Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-12-17 Town Council MinutesF\ MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING December 17, 1996 7:30 P.M. A Wlar meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 17, 1996, in the Council Ch , bers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Robert W. Armour, Mayor Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro -tern Kevin Foley Rob Ford Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz Michael Jewett MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The irst item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Local attorney, Mary Isom, appeared before Council wilrer client, Bob Schultz, owner of the Vail and Lionshead popcorn wagons, and Lori Fennese, a potential buyer of the businesses. Isom said she wished to discuss the Town's lease with Mr. Schultz, which is due to expire in December of 1997, and the transferring of that lease to the potential purchaser. Mayor Armour stated the item was scheduled for Council discussion in the spring of 1997. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead stated that the negotiation of leases with the Town was typically handled by his office, and, that to his knowledge, such an issue had never before been brought to a council meeting. Tom further informed Council members that he had talked to Ms. Isom about the issue and said he told her the Town would honor the lease and the provision of assignment. He said that he had not heard back from her. At that time, Councilman Rob Ford reiterated that the Council would not consider renewing the lease until the spring of 1997. Item number two on the agenda was the consent agenda which consisted of the following items: A. Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1996, second reading of an Ordinance Making Supplemental Appropriations from the Town of Vail General Fund, Parking Structure Fund, Police Confiscation Fund, Booth Creek Debt Service Fund, Debt Service Fund, and Housing Fund, of the 1996 Budget and the Financial Plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and Authorizing the Expenditures of Said Appropriations as Set Forth Herein; and Setting Forth Details in Regard Thereto. 130 Resolution No. 22, Series of 1996, a Resolution authorizing the Town Manager to enter into an Animal Control Services Contract. Mayor Armour read the Consent Agenda in full and requested Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1996 be removed from the Consent Agenda. Town of Vail Finance Director, Steve Thompson, then updated Council on a supplemental appropriation to the budget in the amount of $1.2 million, which he explained in detail. Ludwig moved for approval of Ordinance No. 25, Series of 1996, and Rob seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Sybill then moved to approve the Consent Agenda, and Rob Ford seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed, 6-1, Michael Jewett voting in opposition. Third on the agenda was the appointment of two members to the Vail Valley Marketing Board. At an earlier work session Council members interviewed the following six applicants: Beth Slifer, Lai Tisher, Andre Fournier, Robert Batchelor, Katye Aaramson, Howard Leavitt. A letter of interest was also received from John Cogswell but was withdrawn, as he'd previously been appointed to serve on the Marketing Board as a representative for the Vail Village Merchants Association. Ballots were distributed and Council members the voted for the two four-year terms existing on the Marketing Board. Sybill moved to appoint Andre F+ Tier and Beth Slifer to fill the terms on the Marketing Board, and Paul seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously 7-0. The fourth item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance amending Section 18.22.030, Conditional Uses, to allow time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units as conditional uses in the Public Accommodation Zone District, and to establish Section 18.22.035, conditional uses -factors applicable in the Public Accommodation Zone District. Gordon Vail Town Council Evering Meeting Minutes December 17, 1996 ' Pierce was present, representing the applicant, Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. Town of Vail Planner, George Ruther presented the item and referred to a memorandum from the Community Development Department staff to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated November 25, 1996. Staff recommendation was for approval Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996 on first reading. Pa ohnston recused himself from the issue, as he felt he may have a conflict of interest. George briefly reed the Ordinance and stated the PEC had recommended approval. George then explained in detail the review criteria used by the PEC in considering a request for a conditional use, and stated that none of the criteria had more importance than any other on the project being considered. George then presented a chart prepared by staff depicting properties in Vail zoned Public Accommodation which could be affected by the proposed change to the text of the Town Code. Although in favor of the Austria House redevelopment, Council member Rob Ford felt the ordinance needed to go into more detail, setting forth specific requirements and more specific language. He then recommended tabling the ordinance. Gordon Pierce, general partner and architect for the project introduced Jim Graves, Mark Sullivan, Cynthia Thornberg, and Randy Burgis. Randy Burgis from the Deer Valley Club in Deer Valley, Utah explained the unique type of ownership the Sonnenalp was considering under the proposed redevelopment, and stated that the fractional fee unit type of ownership had proven to give the highest level of occupancy in Deer Valley. He said that while hotels in Deer Valley typically averaged an occupancy rate of approximately 65%, winter occupancy at the Deer Valley Club was 100%. Because owners buy a deeded interest in the unit, the properties are better maintained, he said. Jim Lamont said the Board of Directors from the East Village Homeowners Association, who he represented, had not yet taken a position on the project, but said that the applicant had been responding to Suests by the neighborhood. He asked Council to be cautious and conservative and said that amending the Code to accommodate time share clubs should be given serious consideration . Concerns from Council members included: transfer tax, lost sales tax revenue, loss of public accommodation units, and that the project have no adverse effects upon the present and future supply of town services or increase the demand on municipal facilities. Council members agreed the project was extremely viable, a good redevelopment and were in support of it. However, they also stated they wanted more time to increase their knowledge on the issue and to think about alternatives to the language contained in the ordinance. Johannes Faessler, an owner of the Sonnenalp, addressed Ludwig's issue concerning the importance of new faces coming to the area. Mr. Faessler explained that the Sonnenalp had a strong returning clientele, old faces that are seen year after year, which was very important for their business. Tom Moorhead informed Council that the applicant had taken the time to submit a proposed Ordinance, but that staff had not yet had the opportunity to examine it in depth. Rob moved to table Ordinance No. 22, Series of 1996, until the next evening meeting scheduled for January 7, 1997. Ludwig seconded the motion and a vote was taken which passed unanimously, 6-0-1, P Wohnston abstaining. Fifth on the agenda was Resolution No. 23, Series of 1996, a Resolution Directing the Town Manager to execute the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Vail and Vail Valley Consolidated Water District as modified. Ordinance 24, Series 1996, second reading of an ordinance providing for the establishment of Special Development District No. 33, Red Sandstone; adopting a development plan for Special Development District No. 33 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto; and Ordinance 20, Series 1996, second reading of an ordinance rezoning three tracts from General Use Section 18.36 to Medium Density Multi -Family Residential, Section 18.18 generally located at 945 Red Sandstone Road. Applicants were the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, the Town of Vail, and the United States Forest Service. Town of Vail Senior Housing Policy Planner, Andy Knudtsen, presented the item, briefly reviewed the project, and informed Council members that the proposed Special Development District met the criteria a*as consistent with the existing land use plan. Council was asked to approve/Deny/Modify Resolution No. 23, Series of 1996 and Ordinances 20 and 24, Series 1996. The staff recommendation was for approval of Resolution No. 23, Series of 1996 and Ordinances 20 and 24, Series 1996. Vall Town Counal Evening Meeting Minutes December 17, 1996 Concerns from Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association included his feeling that the proposed site had been originally designated for employee housing. He said the project was a conversion of open space, and then suggested other adjacent open space sites be used for neighborhood parks. He asked Council to consider expanding Sandstone Park, as he felt it was over utilized, and suggested that another park be constructed. Lamont said he was disappointed with the allocation of the Water District's un. nd the portion to be sold to the free market. Another suggestion was that a sidewalk be put in along S tone Drive to make the area safer. Red Sandstone resident, Dan Telleen, reiterated the importance of sidewalks due to the dangerous curbs along Red Sandstone and asked Council to address the issue. Rob Ford moved to adopt Resolution No. 23, Series of 1996, and Ludwig seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed, 6-1, Paul voting in opposition because of the possibility of free market sale units being included in the project. Next, Rob moved to approve Ordinances 24 and 20, and then withdrew the motion in order to consider the ordinances separately. Rob then moved to approve Ordinance No. 20, series of 1996, and the motion was seconded by Sybil[. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. A motion was made by Rob to approve Ordinance No. 24, and Kevin Foley seconded the motion. Sybill inquired about the cost of including a sidewalk and Andy addressed the issue, stating that the PEC did not require a sidewalk, and opted instead for landscaping. Bill Braun then informed Council that the site was ve ifficult because of the steep grade changes, and stated that including a sidewalk would narrow the feaMility of doing the project. Mayor Armour expressed his support of the project and its positive aspects such as less GRFA and site coverage than allowed, and increased parking and landscaping. Paul Johnston stated he was unable to support the project because of its architectural design. A vote was taken and approved, 6-1, Paul voting in opposition. Council members then took a short break. Sixth on the agenda was an appeal of a variance denial made by the Planning and Environmental Commission on September 23, 1996. The appellants were denied a site coverage variance to allow an additional one -car garage to be constructed at 742-B Sandy Lane/Unit B, Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch, Second Filing. Appellants: Charles and Geri Campisi were represented by Kerry Wallace. Geri Campisi was also present. Town of Vail Planner, Dominic Mauriello presented the item and gave the following background: The Town Council tabled this appeal at the November 19, 1996, Council meeting. The item was tabled until December 17, 1996, at the request of John Goodman, attorney for the Campisi's. Dominic explained the appellants requested a site coverage variance of 260.8 sq. ft. in order to construct a 300 sq. ft. one -car gar a on the property. The duplex contains two enclosed garage spaces. Site coverage allowed for the sitW 3,403.8 sq. ft. and the proposal was for 3,664.6 sq. ft. The PEC at a meeting held on September 23, 1996, unanimously denied the site coverage variance. Further, Dominic stated that any hardship created was self-imposed, and informed Council members that the property had been granted two - 250's in the past, both going to one unit. He explained that the allowable GRFA had already been exceeded by over 50', and that the site encroached on both setbacks. Local attorney, Kerry Wallace was present with her partner, Jim Stovall, and presented the position of the appellants. Ms. Wallace stated that all neighbors were in favor of the addition and distributed a packet of information to Council members. Mrs. Campisi then addressed Council, claiming that the parking on the property was insufficient parking and that the house was restricted to one 300' garage. She said that snow storage in winter prohibited using some of the outdoor parking, and that a serious drainage problem also existed. Dominic stated alternatives were available which would alleviate such problems, other than the addition of a garage. He said the zoning code encouraged garages, but within the site coverage limitations. The staff recommendation was that the Town Council uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of a 260.8 sq. ft. site coverage variance and that the Town Council make the following findings: 1.0 That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18 (Zoning) have not been met. 2. 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. Vail Town Courcil r—Ing Meeting Minutes December 17, 1996 3. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have been presented, have been self imposed. 4. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant • of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential district. A motion was then made by Rob Ford to uphold the PEC's denial and to adopt the above -referenced findings. Ludwig seconded the motion. Mayor Armour stated that although the variance requested was minimal, it would be a grant of a special privilege. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Agenda item number seven was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin informed Council members of the upcoming meeting of the Colorado Association of Ski Towns scheduled for January 9 and 10. Paul Johnston asked about the new loading and delivery policy in the Village. Police Chief Greg Morrison explained that large trucks on Hanson Ranch Road would be prohibited at all times. Paul then inquired about a community safety officer position to be staffed at the Vail Village Club construction site. Bob McLaurin said the position remained unfilled. Council Reports: Sybill Navas updated fellow council members of her meetings with the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, the Chamber, Commission on Special Events and Activities and the Vail Valley Exchange. Ke&Foley passed along a thank you from the Vail Recreation District to the Public Works Department for its Nsistance in removing a sign at the golf course erected by an anti -fur group. He also updated the group on his attendance at the Eagle County Transportation Authority meetings. Kevin also inquired about the approval status of the ski storage sheds in Lionshead. Mayor Armour thanked the town's Social Committee for organizing the organization's Christmas party and wished all a very happy holiday. Condolences were expressed to the family of Cindy Nash. There being no further business a motion was made by Rob for adjournment. Kevin seconded the motion and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:00 p.m. AAST: Xld&ddl ffX-1 Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk Respectfully submitted, ert W. Armour, Mayor Minutes taken by Holly McCutcheon (*Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes December 17, 19% MEMORANDUM TO: Town Council I* FROM: Community Development Department DATE: December 17, 1996 SUBJECT: An appeal of a variance denial made by the Planning and Environmental Commission on September 23, 1996. The appellants were denied a site coverage variance to allow an additional one -car garage to be constructed at 742-B Sandy Lane/Unit B, Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch, Second Filing. Appellants: Charles and Geri Campisi, represented by Kerry Wallace Planner: Dominic Mauriello SUBJECT PROPERTY Campisi project. Located at 742-B Sandy Lane/Unit B, Lot 3, Vail/ Potato Patch, Second Filing. II. STANDING OF APPELLANT Staff believes the appellants have standing to file an appeal in this case as they are the owners of • the subject property. III. BACKGROUND The Town Council tabled this appeal at the November 19, 1996 Council meeting. The item was tabled until December 17, 1996 at the request of John Goodman, attorney for the Campisi's. The appellants requested a site coverage variance of 260.8 sq. ft. in order to construct a 300 sq. ft. one -car garage on the subject property. This duplex currently contains 2 enclosed garage spaces and this request would add a third. The allowable site coverage for this site is 3,403.8 sq. ft. (20%) and the proposal is for 3,664.6 sq. ft. (21.5%) of site coverage. The Planning and Environmental Commission, at their September 23, 1996 meeting, unanimously denied the site coverage variance and made the following findings (see attached minutes): 1. 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. 2. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have been presented, have been self imposed [the PEC specifically added this provision to the findings recommended by staff]. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential district. This duplex was approved by the DRB in 1979 and constructed in 1980. The duplex, as originally approved, contained 3,763 sq. ft. of GRFA (as calculated in 1979). This site is allowed 3,951.9 sq. ft of GRFA. On March 3, 1979, a density variance for a 40 sq. ft. addition was denied by the PEC based on a finding that no hardship existed to justify the request. On September 21, 1988, a request for 500 sq. ft. of GRFA was approved under the 250 Ordinance. The structure now contains 4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA as calculated today. With two 250's, the site is permitted up to 4,451.9 sq .it. of GRFA. Therefore the site is 50.9 sq, ft. over on GRFA and is considered a legal nonconforming structure with respect to GRFA. This structure also currently encroaches into both side setbacks. This is a pre-existing nonconforming condition and is not affected by the proposal. IV. NATURE OF THE APPEAL The appellants are appealing the PEC decision denying the site coverage variance. The appellants have provided additional justification for the variance which is attached. The appellants have also provided additional justification of how they will suffer practical difficulties and/or unnecessary physical hardships if the site coverage variance is not granted (provided in attached materials). Staff has summarized their statements below: The appellants will have insufficient parking for parking their own vehicles and for guests. The house will be restricted to one 300 sq. ft. garage for a 3,366 sq. ft. house. The Zoning Code allows up to 600 sq. ft. of garage space per unit. There is insufficient parking for the house, and snow storage in the winter months precludes • parking in the driveway. Staff response: The driveway, as it currently exists, has the capability of storing 7 cars in addition to the 2 existing garage spaces, for a total of 9 parking spaces. The proposed garage does not add any additional parking to the site as it will be constructed upon the existing paved driveway. The appellants have mis-stated the square footage of the home and the existing garage space. The entire home (both dwellings) contains 4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA and there are 2 existing 300 sq. ft. garages (one per unit). This duplex is required 5 total parking spaces. Snow storage is the responsibility of the homeowner and snow can be stored or removed from the site in a variety of ways in order to maintain parking on -site. The construction of the garage will correct a serious drainage problem on the property. Staff response: While this proposed garage may correct this drainage problem, there are numerous solutions to the drainage problem which do not involve constructing a garage. 0 C. The garage will provide additional needed storage as there currently exists very little storage area within the residence, particularly for storage of recreational equipment. Staff response: In July of 1996, the appellants received approvals to perform a major remodel to the exterior and interior of this duplex. No attempt was made in this remodel to provide additional storage space. On September 12, 1988, a DRB approval was given in conjunction with a 250 request to construct a storage area, labeled "Bike Storage" on the first level of this structure (see attached elevation and floor plan). The storage area was 250 sq. It. As part of the 1996 DRB approvals, this storage area was eliminated and converted to living area. It appears that the lack of storage area on this property is a self imposed situation. d. The variance would correct the serious security problem which exists for the owner of Unit A. Staff response: The owner of Unit A has a staircase and a door on the east elevation of the home. This door opens to a bathroom in the unit. The door is perceived as the front entry to the home and according to the owner, people often come to this door. The staff understands the security issue with this doorway. However, the proposed garage addition is not the only solution to correct this problem. For example, a deck without stairs to the ground could be constructed which would prevent persons from approaching the door; or the stairs could be removed and the door replaced with an egress window, thus preventing access. There are a number of other solutions which could correct this problem. The stairs that exist now do not meet the Building Code requirements. The Building Code requires a landing at the top of the stairs as well as hand rails. Staff and the PEC can find no justification for the hardship based on the Zoning Code criteria for granting a variance. V. REQUIRED ACTION Uphold/Overturn/Modify the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of a 260.8 sq. ft. site coverage variance. The Town Council is required to make findings of fact in accordance with Section 18.66.030 (5) shown below: Findings. The Town Council 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. Further, if the Town Council chooses to overturn or modify the PEC denial of this variance, the Town Council shall consider the following factors and make the following findings related to the granting of a variance: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. B. The Town Council shall make the followina findina5 before arantino a variances 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. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council uphold the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of a 260.8 sq. ft. site coverage variance and recommends that the Town Council make the following findings: 1. That the standards and conditions imposed by the requirements of Title 18 (Zoning) have not been met. 2. 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. 3. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have been presented, have been self imposed. 4. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential district. FAeveryone\ueclma mokcam0sk. d 17 Charlie Alexander said that this was a permanent structure. Charlie also said that Vail Associates owned the land and it they determined that the land could be better used, then that's what would happen. He also mentioned that this condition was in his lease. dirk Mason suggested an additional condition be placed on the approval, which would allow for the conditional use permit to be called -up, it the Lionshead Master Plan suggested an alternative use. Galen Aasland said it was a great use and agreed with Dirk's proposal. Diane Golden said it will be made more attractive than it is now. It was a nice addition to Lionshead and also gave the youth of our Town something to do. Henry Pratt stated that it was a good location. Henry addressed the complaints from Units #206 and #306 and said that Garfinkel's Bar and Restaurant poses a much greater threat on their privacy than this use. Henry said in fairness to Charlie and the bank, as long as the PEC can call-up this application, he was in favor of a longer term. Greg Moffet was in favor of this use. The units that complained had trees to screen them from this operation, Greg was in favor of a longer term, to give Charlie an Incentive to spend more money on the site to enhance the property. Henry Pratt made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff's memo, with the addition of a second condition that if the Lionshead Master Plan required or suggested a different use, the Opproval could be subject to a call-up. Greg Maffei asked Henry to indicate in his motion, the term length of the conditional use permit. Henry Pratt amended the motion to include a 3-year period of time. Diane Golden asked the applicant if the 3-year period of time would work. Charlie Alexander said, yes. The motion was seconded by John Schofield. It passed by a vote of 5-0. (Greg Amsden was not present for this item). 3. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for the construction of a one -car garage, located at 742 Sandy Lane/Lot 3, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing, Applicant: Jeri Campisi Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview of this request and stated that staff was recommending ienial, because the request does not meet the code criteria for a variance. Although it may not . negatively impact other properties in the area, it would be a grant of special privilege. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 23, 1996 Kerry Wallace, the attorney on behalf of Jeri Campisi, stated that the owner of the other half of the duplex, Betty Gutty, was here. Kerry stated that the lack of storage and the odd floor plan, with little or no closet space within the residence presented a hardship, in particular, in relation to the storage of recreational goods. The present two -car garage is not enough. She stated that the applicant had a problem with parking in the winter, as she had a lot of guests. Kerry went on to state that the Campisi's have significantly improved the property since purchasing it and that the new garage would further improve the site. The proposed garage was as small as the architect could possibly make it and the architect assured them that it would not encroach into any of the setbacks. Right now there existed a drainage problem and by raising up the front of the new proposed garage, this drainage problem would be corrected. There was also an existing security issue for Betty Guffy, since the door to her unit went past the bathroom. This security issue was a serious concern. Kerry Wallace went on to state that this property was an eyesore, until the Campisis made some changes. There are a number of 2 and 3-car garages in the area, so this request was not asking anything out of the ordinary. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. Betty Guffy stated that she has owned the other half of the duplex for 5 years, which is the upper third of the house. Betty stated that the Campisis are the perfect neighbors and have certainly fit the mold as neighbors that she would have chosen to jointly improve the property. Both neighbors agreed on the stucco improvements. The architect could solve the drainage problem with this new proposed addition. When the Campisis unit was rented short term, there were a number of problems. Betty stated that she lived alone and security was a problem. Betty stated that 50 sq. ft. over the allowed site coverage is a minor overage. • Greg Moffet asked for any other public comments. Joe Staufer stated that he lived at 746 Sandy Lane. Joe was in favor of this request and said that it would not negatively affect any property owners. Under the safety, welfare and health finding, Joe stated that the security issue was the reason and the right to grant this variance. It was a dark neighborhood, which presented a safety factor. Joe stated that when he was gone, Betty Guffy was all alone on the block. He stated that granting this variance would give someone a better place to live. Joe said he saw no conceivable reason not to grant this variance. Dominic Mauriello stated that he had reviewed recent DRB plans. Dominic stated that the applicant had just removed the former storage space, which was used to store snowmobiles, and had created living area out of it, so therefore, the result was a lack of storage. Betty Guffy stated that her neighbor to the right of her, was in favor of approving this request. Galen Aasland asked how big the existing 2-car garage was. Dominic Mauriello said 600 sq. ft. and that it had one garage space for each owner. Galen Aasland asked If the new garage would be the Campisis? Since the lot is over 15,000 sq. • ft., Galen doesn't think the size of the lot was the problem and therefore there was no justification for a site coverage variance. The deck could be built without a variance to correct the security issue. Galen was somewhat bothered by the argument that the Campisis didn't have enough storage, when in fact, the remodel that was happening right now, did away with the storage. He stated that theowners, with the remodel, have created some of their own conditions and hardships. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 23, 1996 Betty Guffy said that any staircase would be buried in snow. She stated that both sides of the house were short on closets. Betty stated that she uses part of the garage for storage for her off-season clothes. She also stated that the existing entry door was ugly. Wane Golden asked where the snow will be put? Dominic Mauriello stated that snow storage was up to the owner and there were a variety of solutions for the door. Betty Guffy said that architect Bill Pierce said that this garage and entrance was the best plan and from the front of the house, this looks like the way it was meant to be. It seems silly to pay $28,000.00 to just correct the drainage and not do the addition. Henry Pratt told Betty Guffy that she was extremely lucky to have owners like the Campisis who take pride in their ownership. Henry felt that identifying where the front door was less important than the security issue. He stated that they are entitled to a garage, but without the variance. This garage had no impact on the neighbors and so Henry would be in favor of such a variance, if there was a hardship. John Schofield agreed with Henry. John stated that the door was in a lousy location. John tended to agree with Henry, that the hardship would be getting a parking ticket, while parked out In the street. Greg Amsden said that these were self imposed problems. There was no drainage problem hen the house was first built; it happened with the expansion. The lack of storage doesn't hold an argument. A small deck would justify the safety concern. There were no justifiable reasons to go over site coverages. Greg Moffet was in agreement with Greg Amsden. What you have here was a unit that was maxed-out over what was permitted. There was a lot of square footage in the mass and bulk that could have been used for storage. The storage problem has been self-created. Greg said he doesn't see how this was not a grant of special privilege. Henry Pratt asked what the area of the garage was? Dominic Mauriello said each garage was 300 sq. ft. Greg Moffet asked for any more comments from the public. There was none. Greg Amsden made a motion for denial, per the staff memo and he added that the hardships were self-imposed. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. Galen Aasland said the lot was over 15,000 sq. ft. If it was under that size, it might be different. •Henry Pratt asked if this should be tabled until the applicant came back with a better design. Dominic Mauriello said that he did not believe tabling would produce alternative designs, since it would still involve a site coverage Issue. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September23, 1996 il Greg Moffet asked staff if a carport was proposed, would it then not be GRFA? Mitre Mollica said that could possibly be a staff approval, and it may not be GRFA; depending on how the carport was designed. The motion for denial passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. 4. A request for an exterior addition to a master bedroom and bathroom and adding a 3rd floor, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 802B Potato Patch/Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicants: Padraic Deighan and Birgit Toome Planner: Dominic Mauriello TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 14, 1996 5. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow for the construction of a walk-in freezer, located at 536 West Lionshead Mall/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1 st Filing. Applicant: Mitch Garfinkel Planner: George Ruther WITHDRAWN 6. Information Update Mike Mollica had no information update. 7. Approval of September 9, 1996 minutes Mike Mollica suggested tabling the minutes, as there were more corrections on item #5 in the minutes. Galen Aasland had two changes for the minutes of 9/9/96. Diane Golden made a motion to table item #4 and the 9/9/96 minutes. The motion was seconded by Galen Aasland. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Greg Amsden made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes september23, 1996 6 Al 1� TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road 01, Colorado 81657 970 479-21 UD FAX 970-479-2157 is STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE CERTIFICATION The undersigned hereby certifies the foregoing is a full, true and correct transcription of Item No.3 of the Planning and Environmental Commission of September 23, 1996, as it appears in the original records of the Town of Vail, Department of Community Development. Dated December 5, 1996 Mary A. Caster, Deputy Town Clerk Administrative Services STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF EAGLE } Subscribed and sworn to before me this5th day of December, Deputy Town Clerk, Town plait Notary Public My commission expires: IV 4M RECYCLEDRAPER 1996, by Mary A. Caster, TRANSCRIPT OF JERI CAMPISI REQUEST FOR SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE AT PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING, MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 1996: .0 Greg Moffit., Third item is the Jeri Campisi request, Dominic? Dominic Mauriello: The applicants have requested a site coverage variance in order to construct a one -car garage of approximately 300 square feet, making the request approximately 260.8 square feet. The allowable site coverage for the site is approximately 3403 square feet, which is 20% of the lot area, and they're proposing 3664, which is approximately 21.5%. This duplex, when it was originally approved in 1980, contained 3763 square feet of GRFA. The way that is calculated today, they contain, they have 4502.8 square feet, and that's also due to a, in 1988 they received 500 square feet of GRFA under the 250 ordinance. So with today's two 250's, the site is permitted up to 4451 square feet, and therefore the site is over on GRFA by approximately 50 square feet. The structure also currently encroaches on the site setbacks on both sides. It's a pre-existing non -conforming condition and it's really not aggravated by this request. Attached you will find some • justification provided by the applicant and I've also passed out to you today two affidavits from owners of the property stating some other issues and hardships that they have. Staff believes that the request will increase the building's bulk and mass beyond that enjoyed by other properties in the district. Staff believes that while the proposal may not negatively impact neighboring properties, and while other structures in the have two and three -car garages, they have enjoyed that within the limitations of the site coverage limitations, and they also have two and three -car garages built within those limitations. Staff does believe that this would be a special privilege, as other structures in the zone district have been able to construct within these limitations and enjoy the fact that they have a two -car garage. Staff is recommending denial of the variance request, subject to the three findings that you find on page 3, and that's all I have for you today. Greg Moffit: Thank you, Dominic. Does the applicant have any comments? Kerry Wallace: Hi, I'm Kerry Wallace, my daughter gave me her cold, so if I sound like a swallowed a box of cotton balls, that's why. I'm here on behalf of the Campisi's. They would have liked to have been here today, but there was a medical emergency in the family that required them in New York. I'm their attorney, with Stovall Goodman Wallace. Their offices are in Avon and we assisted them in preparing the variance application. Obviously, as you've seen from the affidavits that are attached, the Campisi's, in addition, the owner of the other half of the duplex, Betty Guffy, who is also present, I understand has some comments to make today. I • feel that there a number of issues which does make this a hardship issue as opposed to, say, a special privilege. A major issue for the Campisi's is a lack of storage. Obviously, this was a property that was constructed some time ago and it does have a fairly odd floor plan in the way it's designed. The Campisi's have informed me that there is little or no closet space within their residence and so it makes it very difficult for them to store items in the house, in particular, you know, as anyone who lives in Vail, you have a lot of recreational goods, such as skis and golf clubs, those types of items. They have no where to put them in the house and so their having additional garage space would be of assistance. Right now the two -car garage that they have which is not oversized is used to park both of their vehicles, so there's not a lot of additional storage space. There's also a problem with parking, especially in the winter months. They do have a lot of guests that come out, they have family members that like to come out and visit and there's a problem with parking, particularly in the winter when the plows need to come through and it needs to be a open area. An area . where there is now, even say if you were going to put a parking pad there, from what I understand the Town of Vail, when they plow the snow, it piles up on that spot, so it's really not a usable parking spot in the winter, so they'd like to be able to have an additional car to allow guests and any other person to be able to park in an enclosed area during the winter months. The Campisi's, and I think Ms. Guffey will substantiate this, have significantly improved the property since purchasing it with, you know, I think it's been a real benefit to the general area. The garage will essentially be an improvement to the property, not a detriment, it will increase the value which is a positive thing for the neighborhood. It's my understanding that the space, and I know that you've had a site visit, is not really usable as is. And that the garage would be good use of that space. I was informed by the architect that the post garage, is as small as they can possibly make it and still park a regular size car in it. It's not made for, say, a 4x4 or an over -sized car, so he made it as small as possible, keeping in mind the variance issue. And it's also my • understanding in talking to the architect, i.e., I don't look at plans and analyze them, but he did inform me that it was not going to encroach on any of the setbacks. There's also the issue of a serious drainage problem right in the area where the garage would be constructed. It's my understanding that it slopes and so drainage from Sandy Lane hooks right into a major wall of the building. This has to be corrected one way or the other. It's my understanding that Betty Guffey can substantiate this. She's talked with some contractors. It will be substantially expensive to fix the drainage by having to fix the grade or do something of that nature. The garage, by raising up the front of the grade, will take care of the drainage problem while at the same time being a benefit to the property. And I know that a major issue doesn't necessarily affect my client, but it does affect Ms. Gulley and she can tell you more about that as a security issue in that it's my understanding that there's access to a private door. It's a door she has to have in her unit for egress purposes, in case of fire or some kind of emergency. But there's public access to this door. It leads right into her bathroom and her bedroom. She says peopie use it all the time - knock on the door and, you know, you open the door and you might be in your bathrobe. She's concerned with regard to security issues on that. She can see from her main door out the window and see who's at the door and have a little bit more control than when someone knocks on this other door. She's got some pretty serious concerns about that. So, you know, there's a number of issues that they feel do create, you know, hardship in this case. And, like I said, it is the minimum amount that they could possibly do to put in a garage, and I know Ms. Guffey has i landscape plans. They're planning on doing some further improvements to the property and, you know, beautifying the area. It is my understanding that the unit was a bit of an eyesore for a while. You know, until all of the changes that Campisi's have done. So, for those reasons, I know the Campisi's would really like to you to consider, you know, approving the variance. 