HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-1226 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail wit! hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on February 26,1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for an amendment to the Town of Vail Municipal Code regarding zoning administration
and meals, amending numerous Sections of Title 18.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast located at 987 Circle
Drive/Lot 26 Buffehr Creek.
Applicant: Jeannine Erickson
Planner: Jim Curnutte
A request for a Front Setback Variance and a request to utilize the 250 Ordinance to allow for a
garage and a Type I EHU to be constructed at 1464 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 10, Block 2, Lions
Ridge Filing No. 4.
Applicant: Carrol Orrison, represented by Tom Braun
is Planner- Mike Mollica
A request for Site Coverage, Front Setback, Side Setback and Density variances to allow for an
addition to the building located at 1845 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 21, Vail Village West Filing
No. 2.
Applicant: Ted Smathers, represented by Brent Alm
Planner: Jim Curnutte
A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow four volleyball courts to be constructed at the
soccer field located at 640 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Block 2, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a Setback Variance to allow for a residential addition located at 5165 Black Gore
Drive/Lot 17, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Kurt and Leslie Davis
Planner: George Ruther
An appeal of an administrative decision relating to Section 18.58.020 (A) (Fences, hedges, walls
and screening) and Section 18.04.370 (Definitions - Structure) located at Lot 11, Spraddle Creek
Estates„
Applicant: Ric Fields representing Dr. Steadman
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a worksesslon to discuss proposed amendments to numerous sections of The
Town of Vail Municipal Code, including but not limited to Titles 2, 16, & 18 to allow for
modifications to the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Randy Stouder
A request for a worksesslon to discuss potential changes to the Town of Vail Municipal Code
relating to how building height is determined.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Randy Stouder
Sign language interpretation, available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-
2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information.
Community Development Department
Published February 9, 1996 in the Vail Trail.
r
•
PLANN'IIING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 26, 1996
AGENDA
Proiect Orientation / Lunch
Site Visits
1. Erickson - 987 Circle Drive
2. Smathers - 1845 Gore Creek Drive
3. VRD - 640 Vail Valley Drive
4. Davis - 5165 Black Gore Drive
Driver: George
11:00 pm
12:30 pm
Public Hearina 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a worksession to discuss potential changes to the Town of Vail Survey
Policy relating to how building height is determined.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner:. Lauren Waterton
•
2. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast located at 987
Circle Drive/Lot 26 Buffehr Creek.
Applicant: Jeannine Erickson
Planner: Jim Curnutte / Dominic Mauriello
3. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow four volleyball courts to be constructed at
. the soccer field located at 640 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Block 2, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District
Planner: George Ruther
4. A request for a Setback Variance to allow for a residential addition located at 5165 Black
Gore Drive/Lot 17, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Kurt and Leslie Davis
Planner: George Ruther
5. A request for a worksession to discuss Site Coverage, Front Setback, Side Setback and
Density variances to allow for an addition to the building located at 1845 West Gore
Creek Drive/Lot 21, Vail Village West Filing No. 2.
Applicant: Ted Smathers, represented by Brent Alm
Planner: Jim Curnutte / Randy Stouder
6. An appeal of an administrative decision relating to Section 18.58.020 (A) (Fences,
hedges, walls and screening) and Section 18.04.370 (Definitions - Structure).
Applicant: Ric Fields representing Dr. Steadman
Planner: George Ruther
7. A request for an amendment to the Town of Vail Municipal Code regarding zoning
administration and appeals, amending numerous Sections of Title 18.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
8. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to numerous sections of
The Town of Vail Municipal Code, including but not limited to Titles 2, 16, & 18. to allow
for modifications to the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Randy Stouder
9. A request for a Front Setback Variance and a request to utilize the 250 Ordinance to
allow for a garage and a Type I EHU to be constructed at 1464 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 10,
Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing No. 4.
Applicant: Carrol Orrison, represented by Tom Braun
Planner: Mike Moliica
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 25, 1996
10. Information Update
11. Approval of February 12, 1996 PEC minutes.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
•
9
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
•
February 26, 1996
FINAL AGENDA
Proiect Orientation / Lunch
Site Visits
i . Smathers - 1845 Gore Creek Drive
2. VRD - 640 Vail Valley Drive
3. Davis - 5165 Black Gore Drive
Driver: George
11:00 pm
12:30 pm
Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a worksession to discuss potential changes to the Town of Vail Survey
Policy relating to how building height is determined.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Lauren Waterton
•
NO VOTE
2. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow four volleyball courts to be constructed at
the soccer field located at 640 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Block 2, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 4-0
APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
3. A request for a Setback Variance to allow for a residential addition located at 5165 Black
Gore Drive/Lot 17, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Kurt and Leslie Davis
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Kevin Deighan SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 3-0-1 (Amsden
(abstained)
APPROVED
•
4. A request for a worksession to discuss Site Coverage, Front Setback, Side Setback and
Density variances to allow for an addition to the building located at 1845 West Gore
Creek Drive/Lot 21, Vail Village West Filing No. 2.
Applicant: Ted Smathers, represented by Brent Alm
Planner: Jim Curnutte / Randy Stouder
NO VOTE
5. An appeal of an administrative decision relating to Section 18.58.020 (A) (Fences,
hedges, walls and screening) and Section 18.04.370 (Definitions - Structure).
Applicant: Ric Fields representing Dr. Steadman
Planner: George Ruther
WITHDRAWN BY APPLICANT
6. A request for an amendment to the Town of Vail Municipal Code regarding zoning
administration and appeals, amending numerous Sections of Title 18.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
MOTION: Kevin Deighan SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 4-0
APPROVED
7. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to numerous sections of
The Town of Vail Municipal Code, including but not limited to Titles 2, 16, & 18 to allow
for modifications to the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Randy Stouder
NO VOTE
8. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast located at 987 is
Circle Drive/Lot 26 Buffehr Creek.
Applicant: Jeannine Erickson
Planner: Jim Curnutte
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 11, 1996
9. A request for a Front Setback Variance and a request to utilize the 250 Ordinance to
allow for a garage and a Type I EHU to be constructed at 1464 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 10,
Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing No. 4.
Applicant: Carrol Orrison, represented by Tom Braun
Planner: Mike Mollica
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 25,1996
10. Information Update
11. Approval of February 12, 1996 PEC minutes.
APPROVED
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356
TDD for information.
0
East Woos Homeowners Assodalon
EAST VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
is
•
Officers: President - Bob Galvin Secretary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - Patrick Gramm
Directors - Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie Caulkins - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder
To: Town of Vail
Town Manager
Town Council
Planning and Environmental Commission
Design Review Board
From: Jim Lamont, Executive Director
Date: February 26. 1996
RE: Ordinance amendment as per PEC Agenda 12/26/1996
The Homeowners Association wishes to have the opportunity to respond in writing to
agenda items numbered 1, 6, and 7.
We are in receipt of the various official "staff' proposals that would change several sec-
tions of the zoning code. The magnitude and context of many of these proposals are of sufficient
scope and import that they need thoughtful and timely deliberation by the diverse and numerous
interests in the community who will be impacted by the proposed amendments.
Publication of official reports concerning these items were not available on a basis suffi-
cient to allow us thoughtful consideration of their implications or effects. A copy of the memoran-
dum to nine DRB requesting certain amendments were not available to us prior to or at their
meeting. Over recent weeks the Homeowners Association has requested, on numerous occa-
sions, to discuss the specific of these proposals with the planning staff. To date, we have in-
formed that we have been denied permission to discuss these matters with the appropriate
technical staff. Over the past three weeks, meeting dates were scheduled with both technical and
supervisory personal to discuss the foregoing matters. Regrettably, to date no substantive discus-
sions have taken place. We are under the impression that professional courtesies are not being
extended, followed or respected with regards to these matters.
Matters of import requires that the Association's Executive Director refer matters such as
the aforementioned agenda items to the Homeowners Associatiol, Board of Directors for review
and consideration. On behalf of the Board of Directors, it is requested that the Association be al-
lowed the courtesy of addressing the Planning and Environmental Commission in writing, on a
timely basis, with regards to these matters The interests of the Association and its membership
will be directly affected by those proposed amendments.
The Homeowners Association asks for a written response to our request. Thank you for
your consideration.
DAV;H1022696
Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658
Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Message/FAX: (970)
EAST VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
L J
Officers: r'resident - Bob Gafvir. Secretary - Grerta Parks Trcasarcr - Patrick Gramm
Directors - JUdi[tl Berkowil-Z - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie Caulkias - Ron L'aagky - Bill Moron - Couiie Ridder
COVER PAGE
To: TOV Planning and ENV COMM From: Jim Lamont, Administrator
Time: 11:43:54 Date: 2126196
Pages (including cover): 2
Subject: 2/26196 PEC Agenda Items 1,6, and 7 Letter
Special Instructions: Please forward the attached letter to the Planning Commission for today's
deliberations on the above items.
E
MEMORANDUM
•
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: February 26, 1996
SUBJECT: A worksession to discuss possible changes to the existing Town of Vail Survey
Policy regarding the calculation of building height.
...,.?n ??+• ''fi:'.v{.•.v? »•.•n;.???y.,v..;.w ,?„ k. U.;+ h+'A'h U. ;.. ^1 ? X31\\ hW??{??+',.? +'..,\+C•.'\ +??•
ky.?i•.'•?, ?''+]\ v?•.".,+ ?i :.•'.•.'*•'.±?f.+. '? '•.\ . i . { fir,, ?i• +?}. '•. ,+ * u.L;T..?.. ?"? i? k •?+"v+ ?' *? \ 'i\'r:"i' ? ??\'•.•
'"•,o:".i?i?+..? 'R'?,ic.?"a'`,.''•''+?'2;;':<,:'a?'.%'t.'?r`,'Si+?h:<, az?:?•....,.. ... ;a???????,?'1•?',.,,+???+??.?,s ?,°?n???? +?:?r.???w ,',ra^. ?.4.;.? MH 'L?a?*'?3'?+^"a,+,???'+
I. INTRODUCTION
According to the existing Town of Vail Survey Policy, an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC)
indicating the elevations of all building roof ridges must be submitted to, and approved by, the
Town of Vail prior to a framing inspection. Building height is calculated using the elevation of the
ridge and the elevation of the existing grade below the ridge and the difference between these
two cannot exceed the maximum building height allowance.
The elevation of roof ridges can be accurately measured by a registered surveyor. However, the
determination of the existing grade is based on a topographic survey, which has limitations to its
accuracy. Federal mapping agencies have adopted standards to control map accuracy by
specifying the maximum error permitted in elevations shown on a map. These standards state
that no more than 10% of the elevations tested will be in error more than one-half the contour
interval. The Town of Vail requires that topographic surveys have two foot contour intervals,
therefore, 10% of the elevations on a survey may be in error of up to one foot.
Due to recent discussions regarding the accuracy of calculating building height, staff felt it timely
to revisit the Survey Policy regarding height. The PEC recently amended the policy (in January
1996) to add a requirement of an ILC at the time the foundation is poured for certain projects.
That amendment did not affect the measuring of ridge elevations.
The section of the policy regarding the calculation of height was last amended in April 1991.
Before 1991, a grace of up to one foot was allowed for all ridges. For example, a ridge that was
over the building height by six inches, was approved because it was within the one foot
allowance. In 1991, it was determined that there was not a need for a one foot grace because
surveyors could accurately measure ridge elevations. The discrepancy in the topographic survey
was not discussed.
Because there are recognized errors in the topographic surveys, compensating for these errors
by amending the Survey Policy may be appropriate. Staff has identified four options that the
PEC may wish to consider. If the PEC determines that staff should pursue any of the options,
the Survey Policy will be amended and brought back for review and approval by the PEC.
0
11. DISCUSSION
Staff has identified four options that the PEC may wish to consider:
OPTION #1:
The Survey Policy remains as it is currently written regarding the measurement of building
height. A statement would be added to the policy that informs developers, contractors
and architects that federal mapping standards permit up to 10% of the elevations tested
on a topographic survey to be in error of up to one-half the contour interval. If someone
chooses to build up to the maximum height allowance, it is at their own risk.
OPTION #2:
This option is similar to the policy prior to 1991. Building height requirements remain
unchanged. When the project planner reviews an ILC, and a ridge is over the maximum
height by less than one foot, the planner would approve the ILC and authorize the
scheduling of the framing inspection. For example, if the planner determines that a
building was 33A", the planner would approve the ILC because it is within the one-foot
deviation allowance.
•
OPTION #a: '
When the original topographic survey is done for a property, the surveyor will be required
to increase the number of spot elevations within the "building envelope", thereby
increasing the accuracy of the survey. The architect, owner and/or the surveyor would
determine the building envelope, based upon the most appropriate and desirable place to
build. Increasing the number of spot elevations will reduce the 10% error factor that
exists in topographic surveys. Staff acknowledges that some buildings may still be over
the building height and this option may need to be combined with option #1. •
OPTION #4:
If a building has any proposed ridge within one foot of the maximum building height, a
spot elevation will be required directly below that ridge to ensure accurate measurement
of the ridge height. This additional spot elevation would need to be done when the
building footprint and ridge elevations are identified and prior to the issuance of a Building
Permit. This will require the surveyor to survey the property twice.: once for general
topographic and lot information, and later to measure specific points on the property to be
added to the original survey.
There are pros and cons associated with each of these options. Staff recommends that the PEC
discuss each option and direct staff to amend the Survey Policy as necessary. We have invited
several surveyors to attend the meeting, in order to help provide the PEC additional information
and advice. The PEC should also consider the timing of any change to this policy; when should
it go into affect, and how (if at all) will it affect existing Building Permits?
is
MEMORANDUM
TO: All Architects, Contractors and Surveyors Doing Work in the Town of Vail
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: January 22, 1996
SUBJECT: Survey Requirements
?:: i; .?.:::;. .,.:.:. .%.: + ...):T,:>:::•i:.,; .v+. ::w.r....... .:... •.:::+::i{ii:•:{•:i+?:::•:?:::.,:::;:?•'?:i>i:i;Y•.ti; is>+
... .v +.....::::::. .... +•.•:•:{v;;;},v.+•:::::++r,{:.;i::.•:: •.....::..:: {:: •.?;{.; v:;` .... :+:• •i:.:: •...... {+.}: ii::;{:jvriii>:•i:::{:?{
t{:++hpti.:}:i{•i'i{+.:•:: +::.v.: ?........ :.n :......:...:::::.::.+.::::::•::.+...::.}:.,r,.:{.iii.:•1,%'ri}.....
The following survey requirements apply to all new construction and to some additions. If you
are unsure if your project requires an ILC, talk to the project planner.
Benchmark
On all surveys and Improvement Location Certificates, identify the benchmark used for
the-basis of the elevations. The same benchmark should be used throughout the
construction process to insure that the measurement of a building is consistent. Items
which make good benchmarks are sewer inverts, section corners, and property corners.
Do not use manhole rims, the asphalt in streets, or fire hydrants. Architects and
Builders should be aware that discrepancies exist in established monumentation in the
Vail Valley. Please consult a surveyor to verify monumentation prior to developing plans
for a site.
Improvement Location Certificate (ILCI after the foundation is ooured,
Within three (3) weeks following the approved foundation inspection, an ILC will be
required for projects that exhibit any of the following characteristics:
The building is within 3 feet of any setback line.
2. The driveway grade is greater than 10%.
3. The building is within 6 inches of the maximum building height allowance.
4. The project involves three or more separate structures on the property.
5. The project has received a variance for height or setbacks.
The ILC must be submitted to the Town of Vail for review and approval within three weeks
following the approved foundation inspection. The Building Inspector will notify the
project planner when the foundation inspection has been approved. If an ILC is not
received and approved by the planner within three weeks, the Town of Vail will issue a
Stop Work Order and no work will be allowed until the ILC is reviewed and approved.
Once submitted to the Town, please allow two working days for the ILC to be reviewed.
The ILC should indicate the footprint of the building, the elevations of the foundation walls
and the garage slab, and the grade of the centerline of the driveway, measured in twenty
foot increments. Specify the distance of the setback to each property line, noting the
exterior material existing on the structure the day of the survey. Planners will then ,add
any wall material to what is shown on the survey in order to determine the final distance
of the setbacks in the same way that will be done for determining building height. If •
ledges or supports for rock veneer or any other facing material have been built into the
foundation, measure the setback to that exterior point (see diagram on next page). Final
distance will be measured from the outside edge of the exterior wall material.
Irtlorovement Locfition Certific1tQ_(ILCtDrior to a framina inspection
An ILC will be required prior to any framing inspection to verify that height and setback
standards have been met. No framing inspections will be scheduled until the ILC is
approved by the Town. Please allow two working days'from the time the ILC is submitted
to the time the inspection can be scheduled.
1. Identifvin Roof Ridge Points - On the survey prepared for the framing inspection,
indicate the highest points of the roof ridge. All ridge elevations must be shown
on the ILC. The roof plan needs to be drawn on the ILC. The planner will overlay
the survey on the approved building permit plans. The roof ridge points identified
on the ILC should align with the roof plan on the Town's set of Building Permit
plans.
2. Roof Heiahl - On the ILC, the surveyor should note the roof material (if any) on
the highest point of the ridge which exists the day of the survey. The planner will
add the dimensions of all other materials (except a cold roof vent). For example,
if only the ridge beam has been constructed the day of the survey, the surveyor
should note that, and the planner will then add the dimensions of the insulation,
sheathing, etc. to verify that the finished product will not exceed the height limit.
Ridge height will be measured to the top ridge of the sheathing. On the attached •
diagrams, the point identified with an asterisk is the top ridge of the sheathing. A
cold roof vent, not exceeding 12 inches in height, measured from the sheathing to
the top of the shingles, is considered an architectural projection and will not be
included in the height.
3. Setbacks - When specifying the distance of a setback on the ILC, note the
material existing on the structure the day of the survey. Planners will then add
any wall material to what is shown on the survey in order to determine the final
distance of the setbacks in the same way that will be done for height. If ledges or
supports for rock veneer or any other facing material have been built into the
foundation, measure the setback to that exterior point (see diagram on next
page). Final distance will be measured from the outside edge of the exterior wall
material.
Recommendations for Owner/Builder Proie(
For owner/builders, the Town strongly suggests that a registered surveyor stake out the
foundation prior-to excavation or pouring. Additionally, after the foundation walls have
been poured, we strongly encourage that a surveyor shoot the elevation of the foundation
wall. With this information, contractors will be able to accurately estimate the final height
before the structure is built. Contractors will be able to compensate in the construction
process to ensure that the structure does not exceed the height limit.
2
0
0
a M_
t?'lpt,E O?
Td ?A?N
SH
WI'f11? ROOF
VENT •Alt,
GE
L- --A
TOP of Slmvhtg5
7`
"r
-rop
,
.'100
194 F" PLOW.
f/
0 A
15 r-? T ot W 1 k Drr .Ywv,
2r6 SL>=apc{z? C& ICJ' o.c,
COOT, MEMPsi?F-?E C 1 Ls.YeP. tv-+ -
MA--/. p IP-G wp-P-eA4
?,rtock?tJG ?g p-?'ra.
S/e" T'fl"? "x qYP. pstg. av?K..
}i-
- GLt1- t d.M r-4,x^VA ae?
WITH. Co.
ROOF.
. r"
,r
RIDGE KENT DETAI
I have read the Survey Requirements stipulated in the Town of Vail memorandum dated
January 22, 1996 and commit to adhere to them. 0
Signature
Print Name
Date
Job Name
Permit Number
Legal Description: Lot , Block , Filing
0
0
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 26, 1996
RE: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow four volleyball courts to be
constructed at the Athletic Field located at 640 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Block 2,
Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District, represented by Mike Ortiz
Planner: George Ruther
1. BACKGROUND
The land on which Ford Park sits was acquired by the Town of Vail in 1973. The expressed goal
of the $3.3 million land acquisition was to preserve the quality of life in the Town of Vail. On
January 18, 1977, the Vail Town Council unanimously passed a resolution designating the
property as we know it today; the Gerald R. Ford Park. This unique and highly valuable 39 acre
parksite represents the last remaining parcel of land central to use by all residents and visitors of
the Vail community.
