Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0812 PECTHIS 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 August 12,1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for height and front setback variances to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3. Applicant: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz Planner: George Ruther A request for a conditional use permit to replace an existing well and pump station, located on the lower bench of Donovan Park. Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, represented by Gail Lucas Planner: George Ruther A request to amend Sections 18.24.020, 18.24.030, 18.24.040, 18.24.050, 18.27.030, 18.28.030, 18.28.040 and 18.29.030 of the Zoning Code to add Brew Pub as a conditional use in the Commercial Core I, Commercial Core 2, Commercial Core 3, Commercial Service Center and Arterial Business Zone Districts. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Jack Hunn Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for an amendment to an approved site development plan to allow for a shift in the building envelope of Building #8, located at 2792B Kinnickinnick Road/Innsbruck Meadows #8. Applicant: Bob Borne Planner: George Ruther 40 A request for a renewal of a conditional use permit to allow for the continued operation of a mobile catheterization laboratory at the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots F & E, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Dan Feeney Planner: Dirk Mason A request for a landscape variance to allow for a building addition and additional surface parking, located at 2131 N. Frontage Road/ Lot 3, Vail Das Schone 3rd Filing. Applicant: Safeway, Inc., represented by Dennis Wyatt Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a worksession to discuss a variance to allow detached garages in the front setback, located at 2853 and 2833 Kinnickinnick Road/Lots 7 & 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain/Lodges at Timber Creek. Applicant: Jim Marx Planner: Dominic Mauriello An appeal of an administrative decision relating to Section 18.04.065, Demo/Rebuild, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, as it relates to Chapter 18.71, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area. Applicant: Bill Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello 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 July 26, 1996 in the Vail Trail. Agenda last revised 8/01/96 2pm PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, August 12, 1996 AGENDA EZAjggLQrientation / Lunch - _QQmmunijy Development Department 10:45 am .Site VIZIJL 11:30 am 1. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District - Lower bench of Donovan Park 2. Lodges at Timber Creek - 2853 and 2833 Kinnickinnick Road 3. Innsbruck Meadows #8 - 2792 B Kinnickinnick Road 4. Safeway - 2131 N. Frontage Road 5. Gensler -1894 Lionsridge Loop 6. Hughes/Tuchman - 3110 Booth Creek Drive 7. Vail Valley Medical Center -181 West Meadow Drive Driver: George Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. . 1. A request for a renewal of a conditional use permit to allow for the continued operation of a mobile catheterization laboratory at the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots F & E, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Dan Feeney Planner: Dirk Mason 2. A request for an amendment to an approved site development plan to allow for a shift in the building envelope of Building #8, located at 2792B Kinnickinnick Road/Innsbruck Meadows #8. Applicant: Bob Borne Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for height and front setback variances to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3. Applicant: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz Planner: George Ruther 4. A request for a conditional use permit to replace an existing well and pump station, located on the lower bench of Donovan Park. Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, represented by Gail Lucas Planner: George Ruther Agenda last revised 8/01/96 2pm 5. A request to amend Sections 18.24.020, 18.24.030, 18.24.040, 18.24.050, 18.27.030, 18.28.030, 18.28.040 and 18.29.030 of the Zoning Code to add Brew Pub as a conditional use in the Commercial Core I, Commercial Core 2, Commercial Core 3, Commercial Service Center and Arterial Business Zone Districts. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Jack Hunn Planner: Dominic Mauriello 6. A request for a landscape variance to allow for a building addition and additional surface parking, located at 2131 N. Frontage Road/ Lot 3, Vail Das Schone 3rd Filing. Applicant: Safeway, Inc., represented by Dennis Wyatt Planner: Dominic Mauriello 7. A request for a worksession to discuss a variance to allow detached garages in the front setback, located at 2853 and 2833 Kinnickinnick Road/Lots 7 & 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain/Lodges at Timber Creek. Applicant: Jim Marx Planner: Dominic Mauriello 8. An appeal of an administrative decision relating to Section 18.04.065, Demo/Rebuild, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, as it relates to Chapter 18.71, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area, located at 3110 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11 th Filing. Applicant: Bill Pierce • Planner: Dominic Mauriello 9. Information Update 10. Approval of July 22, 1996 minutes 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 August 9, 1996 in the Vail Trail. Agenda last revised 8/13/96 9am PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, August 12, 1996 FINAL AGENDA Proiect Orientation / Lunch - Communitv Development Denartment Site Visits 1. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District - Lower bench of Donovan Park 2. Lodges at Timber Creek - 2853 and 2833 Kinnickinnick Road 3. Innsbruck Meadows #8 - 2792 B Kinnickinnick Road 4. Safeway - 2131 N. Frontage Road 5. Gensler - 1894 Lionsridge Loop 6. Hughes/Tuchman - 3110 Booth Creek Drive 7. Vail Valley Medical Center - 181 West Meadow Drive Driver: George Public Hearina - Town Council Chambers 10:45 am 11:30 am 2:00 p.m. • 1. A request for a renewal of a conditional use permit to allow for the continued operation of a mobile catheterization laboratory at the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots F & E, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Dan Feeney Planner: Dirk Mason MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 2. A request for an amendment to an approved site development plan to allow for a shift in the building envelope of Building #8, located at 2792B Kinnickinnick Road/Innsbruck Meadows #8 Applicant: Bob Borne Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 6-0-1 (Amsden abstained) APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 3. A request for height and front setback variances to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3. Applicant: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 26,1996 Agenda last revised 8/13/96 9am 4. A request for a conditional use permit to replace an existing well and pump station, located on the lower bench of Donovan Park. Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, represented by Gail Lucas Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS 5. A request to amend Sections 18.24.020, 18.24.030, 18.24.040, 18.24.050, 18.27.030, 18.28.030, 18.28.040 and 18.29.030 of the Zoning Code to add Brew Pub as a conditional use in the Commercial Core I, Commercial Core 2, Commercial Core 3, Commercial Service Center and Arterial Business Zone Districts. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Jack Hunn Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: John Schofield VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED 6. A request for a landscape variance to allow for a building addition and additional surface parking, located at 2131 N. Frontage Road/ Lot 3, Vail Das Schone 3rd Filing. Applicant: Safeway, Inc., represented by Dennis Wyatt Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED 7. A request for a worksession to discuss a variance to allow detached garages in the front setback, located at 2853 and 2833 Kinnickinnick Road/Lots 7 & 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain/Lodges at Timber Creek. Applicant: Jim Marx Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7-0 TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 26,1996 8. An appeal of an administrative decision relating to Section 18.04.065, Demo/Rebuild, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, as it relates to Chapter 18.71, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area, located at 3110 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing. Applicant: Bill Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 7-0 OVERTURNED STAFF'S DECISION 9. Information Update 10. Approval of July 22, 1996 minutes Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. • LJ Community Development Department Published August 9,1996 in the Vail Trail. • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a renewal of a conditional use permit to allow for the continued operation of a mobile catheterization laboratory at the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots F & E, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Dan Feeney and Ray McMahan Planner: Dirk Mason 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOITEST The applicant is seeking to renew their conditional use permit to operate a mobile catheterization laboratory on site. The Vail Valley Medical Center (VVMQ is located in the General Use District, therefore, a conditional use permit is necessary. The VVMC wishes to extend the length • of arr.vval indefinitely or for a period greater than one year. In addition, VVMC requests the maximum number of days allowed for operation, be changed from three to four. Attached is the 1995 memorandum documenting the previous conditional use permit request to allow the mobile catheterization laboratory to operate on the hospital site. Included with the attachment is a site plan indicating the location where the mobile lab is to be parked, as well as the landscaping plan. Additionally, minutes from the PEC meeting are attached. II. BACKGROUND The Vail Valley Medical Center received approval for a conditional use permit on August 14, 1995 to operate a mobile catheterization laboratory. The permit was approved with the following five conditions: The VVMC shall operate the mobile catheterization lab at the hospital for a maximum of three days per month. The mobile lab shall not arrive at, or depart the hospital, between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. The lab shall not be scheduled for use on weekends, on days that the Eagle Care Clinic is open, and during the peak skier days between Christmas and New Years and the President's Day holiday weekend. Permanent water, sewer, and electrical hook-ups shall be installed, so the lab can operate without the use of the generators attached to the lab. The lab's generators shall not run while the lab is parked at the hospital, with the exception of unforseen power outages for patient safety. 40 The proposed landscaping shall be installed before the lab is used and shall be properly irrigated and maintained at all times. Dead or dying trees shall be replaced immediately. The conditional use permit shall be valid for a one year period, and shall be re-evaluated by the PEC one year from the date of approval. .,li nice with Previous Conditions The WMC has complied with the above conditions placed on the previous conditional use permit arr.,,val. The mobile lab arrives in Vail the night before the scheduled use between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. The lab operates on the 1 st and 3rd Tuesday of each month and departs between the hours of 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. depending on the number of patients scheduled for the procedure. All of the required landscaping has been planted. Supplemental Inf?....ation The Evergreen Lodge originally expressed concerns, over the operation of the mobile lab, at the PEC meeting a year ago. Staff has recently spoken with the current manager of the Evergreen Lodge regarding the mobile lab operations. The Ev:,.vaen Lodge manager stated they have not experienced any problems with the current operations. • The Town of Vad Police Department, based on a records search, has not received any complaints related to the operation of the mobile catheterization laboratory. III. ST F RECOMMENDATION The Community Devei.,r...ent Department staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit request for renewal. Staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. The V VMC shall bring the mobile lab to the hospital for a maximum of four days per month. The mobile lab shall not arrive at, or depart from the hospital, between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. 2. The lab shall not be scheduled for use on weekends, on days that the Eagle Care Clinic is open, during peak skier days between Christmas and New Years and the President's Day holiday weekend. 3. The lab's generators shall not run while the lab is parked at the hospital, with the exception of unforseen power outages for patient safety. 4. Any dead or dying trees shall be replaced immediately. is 5. The PEC shall retain the ability to reevaluate, or call-up for review, the conditional use permit if the Vail Valley Medical Center fails to comply at any time with the above . conditions, or if there are complaints or concerns from neighboring property owners. • f:\evayone\pec\mcmos\wmccup.812 , ) MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 14, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the Vail Valley Medical Center to park a mobile catheter lab west of the Ambulance District's Building, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E and F, Block 1, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Ray McMahan and Dan Feeney Planner: Randy Stouder • 1. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The Vail Valley Medical Center (WMC) is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to locate a mobile catheterization lab along the retaining wall adjacent to the Ambulance District Building as a temporary, (intermittent) use. The lab is a self-contained mobile facility, that would be brought in and parked at the site for one to three days per month. The lab would enable Dr. Larry Gaul, the only resident cardiologist in the upper Eagle Valley area, to perform heart catheritization procedures in Vail. This service is currently performed at hospitals in Denver, and is not available locally. The purpose of the catheritization process is to diagnose potential heart problems and determine the need for surgical intervention. The WMC is located in the Public Use District. The hospital is listed as a conditional use in this district, and the development standards used to evaluate proposed changes to the hospital use are established by the PEC through the conditional use permitting process. Thus, the applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to park and operate the mobile catheter lab as a temporary use (1-3 days per month) at the medical center. The attached site plan shows the proposed lab location. An elevation drawing has been provided to give the PEC a perspective of how the lab will appear in the proposed location. A concrete pad is required to level and support the mobile lab. The proposed location will not require the removal of any vegetation. A light post will need to be removed and 6 large spruce trees are proposed on the bank above the lab to screen it from the Evergreen Lodge. 0 11. PACKGROUND, On June 19, 1995 the WMC brought the mobile catheter lab unit to the hospital. Several PEC members, the planning staff and neighboring property owners attended this meeting to get a visual image of what the catheter lab will look like and how it would fit in with the surrounding neighborhood. Pictures of the mobile unit are attached to this memorandum for reference purposes. At an earlier worksession with the PEC (June 16, 1995), the applicant proposed to locate the lab in the alley leading to the parking structure from West Meadow Drive. The PEC • felt that an alternative location behind the hospital was more appropriate. The PEC felt that the location initially proposed would not be compatible with the adjacent low density residential neighborhood and the pedestrian corridor along West Meadow Drive. Operational issues and parking needs were also discussed with the PEC at the worksession. [if. ZONING ANALYSIS In the Public Use District, hospitals are considered to be conditional uses. Any expansion of the hospital is subject to review using the conditional use permit criteria and findings, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.60 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. The mobile catheter lab is considered to be an accessory use to the hospital and is an expansion of an existing conditional use. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consi¢=tion of Factors: 1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town. The proposed use will have a positive benefit to the community in that a service that currently must be provided by traveling to Denver will be available to community residents in Vail. The temporary nature of the use will minimize the impacts to surrounding properties and the only permanent improvements that will be located on the property include a concrete pad that will replace a section of asphalt, and the utility hook-up pedestals. Much needed landscaping will be provided along the hillside between the proposed location for the lab and the Evergreen Lodge. This hillside is currently devoid of any vegetation that would provide an effective screen, thus the proposal of landscaping in_this area will have a significant benefit to the residents in the Evergreen. Staff believes the landscaping will not only screen the catheter lab when it is on its pad but it will also provide a permanent screen between the hospital and the Evergreen Lodge. 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 use will have no impact on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities. The proposed use will have a positive impact on public facilities needs, in that a valuable medical service will be provided within the community that is not currently available. n 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. The proposed lab will be parked on its pad for less than a 24-hour period, no more than three days per month. Thus it will have little to no impact on traffic, traffic flow and control, access and snow removal from the medical center's parking lot area. The proposed location will temporarily displace four parking spaces currently dedicated for emergency room drop-off, for injured skier transport. Additional emergency room drop-off parking spaces exist across from the proposed location along the north side of the building. These spaces should be adequate to provide the desired emergency parking during the 1-3 days per month that the mobile lab is in place. Staff feels that the lab should not be scheduled during peak skier periods. A condition regarding this issue is proposed. The applicant has agreed to schedule the lab on days when the Eagle Care Clinic is not open. Four (4) parking spaces are allotted for clinic use currently. This will allow the lab operating staff and patients to utilize the four vacant spaces. 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 lab is proposed to be located against the retaining wall between the hospital and the Evergreen Lodge. A steep bank begins at the top of the retaining wall, up to the path along the back side of the Evergreen Lodge. First story lodge room windows are located about 20 feet above the hospital parking lot level. The trailer is approximately 13 feet tall and thus will not block any views from the first story windows at the Evergreen Lodge. The 6 large spaces proposed by the applicant should provide adequate screening along the north side of the trailer. Staff believes additional screening should be added from the proposed location of the trailer west to the parking structure, since no effective screening is provided along this bank area currently. The applicant has proposed to locate six large blue spruce trees on the bank behind the trailer. Three of the trees are to be 10 to 13 feet tall, and three are to be 12 - 15 feet tall. Staff feels that smaller vegetation in larger numbers should be utilized along the bank area and extended all the way to the parking garage. A mix of deciduous and evergreen material along with complimentary shrubs would provide a dense, effective screen that will block views of the hospital and parking areas but will not block views of the mountain over the top of the hospital building. Staff feels that if an effective screen can be provided by the applicant, that the proposed temporary use will have little to no effect on the character of the area. • 3 1. B. Finding2 _ The Plannino and Environmental Commission shall make the followinn_ findinn_ before • grantina a conditional use hermit: 1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the PEC approve the Conditional Use Permit request with the conditions outlined below. Staff feels that the proposal will have minimal impact to the surrounding community based upon a review of the criteria contained in Section IV of this memorandum. 1. The VVMC shall bring the mobile lab to the hospital for a maximum of . three days per month. The mobile lab shall be brought to the hospital between 6:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the evening before the services are to be provided to the patients, and will depart no later than 4:00 p.m. the day the catheterization processes are scheduled. 2. The lab shall .nit be scheduled for use on weekends, on days that the Eagle Care Clinic is open, and during the peak skier days between Christmas and New Years and the President's Day holiday weekend. 3. A permanent water, sewer and electrical hook-up shall be installed so that the lab can operate without the use of the generators attached to the lab. The lab's generators shall not be run while the lab is parked at the hospital. 4. The proposed landscaping shall be installed before the lab is used and shall be properly irrigated and maintained at all times. Dead or dying trees shall be replaced immediately. 5. The Conditional Use Permit shalt be valid for a one year period, and shall be re-evaluated by the PEC at the end of this term. FA&veryoneVecVmrnos\wm=p.814 4 DOUBLETREE HOTEL ' A cnr ?? - REMOVE EXISTING T n^1 9: 1 'tei WEATHERPROOF ENCLOSURE FOR ELECTRICAL, TELr-PHON---, FIRE -" CATH LAB COACH ' 1 1 I r .,tr AMBULANCE , CY MANHOLE FOR I ; SEWER, WATER ; ... 5 ADDI't14N . T1 1 - t _L.1- ILJ LJ t_1? I l i L-.L SOUTH ELEVATION COACH AND EVERGREEN HOTEL 0 r- i -11 ir. s_ ?sue= V' Y? ? _ ? - M1????i•?':? ?``ti?? 7 7 1 : vailvalley ' medical center August 7, 1995 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Mr. Randy Stouder Community Development Department Town of Vail RE: Mobile Catheterization Lab Dear Randy: 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100 Vail, Coiorodo 81657 (303) 476-2451 We wish to revise our application for a conditional use permit for the mobile catheterization lab, as shown on the attached drawings. Essentially, we are proposing that the lab be located in our west parking lot, next to the timber retaining wall. To miticate the visual impact to the Evergreen Hotel, we will plant a total of six blue spruce trees on the sloped bank between our two properties. Three of the trees will be 10-13 feet tall, and three will be 12-15 feet tall. When the lab is in place, it will occupy four parking spaces. Our Eagle Care Clinic, which is open only three days per week, has four spaces available to it on a full-time basis. (See my letter to Shelly Mello, dated "23 August 1993, copy attached, which recaps parking availability and needs.) We will propose limiting cath lab visits to days that the *Eagle needs..) Clinic is closed, days on which these four spaces are not needed. As stated in my previous letter of 20 June 95, the lab should be treated as the equivalent of one exam room, thus requiring one parking space. We have one surplus space presently available. The two technicians who operate the lab will arrive in a separate vehicle, which they will park adjacent to the lab, thus creating a new parking space during lab visits. As stated previously, the generator which is housed in the lab will not normally be run. However, if a patient is undergoing a catheterization when a power outage occurs, it will be necessary to run the generator until the procedure is complete. Although the probability of this occurring is quite low, it may happen from time to time. • Ray McMahon Chief Executive Officer In working with you, the PEC and our neighbors, we believe we have developed a plan that addresses pressing medical needs, in a way that is sensitive to other community goals. We look forward to final approval-of our application by-the PEC. Please call if you have any other concerns or questions. S' cerely, ?r `Dan Feene c ? DF\kr enclosures • 0 7 Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the request for a site coverage variance with the conditions . as stated in the Staff memo. The motion was seconded by Greg Moffet. All voted unanimously in favor, with a vote of 6-0. 2. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the Vail Valley Medical Center to park a mobile catheter lab/trailer, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots-E & F, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Dan Feeney Planner. Randy Stouder Jeff Bowen stated he would not step down regarding this request. Randy Stouder gave an overview of the request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Staff has recommended approval with conditions, since the applicant has met the CUP criteria. The Staff felt the landscaping condition was important, as well as revisiting the approval after one year. Landscaping Option A calls for six large evergreens to be placed on the north side of the lab. Option B revised the proposal by suggesting a mixture of trees, perhaps smaller in size with an increased quantity providing a wider belt of landscape screening. • Dan Feeney had comments on the Staffs conditions. To have the lab gone by 4pm might be hard O to comply with, since a heavy patient load might cause a delay. A heavy patient load could lead to bringing the lab back a second time. Bob Armour asked if the lab would be brought in more than once per month. Dan Feeney stated yes; but no more than three times per month total. Dan Feeney said an exception must be made for running the generator during a power outage for patient safety. Bob Armour stated that the one year re-evaluation would be a review of how smoothly the operation was going. Randy Stouder, likewise, stated that this re-evaluation was to review operational procedures and would not be used to revoke the CUP unless major problems arose. Henry Pratt said that the purpose of the one year term was not to revoke the CUP, but would be a chance to fine tune the agreement; i.e. to change operating hours or respond to complaints. Ray McMahan was uneasy with the one year re-evaluation and wanted assurance that the term • would be at least three to five years. • Greg Moffet said perhaps the condition could be reworded. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes ! Randy Stouder strongly advised to keep the one year re-evaluation in the agreement. + Greg Moffet reminded Randy Stouder that this procedure represented a three year investment. Henry Pratt suggested the language be changed. Mike Mollica mentioned Garton's Saloon was in a similar situation and had to reapply each year. He also agreed with Randy Stouder to re-evaluate the project after 1 year, not to revoke the permit, but only to tweak and refine it. Kevin Deighan agreed with Staff because the CUP could affect the neighborhood. He wanted to re-evaluate it after I year. Pam Stenmark, manager of the Evergreen Lodge and representing the management and condo association, agreed with examining the impacts after 1 year. She agrees with the new lab location if heavily landscaped. Right now the south facing rooms do see an unlandscaped berm and are already faced with truck noise and views of the hospital's back side. Bob Armour asked if Pam was comfortable with the landscaping Option B. Pam said yes, if 2/3 of the plants are placed west of the Ambulance District Building. Bob Armour asked for any more public input. Henry Pratt wanted taller trees for instant gratification. He felt screening the ambulance building was a waste of money. He also doesn't believe in telling people what hours to run their businesses. He would like to see not restricting their hours of operation, but only that they could not operate before 8:00 a.m. and after 10:00 p.m. Guests at the hotel shouldn't have to hear the noise generated from this operation. Stephanie Urbanowitz said restricting hours was going to present some problems. Weather could be a factor.. To arrive on the site between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. the night before and leave between 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. was a commitment they could keep most of the time. Bob Armour said he didn't want trucks backing in and out during quiet hours and wanted the PEC to review this again next year. He felt it important to keep specific hours since this was a sensitive issue. Jeff Bowen suggested adjusting the times of departure to after 6:00 p.m. and not later than 9:00 p.m. Greg Amsden thinks there needs to be work on the landscaping around the truck area, but otherwise he is in favor of the application. ® Greg Moffet thinks to avoid peak times, they should arrive prior to 9:00 p.m. and depart prior to 8:00 p.m. the following day. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes Stephanie Urbanowitz wanted a window open between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m to depart. Greg Moffet suggested a 12 hour window, between 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. i Kevin Deighan agreed with the 12 hour window. Bob Armour said it is best to ask them when not to operate, rather than when to operate. Randy Stouder stated that it was the transportation of the vehicle in and out of Town that was the issue, not the actual hours of operation of servicing the patients: Pam Stenmark suggested recording the times of operation, arrivals and departures in a log. Randy Stouder stated that some of the landscaping proposed on Option B did not meet the Town's minimum size requirement for trees ( 2" caliber). Bob Armour said that all aspens should be changed to a 2" caliber. Henry Pratt said he would like see taller trees. Henry Pratt asked Randy Stouder if this plan had to go to the DRB. Randy said no, it could be Staff reviewed and approved. • Pam Stenmark suggested wildflower seed on the bank to supplement the trees. Bob Armour said he was comfortable with the landscaping plan and felt quantity was important. .Pam Stenmark said she would like to see some taller trees in the plan. She thought perhaps fewer aspens, which are barren in the winter, adding to the height of the spruce instead, so during the winter a screen is still there. Randy Stouder suggested the applicant produce a final landscaping plan for Staff review based on the PEC's comments. Henry Pratt made a motion to approve the CUP subject to the following changes: 1. That arrival or departure will not occur between 9:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. 2. That the plan is re-evaluated at the end of one year. 3. That the landscaping Option B is changed per the PEC's comments and subject to final review and approval by Staff. That ten (minimum 2" caliber) aspen be planted and eleven spruce with a height of 8'-12' are included in the landscaping plan. • Greg Moffet said that during unforseen power outages the lab should be able to run the generators. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes Henry amended the motion. Per Greg's comments Jeff seconded the motion. Ray McMahan asked if the language could be changed to "review," rather than re-evaluate. Henry Pratt was reluctant to change the language to review. Bob Armour stated that the language would remain re-evaluate. All voted unanimously in favor, with a vote of 6-0. 3. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the remodel of the Golf Course Maintenance Facility, located at 1278 Vail Valley Drive/Parcel E, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Ernie Bender Planner. Russell Forrest Russ Forrest said the request had been changed since the worksession. He gave an overview of the changes. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: A) A letter be prepared by a qualified geologist or engineer stating how mitigation ® can protect the facility and not adversely affect other adjacent properties. This mitigation must be incorporated into the building plans for the facility. B) A written report from the environmental audit be provided to staff and that all major compliance issues be resolved within 60 days of the PEC approval of this application. C) Wood siding or stucco, subject to DRB approval, be placed on the exposed concrete wall surrounding the trash enclosure. Russ Forrest said the applicants have bulked, up the landscaping plan as suggested at the worksession. Staff feels that the landscaping plan will be an improvement to the site. Russ Forrest also noted that an environmental audit, that the PEC requested, was done and six different actions to clean up the site were identified. A letter is still needed i.,.. a geologist. Staff wants this done, along with completing the actions in the audit, within 60 days of approval. Russ Forrest also mentioned that wood siding is also needed on the exposed concrete for the trash container. Russ Forrest stated that Tom Moorhead was asked to look at the General Use District and whether the applicant was required to provide housing. Tom could find no provision in our code to require housing. For example, a hospital expansion may require housing for new nursing students. There seems to be no reasonable connection between housing and this application. Tom Moorhead described when housing is appropriate. He doesn't feel housing, in this case, is appropriate. Tom Moorhead prepared a memo to address employee housing. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes I REMOVE EXISTING LIGHT POLE X Q k%k-09 X = 4r 5ppw- , S %•11.1clr, Ov AsPr) D = ?rlJMt7?'?Z F _ tax i?`rri? G 7P- " xis U. r, ?( 0 ?? wj kll- * 4 ; ARM MOBIL CATH LAB AMBULANCE a? , o COACH 19 MANHOLE FOR SEWER, WATER t t ( '? ,rte _ F F ADDITION •`? 1- ^1 `; \?-b'r'a-r?• ?'--? •,?," x LllM 1- t,ARt{ 1E] jo.__1 JRM-t5 I-KHNKLIN UHMUNI 6b3256(:D t$ D b F'. b6 Platmi,ng and Environmental Commission Tot;n Council Town ot'Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 August 11, 1996 Dear Chairman and Commission Members: Please be advised that ;he Skaal Hushas no objections to items 1-4 of the staff recommendation regarding the renewal of the conditional use permit for the Mobile Catheterization Laboratory at the Vail Vallcy Mcdical Colter. However, there. is eonecm with the recommendation that the days per month that the Laboratory is allowed on-site has been increased. Due to the nature of the use, Nile request that the Mobile Catheterization Laboratory not be granted permanent status and that the conditional use pen-nit be subject to a public hearing for renewal in one year. sk Sincer `oar. M. let inium Association SAX 1--kA?tSVI=5S.=0V 2 pages including cover. To: Attn: Dirk Mason, Planner Judy Rodriguez Prom: Joan Norris, President Skaal Hus Condominium Association Date: August 11, 1996 Please include with materials for this afternoon's hearing regarding the renewal of conditional use permit for the Mobile Catheterization Laboratory at the Nail Valley Medical Center. • • MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to an approved site development plan to allow for a shift in the building envelope of Building #8, located at 2792B Kinnickinnick Road/Innsbruck Meadows #8. Applicant: Innsbruck Meadows Development Inc., represented by Bob Borne Planner: George Ruther 1. BACKGROUND • On April 11, 1994, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed and recommended approval (4-0-1), to the Vail Town Council, of a request for a minor subdivision and a request to rezone a tract of land from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density/Multiple-Family, generally located at 2772 - 2892 Kinnickinnick Road. Included within the recommendation of approval from the PEC were numerous conditions. Condition # 6 of the PEC recommendations requires that: • "Staff may approve up to 10' shifts in building footprint location from those shown on the plan approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission on February 28, 1994, or April 11, 1994, as long as a 15' minimum separation between the units is maintained." • On May 17, 1994, the Vail Town Council approved on second reading, Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, an ordinance rezoning a tract of land from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density/Multiple-Family, generally located at 2772-2892 Kinnickinnick Road. The approval of Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1994, included each of the conditions recommended by the PEC at their hearing on the request. • On May 1, 1995, Bob Borne, President of Snowshoe Development, Inc., purchased the. development rights to Lots 2 - 13, in the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision from the original developer, Greg Amsden of AmBros. Development Corp. Development rights to Lots 1 & 14 were retained by Ms. Juanita Pedotto, the original owner of the Innsbruck Meadows property. • On June 2, 1995, the Town of Vail Building Department issued the first Building Permit for construction in the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Since that time, five additional Building Permits have been issued and construction of the units has commenced. As of June 2, 1996, five Temporary Certificates of Occupancy were issued for units in the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Temporary Certificates of Occupancy have been issued for Units 4, 5A, 5B, 6 and 7. Temporary Certificates of Occupancy are pending for Units 1 A, 1 B and 3, none of which are employee units. Each of these units is currently under construction and nearing completion. • F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\INNSBRUCK.812 • On May 20, 1996, the applicant appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission with a request for an amendment to the previously approved site development plan for the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. The applicant proposed to • amend the previously approved site development plan for the east-half of the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. The proposed amendments included the relocation of the building footprints for Lots 8-13, by more than 10' from their originally approved locations, the relocation of two of the four required employee housing units, and the realignment and change in surface material of the required 6' wide pedestrian/bicycle path along Kinnickinnick Road. The Planning and Environmental Commission unanimously approved the applicant's request (5-0-1). • On June 18, 1996, the Town of Vail Building Department issued building permits for the construction of three more buildings in the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Since that time, the Building Department has issued a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Unit #3. The Planning and Environmental Commission's approval carried with it six conditions. Most notably, condition #5 required that the Planning and Environmental Commission's original recommendation of approval allowing staff to approve shifts in building footprint location up to 10' was amended. The Planning and Environmental Commission amended their approval thereby allowing staff to approve shifts in building footprint location of up to 2'. 11. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Bob Borne, is proposing to amend the location and orientation of Building #8, located at 2792B Kinnickinnick Road/Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. The proposed relocation of Building #8 is more than 2', and therefore, cannot be approved by staff. • The expressed purpose for the shift in building footprint location is to provide more direct views of the wooded, open space area to the west of Building #8. The applicant has indicated that the shift in building footprint location will not alter the existing lot lines, garage slab elevations, driveway grades, nor violate any of the required setbacks for the project. A copy of the proposed site plan, comparing the original approval to the proposed amended site plan, has been attached for reference. The applicant has shown the original location of the building as a dashed line and the proposed location as a solid line. 111. STAFF ANALYSIS RELOCATION OF BUILDING FOOTPRINTS It is staff's opinion that the proposed site plan relocating the building footprint for Building #8 is reasonable and appropriate. Staff believes the new location of Building #8 will not have any negative impacts on the adjacent property owners. Staff would suggest that the PEG consider requiring the applicant to move the building footprint, an additional 4' to the south, to eliminate the aerial encroachment of the building into the platted, 20' wide pedestrian/drainage/utility easement. Staff believes that an aerial encroachment into the platted easement is not necessary. This eliminates the need for the applicant and the Town of Vail to enter into an encroachment agreement for what is only a small portion of the building. The additional 4' of movement will also increase the distance of the building from the road, which staff believes to be a benefit. • F:\EVERYONE?PEC\MEMOS\INNSBRUCK.812 2 • IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for an amendment to the previously approved site development plan to allow for a shift in the location of Building #8, 2798B Kinnickinnick Road/Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. Staff believes the request is both reasonable and appropriate as described in the Staff Analysis, as outlined in Section III of this memorandum. Additionally, pursuant to Section 18.66.080, Hearing Notice, the Community Development Department has notified adjacent property owners of the applicant's proposal. At this time, staff has not received any input from the adjacent property owners. Should the PEC choose to grant an approval of the request, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: That the footprint for Building #8 be further amended, by the applicant, so as not to encroach aerially, or otherwise, into the platted 20' wide pedestrian/drainage/utility easement located to the north of Lot 8. 2. As originally conditioned, all buildings within the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision shall maintain a minimum 15' separation between structures, including all decks and cantilevered portions, but excluding eaves. 3. That the applicant amend the proposed site plan to show two building corner ties locating the building on the property.. • F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\INNSBRUCK.812 3 @eri l ?• .? ?' yr° a? ;'?7 ylo D',S697 --II L P.ti?°x` 81820 .. J?g .7768' / •?2' y yY ;` r . ?`Fi tt •+ ,t ? r FA R ` * l,?4? ? •-.`?'?"'?V ? r ? '{ ???I / _rr? .rfF ;,? ?.?? ,( c? f'?•,Q !I ?J?r'' :3:v'ti J' ?,' w. r? '? + ?Y L +; /'`' des ?? ?y 'til ? ' ?• In / i ` ? .C/r ?; t1 f?? .. (y,? •f?' -? ?++' Y .? 41M .. _..t.? r '`•w ,`?r• y4r'7,'? ,r,", ??? 1 Y. A.. •.. r ?`••.. ?1 ^? ?. f? r..r-,* a3' t 4' VF t• ?L.ti ? - ems! ..?.' 6% ' d M ' V 1 <y. ? l "?_ {s' S ?.in R K _. ?' ?/ `1?? 111 _ , ILT z lb j• ? ,? ? ? cad. \ ,? -1 ,? . ..? - ! WOO r?pPE 4F -? t?' ? TE: p / tiVfNAY TO -7 48 tt 6 M '. 7 4. / ! f ?.. \ 7835 11 l ( ? ? Of GAR• SLAB, ? ! "r T ? ? ' •? ' y d, [ 4 849 0' ! ,(j,. 1 pylase r all 1 Q \ 783 l j ~`/ ,? r r 0 DOE Of i 7832.3', ` / / CIO \#7 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for height and front setback variances to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3 (Vail Point Phase III). Applicant: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz Planner: George Ruther n LJ 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. General Description Steve Gensler and Steve Katz are proposing to construct four, triplex units on Phase III at Vail Point. Phase III is zoned medium density multi-family. The four, triplex structures will be served by a common driveway, 22' wide, with an emergency vehicle turnaround at the south end of the driveway. There will be a total of 12 dwelling units comprised of 21,614 sq. ft. of GRFA. The units will range in size from 1,783 sq. ft. to 1,804 sq. ft. Staff will discuss specific components of the development under the analysis in Section IV of this memorandum. The applicants are proposing to construct two of the four structures in the required, 20' front setback. One of the structures encroaches up to 19' into the front setback, while the other encroaches up to 17' into the setback. A total of 832 sq. ft. of building footprint area will be in the front setback. According to Section 18.18.06Q of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the minimum front setback for structures built in the Medium Density Multi-Family Zone District shall be 20'. Therefore, the applicants are requesting a variance from Section 18.18.0§% to allow for the construction of two structures to encroach into the 20' required front setback, up to 19' and 17' respectively. The applicants have stated that the location of Lionsridge Loop in proximity to the northerly property line warrants the granting of the requested variance. A letter from the applicants addressing their position on the variance has been attached for reference. The applicants had originally requested a building height variance to allow one of the four, triplex structures to exceed the allowable building height of 38'. The applicants have since withdrawn their building height variance request. Therefore, staff will not be addressing the building height issue in this memorandum. B. Process When Vail Point was annexed into the Town of Vail, the Annexation Agreement is dated July 17, 1979, (Book 428, Page 936) stipulated that there would have to be a review of each proposed site plan by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), the Vail Town Council and the Design Review Board (DRB) for each phase of the Vail Point project. Though the process is similar to a Special Development District (SDD), the proposal is not an SDD. Furthermore, the annexation ordinance did not specify review criteria. However, applicable criteria for this project include the standards for the Medium Density Multi-Family Zone District, general goals addressed in the Town of Vail's long-range planning documents and the Design Review Board Guidelines (Chapter 18.54) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The annexation agreement permits 15 dwelling units and 19,462 sq. ft. of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), plus credits of 225 sq. ft. per dwelling unit for Lot 27. Under the proposed design, there are 2,700 sq. ft. of credits as there are 12 dwelling units. By adding the credits to what is allowed, the total allowable square footage for Lot 27 is 22,162 sq. ft. of GRFA. II. BACKMOUND OF THE V A& POINT PROJECT The Vail Point Townhome development (formerly Talon Townhomes), Phases 1, 11 and III, was annexed into the Town of Vail on July 17, 1979. Ordinance No. 29, Series of 1979, addresses the annexation. Upon annexation into the Town of Vail, Lot 27 (Phase III) was designated Medium Density Multi-Family zoning with the conditions outlined in the annexation agreement. The review process was defined at the time the project was annexed into the Town of Vail, as • described in Section I of this memorandum. The Vail Point Townhome development is comprised of three phases. Phases I and II are located on Lot 1, Block 3, which is on the north side of Lionsridge Loop, and Phase III is located on Lot 27, Block 2, which is across the street, on the south side of Lionsridge Loop. According to the annexation agreement, Phases I and II were approved for 48 dwelling units, while Phase III was approved for a maximum of 15 dwelling units. The list below summarizes the history of the Vail Point Townhome Project: Phase I Phase 1, as constructed, includes 20 dwelling units having a total GRFA of 27,759 sq. ft. It is completed and final certificates of occupancy have been issued. Phase II As originally approved, Phase II called for the construction of 20 dwelling units having a total allowable GRFA of 28,045 sq. ft. In September of 1989, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a modification to the plan to decrease the number of dwelling units by one and increase the total GRFA allowed by 750 sq. ft. This approval resulted in the overall total allowable GRFA for Phase II to be 28,795 sq. ft. The 750 sq. ft. of additional GRFA granted by the Planning and Environmental Commission to Phase 11 was required to be deducted from the total allowable GRFA for Phase III. 2 • On June 8, 1992, Steve Gensler proposed a modification to the approved plans • for Phase II. This plan was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission and was subsequently constructed. It included a total of 28,682 sq. ft. of GRFA in 18 dwelling units. The difference in GRFA (113 sq. ft.) was to be transferred back to Phase III. A large portion of this was used at a later time by a 96 sq. ft. interior expansion to the Katz residence in Phase II. The 96 sq. ft. expansion left only 17 sq. ft. of GRFA to be transferred back to Phase III. Construction in Phase II is not complete. Phase III Originally, there was 19,445 sq. ft. of allowable GRFA (plus credits) allocated for Lot 27 (Phase III). The total allowable GRFA has been increased by 17 sq. ft. to 19,462 sq. ft. plus allowable credits. There is a credit of 225 sq. ft. per dwelling unit for units constructed in this zone district. On June 13, 1994, Steve Gensler appeared before the Planning and Environmental Commission with a request for a worksession to discuss the construction of four, duplex units on Phase III. At that time, the applicant was proposing to reduce the total density on the property from the allowed 15 dwelling units to 8 dwelling units. The Planning and Environmental Commission discussed at length the site plan for Lot 27. Of most importance, was the preservation of the existing landscape improvements, constructed by the owners of the Cappstone Townhomes, along the southerly property line of Lot 27. Additionally, the Planning and Environmental Commission was interested in seeing the developer keep a minimum of 15' of separation between each structure constructed on the property. The Planning and Environmental Commission did discuss the possibility of granting a front setback variance to allow several of the structures to encroach into the front setback, in order to preserve the existing landscaping along the southerly property line. It is important to note that the discussion was preliminary, and a more specific application would need to be submitted for review by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The Planning and Environmental Commission was specifically concerned that the applicant needed to exhibit the existence of a physical hardship, allowing the granting of a variance at the time of final review. On June 13, 1994, a motion was made to table the discussion to the July 27, 1994 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. On September 12, 1994, the applicant requested that the item be tabled indefinitely, to allow the applicant time to address the numerous issues identified by the Planning and Environmental Commission. 