Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-0724 PEC
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YC7UR PROPERTY PUBr_IG NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance ~~vith Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Gode of the i cwn of Vail on July 2~, 2Q0~, at 2:00 P,M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a conditional use permit, to add a Type II Employee Housing Unit to an existing primary unit, located at 375 Forest Road/Lot 3, Slock 2, Vai! Village 3`d Filing. Applicant: Greg Vickers, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Planner: Allison Ochs An appeal of a staff decisic,r, regarding the completeness of an application submitted to the Department of Gornmurxity Deve~opn7ent, for property located at 1{701 Eagles Nest CircielLot 1, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: P:aye F;:.°,~y, represented by RKD. Inc. planner: Erent 1,'Vil~en The applica#ions and irr`an~nation about 'tree 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 South Frontage road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and site visits which precede t~v pu~:~. '~±~arir.c :i, the "r~:nrn of Vail Community Development Department. Please Call 479-213 for inforrr,atcr~._ Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for tf-;:~;e~r:ng I:rtpai'ed; sor information. Community Development Departrr~ent Published July %. ?OOr~ _.~ 'I{e'y~ail Trail. • ,. T~'1~'~"V O>~ 1~AIL 1 • PLANNING ANa ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING SCHE£}ULE Monday, July 24, 2000 PRO,]ECT ORIENTATION / -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC. WELCOME 12:00 pm s Discussion with Town Council • GR Training Session -Non-Conforming Uses (Lots/Structures :30 min. MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits : 1:'15 pm 1. Larkspur Restaurant - 458 Vail Valley Drive Driver: Brent ~~. NOTE: If the PEC hearirsg extends until 6:00 p.m., the beard will brea€c for dinner from 6.00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. An appeal of a staff decision, regarding the comple#eness of an application submitted to the Department of Community Development; for property located at 10{}1 Eagles Nest Circle/Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village 7`" Filing.. Applicant: Kaye Ferry, represented by RKD, lnc. Planner: Brent Wilson 2. A request for a sign variance, from Section 11-48-1g {B){4~, to allow for a third business identification sign, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurant)ITract F, Vail Village 5`" Filing. Applicant: Larkspur Restaurant & Bar Planner: Brent Wiisan 3. A request far a variance from Section 12-6F-6 {Setbacks), to allow for a garage addition, facated at 4718 Meadow DrivelTract B, Bighorn Townhomes Subdivision. Applicant: Bill Bernardo, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Planner: Allison Ochs TABLED UNTIL AUGUST 14, 2000 4. A request for a conditional use permit, to add a Type II Employee Housing Unit to an existing primary unit, located at 375 Forest Road/Lot 3, Block 2, Vail Village 3`d Filing, Applicant: Greg Vickers, represen#ed by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN ~`.~~ ,. T(flt`N 0)4 V~#IL ~ Information Update / PEC Urdinance Update Si=LECTION OF PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT ^RB FOR 2aUU- Doug Gahiil - Jan-Apr. 5, '00 Chas Bernhardt - Apr 19, '00 Galen Aasland - May 3, '00 Brian Doyon - May 17, '00 No Rep - Jun 7, `00 Tom Weber - Jun 21, '00 John Schofield - Jul 5, '00 Chas Bernhardt - Jul 19, `00 - Aug 2, '00 - Aug 16, '00 - Sep 6; '00 - Sep 20, `00 Jahn Schofield - Oct-Dec '00 fi. Approval of July 10, 2000 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 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upcr~ request with 24 hour notification. Please cal! 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, far information. Ceminunity Development Department Published July 21; X000 in the Vail Trail • 2 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL- CQMM15SlQN MEETING RESULTS Monday,. July 24, 2000 PRQ.IECT ©RIENTATIQN ! -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm Discussion wi#h Town Council • GR Training Session -Non-Conforming Uses /LotslStructures :30 min. ME~ABERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt John Schofield Tom Weber Doug Cahill MEMBERS ABSENT Diane Golden Brian Doyon Site Visits : 1:15 pm 1. Larkspur Restaurant - 458 Vail Valley Drive Driver: Brent ~~ NvTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m.; the board wil! break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.rn. 1. An appeal of a staff decision, regarding the completeness of an application submitted to the Department of Community Development, for property located at 1 aq1 Eagles Nest CirclelLot 1, Block ~, Vail Village 7kh Filing. Applicant: Kaye Ferry, represented by RKD„ Inc. Planner: Brent Wiksan MaTIC3N: Jahn Schofield SECQND; Doug Cahill Vt~Tl~:3-0 (Tom and Galen recused} UPHELD STAFF DECISION BASED QN THE FINDINGS THAT; 1. The staff decision is consistent with the provisions of Section 12-11-4, Vaii Town Code {Material to be Submitted; Procedure) and Town of Vail Zoning Code Interpretation #33. The application rec}uirements have not been met in full by the applicantlappellant. 2. Staffi's decision was not an `"ex past facto" application of the code since the design review application was submitted 41 days after the fiormai zoning interpretation was drafted. 2, A request far a sign variance, from Section 11-4B-19 (B)(4), to allow far a third business identitication sign, located a# 458 Vail Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurant)1Tract F, Vail Village 5cn Filing. ~~'~- ~-~=~ , _~~ u T4~'N OF VAIL ~' l Applicant: Larkspur Restaurant & Bar Planner: Brent Wilson TABLBD UNTIL AUGUST 14, 2Ua0 3. A request for a variance from Section 12-6F-6 (Setbacks), to allow for a garage addition, located at 4718 Meadow QrivelTract B, Bighorn Townhomes Subdivision. Applicant;. Bill Bernardo, represented by Gwathrney Pratt Schul#z Planner: Allison Ochs WITHDRAWN 4. A request for a conditional use permit.. to add a Type ll Employee Housing Unit to an existing primary unit, located at 375 1sorest RoadlLot 3, Bloek 2, Vail Vil9age 3`u Filing. Applicant: Greg Vickers, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Planner: Allison Ochs WIT!-II~RAINN 5. 8nformation Update / PEC Ordinance Update SELECTION OF PEC REPRESENTATIVE AT ^RE3 F{~R 2Q01}- Doug Cahill - Jan-Apr. 5, '00 Chas Bernhardt - Apr 19, `00 Galen Aasland - May 3, '00 Brian Doyon - May 17, '00 No Rep - Jun 7, `00 Tom Weber - Jun 21, '00 John Schofield - Jul 5, '00 Chas Bernhardt - Jul 19, '00 Doug Cahill - Aug 2, '00 Tom Weber - Aug 16, '00 - Sep 6, '00 Galen Aasland - Sep 20, `OD John Schofield - Oct-Dec '00 6. Approval of July 10, 2400 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available far public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Communi#y Development Qepartment, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation auailabie upon request with 24 hour natificatson. Please call 479-2356, Telephone #or the Hearing Impaired, far information. Community Development Qepartment • C7 ti ~rEn~oRaNOUn~ TGr: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: July 24, 20Q0 SUBJECT: An appeal of a staff decision. regarding the requirement for a joint owner's signature on a development application submitted to the Department of Camrnunity Development, for property located at 1.001 Eagle's Nest Gircle/Lot 1, Black 6, Vail Village 71" Filing. Applicant: Kaye Ferry, represented by RKD, Inc. Planner: Brent Wilson BACKGROUND