In January, 1985, the process of creating a Master Plan for the development of Ford Park began.
In August of that same year, the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan was completed. According to
the final report, the Master Plan is intended to direct the future development of the park and
establish guidelines for the implementation of the future improvements to the park.
The Town is currently in the process of updating the Gerald R. Ford Park Master Plan. Increasing
demands on the use of Ford Park caused the Town to initiate the updating process. When
completed, the goal of the updated Master Plan is to have a document which can be used by the
Town to determine future uses, management techniques and responsibilities, and to provide
direction on how-to resolve some of the current problems associated with Ford Park.
if. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
•
The Vail Recreation District (VRD), represented by Mike Ortiz, is proposing to construct four
volleyball courts in Ford Park. The courts are proposed to be constructed at the east end of the
athletic field, south of Vail Valley Drive. The four volleyball courts, each measuring 30'x60', will
be located between the athletic field and the toe of the slope of the existing berm. Each of the
four new courts will be sand with painted metal net poles. The metal poles will be partially
covered with foam padding to protect the players from injury. The courts are intended to replace
those being lost due to the redevelopment of the Gold Peak Ski Base. The courts have been
designed, and will be constructed, to meet the standards prescribed by the USA Volleyball
Association.
The area proposed to accommodate the volleyball courts is currently under lease to the VRD
from the Town of Vail. On February 6, 1996, the Vail Recreation District appeared before the
f:\everyone\pec\memos\vrdcup226
1
Vail Town Council with a request to proceed through the planning process. The reason the VRD
needed to appear before the Town Council (to get permission to proceed through the planning
process) is because the Town of Vail is the owner of the property. On February 6th, the Vail •
Town Council unanimously approved a motion for the VRD to proceed through the planning
process with this application.
According to the official Town of Vail zoning map, Ford Park is zoned General Use (GU). As
stated in the Zoning Code, the purpose of the General Use Zone District is as follows:
"The General Use District is intended 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 (General Provisions)
and to provide for the public welfare. The General Use District is intended to insure the
public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted in the
district are appropriately 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."
The General Use Zone District allows for permitted uses, conditional uses and accessory uses.
According to the General Use Zone District, public and private parks and active outdoor
recreation areas, facilities and uses are conditional uses. The staff has concluded that volleyball
courts are, in fact, active recreation facilities.
Therefore, the Vail Recreation District is requesting an approval of a Conditional Use •
Permit, pursuant to Chapter 18.60 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for the
construction of four new sand volleyball courts in Ford Park.
Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDING$
Upon review of Section 18.60.060, Criteria an Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested Conditional Use
Permit. The recommendation for approval is based upon the following factors:
Before acting on a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall
consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use:
A. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on the development objectives of
the Town.
According to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan, adopted on November 18,
1986, the entire Ford Park area lies within the Park (P) Land Use
Category. Included within this category are Town-owned parcels intended
for both active and passive recreation activities. Staff has interpreted
volleyball to be an active form of recreation.
Staff believes that the proposal to construct four sand volleyball courts in
Ford Park will have a positive impact on the development objectives of the is
Town. Ford Park is centrally located within the Town of Vail. The creation
f.\everyone\pec\memos\vrdcup226 2
t
of recreational activities at Ford Park, which are accessible and available
to residents and visitors to Town, is a goal of the Master Plan. In staff's
• opinion, the proposed location at the east end of the athletic field is
positive. The existing athletic field is bordered by Vail Valley Drive on the
north side, the golf course on the east and south sides and Pifios del
Norte and Northwoods Condominiums to the west. Both Piflos del Norte
and the Northwoods Condominiums are buffered from the activity of the
athletic field by a landscaped berm and a surface parking lot. Staff
believes that the volleyball courts will have minimal visual impact on the
immediate area because of the existing berm around the athletic field.
Staff has received five letters in support of this request. Letters were
received from Sammye Meadows, Executive Director of the Vail Alpine
Garden Foundation; Jim Lamont, Administrator of the East Village
Homeowner's Association, Inc.; Bart Cuomo of the Vail Rugby Football
Club; Fred Ammer, Manager of Pepi's Soccer Club; and Diana Donovan, a
property owner on Homestake Circle. Each letter expresses the
individual's or group's support of the Vail Recreation District's request for a
Conditional Use Permit for the volleyball courts. Each of the letters has
been attached for reference.
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 applicant's request will have minimal, if any, negative
• impacts on the above-described factors. Staff believes the construction of
the new volleyball courts in Ford Park, to replace the courts being lost as a
result of the Gold Peak Ski Base Redevelopment, is a positive benefit to
the community. The volleyball courts will be centrally located, making
them convenient for use by locals and visitors to Vail. Staff further
believes that the addition of four new volleyball courts in Ford Park will
compliment the other active recreation activities already in Ford Park
without affecting the existing passive recreation activities. By placing
volleyball courts in Ford Park, it will more evenly distribute the location of
volleyball courts throughout Town. Currently, Red Sandstone Park is the
only other public park in Town with volleyball courts. The creation of four
new courts at Ford Park will reduce the user demand on the courts at Red
Sandstone Park.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control,
access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and
parking areas.
Staff believes there will be traffic impacts associated with the proposal for
a Conditional Use Permit to allow for four new volleyball courts in Ford
Park.
Parking will be provided for the proposed volleyball courts by means of the
existing surface parking lot, located to the west of the athletic field.
• Currently, the surface parking lot accommodates 70-75 vehicles. The
surface parking lot receives most of its use during the winter months to
f.\everyone\pec\memos\vrdcup226 3
0
accommodate skier and employee parking. During the summer months,
when the courts will be used most, the use of the parking lot is reduced.
Vail Valley Drive does not accommodate parking on the sides of the street. •
The location of the new volleyball courts may encourage users to park
along Vail Valley Drive, which is more convenient to the volleyball courts.
Not only is parking along Vail Valley Drive illegal, it creates traffic flow
congestion problems and pedestrian safety issues. Staff would
recommend that the applicant provide information to the volleyball court
users, especially during organized tournaments, that parking is not
permitted on Vail Valley Drive. Additionally, staff is concerned that parking
may occur in the "construction staging area" used by the Town of Vail
during the construction of the roundabout, on the west side of the berm.
The Town again, will not permit vehicles to be parked in this location.
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.
Staff believes the proposed volleyball courts will have minimal, if any
negative effect upon the character of the area. The athletic field is
currently being used for active recreational purposes.: To include four
volleyball courts will not significantly increase the use of the park.
Since no buildings or structures are proposed with this request, staff does
not see any effects of scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to the
surrounding uses. As stated previously in this memorandum, the •
volleyball courts will be substantially screened by the existing berms
around the athletic field.
B. FINDINGS
The Plannina and Environmentgtl Commis$ion $h_afl make the following findings before
grantina a conditional use aermit:
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 recommends approval of the Vail Recreation District's
request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the construction of four sand volleyball courts in •
Ford Park.
FAeveryone\pec\memos\1stbanktel 4
1
Staff has addressed the Criteria and Findings, and has determined that the applicants have met
• the findings necessary for the Planning and Environmental Commission to grant an approval of
their request. Specifically, staff finds that the applicants have met Finding 131, in that the
granting of the Conditional Use Permit is in accordance with the purposes of the Zoning Code
and the purposes of the General Use Zone District in which the site is located; Finding B2 has
been met since the proposed Conditional Use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and Finding B3
has been met, in the staff's opinion, the proposed Conditional Use will comply with each of the
applicable provisions of the Zoning Code.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the
Conditional Use Permit request, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the
following conditions:
That the Conditional Use be approved for a time period of 1 year from the date of
the original approval. The applicant would need to reapply and come back to the
Planning and Environmental Commission in the future, should they choose to
continue the Conditional Use into the future. While staff does not disagree that
the proposed location may not be the best location for the volleyball courts in Ford
Park, the Town is currently going through the Master Planning process for Ford
Park. Should the results of the undergoing planning process determine that the
proposed location is not the best location for the volleyball courts, staff would then
recommend that the volleyball courts be relocated and brought into compliance
with the revised Master Plan.
2. Should the Town of Vail Police Department receive complaints of vehicles illegally
• parking in the area to use the volleyball courts, the Town of Vail reserves the right
to call this request back up before the Planning & Environmental Commission for
additional review.
3. The Vail Recreation District shall be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep
of the volleyball courts so long as the VRD holds the lease for the use of the area.
•
FAeveryone\pec\memos\i stbanktel 5
arr
.o
t
I
FIFE
N
N
1
i
i
i
i
r
t
s
I
t
1 j
F
ro ??
VAI(? gALLEI ?2?vF 5 eee'"
NoRrN
VIP
Vail Recreation
DISTRICT
•
292 W. Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
970-479-2279
FAX: 970-479-2197
VAIL GOLF CLUB
1778 Vail Valley Drive
479-2260
GOLF & PARK
MAINTENANCE
1278 Vail Valley Drive
479-2262
VAIL TENNIS CENTER
700 S. Frontage Road
479-2294
JOHN A. DOBSON ARENA
321 Lionshead Circle
479-2271
VAIL YOUTH SERVICES
395 E. Lionshead Circle
479-2292
VAIL NATURE CENTER
Vail Valley Drive
479-2291
MARKETING
292 W. Meadow Drive
479-2446
Conditional Use Permit
Volleyball Courts at Vail Athletic Field
The proposed site will serve in conjunction with the existing athletic
field as a recreational facility. The area is to contain four (4)
volleyball courts on the northeast corner of the athletic field site.
These courts will be available to both the "local" and visitor to Vail on
a drop-in basis. Additionally, these courts will be used to .
accommodate the "AX division of the King of the Mountain
Volleyball tournament. This annual event attracts some 300 doubles
teams (totaling approximately 1000 visitors) to the area in June.
This site is being proposed in part because of the existing parking lot
adjacent to the athletic field. This lot contains a minimum of seventy
(70) marked parking spaces. This lot receives minimal use during
the summer months when the proposed courts would be in use.
This seasonal use combined with the relatively small number of
people using the facility at any given time, should not add
significantly to the safety, traffic flow or control, access or
maneuverability concerns already in existence.
The volleyball courts are projected to have very little impact upon the
character of the area. Visibility of these courts from surrounding
areas will be minimal because of the existing berm. The proposed
location being approximately eight (8) feet below the top of the berm.
Furthermore, the proposed courts are in concert with the intended
use of the existing facility.
r1?? JAW
L u1b
p?
PUN
0
-- -- ---- -- .. ,..r,,._.. -._,,..-, ?..J G1Z, , r.u_ i
Fab= Y 5,19%
•
To Whomh?ay Comm
Asa nCi$b ' of the mm &K 2014 EW=sWoe Ck ek, MY Y W3 be bVsMd by
t! *d at OS)Ocm*a
We are iet ooma2vlete s?rpport oftlte poropo? tD btsti ;doer send Deals tQ the east etd aftlrs
mthft sower $?.
We would Yegoe.?t dad the ne?[al area andthe "street oanrsdrw d , radt lW be
pc+ NCW erbh a WA W bg "dwe saw awing p &W to VmO Vsky D&.v. The
e:ad bmdm woW &pard on w+hetbet abet er Mebi ,b tmn araaod is d tbta+t. It
is an iseen tlsrt is beipg ditcveted in ser?etatfiotame. %wotdd be nice to twbuBd the A=*
ott dw =)rfhaide of Vsi VWky I five dot defined tips Nstwe C?eaoes wd vies
01"M Iero*=me&)
I vomM oppose my b odow an top o the bM at the out ed.
It &ovU by it cooadl m of appeovgi that aD MMMoic . fmw W. bavfitg to do with
acMies a tite sooiotr &m bch& kA f,-, adoa regaei*1vc&*m for pa vow
Tm nuumd vegetsom in the dogleg of b* 6 it An* being ei'iobmd *%& caeees
erect more pee * m try to bit wtm the mdse. Iftba ww oo m treed protectiost I wewtd
hvpt ik e? be more piasirtg then abet is at the drie?iog tom- 'Ibe poles tbare aoe aeerSnl!
The cmo wme fmmw%p at Cold Ft* asd bW barea%mp bees on the
fief so I do not we an iecsetsee in imp o m I'm &d to see as w iv* that does nar
=vim a *aw c*o mred.
Pkete mm f yonbare s" quew w.
Sisloet*l
Ditme Desom
47"511
•
TOTAL P.03
East Wage Homeowners Asaodation XC ' C'Twu?
Bob
EAST VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC. P,f, ?
ss ?__
Officers: President - Bob Galvin Secretary - Gretta Parks Treasurer - Patrick Gramm
Directors - Judith Berkowitz - Dolph Bridgewater - Ellie Cauikins - Ron Langley - Bill Morton - Connie Ridder
• To: Piete Pieters, Vail Recreation District
Town of Vail, Town Council
From: Jim Lamont; Administrator
Date: February 2, 1996
RE: Ford Park Volley Ball Courts
Please be advised, regarding our recent discussion in the Ford Park Management Advisory
Committee, that the Homeowners Associations favors, in concept, the locating of four volleyball
courts on the east end of the soccer field by the Vail Recreation District (VRD). The Homeown-
ers Association favors the concept subject to: notification of adjacent property owners, the submis-
sion and review by the Town of Vail of the proposal. Further, the Homeowners Association
favors the proposal provided that the open space area east of the soccer field is not used for
parking.
The Homeowners Association reserves its final comment subject to its review of the pro-
posal submitted to the Town of Vail. Further, the Association requests the support of the VMD
that the open space area east of the soccer field, denuded last summer for the purpose of serving
as a construction staging area for a road construction project by the Town of Vail, be revegetated
and restored to its natural condition. The Homeowners Association is disappointed that one of
• the last remaining tract of non-riparian native vegetation on Ford Park would be used for the pur-
pose of a construction staging area by the Town of Vail.
cc: EVHA Board of Directors
D1EYM20296.2m
Post Office Box 238 Vail, Colorado 81658
Telephone: (970) 827-5680 Message/FAX: (970)
rro-? vn l- r.L-Mr-nI IVi, u1,JIR1 i
Vat?
??t•ne
Ga?erc
Foundation
,U c17, r.E1G
January 30,1996
Mr. Mike Ortiz
Vail R-.-cation District
c/o FordPark Tennis Center
700 South Frontage' Road East.
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mike.
This letter is to affirm the Vail Alpine Garden Foundation's support for the
VRD's proposed sand volleyball courts, which you intend to locate at the eastern
end of the soccer field in Ford Park.
These four proposed courts should well serve the recreational needs of Vail
locals, who recently lost use of the courts at Gold Peak. We believe it is vital to
provide recreational amenities for local residents and employees, and the end of
the soccer field seems an ideal location. It is an area of the Park already devoted
to athletic competition, and it is close to existing parking at the west end of the
soccer field.
The Gardens wishes you timely approvals from the Town of Vail and a smooth
transition for the June 15 volleyball tournament. Please let me know if the
Gardens can be of any further service in the matter.
Sincerely,
Sammye Meadows
Executive Director
°Our f lowers in The summer are as glorious as our snow in the winter.
183 GoR£ CREEK OR7VE • VAIL, COLORADO 611557 • 970.476.0103
•
•
ED 14-4.rirrrn
Mr. Mike Ortiz
Vail Recreation District
700 South Frontage Rd. East
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mike:
This letter is to state Pepi's Soccer Club's support of the VRD's proposal to locate four
sand volleyball courts at the east end of the existing athletic field. Although these
courts are understood to not encroach upon the soccer field they would take some
space that has been used by Pepi's for drills and other practice activities. However, it
is in the interest of the entire community and in particular the recreational users of Ford
Park that we support this proposal.
These courts would help the King of the Mountain volleyball tournament to continue to
be a successful event for the Town and are a wonderful addition for the guest and
local. Additionally, these courts are being proposed on an area currently used for
athletic events and supplied by parking.
Zly
Fred Ammer
Manager Pepi's Soccer Club
0
Vail Realty
& Rental Management Inc.
Offices in Vail & Beaver Creek
February 22, 1996
Piet Pieters
Vail Recreation District
re: re-configuration of the Ford Park Athletic/Soccer Field
Dear Mr. Pieters:
It is our understanding that the Recreation District is considering to re-configure the
Fond Park Athletic/Soccer/Rugby field.
For several years, I have been the spokesman for the Vail Rugby Football Club,
which is an established primary user of the Athletic field and has been for the last 25 years.
As you know, the Vail RFC in conjunction with the then, Vail Recreation Department and
the Town of Vail, was instrumental in field improvements including the construction of the
Restroom/Shower/Storage facility on the west end of the field. In addition, we were active
supporters of the successful campaign to have the Vail Recreation District removed from
the control of the Town of Vail and set up as an independent public agency.
It is our understanding that you are now considering adding volley-ball courts on the •
open area to the east of the existing field. This proposal is in direct conflict with the
District's previous plan to move the soccer and rugby pitches about 15 meters to the east.
The rationale for this plan was to alter field-wear patterns and the reconfiguration would
allow for a larger full-size rugby pitch. Obviously, this previous plan was endorsed by the
Vail RFC.
In review of your new proposal to include volley-ball courts, I have to take several
viewpoints. One as a director of the Vail Rugby Football Club. Another as local
businessman with'a vested interest in our resort community. And finally, as a local citizen
with genuine concern for all recreational activities.
In consideration of all of the above, I would support the District's latest proposal to
incorporate volley-ball courts. Although such plan would be at the expense of the previous
plan which benefited the rugby and soccer contingencies, the addition of quality volley-ball
courts would be an excellent complement to the entire Ford Park recreational complex.
Anyone who is truly interested in sport and recreation should realize that all sports have
a place in a community like ours and should be supported, within reason. In addition, given
the popularity of the annual King-of-the-Mountain event, quality volley-ball courts appear
to be a necessity.
Sincerely yo s,
Bart Cuo
302 Hanson Ranch Road - Vail, Colorado 81657
970 476-8800 - 800 627-VAIL - 970 476-8671 FAX - e-mail: vailrent@vail.net
0 MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 26, 1996
SUBJECT: An appeal of an administrative decision relating to Section 18.58.020 (A) (Fences,
hedges, walls and screening) and Section 18.04.370 (Definitions - Structure).
Applicant: Ric Fields representing Dr. Steadman
Planner: George Ruther
1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
On January 23, 1996, Ric Fields of Fieldscape, Inc., submitted a Design Review Board (DRB)
application to. the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The DRB application was
a request for a proposed snowmelt boiler and boiler pad to be located in the front setback at the
Steadman residence, 1299 Spraddle Creek Road/Lot 11, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision.
After reviewing the application, staff denied the proposed snowmelt boiler and boilder pad in the
front setback. The reason for staff's denial was pursuant to Section 18.58.020 (A), Supplemental
Regulations, and Section 18.04.370, Structures, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
• Pursuant to Section 18.58.020 (A),
" All accessory uses and structures except fences, hedges, walls and landscaping, or
ground level site developments such as walks, driveways, and terraces shall be located
within the minimum setback lines on each site."
Additionally, Section 18.04.370, defines a structure as,
" Anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground, but not including
poles, lines, cables, or other transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities, or
mailboxes or light fixtures."