111. ZONING ANALYSIS Legal Description: Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 3/1894 Lionsridge Loop (Phase I II). Zoning: Medium Density Multi-Family (MDMF). Lot Size: 2.103 acres (per Eagle Valley Surveying) or 91,637.2 sq. ft. Allowable GRFA per Talon Townhome records: 19,462 sq. ft. of GRFA + a credit of 225 sq. ft. per constructed dwelling unit or 22,162 sq. ft. is 3 Development Standard Allowable Prooosed Height: 38' 37.5' Density 15 D.U. 12 D.U. GRFA: 22,162 sq. ft. 21,614 sq. ft. setbacks: Front: 20' 1, Side/Side 20' 23' Rear: 20' 24' Site Coverage: 450/. or 41,236.7 sq. ft. 15% or 13,716 sq. ft. Retaining wall heights: 3'-6' 6' Parking: 2 per dwelling unit 2 enclosed spaces per dwelling unit IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested setback variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Phase III of the Vail Point Townhomes is approved, per the Annexation Agreement of 1979, for 15 dwelling units and 22,162 square feet of GRFA. The proposed density of Lot 27 (Phase III) is compatible with the density of the other multi-family projects in the vicinity (Vail Point Townhomes Phases I & II and the Cappstone Condominiums) The applicant has proposed to construct 12 dwelling units comprising approximately 21,614 square feet of GRFA. The applicant has proposed to construct the four, triplex buildings as far to the north as possible to maintain an adequate separation between the Cappstone Condominiums to the south, and to preserve the existing landscaping and landscape improvements encroaching on to Lot 27. This has been proposed as a result of worksession meetings the applicant had with the PEC in June of 1994. In order to maintain the existing landscaping and provide an adequate separation between the proposed structures and the existing condominiums to the south, the applicant has proposed to encroach up to 19' into the 20' front setback. Staff believes the requested variance is reasonable, as the applicant's lot is severely impacted by steep slopes and encroachments onto the property. Approximately 1.265 acres (60%) of the total 2.1037 acre lot has slopes greater than 40%, or is within required setback areas. Staff further believes the requested variances will have minimal, if any negative impacts on the existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Lionsridge Loop is constructed within a 70' wide right-of-way. The actual width of pavement is 22' to I'. The road, as constructed, is all the way to the north side of the right- if-way, and therefore, approximately 50' of • • • 4 right-of-way is located between the edge of existing asphalt and the applicant's north property line. Staff believes that the 50' of vacant right- of-way will act as a sufficient buffer between Lionsridge Loop and the proposed structures. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes the applicant has requested the minimum amount of relief necessary from Section 18.18.060 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to attain the objectives of this title without resulting in a grant of special privilege. Setbacks are intended to provide, in part, minimum separation between structures and uses, and to insure adequate light, air, and open spaces and maintain desirable residential qualities. Staff believes the requested variance to encroach into the front setback up to 19' is in concert with the intended purposes of setbacks. Staff further believes that there are extraordinary conditions and circumstances (steep slopes, existing landscape encroachments, proximity of Lionsridge Loop) that apply.to the applicant's site warranting a granting of a setback variance. Staff has had conversations with the applicant regarding the slight shifting of structures to reduce the encroachment into the required setback area. Staff would suggest that the PEC discuss with the applicant the ability to reduce the amount of setback encroachment through slight site plan modifications. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The staff believes the requested variance to encroach into the front setback will have positive impacts on existing development in the area. Staff believes the variance will allow for greater separation between the proposed structures and the Cappstone Condominiums, without negatively impacting Phases I & II of the Vail Point Townhomes to the north. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commi$sion shall make the followina findings before orantino a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions 5 applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation • would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a variance from Section 18. 18.060 to allow the construction of two structures to encroach into the 20' required front setback up to 19' and 17' respectively. Staff believes the applicants have met the Findings necessary for the Planning & Environmental Commission to grant an approval of their request. Specifically, staff finds that the applicants have met Finding B.1 in that the granting of the requested variance will not result in the grant of special privilege. Finding B.2 has been met, in the opinion of the staff, since the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and that Finding B.3(b) has been met since there are extraordinary circumstances, in the form steep slopes and existing landscape improvements, which precludes the applicant from developing the lot to its full potential. Additionally, Finding B.3(c) has also been met, since the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the other property owners in the same district. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the requested variance, staff would suggest that the PEC find that: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in • the same zone district, and; 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and; 3. That the variance is warranted since the strict literal enforcement of the front setback regulation would result in an unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Chapter 18 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 1. That the applicant schedule a hearing before the Vail Town Council for review of the proposed site plan, prior to appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board, as required in the Annexation Agreement of July 17,1979; and 2. That the applicant verify the vacation of the 15' wide, utility easement along the northerly property line prior the appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board; and 3. That the applicant receive Town of Vail Public Works Department and Town of Vail Fire Department approval of the proposed site plan prior to appearing before the Town of Vail Design Review Board; and 6 4. That the proposed emergency vehicle turnaround proposed on the south end of the property be redesigned so that is does not encroach into the required 20' wide, rear setback; and 5. That the applicant install a construction fence, along the 40% slope line and the area around the existing landscape improvements, to protect these areas during the construction process, and that said fence not be removed until all driveway and building construction is completed. • 7 s R1?GE /? / 1 i4 fills CIA 1--7 1 F T,' / ?? SITE PLAN n _. des LOT 27,BLOCK 2, -f I- - LION'S RIDGE SUBDIVISION, FILING NO. 3 TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO `? \ • lJ +s4 SCALE: 1'? = 30' N 0653'43' f L 29.58 ! az awr ?! ? v arw N 48'39'02* E R:65.OD D,. I:7079'09' 28,85 8.85 L-54.98 Wac1, 60.29 A,n 49' R:247.27 ? ,4YU Aaa -t ? M ?? L:303.40 Far ?.rr T=24.86 (Q OP LC-54.27 ?B T-174.07 AM r CS-N 323413' w 4m JD1 w CB=N 83483fi 7E LOT 26 N 58'14'43' ???8Y S 111.58 ?c^ ? a ,w 8100---' ? 1 y J R-135.00 'd L=87,31 -1. 8408 avn o Y T-45 24 LC=85.80 LOT 77 LOT 25 Ca-5 39'43'01' E ? SQ f 'po Slat 5 63'2''39' E - 29.53 !y \\ '589'27'25" w 900 -? N 21'71'18 w 8309 \\ Y r LOT 20 LOT 21 \ 6-,as tau RESUBOm570N OF BUFFER CREEK SITE PLAN e. 7" a off' Ll r--l. 11 FRONT ELEVATION BUK DMG B 1N'+ 1'4 7, T, RIGHT ELEVATION BUILDING 8 t(<' t'-0' ?„ < o fln _ 7n 1! 1 '1 ® : -- I7,; a , )l ?I r ® ® I I Till i IL 1 I ? _? 1 0o oa on II ii Lju NN i t? b fl ?, ? _ .? ,:ice-,-_,?.? .?•.,:,,.?. a + a LEFT SIDE ELEVATION BURDNO A 714• • 7'-T ?il;illl as ` { oo oa r-- - a0 = aL oo • CK ELEVATION qw- A IM"- 7'-0' ?a ?` e • 1 0 0 FRONT ELEVATION BUMNO A 11P : Nr n i 77 P .JJI INDT SIDE ELEVATION BUUWA 1w-1. ^ ?a c. ?L - 1 i/? I I tl Gi I I ? I I r-I 0 O ?FOIIOpIQ ,?1--?-------F----_- -? I MaSRrR7N /? I I PAW -LLL smrooaa I ? I ?• somoo" y d R •• E- . _. A 1 :LA ,• ._ - E ,. .®IIDd/10 I `1 t lpllpple I-. ------- ' I 1 I i . . UPRER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ¦UROIN9 5 IM* - pp• 0 0 0 4 r p--- r i r 1 1 r r w -i r r .r 7 - _,- ---------_ - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 I I 1 1 c ? I I I I rrr -11113 r ' - Y GAPAM 1 a FrC9M0 ? a OOIIGIliI ''---------------? RAVA 1 1 1 1 ? ' X1113 1 I i ewer I I I I I I r- 1 y ---1 ~ ? r GARAGE I 1 = I FrCB!!0 1 u OONCMEI[ I I 1 1 5 1 I I- GAPAGE FrcEaw 4 m-1 W.'ir-iour 'lJy\e I i- r------- i t ----------------- -- C' I ? 1 1 - >• -- ---------------- -`:in: ... ..... .... I ?. .?... ':? "il= 4 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN HULDM 6 iw • Tr 0 . 0 0 Id 4 . 0 ;,---------- --?-- _ ---?--, iG rJ TIER SURE - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- BEDROOM 02 ustensuRE . - -- a<' ?±r-a• i s-s• s--.a I ?-< J -??r _ ?""? n -zr ?r r'?r-e? s a ? ? a• - --n J•r-r ?y I T ^ I i C • _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - -- SEGIROOMC ---------------- I ?I I , I TOPPER LEVEL FLOOR (PLAN auK.Dm A iw - ra • 30 ? 4 i S i F 4 i l 1 ?- '? 1 I I 1 1 I // 1 " D"WAREA ?.1 UVINO AREA - •,±r„______________r. x? w.9 n- - - - - -''k MASTER SURE ` 1-7 -j T BEDROOM 03 RC i ? 1WD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN BULLDINBA W iN+1'-0" j 1 ONM AREA 1 I ( 1 UV WAREA DOOM AREA d "'555 pots, inner kpN weT ' a- uw,: „J02 - BEDROOM #3 JE, 2c S a? i - • o- tl h? s ! 4 c o- a i • sr qi v 1 r ---- ------ -- Y4? /43 ?mq i fl--------------- C I iz J -I ..•• {? ? -1 i ? GARAGE t 1 i, 's ?a z. :: Rrssso s? cw? L - { L TJ-_ --------------- l I { IgrtstYi '? ?, t . I J I >R?a Fz? RY riM `- ? ? ? r OARAf3E • l? I ----------- I - I w t Y?l I I T I; - _ t I -___-2? n t _ it --"----- tl I I f I Li 1._. ;SS ----------- r ` ? 1 z y- I - I 4 1 LOWF-R LPL FLOOR PLAN S A 1fr.S'ar VAIL POINT TOWNHOMES 1881 LIONSRIDGE LOOP VAIL, COLORADO 81657 August 2, 1996 To: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Attention: George Ruther, Planner Fr: Vail Point Townhomes Board of Directors Re: Request of Steven Gensler/Stephen Katz Height and Front Setback Variances 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3 The Board of Directors of Vail Point Townhomes hereby objects to the request for height and front setback variances made by Steven Gensler/Stephen Katz for 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3 and urges the Planning and Environmental Commission to refuse to grant the request and. enforce the existing height limitation and front setback requirement. The bases for our objection are as follows: 1. A front setback variance adjacent to Lionsridge Loop will create a "canyon" of townhomes and result in overcrowding on a relatively narrow and curving portion of Lionsridge Loop. 2. A height variance will diminish the openness and obstruct the desirable view shed along Lionsridge Loop. 3. Allowing intensified development of this lot will adversely impact the desirable character and aesthetic qualities of this portion of Lionsridge Loop. As you know, this section of Lionsridge Loop has experienced explosive building in the last 24 months. - The current setbacks and height limitations are appropriate and no deviation should be allowed. This is yet another example of proposed excessive development within the Town limits. We are looking to the Planning and Environmental Commission to protect the qualities of Lionsridge Loop that have made it a popular residential area for over a decade. Based on the foregoing, Vail Point Townhome Association, through its Board of Directors, requests that the variances requested be rejected. Thank you for your consideration of this objection. 0 • LOT 27, LLC VAIL, COLORADO July 15, 1996 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Attn: Mr. George Ruther Re: Property Line Set-back Variance Dear Sir: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing users or structures in the vicinity will have no adverse effect whatsoever. I am requesting the ability to maximize the buildable area of the site. Lionsridge Loop when constructed is outside the road right-of-way to the north. Therefore, Lot 27, Block 2, Filing 3 northern most property lines are in excess of 50' off the road. • Our request is to be able to build up to the northern property line which will allow for more spacing between four triplex buildings being proposed. The 20' set-back requirement is to provide some buffer between roads and developments. Allowing this variance will still provide a 50' set-back from Lionsridge Loop. In this case the variance will actually improve spacing and allow more buffer from Cap Stone, which is along the southern property line of Lot 27. The property is zoned medium density for development of up to 14 dwelling units. Our proposal is reducing by two the number of units while using the GRFA square footage allowed. Enclosed for your review is the site plan with improvement elevations. As this request relates to property line set-back variance the exterior design of the units will add some Gables to the front of the buildings. This will be shown in the design review board submittal. Thank you for your consideration of our proposal. Sincerely, Steve M. sler XN r? U AUG-I2-SS 13:31 FROM: 400 S. COLD BLVD. ID: 3033216403 PAGE 2 JAMES R, WISS 1881 LIONSRIDGE LOUP, UNIT 4 VAILL, COLORADO 81657 August 12, 1996 Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission Attn: George Ruther, Planner Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Request of Steven Gensler/Stephen Katz Height and Front Setback Variances 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Bloc 2, Lionsridge Filing 43 Dear Mr. Ruther: I am owner of the above townhome (44) which directly faces the proposed project. When purchasing this property, I had met with engineers on the site that is in question and actually • looked at setbacks and height restrictions to sec the effect they would have on my property. I purchased my property based on the fact that the existing requirements prevent a canyon look or t gat of a typical "townhome" property that one might find in suburban Aurora, Colorado, r t is r on I am voicing an objection to the front setback variances. S r Jam Wiss 1 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to replace an existing well and pump station, located on the lower bench of Donovan Park. Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, represented by Gail Lucas Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District is requesting Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) review and approval of their request for a conditional use permit to allow for the replacement of the existing West Vail well # 7 pump station. The existing West Vail well # 7 pump station is generally located on the west end of the lower bench of Donovan Park. As indicated on the attached site plan, the new pump station is proposed to be located approximately 4' to the north and east of the existing pump station, and • will be approximately 261.5 sq. ft. in size. The pump station is intended to house a new well- head and the appurtenant water service lines. The new pump station will be constructed of San Diego Buff, split-faced, concrete block with a forest-green, standing-seam, metal roof and redwood door and window trim. One exterior outdoor light is proposed to illuminate the area in front of the entrance door to the pump station. The recessed can light will be furnished with a motion sensor, to activate the light on an as-needed basis. Building elevations have been attached for reference. In order to construct the new pump station and drill a new well-head, an area of Donovan Park will temporarily be excavated, and the existing bike path will be permanently relocated. A grading plan and site plan, illustrating the temporary and permanent changes to Donovan Park, have been attached for reference. The applicant has proposed to erect a 6' tall, chain-link fence around the entire perimeter of the construction site to act as a safety barrier between the bike path and construction area. The applicant has also proposed to provide warning signs on the bike path, 50' and 100', in both directions of the construction site, to warn bicyclists and pedestrians of the construction ahead. The applicant has stated that the existing pump station and well-head in Donovan Park will be removed. The existing facility will be removed, however, not until the new facility is on-line and operational. In addition to the removal of the existing pump station in Donovan Park, two other pump stations in the immediate area of Donovan Park will be removed. These facilities are located on the south side of Gore Creek, across the Matterhorn Circle Bridge, and on the south side of Gore Creek, approximately 1/4 mile downstream. The applicant has further stated that the existing overhead electrical power and utility poles will be removed and electrical service will be replaced with underground conduit and power cables. Ill. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST The review criteria for a request of this nature is established by the Town of Vail Municipal Code. • In addition to the conditional use criteria, staff has included criteria from the Zoning Code, the Vail Comprehensive Plan, and the Gerald R. Ford Park/Donovan Park Master Plan, as we believe this will help the PEC in its evaluation of the request. A. The Town of Vail Municipal Code The proposed location for the new West Vail well # 7 pump station is on the lower bench of Donovan Park. According to the official Town of Vail zoning map, Donovan Park is zoned General Use (GU) District. According to Section - 18.36.010 of the Municipal Code, the purpose of the GU District is: "to provide sites for public and quasi-public uses which, because of their special characteristics, cannot be appropriately regulated by the development standards prescribed for other zone districts, and for which development standards especially prescribed for each particular development proposal or project are necessary to achieve the purposes prescribed in Section 18.02.020 and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to insure that public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the district are appropriatately located and designed to meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to insure adequate light, air, open spaces, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses." According to Section 18.36.030 of the Municipal Code, a water and sewage • treatment plant shall be permitted in the General Use Zone District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.06 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. For the PEC's reference, the conditional use permit purpose statement indicates that: "in order to provide the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this title, specified uses are permitted in certain districts subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. Because of their unusual or special characteristics, conditional uses require review so that they may be located properly with respect to the purposes of this title and with respect to their affects on surrounding properties. The review process prescribed in this chapter is intended to assure compatibility and harmonious development between conditional uses and surrounding properties in the Town at large. Uses listed as conditional uses in the various districts may be permitted subject to such conditions and limitations as the Town may prescribe to insure that the location and operation of the conditional uses will be in accordance with the development objectives of the Town and will not be detrimental to other uses or properties. Where conditions cannot be devised, to achieve these objectives, applications for conditional use permit shall be denied." In the General Use Zone District, development standards shall be prescribed by the Planning and Environmental Commission. These include: C] 2 I . Lot area and site dimensions • 2. Setbacks 3. Building height 4. Density control 5. Site coverage 6. Landscaping and site development 7. Parking and loading In the staff's opinion, the only development standard relevant to the applicant's request, pertains to landscaping and site development. Staff would suggest that the Planning and Environmental Commission discuss with the applicant, whether there is a need for landscaping to be incorporated with the proposed pump station. Currently, no landscaping exists around the existing pump station. Section 18.54.051 of the Municipal Code, details park design guidelines, established especially for development within Town of Vail parklands. The park design guidelines are intended to be used in conjunction with the general design review guidelines found in Section 18.54.050 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. These design guidelines shall be used when reviewing any proposals for the development of Town of Vail parkland. Staff has identified the park design guidelines, which are most relevant to the proposed conditional use permit request. They are as follows: 1. Buildina materials and desian - Natural materials are strongly encouraged in park construction. Materials and detailing must compliment the park's environment, as well as be functional and • attractive. 2. Stone - Natural rock should be used for architectural features, such as exposed walls and small retaining walls. Sandy gray and brown colors are encouraged, as they blend in with the natural environment. Construction should minimize exposed mortar and detailing should reflect concern for local climatic conditions. 3. Pedestrian walks/olazas - Asphalt is discouraged, except when necessary for bike paths. 4. Visugl imoa= - Structures, shelters, or other site buildings shall be designed in a low-profile or be set into slope areas to reduce their vertical dominance upon the site. 5. Landsc in ite olanninq - Plantings should be used to soften the edge between developed and natural park areas and to heavily screen conflicting adjacent uses. 6. Liahtinq - Lighting fixtures shall be as subtle as possible, so that they blend in with the natural park setting. 7. i r ervation end m in nancg - Natural areas that are disturbed during construction shall be vegetated to encourage plant associations that develop naturally on the site. Revegetation should match pre-existing conditions as closely as possible. • 3 8. Erosion control - Temporary erosion control measures during construction, and permanent control measures after construction shall be established to prevent sediment pollution of the creek and . to stabilize disturbed areas. Any park project shall be required to include a site preservation program during construction phases. Additionally, limits of site disturbance shall be clearly and physically defined, as well as enforced in order to minimize disturbance to other areas in the park. B. The Vail Comprehensive Plan Several elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan indirectly address the construction of public and quasi-public facilities. The relevant elements and sections have been listed below for reference: Land Use Plan 1. General Growth/Development 1.10 Development of Town-owned lands by the Town of Vail may be permitted where no high hazards exist, if such development is for public use. 6. Community Serviceg 6.1 Services should keep pace with increased growth. 6.2 The Town of Vail should play a role in future • development through balancing growth with services. Gerald R. Ford Park / Donavan Park Master Plan According to the Gerald R. Ford Park / Donovan Park Master Plan, in part, "when new construction of trails, buildings, roads and play facilities will disturb natural areas, the creative blending of grades, and the use of trees, shrubs and ground cover native to this area should be used to revegetate the disturbed areas. Structures, shelters and other site buildings are to be designed in a low-profile or are to be set into sloped areas to reduce their vertical dominance on the site. Construction materials should be harmonious with other materials being used on the site. Building materials should be sandy-gray and brown in color to blend in with the natural environment." Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.60 of the Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit request to allow for the replacement and reconstruction of the West Vail well # 7 pump station, generally located on the west end of the lower bench of Donovan Park, based upon the following factors: is 4 A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS: • 1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town. Upon review of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the replacement and reconstruction of the West Vail well # 7 pump station, staff believes the proposed conditional use will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on the uses adjacent to the location of the proposed pump station. Staff further believes that the applicant's desire to replace and reconstruct the well pump station in Donovan Park is in keeping with the development objectives of the Town. The applicant has proposed a structure which complies with the regulations put in place to insure compatible and harmonious development within Town of Vail parklands. As indicated in the Town of Vail Land Use Plan, the Town of Vail should play a role in future development through balancing growth with services. Staff believes that the applicant's request to replace and reconstruct a new pump station in Donovan Park is in keeping with that objective and serves a true public benefit. 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. Staff believes the new pump station will have minimal, if any, negative effects on light and air, distribution of population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs. The new pump station is proposed in the immediate area of an existing, yet outdated, well pump station. Staff does not believe that the reconstruction of the new pump station, although slightly larger in size, will have any negative impacts on the uses in the Donovan Park area. 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 does not believe that the above described criteria relates to the proposed request. 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. Upon review of the applicant's request, staff believes the proposed new West Vail well # 7 pump station is in keeping with the character of the area. The new building, while 161 sq. ft. larger than the existing building, is designed to be built into the hillside to the north. This design minimizes the overall vertical appearance of the building. Staff also believes that the proposed exterior building material conforms with the Park Design Guidelines, as described in Section 18.54.051 of the Town of Vail • Municipal Code. The applicant has used similar exterior materials successfully in the construction and operation of a well pump station in the Vail Golf Course area. 5 Staff would again suggest that the Planning and Environmental Commission discuss with the applicant, the appropriateness of landscape material being added around the new well pump station to help screen and • soften the appearance of the new structure. B. FINDINGS The Planning and _Environmental Commission 5 hall make the following findings before grntina a conditional use permit: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to allow for the replacement and reconstruction of an existing well and pump station, generally located on the west end of the lower bench of Donovan Park. Staff finds that the applicant's request complies with each of the above criteria and findings as • identified in Sections 11 and III of this memorandum. Staff further believes that the applicant's request for a conditional use permit will not have any negative impacts on the proposed use of Donovan Park or the development objectives of the Town of Vail. Staff would recommend that, should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the applicant's conditional use permit request, that the PEC find: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance 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 use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code. 3. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance 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 and 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, and that the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the conditional use permit section of the Zoning Code. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of this request, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions: 0 6 • 1. That the proposed 4", underground drain-line be installed out of the east end of the pump station, rather than the west end, to insure that the entire drain-line remains within the platted, utility easement. 2. That the Design Review Board review and grant an approval of the proposed structure prior to application for a building permit. 3. That all areas disturbed by the construction, or by the removal of existing or proposed facilities, be revegetated in accordance with the specifications identified by the Town of Vail Parks Superintendent. • 7 y Z >9>0 \ \ \ Easement ,`hti.Buiiding Are 4e- tempororily excavated E"4q (To Be Rem drilling ri cess until new well o Areov,p De leveled to ?° path bonarwm.( V? ? w \ Stockpile of excovated NOTE: Bose mop provided by Alpine Engineering Inc. for previous District project. SITE PLAN - AT THE START OF THIS PHASE OF THE PROJECT (AFTER WELL CONSTRUCTION) 960 `- - +r 9?0 Pldse c es to 1 d o path e ? ? ?pp(ti Moh ?sAain link \-\ ca . . ". ( 00 x7976.8 "IN / sta. 0+6.69 I x \ \\ Std. 0r37,7 1 Send Magoluye Mtl KickDlaCk \Al M.J. q0' Bend r kTigoruy`Md IfickDtack ®97..N Remow owmeod p r and pole O? \ ter. .* C.CP. Drain line \1` ..? --? IoM w/ underground •'eoC?uff -?„ and yQrer Coble "?^ ---r......?? ?•? ?? casement d O.LR OiatriDUhon tree --..? \? _ p;PkM to wait 8 (Approximot _Zee ,,/ W. reu 7 ~''?^ \ \f( eoit cagd of map} c? 011A [+C?onfroltor t FrrBt^, Q \ &4e .__ ironxramer J"°=..Md ao[iate " i °atk w? ? - ,? Bur+drny x 1915.9 ?- .? ' 0. oc- Oy MW l Sfd. O?e?.l -- Ti 0` tine Win 6' M.J. \ Md KiakWOCk AM lO 1 r{A M? tf f 7960--''?' v--i- 7985.. On-tine .S?¢L_ion is Cnmarofed.? T?sfed, Md Tro -1\ 9)p -a- .? ?- Cur pn adsand placp e ?xaf; cop on sort Z. of ipet emow Pies6ne m do Megdruya to CyrpumpVSctation ontl ham weu 7 or nw ppwODle fa w?tl B p+oca and o same remove coDa from rut fa Station and /xoLn was 7 to PumpSto " Casement 1 ` sfo. 1.00.0 - JASION flop We ? 4' 11 Waste Line cod OF \` \ Coro Crook Esoar. tine with Rp-Rap \~? ?96p F:boded To Creek {See Aetail) 62.3 x -- ,; SITE PLAN - SHOWING UTILITY ROUTING AND SITE BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION ?V V 71 (? II I I I i I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I II ?I I l ? l l i l l l I I I i I { ,lam I I { I I ?_ I I I i I I I I l l l l I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I l l l l f I I I l I I_? o f I I I i ! 44 I I I 1 1 _ 1 1 1 I I l l l I I ? I I{ I I ! I{ 4 4 6'-0" x 4'-0" concrete pad .. _ • • 0 7 I II I { I I I i ?, I I I I I ! ?? , I I I I I I{ I{' { l l l l l l l i f l f l l i i i ., 1 I I I I I I I ( I \? ,\\=; ? I I I I I I I I I -?\\?? !? I I I I i I 1 I i_i f ?? I I I I { f .; ??' f I ?. I I I I I { !! I I l l l{ '? I ! I I? 1 l I I 1 4'9-0 6'0" x 4' 0" concrete pad WEST REVA TION MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1996 RE: A request to amend Sections 18.24.020, 18.24.030, 18.24.040, 18.24.050, 18.27.030, 18.28.030, 18.28.040 and 18.29.030 of the Zoning Code to add Brew Pub as a conditional use in the Commercial Core 1, Commercial Core 2, Commercial Core 3, Commercial Service Center and Arterial Business Zone Districts. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Jack D. Hunn Planner: Dominic Mauriello I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a Zoning Code amendment to allow brew pubs as a conditional use in the Commercial Core 2 (CC2) zone district (Lionshead commercial area). A brew pub is currently a permitted use in the Commercial Service Center (CSC) zone district (Crossroads commercial area) for brew pubs without off-site sales and a conditional use for brew pubs with off-site sales. • The permitted and conditional uses for the CC2 district reference the uses in the Commercial Core 1 (CC1) zone district (Vail Village commercial area) and therefore both districts must be amended. Staff comprehensively analyzed all of the Town's commercial districts to see if brew pubs would be an appropriate and compatible use in other districts. Based on this analysis staff believes that brew pubs should be listed as a conditional use in all of the commercial zone districts including: Commercial Core 1 (CC1), Commercial Core 2 (CC2), Commercial Core 3 (CC3) (West Vail commercial area), Commercial Service Center (CSC) and Arterial Business (ABD) (Glen Lyon commercial area) zone districts. Staff believes that with the current definition and existing limitations placed on brew pubs, they can be a positive and compatible use in the CC1, CC2, CC3, CSC and ABD zone districts. Attached is a copy of the proposed text changes. II. BACKGROUND On August 21, 1990, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 27, Series of 1990, allowing brew pubs as a use by right in the Commercial Service Center (CSC) zone district and as a conditional use for those brew pubs with sales for off-site consumption. On July 16, 1996, Council approved an amendment modifying the definition of a brew pub to allow an increase in production levels. III. CONFORMITY WITH THE TOWN'S RELEVANT PLANNING DOCUMENTS In considering the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code, staff relied on several relevant planning documents before making a recommendation. Specifically, staff reviewed the purpose 9 1 sections of the CC1, CC2, CC3, ABD, and CSC zone districts and the goals and objectives stated in the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan. Zoni911 Ctgg • According to the purpose statements of these commercial zone districts, these zone districts are intended to provide sites for commercial establishments which are compatible with other uses in the district. Staff believes that brew pubs, as defined by the zoning code, are a compatible use with other permitted and conditional uses allowed in these districts. Staff also believes that the use is similar to two specific uses (eating and drinking establishments and liquor stores) currently listed in these zone districts. The loading and delivery requirements, based on the limitations placed on the production of beer, are the same as those for any restaurant in Vail. Vail Land Use PIaa The following goals found in the Vail Land Use Plan support this proposal: 3.4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial areas to accommodate both local and visitor needs. 3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night time businesses, on-going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should be encouraged. 4.1 Future commercial development should continue to occur primarily in existing commercial areas. Future commercial development in the Core areas needs to be carefully controlled to facilitate access and delivery. Vgil Village Maier Plan The following goals, objectives and policies found in the Vail Village Master Plan support this proposal: Goal #2: To foster a strong tourist industry and promote year-round economic health and , viability for the village and for the community as a whole. Objective 2.1: Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-areas throughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use patterns. Objective 2.4: Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible with existing land uses. Policy 2.4.2: Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guest and the community shall be encouraged. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Zoning Code to allow brew pubs as a conditional use in the CC1, CC2, CC3, CSC, and ABD zone districts. 2 0 Proposed text changes: • CC1 zone district (and CC2 district by reference to CC1) Amend Section 18.24.020 (C) Conditional Uses to add the following: . +t pubs;$strefi d ter , tJ je i t following ..f tiartsx 1! 2 Amend Section 18.24.030 (C) Conditional Uses to add the following: te1rmgtnt#cuf 5 i3e p€ dfad r,?n .sukje t M T#i t? r a e t rior ssorage: V, s N- re€tr t< r: na :ti • 9. Amend Section 18.24.040 (B) Conditional Uses to add the following: ... ..... ( f . 5 pQ ?d l`i s r: pf li t ,..fit ?Ot :3# 11 Amend Section 18.24.050 (B) Conditional Uses to add the following: • 2. Eating and drinking establishments, including the following: 3 CC3 zone district Amend Section 18.27.030 Conditional Uses to add the following: g1 .. .....ii:.iii::: 'i:v'•:::.::::.i:•::•i::::.:::.:: :?i: i:'.::. :::.:i t ':• .:::i:•i:I::: ii";.y::;•ii:iii""i:::::':i:;: '::.:::.: ...:.::.:::.;'.:::::::.:'.; ::.::.:::?:..':•::•::":::.::. ire is;exr3or :turf ?. refpse; c??atar?as e:P?'op Od, r r dubs sell :fir for t wh esa &.r wH18i sell E ee '' f ©se e trpt?s are allow s fob as the tutat t:wholsse s€es grid ss €x: tai. s tptfn dott?t $xl.or live perct..4 r3f die r Sol. ed r e b n n? ble 4 0 CSC zone district 0 Amend Section 18.28.030 Permitted Uses to delete brew pubs as a permitted use: • 5 ABD zone district Amend Section 18.29.030 (A) Conditional Uses to add the following: • [Note: Existing uses here remain unchanged. This use should be placed in alphabetical order.] d#?15 `@tip4?8 e'er t€#0sut (Ef.fpNpw?rlg CC4.1 Amend Section 18.29.030 (B) Conditional Uses to add the following: [Note: Existing uses here remain unchanged. This use should be placed in alphabetical order.] (rpu ased.•#±?!p,.:to theodtig rot z The' a iTt.liiC:b iq#int it3k:F.l ? .XY#k.k::N3f7T F1s?i XtGad? de .1 1tiry }:\9V e"11 GVm\mef T1os\br9wpm812 6 0 • r1 LJ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a variance to allow detached garages in the front setback, located at 2853 and 2833 Kinnickinnick Road/Lots 7 & 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain/Lodges at Timber Creek. Applicant: Jim Marx Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting variances to allow the construction of a detached parking garage. The request is to construct 6 garage spaces now and 4 additional spaces in the future. Two specific variances are requested including a variance from the front setback requirement of 20' for the Residential Cluster (RC) zone district and a variance from Section 18.14.040 Accessory Uses which allows attached garages as an accessory use in the RC zone district. The proposed garage is located 12' from the front property line, (see the attached plan). The proposal will impact the existing number of parking spaces located on-site by reducing 10 surface spaces to 6 enclosed parking spaces now and providing 10 enclosed spaces in the future. Phase I of the Lodges at Timber Creek has 10 units requiring 20 parking spaces and the site contains 26 parking spaces. Therefore, this Phase of the Lodges will have 22 parking spaces (26 in the future) if approved. Phase 11 of the Lodges at Timber Creek has excess surface parking. The RC zone district requires that at least one parking space per dwelling unit be an enclosed space. The existing Phase I development is nonconforming with respect to this requirement. The proposal will make this development less nonconforming and the second phase of the garage request will make the development conforming with respect to enclosed parking. II. ZONING ANALYSIS This analysis shows the limiting zoning parameters derived from either the annexation agreement • or the RC zone district and the November 13, 1995 amended development plan. Zoning: RC ALLOWABLE/REOUIRED 11/13/95 APPROVAL PROPOSAL Site Area: 222,849 sq. ft. nc nc Buildable Area: 166,277 sq. ft. nc nc GRFA: 45,169 sq. ft. 12,212 sq. ft. 26.257 sq. ft. 38,469 sq. ft. nc Density: 24 mufti-family DU's 10 multi-family DU's 12 duplex DU's 4 Typ?p III FHU:(VR unit each) 24 DU's total nc Height: 33 ft. 31'-6" Lg. DU's nc 29'-4" Sm. DU's nc Site Coverage: 57,712 sq. ft. 24,445 sq. ft. 26,049 sq. ft. Parking: 20 spaces' 26 spaces (existing)' 24 spaces' (26 spaces future)* Enclosed Parking: 10 spaces 0 spaces 6 spaces (10 spaces future) 'Phase 1 only. . 111. ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Dgiached Garar" The applicant is proposing to vary from the RC zoning requirements which recognize only attached garages as permitted accessory structures. The staff encourages property owners to provide enclosed parking. Staff believes the concept of a detached garage is appropriate for this zone district where structures are clustered. Front,*&J(aack Variance The applicant is requesting a front setback variance to locate the detached structure within 12' of the front property line (20' required). Staff believes this request should not be approved. There is ample space on the site to locate the proposed structure and meet all setbacks. The staff finds no hardship of any kind affecting the location of the proposed structure. Staff believes it would be a grant of special privilege if this request were to be approved. • f:\everyoneNpec\memos\tlmberc.722 ' 2 On-site Parking • The proposal will eliminate 10 surface parking spaces and provide 6 enclosed parking spaces for a net loss of 4 parking spaces with the existing request. The future phase of this garage request will provide 10 enclosed parking spaces with no net loss of parking. The site contains areas for surface parking, however, none of this parking is delineated. The site is currently in excess of the required parking and therefore staff believes the proposal will not negatively impact the number of required parking spaces on-site. Staff also believes that all of the surface parking located on-site should be clearly delineated. LandscaDinp The proposal will modify the landscaping located on-site. The existing landscape area affected by the proposal is 780 sq. ft. The first phase of the garage (6 spaces) will provide 1,774 sq. ft. of landscape area (994 sq. ft. additional). However, the second phase of the garage (10 spaces) will only provide 758 sq. ft of landscape area (22 sq. ft decrease). Therefore, the applicant, prior to final review, must provide either an additional 22 sq. ft. of landscape area or provide an analysis of the landscaping located on-site. The code requires that 60% of the site be landscape area. Also, the applicant has not provided a proposed landscape plan with this request. The proposal includes some regrading within an area adjacent to a large tree. Staff believes a landscape plan, a landscape analysis, and a tree preservation plan should be provided for final review by the PEC and the DRB. ArchftaWral ComDafibilitj,, The proposed structure contains some log elements and wood (log veneer) siding. The is Lodges at Timber Creek development contains log structures. Staff believes the detached garage should be designed to be more compatible with the existing structures on-site. The detached garage should be a log structure. Staff believes that the PEC should recommend that the DRB to take a close look at the architectural compatibility of the proposed structure. Dumoster There is an existing dumpster within this parking area which is not screened and not indicated on the site plan. Staff believes that this dumpster should be fenced and located within the confines of the site. It should also be appropriately screened with landscaping. The applicant should include this item on the site plan and landscape plan for the site. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The code criteria for the review of such a request are provided for your information. Since this is a worksession, staff has not addressed the specific criteria. A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. f:\everyone\pec\memos\timberc.722 3 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this • title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. B. The Pl?nning and Environmentpl Commis ion all make the following findingslefore granting a variance: . 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that doe not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed variances at the Lodges at Timber Creek, staff will not be providing a formal staff recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a staff recommendation at the time of final PEC review. is f.koveryone\pec\rnemos\timbm.722 4 u _ ?RVET ?s cwe +x l ??? alTAidi SVM 4 iEMR '1 ?y yRtL WTERJ10t1"SES t * it / GW IL TY. "LOROO , O }? 1 I t f' "1 LOT ,t G ? I 1-9 f , seas ?ITOJR tNTCRVK • t DAUM p,CV1TtOM toll ' HMS J / / \• I -??!' \ /' , ? .+1 _n , -., 1 ? ? -' __ __:+ / f / T _uR.P? rwa owJ KI/•IIKIPILK RWP ,,L??Rp?([Yf waK ry-PT No'o.tw , j / i cY?^?FIeL ?i I 1 \ \? ??INps .p f- w CUW r!r I MI?I6i ^ I + f / I 1 ?•-, , 1 t•1 I -' I I VMiMr.Y•wVltv.N AF/4 F?•41 VRLWI'II,:Y.L ?-I •UHKM/Jt VNWNUWV IrI¢/rtP.. fit Mwo U+ 19'?,:.iD -91/O Ik(°O ?NIL II IM4 t r P/.w/M1a ?1?1,..°IULf ra•/a.o y?q•v lrU.?lf •• rRYY rnnl,r .. rn. ,. ,?o+ .I 't. ,In ,n ..I:. ?• t,l., III. Ir NORTH ELEVATION 1 fie-. '{*_?• fo-O C••.• W IYIO/To t'(11f'° ;irk?iYUC.ir+ KINNIICINIGK RopO EAST ELEVATION t/e-< 1'-6 1 r s ? ?s SOUTH ELEVATION I-1 WEST ELEVATION I r-u ) 1/tr- 1•-0- L'J L [ 7 II \ w?awRUaoa?reocu\faa W. 001•II.D MOT 0[IMq 0MCFAM !IE a/wlweuo COP IRIG.1 1995 lJO a a? o Q OU ? y Z O w 2 O cr Z U U Z J Z wy a D IM fl) > co W a•.w .•t•/e - SITE PLAN PLAN ELEVATIONS W, FEBRUARY 26. 1996 A ,.2 i - f/ - I ?, a t --re I I I I I I { I I I I I I I I I I r_f_L_ __i.L_ FLOOR PLAN • S.H. Co COIYSU TIC1N A General Contracting & De' opment July 7. 19961 2897 Timber Creek Drive _ ,71 Dominic Mauriello VAR, C.0 0165 Planning Dept. {9t?)"i6 l X26 ToWn of Vail Dear Dominic, I am writing this letter in regards to a Planning and Environmental Commission worksession scheduled for August 12, 1996. The worksessi.on involves a request for a variance to allow detached garages in the front setback of the The'Timber Creek Lodges project. I and Chuck Ogilby were the original developers of these tog units. Chuck and I are presently building the remaining units in this project. We have seen some preliminary plans from Jim Marx who is an owner and also tho head of this project. We have some concerns regarding these plans that we would like conveyed to the Planning Commission. The following are present concerns based on the plans that we have seen. l.u'e are very interested in seeing that the materials used in any garages are similar to the materials used in the rest of the project. We have used hand peeled chink style Lodge pole pine logs in all of these units. We have used scmc stucco but it has been a minor clement and has been used only close to the ground. While this type of log construction is relatively expensive, it is very appea[Iing and has been used exclnfiiveIy in,tWs enter project. We have used shake.roofs on all of the units as well, 2.7be location of these garages also concerns us. The preliminary plans show the garages to be right at the edge of the drive into this project and if there was any roof overhang they woold actually project into the entrance drive area. I, is important to us to have a nice roomy entrance into this project, which rides not look crowded and cramped. They should set back about 10 feet closer to the tennis courts in our opinion. This would make it safer for cars when they enter and exit the project onto Kinnickinnick Road as well. The drivers vision of traffic on Kinnickinnick would be much better and prevent pulling out in front of traffic that might not be seen because of the garages blocking the view. 3. We are also concerned by what was to be the second phase of this garage project. We believe that in the proposed plan it would close down the strive to an unacceptable width on the end toward the presently constructed units. This end is where the driveway turns almost 90 degrees and should not have vision obstructed at this point. We have gone to great lenghts to make this project feel very open and landscaped. We would not like to see these garages change this feeling and look which we have achieved. Thank you for your consideration of our concerns in your worksession. We apologise for not being here in person but it just happened that both of our vacations ended up being the same week. - -Sincerely, " 4inev Stan Cole, General Partner, The Lodges at Timbor Creek. MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1996 SUBJECT: An appeal of an administrative decision relating to Section 18.04.065, Demo/Rebuild, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, as it relates to Chapter 18.71, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area. The property is located at 3110 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11 th Filing. Appellants: Diane Hughes, King Hughes, Kendall Burney, Debra Tuchman, and Ken Tuchman, represented by Bill Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. SUBJECT PROPERTY Hughes/Tuchman project. Located at 3110 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11th Filing. . If. STANDING OF APPELLANT Staff believes the appellants have standing to file an appeal in this case as they are the owners of • the subject property. III. BACKGROUND On August 15, 1995, Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1995, was adopted. This ordinance amended Chapter 18.71 "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area" of the Zoning Code adding the language that restricts the granting of additional GRFA to projects which are not demo/rebuilds and adding the definition of a demo/rebuild. This code amendment was the result of 6 months of debate and numerous public hearings. Citizen and local architect input on this issue was extensive. During the public hearings, the question of the effect of removing a roof was specifically questioned and the understanding reached during those hearings was that if a roof is removed and thereby exposed 50% or more of the GRFA then it is considered a demo/rebuild. This is based upon the definition of a "building" in the Zoning Code. The discussion also revolved around the intent and purpose of Chapter 18.71 "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." Staff, the PEC, and Town Council found that the original ordinance was being abused, as the use of the additional GRFA had been mostly for demo/rebuild projects. Therefore, property owners were taking advantage of the additional square footage as if it were a credit to build a new structure. The intent of the ordinance was to provide an inducement to owners of older homes to upgrade their homes by making small additions and other site improvements such as paving driveways, upgrading the exterior lighting to meet current requirements, and the like. IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL On January 22, 1996 the applicant received approval to utilize 500 sq. ft. of additional GRFA (250 • sq. ft. per unit) under Chapter 18.71 "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area" of the Zoning Code, to make building additions and remodel both units of this duplex. This chapter does not allow the granting of additional GRFA for a demo/rebuild project. During the "remodel" of this duplex the entire roof was removed and all exterior walls were removed, leaving about 30% of the existing building materials within the structure. The Town's Building Division and the owner's superintendent of the project, Guy Cuccia, estimated that approximately 70% of the building is new construction. On July 22, 1996 and July 23, 1996, staff performed inspections of the property and determined that the project was in violation of Chapter 18.71 "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area" as it pertains to the definition of a demo/rebuild found in the Zoning Code. On July 24, 1996 a stop work order (redtag) was placed on the project. According to Section 18.04.065 a "demo/rebuild" is defined as: "...the destruction, demolition, or removal of fifty percent (50%) or more of the gross residential floor area of an existing dwelling unit or structure. The determination of the fifty percent (50%) shall be calculated upon "gross residential floor area" as defined in Section 18.04.130 of this Chapter." According to Section 18.04.040 a "building" is defined as: "...any structure having a roof supported by columns or walls, or any other enclosed structure, for the housing or enclosure of persons, animals, or property." The definition of "Gross Residential Floor Area" is attached. • Staff has consistently interpreted this definition since its original adoption on August 15, 1996, to mean that if one removes the roof of a structure and the removal "exposes" 50% or more of the GRFA in a dwelling unit then the "remodel" is considered a demo/rebuild OR if the exterior walls of a dwelling unit are removed to "expose" 50% or more of the GRFA in a dwelling unit then the unit is a demo/rebuild and therefore not eligible for additional GRFA under Chapter 18.71 of the Zoning Code. Again, the floor area is calculated in accordance with the definition of GRFA. The applicant is appealing this interpretation of the definition of demo/rebuild. Attached is a copy of the definition of GRFA (Attachment "A"), a copy of the approved building permit plans (Attachment "B"), a copy of the original staff memorandum to the PEC dated December 11, 1995 (Attachment "C"), a copy of the floor plans as submitted to the PEC for review of the original request (Attachment "D"), copies of the original applications for additional GRFA submitted by the applicants (Attachment "E"), and a copy of the "whereas" statements from Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1995 (Attachment "F"). is 2 V. REQUIRED ACTION. • Uphold/Overturn/Modify staff's interpretation of Chapter 18.71 "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area" and Section 18.04.065 Demo/Rebuild. The Planning and Environmental Commission is required to make findings of fact in accordance with Section 18.66.030 (5) shown below: 5. Findings. The Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of design guidelines) shall on all appeals make specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this title have or have not been met. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATiON Staff recommends that the PEC uphold the staff's interpretation of Chapter 18.71 "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area" and Section 18.04.065 Demo/Rebuild and recommends that the PEC make the following findings: 1. That the Community Development Department interpretation of Chapter 18.71 "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area" and Section 18.04.065 Demo/Rebuild is consistent with the definition of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) as defined in Section 18.04.130 of the Zoning Code and appropriately applied to those dwelling units; 2. That the Community Development Department interpretation of Chapter 18.71 • "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area" and Section 18.04.065 Demo/Rebuild is consistent with the purpose statement of Chapter 18.71 and the original intent of Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1995. 3. That both dwelling units located on the subject property are considered demolished due to the removal of more than fifty percent (50%) of the GRFA within the existing dwelling units in violation of Chapter 18.71, Section 18.04.065 and in violation of the building permit for this structure. 4. That the Community Development Department was justified in issuing a stop work order (redtag) on the project; 5. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18 (Zoning) have not been met. FAeveryone\pec\memo\hughes.812 3 + N A?-f 'c??Glnm?r? /d1 ZONING 18.04.130 Floor area, gross residential (GRFA)'. Gross residential floor area (GRFA) means the total square footage of all levels of a building, as measured at the inside face of the exterior walls (i.e., not including furring, sheetrock, plaster and other similar wall finishes). GRFA shall include, but not be limited to, elevator shafts and stairwells at each level, lofts, fireplaces, bay windows, mechanical chases, vents,. and storage areas. Attics, crawl spaces and roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces or patios shall also be included in GRFA, unless they meet the provisions of subsections A or B below. A. Within buildings containing two (2) or fewer dwelling units, the following areas shall be excluded from calcula- tion as GRFA: 1. Enclosed garages of up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maxi- mum of two (2) spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by the Zoning Code. 2. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet (5') or less, as measured from the top side of the structural members of the floor to the underside of the struc- tural members of the roof directly above. Attic area created by construction of a roof with truss-type members will be excluded from calculation as GRFA, provided the trusses are spaced no greater than thirty inches (30") apart. 3. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not greater than twelve (12) square feet in area, with five feet (5') or less of ceiling height, as measured from the surface of the earth to the underside of structural floor members of the floor/ceiling assembly above. ' EDITOR'S NOTE: The provisions of this Section shall not be effective for any application for development which has been submitted to the Department of Community Development, and accepted by the same, on or before July 1, 1991, unless agreed to by the applicant submitting the application before July 1. 1991. (Vail 4-95) 306-2 a is 0 DEFINITIONS 4. Roofed or covered deck, porches, terraces, patios or similar features or spaces with no more than three (3) exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less than twenty five percent (25%) of the lineal perime- ter of the area of said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar feature or space, provided" the opening is contiguous and fully open from floor to ceiling with _ an allowance for a railing of up to three feet (T) in height. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square _ footage of a building set forth in Section 18.04.130 above. Excluded areas as set forth in subsection A, shall then be deducted from total square footage. ?a 2j ally.. -- dwellings or accommodation units, the following ad ' -on- al areas shall be excluded from calculation as GRF : Enclosed garages to accommodate on-sit parking equirements. 2. A or part of the following spaces, rovided such spac are common spaces and tha he total square footage f all the following spac shall not exceed thirty five ercent (35%) of a allowable GRFA permitted on a lot. a. Common h ways, st ' ays, elevator shafts and airlocks; b. Common lobby s; c. Common enclos creation facilities; d. Common heat' g, coo ' g or ventilation systems, solar rock orage are or other mechanical systems. uare footage ex uded from calcula- tion as GRFA shall be the um square foota required to allow for maintenance an peration of such mechanical sys ms; e. moron closet and storage areas, viding ccess to such areas is from common h ways only; f. Meeting and convention facilities; 306-3 (Vail4-95) I aA l I? • t , WINDOW 94HEDULE -WEATHERSHIELQ: CLAD.Ui/ GOf1I; FINISH SCHEDULE - TUCHMAN - EAST SIDE I ROUGN or, fwG PROWCT Dn. '- REMARL'9 1 111NI'+- ROIR EASE a AM! f IM,L S -wt V Mgt aD A-MASS rcD1 yIi OFS,,TAOw NO•_ MODEL NO, • '' ' - A {Vc NI_ I rd rM DLK«IG MtY O,L TIT 4Y V'ql llON IA- ' Im .• Yr w = wr wr w• wr n - n w/ n /YSTSIG PMBNSS 10 WINI WWI T Der fn IEC. Wk. DMBM)N[ Hof OeN D . n D is iiA r Tc r r4 r c[ r w G r-1 W INr MSYMO Mw Olt. lp(., '!-a, ee [o) [_rrn TL P f w / _..orrln aeT I t [-ICT,./Aw orylpe ea !!]!' ?!'°[r°' Sg r ¦w {? r r P sT rrrMS TO new oX .LOGE _. _ ;_; Nr I r-? yr CAMWYI I rrr >II•fM0 vWr re. r MD 1 !a ?Aingr T 'rt-' r r r TO, ' I I r O {'•] 1 _ T-{ Tn• rE¦MCN M. + 91- - Trt !-O 1 EOt prtlMN ?-- T4 P I. P T4 r 14 • 4! I ['•o 1/r CASMtMMT IM , 'I'mo !Ol pN4 [N - • TJ/• T P T4 L 1 P P it N _ Y•f -. ['H VY CASYYNT 1.1L r-fN4 SO, ShYT • '_ D!RIC, pn ? IENTAOON - M w TO I.Ak • !N) lTAM D S v"- Ii4G I E `lemo ?[.« - u LINO .n. Ty r I4 . ry 4. [ _ T4 • TO / TO P T4 r w I GM,rMt 1/pO f 1-[4t 14411etl IS PAxTRT n_' 1..r _?•=fin, I_•. ?4 i -__. 1 - M _ {•-O?_ 1 gl¦CT ttT 1 PlMfA4OM N Itt, TO MAk • [fl rfTMO .MIA L • f0 i0 P 14 P 14 1 n w P Y? )'•1 )I{{• eA![,1¦NT MOOD [-H1j rm0, E[AGk-WT Wi [}t n1UO4e 1 C • Tq I! i T_ 11.(- .O _-? Y-P-..r ?-I• CA.. 1 00 '1-0M? yt. T4 NA,eN •D1 OR, e]f NYR I e • n . 14 P 14 r -- w w R 1'-f W' I t IM' MACNDIL 1-.0 f-O NAVD P10w A., _L r0 Tc P a4f- ?•^'•"•+ w O[YCT ft T4 P TO P TO P O ? MOM mm ¦ TO •Inwm y/M yp rtga. D 1'•S 1/¦' •-I •Ow MT .[• NI ¦ATN I - r w OM , 1''•• •Y S/r CAalNtMl E000 [• [? _ T TO r OX rLOM .?I,?,?_+ M2RaiL. C • T4 14 TO P Ti. F w V }• 111 ..W + DMSGt 3MT I,w' - _- fl rOnfmM ? - ? T4 P T4 • T4 r Ti. I P 1 _ 1 r_I' I MOOp 4S1M ?¦tT' •MAO TO nwTCNADLM . i TOL¦T' 1? -1 - - {f I ¦IDDTIIG rr{WIID TO SaMAM ry TK•• .? f•Y. i [ /1_I CA?DIn[11T 121M }I'2 . fir. LO n.:TCN AO! EL`?._ OR, [f1 OATN ? ? - . _- ¦MI•fN4 rMW¦D TO O! RingVtD X. y?yy???Slls,,,, trt 'D • _ _T'-n• _ . r: _ M!CT *I 1 _ [ 1[I! P LeV. r. L'4yI LLtlNa IArD ORl TPT ?•! __ _ i f/T I/S M IIr Pm !SO L« NAt _ [ LSa • I. L _ ro -1 P f N, • K 4 G AA S?_ V _ ?LpIL1. Vf M 11 YAO N,Nt Tq NArGN AqI. rL1LR! i Ybrf _ _ NS T-1 X - - N _ N 11 _h i N ?. TO [ TO P 14 P 14 • T4 P 1 ee 11'•r f• !4N¦Y 4eINlNf ¦NLD lLf1M +iy S." rp. 1 Idq V[[II M[ !H MTI+, -T. 1 N M T4 P rrO r MII iG P }?. I ? ' . - ce I r•r 1 r n• 1 eAanR[r, ¦ooo ¦w , MDT1 mD¦1 1 c __ ¦ ? 6 +4 r 1 p P T ?? pp _ 1'i' a-r yr I CAaIIRNT: e,RD? !:[N? I IMLLL TO M[r L! 1!!E MN lLIVI [H [NSTR. OLOS[T I G __ • •j-1 lfi L t4" N ?«j. /R'y/•?? 1vNem" TOP r/RUNf/?[ellIS ?[N ¦RLpp?lNlt?r??X O «LOOPo ^ `OO"OA?f' a[ ^ KMOrTM [ ?,p LL??? r !f1 ( I _ 1 1 ° „ `^"'° O M[OYL! lOM ! CIAN ! tp' AR • _ i T4 _ DOOR S HEDUL:;E I T __ ?ITTT: 141. In 2 c r4 r + - ¦Ir. rooo r?o• _ woe I I'm }o a[. er enYR[ -i _ Iwr. r-o• _ Yx. HARDWARE SCHEDULE - --? } - - J 1 - -- rc T?f, _ ig. r: ro r P I[Na[ SMAT•4 NALTIS TM M LOOT ft-WI M ,? -- - -- --'-- - - 1 - - i666 i Mf. ODQL.?' I'-?• I LlAVIf • r-)•!A SO 1 D[CUMTT 1 17 ___ . ! M. SGOD tt,.f' {'-S• __ •• - S PMVACr NT WOO /'{U' r Z. III[MCN OLAaa I[ayT CAI. " -' ) ..A. w I XI. -mr-r f/ woooemn !__ 413- r?4e oy a_!aD FINISH SCHED ULE - HUGHES - WEST SIDE _ _ _ -'- Mstl qr. TO MNAM _ S S[C[SI W' "Aft t _ .. _ _ - _. SM.+. X10 RtMAw --' % O1NT'4 r0 [lNAM M, ¦IAE _ j B _ - _ -- _.,r __- MO¦Tn M TENNXaY ft, [MTRT __ _? _ [I111T•O -'a. .?ILI,M .: ' TN M n • .. _ •, _= :- - [wlr4 d[ To [[IU7N - Mr w ? a,, Pwo `d _ t .. ' / alNc _ N _ t a ?.r f 'pop M tAi, e •o' :Y _,[ uAVee . r-e• fw O D O R N O l E 9 ?+_ L_w,m.r p Mr. ? f!-L• L,-[• : _ I 1 _ "Y_ P. ¦Qee t T y OI NA y p p p ¦? p e IL Aa 6111 pLOIMI .O]OIR. PAN { - NAL?LO? •1 ? --? NlXAI, Am WDTN VA-b N M1 Y•C `: - ? ¦p 1 fo f ra rwD r•B••-r SO. SCOD w 0'-0 ' iiaewa . r•r eA. 1 A,?dspOOSS M )NaNlS TO O 0OI1! f}?p ?rRO1 SA {N rN -') _ S Mt. SOOD Y-O' r pOB r-q. - - a ?[ ttO.T[T W IISpIVI?XI 11 !_ _ _ __ _ ieKYrn DI. Tg IIIIIA« ?- T a1 _ p 1 ?'6 a. Td alIIA¦I •? 141N [LDRN. - r4{ SAr1 A H _ MT_ NACN INILYO MO I TMMT1 SlT ? T U ? ?_ r-O- !r? Mr. S-N I_I' r • r N } MTCN [YST'O J ruTCM Or[T•4 tM-MAD! O O T L« Marg. MTN 1 M1 nOMr L .» If _ qy- _ t - . _ _ a er, OII! ,¦10lr6 OI! TO IBI•NR eATN 1 -.. ?^R BOt «1 5! E lNtl N N4L N vUI u N VL O4 AYT! n fEA4YS _ _ _ _ fKBTro rI,IS,{G TO SRNJ - ISOM i r a : cP L 4r o. Sr n w mom MM,Y¦ To.ol o -ST•4 NIPMRS TO [SNw P L INRT4 r•WY! TD rpu C w P w P OP w • w P _ !blY4 -5406 10 IS- Mtl¦ra •rN?A Te rlNu C • OF w F w w • Y?Tr K? W I ¦ w • w P or V _ P c,• r C r w P w F w- -- w P W I T C T • w Or P w _ w P r W P"MI w P fJ I P c • 01• r l w r o' -n tm w I T OF ?, NR _P w ?_ w I I v w 41 _ S•P P w 4P 1 _ _ - fY11V1 AMMM EI®r4 _ I 1 I 1 I I A. _ _ OODr4 rr T4 rwu, 4rNr.AL .MIN IgTR, ?. _ .RSEa_e??? -- _ r_r ?'-r nercN [KBrc . .. __-" Y'Ae""M W'28;Ij =.I labp;a &.1 .AMI,AMg'Ik"r°7'A'LL„Kw ![ MT f-O' ,'-?' WPMTW IOCK{i DRS. )? Mme. - r`p• i -t - NAtc. War. ) I TUCNNANS i0 4!T MV sP«a « ALL eATNROONe INtr 1 [NIa1«4N• P' - .DOD n 1 _ ,d•I rOOD r. D•. `-?• -?1L_ ,_ 1 ?) _ yn_ •ooo u Mr. row r-o• Ya• r-w ,_N uAVer • r-.• u. r•o• ?__ -? C A Ir l1'( N ? i , , 17 J'--' C I L Y j INDEX OF DRAWINGS COVER)Nerr DRAWPLG INDEX )CNEOULES ABBREVIATION3 CIOL r•IOO' SITE AND UTILITY PLAN AAX OENO PLAN 1/1- • r-O' AAM AIRST PLOOR PLAA M4'•I'-0' AIO2. SECOND nOOR PLAN 114'•1'-0' AI03, ROOF PLAN I/Y•I'-O• A201, EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS IiI'•1'-O' Alp, BUILDING SECTIONS A,B.C I/I'•I'-O' A752: DOLDWO SECTIONS OX 111'•I'-O' A101, EXTERIOR BALL SECTIONS.DETAILS 3/4-•I'-O• ASCII, ARCHITECTURAL OETAIL3 1/7••1'-O' 81 FOUNDATION PLAN 32 LOB ROOF I W+PER LEVEL FRAMING 33 A[GH ROOF FRAMING PLAN 84 SECTIONS I OETA.S E/11-1 FIRST LEVEL ELECTRICAL /MECHANICAL E/M-7 SECOND LEVEL ELECTRICAL /HECNANICAL DRAWING CONVENTIONS rV m`-rY f 1 PP, R.v[ra•reM.n. PROJECT DIRECTORY ? w w.aaNr« 1('1rma u.r. Y `Tt' ? ', `rJl'M ro Necam l ® _ ,1{I Ivr gyf M urn IMUra i ti. .Me... <a,.rnr WMA f-B-a Ao PEERMIT BEMSK" Y 1~ IL rt??6? fl 1 l y S 6 ? e[ y EAST OWNER, DEBRA I KEN TLC- n / ? 1, 1700 LINCOLN - 17TH FLR DENVER. #0703 303-814-4200 V Q & RE3T OWNER, DIANE IIUGNC3 • r'I W 4405 MONLAND DR. Z DALLAS. TX 15705 214-521-8181 m LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: 1'•x'1 {?••1 y • LOT 1 BLOCK 3 VAIL VILLAGE PTN r"•'••11 U Z EAGLE COUNTY COLORADO b ry µq. B -/ I ? ^ Z [N Il STRUCTURAL ENGN/EER 9 I VLT r Q ' , CSi ASReew TAex KRM - KP1 MlGEE •. . - r? -' V•.^•I/ ¦pA[BPrnI? s R[nAw T O BOX 4512 W" a c c BI T E VAIL COLORADO -Fa L•,•'v Ma?•?.'?L ? w • ORAMw Paet reKTU1[o 4rn ¦D. 141-1311 I•':'.,.?..,,«. a .I. ay» N Ir N • MMKI M. • AROR - PROJECT DESCRIPTON, r'. .nau, nV . N• .. • : ?'#N •y•?I w IO?F?M "' . N aM V IPW D COATS - COLOR eY DYWN TWO PAMILY REyoE NCE N WroO.N •.+Mw, IV W • ¦•L,-LP T T TYPE V NON RATED CO NSTS OrM N NN rw O MNM lN wrD oITIA L ON On e ¦ : EP • ¦e0A, IAIlR ON r100TN 4TP, 10. a. _snoRTN A,t 5 L1ga ? _ U Lam, a ?r To Bdw w*r C( •? ? I r ? COY6IMET 0 &girt airtw1or Sat. 0 NOrES„ON rUCHNAN'S FMISHES: GARAGE: - - h ED - - a .w_c. • i..,,ecfr, r..,R.ar ', n,«?,?} u ...............-? KI JCHFN -&/NEv_ 8 e I ' ••II, t lu «,y' • ., t Il- -- ?;`o ?I}t4? - ?y : siirirn-rr-' i' ! Re, i .r .. _.. LIVING RH. FINISHES.. I_.LrF-?"' -- ^ •vrrxex wr, ? ? .' X11 1 ..w+c.. 4' -L lrl IAMM „ wpn,uV°u ? ? .. Y'd LOIUEf? LEVEL FLOOD' FLAN [a• s.. ??:b 5 y{°r 5CALE: NORTH e:+ • i! r?i A rem o r\-ej i i tt - REVISIONS UV .. r b, a 000idoo O p C c ?7?7????7777 j DATE r, L .4 .' . s 7 UFFER LEVEL FLOOR FLAN a' I ' * gy'"" of^' n• SCALE: 114'-P-0" NORTH < OFFICE COP • 11.ear; .rg. (p(' J •1 (tY: 1 `1 t?. i 4 IF C •? F• f, 1 1 ... e i 7- ----------- --------------- r - $7 .. 7" K+?) .?i ..,..?.?- __ - -y/ ------- --- -------- ---------- ---- --------------------- LOFT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 5CALE' 1.14"=Y-0" NORTH IS6UE pFVMON9 w Z o to QI Z z Ud N? J DATE r-?-4 ? to r-1 W M-I Z W N 113 z Q ? J a ww .? U N w H ? U w Q A203 „w„a? OFFICE COPN ------ ---------- ----- --- ------------ I --- ------------ Fr -h T- "I LII L--------------------- ----------- ?. ROOF PLAN ,. . 0 -C> COPY MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: December 11, 1995 SUBJECT: A request for Additional GRFA to allow for additions to be added to both sides of the duplex located at 3110 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11 th Filing. Applicants: East side-Debra & Ken Tuchman West side-Diane Hughes, Kendall Burney and King Hughes Planner: Jim Curnutte • 0 1, BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created a new Chapter (18.71) to the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." 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 18.7 1, for the purpose of eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a dwelling unit is "demo/rebuilt." The new Ordinance also requires thai 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 applicants are requesting to add approximately 1,449 sq. ft. of GRFA to both sides of the duplex. The proposed remodel will use the remaining GRFA for the entire lot, as well as the full 250 allowance for each dwelling unit. Additionally, all remaining site coverage for this property (approximately 75 sq. ft.) will be utilized. The proposed remodel is summarized as follows: East side On the first floor, the applicants are proposing to extend the unit's entry further to the west. This addition will add approximately 33 sq. ft. of GRFA. Also on the first level, portions of the existing garage will be converted to GRFA and existing GRFA will be converted to new garage area, resulting in a GRFA reduction of approximately 11 sq. ft. On the second level a new master bedroom will be added above the living room (389 sq. ft. of new GRFA). A third level will be added to the building to accommodate a new bedroom and bath. This portion of the addition is 412 sq. ft. in size. West Ride. On the first floor, the applicants are proposing to convert some existing GRFA into garage space . and extend the living room approximately 3' to the south. This living room extension will add approximately 75 sq. ft. of floor area to the building; however, this new floor area is offset by the reduction in GRFA from that area being converted into new garage space. On the second level, an existing bedroom will be expanded and an additional bath will be added (approximately 300 sq. ft.). Additionally, a new bedroom and bathroom will be added to an area directly over the existing living room (approximately 338 sq. ft.). All exterior building materials and colors of the proposed building additions will match existing, including siding, shingles, windows, doors, etc. See the attached drawings for more detail. if. ZONING ANALYSIS The two dwelling units on this property meet all applicable standards outlined in the Residential Two-Family (Duplex) Zone District and are eligible to apply for the additional 250 square feet of GRFA. Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requests for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental • Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect unon the existino tnoooranhv. vp_ gatation. drainage and existino structures. The proposed additions will have minimal impact on the site, and neither drainage nor grading on the property will be affected. Some low growing bushes will be relocated in the areas of the entry and living room additions. The additions will match the existing building (materials and colors) in architectural character, and not appear out of place. 2. Impact on adiacent oronerties. Staff believes that the proposed additions will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties. 3. Camliance with the Town's zoning rpcfui,remprits and applicable develonment standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any dwelling unit that proposes to use Additional GRFA shall comply with the standards outlined in the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines. These standards include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway `? paving and general maintenance of the property. • Upon inspection by staff, we find that this property is in compliance with the Town's zoning requirements and all applicable development standards. During our site visit we did however, notice various pieces of lawn furniture located on the stream tract directly behind this property. Staff recommends that this furniture be removed. B. Findinas= 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 Additional GRFA. Staff believes that the review criteria have been met as discussed in the memo. Regarding the findings, staff believes that finding 81 is met as the proposed additions • minimally impact the existing site. Finding B2 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposed additions will not negatively impact adjacent properties. Finding B3 is met, in staff's opinion, as the - proposed additions comply with all zoning requirements and applicable development standards. Staff recommends approval with the condition that the lawn furniture, which is currently located on the stream tract directly behind this property, be immediately removed. F:\everY0r*N VnemosVuchman.nl3 0 "C.--:- k4d E . Kam' • i 11 ttv! W ?i . G 101 • • r oRri+ r l + _ _ -a t Its H N r Z;-Tm ?QZ • • r .aer LOFT LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 0 WoUO M4W-o* mmrm r r r if 'i i i '• i Ir:. 1 A203 4 r F moor moomr .......... "':?:??:.:"":.: --._-_.-.--- _•_._._....._._._._.-•........ y a • nary a ------------ - ------------ ------ --------------- --------- ---------------------- LINE OF EXl9T'G ROOF [N 0+4 .................. ____ NM M9FPW ....................... __..._..._......._....._ .. -tip ` a A" o. .. EN RY .. _' s • rsri- -- _ W-wro nvsxr Lem ? ....-.-.-.-._...-._... ._.-.-.-.-._.... -_ JIL WANG eve. a • aors• NORTH ELEVA TION i SCALE: 118'-I'-OA' NOTE: ALL NEW EXTERIOR FIN0M HATERIALS TO MATCH EXISTING FINISHES A r i LIME/9) OF EX/9T'G ROOF ieacr?arwir _.?.-.- ---_.-. - l--- -__-- _ -• ._-? ==c _--- ._...... .... _......... - ?.. ..n r an'ol( 780. _ .._ _ -•-•-- . - - - nasrro ww wr trvn - ------- ---------- ---- - -------- AL SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE. l/Brat'-Or ? ra S w ""P W rw-t ..?.. Kuw w ruaer r I AL -? W IMP WNW a[, 1019 -------------- •t - t1W -a - - -? -? - _ ......._-•-•----.. eamro, ....JtM ..... ::........ _ nasro LIVM Lffm x - aor,r ? ' PAW~ VC7ALIN EAST ELEVATION SCALD: 1/Bm -I'-O" • r ONXW HOW L . SMIA, 0 - -- - POW rwnR s . .. pmt -r L . arw? 000 _ - ::. .-- _-••- - -------- ._._._-_--- rx"ra boamom trvea 000 i"' L - arw :.._..._.. ono - 000 !=1 - : rxnra orrwr Lrvm* J 0- 1 1 Ll a __.. % rxnro uvwr, trva. 6 &NOY-i• CUES T / EN TR Y EL E VA TION SCALE: 118"°I'-0r r?Nwd LIbAa ' Date of Appilcation 10/9 /95 ?r Date of DRO Meetino 11 / 1 /95 Date of PEC Meeting (if necessary) .? ter., • , y APPLICATiON FOR ADDITIONAL GRFA (2;q(l)i f \??y ` ..M ??. ?% L TYPE OF REQUEST )C Standard 250 << ` Type I EHU 250 + ?y1 Type 11 EMU 250 Type V EHU 250 :r 13. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERFNCE .`r A pro-applicatlon conference w'th a member of the planning staff is strongly encouragod to discuss the provisions under which additional GRFA can be added to a site. It should be understood that this ordinance does not assure each property an additional 250 square foot of GRFA. Rather, the ordinance allows for uo to 250 square toot it the conditions set forth in Chapter 18.57 or Chapter 18.71 of the Town of Vall code are met. ?I Applications for additions under this section will not be accepted unless they are complete. i; This includes all Information required on this form as well as Design Review Board submittal ?M requirements. i Ill. APPLICATION INFORMATION A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION f)W17-O ,OrL 0 Fi4SJ" j SiIZF OF D B. LOCATION Oir"PRQPOSAL: Address 3/lD ORir?E l , e Legal Description: Lot_7 Block 3 Filing/I- il&L4 Zone Dislrlct,TAJO Mm/L`L .C/D-PVr119,'L i' C. NAME OF APPLICANT: 'AAl U&dtj -3 Address .jj00 L ter' . 41ao , DDyuje-r.; G a. ,?Z®35 0. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: ????i2C(= Address •l?W /ga< ;-7 I44(L 1L7 • 916-156 ~ E. NAME OF OWNER(S): DE&rr KCt?! 7j/L% j/{n/ drf< --a Sig nature(s)?Tlv.G Address /y00 G///GG/rr .tf WI/P&o /'o Phgne '7e) 3 - R9yr ..5? F. IJ Coofpi Filing Fee of $200.00 Is required at time of submittal of a standard 260. For Et request involving an EHU, the foe is waived. d & e-, ?p V6- Weald Na7ZLlad t. K 1 a Y •i .i i TOS7901OL6 Iva CD-VT 58/sD/W A • 0 Y • 10/05/95 11:62 FAX 9,04704901 PRIT21-13N PIERCE , 003 MIA"d W442 Data of Application Onto of ORB Meeting Onto of PEC Mooting (it necessary) APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL CRFA (250) 1. TYPE OF REQUEST X Standard 250 Type I EHU 250 Type II EHU 250 Typo V EHU 2,50 II. PRi=-APPLICATION CONFERENCE A pre-application conference with a meniber of the planning staff Is strongly encouraged to discuss the provisions under which additional CRFA can be added to a silo. It should be understood that this ordinance does not assure each property an additional 250 square feet of GRFA. Rather, the ordinance allows for Stn to 250 anuere tee( If the conditions set forth In Chapter 113.57 or Chapter 10.71 of the Town of Vail code are met. Applications for additions under this section will not bo accepted unless they are complete. This includes all information required on this form as well as Design Review Board submittal (aquitements. Y 111. APPLICATION INFORMATION A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ADPHICO A Wt Awn- Of tit 511)6 OF DO tP a. LOCATION OF MOPOSAL: Address 3110 6W-W OW6 D9 Logal Description, Lot 9 Block 3 Filing gAlt-vlwaI&E HM FIUN16 Zone District T"O FAMIL`' 9JES10'5u'nAL- C. NAME OF APPLICANT: DIA,WC k•.Htl?iit<S. VE?4 't LL K- 81fIWe 1j KhJG 9. 14V6"IS Address 4405 1416RtANQ n9_. VAt AS -r>( ?5Z0S D. NAME OF APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE:__J?ILL Plt3ut= Address PO - 60A 57 VAIL, , !.O- 1816S6 t. NAIVIt OF OWNCR(S) J/Clnf/ II _ I ({, ( 5 /j?f'? C1t 11•11U9l>ej •• Signature(s)4_t? ?Y-J^. I'/" l?'•?f ?h t Address_Y4-:r . Phone F. Filing Fee of $200.00 is required at time of submittal of a standard 250. For a request Invoiving an EHU, the feu Is waived. r? ORDINANCE NO.6 6000W SERIES OF 1995 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18.71 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TO PRECLUDE A DWELLING WHICH IS A "DEMO/REBUILD" FROM BEING ENTITLED TO ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA TO QUALIFY FOR THE ADDITION OF UP TO 250 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA AND ADDING A DEFINITION OF DEMOIREBUILD AT 18.04.065 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF VAIL. WHEREAS, prior to 1985 the Planning and Environmental Commission entertained many requests for GRFA variances for small additimia to homes that provided primary residence; and WHEREAS, such applications were to Improve the property and enhance its livability such as a mud room, an airlock, enlarging an existing room or adding a bathroom; and WHEREAS, much of the housing stock was originally built for vacation use and needed small improvements to be better adaptable to full time living; and WHEREAS, these dwelling units in many instances did not meet the Design Review Guidelines in regard to landscaping, paved driveways , paved parking areas and undergrounded utilities; and WHEREAS, it was apparent that the increase in GRFA would be off-set by the enhancements to the property which resulted in a benefit to the Town by improving the housing stock; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has studied the effects of Chapter 18.71 in the Town of Vail as it has been applied; and WHEREAS, this examination has led the Town Council to find that there have been abuses of the additional GRFA process and that the original intent of the allowance of additional GRFA is not being met in the majority of the "250 additions"; and WHEREAS, The Town Council finds that allowing a demo/rebuild to take advantage of an additional 250 square feet has not met the purpose and intention of the ordinance and does not prove to be an inducement for the upgrading of existing housing stock but rather simply confers a benefit upon an individual with no benefit being conferred upon the Town; and WHEREAS, Council finds it is inappropriate to allow an additional 250 square feet in the instance of a demo/rebuild where the same advantage is not provided to a parcel of land, or lot similarly situated that has never been developed. 1 Ordnance No. 6. Series of 1995 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1996 D SUBJECT: A request for a landscape variance to allow for a building addition and additional surface parking, located at 2131 N. Frontage Road/ Lot 3, Vail Das Schone 3rd Filing. Applicant: Safeway, Inc., represented by Dennis Wyatt Planner: Dominic Mauriello I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a variance from the required landscape area provisions found in the CC3 zone district of the Zoning Code. The CC3 zone district requires that a minimum of 25% of the site be landscaped and that each landscape area have an area of at least 300 sq. ft. Safeway is requesting this variance in order to add additional surface parking to the north of the structure (29 employee parking spaces) and in order to expand the floor area to the west of the existing structure by 4,660 sq. ft. • There is 35,090 sq. ft. (24.27%) of landscape area currently located on the site and therefore the site is nonconforming with respect to landscaping. The bulk of the "landscaping" is contained within the unimproved grass area to the rear of the structure. There is very little landscaping located in the front parking area. The landscaping existing along the street frontage does not count toward the required landscaping on-site as this area is located in the Colorado Department of Transportation right-of-way. The proposed plan provides 26,199 sq. ft. (18.12%) of landscape area. The proposed landscaping is contained within landscape areas located within the parking area and around the perimeter of the proposed parking area. The major difference between the existing and proposed landscaping is that the proposed landscape areas include numerous trees, shrubs, and other ground cover. The applicant is proposing the additional landscape islands in the front parking area and substantial vegetatinn in order to mitigate for the reduction in landscape area. The need for the landscape variance is due to the proposed employee parking area to the north of Safeway. Safeway is proposing 29 employee parking spaces in the existing grass area. The proposed parking area will contain substantial landscaping, including trees and shrubs. The applicant has also worked closely with staff to prepare a site plan and landscape plan which comprehensively improves the site to mitigate for this reduction in landscape area. The applicant has provided a parking lot access and circulation plan which improves access to the site by moving the entrance to the west and providing deceleration, acceleration, and left turn lanes in the North Frontage Road right-of-way. The internal circulation between the Safeway site, the West Vail Mall, and the Vail Das Schone Shopping center has been improved to allow efficient and convenient access between the sites. 0 The applicant has provided a 10' wide bike path along the road frontage and a 6' wide pedestrian access from the bike path to the store front. In addition to this pedestrian access, the applicant has provided a pedestrian access from Chamonix Lane to Safeway and the West Vail Mail. Pedestrian access has also been improved between the three shopping centers. in accordance with the notes on the site plan, Safewaywill be hauling snow off of the site during the winter and the drainage in the existing and proposed parking areas will be improved. A grease and oil separator will be provided to improve the quality of the water entering the public drainage system. The proposed plan increases the number of parking spaces from 105 to 128. The proposed parking lot to the rear of the building provides 29 employee parking spaces. The Zoning Code requires 1 parking space for each 300 sq. ft. of aW floor area. The net floor area basically eliminates the floor area which is not accessible to the public. Using this calculation, 90 parking spaces are required for the existing building and addition. Although the site currently meets the Town's parking requirements, staff believes that this parking calculation is extremely low for a grocery store and we believe that additional parking is needed on-site. A survey of other municipalities and recommended standards indicate that approximately 150-200 parking spaces are needed for a 43,993 sq. ft. grocery store. The proposal will bring the parking for this store more in line with national standards. Staff believes a physical hardship exists on the site given the location of the existing building and existing parking lot configuration on this and the adjoining sites and therefore is supportive of such a variance. The Environmental Health Division of the Community Development Department recommends that Safeway provide for the recycling of cardboard on-site by providing a 4-yard recycling container on-site. This is recommended due to the large quantity of card board being disposed of by Safeway. 11. ZONING ANALYSIS The following is a summary of the existing and proposed conditions on-site: Zoning: CC3 Site area: 3.3189 acres or 144,571 sq. ft. Allowable/Required Building Area (footprint): N/A Height: Site Coverage: Landscaping: Parking: 35' 57,828.4 sq. ft. (40%) Existina Proposed 37,397 sq. ft. 43,993 sq. ft. (total sq. ft.) 42,057 sq. ft. (footprint) 28'-6" 28'-6" 37,397 sq. ft. (25.86%) 43,993 sq. ft. (30.4%) 36,142.75 sq. ft. (25%) 35,090 sq. ft. (24.27%) 26,199 sq. ft. (18.12%) 90 (26,947 s.f./300 s.f.) 105 spaces 128 spaces A fAeveryone\pecknemos)safeway.812 2 Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS • Upon review of the criteria and findings contained in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested landscape variance based upon the following facfors: A. Consideration of Fac=r 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Safeway is located adjacent to the Vail Das Schone Shopping Center and the West Vail Mall. These shopping centers are also nonconforming with respect to landscaping. These centers have far less landscaping than is proposed by Safeway. Staff believes that the proposed variance will have minimal negative impacts on adjacent properties. Staff also believes that the proposed mitigation as represented on the proposed site plan and landscape plan, produces a positive impact to adjacent uses and the community at large. Staff is sensitive to the fact that the overall square footage of landscaped areas is proposed to be reduced, however, we feel that Safeway's proposal to add significant quantities of trees and shrubs mitigates that loss. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. • As discussed above, the site is currently nonconforming with respect to landscaping, as are the other shopping centers in the vicinity. Safeway's proposed site plan and landscape plan improves the current condition of this site. Staff believes the granting of this variance would not be a grant of special privilege as the adjacent sites contain less landscaping than is proposed by this proposal. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposal will have positive impacts on transportation and traffic facilities. The proposal improves the North Frontage Road circulation by providing an acceleration lane, a deceleration lane, and a left turn lane at the entrance to this site. This will promote efficient and safe traffic movements within the area. The reconfiguration of the parking area creates convenient and efficient traffic mobility internally and with the adjacent properties. Staff also believes the additional parking will provide greater safety to the public. Staff believes that the proposal to provide additional parking is a positive change even though the amount of landscape area is reduced on-site. The plan also provides for improved bicycle and pedestrian access to the site from adjacent rights-of-way and between the commercial developments. The proposal also improves the drainage system on the site. The overall safety of the site is improved by this proposal. • f:\everyone\pec\memos\safeway.812 3 B. The Plgnning_gnd Environmental Commi$sion shall m%ke the followina_ findinq$ before prantina a_Driancg 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege • inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that doe not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested landscape variances subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege is inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; 3. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title; and 4. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. The recommendation of approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The granting of the landscape variance is conditioned upon the mitigation measures as represented on the "Remodel Site Plan" (sheet SP-2 of 4, dated July 29, 1996) and landscape plan (titled Remodel Site Plan, sheet SP-3 of 4, dated July 30, 1996) prepared by Wyatt & Associates, P.C. for Safeway. 2. The owner shall not store snow on-site (other than temporary storage) and shall have snow hauled off-site; and • f:\everyonelpecWw,oslsafeway.912 4 3. The owner shall provide complete drainage plans approved by the Public Works Department and an access permit approved by CDOT for the site prior to obtaining a building permit for the building addition. is f:\everyone\peckw,mos\safeway.812 5 SAFEWAY - WEST VAIL, COLORADO • Additions and Alterations July 29, 1996 - Revised LANDSCAPE VARIANCE REQUEST WRi it i v.N NARRATIVE A. General Safeway, Inc. is currently in the process of a complete interior and exterior renovation program for the existing building in order to upgrade the store into general compliance with ct...;,..t Safeway standards. In order to maintain a competitive position in the community, and in an attempt to offer greater variety, specialty departments and improved services, Safeway is also proposing a 4,660 s.f ;,??vansion to west side of the existing building. This project would be in addition to the current interior remodeling program. According to the Town of Vail ordinances, the addition of any floor area town existing building on this site requires that current development codes and ordinances be met. To accomplish this addition of 11.8% in floor area, Safeway recognizes that functional parking is a necessity on this restricted site. With this end in mind, an agreement has been reached between Safeway and the adjacent property owner to • the east, Vail Das Schone Condominiums, to access the rear area (north) of the existing Safeway through the north parking lot of the Vail Das Schone property. This agreement makes available twenty-nine (29) new parking spaces which will primarily be designated as Safeway employee parking, thus helping to alleviate an overcrowding parking condition in the existing parking lot in front of the store. The area north of the store is currently in an unimproved landscape condition and is vegetated with native ground covers and grasses. No tree planting exists in this area. The area of this "open space" will be reduced by the proposed paved parking area, but as mitigation for this reduction, the remaining open space will be planted with trees (evergreens and deciduous) in accordance with the attached preliminary landscape plan. In addition, recognizing that landscaping in the front parking lot is currently legal non-conf.,....ing relative to cw.?..t codes, Safeway proposes to redevelop this parking lot with the addition of trees, shrubs, ground cover and new parking lot islands per the preliminary landscape plan. The following statistical summary of the existing and proposed conditions details these requirements: Written Narrative Page Two SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS: 1. Site Area = 144,571 s.f. +/- = 3.3189 ac. Legal Description: Lot 3, Vail DAs Shone Filing No. 3. County of Eagle, State of Colorado 2. Building Area = 37,397 s.f. 3. Total Existing Parking Provided - 105 spaces Ratio = 1/356 SF on gross area (1/300 SF on net area currently required by code) (Existing parking provided in 84% of requirement on gross area without adjustments for net area) 4., Landscape-Open Space 17-j Existing open space area = 35,090 s.f. (24.27%) Current codes require 25% plus parking lot landscape with specific requirements for plantings. The existing open space is basically sod, native grasses and gravel with few plantings. There is not existing internal parking lot landscaping. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CONDITIONS: 1. Site Area (unchanged) = 144,571 s.f = 3.3189 acres. 2. Building Area existing = 37,397 s.f. proposed addition = 4,660 s.f. mezzanine - 1,936 s.f. Total Gross Area = 43,993 s.f. 3. Total proposed parking spaces = 128 spaces (including 4 h.c. spaces) Ratio = 1/344 on gross area. City code allows for parking based on net floor area. Per Town of Vail review, parking required = 90 spaces (26,947 s.f. net/300 = 90) 0 4. Landscaping: Proposed landscape area 26,199 SF 18.12 % site area c Written Narrative Page,Three Current code requires 25% of site area to be landscaped. This proposal represents 72.48% of the requirement, but includes intense planting of trees where none is provided currently. The proposed landscape plan provides for new conifer trees and shade and deciduous trees. - Complete landscape borders not less that 15' in depth are not provided on the front parking lot due to existing conditions and relations for traffic flow between this parking lot and the Vail Das Schone parking lot. As mitigation for this condition, new landscape planting is r= „nosed in the frontage road right-of-way as shown on the preliminary landscape plan. Current code also requires that 10% of the interior surface of parking lot be landscaped. The proposed front Safeway parking lot is approximately 50,100 s.f. thus requiring 5,010 s.f. of landscape area. This proposal Yi sides 4,416 s.f. in new planted landscape islands (not previously existing) for a ratio of 8.9%. A variance is requested for this requirement. The rear employee parking • lot is 11,580 s. f. in area, not including the fire truck turn-around. Interior landscaping required is 1,158 s.f. and 1,396 s.f has been provided. In addition to the above notes in the statistical summary, the site plan also proposes street widening and turn lane improvements as required by the Town of Vail / Colorado Department of Highways. The plan schematically illustrates the preliminary alignment and is subject to detailed approval by these agencies. Also included is an extension of the bike/pedestrian trail along the property frontage. RESPONSES TO VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS: 1. "The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity". The proposed north parking lot will alleviate an overcrowding condition which occurs in the main parking lot of this property and adjacent . • Written Narrative Page Four properties (Nail Das Schone _and West Vail Mall) by removing employee parking from this prime area and locating employee parking in the new north lot. In addition, Safeway has agreed to construct additional "back- to-back" resident parking spaces on the Vail Das Schone site as a trade-off for allowing access across their site. This will provide the adjacent residents 20 additional parking stalls for their use. An additional 15' (+/-) of pavement surface will be added to the north edge of the existing Vail Das Schone north parking lot to provide the additional parking. No access to the new Safeway parking lot will be allowed from Chamonix Lane, thus resulting in no increased traffic in the area. Views from the residential area north of Chamonix Lane will be enhanced with the addition of intensive tree planting along the north boundary of the ' Safeway property. . The property to the west, West Vail Mall, will now be efficiently connected to the Safeway site thus accomplishing the town goals of convenient parking and pedestrian circulation between the properties. Truck access and loading to both Safeway and the West Vail Mall will be maintained as existing. 2. "The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant or special privilege". The Safeway property, and the adjacent sites to the east and west were developed in.the county and later annexed to the Town of Vail. All of these sites are currently "legal non-conforming" devel„r,...ents when compared to the existing Town of Vail development standards particularly relative to parking lots and landscaping. Due to current restricted "as- built" conditions, the proposal actually will enhance the nature of the • overall area as redevelopment will occur over time. Eventhough the t \ Written Narrative Page Five existing condition provides 24.3% "landscape area", the area is devoid of any substantial tree plantings and shrubs. This proposal, requests a variance to 18.12% landscaping, but, V.., vides extensive landscape planting which has not existed before thus resulting in an overall enhancement to the site and area in general. The impact of the actual building addition is minimized in that it is placed in an area that is currently used as truck access and service. 3. "The effect of the variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities, and public safety". This proposal does not have a negative affect on the noted factors, and in fact, will enhance traffic and public safety conditions as a result of roadway and turning lane improvements. • 4. "How the request complies with Vail's Comprehensive Plan". 0 The Town of Vail is proposing significant improvements to this portion of the town as a result of the "Vail Commons" project and projected improvements to the I-70 exit at West Vail and improvements to the north frontage road in this area. This project significantly enhances these improvements by the upgrading of a needed commercial facility and provisions for enhanced architectural and landscaping improvements. In summary, Safeway Inc. respectfully request support of these landscape variances by the Planning Commission, and Design Review Board. Upon approval of this variance request, Safeway Inc. is prepared to prepare detailed plans for submittal to the required agencies and boards. file: 27719B-4.wps nnleetr W W'- rs ri101r`M ` •?ra"p vy"bry? 'M aA? M•p?pa'"a ?a M?u?W? ar,pc ! 1 1 1 ! l ! f1 1 1 J wd?,? ?r, r+a? ?j a? Po>wy a rr ?k iii ' 1?11lI??? U-U -- - - O 1lb5 60270 0 f "S TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 CERTIFICATION STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE ss. The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and correct transcription of Agenda Item No. 4 of the Vail Town Council Evening Meeting of July 18, 1995, as it appears in the original records of the Town Clerk's office. Dated August 7, 1996 • Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) Subscribed and sworn to before me this 7th day of August, 1996, by Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk, Town of Vail. N-ary Public r My commission expires: Anne E. WgK Notary Public 9 75 S. Frontage Road % A0 RECYCLED PAPER VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 18, 1995 . Agenda Item No. 4 DISCUSSION REGARDING 250 ORDINANCE PO: Okay, the next item on the agenda is Ordinance #6, Series of 1995, first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 18.71. Additional Gross Residential Floor Area. Tom Moorhead and George Ruther. TM: Thank you Peggy. We have a most recent draft which has been in the back of the room since the meeting began earlier this evening. There are several items that I would like to point out in regard to this revised ordinance. It is noted in legislative fashion with strikeout and highlight the areas to be stricken from the ordinance are lined out. The new provisions are in highlight. PO: And for everyone here, please be sure you have the most current copy. We did discuss this briefly this afternoon at work session and some changes were made at that time. ` TM: Based on the findings of Council, particularly after reviewing what has occurred since the adoption of the 250 Ordinance and reviewing the demographics as far as where the 250 was used, pursuant to Council direction, we have presented an ordinance that removes the opportunity for a demo rebuild to take advantage of additional GRFA. Demo rebuild is described as "removal, • destruction of 50 percent or more of the GRFA." Under that circumstance it would not be qualified for the additional 250. This was based upon Council's expression that it does not believe that was consistent with the intent of the ordinance and that it really did not provide an incentive to upgrade existing houses and merely provided an opportunity for an individual to take additional advantage of GRFA without affecting the existing housing stock within the Town of Vial. Also, you will notice that the ordinance now gives the opportunity for the additional GRFA to structures which were constructed and are in existence since 1985. I think that the date that you will see in the Ordinance is to have received their Temporary Certificate of Occupancy by December 31 of 1984. Additionally, they must still have a Certificate of Occupancy prior to being able to apply for the GRFA. That's consistent with the ordinance as it was in effect previously and I think that staff has found that is appropriate to require the Certificate of Occupancy prior to the availability of the additional GRFA. That is essentially the primary changes that have been made and I think that you'll see that the strikeout and the highlight throughout the ordinance is consistent with that. I would recommend that we do go back and proofread the entire ordinance. I think that on a close observation of the existing ordinance that there are some proofreading issues that should be taken care of before its final passage. PO: Okay, thank you very much Tom. Questions from council members? Questions from anyone interested in the ordinance? Now, just to clarify and summarize, the changes include defining a dwelling that is eligible as one that was in existence prior to 1985, which meant that it had a TCO (Temporary Certificate of Occupancy) prior to December 31, 1984 and then eliminating the provision for the application for the 250 ordinance in a situation in which a demo/rebuild has occurred. We did make a third change and that is to allow this ordinance to be used in conjunt,tion with deed restricted units. Yes. And please come forward and ask questions so that we can answer them ...hear them. (inaudible)... for seven years. What was the basis of the decision to go with all dwellings built before 1985? PO Well, this was seemed to be... was a result of a discussion with members of the real estate community. They advised us that there were structures that had seven foot ceilings out there and you know T111 I guess and that were built at to time when it was questionable whether or not Vail was going to be successful enterprise and that, therefore, people didn't invest significant amounts into these. They were strictly vacation homes and that working with the constraints that resulted from that kind of construction made it difficult for people to necessarily do what they needed to do to upgrade and update those properties. What occurred in 1985 to change that? I guess... (Inaudible) What occurred in 1985 to shift the quality of construction to where everything built after that is not a concern? PO Well, I think we assume that there's a gradual evolution. But one of the things to eliminate was the scenario in which people build in expansion potential for the future and obviously this would eliminate that concern. And I think there was a feeling, and maybe 1985 is not the right year. Earlier today someone suggested 1982. I mean, maybe its 1987...there was a point in time at which it was assumed that Vail was gonna be a successful undertaking and that people were probably more likely to invest significant sums in building a structure that was more liveable. May I tell my story briefly? PO Sure. I moved from California to Vail seven years ago. The house that my wife and I purchased was built in 1987. We moved from about a 5,000 square foot house to a 2,000 square foot house. But an interesting aspect to this house, and im finding this is not that unusual, even though its 2,000 square feet, my living room/family room is about 12 x 15. So it's about 180 square feet. And im finding out that this is not that unusual. The house was actually constructed as a second house. But we decided because of the views up in the Potato Patch area that's where we wanted to live. We were told at that time that we had a progressive council that thought through that (Laughter) PO I can't imagine anyone ever saying... that if the house had been in existence for 5 years there was a 250 add on and so this was y something that my wife and I looked forward to and really had been saving essentially to do our 2 250 room addition. You mentioned something earlier about family values in the town and I totally concur with that. I think that with 72% second homeowners I think the values of creating a family environment in this town is a value I think we all support. Julie and I have been very active in this community in all different aspects and really want to continue to raise our two boys in this community, but I think the decision that's coming before the council tonight is rather arbitrary. Its a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water. I think you're trying to solve a problem that maybe is not as blatant or is not as strong as you might consider ft. Anyway, that's my story and I just wondered ... if you do adopt the resolution as its written, essentially I don't have the opportunity to add my 250. So... I would wish you would reconsider that. Thank you. PO And thanks very much for your comments. Who would like to comment next? Yes. Go ahead, Bob. And why don't you plan to be right after Bob so we can keep it moving here. BA So we can line em up and move em out. Bob Armour. I live in Vail. I'm an equipment operator for the Vail Golf Course. What I would request right now is that for the viewing audience at home for the people that come up and speak, if they could give their name, where they live and what they do for their living. I think that would be enlightening. The problem with the ordinance, the perceived problem, the intent... this has gone round and round and I've read the minutes and have just packets on that. The intent of the 250 ordinance when passed, was to help somebody like me, with an addition 10 foot wide, 25 feet long. That would be great for me. That would be a bathroom and a bedroom. In some of the instances where this has been used its merely a mud room. The misuse the demo rebuild, the ultimate remodel has been the perceived problem. Prior to this, PEC, I am also the Chairman of the Planning Commission, had to wrestle with variances requested by applicants to increase liveable area in their homes. With no real hardship due to lot size it was impossible. The Council, in its wisdom, thought that a 250 ordinance would be appropriate for locals trying to upgrade and trying to stay in the valley. I am in support of this ordinance. I think the demo/rebuild should be removed. I think we should keep the 250 as written for people that live here and need to add on and not the ultimate remodel of tearing the house down and starting over again. That was not the intent and as Ordinance No. 6 reads now, I believe a lot of locals would support this. I do. Thank you. PO Thanks very much Bob. We did ... one comment I'll make is that since we've focused... have such a fine opportunity to focus on communication with members of the community you might be interested in knowing that when we did our community survey this year, item number one in terms of priority significant issue was open space. These were people finding these to be their first and second most significant issues chosen from a list. Open space preservation came out as number one. Affordable housing in Vail came out as number two and number three was new development regulations, and the comments attached to this indicate that these are individuals concerned that - we should have more regulations to limit density. So just for your information, this is all feedback that we're all getting from members of the community. Go ahead. JH My name is John Henchman. I live at 3005A Booth Falls Road. My wife purchased our half of the duplex in 199, we're full time residents. The house was built as a vacation home. Our ... we knew when we purchased it that we had the option of adding 250 square feet to modernize it and helped to convert it to a full time residence from a vacation home. We have a postage stamp laundry, it's in a closet. We have small master bath. These are things that we would like to enlarge. 