Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-0509 PEC~' TAI • • a, ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ m C ~ ~ ~~ ~ m ~H ~ ~W ~4 ~ I ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ c ~m m ¢m ¢ o ~' 'r~ m~ ¢ ~ py`yp ~ ~ c - N.- stiri~a~ W G] Q N w m E 2 W CA W 4 U? W m E r/] en a ~, E-~ U >-I F~ ~4 a ~~~ A x Q Q ~I 0 F E mz~~'8ro~~? ~ a ~Vba naio~~oD ~~: o > L m m cl o {Qj o~m `9U ~~~m~mdfi ~IJJ O,-CC'Q C~~-Lmi NqL~- Tp LL ~ o> m m` E ~'-'a~ivc°im3%~pr~u m ~"ENmL. O'~pc+nU U cmo°°~ CYmt=gym U ._~ma~TM~m °'c a j ~tD m~O~~N Nom? U °~OU~mm~~m ~Ta~mm~a "~. m 3_°amm~O gym'. ~- ~ O m F pj ` p p U ~'q m j i o _ a~i F-3c~°~°'~¢2'~ U7 smn$m '~ Ecoj w~g{~ p m n0 ~ m L ° ~ 'O C~ UD 21-~D C 4. ~uU2N rnm~=>'m Y C° ~ m C m yy~~ C U „_ N C ~S~=4YL~E ~'aN FW` m 4 B N~ P~~ CY5 u ~.~-, ~ ~ w ~mo°~ Nd° ~~ z c~U~o ~rm°c ~~ O ~(I1c °ia vryry rot L~=~ u~i O~~ dU~f/~~ UW y [} ox>.M~ m - ~~jm~o~mN °mZO ~ ~~~~ ~ uCOf- mc zm oc oc ~ _ a~~cnm~yU; giLQ~2 m y;~mAm~mm . Q n a) ®y ~ r ~ U t ~`04m~,mc~rt~c cvv Ucn~3o>a tll O S 2 O U (/] ~ CS O v ~ ~ ~ ~ d 0 ~ U U_ ~ ~ ,.o ~ o, ~, ~ L ~ W ~ Q] Q) ~ i M s ~_ ~ ~ a~ v °c y '~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ •' v ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ c~. ~ ~ °~' `~, n, .~ ~ z,, ~. ~ ~ ~ a~ o ~° y v w ~, ¢, o .Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ -~ ~:d .C. 4J b X b ~ ~. .~ .~ -~ ooC '" V ~ ~ V ~^ N ~ m as W .x. CCU O~ `~ W `t m c ^ a cc~°O~" m~~3 z c~rt+ya cum s=~ O ~tn~°°m~~ e~°m aUu °~~~CW~~ W~~ Vi w N q~° O C 4 C E ZZ 6._c~am°_quucncoo °cw~ 14U~a`m.~ti~ © m ma c'o am!~UO d ~[n ao m cv,~a ~~4~ @ C ~' ?7 Cn ~ Uooac Emo ° O~ tw~N ~ C n = r~ C 1+1U~ ~~u~i~ti N C~C~ ~ L ~ U d~ w Q >ma m S Oa°~cai ~~U;L.?m m c°-O `~ §~~~p a: ~ ~ m t~ ~U~° C C c~~n~dw ail vat E a~ (~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ra a,'-.'a a. m~ ~~ u°ia oe. ..~UD 6~~N~~gm~~~~g ~ m= mU¢_mL=r °~m`~D~a~ im a~~~-m ~a~~a~ a m m~m~~x cA ~°p o O ~ C ~ -~ !~- N ARV 3C~pC~ ~ Vr NUJ (A~~ d C~ N ~ ~ ~z ~`^ O 4 ~1 +~ z G ~. .~ a~ a~ 0 .~ 0 fJ >, m N C m'C 6 m U~ N ~yu~ OgC~SG N ttUU U c m ~ _ m m y_ ~r01,~ m -E~ a ~aE~n~ oy ~a0 J a p! p C V~~ a c ;; (. ttl~ c> ~mprff p~J m m$LEy n tO qm.~ ®~{{ryry y~ ry c®M..Z m N. ®Q(i p V t~l ~ ~ Q ~ Lc m-m CF o~ c - ~ ~ma'S.~flU accotid a:'aaQ' ~ a ~ ~ c as®Ey~n y°~m,ym ~'ioo~a n~cc ~mm~ ~ti~ff E0. ~ ~ • w a' g~ '~ w~ ~~~ •. ~ : ,,~v ~ ~. Q~~~~~~~~~~~~ r ~J LJ ~~ p ~ m ro N ~r 3 me O C O C31 M pC ~ Y J C N ~pryil U- Q ®e:W$,pj ~~ In ~L.mt ®'m~~ "cm3 m~o~~~ O ~~ PJ m.~ H m~ 7m ~b7 m-r''.,~cm ~~ U a iac ~~Y ~OV ~yP a ti C ~ C C Cp ~ N U f.] w O R. ~ N ~ d o^U-~ m'~ a5 N 3 e'ic~$ t~ e^i C ~ C ] p ~ N .y F,N~~m~~Ja mm_xn ¢ umm 'cs6°9eE ~$7 ciix ~a~m`m0 ~-°~°~m°~~Na°w O~ U~ q C a Rl ~o my a Q .~ e~?dc ~nmCC H Qa~mo a_u rmn mp ry tl'> ~d j ~ .~ arm C F nm a~tt~a~,J°~a®~a aa$ am } CC •c t O6Cy m arty ~-pG 1~ td p ~ .fT U N ~~~mL'cm ui ui ° ` 2c[ . c~. .~~ ~ 0.~ ~ m p m p yy ~... n m'mm~ ~EcQm©~ ~p O $ oUii a N ~2 2 cm u-~ m m~n ~O m O c~jSLm-~ _i1 U om, o~~Eo -4W7 ~ N igc ~~y nom E c ~_ ~ C pn OS_m~~__ ~'~ ~ Ea cameg~o >~ ©~ E ~~ ~o~Em~o.mi, nG m ~ `°`~t.>5 ac O m la ~~ m~ -~~ty 'c ,u rim o Ct C] 23 q .: ~ c_ ~mL E a~cm_ W~~04~c p~~C ua pi a ~m~>HOCOp m 0 ~ ~ a ~~® - ~ W a =m~ x m ~' cc+ >a- _ m ~ ~ ~° e= n~ p L ~ m ~ ~ ti ~-Q n„-~ ~ t~ °'~o a =OC ?;~ QiN G: ^ h+ ~=r c v~ ~Qr- ifl O ~~ Ti iu5 '- j p ~~RF ~y ~ j n ~ O 3 G7 as ~ Ua c ~§di+i~ ~~~~~ o5~i ac;~io m W ~r ~mm U cv~a 0 ~Yo~6 Z w~ro~`~ ~ =" ac'~ m mE~v~ OCi. (WSU~ c o WR ~~.. T c a~H$ ~ ~ ~ m c W Ca`~~r4 L3o~ c~ ~~neS-d how E'o ~Wc~-aw ~--~ cw • v~ z ~,~,~ 0 0 .~ U_ A ,~~ Q ~ U ~ rar_ ~, L~L W ~ L~ yiy ~..I C. ~ U ~ a ~ ~ "' on ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ .~ o ~s ~ ~ ° ~, y c 3 ~ v: _~~.~~ •u ~ .d; a U ~ 'd '_' GA C sn ?~ ..~. ~cd ~ C C ~ 4 ~ LLa ~ O uo ~_ L O O C ,~ •L" ,.r ~ -~ ~ .r EQ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? O . e... ," "G ^U,~ ~ C ~ y c~~'',~~ ~a L ~ n.l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ {~ ~ a~ ~ © ~ C a a,a v ~ ~~ cis c°s 3 ~ ~ o ~'~ .., ~ ~~ ,~ ~'~. ~~~~ ~ ~ W x ~ ~ ~~ m .c .~ ?' ~ ~ 0.'~ vas ~' ~ c ~u cs ~ ~ ~' ~ C ~ U "'' ~ U ~. J G ~ ~ O srr ~ ~r i U ~ ~ o.Q;~~ ~.~A~ a _~ ~„ ~ ~ CL ~ '~ ~ O ~ Q) "Z'S v ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ 0 ~'~~•- Ito 4--i 0 ~i 0 .~ U C :~ t C d N A N '^~ ~V 'o :: b i a. ~s a. 3 a~ c ~o 0 v uCs ,~ .s .~ ~a U U .~ ~-~ b rn ~~¢~~ ~ ~~ E°'v~_U~ ~c°c~5`~~ ~~°2~~Y`~ ~9~r~s$~ ~o~~~k''~~cm ~~~a~~m~ ~~Q~~~.rom ow~~~.p~oo V ~ ~~ ~ c)q .pt OjCi.. ,~"m ~a ~.o o~^~®U~ ~~cu~f~~~o mc~Iaw,a~~, 'p4~ Q~~n~~E~ 7~@~~w~~~~ amy~~~~~y ~ ~. ~~~y~ ~ ~ ~ p C ~_ W ~C >r ~Q,C 1rb ~wpC9~ Vl O .~ Q 0 .'/~ b r~ N b E .~ 0 c a ~? U S cd O y eii GG ~~+ 3 C r-i ~_ a--~ -°r~ i fl O U w 9 a~ w 4.. O C 1f ~1 r .c cQ f. 0 ai w O O .a ~L V V} ~~Q rn~ ~~.~ ~~~ ~ -mrn ~a 7 a~X `o ®~_ er, m5~ a~ m NN m~ N ~g Fa 4 ~~ c ,~ ~~ H NE ~~~ ~ Q. us v.+._ ~~~ 4~ O .~ T b c N N fJ ~ x, v S ~ V] ~' t3 O z ti a c 4 N rt z° .~ K fl3 d .~ 0 g ~_ ~'~~ W • r ~~ s • LL '••rr•r~rr~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING = ~~ May 9, 2005 ~~~~, PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:OD pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSI=NT Chas Bernhardt Bill Jewitt Doug Cahill George Lamb Anne Gunion Rollie Kjesbo David Viele Site Visits: 1. Scolnick Residence - 2935 Basingdale Boulevard 2. Heckmann Residence -17$3 Shasta Place 3. Rajas Residence - 400 East Meadow Drive, Unit 6 4. Massa Residence - 400 East Meadow Drive, Unit 7 Driver; Warren Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2;40 pm 1. A request for a final review of variances from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, and Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for the construction of gross residential floor area within the front setback and the location of required parking within the public right-af-way, located at 2935 Basingdale BoulevardlLot 19, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant; Jay and Sheryl Scolnick Planner. Warren Campbell ACT10N: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: S-Q-I) Warren Campbell gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Jay Scolnick, the applicant, introduced himself and stated he had nothing to add to the presentation. There was no public comment. The Commissioners were agreed with the findings in the staff memorandum. 2. A request. for a final review of variances from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6D-7, Height, Vail Town Cade, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for the construction of gross residential floor area within the side setback and to exceed the height limitation within the Two-Farrmily Primary/Secondary zone district, located at 1783 Shasta PlacelLot 14, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting for#h details in regard thereto. Applicant; Chris Heckmann Planner: Elisabeth Eckef ACTION: Approved with conditions {setback variance) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: ~-~-4 ACTION: Denied (height variancey MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 4-1-~ {Gunion opposed) Elisabeth Eckel gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Chris Heckmann, the applicant, stated that he has tried #a minimize the requested variances Lee Wittingtan of Arroyo Engineering, spoke on behalf of Eagle River Vl/ater and Sanitation District, stating that the District has a minimum requirement of 4.5 feet coverage of earth above the sewer line, which is what this pipe is currently covered with. To reduce the depth in an effort to create positive drainage on the west side of the lot would necessitate a variance from ERWSD requirements. The Commission felt there was a relationship between the access and pump house easements. on the lot and the requested side setback variance. However, they felt. that a design solution could resolve the need for a height variance. David Viele clarified that he is on the Board of Directors for ERINSD, but felt there was no conflict of interest. Mr. Viele admitted a lack. of understanding regarding the relationship between the sewer line and the height variance request, Anne Gunion stated she does not believe a variance from the maximum height standard was warranted in this situation. Chas Bernhardt stated he did not see a problem with the side setback variance and furthermore agreed with the opinion of the ether Commissioners regarding the lack of a compelling need for a height variance. Doug Cahill agreed with the sentiments of the other Commissioners and proceeded to ask if the applicant had pursued other drainage options, to which the applicant replied in the negative. Elisabeth Eckel suggested there are possible design alternatives that may exist which have not yet been pursued. Therefore, perhaps the variance request was not the only available option for the property. Chas Bernhardt asked the applicant when he became aware of the necessary variance requests. The applicant responded that he was not aware of the need to pursue variance requests until after the proposal underwent conceptual review by the Design Review Baard in January, at which time discussions with ERWSD began. 3. A request far a final review of variances from Section '12_6H_6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6H-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Cade, pursuant to Chapter 12-7, Variances, to allow for the construction of a residential addition within the side setback, located at 400 East AJleadaw Drive, Unit 6fTyrolean Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Enrique Rojas, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: Approved MOTION: Viele SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE:4-0-0 {Kjesbo recused~ Matt Gennett introduced the projecf according to the memorandum. Mike Suman further explained the project. Chas Bernhardt commented that the example of similar deck enclosures had already occurred. David Viele had no additional comment. Anne Gunion expressed the concern that abox-like, lifeless strictures might result from approval of too many deck enclasures. She requested that staff consider the design effects of such proposals in the future. Doug Cahill asked if this proposal had been seen by the Design Review Board and requested that the Commissioners previous comments on this item be passed along to the DRB. Because similar variance requests had been approved for the same structure, this request should be approved as well. 4. A request fQr a final review of varia~aces from Section 12-6Ft-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Cade, pursuant to Chapter 12-7, Variances, to allow for the construction of a residential addition within the side setback, located at 45(3 East Meadow Drive, Unit 71Tyrolean Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Jorge Massa, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: AQproved MOTION: Viele SECOND: Gunion VOTE: 40-© (Kjesbo recused) Matt Gennett introduced the project according to the remorandum. This project differs from the one previous in the sense that there is no need for a site coverage variance, and the amount of GRFA requested in the eastern setback isless than that of Unit 6. 5. A request for a correction to the Vail Land Use Plane to designate the Lianshead Redevelopment Master Plan Area and an amendment to the 1`ionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to amend, in part, Chapter 5, Vail Civic Center Detailed Plan Recommendations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vaii, represented by Rick Pylman, Pylrnan ~ Associates, Inc. Planner: Bill Giibson ACTION: Tabled to May 23, 2005 MOTION: Berhnardt SECOND: Gunion VOTE 40-0 6. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow far a public convention facility and public parking facilities and structures, located at 395 East Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to May 23, 2005 MOTION: Qernhardt SECOND: Ginion VOTE: 40-0 7. A request for a final review of an amended final plat., pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Cade, to allow for an amendment to an existing platted biilding envelope, located at 971 Spraddle Creek RoadlLot 8, Spraddle Creels Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Franca D'Agostino, represented by Zehren & Associates • • Planner: Matt Gannett ACTION: Tabled tQ May 23, 2005 MOTION: Bernhardt SECOND; Gunion 8. Approval of April 25, 2005 minutes ACTION: Tabled to May 23, 2005 MOTION: Gunion SECOND: Viefe 9, Information Update VOTE: 4-0-0 VOTE: 40-0 10. Adjournment - 3:00 pm MOTION: Viefe SECOND: Bernhardt VOTE: 4-0-0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please tali (970} 479-2135 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970} 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published May 6, 2005, in the Vail Daily. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PUBLIC MEETING - '~ May 9, 2©45 PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept.. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:Q4 pm MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visits: 1, Scolnick Residence - 2935 Basingdale Boulevard 2. Heckmann Residence -1783 Shasta Place 3. Rojas Residence - 4Q0 East Meadow Drive, Unit 6 4. Massa Residence -Ogg East Meadow Drive, Unit 7 Drier; Warren Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:Q0 pm 1. A request for a final review of variances from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Tawn Code., and Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Tawn Cade, pursuant to Ghapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for the construction of grass residential floor area within the front setback and the location of required parking within the public right-af--way, located at 2935 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 19, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, and setting Earth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Jay and Sheryl Scolnick Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 2. A request for a final review of variances from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6D-7, Height, Vail Tawn Cade, pursuant to Chapter 12-~ 7, Variances, to allow for the canstruction of gross residential floor area within the side setback and to exceed the height (imitation within the Twa-Family PrimarylSecondary zone district, located at 1783 Shasta PlacelLot 14, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Chris Heckmann Planner: Elisabeth Eckel ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 3. A request for a final review of variances from Sectian 12-frH-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6H-9, Site Coverage, Vail Tawn Cade, pursuant to Chapter 12-7, Variances, to allow for the construction of a residential addition within the side setback, located at 4pL1 East Meadow Drive, Unit 6lTyrolean Condominiums, and setting Earth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Enrique Rajas, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 4. A request for a final review of variances from Section 12-OH-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6H-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-7, Variances, to allow for the construction of a residential addition within the side setback, located at 400 East Meadow Drive, Unit 7/Tyrolean Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Jorge Massa, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gannett ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 5. A request for a correction to the Vail Land Use Plan to designate the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan Area and an amendment to the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to amend, in park, Chapter 5, Vail Civic Center Detailed Plan Recommendations, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Rick Pylman, Pylman ,8s Associates, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: TABLED TO MAY 23, 2005 8. A request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for a public convention facility and public parking facilities and structures, located at 395 East Lionshead CirclelLot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner; Bill Gibson ACTION: TABLED TO MAY 23, 2005 7. A request for a final review of an amended final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13-12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for an amendment to an existing platted building envelope, located at 971 Spraddle Creek RoadlLot 8, Spraddle Creek Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant; Franco D'Agostino, represented by Zehren & Associates Planner: Matt Gannett ACTION: TABLED TO MAY 23, 2005 8. Approval. of Aprii 25, 2{]05 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 9. Inf©rmation Update 10. Adjournment MOTION: SECOND: VOTE:. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970} 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-235fi, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published May fi, 2{105, in the Vail Daily. MEM+~RANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: May 9, 2[l(l5 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of variances from Section 12-BD-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, and Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for the construction of gross residential floor area within the front setback and the location of required parking within the public right-of- way, located at 2935 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 19, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Jay and Sheryl Scolnick Planner: Warren Campbell I. SUMMARY The applicants, Jay and Sheryl Scolniok, are requesting a variances from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, and Chapter 14, Supplemental Regulations, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow far the construction of gross residential floor area within the front setback and the location of required parking within the public right-of-way, located. at 2935 Basingdale BoulevardJLot 19, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision. The requested variances are the result of a proposal to construct a new single-family structure on a lot which has slopes over thirty {30%} which reduced the allowable site coverage to fifteen percent (15%°) and dictates the location of the garage within the front setback and the location of a portion of the required parking within the public right-of-way. Staff is recommending approval of the requested variances because a practical difftculty or hardship does exist and approval of the variance would not constitute a granting of special privilege to this property owner. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST AND BACKGR(7UND On July 13, 1998, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a variance similar to the one proposed by a unanimous vote. That variance approval has since expired and the applicant must receive new variances in order to proceed forward with the construction ofthe proposed single- farnilystructure. The Commission found that a number of the houses in the area are built within the front setback due to the steep slopes which is a condition carried forward from the 1987 annexation of the area, into the Town of Vail, with a number of lots of substandard size. The applicant is requesting a setback variance in order to construct a new residence with Grass Residential Floor Area (GRFA) within the front setback under a proposed garage and to locate required parking within the public right-of-way. This current variance request differs from the July 13, 1998, variance approval in that the house has been shifted north on the property which has the net effect of reducing the deviation requested in the 1998 approval This shift was in response to a concern by staff that a car parked in front of the garage would have the rear end of the vehicle located within 'Basingdale Blvd. In additional, since July 13, 1998, a requirement has be passed requiring all parking spaces generated for a home to be located within lot lines of the property and 1 not within the public right-of-way. The variance request is to allow for the Eocation of approximately half the required dimensions of a parking space t9 feet by 19 feet) being located within the public rig ht-of-way. The applicant is proposing to build a modular house on piers as the stability of the soils in the area , requires as little disturbance to the ground as possible. The lot is zoned PrimarylSecondary Two- Family Residential, which limits the allowable site coverage to i 5% on a lot such as the applicant's with excessive slopes (slopes greater than 3©%). The existing lot size is nonconforming at 8,524 square feet with the property line for this lot ranging between 16 to 18 feet from the edge of pavement. The garage will be constructed 'rn the front setback as allowed by Code, and the variance requested will allow part of the house to be built underneath the garage. Little of the building will be seen from the street and the house will be more in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Staff believes the design of the building with this configuration is a better praduct than if the GRFA was completely out of the front setback. A vicinity map depicting the location of the residence is attached for reference {attachment A}. Reduced copies of the proposed site plan and elevations are attached for reference (attachment B} as is the written request from the applicant (attachment C}and the public notice which preceded the request (attachment. d}. III. ROLES OF REVIEWING BE)fIIES The PEC is reso©nsilale for evaluating a orogosal for: Action: The PEC is responsible for fir~af approval/denial of a variance. The PEC is responsible for evaluating a propasal for: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation 9s 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. 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: 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Cornmissian deems applicable to the proposed variance. Design Review Board: Action: The DRB' has no review authority on a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. Town Council; Actions of the Design Review Board or the Planning and Environmental Commission may be appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether or not the DRB or PEC erred with approvals or denials, and may uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the Board's decision. r • Staff: The staff is responsible far ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memo containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. 11/. APPLIGABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Zoning Regulations Section 12-2 definitions SETBACK: The distance from a lot or site line, creek or stream measured horizontally to a line or location within the lot or site which establishes the permitted location of uses, structures, or bur"Jdings an the site. Section 1z-6D-9 Prr'mary/Secondary District (in part) 12-6D-9: SITE COVERAGE: Site coverage shalt not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total site area. (Ord. 49(1990) § 5: Ord. 3g(1977) § 2) Section 72-77 Variances (in part) 12-97-1: PU,RPC)SE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or fo lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objecfives of this title as would result from strict orliteral interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physicallimitations, street locations or conditions fn the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of sfricf or literal compliance with a regulation sha11 not be a reason for granting a variance. 12-97-5: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL CUMMISSION ACTION: Within twenty (2Q) days of the closr'ng of a public hearing on a variance application, the planning and environmental commission shall act on the application. The commission may approve the application as submitted or may approve the application subject to such modifications or conditions as it deems. necessary to accomplish the purposes of this title, or the commission may deny the application. A variance may be revocable, may be granted for a limited fime period, or may be granted subject to such other conditions as the commission may prescribe. 92-17-7: PERMITAPPROVAL AND EFFECT• Approval of the variance shall lapse and become void if a building permit is not obtained and construction not commenced and diligently pursued toward completion within two (2) years from when the approval becomes final. • Section 12-27: Hazard Regulations (in part) f2-21-1: PURPOSE: The purpose of this Chapter is fo help protect the inhabitants of fhe Town from dangers relating fo development of flood plains, avalanche paths, steep slopes and geologically sensitive areas; to regulate the use of land areas which maybe subject fo flooding and avalanche or which may be geologically sensitive; and further fo regulate development on steep slopes; to profecf fhe economic and property values of the Town, to profecf the aesthetic and recreational values and natural resources of the Town, which are sometimes associated with flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geological sensitivity and slopes; to minimize damage fo public facilities and ufilities and minimize the need for relief in cleanup operations; to give notice to the public of certain areas within the Town where flood plains, avalanche areas and areas of geologic sensitivity exist; and fo promote fhe general public health, safety and welfare. 72-21-74: RESTRICTIONS IN SPECIFIC ZONES OCV EXCESSIVE SLOPES: The following additional special resfricfions or requirements shall apply fo development on any lot in a hillside residential, single-family residential, two-family residential or two-family primary.Isecondary residential zone district where fhe average slope of fhe site beneath fhe existing or proposed structure and parking area is in excess of fhirty percent {30%): E, Site coverage as if pertains to this chapter, as permiffed by secfions 12-6A-9, 12-68-9, T2-fiC- 9 and 12-6D-9 of this title, is amended as follows: ~. Nof more than fifteen percent (15%) of the site area maybe covered by buildings, excepf in conjunction with a type 1 employee housing unit in accordance with chapter 13 of Phis title, in which case not more than twenty percent {20%} of fhe site area maybe covered by buildings; and 2. Nof more than fen percent {10%) of the total site area maybe covered by driveways and surface parking. Chapter 74 Supplemental Regulations (r"n part} Location: Parking spaces, aisles, and turning areas shall be entirely within lot lines and shall not encroach on any public right-of--way. No parked vehicle shat! overhang any public right-of way. V. ZONING ANALYSIS AddresslLegal: 2935 Basingdale BoulevardlLot 19, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision Zoning: Two-Family PrimaryiSecondary develor~ment Standard Lot Area: Setbacks: Front: Sides: Rear: Allowed/Required 15,fl0{} sq. ft. Za ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 4 Proaosed 8,524 sq. ft. 1.5 feet 18 feet122 feet 54 feet • Building Height: GRFA: Site Coverage: Landscape Area: Parking: 33' 3,921 sq. ft. 1,27$ sq. ft. (15%) 33' 2,313 sq. ft. 1,272.8 sq. ft. ('14.9%) 8,114 sq. ft. (60°I°~ $,865 5q. ft. (65°J°) 3 spaces 3 spaces VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZQNING Land Use Zanina IVarth= Residential Primary/Secondary South: Residential PrimarylSecondary East: Residential PrimarylSecondary West: Residential Primary/Secondary VII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina the Setback and Parkina Location Variances: The relationship of the requested variances to Other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. This lot is located in a neighborhood with lot sizes of approximately 8,000 square feet. Many homes in the neighborhood are constructed with approved variances allowing encroachments into the setbacks. This house will be built on piers to accommodate the slope stability reports recommendations to decrease the potential for site disturbance. The steep slopes constrict the allowable GRFA to below that allowed by a conforming lot due to site coverage limitations. The steep slopes on the site and the desire to limit disturbance facilitates a design which is closer to the right-of- way of Basingdale Blvd. as 'rs the case for many of the homes along Basingdale Blvd. The applicant is also requesting a variance to allow far a portion of the homes required parking to be located within the public right-of-way. The applicant's proposal would be to have approximately 9 feet of the required 9 foot X 19 foot parking space within the right-af-way. Many of the homes in the vicinity enjoy the privilege of parking within the right-of-way along Basingdale Blvd. In front of the applicant's lot is located the intersection of Basingdale Blvd. and Snowberry Drive where the edge of pavement has been pulled away from the right-af-way leaving approximately 20 feet afi land between the property line and the edge of asphalt. The expanse of the 20 fee# of unutilized right-af-way and the design of many homes on the steep slopes in the vicinity is not compatible as pulling the garage into the franc setback to reduce site disturbance would not be able to be achieved without locating a portion of the required parking within the right-of-way. • s 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and Fiteral interpretation and enforcement of a specified reputation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this #itle without a grant of special privilege.. The overall design of the house will be improved with the approval of a variance for GRFA in the front setback. The garage would otherwise be construoted 13 feet above grade due to the steep slopes, with nothing underneath.. By building part of the house below the garage, a portion of the house will not be seen fram the road and will reduce the overall impression of bulk and mass. The changes made by the applicant since the X998 approval lessen the deviation requested for GRFA in the front setback. In addition to the setback variance the applicant is requesting a variance to allow for approximately half of a 9-foot by 19-foot parking space to be located within the public right-of-way. Many of the homes along Basingdaie Blvd. have all or a portion of there required parking within the public right-af-way. The granting of these variances is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the area. Staff believes that the granting of these variances will not be a grant of special privilege. As stated in the previous criterion the location of the edge of pavement being pulled away fram the property line due to the intersection design leaves a large expanse which does not work in conjunction with the design commonly seen in the vicinity of located garages in the front setback to get the structure closer to the roadway and reduce site disturbance. 