Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEC130029 OVERVIEW.pdf Hubbard Reseldence Site Coverage y y. - a / mac• _ � ,.w.;wr _ _ _ � �� -�. !y - �"� •"� � --� Location: fT Forest Road 6, Block 7,Vail Village I st Filing Date October Mauriello Planning Group Introduction Al and Kathy Hubbard own the single family home located at 146 Forest Road / Lot 6, Block 7,Vail Village I st Filing,which they purchased in 2004. The owners are requesting a site coverage variance to enclose a small covered patio. The enclosing of this existing covered area increases the site coverage by approximately 184 sq.ft.while increasing the GRFA of the home by the same amount. There is 590 sq. ft.of available GRFA on the property remaining after the proposed addition. The patio is located at the lowest level of the home, adjacent to two small guest bedrooms. It is beneath an impervious deck located at the main level of the home. The area is screened by substantial landscaping, a waist height solid wall on the exterior and two existing walls of the structure on the west and north side and is only visible from the driveway to the home. }$•' �`$ it--•ll � � a rf I ® ! 0 een¢ 0 "b L ExistingFloor Plan While the owners are requesting a site coverage variance, the proposal meets all other zoning requirements and standards including setbacks, landscape area, and GRFA. The property is zoned Two- Family Primary/Secondary. The lot is 15,730 sq.ft.with a current site coverage of 3,177 sq.ft./ 20.2%, which is in excess of the allowable site coverage of 3,146 sq. ft. / 20%. The property is therefore nonconforming with regard to site coverage. This nonconforming condition is due to a change in the way site coverage was calculated from when the home was originally constructed. The home was approved by the Design Review Board in 1989 and constructed in 1990. The following year, Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1991 provided a major rewrite to the site coverage regulations and amended the definition. This change was a significant departure from what was counted in the definition of site coverage. In this case,the change that affected the Hubbard property was the inclusion of cantilevered space in the definition of site coverage. There are several cantilevered areas within this existing structure. A comparison of the existing and proposed plans and elevations are provided on the following page: 2 � > e ------------------ PARTIAL PARTIAL 2 PROPOSEF NORTH ELEVATION nEXISTING NORTH ELEVATION - $ 9 I EXISTING EAST ELEVATION ,,,„�,,, w.,e 2 PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION I I I y,h l J 1 11 /-Jll I II I 11 I I II II Q � O PATIAL-EXI5TIN& PARTIAL ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN ® PROPOSED CONDITION5 .w.,4 ENTRY LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 3 Impact of the Enclosure The location of the proposed enclosure is a key consideration in the review of this variance. For all intents and purposes, the patio space today is substantially "enclosed" with a concrete ceiling above, a concrete floor below, and solid walls but for an opening of 5 ft.facing to the east and a small opening facing north. The proposed addition is the addition of two windows on the exterior walls. The addition is in an inconspicuous location on the structure without impacts to the outward community,as indicated in the images below: View looking east from the existing patio. Illustrates the " r significant vegetation which is tall enough to reach well above - the existing patio. View of the patio from the driveway. Existing vegetation significantly screens the patio from _ almost all view points except this one. Vk Sk JLa. View of the patio from directly in front of the neighbor's garage at the shared driveway at 126 Forest Road. View of the patio from the driveway across Vegetation screens the patio from view. Forest Road located at 95 Forest Road. Significant landscaping screens the patio from the public way and the property across the street. 4 Background Site coverage as a zoning tool dates back to the early zoning ordinances developed in the 1950s and from "A Model Zoning Ordinance" developed in the 1960s. Site coverage was developed as a bulk and mass control to prevent the crowding of buildings and allow for adequate light and air. Its use in the Town of Vail mirrored that intent until it started to control the extent of below grade improvements. From 1973 to 1991, the definition of site coverage was much simpler. This is the definition that was in effect at the time of construction of the Hubbard Residence: Site Coverage: The portion of a site covered by buildings, excluding roof or balcony overhangs, mea=ed at the exterior walls or supporting h ers of the building at gromid level- Ordinance 8, 1973 As indicated in this original definition,only the area of a building at ground level was included in the site coverage calculation. As a result,when the Hubbard Residence was constructed, it was well under the allowable site coverage limitation in effect at the time. The 1991 amendment to site coverage changed the definition of site coverage to include a much greater area of a building. The 1991 definition of site coverage was amended to the following: 18.04.360 Site Coverage "Site coverage" means the ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any building, carport, porte cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway as measured from the exterior face of perimeter walls or supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony,deck or walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or deck shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the lower balcony,deck or walkway. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eave, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends mono than four feet from the exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns_ Ordinance 35, 1991 5 Changes to the site coverage definition included the following: All areas,above grade or at ground level,were now included in the site coverage calculation All roof overhangs greater than 4 ft.were included in the site coverage calculation These changes had substantial impacts on the site coverage calculation for the Hubbard Residence. The Hubbard Residence was constructed with several cantilevered spaces and roof overhangs which were not included in the calculation for site coverage when the home was approved. These changes, which did not amend the allowable site coverage of the zone district, immediately rendered the Hubbard Residence non-conforming a year after it was constructed. Site Coverage is currently defined as follows: SITE COVERAGE:The ratio of the total building area of a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purposes of calculating site coverage, "building area of a site" shall mean that portion of a site occupied by any building,carport,Porte-cochere,arcade,and covered or roofed walkway constructed at, below, or above grade as measured from the exterior face of the sheathing of the perimeter walls or supporting columns. For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, deck or walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or deck shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the lower balcony,deck or walkway. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eaves, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet (4') from the exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns. This definition was amended again in 2004 to include SITE USAGE EXHIBIT LOT 6,BLOCK 7,VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILING areas below grade that extend beyond the footprint of EAGLE COUNTY,COLORADO BUILDING FAGS R W a home. 26a7 SQ.Ff.901LOING 200 50.7.WERHANG fi SO.Ff.OVERHANG 175 S0.I OVERHANG 149 SO.1..WERHANG In the years following the original construction of the 31n 50.Ff.TOTAL 15730$0.1.LOT­ Hubbard Residence various additions have been 0,26CO—ERATI0 approved. In 2005 and 2007,small additions were made to the home. However, it does not appear that any new s"`0E ,�°• calculations of site coverage were done and instead the additional site coverage was added to the 2,309 sq. ft. w that was approved in 1989 with the original approval. In fact, a note in the file identifies that after an addition in __ 2007, approximately 627 sq. ft. of site coverage LOT 6 y sm 3 15730 S0,fT. �ry remained for the property. No subsequent additions ti after 2007 added any new site coverage. However, an ""40 W 150.0 analysis (shown at right) completed in 2013 by Eagle Valley Surveying indicates that the property is over 4aoe 9Eg allowable site coverage. As shown on the analysis, 530 F���f sq. ft. of cantilevered building is now counted in site 0' 60' 90' coverage, which was not included in the original calculation due to the 1991 code change which excluded these areas from the calculation. _ rac-vzL JOB NO.1203.6 (eialB e'-t.ab 6 While the owners recognize that it would be possible to enclose the space under the cantilevered areas without the need for a variance, this would would substantially modify the existing character of the home, have much greater impact on the bulk and mass of the home and therefore greater impacts to neighbors than the proposed location of the patio enclosure. The home today is greatly enhanced by the architectural interest created by the cantilevered areas. The photos below show these spaces, which create interesting articulation and shadows. Eliminating these areas would have a negative effect on the character of the home and the neighborhood. Example of cantilevered spaces that create shadows and Even this small overhang (above the garage) now counts interesting architecture. These areas did not count towards the site coverage calculation. This is 149 sq.ft. towards site coverage when originally constructed. of site coverage that counts under the current definition of site coverage which was not included when originally constructed. Of , This area creates interest and shadows and infilling these Architectural interest that would be discouraged by areas would have the effect of substantially increasing today's definition of site coverage,as this area counts as the public perception of bulk and mass. site coverage today. 7 Zoning Analysis Location: 146 Forest Road / Lot 6, Block 7,Vail Village I st Filing Zoning: Two-Family Primary/Secondary Lot Size: 0.361 1 acres / 15,730 sq.ft. Zoning Regulation Allowed Existing Proposed Lot Area 15,000 sq.ft. 15,730 sq.ft. 15,730 sq.ft. Site Coverage 3,146 sq.ft. (20%) 3,177 sq.ft. (20.2%) 3,361 sq.ft. (21.4%) GRFA 6,594 sq.ft. 5,820 sq.ft. 6,004 sq.ft. Setbacks (east side) 15 ft. 24 ft. 18 ft. Criteria for Review Section 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS, of the Vail Town Code provides the criteria for review for a variance. These criteria,along with an analysis,are provided below: I. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Applicant Response: The proposed addition is located beneath an existing deck, screened by the existing structure and substantial existing vegetation. The following photos indicate the lack of visibility of the location of the enclosure: PP _' .p S �ry View of the patio from the driveway across Forest Road located at 95 Forest Road. View of the patio from directly in front of the neighbor's Significant landscaping screens the patio from the garage at the shared driveway at 126 Forest Road. public way and the property across the street. Vegetation screens the patio from view. 8 The proposed addition will match all existing materials and colors, and due to its location, has little effect on bulk and mass of the building. Only the north and east sides of the patio are open, and even these openings are limited: the patio is encased in stone, with a stone wall around it of approximately 3 ft. tall, and with large stone columns which are approximately 20 inches by 20 inches. The south wall of the patio is a solid stone wall with no openings,while the west wall enters into 2 guest bedrooms. Below the architect has provided renderings of the existing and proposed east elevation. As indicated in the rendering,there is very little change to the structure to accommodate this enclosure. sr �:s1 Photo-rendering of proposed addition I P- 9 7'yt X-Ray photo-rendering of proposed addition,with landscaping removed for clarity. 9 The surrounding properties are all zoned Two-Family Primary/Secondary, as is the Hubbard Residence. The neighborhood was originally platted in 1962 under Eagle County jurisdiction and is part of Vail Village First Filing,as indicated on the plat below: 17 NAP Or _ i ' VAIL VILLAGE,FIRST FILING ♦■�1 - RANGE o4✓ESTO�"oC56 x A/M'/PP[M � - - nna� EAEAGLE COUNTY,COLORAOO C I - N' arrcrr/.v..N<rxr[rr ..m.<.,°,.,.� ,....v....v<...,..+.. „�• �4:� ^-ham—^°� '°(......_ •� 3i.�_—..,.,. .J....,,..�.<.d..<,..<....._.,......�e...,,,,......,e.,....° - AQ ell Many of the original homes in the vicinity have since been demolished and new, much larger homes have been constructed in their place. 4& _ ,tx _ li 1 I � a< 10 Adjacent homes include the following: J 166 Forest Road: Home to the west of the subject property. Would be unable to see the proposed addition. 126 Forest Road: This home shares a °� ' '' driveway with the subject property. This home is likely the only one that could see the proposed addition. X - J ' 95 Forest Road: This home is to the southeast of the subject property. Would only be able to see the proposed addition from the garage. 115 Forest Road: This home is directly to the north of . the subject property. Due to the siting of this home : within the hillside below Forest Road,would be unable to see the proposed addition. ' t 107 Rockledge Road: This home is directly to the south of the subject property. Would be unable to see the proposed addition. 11 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Applicant Response: Site coverage variances are granted relatively rarely by the Town of Vail. Because site coverage is a ratio of building footprint to lot size, it is difficult to meet the required findings for a variance. However, there have been two primary rationales used to justify site coverage variances that have been granted by the Town of Vail in the past: a. Site coverage variances required to construct a garage where no or little enclosed parking exists. This variance was typically granted by the Town to further a Town-wide goal to provide enclosed parking. These types of variances furthered an overall public objective to remove unsightly surface parking and storage. While there are many examples of site coverage variances granted for garages,and the justification used to justify hardship and grant of special priviledge is not directly relevant to the conditions here, it does show a precedent in relief from the strict and literal interpretaion of the site coverage definition in a "reasonable" manner and for a reasonable goal. b. Site coverage variances granted based on the construction of a structure built prior to annexation or the adoption of the current zoning regulations. Variances were granted to homes with existing nonconformities which made additions and/or redevelopment challenging. Below are some examples of site coverage variances that have been granted based on existing nonconformities as a result of a change to the applicable zoning regulations subsequent to the original construction of the home,as is the case here: Collins Residence located at I 115 Hornsilver: A site coverage variance of 21.7% was approved by the PEC on 6/1 1/01. Exceeded site coverage for an addition. PEC found that the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privledge due to the existing structure and the non-conforming lot size. Aasland Residence located at 2527 Arosa Drive: A site coverage variance allowing site coverage up to 22.6%.was approved by the PEC on 10/9/95. Exceeded site coverage as a result of proposed cantilevered space as part of an addition to the home. Variance was granted as a result of the change in the definition of site coverage from the original construction. Ricci Residence located at 2576 Davos Trail: A site coverage variance allowing site coverage up to 23.9% was approved by the PEC on 3/13/95. Exceeded site coverage with garage and entry addition. Stephanoff Residence located at 2339 Chamonix Lane: A site coverage variance