3 Unfortunately, we had to spend $20,000 to convert our in floor electrical heating to hot water baseboard because we had a fire. And that postponed or delayed our ability to do this addition. Now, all of a sudden, we are confronted with the ordinance here that says, while, our house is nine years old we can';t do it, but a house that's one year older can do it. You know, if someone said that two or three years ago now, in 1995 they're going to change the ordinance, of course we would have done something about it then. We love where we live. We don't want to move down valley. We're full time residents. We want to stay here, but we need to upgrade the house. It was built as a vacation home and we want to make it competitive with what's available down valley. So I would ask you not to penalize the people who thought that they had the five year opportunity and for us, your choice of 1985 is just a one year too early as far as we're concerned. ML John, before you leave, are you built out on your GRFA now? JH Yes. ML And how do you know that. JH I was told that. ML By? JH I was told that when I purchased the house. ML Okay. And you bought the house in 1987? JH 91. I am the third owner. ML One thing that seems to be a confusion factor that most people don't realize is that back when we changed the 250 ordinance, we also changed the way GRFA was figured in terms of mechanical rooms, and staircases, etc. And that was liberalized to the tune of a roughly, depending on the size of the house and how a house is configured, anywhere from roughly 200 - 400 square feet. So many people who think they are at a max truly are not and they probably need to have that verified by the Community Development Department. Because most houses, when they are refigured under the way it was changed and simplified back ... do you know ... remember what the date is ... when we changed this, Tom? TM 1988 was when this ordinance was last amended. It was considered for some changes in 1991. Pi Originally written in 1985 or 1986? TM 1984 was written and passed in 1985 I believe. Pi I mean, that's the basis of the 1985. Watermark (?) that was always my understanding. ML Well, this happened while I've been or, council and I've been on since ;87 so it had to happen... 4 PO Well we discussed... TS You're talking about two different things. You're talking about the 250 ordinance which was passed in `85, you're talking about when we ... simplification"of all the zoning laws and so on which was about four years ago, five years ago. PO `91? ML `91. Is that correct. (Inaudible) So I think that many people have between 200 - 400 square feet that they probably don't think they have when we simplified it. And one of the reasons that some of us feel that the 250 can go away is that they actually got that bonus that they don't know that they have. And the impact of what it means to add 500-600 square feet, you know, up to 5,000 units in the valley. That's a little bit of what the concern is. So some of you, if you're not sure, I'd encourage you to get a hold of the building department and verify what you do in fact have. JH It's the Building Department that I go see? PJ Community Development. ML Who do you want to? (Laughter.) Okay. Go to your architect is what the advise is of our Community Development Director. TM There's a reason for that Merv, because there... in the calculation someone may take a position is that's contrary to a position that's being taken by Community Development. If Community Devel„r...ent tells an individual "your maxed out" and then later an architect that they hired doesn't agree with that, it makes it appear that Community Development has mislead the individual. You really should rely upon a professional that you engage to calculate the GRFA. And then once the application is made, Community Development will make an assessment also. TS How many square feet in your house, Bob? JH About 2,900. TS Okay. Cause its ... even if you're maxed out it's always possible to reshuffle that 2,900 to get what you want rather than adding more on the outside. JH It really isn't possible. We have thought about every angle we possibly could and it really isn't possible. TS It's called "gutting". JH Now, let me understand then, I need to go hire an architect to figure the GRFA and then if the architect says I'm maxed out and then I come back and you pass this ordinance I'm dead. JS That's right. And that doesn't sound right, does it? 5 (Laughter.) • JH No. Cause I paid an architect to find out that I'm dead. JS Doesn't sound like a good deal to me either. Cause your argument is still good. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are maxed out and you still want to do this project and everyone else had and you're a year too late. Its a very good argument. JH And I could have done it several years ago. PO Thanks very much. Lynn. LF Well, I'd like to address the enforcement issue as someone who has to interpret these rules and make it such that the council sees their vision. So I am Lynn Fritzlen, I am an architect in the community. And one of the things that's very difficult to enforce is percentages when it comes to construction. And if you remember prior to the current allowance for demo/rebuild we had a fair amount of conflict in reinterpretation about what the nature of demo/rebuild is. Is it the foundation that's (inaudible) whatever. In my opinion as a practicing professional, 50% is opening the door to multitudes of interpretation. What is 50%? ML What would you suggest then? LF Well, I think that there's a good reason that we eliminated that. In the first place and, because, when you get down to the foundation often times you get down that far and you find out that the foundation isn't good. And you have to take out the foundation or you have to reinforce the foundation. There's many regulations now in force and good ones - that I am totally in support of. Like rock fall hazard, wetlands mitigation, debris flow mitigation, that were not in place in 1985 and often times people who are redeveloping their homes need to address all these issues. Sometimes you do need to go down to the bare bones to redevelop properly. Now whether the 250 is appropriate for that use or not, I think is open to some discussion. I'll tell you to go through and calculate for somebody their existing GRFA ... I'll just tell you my office time, I know what it takes one of my technicians I would say a 4,000 square foot single family or duplex we're talking at least 70 (she may have said 7) hours of technical time to re-input the information such that you can get accurate square footage takeoffs and that's about the same amount of money as some people plan for their whole addition. So it is a tough situation. Throws a burden on the applicant and maybe not unfairly. You know real estate prices here have gone up considerably. You know, maybe people do need to reassess how much square footage they have. I guess .... there's two thoughts I have. I have always been a supporter of controlled growth and when I was on the council I certainly ambivalent about several issues but I have continued to support that. It says to me that we are restricting development or restricting additional square footage on the lowest density zone districts in the Town of Vail. You know, commercial districts in this town are not limited by floor area ratios because at the time the zoning ordinance was adopted and still functions today commercial is still encouraged because we never really had quite enough of it. At . least in our own political mind. Why I mean, I can see restricting the 250 but maybe we need to look at our commercial zoning. Maybe that's where we're getting the additional squx footage. Certainly as a resident of West Vail, I am very sensitive to the issue of expanding commercial at 6 the 4-way stop. That intersection is toked to the max and anybody, and you don't have to be a professional planner to know that trip generation for residential. And especially a residential addition as opposed to new commercial. There's a big spread here. And actually I came here to tonight for the Commons first and I missed my big opportunity so that's my speel on that. I know everybody's heard enough of that. But you know, it is a sensitive issue. I guess I would like to have this ... if we are to take away the 250 I personally would like to see the enforcement issues addressed and secondly, look at it in terms of the larger zoning ordinance. Where is our new square footage coming from? Where is our traffic generation coming from? Where is the visual disturbance coming from? You know, I think people have a lot of different opinions about it. And lastly, I'd like to say one think that happens in interacting with clients and I admit my biases and prejudices . But the 250 is a no brainer. You know it's easy to enforce, it's easy to explain to people. It is a quantity that is-definable and people accept it. You know, my father developed a product here in Vail many years ago that first quantified speeding. The speed of cars. A very simple device, but up until that time, officers had the duty of going to someone and telling them, "you know I think you're really going too fast" and somebody would say, "well no, I'm a very competent driver and I am going just the right speed and I don't think I am going too fast and I think you should let me go on. This is inappropriate." Until speed limits were quantified and enforceable that didn't mean a whole lot. The 250 is a quantifiable, enforceable entity that seems to be working and seems to be something that people accept. And I won't say anything more about the Commons. ML Lynn, before you leave... (Applause) ML One of the things that you brought up that I wanted to try to get an answer to is you said that the 50%, the way that we're defining a demo/rebuild, as if you had 50%, what would you do other than that to define it? Is there a better way to? LF You know, maybe you could define it as a structural component. I don't know, but where... there are so many new regulations that effect those bare bones items. I simply don't see how you can do it. Its a new world. The technology and the regulations today, not only from the Town of Vail, but within the profession and nationally, are so different then they were in 1985. They're different than they were in 1989. To comply with all of today's expectations often times you have to rebuild numerous elements of the building. And... ML Is staff satisfied with the definition? TM I think that we were looking forward to the discussion this evening. I think we were also looking forward to some feedback from the architectural community. We have not had any feedback yet from Lynn and people in her profession and we would welcome that discussion and we anticipated that there be discussion between the Community Development Department and the community in that regard to see what is the most effective manner to define a demo/rebuild. • PO Who would like to comment? Art. $ . 7 AA For the record I am Art Abplanalp. I'm an attorney here in Vail and while I don't live within the Vail limits, I represent many clients who do. And many of those clients are going to be caught up in what I think can be characterized as an aggravation of the last settlers syndrome. We're not in a situation where the door is being slammed immediately, we're in the situation where the door is slammed 10 years retroactively. Unless you have a house which was constructed 10 years ago, you are not entitled to an ordinance which people have been relying upon since 1986. And what the motivation is for that we don't know, but we hear rumors. We hear its density. We hear its abuse of the knockdown capabilities or potential of properties. I think it would be worthwhile to reflect upon the fact that while this ordinance was originally adopted in the mid-80's, it was effectively amended by the Eagle County District Court in I think 1988 when the Town of Vail was told that it could not prevent the use of the ordinance to permit the 250 addition in the case of knockdowns. In reaction to that decision, the council had two choices. Either to refine the ordinance to prevent its use in the knockdown situation or to enact regulations permitting its use in the knockdown situation. The council at that time chose the latter. And that's one of the questions you're wrestling with now. My purpose in being here is two fold. First of all, as someone who has represented public entities for a period of time, I'd like to see government work and I'd like to see ordinances, regulation s on the books that everyone knows the meaning of and that have the effect of fulfilling the intent. That's not what you have here. Secondly, the people I work with, many of them are going to be caught up in the results of what you do if you go by this latest change of taking not only the 5 year period away, not only the 10 year, but make it a flat, if the house wasn't there in 1985 you weren't entitled to relief. There are, two problems with the ordinance from a drafting and technical standpoint that need to be addressed. First, of them being in the purpose section, "the Council" the ordinance we have before us uses on half a dozen occasions the word, "existing dwelling units." Under the original draft that was circulated today it was ambiguous as to whether "existing" meant existing at the time of the enactment of the ordinance or existing at the time of the application. Now it's aggravated by the fact that of the half dozen references to "existing" one of those says, "in existence prior to 1985." Reading through the purpose section, you're asking for arguments as to what the intention of this ordinance actually is. Secondly, although I'll grant you that the vast majority of structures that go up in the Town of Vail, particularly now, have temporary certificates of occupancy issued. Some have not in the past, and under the test that you have imposed, the basis is whether the building was in existence and a TCO was issued by a certain date. If a building was in existence and it went directly to a permanent CO it will never qualify here. You need to address the fact that a TCO has not been issued for all of the buildings in Vail and you need to address it in the alternative, either a temporary or a permanent certificate of occupancy. As to the density concern: two new items of news that I'd seen had suggested that this ordinance permit the use of interior space whether its a 20 foot high living room ceiling or a 20 foot high garage, for the development, and that would not be affected by this, that's not true. I suggest that there is not reason within your purposes, if the purpose is density within the Town of Vail or appearance of density to prevent the improvement of interior space, which does not effect the bulk of buildings. Although twice that has been in the newspapers its not in the ordinance. As a matter of fact, the two items that come closest to that relating to the conversion of garage space, are very much in conflict between the single family and two family dwellings verses the condominium. And there's no reason for it. I suggest to you that you ought to review those and they ought to be made consistent. I'll grant you that the inconsistency is in the ordinance as it has existed in the past, but if you're going to try to redo this and try to make sense of it then that's something yoi- should address. 8 ML Art, could you explain that a little clearer? AA Well, if you look at the provision relating to single family and two family dwellings... 0 PO What page are you on, Art? AA It's at the top of page three. If any proposal provides for the conversion of a garage or enclosed parking area to GRFA, such conversion will not be allowed unless a new garage or enclosed parking area is also proposed. Plans for a new garage or enclosed parking area shall accompany the application under this chapter and shall be constructed concurrently with (inaudible) conversion. The similar provision is related to multi-family dwellings is found at the top of page four. Portions of existing enclosed parking areas may be converted to GRFA under this ordinance if there is no loss of existing parking spaces in said enclosed parking area. There is a difference in application which, if you're looking for consistency in an ordinance that people can understand and rely upon, as Lynn talked about, you ought to look at making those look substantially identical. ML Could you explain how you feel that's inconsistent? AA Well, the ... in the case of the multi family dwelling, you have to have no loss of existing parking spaces in said enclosed parking area. In the case of the single family dwelling, you have the option of constructing a new garage elsewhere. Why the diff;,.,;...ce? And in neither of those, in both of those cases, even though there is no increase in density, you still can't do it if the building was constructed or a TO or a CO was issued January the 15th, 1985. ML I understand that issue. But this is a first reading and for those who aren't familiar with our procedure, its these kinds of things that we do want to pick up... AA That's why I'm addressing it this evening. ML But before you go forward, Tom do you have an answer? TM Well, all of the parking regulations are different between the single family and the multi family structure. It's calculated differently and the obligations are different. And I think it's consistent and understandable that the regulations would be different as far as the addition of the 250 as it pertains to the parking. AA That's for the Council to decide. TS He does have a point though, that a lot of houses never got an occupancy certificate of any kind, my own included, because there was no planning and zoning in the county or in the town. There wasn't any town when the house was built. So there was never one issued. So therefore, even though under the definition here, I couldn't get the 250 if I wanted it. TM There was previously included within this ordinance and you'll notice the strikeout and I don't . have the page right in front of me, it refers tc- ... on page three under provision 3A and previously 9 the ordinance and presently the ordinance says at least five years must have past from the date the building was issued a TCO or a minimum of six years must have past from the date the original building permit was issued for construction of the building. That actually provides for the situation that Art has described, where a building is in existence but has never been issued a TCO. AA But it may not apply to Tom's. Did you have a building permit at that time? I'd be surprised. TS No. TM So that's the way the ordinance is written at this time and the ordinance at this time requires one of those two things. AA There are other people who would like to speak, but the message I would like to convey is the ordinance is intended to address a problem which it doesn't address. If someone wants to create additional GRFA within the boundaries of the existing dwelling, who cares? If people who have relied upon this for three years, six years, nine years, are now having it pulled out from under them, there's offense to be taken. And that's not what they expect their governments to do. If you want to establish a date as a cutoff, perhaps you'd better... you might say a CO or in construction for five years, and the building was constructed prior to whatever the effective date of the ordinance is... in August, of 1995. People then have notice. People will not have relied upon notice only to have this council change the rules after they have relied on them for anywhere up to nine years. Thank you. 40 PO Thanks Art. Pi When was the reannexation of West Vail (applause) complete? TM That varies. I think up until 1988 they were still going through it. PB Yeah. (Inaudible) for three years. LE The reannexation of West Vail, I think it was about `82 - (inaudible) PB Actually, the effective date of the de-annexation, I will never forget, was September 11, 1985, and I think it took us about three years to get the various areas back in. TM So it was about 1988, Pam? PB I think when we got... PO Kent had his hand up for a while and then Dalton. Was your comment specific? DW My comment is with something Art brought up. • PO Oh, well, then why don't you come up here ... daughter) I'm ust trying to keep this moving because we're you know, running behind here and we want a °eryone to have a chance to 10 comment. DW My name's Dalton Williams, a member of the Planning Commission. I think one think Art brought up about the conversion of garage space... what if someone is required to have two parking places and builds three when they have kids that are in the house and they need three parking places and then later they want to take one of those parking places which is in excess of our requirements and use part of that against the 250 to turn that into liveable space. I haven't read this since I wasn't at the meeting when we went through this on the Planning Commission, but that seems like a loophole. That if somebody has built excess garage and its within the town rules and they then want to convert some of that space and still have the required interior parking, I don't see why we would not allow that to be used in the 250 because it doesn't enlarge building and doesn't decrease the amount of required parking. PO Thanks Dalton. Okay, Ken. KW I'm Ken Wilson I reside at 792 Potato Patch. I thought I knew what I was gonna say, but between Art and Dalton I don't even know why I'm here anymore. (Laughter) I'm totally confused. First of all, id like to clarify something that Peggy spoke of originally in her comments. I think the 1985 date was originally picked because that was the date of the ordinance. The original ordinance. It was no magical date that the Realtors worked with or anything such as that in our work session. And we also talked about that date rolling and not being a set date. To pick a set date would mean that not only the ordinance and the houses would be obsolete. Because you gotta keep rolling. You cant just use a set date. But hopefully that clarifies that. I don't know how many years I've come before the Town Council. How many times I've come before the Town Council on the 250 rule and I'm still not sure what the problem is. I'm not sure why we need to change it. We talked about some abuses and it seems to be in the demo/rebuild area and I think we've come to that conclusion that there's a way to solve that problem. I don't know if it's 50%. I don't know if it's 80%, I don't know what the solution is but that is a clearly an area that if there has been abuse, its there. The rest of the idea of the 250 I think in the intent was to make a matter of choices of families that live in this town and that plan to live in the town so that they can stay here and enjoy living in Vail. That they don't have to move down valley. I think we've heard from other people, myself included. I've expanded my house and my family can stay here because I was able to expand my house. I think what it all boils down to is that in order to compete, whether its in the real estate market or whether its selling lift tickets or whatever it is, you have to renew and you have to revitalize. And I think this is what this ordinance allows the town to do. You can get something that was old and you can make it better and you can make it new and you can make it shine. And to take that away, I think, hurts the people in the town, the town, and it goes right on through to transfer tax revenues as far as you want to go. So I would encourage you not to make such drastic changes as you're proposing here and to set a date and this thing still needs to be worked on. Thank you. (Applause) 4% ?J PO Okay. Who would like to be next? Thanks Ken. • FM My name's Frank McKibben. I reside at 5095 Main Gore Drive. We spoke in our work sessions 11 about the transition of use and I heard an example here tonight of what I would define as a transition of use and that is somebody who... where a house was previously used as a vacation home and now its being used for permanent use. Permanent habitation. And obviously a lot of houses that were built in Vail were built with the idea of being second homes. And I think this ordinance has a lot of people... to make Vail their homes and not to have to choose to live elsewhere. Those of us who are involved in the real-estate profession see people making these choices daily and we are not only in a competitive situation with other ski areas, but within our own market there are competitive choices to locate in other towns as well. And I think eventually those choices, if they go against the Town of Vail to frequently, will be to our disadvantage, we'll find the center of growth the center of interest, gravitating west and the town just being left as an older, not as useful, place to live and people being able to find a more productive residence elsewhere in the county. I'm a little bit confused by the message that you all seem excited about the 99 world championships and the economic growth that would come from that. And it's my personal opinion that if you have economical growth without physical growth it's only gonna translate to higher prices, exasperating the transition of people outside the Town. You know, I think we always have to deal with a certain amount of physical growth. I also ask the question that Ken asked. What is the problem? You know, its always been very ambiguous. Nobody's ever pointed out to me that house is a problem, that house is a problem, I don't see it. I've seen some very old, dilapidated ski chalets turned into magnificent homes. I don't feel they're too dense. I don't feel they're crowding out the wilderness and I don't see the problem. Thank you. PO Thank you Frank. Galen. GA My name's Galen Aaslan. I'm an architect and I live in West Vail. I have a house up there and just to address a couple of things that have been mentioned. Peggy talked about that one part of the survey that people were concerned about development regulations and I probably signed that, but it's like if what I believed I signed when I signed that probably had to do with the fact that the regulations are ... there's so much regulation that it's just basically some of it's kind of unintelligible and I think this is actually... the 250's very, as someone else said, is very easy to understand. I mean, one thing that Merv addressed before was that when the... a few years ago there was a redefinition of what GRFA is, but before there was all kinds of bonuses given for a mechanical room for different things. For a vestibule and stuff like that and, for instance, in my particular house I didn't do anything when I first did it to increase the mass or bulk of the building and so, basically it's a wash for me. I mean I didn't ... there's certain houses that did stuff to increase mass and bulk, but in my particular case I mean I basically built an average house... you know a house with average stuff and I really didn't get anything extra for the change on that. There was credits given because staircases used to double up. You only counted them once but you don't get that credit anymore. So basically it all balanced out. But I'm against the adoption of this regulation. I think it's really against what the original intent of the ordinance was. The intent was... I started my house,-I got my building permit in °1989. When I did it I couldn't afford to build my house the way it was. I'm very lucky to be able to have a house in Vail. I intend to live in Vail the rest of my life. When I did it I couldn't afford as much as I did, but I built as much as I could and so I didn't build a living room and I basically set aside a space based on what I thought I would have. And I have a small lot in West Vail and so I basically assigned a certain amount of square footage that would hopefully I would be able to save in a number of years and be able to do this. • This ordinance, if you adopt it, would affect me greatly. And so I do see the challenge with the demo/rebuild. I don't know a particular answer for that. If the Town wants to study that I would be 12 willing to you know work with the staff for some time because I do see that as a challenge that a lot of people seem to take offense with. But I really think that this just encourages people to move • down valley and really the intent ought to be to keep families like Kurt Hanson, hopefully me and other people to stay here and want to stay here, but it seems that when I read Xhis ordinance the Council's really saying it's like you know you plan for this down the way or you've got a house that was done after this `85 date it's too bad, that's just the way it is. I think it's a really negative ordinance. Thank you. PO Thanks. (Applause.) Whoever would like to be next should be ready to go. Dave, are you next? (Laughter) DC I came right from the tennis court. My name is Dave Cole and I've lived in the town since 1972. My address for the record is 1450 Buffer Creek Road. I agree with all the prior comments and its obviously a complex situation and you folks obviously are trying to do what you think is best for the town and we appreciate that. I think there's an issue of consistency that you need to address. And that is when I first came to the town, lets say from 1972 - 1977/78 the Town Council and specifically the Planning and Zoning folks were kind of in a down zoning mode and you knew that in the future you were likely to get down zoned in some way. And then the climate sort of leveled out and you knew you could sort of depend upon what was there and it wasn't gonna go up and it wasn't gonna go down. And then somewhere in the last ten years we got to what I would consider to be a more enlightened approach and it had to do with the redevelopment of the Village and Lionshead. And that approach was if you improve your building, if you redevelop your building which was done all up and down Bridge Street to I think the benefit of the town significantly, there were some tweaks done and some enhancements done in the zoning that you would allow specifically things like the Sonnenalp because there was a major advancement in quality and image to the town. And im suggesting, as everyone else is suggesting that that same opportunity needs to be maintained in the housing base and it's inconsistent if you go and allow improvements and tweaks and increases on Bridge Street and over in Lionshead, but you don't do it to the residential housing base. So I'm asking you to be consistent one way or the other in addition to everything else that's been said and I apologize for coming directly from the tennis courts. (Laughter and applause) PO Anyone else wanting to comment? Hermann. HS Thank you. My name is Hermann Staufer and I live at 1067 Ptarmigan Road. I don't want to repeat anything which was said or the things we said earlier when we had a work session. I think the ordinance which was adopted some ten years ago served its purpose. I think it was a good ordinance. It still is a good ordinance. I think if it isn't broken, don't fix it. I take exception to part of the ordinance where it starts to say that it is a benefit to the individual. No benefit to the Town of Vail at all. When we, the early people came to Vail it was very fashionable to ski and then sit in front of the fireplace and drink some wine and eat some cheese. It was a wonderful evening. We have grown up to be a world class resort. You have five star hotels here. The consumer is so much different now than it was 25 years ago. Now the 250 ordinance has allowed some people to scrap an old building and build a new one. Now you tell me that you didn't have any benefit if 13 somebody, did this. We knew what we know right now that retail hasn't been as it should have . been last year. The sales tax was down. Big surprise. Well we knew that already in February if you had asked some of the restauranteurs or some of the shops. Now real estate is a big, big part of this town's economy. There's absolutely nothing wrong if somebody makes a profit for selling a house tearing it down and selling it to somebody who is able and willing to build a big house. And I give you an example in my neighborhood. My next door neighbor you knew sold her house. The ten years before she sold her house she never had cleaned up her garden. The dishes were as high as up to the first floor. The house was sold. It was torn down. I'm sure you pocketed (inaudible) real estate transfer tax. The architect made good money because he gets a good percentage of the fee. The building must have cost I don't know how many millions of dollars. You had from every facet of the construction company input to this town because people are working in this town and people worked on that building and now after they furnished it I know I've been in that house there's a lot a lot of galleries which sold in this town to that particular individual where you got sales tax from and every day there are gardeners out there and there's a maid there and there's absolutely a wonderful, beautiful building where there used to be a shack. Now you tell me that you didn't get any benefit out of that transaction. Now you tell me that the real estate people don't have a benefit a wonderful benefit - a great impact to this town. Im not a real estate person, I don't sell real estate, im not a developer. But ill tell you one thing, you take away the real estate transaction of this town and you've seen the percentages, how much it-was over the last few years, what the heck have you got left? Please do not eliminate the 250 ordinance. Leave it the way it is. Don't tangle with it. It's a good ordinance. It works. Thank you. is PO Okay. Thank you. (Applause.) LE Hi. My name's Larry Eskwith. And im really attached to the original GRFA ordinance the 250 ordinance. PO Did you write it, Larry? LE I wrote it. And not only did I write it, but it worked. You know I mean there was a problem that the town was faced with and it was a real problem. Planning Commission was getting overloaded with variances for small additions of GRFA to existing homes and they really had no legal way of granting those GRFA additions because the variance sections of the code has very strict language relating to hardship. So the solution was the 250 ordinance. And it was passed and it's been in existence for a long time. And indeed the problem that was presented to me and to the council to solve was solved by the original 250 GRFA additional GRFA ordinance. I guess the question I have now is why- are we doing away with it if it works? PO Well, we're not talking about doing away with it, Larry. LE In a way you are, Peggy, because what you are doing is you are locking it into a date which happened a very long time ago. People are going to continue to build houses in the Town of Vail. Those homes are going to continue tc become obsolete. People are going to continue to have families. They're going to want addit`onal bedrooms. They're going td 'want additional hot tub 14 enclosures and they'll no longer be able to get those because their home wasn't constructed and in existence prior to 1985. I'd like to talk about the provision of the ordinance which is directed to • tear downs and rebuilds. That occurred about two years, maybe,three years after the ordinance was originally passed. We had a tear down and rebuild, they came in and asked for the additional 250 and it was controversial. The council didn't know which way to go. There was a lot of discussion at that time and I think what Lynn said tonight was one of the prime issues at the time. How do you determine what a demo and a rebuild is. And its not as easy as it sounds. Its very confusing and the council decided that they's rather not try and make that determination. That there was no definition that suited them. The other issue I think which was considered by the council was that if you look at the purpose section of the original ordinance it talks about the ordinance being an inducement to the upgrading of single family dwellings and dwelling units in two family dwellings constructed within the Town of Vail. And what's the ultimate upgrading of a dwelling? Well, if you take an old dwelling that is in need of repair quite badly, you tear it down and you build a new dwelling. I think that's the ultimate upgrade and I still think that the Town has been benefitted rather than hurt by that addition to the original ordinance. Again, I think it solved the problems that it was meant to solve. I see no problems that it's created. I feel like the rest of the people who have already spoken here tonight. What is the problem that the council's been presented with that it needs to legislate against tonight? I don't see it. I think we have an ordinance presently which works- It ought to be left alone. PO Thank you. (Applause) PO Anyone else want to comment? Okay, if no one else... oh yes. Lou I got one. I'm not into real estate, I'm not into building ...but Cleaning. You're in everything. PO There's a link there, Lou. Lou Okay, Hermann brought up something and he missed one point. How much revenues did the town get for building fees and the destination tax that's taxed onto the material. Has anyone ever figured that out? This Council always seems to base everything on economics. You're loosing approximately a half a million to 3 million dollars in tax revenues for the remaining 1300 units that are single family and multiple family that this applies to if they did the 250. And that's just basically based upon the building fee cost period. Not the tax on the material. PO Thank you Lou. Any other comments? Okay. • KW Good evening. My name is Karen Wilhelm and I reside at 4289 Nugget Lane. Im a Realtor and three years ago my husband and I were faced with the decision to stay where we are in East Vail that we love and remodel or move down valley. We could have gone down valley and purchased a • single family home with a three car garage on a fairway for what we invested in our home to stay in East Vail. By so doing the remodel, which we wouldn't have dc--le without the 250 rule, we've 15 increased the value of our home and the appearance of it and the value and appearance of the • neighborhood. Without Vail Associates putting the money that they do into the mountain, without the businesses creating the ... or you creating the incentives for the businesses to improve their businesses we wouldn't be looking at the `99 situation. We wouldn't be looking at the success that we're enjoying today. If we don't create every incentive possible for residents to also make capital improvements and investments in their property, it won't continue to be world class. Its more than just the core, it has to reach to the outlying areas. Thank you. PO Thank you. (Applause.) MC Im Michael Cacioppo. As most of you know I served on council back in the late 80's. I supported the 250 back then. I still support the 250. I think its on a of the best things we ever did to people in this community. As I read your ordinance, I find it to be arbitrary and capricious. I certainly expect somebody's going to sue you on it. I predict yore gonna loose. I've been pretty good at those predictions over the years. I think you ought to continue to give people freedom. You've moved a lot of people down valley. There's a lot of people down valley that wish they could still live in Vail that have spoken to me over the years, but they really feel like yore driving them out. I think this is another nail in the coffin to continue to drive them out. If that's really what you want to do I think that's the way to do it. If you pass this but your sense of community up here from the people im talking to, is diminishing and 1 think you all know that. And I think this -is bad law. Where do you come up with five years or ten years to decide what someone can add to and somebody else cant? That's pretty weak law and I strongly recommend you drop it. Do something for the people. Thank you. PO Thank you, Mike. (Applause.) _ I listened to everyone talking and hearing about density and I was just thinking if we're talking about density... my neighbor has a house with four walls and a roof and he wants to have that as one big room as barn. Or if he... and then suddenly he wants to change that. And he wants to make that a lot of different rooms, break it up into a lot of space, unless he's turning it into a bordello and invite me over im gonna complain. But on the other hand, what difference does it make? The zoning I think is what's critical and if family increases yore increasing some density in a residential area. I hear you got some feedback in your questionnaires, but I don't know how many people thought this through, but you increase your density a little bit in a residential area, its not as much impact as long as you don't have adequate parking as you would by going out and building in your open space. But it seems to be even more of a concern to community is taking away that open space. I think this whole valley needs to look at keeping their density in the community that we have. Its one way to keep it and let it still be that way without taking away what we all came here for is to have some of that open space area (inaudible). And im a contractor and I think I don't know how many 250 additions I've done, including my own, but I have yet to have one that • wasn't for a family looking to increase space for their own personal use or their grandchildren, or whatever. I bet you all the problems you've had have probably been illegal ones ratl -r than ones 16 that went through the town. So I think you oughta... I'd rather see more than 250 if somebody kept it within the confines of the house that he has. I don't see any reason why it would make that big . of a difference. Thank you. PO Thank you. (Applause.) PO Okay, if there are... - Peggy, maybe if you could get a show of hands of people who support the council... PO Let me... maybe I should in all honesty explain where we stand on this situation. We do have several council members and I think the comments been made tonight this is difficult to turn into .... its easy to deal with this as a black and white issue. The easiest course of action is to eliminate the ordinance entirely. Or to keep it intact. Some of us had hoped that we could work out a compromise and we could eliminate some of the provisions that we feel... you know, the demo/rebuild I guess the reality of it is that if yore gonna demolish a substantial portion of your building, the question really comes back, why at that point, are you not able to work within the zoning regulations that we have? And I think that's the questions that a number of us have been wrestling with. And furthermore, demo/rebuilds that have been done really... we asked the staff to come back with a map and tell us where these were and all that. And really, these are second homes, folks. Now I think that makes a case that if yore gonna have to include demo/rebuilds along in a scenario in which we're trying to benefit people are trying to remain as local residents, its difficult to make a choice. Do you not want second homes? Is that why you (inaudible) PO Frank, I think that its not a question of the real estate community crumbling, its not a question of not wanting second homes in the community, its a question of the reality of if someone's gonna demolish and rebuild their home, what is the valid argument that says that that individual deserves a bonus of additional square footage? Why cant they work within existing regulations? Don't we allow enough GRFA? Should we allow additional GRFA across the board? I mean I would be more in favor of that sort of response than taking the approach that we' [re taking through the demo/rebuild. Now and im just clarifying the situation for you here because I think some of us have tried to work in a compromised direction. But... But how is it any different than PUD or Special Drum (?) District on Bridge Street and because yore getting a whole new building out of the thing you should (inaudible) extra GRFA because it makes it economically viable and its a trade off for getting a brand new building. PO You know, I don't really, I mean, I just wanted to clarify the situation. I mean if we're in a situation where this is all or nothing that may cast a different light on it for several of us up here. But why don't we take some time, you know to hear what council members have to say. • P.+ I'd like to make some comments, Peggy. 