Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-1111 PECTOWN OF VAft� PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 11, 2013 at 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Site Visit: 1. Hubbard Residence — 146 Forest Road 2. Johnson Residence — 4238 Nugget Lane 25 minutes A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6C -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for new construction within the front and side setbacks, located at 4238 Nugget Lane /Lot 5, Bighorn Estates, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130030) Applicant: Kent and Mary Johnson, represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: CONDITION(S): 45 minutes 2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6D -9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for new construction in excess of the allowable site coverage, located at 146 Forest Road /Lot 6, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130029) Applicant: Hubbard Family Investors, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Joe Batcheller ACTION: MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: CONDITION(S): 3. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6E -8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in dwelling units per acre to facilitate the construction of two single - family residences, located at 1183 and 1191 Casolar Del Norte Drive /Lots 4 and 5, Casolar Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130010) Applicant: Todger Anderson, represented by Tom Braun Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to December 16, 2013 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 4. A request for the review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -4, Minor Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the platted building lots and access easement, located at 1624, 1626, 1628, 1630, and 1632 Buffehr Creek Road/ Lots 1 -5, Elk Meadows Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130028) Applicant: Elk Meadows Development, LLC, represented by Sharon Cohn Planner: Joe Batcheller ACTION: Table to December 9, 2013 MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: Page 1 5. Approval of October 28, 2013 minutes MOTION: SECOND: VOTE: 6. Information Update 7. 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. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479 -2138 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 November 8, 2013 in the Vail Daily. Page 2 TOWN OF VAIL' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION November 11, 2013 at 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Pierce Michael Kurz Henry Pratt Pam Hopkins Susan Bird Luke Cartin John Rediker Site Visit: 1. Hubbard Residence — 146 Forest Road 2. Johnson Residence — 4238 Nugget Lane 25 minutes A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6C -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for new construction within the front and side setbacks, located at 4238 Nugget Lane /Lot 5, Bighorn Estates, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130030) Applicant: Kent and Mary Johnson, represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Approved with condition(s) MOTION: Rediker SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicants obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. 2. The plans submitted with the building permit shall be amended to illustrate the surface parking space complying with Town of Vail dimensional standards as set forth in Section 14 -3 -1: Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code. Jonathan Spence gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commissioner Pratt inquired as to the required turning radius for a fire truck. Commissioner Bird inquired as to the required parking locations. Kathy Langenwalter, representing the applicant, explained how the parking would be located upon the owner's lot and out of the right -of -way. Jonathan Spence stated that Fire Department had reviewed the application and did not identify and needs or deficiencies with regard to Nugget Lane. There was no public comment. John Rediker stated his support for the variance pursuant to the hardship identified in the staff memorandum, specifically getting all the required parking out of the right -of- way.... Page 1 Commissioner Pratt did not believe it was appropriate to say the cul -de -sac won't ever be expanded, however, he agreed with the staff memorandum citation of the unique circumstances and the hardship on the site. Commissioner Cartin expressed his agreement with his fellow commissioners. 45 minutes 2. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6D -9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for new construction in excess of the allowable site coverage, located at 146 Forest Road /Lot 6, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130029) Applicant: Hubbard Family Investors, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Joe Batcheller ACTION: Approve MOTION: Rediker SECOND: Pratt VOTE: 1 -4 -0 (Bird, Pierce, Pratt, and Cartin) The motion to approve the variance failed. No other motions were made. Joe Batcheller gave a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commissioner Pratt asked about how roof overhangs and decks which cover a lower deck are or are not considered site coverage. He also inquired as to the regulation regarding enclosure of a space so as to avoid certain zoning impacts. Joe Batcheller responded with the regulations in the GRFA chapter of the Code which required a minimum of 25% of the area to be open (unenclosed). Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, introduced Alan Hubbard. Alan Hubbard thanked the Commission for coming to the site and looking at the request. He spoke to his family's history of coming to Vail and his family's use of the home. Dominic Mauriello gave a power point presentation which highlighted the request and support for the variance request. Commissioner Pierce asked if the existing eaves over 4 -feet could be reduced to 4 -feet. Craig Snowden stated that he did not believe any of the roof eaves exceeded 4 -feet. Commissioner Rediker asked a question regarding roof overhangs over cantilever and how they were measured. Dominic Mauriello explained that the roof eave depth was measured from the face of the floor plat below the roof, not back to the inset lower floor plate. Commissioner Cartin asked Dominic Mauriello to show what was calculated in the 530 square feet of cantilevered space counting towards site coverage identified in the memo . Dominic Mauriello identified the cantilevered areas through the use of photographs. Commissioner Pierce asked about the lot size of Aasland Residence. He recalled that it was a smaller lot than the minimum required and that it may have had some influence on the variance. Page 2 Joe Batcheller stated the Aasland Residence variance was for a home that had been approved prior to the changes to the site coverage definition. As the approved plan identified the project as two phases, the Commission approved the variance as it was as it was a hardship that the site coverage definition was changed prior to the start and completion of phase 2. Commissioner Pierce spoke to many of the variances identified in the request being partially motivated by getting parking off the right -of -way and into enclosed garages. Joe Batcheller spoke to the Stepahnoff Residence, the Collins Residence, etc., and how they were all unique, but were approved in order to address the policy of obtaining garages on properties and getting parking out of the right -of -way. Dominic Mauriello stated for the record that the subject lot was 15,730 square feet. There was no public comment. Commissioner Rediker asked for clarification regarding the change in site coverage Commissioner Pratt spoke to the specific set of circumstances surrounding the Aasland Residence. He cannot find a hardship that will not grant a special privilege. He stated the fact the regulations change from time to time and the need to comply with current regulations. Commissioner Pierce agreed with Commissioner Pratt regarding the difficulty in finding a hardship. Approval of the request would be a granting of special privilege. Commissioner Rediker, spoke to his agreement with the staff memorandum, but he felt there was a unique circumstance. He did not believe the architect would have designed the home as constructed had the definition of site coverage been as it existing currently. Commissioner Pratt explained how he felt Commissioner Rediker was arguing that the structure was the hardship with regard to its design. Commissioner Cartin stated he could not find the hardship in this application and could not support approval. Dominic Mauriello clarified that the failure of the motion to approve the proposal was a denial of the request. 3. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6E -8, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an increase in dwelling units per acre to facilitate the construction of two single - family residences, located at 1183 and 1191 Casolar Del Norte Drive /Lots 4 and 5, Casolar Vail, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130010) Applicant: Todger Anderson, represented by Tom Braun Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Table to December 16, 2013 MOTION: Redliker SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 5 -0 -0 Page 3 4. A request for the review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -4, Minor Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the platted building lots and access easement, located at 1624, 1626, 1628, 1630, and 1632 Buffehr Creek Road/ Lots 1 -5, Elk Meadows Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130028) Applicant: Elk Meadows Development, LLC, represented by Sharon Cohn Planner: Joe Batcheller ACTION: Table to December 9, 2013 MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Bird VOTE: 5 -0 -0 5. Approval of October 28, 2013 minutes MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Bird VOTE: 5 -0 -0 6. Information Update Commissioner Pierce spoke to the Ford Park Master Plan amendments before the Town Council and the Commission's effort to review the document absent of existing conditions and leases, and recommend a comprehensive plan which would achieve the desired goals and outcomes. He recognized the difficulty in negotiating between all the parties, but felt the Town Council should have engaged in a process whereby the overall recommendations for the park were the result of a discussion on the best location of all the users. He highlighted the community's partnership around the Vail Interfaith Chapel and success of that shared facility. 7. Adjournment MOTION: Rediker SECOND: Bird VOTE: 5 -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. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479 -2138 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 November 8, 2013 in the Vail Daily. Page 4 TOWN OF VAIL MemorandUrn TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 11, 2013 SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Section 12 -6C -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the front and side setback areas, located at 4238 Nugget Lane /Bighorn Estates, Lot 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130030) Applicant: Kent and Mary Johnson, represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects, LLC Planner: Jonathan Spence SUMMARY The applicant, Kent and Mary Johnson represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects, LLC, is requesting a setback variance to allow for an addition into the front and side setback areas at 4238 Nugget Lane. Based upon Staff's review of the criteria outlined in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented, the Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of this application, subject to the findings noted in Section VIII of this memorandum. A vicinity map (Attachment A), photographs (Attachment B) the applicants' request (Attachment C), and proposed architectural plans (Attachment D) are attached for review. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Kent and Mary Johnson, represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects, LLC, are requesting a setback variance to allow for an addition into the front and side setback areas at 4238 Nugget Lane. The subject property is a two -story single family home built in 1972 and is located in the Two - Family Residential (R) Zone District. The applicant is proposing an addition adjacent to the existing garage that will encroach into the front setback 18.66 feet and the side setback 6 inches. The proposed 1,067 square foot two -story addition will add an additional enclosed garage space /storage with an enlarged master suite and den above and a bump out of the existing rear wall of the second floor of approximately 3 feet. The addition is an increase in GRFA of 561 square feet and in 634 square feet of site coverage and meets the requirements of the Two - Family Residential (R) Zone District. Of the additional GRFA proposed with the project, only 189 square feet (second floor) is located within the required setback. It is anticipated the proposed addition will utilize similar materials and architectural style of the existing home as to not appear distinct. The proposal also includes a new surface parking space located to the west of the addition that will allow the parking requirement to be met fully outside of the ROW. III. BACKGROUND The home located at 4238 Nugget Lane was originally constructed in 1972 in unincorporated Eagle County before being annexed to the Town of Vail in 1974. The siting of the home in close proximity to the front property line was most likely done for topographic and vegetative reasons. Large boulders and extensive aspen trees are located on much of the remainder of the site. The property is generally rectangular in shape and slopes moderately from front to back. In 1992, the property was granted an approval for the identical variance being requested today. Although recommending approval at that time, staff did identify one item of concern related to the proposed mass of the addition in relation to the property line. The Town of Vail was considering expanding the pavement within the ROW for the Nugget Lane cul -de -sac at that time. This expansion would result in the proposed addition being constructed in close proximity to the travel way, removing the de -facto setback resulting from the edge of pavement being located approximately 17' from the property line. Staff recommended that the second story portion of the addition be setback 4 to 5 feet to create facade relief. The Town of Vail has abandoned plans to enlarge the cul -de -sac, principally mitigating this concern. Often staff has requested that calculable GRFA not be located within the front setback/variance area. As the existing garage and the bedroom above are largely located within the setback with no discernible negative effect related to mass and scale from the street, staff believes that this concern is not warranted. The previous approval included conditions that required any trees removed to be replaced and if a tree in the vicinity of the new surface parking space was to be removed that the parking space meets dimensional requirements. As it is anticipated that the removal of this tree is necessary for the project, the applicant has agreed to enlarge the space shown on the plans to meet the code. Staff has recommended a condition to this effect. Staff has not included the previous condition for tree replacement due to the extensively wooded character of the site. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: Vail Land Use Plan (in part) CHAPTER II: LAND USE PLAN GOALS / POLICIES (in part) The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows. 1. General Growth /Development 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.2. The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources should be protected as the Town grows. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 5. Residential 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. CHAPTER Vl, SECTION 4, PROPOSED LAND USE CATEGORIES (in part) LDR Low Density Residential This category includes single- family detached homes and two - family dwelling units. Density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acres. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional/ public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code (in part) ARTICLE 12 -6C: TWO- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R) DISTRICT (in part) 12 -6C -1: The two - family residential district is intended to provide sites for low density single- family or two - family residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same zone district. The two - family residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single- family and two - family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12 -6C -6. Setbacks. In the R district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet (20), the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet (15), and the minimum rear setback shall be fifteen feet (15). CHAPTER 12 -17. VARIANCES (in part) 12 -17 -1. Purpose. A. Reasons for Seeking Variance. In order to prevent or 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 or the location of existing structures thereon, from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. V. SITE ANALYSIS Address: 4238 Nugget Lane Legal Description: Lot 5, Big Horn Estates Lot Size: 14,026 Square Feet Zoning: Two - family Residential District Land Use Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Current Land Use: Single Family Residential Geological Hazards: High Severity Rockfall VI. Density: (max GRFA) 6,130 sq. ft. 1,543 2.055 sq. ft. Building Height: 33 ft. 25 ft. 26.5 ft. addition Site Coverage: 2,805 sq. ft. 1,209 sq. ft. 1,843 sq. ft. Parking 2:2,000 GRFA, 3 spaces 1 spaces 3 spaces Setbacks: North: 20 ft. (front) 4.0 ft. 1.44 ft. addition West: 15 ft. (side) 24.5 ft. 14.5 ft. addition East: 15 ft. (side) 25.2 ft. No change South: 15 ft. (rear) 94 ft. 90 ft. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use North: Single- family Residential South: Open Space East: Single- family Residential West: Single- family Residential VII. REVIEW CRITERIA Zoning District Two - family Residential District Agricultural and Open Space District Two - family Residential District Two - family Residential District The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The subject property, Lot 5, is located within a residential development bordered on the east and west by other single family homes and on the south by open space. The proposed addition will allow the removal of required vehicular parking currently occurring within the Town ROW. The front property line contains a curve to facilitate a full cul -de -sac bulb that has not been constructed. This curve increases the distance between the roadway and the property line. Because of the significant distance (18') between the road pavement and the property line, the perceived mass and scale of the addition will not be impactful to neighbors or other users in the vicinity. Therefore, Staff believes this proposal will not negatively affect the other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity in comparison to existing conditions. 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. The original home was constructed within unincorporated Eagle County in 1972 before being annexed into the Town of Vail in 1974. The original home was sited on the property to avoid existing surface and subsurface boulders and to minimize damage to the well established aspen grove. Unlike other properties in the vicinity, a variance is necessary to pursue similar building improvements on the subject property without extensive damage to the existing vegetation. The proposed master bedroom enlargement /den addition will improve the functionality and value of the home, an upgrade supported by Land Use Plan Goal 1.3. Staff believes the proposed variance is consistent with the goals of the Town of Vail Land Use Plan and purposes of the Two - family Residential District as identified in Section IV of this memorandum. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed relief from the setback regulations is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity and to attain the objectives of this title without a 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. The proposed variance will facilitate an addition that increases the required parking from two to three spaces, while the net effect of the project will be the removal of all required parking from the ROW, resulting in improved public safety. The project will not alter population, public facilities, or utilities in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed variance conforms to this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends approval, with conditions, of a variance from Section 12 -6C -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code pursuant to Chapter 12- 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the front and side setback areas, located at 4238 Nugget Lane /Bighorn Estates, Lot 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria outlined in Section VII 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 the applicants'request for a variance from Section 12 -6C -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for an addition within the front and side setback areas, located at 4238 Nugget Lane /Bighorn Estates, Lot 5, and setting forth details in regard thereto. " Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission apply the following conditions: 1. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the applicants obtaining Town of Vail design review approval for this proposal. 2. The plans submitted with the building permit shall be amended to illustrate the surface parking space complying with Town of Vail dimensional standards as set forth in Section 14 -3 -1: Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to approve this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section Vll of the November 11, 2013 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds. 1. The granting of this variance will not constitute a granting of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Two - family Residential District. 2. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons. a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation will result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code. 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 Two - family Residential District. C. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Two - family Residential District IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicants' Request with Historical Documentation C. Photographs D. Architectural Plans \ $m Iwo f .::°. k� �. IN r IN � r •.. 'ter �,^it,/ Carr..., 6 �J+14tr � W Jaw It lb ' T w �+ �+ C" it 4-1 y. Out • , -_ ' - � ,� � .,�. - rr . � ,. x+11► � `.. 40 ". w' Ol w ow w, 0 is it! V Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 TOWN OF VAIt MIT I Tel: 970- 479 -128 www.vailgov.com ���� Development Review Coordinator TOWN OF Variance Request Application for Review by the Planning and Environmental /Commission General Information: Variances may be granted in order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships as would result from the strict interpretation and/or enforcement of the zoning regulations inconsistent with the development objectives of the Town of Vail- A practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shaoe, 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 physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal ctsfr1pliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance- The Vail Town Code can be found on the Town's website at www.v. ilgoy.com. The proposed project may also require other permits or applications and /or review by the Design Review Board and/or Town Council- Fee: $500 Description of the Request: Reuuemt of a front setback variance of approximately 18.66' and a side setback variance of approximately 6" to enlarge an existing single car garage with master suite above to two car garage with den and master suite above- The existing one care ca- garage is currently constructed wiWin the front setback with the northwest corner approximately 4.5' from the property line. Physical Address: 4238 Nugget Lane Parcel Number: 2101- 123 -074)05 Property Owner: Kent W. & Mary S. Johnson Mailing Address: 5228 East Otero circle. Littleton. Co 80122 Owner's Signature:T (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970- 328 -8640 for parcel no.) Phone: 303. 