The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPEC110053 Aylesworth variance with attachments_092611TO: FRO DAT SUB I. II. P OM: C TE: S BJECT: A 1 p c re E (P A P SUMMA The app variance Family P Based u the evid recomm noted in A vicinity Staff me addition memora side of t setback side of t Town Co commun DESCR Planning an Community September 2 A request fo 2-6D-8, De ursuant to onstruction esidential fl E, Vail das S PEC110053 Applicant: Planner: ARY plicant, Willi es from the Primary/Sec upon Staff’s ence and te mends appro Section VI y map (Atta emorandum to the east andum asso he duplex ( and site co he existing ode related nication from RIPTION O d Environm Developme 26, 2011 or the review ensity Contr Chapter 12 n of a garag oor area an Schone Fili 3) William R Bill Gibso iam R. Ayle setback, d condary Dis s review of t estimony p oval, with II of this me achment A) m associated tern side of ociated with (Attachmen overage var duplex (At d to non-con m neighbor OF REQUE mental Com ent Departm w of varianc rol, and Sec 2-17, Varian ge within the nd site cove ng 1, and s R. Ayleswor on esworth, rep ensity cont strict to allo the criteria resented, th a conditio emorandum ), proposed d with the f f the existin h the garage nt C), the 19 riances for tachment D nforming st ring propert EST mission ment ces from Se ction 12-6D nces, Vail T e side setba erage, loca setting forth th, represe presented b rol, and site ow for the c outlined in he Commu n, of this ap m. architectur front and sid g duplex (A e addition s 997 Staff m a similar tw D), Staff inte ructures an ty owner St ection 12-6 D-9, Site Co Town Code ack in exce ted at 2586 h details in r nted by Ste by Steve Fr e coverage construction Section VI nity Develo pplication s ral plans (A de setback Attachment setback var memorandum wo-car gara erpretations nd GRFA (A teve McEac 6D-6, Setba overage, V , to allow fo ess of the a 6 Davos Tra regard ther eve Francis rancis, is re e provisions n of a garag I of this me opment Dep subject to th Attachment k variances t C), the 19 riances for m associate age addition s #31 and # Attachment chron (Attac acks, Sectio Vail Town C or the llowable gr ail/Lot 4, Bl reto. s equesting s of the Two ge addition. emorandum partment he findings B), the 198 for a garag 997 Staff the eastern ed with the n to the sub #36 of the t E), and chment F). on ode, ross ock o- m and 89 ge n side bject Town of Vail Page 2 The applicant is requesting variances from the setback, density control, and site coverage provisions of the Two-Family Primary/Secondary District to allow for the construction of a two-car garage addition to the western unit of the existing duplex at 2586 Davos Trail (Attachment B). In 1989 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved front and side setback variances to facilitate a one-car garage addition to the eastern side of the subject duplex (Attachment C). The proposed garage addition is similar to a previous two-car garage addition application approved by the Town of Vail in 1997 (Attachment D). The Planning and Environmental Commission approved setback and site coverage variances to facilitate this previous application; however, the previous garage addition was not constructed and the variance approvals have since expired. The existing duplex at 2586 Davos Trail was originally constructed under Eagle County jurisdiction and is legally non-conforming in regard to the Town of Vail’s density requirements. The subject lot is 11,365 sq. ft. in size and pursuant to Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, only one dwelling unit is allowed on a lot with less than 14,000 sq. ft. of buildable area. The proposed garage addition consists of two vehicle bays (11’-3” by 24’ each) separated by a mostly enclosed, five foot (5’) wide breezeway. The proposed breezeway element provides a pedestrian connection between the driveway at the front of the house and the existing entry door located on the west side of the residence. The proposed garage addition (which includes both bays and the breezeway) is a total of 640 sq. ft. of garage area. Pursuant to Chapter 12-15, Gross Residential Floor Area, Vail Town Code, deductions of up to 300 sq. ft. per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit are allowed from the GRFA calculations. Since the subject lot is less than 14,000 sq. ft. in area, only one dwelling unit is “allowed” (the existing duplex is legally non-conforming). Therefore, only up to two 300 sq. ft. garage deductions may be applied to the GRFA calculations for this lot. The existing eastern one-half of this duplex has a one car garage and has already utilized one of the two 300 sq. ft. deductions. The applicant is proposing a 640 sq. ft. garage addition; one 300 sq. ft. garage deduction may be applied, resulting in 340 sq. ft. of proposed new GRFA. In 1997, the Town of Vail approved a similar two-car garage addition for this residence. In that proposal the garage was interpreted to be separated from the house by a breezeway. The common wall of the breezeway and garage was only three feet (3’) tall and not considered an enclosing wall. In 1997, the previously approved breezeway was not interpreted as GRFA. Based upon today’s interpretations of the GRFA regulations, that breezeway would be calculated as GRFA. In 1997, the previously approved garage addition was not calculated as GRFA by using three garage deductions (one for the existing east unit garage, and two for the proposed west unit garage). As noted above, based upon today’s interpretations of the GRFA regulations, only one garage deduction Town of Vail Page 3 could be applied to this two-car garage and the remainder would be defined as new GRFA. The allowable GRFA for the subject property is 5,228 sq. ft. The existing duplex is calculated as approximately 2,882 sq. ft. of GRFA (for zoning purposes both sides of the duplex are treated as one entity). However, because the existing duplex is non- conforming in regard to the units per lot portion of the density standards (only one unit allowed on lots less than 14,000 sq. ft.), the existing duplex is therefore also considered legally non-conforming in regard to the GRFA portion of the density standards based upon a 1996 and 2000 interpretations of the Vail Town Code (Attachment E). The consequence of this legal non-conforming status is that the existing duplex can not expanded without a variance beyond the existing GRFA, even if that existing floor area is less than the total allowed by the GRFA formulas prescribed by the Zoning Regulations. The proposed garage addition encroaches into the 15 foot required side setback by approximately 5 feet. Approximately 45 sq. ft. of the proposed garage area would be located in the side setback. In 1997, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a similar side setback variance for a previous garage addition proposal for this residence. In 1989, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a similar front and side setback variance for the eastern unit of this duplex. The proposed garage addition also exceeds the allowable 20% site coverage for the lot. The applicant is requesting 26% site coverage. In 1997, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a similar 25% site coverage variance to facilitate a previous garage addition proposal for this residence. The applicant is also proposing to modify the existing driveway. Today, 2586 Davos Trail has two curb cuts and a horseshoe shaped driveway that runs continuously along the front façade of the existing house. The existing asphalt driveway is unheated, exceeds slopes of 20%, and is legally non-conforming in regard to the driveway standards prescribed by Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code. The applicant is proposing no modifications to the eastern one-half of the existing driveway located in front of the adjoining one-half of the duplex. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing western one-half of the driveway and replace it with landscaping directly in front of the western side of the duplex. Utilizing the existing western curb cut, the applicant is proposing to construct a straight driveway that is aligned with the proposed garage addition. The proposed garage is approximately 5 feet higher than the adjoining first floor elevation of the house to accommodate a driveway grade of approximately 9%. The previous 1997 garage addition proposal was at the same first floor elevation as the existing house; however, that driveway design would exceed today’s maximum allowable slopes of 10% for unheated driveways and 12% for heated driveways. III. BACKGROUND Town of Vail Page 4 The existing duplex at 2586 Davos Trail was constructed in 1973 under Eagle County jurisdiction. The subject property, along with other portions of West Vail, was annexed into the Town of Vail on October 29, 1986 after the adoption of Ordinance No. 26, Series of 1986. On July 24, 1989 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a front and side setback variance to allow for the construction of a one-car garage addition to the eastern half of the subject duplex (Attachment C). On September 8, 1997 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved side setback and site coverage variances to allow for the construction of a two-car garage addition to the subject western half of the property (Attachment D). The previously approved garage addition was separated from the existing house by a four foot (4’) wide breezeway. At that time, the applicant proposed to separate the garage addition and the breezeway with a three foot (3’) tall guardrail (wall) rather than a floor-to-ceiling wall. This design allowed Staff and the applicant to interpret the breezeway as not being enclosed and not counting toward GRFA. This design and interpretation was intended to avoid the need for a density variance. This addition was not constructed, so this variance approval has expired. The Planning and Environmental Commission has historically approved variances from setback, site coverage, and other similar development standards to facilitate the construction of garages at existing legally non-conforming residences. On September 7, 2011 the Town of Vail Design Review Board conceptually reviewed the proposed garage addition. The Design Review Board determined that the proposed garage was substantially attached to the existing house and created a single architecturally integrated structure in compliance with Section 14-10-6, Residential Development, Vail Town Code. The Board was generally supportive of the proposed design and encouraged the applicant to proceed forward through the development review process. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Zoning Regulations (Title 12) Chapter 12-1: TITLE, PURPOSE, AND APPLICABILITY (in part) Section 12-1-2: Purpose A. General: These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious development of the town in a manner that will conserve and enhance its Town of Vail Page 5 natural environment and its established character as a resort and residential community of high quality. B. Specific: These regulations are intended to achieve the following more specific purposes: 1. To provide for adequate light, air, sanitation, drainage, and public facilities. 2. To secure safety from fire, panic, flood, avalanche, accumulation of snow, and other dangerous conditions. 3. To promote safe and efficient pedestrian and vehicular traffic circulation and to lessen congestion in the streets. 4. To promote adequate and appropriately located off street parking and loading facilities. 5. To conserve and maintain established community qualities and economic values. 6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 7. To prevent excessive population densities and overcrowding of the land with structures. 8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the town. 9. To conserve and protect wildlife, streams, woods, hillsides, and other desirable natural features. 10. To assure adequate open space, recreation opportunities, and other amenities and facilities conducive to desired living quarters. 11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community. ARTICLE 12-6D: TWO FAMILY PRIMARY/SECONDARY DISTRICT (in part) 12-6D-1 Purpose: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same zone district. The two- family primary/secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family and two- family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards Town of Vail Page 6 12-6D-6: Setbacks: In the primary/secondary residential district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15'), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15'). 12-6D-8: Density Control: A. Dwelling Units: Not more than a total of two (2) dwelling units shall be permitted on each site with only one dwelling unit permitted on existing lots less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet. B. Gross Residential Floor Area: 1. The following gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted on each site: a. Not more than forty six (46) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of the first ten thousand (10,000) square feet of site area; plus b. Thirty eight (38) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over ten thousand (10,000) square feet, not exceeding fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet of site area; plus c. Thirteen (13) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area over fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet, not exceeding thirty thousand (30,000) square feet of site area; plus d. Six (6) square feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) for each one hundred (100) square feet of site area in excess of thirty thousand (30,000) square feet. 2. The secondary unit shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the allowable gross residential floor area (GRFA). C. Employee Housing Units: Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections A and B of this section, a type I employee housing unit shall be permitted on lots of less than fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet in accordance with the provisions of chapter 13 of this title. Any type I employee housing unit existing on or before April 18, 2000, shall not be eliminated unless all dwelling units are demolished, in which case the zoning on the property shall apply. However, an existing type I employee housing unit may be replaced with a type II employee housing unit on lots of fourteen thousand (14,000) square feet or greater. 12-6D-9: Site Coverage: Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total site area. Chapter 12-15: GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (in part) Town of Vail Page 7 12-15-3: Definition, Calculation, and Exclusions: a. GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square footage of a building as set forth in the definition above. Excluded areas as set forth herein, shall then be deducted from total square footage. (1) Enclosed Garage Area: Enclosed garage areas of up to three hundred (300) square feet per vehicle space not exceeding a maximum of two (2) vehicle parking spaces for each allowable dwelling unit permitted by this title. Garage area deducted from floor area is awarded on a "per space basis" and shall be contiguous to a vehicular parking space. Each vehicular parking space shall be designed with direct and unobstructed vehicular access. Alcoves, storage areas, and mechanical areas which are located in a garage and which are twenty five percent (25%) or more open to the garage area may be included in the garage area deduction. Interior walls separating the garage from other areas of a structure may be included in the garage area deduction. Chapter 12-17: VARIANCES (in part) 12-17-1: Purpose: Reasons for Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. Development Standards (Title 14) 14-10-6: RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: A. The purpose of this section is to ensure that residential development be designed in a manner that creates an architecturally integrated structure with unified site development. Dwelling units and garages shall be designed within a single structure, except as set forth in subsection B of this section, with the use of unified architectural and landscape design. A single structure shall have common roofs and building walls that create enclosed space substantially above grade. Unified architectural and landscape design shall include, but not be limited to, the use of compatible building materials, architectural style, scale, roof forms, massing, architectural details, site grading and landscape materials and features. Town of Vail Page 8 B. The presence of significant site constraints may permit the physical separation of units and garages on a site. The determination of whether or not a lot has significant site constraints shall be made by the design review board. "Significant site constraints" shall be defined as natural features of a lot such as stands of mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses and other natural water features, rock outcroppings, wetlands, other natural features, and existing structures that may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of a lot. Slope may be considered a physical site constraint that allows for the separation of a garage from a unit. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to request a determination from the design review board as to whether or not a site has significant site constraints before final design work on the project is presented. This determination shall be made at a conceptual review of the proposal based on review of the site, a detailed survey of the lot and a preliminary site plan of the proposed structure(s). C. The residential development may be designed to accommodate the development of dwelling units and garages in more than one structure if the design review board determines that significant site constraints exist on the lot. The use of unified architectural and landscape design as outlined herein shall be required for the development. In addition, the design review board may require that one or more of the following common design elements such as fences, walls, patios, decks, retaining walls, walkways, landscape elements, or other architectural features be incorporated to create unified site development. V. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 2586 Davos Trail Legal Description: Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schone Filing 1 Lot Area: 11,365 sq. ft. (0.260 acres) Zoning: Two-Family Primary/Secondary District Land Use Designation: Low Density Residential Geological Hazards: None Development Standard Allowed Existing 1997 variance Proposed Setbacks (ft): Front 20. 16* no change no change East Side 15 8* no change no change West Side 15 35 10 11 Rear 15 33 no change no change GRFA (sq.ft.): 5,228 2,882 no change 3,222** Site Coverage (sq ft): 2,273 (20%) 2,308 (20.3%) 2,835(25%) 2,972 (26%) Landscape Area (sq ft): 6,819 (60%) 7,637 (67%) 6,895 (61%) 7,405 (65%) Town of Vail Page 9 Parking (spaces): East 3 3 (1 enclosed) no change no change West 3 3 (0 enclosed) 3 (2 enclosed) 3 (2 enclosed) * Nicholls (east unit) setback variances approved July 24, 1989 **640 sq. ft. total garage floor area minus one 300 sq. ft. garage deduction = 340 sq. ft. GRFA VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary District South: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary District East: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary District West: Residential Two-Family Primary/Secondary District VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff does not believe this proposal will have a significant negative impact on adjacent uses or structures in the vicinity in comparison to previous variance approvals by the Planning and Environmental Commission. If the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to approve these variance requests, Staff recommends the Commission imposes a condition that the garage area not exceed 600 sq. ft. (the common garage size in Vail) to further minimize the impacts of this proposal on other 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 a grant of special privilege. The subject duplex was constructed, without garages, under Eagle County jurisdiction and later annexed into the Town of Vail. The existing duplex is legally non-conforming in regard to the density control requirements of the Town of Vail’s Two-Family Primary/Secondary District. The Planning and Environmental Commission has approved numerous variances from the setback, site coverage, and other similar development standards for other properties to facilitate the construction of garages at existing legally non-conforming residences. Therefore, Staff does not view the approval of this request as a grant of special privilege. The proposed garage addition is similar to a previous two-car garage addition application approved by the Town of Vail in 1997. The Planning and Environmental Commission approved setback and site coverage variances to facilitate this previous Town of Vail Page 10 application; however, the previous garage addition was not constructed and the variance approvals have since expired. The applicant is requesting to construct a two-car garage similar to the one approved in 1997 with a less steep driveway, increased landscaping in front of the existing house, and a floor-to-ceiling wall between the vehicle bays and the breezeway. The Vail Town Code, and the interpretation of the code, was less restrictive in 1997 than today (maximum allowable driveway grades, the connection of houses and garages as a single structure, allowable GRFA for legally non-conforming duplexes on small lots, determining if a area in enclosed or unenclosed when calculating GRFA, etc.) Staff believes the applicant’s current proposal is consistent with the character and intent of the variance applications approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission in 1997. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve these variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission impose a condition that the applicant reduce the size of the proposed garage addition from 640 sq. ft. to 600 sq. ft. The typical two-car garage in Vail does not exceed 600 sq. ft. in size since the maximum of two 300 sq. ft. (600 sq. ft. total) GRFA deductions are allowed for a two-car garage. Staff believes a proposed garage of 600 sq. ft. or less would provide the applicant the minimum degree of relief from standards of the Vail Town Code to achieve compatibility and uniform treatment with other properties in the vicinity and the same zone district. 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 the proposed driveway associated with this request will improve the vehicular access to the subject property. The existing driveway does not comply with the engineering requirements of Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code. The existing driveway has a slope of more than 20% which exceed the maximum 10% slope allowed by the current Vail Town Code. The applicant’s representative has testified that the subject western half of the duplex is inaccessible at times in the winter due to steepness and configuration of the existing driveway. The proposed new driveway will have snowmelt heating and is designed in conformance with the engineering requirements outlined in Title 14, Development Standards, Vail Town Code. The applicant is proposing a maximum driveway slope of 9%. Staff believes the proposed driveway will improve public safety for the owners and guests of the subject property as well as the general public traveling along Davos Trail. Staff does not believe the requested variance will have a negative effect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities in comparison to existing conditions. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Town of Vail Page 11 In 1997 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved similar variance requests to facilitate the construction of a two car garage and breezeway at the subject property. The 1997 approved garage was not constructed and those approvals have since expired. The Vail Town Code requirements for driveway grades and the connection of garages and houses have become more restrictive since this previous variance approval. Additionally, constructing only a 3ft tall wall (guardrail) between the 1997 proposed breezeway and garage bay would not exempt the breezeway or garage from today’s interpretation of the GRFA calculations. This short wall would not be considered an “exterior” wall and would not create unenclosed floor area. Neighboring property owners Steve McEachron, 2585 Davos Trail (across the street from the subject property), viewed a previous version of the proposed garage addition plans while Staff was conducting a site visit to the subject property. In response to reviewing the proposed plans, the McEachron’s have submitted an email stating their opposition to a garage (carport) addition to the subject property taller than the existing house. They also stated their opposition to the removal of existing trees along Davos Trails (Attachment G). Neighboring property owner Hugh Schmidt, 2596 Davos Trail (adjacent to the proposed garage addition), reviewed the proposed garage addition plans in the Community Development Department office and verbally communicated his support for the proposed garage addition. VIII. RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of this request for a variances from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, and Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the side setback in excess of the allowable gross residential floor area and site coverage, located at 2586 Davos Trail/Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: “The Planning and Environmental Commission approves the applicant’s request for variances from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, and Section 12-6D-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a garage within the side setback in excess of the allowable gross residential floor area and site coverage, located at 2586 Davos Trail/Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schone Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto.” Town of Vail Page 12 Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve these variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission impose the following condition: “1. The applicant shall revise the proposed garage and breezeway to be no larger than 600 sq. ft. in total floor area.” 2. This variance approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of the associated design review application.” Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve these variance requests, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: ““Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of the Staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated September 26, 2011, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two-Family Primary/Secondary District. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for 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 Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that does not apply generally to other properties in the Two-Family Primary/Secondary District. 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 Two-Family Primary/Secondary District.” IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Proposed Architectural Plans C. 1989 Nicholls Variance D. 1997 Aylesworth Variance Town of Vail Page 13 E. Staff Interpretation #31 F. McEachron Email Town of f Vail Attachment A Pagge 14 o o TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: July 24, 1989 SUBJECT: Nicholls garage variance, Lot 4, Schone, First Filing. Applicant: Judith A. Nicholls Block E, Vail das I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED The applicant is requesting a front and side setback variance in order to construct an attached single car garage and deck extension. The requested setback at the front ranges from approximately 18 feet 6 inches to 16 feet at the northwest corner of the proposed garage. There is also an encroachment due to the northwest roof overhang that creates a 12 foot setback. The deck addition maintains a 15 1/2 foot front setback. The desired side setback also varies, from approximately 12 feet 6 inches to 8 feet 3 inches for the garage. The deck extension would reduce the side setback to no less than 5 feet. The roof overhang maintains a 3 foot side setback. The site currently contains a duplex structure with a driveway that runs along the front of the building. The proposed garage along the side of the house presents good access from this driveway while maintaining the use of the driveway for the applicant as well as the adjacent property owners. The deck extension is required in order to provide access to the existing entrance to the unit. The garage is sited in such a way as to not conflict with an existing tree or with the existing entrance to the house. At the northeast corner of the house there is a proposed seating area to be constructed into and beyond the existing deck line. This proposed deck area encroaches beyond the allowable 10 foot minimum setback requirement by approximately 3 feet. It is the feeling of the staff that there is no particular hardship for this encroachment and that there is room in the rear of the lot for a deck expansion. Although the impacts of this proposed deck are minimal, we feel that this deck should be eliminated from the proposal due to the fact that there is no hardship. II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors: o A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. At the present time, there is no covered parking for this structure. We feel that the addition of covered parking for the unit presents a positive impact on the neighborhood and is in harmony with existing uses and structures in the vicinity. Given the present siting of the house, the garage location and size present a very reasonable request for a variance. 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. The staff has had a long standing policy of supporting variances if required for the construction of garages. Due to the siting of the existing structure on the lot, there is no room to construct a garage within the allowable setbacks. The garage has been designed in such a way as to minimize impacts and has been sized to minimize the variance request. The staff feels that approval of this variance would not be a 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. The addition of a garage to residential structures is seen by the Community Development Department as a positive impact to transportation and traffic facilities. other than that, there is no impact in this proposal upon this criteria. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation for the proposed variance is for approval. The staff feels that the garage has been sited in the only feasible location on this property. The siting maintains use of the driveway and provides the architectural connection required by the Design Guidelines. The sizing of the structure minimizes the degree of variance which is required. The proposed deck around the garage provides access to the front door of the structure and is not excessive in size. We do feel that as a condition of approval the octagonal seating area in the northeast corner of the new deck should be pulled back to provide a 10 foot setback from the property line. Betsy continued the presentation of the Slifer request with an explanation of the height variance request. She referred to an attached table in the memo, explained the criteria, and then gave the recommendation for approval. Betsy also circulated photos to the board members. ( Ned Gwathmey spoke as representative for the applicant. chart for viewing to avoid any confusion on elevations. the chart and answered questions of the PEC members. He the Snowdon and Hopkins plans of the project. He offered a He reviewed also showed Peter Patten noted that the attached sun/shade sketch in the height variance memo was inaccurate. The correct sun/shade sketch was included in the exterior alteration memo. Peggy Osterfoss thought the proposal would be presented would offer appropriate mitigation. an improvement and as sid Schultz had no questions. Pam Hopkins agreed with Peggy and said that the height did not bother her. She had no problems with the request. Diana Donovan had no problems with the request. A motion for approval of the exterior alteration request was made by Peggy Osterfoss, with two conditions of approval as per the staff memo. Pam Hopkins seconded the motiono ( Vote: 4-0-1 Chuck Crist abstaining. A motion of approval Hopkins. The motion for the h~ight variance request was was seconded by Sid Schultz. made by Pam -Vote: 4-0-1 Chuck Crist abstaining. Item No. 3 A request__fcr····sIde··-anaJfront setback ~e5tn:-sl;"der to cORstructa garage And decks orr"'tot 4, BIOCk~ das' Schone First :t'i-l-f'ng. ------______ ,-~!?g~~:.