Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRequest for GRFA 5-2-1978TRANSCRIPT ' TO~YN COUNCIL R9~~TING OI+ bYay 2, ].978 Agenda item No, 7 - Webster 1Z~sidenco - roquest for GRI'A and setback variances for Lot 35, Block 7, Vail Village first Filing. Slil~r: The newt item is the Webster Residence a request for GRI'A and Setback Variances Poi Lot 35, Blocic 7 Vail Village 1st Piling. A. Gerstenberger: 1Vebstei has a~~plications :for two variances GRI'A and Setback Variance for Lot 35 „ Blocic 7 Vil Village first Piling. I won't go into the numbers that aro involved because Bill I believe has the latest update o~ what numbers a.re applicable. Bill ~vhy don't you go ahead and explain the proposal and theu I will (not able to heax) Bill Ruoff: Thanks Allen, I feel that a little bit of bacl~ground is necessary to understand what Allen is referring to. In view of the report that you have that was prepared a couple o~ weeks ago Uy the staff, is a little misleading, we feel the figures in :tt - - eve don't feel they change, but we've reconciled tlio ciilference in opinion. It was Uased on the ~aet that there is a strip 'of land next door i:o the lot which George has always owned that leas been unoccupied, he did not o~vn it, we determined that if he did otvn ii: it would help the area that are necessary iu running zoning checks. ~9ithout going into a long si;ory I am sure that same of you lcnoty a little background on phis. It was determined ghat that is one of 1: he old livestock runs by which ranchers in this area used i:o cross other rancher's territory to get their livestocl~ onto i;he mountains to graze. It turns out thflt this is one that got lost somewhere, came out ttaat V,A. owned it, much ~o their surprise. I believe the Town was surprised to when we started looking ii7to it. These thins take a little 'time they tv~re pursued diligence with as much 806ID8@ as we could, anyway, George ~Nebster, Pelt the sensible thing i~o do would be t;o acquire the land from V.A. George has been out of town for the past three weeks, At the time that the report was made, technically George did not own the land. We had asked the Planning Commission to consider it as though George owned ii; because he teas in the process of acquiring it. However, they chose to take the position. Is ~d Drager here? He had said he would be here touiglit to explain this, Slifer: He tivas at our work session this afternoon. ~ f 1 1 ~~ • TAANSCTiIPT - COUNCIL Di~~TING 5-2-7$ ~ Page 2, 59ebster Residence request for GftFA and Setback Variance far Lot 35, Bloek 7, VV 1st Bill Ruoff: Oh, all right, all right, Unknown: But we didn't talk about this.at the work session. Slifer: So you explain their position and why they did not consider the additional land because it was their Peeling it was not owned at the time they were rcvie;wing it, it was under negotiation. Bill. Ruoff: That's right it was, George has gotten back i~ town. As you can see has received the paper, we havo it here, and would like to dive you copies iT anyoize doubts ghat it is row George's. Therefore, eve would like you to consider the figures that we havo used Prom the beginning that we feel are the right ones. And I am sorry that they it would Dave been much simpler had they agreed the to have faith that George would be back nud finish up H18 purchase off' the land. All right, they had ~~n agenda that went seven hours last ~veelc and they difln't want to get into this, ],ets be frank about. it. They knew it had to come to you and they to you, and here we are, There axe two variances that are required for Goorge's property. I would like to speak first briefly about what we consider pr~baUly the simpler one because there is much precedent"for it and they have Ueen routinely granted under similar circumstances and in fact encouraged by Planning Commission, DRB is even gotten into the act and Council. It is as we know o~ course on Forest Road where the present Zoning Orclit~anee doesn't fit. forest Road was built; long Uefor~ it and there are conditions, the road is narrow, and steep and ~;l~ere isn'is enough parking and so forth.- The present house tivould be replaced by George's proposed new house as we can show i,i any of you can see from back there, the new house will Ue almost exactly, by that I mean, within fifteen inches, dependant upon~.a final survey that is being made now, of the setback that the existing house has. There will in elect, be no change on setback. The present one does not meet ct~rr~nt setback requirements, iP it did, it would be pushed out into the air and the usual thing of the steep hill- side site, the very i;hing that; you Dave addressed in the steep slopes area of the Hazard Ordinance that you had at first: roading tonight. This is the perfect example o~ it, of why it makes sense on these loi;s to make a variance. Tlie second point is that technically we could go back and meet it, we could tear down a young forest, a young ., ., TRANSCRIPT - COUNCIL MEETING 5-2-78 Page 3 jYebst~r Residence request for GRFA and Setback Variance RuoFf continued: no a very old lorest o~ mature 62 ft. Spruce trees. We don't think this is the route to tale. Secondly it will eliminate all parking on Pores Road, which w~ feel is a very strong plus. It is directly across the street from the Hobart (sp7) house at a narrow steep part, and if you have every had to travel, in winter especially, and Pete Burnett probably moxe than anyone else knows the problems. We propose to eliminate a big chunk of that by turning the new project around and entering it from the oL-her road since it also faces on Vail Road. We will show you 1:hat in a minute, So the setback variance is a request to place the south ~o.ce of the proposed house the same place where the oJ.d house is but eliminate all parking on that side, there ~i~on't even be an entrance into the house on that side. All right, that basically brings ixs to the other one, Which is, request For a variance on GRI'A under the brand new approximate, in this case it is about a 40% reduction from what formerly was allowed, until last Thanksgiving time. On the rider to the down-zoning bill that was passed at that time which now, as I am sure some of you realize, has placed a de facto limit of approximately 5,250 rt. on GRPA for all three classes o~ residences in the Town of Vail, A11 right. ~Ve a,re requesting a variance under the provisions in the zoning ordinance wlzicii were put there according to the preamble o~ the ordinance to take care of those situations ~vliich have special futures, are unique, or are different from the norm. W~ feel that there are a cou~~le of fea~;ures that are quite different and I would like to spend a little time discussing them because we think they are -the most important;. Things that make the situation of George and Lisa ~VeUster's lot and their ne~ti~ house, or proposed house quite different from most residential lots in the Towtl o~ Vail and things eve feel Ire important to an understanding of what they wish to do. I believe tli~t even Sou Bill, and Bob beck there the farthest away, can probably make out this chart, this map of a section of the Town, this is Vail Road, follow my pointer, we go past the Lodge, Check-Point- Charlie, Bank, Chapel, Kiandra, ok. This is George and Visa Webster's land. This is the location of their present house, the location or the proposed ne~v house. To understand the two points that the believe . ~~ i t TRANSCRIPT - Tp~9N COUNCIL n4~~TING 5-2-78 Page 4 SVebster Residence request for GRFA and Setback Variance Ruoff continued: are very key to this, consider a line along Beaver Dam Road and Vail Road, right through bore, everyth9.ng on this side of it is residential, x.11 the tvay to the end o~ the Town. everything on this side of it is either Public Accommodation, High Density Multi-I'amzly, CC1 all right, tLie point that we feel is important is that the design of George's house, the individual pro,~oct that eve are talking about now, ~vhibh we think is displayed in a number o~ pictures over here, its a hillside house. Probably from way back there you can ai: least sew da.itereuces in these drawings. `Phis you don't see very much house, this is the south side, it faces the residential area, this is the west side, which also faces the residential area, izi other words, we feel that the impact upon, o~ the interface with, the neigUborin~ communities,the actual. neighbors then of who surround a given site or what it should be judged under, and a.n this case there aren't miny doubts about the future because every single lot in this entiie area has already been developed, so there is no wondering .what it someone puts one hexe, and here, and hers - can't happen. The die is cast, this part of town is set. All right, an the residential side „the impact of the house is the last, On the downhill side, and this is true of any steed hillside house, the view from below, or down the hill., you always see much more of the house than you do Prom the i:op of the hill. The large parts of the house which naturally face downk1i11, as you can see in Lhis picture, face the town. I believe that even again from the end you can see this is what they face, the largest, densest buildings in Vail. ~Ve feel L-hat this is a very important point because 9,t is again - whai; is the impact upon ~:he eonununity? Is i;he larger side o~ this house going to overwhelm its neigUborhood? 