Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1996-0311 PEC
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on March 11, 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 #1. Applicant: Frank D. D'Alessio Planner: George Ruther A request for a CCII Major Exterior Alteration at Gotthelf's Gallery located at Village Center, 122 East Meadow Drive/Block 5E, Vail Village 1 st Filing Applicant: Fred Hibbard, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther A request for a setback variance and separation variance to allow for the construction of separated garages partially within the front setback, located at 2853 & 2833 Kinnickinnick Rd./Lots 7 & 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Peter Gladkin for Timber Creek Condominium Homeowner's Association Planner: Randy Stouder A request for proposed amendments to numerous sections of The Town of Vail Municipal Code, including but not limited to Titles 2, 16, & 18 to allow for modifications to the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Randy Stouder A request for Site Coverage, Front Setback, Side Setback and Density variances to allow for an addition to the building located at 1845 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 21, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant: Ted Smathers, represented by Brent Alm Planner: Jim Curnutte A request for a change to the Town of Vail Survey Policy relating to calculating building height. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Lauren Waterton 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 February 23, 1996 in the Vail Trail. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION March 11, 1996 AGENDA Proiect Orientation / Lunch 11:30 am e Transcription of Minutes (Mike) o Scheduling of Agendas (George) Site Visits 12:45 pm 1. Erickson - 1987 Circle Drive 2. D'Alessio - 2299 Chamonix Lane 3. Timber Creek - 2853 & 2833 Kinnickinnick 4. Hibberd - 122 East Meadow Drive Driver: George Public Hearina 2:00 p.m. 1. Swearing in of new PEC members by Holly McCutcheon, Vail Town Clerk. 2. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast located at 1987 Circle Drive/Lot 26 Buff ehr Creek. Applicant: Jeannine Erickson Planner: Jim Curnutte 3. 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 4. A request for a worksession to discuss a setback variance and a separation variance to allow for the construction of separated garages partially within the front setback, located at 2853 & 2833 Kinnickinnick Rd./Lots 7 & 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Peter Gladkin for Timber Creek Condominium Homeowner's Association Planner: Randy Stouder 5. A request for a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core 11 zone district for a proposed addition to Gotthelf's Gallery in the Village Center Building, located at 122 East Meadow Drive/Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Fred Hibbard, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther 14 v 6. A request for proposed amendments to numerous sections of The Town of Vail Municipal Code, including but not limited to Titles 16 & 18 to allow for modifications to the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Randy Stouder 7. A request for a change to the Town of Vail Survey Policy relating to the establishment of base elevations used in the calculation of building height. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Lauren Waterton 8. A request for site coverage, front setback, side setback and density variances to allow for an addition to the building located at 1845 West'Gore Creek Drive/Lot 21, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant: Ted •Smathers, represented by Brent Alm Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO APRIL 8, 1996 9. Information Update 10. Approval of January 26, 1996 PEC minutes. 11. Assignment of PEC representatives to DRB Board: Greg Moffet Jan. - Mar. ' Apr. - June t July - 'Sept. Oct. - Dec. 12. Assignment of PEC representative to Housing Authority - Andy Knudtsen. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TOO for information. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 0 March 11, 1996 FINAL AGENDA Project Orientation Lunch 11:30 am • Transcription of Minutes (Mike) • Scheduling of Agendas (George) .Site Visits 12:45 pm 1. Erickson - 1987 Circle Drive 2. D'Alessio - 2299 Chamonix Lane 3. Hibberd - 122 East Meadow Drive Driver: George Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. 1. Swearing in of new PEC members by Holly McCutcheon, Vail Town Clerk. 2. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast located at 1987 Circle Drive/Lot 26 Buffehr Creek. Applicant: - Jeannine Erickson Planner: Jim Curnutte MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: Kevin Deighan VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED 3. 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 MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH ONE CONDITION - That the DRB will review and approve fenestration on the west side of the residence. 4. A request for a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core 11 zone district for a proposed addition to Gotthelf's Gallery in the Village Center Building, located at 122 East Meadow Drive/Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Fred Hibbard, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 7-0 lv APPROVED WITH THREE CONDITIONS 5. A request for proposed amendments to numerous sections of The Town of Vail Municipal Code, including but not limited to Titles 16 & 18 to allow for modifications to the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Randy Stouder MOTION: Kevin Deighan SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED 6. A request for a change to the Town of Vail Survey Policy relating to the establishment of base elevations used in the calculation of building height. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Lauren Waterton MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 5=2 (Pratt and Aasland against) APPROVED OPTION NO.2 7. A request for site coverage, front setback, side setback and density variances to allow for an addition to the building located at 1845 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 21, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant: Ted Smathers, represented by Brent Alm Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO APRIL 8, 1996 8. A request for a worksession to discuss a setback variance and a separation variance to allow for the construction of separated garages partially within the front setback, located at 2853 & 2833 Kinnickinnick Rd./Lots 7 & 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Peter Gladkin for Timber Creek Condominium Homeowner's Association Planner: Randy Stouder TABLED TO MARCH 25,1996 9. Information Update 10. Approval- of February 26, 1996 PEC minutes. 11. Assignment of PEC representatives to DRB Board: * Greg Moffet Jan. - Mar. * Gene Uselton Apr. - June * Diane Golden July - Sept. * Greg Amsden Oct. - Dec. 12. Assignment of PEC representative to Housing Authority - Andy Knudtsen. Greg Moffet Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 11, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast operation to be located at 1987 Circle Drive/Lot 26 Buffehr Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Jeannine Erickson Planner: Jim Curnutte 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Jeannine Erickson has requested Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow her to run a Bed and Breakfast in her home at 1987 Circle Drive. Section 18.58.310 of the Vail Municipal Code (Bed and Breakfast Operations) defines a Bed and Breakfast as: "A business which accommodates guests in a dwelling unit in which the Bed and Breakfast proprietor lives on the premises and is in residence during the Bed and Breakfast use. A Bed and Breakfast operation may short-term rent separately up to three bedrooms or a maximum square footage of 900 sq. ft. of the dwelling unit. Bed and . Breakfast operations shall only be permitted to accommodate a family as defined in Section 18.04.110." Other requirements for Bed and Breakfast operations, as described in Section 18.58.310 (B) of the Vail Municipal Code include the following: Off-street designated parking shall be required as follows: one space for the owner/proprietor, plus one space for the first bedroom rented, plus one half space for each additional bedroom rented. 2. Enclosed trash facilities and regular garbage removal service shall be provided. 3. Removal of landscaping for the provision of additional parking is strongly discouraged. 4. Each Bed and Breakfast shall be allowed one residential nameplate sign as defined and - regulated by the Town Sign Code. 5. If a Bed and Breakfast operation shall use property or facilities owned in common or jointly with other property owners such as parking spaces or a driveway in a duplex subdivision, by way of example and not limitation, the written approval of the other property owner, owners, or applicable owner's association shall be required to be submitted with the application for a Conditional Use Permit. It is Ms. Erickson's intention to short-term rent two bedrooms on the lower level of her residence. The total square footage of these bedrooms is approximately 200 square feet. (see attached • floor plan). Ms. Erickson's two-car garage, and the two unenclosed parking spaces in front of the garage, will serve to meet the off-street parking requirement specified in the Bed and Breakfast Section of the Code, (see attached site plan). Trash facilities will be provided by way of trash receptacles kept inside of the garage alcove and will picked up every Tuesday. Ms. Erickson will make no revisions to the exterior of her property or building, and is not proposing a residential nameplate at this time. 11. ZONING ANALYSIS, Legal Description: Lot 26, Buffehr Creek Subdivision Address: 1987 Circle Drive Lot Size: 16,000 + sq. ft. Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Existing Use: Single Family Residence Proposed Use: Single Family Residence with Bed and Breakfast operation All other development standards related to the property, (ie. GRFA, Site Coverage Setbacks etc.) are in compliance with the Town of Vail Municipal Code. 111. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOfiAL Upon review of Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of • the Town. Bed and Breakfast operations are listed as uses that Conditional Use Permits may be applied for in 15 of the 22 zone districts within the Town of Vail, including all of the residential zone districts. The Vail Land Use Plan has numerous goals, which articulate the Town's desire to improve our role as a leading destination resort, including promoting the creation of accommodation units, "warm beds." 2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The proposed Bed and Breakfast use will not have a negative effect on any of the criteria listed above. Guests of the Erickson Bed and Breakfast will likely arrive via their own vehicle, a rental vehicle or by airport shuttle van. Since this home is conveniently located adjacent to a Town bus route, guests will have the ability to take advantage of the Town transportation system. • 2 3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, - access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas. Staff believes that the proposed Bed and Breakfast operation will not have a negative effect on the above referenced criteria. As mentioned previously, staff believes that most guests of the Erickson residence will arrive either by their own vehicle, a rental vehicle, or van transportation from the Eagle or Denver International Airports. Once at the Bed & Breakfast, the guests may choose to utilize the convenience of the Town's free bus system, or may use their vehicle and park in one of the Town's parking structures. 4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses. The applicant has stated that, due to the small size of each of the two bedrooms, the majority of their guests will be single skiers. There may however, be occasions when each room is occupied by two adults, and possibly a child or two. Staff believes that in either case, it is not likely that more than four vehicles will be parked on the property (two owned by Ms. Erickson and two by those occupying the two guest rooms). The appearance of two vehicles in front of the garage door, as well as the Bed and Breakfast activity occurring on the property, does not appear to be • different than the adjacent Primary/Secondary zoned properties. As indicated earlier, there will be no exterior revisions to the property or the building related to the proposed Bed and Breakfast operation. B. Findings The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before orantinq a conditional use Qermit: That the proposed location of the use is 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. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. • 3 Iv. 511FF RECOMMMDATION Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a , Bed and Breakfast operation at the existing single family residence located at 987 Circle Drive/Lot 26 Buffehr Creek Subdivision, with the following conditions: 1. If the applicant should decide to install a residential nameplate to identify this property to potential guests, the nameplate shall be reviewed and approved by staff prior to its installation. 2. The applicant has received conceptual Design Review Board approval for a new residence on this property. This Conditional Use Permit approval is applicable to the existing residence and is not transferable to a future building unless reviewed and approved by the PEC. A • 4 t/ i v , 1 . ' JAN 1 7 } y447 ee??ou ep VVASN d •k L3Cea ?(?rs b }? _:.. -?.- t e r--j LhV ?J. `? ? / / ..III?i:j.l ?i?il i•?iili?:ie:?I if+?t„i,{?. l L) Sea? f" 111Y TEw :a_YAT f.?ZX4 1 ? I? -I i ?: 1 li JAN 1 f V. utv FGV - COMM ut: • . , . y ... '\ ? +..ilf?l"~'~? y ".......'.r7?r""? =.r•.? .• ? ? y??r.?y?.- .. ..??r'r Iv ? r .,- yl r?'?/ r ? r lit l i . i i r ? . 1 i . . . ?s r - r l / 1 1 1? .1 r f. .I? ij 1 t I Ii ?1. ,•1 i 511?'t Cl L'R°62??7.A 0 {/t N 1 ) a 24 g ., 12+y - 5 71 ; '?! JA 25.1 PLAIN PIN '!^ ; s O O II LLJ N PIN 8 CAP 4551 / rL 1? 2 STORY HOUSE ENTRY ELE i2 B' 16 (ASSUME z DECK i 4' PINE 0 0 \ J N \\ N LU 100 99 i 97 / 98 r I ? 100 r R=125.00 L = 69.78' i WOOD FRAME GARAGE Peak El.: 107.1 Slab El.- '98.5 ` 8EL 24.0' N j \ \?? 27.0 i? f c. 5u 42 T-'2- 16,, uhr Cep, PIN A CAP L ELEV : 9: MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 11, 1996 SUBJECT: 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 1. BACKGROUND AND DOCRIPTION 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 . 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 the single family home at 2299 Chamonix Lane. The proposal utilizes the 250 GRFA allowance to remodel an existing loft and attic space located on the third level of the residence. The existing space will be remodeled to create'a larger master bedroom and closet area, as well as expand the size of the study on the third floor. The space will be remodeled to living area by removing a portion of the existing roof and raising the exterior walls approximately eight feet. The spaces the -applicant proposes to remodel were not considered GRFA at the time of original construction since; according to Chapter 18.04.130 of the Municipal Code, attic spaces less than 5' in height are not considered GRFA. II. ZONING ANALYSIS Legal Description: Lot 7, Block A, Vail Das Schone Subdivision Address: 2299 Chamonix Lane Lot Size: 8,001 sq. ft. / 0.184 acres Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential 1 Use: Primary Residence • Allowed Existina Proposed GRFA: 2,675.25 sq. ft. 2,915 sq.ft. 3,165 sq.ft. Site Coverage: 1,600 sq. ft. 1,641 sq.ft. no change Reauired Existinq Proposed Parking: 3 spaces 2 enclosed spaces no change 1 surface space M. 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. Considergtion 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 topggraRhv. vegetation. drainaq_ a and existina structures. As this request is for an exterior 250, the proposed remodel will result in • changes to the exterior of the existing structure. The exterior changes to the structure include an increase in the exterior wall height, a decrease in pitch to a rear portion of the roof, the removal of an existing dormer and the installation of a new skylight in the northeast corner of the roof. In the staff's opinion, the exterior changes proposed will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on the site. The request indicates that no changes will be made to the existing topography, vegetation, or drainage of the existing site. 2. Impact on ad*ent RMerties. The change in roof pitch may cause additional shading of the properties to the east and west of the applicant's property. However, staff believes that the proposed 250 addition will not have a significant impact on adjacent properties. Public notices have been sent to the adjacent property owners. To date, staff has not received any input from the adjacent property owners. • 2 3. Compliance with the town's zoning-Quirement$ and applicable • development standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, requires that any single family dwelling or dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be required to meet the minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with Chapter 18.71, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing single family or two family dwelling and site, including landscaping, to determine whether they comply with the 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 the property may not be in compliance with the applicable development standards listed above. Exterior lights have been installed on the west and south sides of the residence. The lights do not appear to conform with the outdoor lighting requirements, as stated in the Design Guidelines, since the lights are large spot lights which are not fully cut-off and are directed outwards from the building. Staff would recommend that the applicant submit manufacturer's specifications detailing luminous area and lumen output of each light to determine whether the lights comply with the Town's requirements. With regard to the other development standards, the applicant's driveway is currently paved, the utilities serving the property are already . underground, and landscaping on the site is excellent. B. FindinW. 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 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 250 square feet of additional GRFA. 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 negatively impact the existing site; Finding B2 is met, in staffs opinion, as the proposed addition will not negatively impact adjacent properties; Finding B3 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposed remodel will comply with all zoning requirements and applicable development standards. 3 Should the Planning & Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of this request, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following condition: 1. That the applicant submit to the Community Development Department, manufacturer's specifications detailing the luminous area and lumen output of the light fixture installed on the west side of the residence above the garage, and of the light fixture installed on the southeast corner of the residence near the storage shed, prior to review of this request by the Design Review Board. If it is determined that the existing exterior light fixtures do not meet the Town of Vail Lighting Ordinance requirements, then the applicant shall remove the existing fixtures, or replace the fixtures with lights that conform with the ordinance. • C-] f:\everyone\pecNmemosldalessio.212 4 1+M "WIN ,._ 77, ILL/ 1 -'::'V T! r: `' { i...^ .?.T t-! ?./.r`?i 0 1. .2j, i .YJC r L+Di'.:sAS.?9.-r:.SV.i?i'.??_uC' -'.t.t•.is^.'t..:..t.,.`.? `L?" r. `F ys .... JECI* YR i I 0 fff ?Tl c g it e r 1 3N m, sr) p? sf. l !1.„ s 37""l I r L ,<. W3 SK-A W65 E-5954 C-ALWLAIED f", TM PL,_ F+-. OF C-TUM IN 712 R7?:g ATZZ06 S3? P. HAT01M. T1,U-? ltj:E-eGiLY11e 6t;?{?TvT0 t8ti 1.A/?i iFr-T- w5i 6 A A? io6q 0 CIWA CA c6. 1? Q05T.1'611JDYi r sit ?;? •. rtr,? uP To -i`a• tes t?-t• rt?? ;•rt+ I? i 1 J slat.&tr I u I --?_ .?? II ? 11 ? t 127- r r?F EqT 91aM 1 1 C%154 TO S ASUTt32 . ! 1 E.A'i comwr ? 1 I r !I tt _T _:_t--- 1 1I 'j I r 1 M"3•.ccr?, P-4-4 . MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: March 11, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a Major Exterior Alteration in the Commercial Core II Zone District for a proposed building addition at the Village Center Building, located at 122 East Meadow Drive/Block E5, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Fred Hibberd, represented by Pam Hopkins of Snowdon/Hopkins Architects Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Pam Hopkins, on behalf of the Gotthelf's Gallery and Fred Hibberd, has requested a Major Exterior Alteration in the Commercial Core 11 (CCII) Zone District, for a proposed building addition at the Village Center Building, located at 122 East Meadow Drive/Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing. Gotthelf's Gallery is located in the Village Center Building just west of the glockenspiel. The applicant is proposing a new front entry addition to the Gallery. The proposed addition will increase the existing retail floor area of the Gallery by 131 square feet. The improvements proposed with the addition include a new bay window on the north elevation of the building and a larger display window on the east elevation. The building materials used to construct the addition are proposed to match the existing materials on the building. This includes the stucco walls and the gravel roof. The wall sign currently above the front entry will be replaced once the addition is complete. The sign will be put back above the front entry door. In addition to the restaurant and retail uses in the Village Center Building, other uses within the building include residential and professional office. 11. ZONING ANALYSIS The following summarizes the relevant zoning statistics for this request: A. Zoning: Commercial Core II (CCII) B. Lot Area: 32,948 square feet/0.756 acres. C. Setbacks: No changes proposed. 1 • D. Site Coverage: Allowable - 23,064 square feet (70% of total site area) Existing - 15,526 square feet (47.1%) Proposed - 15,661 square feet (47.5%) Remaining - 7,407 square feet E. *Parking: Gotthelf's Gallery addition - 131 sq.ft./300 square feet = 0.437 space Total additional parking required = 0.437 space F. Loading: No change. *At least one-half of the required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings. No parking or loading may be included in any front setback area. As this property is located in the CCiI Zone District, any new parking spaces that are generated as a result of the proposed building addition must be.provided on-site, however, if the site is unable to accommodate additional parking spaces, the applicant may pay into the Town of Vail parking fund. At this time, parking spaces are $16,333.38. The applicant will be required to pay the parking fee that is in effect at the time that a building permit is issued for the proposed remodel. Ili. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by the Town of Vail . Municipal Code. The emphasis of this review is on the proposal's compatibility with the Zoning Code, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the Vail Village Design Considerations and the Vail Comprehensive Plan. A. Compliance with the Town of Vail Zonino Code As stated in the Zoning Code, the purpose of the CCII zone district is as follows: "The CCIi District is intended to provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified development. The CCiI District is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the desirable quality of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards." Additionally, the Zoning Code defines an Exterior Alteration as, in part, "the alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed floor area (and/or) the alteration of an existing building which modifies the existing roof." An exterior alteration is consider a "major" exterior alteration if the addition is greater than 100 square feet in size. 2 STAFF RESPONSE: Upon review of the proposed Major Exterior Alteration to the Village Center Building to allow for an exterior expansion of the Gotthelf's Gallery, staff believes that the proposed addition complies with the purpose statement of the CCII Zone District and that the addition is a Major Exterior Alteration since the proposal adds 131 square feet of new floor area to the existing building. B. Comifflance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan The Vail Village Urban Design Guide plan does not specifically identify improvements for the Village Center property. The only relavant sub-area element in the immediate vicinity of the proposed Village Center Building addition is the landscape element. According to the landscape element described in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, retaining wails, if proposed, should include seating opportunities and be constructed of either concrete or rounded stone cobble with hidden mortar. The Landscape Element guidelines specifically indicate that wood retaining walls are strongly discouraged due to deterioration caused by Vail's harsh climate. Currently a 48 sq. ft. wood-tie landscape planter exists in the plaza area northeast of the proposed addition to Gotthelf's Gallery. The planter is owned and maintained by the applicant. The planter is beginning to deteriorate and show signs of age. The applicant is not proposing to replace the existing 48 sq. ft. wood-tie planter at this time. The applicant feels that the size and scope of this proposal does not justify the need to replace the planter. The applicant has agreed to replace the planter when improvements are made to La Tour Restaurant. STAFF RESPONSE: Staff concurs with the applicant and feels that the agreement suggested by the applicant is acceptable. C. Comoliance with the urban desio_ n considerations for Vail Villan_ a and the exterior alteration criteria. 