The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-0511 PEC THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBL{C NOTICE ~ NOTICE iS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town af Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of #he Town ofi Vail on May 11, 1998, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideratian af: A reques# fflr fron# and side setback variances, to allow a proposed residential addition, located at 2625 Larkspur Lane/Lot 1, Black 2, Vail Intermnuntain. Applicant: Shawrr Weyrauch F'lanner: Dominic Mauriello A request for fron# and side setback variances, to aflow for a proposed residential additian, located a# 706 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6th. Applicant: Nancy Adam, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Briner Architects P1anner; Christie Bartorr A request far a minar CC'! exterior alteration, to aIlow for a change to previously approved pians, located at 286 Sridge Street, A& D Building/Lots A& B and Part of C, Block 6-A, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Lee Hollis, Golden Bear Store Plartner: George Ruther A request for a setback variance, #a allow for a deck expansion, located at 83 Wilbw Place, ~ River House CondorniniumslLot 3, Black 6, Vail Village lst Filing. Applicant: MFI lnvestments, represented by Larry Deckard Planner: Dominic Mauriello A request for a conditional use permit, to ailow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 45 Forest RoadlLat 33, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: BMS Partnership Planner: Christie Barton The applications and information abaut the proposals are available far public inspectiorr during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 Sauth Frontage Raad. Sign language interpretation available upon reques# with 24 hour natification. Please catl 479- 2914 vaice nr 479-2355 TDD for information. Community Develapment Departrnent Published April 24, 1998 in the Vail Traii. ~ - *YAIL 1YtW Updated 51(}4 3pm is PLANNING AND ENViRUNMENTAL COMMISSIaN Monday, May 11, 1998 AGENDA Proiec# Orientation /LUNCH - Community Development Department 12;00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 12:45 pm 1, Weyrauch - 2625 Larkspur Lane 2. Adams - 706 Farest Road 3. MFI Investments - 83 Willow Place 4. BMS Partnership - 45 Forest Road 5. Schmidt -'1410 Buffehr Creek Road Driver: Dominic NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends unti16:00 p.m., the board wi11 break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public HearinA - Town Cauncil Chambers 2:04 p.m. 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to ailow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at 45 Forest RoadlLot 33, Block 7, Vail Viliage 1 st Filing. Appiicant: BMS Partnership Pfanner: Christie Bar#on 2. A request for a setback variance, to allaw far a deck expansion, located at 83 WiNow Flace, River House ConcfominiumslLot 3, Blflck 5, Vail Vi(lage 1 st Filirrg. Applicant. MFI Investments, represented by Larry Deckard Planner: Dominic Mauriello 3. A request far a front setback variance, to allow for a proposed residentiai addition, located at 706 Forest RoadlLot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6th. Applicant: Nancy Adam, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Briner Architects Planner: Christie Barton ~ 1 rowW a*YAIL Updated 5104 3pm 4. A request for front and side setback variances, #o ailow a proposed residential addition, ~ located at 2625 Larkspur LanelLot 1, Block 2, Vail lntermountain. Applicant: Shawn Weyrauch Planner: Domlnic Maurieilo 5. A request far a minor subdivision of Lat G-1 to create a new Iot, loca#ed a# 1410 Buffehr Creek Road, Lot G1, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 2. Applicant: Leray Schmidt, represented by Eric Jahnson Planner: Dominic Mauriello 6. A request far a minor CC1 exterior a(teratian, to allow for a change to previously appraved pians, located a# 286 Bridge Street, A& D Building/Lots A& 8 and Part afi C, Block 5-A, Vail Vitlage 1 st Filing. Applicant: Lee Hoilis, Goiden Bear Store Pianner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL MAY 18, 1998 7. A request for a site caverage variance, setback variance and additional GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1230 Westhaven Circle/Lot 32, G(en Lyon. Appiicant; Marilyn Quayle, represented by Eric Hill ~ Planner: George Ruther WITNDRAWN 8. Information Update • Procedures 9. Approval of April 27, 1998 minutes, The applications and infnrmatian about the proposals are available far public inspection during regular affice hours in the project planner's office 1acated at the Town of Vail Gommunity Development Department, 75 Sauth Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notifica#ian. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Deveiopment Department Pubiished May 8, 1998 in the Vail Trail. 2 ~ ~ Updated 5/12 9am PLANNING AND ENVIROIVMENTAL COMMlSS1ON Monday, May 11, 1998 FINAL AGENQA Proiect C?rientation /L,UNCH - Commurtity Develapment Departmer?t 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERSABSENT Greg Moffet John Schafield Gafen Rasland Diane Golden (left at 4:10 p.m.) Ann Bishop Tam Weber Brian Doyon Site Visits : 12:45 pm 1. Weyrauch - 2625 L.arkspur Lane 2. Adams - 706 Forest Road 3. MFI Investments - 83 Willow Place ~ 4. BMS Partnership - 45 Forest Road 5. Schmidt - 1410 Buffehr Creek Raad Driver: Dominic r. ~ •r~y :.f.. .i. NOTE: If #he PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the baard wili break for dinner from 6;00 - 6:30 p.m. E,.ublic Hearing - Town Counci! Chambers 2;00p.m. 1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type 11 Employee Mousing Unit, located at 45 Forest Raad/Lot 33, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: BMS Partnership Planner: Christie Barton MOTIUN: John Schofield SEC4ND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 3-4 FAILED WITH 3 CONDITIONS: 1. That one of the garage spaces be apprapriately deed restricted far exclusive use by the occupant af the ENU. 2. That the applicant submit (for review and approval by the dRB) a construction ~ staging plan indicating the Gmits of disturbance and tree protection measures for the site. 1 rowN *YAIL ]t . z Updafed 5i12 9am ~ 3. That if Council does not provide for enforcement, the PEC can review thrs conditional use in two years fo ensure complrance. MOTION: John Schofe(d SECC)ND: Galen Aasland VQTE: 5-2 APPROVED W1TH 3 CONDITIONS; 9. That one of the garage spaces be appropriately deed restricted for exclusive use by the occupant af the EHU. 2. That the app(icant submit (for review and approval by the DRB) a construction staging plan indicating the limits of disturbance and #ree protection measures for the site. 3. That the #'EC can caJl-up fhe condrtionat use, it necessary. 2. A request for a setback variance, to allow for a deck expansion, lacated at 83 Willow Place, River House Condominiums/Lot 3, Block 6, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: MFI Investments, represented by Larry Deckard Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED ~ 3. A request for a front sefback variance, to allow for a proposed residentia{ addition, loca#ed at 706 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 1, Vaif Village 6th. Applicant: Nancy Adam, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Briner Architects F'lanner: Christie Barton MOTI4N: Brian Doyon SECOND: VOTE. MOTION TO DENY FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. MOTION: Jahn Schofield SECOND: Galen ,4asland VOTE: 5-0 TABLED UNTIL JUNE 8, 1998 4. A request far frant and side setback variances, to aNow a propased residential addition, located at 2625 Larkspur Lane/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail tntermauntain. Applicant: Shawn Weyrauch Planner: Dominic Mauriello M(7TION: Brian Doyon SECOND: Tom Weber VOTE. 7-0 DENiED ~ 2 . ~ # . . ~ Updated 5112 9am ~ 5. A request for a minor subdivision of Lat G-1 ta create a new lot, iacated at 1410 Buffehr Creek Raad, Lot G-1, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 2. Applicant: l.eroy Schmidt, represenfed by Eric Johnson Pfanner: Dominic Mauriello Mt7TIt3N: Ann Bishap SECOND: Jahn Schofield VOTE: 5-1 (Galen Aasland oppased) TABLED UNTlL JUNE 22, 1998 6. A request for a minor CC1 exterior alteration, to allow for a change to previously approved plans, located at 286 Bridge Street, A& D E3uildinglLots A& B and Part of C, B(ock 5-A, Vail ViNage 1 st Filing. Applicant: Lee Hollis, Golden Bear Store Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL MAY 98, 9998 7. A request for a site coverage variance, setback variance and additional GRFA utilizing the 254 ardinance, to allow for a residential addition, located at 1230 Westhaven CirclelLot 32, Glen Lyon. Applicant: Marilyn Qaayle, represented by Eric Hilf ~ Planner: George Ruther WlTHDRAWN 8, Information Update • Procedures 9. Approva( of April 27, 1998 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 5outh F'rontage Road. Sign language interpretation availab(e upon request with 24 hour notificafion. Paease caf1479-2356, Telephone for the Ffearing Impaired, far information. Community Development Department ~ 3 $ r ~ MEMCSRANDUM TO: Planning and Environmentai Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 11, 199$ SUBJEGT: A request for front and side setback variances, to allow a praposed residentiai addi#ion, located at 2625 Larkspur Lane/Lot 1, B(ack 2, Vail IntermountaPn. . Applicanf: Shawn Weyrauch Planner: Dominic Mauriello l. DESCRlPTION 4F THE REQUEST AND BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting a front setback variance of approximateiy 3` to allow a bui?ding addition to be located 17' from the front property line and a side setback variance of 10' to allow a building addition to be located 5' from the side property line. The building addition is proposed to add 2 addi#ional bedraoms and bathroams to both units in this primarylsecondary residential structure(additiort of 580 sq. ft. per dwelling unit). ~ In accordance with the Zoning Regulations, the applicant is praposing to deed restrict the lower dwelling unit as a Type 1, Employee Housing Unit, in order to allow the expansian to occur. The a}aplicant is also proposirig to raplace #he existing timber retaining wall, vsrhich supports the parking area, with a "Keystone" cnncrete black retaining wail, pave the existing parking which is located in the right-of-way, and replace the existing stairs frflm the parking area. Additionally, the light fixtures on the home are proposed to be brought intO compliance with the Town's regulatians. The proposed addition does not generate an additional parking requirement beyond what is existing taday within the right-of-way (4 spaces). This parking configuration was appraved by Eagle County and there is an easement for a portion of this parking #o be located an the adjoining property to the east. The exis#ing home is currently nonconforming with respect to setbacks {it is IQCated 8.3' from the west property line, 15' is required}, density, parking (locatian), and lighting. See applicant's statement attached. ~ 1 TUWN UFY,iCL ~ 11, ZONING ANAI.YSIS ~ Zoning: PrimarylSecondary Residential Lot Size: 12,019 sq. ft. S#an ard AllowedlRequired Exis#in Proaosed GRFA: 3,854.75 sq. ft.* 2,120 sq. ft. 3,220 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 2,403.$ sq. ft. (20°l0) 1,130 sq. ft. (9.4%) 1,680 sq. ft. (14%) Parking: 4 spaces 4 spaces n/c Se#backs: Front: 20' 36' 17' W. Side: 15' $.3' S' E. Side: 15' 20.2' 13' Note. *Includes 425 sq. ft. Gredit for Type y, EHU 111. GRITERIA AND FiNDINGS A. Consideration of Fac#ars: Upon review of Section 12-17-6 of the Vail Municipai Code, Criteria and Findings, the Gommuni#y Development Department recommends denial of the requested front and side setback variances based on the foilowing factors: ~ 1. The relationship of the requested variance to ather existing ar potential uses and structures in the vicinity. This lot is located in a neighborhood with lot sizes generally below 15,000 sq. ft. Many homes in the neighborhood are constructed with encroachments into the setbacks. Nowever, staff believes that there are other locations on the properry that could accommodate building expansions without impacts to the setbacks. There are areas narth and west of the existing structure where an expansion could be made. Additionally, if the size and scope af the proposed addition were changed, an addition cauld be added to the south side of the building. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcemenf of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibiliry and uniformity of treatment amQng sites in the vicinity ar to attain the objectives of this ti#Ie without a grant of special privilege. The applicant's proptisal will allow additional encroachment of this building into the setbacks. There are clearly other areas on #he site where the additianal square faotage could be added without setback variances. The interior configuration or layout of a building are not vPewed as a physical hardship with which to base a variance request. The PEC approved a garage addition within the setbacks just up the street at Craig McCully's Ol 2 ~ house, but speci#ically denied a request for a GRFA expansion into the rear setback as no physical hardship cauld be fnund to support the request. Staff believes tYrai the grantirtg af these variances will be a grant of speciai privilege. 3. The effiect of the requested variance on light and air, dis#ribution of popula#ion, transpartation and traffic facitities, public fiacitities and utifities, and public safety. The propasal will have little, i# any, effect on these issues. B. The plannin.q and Environmentaf Commission shall make the #ollowing findinas before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of #he variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent wath the limitations on otherproperties class?fied in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will nflt be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties ar improvements in ihe vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more ofi the fiollowing reasons: ~ a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficul#y or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exeeptions ar extraordinary circumstanees ar conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zane. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjayed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATI4N The Community Develapment Department recommends denial of the setback variances, subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variances will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on ather properties classified in the same distric#. 2. That the strict literal interpretation or en#orcement of the specified regulation wiN not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsisten# wi#h the objectives of the Zoning Regulations. ~ 3 3. That the strict in#erpretation ar enforcement of the specified regulation wiil not deprive the appficant of privileges enjoyed by the owners af other properties in the same district. 5hould the PEC wish approve these variances, staf# recommends the following conditions: 1. That the applicant obtain a revokable right-of-way permit td aliaw the parking in the public right-of-way. 2. That the applicant provide a detailed grading plan for alf improvements on-site, including an engineered detail for the proposed retaining walls. 3. That the applicant provide a complete drainage study for the site, based on the prapased addition. 4. That all ax#erior light fixtures on the house be upgraded to meet the Town's outdoor lighting requirements of the Zoning Regulations. 5. That the applicant provide a camplete (andscape plarr for DRB review to include the provisaon af additaonaf #rees. 6. That the applicant deed restrict one dwelling unit on-site as a Type 1, EHU. 7. That #he applicant repairlreplace #he existing parking area retaining walls, the stairs fio parking area, and pave the parking area in aecordance with Town of Vail standards. ~ F:\EVERYdNE\PECUIIEMOS\98\WEYRAUCH.51 i ~ 4 ~ Shawn Weyrauch 2625 Larkspur Lane Unit A Vaii, Colorado 81657 (970) 479-2950 Apri16, 1998 Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vai1, Coloradn 81657 Pianning and Environmental Comrnission. I am writing to request a variance far an addition to my hame in Intermountain. After careful consideration I have designed an addition which will best add utility to the existing structure with the least amount of impact on the neighborhaod. My proposed additian will, however, encroach on the standard setbacks for the Vaii Intermountain subtiivision. I intend ta show that I have a thoughtful design that wili add function ta the home and the town flf Vail and, therefare, should be granted a variance. Design: My home is a duplex with two separate living quarters stacked one above the other. ~ They have similar floorplans both having two bedrooms and one bathroom. My propased addition wauld increase the utility of the property by adding two bedraoms and tvvo bathrooms to each level. Each level would be increased from appraximately 1100 square feet to approximately 1600 square feet. The best location for this addition is on the West End of the home. The addition would be 19 feet in length and 29 feet in width on both leveis and maintain the existing rQOfline. These dimensions maintain the existing loak of the structure while adding a highly functional flaarplan. 1 have cansidered other possibla locations for the addition besides the West End ofthe home, hawever, these other locations are not as optirnal. Limitations for Having the Addition an the North Side of the Home: There is not enough space on the ndrth side of the home to add normal shaped or sized rooms without substantially cutting inta the setbacks. If additidnal bedrfloms were, however, allawed ta be added here they would not be able to link up to the existing bedrooms. Additional bedroams on the north side ofthe home would aisa block any logical way ta access the home. Building on the north side of the home would also require digging into the hillside supporting the tawn road and cunent parking area. Sueh excavation wauld likely require a ridiculously tall retaining wall creating awkward and difficult access ta the home. Such excavation may also irnpede an an existing parking easement with the immediate neighbor on the north side of the property. Negatiue Impact flf an Addition to the East End ofthe Home. ~ If additional bedraorns are added to the East End of the home this will break up the continuity of the home. The bedrooms would be on opposite extremes of the home rather than conveniently located together. Expansion on the East End ofthe harne would shift bedrooms closer to my many neighbors in the Meadow Creek apartrnent complex. These bedrooms would be exposed to added light and noise due to the proximity to the many neighbors in this apartment complex. The front yard would also become smaller and closer to the many neighbors nearby. This expansion would be seen and have a greater impact on dozens of people from this multi family housing. Uue ta the painted architecture of the East End of the horne, additional bedrooms wauld take on an awkward dimension in order to maintain the existing style ofarchitecture. The unique slops of the roof on the East End wouid also make if difficult to create functianal bedrooms on the East End of the home. The unique style of roaf on the East End of the home would create an awkward appearance from the exterior when trying to match up the addition to the existing roofline. The existing living raom would also be greatly compromised by such expansion. The living room would loose its light and views by replacing the faurteen-foot floor to ceiling windows with solid walls to accommodate the new bedroorns. Adding to the West End of the Home is the most Lagical and Sensible: The proposed addition to the West End ofthe hame flows nicely in design to the existing structure bath autside and inside the home. My proposed additian wauld extend the West End of the home allowing the best access ta the new living area from the existing structure. The new living quarters will logically be accessed by extending the existing hallway within the West End of the home. Placing the addition here alsa allows for nice features such as the large windows in the living room to remain unehanged. The ~ proposed addition is also tucked away in an area of the property which is largely hidden from the most immediate neighbors. This has the least impact an the yards and views of the neighbflrs. It also allows for the proposed bedraoms to be the farthest from the light and noise of the many neighbors. The proposed addition would be built on an area behind the home which is difficuit to access and cunently is extremely limited in use. Placing the addition in the back ofthe home alsa allows for the preservation of a nice yard in the front of the home. Impact on the Neighborhood: I)ue to the proposed location of the addition, there will be a very minimal irnpact on the neighborhood. The proposed lacation is well belaw the street Ievel which hides the structure fram surrvunding neighbors without obstructing any views. I do not believe that the addition will be able ta be seen by any of the many neighbors at Meadow Creek or by my neighbors to the north. I have contacted my two immediate neighbors Greg Amsden and Doug Krause who are cl4sest to the proposed addition. They both reaiize that this addition would have a negligibla affect and have cansequently offered their support for this proposal. I intend to mateh the existing rnaterials in order to have the new addition blend in harmoniously with the old structure. I will use 3.50 inch cedar logs to match the existing exterior. I will also match trimj colors, and extend the existing asphalt roof. The new addition will have the same height and roof pitch erating a subtle flow to the existing structure. ~ ~ Speeifics of Variance: The proposed addition would encroach an the standard setbacks in the following manner: 1)The northwest corner would encroach by 10 feet. 2)The $outhwest corner would overlap by 1 foot. 3)The West End ofthe addition would be over the normal setback by up to 3 feet. Reasans far Special Cansideration: Other neighbors such as my immediate neighbor Greg Amsden have homes that are overlapping the standard setbacks. The northwest corner of rny home is already built averlapping the standarcl setback. I would like to extend farther into this setback on the northwest corner. The West End of my property bQrders Town af Vail property which was ariginally designated far a turn around. The turn around was never built here and the town has considered vacating the Iand and dividing it up amongst property owners. If this were done the West End ofthe proposed additian would not encroach on a setback. Benefits of Proposal to Town of Vail: Ifthis variance is accepted I will also imD,ro,y~.,m;S~n~rkin~ area and stairway. The cunent parking area is rnade of railroad ties which are starting to pull apart. The renovation period would be a convenient and efficient time to replace the wall and lengthen the parking area. This renovativn would imprave the aesthetics of the neighbarhood and imprave the parking hy getfiing the vehicles farther off the street. I would also replace the stairs fram the parking lot bringing them up to the existing code. ~ The prQposed adclition would also add needed raams in Vail in the affardable housing range. This will benefit renters and future homeowners alike. I am convinced that yau will agree that I have come up with a thoughtful way to irnprove my home for myself, future owners, renters, and the surrounding neighbnrhood. The prflpased addition will add maximum function and benefit to the property in an aesthetically pleasing manner while irnproving the neighborhood. I look forward to rneeting those af you reviewing rny prQposal. Thantc yau for your time. KespectfullY, Shawn Weyrauch ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,,i ?~S}.~ ~fl-~ ~ . /'r ~1 . ' .i• ,c(~ • ~.+g4. / f. tf / 410 f~ ~ ~ ~ Qg4 yN3 / Z-'w• ~ 0 u f ~ . A cs ~ ~ ~ \ • . ~ zr -n T4 Z- r C~~ -`J o a W Q ~ / ~ ~ ..5 s`~. . ~ o ~ Im ' ca k7 35 65 1 1"afE' ac 9 = a • ""-s ` AP~~ . ~ ~f~. • UTfLlI.y 'QlVQ ~ llli~ 7x /8/..``J3° Of?A/NAGE . ~ # r k I ~I ~ • ~ , ~ . . - . - . 114"_ !~_G,r~ , co'I - J Lt STt.J S GJ_ i ~ t : i• ~ . t y T ' ` f ...4Jt.l. ' . - h.k_~ r4~ .S. , ~ _ ~ . . ~ . ~ / ` ,~~.""....~.'t ~ ~ t - . . .i ~~L_:.i ' ' •"T t'-"-----'~ .~Y~~ `t . . ~ - ' . _ _ . - ~ , ' . . - ' 'r: ~ i. t~_ ~~_Qtt ~ S ~ ~t..• I-A ~ ~ ' ' , : • _ : , . . ° ~ r ~t 1 ,a,_,.....--~ ~r,,.r....-'= • '"i ~ - --_~%1 ~r~, ; ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ . f ( 1 C7 /J ~ . , ~ ~ c~r ~:sE iu~ co~ts~'tz€~ Mi cc .J c la. . . :kt~19C( k7 :Rinof 8J!ri4^S7:I:~~ t?I`}i I;Yvy' cur 4uG . . A ~ c4A s C! .rn• . `n , r. , r:' n, y ~ ~J `?1L~1/y _'i~.,. . _ : . _ ~-~.=r x_ r.: ~ - . . . ..__.r...-. _ ~,i,.t..~... . . ~ ~ • ~r~ .QcrF-k -ro oocs~ l 3GS.4E.pU~E 'S1-t ET~ C~ =~:_C ~ C E`"» ~ ` ~ 17Y -1 j . 1 ~ . T= T _ ~ . • ~ ~ ~,,,,,,...-.i:::-.'.:::: ':rF•,y.~..E~ . i2s~L.`L~W k ~t' • ~T } ~ . .Qc~=Eb2 `ro oocrr. ~ : . ; ~ . _._..__t. . ~ . ~ ...~.r~_,o.:.. . T .'t' i' ~...L~~.J'... .-.`tt~'~~' Y f T-~~ ~ • • ~ ~r ~ ~~~M1.{ ` ~ r F r_. . _ . , . ~ . _ . 1 - .___.~.~-..~..>~ri._.~.:~r--1F~_...._.... ~ l+y ~ • _;r . oQ. U(]F. - _ _ ' i ~ ~ „I ~'_..y_ ~ ~ • i'{ ~ . . . . 1_ . 3<1 - ,zw,_ Qf; i wesk - ~ ? /CrCl.'.. _ [•i . .._.E~~.~c...OVJ - E rt ~ ' , ~t- • . , ~ 1511 L O CA'T' S'i.U . . . . } . - .~,.~o FL~tZli~S~c-~~.~ 8,Y-c~VJI.;cR. • t ~ 4 sootnuFrt- ~ ~ ~ GAS ~ ? ~ ` • ~ c ~ c O¢P ~Zi Ex ~ Lar ~ 1 7945, 7 nuatR A'cr.s 06 5~ p~1LDIN~+ 7844.92 l ~ ~ • ~ rbfrz 3-6' .13P t I! _ ' J-6" ASPEW . ~ , ~ ~ . . '45 ASPEN WOD StEPS` ~ x ' y ~ J'-6' dSPEN . ti.y I "-d' A9AEN / q2 r^ r ` 2 ' ASPE ,I~tr'j ~ y' FND. 15 4 P. 18a982 ~ f , ~ y6fio ~7868.97 ~ . . ~ / p~~... . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ' : Top < ~862.48 ~ t 4' mvr~ ''t1.tt9ER S " . AL, CAP rx' CAIP / L S 5933 IN V = 7654.46 ~ ,-_6- p,NE 7rt6e. a9 sstrlt 16o3 fZ = 56.00' , rfU - 785121 r = i ~ J'-6~ PIl i L - 62' ~ cArv P£n~ , ,t i ( f ~.-a"~~b~ r l-- PNAY APPRO EDCE c ~f t• ~ ~ \ ` ~ ~ \ ~ ol / / / ~ Cz~ ~ ~ o Lor I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f J 1 1 } n,vaErr ~'Rf cs f, I ~ v ~ ` ~ees.• ' f ~ 815.06 ex~sr, au~to~NC j ro 7644.92 ' . ~ r / ~ i • ~ ~ 3 =6 ~tSPEN ~ ~ / ' ~ . ~ ~•/„1•_~• ~4SPEN f / /'r f7 3~s• AspEnr rs . " Y+ •6A spEN ~Y0 q4 ASPEN '_6` ~ h y y/ l ,,•w f ,7 " ASPE FND. ,¢`5 /.PI,. 7e4982 7868.47 l! ~ • J/ ~r J ~ ~ ~ . . l ~862.46 ' f rs' cuP INY ~ 7864.48 4 J 58'48 " ~ese, {9 NF ~ ~ ~b. oa' , r ~ r,~~ ia' ' 1 - ` 1 1' "-6; p, ' .~s. 62 -,i 7V PED\ } I \ tl, f' G~ Af'PRD,Y1tlAlf £0~ ~ / { 3•_6" P1N£ EOCE' Of PAV£MEt/t PNGW PE177 ~ ~ ! A ~ , . . , ELEC. RAN~CKAlE{I ~ ~.~.w_.w.. . 9A1L. ROAn -TIE WAt-L ! ~ ~ ~ , ~ 1 ~ Dtv c~ ~ . ~ ~ rA G I?'~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ` ti , r` ~ a,,r , ~ ~d . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~~~c sTa ~ ~ . ~,~~a,~~`u~-c~}~'~' . ' ~ w, „i, . ~ ~ / rw I . ' I ~ ` . . r ~ r « - , ~ - " ~~,~T ~ t~r~ ~ ~ c~' ~ ~ - y ` ~~~~~~y M. AY99SdCn ~ 2635rI$ Idarkspur Lane Vail, Colorada 81657 May 1, 1998 Dominic Mauriello Town of Vai1- Planning Dept. 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO. 81657 Re: Weyrauch Variance Application - 2625 Larkspur Lane Dear Dflrninic: Thank yau far providing me with a copy ofthe abave referenced application. As you ars aware, I ovvn the primary-secondary residence on Lot 2, Block Z, Vail Interrnountain, directly west of the Weyrauch property. After reviewing the request, I have the follawing comments: l. A detailed topographic survey ofthe subject property was not provided by the applicant, ~ a. There is a substantial portion of flat, very buildable tenain on the north side of the structure, it is unusual for a setback variance ta be granted vvhen there are alternative locations an a lot for suoh an expansian. b. There is a drainage culvert that flows into a drain tile system ar gravel underground channel between Lots 1 and 2. The proposed expansion would alter this drainage system and would have a negative irnpact on the lower, garden level employee housing unit of my praperty. The applicant needs to address this situatibn. 