4Ve feel no, that one house isolated over here Lacing this 8 story building at the Lodge, Riva Nori:h, the Willows, the Eicielweiss, Talisman, Kiandra on down to the Holiday House; this is a 120 degree sweep of pictures, its everything you see, the pictures were taken from the ~Yebster's present living room ~vinclow, same view as they wi11 have. These the most massive and densest buildings in Vail axe the immediately adjacent ncighUors oY the larger sides, the downha.11 side o~ the proposed Webster residence. TftANSCRIP'P - TO}yN COUNCIL RiE~TING 5-2-78 Page 5 Webster Residence request for GRFA and Setback Variance BuoYf continued: Therefore, while it is something, again, that is its very point of uniqueness, we feel. The I don't know of any other lot in town, a residential lot, where this would apply. We do feel it applies here. Stepping back to the other side, the residential side o3 the line, attotL~er unusual featuxe, dzfYerent from all but a very Yew residential neighborhoods in town, and we ask you to consider those that are~i't built up yet as they soon will be because shortly there won't b~ any lots lefi:. The distances, the closest neighbor is perhaps an average distance between houses in Vail., its the Hobart (sp?) house, directly above the Websters. In these pictures you can see iL- rather plt~inly above the house on the high side o~ the road, It is enough hi~hex than the house, both the present house and the proposed necv one, that neither the existing house nor the new one impede their view. ~9e have purposely made the ridge line the highest point of the new house exactly the same height as the ridgeline o~ the existing house. In addition, we are clearing out the parking jumble between the two houses so that tl~e impact on the close neighbor, the one directly across the street up the hill, tine HoUart (s~?) house, we feel is a positive one a good one. Visually, we are not changing, or impacting them at all they see over it the same as they always have for the fast seventeen years since Uotli louses were built. Oti to be technically correct, I should say i;his ridge does come out Pifteeii fit, farther toward the east, no higher, we plotted it ou phis map to see what it did and it means from the bedroom end of the HoUarts (sp?) it will block their view o~ i:he garbage cans and kitchen at the Kiandra, we don't think that this is necessarily ~ bad thing, its the only impact on their view. All right, after that this house at the bottom of the hill, the closest neighbor on the Webster side, is 165 ft. away. That's almost three times the average distance, under the ordinance, 3Q is the minimtun between adjoining houses, they can be that close. In many o~ the more successful neighborhoods of the town, like some o~ the areas around the golf course, and some others, average distances are often as short as 50 to f~0 feet, and in many cases they are c7.ose as 40. Here we have the closest neighbor at 150 feet, in addition to which it is on Beaver Dam Road at the bottom of the hill and separated by a dense forest of 50 L'o GO foot mature Spruces and Pines, in 1. TRANSCRIPT - 'PO}YN COUNCIL 5-2-78 ' Page 6. TVebster Residence request for GRP'A and Setbaek Variance Ruoff Continued. other ~vords they can't see each other. So we consider 0 impact there, i~ you cau't see each other i:hen there is no visual impact:. The P~4erchison (sp?) house up here is -the second closest one, Its all the way up on Roci~ Ledge Road again separated by the natural i'orest and it is 250 :Peet away. The nearest neighbor on forest Road is 310 Yeet away even deeper in the woods. Ok, we Peel that there is virtuaJ.ly no impact upon the residential side of the lot, and we don't know how any single house can overwhelm, or adversely impact this arrn.y of the most uxban, the most dense, highest buildings in Vail; and they are the immediate neighbors on that side, All right, those are the highligh~:s of what we :feel are the most: important points, there are many others concerning this, there are clot o~ statistics and so forth, T would rai:her pause and ask you members of the Council what other points you would like us to address. H~IrfHACH; How large is the variance you are requesting now with the condition oP the new lot? RUOrF; 943 sq. fit. H~IniBACI-I: I'm sorry, I didn't see that chart there, ftUOFF: I'or comparison, its so new that those of us who have to understanding work with it find that we are 8BQ@~~flH89~~ it pretty well, we are finding many people in town who don't and we get asked often, what's the change? So wo put down the new and the old here, cause I know that: some of you ~.re familir~.r with what the ground rules have been in Vail :for many years, unL-il you cl~znged them a Ecru weeks ago. It vas 1394 around 1400 feet under the allowance until Than]~sgiving, it is now 943 over on GRPA count. Yes Rod? SLIFER; ~Yhat's i:he 7609 is 25% of the square Footage, correct? RUOI'F: That's right. SLIFER; What"s i;he recluci:ion down to 5272, is that slope? AUOrF: No, no, no, that is the new amendmoi~L that was passed , ~.\~~ ~~._. UI~~~OWN: We get a GRFA up to 7.5,000 sq, ft., and then from 15,000 sq. ~~:, up on the lot we get a 10, so eve calculate up no~v instead of down. ftTJOFI': In ~lFect ai; 30,000 Pt, tivhich gust; happens to be almost exactly the area of George's, from there on you get almost no credit, you get 1000 ft, to get 50, that's why we have worked these things in town just in the back of our heads, now we say de facto 5200 fit. ceiling. TRAIVSCI~IPT - TOWN COUNCIL I~iELTING 5-2-78 Page 7. Webster Residence request for GRPA and Setback Variance Ruoff continued: Beyond which zt is now requ~xed that a variance be requested and the Planning Commission and the Council take a look at all projects~;ha{; wan(; to be bigger than that. Paula? PALMATE~R: Bill, you subtracted out the 132? pool deck to get the 6215, right? RUOFP; Yes, and I apologize, I skipped it and its important. PALhfA'I`~~ft: Tl~e Planning Department does not as I understand i.t or did nod, is that correct Alen? RUOrI~': No, they do it both ways; and therefore, we axe asking that we be considered the way favorable to George, because we feel that he is diving some things in return which are more valuable; Let me explain that. `Phe proposed Webster House will include a swimming pool . Tlae jVebstex s would prefer to have the switntning pool buried under the house so it doesn't stick out and have a great big building around it. IYe feel this is good architecturally because it minimizes the amount of construction that needs t;o be put on the land, it makes it much more compact. Unfortunately, undex tike way that it has been ia~terpreted, acid i;his is an interpretation, the zoning ordinance is silent on this matter, therefore, when the first one came up the decision had to be made if the swimming pool is in the house is it ox is it not GRI'A. ~9e11 I guess there are three poss9.bil~.ties, it is or it asn't or we rind a tvay to split i~. So, on the three or four previous to this that havo come up in the Town where they are inside, can't remember where they all are, they , said ok, ~ve'l1 split it, we'll take the clerk area and wallcways around ` and say they are GRI'A, we will say that the water area is riot ii you put it in the house or connect it to the house. If you separate it Prom the house so that you have to walk outdoors, oven though ii: may be an3y three or #our feet through the snow or sun depending on the time of year, go back in a door, then we don't count any of it. There is room on i~Fie ~Yebster's land fox us to do that, we could slide the house over into the trees, take them down, and then thore is plenty of room to build a swimming fool in its otvn building out here on the ~~oint, and where we would really like to preserve the nature of tl~e land that is there, we are not touck~ing it at all now. We think that it is strongly against or counter to the spirit of the zoning ordinance and what we want to accomplish by it in Vail TRANSCRIPT - TQ~YN COUNCIL bgEETING 5-2-78 Page 8. Webster Residence request for GRFA and Setback Variance Ruoff continued: to go that route. If I may momentarily switch hats, if a project like L-his came before Design Review Board and there was an option each ~vay, we would make a very strong protest against it on aesthetic grounds. Therefore, we are asl~ing that in this case the Websters not Ue penalized fox doing what we feel is a better approach, bury the thing, even though ii; is more expensive. Put it under the house, make it compact instead of putting it outside in a new building. The impact on the Town of putting another building them, I think would be totally unwarranted. So, as part o~ the variance request eve are asking i:hat the entire pool area not be included in the GftFA, the same as though it were set outside in a new building, Our feeling really is that probaUly it has never made much di~~erence bc;fore and therefore was never questioned, but when you really look at it, we don't thinlz i;liat its in tl~e best intexest, or necessarily within the spirit or intent o~ our zoning ordinance. That is what that second line says, less pool deck. Which we are asking not be countod in the GRPA. jVe really feel that in any case like this it probably shouldn't be if it is being included in the building. The usual objection is that, oh my heavens what if it turns ini;o a crash pad, ho~v many sleeping bags can you put around. Come on nobody is going to sleep around the edge, somebody might, but you can't get any rent from ii;. Anci some of us really i;hinlc that the way to control the abuses in town is to chastise the abuser, not go change the rule ghat he just broke. Ok, I think that I have belabored too much the swimming pool thing, WII&t other poixits.Bobby. RTJD~R; Bill, I h~.ve a couple o~ questions in that, is the house a duplex? RTJdFF; Yes technically it is. The zone is t~vo-family residential ya, I have Ueen using the term because again all o~ us have woxked with this regularly, the regulations lox all three classes of houses are almost essentially the same, but this one is a duplex as most are in Vail. T11e design for the S9ebster's house is basically a three bedroom house plus 628 sq. Pt, one bedroom, small caretakers-type apartment. George and Lisa are away from town a good deal of the time and they probaUly would like to have the use of this little one bed- room apartment as, the all know what they'~.l do, dozens of houses in town have ........(can't hear) The louse itself is essentially a 0 TRANSCRIPT - T0~1'N COUNTIL MEETING 5-2-?