The Town has always required signatures from all affected parties whenever applications involving common property have been involved. This includes condominium or homeowners associations. Effective May 2, 200Q the Department of Gommunity Development made a forma6 determination that this policy must include jointly owned "G parcels" on duplex properties. We do not accept any applications involving jointly owned properly without authorization from ail owners, nor do we have the authority to take action on praper?y without the appropriate consent. This policy is a direct result of numerous dilemmas {Hughes-Tuchman, Walker-McKibben, Ferry- Repetti) where the town's authority to act upon applications without appropriate consent has been questioned. This policy will not affect duplexes where a common parcel has not been established. The Tawn has enforced this policy on a number ofi previous applications, including the McKibben-Walker design review application. Reasoning for the Requirement of Joint ©wners° Signatures -The primary reason behind. this requirement involves legal issues of due process and equal protection. Without this requirement in place, one owner (with a 50% interest in the property could potentially utilize all development potential forjointly awned property far their sole benefit without the knowledge ar consent of the oth r 50% owner. The Vail Tawn Code does not have any notice provisions for adjacent neighbors (with no ownership interest) on design review applications. However, stafif believes the joint owner signature requirement is necessary to meet the minimum due process and equal protection standards for notification of individuals with an ownership interest in an affected piece of property. This is the same reason why proof of consent has been. required from condominium and homeowner associations for decades. History has shown that without this requirement in place, Town staff and boards typically take on the role of arbitrator in private property disputes. This results in a great expenditure of time and resources to cover issues that are of little or no relevance to the general public ar town government. {~,, ,` ~, T~Wr~' Ok t'AfL ~~ !I. DESCRIPTION QF THE REQUEST Nistorv of the subiect aoolication - On June 27, 2000, the Department of Community Development rejected an application for design review approvak from the appellant since it proposed development on a jointly owned piece of property and the joint owner's signature did not appear on the application. Pursuant to Section 12-3-3{A}, Vail Town Code, the applicant has filed zn appeal. The appellant's statement of the nature of the appeal is attached. The appellant asserts the application was originally submitted on July 14, 199? and that the new application is a revision to the original submittal and, therefore, it should not be subject to a requirement fiormalized on May 2"d of this year. The following is a timeline of the des;gn review application process for the subject property: June 28. 1999 -the appellant submitted a design review application {and appropriate fees} fora "250 GRFA addition and Type it EHU." This application involved the construction of a caretaker unit and atwo-car garage. It was conceptually reviewed by the Design Review Board {DRB) on July 21, 1999. The application for the associated site coverage variance and conditional use permit for the Type ll EHU were denied by the PEC on July 26, 1999 and again by the Tawn Council on November 2, 1999. Therefore, the applicant could not proceed with the DRB application and it became void. Pursuant to Section 12-11-4{D}, Vaii Town Code, a design review application becomes void unless: 1) the DRB takes action on the submittal within 30 days of conceptual review; ar 2) the applicant requests a time extension from the DRB. The applicant never returned to the DRB with the previous submittal and no time extension was ever requested. Therefore, the previous design review application became void in 1999. June 12. 2000 -the appellant submitted a new design review application {and appropriate design review fees) for an "addition and remodel of existing duplex." This application involves the addition of GRFA to the existing unit and no longer includes a garage space or a caretaker unit. Updated plans {due to the PEC and Town Council denials of an associated site coverage variance) were received on June 26'h. June 27. 2000-the Department of Community Development notified the appellant that the new application was incomplete and would not be accepted due to the lack of signatures from the property owners as required. Ili. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Department of Community Cevelopment recommends that the Planning and Environmental Commission uphold the staff decision regarding the requirement for a joint owners' signature on an application submitted to the Department of Community Development, for property located at 1001 Eagle's Nest Circle/Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village 7`'~; subject to the following findings: The staff decision is consistent with the provisions of Section 12-11-4, Vail Town Code {Material to be Submitted; Procedure} and Town of Vail Zoning Code Interpretation #33 {attached}. The application requirements have not been met in full by the applicant/appellant. 2 2. Staff's decision was not an "ex post facto" application of the code since the design review application was submitted 41 days after the formal zoning interpretation was drafted. Ili. REVIEW#NG BQARD R[?LES -APPEAL Planning and Es~viranmental Commission: ACTION: The PEC shall make a motion to uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the staff decision, based on specific findings of fact. Town Council: ACTION: Actions cf DRB or PEC maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. The Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with its motion and can uphold; uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. IV. ITEMS FQR DISCUSSI(]NJEVALUATIQN ~. Was the application pending at the time of the zoning code interpretation (May 2, 2000) or was it submitted after the drafting of the interpretation? Staff response -Anew application was submitted on June 12, 200 and a new submittal fee was paid an that date. The "pending' status of the 1989 application did not became an issue until after the new application was rejected by the Department of community Development. The Town of Vail requires a new application when previous applications are denied, that is why the applicant's representative submitted a new application and fee on June 12"'. 2. Did town staff apply the subrr~ittal requirements in a consisten# manner with other applications and in accordance with the provisions of the Vail Town Code? Staff response-Ali DRB applications are subject to the requirements of Section 12-11-4, Vail Town Code {Material to be Submitted; PrQCedure) and the Town of Vail Zoning Code Interpretations and this is not the first application to be rejected due to a laclt of joint property owners' approval. Staff believes the treatment of this application in a manner inconsistent with Zoning Cade Interpretation #33 would be a grant of special privilege. 3. Was the design review applica#ion incomplete when submitted? Staff response --Section 12-11-~, Vaii Town Code details the specific requirements for application submittal and it incorporates the Town of Vail's Application for Design Review Approval by reference. One of the specific application requirements is the namelsignature of the property owner{s}, The application submitted contains a signature by Sally Brainerd (representative of Kaye Ferry) but na signature, reference or representation is given for the other affected property owner. Therefore, staff concludes the application is materially incomplete as submitted. a ~ . i1tt:~i~cJ~:a'? 