The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPEC130041 Action Form, Application, and Notice . �""�� I�ii III I�ii � � "1"��'"��'�1"�I��I�ii��ii� �� ii�� ' �� '"� ��. �� . � �� IIC��iii�t��i�t �� i��ii�iii�� IIIC��I��iir�� , �� "�� u� I� ii��r� �� iiii I� �� 1��W�� iu �W,W,W,W'w,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,w,W,W,W,w,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,w,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,w,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,w,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W,W� . ��I. ��"�.��'�,��,1�� 1��, ��'��,��.��I W�� N��°��F�� ,;'�� '��.��i��I��,��ii Project Name: Williams Residence Variance PEC Number: PEC130041 Project Description: DENSITY VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO DWELLING UNITS ON A NONCONFORMING LOT Participants: OWNER WILLIAMS FAMILY TRUST II - W 12/16/2013 2 LADUE LN SAINT LOUIS, MO 0 APPLICANT TIM DEVLIN 12/16/2013 Phone: 303-358-0742 DEVLIN LAW GROUP 201 CO LU M BI N E ST., STE 300 DENVER CO 80206 Project Address: 302 MILL CREEK CR VAIL Location: Legal Description: Lot: 7 Block: 1 Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 Parcel Number: 2101-082-4901-1 Comments: See conditions BOARD/STAFF ACTION Motion By: Kurz Action: APPROVED Second By: Ca rti n Vote: 3-1-2 (Rediker opposed) Date of Approval: 01/13/2014 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and/or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 300 (PLAN): PEC approval shall not be not become valid for 20 days following the date of a p p rova I. Planner: Warren Campbell PEC Fee Paid: $500.00 Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road TOWN OF VAII ` vau,CO 81657 Te1:870-479-2128 www.vailgov.com DevelopmeM Review Coordinator Variance Request Application for Review by the Planning and Environmental Commission General Information: Variances may be granted in order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficuities and unnecessary physical hardships as would resuft from the strict interpretation and/or enforcement of the zoning regulations inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail. 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 condi6ons 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. The Vail Town Code can be found on the Town's website at l;��r��ur.s�ailqov.com. The proposed projed may also require other permits or applications and/or review by the Design Review Board and/or Town Council. Fee: 5500 Description of the Request: Densitv VarianCe to allow two dwellina units on a noncomformina lot Pnysical Address: 302 Mill Creek Circle ' Parcel Number: 2101-082-49-011 (Contact Eagle Co.Assessor at 970-328-8640 for parcel no.) Property owner: Williams Familv Trust I, and Williams Familv Trust 11 Mailing Address: 2 Ladue Ln.. St. Louis. MO, 63124 Phone: 314- 3-11 Owner's Signature: ��e.� P. �YlGI��i7Y�� i�✓ � l�� (L(,�/��,Q Primary ContacU Owner Represerrtative: Timothv N. Devlin. Devlin Law Groun, LLC Matii�9 address: 201 Columbine Street. Suite#300. Denver. CO 80206 Phone: 303-358-0742 E-Mail: tdevlin@devlawqrouD.com Fax: For Office Use Only: Cash_ CC: vsa/MC Last 4 CC# Exp. Date: Auth# Chedc# Fee Paid: Received F m: Meeting Date: PEC No.: 13 Planner: Project No: �'�l3•��, Zoning: Land Use: Location of the ProposaL• Lot:�Block:_j_Subdivision: 1 Nov 2013 RECE/VED By Shelley Bellm at 9:09 am, Dec 16, 211�3, TOWN OF VAIL` THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on January 13, 2014 at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. A report to the Planning and Environmental Commission on the administrator's approval of an amendment to an existing conditional use permit and its conditions of approval, pursuant to Section 12-16-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the continued temporary use of the tennis facility for conferences and conventions, located at 1300 Westhaven Drive/Cascade Village (Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, Area A), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130040) Applicant: Vail Cascade Resort and Spa, represented by Don MacLachlan Planner: Joe Batcheller A request for the review of a variance from Section 12-6D-8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for two dwelling 't units on a nonconforming lot, located at 302 Mill Creek Circle/Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village ��Y Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130041) '� ��3 Applicant: Williams Family Trust, represented by Devlin Law Group ,r`' Planner: Warren Campbell A request for the review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition to increase the number of accommodation units, located at 715 West Lionshead Circle (Vail Marriott Mountain Resort)/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130042) Applicant: Diamond Rock Hospitality Company, represented by GPSL Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence A request for the review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-4, Minor Subdivisions, Vail Town Code, to allow for the creation of Lots 2E and 2W, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, located at 250 South Frontage Road West/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130043) Applicant: HCT Development, LLC, represented by TJ Brink Planner: George Ruther The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend site visits. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request, with 24-hour notification. Please call 970-479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Published December 27, 2013, in the Vail Daily. � MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 13, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a density variance in order to allow an additic�n to an existing non-conforming structure at 86� Spruce Court/a part of Lot 12, Vail Village 9th Filing. Applicant: Dr. and Mrs. Joseph Broughton/Steve Shanley Pianner: Andy Knudtsen � 5:�� • y `"'�� Y�2': l;pT`. .... :D..'�iy4'iy:-Ylfi.- P.'�j�y�. ..4��!„-�F's /q��o� � j� �y,v �"Y'. '�'.uv J> �"'�'•�''_ �p/Pq �y �wr��r� x�+(q�•..f J'T '�>,�'.,�G' ��`f. �'I'-W�.' 4�C`V'sT.o} . 'C'i,�?�.h'i:,$�i_:��r:"8.2:�i.`.�.. �:c�;, �/-Y . �:'x�,�.�r�':ri: .<�. ,��x��^."�a,<^✓-..��:�'.•..�Yi�'�,��M��'v�'i��'��.'�.C'�. �'°o�t`f'fi'f.. y�-,'scyxx��.cdeva � >�d/i..::' .3' T 'X Ja":{:�A' ��l.:G:SS:Yl..W"�i h.�rvr'.i.'Y' � Y. DESCRIPTFON,OF TT� REQUESTED VAR�ANCE The applicants, Steve Shanlcy and Dr. and Mrs. Broughton, �u-e requesting a variance to the � non-conforming section of the zoning code, spec�cally Section 18.64.050{B). That secUOn states that "structures which do not conform to density controls may be enlarged, only if the total gross residenrial floor area of the enlarged structure does not exceed the total gross residential floor area of the pre-existing non-conforming structure." This duplex does not conform to density controls because the lot on which it is located is less than 15,000 square feet. Though the lot has additional GRFA which could be used, the number of dwelling units on the site (two} exceed what the current code allows. The code only allows two units an a lot less than 15,000 sqnare feet if the secondary unit is restricted for employee housing. Because both units are separately owned and neither is deed restricted for employee housing, a variance ta the non-conforming section of the code is needed to allow far the use of the remaining GRFA. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND The two owners of the duplex would like to remodel the structure. The area for the proposed additiQn is south of the duplex. The proposed addition will be two stories and includes a two-car garage on the first floor and approximately 60Q square feet of GRFA on the second floor. Ay a private agreement between the two owners, each will be entitled to one of the two parking spaces within the garage. � 1 �, • The background of the pmject starts in 1970, when the 9th Filing {in which this lot is located) was platted. The Town of Vait issued a building permit for a two-family structurc in 1973. The Town'S requirement that secondary units on lots less than 1S,IX}Q square feet be restricted for employee housing was added to the zaning code in 1979. Last of all, the Town approved a dupiex subdivision for the properry in 1987 which allowed for two separate ownerships. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zoning: Duplex Lot area: 12,354.4 sq. ft. Allowed Exisrin Proposed Total GRFA: 3,938.6 1,843 683.1 2,526.1 Site Coverage: 2,470.9 1,100 635.4 1,735.4 • �-Teight: 33' 26.5' 26.5' Parking spaces 4 4 8 8 Setbacks: Front: 20 ft 37 ft 30 ft North Side: 15 ft 13 ft 13 ft South Side: 15 ft 34 fi 31 ft Rear: 15 ft 12 ft 12 ft (Note: The l.2' rear setback and the 13' side setback are not changed with this propasal.) IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review af Criteria and Findings, Section 18.b2.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Commur�ity Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based �n the folIowing factors: A. Consideration of Factars: • 2 � 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The new addition will be built on the south side of the existing home. This portion of the l�t is adjacent to the North Frontage Road on the south and Red Sandstone Road on the west and is the furthest from surrannding homes. The addition is designed to match the existing house and will be compatible with the homes in the rest of the neighb�rhood. 