$ Page 9. Webster Rosidencc request lox GR~A and Setback Variance Ruoff Continued: three k~edroom house. The reason it is bigger than slot of i;hree bedroom houses, I think, is simply because like alot o~ people, me included, I know some of you come from other paxts of tale couni:ry where we lived in older houses that were built years ago, they were bigger. They i~ad what ha,s come to be sort o~ a rarity in our living space tod~.y, space ii:self. Little things like stairways where t~vo people can pass each other without doing this, which is the usual Vail experience going downstairs and you meet somebody in a residential situation. That, the swimming pool, slot of small amenities that ~a.t up space. You know the fact that it is a very steep hillside, does some tt~~ngs that are interesting, it was touched on in the discussion on the hazard area earlier. A well designed house on a si;eep 1111 doesn't need as much land coverage, the reduction that you've included there, both of us architects and others in town who are interested in tlzes~ things, feel ii: is very reasonable. Proper hillside designed house need never occupy as much land. This one doesn't:. However, a corallary is, that to make it work on the steep hi]lszde, sometimes it is necessary to include a little more space inside of it, sim~~ly because it is farther fxom top to boti;om and you have to eat up space with veri;ical things to get up and down. That does increase GRFt1 even though it may not increase the normal living space, numUer o~ rooms or their :unction at all. It adds to ~Ue exF~ense o~ it to the owner, but I don't i;ha.nli that is a concern, if someone loves a hillside lsouse and wants to spend more money to get all the neat dramatic views available from it, that should be his perogative. L. RIDER: bir. Ruoff, whai:'s the nature o~ the interest in the stock drive? (Mr. Webster's attorney?) UNKO{VN: Its an option only and if you tiver~ to grant the va,rianee T would suggest that you make it contingent upon acquisition and title. L. RIDER: So he has not Uought the property yet? UNKNOIVN: No. (WeUster'.s attoxney?) L. RIDER: 1Uhat are the conditions in the option? UNKNOTVN; Its all on one page. (Webster's attorney?) L. RIDER: A couple of things that porhaps hlr. Williams can confirm. Looking at the plat 1'or VAil Village first filing it appears that this stock drive is an extension of Vail Road, and if it is an extension TRANSCRIPT - TOWN COUNCIL A4~~TING 5-2-78 Page 10. Webster Residence request for GRTA and Setback Variance Rider Continued: of Vail load then Vail Associates can't giant you an option. UNKNO{YN; I think that could be true, however, you've looked at that closer than I, could you make a res~~ons~ 'to that? UNKN0ti9N; Larry, as I discussed with you outside, on tho origlna7. plat the stocl~ drive lies on the section line Uettiveon the first two sheets of the First filing. Between these lots is undesignated as to anytkiing, its left as a gap, Ueca,use V.t~. ~.t that time could not convey { cau't Bear) Lo a cattle drive. Therefore at that time they retained 20 :Peet on Lhe edge of each plat, subse- quently, about '68, that V.A. conveyed the roads to the Town of Vail, it was done by the name o~ the road and Vail road as existed V at that time and as it is set ou tl~e plat clearly turns to the left itmnediately prior to the Uridge, goes across the bridge and moves back i;oward the lode. L,~LRTD~R: ~Yhere the Vail Road Uagins to i;he north, it runs almost to the section line isn't that correct? North and South along the section line'? RUOFF; Yes, L. RIDER: And the stock drive continued right along, the supposed stock drive runs right along L-hat section line does it not? TINKNOWN: Its not a supposed shock drive . L. RIDER: Is there anything on the plat designating it as a stock drivel UNKN011iN: No there is not. L. RIDER: Is thew anything on the plat designating it as an ease- ment? UNKNO~YN: No, ti~ere is there is reservation o~ previously granted easements or drives and rights-of-way (can't hear) There is no specific grantza~g of any extensions for ancillary paxts of Vail Load to the Town of Vail. L. RIDER: Is there any condition in the option that Vail Associates cleared up title. See my concern My concern is that if the 'Ibv~n of Vail owns it tivhat you're buying from Vail Associates can could Ue considezed the Brooklyn Bridge, And {:hat you should be dealing with the Town and not with Vail Associates, And looking at the plat i~ appears ghat Vail Road that this that TRANSCRIPT - 'CQWN COUNCIL h1L~TZA'G 5-2-78 Page 11. Webster Residence request fox GRF~ and Setback Variance, Rider cocrtinued: has been called a stock cixive easement is a logical extension ~o Vail Road whether it was ever built of not built. I am just cancerued with jvhat in fact is being bought and what in :fact is being considered part o~ the land area in determining GRFA, UNI{NO{9N (Webster' s Attorney? ) Well , I don' t know ➢Sr. Rider, I am not schooled enough in the precise history of that i;itle, nor have I examined the plats well enough, and I sure don't want i:o get into a question o~ Svhether the Town shaulci own that 40 Peet, or Vail Associates, all I knave is that they felt they owned it end they granted an opi;ion anti therefore, they agreed in that option, I think quote, to give good and perfect t~~le, And consequen•Lly ii: teas on that we wire relying anti then wait for the title insurance company to tell us. L. RIDER: Ztivo concerns, the first concern being that apparently Vail Associates, from what llir. Ruoff says, was surprised to learn they had any interest, a.nd the second concern being that if the- . Towu Council is going to consider that as part of the land by which to grant the GRFA, them seems to me to be a number of questions that need to be answez~ed. They, of course, may not agree but that was the only reason I cvas asking the question, i;o make sure that you are getting what you are buying and the Town was getting what it was buying also, UNKNOWN: Laxry, the option negotiation with V.A. is based on that they convey good title to th~.t and their position is based on my examination (can't hear) And although we do have some disagreement on exac{:ly who owns what ...,....that i:P they cannot convey good title (unclear we don't have to pay for it.) L. RIDER: j9e don't have to grant the option I mean grant the variance. Seco~id question D1r. Ruoff, the ordinance requires proof of unnecessary physical hardship, what is the unnecessaxq physical hardship for the granting o~ this GRT'A variance? RUOI'I': Where are you looking R~r. [ti der? L. RIDER: This is Section 18.62 under "Purpose". It says, "in order to prevent or lessen such practical diffa.culties unnecessary physical hardship ~~ariances may be ~rantecl." T was wondering ~vha~ the unnecessary physical hardship is for 'the GRF'A variance? I understand the Setback, I thinlz that is appropriate. But I am wondering what it would be under the GRPA. .. TRANSCRIPT - TOSVN COUNCIL AIE~TING 5-2-78 Page 12. jVebs~:er Residence request for GRPA and Setback Variance , H9@@990@@~9HQ@@~J RUOPF: I was looking under Section 19.6 where it says what Findings would have to be made be:foro a variance tivould be granted. L. RIDER: Look at that first section in that called "Purpose". for 1;he granting of variances. In th~it it spells out what the purpose is of granting variances. Look at tl~e first, the first section in the chapter of the part dealing wii;h variances, called "Purposes". And it is number a, under that. And if you look at the section that you were reading under called "Criteria and Findings", it says i;here must be a finding tl~~t there was a ~>racta.cal hazdship. My question is what is the practical hardship? Necessary for this GRFA. UNKNOWN: I'm not reading tine same thing you are. BREAK ONKNOWN: You think it is absolutely necessax•y that they find an :unnecessary physical hardship? Well then I don't think the ordinance should say define one of three things. BREAK UNKNOtYN: I can't conceive really o~ what physical hardship is when you won't permit a building to be built in a certain Yashion, And, therefore I don't lcuow what t;he physical. hardship is. I was relying on Section 1~J.G where it says that berore granting a variance you must define certain things, and under sub 3 it says under that section you have to i'i.nd one or more of the following reasons. Physical hardship is mentioned in oue o~ them. Another altexnat'ive is that there are exceptional. or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to i:he sii;e of the variance, and that was what Mr. Ruo~~ was addressing. L. RIDER: Olc, the question that I was rephrasing, what is it, what is the particular peculiar characteristic o~ the site that would dictate to the Council that they approve a GRrA variance that would allow for a bigger louse than w11at other people in the area could. build'? RUOI'E~': tVell alp ha. Not that other people have built, only under a new and drastic reduction. Other people for a long time have Uuilt big 1louses, there are slot oY big houses in Vail. This isn't the first one, this is only the first one to come up since this recent reduction in the GRFA figures. (TAPS CHANGE) TRANSCItZPZ' - TOWN COUNCIL Ai~~TING 5-Z-?8 ~ , Page 13. ~ti'ebster Residence request ror GRFA and Setback Variance (AI'TER TAPE CHANGE) H99EH~J99999991Q@9Q@@g~52@~9~&~ Ruoff Continued: Question? To control some abuses or what was it tor? We have been told many things.. L. RIDER: The question was, what is the peculiar Mr. D4ayor I'm sorry , uudorstand SLIFER: No, I what ,you are saying. L, RIDER: tYhat was the peculiar thing in the property that would justify the approval o~ a GRP'A variance that would a11ow this applicant to build a house larger than other people could bui.l.d under the ordinance. I am not talking about what happened under an old ordinance that was . RUOP'F': But under it, a.s eve understand it Laxry, under the ordinance if someone else l~~.d a situation where tie felt ghat the impact was not bad, Ise could ask, anti you can build under the ordinance with variance because, as we understand it, variances are part of the ordinance. L. ftID~R: That is correct. But tl~e purpose of the variance is a recognition os the fact that when you try to apply a strict: interpretation of the zoning ordinance to unusual and oddly shaped located, whatevex pieces oi' proi~erty, you are going to have problems. So in order to get a variance, in ardor :for you to show i;hat the strict interpretation of the ordinance should not Ue applied, you're goii7g to have to show that Ghere is something peculilr about the piece o~ property. Th~.t (can't hear) UNKNO~YN: (Webster's Attorney?) That's really what he had been ` addressing the whole time he vas t~,llcin~. I thought h~ was talking about the fact that the north and east race of this proporty is abutting the commerci~.l, or i:t may not Ue what you call commercial in your ordinance, but the coimnercial area. Auci that the unique thing about the lot is that you can build on