HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-1125 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY "PI/484,
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE 1 ,.
TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town
�0'4"
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on November 25, 2002, at 2 :00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building_ In
consideration of:
A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located at
252 (Nest Meadow Drive /Lot 8, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Theodore S. Halaby, represented by Segerberg Mayhew & Assoc. Architects
Planner; Bill Gibson
A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for a
building encroachment into the front setback, located at 2642 Cortina Lane /Lot 6, Block B, Vail
Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant; Bill and Norma Brown, represented by John G. Martin, Architect
Planner: Bill Gibson
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title
11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Russell Forrest/Matt Gennett
A request for text amendments to Sections 12 -7H -11 (Height & Bulk) & 12 -71 -11 (Height &
. Bulk), Vail Town Code and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow for a
clarification to the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements
for buildings constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone
districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a worksession to amend Chapter 12 -15 (Gross Residential Floor Area), Vail Town
Code, to discuss modifications and /or elimination of the Gross Residential Floor Area
regulations in all zone districts and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al.
Planner: Russell Forrest
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. The public is invited to attend project orientation
and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development
Department. Please call 479 -2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call 479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published November 8, 2002 in the Vail Daily.
ii
TOW'Y OF PAIL
0
0
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION A&
PUBLIC MEETING
Monday, November 25, 2002
PROJECT ORIENTATION 1 - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 am
MEMBERS PRESENT
Site Visits :
MEMBERS ABSENT
1. Brown residence -- 2642 Cortina Lane
2. Halaby residence — 252 West Meadow Drive
3. Whitewater Park — Gore Creek Promenade
4. Sign Tour
Driver: George
12 :30 pm
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers
2:00 pm
A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit, located
at 252 West Meadow Drive /Lot 8, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Theodore S. Halaby, represented by Segerberg Mayhew & Assoc. Architects
Planner: Bill Gibson
2. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for a
building encroachment into the front setback, located at 2642 Cortina Lane /Lot 6, Block B, .
Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Bill and Norma Brown, represented by John G. Martin, Architect
Planner: Bill Gibson
3. A request for a worksession to amend Chapter 12 -15 (Gross Residential Floor Area), Vail
Town Code, to discuss modifications and/or elimination of the Gross Residential Floor Area
regulations in all zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al.
Planner: Russell Forrest
4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to
Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Russell ForresUMatt Gennett
TOWN OF PAIL
5. A request for text amendments to Sections 12 -7H -11 (Height & Bulk) & 12 -71 -11 (Height &
Bulk), Vail Town Code and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow for a
clarification to the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height
requirements for buildings constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead
Mixed Use 2 zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department
Planner: George Ruther
6. A request for a modification to the 100 -year floodplain, to allow for grading in the floodplain
to modify the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, located at the Gore Creek Promenade /Tracts I
& A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1" Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie
Planner: Bill Gibson
7. Approval of October 28, 2002 minutes
8. Information Update
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 upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published November 22, 2002 in the Vail Daily..
2
•
0
0
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING RESULTS
Monday, November 25, 2002
PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME
MEMBERS PRESENT
John Schofield
Rollie Kjeso
George Lamb
Chas Bernhardt
Doug Cahill
Site Visits
MEMBERS ABSENT
Erikson Shirley
Gary Hartman
1. Brown residence — 2642 Cortina Lane
2. Halaby residence — 252 West Meadow Drive
3. Whitewater Park — Gore Creek Promenade
4. Sign Tour
12:.00 am
12:30 pm
Driver: George
Z(*1F_D:)3
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm
1. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type II Employee Housing Unit, located
at 252 West Meadow Drive /Lot 8, Vaii Village 2" Filing.
Applicant: Theodore S. Halaby, represented by Segerberg Mayhew & Assoc, Architects
Planner: Bill Gibson
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 4 -0 (Bernhardt not
present)
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 9, 2002
2. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for a
building encroachment into the front setback, located at 2642 Cortina Lane /Lot 6, Block B,
Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant. Bill and Norma Brown, represented by John G. Martin, Architect
Planner: Bill Gibson
MOTION: Doug Cahill SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 4 -1 (Bernhardt opposed)
DENIED
1
L
�a
ax
TOIYN OF VALL �
3. A request for a worksession to amend Chapter 12 -15 (Gross Residential Floor Area), Vail
Town Code, to discuss modifications and/or elimination of the Gross Residential Floor Area
regulations in all zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al.
Planner: Russell Forrest
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 4-0 (Bernhardt not
present)
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 9, 2002
4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to
Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Russell Forrest/Matt Gennett
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 4 -0 (Bernhardt not
present)
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 9, 2002
5. A request for text amendments to Sections 12 -7H -11 (Height & Bulk) & 12 -71 -11 (Height &
Bulk), Vail Town Code and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow for a
clarification to the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height
requirements for buildings constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead
Mixed Use 2 zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department
Planner: George Ruther
MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 5 -0
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 9, 2002
6. A request for a modification to the 100 -year floodplain, to allow for grading in the floodplain
to modify the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, located at the Gore Creek Promenade/Tracts I
& A, Block 5B, Vail Village 15k Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie
Planner: Bill Gibson
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 4 -0 (Bernhardt not
present)
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 9, 2002
7. Approval of October 28, 2002 minutes
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Doug Cahill VOTE: 4 -0 (Bernhardt not
present)
8. Information Update
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 upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
2
U
•
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 25, 2002
SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow
for a building encroachment into the front setback, located at 2642 Cortina Lane /Lot
6, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Bill and Norma Brown; represented by John G. Martin, Architect
Planner: Bill Gibson
1. SUMMARY
The applicant, Bill and Norma Brown, represented by John G. Martin, Architect, is
requesting a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for a
building encroachment into the front setback, located at 2642 Cortina Lane /Lot 6, Block B,
40 Vail Ridge Subdivision. The proposed variance is requested to allow the applicant to extend
a front entry feature into the required front setback by three feet more than is allowed by the
Vail Town Code. Staff is recommending denial of the requested variance since staff
believes that approval of this request would be a grant of special privilege to this individual
property.
H. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
This is a request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow
for a building encroachment into the front setback, located at 2642 Cortina Lane. The
proposed variance is requested to allow the applicant to extend a front entry feature further
into the required front setback than is allowed by the Vail Town Code. The existing front
entry feature (under construction) was designed and approved to encroach four feet into the
front setback, as permitted by Section 14 -10, Vail Town Code. The applicant, for the
reasons outlined in their attached statement (see Attachment C), is proposing to extend the
front entry feature a total of seven feet into the required front setback. The proposed front
entry feature is located on the north side of the home adjacent to Cortina Lane. The front
entry feature would be a non - heated, non - habitable area comprised of a gable, truss, and
posts (see Attachment D). The proposed extension of the front entry feature will not
constitute additional gross residential floor area (GRFA), however, the portion of the entry
roof which extends more than four feet from the exterior wall of the structure will constitute
additional site coverage on the property. There is adequate site coverage available on the
property to accommodate this proposed entry feature enlargement.
FAodeAPECWEM0S10246rown front selback vahance_112502.doc 1
Ill. BACKGROUND 0
On July 18, 2001, the Design Review Board approved, with conditions, Bill and Norma
Brown's request for a new residence located at 2642 Cortina Lane. Pursuant to the
provisions of Section 12- 21 -14, Vail Town Code, the Brown residence was approved by the
Town of Vail with a garage located in the front setback; however, all other portions of the
residence conformed to the setback requirements outlined in Section 12 -6D -6, Vail Town
Code.
During the construction of this project the foundation of the home failed and in February
2002, this job site was issued a "stop work order" by the Town of Vail Building Department.
After the initial design review approval and again after the issuance of the "stop work order',
the applicant submitted various minor revisions to the architectural plans that have been
reviewed and approved by Town Staff. The issues related to the failing foundation have
been resolved and a new contractor has been hired by the applicant to complete the
construction of the home.
IV. ROLES OF REVIEWING BODIES
The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for:
Action: The PEC is responsible for final approvaildenial of a variance.