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 proposal will have little, if any, effect on these issues. The proposal will reduce the bulk and mass of the structure on site. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina 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. 2, That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or impravemenfs in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted far one ar mare of the following reasons: r ~. The strict literal' interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary 6 physical hardship inconsistent with the ob}actives of this title. b. Thera are exceptions ar 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. VIII. STAFF RECQMMEhIDATIQN The Community Development Department recommends approval of the request for variances from Section 12~-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, and Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for the construction of gross residential floor area within the front setback and the location of required parking within the public right-of-way, located at X935 Basingdale Boulevardll_ot 19, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, based upon the review of the criteria in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented as well as the findings listed below. Staff recommends that, should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve the application, the following findings be made a part of the motion: 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. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Zoning Regulations. 4. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B, Reduced Plans C. Applicant's Request D. Publication Notice • , _`~ s~ ~ ~mR ~~~ 4 C a~ ~~ ~~ ~° ~~ :~ ~ q~ ~r M _~ E r a ~~ z Cr~brb `15 L~ I-IYda Ma-t: rvO1S n7 Sl JlhlltlJS ~w ~o ~ q~vy'wmw 8 ~'~+~~ 9 411 ['pLTIXW O ~+••~ P 6]p?It1d ~LLN~kyM ~u01i1pLY ~¢ ' N'~N9 "3b (119311H~21d 3~N321MV1 { `~~"~'o {¢~p ~.f a k ~'. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ A [ ~ p y y p %} ~ ~ 5 N ~ ~ ~ F F ~ i ~ 737374 ~ W~~ a E`w y~~ i ~ =i Y ~~366~~& ~ ~ i f ~ 8 ,~C ~~ ~ R ~ ~ ~ ~ p":ti T79l9I3 I ~~ i4 °~' ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 1 • C w i ' /' ~e~ ' ~ ,..fir f , , <.: ffi ~ r 4 ~ ~,. ~--~ y w ~ 4 ~% i~%~r ~ 4 a W 11 f~t~ ~~ ~ Ltl o Fc i 1 e ;! a I' f~ ~ .. F. ~ti,r~ rE C 6 ~ Cf) ~f h •.x 8SRS ~~ -mao #~ ~~ r~"~3 ~ C 7~ z~ ~~ ~ ~ y ~ ~$ ~ ~~~o ~~ s FI ~k k ,r ~ zg Y~i: i d~ ~ ~ i#~ 4~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ?•~ s~ ~ ~~g~~ ~~~~ F ~ ~~ ~S FS `~ ~~ts's~a ~~ts~ i ~~°L~ .~~e~~ E~~°e~ e ~yyh r ~H 0~~~~Y' a =~` ,~~ ~ . ~ ' '`~ti ~a $es • ,~~~' ,~ ~,~ _ ~ ~ _ `~ % Nd`p ~' s . t' l r \l ~ _ ~ - _, / ~ *l ~ / , 3, ~~ d1~ .NlS l4 ~ S~ f .~\ r ~ ~' 9 6 ~ ~ ~ _~-- 4ri Y~ ~ ~. ~ ire ~ -_ ~ ~ IF ~ \ ti ~+_ T @~• ~ ;, - 1 ~. ~" h M- ~ ~? ~ ~~rr`~ -~ ~. F'i 1 s~C.. o.' ~~V' ,\~ .~ `,• ~J, ~V $~' 1 /•~~ . . h } ;'~ Attachment: B (r_oro 'tact woda.,,,¢~ j a,~~~~~~ ~~c~; ~c: s a %v. ,... o i i ~cu+e o Y.~&'lllc..a ~ ~~~y'E:jli, Y aso _~ ff~ a:d hem aatrtYve ~,,, pw ,.... ~ i7:}~il~ ~ Y ~ 8 ~ ~ B ~ ~ • ,e,.~.~ • w.~.i,~.u • ,. ~,.e, • a~ ~ $ ~7~:~ii"~~ i~ R ~ lL LL] Q Z ~ r x ~~ € Q ar~iY'3anlo3liworsa ~~N3annv-i ~p~ ~ 8 ~~ i p ~ ? U F 4~ ~I9' ~ ~ n~3q ~ ~Eil~]~~;Y~ }~ ~ ~, J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ s 6X ~~i ~ $ l~i~dii~:iY 11 ~~ ~ J J LL d 3 ~ cg ~~j ~' "~ ~~ 9 rv L N'~ ~ ~ G7 Y~ U O~ ~ "~ ~ L~ 'Y• -;~~~ ~~ _ m~~ --+ oa _-_~ Mi ~ ' - ' m + m~ ~ i -~ I~ I - h- - - ~- - ~~ ~__. _. '_. _. e. - f _ - .Y ~1 I I ~ A- _ - _ _ _ _ ~ - ~ - _ - y _ -~- - - I III I' VI 3 - - ~! L - . . -~ --~-w~----- __ ~._- I, ----~ -_-- F-_ __-1._ ____ €~ ~~ u.i a (r~.Ot~'IJ 'UI-i H~aff'M'<-iJ WOl~fi~ iP JIIJ'IgiS ~~®® 'Y ~aq•m i~~ J ~ O S1I L'~CIXW O fw0 apap 7~+I~t 1 S a 2y 1 F. ,; aid ryM~wyare [e¢ ~ c ~ ~ ~ • ! f -r Mi.F • .~ wo~ • $ F'f ~1 ~~L~k~lf~F~ ~ d q ~~1{5 e ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7777 ~ ~ ['~~ ~ `~na '~~I rlla 3llHJ!!V 37N 3kIMV~ ! Y,co ~ " ~ e 9 E,~~I}yl~~ 1~ Q 'fix: ~ LLf ~ Z ~ a ~ d ~ a ~ F .. ~ ~ ~G ~ q ~;RG~ J g S•, 4~ ~ ~ 3 ,~~~ i~~ 1l~~V,61 t . . ~ ~ a ~_ ~~ f ~~ r~ I 1 I I ~~o$ ~~ ~;~ of i ~ ~~ GI U r - cam-., ~ 6 c5 I I ~I R 11 L4 ~I ~ 4 ~. LI ~ ~ _ `L~ _ I _ _-ICI ~ ml~ { I_ I~ll~ +I ~! III' _~i 4 Iy[ 11I~ W 1~ pl~ i ih ~ii Y~ I __ i i _?~_m - - - -- I' ;~ _~- ; W e ' W i 5 to ~ oa - ox- _ ~rr _.~ .za ~~ ltZGtO 'Obl II': ~IVMV~) V1G1~RG it :::Il-1~CJS •. wrgaaate..~ ~n rR G ++nr.wwu.se 6 ll.ilVlCIXK O r~ae a u~aa~u.. p smae:d ~unryan leua¢I r .. .,. ... 'GNI ~32id11J311H~aV 37l+132CMV1 I ~ ~ E~~ ~ a '~. ~~ .~~ ~ ~ 7!~ !'1 FF ~~I~~}[ I ; Ir 1 1z ,If t ~ ! 1 1 S°rii~ 6 .f~k'~1aep ~ ~, f J w ~ tL w O Z C O Q ~ QL ~ J J '" ~ J Lt ~ g a.5 g ~ ~~ & ~ s~ k z S 3 F k f;u 6~q ~~ I ~ d A t r ' -~, -- .,, .. ~ .;,,,-t ~,~ I I w~ I E '~ - - - I j .g~ _ - ' a . ~'~ I = i pp al ai '~\ ~.< - ~ r ~;7 ~~ ~- . J,. _ 0~4 ~ _ l ~- e ° d ~ ~ ~ I- i ~.~ J p~ ~', ml I sl ~ ~ ~ `~ I a y G csl ' I ~: a ~_;...~ _ - _ _-_ of ~ Y ~ 1 _ _ m®, - -- 4 - ~ ll~ II u ~.~ o' g?~ ©~. ~~ • ;t~Gt•O ~~la Ha~v.v,r~i IY4S:-~fS;~ ~711-I~OJ= a `-~' ~ a w casue o ,~-~`; W"a ~' ~ ~~ ~" a~nxid ~uiummyvs Irmnipa~u e~ yg ~ '" D ~6 r .{~~ ' f ~ Z H aea a FB } ~ ¢~~~ - " y ~ _ :, W 'N1 32i Cil~3 AIH~yV 37i<f 321M71 I o ~~ 0~ e~sl'~l 1} ~ ~ r ~ ~ g.~ ~ w ~ 8 ~~ ~ ~ ~3 %~ kt ~~ A ~`^ ¢r FB e E e~ ns y4 t~, ,y I ' ~~/ P C7 W J W H 4 • j, I ~9 R' f: I !I - .an J.Q __-i ~~ ~~ ~ ,~a~~ fi~ ~~~~ i~ ~ w ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ e`.a v ~ e i~ a~~a 4ed a~ z ~ ~~Y~~ ~~ q$ ~ ~ ~t4': 4e~ 8: C p11 ~qY ~~4 ~, 1-Z ~Y+[J W F-..^idVn+~H1J iN. r)LGf-: ',1 t~_1I I'~_1 Ci~5 - mn~ud 1e.~ wayyux feu ni c ~ - P~ s ~~w~~b • ww».w..~ • -...., a, : -:J'~*11 '321 ~11J311HJ2ly jJi•3321MV7 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ a~ E~gtliiey etL'~~[3 ~4~d5.3~ ~j~~l~~a~ 3 ~, 1 f !i ~ ~igi ' .. .._. .__ Z H eL5¢ ,_ ~ J ~ m W - s ~~ ~ aFB. ~ ~ ~ ~ g d`v ~~ ~ _.__ l!~ ~~ $ • ~y~Cu ~ ~ ~~ I I , ,~~~ ~f ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ E f f~ dw ~ d~ ~. i r d i~P~ a a° e w ~~ ~~s ~A 3~ ~ e ~ ~C$ fig"g "~ >e t d ~ ~~ ~s~~~ ~~~ ~~ • • • rr4erc .~<.i HJae.nna~; :~~oisn~ ;~~,~~~7u~ ~ ~ ~ o Mu~~ a~ ~i.Fivcciw s .r°.v «A: w o e`(~+~, iI Z . . y'ws'd F'^1xn!~re fau°ii'Mn c... .~ ~ i~j[~~~ 7 y Z fl g C G~3 ~ a •• , e • ~.,,M, a r w ... , r s ~ ~.;f~z ` 3 c ~ j ~ 6A8 ~ tsr I '~Nl '~2f f1A~311N,LIV 3~N321 M'v~ ! ~a~ 3 ~q~g~~~:~ fi g, G ~ J ~ ~ °~ ~ G '~ °~~~~ f" d % ~ a ' ~ E _ ~Fr1Fes:if e~ 6, ~ fi IYI Ltl R c & ~~. a~ ~~ €~ Y sY f~ __ ~~ /-} ~~ `~54 #€~ k~ s- Ea r ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ae ~ 1 G p ~~ ~~ ~~~pp t~~ ~ ~~ai a~8 ; p3p3 P €e~ e v 3 ~~ S~Y'aa 3{'€ • (*~~o-a 'OII ~I~~an,y_~ wolsn~ a~uno~, ___ _ ~ j' a~a~wd Iwnz~auyue ~:uuaynn r ~ • N ~ { j 7 tet 1 ¢ Z ~ g ~ ~3 ~ ~ ~ . • ~,.P • .n..a f ~....,~wP; • ~ ~ ~~!1#;tfC i S ~y ~ ¢ ~ ~e ~ s I~ '~NI '32i S"kl,'~311H7LIV 37tJ32iMVl ~ W ~~ c4 ~f~~l~~! t~ ~ 7 ~ F ~ ~ ~g ~~~~_~~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~rlki~~tl ~j # ~ ~ m ur a ~ ~ ~ ~~II ~ 4!~ ~~ ~ I ya 0=g ~ ~ ~ -- - ». .--- - c ~ ~~ --- Yy ¢~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~y tly 93 '~ 11~ __._ .. .. I I~ hill !~I+~ III III I~ III III i` ~,~ 11 I,~; ~I'I .. i I ~t \~\`~ ,' i i i t i i ~i i t I I f . ~, ~i ~ Illlil. i II ~~ ~ '\' I \]\\~ r t'Y '. __ ~~ ~+ ~~ M ,r~ g~ ~ 4 d ~ F ' ?5 i. ~ }}P E~~ ~a F r- ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ 6 5 8~ i~~~ ~~ F4 84 n~4e @~ e~ 6 ~ } ~ l~Sh ~~ -n~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~8~~~ a~~ #~ ~i~ - - _' __ __ --. _ _ .~~ _ ~ _ I I xY M~ I ~ ~ ~~ F ' `~ _ _ _ .__.. ~ ~~ ~ • i_Y'~Ct~• t;li IIJr1VY~':'1i 1~~r01511 ~1 'IJII-ll(~_)~ = ~ _____ - _ ~ ______. o . ~ o lamr um o ~ ~a ~ Ep ~~~~ ~i ~ ~ ward leml~Ily]la lcuogf(ZGr1u •' ! i .. ~~~ , y "7N1 'iii f717311H^a `JV+3JI332iMV1 ~~~ 'd ~ y~Sl~°~r ~ ~ ~ ~ (J Q F ~ ~~ ~~ ~ I `mob I ~ ~~ ~`~ ~ 3 ~ -'i~~f~~, Ft ~.r ~ ~ a a ~ ~ ~f _ + ~g ~~ i ~ :~ 4 zap ~~ ~~ I ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~ E ~~ a~ ~ s~~ ~~:._ ~~ c ' ~~ ~ ~~~ Y~ 1~ yx ~~ i~ ~I ~ s~~ ~ ~z~~ ~:. .] i Y•~ '_ ~_______ ____ _ __ ~.-7 ~--~ _... ___.._ .--_ ___T____ L J f n _ E+r ~ ~ rar ' e li -a~ ~'Ir;r-------------- -~ - i~ ~ I I~ F II V I ,r. l l i ~I'I V l~~ ,I.I ~~ '-------- ' I' I n ~L" `i i r ~ I .~' is Ilil <- 111 u ~~ n " m. ~~ ~ 1 ' III"". ~I ~ I I'I y IIII Llil VIII ~ J ~ ~-s~y-! '~ ~5 ~_-__~ -i_~ r==--__71 it it n I L~ _______7 ____... ""I ~~ 1 • f;r Sara '<~ra I-I~av N,3~y >tai ~. r,~ ;t ~„cnG~s ~ O t l~0(4UA 9 ~.+Y'W:.r6 O M ~~ S 1 ~~ _ , - iJ9JEIa ImNSnly~le IauuullYSA c ~ S i ~ i il~ ~ Y Z Z 'Q S9g®/ S ~~}~ ~ ~ vABe ~ ~' M w:-wne • i.nuwi..u i i~..,...~~~n~ i ~ ~ e `F_ e ~{Yjr~ i ~ t ! ' i Q ~~ ~ a ~ a 3~ T ~^~ ~ e ':7N1 '321 f1173SIH3EiV 3~N 32JMV~ J '~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~I • F~~~~F IE ~ ~ ~ ~ .ti c C, ' I ~ as u ~ ~g F Pa V J ~~ ~3WH5t34 ~ ~ ~ C J _~ d ~.~ „ g ~~ „~ vnv I ~~ }.~. - k rl 5 I~ $ ~~~ ._ ~~~{ ~ z ~ "- I - ~~ c; ~. , K~ e I ~; ::~ ~~ ~ ~_ . ; :r p f ~ Ill ~ E ~' '- .I [k ~ I" ' i , 1 ~ r \ fl I ! 1.._ - ~ - - .. -- I' r I Z C ~9 ~% 3~ al = §~ ~; ' =: `' _ _- • ~~ s 5r It,{f ++ I yy gg gg 1 Y ' a ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~' d J g ~ y ~ ~tl~n P3 ~ ~ x 3 { a-e_ ~ - - Premier Calnlnlxllit~ Harney, Ltd. .,iLi~~r'.' I.f~~ -~ ni~7rll~,r1..-. -: *{:rf~' el~f:i~?. March 11, 20x5 SCOLNICK RESIDENCE LOT 19 BLOCK 6 INTERMOUNTAIN FRONT YARD SETBACK VARLANCE On behalf of myself, I am requesting a front yard setback variance to permit habitable accommodation. to be built within the setback . The steep gradient of the lot only p:,~~.~ats the garage to be built within the fi-ont yard setback. This variance requests tie construction of the habitable accommodation. under the garage structure. • The relationship of the requested valiance to other existing ar potential uses and stuctuu'es in the vicinity. The design. of the proposed residence is compatible with other residences ui this inunediate neighborhood. The hardship of these very steep and small area lots have been previously recognized by granting this same variance to the residence constructed on the east and tvvo houses to tlYe west of the applicants lot. • The degree to which relief fi•am the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve campati.Uility and unif©rmity of ta•eatanent among sites in die vicinity oc• to attain objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. .~s stated above I believe dis variance achieves uniformity of treatment among sites vi this immediate area by granting the same variance as previously granted. The steepness of this lot resh•icts tie site coverage to 15% of the lot area. ;leis lot is so steep and small diet without the granting of this variance, an extreme hardship exists in the fallowing manner: ^ bui.lding a ga~•age without allowing habitable acconunodation within the site coverage occupied by the garage severely restricts the remauung site coverage, and therefore considerable reduces the l~abital3le area of the house. "The habitable area is so rest•icted that only Zf3 of tlae available GRT'A can be used. ~I The site grades are so steep that placu~rg tie garage within the front yard setback elevates die gaz'age floor 27 feet above the existing grade at the rear of the gaa'age. This provides for a large exposed structure and void space under the garage, whch 2442 South Downing Street, Suite 201 Attachment C ~ 303.573,0067 303.573.0077 Fax Premier Community dames, Ltd. ~- would be better used and mare aesthetic in appearance if enclosed to provide habitable space. ^ `T'he steep grades and the 33 foot Height restriction elunil~ate other options for providing habitable accommodation beyond the 20 foot front yard setbaclG. • The effect of the variance an light alld air, distribution of population, tl•ansportatialr, traffic facilities, utilities, and public safely. Tlae granting of this variance does not adversely effect any of these issues. In fact, granting the variance helps the fire safety alxd egress for the Meuse. • How the request caanplies with Vail's Comprehensive Plan. The Vail Comprehensive Plan encourages the best use of building on a site in order to provide aesthetic design soluti.alls for pl`ojects. i believe that granting this variance protirides au opportulv:ty for the design of a house an this site that is mare pleasing aestl~letcally, rnorc compatible with the adjacent houses, arld better economically in providing habitable aCC0lntnadahon, than it would be without receiving the variance from tl~e Town. It shQUld be noted that the applical~lt, with the assistance of John Ralltc~n, AIA, received {by a vote of 5-~) approval from the Planning alzd Environmental Commission far the salve variance application on July 13~'~ 1998. The application was submitted on June 9`'', 1998. In sununary, the very nature of these rather small steep development sites coupled with the existing 1S°fo site coverage restriction, makes this lot impossible to pravide cuff dent habitable accommodation that would be both ecanolnic and useable, unless relief is provided by the granting of a variance to the zolring code, Tlris suUmission is accompanied by a site plan., floor plains, and elevations far review with this request. Please feel free to contact me directly at (3+Q3} 573-t}(}b7 X103 or by e-mail at ,iscal(c~nchamesitd.com. Your very truly, ay . ~colluck Lot +~wi~erlApplicant yi, ` ii Tt7}YN OF ~,~IL ~' THIS ITEM MAY A>=FECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Tawn of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on May 9, 2005, at 2:00 pm in the Tawn of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of variances from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, and Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, pursuant to ~ p,J~ o,/' Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for the construction o€ gross residential floor area ~~.~ J } ~;Q; within the front setback and the location of required parking within the public right-of- y . ~~,.