it without raving any impact on the residential area ivhieh is south across Forest Road and west along forest Road I think that would be extraordinary circumstances or conditions that are applicable here, iY they were appla.cable to another lot, which I don'L know where that would be, and I think you should consider a variance there. RUOFI': The same circumstances would never apply to another lot, it would be a whole different ballgame. They migUt ox might not TRANSCRIPT - TQ{VN COUNCIL A7EETING 5-2-78 ' Pg. 14 ~Yebster ~,es~dence xequest for GRI+A and Setback Variance, Ruoff Continued: warrant it. RUDER: I have a couple comments, I look at the new zoning regulation and I was a part o~ dxal'tzng and adopting it and I think it is a good one, and I think the reasons that came; about are good reasons. And i~ all. started, as I think about it, down-zoning, and down-zona.ng is people in Vail Valley, And the reason that we got into primary/secondarq and that we got into single-family duplex is because we were stari;ing to get enormousJ.y large duplexes that were huge GRTA's and have the capacity to sleep 20 people and we didn't in my mind, I didn't fee]. that that w~,s a,ppropxiate and at the same time we would down-zone the other zones. Dut we leave the variance process Uecause I don't think we should draw lines and say that people shouldn't be allowed to. come in get a variance bocause they like a bigger house, but we did say that when thats going to happen we would like to be able to take a. look at it. It gust can't get rubber-stamped as many of the large, mostly duplexes leave happened in the past. I remember the discussions of down-zoning single-family duplex and pximary/secondary, and the new zoned primary/secondary which also was talking about people, forcing people out of houses and out or zones, trying to cut down our popula~:ion. So X think that i~ we talk about physical Hardships, maybe that is pulling something out of the ordinance acid I don't think that necessarily because a peison cares to live in a big house that we are forcing something on them, in my mind. Tn my mind, I saw the ordinance as a down-zone and the down-zone was to reduce thousand people. If George's house of however many/square Poet lead 10 bedrooms, I would look pretty unfavorably upon it, if Gorge's house was a same amount of square footage az~d was two large duplexes I would also look unfavoraUly upon i~:. But I thinit in this case T think we are picking on somebody because they like to live i.n a big house. And I think in this case and I have just seen this thing recently, th~.t Bill Ruo~thas done quii;e a nice job o:G i:rying to put the house on the lot, trying to hide things lake swimming pools, rathex than put them out in separate buildings on the lot which would impact our town even more. And T also think, looking ~.t that colored elevation on the far left side, i;liat you could take that exact exterior shell and bq stepping the house down the hill, you could come up with any mind or square Footage in that shell that you wanted to. TRANSCRIPT -- TO~YN COUNCIL D9E~TING 5-2-78 gage 15. ~Yebster Residence request for GRI'A and Setbacl~ Variance Ruder Continued; In their c1se, they went back and they've god to have some enormous cuts inside the house and it caused some more square footage. But you could generate that exact interior or exterior and do it over 4000 sq, ft. I think we are picking on that a liti:le bit because they didn't want to. The stock drive- way is a brand ne~v i;hing, to me its like asking George Webster to join the chub and pay a fee to buy the properi;y next door so he can have his 1~ouse. I would rather that eve as a town, and the stock driveway US Lhe way goes on Uy A~turc:hisoYi's until it hits the forest Service line; I would rather say that we I hate to use the word :~oree, bui; I will use the word force George to put together what is even necessary with Vail Associates, or whoover owns it, to see that the Town ends up with clear i;ii:le to the stocl~ driveway all the way :from the bridge or wherever its at to tho Forest Service line, and we take the clouUt out of it and we put it in the town. But, that we don't penalize him and ask him to see how many dollars he can sprang for it, coming up with the abutting property to see i~ he can make his house work. I thi.nlc it is the wrong reason that we down-zone single-gamily duplex and primary/secondary, we clid it for po~~ula.tion, not because somebody shouldn't lave a big house and we did say that: eve would like to look at them, and we think it is important that the guy goes about it in tl~e right way and hires an architect, a competent architect to try to design a nice situation for that particular thing. And our big duplexes that: we have in this town were designed in New Yorli, i.hey were designed in Cali:~ornia, Lhey weren't designed in Vail Colorado by ~ local. architect. I don't have any problem with 1t. Ancl I am convinced as a builder that you could take that exact shell. and put: 4000 sq. lt, under it, the way we calculate GRFA, And all we ~voulcl do by doing that is cttt his bedroom in half, tape his swimming pool out, and I don't think it is fair. Y think we are looking at the ordinance in the wxong ~vay, it is not why I down- zoned single-family andprimary/secondary. UNKNOtYN: (Webster7) I ,just wan~:ed to add the statement that as you remember the bought the house in 'G9, it nad bunks in it, and it had sleeping accommodations for 10. You people Handled TRANSCRIPT - 'PQ~YN CQUNCZL h~E~TZNG 5-2-78 Pg. 16 ~4eUster Residence request for GRFA and setback Variance Webster? continued: the ren al of it and Marvel Barnes had to kick a p~.ri;y of 25 out oY iii? Who had rented it, they ha.cl sleeping bags. The present plans are Yor a maximum of 8 laeds plus one crib.. no,grandchildren. UNKNOjVN: And Bob, addressing your point, we would lilco to see tl~e town end up with this property, eve would phrttse in the alternat9.ve i:hat either the Town have the property dedicated Lo them, or George acquires it, That would be highly suitable because V.A. has accepted the ides, o~ dedicating what they own of the property to the town.. In many ways they would prefer to do that. SLIFER: Any other comments? SliPer? UNKN0~9N; BobUy, I don't undersi;and your reasoning for wanting , the Town to acquire the stock drive way, I . RUDER: IL we take, we just as woll own it, its a nothing its not sometha.ng we have to take care o~ because it 1s dust covered with trees an c3 there is another one, the one that continues above it. Lets take it out I don't know whether it has legal problems or whether or not we should have already owned it or whatever. And so, I just say we just as we11 solve those things right now and lets just lout iu public ownership. There is no reason to asic George ~Yebsi:er to pay the taxes on it for the rest o~ liis life, the life of the property, when it is just a strip up a mountain hillside Fvith mature Spruce nn it. SLII'~R: If I were George anti I owned that lot, Z think I would rather o~vn it myself` than have the public own it. I think you would have more insurance of peace and quiet. And T think that if he wants to buy it, I would rather have it go that way. I don't ~hinlc the Town ought to otiyn it. I think the `Town staould own lands that can be utila.zed and it can't be utilized. RUDER: I think that they should if they're paying money for them, I don't i:hiulc the Town should be out buying land that they can't use, or that ti~eir people can't use. SLIF~R: I don't think Vail Associates is going to give it ~o us. RUDER: Then I think that George shou7.d give it to us. ~~ i • TRANSCRIPT - TO~YN COUNCIL HEFTING 5-2-?8 ' Pg. 17 `Yebster Residence - requcsi; for GR~A and Sotbacic Variance SLIFER: Any other questions? SANDY MILLS: Rod, I arrived a little late, so Z am not quito certain hoty much you have talked ~tboui; relative to the discussions as Far as this additional land goes. But in Planning Commission the things that eve considered, and I think you have copies o3 the memo; tivore one, excess GRPA that would constitute a grant of special privilege to the (Vebsters in this particular zone. Another thought; that we had, and T disagree with Bob in this, Bill is saying that is a three bedroom house now, but we have to look to the future to some extent; and if the rooms are very large maybe the next person would come along and increase the sleeping capacity and ther~~ox•etl~e body count in the house, a.nd that was one of our concerns in terms oP down-zoning and terms of growth management in the valley, I thinly the concern of over-population and also the granting of a special privi].e~e in this particular zone ~v~.s whit eve based our tkiinlcing on. RUDER: So it is your thi.ulciug at this time, Sandy, that iF someone decides they would 7.ike to have 1000 sq. ft. in their living room because they entertain clot, they shouldn't be given thttt privilege. Because of the possibilii;y o~ taking the 1000 sq. ft.' and turning i~ into a two Uedroom, two bath apartment within a house. And that we should not allow our permanent res~.dents of Vail to enjoy that pleasure if that is what they would 131ce to do. I don't agree ~viti~ i:hat ~it all. S. MILLS: It is Uecause the requ~s~ Cor excess GRFA t4as too excessive. RUDER: ~Yhere do you draw the line, what's too excessive 945 sq. ft.? Is that the number you were looking at? Or axe qou looking at the other number? S. MILLS: No, eve were considering only the house witllottt i;he additional (can't hear) Uecause that you know . RUDliR: And the pool deck was that straightened at the time? jYas tl~e pool deck considered GRI'A? ti"7as ttie swimming pool deck con- sidered GRPA? RUOI'F: The Planning Comm3ssiou there was uo presentation to the Planning Commission. RUDER: You never gave the Planning Commission ~ prosentation? TRANSCRIPT TO~YN COUNCIL J~~~~TZNG 5-2--?8 Pg. 18 1Vebstex Residence - Request for GRF~ and ,Setback Variance RUOFr; No. jq~ ~t~ere there we didn't even (interruptions). for Planning Commission SLII'ER; Can you let me answer his questions, Bill. The Planning Commission did add in the pool dacic area to tiielr GRFA. calculation. S. MILLS: Yes, w~ didn't look at the plans, but Bzll. did g~.ve us a presentation and eve considered we took out the actual square surface footage o~ the wa~:er,/but the