Staff's decision to, deny the proposed snowmelt boiler and boiler pad in the front setback was
based upon the fact that a snowmelt boiler is not a fence, hedge, wall, or landscaping, nor is it
ground level site development such as a sidewalk, driveway, or terrace. Staff determined a
snowmelt boiler to be a "structure" as defined in Section 18.04.370 of the Town of Vail Municipal
Code. In determining that the snowmelt boiler was a "structure," staff concluded that a snowmelt
boiler and boiler pad is constructed with a fixed location on the ground and it is not a
transmission or distribution facility of a public utility. While it is true that electrical transformers
are permitted in the front setback, such a structure is exempted from the setback regulations
according to Section 18.04.370, as well as the fact that electrical transformers and other
transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities are required to be placed within platted
easements. Platted easements regularly exist in required setback areas.
On February 1, 1996, the Community Development Department received a letter from Ric Fields,
representing the owners of Lot 11, Spraddle Creek Estates. In that letter, Mr. Fields requested
an appeal of the staff's administrative decision to deny the snowmelt boiler request. Mr. Field's
appeal request is pursuant to Section 18.66.030, appeal of an Administrative Action, of the Town
of Vail Municipal Code. According to Section 18.66.030, in part,
"appeal from any administrative action by the Zoning Administrator may be filed with the
Planning and Environmental Commission by any resident or property owner within twenty
days following such action. The Commission, after receiving a report from the Zoning
Administrator, may confirm, reverse, or modify the action."
II. STAFF RF-COMMENDATION
The staff would recommend that the Planning and Environmental Commission confirm the
administrative decision made by staff to not permit snowmelt boilers in any required setback.
Staff's recommendation is based upon our interpretation of Sections 18.58.020 (A),
Supplemental Regulations, and 18.04.370, Structures, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
•
is
2
I'MCorp ora.fed
January .31, 1996 .
Mr. George 'R tither %aa
F EB 1 1996
.
Town Planner
Town Of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
h DE V
DEV DEPT.
OMM
.
,
Colorado $1657.
Re: Boiler. location at the Steadman Residence, Lot 11, Spraddle Creek Estates
Dear George,
Thank you for responding to our request to place a snow melt hniler 'at the
Steadman Residence. We understand that. you have denied this -request
based 6n, zoning requirements as, they appear in Section 18.58.020 (A) and
Section 18.04:370 of. the Towii of Vail Supplemental Regulations. We
request an appeal to this staff decision to be scheduled before the Planning
Commission at the earliest convenience, possibly
-for the 'February 12th
,
meeting.
Thank you, again,' arid.I wait for that scheduling date.
Sincere
c iel s
FieI46,cape
Irtcorparrtr.d ",
Post C7ffkce Box 1871 . Avon; Color adt, 81620 970-845-504.5 Fax 970-845.7043
V
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road
V/ai4 Colorado 81657
970-479-21381479-2139
FAX 970-479-2452
January 25, 1996
Ric Fields
Fieldscape
P.O. Box 1871
Avon, Colorado 81620
0
Department of Community Development
Re: Proposed boiler location at the Steadman Residence, Lot 11, Spraddle Creek Estates
Dear Ric:
Staff has reviewed your Design Review Board application requesting a snow melt boiler to be located
in the required front setback.
Upon review of your application, staff has denied the proposed snow melt boiler in the front setback.
Pursuant to Section 15.58.02'0 (A). S,.,,,p-nental Regulations.
ric.
,- III accessory uses ,..d Stnuctures except ferret, hedees. walls and landscaping, or ground is
level site development such as walks, driveways, and terraces shall be located within the
minimum setback lines on each site."
Furthermore, Section 18.04.370, Structures, defines a structure as,
"anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground, but not including poles,
lines, cables, or other transmission or distribution facilities of public utilities, or mailboxes or
light fixtures."
Again, staff has denied your request to place a snow melt boiler in the required front setback based
upon Section 18.58.020(A) of the Municipal Code. Should you wish to propose another location on
the property, please submit a new site plan and landscape plan. You will not need to submit a new
Design Review Board application. We can amend the old application.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate in giving me a call. You can reach
me most easily during regular office hours at 479-2138.
Sincerely,
George Ruther
Town Planner
•
`t
U0 REC}'CI DP"_rR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 26, 1996
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss Density, Site Coverage, Front
Setback, and Side Setback variances to allow for the remodel of the
building located at 1845 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 21, Vail Village West,
Filing No. 2.
Applicant: Ted Smathers, represented by Brent Alm
Planner: Jim Curnutte
1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS
The applicant, Ted Smathers, has requested a worksession with the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) for the purpose of discussing issues related to his request for Density, Site
Coverage, Front Setback, and Side Setback variances to allow for the remodel of the building
located at 1845 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 21, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2.
Despite the fact that the property is zoned Primary/Secondary, there are three rental apartments
in the existing building. The applicant intends to remodel this building in such a way that two of
• the units would be combined, enlarged, and become the primary unit. The third unit would then
remain as the secondary unit on the property. Each of the applicant's variance requests is
described in more detail as follows:
a) Densitv Variance - Section 18.64.050 (B) of the Vail Municipal Code, states that:
" Structures which do not conform to density controls may be enlarged, only if the total
gross residential floor area of the enlarged structure does not exceed the total gross
residential floor area of the pre-existing non-conforming structure."
This building does not conform to density controls, because the lot on which it is located is less
than 15,000 sq. ft. in size. The code only allows one unit on a lot less than 15,000 sq. ft., with
the exception that a secondary unit is allowed if it is deed restricted for employee housing.
Although there is available GRFA and site coverage rergaining on the lot per zoning, the building
cannot be expanded in any way because, with 3 units on the property, it is considered to be non-
conforming with regard to density. Because the applicant does not wish to deed restrict the
secondary unit, no expansion of this building may occur unless a density variance from the non-
conforming section of the code is granted by the PEC.
b) Site Coveraae Variance - As indicated in the Zoning Analysis on page 3 of this memorandum,
the maximum amount of site coverage allowed on this property is 2,317 sq. ft. (20% of the total
lot area). The existing site coverage on the property is 1,770 sq. ft. (1,695 sq. ft. for the building
and 75 sq. ft. for the shed, which equals 15.3% of the total lot area). Although the applicant is
proposing to remove the shed, and its 75 sq. ft. of site coverage, he is also proposing to add
1,091 sq. ft. to the building, which will bring the total site coverage on the property to 2,786 sq. ft.
(24% of the total lot area). If approved. the new building would exceed the maximum site
coverage allowed on this lot by 469 sq. ft. The proposed building expansions contributing to
additional site coverage on the property are as follows: - •
- Addition to the north side of the primary unit 665 sq. ft.
- New two-car garage = 378 sq. ft.
- Two new chimneys added to each side of the building = 16 sq. ft.
- Covered walkways = 32 so. ft.
- Total site coverage proposed =1,091 sq. ft.
c) Front and Side Smock Variances - The Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District requires
a minimum front setback of 20' and side setbacks of 15' from their respective property lines. The
existing building currently encroaches 2' into the front setback area, 6" into the east side setback
and 5.2' into the west side setback. These setback figures apply to the existing residential
building and not to the shed, which is located 15.5' from the front property line and 2" from the
west property line. (See attached survey of existing site conditions). Although the applicant's
redevelopment proposal would remove the non-conforming shed, he is proposing to expand the
building's setback non-conformity in the following areas:
- New two-car garage - The applicant is proposing to add a two-car garage to the front
(south) side of the existing building. This garage is 18.25' long by 21' wide. The
foundation wall of this garage is proposed to be placed within 1.5' of the front property
line. Additionally, a 1' overhang is located on the south side of the garage, bringing this
overhang to within 6" of the front property line.
- Covered walkways - The applicant is proposing to add a covered walkway on each side
of the proposed garage providing covered access to the two main entry doors of the
units. The covered walkways are 5' wide and extend into the front setback approximately •
16'. Section 18.58.040 of the Vail Municipal Code (Architectural Projections) allows
eaves, roof overhangs, awnings, louvers, flues and chimneys and similar features to
project up to 4' into a required setback area. Therefore, both covered walkways (on
either side of the garage) extend approximately 12' into the front yard setback area.
Additionally, the covered entry to the west side unit encroaches 2' into the 15' west side
setback area.
- Chimney encroachments - The applicant is proposing to add a 2'x 4' chimney to each
side of the building. Although both of these chimneys will encroach into each side
setback area, the east side chimney encroachment is authorized by Section 18.54.040 of
the Municipal Code. However, since the existing building is already located
approximately 10' into the west side setback, the addition of this chimney will cause it to
encroach more than the 4' allowance specified by the previously referenced section of the
code. Therefore, a variance would be necessary to authorize this chimney encroachment
into the setback area.
II. BACKGROUND
On July 6, 1965, Lot 26 was created when the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners
approved Filing No. 2 of the Vail Village West Subdivision.
In the late 1960's or early 1970's, the property owner at the time received a Building Permit from
Eagle County to construct a duplex on the property.
On July 5, 1974, the Smathers family purchased the duplex.
f:\everyone\"cVnemos\smathers.226 2
On August 13, 1986, this neighborhood was annexed into the Town of Vail and was
• subsequently zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. No other records exist on this property in
the Town of Vail files.
i
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
Zoning: Primary / Secondary Residential
Lot Area: 0.266 acres / 11,587 sq. ft.
AHowed/Reouired
Building Height: 33'
GRFA: 3,747 sq. ft.
Setbacks:"
Ebstinq Proposed
30' No Change
2,570 sq. V 3,075 sq. ft.
Front: 20' 18' 1.5'
Sides: 15715' 14.579.8' 8.5712'
Rear. 15' 90' W'
Site Coverage: 2,317 sq. ft.(2(9'a) 1,770 sq. ft.(15.30%) 2,786 sq. ft. (240/.)
Landscaping: 6,952 sq. ft. (600/6) 9,000 sq. ft. (789%) 7,937 sq, ft. (68.50/0)
Parking: 4 spaces required 8 spaces*" 5 spaces
This figure Includes the 75 sq. ft. shed that Is proposed to be removed with the redevelopment proposal.
" The existing setback figures apply to the existing residential building and not the shed, which Is located 11.5' from the front
property line and 2" from the west property line.
Portions of all of these spaces are either in the public right-of-way or on the adjacent property to the west.
• IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Since this is worksession, the Criteria and Findings for reviewing the variance requests will not be
specifically addressed, however, staff felt that it would be helpful to list them in this memorandum for the
PEC's review:
Variance Criteria and Findinas
A. Considergtion of Factorra:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures
in the vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict 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 tight and air, distribution of population, transportation
and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety.
B. The Plannina and Environmental Commi6,sion shall make the following findinas before arantina a
variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
40. with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
f:\everyone\pec4nemos\smathem.226 3
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. DISCUSSION ISSUES
Since this is a worksession, there is no formal staff recommendation at this time. However, the staff has
identified a number of issues which we would like to discuss further with.the PEC and the applicant.
The proposed redevelopment of Lot 21 has both pros and cons associated with it. if approved, the
redevelopment will clean-up a number of non-conforming issues; (removal of the shed in the front and side
setback areas, relocation of two off-site parking spaces onto the property, removal of one illegal dwelling
unit). The redevelopment will also result in significant aesthetic improvements (considerable improvement.
to the exterior of the entire building, the enclosure of some of the cars parked in front of the building,
asphalt paving to replace gravel parking areas, additional landscape improvements). Although staff would
like to see upgrades made to this property, we are having a difficult time supporting the variances as
requested. Our concerns related to each variance requests are further described as follows:
1. Density Variance Issues - When the property was annexed into the Town of Vail in 1986,
and subsequently zoned Primary/Secondary, it was recognized by the Town that many
properties would not comply with the development standards in this district and would
therefore be considered legally non-conforming. By choosing to zone the neighborhood
Primary/Secondary, as opposed to duplex, the Town clearly decided that the only way
legally non-conforming properties could be expanded in the future would be in conjunction
with bringing them into conformance with the adopted codes.
Although Lot 21 is zoned Primary/Secondary, it falls below the 15,000 sq. ft. minimum lot
size requirement, and is therefore restricted to one dwelling unit. The only way the applicant
can have a second dwelling unit, and/or expand an existing non-conforming building is to
deed restrict the existing or proposed secondary unit for use as a Type 1 employee housing
unit. Since the applicant has stated that he has rented out the dwelling units in this building
for the past 22 years to local residents, staff does not understand what hardship would be
imposed upon the property owner should he be required to comply with this provision of the
code. There does not appear to be justification to warrant the density variance as
requested, since staff cannot determine a practical difficulty or physical hardship preventing
the owner from deed restricting the secondary unit on the property along with his
redevelopment proposal. 0
f:\everyone\pec\memos\smathers226 4
2. Site Coverage Variance Issues - As mentioned previously in this memorandum, the
existing building and shed have a total site coverage of 547 sq. ft. below the maximum site
• coverage allowed on the property. The applicant is proposing to add improvements to all
sides of the building, which will result in a site coverage overage of 469 sq. ft..
There are two existing situations on West Gore Creek Drive that appear to be very similar to
the Smather's request. The Town has approved buildings with garages located in front of
the building, in the front setback area, and site coverage variances were granted for them.
In reviewing the files for each of these cases, it turns out that since both of these properties
are on the steeper, uphill side of the road and have average grades of 30% or more, they
qualify to put a garage in the front setback, without needing a variance. The code section
which allows garages to go in the front setback on sites with average slopes of 30% or more,
however, carries with it a reduced allowable site coverage than normally allowed. The site
coverage on lots which exhibit such steep slopes is reduced from the normal 20%, to 15%.
In the case of Lot 50 (Mumma residence), the Planning Commission granted a site coverage
variance to allow the property to exceed the 15% restriction by 98 sq. ft. or 1% of the
maximum allowable site coverage.
On August 14, 1995, a 1.6% site coverage variance was granted for Lot 47 (Houtsma
residence) in order to allow for the construction of a two-car garage in the front setback.
Although there are instances of garages located in the front setback on West Gore Creek
Drive, the two situations listed above differ from the proposed Smather's application in that:
1. These garages are allowed to be in the setback, therefore no setback
. variance request was necessary.
2. The site coverage variances were granted to minimally exceed (less than 2%)
the more restrictive 15% requirement imposed on lots with average grades in
excess of 30%, as opposed to the 20% allowance on the Smather's property.
3. Both of these garages are side-loaded, thereby allowing them to be screened
by landscaping between the garage and the street.
Staff has suggested to Mr. Smathers that he consider side-loading this garage in order to
lessen its visual impact from the adjacent public way.
Staff is also concerned that the site coverage variance being requested does not meet the
criteria of being the minimum necessary to achieve compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood. We have suggested that the applicant consider reducing the amount of site
coverage overage he is proposing with this redevelopment.
3. Setback Variance Issues - As mentioned previously, the setback issues involve the
proposed two-car garage, the covered entries on either side of the garage and the chimney
on the west side of the building. Although staff feels that there is a true hardship associated
with trying to locate a garage on the property, due to the location of the existing structure,
there does not appear to be sufficient hardship to warrant setback variances for the covered
entries and the chimney on the west side of the building.
As mentioned above, staff suggested that the impacts associated with bringing the structure
closer to the public way would be greatly reduced if the garage could be side-loaded,
. thereby allowing the addition of landscaping in front of the building.
f.\everyone\pec\rnemos\smathers226 5
Another justification for sideloading the proposed garage would be to address the fact that
the inside dimensions of the two garage spaces do not meet code. At 16' and 17.5' long,
these spaces fall short of the 19' parking space length requirement. Additionally, the Public
Works Department requires that garages be setback a minimum of 24' from a property line.
This allows vehicles to park in front of the garage door without having portions of the vehicle
hanging into the road. Therefore, the current front loading design of the garage does not
meet Town requirements in two areas.
4. Title Report - The submittal requirements. for a variance requires that a preliminary Title
Report be provided. To date, staff has only received a copy of the deed and the 20-year old
Protective Covenants for the property. We must receive a Title Report before this
application is scheduled for final PEC review.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since this is a worksession, staff will not be providing a recommendation to the PEC related to the
proposed variance requests. Staff requests that the PEC provide direction to the applicant, so that a final
decision on this application may be made at the March 12, 1996 PEC meeting.
•
E
f:\everyone\pec\rnemos\smathers.226 6
f? 6 ? o
I u?
?L a rn
I
i
? I t I
I
,
- .. •
, ;' Y hti
?n
r ` I
I
t
_, ? q
??V ( ap'F' 1 . `Jim I
V -? / V I
Y ? AhV ? I I
I 1
ti? atr
o
h t, I I {?
I
1
i ?
tl
I
I V
I
h?
1 h II 1 a t
1 ` / o'rn?'1 1 1
o II I D
1
i ,'o0 -
t ??? 9 11 I
?t ' ?p 11
((
1{
V It I.
A I "ti
C.
n
n
`
ry
?
ir
?
\
ae
- At
t t ? i 1
nr^'7b l 3 ttL?.g?o9?; '?'
IYI
MI + .? , , hr.J c
41
t ?'? ? ? 1 ?'? rte. r P-
t
1 i + / 1
o6 / l ,f""_ '
?Tt t£ ? oL'b + / //'
SQ~h'?O
?rQ r ?\Y
G
• ? t r ydS' r?' cQ
t
a
J/
111 y
E 1 -
1
- 0
1 A ?i
0
r e 13
H e
Q _ R
LIU=
21- 1 -IL
moon
eAr^,1A5I 01'S
i.y6 H
sue' ou Mr[ o+« a vw wr
ra
i'lf lf?f, ?
?rf?o?wwr
..?,..?,." "ter
at", W µoouo, --.-
fad
f?l
('YCJ ti 93
taO ,W
? x
RWR
i
now
I
I
I
i
rfa . w
f LL
. ,11?07/?M111
yfLL?M1'y'IN
0 pdE11 Wl'?E
x tJN wsw
? (Q(P110MC 1?
0 1
`? t4yl(R WrMgIC /f,f
sws a [uwnw
fr utv.: rfm.f
?a 02'5840"
T= 39.35
R,= 7)A51g4.05
_ "?
Alm
_----------------------
11 1
j 1 I L---------------7
y.? I
1
5
?`.. U 0 0
?? ------ = L--- ----- •---- ?I -----
l
? I 1
lMwPOO- ? i 1- - I
9?_?' --- I 1 5 1 i ,1
,
I
-Tl i
,
t
L-------------------------- '
11 ?,
N u
WNWUS
1MN lw '
?Wwwffwww
w l MAIN VWL FLOM MAN
a
jrdpaWft
WWONWM
i
5 ?
ommimpsi'M•
ti
Aftagm
--- ls
K 1
- r r+
an=-
?i
-
1 "WIN
•
•
•
r
0 4
El, AnoN
dEG? `
•
•
II
•
f ?
Jil??
MEMORANDUM
0
.•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 26,1996
SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance to allow for a residential addition located
at 5165 Black Gore Drive/Lot 17, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Kurt and Leslie Davis
Planner: George Ruther
1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
On August 22, 1988, the Town of Vail issued a Building Permit for the construction of the Davis
Residence. On August 7, 1989, a Final Certificate of Occupancy was issued for the property by
the Building Department. Since that time, no additional development has been proposed on the
property. The property owners would now like to construct an addition onto the existing
residence.
The applicants, Kurt and Leslie Davis, are requesting a side setback variance to allow for the
construction of a residential addition on the west side of their existing residence, located at 5165
Black Gore Drive. According to the official Town of Vail Zoning Map, the applicants' property is
zoned Two-Family Residential. Pursuant to Section 18.12.060, Setbacks, of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code, the minimum side setback for a structure zoned Two-Family Residential shall be
15'. The applicants are proposing to build their new addition to within nine feet of the west
property line. Therefore, the applicants are requesting an approval to allow for a six foot
side setback variance on the west side of the property.