~ way, located at 2935 Basingdale BoulevardlLot 19, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Jay and Sheryl Scolnick Planner. Warren Campbell A request far a final review of variances from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6D-~, Height, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for the construction of grass residential float area within the side setback and to exceed the height limitation within the Two-Family Primaryr/Secondary zone district:, located at 1783 Shasta PlacelLot 14, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Chris Heckmann Planner: Elisabeth Eckel A request for a final review of variances from Section 12-6H-fi, Setbacks, and Section 12-6H-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-7, Variances, to allow for the construction of a residential addition within the side setback, located at 400 East Meadow Drive, Unit 6/Tyrolean Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Enrique Rajas, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett A request for a final review of variances from Section 12-6H-5, Setbacks, and Section 12-6H-9, Site Coverage, Vaik Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-7, Variances, to allow for the construction of a residential addition within the side setback, located at 400 East Meadow Drive, Unit 7/Tyrolean Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Jorge Massa, represented by Michae[ Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett r ~-~taClll'1'3eCtt: ~ MEMflRAN®UM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRDM: Community Development Department DATE: May 9, 20(}5 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of variances from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6D-7, Height, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapfer 12- 17, Variances, to allow for the construction of gross residential floor area within the side setback and to exceed the height limitation within the Two- Family PrimarylSecondary zone district, located at 1783 Shasta Place/Lot 14, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto Applicant: Chris Heckmann Planner: Efsabeth Eckel i. SUMMARY The applicant, Chefs Heckmann, is requesting a variance from Section 12-6D-S, Setbacks, and a variance from Section 12-6D-7, Height, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of gross residential floor area {CRFA) wifihin the side setback and to exceed the height limitation within the Two-Family PrimarylSecondary {P1S) zone district. These variances are being requested in association with the construction of a new residence at 1783 Shasta Place. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends appro~ai, with c©nditians, of a variance to allow for the construction of GRFA within the side setback subject to the findings and conditions noted in Section IX of this memorandum; and denial of a variance to exceed the height limitation prescribed within the Two-Family PrimarylSecondary zone dis#rict subject to the findings noted in Section IX of this memorandum. II. DI=SCRIPTION C)F REQUEST The applicant's proposal of a new Single-Family Residence on an unimproved lot at 1783 Shasta Place is currently undergoing the design review process. The lot contains several easements from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District which leave few potential locations for the residence upon the lot. As a result, the applicant is requesting a variance of five feet {5') from the side setback regulations and a variance of one and one half feet {1.5') from the height maximum of thirty three feet {33') prescribed within the Two-Family PrimarylSecondary zone district. The public notice, vicinity map, applicant's request, and a reduced set of architectural plans and elevations have been attached for reference {Attachments A, B, C and D). Ili. BACKGROUND Variances from the minimum side setback of fifteen feet {~5'} and the prescribed height regulation of thirty three feet {33'} within the Two-Family PrimarylSecondary zone district are being requested in conjunction with the construction of a new single-family residence on a vacant lot on Shasta Place in West Vail. Currently, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District {ERWSD} is party to several easements upon the lot. One of the easements provides access to a pump house located at the rear of the property. The access easement is ten feet {10'} in width and extends along the entirety of the northern property line. The second easement, which is initiating the applicant's request for a variance from the minimum side setback, houses an existing pump house at the northwest corner of the lot. The easement comprises approximately six hundred (600} square feet of the lot and contains one of the District's domestic water supply wells, which has been located on the property far many years. Approximately one hundred thirty {73©) square feet of this easement lies within the build-able area of the lot, thereby rendering an equivalent amount of square footage unusable by the appficant. Because of the square footage rendered unusable due to the encroachment of the easement into the build-able area, the appficant is proposing to relocate fifty eight {58} square feet of building area within the setback at the opposite {south} side of the property. The third easement is a sewer easement, twenty feet {20'} in width, which extends along the entirety of the western property line. This easement will be realigned by the Water District but has no further bearing on the variance requests being considered by the Planning and Environmental Commission {PEC}. A proposal has been drafted between ERWSD and the applicant that includes the widening of the lineal northern easement to fifteen feet {15') in order to preserve existing vegetation along that property line while maintaining permanent access to the pump house. This widening will include the installation of a GrasscreteCJ driveway along the access easement. Additionally, ERWSD has agreed with the applicant to pay the costs far the correct realignment of the easement along the water main at the western property line and the re-facing of the well house to reasonably match the residence {Attachment E}. The applicant's proposal was conceptually reviewed by the Design Review Board {DRB} at its January 5th, and May 4"', 2005 public hearings. At its most recent hearing, the Design Review Board responded with several minor comments relating to the fenestration of the residence, but encouraged the appficant to pursue both variance requests. IV. ROLES +OF REVIEWING BODIES Order of ReWie-nr: Generally, variance applications will be reviewed 6y the Planning and Environmental Commission, and then any accompanying design review application will be reviewed by the Design Review Board.. 2 Planning and Environmental Commission: The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for final approval, approval with modifications, or denial of a variance application, in accordance with Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code. Design F~eview Board: The Design Review Board has no review authority over a variance. However, the Design Review Board is responsible for the fins[ approval, approval with modifications, or denial of any accompanying design review application. Town Council: The Town Council has the authority to hear and decide appeals from any decision, determination, or interpretation by the Planning and Environmental Commission andlor Design Review Board. The Town Council may also call up a decision of the Planning and Environmental Carrmmission andlor Design Review Board. Staff: The Tawn Staff facilitates the application review process. Staff reviews the submitted application rnaterials far completeness and general compliance with the appropriate requirements of the Town Code. Staff also provides the Planning and Environmental Commission a memorandum containing a description and background of the appGcatian; an evaluation of the application in regard to the criteria and findings outlined by the Tawn Code; and a recommendation of approval, approval with modifications, or denial. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that the following provisions of the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: TITLE 12: ZONING REGULATIONS Chapter 12-6D: Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential (PIS) District ?2-6f~-9: Purpose: The two-family primary/secondary residential district is intended fo provide sites far single-family residential uses or two-family residential uses in which one unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public facilities as may appropriately be located in the same district. The two-family primary/secflr~dary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space far each dwelfing, commensurate with single-family and two-family occupancy, and fa maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12-6©-6: SETBACKS: In the primary/secondary residential district, the mr"nimum front setback shall be twenty feel {2Q), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feef (15), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feef {15). • 72-6D-7: HE1 Gh1T.~ For a flat roof or mansard roof, fhe height of buildings shall j not exceed thirty feet {3D'). For a sloping roof, fhe heighf of buildings shall not ~~ exceed thirty three feet (33'). Chapter 12-17: Variances ?2-~7-1: Purpose; Reasons FQr Seeking Variance: In order to prevent or fv lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of thr's title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dr`mensions of a site or the location of existing sfruetures (hereon; from fopographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinify; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inc©nvenience fo the applicanf of strict or literal compliance wifh a regulation shall not be a reason for granfing a variance. Vt. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 17'83 Shasta Place Legal Description: Lot 14, Vail Village West 2"d Filing Zoning: Twa-Family Primaryl5ecandary Residential {P1S) Land Use Pian Designation: Medium Density Residential Current Land Use: Unimproved Residential Lot Area: 11,717 sq. ft. 1 .27 acres Develavment Standard AilowedlReQUired Prot~osed Setbacks: Front: 20' 45' South Side: 15' ~'~' North Side: 15' 21' Rear: 15' 37' ®ensity: 1 unit 1 unit Height: 33' 34.5' GRFA: 5252.40 sq. ft. 5394.2 sq. ft. Site Coverage: 2,343 sq. ft. {20%) 2,271 sq. tt. {19.4%} Landscape Area: 7,030 sq. ft. {6Q%°} 8,213 sq. ft. {70.1%} ~\ Parking: 4 spaces 4 spaces VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING, Current Land Use Zoning North: i-70 CDOT Right~oi`-Way South; Residential Twa-Family PrimarylSecandary Residential Fast: Residential Twa-Family PrimarylSecandary Residential West: Residential Twa-Family PrimaryfSecandary Residential 4 VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS The review criteria for a request of this nature are established by Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code. A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina the Variances: i. The relationship of fhe requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Setback: Requests for the construction of Grass Residential Floor Area (GRFA} within side and front setbacks have been approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission for various other residences within Vail Village West 2"d Filing. According to Staff's research, such approvals have been granted both to existing residences and residences that were under construction or in the design review process. Generally, the existence of sewer easements and small lot sizes were the stated hardships justifying the variance requests. In this instance, Staff believes that there will be no negative impacts associated with the proposed additians into the setback since twenty seven feet (27'}will remain between the proposed residence and the residence nearest to the southern property line. Height: Staff's research of structures within Vail Village West 2"d Filing yielded no results of instances in which the Planning and Environmental Commission has approved a variance from the height regulations prescribed within the. Twa-Family Primary Secondary zone district. 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 ar to attain the objectives of thin title without a grant of specia! privilege. Seffaack: Staff believes same degree of relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the setback regulations within this zone district may be warranted without compromising the objectives of the zoning code, and without granting a special privilege. Staff believes that the total square footage of the encroachment {130 square feet} of the pump house easement into the build-able area of the lot may justify some degree of relief, which may be applied fo the applicant's request to locate fifty eight (58} square feet of building area within the lot's opposite (southern) side setback. Mergfrt: Staff does not believe that any degree of relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the height regulation within this zone district may be warranted without compromising the objectives of the zoning cads and without granting a special privilege. In sum, Staff believes that the applicant could negafe the need for a variance request through a minor redesign of the proposed residence and that Planning and Environmental Commission approval of this request would be a grant of special priv°rlege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utili#ies, and public safety. Setback: Staff does not believe the proposed setback encroachment will have a significant impact on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The structure on the only affected property will maintain a distance of twenty seven feet X27'} to the edge of the proposed structure. Height: Though Staff is not in support of granting a height variance, Staff does not believe the proposed height encroachment would have a significant impact on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. B. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. The Planninga and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before arantina a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the [imitations 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 vic%nity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a b. c The strict literal interpretation or enforcement at the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. 