The PEC is responsible for evaluating a proposal for:
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 specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without
grant of special privilege.
3_ The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety.
4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the
proposed variance.
Design Review Board:
Action: The DRB has NO review authority on a variance, but must review any
accompanying DRB application.
Town Council:
Actions of DRB or PEC may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council.
Town Council evaluates whether or not the PEC or DRB erred with approvals or denials
and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision.
FAcdev\PECWEM0S%02%Brown front setback varlance_i 12502.dvc 2
• Staff:
1�
The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans
conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the
applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines.
Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff
evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a
recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the
review process.
V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review
of this proposal:
Chapter 12 -2: Definitions
Section 12 -2 Definitions
SETBACK: The distance from a lot or site line, creek or stream measured
horizontally to a line orlocation within the lot orsite which establishes the permitted
location of uses, structures, or buildings on the site.
SETBACK LINE: A line or location within a lot or site which establishes the permitted
location of uses, structures, or buildings on the site.
SETBACK LINE, FRONT. The setback line extending the full width of the site parallel
to and measured from the front lot or site line.
SITE COVERAGE. The ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a
site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage,
"building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any building, carport, porte-
cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway as measured from the exterior face
of perimeter walls or supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever
is the greater area. For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting
from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, deck or walkway, and in
such case the higher balcony or deck shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the
lower balcony, deck or walkway. In addition to the above, building area shall also
include any portion of a roof overhang, eaves, or covered stair, covered deck,
covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than fourfeet (4)
from the exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns.
FAcdevlPECUEMOS10216rown front setback, variance_112502.doc 3
•
Chapter 12 -6D Two - Family Primary /Secondary Residential (PS) District
Section 12 -6D -1: PURPOSE.
The two - family primarylsecondary residential district is intended to provide sites for
single- family residential uses or two- family residential uses in which one unit is a
larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment,
together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same
district. The two- family primary /secondary residential district is intended to ensure
adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with
single - family and two- family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential
qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards.
Section 12 -6D -6: SETBACKS.
In the primary /secondary residential district, the minimum front setback shall be
twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15), and the
minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15).
Section 12 -6D -9: SITE COVERAGE.
Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total site area.
Chapter 12 -17 Variances
Section 12 -17 -1: PURPOSE:
A. Reasons for Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical
difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of
this title as would result from strict orliteral interpretation and enforcement, variances
from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the
location of existing structures thereon, from topographic or physical conditions on
the site grin the immediate vicinity; orfrom otherphysical limitations, streetlocations
orconditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict
or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance.
B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to
the development standards prescribed for each district, including lot area and site
dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building
bulk control, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development,
and parking and loading requirements; or with respect to the provisions of chapter 11
of this title, governing physical development on a site.
C. Use Regulations Not Affected. The power to grant variances does not extend to
the use regulations prescribed for each district because the flexibility necessary to
avoid results inconsistent with the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16,
"Conditional Use Permits ", and by section 12 -3 -7, "Amendment" of this title.
0
F.Ac ev<PECWEM0S%02%Brovm front setback vanance_112502.tloc 4
Section 12 -17 -5: PLANNiNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMiSSION ACTION.
Within twenty (20) days of the closing of a public hearing on a variance application,
the planning and environmental commission shall act on the application. The
commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the
application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems necessary to
accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the application. A
variance may be revocable, may be granted for a limited time period, or may be
granted subject to such other conditions as the commission may prescribe.
Section 12 -17 -6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS:
A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and
environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the
requested variance:
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 specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility
and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and
public safety.
4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the
proposed variance.
B. Necessary Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following findings before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the
same district
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict orliteral interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
FAcde,APEC% EMOSWZGrown front selback va0ance_1 12502.0oc 5
VI.
b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict orliteral interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive'the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the same district.
Section 12 -21 Hazard Regulations
Section 12- 21 -14: Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes
The following additional special restrictions or requirements shall apply to
development on any lot in a Hillside Residential, Single- Family Residential, Two -
Family Residential or Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District where
the average slope of the site beneath the existing or proposed structure and parking
area is in excess of thirty percent (30 %):
K. Setbacks, as they apply to this Chapter, as required by Sections 12-
6.-6, 12 -6B -6, 12 -6C -6 and 12 -6D -6 of this Title, are amended as follows:
there shall be no required front setback for garages, except as may be
required by the Design Review Board. Garages located in the frontsbtback,
as provided for in this Section, shall be limited to one story in height (not to
exceed 10 feet) with the addition of a pitched or flat roof and subject to
review and approval by the Design Review Board.
Title 14: Development Standards Handbook
Section 14 -1OC: Architectural Projections, Decks, Balconies, Steps, Bay Windows,
etc..
1. Architectural projections including eaves, roof overhangs, awnings, louvers, and
similar shading features; sills, belt courses cornices, and similar features; and flues
and chimneys may project not more than four feet (4 ) into required setback area or
into required distance between buildings.
SITE ANALYSIS
Zoning: Two - Family Primary/Secondary District
Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Current Land Use: Residential (under construction)
Development Standard
Allowed /Required
Existing
Proposed
Lot Area:
12,760sq. ft.
no change
no change
Setbacks:
Front:
*20 ft.
*20 ft.
*17 ft.
Sides:
15 ft./15 ft.
25 ft. /30 ft.
no change
Rear:
15 ft.
64 ft.
no change
F:%cdeNPECWEMOS10218rown front setback variance-1 12502.doc 6
•
Building Height:
30 ft./33 ft.
<33 ft.
no change
Density:
2 units
1 unit
no change
GRFA:
3,614 sq. ft.
3,571 sq. ft.
no change
Site Coverage:
1,913 sq. ft. (15 %)
1,869 sq. ft. (15 %)
1,903 sq.ft. (1.5 %)
Landscape Area:
7,657 sq. feet (60 %)
7,800 sq. ft. (63 %)
7,766 sq.ft. (61 %)
Parking:
3 spaces
3 spaces
no change
* Pursuant to Section 12- 21 -14K, Vail Town Code: `there shall be no required frontsetback
for garages, except as required by the Design Review Board. "The existing garage (under
construction) is located 13 ft. from the front property line, and the applicant is not proposing
any change to this approved location.
VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
Land Use
Zoning
North:
Residential
Primary/Secondary District
South:
Residential
Primary/Secondary District
East:
Residential
Primary/Secondary District
West:
Residential
Primary/Secondary District
•
VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
A. Consideration of Factors Regarding the Setback Variances:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Staff believes that the proposed encroachment would facilitate the
construction of a front entry feature that is compatible in architectural style
with the existing and potential uses and structures in the vicinity. However,
staff believes that locating such an entry feature further into the front
setback than is allowed by the regulations of the Town Code is not
consistent with the location of other existing and potential structures located
along Cortina Lane.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege.
F.xde0PECVAEMOSWZBrown kont setback variance 112562.doc 7
This site has excessive slopes similar to other properties in the vicinity. The
Town Code recognizes that construction on excessive slopes may be
difficult; therefore Section 12- 21 -14, Vail Town Code, grants the Design
Review Board flexibility in the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of front setback regulations in relation to garages. The
applicant has been approved to construct a garage in the front setback in a
manner similar to that of other properties with excessive slopes. Staff does
not believe that the proposed deviation from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulations is necessary for
the applicant to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinity. Staff also believes that approval of this variance request
will be a grant of special privilege.
Since this residence is new construction, staff believes that code compliant
design alternatives exist to address the aesthetic desires of the applicant.
The previously approved architectural plans for this structure (see
Attachment D) show one such example of a code compliant front entry
feature that is compatible with the architectural style of the project_
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
Staff does believe that the proposed encroachment will not have a
significant impact on the public health, safety or welfare, public facilities,
utilities, or light and air in comparison to the previously approved
development plans.
