The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-0513 PEC . THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE ~ NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN ihat the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town ot Vaii on May 13, 1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vai! Municipal Building. In consideration. of: A request for a density variance to allow for the construction of additional GRFA, located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Lot 6, Block 2, Vai( Vif(age 12th Fifing. Applicant: Brent and Barbara Singham Planner: Dorninic MaurieAo A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 748 Potato Patch/Lot 7, Block 2, Potato Patch 2nd filing. Appiicant: Mario Montalvo, represented by Pat McDonald Planner: George Ruther A request for,an amendment to the previously approved site development plan for the fnnsbruck Meadows Subdivision, located at 2772-2892 Kinnickinnick Road/(nnsbruck Meadows. Applicant: Innsbruck Meadows Development, represented by Bob Borne - Planner: George Ruther ` • A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance,located at 4840 Meadow Lane/Lot 2, Block 6, Bighorn 5th Addition. ~ App(icant: John Mesch Planner: Jim Curnutte A request for a minor subdivision to allow for an amendment to the platted building envelope, located at 1299 Spraddle Creek Drive/Lot 11, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. Applicant: Ric Fields Planner: George Ruther I A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed minor subdivision to allow for a change in lot I configuration, located at 1794 S. Frontage Road/Lots 2& 3, Vail Village West Filing No. 2, ~ Applicant: Brent Alm i Planner: George Ruther A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow for the replacement of a skylight with a roof dormer, located at 201 E. Gore Creek Drive/A part of Lot A, Block 56, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Craig Snowden Ptanner: Mike Mollica A request for an inferior remodel utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1081 Vail View Drive #109 B/Homestake Condominiums. Applicant: Rebecca Jaffe Planner: Lauren Waterton ~ A request tor residential addiiions utilizing ihe 250 Ordinance; located at 775 Potato Patch /Lot 19, Potato Patch #1. App(icant: Schumacher ! Hansen . Planner: George Ruther A request for a minor subdivision to.allow for a change in the property line location between Lots 2 & 7, located at 2446 and 2450 Chamonix Lane/Lot 7, 6lock B, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone, Fi(ing No. 1 and Lot 2, a resubdivision of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Biock B, Vail Das Schone Filing #1. App{'scant: Karen Scheidigger ~ Planner: Jim Curnutte ~ A request for a building height variance, located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23 Glen Lyon Subdivision. I Applicant: Bill Anderson Planner: Dominic Maurielio Sign language interpretation availab(e upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published April 26, 1996 in the Vail Trail. . I i PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION • May 13, 1996 AGENDA Proiect Orientation 10:30 am Lunch 11:00 am Site Vistts 12:00 pm 1. Mesch - 4840 Meadow Lane 2. Fie(ds - Lot 11, Spraddle Creek Estates, 1299 Spraddle Creek Drive 3. Montalvo - 748 Potato Patch 4. Hansen/Schumacher - 775 Potato Patch 5. Borne - 2772-2892 Kinnickinnick Road, Innsbruck Meadows 6. Aidrete -1794 S. Frontage Road 7. Hovey - 1339 Westhaven Circle 8. Bell Tower Building - 201 E. Gore Creek Drive Driver: George Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m. • 1. A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, Iocated at 748 Potato Patch/Lot 7, Block 2, Potato Patch 2nd filing. Applicant: Mario Montalvo, represented by Pat McDonald Planner: George Ruther 2. A request for two residential additions utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 775 Potato Patch /Lot 19, Potato Patch, Filing #1. Appficant: Kirk Hansen & J. Randolf & Kevin Schumacher Planner: George Ruther 3. A request for a minor subdivision to al(ow for an amendment to the platted building envelope, located at 1299 Spraddle Creek Drive/Lot 11, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. Applicant: Dr. & Mrs. Steadman, represented by Ric Fields Planner: George Ruther 4. A request for a minor CCI exterior alteration to allow for the replacement of a skylight with a roof dormer, located at 201 E. Gore Creek Drive (Bell Tower Building)/A part of Lot A, Block 513, Vail Village First Filing. . Applicant: Bell Tower Partners, Ltd., represented by Craig Snowdon Planner: Mike Mollica ~ 5. A request for an amendment to the previously approved site development plan for the innsbruck Meadows Subdivision, located at 2772-2892 Kinnickinnick Road/lnnsbruck Meadows. Applicant: Innsbruck Meadows Development, represented by Bob Borne , Pianner: George Ruther I 6. A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 4840 Meadow Lane/l.ot 2, Block 6, Bighorn 5th Addition. ~ Applicant: John Mesch P(anner: Jim Curnutte 7. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed minor subdivision to allow for a change in lot configuration, located at 1794 S. Frontage Road/Lots 2& 3, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. ~ Applicant: Antonio & Val Aldrete, represented by Brent Afm Planner: George Ruther I B. A request for a density variance to allow for the construction of additional GRFA, located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Brent and Barbara Bingham Planner: Dominic Mauriello I . 9. A request for a bui{ding height variance, located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23 Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Nancy & Charles Hovey, represented by Bil! Anderson • Planner: Dominic Mauriello 10. A request for an interior remodel utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1081 Vail View Drive/ #109 B/Homestake Condominiums. Applicant: Rebecca Jaffe Planner: Lauren Waterton STAFF APPROVED 11. A request for a minor subdivision to change the property line between Lots 2& 7, located at 2446 and 2450 Chamonix Lane/ Lot 2, a resubdivision of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block B, Vail Das Schone Filing #t and Lot 7, Block B, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone, Filing #1. Appficant: Karen Scheidigger Pianner: Jim Curnutte TABLED UNTlL MAY 20,1996 12. lnformation Update 13. Approval of April 22, 1996 PEC minutes. ~ Sign language irnerpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 13, 1996 FINAL AGENDA Proiect Orientation 10:30 am Lunch 11:00 am Site Visits 12:00 pm 1. Mesch - 4840 Meadow Lane 2. Fields - Lot 11, Spraddle Creek Estates, 1299 Spraddle Creek Drive 3. Montalvo - 748 Potato Patch 4. Hansen/Schumacher - 775 Potato Patch 5. Borne - 2772-2892 Kinnickinnick Road, Innsbruck Meadows 6. Aldrete - 1794 S. Frontage Road 7. Hovey - 1339 Westhaven Circle 8. Bell Tower Building - 201 E. Gore Creek Drive Driver: George Public Hearinq 2:00 p.m. • 1. A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 748 Potato Patch/lot 7, Block 2, Potato Patch 2nd filing. Applicant: Mario Montalvo, represented by Pat McDonald Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED 2. A request for two residential additions utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 775 Potato Patch /Lot 19, Potato Patch, Filing #1. Applicant: Kirk Hansen & J. Randolf & Kevin Schumacher Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 4-0-1 (Galen Aasland abstained) APPROVED 3. A request for a minor subdivision to allow for an amendment to the platted building envelope, located at 1299 Spraddle Creek Drive/Lot 11, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. Applicant: Dr. & Mrs. Steadman, represented by Ric Fields Planner: George Ruther 0 MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED 4. A request for a minor CCI exterior alteration to allow for the replacement of a skylight with a roof dormer, located at 201 E. Gore Creek Drive (Bell Tower Building)/A part of Lot A, Block 513, Vail Village First Filing. ~ Applicant: Bell Tower Partners, Ltd., represented by Craig Snowdon Planner: Mike Mollica MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED 5. A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 4840 Meadow Lane/Lot 2, Block 6, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: John Mesch Planner: Jim Curnutte MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED - with 1 condition 6. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed minor subdivision to allow for a change in !ot configuration, located at 1794 S. Frontage Road/Lots 2& 3, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant: Antonio & Val Aldrete, represented by Brent Alm Planner: George Ruther WORKSESSION - NO VOTE • 7. A request for a density variance to allow for the construction of additional GRFA, located at 3130 Booth Falls CourULot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Brent and Barbara Bingham Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Diane Golden SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 1-3-1 (Gene Uselton abstained in protest) MOTION FOR APPROVAL FAILED MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Galen Aasland VOTE: 3-1-1 (Gene Uselton abstained in protest) REQUEST DENIED 8. A request for a building height variance, located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23 Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Nancy & Charles Hovey, represented by Bill Anderson Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 5-0 DENIED • ^ 9. A request for an interior remodel utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1081 Vail View Drive/ #109 B/Homestake Condominiums. I ~ Applicant: Rebecca Jaffe Planner: Lauren Waterton i STAFF APPROVED 10. A request for a minor subdivision to change the property line between Lots 2& 7, Iocated at 2446 and 2450 Chamonix Lane/ Lot 2, a resubdivision of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block B, Vai! Das Schone Filing #1 and Lot 7, Block B, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone, Filing #1. Applicant: Karen Scheidigger Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED UNTIL MAY 20, 1996 11. A request for an amendment to the previously approved site development plan for the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision, located at 2772-2892 Kinnickinnick Road/Innsbruck Meadows. Applicant: Innsbruck Meadows Development, represented by Bob Borne Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL MAY 20, 1996 ~ 12. Information Update 13. Approval of April 22, 1996 PEC minutes. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. ~ 9 ~ MEMORANDUM ~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Departrnent of Community Development DATE: May 13,1996 SUBJf-CT: A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 748 Potato Patch/Lot 7, Block 2, Potato Patch 2nd filing. Appficant: Mario Montalvo, represented by Pat McDonald Planner: George Ruther 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Counc+l approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created Chapter (18.71) of the Vail Municipal Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area." This Chapter allows for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to be added to a dwelling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met. The purpose of the Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwellings units, which have been in existence for a period of at least five years, by permitting up to iwo hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit. In August 1995, the Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Series of 1995 which amended ~ Chapter 18.71, for the purpose of eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a dwelling unit is "demo/rebuilt." This Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The applicant, Mario Montalvo, represented by Pat McDonald, is proposing a residential addition utilizing the Additional GRFA Ordinance (250). The applicant is proposing the addition to the west half of an existing duplex located at 748 Potato Patch Drive. The applicant is requesting to convert an existing one-car garage to 238 square feet of living area on the first level of the duplex and to construct a new 322 square foot garage adjacent to the existing garage. On the lower level of the duplex, the applicant is proposing to expand the existing master bedroom by approximately 132 square feet. The master bedroom addition would be constructed beneath the new garage. The exterior building materials of the new addition are proposed to match the existing exterior building materials. The proposed residential addition will result in a few minor changes to the exterior of the existing residence. The existing garage door will remain on the side of the residence. The new garage will be constructed immediately adjacent to the existing garage. When completed, the new addition wiil appear from the outside as a two-car garage ( see attachment 1). Additionally, an existing spruce tree will need to be relocated. The applicant has proposed to move the tree the minimum distance necessary to the north to get it clear of the addition. The tree will continue to screen the north end of the residence from Potato Patch Drive. ~ 1 v , t II. ZONING ANALYSIS • Patch Subdivision Legal Description: Lot 7, Block 2, Vail Potato Address: 748 Potato Patch Drivs Lot Size: 40, 396 sq. ft. / 0.927 acre Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential I Use: Primary/Secondary Residence I Allowed isti Prooosed GRFA: 2,983 sq. ft' 2,507 sq. ft. 2,877 aq. ft. I (secondary unit) SRe Coverage: 8,079 sq. ft. 3,797 sq. ft. 4,141 sq. ft. Required Existina Proposed Parking: 3 spaces 1 enclosed spaaes no change 2 surface space ' "includes 425 sq. ft. credit + "250" III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: ~ A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effe^+ u^on the existing y2getation. drainage and exist9na structures. The proposed residential addition wilt have minimal, if any, impacts on the existing topography, vegetation, drainage and the existir?g structure. As mentioned previously, an existing spruce will need to be relocated as a result of the addition. Staff feels the new location proposed by the - applicant is acceptable since it will continue to screen the residence from Potato Patch Drive. There will be a minor change to the existing topography. Currently, a five- foot tall retaining wall is constructed to the north of the residence. The wall is tied to the foundation of the structure. When construction is completed, the retaining wall will still be necessary to retain the change in topography, however, the overall length of the wall will have been reduced by the length of the addition. The changes affecting the existing structure are minimal and will not have any negative impacts on the property. As discussed previously, all new ~ i 2 r exterior building materials will match existing. • 2. 1mRact on adiacent pro en rties. Upon completing a site visit to the applicant's property, staff believes there will be no negative impacts to adjacent properties. Public notices have been sent to the adjacent property owners. To date, staff has not received any input from the adjacent property owners. 3. ompliance with the Town's zonina reauirements and aR ti{cable - development standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, requires that any single family dwelling or dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be required to meet the minimum Town of Vail landscaping standards as set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Additionally, before any additional GRFA may be permitted in accordance with Chapter 18.71, the staff shall review the maintenance and upkeep of the existing single family or two family dwelling and site, including landscaping, to determine whether they comply with the Design Review Guidelines. These standards incfude iandscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. Upon inspection of the site by staff, we find the property is in compliance with the applicable development standards listed above. The utilities are • currently undergrounded, the driveway is paved, and the general maintenance of the property is excellent. Staff would recommend however, that the Planning Commission consider requiring additional landscaping along the west side of the applicant's residence. B. Findinas: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively - effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively _ impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable deveiopment standards. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Communiry Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for 250 square feet of additional GRFA. Staff believes that the review criteria have been met as described in the memorar?dum above. Regarding the findings, staff believes that finding B1 is met, as the proposed addition will not negatively impact the existing site; Finding B2 is met, in • staff's opinion, as the proposed addition will not negatively impact adjacent properties; Finding 3 s J63 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposed addition will comply with all zoning requirements , and applicable development standards described in the Town of Vail Municipal Code. • • i • fAeveryonelpec4nemosklalessio212 4 ~ n''Si,...o s3 .rr, . . _ . . . ......