The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1997-0908 PEC• THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on September 8, 1997, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for variances from Sections 18.12.060 (Setbacks), and 18.12.110 (Site Coverage), to allow for a two-car garage addition, located at 2586 Davos Trail/Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schone #1. Applicant: Linda Aylesworth, represented by Henry Pratt Planner: George Ruther A request for a variance from Section 17.28.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for a heated driveway to exceed 12% in grade, located at 2840 Basingdale/Lot 4, Block 9, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Dan Frederick Planner: George Ruther A request for a residential addition, utilizing Additional GRFA' (250), to allow for a living room addition, located at 1379 Westhaven Circle/Lot 2, Glen Lyon. • Applicant: Joanne and Jack Kemp, represented by Slifer Designs Planner Lauren Waterton The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published August 29, 1997 in the Vail Trail. TOWN O *VAlt 1-1 Monday, September 8, 1997 AGENDA • Agenda last revised 9/03/97 9 am PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Proiect Orientation /LUNCH - Communitv Development Department MEMBERS PRESENT Site Visits : 1. Tour of Vail Commons - Andy (11 hour) 2. Aylesworth - 2586 Davos Trail 3. Frederick - 2840 Basingdale 4. Kemp - 1379 Westhaven Circle 5. Krediet - 226 Forest Road Driver: George NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. 11:00 am 12:00 pm Public Hearing - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a residential addition, utilizing Additional GRFA (250), to allow for a living room addition, located at 1379 Westhaven Circle/Lot 2, Glen Lyon. Applicant: Joanne and Jack Kemp, represented by Slifer Designs Planner Lauren Waterton 2. A request for variances from Sections 18.12.060 (Setbacks), and 18.12.110 (Site Coverage), to allow for the construction of a two-car garage addition, located at 2586 Davos Trail/Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schone #1. Applicant: Linda Aylesworth, represented by Henry Pratt Planner: George Ruther • 3. A request for a variance from Section 17.28.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for a heated driveway to exceed 12% in grade, located at 2840 Basingdale/Lot 4, Block 9, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Dan Frederick Planner: George Ruther MEMBERS ABSENT TOWN OFVAIL Agenda last revised 9/03/97 9 am 4. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow for a new residence 40 to encroach into the front setback, located at 226 Forest Road/Lot 11, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: John Krediet Planner: Lauren Waterton 5. Information Update 6. Approval of August 25, 1997 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department Published September 5, 1997 in the Vail Trail. • 2 • Agenda last revised 9/09/97 gam PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION Monday, September 8, 1997 AGENDA Proiect Orientation /LUNCH - Communitv Development Denartment 12:30 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Galen Aasland Gene Uselton Diane Golden (left at 2:30 pm) John Schofield Ann Bishop Site Visits : 1:00 pm 1. Aylesworth - 2586 Davos Trail 2. Frederick - 2840 Basingdale 3. Kemp - 1379 Westhaven Circle . Driver: George s J NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the board will break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Hearinq - Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a residential addition, utilizing Additional GRFA (250), to allow for a living room addition, located at 1379 Westhaven Circle/Lot 2, Glen Lyon. Applicant: Joanne and Jack Kemp, represented by Slifer Designs Planner Lauren Waterton MOTION:Ann Bishop SECOND: Gene Uselton VOTE: 7-0 APPROVED 2. A request for a site coverage variance from Section 18.13.090 and side setback variance from Section 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code, to allow for the construction of a garage addition, located at 2586 Davos Trail/Lot 4, Block E, Vail Das Schone Filing #1. Applicant: Linda Aylesworth, represented Henry Pratt Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Galen Aasland SECOND: Diane Golden VOTE: 7-0 is APPROVED TOWN O*1L Agenda last revised 9/09/97 gain • 3. A request for a variance from Section 17.28.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for a heated driveway to exceed 12% in grade, located at 2840 Basingdale/Lot 4, Block 9, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Dan Frederick Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Gene Uselton SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 6-0 DENIED 4. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow for a new residence to encroach into the front setback, located at 226 Forest Road/Lot 11, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: John Krediet Planner: Lauren Waterton TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 5. Information Update 6. Approval of August 25, 1997 minutes. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during • regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. Community Development Department • 2 1 • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Department of Community Development DATE: September 8, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for exterior additions to the existing entry and living room, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, located at 1379 Westhaven Circle/Lot 2, Glen Lyon Applicant: Jack and Joanne Kemp, represented by Slifer Designs Planner: Lauren Waterton • • 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 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 two hundred fifty (250) square feet of GRFA to be added to a dwelling unit. The applicant is requesting to use 53 square feet of remaining GRFA and 248 square feet of Additional GRFA to add two additions to the main level of the north unit. Forty four square feet will be added to the entry. This space is currently enclosed on three sides and the second level extends above this space. The second addition, comprising 257 square feet, will expand the living room on the east side of the building. An additional 263 square feet of site coverage will be added to the property. The duplex received a Final Certificate of Occupancy in 1989 and is in compliance with all zoning requirements. If. ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 17,537 square feet Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Hazards: Moderate hazard debris flow Allowed/Required GRFA: 5,104 sq. ft. Primary: 2,827 sq. ft. w/250: 3,077 sq. ft. Secondary:' 2,027 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 4,384 sq. ft. Height: 33' Existina Prooosed Remaininq 4,802 sq. ft. 5,102 sq. ft. 2 sq. ft. 2,634 sq. ft. 2,935 sq. ft. 2 sq. ft. 2,168 sq. ft. No change 0 sq. ft. 3,650 sq. ft. 3,913 sq. ft. 471 sq. ft. 33' 33' N/A TOWN OF Landscaping: 10,522 sq. ft. 11,323 sq. ft. 10,798 sq. ft. N/A • (600% min.) (64%) (61.5%) Parking: 6 spaces 6 spaces 6 spaces N/A ' A 250 square foot addition is still available for the secondary unit. Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDING 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. Consiftration 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. Effect upon the existina toooaran_ hv. vea_ etation. drainaa_e and existing structures. The proposal will have little impact upon existing topography and vegetation. The addition on the west side of the building will be where an existing covered entry exists. The larger addition on the east side will have little impact on existing vegetation. There is no substantial landscaping that will be removed or disturbed. The applicant is proposing to match the existing architecture of the building. Staff believes that the proposed additions will not negatively affect the existing structure. 2. Impact on adiacent oronerties. The additions should not adversely affect views, light or air enjoyed by adjacent structures. Staff believes that the proposed additions will not have a negative impact on adjacent properties. 3. Compliance with 'the Town's zonina_ rea_uirements and anolicable development 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 meet the Town of Vail Design Guidelines 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 include landscaping, undergrounding of utilities, driveway paving and general maintenance of the property. • 2 • Upon inspection of the site by staff, we find that the property is in compliance with the applicable development standards listed above. All utilities are below ground and all exterior lights meet the Town of Vail's lighting requirements. The applicant is proposing to change the existing concrete driveway to concrete pavers and add landscaping around the driveway. Staff believes that no additional landscaping should be required. B. Findinas: The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting approval for Additional GRFA: 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 development standards. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of this application for 248 square feet of additional GRFA (under the 250 Ordinance) subject to the following findings: That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively effect existing topography, vegetation, drainage and existing structures. 2. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will not negatively impact adjacent properties. 3. That the granting of the requested Additional GRFA will comply with all Town zoning requirements and applicable development standards. The recommendation for approval is subject to the following condition: 1. That prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant submit to the Town of Vail a site specific geologic hazard report for the debris flow hazard. • 3 11 { R l t }? I l? f r l l i f ? 1 icx o K n • ` - ?VLL V J ?94 aq. ft. ?' '- I C?ct/N,;,- CC:. ';?CCf"R o. ;.z2 oc"s - ST,RY COD ???"? ? hrOr ^ . ` w - _ _ - , 72 -+?t"? i " I ' 0 • I ^.916 sq, f.: I / ! • TYO-STORY l% %CD FRAU \ ; cO"jcpE 7_ DEC.%, ! a ?t4t y ?? _ Jac - - - - --------- i • I• i. _ E ?E \ \{ N sXX1 T!\Y IDaLi \ _ RDDY21 ?O'rw ?FG=is,ccii Gx•N !?G??`' ? N_W SINS_E EAF FR-=NGH 0004 I `_W 'rvCCD TRIM HA! F NAL- A- ?L:7 Y,:-=T 3AAR \ AND GOLU^ N 70 AD-E:) TR S cA ''rG- \?` - GG-1;XN' TE7A!L c•ce S ==R. f -- LCi^?R =X15-1N WA! '_ TC MA<E SNAG; _:-R \ GCU'-A D NEEW n\ I 1 G- c-iNf' SLA5 5== 5°=G e i ! I! II i Ex, N6 K!-G-'EN III I u I GOV1i7=? TO SE j ;N5TALLcD -O" W'_57 OF EXISTING LCGATION Z SONS-RUGT " E>CISTING^ GA51NE-?•• I i ; / ;f' TO :>GGC^ , ODA- THIS ? I I J I GHANG= ? \\ 3ED I G FROM NE."', \ , I LOtic / 5W?\' '? I i .X'S _!NG- f;TG!-'=N LAYCU ? I ?. 70 REYA.!N UNLESS '107= G DCCR I :N L05=T I NE+N = cCNT SIDE .!G-HT5 ( I I II Wiz- O=ERA?L= A44 x V T1 I? I 'f i F! OOR f lI j ? 'j A EXISTING DECK ST EL!?VAT-ON • • 11 , JAC 12 ?L? ?r Pa-L ty??N Tor+??i}GTloj?,j TO x W? -Z- OQ poop W ? IMW-OO win.... , .. .. , _. A VITION E F-X15TIN'& MILIN& ------------- • • MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 8, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a driveway grade variance from Section 17.28.030 to allow a driveway to exceed the 12% maximum grade, located at 2840 Basingdale /Lot 4, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Subdivision. Applicant: Dan Frederick Planner: George Ruther • 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Dan Frederick, is requesting a driveway grade variance for a new single family residence currently under construction on Lot 4, Block 9, Vail Intermountain Subdivision. A building permit for the new residence was issued on September 8, 1995, and construction on the project has proceeded since that date. A recent driveway grade inspection by the Town of Vail Public Works Department revealed that the driveway was not constructed to the 8% grade maximum for an unheated driveway, as approved. However, the applicant agreed to heat the driveway and therefore the maximum grade can be increased to 12%. Until the driveway grade issue is resolved, a Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued. According to Section 17.28.030 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail: "Heated driveway grades yQ 12% may be permitted subject to the review and approval of the Town Engineer." C, The applicant has constructed a heated driveway with a finished grade of 17.8%. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a driveway grade variance of 5.8%. II. BACKGROUND • On November 15, 1994, the Vail Town Council approved a variance on this site to allow GRFA to be constructed in the front setback. A condition of approval required the driveway to have a maximum unheated grade of 8%. • During the plan review, the Town of Vail Public Works Department reviewed and approved an unheated driveway grade at 8%. The Public Works Department's review and approval was based upon a site plan and topographic survey submitted by the applicant and a site visit to the applicant's property. If heated, driveways are allowed a maximum grade of 12%. TOWN OF VA It • An inspection of the finished driveway grade was completed by the Public Works Department on August 4, 1997. The inspection concluded that the finished driveway grade exceeded the allowed maximum grade of 12%, by 5.8%. The finished driveway grade was determined to be up to 17.8%, for the entire length of the 17-foot long driveway. This was due to the fact that the applicant chose to reduce the amount of excavation for the garage and therefore, construct the garage at a higher elevation than was approved on the site plan, hence causing the grade problems. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Comnliance with the Town of Vail Zonina Code. A. Pursuant to Section 18.62.060 (Criteria and Findings), before acting on a variance application the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the requested variance with respect to the variance Criteria and Findings. Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for a driveway grade variance. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; Staff believes that the request for a variance will only affect the users of the driveway. Therefore, the relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity of the applicant's residence will have minimal, if any, negative impacts. A • heating system is installed in the driveway and will help ensure all-weather access. Although the approval or denial of the requested variance does not create precedence for future driveway grade variance requests, staff would like to point out that since the adoption of the 12% driveway grade standard in 1991, only one driveway grade variance has been granted. That variance was approved only after the applicant appealed to the Vail Town Council the decision of the PEC denying the variance request. 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; As the driveway is already constructed, the applicant has requested the minimum relief necessary from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the driveway grade requirement to achieve compatibility with the objectives of the Municipal Code. The applicant has not proposed to reduce the existing driveway grade. Instead, the applicant has requested that the driveway grade be permitted to remain at the grade constructed. At the present time, the entire driveway length exceeds the 12% maximum grade. 2 Staff believes that the applicant is asking for the minimum amount of relief from the code necessary to achieve the desired objective. Staff, however, is concerned that granting the requested variance may result in the granting of a special privilege. The approved building permit set of plans confirms the ability to construct the garage with a maximum 8% driveway grade. If the applicant had come to the Planning and Environmental Commission requesting a driveway grade variance prior to the start of construction on the residence, it is unlikely that the variance would have been approved, since neither a physical hardship nor practical difficulty existed on the property. The staff believes that any practical difficulty of removing and reconstructing the driveway and garage was self-imposed by the applicant, the contractor and their representatives, and therefore, this criteria has not been met. 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 believes the driveway grade variance will have minimal negative impacts on the above-described criteria. Staff believes that the driveway as constructed may pose public safety issues. The rather short length of the driveway, and the close proximity of the garage to the street, may cause the back end of vehicles to hang precariously out into traffic. While the garage was approved by the Town to be in the location it was constructed, the ability of actually getting a vehicle up the 8% driveway and into the garage was possible. Now that the driveway is constructed at 17.8%, the ability of getting a vehicle up such a steep slope and into the garage has been reduced. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Staff believes that there are characteristics of the site which must also be considered. Those characteristics include orientation and sun/shade. The north-facing orientation of the driveway and the garage on a heavily wooded slope, and the lack of sunlight the applicant's property receives during the winter months, exacerbates the driveway grade problem. Unless the heating system installed in the driveway is turned on at ALL times during the winter months, staff anticipates a serious icing problem will occur on the driveway. The build-up of snow and ice on the driveway will result in extreme difficulties in getting vehicles up the driveway. B. The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 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; 0 3 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 physical 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 the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the driveway grade variance subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variance will 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 be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; 3. There are no 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. F:\EVERYONE\PEC\MEMOS\97\F RED ER 1G.908 4 • l? ??r(drHs ?vercw,; LggSJ . i 1 ? ..