1. Urban Design Considerations. a. Pedestrian ization A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. Staff believes the pedestrian way to the north of the Village Center Building is already a pleasant pedestrian environment with the heated, brick paver walkways, large areas of 3 • mature landscaping, and the appropriate pedestrian scale of the building. The plans proposed by the applicant further enhance the pedestrian environment. It is staff's opinion that the proposed addition to Gotthelf's Gallery will not negatively impact, nor affect the pedestrian scale of the walkway adjacent to the Village Center Building. b. Traffic oenetration The Major Exterior Alteration at the Village Center Building will have no effect upon vehicular penetration into the Village. The proposed addition will generate an increase in the total parking requirement for the Village Center Building by 0.437 of a parking space. The increase in the parking requirement will be met by the applicant through a payment into the Town of Vail Parking Fund. Therefore, staff believes there will be no impacts to vehicular penetration into the Village as a result of this request. c. Streetscaoe framework According to the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations, the quality of the walking experience should be improved when necessary, and the pedestrian ways should be maintained. One means of accomplishing this goal is to infill commercial store fronts. Staff believes that the proposed addition will generate commercial activity and add to the visual interest of the building without jeopardizing the walking experience or pedestrian way in the area. d. Street enclosure Generally, street enclosure becomes an issue when each side of a street has buildings on it. In the case of East Meadow Drive in the proximity of the Village Center Building, only the south side of the street is fronted upon by a building. To the north side of East Meadow Drive, across from Gotthelf's Gallery, is the intersection of East Meadow Drive and Village Center Road. It is staff's opinion that the addition to Gotthelf's Gallery will have a positive effect on the perception of street enclosure. Staff feels the proposed addition will bring the building closer to the main pedestrian walkway, thus helping to divert the attention of a pedestrian back to the building's display windows. e. Street edne According to the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations, buildings in the Village should form a strong but irregular edge to the street. The resulting "jogs" in the buildings should be used as activity areas for pedestrian use (ie. gathering, resting, orienting, etc.). Staff believes that the creation of the irregularity, of the proposed building addition is positive. Staff also believes that the proposed addition will provide additional visual interest for pedestrians by increasing the opportunity for window shopping. In staff's opinion the proposed addition meets the goals of the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations as it relates to street edge. 4 f. M ildina height The building height proposed by the applicant is in keeping with the intent of the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. The height of the proposed addition will be significantly less than the overall height of the existing building. Staff believes that the applicant has done an excellent job of matching the scale of the addition with the scale of the existing building. g. Views The Vail Village Urban Design Considerations stress the importance of views in the Village area. As proposed, the addition will not encroach upon any of the established view corridors. In addition, the staff believes that the proposed exterior alteration will not obstruct the views to the windows or entrances of other retail stores on the plaza. 2. Architectural/Landscape Considerations. a. Roof The applicant has proposed a roof form similar to the existing roof form already on the building. The new roof over the gallery addition will simply be an extension of the existing roof and eave line. The existing roof surface material on the Village Center Building is gravel. When the addition to Gotthelf's Gallery is completed, the new roof over the addition will blend and match the existing roof and roof • material. Staff finds that the roof forms and roof materials proposed by the applicant are in compliance with the architectural/landscape considerations of the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations. b. Facades The applicant has proposed that all building materials used on the addition will match the existing materials already on the building. The applicant is proposing to add an additional bay window to the north elevation. According to the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations, bay, bow and box windows are common window details, which add further variety and massing to facades. Such window types are encouraged. It is the opinion of the staff that the applicant's proposal to match the existing materials on the new building facade, as well as add a bay window to the north elevation, are positive aspects of this proposal. Staff would suggest, however, that the applicant complete the painting of the building soffits as part of the construction process of the proposed addition. c. Balconies No balconies are included in this request, and therefore, are not relevant to this review. 5 • . d. Becks and Patios No decks or patios are proposed with this request, and therefore, are not relevant to this review. e. Accent elements Colorful accent elements, consistent with existing character are encouraged in the. Village. While the applicant is not proposing any changes to the building where it would be possible to incorporate new accent elements, staff believes the addition, overall, will be a positive element on the building. f. Landscape elements Upon review of the site, staff finds the landscape elements on the plaza are adequate. Staff feels there may be a need to replace the existing wood-tie planter located in the plaza, in the future. The existing wood tie planter is beginning to show signs of deterioration resulting in an unattractive plaza landscape element. Staff does not feel that this proposal is of a scope large enough to require the replacement of the wood-tie planter. g. Service No additional loading and delivery services are required as a result of this request. • D. Compliance with the Town of Vail $treetscane Master Plan. The Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan attempts to improve the functioning character of the area by adding sidewalks where none presently exist, screening parking areas, and replacing railroad tie constructed retaining walls with boulder, or stone walls. Approximately 1 /2 of the sub-area (which includes the Village Center) is already well landscaped. The existing raised brick walkway that is adjacent to the Village Center Commercial area is a good example of an area that is well landscaped and well appointed with site furnishings. The only improvements suggested in the master plan for the Village Center area is expanding the planter near the entrance to the parking structure. The plan indicates that this would better define the roadway as well as increase the overall landscaped area. STAFF RESPONSE: Upon review of the site by staff, the improvements suggested in the Town of Vail Master Streetscape Plan have already been completed. This work was completed approximately 1-1/2 to 2 years ago. Therefore, no new streetscape plan improvements are proposed to be made with this application. 6 E.' Compliance with_the Vail Comprehensive Plan • Several elements; of the Vail Comprehensive Plan indirectly address the proposed Major Exterior Alteration to Gotthelf's Gallery. The relevant elements and sections are listed below: 1. Land Use Plan - 4-3: "The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be preserved. Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling and environmental quality shall be maintained or cw..:.anced." 2. Vail Village Master Plan - Z4 Objective: "Encourage the development of a variety of %.u.,,mercial activities that are compatible with existing land uses." 2-4.1 Policy: "Commercial inf ill development consistent with established horizontal zoning regulations shall be encouraged to provide activity generators, accessible green spaces, public plazas, and streetscape improvements to the pedestrian network throughout the Village." STAFF RESPONSE: • Staff believes the applicant's proposal seeks to achieve each of the objectives and policies listed above. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommendations approval of the proposed Major Exterior Alteration to the Village Center Building to allow for an addition to Gotthelf's Gallery. The recommendation for the approval of the Major Exterior Alteration request is based upon the positive effect the proposal will have on the surrounding uses in the area, and the lacy of negative effects the proposal will have on the Town of Vail in general. Staff finds the applicant's Major Exterior Alteration request complies with the criteria outlined for a request of this nature in the Zoning Code, the Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan, the Vail Village Design Considerations, and the Vail Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, staff believes the Major Exterior Alteration proposed by the applicant is supported by the Town's goals and objectives. Should the PEC choose to approve the applicant's request for a Major Exterior Alteration to allow for an addition to Gotthelf's Gallery, the staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 7 0 • I.- That the unpainted soffits on the existing building be painted prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the addition. 2. That the applicant provide spot elevations, as deemed necessary by the Public Works Department, for the proposed addition, prior to application for Building Permit The purpose of the spot elevations is to determine the effects of the proposed addition on the surface drainage of the plaza area. F:leveryone\peclmemo\gotthe1f.311 8 -` .1d. berrcwr. ? ? R Y ?? ?f gyp' tNC (04I671H6. . i 1 DIOGI? -5-0, VNL VILIN.I PIOO{ fj1.MY. W J N ? _j o O Q 0 > !. I t x?-?qwu io ? n s NnfPl ?tw.W ?. i H e O N 4 VA?-';?i Al MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: C?......unity Develov ... ent Department DATE: March 11, 1996 RE: A request for an amendment to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Chapter 54 of Title 18 (Design Review Guidelines) and Title 16 (Sign Code). Applicant: Town of Vail Planner. Randy Stouder 1. DESCRIPTION OF i rtL REQUEST Staff is proposing to make amendments to certain sections of the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines. We request that the Planning and Envi.?.....ental Commission (PEC) review the proposed changes and forward a recommendation for arr.„ .7al of the code changes, as outlined in Section IV of this memorandum, to the Town Council. The specific, recommended text changes can be found in Attachment #2 of this memorandum. Background information is incorporated into Sections II and III of the memorandum. These two sections explain the • rationale behind the code changes. Section V discusses the need for additional, future changes to the Design Review Guidelines. At a worksession held on February 26, 1996, the PEC raised the following issues. Staff has addressed each issue as noted below: 1) A question was raised regarding the notification requirements for adjacent property owners. There is cu.." .tly an adjacent property owner notification requirement only for sign variances. Staff is not proposing to change the current notification requirements. Neighbors will still see staking for projects that go to the DRB, and will see staking of some items subject to staff review. Staff reviewed the comments of the PEC and felt that = adding a public notice requirement to. the design review process would be onerous and contradictory to the purpose of the code changes that are proposed herein. The purpose of the code changes is to expedite the design review process for devel"r...ent r.?,rosals of minimal c.,...Flexity and impact. Adding a public notice requirement would lengthen the process and defeat the purpose of these code changes. Therefore, staff would not recommend any changes to the public notification requirements at this time. ?? 1 2) The PECfelt that sign programs should be required for new and demo/rebuild commercial projects. • Staff agrees with this c ..;....,ent and has added this requirement to Section 16.12. 