~.t: ...-J.\:ldfth Nichols-- Rick pylman described the request while referring to the plans. He briefly covered the criteria and gave the staff recommendation of approval. However, he stated, the staff could not support the proposed seating area and suggested it be eliminated from the request. The applicant's representative was Grant Riva. He handed out a letter to the PEC Board from an adjacent property owner in support of the proposal. He explained that the encroachments involved were necessary to allow access to the garage and said the proposal would modernize the nome. He further explained that the main reason for the proposal was due to a problem with ice forming around the front door. concerning ~ the seating area, Grant explained that without a seating area, the deck 4 • would be of little use. He went on to say that if the deck was( extended to the back of the house as suggested by the planning staff instead of in the proposed area, there would be more of an impact on neighbors. The proposed deck site is well screened from the neighbors. In summary, Grant asked that the request be approved as submitted. Chuck Crist said he supported the project as proposed. Pam Hopkins agreed, as did sid Schultz. Peggy Osterfoss said the proposal made sense, especially since a neighbor had written a supportive letter. Diana agreed with Peggy. A motion was made by Pam Hopkins for approval of the request as submitted. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. Vote: 5-0, all in favor. Item No. 4 A request for a density variance and height variance and an exterior alteration for the Enzian Lodge at 705 West Lionshead circle, Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Third Filing. Applicant: Enzian Lodge The staff representative was Kristan Pritz. The request involved an exterior alteration request as well as a height and density request. She began the presentation by reviewing the exterior alteration request. Referring to the memo, Kristan described the proposal which( included requests to add a new entry on the north elevation, construct an area to be used for accessory lodge use or void space, and add a comprehensive landscape plan for the entire property. She further explained additional changes, but all were interior and did not require any approvals from the PEC. Kristan explained that the staff approved the removal of approximately 16 spaces in the basement. The owner shall be required to pay into the parking fund for the 16 spaces. She referred the PEC to her letter explaining the staff position on the parking issue dated July loth 1989 to Jay Peterson. Kristan stated that the proposal was in compliance with the Purpose section of Commercial Core II and went on to cover the criteria effecting the compliance with Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead. In-keeping with the height and massing criteria, Kristan said the new entry on the north elevation would be a nice improvement in appearance. Relating to the facades and transparency criteria, Kristan mentioned that the applicants would be expanding the glass area which is a necessary improvement. The proposed landscape plan will comply with the Town of Vail landscape plan and is considered by the staff to be an important aspect of the proposal. Kristan stated that the staff strongly supports the exterior alteration request as the proposal would add many needed improvements to the existing property. The staff is also very supportive of the landscape plan which would be a major upgrade for the site. After completing the exterior alteration request description, Kristan explained that a height variance and a density variance would be • II •• .. henry pratt architects 3941 bighorn road vall, colorado 81657 (303) 476 -1531 TO: Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission r.e.: front and side setback variance at 2586 Davos Trail Applicant is seeking a front and side setback variance in order to construct an attached single car garage and deck extension. Desired setback at front varies from approximately 18'-6" (existing) to 16'-0" at the northwest corner of the proposed garage. The deck addition would extend an additional 9" into this setback. The desired side setback also varies, from approximately 12'-6" to 8'-3" for the garage. The deck extens ion wou ld reduce the setback to no less than 5' -0" . The proposed garage addition would have no impact on light, air, population. etc. It is unlikely that parking on the premisis would be affected due to the need for access to the garage. The proposed garage and deck addition would not affect the adjoining property due to the orientation of the house and the existing landscaping. oo MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 8, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance from Section 18.13.090 and side setback variance from Section 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code, to allow for the construction of a garage addition, located at 2586 Davos Trail/Lot 4, Block E, Vail Das Schone Filing #1. Applicant: Linda Aylesworth, represented Henry Pratt Planner: George Ruther I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicant, Linda Aylesworth, is proposing to construct a garage addition onto her residence located at 2586 Davos Trail. No garage currently exists. The garage addition would be attached to the south end of the existing residence on the property. The garage addition is approximately 21' x 22' in size, comprising 462 square feet of garage area. The addition would encroach into the south side yard setback approximately four feet. The new garage space adds 527 square feet of additional site coverage to the property. A site plan and building floor plans have been attached for reference. According to Sections 18.13.090 and 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code of theTown of Vail: "Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent of the total site area," and "the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet." The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 18.13.090 of the Municipal Code to allow the property to exceed the allowable site coverage. The allowable site coverage for Lot 4 is 2,273 square feet (20%) and the existing site coverage on the property is approximately 2,308 square feet (20.3%). The garage proposal adds 527 square feet of site coverage. The applicant is requesting a total of 2,835 square feet or (24.9%) of site coverage. The applicant is also requesting a variance from Section 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code to allow the garage addition to encroach up to four feet (4') into the required sideyard setback. Currently, no portion of the applicant's duplex unit encroaches into any of the required setbacks, although the adjoining duplex unit encroaches four feet (4') into the front setback and seven feet (7') into the north, side setback. The encroachment of the adjoining unit into the required setbacks was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission in 1989 as part of a garage addition request. 1 oo II. BACKGROUND The staff has researched projects where similar site coverage and/or setback variance requests were made. The results of our research are summarized below: Lashovitz Residence. 1748 Sierra Trail (July 1997): At the Lashovitz residence, the applicant was granted site coverage and side setback variances to allow for the construction of a garage addition to the existing residence. The approved addition was 16'-3" feet by 21'-6" feet, comprising 350 square feet. The site coverage variance permitted 2,733 square feet or 24.9% site coverage. Campisi Residence. 742 Sandy Lane (September. 