2. The retaining wall that supports the parking area of the applicant's property is failing. It is an old railroati tie structure in poar condition. The height of this wall is substantial... any replacement plan should be reviewed and starnped by an licensed engineer. 3. No landscape plan was submitted by the applicant. There is a 5" diameter aspen (20' tall) that will be destroyed should this variance be granted. 4. A detail of the new stair aceess to the applicant's parking area has not been pravided. This is of particular concern as the applicant's tenants continually trespass on surraunding properties to access the shuttle bus (yau will nate that the applicant refers to the north side of his praperty as the "front" of the house), rather than using ~ Larkspur Lane. (974),479r0337 (970).,479e5278 fax 5. A specific Parking Plan has nat been Pravided bY the aPPlicant. The applicant's ~ intent is to expand the property to include 8 bedrooms, 6 baths, and maintain a rental use creates an increased parking demand over and above a typical residential use. 6. Town of Vail setback regulations require 15' side setbaeks to provide owners with adequate privacy between structures. The applicant's horne as well as my horne are non-conforrning structures (bath already encroach into side setbacks). Any increase af the existing encroachment would be detrimental to the privacy and enjoyment of my residence. Saund transmission (ie: loud sterea rnusic or 3:25 AM hot tub gatherings) is minimal under existing conditions, thus the proposed expansion wauld negatively effect rny property. 7. The intent of applicant to rent the property to unrelated parties may violate existing ordinances, especiallq if each bedroom is rented. A eornmercial or lodging type zoning may be necessary in situations where the number of unrelated renters exceeds a limit established by an existing ordinance. 8. The applicant states that I offered my suppart for his variance. When the applicant approached me regarding a 15' expansion to southwest end of his residence, I questioned the parking situation and sta#ed that the applicatian did not meet the variance .guidelines for hardship, strict interpretation af the ordinance or similar ~ privileges enjoyed by other properties in the same area. The applicant did not address the parking issue, showed indifference to the zoning regulations and indicated the main facus was improving his rental income picture. Until such time as the applicant provides adequate analysis for his expansian plans and can address the abave concerns, I shall be opposed to the requested variance. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. f- ~Sin rely, eg Amsden ~ ~ Ilouglas and Peggy Krause 2614 Larkspur Lane Vail, CO $1657 ~ March 8, 1998 Tovtm of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO $1657 Attn: Planning Tfl 'UVham It 1VIay Concern. This is a letter of suppart for Shawn Weyrauch's request for an addition ta his home at 2625 Larkspur Lane. We currently own and live in the house directly across the street fram ~ Shawn and feel the addition he plans for his horne would be appropriate and suitable for this neighbvrhaod. Please feel free to cantact us at 476-0958 if we can provide any atlditional informatian. Sincerely, Douglas and Peggy Krause cc; Shawn Weyrauch ~ pppppp~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmentai Commission FRC)M: Department of Community Development DATE: May 11, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit and additional GRFA #o aIlaw for a Type 11 EHU, located at 45 Forest Fioad/LoC 33, E31ock 7, Vail Viliage First Filing. Applicant: BMS Partnership Planner: Christie Barton 1. BACKGRC}l3ND AND DESCR1P7'It7N 4F THE F~~QUES°I"S With this proposal, ttie applicant is remodeling the existiiig primary/secondary unit into a primary unit, and eansfiructing a secondary unif vvhich wiH include a Type !I Employee Nousing Unit (EHU), for a total of tliree units oti the property. This request is #or a canditianai use permit to construct a Type II ENU, ar7d to L,se two 250 square foot GRFP, allowances for this ENU. The units will have a GRFA connection and three enclosed parking spaces, one of which is required for the ENU. The buiiding plans have been attached far reference. il. ZOt~IN~ ~~ALYs{~ ~ Legal Address: 45 Forest Road/Lat 33, Block 7, Vail Viliage First Filing. Secondary unit will be 24 Beaver Dani Road Lot Size: 19,675 sq. ft. i0.452 acres Zoriing: Primary/Secondary Residential Use: Primary/Seeondary residenee with a Type 11 Empioyee Housing Unit Aflowed PropQ5ed Total GRFA: 5567.5 sq, ft. 5431 sq. ft. GRFA primary: 2955.5 sq, ft. 2898 sq. ft. GRFA secondary: 2112 sq. ft. 2092 sq. ft. With 250's: 500 sq. ft. 441 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 3935 sq. ft., or 20% 3582 sq. ft. or 18°l0 Setbacks: frant: 20' 22' sides: 15', 15' 42', 24' rear: 15' 68' Landscaping: 11,805 sq. ft. or 60% minimum 15,252 sq. ft. or 77.5°l0 F'arking: 6 required spaces (3 enclosed) 6 tQtal spaces (5 enclosed) ~ l 4J _~l~'OIYAOPUAIi, ~ "~q IBf. CRITERfA FOR Ai?DI'~~ONAL GRFA ~ Upon review of Title 72, Chapter 15-5 (Additional GRFA) and Ghapter 13 (Employee Housing), the Community Develapment Department recommends app~oval of this request fior 420 additional square feet of GRFA ta be utilized in the canstruction of the Type II Employee Nousing Unit based upan the follawing factors: A. Consideration of Factors, Before acting on an application for additionai GFiFA, the Planning and Environmen#al Cammission shall consider the following factors witli respect ta the praposed use: 1. Effect upon the existina toDograph < ve etation, dc•ainage and existing structures. in the s[aff's opi:iion, the additional GRFA being incorporated into the Type Il Empfoyee Hotasing Unit will have no negative effects upon the existirig topograplly, vege#ation, drainage or other existing structures in the area. It is staff`s opinion that thc mass and bulk of the proposed new single-family residence, with a Type !I Empfoyee Hotasing Unit, ineluding the additional GRFA, will confarm with the other existirig structures in the Forest Road/Beaver Dam Road neighborhood. 2. empact an adLacent~aropertie~, In #he staff's opinion, the proposed neuv secandary unit with the 1"ype 11 Emp#oyee ~ Housing Unit and t6ie additianal GRFA wil3 not have any negative impacts on adjacent properties. The applicant is praposing adequate parkirig, per the Municipai Code, to accommodate vehicular parking on the site. The additional GRFA will result in a minimal increase in bulk and mass of the structure. Staff beiieues, that this minimal increase in bulk and niass wili not be readily noticeable from adjacenC properties. 3. Ccamrali~~~e w6th the T"own's zonirtg requi~ements arad app9icable deve6oprraent standards. Title 12, Chapter 15-5 of the Town of Vail Municipai Code, requires that: "Any dwelling unit that proposes to use addiCionai GRFA shali comply with the standards outlined in the Town of Vail Design Guidelines (Title 12, Cf7apter 11). These standards inciude landscaping, under grounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance and upkeep of the property." The site pian shows campliance with landscaping, underground utilities, and driveway paving on the property. ~ ppppppp, 1V, CRi7`ERlaA FOR A CCJNDI`filONAt..11~E PERM6T ~ Upan review of Title 12, Chapter 16, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the canditional use permit based upon the fofiowing factors: Gonsidera#ion of Factors: Before acting on a conditianal use permit application, the Plarrning and Environmental Comriiission (PEC) shall consider the #ollowing facCors with respect ta the proposed use: 1. ReIatiorashap and impact of the use on the develupmerrt objeetives of the Tovvn. When the Town Councii adopted the Town o# Vail Affordable Housing Study on Navember 20, 1990, it recognized the need to increase the supply af hausing. The Town encourages EHUs as a means ofi providing quality living conditions and expanding the supply af emplayee hausing far both year-round and seasonal residents. The praposed ENU will have a positive impact an the Town's housing needs, by providing housing for employees. 2. The effeet of the use an leght and air, d6stribut6on of population, transporfiatiort #aciiities, utilities, schools, parks and recreafian facBlities, and other public facilitie5 needs. Staff believes that there will be little impact from the propased Type 11 ENU on light, air, population, transportation, utilities, schools or parks. ~ 3. Effect upon traffic with particuiar reference to ctangestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffiC flow and contro{, access, mar~euverability, and removal of snaw from the street and parking areas. The site currently has an existing two-story structure that the applicant is in the process of remodeling. The proposed develapment is compatible with the existing develapment in the neighborhood, therefiore, little impact will be associated with this proposal. 4. Effect upors the character of the area in which the proposed use ts to lae located, incBudwng the scale and buik of the proposed use in relaticat~ surroundbng uses. The scale and bulk of the propased structure is very similar to those in existence in the surraunding neighborhood. The neighbarhood has several Type II EHUs currently construc#ec[, therefore, the proposed use is compatible. GFiFA for the project wi(I not exceed the rnaximum allawed per the code. ~ -444~q V. FINDINGS FC?Fi GC3ND1TIONAL USE PERM4T The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the fiollowing findings before ~ granting a conditional use permit for a Type !i Employee Nousing Unit: 1. That the proposed (ocation of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this Qrdinance and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That the proposed locatian of the use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained wil4 not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injuriaus to properties ar improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the praposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of Titie 12 of the Vail Municipa! Code. 1i1, ST'A,FF RECOiU1MENDATlON The Community Development Department recommends approvai of the applicant"s request for a conditional use permit and a request to utilize 420 square feet af Additionai GRFA to construct a Type I! ENU at 24 Beaver Dam Raad/ Lot 33, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of this Ordinance 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 wiil not be detrimental to the public heaith, safety, or ~ welfare or materially injurious to praperties ar improvements in the vicinity, 3. That the proposed use will comply with each o# the applicabie provisions of Titie 12 of the Vail Municipal Code. Staff recommends approval of the appiicant's request with the following conditions: 1. That one of the garage spaces be apprapriately deed restric#ed fnr exclusive use by the occupant of the EHU. 2. That the app(icant submit {for review and approvaf by tne DRB} a construction staging pian indicating the limits of disturbance and tree protection measures fior the site. f`\evetyonelpeclinemus\98\1)ms.51 1 ~ ~ ; + ~ . i ~ ~ . ? ~ ~ i ~ ~ ; , ~ T-- ; ---w-- ~ ~ V F, L, wx*" «w.~~ -,c+ P,qNa in• a''" ~r° " ~ ~l i 23~ W -M v. .v A u ..r • - -6l~ ~ ,7, ,~~b_, r e,r f . ~ a° v - - _ - - _ - ~nn• - _ _ _ _ _ ` c~ d - -T - ' ' I - ° i^ - ~ 4~ ww ` ! . ~ ' a..~ ~ ~ ~ „y s . ~ - =w-._. ~ ~ ""8300 ~ tA tW~Ti nTSAac ~tlcct&M1 s ~1 ~ f y ~ " ° .?p, . - °zo ~ - _ - , _ ~LA. 14 YBLOp2st.E. - ~ 3 ___`.y ~i~.^+9• d.~s ~~.~1 r~i ~ i ~ ~ i GAXtAGIE LBVEL PLAN _ ~ 6 aatt xts~•1~-a y' o M•+Y ~ ; U C> ~ wrt p: ~ ENrKY LEvEz. PLhN IDJ:Li F/1 • ~ 9' ^D• 3( ; { i", .~`i : ~ , ~ ~ i . ~ I I 9 ~ wi rrr, OL 1 i . ~ rv , } ; h~ ~ to Rttt.i21! { i \ w } ~ ~ ~ 7 ~mw M. I nr,pjj 4 ~ - ~ i ~ wuiw. ---4' 1 ' ~b ~.t+NCl1 X4.1"'S8 ~ ~--=-p : ~ bfAIN LEVEI. PLAN ' ~c,exs !/i••t,.o• A3 z-; c~ 'x ~ I ~ I• I ~ / • ~ ~ 0 . / rUa1Yn lMtebtll ~ ~ ,J Y.~g'RR MtN 4 W 44 K r 0 a~r I i 5 ~ a+( ~ I UPPER LEYEL PL.AN lOltk ~/~"•t'uC+ ~ A4 ~ ~ MEMORANDUM Td: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department dATE: May 11, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance, to allow for a deck expansion, located at 83 Wiilow P1ace, R1ver House Condominiums/Lot 3, Block 6, Vail Viilage 1st Filing. Appifcant: MFI Investments, represented by Larry Deckard Planner; Dominic Maurielio 1. DESQ114I12TIC}N QF THE REOUEST ANQ? BAGKGROUND The applicant is proposing to perforrn a major exterior remodel to the River House Condominiums (see phatos attached). As part of this remodel, the applicant is proposing to infilF the open areas between the existing decks an the rear (north side) of the buiiding. The Zoning Reguiatians aNow decks to encrdach up to 5` into the sideand rear setback, however, giventhe configuration and size af this lot, the existing building and decks encroach Cn#o the required 20' setback for this site. The proposed deck infill areas will be located approximately 6' and 12' from the property line, hence the request proposes a 9' encroachment into a 15' required setback ~ (decks are permitted to encroach 5' into the 20' building setback, per section 12-14-6 af the Murricipal Code), The DRB, on April 15, 1958, appraved this exterior remodel subject to PEC appraval of a variance for expansion of the deck areas. Variances have been granted aver the years an this site for the additinn of decks and other improvements due to si#e constraints resulting from the size and configuratian of the lot. 11. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideratian of Factors: Upon review of Sectian 12-17-6 0# the Vai1 Municipal Code, Cciteria and Findings, the Community Develapment Department recammends approval of the requested setback variance based on the foNawing factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential tases and structures irt the vicinity. Many buildings located in this neighborhood are constructed with encroachments inta the setbacks. The existing decks already encroach up to 15' into the setbacks, and with the proposed infiN there will be additional ~ area within the setbacks. However, the proposed addition will not have a 1 ~n~''; raWN aF negative effect an adjacent properties, as this portion of the property is ~ adjacent to Gore Creek, 2. 7he degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a speeified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibiiity and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity ar to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. As stated above, the existing buildings and decks encroach intn the required setbacks. This buiiding, as well as other buildings in the area, has similar encroachments in the setback and therefore the granting of this variance will allaw equal treatment among sites in the vicinity. The size and shape of this iot creates a physical hardship. Therefore, staff does not believe granting this variance will be a grant of special privilege. 3. The effeCt bf the reques#ed variance on light and air; dist'ribu#iun of populatiort, transportatfon and traffic facitities, public facilities and utiiities, and public safety. The propasal wiN have littfe, if any, effect on these issues. B. The Planning and Environmenta! Commissian shalt make the foliowinq findinqs befiore granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will nat constitute a grant of speciai ~ privilage inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classifred in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety ar welfare, or materiatly injurious to properties or impravements 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 af this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or condi#ions applieable 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 regulatian wou]ddeprive the applicant ofi privifeges enjoyed by the awners of other properties in the same district. 2 ~ ~ IN. STAFF RECCJMMENaAT10N The Community Development Department recomrnends approval of the propased setback variances, subject ta the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance wiil not constitute a grant of speciai privilege inconsistent with the Iimitations on ather properties ctassified 'm the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance wi11 not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injuriaus to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulatian would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners ofi other properties in the same district. F:1EV E RYON E\P ECUv1 EMO S\981R I V E R Hfl U.511 ~ ~ 3 . • i~ t'~~' ~'C.~. ~"G (I2ot~ ,rlz.. • s , X. ~ ~".~r~~.~ i . rr t i12o k.l A5 ' NF-W t!GK Il..- ~ pe-W vl5u< CqlrlIzq~ . 1".- t'~, ~ . - ~ La - _ _ ~ _ + - - - 5e ~ a~G~ t? WcK Jo~s~'~ I ; 44-~ H~~l GH1N SCALf ; . I ~ ; r ~ ~ ~ «Larry A. DeCkard A.I.A. P.O. BoX 725 Avon, Co. $1620 ~(970) 949-7038 TQ: Fraser Hom 2/231199$ C10 MFI Investments RE: Riverhouse Remodei Dear Riverhouse owner, This letter is ta pravide an overview ofthe design for the remodel ofyour home exterior. The scope of cons#ruction is primarily exterior revisions with a small interiar entryway additiana The exterior revisions include a substantial face-lift to the south {entry} side of'the Riverhause and deck revisions to the north side of the building. The south face remodel is most critical as the most visible face of the structuze. Riverhouse is lacated in a prime Vail location offering full access to Vaii village while secluded fram daily village activity. The residences to the west are Bishop Park and Willow Place. These projects were canstructed in the late 19$0's and eariy 1990's. These buildings have played an important role in We reating an identity to #his neighborhood. Design eues for the Riverhouse remodel are reflected in design lements from these neighbors as well as detail elements from the Sonnenalp Bavazia Htiuse located across Gare Creek from the Riverhouse. The south face remodel includes the follawirrg eiements: t. Stone veneer at the lower level. 2. New entry configuration. 3. Two gables at the main roaf. 4. Stone veneer and new doors at the existing ski lockers. 5. New stucco at the tap two floors. 6. Stone veneer and wrought iron rail at auto entry. 7. Entry gable with heavy timber support. . 8. New deck configuration and new wood railings at level two decks. The addition ofthe gable raafelements plays a critical role in defining the character of the Riverhouse remodel image. These elements break the long horizontal fascia on the existing structure. These elements are reflected at a more intimate scale at the new entryway roo£ The horizontal image of the present elevation is further reduced by introducing stone rail supparts at the second floor deck area. This concept is taken to the ground level with stone rail supports at the auto entryway. Wrought iron is intraduced at the auto entry railing to reduce the heavy rail image of the present configuration. The new upper level railing and the new north deck railings will be similar to the Bavaria House railings. This board type railing with pattern cut outs is also emplayed at Willow Place. ~ The colars for the remodel shall be an off white (warm) for all stucco areas. The wood trim and railing color is to be a warm gray similar to the Bavaria house. Roof fascia to be a darker tone of the railing* color. This darker color may also be utilized for trim such as shutters and ski locker doors. This color palette shall be finalized with pa3nt samples on site. The stone eolor is to be similar to the gold gray stone on Willow Place. New hardware for the ski lockers with integral locks and numberplates will clean up the padlack look the ski lockers have at present. I hope this letter ciarifies the design irztent for the Riverhouse remodel. Sincerely5 '.000~ / 4K2 Lany A. Deckard A.I.A. ~ Page 2 ~ ~ f t Y ~ ..t .q , . ~ . ? I . . . . ~ _ ~ ~en.<. , v . ....~r......._... , w ~ II I ~ II ` ~ . . „ , . . . . . . . RIVERHUUSE EXTSTING SOUTH ELEVATI+DN ~ ~ ~ ~v " t ~ ~ r ~ A ~ t 1 ~ a k . ~ . wc : . ~ ; . ' . ~ ,k',.y.+. . ~@.z ?'~a, . ~ ' PY20POSED RIEMODEL SOUTH ELEVATION ~ ~ ~ 21111 Z _ ~ •~dh~. i1 M ~ # RIVERHOUS~E EXISTIN~G NORTH ELEVATION ~ t. ~ ~ a . ~ f ~ _ ~ n.,., ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ ~ t . . rt . . ~ . . . . p. , ~ . , . , . . , ~ _ t-~::~..,r,. _ , . _u_.~.n.a..,:..~ ~ . . . . . ` . PROPOSED REMODEi., N0RTH ELEVATION ~ ~ t ~a~" y ;iN ` ~ `^~,~r + wa ~ j. d , • " d,~k~~~• 441 ~ k ~y yf ' R ~ PROPOSED NEW STONE VENEER ~ { ~ . ~ . ~ . .y , ~ ~ ~ • ~ ; } 4k ~+r ' Y f~ _ . '~cr ~ ~ µ vr xa"~ ~ ~ s ~ i _ . _ . . RAILI1tiIG CON~EPT FOR REMODEL ~ § MEMGRANt]illVt ~ TO: Planning anci Environmentai Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 11, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance, to ailow far an additianal 3-faot encroachment into the front setback (an an existing house 5' into the frant setback) for a residential addition, located at 706 Forest Raad/Lot 9, Biock 1, Vail Village 6th Filirtg. Appiicant; Nancy Adam, represented by Dale Smith of Fritzlen Pierce Briner Planner; Ghristie Barton The applicant, Nancy Rdam, is requesting a variance from Title 12, Ghapter 6D-6 in order to eons#ruct a new elevator and ta expand the fiving space af the hause, for a total addition of 1,010 square feet. An exterior stairway wili also be added ta access level 2. The graund level wili be expanded to accommodate the elevator and mechanicals (112 SF addition wi#h 12 SF in the front setback); levei 2 wiil have the elevatar and a storage closet (85 SF addition); levei 3 will enclose the deck area, construct a new deck, expand the dining area and replace a timber retaining wa11 with a concrete wall {461 SF addition with 82 SF in the frant setback}. Level 4 wi14 expand the ~ living space by enclosing a deck, constructing a new deck and adding two dormers. The duplex was ariginaliy built in 1980 and located on the narth edge of the lot due to steep slopes. The regulations in effect at the time of construction allowed a 10' front setback due to the 40% slope. !1. ZC7N1NG ANALYS6 i Zoning: Primary(Secondary Residentia4 District Lot Size; 58,498 sq. ft.11.342 acres Standard ikllawed Existin 1'rdposed GRFA: 7.525 sq, ft. 6,171 sq. tt. 7,181 sq. ft. Primary Unit: n/a 3,452 sq. ft 4,462 sq, ft. 5econdary Unit: 3,095 sq. ft. 2,719 sq. ft. No change Building Fleigh[; 33' 32' 33' Setbacks: 20` (front) 9' (frorit) 6' (front) Site Coverage: 8,775 sq. ft. (15%) 2,970 sq. ft. (5.1%) 3,619 sq. ft. (6.2°l0) Lendscaping: 35,099 sq. ft. (60%) 52,300 sq. fC. (89%) 51,804 sq. ft. (88,5%) Parking; no change ~ ~ _ h~t TOL9N OF VAIL 116. CRITERtA AND FINDiNGS FCaR A VARtANCE REQtJEST ~ Upon review o# Section 12-17-6, Variance Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Munieipal Code, #he Community Deve(opment Department recammends approvai of the requested frant yard setback variance. The recommendation for approval is based on the followirig factors: A. Consideration of FacCors: 1. The relationship of the reque5ted variance ta other exis#ing or potential uses arrd structures in the vicinity. The proposed encroachment into the setback ofi the front entryway will have minimal impacts ori existing or po#entidi uses and structures in the area. The project will not impact adjacent property owners as the house will remain a residential use. 2. 7'he degree #o which relief fram the stric# and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulafion is necessary to achieve compatibility and unifurmity af treatment among sites in thevic6nity or to attain the ob3ectives of this title withaut grant of speciat priviiege. Due to the existing steep slopes an the property, staff believes that this proposal will not be a grant of special privilege. Many of the homes in the area are buiit close to the raad in order to reduce the impact to this site and these changes will be minor, ifi an addition was doiie in the rear of the house, Lannecessary site disturbance would need to occur. L.imiting ~ disturbance in the area of steep slopes tothe reae of the structure will reduce the po[entiai for erosion and darnage ta the environment. 3. T'he effect of the requested variance on ligh# and air, distribution o# popu{aticart, transportation and tra#fic facilities, ptablic faciEities and utiiities, and public safety. The proposal will have little or no effect on these issues. This proposal maintains the residential atmosphere of the neighborhood. B. The ?'lanning and Enuironmental Gommission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the varianee will not eonsti#ute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of Che variance will not be de#rimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted far one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literai interpretation or enforcement ofi 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 #he specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. S7AFF REG4MMENDATRON Upon review af Title 12, Chapter 17 of the Town af Vaif Municipal Code, the Cammunity Develapment Department recommends approva( of the proposed variance, subject ta the following findirtgs: 1. That the granting of the variance wi11 nat constitute a grant of specialprivilege inconsistet7t with the limitations on other praperties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance wili not be detrimental to the public heafith, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or imprdvements in the vicinity. 3. That there are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or canditions appiicabte to the same site of the variance that do not apply generaliy to other properties in the same zone. ~ The recammendation of appraval is also subject to the foliowing candition: I. That the applieant shall maintain a limit of disturbance line as shown an the si#e plan. No building additions shall be allawed beyond this line in the future. This limit ofi dis#urbance and any assnciated variances wili become obsalete if the duplex is demoiished and rebuilt. f:/everyone/pec/me mos/98/Adam.511 ~ Ld7 10 [ _ u o.s owvw C? ~ -~ar7aa' ~ .,n N oaroa'ae' w- 406.62' - k ' o,~„ ~cixus• :d ( F ar.~a' ~ ~J NEM2 ja~~ ~ 1 ! ~ Y.bC Wh £ 4 CCNC. ~.=IiF.Y.4~,Ot£ EL C M~A' O.EI~'~i57.y7 (~s ar' Lit~wtwa) r~ a.tsM ACFEs N E0"55'59` E- 8.05' O ~ N 61'35'351K x5.~ ~S .2k A-; a.v „ .~nsn~' 9=94'S4'49" E43 AtRE5 R=525.00' •J L=100.04' aos3 +~5 ~ T=50.15' t / a 4 oww-+ t=53.59~ ~~ts . ~ +-o• ecuinrx ~n+rw wi . . ,~u ra.wwace or inr a.s' '"ip 6°°~ arv v~v. (fi . SAa CD4flFD XIM 9S` Tn tA' IW'~.M Q:T z~ { ~ 3~; ~ O.S 0.6 ~ tlUMfdwfR t PARC~ 0.676 76RF4 nta SN (sf W ~:55 lOT 8 sLoa€ nNALvsI~ e~ ~45 tau~.~a-uu.-t mx.v. ;~ri. ac w* E > ~ ~ warw+&s'n¢, s n eFr.i srz r tM a. B~.e~ t. vu N+w~ s.M i'f,p. r.m « varc r.0• cw~tr. c.k.aa ~.+.e w.nw«M . k I~nSN a tdlaro ~ r~t i mb lc1l~~Wd] luii-, ~ rv w. u tcAyI ~ 0~ WfNCOm ery~N b iN bR+I f04MSW' ]56.53 fI~C "Mnn wr~u tluR`ctbe uq~ b tM A9M af . ~ 0.T]5'tlG' tO.J? ful: IM1anu on e MI~aaVon- °Wit N iM Fer 41t M OP~B`.10~N~rc!OS fu[ b e ML2 s ~wm, wb cuvs ad Gv SeuN rlW-d- in.e a! n4 Anrl x n" tM1~ore ni mttl mm aFPRE]FM13 h oE50~ - c w~ +~n~ ~r.e m u. roaa~s eros.+, :«zwa~a uai nenro~ a wu r.aM+.w:~mra ~ rim1 rrs u+vxnY. m I ~a• s~i~exr t{ 4 mura (a ~anrc . j"r y~qq~ ~ - rsmwro,~ w~-- k ~ 1 t ' ••14 ~ A?aF itl FM 1. 4eN i.. 1b11R,pe SaM 4%rq. Tmm d Vw~V FaW~ Gu^b. Gqeedc. mvrt CarfGmy R f 7 gpte Min ot t6w Mv(MMI m~M M~dtl Lat k flrep in x tapuN.~y Mctlert vbi!i Ur wN.iM A p ; ~faCF ts- 40FE Of' avN la[ 3X3"! W§ t~wa~ m v eutwet4n pyy ~ f~ ~qh W~Q'3Y A~St tm wwk be Swrt~ IFG! OESCRY'ItlMS A4E PR + ?r CCNL y YNflIE%If lYw ef aoM [Nt ff. C+ma re Mb'c~lon MNY k tN M M YTC!'Ab' .]GF,11] YW ilwp ort a h41rlfan R~NDm W BOOK 33Z T t aa~c .