10 paragraph C of the Sign Code. 3) A question was asked regarding how staff u ill decide which items to forward to the DRB and which items to review at a. staff level. This question was asked in response to a statement made by staff at the worksession. Staff emphasized that if a project was controversial or had wide-ranging ramifications, that the project would be forwarded to the DRB for review. Staff does not intend to defer decisions on projects of minimal impact to the DRB. We intend to review all projects that fall within the parameters outlined in Section 18.54.040 paragraph C3 "Staff Arr... gat". Projects subject to staff review will be reviewed either individually, or by a group of planners for the more complex items, for consistency with the Design Review Guidelines. If the r.,.,,osal conforms with the guidelines, the r-?.r sal will be a,,.,.vved. If staff cannot come to a consensus on conformance with the guidelines, the project will be forwarded to the DRB for review. Any project for which we have received significant input from adjacent ,.vr.erty owners, and where issues cannot be resolved between the parties at the staff level, will also be forwarded to the DRB for review. H. BACKGROUND • The Community Development Department is committed to improving both customer satisfaction and staff efficiency in all of our activities. One of the areas in which we are focusing our improvement efforts is the devel„r...ent review process. "Phase P" of our efforts is to improve the efficiency of the devel..?.=..ent review process and involves code changes to portions of the Sign Code-(Title 16) and the Design Review Guidelines (Title 18, Chapter 54). The desired outcome of these code changes is to expedite the processing of develr...ent proposals of minimal complexity, by giving staff the final review and approval authority over applications that would otherwise have gone to the Design Review Board for review and approval. Staff believes that by modifying the review and a r.,.,val authority, that application processing times for y.,,rosals of minimal complexity can be reduced from four weeks, to one week or less. Staff has already identified several types of devel.r...ent review applications that can be turned around in 24 hours or less. Section III of this memorandum summarizes changes in the office structure of the Community Develup...ent Department that have already been made to facilitate and expedite the processing of deveLp...ent applications. Section IV of this memorandum summarizes the ?,.,. eosed changes to Title 16 and Title 18 (Chapter 54 only). We have attached a copy of the ..,.,nosed code changes in ordinance format (i.e. text additions are indicated with shading and text deletions are indicated with strike-thru). 2 Staff is proposing the code changes, and has re-structured the Community Development Department for several reasons. Community input is regularly received through an annual Town- wide survey. That survey has regularly indicated a desire to reduce the amount of time the Town takes to review and aj,r.., ve minor devel.,r...ent proposals such as new commercial signs, exterior facade changes, minor additions to residential structures, minor changes to the exterior of commercial establishments outside of the core areas, decks, hot tubs, landscaping and other site development improvements. In response to the Community Survey, staff undertook an internal analysis of the Town's development review process. A series of meetings were held with the Town staff members directly involved in the review process. A Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) was formed to.,,y.esent the people within the community that regularly deal with the Town's devel.,...ent review process. The review process was examined and input gathered f'iv... Town Staff and the TAC. It was determined that the Town's devel„r...ent review process should be changed to reduce processing time for certain types of applications. The preliminary findings of this effort have culminated in the r.,„Yosed changes outlined below. III. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Oar r rCE? STRUCTURE AND PROCESS CHANGES Based on the community input we have received so far, the Community Development Department has been re-structured and the following changes have been made: 1* 1) Professional Service Counter: Service hours have been established and professionals with decision making authority have been located up front at a new service counter area to expedite the processing of certain types of applications that were identified by staff as being of minimal c.,...rlexity. A Building Liaison Officer and a Planning Liaison Officer have been named and placed at the new service counter to help review development applications and inform the general public of submittal requirements and application review processes. A list of items of minimal complexity has been developed by staff. These items of minimal complexity generally do not require a review by Town agencies other than the Department of Community Development, and thus can be staff approved, either on-the-spot or within 24 hours (if a site visit is required). The initial list of items of minimal c.,...Flexity has been attached to this memorandum (see Attachment #1). This list is expected to change or evolve over time. 3 2) Development Review Applications and Sul mittal Re?uiremen?c: • The Town's devel?,r,r..ent review application forms are being consolidated and revised to simplify the paperwork for applicants, and to clearly outline submittal information requirements. The Community Devel„r,,.ent Department is now accepting only complete applications, and rejecting applications that do not contain all the required submittal information. Starting this year, submittal deadlines were changed to noon instead of five o'clock on the submittal deadline dates. The noon deadline gives the Planning Liaison Officer time to check application submittals for completeness the same day they are received. If the application is not complete, immediate contact with the submitting party is be made by the Planning Liaison Officer and the missing items are requested. The applicant then has up to 24 hours to make the application complete. If the applicant cannot submit the required items within the 24-hour grace period, the application is returned and the applicant must start over on a new submittal deadline. 3) Development Standards: The Town's internal Develvv,,,.ent Review Team (DRT) is undergoing a devel?,r...ent review improvement process (DRIP) to examine potential process changes that will unr.v m application review and processing efficiency. The Town Manager and the DRIP steering committee have outlined a governing philosophy that will guide the DRT in the 1'v....ulation of a clearly defined review process and a written set of devel?v...ent standards. The development standards will essentially be a road map for applicants and design professionals. They will guide the development of plans that will gain Town 4f,t,.,,val with little or no modification, eliminating the • review of multiple plan submissions, thus reducing processing time and frustration. 4) fade Rev st; ons: The Community Devel?,rr..ent Department will propose the code amendments in two phases. The goal is to make the devel.,r...ent review process more efficient, more understandable and predictable. IV. PROPOSED PHASE I CODE REVISIONS The following is a brief summary of the proposed Phase I code revisions being recommended by staff. The Phase I"changes are largely changes to the administrative processing sections of both Titles. 1) ;fin Code itle 16): Staff proposes to assume review and approval authority over all requests for new signs. Staff will review all new sign requests using the same criteria the DRB currently uses. We reiterate the review process here for informational purposes. If a proposed sign meets the technical requirements and the design guidelines outlined in the Sign Code, the request will be staff 4 arr..,.red. If a sign proposal does not meet the technical requirements and the design guidelines outlined in the Sign Code, the applicant will be requested to modify the proposal to conform to • the Code or it will be denied. Applicants will be informed of a?r.v gal or denial in writing. The code-based reason(s) for the Administrator's decision will be cited in the write-up. If the Administrator denies a sign request based on lack of conformance with a design guideline (e.g. earth tone, architectural harmony, etc.), the applicant will have the right to appeal the Administrator's denial to the DRB, in writing. Staff feels that this is arr..,r.:ate since design guidelines are by nature, somewhat subjective. Applications rejected because the proposal does not meet a technical requirement (e.g. size, height above grade, etc.) must be revised to meet the standard, or a variance can be filed with the PEC. Variances will be processed by the PEC and evaluated according to the existing Sign Code variance criteria. The review process outlined above will replace the existing process, whereby individual sign applications go to the DRB for review, with variances going to DRB for recommendation and then Council for final review and decision. Staff will notify the DRB of all administrative actions on sign requests by publishing a list of approvals/denials on the next DRB meeting agenda. The decision of the Administrator will become final upon publication on the DRB's meeting agenda. The DRB will have the right to review the Administrator's decision at their next regularly scheduled meeting. The Administrator's decision may be appealed by the applicant; in writing, within 10 days of the decision becoming final. All new sign programs will continue to be reviewed and approved by the DRB. Sign programs will be required for all new or demo/rebuild multi-family residential projects, for new or demo/rebuild commercial projects, and for other significant new developments or redevelvi ...ent projects at the discretion of the DRB. Future changes to the Sign Code (Phase II) will involve the removal of all references to fees, appeals and variances from this Title, in favor of a cross reference to other code sections, such as the administrative title (Title 2) or to the administrative chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18). 2) Design Review Gt[idelines fChaDter 54--Lde 181: The Design Review Guidelines are proposed to be amended to clarify the distinctions between the staff's and the DRB's review and approval authority. The goal of these revisions is to take the less complex items off the DRB's plate and allow staff make the decisions of compliance with the guidelines on applications of minimal complexity. Staff can review and ary.vve the items of minimal complexity more efficiently than the DRB. Staff, the TAC and the DRB identified the types of development activities that should be reviewed at the staff level instead of at the board level. Modifications to the DRB guidelines are proposed accordingly. The text of section C(3) of "Preliminary/Final Design Review" portion of the Design Review • Guidelines (page 454c), lists the items that are subject to staff review and arr.,.,val. Staff 5 p..poses to expand paragraph (a) of this section by adding the following items: exterior finish materials (e.g. stonework, siding, roof materials, paint or stain), exterior lighting, canopies or awnings, fences, antennas and satellite dishes, and minor commercial facade imr.,.; cements outside the commercial core areas of Vail Village and Lionshead. Staff would also like to add a new paragraph (d) allowing staff to review and all site work (e.g. grading, landscaping, retaining walls, etc.) after the initial site devel,,..-ent has occurred. Staff believes that these changes do not significantly alter or reduce the review authority of the DRB. Any decision of the Administrator would be noted on the next DRB agenda and would be subject to review by the DRB. Staff intends to exercise its arv... val authority judiciously, deferring projects to the DRB that could have wide ranging implications or significant impacts to surrounding ,.,.,erties. Special sensitivity will be exercised in the Vail Village and Lionshead areas. Neighborhood context will be carefully considered in all staff decisions. Again, finther changes to the Design Review Guidelines (Phase II) will involve the removal of all references to fees, appeals and variances, and lapse of a..r,.,.,val fi..... Chapter 34, in favor of cross ref;,.;,..ces to either Chapter 18.62, "Variances", or to Chapter 66, "Administration". 