1996): At the Campisi Residence, the applicant requested a site coverage variance of 1.5% (261.4 sq.ft. of additional site coverage). The applicant intended to use the additional site coverage to construct a third enclosed parking space. The PEC denied the variance request finding that no physical hardship or extraordinary circumstance existed on the property that would warrant the granting of the variance. In fact, the PEC found that granting an approval of the site coverage variance request would result in a grant of special privilege. Lcr '1~ +41....... 1'5,CXX:> ~..,~ ~.Ricci Residence. 2576 Davos Trail ( February, 1995): At the Ricci Residence, the applicant requested a site coverage variance for 4.7% (526.5 sq. ft. of additional site coverage). The applicant proposed to use the additional site coverage to create an enlarged 2-car garage, as well as add a small amount of additional GRFA to the existing residence. The PEC approved the applicant's site coverage variance request. Dean/Rousch Residence. 2942 Bellflower (July 1993): At the Dean/Rousch residence, the applicants requested a 3.56% site coverage variance (287 square feet), a setback variance (4 feet into a 20-foot setback), and a wall height variance. The request for site coverage and wall height variances were approved by the PEC, but the setback variance for GRFA was denied. It should be noted that the staff recommended denial of the variances, but the PEC approved it. The interior dimensions of the garage were 22.5 by 22.5 feet, and the area of the garage calculated for site coverage was 576 square feet. Taylor Residence. 2409 Chamonix Road (May 1993): At the Taylor residence, the applicant requested and was granted a site coverage variance for 1.3% (122 square feet) in order to construct a garage and building connection on the property. The allowed site coverage on this lot was 20%. The applicant was also granted a variance to construct the garage in the front setback (the average slope on this lot did not exceed 30%). The approved interior dimensions of the two-car garage were 21 feet by 20 feet, for a total interior area of 420 square feet. The garage contributed 462 square feet toward Site coverage. Mumma Residence. 1886 West Gore Creek Drive (February 1993): At the Mumma residence, the applicant requested and was granted a 1% site coverage variance in order to construct a garage addition on a lot that exceeds 30% average slope. The 1 % 2 oo overage on site coverage amounted to approximately 99 square feet. The interior dimensions of the approved garage measure 20 feet by 20 feet, for a total interior area of 400 square feet. The garage contributed 442 square feet toward site coverage. Smail Residence, 4238 Nugget Lane (September 1992): At the Smail residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and front setback variances in order to construct a garage and GRFA addition. The interior dimensions of the approved garage measure 22 feet 8-inches by 22 feet 3-inches (504 square feet). A site coverage variance was not necessary as a part of this request. Testwuide Residence. 898 Red Sandstone Cjrcle (August 1992): At the Testwuide residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and front setback variances in order to construct a garage addition to the existing residence. The approved garage had interior dimensions of 21.5 feet by 24 feet, with a total interior area of 516 square feet. A site coverage variance was not necessary as part of this request. III. ZONING STATISTICS Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Lot Size: 11,365 square feet / 0.260 acres. Development Standards Allowed Proposed Setbacks: Front 20' Front: 16' Sides: 15'/15' Sides: 8',11' Rear: 15' Rear: 33' Site Coverage: 20% or 2,273 sq. ft. 24.9% or 2,835 sq. ft. Landscaping: 60% or 6,819 sq. ft. 60.6% or 6,895 sq. ft. Parking: 4 spaces required 4 (3 enclosed spaces) (2/D.U.) (2/D.U.) IV. VARIANCE CRrrERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, Criteria and Findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested site coverage variance and approval of the requested side setback variance. Staff's recommendations are based on the following factors: 3 oo A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Site Coverage: Staff acknowledges that the proposed addition will increase the bulk and mass of the existing structure. The additional mass and bulk associated with this proposal will not negatively impact the existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity of the applicant's property. Staff believes there is a physical hardship or extraordinary circumstance which would justify the granting of a site coverage variance. Staff believes the location of the existing structure, and specifically, the location and configuration of the front entrance to the residence prohibits the applicant from constructing a garage and still complying with the site coverage requirement. Staff further believes that the granting of the requested site coverage variance would not result in a grant of special privilege. Setback: The staff believes that the four foot encroachment into the side setback will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on the existing or potential uses and structures in the area. Approximately 24 square feet of garage area will be in the setback. Staff believes that the existing structure dictates a reasonable location for the garage. Staff feels the existing structure could be considered a physical hardship to development on the property. A letter from the adjacent property owner has been attached for reference. 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. Site Coverage: Staff has traditionally supported site coverage variance requests when associated with the construction of enclosed parking, where none exists. Staff believes that it is beneficial to the community to allow individuals to construct garages, as it typically improves the appearance of the site and the surrounding area as a whole. In this case, the applicant will be creating two interior parking spaces with the construction of the new two car garage. In the past, the staff has required that each variance request be for the minimum amount of additional site coverage necessary in order to attain the desires of the applicant. Typically, when staff has supported site coverage variances for garages, the size of each parking space has been between 200-275 square feet. With this request. the applicant is proposing that the garage addition comprise 510 square feet of floor area and an additional 527 square feet of site coverage. Staff believes that 510 square feet is reasonable for two, enclosed parking spaces. 4 oo Setback: According to the plans submitted, approximately 24 square feet of building area is proposed in the side setback. Staff believes that the applicant is requesting the minimum amount of relief necessary from the setback regulations to achieve the desired goal of accommodating a two-car garage on the property. Following previous discussions with staff, the applicant's representative has reduced the overall width of the garage to minimize the amount of site coverage relief and the amount of building encroachment into the side setback. 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. Site Coverage: Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal, if constructed, on any of the above-referenced criteria. Setback: Staff believes the requested side setback variance will not have any negative impacts on any of the above-referenced criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental CommisSion shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the 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. 5 o o V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the site coverage variance and the setback variance subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variances will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the site coverage regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 4. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the setback variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 6 fILE COpy 2. A request for variances from Sections 18.12.060 (Setbacks), and 18.12.110 (Site Coverage), to allow for the construction of a two-car garage addition, located at 2586 Davos Trail/Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schone #1. Applicant: Linda Aylesworth, represented by Henry Pratt Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Henry Pratt, the architect representing the owner, agreed with the staff recommendation. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none. Galen Aasland suggested to staff, to note on the staff memo that the Campisi lot was over 15,000 sq. ft. He said that the applicant's request was consistent with others that have been approved in the past and so he was in favor of it, as it was not a special privilege. Ann Bishop had no comments. Diane Golden had only the comment that this was a good addition. Gene Uselton observed that the north posts did not make any contact with the roof. Henry Pratt said it would stand up. John Schofield had no comments. Greg Amsden had no comments. Greg Moffet said that this was the only location on the lot for this addition to go and so, he was in favor of the request. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. Diane Golden seconded the motion. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 2 ,o The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. Henry Pratt requested a couple of minutes from the PEC, to discuss the wall between the passageway and garage. He said because of the quirks of the GRFA rules, the wall could only be 3' high and asked if the applicant should come back for a density variance. He explained that it was open on three sides and so, it did not count as GRFA. Henry explained that the applicant wanted to heat the garage. Galen Aasland asked how many square feet were in the garage. George Ruther said it was 422 sq. ft. and it would be an additional 90 sq. ft. if it were enclosed. Henry Pratt said the addition would count as GRFA. Galen Aasland asked about walking through the garage to the entrance through an enclosed walkway. George Ruther said guests would have to walk through the garage to get to the house. Galen Aasland said a walkway over the top would not require a density variance. George Ruther said it would have to go through the garage to get to the front door and could not be a full height wall. Henry Pratt said the wall between the passageway and the garage could only be 3' in height. Galen Aasland suggested being creative with the rules. Henry Pratt said the applicant would have to come in for a variance. Gene Uselton remembered applicants in the Potato Patch area requesting a similar design and that the PEC turned them down. George Ruther said that Gene was correct. John Schofield said he would look favorably on this request. Greg Amsden stated he wanted to see some history presented from staff. Galen Aasland also wanted to see some history. Ann Bishop wanted to see some history, but said if this request was logical, the PEC should be flexible. Diane Golden stated that it was common sense to enclose the garage. Greg Moffet said he would have to be sold hard that this was not a special privilege. John Schofield asked about the possibility of detaching the garage. Plalming and Environmental Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 3 George Ruther said, that because this lot was less than 15,000 sq. ft. and there were two dwelling units on it, it was non-confirming and a unit would have to be deed-restricted as employee housing for a density variance. Lauren Waterton stated, for the record, that the Zoning Analysis from item #1 on the agenda was correct, but the numbers wouldn't match the 60/40 split in the GRFA, because the secondary unit was already greater than 40%. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 4 --~-- '-. -, ~I ~; , : Ii I ;, I 'L~919 'OQ~iO? 'iIV" I I ..LSI ';::JNOH?S SVQ i!V" ',,3.. "'i9 'v .LOi 1 I <{&NOL1.IQQ't a9~'t9 HJ.~OM<;a1)''I ~ I I , ! ,,, \ \ \ , I " , ; 4,,, ! : o i x -"r---'lr---~-!/ • i I ~-- ~ I II ,i ; I ~ . i' ill lUi Ii ~"~~~~~.~.---.-.-.-.-.-:~ I .'.--" .."" y I i, IW' t ~I , I a J5,1. ~Jr I~Ii ~ ~i f I AYLE5~Of<.TH c::;AAAc::;E ADDITION "11 1UIii;» II to !I'. Slil :..f • Ii -I ~'hLOT 4, eLI< "E", VAIL DAS SCHONE, 1STis jII;~ VAIL, C.OLORADO. el65i. 'LS919 'OQ~'O?"''v'A J.gl ':lNOH% g'v'Q "'v'A '"a, >na '''"' J.O, I NI <{NOI.LIQQ'v' 39~'v'9 H.L~OMS31)''v' I , , , i ~. ~' I I! i I, I I,, 1-x-I II I I ---·-·-·-·-~--~·in__·~-·-----·------1 I i i. I Ii I I: A I. v v v v 'L6919 'oa~,O?'II'VA J.SI '3NOH?S S'VQ II'VA ',,3.. )+,e 'y .1.0, NOIJ.laa~ 39\7'CS~9 HJ.~OM<;31)"~ Ia , IiI: --x : i t I I~II II I I ! ; ! , , I I I I I 1 I I I I I I :' I i I ' I I Hi:====:::=::::f ----=j . I : I I I I -4l- ! I! , I I I I .. ii,H I. i il.'1 : • ,•.-II!: It iii i :1 • . :1 1 :!I' , I : , ' 1 ! I i I ~, ----I-VI i i tI I II I a a I~ ! I I ;1 i ~ J',I :;1 . i ! I I ' , ! II Ii j{;) II IiII i' ~ ·11 I. I III illl; III '1 I ~II n ,i,J. d i .ll ~IGj I I'a I. <I Il 1& it 15 ,' <1:1 hI ill III ", i~~I II :1" I ,5iI' II . ~ I '--L __ I L. __ _ i I I~__ 1_--_ ! ~-.-.-.-.-.-.- , 'I r AYLE5jf"1{ORTH 6AR.AGE ADDITION '.11 11 :!'~Pmj. !ioi t f i !H ~ :r0) I . JIII LOT 4, 6LK "E", VAIL DAS SCHONE, 1ST l!!~ if ~ \ ";"; 1i0 • VAIL, C.OLORADO. el651.I oo 'L69It<? 'OC'Vl!ilO'1O? ''1IV''',. . J N: I .lSI ';JNOH?S SV'Q '11V''' '"ill< :::1'19 'to' .10'1! "illl m8 1~~ i.lit }1.1';: I lit! dlNOI.LIQQ~ 39~~9 H.L~OMC;31J..~ I ;I « IJ I' 1,11==1 I: --_._._._._._)( ~, I---~ I ----:._J I: -, I ~m m rr m m <}> I : i I'i Ii! ! i I ,i.;' :lr,IPIIriC] , -F====~I-J :T--~~~s i i Ii I'II 'I a ___I. ~ 81 !I i;==-==r ~ ,,e, ~ '/,.' ~ -I , ~ -~ () i : iIi i II ~ I' : J !,/,i ~.Sii ! 1 i // »~ Z , I;" , :, ' I ," i I I , ' I ~ ! : : i !:II , • Ii i!' :iii I : , I~ ~ ...,-+; i I I I Ii :: I I lli, I I ' )K--I=.--- '3 !I fi i I ,~ : I I '8 :,1 it I !ll ~~I I , ; I' " I~ : : I I! ii i.I I i I ! ~! 15 ! ;1 l ',1'1' ;;I, , I I Iii I I I " [;iI I I Iii:.:I ! I ,i I I I 'II II , I If1- ~ Ii I I ! I: ! Ii Ii II Ii nI I I ;1 II' I Ii i I; I; Ii III d ~ I I'd I!! ~; I~ I I ~I I Illnt. 8 i i U ~I~I ~I 5 5 ,. , ~ ~ I• I•1III i 115 lis JID ! iI. I§ IIII.i I IId I I 8 ~ ! Illi II 5 5 ~ 8 I I I~!I ! ~ ! I ~ I R ll~JIZ ~ I~_L_I ___ _ "--- x:.-~--- 'i IL __ _; !J--- I~__- 1'--- ,~ l, Ii I II II 81 AYLE5~ORTH e,ARAe,E ADDI-nONi "ili :PII!ll" ~ ~ I,'WU) " ,LOT 4, eLK "E", VAIL DAS 5c.HONE, 1ST "h'1VAIL, COLORADO. el651.I » I~ I oo August 15, 1997 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81658 To whom it may concern: It has come to my attention that my next door neighbors, William and Linda Aylesworth, at 2586 Davos Trail, West side, wish to build a two car garage on their property. This letter is to inform the Town of Vail that I have no objection to this construction. In fact, it will help alleviate the crowded and unsightly parking conditions that now exist. sinc1Ztdkl Mr. Robert L. Davis 2596 Davos Trail Davos Trail West Vail, CO • • August 11, 1997 Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Re: a portion of Lot 4, Block E, Resubdlvislon of Vall Das Shone, Rllng no 1 Setback and site coverage variance requests for garage addition Dear POD and Comm Dev Staff, Please find attached an application for variances required to add a two car garage at 2586 Davos Trail-west half. Zoning is Primary/ Secondary although the house originally constructed was a mirror image duplex. 1. Side Setback-reduce from 15 feet as specified in 18.12.060 to approximately 10' at the building corner. The roof overhang extends approximately another 1 '-6" deeper into the setback. 