deck area of I think, 1304 sq, ft. was considered. And the 600 sq, ft. work room was considered. So, we looked ai: the total projoet which I think camp to 2950 sq, ft. in excess of the GRFA, RUOPF: Ancl that is the GRPA figure without the strip o~ land that the were discussing previously. RUDL+'R: 1Yhat is the 600 sq, ft, workroom? RUOT'I': That was noi: included, its tallied abouC in the report, I don't know why the report dwea].i; on it so long because it is not included it has always been excluded from GRFA. SLII'~ft: I thiult uis question is what is the purpose of it. RUDER: Ya, well that is wliy I was asking. RUOFk': George's wood woxking shop that is up at the ranch now in Lake Creek, and he would like to move down here and bury it under the hill where he can het at it tend do things in the winter which he can't do now RUDER: I was asking Rod, because a shop area ~o me is no different than storage and storage has never been GRFA. RUOFI~': Nor t~~ve gaxages and this is the same RUDER: Nor }lave garages used as shops . ftUOFI': We were discussing it~:with.Daana a month before she could remember or something wl~etlier it should or shouldn't and I said good Lord, you put i garage door on it and its a garage and there's of us no question. Tho rest/included, you and me and some others I lcnow have our tools in our garages. WEBS~~R: In respr~nse to S"andy's objections, Lisa and z are willing to covenant ti~at the house will never be broken down in any reasonable period of i;ime., rota any extra Uedrooms ox anything of the sort. .' TRt1NSCRI~T - TQ1NN COUNCIL METING 5T2-7~ Pg. 19 WeUster Residence - Request fox GRFA and Setback Varxarice, ~9ebster Continued: tVe have never rented end we never intend to ~~~9~~9H0@0~~99~8-~~~~5~9~~8~~9~9~~~~~~9fl@~~9999 ,and if it becomes an estate problem it Uecomes an estate problem. RUOFF: T would like to add one little thing on that. T think that all o~ you, we all in Vail are somewhat familiar with land values and what real estate goes for, there is only one possible motive for anyone ever doing these bad things that happen which is buy a house, cut it up and turn it into a crash pad; its because he wants to make money. I don't think any of us have ever seen it done for fun, kicks or ror a persons glary, it is always done for money. Tf the can accept that, and i~ we look at George's proposod house, the size and so forth, I don't know what its maxlcet va1u~ will be ' after its done, but I think each of Sou can run it through his own head and come with a pretty darn good guess. The point i,s that the market value of that house will he so high that the most that anyone who wanted to buy it and clop it up into a little illegal lodge could ever lope to realize on it is mayUe, if he was real lucky, his real estate tax. You cannot, it just doesn't work out. What happens aUout 100 years from now T don't know, but in the foreseeable future it is economically impossible. The existing house on the other hand is a better example, more bedrooms, more economical., the whole thing. S1'e dust think i.t could never happen. PALAiAT~~R: Y talked to Allen about the pool area and I have a real problem in t; lie way apparently we have been looking at the pool deck. I don't really consider them to be a hazard to GRPA. Bodies sleeping a long pool side as Far as that goes, ~~1~51g@~~9@8@9199@~9~~99~@~~@~3, ~9@999H~9~9~8fl~~9p89p~8~J991eA~9~~99fl the ~Yestwind garage is enclosed and heated and I have round peo~~le sleeping there many times. That might Ue something that you should look at so that it is clearer, Allen, tl~e ordinance does outline garages and that kind of thing perhaps pools should be more clearly defined. I had asked you that i~ he built tt~e pool outside, you know, in a separate uui7.ding, would you count it as GRI'A and there is some question as to whether you would or wou~ln't, I think that should b~ very clear because apparently more and more homes will be including them in some shape or form. So I have a problem wii;h counting the 1327 in the total GRFA oven though apparentl5i it has been done previously in some other homes TRANSCRTk~T - TQ{YN COUNCIL h~IE~TZNG ~-2-98 Pg. 20 }yebstex Res~.cience - ftoquest for G~t~'A and SetUacic Vaxiance Palmateer Continued: Is that correct? That is an interpretation and its not in the ordinance? SLIF~ft: No. X would agree with your I don't think it should be counted towaxd residential floor area, I agree with Paula. Any other comments? A. GERNST~NB~RG~R: Could I road the Planning Commission report? Just for tl~e record, according to the Ordinance 18.62,060, the Planning Commission s11a11 make the ~allowiiig findings; T'irst 9~9~H@9~~9H~9fl~9@~9~9A~g9&8~@ is i;hat the granting oY a variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations of other properties classified into the same district. On that the Planning Commission found that they thought that this ~vou].d result in a grant of special privilege because 1;he GRFA would exceed that which is allowed, You know whether the numbers.. they go anywhere from 18°fo up to 64%, T don't think we should get into that argument. The second Issue that the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, etc., trey found uo proUlem with that. The third ono is that the variance is warranted for one or more of the followi.~ig reasons: l.) That the si;rict or li~era~l interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would not deprive the applicant o~ privileges en,~oyed by the owners of other properties. The Planning Commission felt that the variance does not warrant it and would not deprive the applicant of privileges thftit other people in tho same district have. So theix vote on the G~.FA was unanimously opposed to it. On the Setback, they agreod, I believe the vote Svas 5 to 1 in favor of the Setback Variance, that that vas a legitimate thing to consider whether or not the GIi.~'A variance was granted. PALR4ATEER: Allen, iS this was a single-family residence as it now, that is correct, it is single-Family? What would be the allowable GRFA. woula that be the same - - exactly the same. RUOFF: Yes, the limits for all 'three classes o3 residence, single-family, two-~am9.ly and ~~rimary/secondary are essentially the same. PALTdAT~~R: Ok, looking at it in that light, the 943 extra sq. ft. if you consider 685 as being the second residence, and to me this is providing the very thing eve wanted to establish with primary/secondary which is a housing unit, and also I think it will prevent the kind of TRt~NSCRIPT - T0~9N CQUNCIL A{FETING 5~2-78 ` Pg. 21 {Yebster ~~sidonce - Request ~oz GRFt~ end SetUack Variance Palmateer Continued; thing rrom i~appening that we are ~ little bit afraid o.f, and thfLt is crash pad kind oP thing. G~RSTENBERG~R: I thinly the Planning Commission's position was that he could do the primary/secondary unit either ~vay and gust is the matter of how the cumbers woxk out and that they felt that based on the ordinance that there wasn't sufficient gxounds Yor the variance. SLTF~R: Bill Heimb~cl~ has a couple comments. Ii~IMBACH: First o~ all, I don't think the process was good here, I don't think i;l~e Town Council should be looking at diYferent critexia than the PLanniug Commission looked at. I i;hinli it is a bad thing to do regardless of who's involved here. jNe should all be looking at the same i;Ui.ng. Secondly, I think i;he real nut to crack hire is wi11 i;he granting o~ the variance constitui:e a grant of special privilege. That is really the nut that eve need to crack and that I think needs to be addressed. To do that I think we neod some perspective. Has there ror inst~.nce, has there ever been a 94b foot GRFt~ variance granted ? If so, how many? IP the want to do it Uy pereentabe, whatever the percentage, the don't h~.ve that information. At least I haven't heard that yet totzi~ht. RUOFP: I might be able to I don't have the records available. T lave discussed this with Diana who is more familiar with these i:hings than anyone else, and T have been around working with these tt7ings in the down myself Pox a long time, I don't think there ever has been because until this ratter large, it was a big cut- back in the limit of the size of a house ti~a,t was passed last November; until then it has never come up. Now, I think the more valid question, ever is, has anyone/built Uib• houses in the town before, and what; is the reason for the need for this drastic redttction in limits? 9999HSi81~ (can't understaiad) .I like your like youx point that-everybody ought to ire in the same track, and it I may editorialize :for a minute, I think the thing has come up and not everyone is, there are different understandings a~~parently for the purpose of this in di~fexent parts of the to«m. The Planning Comm~.ssion, the Council and the staff. We have had an awful time trying to find out what the intent really was. H~IMBACH {tiell, to continue you know, ~vl~~,t I was goizig to say. I gust think it would be again x•egardless o~ whose involved tonight, TRANSCRIPT - TOWN CQUNCIL M~~TING 5-2 78 Pg. 22 Webstex Residence - Request for GRFk1 and Setback Variance HeimUach Continued: a b~,d precedent for us to start considering cases on different criteria than what tt~e Planning Commission has looked at. And T for one, would like this to go back to the Planning Commission,be~gre we make a decision on it. The Planning Commission is basing its decision on a 3000 sq. ft. variance, a,nd now we are asked to base a decision on a 943 fit., sq. ft, variance. I think that if the same thing happened in Design Review Board on a sign for instance, you would want us to be back in Design Review hoard, if you had your other hat on. RUDFI': Ya, hey, T am with you all the way Bill, its a good analogy, You the Council sometimes need to spread the word to we your servant boaxds about what you really a.ntend when you pass some of these ordinances and how you want us to administer it, Cause occasionally in the rush of business, oh I don't know, I guess we are all human, we overlool~ some o~ these things. But it happens and it can cause quite a bit of consternation. SLII'ER: ire there any other cou~ments from the Council? UNKNOWN I kind oY agree with Bill IIeimbach, that the process hasn't really bean followed and we are considering different things than the Planning Commission has, and it might seem like