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