The applicants are proposing a 14'x 19' addition to their residence. The addition includes a new,
one-car garage on the ground level, and a new study/guest room on the second level. The total
new square footage proposed for the addition is approximately 627 square feet. Of the 627
square feet, 381 square feet will be new living area (GRFA), and the remaining 246 square feet
is proposed to be the additional enclosed garage area. Ninety square feet of the addition is
proposed in the west side setback (45 sq. ft. / level).
The Two-Family Residential Zone District grants a 600 square foot garage credit per allowable
dwelling unit on the property. The applicants' lot is 14, 258.8 square feet in size.- Since the lot is
less than 15,000 square feet in size, only one dwelling unit is allowed on the property. In order
for the applicant to be permitted to construct a second dwelling unit on the property, a Type I
Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction would be required. Ninety-five square feet of the new
246 square foot garage area is counted as GRFA since the applicants already have an existing
two-car garage of 449 square feet (151 square feet of garage credit remains). Therefore, any
square footage above and beyond the 600 square foot garage credit counts as GRFA.
•
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Address: 5156 Black Gore Drive. •
Legal Description: Lot 17, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision.
Zoning: Two-Family Residential
Use: Single family residence
Lot Size: 14,258.8 sq. ft.
Development
Standard Allowed Existinq Pronosed
GRFA: 3,989.7 sq. ft. 2,155 sq.ft. 2,631 sq.ft.
Site Coverage: 20% or 2,851.8 sq. ft. 10.9% or 1,564 sq. ft. 12.81% or 1,831 sq. ft.
Setbacks:
Front: 20' 31' n/c
Sides: 15' 15' 9'
Rear: 15' 55' n/c
Streamside: 50' 51' n/c
Parking: 3 spaces (required) 3 spaces 3 enclosed spaces
Ill. MFERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.62.060, Criteria and Findings, of theTown of Vail Municipal Code, the •
Community Development Department recommends oproval of the requested setback variance.
The recommendation for approval is based on the following factors:
A. Considergtion of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Staff believes the requested side setback variance to allow for a
residential addition to the Davis residence will have minimal, if any,
negative impacts on other existing or potential uses and structures in the
vicinity.
In the staff's opinion, the property most effected by this request is the
property to the west; Lot 16. The neighbors to the west are buffered from
view of the proposed addition by a tall clump of Willows growing along the
lot line common to Lot 17 (Davis') & Lot 16. The proposed encroachment
into the side setback is six feet. The area of encroachment is well
screened from view of the neighbors most affected by the construction of
the addition.
The applicants have provided a letter to the Community Development
Department from Brice May, the owner of Lot 16, expressing the owner's
approval of the proposed six-foot, side setback variance and residential
addition.
f:leveryone\pecMemoskiavis.226 2
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.
The staff believes the applicant is requesting the minimum amount of
encroachment into the side setback necessary to achieve their desired
goal. As stated previously, the applicants are proposing to construct 90
square feet of floor area in the setback (45 sq. ft./level). The maximum
encroachment of the building into the setback is six feet.
As indicated in a letter to the Planning & Environmental Commission, from
the applicants, their lot is triangular in shape and is negatively impacted by
Gore Creek. According to Section 18.58.300, Setbacks From
Watercourses, in part,
"the setback from the center line of the stream channel of the Gore
Creek shall be fifty (50') feet."
Additionally, the 100-year floodplain creates an additional impact on the
lot. Construction is not permitted in the 100-year floodplain by the Federal
Emergency Management Administration and the Town of Vail Municipal
Code. These impacts negatively effect the buildable area of the lot and
create a physical hardship on the applicants.
• The total area of the applicants' lot is 14,258.8 square feet. The buildable
area of the lot, not including the area impacted by Gore Creek, is 7,531
square feet, or 53% of the lot. This figure takes into consideration a 20'
front setback, 15' side setbacks and a 15' rear setback. When impacts of
the 50' Gore Creek stream setback is factored in, the applicants' buildable
area is reduced to 4,420 square feet, or 31 % of the lot area.
The buildable area of the applicants' lot is important when compared to
other lots in the immediate area with a similiar zoning designation. For
instance, Lot 16 to the west of the applicants' lot is not impacted by the 50'
Gore Creek stream setback and has 53% of the lot area available to build
on. Lots 3 and 4, to the south have 46% and 52% buildable area
respectively. The property to the east of the applicants' lot is zoned multi-
family, and therefore, is not applicable to this comparison. -These figures
demonstrate that, while it remains possible to accommodate additional
development on the applicants' lot, the alternate locations are limited.
Especially when the construction of a new garage is being proposed and
the driveway grade is already established at 8%. The location of the new
garage becomes dependent upon access to the street and the vertical
distance between the street elevation and the elevation of the lot.
Staff feels that the negative impacts of Gore Creek on the applicants' lot,
as demonstrated above, insures that the granting of the requested
variance will not result in the grant of a special privilege. Instead, staff
feels that the granting of this variance request will simply allow the
applicants to construct that to which they are entitled, given the zoning of
f:leveryone\pec\memosWavis.226 3
the property, and the rights enjoyed by the other property owners in the
neighborhood.
i
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 above-described criteria is not relevant to this
variance request.
B. The Plannina end Environmental Commission shall make the following findingg
before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same 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 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.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends aproval of the applicants'
variance request to encroach six feet into the west side setback to allow for the
construction of a residential addition.
Staff has addressed the Consideration and Factors, and has determined that the
applicants have met the Findings necessary for the Planning & Envirionmental
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, since it has been demonstrated that a physical
hardship exists on the lot; Finding B.2 has been met since, in the opinion of the staff, the
granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
fAeveryone\pec\memosklavis.226 4
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and that Finding B.3(b)
• has been met since there are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable (Gore Creek) to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone district. Additionally, Finding B.3(c) has also been met since
the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the
applicants of privileges enjoyed by the other property owners in the same district
0
f:\everyone\pec\memos\davis.226 5
LOT 15
?4ua_
_ I
i I
1
LOT 18 1 ti
?WW
1
•
nu.
O,
U
?ul
uT1,••
?IlAt[?p1[:
=??011M?1fM ?mmq .
QAVIS RESIDENCE REMODEL SITE PLAN
Vin,COEDRA , SGNl:rM -M Oil
"M O! VAL PLC. KrYfAL I%lk% W 0 191 ronr?
V,
0-11
RUWW&MM
.a..:r," rou4
• I • • R ?
iIl .T.? r?
1 I
1 '
/
\wJ{ w .Ya.?T ?...{
4 /
!.!!SX! LEVEL
v
RAAIWJ
K• .__ _ - _ - ? / I ..wn.4. Jam..
4
a
lit
' l - - - -- Ii ?I -- _ - 6- ?T?_-?
` A'•I
DAVIS RESIDENCE REMODEL
VAA, COLOVA00
TOWN OF VNL P.E.C. WW4rrAL JANUARY "JIM
,SECOND LE M FLOOR PLANS
R'ARTL4U stwu: w?rowomn
•
r -r
I
I
n-r?•?o.wK..H
7
71
_LI
r-? a
QRST LEVEk=
I
, 171-
1 1-4
I ' ??+-"LU .,.Ka
1'.I
SECOND LEVLL
MR11AU
DAVIS RESIDENCE REM02"
VAU- OOLOF-VO
TO" OF VNL P.E.C. SUN WAL ""'y E/.19"
FLOOR PLANS
scua:u.?ro ^'S
roux G
Davis Residence
• 5165 Black Gore Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
Regarding: T.O.V. P.E.C. Submittal 1/29/96 (Davis Residence remodel)
Legal Discription - Gore Creek , Block 2, Lot 17
Reasons for reauest of a side setback variance are as follows:
1. The lot is a triangular shaped lot, wide in the front and narrow in the back, requiring
us to build originally on the front portion of the property.
2. Gore Creek is a natural border on the SE side of the house where we have the 50
foot side setback and the 100 year flood plain to contend with, thus no further building
can take place on the SE side.
3. The soils test on the property, before building, indicated the water table was higher
in the front, SE side and higher to the back NW side in comparison to the proposed
addition on the SE side. This side was dry in the test holes and upon
excavation for the foundation. We installed 3 sets of drain tiles and a wall sealant and
• merridrain system along the walls to conquer the water flow along the wet walls. Other
water we had to contend with was Town of Vail ditch water and the Holy Cross Electric
vault draining into this lot along with numerous subsurface springs.
4. The slope in the front of the lot was steep enough to push the house back a
distance in order to reduce the driveway to an 8% slope. This eliminates any further
front developement.
5. In the back of the lot the topography is lower and flat. If there ever was a flood the
back of the lot would be most affected. At high water this is the area the water has
come-furthest into the property.
6. The neighbor directly next door (lot 16) is in agreement with the proposed addition
& slight projection into the setback. Please see attached letter from this neighbor
approving of our proposed addition.
7. We are a local Town of Vail family with two children, born in Vail, who have out
grown our home and must add on in order to stay in our ieentism home. Most likely we
would not find an acceptable/affordable alternative in the Town of Vail if we could not
get a variance to build this proposed addition. As we have analysed the proposed
addtion location is the most affordable and least distructive. It impacts the lot and the
interior of the home minimally.
8. Our back yard is the only open play area for our children to play, plus it is away from
the street. fn-che"e When developing this house we choose to leave as much natural
vegetation as possible around the perimeter and in the back of the lot for privacy. We
i would like not to disturb any back vegetation.
9. Considering the set backs, 100 year flood plain and the 50 foot center of the creek
setback, our building envelope is very small in comparison to other similar size lots.
Only 31% of lot 17 is buildable and 69% is not.
In Comparison:
Lot 16 has 53 % buildable area
Lot 3 " 46 % "
Lot 4 " 52 % "
Lot 17's potential could have been _53%_ with 15 foot site set backs.
10. 1 am a business and a commercial property owner in Vail and Leslie owns a
business in Vail. as well.
11. This is a duplex zoned lot, with a lot square footage of 14,259 and existing GRFA
of 1976.61 sq.ft plus 462.3 sq.ft. of garage space. Based on T.O.V. GRFA calculations
we are allowed 3,564.70 GRFA, plus 425 sq.ft. credit, 250 sq.ft. and 600 sq.ft. per side
for garages. The proposed addition would bring the total GRFA to 2369.43 sq.ft. and
the garage to 680.46 sq.ft.. Since we are allowed 600 sq.ft. for garage space, our
GRFA calculation is 2449.89 sq.ft. and the garage is 600 sq.ft..
We choose to build a single family dwelling vs a duplex due to the lot restrictions as
well as to minimized the impact and density on the site.
The proposed addition, we feel, would enhance our residence and neighborhood, meet
out family's growing needs and enable us to remain in Vail.
We appreciate your time and consideration.
Kurt & Leslie Davis
7
is
0
Davis Residence
5165 Black Gore Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Application for a Setback Variance
T.O.V.- P.E.C. 1129/96 Gore Creek Sub. Lot 17, Block 2
A. We are requesting for a side setback variance allowing us to build into a portion of
15 foot S.E. side setback. The regulation involved is Sec. 18.12.060 side setback,
minimum 15 feet from property line. This request of a variance is to allow us to build an
addition onto our home.
1. No other structures exist on this S.E. side of our property. Sod and natural
vegetation exist along S.E. the property line. Our
neighbor on Lot 16 has no improvements adjacent to our proposed
addition area. Their garage is the closest structure to our house,
which is a good distance away (approximately 50 feet).
2. Lot 17's has unique surrounding constraints, which reduces
the building envelope to 31% of the 14,258.8 sq.ft. lot. This high-
ly restricts the building potential of this lot in comparison to the
surrounding neighborhood lots with the same zoning regulations.
• Most neighboring lots are square or rectangular and lot 17 is
triangular in shape.
3. No effect takes place on this issue of light, air, distribution of
population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities or public
safety. However the additional garage space will keep cars and
large items off the driveway and out of sight of the public.
4. The residence as it exists is one of the newest homes in the area
and improves the image and the values of the neighborhood. The
proposed addition complies with Town of Vail guide lines for size,
heights, landscaping, materials and design. Our family wishes to .
remain in our existing home in Vail and this shares Town of
Vail's. interest in abtaining a higher percentage of full time/local
residence in the T.O.V.
•
Home Telephone 970-476-0916
6
•
Town of Vail Planning Department
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
1/18/96
Dear Town of Vail Planning Department,
I am a neighbor of Kurt & Leslie Davis and I live and own a house on the south
side of their home in East Vail. My address is 5137 Black Gore Drive (lot 16).
The Davis's have informed me of their request of a side setback variance in order
to build a addition onto their home. We have reviewed the drawings for their
addition and the amount of encroachment into the side setback. •
lam in approval to the Davis's side setback variance and to their addition.
Sincerely,
Brice May
40
MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 26, 1996
RE: A request for an amendment to the Town of Vail Municipal Code, Title 18, Zoning,
creating an amended appeals procedure.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic F. Mauriello
•
Nn+ W? W' ¢ .j.??. ..,n?,. .i??:!.?+::?ui:: ':S.?i?y::>?"Y->'j}:•},:i!:\YJ.::ni;6;ii•?:Lj:\:}M1' ?..$1•kS:J?jj'•::iQ:jv??:.:"?•,.?:.:
1. INTRODUCTION
The Community Development Department is proposing revisions to the appeals procedures
found in Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code. The revisions are being proposed in response to the
following concerns of the Town Council, the Planning and Environmental Commission, the
Design Review Board, and the Community Development Department:
1. The Town Council has expressed the desire to review fewer administrative details in
order to allow them to address more important legislative issues.
2. The Town Council has expressed that it wants to take the politics out of the appeals
process. The appeals process is an administrative function which can be handled by
appointed Town boards. It was expressed that Town boards should be taken more
seriously and appellants should be required to present their full, best case the first time.
3. The current regulations pertaining to appeals are unclear and inconsistent. Appeals
provisions are scattered throughout the code and, over time, provisions have been
amended 'in some sections and not in others, causing inconsistencies. Staff believes the
appeals language and process should be consistent and that the provisions should be
located in one section of the code.
4. The Community Development Department believes that many of the appeals filed do not
actually reflect an appellant's focus on code criteria, but merely reflect personal
displeasure. Staff and Council spend a lot of time working on such appeals, which results
in wasted time and taxpayer resources. A system can be created to reduce the number
of what might be called "frivolous" appeals.
In response to these concerns, staff has developed the proposal which is outlined in this memo.
A philosophy inherent in this proposal is the ability for a decision to be appealed only
once.
BACKGROUND
At the January 26, 1996 meeting, the PEC held a work session on the proposed amendments IqW
and directed staff to move forward with a recommended proposal. The ORB reviewed the
proposal at their February 7, 1996 meeting. The ORB is in favor of the proposed changes to the
appeals procedure as presented herein. The ORB members believe the process will create a
better qualified presentation before the Town boards and create an atmosphere where Town
boards are taken more seriously. The Board stated that the process would help people work out
problems early on in the process instead of waiting until the last minute. They cautioned staff
that the proposed changes to the appeals process may not be well accepted by certain factions
in the community.
III. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES
The following is a description of the proposed changes. Attached is a detailed copy of the
proposed text changes.
1. Appeals of administrative decisions (staff decisions).
a. Staff decisions on zoning regulations;
b. Staff interpretations; and
c. Staff decisions on design guidelines.
An appeal of an administrative decision which does = involve the design guidelines
would be heard by the PEC. The PEC's decision would be final. Any further appeal
would be to the courts. 0
An appeal of an administrative decision with regard to the design guidelines would be
heard by the ORB. The ORB's decision would be final. Any further appeal would be to
the courts.
2. Appeals of DRB decisions.
An appeal of a ORB decision would be heard by the PEC. The PEC's decision would be
final. Any further appeal would be to the courts.
3. Appeals of PEC decisions.
An appeal of a PEC decision would be heard by the Council. However, appeals to the
Council would not include decisions on variances (see No. 5, below). The appeals being
heard by Council would include items not previously appealed (i.e., conditional use
permits, minor subdivisions, etc.). Any further appeal would be to the courts.
4. Appeals of Council decisions.
An appeal of a Town Council decision would be heard in the courts. [No change)
5. Variance decision.
Variances are considered a type of appeal. They are appeals from the "strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement" of the code. A variance request would be heard by the
G
PEC. The PEC's decision would be final (i.e., no appeal to Council). In keeping with the
• underlying philosophy of allowing for only one appeal of a decision, any appeal of a PEC
decision on a variance would be to the courts.
6. Appeals of the sign code.
Appeals of administrative decisions related to the sign code would be handled using
these same guidelines. Technical issues would be appealed to the PEC and design
issues to the DRB.
7. Criteria for appeals.
a. Standing.
i. Non-design related appeals.
Persons allowed to appeal an administrative decision (not involving the
design guidelines) or a PEC decision include the applicant, adjacent
property owners, or any "aggrieved or adversely affected person."
ii. Design-related appeals.
Persons allowed to appeal a staff design decision or a DRB decision would
only include the applicant and the Town Manager.
At a regularly scheduled public hearing scheduled prior to the appeal hearing
where evidence is submitted, the hearing body (i.e., the DRB, PEC, or the Town
• Council) will make a determination as to whether the appellant has standing to file
an appeal.
b. Notice of appeal.
A notice of appeal must be filed (on forms provided by the Town) in order to begin
the appeal process. The notice must include the name and addresses (mailing
and physical) of the applicant, the property owner, and the adjacent property
owners, and specific and articulate reasons for the appeal. Specific and articulate
reasons would include references to specific code sections being applied or
interpreted and arguments related to the code application or interpretation.
C. Time frame for appeal.
An appeal must be filed within 10 calendar days following a final staff or board
decision. An administrative decision is considered final following a meeting where
the item was published for information on a board agenda. A hearing must be
scheduled within 30 days after receiving a complete notice of appeal.
d. Fees.
The person filing an appeal must pay a processing fee to cover Town costs.
8. Call-ups.
This proposal eliminates Council call-ups.
3
9. Voting.
Many communities require a "super-majority" vote (5 concurring votes out of 7) to •
approve a variance or to overturn a decision on appeal. This standard is used to give
weight to decisions that have been made and to give staff and Town boards more
responsibility for decision making. It also requires appellants to provide more substantial
evidence to compel five members of a board to overturn a decision. This standard is not
currently included in the proposed changes, however, staff believes it should be
discussed.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A draft of the proposed changes is attached. Staff recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission recommend approval of the proposed amendment to the Town
Council.
f:\everyone\pec\memo\appeals.f26
•
•
4
Revised 218/96 DRAFT
0 Proposed Amendment to Title 18, the Zoning Code
...................
Note: Text that is stricken is being deleted and teat that is i? is being added.
TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R) DISTRICT
4-0.12.89.1 L-1t1VL.1 LV t,1(••...• ..r VV11a111:ss:VLL.
7A A
1111 4rt.VJ tV, tLV t,1LY`••••••? VV11LL1JLLJJIVLL 1t V1a141VV1a,1 V'LL 'Vl LV VV11.lll...lJ 'MV Y V1Vt,111V11?
1.t,41i111-.:1i ??lwy h„ laa4 v Ly lla„ 4t,t,1:,,r_4 wd w"v , ll t,1VY..l ly .,??LLVI, Vl Qr1V TL YY?n Tl?e
t?14111u1a -.v?????•SJlvu vuu "16w ,uH uF dLLV111-.Vis. .1Ly u ...11JviaL?' ?'V?-. vl ?vS?. Vv11uuLSSiv11
1?"1'1Vi1?LL1 Vi S tJl VS Vli ?. I' {? ?y.?