~w m~. qM or as.nm=' ea.~o- r..e m.,K. ~."3m.m~~ ,~q. w~~ +.+o ~ ar.w•w• e.w ~ba antu 1 1 u..ma a~. m w swm n-a-wx n,,. oi va~~ ~ar u.M+ na+~a u. e~c ra~ ~p~ p ~ht ~ i H dd tvnFr nnd ~h~ Mn(bn SS'.B frf b SM PW! ol 9rydN9~9t +qMM4 1~P?~~n M wtl BFMNCS L%f'NM f£VE'bl lA ~ ¢ Y Et~]S!: ' Z ~ ~ ~ ra~ v Ysd e'. altocbtl W uM med~ a Yert a~ W~ drw~Ct~xm P rty BFJNG S lT45'b' MPFN Tr let Y M1i~F1W M r-s PARCEL C e, m Q ~ aavo .+~s t g~ s ~ t i ~ ~,q.+ ~a ~,s a. e~on 1, vm vnwK w~rt Exl. Te.~ .r ven r~~. co-w4. uwwe. ~rt war~mk ~ ~ u„o~ ~ r'" yt ! ~ s. . t r~ rNa, t~• ~ ~A ~ { \ camm..a ~ ~M xw+ ar «u v~t a u.re~ M wwe.~ e~«a«~ ewro m. .eat m.. r~~ xy i } ut .ea iw s asar»C wnw a r~iwn o~e w v. t oi qvacroo xz.at. tat ~ u~a tt„r ra~s d.rte~:on u~sb w exr ~ r saco'a' 3C ua i.i°n . icZao°'"ia.m~ t aa n>r 1 x~ ~ 1 re;n or ry~. W. ~+.x.q u.~r .a„P... ~em w aav ...w m«. . a F DATE OF 7C t k 1 awa t ~ t Y A pmtt tq f. &oek t. Nel YFteq 4~tx I'8rq, Tem d VaR EaqN Gw~+V: Glaroda W~fnd~M ~ : \k'LfE ` Cemnw{rq at tne NonMiM awnr aJ MA W 9 tl~r~u h s rautMn~ ~4ncW~ u'N tM t tm p}~ { ;~y/~y~•} p G6nL. of susi tsntµ6 M1]n.~q. fwk Wnd~wY n f~l~sLbnonqtn b W rt K 4V90'OU t5./t t I i ~R(i6/Gi. D PMik ~FMGPdiY tRrt ~hMN11~6 . n ~ ~ iM +~qM~et A400't0'Rm fit'.~ °"94 b~ 4R mte #'Ml~n W Mt N4AR~W~'OR' XLW~a~t~ InMa wbi v {IYPI('f j KW. QOSJ /YCftE4r ~ tlae4xfim a^9~~ b InF kh d a~ ~(wY: t AHM, tn wp0. b Ms~ynt YP b¢ I.SO ~ wk Ww an ~ rkrtoctbv a.^Gk b Ua .~d~t N PPW a0' 1550yMMt ~ a ll+nra en. e d.llvc&un 51i tq' ¢co rwk dw~. .e a a 1NCGtl.~ m4ur.a+b. n srroo'W' ]rsa r.M; a. . 13Z:' .4[ iY' WMCE JvtMeG» vnyis N Ne fq t# 0VO6~A0~ 32.W fm4 WnSV an a Mk:Cvn my~~ le tne +Iqnf UG•~•. % RS10F ~1 4 ~ LM tad.t0 4rt pw'nt et 4nn ~ELEYw6YlWY¢EU~dYkfA"f t ^W mrtnMury iJ]f vNVS #N a OAD1 aae +ren w t~ i . lE4U.. ~ OFCK d~FiL3JI1&1Y LGI/NL ~ DRWk~'C:~ ~ . (SCitEc l•~t~,j. ~ ~ . y V a t w ~ ~fAM[~ ~ ~~`eo~nnExPErwrvrGwNl ` UYiVAC. ,fnC. ~~~~n 17f.5HEC7 LIWES INRtC.h7E IN7E7¢POLA7Ep plglbiNAL d1R.kDE \ au~~ ,.,m,m+•a~ \ 4 .e.. ~ ~ ~ ~~5 ~ 4A ~ ~ t ts ct~ ~ wc. Qnv~r~xr ~Lsui~ir.~ 9 11oA OUFL P 6 \ \ CONG. s 0~ C. i8t ~r~ i ~ a~aee• ~ ~ ~ \ ~ ~ u ~ { 4 D.D~q A,G1^aE~ ERji.~o&vEar7~y\~~ cot~.~~nr~art~s fGAkT.~A80VEj , 41 Sb ~ i FxiSnrrus wz n15 \t ~ ~ ~ t~t Q i ~ ~ I ~ ~~rAmiwsc^v~.i. t ~ecK 1 oR~° aE r~ { f ~ \ sra trotr~ ' ~D I,,,~"""........+"" _ ~ FAR E ~ j?~ ~ ~ I I \ \ EL'- 6~ t-R~ ~ I LI T3 O 01971ARFJK ` ~ ' GOK . Rx Lrr€ fTYPIG.W YP NEY4 Alxl a.V LIiJb 1 RLKE Exxs~T~s ` ARiayL-~ t 1 ~ f i ~ E[.ElY.8t80f1, ~ ~ ( 8194A' ~ ' Q. ~ n- nrND4ioin . 2.i • t ~ ~ ~2 /,.6 f ' ~ sroNE tiew.E ~ i 13047 RftETAkVt ~ 51AIR T~~Z L wENI lOpOITION , ` ~ C' ~ t DRAtN -"Q TRAS4 EWI.OSURM \ NE"I ~ i 10'XIO' ~ EpF.E ~ PW. PM7. sfw LEI/M ~crc ,w„NISPoRS~ER 7'R(7NKDtAMETER ADOI7[QN DEGK ~LEVAFION MOpiPiED BOf.t.DER 2EE 0.t ~"`„5 g~ RETAININ& AGGOMNaDA E~MET`i 'iFChSH EN~ ±°LAHIEP HEW BDfADER RECAIt11N5 . . PLA YlITk1 PL~ANTEt4 D/~SHEi7 LIHES 4WJIGA'2 ~ t}fiERPO1.ATE7 ORI6111A4. 6RA17E ~ ~ ( ,e} Itl SO LPPER PATIO ~,,•t+~ l~~U~~ ~ f~~ - /R 5 '-b' T`-6' 11•-O~ .2'•R' t9b' g'-6' i t P ! i r C E, I I I I , I II - - - _ _ _ - _-~=k---- _ - - 2 ~ I ~ ~ 4 I F { f f i f E ~ - - -I - - , I 1 ~ ~ 1 4 I ~ r I ~ I I I IF=~J=====-=-------- GRAVU_ SPAGE tf j ~ a' (1I I f r ~ t ; I~ ~ I t ( cwSrMS YNTE[ IS.~.mz5 . F I 'fG AG~Attl ~ I f I i . Ij A T g UNpt [ LJ . 06 Mo MmtlK iE1E 4 C ~ t'LCV. I lO ~ 0 . in I { ~ I f ~ r.o. ~crsr. 1 R.1~.6V34'-4' I (ir.KL Y ~ ~D El -9 - .r.y: ' '.,a... . f 1 4~ ~ f.1.OB. MCCH~.NIGAeL ~ _ _ if ~ J II n r t r,7RY . 4'-b 1 ~aI ~ . ~ ~rr. aF ~-o• j ~ 'F . ~ FL7.CXICT. 4 1 « Fr. sisa-o~ ~auoac ~,rm ~r~~e.~cr • f ff . ` .-ii~'-#r~ . ~ . h36E! . ~ ' io+e F I . . ~ ~16 f f ~ a- i vnsEm Lrc¢ naararcres . . peaK ,aeoue i~1aST~tf6LryaJLVL9t RGTAIWNO W+.6L k 0.. i~CPtbtneY GnLLT'4lS. 3'ICrS iam n.e:rr2rt mx wA'rtaut~ sAtmslrw ul-PSwx4c ~ ~ ~eroWE ro tx~sv, ~~4~ R. tDLAN - 1 } ~j tl4~Ri^-o• ~ ~ ~-y ~ i A 4 G r~w• x-~• ~-a~ ~.-e. ~ 4 ~ I i t 4 ~ ~~srn+s sa re~r~iwre r+ut ~ ~ t t _ ~ m ozlwx ~ I f ~ - f _ " ~ i I : ' r 1 ~ ~ F Ffr ~ ( GRAMIL SPAGE j I t PATlO ABWE ~ I 1 r - - WINFla.asnnat ( yM1V.L AHO'/L' SCE ~ f NakC i!d'O. AB7& Acr.M RiOn GIfTEr APOVE I' t! LlMT1iH D^ INh ~ I `~yy. ~ I ~ F 3rL couh~a I~ 4 j ~ 1 4 ~i ~ ~ tl ~ I E)a5nk6 HYLiFatlIG LX15t1T~5 !'FIONG 1,1121. ~ ~ f k1`ATL`GNfT2M' LOS`i'MrTIY873! f ~f DEGK E~ ~ UN17 5 Y -'t i. .I I 1 1 I r+n rumoc ~a~a ` ~ 14 STORAGe o na 15ATH l 11 f. 2.~. t I ~ _ ~ kl 6UEtaT SUIRE 11 {I f~ LANDIN6 f r--' ra m~ I ~ ~ I ~ . ~ Li 1 _ ( .J ' W=K ~ i a~ wsw xr.w~aniuere~ .r~r en,Rr re ~ qy ~ ~ oW E%t~STn~s D[GC I ~ GANf~'r plp.L~{ ~ ~ 4 II f 1 A D I + ~ ~ . ~ ~ a V4 -i-Q I • ~ ~ _ a rrno ~ t ~ f f ~ E t ~ t'h1YO K1.0+'t ~ ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ - - - - - ~ -r Y ' t{t ~7 I ' II ~ F tV.1GhIIM014X'ff frs E 4 I ~ ~ a~•~• ~ R _ _ _ .~J! r z LM~ txixisTn+& xat ei.. a.-~• i ' I ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ Cxfr•an cHi~ ~ V FV It 5 I7 N[Y K+'wZ tERE ~f 4 ' - ~ { 1 ~ I I I ti . ( F HA*GN L1M5 It&rIG9j7~~ E p~EK.HFIGW i t@'RAOUI`IH6 } ! [ f TD_ }!Y~ R1 ' r '0 ft2 . 4 r ~E b~l I ~ 6.1 - - - ~ ~ I E j4 t 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ E ' } 1 . ~ 1 . `I 1 F 144 t I A ~ IQ- $R A ~ ,-e• r--t• ~ r7-o• s,~t~ ~a~-o' s,-a~ k I ~ f I ~ F ~ 1 ~,oernas wa. r~e ~ i arnrc+rr~s ~u ~ 1 I ! I ~ ~ 1 I~p - - - - - - ~ - - F - . ~Mw.~,.... ~ 2 . - wt.. r~.a . I f ! k H f i? SoYtrcewroao ~ !'A7(O E wroao rmv ewLOeK ~mrnrMUS ~ mars . ~w~rt+n .C..l eu f~v. r~nar rw~_ w n..wrve ~ . I ~ ~ ~ CJ ux ro 1 ~ ~ : r-t---------- - - a . uoiw,'~ z%ierme. f RaG'~m pUL'&T 5U('1E 1 r --I -0 I Q SATH.2 .~acuia m ~ t~ ~ 1 ~ ~ I 1 i ~ aa TLT wo~e C! Q0 E 'O ~ t uuI-r 5 ~ r ~ ~ 5TOR. STOR. II PLGK ~ ~ ya ~ ~ ~ ~ :t e sw ~ : ' ~ : vw KITCHEN _'i"_""_"""_"_'_"" 0 i aAurn tM n~iu.res ~ ~ ~ M,oow,Gau.n~s reovt sn. zxr..K I 2 ' . ~ _-1 I_ , LEV4N6 rtaaM~ 1 k~ . ~ , ,x t ~ T I ~ i +¢w ma;nr~t .r . w m r~ I F , toun~ ; - - ~ S ~'o E [ f o eo.cvt ~ DIMNb ? I N ~ t I ; j _aoE S ~ I L , I ~ ~ I I ~~u~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~ x ~4 B G I7 ~ P G rwi.. ron+= wa vru '.L' 'C-d' t2'4' 1'-I' D"-0` ~ Tn. rwno ~ ~ t'hTlO ~ n.. ars~'aa~ tu. ,p e °N _ r~ _ ~p - .2 F° ' r--- 4 ~ " ~p~ ~ ~ rwvscr I ~ f rArw aeLat i f - _ - _ - 7_ r 4,~• k tL ~ - ' I ~.u,srcR suirr ~ ~ ~ 416 1 / BCCKX~~S WM ~ int M. SA.TN! ~ n "m I ~ ctvs, 4 ' 0 D 4 NO r ~ t - 8 ~ ~ II • . ~ T~ . YGI - `_Ab'.'--------- . ` ' ' Q F-l It~ M. ¢L.06 NALL ~ $rr.eua•-o' UNIT B 4 - - - - a...tr+ s aaG.cnNr v. I 1 t` ,f ' CLos, ~.y ~ I [ f f~ ~t ~inn er~.t.ar t sR~b,~_'s xM I ~ I~ HATGH tMiIGh25 { NC ~ ' 1 / - f j _ Nl7k![OfX'NEGI _ ' ' G -f ~ - -r- i ---r + a~f ~ E vldtNa I.nE I ~~~.?~a sXrEKiaR r 13' t 4`-4` . x _F _-wa.t.a~t.wa _ . _L__-4 ___-_---F~- A p 1 ~ OR E66N _ . 4 ~ 1l4•.t`-Q" ~ Jit k T ) T ~ G D = ~ G S ~ I l 4 I • ~ t~vt R.ca+~ ew w.~oF f TA, C%13TiF7~ RIGSL` ~.~~.tit~oe~• I I I I 1 I f I ,0;5.a,t,i~.£K1KhER RtD6L' . _ . _ . T _ _ . RS 7 1 b ivEFV kOC~ I.OPITIpFl I ~JY ADPITION I ~ W 5lC1'L.16'F#1" . TO RL`HAIH rp~: Fr - ~f I f II.-6ib3~-a NEV+ DPC1c l orEw wamRi.iLltS k ~ I ~'.bEV€L 'KREE F-r--~ i a1.. 61!4111 -Rg ~ il 1 00 ~ . ~ ' ~ . ~ ~ ~ . . E`tl51'ihl6 tXAILY:t~R - RETAININ6 YLLL{. f 4 Ll ~ ~ LJ~k~1 Y EI_. CI9~"-f1 - E ~I 4 EE~1'94'q' . ~~I Tff~M P~'EN 1 i k'YJOD M.~NDRkIGNiS l. 813b'-0" UMT H I ~ ~ ~ n. aisa-o• +~ro r~ I ~ UliiT A ~ i 1 ~OR-TH ELMPTt l~2N Q ~ . 4 I C7d5TOd6 GHIMNEY f 3 ~ ! I k NEW 6/yf.6 ROOP 1'1EYi t50RME~ BE'~`ONO ~ ~ ~ . ~.0, ~ PGR+~'R I 12 MN1. s PhFlO BEYUND D(.M.LL.DCR RLTAINlNCr ~ r'~ ~ . F vas 1 r ~ k ~b f LLNlL FOFJR fl. {7r~} r#t {y~p} E.CVE't FOUR PP..~ ~ ~ `'V Ll (tlNb [ ( I . ~ I WALl. R ~ . E ~ • ~ ~j,~Vp1 ~'f REE FF . . . . 7. LSVEt_ TtaQEE FF ~ . ` ~ i - - _ - k . HANDIWILIN[S I Tg'YY DEGK FM? ( - . rio4D HA7JDwuLiM76 f ~ - k - } _.___T__"_'....__-.. ~ - EL, 8145'-Q' l I I = 4 ~ FINI 61L.BE I cx~s,~r~ ea+~ ~ ~htrut+s Le/L~ G-------- : r ~ ait~ a,-o, 4' ~ PIT POF! ~yIG 4 ~ ~ EtEVATOR f ~ ~ I i ~ I k ~ t f ~ L_.t....l C-AST ELEiP Ai I4a0N ~ tf4"_P_0" 8~ 6 4 3 2 f ..i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F r r~ew s au ~aa~ ~ ~ 6E + ~ ~ t I ~ ~4 ~zvet rauR fr. ~ 7 t fC S CU&TTTlON _ ~ pV ~q•=',~„ ~ I ( ~ ~ I~ G ~ ~ I7 G B A ToM..~ ~ I I I I a .1.-.-- fliull IITT-ulf ~ ~ ~ w ~ txr+~mor H,tna, n~u,n _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - ~ . ~ ~ ~ f• _ _ L 1 f I ~~f 111 f~ 4 { p ~ .f Ifl tIi I~ L____-...____.z_____-___°__ ~ .~..f~`-_~i`=J~ x ~ ~ f I I I-^ I ~ ELEVATION ~47,-0.. ~ BRUCE D. CHAPMAN ~ CQUN3ELORS $t R'i'Y'OC2NEY$ RT LAW, P.C. Post Of'fica BOx 6500 Vail, C{7 81658 Bxuce D. Claapman Of Counsel David F. Rock {Admitted in Colorado and Georgia} May 11, 1998 M. sarry r.exrz (Federal fiaac lYiafiters- Adinitted in Georgia) Christie Barton, Planner Cammunity Development Department Town of Vail vail, ca Re: Adam Residence Variance Request Unit A, La# g, Biock 1, Vail Village Sixth Fi(ing 1/ail, Go C7ear Ms. Bartan; ~ I am the attarney for Michael and Karen Herman who are the owners af Unit B. On behalf of Michael and Karen Herman, 1 wish to express their objection and camplete dissatisfaction fa the entire applieation (nated abflve). The primary objections are as fallaws: 1. The design prapased seems to disfiort the flriginal design without adding character or value to the entire structure. It is true that when the Hermans attempted to redesign the entire structure for the bencfit of each duplex owner, they failed to satisfy Ms. Adarn with the solutian threy and their architect created, but did sincerely address the values and potential fnr each owner. This proposal clearly does not. 2. Enclasing the third ievel balcony only makes bad massing worse. 3. The new entry roof proposes to shed snaw and ice onto the Herman property near the entry which does not exist today. It lagically would not be (egal for such a condition to be created. 4. Further encraachment into a pre-existing non-conforming use is not acceptable and the excuse of sfieep slope is out af context with the propasal as designed. ~ 5, While the rear yard is identified as too steep, it is na steeper than the side yard which is proposed far new canstruction. PHONE: (970) 476-0075 • FAX: (970) 496-007$ - E-MATG bslci)vail.iaer. _ 2_ May 71, 1998 6. A hardship has not been demonstrated for the variance requested. It is aur experience that the Town of Vail has hisfiorically fireafied variance hardships very seriously. Many speciai uses, separations and variances have been thoroughly and completely denied due to a finding of a lack of hardship with this range of topography and the remaining al#ernatives to quafity redeveiapment. This site offers other oppartunities far expansion and redevelopment, particularly if each owner cooperates with fihe other. The granting of this variance wi11 be the grant of a special privilcge, 7. The granting of the variance will be materially inlurious both in the practical and manetary sense, ta properties in the vicinit}t, Unit B. 8. In attempting to respond to the request by NCs. Adam to approve her remadel plans to Unit A, the Hermans became aware that an applica#ian had been filed with the Town of Vail to approve of the same plans he had been sent persanalEy for approval. Mark Donaldson was then sent the same reduced plans artd began to request a capY of the applieation that had been f}ed from Fritzlert Pierce Briner and the Town of Vail. He was then sent the same plans he already had fram the Town of Vail and FPB referred the request ta Ms. Adam wha sent him a third copy of the same plans with na attachments. Now having three sets of the same reduced plans vuith no attachments, he continued to request a copY ~ of the applicatian that had been filed and was sent a copy of the Staff Report on May 7th, but not a copy of the application. Again the application was requested and received on May 8th. This variety of information poses the following questions: 9. The Public Hearing Notice speaks to a side and front yard setback variance request. What about the side yard and is the Natice technically correct? 10. The townhouse declaration provides tha# the owners of Unit A and Unit B own the common area jointly. It alsa provides that an awner can not rnake a structural ar design change withou# the written consent of the owner. The Hermans have previausly rasponded to the applicant statirrg tha# they do not approve of the prapased changes. The Tawn of Vail has required such provisians to be complied with if there is joint ownership of the praperty into which the cdnstrucfiifln will encroach. An arbi#ration proceeding is presently pending in regard to said issue. Sinc By e= Bruce D, Chap an ~ ~ MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmentat Commission FRONI: Community Develaprnent Department DATE: May 11, 1998 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision nf Lot G-1 to create a new lot, located at 1410 Bu#fehr Creek Road, Lot G-1, Lion's Ridge Subdivision F'iling 2. Applicant: Leroy Schmidt, represented by Eric Johnsan Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. DESCRIPTIC}N OF THE REQUEST The applicant is praposing to divide Lot G-1, an existing PrimarylSecondary lot, into two single- family lots. The current lot size is 38,379 sq. ft. and the applicant is proposing one 15,115.51 sq. ft. Iot and one 23,263.01 sq. ft, fot. 7he minimum lot size fior the F'rimarylSecondary zone district is 15,000 sq. ft. of buildable area. The applicant is proposing to divide the aHowable GRFA among the two sites and therefore there is no increase in GRFA. The applicant's reques# does nat increase the number of allewable dwe(ling units on the Iot but is ~ in essence a separation af the two units currently permitted. The applicant has provided a grading plan showing how access ta the new lot will be achieved. Approximately 70% of the site has grades afi 2U°la-30%. The steepest grades exis# adjacent ta the existing street which makes access to the new lot difficult. The applicant is proposirrg access from the existing driveway. The proposed driveway creates the need for a series of 4 retaining wa11s (up to 6' in height) which are appraximately 120' long. The praposed driveway configuration does not atlow for adequate Fire Deparkment access and required parking for the existing house will conflict with access to new driveway. 