, . : 7.i : �• �, �`` '� s ,�, _ .� .. fin{ � • �1. � �� •,. i ��.. �,' ' � •� , * w � r �, je :•,mow '��: � +tw < n. ri. �` �'� �4. r•�- � +� 7' r ". f ,� �r ,�i s • � ..1hd.^i'�h:•! %�•'',� i 7,'�M�'��' j �' aYit.►;�. T� L./ • q 4 P- i f t V T.. � IOU IT r � 4 1 t ' t T4G 5Ivlac, T P. EAST ELEVATION SCAL E- // 8":;/'0 - PA ks- 6,Ac A AST �. I (t NEB' : �E t� i r � j 1 -rc T4G 5Ivlac, T P. EAST ELEVATION SCAL E- // 8":;/'0 - PA ks- 6,Ac A AST �. I (t NEB' : �E t� i r � 10 1 "PA kg- 64CEiJ A& PRA(- ti r bAek (A Co) MCTA%. CLA I L t� FA 'rte S Co �set�t So ��F 1'r UC,.i D G� h'r � 1� cc L3� Ci�GC,4tS� -• �;. awm Am" 16 q r /A� t P-1- r I c f NORTH EL VATION LA) SC. 114, ; S 1 D i, Das rs . (3 g�4�tS, I� �Crc.ETS � Gc� TQiK . } o Lo. Pi L 1 G H'I-t*J4 -rvyo. ... • '� • • i' ""�•..` ..rte. w ...� ...� . 4 �t•� ,. ` � • - • • _ •fir -�� �� �� \ S lI TH ELEIl.ATLC,7/11. 6 to , • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 22, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance to allow for an expansion to an existing duplex unit located at 2850 Aspen Lane /Lot 17, Resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village 11th Filing. Applicant: Frank Wimer Planner: George Ruther 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance #4, Series of 1985 which created a new Chapter 18.71 to the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR • AREA." The purpose of the additional gross residential floor area (GRFA) Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwelling units, which have been in existence for a period of at least five years, by permitting up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA (beyond the maximum allowance) to be added to a dwelling unit. Certain criteria must be met in order to allow additional GRFA. In August 1995, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance# 6, 1995 which amended Chapter 18.71 of the Municipal Code. In part, Ordinance #6 eliminated the ability to use the additional GRFA when a dwelling is a "demo /rebuild ". The new ordinance also requires that all requests for additional GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). With this proposal, the applicant wishes to use 145 square feet of the 250 square feet allowance to construct a new dining room addition. The new dining room addition is proposed on the north side of the existing residence above the front entry. The area above the front entry had originally been designed to accommodate an exterior deck. After reviewing the exterior deck design, the project architect felt that the area above the front entry would not function well for an exterior deck. The project architect concluded that an exterior deck on the north side of the building, tucked in between two exterior building walls, would receive minimal, if any, direct sunlight and would be negatively impacted by the noise from the Interstate. The proposed floor plans and building elevations illustrating the dining room addition have been attached for reference (see attachment 1). 0 1 in II. ZONING ANALYSIS . Legal Description: Lot 17, a Resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village 11th Filing. Lot Size: 17,269 sq. ft. /0.3964 acres Zoning: Two - Family Residential Use: Two - Family Allowed Existin Proposed GRFA: 4,827 sq. ft. 4,384 sq.ft." 4,529 sq.ft. (including credits) East half: 1,652 sq. ft. no change West half: 2,732 sq. ft. 2,877 sq. ft." Site Coverage: 3,454 sq. ft. 2,420 sq.ft.` no change Setbacks: Front: 20' 235 Front: no change Sides: 15715' 57712.5' Sides: no change Rear: 15' 65' Rear: no change Parking: 3 spaces 3 spaces no change On December 11, 1995, the Planning & Environmental Commission granted the applicant an approval to construct a 371 sq. ft. addition. Part of the addition will be in the side yard setback. The addition has not yet been constructed, however, the approval is valid for two years. 145 square feet proposed using the 250 GRFA Ordinance • 111. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Chapter 18.71 (Additional GRFA) the Community Development Department recommends approval of this request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: Effect upon the existing topography, vegetation drainage and existing structures: The proposed dining room addition will have no negative impacts on the existing topography, vegetation, drainage or existing structures. The proposal will not alter the existing topography of the site, nor will any trees be removed. Since no regrading will be necessary, existing drainage on the property will not be affected. It is the staff's opinion that the existing structure will be improved with this request. Staff feels that the proposed addition will work well architecturally with the design of the existing structure. All exterior building materials, colors and finishes will match the existing structure. 2. Impact on adjacent properties. In the staff's opinion, the proposed dining room addition will not have any negative impacts on adjacent properties. The addition proposed will fill -in an existing alcove on the structure. The new addition will not project out any further than the existing exterior walls. The additional bulk and mass resulting from the dining room addition is minimal. The addition will be screened by a large, existing Lodgepole Pine. • 2 0 • The only parties being affected by the proposed dining room addition are the owners of the duplex unit to the east. The applicant has provided a written statement from the duplex owners to the east granting their approval of the proposed addition (see attachment 2). 3. Compliance with the Town's zoning requirements and applicable development standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Municipal Code requires that any dwelling unit that proposes to use additional GRFA shall comply with the standards outlined in the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines (18.54). These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. Upon review of the site by staff, the landscaping on the property appears to be in compliance with the landscape standards, the utility lines servicing the structure are already underground, the driveway is paved, and the general maintenance and upkeep of the property is excellent. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 ordinance to allow for an expansion to an existing residence located at 2860W Aspen Lane. Staff believes that the review criteria have been met as discussed above in the memorandum. Regarding the findings, staff believes that; Finding 131 is met as the proposed dining room addition will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on the existing site; Finding 132 is met as the proposed addition will not negatively impact the adjacent properties; and Finding B3 is met, as the proposed addition and existing site comply with all of the zoning requirements and applicable development standards. F: \everyone \pec \memos \wimer250.j22 • 3 t. QE�tVc ;K��fi;. IN `lAK k Jl�il7� .v mil. .::V J ♦:. Jl.; L'i.. ir.i •i v:"1J11V.d lu �.. Fra" .Sv. JVV'1 I VJ.vV • Brandess - Cadmus Real Estate, Inc. 281 BRIDGE STREET ib VAIL, COLORADO 81657 • Jtuktury 18, 1996 George Rather 'Down of Vaal Fax # 479 - 2452 Dear Mr. Rather. • We approve the addition Frank and Joyce Wimer propose to this existing residence. Sincerely. (� 1 Mark & a Cadmus • REAL ESTATE (303) a7F.145A • DENVER TOLL FREE 693 -3101 RESERVATIONS 1.600- 222-VAIL P FAX (303) 076 -3188 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 22, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to an existing unit and a front yard setback variance to allow for a garage to be located in a front setback in association with the construction of a new primary residence located at 325 Forest Road /Lot 18, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Steve Riden representing Tim Drisco Planner: Jim Curnutte • :cr r. } ,. \ti "�?:: itr: , ..,..�.;... .R:� z' .,. ;; ,... ; e �v9. s �cF• w�r.�?or.'aa k.. SJrXt}`,�A `'`�% >... ." ":_.. .h��`.: 'L%r ffi�hvr. `i�?o'°�?o- `''"�... %.' �� ".�... r�. V`.•` k3�_ ¢{ �a'x�"Yyr,�.`• A.•.v ..;. .w �.. .�,k'. .. ::..gym . ,. •xs + fi: w3£3�:.�^c`•��`... h ?ta* I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Tim Drisco, has requested a worksession with the Planning and Environmental Commission for the purpose of discussing issues related to his proposed request for a 250 addition to an existing residence and a front setback variance associated with the construction of a new residence on Lot 18, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing, 325 Forest Road. The existing dwelling unit on the property has been in existence since the early 1960's and therefore, is eligible to apply for a 250 addition. The applicant intends to remodel this dwelling unit in such a way that the final amount of GRFA does not exceed 40% of the maximum amount of GRFA allowed on the property, thereby allowing the unit to be considered the "secondary" unit. It is then, the applicant's desire to construct a new "primary" dwelling unit on the western portion of the property. The applicant has requested a variance to allow a two -car garage, associated with the new primary dwelling unit, to encroach 20' into the front yard setback. As indicated on the attached site plan, the garage is proposed to be located on the front property line and accessed from the east via a heated driveway, currently designed at a grade of 12 %. In justification for the proposed front yard setback variance, the applicant's architect has stated that: "the extreme steepness of the approach to the setback, efforts to save some very large trees and the narrowness of the remaining parcel to be developed, has limited solutions appropriate in resolving the specific design issues. The proposal will be limited to the solution shown, otherwise, a very expensive and potentially inoperative and possibly massive structure would be required just to allow access to the site. The design criteria solution that I am suggesting will also keep the new residence from encroaching upon the views of the adjacent properties, by maintaining an open space on the north portion of the site." II. BACKGROUND On September 8, 1986, the PEC reviewed and approved a front yard setback variance request to • allow for the construction of a new two - story, two -car garage in the front and side setback areas of Lot 18. The approved variance allowed the garage to encroach 9' into the 15' side yard setback and 10' into the 20' front yard setback. The PEC felt that there were physical hardships on the site that necessitated approval of the setback variances and recognized that the approval would be consistent with previously approved variances along Forest Road. The PEC approved the variance unanimously, by a vote of 6 -0. Due to construction errors, the building was constructed further into the side yard setback than originally approved by the PEC and on April 20, 1987, a second variance was granted for the garage. This variance allowed the already constructed garage to encroach 12 -1/2' into the side yard setback. This modification to the previously approved variance was also unanimously approved by the PEC by a vote of 5 -0. On July 26, 1993, the applicant submitted an application for setback and site coverage variances for a project very similar to the one being proposed today. The application presented at the time showed a minimal connection between the new building and the existing dwelling unit. However, since the applicant felt that this was not the best design solution for the property, the variance requests were withdrawn. On August 16, 1995, the Design Review Board approved a separation request, to allow the proposed primary unit to be detached from the existing dwelling unit. The Design Review Board based their separation approval on the preservation of mature evergreen trees, significant slope constraints and the interior lay -out of the existing building. Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Since this is worksession, the Criteria and Findings for reviewing the variance and the "250" applications will not be specifically addressed, however, staff felt that it would be helpful to list them in this memorandum for the PEC's review: Variance Criteria and Findings 0 A. Consideration of Factors 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 and 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. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting 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. 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: 40 0 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 doe 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. 250 Addition Criteria and Findings A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: Effect upon the existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. Impact on adjacent properties. • 3. Compliance with the Town's zoning requirements and applicable development standards. B. Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. IV. DISCUSSION ISSUES Since this is a worksession, there is no formal staff recommendation at this time. However, the staff has identified the following issues which we would like to discuss further with the PEC and the applicant: 1. Proposed location of garage access - Although staff believes that the site exhibits the physical constraints necessary to allow the PEC to approve a front • yard setback variance, we are concerned about the design of the proposed access to the garage. As indicated on the attached site plan, the garage slab is located 9 feet below Forest Road. The garage doors are oriented toward the east. Access to the garage is provided via a heated driveway, which is designed at a 4 12% grade. The driveway connects with Forest Road near the center portion of • the lot. The applicant has indicated that a front yard setback variance, to allow the garage to be located as far south on the lot as possible, helps reduce site impacts on the northern portion of the lot by preserving large evergreen trees and reducing site disturbance associated with the steep grades in that area. Although staff agrees that site impacts would be lessened by encouraging development to occur on the previously disturbed, and flatter, southern portion of the lot, those advantages may be offset by the chosen design of the access way to the garage. Staff believes that the site disturbance (removal of vegetation, retaining walls, and re- grading) associated with the proposed driveway may be more significant than necessary to provide access to the garage. Staff believes that site disturbance may be reduced by exploring the possibility of elevating the garage in order to allow it to be accessed directly from Forest Road, similar to the garage on the eastern portion of the site. This development scenario has both pros and cons associated with it. Staff has considered these pros and cons and has identified them in bullet form as follows: P ros - Reduced site disturbance, (less regrading and fewer retaining walls). - Reduced impact on existing vegetation. - Opportunity to locate GRFA underneath the garage, thereby reducing the overall footprint of the main building and reducing site disturbance. . - Reduction of 12% grade for driveway. Cons - Impacts to building architecture. The garage doors would be directly facing Forest Road. - Reduced parking area on -site, (two in garage and two in right -of -way). - Vehicles backing out onto Forest Road. 2. Removal of GRFA under the existing garage - As mentioned in the Background section of this memorandum, a front and side setback variance was granted in 1986, to allow a two -story garage to be constructed on Lot 18. The upper level of this garage is used for parking cars and the lower level is existing GRFA, used for storage purposes. Since the applicant would like to utilize all of the property's available GRFA within the two dwelling units, he is proposing to convert the lower level of the building into crawlspace and transfer the existing GRFA to other areas of the property. Due to the amount of fill needed to convert this area into crawlspace, staff is concerned with whether the structural integrity of the existing exterior walls will allow for this conversion of GRFA to crawlspace. Since the entire redevelopment project is predicated on having this GRFA available, it would seem appropriate to determine the feasibility of infilling the lower level of the building, prior to allowing construction to begin on the property, and possibly prior to authorizing the 250 and variance requests. Should the applicant provide a professional engineer's analysis of the ability to infill this level of the building before the 250 and variance applications are acted upon by the PEC? A • 3. Proposal to locate the garage on the front property line and construct the driveway at the maximum allowed grade - Recently, the Town has received a number of variance applications requesting relief from the Town's requirements for building height, setbacks, retaining wall heights and driveway grades in response to "errors" that have occurred during construction. As currently designed, the proposed two -car garage, associated with the new primary unit, is located right on the front property line. Additionally, the driveway has been designed at the maximum 12% grade. Staff would recommend that the PEC consider asking the applicant to move the building away from the front property line a minimum of 6- 12" in order to allow for possible construction errors. Also, upon discussing the most appropriate means of accessing the garage, if it is determined that the garage access is acceptable as currently proposed, staff would recommend that the garage slab be raised a minimum of 1 -2' in order to reduce the driveway grade. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession, staff will not be providing a recommendation to the PEC related to the proposed 250 addition and front yard setback variances. Staff requests that the PEC provide direction to the applicant, so that a final decision on this application may be made at the February 12, 1996 PEC meeting. • is f: \everyone \pec \memos \drisco.122 .4b 32- ` 4-1' ` / .14 r� e* - - - Ab ^ O � Iy� \'Q!►� '' i � ip+s r�►% Pe - � ° '��!�' /�.`• ,1�1 a.. iT -,�. ` �`�i�`�V � c�`e. _ q�_ _ !► 00� R o l r 04 ��.� ....... __--`._~~ '--' --' _ FF ' ^ ^ ^ r 1 i I! I j� I � � � � I I I � I\ �\ t I 4 I I i� I�_: . � � iii � I J , I I I ��''ff ". �, i j I it �. � i | - | | i \ -___~ __-__� ----_- ---_-_. -_____ -_-_--_-- � � �` ' �_���--_`- --- _^__`�-_--� -' ' - ---_-�����-_��__- ' ���� -����--_--'_- __'-___-~_---^�~_--_.__-_-_-_~___�'_._ ~-_---_�__~ wm� ' ��N� ° ��N� ��N� � s_ • • ' i ` ' \ :-:� �����r>,` | +_. s • • �,��` -� MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 22, 1996 SUBJECT: A change to the Town of Vail survey policy to require an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) after the foundation is poured; when a project is within three feet of a setback line, has a building height within six inches of the maximum allowable, has a driveway grade that is greater than 10 %, has received a variance for setbacks or height, or for all projects including three or more separate structures. Planner: Lauren Waterton . y At the December 11, 1995 Planning and Environmental Commission pre- meeting, the PEC discussed the possibility of requiring an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) prior to a foundation inspection in addition to the ILC required prior to a framing inspection The review of an ILC prior to signoff of a foundation inspection can identify potential errors in the building's setback, height and /or driveway grade. These errors can then be remedied early in the construction process, resulting in less cost and time lost to the developer. The Town's current survey policy only requires an ILC prior to a framing inspection to verify that the building meets height and setback standards. Three options were discussed at the December 11, 1995 meeting: require an ILC on all projects prior to a foundation inspection; strongly recommend an ILC at the time of a foundation inspection; or require an ILC for projects that are near the maximum limits for setbacks, building height, and driveway grades. At the conclusion of the discussion, the PEC directed staff to change the Town's existing survey policy. The proposed changes were discussed at the January 8, 1996 PEC pre- meeting. Several members of the PEC expressed concern about the timing of the ILC. It is possible that the project may be delayed if an ILC must be approved.before the foundation can be poured. Staff has amended the proposed policy changes to clarify the timing of the ILC. The proposed changes apply to projects that have buildings within 3 feet of a setback, driveway grades greater than 10 %, have received a height or setback variance, or have three or more structures on the property. The ILC must be submitted to the Town of Vail within three weeks following the approved foundation inspection. This will allow time for the project to be surveyed and an ILC to be prepared. The ILC must show the outline of the foundation, elevation of the top of the foundation wall, elevation of the garage slab, and the grade of the centerline of the driveway. An ILC will still be required prior to a framing inspection for all projects. A i ceds rev vi e sed co f h Town's w survey o n s su a olic <Tl�'.., .,�;,n..:. >:. J. �. ".: �,::;;<:, ::;;:,;: >> «<..: ;;::<;:;:;;: tta ><: PY Y p Y e � � : gel t . �t �ve rna�e �in±l� the Janury, ttliet�ng >reehad As with our current policy, this revised policy will be given out with every Building Permit for new construction and for some additions. We are not currently requiring anyone to signoff on the last page that ackowledges that they have read and will adhere to this policy. However, with the implementation of this revised policy, we will begin to . require this signoff prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. 0 • required for projects that exhibit any of the following characteristics: The building is within 3 feet of any setback line. 2. The driveway grade is greater than 10 %. ILC will be 3. The building is within 6 inches of the maximum building height allowance. 4. The project involves three or more sirate structures on the property. • MEMORANDUM TO: All Architects, Contractors and Surveyors Doing Work in the Town of Vail FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: January 22, 1996 SUBJECT: Survey Requirements The following survey requirements apply to all new construction and to some additions. If you are unsure if your project requires an ILC, talk to the project planner. Benchmark On all surveys and Improvement Location Certificates, identify the benchmark used for the basis of the elevations. The same benchmark should be used throughout the construction process to insure that the measurement of a building is consistent. Items which make good benchmarks are sewer inverts, section corners, and property corners. Do not use manhole rims, the asphalt in streets, or fire hydrants. Architects and Builders should be aware that discrepancies exist in established monumentation in the Vail Valley. Please consult a surveyor to verify monumentation prior to developing plans for a site. The ILC should indicate the footprint of the building, the elevations of the foundation walls and the garage slab; .end the grads fl# : cent rlirfp of the d ire ra { rn i s.ur d iii t rei'ity f+tngrrn0nt; Specify the distance of the setback to each property line, noting the exterior material existing on the structure the day of the survey. Planners will then add 7f a pr ject . rec i t i a padance .for.;l eight r.s t ac[ s any wall material to what is shown on the survey in order to determine the final distance of the setbacks in the same way that will be done for determining building height. If . ledges or supports for rock veneer or any other facing material have been built into the foundation, measure the setback to that exterior point (see diagram on next page). Final distance will be measured from the outside edge of the exterior wall material. Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) prior to a framina inspection An ILC will be required prior to any framing inspection to verify that height and setback standards have been met. No framing inspections will be scheduled until the ILC is approved by the Town. Please allow -two working days from the time the ILC is submitted to the time the inspection can be scheduled. 1. Identifying Roof Ridge.Points - On the survey prepared for the framing inspection, indicate the highest points of the roof ridge. All ridge elevations must be shown on the ILC. The roof plan needs to be drawn on the ILC. The planner will overlay b the survey on the approved building permit plans. The roof ridge points identified on the ILC should align with the roof plan on the Town's set of Building Permit plans. 2. Roof Height - On the ILC, the surveyor should note the roof material (if any) on the highest point of the ridge which exists the day of the survey. The planner will add the dimensions of all other materials (except a cold roof vent). For example, if only the ridge beam has been constructed the day of the survey, the surveyor should note that, and the planner will then add the dimensions of the insulation, sheathing, etc. to verify that the finished product will not exceed the height limit. Ridge height will be measured to the top ridge of the sheathing. On the attached diagrams, the point identified with an asterisk is the top ridge of the sheathing. A cold roof vent, not exceeding 12 inches in height, measured from the sheathing to the top of the shingles, is considered an architectural projection and will not be included in the height. 3. Setbacks - When specifying the distance of a setback on the ILC, note the material existing on the structure the day of the survey. Planners will then add any wall material to what is shown on the survey in order to determine the final distance of the setbacks in the same way that will be done for height. If ledges or supports for rock veneer or any other facing material have been built into the foundation, measure the setback to that exterior point (see diagram on next page). Final distance will be measured from the outside edge of the exterior wall material. Recommendations for Owner /Builder Projects For owner /builders, the Town strongly suggests that a registered surveyor stake out the foundation prior to excavation or pouring. Additionally, after the foundation walls have been poured, we strongly encourage that a surveyor shoot the elevation of the foundation wall. With this information, contractors will be able to accurately estimate the final height before the structure is built. Contractors will be able to compensate in the construction process to ensure that the structure does not exceed the height limit. 2 • • • .• PW PI for 2tDC,E pF SH F-Nl" IN C WITHour �D{,D ROOF � � RIDGE VENT DE 1L Top o -"of' A SIY,S /f C, Cy UrLj. t..t,m,Lf.lam,L pe, r,I•.l-JUr. I oM . cA'D t-�. P-00� t Liz, i t s pteo o 4 1 1 oytP- Z L- .-u(lUzy (Sst FMLT off V8" 7 k tal GPI rLywD. 2�g 2 ca A-WL c'ZIi�C�6.�r T' G1 GJK ; L-YwGo7 9�'A j -, IIxmPCp•4 @. 14 O.G. C CH V.=r) lz P. 1 Q - SLJLA-tl4>" �"✓Ll)GGI� I!-�C� �.g f z�Li � ice. sle 'i "x caYl • Pty. ovmr- - VAtz,F- pAr-p-Imi - 4LU. WM pxr.H pey, y2�t. WITH. Col. RoDF RIDGE VENT DETA I I have read the Survey Requirements stipulated in the Town of Vail memorandum dated January 22, 1996 and commit to adhere to them. . Signature Print Name Date Job Name Permit Number Legal Description: Lot , Block , Filing • 0 APPIOTIS FEB 12 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 22, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Henry Pratt Jeff Bowen Kevin Deighan MEMBERS ABSENT: Dalton Williams VACANCY: . (Bob Armour) STAFF PRESENT: Susan Connelly George Ruther Dominic Mauriello Jim Curnutte Lauren Waterton Judy Rodriguez Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. The mee�ng was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 pm 1. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, and a density variance, to allow for an expansion to an existing unit located at 1568 Golf Terrace /Unit #48, Golfcourse Townhomes, Sunburst 3rd Filing. Applicant: Bob Trotta Planner: George Ruther • George Ruther gave an overview and said that staff recommended approval for the request, since it is in compliance with the zoning requirements. Greg Moffet asked for any public input. Jeff Bowen made a motion for approval of the request. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 5 -0. 2. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to an existing unit located at 2801 Basingdale (Camelot Townhomes - Unit 4) /Lot 2, Block 8, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Jamie Turner Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview and stated that staff recommended approval with the condition that the trash receptacle be adequately screened from view. Greg Moffet asked for any public input. • Jeff Bowen made a motion for approval, but without the condition as stated in the staff memorandum. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 11 . Henry Pratt seconded the motion. Greg Moffet opened it up for discussion. Kevin Deighan clarified the motion, stating that the trash receptacle screening was not a condition in the motion. Jeff Bowen and Henry Pratt stated that the condition is not a fair condition of approval. They stated the condition is requiring one occupant in a multi - family building to correct a problem that the entire association should be responsible for. Greg Amsden asked if the applicant had an objection to the trash enclosure. Dominic Mauriello said the applicant did have an objection to this condition. The approval without the condition attached passed by a vote of 3 -2. Kevin Deighan and Greg Amsden voted in opposition. Kevin Deighan and Greg Amsden stated that they believed the conditiorrwas adequate, as it was the intent of the Ordinance to allow additional GRFA in exchangd�fgr upgrades to non - conforming conditions. 3. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to be used in the construction of a Type I EHU in a new Primary/Secondary residence located at 1875 West Gore Creek Drive /Lot 24, Vail Village West 2nd Filing. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais Planner: George Ruther • George Ruther gave an overview and said that staff recommended approval since the review criteria had been met. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Jeff Bowen made a motion for approval in accordance with the memorandum. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Greg Moffet asked if there was any discussion on the motion. The vote passed unanimously by a vote of 5 -0. 4. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to an existing duplex unit located at 2850 Aspen Laoe /Lot 17, Resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village 11th Filing. Applicant: Frank Wimer Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview and said staff recommended approval. For the record, George Ruther stated that with this approval there would be 95 sq. ft. of GRFA remaining on the unit. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 F Jeff Bowen made a motion that the request be approved in accordance with the memorandum. • Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Greg Moffet brought to George Ruther's attention a discrepancy in the address listed on the front page and on the third page of the memorandum. George Ruther stated that 2860 Aspen Lane is the correct address. Greg Moffet asked for any other discussion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5 -0. Jeff Bowen made motion to table agenda items 7 -10. Kevin Deighan seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 5 -0. 5. Afequest for a worksession to discuss a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to an existing unit and a front yard variance to allow for a garage to be located in a front setback in association with the construction of a new Primary residence located at 325 Forest Road /Lot 18, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing Applicant: Steve Riden representing Tim Drisco Planner: Jim Curnutte Jim Curnutte said that staff had identified 3 issues to discuss with the PEC. Staff feels the • chosen design for accessing the garage may cause an undue amount of site disturbance. Jim went over the pros and cons as identified in the memo and asked the applicant to reconsider the design of the garage access. Jim went over the 2nd discussion item and said staff questioned whether the walls of the building would hold the fill needed, in order to use the GRFA elsewhere on the site. Jim went over the last discussion item and said that staff was recommending lessening the driveway grade. Jim also pointed out that the footings of the garage are right on the property line. He stated that there are 4 development standards in this request that are maximized on the property. Kevin Deighan said he would like to see the applicant utilize the existing driveway design. He would also like to see an EHU for a single person in the space under the garage being proposed to be filled in with dirt. He hates to see that space wasted. Jim Curnutte stated that a new primary unit doesn't have a right to a 250 and then transfer it to an EHU. Kevin Deighan thought Jim Curnutte might be able to find a way to do this. Henry Pratt said that an EHU needs covered parking. Greg Moffet agreed that it was a perfect place for an EHU. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 3 U • Steve Riden, representing Tim Drisko, said he had discussed the possibility of an EHU with Jim Curnutte. It's a question of putting it into the setback. Dr. Drisco said he would like to do it. With regard to the existing vegetation, most of it is off the property, however, Steve's landscape plan is extensive and it will have more variety than what currently exists on the property. He said they intend to replace at least what's there. The highest priority is to replace the two large trees. One large tree near the existing residence is causing problems with the foundation and they do intend to remove it. Kevin Deighan asked how high the retaining walls would be. Steve Riden said that the retaining walls would be no higher than 3' in the front setback and 6' elsewhere on the property. Greg Amsden had a concern with the driveway and said he would like to push the driveway to the east. He feels very strongly about not pushing the 12 grade. Steve Riden said raising the garage level up would cause problems with getting the cars into the garage. Ve can move over 6 -8' to reduce the overall grade and still not jeopardize the pine tree. The distance between the walls and the landscaping would be jeopardized if we move it too far over. Greg Amsden asked Jim Curnutte for the Town's policy on removing several large trees. Jim Curnutte said trees are not required to be replaced one for one. The Town requires a review of the overall landscape plan to assure that it's an improvement. • Henry Pratt said the applicant has to make the space unusable under the garage. An EHU is not appropriate, since it would be pushing the envelope, since it is so densely packed. Henry prefers the primary unit garage located below, as it is currently designed. It appears from the plans that retaining walls are located inside the dripline of the trees. He is skeptical that trees will live. He advised the applicant that a better description of the trees is needed when you come back before the Board. He suggested moving the house down on the lot to take pressure off the driveway grade. Loosing the Lodgepole Pine on the west is not a big deal. Steve Riden responded that pushing the house down on the lot would affect the trees even more. He agrees with Henry, that moving the walls would reduce disturbance to the trees. Jeff Bowen said he would like to reinforce what Henry has said. Jeff sees a flag when things are maxed out in every possible way, especially on a site as steep as this. He would require an ILC on the foundation and also that an engineer warrants that the walls would tolerate the fill under the existing garage. He doesn't want an EHU that has no windows. He has a problem with the driveway facing north, especially if the heating should fail. -4 would be a more practical solution to have the garage right on Forest Road. Steve Riden said rather than backfilling, it would be a more reasonable solution to suspend the slab. - Henry Pratt suggested a solution of extending the walls all the way around instead of infilling. Since the back half is framed, it would make the whole building concrete. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 4 Greg Moffet advised the applicant that at the last PEC meeting there was a similar situation that was maxed out and a construction error caused the applicant to come before the PEC for a • variance. The PEC denied the request. The Council upheld the PEC's decision. Greg therefore, recommended building in a margin of error and giving yourselves a little room. Putting the garage on the street is a good solution. Greg wants to see a creative solution for the space under the garage. Steve Riden thinks that the garage located well off the street is preferred. He is willing to pay for his mistakes, if they go over the maxed out areas. However, he will drop the height if he has to. Greg Amsden said the two items that, when maxed out, invariably go over are driveway grades and building ridge heights. Tim Ddsko said people tend to cluster around the garage to park and it would therefore be a problem if the garage was on the street. The heated driveway is a more expensive, but better solution. Jeff Bowfin said the first time the boiler quits, everyone will park in the street. Henry Platt agreed that the sense of entry to the house is better with the garage below. Greg Moffet again mentioned the conditions of the separation request. Tim Drisko said he would like to move the large pine tree rather than cut it down and perhaps give it to Trees for Vail. Jeff Bowen said that trees like that can be moved. • Steve Riden asked for landscaping direction for the next meeting. Henry Pratt said for trees that would be impacted, the dripline is critical. He advised the applicant to have a basic tree inventory, with the trunk size, etc. by the next meeting. 6. A change to the TOV survey policy to require an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) prior to a foundation inspection when a project is within three feet of a setback line, has a building height within six inches of the maximum allowable, has a driveway that is greater than 10% or for all projects including three or more separate structures. Planner: Lauren Waterton Lauren Waterton reviewed the changes that have been made since the January 9, 1996 meeting. She stated staff would like the ILC to be done after the foundation is poured. Staff would like to tie the ILC to a specific inspection, however, the next inspection may not be until framing. Therefore, the revised policy states that the ILC must be submitted within three weeks of the foundation inspection approval. Greg Moffet asked for any public input. There was no comment from any Board member. Jeff Bowen commended staff on doing a good job. 40 Planning and Environmental commission Minutes January 22, 1996 5 Henry Pratt asked if there was a way to let people know ahead of time about this zero tolerance and new policy. Lauren Waterton said staff would need to send out a memo, along with the revised policy to surveyors, architects and contractors. Greg Amsden asked if staff has a list of contractors. Susan Connelly said we have about 2,000 contractors on file. Greg Amsden said that all the contractors are not active and that it may be valuable to distribute a memorandum explaining the new policy to the active contractors. Jeff Bowen made a motion for a request for a change in the TOV survey policy be approved as published. Greg AnVen seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 5 -0. 7. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to an existing single family residence located at 2299 Chamonix Lane /Lot 7, Block A, Vail Das Schone Filing #1. Applicant: Frank D. D'Alessio Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 12, 1996 8. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to the secondary residence located at 275 Beaver Dam Road /Lot 40, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. - Applicant: Steve Berkowitz Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 12,1996 9. A request for a Minor SDD Amendment to allow for changes to the development plan located at Millrace Phase 3, 1335 Westhaven Drive /Development Area A of the Glen Lyon SDD (SDD No. 4). Applicant: Steve Riden representing Gregory Walton Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED INDEFINITELY • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 N 10. A, request for a Major SDD Amendment to allow for a 485 square foot addition to an eAsting condominium in the Gateway Building located at 12 Vail Road, Unit 5/Vail Gateway Plaza Building. Applicant: Steve Riden representing Vail Apartments Inc. Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED INDEFINITELY 11. Information Update - Susan • PEC terms and appointments Susan Connelly stated that four positions up for re- appointments or new appointments. There are two new openings and Greg Amsden and Jeff Bowen are re- applying. It was advertised Friday for the first time. Applications will be due February 14, 1996 and interviews by Council will be scheduled February 20, 1996. There are also two openings on the DRB and we are assuming Bob Bor and Hans Woldrich will re- apply. Jeri Wright is on the Housing Board and there is one opening. 