808 -6511 Primary Contact/ Owner Represen6tfve: Kathy Langenwalter - PeellLangenwalter Architects, LLC Mailing Address: P.0 Box 1202. Vail. CO 81658 E -Mail: piarch@vail.net For Office Use Only: Cash CC: Visa J MC Last 4 CC # Fee Paid: b0--) Meeting Date: I 1 I y 13 Planner: Zonina: Location of the Proposal: Lot: !�' Block: Phone: 970.476 -4506 Fax: Exp. Date: Auth # Check # r i .? Received From: PEC No.: Project No: _ _0( IkA _ Land Use: Subdivision: k S Property Information Property Address 4238 Nugget Lane Development Standards Parcel # 2101- 123- 07 -005 Proposed Gross Residential Floor Area Legal Description Lot 5, Bighorn estates Development Site Area sq ft 14,x25 acres 10.322 t�uil'dable sq ft 14,026 Zone District I SDD # Two Family Residential EHU sq ft Hazard Zones Sections 12 -21 & 14-7 Snow Avalanche °` High Severity Moderate Severity ; NIA Debris Flow i High Flow Moderate Flew High Avalanche G_ NIA Rock Fall High Severity Medium Severity NIA Excessive Slopes ?30% NIA Floodplain 100 year floodplain Floodway r Wetlands .- WA LJGore Creek on site adjacent to s to NIA []Other tributary: on site adjacent to site 1' NIA Creeks, Streams Section 12- 14 -17 Project Information Project Description House renovation and expansion of garage and master suite. Development Standards Allowed Existing Proposed Gross Residential Floor Area Primary sq ft (maximum) Chapter 12 -15 Secondary sq ft EHU sq ft TOTAL sq ft 5130 1543 2055 250 Addition Interior Conversion Credits: Setbacks (minimum) Section 14 -10 -4 Front ft 20 4.0 19.0 Side ft 15 24.5 14.5 Side ft 15 25.2 252 Rear ft 15 94 90 Watercourse ft Site Coverage (maximum) see definition Section 12 -2 -2 2805 1209 1843 Building Height (maximum) see definition Section 12 -2 -2 Sloping ft Flat ft 33 25 26.5 Landscaping See definition Section 14 -2 -1 Softscape sq ft 8416 12,647 11,85E Hardscape sq ft 5510 1379 2170 Section 14 -10 -8 TOTAL sq ft 14,02E 14,026 14,026 Driveway Sections 14 -3 -1 & 14 -3 -2 Max Curb -cuts 2 1 1 Max Grade centerline 10% 5.6% 5.6% Min Width 1'2' 28` 34.5' Heated drive? Yes r No r "° Yes No Snow Storage % 30% 0% 30% Parking #Enclosed Spaces Sections 12 -10 & 14 -5 #Unenclosed 1 1 3 TOTAL Outdoor Lighting (maximum) Section 14 -10 -7 # fixtures 4 4 4 =01; Lem = 151 ,1 Y-1 4 :11-M Building Materials Type of Material Color Roof Composition Shinges To Match Existing Siding Vertical Wood Siding To Be Determined Other Wall Materials Stucco To Be Determined Fascia R.S. Cedar To Be Determined Soffits T&G Fir To Be Determined Windows Metal Cladding To Match Existing Window Trim R.S. Cedar To Be Determined Doors Wood To Be Determined Door Trim R.S. Cedar To Be Determined Hand or Deck Rails NIA Flues NIA Flashing Metal To Match Adjacent Material Chimneys Stucco To Be Determined Trash Enclosures NIA Greenhouses NIA Retaining Walls Timber Natural Exterior Lighting NIA. Other PROPOSED LANDSCAPING Botanical Name Common Name quantity Sire PROPOSED TREES Due to the Heavy AND SHRUBS Aspen Growth No Additional Trees Are Proposed EXISTING TREES Populus Tremuloides Aspen 2 8" Caliper TO BE REMOVED Populus Tremuloides Aspen 1 18" Caliper Minimum Requirements for Landscaping: Deciduous Trees — 2" Caliper Coniferous Trees -- 6' in height Shrubs — 5 Gal. Type Square Footage GROUND COVER No Additional SOD Landscaping Proposed SEED IRRIGATION TYPE OF EROSION CONTROL Please specify other landscape features (i.e. retaining walls, fences, swimming pools, etc.) Timber retaining at back and side of outdoor parking space wall to match existing timber wall. peel /langenwalter architects. I.I.c. david m. peel, a.i.a. kathy langenwalter p.o. box 1202 vail, co 81658 970 - 476 -4506 plarch(cbvail.net October 11, 2013 Planning and Environmental Commission Town of Vail 75 S. Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RE: Front and Side Setback Variance Application Johnson Residence 4238 Nugget Lane Lot 5, Bighorn Estates, Town of Vail, CO Dear Planning and Environmental Commission Members; Kent and Mary Johnson, owners of Lot 5, Bighorn Estates, are requesting reinstatement of the front and side setback variance that was granted to this property on September 14,1992. Relief from the setback regulations was granted to allow the expansion of the single car garage and master suite above. The previous owners who requested the variance relocated and therefore did not build the approved project. Thus the variance expired. The Johnsons are now moving to Vail as full time residents and need to update their early Vail three bedroom ski cottage to a primary residence. The house was built in 1972 as part of unincorporated Eagle County prior to zoning regulations and designated setbacks. The property is in an aspen forest and the house was located close to the roadway to avoid large boulders that are buried and strewn throughout the site. In November of 1974 the Town of Vail annexed the property with the existing structure that does not conform to current setback requirements. The residence is located on the uphill side of the Nugget Lane cul- de-sac and encroaches 16' into the 20' front setback. The single car garage and the master bedroom on the second level above are within 4' of the front property line. However, the structure is sited 19.5' from the edge of the Nugget Lane asphalt paving. Currently only one parking space, the one within the garage, is available on the property so it is necessary to park in the town right -of -way. Also, the master bedroom has a cantilevered balcony that slightly overhangs the property line which will be removed with this proposal. In order to provide two enclosed parking spaces, the Johnsons wish to enlarge the garage and the master bedroom above. This expansion will require a front and side setback variance due to the location of the existing garage. A required third parking space will be located to the side of the double car garage. Front and Side Setback Variance Application October 11, 2013 Johnson Residence Page 2 of 4 Another proposed improvement is the addition of a forty -two square foot entry. The entry door now opens onto a three foot deep stair landing mid -level between the lower and upper floors. A comer of this entry will encroach into the front setback; again because of the location of the existing house. Additional living space is being added to the rear of the building by cantilevering the upper level three feet beyond the existing foundation to avoid damaging the existing vegetation. In order to work around the boulder buried behind the house the music room is being added by hand digging two piers and cantilevering the floor. The 14,026 square foot lot allows 6130 square feet of Gross Residential Floor Area. The existing house GRFA is 1543 square feet and the proposed project GRFA will be 2055 square feet or 33.5% of the total allowable GRFA for this site. Currently 189 square feet of garage and 189 square feet of second story GRFA are located within the front setback. The proposed addition to construct the new entry and double garage with bedroom above will add 181.9 square feet of garage area and 185.2 square feet of living area within the front and side setbacks. The idea of adding a second single car garage set back