17 PO Sure, go ahead Paul. • PJ I was involved in passing the ordinance in `85 and I think that our time perspective is fairly parochial. At that point in time the town was all of 23 years old. And we somehow picked five years as a (inaudible) for validating needs, values, whatever. And the reason I asked the question about the annexation and the reannexation was because we were at that point in the frustration of the de-annexation, not the solution of it and im sure when we were addressing that ordinance we were not at all sensitive to the status of houses that were subsequently annexed into Vail that had not been built according to Vail building codes, ordinances, standards, or whatever. And whether that five year would have been different or not I don't have any way of knowing, but that's certainly, I mean our total community was not a part of the decision quotion? as it were, but if you look at five years or 23 years as one fifth and so now we're all of 33 years old. So does that mean we ought to be thinking in terms of seven years, I don't know if that's any more relevant that the five years. My main fanation at this point is because we still have a large part of our community that has not been impacted by the use of the 250 that certainly the community could be benefitted by their implementation of it. I think that I would be inclined to see Vail stay with the five year. The demo/rebuild (inaudible) of the big problem with excluding that. I can accept that concept that a large, well that a demo/rebuild of itself does not warrant a bonus. That probably a good living space can be accommodated hopefully within the ordinances of a demo/rebuild in a lot of instances. By the same token, if somebody has a home in West Vail that has an unordinarily small lot that was annexed into Vail, maybe that substantiates hardship. Maybe that substantiates and warrants variances that would allow a more habitable living situation for a permanent resident, • whatever. And I know, you cant discriminate, blah blah blah, but im having real problems with the arbitrariness of the ten year or a 1985 date and I suspect that it does need to float. I suspect there are a lot of people who under the belief that they had a five year measuring stick, have not been able to save the money required to do those kinds of things that we would be disadvantaging by making that change. So my inclination at this point would be to agree with the change on the demo/rebuild, and to the change proposed about the employee housing issue, but not to change the five year. PO - Okay. Thank you very much. SN Im sitting here thinking gee, you would think given the quantity of time the discussion and interest that's gone into this issue was the most important thing that happened in the last ten years. I think we've had I don't know how many work sessions on it and its the second or third time... PO You haven't even been here for most of them. SN I know. And you know what comes to me tonight is that truly every time we address it there's a new problem that comes up with the new version that makes it just about as bad as the last one. I think we end up with a balance issue here. I don't really see that what we have here tonight is that much of an improvement. I guess I feel like Paul does regarding the demo/rebuild. I feel like if we can ... somebody starting from scratch they ought to be able to resolve the problems in the house with architectural solutions. I've been here 14 hours, I'm having a (inaudible). But I think Lynn • brings up a eery good point and im not sure that we're in a position right tonight to address and that is how noes one define at what point it is demolished. And I think that maybe that needs a 18 little more care in the definitions. Id like to hear some more input from people who are in that field and this is the first time I've heard anybody mention anything about new regulations that may have changed the conditions under which you can keep portions of the structure in place. We've never talked about that. I cant believe there's some aspect of this that we haven't talked about at this point. The five, ten year doesn't make that much difference to me either, but I do think the 1985 flat year is probably unrealistic. I think that we should leave the community some flexibility in enabling them to improve their homes so that they will stay. I don't see that the abuses outweigh the benefits. And as far as the one minor change in the employee housing. Certainly I think that should be addressed. But im not sure we're in a position to vote on this tonight with proof reading and definition changes. And I'd almost suggest we table it. PO Often what we can do is make changes between first and second reading. I mean since we are at first reading here instead of second. Obviously tabling is another option. But on a standard basis we often make changes between first and second read. Tom is that ... TS I have advocated over the last eight years that we do away with portions of this ordinance. I still feel that way. There are local small house situations that I feel for, but unfortunately we cannot discriminate against big lots, big houses, etc. My main problem is that there have been a few architects and a few builders that have abused this and they're so far the ones that have used it the most. My concern with the five year limit is, and its already happened, that people build in to their buildings areas which are not covered as GRFA but they're just waiting for their five years to go by so they can kick the wall in and suddenly its GRFA. Those are the kind of abuses that make me react to say, "stop it!" • (Inaudible.) TS I have the floor. If you want to speak after me, fine. PO Please don't debate. TS As far as im concerned definitely do away with the tear downs. And I see no great problem in setting a definitive date and living with it. The houses that are being built now in five years to come back in for a 250 when they've had the opportunity to use all their GRFA all the latest techniques and so on, why in five years are they entitled to 250 more square foot when the lot next to it that was not built on doesn't get that 250? Im not saying that... our surveys indicate that people are concerned with all these gross big houses that are being built and I agree with them. PO Thank you, Tom. Jan... JS I think the best thing said in here, why the hell are we even discussing this. I don't see the problem. I don't see the abuse. And I think if we've got big houses its not because of the 250 ordinance. If that's what we want to do away with, we've got to approach the problem from a completely different issue. So I don't see why we want to make any big changes in it because I see the benefits. I think the reason that this 250 ordinance was brought up in 1985 still exists. If you • go up and you look at Forest Road and you think that's terrible. I think we should be envious that we have such a wonderful neighborhood. A nd if the 250 foot ordinance helped create that 19 neighborhood, God bless us. Cause I can see it all the time... (applause.) The problem with this • community is not its greatness. The problem with it is where we haven't lived up to our potential. And we should use every possibility to encourage people to redo their homes. And I think that this has proven so far to be very successful. A lot of people who we've talked tonight. Kurt, a couple of other gentlemen here said that they wouldn't have redone their houses or even stayed here had they not had this opportunity. I believe that. And there's a lot of improvement that we still need to do in this community. So I would believe that the basic intent of the 250 is still there and I would like to see us continue it. I have a question on the only one I have this question in my mind is ... beyond I think we need to eliminate our restricting it to deed restricted units. I think they should be able to participate in this also. In the demo/rebuild issue. Lynn, maybe you could help me with this cause you brought it up. If I had a house and now its old. I built it in the early 70's and I've been waiting, waiting, waiting, finally to add my 250 square feet and I started to do it and I found out that I had sub-standard foundations and I was in some kind of zone that I needed to fix and I needed to change all my siding and my electrical floor was against code and all I had to change it. And I had to tear the thing down literally. Now are you going to take my 250 square feet away. So im not gonna do it. Im just gonna leave that house sit there aren't I? I mean, isn't that a scenario that's possible? LF (Inaudible) yeah, it actually happens. JS So in a sense, this demo/rebuild is a big issue. I can see that you don't want to give it away. But I don't understand why. I mean if people have waited and they want to tear down their house and make it completely new, aren't we all gonna benefit out of that? • LF Could I press on one thing? The controlling issue for the smaller lots as you get into West Vail and I can say this (inaudible). When you get into a lot that's under 15,000 square feet, site coverage and height are the strongest restrictions. GRFA is no longer the control anyway. So this eliminating the 250 is going to only affect probably lots that have more than 2,000 square feet. Unless you go back (inaudible). But you know the other issue (tape ends here)... Yeah we are (inaudible) our residence restrictions that if you have enough (inaudible) you tear it down. You have to conform back to the zoning. And I know, I know I've had several applications where we have had non conforming residences where we have had (inaudible) conforming through a demo/rebuild. So in my mind, this (inaudible) aspect of the ordinance needs to be modulated as well with the residential. I (inaudible) certain discriminations, and the reason I see the discrimination is because the 250 is such an easy target. Its easy to understand, its easy to enforce, and its easy to poke holes in. I personally would like to see a whole reexamination of our commercial zoning ordinance and its a very difficult issue to address. PO Thanks. Thank you. JS Last but not least, I would suggest that 250 square feet new in a home to a lot of people is really one of the major opportunities of creating any (inaudible) for themselves and their family. And I swear that there's not anyone in this room that has an eye good enough to see a house that was built before the 250 and after the 250 and (inaudible) say, "Oh, God, look at that big monstrosity, • they really have... that 250 really changed that..; (laughter) :..oy, im moving out of town - its too much." 250 square feet is less than 10% of anybody's home here in general. So I don't think wed 20 even see it and particularly if it isn't gonna change the footprint. So the only thing I would change in this ordinance is to get rid of the deed restriction penalty and if there's any other typos in here • that you suggest, I think we should correct those. PO Thank you, Jan. Mr. Shearer. JimS This isn't gonna feel good to anybody in this room. I think a great deal of... Id say the vast majority of the people that I see out there, a lot of you are my friends and I think we all should be a little embarrassed starting at 1985 forward that we ever passed something like this to begin with. If you know of another town that has 250 square feet that you can add later after you've already said heres how many square feet you can have whether we call it GRFA or square feet, I don't care. And then say okay, well in a few years you can build a few more. Id like to know where that came from. Yet it ends up being something that we get our blood in a boil about, what, three or four times a year and then we talk about... and when I first got on council, was the one that said we should table it cause I didn't want to deal with it. But we consistently say lets table it so we can think about it again. I don't really want to table it cause we'll go through this same amount of time and amount of brain damage. But the part that's gonna hurt all of our feelings, and ill identify with this to is this is one of the most intelligent counties in the state of Colorado. And we cant seem to come to grips with how to handle this. I started to begin this little talk by saying im for 250 and long live it just so I could get applause. But let me tell you that's an insult to our intelligence. That doesn't say we're one of the smartest counties. And I would love to get the people with Vail Commons issues back in here again because that really doesn't settle anything. It doesn't move anybody. Its a ... it doesn't even make you feel good I don't think. And thank God, we don't • applaud each other for making profound statements whenever we think we make em up here. We are not dealing with this I don't think, in an adult fashion or in an intellectual fashion. When we first brought this up the other day, some very good people from the Vail Board of Realtors came in and we talked about how maturely we were going to approach this. Some of you are back. And its in the old way again. If I had my preference on how we handle this and the only win, win situation is to pass a new ordinance that says everybody can have 250 square feet, I don't care if you had it before, I don't care if its an old house, I don't care if its a new house, but never again do you again do you go outside 250. Whatever it is, just say, "That's it!" And if an architect cant be creative enough to make that work within his existing structure then we either need a new architect or we need a new home. Sometimes we do outgrow it. And thank God for inflation in the Town of Vail and the County of Eagle. You can move into another home because you can make some money on what you did and you can move up. You just pay the difference. Its not like we're just boxed in and maniacal every time we cant put 250 square feet and I agree with you Jan. You cant drive down the street and tell the difference. Most of the time you cant go through the house and tell the difference. This is an issue I wish we could just put to bed and be through with. And that's why it keeps coming up- because we keep dinking around with it in the Planning Department to the point that we need more personnel to take care of it then we do on the real big issues. Whether they're commercial or residential. It makes no difference. They need to deal with real issues and what they're dealing with is this 250 something that they're trying to get 500 square feet out of or is it really 250? Do they deserve it? Do they not deserve it? Then it comes through each one of the boards and each one of them has to kick it back and forth. I mean every time it comes up that DRB • or PEC has looked at a 250 issue we always analyze this on ours and question whether or not we should call it up. And how many times we do, as you well know. That's a waste of time. There are 21 other things that are more important to deal with. So that's my speel and that's why im against the 250 rule. No applause. Thank you. PO They're holding their applause. Merv Lapin. ML You know I think fortunately all of us basically y have the same goals. I think we all want basically the same thing from Vail. Whether its an economic help or if its a quality of life. The problem that we have and it goes basically to the 250 rule in some regards, its our definition of what's the quality and how we define it. I am against the 250 ordinance. If I had my preference, I would do away with it completely for several reasons. Number one, we've got approximately 5,000 units in town and although all of them couldn't use the 25, or wouldn't use the 250, its a potential for about a million and a quarter square footage. We're 92% built out interims of land. But in terms of GRFA, in terms of what is built on that 92% we're probably 50 - 60% built out in GRFA. Imagine, if you would, what this town would look like if the amount of GRFA throughout this valley was basically doubled. And that's truly what we're looking at. Now will the 250 completely solve the problem if the ordinance goes away with? It wont. Because the problem is 'the fact that we have a very generous GRFA ordinance on the. books now. I object to the fact that we've made it even more generous than it needs to be. 250 square feet even if its by half of the units, the latter half of a 1,600,000 square feet. Crossroads is about 60,000 square feet. I don't think its desirable for any of us to have a valley that has another 10-20 Crossroads spread all over it. So that's Frank, what the problem is interims of how I look at it. The other problem is a logical one. What do we do when everyone uses their 250? Aren't we going to have the same problem, • "Oh my God, I just need another 250 square feet because this bedroom's too small or this room doesn't quite work." I mean the problem just doesn't go away with everyone using the 250. You'll have the same arguments from the next generation of people that want to live in Vail. The reason people move out of Vail, although there's some examples where people havg stayed or haven't stayed because they could or could not expand their houses, is beSause there's a difference in terms of what you can build for and what you can sell for. And isn't that really what the argument is from most of the Realtors? Another 250 square feet is another profit, in some cases, up to $1,000 a square foot. If you can build between 100 and 200 and in Vail mainly for 200 and you can sell it for 400 or 1,000. No. (Inaudible.) ML Well -I think it is. (Inaudible) .. to live here, we want to raise our kids here, we want to prosper here, but we're not (inaudible). ML And Eric, in your particular case I don't have a good answer for you. I mean I respect what you're saying and I agree with you and I feel for you. But to feel for you means that im going to have to go along with an ordinance that I see adding between 6 and 700,000 square feet more to the town and I think that's a mistake. _ 4)ver 5,000 units in the town to date in our 30 years, how may people have taken advantage of it? S_ :- 22 ML Well it isn't a 30 year situation. There's about 175 So you're predicting that the build out is going to increase exponentially (inaudible.) ML I think the reason that the build out ... well it has increased and I think the reason that it has increased is because the difference between what you can build for and what you can sell for. Not in all cases. But in the vast majority of those 175 units as Peggy has stated, are second home owners. (Inaudible.) ML That may be. PO Let's avoid... its getting late. Lets all be kind to each other. Lets not debate with each other. Lets take turns. Now Merv, are you finished with your comments? ML In terms of demo/rebuild I think that... I find it hard to believe that anyone needs a 250 square feet as an incentive to rip down a house and completely rebuild it. One of the reasons that I had thought that we had simplified the ordinance a few years ago was in fact to handle the kinds ... it was basically a simplification. And in that particular case we gave people, not in Galen's case and not in all cases, but in general we gave people, depending upon how they constructed that house originally and whether they had a lot of stairways and mechanical rooms, between 200 - 400 square feet. And I think that would satisfy most peoples desire to have an additional square • footage for the house. PO Okay. Thanks Merv. Well, I'll speak for myself first and then ill try to sum this up. You know, when we discussed this previously I think there was some real honesty about the fact that the demo/rebuild as a component of this ordinance is just not a really viable, justifiable, component of the ordinance. For us to really describe a scenario in which people buy property in Vail, Colorado and will not tear something down and rebuild it unless they get additional square footage. And in fact they can get additional square footage if they put a caretaker unit in because if there is a unit that's deed restricted you're able to take advantage of the 250 square foot ordinance initially. And so were talking about people building large homes who would probably benefit from having a caretaker unit anyway. And that's the scenario that benefits the whole community because it gives us some people living in neighborhoods that are heavily populated by second homeowners. So we had had what I thought was a very realistic discussion and a discussion that really focused on lets try to salvage portions of this that make sense for long term locals, but lets not try to fool each other about some of the realities we're dealing with. And so im disappointed that we've stepped back from that because I think that that was a very sensible approach. Its not the all or nothing approach. I think it was a reasonable compromise. Now in terms of other council members I think that Jan is really the only one who is interested in continuing the 250 ordinance with regard to the demo/rebuild scenario. With regard to a date before or after which this would apply, I was impressed with Art's comments. I think that personally I've always focused on trying to be extremely fair and perhaps that is the... maybe that's the viable climax point to just say to people • you know, going AlOrward there's not a bonus out there somewhere. I mean people in other towns, in other resorts in "olorado redevelop without a 250 square foot bonus. Is Vail a place that from a 23 development and economic level is so undesirable that no one is ever going to improve their . property unless they know that they're gonna get a bonus of additional square feet? I mean the logic of it... im just lost on that. I think Art made a good suggestion because it addresses the fairness issue which is of concern to me and a number of you raised that and its also realistic. So now that's a different angle than anyone else has had, I mean I think we have a couple of members down here at this end who are willing to take a look at continuing something on a (inaudible) basis and we have several others who ... Pi You've got me on the far right. (Laughter.) PO The far right and the far left. (inaudible.) ML Let me ask you this, maybe there's another way to handle this situation and that is, because I agree with you on a fairness standpoint. Although the phone is coming in all of a sudden from a fairness standpoint because some people abuse it and some haven't. Suppose we made the ordinance effective at a date certain. Like a year from now. Can we do that legally? Can we make the ordinance effective into the future in order to get people that want to do the 250 the opportunity to do it rather than shut it off as of right now? TM I'd have to take a look at that Merv, I wouldn't want to say right off, you know how far you can pass an ordinance now and (inaudible - more than one person talking). . ML Well why don't you look at that. Id be receptive to that because I ... it may not be a complete solution for your situation but there are people like yourselves that could come through, get the 250 ordinance and under investing? I believe you can have up to three years after you get it ... to build it. So it would basically give you from an economic standpoint four years to get it done if you came in and we made this ordinance effective someday in the future. PO And maybe there should be some additional flexibility that says in addition to starting it either now or some date in the future, even if you don't meet that criteria and you have a home that was built before whatever the date is, you could still get in on it later. I mean as far as im concerned, that would really be going the second mile or to try to be really fair to everyone. JS What did we just say, any house built to date its good for it. Any house built after this ordinance is signed is not good for... PO I mean that's another approach. Pi In the interest of time and-the remaining agenda I move for approval of Ordinance No. 6 on first reading subject to changing Section I and Section 2 subparagraph (a) and Section 3, subparagraph (a), leaving in the five year must have passed from the date, etc. In Section 1 I suppose you could leave in the condition of existing dwellings, but not removing the sentences which read, "which have been in existence in the Town of Vail for at least five years." 0 ML So you're changing the ten year to a rolling five years? X 24 PJ Yes. . SN I would second that if Paul would add that we request a review of the definition of demolition • before second reading. PJ Well, I suspect we're gonna review all of this on second reading. Though I do not have a problem with adding that. JS Are you also gonna take out paragraph 2, the restriction on deed restrictions units (inaudible). PJ No. We're gonna ... JS You want to change that. Right now it says you cant use the 250 for deed restricted units. Are you continuing to support that? •• ML Yeah. I think we want that ... (inaudible.) JS That ordinance needs to be changed. (Many talking at once.) PO ...that we take that restriction out, Paul so that it would be available... the 250 ordinance would be available to someone with the deed restricted units. PJ Yes. I thought that had been changed. Im sorry, we've been here a little long. Yes. I would add that to the motion. Would you add that to the second? SN Yes. PO Further discussion. AmS The only thing that, while you're doing some research, id like you to look into Tom if you would, how complicated it would be just to go thru a regular variance process to get approximately 250 if something like this didn't exist. Because I think that's still a good process, I think its simpler. PO And the only time that... did you call the question, Paul? PJ No. I didn't call the question. PO I want to discuss... I, you know, as someone who was considering going for this this evening, I will say that I will not in the end support the five year rolling concept. There will need to be something that makes more sense I think in terms of the long range input of the community. So that's... im gonna vote for it at this time under the scenario that we're able to discuss that and come to some other resolution other than a five year rolling situation. Any other comments? • ML Paul, could you give me a summary of what you're changing? You went thru it real quickly. 25 PJ Page 1, Paragraph 1, reads with the change of "upgrading of existing single family" can leave "existing" and "existing dwelling units" but then eliminate that next addition "in two family • dwellings constructed" and leave the existing sentence "which have been in existence within the Town of Vail for a period of at least five years". And that same basic change,in Section 2(a) and Section 3(a). ML So basically, you're changing the existing so that you have the five year? Is that the reason... Pi Section 2(a) and Section 3(a) would not change. ML But what's the purpose of taking out the existings that you are? PJ Because you went from five to ten years. TM Basically, Paul, you're saying leave that provision as it presently stands in the ordinance. PJ 2(a), 3(a). TM Right. PO And Hermann you want to ... HS (Inaudible...) look at you, well I would recommend that you vote this ordinance down and you • table (inaudible) because you yourselves (inaudible) there's an opportunity for (inaudible) to be on this council for three months and I think for maybe personal reasons some of you want this down for the community. So if you really in your heart feel like it should (inaudible) then vote that motion down. Table it and let the new council decide whether (inaudible) the community would like to have (inaudible) because you're making law today which effects people down the road and I bet right now some of you feel very strong about it, some of you might (inaudible). As I pointed out earlier I think some of you do not represent interest of the community now and I think that could change very recently. So I would urge you to do (inaudible) to vote it down. Table it for three months. (Applause.) MC The comment I would make in regard to what Merv said, what other community adds on 250 square feet is what I thought you said. I think on thing you're missing here is that if you go to Eagle (inaudible) cause a lot of other communities (inaudible) bigger homes. The problem is the square footage is too small in the first place so rather than go through this (inaudible) more piecemeal stuff, I think you also were the one that suggested (inaudible) is to add 250 right across the board and reduce the stress on the planning requirement. You save the overhead there and everybody's happy except Merv. Merv got his and Merv had Crossroads way back when. Yeah I hear him complain about the bulk of the building when in fact you owned it. I don't disagree with your numbers, Merv, if its a 10% increase maybe I could (inaudible) but I don't see it doubling (inaudible) for stuff that isn't built yet, but I think that's (inaudible) that's a real re4. ;h. But with all due respect, that (inaudible). 26 PO Thank you for that thought, Mike. I think I mentioned that earlier. In any event, is there any further discussion? PJ Call the question. PO Okay, Paul has called the question. All in favor. PJ Aye. SN Aye. AmS Aye. PO Opposed? JS Opposed. JimS Opposed. ML Opposed. TS Opposed. PO Okay. I'll vote in favor and we have three members voting in opposition. Jan Strauch, Merv, and • Tom Steinberg. So the motion passes. PJ Good. I don't understand the count, but good. PO Oh. Did I ... SN I think its reverse. PO Didn't you make a motion Paul? PJ Yes. PO I voted in favor of your motion. SN Three of us voted in favor, but Jim voted against. PO Oh, Jim voted in opposition. Im sorry. I didn't hear that. Okay. So now we had one, two, three, four members voting in opposition. So the motion fails. JS I don't think that we fixed it properly so I had to vote against that, I think we're still moving to far away from the original intent. This rolling five years I didn't understand. So im confused what • you're doing so I couldn't vote for it since I cant see it yet. 27 PO Okay. Does someone want to try another motion? . ML I'd like to try another motion. That we approve Ordinance No. 6 with the change for the ... you know for thg deed restricted units and I think that's all... was there a question Tom... were you, • was it resolved what your problem was? Whether you were, your type of situation was covered? TS I think under my situation it was not covered cause there was never any building permit, never any certificate of occupancy. ML I think that needs to be corrected. Because those are continuing situations. TM I don't know that we've ever had an application since this has been in existence where we had a building that had no temporary certificate of occupancy, no building permit. I don't know that, has that ever been confronted? (Inaudible - many people talking at once.) TS Could be a state privilege. Cause there wasn't any building department at the county level. ML Between first and second, id like to see that resolved. PO Okay. What else Merv? • ML I believe that's all. Id like the date certain. The aspect that im willing to look at for the second reading is making it effective sometime in the future so that there are people that are pending out there they would have the advantage like Mr. Hanson. Well I think im gonna need legal advise in terms of how far forward we can unless Larry Eskwith wants to give us legal advise too. We had the same question come up when you were town attorney. What was the resolution of it? LE I'm sorry, Merv. I didn't hear you ask the question. ML Can we... one of the problems we have is making an ordinance effective into the future. And I thought that we could. LE I think that you can make an ordinance... the ordinance becomes effective, but I think the terms of the ordinance can state that the ... that that will be the time period when you can still utilize the 250 GRFA. That doesn't stop the ordinance from becoming effective, but the provisions of the ordinance allow for a period of time within which the 250 can still be obtained. JimS Am I correct, Tom on that same issue, pardon me Merv, that if we voted for that today, future councils a month from now, two years from now, could change it to whatever they want it to be anyway. So ... TM That's correct. • (Inaudible,) 28 PO Well we've done it before. We said it was something (inaudible) with the building permit or a TCO or one of those as a benchmark and we said that if it were in fact issued by "X" date, some • date in the future, then that the old regulations would apply. So Im sure that we can accomplish... ML Okay. Id like to make it effective July 1, 1996 so'that people that wanted to take advantage of it have a year to get their plans in order and to make the presentation and then in investing? they have up to three years, I believe to accomplish that. PO Thank you. Okay, wait. Let's have a second. Is there a second to Merv's motion? JimS Ill second that because it answers Hermann's issues. Its just an observation, but if Merv is uninterested in having all this square footage built out then he's just sounding the alarm to have it done. I mean you do not have enough people nor do you have enough people on your staff to be able to control landslides of business that will occur because your putting a deadline. So every time this comes up in the paper I think you probably hear phone calls about oh, I'd better go in there and get my 250. Put a deadline on (inaudible.) (Inaudible.) I had a 2600 square foot home, 5 bedrooms and a living room the size of a postage stamp. It doesn't work to convert. So somebody else (inaudible) in the same situation. Either its gonna be a second homeowner (inaudible) wants to convert that to a primary home or the local who buys it from a second homeowner. (Inaudible) and if that doesn't occur in the next year or three years or whatever you propose, tough luck. And you were talking about whether you don't . know what other town has this rule, maybe other mountain towns do. Because metropolitan areas in other cities are (inaudible) where all the property is rental. And its a lot of problems for redesigning. (Inaudible) and sometimes you just cant get it unless you go out. That was the situation with us. (Inaudible.) PO A variation of Merv's motion would be to say homes built prior to the date of the passage of the ordinance are able to take advantage of the 250 and those built after 1995 are not. That would eliminate some of the rush that (inaudible) is describing. People would know this going in and I don't know if people now are building second homes in Vail that are so inadequate from a square footage. I doubt it given the whole real estate market here. So that might be another way to resolve the issue that you're raising. ML It wouldn't do away with, I mean effectively, why change the ordinance when because you're only going to effect 8%? PO You're dealing with the future rather than the past. SN I think Hermann's point is well taken. I don't know that we need to table this for three months, but I think its a mistake to try to doctor this up in our current state of mental alertness. (Laughter.) We're sitting up here, I think were fishing to try to end these discussions and I can assure you that there's not one of the seven of us up here who wouldn't rather end discussion of this than me. But • I don't think we're going to make the bebt decision at this time. I really don't. 29 ML Well we'll have a second reading on this particular issue. .• .7 SN Yeah but so we're going to go thru the whole rigamorole again. Wouldn't it be better just to have a time when we're alert? We can weigh the things that have been said tonight, think about some of the things that Lynn said, work them into the ordinance and still give it two readings, rather than try to doctor this up and say, "Oh my gosh I never thought of that because my mind was a marshmallow by 11:30." PO Some good ideas have come up I think in the course of discussion. Hey, did we have a second to Merv's motion? TM Merv's motion does not address eliminating demo/rebuild, I just thought id point that out. ML No. Im going along with this which does eliminate demo. The ordinance as written. TM Okay. LE (Inaudible.) TM Excuse me. ML Does it not, does not the ordinance as written do away with the demo/rebuild? TM Yes, it does. But you never... ML I'm leaving the ordinance in that regard as it is. SN And still stands firm on the 1985 date with the exception of the one year (inaudible)... PO No. No, Merv's jumped that up to the future... ML No, no. No, no. I'm leaving it 1985, but im not making this ordinance effective until July 1, 1996. If you don't think its a good idea, I could get four votes by making it effective right now I would do that also. SN But this is my whole case, though, we don't even know what we're voting on. TM Im having a very difficult time following, ill tell you that right now. ML Alright. Let me state what I think we're voting on. We're voting on Ordinance No. 6 as written except that in terms of the deed restriction we're making it consistent. Is consistent the word you're looking for? Wasn't that the problem? TM Uhm hum. PO (Inaudible.) ?- 30 ML We're keeping everything else the same. TM Okay. ML The only other change is that the effective date of this ordinance... im sorry, it becomes effective upon the second reading, but the date under which the 250 cannot be applied for for anything except for those units which were built before December 31, 1984, will be July 1, 1996. TM What about the demo/rebuild? ML Demo/rebuild becomes effective now. LE Becomes effective now? ML Yeah. Cause I think that is an abuse. PO Now... TM You also made a comment, Merv, in regard to resolving what has been identified as a perceived problem with the property having no temporary certificate of occupancy, no certificate of occupancy and no building permit. ML I would like you to come up with a solu...if Tom's problem is a legitimate one, because there are a • lot of people that might have that situation, id like to see that resolved by the second reading. TM Okay. PO Actually, you had your hand up, Jim Shearer. (Inaudible.) JimS I did him second because it pushes it forward and answers some of Hermann's issue because then it puts it in the hands of the next council just in case. Just to let you know that. PO Okay. Discussion. Go ahead. DR Thank you. David Rikhardt. Im a kind of a superintendent on the building over here for Bob Lazier and its the last one of five. And the other three buildings that were built prior were finished in 1982. Now the people in this buildings, that bought these units were under the impression that they would be able to add a certain amount of square footage when the following two buildings were finished. We probably wont be done with this final fifth building until about November. And if you pass this ordinance, they can no longer qualify for closing in their porch, which is only 100 square feet. I think you're gonna have about 58 people that's gonna be real upset enough to file a federal lawsuit against it when this has been in effect for about eight years. MM Dave, those are multi family buildings, they are not eligible for exterior changes. 31 DR Its not exterior. • MM Yes it would be. That is an exterior change (inaudible). So it really is a moot point. DR Okay if it is, I would throw out I thought it was under roof and it would be considered. This is what they've been told for eight years. So if it is, if im wrong, I withdraw. I don't think I am. (Many people talking at once.) PO Okay. Do we have any... Dalton. (Many people talking at once.) DW (Inaudible.) Pi I know we have a motion on the floor, but I think we should table the next four items on the agenda. PO Lets deal with this motion and then lets go on to, you know, lets vote on Merv's motion. There's a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor. ML Aye. • PO Opposed. PJ Aye. TS Aye. PO Okay. At this point, we have four of us voting against Merv's motion... PJ Five I think. PO Oh. See I cant even (inaudible) at this hour. Paul, Sybill, I voted against it and ... JS Tom voted against it. PJ And Jim voted against it. PO And Jim voted against it. Okay. JS I would like to suggest that Paul make his original motion again and because I did not understand your motion. I misunderstood it and if we could re-vote on that issue because I... • PO What about tabling? 32 JS I think tabling is the second best thing. PO I think that's a good suggestion at this point because you know, I think that we are all loosing • track. ML I make a motion that we table Ordinance No. 6 series of 1995 until the next regularly scheduled meeting. JimS Second. PO Motion by Merv, second by Jim. Discussion. Yes, Pam. PJ Jan or Jim seconded it? Who seconded it? PO Jim. SN Jim. PB Is it for an evening meeting or do you need a work session? PO I think we should go to a work session. ML Yeah. Work session. Im doing the next evening meeting, but a work session is not something you • need a motion on. PO Okay. All in Favor. PJ Aye. AmS Aye. TS Aye. SN Aye. ML Aye. JS Aye. PO Opposed. Passes unanimously. Okay. 33 R I • TOWN OF VAIL LY 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 CERTIFICATION STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and correct transcription of Agenda Item No. 3 of the Vail Town Council Evening Meeting of August 1, 1995, as it appears in the original records of the Town Clerk's office. • Dated August 8, 1996 nne E. Wright, Executive A, stant Office of the Town Manager Office of the Town Attorney STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE ) cFitx6d end ? sworn to before me this 8th day of August, 1996, by Anne E. Wright, . .. ve Assistant, Town of Vail. e ? F1 rr+ Ic My commission expires: 0f- 0-4 - g(a • Holly L. McCutcheon Notary Public 75 S. Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 My Commission Expires 01/07/99 ??? RECYCLEDPMER 8/l/95 Town Council Meeting PO Item #3 - Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1995, first reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 18.71 additional gross residential floor area. Mike Mollica, Tom Moorhead. RTM Thank you Peggy. After work session Mike and I have attempted to incorporate the changes that Council requested in Ordinance No. 6, has that been placed at your.... JS No, it has not. Oh, I'm sorry I have a new one. RTM The first thing that you will notice is that we have deleted all of the highlight and strikeout. The highlight and strikeout had become incomprehensible so we've started over. What I'm going to do is just go through this and point out where we have made the additions or changes that were discussed at Council. On the first page you will notice under the purpose clause that it is stated immediately that we are talking about dwelling units that have been in existence within the Town of Vail for a period of at least ten years. On page 2, TS Tom, before you move on. RTM Sure. TS I think there's a typo on the 5th line, at least seems incomprehensible to me. Chapter • does not assure each ...that doesn't seem to follow to me. RTM This chapter meaning, Chapter 18.71.010 does not assure each single family dwelling or dwelling, that should be unit located within the Town of Vail an additional 250 sq. ft. In other words, just because you have a dwelling unit that's within the Town of Vail........ [inaudible]... Thank you. And there may be more, I appreciate your pointing those out because we found some since we've done this. On the second page, the first section deals with single family dwellings and two family dwellings. Under subsection A, at least 10 years must have passed from the date the single family dwelling or two family dwelling unit was issued a certificate of occupancy whether temporary or final, or in the event of a certificate of occupancy was not required for use of the dwelling at the time of completion from the date of original completion and occupancy of the dwelling. This incorporated the ten year period that Council has requested and we've also incorporated the definition that was suggested by Art Abplanalp. The second provision, I'd just like to explain, this is a carryover from what's presently in existence and I'd like to explain the difference between A and B. Section B states the single family dwelling or dwelling unit shall have received it's final certificate of occupancy. The purpose of that is in the event that we have a dwelling that has a TCO but they have never taken care of all the requirements to get their certificate of 0 n 1, • occupancy, they are required before application to get their certificate of occupancy, in other words, to come up to the requirements that were originally set on the property. This is one of the ways that the granting of the 250 or the application of the 250 insures that properties are kept up the way they should be kept up. So that's the-the first section, Section A sets the time period for the building to be in existence, Section B deals with making certain that it has met all of the requirements that were placed upon the property when it was built. Under subsection C you will notice that we have put this under the purview of the Planning & Environmental Commission, that's the last sentence, the applicant must obtain a building permit within one year of final Planning & Environmental Commission approval or the approval for additional GRFA shall be voided. Moving over to page 3 at the subparagraph H, at the end of that paragraph, no application for additional GRFA shall request more than 250 sq. ft. of gross residential floor area per single family dwelling or dwelling unit, nor shall any application be made for additional GRFA until such time as the allowable GRFA has been constructed on the property. We have instances as`Mike pointed out where individuals will request a 250 and they have not yet used all of the GRFA that applies to the site: And finally I, Merv this addresses the issue that you had raised earlier, any single family dwelling or two family dwelling which has previously been granted additional GRFA • pursuant to this section and is demo/rebuilt shall be rebuilt without the additional GRFA as previously approved. Starting here with Section 3. This deals with multi family dwellings and the changes that were incorporated for the single family and the two family dwellings have been incorporated here. You'll notice under subsection A, the ten year time period has been put in place and likewise with I and J, the additional provisions that we've discussed are also applicable to this type of a building. ML Tom, is it necessary to make clear that multi family dwellings are not eligible for exterior? RTM If you look at H Merv, no deck or balcony enclosures or any exterior additions or alterations to multi family dwellings with the exception of windows, skylights, or other similar modifications shall be allowed under this chapter. ML Any you think that's clear enough that it means that you can't use the 250 in an manner. MM That has not changed at all. RTM That's the same that's in existence. is SN Are you finished Tom, I had a question. 2 RTM On..... on page 5, under procedure a new paragraph... first of all under fee you'll notice that we changed that to a fee pursuant to the current schedule shall be required with the application, we took 200 out of there, and then subsection B, upon receipt of an application for additional GRFA the Planning & Environmental Commission shall set a date for hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.070. Notice shall be given and the hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Sections 18.66.080 and 089. Then finally under eligibility, no dwelling unit shall be eligible for additional GRFA pursuant to this section that is not in existence or a completed Design Review Board application has not been accepted by the Community Development Department by September 1, 1995. •PJ Should that not be Planning Commission rather than Design Review Board? RTM There is actually going to be a Design Review Board application, but we'll look at that. The procedure clearly will be a review by the Planning & Environmental Commission, the Design Review Board application may be the apf'."priate application, but we'll check that. Mike believes is the correct application. MM I believe that it is what heard from the Council is that the intent of... if someone is applying to build a new house they would make an application to DRB. If they had that application in and it was complete on September 1 st they would be allowed to work through the process. PJ My only point was that earlier in this ordinance you changed the approval process to the • Planning Commission. MM Right. The Planning Commission will be the board that will review the 250 applications, but this is specific to someone requesting DRB approval for any dwelling unit. That was the reference to DRB. RTM Right, this doesn't deal with the approval or denial of the 250. It doesn't deal with making your application for your 250 prior to September the 1 st. What this deals with Paul is the house either exists prior to September the 1 st, 1995 or you have made a completed application which has been accepted for the house. Pi Up to this point and time you would have applied to DRB. RTM For the house you will continue to apply ... Pi I understand PO This is the trigger mechanism. RTM Exactly. • SN On page 3, H, where it says no the application be made for additional GRFA until such time as all allowable has been constructed on the property. Wouldn't you be allowed to apply for a 250 in conjunction with finishing off the rest of what you maybe had an allotment... we'll let's say that your house was 500 feet short and you wanted to expanded to 700, you wanted to add 750? MM You could do that. The intention here was to not allow individuals to apply for a 250 until they had made an application for utilizing the allotment of GRFA on the site, we've had numerous individuals attempt to get approval of the 250 when in fact they have available GRFA. TS Well the way it reads though you have to have.... RTM ..... constructed. What we may do is add constructed or applied for on the property. SN Yeah, it just needs to be slightly reworded. I won't attempt the word smithing, you can do PJ In 4B, this afternoon there was issue made about incomplete applications, should that say upon receipt of a completed application. It is below in 5. RTM Right. Um, completed application isn't a term that we have used in other portions of the code when we are talking about scheduling it for Planning & Environmental Commission, and in fact matters will be scheduled for Planning & Environmental Commission hearing and staff will work with the applicant to bring their application up to completion. If it's not brought up to completion then many times it's table, but they go ahead... PJ So again at 5 that's a trigger mechanism. Your okay to not be consistent in that. RTM Yeah. JS Tom, could I ask you just a question on procedure here. Assuming that we approve this tonight, this is a first reading? RTM Yes. JS Then we see this in a second reading in two weeks? RTM That's correct. JS That date is what? Roughly the • 5 0 PJ 15th. RTM August 15th. JS And then, if we approve it that day, does this thing then become effective when? That day? . RTM At 5 days after completion or is it 4 days? 4 or 5 days. 5 days after completion of the publication of this ordinance. JS And how long does that take to publish it? RTM I'm not certain. JS Could you take a guess. MM Friday in the Vail Trail. JS So that would be the 18th maybe and then it comes out 5 days later, it's effective 5 days later? So the 23rd. What I'm driving is at here is I, I again as I mentioned this afternoon, if we have this thing come effective on the 23rd of August and we make an application date of September 1, I do not believe that is fair. I don't think that's proper notification and I would suggest for everyone to consider that we might want to say that this thing will come effective 90 days from the approval date or December 31, whichever one comes sooner. Because this may not be approved in two weeks either. We may have another to do in here and we may want to reconsider it, there's no promise. And then we'd have to go back and rewrite this thing because we may be approving this thing after September 1. So again, I think we owe it to our public to provide ample opportunity for people to read about it, to plan for it, and I would suggest that we do that. Other than that I think is some very good revisions here. PO Okay, other comments by Council members? Anyone in attendance who would like to comment, please. Go right ahead Art. AA For the record I'm Art Abplanalp and I appreciate the Council's willingness to listen to my comments earlier this afternoon and I'm flattered by your incorporation of some of the changes that I've suggested in my letter of last week. I have two, what I guess would be technical concerns and one substantive. I think that the point which was brought up regarding the subparagraph H touched on a problem that the resolution doesn't really resolve and has to do with prohibiting the application for the 250 until such time as all the allowable GRFA has been constructed, either suggested or applied for upon the property. The problem is that it doesn't take an application for what you have under zoning. I is would suggest that what you-that needs to be fleshed out a bit and you need to make a 6 reference along the lines of Ahat has been constructed or an application for Design Review approval has been submitted in association with the 250 application. It's going to be a complicated sentence but I think that if you just say applied for that's subject to interpretation and I for one know what you have to apply for to get you what you actually have under zoning. The other technical area has to do with Section B of both the multi family and the single and duplex. You have the same problem there that you have in A which is what Tom mentioned two weeks ago I guess or a week ago, two weeks ago. The single family dwelling or dwelling [inaudible] I've received it's certificate of occupancy some dwellings have never done that and this requirement is inappropriate. I would suggest that like paragraph A you add the words if required at the time of completion. That effectively takes out those that were constructed prior to building code that required a CO or TCO. The substantive problem I have, which I think gets back to the question of fairness, is the adoption of the ten year standard and the people who have either purchased units or have awaited construction and use of the 250 based upon their belief that the five years would apply to them. I think that the three month delay in effectiveness would help to alleviate that but there are people out there who do not have the financial ability at this point to go forward with a 250 who might within a year when their dwelling is seven years old or it's eight years old but this basically puts them on hold for an additional one to five years in a circumstance where they may need an extra bedroom for someone who is 10 years old or 12 years old but five years down the road will be in college and the need will be gone. So I think that it gets back to the question of fairness and reliance of people on the five year standard and those who purchased . properties with knowledge of this and knowledge of their flexibility. I'll grant you that it's a weighing of the individual benefit versus the community benefit but the rolling (?) standard is going to be there and whether it's five years or ten years I have difficulty trying to quantify that as far as the appearance of the Town of Vail. But the people who are going to be affected by the change will be affected in some circumstances that you simply can't deal with. It's going to change their lives and I would suggest to you that's really not within the fairness standard that the Council has tried to adopt. Thank you. PO Thank you Art. RTM Peggy, in regard to Art's comment in regard to Section B the building has received it's final certificate of occupancy. Mike and I do want to talk to the building department about that. I believe that what Art is suggesting may be more limiting than this particular provision. What this provision contemplates is that even if a person has not received their certificate of occupancy they will be given the opportunity to go ahead and carry through with that obligation so that their qualified for a 250. Under the suggestion that Art has made, if a person did not get their certificate of occupancy it could be held that they could never apply for a 250. What we are trying to do is make certain that even though a person didn't do that, cause it may have been owned by someone else, they may not realize when they buy the property that the certificate of occupancy hadn't in fact been issued, and will allow the building inspector to go in, look at the property and then • 7 issue the certificate at this time. So we are intending that this be available to expand the applicability as opposed to being a limiting factor. AA Perhaps my comment was misunderstood. This was intended to apply to buildings that were constructed irl the 60's let's say, when no CO was required and they could never measure up to the standards that would now be applied to them in order to get a CO. In those buildings I think if the verbiage I suggested isn't appropriate, some other recognition of that fact I think should be included here, otherwise those buildings which perhaps need the 250 most of all would not be entitled. RTM The code that is reviewed or applied is the code that was in effect at the time the building was built so that a building that was built in 1970 isn't being held to today's building code but rather it's being held to the code that was in effect at the time it was built. And that was one of the things, one of the particulars that we wanted to talk to Gary Murrain about to make certain that he still felt comfortable with this provision. We may come to you with a variation of what's there now and after we talk to Gary we may incorporate Art's suggestion. It is our belief right now that we have it in'it's broadest application right now. PJ Cause your really considering two possibilities, one that Art refers to, that it could be a case where it was required but the intent that I heard you outline is somebody who was satisfied to live with just a temporary CO and not finish up the punch list items as it were RTM Exactly. Pi and get the CO so they would be required to go back and finish up that punch list, get the CO, and then go through the process. RTM That's exactly correct. SN Do you think it would be reasonable to add the line that per requirements at the time of construction. I think he brings up a good point that some of those buildings would never meet, you know if this was interpreted that you had to be up to the current code. RTM I believe that all we can require is that it meet the requirements that were in place at the time and that's what has been applied. We'll review it with Gary Murrain and if we need to add some language such as that we'll do so. But the intent is not to hold the building to a higher standard than it was held to at the time of completion only to do as Paul suggested, make certain that they've fulfilled all of the punch list requirements that had to be taken care of. 0 JS Just another point, I confused. I thought when peoplg asked, got the 250 and they 8 remodeled, in fact they had to bring their house up to code. • RTM Exactly, in some aspects they will be required to, yes. JS So it doesn't go back to the, what was in existence in the beginning of time. It goes.. RTM Only.. JS So I'm confused, which way does this go? MM Well they have to bring it up to code in regard to zdning.issues but they don't have to . bring it up to code with regard to building, electrical, plumbing issues. JS Well this needs to be clarified. That's a good point, to clarify the ordinance. JS So we don't get confused. I also would agree with the lawyer that just spoke I think that this changing the thing to 10 years is just an absolutely arbitrary new requirement that can be oxLc,,.t.ely onerous on people in this community that don't even know that we're discussing this. I see no benefit of doing this. Your absolutely right, there are going to be a lot of people sitting around waiting, not only just the five years to go by but be financially and their children planning, and that we don't even know about that this is be tremendously detrimental to, to very little benefit to us to make the goal for ten years. It's still going to be developed if they want the 250 and whether they do it in a 5 year or 6 or 7 year period I still don't see the benefit and I know you've been pushing this and I'd like to have some more input on this. SN I'm not really pushing it Jan, I was arguing actually both sides of the fence this afternoon. I mean I could make a case for either scenario and quite frankly I agree with you as far as the five year. This is why I said I could go either way. I think there are benefits to either argument and the five year, as far as individuals is concerns, I think your right. In terms of what my understanding of why this ordinance was done in the first place, of upgrading the community, I think usually a house that's only five years old doesn't need resprucing and you know you stretch out the time frame and consequently you have, especially know that we're putting a stop on it on new ones that you have a longer period of time where the density increases and also you have maintenance over ten years instead of well in five years. One of the arguments I've heard about getting rid of this is well what happens when the guy uses it and five years later he comes back and says he needs it again. Well I think the ten year argument makes a case for that happening less frequently. So, I think in a way that one argument kind of can out weight the other which is why I say I'm sitting on the fence and I'm not sure which is the more important. 