2. The degree to which relief from the sErict and literal interprefation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the histoiy of this site and through docamentation of approvals for the two units, make the site unique from other lats with less than 15,000 square feet. Because the structure was constructed as a two-family residence prior to any Town regularions pertainin�; to lots less than 15,000 square feet, staff believes it is reasonable to allow the structure to maintain its original development potcntial. The zoning establishing the restricted unit � requirement was adopted after the structure was legally constructed and creates a hazdship for the property. Approval of this request will not prevent the Town from requiring an employee unit restriction for other structures built after the adoption of the restricted unit section af the code or £oz properties that cannot document building permit approvals for the number of units on a given ln� 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traf�e facilities, public facilities and ntilities, and public safety. The proposed variance will not effect the above referenced criteria. B, The Plannin� and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before �ranting a yariance: . 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 heal[h, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to propenies or i 3 . . I � 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 specif'ied reguladon would result in practical diffieulty 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 af the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretatian or enforcement of the specified regulation wouid deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyeci by the owners of other properties in the same district. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Planning staff recommends apgroval of the requested variance. Staff believes that a variance is warranted because thc structure was approved by the Town of Vail and constructed for two families prior to the adoption of employee housing requirements for lots such as these. • Because the lat has available unused GRFA, staff believes that it is reasonable for the applicant to use the GRFA. The findings are met, in staff's opinion, as discussed below: 1. Staff beiieves that approval of this variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege as the Town has apgraved similar variance xequests for the Bigharn Townhouses in East Vail. Though those situauons aze not identical to this, they are similar in that there was available, unused GRFA pn the site, 2. Staff believes approving the variance will not be a detriment to public health, safety ar welfare. 3(b). Staff believes that the variance is warranted, specif'ically because there are extraordinary circumstances related to this site thal are nat generally true of many of the sites in this zone district. Specifically, the history and documentation of apparovals for this site, given the construction prior to the adoption of the employee housing regulation, sets this site apart from other lots less than 15,000 square feet. c:�ec4nemos�brongton.113 • � / ` � // \ • ` , ! \ / ' � �� _ ��, .. , �:/ � , . � . ` .A _ - . � / �� ,�� Y� � ��- � ;o „� ,, � � �� e ? . . . . i �� . .� _� : � , . . - _ � . � � , ��. . . � ► ;_ � - . ,� � �. �/ . - . � . � - , . _ �: � r � � � ��;� � . � h��;��.. /� � i - �� n ��.� i- � k � . � .. . . ; � ' O / S � � ` � . ° ' � � � � f �� _ . � � / , � t . ` , � / 1 � :�;� � o . � m � r_ . , �� ' � j . � � � � �_ - � . .�, � � : �%:. : � .'��, v' .- �< , � : ��1 `,�.o". , . . . � \ f�y �� .. .,. . � � , r � � Z� . ._..--.--, �, . J _ � � �,�,� __ ; �� __ �:� ; � _ =---- - :.;:,..��, ;F',±'"�;;%<� � __- _ ; � � -- ' l� � - +� . � - - �''--��— ' � C.) a - �'`��.;:��:;: . � N F .: ^ � ;, — �'e�-',f .'� � 3 1.. . — r.� � , (f� - - � v nQ� _. •.f;�.'�;,_�� , - L1. _ :c,c;;,,��_3,t�.� �-- � – � � � . � t]] Q 5- ! � � � - -- ; � � - .:- . r � � m _ - � a �` � � a>'i — . . 1. � 4 J�L r I - ' j II L. y �-' , . . � �� ...�/� �L , � v 1 ��\ -__ _ -- ,I��1 (' � 4 —_ —_— i --_�___—� -- � � 'I —_ � f . �\ � —___— _�-'�a�r"`' • / , , ''� ��7� - — � ' � ` j � -- � , � _ --- � , I - . i � ,� �-�� 1 � � �° � � ��- - = � - ' �` • "'f'—�'. � � I / ' I I j=� _�_�� - � � � � � ,. ^� . '�� ,, r c�' �. ; ..��'i � � ` � �+ � . ...� f�tr .:4 5 y j�t. S':�� 4.x.�k��' �T�T�i,,•µ�'+rq�{;�;��S'tTt,.��;�� tit r�s'�"�'��7'A;Y i�- Y,p . � .. ` � :1 ,s..� a� KgY��f nr'laj _ .. :- • � - � ''�t�r. Y��t� '.F`�..�.;`�" 'ii)�1k�J11G - - ��'$�/� . . �2'�..��'b�QF�Y—r�QAZi�_ 'sso�}.tQ�til � . Q- . , .. . . . - . '`S.� � � .. � rk�tiltk��' � .,�Nai��-:.a�.l..�o NGi��'� ��..�P��. � � � r � . �r.� �z� �tt,� �.' ,r. � . . ` f . � , � -. . 't� W .t', . . ;:" .