1 think that in the area there are a number of places with two and three -car garages, so this is not something out of the ordinary or out of place. I don't think any of the adjacent units will be negatively impacted. It's not going to be a high garage, so it shouldn't impact views or light to other units or that type of thing and we would like you to take those things into consideration when making your decision. Greg Moffit: Thank you. Kerry Wallace: Thank you. Greg Moffit: Any other applicant comments? Betty Guffey:: I'd just like to reiterate what .. Greg Moffit: First, you have to tell us who you are. Betty Guffey:: Oh, I'm Betty Guffey, and Greg Moffit: Thank you. Betty Guffey: for five years I've owned the upper half of the house, or the upper third of the house known of "A", 742A, and I've been waiting on waiting on somebody like the Campisi's for five years, to come along and help me redo the outside. I refuse to allow the previous owners to paint it. It takes both of our approvals to do anything. And I didn't want it painted blue gray again. I wanted stucco or some rock or something put on it and the Campisi's also fit the mold that they didn't want to subdivide it, make a little loft here and a little kitchen here and rent it out part time. They plan to live in it with their grandchildren visiting them and that was the perfect person to buy it. The only problem was I didn't sell it to them, another realtor, but they, we agreed on doing this stucco, which is a great improvement, over $60,000 for that, and I have to pay my share of that and when it comes down to repairing the drainage problem, and doing something with that area, I was very happy that they agreed to have an architect design a space that's small, that doesn't exceed the lot lines, will solve my problem about the emergency egress door, will open onto a deck that looks like the house to me from the front, looks like it always should have gone iaround that corner with the deck. And I have some videos, but I found out you didn't have, I have a video of when I bought it five years ago and my son was ready to put me in a nursing home because that was the ugliest house he had ever seen. So I had videos of it and I put up with a lot in the five years that I've had, oh, the propane tank that was there. The Campisi's have removed that and are going to put a garden in its place. The propane tank was to heat the hot tub. They brought in gas. The propane tank was right underneath my bedroom window and some of the renters said they've had short term downstairs before the Campisi's bought it, left the propane tank in my driveway for several weeks. I had to get the Fire Department to come out and move them. And one of my neighbors, Joe Staufer, is here to tell you too, that we had snow mobilers coming in at 2:00 in the morning, 3:00, shaking that garage underneath my bedroom. And if the Campisi's want a garage there for storage, I'm so happy to try to help them get it. It will help me too. It will have a deck of 300 square feet that they're willing to put in. And, I've stated that the security is the biggest concern and the biggest hardship I have. And I live there alone and would, i definitely like these plans more than anything else, but it seems like 50 square feet overage is a really minor problem compared to the expense and the lack of security for me. Greg Moffit: Thank you. Is there any public comment? Come on upl 4 Joe Stauter: My name is .foe Staufer, I live at 746 Sandy Lane and maybe I shouldn't be here because where they want to build, that's where my dogs go every night at 10:00. I like to address a couple of things that I start finding, and number one is it's not, the neighborhood may not negatively impact it and then it says it's a negative effect on light, air and on the neighboring properties, well, can't see how that little addition of that building is negative to anybody and I live up there so it certainly doesn't affect me and I'm Sure it wouldn't affect anybody else to give them that variance. The other is that it says safety, welfare and health. Well, I think security is another area where -you have every right if you wish to do so to grant this variance. We are living in a dark neighborhood. When I'm out of town, this lady is the only one on the block. And for her to be able to drive into the garage and from the garage a secure (inaudible) going to her unit is certainly a safety factor and think that, you know, we are here to address those things and think that granting a variance that in fact is, if I read it right, one half of one percent over or under the site coverage, allowable site coverage, for one and a half percent, I don't know how bureaucratic we want to become. 1 feel very strongly that this variance helps somebody in terms of safety, security and a better place to live in. And I can't see any conceivable reason that would hurt somebody else. So, why not grant it? Thank you. Greg Moffit: Thank you. Is there any additional public comment? Dominic, Dominic Maurielio: I just wanted to follow up on something that was said earlier about the closet and storage space. We have DRB plans that were approved right now for the additions for the work that they're doing right now. There used to be a storage space, kind of below that area below Ms. Guffey's area, that was converted to living space, so while their argument, yea, that we need more storage space, this prior approval actually eliminated that storage and created a living area out of it. I just wanted to point that out. Greg Moffit: Thank you. Come on back up. Betty Guffey: The neighbor in the lovely half to the right of mine, (inaudible), had to go to physical therapy at this hour and she let me video tape her • a few minutes before this, but we don't have a video, and she's in approval of granting this to us also. Greg Moffit: Okay, thank you. Let's go to the commission. Galen, comments, questions? Galen Aasland: I do have one question of Dominic or for the applicant. How big is existing two -car garage? Dominic Mauriello: The existing two -car garage? I think they're each about 300 • square feet, each of those garage spaces, so you're looking at 600 square feet existing now. Galen Aasland: is that, do you concur with that? Dominic Mauriello: It's at least that. (Cannot understand comment from audience) Galen Aasland: Okay. So, under this application, it's like the garage that is being built, would that go to your unit or would it go to the Campisi's? (Cannot understand response from audience) Galen Aasland: So they have access from their current garage inside? And it won't change the access into your house? Betty Guffey: No. (Garbled comment). • Galen Aasland: Okay. On the south side. Okay. Alright. Actually, in ways for site coverage variance, I have some kind of unusual sympathy. I think in certain cases there's some good grounds for it, especially on smaller lots. If this lot was under 15,000 square feet, I would feel much more strongly about it. I think the lot's under 15,000 square feet have a particular problem once they get over that they have less and less a problem, although this is not that much larger than.... I do have some concerns about it though, is that the building seems to be already pushing the envelope of development under of different grounds already, and this would obviously make it push things further beyond what the zoning is consistent with the neighborhood. I think the deck that you're talking about could be built without a variance, in fact, I know it could off of your unit in terms of getting rid of the door. And so, well it's nice that that can be there. That's already an allowed use and it's not that you can't build a deck and you can't do certain things, it's just that, in this particular case, happens to make this more convenient. I'm S somewhat bothered by the argument that the Campisi's don't have storage because they're doing this big remodel on the house right now and obviously they've gotten rid of storage, so I really don't think that there's really any argument from that particular standpoint. I would be interested if there's an opportunity because there is existing site coverage left whether the existing garage could be added to within what the allowed zoning to add storage 6 on to that, so I do have a fair amount of sympathy for the site coverage, but I also see that there's some problems with it that you 've really done a remodel, that the owners have done a remodel and they really, they're creating some of their own conditions. . Greg Moffit: Thank you, Galen. Diane? Diane Golden: If the garage is not put in, do you have to leave that staircase coming out of your bathroom? How did that get put in and when was that put there? Betty Guffey: It had a prior staircase (inaudible) and was buried in snow. Diane Golden: So how long has that staircase been there? Betty Guffey: Five years that I've lived there. Stormshed and garage door (inaudible) short term rental (inaudible) Diane Golden: And from your garage, so have to step outside and then go to your front door? BG: (Inaudible) Diane Golden: But It's covered? Okay. Diane Golden: Where will the snow be put if the garage is there? Greg Moffit: Would you come up to the microphone so we can, we're being recorded believe it nor not, Diane Goldlen:. Where will the snow be put if the garage is put in? Dominic Mauriello: I mean, that's the owner's option. The fact that there's snow on their site, I mean, that's their own snow removal issue. As far as the door going in upstairs, I mean, I'm sure there's a variety of architectural solutions for that, not just having the stairs there. I'm sure that either of the architects on the board could tell you there's probably ten different ways to address that egress. Betty Guffey: Well, Bill Pierce worked with me to, we ran up a bill of $1600 to try to design a garage and an entrance around that. One plan was to enter my house in front of my fireplace, which I don't think is acceptable, and another was to put a rock stairway to the north corner and that exceeded the setback, so we scratched that, so it didn't make any sense to spend $70,000 and still have an ugly entry. You know, and to have that door that now goes down with this plan, with Jeri's, or Campisi's garage, then I don't have to get access from it and my stairway can go up. Bill Pierce's architectural plan was to have a stairway, not from a garage there, • to go up and around and enter where my laundry room is now and that was terribly expensive and this is just the best plan that I've seen that, from the front of the house it looks like it was meant to be that way instead of looking like a double -wide trailer, it will look like a house with a nice sized deck that usable. I don't have a deck on the house that's usable. And if, one of your plans was. to build a deck up here, that still leaves the drainage problem, which is very expensive to repair. The drainage problem has been there for a long time, creating problems for the other side of the house and it seems silly to me to spend $28,000 to repair the drainage problem when, well, it would have been a little bit easier if they'd left the snowmobile garage there. Probably would have been cheaper to repair that, but I am so happy to have that out of there, and people running under my bedroom with gasoline and engines, so if they gave up the storage to build a room there, I guess I should be willing to sacrifice and pay for the drainage. But it just seems logical that, I think it does, to we're only exceeding 50 square feet that for the expense involved and somebody willing to make the • place look better and more functional. About the question about the snow coming in. It would just be the front part of our driveway that would have to be plowed. It's piled back in there and buries any car that parks in that space there, that's there now and in the stairway, ugly as it is, is buried in snow also. Diane Golden: I have no further comment right now. Greg Moffit: Thank you, Diane. Henry? Henry Pratt: I guess first I'd like to say that I think that you're extremely lucky to have new neighbors like the Campisi's who are willing to come in and address all wrongs and spend the money and take some pride in their ownership. In terms of this application, I'm hearing a lot of things being put forth as hardships that I don't think really are. I think you're security issue is more an architectural issue of identifying where the front door is, the drainage issue is something that should have been corrected when the current remodel was designed or laid out. On the other hand, I think that, like everyone else in town, you are entitled to 600 square feet of garage, but as the staff memo points out, you should be able to do it without asking for a site coverage variance because everybody else is held to those rules. During our pre -meeting and during the site visit, we've talked about, well if you just took away some GRFA or moved it somewhere else, then, you'd have that site coverage for a garage. At this point I think that's impractical, given the way you've got horizontal condominium type zoning on this thing. So I guess even though I don't want it be considered as a precedent, this garage has no impact on any neighbors in terms of light, air, mass and bulk and guess I'd be in favor of granting the variance in this case, even though I do not really find adequate grounds for a hardship. And that's a tough one for me. Greg Moffit Thank you, Henry. John. John Scofield: I would have to agree very much with Henry in all aspects. You are lucky to have a neighbor that's willing to spend the money to upgrade and I think we should do everything we can as a town to encourage that. I agree that the drain is something that really is not a hardship. It could be fixed with or without the garage. I've had similar problems, I understand what you're working with. Likewise, I think the door, it's a downright lousy location, but it could also, I think, be fixed in other aspects. i think what we have to look at as a board is perhaps balancing the issues of site coverage and what's really going to sit on that site and no matter what we do, you're probably going to have a car sitting in that corner. So I would tend to agree with Henry that perhaps the • hardship of getting parking tickets when you park out in the street would be something that I would look at and say that I could support this type of thing because I really don't think it's going to affect the neighbors at all and I think it would perhaps be an improvement over having a car sitting out there looking ugly all the time. Greg Moffit: Thanks, John. Greg? Greg Amsden: This application, and I'm leaning more to what Galen said, is that a lot of these are self imposed problems that have occurred here. The drainage situation at one time that house did not have a structure underneath your apartment. And there was no drainage problem whatsoever with that site. I was here when the house was constructed