over- formality, but I think it should bo sent back to the Planning Commission. SLIF'ER: I( would assume that there are two variances being xequested, one is the Setback Variance, and tie Planning Commission did recommend approval o~ that, so I would assume you could consider that, or you could send the entire mattex back and then consider both variances again at a lator point in time. You could do it either way. RUD~A; What is that going to do to your building schedule? tY~BSTER: It will terminate it for another year. RUD~ft: The only reason I asic is that I am not sure who 3.s a~ fault here. ~Yhether the applicant is at fault, or we're at fault because our staff or whoever didn't but the thing together right or that there was a la.t;tle Uit or I don' 1: know who's ,judgment it was as to whether or noi: to pull the deck count, or workshop count. Somebody made an arbit.ra,ry decision that said when it went to the Planning Commission pull decks count and work shop count, and now the are getting one that says that they don't count. What T am saying TRANSCRIPT - Tow~i Council A9eeting 5,2-~7~ Pg. 23 ~Yebster ~es3dence - Request fox Gi~~'A and Setbaci~ variance Ruder Continued: I don't know whether we re being fair to the applicant under the whole i~ it i,s going to take the lious~ and kick it back , SLI~'~R: I would assume that we could hear it in two weeks. jY~IIST~R: Well Rod, this is lined up, (can't hear) subs they are ready on schedule and I asswne that this will throw the scheriule into a cocked hat. Possibly, maybe not, but, I couldn't be T had to be iii New York for another meeting for the Planning Commission but, the Planning Conunission didn't give us much courtesy or consideration or anything else. Simply threw it to the Council. , Now we are trying to present everything possiUle, every piece of information eve can. We've gone into great d~tai.l. I agree with Bill, it is really noi; Council's Uusinese, ii: should have been clone before this. We're trying, we're on a schedule and there we go, I cion' t know. SLIF~R: Pam. PAhi GARTON: I wanted to respdnci to a couple of things, for one thing it ~ti~ould be quite a del a5* if you sent it back to us, we do not have a quorum in town next week fox Planning Commission, it has b~~n announced for three weeks that Planning Commiss~.on would not meet again until the 23rd of Afay. So it would be your Yirst June meeting before you could hear it again if you sent it back to us. As far as the information, Bob, to respond to your commoni:s at our meeting. I don't think it was, I don't thick the decisions were very arbitrary, Diana treated the pool situation as sloe has every other pool, she whole discussed this with us. Indoor pools mayUe the/question of how it has been treated has been valid, but she was trying to be consistent. Indoor pools have been treated exactly the same way the deck area has Ue~n counted as part of GRPA if it is enclosed within the residential structure. The pool surface has not. I~ the pool is its a separate building ,you can read that section in the primary/secondary zone, then it is considered a separate recreational amenity and its not counted as in Fitz's pool, The shop, that, whereas garages and storages is spelled out, there is no specific thing as to a, shop, that was a mati;er of interpretation and it was agreed u~~on that it should nab Ue counted, that it was in the same category as garage or storage. So T reel i;hat those were consistent TRANSCR~~'T - To~~n Cgimcil J~eeting 5~2-78 Pg. 24 Webster Residence - Request fox GR~'A and Sotback Variance Gartan Continued: f~89~@Q9~99~99fl8,interprei:ai;ions and without either of those items Ueing specii'ically spelled out in the ordinance, And as far as us making a decision at the time, we can't make a conditional sort of vote, at that time the status of this other strip of land was still quite its J.imbo, and if eve were going to take a vote, the had to fake a vote on how it oxisted at i;hat point in time a week ago. And, we couldn't we can't make these conditional votes and there seemed to be, at that point, a great quostion of the ownership and the outcome on th~.s extra strip oi' land, We had to talcs our vote on ~ha~; basis or put: it off Yor four weeks. RtiD~R: I have a gaestion as to why you can't make it conditional upon something k~,nd of vote, we do it a17. the ~:ime and we do it to force some things that have to happen. And we make condition upon kinds of votes all the time and they are part of a public xeeord and I don't understand why the Planning Commission can't make a recommendation o~ for or agaznst, conditional upon such and such. Tts probably never comp tip bofore . PAM GAftTON: Ne've done some things that the :final things have been conditional on the applicant agreeing to some conditions upon something, or stipulatio[zs, franl~ly, Diana i'elt and her comment to us wasn't was, that at that point in time, and I am sorry I 9flQ0~ here earlier, to hear what the status is on th9.s land, I had to be elsewhere, but, there seemed 'to be a great question as to whether V.A. really owned this 7.and or whether it tvevt Uack to a forest Service Deed, or whatever, sloe didn't feel there was going to be a very rapid resolution of it, and so she was very hesitant to have us do something conditional on that piece of land where she felt it would be a long time before it was resolved. And she ~e1L i.t was better for us to go ahead and vote on a situation that was Firm. SLIF~R: Any other comments be~are we call .. GARTON: ftod, I'm sorry, one other thing too, as far as . T'm sorry that George wasn't there and that lie reels he didn't get sufficient courtesy or consideration from the Planning Commission. TRANSCRIPT - 2'~~YN COUNCIL NtE~TING 5-2-78fig, 25 jyebster Residence - Request fax GR~',~ a.nd setback Var~.ance Garton Continued: We were waiting to be shown a hardship which is our basis, our technical basis for gxanting a variance, and much as I migi~t personally bel.iove a person should be able to bttild the size house that 'they desire, w~ have had to treat people by the same xules, and within the last nine months I thini~ we have turnod clown oh probably, three or lour GRPA vari~.nces of just a couple hundxed sq, ft „ or less because eve did not have a techn:tcal basis far granting that, acid i.~ would apparently be a grant o~ special pzivilege. That is wl~y the did noi: go into great length over floor plans. RUOI'F: Pam look very early on in the meeting last week, and Gezry ~9hii;e made the Pdotion, romember? It was, And he stated, T don't have the record, but I remember very clearly, that in view of the fact, that George did not own Lhe land, that on that b~.sis his reason foradn he made it clear that i:l~at was the personal point o~/making the l~oti.on, that it si~ould not be considered because the figures were too far out oi' line, and I can't quote llim any farther, I talked on for quite awhile without exactly being invited, until I realized that others were ol~ come on because the are in a hurz~y to get out. You did not want to hear the rest oi' my presentation. I was not invited you were the only one ~vho even asked to look at.tha~ drativing, The others wire come on lets sweep it on up, some of the remarks that were made at tl~e meeting that are on the record, point; in this direction, the fact that the split, you're right, the points i;hat I have made to Council tonight which we feel are impor- tant i;o show under the conditions oP the zoning ordinance, why this is a unique situation, I did not go into, I soused strong lacy of interest in hearing it. You wanted to get on with the rest of your agenda and sweep this one up to Council, I'm sorry thats And, T have had an apology personally from three members on the ttzing afterwards fox doing it, jYho've agreed that i~ cve need them, they would be willing to say so publicly. There 9s a definite s~ili~ in Planning Commission on ~vha~ we've heard tonight and what I have heard from other membexs on it and what I l~av~ witnessed inysel~, GARTON: jvell, I am soxry it came across that way at the meeting, its certa~.nly wasn't the intent, And I think w~ were, T at least as I say, although personally I understand George's position, we lave as you know, we have had a number o~ simila.r, ,' TR~NSCR~PT TQtVN CQUNCZL b~PETING 5~2~78 'Pg. 26 {yobstex Residence - Request ~qx Gl~~~ and Se~bacl~ V~.xiance~ Garton Continued: not similar, but a number of xequests for GHI+A variance in the last six to Z2 months, and it becomes difficult to find the fine line under differentiations, RUOPF: I know, and thats probably why some of the discussion tonight has treerecl into this very thing, about whether or not some of the Boards, your Planning Commi.ssiott, my DRD and othexs, always get some of the direction that would help us very much in interpreting Council's intent on these things. SLIFEft: I think eve have had enough discussion, at the xisk of cutting it off, but, I 'think that we should call the issue and ~.n thinking about it, I think that we should address, lets separate them, and lets the Setbaelc and then lets address the GRFA. I i:hinl~ that could eve have a Moi;ion in regard to the request for tho Sethack Variance as requested by the ~Uebsters? WILTO `~: I move that we grant tl~e Setback Varianco as requested by the {Yebsl:ers, . H~I2dBACH: Second. Bill SLIF~R: Ok, h9otion by/tVilto, seconded by Bill Heimbaeh. No further discuss9.on. All in favor vote by saying aye. Ok, tho noxt request for variance is for the Gfti'A, the square ~ooi:age increase is either 943 sq. tt., according to the calculations in the presentation, or somewhat higher in accordance ~vi1:h the Planning Commission memoranciwn, depending o~i what door area we count and I think everybody understands that. RTIAER: I move that we approve tho GRFA variance for the Webster residence as oui;lined by Dtr. Ruoff. SLIFER: ~Ve have a Riotion that it be approved, do we have a second? 