-?•'-' w??,- _.. - Glut ? ? ?? i, _ ,.,,,..,....^"^*"?t"••sr-.t, ?? + .,.ten=; ?, .. .?,. ! :, . t? . - ._...., -- .^?.• .?-c _ ? t ,?_,?' `/y _"J ?\ ?./"' _` \?'?., .rte ^? ?,.a"-. rn? 14, r i i- T* "'"' ? __ - ~~ ? a , / \' t ?'1_• ; ? ??.,` i ?/ f Mme, ,., ,., / f4F' - ' -ze a MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 8, 1997 SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance from Section 18.13.090 and side setback variance from Section 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code, to allow for the construction of a garage addition, located at 2586 Davos Trail/Lot 4, Block E, Vail Das Schone Filing #1. Applicant: Linda Aylesworth, represented Henry Pratt Planner: George Ruther 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS The applicant, Linda Aylesworth, is proposing to construct a garage addition onto her residence located at 2586 Davos Trail. No garage currently exists. The garage addition would be attached to the south end of the existing residence on the property. The garage addition is approximately 21' x 22' in size, comprising 462 square feet of garage area. The addition would encroach into the south side yard setback approximately four feet. The new garage space adds 527 square feet of additional site coverage to the property. A site plan and building floor plans have been • attached for reference. According to Sections 18.13.090 and 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code of theTown of Vail: "Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent of the total site area," and "the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet." The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 18.13.090 of the Municipal Code to allow the property to exceed the allowable site coverage. The allowable site coverage for Lot 4 is 2,273 square feet (20%) and the existing site coverage on the property is approximately 2,308 square feet (20.3%)-. The garage proposal adds 527 square feet of site coverage. The applicant is requesting a total of 2,835 square feet or (24.9%) of site coverage. The applicant is also requesting a variance from Section 18.13.060 of the Municipal Code to allow the garage addition to encroach up to four feet (4') into the required sideyard setback. Currently, no portion of the applicant's duplex unit encroaches into any of the required setbacks, although the adjoining duplex unit encroaches four feet (4') into the front setback and seven feet (7') into the north, side setback. The encroachment of the adjoining unit into the required setbacks was approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission in 1989 as part of a garage addition request. 1 TOWN OF VAIL II. BACKGROUND The staff has researched projects where similar site coverage and/or setback variance requests • were made. The results of our research are summarized below: Lashovitz Residence. 1748 Sierra. Trail (July 1997): At'the Lashovitz residence, the applicant was granted site coverage and side setback variances to allow for the construction of a garage addition to the existing residence. The approved addition was 16'-3" feet by 21'-6" feet, comprising 350 square feet. The site coverage variance permitted 2,733 square feet or 24.90/6 site coverage. Qamoisi Residence. 742 Sandv bane (September. 19ffa: At the Campisi Residence, the applicant requested a bite coverage variance of 1.5% (261.4 sq.ft. of additional site coverage). The applicant intended to use the additional site coverage to construct a third enclosed parking space. The PEC denied the variance request finding that no physical hardship or extraordinary circumstance existed on the property that would warrant the granting of the variance. In fact, the PEC found that granting an approval of the site coverage variance request would result in a grant of special privilege. Ricci Residence. 2576 Davos Trail ( Februarv. 1995): At the Ricci Residence, the applicant requested a site coverage variance for 4.7% (526.5 sq. ft. of additional site coverage). The applicant proposed to use the additional site coverage to create an enlarged 2-car garage, as well as add a small amount of additional GRFA to the existing residence. The PEC approved the applicant's site coverage variance request. • Dean/Rousch Residence. 2942 Bellflower (July 1993): At the Dean/Rousch residence, the applicants requested a 3.56% site coverage variance (287 square feet), a setback variance (4 feet into a 20-foot setback), and a wall height variance. The request for site coverage and wall height variances were approved by the PEC, but the setback variance for GRFA was denied. It should be noted that the staff recommended denial of the variances, but the PEC approved it. The interior dimensions of the garage were 22.5 by 22.5 feet, and the area of the garage. calculated for site coverage was 576 square feet. Tavlor Residence. 2409 Chamonix Road (Mav 19931: At the Taylor residence, the applicant requested and was granted a site coverage variance for 1.3% (122 square feet) in order to construct a garage and building connection on the property. The allowed site coverage on this lot was 20%. The applicant was also granted a variance to construct the garage in the front setback (the average slope on this lot did not exceed 30%). The approved interior dimensions of the two-car garage were 21 feet by 20 feet, for a total interior area of 420 square feet. The garage contributed 462 square feet toward site coverage. Mumma Residence. 