4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to
the proposed variance.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the
same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the fallowing reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
FAcdeY%PECXIEMQS%020ro" front setback variance- 112502.doc 8
• b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
appiicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends denial of the request a variance
from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for a building encroachment into
the front setback, located at 2642 Cortina Lane, Staffs recommendation is based upon the
review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony
presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this
variance, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission make the following findings:
That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
0 2. That the variance is not warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to
other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same district.
However, should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this
variance, the Community Development Department recommends that the Planning and
Environmental Commission make the following findings:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the
same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
FAcdevSPEDMEMO$%M8rown front setback variance-1 12502,doc
•
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
X. ATTACHMENTS
A. Vicinity Map
B. Publication Notice
C. Applicant's Statement
D. Architectural Plans
•
•
FAcdevWECWEMOSW21Brown front setback variance_112502.doc 10
Attachment. B
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY f
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 12 -3 -6 of the Municipal Code of the
Town of Vail on November 25, 2002, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit, located at
252 West Meadow Drive /Lot 8, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Theodore S. Halaby, represented by Segerberg Mayhew & Assoc. Architects
Planner: Bill Gibson
A request for a variance from Section 12 -613-6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for a
building encroachment into the front setback, located at 2642 Cortina Lane /Lot 6, Block B, Vail
*Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Bill and Norma Brown, represented by .John G. Martin, Architect
Planner: Bill Gibson
A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to Title
11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner. Russell Forrest/Matt Gennett
A request for text amendments to Sections 12 -7H -11 (Height & Bulk) & 12 -71 -11 (Height &
Bulk), Vail Town Code and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow for a
clarification to the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements
for buildings constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone
districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department
Planner: George Ruther
A request for a worksession to amend Chapter 12 -15 (Gross Residential Floor Area), Vail Town
Code, to discuss modifications and/or elimination of the Gross Residential Floor Area
regulations in all zone districts and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al.
Planner: Russell Forrest
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. The public is invited to attend project orientation
and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development
Department. Please call 479 -2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call 479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published November 8, 2002 in the Vail Daily.
TOWN OF
7.
,f
1
v PO.Box 621 Phone: 970 - 477 -2476
J o� G. ��,i[l11 11 in - 1 chitect Vail Co 81658 Fax: 970 - 477 -2237
w johi'i8��com john.mar inl1 anbi.com
Request for Variance
Town of Vail, Planning and Zoning Commission
Project
Bill and Norma Brown Residence
Location:
Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision
Address:
2642 Cortina Lane, Vail, CO 81657
Parcel No.:
210314203007
List of Adjacent Property Owners Information (Vail Ridge Subdivision)
1. Lot 4, Block A Christina & Cecelia Brinkmann
2643 Cortina Lane 2643 Cortina Lane
Parcel No. 210314202004 Vail, CO 81657
2. Lot 5, Block A David & Jennifer Ann Dimarzio
2653 Cortina Lane P.O.Box 2848
Parcel No. 210314202013 Vail, CO 81658
3. Lot 5, Block B Caleb & Shan Burchenal
2632 Cortina Lane 425 Ivanhoe SL
Parcel No. 210314203006 Denver, CO 80220
4. Lot 7, Block B Philip & Mary Beard
2662 Cortina Lane 2249 W. 118` Terrace
Parcel No. 210314203008 Leawood, KS 66211
5. Lot 20, Block B .lames Jennings & Kristin Norrgard
2635 Davos Trail P.O.Box 2575
Parcel No. 210314203017 Vail, CO 81658
6. Lot 21, Block B Adam less & Diana Honey
2615 Davos Trail P.O.Box 3057
Parcel No. 210314203018 Vail, CO 81658
7. Lot 22, Block B Hans Storr
2609 Davos Trail 33 Brookridge Dr.
Parcel No. 210314203019 Greenwich, CT 06830
1
Attachment: C
G Martin — Ar/�shite(� P.O.Box 628 Fax: : 970 -477 -2476 • >[.+'Li. hill Iv &J4i ti✓t,''L. Pail Ca 81658 Faa[; 97EU-- 477,2237
Jqhn
yv'wwj+()hngmartimco m john.martinll @attbi.com
Request for Variance
Town of Vail, Planning and Zoning Commission
Project
Bill and Norma Brown Residence
Location:
Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision
Address:
2642 Cortina Lane, Vail, CO 81657
Description of the variance requested and specific regulations involved:
We are asking for a variance which would allow a revision to the front entry gable so as to stretch it three
additional feet into the front setback area. The entry gable involves two posts, a timber truss, and the
roof gable which sheiters the front entry door and provides for an aesthetic inviting entrance symbol, This
is a non - livable and non- heated area encroachment into the front setback area. It is also related to a
zoning addendum which allows garage encroachments into the front setback area in cases of steep site
hardships.
The necessity for this variance involves an explanation of a previous floor plan change which was a direct
result of site hardship, but which did not require a variance. As you may know already, the Brown
Residence has experienced a construction failure and a resulting demolition due to difficult site
steepness, poor soils, inadequate construction management, and inadequate structural engineering.
The result has been a new set of architectural plans, structural engineering plans, a new contractor, and
a new building permit. The floor plans have been revised on the upper (entry) level as a direct result of
the new structural engineering proposal and have been accepted by the Town of Vail planning staff as
well as receiving a building permit approval. The change has resulted in bringing the front door four feet
north to align with the front setback line, thus eliminating a four -foot covered front porch area. The
problem resulting from this change is that the entry feature roof overhang can only project four feet into
the front setback area. The supporting posts and truss are located two feet into the front setback area as
to provide a two foot roof overhang. We feel that four feet is not an adequate roof covering for a front
entry door and that aesthetically it looks "flat' to have the supporting columns and truss only two feet from
the entry door wall. As the garage wall projects ten feet into the front setback area, we argue that it is not
out -of -line to allow the projection of the front gable, posts, and truss an additional three feet of
encroachment. The result is an entry feature which adequately shelters the front porch while looking
more aesthetically well - planned and remaining in the original spirit of the DRB approved house design.
The hardship involved is an unarguably steep and difficult site and the structural plan revisions which
were a direct result of this hardship.
A description of the relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
is potential uses and structures in the vicinity:
All the houses on the south side of the Cortina Lane have experienced hardship with the steep sites and
poor soils. It appears that some of the houses have taken advantage of the "garage in the front setback"
zoning addendum as we have. It can be argued that many of the houses have "flat' looking entry areas
with garages that project well in front of the rest of the house. A garage door wall is not the most
aesthetically pleasing part of a house, but is the most visible as it projects closer to the street than other
parts of the house due. We feel that this variance would help integrate the garage and adjacent entry
gable into the massing of the house in a less awkward way than the existing strict interpretation of the
zoning rules would allow. Thus there would be one less house on Cortina Lane with a "flat" looking front
fagad e.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and
uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of
this title without grant of special privilege.
We are only asking for three feet of encroachment beyond the strict interpretation of the front setback rule
to provide front entry shelter as well as aesthetically pleasing design massing. This will achieve
compatibility and uniformity among the "over -a- million - dollar" houses which already display good design
aesthetics.
The effect of the variance on light and air, distribution of population, .
transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety.
This variance will have no effect on the listed items.
A description of how the request complies with adopted Town of Vail planning
policies and development objectives.
One of the objectives of Vail planning and development is a desire to create aesthetically pleasing
buildings and streetscapes which are compatible with the overall design homogeneity of the town. Our
variance request addresses this objective.