11, BAGKGRt>UND Lionsridge Filing #2 was p(atted by Eagle County in 1972. When annexed ta the Town of Vail, Lot G-1 was zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. The site currently contains asingle-family home which received a Certifica#e of Occupancy an February 12, 1992. On February 19, 1992, the DRB denied a request by the applicant to separate the primary and secondary units on the site. This aetion was appealed to the Town Council. On Mareh 17, 1992, the Town Council unanimausiy upheld the DRB denial o# this request. In staff's opinion, the current proposal is simply a di#ferent avenue/process of achieving the separation request. In March of 1954, the owner received DftB approval for an attached secondary unit on the praperty. Un June 7, 1995, the owner received another approval for an attached secondary unit on the site and a 250 request for the primary unit. This 1995 approval for the secondary unit has ~ been extended several times, and is valid until August 15, 1998. 7hese approvals clearly show that the applicant is able to attach the units on the site without hardship. mwN a 6 *Va The praperry is lacated in a dUledium Severity Rockfall Nazard. Any development on this site v+rill ~ require a site specific hazard study. Ili. Z4NiNG ANALYSIS Hazards: Medium Severity Rockfall Lot area: 38,379 sq. ft. Standard AllowedlFtequired Existin Proaosed Site Coverage: 5,756 sq, fC. (15°l0) 1,910 sq. ft. (5%) TBD GFiFA; 6,518.95 sq. ft, 3s1$0 sq. ft. 6,518.95 sq. ft. (total) La# area: 15,000 sq. ft. 38,379 sq. ft. 15,115.51 sq. ft. (south iot) 23,263.01 sq. ft. (norCh lat) N. M1NOR SUBD1VISlONREVtEW CRITERIA The first set ofi review cri#eria #o be considered by the PEC for a minor subdivision applica#ion are as follows; A. Lot Area The Primary/Secandary Residential zone district requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 sq. ft. of buiidable area. The applicant's request compiies with this ~ standard. B. Frontaae The Subdivision Regulations require a minimum frontage of 30' along a public or private street. Technically, the proposal meets this requirement, however, the 1ot is accessed through the adjoining lot and therefore this 1ot does not have its own independent access. C. Site Dimensions The Zoning Regulations require that each site be of a size and a shape capable af enclosing a square area, 80' on each side, within its boundaries. The applicant's proposal adheres to this requirement. The second set of review criteria to be Considered with a minor subdivision requeSt is as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations, and is as fallows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant ta show that the application is in compliance with the intended purpase of Title 13, Chapter 4, the zoning ordirrance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shaN be given to the recommendations by publac agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under § 13-3-3-3.C. The PEC shall review the application and cansider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies reiating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ardinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, ~ effects an the aesthetics of the Town, enviranmental integrity and compatibility with 2 ~ surrounding uses."[emphasis added] The subdivision purpose statements are as foilows: 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposais wiil be evaluated and to pravide infarmatian as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff Response: Une purpose af subdivfsion regulatians, and any development control, is to establish basic ground rules which the staff, the PEG, applicant and the community can fallow in the public review process. Although this request dnes not involve the creation af a new subdivision, this is the appropriate process to divide this !ot into two parcels, 2. To pravide for the subdivision of property in the future withaut conflict with development on adjacent property. Staff Response: The applicant's proposal camplies with the technical, or dimensianal, requirements of the Subdivision Regulatians. Hpwever, staff believes the propasal negatively impacts the site. The proposal causes substantial disturbance and degradation of the site by necessitating a driveway cut across the entire property. Additionaliy, any proposed structure will also require retaining walls which would further impact the site. In staff's opinion, the appropriate locatian for an additional structure on the site is adjacent to #he existing structure where site disturbance can ~ be minimized. 3. Ta protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. Staff Response: The proposal wiN not have a negative impact on this criterion. 4. Ta insure that subdivision af property is in compliance wiTh the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmoniaus, convenient, workable relatianship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staf# Respanse: While the request is in compliance with the technical and dimensiflnai requirements of the regulations, due to the steepness of the site in relationship to the right-of-way, development on the newly created lot wi11 cause substantlal site disturbance inconsistent with the development abjectives of the Zoning Regulations. 5. To guide public and private pfllicy and action in order to provide adequate and effiicient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounc(s, recreational and other pubiic requirements and facilities and generally to provide that pubiic facilities will have sufficient eapacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Response: The proposal will not have a negative impact on this criterion. ~ 3 6. Ta pravide for accurate legal descriptions af newly subdivaded land and to ~ estabiish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response: The praposal will pravide accurate legal descriptions far the praperty. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management of natura( resourees throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff Response: Again, staff be(ieves the proposal is inconsistent with this criterion due ta the degree of site disturbance required an-site to achieve the separation of the dweiling units. V. STAFF RECOMNIENDaTIC?N . The Cpmmunity Development Department recommends denial of the proposed minor subdivision subject to the following findings. 1. That the proposal is inconsisterrt with the development objectives af the Town o# Vail. 2. That the prnposal will cause substantial site disturbance and degradatian which ~ could be alleviated by attaching the dwelling urtits on-site. F:\EV ERYON E\PEC\fvl EINOS\98\SCHMI DT.S 11 ~ 4 Sent by: Arch McGil1 9704763900 04/06/98 11:09AM Jab 876 Page 1/1 ~ Arch McGill 1425 lBuffer Creek Vail, CO 81657 (970) 476-3900 t'ax - (970) 476-3909 Dominic Mauriello Town of Vail Subject: Schmidt Sub-Divisiqn, Minor sub division of lot G 1 Lion Ridge fiting #2 Mr Mauriello: l am opposed tfl the requested sub division. I believe it wauld adversely effect the appearance of the hiilside because flf the cut in ~ the hiii. in addition it wi11 decrease the open space in the neighborhood. I thus request the sub division be denied. V;4) Arch Mc 1 1425 Buffehr Creek Vail, Co 81657 . ~ EXtSTING , : ff tf , HOUSE ~f f A ~ f 1 ^ ~ .,t,; WA1E: 1' ~ 119' ~ W ~ f . ~ idT G-1 F I ~ ~ ~ .x .s ~ ~ , cmacre aµme`: ' ~ ~ ore« f } ,a ~ oos.w'c~twaw , ~ ~ r 1 k ~ ~ ?RtGPOSED t t ~ ~.w++.~ ousE ~ . i , ~ r : r ~ ~ ; ~ ; ~ t f~.•'`~+ r . 41V a F u t ~ . A 1 p,: ~ f 839Pn s~ ,o eo z~ w .4 .s w eo es :n ! r~ ! A- r PROP08E'D SEG'1!0!1 I -A r ' r ~ t t : ~ ~ ' = f t ~ / f f ~3~~ 1 f f ° ~emc« rr~.sw» .wn nr.srieor:w~ m e..vn a, j t ~ ~ f ~ t F l N!~ I ~ ~ . ~ r ~ ~A 8120i 4 f4 i E f ~ '/F. ~ 84101 'x s 1 ~ j ~ f ' ~ lae i§~ I ~ eds r"r~ .~I e.oo~ ~ TMq ~ r'~ ousruc a~rr,~cc SFl9 Fi£K ~ H396.3 JI.. 3 , C!'tlf C ~A &3s0: 3 S ~ ~ 1 ki '1V s t ! ' ' ~I ~ ~ ~1 4.M E59fi 6E11~CRE7E:BANr h~~;~~w I ~j E ~ t.'r uervr s~av~ 't~~~ ~ fo+06 ~ ( y ~ ~ kL ~252~63~01 d (80.47i) ~ 15` ~ DCSTM . 6 ~ ~ ~ (7fYS Wk } ~ ~ PNtlF09[FfJp1 RETikAtX ~ oE9FJifbBYEh BoArAaP.twAYSlQ SUtUCNR %-5 rD ~ . • fNi?7ElY SH0IVYLEY.TpL ~ t K ` t (ifhTplM ARU) LOZ' '{a-1 ~ scn~e xo~ r s srt 4 t;• .'h aecvEim Mil" Lqc DIW&WAY ~ S ~ PROPOSM IVISICN [YX PRSPOSED 4! Y WpFilEIE PIIt! (C06RWNA7E WM ' A iMWROYEME!!T PlfN4} ~ £0970iG k7EVkA0N 8S67.0 AS9I//ED i•'i FkU11 WNTWRS f Np E%! G bRI VF AV lS1FR0U i i { ~ ~ 1 2 ~4 f~ 's.~ AN.~-,~~~~ NeusE4MAGE a.. aazo,I 0 rnuYEwhY I vROaaga wi cEt1~E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` f I ~ ~ f k ~ Aact ~ t3ttl2,6rt at (~t.4feY BACK .'M . BnO~ ~ G I ~ M µ6' µ I r : , I : ~ F f t~ ~~y ~ I ~ I t PkQvoBFA ! I.~ ~ /1 C400 ( 1~ 5 I. g flW9/t11 XRkpQ y i SEE SNEET 2 t r t r I, I i I I ~(ror smt~w~ FfN7 DETAtLEE7 f < < I i uaveMKV_sonT oFAEs) GRA6WG PLAK, esva~ fa ~ . i i i ; ! ~ i e„s,.,c aESA*wa wu.L 83eo' '~;rN' pwroxetsv ~i fi°'_ew I i j ~ I ens m COt a+rw ++oo ' z+on . ~ NATE: DPoSEWAY DESICN ANd RE5l18MV190N I4 BASEf} ON IkF(SRNFSYON FR~1 iHE TQPOCRAPHfC SURVEY PREF`kRUS FtY SIMONSON SUftVE`FlFtti INC. OpTED 2-11-94. .M• 1'Oi f4R CONSif14JVtiVli Y ~ ~ PaaPERrr uNe f ~ /L r- ; SCALE: 1" = 50' 4~ A .-L i ! ~ ~U ~ f •1-•'l ,.7_' / fE t/ / (`_.r~ Ff ~ ~3I F~ f r-f ~7.. F ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ F f f { f ~t t '7- ~,,~~n ~ ~ ~Jf ~ 1~-,~ / / ~r TIN£ Yfca'Jf'CJa~ ~ ~ ~ f r SLC7PE ANALYSlS LQT G-1 Natch Ra e Area s ft of otol Area f f,• F f ~ 1) 1 1 I F 1 i iVo f attern BLDG Sf7E 3534.05 9.21 ~ 46 ~I"' NQ Paftern 0% -20~ ~ 6493.85 16.93 0 ~ G ~~,-3 24%-30% 27026.05 70.44 .4-` "-4 s~-r~ ~~-r~' ~ ~y`~ ~ k ~ 3E7%-40% 1291.94 3.37 'IJ '`~'1.~--~..t-~~•-y--l•-t` ~ l.--~~..~-~ 1-~ ~ ~ . ~ ti ~ 40% < 19.80 0.05 Tctai 38365.69 100,00 4-,r < r F ' ~ ~ ~T'..~t'~~ ~ •t ~ t~~ ~ 1 ~ ~ r ,-~'r •-~"i f r f l~t .A-, x-4-- Note: fireos o( each slopa are foe l04 G-t --nVy- ~ Some hotch€d arens are esutside o4 fhe IoE and k--( are shown terr intarmatiQn or+ly. \ ~ !•~-t F ~ ~'~.".~~{~'F--~-,f.-y,`F "'T''T`~` I~t ~~7'~ s,M tT'~ StfITE: Sl.4PC ANA1Y5{5 fS SASE6 QN CDNFOUR 4NFOftMREtoN LV ~ ~ FRpb1 'ME TOPO~RAPH4C St7RVEY 'REPAftEa f~Y SIAfON50N ~ SURV€YING INC, GATED 2-11-94. + ! TryE kREA 4NErWlNG liMD IMME67AlElY Aa.IaCEYT 7P 1HE f%I517NG 8UN177NG WRS NOT RNALYZCD. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ NHY-Ub-°1tJ:3d 14; rKUS'l mu [ raG_ ~,ua i r-~ I uur« ~ - ~ a , . . . . . . ~ e • , - : `~~a r~ • . ';+-5 s~~ , • , , . ; , 1tya . rr•.r ~ . . . • ,:~,yd. ' ' ~ . ' ' ~ ' ~?~~`µ.k ~f < . . ; . . . • • . ~ . ' . ~ ~ , . ~,,i . ' ~ • •i~Y4~~ , . ' , ~ : , - DATE1., ' may 5, 1998 . ._ry,bs s rd . ~ Mra Domixaic"MatiriellO Tcawn of Vaa.S. TO.~;~~.:~~ ~ • A , gi~~- LT , udy' ~ ' ' •'h`" ; :~_-.~;~~~,q -p~~Giorg 1,C7: Costa ~ , • . ~i~'.;.~@..u. I . ~ . ` , , • ' . ~ f J ' ;I:f Y' ~~E~~ k~t~ REw ~f 10:12 d. .'at 1410 BLl 1 . . ~ . ' . . ,,•.l:~Zl"' R!L b~'`~{d ~ ~ear. Mr:. ~ i arfi the ~at~r~~~. ~,es~za~i~~~e 1.:~c~.t6c~ at 1 460 R~,c~ge L~.ner ~xrza.t 5~'. ~ • : + It came, to r~~y Attez7tiearz that~ :Leroy Schxraiclt has Preseftted a '~equest tt~ ~~~divide the. a'bt~~e referenc.ed Zot ~~~~~e a new lot. ~my us ~~d t,~ ~~.i~ ~°sc~tz~~.~ ~ca~°~~r~~~46 ~ p3,ease ~ac~te ~~h~.t . I a~a com~al~tely a~p~ao ~ re'as~+ns; th~.~;' .wil~. I~e g1.a~. -t~a dbta~.L a.f yc~u reta~,xt r~ecessary~e ~ T~aer6fc~re- _ I re ...eist 'that the town raf Vail deny the requested ~ubdivi t Gl Li.a~a~8 s R~:r~e; s~z~ad~.~risi~az~ ~"~.1izag 2. ' i °~ic~~ c~~ ~ea 9~ ~ ~ ~ . . ~ • ~ : :-t.,: ~ard j ` ~ ~ ~ r - . ~ . . . ~ . : ~ . • ' ~ ' "f ~~'f 7~ i ! . . . ~ ~ ~i . . • '~R~~~~,y~ ~ . . • ; . • , . : . , . . . . . . - ~ • • . , . '.;x.;a„~*s~,~, . . : • - - ~s^~~ . ' " • , . . . . . . . . . ,"r~~~~.~; . • . ' ' ~ ~ . • ~ . : ` . . , ~ ~ `::a~; ~ . ~ , . . ~i'<~~`; . , ~ . . , . • X;.~~~i~ TOTAL P.01 i"iF-!Y"'~7(--:1`JJt~ .4eJ • ~7d um I tlu c.Wiv.au[.. I .cwr I -rar\L-~ ~ .7OHN Fd . HARTW IG 8611Crestwocad Fd i 4 1450 IJ Ridge Larte Minneapo1is, ri1N 55477 Vai1, Ccae 81657 Subject: Schmidt subdivasican of Lcat G-1, L.a.or~~ Ridqe, fi1ing 4+2 Tca: Dominic Maur-ieiio Iha,re beert adrrased of the, upcoming Ftear°ing r~gardang the r-eq~eE5,t ca# i~~~. Leroy Schmacft fcar a subdiva.sa.on of lot G-1, L.s.cans F2idge fi J, a,ng #2yand I have reviewed the memoranda ca~ the Cocnmunity I1eue1opmerst Dept_ in s^efier°ence to previotas r~equests for r°~zoc°isng thtis site. S strongly oppose the approvai of the subdiva5aon ~ of tttis 1ot as requesteci. Zt is my opirliorh tt`t~~ ~he applicant"s pr°optasal would result in a ver°y significarst negafiive i.mpact on the szte owing to thrz? exterision of the e3r-aveway across the entir°e property and making an extensive retair,a.rrg wa21 necessarym This would clearly not be cons-zstant s,*aith -thp Subc9ava--ian (~ur;aose Statement, par-agraph 3: „To pr~catect anci ccsnsier-ve the vaZue of the land thrOLighout tIlP municipality and the value of the btaalda.ngs and a.mprervements on thLt, 1and". I-t is my capznion lurther that the steepness of ti,e site causes the deuezcapment propc,sal to r~sul.t in a substar7ta.a1 distur-bance and degradation of the sa.te and a very negatave i.m~ac.r on the nea.ghborhooc3 ~s wel l M It sc-?ems to rne t1°ta'L Loning ordinance~ and r-egulataons were e5fiabIished for very gaod r'eG°:son , anci that they shcauld tae re*pec "ed arod uuphe3cS unless ther~~ are scarne dire czrcumstanc.'e~ to he contrary„ ~ R y ~o c) hri R. Hartwig l'OTRL P.02 WESTERN ORTHOPAEDIC & SPURTS MEDICYNE CONSULTANTS, P.A„ ~ Pr2C1iC9 Limited to Orthapsedic Sutgery Robett E. HBater, M.D. May 7, 1398 Ricfgeview MedPcal Platx? 