1886 West Gore Creek Drive (Februarv 1993): At the Mumma residence, the applicant requested and was granted a 1% site coverage variance in order to construct a garage addition on a lot that exceeds 30% average slope. The 1% 2 0 overage on site coverage amounted to approximately 99 square feet. The interior dimensions of the approved garage measure 20 feet by 20 feet, for a total interior area of 400 square feet. The • garage contributed 442 square feet toward site coverage. Smail Residence. 4238 Nunoet Lane (September 1992): At the Smail residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and front setback variances in order to construct a garage and GRFA addition. The interior dimensions of the approved garage measure 22 feet 8-inches by 22 feet 3-inches (504 square feet). A site coverage variance was not necessary as a part of this request. Testwuide Residence. 898 Red Sandstone Circle (Auau$t 1992): At the Testwuide residence, the applicant requested and was granted side and front setback variances in order to construct a garage addition to the existing residence. The approved garage had interior dimensions of 21.5 feet by 24 feet, with a'total interior area of 516 square feet. A site coverage variance was not necessary as part of this request. • III. ZONING STATISTICS Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Lot Size: 11,365 square feet / 0.260 acres. Development Standards Allowed Setbacks: Front: Sides: Rear: Site Coverage: Landscaping: 20' 15'/15' 15' 20% or 2,273 sq. ft. 60% or 6,819 sq. ft. Parking: 4 spaces required (2/D.U.) IV. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Proposed Front: 16' Sides: 8', 11' Rear: 33' 24.9% or 2,835 sq. ft.. 60.6% or 6,895 sq. ft. 4 (3 enclosed spaces) (2/D.U.) Upon review of Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, Criteria and Findings, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested site coverage variance and approval of the requested side setback variance. Staff's recommendations are based on the following factors: 3 A. Considerfition of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Site Coveraae: Staff acknowledges that the proposed addition will increase the bulk and mass of the existing structure. The additional mass and bulk associated with this proposal will not negatively impact the existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity of the applicant's property. Staff believes there is a physical hardship or extraordinary circumstance which would justify the granting of a site coverage variance. Staff believes the location of the existing structure, and specifically, the location and configuration of the front entrance to the residence prohibits the applicant from constructing a garage and still complying with the site coverage requirement. Staff further believes that the granting of the requested site coverage variance would not result in a grant of special privilege. Setback: The staff believes that the four foot encroachment into the side setback will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on the existing or potential uses and structures in the area. Approximately 24 square feet of garage area will be in the setback. Staff believes that the existing structure dictates a reasonable location for the garage. Staff feels the existing structure could • be considered a physical hardship to development on the property. A letter from the adjacent property owner has been attached for reference. 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. Site Covera . Staff has traditionally supported site coverage variance requests when associated with the construction of enclosed parking, where none exists. Staff believes that it is beneficial to the community to allow individuals to construct garages, as it typically improves the appearance of the site and the surrounding area as a whole. In this case, the applicant will be creating two interior parking spaces with the construction of the new two- car garage. In the past, the staff has required that each variance request be for the minimum amount of additional site coverage necessary in order to attain the desires of the applicant. Typically, when staff has supported site coverage variances for garages, the size of each parking space has been between 200-275 square feet. With this request, the applicant is proposing that the garage addition comprise 510 square feet of floor area and an additional 527 square feet of site coverage. Staff believes that 510 square feet is reasonable for two, enclosed parking spaces. 4 Setback: According to the plans submitted, approximately 24 square feet of building area is proposed in the side setback. Staff believes that the applicant is requesting the minimum amount of relief necessary from the setback regulations to achieve the desired goal of accommodating a two-car garage on the property. Following previous discussions with staff, the applicant's representative has reduced the overall width of the garage to minimize the amount of site coverage relief and the amount of building encroachment into the side setback. 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. Site Coverage: Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal, if constructed, on any of the above-referenced criteria. Setback: Staff believes the requested side setback variance will not have any negative impacts on any of the above-referenced criteria. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings . before arantina 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 physical 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 the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 0 5 V. RTAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the site coverage variance and the setback variance subject to • the following findings: 1. That the granting of the variances 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 variances will not be detrimental to the public health, - safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the site coverage regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 4. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the setback variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. • 6 • Y'" 4 f ( i i i I } t t 1 i --- ----------- j - - t -------------------- - - ? 1 t ' -------r i OVA* Ts ? ? -f MOT =v N !iN?!i M a.'pW[ __?_.?...t__..-' =iii ?..-.. t •wfC ..???L ?.?.?. ?..1 -------------------- tow* ff, n+00% _ --------- - ---- ------- 1G? Q ACa Z as V Q W 0 A > I AN+b? ?? Apr 1 A w .".•y Dana. rwu a nnu? i i i I 1 ?, w? rvleo m • ue an ewrrr arar oue?+wl? _ Noe. N cv,elm --- • 1 ? . ' oas+sl?wnc+vawmR.wl-,,.. K? \? - _-._-- - °u'Mrrwiarwawerot twmwow. --- - ? I I I --- w1 oscallr w w,w1l exam. • rrr. lea rwi cweerCrwl- m j I ;? 4 ? <Newom? • - maw" eeaw ow. w 1E++a1 ?^ ?` , l fE•r 0lCK i J e?rn1s oerx ? a 1 usal'la??Nlm _ ?._ _y - nit-.... yv+c _ ?fJ 10'ILCKMW?L IO trw+,rxw.orw?we afR/ 116=lloae eaer+wr ?' ?_ j Allow. N wb I ! ? ? ,? j I A . Q 11S Q, f I Q 66 ? fLN 1aR NOI11aWL NtllrMtloM > o Owl" fj M?-T 1'?IP 7'1 a { I ao. ew9tn?s R61veNCe I I ?A'1 . - - - - - J l y J i !e'1 0 GMl MAME I ?I ?•? I '3..--wlwuwwwr lueeeme l= 1 111 ?sl naao ur. l' I ?I ? ! ? ?i rr ol?wlwm? l •.?..- i -?weus /'eo,•t ---- I, er.`-°j'ry°-? - j .°--A->?e? <r•/'c N.n ae 1a1 wooe na ee •\ I _ -. ?v eo,e>hev ewxaw.T p, rrmaw orr. l? G'•?.,. I ue ar ooa? raow; a? 'I ? i» o? oo`a? Nwe. M. well O.W WWII? I.1 I ?; I roam fir--''.•---<i?---Yr __ ... -__-._ _-_-. u1e a pstela eoGe o.s..,11a, N wweo I - -- -- - - - - - __ __ .-- V-z w. er -- ewe„w ? ?...: ec ?... , ... - ? MAIN L E\/EL _ - ?„ FLOOR PLAN 114. *AfkA.*V ..1 '. 1 - , . Gwo"xney ?A wmvm .L Vi N o am °-"".'-"-"----- \nv? a? ran?e? .p..... wfw? ew?ma DOCK Ma.w ro IOMM - M. .' `ya(/?• ' 11a11Mr Mll P1 TI%TR ro! \ I Iemrlmpl ROLM!-M lallM ImllO . - t 101OdKlwplMlGN O¢S1N-M. l70DTDli DECK ?'DgT11M ImaR GtY<lO I1DMM+ \\ ' f?YI O?CK ? ___ ,11 .._ ?_: ______ _____ (?i1 ??l1.TOM-m ue a mnn. w.u ? y '__ ----- - 1= - - - t-?• i 1e1 oeoc wwmllna Al w tsore m`url - main a 1 rtwri roars I 5 F J . oerx auwrce ro w1io1 maw rat .z 1 ? I ? 1, -- ? celw oerww uo Mue1NU - m. O i im e, movln w 1 w' a I : _.._.__? manila w.a1 M011MOIAl ro lewal tu I I _ . _- ? Q1 • i ',,$ I d Q i Irk - - ? ? Q c 1 ? (oeo 1??r,?i = 111 O 1 sw -eac i ? ? I 1 ]a'4 y mmd ra. a•.f u•-: r? r.a. ? F1- II i ,. uewewT Zi Mt1 ro 1O?Y i . .. I MM 2 Gull YiMi! I LM ?LL To w ow I cool s1 noao cv.. Z ?I "i I / +?ar??r?wvalw s - • .?.1el1e±euero?s l? -' Orn-1d0Aia ? w eo am mac\ . "V ?dl LOJ01m YM1LK?'NY I I? \ LAIC r-- l - r-- - -- - i I!"ipi i \ I e w oaarl--'eo-R-w drm I I w a accla moa..e mrm I Ins ",. \hit, I I t l I I? `.\ I I it I I I __ I I 'I I { Oat*- 08-0-97 ?' i ?` 11 I I I 1 1 1 e`. ff OW) maw i man , ---- -tom • -- • r l •?-?l 1r =??r-. - - - - - - - - ' I wr++ w _ nav ,I IL fe,. r.rwar n n. naa I I _ ---- ------ - ueommw nocr oel+«w,.r orrm I uellOtA wo+el+wr.Nar® r« _ a•-sta-_---?,1•y? _. ?.r en r* _ - - - n?warwieri?wnwr? M, aiwle MAIN LE\/EL - -- PLODR PLAN ?/sya.. la.aa. 6AMO! /st0. R. . lYJ? (Ms0!'l!! ) Pratt I eme*.rc.Me/eerwo I r _. mslw ROOT RiOIo 1O. Rtii? ROOF MO r'A.i?. ___ -_ _._ -- - -- ?!` -- -- ..? ? _- - o.+.. Rao. ova,«w.lo w.cw !•.OM ayi r?a+e i+o m..ro 1,= 7? ----- ? -M? ?oa?iw-m. t al?^ YM? M10 aolCN ?? 1-1 _. .... --- . I?owr?'iR?e ? ..o = owr DOOR m RO«.r -- L L Li p ? aw rnw ewrs m t«,c. brtw - - -_ _ ? a. 1 i ' I ? 7gpyp{ npppC i i wn tM+?Rr+-.r ?? nuvevr _:' _ '_>ZJL ?. ? _ '- _ ` ?fW1reR RmRI17ML » w.u« a enxe. A7vo? cwna x?ri r _ _ r? xRr roue m.R?ce wrw fnrco ` ` - , I A emr.n rWr, eerao - .. . • _.. • , Av- r4a w+icwxm rer wo rm nw, I I' - -- - aa b+aenwK oR.n.n. - m. - - .. --- - L '' _ - ue w aatw a wn anoaRan R I II 1 1 r 1 1 1 I I F r _? 1 _.:° -_ _. ?- ?-- -- - w.nx. ta.et ?.n oeuc N taMnl SOUTH ELEVATION NW ` / ? 1 ? I 1 ^nwceua?a L.! or brew M.ae - viwer - ? 1 r -U p[YOIo ay r vary prtM ROU mu 1 ? rIII-?Iq?'I(?p(??'7;IUII'(gryq-_ I; Ipppp?^,I - - -_ ¶?¶tl I _._. _ - i DrTM. MIORr Or?M?NOMa /WEST ELEVATION , SGALG? 1/1" . I'_O'• _--__-_ ? P?.RTII?L ) a ar a Ri.a Root a..a?vw ON .. mRSO.c.wwrea I I I II I to Nth ROO K'fQC 10IM1OM OrrH? 1q1 Or1.R BALM. AIO wq?tl.LS . if?. ro ra°° =quo ?cwau nu. rri oeoR w.ooR..o toles. nrn xo ttrxR oaenr le+neac MOW m w.tcR arrw -le. was Door ro »aw arw ` =R2,02-VMO I I I z Q Z ? d 41Q InL1 J ? Q o CD tf1 ? ?- Q O > y yr?xt De.- OE-li-O7 R-4, -- SI.M %.A- A3.1 la slara? nm'tr/ao ro w.rcll Dttlrrll! Ic1e >tJWI LLTAIN AIO IMlaM1) - rT}. Ip'111PC0 •INGN Alp kA0.11C111C 1RM ro.«x« oarw -- - - 1 rj a Alp tIw r0 MK DOT" N fJa0! N rv10011s - TT ref raoo pow m 1MRM p0lr1110 -- .- .. Ie1 ?..a.1. AW «NIOM?L, a Iwe a1.a1111.i„Alg1 Ie! w1r'rMlu ro rwa wix snluo r0 tMrW pa0r010. r11Wt0! aWt 01/Y,C V1111? M Ibl MN0 N 1liAm ue a? rMw1 cute srrroc ?M1?RMSAR R. GOIVIRR H0110 MO POprfl110, 02 f+raC", IAI?1110 - T/. • EAST ELEVATION SC..w.LL'. 1/4" . 1'-0' 1tlGD IOt? IQV.I. M OMAIm (VCI/Y GMTMf M? /IRM) 1Y ? ___ - t9001N01100! NO Rq? ? ?_ __ - r ?. TF Ly" {p??• n1u.1.o,,. ww oiooll. ? 1 _ _ _ _ 1 1 - - - ? -?-- 01MTW IMl10CIpD - ? I I _ : ? r+arnr l?QCIl Ai0 nx1 _.__ l' i t-? f- OC?Tl1?00-J[-a y II I? ? II II ? prat} Prott Z Q Z w d W V Q Q J > Q I w Y O ? U r -1 0> ONO 00-10-97 R.N-t. SMN H-6. A3.2 • Ipr xr? 110G' earalo ro 1a1ru1 OtKrlw IQ1 Dd?M1. DlrA4M A10 1M1011AL.9 - trt. - 1e.woo 1'AYN AIC lC110lLP.'1K nw ro w,rc« c»r.1. ? - 1o.11.co1. Aw 111111 W IN1G1WlrnY N 4aGC N rrlglll • rT. 1e+waoo eon. ro 11„c11 Ba?nw _. w1 xwr nua ro a1AOe Rn1 s11c?o ?O???.??RaAu ?TY?. M 1!I IMLL? N M01lV. ,M Q...,„1 f- wyr 9w f?L•' fnOG11RAl TY • e?aww c??rl' aerao ue ar an7w 11oa o?el.+wr, ? wwn oanw ¦oor mrMl >y v _ - _ - __ - _ -_ - A101'1000 MAw ro 1as0/!, M OAMlD __ - _ _ _. _ _ _.-_ - 's COl1w YWLIIIM?MC RY..N CIO ?. Y .? -- - _ -.- ?-mN1W NVL!['1010 - ? -L-?- II?AYIMpl A10111M _ _.. ? I _ ?.