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. The strict interpretation or regulation would deprive enjoyed by the owners of district. enforcement of the specified the applicant of privileges ~ other properties in the same • • b IX. STAFF REC~QMMEIyDATION The Community Development Department recommends apprQVal, with conditions, of a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 12-6D-~, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) within the side setback located at 1783 Shasta Place, Lot 14, Vail Village West 2"d Filing and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VIII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Gommunity Devel©pment Department recommends the Gommission pass the following ma#ion: "The Planning acrd Environmental Commission approves, with a condition, the applicant's request for a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vai! Town Code, from Section 12-6D-fi, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of Gross Residential Floor Area {GRFA) within fhe side setback located at 1783 Shasta Place, Lot 14, Vail Village West 2"°~ Filing and setfing forth details in regard thereto, subjecf to the following condition: 1. This approva! shall be contingent upon fhe applicant receiving Town of Vail approva! of the design review application associated with this variance request." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds: 1_ The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limifatiorrs on other properties classified in the same district. 2. The granting of this variance will not be defrimenfa! to the public health,. safety, or welfare, or materially injurious fo properties or improvements in fhe vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the fallowing reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with fhe objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Tawn Code. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable fo the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive fhe applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district " The Gommunity C7eveiopment Department recommends denial of a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, Vai{ Town Code, from Section 12-6D-7, Height, Vail Town Code, to exceed the height {imi#atian within the Two-Family PrimarylSecondary zone district, located at 1783 Shasta Piaceli_ot 14, Vaii Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section Vlli of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "The Planning and Environmental Commission approves, with a condition, the applicant's request far a variance, pursuant to Chapter ?2- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 12-6L)-7, Height, Vail Town Code, tv exceed the height limitation within the Two-Family Primary/Secondary zone district, located at ? 783 Shasta PlacelLot 14, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto, subject to the fallowing condition: ?. This approval shall be contingent upon fhe applicant receiving Town of Vail approval of the design review application associated with this variance request." Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Deve{oprnent Department recommends the Commission makes the fiollowing findings: "The Planning and Environmental Commission finds.• 1. The granting of this variance will not constifute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations an other properties classified in fhe same district. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental tv fhe public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties ar improvements in the vicr`nity. 3, This variance is warranted for 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 Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Tvwn cede. b. There are exceptions yr extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally tv other properties in fhe same district. 8 c. The stricf interprefafiorr or enforcement of fire specified regulation would deprive the applicanf of privileges enfoyed by fhe owners of other properties in the same district. " X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Public Notice C. Applicant's Statement D. Architectural Plans E. Eagle River Water and Sani#ation District Letter of Intent • ~3 y_~ t~A ~~_ ~$a ~~® ~ 4~ 9'~ E~ E a i w `c r,,°. p~°~E 9~ c~ ~~ o~ w= ~~ ~`c ~ ; a o ~~ r~ 3 E [~ r S F- EL' Q Attachment: B 'f THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PR©PERTY PUBLIC NQTICE ,y1i Ta~~r~v a~ ~~r~ ~' NQTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12-3-6, Vail Town Code, on May 9, 2005, at Z:t}fl pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building, in consideration of: A request for a final review of variances from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, and Title 14, Development Standards Handbook, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for the construction of gross residential floor area within the front setback and the location of required parking within the public right-of- way, located at 2935 Basingdale BoulevardlLot 19, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: .lay and Sheryl Scolnick Planner: Warren Campbell A request for a final review of variances from Section 12-6D-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6D-7, Height, Vail Town Cade,. pursuant to Chapter 12-17, Variances, to allow for the construction of gross residential floor area within the side setback and to exceed the ;~,~,.. height limitation within the Two-Family PrimarylSecondary zone district, located at 17$3 :~ Shasta Placell_ot 14, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Chris Heckmann Planner: l=lisabeth Eckel . A request for a final review of variances from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6H-9, Site Coverage, Vai! Town Gode, pursuant to Chapter 12-7, Variances, to allow for the construction of a residential addition within the side setback, located at 400 East Meadow Drive, Unit 61Tyrolean Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Enrique Rojas, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett A request for a final review of variances from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6H-9, Site Coverage, Vail Tawn Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-7, Variances, to allow for khe construction of a residential addition within the side setback, located at 400 East Meadow Drive, Unit 7/Tyrolean Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Jorge Massa, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett ~i~ ~,~ • Attachment C H~c~.~~.~~ ~c~r~s nve. Aprit 1 1, Zoos To: The Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. Re: Lat l4 Vail Village West. 1783 Shasta place Vail, Co. $1b57 There are two variances being requested. Qne is for height and one is for side setback, I submitted and went through conceptual design review in January. There were very few corrections that I needed to make and. there were no variances required. I continued with my final submittal requirements. The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District's review of the project brought forth two c€~ncerns. "The first being the shallow depth of the sewer line running across the rear of the lot. The shallow depth creates a problem in providing adequate surface drainage frorn the structure over the sewer line into the creek. Tlie grade cannot be lowered over the sewerline. The second is their need for an access "road" to well house #6 which is located on the north side of the property. To address the first concern of drainage; the 1/RWSI3 suggested that I raise the building two feet to help the surface drainage and the }grade difference created by the elevation of the access road. I closely looked at all factors including the towns reluctance to approve height variances and came up with the following solution- The current wall height an the upper level is S'-11" so r raising the floors 2' without raising the ridge creates problems. Through my discussions with the T.O.V. building inspections department, and numerous plan revisions, I believe I can make the grade work over the sewer and outside the lower level egress windows by raising the structure l'. The height variance would be for this small. section of ridgeline over the middle of the guest master bedroom as measured from existing grade. To address their second concern of creating a permanent and usable access to the well house, the ERWSD hired engineers to define the future need and ability to access the wellhouse. The outcome of many discussions between the ERWSD, T.O.V. planning staff, and myself was this; to put an access road in they would need more room than their current lU' wide easement set aside for this purpose. To further complicate floe matter there are large trees in the easement, a steep grade, and close proximifiy to the Lot 13 structure and driveway. The outcome of design and engineering is what you see now on the submitted plans. The proposed structure had to be moved to allow room for the access road and the concrete with stone veneer retaining wall that supports it. This created the need for the side setback variance. The setback variance is located on the south side of the property closest to lot 15. The limit of encroachment into this setback is approimately 4'-6" at the furthest point of building footprint into side setback. The approval ofthese variances would allow the home to be situated in a manner more esthetically balanced in both directions, height and side to side, with the neighboring properties. Lot 15, (recent constuctior~) has a ridge height of 7y82'-©. The proposed ridge height is 79$5'-Q". f.ot i 3, (3fl years old or more) has a current ridge height of 7984'-5" and a potential ridge height of over 799f1'-0". Considering the side to side esthetics, moving the structure toward the south moves it more toward the middle of the two neighboring structures. Although there will still be much more room on the south side. This property is highly visable from I-7©, sa. ['rontage rd. and Gore Creek dr, so the esthetic value is very important to this project. 1 don't believe these variances would have much, if any, impact on light, air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic, or public safety. The variances would however have a positive impact for ERWSD who needs to access this wellhouse, which apparently supplies a large portion of West Veil's water. We have all worked very hard to consider all options and working together we came up with the above solutions. [hope in your contemplation of these approvals you will appreciate or efforts to keep the variances to a minimum, and to comply with the Town. of Veil's desire to create a thoughtfully designed community. Sincerely, Signature b~~a'ob~~a~b oa~o~v~ '~1~~'I~ S3L;10W NN'dW~~3H I \ J / ~ Z ~ O U W a~ ~ to X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W a "~~-. 0 F `i ~,F~ ~ Y\,!` 1,[ k `. ~ ~~ ~~` . ~~ 4 y`. ~' ~~ ., ~ ~- Attachment: Q oa~o~lo~ 'uNno~ ~~~~~ Z 9N1~1~ '1S~M ~~'d~f~Tll~ ~I~~ 1-~I 1D~1 ~ (~ ~~~~Q ~ ~~ C~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ A ti'J _ _ _ ~ ~ . ~ ! ~ ` ~ ' • ~ }.'' ,~ ~~~ i ,J ~ ~ i~ =~•qD ~~ ~ B g ~ f?t- +,~ ~~ ~~.-~.~ '~~ .r,r, ~ _ ` 9~~ I ~ f ~ ~ 1 n ~~ -.( /,~+ /+ ~ ~r ~ , 4 ~ '~~ ~- i ~`Y ~ ~ ~` ~ ,~ ~ f ~// /Y ,F ~ //~~ ~1 ~ f/ , ~' J rr.:-~ '\ M: f= i ~ ~ `\ }~6d, ~ ~ ~ ~ZS~~ f !~ ~, f 6 o; ~ 1'7 I Ii ~ N] F ° ~ r / ~Y ~ i ,~,~ ~~ ~ / R ~~! a .j ` `~ ~ a' ~ ly ~~3i6~ I ~ .~.~. -~. _f - ~~~ ~' 1 .~ .` .~ N / ~~~~ ~ ~ ~._! .~ _z z ' ~- Q ~ ~ ~ Q ~ V ~ ~ . ~ ~ D ICE ry >il 0.1 ~ ~ ~'~~ {~ ~ O 3G Q 15] ~ ^ ~• ~* ~ ~ l~~e ~ I[l ~_ ,~ ~~ ~ f ! ~ ~ 1 ~~ I~^ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h G N ('S ~ ~ ~ d1, ~ °1 ~ U1 ~ ~ ~{1 "' dS ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~y o ~ ~ '~ ry ~ ~ ~ ~Y q ' ~'! ~ o ~ ~ ~ ,~ '~ ~ ~ 4 n ~s ~ r n n M II - " f- 4 F- u' u 4 ~ ~ 11 ° d, n Q ~ ,a {~ ~ A n n f4 u- II n W u 1I~(yL° Y' ~ ~ ~ ~ u J Q ~ 9~L ~7 ° ~ ~ ~_ F 1L Z tY ~" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ o o ~ ~ o ~~-~- ~---- @R.Gh ~~. 1 yy (~ f r ~t \, '~p~ ~~~ I ~ N~ r, ~~ ~ 1 ~~ry R A~ ~ ~~ ~ 11 x ~ --~ ~~ ~ `. k A' ~~1' f ~~ n 4 y ~ ' 1 ~ ~ ~` ~ s, . wP y..m ~., ~ LJ SS. ~1IRFC ~ry TQ \` O -rte Z m _.~ „~ ~~. r ~,~ ~~Q~ ~~ -_ 9.1 X11 IF fi ~I L1 lJ m ~- ~ 1 ~~ ~~~~ ~_ 1 ~ _ N x,~ _ _ ~ l __ .. fle70K S`1'&4E5 ~ CahaF P. J ~~ ' ~4 Y 1~ sa.s~.v .t y ~ r. " 9 z ~ ti~ O n c t~ ~+ - ~ ~ 3 Q ~ Z 1.A~1. v ~ ~~ ~~ Q~r1 ~„y yon' .~- ~ r ...... 11 ~ b { "~ ~6 i it ~c i~ i i i r1~``y'' LY Y 1 , ~-.~~ _- m 9 LL~~ n Q G7 w ~.p ~ C ~v r~ ~ ~ G~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~'1 ' ~ ~ ~,> ~, - ~ ~ 6 c2b~ b r ~~E ..=I ~ - 9 I ~(ILLP~CaE ~T~ rn ,~ LCJT 14~ `~JA~1- D r a, EP•~LE GJUNN~ Gr~l._C1~A't~ Q Q D m v~i~, ~a~c~~°c~ q~C~ 3~1©.t~`~~i ' '_ ~ C m I ~ X ~ - 1 f i O 0 cn a Z L .._ ._.. ~ ~ ~ ~~ -T---- ~.' ~ I \. - - p\. ~- ------ a ~~~. 1 ~ ~~ ._ ~ I 1h``~ l r ~ // I ~ ~O ~ `~ - - '~ ~~ •" ~ *~ r S ~ ~~ ! ~. i ... k iG H 1. y' °a ~ 17 'L_ C Z ~' m T~ ~ I 1 ~~ ~~ -~~I _ I _ _ `~ - --- 1 i r i f~ C 1~ )J ~ n I ~ V ~ I ~ O °~ ~ ~/ ~ ~ fry ~ \ ~ ~, /~f { I ~~ / ---------~-~ - --qR_@~ ~t rri ---- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ff ll ~ ~ ~~a ~~ l ~ ~ ~~ e~ \ ~ u • y ~ ~ ~` ~ _ ~ I 711}a2-III 2~I~. £-liy P•'R -q 1~ N '2~llrt7. 11~ I ~ ~ +11 I d. I ~ I ~~ ~x, - ~ ---~~ - J ~r!' ., ~ x i i 1 • • ~ ,~ ~ H~GKh~1~N~( ~~~ ~' I7E~lG~ HEGKMANN Ho~Es ~ ~ .. rrn ~'' LOT 14, VAIL 0/ILLAGE WEST, FILII*f~ 2 VAIL, GOLO~ADO m ~ EAGLE GOU~lT1', COLORADO a~o.3ao.l3gq _-` ~~ --___- I ~ I L--- N--~ I I II r~r~ I ~ # ew o I ~~ ~ f~ r~ I ~ ~ of ~ I ------- ' I ~------------- ~# f I I I ti__._.__-__--___11 --- __r._.---J tl ~ ---~--~ I + I .~ r~= =--------~ , I o ~ 11 ~ II1 II{ w rv III { o ". RIDGE EL = 7978'-a' l I ui R•17 8:12 ~ I cn III I I ro III I I I'~ I. I ~ ---- r- ~€ --- ------- - ~ ----- ------ -----_ ~ r-----rl-T T1 II a ~ ~ y,y a~ I 1 6 1 1 III ~ I I+~ i II I I I I Lll ~ I{ I I tl I 1 I I I ### ~ ' --- III 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ I I 'I I • ~ R ' ' ?? ~~ IIL---- -~Tf ~ I II _ - m ' ^- ~ II I #©GE EL - 7973 -3 ~ ~ 2:12 11d L I o l l sir--*~-°-1~• ~ II ul ~~ -~~ I N -- I I~ I }`'r l r ~ I I I i j~, ~ I 2:12 r 1 1 1 1 1 1 _ ~ -'t-------o --~ I r 1 1 1 1 1 1 - 1I ~ I ~--.a~_. .._.-. ~---,r---- ~ ----------- ---------°,r I~ 1 1 1 1 1 1 --J L-----L_L13 J-~---- ---1 ~-----~ - •--I I II ~z I 7 1 ' I I -fir-1 I ~_ ~ --- L II I r_--~~-_ '• 4 r~ II I I i I I i I I 1 is I I I I I 1 II ~ it I~'12`. I i ~~ I I~ ~ I Il II r~~ ii I N I l I f II I I`===~ ~ Ir 11 / N IL-----~ M III ~ L~=_~ J ~-y-~- III ~ ~ I ni. N Rk1}GE EL = 7565'-0" r~ I III I Il ~ ~-~ I ~ I IIII y I f'}---t 1 1 ~ ~ - ~, __ r --- 1 ~~- -_~ F ~ 1 1 F ~ ^' ~ I 1 f ! - I I u ~~ ` '~ e * I II i~f ~_ III m 131 ~ ~ III r III tl m ~ lil w O III ~^' ~ III III ~ 161 2:12 III W --~I ~~------~~~----I I Fri ~ I 1 1 ,# I I I 1 1 I ~' .a ifl11~1 I II L~ ~=--====J I~ \\ ~ TL1J1 II I m ,I i ~~ m II II --- ~I ' II ~ 1r~= --rr- r'Cl p ~ r~ ~~II ~ I I~ `F ~ ~ I ~ I I I I I I l l t i I~ I ~. '' '' I I I ~I I I I 1 I `-'~'{f I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I}} 8:12 8:12 I I Q ~1J_I_L11J_L 1~_I_L1,~„ ~I 1 ~, v ~''' L®T 14, "JAIL VILL.Ar`al< !NEST, FILING 2 ~' z ~ EAGLE GOUNTY, GQLCJRAD'C7 ~I~ ~Pfl', 9.H III 171 d? III III ~RIOGE EL = 7981'-8111/16" III III N III %11 111 W I I __ _ I _ ~~~ HEGKMANN HOMES 4'f~.IL, GOLc~RAF~O Q7o.3GC7.13G~f r---~ ---~ I~---~i ll II r---~ I Ir---y{ I 1-----i 1 11----a I ~~ ~, 8:12 bb~l'Ob~~OLb CJa'~'?~01C~~ ~~l~~ S3YJOH NN~'3~1>I~~H ~~ ~ 4 ~ r I Z 9N1~11~ '~S~M ~~J'd~~lll~ ~Ib`Ir `trl 101 .