4_"ill r~rc i'~' ,tiliil"C' Stat: as `t !`•'~ t~~`. ~/~ s, ~ , ~~ .APPLICATION FOR DESIG':V REVIEW APP VAI. T'pW~QF Y~IL~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~- ~~" -cam 1 ~' ~ ~ ,~~ ~ '`' GF'~"ERAL IN1°ORMATiGN -I-[riff aE~l~licatiun is far any project rc~iuiring Dcsi~n [tcvic~v approti~a[. r~.ny project requiring cicsig~ra rcvactiv must receive Design Revicrv approval prZUr to submitting far a E~uilding pcrrnit. Far specific infurraiation, see tlic subrYUttal rcquircrncrrts for tltic particular approval tltiat is requested. T !~c application ~:annat be accepted anti! alI t13c required irsior-rtratior~ is suhnZittcd. Tlrc l~ra'6cct nay also need to be ccvic~vcd by the Ta~vn Council anrf'or tl~c Planning and E:rrvirUaaa3tcnt<al C`c7rr~t~yission. Dcsi~n Rcvic~v F3r>ard approva! e~cpires rune rear after f-nal approval unless a hati[disr~ pz.~ranit is issued .znd constrtrctioa~ is started. fl. [7E:~ C'RIPTIUN OF TfIE REt~(JES"C: Zia ~ ~b'~ `~ ~~~'~ ~ ~ L3. L.OC`A-i'!ON OF I'ROf tJSAL: I..O"I': C l3LOCEC: ~ ~1v F ILIiv~G: ~1:~''` V'~ PHYSRCAL ADDRE55: ~ C7p'~ '~ ~'j.~~oc (`~c~-f-- r.~_. -- C. PARCEL €i: ~ (Contact Eagle Ca. flsscssors Qtacc at 97(1-328-8640 for parcel ;i) D. ZONING: ~v'I>~ 7l ~~.f,o-, _ ~..~`t E. NA'vII~ OE~ O1~VT=~E2(S): ~ ~~'~ ~1-~t~, f ~~'d'~ [vIAILING AI)I.)IZESS: Z~"1~ ,---. ~2r'~ M ~-1 , ~~-C~ V ~Z ` ~ (. i',~ c `j '~ ~ PHONE: `~'~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ '~ F. Oti1':V)uR(S) SiGNA"k'1JfiE(S): G. NAME OF APP~I:,iCANT: ~~+lc ~' tv1f1,II..[NG AC3[~I~ESS: PHONE: 1I. TYPE OF REV[E:4V AND FEE: ^ iretiv Csnstruetioci - $200 Construction ofa neav building. ~Addirittrt - ~5(} [r~cludcs any addition ~vhcrc square footage is added to any residential or // ~~ cora~incrcial buildin~. ^ liinor Aitcratinrt - S20 hzclcsdcs minor chan~:cs to 1~trildings and site impravcn~enis, such as, reroofing, painting. ~virido~v additions, lal~dscapin,c. fences and rctainin~ +"va[ts, etc. DREG fees arc to be paid at tlzc tinSC of submittal. Later, ~v[reati applying for a building pent~it, please identify. tl~c accurate valuation of the project. Tg,c Tu~vn of Vail r~vill adjust tlae fcc according to the prujcot valuation. !'l~l~:,ASC SWI3d4tIT Ti~$[5 r1.PPl:~ICAT[ON, Af.L SUI~ISIT"l'AL REQliIREit'1ENTS AoYD Tf~E .FEE "FG1 THE 1)EP,hIt~'i497/yT Ol•' Cl~1iiVIf;NITY IDF,L'El,OP1°iEti~', 75 S'QL`T;il FIt~Nd°AGE ROAD,. VAIL., COL(?RADQ 41657. ~'' ' Qttesttaz~s'? Gall the I'Ianninc ~#al~t-at~79-~i~ 't ~.PPL~~,~!~TIU~i .~'~}EZ DES~CN R~ti'I~'W APPRflVA~~ GEi~IER~L II~EFORNIATIOIJ ' This applicatiotz is for any project requiri~i~; Llesigst Review approval. Any ;project s•eauirt~~tg disi~n revicvv musk receive E~e;;i~n Ijevie~.v apl~i~nv;ti prier to suU~t~ittit7g tear a k~uildin~ permit. Fars}~~;cific information, see the subrtzi~#aE reyuircnics~ts for the particular alrpre~vai kl~at is.rcquestecl. Tlie application canziot Iac accepted until ai! tl~e require;i infot~~atic~n is submitte:i, Tlie ;:~ ojctit ~ztay alst~ taeecl to 3~e. rcvic•,ucd by the Town Cct4.utcil ai~dr'or the I'lEuuti~rg at]s`, ~,nvirou~~tental Ccs~t~missiott. Design Review Board apprr~v3l ex{~ires one year after final approval unless a E7uildeng permit is issued and cisnstargiction is Star#ed. ' A, DE~GRII'T1C?N UF'j'I~C RE(~UES'1': r'-~ ~~{ G{ [`~ior~ Gt.+^+,4{ ~-~:!~ lY~(J6?'[' ~ ~z ~ .~=+G11~1'r~,d' E3, I.C7GA~'IU?'v (]F PRUI'USAL: LU".I': ~ r~ E3L.UGI~;~~ I~II..~N+G: ~'- ~. 7`~~~' - a I~Ifix`51C~I,L ADDRESS: f {.-` ~ r7 -~= a~~ ~ l 5 ~ 1 ~' S-~ ~ :l~r: ~t'.~ . C. ~ f~': PARCEL !#: (Cailtact >Ma~,lc Cu, Assessors Uflicc at ~7U-3~;3-~6~90 for p~trc;;l n) E. NAi'YlE UE UWi*IER(S}: ~~ ~`~'j'', I-ft V1 ~~. ~~r+.,rl t 11~IAIL1NCi ADnE~.ss: ~' ~ ~ s ~~ I ~! ,~1-~-h. lam' ~~ _ ~". €~'wv:vl;.R~s~ slrclvAl'uR~:~s}: ~ ~ ; ~; ~;~ ~,~ ~, ~ ,~' ~ `_ , - C). NAi'vIE Ul? APPL.ICAI'JT_ ~~' ~. ~~ti.~ F f ~~hC1 . ~ %biv"r / u- ~rtAiLll~iG ADDRESS: l EJ'Ul,~ LI~~YlSr~+6~ ~ h 7 i'Z4,1't~ ~i ~ I-I. 1`YI'E OF IZEVIIrW AND i<'E'E; C7 ,,'e~v.'~C~nstrttciiou - ~20{I Construction of a new buil~iinlr. . f~ Fiddition - ~5!! includes any ztclclitiosa where square I'c7otage ~S added to ary ~•esidez3tial Ur cominc~zciaf building. ^ Yliuor ~Llteration - ~2Q [nc3udcs attinor c:hatt~es tc~ buiidir~hs altd site 'smE~rovemenks, such as. rerpo#ii1f;, pai~tkitt~, ~vinclow additi~~ns, landscaping, featces aus) rctainin~, walls, ~:tc. I]Et13 fees are #o ice paid ~t# the tinse of srsh~rt.iltai, I.a(cr, wltcn applyiDig foz a l~uilclin~; pcr~~tit, please iden~ t'y kl~e accurate valt~ati+cn cif #ltc project.. 1-he 'f'awn of Va~I wilt adjust tEre fee acct~rdikt~ to tltL prrajcc.t valuatlatt. I'Lla<~SE SI1B~~iT Tk3IS ~1.;~'IaIaICA`l'IUN, ALL SUI3NII'I"I'LL REl~UIIZL+'.;1~IENTS AND TAIL f+I±.E `I`O 'i lllJ ~C)F'AR"I'I~iI;NT [)l+ C{»Ci~IUi~IT~` DIt.VLl.,OI';~~ILN'I', "5 SOLiTT1 I~R[)N'!"f~G11 ItUAI), '~`:1IL, CUL1"~RAI)() 81{57. • ,~; ~ LAw OFFICES D U N N, Ae PLANALP ~ MAU R I ~LLO, P,C. A PgOPE5510NA1 CORPORA71ON JOHN W. 4UNN WESTSTAR BANK BL#ILDING TEL€PHONE: AR T}SUR q. AB PLANALF, JR. ID8 SOUTH FRO NTA6E IZ CSAD WEST ~g7QS 476-0~©© O#ANE H, MgURlELLO INGq. HAgGENSON CAUSEY SUITE 300 FACSIMILE: (970) 4-76-4765 VAIL, COLQRApO 81657 eF ccugscL: higMcountryl~w.com JERRY w. HANNAH 20 July 2040 e-mail: vail#awc~vadl.net CERTIFIED LEGAL ASSISTANTS KRF2EN M. DUNN, CLA$, JANICE K. 5COFIEL[3, CLA Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail CO ll.e; Appeal of Kathleen Ferry Iviembers of the Commission: Our Firm has been engaged by Susan Rutherford, the owner of an undivided one-half interest in Tract C, Lot 1, Block b, Vail Village 7th Filing, the property which is the subject of the above appeal, to assist her in supporting the staff of the Vail Department of Community -evelopment in association with that appeal. The issue before the Planning and Environmental Commission is a narrow one. That question is: Whether the staff of the Department of Community Development was correct in determining that the application for design review of a proposed project was insufficient when the application was submitted only by Kathleen Ferry without the signature of the other ca-owner of the property upon which the project is to oCClAr. The Vail Municipal Cade requires that an application for design review approval be submitted by the "owner or authorized agent of a project." During a recent period of time, the Town staff considered applications submitted bar only one of a number of owners of a property which was the subject of an application. That policy was apparently adopted when the Town encountered complaints byowner-applicants who found it difficult or impractical to obtain consent of their co-owners, Since that change in policy, the. Town has been dealing with the objections of co-owners whose consent has not been obtained and who do not, in fact, approve of the proposed modifications to property which they jointly own. The Town also has been regularly placed in the position of being asked to interpret private covenants which may or may not permit applications to the Town initiated by only one owner of a jointly owned property. • • • C7 Apparently in a logical reaction to these recent experiences, and consistent with the Municipal Code, the staff has returned to its earlier applicatian of the Cade and now requires the consent of co-owners of a property which is the subject of an application. That change is both a necessary administrative policy and a reassurance to homeowners to which they are entitled