3) Phase 1 Code Change Schedule: The proposed Phase I code changes have been presented to the planning staff, DRT, TAC, DRB and the PEC inf...... ally in a series meetings and discussions. The PEC reviewed the t,.,,.losed changes at a public worksession on February 26, 1996. Staffr.?,roses the following public meeting schedule: • • March 11th - PEC Final Review and Rec.,....Y.endation • March 19th - Council Worksession and 1st Reading of Ordinance • April 2nd - Council 2nd Reading of Ordinance V. PROPOSED PHASE II CODE REVISIONS In reviewing the Design Review Guidelines for the proposed Phase I code changes outlined above, it became clear to staff that further review and modification of the Design Review Guidelines is necessary. The guidelines have evolved and changed in a piecemeal fashion over the past two decades. The guidelines have become overly complex and are poorly organized. The Town Staff is now considering a major overhaul of the guidelines. For this effort, we are considering utilizing a consultant who has the expertise necessary to accomplish this major task. Staff anticipates that this overhaul will occur over the next twelve months to eighteen months. Staff feels that the design guidelines should, at a minimum, be revised so that they are logically presented in text and graphically illustrated where helpful. Design standards will be quantified to the extent practical. is 6 VI. ELIMINATION OF DUPLXATION OF REVIEW BY THE DRB AND THE PEC A suggestion was made by staff to eliminate duplication of review between the DRB and the PEC for major projects requiring review by both boards. However, the TAC thought that a better solution to resolving this issue was to perform joint work sessions (DRB and PEC) early on in the review process so that the DRB would not be put in the awkward position of wanting to revisit design issues that had already been addressed by the PEC and/or the Council. At a worksession held on February 21, 1996, the DRB was. asked for input regarding the proposed Phase I code revisions. The DRB was generally comfortable with Stars proposed code changes. However, the DRB was not in favor of joint worksessions. The DRB felt that there were simply too many decision makers (up to 11 people) present at the joint worksessions for these meetings to be effective. Staff solicited feedback from the PEC regarding this issue at a worksession on February 26, 1996. The PEC felt that the most effective way to get the DRB involved was to schedule the item for an initial worksession with the PEC and then, schedule the item for a subsequent worksession with the DRB within the next week or two. This would allow the PEC to give direction to the applicant on major site development issues, and the DRB to give direction on major design issues at a very early point in the review process. The applicant could then revise the proposal to address the initial concerns or decisions of the PEC and the DRB before the application would be brought back to the PEC for final decision or recommendation to Council. The PEC identified the following types of projects that should be reviewed according to the procedures outlined above: Major SDD Amendments, new SDD's, Major Exterior Alterations in the commercial core areas and other major demo/rebuild projects in the commercial and business districts. 7 • 4. al ComPlelcitY Items of Ml?° S OT roValltem Planning 1-i?son OMCer APp 8 The Planning Liaison Officer can approve the following items within 24 hours of receipt of a complete application/request: 1 Color changes 2. Landscaping 3. Fences 4. Exterior decks* 5. Window and door changes* 6. Skylights* 7. Signs on a building that has an approved sign program in place 8. Hot tubs* 9. Changes to exterior building materials* 10. Exterior lighting* 11. Changes to previously aVj,.,,ved plans* 12. Re-roof* * May require the issuance of a Building Permit from the Building Division f:\everyone\randy\items.pZo 9 Attachm ft 2 Proposed Phase I Code Amendments A) Sign Code (Title 16) B) Design Review Guidelines (Title 18 Chapter 54) Note: Only the pages of the Code that are being amended are attached. For a complete copy of either A or B above, as currently adopted, contact Community Development @ 479-2138. • 10 A) SIGN CODE REVISIONS (Title 16; Chapters 16.08, 16.12 and 16.36) • 11 Chapter 16.08 ADMINISTRATION Sections: 16.08.010 Appointment. 16.08.020 Responsibilities. 16.08.030 Enforcement. 16.08.040 Appeal. 16.08.050 Amendments. 16.08.010 Appointment. The town manager shall appoint an adminLL"ior, who shall administer and enforce this chapter. This position may be combined with another position of the town. (Ord 9(1973) § 15(1).) 16.08.020 Responsibilities. The administrator shall be responsible for such duties as prescribed in this chapter, and shall be responsible for enforcement of the sign regulations. (Ord. 9(1973) § 15(2) (part).) 16.08.030 Enforcement. The administrator may serve notice indicating the nature of any violation, or requiring the removal of any sign in violation of this title, on the owner or his authorized agent. The administrator may call upon the town attorney to institute necessary legal proceedings to enforce the provisions of this title, and the town attorney is authorized to institute arr.?.,rriate actions to that end. The administrator may call upon the chief of police and his authorized agents to assist in the enforcement of this title. (Ord. 9(1973) § 15(2) (part).) . 16.08.040 Appeal. Appeal fi.,... or determination by tli- WUL administrator pursuant to the provisions of this chapter may be file"*:: O WIM the Design Review. Board by any applicant within ten days following the action or determinationg . 6. : Wounu rsaV t30I11?S8:L p"ca;te:eccaa chi the ltgn Rvtev's tt tn: agenda. In the event of appeal, the Design Review Board, after reviewing a report from the administrator, may confirm, reverse, or modify the action of the administrator. Failure of the design review board to act within sixty days of the filing of appeal shall be deemed concu..?..ce in the action of the administrator. (Ord. 14 (1982) § lb: Ord. 9(1973) § 3.) ... kovir-W I3oar?d a y?}t},y?g 9fM? ?::i :.. ................:..:.....:.....:..................:. ...........L".,?.:.! : ".:::::::::::;::::':i';::i'r'•.:%:.'::isY.ii`?:::;':::;;:;;:ii:::::::::::::i i'::::::i::i::i;:::,yj: Y;..::::.;i'. ?:isi::::C:;i;%:'??:i:;ii:::%ti?.. Boar. 16.08.050 Amendments. The regulations prescribed in this chapter may be amended, or repealed by the town council. (Od. 9(1973) § 4.) 12 Chapter 16.12 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE Sections: 16.12.010 Applications and approvals required. 16.12.020 Application procedures. 16.12.030 Fees. sdiv tns:Icl1i0S-:Qr:rr,t?prnL;=-^??? 1'?l J:?..., V.r?V VVd:Ia?, Froc 114L. - TINE, JLLLd&Y:J:VU VLLL1 LLl1VV J;b'Y.J,iLll J:?u ?/.V?'Csl?aa.laaJ, YVauY:I.YVd ?.aw Iil1V? J:?La, :11LY1a:1aL.l„1 3:?,y 11. VFJ k J:5.a L.1a1 D. Approval by the sign administrator for signage not specifically required to be reviewed by • the Design Review Board. (Ord.5(1993) §2: Ord.51(1978) § 1 (part).) 16.12.020 Application procedures. The procedures to be followed in fulfilling the intent of the sign ordinance are as follows: A. A sign application for an individual sign or a sign program must be obtained, F,Y?.,Verly completed, and returned to the sign administrator; B. The sign administrator shall accept and review the jv vyerly completed sign application. FJ L,11111 L. _Thea strator.w?ll ove, condition _ _. cc]i cedur es Wil L?,LUaL tiu?e1d<i,tL 1#x.#1$ QIWO JLL.11 VVUJL1va L.aa µF.F, V(41 a.? i?J uvt?? av?asliw l? JV?v? aaYVV?YU? 4J J--A.FI Ij 4.f Fla4VL1V4V1V LLL 4 JLILJVL1KVLIL 1V6{i1"A 111VVt1a1? VI^1 YY111V1T tLa wyF,llVLiLLL aJ ra Y Vaa p.a1??VYa 13 E A E- r. 111411V?.. TL., LII,.I.I J-J1 aVIaYVa -K?.??yvNaWVan V{a?a tL. Yr,VJ .. A-L lL. L.0 -d.., J Yft- tLV 11V1.1a4?, Yaa1VJJ W?WktaV iiWa taaaar ip 1\. i1w.. VV 1<Jl G, V V? \IYY.7V, Yll? JVa I V Y Vv?? ayi a?J d*,V:J:,,.. ,,11 tLV /1rrI:.,WI.t-i.,, Lill.:l w a.. Wrr1:.,Wl.t 1WJt I,- #..a lay VJJ; that the sign meets the general requirements of this title, the sign administrator may app-vm II V%l J%JW %- 1VY1. 'Va J:b. VVaai ?/a aaaaaa$ ?u d.- i :!J1?,. 11J liV 1. 1rI?VVVd?r A '?r61Y.l VlIIVLW Ul Y F11U. ",pvA V Y wd .,lbll FA UbA "L... Th:, O.,bL. administrator shall notify the Design Review Board of all administrative decisions at their next regularly scheduled meeting . The Design Review Board may require that any decision of the sign administrator be reviewed by+ at its next regularly scheduled meeting; {?MM sign 1?/1 Jl+;LI. ... WILU'WIFO UT r Y V .O%J"4 a s V rt,wl, J?iLd.:. aJ.i Vi.?uraV V Ja?aaJ, Vi gn programs-, -:.Shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting in the presence of the applicant or his .;,r'.;,sentative following a determination by the.,' administrator that the application has been'r,.'„r,erly completed. The Design Review Board will .jvjv v,,e, conditionally ..,,,,love or reject the sign application based upon its 1conformance with this title and its aesthetic val1ue' Lr,w-1."lL, I%,Y'VJl`l,".VYlVYY•YL.?V{Y&,-tLVJLi,u?LrrI•VY?Vaa f,Va.llai #1111LVJVLYI-d to-h. WaaaaaaJL WLv. Way?V Wyr1lVYYlt #Y 111 L., ,iwl, ..,./a.Ilv.1 V?VJIGal 1V Y iV YY L..d2s \I,/1J.V11, 1) If the Design Review Board determines that the sign program application does not meet ??t#i<:£ttattithe Fm . A1€ technical requirements,c :YV1N• l.l?, LYt all/4 1:111:t & tV L'.,:blll W.l.i -.-L- afN.:J l:tle; the Design Review Board deny the application. Upon denial of an application by the Design Review Board, b asod. ;1acik.-Cd ... e #xi, the applicant may resubmit a modified application file an application for a variance, ace.' 1,tb'ip ,?urdehnm the appli.,?al?a ray ?vitir? D. .,w 1 plabriy>the ariaini?l?lu or the V; „V 1:., u ?, z t?' B.,, .?<Upon on. 1: 4 d o the sign application r.,llll:t by the ;Design Review Board, notification will be given in writing to the applicant specifying the reason for disapproval and making recommendations to bring the sign t s ? into conformance with the provisions of this title. 14 V. Lt. Vaa• ?VVLVa+ VfV.fa?ia NrYasYhLYVU rVYaaaaL L? ?V VVJa?Y1 IV Y.V YY LVW\1?i.,r uVL.a?YKLVU YY all 1?V 5. VLL lal11 YY lI`iLL? ?V ?V Krr1lVLW? Jr VVlf3'1LL?. 1.11V iVa.aYVLL fi.l ?JKrrlV YKl LLLL? 111?1111? 1} 1 VV Vl1LL11VLLY?LL?IVLLJ ?V Lal1ly ?V J1?LL ill?V VVL?Vllll{L111VV YY1? I.IiV riV Y1J11VliJ Vf +'•aJ ??1L.r' LA d.V V?Y -1 KLL KrrlaVKLLi?J Jl?ll rYl11 -1-: 1V, VV?V ?, UV v Vr4iV La Y.V 4rr V/I.K` lV ?V T%J?Yvli .EL K4V11 iV11V YY:11b 1V F& V'tV Y1L11V 'V Kllll.l 111 ?V f.1Vll?lil Y???11?Y. ILL ?V Y,rY Yllt Vi Kka jK1rr V(il, LLLV YV.fi?LL 1 V Y 1V YY L V W LlaY Jl?al K?iliaaaaaJL4?+ .f?..Lnll li1Kt?V 1 VV'V1iii+iVaa?iV LLJ LLiV ?V YY u V'VKLLVal. 16.12.039-P? r .. ? L_ r l l{, tLLV 4LL11V daV l.'LL11au1JLif1LV1 KVV Vr LY `- Ja6u Kr IFI:."?UIL`? 41V Kr?YVWa? 1?l rKJ' Q11 vV vS (`L YY VLL 1Ul1LiiJ rw 0:r'1., Vl JaG. uJ raV a{4a11. Tl.V --.,L- vla:6-0 tVl K 0a1ar1V JLL KVLK?11V?1uVaMYV? ua LLav KrKrrl(u!aVK?a'uu aJ 1uY./L 1YJU aVI.v?, ra'V Y aiive La+YJ VVal u,,Lll W IV r1V YlJ1V11J Vl d?L;J Y . f OLd. 5+. Chapter 16.36 VARIANCES • Sections: 16.36.010 Purpose - Limitations. 16.36.020 Application. 16.36.030 Fee 16.36.040 Hearing. 16.36.050 Crlter a €or>ApproveL Nt1:., „H.. 4.- 16.36.06 6360 At,l:,,.. „-1--$ppis"41*u.r. 16.36.060.0 t p Ito town council i-d". 16.36.010 Purpose - Limitations. A. In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title, variance iiV... the regulations may be granted: A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result fi.,111 the size, shape, or dimensions of a structure, or the location of the structure, fiv a topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or fi?111 other physical limitations, street locations, or traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. A variance may be granted with respect to any regulation contained in this title. (Ord. 4(1975) § 2 (L)(1): Ord. 9(1973) § 17 (1).) 16.36.020 Application. 15 Application for a variance shall be made upon a form provided by the administrator. The variance application shall include the application for a sign permit and shall also state the applicant's reasons for requesting variance in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section 16.36.070. (Ord. 4(1975) § 2 (L)(2): Ord. 9(1973) § 17 (2).) 16.36.030 Fee. The town council shall set a variance fee sufficient to cover the cost of towns staff time and other expenses incidental to the review of the application. The fee shall be paid at the time of application and shall not be refundable (Ord. 4(1975) § 2(L)(3): Ord. 9 (1973) § 17(3).) 16.36..040 Hearing. Upon receipt of a variance application, the administrator shall set a date .... :::Ni::.i:1:'iti^:•i;ti :•:ih:. X :::? ??hearina before ti. -he b hearing before the L,,,...1. (Ord. 4(1975) § 2 (L)(4): Ord. 9(1973) § 17(4).) L61 VLV Y1' 16• • •br Mezrinp 1 i 1 1 aVJJ t 4•aa VYI++ - Y4tV 0--t rVa j.V lav?Maaala ., ?v LY JYK?Va J11411 VKYJV K VVF/,` Vl K 1a1V ?1VV Vi ?1/1V ?aaaaV /?1?¦KVV ul tuV laVMalaaa? tV ?V r•.Y11JliV?I},?VLLVV aaa KiiV .?Jt/KtJ Va V'f , 6VYVa K1 VaaVM1,4 Y1aV Yl ala WV VV{Ka??• A ) § /? a+ . .?Oa1. 9(197 ) § 17.. 16.36.050 Criteria for approval. Before the ,1 fft- g;" Et ?a:,W amental ,; .. acts on a variance application u this 3' , the applicant must prove physical hardship, and the L V Ka d ,. • EnvirL;ta aittinmust find that: A. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right- of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question: provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all businesses or ent:,Lr.:ses; B. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant; C. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title, and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or worldng in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general; D. The variance applied for does not depart from the tw. nsions of this title any more than is required to identify the applicant's business or use; E. Such other factors and criteria as the P1an11 0`:`-:`:,:,` :: > :>:::<«:»::>::::::::::: <::::>::::.1VJa 1 Ig; q 4:.V! r Y:; ?.?... }±r#? ?......V, ? a V %:V to Lutud deems applicable to the proposed variance. (Ord. 4(1975) § 2(L)(7): Ord. 9(1973) § 17(7).) 16:36.060 *ction oat application. 16 w:a.*l1 < < ?la r tia r U L - c , tsY a 11 Vu ? '' J V V Y1VIJaaa? V?K t/4 1aV vMaaL? 'VL K Y Laa aKYYYV KY Vr{.aLa V_as YJa Krra1V44 V11. ll1V LV41? aaa?KJ?i YVVaaaalavkl ?IrraV YKl Vi LL14 Krr11V4?1V11 a V YaV ?'Y ?yKa 1r, O-L"M "VI an th a µL...:LLV\i, 'Vl aa1K'' Ji V{.VV11LL11V111? K?lr/YV IKl Vr aV KYtiVYl11V? Kr/l?/1,11VK?1'V+l J4LJVV?/?V .141V a1 ?].? • asaV a11V4?VaaJ Va Y'yaiCu LlVUJ KJ al ?VV1a1J LVV V`JJKI j' LV MVVVaaa aJla U.1?+•v raaarl` Vr L:" tt61v, A.I. ?II?i /IL.VKIS 11aK 1'' 11VVVaa uaaY1Y11VaaaKl 1V 1r?V4r?asvK4'•iaar A Y K1aYlYV'+/a?aaKj' I+V aV I VVKI/1V W. 111K? ?Y Kaa? 1Va 41LaaaLVY taaalV F-.'-,I. ?oa Y. T(a/ /?) § 2 ©1d. ?/?yl3> § ... ......................... 1636.06+00 tt Town Council T'- aVVV}a?auaaval ?1V4 V'r ?V ?VJaG•4 lV Y1V Y, L.4 J1K11 L. FA.&J. L1.y 4KLLJ1111?iV r 'Kt1Y 1.I':.t GLil4 to 41%. L'UV/?LjLLVV411V11. A U L W IiVA?1V??Ki1,' avL%,dJJ a1aVVNUr VYY 111G 1VV .FL Vl L11V 1VVV1a LLll Va1?K?1VU Vl the YVJ1?. la lV Y1VYY L'VKId -."a t/l VlllFJj KJ F&"wtIVKl Kt K JYLJV?1MV3a1? a V?Mll,al 1aaVV?aa?'VrW 1. ??Vaa a.V K?/1,/11V4LL? 113 rr,1Y VYa ?'Yll? a11V_L1VV, .•.v ?V IiL Vir .su V++ l11fV1Y 4 11VKlau? ?V iV11V YY 'y 4L I Yvv'valaYYaval ?aV11 Vl ?v L'V 4a , Kaal{{??'II4? Va1Va "Ft,.v Y V IL_ K?/?JlaVK?Y'Uai KJ KL...:11yd, "VFAV Y V a_ KFF1iL L'.Vl1 J4LJVVi &0 OL4%WL" lllu?a`(1V1KLLVLLay Vl VVliLL1?rV1'11J tiJ 1? ?VVaaaU J11vyvJJ41? 1.'V KV11VV111.J1•SL tLV F%"FVOV Ur Ea ?1 LlV, Vl dVtaj' 4aV K?/?}r{111VK?aVia. If LLa'v TVV ?u V J Iv 1?1 1115 M111V1V11L LLlr\/a1114?VL aJ "11.1.L.. 1V LVl..aa4C., LV F.V.l& dV VKJly rVY K J'u MYa Yj ?VVaJ1ay11, a` JLK ??Vy?VU?IUMV ILV LV/a+aaa6 lV VLLV yVlr/?LIJLUlV J4LJVaiKV11? 111V V11111?J. 1LLV1 V'U4li1V ll +1114¦111V11'\iV1 Kay/?V.VIJIVLL V'11 4L1 "PF VKI YY a?+Ya JYt\4 lii? J et_ a? +L. }?./1 111 , Ma11VJJ K???1VaaK1 YLaaV a3 Y V.?411 1ytV f. V'A VK4JV, Kul "s V V K wwF rur l[s 1VV1J1'V11 Vl??ff l V"w Kj.Y 1Y/raa? vy aa.Kal ?V LTV KrrlaV?i L 1. 1\li fVo??'Y 1.1 a&L,,.,`E)rd. 4(f ?1 2,Hb)(S) O.J. J • f1 u 17 to B) DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES REVISIONS ? (Title 18, Chapter 54) 0 18 Chapter 18.54 DESIGN REVIEW Sections: 18.54.010 Intent. 18.54.015 Definitions and rules of construction. 18.54.020 Board organization 18.54.030 Design approval. $,5 , p i a to> e t ti edl rv. .. dt. _..___........._ _ .:......................... ..................... 8 15 e.. e 18.54.051 Park design guidelines. 18.54.060 Design review fee. 18.54.070 Performance bond. 18.54.080 Administrative policies. 18.54.090 Appeal to town council. 18.54.100 Enforcement. 18.54.110 Lapse of design review approval. 18.54.010 Intent. Vail is a town with a unique natural setting, internationally know for its natural beauty, alpine envi..,.....ent, and the compatibility of man-made structures with the environment. These characteristics have caused a significant number of visitors to come to Vail with many visitors eventually becoming perma- nent residents participating in community life. These factors constitute an important economic base for the town, both for those who earn their living here and for those who view the town as a precious physical possession. The town council finds that new development and redevelopment can have a substantial impact on the character of an area in which it is located. Some harmful effects of one land use upon another can be prevented through zoning, subdivision controls, and building codes. Other aspects of development are more subtle and less amenable to exact rules put into operation without regard to specific development proposals. Among these are the general form of the land before and after development, the spatial relationships of structures and open spaces to land uses within the vicinity and the town, and the appearance of buildings and open spaces as they contribute to the area as it is being developed and redeveloped. In order to provide for the timely exercise of judgement in the public interest in the evaluation of the design of new develuv ... ent and redevelopment, the town council has created a design board (DRB) and design criteria. Therefore, in order to preserve the natural beauty of the town and its setting, to protect the welfare of the community, to maintain the values created in the community, to protect and enhance land and property, for the promotion of health, safety, and general welfare in the community, and to attain the objectives set out in this section; the improvement or alteration of open space, exterior design of all new development, and all modifications to existing devel.,y...ent shall be subject to design review as specified in this chapter. It is the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as possible to the individual designer while at the same time maintaining the remarkable natural beauty of the area by creating structures which are designed to complement both their individual sites and • 19 sL...,,mdings. The objectives.of design review shall be as follows: A. To recognize the interdependence of the public welfare and aesthetics, and to V.., ride a method by which this interdependence may continue to benefit its citizens and visitors; B. To allow for the development of public and private property which is in harmony with the desired character of the town as defined by the guidelines herein r.., Tided; C. To ?,. ? ?ent the unnecessary destruction or blighting of the natural landscape; D. To ensure that the architectural design, location, configuration materials, colors, and overall treatment of built-up and open spaces have been designed so that they relate harmoniously to the natural land forms and native vegetation, the town's overall appearance, with surrounding devel..,....ent and with officially a,,,.vred plans or guidelines, if any, for the areas in which the structures are r..,t,,osed to be located. E. To p.?.,tect neighboring r...yerty owners and users by making sure that reasonable provision has been made for such matters as pedestrian and vehicular traffic, surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, the preservation of light and air, and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. (Ord. 39 (1983) § 1.) 18.54.015 Definitions and rules of construction. Any words, terms, or phrases used in this design review guide shall be defined and int.,. p. eted in accordance with the definitions contained in Section 18.04 of the Vail Municipal • Code, unless the context clearly indicates a di-;,.;...t meaning was intended. If the context is unclear, the matter will be referred to the design review board for final determination. The distinction made between those items contained within this chapter that are mandatory and those that are discretionary is that statements which are mandatory are prefaced by the word shall, and the statements or guidelines which are discretionary (or merely suggestions) are prefaced by the words should or may. In all instances, any particular or specific controls over the general. (Ord. 39 (1983) § 1.) 18.54.020 Board organization. A. There is established a design review board (DRB) of the Town of Vail. The DRB should be c....r.osed of five members. Four members shall be residents of the town of Vail appointed by the town council and the fifth member shall be a member of the planning and environmental c.,--.fission of the town. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the cu..,;,..tdesign review board members as of the date of the passage of this ordinance who will no longer be residents of the Town of Vail due to the deannexation of the area known as West Vail riv .. the Town shall be permitted to c.... Aete their term on the design review board. B. The terms of office for the four members at large shall be two years on an overlapping basis and shall expire on February 1 of the year of termination. The 5.,.,.. of office for the planning and environmental commission member shall be three months. C. A vacancy on the design review board shall occur whenever a member of the board is • 20 removed by the town council, dies, becomes incapacitated and unable to perfLJ1111 his duties for a period of sixty days, resigns, ceases to be a resident of the Town of Vail, or is convicted of a felony. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the current design review board members as of the date of the passage of this ordinance who will no longer be residents of the Town of Vail due to the deannexation of the area known as West Vail firm... the town shall be permitted to complete their term on the design review board. In the event a vacancy occurs, the town council shall appoint a successor to fill the vacancy and serve the remainder of the term of the former member. The board shall select its own chairman and vice-chairman from among its members. The chairman, or in his absence, the vice- chairman, shall be the presiding officer of its meetings. In the absence of both the chairman and the vice-chairman from a meeting, the members present shall appoint a member to serve as acting chairman at the meeting. All business of the board shall be held at the municipal building of the Town of Vail, unless otherwise specified, with adequate notice given to all interested parties. Three members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but in the absence of a quorum, a lesser number shall adjourn any meeting to a later time or date, and in the absence of all members, any staff member shall adjourn any meeting to a later time or date. D. The board shall operate in accordance with its own rules of procedure as j,.,,. ,Tided for in Section 8.6 of the Home Rule Charter. The rules shall be filed with the town clerk and maintained in the records of the town, and shall be subject to public inspection; r.?, Aded, however, that the board shall submit its proposed rules or any amendment thereto to the town council which, by motion, shall approve the rules or amendment and direct their adoption by the board or disapprove the yl„yosal with directions for revision and resubmission. E. The design review board shall meet , .,..y :tire first and third Wednesday of each month. • Additional meetings may be called by the design review board or the town staff if such meetings are deemed necessary. Should the staff or the design review board require any additional meetings. LL,,. LL. ,,.. t1.,. ILA LLL.d tLu1 ..f a ........................... notification of the date of ?LL,,L and items to be reviewed atonal meetings shall be }JUJL'J V.. LLV dVU1 µL Ll.,, bLLLLULL,.V Uf LLLV YY u UfflN O rM1V 1.r..L by 1 ©ii ? A wvlfij. newspa , I circulation in Eagle County, 4z the Fn4y f e< u prior tie m-eettbig:and shall also be found posted within the Community Development Department of the Town of Vail. (Ord. 46(1991) §'l: Ord. 18(1985) §§ 1, .2: Ord. 39(1983) § 1.) 18.54.030 Design approval. A. No person shall commence removal of vegetation, site preparation, building construction or demolition, dumping of material upon a site, sign erection, exterior alteration or enlargement of an existing structure, paving, fencing or other improvements of open space within the corporate limits of the Town of Vail unless design approval has been granted as prescribed in this chapter. The addition of plant materials to existing landscaping, gardening and landscape maintenance shall be exempt fi.,... this provision. B. It shall be a violation of this chapter and the building permit for any person to commence, continue or complete work that has not received design approval as prescribed in this chapter and/or is not in conformity with the plans approved and authorized by the zoning administrator and/or DRB and the chief building official. • (Ord. 39(1983) § 1.) 