0 Page 2
ITTro
'.-W A [At ji M
lo -
L-W
AfAk
J� 44
f
OP.
a
i�
• OCr4HMGD'1NA'3NV1 VNLLMOD Zir9Z ,w.,�,„cv,nw. {•�.... WPa•..y�owi:w„# •trH ��ra
LOQL fJL 41 :IM
:SWOQSIA771 90 L --eLc, , ((m) ) e:wYee naw lIMA y a W00113 yd 101 ,914 .P-g07 'Ich a
u
lL9 u, •O'd ,fAOAQ .ON B6i
tov -s -� : •�' NM OHEI '4 HON V'11113 MilH047 'Hliavw -O HHOr
:mo=i aanamsm rvoiSno r
1-
o
2 W
in
w
yy,, 4
Z
Ac
O 6 0 p r y 1-h q 4r'
¢7 /0 ®� ,arm ; F Z m
lyl
M1 5Q WK go
cc
f f ` = u
mom #
" u
-s
M"0012 O.SSN 'I .� r y z"
WHE
f.�I�I d ►lrl r
` � ': lrtil�lti�lti `ti
,. r
zUOL -O� -U1 'Iv
s+asuaa
ZOOL -S-L a4ra
OGTdO -100 iIYA'3NVl YNUMOO MZ
3001lf 11YA '8 MOO-TS V 101
NMOHe VVYaoN V -n1s
— •l�uR—q
"ZI -etr (ote) :xej
vwr -ter vcs <«wud
vsr�v avr+a� Ymn rtv -a ad
10311HOdY 'NIIUVn -7 NHor
-ora i3�Ms
�7b8 .ON vor
3do-4 30N301sm P40181b Y
z
fl
i
w
cl
I
lb
j5
Z
LL
tY
O
L
LL
x
jl
C, ewe
1I
rA'
LLJ1-4-1
w
m
O
z
l�
OZ9
ui
ujm
I
O a
rw
J
><
J ILI
w
CL
z
o�
v
J
� h
I
Q
L] �
Z
LU IL
2
LLJ
V
O
I �
F
•
•
•
vv�Y�'�`ai '�•
' 3N0l5W3�1
i � L�OZ-5 -1 Marro
N �
q7
•
I
4`l i
15
I
5
L
1 1
1
oaVU0100 7rrA VWI YMUNoa ZM
1 J 'mN 13DS
"47"
30018 IIVA 'e N0019 'e 101
NMOUG MHON V II18
9GTL -LLt ml6 �waVd
coil t --M °IfeA 129 �++8 'D'd
:lOzl 3ONmissu waists v
r
'm 7mf
1O311H08V NIINV" °9 NHor
v5
J
U)_
'v
I
4`l i
15
I
5
L
1 1
1
1-1:01
fy �
S k ) I
SI
f
h
h �
1 J 'mN 13DS
"47"
wao'uw 5,44 ww
t1ZZ -1r+ [masj per
9GTL -LLt ml6 �waVd
coil t --M °IfeA 129 �++8 'D'd
lFi,
MbWM
'm 7mf
1O311H08V NIINV" °9 NHor
'v
in
z
d)
~
L
h
LU
ui
'' r
i_1_l
i]
i
l
1
i
1
5 j{
1-1:01
fy �
S k ) I
SI
f
h
h �
J
11..1
Q
1—
�n
A�
J
11..1
Q
1—
WE
0
Ln
WOE-OE-01 'Itt
waa'+ v.+va.wf'... '••aweiwwf
u -Lill ((6Lajj —j
'ow L33HS
oavuwtoo 'in awl YNLtUO3 PW
sxnCtnsa
�rw+lu „v nw'o a
awia uric iv i
..i._ 1! iml .--W
a
, LOOz'-5-L 'situ
�1.
NMOUG VY48ON V 1119
K.91Q .PO+ale� "6oA taf M9 'o'a
� .N eor..
103ilHOav NI18YR "9 NHQP
ado-4 3maaLSgH moisno V
6
1 fV
i
i
1
1
1
1
r
r4
A
u
0
�I
I
I
� N
fV CLh
m
it � ll
s CO 9 �s
0 °
0 �
OL
0 m
\! L
Q
1
1
r
1
a■
fl�
LL
d�
.j
J U1
Q �
U
us
>_
i
•
•
7
GwC, :1# 1 � INA -2mr YI'!ILIM Zr`�r ueOlvSYawWV°I•�u woa° uSa4u!vew{ J � '[1N 13M5
Lrrz -LLr {ULe) :Ra!
'sNU�slnle 39GIH IIYA '6 )1Jdll� '9 dl 4Lrz -LLr (Z* ) .«awe
LOCi� -S -L 7i�u 444 i4 erwan5 'non �E4 .aB 'o'd » nie -ors eor
NM4a9 ' YMUON i118 ��3111a�aa I�Itavrr riHVr
X03 30malm nols I Y
r----------------------------- ---- �------------------------
I I
I
I II
i
I
I
I
---------------
I I I
I I I
I I I
f I I
' I I
I I I
! I I
I I I
V I I
I I
L I I
I I
n I I
lu' V I 9
I I I
I I
I I I
1 I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I S I
f E I
I f I
I 1 I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I
I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I I
I I I
I F I
I 1 I
I I !
I
II II i
f I I
l I I
I I I
HH I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0��
z
q
'(
0
V
Z
`"'
�-
J-[-i
11J
J
Z:Qoc DZ °OI `1>t
�NOIfIn38
it Ot1Z -S:S °7130
3JOIa IIYA '8 )I�Ul6 `� l
ocrvmolOJ '11YA '3NY1 YNLLN[YJ :-11-11101
NMOas MHON V
u
uwa �lyou�6uwi-.0 woa- alaa�9+�+1
1fLL —LL} (OL6) :aa!
90 -LL+ IOal :-4d
mit upo +NeJ'Iloh IL9 ao9 'O'd
ON L33NS
Wode ON sor
1�311H�atl NlladYl '� NHQf
�Oml WN30ieaa woisno
I
��- 1--- -------- --- ----- - - - --
•
ZOOL-OZ-OI '1#
sNOlsuaa
ZOOZ S-L �avO
OM 0103 71VA $NVI YN LbYBZ
3Da1!! IIYA �Q )I:70�8 8 . 71
i!
NMOUS MHON V 1118
:UOA 33N3 ism WOl Y
'ON 133N5
a ON 90f
W�'.l owr 4of ... war.�awowa awl
Lccz -LCr (OLe1 .god
9LTL—LLT (OLO) . Wd
99211 oP.M.3 IVA [L9 a�9 •0•4
133llK)dV NIAVY4 "9 NHor
•
1 I
c�
4 zr
Lij
S I 1 I
I I iii
I
F I
�J
r1
LJ
•
r�
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: November 25, 2002
SUBJECT: A request for a text amendment to Sections 12 -7H -11 & 12- 71 -11, Vail Town
Code and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow for a clarification
to the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height requirements
for building constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead Mixed
Use 2 zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: George Ruther
I. SUMMARY
The Department of Community Development is requesting that the Planning and
Environmental Commission review the proposed text amendment intended to clarify the
height requirements in the Lionshead Mixed Use -1 zone district, as further described in
the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. The proposed language has been prepared
in response to the input staff received from the Planning and Environmental Commission
at their worksession meetings on September 9, and October 14, 2002. In summary, the
staff is proposing to utilize the same method of building height calculation used in all
other zone districts in Town, eliminate the average height calculation and instead rely
upon a 50 % building height limitation to effectively achieve variety and movement in
ridgelines, and to create additional definitions to aid in the understanding and
implementation of the absolute maximum height calculation for buildings in the
Lionshead Mixed Use zone districts.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Department of Community Development has requested that the Planning and
Environmental Commission review an administrative interpretation of the maximum
height calculation for structures constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use -1 and
Lionshead Mixed Use 11 zone districts. Staff's request is in response to recent
discussions regarding the calculation of the average maximum height from which staff
has concluded that further clarification is necessary to ensure that the intent of the
regulation has been met. Specifically, staff recognized that there are multiple methods
of measuring average maximum height and numerous questions about how to
implement the height calculation. Section V of this memorandum outlines these
methods and questions in greater detail. Section VI outlines a possible text amendment
to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan with regard to maximum allowable
building height. This request is brought to the Planning and Environmental Commission
for review and consideration pursuant to Section 12 -3 -3, Vail Town Code.
Staff recommends that the Commission again discusses this request and then forward a
*Y41L T04i'
formal recommendation on the proposed text amendment to the Vail Town Council.