490 Sauth Maple 5ireet Suit9 203 • Wacania, MN 55387 (612)aa2-6525 Planning and Environmeritall Comsraission faX t612y442-6526 Vail, Coiorado Dear Sirs: I am writing you regarding Cornmunity Developraent Staff Memorandum dated May 11, 1998 regarding a request far minar subdivision of Lot fi'r-l. St appears to me that this is not sp much a request for a minor subdivzsian as it is for a variartce to cha.nge a FrimaryJ Secondary 1ot previausly zoned into two single- family lnts. in your description of t:he request and laackgrotxnds it is noted that apprcaval has previnusly been given for constnxction t,n the site of a secondary unit, which would be physically adjacent ta the primary unit. It's noted that the request to cha.nge this into two sirree- farnily lots wnuld have a significant deleterious effect on tkie ~ neighborhodd by chaxr~ging the lncation and elevation of the secondary house. This vtraulcl result in a tflrtuous driveway cutting acrQSS the entire property with reta7ining walls and place the structure at a different site elevation. In Gantrast ta poinfi 3, this does n,ot protect and conse-rre the value of the land thzoughout the municipality and the value of buildings axti the improvements on the 1and adjacent. This would have a very negative effect on the co=nmunity and ncighbarhood. For this reason, and for the reasons that the staff has autlined in section 5, that the proposal is inconsistent with the development abjectives of the town of Vail and that the proposal will catxse substantaal site disturb$nce and degradatian which cauld be alletriated by attaching the dweUing units on site with the existing building authorization. It's for the above reasans that I am fmmly apposed to any subdivision of Lot 0-1 i,rreto twv buildable parcels. The owner of the property nf Lot G-1 had a Pri,znaryJSecondaxy designation when he built his primary home and should sfiick with that pragram. To reiocate an additional structure at a different elevation remdte from ~ ~`rr-i r -et r -y ~~u , " „ , , , ~ - May 7, 1998 ~ Page 2 his primary structure is totally undesirable for the reasons that the Camrnunity Develtipment Staff has autlined. There does not appear to have be+en any hardship demonstrated or other reasan that this variance should be granted. Thank you for yowr consideration af my lettex. Sincerely, ~ Robert E. Heeter, M.D. REH f mju ~ TO7AL P.03 M~,f' "ti 7 ~ , aa." n.u.Pr ~,~:,i,'~ a.~n"w irtJY' mE, ntal Co'a' s.}, ssio'ai ~+'J'al,+ y y.2 ''Si's,o " E c A»A ~y .e.! ,1_ a S . a x 7 1 ..M, UL q+..n,%.~F 2 [ `y L l., i- w:~m 4~s. w~^, = 4<,R~s-L.~aro.=d .d , .r b.a A ?»R_.#.L.~.,i.~` m.,a...,,„.~..~, a.x..e4. bY },rk. $ ~ : J~.-.4t ;0 ,..aA.~i.'°°~ ~x..1,5,~„. ~ ~ ~ ~ 5n_~~.n.~ ~M~.b.. . u a ~ G, L.k. ¢ o'4"iL,e, A. 4 $ g0.. '}li. ry.id.C._~ 'Y'L ~y ~ ~ Mrg M4Y ..a., ta ~r ~+~s;,,~r.s. 1 u.' in r'w_ eemen4. ith t;- e Co7.a: rt-~tv ~ u_ r~e~,:~.~a'1.JbS;~?,t ~~ev ~ _ w~. Oat t pr..' o.>~~:".d nor~..~ubdiV` i.., ;,°n E. LtA A .ls.7 ted ,,4-t : ; ' Baffe r Cs x ek. k woa i:. ! e c.,.. se ,r,_ oui,' neg.,, 3.a ivk.`" _L, my a4'> t Gd i2,. v~ a.~n~: v "e siis".;'. ~.s~ i'~. a b'.~~~i.~€.a .a,.ni p . Y.,, . v~ 4Bt s~a „"4 i~, ea .s. e E ~ ~_z.:~ ~~',''».S. t~Y i ~ ~ _ . .1 m. ve way a.€:'.~ . c'~~.., erieaa of ret..:2 i. s.`~? ing :.x.§. w~ s sv;'t. ving tt'.1 D e e%-.a t'' i s a.. ecaus:,ca , .a., t"e stz epn.., sg;> of the ;a roperty would be ...n- ::F u».. ,.t r. ..wnoa a-w. di. stu.,..,.j: nL,> e ani. d , .P..~s, d,:, at,E. on o.a, ~;a,r ht« s.,a. tea .~k,. ~ t. w w a~"~, ~:";Y ~„k., .i..a.!ia M~t~",~ .~.L,~i..At. t~. # . , ,s:; .aC,ecA"a;_ P . ~ sar.' ene Kearniey 14wr0 R:Lia,.w' .?tane #3 Vai.R,, 00 0 81657 ~ ~ interoff ice M E M O R A N D U M to: Dominic Mauriella fram: Christie Bartan sub1ect: Lionshead Master Plan date: Apri129, 1398 I received a phone call from Linda Sage this morning concerning the Lionshead Master Plan. She is a journalist and has followed the process very closely. She and her husband alsa attended the meeting held in New York City. The following are her comments: They are part-time residents but hape to be fuli-time residents at some point in the future. They are very concerned about the latest recommendation an building heights for Lionshead. They are concerned also about affordable housing and feel it shauldn't all be located in Lianshead but spread out araund the community and kept within a half hour drive from Vail. ~ They are concerned about the density propcased since they don't want Lionshead to laok like Beaver Creek (congested). The Landrnark is 83' and something that would be 105" or 117' is frightening. The height of buildings is too much and they don't want it to be like New York City. Vail is a little piece of heaven and tlley want to keep it liveable. They like Lionshead because it is quieter. They understand that new construction will happen and they will leam to live with deliveries, etc. But they also think that this process is revalving araund a new hotel that VA wants to construct and they don't want it to ruin the comrnunity. fax (914) 273-5689 ~ - - - - - , Charles H. Norris P.U. Box 2298 ` tl 486 Forest Road ate iecelv0d ~ Va11, Ct710C`ad0 81657 MAY 0 6 1998 5' May 1998 Vail Tawn Council Town of Vail Vail, Colorado 81657 . Re: Lionshead Master Plan Revision I)ear Council Members: I am a voting resident of Vail, with a home an Forest Raad. As such, T have a strong interest in the decisions taken by the Town af Vail. Moreaver, I have a good deal of confidence the Town resolves an overwhelming rnajority of issues in an . apprapriate manner. While home over recent months, I have watched with interest the process which ~ agpears to be evolving regarding the revision of the Master Plan for the Lionshead area, I have no doubt the village area needs to be re-thaught in an effort to accornmodate certain commercial and environmental changes with which we are canfronted, and want to be clear I have few preconceptions as to the process as it relates to Lionshead village. "The cancomitant effart to alter the Plan in respect of the permissible use af adjoining residential and open space appears well out of bounds. I have not the slightest doubt Vail Resarts would like ta see as much open space as possible available for real estate development: that is their objective and I understand their motivation. Far the Town of Vail to respond to this wish would be qaite another matter. To suggest, for instance, the Lionshead tennis eourts and their enviroris shouid be developed is so abviously inappropriate it would seem not ta require discussion. Arguments that this area is "too valuable" not ta be developed truly verge on the unbelievable. The interests of real estate development arganisatians and planning firms are seldom coincident with the interests of tax paying, voting residents. If Vail, Colarado does not value natural and flpen space in it's core area, what tawn would do so? If a planned community such as Vail is successful as a result of a combination of factors, most certainiy including its natural and open space, do we move to eliminate this open space when all have relied on the stability and integriry af communiry planning and process? ~ Telephone +1-617-236-7607 Facsimile +1-617-236-7611 ~ Let's not be riaive in this process. To a"design consultant", any space not ~ presently occupied represents a target of opportunity. We abave Lionshead have lived through some i11-advised efforts in recent years. Please recall the "professional" tennis team which eaptured the Lionshead tennis courts afew summers aga-an effort the only impact of which, before it collapsed of it's own weight, was to bring bright lights on surnmer nights and very loud amplified music. Beyond that, we have recently had to convince the Town (I hope) to put its foot on the nation af night skiing and sledding in Lionshead-more lights, more noise, all to little potential benefit. Obviously, the people who p:ropase these ideas profit from triem, but neither have to iive with the results nor have their property values impacted adversely. We are a11 aware there are limitations to the growth af leisure sports such as skiing. When these comparues turn ta real estate development to derive their growth, what is the sequence of events7 What would be next after we put the condominiums Qn the tennis courts-the golf course? And there wduld be a next request, as the Town of Vail would be feeding a voracious beast, indeed. . I, and athers on Forest Road, am watching this process with interest. We cannot be present at all the relevant rneet%ngs, not to mentian other instances, where these matters are addressed, and must rely on the integrity of Town process to protect aur interests. Equalty, we are aware the forces prtimoting change for profit reasans are ~ working full time. Da not mistake our tolexance of this process as indifference to the cQnclusion. Sincereiy, ~ ~ , ~ PLRNNING ANa ENVIRC7NMENTAL COMMISSIt7N ~ May 11, 1998 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Maffet Russ Forrest Galen Aasland Christie Barton Diane Gaiden (left at 4;10p.m.) Dominic Mauriello John Schafield Judy Rodriguez Ann Bishop Tom Weber Brian Doyon Public Neaa~inc~ 2.00 p,ma The meeting was cafled ta order by Greg Maffiet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request fnr a conditionaf use permit, to aIlow far a Type II Employee Housing Unit, lacated af 45 Forest Road/Lot 33, Biock 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: BMS Partnership ~ Planner. Christie Barton ~ Christie Bartorr gave an overview of the staff inemo. Greg Moffe# asked if the applicant had anything to add. He did not. Greg asked if there was any public comments. There were no comments from the public. Galen Aasland said he had na problem with the request, as it met the inten# of the ardinance. Ann Bishop confirmed that this was going to be used for ernployee housing. Jay Pe#ersan said, yes and that one of the garage spaces would be deed restricted. He said the unit wouVd be sold and he would tell the real estate agent that this was an employee hausing unit with no eonnection allowed inta the house. Diane Goiden asked about the garage being underground and the foss af trees. Jay Peterson explained the garage spaces and it had a DRB tree saving plan. Tom Weber had no comments. Brian Doyon asked if the PEC had the abiiity to check on #his unit after it was sold to insure there was na access way into the hause. ~ Planning and finvironmental Cpmmission ~ Minutes ~ May 11, 1998 Jay Pe#erson said there would be a forrri €or the owner to fill aut regarding the ren#er. He said the ~ enforeement should be dane in the ordinanee, as the Town af Vail had no right to come back into ~ fhe unif once it was sold. John Schnfield said in the past, doors appeared between the units, Jay Peterson said the ordinance language was changed from "may" #o "shail" rent. Greg Moffet said this was a conditional use permit and we cou(d impose condifians on it. John Schofield said to encourage Council to put more teeth into the ordinance. Creg Maffet said it was within the PEC's purview to put conditions on this request, John Schofield made motion for approval, in accordance with the staff inemo, with the additionaf provision that if Council did not provide for enforcemen#, the PEC would review this condi#ional use in twa years to ensure compliance. Brian Doyon seconded the motion. Greg Moffet said this was a gun aimed at the new buyer. He said the ecanomics of not using tnis as an employee housing unit was adverse, since the conditional use permit would be revoked and the space remaved. Jay Peterson said this condition should be done separate from any appficatian, as it wouldn't ~ wark welf with sameone having fhe right to take it back, Greg Moffet said the ordinance did not provide for enforcemenf. ~ Jay Peterson said this should go through the process, before putting this on someone. - Greg Maffet cQnducted a straw vote which was 4-3 in favar of the mo#ion. Diane Golden said it had to be in a broader scope. Gafen Aasfand said the matian was encumbering the applicant. John 5chofield asked Dominic if the conditionai use permit could be called up. Dominic MauriellQ said, yes, if the applicant was nat in compliance with the conditional use permit, Greg Ma#fet said there was a difference in fhis app(ication fram the Quayie request, as a variance was fundamentally different and he advised the PEC that if the PEC went down this road, the PEC should be cansistent. Domin9c Mauriello said the Town was praposing to make a Type II unit a permitted use by early June. Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Mtt}UtCS ~ May 11, 1998 2 * ~ Gre9 Moffet stated #hat imPossible #itie conditions would discaurage EHL!'s, but conditions on a ~ condi#ional use permit need to apply to the criteria on the request. He said that legally, if contes#ed, and nat being in the ordinance, this condition would not be appropriate. He said ifi there was a viala#ion of a conditional use, yau can lose the conditionat use. John Schofield said he would amend the motion to call up the conditional use, ifi a violation occurred in #wo years. The motion fai(ed by a vote of 3-4. John Schofield made a motion in accordance with the staff inemo with #he additional condition that the PEC can cali-up the conditional use if necessary. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 5-2. 2. A request for a setback variance, ta altow for a deck expansion, iacated at 83 WiICow Place, River House CondominiumslL.at 3, Block 6, Vai! Village 1st Filing. Applicant: MFI Investments, represented by Larry Deckard Pfanner. Dominic Mauriella ~ Jahn Schafiield disclosed for the record that he did business with the applicant, but that he felt ~ there was na conflict, Dominic Mauriella gave an overview af the staff inemo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. He did not. He then asked for any public comments. There were no public comments. Tom Weber asked if the decks were extending out any farthet when they were faced with stone, as one of the cnrners was very close to the lot iine. Dominlc Mauriello said, no. Brian Dayon asked about the stone. . L.arry Deckard explained that the deck pedestal could be shifted ta the east, bringing it in 8"-1011 John Schofieid had no comment. Galen Aasland said #his appfica#ion has met the fi'rndings, with the moving of the deck support. Ann Bishop agreed with Gaien's comments. Diane Golden said this was an improvement. ~ Planning and Environmentat Commission ~ Minutes 3 May 11, 1998 Greg Moffiet agreed with Galen's comment that #his was not incansistent with other properties in ~ same zane district. ~ Galen Aasland made a motion in accordance with the staffi memo, with the suggestion that if the deck post extended over the property line, no building permit wauld be issued un#ii the overage was addressed, Diane Golden seconded the mation. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 3. A request for a frant setback variance, #o allow for a propased residential addition, located at 706 Forest Road/Lot 9, Block 1, Vail Village 6th. Applicant: Nancy Adam, represented by Fritzlen, Pierce, Briner Architects Planner: Chrisfie Barton Tnm Weber disclosed for the record that he had a canfiict and would recuse himse(f. Christie Barton gave an averview of the staff inemo. Greg Moffet asked if #he applicant had any commen#s. The applicant had no comments. He then askad for any public comments. Jim Ware, an at#orney representing the owners of Lofi 8(Austria), said there was a problem with ~ the trees coming down that farm a screen between the twa properties. He said, as shown on the plans, the deck ex#ended into the setback and the deck was taking out #he trees. He said #here ~ needs to be increased screening around the deck. Chris#ie Barton said the applicant had submitted revised plans with no side setback variance required. Bruce Chapman, an attorney representing the owners of the ather half of the unit (Herman), passed ou# a letter to the PEC. Mark Danaldson, representing the Herman's, sta#ed the primary side was overbearing, as you drove up the street. Greg Moffet said that item #10 in the lefter was not in the purview nf the PEC. Bruce Chapman said that Tom Moorhead agreed with party wall agreements except for a new building. Greg Moffet said that was news to the PEC. Dominic Mauriello said the Tawn does not get involved wifh party wall agreements. Bruce Chapman said that was the policy in the past. P(anning and Environmental Commissioit ~ Mitillt£3 ~ 4 May 11, 1998 ~ Dominic MaurieHo said Town does not gef in the middle of this. ~ John Schofield said we can'# enforce this. Ann Bishnp recused herself, since she practiced law with Bruce Ghapman. Bruce Chapman said Tom Moorhead interpreted this just last week. Tom Moorhead stated the Town'$ positian that there was no interference fram the Town of Vail on a party wa#i agreement. Bruce Chapman said the Herman's built towards the back and tha# the granting of this variance would be a grant o# special privilege. He sald it was materia(fy injurious #o the ;Hermah's drainage and would further add massing and bulking on the property. Galen Aasland said the bulk above tne bui(ding was somewhat campeNing> He saidthat by deveioping on the south side of the house did away with argumen# of develnping other areas of the house. He said development should not happen in the front, if it can be done elsewhere. He said disturbance should be minimized. Qiane Goiden said if any trees were taken dawn, they had #a be replaced. She said she was concemed with the new rnof shedding snow into the Nerman property. dale 5mith, of Fritzlen, Pierce, Briner, said the new dormer would no# eunoff into the Herman's . property, as the tatal dprmer is 10' . ~ Brian Doyon asked if the steep slope setback was still 10'. D4minic Mauriello said there was no difference in the setback just because it was a steep slope. John Schofield asked about the dormers. Mark Danaldsan said the dormers dump water onto parcel B. Greg Moffet agreed with Galen, that this request was very close. He said if the basis for granting this variance was to prevent site disturbance an the steep slope, the argumenf disappeared if the applicant was ripping out a steep slope on the side of the house. He said the applicant was adding muiti-story GRFA in the front setback. Greg stated that a garage was ok in fhe front setback, but he had a hard time with a situation that was seeking a variance because it worked better for them, that #his was not a special privilege. He said srrow shadding inta the neighbor was materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. He suggested tabling this. Dale Smith stated the Adams were willing to replace the screening with 1 caniferous tree and 6-8 aspens and he stated the screening was insignificant. He stated the implied massing was already in existence. He said the dormer would be slightly visible and if it impacted the adjacent owners, he would be willing to wark v+vith Mark an that dormer. He said to build only on the south side would do damage to the site, which waufti impact the neighbors. Galen Aasland questianed adding mass and bulk in the front, ra#her then on the south side. ~ Planning and Environmental Coinmission ~ Minutes May 11, 1998 5 . ~ ~ Dale Smith said it was a monetary hardship an the client wha was being environmentally ~ sensitive regarding the disturbance on the origina{ slope. He said the deck on the south side wiN allow the slope to meet the house. Bruce Chapman showed pictures and said the applicant could build in the back without disturbing the slape at a11. Jim Ware said he was against any construction on the south side. Brian Doyon said as viewed from across the river, there was a big change in the massing. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant would #ake the dormer out of the fron# setback. Dale Smith said we would sti11 pursue the dormer in the setback. Brian Qoyon made a motion far denial. The motion #ailed for lack of a second. John Schofield made a motion to table this until the 1st meeting in June, at the request af the applicant. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vate of 5-0. ~ 4. A request for front and side setback variances, to ailow a propcssed residential addi#ion, ~ located at 2625 Larkspur LanelLo# 1, Block 2, Vai1 Intermountain. Applicant: Shawn Weyrauch Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of the staff inemo. Greg Ma#fet asked if the applican# had anything ta add. Shawn Weyrauch said there, were other poten#ial areas to expand, but were not #he most lagical, as the proximity to the condominiums wauld be toa clase being 35' from deck to deck, which was not as secluded as the addition in the back of the home. He argued that there were floor plan issues, since an expansion to the north would put bedrooms on opposite ends af the home, which was ciifficult in the design. Greg Maffet asked for any public comments. Tom Weber asked about the encraachment, Dominic Mauriella said it wauld be 3'. Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Minutes ~ ~ May 11, 1998 ~ Shawn Weyrauch said there woufd never have been an encroachment had there not been an ! abandonment of the road when the new eul-de-sae was made. Tom Weber said he was not cnnvinced that adding onto the other side was detrimentai, as the fabric of the way the area was developed was dense and #hat a couple of jags in #he building would sa(ve the problem. Brian Doyon said there was a lat af usable area ta the northeast. J4hri Schofield said althaugh the aftecnatives were not ideal, they do nat create a hardship. Galen Aasland said the applicant was trying to improve the lot, which was nat ideal far this flaor plan. He said the PEC can't lnok at the manetary consideration for the applicant and that this was not a hardship. Shawn Weyrauch said the expense was the same for both and he asked if this was rtat in the south or east setbacks, wauld this pass. Tom Weber advised the applicant tts table this and come back with a request for 1 variance, rather than 2 variances. Dominic Mauriello said the Bnard had looked at garages in the front setback favorably. Gafen Aasland said there needs to be a compeiiing reasan. ~ Diane Golden had no comments. ~ Greg Moffe# said since there were plentiful a{ternatives nn this site, this woufd be a special privilege. Brian Doyon made a motian for denial. Tom Weber seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote af 7-0. 5. A request for a minor subdivision of l.pt G-1 to create a new lot, located at 1410 Buffehr Creek Road, Lat G-1,Lion's Ridge Subdivision Fifing 2. Applican#: Leroy Schmidt, represented by Eric Johnson Planner: Daminic Maurielio Greg Maffet summarized the discu$sian procedure. He said there would be 10 minutes for app{'scant input, 10 minutes for staff irtput and 5 minutes far public input. Dominic IVlauriello gave an averview of #he staff inemv. Eric Johnson explained the plans to the PEC and said the largest concern has been fram adjacen# neighbors abave the property. ~ Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Minutes May 11, 1998 ~ Larry Eskwith, an attorney representing the owners of the F2idge at Vail Townhomes in the back ~ and to the west, said they were concerned that the s#eepness of lot made it impossible to do a ~ second hame, that it wauld scar the land and the height would interfere with their views of the Gore Range, He said if this was granted, it would open the daar for substandard Iots doing the same and would set a dangerous precedent for the Town of Vail. Tom Hughes, President af the Lionsridge Subdivision, but speaking on his own behal#, said he just wanteci to go on record as being opposed. Rick Rosen, counsel to the applicant, said the code pr9vided the property owners to go forward with this and the applicant was not asking for a variance. Rick said the applicant mef every guideNne in the code for a minor subdivision and the scar in the property was the oniy issue, but with proper hydroseeding, we would do away with that issus. He said there was no canflict with adjacent properties, only wifh the Ridge at Vail Tawnhornes 6locking their view, but since this was not a view corridor, it was nc?t pratected by the Town of Vail. He advised the PEC to Iaak at the guidelines that the applicant has met and that the site disfurbance was a DRB issue. Galen Aasland stated the site disturbance was enormous and it did not fit weil on the site. He said it had too big af an impact against the Tawn interests. Ann Bishop said it was better to have single family homes rather than duplexes, but the site disturbance was taa rnuch. She said that Rick had good arguments regarding the zoning. She said this wauld cause a major dis#urbance. C7iane Golden agreed with the comments frorn the ather Commissioner's. ~ Tom Vtileber said there wauld be more site disturbance with the separation. ~ Bria.n poydn said from his point o# view as a landscape architect, tha# 25' ofi retainingwal! wau4tl be impossible to cover with ground cover, as graund cover didn't grow that tall. He said he was concerned thaf the applicant was disturbing more than 40% of the lawer Int. Diane Go(den (eft at 4:10 p.m. Jahn Schofield asked about the distance be#ween the parking spaces. He said from a user standpoint, the parking wouldn't work. He said the retaining wall was samewhat massive, Greg Moffet stated that the bottom line was an a#tempt to separate which faiied at the DRB and Councii level and that thts was forum shopping. He said if the PEC granted this subdivision, he doesn't see how we couldn't grant a subdivision for every lot over 30,000 sq. ft. Greg said this failed to meet Criteria #4 and was in canflict with Criteria #5 and #7. He, by his interpretation of the statute, Rick was stuck with the zoning and he wauld not uate to separate and the applicant mus# go to the 1JRB. Rick Rosen said the applicant would gn before the DRB for a warksession to see how they felt abou# this. Ann Bishop made a motion to table this until June 22, 1998. Planning and Environmenta( Camrnissian ~ Minu#ee g ~ May 11,1998 ~ ~ John Schofield seconded the motion. ~ The motion passed by a vnte of 5-1, with Galen Aasland opposed. 6. A request far a minor CC1 exterior al#eration, to aNow far a change to previously approved plans, loca#ed at 286 Bridge Street, A& D BuildinglLots A& B and Part af C, Block S-A, Vail Viilage 1 st Filing. Applicant: Lee Hollis, Golden Bear Store Planner. George Ruther TABLEC? UNTIL MAY 18, 1998 Ann Bishap made a motion to table ifiem #6 until May 18, 1998. John Schafield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 7. A requss# for a site coverage variance, setback variance and additiona( GRFA utilizing the 250 ordinance, to allow for a residential additian, lacated at 1230 Westhaven Circle/Lat 32, Glen Lyon. Applicant: Marilyn Quayle, represented by Eric Hill ~ Planner: George Ruther ~ WITHDRAW(V 8. Information Update • Procedures George Ruther expiained having a posted set af time limit procedures. Greg Mof€et said iC worked vvell today with announcing a10 minu#e maximurn for app(icant input and a 5 minute maximum for each of the public comments. Russ Forrest asked the PEC if they wanted the Town to pay for prafessianal development ar speakers for educating the PEC. Fle said he needed this information for the upcoming budget meetings. Greg Moffet said meetings could be started earlier with Tom Moorhead filling in the blanks. He said he was adverse to some of the courses, as they were brutally expensive and that staff could advise. Tam Weber said he could learn more by visi#ing places. Galen Aasland would like Tom to come into meetings, but that he would suppart money for conferences. ~ Planning and Environmental Commissian ~ Minutes May 11, 1998 9 ~ Greg Moffet said there might be some oppoctunities at CU Bau(der Real Estate Courses. ~ ~ 9. Appraval of April 27, 199$ minutes. Ga1en Aasland had a change to the minutes, John Schofieid made a motion for appraval as amended, but sabject to changes from Diane Golden. Brian Doyon seconded the mation. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Jahn Schofield made a motion ta adjourn. Ann Bishop seconded the mation. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m. ~ Planning and Envirvnrnental Cornmissian ~ Minutes 10 ~ May 11, 1998