VVIS1VLl Vl WJI
D. 1 Z/l a?a- 4tJtJVV litJtl VLL1111YJLft1V? 111 ?Y11? ?Y 1LLLLll ?4? J ia1V YY iYi?ht-d
-.-.:.,:VLL 111Y1J1. L„ -.411-.? Lay L y 111-. t,14• • • •: • •g ???? - - - - iJJ:?+.. 4t?-.:1 LLvtl? 1 V?..lariy JV:LV1.1?11u.,.,l:::g:
/I.fi1V1.,a ;,411V.1,pr,
C. T11V t,h,1111:111/iµ1 ...111111:ss:V1. 6heE 1_. IL_ , ,t,t..,?iy Id y Vf rw L V:L
46
YY11 iV
4 tJ'V JJ 1V LLy VALVLL31V1A 11 ?V VVa1yLL?i11JS1V11 f?aSV1V 1S 111S4.fr(1V 1Vl.L? 11L?V1111^.?..Y.Y?. V'LL.
D. TLV \a v VaJ1VLL Vf..((LLL-. VV111111Y1111{' ?vY VIY,t,111VL? 4V?YG.Lvu? afL 411 LWV+1aV ?aa.41 fL1lV1 ?VV 1V,
such -arl &F pr al Vi -."H1jv ::, VLiLc?as;-.1 Y,:LLIwa e Ly lrlilY:l4l 4??iVa1
**section deleted in its entirety**
I1
U
10.12.892 1"LF,t.Y 41 l., TV,YLL CL;LL,.:h
11. LAL,al 4t,t,C2C1''ll, ?1-. TLYY11 Cvull-.:1 fi.,lla 4 1..,V:?:...l.1 bq- .,, F.1L1111.:LL? V'V ..-••:J.f:'Va11114y L„ ?11?.1., L., the
&rrl:;,?l,at, c1YiJ4-.till rl„rrriy V YYilva, or LLV Tx, T, C-otaitil "'a- `11".F
dtciJ III •? 1 1,
]? aVLL Vl V ?LWU1aY11?. VV11ali11JJiVa?a L}' 4 aia4J Vaa1.?' YV?v Vf??LYiailJV VVML?tVl 111-.111 V1J t/a VS VIl?
D. 11,1 411 r
4yt,V41J, 111v 4t,t.va1 au.sJi L-. r1V? 111 ,'V 11? YY1?... tCf1 .14y J iV11V VV 111 ?VVaJLVU Va 111KSL
CLLaLL,,:l 4? I.4Vla 11v.1... ,.14.1 J.,.aV.l„1.;1 1.1„-.4111
1;-. -.411-.1 uY Ly tL-. TLYVLL .?1 ? .,s y7 ?.
C. Tla;,T,, X110,[[11.:1 JL14ll L„4- t((h?Ie 4rt,V41 YY:11`. - Q.a':a1y d,. J .,fits L(?yV?:11? iil.1/I??l V?111„1,ar ?Y:ill
t1V6Ab1V 4[111 ??? '' V11LV41J1VLL L V VVLLLIVll f111LLJ V1V 1J 111S1i11?V 1VU 1111 VA11i41.a\/11.
**section deleted in its entirety**
PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
1 0.12.891 11FlF,v l?, 1L, •••:.•? WL111a11JJ1„LIf{I: 1 .}?}^?I'L 1
?1.4t,tJVV tJlL•`•••••.? WLILL1LLJJiVU 11 Vlll 4 VIV VLS1V11 Vl W1V VV111111W1??? YV Y v V't/+1aV
1.,tJCY1M111VLL11114,' LV a11LdV Ly LLa 'VIA: 411 4?J4VVLL? t/1Vt1V1t' V VVLLVl, V1 41%, TL VV111LL.4114GV1. TLV
I1L.•••••LL? VV11LLaLLSS1V11 Vl... 413-.-.411 u,F 6L.,,'"dv,:b:VULy u1114JV11LJ• ,'Vl_ VX aLVJV VVlllllllS31V11
111-.111[ V1S t,l V?Vll/?. 1 the
LLL YY1 11s Y.'tLIU L-- LjJ fall u'?y aii? ?V W1V
?VVaJaVaa V1
D. 1 V1 411 4t y-"I I.1V 4F.F .Lr1 aia wJr be 1'11-.1 i{.1
1 ,
ply ,LVL&LVLL 111{.1'3tLV V411V1 4t/ LJ' I1v L'11 •LLg VV111111LJy1Vll lLL IV" -._&L _1?V?'._' b JV11p1V?K?ayVK _,_,.
V. ri _ ??? V'Uiiklilk.lJY'Ult JYY41a __C" l4V 4F/F 1 ". a1 LL''y V11W VV.l 6 fil"d Vl V411V Ll
its entirety
**section deleted in
oats
IttICI:?ia• - yr- L 7 --
?c tirety**
**section deleted in its, en
ti
DESIGN
its enhretY**
**Section deleted in it
- sbq"s
' crrd?,
scat' ???
2
E)fi/Af-'
!zv, 0 ?
•
DRAFT
C. TL., 'i L ?Y la c1iup+?Y -.1tall Wa •Ll/.?lv1 Wrt,'vc.a Yi:Nnih rj d. j b ,a. L-* FiLd vY V,Aed L4Y YY:c?
• y'U SJ:L -aYG4? V<??caJa'Vai ai 4+V V'lJ Li11V LLLW VaV ail aaaJYlYlV avl.4L iaaa llYYYiC4 V....
"section deleted in its entirety"
ENVIRONMENTAL E%IPACT REPORTS
-18.56.11 ? A-F-F -al L.L TL Oa LL Cw UU I.
A. LTILY WrrVWI L" Jl , T?/YY11 C?Z "-:11114.y LV -."dV Ly I- LY?./t/11V W11 L, WIJ WV Vall tJa'VF/Vi iy l1 YY Ll?Ia, VL lLV
11J YYu luG411W?Va. TX vvl Cl,--- wa %,411 AJV VWll ""-"11-5 1'.Y W11Y4VVYlty VVAV Vrl IVJV VVU11V1I
u1V111L Lrl? t/1.,S;,LLL.
D. I'LL all uFF"10, dY„ WrrVWluY.4.,rbefil :.a YYa: ? l..Y daps lV??iLL? L11V dVViViVL1 V1 1liLwLLc
c,,JL& ,.j, Ly LLV TL ?vuV y!/f,, y ,
x,LLYLV:1"2rrfLlLV.a s.aV<11iV a?l.4M:1 JV1YV?.+YV?YLYV V?..LY?.
C. T11V TL r? LL CV WYYViI S1Lall 11VWi 1114, 4r y4.a1 ?i:I:LL Lhir2 j duty -0 .,f-it? L.,' fiLd L,a 4 "R-d 4 .F ?v AIM
rVJJ:LIL, lll"j-d"jy V<.iVLYJ??,u :f 11Y, ,,?.J find) LLWLt1LVY„ iJ uY.,Wfi'iV?.,LY' ;,YYY.WL ,,?Y.
"section deleted in its entirety"
SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS
1 V .5 +90
1 1 II Vf ?/Yl1V W kY V V V KY/W L1Vi..alffi Jt L?valYa'u lt-l lt/r l?Wl: 1 In
1141
L??' WV?YV'Yl VilaYaa? L lLL1LLS V1 aL1 VVLYYVVU'Vaa mith V 1JJ{4WL.LVV Vl 4V111?41 Vla
L'V111V VVVUl!(4 LZVU ?L V111LLL LY1 VVLL{.11L1VLLJ ?4 V' VV LLLVIVLV ulWy LV fie 111E • II.- Irl by
Wuj' YVJYdVaYI VY ?YY Vll VY Ly V?YLLVI ?'V ld.:. 3nrty,03) d y6 KAIL, ?'Ylug &L.' aV lll/u. ill V?VLLL Vf ?4?Jr/VCL?,
1Wl1lulll?11 V?1111111..5Jl\lil, LL11.VY Y V V VY Y l1ll?' 4 1 V j/V1 L 2i V1111 LLV ?Vll1lll? L 1?111111Ly V1, 1ui(Ty V1 V' 1i1?/1•?yY?V•?Y?L?V Y ViJV, iJl
111Vd11?L11V QVLZVLL V1 LLLV 2/V11Llls L
\"i/!a??•/?.?). aaalaJ41 W?V1. LJ,1LLV{iL 111 aS1LW11 Y1V?LV 1VLt4u VLY. 1 WY11AaV Vl {.LLV ,r
g WLY WrrVWI JLWIl LV 4VV111V1 VVLLVUllVLLVV 1LL 1LV
CLLLLLillJJillu LV WVL VYILL.YYY YLLYYViy ) d"j, ZL.LV fil-6 Vf
CLct. Vl h" LVi11LLr' A'LLl.*LL16./LLLV1.
"section deleted in its entirety"
18.58.310 Bed and breakfast operations.
A. Unchanged
IB1. Unchanged F//???•• I}'. .
V. +(?'1x?V•...?1a1:V111. If L1.V DY1VV?1- -1 VVaYYLLLL.YL:, 1I 1y DVY V1'YVr1Y1VYYL.IVLV11L1:111Vs LI a tl., p.Lw ?LJ1V111 Vi Ca
UVV<.1V LY 11
593-H
.<V4 L1aVL. of LL1111y.V•IrV V.L'41L1 V1141 KJV r/Vllllll W11V LV.J.L? Y.?YW ?V?, 1.V 1?Jy1.a4111 ?1? V
`i1l'V t1VV 1V1 1VV?Y VVW?LVU1 L1V 1?V LVa.I Wu4 L1 V4N 4SL l/V1L1111L?VV 1L.1 ?'Yllllil?, L.IVJV11L 111 1111VW1 •JV'l.Lf4V1V KV ??y?
LYYV YYVYW?LVU ?(I.4`•11V1I?V14 LLV Y114YV?L V??VII VUl1LL1L1 LLV 1 LV Vlll l J1 •V'i YV/?.??•L??`V??•11V L1VV V1ll LL1V ?/V11111LLVV 111
t...1SVLL Vl Ly 111'Jl V11WVS 11LW1j-a?-lalV W1U1 Vtyty 111ay1lVd 111 ?V L4FJ?/I?iVC41.1V111V11 411V VV1111YV1.1W1 {41?V l/Vllllll:
}1?? If 1L y?v111111 L?V .lya?a VVS YY Lll< LL'V dV1V1Y111111411V11 Vl 1. \Yl1 VVLV1 Vf V'VYlllll{4J.Lllp
µV Y 1V?1u1V11Y.L 3L[vu CL ?' aWll'VU V<uJ?S, 4V L-lIL{y U?/i/N1 uuvu ?LV1LLUi1(4?1VUf? LL vvl 11
0 3
DRA,law-
notice i'
{o krrvkl YY aL{I?l I.LLV TL YYU Vl Ykll Tlkuaual? ?j!'•••••••JJivLL uV lkL}11.-? ty d..y3 kill &e
lik?V V2 Ll}V uV'VV Vl 1V?Y V?V?k y?VUrL? 42J}Vy'VU'??V. ,{I?kLVV 'Vrl tLV
V V •••••a? V Y;?V4?1G. 1Z1Lyl Y1V 11Vt4a u1?? ?y •
ifa• •.•? 1}•Vl'VJ.I J111 LLl1TV'VlllILlll'Ul 1V ? V1JV
4L11V aav ?VV V} Y1V1k?V4`/1JJyL?V 1 V1'' ffit%LVVLVl Vr
1 l
VVllilil{.i11LY.? VLYV1??VlVylilVLL1• ll µuy y,l4LL??VV tklly {.'V V?lVl V1JV ?, 11??11{. V1 44??J1VkI tLVka1¦••••••?
}/VwYVY?.?. a.. .JpJ}V4Yf?yLL?lY LLV?4VV Vl µ?J?JV{ii 'V1 ?V V'V••••••Wla?? IVY Va V?IaYYVa}? Y11VVi'V} Jaa{?Lll VV VVi1S1?iV1V?
111}ka V}yVl y} Lf.[V ?/141J.111111G, VV/.•'•.•JV}'VLL iV ??Vl\W? ?V VVai??'Vaiwl MJV ?J Vlllal?
D. Re-letter to C. Remainder unchanged
E. Re-letter to D. Remainder unchanged
F. Re-letter to E. Remainder unchanged
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
+9-60-.0 % AFv.aH,, TVY,at{'?i'V a.ulVi ?. ?
n. x%" fayy,µl t, 44V TL YY la t/V LLalVll lllµ_?_lL4 L?V wyyllVµL1?.?Q??j k'V VaIL Y/a V??J Vyi L'' V?'Y?4VlY Vl the
i ?'V YY }}}4wa1?a?Vl. VYYL VY,L11Vaa Vw11ll1.YV V??lllµlXV1S Ly µlllkj'Ull1.J -ULV-Offl VJV VV'wuVl?
.[? ?i^1iV111LV1J yl
1 V1JV4?11. t L _
l./• %J1 µ1l wyj/Vµls thT 44py Vµy 1111L&j.. L,5 1,Z (i ul YY'll?LL1? 1?1Y 'rt1iY''.f ?111?V YY 1116„ . ,1 ••V ?VVIJLVLL Vl 111115i+e
caHed uy by-h, 1L rY1U 111 ??LLLLL.al wk LLLV4 aaVt}4 Y1/SL11Y11? JVla'N?M1v? 1.k1V?+\ ?.
C. 1 r}nf11, %, L 1, Y.11V11 J11µ11 L. 1- wyyVwl xitL- ?L' d.,' J V1FkJ L.-* a, 11.1?VLV?,..,,} i " Vw/HVj '-.F VY 1'1?..4Y1-y
4
FwJ.?1? Y VtllLaaJaV4 ??V VL1 aLLL1/}1 f?L,}V aV 4aJwa11VaV4Y. 11.lL?lillµ?.LV4.
**section deleted in its entirety**
VARIANCES
•18.62.8-70 11yy,w1 LV T,JYY4 VVKl1VlI:
17. L•A.- wyy Val lV d- Tv YY 4 CV 1 ,'
LLLlV ll illk VV 1114L',laV kyyt Mill Y µdjwVVa+l ' kI}V.F`V1??Lj V YY 4V1, V]]lIliV
TV ? vLl 111a11µV,1. TL YYLL ?V'Y1LLV11 VCI.Ll k1bV V?.11 uy 1114,1,,1 s-L, µlalwJ Vi 1LY ?VLV?1?.1,1'VJV V'V 41\V1I
D. 1,11 µl1 4yyvwlJY iLV kyyvwl a4.aJ• be fii d'aa-a VY11iaLL? L. 'dk.y .l 1V1.1V Y?'lll? I.J.iV e,:,:-Ir lla{.H71 L V
call,l uy Ly 111- Tx,YYLL C,1 L.4J wl LV11 4V!\I 1a V?wlarly 6%LwdY.l-dam aaav{?
C. Ti., T,,wu C.,,.LLV:1.1.111. .. &, wyy,wl Y,.d.:. d.uLy J.Qy 1111L3 L/Tyvw?aaa? 1 1 wy 1Y1th a
yVL/s1L1, ?L Y Vt\?V4J1V41 VV{1L1V111Llsrl lll,}V aV fa1JM111V1V4?11111}1k41'VJ1.
**section deleted in its entirety**
•
4 0
ADMINISTRATION
• 18.66.030 Appeal& a i11:11:S?L, I: b .11.WLLS.
DRAFT
A. L"11rr vG1 aylyVail 4u?' ad111J11. 1. CLI.' V C4V ?iV11 „1 ?Vlvl.••:••?+ t:,,a Ly d=?,xj" L111Y(L.Y6'Vl
i,a1111:1iLS111 CrL /1 114. S11G4..11 lV r11V ?:S:lJll1il VI?11:J 6d LV l ull 111V ?/14LL..1Y1? VVi1L1Y1JS:V1L Lj
(Llly 1VS:/1.YV111 Vi l/Y V?/V1 L'' V?Y l1Vi YY:?LJ(LL A t(v billy 4Ky.11 J/?Vll„ Y,l/:?/1Y? JlLV11 C1V Vll l71 V{Lll, i' 1r. t:Vli. 14
VJlI Vl CL?11J V?Li?Y t V1111111?SyS1?V?il? Kil?Il 1bb Vl11^lY3' {, LL ?41 VtJ Vit 4V^Y?Y''Yy tL t,i ?I11 Y . e??bi vi {.LLV LiV'iL41
?L?11J111SL1Q L1.11? 111jLy VVll??lll? 1,.Yb1 Sb? 'Vl L11V411 . ?LVtLVJl Vl LLIV 1V VV Li 111?H1jL?V1 Vl ziwxL 11g
RR CTL.7L11111:sL?7Ll?„?1. 7 ?y? 7' 7 7
D. iVV aYYbal iL.:al t. ».?...c..ii-GV -LILO vl rtb'Y?SL?ill v„uSLtuta. wl ia?.?,vicel ?.,iiY w ,t??+i.f?a...? a..s. ?
lC .,i Shap?l,,l 18-.v
n
U
• ? 5
GRAFT
•
t ?c?;rs ;,,dam
}:•.is^:S.i::::iiiiii':.'::::::4::: ..:::::::::..::::.:'::::.:;.iii;: ':[??i:l .::}Y::<.iii:: •.. ?::.}::.::::. ?.. ..iiiii%.ii:4ii:?ii:.::.iiiiii:: :•: i::n?: ::•; :.:.::.::::::.i.•:.?. ?:::.i'::::. ::: [.... . ....:..: .4 ;..
•
DRAFT
•
•
?i
?x
0
DRAFT
........
.......... '::::: :....................:........::iv: :.:: i::::::::..:::::::::::.:::::::.i'.iiiiiiiii'+'-: iii::::::.:::. ?::. ?:::::::.:?'<?vi:•ii:4: iiii:: .?. ?:::::. :i:. ?: .::. :.::. :i:.i.y.:..::::A:..:..: i:..
:./.isii::.i::•i:?i*itii!ivii::Y.ii::::: :..: ?...... .i::?.?. .}.:.... ..• ?:i: :: ?niv: ni :.dry. :....:.:....i. ..??v ::: :.i.:.:•..:. .::. .: i. ..
jai:l?:.? .:...........:..............::::..::::....................:...........:..::::.? ...:... . .
:-:::;.i:;.ii;:.;:::..;:.;::.:';;::;::::>:>::»::>:.»::-::.;:.i:.ii•.i:.;:;.;:.::::.i:;:;::-•.:::.::.i';.::'.;;? •':' .::.i:.:::.;•.i :..::::.:::.:>' ::.i•.i:;:.:>s?•i'.; ..:.:.i...:..:..:..:.-. :.. ..: :......;.:.:..: ? .i:.i;:. ..
.;;ii:?:;;i;;;. ;:;;:;;i ::.::.:::::::::.i:.i'.i:.::.i:<.>::<..;::::<;.;:.;':.;:.;:;.i:::.i::.:i:::':.::.:••.:.::;.:;::.:...........::.i;;i::".:?;;>::::.?:.? :. .::;:.:..;:.;::.:.;;;;i;i:.;.i>i•:.::..::.:.:.::::.::?..?::.,:::.?:;.:
W. a
SW.
.? ::;:::::::::;;.:::.::;.;;%:-;::.:;.:;.:;..:::;::::;;.:::::::::.i:.:r::.:::tii:.:: :::::::;;:i:;rii::;::.. .:;.:ax•>;•>;::;•;:.;::.:;.;:;>:.:.: ?::::::: :::::.: ?:::. ?:: .:.i'.i' i':::.:::?.i::;•i:;;: :;:.:
.::i::.i:;.>x:,;•<.i:?i:.i:.;:.r.i',::..::•,.: •..`.?,. .;.::::...... . i:: ? 4tA:ts:::r ::. :::??'f'?`.i::?i?::::?70.7.i:::Ih:?::;K:VA:;:?::-,.?i?+...?..a?...i-.:........?.f.? ................