~. ~ ~~hI~CI1S~~ ~lN'dl~k~}~~+~ ~C n ~~ A ~Q ~~ J Q OI Q L~ C~ ~a~ ~~~ ~~za LL'o 4,~ d S (~ ~~ o k ~~ T z ~4 0 0 ~, ~ ~ a ~ ~ppc ~~~ ~ Q~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ qY dj tv' q' 4 ~~Q ~ N ii N (V X ~ ~ l7 =~ ~4~~1~~ -11'd I`. ~~ ,~q~~ n 4 ~ Q ~ ~, ~~ .~ ~~ ~, ~ ~~~"~I '~ I ~`~ , ~ ~ 0. ~YJ i '- /, / ~, ~I ~: '', ~~?( ,1.. ~' V 'I ~~ . I _~ I.f ~- ~. _ '~i w~~ ~ ~` ~~. -' 0 ~ ~ ~ ~„~ ~ r, _ ~~ _~_ .... r .. ~~ .. .. -~~~- ~. . t~ ~~ ~ ~ I ~--- _m~ ~~4 ' bb~l'ab~'aLb aa~o~ta~ '~II`dh ~~ ~a~ xr~~w~~~+ 1 l I r ~ ~ r ~~ ~"f ~~ - ~ • ~~ ~~ ~~ i t i 1 l N ~m I ! 1 i ~ Aii i~ ~ _ ~__ ---- ~ --__ - -~ 1 1 '~ •• ~. I .` w A~, ,_ ~~~ .,~ ... . I... ;, ~ .~_~ ~ ~ . -~ ~~~_ ~ ~ ~~ I,, ,- ~ , I : ~, ~ ~ --- I - ~ I -- 9h11"I1~ '15~M 3~3'd~~lh ~lf'~/'~ 't~f la1 ~ ~~1~~C~ 15~`~ ~lN'd1~~~~H ~ c[ I' - ~ ~I II I I ! I I~ I II I II I r I II I I II I II I II 1 -.I-~;-1 .. ~ ~ ! II , 1 II I { ~ 11-- ~ II ~ ~ 'l .; III . .' n i III . ~ .. ~ I I ~ III r 11 ~ . = :. I, I! I I ~ I 'I= ~~ 9 Ji . ~C]\\III``JJ~` f E i [I ~. 6 1 ~~- :~ r ,, .~_~ ~~~~. ~~ - ~I ~I ._~ ~I .., ~ I,~, ,, ~~ ~ z ~~ ~~I ' ;._ I ~ ~ f -J l II II 1 ~~,~ I 77 II II I II II 1 II II I i r I, I, I r I _ _. _ _ U I I~ -. ~~ g o~ z a ~- Z a ~~ bb~!`ob~'©~b oa~o~o~ '-ti~dn S~W+oH NN'dW71~~H ~~~a 1 1 i 1~ } ~~ ~~ I ~ 4 ~ 4 J ~~ ~~ oa~o~o~ `,uNn©~ ~~a~~ ~ 9hl l `l l ~ '153M ~9b'~~ In ~ f'd~ `-b l 1©~ .~. e. yuy~ R' ~ < p 4 ~ NFa Y1 8 ~ o ~ ~ m u{~u~{~~ a ti 4 ~ _ _ li l 1 ~ ~ t ~ 1 1 ~ 1~ ~ ~ ` I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ ~~ 1 I~~I ~ 1 -_~ l i ~ ~~ _ _ -~ ~` ii `- ~ , ~, ~_ a ~~ 1 ~!~1I~~~~--~ ~ 1 _,: ,. ~ ___l °~ ~ ~;i-J~n" ~~~ `, ul' I~l I~~ I{ 1 Nlar-25-2005 10:50 Frcm-ERW§D Bi04754066 i-206 P.L Attachment: E EAGLE RIVER INAI`t`R $r SANITATION ©1STRIGT 84tl Fareet ftaad + Vnd, Caioraco 8~ X57 i~ (~17p) 476-718@ • FA1C (9Yp) a76-na89 March 2A, 21105 Mr. Chris Heckmann P.O. Sox 5431 Edwards, CO 81b32 Subject. ~,.~:.,::. of Intent to Convey )~asesments X1783 Shasta Y'lace} 17ear Chris: Thank ye~u for your cooperation its resolving access easement issues to acco[nrnodate the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District's (District) domestic water supply well located on your property. Although the schedule for rca3igxtment of the water main from the well to the street, and ecst sharing agreerncn[ for a retaining wall required for the interface of our driveway and your residence have not been resolved, we have agreed on the vacation of existing easements, the creation of new easements, end that the District will pay the costs for the fallowing items: • Tht realignmenk of the water main through the [....~erty- + Re-facing ofthe existing well house to reasonably match the residence. • Installation of driveway and drainage per plans provided by Arroyo Engineering. • The District will review design and cost estirnatts for the above work and, if a~.r... red, pay fat' the Hems at fait COr-treCt4r fOSt. 'P'out signature on this Letter of Intent indicates that you intend to execute the proposed easement a~rcements as indicated an the attached site plan. The signature by dse District's general manaser indicates that all access issues with the I?istric[ have beets resolved, contirsgtnt upon final execution of the proposed easements, and Disaict staff grants civil plan approval for the purpose of your development application to the Towu of Vail. Sincerely, -- • .~ Linn Scharr Engineering Manages ~~ Dennis Galvin, eral Manager Attachment LS/map ~t Chris Heekmatuy, Property owner ~cNVjCES { A\ MEMDRANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FRAM: Community Development Department DATE: May 9, 2005 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of variances from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, and Section 12-6H-9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-7, Variances, to allow far the construction of a residential addition within a side setback and in excess of the maximum site coverage, located at 4001 East Meadow Drive, Unit 61Tyrolean Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Enrique Rojas, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett 1, SIJMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance from the required minimum side setback standard in the High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) district of twenty feet (2fl') and a variance from the maximum allowable site coverage in the HDMF zone of 55% in order to utilize the 250 square foot addition permitted for dwelling units in the HDM1= zone district. The Tyrolean Condominiums site (Attachment A), in which Unit 5 is Ivcated, is presently in a state of pre- existing nonconformity with respect to all minimum setbacks, in addition to maximum site coverage, and several other zoning standards (Section Vl). Based upon the criteria and findings in Section Vlll of this memorandum, staff is recomrnending appr©val of the applicant's variance requests. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is making a request to add Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) to Unit 6 of the Tyrolean Condominiums structure in the form of deck enclosures, portions of which will encroach into the minimum twenty foot setback (2fl'), and two other areas of which will also constitute additional site coverage an the subject property. The variance being requested would allow approximately 298.9 square feet of new GRFA to be constructed five feet (5') into the northerly and easterly setbacks (Attachment B). The GRFA number of 298.9 square feet is derived as a result of a proposed interior remodel required by code which will turn 62.fl7 square feet of presently existent GRFA from Unit E3 into General Common Element (GCE) in the form of a hallway to meet egress requirements. The proposed addition of site coverage will occur on the southeast corner, adding 20.8 square feet associated wi#h the Unit 6 remodel (Attachment B). The16.5 square feet of new site coverage depicted on the south of the structure on the site plan is anticipated with a future remode9 of Unit 3 and is not associated with this request. Given the architectural style of the building and the existing screening, or "mask", walls on the decks to be enclosed (see Elevations in Attachment B), the proposal to move the exterior walls out an average of four to eight and a half feet (4- 8.8'), the proposed variance requests would have little impact on the apparent bulk and ~ ~~~ 1 ,, TOi'V,V ~F VAIL '~y mass of the building, or neighboring uses. The applicant's written request is attached for reference {Attachment G). Ill. BACKGRQUND In 19E?8, the Blue Gaw Restaurant was constructed on the southern portion ofthe subject property. In 1969, the property was zoned High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) which allowed restaurants as an accessory use within amultiple-family building. In 1973, the Town of Vail re-adopted the zoning regulations {Ordinance No. 8, 1973} and removed restaurants as an accessory use in the HDMF zone district, thereby making the Tyrolean Restaurant {then the Blue Gow Restaurant} a nonconforming use. In 1980, the Tyrolean Condominiums were constructed and attached to the e~asting "Blue Gow" restaurant structure. The subject property currently contains $ individual dwelling units, the Tyrolean Restaurant, which includes two additional dwelling units, 20 enclosed parking spaces, and three surface parking spaces. On May 1(l, 2D04, a variance was approved, with one condition, to allow the floor area that was once the Tyrolean Restaurant to be converted into grass residential floor area {GRFA). On .lu1y 26, 2i~04, a setback variance was granted for Unit 9 to allow for construction of a minor exterior alteration. IIV. F~E1/1E11V1NG BOARD ROLES A. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant of special privilege. 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. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The DRB has NO review authority an a variance, but must review any accompanying DRB application. 2 C. Town Council Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town Council. Town Council evaluates whether nor not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals ar denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. D. Staff The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memorandum containing background an the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation on approval, approval witYr conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING ©OCUI'VIENTS TITLE 12, ZONING REGULATIONS ARTICLE H. HIGH DENSITYMULTIPLE-FAMILY (HOME} flISTRICT (excerpted} ~2-6H-7: PURPOSE: The high density multiple-famRy disfrict is intended fo provide sites for maltiple-family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25} dw~:lling urtifs per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilrties and lodges, private recreation facilities and related' visitor oriented uses as rr~y appropriately be located in the sarr~ district. The high density multiple-family district is intended to ensure adegcxafe light, air, open space, and other amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the disfrict by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidenfia! uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to fhe nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend harmoniously with the residenfia! character of fhe district. ~2-6H-6: SETBACKS: The minimum fronf sefback shall be tv~nfy feet (2D'}, the rrrnimum side setback shall be twenty feet (20'}, and the n7nimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20") 92-&H-9: SITE COVERAGE.• Site coverage shelf not exceed fifty five percent (55%) of fhe total sife area. CHAPTER 17, VARIANCES (in part} • 12-17-1; PURPQSE: A. Reasons For Seeking Variance: In orderto preventorto lessen such practical diffrculfies and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may !ae granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures thereon, from topographic or physics! conditions an the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physics! Grrritations, street locations or conditions in fhe immedr`ate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or liters! compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance.. B, Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk control, site caverage, usable open space, landscaping and site development, and parking and loading requirements; or with respect to the pravisians of chapter 7 7 of this title, governing physical development on a site. C. Use Regulations Not Affecfed: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed far each district because the flexibility necessary to avoid results inconsistent wr'th fhe objectives of this title is provided by chapter 16, "Conditions! Use Permits", and by section T2-3-7. "Amendment" of this title. 92-77-5: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance application, the planning and '~ environmental commission shall consider the fallowing factors with respect to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requesfed variance fo other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree fo which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve corrpatibilify and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this title vvthaut grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of fhe requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such ether factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. 8. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 9. That the granting of the variance v~ill not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the sarr~ district. 2. That the granting of the variance vvl! not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or inpravements in fhe vicinity. 4 • 3. That the variance is granted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and a~forcement of the specified regulation v~ould result in practical diffrculfy or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent viith the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the Sarre zone. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of fhe specified regulafion v~ould deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the ov~ners of other properties in the same district. VI. SITE ANALY5IS Lot Size: 16,039 square feet 1 ,368 acres Hazards: None Standard AI{owed/Required Existing Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. 16' no change Sides: 20 ft. 1'Northl7'South no change" Rear. 20 ft. 2' no change* {The requested setback variances are well within the area of existing encroachments) Height: 48' 4$' no change GRFA: 12,190 sq. ft. *17,001sq. ft. 17,251 sq. ft. *(Units 1-5, 8 and 9 were calculated without counting exterior wall thicknesses.} Site Coverage: 55% (8,821 sq. ft.} 56% (9,05$ sq. ft.) 56.6% {9078.8 sq. ft.} Density: 9 [?Us 9 DL9s no Change Landscape Area: 30% (4,.812 sq. ft.) 43% {6,981 sq. ft.} nfl change Parking: 19 spaces 23 spaces no change VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: CDUT ROW Not Applicable South: Qpen Space Natural Area Preservation {NAP} East: Residential High Density Multiple Family (HEJMF) West: Transportation Center General Use {GU) 5 VIII. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A. 'I. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff has determined the requested variance will result in a harmonious relationship between the Tyrolean structure and its one neighboring building as the bulk and mass of the Tyrolean will remain virtually the same. The existent screen or mask walls, as depicted on the existing elevations {Attachment f3), create the appearance of bulk, mass and GRFA in the setbacks today, despite the fact those are actually decks. Because the aesthetic value and inherent architectural characterof the Tyrolean building do not change with this proposal, nor do any further projections from the exterior occur, this criterion has been satisfied. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibilityandunIformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity ar to attain the objectives of this title without a grant of special privilege. Considering the variance requests approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission {PEC) for the newest residential unit in the Tyrolean, Unit 9, the granting of these variance requests for Unit 6 would not constitute a grant of special privilege, but would actually work toward achieving compatibility and uniformity far the building. The rampant preexisting nonconformities of the structure have greatly limited the apportunities for improvement or expansions for the owners of condominiums in the Tyrolean. 