9 • JS I'd just like to add one word of response to that and then I'll be quiet on the situation, I think that the time period of when people want to remodel their houses should be left to the owners of the houses not the government. And for the government to say well you've got to wait ten years because that's how we think it should be is intrusion in private property. So, let the people who own the house decide when's the proper time to add the room, or change the color, or add a dormer or whatever their going to do with the 250 if they ever want to do it. So, I'll leave it ... PO But we already had five years out there. Do we consider the 250 by right zoning, it that, I mean I guess that's the other comment I'd make. RTM No, as I indicated to you in the purpose, the chapter does not assure each single family dwelling or dwelling unit located within the Town of Vail an additional 250 sq. ft. PJ A thought occurred to me on that D issue about the certificate of occupancy, when you went through the first section that it might be more clear to say, before submitting application. RTM Okay, in regard to that the next sentence also deals with the additional issue we had been talking about, proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA under the provision shall comply with all Town of Vail zoning requirements and applicable development standards. But we'll work on both of those issues to make certain that it's very clear. PO Thank you. Who else would like to comment? Good, well it's fine to form line. _ I had a question on the first page, the second to last sentence, it talks about an increment. Does this mean that more than once you can come and add less than 250 feet to your house? MM Yes, up until 250 [inaudible] apply for a portion of the 250. You could apply for 150.. _ Well I don't think the language here is clear that you can only add a maximum of 250. It looks to me like you could add 200 this year and you can go and apply some other time from another 200. Your language here is not clear. JP? Well later in the ordinance it says clearly you only get. it once. RTM Well I think it says it hear Carl?, actually it says the 250 sq. ft. of additional GRFA may be granted to existing single family dwellings, existing two family dwellings, and existing multi family dwellings unit only once. But may be requested and granted in more than one increment of less than 250 sq. ft. And that's is in existence at this time. But we've never had any problem with anyone coming in and indicating that they thought they had the right to ask for more than 250. 10 Okay. • PO Thank you. BA Bob Armour. I always make everybody else do this so I've got to follow suit. First of all I'm sure that Design Review Board will be disappointed that they don't have to look at this anymore. And the Planning Commission will enjoy our longer meetings with more delicious dinner that we do have. I really like what the discussion and what the staff and what your work has come up with. Yes there is some tweaking that needs to be done. I'm on the side of the five year as opposed to the ten. I think you've nailed the demo/rebuild with the 50% removal of gross floor area, I think that was something that was very definitely needed a something clear on. I'm real pleased with where it's taken the Planning Commission, the staff, the Council, the community members have put in a lot of time on this. I think you've nailed it pretty good with the fine tuning that will be needed. I totally support this ordinance. PO Thank you very much Bob. Who else would like to comment? Any other Council members wanting to comment? Merv. ML Well, the aspect of the ordinance that I don't like is the fact that the number, the amount of density that can be added with the existing 250. That still concerns me and in a letter that was sent to us by the Community Development Department dated December 19, 1994, it points out that we still have a third potential DU's, that means that there are presently 1,757 existing dwelling units and there's a potential for another 853 dwelling units which allowed density by themselves, but when you add to that the potential of all of those, and these are single family duplex, primary/secondary units, adding 250 sq. ft. on top of the existing zoning, your looking just at the 250 sq. ft. adding 624,000 sq. ft. of density to the valley and that's only talking about the amount of density that will occur based on the fact that most of these buildings are three and four and five thousand sq. ft. buildings, nor does it take into consideration that fact that almost all of the units in West Vail and East Vail in particular, but also some in mail Vail have not been built out to their total GRFA. So I see an enormous increase in the visual impact of wall to wall buildings. The 250 does not solve the problem. A down zoning would, but a 250 adds to the problem. By allowing it to go forward either on a five year or a ten year basis is not solving the problem. All we're doing is making the problem stretch out over a longer period of time. I think our quality of life is very much dependant on the amount of GRFA, gross residential floor area or the amount of density that we have throughout the valley. Now multi family units, we've been told, only have the potential build out for another 4%, so we can add another 33% roughly of DU's under single family, but only 4% in the multi family. But even those are going to have a tremendous affect on quality of life in the valley. Because they can add a million two hundred thousand GRFA albeit it's not going to be as noticeable because it can only occur internally, but when people add 250 sq. ft. to multi family internally it can easily be another bedroom which is going 11 to be a more intense use of that particular project. Now, I don't in anyway think that the million nine that this memo suggests could be built, would be built. I don't think that everyone's going to take advantage of it, but I think over.a period of time what could happen here, certainly in the area of the single family and duplex units adding 624,000 sq. ft., will happen. And I think that's going to have an enormous affect all on it's own. I would like to see the ordinance go away completely. I think it was a mistake initially, the purpose of it was to solve a problem of a particular neighborhood or some particular old units to add basically mud rooms and some environmental things that were needed and I think that the users of this, and there have been 176 so far, have basically been the houses on Beaver Dam Road, have basically been the second family homes and it's been • basically an economic, been used economically because an additional 250 sq. ft. on a duplex obviously is 500 sq. ft. and when it costs between $100 and $200 a sq. ft. to build and the selling price goes anywhere from $400 up to $1,000 a sq. ft. it's an economic situation. I think that there are some people, and agree with Art, that have anticipated using this to improve their house and some of the 176 people have done it to improve their house. But I think we're overlooking complete, or to a great extent, the fact that when we simplified the zoning change in 1991 that up to 850 sq. ft. was given to everyone. In some cases there are some houses; that because of their way they are designed, got nothing. I agree to that, but there are some houses that got basically four, five, six hundred sq. ft. added to their zoning and I think that's going to have a tremendous impact. Most people do not understand that their house is not built out. • Most people have the ability under the simplification that we did in `91 to add a lot more than 250 sq. ft. to their house. And that's what they should use. There are some people and you know we heard from them last week, that I sympathize with that have had it checked, have gone their own architect, and they find that they don't have anymore. But I think that the greater good is the affect on all of us of adding such a tremendous amount of GRFA to our rather small valley. We're going to look like some communities in Southern California with zero lot lines. It already looks that way when you go up from Spraddle Creek or from Potato Patch and look down on parts of Beaver Dam Road and Rockledge and Forest Road. And it certainly looks that way in Mill Creek Circle and it's going to look even worse as the golf course continues to build out. I don't think wall to wall houses is the quality of life that has created the property values in this valley are going to be to our benefit long term. I think that we are going to hurt ourselves by continuing to allow overbuilding and I think 250 is just a little bit of the problem. What we really need is a general down zoning, based on what people have been able to do with our existing zoning. PO Thank you Merv. Who else? Tom? TS I'd like to ... historically in this town when the originally developers came in they put rather dense zoning allowed on the property. Fortunately the Council at one point saw the dangers because of the boom that was going on and down zoned across the board one- third. With the concurrence of the real estate community, because they saw what they 12 were going to end up doing is killing the golden goose that had started to come out of that • egg. The Council also passed real estate transfer tax to try to down zone more by buying up open space, both for open space and also to remove it from the land stock. Both which has made Vail what it is. I have opposed the 250 from the word go, because it's constantly been trying to buy or get more favors to allow more growth, more growth, to undo what was done originally to control the gross density in this village. So, once again I'm going to oppose this. The only exception that I would even consider would be if the 250 was restricted totally to employee housing, which again is a trade off because need both. But just to give a developer a bonus in my house alone with a duplex lot, I would have a bonus with what land values and building costs and so on of a quarter of a million dollars on my house just with this two 250's and I think that is short changing our future growth. People that vote for this are taking the short view and that's not what has made Vail, great. PO Thanks Tom. Other comments? PJ I own a business that was affected by I think two down zonings, which made it kind of long and tedious and brain damaging to go through an approval process to upgrade it to a current point of where I think our industry wants to be, should be, needs to be, so I can't really comment Tom if they over allowed in the beginning or if the down zoning in the `70s was inappropriate. There are certainly some benefits. I think that the transfer tax has probably been one of the greatest mitigators, by all of the open space that it has • allowed us to have and the parks that it's allowed us to get, etc., etc. Those numbers are intimidating about what we could expect to happen if this 250 is allowed to stay. I take a little bit of issue on the 850 that it's an absolute gift because my understanding is that's what had been counted in other capacities, whether it was closets, mechanical closets, stairways, double stairways, whatever. But there is not question that units have gotten bigger, people I think are now looking at the properties that they build of they acquire as a possible full time residence rather than just a weekend ski hut, house, condo, whatever, that they are looking towards retirement or towards working out of a house via telecommunications or whatever. So I think that there is, rather than just a demand, there is a need for complete residential capability for permanent occupancy by families of whatever size family's happen to be. So I am as some others have commented from the audience excited about the ordinance where it is now and I do support it and my style would be to go ahead and make a motion, but if other people want to talk I'll wait a little bit or somebody else can make a motion. PO You know I think Galen Aasland wanted to comment on this. GA My name is Galen Aasland, I live in West Vail, actually think I was here last time and spoke about this. I think it's much better written than it was previously. I think a couple things that it doesn't address are if someone were to have a catastrophic loss.. • 13 • PJ I'm sorry. GA If someone were to have like a catastrophic loss, like a flood or a fire, and under the code they are allowed to rebuild their house exactly the way it is, but the way I read the ordinance it doesn't, it would seem that if they built it exactly the way that it exists that they should be able to apply the 250, obviously if they changed it and redid the house then they shouldn't, under the demo/rebuild they shouldn't be able to do that, but if they built it exactly the way it was and I didn't see that addressed in the ordinance. I do think that what Paul said about the people, when the zoning changed a few years ago, people, I mean if you look the old zoning you used to get 250 sq. ft. for storage, 50 sq. ft. for mechanical, 25 sq. ft. for an air lock, plus counting upstairs didn't, when they overlapped it didn't count. And so, I think that in a lot of cases you really didn't get an extra bonus with the 425, you basically ended up being very close. So, that's all I have to say, but thank you for your time. JS What is the comment on the catastrophic loss issue? • 0 14 RTM That was exactly what we were talking about at work session today where we indicated that if the house burned down you could rebuild. I'll go back and look at the nonconforming section, cause that's where it permits you to rebuild to the nonconformance if you do it within a year and it is due to a catastrophic loss. If that does not adequately tie into this, we can very easily put that provision in. Jim S I would say that most people that rebuild their house, Galen your an architect you've known this much longer, you have a much longer history on this, but I would say that most people that rebuild are not going to rebuild exactly as it was. GA That's exactly right... Jim S But I would have some leeway with that, but clearly... GA For instance theie are houses in town by current code couldn't be built, like [inaudible] house in town. That house, at this particular time is too tall, but they'd be allowed, if there was something that happened to it, they'd be allowed to rebuild it under the current, under the, the way the building code reads. And that's just one example. But, then one other thing. ML Is that right what he said, he said that they wouldn't be allowed to be rebuilt because it was too tall, if it burnt down? i RTM He said it would be allowed. GA It would be but it's like if you tried to do that from scratch today you couldn't do it. ML Why's that? GA Because it's too tall. PO Not allowed by zone. Height. GA It doesn't meet building height. And it RTM Height restriction. ML So if it's nonconforming and it burns down, it could not be rebuilt. RTM Could be rebuilt. 15 I* [inaudible] RTM As long as you rebuild it within one year. Jim S We're about to get into another issue. GA Actually the one other thing because it was packaged with this or in the same table, was that this development standards that was passed out, that went with this, in ways it's like a, in my mind cause this is what, I'm an architect and I deal with this, it's kind of a quick one page summation but when you read it, if you look at it, it's really kind of half, some of its very true but some of it's kind of half truths, because some places your allowed to basement that doesn't necessarily count as square footage. Like in Beaver Creek the 35 ft., there's the one house right at the entrance there that's like seven stories high on one side because you can average heights and so, in ways this addresses most issues, but in ways there's some real kind of half truths in this too. PO Thank you Galen. Additional comments? And I think two points that were made relative to the discussion this evening were the effective date in the ten year versus five year, so I guess we'll wait and see what we come up with then. JS I'm willing to go ahead and try to propose an ordinance that we adopt this Ordinance No. . 6, Series of 1995 on changing the 250 sq. ft. ordinance with I've got six different things I think we talked about and I would recommend that we try to do it, and before doing it, I've heard the good arguments that are here and I think that no one in this Council is looking forward as Merv suggested that we're going to end up with wall to wall buildings. We don't have current zoning that allows wall to wall buildings, and if we do we should fix that. The 250 sq. ft. ordinance at the outside, at the biggest outside is going to increase the square footage in this community probably way less than 5% since every building doesn't qualify for it. And whether you'd even notice this little percentage is not, I don't think is going to be negative to the community when you think of the that it was set up and the were to allow people not to ask for ordinance, or changes, variances, excuse me for simple things that they needed to do to fix their houses that they bought or built when they were really old and they could not afford to build what they really wanted or their family didn't require it. And if we got ride of this we would go right back to that thing again. So, I think that this will be a benefit to the community, it's something that a lot of people were counting on and it probably does work in most cases and where it hasn't worked maybe we could work, and I don't see anything in here that would be, would help the problems with it because we wouldn't be able to fix the problems as Tom has already told us. We can't allow it only to be given to people in certain incomes and certain neighborhoods and certain home sizes. So I would suggest that we pass this with the following changes. One is fix the typos that exist in there. I still believe that we should go back from the ten back to the five years, because I • continue to not to see any benefit to extend it. I think we need to redefine the certificate 16 of occupancy issue that has plagued us and we need to resolve that. I think we need to clarify because the paragraphs of where the application will gd to, is it going to go to the DRB or the PEC, it doesn't seem to be clear, the two paragraphs there. And again I would suggest that we start this ordinance 90 days after it's official approval or by December 31, 1995, whichever comes first. And if there is some clarification needed on what happens when there's a catastrophic loss we should address that, if that is not in here, I'm not sure it•is or is it not. And with those six changes I would suggest that we approve it. PJ That's a motion? JS Yes. PO Motion by Jan, is there a second? S.N. I'll second. PO ` Second by Sybil. Further discussion. PJ Jan would you consider like 60 days and December St.? JS Sure. PJ Rather than 90 and the 31 st? JS I just want to give proper notices. To do it September 1st is wrong, so 60 days would be fine to me, yes. 60 days or November 30th. RTM Does everyone understand what that date, the significance of that date September the 1 st, 1995? PO Please go ahead and explain that Tom. RTM What that is, is the date by which a house either must be constructed or the application, a completed application has been accepted by the DRB. This ordinance will go into effect immediately. And what that does is it puts everyone on notice that any house that is built after that date or was not in for its application, application hadn't been submitted by that date, would be ineligible for a 250. JS And what I understand is this, the way I'm suggesting is that we're going to give people two months to respond to this thing and get an application in if they want to do a 250. RTM But the ordinance becomes effective 5 days, I just want to make sure that everyone was E • 0 17 t clear. SN Can'I ask Galen, he's here. I hazard a guess that 60 days is moot because, correct me if I'm wrong, I find it a stretch to image that somebody was trying to beat this ordinance to the punch and started tomorrow could get a completed application on the table in less than 60 days. PO For building a new house. SN For building a new house. . TS Are we talking about 90 days or SN Well we're talking, no, we're talking about changing it to 60 so I, it may be, if it's not a worthwhile period to extend it, is it even worth talking about. JS I. guess the question is, what is the right amount of time to get, what is the proper notification so somebody could say, read it tomorrow and say, gee I want to do this I better do something right now. How long would it take them to get into the works. For a 250? SN No to have a house. Do a whole, plan for a house. I'm asking your opinion, is that even possible to do that in 60 days? [Inaudible] GA [inaudible] PJ And it's their application for 250 not. No, it's an application for a house. RTM Not for a 250, the application for a house. MM That's why it goes through DRB. PJ? It says shall be eligible for additional GRFA that is not in existence or a completed Design Review Board application has not been accepted but before additional GRFA. JS The point here we're saying Paul is that ... • PJ It doesn't say for a house permit. 18 JS Yeah it does. It's saying which houses are going to qualify for a 250 in the future. Let's say I have a vacant lot and I want to use my 250, I haven't even built my house yet, in order for me to ever get that 250, I need to have my application into build my house by this date. ML But your argument's the very reason why someone shouldn't get 250, they're going to build the house that they want now with the anticipation that they can have 250 later. JS Cause they can just afford to maybe, make a small house, maybe it's to get their 250. It's a stretch. ML You mean between 5,000 and 5,250? JS No, maybe their not going to build a 5,000 sq. ft. house right now. Maybe their going to build a little house right no and have ten kids. PO But then they won't use all their GRFA. PJ But if what I understand is right, if they got in an application for a 1,500 sq. ft. house, it would qualify them in the future for 250. That is correct. SN And what I'm say, is we're sitting here arguing over the difference between 10 days, 30 days and 60 days and 90 days, but what I'm asking is if that even makes a shadow of difference? GA It's seems that what Council's really asking is two questions, it seems what the Council wants to do is shut somebody off from doing a demo/rebuild or starting a new house on an empty lot today and being eligible for 250. And so it seems that that part of the argument [inaudible] if that's the way the Council votes should be started on September 1 st or [inaudible] five and ten year, if someone's actually eligible right now for the 250, but [inaudible] JS Their both important. [inaudible] PO Which would lead me to then comment Galen, just looking at this from a common sense standpoint, I'll just address this to you Galen. GA [inaudible] PO Having considered both sides of the five and ten year argument I would say that probably there's going to be more difficulty changing from five to ten years than is worth it. . 19 PJ Ten to five, year. PO From five to ten. SN From the benefits that we gain. PO In other words, going, lengthening the number of years that you have to wait. Earlier we discussed that there are pros and cons. The pro of going to ten years is that it, as Sybill said, it spreads the whole thing out over a longer period of time. The con is that you get into these sorts of technical things. Now there's a rush before the ordinance goes in effect or before this that or the other thing to be sure that you get in on the five year time line since now it's going to get changed to ten years. I'm not sure it's really worth it. Plus I think that it will be a point of irritation, because people will be able to say as Art has once again reminded us that this isn't fair, I thought it was going to be five years. I stayed in this house instead of moving to Singletree, when the baby was born, because I knew that in three months I was going to be able to add 250. And now it's five years and three months, and you know, that sort of argument and I, I'm not sure if I thought a lot of good was going to really be accomplished for the community as a result of taking that position, that would be one thing. I'm not sure that over time, I mean that it's really that big a deal, whether it's in five years or ten years that it's worth fighting through the implications of perhaps not being fair. • ML Well, while your using common sense, [inaudible] SN Let me just finish my question, given that we're going to keep, right now the motion is to keep the five years not the ten, given that it's still five years, then we're not talking about a 250 application, we're talking about an application to build a house from scratch on a lot that may want 250 in five years. What is a reasonable amount of time to accomplish that task to get it into DRB? GA It depends on the [inaudible] [inaudible] PO I know we're all enjoying the fact that there's less pressure than during some 250 discussions so, I don't know whether we should break into small groups and sit around and chat or you know, what we should do. Jim S If I may ask a question? PO Yes, Jim. • Jim S How long is an application good for? 20 RTM One year. • Jim S Okay, can you RTM An approval? 250 approval? Is good for one year. New house? RTM New house? I think it's three years. • JS And can you change the design while your... RTM Sure. Jim S So you've got three years before you have to perform. The only thing that this says is you have to apply. So you Have three years before you have to perform in that building. Am I correct? You have to have a completed application. MM It's one year. A DRB approval is valid for one year. Jim S Okay, are there any extensions? • MM There can be. ML Oh that's right, the whole house will go to DRB not to PEC. MM Right. Jim S So maybe that helps. You have a year, as long as you get your application in he can have any client he wants. Surely they won't take more than a year to do that and then you can extend if you want. [inaudible] JS We're asking an architect just how long does that take? RTM It depends on the client. MM It could take 30 days it could take 60. JS On a rush, good client basis. • 21 0 TS One afternoon he said. [inaudible] 90 days. PO Even Mr. Art Abplanalp earlier on the fairness issue commented that based on notification, was this at a previous meeting, the people know that this is in the works, I mean time has already running. Was that a point that you made? • E 22 Y AA The rule of thumb I used earlier today is that if the seven members of the Council can't . decide what this says, you can bet that the staff is going to be arguing about the same point and it's meaning 6 months down the road. And I think that what was going on here illustrates the fact that this particular subparagraph 5 needs to be more specific as to whether it's talking about a completed Design Review Board application related to a house or the 250, because I think it's subject to interpretation either way and it was being read both ways. I would suggest that you modify it along the lines of a, basically, no dwelling unit shall be eligible pursuant to this section that is not in existence or the subject of a completed Design Review Board application for original construction or something similar to that to clarify the fact that we're not talking about everybody rushing in for 250s. I think Mike and his staff are going to be challenged with that argument if there is in fact [inaudible, Sybil talking] ML First of all I think that it's meant to be for either case. Either the 250 or the new house because ... AA You're reading it differently . ML Well but I think, that wasn't the intent. It was just for the 250? Or the new house? RTM New house. ML Oh, that's right because we changed the ... • RTM That can be clarified, that can be easily clarified. AA Thank you. PJ So is your motion.. JS To keep it 90 days. Yes. PJ 90 days or December 31 st. JS Yes. PJ And your second is that, Sybill. SN Yes, I thought I was asking a simple question. PO Are we going to get a rush of new house applications now? [inaudible] • 23 PO In spite of our best efforts to keep things moving at slow pace, I mean I hate to think of a, rush. [inaudible] TS Shortsighted again. ML I agree with Tom. First of all I think what people are, the point that is being forgotten is that it's five years from the time the house was built, or ten years from the time the house was built. It's not five years from when someone bought a house. If the house was built in 1985, it's eligible for the 250 now. You know, I don't agree with the, you know the concept of shortening it. The purpose of the ten years is, the purpose of the 250 was for people who had small changes that they wanted to make to make their house more liveable. It was not to make it possible for everyone to increase their zoning by 250 sq. ft. SN We're not shortening it, we're leaving it the same.` ML [inaudible] No, but I wanted it to go to the ten years. SN Yeah, but that's lengthening it, this is not shortening it. ML See, cause I think that's more in keeping with why the 250 was originally.... JS I don't know where everybody's .... I don't see where every person whose built a house in the last ten years has built a big monstrosity, multi-million dollar house. A lot of people have built nice small comfortable houses here. PO Well let's not, I'm not sure .... I think we're now giving philosophical opinions, excuse me Jan I didn't mean to ... hone in on you, but, you know. PJ Well I believe Jan's motion calls for a fine tuning, tweaking, correcting grammatical errors, clarifications, etc. and I call the question. PO Okay. RTM Change of date to December 1, 1995? MM Right. PJ No. SN 90 days. PJ 90 days or December 31 st, whichever comes first. • 25 . 0 • RTM Well, we need a date for this. PO Let's, yeah, let's just pick a date. 90 days. RTM Yeah, we need a date specific. Not 90 days or, I mean if it's going to be December 31 st, this is the date at which the application has to be filed for and we really should, for clarity, because this is going to be codified, this isn't when the ordinance goes into effect. JS But I'd say it's November 30th, cause that's 90 days from the theoretical September r date this thing is going to be done. PJ It's 60 days. PO I'd suggest 90. [inaudible] PJ Or November 30th, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. JS November 30th will be 90 days. • Pi Okay Sybill? SN Fine. PO Okay, all in favor? Aye. PO Opposed? Opposed. PO Okay, we have voting in opposition Jim Shearer, Tom Steinberg and Merv Lapin. So the motion passes 4-3. Thanks very much for your participation. • 26 TOWN OF PAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 CERTIFICATION STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF EAGLE ) ss. The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and correct transcription of Agenda Item No. 4 of the Vail Town Council Evening Meeting of August 15, 1995, as it appears in the original records of the Town Clerk's office. Dated August 9, 1996 • 1AA C Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE } Subscribed and sworn to before me this 9th day of August, 1996, by Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk, Town of Vail. Not6ry Public My commission expires: • Anne E. Wright, Notary pubic My Commission Expires 617-1999 75 S. Frontage Road IQ4% RECYCLED PAPER it Transcription of the August 15, 1995 Town Council Evening Meeting • Agenda Item No. 4 re: The 250 Ordinance PO Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1995, second reading of an ordinance amending Chapter 18.71 of the Municipal Code of the Town of-Vail to preclude a dwelling which is totally removed and replaced from being entitled to additional gross residential floor area to qualify for the addition of up to 250 sq. ft. of gross residential floor area and adding a definition of demo/rebuild at 18.04.065 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. RTM Thank you Peggy. The ordinance that is before you has had the amendments that were suggested at the last or first reading that has 'a provision that five years must have passed since the unit was issued a certificate of occupancy, whether temporary or final or in the event a certificate of occupancy was not required for use to the dwelling at the time of completion from the date of the original completion and occupancy of a dwelling. We believe that this addresses the issue of the requirement of the certificate of occupancy. The ordinance does reflect that these applications will be reviewed by the Planning and Environmental Commission, however all proposals will still be required to conform to the Design Review Guidelines. The ordinance eliminates 250 eligibility for any dwelling unit not in existence as of November 20, 1995 or one for which a completed Design Review Board application for the original construction of a dwelling unit has not been accepted by November 30, 1995. That does not mean that or have anything to do with submitting an application for 250 eligibility. That will stand or fall on it's own, this . means that no building that is constructed after that date or is not in existence would be under any circumstance eligible for a 250 additional GRFA. There was a question raised in regard to catastrophic loss. It is appropriate to address that issue as it is inappropriate to address it in this section because it is addressed in another provision in the Code at Chapter 18.64.090 our Code provides that whenever a nonconforming use which does not conform with the regulations or the district in which it is located, or a nonconforming structure or site improvement which does not conform with the requirements for density control is destroyed by fire or other calamity, by act or God or by the public enemy, it's use may be resumed or the structure may be restored, provided the restoration is commenced within one year and diligently pursued to completion. This provisions clearly pertains to any structure that has received the benefit of 250 additional GRFA and that would be normally permitted within the zone district. So it's not necessary to address that again in this particular section. You will notice that we have added some additional whereas clauses which I think reflect more clearly the discussion that has occurred and comments that have been received from the community. I would like to point out that I think that the wording in the forth whereas clause could be a little better. It presently reads: whereas these dwelling units in many instances did not meet the Design Review Guidelines in regard to landscaping, gravel driveways, parking areas, and overhead power lines. I think that's kind of inconsistent and it should be meet the guidelines in regard to landscaping, paved driveways, paved parking areas, underground t ? • utilities, and inappropriate signing. I think that that would more clearly reflect what the Design Review Guidelines are. There was additionally and a question in regard to the unit having received it's final certificate of occupancy and the issue that was discussed in regard to that was to make certain that the building, as it was constructed, had met all the requirements that were placed upon it at the time of construction. We've had an opportunity to discuss this with the building department and we believe that those issues can be addressed through subsection A, which is in Section 2, and that we can remove B, which states the single family dwelling or dwelling unit shall have received it's final certificate of occupancy. Likewise as to Section 313, the building has received it's final certificate of occupancy, we believe that that is covered and it's not necessary to state it there. It's stated right above it in A and based on our review with the building department which George Ruther can go into in greater detail, we don't believe that that is any longer necessary in this ordinance. There has been one other suggestion, I had a message from Art Abplanalp and Diane Herman is also present here today, in regard to the fact that a 250 is not available for a demo/rebuild. That is stated in the title of the ordinance. It is also clearly stated in the purpose clause of the ordinance, but I believe Art's comment is well taken and I wouid suggest that we add at 2, between H and I the wording, "that any single family dwelling or two family dwelling which is to be demo/rebuild shall not be eligible for additional GRFA." Likewise in provision 3, I think the same addition should be made between I and J. You'll notice that the following provision addresses a concern of Council: "that any single family dwelling or two family dwelling which has previously been granted additional GRFA pursuant to this Section and is demo/rebuild shall be rebuilt without the additional GRFA as previously approved." So in other words, if a building had received a 250 addition but it is going to be demolished it would have to meet the present requirements for GRFA. That's all. PO Okay. Thank you very much, Tom. This has been quite a process. We have used this many times over the years and I think this time made some changes that may really make some sense and still be really fair to those who have expectations based on the ordinance. Are there questions from Council? SN I just had one. This asking for letters approving from the condominium association... I just wondered why ... why does that matter if it would be interior only. GR We ask for a letter, Sybill from the condominium association since any improvements that could occur to the building... you are correct that they would be interior but often times they include changes to possibly windows or the location of a door exiting out onto a deck where the main entrance to the unit. So since those units do effect the building as a whole we require an approval letter from the association. Pi Or more critically, (inaudible.) SN Okay. I understand, thanks. 0 2 PO Other questions? • 4S, Yes, the ... I assume this is already been in here that when someone comes in and says a list of things that need to be done one of the things that's required for someone to get their approval is they need to provide the Community Development Department a list of the names and addresses and stamped envelopes of all of the adjacent property owners. Why do you ask for that? GR We ask for that again because the 250 in part is a separation from generally the total allowable GRFA on the property. And if you read in the purpose section of the ordinance, it discusses that one of the review criteria that will be looked at with the application is impact on adjacent properties. So we ask for notification to the adjacent property owners so they are aware of what is occurring on the property. JS But that's against then ...of one property, adjacent property owner was against the 250 that that would be enough to deny it? GR Not necessarily, no. PO Not likely (inaudible) RTM In fact, your next item is an appeal by a neighbor granted 250. So we'll see how that works. • PO , Any other questions? Merv. ML Tom, I was planning to following you, but you were going a little to fast for me. Did you get into the fact that the 250 goes to PEC and not DRB? RTM Yes we did. ML Where is that? RTM Page 2 at the very bottom there. "Proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA under this provision shall comply with all Town of Vail (inaudible) requirements." ML No problem. I gotcha. RTM "If a variance is required for a proposal it shall be approved by Planning and Environmental Commission in accordance with 18.62." That's the one section. And then additionally on page 6 at the top of the page, "Upon receipt of the completed application for additional GRFA the Planning and Environmental Commission shall set a date for a hearing in accordance with Section 18.66 (inaudible). Notice shall be given and the 0 hearing shall be conducted in accordance with Section 18.66.080 and (inaudible). • PO Okay. Any other questions? Are there... is anyone here from the community who'd like to make a comment or ask questions? (Many people talking at once.) PO We've gotten a couple of letters from people who at times I think have been very concerned with this and several I know have expressed an opinion that this is a very fair resolution of the matter. So I think we were hoping to reach a decision that community members would feel comfortable with. RTM You know, seriously Peggy, we've had some input that has been appreciated and has been included. I know particularly Art Abplanalp has spent a lot of time making suggestions which were very good suggestions and we appreciate that. Thank you. PO Alright. Thank you. Rod. RS Peggy, I haven't had a chance to read the ordinance totally or thoughtfully, but PO We cant understand why. I am still opposed to it because I think the cut off date of November 30, 1995 is unfair think if someone has held a piece of property for years and years and just hadn't been able to afford to build or it wasn't right for them to build... Is that correct? MM Well, not really. RTM That, Rod, refers to homes that are not yet in existence. RS A vacant lot? RTM Yes. It wouldn't be built yet. RS Right. So if I've owned a vacant lot for 20 years and I plan on building in 1999, I will not be allowed this 250. RTM That is correct. RS And I think it is just another reason that we chase people down valley and take away rights that they though they had. I again, and I have spoken to you all before, I don't think you can tell a property in this valley that has the 250 and has utilized the 250 square feet and one that has not. I don't think size and impact is the issue. I really don't know what • 4 the issue is. But I think we are taking away a right from someone who has not built and, unfortunately, those who haven't built are generally people in the outlying areas where i the highest values are not. And we're impacting them more than we did. Those values have already risen so much. So based on that I would oppose it. PO Okay. Thank you very much, Rod. Yes. TD Hi. My name's Tim Drisko, I am an attorney in town with Chapman and Drisko. My point is similar to Rod's is that people that built homes in the 60's, and there are a number of them left. We represent a lot of them. My family still owns a home on Forest Road that was built in 1963. My father's retiring as a physician. He wants to move up here. He was kind of relying on that 250 square feet. A number of the homes were built in the early 60's and 70's have to be torn down. They're you know, there's no question. These are the people, and a lot of those owners are owners that were original owners. They are the people being hurt by this. I think you're being very short sided by just wiping this off the block. There are a lot of good people out there. We represent a number of them that have owned for 30 years and they're not going to be able to take advantage of this and they did rely on it and they have relied on it and I think you need to look into a little bit more than perhaps the five year. I mean it's very arbitrary for people that have owned for 30 years or more, 20 years, who knows, but they obvious tear down homes. I think that needs to be addressed. The 250 is gonna really hurt them to have it taken away. You know the developers obviously it's been taken advantage of. Its been taken advantage of on Forest Road and Beaver Dam Road and the golf course over and over and over again, however I • think there are a lot of quality people out there still own older homes that relied on the 250 and should be able to take advantage of it some way or other. Perhaps some kind of a moratorium or something, but to cut it off at November 30 is really giving them a short amount of time. Our firm's gotten a number of calls and I think its to short of a time to cut this off. And I also think that its directed... you know, cutting off the 250 is directed toward people that took advantage of it. There were a number of people that didn't take advantage of it that have relied on it that have owned homes for a long time and I think you should consider that before you pass this. JS Tim im confused of what you're telling us. Excuse me. The November 30 is only on someone who is going to build a brand new house on a lot that has not yet be constructed on. So that's not who you're talking about. What the other section of the ordinance is talking about is a complete demolition of the house. Those people would not be able to get the 250. TD As of tonight. If you pass it. PO Right. TD Right. Same difference. 