Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPEC17-0011_PEC letter_1493074320.pdf Town of Vail Planning and environmental Commission c/o Town of Vail Community Development Department 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 April 25, 2017 Members of the PEC: The Bighorn Townhomes were completed in the late 1960’s. The development site was comprised of Parcels A, B, C and D along with a fifth parcel designated as the “parking easement”. The existing homes sit on parcels A and B. In 1975, the first avalanche study of the area placed much of the site in either the blue or red hazard zones, rendering the remaining parcels unbuildable. In 1990, a report by Art Mears, pulled the hazard boundaries back somewhat, but by then, Parcels C and D had been conveyed to the TOV and designated as Open Space. A 2011 study by Mr. Mears, based on updated observations and calculations pushed the Hazard zones well back up the hill and away from this property. The zoning classification for Parcels A and B (now called Tracts A and B) is LDMF. Under this zoning, allowable GRFA is calculated at 44% of the “buildable area” of the site. By removing the hazard zones from the property, the buildable area on Tracts A and B increased to the full area of each lot; from 24,558 sf to 33,510 sf. Even though Tract B was the primary beneficiary of the change in the hazard report by Mr Mears, the HOA has agreed that the windfall GRFA will be divided among all 8 property owners based on the relative size of their deeded lots. Lot B-4 is 4,656 sf or 13.89% of the total combined area for tracts A and B (24.7% of Tract B). This results in an increase in the allowable GRFA for lot B-4 of 547.1 sf over the pre 2011 allowable. At some point lot B-4 also took advantage of the “250” rule. Based on past procedure at the TOV, the approval for the additional 250 sf evaporates when additional allowable GRFA is found that exceeds 250 sf. However, in order not to penalize the Owner of Lot 4 relative to the windfall GRFA, a new “250” will need to be approved. Lot 4 in Tract B is a triangular shaped lot. The north edge is encumbered with a 10’-6” access easement that allows the other three owners in the 4-plex access to their units. The west side is the zero lot line party wall with unit #3. The other remaining property line is encumbered with a 3’ pedestrian easement. The 20’ property setback required in the LDMF zone district also runs along this property line which borders what is now the TOV owned open space. PEC Variance request letter- April 25, 2017 page 2 Therefore, the nature of lot B-4 is such that an addition to the 2 story existing unit can only go on the east side or the south side. Unfortunately, the property setback line is very close to the existing SE corner of the building so any addition in either direction would unavoidably encroach into the setback. The HOA has previously denied the applicant permission to expand eastward due to the visual impacts it would have on the other units on the property. This leaves southward expansion as the only option. We are seeking a variance from the PEC to allow construction a distance of 6’-0” into the rear setback. In accordance with section 12-17-1 of the Vail Town Code, there are many practical difficulties and physical hardships on this lot that warrant relief from strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the Town Code: 1. The fact that the buildings were sited and built prior to TOV zoning and therefore prior to the imposition of setbacks. 2. The triangular shape of the lot and the loss of buildable area due to the outsized impact of the 20’ property setback. (The setback reduces buildable lot area by 47.5%.) 3. The access easement to the north removes an additional 15% of the lot’s buildable area leaving an even smaller triangular buildable area. Net buildable area on this lot is only 36.8% of the lot. 4. The denial by the HOA of building expansion to the east (a variance would be necessary to build there too). 5. The property rear setback running across the lot backs up to open space instead of neighboring residential units. And finally, we are also seeking a variance for relief from section 14-10-4, B. For the same reasons stated above, the lot does not allow significant accessible space adjacent to the building to construct an exterior deck that is within 5’ of grade. To minimize the degree of relief needed, we are asking only that the existing spa tub and adjacent stairs down to grade be allowed to extend deeper than 10’ into the rear setback. Before acting on a variance application, the PEC shall consider the following factors with respect to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Applicant response: The entire SE property line of Bighorn Townhome Tract B borders Town of Vail owned open space which extends southward onto the mountain. Other than the unit on Lot 3, which is already shifted well to the north relative to the existing unit on Lot 4, and is therefore not affected by the proposed addition, there are no other neighbors/uses within the immediate vicinity. As for the dedicated open space, there are no other potential uses for this land. PEC Variance request letter- April 25, 2017 page 3 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Applicant response: The buildings predate the imposition of the zoning and the setbacks that are now imposed on the property. The 20’ setback that now runs along the SE property line of the development has a significantly greater impact on Lot 4 than the other lots. Lots 1, 2 and 3 all have adequate room to expand without encroaching into a setback. Lot 4 is a triangular lot, constrained to the north and west by property lines and easements. Any expansion on Lot 4 will quickly encroach into the rear setback. There is unused GRFA available to all lots in the Tract. All Owners in Tract B, except Lot 4, can easily add to their units without the need for a variance. Therefore, the granting of the requested variance is necessary to give the Owner of Lot 4 the same opportunities for using his available GRFA as the other Owners have. Therefore the granting of this variance is not a grant of Special Privelege. The proposed 6’ encroachment onto the rear setback is miniscule in proportion to the depth of the open space and is the minimum necessary to allow use of the available GRFA. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Applicant response: The requested variance and addition to the existing unit will have no effect on light and air to the neighbors or the open lands to the south. There is no change to the distribution of population as the number of bedrooms in the unit is not proposed to increase. There is no impact on transportation and traffic related to this variance request. There is no impact on public facilities or public utilities. There is no impact on public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Applicant response: These indefinite factors and criteria cannot be responded to in advance. Thank you.