21 18.54.040 Material to be submitted/procedures. Items A and B of this section have not been affected by the proposed code changes and therefore are not included here. C. Preliminary/final design review. Item I of this section has not been affected by the proposed code changes and therefore is not included here. r1 U 2. Staff/DRB Procedure. The Department of Community Development shall check all material submitted for design review for c.,..trliance withapplicable r.,; visions of the Zoning Code, Subdivision Regulations, and with Section 18.54.040C ho?:i If the application is .Wo found to be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the oning>ode, Subdivision Regulations, and Section 18.54.0400 the project shall Oft be placed upon the agenda of the next aFV vFriately scheduled DRB meeting in accordance with the required application submittal deadlines on file in the ommuntty D0.evel„r...ent Department C, :..:.:, GEJ'111tEh Tt eof tlaa sCtIf the application is found not to be in compliance with the: applicable provisions of the>oning Code and Section 18.54.040.(C), the application and materials shall be returned to the • applicant with an explanation of the ......:..& administrator's findings. The,,.-* ..6 administrator may require any additional items fiv,.,. the applicant as may be necessary for complete and proper design review. a. The administrator or the Design Review Board shall review the application and supporting material, and if the design of the project is found to comply ................................. with the objectives and design guidelines of this chapter, the a i + Ofhe:Design Review Board shall approve the design of the project; do..enting such ?rr,,? gal in writing and g andfof :]P*1a:,?a1. If additional items are needed as specified herein to determine whether the project will comply with the purposes, statement and design guidelines of this chapter, the DRB may give preliminary approval or table the project until the next regularly scheduled meeting. If the project is tabled or if preliminary approval is given, the board shall specify the conditions and additional and/or modified materials which must be submitted by the applicant to the Design Review;& d t c 83ttor, including any changes in the design of the project. The applicant may also table the application to a future meeting for any reason. b. If the project is found to conflict with the design guidelines, the avar:vr the Desgp Revv?t Board shall disarr. „ve the design of the project. Any disat v.?.,val shall be in writing and shall specifically describe the design guidelines with which the design of the 2,, -'ect does not • 22 cV111Y1y and the manner of noncu..Fliance. Is C. lz,g the DRB shall have thirty days to consider and approve or deny an application. The time for action may be extended at the request of the applicant. d. If changes in the design of the project are requested, the board shall approve, disapprove or request further changes within thirty days of the meeting at which the DRB receives the changes unless an extension is agreed to by the applicant. e. The applicant or his authorized lorlQsentative shall be present at the design review board meeting. 3. Staff approval. The ...:ng administrator may approve any of the following applications: ................... a. Any application to p` existing building that does not significantly change the existing planes of the building and is generally consistent with the architectural design, 11141V1:41J 4LL1,,,,:V1J .,r'tllC VNlldul?, including, but not limited to .exterior but txwrg>u, li materials, paint or stain,) ' ..r a???, , satellite dishes; windows, skylights; :ellg, . qu a ?_ _ .._....._ . ?._ ........ tend, and other similar modifications; b. Any application for an addition to an existing building that is consistent with the architectural design, materials and colors of the building, and approval has been received by an authorized member of a condominium association, if applicable; C. Any application to remove or modify the existing vegetation or landscaping upon a site ; and d Apy application for site mYx,,rer?ltE or madifica, iiRttt rniied to, driveway modifiCal isms, site grading, 5Ifie vi t to t , f accessary structures or recreational faci1 _'es In the above-specified cases, the L.Vll:L r, administrator may review and approve the application, approve the application with certain modifications9.4._14 1tc4t#g br may refer the any application to the Design Review Board for decision. All other applications shall be referred to the Design eview Board. (Ord. 9(1993) § b: Ord. 12(1988) § 1: Ord. 39(1983) § 1.) 18.54.080 Administrative policies. A. 7 ? V?.l1 VaYU 1114' V V lla(i?1V Vy a1V LV111LL? N?111111JK?V1 J11411 V V 11aMYV YYa?l4ll? J V? {? j 1 1 :::::: .:: fv:::::::::: a %V FLV11 Vi 4 VV1111,/l V?V 4r/FEv"G., 4"d t11V 6NFvultlll6 1114?Va1 ::: ` \i LM w:;w ...... idmoi3 4?z mall be conveyed to tht?a • vr:cond €iad s ?tf.$ i val.shall be listen. I:1. ll.,t ..de"..:L1. L" 1N?s-of 23 1 VVVr L1VU V1'LLV YVa1ar1YV'Y V?Y?kiYa.??'u? WY'.?aYa4?Va:N1J, Y.la'v YrrllVMiaV4 J4Y11 (/V ?VVaaaV? .arra u ..,J-. The administrator shall jubb-A '",a... &:t lV IL. 'ZYJ:?aa a V .:V .. L,..J a i:i:i:i.:;'"i:;':;.; y .....; ,..... ;° Board:. summary of all decisions made W. .. .:.......:..:...:..aaa.a the B Y VIIL 111VLLLaG. Vl ?V '?VJ_ .?i a V y aV I? A decision ?? >l of LL- Rreview board by the applicant; administrator may be appealed to the esign adjacent .._.. erty owner. > t 1 LLY 'A., Vl {4L LLV aY.1.aYJL C. nV?VV1JaVL Vf tLV a+Vaaaaab M?a.••••••?YLVa JI d V VVVUYV lj S1uV .. aa?LVU {.rr rMl aJ uYM tLV zC+VJa&.aa aV.YV/1..'1 P.:a.:- Vll 'J V1 Ya.+YW1?u iV .aV .P L?JW'4'J 1VV VarI V??V JwauaaKa? ?YY1Jlaaaa li'Vlll 41V Y/V aliLib 4?llaalaJ?MLVa• B. The design review board shall consider the appeal in the same manner as the board considers all other applications coming before it. (Ord. 39(1983) § 1.) 0 18.54.090 Appeal to town council. aaa..de A. to the t.Uwn ci ouncil, ....a, L. by the applicants adjacent property owner, or by the tTown manager. The -town e Council can also call-up matters by a majority +vlo tv iLVJr V,,,...,,:1 111V111L r.WO-L B. For all appeals, the appeal must be filed in writing ten days following the decision or must be called-up by thet own e Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting. C. The cCouncil shall hear the appeal within thirty days of its being filed or called up with a possible thirty day extension if the council finds that there is insufficient information. (Ord. 39(1983) § 1.) • 24 MEMORANDUM r? U TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 11, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a change to the Town of Vail Survey Policy relating to the establishment of base elevations used in the calculation of building height. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Lauren Waterton MU qg*. \ :,,• ?? :.,.`.':::..... '+.+''?..'•R+?> C•:.\\ ?'a.axa.•.»,»„'n.,?:,,:a+.+. ,. *'.* k.,, .. +t•. 11 M.O. Ica I. INTRODUCTION According to the existing Town of Vail Survey Policy, an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) indicating the elevations of all building roof ridges must be submitted to, and approved by, the Town of Vail prior to a framing inspection. Building height is calculated using the elevation of the ridge and the elevation of the existing grade below the ridge and the difference between these two cannot exceed the maximum building height allowance. • The elevation of roof ridges can be accurately measured by a registered surveyor. However, the determination of the existing grade is based on a topographic survey, which has limitations to its accuracy. Federal mapping agencies have adopted standards to control map accuracy by specifying the maximum error permitted in elevations shown on a map. These standards state that no more than 10% of the elevations tested will be in error more than one-half the contour interval. The Town of Vail requires that topographic surveys have two foot contour intervals, therefore, 10% of the elevations on a survey may be in error of up to one toot. Due to recent discussions regarding the accuracy of calculating building height, staff felt it timely to revisit the Survey Policy regarding height. The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) recently amended the policy (in January 1996) to add a requirement of an ILC at the time the foundation is poured for certain projects. That amendment did not affect the measuring of ridge elevations. The section of the policy regarding the calculation of height was last amended in April 1991. Before 1991, a grace of up to one foot was allowed for all ridges. For example, a ridge that was over the building height by six inches, was approved because it was within the one foot allowance. In 1991, it was determined that there was not a need for a one foot grace because surveyors could accurately measure ridge elevations. The discrepancy in the topographic survey was not discussed. Because there are recognized errors in topographic surveys, staff believes that compensating for these errors by amending the Town's Survey Policy is appropriate. 0 At the February 26, 1996 Planning and Environmental Commission worksession, the PEC discussed options to amend the Town of Vail Survey Policy as it relates to the calculation of • building heights. Based upon the above information, and information provided by local surveyors, the PEC also agreed that the Survey Policy should be amended. The PEC identified three options, all of which would require a change to the Survey Policy. OPTION #1: This option is similar to the policy prior to 1991. Building height requirements remain unchanged. When the project planner reviews an ILC, and a ridge is over the maximum height by one foot or less, the planner would approve the ILC and authorize the scheduling of the framing inspection. For example, if the planner determines that a building was built at 33'-9", the planner would approve the ILC because it is within the one-foot deviation allowance. OPTION #Z. If a building has any proposed ridge within one foot of the maximum building height, a spot elevation will be required directly below that ridge to ensure accurate measurement of the ridge height. This additional spot elevation would need to be done when the building footprint and ridge elevations are identified and prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. This will require the property owner to survey the property twice: once for general topographic and lot information, and later to add spot elevations to the original survey. OPTION #3; • Building height allowances in all the zone districts would be reduced by one foot. When the project planner reviews an ILC, and a ridge is over the maximum height by one foot or less, the planner would approve the ILC. This option allows for the one foot grace, without deviating from the maximum allowable building height. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the PEC approve Option #2. We believe that this option provides the most accurate measurement of building height. While we acknowledge that it may increase the overall cost of a project, this option will only affect projects that have proposed ridges within one foot of the maximum building height. 40 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. • Imorovement Logation Certificate (ILC) after the foundation is ooured Within three (3) weeks following the approved foundation inspection, an ILC will be 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%. 3. The building is within 6 inches of the maximum building height allowance. 4. The project involves three or more separate structures on the property. 5. The project has received a variance for height or setbacks. The ILC must be submitted to the Town of Vail for review and approval within three weeks following the approved foundation inspection. The Building Inspector will notify the project planner when the foundation inspection has been approved. If an ILC is not received and approved by the planner within three weeks, the Town of Vail will issue a Stop Work Order and no work will be allowed until the ILC is reviewed and approved. Once submitted to the Town, please allow two working days for the ILC to be reviewed. The ILC should indicate the footprint of the building, the elevations of the foundation walls and the garage slab, and the grade of the centerline of the driveway,,measured in twenty foot increments. 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 • 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 Lotion Certificate (ILCtorior to.3 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. Identifvina 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 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. &of 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. It 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 Proiects 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 • • \ C-?-i• FOP TILE Ao S L'f Oa! \\ X60 pL Tr ot4 /8" j k th D,?F1-Ywv. TOP RlD6E of f SNErf7711W,I ?, + - 2?g y1.?cPG?o LiZ IU' o.c, 76P of swvAL6S - r •'' a i E ry, t Y ? l< I' L -?A - - C-OT, MEr1PSFz+J-3E ( 1 LA-Yu- ^.o4 - 2 Go :vs?S Qa y.L.L F-'wda1<•9) PIN> wp-t=rte 9•?' ? ?Lirtpr?4 ? ?G" o.a, (oN CGGG) iz--50 (°A•TT 1Q--3LJLA-rloh4, f'.+L•OC.kIF-?GI f.'S ?F?3?P• ele" -ryrr? .ri cgYP Pt5:,. v.t?c vAPO - P AiLfLlmll- - WITM. to .Boor RIDGE VENT DETAII V? 1`-0ll ToQ CIDC,E of 511EA'f A InlCi WITNDuT GOLC RDOF n RIDGE VENT DETAIL I ---- -Al coax YCnear t se?