- D?1M OtJL -? II ll II ll ? ? ?_? I f1_I l E^S_T ELEVAT(ON' 9GAL!'? 1l4" . 1`-O" ( PARTIAL) " •'ID- "'• i i i i i 7K btll,+?l. Gwon.-V Nott < z Q Z d ? w ? Q w O l? F- Q d • per. O.tn 00.9-07 P.W.. - SM.1 I4Awlr A3.2 ! .abler . ! _ -.. D0Nwl10or wrao __-? ? -' _ 1el filar MT[M NOOIW bLLO!!q -J RI M/DI ?Iw-M. ???--?tt 13 L1 n ^ IO1IM.'Vla wlp ntMm 1 1116 -__ _. __?._- _ 11 es ' -.IOOwA AID I - - " IOI n000 a.LMM1G1DmrW - ?.. ?-._ - - -__._ _ =,.- -.. y - _.. - .- • 7-??^? ( _ _- _ __r ,?. - - - _. - - ? ?• ? e ? ? I '? ---?`,??MMG<IMLinrwApK ? 1d1 xwr Iwrs ro allwoe Ivnl a11r?n ro M1u wsmr, rllvaet aura. x?ce ?, L. VCMIl a1/011VLLlb10llaam.-_-._ I ? `'--?- ? ?__.__ --_ - snncflauc aaar?ln I ?? - - war+ra r1w. aerao --- r MISOace wr 1aa1 calclem ne0 ww roollln.. _ -_-- --?_-_1 I :f i I I T ? r . ? -- :s noa?.wmww. SOUTH ELEVATION [ i l r` I I I I }I "Won"" sc...Le. I/.." . 1•-m ----___ nlrarose:oti,.,,,., ? -- -`- ? ? I I l_ , / r l lI I ? e sae a ornw alse - vwlea rxrrw alna:Y atvao M w pyres rocr o el.w ? OM 1 Vp1a'I OOaIW 11017r aTaOM 1 ? MO 1000 M/1? t0 MC+R b p'Mm 1 walar Ilan. wlo aRhH1 / ? I ? . I1 -. _ - } - _ --- _. '-. --. ? 1 I a 1 p 7?q y '-? Iy _... 1 ' I : I ? _ _ .1 Ia DOIOll waoalww alwa1 +1u1ro MRN aaaTala Is/noloo aowroM+rlosrw % I J{n p _ - oaaala Nu - ?u1 - ?I - i J I 1. .? _ _ _„ -? .-_ ; Omn1a 1a10VIM _. _ . _ -_ _ _ OO?IW IYpp1y 11 1 1 II .. I.. I.. I.. I. I I I I 1 1 I. ?. 1, ., I•e I. 1, ,11q I.. I., I, i I I, I, v, I, :. : I. I. f I, I, I I, -awl On PLM 'VMo I I ?.. _ _ _ R Q 11 ?"4 IVAL - ?L... Q -- +--- -- _ f1AC111UL A1M90W as WEST ELE\/A.TION PAPM.L) _GOlTIIY _. __.__•r Ag7R10N R • August 15, 1997 Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81658 To whom it may concern; It has come to my attention that my next door neighbors, William and Linda Aylesworth, at 2586 Davos Trail, West side, wish to build a two car garage on their property. This letter is to inform the Town of Vail that I have no objection to this construction. In fact, it will help alleviate the crowded and unsightly parking conditions that now exist. Sincerely, Mr. Robert L. Davis 2596 Davos Trail Davos Trail West Vail, CO 0 • September 8, 1997 Minutes c: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT: Mike Mollica Lauren Waterton George Ruther Judy Rodriguez Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Galen Aasland Gene Uselton Diane Golden (left at 2:30 pm) John Schofield Ann Bishop Public Hearing STAFF PRESENT: 2:00 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a residential addition, utilizing Additional GRFA (250), to allow for a living room addition, located at 1379 Westhaven Circle/Lot 2, Glen Lyon. Applicant: Joanne and Jack Kemp, represented by Slifer Designs Planner Lauren Waterton Lauren Waterton gave an overview of the memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had any comments. He did not. He then asked for any public comments. There were none. John Schofield had no comments. Gene Uselton had no comments. Greg Amsden asked for clarification on the existing, proposed and remaining GRFA from the Zoning Analysis. Galen Aasland had no comments. Ann Bishop had no comments. Diane Golden had no comments. Greg Moffet had no comments. Ann Bishop made a motion for approval in accordance with the staff memo. • Planning and Environmental Cotmnission Minutes September 8, 1997 1 Gene Uselton seconded the motion. John Schofield amended the motion to exclude the one condition, since it had been met by the applicant. Ann Bishop amended the motion. Gene Uselton seconded the amended motion. The amended motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 2. A request for variances from Sections 18.12.060 (Setbacks), and 18.12.110 (Site Coverage), to allow for the construction of a two-car garage addition, located at 2586 Davos Trail/Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schone #1. Applicant: Linda Aylesworth, represented by Henry Pratt Planner: George Ruther George Ruther gave an overview of the memo. Greg Moffet asked if the applicant had anything to add. Henry Pratt, the architect representing the owner, agreed with the staff recommendation. Greg Moffet asked for any public comments. There were none. Galen Aasland suggested to staff, to note on the staff memo that the Campisi lot was over 15,000 sq. ft. He said that the applicant's request was consistent with others that have been approved in the past and so he was in favor of it, as it was not a special privilege. Ann Bishop had no comments. Diane Golden had only the comment that this was a good addition. Gene Uselton observed that the north posts did not make any contact with the roof. Henry Pratt said it would stand up. John Schofield had no comments. Greg Amsden had no comments. Greg Moffet said that this was the only location on the lot for this addition to go and so, he was in favor of the request. Galen Aasland made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff memo. Diane Golden seconded the motion. • • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 2 The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. • Henry Pratt requested a couple of minutes from the PEC, to discuss the wall between the passageway and garage. He said because of the quirks of the GRFA rules, the wall could only be 3' high and asked if the applicant should come back for a density variance. He explained that it was open on three sides and so, it did not count as GRFA. Henry explained that the applicant wanted to heat the garage. Galen Aasland asked how many square feet were in the garage. George Ruther said it was 422 sq. ft. and it would be an additional 90 sq. ft. if it were enclosed. Henry Pratt said the addition would count as GRFA. Galen Aasland asked about walking through the garage to the entrance through an enclosed walkway. George Ruther said guests would have to walk through the garage to get to the house. Galen Aasland said a walkway over the top would not require a density variance. George Ruther said it would have to go through the garage to get to the front door and could not be a full height wall. Henry Pratt said the wall between the passageway and the garage could only be 3' in height. 