under the Municipal Code. The staff should be supported in its current position. Beyond the merit of the current palicy, two issues specific to this appeal warrant limited discussion. First, Ms. Ferry apparently justi~zes her argument that the current palicy should not be applied to her by claiming that this most recent application is simply a reactian to the Town's comments on an application submitted in July, 1999. Since July, 1999, Ms. Ferry has filed several other applications with the Town relating to the same property, each having different proposed configurations for her proposal. Each of these proposals has been disapproved. There is no relationship between the current application and either the initial July,1999, project or the various proposals which 1VIs. Ferry subsequently tried to process in 1999 and in early ~a0fl. Those. earlier projects were each far more expansive than. that. which is the subject of the current applicatian, whatever the current application maybe. The current uncertainty regarding the exact nature of the plan before this Commission arises from the fact that Ms. Ferry's representatives have submitted multiple conflicting plans which they say are being submitted under the current application. Some do not involve a garage, but at least one plan incorporated a garage into the body of the proposed structure, a change which Ms. Ferry has argued far months cannot be incorporated into her project. Like her argument that na garage could possibly be incorporated into the current structure, her position that the current project is a variation on one ar more submittals in 1999 has na foundation. Her current argument, like those related to her efforts to obtain. variances, is simply intended to gain a special privilege to which she feels only she is entitled. Secondly, the plans which have been submitted to the Town are misleading with respect to the description of the land which is the subject of this applicatian and the ownership of that land. The plans identify Parcel A (the half of the residential structure which is owned solely by Ms. Rutherford) and Parcel B (the half of the residential structure which is owned solely by Ms. Ferry). The plans do not identify (and the applicatian does not refer ta) Farrel C, which is the entire lot except for those parts identified as Parcels A and B. Farrel C is owned in undivided half interests, one- half by Ms. Rutherford and one-half by Ms. Ferry. The current applicatian affects and assumes construction on the jointly owned Farrel C. • 2 The issue correctly identified by the Town staff is not a mater of interpreting documents. The issue is whether, when the Town Code requires an application by the owner of a project, one owner, acting alone and over the objection of the other owner, can process an application for the development or modification of that jointly owned property. if the Town is required to accept and review such applications, the Town's staff and the Town's boards are then required to engage in exercises in futility which, at best, will require reconsideration when, and if, a modification of the submitted plans can be agreed upon by all affected parties. The Town's staff and the Town's boards have better ways to spend their time than processing proposals which are not agreed upon even by the parties upon whose property improvements are to be constructed. People who deal with the Town of Vail wish to believe that everyone before the Town is treated equally. Reversing the Town staffs determination in this matter would grant a special privilege to NIs. Ferry no dif#~erent than those which she requested in variance requests which were repeatedly and appropriately denied by the Town. The Town staff should be supported in its determination that the application of Ms. Ferry was not complete or in conformity with the iWiunicipal Code, and N#s, Ferry's appeal should be denied, Very truly yours, _ DUI~YIV, ABP P & EbLO, P.C ~ ,~ f { Arthur A Abplanal Jr. xc: Nls. Susan Rutherford !~ .l~eparrrneni af~~.o»rmunity De~%elapment ;'S Sourh .~rontage Road /uil, Calorada ;41 ~~ 7 ~vww. c:. valf. c; D. us Tc; Staff lnterpretaticr~s Eile Fror,,; Erent `Nilson, Manner !f Re: Town of Vail Application Recuirements gate; May ~, ~ooo The foilowinr is a synapsis ~: the Town's signature requirements for applications involving ~©intly awned. property. The Tawn has always required signatures from a![ affected paries ~:vhenever applications involving common property have been involved.. This inc;udes c:,ndominium ar homeowners associations. Effective May 2. ~CflQ the department of Community Deveioprrent made the determination that this poiic;~ ir~ciudes jointly owned "C parcels" on duplex preperties_ We will nc~ longer accept any applications involving }ointly owned property without authorization from all owners, nor do we have the authority to take action can property without the appropriate consent. This policy is a direct result of numerous dilemmas (Hughes-Tuchman, Walker_McKibben, l=erry_ Repetti) where the fawn's authority to act upon applications without appropriate consent has been questioned. Ee advrsed this policy will not affect duplexes where a comrr~en parcel has not been establist~ec+. • ~~ .~~cscr.~raP.ar~x JS3M-27-0C] I! =49 FROM:TZ]U-C~]M-DEC7-DEFT. ID:S'704 79 24 52 I'K~GE' 3l4 L L` ~ ~ :. l~ ~r ~~ ~ ~ AP~'E~LS F~ A. ~. ~, ~. ~E R~Qli~1RE~ ~'+UR F~i,Iiv'~ ArI AI'F~.~T. Off' A STAFF, DESTi~V F.~:`~'T~VV BO_~ ~R FI..A.1V:'~~IN~ A,IL-D F~4'IRQ~r''rIF`7' ~C CC3h~-ZISSI(?I\ AC~~~3 acTloN;~D~cisla~ s~~~c :~~~:~..~.~.~~: ~©1 ~`C~ ~~ -,.~ ~'2 ~ l ~ ~--~t~'~ -~ ~~v1 l fl~.1, DATE oI/ AC"InN;'i?ECISIOIV. _~ ~ ~ ~"~~ ~a°'v ~lAlva~ ®~ ~sC),~Ri~'C~R oERSC%I~ t2Ei~,T?ERI?~ti THE DL~CISifll~lr"~C.A~ti.~NC ACTIQN: ~IAIvIE aI± aPPELI,<~~T~~~: ~`~'~''~ ~~`~`~~ Pfi`~SIC.~,L AL3I?:RESS Fitt ~ AIL; ~ ~~ l~ ~ P?~iD; ~i£: LEG.~L D~SCRIPTIC~I'4' Qr A?PELL,A.\'"t"S PRUI'Er..'~" iN'~'':~IT.,: ~~ ~ 1g k~ ~~1 ~U~ ~ ~ '~ ~~ SI~NATIiItE(Sj: Fage 1 of i ~J ~ ~J p • .;u1'3-2'-®43 12=49 FR~?M=TQ`.J-COhl-~dE'J-~L76I''r. iD-97b4792545~ PAGE ~.~~ F_ Does this appeal invalti~e a ,-pwci~C parcel a:f'~anG`? ~~ are yQu ;in adjacent prape~zr; ou~rxex? 'x'es .. no ,~ df ~'es, pit?ass proti-ide the fvllow-in~ inf,~ation- If no, ~iv:~a dGS.ziled .x{yIanap~an of av:~' v~u a~•e an "a~ieve~ or acl~~u~rsear ~ifectcd per5ou.`' "r~.f~= 'e•c-ed ~r ad~.~L7rscly affcctc.~ p:.~an" rriear-s an~~ pc-rsan ~•vho tvial suff~.* a.*t ?dvczse effect tv an interest fJrviected ar ft7rt`~enrd 1,~. th.is tile. The alleged adverse interest may ae:;h3recl irz camrzaon. •a~n~ ~thcr XrxC~iZC~Z~ ~f the c~~racuuity at arse. lout shall exc°,~d in degree t~i<< ~en~ral ~ntzrCSt iri c°csnz~rru~ixty ~ubd shared ley ,aII persc~t:s~ u~s~ ~~ -~ ~~~~~~ tic~~ ~~ ~~ • Cs_ ?ro,~de tht nam.cx and addresses {bbd person's n~~ling ;f~lctre~ :ind I?top~'f'S phy-,'cal address in ~'ail:i ~~ all uvvn~s of proipesty urluch are the snblect of zhc aplc3i ~~ all adjacent ,proper_~,• o~vnc:s (xncludmb ~...r~es Separated hy~ a ri~t~~ ~vati; stream, car other inter~~en~n~ barrirrs 1. .~+1sa 1?re3:^(7 e ~~lclressed and :ta~r±pad envc'.iC~pt:3 f~= aach prtrperty av~e: on the list ~I. E7n separate slims OA ~+C, ~pecir;Y the precise nature ~;;f s~.e appeal, ~l~.sC cite Spccifzc cads se~i+~ns ha~r7n~ rclcvancc: ~ ~~ av~tion bcan~, app~Ied_ I. FEE: ~G_GO Aare ? :a,`:? ltG :A: nisi 1"Hl its: •~fs F~ ~i: i;s-s.~-1 <<: %:i.sz 1i1C1~ ;~;,.. ~~~_ .~'- =19N-Z7-b0 ~ i .a~ ~ftOn~TCV-tr]f7 OG'~-DEFT. S!-"s''aa792asa r-r.~r -. ~~~~~~i A~'PpEA~S FO~~1 R~QUxRED k`VR ~II.~G AN .~'I'~ QF A 5TAi~'F. DESI~*N ~'L'][~1~4" B+U' C!K PL_III+iG a~`+I'D EN VxR~31r"~ig:'tiTA.I.. C4fii~TISSIQN ACTIN ri_ ACi'1CN.FD~.L:1.