Ill. BACKGROUND
On December 15, 1998, the Town of Vail adopted the Lionshead Redevelopment Master
Plan. In adopting the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, the Vail Town Council
adopted an average maximum height calculation for improvements constructed in the
Lionshead Mixed Use I and Lionshead Mixed Use II zone districts. The reason, in part,
for adopting an average maximum height calculation was to respond to building height
and massing criteria within an already built environment. Unlike development in other
areas in town, where maximum building height is calculated based upon existing or
finished grade, which ever is more restrictive, redevelopment projects in the Lionshead
Mixed Use l and Lionshead Mixed Use II zone districts must be responsive to the
existing conditions, improvements, and the project's relationship to existing buildings and
infrastructure. To address these concerns, it was determined that an alternate means of
calculating building height in the Lionshead Mixed Use I and Lionshead Mixed Use 11
zone districts was necessary.
On September 9, 2002, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held
a worksession meeting to discuss the average maximum height calculation issue for
determining building height in the Lionshead Mixed Use I and Lionshead Mixed Use 11
zone districts. Upon discussion of the issue, there was a clear consensus among the
Commissioners that further clarification was needed to described and determine the
allowable height of buildings in the Lionshead Mixed Use I and Lionshead Mixed Use 11
zone districts. What was not completely clear, however, was the methodology that
should be adopted. In response to the discussion, the Commission asked staff to return
to a future worksession meeting with proposed language that clarified the intent of the
regulation, which upon implementation, resulted in buildings that did not exceed 82.5
feet maximum in height with an average maximum building height of 71 feet. A
complete copy of the September 9, 2002, approved Planning and Environmental
Commission meeting minutes have been attached for reference (Attachment B)
On October 14, 2002, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a
second worksession meeting to discuss the average maximum height calculation issue
for determining building height in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and Lionshead Mixed Use II
zone districts. Following a lengthy discussion of the issue and consideration of a
proposed methodology, the Commission directed staff to prepare draft legislation for
determining building height for future consideration. Specifically, given several inherent
conflicts with the methodology proposed and the intent of the regulation, the
Commission asked the staff to look into the feasibility of utilizing a building height
calculation similar to that used for calculating height in Vail Village (Commercial Core
zone district). This alternate means of calculating building height uses a percentage
basis or ratio for allowable maximum building height. A complete copy of the October 14,
2002, approved Planning and Environmental Commission meeting minutes have been
attached for reference (Attachment C).
IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS
A. Town of Vail Zoning Regulations
Staff has reviewed the Town of Vail Zoning Regulations and believes the following
sections are relevant to the review of this request:
2
Section 12 -2 -2. Definitions
GRADE, EXISTING: The existing grade shall be the existing or natural
topography of a site prior to construction.
GRADE, FINISHED: The finished grade shall be the grade proposed upon
completion of a project.
HEIGHT. The distance measured vertically from any point on a proposed or
existing roof or eaves to the existing or finished grade (whichever is more
restrictive) located directly below said point of the roof or eaves. Within any
building footprint, height shall be measured vertically from any point on a
proposed or existing roof to the existing grade directly below said point on a
proposed or existing roof.
Section 12 -3 -3, Appeals
A. Administrative Actions: Any decision, determination or interpretation by
any Town administrative official with respect to the provisions of this Title
and the standards and procedures hereinafter set forth shall become final
at the next Planning and Environmental Commission meeting (or in the
case of design related decision, the next Design Review Board meeting)
following the Administrator's decision, unless the decision is called up and
modified by the Board or Commission.
40 B. Appeal of Administrative Actions:
1. Authority: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall have the
authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination or
interpretation by any Town administrative official with respect to the
provisions of this Title and the standards and procedures hereinafter set
forth, except that appeals of any decision, determination or interpretation
by any Town administrative official with regard to a design guideline shall
be heard by the Design Review Board.
2. Initiation: An appeal may be initiated by an applicant, adjacent property
owner, or any aggrieved or adversely affected person from any order,
decision, determination or interpretation by any administrative official with
respect to this Title. "Aggrieved or adversely affected person" means any
person who will suffer an adverse effect to an interest protected or
furthered by this Title. The alleged adverse interest may be shared in
common with other members of the community at large, but shall exceed
in degree the general interest in community good shared by all persons.
The Administrator shall determine the standing of an appellant. If the
appellant objects to the Administrator's determination of standing, the
Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in
the case of design guidelines) shall, at a meeting prior to hearing
evidence on the appeal, make a determination as to the standing of the
appellant. If the Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design
Review Board in the case of design guidelines) determines that the
appellant does not have standing to bring an appeal, the appeal shall not
be heard and the original action or determination stands.
3. Procedures: A written notice of appeal must be filed with the
Administrator or with the department rendering the decision,
determination or interpretation within ten (1 D) calendar days of the
decision becoming final. If the last day for filing an appeal falls on a
Saturday, Sunday, or a Town- observed holiday, the last day for filing an
appeal shall be extended to the next business day. The Administrator's
decision shall become final at the next Planning and Environmental
Commission meeting (or in the case of design related decision, the next
Design Review Board meeting) following the Administrator's decision,
unless the decision is called up and modified by the Board or
Commission. Such notice shall be accompanied by the name and
addresses (person's mailing and property's physical) of the appellant,
applicant, property owner, and adjacent property owners (the list of
property owners within a condominium project shall be satisfied by listing
the addresses for the managing agent or the board of directors of the
condominium association) as well as specific and articulate reasons for
the appeal on forms provided by the Town. The filing of such notice of
appeal will require the administrative official whose decision is appealed,
to forward to the Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design
Review Board in the case of design guidelines) at the next regularly
scheduled meeting, a summary of all records concerning the subject
matter of the appeal and to send written notice to the appellant, applicant,
property owner, and adjacent property owners (notification within a
condominium project shall be satisfied by notifying the managing agent or
the board of directors of the condominium association) at least fifteen (15)
calendar days prior to the hearing. A hearing shall be scheduled to be
heard before the Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design
Review Board in the case of design guidelines) on the appeal within thirty
(30) calendar days of the appeal being filed. The Planning and
Environmental Commission (or the Design Review Board in the case of
design guidelines) may grant a continuance to allow the parties additional
time to obtain information. The continuance shall be allowed for a period
not to exceed an additional thirty (30) calendar days. Failure to file such
appeal shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this Title to appeal
any interpretation or determination made by an administrative official.
5. Findings: The Planning and Environmental Commission (or the Design
Review Board in the case of design guidelines) shall on all appeals make
specific findings of fact based directly on the particular evidence
presented to it. These findings of fact must support conclusions that the
standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of this Title have
or have not been met.
12- 7H -11: Height and Bulk:
Buildings shall have a maximum average building height of seventy one feet (71 j
with a maximum height of 82.5 feet, as further defined by the Lionshead
Redevelopment Master Plan. All development shall comply with the design
guidelines and standards found in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
ki
Flexibility with the standard, as incorporated in the Lionshead Redevelopment
Master Plan, shall be afforded to redevelopment projects which meet the intent of
design guidelines, as reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board.
B. Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan
Staff has reviewed the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plans and believes the
following sections are relevant to the review of this request:
Section 2.1, Purpose of the Master Plan (in part)
This master plan, developed over a period of two year and with extensive
involvement by the community, is a comprehensive guide for property
owners proposing to undertake development or redevelopment of their
properties and the municipal officials responsible for planning public
improvements. The plan outlines the Town's objectives and goals for the
enhancement of Lionshead and proposes recommendations, incentives,
and requirements for redevelopment and new development of public and
private properties.
Section 2.8 Adoption and Amendment of the Master Plan,
The Lionshead Master Plan was adopted by Resolution 14, Series of
9998, on December 15, 1998, by the Vail Town Council following a
recommendation to approve by the Planning and Environmental
is Commission. Future amendments to this master plan must be approved
by resolution or motion by the Vail Town Council following a formal
recommendation by the Planning and Environmental Commission.
Implementation activities and ordinances will be approved in accordance
with the Vail Town Code.
Chapter 8, Architectural Design Guidelines (in part)
The scope of the Design Guidelines includes all criteria related to the
architectural design of new and remodel projects within Lionshead, along
with site planning criteria which relate directly to architecture.