slightly from the front of the existing garage was explored. However, for that approach to be feasible an additional 4' of encroachment into the side setback would be necessary. Furthermore, the additional exterior parking space would be nearly on the west property line and an additional 18" aspen would be lost. The expansion of the garage to 24' wide using a single door extends 6" into the side setback keeping the setback encroachments at a minimum. Although it was suggested in 1992 that the garage width be reduced, that is not practicable since both side walls are concrete block retaining walls making the interior width of the space approximately 22' which is minimal today. The property also has large buried boulders which would need to be removed if additional construction were to take place behind the house. It would be impossible to remove these boulders without driving heavy construction equipment behind the building. This type of intrusion would seriously damage the mature aspen forest on the property. Another hardship is the steep slope of the site which further impedes construction elsewhere on the property. Because of these hardships and to protect the existing large aspen behind the house, keeping the master bedroom addition over the garage expansion will be compatible with the objectives of the Town of Vail as stated in Section 14 -10 -3: Site Planning of the Design Guidelines: A. The location and configuration of structures and accessways shall be responsive to the existing topography of the site upon which they are to be located. B. Building siting and access thereto shall be responsive to existing features of terrain rock outcroppings, drainage patterns, and vegetation. Furthermore, this project will remove the balcony which overhangs the property line thus reducing an existing encroachment. The removal of parking from the right -of -way will allow better snow removal and enhance the neighborhood. Front and Side Setback Variance Application October 11, 2013 Johnson Residence Page 3 of 4 This property has several physical hardships which warrant the granting of the requested front and side setback variances as stated in the Town of Vail Zoning Regulation Section12 -17 -1: PURPOSE: A. Reasons For Seekinq Variance: In order to prevent or 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 or the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity; or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. At the time the residence was constructed, the current setback requirements were not in place and the building was sited based on the existing natural site conditions. This placement is unique to this property. Also it is the bulb of the Nugget Lane cul -de -sac that dictates the 20' front setback. Since the Nugget Lane paving is now 19.5' from the garage wall and will remain at least 18' from the comer of the garage addition, the house appears to be in conformance with the town's regulations and the neighbors. 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. The applicant is requesting relief to proceed with fulfilling the town parking requirements and constructing a modest addition within the Town of Vail Design Guidelines that is responsive to the existing features of the site. The locations of the existing garage, the entrance and the boulders are exceptional circumstances and the applicant should enjoy the same rights of other property owners to provide enclose parking and an adequate entry for the residence. The requested relief would help the property achieve compatibility and uniformity with other residences on Nugget Lane and in the vicinity. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The requested variance will have no effect on light and air, distribution of population. Removing automobiles from the Nugget Lane cul -de -sac will enhance transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and public safety. Utilities will be unaffected or relocated as required. The removal of the existing balcony that extends beyond the property line will be a benefit to the neighborhood. Granting of this front and side setback variance can be made based on the following findings: 1. As determined in 1992 by the Planning and Environmental Commission members, due to the existing natural conditions unique to this property as well as the siting of the structure, granting of the requested variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations on other properties classified in the same zone district. Front and Side Setback Variance Application October 11, 2013 Johnson Residence Page 4 of 4 2. Nor will the granting of this variance be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. This variance is warranted for the following reasons: a. Because the building was sited amongst large buried boulders and constructed close to the public right -of -way prior to zoning regulations and setback requirements, the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would prohibit even modest expansion of the building thus resulting in practical difficulty inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. The siting of the residence in relation to the Nugget Lane cul-de -sac, the large buried boulders and the aspen forest are exceptional and extraordinary circumstances and conditions that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone district. c. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of the privilege of having a two car garage, a small entry and comfortable master suite; privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Yours truly, Kathy Lang wafter Peel /Langenwalter Architects, L.L.C. Attachments: 1992 Variance Application Submitted by Peel /Langenwalter Architects August 24, 1992 Staff Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission August 24, 1992 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes September 14, 1992 Staff Memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission September 14, 1992 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes 1992 Variance Submittal Photos Dated 4 -23 -91 1992 Variance Submittal Existing Site Plan 1992 Variance Submittal Proposed Site Plan 1992 Variance Submittal Drawings Dated 8 -3 -92 and 8 -17 -92 4238 NUGGET LANE VARIANCE APPLICATION August 24, 1992 Worksession Lot 5, Bighorn Estates September 14, 1992 PEC Meeting Vail, Colorado This proposal requests variance relief from Two - Family Residential District (R) Section 18.12.060 Setbacks. In the R district, the minimum front setback shall be twenty feet, the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet... The existing residence is located on the Nugget Lane cul -de -sac and encroaches into the front setback. The single car garage and the master bedroom on the second level above are within four feet of the front property line. Currently only one parking space, that within the garage, is available on the property. The property is now using parking spaces which are in the right -of -way. Also, a balcony off the master bedroom slightly overhangs the property line. In order to provide two enclosed parking spaces, the applicant wishes to enlarge the garage and the master bedroom above. This expansion will require a front and side setback variance due to the location of the existing garage. A third parking space will be located to the side of the double garage. The entry door now opens on to a three foot deep stair landing. The applicant would like to add a forty -two square foot entry. A corner of this entry will encroach into the front setback because of the location of the existing house. Additional living space is being added to the rear of the building by canti- levering the upper level three feet beyond the existing foundation to avoid damaging the existing vegetation. The music room is being added by hand digging two piers and cantilevering the floor to work around the boulder buried behind the house. The Gross Residential Floor Area of the project will be 2560 square feet of the 3932 square feet allowed. The