0 Galen Aasland suggested being creative with the rules. Henry Pratt said the applicant would have to come in for a variance. Gene Uselton remembered applicants in the Potato Patch area requesting a similar design and that the PEC turned them down. George Ruther said that Gene was correct. John Schofield said he would look favorably on this request. Greg Amsden stated he wanted to see some history presented from staff. Galen Aasland also wanted to see some history. Ann Bishop wanted to see some history, but said if this request was logical, the PEC should be flexible. Diane Golden stated that it was common sense to enclose the garage. Greg Moffet said he would have to be sold hard that this was not a special privilege. John Schofield asked about the possibility of detaching the garage. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes September 8, 1997 3 George Ruther said, that because this lot was less than 15,000 sq. ft. and there were two • dwelling units on it, it was non-confirming and a unit would have to be deed-restricted as employee housing for a density variance. Lauren Waterton stated, for the record, that the Zoning Analysis from item #1 on the agenda was correct, but the numbers wouldn't match the 60/40 split in the GRFA, because the secondary unit was already greater than 40%. 3. A request for a variance from Section 17.28.030 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to allow for a heated driveway to exceed 12% in grade, located at 2840 Basingdale/Lot 4, Block 9, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Dan Frederick Planner: George Ruther George Ruther stated for the record, that he had the property file for Lot 4, Block 9, Vail Intermountain and the DRB and PEC approved set of plans. He then proceeded to give an overview of the memo. He said that a Certificate of Occupancy was requested and that is why the applicant was here today. George said that staff was recommending denial of the driveway grade variance and that this situation was self-imposed. He explained the excess grade of the driveway was a safety issue and while the applicant intended to heat the driveway, it was very difficult to require someone to keep the heat turned on for the driveway, as it was very costly. Diane Golden left at 2:30 pm. Greg Moffet asked for any applicant or public comments. There were none. • Galen Aasland couldn't see why this wasn't a grant of special privilege, since the owner should have taken heed of the excess grade when building the garage and now he was coming in after the fact. Galen said that the PEC was interpreting the rules fairly and equitably with other properties in the vicinity and a 17% driveway grade was not safe to park a car on and so therefore, he couldn't support the request. Ann Bishop shared Galen's comments. Gene Uselton asked George if this would have been approved, prior to the garage being built. George Ruther speculated the variance would not have been approved. Gene Uselton stated heating the driveway was not the issue here. George Ruther said the applicant used the heating of the driveway as the reason to be allowed to go over grade and why this-variance should be granted. Gene Uselton asked what was the Town trying to avoid, regarding this grade. George Ruther said there was an issue with large vehicles crossing over the steep grade. He said, according to engineer's standards, a 12% grade was adequate, without causing access or safety problems. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 4 . . I , John Schofield asked if the 12% grade was originally approved. He asked if an application • required the signer to sign-off on the approved set of plans and if so, that someone agreed to build that. Dan Frederick stated that the Town engineering staff approved it and also, the entire house was used for employee housing. John Schofield stated that the structure was not built according to the plans and it was not a hardship. Greg Amsden said the hardship was self-created and this would be a grant of special privilege. He said he couldn't see any kind of hardship. Greg Moffet said he was hard-pressed to find a hardship and if he couldn't grant a variance before construction, he couldn't grant one now. He said he couldn't vote to approve this variance. George Ruther said that the Lot 4, Block 9, Vail Intermountain building permit application was in the file, and that it was now part of the record. Gene Uselton made a motion for denial, in accordance with the findings in the staff memo. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 4. A request for a variance from Section 18.13.060 (Setbacks), to allow for a new residence to encroach into the front setback, located at 226 Forest Road/Lot 11, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing. Applicant: John Krediet Planner: Lauren Waterton TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 22, 1997 Greg Amsden made a motion to table agenda item #4 until September 22, 1997. Ann Bishop seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. 5. Information Update Mike Mollica made an announcement that Trees for Vail was this Saturday. Greg Moffet said the Vail Tomorrow Conference was next Thursday, from 5 pm to 9 pm at Manor Vail. He then said, of the 45 actions endorsed by Council, Council took action on all, but one. Planning and Environmental Coimnission Minutes September 8, 1997 5 A •. . 7 6. Approval of August 25, 1997 minutes. Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the minutes, as read. John Schofield seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. Ann Bishop made a motion to adjourn. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 6-0. The meeting adjourned at 2:50 pm. • 0 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 8, 1997 6