in the beginning. I know the whole history of the house. In fact, our real estate company marketed that house when it was first built. So I don't, I mean, the drainage problem has occurred when the house was expanded into that area and it still can be cured by proper treatment of the expansion, in which it has not been done, so the storage argument just doesn't hold water because they've removed the storage space and even the garage that they're suggesting building is only the size of one car. It would be filled with a car and there would not be much storage in it anyway. So, again, they're left with no storage. They've got their 9 variance in a garage and yet they haven't solved at least trying to justify this variance with. The safety concern, I believe you can put either a small or a large deck off that door. I would definitely • remove what's there. I don't know if there's really, and it was mentioned but I don't even know if that is there for a fire purpose, does the staff know? I mean, no one knows if that's even an ingress/egress... Betty Guffey: That's an emergency egress. I don't have another way out of the house, out of the master.... Greg Amsden; Yea, but we don't know if that's why that stairway's there or even if it was there in the beginning and no one's even brought that point up or whether it has to be there or not, so if it doesn't have to be there, a deck would be a good treatment off that door. Betty Guffey: I've tried to find another access, or egress, and I don't have one. All the windows are on the second floor and they don't open large enough to get out. Greg Amsden: But I mean, in looking at this application, I have a hard time just because it does set a precedent. When you grant a variance without substantial hardship or reasons for that, and I don't find these to be justifiable reasons for granting a variance, I think that we open up, I mean we have a very hard time for the next guy that comes in and says, "Hey, I want to go over my site coverage because of this, this and this." I mean, literally they can associate their causes with what's mentioned here that I don't think, I think they're self imposed situations. And it sounds like the Campisi's want a second garage. My solution would be, it's a design driven problem. You have to fit that garage within existing structure. Without increasing that site coverage to go over that site coverage limit. And they need to take a hard look at that. I believe it's doable where their family room is. And where they've enclosed and that house has been expanded. In fact, in the memo by the staff, the 500 square feet, two 250's that was granted that site were all put on the large side of that home. Why, I don't know. I do know that it was under one ownership. The Platners at that time. And that's probably why it occurred. But, that's the case and that's iwhat is in existence. Greg Moffit: Basically in agreement with Greg on this one. What we've got here is kind of a classic zoning dilemma. You've got a unit, we've got a unit that is maxed. We've got as much square footage as permitted, we've got about as much site coverage as permitted, and now we want to add more despite the fact that there's a lot of 10 square footage inside the existing bulk and mass that could have been designed to hold cars or to store kayaks or to put a ski locker, or whatever. Without going into reiterating all of what Greg said, I think the storage issue is one of self creation and I am very I! concerned about the slippery slope aspect of it. Yes, Joe, in response to your comment that the 50 feet is maybe one and a half percent, but the next application may be an 8000 foot house. Dominic Mauriello: It's 260 square feet, it's 50 square feet over on GRFA, so what we're talking about is 260 square feet. Greg Moffit: Okay. And if it's an 8000 foot house, that starts to look like a pretty big bubble. I don't see how granting this variance isn't a grant of special privilege - hardship or not. It just strikes me as a grant of special privilege. My guess is that we're going to have to split votes. Greg Moffit: What's the area of the garage that's being proposed? Dominic Maureillo: 300 square feet. Greg Moffit: So, essentially the site coverage is maxed before you add this. Dominic Maureillo: It's 40 square feet- less than 40. Greg Moffit: Yea, I just wish I could find something to hang my hat on here. Greg Moffit: If there are no further comments from the applicant, or the public, then somebody gets to make a motion. Greg Amsden: Mr. Chairman, I move that the request for a site coverage variance to allow for a one -car garage located at 742 Sandy Lane, Lot 3, Vail Potato Patch, Second Filing, being denied, per the staff memo and that granting the variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified the same district. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances in conditions applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in primaryisecondary residential zone district. And I might add that least, I believe that the hardships that have been presented by the applicant, many of them are self imposed by the handling of the expansion of the livable area in the large side of that duplex and that, finally, the strict interpretation or enforcement of this specific regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the primary/secondary residential district. Greg Moffit: Motion by Greg. Do we have a second? Galen Aasiand: I'll second that. • Greg Moffit: Seconded by Galen. Any further discussion? Galen Aasland: I would also like to add, if this lot was under 15,000 square feet, 1 think my vote would be different on this. But the fact that it's over 15,000 is one of the deciding factors in my vote. Greg Moffit: Okay, thank you Galen. guess I have a question for the board and staff. Does anybody see any opportunity to possibly table this and let them find a way to get the site coverage down or is the garage .... I don't think that there's any other way to do it. I mean, they've hired people to look at it themselves and I don't know if they've, they haven't presented any alternatives to us, but I would guess that there's .... • Yea, let me ask a question. If the deck, if they put a deck out of that door, that's not site coverage, correct. Dominic Maureillo: Correct. And they could put a hard deck ... Dominic Maureillo: That's correct. outside that door. Now granted, you haven't got a heated garage, but what you've got is covered parking - a carport. The rules are screwy, but unfortunately, we got appointed to enforce them. That creates an interesting scenario in light of what Henry suggested. We've got a motion on the table first, Henry. That's strictly a DRB or staff approval type of issue - it doesn't involve Planning. • Greg Moffit: Okay. So we have a.motion on the floor. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Greg Moffit: Opposed? 12 No response. Greg Moffit: I am also in favor. Motion passes unanimously. The application is denied. I'm sorry - the rules are tough on this one. 0 13 MEMORANDUM FILE COP TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 23, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance to allow for a one -car garage, located at 742 Sandy Lane/Lot 3, Vail Potato Patch 2nd Filing. Applicant: Jeri Campisi Planner: Dominic Mauriello I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a site coverage variance of 260.8 sq. ft. in order to construct a 300 sq. ft. one -car garage on the subject property. This duplex currently contains 2 enclosed garage spaces and this request would add a third. The allowable site coverage for this site is 3,403.8 sq, ft. (20%) and the proposal is for 3,664.6 sq, ft. (21.5%). This duplex was approved by the DRB in 1979 and constructed in 1980, The duplex, as originally approved, contained 3,763 sq. ft. of GRFA (as calculated in 1979). This site is allowed 46 3,951.9 sq. ft of GRFA. On March 3, 1979, a density variance for a 40 sq. ft. addition was denied by the PEC based on a finding that no hardship existed to justify the request. On September 21, 1988, a request for 500 sq. ft. of GRFA was approved under the 250 Ordinance. The structure now contains 4,502.8 sq. ft. of GRFA as calculated today. With two 250's, the site is permitted up to 4,451.9 sq .ft. of GRFA. Therefore the site is 50.9 sq. ft. over on GRFA and is considered a legal nonconforming structure with respect to GRFA. This structure also currently encroaches into both side setbacks. This is a pre-existing nonconforming condition and is not affected by the proposal. The applicant's justification for the site coverage variance request is that this addition will not negatively affect adjacent properties, as adjacent properties have two and three car garages. See attached letter for greater detail. 0 11. ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Use: Duplex residence Lot Size: 17,019 sq. ft. (entire she) Standar Allowed Existinnose Site Coverage: 3,403.0 sq. ft. (20%) 3,366.6 sq. ft. (19.8%) 3,664.6 sq. ft. (21.5%) Landscape area: 10,211.4 sq. ft. (60%) 11,330.4 sq. ft. (66.56%) n/c GRFA: 3,951.9 sq. ft. 4,502.8 sq. ft. n/c w/two 250's: 4,451.9 sq. ft, 4,502.8 sq. ft. n/c Setbacks: Front: 20' 30' n/c Sides: 15' 10, & 13.58' n/c Rear: 15, 36, n/c Parking: 5 required 6 (2 enclosed) 6 (3 enclosed) III. gtITERIA AND FINDIN_Q Upon review of Section 18,62.060, Criteria and Findings, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested site coverage variance. The recommendation for denial is based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factgrs: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposal will increase the building's bulk and mass beyond that enjoyed by other properties in the same zone district. Staff believes that while the proposal may not negatively impact neighboring properties and while other structures in the area have two and three car garages, there has been no indication of any physical hardship which would justify approving the requested variance. Other structures in area have two and three car garages and still comply with the site coverage requirements. Essentially, this owner enjoys a larger house at the expense of reduced garage area. Staff bel€eves.the grant of this variance would be a grant of special privilege. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal Interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation Is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. • Staff believes that the granting of this variance would be a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by other lots in the area or this zone district. Other sites in the area were constructed within the site coverage requirements. 1:1av a rye n e\p"Vnemos \cam pi s €.923 2 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 believes that requested variance will increase the bulk and mass of the building which may have a negative effect on the light and air of neighboring properties. B. The Planning and Envirnnmental Commission shall make the following finding before arantino a variance: 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. 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. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the followingreasons: 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. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the applicant's variance request subject to 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. 2. There are no exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential district. f.Neveryonelpeclm emos)campisi.923 • Ell a I WWI! MeEmpisi I I III � I III Addition MI 3 Second Filing va0. Coh.ao 2AO1 O"10 1lM mN.� 7i MLL ARCfIIUM.PC SEP-11-1596 23:11 RMT ARCHITECTS Jr, � , I The Campisi Addition I Potato Patch—Ldt 3 Secotsd Ming kill, V k. 970 949 1017 P.02/C2 LJ • I' ov n C �--'� z z RMT ➢41" t. �'M Pr TOTAL P.02 s •e YV' _ al - WINCk:-LQ-5!-pperh::._.. N:., h �t _. OCT 0 2 1996 '.40 V ICIOMM, DF11. DEPTH APPEALS FORM REQUIRED FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF A STAFF, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OR PLANNING AND ENVIRON.MrNTAL COA41%IISSION ACTION A. ACTION/DECISION BEING APPEALED: Denial of request for a site coverage variance to allow for a one -car garage located at 742 Sandy Lane/ Lot 3, Vail, Potato Patch end filing. The specific regulation a variance was requested of is Section of 6-te Town of Vail Building Code regarding site coverage which provides that a residence is not to exceed twenty percent (20%) of a total site area. The•requested site coverage variance was for 260.8 sq. £t. for construction of the garage. B. DATE OF ACTION/DECISION: September 23, 1996. C. NAME OF BOARD OR PERSON RENDERING THE DECISION/TAKING ACTION: Planning and Environmental Commission D. NAME OF APPELLANT(S): Charles P. Campisi and Geri Campisi MAILING ADDRESS' 1146 Sandstone Drive, Vail, CO 81657 PHYSICAL ADDRESS IN VAIL742-B Sandy Lane, Vail, CO PHONE: 476-5586 LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF APPEL LANT'S PROPERTY IN VAIL: Unit B, Lot 3, Vail/Potato Patch, Second Filing, Condominiums according to the Condominium Map recorded March 4, 1980 in Book 299 at Page 597 and as defined in theCondominium Declaration recorded *larch 4, 1980 ing Book 299 at Page 596, e_of Colorado. E. SIGNATURE(S): 7s�r1�'L�� Kerry H. Walla dda Attorney and ,presentative of Charles and Geri Campisi $t$va x �86�}anAvoala�o: EI�20 (970) 949-4200 Pace l of 2 F. Does this appeal involve a specific parcel of land? Yes If yes, please provide the following information: Dare you an adjacent property owner? Yes — no y If no, give a detailed explanation of how you are an " agarieved or adversely affected person." "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 appellants are aggrieved or adversely affected persons as they are the owners of the property in question and the persons requesting the site coverage variance WILich waa Agejad. The strict interpretation of the specified regulation in this case will result in a_practica_l_ difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship to the appellants as at the present time there is available only one 300 sq. ft, single car garage space for the appellants'3,366.6 sq, ft. residence. There is insuff— icient parking space for the appellants' own vehicles without taking into . consideration visiting friends and family. Parking is not available upon the street or surrounding areas There is also insufficient storage area particularly as the single cae garage is fully utilized for parking purposes. There also exists a drainage problem in that the area in which the new garage would be located slopes_toward__the residence and water flows directly into a major wall of the SEE ATTACHED SHEET G. Provide the names and addresses (both person's mailing address and property's physical address in Vail) of all owners of property which are the subject of the appeal and all adjacent property owners (including properties separated by a right-of-way, stream, or other intervening barriers). Also provide addressed and stamped envelopes for each property owner on the list. H. On separate sheets of paper, specify the precise nature of the appeal. Please cite specific code sections having relevance to the action being appealed. 