2. Site Coverage-existing duplex and one car garage at east half meet or slightly exceed the 20% site coverage allowance as specified in 18.12.110. The lot size is 11,365 SF according to the surveyor. • A one car garage addition was approved and constructed for the other half of the duplex 8 years ago, so the addition of a garage is consistent with the vicinity. Since mirror-image duplexes are not allowed, this request is for a two car garage. Also, due to existing mature trees, this garage will be detached from the house to permit access to the front door without an extensive elevated walkway that would have to go way out of the way to avoid several existing trees. • The requested degree of relief is the minimal possible. The garage, at 440 SF of GRFA, is significantly less than the 600 SF allowed. The encroachment into the side setback is triangular in shape and therefore tapers to zero as the lot line moves southward. Two existing trees severely limit alternative locations. The site is significantly less than 15,000 SF in size and so a site coverage variance is unavoidable. The detaching of the garage is also an example of the minimum relief sought-putting the covered access walkway on the outside of the garage (as was done for the east half) would result in the walk having to go way around the spruce tree in the rear of the garage and would add to site coverage. And finally, to minimize the risk to these trees, the garage structure will be supported by piers instead of foundation walls (this is how the east half garage was framed). • The effect of light, air, etc. is negligible since this structure is nestled well down from the street and due to the extremely low roof profile of the existing and proposed structures. • The effect on traffic and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan is significant since the addition will get two cars out of sight in a driveway that is often full of cars. MEMORANDUM TO: Staff Interpretations Notebook FROM: Lauren Waterton DATE: May 22, 1996 SUBJECT: Improvements to Primary/Secondary zoned properties that do not conform with density controls A question has come up regarding the improvements that can be done on a lot that does not meet the density controls for the applicable zone district. There are a number of Primary/Secondary zoned lots containing two dwelling units that are less than 15,000 square feet. These lots are non-conforming regarding density. even though the property may not have exceeded the GRFA allowance. Section 18.64.050 Non-conforming Sites, Uses, Structures and Site Improvements of the zoning ordinance, states: "Structures and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this title which do not conform to the development standards prescribed by this title for the district in which they are situated may be continued. Such structures or site improvements may be enlarged only in accordance with the following limiations: B. Structures which do not conform to density controls may be enlarged, only if the total gross residential floor area of the enlarged structure does not exceed the total gross residential floor area of the preexisting nonconforming structure". Staff has concluded that the following improvements may be done to a non-conforming building, without increasing its non-conformity: 1. After reviewing the definition of GRFA. staff has concluded that garages do not count as GRFA (up to 300 square feet per space with a maximum of two spaces per unit), and therefore, can be added to a non-conforming structure without increasing the non conformity. Garage areas QY.e[ 300 square feet per space, or 600 square feet per unit, are included as GRFA, and cannot be allowed without a density variance. 2. Existing GRFA within the building may be reallocated between the two units. For example, if a building has two identical units, an owner could remodel the interior, creating one larger and one smaller unit, assuming that the secondary unit does not exceed 40%'of1he total GRFA. 3. Up to 50% of the GRFA may be removed before the building is considered to be a "demo/rebuild". A "demo/rebuild" will not maintain its legal non-conforming status~ Page 1 of 2 4. Site alterations, exterior fascade changes and dormer additions that do not add any JGRFA. If a property owner chooses to add available GRFA to an existing non-conforming site. the owner must pursue one of the following options: 1. The owner must apply for and receive a density variance. The variance is necessary because the property exceeds the number of dwelling units. OR: 2. The owner must deed restrict one of the units as a Type I Employee Housing Unit. . Deed restricting one unit would bring the property into conforming status with regard to density. If a property has used all available GRFA and the owner wishes to utilize the 250 Ordinance, staff has determine that any existing dwelling unit is eligible for the 250, regardless of its comformance with density standards. All units on a non-conforming lot may apply for an additional 250 square feet (provided the criteria for the 250 are met) without pursuing either option listed above. The property will. however, have to comply with the 250 Ordinance requirement for site development improvements, such as paving driveways, undergrounding overhead utilities, rep/acing plywood siding, etc. Page 2 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Staff Interpretations Notebook. FROM: Allison Ochs, Community Development Department DATE: June 23, 2000 SUBJECT: Non-conforming Structures and Site Improvements and the “250 Ordinance” Nonconforming Structures and Site Improvements Chapter 18: NONCONFORMING SITES, USES, STRUCTURES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS was adopted in 1973 with specific limitations on expanding properties which are non-conforming with regards to density. According to chapter 12-18-5B Density Control: Structures which do not conform to density controls may be enlarged, only if the total gross residential floor area of the enlarged structure does not exceed the total gross residential floor area of the preexisting nonconforming structure. The Zoning Code considers density as both dwelling units/acre and gross residential floor area. The “250 Ordinance” The 250 Ordinance was originally adopted in 1997, and modified in 1998. The “250 Ordinance” allows dwelling units which were constructed prior to 1995 and have used or exceeded all of the allowable GRFA on the lot to construct an additional 250 sq. ft. of GRFA. The “250 Ordinance” was intended to encourage the upgrading of older units within the Town. According to Chapter 12-15-5 ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA (250 ORDINANCE): Applicability: …No application for additional GRFA shall request more than two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross residential floor area per dwelling unit nor shall any application be made for additional GRFA until such time as all the allowable GRFA has been constructed on the property. “250 Ordinance” Eligiblity for Nonconforming Structures Many lots within the Town are nonconforming with regards to “dwelling units per acre” but have remaining allowable GRFA. According to the Nonconforming Chapter, these dwelling units are unable to add any GRFA. As a result, they have essentially utilized all of their “allowable” GRFA and are therefore eligible for the 250 GRFA bonus. These units must meet all the requirements of Chapter 12-15-5 ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA. 1 Bill Gibson From:Mac McEachron <macen@vail.net> Sent:Thursday, September 01, 2011 4:11 PM To:Bill Gibson Subject:hi Hi Bill, Thank you and your associates for taking time to talk with me re: 2586 Davos Trail. We think it’s great that our neighbors want to add a carport. We have no objection to the concept, however, we strongly object to the architecture as planned. First, please do not allow them to raise the port so far above house grade level. Their plan to raise it so high will be just plain ugly…like attaching a small silo to a farm house!. Second, if you insist on letting them go ahead with the bad taste high level structure, will you please not allow them to take down the two nice pine trees which provide a tasteful barrier from us and the rest of the neighbors who live near there and those who walk down the block. The house is not very attractive as it stands and the trees will provide some barrier. Again, we are not opposed to the addition, just the awkward and unbalanced architecture of the building, and please save the trees! Thank you for listening and keep in touch. We will be out of town next week and when will be the next meeting the second week in Sept.? Is Brian Gillett still on the planning commission? Steve and Mary Jane McEachron 2585 Davos Trail 970/479‐7360