-bAC.I?. ?our%da+ion i Iirk 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 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • March 11, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Henry Pratt Kevin Deighan Galen Aasland Diane Golden Gene Uselton rolic Hearing Greg Moffet called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Mike Mollica Jim Curnutte George Ruther Randy Stouder Judy Rodriguez 2:00 p.m. 1. Swearing in of new PEC members by Holly McCutcheon, Vail Town Clerk. Pam Brandmeyer, on behalf of Holly McCutcheon, swore in Galen Aasland, Diane Golden, Gene Uselton and Greg Amsden. 2. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast located at 1987 Circle Drive/Lot 26 Buffehr Creek. Applicant: Jeannine Erickson Planner: Jim Cumutte Mike Mollica, on behalf of Jim Curnutte, summarized the request. He stated that the request is in compliance with the Town's requirements and that the applicant is not proposing a name plate sign at this time. Greg Moffet asked the applicant if they had anything to add. The applicant had nothing to add. Greg Moffet opened it up for the Commissioner's comments. Galen Aasland suggested that the sign if approved, have a condition that it conform with the architectural style of the building. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 11, 1996 1 Kevin Deighan commented that he was for approval. There were no additional comments from the other PEC members. • Greg Amsden made a motion that the request be approved with the two conditions listed in the staff memo and the additional condition that any future residential name plate sign conform with the architectural style of the building. Kevin Deighan seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 3. 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 George Ruther stated the PEC had a chance to review the memo in the pre-meeting. The application meets the criteria in the memo. He stated that staff was recommending approval with the condition as listed on page 4 of the memo. He also noted that if the lights don't comply with the Lighting Ordinance, then they have to be removed. • Frank D'Alessio, the applicant, asked for clarification of the Lighting Ordinance and said he once before adjusted the pitch of the lights because of a complaint. He stated that other neighbors lighting doesn't seem to comply with these regulations and asked George about conformity. Mike Mollica stated that the Lighting Ordinance is approximately 3 years old and that further, the applicant now needs to be in compliance, as part of his 250 request. Greg Moffet asked the Commissioners for any comments. Galen Aasland was concerned with Finding B2 in the staff memo and that the applicant is over on site coverage. He wants the applicant to address the elevations on the east and west sides when applying for his 250. He needs to add decks or windows, to break up the blank wall of the structure. George Ruther said the applicant will add windows to the east elevation. Frank D'Alessio explained to Galen that he had not seen the revised drawings, but windows have been added to the east side. He further explained that the roofline is in compliance and the Board will be satisfied with the window situation on the east side. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 11, 1996 2 Mike Mollica suggested to Galen that he felt it appropriate to make it a condition for the DRB to take a hard look at it. Galen Aasland said the west side had a negative effect on the neighbors. Frank D'Alessio thought looking into the bedroom through windows was negative. Galen Aasland made a motion with the condition that when it goes to the DRB, that the applicant be required to have windows on the east and west sides and per the staff memo that the lighting meets the Lighting Ordinance. Galen said that this was an opportunity for the applicant to upgrade. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Henry Pratt asked if this motion required the applicant to add windows on the east and west elevations. Frank D'Alessio said windows on the east side were no problem, but that the west side is a problem. Greg Amsden doesn't think it should be requirement of this application. • Galen Aasland amended his motion by stating that the DRB was to decide on the windows on the west side. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. Mike Mollica suggested moving onto item No. 5 on the agenda since the applicant was not present. 4. A request for a major exterior alteration in the Commercial Core II zone district for a proposed addition to Gotthelf s Gallery in the Village Center Building, located at 122 East Meadow Drive/Block 5E, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Fred Hibbard, represented by Pam Hopkins Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the memo. He pointed out that the site coverage and parking requirement have been met by the applicant. A pay-in-lieu fee of $16,333.38 forparking is stated in the memo. At this time, the applicant is not proposing to replace the wood tie planters, since this application is not of the scope to include this replacement. George again stated that the memorandum will become part of the record. Staff is recommending approval that carries with it two conditions which are on page 8 of the memo. That the pay-in-lieu parking fee be paid prior Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 11, 1996 3 to the issuance of a Building Permit. That the fee will be adjusted if the permit is not issued until 1997. • Pam Hopkins, on behalf of Fred Hibbard, apologized for being late, as she thought the meeting began at 3:00 p.m. Kevin Deighan said that La Tour will complain and he doesn't want the planter there. Pam Hopkins said the owners have improved the building little by little and that they are gun shy especially after last year. They do have a proven track record of improving the building. Henry Pratt had no comments. Gene Uselton asked for clarification of the condition regarding painting all the soffits. There were no other comments from the PEC members. Diane Golden had no comment. Galen Aasland had no comment. Pam Hopkins asked if the applicant could stain the soffits. Mike Mollica said it should be painted white to match the rest of the soffits on the building, • Greg Moffet asked what the timing was for the request. Pam Hopkins said next spring of 1997. Greg Moffet suggested that it integrate with La Tour. Greg Amsden made a motion that the request be approved per the staff recommendation on page 8 of the memo with an additional condition that the applicant pay the parking fee prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, at the prevailing rate. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 11, 1996 4 40 • 5. A request for proposed amendments to numerous sections of The Town of Vail Municipal Code, including but not limited to Titles 16 & 18 to allow for modifications to the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder summarized the proposed changes to the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines. He referred the PEC to Attachment #2 of the staff memo which includes the actual text of the changes proposed. He presented the proposed code changes as outlined in Section IV of the staff memorandum. He stated that the changes being proposed would allow staff to review and approve individual sign requests and minor design review requests. He stated that all staff decisions would be published on the next Design Review Board (DRB) meeting agenda. The DRB would have the ability to "call-up" any staff decision at that meeting. He reiterated that the proposed changes do not remove the right to appeal a staff decision to the DRB, and a DRB decision to the Town Council. He stated that the proposed changes were in accordance with the findings of the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) that was formed to guide staff in reviewing the code. Randy stated that staff would forward controversial requests on to the DRB for review, especially where an adjacent property owner was raising an objection. He also stated that high profile projects in the Vail Village and Lionshead areas would be sent to the DRB for decision. Randy stated that sign programs will be required on most new or demo/rebuild commercial projects. Randy stated that sign variance requests would be sent to the PEC for review rather than to the DRB and then The Town Council (per current process). Greg Moffet noted for the record that there was no public comment on this item. Henry Pratt asked if an adjacent property owner could still appeal. Randy Stouder said yes. There were no comments from the other Commissioners. Kevin Deighan made a motion for approval of the proposed changes as shown in Attachment 2 of the staff memorandum. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 11, 1996 5 6. A -request for a change to the Town of Vail Survey Policy relating to the establishment of base elevations used in the calculation of building height. • Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Lauren Waterton Mike Molliea, on behalf of Lauren Waterton, listed the 3 options in the memo regarding modifications to the survey policy. Staff was recommending approval of Option No. 2. Greg Moffet noted for the record that there was no public present with any comments. Henry Pratt said that he is not in favor of Option No. 3, or Option No. 2, since it has hidden cost increases and time increases. He is in favor of Option No. 1. Not raising the height limit is less burdensome for staff and the Boards and it would not allow people to design to those tolerances. Greg Amsden is in favor of Option No. 2, since the bulk of people build within the height limits. Kevin Deighan is 'in favor of Option No. 2. Galen Aasland agrees with Henry. He doesn't like Option No. 2, since it increases costs and time with the surveying. It is not making it easier for people in Town. Diane Golden had no comment. Gene Uselton agrees that the second survey required by Option No. 2 implies (very minor) cost • increases and construction time delays. He points out, however, that a second survey is required only in cases for which the building "has any proposed ridge withing one foot of the maximum building height." If a builder wants to build to the maximum ridge height, he should include the cost of a second survey in the overall cost estimate for the structure. Construction time delays can be minimized in these cases by scheduling the second survey in advance. Greg Moffet is in favor of Option No. 2. He has the same reasons as Gene Uselton and Greg Amsden. Greg Amsden made a motion, per the staff memo, for approval of Option No. 2. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. Henry Pratt said in the last ten years, in his experience, no one has ever built below the height limit. The request was approved by a vote of 5-2. Henry Pratt and Galen Aasland voted against. • Planning and Envi........ental Commission Minutes March 11, 1996 r ? 7. A.request for site coverage, front setback, side setback and density variances to allow for an addition to the building located at 1845 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 21, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant: Ted Smathers, represented by Brent Alm Planner. Jim Curnutte TABLED TO APRIL 8,1996 Kevin Deighan made a motion to table item No. 7 until April 8, 1996 and item No. 8 until March 25, 1996. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 8 . A request for a worksession to discuss a setback variance and a separation variance to allow for the construction of separated garages partially within the front setback, located at 2853 & 2833 Kinnickinnick Rd./Lots 7 & 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Peter Gladkin for Timber Creek Condominium Homeowner's Association Planner: Randy Stouder • TABLED TO MARCH 25,1996 9. Information Update 10. Approval of February 26, 1996 PEC minutes. Kevin Deighan made a motion for approval of the minutes as drafted. Diane Golden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 11. Assignment of PEC representatives to DRB Board: * Greg Moffet Jan. - Mar. * Gene Uselton Apr. - June * Diane Golden July - Sept. * Greg Amsden Oct. - Dec. 12. Assignment of PEC representative to Housing Authority - Andy Knudtsen. 4p Andy Knudtsen stated that he was looking for a two-year commitment. Housing Authority members run 5 year terms. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes March 11, 1996 7 Greg Amsden nominated Greg Moffet. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. The vote passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. Henry Pratt moved that nominations be closed. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. The vote passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 2:50 p.m. Planning and Envircmoaental Commission Mimes March 11, 1996 8