~+iC}7~dAFI1!:(: ~-~~_^: ~..,-,. - _, -_- _ ..-----.._--._. _ B. T~A'~ UP ACTI~I~>'i~I~G,~$I~N _otl ~J lU ~ ~ ~~ ~'' ~ - -------- l - _ _..~~__.._.~ _. _ . _-. _.._. l ~1-~MF~f'*`M i~~7.~Ft~n•~,, ._ s...art-:im~n~Lia,fCa~w.a~.~~lwyn.I{.~~rrrc,-u x:~:..-~s.... .._. M.. ti...'='°'.'S C•r'~~. ._._..__...- _~... _._ ~7 ~{ P~ F-~.x C-1'1~ . PHYSicAI. ~nlt~ss ~ vAIL: ~ Qom) ~ ~,~~ ~`~" ~x~~~:. LEGAL, bESCRIP"ION UFET.I.A?+1`I''~3 P1~c}f'I;R?"`i IN `v'AiL: ~•~~_ ~ -_~ ~~-'~-~.-.---'~''-~ ~~ ,eft ~~~A~'0. ~ ~ . ,, --_... ___.. - ~y'~ r. SI~GrIA1'Viib~6}:_ ~~. P i~ ~_._.._ _ -__---_ _ ._._ _.W-_.-_. __~_~ _ ~' k'agc 1 t~f' • • MEMORANDUM T©: Planning and Environmental Commission FRC}M: Department of Gammunity Development Department DATE: July 24, 2gOL~ SLJBJEGT: A request far a sign variance from Section 11-48-19-8~4}, Vail Town Code, to allow for a third business identification sign,. located at 458 Vail Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurant)/Tract F, Vail Village 5'h Filing. Applicant: Larkspur Restaurant Planner: Brent',Nilson • I. DESCRIPTION ()F THE REQUEST The Larkspur Restaurant, represented by Nancy Sweeney, is requesting approval for a third business identification sign to be located on the north fapade of the Golden Peak Ski Base (G'PSB). Section ~ 1-4B-t9-B(4}, Vail Town Cade allows "one sign per vehicular street ar major pedestrian way which the business abuts, as determined by the Administrator, with a maximum of two (2} signs, subject to design review." The applicant's description of the variance request is attached for reference. Pursuant to the Vail Town Cade, a business identification sign is intended: To identify a business or organization which has its oven exterior public enfrance within amulti-tenant building. The identification sign or signs for a business or organization may include the name of the business or organization and the genera! nature of the business conducted within or upon the premises. In no instance, however, shall the total portion of the sign describing the general nature of the business exceed forty percent ('4t7 /) of the total area of each sign perrrritted for this purpose. The description of the general nature of the business shall be incorporated into the sign or sign identifying the name of the business and should not exist as a separate sign. N. REVIEWING BOARD ROLES The PEC is resoonsible for evaluating a gragasal far: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a ~ ~~ ~, T~4YN OF ~?~ili: specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public `acilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Desian Review Beard: ,~ctivn: The C+RE has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DR8 application. The DRB is responsible for evaluating the DRF3 proposal for: - Architectural compatibility with other structures, the land and surroundings - Fitting buildings into landscape - Gonfiguration of building and grading of a site which respects the topography - Removal/Preservation of trees and native vegetation - Adequate provision for snow storage an-site - =acceptability of building materials and colors - Acceptability of roof elements, eaves, overhangs, and other building forms - Provision of landscape and drainage - Provision of fencing, walls, and accessory structures - Circ;~iaton and access to a site including parking, and site distances - Location and design of satellite dishes - Provision of outdoor lighting SfiAFF RECOMI~VIENQAfiIOIV lJpon review of the criteria outlined in Section IV of this memorandum, the Gammunity Development Department stuff recommends denial of the variance request to allow for a third business identification sign, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurant}!Tract F, Vail Village 5;" Filing, based on the following findings: That the variance applied for departs from the provisions of the Vaii Town Code more than is required to identify the applicant's business. Q~ther viable signage options exist within the provisions of the sign code which have not been pursued. IV. CRITERIA FOR EVAIvUATION -SIGN VAREANCI= A. Consideration of factors; 1. There are special circumstances or conditions applying to the land, buildings, topography, vegetation, sign structures or othr*r matters on adjacent lots or within the adjacent right-of-way, which would substantially restriict the effectiveness of the sign in question, provided, however, #hat such special circumstances or conditions are unique to the particular business or enterprise to which the applicant desires to draw attention, and do not apply generally to all business or enterprises. Staff believes the Golden Peak Ski Base is unique in that it contains two frontages along a major vehicular/pedestrian way and direct access to a major ski portal. The Larkspur restaurant has access to the north, south and east sides of the property via a shared entrance to Golden Peak.. Given the significant setback from Vail Valley Drive and the lack of illumination of the GPSB entrance (due to concerns from residential owners within the property), staff believes unusual circumstances at this location present same difficulty for the applicant. However, staff believes these special circumstances could be addressed within the previsions of the town's sign code. There are multiple options far additional signage at this location that do riot require a variance. 2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant. Staff does not believe these circumstances were created by the applicant or anyone in privy to the applicant. 3. That granting of the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of the sign code, and will not be materially detriimental to the persons residing or working in the vicinity, to adjacent property, to the neighborhood, or to the public welfare in general. Staff believes the design aesthetics of the signage proposed are consistent with the approved Gallen Peak Ski Sase Sign Program and that the design would not negatively impact any of the above-referenced persons or property. However, staff believes the size of the signage should be consistent with the signage for other ancillary uses ("Wreck Room Pizza," "Showell Rentals") and should be subordinate in size/location to the building identification signs for the GPSB. • 4. The variance applied far does not depart from the provisions of the Sign Cade any more than is required to identify the applicant's business use. Although staff agrees that the applicant has a need to display signage along the Vail Valley Drive (north facing} frontage, staff believes this goal could be achieved without a variance. There are currently two '~avall} business identification signs for the Larkspur E~estaurant on the south fapade of the building. Additional types of signage (menu boards, daily special boards) are available to identify the restaurant on the south facade and this would allow for a transfer of the existing southern wail signage to the north fapade. This could be achieved via staff approval. Additionally, since the Larkspur Market operates in a separate space under a separate business license, the c©de would allow an additional sign with the phrase "Larkspur"' or "Larkspur Markey' to be placed on the north fapade without a variance. However. a third business identification sign for the restaurant space requires a variance. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the fallowing findings before granting a variance: That special circumstances or conditions apply to the land, building, topograr~hy, vegetation, sign structures or other matters on adjacent lots or within the right-of-way, which would substantially restrict the effectiveness of the sign. 2. That such special circumstances were not created by the applicant. 