allowing site coverage variance up to 23% was approved by the PEC on 11/22/04, then reapproved on I 1/13/06. Franke Residence located at 2712 Kinnikinnick Court: A site coverage variance allowing for site coverage up to 21% was approved by the PEC on 7/28/08. The staff memo specifically stated: The Planning and Environmental Commission has consistently held that construction of a structure prior to annexation or the adoption of the current zoning 12 regulations may be a basis for granting a variance from the Town's current zoning regulations. Cahalin Residence located at 1816 Sunburst Drive: A site coverage variance allowing site coverage to up to 24% was approved by the PEC on 4/24/06. PEC found that the existing nonconforming structure and drainage issues presented a physical hardship for a site coverage variance. Taylor Residence located at 2409 Chamonix Road: A site coverage variance allowing site coverage up to 21.3% was approved by the PEC on 5/24/93. This variance included a garage and additional GRFA. Because each of these examples had unique circumstances, the Planning and Environmental Commission recognized that changes to the regulations which governed the original construction of the home on the property created a hardship, and that the granting of the site coverage variance was not a grant of special privilege. As indicated in the Background analysis above, one year subsequent to the approval and construction of the Hubbard Residence, the Town of Vail substantially modified the way site coverage was calculated, rendering the home nonconforming. As recently as 2007, the Town of Vail believed that there was over 600 sq. ft. of site coverage remaining available for use on the property. The current site coverage analysis indicates that the property was actually over the allowable site coverage by 37 sq. ft. Because the change in the site coverage calculation was done only one year subsequent to the construction of the original residence, rendering the property nonconforming, and creating a unique and difficult hardship for the property, the granting of this variance would not result in 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. Applicant Response: The proposed addition has no effect on the distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities, utilities,and public safety. With regard to light and air, the existing patio is beneath a stone deck . The wall and support columns surrounding this patio cause this patio to be dark. and unusable. By allowing the Hubbards to enclose this patio,the space will be interior to the home and therefore more usable,with no effect on light and air to adjacent properties or the public way,as the patio is already substantially enclosed. Section 12-17-6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS, of the Vail Town Code provides the findings that the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make for the granting of a variance. These findings are provided below: I.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 zone district. 13 Applicant Response: The granting of this proposed site coverage does not constitute a grant of special privilege. As indicated in the analysis above, similar variances have been granted to other properties within the Two-Family Primary/Secondary zone district based on amendments to the applicable regulations subsequent to the construction of a home. 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. Applicant Response: The granting of this proposed site coverage variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. As indicated in the analysis above, the proposed addition will not be visible to most properties and due to the existing configuration of the patio, along with the substantial existing landscaping,the addition will be appropriately screened. 3. 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 district. (c) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. Applicant Response: The variance is warranted because the strict interpretation of the site coverage regulations results in a practical difficulty and physical hardship inconsistent with the Zoning Regulations. Furthermore, there are extraordinary circumstances applicable to the Hubbard Residence which do not generally apply to other properties. When originally constructed, the property was well under site coverage limitations of the Two-Family Primary/ Secondary zone district. However, only one year after the home was constructed, the Town of Vail amended the definition of site coverage, rendering the property nonconforming. This created a practical difficulty for the property, and exceptional circumstances which do not exist elsewhere. 14 Adjacent Properties STROUM,CYNTHIA 2001 6TH AVE STE 3434 SEATTLE,WA 98121 SMITHBRIDGE PARTNERS LLC 285 WILMINGTON -WEST CHESTER PIKE CHADDS FORD,PA 19317 CMEVAIL QPRTRUST In Care Of STEVE COVALT PO BOX 948 COLORADO SPRINGS,CO 80901 115 LLC 5910 S UNIVERSITY BLVD C-18 BOX 434 GREENWOOD VILLAGE,CO 80121-2879 PITKIN,EDWARD M.&JUDITH A. 8787 BAY COLONY DR APT 1705 NAPLES, FL 34108-0788 STEVEN M. READ QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST,STEVEN M.READ TRUSTEE - ETAL 4100 HAPPY VALLEY RD LAFAYETTE,CA 94549-241 1 ROSENBACH,GARY & SUSAN 107 ROCKLEDGE RD VAIL,CO 81657 ZIMMEL 2012 FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST, JOHN M.ZIMMEL &J.P. MORGAN COMPANY TRUSTEE - ETAL 159 PARSONAGE RD GREENWICH,CT 06830-3951 MPG PO BOX 4777 EAGLE,CO 81631 15