'Susan asked the PEC to recruit anyone that might be interested. Susan Connelly gave an overview of the new Community Planning Process. She said it won't be called that and that they are needing a new name. It will be likely to focus on the economic and social or community vitality of Vail. This new project won't be a Town sponsored project. It should take approximately six to nine months and is scheduled to begin in February. Henry Pratt said he read that the state is taking highway money and applying it for transportation. He feels that the possibility of light rail on the railroad line to be abandoned should be looked at. Susan Connelly said the Council gets updated weekly on the railroad abandonment issue and that Todd Oppenheimer has taken the lead in pursuing this. Susan stated that transportation planning could fall under the PEC, but it is being monitored out of Public Works, not out of Community Development. Henry Pratt asked if the PEC has an official position, should we vote on this for the record? Jeff Bowen said that transportation relates to the Environment. All members present felt the same way. Greg Moffet asked if it would be appropriate to have the PEC get involved in the Employee Housing issue. Susan Connelly said the Housing Authority hasn't met since before she arrived in 1994. Andy Knudtsen does, however, speak with Jen Wright regularly. Greg Moffet asked if Andy might give the PEC an update at a future meeting. Susan Connelly said she would like to get input from the PEC on the lottery criteria for the Vail Commons. The Town of Vail could be very general and make a random selection for the 53 units or could focus on values that we are trying to promote, like housing local wage earners who live and work in Vail, for the criteria. From the staff perspective, those who live and work in Va"re the greater investment in the Town, as well as lessening the traffic through Dowd Junction. Jeff Bowen thought the highest priority should be for workers in Vail who live outside Vail. Henry Pratt said the units must be owner occupied. He thought staff should set things up on a point system. Susan Connelly said that is exactly what is being done. Henry Pratt said he knew a bus driver for the Town who owned a Pitkin Creek unit, but wanted to live at the Vail Commons. He didn't think he had a chance to own at the Commons. Jeff Bowen suggested the bus driver could deed restrict his unit at Pitkin and buy at the Commons. Susan Connelly said she would check thoroughly all transfers of tides. It will be going to Council February 6th, so we need the PEC's input before then. Greg Moffet stated that 70% of all office space is in the Eagle -Vail to Edwards corridor. He • • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 7 likes the idea of getting people out of down valley mobile homes or Lake Creek housing and back to Vail- Jeff Bowen said there are jobs in Vail, but the population is down valley. Greg Moffet said semi- industrial and office jobs are in Avon and Edwards. Henry Pratt said we are suffering outmration and need to reverse the trend. Vail is under employed and so we need to reverse the migration. Jeff Bowen said retail jobs and Vail Associates are still located in Vail. Greg Moffet said we lack an employment infrastructure in the Town of Vail. Kevin Deighan said he would like review the criteria for the lottery. Susan Connelly again stated that staff would prefer to isolate values and not just randomly draw names. Greg Amsden said we need to simply the criteria, since we are not going to solve the housing problem by providing 53 units. Susan stated that the Vail Commons is scheduled to break ground in February or March. The lottery criteria will be going before Council on February 6, 1996 and again on February 20, 1996. We are also working with the Forest Service actively for housing for seasonal workers on Forest Service land. The Public Works site will be used for seasonal housing. We are also completing an inventory and Zoning Analysis for properties owned by the Town. Susan also mentioned that the Town needs to determine how to entertain developer interest in projects: Greg AmVen said housing could change a lot in a two -year period of time. Henry Pratt said he would like to see a combined use zoning be established for homes and office spaces being allowed. Greg Moffet said when Gart decides to redevelop the West Vail Mall, it needs a total redevelopment. Susan Connelly mentioned that the RETT may be revisited by Council. The PEC unanimously agreed that the RETT tax was not necessary for housing. Susan Connelly asked the PEC to come to a Council meeting, since the Council doesn't have the background or the expertise that the PEC members have in the development area. Greg Moffet said a worksession with Council might be better. Jeff Bowen said we have to get out of the Berry Creek property. Henry Pratt said if we build housing at Berry Creek, we then have a transportation problem. Susan Connelly said the new Council has questions about Berry Creek. She also said the February schedules for Council are tight, but that we should sit with Pam right now and figure out a date for a joint worksession. Jeff Bowen said if we can give Council help, that's why we are here. • 12. Approval of December 11, 1995 and January 8, 1996 PEC minutes. Jeff Bowen moved that the Dec 11, 1995 PEC minutes be approved. Kevin Deighan seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously by a vote of 5 -0. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 Greg Amsden had changes on the January 8, 1996 minutes on page 4 the last paragraph, to change addition to removal and to change a to the. He made a motion for approval of the • January 8, 1996 minutes with his changes. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously by a vote of 5 -0. Kevin Deighan made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. it passed unanimously by a vote of 5 -0. The meeting adjourned at 3:45 pm. It Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 22, 1996 0 7