::::.:::::::::::::::::::::;;:;:::::::.:;:::::.:::.::::::::.:::::;:.::.::::.::::::::::::.::.:::::.::::::::.::.:;:;.:;.;:.i:.i'•:::..;:.i:;>:.i;i:.iii:.iii;;".;:.:?":.:.:i:.i:.;....ii;:.:.i:.:;.;'.:.:;:::.i:;.:i.i;::'.isi:;.i:::;<:>:'».:<.::.;:.:.::;: -•;:.i:.
.:d;?r.::?!ism ::::::::::::.::.::.::.i:.i:.i:.i:.ii;.?:<:.ii:.i::::.;i:.;i:.i:.i:.:.:.i:.i:.i:.?.::.:i..:.::::..............................................?..........
0
DRAFT
0
File:f:\Dominic\wpfiles\appeals6.wpd
MEMORANDUM
I0
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Devel.Y.F-ent Department
DATE: February 26, 1996
RE: A request for a worksession to discuss proposed changes to Chapter 54 of Title
18 (Design Review Guidelines) and Title 16 (Sign Code).
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Randy Stouder
1. DESCRIPTION OF i nit? REOUEST
Staff is proposing to make amendments to certain sections of the Sign Code and the Design
Review Guidelines. We request that the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC)
specifically focus on Section IV of this memorandum which is a summary of the proposed code
revisions. The actual text changes can be found in Attachment #2 of this memorandum. We
would also like input fiv .. the PEC on the issues discussed in Section VI of this memorandum.
Background information is incorporated into Sections II and III of the memorandum, and these
sections of the memorandum explain the rationale behind the code changes.. Section V discusses
the need for additional, future changes to the Design Review Guidelines and other portions of the
Zoning Code.
II. BACKGROUND
The Department of Community Development is committed to improving both customer
satisfaction and staff efficiency in all of our activities. One of the areas in which we are focusing
our improvement efforts is the development review process. "Phase P" of our efforts to improve
the efficiency of the development review process involves code changes to portions of the Sign
Code (Title 16) and the Design Review Guidelines (Title 18, Chapter 54). The desired outcome
of these code changes is to expedite the processing of develVYJLJLJLent proposals of minimal
complexity, by giving staff the final review and approval authority over applications that would
otherwise have gone to the Design Review Board for review and approval. Staff believes that by
modifying the review and approval authority, that application processing times for proposals of
minimal complexity can be reduced from four weeks, to one week or less. Staff has already
identified several types of development review applications that can be turned around in 24 hours
or less.
Section III of this memorandum summarizes changes in the office structure of the Community
Development Department that have already been made to facilitate and expedite the processing of
devel,,F..ent applications. Section IV of this memorandum summarizes the F uFosed changes to
1
Title 16 and Title 18 (Chapter 54 only). We have attached a copy of the proposed code changes
in ordinance format (i.e. text additions are indicated with shading and text deletions are indicated
with strike-thru). •
Staff is proposing the code changes, and has re-structured the Co?anity Develvv..ent
Department for several reasons. C.,.unity input is regularly received through an annual Town-
wide survey. That survey has regularly indicated a desire to reduce the amount of time the Town
takes to review and ayp-v ve minor develup...ent proposals such as new commercial signs, exterior
facade changes, minor additions to residential structures, minor changes to the exterior of
commercial establishments outside of the core areas, decks, hot tubs, landscaping and other site
development improvements. In response to the Community Survey, staff undertook an internal
analysis of the Town's devel.,r.ent review process.
A series of meetings were held with the town staff members directly involved in the review
process. A technical advisory committee (TAC) was formed to represent the people within the
community that regularly deal with the Town's develop ent review process. The review process
was examined and input gathered fiv.. Town Staff and the TAC. It was determined that the
Town's development review process should be changed to reduce processing time for certain
types of applications. The preliminary findings of this effort have culminated in the proposed
changes outlined below.
III. COMMMNITY DEVELOPMENT Orr jCE STRUCTURE AND PROCESS,
C RANGES
Based on the input we have received so far, strides have been taken to address the concerns that •
were raised regarding apparent inefficiencies in the processing of development review
applications. The Community Development Department has been re-structured and the following
changes have been made:
1) Pro essional Service Counter.
Service hours have been established and professionals with decision making authority have been
located up front at a new service counter area to expedite the processing of certain types of
applications that were identified by staff as being of minimal complexity. A Building Liaison
Officer and a Planning Liaison Officer have been named and placed at the new service counter to
help review development applications and inform the general public of submittal requirements and
application review processes. A list of items of minimal complexity has been developed by staff.
These items of minimal complexity generally do not require a review by Town agencies other than
the Department of Community Development, and thus can be staff approved, either on-the-spot
or within 24 hours (if a site visit is required). The initial list of items of minimal c.,.uylexity has
been attached to this memorandum (See Attachment #1). This list is expected to change or
evolve over time. In the past, review and approval of these items has typically taken from one to
four weeks depending on the develurilLent review caseload in the office.
2
•
Ital Requirements:
• 2) DeveWment Review Annlications and Submi
The Town's devel.Y...ent review application forms are being consolidated and revised to simplify
the paperwork for applicants, and to clearly outline submittal information requirements. The
Community Devel„r...ent Department is now accepting only complete applications, and rejecting
applications that do not contain all the required submittal information. Starting this year,
submittal deadlines were changed to noon instead of five o'clock on the submittal deadline dates.
The noon deadline gives the Planning Liaison Officer time to check application submittals for
completeness the same day they are received. If the application is not complete, immediate
contact with the submitting party is be made by the Planning Liaison Officer and the missing items
are requested. The applicant then has up to 24 hours to make the application complete. If the
applicant cannot submit the required items within the 24-hour grace period, the application is
returned and the applicant must start over on a new submittal deadline.
3) Development Standards:
The Town's internal Develvp ... ent Review Team (DRT) is undergoing a develvp...ent review
improvement process (DRIP) to examine potential process changes that will improve application
review and processing efficiency. The Town Manager and the DRIP steering committee are
outlining a governing philosophy that will guide the DRT in the formulation of a clearly defined
review process and a written set of development standards. The devel.,y...ent standards will
essentially be a road map for applicants and design professionals. They will guide the
development of plans that will gain Town approval with little or no modification, eliminating the
review of multiple plan submissions, thus reducing processing time and frustration.
4) Code Revisions:
The Community Devel,,j,...ent Department will propose the code amendments in two phases. The
goal is to make the development review process more efficient, more understandable and
predictable, and less.painful from an aggravation and time consumption standpoint.
These changes are being carefully thought out and implemented in a logical and timely manner.
Items 1 and 2 have been accu...Ylished and are now in effect. However, they have not been fully
tested and refinements are ongoing. The true test will be the busy summer construction season.
Items 3 and 4 are ongoing, with implementation deadlines set for the Spring of 1996. Staff is now
moving forward with the Phase I code changes as noted in the following section of this
memorandum.
0
IV. PROPOSED PHASE I CODE REVISIO M
The following is a brief summary of the F-vposed Phase I code revisions being recommended by •
staff. The Phase I changes are largely changes to the administrative processing sections of both
Titles.
1) Sign Code_ itle 16):
Staff proposes to assume review and approval authority over all requests for new signs. - In the
Sign Code and the Zoning Code, the staff is referred to as the "Administrator". Staff will review
all new sign requests using the same criteria the DRB cu..r,..tly uses. We reiterate the review
process here for inL....ational purposes. If a p uposed sign meets the technical standards and the
design guidelines of the Sign Code, the proposal will be staff approved. If a sign request does not
meet the technical standards or design guidelines, the applicant will be requested to modify the
proposal to conform to the Code or it will be denied. Applicants will be informed of arY. Val (or
denial) in writing and the code-based reason(s) for the decision will be cited.
If the Administrator denies a sign request based on lack of conformance with a design standard
(e.g. earth tone, architectural harmony, etc.), the applicant will have the right to appeal the
Administrator's denial to the DRB, in writing. Staff feels that this is ayl,.r,r,-.ate since design
standards are by nature, somewhat subjective. Applications rejected by the Administrator because
the proposal does not meet a technical standard (e.g. size, height above grade, etc.) must be
revised to meet the standard, or a variance can be filed with the PEC. Variances will be processed
by the PEC and evaluated according to the existing Sign Code variance criteria. 0
The review process outlined above will replace the "old process" whereby individual sign
applications went to the DRB for review, with variances going to DRB for recommendation and
then Council for final review. Staff will notify the DRB of all administrative actions on sign
requests by publishing a list of said actions on a DRB meeting agenda. The DRB will have the
right to review the Administrator's decision at their next regularly scheduled meeting.
All new sign programs will continue to be reviewed and approved by the DRB. Denial of a sign
program by the Design Review Board may be appealed, in writing, by the applicant. The Planning
and Environmental Commission will hear the applicant's appeal and make a decision to uphold,
modify, or overturn the DRB's decision.
Future changes to the Sign Code (Phase II) will involve the removal of all references to fees,
appeals and variances fi.,..? this Title, in favor of a cross reference to other code sections, such as
the administrative title (Title 2) or to the administrative chapter of the Zoning Ordinance (Title
18). The Phase II changes are currently being evaluated.
lines ter 54. Ti,Ile 18):
2) DesiQrc Review Guide
The Design Review Guidelines will be amended to clarify the distinctions between the staff's and .
4
the DRB's review and approval authority. The goal of these revisions is to take the less complex
• items off the DRB's plate and allow staff make the decisions of compliance with the guidelines on
applications of minimal c.,..?plexity. Staff can review and app.., ire the items of minimal
c.,...rlexity more efficiently than the DRB. Staff, the TAC and the DRB identified the types of
deveky...ent activities that should be reviewed at the staff level instead of at the board level.
Modifications to the DRB guidelines are proposed accordingly.
The text of section C(3) of "Preliminary/Final Design Review" portion of the Design Review
Guidelines (page 454c), lists the items that are subject to staff review and app.., iral. Staff
proposes to expand paragraph (a) of this section by adding the following items: exterior finish
materials (e.g. stonework, siding, roof materials, paint or stain), exterior lighting, canopies or
awnings, fences, antennas and satellite dishes, and minor commercial facade improvements
outside the commercial core areas of the Vail Village and Lionshead. Staff would also like to add
a new paragraph (d) allowing staff to review and approve all site work (e.g. grading, landscaping,
retaining walls, etc.) after the initial site devel„r..ent has occurred.
Staff believes that these changes do not significantly alter or reduce the review authority of the
DRB. Any decision of the Administrator would be noted on the next DRB agenda and would be
subject to call-up review by the DRB. Staff intends to exercise its approval authority judiciously,
deferring projects to the DRB that could have wide ranging implications or significant impacts to
surrounding properties. Special sensitivity will be exercised in the Vail Village and Lionshead
areas. Neighborhood context will be carefully considered in all staff decisions. Any controversial
proposals will be forwarded to the DRB for decision.
Again, further charges to the Design Review Guidelines (Phase II) are likely and will involve the
removal of all references to fees, appeals and variances, and lapse of approval fiv... Chapter 54, in
favor of a cross reference to Chapter 66, the "Administration" chapter of the Zoning Ordinance.
These future changes are currently under review and being pursued by staff. Once these changes
have been reviewed and approved by the Council, staff will 1,.vFose and seek approval of the
necessary amendments to Chapter 58.
3) Pal use I Code Change &heduk:
The proposed Phase I code changes have been presented to the planning staff, DRT, TAC, DRB
and the PEC informally in a series meetings and discussions, but have not been presented for
formal discussion at a public meeting. We have outlined a public meeting schedule as follows:
• February 26th - PEC Worksession
• March 1 lth - PEC Recommendation
• March 19th - Council Worksession and 1 st Reading of Ordinance
• April 2nd - Council 2nd Reading of Ordinance
V. PROPOSED PHASE H CME REVIMDM
In reviewing the Design Review Guidelines for the proposed Phase I code changes outlined
above, it became clear to staff that further review and modification of the Design Review
Guidelines is necessary. The guidelines have evolved and changed in a piecemeal fashion over the
past two decades. The guidelines have become overly c"...f lex and are poorly organized. The
Town Staff is now considering a major overhaul of the guidelines. For this effort, we are
considering utilizing a consultant who has the expertise necessary to accomplish this major task.
Staff anticipates that this overhaul will occur over the next twelve months to eighteen months.
Staff feels that the design guidelines should, at a minimum, be revised so that they are logically
presented in text and graphically illustrated where helpful, with design standards quantified to the
extent practical.
VI. ELIMINATION OF DUPLICATION OF REVIEW BY i r N DRB AND i nr. PEC,
A suggestion was made by staff to eliminate duplication of review between the DRB and the PEC
for major projects requiring review by both boards. However, the TAC thought that a better
solution to resolving this issue was to perform joint work sessions (DRB and PEC) early on in the
review process so that the DRB would not be put in the awkward position of wanting to revisit
design issues that had already been addressed by the PEC and/or the Council.
At a worksession held on February 21, 1996, the DRB was asked for input regarding the
proposed Phase I code revisions. The DRB was generally comfortable with Staff's proposed
code changes. However, the DRB was not in favor of joint worksessions. They felt that there
were simply to many decision makers, (up to 11) present at these joint meetings for them to be
effective. Staff would like feedback from the PEC regarding how to get the DRB involved in the
review process for major projects at an earlier stage.
Would it be appropriate for the DRB to have an initial wossion on maior proiecl?a
before the nroiect is nresented to the PEC?. This may be too early in the process for
design input. Decisions on major site development issues would not have been worked-
out yet, and thus design input may be premature.
Would it bg more appropri ate to talo a maior Wiect lg the PEC for an initial worksession
and then schedule the item for a follow-un worl = ntn v6 the DRB? The PEC would
be able to give direction on the major site devel„r.uent issues affecting the devel r.uent
proposal before the DRB gives input on the design issues. The PEC would have the
benefit of DRB input on project design before they made their final decision on the
proposal.
What tunes of nroiectL&hould be taken to the DRB? Staff would suggest Major SDD
Amendments, new SDD's, Major Exterior Alterations in the commercial core areas and
other major tear down/rebuild projects in commercial and business districts.
L\everyone\pec\rnemos\phase 1226
6
•
•
Attachment # 1
Items of Minimal Complexity
or
Planning Liaison Officer Approval Items
•
0
i
NTEMORANIDUNI
Date: December 26, 199
To: Susan Connelly, Director of Community Development
From: George Ruther, Town Planner
Re: P.L.O. approvable items
According to my notes from Planner Staff and D.R.T., the following is a list of the items which
the P.L.O. can approve on the spot assuming adequate information is provided at the time of
review:
1. Color changes ,
?. Landscaping --?rtcz? ??',?'t?5e (zyc`(?.=_6 j? ?Cc= ??- (Le'?.` :?
3.. Fences- to f c'?F Y; 'z ', A", 'vA?'
4. Exterior decks"
5. N indow and door cbanges*
6. Skyligbts*
7. Signs less than 5 square feet or part of an alreadv approved sign program
8. Hot tubs*
9. Changes to exterior building materials*
10. Exterior lighting*
11. Changes to previously approved plaiis* 6Ar Ctu?v efc.-a
12. Re-roof* ( ec- y i :;?- RW-. reatw)
• M2y require the iSSU9nce of a Building rernJt from the Building
PlAry 6747F
•
S
L`
Attachment # 2
Proposed Phase I Code Amendments
A) Sign Code
(Title 16)
B) Design Review Guidelines
(Title 18 Chapter 54)
0
Note: Only the pages of the Code that are being amended are attached. For a complete
copy of either A. or B above, as currently adopted, contact Community Development @
479-2138..
• 8
•
SIGN CODE REVISIONS
0
C,
•
.0
0
Chapter 16.08
ADMINISTRATION
Sections:
16.08.010 Appointment.
16.08020 Responsibilities.
16.08.030 Enforcement.
16.08040 Appeal.
16.08.050 Amendments.
16.08.010 Appointment.
The town manager shall appoint an administrator, who shall administer and enforce this
chapter. This position may be combined with another position of the town. (Ord. 9(1973) §
15(1).)
16.08.020 Responsibilities.
The administrator shall be responsible for such duties as prescribed in this chapter, and
shall be responsible for enforcement of the sign regulations. (Ord. 9(1973) § 15(2) (part).)
16.08.030 Enforcement.
The administrator may serve notice indicating the nature of any violation, or requiring the
removal of any sign in violation of this title, on the owner or his authorized agent. The
administrator may call upon the town attorney to institute necessary legal proceedings to enforce
the provisions of this title, and the town attorney is authorized to institute appropriate actions to
that end. The administrator may call upon the chief of police and his authorized agents to assist in
the enforcement of this title. (Ord. 9(1973) § 15(2) (part).)
16.08.040 Appeal.
R Appeal f'i.... w..y ?.,L.?.:srtirocaction or determination by the?.?u ?-odc
administrator pursuant to the provisions of this chapter may be filed}k with the design
review board by any applicant within ten days following the action or determination. In the event
of appeal, the design review board, after reviewing a report fiv. the administrator, may confirm,
reverse, or modify the action of the administrator. Failure of the design review board to act
within sixty days of the filing of appeal shall be deemed concurrence in the action of the
administrator. (Ord. 14 (1982) § lb: Ord. 9(1973) § 3.)
16.08.050 Amendments.
The regulations prescribed in this chapter may be amended, or repealed by the town
council. (Od. 9(1973) § 4.)
•
0
Chapter 16.12
• ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
Sections:
16.12.010 Applications and approvals required.
16.12.020 Application procedures.
16.12.8350 itfees.
16.12.010 Application and approvals required.
It is unlawful for any person to display any sign within the town without c,,.-Flying with
the following requirements:
A. C..Fletion of the sign application;
ator
str,
tmi one
C '
B. Review tvtu=zk????=sign . Review {r? he Design Review
Boards L. J.?.LS V?lV VValau? frv. ".Ld;YlSiVU Vu?CYLLVV JL?I.lS,W1 J1?,. ?,YV?l WauaS,
{?` ?
D. d- Jl?u (L?JL"[- L. J.?aaMf,V uVt Jr VVa11V411' .Va?asu Val ? bc1V V4iyy
(Ord.5(1993) §2: Ord.51(1978) § 1 (part).)
16.12.020 Application procedures.
The procedures to be followed in fulfilling the intent of the sign ordinance are as follows:
A. A sign application must be obtained, properly completed, and returned to the si
La..
administrator;
$ The sign administrator shall accept and review the properly cv.yleted sign application.
The-sign administrator shall notify the Design Review Board of all administrative decisions
at the next regularly scheduled meeting. The Design Review Board may require that any •
decision of the sip administrator be reviewed by it at its next regularly scheduled meeting;
Applications for 1"&LW :LL vaYVL.JJ??11YV Jq.L fcct; J.Ld:Y:J:VLL VLL{1KL1VV J:?aLJ, vY 'sign
programs-, axshall be reviewed by the Design Review Board at its next regularly
scheduled meeting in the presence of the applicant or his representative following a
determination by the sign administrator that the application has been properly cV111F,leted;
G. The Design Review Board will approve, conditionally app,. ie or reject the sign
application based upon its conformance with this title and its aesthetic valuez l
Upon the approve
C MM:.Design Review Board, th., J & Y„W1:--.V .1Y1a:1 T#-Hl L,, a..iY`-Ya„d i- the
administrator aad QaL, WF,F,l:vcLaYk will+e duly noti 1#? ?u# of the OIVJa?aa a V Y YV
;`;`':; r <Upon rejection of the sign application r...YYby the
g#rx?et?;th ..p?Design Review Board,
notification will be given in writing to the applicant specifying the reason for disapp.., *,al
and making recommendations to bring the sign Mg. into conformance with the
provisions of this title.