-.w . . . ~F 47.f'*wti\L'.~ .C.iK.~reC..AM.wn Y..i'„~+.,.,,1$ •ups.~:ercvK J . . . " . . . <a:.~ ~r.sxm.. r.r./...' ..~n.d ' . . -'._~lf~i~~~4~~~• -r f ! ~ i :1 ~t ~ ~1 1 ';~1 ';'t ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ;'t' io';i _3r+,~ ~.=.-i~ =.i• . . ; ~ tj~ ' P , 1'~ hi 1 r i ~i I . . . • ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ . - , r` i ' + ' . r SY~iGGO. . _ + ; ' : ~ ! i r _ _'~J~._...~~._~"'J--__...__~...._~_ I ~ -=-i I • . . 'r--~-_.•"( , E _._......i.'-~ . . rl . •11R ~lc`? G~ Ia9 t d~d, 1,cr. ~ - _ - - -i-1 ~ a.ll ~.zh-cs , 'da.,/c • Tll,r,~ ~/77 ~ ~ ~ ? ~c~Vt+c s:~~x . ; f r~';'Zi'S~ P.i. L . 815i•,144" ` I . , • ; ~ei ! , j ~1f . ~racco . . . 1I ' 4 ' ~ ~ 't t)' ~ i • ' + F,i.i. ae-''•;'S" _ ~L~ ~ ~ , ~,--~J L~i • . 2D'-'"1~rct ' . ~1'~ J i• . . ~ • , ' ' . , ~ _ - . . . . _ ' ' ~ . ~ : ~ " . _ . • . . ~ ~ . ~ . . . . . . ~ , ~Yhi.4~i.Lt' +R'.w'..+s'...~ ~u.;::T ti .i....~~ly;• . . . K . S . - ' - ' • . . tkri~r. 4~..na...... '.~~.-~.~.n. . - . ~ T^' . . - _ _ _ ~ . ~ _ _ _ . S eL~" _ . . •y • ' - ~ ~ --'w- - : . _ . _ _ • _ . . 24 t- • _ - . i . ~ft K +1~ }.4rf :Q'6t?Lh; ra ' ~ . . _ - '1~'~ ~ • j . ' • . ~ _ _ Q~:~.- ,~1 . _ - _ ; • n ~ ` . `~`G+ f ~-3,~ _ . : . ? , . ~ . : j ~ _ i ~.RZGE'~~AU~.. cor~~lEcnof.l - - - ~ ~ - - . _ . " ; 5i~chcteg . f . . . ; . 2 nc... ~..,r1a.g .l~ r?~Jzt, • ! e ~ ~N ~Nl: , i ~ . t ,`f 'l. ~ Il~1~'~# +f1f1•~',j~ i',~~ ~i `1~~' 1 1~4 ~ I~_~ 'S~ T l~,.,~~. r j i ~ : : ~ ~ ; ~ ,r ~ ` ~ , i; Ii; ~F ' ; I r-- -..-.r:._.~ ! ~ • . .i ! ~ ~ ;~t' ' t.+'j; x` ' '1.~!IP,~.•~ 4 ' ~r1. ; o~ , ~ f ~~niny .~?-il ~tlt - I (Tr ~ ~ f. ( ( 1z . 1! tl,!,~ ;i i ~ ~ ; - ^ • ' ; t Yl ,t E..5'I' t , . .x~~~ ' . . - . . ' . . . . _ _ J ~ MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission . FROM: ~ Department of Community Development DATE: May 13, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for two residential additions utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 775 Potato Patch /Lot 19, Potato Patch #1. Applicant: J. Randolf & Kevin Schumacher / Kirk Hansen, represented by Andrew Abraham Planner: George Ruther 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created a new Chapter (18.71) to the Vail Municipal Code, entitied "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area:" This Chapter allows for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to be added to a dwelling (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met. The purpose of the Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for thQ upgrading of existing dweltings units, which have been in existence for a period of at least five years, by permitting up to two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit. • In August 1995, the Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Ser;es of 1995 which arriended Chapter 18.71, for the purpose of eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a dwelling unit is "demo/rebuilt." The new Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. With this proposal, the applicants are requesting to add approximately 1,168 sq. ft. of GRFA to the duplex. The proposed remodel will use the remaining GRFA for the entire lot, as well as the full 250 allowance for each dwelling unit. The proposed duplex remodel is summarized as fo{lows: A) West side (Hansen's unit) The Hansen's are proposing a residential addition to their half of a duplex located at 775 Potato Patch Drive (see attachment 1). The Hansen's are proposing to utilize the remaining GRFA available to their unit, as well as all of the 250 additional GRFA. If approved and constructed, all GRFA development potential will have been utilized. On the first floor, the applicants are proposing to extend the unit's front entry further to the south. The addition at the front entry will add approximately 26.25 square feet of GRFA. Also on the first floor, a storage room in the existing garage will be converted to garage area resulting in a reduction of GRFA and an increase in garage credit to the maximum 600 square feet allowed. In addition, the existing living room and dining room will be expanded. The existing dining room will be expanded to the north and west, comprising a total of 74.4. square feet. The living room will be expanded to the west, comprising 107 square feet total. Each of these expanded areas adds • to the existing site coverage on the property. The final change to the first floor is a relocation of . ~ an existing bathroom and an expansion of the kitchen area. The kitchen area will be expanded to the north underneath an existing second floor cantilever. This area of expansion totals approximately 75.4 square feet. This area does not increase site coverage since it is located • underneath an existing second floor cantilevered area. No changes are being proposed to the second level of the existing unit with the exception of the elimination of a closet in the laundry. I B). a t id ($chumacher's unit) , The Schumacher's are also proposing a residential addition to the east half of the duplex located at 775 Potato Patch Drive (see attachment 2).. Similar to the Hansen's, the Schumacher's are proposing to utilize all the GRFA remaining available to their half of the duplex, and the full 250 additional GRFA. If approved and constructed, no GRFA development potential will remain. On the lowest level, the applicants are proposing to finish out 688 square feet of an existing crawl space to living space. The crawl space currently exceeds five feet in height. Upon completion of the improvements to the existing crawl space, all areas not finished out will be back-filled so the head height in the crawl space areas are five feet or less. On the first fioor, the applicants are proposing to convert a covered front entry to GRFA. This will allow for an interior foyer of approximately 25 square feet at the front entry. Additionally, the kitchen area on the first floor will be expanded. The kitchen will be expanded to the north onto an existing exterior dedc. The kitchen area expansion is proposed to be approximately 39 square feet. On the second floor, the existing master bedroom will be expanded and an additional cfoset will be added. The master bedroom expansion and closet addition will be added onto an existing exterior deck. The total additional GRFA being added to the second floor of the duplex is approximately 133 square feet. • All exterior building materials and colors of the proposed building additions, to both the Hansen's unit and the Schumacher's unit, will match existing, including siding, windows, doors, etc., with the exception of a new metal roof on the sloping portions of the roof. See the attached drawings for more detail. II. ZONING ANALYSIS The two dwelling units on this property meet all applicable standards outlined in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District and are eligible to apply for the additional 250 square feet of GRFA. I III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requests for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: . Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmentai Commission shall consider the following factors with respect to the proposed use: I • / 1. _ ffect uRon the existiny topQnraphy, vggetation drainaae and existino • structures. The proposed additions will have minimal impacts on the site, and neither drainage nor grading on the property will be affected. Some low growing bushes will be relocated in the areas of the entry and living room additions. The additions will match the existing building (materials and colors) in architectural character, and not appear out of place. 2. Impact on adjacent pr_o_ ea rties. Staff believes that the proposed additions will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties. 3. Compliance with the Town's zoning Muirements and aplia cable develcDment standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code requires that any dwelling unit that proposes to use Additional GRFA shall comply with the standards outlined in the Town of Vail Design Review Guidelines. These standards inc{ude landscaping, undergrounding of uti{ities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. Upon inspection by staff, ' we find that this property is in compliance with the Town's zoning requirements and all applicable development standards. B. Findinas: • The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively ef"pct existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA woutd not negatively impact adjacent properties. _ 3. , That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATi l:ZN The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for Additional GRFA. Staff believes that the review criteria have been met as discussed in the memo. Regarding the findings, staff believes that finding B1 is met as the proposed additions minimally impact the existing site. Finding 62 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposed additions will not negatively impact adjacent properties. Finding B3 is alet, in staffs opinion, as the proposed additions comply with all zoning requeFeFReFiis -and applicable development standards. FAeveryone\pecvnemos\hansen.513 • . I . , ~ i _i rx._~ 1 ~ 1 ~ = E Z ~ .i_~.. ~~~`._~~"'~.-i~~~7 . • = I .1---.~~-L r-r--i i ~ - ' L------ I `-.~i__'1 I.""-•-~...~I.. _ C~I f".--.•'--'---~.; I ~ i'• ii i , ~ I ~ ~~y ~ H I ~ ~ ..1c~'• -~~-------'7 l. _ _a-4 I ~ . ~ I ~ 1 ' - - 1 ~ ~ ~V ItW i W Ir \ ~ I g - V V ~ - -1 'i ~ . 'R I o < ? ~ 'I . I ~ i ~ ii _ r ~J \ ~ • ~ . ~ ~ . 1 • ' 11 3. • ' ~ 4 , 1 I . . S . ~L,4: 0i 4 ' y ~ s • ~7 ~i ~ 1 . ~ ~ .i • I, k • ~ . . - , .~I--- , i2 ~_.y;j . ~ !,'.~~r ~ . 4 t'_ _ Ic; • ~ . . . ~ . ' ATTACHMENT #1 The Hansen Residence Addition & Renovation Lot 19, Bleck l, Potnto Patcli Subdirision, Towr of Vaii, Ea;lz County, Colorado M ~ M , Y ~ . . ~ ~.r M \M M . ~ 11 . . n ' n • . n r-^^• ` - , "~+,s - _ ! r•~,~~ ~ ~G'„i"w w.«~7 ~~jj ~ ,r r S ~r r~ "`~t••,~..! ~ _ v~ ~J ) NW • [i w.r! ~ ' / j r ~ 4rrl, . J a r._ r rj ? ri, 'I ' 1 1 t • 1 ' L , - ' ~ ~ ~ t • , ~ f f~~^'~'T U ~ L- . r~ . ' ` . M? . 1 . ` • _ Fw' it ~ t r .•1 ~ , 1 . ~ . . ~ ,.e,~a: i+~"''d°"n.~ A~TAC~E~T 2 c~,~~.- J~..es1de~Ce . Schuma fLenoyation . oiomdo ` Adaition & ~ntY, C 70`,,,~y of Vail, Ea. n Subdi`^s~o, ~ ch Lot 14,DIock t.p°~'1oPac ~ , . • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision to allow for an amendment to the platted building envelope, located on Lot 11, Spraddle Creek Estate Subdivision. Applicant: Dr. Richard and Gay Steadman, represented by Ric Fields Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REGIUEST The applicants, Dr. Richard and Mrs. Gay Steadman, represented by Ric Fields of Fieldscape, Inc. are requesting a minor subdivision to allow for a modification to the existing building envelope platted on Lot 11, Spraddle Creek Estate Subdivision (see attachment 1). Specifically, the applicants are proposing a flag-shaped addition to the northwest corner of the existing building envelope. The area being added to the existing buitding envelope totals approximately 177.2 sq. ft. So as not to increase the overall size of the building envelope, the applicants have proposed to remove a 177.2 sq. ft., triangular-shaped corner, of the southeast corner of the • building envelope. Therefore, the proposed amendment to the existing building envelope will not result in a net increase in square footage. The proposed change in the building envelope configuration is intended to facilitate the placement of a snowmelt boiler for the driveway. The amendment is proposed to the northwest corner of the envelope, and the applicanYs surveyor has drafted a flag-shaped addition to the envelope. The flag-shaped addition allows the proposed snowmelt boiler to be located between iwo terraces in the approved boulder retaining walls and screened from view by landscaping (see attachment 2). The applicant has submitted a letter from the Spraddle Creek Architectural Control Committee indicating the committee's support of the requested change to the configuration of the existing platted building envelope (see attachment 3). II. BACKGROUND The Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision is zoned Hiflside Residential, and is generally located northeast of the main Vail Roundabout. The final plat for the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on February 11, 1991. The final plat illustrates the location of site specific building envelopes for each of the fourteen building sites within the subdivision boundaries. On July 12, 1993, a minor subdivision was approved by the PEC to move the lot line which divides Lots 14 and 15, as well as modify the building envelopss on both lots. The purpose of the minor subdivision was to enlarge Lot 15, so that its size was more in keeping with the sizes of the adjacent lots and so that it could be utilized for the construction of a primary residence with a caretaker unit. • 1 ~ On March 28, 1994, the PEC approved a minor subdivision request to again modify the buiiding envelope platted on Lot 15. The purpose of modifying the building envelope on Lot 15 was to ~ accommodate a building encroachment outside the platted envelope. The PEC's approval to modify the building envelope carried with it a condition requiring the applicant plant thirty (30) additional trees on the property to further screen the buitding from the adjacent praperties. On October 9, 1995, a minor subdivision was approved by the PEC to modify the location of the existing building envelope platted on Lot 3, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. The purpose of modifying the building envelope was to facilitate a new residence currently being designed for construction on Lot 3. The PEC's approval to modify the building envelope carried with it two conditions. One condition required that the applicant agree to mitigate the loss of the aspen , trees on the property at a 1:1 ratio (based upon caliper inches of trees). The second condition required that the applicant receive and submit to the Town of Vail Community Development Department, a letter of approval of the applicanYs request to amend the building envelope on Lot 3, from the Spraddle Creek Architectural Control Committee. III. ZONING ANALYSIS The purpose of the Zoning Analysis depicted below is to provide the PEC with an understanding of the impacts on the development standards, prescribed as plat notes on the Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision final plat. Deve ment Standard Allowed per aRproved alan Albwed after the buildina envelone re confi urg ation LotArea: 71,419 sq. ft. 71,419 sq. ft. Building Envebpe Size: 11,250 sq. ft. 11,250 sq. ft. • GRFA Allowance: 7,688 sq. ft. 7,688 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 6,838 sq. ft. 6,838 sq. ft. The proposed reconfiguration of the existing building envelope will not cause a change to the existing development standards for Lot 11. The only change that will occur to the envelope will be the reconfiguration of the envelape to accommodate the proposed snowmelt boiler location. IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the condition of a new lot must be met. Atthough this building envelopment amendment essentially involves a minor replatting of an existing lot, there is no other process for the review of such a request. As a result, this project will be reviewed under the minor subdivision criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the PEC for a minor subdivision application are as fotlows: A. Lot Area - The Town of Vail Municipal Code indicates that the minimum lot area for a property within the Hillside Residential Zone District, shall be 21,780 sq. ft. (1/2 acre) of buildable area. The Municipal Code defines "buildable area" as any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof, which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche, or areas in excess of 40%. The existing Lot 11 currently meets the minimum lot area requirements set forth above and the • proposed building envelope amendment will have no effect on the existing size of f:leveryonelpecUnemos\steadman.513 2 ~ Lot 11. • B. Frontage - The Vail Municipal Code requires that lots in the Hillside Residential Zone District have a minimum frontage of 50'. Lot 11 currently has frontage in excess of 50' and the proposed building envelope will not effect the frontage of I the lot. C. Site Dimensions - The Vail Municipal Code requires that each site be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. Lot 11 currently meets the size and shape requirement for lots in a Hillside Residential Zone District and the proposed building envelope amendment wiN have no effect on the size and shape of the boundaries for Lot 11. The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request are as outlined in the subdivision regulations, and are as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in compliance with the ir.tended purpose of Chapter 17, the Zoning Ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies related to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, _ effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses." I The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: I • 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. I Staff Res onse: One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as I well as any development control, is to establish basic ground rules to which the ` staff, the PEC, applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. Although this request does not involve the creation of a new subdivision, it is the appropriate process to amend a platted building envelope on an existing lot. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development _ on adjacent properties. Staff Res onse: The proposed building envelope amendment would not appear to create any conflict with development on adjacent lands. Staff has received a letter of approval from the Spraddle Creek Estates Architectural Control Committee, indicating their approval of the applicanYs proposed building envelope amendment request. The staff has not received any negative input from the adjacent property owners, to which letters of notification were sent, as required by Section 18.66.080 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. • 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvements on the land. f:\everyone\peclmemos\steadman.513 3 Y ~ Staff Response: Staff believes that this proposal will not be detrimental to the value of land throughout Vail, nor will it be detrimental to the value of land in the ~ immediate area of Lot 11, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. 4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff Resoonse: Staff believes that the proposed building envelope amendment for Lot 11 will not preclude a harmonious, convenient, workable retationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff ResRpnse: The purpose of subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address impacts of large scale subdivisions of properry, as opposed to this proposal to amend an existing platted building envelope. Staff does not believe that this proposal will have any negative effects on any of the above listed public I facilities. 6. To provide for accurate legal descripbons of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Respgnse: This is an inherent goal of the subdivision regulations that has • little specific reference to the proposed building envelope amendment for Lot 11. 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff Response: Staff believes the proposed building envelope amendment for Lot 11 will not have any negative impacts on the above listed criteria. Staff further believes that the proposed building envetope amendment will not effect the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of land. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the applicant's request for a minor subdivision to amend the platted building envelope on Lot 11, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. Staff believes that the applicant has met the criteria as outlined in Section IV, Minor Subdivision Review Criteria, of this memorandum. • f:\everyone\pecc\rnemos\steadman.513 4 ' 7~}1 tt' PER PUT (iS30J9' MfA~iUkL'u? i / N 89°40'25" E - 218.34' ~ SURVEYOR" SET No. 5 PEBAR WITN . , FLUM CAF LS. No. 30091 1) Date O1 2) 8earing North F. Pt 89°41 3) Where I structur subject Town ol LOT 11 e 4) A maxi Z 71.419 Sq. fL ~ 1299 SPRADDIE CREEK ROAp will be , 0 the Lot LOT 12 5) The co ,p building sidewali p "'R z 13.63.( w ° MuniciF, ~ as lone I ~ receive, minim(i rn N AREA OF BUILDING ENVELOPE ~ 6) Monurt, 0) , 70 8E CREATED (SOUD LfNES) N (177.2 sq. Ft.) 00 0) S 23•44'34` E - 10.00' 7) Street N 66'15'26" E- 15.00' - S 40°57'16" E- 26.46' 8) LOt 11 N 23°44'34' W- 10.00' ~ 4S (JfOt 5 66•15'26" r40*57'lir ~ BOOk E. N d9°ao'?5" E- 103 ts' dimensi i, W- 27.94' i (n _ 9) The sc I I buildinq Z - ~ 0 10) NOTICC AC,COfChI F J OUTUNE OF BUILDING upon a, ` / diSCOVe ~ i ~ ~n Nn Jefect dnte oi rol ~ m , , SET No. 5 RFBAR WITH ALUM. CAP L.S. No. 30091 cr) Op A=68°117-54" IAND U' ' QUILDING R=50.00 Porcel ' L=59.60' ENVELOPE I S 81115'08" w Areo - T=33.92' 23.89' Maximuli LC=56.14' Maximui• CB=N 56°05'42~~ W ARFA OF BUILDING Zone Di o ENVELOPE TO HE SET No. 5 REBAR WITH REMOVED (CROSS-HATCHED) ALUM. CAP L.S. No. 30091 ~(1711 Sq. FL) \ \ \ A=64°44'54" ` L=33.so' SPRADpLE ~ T=19.02' LC=32. 13' pp• ~ 70' SLCif C MAWTfNANCI CB=N 54° 19' 12° W ` . ~ A=86°30'27' ~ R=155.00' L=234.02' c) T=145.83' ilp LC=212.42' CB=N 43°26'26" W ~ . - . ~ 30 . ATTACffiMM # 1 ~ D ~ f Erx D = mn O D 5pwm ~ . C) 0 0 L SET No. REBAH WiTH ALUM. Cq{' l 5. Nu 300' ~ iooo um•, n,ne. wov. s,e. !-B. Voil, tn 81657 (970)476-EEII _ . _ - ~ • , ~ ' ~ o , • ,i• ~ s' •••V ' . . O N N a O . ~ ~ ~ D . i . ~ • N 0 N , ~ ~f. . S••j• ~ O o • W'• 0 O q~'p Q fJ . • 'i Cj ' N ~ ,t u~ ~a N+ O ~ Ns ~ O ~ ok o ~ + + r o O +l ~ • ~ ' ~ , n\ y ~ O. r~c ? • t ~ p- ~r• n 00 • , ~ f„ ~ ~ ' N ~ 'C . o ' •i• ~ ~ + f9 ~ ~ y ~ ~ •.t' ~ ~ ' _ ~ O N ' ` • ~ 0 + • N ~ ~o • a ¢ • ~ ~ V ~ ~ , ~ • a . Ct3 ~ ' • ~ n ~ • 1 • ' • t'D ' • ATTAC~ ~2 ~ . ~ . ' ~ . ~ . I . . • . , . . ~ . . _ Pl . _ . : . ant Schedli-le Svm. Common Name ` Scientific Name' Size . ~ ~ . ~ . . . Blue Spruce , Picea pungens - . ~ 10' ~ Blue.Spruce ~ . ~ Picea pungens ~ - ; 12' Blue Spruce Picea-pungens 14' ' Mugo Pine. PitZUS mugo. 30" B&B ~ Quaking.Aspen . ~ Populus _trernuloides : 1-1 /2"cal. ~ Quak.uzg Aspen : Popuius trernuloides 2"cal. . ° QuakingAspen Fopulus' fremuloides 2-1/2"cal. Quakirlg Aspen Pop.ulus,tremuloides 3"cal. Quaking Aspen Pop.ulus tremuloides ~ . 5"cal. ~oo Rocky-Mountain Nlaple Acer glabrum . 4' cal. , . . . ~ O Common ~juniper juniperus comrriunis ' # 5 Mountain Ninebark , Physocarpus monogynus #5 O Froebel Spirea., Spiraea:bumalda 'Froebel' ~#5 ' + Ainerican Plum Prunus arnericana : 30" B&B . Serviceberry . Amelanchier alnifolia 4-5'. B&B' ~ . Serviceberry Amelarichier alriifolia : #5 . e Redtwig Dogwood Cornus -sericea 'Coloradense.' 4-5'.B&B , Alpine Currant ~ Ribes alpinum.. #5 Native See.d mix Wildflower Mix Annuals Mixed. ` 6" p.ots, 1' o.c. Perennials Mized 6" pots, 1' o.c. r Kv,vi SrKHUULG ti.rttth U4 1~.J-504 r. t ,Tnuw~ie +sew duY lu W~Tl.1tl~1 f'•~0~ :44A~L',~sr~ss rin u ~aCtt ~v a "va a«wa ••••a ~ awae vvwt aW ~p » 1 11.91 ~ d~ ~ %ld imm *mmdWOw ~ ~ s»?spra~e cr~e~ , ws . 71ud~~e ~Y~i1~rtFiIM111~I1d~M~11{C11~br1A~il~r~nwr Os ba4~dl~i~~rlydf~rir ~Yr.s s~i~~lsl~lMei~Nlti~l?aLCD~lilf7. 4~i.w~w~li~lllr~1~41M~y 1tt~iea VML~~r~k I • ~ • , : ~ ?pML P.Oi ATTACIiMENT #3 i TOT1FiL P.01 ,j MEMORANDUM • TO: Pfanning and Environmentai Commission FROM: Community Deveiopment Department DATE: May 13, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for, a minor CCI exterior aiteration to allow for the replacement of a skylight with a roof dormer, located at 201 E. Gore Creek Drive (Bell Tower Building)/a part of Lot A, B1ock 5-B, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: Bell Tower Partners, Ltd., represented by Craig Snowdon Planner: Mike Mollica 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The Commercial Core I Zone District requires Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) I approval of an exterior alteration request prior to the addition of any enclosed f{oor area to ' structures located within the district. This request is to allow a dormer addition, consisting of 60.3 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), on the fourth floor, or {oft level of the ~ building. tt is located in residential condominium Unit R-1. The proposed dormer would be ' south-facing, towards Gore Creek Drive. In order to add this dormer to the building an existing skylight will be removed and an interior storage space (less than 5' in height and not considered • GRFA) will be opened-up and converted to habitable space. The 8' roof height of the dormer wiN ~ enable this space to be fully utilized as GRFA. Although the roof will be raised to allow for the dormer, the exterior walls of the existing structure will not change. Please see the attached ~ drawings of the proposed dormer addition for further details. II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this minor exterior alteration request: 1) Zone District: Commercial Core I 2) Lot Area: 6,098.4 square feet 3) GRFA: Maximum Allowed: 4,878.7 square feet Existing: 3.191.0 square feet Proposed: 60.3 square feet Remaining After Addition: 1,627.4 square feet 4) Site Coverage: No change in site coverage wi{{ occur because the dormer addition will be added to the loft level, which is located above existing floor area. • 1 L, 5) Parking: The existing GRFA of condominium Unit R-1 is already over2,000 square feet, and therefore the addition of 60 square feet will not necessitate the • addition of another parking space. Therefore, no ' monetary contribution into the Town of Vail parking ; fund will be required as a result of the proposed dormer addition. I 111111. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE 1 18.24.010 Pur se: I "The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Viltage Commercial Area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominant!Y Pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, , and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vait Village Urban Design Guide Plan ' and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the bui(ding scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village." It is the staff's opinion that the proposed dormer addition to the Bell Tower Building (Condominium Unit R-1), would be in compliance with the Purpose Section of the • Commercial Core I Zone District as stated above. We also believe ihat the addition wi!l not negatively effect the scale of the building nor detract from the overall appearance of the building, as viewed from the pedestrian levets of E. Gore Creek Drive or Bridge Street below. IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes three elements which establish the review I criteria for this application. The first of these is referred to as the Guide Plan which includes a number of sub-area concepts, many of which identify potential areas for future development and other improvements. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations express the large-scale, land use planning and design considerations, and finally the architectural/landscape considerations, ' which will be reviewed by the Design Review Board, establish the criteria for evaluating detailed design considerations of a proposal. The Vail Village Master Plan and the Streetscape Master i Plan address specific goals pertaining to the enhancement of the walking experience throughout ~ ~ the Village. In addition, traditional zoning considerations are also a factor in this proposal. I ' V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VlLLAGE There are no specific sub-area concepts relevant to this proposal. I ~ i 2 • ~ VI. rOMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE • The following design considerations are a critical element of the Urban Design Guide P{an. They identify the key physical characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to ensure that new development is consistent with the established character. The design considerations include the following: A. Pedestrianization:. The proposed dormer addition will have no impacts on pedestrian traffic flow because of its location on the fourth level of the building. - B. Vehicular Penetration: Vehicular penetration and circulation will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal. C. Streetscape Framework: The proposed dormer addition wilf not affect visual interest and activity along E. Gore Creek Drive and Bridge Street. The dormer should improve the appearance of the roaf, as it will punctuate a large unbroken expanse of south-facing roof area and will break up the mass of the roof. D. Street Enclosure: • Due to the location of the proposed dormer addition, and the relatively small size of the dormer ( 7' wide), it is staff's opinion that the proposed addition will not have a negative ° impact on street enclosure. E. Street Edge: Staff believes that the dormer addition to residential condominium Unit R-1 wil{ have no impact on the street edge along the Bell Tower Building. 5. Building Height: Building height will be unaffected as a result of this proposal. G. Views and Focal Points: The proposed dormer does not affect any of the Town's adopted view corridors. In addition, the dormer will have no impact on the line-of-sight from either the east or the west ends of E. Gore Creek Drive. H. Service and Delivery: The proposed expansion will not affect current service and delivery patterns. 0 3 4 1. Sun/Shade: There will be no increase in the shadow patterns as a result of this addition, as it is • located uvithin the existing roof area of the building. J. Architectural/Landscape Considerations: The staff believes that the architectural detaiting of the, proposed dormer wiil have a positive impact on the appearance of the area as viewed from the pedestrian areas below. The proposed addition will have no effect on existing landscaped areas on the property. Vil. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN The following are the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan which are relevant to this proposal: Goal 1- Encourage high quality development while preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity. 1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities. . The proposed dormer addition is consistent with the established zoning and the existing uses in the area. Overall, the staff believes that the proposed 60.3 square foot dormer addition would not detract from the appearance of the building. VNI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The staff recommendation is for approval of the requested minor CCI exterior alteration. A review of the relevant Urban Design Criteria and the Vail Village Master Plan Goats and Policies - ' indicate that the proposal is in conformance with the appficable sections of these documents. I f:ieveryone\pec\memos\belltower.513 I I I 4 • 1\J 11 1 6-1 % V*ft/ I A PART OF LOT a, BL ~ VAiL VILLAGE FIRS TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUr • (TOWN OF YAII.) A PART OF LOT o r ~ ~ ~•r urt'w avaa J 9. ~.CL ntW ~ ~ N i ~ ~ wt c•~ +u • m rwa euu.tssos 21.00~ , arii?io'x' ji. s 79' n~ N 10943'00' W 12.71 M•s~ u, NT1K'NAL ~ s ss~i~bo'w ' • 4.od I~~~c rserar" rw Mr aw[~p 1t' ;4:1 a ira~. Yw~ e•~ ~ (Mru tef. tqr: Sa vMr aa, Mttr t a 11 ~ ' . ~ Lcc w.r urn e•3 6 e•4 .i. wnwc a nuM uat ?.cc rawwe" Aro traAu. wIr c•1 • ~ ~a" ~ ~ L ei. MCCNMo.L no..«. wIr o•0 ? « L.e.c. Mr wn C. I raM STar wwa" (TOWN Of' VC. A PART OF L~ wwawa ; ueK a STMw roLwi. • rNMtr uMt) a~~t nuu~r LLL DIM um c._ mw L. q . M !~A • lGg. MI~ fL00r0 /lOpl KYITt~ iae.[. awrl ~ ~,i • . „ • ~ ~ . ~ uw a ~ • , a' u.g. sroR.ec 'wT 4.1 y (il.L.llYII Y01I[ ) LC.C I ' us. truR SeT 411,aw` ~ wwTp ; L.CL MTq iceK aSw~s +o"wu •.d N79i' ~Z~ OO~E w~ e•f 0.02' 64' ~wRn ya' R•l2Y.7 ~ no'' n'"nA L. 2911' ~ wiutox+.~ CH•N!0'36 7'E . ~ CREEK ~RIV E ~ ~ ~ uuw~ N «ARMa I ~ .,oRE - /IM • r M.u e.r rowurtrr M 1/1{ COaMLa f[CTIOM 104. e c1~}~ ~~I/i • 1~ a ' ~~Oq • • ~ No* 5M~ VV fili ar~l~ ~I ~ ~ . , ~ . ~ . V1 EW X X ~ - ~ A . 8 . STORAGE AREA NOT MA81TA8LE OPWN ro ^ * N uM/UN/T R-> Q~GaVI/ e~c.ow N UNIT R-18 iR-IA NOT MA9ITABLE) 4. 5 . ~ ~.s ` CV~'N T~D b % ' m t R-IA Nto L/N/T dELOW ~ yIA817A8l.E? ' UNIT ('fYP) R-IA ~ • ~ ' , ~ /T i2-t 17. ' a. 4 ~.9' UN/T dG°LaN UN/T ~e- ! ,6ELOW •a'(rrP.) ~ ~ . f~ A b LU)~T L EVEL_ ~ , .~~~11My~ ~M~~trp~ • Y-l1j ~w4ora40 ~ Io'-ble ' 9bo9 ` 41011b 0 ~ • f ~ W • I . ~zl I ~ uNIT o ~ iA R- f - 9' *EC. 7117- UNIT UNIT I.C.E. DECK f R-IA R-IB Yt L.C.E. S7 ~ UNIT R-t UNITR-I iD a N L.C.E. DECK ' ° ac.. ei85-o UNiT R-I ~i L.C.E. DECK UNITS C-6 , ~ . THRU C=12 r UNI T G'(o UN/T U/V / T G_ 7 G' 8 r. ' • A ~ I eL.4ITS 2 L.C.E. ELEVATOR i uNtTS C- 6 THRU L.C.E. NALL UNITS C-!2 8 R-I ' G 6 THRl1 G 12 Q jQ UNIT o o za' Uiv/T C-z ~ L.C.E. PATIO t9 C- 5~ EL 8f~'o4.1 UNIT C-5 r K 1Y/ro0.9 G.C. E. ~ ~ MECH. i, i, . UN/ T C-> N~ ROOM 4 4 E~L. e ~ SZ. ~o SkffCT/O/V A •A ~I~~di o rz~~ t~olrTao • i'' ~ Iv'-o'' ~ Iro`t • 4/~~ qb . ~ . Y~~ r 14io~' jYK` ! gwa~Gor a,~t~l'iv~ bu?1d~ ~iwa . . "W. ~ . ~vo~ ~ , . - . ~ ' ; ; ~,~-y, ~ • :,1;: ~:`~,;,:1.~.~4~'Yk1. , , µ~~~i _ ~ . ~~1'~'.':` i ~ ,m~ nU~r ~ ~~ti* xp"`~~~:, 1 \.i.•~~~^ ~ 1 ~ • i ~ ~ ~ . - • . r-------- ~ • I . p~W1 ~ WuYc I' • ' ' , ' ~ . ~ - 4b°q ` w~Hr 1~iiW i??~ ~ ~~t , r~oto+rrdo ' . ~ I . . . . • . - - . N~ . 2 T I . V?'i , . ~ • . ~ ~ ~ ~ i • : . _ ~ •~tr~ia~ you~~ a~~V~loh b_ . ~ ~ Bt~oo.q •bdtoww btu(di" oYill , C4jornqo ~ 14M , 4V[IIJ6. ~ , • ~ i } 1~ ~ Q,yr7 6 Ok'1Mw Y w ~I ~ ~ 4z d'~ N0( 0203.0 vdifl1~~W ~+'r?Yllly ,f~ ~XI~'1~ f L ~ I ST~ . , * 01 ~ ~tT4~'"'~ . . o C.