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 effects upon light, air, and other public interests in comparison to existing conditions would be negligible considering the small areas to be enclosed and their respective locations on the building. The existing Tyrolean building is currently nonconforming with respect to the required minimum setbacks of twenty feet (20') on all four sides and the approval of this proposal would not result in an excessive encroachment in comparison with the rest of the building. The setback and site coverage requests would have no discernible effect on the South Frontage Road or the light and air of the neighboring Apollo Park property. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Given the extent of the GRFA variance granted on May 10, 2004, and the setback variance granted July 26, 2004, both for Unit 9 of the Tyrolean Condominiums, the current proposal does not appear excessive considering Q its extent compared to that of its immediate predecessors. The original placement and construction of the Tyrolean Condominiums on the site does create extraordinary circumstances and conditions which do not apply generally to other properties in the High Density Multiple Family zone district.. B. The Plannino and I;nvironmentaR Commission shall make the following findings before prantino 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 inconsis#ent 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 mne. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by fhe owners of other properties in the same district. IX. STAFF RECC]MMENDATIC3N The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variances from Section 92-fiH-6, Setbacks, and Section'12-fiH-9, Site Coverage, Vail Tawn Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-7, Variances, to allow for the construction of a residential addition within a side setback and in excess of the maximum site coverage, located at 400 East Meadow Drive, Unit 6/Tyrolean Condominiums, subject to the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum. Should the Planning and Envranrnental Commission choose approve to the requested variances, the Department of Community Development recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "`Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section Vli of this rrremorandum, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent wiffr the limitations on other properties classified in the same disfrict. 7 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, armaterially 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 nr enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of fhis title. b. There are exceptions orextraordinary circumstances orconditions 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 applicantofprivileges enjoyed by the owners of otherproperties in the same district. X. ATTACHMENTS A. 1/icinity Map B. Reduced Plans C. Applicant's Request • r 8 ~~ o~ ~6~ g P o~ ~~~ ~ i5 3 `c~ Y ~~ V VJ fJ ~ R~FF 6 ~~ ~T A b 6 L H O O 1~ II ~~ LL 8i Qi gl e m C v m Q _ . a~.., a ~ ~ I s 4 .... ..r., s..v w, .. . ~'tri'A * 2 r ~3aow3a ~ ,~~~ n 4 ~ ~ .~ ... -., M .00,9Y.5Lti 1 - ,oa ~z ,--~--~ - . - ~, , ~~n ~a w ~~~ a6 ~~z ~3 ~~ ~' ` 1~~1 s ~ ~ ~„_- b l ~z J h _, m tsm Na. I ( ~~~ ;~~) z y I - --- -"-...rv~..., I - ~ - I I ~ I I I I t7 s I I r ~ I I ~ s :i Fi.~ 4~T~ I - - ~~ I t T ,~ n, i e r l ~. Y I v i ~ Ir5 I [~ f t;.~ _~_. i~`' ~9r='I'l'r~YZ"Ir~~.~-~ f_~~1~IF9~~..I~~~~r"~9 i~i~~lllPn~i~'i j~ i ~~ . _ .~~- ~..~- __ _ e ~_ ~'- `,~, ~ °~ ~' ~-: ~\ ~~ ~[ '~~ ~- -- ~~ ~y w\~- d ;~ ~W < ('J =5 \ ~ ,oa'ss M ,saa,v+.s. S i 0 .~ ,. s . .. Nvwns ~ M~,~3~~ , . ,~ ~ ~ ~~I I :- ~ ~ ~ x 7 x 7 ~{! F [ 4~ '_--a ~ E ~3~ ` F 4'~ ~ dl !1 :! 3 ~ or}ooeo i i i I I A 1 11 I I I I I _ ~.~" _- Y O 4 ~ a ~a ~. 1~ rl _ ~ -- z p. f L ~~"` .~~=N~Wn~_.1.. awntri .. ... netwaul 6 u ~ H ~~ m t' z 7 t z o! ~! !'~~ ~iS 1~i i~~'i` ~t~1©©a~a~~ ~I ~I 1_ ! I t r. 1 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ---- ~E li ~'~isar'- ~ ~: a 1 I i E a ~ i ,. i + ~~~, I r k _J I _~ ~~ ,u ~ I' ~ h I ~': o 1 ~ II II '.~ !. I i.'f I /~ ~.. I I I I 1 I I r4 I f _ ~ I _ t I ~ ~ _.. ~ . ~ I 11 1i!~ oS~Ydn L+~ulii ili4 f.--.~- L ~.~,. ~ ~ ,~ Nvwns ,. ~, ~~ I~ ~,o~ ti~~ S ~ ~ , ~3OQW3~1 L~' 9 S11Ni1 snniN~noaxo~ xRawau ~I ~~~ r- f ~ i a ~~~ ~ - - - ~= '-- ~_ ~ '~ '~"? ~~~ I o~ iii ~ f i• i~ Attachment C k~c»ar~cs May 3, 2005 Tyrolean Condominium Unit 6 Tyrolean Condominiums, I_ot SD Vail village 1s1 Filing Variance Application for Site Coverage 1. I]escription of Variance Requested • The Tyrolean Unit 6 owners are currently in the Town of Vail process for o setback variance along wi#h Unit 7 owners. They have a growing family and require-more space and hope to take advantage of the 250 ordinance available to them instead of moving down valley. During the process of applying for a setback variance, it was discovered that a small area of the deck enclosure constitutes 20.8 square feet of additional site coverage. The staff recommended a study be lone to incorporate all other foreseeable future site coverage needs for the entire property. AIE practical areas for 250 square foot expansions were identified for each of the 9 Tyrolean units. Of all the available and practical expansion areas, two small areas necessitate additional site coverage. One is 20,8 square feet and pertains to 3 units at the northeast corner of the building. The other is 16.5 square feet anal pertains to one unit in the southwest corner of the building. The variance being requested will allow approximately 37.3 square feet of additional site coverage to be added to the site to ensure all units can be treated equally in this property. 2. Analysis of Proposal The property was zoned HDMF in 1969 and the condominiums were constructed in 19$0. Upon completion, the building was non-conforming with respect to not only site coverage, but setbacks and exterior lighting as well. This pre-existing nonconforming condition through no fault of the applicant(s) is a hardship based on the stricf and literal interpretation ofi the code. On July 26, 2004 a variance was granted to Unit 9 which in part, reduced the property site coverage 48.4 sq. ft. The proposed plan increases the site coverage 37.3 sq. ft. for a net decrease of 11,8 sq, ft. on the property over the past year. The proposal also reduces the exterior lighting fixture non-conformance by 2 fixtures to offset the impact. This combined with proposed efforts at Unit 7 and 9, total a decrease of 14 exterior lighting fix#ures. Part of the proposed plan is an exiting design and sprinkler system that increases the protection for health and safety within this building. The applicant has worked closely with the building and fire departments on a design that will bring Units 6 and 7 into code compliance. Enclosed is a letter from Charlie Davis regarding these areas of the proposal, In addition fo bringing the property closer into code compliance, the applicant is proposing enhancements to the architecture of the building that will unify the overall property while maintaining its original charm, The existing design of the building uses a wood "mask" wall system to hide the decks within. This "mask" is generally cantilevered 5'-0° off of stucco walls that enclose the ~, 1719CI1RE Ir2.SUlTla91a1"CIl IIeCt.CQfll 143 East Ivlead+ativ Drivc 970.479.750? Suite X00 f 970.479.751 l V,lil, CO 31657 m 970.471.(1122 • m, M ARCH#T~CT units. The major reading of the bulk and mass is defined by the "mask" with the stucco walls being secondary. The proposed deck enclosures move the existing exterior walls of the units out an average of 4'-~'/a". They maintain the reading of the "mask" and do not encroach into the east or north setback any mare than the "mask" wail system does today. Therefore, the proposed deck enclosures will impact the perception of the overall bulk and mass of the building very little. The adjacent properties on the east and north are a parking lot and frontage road respectively..The building addition occurs within the existing bulk and mass and is in a location on the site that has little impact on development standards and neighboring properties. 3. Approval Criteria aJ The relationship of the requested uariar,ce to other existing ar patentia! uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed variance wilt allow the property to satisfy the future site coverage needs of all its units. The proposed site coverage areas are not only small, but are in locations an the site with little impact to development standards and neighboring properties and structures. The proposed site coverage area directly p®rtains to 4 of the 9 Tyrolean Condominium Units and will allow them to be treated equally. • bJ The degree fa which relief from the strict or literal inferpretatian and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve corrppatibility crud uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, ar to affairs the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The requested variance for Unit 6 is a part of a larger proposal with Unif 7 that is similar to variances granted in this area. The proposed variances will allow these units to be treated similarly to other units in this property as well as other properties in the vicinity such as: Tyrolean Unit 4; Vail Mountain Lodge; Apollo Park; the Town Parking Structure; and the Cornice building. The proposed variance is not a grant of special privilege given the existing non- conformance of the site and the hardship it causes through no fault of the appiicant(s]. Significant measures are proposed to offset any impact of the proposal and to bring the property closer to compliance with the underlying zoning and building codes. cJ The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of papulatr`an, transportation and traffic Facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variance will have na negative impacts to these issues. miclzaet;i~!sumanarchitect.cc~nt 143 ;/ast 144eadow brave Suite 300 Vail. CO 41GS7 970.479.75D2 f 970.479,75] ! ~n 97D.471.6122 • MEMORANDUM T©: Planning and Environmental Commission FRC7M: Community Development Department DATE: May 9, 2005 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a variance from Sec#ion 12-6H-$, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-7, Variances, to allow for the construction of a residential addition within a side setback, located at 400 East Meadow Drive, Unit 7/Tyrolean Condominiums, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Jorge Massa, represented by Michael Suman Architect Planner: Matt Gennett 1. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance from the required minimum side setback standard in the High Densi#y Multiple Family (HDMF) district of twenty feet (20') and in orderto utilize the 250 square foot addition permitted for dwelling units in the HDMF zone district. The Tyrolean Condominiums site (Attachment A), in which Unit 7 is located, is presently in a state of pre-existing nonconformity with respect to all minimum setbacks, in addition to maximum site coverage, and several other zoning standards (Section VI). Based upon the criteria and findings in Section VII of this memorandum, s#aff is recommending approval of the applicant's variance requests. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicant is making a request to add Gross Residential Fioor Area (GRFA) to Unit 7 of the Tyrolean Condominiums structure in the form a deck enclosure which will encroach approximately five feet (5'} into the minimum twenty foot setback (20'}. The variance being requested would allow approximately 1$3.1 square feet of new GRFA to be constructed within the easterly setback (Attachment B). Given the architectural style of the building and the existing screening, or "mask", walls on the decks to be enclosed (see Elevations in Attachment B), the proposal to move the exterior walls out an average of four to eight and a half feet (4-$.5'}, and the necessary variance request would have little impact on the apparent bulk and mass of the building, or neighboring uses. The applicant's written request is attached for reference (Attachment C). Ill. BACKGROUND In 196$, the Blue Cow Restaurant was constructed on the soutF~ern portion of the subJect property. n f-_.J In 1969, the property was zoned High Density Multiple Family (HDMF) which allowed restaurants as an accessory use within. amultiple-family building. 1 7'OWi'N 4~ UAIL `~` In 1973, the Town of Vail re-adopted the coning regulations {fOrdinance No. 8, 1973) and removed restaurants as an aCCessoryuse in the HDMF zone district, thereby making the Tyrolean Restaurant (then the Blue Cow Restaurant} a nonconforming use, In 1980, the Tyrolean Condominiums were constructed and attached to theexisting "Blue Cow" restaurant structure. The subject property currently contains 8 individual dwelling units, the Tyrolean Restaurant, which includes two additional dwelling units, 20 enclosed parking spaces, and three surface parking spaces.. tan May 10, 2004, a variance was approved, with one condition, to allow the floor area that was once the Tyrolean Restaurant to be converted into gross residential floor area (GRFA) (Attachment D). t)n Juiy 20, 2004, a setback variance was granted for Unit 9 to allow for construction of a minor exterior alteration. [V. REVtEWiNG BOARD RQt_E~ A. The Planning and Environmental Commission is responsible for evaluating a proposal for: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to attain the objectives of this Title without grant ofi special privilege, 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. 4, Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. B. The DRB has NO review authoritvon a variance, but must review anyaccompanying DRB application, C. Town Council Actions of Design Review Board or Planning and Environmental Commission maybe appealed to the Town Council or by the Town CouncU. Town Council evaluates whether or not the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board erred with approvals or denials and can uphold, uphold with modifications, or overturn the board's decision. Q. Staff The staff is responsible for ensuring that all submittal requirements are provided and 2 plans conform to the technical requirements of the Zoning Regulations. The staff also advises the applicant as to compliance with the design guidelines. Staff provides a staff memorandum containing background on the property and provides a staff evaluation of the project with respect to the required criteria and findings, and a recommendation an approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Staff also facilitates the review process. V. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS TITLE 12, zON1NG REGULATIONS ARTICLE H. HIGH DENSITYMULTIPLE-FAMILY (HOME) DISTRICT (excerpted) 7~-6H-?': PURP©SE: The high density multiple-family district is intended fa provide sites formultiple-family dwellings at densities to a maximum of twenty five (25} dvrelling units per acre, together with such public and semipublic facilities and ledges, private recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district. The high density multiple-family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and ether amenities commensurate with high density apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to mar'ntain the desirable residential and resort qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses, which relate to the nature of Vail as a v~inter and summer recreation and vacation community and, where permitted, are intended to blend • harmoniously with the residential character of the district 12-fiH-fi: SETBACKS: The minimum front setback shall be fv~nty feet (20'), the minimum side setback shall be fwenfy feet (20'x, and the nanimum rear setback shall be twenty feet (20'). CHAPTER ~'7, VARIANCES (in part) 12-17-1: PURPOSE.' A. Reasons Far Seeking Variance: !n order to prevent ar to Lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the objectives of this title as would result from strict or literal interpretation and enforcement, variances from certain regulations may be granted. A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site ar the bcatian of existing structures thereon, from topographic or physical conditions on the sr'te or in the immediate vicinity; ar from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cast ar inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. B. Development Standards Excepted: Variances may be granted only with respect to the development standards prescribed for each district, including lot area and site dimensions, setbacks, distances between buildings, height, density control, building bulk central, site coverage, usable open space, landscaping and life development, and 3 parking and loading requirements; or with respect to the provisions of chapter ? 7 of this title, .governing physical development on a sife. C. Use Regulations Nat Affected: The power to grant variances does not extend to the use regulations prescribed for each districf because the tiexibifity necessary to avoid results inconsistent wifh the objectives of this title is provided by chapter 18, "Conditional Use Permits`; and by section 12-3-T. "Amendment" of this tiffs. 92-97-6: CR1TERlA ANf~ F1NUINGS: A. Factors Enumerated: Before acting on a variance ~oplication, the planning and environmental commission shall consider the following factors with respecf to the requested variance: 1. The relationship of the requested variance fo other existing or potential uses and structures in the uicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict ar literal interpretation and enforcerent of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve corrpatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, or to aftain the objectives of this title vwthout grant of special privilege. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, disfribu#ion of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the cotrmission deems applicable to fhe proposed variance. 8. Necessary Findings: The planning and environmental commission shall make fhe following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of specie! privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in fhe sarro 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 i,rrpravements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcerr~ent of the specified regulation would result in practr`cal difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsstent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptional or extraordinary circurxstances or conditions applicable to the sife of the variance thaf do not apply generally to other properties in the sa,~ zone. c. The strict or literal interpret ion and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. 4 VI. SITE ANALYSIS Lot Size: 16,039 square feet 1.368 acres Hazards: None Standard AllowedlReauired Existing Proposed Setbacks: Front: 20 ft. 16' no change Sides: 20 ft. 1'Northl7'South no change* Rear: 20 ft. 2' no change" *(The requested setback variances are well within the area of existing encroachments) Height: 48' 48' no change GRFA: 12,19Q sq. ft. *17,f101sq. ft. 17,251 sq. ft. (Units 1-5, 8 and 9 were calculated without counting exterior wall thicknesses.) Site Goverage: 55% (8,821 sq. ft.) 56% (9,658 sq. ft.) no change Density: 9 DUs 9 DUs no change Landscape Area: 3Q% (4,812 sq. ft.} 43% (6,981 sq. ft.} no change Parking: 19 spaces 23 spaces no change VII. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: GDOT ROW Not Applicable , South: Open Space Natural Area Preservation (NAP} East: Residential High Density Multiple Family (HOME) West: Transportation Center General Use (GU) Vlll. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS A, 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff has determined the requested variance will result in a harmonious relationship between the Tyrolean structure and its one neighboring building as the bulk and mass of the Tyrolean will remain virtually the same. The existent screen or mask walls, as depicted on the existing elevations (Attachment B), create the appearance of bulk, mass and GRFA in the setbacks today, despite the fact those are actually decks. Because the aesthetic value and inherent character of the Tyrolean building do not change with this proposal, nor do any further projections from the exterior occur, this criterion has been deemed to be met. r • 5 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 a grant of special privilege, Considering the variance requests approved by the Planning and Environmental Gommission (PEG) for the newest residential unit in the Tyrolean, Unit 9, the granting of this variance request for Unit 7 would not constitute a grant of special privilege, but would actually work toward achieving compatil,ility and uniformity for the building. The rampant preexisting nonconformities of the structure have greatly limited the opportunities for improvement or expansions for the owners of condominiums in the Tyrolean. 3. The effect of the rectuested variance on light and air, diistributian of population, transportation and traffic faciilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff believes the effects upon light, air, and other public interests in comparison to existing conditions would be negligible considering the small areas ko be enclosed and their respective locations on the building. The existing Tyrolean building is currently nonconforming with respect to the required minimum setbacks of twenty feet (20') on all four sides and the approval of this proposal would not result in an excessive encroachment in comparison with the rest of the building. The setback request would have no discernible effect on the South Frontage Road or the light and air of the neighboring Apalla Park property. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Given the extent of the GRFA variance granted on May 10, 2004, and the setback variance granted July 26, 2004, both for Unit 9 of the Tyrolean Condominiums, the current proposal does not appearexcessive considering its extent compared to that of its immediate predecessors. The original placement and construction of the Tyrolean Condominiums on the site does create extraordinary circumstances and conditions which do not apply generally to ether properties in the High density Multiple Familyzone district. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance. That the granting of the variance will no# 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 ar welfare, ar materially injurious to properties or improvements in the 6 vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the fallowing reasons:. a. The strict liters! 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 one. 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. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance from Section 12-6H-6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12-7, Variances, to allow for the construction of a residential addition within a side setback, located at 40p East Meadow Drive, Unit 71Tyrolean Condominiums, subject to the criteria outlined in Section VIII of this memorandum. • Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose approve to the requested variances, the Departmen# of Community Developmen# recommends the Commission pass the following motion: "Based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VIII of Phis memorandum, and the evidence and testimony presented,. the Planning and Environmental Commission frnds: 7. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the sarrre 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 vicinr'fy. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specifred regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumsfances or conditions applicable to the same site of the uariance that do not apply generally to other properties In the same zone. c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specilled regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed ~y the owners of other properfies • 7 in fhe same drsfrrct. X. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Reduced Plans C. Applicank's Requesk r • • 8 J ~ m ~.Lk 9+C 9 ~p 3. ~F~ ~~ ti4~ 5 ~_gy pp6 gap t II d d k O d O e m a° D i ~r b 1 _ ,7 ~Jy~ ~~Q~~~~ i ~~~ ~ ` 5 9 yaE + ,y~k.9'~.r`~~ ~~r7-..:_ I~~I'11~~ ~ QNInIMI1NP100 . .~ 41 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ I ~ _ r _ ~ v M~90,9ss1. W _ ,00'SS `~ i 25'_ l ' _ I ~ r r o g( E ~ ti ' 1 ~ ~ ~ <~} ~ ~kY ~ Wu = i~ f rf '~ d~ ~_ 4 s z r`~ ° i ' I l I rcp z± 4 - ~~ - ~~~ t~m )` ~ ~i ;I . .- j C 1 ~ f _ 00'0[ M ,OQ.W.6i H r _ _ _ _ _ i+ ~ _ + i, I ~ ~ + -Y' - - 1 I ~ ~ ~ 1 C7 r I ~ ~ I ++~~ ` I] ~ V u w \ ' ~,~°~ V~i 1 r ~ r7~ r ~, ~l~l ., '~~ p ~nu'~~'\-1'.~. r ~;,r~' ; ° l/IY"rI r +, r It ~ ~ I i o~~ ^ >~ ~ d} U 7, 1 V} fe I I kfi~l' ~~1~~~1 ~ ~ J tM1II 1 I' 1t, ~•.I~11~1 11. I Q 11 t I i T~~ M~~ ~ t ~ `~$~~~nirr}'rryp''r E ~ ~ ` + ~ I ~ n~~'~~I~~~~ ~'~~~ 1 a ~s~ _ ~ ~ ~ + B ~ ' a~ I; (-_ ~, 1, i a °z v ~ t ~ =- ~e' ~~-~f ~ - ~ i ~-.. ~ u ~ ' + ` ~ ~ Flu: ~ I ~g r ~h~ a~_+ 'I ~ ~` +I J/JJ 1; I l i`I: ;- :' t~ ~ ~~ ~~ i i?E~ - -'r ~~}~ ~'rf¢+,4,f+ili++" i~.~Pl,4 ~ ~ I ~~ mni ~`+ i ' 7i ,fir` + ,~`y +~ P~~~ ~~o~ na~~:~ , -_4 ~~ ~, Y-. k.. ~ ";fps, Lr,_ _ ~_ Lfa _J ; r~_ ~~ l ~ .. ~-Y , i ~K n~F~u~'i ~~~ ~o { I l + r` it ~ _ _.. _ i~ -~ ` `~ ,.." ~ -- - - e o ~ a ~o _ I ~ _ ~ - ~,~ ~1 Y ~ ~LL U 4w a5 Z 0 ~' wa F 6 ~_ I I n, ~. 14 OQOtlaIOD 1 h XR ~ ~~ ~ ~ I t~~ 7 ~[ ~~.y/ r^ ^^ A ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ C ~ ,~ ~ a ~„, SS~~t /-~ ,1 ~' Iii I'[~W~ IS ^ ^ V V i~11 ii Y ^ sNnINIIYOOH9?HtlBIOYAi ~ ~ A Wx ~ ^~typ } , 3 ~ .. 14 if X % , • • • I J tl ~I 7 r z --~ i i I I I 1 I i I I I I I i I I I 9 1 .___I I- I y~ ~W ~~~ ~~ i i~ di ~i6 ~ ~~ e ~~~ 1 I~ 7 ti~ G 7~ l ~ ~- u ~ u .__ i r r 0 I I 1 1 I 1 i 4 4 I 0 I I I I t ~ 8 ~ I ~..n ,~., a ~ ~ r I u oaruoio~'~nn 73a~0 W 3~ L'!~ 9 S111~ ~1 ~ ~aY~~a~i,~'"4E~Mi~~ ~d~~~ ,.~ enmw~woaMaaxn7auu ~ .F 8 t z 7 ~rI ! ~•,ni ~f j iii ~ 1! ! I ~ ii it I~~ k I '.~I ~ x . ,~ -~ _~ '~ ~~ ~: ~~ r ~` 9 ~ ~ , ~lil~i!Ij~~;~,~ ! i~! '~ r ~ t. a ~~x}:L lid 7 1. ~~ I ,~, F I, ii'~,~I~~ ~ ~`~ ---~ ~~- l i l ~ r ~ ~ i' ~!1'pI L i ~ ~, ,~~, ~~ ri~ i '~~~ / ~ ~ u ~uull~~~ C: X11 i ~ r ~ i! Fk", ~1~~ I I f ~I ~I til t ~3,ti yy~ li i 1 ~.~ ~. ~. i~ ,~ ,, I, ..:, I I ., •, I ,,I ~,~~ J ~, : .{ i _I ! I _ ; e l ~-_ ` a ~ '.i k i i i i ~~ ~ ~ i I I I L ----~, {: I~' 7 ~ , ~ ; I ~ , 9 ~, I , ~ I f ~ t I ~, ~~I~'~ I 1 /'~~I III~'i~ ',u'~~il l~tlil ~ a ti ~ 1 ~~ t ,1~~~'i i i' r 5 6 i ~~ {i+ iF~t ;~i f i~ie;;~ ''`j it r t~ i~ ~o®r~ao • i~~il yi 6 ri L y~ ~ a ~~~N~,1~~'~- NMWf1S~, i i J 5 ~I mm4Lmlm~ '714h ~~®o~u3~ ~~ s siN~n sxmxlwomxo~ w4aioah.n ~~~~ a~~g ~~~~ i i j ~ ~ ~ ¢~ ~~ ~~~ Attachment G ~~~~ A R C H I T E C T April 8, 2005 Tyrolean Unit S and 7 Additions Tyrolean Condominiums, Lot 5D Vail Village l~f Filing Variance Application for Side Setback RE; Section 12-6H-S, Setbacks, Vail Town Code 1. Description of Variance Requested The Tyrolean Unit 6 and 7 owners are working together to enclose areas of their existing decks. They are entitled to an additional 250 sq. ft. per the 250 ordinance which is still available for each unit, Given the existing plan constraints, the decks are the only practical areas for addition. It was discovered during a recent I.L.C. study enclosed} that the decks and portions of the units were built in the east and north setbacks. The variance being requested will allow approximately 381 sq. ft. of GRFA to be constructed within the east setback and approximately 101 sq. ft. of GRFA to be constructed within the north setback. Below is a detailed breakdown of the GRFA pertaining to each unit; Unit 6 East Setback North Setback Total Main Level ] 34 sq. ft. 101 sq. ft. 235 sq. ft. Ur~c~er Level 63.9 sa. ft. 63.9 ~f+ , Total ]97..9 sq. ft. 10l sq. ft. 298.q sq. ft. Unit 7 East Setback North 5etbacle Total Main Level 88.7 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 88.7 sq. ft. Ubr~er Level 94.4 sa. ft. 94_~___.~. ft. Total 183.1 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. '83.1 sq:-f*" Total Proposed GRFA In Setbacks 482 sq. ft. The property was Zoned HDMF in 1949 and the condominiums were constructed in 1980. Because the building was originally constructed in the setbacks, the property was rendered "non-conforming" upon the buildings completion. This pre-existing nonconforming condition through no fault of the applicants} is a hardship based on the strict and literal interpretation of the code. 2. Analysis of Proposal The existing design of the building uses a wood "mask" wall system to hide the decks within. This "mask" is generally cantilevered 5'-0" off of stucco walls that enclose the units. The major reading of the bulk and mass is defined by the "mask" with the stucco walls being secondary. The proposed deck enclosures move the existing exterior walls of the units out an average of 4'-8 Y~". They maintain the reading of the "mask" and do not encroach into the east ar north setback. any more than the "mask" wall system does today. Therefore, the proposed deck enclosures will impact fibs perception of the overall bulk and mass of the building very little, The ad;acent properties an the east and north are a parking lat and frontage road respectively. The building addition occurs wi#hin the existing bulk and mass and is in a location on the site that has no impact on development standards and neighboring properties. r~ I~ michael~?sun~anarcl~itect.com 143 East Meadow Drive Suite 300 ' Vail, CO 81657 970.479.7502 f 970.479.7511 m 970.471.6122 ~7~~~~ ARCFfITEC7 3. Approval Criteria Based an practical difficulties, the requested variance will allow Units 6 and 7 to take advantage of the 250 ordinance which they are entitled ta, it is similar to other variances granted. The proposed variance is not a grant of special privilege given the nonconforming location of the existing building and the need to create uniformity of treatment within this property.. 4. Effect on light and air, distribution of populafion, transportation and traffic facilities, etc. The proposed variance will have no negative impacts on #hese items. • • m icy ae l ~;s umanarch itect, com 143 East Meadow Drive 970.479,7502 Suite 300 f 970.479.7511 Vail, CD 81657 m 970.471,6122