� � . • �' .1', O ' -- .:; �/1 VJ � � . . . - .. �•!r{ C � . . - .'f:' '{�� , ._ � ' ':i.,, � . ' � . . �i , ��,' � . . . . . O _ - _' _ � . � • - W � -_ . , � � � _-- �__._ __ , : • � � � , � ------ • � C!) --_------� -- ! I�I , ; � I . -^- � _ � ? -- � �.. � �. -- ; � _____�___._ � • �------ _ . '; . . � � � ' . � i . . , � � �� . � . f . � '. . � i C O �_,. ctS . > Q� � W �—. � . . c� W ; � � O � � • ; . � � � o � � m � � . � --- , � � __i�! � f � � � �� _ . . � -_`. ► ' _=�_-�--_-__. - � �-- � I � - : I � - . I �� _=_ ___-__ --_ ., �� -_ �� - . 1 � - __--= _ , �� - -- - � ,___�_ . l�,� I _- __..---��,__--==,f�--�- . i � , _ i� � i �1 �fj' ;' � . . � � , �� ,: , � I��,I Il l i 9 _ �S'� 'I � , ,� �' I , ,�' � � � �� I�i ��; � ;��,I�� __��".�. ` ' �� o 4� , 1 ,:�� _ :� � � � � , � .�, ,, �� _ > � ; � I �� ; �� { � � : � � �l � W � ,� �`I� �i o: _ � �� I�� l n +o �� •� i�,�!I I °tU ` 3 ! � � , , � ��:� ; : ; � � -- i � - . ; � : � � '` r r � . . , � . F., . , � � O � t � � � . ,� . - � �� . ��; � . . �c � o � j �, . � . ; L10 � . . ' � j� � �, � � . ,. � ct� _ - � � .; �� . . . V) � � . � .._ . , � , � , � � . � ; ; . . i , , , � / . _' . .. . ; , . , C � . (� - i, � . � 0 : �. O __ 0. . _ m . � � ! LL � ; :. . :. �' N ---- - � � � T � t N �� J ' � O L � -- � ..� 4 Q � . - -�=��-==� __-_ - �" � Q ,i . , - � � � � � � . . - � � � . . , , �� - �;. ::' , . � z � p . � � � � �r== . � , ,.. . a �� . � I� . ' � _ �. �' � . �:';��- o � �� - _ � -,--,�- � � � �= . � � � m � II� � � �� Y� �� -- I, . _ .. . .. _ , , . ....� --.... , �l � . : , .. y.:... ' .:.�,�.... n.� � �I ., _ . ��_, cn i .. � . ..� � � . � � � . � � . I • , I I � .� " . ' � . ('(S . . . - _ ' �1.. . . - Z _ -� � - - . .� � - . � - - - . � � p . � ' _ _ .. .r { � � � . __ . . . � J, I. - ' .. • i - " , 1 . • � . � '' . ' . , � � ' ' ��-. _. . . . . . � . � ' / . ' ��, - : - . ..- ' � . � . c9 � �' _ ; Z: � i s _ � .,. _ , - . . - � � J � � . - . . � . ; . � : - . �� , . _ . � _ - � . ..� � � . � - � , - . .� � / �. : � ` � ° - � . � i ' . , ` m . �I I t� C . {ZS / - � CI) � � � � 3 � ��- � � r ' 2. A request for a density varlance in order ta allaw an addition to an existing non- �� conforming structure at 864 Spruce Court/a part of Lot 12, Vatl Village 9th FIltng. Applicant: Qr. and Mrs. Joseph Broughton/5teve Shanley Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained this lot contained two dweliing units, but was under 15,00� square feet in area. The zoning code allows two units on a lot which is under i5,000 square feet if one of the units is restricted for employee housing. Because both units are separately owned and neither is deed restricted for employee housing, a variance to the non-cnnforming section of the code was needed to allow for the use of the GRFA remaining on the lot. The applicants wished tgo construct an addition on the south side of the structure. The staff recommendation was for approval. It was felt this would not constitute a grant of special privilege, as the Town has a�proved similar variance requests for the Bighom Townhouses in East VaiE; the variance would not be a detriment to public health, safety or wslfare, and there are extraordinary circumstances related to this site with regard ta the history and documentation of approvals, and timing of construction. The documentation in the file for this property showed that the two-famlly dwelling was permitted by the Town in 1973. The regulations requiring that the secondary unit be deed restricted to employee housing was not adopted by the Town until 1979. In addition to this, the Town had approved a duplex subdivision in 1987. 8ecause of this documentaion showing the construction had been approved by the Town of Vail prior to 1979, staff recommended approval. • Elliat Goss, project architect, was avaifable for questions. The PEC did not have any questions. Chuck Crlst moved, followed by Connie Knight's second, to appro�e the request for a densfty varlance per the staff memo. The vote was 7-0 in favor. � 3. A request fpr a slde setback variance at 586 �orest Road/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail VIIlage 6th Fiting. Applicant: Wllifam Sheppard Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen explained when the improvement focation certifieate for the framing inspection was submitted to the staff, it was found ihe garage had been constructed 7 inches into the � side yard setback. The owner agreed to remove the stone veneer, reduc3ng the encroachment to 1 inch. He would replace tt�e stane with stucco and add five aspens ta compensate for the less attractive appearance of the wall. The applicant had planted the � trees, but wanted to request a variance approval to see if he could keep the stone. The staff ; recommendation was for denial due to a [ack of physicai hardship on the property. Jay Peterson, representing #he applicant, felt the applicant met all criteria with the exception of hardship. However, Jay pointed out that instead of hardship, the PEC could find ' � 4 I I I I �