1. FEE: 50.00 0 Page 2 of 2 Continuation of Section F of Appeal of Denial of Site Coverage Variance for Charles and Geri Camoisi • building, The drainage problem will be expensive to fix and the proposed garage will correct the drainage problem while at the same time significantly improving the property. In addition, the owner of 742-A Sandy Lane, Vail, CO currently experiences a serious security problem in that the general public has access to her emergency egress which leads to her master bedroom and bathroom. The proposed garage will correct this problem for the owner of 742-A Sandy Lane who is Betty Guffey. n 1J ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION FOR APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONUMSSION ACTION REGARDING SITE COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR CHARLES AND GERI CAMPISI FOR 742B SANDY LANE, VAIL, COLORADO 81657 SECTION H NATURE OF APPEAL I. Background Information The Appellants, Charles and Geri Campisi, filed a request for a site coverage variance for the purposes of constructing a single car garage addition. The specific regulation which the Appellants are seeking a variance of B section 18.13.090 of the Town of Vail Building Code regarding site coverage. Said section of the Code provides that a residence is not to exceed 20% of the total site area. The Campisi's are requesting a minimal variance of the regulation in order to allow them to construct a single car garage addition. The site coverage variance would be 260.8 square feet for the purposes of constructing a 300 square foot: one car :garage upon the property. The allowable site coverage for the site is 3,403.8 square feet (20%) and the proposed variance would allow for 3664.6 square feet (21.5 %). The property is a duplex which currently contains two enclosed garage spaces and the 46 Appellants requested variance would add a third garage space. Currently each side of the duplex has use of one 300 square foot garage space. As such, the Appellants currently have a 300 square foot single car garage space for a 3,366.6 square foot residence. The Appellants' request for a site coverage variance was presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission on September 23, 1996 and based upon the recommendations of the Community Development Department, the request for the variance was denied. II. Finding of the Planning and Environmental Commission The Planning and Environmental Commission at the September 23, 1996 meeting denied the Appellants' request for a site coverage variance in order to construct a 300 square foot single car garage addition based on the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; • 2. 'There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that are applicable to this site that apply generally to other properties in the primary/secondary residential zone. In addition, any hardships which have been presented, have been self-imposed; and 3. The strict interpretation, or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other property in the primary/secondary residential district. .0 111. It is Appellants Position that Granting of the Variance will not Constitute a grant of a Special Privilege and that there are Practical Difficulties and/or Hardships which the Appellants will Suffer if the Variance is not Granted. The specific regulation that the Appellants are seeking a site coverage variance of is §18.62A50 of Title 18 of the Town Code of Vail also known as the "Zoning 'title." §18.62,060 specifically provides that before acting on a variance application the Planning Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: Section A. I. The relationship of the requested variance to ;other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinities; 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 of sites in the vicinity, or to obtain the objectives of this i 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; and 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The Planning Commission is also to make the following findings before granting a variance: Section B. 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; 0 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and GACAIMMsneccoM.noc -2- That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this Title; 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 or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges. enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district." The Appellants shall initially address the requirements of Section "A" of the Zoning Title §18.62.060: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. It is the Appellants position that the proposed site coverage variance requested by the Appellants for the purpose of constructing a single • car garage addition to their property will not have any negative impact upon the other structures in the vicinity as such structures are all residential homes with two to three car garages and/or condominium structures in the Potato Patch area. The garage addition will not block any views and fits in with other duplexes in the area, many of which have three car garages or a close equivalent. The recommendations of the Planning Staff specifically stated that the Proposal may not negatively impact neighboring properties and that other structures in the area have two to three car garages. In addition, at the Planning and Environmental Commission hearing on September 23, 1996 an owner of an adjacent neighboring property, Joe Stauffer, testified stating that the garage would be a welcome addition to the neighborhood and would not in any way negatively impact any of the neighboring properties. There is no evidence that the proposed site coverage variance will negatively impact neighboring properties. 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 upon sites in the vicinity or to obtain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. • The grant of the minimal site coverage variance requested by the Appellants is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity and to attain the objectives of this title and does not constitute a grant of special privilege. The Zoning Title § 18.04.130 addresses gross residential floor area ("GRFA") and addresses how GRFA is c:IcAnsMMACcoNU.uoc -3- calculated and the amount of GRFA that is allowed per site. §18.04.130A(1) specifically provides, "Within buildings containing two or fewer dwelling units, the following area shall be excluded from calculation as GRFA: 1. Enclosed garages from up to 300 square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by the zoning code." The Zoning Title also has an entire section dedicated to parking requirements in particular off street parking. The purpose of this title is to alleviate progressively or to prevent traffic congestion and shortage of on street parking areas, off street parking, and loading facilities. Chapter 18.52 of the Zoning Title requires a certain amount of off street parking for all new facilities. 18.52.100 requires that off street parking be determined in accordance with the following schedule "A": if gross residential floor area is two thousand (2000') square feet or more per dwelling unit: 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit. The Appellants' property, which is 3,336 square feet, has only a single car 300 square foot garage space. Thus, the Appellants only have available one parking space for.their dwelling unit. This is not in compliance with 18.52.100 which requires 2.5 spaces per dwelling unit that are 2,000 square feet or more. There currently exists insufficient off street parking for the Appellants to park their two vehicles without taking into consideration guests and visiting family members. If the Appellants were to merely pave the area upon which they are requesting the variance to build the single car garage it would not provide for year round parking for the . Appellants. The Town of Vail snowplows during the winter months pile snow from the street onto the area where the garage would be built thus making that area unusable for parking purposes during the winter months. In addition, a concrete parking slab in the area in which the single car garage addition is proposed would be unattractive to the property and thus unattractive to neighboring residences. Though other sites in the area may have been constructed within the site coverage requirement, the only possibility for the Appellants' property to have sufficient parking in compliance with the code will be to allow the requested minimal site coverage variance for construction of the 300 square foot single car garage addition. The possibility of on street parking is not available to the Appellants as it is illegal to park upon the streets in the Potato Patch area particularly during the winter months when the snowplows need full access to the streets in order to sufficiently clear them of snow build up. The requested site coverage will help achieve compatibility with the objectives of the Zoning Title, 3. The effect of the requested variance of light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities and public safety. It is the Appellants position that the variance will have no effect on light and air, . distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. In fact the Appellant proposes that the requested variance will actually have a positive affect upon these factors as it will allow for additional off street parkkng so that vehicles GACAMFrszuccoMY.noc -4- will not be parked upon the street causing potentially dangerous traffic situations. There was no evidence presented to support a different finding on this issue. For the foregoing reasons it is the Appellants' position that the variance should be granted for the following reasons: 1. The granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified in the same district; 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinities; and The variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical. hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Title; b. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by the owners of . other properties in the same district. The Appellants will suffer the following practical difficulties and/or unnecessary physical hardships if the site coverage variance is not granted. a. They will be restricted to a 300 square foot garage for a 3,366 square foot residence. The Appellants will have insufficient parking for the parking of their own vehicles and/or parking for their guests and family members. This is a practical difficulty and/or an unnecessary physical hardship in particular as there if no in particular as there is no available on street parking. The Town of Vail Code specifically requires that sufficient off site street parking be provided for each residence. In particular 18.52.100(A) requires that a 2000 square foot or larger dwelling unit have 2.5 off street parking spaces per dwelling unit. The Appellants have insufficient parking particularly in the winter months and would be subject to ticketing by the Town of Vail for parking on the street. In addition the Town of Vail Code specifically provides that enclosed garages of up to 300 square feet per vehicle, not to exceed a maximum of two parking spaces for each allowable dwelling unit, permitted by the Zoning Code are not included in the . GRFA for a residence. It is consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Title to provide a 3,366 square foot residence to have the capability of having at least 600 square feet of parking space, which is the amount which will be provided to the Appellants' should be proposed variance be granted. C:ICAMPISMCCOWDOC -5- b. The construction of the proposed garage addition will correct a serious drainage problem upon the property which will need to be corrected regardless of whether the variance B granted. The garage addition will be a positive resolution of the drainage problem and will benefit neighboring properties in the • area because it will increase the value of the property. C. The garage will provide additional needed storage as there currently exists very little storage area within the residence particularly for storage of recreational equipment. d. The variance would also correct the serious security problem that exists for the owner of the other half of the duplex, 742-A Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado, who is Betty Guffey. Please see the attached Affidavit of Betty. Guffey. b. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified.regulation would deprive the applicant of the privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. Owners of other properties in the same district are typically allowed at least 600 square feet of enclosed garage space per dwelling unit. While some of these structures have been constructed within the site coverage requirements, it does not alleviate the fact that the Appellants' property is adversely affected by the lack of parking space. The Appellants should be able to construct an additional 300 square foot enclosed parking space upon their property to allow for off street parking. i c:wAna[snAccoaMnoc -& 0 AFi+IDAVIT OF BETTY GLFFEY COMES NOW, the Aftiant, Betty Guffey, having personal knowledge of the following facts and being duly sworn under oath hereby testifies as follows: 1. That I am the owner of real property located in the Town of Vail, Count), of Eagle, State of Colorado known as 7.1^-A Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado. 2. That I am a member of the Condominium Association for. Lot 3, Vail, Potato Patch, Second Filing Condominium. Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado which is comprised of Unit 742-A and 7.12-B Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado ("Condominium association"). 3. That the Condominium Association is comprised of my unit and unit 742-B Sandy Lane. Vail, Colorado which is owned by Charles Campisi and Geri Camp.isi (hereinafter referred to as the "Campisi's"). 4. That with my express permission and involvement the Campisi's have requested a variance from the Town of Vail for the purpose of constructing a single car garage addition to their unit. The construction of said single car garage will not in any way negatively impact upon other structures in the vicinity as most structures are residential homes, including condominium units with garages. S. That the garage addition that the Campisi's have requested a variance for from the Torun of Fail is necessary for a number of reasons: A. There is significant drainage problem upon the property in that the area in which the new garage will be located slopes toward the residence and water flows directly into a major wall of the building. The construction of the garage will resolve this drainage problem while at the same time significantly improving the property. B. That at the present time with the current configuration of the residence without the requested garage addition. there exists a significant security problem with regard to my unit. The general public currently has access to anemergencyegress door which leads directly into my master bedroom and bath area. Unfortunately, due to the current configuration of the building the general public often utilizes my emergency caress door as opposed to my main door because it is the only door readily visible front the street. This is a cause for concern for me because 1 cannot see who is at the emergency caress door until I am right before the door. This is not the case with my main entrance door as I can see the person at the door through windows prior to opening the door. In addition packages and flower deliveries are often left mistakenly at my emergency egress door and as I do not utilize that door I do not locate the items often for days. I have retained an architect, :tor. Bill Pierce of Fritzlen Pierce Briner Architects in Vail, to address. among other issues, the issue of the public access to my emergency egress door so that I could be provided with security. 11 was ultimately determined by Mr. Pierce that there nas no way to provide me such'security due to design constraints thus the proposed garage is 0 an excellent solution to my security problem. As such. I feel that the granting of the Variance to allow the construction of the single car garage is necessary to provide tile with adequate security at my residence and I will suffer a hardship if the Variance is not granted as no other options are available to me. C. That in the Winter months the Town of Vail snow removal pushes snow onto the area where the new single car garage will be constructed thus malting such area unusable particularly for parking purposes. There is insufficient parking in the area and the single car garage will provide a covered parking area year round. 6. For the foregoing reasons the owners of the property at 742) Sandy. Lane constituted of myself and the Campisi's will suffer a hardship if the Variance is not granted allowing for construction of the proposed single car garage. Further the Affiant sayeth naught. STATE OF COLORADO ss. EAGLE COUNTY Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2 day of September, 1996, by BETTY GUFFEY. Witness my hand and off.cQial seal. My commission expires: a_or: 0 XFFIDAVIT OF GERI C.01PISI COMES :NOW, the Affiant, being duly sworn under oath and hating personal knowledge of the following facts hereby testifies as follows: 1. That I am the owner of real property Iocated in the Town of Vail, County of.Eagle, State of Colorado known as 742-B Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado. 2. That I am a member of the Condominium Association for Lot 3, Vail, Potato Patch, Second Filing, Condominium, County of Eagle, State of Colorado which is constiutted of unit 742-A and 742-B Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado (the "Condo Association"). 3. That the Condominium Association is comprised of my unit and 742-A Sandy Lane, Vail, Colorado which is owned by Berry Guffey. .4. That my husband, Charles Campisi and myself have requested a Variance from the Town of Vail for the purpose of constructing a single car garage addition to our unit. The construction of such single car garage will not in any way negatively impact upon other structures in the vicinity as most structures are residential homes,. including condominium units. with garages. 5. That the garage addition that we are requesting a Variance from the Town of Vail for is necessary for a number of reasons: A. There is a significant drainage problem upon the property in that the area in which the new garage will be located slopes toward the residence and water flows directly into a major wall of the building. This drainage problem needs to be corrected in some manner and could be eery expensive to fix pursuant to bids that have been received. The construction of the garage will resolve this drainage problem while at the same time significantly improving the property. B. That there exists very little storage area within our residence and the existing two (2) car garage is fully utilized for the parking of our two (2) automobiles. As such, we currently do not have any storage space particularly for our recreational equipment such a bicycles, golf clubs and ski equipment. This creates a significant hardship for us in that there are no closets in the house to store the equipment, no space in the existing garage as it is used for parking our automobiles and it would be inappropriate to store said items outside as they could be stolen and it would detract from the area to store goods in that manner. C. That we are unable to park an automobile on the street or elsewhere on the lot in order to make storage space available in the existing garage as parking is not allowed upon the street, particularly in the Winter months, and the area in which the new garage will be constructed is currently unusable for parking purposes during the winter months as the Town of I 39,20/96 FRI 10:05 F.A.i Vail snow removal plows large amounts of snow upon the space, In addition, it is preferable to have our car in covered parking during the winter months. D. That we also have frequent guests, including numerous family members, and are unable to provide a parkins space for them when they are visiting. This poses a difficult problem again in the winter months when the snow plows need the streets clear of parktd vehicles to adequately plow the streets. 6. That the proposed single car garage will address all of the above referenctd hardships in that it will provide for the additional storage, it would provide a covered parking space tbat will be usable all year round and it will be a positive use of currently unusable space. 7. That the proposed single car garage will constitute an improvement to the property that will increase the value of the residence and thus would be a positive effect upon the neighborhood in general. 8, For the foregoing reasons the owners of the property at 742 Sandy bane which is constituted of myself, my husband, Charles Campisi, and Betty Guffey will suffer a hardship if the Variance is not granted for the construction of the proposed single car garage. Further the Affrant sayeth mugbt. STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss, EAGLE COUNTY ) r. V GERI CAMPISI 1 Subsenbed and swcrn to before rre this day of September, 1996, by GM CAMPISI. Witness my hand and official seel. My conrm.ission expires; Nolk G:tCAMPISI%GERrAFF.nTi 1] STOVALL GOODMAN WALLACE PROruSS IONAL CORPORATION Attorneys A Counselors at Law .LAMES WM. STOVALL 202 BENCHMARK PLAZA BUILDING TELEPHONE: (970) 949-4200 JOHN D. GOODMAN 48 EAST BEAVER CREEK BOULEVARD FACSIMILE: (970) 949-6843 KERRX H. WALLACE P.O, DRAWER 5860 GILLIAN COOLER MORRISON AVON,COLORADO 81620 October 10, 1996 Town of Vail ATTN: Dominic S. Mauriello, A.I.C.P. Department of Community Development 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 REFERENCE: Site Coverage Variance Request for 742 Sandy Lane/Lot 3, Vail Potato Patch, Second Filing, for Charles and Jeri Campisi Dear Mr. Mauriello: The purpose of this letter is to formally request a continuance of the appeals hearing that was initially scheduled before the Vail Town Council for November 5, 1996 at 7:30 p.m, with regard to Charles and Jeri Campisi's appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commissions' denial of a site coverage variance for 742 B Sandy Lane. I will be in trial the week of November 4, 1996 and as such would be unavailable for the hearing before the Vail Town Counsel on November 5, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. It is my understanding that the hearing before the Vail Town Council initially scheduled for November 5, 1996 has been moved pursuant to my request to November 19, 1996 at 7:30 p.m. I appreciate your cooperation in regard to this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me if you require anything further. Very truly yours, STOVA OODMAN WALLAQE, P K RY H. WALLACE KHW : tak cc: Charles and Jeri Campisi G:ICAMPISAVAIL.LET „ d TOWN OF PAIL 0outh Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 FAX 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY December 18, 1996 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR DECEMBER 17 Work Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Red Sandstone Locals Housing Development In preparation for the evening meeting, Council members met with representatives from the board of the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District to discuss details associated with the proposed locals housing development. Distribution of units and the inclusion of free market units were two points on which the two boards focused. Five of the 17 units will be controlled by the Town of Vail to represent its 25% share of the partnership, while water district representatives said they intend to control the balance. There is the potential for four units, which have been the focus of previous discussions, to be sold as free market or "modified restricted units” (sold to a local employee at market value with no restrictions) if needed, to help lower the selling price of the other units. Board members said it was the district's intent to use the free market or "modified restricted" approach only if construction costs require a contingency plan to ensure the rest of the project is affordable, The group agreed that both entities would . be involved in that decision once'construction costs are determined. The plan calls for three of the Town of Vail -controlled units to be sold to life -safety employees (such as firefighters, police officers, snow plow drivers and dispatchers), while the other two units would be sold to TOV employees at large. There would be two lottery drawings, one for each group. During discussion yesterday, Paul Johnston said he'd prefer keeping the units as rental property. Sybill Navas raised questions about the possibility of retaining ownership of the land to further preserve deed restrictions placed on the units. The two said they didn't want to see another Pitkin Creek slily away from the deed -restricted locals housing inventory. But Jay Peterson, a water board member, said the town had a buy-back provision in the Pitkin Creek project (just as it will have in. the Red Sandstone partnership) and for whatever reason, that buy-back option wasn't pursued by the town. Rob Ford, Ludwig Kurz and Kevin Foley said they were comfortable with the deed restriction safeguards placed on the project and suggested it was time to move forward with town approval. Michael Jewett said he'd like to see the town purchase as many units as possible. Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners Association said his group was comfortable with the lottery process proposed for the town's units and expressed interest in learning how the water district would allocate its share of the units. A letter from Bill Wood, U.S. Forest Service district ranger, also was (more) ow ? w RECYCLED PAPER TOV Highlights/Add 1 reviewed yesterday clarifying support for the project. The Council later approved the project at its evening meeting. For more information, contact Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2440. --John Gulick Employee Recognition John Gulick, assistant fire chief, was recognized for 20 years of service to the town. He received a certificate and a check for $2,000. --PEG Review In reviewing Monday's actions by the Planning and Environmental Commission, the Council was advised of an extension of a previous condition placed on the Public Works Town Shops expansion project. The PEC has extended to July 31, 1997, the condition requiring the issuance of a building permit for three employee housing units to be built on site. Originally, the PEG had required the permit to be issued prior to issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the expansion of the bus barn. Due to the expanded scope of the housing development, additional time had been requested. The expanded development will be constructed in the summer of 1997 with occupancy for seasonal workers by November of next year. For more information, contact Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2440. --Interview Applicants for 2 Marketing Board Positions The Council conducted interviews for two open positions on the Vail Valley Marketing Board. The applicants included Kaye Abramson, Robert Batchelor, Andre Fournier, Howard Leavitt, Beth Slifer (asking for reappointment) and Lai Tischer. Later in the evening, the Council reappointed Slifer and selected Fournier to serve four year terms. Slifer is president of Slifer Designs; Fournier is marketing director for the Vail Cascade Hotel & Club. --Ordinance Allowing Time -Share As Conditional Use In Public Accommodation Zone District After reviewing an ordinance that would allow time-share estate units, fractional fee units and time-share license units as conditional uses in the Public Accommodation zone district, council members expressed concern about the broad scope of the proposal. Those concerns were repeated at the evening meeting and the ordinance for first reading was tabled to the Jan. 7 meeting. The ordinance is proposed at the request of Sonnenalp Properties, Inc. The proposal includes a fractional fee club redevelopment of the Austria Haus property at 242 East Meadow Drive, in addition to hotel rooms and other improvements. Approval of fractional fee club units as a conditional use within the zone district is needed before the applicant is able to proceed with its request for a Special Development District for redevelopment. During yesterday's discussion, Council members heard an overview of the fractional fee concept, including a successful example built in Deer Valley. Although Councilmembers praised the Austria Haus proposal, most said they were uncomfortable allowing the more traditional time-share approaches (estate units and license units) within the scope of the ordinance. Rob Ford, in particular, said he (more) TOV Highlights/Add 2 wanted the provision to ensure retention of existing hotel rooms. The applicant then proposed narrowing the ordinance by focusing on the fractional fee concept and eliminating the other time-share provisions (which are already allowed as a conditional use in the High Density Multi -Family zone district). Jim Lamont of the East Village Homeowners; Dan Tellen an adjacent business owner; and Pam Hopkins urged the Council to proceed with caution. Please see evening briefs for more information, or contact George Ruther in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --West Vail Interchange Design Update During an update on the West Vail roundabout design, the Council agreed to take a low -maintenance approach to the landscaping plan. Council also approved a proposal to construct a bike path at the south side roundabout at grade rather than incur the cost and other problems associated with running the path beneath the road. Also yesterday, the Council approved a plan to involve the public in developing a schedule for construction. The public process will occur in January and February. If the town finds funding partners for the $5.5 million project, construction could begin as early as March 31. For more information, contact Larry Grafel in the Public Works Department at 479-2173. --Information Update The Council agreed to pursue a discount ski/park promotion with Vail Associates that would occur on selected weekdays leading up to Christmas. Kevin Foley encouraged the town to prepare its overflow parking plan for the coming weekend. In replacing the town's computer systems for dispatch and finance, Town Manager Bob McLaurin said the cost will likely exceed the $500,000 currently budgeted. McLaurin said he would provide an update in January. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead indicated representatives from the Alpine Gardens had inquired about negotiating a new lease with the town. The Council indicated that specifics of the lease could be finalized following adoption of the Ford Park Management Plan in February. Evening Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Citizen Participation • Mary Isom, a local attorney representing Bob Schultz, owner of the popcorn wagons in Vail Village and Lionshead, appeared before the Council to ask for a discussion on the lease issue. Council members indicated the discussion would take place in 1997, possibly in the Spring. Isom explained that Schultz was attempting to sell the business and was interested in knowing if the town would agree to an extension of the current lease, which expires in December 1997. Town Manager Bob McLaurin said he would not recommend an extension. (more) TOV Highlights/Add 3 --Supplemental Appropriation The Council voted 7-0 on second reading to approve a supplemental appropriation to the budget in the amount of $1.2 million. --Animal Control On a 6-1 vote (Jewett against) the Council approved a resolution authorizing the town manager to enter into an animal control services contract with Eagle County. The contract is for $23,704 for one year. --Appointment of Two Marketing Board Members . The Council reappointed Beth Slifer and appointed Andre Fournier to the Vail Valley Marketing Board. Both will serve four year terms. See afternoon briefs for more details. --Ordinance Allowing Time -Share As Conditional Use in Public Accommodation Zone District The Council voted 6-0 (Johnston excused himself from discussion due to a possible conflict of interest) to table first reading of this ordinance to the Jan. 7 evening meeting and directed staff to tighten language in the ordinance to prevent possible abuses. While applauding a proposal to use fractional fee units to help redevelop the Austria Haus site (which triggered the proposed ordinance), Council members said they were concerned with abuses that might result from the ordinance as currently written. Please refer to work session briefs for more details, or contact George Ruther in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --Red Sandstone Locals Housing Project The Council voted 6-1 (Johnston against) to approve a resolution directing the town manager to execute an intergovernmental agreement between the town and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District on the Red Sandstone housing partnership. Also, the Council voted 7-0 on second reading to rezone the properties from general use to medium density multi -family residential. A third measure, to create a Special Development District for the property, was approved on second reading by a 6-1 vote (Johnston against due to flat roof architecture). Please see work session briefs for more details, or contact Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2440. --Campisi Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission Decision The Council voted 7-0 to uphold the PEC's denial of a site coverage variance to allow an additional one -car garage to be constructed at 742-B Sandy Lane/Unite B. Council members said they could find no hardship that would enable the variance to be approved. For details, contact Dominic Mauriello in the Community Development Department at 479-2148. --Town Manager's Report Bob McLaurin said the Colorado Association -of Ski Towns meeting was scheduled for Jan. 9 and 10. (more) TOV Highlights/Add 4 --Information Update Paul Johnston asked about the town's new loading and delivery policy in the Village. Police Chief Greg Morrison explained that large trucks on Hanson Ranch Road would be prohibited at all times. Johnston inquired about a community safety officer position to be staffed at the Vail Village Club construction site. McL.aurin said the position remains unfilled. --Council Reports Sybill Navas updated fellow council members of her meetings with the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, the Chamber, Commission on Special Events and Activities and the Vail Valley Exchange. Kevin Foley passed along a thank you from the Vail Recreation District to.the Public Works Department for its assistance in removing a sign at the golf course erected by an anti -fur group. He also updated the group on his attendance at the Eagle County Transportation Authority meetings. Foley also inquired about the approval status of the ski storage sheds in Lionshead. Bob Armour thanked the town's Social Committee for organizing the holiday parry. • Condolences were expressed to the family of Cindy Nash. UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS January 7 Work Session Mike Vaughn 15 Year Anniversary Joe Busch 10 Year Anniversary Discussion of Proposed Changes to Investment Policy Time -Share Ordinance Discussion Executive Session January 7 Evening Meeting First Reading, Time -Share Ordinance January 14 Work Session PEC/DRB Review • Executive Session Oxt � iOUTON r`,� ♦♦`,� - rMOxrN.TS COC AMwe CIGC�R�C N•NNOIr iC, ' �GxIfTINo G'RSR .G rCe f MCfT Rb \,Gd� -♦♦ et ceuo rue. •wif ., ;. i. .. u_..... CI✓Or�M 6�T�f �' rooe oG fr.eT ..-. � an •ooR''rNo•T r'.♦♦ ♦ ``♦ �_ �:e •� r +S B,-DG ue 1 I� �� BLDG' .� _ fxwf -/,� r ' Arr "� / �^^�_ _ - ___' uCn —' rs iwr � ' ♦t er Ar- e te.c � e. Baer e i 1 e� h Qea e.iiiiR�o a .oe 1 � RFO g _• �` £Y � e��O:K",..f>ro.N�: . f . `r �o..�:cr�r�. �'Q � �,'—/�•' AA,O ;``t=� ,.• H >., I LEGEND `_s � . y-'f'•'�^ •'..•ac ,-- _x:s.roa ;r cr.io,R \CTES SITE PLAN... `PRELIMINARY] i�j--• a .•.nr.e...T♦....~~" u oGUKuuM UNIT A3: TWO CGOROOM SOOT so. PT. 19,8 SQ. PIT. 0B6 SQ, PT. --� ,� � Li•,i.,a RaOu 14 I j � n,Rmw soar j oaroro mar 11' I _, w.1 Y Fi, I — M 'extiel: ° I «L• i�i �—•- — � o r �+ SECQNO LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ROOF PLAN a rM r4 V1ST >S b! atOROOr AMR At. 1He[[ O[DROO4 IT. _ .-. .. .. —� �t�—. - _• — — _ 4 � P[GC + UNtN ROOM I —T[R E[aRaar I "TM eeamar { I I _ _ xa+.ww i � oiRaRr mar L eaTw ' '"r3"� — — _- 0.ateT1 eRr,t ClDfef _ N . ncrcaa w.0 .eaTe —1 ROOF PLAN 4 w.fr � W.STLR KM'OC.' •. I. 1! o77 -- SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN UNIT 51: ONG' DLOROOM UNIT 52: 7ON"76 l5raQ. T Oef 776 SU. fT. omc _ A uvaN e0w 9M Dom ��y rocw xwste�'� wsica et ae.ww crow a OIWMs Yd - — a.,ux aa.Rc �tlglw.V. '� i -A I i 71I j ROOF PLAN IfI I w.s TGR se� .I — II ' I I f (Mw4 .00w I1v!Ic FOGY I Y/.lSLR lC011'�we OMIwO ROp1 I IWFP1 lORW I ![OII0011 ElplOcw 7 1 1 6[O.00w 1 CSFCOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN • . ra lM[T P O•l• OGG�GGV �R P. O•IG EftDIIOW rn sa rt. rnMrt. cccc oeu Yr-iit. eea�w uvnw .00u IWTCF O[GIOW I _ D111MG IlOpl — DMMe Foou j ro+a � .YGiIY ose� 6..if{ 6+FKC - G.TG'FIOR WNi •DOVG I 1 [ltT.�70e w LL ♦GONG! � ]� � f c•..t�G cuTwci ' N I NORTH ELEVATION U.. - - SOUTH ELEVATION 2 0 WEST ELEVATION _ 7, FAST ELEVATION (D "r­ ELEVATION W�SZ' — NORTH ELr:VATIG" I EASTT P—Le\/ATiON (D scAtc: va r.o" SOUTH ELFVA-i10N scn.c. SOUTH ELEVATION lJ SCALE: 1/5' - '10" NORTH ELEVATION OSCALP: 1/6' - V-D' WEST ELEVATION (D (D EAST ELEVATION SCALE; 116" - V-0- 2 t12"cnt. :T puputus acvminau r5 �Unrk>[C�mnwsxd �pmm vrice>'a+ikY� � 2 1' Hader • 4nR....d H,1us tip+ a5 � O � GaO. ppk 'gond'4` Jsii u:.n•d1e'd As�az Po�rrdills te.aiekosr O it Po enuil. A s i. Fl:+j"" Nativ<1Wi16t1a.+rr Srsd Mi• 5t0 s.L. Opclauud SY,rugs Fran SNe N ote: Ptah ce s lormldan Hier to *t In dU� \\\" ' ` \ t, Fex ard`itecns Si . refry ro k Engneefi^�Baed M' and+vsltt>z 2. for gndrn$'rJorma y \ 9. Piasst tocatiorss ast Prrt"r's'sarY itewsatn \` \ Pr;as to Fnal instaltatian. Fd.dM;wey Edge of Stream Cottt nvtixxl bry rArOP Tree to be lamed 1 .. E fisting 9hnrs to be �Ei,,.t nn gir.NPiu"�abk Jv�As• ` , n ` - '. 7r+b t� \ 1\ � \\ \ \ \ all \ / � .._ •` .. �- �,' ��— ` P. Building i ..c.`'�j � \ ,1 1 � 1 •Iu i f / Building - —+�^�� ,;fboars wrns5� M Bui)ditKt�; � � f � � * • / ) • i ��11 , t j•�. 1 I Cott—n ,d Tree to be Pe ovedtaMk / R • Rea i• '� • �. /1,Y, , -�t,w '" �; �' \ � S a h r r eo.►ae wrs amp � t 70r�r r N. Edge of Stream i / 1 1~ — " aalMacs - ihrmpster 1 �1 isting Cottonwood Tree to be Removed . 1t�nrek.teMa.�wnna rnp�l�:,rominar. zvrr.,t Aaileys Dn�w.d Comus serirea A.1kyY .SJ O' f'1°M Crab.PFk Milus 'ffup.' Ycal. 3 Q aardile rotenfiR. PameR, fr id—'gnr ue .5 n N.eve/Wildfo—Sred Ati aluegr.ss Sod �VI Di.t.r.6ed .tR.. •.A_`d Wildflower Seed J. O' R-1—kd Stlnrbs From Siie E14 r.f. Note: 1. For ardliWhnal and Site MIn information refer to PAO tr An hiteeh drawings. 2. For grading information, ruder to Engineering Dnigaworka, Inc. 3- Plant tocaliarus are preliminary and will be naked by Owner's mpr ,ntative prior to final L-Wlation. Existing Cottonwood Tree to be Removed � _Exiateng Shrubs to be Transplanted t)uannn N nan.pt,nrabk .M.lny- `i` 1 e.mmwd Prn.+ er .�n dnwA.urce ` .~(��.♦..V`5T /w '/' ��` Y�—\ �`� —wand t'..i, h Building tr S, o B . •� on v / •,� r 13uildihyS � w J _ I I I If Aoq{der w.p frypJ— Y GENERAL NOTES Fs r,G ,;x GRAPHIC SCALE - <taZ 6 SMM+ •� -v— .._..rR SP , _'^ : r• � � J� `.• .\,� PART OF PEd- - BLDG. i -`_w t BLDG. / ti tr / i le 1 [A —C SPOT / CRgne %' •'tY" FaDFDSEn z n,z �--+ [x W Pt _ / vFOPO'�ED D• C0+<T0.W S�— r. ��.-- _ _ _ _ - Jt • �yI pecom£D SPOT G.-DE n..«.,.en..r,,,,e„.e..Ys..e...A eeF.. N 11 a �-i ie� �,e1Vc� rnr y ya,•�.,t � �..o, <a,,.•o.., w -•na�w m rr•-e a rr va•Keevw S rs m t-<T.w�i N m..nwec.a�`« sw ee+1 +a ! • .r.� ew/a vwv«.w �.w-r<t�im. Can<.u+r�i<•e e. •-a•a+w b .c �q �• t...lry o oe.. Ved-•-'. Y L.< �.e/s N .a+ �•s w< ..e.s I w.<e•,a wl m , •a.< -�+cn NOT S 'Ey : esrwLl 9 l-- UATE a SUSUFK'M<G. 919S OF ELE"T/NPo.r •ass nv em SOuvOfTIW F1J•h •.CT araq/.elE (OR 8.,r,.c Da.E•l ynptFfM.r P< -ED S,« .`STp E FO.D 'v M. PPDLI-ED �o�uTinorx rTo�P Dl+oaa+"EaM a nai �w TIODD RJ+v a cc ^>S, weert[NaTED RDOD PWv ay..LTS+S to !K FEAT,x+wu S tODJ SEE O,r,CE REPORT FOR GALv av0 Di53,aRGE .+rl 8 A R JA q\ f IN Mkt i l d= yIN IN IN / Nb -ld -211S O�y 'ov sa zm Yv -t 7 7- COS i. aAol,. i I • l A21 � 11 I I1I f ROOF PLAN mw oe<ac — - _ M7W ROOM I 1M�0 ROD11 . M.liaeR OeOROOM I ��-•—� OeM11Y ROOM j - UVOW — PM ROOM O7RO9 `¢ ` r eeaooM :=E z�, L �' I 1 aeeRoou s IdPeOOV s —' I ROOT OSECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN WfI AI: TwRC Kp1O0Y nN eq rT, MArrest eealtOOM IMT AL• Or1C OcvItWM I � oca DN nCdt 1 CTavO Rose l]NRY ROOM i _ _ _— 1 1 uArTra accROw� wsTd ecORaoM r I ._ . aneT I drn CwRAi[ yARAiC 6I VBC� ' [YaMIOR wAry MOr[ suy..R A+AiG ` 40 ' ROOF PLAN .-.R 7— Mx T ,® xcR 02 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN UNIT 51 ONZ 152DROOM UNIT D2; ONr MrOKOOM 776 50. FT, 776 SO. FT. -T" wj ROOF PLAN SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN oea IQ I ....... . . . ..... - .see ­TMm —ove `� o z� q= rn rn Y� r 6 'L rn v N� r'� tr'� P� w Z NORTH ELffVATIC',t OSOUTH ELEVATION SCA-l. 1/6-- . 1--011 WEST ELEVATION (DEAST ELEVATION $CALC; 1/6" - V-0. "I (DSOUTH ELEVATION SCALP.- Va' - "0" oNORTH ELEVATION SCALE: IIW' - !140 WEST E--LEVA I -ION EAST ELEVATION SCALE: V8' - 1--0- El 1-11100