1
yT?T} I 1 /1 1 1 ? ?? Tb
11• " 4LLV V11YVV?-1111 Waa Kt/I/t1?1LV?WL1?'J Jl?,. YY }/vYllll {. 1J 1VJ VVLV 4, L. 11LLJL%' V???1Vi1 LV ".FF V/I.Kl LV 1V "T /YY 11
CV LLLLV IYfbHw YY aLL& LL1V r.. ---d- v 'V-1a+I+V? au ?V L+V1.1i11G i:a,. 11y J.1 (L, V.t Vl WLL W?Ir VW+, ?..lV
?Li'VJa?u aV Ya YY L/U'YJ?LL11?V JY?,LL 4W1YY4YJ?W?'VY J1iK11 ?VJVV V11Y11YVY1?LL?YViYJ ?V ??LV ?'1?11
VVU11V 1?
(Ord. 51(1978) § 1 (part).)
f JU 1L- ?'- Lily WJaalaalaJ?W?V1 KVVV r?Wt1 Llav Jl?111 K?/?/11VK11V Y1, ?aV KF/F/E"' JLWII F,Ky
,r K l?iv VI
4YYVLIL' 4V11Kab F%" Jl?la, Vl Jlr?a. Fl1V?1Ki11. 111V L1LLl11rVV1 V?J1?i1J I. K a:-CL
J4LLV?wV aaaVa{4?JV?1
' V KFJF EL%," 1V11 YJ Y uL YVJ?YV ??, F/Y'V YY&VaI iLVj Vvu1 VYYYY ?V ?V F/YV YaJi'VYYJ 1L' 1J LtL?Y. ? 1
•
0
Chapter 16.36
• VARIANCES
Sections:
16.36.010 Purpose - Limitations.
16.36.020 Application.
a Ete-
16.36.030
16.36.040 Hearing.
16.36.050
+15 36.?OGO At. L7, .L.:
+6-.3f V 7'V T.. b .ra a,'yi&
16.36.0M l a l ? town council action
16.36.010 "Purpose - Limitations.
A. In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical
hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title, variance fi.. the regulations may
be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the
size, shape, or dimensions of a structure, or the location of the structure, from topographic
or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical
limitations, street locations, or traffic conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or
inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be
a reason for granting a variance.
B. A variance may be granted with respect to any regulation contained in this title.
(Ord. 4(1975) § 2 (L)(1): Ord. 9(1973) § 17 (1).)
16.36.020 Application.
Application for a variance shall be made upon a form provided by the administrator. The
variance application shall include the application for a sign permit and shall also state the
applicant's reasons for requesting variance in accordance with the criteria set forth in Section
16.36.070. (Ord. 4(1975) § 2 (L)(2): Ord. 9(1973) § 17 (2).)
16.36.030 Reserved.
1 1 T1., t., Y1'" ?Lu11 ,,,4 " Y ".:u..,,. 1.1 l., .,.. Y - TV,, ,1, it .,f L YY i-3t f [?' c /I.
GYl1Y V {.11 V1 Vl\UVIIVVV :-:JV11? tV 1•J V Y 1V YY Vl 'WV 4?/FE..t... TI.. 1'V\/ y11?J1 LV t/41 I 4i t .1 tL-- ?
and shaR -ut-drk44):7-S) § 2(b)(3)6 Old. 9-?3) § 17".
16.36.040 Hearing.
.........................
Upon receipt of a t ; variance application, the administrator shall set a date
y:}'?y Y??1QJ3
<IC
c?uduct.a. can a before the :F:?IZ?fYY.r\ ' ail lrnv?.??n?tx : _ ..........
d,,a.&. 1 V V LV YY L.."L%1. (Ord. 4(1975) § 2 (L)(4): Ord.
9(1973) § 17(4).)
•
16.36.050-?T..'.}
V?WKJV
Y\V_?1V_SS-O1K+1111LVyVa?a ??''J Yli iva L?{? V 1?4Ti 3GC YV1 ?V iLVU?lau?, ?V W?auaaJY.a WrVa .fLWll.?Y?/}
GL VVt/? Vlrmvyll"V Vf IL- ?1n Wlld L. ? 'V11VV 111 Ka1V ?Y S.JWFIVl-V+ •
E', VL1V1Wl VuVUlLLL1V11111 - V'V aa..aa . V1 . 'Y?+i . ?) ' 31J•
16• • as •I bL'?•..-.a
vid, y 1I i'Y'Vaaty 'd".1J Vf thV V1VJiJ.?? VfW 1J KLaaV L.VWa ua?'Vla W Y W1aGLUVV WF?1/a1.VWLl1VU, ?V ?iVJa?iL
1 V Y1V ?'Y L'V [Y1al J114L11 WV?'V1a 4(1V K.F /??11VfLdu-.T1lYav LV Ka 111?K?(I ?`i VV'V111111VJ1 ?/?/a'v YLK Vl Y.IiV W?/?/L.VW?1Vu
LL.YVJ.I
KJ JKL11u?Y.VY1, Vl .....? 1VII V'V •'• '•.yy11K WF/?/1V ?Kl VaV W uaV'WilV? W?I?I''uVW?Vaa Jr JVV?ter
ill'V'YIlf1VK?V11J Vl VV11YL1V11J •KJ L? dVVUaJ uVV V1' •JJ4a'' ?V WVVVtaa++J?'V ?J Ka?IV JV U'f a,:. L1?1V,
L V LULY? aaaW?' a V V V • • -- `va.3 ?V4a{s1 .,f tLV Wr?yaV WLLVI.L. 11 Y •-• aWaaV V aaaary L-4 4 -v"UV V1 1 "f L V e,,.aated
Y„a:V?. '0. Y 9 ) 2(%)(6): Or9097 3) § 17 O"
16.36.050 Criteria for
Before the L.. i acts on a variance application
;*""?t`:>`.ie, the applicant must prove physical hardship, and the L.1 K
s.1 =ust find that:
A. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography,
vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right-
of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign in question:
provided, however, that such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the
particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do
not apply generally to all businesses or ent,..F..ses;
B. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to
the applicant;
C. That the granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purposes of this title,
and will not be materially detrimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to
adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general;
D. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of this title any more than is
required to identify the applicant's business or use;
ies*
gn
E. Such other factors and criteria as the 1ri±
.... . .
1 V Y 1V YY Lu'LK.I deems applicable to.the proposed variance.
(Ord. 4(1975) § 2(L)(7): Ord. 9(1973) § 17(7).)
16.3 6.0600 Town Council L, ?.', .. .
1TI1V aVVV1aaa11ValYiLL?1V as Vf 1.LiV '1 VJibu aV Y aV YY L. ' J11a LV FA VU PY'rL LL-1k .atted W &V/?
Wr?aaVWaYt --..'yl tV V tV 4 4
.?uY?V.,V Vi..LVal. a? 1? 11V/1L 1V?LL1Wal'' JVa1v.iK11V& a-VVLaaa?, 11V YY 111 1VW V,.F Va
`liV 1VV V111a11V1a laVaa aJl LLlV 6iVJ1?1.L 1V Y LV YY L'VWa67Va WJ ?la Vaa ???` W??IaWV?1VWl W?K IJ KLSVL1KVUl
1 V?K1LYa 111V LiLilL?'Vf YY l.1LVl1 lLV 4?/?/laVW.a? aJ ?aY Vaa YY aaIiVU Ya'?1•aVV, tl.V 1'V YY LL VVKaaVll JLJ1 L,,kl-a y?
a1VLYl a11? ?V av YaV YY ??1 VV'V'??????'V11KU`1V 11 'Vf LLV L.d, fLUd 3LW11.1 VA.. Wrr1Y V'•YV 1- WY1.i1a1VW Vaa KJ
SLLL111.U d, uyy1V Y V L1a "pFl w"Gu- J-Lj-L t- .3-L la -d.*fL"1:Vaal Va V1 Vaa'Yla?.lVaaJ (iJ ll 'aiV ViaJ
1.aVV Vr{J{{JWa ?' LV KVVVUarlaJL V ?J Ka1JV IJV Vf l1aa J L1LL V, %i. vLVaa?' 1LV Wr?uV W1.aV+Ya. If IV VVL111Vi1 YV%,.13 }1?'y
u1JK111V1Vaa? WlVluaWtiVu aJ ?Y.aLLVV?Y W? :..V L„W1111? 1V ?,1V Ya'?V ?V LKJ1J fVl K JV Lau.l ?VY/aJl'Vaa, aIL JLWll
•
0
V'Vaa?aaaL?v tht hILCL1111G LV VI.IV 'Ul 111ViV SV?ILVai? aai?v?111?J. nV VV ¦WaVa? J avia Va (?1}`?VVayaal1aa V?
• ?V µS r VGYL YY a Ju???' d.j J?1r?v4a Yaa?, a.aYavJJ fa ?aaiu4? V aJ 1 V?LLLi ?,rd 1'L/1
t l,.a? ??aa
vVaJlVaa vaa V 4 V4aa 1+aW
VfsLaJV, "-I Jva #w wFJA:V .Os las
f:\everyone\randyVnemoslsigm 226
.•
0
DESIGN REV1EW GLt1jELINES REVISIONS 0
10
is
•
DESIGN REVIEW
Chapter 18.54
DESIGN REVIEW
Sections:
18.54.010 Intent.
18.54.015 Definitions and rules of construction.
18.54.020 Board organization
18.54.030 Design approval.
18.54.051 Park design guidelines.
18.54.060 Design review fee.
18.54.070 Performance bond.
18.54.080 Administrative policies.
18.54.090 Appeal to town council.
18.54.100 Enforcement.
0
18.54.110 Lapse of design review approval.
18.54.010 Intent.
Vail is a town with a unique natural setting, internationally know for its
0
natural beauty, alpine environment, and the compatibility of man-made structures
with the environment. These characteristics have caused a significant number of
visitors to come to Vail with many visitors eventually becoming perma-
nent residents participating in community life.
These factors constitute an important economic base for the town, both for
those who earn their living here and for those who view the town as a precious
physical possession. The town council finds that new development and
redevelopment can have a substantial impact on the character of an area in which it
is located. Some harmful effects of one land use upon another can be prevented
through zoning, subdivision controls, and building codes. Other aspects of
development are more subtle and less amenable to exact rules put into operation
without regard to specific development proposals. Among these are the general
form of the land before and after development, the spatial relationships of
445
(Vail 12-23-86)
ZONING
structures and open spaces to land uses within the vicinity and the town, and the
appearance of buildings and open spaces as they contribute to the area as it is being
developed and redeveloped. In order to provide for the timely exercise of
judgement in the public interest in the evaluation of the design of new development
and redevelopment, the town council has created a design board (DRB) and design
criteria.
Therefore, in order to preserve the natural beauty of the town and its setting,
to protect the welfare of the community, to maintain the values created in the
community, to protect and enhance land and property, for the promotion of health,
safety, and general welfare in the community, and to attain the objectives set out in
this section; the improvement or alteration of open space, exterior design of all new
development, and all modifications to existing development shall be subject to
design review as specified in this chapter.
0
It is the intent of these guidelines to leave as much design freedom as possible
to the individual designer while at the same time maintaining the remarkable natural
beauty of the area by creating structures which are designed to complement both
their individual sites and surroundings.
. The objectives of design review shall be as follows: •
A. To recognize the interdependence of the public welfare and aesthetics, and to
provide a method by which this interdependence may continue to benefit its
citizens and visitors;
B. To allow for the development of public and private property which is in
harmony with the desired character of the town as defined by the guidelines
herein provided;
C. To prevent the unnecessary destruction or blighting of the natural landscape;
D. To ensure that the architectural design, location, configuration materials,
colors, and overall treatment of built-up and open spaces have been designed
so that they relate harmoniously to the natural land forms and native
vegetation, the town's overall appearance, with surrounding development and
with officially approved plans or guidelines, if any, for the areas in which the
structures are proposed to be located.
E. To protect neighboring property owners and users by making sure that
reasonable provision has been made for such matters as pedestrian and
446
(Vail 12-23-86)
•
DESIGN REVIEW
vehicular traffic, surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, the preservation of
light and air, and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other
regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses.
(Ord. 39 (1983) § 1.)
18.54.015 Defnitions and rules of construction.
Any words, terms, or phrases used in this design review guide shall be
defined and interpreted in accordance with the definitions contained in Section
18.04 of the Vail Municipal Code, unless the context clearly indicates a different
meaning was intended. If the context is unclear, the matter will be referred to the
design review board for final determination.
The distinction made between those items contained within this chapter that
are mandatory and those that are discretionary is that statements which are
mandatory are prefaced by the word shall, and the statements or guidelines which
are discretionary (or merely suggestions) are prefaced by the words should or may.
In all instances, any particular or specific controls over the general.
(Ord. 39 (1983) § 1.)
18.54.020 Board organization.
A. There is established a design review board (DRB) of the Town of Vail. The
DRB should be composed of five members. Four members shall be residents
of the town of Vail appointed by the town council and the fifth member shall
be a member of the planning and environmental commission of the town.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the current design review board members as
of the date of the passage of this ordinance who will no longer be residents of
the Town of Vail due to the deannexation of the area known as West Vail
from the Town shall be permitted to complete their term on the design review
board.
B. The terms of office for the four members at large shall be two years on an
overlapping basis and shall expire on February 1 of the year of termination.
The term of office for the planning and environmental commission member
shall be three months.
• 44?
(Vail 9-3-85)
ZONING
0
C. A vacancy on the design review board shall occur whenever a member of the
board is removed by the town council, dies, becomes incapacitated and
unable to perform his duties for a period of sixty days, resigns, ceases to be a
resident of the Town of Vail, or is convicted of a felony. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the current design review board members as of the date of the
passage of this ordinance who will no longer be residents of the Town of Vail
-due to the deannexation of the area known as West Vail from the town shall
be pQ,,,,itted to complete their term on the design review board. In the event
a vacancy occurs, the town council shall appoint a successor to fill the
vacancy and serve the remainder of the term of the former member. The
board shall select its own chairman and vice-chairman from among its
members. The chairman, or in his absence, the vice-chairman, shall be the
presiding officer of its meetings. In the absence of both the chairman and the
vice-chairman from.a meeting, the members present shall appoint a member
to serve as acting chairman at the meeting. All business of the board shall be
held at the municipal building of the Town of Vail, unless otherwise
specified, with adequate notice given to all interested parties. Three members .
shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but in the absence of
a quorum, a lesser number shall adjourn any meeting to a later time or date,
and in the absence of all members, any staff member shall adjourn any
meeting to a later time or date.
D. The board shall operate in accordance with its own rules of procedure as
provided for in Section 8.6 of the Home Rule Charter. The rules shall be filed
with the town clerk and maintained in the records of the town, and shall be
subject to public inspection; provided, however, that the board shall submit
its proposed rules or any amendment thereto to the town council which, by
motion, shall approve the rules or amendment and direct their-adoption by the
board or disapprove the proposal with directions for revision and
resubmission.
448 •
(Vail 9-3-85)
DESIGN REVIEW
•
E. The design review board shall meet,., .,-y ' first and third Wednesday of each month.
Additional meetings may be called by the design review board or the town staff if such
meetings are deemed necessary. Should the staff or the design review board require any
additional meetings V1Vt S.. „u IL., fii..l & L d VT .,..,L ..d]7-a
'60- :ii i::::iY::i%::::: :?ii .... }::?. :::i:!:i::i::
be
notification of the date efsnch ; o .. z meetings shall
/ . ... y 1 .. :..: : ....... ......i':4: ii::
1 a vLLI.L ?.11V V ?T I.LLV ?'V ?'Y11 V111V VS ,•????:fi:?i(flfiF:?;:::'..x'iiF?R?.C?;:?'??Fk„7,?if3v':;:JJiijA
and shall also be found posted within the Community Deve y.,,ent Department
of the Town of Vail.
(Ord. 46(1991) § 1: Ord. 18(1985) §§ 1, 2: Ord. 39(1983) § 1.)
18.54.030 Design approval.
A. No person shall commence removal of vegetation, site preparation, building
construction or demolition, dumping of material upon a site, sign erection,
exterior alteration or enlargement of an existing structure, paving, fencing or
other improvements of open space within the corporate limits of the Town of
Vail unless design approval has been granted as prescribed in this chapter.
The addition of plant materials to existing landscaping, gardening and
landscape maintenance shall be exempt from this provision.
• B. It shall be a violation of this chapter and the building pQ..it for any person to
commence, continue or complete work that has not received design approval
as prescribed in this chapter and/or is not in conformity with the plans
approved and authorized by the zoning administrator and/or DRB and the
chief building official.
(Ord. 39(1983) § 1.)
448-1
(Vail 1-8-91)
0
C. Preliminary/final design review. •
Item 1 of this section has not been affected by the proposed code changes and
therefore is not included here.
2. Staff/DRB Procedue.
The Department of Community Develvr.?.ent shall check all material
submitted for design review for compliance with'?applicable provisions of the
Zoning Code, Subdivision Regulations, and with Section 18.54.040C
. If the application is
found to be in compliance with the applicable p v dsions of the zoning code,
subdivision regulations, and Section 18.54.040 C the project shall be placed
upon the agenda of the next appropriately scheduled DRB meeting in accordance
with the required application submittal deadlines on file in the community
'on r
is found not to be in
fthe a licah
compliance with applicable provisions of the zoning code and Section 18.54.040
C, the application and materials shall be returned to the applicant with an
explanation of the,,.,,*... ? administrator's findings. The administrator may
require any additional items from the applicant as may be necessary for c,,..,lete
and proper design review.
a. The # t . design review board shall review the application
and supporting material, and if the design of the project is found to comply •
with the objectives and design guidelines of this chapter, the r
&4"esien review board shall a,,F,.,,,ve the design of the project;
app. If additional items are needed as specified herein to determine
whether the project will comply with the purposes, statement and design
guidelines of this chapter, the DRB may give preliminary approval or table
the project until the next regularly scheduled meeting. If the project is
tabled or if preliminary approval is given, the board shall specify the
conditions and additional and/or modified materials which must be
submitted by the applicant to the design review board
including any changes in the design of the r.'ect. The
..::::::: :...............:...
applicant may also table the application to a future meeting-for any reason.
b. If the project is found to conflict with the design guidelines, the
>.:>::>:;::>::> <><>:><:>::>::Board shall disapprove the design of
the project. Any disapproval shall be in writing and shall specifically
describe the design guidelines with which the design of the project does not
comply and the manner of noncompliance.
954 g 0
r:.::»'.:'.>.:»:r.:.::>:>' .:....::......<.::::R;4;::;[•;:{<:;::r;;r>':ii::::::5iii::>:a:i•>'[ 3:?..:;:"ti::::':::::."::
C. : ':.,.:::::.i..::<i/T1:!iliMiRl°"..y:. lFfeF4k•;` :::::::..: ::..?T?!'•,'?
MJO. the DRB shall have thirty days to consider and approve or
deny an application. The time for action may be extended at the request of
the applicant.
d. If changes in the design of the project are requested, the board shall
approve, disayyl., ve or request further changes within thirty days of the
meeting at which the DRB receives the changes unless an extension is
agreed to by the applicant.
e. The applicant or his authorized .oyl,,sentative shall be present at the design
review board meeting.
3. Staff approval. The administrator may ayp.ove any of the following
applications:
a. Any application to tan existing building that does not significantly
change the existing planes of the building and is generally consistent with
the architectural design, -1.,J..,.? afthe baileL s; including, but
not limited ._ .........
windows,
Ens3 and other similar modifications;
b. Any application for an addition to an existing building that is consistent
with the architectural design, materials and colors of the building, and
approval has been received by an authorized member of a condominium
In the above-specified cases, the ?.,..:..? administrator may review and approve the application,
or .LU refer
ayy,.,ve the application with certain modifications, J ...... .:` Y
....:...PP.....::::::.. .?
application to the design review board for decision. All other applications shall be referred to the
design review board.