~.15}'lhg G~YI~DW1{h~~NA ° Yr1:5.O t #11. . , , ~ . . ~ . • ~a~-ioti -~hw~ bu~ ld • W[~Wlr WlWr~ • Yalt , plor74o . 0 ,+/n/lb • , - ~ . ~1,V~~ • - ~ :I ~ •q ~ . . - - ' . ~ LJ RE R ~ D es1g n s sowvvj~ . Slifer Designs, Inc. & SlAr Desxgns - Retail, Inc. April 25, 1996 Mrs, Wales llAadden, Jr. p0 Bax 15288 ' Am~ rillo, 78xas 79105-5288 ~ ~ De r Abbie~' , Thanks for your (etter and request for our approval Of ypur changes to the Bel1 . I i'ower Buiiding. Rad stapped by Craig's offiae and tald Craig that we have no objections a# ali. ' Gaod fuck with getting the necessary Town of Vaii approvals; fihe dormer should I be an impravement to the exterior and interior. I Sincerely, ~ ~ ` Beth Slifer Presiden# BSiaef VaiU~ca~ex Crc~c~i/As~~un 182 Ati•an Raad • P.O. Bmc 5540 Avon, Coloradc+ 81620 970.949.1621 Fax910.949,1122 iL CnluF?ao Copror.l,ah ~ : . ~ ' • . . . . . . • I~BELL TQWER . , . , . ~ . . . . . . . PARTNERS,. LTD. • • ~ . . ~ ~ . Apri18,1996 . . ~ . . . • ~ . . . . 'TOWN OF VAII. : ~ . ~ ~ . . . I c% Clraig Snowden Bell Tower Buildi.ng . ~ 201 E. Gare Creek-Drive ~ . . . . . . Vail, CO 81657. . _ . . . ~ ~ . Re: ' Application for ex#erior alterations or modifications ' in Commercial ' Core 1, Vail Village . Ladies / Gendemen: Please be advised that the Bell Tower Condominium Association approves the application of Bell Tower Partners, Ltd. to the proposed alteration of the Bell Tower Building located at 201 E. .Gore Creek Drive. Which application is being filed by Mr. Craig Snowden. • BELL TOWER CONDOMIMUM ASSOCIATION ~ BY: ' ' . D. Dean Macffijw)., ~ oc: Ivlr. Wales: Madden, Jr. , ~ . ' . ~ . ~ . ~ . ~ . . . . . . . . . • . , . . . ~ . . . • . . . . • . . ~ . ~ . , 3838 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 400 • Dallas, Texas 75219 • 214-559-4599 + FAX 214559-4606 • 201 E. Gore Creek Drive, 3rd Floor • Vail, Colorado 81657 . 970-476-2125 . FAX970-479-0499 ~ P.O. Box 1.5288 • Amarillo, Texgs 79105-3288 : Physical Address: 724 S. Polk • Amarillo, Texas 791 01 • 806-3742422 • FAX 806-379-7049 , MEMORAND ~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: May 13, 1996 SUBJfCT: A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to the west half of the primary/secondary residence located at 4840 Meadow Lane%Lot 2, Block 6, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: John Mesch Planner: Jim Curnutte 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST In 1985, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance 4, Series of 1985, which created Chapter (18.71) of the Vail Municipa! Code, entitled "Additional Gross Residential Floor Area:" This Chapter allows for up to 250 square feet of additional Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to be added to a dweAing (beyond the maximum allowance), provided certain criteria are met. The purpose of the Additional GRFA Ordinance is to provide an inducement for the upgrading of existing dwellings units, which have been in existence for a period of at least five years, by permitting up to iwo hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit. • In August 1995, the Town Council approved Ordinance 6, Series of 1995 which amended Chapter 18.71, for the purpose of eliminating the ability to use the additional GRFA when a dwelling unit is "demo/rebuilt." This Ordinance also requires that all requests for additional GRFA, that involve exterior changes to a building, be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. With this proposal, the applicant is requesting to add approximately 865 sq. ft. of GRFA to the west side (secondary unit) of the primary/secondary residence, located at 4840 Meadow Lane/Lot 2, Block 6, Bighorn 5th Addition. This remodel will use the remaining 687 sq. ft. of GRFA allowed for the secondary unit, as well as 178 sq. ft. of the 250 allowance. On the first floor, the applicant is proposing to add a new master bedroom and bath, as well as a mudroom, separating the unit from the existing garage. The first floor addition will add 440 sq. ft. of GRFA and 455 sq. ft. of new site coverage to the property. On the second level, a new famiiy room will be added directly above the new master bedroom/mudroom addition, adding 425 sq. ft. of new GRFA. All materials and colors of the proposed building addition will match existing, including siding, shingles, windows, doors, etc. (see the attached drawings for more detail). II. ZONING ANALYSIS Legal Description: Lot 2, Block 6, Bighorn 5th Addition Address: 4840 Meadow Lane, west half Lot Size: 23,625 sq. ft. / 0.542 acre Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential ~ 1 7 Allowed i in Proposed GRFA: 5,463 sq. ft. 4,652 sq.ft. 5,517 sq.ft. • Primary: 3,193 sq. ft. 3,069 sq.ft. no change Secondary: 2,270 sq. ft. 1,583 sq. ft. 2,448 sq. ft. ~ Site Coverage: 4,725 sq. ft. 3,250 sq.ft. 3,705 sq. ft. Reauired xistin Proposed ~ Parking: 6 spaces 4 spaces enclosed no change I 2 spaces surface ` The proposed GRFA for the secondary unit includes 178 sq. ft. of the 250 allowance for this unit. ~ 111. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Chapter 18.71 - Additional GRFA, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for additional GRFA based upon the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: Before acting on an application for additional GRFA, the Planning and Environmental Commission shal{ consider the fol(owing factors with respect to the proposed use: 1. Effect upOit the xisting top,Qgranhy, v,~etation drainaqe ansl existino struc r s. ~ I The proposed addition will have minimal impact on the site, and neither drainage nor grading will be substantially affected. However, since no topographic information was provided with this application, it will be necessary, prior to issuance of a building permit, for the applicant to provide three section drawings of the buitding showing the existing grade and the proposed grading around the addition, including spot elevations. As mentioned previously, the addition will match the existing building, (materials, colors and architectural character), and not appear out of place. 2. Imuact on adiacent proRerties. Public notices have been sent to the adjacent property owners. To date, staff has not received any input from the adjacent property owners. The proposed addition would not appear to have any negative impacts on adjacent properties. 3. Comnliance with the Town's zoningmquirempnts and ao '-ahle develo12ment standards. Section 18.71.020 (F) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, requires that any dwelling unit for which an addition is proposed shall be required to conform to the Design Review Guidefines set forth in Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. These standards include landscaQing, • undergrounding of utiiities, driveway paving, architecture and general 2 maintenance of the property. i Upon inspection of the site by staff, we find that this property is in compiiance with most of the Town of Vail zoning requirements and applicable standards, i.e., the applicanYs driveway is currently paved and the utilities serving the property are aiready underground. However, staff would recommend that additional landscaping be provided along the north, west and south sides of the proposed addition. Additionally, staff believes that, as designed, the proposed building would not comply with Section 18.54.050 (C12) which states that: "In no instance shall a duplex structure be so constructed as to result in each half of the structure appearing substantially s+milar, or mirror image in design." As indicated on the attached drawings, the addition to the west side of this duplex has been designed to substantially match the design of the addition which was added to the east side several years ago. Staff believes that the applicant should modify the appearance of the addition in a manner acceptable to the Design Review Board to atleviate the "mirror image" concern. B. Findinas, The Pianning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before . granting approval for Additional GRFA: • 1. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA would not negatively - impact adjacent properties. _ 3. That the granting of the requested Additionai GRFA would comply with aN Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. !V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for additional GRFA. Staff believes that the review criteria have been met as discussed in the memo. Regarding the findings, staff believes that finding B1 is met, as the proposed addition will not negatively impact the existing site; Finding B2 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposed addition will not negatively impact adjacent properties; Finding 63 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposed remodel wiN comply with all zoning requirements and applicable development standards. Staff would recommend that the following conditions be attached to the approval of this " application: 1. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide, for staff review, three section drawings through the building and property, including spot elevations, • necessary to allow staff to adequately review the grading and drainage impacts of the proposed addition. fAeveryone\pecUnemasUnesch.513 3 2. That additional landscaping, as deemed necessary by the PEC, be provided along the . north, west and south sides of the proposed addition. 3. Tha# the applican# modify the architectural appearance of the proposed addition . necessary to satisfy the Design Review Board that the proposed addition is not causing the building to tafce on a mirror image appearance. • ' . • f:leveryone\pec\memos\rnesch.513 4 • • / . . . / r , 00 E• a^° ~ s ~L'~, e 50 Jtit'?/ ~~NE 6~ ~ 5t18ACK \ N 7' . m C) 40 a_ 70 = , . ` wFSr UNrt o_ • ~ . O • v ~z EAST ' Rid4" E ~ 3 - m ~ • UrrrT g,5v~0 a o b W o 2,rjfOlr r w ± , , ~ 5;o r Wrrn Gadle ~ 9f A} D , ~ Flot RmO f1e+.- m 8564.07.9 . i5 ~ 29 3 15.0 a4.3 u~ 0 o , . _ 'C3 \ N ~ J .o , o ~ • ~ VN . 5£t9 prK E056mdot a~d ~ o~`;^°q oo' . 20 Jtil;rY . ~ . 0''~'- 0 64 ~ 51REET ADORESS: =QaO Meadcw Lane ' 5 'O 20 3' so :'ail, CO 81657 ~ i 15ft6.01 20 R2.0111 I 11 ff 9.0 K` ft 0.0 in-44 . -4i-\ -----«~--r------ ? • , _ ; . . . . . ~ It I ! ` i ~ - --f --^--F---f - - rj.,1 - - - - - --i-~--- _--r _ _ -l-i i I I II I' i s:i ~ ~ Up i i I I 111_ ii ii o III: t; ~ ~ M M,+STER BEDROOM I ( I I z z ~ I I=~ ~ I(_~ I - - _ - - - - - - 1 ft ? ~ ( ( ( 1 1 I ~ I I ~ O --i i . ~ I •I _ ~ ~ i ~ ~ , ~ ~ i~ WA5HER j I I ;;~---------------------------i~ I ( I I I\ I I I, DRYER i i l/ I I ~ - I I 1 f^l i.~ / ~ i; ~ t I o ~ ~ ~t ~ m • ~ ` • i ~ Q 0 REPL/1CE EX1571NG IMNDOW MUD ROOM ryi 2-6 HALF LIGHt DOOR Y ~ _ - - - - - -~-------------------------------------rf----~I ` IE--6 ft 0.0 in----~I NEW MAvTER DEDROOM ENtR/WCE THUR G/1RAGE DOOR GROUND LEVEL ~ SQUTH ELEYAtlON ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . ..:e. w.. . . . . ? : . ; v.,~ . - _ . - _ - - - - - - 4' r - - - - - - Yz - - - - i I I I I II I I' ry ~6 A4~~"jia,y?`~R{~ ~'u~>~ •'Y;. '~J~t TtT ' I i f ; ~ ~ I ~ I ~ I 1 I ErsnNCPecx ~ : - ~ - , ---;i i ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - ,{-i i ' i - - ~ • • ? - -t' - - - - - _ - - - j- - ~ ~t 7 r-. - - - - ~ - -_~,i ~ ~ i ~ 'i~ ~ WALK WAY \ 1. ~ ~ 1 i K---W----s n 2.6 trr-------x --i i " ~ oi I EXISTING LIVING RM I ~ I o- t0 BE EAtING AREA t o i, z ~----y i i i ~ ~ ~ oM a ~ I ~ ~ w ^ 7 ft 6•01 < w ~ 1 I EXIStING DECK M!D DOT tUB , ~ . . . OYER G E - i ~ m u! cz 1~ a . . _ . . - , s,•.-. U) BUllt IN CABNEt5/CHINA CAHNETS I •z 3 2'X T ~ ( EXIStING 2 PEOPLE EATING MEl1 ~ Q ~ 5tEP5 /l5 NEEDED ~ >o u I p p ~ NEW FNv1ILY RM - i 1 ~ 15' x187, 9 i ! 277 5C. Ft. ~ i ,8n7.oi ~ ~ ~ ~ . . t ; : . ~ . : _ . , . . ~ ~ MAIN LEVEL ~ 29 tc 2.0 in- ~ , • , . . EXIStING ROOF LINE ~ I t ~ 1 f ~ i - 1 : ~------------t • ~ - ~ ~ f I ~ ----------1 - 'i-~----~ ~ s ~ ~n~l , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_~~..~-------j--i-- L-'----- ~ _ I i I I I ~ ~ ~ - ~--------r- ~ ~ - ~ L-===== 1 C - r ~ d I ~ ' ` ~r ^ ~ - - r -~i ~ - --i ~ - CD r==---- - r^ r f ry - LE------------ F===== r= =_,r =---------F=-=------------= li y____- _ -^=~J~-~'~~.~~_~___.', _ ^ /EXISTI~JG GARAGE M!D DECK/HOT TUB ~ I I ~ 1 ~r------------------------------------~ ~ I ~ ' I t ~ 1 1 ~j j I o H _ _ I ~ L ~ - ( I F-------------------------------------------~ ~ I 1 j 1 ~ I I ~ V 1 ~ I I _ f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C'e, Vq ~ :...;,.,,~,..~...~,.w..~~ ...o..~.._ ..r . • ~ _ NEAt M1RROR i DR LUW - E ~ GL.15a ALL YVINDONiS i f ~ 'I i ~ - ~ I. _ 1 f I~ ~ f -Il 11 l(~ 4l EX15TING pECK AND DOt TUB OYER GARJIGE . ~ I ~ ? lt~i ' ' I ~ ~ ~ . F----~ ft o.o i MATCHING EKCER40R FiN15H / 3 ft 0.5 inN ALL S{;PPORTS ON ENGiNEERED FQUi3DAt10NS ~ , , EXISTING ROOF LINE ~ . I ~ ~ - r,ewROOF ~ i i L ' i ; ~ i ~ i i i i i t ~ i i i ~ i i ~ -r - r--------------`--^--------^------------------ --_---,-vv-_----_------------_ I i I I t o ~1 II ~ I I1 ~I II I ~ It T I( il I ( 1 f==== =-==P1 f_ ^ J ~ EXISrING S*RJCfURE i r =--t+==-=_ - r ~ - rnI ---__~_____====-1 L -r=r=rrr=r _ = _1L--------- ~ -~t_ = y--------------~ -Z__._'____~_~'_. _T_'___'_._ i j-1--------------------- ,~--r------------ ~ i I I I 1 I ~ ! I r ! 1 ~ i L ~ I ~ I I I I ~ I I 1 L- ' 15ft6.0iir " _ - - ~ - , - - - - A ~ ~ , MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department i ~ DATE: May 13, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a density variance to allow for the construction of additional GRFA within an existing primary/secondary residence, located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Unit B, Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. - Applicant: Barbara Bingham Planner: Dominic Mauriello 1. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant converted a vaulted area (183.5 sq.ft.) above their garage to habitable space (GRFA) without design review approval or a building permit. Staff became aware of the violation following the discovery of a similar conversion in the adjoining duplex Unit "A". In that case, staff became aware of the unpermitted construction after the Fire Department responded to an alarm at the subject properry. Construction was on-going when the Fire Department arrived, and no building permit was in evidence. The owners of this adjoining unit (the Shiffrin's) were required to remove the improvem6nts since there was only 11 sq.ft. of available GRFA on the property. The Shiffrin's applied for, and were subsequently denied a density variance on October 9, 1995, which • they further appealed to the Town Council. The PEC decision was upheld by the Town Council on October 17, 1995. A copy of the PEC minutes are attached. A letter was sent to the applicant requiring that the unpermitted GRFA be removed. The applicant decided to request a density variance in an attempt to gain approvat to allow the GRFA to remain. The allowable GRFA for the property is 4,700 sq.ft. The duplex received a Cerrificate of Occupancy on February 10, 1993. The approved GRFA for the duplex is 4,689 sq.ft. The applicant converted the existing enclosed area above the garage labeled as "open to below" on the approved plans to GRFA. The conversion adds 183.5 sq.ft. of GRFA to the duplex. Thus, the applicant is requesting a density variance to allow for an additional 172.5 sq.ft. of GRFA on the property. II_ ZONING ANALYSIS Zoning: Two-Family ResideMial (R) Lot Area: 15,999.6 sq.ft. Allowed/Required xistin Proposed GRFA: 4,700 sq. ft. 4,689 sq.ft. 4,872.5 sq. ft. ~ Page 1 of 3 III. CRiTER1A AND FiNDING Upon review of the criteria and findings contained in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, • the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested density variance based upon the foilowing faciors: A. ronsideration of Factors: ~ 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses ' and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the proposed density variance would set a negative precedent if approved. Granting a density variance would reward the applicant for illegal conversion of vautted space to GRFA by adding a ftoor. The bulk and density of the building would have been reduced if this conversion would have been included as GRFA in the original floor plans, since the GRFA would have been reduced in other areas. In the present situation, the structure is existing and there are no additional impacts to adjacent uses. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff finds that the strict and literaf interpretation and enforcement of the GRFA regulations is +mportant to achieve compatibitiry and uniformity of treatment among various properties in Town. Granting the requested variance would be a grant of • special privilege, and would tend to encourage other unpermitted conversions. This would not only be detrimental to the enforcement of the Zoning Code, but it couid also result in unsafe construction since others may attempt to build without a building permit and inspections by TOV building officials to ensure conformity with the Building Code. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe that the requested variance woutd have any affect on the above referenced criteria. B. The PlanninQ and Environmental Commission shail make the following findings before 'i grantinq a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the viciniry. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation • . would result in practical difficuliy or unnecessary physical hardship Page2of3 inconsistent with the objectives of this title. • b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that doe not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. ' IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of the applicant's request for a density variance to allow for the construction of additional GRFA within an existing primary/secondary residence, located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Unit B, Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Staff finds that the applicant's request does not meet the variance criteria listed above. Specifically, staff finds that the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the density regulations is necessary to avoid a grant of special privilege, that could have significant ramifications to the community if the same privilege is applied to other properties throughout Town. Furthermore, staff finds that there is no special circumstance or physical hardship that applies to the subject property that would warrant granting the requested variance. The applicant is hereby made aware that if the PEC denies the requested variance, that the i applicant shall make application for a demolition permit within 14 days of the PEC decision. • F:\everyone\pecMemolbingham.m 13 • Page 3 of 3 Areck Can~ e f~.e cZ . . . . ! _ ye p J. 12~ ~0 - j~~-~ • ( ..f?~rp ~ G~ ~ z ? t-~~' - ~ ~ I ! ! w'SO I ~ 3030 CG ~ I . ~ ..i--- ~ j00 ~ r' ~ I~C' ? 41'~~?~ ~+0~+~ ~ •P W: : ~ ~yN.}9..'r'ib'~G'- "1 44°h. MKt,~ ~•5 K'-S aN vN . ~ , / ~rp• . t~tNING v ~ w- - ri~: TyN. FL. `7=l. ym" " y ti _ OtL GA A.G'Lli6 C}'-, / A1 Q . ~ , '1~~ ~ c;'i~ 4xIUN6 1'rr- Nw A T' rf'• ~ . _ _ - , ~ _ - %il 0) -h ~ . 4 _ . • ~ SG~'~...._.___. ' \ V ~ ~,•~f L U ~ ~ . z t•: ~ , , . ~cc: ~ ~a7Up,~; ! ~ ~ IVI t2Ln~1 c~ : ~ HN,_ NrL.',G ~ 3o~ou _ _ u ~ 2A .24 IA : (xrs~v~ (~y o 1 ~ . r. _ 1 ta'~? r- .._9~-0 - ~f~__- : , . ~ . • , ~ , i ~ ~ I i I , l i . . . . ! . . . . . . . _ . . . zq.~.~ _ . . . . ~.1 . . . . . . . , . . ' . _ _ ..~/'a,.,1_ V~tla~.e ..12~`'... . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ ~o~k Z . . . _ . . . . _ . . . . . ~ ~ Lo-~ c,o . . . . . . . . . . _ i. _ . . . sI dA. b i . . _ . . . . . . . . CO. .8 ]1-os'.7.. . . . . . W , ~ , ; . . 0.l 54o 7'o.,;?-1 v4 vc-~ --Wne re S4? kC~kU-n 40 0. Ro ut'? o v r -(-0Lrn~ l vJ , . ; 40 lo e- 00-o,G ,40 U we- 0` ScnGLt( 0.c'e Gl, O.^~'. . . i . . ~ O Vr' aLnl r~ r O 0 tY1 a P P ro X )JC? ,4!~f ' s~acc, o ~ ~ . • I, A~ a-~' o~r,~.~1 ~ o~' S r' . z. u 1-~-. s , 3 c, 1~~ ~ c~~ e r~ a 3 bedroo", lNo Use w~. cool~ rea l ~ v se e,~l-ra, roo ry-, as o. cau ~ e-I- S(=c ~c ~ In o n\e w o r k ~~'ecLGLi n~~,> a» 8 sl~ocaSe - S . O•~n mo m ! er4\~. wo.s at~ owe..~ bu.l.d..e. .r ; b v~-- r\o-~ U3o cJO( . ~ V\ 0.ve- p, b S o _ i ~ , o e x -~e ~ ~or o..p peaYtLnc.L ~ a .C pU. Lla4c an ? a~c~ s4 W o~j ~ c` c~ k n r- t. n o ~ . , 1 1(\~.\Gl U~ S . . ~e vec mv ch Lzan-~ec9 -A-0 1 k\/4e_ Xr. 4k'~-., . ( cn-~ \fart~ uo~ne-r, we- rn(oYeJ -from w asv)knq4an ~ 'D• G. ~ o.s vie 6-6 1pecr\ 4OUC.s-Vs 1Aere Ss.~rs j p~n d c oQ 0- p~p r~ ck 0.Ae.. ~e. %v a 0 • ~ l ( . . ' ~ kV~ 1 -C'o w I ~w, r~- S ~ ~ W G? ~ I n • ~ ' 0. s~ re.kl-,, 4or- us -~o P urc1-1c)L&4F- ~1~ . i ou., . . . ; , . . . ~ 1 - i 1 " , ? 1 ~ ( . . i . . . - - . . . , . 111o m r O.v. . v.s c . . . . . 1'~1 , O~J , . ~ ~ s~~nce. . . w~e. . ~ac~ ~ o he a-~- ~ ns u r~. . . ~ . . . . . I . . . i . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k O V r' a n GtS._ . . . i LS -~:QO..... (~e.ner0.1 kr', . ~ . . . . . . . . _ . ~ . . . 1r~aw~~..~c~-. ~ . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . ~ . . . . .~~.6.~.. . . . . . . . . . . ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ i. P. s. t o ~s;~. _~t-t~~ s s(.~o~.c~ ,~1- wo ~ to?~ .~c.c~ o~ t..~.~. ~ ~M ~~noc~ C4c ~e~n~,r K . _W O r i . J . . _ . . , , ; , _ . . . . . . _ _ . . i i . ~ . . . , . . , . ; 1 , , . , . . . . . . . . j . . . . . . ~ ? . _ . . . . . . . . I , . . . . . . . . . . . I . . _ ( . . . . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . - . . . - ti ~ . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . f . . . . . ~ . . . . . , . . . , . . . _ . . i ? . . . I ~ _ _ . . . : . . . . . . . . . ~ t • I The Phase I design was originally canstruCted with the Phase il plan to be added later en he ' i could afford it. This house fits into the neighborhood and al( the neighbors are in fa of it. • Galen's neighbor couldn't rebuild her house under current coverage rules. This of unfortunate situation is what variances are made for. If this is turned down, n most likely will not stay in town. This is a better design solution than what zoning will forc im to do. One. thought is ihat he did solve his parking problem first. Galsn Aasland stated that what he is allowed is considerably more ass. This expansion is what the original plan for the house was to be and he feels it me the criteria. Bob Armour mentioned that there are 5 letters from neighbors Ga4en's behalf. ~ Kevin Deighan had no comment. Greg Amsden asked if the living room could be sm r. ' Galen Aasland said it was possible, however h howed the PEC a picture of a museum that he had visited during his childhood in New York d was mode{ing this dream room after it. To make it smaller was not what he wanted t o. He did not want to take out the cantilevered part. Jeff Bowen felt that in this specific cir stance, that the Town of Vail created a hardship situation by changing the site cover e rules. Therefore, Jeff Bowen is in favor of granting this request. Henry Pratt stated that this w an extraordinary circumstance and so he is also in favor of granting the request. ~ Jay Peterson said he fe ery strongly a.bout this request. S Galen Aasland me ned that most people show the plans and build shortly thereafter; they don't wait 6 years ith rules changing during that time, before they finish it. He said he would have done the e, but he simply did not have the money to do the complete project all at one time. Bob Armo stated that he also is in favor of granting the request. Jeff B en made a motion to grant the request. Ke Deighan seconded the motion. e motion passed unanimously, by a vote of 5-0. ~ 8. A request for a density (GRFA) variance to a11ow for the conversion of "open to beiow„ space to GRFA located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Lot 6-A, B1ock 2, Vail Vi{lage 12th Filing. Applicant: Jeffrey & Eileen Shiffrin Planner. Randy Stouder The conversion of °open to below" space to GRFA occurred without the necessary design review and building permit reviews by staff. Randy Stouder summarized the request and stated that the ~ applicant is over the al{owable GRFA by 189 sq. ft. Bob Armour asked if this house was eligible for a 250 yet. • 12 i ~ . ? Randy Stouder said that it is not eligible for a 250 yet. Jeff Shiffrin stated that he was not the original builder or owner of the unit. He stated that he ~ ~ purchased this house because it had unfinished space that could be built oui when needed. He's ! from New Hampshire where he did this before and a building permit was not needed for conversion of interior space. He personally feels that the Town should dictate the exterior of a building, but not the interior. It's punishment for him not to be able to use this space, not punishment for the Town if he uses the space. This existing structure does not affect mass and bulk. . Jeff Bowen can't approve this request under the circumstances. Henry Pratt said the 250 rule was written for this type of situation; so he is not in favor of granting the request. Greg Amsden said it would set a dangerous precedent by passing this. Henry Pratt mentioned that it was on Susan Connelly's agenda for 1996 to look at the GRFA rules. Kevin Deighan agreed with the other Commission's comments. Jeff Bowen stated that he had 14 days to tear it down, but may want to appeal to the Town Council. Mike Mollica clarified that if an appeal was made, that he would have 14 days to tear it down following the Town Council's decision if the request is denied. - Randy Stouder stated that he had 10 days to appeal. . • ~ Jeff Bowen moved that the request be denied and that the space be removed in 14 days of this decision in accordance with the applicant not meeting the criteria findings for variances as outlined in the staff memo. The motion was seconded by Kevin Deighan. The motion passed unanimously, with a vote of 5-0. 9. A request for a minor CCI exterior alteration to allow for the addition of a bay window to the Lord Latigo Shop located in ihe A& D Building, 286 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A-D, Block 5D, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Barry Florescue, represented by Sage Pierson Planner: Lauren Waterton , TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 23, 1995 Greg Moffet moved to table this request until October 23, 1995. Bob Armour seconded the motion. The vote passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. 10. Council Reports ~ ~ f:leveryaw\peca+gendu110995 13 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 13, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed minor subdivision to ailow for a change in lot configuration, located at 1794 S. Frontage Road/Lots 2& 8, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant: Antonio and Val Aldrete, represented by Brent Alm Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicants, Antonio and Val Aldrete, represented by Brent Alm of Alm Architects, Inc., are requesting a worksession to discuss a minor subdivision of Lots 2& 3, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. The applicants are proposing to relocate the existing common lot line, between Lots 2& 3, approximately 45' to the east (see attachment 1). The proposed minor subdivision is intended to facilitate a future residence proposed on Lot 2. • The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan illustrating the location of the proposed residence and access thereto (see attachment 2). The purpose for relocating the common lot line is to increase the building envelope of Lot 2. Currently, the total lot area of Lot 2 is 17,213 sq. ft. The total buildable area of Lot 2 is 3,650 sq. ft. (21%). This includes the area in the required setbacks. When required setbacks are taken into consideration, the buildable area of the lot is reduced to only 636 sq. ft. The proposed relocation of the lot line will increase the total lot area of Lot 2 to 21,283 sq. ft. The total building envelope of Lot 2 will be increased by 1,530 sq. ft., to 2,166 sq. ft. The proposed relocation of the common lot line will not result in the creation of a non-conforming situation on Lot 3, as it relates to the Town's development standards. II. BACKGROUND The final plat of the Vail Village West Subdivision, Filing No. 2 was approved by the Eagle Gounty Planning Commission on April 22, 1965. In September of 1978, the Town of Vail annexed the Vail Village West Subdivision. Upon annexation of the area, Lot 3 was zoned Greenbelt and Natural Open Space, and Lot 2 was zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. In May of 1984, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission recommended approval of a request to rezone Lot 3 from Greenbelt and Natural Open Space to Primary/Secondary Residential. The rezoning was approved on two readings of an ordinance by the Town Council on July 3, 1984 (Ordinance No: 19, Series of 1984). Lot 3 has been developed with a duplex dwelling unit. The duplex unit has not used up all the development potential. Approximately 4,778 sq. ft. of GRFA is permitted on Lot 3. Since its original creation as a lot, Lot 2 has been intended to be used as a residential lot. • 1 . IIi. ZONING ANALYSIS • LOT 2 LOT 3 's 'n Proggsed i i P o s Total Lot Area: 17,213 sq. ft. 21,283 sq. ft. 23,183 sq. ft. 19,112 sq. ft. . Total Allowable GRFA: 4,817 sq. ft 5,228 sq. ft. 5,418 sq. ft. 5,011 sq. ft. Total Albwable Site Coverage: 3,443 sq. ft. 4,257sq. ft. 4,637 sq. ft. 3,822 sq. ft. Street Frontage: 335 ft. 380 ft. 343.6 ft. 298.6 ft. Minimum Lot Size (15,000 sq. ft. of Buildable Area): 3,650 sq. ft. 5,924 sq. ft. 17,795 sq. ft. 15,521 sq. ft. Does the lot meet the size/shape requiremeM of 80' x SO'? no yes yes yes Building Envelope: 636 sq. ft. 2,166 sq. ft. 10, 756 sq. ft. 8,956 sq. ft. IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA • One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that the minimum standards for the creation of a new lot must be met. Although this proposal is not truly creating two new lots, instead, it is reconfiguring two existing lots. As a result, this project will be reviewed under the Minor Subdivision Criteria, pursuant to Chapter 17, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. ' As this is a worksession to discuss the applicants' proposal for a minor subdivision of Lots 2& 3, Vail Village West Filing No. 2, the staff will not evaluate all of the minor subdivision review criteria at this time. Staff has, however, identified several issues which we would like to discuss with the PEC and the applicants. Each of those issues is identified below: 1. UNDERGROUNDING EXISTING OVERHEAD UTIUTIES Currently, there are several overhead utility lines located on the applicants' property. Two of the utility lines run generally north/south across the applicants' lot and over Gore Creek. These lines service residences on the south side of Gore Creek in the Matterhorn neighborhood. Neither of these utility tines is located within a platted utility easement. There is also a main utility line running east/west along the South Frontage Road. This line is located in a platted utility easement. This overhead line is a major power transmission line and provides much of the power to the area. Historically, the Town of Vail has required property owners to underground existing overhead utility lines that are located on their property. Most of the lines, however, have been service lines providing power to individual residences. In this case, two of the • f:\everyone\pecVnemos\aldrete.513 2 . existing utility lines are service lines to residences on the south side of Gore Creek. To • completely underground these lines would require the applicant to bore underneath Gore Creek as well as disturb the existing wetland areas along Gore Creek. Staff feels it may be possible to relocate and bury a portion of these lines and to bury that portion of the utility line that does not cross over Gore Creek. Staff also believes that it may be possible to underground the existing overhead main utility line currently located adjacent to the South Frontage Road. A total of 565 linear feet of main line located on the applicants' property could be undergrounded. Staff has asked the applicants' representative to research the possibility of undergrounding the main line with Holy Cross and be prepared to respond to this issue at the worksession. - 2. A E According to the applicants' proposed conceptual site plan, access to Lot 2 will be gained off of the South Frontage Road. The South Frontage Road is under the jurisdiction of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). In order to gain access to the lot off of the South Frontage Road, an Access Permit will be required by CDOT. It is Staff's understanding that if CDOT grants the desired Access Permit, conditions of issuance may be placed on the permit by CDOT. Staff would request that the Town of Vail receive a copy of the approved Access Permit, prior to issuance of a Building Permit for Lot 2. 