property has several physical hardships which warrant the granting of the front and side setback variances. The location of the existing garage and entrance are exceptional circumstances and the applicant should enjoy the same rights of other property owners to provide enclosed parking and an adequate entry for the residence. The property also has large buried boulders which would need to be removed if additional construction were to take place behind the house. It would be impossible to remove these boulders without driving heavy construction equipment behind the building. This type of intrusion would seriously damage the mature aspen forest on the property. Another hardship is the steep slope of the site which further impedes contruction elsewhere on the property. Because of these hardships and to protect the existing fourteen inch caliper aspen behind the garage, keeping the master bedroom addition over the garage expansion will be compatable with the objectives of the Town of Vail as stated in the Site Planning section of the Design Guidelines. Furthermore, this project will remove the balcony which overhangs the property line thus reducing an existing encroachment. The removal of parking from the right -of -way will allow better snow removal and enhance the neighborhood._ Therefore, because of the exceptional circumstances applicable to the site, relief from the strict and literal interpretation of Section 18.12.060 will not be a grant of special privilege and will allow the applicant to proceed with the project. The variance will have no affect on light air and the distribution of population. Removing automobiles from Nugget Lane will enhance transportation, traffic facilities and the public safety. Utilities will be unaffected or relocated as required. MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department 1 DATE: August 24, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for a work session for setback variances to allow for a new garage and an addition to an existing residence located at Lot 5, Bighorn Estates/4238 Nugget Lane. Applicant: W. C. and Carol Small Planner. Shelly Mello I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting a work session to review a request for side and front yard setback variances to allow for an additional garage space and additional GRFA. The request is for a 19 -foot encroachment into the 20 -foot front yard setback, as well as a six -inch encroachment into the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement. A one -car garage exists. A total of 348 sq. ft. of garage (1st floor), as well as 377 sq. ft. of GRFA (2nd floor) are proposed to be located within the setback. The interior garage dimension is 22 feet 8 inches by 22 feet 3 inches, with a storage area to the rear of the garage of 17 feet, by 11 feet, 6 Inches. A portion of the existing garage and GRFA are already located in the setback. An additionai surface parking area is also being added to the west of the addition. A portion of the proposed aldock/entry will also encroach into the setback. Please see the attached drawings. II. VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS In reviewing a variance, the PEC should base the approval or denial of the request on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1.. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The staff is concerned with the proposed mass of the garage as tt relates to the property line and the proximity of the roadway. The existing garage is approximately 5 feet from the property line and 20 feet from the existing edge of pavement. The proposed two -story structure would be one foot from the property line and 18 feet from the edge of pavement. There is currently a proposal by the Town to expand the bulb of the cul-de -sac in this area which would decrease the distance from the road to the proposed addition. Mature vegetation (1-4 aspens) could possibly be lost as a result of this addition and the proposed surface parking to the west of the garage. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff recognizes that the siting of the existing building does constitute a physical hardship. Because of the existing location of the house, in the front of the lot, the applicant would need a setback variance for any garage that is located on the front (north) side of the property. We request that the applicant consider adjusting the location and size of the proposed garage and GRFA to minimize the encroachment necessary into the front and side yard setbacks on the second level. 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 staff finds that the requested variance will have a positive effect upon public safety, transportation and traffic facilities by providing additional enclosed parking that is out of the public right -of -way. The proposal will have no significant effect upon any of the other above issues. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before Qrantina a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or Improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance Is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. -2- 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. III. STAFF CONCERNS The staff feels that the additional enclosed parking will improve the general appearance of the neighborhood. With the garage and side parking area addition, there will be a maximum of 3 parking spaces provided on -site. Currently, there is only one on -site space. The additional parking is necessary in order to meet the existing parking requirement for the site and allow the building expansion. Staff finds that the entry addition has been located so that the encroachment to the front setback has been minimized. However, the staff is specifically concerned with the loss of mature vegetation and the degree of encroachment of the garage /GRFA addition. These could be minimized by 1) decreasing the width of the garage by approximately 2 feet; 2) pulling the second story addition back approximately 4 to 5 feet away from the road to create some relief on the facade; and 3) providing landscaping on the west side of the surface parking space. The staff would consider a side setback variance to allow for the second floor cantilever Into the sideyard setback to compensate for the loss of GRFA as a result of pulling the second story back away from the road. There would be no loss of vegetation as this would cantilever over the proposed at -grade parking. -3- PROPOSED SITE PLAN REBAR• i WASHER -I%s FOVAID--- fro mwp to, P 0 M 12 EM Patio .' .... ----- �� f\-- Addition Z 0 7- � I 11 tom." I ..Q I I• 14 .�I � N .5 ca I.�'0 I-Vuruiry EASEMEmr At .,!•Z4 36- w. 96,/9' /0. zoo JH/8 6/ Z 66 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 24, 1992 Present Staff Greg Amsden Kristan Pritz Jeff Bowen Mike Mollica Chuck Crist Andy Knudtsen Diana Donovan Tim Devlin Kathy Langenwalter Shelly Mello Dalton Williams Larry Eskwith Gena Whitten 1. Starting at approximately 2:00 p.m. a work session was held to discuss a request for a setback variance to allow for a new garage and an addition to an existing residence located at Lot 5, Bighorn Estates/4238 Nugget Lane. Applicant: W. C. and Carol Smail Planner: Shelly Mello General discussion was held in regard to this request. The staff identified two issues related to this request. The first was the possible loss of mature vegetation and the second concern was the mass of the building as it relates to the proximity of the property line. The PEC felt that the mass was not an issue. Diana Donovan felt that all vegetation should be maintained. The remainder of the PEC felt that every attempt should be taken to keep the vegetation, however, the parking space size could -Pet be decreased slightly. The public meeting was called to order at 2:25 p.m. by Chairperson Diana Donovan. 