(Ord. 9(1993) § 6: Ord. 12(1988) § 1: Ord. 39(1983) § 1.)
-411 S I (?'
0
association, if applicable.
And? application to remove or modify the existing vegetation or landscaping
;a
APPROYiEb 111996
0
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 26, 1996
Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Greg Moffet
Greg Amsden
Henry Pratt
Kevin Deighan
Public Hearinq
Dalton Williams
Jeff Bowen
The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 pm.
Susan Connelly
Mike Mollica
George Ruther
Dominic Mauriello
Jim Curnutte
Randy Stouder
Lauren Waterton
Judy Rodriguez
2:00 p.m.
A request for a worksession to discuss potential changes to the Town of Vail Survey
Policy relating to how building height is determined.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Lauren Waterton
Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the staff memo, explaining that errors occur in the
topographic survey. Staff wanted this worksession to discuss if there are ways that the Town
should compensate for such discrepancies allowed by federal mapping standards. Lauren said
that staff had identified 4 options in the memo for the PEC to consider.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comment.
Dan Corcoran, a surveyor in the county, stated that the degree of accuracy on an ILC and a topo
map are too different to be able to compare. The topo map is plus or minus a foot. An ILC is
accurate to 1/10th of a foot. He said that he met with Tom Moorhead to describe how a survey is
done. He explained that you cannot get accuracy in the field. If he could draw a crosssection,
depending on whether a break happened, the assumed contours on the lot may have a dip or a
rise. It is very hard to judge a grade visually. Subtle changes can't be picked up. The Town of
Vail previously allowed up to V of error. The topo is not as accurate as the 1/10th accuracy of an
ILC. When a drawing is submitted, you have already interpolated plus or minus a foot.
Greg Amsden asked if shooting a ridge height would help.
Dan Corcoran said a typical improvement survey in the Town of Vail is almost double what Avon
requires. Dan stated that not one of the PEC members could tell how tall a building is to 1/10th
of a foot.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 26, 1996
1
• Greg Moffet asked for additional public comments. There were none.
Kevin Deighan said a primary concern is that architects continue to push the building envelope.
He is at a loss as to what to do. Kevin stated that he would like to give more thought to this
issue.
Greg Amsden parallels Kevin Deighan's comments. When a margin of error is given, the public
pushes the limit. He tends to believe the 33' height limit should remain, but prefers Option #4,
that requires a spot elevation under each ridge over 32'.
Henry Pratt asked Dan when a house is staked out, is a surveyor called in to help?
Dan Corcoran said occasionally; it depends on the project. Most often, the concrete companies
layout the building.
Henry Pratt said the cost of construction in Vail is higher than it should be. He asked when the
best time would be to verify a contour below a ridge.
Dan Corcoran said prior to any excavation on site. To have the ILC at the foundation stage,
similar to Arrowhead, is a good idea. Once the roof is in place, it is too significant to change. At
the foundation stage, a contractor can adjust the framing. He likes Option #2 in the memo. He
thinks the height limit should be 32'.
Henry Pratt is in favor of Option #2. He may not be in favor of a full 1' grace. Henry stated that
Option #4 adds additional cost.
• Dan Corcoran said Option #3 is not viable.
Greg Moffet agreed that the cost of building in Vail is higher than it should be . If we adopt
Option #4, the cost goes up. We are not interested in excuses for building over the limit.
Mike Mollica said that staff has heard a variety of opinions.
Kevin Deighan said he feels the height should be reduced to 32', which gives a 1' leeway, or
Option #2.
Greg Amsden wants Option #4.
Greg Moffet agreed with Option #4.
Henry Pratt wanted Option #2.
Greg Moffet suggested another worksession at the next meeting for further discussion.
Susan Connelly asked Dan Corcoran to come back for the next worksession when the new PEC
members will be present.
. Planning and Envi.,,,...,ental Commission
Minutes
February 26, 1996
2
2. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow four volleyball courts to be constructed at •
the soccer field located at 640 Vail Valley Drive/Tract A, Block 2, Vail Village 7th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Recreation District
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave an overview of the staff memo and said staff was recommending approval
with the conditions as indicated on page 5 of the memo. He stated that staff would like to amend
Condition No. 1. If the Ford Park Master Plan indicates that the proposed location is the best
place for the volleyball courts, then the applicant would not have to come back each year.
Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add.
Mike Ortiz, from the Vail Recreation District ( VRD), said the request was stated well in the memo
by staff. It is a great addition to the Town with the King of the Mountain Volleyball Tournament.
Greg Moffet asked for any public comments.
Bill Post, an avid volleyball player, from the Gold Peak courts, stated he was representing a
group of volleyball players that were present at this meeting. He wants the courts preserved for
the locals to play, since they lost the courts at Gold Peak.
Kevin Deighan asked if the courts could be split up, so they are not located directly behind the
goal posts of the soccer field.
Mike Ortiz said this location was preferred so they are not in danger from the golf course.
Kevin Deighan would like to see wood posts replace the metal posts.
Mike Ortiz said the metal posts were chosen for safety reasons as they can be padded with
standard padding and not require custom padding.
Greg Amsden had no additional comments.
Henry Pratt agreed that this was a great location, but as a former lacrosse player, he worries
about the safety of the volleyball players so close to the end line of the soccer field. It is not
unusual for a lacrosse ball to travel at a rate of speed of 100 mph.
Mike Ortiz said netting surrounding the courts could be proposed, but he doesn't like it
aesthetically.
Henry Pratt agreed that he was against netting for aesthetic reasons but questioned liability if
someone is hit by a ball.
Mike Ortiz said only the two north courts would be used during any soccer field tournaments. He
reminded the members that lacrosse is not active in Vail any longer.
Planning and Envi..,.....ental Commission •
Minutes
February 26, 1996 3
• Greg moffet asked if the applicant would object if no volleyball was allowed during lacrosse play
for risk management purposes.
Greg Amsden made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memorandum and
recommendations and in addition, that the VRD limit the use of the volleyball courts, to the
northern two courts during lacrosse tournaments. He also included George Ruthers comments
regarding not having the applicant return if the Ford Park Master Plan determines that this is the
best location for the volleyball courts.
Henry Pratt seconded the motion.
Kevin Deighan would like to amend the motion to include wood posts.
Greg Amsden amended the motion to include the wood posts.
Henry Pratt seconded the motion.
It passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0.
3. A request for a Setback Variance to allow for a residential addition located at 5165 Black
Gore Drive/Lot 17, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Kurt and Leslie Davis
Planner: George Ruther
40 Greg Amsden asked to abstain, since the applicants are business partners.
George Ruther gave an overview and explained the drawings included in the memo. George also
noted that there were letters from neighbors adjacent to the applicant's lot which are also
included in the packet for the PEC to review.
Greg Moffet asked the applicant for any comments.
Leslie Davis, the applicant, said they would only be encroaching 6' in the worst scenario. The
south side doesn't enter into the setback.
Kevin Deighan agreed with staff that the creek presents a hardship.
Henry Pratt wondered about the issue of a hardship. The applicant knew the situation when they
bought the lot on the creek. He did agree that the site restricted building.
Kurt Davis pointed out other hardships, such as the triangle shaped lot with water all around. He
has kids and would like them to be able to play in the backyard, not in the front by the road. His
family has outgrown the existing house and they would rather add on, than sell.
Greg Moffet had nothing to add.
• Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 26, 1996
4
Kevin Delghan made a motion for approval of the request with no conditions, subject to the staff's •
findings on page 4 of the memo.
Henry Pratt seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 3-0-1, with Greg Amsden abstaining.
4. A request for a worksession to discuss Site Coverage, Front Setback, Side Setback and
Density variances to allow for an addition to the building located at 1845 West Gore
Creek Drive/Lot 21, Vail Village West Filing No. 2.
Applicant: Ted Smathers, represented by Brent Alm
Planner: Jim Curnutte / Randy Stouder
Randy Stouder gave an overview of the request. Due to the small size of the lot ( less than
15,000 sq. ft.), the request involves four variances. The density variance request is for relief
from the code that requires the applicant to deed restrict the secondary unit before he can
enlarge the structure. Randy summarized all of the variances and directed the PEC members to
the discussion issues listed on page 4 of the memo. Randy pointed out that density variance
requests are rarely granted. He also pointed out that restricting the secondary unit doesn't affect
the use of this unit as a rental property. He stated that similar setback variances ( Houtsma
residence and the Mumma residence) were approved with side-loading garages which ended up
extending out to the property line. The proposed front-loaded garage permits no ability to screen
the structure with landscaping. A side-loaded garage can have substantial landscaping and also
allows for additional parking. The side-loaded garage eliminates any conflict with cars parked is
halfway out onto the street, as would likely happen with the proposed front-loaded garage. The
site overage request is 24% of the lot area. Randy said staff felt the amount of site coverage is
excessive and would like to see it reduced.
Greg Moffet asked the applicant to speak.
Ted Smathers stated that he wants to upgrade the existing primary unit with a larger master
bedroom and a garage for storage. With that in mind, how can he go about doing that. He
showed pictures of his home. He stated that the upgrade is a big improvement to the
neighborhood and it gives him a better place to live.
Brent Alm, the project architect, said a side-loaded garage would eliminate parking for the rental
unit and thus, is not acceptable for this site.
Ted Smathers said a side-loaded garage would be hard to snow plow. He owns this place and
he is a believer in private property rights. He doesn't want deed restrictions put on his private
property. He doesn't want his title encumbered by restrictions.
Brent Alm stated, relating to the site coverage variance, that he looked at stacking the addition
into a two-story structure, rather than stepping down the site. But the applicant desired to be
down closer to the creek, rather than up higher on the site.
Planning and Environmental Commission •
Minutes
February 26, 1996 5
• Greg Moffet asked if there was any public comment and reminded the applicant that this was
only a worksession.
Henry Pratt had no problem with the garage in the front setback. When Public Works gets
through with this request, the applicant will see that it doesn't meet the Town requirements.
Henry stated that feels that the site coverage and side setback variance requests would be a
grant of special privilege as proposed. Henry stated that the secondary unit needs to be deed
restricted. He also stated that he would not support the chimney on the west side.
Greg Amsden said that Public Works would deny the garage as designed. He agrees with the
applicant and is also a strong advocate of property rights, but the need to deed restrict the
secondary unit would not change the value or use a rental unit, except that it would be rented to
an Eagle County resident.
Ted Smathers planned on having his daughter rent the unit, however, she is a ski instructor in
Summit County. Therefore, he did not want to restrict the unit. Ted Smathers stated there are
restrictions being put on this property now that didn't exist before. He said he is being forced to
rent to a total stranger.
Kevin Deighan said the current zoning doesn't allow you to build a Primary/Secondary on that
size property without deed restricting the second unit. That is the way the Zoning Code reads
right now and the applicant must deed restrict.
Greg Moffet said the PEC can only grant a variance when there is sufficient hardship and not a
. grant of special privilege. Greg would prefer to see a side-loaded garage, however he is
somewhat sympathetic with the reasons for a front-loaded garage. He can't justify covered
walkways for the site coverage variance request.
Brent Alm suggested reducing the width of the covered walkways. If we did that, would the PEC
still have a problem with the additional site coverage?
Greg Moffet said it would still be a grant of special privilege, inconsistent with relief granted to
other residents in the neighborhood. The applicant needs to come back with a stronger
argument.
Brent Alm said the front loading garage is a nay.
Kevin Deighan summarized that the PEC members want a side-loaded garage.
Randy Stouder reiterated that a front-loaded garage could result in cars sticking out in street if
they parked in the driveway.
Kevin Deighan suggested that the applicant meet with Public Works on the garage design.
Greg Moffet concluded that the PEC members would all like to see a side-loading garage, with
reduced site coverage and the elimination of the chimney on the west side.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 26, 1996
6
5. An appeal of an administrative decision relating to Section 18.58.020 (A) (Fences, •
hedges, walls and screening) and Section 18.04.370 (Definitions - Structure).
Applicant: Ric Fields representing Dr. Steadman
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave an overview of the request.
Jerry Seracuse said he wanted to explain where the boiler would be positioned on the site. This
is a steep site with a grade of 12% causing it to need a heated driveway. The applicant has also
pushed the curvature 2' as requested by the Fire Department. It starts to limit where you can put
all the other things.
Mike Mollica stated that he would like the focus of this discussion to be general, since this is an
appeal of an administrative decision and not be site specific.
Greg Moffet interpreted this as an appeal of a staff decision, only quasi-judicial.
Mike Mollica said the discussion was going down a different road and we are not here to argue
the merits of a variance. Mike said the applicant can make an application for a variance. The
variance process is more appropriate for the discussion that is going on now.
Greg Moffet asked if this could be converted into a worksession.
Mike Mollica said yes and added that a worksession would give the applicant direction for his
application.
Jerry Seracuse said he would like to withdraw the appeal.
Greg Moffet said the discussion would now be a worksession .
Henry Pratt asked where the boiler is proposed to go on the site.
Jerry Seracuse said there is a transformer that is 9" back from the curb. He is not sure if the
electrical company has an easement. It is straddling the two property lines. It provides a less
than attractive piece of equipment in front of the house. The development company offered to
screen the equipment. If the developer will build a screening wall, the boiler can then be pushed
down into the existing cluster of equipment and be hidden with landscaping.
Greg Moffet asked the applicant to come back with an argument that shows this is not a grant of
special privilege.
Jerry Seracuse said he has aesthetically created a better place for the boiler and he is sensitive
to how it looks.
Kevin Deighan asked why it couldn't be put in the garage.
Jerry Seracuse stated because the Fire Department requires a top flue. He explained it would be
on display in the garage. With limited square footage, it would look bad tacked on to the building
Planning and Environmental Commission .
Minutes
February 26, 1996 7
Mike Moll`lca said it would break up the massive wall that exists now. He also suggested putting
it in a vault and sinking it.
Greg Moffet suggested polling the Commission members.
Kevin Deighan said it cannot be put in the setback without a grant of special privilege.
Greg Amsden suggested investigating a better location. Even though this is a good location,
codewise it is a grant of special privilege.
Henry Pratt asked why they moved the transformer. He feels it is a grant of special privilege. He
also thinks it would call more attention to an area if all the equipment is located there.
Greg Moffet had nothing to add and when it comes back again, they will do a site visit.
6. A request for an amendment to the Town of Vail Municipal Code regarding zoning
administration and appeals, amending numerous Sections of Title 18.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Dominic Mauriello
Dominic stated that the Council has expressed concerns with their handling of the administrative
details. Council has expressed the desire to have staff and the boards take more responsibility
for decision making. The current procedure is inconsistent and scattered in many sections of the
code. Staff believes the regulations should be located in one section.
• Susan Connelly stated that the PEC has reviewed the memorandum in a worksession in January
and the DRB reviewed the proposal at their February 21, 1996 meeting.
Greg Moffet opened the request for public comment, however there was none. He did say the
PEC received a letter from Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association.
The PEC directed Susan Connelly to write a response to the letter.
Susan Connelly stated that the item has been on board agendas for more than a month.
Dominic Mauriello said there is a change in the memo based on the PEC worksession. He
proposed new language labeled as 18.66.030(H).
Kevin Deighan was in favor of the proposal as amended at the meeting and with the provision for
a super-majority vote.
Greg Amsden was also in favor.
Henry Pratt was in favor of the proposal as amended. He stated it was important to allow
Council to call-up a variance decision.
Greg Moffet stated for the record that no public was present for this published item on the
agenda. He stated that he agreed with other members and was in favor of the proposal.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 26, 1996
8
Kevin Deighan made a motion that the request be approved in accordance with the memo and
including the change in 18.66.030(H) and without the provision requiring a super-majority vote.
Henry Pratt seconded the motion.
It passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0.
7. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed amendments to numerous sections of
The Town of Vail Municipal Code, including but not limited to Titles 2, 16, & 18 to allow
for modifications to the Sign Code and the Design Review Guidelines.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Randy Stouder
Randy Stouder reviewed the proposed changes to the code with the PEC as outlined in the staff
memo.. The proposed changes would give staff more authority to review and approve requests
for types of development or cosmetic changes to existing structures. Randy stated that staff
intends to be code specific with application approvals or denials.
Henry Pratt asked if we are denying the public the right to express their feelings in a public
hearing.
Randy Stouder said no, that they can call-up any staff decision and have a public meeting if
necessary.
Henry Pratt said there would be no notification to neighbors with staff approvals.
Randy Stouder reminded the PEC that the items subject to staff approval would be of minimal
consequence.
Susan Connelly stated that in no other community do neighbors get notice.
Henry Pratt gave an example of a greenhouse addition on a back patio that might be
controversial to neighbors.
Susan Connelly said staff will look into the possibility of adding a notification requirement of the
applicant for adjacent property owners.
Randy Stouder reminded everyone that we are trying to simplify the process. Perhaps a sign
notification on the property of a pending public decision might be a solution.
Henry Pratt said that Section VI of the staff memo was important to address. Architects have to
have working drawings to come before the PEC. To include DRB earlier in the process could
aggravate this situation. Henry feels that the submittal requirements for DRB should be of a
sketch type, or of a conceptual nature if the DRB is to be involved earlier in the process.
Kevin Deighan thought it might be a good idea to require a sign program on larger projects.
Greg Amsden mirrored Henry Pratt's comments.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 26, 1996
9
•
•
" ,
Greg Moffet asked how staff will decide whether or not to send an item to DRB.
Greg Moffet reminded the members that there would be no vote today, since this is worksession.
Randy Stouder asked the PEC what types of projects should require DRB involvement early on in
the review process.
Greg Amsden thought the magnitude of an SDD, or Major Exterior Alteration.
Henry Pratt said anything that goes to the PEC has a higher magnitude, with the exception of
variances and Conditional Use Permits.
Greg Moffet said the DRB feels that by the time the project gets to them, the design has been
set. He felt that the DRB should be brought into the process after an initial worksession with the
PEC on all major projects. DRB involvement should be on a conceptual review basis.
8. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Bed and Breakfast located at 987
Circle Drive/Lot 26 Buffehr Creek.
Applicant: Jeannine Erickson
Planner: Jim Curnutte
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 11, 1996
9. A request for a Front Setback Variance and a request to utilize the 250 Ordinance to
• allow for a garage and a Type I EHU to be constructed at 1464 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 10,
Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing No. 4.
Applicant: Carrol Orrison, represented by Tom Braun
Planner: Mike Mollica
TABLED UNTIL MARCH 25,1996
Greg Amsden made a motion to table items 8 and 9 on the agenda.
Henry Pratt seconded the motion.
It passed unanimously per the agenda by a vote of 4-0.
10. Information Update
Mike Mollica advised the PEC members that the staff has scheduled a worksession with the new
PEC members to orient them to the various codes and the process.
Henry Pratt asked if the PEC members could get their notebooks updated. He suggested
changes and policies that have been updated could be done on the Internet.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 26, 1996
10
M C
Susan Connelly said Council will be in an all.day goal setting retreat tomorrow. The PEC's role
will be raised and Susan will share what comes out of that retreat.
Henry Pratt said policies adopted should be tilted towards keeping people in Vail, rather than
forcing people to move down valley.
Greg Moffet wanted to thank Jeff Bowen and Dalton Williams for their service on the PEC Board
and said that they will be missed.
11. Approval of February 12, 1996 PEC minutes.
Kevin Deighan moved for approval of the minutes as written.
Henry Pratt seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0.
Kevin Deighan moved to adjourn the meeting.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0.
The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
February 26, 1996 11