3. EASEMENTS If the proposed minor subdivision is approved, the Town of Vail Public Works Department • witl be requiring two easements. One easement will be for storm water drainage and the other will be for a future bike path to be constructed along the South Frontage Road. The exact location of these easements has not yet been determined. It is anticipated that neither of these easements will interfere with the proposed building envelope, and therefore, should not negatively impact the development potential of the lots. The first set of review criteria to be considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission for a Minor Subdivision Application are as follows: A. . Lot Area - The Town of Vail Municipal Code indicates that the minimum lot or site area for a property located within the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District, - shall be 15,000 sq. ft. (0.344 acre) of buildable area. The Municipal Code defines "buildable area" as any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof, which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche, or areas in excess of 40%. - The existing Lot 2 does not currently meet the minimum lot area requirement set forth above. Currently, the buildable area of Lot 2, as indicated in the Zoning Analysis above, is approximately 3,650 sq. ft. The proposed property line modification would increase the buildable area of Lot 2 to approximately 5,924 sq. ft. The existing Lot 3 however, does currently meet the minimum lot area requirements for a lot zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. The buildable area of Lot 3 is currently 17,795 sq. ft. With the proposed property line modification, the buildable area of Lot 3 would be reduced to 15,521 sq. ft. • f:leveryonelpecMemos\atdrete.513 3 . B. Fr n - The Vaii Municipal Code requires that lots in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District have a minimum frontage of 35'. Both Lots 2& 3 • currently have a street frontage in excess of 35' and the proposed minor subdivision will not have a negative effect on the frontage of either lot. C. Site Dimensions - The Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot be of a size and shape capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. Lot 2 currently does not meet the size and shape requirement for lots . in the Primary/Secondary Residential Zone District. The proposed minor subd+vision would create a Iot of the size and shape necessarY to enclose a square area, 80' on each side, within its new boundaries. Additionally, Lot 3 . currently meets the size and shape requirement and would continue to meet the requirement with the proposed minor subdivision. The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request are as outlined in the subdivision regulations, and are as follows: "The burden of proof shall rest with the aPPlicant to show that the application is in . compliance with the intended purpose of Chapter 17, the Zoning Ordmance and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies related to subdivision control, densities ProPosed, re9ulations, ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, ~ effects on the aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding uses." The subdivision purpose statements are as follows: • I 1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of improvements required. Staff ResRonse: One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any development control, is to establish basic ground rules by which the staff, the PEC, applicant and the community can follow in the public review process. Although this request does not involve the creation of two new lots, it is the appropriate process to amend the existing configuration of two existing lots. 2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with development on adjacent properties. Staff ResRqnse: 3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of buildings and improvernents on the land. I Staff Re~p nse: i • f:~eve one clmemos~aldrete.513 4 ry ~ . . . 4. To insure that subdivision of properry is in compliance with the Town Zoning Ordinance, • to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives. Staff Res op nse: 5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision. Staff Res onse: 6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish reasonable and desirable construction, design standards and procedures. Staff Response: 7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to insure adequacy of drainage facilities, to safeguard the water table and encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the community and the value of land. Staff Res oQ nse: • V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Since this is a worksession to discuss the proposed minor subdivision of Lots 2& 3, Vail Village West Subdivision Filing #2, staff will not be providing a formal staff recommendation at this time. Staff will, however, provide a staff recommendation on the minor subdivision proposal at the time of final review. • f:\everyone\pecMemos\aldrete.513 5 I , \.x`:.:,~ .4 y~~ , ~;•i ~ / i .~w..:~ ~ a, ~ ~ R ~ ' 1~ ~ `°"'ti- ~ ~ ` ` 4•1'~ seAu: r-»' ~ o•tt a siwvcr: 3/10/9: s ~ , , ~ Lot s ~ . ~ . ~ '10 f\~ •<u - t A'c ~ ~ i - ~ / • ~ % ' Yl~ed LQ , ~ % :w / s / MT! .~°J ~ . . . . . . j ~ ~ • / ~ ~i j' ~•~nr« ~ surirruee Nmat > ~ ~ . •_..f.' / , " ~r'M~• r.~r ~ ~se~e~~~ • ....r~ a~. r'I~~sn. • LOT 7 r';. ~qf~ un. ~ . LOi it ~ / j ~ / , ~ ' ~ ,~M I LOT1Y / LOT 17 , / roaocRAaf+ic wRVer ~ LoT z ANo Lor a VAtL v1U.AGE WEST FlUNC N0. 2 TONA1 OF VAIL. a ....r.~ ...a..~ n~. .~.~w EAGIE COUNTY. COLORADO a ~su r. w r.. r w w.~rwu~ r r.~.. . ~ ~ . . / : ; ' 'n. rY~;p11, VAX~~~.wk',nsterrs ,~Q` / ~ , a •+o~adrar^r t°e ~ ' i' c~. a"r°w i u,'"DW~+°xx W.51m¢'°r°c ~ ' / •Y qCC / ~.s~; yt~s`y'~•rq, ~ '2'}'.•:;'•,.~...:~.~'~ ~ ~+re ~j '•'~'srl~;a~; ~ ' ~,l " i ~ _ - / .;Y~ ' z.. ,Pp ~ Q~ / ~ ~ o; :'•~i' , m ii. 1 - - - ~ ~'"hp . i ~r ~ • ~ ' , • •r~1~. ~ • i{~'~~:'.~{~~~,:._ _ ~ , j~_ ~ ,~y ' . t ~ ~ ~1 f~i Ii~~Fi,~ ,~,i t • - j ~`7 ~ G~ ~ . . `.~i ~"•i ~ ~'t i;. ii' Y i;~lj` ~::~,io • tas,l,~~~i.,i _ t°i tui9 ' i i~+' ~ u ~ ~ I~ I'`• ~r y.(i, , i, X ~ i il~ rl~~ • ~ . ~i ' ~ ' ,y~ _ / f~~',t`: ~ ~ .1CI'f(~". . ' ~ • ~ 1 ° - . k5~ £ kE . 4 4 LOT. 6 . % /f - • j ~ - ~ \ t'' / • . i . i J ~ •O~ ~ - ~i ,e ~ " ~1• ~ `p-[ 7 i ' i - . ' i 1 ' ' ` • ~~,~~y t ? CENIf.R i{Nt / ` (:L)5/l. CSltf K _ A~ #2 - i t ytr'w~ awn9 ~oo . - :,ov+F~e i,hr. Lpj m&VDL*v 011 ~ OV ~ , MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Communiry Development Department DATE: May 13, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a building height variance to allow for a residence, currently under construction, to exceed the height limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. The residence is located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD#4). " . Applicant: Bill Anderson, representing Mr. & Mrs. Hovey ' Planner: Dommic MaurieIlo 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST The applicant is in the process of constructing a residence on Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision. The Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) submitted by the applicant indicates that sections of three separate roof ridges were constructed at heights exceeding the 33-foot height limitation for structures constructed in the Primary/Secondary Zone District. The ridges in question are labeled A, B and C, starting at the lowest of the ridges and going up to the highest (see the attached elevation drawing). According to the interpolated existing grades provided by • Intermountain Engineering (based on the original topographic survey), and the ridge height figures provided by Eagle Valley Surveying (ILC), ridges A, B and C were constructed up to 8 inches higher than the 33-foot height limitation. The applicant is ciaiming that the revised "Survey Policies" (attached) of the Town would allow the constructed building height. Staff believes the revised policies would have no effect on the constructed building height. The applicant 6s requesting a variance to retain the roof ridges at the constructed heights. Thus, the applicant is requesting a variance of 8 inches, to 'the 33-foot heatjht limitation. II. BACKGROUND On January 8,1996, the PEC unanimously denied the same rc-quest for a building height variance. The PEC decision was appealed to the Town Council. On January 16, 1996, the Town Council failed to pass a motion to either uphold or overturn the decision of the PEC, and tMerefore the PEC decision of denial stands. The PEC and Council minutes are attached. 111. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of the Criteria and Findings for variances, contained in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested height variance based on the following factors: . 1 , A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or • potentiai uses and structures in the vicinity. The requested variance will have littie or no impact on adjacent properties and structures. The portions of roof ridges that exceed 33 feet are , minimal. All of the ridges are up to 8 inches over the 33-foot limitation, for i • a length of less than 5 lineal feet. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified reguiation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this tiUe without grant of special privilege The applicanYs statement indicates that the height timitation encroachments occurred as a result of dimensional changes that were made in the floor structure and roof structure. These two structural changes increased the thickness of the floors and the height of the roof structure. Compensating changes could have been made to the interior floor to ceiling heights that would have alleviated the height problem with , negligible impact to the interior spaces. The floor to ceiling heights were not adjusted accordingly. Staff believes that approving the variance would be a grant of special privilege that could open the door to similar, after-the-fact requests. Staff believes it is important to strictly enforce the 33-foot height limitation in • order to maintain the integrity of the height regulation. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The requested variance will have no effect on this criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall rnake the followina findinas before g.ranting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in - the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary 2 • i ~ , physicai hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. ' c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of ihe specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by ihe owners of other properties in the same district. IV. $TAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends deniai of the requesied variance. Staff believes ihat granting the height variance would not be injurious to other properties in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and welfare. However, staff believes that the variance would be a grant of special privilege since there does not appear to be any unusual circumstances unique to the property, or the construction process, that would justify the request. Staff believes that the strict and literal interpretation of the height limitation is necessary to ensure that all residential construction in this zone district is subject to the same height restriction. f:\everyone\pecMemoslhovey2.m13 i • 3 r April ll, 1996 Mike Mollica Community Development Department Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Hovey Residence at 1339 Westhaven Circle - height variance Dear Mike: Per our phone discussions I am applying for a height variance at the Hovey Residence. It is my understanding that Randy Stouder and David Peel have developed the followiag criteria: A) 8" to 0" for a distance of 4'-6" B) 8" to 0" for a distance of 4'-0" C) S" to 0" for a distance of 3'-9" (See attached drawing.) It is our contention that the use of a tago survey as an absolutely accurate document is not correct. The national standard allows for a 1 foot plus or minus tolerance based on 2 foot contours. (See attached letter from Intermountain Engineering.) With this accepted toleran.ce our ridge heights could be 4" under. The bottom line, it seems to us that there is no way at the present rime to accurately prove that ~ the Hovey Residence encroaches into the height limitation. _ ~ With this in mind we are not sure that a variance is really needed but as it seems to be our only altemative, we are following the Town of Vail's saggested course of action. I ~ Sincerely, ' ~ Bill Anderson Project Manager , Beck and Associates, Inc. ~ . fffflfl= 046 ~ Janu$ty 12, 1996 , , * ' Mr. bava Psa1 PO 8oX 1202 Vsil, CO 81658 ' via tax: 476-4572 . RE: Lot 23, Glan Lyon Subdivision Praject No. 948568 Dear Uave: • Thig letter is in regard to the accuracy of the tapographia map on the referenced property. zt is our po].icy to folYow the ldata,onal Mapping Accuraay sstandarfl$ which require t.hat all topographic map be within f 1J2 the aontour interval cf the map. ' The tapvgrephic map shown from our survey ori thia prajaat has 2 foot contours arbich meana they are otithin t 1 foot. iP yau have ahy further questians, please rsall. S , $ ce elY, - , , - Duane D. Fehringer P.E., P.L.S. , • ' ' 77 Metoalf Road, A201 • Box 978 • Avon. Cdaado 81620 ~ Phone: 970-949-50y2 • From Denver Dirsct: 893-1631 1A20 Vance SVeet t 1.dcawopd, Colorado 80215 • Phww: 303-232-0158 ' . ~ • ~ . ----r---,. ~ • . ' • . ' 5e. ~ ,4 f ~ • ~ . , . , . . , ~ - ~ • ~ . ~ l? ' . , = tM ` ~ ~ i . ' • V.~ ' t, ys~t`j . Z ~ 1- .i: fi H~ ' ~ • • ~ • ~ y~, l t' ~ f 4} ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ` t: ~ ~ - ` . . , ~ ~ t ' w ~ ~ ~ ' • . ~:.,Y • ` ~ 1: + j~'~'~ =r • - ~ s • ' S~ . , . . ~ ;1 • • ' ~ . I t . • , • ' , i j.~ , • . • . i'4 • ~ + • ~ , . • ' 4 j ` . ' ~ t ~ . • • • . * ? . , • . ' . . ' , • • ~ . ' • ' • ~ ' • . . , . ~ ~ ~ . • t ~ • ~ • t • ' , • • . . . • . • ~ • • • ` ~ ~ • ~ ~ ~ . • • ~ ~ ~ • 5 ~ ~ ~ / - _ . ~ ~ ~ - ' / • ' ~ • ~ . . 4VAIL TO1~N ~ MEMORANDUM T0: All Architects, Contractors and Surveyors Doing Work in the Town of Vail FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: March 28, 1996 ' SUBJECT: Survey Requirements The following survey requiremenis apply to all new construction and to.some additions. If you are unsure if your project requires an Improvement Location Certificate, talk to the project planner. 1. PRIOR TO A BUILDING PERMIT Benchmark - On all surveys and Improvement Location Certificates, identify the benchmark used for the basis of the elevations. The same benchmark should be used throughout the construction process to insure that the measurement of a building is consistent. Items which make good benchmarks are sewer inverts, section corners, and • property corners. Do not use manhole rims, the asphalt in streets, or fire hydrants. Architects and Builders should be aware that discrepancies exist in established monumentation in the Vail Valley. Ptease consult a registered surveyor to verify monumentation prior to developing plans for a site. Establishment of base elevations for calculating building heiaht - If a building has any proposed ridge within one foot of the maximum building height, a spot elevation will be required directly below that proposed ridge to ensure accurate measurement of the ridge height. This additional spot elevation will need to be done when the building footprint and ridge elevations are identified and prior to submitting for a building permit. A topographic survey with the necessary spot elevations, foundation, and the ridges indicated shall be submitted with the building permit application. Any project that has received Design Review Board approval prior to March 11, 1996 shall be exempt from this requirement. Recommendations for Owner/Builder Projects - For owner/builders, the Town strongly suggests that a registered surveyor stake out the foundation prior to excavation or pouring. Additionally, after the foundation walls have been poured, we strongly encourage that a surveyor shoot the elevation of tFie foundation wall. With this information, contractors will be able to accurately estimate the final buitding height before the structure is completed. Contractors will be able to compensate in the construction process to ensure that the structure does not exceed the height limit. • 1 which exists the day of the survey. The pianner wili add the dimensions of ali ~ other materials (except a cold roof vent). For-example, if only the ridge beam has been constructed the day of the survey, the surveyor should note that, and the • planner will then add the dimensions of the insulation, sheathing, etc. to verify that the finished product will not exceed the height limit. On the attached diagrams, the point identified with an asterisk is the top ridge of the sheathing. A cold roof vent, not exceeding 12 inches in height, measured from the sheathing to the top of the shingles, is considered an architectural projection and will not be included in the height. 2. Setbacks - The distance from the foundation to each property line should be specified, noting the exterior material existing on the structure the day of the survey. Final distance will be measured from the outside edge of ihe exterior wall . material. If ledges or supports for rack veneer or any other facing material have been built into the foundation, measure the setback to that exterior point (see diagram below). ~ • ~ ~roc r. Yencew- ~ 7IDW SG~'boC,k 9'o4e, _ Taur+da-fion ~ P.'vPr'~ • 3 J I have read the Survey Requirements stipulated in the Town of Vail memorandum dated March . 28, 1996 and commit to adhere to them. Signature of owner, or owner's representative Print Name Date Job Name Permit Number Legal Description: Lot , Block , Filing I • . 5 w ~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMlSSlON January 8, 1996 • Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Jeff Bowen Mike Mollica Greg Amsden Dalton Williams George Ruther = Kevin Deighan Randy Stouder Henry Pratt Lauren Waterton ' Judy Rodriguez Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:05 p.m. Dalton Wiliiams and Jeff Bowen were absent. I . A request for a Major SDD Amendment to aflow for a 485 square foot addition to an existing condominium in the Gateway Building located at 12 Vail Road, Unit 5Nail Gateway Plaza Building. - - " Applicant: Steve Riden representing Vail Apartments Inc. ~ Planner: Randy Stouder • F Henry Pratt moved to table item No. 1, item No. 4 and item No. 5 until January 22, 1996. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. ~ 2. A request for a building height variance to allow for a residence currently under construction to exceed the height limit located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD - #4). Applicant: Bill Anderson representing Mr. and Mrs. Charles Hovey _ Planner: Randy Siouder Randy Stouder gave an ovenriew of the proposal. He stated that staff had reviewed the variance ' criteria carefully and found that justification for granting the variance was lacking. According to the applicant, depth was added to the floors and to the roof structure durin9 the construction Process without compensating reductions in the height of the structure. Staff felt that the structural changes could have been compensated for by reducing floor to ceiling heights. This was not done. Randy stated that the variance request should be denied because staff finds that approval would be a grant of special privilege. , Planning and Environmental Commission • ~ Minutes January 8, 1996 1 , Bill Anderson from Beck and Associates referred to a situation in East Vaii where a house was 3' over/`~ • the height limit and was granted a height variance. He was on the PEC at the time. He stated that the E surveyor made a mistake which resulted in the height increase. He felt that the mistake made on the Hovey residence was no different than the mistake made on the East Vail residence, both were honest mistakes_ He stated that the Hovey's had nothing to gain from the mistake. Bill said that he had contacted the adjoining property owners. The adjacent owners did not have any problems with granting a variance. They did not feel impacted by the additional height. Greg Moffet asked for public comment. No one came forward. Henry Pratt said although the impact is negligible and the neighbors don't care, he feels handcuffed ~ since the Findings are not met. Greg Amsden said for practical reasons that the variance should be granted, but based on Code, it would definitely be a grant of special privilege. He felt that he could not grant a variance based on a review of ihe criteria and findings. Kevin Deighan said he agreed with Greg Amsden's comments. Greg Moffet asked if an ILC was performed after the foundation was poured. He also asked if this mistake would have been caught by an fLC at that stage? Bill said no, that structural elements above the foundation had been changed and this caused the height increase. . Dave Peel said they went from a 10" floor to 11-7/8". He also explained how the roof structure was ~ modified slightly, resulting in additional height. , Greg Moffet said that the height problern was a self imposed hardship and the Board could not grant a .c variance. BiA Anderson mentioned that for on-site construction misfakes, the Board has granted variances in the past. - Randy Stouder said the East Vail variance was for the Musyl home. That variance was granted because of a surveyor error. The surveyor used an improper benchmark. Staff recommended denial even though the entire roof of the structure would have had to be taken off. The PEC did grant that variance. Henry Pratt asked if there had been any other height variances granted recentiy. Randy Stouder said that the Musyl variance was the only one he could recall in the two years he has been with the Town. Mike Molfica stated that each variance request has to stand on its own merits and should be judged .individually. Mike Mollica also doesn't remember any other similar requests being granted. Bill Anderson stated that if this variance was granted that it would not set a precedent for more variance requests, at least not by him or his company. Beck and Associates has a long track history ~ Planning and Enitironmental Commission ~ Minutes January 8, 1996 2~ / . . t r for being on iarget with heights and setbacks. Vtile screwed up and made a mistake. He does not want to tear up the roof and destroy the architect's design. He asked the Board to Ibok at the request with . some common sense. No one has been adversely effected and no one has gained anything from the small height increase. Greg Amsden made a motion fior denial of the variance request. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. • It passed unanimousty with a vote of 4-0. ' Mike Mollica added for the record that the applicant has 10 days to submit a written request for an appeal to Council. He also said that Council uses the same criteria and findings that the PEC uses. Bill Anderson stated that the Hoveys want to move in by March 1, 1996 and asked if he could get a TCO by posting a bond to guarantee that the height overage would be corrected. He did not feel that the work could be completed prior to March 1. Mike Mollica said he would be comfortable with bonding. 3. A request for wall height variances and a driveway grade variance for the Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. - Appficant: Eric Johnson for Gary Koenig Planner: George Ruther _ George Ruther gave an overview and quickly went through the items the applicant changed since the • December 11th meeting. Public Works suggested that a ttvo-foot wide gravel shoulder be replaced with a guardrail since the shoulder could not maintain a safe slope to the street. Staff does not tee4 - there would be any negative impacts if the variances were granted. Staff has the greatest concern with item 2 of the Criteria. It is the staff's opinion that the hardship is self imposed by the contractor. Staff is recommending denial because of a grant of special privilege. George then went over the conditions in the memorandum, should the PEC grant ihe request of the variances. Ray Coutash, owner of Beehive Construction and representing the properiy owners, the Koenig's and Dowie's requested the variance be granted based on the landscape changes to save the existing trees. One other hardship shows the surveyor made a mistake in the original survey and it wasn't discovered until after the fact. This is the first time he heard about the guardrail request. The utilities run where the guardrail is proposed. He would prefer plantings, rather than erecting a guardrail. . Greg Moffet asked for public input. Henry Pratt said again practicality should rule rather than the letter of the law. A lack of a shoulder is a serious issue for the Town. The driveway can be remedied. Providing a variance wouldn't do anything ~ for the walls. There has been an effort to save existing trees. Henry is not optimistic about the wall variance, however. Greg Amsden said preservation of trees is justification for granting the variance. There are site constraints for the wall height variance. The driveway is a grant of speciaf privifege. Plannino and En~ironmental Commission ~ . ~ Nlinutes . Janvary 8, 1996 3 ~Mollica informed Council that the applicant was clearly requesting a separation, as allowed by the Code, and that Council must find the project meets the appropriate criteria in order for a separation to be granted. i • Gary Oleson, owner of the property presented his request to Council, along with project architec ark Donaldson. ~ Paul moved to overturn the decision of the DRB to deny ths separation request due to th rge size of the lot, to avoid extensive driveway cuts, and because, he felt the proposed separatian co uted nicely to the existing residences on Katsos Ranch Road. The motion was seconded by Peggy. Mike Jewett expressed he woufd rather uphold DRB's decision, and Rob Fo ated that many other options were available to the applicant, and the applicant didn't necessarily have uild a duplex. Tom clarified that the section in the Code listed exambles of what might constitute a si icant site constraint, and said there ~ i were many and varied situations.. He went on to state that man m features could possibly be considered. Kevin inquired as to how the neighbors felt abaut the project, a ybill addressed the question, stating those _ she spoke to wanted to see something on a much smaller e, but that the size of the lot itself would allow for a much bigger structure to be built. Sybill fielt that g through the variance request would be more appropriate. George reminded council members t e was not a variance request to decide on. Mike suggested anofher possibfe avenue for the appfic would be to request a front setback variance, in order to maintain development on the site as low as ctical on the hillside and to reduce overall site impacts. DRB Chairman, Michael Arnett explained DRB's finding that there was nothing which wou{d constitute a significant site constraint as outlined ' e town regulations, and, therefore, the DRB had no other option but to deny the request. Mike then gested the proper course of action would be to request a change in zoning on the lot. Peggy reminde uncil members of the need to determine whether site constraints existed that would allow for the separ on. Mark suggested the topography and the trees did constitute a site constraint, stating that unde e proposed scenario, the app(icant wou(d be removing the least amount of trees. George stated that ording to staff, a signifcant tree was 3" in diameter and the trees shown on the proposed project plan w e 6" in diameter. He further stated there were many trees on the lot that were not shown on the pfan t would ultimately be removed. A vote was ta and failed, 2-4, Paul and Sybill in favor of overturn'rng the DRB's decision to deny the - i 'request, Mi , Rob, Kevin and Peggy voting in opposition. A motion was then made by Rob to ulifiold the decision e DRB, with a second from Mike. A vote was taken and passed, 4-2. Sybi4{ and Paul opposed. Mr. eon asked the Council what direction should next be taken, and Mike Mollica stated he would be happy t eet with the applicant to discuss the processes available. Li1 Agenda item number five waa an apppal of Plannina and Env_ironmental Commission's (PFG) denial of a request for a height variance to atlow for a resrdence, currently under construction, to exceed the 33-foot height fimitation for residential structures. The projectis located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD #4). Town of Vai1 Planner, Randy Stouder presented the item, and gave the following background: The applicant is in the process af constructing a residence on Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision. An Improvement Locaiion Certificate (ILC) submitted by the applicant indicated that sections of three separate roof ridges were constructed at heights exceeding the 33-foot height restriction for residential structures. The ridges in question are labeled A, B and C, as shown on the attached site plan and elevation drawings. According to the interpolated existing grades provided by Intermountain Engineering (based on the original topographic survey), and the ridge height figures pravided by Eagle Valley Surveying (ILC), ridges A, B, and C were constructed a maximum of 8.4 inches above the 33-foot height limitation. The applicant requested that the ?LI-C grant a height variance to retain the roof ridges at the existing, constructed heights. The PEC unanimously denied the requested height variance by a vote of 4-0, finding that granting the requested height variance would be a grant of speciai privilege to the applicant. Randy further stated that although no input had ~ been received from adjoining property owners, staff recommended denial of the applicant's request because 2 v~c r- c-d I;-7 mJ.,y mr.. 0 1/16/96 I i ~ ~ ~ ,r agreed it wouid be granting a speciai privilege. -trchitect, Dave Peel, and Bill Anderson of 8eck & Associates presented the height variance request on behaif ~ of the applicants, Mr. & Mrs. Charles Hovey, claiming that floor and roof modifications caused the overages. Sybill asked if there wasn't a 1' grace allowed. Randy stated there had been in prior years, but because it , was being taken advantage of, sucvey policies had been adopted and had been in place since April of 1991. tAlso, Randy expressed that the survey policies clearly state there is no 1' grace allowance for roof height, and that the policy is distributed to every contractor who takes out a building permit. Greg Amsden, Vice Chairman of the PEC was available to answer questions. Peggy expressed her feeling that it had been possible to account for the error and that it should have been corrected. Mike Jewett was looking for any criteria that might allow the variance to be approved without granting a special privilege. Dave Pee1 suggested similar situations had occurred in the past. Tom Moorhead informed Council that each variance application had a different set of circumstances which must be evaluated o its own merits after reviewing the criteria and findings. A motion was made by Kevin Foley to uphold the decision of the PEC, with a second from Rob Ford. A vote was taken and resulted in a tie, 3-3; Kevin, Rob and Peggy in favor, Paul, Mike and Sybill opposed; the motion was defeated. Council members in favor of granting the height variance felt Council should be more flexible and cited the following reasons: no complaints were received by the neighbors, to reframe the structure would cost the applicant time and money, and that sending a rigid message would negate the need for the appea{ pracess. Council members opposed to granting the variance felt that being responsible to the community and consistent in applying the rules was important, and suggested adjusting the height rule as opposed to granting t~ t_special privileges. Mike Jewett then moved to overturn the PEC's decision to deny the height variance, and ' the mation was seconded by Paul. • Town residents Martin Walbaum an d Scotty Mc Goon expresse d t heir opinions, encouraging Counci l to approve the variance. Town Manager, Bob McLaurin informed council members that the issue was not the amount of the overage, but the fact that there was an overage. He suggested adhering to the regulation or changing the height restriction. A vote was then taken and resulted in a tie of 3-3, Paul, Mike and Sybill voting in favor, Kevin, Peggy and Rob voting in opposition. Therefore, the decision of the PEC to deny the height variance stands. Next on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Bob indicated everything had been covered at the work session earlier in the day. i - There being no further business, a mation was made by Pau1 to adjourn. ~ Mike Jewett commended the Police Department for their efforts and expressed satisfaction frqm the community regarding break-ins. Jewitt also complimented Public Works for the fine job they t}ad done 4 removing snow during the recent heavy accumulations. Rob moved to adjourn and the motion was seconded by Kevin Foley. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:35 P.M. Respectfulfy submitted, ~ z9 il Navas, M yor.Pro-tem ~ _ ATTEST: . . A!PltaVEm'JiN" 0 ~996 • PLANNlNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION May 13, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Kevin Deighan Mike Mollica Henry Pratt Greg Amsden Jim Curnutte Diane Golden George Ruther Gene Uselton Dominic Maurielio Galen Aasland Judy Rodriguez Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. Kevin Deighan has resigned and Greg Amsden was not present. 1. A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 748 Potato Patch/Lot 7, Block 2, Potato Patch 2nd filing. Applicant: Mario Montalvo, represented by Pat McDonald Planner: George Ruther ~ George Ruther gave an overview and stated the concern staff had with this application was the landscaping. Gene Uselton had no comments. Diane Golden had no comments. ' Henry Pratt asked George if this would go on to the DRB. ' George Ruther said yes, but if the PEC would like additional landscaping to say so now. Galen Aasland asked if the tree is required to live for a number of years. Gearge Ruther said that this is a standard requirement attached to landscaping. Pat McDonald, the applicant, had nothing to add. Henry Pratt made a motion for approval with the additional condition that the landscaping be approved by staff. The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton. Mike Mollica asked the PEC to give staff direction on exactly what they would like to see regarding landscaping, in case this application is staff approved. ~ Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 1 i I• Henry Pratt clarified his motion to note that staff and the applicant agree on what landscaping should be. ~ The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. 2. A request for finro residential additions utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 775 Potato Patch /Lot 19, Potato Patch, Filing #1. Applicant: Kirk Hansen & J. Randolf & Kevin Schumacher Planner: George Ruther Galen Aasland abstained, as he has worked with the Hansens on this project in the past. 