3. That granting the variance will be in general harmony with the purpose of this title and wiA not be detrimental to the public health,. safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The variance applied for does not depart from the provisions of the Vaii Town Cade more than is required to identify the applicant's business use. • • Iarl~s~ur June 9, 20Q0 Punning and Environmental Commission Town of Vaii 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Variance to the Town of Vail Signage Cade Dear Members of the Board, • Larkspur Restaurant and Market is requesting a variance to the signage code allowing for a third business identification sign to be installed on the North side of the Golden Peak Lodge facing Vail Valley Drive. Presently, Larkspur has two identifcation signs on the South side of the building. Qne sign is installed directly over the entrance to the restaurant, facing the Town of Vail bus stop and Children's Ski School parking lot. The second sign is installed on the side of the building facing Chairs 6 and 12. Considering the three-sided nature of the Golden Peak Lodge, we are hoping the Planning and Environmental Commission wilt make an exception to the existing code. The signs would be constructed of individual steel-cut letters powder coated black and mounted on a support beam inserted into the stucco fapade of the building. The sign would be consistent with all of the existing signage for the Golden Peak Lodge. Two MR-16 lights would be mounted in each corner of the support beam, illuminating the wall behind the letters with a soft glow. Larkspur's designated parking is on the North side of the Golden Peak Lodge. We have contracted with a Valet service to manage this parking during peak seasons. Presently, guests approaching Golden Peak Lodge on Vail Valley Drive have no indication the restaurant is within the building nor that they have arrived at their destination. Due to the significant setback of the Golden Peak Lodge from the road, it is difficult for customers to see the main entrance, which is not illuminated. Needless to say, our guests are irritated by the time they arrive at the restaurant due to the difficulty they experienced trying to find the establishment. :7 Golden °~ale dodge 95$ Vzil Valley Driue Vaal, CO 81657 Restaurant 9~a.~~s.eosa M~~~et ~~a.saa.sc~~ Fix 9~a.~~9.~as~ Larkspur Variance Request Page 2 • AA of Larkspur's windo~NS are on the Sou#h side of the buiiding facing the ski mountain. As the building is positioned, the winda~ws are below grade as well as in the shadow of the second story overhang. Because of the lack of visibility, signage 6n these windows is not an option. It is also necessary fior customers. to be able to see the entrance to Larkspur from the Town of Vail bus s#op located in the Children's Ski School parking tot. For these reasons, we are submitting this request for a variance to the existing Town of Vail signage code. Thank you for your consideration of this request. We are available to answer any. questions you may have and would welcome the opportuni#y to demonstrate the necessity far a third sign on the North side of the building during a site visit to Larkspur Restaurant and !Market. Sincerely, Nancy Sweeney • Enclasures • d ~~ ~ ^ ~' - . fi, ,~ •t w -'~"+~ t 4~ ~ , kr .~~. ~~ ~, . ~~~ r +~~ `^~ 1 ~~ -~ 1 f- ~__- ~' ~~ i r , ,~ t ~ A ~ ~ .J~ w^ .. x„.,41 ~ ~. r' • M OQ F W Q • r cr3 ~ m ~ l~ E- z ac w x f 11 i~ • • .TL~N ~ ~ ' ~~ ~4 ~ ~2PM 'v'~€IL ~ :ESOP-~ DVLPT CO ?.1 mail Resorts De~ela~men~ Company .....r.......... ...... Vail .Breckenridge .Keystone • Beaver Creefc~.• Bachelar Gulch • ArrowC-ead SeR~ng Me sro~aaa to, ftib~ld Claaa AIDHe Anortrl ' June 7, 2000 Nancy Sweeney Larkspur Restaurant and Bar i..L.C. Golden Peak Lodge 45 $ Vaii `Valley Drive Vail, Colorado 81.b~7 Dear ?Vls. Sweeney, I am writing this letter to confirm receipt and approval of the proposed addition of a lighted sign to the North side of the Golden Peak Lodge by the Board o£ Directors of the Csoldez~ peak Condominium .Association at the 1999 annual, meeting on December 30, 1999, Considering file three-sided nature of your business at the Galdcn Peak Lodge, it seems logical to have signage on the North side of the building, facing Vail Valley Drive. It is our understanding that the current design includes two MR-1 & lights mounted in each corner of the signage support beam. These lights must be directed twward the stucco wall, illuminating only the letters behind with a salt glow. L`nder no cixcumstances shall the lights be directed toward any residence, on-site or off--site, Also, the design of this sign wi11 coincide with tk~e existing building signage, as well as all Town of Vail Sign Codes, The Golden Peak Condominium Assaciatian's approval of this variance hinges upon these conditions, We are pleased to' see this improvement to the Golden Peale Lodge and look £ooward to the continued success o£your restaurant, Sincer '~'~^~- SORTS UI/VELC}P CQMPANY ~Toxiathan Vll. Greene Assistant Development Manager t 37 Benchmark Ao2Q . PO Box 959 . Avon, Colorado • 8 i 624~g959 . phone 470,845 2535 . fax 974.845 2555 ~~ • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION July 24, 2000 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhard# John Schofield Doug Cahill Tom '+Neber Rublic Hearing MEMBERS ABSENT Diane Golden Brian Doyon Galen Aasland called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT: Russ Forrest George Ruther Brent Wilson Tom Moofiead 2:00 p. m. 1. An appeal of a staff decision, regarding the completeness of an application submitted to the Department of Community Development; for property located at 7001 Eagles Nest Circle/Lot 1, Block 6, Vail Village ~rh Filing. Applicant: Kaye Ferry, represented 6y RKD, Inc, Planner: Brent Wilson n t~ • GaCen Aasland stated that if there was anyone that thought he had a conflict with this application, he would recuse himself. Art Abplanaip said that Ms, Rutherford requested that Galen recuse himself. Tom Weber recused himself because of a conflict. Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo and noted a correction in the staff memo on page 2, that the 15~ bulleted item should reference Section 12-11-4(G)(2}(d). John Schofield stated that the code interpretation had been in effect for 'Cf]-12 years. Tom iVloorhead stated tha# there was not a change in code, but in application of policy and that the ruling WaS GOn5lStent. John Schofield mentioned that the staff interpretation came into effect around the time of the Hughesl Tuchman issue about 5 years ago and said he would like the plat submitted far the record, since the application didn't show that. Chas Bernhardt asked if the applicant had anything to add. Sally Brainerd, the Architect for Kaye Ferry, stated the 1999 original application did not require having joint owners both sign and this application did require two signatures. She then handed out that section of the code tha# Brent was referring to. She said she highligh#ed the part "applicable to design review and Tina! review, "that we never applied for, was highlighted. She said no where did it say anything about voiding a DRB application. Brent Wilson explained the Design Review process and stated that if the applicant didn't comply with the requirements for continuing through the process, the application becomes void. Sally Brainerd said it didn't state a renewal was needed for changes. planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 24, 2{?00 1 Brent Wilson said he wasn't going to argue the semantics of