5 0 JS All of the people that you are talking about could avoid this by not tearing the house • entirely down. Because you understand that the purpose of this is just not to give everybody (inaudible) 250 square feet. The purpose of this was people who originally owned homes and wanted to add a little family room or something little that was over and above what the town already liberally gives people in what GRFA they have. That is a little thing so that I wouldn't have to come in here and getting variances all the time. So im not really following what (inaudible.) TD Well, a complete tear down home at this point if you vote for this to the vote against this ordinance from now on you cant... you have no more 250, right? JS That right. If you tear down and start all over again you will not get the additional 250 because we feel that if you tear down entirely you've already eliminated the obstacles of adding, rearranging the bedrooms and adding on what you want. Why couldn't you do that creatively? TD Well, I mean its been taken advantage of for years here and I think the people that retain their homes, you know, hoping and waiting for that additional 250 cause it has to be torn down... JS Well they can still do it as long as they don't tear it down more than 50%. TD Yeah, but they're ... buy my point is that there are a number of homes that were built prior to 1975 probably 100 or more in the valley here that have to be torn down. I mean they're ... the construction's poor, the design is poor, I mean they've gotta go down. Original owners. That's who im addressing. And those are the people that are going to be hurt. PO I think the point Jan's trying ... I mean the point he's made, I think very well, another component of that is that for someone who just has a vacant lot now its really unfair that someone who is going back to that sort of situation with regard to zoning, has an advantage. I mean the point is that once you're starting over you should be able to work within the parameters of the zoning that we have. And if the zoning is not appropriate within the Town of Vail, then we need to look at that, as a separate issue. I mean maybe, if we need to up-zone the community and allow more square footage, and generally that's not been the message that we've gotten back on surveys and things. People seem somewhat concerned with that. That would be another way to handle it. I mean if the point is that someone really just needs more space than they're allowed under zoning, I think we should try to address that in a different way. TD Well I guess my point is that a number of people that own older homes that are going to be demolished are gonna loose that 250. And they are people that have been solid in this community, including my parents who built in 1963 and they are the ones that are going 0 6 to be hurt by this. You're taking it away from people. • 3S How would they be hurt? I don't understand the "hurt" part. TD Well because they are loosing you know, when property is selling from anywhere from $500 - $1000 a square foot, it all of a sudden wiped that off their ability to use that as their retirement or for whatever reason, or to rebuild a home and add onto it for grandchildren or a larger family. And I think that's a disadvantage. JS I don't think anyplace in here. does it suggest that the purpose of the 250 ordinance was to make people rich. TD Im saying... JS And I think that's what the argument here is that you're looking at this as a financial issue and the community is looking at it... TD Well it has been a financial issue in the past up until now and to cut that off from a number of people that have held onto it ... and also a number of people that need to add on you know for a larger family and other than that its... JS They can still do that. (Inaudible.) TD How? JS You can have your 250. Anybody can do it as long as you wait five years, if you haven't built your house yet. We're not taking ... ML But not on a demo/rebuild. But the other thing, Tim, in your parents house in particular, because of the way the zoning now calculates, which was other legislation that was passed I think in 91, they effectively got probably another... In your dad's house, effectively got another 4 or 500 square feet that they weren't allowed because of the way the mechanical rooms and stairs are figured. And in some cases, as much as up to 800 square feet. So if you think your house is maxed out now, you need to go to an architect or someone to figure ... cause I think... TD We've been all through this Merv, you don't need to tell me about that. ML And what was the end result? Did you gain more or you didn't? TD We retained more, but I think the additional 250 has been put into a lot of peoples plans that we represent at West Forest Road, Forest Road, Rockledge, and Beaver Dam Road. 7 0 k ML And, just out of curiosity, how much was gained? • TD Pardon? ML How much was gained because of the changed in the regulation? TD Gained specifically where? ML Because of the calculation of... TD Well, the 250 was a straight forward. ML Yeah. Without the 250, how much was gained? MM (Inaudible) Merv, so its really hard to calculate that. George did a calculation (inaudible) about 40% they're allowed in GRFA. So they're not maxed out so you can determine the amount of surplus... ML Oh. So you have a lot of capability. TD I just, yeah. Well im not talking about you know my own family house alone, but I just think the 250 is gonna hurt a lot of people down the road that have been around a long • time. That's the people we represent so that's... RS Does the demo/rebuild, and you have to leave 50% of the GRFA, does that mean you cant even reconfigure a bathroom within the 50% you leave? I mean do you have to leave it absolutely as is, same size rooms? PO No. No. Tom why don't you explain it. I mean in general it just means that you cant demolish more than 50%. RTM If you destroy it more than 50%, if you are taking away 51% of the existing GRFA then you do not qualify for an additional 250 square feet. RS If you leave the walls, the exterior walls, and the roof, or maybe you build a new roof, but can you within that 50% reconfigure? RTM As long as you're not destroying RS Destroying what? RTM the square footage. Gross Residential Floor Area. So as long as you are... 0 8 RS So if you leave the outside walls, if it were three rooms and you made it one room, that's okay. • RTM Yeah. If you do not ... If you leave the exterior of the house intact, I don't think that would be qualified as removing Gross-Residential Floor Area. If you knocked the roof off of the house, then you would be effectively removing that Gross Residential Floor Area from existence. RS If you left the walls, but took the roof off? RTM Yes. RS What if you have to replace the roof cause it its 30 years old? Well then you'd better... RS I think you need to define very clearly what the 50% means and what it does not mean. RTM What it refers to is and incorporates the entire section with calculation of Gross Residential Floor Area. This is something that the Planning Department does on a regular basis. And it brings in a standard that is worked with and understood by the Planning and Environmental Commission and by the Planning Department. And that's why we have used that as the standard that is used here. Because it is understood and it has been felt that 50%... removal of 50% or more would be destruction of the building. And I think that just to say whether or not you took the roof off, im not qualified to say right now whether or not that would be it. That would come up to a decision of the planners. I think that the idea is that the incentive would then be gone. Once you are destroying the building, the 250 as it was intended was to improve... make improvements to existing structures. And that once you remove more than 50% which is what the discussion has been, that then it's not in fact an incentive. It is a bonus that is not appropriate. TD I think it's going to open an incredible can of worms. PO Further discussion. JS I would like to move that we approve Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1995. Should I read this whole thing again or did you already do that once? PO You know, I think that you probably want to mention some of the changes that Tom... he's made some additional changes here. You want him to go through those or can he just say the changes you made? JS I think that Tom detailed (inaudible.) 9 s PO Okay. Motion by Jan Strauch. Is there a second? • Pi Second. PO Second by Paul Johnston. Is there further discussion? All in favor? PJ Aye. JS Aye. SN Aye. PO Opposed? RS Nay. ML Aye. But I want to clarify my opposition. RS Its either vote yes or no, Merv. PO Okay, the motion passes by a vote of 4-2, with Rod Slifer and Merv Lapin voting in opposition. I voted in favor. ML Rod, I voted against it not because I agreed with you, but because id like to see the 250 go away completely. I think the amount of square footage that will be added because of that segment of the 250 that's allowed to stand will further deteriorate the quality of life in the Town of Vail because of increased density. PO Okay. Next item on the agenda is Town Council call up of the DRB... is 10 Mi+R-28-1995 12: 44 1e; i HSTCh1 HJJI r NC tea'? r,?11 -. ??J? WIN STON ASSOCIATES Y. N V i N C 1 N M F. N- A L F L A N N I N G C k 9 A N U F> i t i V L A N r) 5[ ? v ;• `---- .- -. MEMORANDUM March 28, 1995 TO: Town of Vail: Peggy Osterfoss, Bob McLaurin, Mike Mollica FROM: Jeff Winston RE: Report on recent visit to Courchevel, France to investigate incentives, guidelines etc. used to achieve greater alpine character for the town, L? I arrived in Courchevel lam Monday afternoon, the 13th of March, and met with M. Jean-Louis LEGER, director of the Office of Tourism. Jean-Louis gave me an overview background on the changes at Courchevel, then took me on a brief tour of the Town Center and several of the major hotels (the hotels gave us a tour of the interiors and several of the rooms). The Commune had arranged lodging for me for two evenings, and a very kind hotel owner insisted I be a guest at her restaurant for dinner that evening. Tuesday morning Jean-Louis was scheduled to attend a meeting in MaribeI, and, since it was simpler for him to ski there, I accompanied him up on the mountain for two runs before he continued on to his meeting. From 10:30 AM I met with the Planning/Public Works director, Armand CARLEVATO who graciously gave me the rest of the day -- reviewing their development regulations (he gave me copies) and touring the village from one end to the other, looking at both successes and not-quite-successes. At noon we had lunch with the mayor M. Michel ZIEGLER at his restaurant on the mountain adjacent to the "altiport" (more about the altiport later)- Late in the day I took a quick trip to Maribel, and the other Courchevel villages (there are four in all). The following is a brief synopsis of the information I gleaned L wu& this visit. Courchevel was initiated in 1947 by the Department (a cross between a state and a county) of Savoie directed from Chambery. Courchevel was the first in France (Europe?) to be started specifically as a ski resort (that didn't already exist as a village. They came to the US to observe ski areas. After study and planning, they adopted two driving design concepts: Ski-inlski-out - all the residential buildings possible would be served by ski trails and lifts, and Flat roofs - they determined that flat and butterfly roofs were the most practical in snow country, that is, they didn't dump snow on the streets and pedestrian areas, and they tended to be somewhat self-insulating. The problem was, the resulting town was ugly- it had a harsh, no-frills, somewhat cold character. As it received increasingly unfavorable reviews, the town began to realize that the quality of the skiing was only one of the reasons that people choose a resort - the quality of the village was also extremely important, especially when there were very eo,..k,.titive conditions nearby. • M"NN*QN AhNOCIATFS. INI:. • 132V VFARI. STRLLA MAir. HOU11,j[R. CU 9I17C1 • A;J11 .ii1 `,-UQ • rx."t+U(! I.la e."Il MAR-25-1995 1121:451 WI NST& 1 r4D_ SC;__. I NC Courchevel Memo Page 2 449 t _ 11 r . U.3• The original property owners in Courchevel were operating on rather thin margins, and not well capitalized. However, in spite of its physical character, Courchevel was still successful in attracting skiers. At the same time, the original owners were gradually being bought out by a second der of owners, one that was better capitalized, and with a larger vision of the potential of Courchevel. By the early 1980's along with the growing concern about the town's image,' there was also a feeling that profits were high enough, that the owners night be willing to finance improvements. This sensitivity coincided with a national planning reform in France where all communities were required to develop master plans (plans d'urbanisme) for all the land within each community's control, and implement zoning regulations (Plans d'Occupadon de Sol, or POS). The format for the zoning regulations that was prescribed by the State - allowed uses, setback requirements, utility connections and density - in fact very similar to typical US zoning regulations but a rather new idea in France. The regulations for Courchevel were also addressed another key issue: transitioning from flat roofs (toiture terrasse, toiture papillon ou toiture A un pan) to a more traditional, pitched-roof architecture. The main elements of the Courchevel regulations are as follows: Density - the FAR's range L... 0.3 for low density residential, 0.6 for medium density (residential or commercial, 1.0 for medium density hotels), and 1.25 for high density (2.5 medium density hotels). Setbacks - side and rear yard setbacks are half the height of the building, but not less than 4 • m...?.,. Front yard setbacks are equal to the height of the building, measured from the opposite side of the right of way. Balcony setbacks are 4 teeters up to 3.5 meters from the ground, above which (that is, above the height of most vehicles) they can extend to within 1 meter of the right of way or property line Roofs - pitch must be between 40 to 45 degrees. Four roof materials are permitted: a local granite stone (lauzes), local slate, slate-colored metal, and asbestos cement shaped and colored to resemble slate. Dormers may not exceed 30% of the roof area, as seen in elevation. Facades - masonry may be of rough textured plaster (stucco) either white or pastel colors, or of the local grey stone. The only siding permitted is wood, with a natural wood stain that leaves the veins visible. The incentives. to renovate building exteriors, and replace roofs, to create a more alpine character essentially consist of only the two following items: 1. The floor area that is added in the roof (by going to a gable form) is outside the FAR computation. (It is essentially the sale of this space that has paid for the renovations). 2. The building is allowed to depart from the setback standards (that would have otherwise prohibited the increase in height). • w'i*ccroN ASS UC IA I'CS. IXC. 13211 MhARI STRLI: I' MAI(. AMIl,gPR. ('0 X13112 4{04? 4Ih 9:11! 1'1\ I01, 114;.14; i1AF'-GS-1 '7` 1c a5 W11-iST13H HSSOC. ii 1 a - Courchevel Memo Page 3 449 613-11 P. i?4 a It should be noted that new consttucdon is not allowed to take advantage of the greater FAR or the relaxing of the setback standards. So it is entirely possible to have a remodeled building with greater area than a new one, in the same zone, with the same lot size. According to town leaders, to achieve a transformation such as they have done required both a community will, and a need (self-interest) on the pan of the individual property owners, For many of the hotels in Courchevel, to go from a 1-star rating to a 4-stir rating, required additional space to incorporate new amenities. One way to gain this additional space was to renovate and gain additional square footage in the roof. However, a number of buildings, that already had pitched roofs, also renovated to fit the new community image. And many buildings have not changed to a flat roof but have been remodeled to comply with the new guidelines in every other way (wood, stone, stucco facades, decorative wood balconies, gable roof entry canopies with slate, etc.). These changes have come about in large part merely because the owners caught the spirit of the character, and realized that if they didn't, they would become less and less attractive by comparison. would potentially lose business, and would be holding back the community as a whole. That is not to say that everyone has complied. Condominiums are the biggest problem. Only two have been renovated. The problems appear to be obtaining approval from all the ownerships, and, since the • condominiums tend to be taller, designing a renovation that is in scale with the building. However, in one of the successful condominium conversions the sales of the additional area paid not only for the building remodeling, but also for a separate elevator to reach the new space, as well as a covered parking structure to serve both new and old tenants. The community is having a more difficult time obtaining approvals in the last several years, due to protests (contes=ioas) by neighbors who feel their views would be blocked by the larger building or higher roof. Town officials regret recent French legal decisions that give greater standing to the individual rights of property owners over the will of the community or the city. This sounds like a familiar problem. w All of the land in the Commune of Courchevel is owned by the Department (Savoie), which is a bit of a -cross between a.county and a state in the U.S. Now, if a building owner wishes to expand beyond an amount that would be permitted tinder the renovation Incentives, or if the building is already in e. t..rIiance with the design standards, the Commune may, if it deems appropriate, and if adjacent land is available, sell the owner additional land to meet the FAR requirements of the regulations. These cases are relatively rare however, since many of the existing buildings are circumscribed by developed parcels or by land which is prohibited from development due to forest/view preservation or ski area reservation. However, if it is deemed desirable to sell the land to permit the expansion, the land value is set by the square meters of development that can be developed as a result. As an example, public land that would be sold for commercial purposes (FAR 2.5) is valued today at 1600 FF/m- (approximately $351ft') of building square footage obtained. Public land sold for residential purposes (0.3 FAR) is currently values at 25,000 FF/m- (approximately S500/fc), which is equal to current market residential real estate prices in Courchevel. VNI%SNIN ASSOCIATES. INC, :4n Pr-ARL STROTT h1A;.t. U00; W11. (70 ML it,' i+r I. IIII u'}Dt' VAS it')*- '" (-"l MAFc-c -1"?'?5 12:46 Courchevel Memo Page 4 6,1r4y LM HSSuC. C Miscellaneous Notes • To change the zoning plan (POS) takes approximately 1 th years. After public meetings, the 19 town c..,.,...jssloners make the final decision. • A building permit request that only entails small changes can be processed in 6 months. A permit that requires substantial changes, -,,„,.:ally a muster plan revision, requires a 12 month process (consecutive steps of 6, 3, I.S. and 1 months). • In Switzerland, putting a full size model on the site (pose le gabarit) is mandatory, in Courchevel it is done only occasionally- • Courcbevel's next big challenge, -as they see it, is to create a tree pedestrian zone. Because the four Courchevels are located on a rather steep mountainside, there is only one main route up the mountain, and all of the buildings front on it. As a result, there is scant opportunity to turn any street into a pedestrian street. They have made several sidewalks, but there is still a lark of true pedestrian ambiance. w • • :•.?? ,±ust ?la.eu;; UIN4TON +NsaCjAri•a. INC. 0.210 PEARL. xrRELT MA:.L RUU:.DFR. CU .r:,:0. OtO- 44o.92411 TOTAL P . 0+ 7 COURCHEVEL • 118501 Strarted in 1947 by the Department (State or County) of Savoie directed from Chambery. Courchevel was the first in France (Europe?) to be started specifically as a ski resort (that didn't already exist as a village. They came to the US to observe ski areas. After study and planning, they had two driving design concepts: Ski-in/ski-out - all the residential buildings possible would be served by ski trails and lifts, and Flat roofs - they determined that flat and butterfly roofs were the most practical in snow country, that is, they didn't dump snow on the streets and pedestrian areas, and they tended to be somewhat self-insulating. The problem was, the resulting town was ugly. It had a harsh, no-frills, somewhat cold character. As it received increasingly unfavorable reviews, the town began to realize that the quality of the skiing was only one of the reasons that people choose a resort - the quality of the village was also extremely important, especially when there were very competitive conditions nearby. The original property owners in Courchevel were operating on rather thin margins, and not well capitalized. However, in spite of its physical character, Courchevel was still successful in attracting skiers. At the same time, the original owners were gradually being bought out by a second tier of owners, one that was better capitalized, and with a larger vision of the potential of Courchevel. By the • early 1980's along with the growing concern about the town's image, there was also a feeling that that profits were high enough, that the owners might be willing to finance improvements. This sensitivity coincided with a national planning reform in France where all communities were required to develop master plans (plans d'urbanisme) for all the land within each c.,,. ,,..unity's control, and implement zoning regulations (Plans d'Occupation de Sol, or POS). The format for the zoning regulations that was prescribed by the State - allowed uses, setback requirements, utility connections and density - in fact very similar to typical US zoning regulations but a rather new idea in France. The regulations for Courchevel were also addressed another key issue: transitioning from flat roofs (toiture tx...asse, toiture papillon ou toiture A un pan) to a more traditional, pitched-roof architecture. The main elements of the Courchevel regulations are as follows: Density - the FAR's range from 0.3 for low density residential, 0.6 for medium density (residential or commercial, 1.0 for medium density hotels), and 1.25 for high density (2.5 medium density hotels). Setbacks - side and rear yard setbacks are half the hieght of the building, but not less than 4 meters. Front yard setbacks are equal to the height of the building, measured from the opposite side of the right of way. Balcony setbacks are 4 meters up to 3.5 meters f.,,... the ground, above which (that is, above the height of most vehicles) they can extend to within 1 meter of the right of way or property line Roofs - pitch must be between 40 to 45 degrees. Four roof materials are permitted: natural shingles, local slate, slate-colored metal, and asbestos cement shaped and colored to resemble slate. Dormers may not exceed 30 % of the roof area, as seen in elevation. 4 v. Facades - masonry may be of rough textured plaster (stucco) either white or pastel colors, or of the local grey stone. The only siding permitted is wood, with a natural wood stain that leaves the veins • visible. The incentives to rennovate building exteriors, and replace roofs, to create a more alpine character essentially consist of only the two following items: 1. The floor area that is added in the roof (by going to a gable form) is outside the FAR computation. (It is essentially the sale of this space that has paid for the rennovations). 2. The building is allowed to depart from the setback standards (that would have otherwise prohibited the increase in height). It should be noted that new construction is not allowed to take advantage of the greater FAR or the relaxing of the setback standards. So it is entirely possible to have a remodeled building with greater area than a new one, in the same zone, with the same lot size. According to town leaders, to acheive a transformation such as they have done required both a community will, and a need (self-interest) on the part of the individual property owners. For many of the hotels in Courchevel, to go from a 1-star rating to a 4-star rating, required additional space to incorporate new ammenities. One way to gain this additional space was to rennovate and gain additional square footage in the roof. However, a number of buildings, that already had pitched roofs, also rennovated to fit the new community image. And many buildings have not changed to a flat roof but have been remodeled to • comply with the new guidelines in every other way (wood, stone, stucco facades, decorative wood balconies, gable roof entry canopies with slate, etc.). These changes have come about in large part merely because the owners caught the spirit of the character, and realized that if they didn't, they would become less and less attractive by comparison, would potentially lose business, and would be holding back the community as a whole. That is not to say that everyone has complied. Condominiums are the biggest problem. Only two have been rennovated. The problems appear to be obtaining approval from all the ownerships, and, since the condominiums tend to be taller, designing a rennovation that is in scale with the building. However, in one of the successful condominium conversions the sales of the additional area paid not only for the building remodeling, but also for a separate elevator to reach the new space, as well as a covered parking structure to serve both new and old tenants. The community is having a more difficult time obtaining approvals in the last several years, due to , protests (contestations) by neighbors who feel their views would be blocked by the larger building or higher roof. Town officials regret recent French legal decisions that give greater standing to the individual rights of property owners over the will of the community or the city. This sounds like a familiar problem. All of the land in the Commune of Courchevel is owned by the Department (Savoie), which is a bit of a cross between a county and a state in the U.S. Now, if a building owner wishes to expand beyond an amount that would be permitted under the rennovation incentives, or if the building is already in compliance with the design standards, the Commune may, if it deems appropriate, and if adjacent land is available, sell the owner additional land to meet the FAR requirements of the regulations. These } cases are relatively rare however, since many of the existing buildings are circumscribed by developed parcels or by land which is prohibited from devel.,t,...ent due to forest/view preservation or ski area reservation. However, if it is deemed desirable to sell the land to permit the expansion, the land value is set by the square meters of development that can be developed as a result. As an example, public land that would be sold for c,,..-,ercial purposes (FAR 2.5) is valued today at 1600 FF/ma (approximately $35/ft2) of building square footage obtained. Public land sold for residential purposes (0.3 FAR) is currently values at 25,000 FF/m= (approximately $500/ft'), which is equal to current market residential real estate prices in Courchevel. Miscellaneous Notes • To change the zoning plan (pOS) takes approximately 1 1k years. After public meetings, the 19 town commissioners make the final decision. • A building permit request that only entails small changes can be processed in 6 months. A permit that requires substantial changes, esssentially a master plan revision, requires a 12 month r.... ass (consecutive steps of 6, 3, 1.5, and 1 months). • In Switzerland, putting a full size model on the site (pose le gabarit) is mandatory, in Courchevel it is done only occasionally. • Courchevel's next big challenge, as they see it, is to create a true pedestrian zone. Because the four Courchevels are located on a rather steep mountainside, there is only main route up the mountain, and all of the buildings front on it. As a result, there is scant opportunity to turn any street into a pedestrian street. They have made several sidwalks, but there is still a lack of true pedestrian ambiance. 40- 0 • I 1Jl t r yv? r , n a( Ale-A rya e,p,d '?:?A? ' 1 yl'r a a a. NT-BON" SA , e z i c r t IC A :VEL J M r. • • • i R ETROUVER UNE ARCHITECTURE TRAC?ITIONNELLE Rediscovering a Traditional Architecture 'Le recours k plus large . possible oux rrratirioux traditionnels'. Hameau de 8ellecote. Courchevel 1850 Wraux J Bai$, Pierre at louze Bois sculpti Bois paint • facades peintes Over the years, the development of the resorts of Courchevel resulted in the creation of an urban fabric that was perfectly at odds with existing villages. Functional in winter, but without any charm in summer these boxes of an outmoded style, that neither visitors nor residents hoped to find in a mountain setting, presented a state of advanced aging. it was app„„ p ',ate then, in a time when economics were becoming more and more competitive, to place a higher importance on the image of the resort, to make it more inviting, warmer by turning as much as possible to traditional materials such as wood, slate and stone. Various measures were taken. primarily by means of the Urban Design Plan, to encourage the renovation of the condominiums and chalets and to require new construction in a traditional form (gable roof). The Town decided to take the initiative in completely remodeling La Croisette (gondola building/skier services). While the "communal cabin" (La Croisette) was being coifed with a gable roof, its facades were also redone. The hotel owners followed suit in a spectacular fashion, fundamentally transforming their estabi shments. At the same time we witnessed a multiplication of renovations of individual chalets, at times in the form of ccmplete reconstruct ons. "La Commune a La Croisette dicide de prondre avant at apris. Finitiative.. " We are nc.v fina'iy seeing the appearance of the first renovatior_ of condomin _ms, The sum c- these efforts has allowec Courchevel to present ar mage much more mor--ane arid warm, both unifies and diverse. j, i, Multiplying everywhere are roofs of slate, sculptured balconies, painted facades, stone foundations- a testament to the skill of the artisans of our valley. The recent evolution of the tastes of the clientele- for whom the quality of the skiing isn't the only motivation in the choice of a place to say- can only encourage the municipality to continue in its efforts to place a higher value on the architectural landscape and the composite image of the community. rTcl X "Les promiiros ribobilitations d'immeubles collectifs." Les Cheyennes. Courchevel 1850 i_ "presenter une ;moge plus montognarde at choleurouse." Le Chalet Crrimaud. Courchevel1850 151 U • • Los plans d'u. banism . initiaux de la sealian, rilabores is parer de 1946, continent aujourd'hui de numdrer bur pertinence quant 6 I'interpenefmlion du domaine skiable at des zones b6ties. Toutefois ceux-d se sons averes inadaptes au dbvelopr . .nt de la circulation at„ .bib. MEN Escaiercouvert de cot ! e11550 1 6] u Entree de Moriond I CIR(C--ULER E1?1ITCDUTE LIBERTE Circulate in Complete Freed 3m Over the course of years we have also seen a degradation of the streets - their crowding has cc me at the expense of the comfort and safety of the pedestrian - not to mention the population in ge-eral, because some streets have become inaccessible to fire and emergency vehicles. Ti- e Town therefore threw itself into an important intermediate "Un travail plan to eliminate all rise des sde reprise des parking from public rights voiries et des of way, to provide places necessary pedestrian space publ'rques." through a program of Place du tremplin. creating covered parking. Courchevel 1850 As soon as it was possible, - separate pedestrian ways were created: in 1989 the i M covered stairway was T , developed, linking the top and bottom of Courchevel 1550; in 1990 it was the escalator of Moriond, which permitted access to the ski runs directly from the resort village. Also, pedestrian path has been negotiated from La Croisette to the altiport, providing service to the areas of Nogentil and Bellecote. a systematic refurbishing of walkways and plazas has been undertaken (Place du Rocher, Place de la Croisette), sidewalks have been created to allow pedestrians to circulate safety, separate from auto routes. Pedestrian passageways (passages des Peupliers, at the center of Moriond) have been . Cam t ym de la du rad brought about, making a separate island in the middle of the traf icway. The total of the roadwork in 1991 alone rep-esented an investment of 52 t million (US). ,l 1 At the same time we have created a system of shuttles between levels (the use of which s free for those with lift ickets) which have reduced traffic and encouraged th a use of long term parkng. ra: 1 41. t, h. :r The policy of crealing large parking structures, that began with the construction of the Croisette structure at Courchevel 1850, rearesents an investment of $12 million over the last 5 years. Seven parking structures have been built, at different levels of the Town, most of which allow direct access `o the sxi runs. i517-spaces have been made availably! to the public, of which 430 are season passes. ..r r an snoop, "Permettre aux Pietas de circuler on securilb." loss Passage du Pros COURCHEVEL 1850 Le parking de to Croisette : 320 places, occes direct aux remontees mecaniques. Paiement par peoge 6 pied. Le parking de la porte de Courchevel : 61'entree de la station, 225 places reservees aux abonnements soison. Le parking des l_henus : rue des Chenus, 95 places paiement par horodoteur. COURCHEVEI 1650 Le parking de to scot on service 61'entree de la station, 175 places reservees aux abonnements soison. Le parking des Cfines Blanches : rue du Marquis, 470 places, acces direct aux remontees meconiques Paiement par peage a pied. COURCHEVEL 1550. Le parking des Rois : 6 I'entree de to rue des Rois, it offre un acces direct aux remontees mecaniques 175 places. Paiement par horodoteur. LE PRAZ . Parking de I'Or Blanc : 61'entree du village, 49 places dons 30 reservees aux abonnements soison. Paiement par horodateur. 171 AVORISER L'ES•Sp' CONOMICDUE Favoring Economical Development • HStel "Los 1 Q r 1.? Airelles" i Si elk no dirige pas directement les activites 6conomiques, la Commune s'efforce cependant de f .. , 'ser lour epanouissement. 8? This concern guided the Town at the launching of several important and structural projects, and remains the guiding principal regarding hotel activities, which is one of the pillars of the local economy, as well as for business and crafts, for which development is tied to the availability of adequate space. Therefore, to reinforce the center of the Village (Courchevel 1850) and to create a focal point for commercial activity, the two operations DIAMOND SPACE and the FORUM were undertaken. The latter includes among other things the Olympic skating rink the large interior shopping gallery, and the Children's Ski Village where kids can practice skiing. Other operations were equally developed at the other levels of the resort (White Summit at 1650, the Kings at 1550, and White Gold at le Praz) in order to strengthen the center of these areas with commercial and parking. In effect, at the same time it was decided to construct underground parking to ease the parking that was growing on the streets and to favor pedestrian ways, thereby making travel and interchanges easier. The dynamism of local craftsmen should also be 0 supported, in the form of possible expansion, and thus the availability of land appropnate `or their activities. Fcr this reason the Town has been preoccupied with moving them out of residential drw areas and has been studying several "craft zone" solutions. a feasibility study on the financial plan on the route to Bozel/Moutiers is being undertaken . Hitel "Los grandee Alpes" avant Entr6e du Forum The same goes for that which is related to hotel activities which, taking into account the number of establishments and their quality, represents .in essential element cf the local economic life, to Ham which it is absolutey .to essential to offer th a thabidw„" meats to develop a. quality avant/opr6s level and maintain i . The Town is thus forced, in spite of the difficulties that come with a very minutely divided plzt map, ...ef apr6s to make flexible the Land Use Plan in order to help rehabilitation, modernization or the simple renovation of hotels. This was possible particularly by the discontinuance of the density standards in 1987 which, with the incentive to return to a more traditional mountain chalet architecture, furnished the opportunity to improve the architecture and the capacity of establishments, by the transition from flat and butterfly roofs to , gable roofs. This action, which has given such the e^vironment remarkable results will be (limitation of auto continued in the years to circulation on mountain come. Paths'. Installing shelters for a public that is more Let us not forget and more important is agriculture and mountain now being studied with tourism that is aided by the National Parks of the conservation of alpine Vanoise. zones-the renovation and modernization of alpine chalets as well as regulations that protect le Carlina apr4is et avant HBtel "la pomme de pin" avant/opr6s llll? 0 1 ,b T , #t k. & ENT EX<- NSNIETTRE , r An Exceptional Environment to Pass On ; ? Y The principal motivations National de to Voncise, de to pour eviter 1'envahisse• ' restructurer les ui ments ment des friches, " were, in addition to the eq Pe 4?ir!ciP 1 ? parking aspect, to make d'hebergement et de restaw ment aux abords des vil- ' the community more - ' = ration a destination des ran- lages pour une reprise de I hospitable [receptive] and dean in the winter season ti donneurs par I'ogrondisse- :jexp6tation des pres. ?_ ment du Refuge des Medets - the season that is essential to the economic et la construction d'un refuge le principal probleme est to ` and social life of the = dons le Vallon des Avols. dispersion des proprietes et fe community -but also morcellement des parcelles. x - throughout the length of f Enfin ou niveou de b protec to mlance de I'ociiI agrico the year, particularly during fion des sites, la Commune a le necessite Padoptation des summer. t _ interdit, en periode esliv , la structures fiscoles au ab The actions fait into the r cireulotion des vehicules 4x4 et des mesures inck&,es categories of leanness, J non professionnels et des mise, o disposition des agri xk k urban fumiture, the -nabs toustenains sur les the tears des ferias „Z? 3 h r? expansion and signage of mins de montogne pour eviler I"'*exerace de leuragmle * - paths, of information, x' ?' us protection of sites, and of le bruit et la poussiere. De z. maintained. of which un so0tlen o 1'agriadhi . Tout ce qui rouc}ie a I'envr preservation of agriculture.,.. r! certain ones link and fc , re, indispensable a'I'entretieri ronnement est de it rat circuits with neighbor r_ de la montogne a ate .rv-- gerierd, ca 1 s'ogit de' e • t'" r Through the Environment s k ft and Property commission, valley and Towns. en motiere d'acces, de serval k r I onerael Topographic maps area s ' the Town has helped z .? s dwlets et de sates di fo6riccr que anus ant legue nos n , t produced each yea 1 ° upgrade the cleanliness of _ r mietke Y kr a et r? est de notre the various villages by the competitions) enlivens showing the vanou pour Pe , ` public spaces, facades and routes. r- tion optimum des alpagesS sew rebrsere dive. _ installation of trash bins, gardens with beautiful _ lieu d animotron importpnt?' ?conomiqu?e et whose use is required. Further, each winter the flower displays. In the near future the dons k cadre -"du tounsme " , de le lion, "Mr. Clean's assure the Town env sages, with t-e z f * y' After several ears of National Parks of th- cr Lin poste d'agent daily cleaning of the resort y feeling I d Vanoise, restructuring t 'e rr spedalerri afle-deb w el 'From center. our way aonga. working at it, the fist : lodging amenities and quesAonsa W q"§ t i4 a r. + ib +;4iW 1 ,n lp? The results of these county awards are a a restoring the touring ""4 rs r x?£ rY, ` destinations b enlaroir, ?=n;?` operations will only be recognition of the actions r by lesroducteurs locaux der positive with the we have taken: the Refuge des Merlets and the construction e• a y participation of each u omo a ?e qualrlb person in his or her area I st prize: balconies lodge in the Valley or the ay 9 3rd prize: mountain Avals• of responsibility. In this P village regard we must re- 5th prize: gardens. f tml- ?? emphasize the duty of {d a, qui 3 re \ _ property owners and Natural spaces have not s w irwAwnte par manager with regard to been forgotten. With , ide cleaning and removing ice respect to walking paths from sidewalks. the Town has instituted, I'environne with the National Forest ?' s b bblite du ` - At the same time, each Office and the National "' summer the lawn and Parks of the Vanoise, a tone communal, individuals attracted[by the network of trails open t?) 'a ???? Cha?r me doit dontC parall ti. •rr ?` all es of walker. 120 _ town and county types ,? ?,• . (" ?avarser le moinI a ? dune c9i?ctd ,? . beautification kilometers of trails are now signed and I tu'rrtronerr • Ol Unovation privee : Iles halet$ " Le plan d'Ckcupation des Sols W " Disircide de lo Commune de Saittt-Bon- Courchevel datait de 1983. La reoclualisation de ce document simposait ofin de proceder a la synthese des diffiwentes modifications in . . nues depuis lots. x bm.i Le front de ne' de Z Moriond „Je Le Proz de Saint-Bon LA N EY C LE P 1 0 The Land Use Plan The Comprehensive Plan initiated by the Town Council in 1989 creating links between the Town and a number of Extemal Services of the Federal government (County Equipment Supervisor, Agricultural Department..) The various special districts (environment, drinking water supply, management of ski terrain) could thus be dealt with comprehensively. This revision was essentially inspired by two objectives: 1. Give greater importance to the qualitative aspect of the Town's urban development in order to offer a warmer way of life, capable of helping in the development of a great summer season. ? Architectural renovations were facilitated, especially the shift from flat roofs to gable roofs. Architectural guidelines were established, ? At the same time, more consistency and control was brought to the overall public relations effort 2. To direct the growth of the Town toward satisfying the needs of permanent j residents. ? Building zones have been enlarged primarily for primary homes, with the creation of zones for building lots at diffe*ent levels of the To,.tin. ? The expansion of the tourst component in the revised Land Use Plar should only bring approximately 2850 new beds (9% of current capacity), essentially through the renovation of existing buildings. At the same time, the ?- I YU . y . y, .ti INS b % 9 L ,% y;N? y < ExtraiO du plan de :onage de Courchevel 1550. Pour toute explication relative n cot extroit du plan de :onage, vows power contacter le Service de NUrbanisme de la Mairie de Saint-ban Courchovel. 113 UPATION DES OLS Town's Codes were strengthened in order to permit regulation of the sale of land the creation of land reserves. Similarly, exactions were installed through a Management Plan fo' new (tourist oriented) construction zones in Courchevel 1850. This allows the provision of public amenities funced by ON ----------------------- .- ---------------- ?- ------------------- - -------------- ------------ 'r % I % s ? II builders at the time they receive building permits. The process of revising the Land Use Plan was completed in 1991 with the Town Council's approval of the revised Land Use Plan project A recent adjustment to the demis of the Plan: The Mayor recently signe-- % .:.`i3rtgas% a subdivision moratorium by which 15 or so property owners will be able, after a friendly regrouping of the land, to oversee development in the Plan area, and construct, for the majority, their principal residence. -I- 0. ?''/b?:S"'. • ,sue •4 . U • PROMOUVOIR L'HABITAT PERMANENT A Poccasion de la revision du P.O.S., la MunkipaliM a af6rne so volonte de promowoir Phab'rtat Collecave housing at Courchevel 1850: the Town granted itself the parcel situated between Antares and the Porte de Cou.J,cJel. Construction was awarded to OPAC of the Savoie who expect that the Federal government will contribute low-cost housing (HLM) credits that are essential to a building for 35 units. OPAC is also the owner of properties located at below the entry road to the town garages. Community. At 1850 at eas are designated for the expansion or creation of subdivisions that will require public land acquisitions (voluntarily or through condemnation). After providing basic services the lots will be sold for individual chalets with the requirement that they be permanent residences for a long period, or for small rental collectives, not now existing. Some Advice If you have decided to construct a house, or to remodel, here are several bits of advice that are Preliminary Counseling important to help you avoid ro essin del To avoid being disappointed at the disposition of your building permit, it is recommended that you have a Preapplication Conference with the Urban Commission, who will inform you of any problems posed by your application. This will avoid the rejection of your application if certain points of the regulation have not been followed. For all information contact Urban Services. permanent colledif ou incIMduel, d'initiative privice ou publique. Void quelques operations on tours qui temoignent de teas volontb f4 1-1 Seasonal employee apartments: after the Plantrey lodging (56 apart ..._..s) the Town, in collaboration with OPAC of Savoie, has begun planning/design a second employee housing project of approximately 60 studios at I'Aval of Antares. This operation, financed by the "I% housing" levy will provide lodging for seasonal employees of the Town. Individual or small apartments: The Town has shown its concern for keeping residents in the Community by reserving permanent residence sites at each village of the p c g ays or the eventual rejection of you application, Architectural Counsel The Town puts at your disposal the free services of an Architectural Counsel to help you with the architectural plan and regulations. But he is not there to prepare your submittal. If this is necessary you need to consult an exterior architect that you will compensate according to the services provided. Consultation (with the Architect Counsel) by appointment the ist Wednesday of each month in the Town Hall. Time Limits and Review The approved form can be obtained at Town Hall. The complete submital will be submitted there, including a site plan, building mass plan as detailed as possible (mith topographic relief if needed), and project plans as well as existing conditions. It is important to remember that the . reguiations establish the maximum time period allowed the Town for review of your application. This time period begi,)s only with the submitt.tl of all cif the items neces!ary for review. The review is made concurrently by Municipal Services and by the C-iief of Departmental Equipment who propose to the Mayor the response to the application. Subsidies The town requires the use of certain materials, particularly on the roof level. You can take advantage of subsidies of the Vanoise Park for the placement of slate. MAIRIE, C;??UI FAIT QUOI ? Au telephone, e'.es vous repondent et vc.s aiguillent vets les differer-s services. A I'accueil, elles . cus renseigne.- et s'occupent ce routes les formalites adm - stratives et notamment de -_utes les questions d'etc• civil SECRETARIAT :?ES SERVICES TECHNIQUES Poste 12 - Nc•ciie SABY En colloboratior directe a,ec Armand Carle,o•o, elle s'occuFe de tour ce qui c--ncerne les marches de trc.cux : dossier d'appels d'of{res ouverture des plis, preporaticr des marches. Elie est done er -elation directe ovec les entrepr ses. Poste 27 - Agnes MERCY Tout le court ier a is facluration du service des eoux possent entre ses main. Au niveau voine, c'est elle qui gere les "ocupotions temporaires du aomaine public" chantiers, over re de tranchees. factures... COMPTABILITE Services Administratifs Poste 16 - More laude LEGE< La compiabilite, 'e budget, les emprunts, le foyer logement, les mandatements, 'a paye du personnel communal, les elections, c'est e1e. Poste 17 - Mcrne MARANCET Aide comptable elle seconde MorieCloude LEGER, frappe e courtier et a en charge le dossier "toxe de selour" Regie - Services Techniques Poste 15 - Corine CHEVASSL Elie traite les factures, les boux la cantine scolaire, les fodaits loisirs et route to comptabiiite e* le personnel de to regie. AGRICULTURE Poste 46 - Verorique REBILIARD Agent de matrise. elle s'occupe de buses les questiors d'ogriculhxe er d'environnement entrefiemboliso ge des senders, renootion des chdlets d'alpage: Reunssement.. y SERVICES TECHNIQUES Jacques MACAGNI Diredeu-Adjoint ore b regie, II occupe les fc,_ u., de regisseur des receffes de b regie municipoie r" (parkings, piscine, locations des URBANISAAE Bernard GUIGUET DORON •r, deuxieme Adjoint charge ce I'Urbantsm et du Logemert 'resider de la Commissio n Jrbon sr et logement. 'oste 3f - Alexis FRENOY, Chc-ge ::a M&ion Responsecle du service Urbcnisme. e Poste 4C - Sylvie DEREANI, secretariat du service. sales mcr;cipales, oltiport, etc.). Poste 32 - Nicolas BOUTRELLE DirecteL,--Adjoint de la regie, it ossure Ic gestion et 1'entretien des trerrclins, de I'altiport, des parkins couverts. En hiver, it s occupe plus specialement du deneigement. Poste '2 - Bernard MACHET Adlemt cu Direcieur des services 'echniques, technicien territorial I s'occuoe de to preparotion ores dos-, ers d'appels d'offres, de la m?se 6 jour des plans de reseaux du suivi des chontiers de voirie. SERVICE DES EAUR Poste 3; -Jean-Paul CHAPUIS Lo gesticr et 1'enketien courant du service ores eaux et assainis- sement, c releve des compteurs, le reglerrent des factures. Pour route infarnotion concernant vVhe alimentc-on en eau, c'est lui. CENTRE DE SECOURS Armand 3AULEN Deux mis- sions pc,, le responsable du cerr re de secours la lure contre les ncenciies et les secours au), per sonnes e? aux biers d'une oars et to prevention d'oure part. 5 pom- piers pro'essionnels et une wing ,nine de .obntaites ossurert noire secunte el 79 08 20 80 V Poste l: Jecn MAILLET, Directeu--djc nt de b Reg* Municipce. (^struction techniqL-e ces cermis de construire er-=_rien et renovat -- ces aotiments commurc-x ec!airoge public, s- -i ces chantie,sl. Rene C?:O E:. Arch rec•> Consei ce Ic 1,mmure (Consul_- ors ,raiudes ?e ler men: ea ce chaqLe moisl. T_ -5 13 45 Andre R: %_: Direction departe-enb a de I'Equipe-ent subdivision ce Moutiers ns-,-ction des permis ce cc-struirej. T6179 2- D- 37 T I S • i I 19 . A; APPRMPSEP 0 9 66 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 40 August 12, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Susan Connelly Greg Amsden Mike Mollica Henry Pratt Dominic Mauriello Galen Aasland Dirk Mason Gene Uselton George Ruther Diane Golden Judy Rodriguez John Schofield Public HeacWg 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. A request for a renewal of a conditional use permit to allow for the continued operation of a mobile catheterization laboratory at the Vail Valley Medical Center, located at 181 West Meadow Drive/Lots F & E, Vail Village 2nd Filing. Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Dan Feeney Planner: Dirk Mason Dirk Mason gave an overview of the request. Dirk stated that the applicant was requesting to extend the renewal of a conditional use permit indefinitely, or at least for more than a period of one year. He explained that no complaints had been recorded. He stated that staff was recommending approval with the conditions stated in the staff memo, with an additional condition for indefinite approval. Dirk then handed out to the Board members, a late arriving letter submitted by Joan Norris. Larry Gaul, a cardiologist, thanked the community and said that the mobile catheter lab exceeded their expectations for usage. They have not experienced any complaints. The conditional use permit allows the lab to be operating three days per month, but the request is for four days per month to better distribute the patients and make it easier to get the van out by 9:00 p.m. at night. Four days per month will allow them to miss skier traffic when departing the site. Pam Stenmark, General Partner at the Evergreen Lodge, requested that the conditional use permit not be indefinite, but reviewed each year. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. There was none. Galen Aasland had no comments. Diane Golden thought it was nice for the community having the mobile lab. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes August 12, 1996 1 L Henry Pratt is reluctant to give a permanent approval for a conditional use permit. He would like the maximum amount of time to be 5 years. John Schofield had no comments. Gene Uselton had to disagree with Henry Pratt. He would like to do away with the bureaucratic red tape. As long as the PEC could call-up the permit at any time, or as stated in Condition #5, he felt that was sufficient. Greg Amsden agreed with Gene's comments. Greg Moffet asked the applicant how soon they anticipated going to 4 days? Larry Gaul said they are going to 3 days as soon as the lifts open and will wait and see when 4 days would be needed. Greg Moffet felt indefinite approval, agreeing with Gene's comments. He told Pam Stenmark to advise the PEC if there were any complaints. Gene Uselton made a motion for approval, subject to the 5 conditions as listed in the staff memo. The motion was seconded by John Schofield. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 2. A request for an amendment to an approved site development plan to allow for a shift in the building envelope of Building #8, located at 2792B Kinnickinnick Road/Innsbruck Meadows #8. Applicant: Bob Borne Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request. Since the proposed relocation of Building #8 is by more than 2', staff could not administratively approve the relocation. Staff is recommending approval of the request with the 3 conditions as listed in the staff memo and with the additional condition that the applicant move the building out of the utility easement. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment, there was none. Greg Amsden abstained, since he is a listing agent for the property. There were no comments from Gene Uselton or John Schofield. Galen Aasland asked if this would affect driveway grades. George Ruther said there would be no impacts. Diane Golden had no comment. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 2 • • .'7 Henry Pratt said he would prefer not to have an encroachment agreement. • Greg Moffet had no comments. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval with conditions in accordance with the staff memo. The motion was seconded by John Schofield. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Greg Amsden abstaining. 3. A request for height and front setback variances to allow for the construction of four triplex buildings, located at 1894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing #3. Applicant: Steven Gensler and Stephen Katz Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request and said that he included all of the letters from the adjacent property owners received by the Town of Vail. George had received another letter objecting to this request, which he passed out to the PEC members. Staff has worked with the applicant to lower the building height, so the building height variance will not enter into this application. George went over the staff memo and the zoning analysis. Staff is recommending approval of the request, since the applicant's lot has steep slopes and the variance will have minimal impacts on the community. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments. • Ron Preston, the Architect, said the setback requirement is to give relief from the road. Without the variance, it is too narrow and limits what can be done. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment. Mary Ann Vanetta, a property owner at Capstone, south of the applicant, thought it should be redesigned to include increased landscaping improvements. We see this new proposed plan as . Mr. Gensler's response to a previous worksession. This doesn't address the landscaping problem. Greg Amsden said he was on the Commission at the time of the original worksession. This plan seems better for the preservation of the trees. Mary Ann Vanetta said the applicant thought if he redesigned the request, he could get a front setback variance. The redesign could have been approved if he didn't increase the dwelling units from 8 to 12. Greg Amsden reminded Ms. Vanetta that the applicant's lot is private property. If a new developer came in, he could bulldoze the property, if he chose to. Darryl Brady, an owner of Vail Point Unit #7, stated that his realtor, Mr. Hiller, represented and consummated the deal. We are violently opposed. We have a setback of 20' to protect them from encroaching. We are opposed to the setback variance request. We thought the zoning was there to protect us. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 3 C Roger Staten, a Vail Point homeowner, would like to voice his objection. Mr Hiller, the real estate agent, showed him the plans for the development across the street. He would have thought • twice about buying his unit had he known this was going to happen. He said variances are granted because of hardship. This is a profit oriented request. This will not benefit the Town of Vail and will create a tunnel effect. The existing codes were put there for a reason. The homeowners of Vail Point have had to pay for Mr. Gensler's back taxes. How can the Town of Vail reward anyone when they haven't made good on their promises to his Vail Point project? This is a profit motivated request. Larry Eskwith, representing Vail Point, reviewed the variance and the staff memo. He would like to know where the hardship is here. The first reason for the variance request to do away with the front setback, is because of the large road right-of-way. It doesn't mean there will always be a large Town of Vail right-of-way. It is not perpetual, as stated by Greg Hall. This request doesn't show any hardship. The second and chief reason for the variance request is to preserve certain landscaping that the Capstone Condo owners placed there. In other words, to preserve the rear setback for Capstone landscaping. Capstone would like to see this go through, since they put a lot of landscaping on trespassed property. The development could be built without projecting itself into the front setback. Again, what is the hardship and why are my clients being subjected to this. One of the key findings is that the variance will not be a grant of special privilege. How many variances have been granted with a 19' out of a 20' setback. There is no hardship to support it. Marty Walbaum, Vail Point owner of Unit #8, stated that calculations on Phase 11 do not reflect overbuilding Phase 11 and underbuilding Phase III. Reasons for granting a variance must prove that the granting would not be detrimental or materially injurious to adjacent property owners. Thirty eight property owners in Vail Point object to the request, as it would be materially injurious to us. Phase II has not been completed in the three years that I have lived there. We have been • obligated to pay the developer's taxes. I feel the granting of this is a special favor to the applicant, who is not even here. Steven Gensler stated that he was here. Ken Sortland, a resident of the Town of Vail and resident in the valley for 16 years, owns Vail Point #3. When the road was first put in, it was not put in the right place. Setbacks are for the purpose of buffering between units. The applicant got this property in 1989, when he purchased Vail Point. There is no hardship. 1 see no condition to grant a variance. The developer hasn't completed the work on the first job, nor is the job properly done. Owners had to pay for fixing a leak in the driveway when asphalt had been dumped onto it by the contractor. Owners had to come up with back taxes to the tune of $300 per unit. Please deny the variance and have the developer build within the envelope. Phillis Mango, owner of Capstone #1, has no problem with the granting of this variance. Regarding Section V, item 4, where the emergency vehicle turnaround is addressed; where is the snow going to be dumped? How are you going to preserve the plantings that are there, as identified in item 5? Marlene Zemmers of Vail Point, stated that instead of a town of chimneys, she would like to preserve what we have now. These are substandard buildings done by a developer with a debt of back payment of taxes. She is getting the feeling that he is catering to Capstone. We care about Vail and not the profit motive. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12,1996 4 • r Jennifer Henner, an owner of a Capstone unit, said let's love the Vail Valley as it is, which • means keeping the trees and rockgardens in the back yard. We think everybody wishes to keep it beautiful together. Bruce Chapman, an attorney in Vail, recently owned Unit #1 in Capstone. The issues back in 1994 were the landscaping. Building a series of duplexes and triplexes with more buildings and less units might be the way that Steve could build his duplex and still have adequate spacing between the units. The idea of the encroachment most impacted Unit #1. The idea was to move the buildings away from Capstone. The County required only a 10' setback when they were originally built and that is the hardship. Staff discussed the turnaround be redesigned, however, this is not the appropriate time to talk about this. Over the years fill has been put on the property. He understood that the fill was to be removed. Is that still true? George Ruther said that 4'-6' of fill could remain or be removed. The building height is determined by the 1989 survey. Bruce Chapman said the height should be brought down. Are we trying to diffuse some of the concern of Capstone by talking about the turnaround? George Ruther said if there was a way to get the emergency vehicle turnaround out of the setback area, staff would prefer that design. Bruce Chapman suggested moving the buildings to the north to where they were in 1994. Greg Amsden said he didn't remember where they were in 1994. • George Ruther had a copy of the 1994 plans and showed them to the PEC. Bruce Chapman compared the two plans. In closing he said the real physical handicap is that they were built under the County's jurisdiction and were stuck with a 10' setback, instead of the 20' setback that exists now. Larry Eskwith said the comments are coming from the neighbors of the developer. The hardship then relates to the neighbor. The hardship has to affect the developer, not the neighbors landscaping. This request increases the rear and side setbacks and takes away the entire front setback. How does it fit with the law? I haven't heard any evidence to prove a hardship. I have heard that Capstone would like to preserve their landscaping. Greg Amsden asked Larry if a 40% slope proved to be a hardship? Greg stated he walked that site today and the site baffles you because it's so high. When you drop it down, by removing the fill, there is a hardship. The entire project seems more detrimental if it exists within the setbacks. That's the hardship. Larry Eskwith said the hardship that he's hearing relates to aesthetics. The road width or the closeness of Capstone is not sufficient rationale for granting this variance. George Ruther said there was public testimony in response to the separation of the buildings. In 1994, the desire by the PEC was to have a 15' minimum separation between structures. The 10'-12' separation is reflective of the difficult constraints placed on the site. This shows a possible indication of a physical hardship. There are 3 dwelling units in the setback. The hardship on the property is having steep slopes, as well as a lot configuration, and • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 5 encroachments of landscape improvements. George agrees that the road location is not in perpetuity, so while there is a possibility it might move, it wouldn't be to the north, just to the south and only a few feet of gravel shoulder. George stated variances are granted based upon the Criteria and Findings listed on pages 4 and 5 of the memo, and someone's economic status should not be entered into in considering this request. The applicant is permitted to construct more than he's asking and is also cleaning the slate of 500 extra square feet of GRFA. Galen Aasland asked if the Buffehr Creek Road lot is not developable. George Ruther said it is not developable. Diane Golden asked why there is not 15' between the buildings. George Ruther said because of site constraints. Diane Golden asked if that was a requirement. George Ruther said that was not a requirement, but instead a PEC recommendation. Steve Gensler, the developer, responded to concerns raised by Vail Point owners. The back taxes are on a portion of Tract A, which was a common area for their use. The tax assessment was changed by the Eagle County Assessor. The road leak happened 4 years after it was constructed. That's part of living in the mountains. Two of the buildings have no CO's because some of the owners don't want the tot lot, that was proposed. I'm hardpressed that these people see me as an enemy. If the Lionsridge Loop wasn't built so far to the north, I wouldn't be asking for a setback variance. It puts my property off the road. Because of so much slope to the west, this is not an unreasonable request. Ken Sortiand, a builder in the Town of Vail and the Town of Avon, said if he buys a lot, he decides what he can put on the lot. I just feel you have to deal with what you buy. If someone comes along and creates a hardship, then you have an argument. He feels a variance is not warranted in this situation. Marlene Zemmers can't help but wonder why George is so supportive of this project and closed to our comments. How many of the Board members are real estate agents? Greg Amsden said he is a real estate agent, responding that he has seen many sites that are needing variances because of site restraints. Susan Connelly stated the project planner reviews and analyzes the project. She reminded everyone that public comment should be directed to the board. John Schofield asked what the right-of-way was for the existing Vail Point. George Ruther said it is in compliance, being 20' from the asphalt, but there are decks that encroach into that 20'. John Schofield asked how far the property line was from the road? George said 48' as constructed today. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 6 • John Schofield said the Public Works Department has no plans to move Lions Ridge Loop. • George Ruther mentioned that a bus turnaround was to be installed, but Pat Dauphinais has constructed a bus stop at Glacier Court. Gene Uselton said the project is very attractive and he has no objection. He still is concerned that it is 1' from the right-of-way. Greg Amsden stated that after reviewing the public input, he is confused with what the actual impact is on the Vail Point Townhomes. There is a canyon effect with the Vail Point units, but it also exists in the other properties. View corridors are not in existence there and 15 units are allowed. This is not detrimental to Vail Point. Greg said that a 40% slope proves a hardship. We have not considered Capstone's landscaping issue, but are instead looking at site constraints. Any problems with warranties are a civil matter. I don't see any tenement there. It is not a step down from what is already there. Henry Pratt said as far as site plans go for tight sites, this is well done. The canyon effects are not there since the buildings are turned to break up the mass. My concern is that there is no place on the site to pile snow. I don't have any sympathy for the landscaping that Capstone has put in. It is worth moving it, if it gets in the applicant's way. The degree of encroachment is not enough to justify 19' into the front setback. The right-of-way is justification for building into the front setback. The developer has offered to give up the 500 square feet of additional GRFA that he is entitled to and although it is a nice gesture, it is not enough reason to encroach. I feel there are two units too many. Diane Golden said something is going to be built there. She agrees with Gene and Henry regarding the amount of setback variance that is being requested. Galen Aasland said the developer has a right to build. He appreciates Capstone's concerns, but also recognizes that the landscaping encroaches into the developer's lot. Giving up 500 sq. ft. of GRFA is insignificant. There is a distinct advantage for triplex units. There is however, no place to put snow. Can the developer develop this lot without the variances, since it doesn't meet the criteria necessary for the variances. The problems are self created. Galen thinks Units 1-3 could be shifted over towards Capstone, or be made smaller. Galen feels there is no reason to grant a 19' and 17' variance. It was enlightening to learn about the zoning that was previously in place that Bruce Chapman mentioned. Greg Moffet said there is a hardship on the lot. This is not a grant of special privilege, because the road sits so far away from the lot, the developer is waiving developer rights, the mature landscaping and the slope of the lot, regardless of how it got there. This request does meet the criteria needed for granting variances. Larry Eskwith stated when granting variances, the law states you grant the very minimum amount of variance. By shifting two of these buildings, you could accomplish this. Marty Walbaum said the project encroaches too far. 19' is too far, since things could change, such as the Town of Vail might come up with a better road. The project does encroach upon the view corridor. It was presented by the broker, that due to the easement, the view corridor would not be blocked. Steve Gensler said when the fill is removed and the lot is taken down to its natural grade, the • view will be the same as it is now. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 7 Greg Amsden asked about the possibilities of reducing the encroachment. Steve Gensler said he is trying to get spacing between the buildings. He doesn't want to touch • the Capstone landscaping. We are transplanting one tree where Building # 6 is. Ron Preston, the Architect, explained why they are constrained to this encroachment. To clip corners would compromise ourselves and these corners are not on the buildings that everyone is complaining about. George Ruther reminded the PEC that this is not a worksession item. If the PEC is not finding a hardship enough for a 19' variance, there is an opportunity for the PEC to table this item and have the applicant redesign. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant is comfortable with tabling the item, since there is a problem with the magnitude of the encroachment. The PEC does however, understand that there will be some encroachment. Greg Amsden asked the staff and/or Vail Point what would be a sufficient encroachment? Henry Pratt made a motion to table this item until the applicant reduces the encroachment into the setback. The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 4. A request for a conditional use permit to replace an existing well and pump station, • located on the lower bench of Donovan Park. Applicant: Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, represented by Gail Lucas Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request. Staff believes that the applicant has met the criteria and therefore, staff recommends approval with the three conditions listed on page 7 of the memo. George stated that he had a conversation with Gail regarding condition No. 1. He would like to change the condition for the 4" underground drain line to read, "that it have a new location, not necessarily to come out of the east end, but out of the west end, and that it not disturb the landscaping." Galen Aasland said on page 3 of the staff memo regarding item No. 2 that stone is appropriate. Stone should be on the outside. Diane Golden had no comments. Henry Pratt agrees with Galen that stone should be used instead of block on the outside. Is the celestory required and if not, he would like the height lower. Henry also asked if the back roof was needed. Gail Lucas said since we have to be back from the bank of the creek, we need to be up above grade. Henry Pratt mentioned that there are other ways of doing that. • Pla....:..g and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 8 Greg Amsden had no comments. Gene Uselton asked what the depth of the well was. Gail Lucas said the well was 200' deep. The idea is to take all wells out along the creek. John Schofield said stone was more desirable. Gail Lucas reminded the PEC that stone was proposed in the first place, but Public Works staff asked for block. Greg Moffet said we can direct the DRB to request stone. Henry Pratt made a motion to approve the request in accordance with the staff memo, including the conditions on page 7, with changes to condition No. 1 and a new condition to direct the DRB to request stone on the outside. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 5. A request to amend Sections 18.24.020, 18.24.030, 18.24.040, 18.24.050, 18.27.030, 18.28.030, 18.28.040 and 18.29.030 of the Zoning Code to add Brew Pub as a conditional use in the Commercial Core I, Commercial Core 2, Commercial Core 3, Commercial Service Center and Arterial Business Zone Districts. Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Jack Hunn Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the proposal. He stated that when we recently amended the brew pub variance, we expanded the amount allowed to be produced. This amendment will allow Brew Pubs in all of the Commercial Zone Districts as a conditional use. He stated that the impacts of a Brew Pub are similar, if not the same, as that of a restaurant. Staff believes that the conditional use process is appropriate for a Brew Pub, so that impacts can be evaluated on a site-by-site basis. Outdoor seating is a separate conditional use permit and should not be confused with an approval for a brew pub. Jim Lamont has provided a memo outlining his concerns regarding Brew Pubs in a CC1 Zone District. Greg Moffet asked the applicant if he had anything to add. Joe Macy said that he initially wanted a change in the CC2 Zone District. Subsequently, staff has expanded this to include other districts. He doesn't agree with Mr. Lamont's logic. Brew pubs are a nice mix of eating and drinking and are more popular in Colorado than anywhere else in the U.S. It is an amenity for the Town of Vail. Jim Lamont, EVHA, attended meetings on the issues within the CCI pertaining to noise and truck deliveries. This amendment had not been reviewed by his President's Advisory Committee. There is frustration with the noise levels and truck deliveries. A brew pub is not appropriate for the CC1 Zone District. We are asking for specific standards before you go through the conditional use permit process. Bottle handling for selling off-premise presents a noise problem. What is the degree of brew pub production? I have been out every night with the police with noise meters. The Hubcap has been turned into an outside beer garden. The number of people Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12,1996 9 creating noise after 10 pm is directly related to not having specific requirements for each zone district. It changes from commission to Commission, from Council to Council. That's why • standards need to apply. Greg Moffet asked for additional public comment. There was none. Galen Aasland said that this was an appropriate use and he had no further comments. Diane Golden had no comments. Henry Pratt is in favor of this proposal. John Schofield supports the proposal. Gene Uselton ditto to Henry. Greg Amsden had no comment. Greg Moffet responded to Jim Lamont's comments on the boards changing and said that this is the democratic process. He stated that the police will deal with the noise issue. Galen Aasland moved to approve the request with no conditions, word for word, in accordance with the staff memo. The motion was seconded by John Schofield. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. • Joe Macy said he appreciated the assistance of Dominic Mauriello and the staff. 6. A request for a landscape variance to allow for a building addition and additional surface parking, located at 2131 N. Frontage Road/ Lot 3, Vail Das Schone 3rd Filing. Applicant: Safeway, Inc., represented by Dennis Wyatt Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview and said the applicant has worked closely with staff to provide better access and to improve the cross access. Safeway has provided substantial landscaping and pedestrian improvements, including stairs down from Chamonix and a better drainage system. The Town of Vail parking requirement is 105 spaces and Safeway would like 128 parking spaces. We find the Town of Vail standard is low and we believe that this is a good request.' There is a physical hardship on the property. Staff believes the substantial improvements mitigate the loss of landscaping in the back. Dominic also mentioned roadway improvements in the front of the site. Staff is recommending approval subject to the three conditions on pages 4 and 5 of the staff memo. Katy Press, Real Estate Manager of Safeway, said Dominic did well to recap and will just answer questions. John Schofield asked for the time schedule for snow removal. Katy Press said she is not from this area, so she will defer that to staff to answer. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 10 Mike Mollica asked if John had anything in mind. i John Schofield said perhaps the same standard as Vail Commons, or tighter; be reasonable, but flexible. He would like to see some protection for the bike path and also a bond for landscaping. Gene Uselton agrees with John. He complimented the applicant on the plan to identify parking spaces. Gene asked how they were planning to limit access to the loading area. Katy Press said the Safeway policy is not to tow. It won't be as convenient to access the liquor store as it used to be. Hopefully they can use Mr. Gart's parking spaces. Greg Amsden said there is a concern with parking for the liquor store and he would like Safeway to address that. Katy Press said we could look at a gate. Henry Pratt said Safeway might take a look at the Lodge which has a voice-activated gate. Galen Aasland agrees with a gate on the north side of the walk and to incorporate some landscaping, so as not to see the gate. Snow storage should be the same as for Vail Commons. He is concerned with the distance between the road and the first parking space. He would like to see it bermed up to 3' for icy roads, or cars that are in the way of being hit. Diane Golden said her fellow Commissioners have brought up everything. Henry Pratt agrees with John on the landscaping. He feels it is better to have Tor 8 more parking spaces and give up the landscaping islands. He also agrees with a berm. Henry asked if we are gaining anything with the accel and decel lanes? They just make people drive faster. Dominic Mauriello said it's a CDOT requirement. Greg Moffet approves of the gate to restrict access to the dock area and the liquor store. This does not constitute any special privileges. The Code really missed on parking for this kind of use. The hardship is the fact that the site does not provide enough parking for this use. All the required findings are met. Dominic Mauriello pointed out that the memo has recommended findings. Henry Pratt made a motion for approval with three additional conditions; that a gate or traffic barrier be added to prohibit people from parking in the truck loading area, and to guarantee that the landscape island be maintained in a live condition for 3 years, and that snow removal performance be the same as other properties in the area. The motion was seconded by Diane Golden. Mike Mollica asked if the wall on the bike path was to be included in the motion. Henry Pratt added a condition No. 7, that the bike path be better separated. Galen Aasland said to include the berm as well. 0 Henry Pratt said ok. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12,1996 11 The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 7. A request for a worksession to discuss a variance to allow detached garages in the front setback, located at 2853 and 2833 Kinnickinnick Road/Lots 7 & 8, Block 4, Vail Intermountain/Lodges at Timber Creek. Applicant: Jim Marx Planner: Dominic Mauriello Henry Pratt made a motion to table item No. 7, at the applicant's request, until August 22, 1996. The motion was seconded by Diane Golden. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0 8. An appeal of an administrative decision relating to Section 18.04.065, pemo/Rebuild, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, as it relates to Chapter 18.71, Additional Gross Residential Floor Area, located at 3110 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 9, Block 3, Vail Village 11 th Filing. Applicant: Bill Pierce Planner: Dominic Mauriello Greg Moffet asked the Board members to state who they have spoken to since the item has been known. Greg Amsden said he spoke with Rick Rosen and Bill Pierce. • Henry Pratt said Bill Pierce and Tom Moorhead. Galen Aasland said Bill Pierce. Greg Moffet said Tom Moorhead is here as an advisor to the PEC and to make sure all potential exhibits are brought to your attention. Greg Moffet said if you are going to address the Commission, please speak into the microphone, so the record is clear. Dominic Mauriello explained this appeal of an administrative decision. He gave an overview of the background and explained what the definition of a demo/rebuild was. He also explained the definition of a building. He stated that the definition was included in the PEC packets. Dominic said the applicant was granted 250 sq. ft. to each side of the duplex. Dominic conducted site visits on July 22, 1996 and July 23, 1996 with Building Inspector, Chuck Feldman. In Chuck's estimation, 65% of the project was destroyed. Guy Cuccia, the superintendant on the project, estimated that 700/6 of the structure was demolished. A redtag was issued on July 24, 1996. Tom Moorhead stated to the PEC that included in the packets are the Council transcriptions of the meetings where the Council considered revisions to the 250 ordinance, as well as an affidavit from Jim Curnutte, the former planner for the project. • Planning and Environmental C...-- ssion Minutes August 12, 1996 12 Rick Rosen, legal council to Hughes, wants it on the record that unless I'm shown something • saying otherwise, it is perfectly legal to talk with a Commission member, regarding an item on appeal. He said that he resented that this meeting opened with the Commissioners needing to say who they spoke with and the connotations that had. Greg Moffet explained that we are trying to make sure all discussions are disclosed. Rick Rosen said that Bill Pierce will give a chronological order of process. They are using approximately 950 sq. ft. of additional square feet in addition to the 500 sq. ft. William Pierce, the Architect, said that in 1995 the owners got together to renovate the property to maximize the square footage. The request was for two, 250's plus 950 sq. ft. of available GRFA. This was the amount permitted to be added to the existing home plus 77 sq. ft. of site coverage. The existing square footage was approximately 3,700 or 3,800 sq. ft for both sides, not including the garages. Galen Aasland said the initial amount was 3,700 sq. ft. Bill Pierce said the applicant used only 850 sq. ft. for the garages, so they could build more garage space. They decided not to expand the garages, because the site coverage space is too limited. We removed about 5% of the floor area of the house for additions. We submitted the original drawings in October, 1995 of the existing house, before the remodel, so that the extent of work would be clear. We highlighted in red an overlay of the areas that exist. The Tuchman sheet A-204, dated 10/9/95 shows existing conditions with the addition over the living room. On the 30th of October we submitted the Hughes, sheet A-204, dated 10/30/95. These all referenced where the Tuchman roof is being removed. Sheet A-7, dated 5/7/92 on the original • shows there was never a question that this was not a substantial remodel. Sheet A-204 (Hughes) shows the roofline is a roof and a half above the existing roof. At the 12/11/95 PEC meeting we received unanimous approval. Jim Curnutte summarized the request and with one minor change and felt comfortable with the request, since it was a straightforward application. Jim's affidavit admits that he met with us and went through in detail what we were doing with this house. On January 22, 1996, the staff approved the DRB application after adding one window. After that approval, the owners wanted to make it look better. They resubmitted drawings. On March 22, 1996, the DRB unanimously approved Sheet A-301 and Sheet A-303. Diane Golden asked at this time if they went back to the PEC. Bill Pierce said no, we did not alter the floor area, just the style. On May 15, 1996 we submitted the building permit application. Sheet S-4 shows all roofing members. There were 200 new roofing members. Not one section showing has one roof remaining when the building permit was issued. This was in the Town's hands for 8 months. $750,000 was the valuation and we had given staff countless opportunities to review these documents. One of the key issues here is the ordinance that says floor area cannot be removed. Staff says if you remove the roof or the walls, it is taking the definition to its fullest definition. There is no definition of what removal of GRFA is. The staff memo refers to interpretation and intent. This is ok if it is done before issuing the building permit, not after. This refers to the removal of the floor area, not the walls and roofs. Is the Tuchman/Hughes project the first to come through since the change? s Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 13 Dominic Mauriello said it is not the first one approved. Rolle Kjesbo of Nedbo Construction was hired to do the work. He submitted the application on 5/18 and picked up the permit on 6/15. He hasn't changed anything, as per the drawings. Rick Rosen said you have heard from Bill Pierce, that we had an 8 month approval process. At all times it was clear that roof elements were going to be picked up, cleaned up and put back. Per Tom Moorhead, the removal of a roof destroys GRFA. The actual transcriptions and the minutes on that Ordinance give no definition. I can't find a definition on demolition, destruction or removal of GRFA. We have not done that. We have just done a remodel. An example of a demolition exists on Beaver Darn Road, where a structure has been bulldozed, then brought back out of the ground. Although 1,450 sq. ft. has been added to the structure, only 500 sq. ft. has been through the 250 GRFA ordinance. It would have to read demolish, destroy or remove. The PEC recommended approval. It then went back to staff after this PEC approval. Staff approved the 1/22/96 design. All the exterior changes were to be cleaned up. Staff took 6 weeks and issued a building permit on June 18th. On July 22nd, an ex-planning member said we had demolished 50% of the building. We're not going to tell you that we didn't take the roof off. We have not violated the ordinance. I think you need to overturn the interpretation. Greg Moffet asked for any public comment and questions from the Commissioners. Dominic said he had 6 photos taken on the 23rd of June, 1996 for the Board to see. Galen Aasland asked-Bill what portion of the structure was demolished? Bill Pierce said about 5%. Bill Pierce said by definition you can demolish 100% of the garage. Bill said approximately 150 i sq. ft. was demolished. Galen Aasland asked Tom Moorhead for the definition of a demo/rebuild. Tom Moorhead said it is defined on page 2 of the memo, with 50% or more of the GRFA being removed. The word "structure" comes under the definition of a structure and a building in the Zoning Code. Galen Aasland asked under this definition, who determines this, the applicant, or the staff? Tom Moorhead said the applicant, and that Jim Curnutte references the definition of demo/ rebuild right in his memo. It needs to be addressed in the process by the applicant. Bill has stated that 5% had been removed, so its either 5% or 70% removal; that's what your grappling with. Rick Rosen directed Galen to look at the minutes from the 1st and 2nd Town Council meetings on August 15, 1995. No one can figure out what is meant by demo/rebuild; bulldozing and pulling out of the ground, or GRFA. There is no clear definition of demo/rebuild to calculate GRFA to remodel a property. The ordinance was given as an inducement to upgrade existing property. Diane Golden asked staff if you bulldoze, can you then only add what was originally on the site? Greg Moffet said if they bulldozed, they could only use the 950 sq. ft., not the 500 sq. ft. 0 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 14 Dominic Mauriello said they would not be entitled to the additional 250 sq. ft. if they bulldozed. 0 Greg Moffet said there was no statutory definition of GRFA. Dominic Mauriello said that architects in Town deal with the definition of GRFA on a daily basis. Diane Golden said she is not clear on walls, roof and floor area. Tom Moorhead said in the definition of a demo/rebuild, it references back to GRFA. Henry Pratt asked if a demolition plan was ever submitted to staff? Bill Pierce said, no. Henry Pratt asked what percentage of the framing was removed and replaced? Rolle Kjesbo said 5% of the floors. Henry Pratt said the Town said 70% was demolished and you are saying 5%. What percent was framing? Bill Pierce said 100% of the roof is new. 5% of the existing GRFA was removed and built. Henry Pratt asked how much of the exterior walls were replaced? Bill Pierce said maybe 50%. Henry Pratt said when you say 5% of GRFA, I take that to be 5% of the floor. The exterior and interior are exactly the way they were submitted. Greg Amsden said he had no further questions. Gene Uselton said he had no questions. John Schofield asked if the project was constructed according to plan? Dominic Mauriello said no, but the walls are in right places. Rolle Kjesbo said the walls are according to plan. Dominic Mauriello illustrated on page A-202 and A-201, which was submitted for a building permit on 5/15/96, the new floor and new walls and the existing walls which were to remain. Rolle Kjesbo said the structural engineer did not recommend a pony wall. Dominic Mauriello said that the walls are located according to the plans, but they are new walls. Rolle Kjesbo asked Dominic if this plan reflected the construction on-site? Dominic Mauriello said, yes. . Rolle Kjesbo said we had to put a new header in. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 15 John Schofield said there is a difference for the means and methods of a finished product. Is there any interpretation that has been published that follows the guidelines in your memo, or an interpretation by the Council or PEC? Dominic Mauriello said it is codified. John Schofield asked if the additional GRFA under the 250 ordinance was not involved, then there wouldn't be an appeal? Dominic Mauriello said, yes. John Schofield asked if all building permit requirements were done? Dominic Mauriello said he had no idea; he would have to check with the Building Department. Bill Pierce said we had a sloping pony wall and the structural engineer said we couldn't put a wall on a structural pony wall. John Schofield asked if the staff interpretations had guidelines as to what had to be removed? Diane Golden asked if half were done at a time? Dominic Mauriello said we are looking at this on a per unit basis. Diane Golden asked if they just worked on one unit at a time, could they avoid the demo/rebuild issue? Bill Pierce said yes to Diane's question. • Dominic Mauriello stated that when more than 50% of the GRFA is removed on each side, it would then be a demo/rebuild. Bill Pierce said he could have done this one side at a time and would have met staff's interpretations. Dominic Mauriello said that is not what occurred in this case. Galen Aasland asked when the DRB plans were submitted, were the floor plans the same as the PEC approval? Tom Moorhead said there was discussion on 8/15/95 on pages 7, 8 and 9, regarding the removal of the roof. It is the interpretation of Council that constitutes what the law is in the definition of code. Greg Amsden said he read through it and it was a very dubious motion. I'm confused on what was said there. The language was in the final draft of the ordinance. Rick Rosen said on page 7, 8 and 9, Tim Drisco said it is opening an incredible can of worms. No one can stand up and say what demo/rebuild really means inTim Drisco's words. Gene Uselton asked about the series of drawings that came before the DRB. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12,1996 16 Rolle Kjesbo said we interpreted the drawings to be on staff and on budget. 0 Gene Uselton asked if staff was responsible for calling it to your attention. Rolle Kjesbo said yes, that's why we have plan review. Greg Moffet asked, with reference to the structural engineer who works for Bill, what is the level of interaction with the Building Department? Bill Pierce said they work for us, come to the site to make regular inspections and to look at whether you can build as proposed. Rolle Kjesbo said the framing inspection requires a letter from the structural engineer. Greg Moffet asked if there is a point where the engineer needs to communicate with the Town, or if he follows the plans, does he not need to talk to the Town. Could this have been accomplished without being a demo/rebuild by systematically going around doing this. Dominic Mauriello said we would not approve it because that is a method to violate the intent of the ordinance. Clearly they could do it. Rick Rosen said the purpose was to upgrade. The applicant wanted to add a bedroom. There's no way with staff's interpretation this could be done. They can't pull down the exterior wall. This was not the spirit of the ordinance. They would have to put up a wall to tear down a wall. There is a need to codify the interpretation. • Dominic Mauriello said it was clear from Jim Curnutte's memo that the entire roof was not being removed. Bill Pierce said if you read the affidavit, he was of the opinion that it was not a demo/rebuild. Jim spent time with my staff and the plans on the site and it would be inconceivable that Jim, with his experience, would say that he didn't see the roof needing to be removed. Greg Moffet asked if I wanted to convert interior GRFA and wanted to replace the whole roof in the process, could this be done? Dominic Mauriello said not if it exposed more than 50% of GRFA. George Ruther said on March 11, 1996 a homeowner did just that, but made it very clear that they were going to remove the roof. Rick Rosen said we came in on March 20th and this was not picked out by staff? Dominic Mauriello said the scope of the subsequent DRB reviews was minor changes (such as windows) to an approved plan and not a new review of the demo/rebuild issue. Galen Aasland asked Rick Rosen about whose responsibility it was to conform with the code? The applicant, or the planner? Rick Rosen said we, as taxpayers, pay staff to say yes, or no and to help us follow the rules. Galen Aasland asked whose responsibility is it to meet the code? Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12,1996 17 Rick Rosen said both parties. Greg Moffet questioned Dominic regarding in the Background (III), the second to last sentence, in the first paragraph, by whom was the understanding reached? Mike Mollica stated that it was the staffs understanding that removing the roof would eliminate GRFA. George Ruther said the intent was abused. Was the applicant upgrading the existing structure or demolishing it? At what point have you taken a house beyond a remodel? Are you still confined, or constrained by the existing structure? This is abusing the intent of the 250 ordinance. Can you not go in and remove more than 5013/6 of the existing structure to design a house to meet your personal needs? Rick Rosen mentioned an analogy of adverse possession. If I stick a fence on someone's property and it remains for 17 years, it becomes my property. I have the right to pull that fence down and put it back up in same location and still keep my status. Using this analogy, the applicant put a brand new wall in the same location. Greg Moffet asked Tom Moorhead, since this is unlike anything I've ever done since I've been on the commission, how do we choose to go to executive session? Henry Pratt asked why we would need to go to executive session? Tom Moorhead stated the Commission has the ability to go to executive session for the purpose of deliberation. Greg Moffet asked what we were required to find as it relates to the interpretation of the statute? • Tom Moorhead said the PEC, regarding all appeals, based directly on evidence, must find if the standards or conditions from the Zoning Title have or have not been met. The staff interpretation of a demo/rebuild does not entitle the applicant to any additional 250's. You are making a determination on the evidence presented to sustain or overrule the staff interpretation. Galen Aasland asked if a house was built and burned down by a fire, would the applicant be allowed to build it as before? Tom Moorhead said that this does not have anything to do with the appeal before the commission. The situation has been clouded because it's underway. Is this application appropriate in relation to the ordinance? We are talking about hypotheticals here. George Ruther gave an example of this happening and the applicant not being granted the 250. Gene Useiton said the contractor submitted the plans and did what he was required to do. Could staff have recognized that this was going to be a demo/rebuild and detected it? Dominic Mauriello said no, not from the plans that we had. Mike Mollica said it was Jim Curnutte's understanding that this was not a demo/rebuild. Rick Rosen said since Jim Curnutte is not here, let's go off of his affidavit. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 18 Tom Moorhead stated in paragraph 10 of Jim Curnutte's affidavit, this project was never represented to be a demo/rebuild, per Laura Nash. Rick Rosen introduced Laura Nash. Laura Nash stated that it was very clear that Jim knew that the roof was coming off. Gene Uselton asked if we had a legitimate right to assume that the applicant knew what the interpretation of the statute was. Dominic Mauriello said that right on the application, a paragraph talks about a demo/rebuild. Gene Uselton asked if the applicant understood what that meant? Greg Amsden said he doesn't understand it. Debra Tuchman, owner of the east unit, stated that in order to qualify for the 250, we had to keep it in intact. We went to considerable pains to do that. There are parts of the house that I would have liked to change, but it was a remodel and I couldn't change some things. Because of my layman's intent of the ordinance, we were issued a permit. I'm not clear from looking at the plans. With knowledge of the plans up front, the granting of the permit had the blessings of the Town. They render their interpretation of the plans when a permit is granted. I understood that a structural engineer was needed with the amount of glass that was added. Susan Connelly said there seems to be a distraction because of one's distaste of GRFA. The plans were approved because it was not a demo/rebuild. It is the PEC's job to interpret this. Greg Moffet asked that if regardless of the PEC's action, is this subject to a call-up or appeal by Council? Rick Rosen said it was his understanding they could not appeal to Council. Diane Golden asked if they just built the additional 950 sq. ft. and not the 250, could they do it? Dominic Mauriello explained that if you build a new house today, you are no longer eligible for the 250. Rick Rosen said we are both clear on that position. Tom Moorhead said the applicant is subject to an appeal or call-up to the Town Council. John Schofield said there are several facts in dispute regarding the percent of demolition. The definition is less than clear. He made a suggestion to the staff that the definitions be published and a separate demo/rebuild definition be formed down the road. I definitely think there is a conflict between the staff interpretation and the code. I see nothing that addresses that. Gene Uselton said my comments have nothing to do with GRFA. There is no uniform opinion within the PEC members as to the interpretation. How then could the applicant be expected to comply? • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12,1996 19 4Y . Greg Amsden said we need to take a look at the code. That would mean that I can't put a new roof on my house. We have to make GRFA proactive. This whole area needs to be defined. Will there be any negative impact to improve the property? There's a gray area here. Galen Aasland said the Town has acted responsibly, with regard to questioning if this is a demo/rebuild. Where there's a 250, a demo plan should be required. As soon as it got to be this much, a demolition plan should have been submitted. This does violate the spirit of the 250, however, the applicant was trying to make this work. The Town's definition needs to make a much clearer statement. Diane Golden said the Town Council has directed the staff and the PEC to be proactive. We're here to help make Vail better and build homes that people can stay in. The definition is hazy, unclear and needs clarification. Henry Pratt said the issue of the demo/rebuild has been clouded. There was a lot more framing removed before the photos that were taken. For that reason, staff's interpretation has been violated, but I do not feel the intent has been violated. In driving home, I noticed on a constant basis, even though the framing changed, the mass never changed. I disagree with staff's interpretation. If floors were taken out, or walls put back in a different place, then I could see staff's interpretation. During a walk-through, I saw stairs and conditions that I would not have rebuilt in the house, so the intent was not a tear-down. Greg Moffet said he does not see bad faith on the part of the staff, or the applicant. The dilemma, in my mind, is that a demolition means to bulldoze. It is clear that there were great pains being taken in this project to not have a demo. The code is not clear. We are required to jump from definitions of structures to definitions of buildings in different sections of the code to get one definition. It is not obvious. We are looking at the code as an objective document. • Applying staff's interpretation would create a financial hardship on the applicant. I don't think, however, that staff is acting out of line on this. Henry Pratt made a motion to overturn the staff decision in favor of the applicant and also to direct staff to modify the interpretation for everyone who uses it. Tom Moorhead said to make one motion. Henry Pratt withdrew the motion. Henry Pratt made a motion to overturn staff's ruling, based on the findings that the interpretation is not clear and that the applicant acted on their own interpretation, which I find to be reasonable. The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton. It passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0 Henry Pratt made a motion to direct, or ask staff to more clearly define what a demo/rebuild is and have this definition not work against what a 250 is intended for. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Gene Uselton would like to amend the motion to include publishing the definition. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 20 Greg Moffet recommended an amendment to change the code. • Henry Pratt said both amendments were acceptable. Greg Amsden seconded the amendments to the motion. The motion with amendments passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. 9. Information Update Susan Connelly wanted to thank all who participated in Vail Tomorrow and had surveys. Mike Mollica had the Courchevel documents as handouts to the PEC. 10. Approval of July 22, 1996 minutes Gene Uselton made a motion for approval of the minutes. Diane Golden seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. John Schofield made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously by a vote of 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m. C? Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes August 12, 1996 21