19ILT0: I second that based ou the reasoning that the pool deck be excluded from the GRI~'A and would aslc that maybe in your idoi:ion Bob, you might include something in the order of a Deed restriction on the usage of the house for Future . RUDER: Ho~v could eve cio that Larry? I .would also like to acid to the Afotion that the necessary work be done to get the well, I don't know, about the Centex stock driveway, but I think that it should be discussed. I'm not sure of the best tvay, whether I don't think we should be spending 'town monies for it, but T think . ,1 ' yy 1 Tk~ANSCR~~T-TOWN COiINCzL h(~ETING 5,2,78 Pg. 27 Webstex ~~sidence ~ Rec~uesi; ,~Qr GR,F,~ and Setback Vaxance SLIVER: As x undexstanci youz• Motion, you would not . RUDER: Afy Motion vas just far the GRFA, but . SLII'ER: 1Yhether or not theq acquire i;he land next to them or not, you are sayaing Choy don't need to acquire it, is that correct? RUDER: I am saying In my one mind I am really saying that I don't think they need to because Y really think that it is like forcing somebody to gobble up a little piece o!' land around their house so that they can build something. I:~ it makes the thing more palatable, then I think we should have it conditional upon their purchasing the property next door.. szddress SLIFER: jVe11, I think you should A@6@@@ it one way or another in the Motion so its clear, X think you should say, you should say it should be added or it should not be adclecl, and then the condition that Bill mentioned. RUDER: Ok, then because wo are baszng the GRFA on the 945 sq, ft., that we SLIF~R: Could you ,just restate the 14otion? RUDER: Yes, I move that: we approve the GRI'A vaxiance for the l9ebster residence contingent upon the transfer o~ clo~,r title to the stock driveway adjoining i;he property and that a (what would you call this thing?) Deed restriction be put an the house so that any structure erected under the aui;hority granted by this vax9.ance shall be used only as a single-family residence w:tth care- taker facilities, unless or until such limitations as modified or ` removed by subsequent action oP tlae Town Council under procedures provided for granting a variance under the town ordinance then in force and effect. SLIDER: Do you still second that t~•totion ~4r. ~Uilto. WILTO: Yes, I still. second it. SLIF~R; Ok, we have a lviotion and a second, do you understand the Motion and the second. Any ~urtller discussion? {UILTO: Just, that if wedid delay i.t after hearing what Pam dust said, it would create an undue h~,z•dship. SLIF~ft: I do think ii;s corroct to address the issues this evening since it tivould delay it a month. I:C it were two weeks I would say the should kick it back to Planning Commission. TItANSCR,ZPT - TQWN CpUNCIL b'~~~'PING 52,78 ~ Pg, 2$ ~Yebster Residence - ~tec~uest ;C~~ G~~k~ and Sotbcl,ck Vaz~~,anco Slier Continued: Bui; Z tl~inlc a month is an undue hardship. 01~, iP there is no rurther discussion, all in favor o~ the Motion vote by saying aye. So the vote is 4 to 1, PALMATE~R: May T make a comment, I can see the confusion here and I know that the Planning; Commission mush be perplexed because oY all these things you have seen Pam, and X Have sat out there an~3 watched them be turned down. This i.s a new ordinance, this is the first time that tl~e change in the ordinance has been addressed, so therefore We axe all sort of unclear as to how we may look at it, and S think pints made by Bob are va13d. And tine second thing is that T personally. don't h~ive a problem with the kind o~ GRFA on a single-family duplex, or, primary/secondary, and we may look at them a different way and I think it is unfair not to tally to ~~6 the Planning Commission about that. SLII'ER : Yes? UNKNOWN: I certainly very much approve of the action you have taken. Bui: it seems to me that it points up that maybe the ordinance ought to be rc;vietived. I tv~.s very ini;exested in what Bob Ruder had to say concerning the philosophy in back of the ord~.nance and so long as Bob is here to explain that, thats dine, and T think it enables Council. to make these individual decisions, but, if Bob someday isn't on the Council to give that philosophy, I think the ordinance itselr is too restrictive with respect to that 10~ in the last whatever• square foot, and I would like to suggest that the Council try to modify that oridnance to still accomplish the philosophy that Bob expressed without restricting so much the size of primary/secondary houses.on good size lots, because in fact I think it is too restrictive. So long as it doesn't come into a ten bedroom house thats suddenly divided u~~ with separate entrances. SLIP'~R: Good. L. ItIA~R: Mx. Mayor, T think that T would just ,jump into the conversation a,nd state that T thinly the ordinance is clear in what can be done and what can't be clone and the purposes of variances, adn I think what eve may need to do, maybe at tl~e next study session, would be to discuss it, and i~ tl~e Council wishes to proceed with these kinds o~ actions, that what they'll have to do is provide a Section in the zoning ordinance called "exceptions", because this kind of .. ''` r TIiANSCftXPT - TU~yN COUNCIL J~~~~`~NC~ 5~2~?8 Pg, 29 ~Vebs~~x ~esidenc~ - Requ,est Apr ~k2~'~ and Sotbacl~ V~,x~ance Rider Continued. ~8~5~6~8~$8 actzon vas really not a variance, its an exception, anti if that is what the Council wants to do thats great, we c<in do it, but I thinlz that it needs to be, maybe some of the misunderstandings between Planning Commission and Council; could be wrapped up with a general discussion in a work session. I would think that might be appropriate as soon as possible. SLIr~R: Any further discussion? AND THIS SEGMENT, ,~ ~ ~ i ~A ~ PUBLIC NOTxCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Bill Ruoff, represent~.ng George R. Webster, has applied for a variance from the provisions o~ Secta.on 18.13.080, Density Control, ,and Section 18.13.060 Setbacks, o~ the Munica.pal Code for the Town of Vail in order to construct a new primary/secondary residence to be located on Lot 35, Block 7, Vail. Village First F~.ling. Application has been made 3n accord w3.th Chapter Z8.G2 of the Municipal Code. A Public Hearing wa.11 be held in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the AZunicipal Code on April 25, 1878, at 3:00 P.M, before the Town o~ Vail Planning Commission. Said he~:ring will be held in Vail Municipal Building. TOWN VAIL DEPA MENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D ana S. Toughill Zoning Administrator Published in the Vail Trail March 3I, 1978. VV ls~ ~`iling, Block 7, Lot 1, - Hobart 325 W. O11io Street Chicago, Ill. 60610 " " " B].ocic 7, Lot 2, John D. Murchison Box 2050 Dallas, Tx. 75221 " " " B1ock 7, Lot 3--~ Fiances H. Billups 12522 Maltsberger San Antonio, Texas ~1V lst Piling, Block 7, Lot 9 Larson, Larson, Larson 350 Alma Real Drive Pacific Palisadas, Ca. 9Q272 78216 • r '~. .~ TO FROM bAT~ REF n tY ~ ~ ~~ MEMORI~NDUM PL1INN~NG & ENVIRONM~NT~L COP~~IISSZON DEPARTML;NT OF COty1t4UNITY DLVELOPM~NT 21 April 197s George R. Webstex 1lpplicata.on for GRFA Var.i,ance and Setback Variance - Lot 35, Block 7, Vail ViJ.laye lst Filing r Bill Ruo~t, representing the applicant, has app~.ied for a GR~'A Variance and Sei:back Var. fiance i.o allow a nesv P,~ima~v/Secondaxv zesidence of approximately 8,1.42 scr. ft. `['hie lot area is 2.3,478 sq, tt. 1~us a parcel con °a~.n~.rYg ~,~,~60 ~t~, ft. proposed for purchase from Vail Associates; or a ~ota1 at 30,438 scr, ft. of si~.e area. Allowable GRFA for Lod 35 is 4,59 sc~. ~'~. '~~1us G74 sa. f~. of GI2FA. for the V.A. parcel, or a total of 2 l owa 1e GRFA. Since the 6,960 sq. ft. parcel. as spot een purchased because of legal problems, the application will be considered using .manly the square fooi~age of Lot 35.~-', 4 The applicant has also asked for a interpretation on GFtFA. It .is his feeling i~l~ai: the underground warkslio , of approximately 600 sc~. ft. , shoulel nod. ue counted; and we are .inclined ~.a agxee..~__ But the Ordinance is not clear on this. For purposes of considering the CRP'~1 Variance, it wall be^excluded, (the underground worl:shap of GQp Jq. ft.)leavinq a total of 7,542 sq. fit. of GRFA. Thus, the requested Variance is for 2,944 sq~. ft of additional floor area in excess o~ what ~_s allowed. The primary house is G,857 sa. ~~., and the secondary unit is 685 sa. f~. The second z eques-~ is for a ~~eax, Setk~ack Variance; requited Setback is 25' and proposed Setback is The Department of COPlIilUlll~.:y Development has revi.ew~d fi.he cxiter~.a aid ~inclings provi.dec~ fog in Secl.ion 18.62.060 of the AZunicipal Code and our coi~cl.usioi~s are as fcsllows: CC~NSTDEF.ATTON OP I'~'~CTOFt5 (5ecti~n 18.62.064) Y. `.['Ize z-elationship o~ ttae rec~ues~ed variance to other existing oz poi:ez~ti.al uses. and structures in the vicinity. A. GRi~A~ Variance. 'I'o my knowledge, there are nn o-~he~e~sid~nces a~ this ~.i.ze in the ar.~a. Tl~e requested Vaziance is i~o a lore a residence tll~it is ~~~F~rc~:~iii~ately 3,000 set. ~'t. l~xcte,,~~han those: iii the neic~hborhnad. Wage 2. Memora~nclum - Geo. Webster B. Setback Variance. The vrould have lii~Lle acive structures in i:he zrea across I'or.est Road.and property. Ap~licat~a.on ~ X1/2]./78 plans for the proposed structure rsc i.mp~ct on existing or proposed as the nearest s~ructur_e is set back ~r_-om the front o~ the ` 2. The degree to whictZ relie:~ from the strict, or literal interpretation and enfor.ccment of a specified reclulatian is necessary i~o achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in i~he vicinity or i~o att<-~i.n the objectives of ~ha.s Ordinance without grant of speci.a.l privilege. A. GRFA Va~i.ance. Due ~.o the exi~en-~ that th~.5 variance wi1.1 exceed the GRI'A requirement, we do feel. that this would be a g„iani: o~ special privilec~. The additional 2, 944 • sq. tt. , would result in the GFZr'A exceeding what is allowed b ;T ' ar~pro;~ ~ mat~:1 y . 64 0 . No other GRFA variances have been granted i.ra the area. Dick Elias was denied a GRFA Variance for the addi~ian off' 300 sq. ft., and two variances for less than )_00 sq, ft. have also been denied. B. Setback Variance. One of the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance is to protect the environment, discourage excessive cut:.s or ti11s and preserve existing-large trees, ~ • The proposed location of the •residence is in l~~eping with this objective. The applicant sates i:hat the topography and the existing trees d~,ctate the area available for •building on ~.he site and i;k~e s~rucLure has been designed and sighted to minimize i:he site da.sturbance. The , structure is designed ~.o step up the Bill and this adds ~..~ ~o the height of the structure which increases the required :setback . 