the code section, since this was clearly a new application. Sally Brainerd explained that the applicant just submitted a new cover page with the new architect and new phone number information. She then said an application for a variance before the Town Council was denied. Brent Wilson stated that the old application was for a different project including an EHU. He said the DR8 could not act on that application, since they did not have the authority to approve a variance tha# had been denied by bath the PEG and Town Council. The DRE could not legally act upon the original application and it became void. That is why a new DRB application was submitted by the applicant's representative in June of 2000 and a new fee was paid to the Town. Ghas Bernhard said, for the record, that the PEC had agreed not to discuss this at all during the orientation pre-meeting. Wendell Porterfield, Kaye Ferry's attorney, said they were not here to approve what's been built. He said #hat the question was whether this interpretation should be entered into at this stage. He felt this should be handled by ordinance and not by a staff interpre#ation. He stated that this change should have been done in the form of an ordinance, since the rules were different when the application was submitted. He said this was forcing people to resolve disputes before they bring them before the Town. He said, though, that this was a separate ma#ter and didn't vela#e to what an applicant had to do to get an application in and therefore, was not fair to do this in the middle of the process. He stated that It shouldn't be left to interpretation, as it was a matter of significance. Doug Cahill asked staff to explain it. Brent Wilson explained that the issue was not specifically spelled out in the code, but since it wasn't expressly stated in the code, it was placed into the staff interpre#ations in order to maintain a fair and consistent application of the policy. Jahn Schofield said it was not a change in philosophy but in enforcement, to always be consistent. Chas $emhardt asked for any public comments. Susan Rutherford sta#ed she was the co-owner of Parcel C and was not consulted by Ms. Ferry when ready to improve her side of the duplex. She stated that all she wanted was a certainty and knowledge of what was going on wish her property and that was the very basis for the two-signature requiremen#. She stated that this poficy should be upheld. Art Abplanalp, Susan Rutherford's attorney, explained that Parcel C was for the entire lot and mentioned that it was a pleasure for him to support the staff this time. He said that this interpretation had been in place for 2'1a years, as previously not having the interpretation had created unnecessary s#aff work in looking at private agreements. He explained that when you have joint owners, or an agent of the owner, it meant that everybody who was going to be affected on the property was represented. He said the issue was whether the staff's interpretation was correct. He said the two-year attempt to give flexibility was an aberration and that this was a perfect illustration of the applican# not knowing what she wanted. He stated that almost a year ago, the PEG denied the application for a variance. He said that around the .l sr of July he looked at the plans submitted. He then handed out to the PEC the plans that the PEC approved for a garage and now there was no garage when Ms. Rutherford looked at the plans at 2pm this afternoon. He stated that the Town had a reason for asking for a signature. Tam Moorhead asked if this was a new application. Planning and Environmental Commission ~ Minutes July 24, 200(7 Art Abplanalp said this was clearly a new application that was submitted months after the Town returned to its original interpretation of the code. Vllendell Porterfield said we were here because of the staff interpretation and how the process should be handled by the Town. He said the code stated the owner of the project, not the owner of the property. He said both owners should sign, but the way the code was written didn't say that. He then said that due to the very fact that that there were conflicting policies, it should be handled by the Town Council. Chas Bernhardt asked for any more public input, Doug Cahill said we may have to rewrite the ordinance in the future to follow proper lawyer etiquette, but the intent is to have both owners up front on a project. He said certain things must be accomplished before a project can move forward, as the PEC is looking at the projects, not at the disputes. He said he was In agreement with the staff and would stand by the staff decision. John Schofield asked, for the record, to look at #hat plat. He asked Tom fVloorhead if any signature would constitute a power of attorney. Tam Moorhead said a property owner and agency could have either an oral, handshake, or something as formal as a Power of Attorney. He said with real estate, it needed to be in wri#ing according to the statute of frauds and at the closing, the agency would need to be the power of attorney. John Schofield said that most of the applications are by agents. Tom Nfaorhead said we depend upon a good relationship between the architect and the owner, but with property owners from around the world, it becomes unreasonable. He said to became more user friendly, we encourage something other than a Power of Attorney. He read 12-7-7 from the Town Code regarding signature requirements. He said this staff interpretation was identical to the Town's policy on condominium associations for all practical purposes. John Schofield asked for a copy of the plans showing the building on parcel C. He said this Commission and the Town have encouraged improvements; taut we have to protect the owners and the PEC was not a party to the party wall agreement. He said he would definitely subscribe to the understanding that this was a new application, and there was no doubt in his mind that there was a fairly lengthy time lapse, so anew application was generated. He said the request for two signatures was a reasonable request and that this interpretation is what we are going to have to live with. He said with faxes, the Town should require all owners' signatures, even if affected owners are from all over the world. Chas Bernhard said he supported the Commissioners and agreed that this followed the intent of the law. John Schofield made a motion to uphold the staff decision based on the findings that: The staff decision is consistent with the provisions of Section 12-11-4, Vail Town Code (NJaterra! t4 be Submitfed; Procet~ure) and Town of Vail Zoning Cade Interpretation #33. The application requirements have not been met in full by the applicant/appellant. 2. Staff's decision was not an "ex post facto" application of the code since the design review application was submitted 41 days after the formal zoning interpretation was drafted. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 3-0, with Tom Weber and Galen recusing themselves. 