'George Ruther gave an overview. Upon review of the criteria, staff is recommending approval however, as observed at the site visit by staff today, the applicant will need to modify the exterior lights on the building before it goes to the DRB. Nickolas Aaswat, an adjacent property owner, spoke about her concerns with the roof line. The gable will affect her view of Vail Mountain. Andrew Abraham of Morter Architects wi(I be happy to iook at the gable if it affects the view. He wi(I give his clients the option of being good neighbors. Gene Uselton had no comments. • Diane Golden had no comments. Henry Pratt said the house is a"wall" on the street. He reminded the adjacent property owner that the PEC is not in a position to protect views. Greg Moffet agreed with Henry's comments. i Henry Pratt made a motion for approval with the recommendation that the applicant work with the neighbors and the staff to deal with the views and that the applicant work with the staff to bring , the lights into compliance. The motion was seconded by Diane Golden. ; It passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0-1 with Galen Aasland abstaining. 3. A request for a minor subdivision to allow for an amendrnent to the platted building envelope, located at 1299 Spraddle Creek Drive/Lot 11, Spraddle Creek Estates Subdivision. Applicant; Dr. & Mrs. Steadman, represented by Ric Fie(ds Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the request to change the building envelope. He stated that there was no net increase in the total buildable area on the lot. He also stated that he received a letter of approval from the Spraddle Creek Architectural Control Committee. He stated that staff • Planning and Bnvironmental Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 2 • was recommending approval of the request. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. There were no comments from the PEC Board. Gene Useiton made a motion for approval. Galen Aasland seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. 4. A request for a minor CCI exterior alteration to allow for the replacement of a skylight with a roof dormer, (ocated at 201 E. Gore Creek Drive (Bell Tower Bu+lding)/A part of Lot A, Biock 5B, Vail Viilage First Filing. Applicant: Be!! Tower Partners, Ltd., represented by Craig Snowdon Planner: Mike Mollica Mike Mollica stated that the applicant is proposing to add 60 sq. ft of additional GRFA. He said that staff is in support of the application with no conditions attached. Greg Moffet asked for any non-applicant public comments. There was none. • Henry Pratt asked if there was any sign-off from the Condo Association. Mike Mollica stated that there was a letter attached to the memo from the Condo Association, and also a fetter from Beth Slifer, a neighbor, in support of the appiication. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant was in compliance with the lighting ordinance. Mike Mollica said if there was a concern about the lights, he will be happy to check. He will make sure all lighting meets code. Henry Pratt made a motion for approval as outlined in the staff memo with one additional condition that staff will review the exterior lighting. , The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. 5. A request for a residential addition utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 4840 Meadow Lane/Lot 2, Block 6, Bighorn 5th Addition. Applicant: John Mesch Planner: Jim Curnutte • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 3 • Jim Curnutte gave an overview of the request and stated that the applicant is not fully utilizing the 250. He stated that staff is recommending approval because the criteria have been met. He also stated that the applicant will need to do a spot survey, in lieu of the topo survey as required by Public Works. Jim also stated that there will be no negative impacts to any adjacent property owners. The only concern staff has is the mirror image, but the PEC may wish to leave that concern up to the DRB. After the site visit, the PEC may want to remove the condition requiring additio nal landscaping. John Mesch, ihe applicant, asked if we can resolve the mirror image, do we have to go to the DRB. Jim Curnutte stated that staff cannot approve it because of the mirror image issue. There were no comments from the PEC. Henry Pratt made a motion for approval with the deletion of conditions 2& 3. The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton. It passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. 6. A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed minor subdivision to allow for a change in (ot configuration, located at 1794 S. Frontage Road/Lots 2& 3, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. . Applicant: Antonio & Val Aldrete, represented by Brent Alm Planner: George Ruther George Ruther reminded the PEC that this was a worksession and he reviewed the memo I prepared and also discussed the issues of concern that were tisted on pages 2 and 3 of the memo. I I Greg Moffet stated that he wanted it on the record that he owned Lot 11, which was an adjacent lot to the applicant. He also mentioned that he doesn't see any problem with a conflict of interest. George Ruther stated that a portion of the utility lines are being recommended to be buried. Brent Alm, project architect, has not had a chance to talk to Holy Cross, but the applicant would like to underground a portion of the lines. Greg Moffet suggested checking with Holy Cross to see if an underground line didn't already exist. Henry Pratt mentioned that there wouid be a cost impact to bring the power line out from the creek. Brent Alm said if it only services one house, the applicant will consider burying it. • Planning and Environmental Commission Miautes May 13, 1996 4 Henry Pratt asked if this solution aesthetically made sense. It seemed to be more conspicuous I• to go across the stream with a pole or wire. Henry encouraged Brent to find out how many houses would be served and the cost. If this solution would impose any costs on the adjacent, iYs not fair. , Greg Moffet asked where Lot 1 was. ' Brent Alm asked if it was part of the bike path. Galen Aasland said that the Town should pay for a portion of it and the one that crosses the lot should be split between the appficant and the neighbors. Henry Pratt said to have the Town set up an Improvement District is a burden. Brent Alm stated that the applicant was giving easements to the Town. Greg Moffet said the transmission line serviced the Town. Henry Pratt asked if this happened in East Vail. Henry said he can't ask the owner to escrow money. Mike Mollica stated that it was highly unlikely that an improvement district would be set up. Holy Cross will work with the applicant. The owner can escrow money and when the Town gets enough property owners, the work can be done. Henry Pratt requested a ruling from Tom Moorhead on the legality of getting escrow, since it ' i won't be spent and no other lots are proposed to be developed on the creek. George Ruther stated that regarding the access issue; there is a copy of the CDOT access permit. With regards to the easement issue; George said the Town will be looking for an easement for the bike path and that none of the easements will conflict with the building envelope. Henry Pratt asked the applicant if he was comfortable with the time frame that Public Works was looking at. Gene Uselton said he would like to see power lines under the bridge, rather than over the stream. George Ruther said the applicant wil( look at all the options. Diane Golden had no comments. Henry Pratt asked if the board was comfortab(e with the density transfer issue. Mike Mollica stated that Chapter 18.64 states that you can expand a use, so long as you do not increase the non-conformity. Brent Alm said with regard to the code, it's ok. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 5 i George Ruther mentioned that they lose 4 sq. ft. of GRFA. I• Greg Moffet had no problem with the density. ' 7. A request for a density variance to allow for the construction of additional GRFA, located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Brent and Barbara Bingham , Planner: Dominic Mauriello Dominic Mauriello gave an overview and stated that the applicant has already converted some space to GRFA without approval. Staff is recommending denial, as it is a grant of special privilege. Barbara Bingham, the applicant, said that this was a house built by John Mueller. We are asking for a minimal amount of square footage that has no impact on the neighbors. We have recently moved from Washington DC and don't understand why we can't use a space that is already there. Brent Bingham was in agreement with his wife. We were allowed to buy this house, but not allowed to live in what we bought, which is annoying. Diane Golden agrees with applicant that the Town of Vail needs to promote families living in Vail. She explained that the GRFA issue is under review by the Town Council, but it is not a high priority on the Town CounciPs agenda. . Gene Uselton asked the applicant if the room was already in the house when he bought it. Brent Bingham stated that the space was there and is about the size of a large walk-in closet, or approximately 140 sq. ft.. I put in a door and a floor. Through taxes I am paying for it. My neighbor had a similar situation and the PEC made him take out 100 sq. ft. The walls are there, but they are not able to be used. Mike Mollica asked if the door and floor were added by the applicant. Brent Bingham stated that he did add the floor and the door. The joists were in place but needed to be re-attached. . Diane Golden wanted to figure out a way to keep this room untii the GRFA dilemma was figured out. She suggested tabling the item. Mike Mollica said he didn't anticipate the GRFA issue being on the agenda until at least this fall, however he didn't recommend tabling it. Henry Pratt is also sympathetic to the situation. Unfortunately he doesn't see a way it would not be a grant of special privilege, especially since his neighbor was turned down for exactly the same thing. He suggested that the applicant take it to Council to raise the priority for the GRFA issue. There will be other ramifications throughout the Town if we approve this. We can't vote any other way. Henry Pratt advised the applicant that he may have a legal recourse with the builder and to talk to someone with the information that he paid for sq. footage, but can't use it. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 6 ~ Galen Aasland noted that it increases the density of neighborhoods. He can't find a way under j• our zoning to support this. i Brent Bingham disagrees with the Town's GRFA policies. Based on their neighbors, the Shiffrins, and their outcome for a similar issue, they have put their house on the market and feel they are being run out of Town. Dominic Mauriello reminded the applicant that if they wished to appeal the PEC decision, an appeal must be filed in 10 days. Galen Aasland said that in 2 years the applicant will be eligible for a 250. He feels the applicant created his own probtems by converting the space. Galen reminded the applicant that the PEC is here to interpret the rules for the community. Brent Bingham stated that he pays taxes and heats this room, but cannot use it. Gene Uselton asked if this was the open space above the garage. Brent Bingham stated that it was and he put the floor in. Mike Mollica advised the PEC that the building inspectors made John Mueller take out the floor and cut joists, when the unit was constructed, since it was not ailowed and could not be used as a habitable area. The Town Building Department made John Mueller correct this so that it could be built according to code. ~ Greg Moffet said that he agrees with the applicant, but from where he sits, he can't find a way under the code to make this work. Density issues are a policy issue. We are not a policy board. The whole concept of GRFA is ridiculous in some applications. Unfortunately that's what the law ~says and the PEC is constrained by what the law says. Gene Uselton asked staff if the height could be under 5'. ~ Brent Bingham finds a denial difficult to understand, since it's already existing space. Diane Golden made a motion for approval of the density variance request. I Gene Uselton seconded the motion. ~ Henry Pratt said you should state, for the record, the find'mgs and why. I Diane Golden said that the granting of this request is possible because it meets findings 2& 3 of i the staff inema Dominic Mauriello reminded the PEC that you must meet all three findings. I Greg Moffet asked why this was not a special privilege. Diane Golden said it's not a special privilege to use space inside a home. , Plauning and Envuonmental Comtnission Minutes May 13, 1996 7 I~ Barbara Bingham said iYs a right, and the Shriffins would come back and request the same if this request was granted. Mike Mollica reminded the Board to be consistent. ! Greg Moffet said we are trying to understand the rationale for the motion. Permitting someone to I convert GRFA does not constitute a special privilege? Diane Golden said it's a right. The motion failed by a vote of 1-3-1, with Diane Golden voting for approval and with Gene Uselton abstaining as a protest to the GRFA rule. Henry Pratt made a motion for denia(, because Finding b1 of the staff memo has not been met. ~ The motion was seconded by Galen Aasland. The motion passed by a vote of 3-1-1 with Gene Uselton abstaining as a protest to the GRFA and Diane Golden voting in opposition. Mike Mollica reminded the applicant that they have 10 days to appeal to the Councif. 8. A request for a building height variance, located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23 Glen Lyon Subdivision. Applicant: Nancy & Charles Hovey, represented by Bill Anderson ~ Planner: Dominic Mauriello Greg Moffet stated that neither the applicant nor any public were present. The Board took a 5 I minute break to allow time for the app(icant to arrive. i Dominic Mauriello gave an overview stating that the request is asking for 3 ridges to be over by ~ up to 8". The applicant thinks he is fa!ling within the margin of error mandated by surveying 'errors. i Galen Aasland stated that he is against this request and that it would be setting a dangerous I precedent. It is time for the applicant to step up to the plate and remove the non-conforming , height. Gene Uselton said it is a special privilege and he would vote for denial, Diane Golden agreed with Gene. Henry Pratt said the applicant thinks the survey policy gives him a break with the new rules, however, the new rules give him no leeway. He is however, uncomfortable voting for denial with the applicant not being present. Gaien Aasland said this shoufd be treated fairly and consisterttJy with other applications. ` Planning and Environmenta] Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 8 ' Greg Moffet agrees with Henry that the laws are clear and the books say the maximum is 33'. ' S lf you choose to go to the very edge, you take the chance of going over. , Gre9 Moffet, in the interest of 9ivin9 the aPPlicant everY chance to 9et here, su99ested 9oin9 on to other items. (The Board took action on items 12 and 13, and then returned to this item). Galen Aasland moved to deny this application as it is inconsistent with the other properties and doesn't meet criteria B1 and 83 a and c of the staff memo. Gene Uselton seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. Henry Pratt moved to table items 10 and 11. The motion was seconded by Gene Uselton. It passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. 9. A request for an interior remodel utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1081 Vail View Drive/ #109 B/Homestake Condominiums. Applicant: Rebecca Jaffe Pfanner: Lauren Waterton ~ STAFF APPROVED 10. A request for a minor subdivision to change the property line between Lots 2& 7, located at 2446 and 2450 Chamonix Lane/ Lot 2, a resubdivision of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block B, ' Vail Das Schone Filing #1 and Lot 7, Bl4ck B, a resubdivision of Vaif Das Schone, Filing #1. , App(icant: Karen Scheidigger i Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED UNTIL MAY 20,1996 , 11. A request for an amendment to the previously approved site development plan for the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision, located at 2772-2892 Kinnickinnick Road/Innsbruck ' Meadows. Applicant: Innsbruck Meadows Development, represented by Bob Borne Planner: George Ruther TABLED UNTIL MAY 20,1996 ~ Planning an@ Envitonmental Commission Minutes May 13,1996 9 12. Information Update I• Mike Mollica said Council upheld the Orrison appeal and reminded the PEC that there are two I meetings back to back because of the holiday. i 13. Approval of April 22, 1996 PEC minutes. Galen Aasland had changes on page 8 and Gene Uselton had changes on page 11. Galen Aasland moved that the minutes be approved as amended. The motion was seconded by Diane Golden. It passed by a vote of 3-0-2, as Greg Moffet and Diane Golden were not present at that meeting. Gene Uselton moved to adjourn. It was seconded by Diane Golden. It passed unanimously by a vote of 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 3:45p.m. • II ~ ~ ~ ~ Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes May 13, 1996 10