Section 8.4.2.3, Building Height (in part)
Maximum Heights
Maximum height is defined as the distance from existing or finished grade
-- whichever is more restrictive -- to the ridge of the nearest primary roof
form to that grade. With this in mind, the Average Maximum Height of
any building shall not exceed 71 ft_ Notwithstanding the notion of
Average Maximum Height, the Absolute Maximum Height of any building
shall not exceed 82.5 ft. Absolute Maximum Height shall be determined
by interpolating existing or finished grade through the building footprint
and measuring the vertical distance from the ridge of the highest primary
roof form to imaginary plane created by the interpolated grades.
0 Calculation of Average Maximum Height
5
The intent of implementing an Average Maximum Height for buildings is
to create movement and variety in the ridgelines and roof forms in
Lionshead. Toward that end, the Average Maximum Height of a building
shall be calculated based upon the linear footage of ridgeline on primary
roof forms. Any amount of primary roof form ridgeline that exceeds 71 ft.
must be offset by at least an equal amount of primary roof form ridgeline
falling below 71 ft., with the distance below 71 ft. equivalent to or greater
than the distance exceeding 71 ft. The average calculation shall be
based on the aggregate linear footage of primary roof forms across an
entire structure, not separate individual roof forms.
Additional Requirements /Exceptions
All buildings, regardless of permitted building heights and massing
principles, shall conform to all established Public View Corridors (see
Lionshead Master Plan). Special "landmark" building elements, such as
chimneys, towers, or other unique architectural forms, may exceed the
Absolute Maximum Height, subject to approval by the reviewing board.
This provision is intended to provide for architectural creativity and quality
of building form, and shall not be used as a means or circumventing the
intent of the building height limitations. In addition, regardless of final
building height, buildings shall avoid monotonous, unbroken ridge lines,
and shall provide visual interest through the use varied peak heights, roof
forms, gables, and other appropriate architectural techniques.
V. PROPOSED LIONSHEAD REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT 0
The existing regulations for the calculation of maximum allowable building height and
average maximum height in the Lionshead Mixed Use I and II zone districts are
confusing and unclear. The implementation of the prescribed methods of calculation do
not result in the intended consequences of the regulation and contains numerous
loopholes and ambiguities. Over the course of the review and consideration of the
building height calculation, staff has concluded that much of the confusion and ambiguity
stems from the notion of an average maximum building height.
Staff believes, and the Commission has affirmed, that the notion or intent of the average
maximum building height limitation was to promote and create 'movement and variety in
the ridgelines and roof forms in Lionshead, thus avoiding long continuous, uninterrupted
ridgelines." Staff has proposed several alternate means of building height calculation.
Each method, however, has resulted in unintended consequences or did not further the
expressed intent of the regulation. Furthermore, staff prepared an alternate building
height calculation methodology similar to that used for calculating the height of buildings
in the Commercial Core I zone district (Vail Village) as requested by the Commission.
Upon testing the methodology and exploring numerous scenarios, staff determined that
such a method, like the others, would not meet the intent of the building height regulation
for Lionshead or resulted in unintended consequences. Therefore, staff is proposing the
following changes to the building height calculation:
�) Implement a method of height calculation for the Lionshead Mixed Use I and II
zone districts that utilizes existing, finished and interpolated grades to determine
building height. 0
0
2) Eliminate the average maximum height calculation as expressed in the master
plan and instead rely upon a methodology that in its best/worst case scenario
results in an average building height of 71 feet.
3) Provide definitions and illustrations to better aid in the understanding of the
building height calculation_
Staff is proposing the following amendment to Section $.4.2.3 (Building Height) of the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan:
(additions to the text are shown in BOLD; deletions to the text are shown in
}
Absolute Maximum Heights
The intent of implementing a maximum height for buildings in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1
and 1l zone districts is to establish a maximum building height limitation that promotes
the health, safety and welfare of the community and creates movement and variety in
the ridgelines and roof forms, thus preventing long continuous, uninterrupted ridgelines,
of buildings in Lionshead. Toward that end, no more than fifty percent (50 %) of a
building's ridgeline along a primary roof form(s) shall exceed 59.5 feet in height above
existing or finished grade outside the walls of the building, whichever is more restrictive,
or above the established interpolated grades inside the walls of the building. In no
instance shall the absolute maximum height exceed 82.5 feet in height. The Absolute
Maximum Height of a building shall be based upon the total linear ridgeline footage of all
primary roof form(s) across an entire structure, not separate individual primary roof
forms or ridgelines.
Absolute Maximum Height is defined as the distance measured vertically from the
ridgeline of the primary roof form(s) on a proposed or existing roof to the existing or
finished grade (whichever is more restrictive) located directly below said point of the
ridgeline of the primary roof form(s). Within any building footprint, height shall be
measured vertically from the ridgeline of the primary roof form(s) on a proposed or
existing roof to the existing grade directly below said point on a proposed or existing roof
the distance vertically from the ridgeline of the primary roof form(s) on a proposed or
existing roof to the interpolated existing or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive)
located directly below said point of the roof plane of the primary roof form(s). Within any
building footprint, height shall be measured vertically from the ridgeline of the primary
roof form(s) on a proposed or existing roof to the interpolated existing grade directly
below said point on a proposed or existing roof to the imaginary plane created by the
interpolated grades.
i . 1 1 r■ ■ • • i
uw .r.•. •• .w w. r w
.r. L . sr• r • r u ww w u_ • •. •+ • ri
u • . i ■
■ • r r w . • . • w . • r • • i +
.w. w r. w • .w C_ M—AIRIM e.
7
To aid in the understanding of the proposed height regulations, the Community
Development Department believes that several new definitions should be added to the
Town of Vail Zoning Regulations. The following definitions shall be added to Section 12-
2-2 of the Vail Town Code, Definitions, are provided to clarify the building height
calculation methodology:
Interpolated Grade
The re- established topographic conditions of a development site determined by
connecting surveyed spot elevations located at 10 -foot intervals around the perimeter of
a property boundary and used in the determination of maximum allowable building
height.
Dormer
An architectural structure projecting out from a sloping roof of a building designed to
provide light, air, access, or interior volume to a space and usually containing a vertical
window or ventilating louver, having a gable or shed roof, in which the total cumulative
length of the dormer(s) does not exceed fifty percent (50 %) of the length of the sloping
roof, per roof plane, from which the dormer(s) projects.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends that the Town of Vail Planning
and Environmental Commission forwards a recommendation of approval of the proposed
amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan and Section 12 -2 -2
Definitions of the Vail Town Code to the Vail town Council. Should the Commission
choose to recommend approval of the proposed amendments, staff suggests that the
following finding be made as part of the motion: 0
"The Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission finds that the existing
language regarding building height calculation and average maximum height, as outlined
in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, is both confusing and ambiguous and
does not meet the intent of the height regulations as prescribed. Therefore, the
Commission has reviewed three alternatives to the height calculation methodology and
believes that eliminating the notion of an average maximum height and implementing a
method of calculation that restricts the maximum building height to 82 feet and limits no
more than 501 of the primary roof ridgeline to exceed 59.5 feet, results in a building
height regulation that is more easily understood and effectively creates a 71 foot
maximum average building height in the best case scenario. "
•
V :lug
•
0
•
i
,tors gfAv 01 -o8 -7
�I-y L ", zCoZ
Attachment; A
�6 6dr
p s��
f
6
As-fa v)(4
y 11�
P6 yr-pr y
•
•
I
V .}uawyoauv
k
1
a
�r
r 311
�s
4-1
�k
N
r
$/..`
71 ft. a
50% 50%
100 ft,
Discussion of Average Maximum Building Height
September 9, 2002, Planning and Environmental Commission
Attachment; A
59.5 ft,
0
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
PUBLIC WELCOME
Monday, September 9, 2002
PROJECT ORIENTATION 1 - NO LUNCH Community Development Dept.