2. A request for a sign variance, from Section 11-4B-19 (B}(4}, to allow for a third business identification sign, loco#ed at 458 Vail Valley Drive (Larkspur Restaurant}/Tract F; Vaif Village Sin Filing. Planning and Environmen#al Gommission ~ Minutes July 24, 20C}0 Applicant: Larkspur Restaurant & Bar Planner: Brent Wilson Brent Wilson gave an overview of the staff memo. Gaien Aasland asked, after a site visit, if there were any other properties with similar frontage and pedes#rian frontages. Brent Wilson said the Landmark Building in Lonshead received a similar variance because the PBC determined the building has mul#iple frontages. Galen Aasland asked if there was any applicant comment. Nancy Sweeney, said she was the applicant far the Larkspur Restaurant. John Schofield asked if she was representing the Market and the Restaurant. Nancy Sweeney explained the designated parking on the north lot with photos; as seen driving down Vail Valley Drive, She said the existing sign on the back faced the Children"s ski school and was not legible from the bus and the traffic down Vail Valley drive wasn't aware that there was any food service open for business, Gaien Aasland asked about the two separate business licenses. He asked about two signs for each business or potentially, four different signs. Brent Wilson explained that each business was licensed separately and that the Cade allows one sign per business per frontage, with a maximum of finro signs per business. Nancy Sweeney said she uvouid like it to say Larkspur Restaurant . Brent Wilson asked the PEC to make a determination on the number of frontages for each business. Galen Aasland asked for a staff interpretation. Brent Wilson said, under the code, this was a separate business and the market could get one additional sign per frontage. Galen Aasland said let's address the issue an the number of frontages. Brent Wilson read the code for mufti-tenant business signs. Galen Aasland asked if there was any public comment. Doug Cahill said he agreed that there were two frontages per business.. Nancy Sweeney said there were three frontages, l]oug Cahill said each business had two frontages. John Schofield said there were two, hat three frontages., in that you were doing aq of the parking off of one side supported the two frontages. He said technically there were three signs, if the bustop sign constituted a sign. Brent Wilson explained the illegal bus#ap sign and the legal permanent directory adjacent to the vending machines. Torn Weber asked about the directory signs, if the applicant was on the directory sign and if there was only one directory sign. Manning and Environmental Commission ~ Minutes July 24, 213(}(3 Brent Wilson said yes Tom Weber said he could see three portals to this building. He said he saw two basic drop-off and entry paints. He said they are a tenant in That building and paying rent and felt there were three frontages to the Golden Peak Building and the tenant should be allowed to use these frontages. Chas Bernhardt said he agreed with Tam about using the portal as a frontage and could see where the code could say if you use the word portal far access, Galen Aasland said how many sites have access to a public way. He doesn't see the bustop as an access on a public way. nor can he view a 45° wall as an access to a public way. He then said 15" Bank and Banner have a 45° wall. Tom Weber said they have legal access through a common area. Doug Cahill said there were three portals, but two main access points to the establishment. Brent Wilson explained the 4 findings that the PEG needed to make to grant this. He said the code says a maximum of two signs. Jahn Schofield made a motion that the Golden Peak Building had two or more frontages far access paints and that all the tenants of the building may be accessed from either side and so all the #enants have access from either side. Doug Cahill seconded the motion. Jahn Schofield amended the motion to say the two businesses have two frontages as presently configured and to include fhe Val! Valley Drive and ski area frontages. The motion regarding the PEG`s determination of the number of frontages far each business passed by a vote of 5-{}. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had any common#s. Nancy Sweeney said the hardship was that customers can't find it with the restaurant and market on the sign. John Schofield stated there were two business licenses. Tom Weber asked if two businesses could combine a sign. Brent Wilson said yes, if they were in compliance ~nrith the size requirements in the town code. Jahn Schotield said we are arguing with what those sings say. Galen Aasland suggested putting the restaurant and market sign aver the market. Nancy Sweeney said the sign an the south side was not an entrance. Jahn Schofield said there were two signs on the south side and one at the bustop. George Ruther said the bustop sign needed to be removed. Galen Aasland said a variance was not quid quo pro and they couldn't trade off, as the variance needed to stand on its awn. Tom Weber said tte couldn't find a hardship, but he did see a need more on that side than vn the ski hill and there were ways to do it. Planning and Enuironmental Commission 5 Minutes July 24, 2QQ0 Galen Aasland suggested the Larkspur Restaurant sign be on the north side, with the Larkspur Market or just Larkspur on the ski hill side. Brent Wilson said if it says restaurant twice, it wound need a variance and that we have always prohibited sandwich board signs. Nancy Sweeney said the building was a destination location and our argument was to get. as many signs as possible. George Ruther explained the percentage of sign area. Doug Cahill said the goal was to get the Larkspur Market Restaurant an the north side without losing it on the south side. He said there was a hardship on the north side, since it was so dark. Brent Wilson said staff would agree. John Schofield suggested tabling this anti[ the applicant could come up with a solution at the next meeting, as the PEC's feeling was for denial. Galen Aasland suggested on the north side Larkspur Restaurant, Larkspur Market and Larkspur Restaurant over the deck and move the sign over the diagonal door that would say Larkspur or Larkspur Market which would give you. 4 signs for your business and to separate what your going to do with the bus shelter sign. Brent Wilson explained the primary and secondary signage. Ne explained there were ways of achieving the signage on the north facade without a variance. Galen Aasland took a straw vote. Tom no; Chas pass; Doug opposed as he needed more research and John said he would vote against this. Jahn Schofield made a mo#ion to table this. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed toy a vote of 5-0. 3. A request for a variance from Section 12-6F-6 (Setbacks}, to allow for a garage addition, located at 4718 Meadow DrivelTract 8, Bighorn Townhomes Subdivision. Applicant: Bill Bernardo, represented b~y Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Planner. Allison ©chs TABLED UNTIL AUGl1ST 14, 200U George Ruther noted for the record that this was withdrawn a# the applicant's request. 4. A request for a conditional use permit, to add a. Type li Employee Housing Unit to an existing primary unit, located at 375 Forest RoadlLot 3, Block 2, Vail V`sliage 3`d Filling. Applicant: Greg Vickers, represented by Gwathmey Pratt Schultz Planner: Allison Ochs VIIITFiDRAWN 5. Information Update / PEG Ordinance Update Planning and Envir©nmental Commission 6 Minutes July 24, 2000 SELECTION OF PEC REPRESENTATNE AT aRB FCR 2000- Doug Cahill - Jan-Apr. 5, '00 Chas Bernhardt _ Apr 19, 'QO Galen Aasland May 3, '00 Brian Dayon - May 17, 'OQ No Rep - Jun 7, `Ott Tom Weber - Jun 21, 'OQ John Schofield - Jul 5, '00 Chas Bernhardt - Jul 19, `00 - Aug 2, '00 Doug - Aug 16, 'Or3 Tom Weber - Sep 6, '00 - Sep 20, '(!0 Galen Aasland John Schofield - ©ct-Dec '00 6. Approval of Juiy 10, 200Q minutes. Chas Bernhardt made a motion to approve the minutes. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 2-0, as Tom, John and Qoug vuere not at the meeting. Tom Weber made a motion to adjoum_ John 'Schofield seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 3:50 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes July 24, 2000 7