3. The effect o~ the requested variance on l.ictht and aim disi~ribu~i.on off' ~opua.at9.on, tr^ ansUartation and attic Lacili~ies, public facilities anc3 utilities.----- A. Tile proposed use of the house would poi. b~ detrimental. to i:he above factors; however, oth re rest ences of this size that mic~lzi~ be rei~i~ed short-term could have a disasterous intact on popular:ion in t11e Valley. B. Se~b.~~c}: ~Tarianc~. W~ do not ~oxes~e aim adverse e~fect~s upon 'fi.hese factors, FINDINGS A. GRL~A Variance 1.. That the qa: an~~..nct oL- the v~►ri ~n~e will constitute a arai~i~ of_ s~rci~l urivil.c~cle i.t~cotzsistent with the limitat:i.ons oil ot~h~i pro~a~rties classified in the same Districi~, Pae~~ 3. `" ~ t~iernor~ndum - ~: Websi.er RpplicaL-ion '~ 4/21/7f3 .~ See Ii~era 2. under Consi.derat:ion of I'aciors. Thexe have been no oi~h~r GRI'n variances ctranted in this area. ~... __ ~_ 2. That the granting o~ the variance could b~ detri.- menL•al to the public hea,l~.h, safely, or welfare 'ox` materially injurious ~o ~raperties or improve- ments in ~h~ vicinity. See Item 1 under. Cgns~.dera~.ion of Fac~.ors . Granting of this Variance could set a negative precedent all.owin excessively large houses to be buil.~ or a1l.owinc additions on houses which a.lreadv exceed or are very close to the GRF1~ re_ ~TUi:rement. bf the Zoning Ordin.anc~. 3. That the variance is war~nted far the following reasons; The strici~ or literal in~er~retat~.on and er~for_cement of the specified r_egul~.tion would not deprive the a~~plicani~ or privileges eT~joyed by the owners of other pzoper~.ies in the same District:. Structures in the res~.aen~ial neighbozhaod are generally in compliance with the GRr'A requirement o~ the Zoning Ordinance. The house as proposed is over this ,r~auix~men~. by appro~:im~tely 64 ~. C^le therefore feel that a Variance ~v The Department of Community ~Developineni: stranq~v xecammend~slenial o~ the Gros Resa_den~:ial F~.00r Area Variance saug`T{`"~or the reasons staled above, We also feel there has been no hardsY~ip shown. 9_n the request. B. Setback Variance 1.. The Deparl-ment of Conununity Devel.opntent finds .hat the rantin of the variance will. not constitute a grant of special. privil~ae inconsis en- wit the linli~al-.ions on other properties cl,ass~.fied in the same District. 2~ Thai. the grar~tinct of the variance wi.].1 not be detrimental_ to th~ public hea].th~,~ safety, or welf.a~e, or mai:erzally in~urioua too proper~.ies or improvements i,a7 the vicinii~y. That the variance is wazrant,ed for the following reasons: The strict or literal interpzetation and enforcement o~ the speci~i~d r~qulation would result in ~r~~cti.cal diffirult,y of unnGCessary phys~.c~l harclshi~~ ii~cansistent with • the object~i~~es vL phis i~i~.lc~. there are excepi~ional or extxaor.dinary circutnsl-.anc~s oz __ _._ _ Memorandum ~ Gco. Wcbst~r. Application 9/~2~/78• conditions a~plicabl~ to the sii:e o£ the variance that do noi: apply generally to other properties in the same zone. We feel that it is important ~a presexve -the ex s~incr 1.arge trees ans~m~.nima.ze curs r~auir~d on steep sites and encourage fi.he best siting possible, The Df'TJ1~"~nPnt o~ Communi,~,y ev~lo~ment recommends approval of i:he requested Setback Variance. ,,: ~i ~ ' + `-' PR O O F OF PU B L I C A T I O N ST A T E OF CO L C 3 f t A D 0 ss . CO U N T Y OF EA G L E ) t, ~` ~ ' ~ -~ ~ - do so l e m n l y sw e a r th a t . I am th e ~ ~F C ~ : -~ of TH E VA I L TR A I L ; th a t th e sa m e is a we e k l y ne w s p a p e r ~t e d , in wh o l e or in pa r t an d pu b l i s h e d in th e Co u n t y of Ea g l e , St a t e of re d o , an d ha s a ge n e r a l ci r c u l a t i o n th e r e i n ; th a t sa i d ne w s p a p e r ha s be e n pu b l i s h e d co n t i n u o u s l y an d un i n t e r r u p t e d l y in sa i d Co u n t y of Ea g l e fo r a pe r i o d of mo r e th a n tu f t y -t w o co n s e c u t i v e we e k s ne x t pz i o r to th e fi r s t pu b l i c a t i o n of th e an n e x e d . le g a l no t i c e or ad v e r t i s e m e n t ; th a t sa i d ne w s p a p e r ha s be e n ad m i t t e d to th e Un i t e d St a t e s ma i l s as se c o n d -c l a s s ma t t e z un d e r th e pr o v i s i o n s of th e Ac t of Ma t c h 3, 18 7 9 , or an y am e n d m e n t s th e r e o f , an d th a t sa i d ne w s p a p e r is a we e k l y ne w a ~ p a p e r du l y qu a l i f i e d fo r pu b l i s h i n g le g a l no t i c E S an d ad v e r t i s e m e n t s wi t h i n th e me a n i n g of th e t~ v r s of th e St a t e of Co l o r a d o . Th a t th e an n e x e d le g a l no t i c e or ad v e r t i s e m e n t wa s pu b l i s h e d in th e re g u l a r an d en t i r e is s u e of ev e r y nu m b e r of sa i d we e k l y ne w s p a p e r fa r th e pe r i o d of i co n s e c u t i v e in s e r t i o n s ; an d th a t th e fi r s t pu b i c a t S o n of sa i d no t i c e wa s in th e is s u e of sa i d ne w s p a p e r da t e d Mm e . ' -~ ~~ A_ D . 28 ~~ an d th a t th e la s t pu b l i c a t i o n pf sa i d no t i c e wa s in th e is s u e of sa i d ne w s p a p e r da t e d (' ~ =l t "3 l A. D . 1 9 ~ 1n wi t n e s s wh e r e o f I ha v e he r e u n t o se t my ha n d th i s 1 da y of ~~ ' ~ ' ~ A. D . 1 9 ~ / 1 Su b s c r i b e d an d sw o r n to be f o r e rr ~ e , a no t a r y pa b l i c in d fo r th e ~ o u n L y of Ea g l e , (~ ~ ~ f ~D St a t e of Co l o r a d o , th i s ~_ da y of ~~ P/ / / c -, A. D , 19 ~~ t . t ~ a My Ca m m i s a i o ~ ex p & e s Ma 7 r 26 . ~ xo s : r r P bu e My Co m m i s s i o n ex p i r e s `: s `, ~t , 1 ~ ~ I C NO t I C @ °N O T I C E IS HS R E 6 Y GI V E N th a t Bi l t Ru a } t ; rt p r e x ~ t l t f i + 9 ~~ R_ Y~ / e t s s t c r , ha s ~.. ~ aD G ~ i e d (o r a va r i a n c e fr o m Th e pr o v i s i o n s of - ~~ se c t i o n le - .1 ~ ; D 8 6 . De n s i t y Ca n i r o l , -; A n d _. -Sr c t l o n 1&. 7 3 . 0 6 0 - S e t D a t k s ` M fi l e Mi , n l c f p a i ' . c~ a e rQ r me ro w t t cf va , r , c n o~ a e ` ro cc n s i ~ u c t a ne w pr ~ m a r ~ • s e c a n d a r y re s i d e r n c s to 4e " l o c n ~ e d a~ wi . 3 5 , 61 4 c k T. : 'J e l l YA l a ~ + e ~) r n _~ i l F n p ~ A p ~ l l c a t l a r "' h e s - ~L , r e n ma d e In ec c c r t l wf M Ch a p t e r te _ 6 2 ' o f " m~ N~ u n t c t p a l . c . « ~ e . s A '. Pu b l i c M~ E n ~ i n 9 1M p t be ha l e In ~ ' , ac ~ D 1 ' d a ( ~ G e Wl f h Se c t i o t e 78 3 5 : 0 6 Q of tR e i Mu n i c i p i l .~ o d e ~ A p N t 2 i . l 9 ' ~ . a t 3 : D Q 0 . m : ti e r o r . '. t t t ! rr n m of ` vr t t ~ P~ ~ + n t n D : [~ m m l a s l c r y - Ss l d t~ e a r i n y wi l t be hc t t l In # t ~ Va A MU ~ , I c i P a t 6u i l d i n g , ° -~ . `T O W N OF yg i t . -~ n -, ~ ;~ . ~ pE P A R 7 M E I ~ T OF ' ~ ~, CO M A A U N I 7 1 ' D E V E L Q P M E N T ~ _ DF a n a 5 . ?a ~ h f i i ' ,w m ' . Ta a i n p Ad m i n t s t r a t p r r Pa W f R ~ t i iA . 7 n e Va f t Tr e l l on Ma r c h 31 , ?7 1 . i,- zoning 'Check Webster Residence ~Lor 35, Block 7, 1st Filing a Wi Iliam J . Ruoff, AIA" by Ken Wentworth Notes: 1. Includes 69E~0 sq. ft, parcel~~#a~i~k est to b~ purchased from V.A. 2, Building height colculated`~ t ~#4 feet„ all averaged from highest ridge. 3. Lot size: 30,43~i sq, ft,-~~,- Zone: Two family, Primary~Seconclary (RP~S) Residential District. 13.020, Permitted Use: Twa family residential dwellings. 13.30 Conditional Use: N/A 13,04U' ~~~cessory Use: Swimming pools, garages, patios etc, 13.050 Lot Area and Site Rec{ui c•ed: Actua i3 , 060 SetE~acks: Required; Actua I: Dimensions: 15,000 sq. ft, min. 30,4? ~ Front 2 0' 17' 30' frontage enclose 8Q' square 350'easily Rear Side 13.074 Distance Between Buildings Required; 35' Acfival: 1b0', adjacent lot, 55` across Forest Road ' 13.08p Density Control; Maximum GRFA Allowed: 5,27 sq . ft . Actual GRFA: Living: Pool Area: (Minus µpater) Under ound workshoF~s ~p~,jnla~ ~j~~,,I '~ Need variance on GRFA ~i~,~t~~~ ~ ~' ~ ~~~ (~t~~ ,~~. ~;~ j , ~ One unit sholl not exceed 1/3 of of lowed GRFA AI(owed: 176 sq. ft. Guest Apt .: 685 sq , f t , 6 215 sq , f't . 1, 327 sq . ~t . ,:: >,.ci.c.,~ ~*~ 13.090 Site C~verc~ge; Maximum Allowed: G080 sq, ft.. Actua I : 39~ 1 sc~ . ft . * Does not include portions of ~arac~e and workshop that ire underground with (andscope above . 13.100 ~Useoble Open SF~ace:,, l~/iinimum f~equired:700 ~c;,{t. , exclusive of front setback Actual:2~,~t40 sq, ft. l:ondscaping and Site (Development: Minimum Required:1$,23$sq. ft, Actual:25,aE~0 sq. ft. Parking: Required:4 spaces Actual:7 s~ces { 2 enclosed, 5 in driveway 'maintaining drive. thru.) •.• ' l" w ~ _ K w t ~ nPp~icnrioi~ ron vnrcinNCE And/Or CONhI710NA1 USE PERAtiT Ordinunco tlo. 4 (Sarlos of 1973) Applicai~lon Daie 1vlarch 27, 1978 Publication Oa to Jf s /mil??siy Hearing Date ~~~/~1 'fin HQarin Fee /G~j(~7~ ~~~ _.~'.sEt. )i F~~e~ Uecfsion dato for 7o~rn Council ~/ ~ I (wo) George Webster of 15 W, Forest Rd. (Applicant) (Addross) Colorado Vail • ~ Phono 476445 (State) (C(ty) do heroby request permission to appear bafore thQ Yall Planning Commission to roquast the foilo~•iing: (x ? Variance from Articlo 18 , Section ~~'•:1~-.060'.&•d$;~.080 Zon(nc~ Change from to t ) Park(ng Variance • ( ) Condii-lonai Uso Permit to allow ~~ Primary! $e~on~ary Res.+Zone. For tho following descrtbad property: Lot/tract ~5 , Block 7 FI I inch IJumber Vail Village Fir~f' Clearly state purpose and intent or this application Refer to Attached Evhibt "A" Ffhat do you feel is the basis for hardship In this caseY Refer to Attached Evhiht "A" ~i~ture oi~ Applicant EXHIBIT "!~"' Application for Variance -George R. Webster March 27, 1978 STATEMENT OF NATURE OF REQUESTED VARIANCES T,O,V. Zoning Ordinance, Sect. 19,200, su paragraph 3) 1. SETBACK VARIANCE (Section 18.13.060) (a) Variance is requested from statuatory setback requirement on south property line (Forest Rd,} as indicated on accompanying site plan. (b) Reason for request is to avoid destruction of approximately 15 to 20 spruce and pine trees ranging in height from 25 to 60 feet. 2, DENSITY CONTROL VARIANCE (Section 18. 13,0$Q) (a) Variance is requested from statuatory gross residential floor area (GRFA} limitation. (b) Reason for request is that strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properhies in his immediate neighborhood and in the same district. ,•