2. A request for a work session to discuss a proposal to erect two 60 -foot towers in East Vail at the base of the run -away truck ramp adjacent to 1 -70. Applicant: U.S.West/Cellular One/United States Forest Service Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen presented the item to the Planning Commission, introducing persons in the audience who were in attendance to discuss this issue. A presentation was made regarding the new location being proposed to install the towers. The new location was In East Vail above the water tower, which is out of the Town of Vail's jurisdiction. it was stated that the U. S. Forest Service would be making the ultimate decision as to the approval or denial of this request. Representatives from the U.S. Forest Service, Cellular One, U.S. West and Eagle County Land Use spoke to the Commission. After some discussion, it was the general concensus among the neighbors, staff, and Forest Service Staff, that the new location would be much less visible than the one previously considered. The Cellular One representative said that he would stake the site with balloons to clearly Indicate the location of the tower for the next PEC meeting. It was MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: September 14, 1992 SUBJECT: A request for setback variances to allow for a new garage and an addition to an existing residence located at Lot 5, Bighorn Estates/4238 Nugget Lane. Applicant: W. C. and Carol Small Planner: Shelly Mello I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting side and front yard setback variances to allow for an additional garage space and additional GRFA. The request is for a 19 -foot encroachment into the 20 -foot front yard setback, as well as a six -inch encroachment Into the 15 -foot side yard setback requirement. The roof eaves will encroach an additional 6 inches. A one -car garage exists. A total of 348 sq. ft. of garage (1 st floor), as well as 377 sq. ft. of GRFA (2nd floor) are proposed to be located within the front and side setback. The interior garage dimension is 22 feet -8 inches by 22 feet -3 inches, with a storage area to the rear of the garage of 17 feet by 11 feet -6 inches. A portion of the existing garage and GRFA are already located in the setback. One additional surface parking space is also being added to the west of the addition. A portion of the proposed airiock/entry will also encroach 2' into the 20 foot front setback. (Please see the attached drawings.) II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Zoning: Lot Size: GRFA 1 Unit 2 Units Duplex; Single family with restricted secondary unit due to lot size less than 15,000 sq. ft. .322 acres or 14,026 sq. ft. Allowed/Rea. 3506.5 + 425 = 3931.5 sq. ft. 3006.5 + 850 = Pro se 2587 sq. ft. No secondary unit is proposed Existina A. 4781.5 sq. ft. Site Coverage 2805.2 sq. ft. 1886 sq. ft. or 20% Parking 2.5 spaces 3 spaces 1 enclosed (2 spaces or 600 sq. ft. enclosed; 1 surface) Setbacks 20 foot front 1 foot 6 feet 15 foot side 14 feet 6- inches 15 feet VARIANCE CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The existing garage is approximately 5 feet from the front property line and 20 feet from the existing edge of pavement. The proposed two -story structure would be one -foot from the property line and 18 -feet from the edge of pavement. There is currently a proposal by the Town to expand the bulb of the cul-de -sac in this area which would decrease the distance from the road to the proposed addition. Mature vegetation (1 -4 aspens) could be lost as a result of this addition and the proposed surface parking to the west of the garage. The garage size should be minimized to limit the encroachment into the side and front setback. The staff would recommend that the garage have a maximum Interior dimension of 2026" wide versus 22 -'8" as proposed, as a condition of the approval of this project. The surface parking has been minimized to 15' X 9'. The applicant maintains that all efforts will be taken to save the existing vegetation. If any vegetation is lost due to construction, it will need to be replaced with comparable material, such as 2 -3 "-4" caliper aspen. As discussed during the work session held on this item, the staff is concerned with the 2nd floor GRFA encroachment. Although the PEC did not feel that the impact warranted the modification of the variance request, the staff believes that by pulling back the 2nd floor GRFA approximately 5 to 8 feet, more relief in the facade would be achieved, which is important because of the proximity of the building to the property line. This is not.a condition of the staffs approval due to the PEC's comments at the worksession held on this item, however, it remains as a recommendation from the staff. -2- 2. The degree to which relief from the stmt 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 attaln the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. The staff recognizes that the siting of the existing building does constitute a physical hardship. Because of the existing location of the house, in the front of the lot, the applicant would need a setback variance for any garage that is located on the north side of the property. The staff finds that the granting of this variance would not be a 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. The staff finds that the requested variance will have a positive effect upon public safety, transportation and traffic facilities by providing additional enclosed parking that is out of the public right -of -way. The proposal will have no significant effect upon any of the other above issues. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or Improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. -3- IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The staff finds that the additional enclosed parking will improve the general appearance of the neighborhood. With the garage and side parking area addition, there will be a maximum of 3 parking spaces provided on -site. Currently, there is only one on -site space. The additional parking is necessary in order to meet the existing parking requirement for the she and allow the building expansion. Staff finds that the entry addition has been located so that the encroachment to the front setback has been minimized. The staff finds that the request meets items B1, 2 and 3 (a) (c) of the variance findings. The staff recommends approval of the request with three conditions: 1. That if any existing aspens are lost as a result of the construction, that they will be replaced with 3 "-4" caliper aspen. 2. If the large aspen to the south of the parking area is lost, then the parking space will be enlarged to meet the Town's standards and new vegetation as indicated in condition 1 will be added. 3. The interior width of the garage be changed to 2026" to limit the proposed encroachment into the front setback and eliminate the need for a side setback variance. This will also decrease the impact of the existing vegetation to the west (approximately 4 large aspens). -4- PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 14, 1992 10. A request for a setback variance to allow for a new garage and an expansion to an existing residence, located at 4236 Nugget Lane \Lot 5, Bighorn Estates. Applicant: W.C. and Carol Smail Planner: Shelly Mello Kathy Langenwalter presented this issue to the Commission stating that the house is under contract and that the request is really made by the Connollys. General discussion of garage sizes was held and the impact on the surrounding area. It was a general consensus that the garage size was not of concern, however, that existing landscaping and trees be preserved by fencing, and if �an,y� existing aspens are lost as a result of the construction, that they will be replaced vSi�Fi 3" - 4" caliper aspens. As well, if the large aspen to the south of the parking area is lost, then the parking space will be enlarged to meet the Town's standards and new vegetation as indicated in condition 1 will be added. Jeff Bowen motioned to approve the request except for #3 restricting the size of the garage. Dalton Williams seconded the motion. The PEC voted unanimously