MEMBERS PRESENT
John Schofield
Erickson Shirley
Chas Bernhardt
Doug Cahill
Rollie Kjesbo
MEMBERS ABSENT
Gary Hartman
George Lamb
Approved 9123102
Attachment: B
1:30 pm
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6 :00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2 :00 pm
7. A request for an interpretation of the maximum height and calculation of average maximum
height requirements in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan.
Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave a presentation, per the staff report and stated that staff is looking for clarification
and not an amendment to the adopted master plan regarding the calculation of average maximum
height.
Erickson Shirley stated that it would be helpful for him if staff could break down the request into specific
questions the board should answer.
George Ruther stated that the overall question was, "How do you measure average maximum building
height in the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan ?"
Erickson Shirley asked what were the specific questions which would answer that overall question.
John Schofield suggested a question such as the definition of grade and height which were defined
already in the Code.
Doug Cahill stated that he read the Master Plan to say as using a plane created by the more restrictive
grade and a plum bob be moved around within the footprint of the building.
Erickson Shirley believed it was clear that height is defined in the Master Plan as being the distance
from the roof ridge and existing or finished grade, which ever is more restrictive and secondly, "The
average calculation shall be based on the aggregate linear footage of primary roof forms across an
entire structure, not separate individual roof forms."
TO1'lr1V OF
Approved 9123/02
George Ruther stated that he believed it was not that clear. He said he could come up with several
ways to interpret the document which would all give different results.
Rollie and John agreed that one of the problems was that the drawing is based on a flat site, not on the
topography which exists in Lionshead.
John Schofield brought up that at the time the Master Plan was being done, he believed that a survey
was done through out the Lionshead area, which included multiple spot elevations. He believed if the
information was still available it may be beneficial to help substantiate the board's determination.
George Ruther stated that he would check to see if it still existed.
Chas Bernhardt presented a mathematical equation, which took the difference in height from two
points on a roof ridge and divided by an interval to be determined.
John Schofield suggested that grade should be interpolated under the building to create a plane to
measure from.
Doug Cahill asked if George Ruther would write that up.
Erickson Shirley asked that a drawing accompany it_
George Ruther restated the request, in order to clarify what he heard.
Chas Bernhardt clarified his variables included in the mathematical equation. He said points along the
ridge would be measured over a determined distance step and that difference would be divided bythat
distance.
Doug Cahill asked if the staff could add that no more than 50 percent of the building height could be at
82.5 feet.
John Schofield stated that he felt the DRB would never approve some of the buildings as proposed in
the staff report, even if they met the letter of the Master Plan.
George Ruther stated that he didn't understand, under Chas's proposal, how each segment was
handled over the length of the entire roof line. He said each segment would have an average height
and then those segments would be averaged together to make sure that the overall ridge height is at
an average of 71 feet.
The Commission agreed that height should be measured from the most restrictive grade either existing,
or finished.
John Schofield stated that he felt that primary ridgeline needed to be defined.
Doug Cahill stated that dormers were not a primary roof form, but they should be measured for overall
height.
George Ruther stated that the Master Plan called out dormers as secondary or special architectural
features to be considered a primary roof form.
John Schofield asked if George Ruther had enough feedback to write something for the next meeting.
George Ruther stated that in some cases such as on a steep site, the height of a building could be 40
higher if measured from the eave.
Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this to September 23, 2002.
Approved 9123102
Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0.
2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to Section 12 -7A -7
(Height), Vail Town Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public
Accommodation zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto.
Applicant: Bob Lazier, represented by Jay Peterson
Planner: George Ruther /Warren Campbell
MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5 -0
TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23, 2002
3. A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a public utility installation, located at the
East Vail Water Tank, 5004 Snowshoe Lane /Summer Recreational Area, Vail Meadows
Filing 1.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5 -0
TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23, 2002
4. A request for a final review of a final plat for a major subdivision; a request for a tinal review of a
conditional use permit to allow for a private educational institution and development plan
approval to construct employee housing; and setting forth details in regards thereto, located at
the site known as "Mountain Bell " /an unplatted piece of property, located at 160 N. Frontage
Rd. /to be platted as Middle Creek Subdivision.
Applicant: Vail Local Housing Authority, represented by Odell Architects
Planner: Allison Ochs
MOTION: Chas Bernhardt SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 5 -0
TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 23, 2002
5. A request for a conditional use permit and an amendment to the approved development
plan, to allow for a temporary private educational institution, located at the Lionshead RV
Lot, 395 S. Frontage Road /Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead I" Filing.
Applicant: Children's Garden of Learning
Planner: Allison Ochs
WITHDRAWN
6. A request for a minor amendment to an approved development plan, in accordance with
Section 12 -8D -6 of the Vail Town Code, to allow for improvements to the Golden Peak Ski
Base, located at 458 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F,Vail Village 51h Filing and 498 Vail Valley
Drive/Tract B, Vail Village 7'h Filing.
Applicant: Vail Resorts, Inc.
Planner: Bill Gibson
STAFF APPROVED
Affirmed
Approved 10/28102
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES Attachment: C
Monday, October 14, 2002
PROJECT ORIENTATION 1- Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 11:00 am
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Site Visits : 12:30 pm
1. Zuckerman residence - 2943 Bellflower Drive
2. Ice Rink at the Vail Golf Course — 1778 Vail Valley Drive
3. Public Utility at the Vail Golf Course —1778 Vail Valley Drive
4, Outdoor Recreation zoned properties
5. Sonnenalp Hotel Addition /Swiss Chalet Redevelopment — 20 Vail Road
Driver: George
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6 :00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30
Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm
1. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of a proposed major amendment
to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, Development Area B, to amend the
setback requirements as indicated on the approved development plan, located at
Coldstream Condominiums, Unit # 25, 1476 Westhaven Drive /Lot 53, Glen Lyon
Subdivision_
Applicant: James and Jane Kaufman, represented by Fritzlen Pierce Architects
Planner: Allison Ochs
Allison gave a presentation of the staff memorandum dated 14114/02
Bill Pierce represented the applicant, Jim Kaufman and was available to answer any
questions the Commission may have of the application. He stated his concerns with the
amendment procedure and asked that this application be reviewed as a minor amendment.
John Schofield asked for public comment. There was none and the public comment was
closed.
Gary Hartman expressed his concern with the application as submitted and felt that this
request was difficult to support_
Doug Cahill asked Allison to cite section 12 -9A -2 for the Commission. (Minor Amendment)
Chas Bernhardt stated that setbacks are designed, in part, to protect adjacent properties.
He felt that the application was supportable, as there would be no negative impacts to the
adjacent properties.
Rollie Kjesbo questions the procedural requirements of a minor amendment vs. a major
amendment. He stated that he was in support of the application as submitted.
George Lamb concurred with both Rollie and Chas and felt that the proposal was in
compliance with the review criteria.
Approved 1 0128M
Russ Forrest noted the information provide in the staff memorandum.
Erickson Shirley asked how homes in Edwards are controlled.
Russ Forrest replied that floor area is restricted, but in a much simpler manner.
Gary Hartman noted that he feels GRFA is unfair in that some individuals can not afford
architects who can avert the regulations, or construct false walls and rooms.
John Schofield asked if the PEC was opposed to larger homes.
Erickson Shirley replied that larger homes are alright if they fit the size of the lot, and people
shouldn't only get caught up in square footage.
Doug Cahill believes that GRFA has served a purpose in controlling bulk and mass, but now
is the appropriate time to take another look at GRFA. He is concerned about impacts on
redevelopment. He also noted that DRB controls need to be considered and incentives for
EHU's will also need to be reviewed.
Gary Hartman is in favor of eliminating GRFA in all zoning. He disputed some of the
"negatives" of eliminating GRFA, as noted in the staff memorandum.
George Lamb noted that he is in favor of eliminating GRFA.
Rollie Kjesbo noted he is in favor of eliminating GRFA somehow. He feels it will create safer
building constructed in a logical manner and he noted that larger lots should be allowed to
build larger homes.
John Schofield recapped that the PEC is unanimously in support of a change, and most
support the elimination of GRFA. He said there is a need to examine site coverage, how to
encourage EHU's, how to regulate parking requirements, how to strengthen DRB
requirements, we need to examine homes in located in other zone districts, how to address
landscaping requirements, and suggested a work session with the Town Council. He asked
staff to update the information on how other communities deal with bulk and mass and
explore requiring architects to serve on the DRB.
7. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for text amendments to
Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regards thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Russell Forrest
Doug Cahill made a motion to table this until October 28, 2002_
Gary Hartman seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0.
8. A request for a text amendment to Sections 12 -7H -11 & 12- 71 -11, Vail Town Code and the
Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow for a clarification to the maximum height
and calculation of average maximum height requirements for building constructed in the
Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead Mixed Use 2 zone district, and setting forth
details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department
Planner: George Ruther
9
Approved 1412$!02
George Ruther presented an overview of the staff memorandum and requested that today's
discussion be a worksession. He said that staff will further examine the proposed options in
greater detail and present them to the PEC at a later date. He said staff was comfortable with
the proposed measurement methodologies, but welcomed further input and that staff will
further define primary roof ridges, interpolated grades, and other terms.
Dominic Mau riello noted that they are working on several applications and understand the need
to clarify the height regulations. They liked the idea of examining the heights of roof areas. He
recommended examining how dormers are reviewed in the interior conversion regulations.
Erickson Shirley recommended fixing as much as possible, but having a fail safe to resolve
issues that can't be resolved by the letter of the law.
George Lamb tabled this until November 11, 2002,
Doug Cahill seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0.
9. A request for a worksession to discuss a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for an
amendment to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan, to facilitate
the construction of "Vail's Front Door" project and associated improvements and setting
forth details in regards thereto, located on an unplatted parcel, generally located south of
the Lodge Tower and west of the Vista Bahn Ski Yard. A more complete metes and bounds
description is available at the Department of Community Development.
Applicant: Vail Resorts Development Company 10
Planner: George Ruther
TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 28, 2002
Doug Cahill made a motion to table this until October 28, 2002.
Gary Hartman seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0.
10. A request for a modification to the 100 -year floodplain, to allow for grading in the floodplain
to modify the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, located at the Gore Creek Promenade/Tracts I
& A, Block 5B, Vail Village 1' Filing, and setting forth details in regards thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie
Planner: Bill Gibson
TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 11, 2002
Doug Cahill made a motion to table this until November 11, 2002.
Gary Hartman seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 6 -0. 0
11. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council of an amendment to Section 12 -7A -7
(Height), Vail Town Code, to increase the maximum allowable building height in the Public
Accommodation zone district and setting forth details in regards thereto_
I0
•
•
�J
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
Monday, November 25, 2002
PROJECT ORIENTATION / - Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME
MEMBERS PRESENT
John Schofield
Rollie Kjesbo
George Lamb
Chas Bernhardt
Doug Cahill
Site Visits :
MEMBERS ABSENT
Erickson Shirley
Gary Hartman
1. Brown residence — 2642 Cortina Lane
2. Halaby residence — 252 West Meadow Drive
3. Whitewater Park — Gore Creek Promenade
4. Sign Tour
Driver: George
Approved 12!9102
12:00 am
12:30 pm
Z*
NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30
Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers
2:00 pm
A request for a conditional use permit, to allow for a Type I I Employee Housing Unit, located
at 252 West Meadow Drive /Lot 8, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Theodore S. Halaby, represented by Segerberg Mayhew & Assoc_ Architects
Planner: Bill Gibson
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 4 -0 (Bernhardt not
present)
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 9, 2002
2. A request for a variance from Section 12 -6D -6 (Setbacks), Vail Town Code, to allow for a
building encroachment into the front setback, located at 2642 Cortina Lane /Lot 6, Block B,
Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Bill and Norma Brown, represented by John G. Martin, Architect
Planner: Bill Gibson
Bill Gibson gave a report per the staff report.
John Schofield asked if any other variances have been given for this type of variance in the area.
Bill Gibson stated that, to his knowledge the Planning and Environmental Commission had not
granted a variance for this type of request in the area.
TOWNA OF V/tfL
Approved 1219102
The applicant noted that this request was primarily for aesthetic reasons and some engineering
changes that were made caused the home to loose four feet of covering over the front door from its
original design. 0
John Schofield asked if the applicant could tell the Commission what the hardship was for this site.
The applicant stated that the steep slopes and bad soils were the hardship and pointed out that
other homes on the street appeared awfully close to the road,
Rollie Kjesbo stated that they were probably built in Eagle County and then annexed.
Doug Cahill asked the applicant if the home had been moved back after the rebuild.
The applicant stated that the engineer requested that the door be moved out to be in -line with the
existing front wall.
Chas Bernhardt stated that he didn't think that granting the variance was a granting of special
privilege, as the slope and soils are a hardship.
Rollie Kjesbo stated that most of the items were already covered and added that he hesitates to
grant a variance on new construction.
George Lamb stated that he had a problem with granting the variance on new construction as well
and continued by adding that maybe the applicant should have dealt with this prior to beginning
reconstruction with the new engineering solution.
John Schofield stated that the other homes on the street have to deal with the same situation and
no variances have been granted. 0
Doug Cahill made a motion to deny the proposal, as it would be a granting of special privilege, with
the findings in section IX the staff memorandum on Page 9.
Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4 -1, with Chas Bernhardt apposed.
3. A request for a worksession to amend Chapter 12 -15 (Gross Residential Floor Area), Vail
Town Code, to discuss modifications and/or elimination of the Gross Residential Floor Area
regulations in all zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto,
Applicant: Vicki Pearson, et.al.
Planner: Russell Forrest
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 4 -0 (Bernhardt not
present)
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 9, 2402
4. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council, to allow for tent amendments to
Title 11, Sign Regulations, Vail Town Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Russell Forrest /Matt Gennett
MOTION: George Lamb SECOND: Rollie Kjesbo VOTE: 4 -0 (Bernhardt not
present)
TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 9, 2002
1)
Approved 1219102
5. A request for text amendments to Sections 12 -7H -11 (Height & Bulk) & 12 -71 -11 (Height &
Bulk), Vail Town Code and the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to allow for a
clarification to the maximum height and calculation of average maximum height
requirements for buildings constructed in the Lionshead Mixed Use 1 and the Lionshead
Mixed Use 2 zone districts, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail Community Development Department
Planner: George Ruther
George Ruther gave a presentation, per the staff report.
Alex Iskenderian stated that they were going to request a tabling of the item as they just received
the staff report today and he and his architects would like time to digest the item.
Rollie Kjesbo asked if the Vail Resorts application would be received prior to finalization of the
height measurement question.
Alex Iskenderian stated that it is their hope to submit soon and if they did submit prior to finalization
of height measurement, they would do so with the understanding that the height may need to be
adjusted.
Rollie Kjesbo stated he had no problem tabling this, as both the applicant and Vail Resorts were
open to it.
George Lamb stated that he just didn't want to get caught in a "catch 22" with Vail Resort wanting a
decision on an application with the height measurement question still unanswered.
Doug Cahill and Chas Bernhardt echoed the previous comments.
John Schofield discussed the idea of getting independent architects to review the language for
clarity and consequences.
Chas Bernhardt made a motion to table this until December 9, 2002.
Doug Cahill seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 5 -0.
6. A request for a modification to the 100 -year floodplain, to allow for grading in the floodplain
to modify the Gore Creek Whitewater Park, located at the Gore Creek Promenade/Tracts I
& A, Block 5B, Vail Village 15t Filing, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Gregg Barrie
Planner: Bill Gibson
George Lamb made a motion to table this until December 9, 2002.
Rollie Kjesbo seconded the motion.
The motion passed by a vote of 4 -0 (Chas Bernhardt was not present).
7. Approval of October 28, 2002 minutes
• George Lamb made a motion to table this until December 9, 2002.
Doug Cahill seconded the motion.
Approved 1219/02
The motion passed by a vote of 4 -0 (Chas Bernhardt was not present).
8. Information Update
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 upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-
2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
4
•
0