to approve the request 3 -0 -1 with the above conditions, with Kathy Langenwalter abstaining. Staff Present Pre Kristan Pritz Jeff Bowen Mike Mollica Diana Donovan Andy Knudtsen Kathy Langenwalter Tim Devlin Dalton Williams Shelly Mello Jim Curnutte 10. A request for a setback variance to allow for a new garage and an expansion to an existing residence, located at 4236 Nugget Lane \Lot 5, Bighorn Estates. Applicant: W.C. and Carol Smail Planner: Shelly Mello Kathy Langenwalter presented this issue to the Commission stating that the house is under contract and that the request is really made by the Connollys. General discussion of garage sizes was held and the impact on the surrounding area. It was a general consensus that the garage size was not of concern, however, that existing landscaping and trees be preserved by fencing, and if �an,y� existing aspens are lost as a result of the construction, that they will be replaced vSi�Fi 3" - 4" caliper aspens. As well, if the large aspen to the south of the parking area is lost, then the parking space will be enlarged to meet the Town's standards and new vegetation as indicated in condition 1 will be added. Jeff Bowen motioned to approve the request except for #3 restricting the size of the garage. Dalton Williams seconded the motion. The PEC voted unanimously to approve the request 3 -0 -1 with the above conditions, with Kathy Langenwalter abstaining. C O O. r. Q d L) C �L N J Lai Z N U T3 O ..0 VA I W Z Q J H W 0 Z 2 0 It LL LU 7 Q W 2 H tr 0 Z W Z J H 'W C7 1 C3 Z 2 O LL r W_ ui�I? Q H w Z H V7 W w F- 5 w W N Q LU Q Q L7 LL O LLl 7 H W 2 Z REBAR 0 WASPER .� FOUND �.1 'Y IVUGGEr LAAlZ" r ?_ y I •r �o TY z A1. 6'/' 24'36" W. __ it 10-20, Jk1861266 EXISTING SITE PLAN 40e5'7 ■l....:........ C`..i.... :"-I 11..... Aq'20 ■1........4 1 .. REBAR 0 WASPER .� FOUND �.1 'Y IVUGGEr LAAlZ" r ?_ y I •r �o TY z A1. 6'/' 24'36" W. __ it 10-20, Jk1861266 R EB AA WASPE, FOUND PROPOSED SITE PLAN 1992 Variance Submittal Drawing - 4238 Nugget Lane 6 G E T /- A Alzc-- 0. W. mf � � l 1m Ir urlt i r Y EASEMENT' Al. 5 10 24'3 W. 96.1 9' /0• zo, JHle 6/ 2 66 Johnson Residence - 4238 Nugget Lane Variance Application EAST NORTHEAST VIEW FROM NUGGET LANE NORTHEAST VIEW FROM NUGGET LANE NORTHEAST VIEW OF GARAGE & MASTER SUITE NORTHWEST VIEW OF GARAGE & MASTER SUITE NORTHWEST VIEW OF HOUSE SOUTHEAST VIEW OF HOUSE g W V Q w J ~ <b a TOM Q o s Ma Mm0 Z > Q Q N II Z w y II W W J O w / �mv I - 905V9L°� V oE°O- ,� E a �zlooaMzi Us= p a° ey ° asaoo=ll � o d i .c°8y�8�• So°a Z � OJ'IJVA N 'O33I1N14M 4 V M '8 O H�934IE 0'.9W1308 I SM, 3NV-! 99nN2ED, I —qos p —T-1— p!nop I 3Q � C s 1 S w S II I —,k i y I I - - L< S I O ' I I 3Q � C s 1 S w S II I —,k i w I y ul O ' I 1 7 -1� z DWI °o �j d I I I / ZI la IIWI IIm''i I I= OD'TVA 'SRVIS3 moH918 S 101 `- ♦ �aalo=tl NOI1104d '3 1340W38 y-!p al ^P 90T'9L]EOC an!ip oso.o BpSZ 3NY-1 130`Jf1N 9EZ4 aa�lom�aa� ^I Ry�o� £4'L l-pL I^11!w9 ^S �3d o'laad Jiow P!AOp -WU P .—M } — �C j\ a �S ZI la IIWI IIm''i I I= OJ'IIVA 'S31'd IS3 N210H019 'S JOI as9iB �='n°^ "1,`9 a�!iio i=oa NOUITIV'8 l3QOW38 ,9v 91, Q ^!'P osoio BBSL ',a�lo n�ae�ol Agin% 3NV-I i3Dof)N 9CU o laaa q,ow pinup q $S Al � ?I q3 E` x z - 'v N -' - I I ill ' E; of - of O n r 4 Cpl I F 3 IQ o IU Ez OI o Cl) t' +^ S OOVt1010.0 'A1Nf10J 31013 '1- 10 NNOl. MM ep ^ �d l + NOISIAl09f15 S31tl1S3 Na0H019 �F S 10l N sry HOr Aa1ry dery alFNtlkiDOd01. % 31VV713D,9/N 8£Zt - 333 NPR% y0 a b g =`u i/ m cTl hp 1d v Q %i ", l i Ks s tea � °y= rsE dpi - 0) TOWN OF VAIL Memorandum TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: November 11, 2013 SUBJECT: A request for a final review of a variance, from Section 12 -6D -9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a site coverage variance to construct a residential addition, located at 146 Forest Road /Lot 6, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130029) Applicant: Al and Kathy Hubbard, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Joe Batcheller I. SUMMARY The applicants, Al and Kathy Hubbard, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group, are requesting a site coverage variance to allow for a residential addition with site coverage in excess (215 sf) of what is allowed by the Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential zoning regulations. 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 denial of the site coverage variance subject to the findings noted in Section VII of this memorandum. A vicinity map (Attachment A), a project narrative stating the applicants' request, including plans (Attachment B), and a memorandum for a similar variance with PEC results (Attachment C), and the public notice (Attachment D) are attached for review. II. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST The applicants, Al and Kathy Hubbard, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group, are requesting a site coverage variance to allow for a residential addition with site coverage in excess (215 sf) of what is allowed by the Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential zoning regulations. The Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential zoning regulations, described in Section 12 -6D -9, Vail Town Code, allow site coverage up to 20% of the total site area. The subject property is a three -story single family home built in 1990 and is located in the Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) Zone District. The applicant is proposing an addition to the northeast portion of the residence. 1 The site coverage already exceeds the site coverage limit, however (31 sf in excess). The applicant is proposing to enclose a 184 square foot patio, which constitutes site coverage, bringing the total site coverage of the structure in excess of the allowable site coverage limit by 215 square feet. Site area: 15,730 sf Allowed site coverage: 3,146 sf Existing site coverage: 3,177 sf Proposed site coverage: 3,361 sf III. BACKGROUND This property was annexed into the Town Of Vail, by court order, effective on August 26, 1966. The existing structure was built in 1990. In 1991, and again in 2004, the definition of site coverage was changed. • Pre -1991: Site coverage was determined by measuring building footprints at grade. • 1991 -2004: Site coverage was determined by measuring the total horizontal area of structures above grade, such as cantilevers and excessive roof eaves. • Post -2004: Site coverage is determined by measuring the total horizontal area of structures above and below grade. When site coverage was redefined in 1991, it effectively increased the site coverage calculation for the subject property from 2,309 square feet to 2,839 square feet. Since 2004, the applicants have owned the home located at 146 Forest Road and have made various additions to it since then. In 2005, an approval was granted for a 71 square foot addition to the ground level on the north side of the house, increasing the site coverage from 2,839 square feet to 2,910 square feet. In 2007, an approval was granted for a 267 square foot addition to the second level on the south side of the house. The information provided and reviewed with this application did not indicate an increase in site coverage in excess of what is allowed. A more recent survey shows the structure at 146 Forest Road exceeds the maximum allowed site coverage however. This resulted in a 31 square foot overage, increasing site coverage from 2,910 square feet to 3,177 square feet. IV. APPLICABLE PLANNING DOCUMENTS Staff believes that following provisions of the Vail Land Use Plan and the Vail Town Code are relevant to the review of this proposal: z VAIL LAND USE PLAN (in part) CHAPTER 11: LAND USE PLAN GOALS/ POLICIES (in part) The goals articulated here reflect the desires of the citizenry as expressed through the series of public meetings that were held throughout the project. A set of initial goals were developed which were then substantially revised after different types of opinions were brought out in the second meeting. The goal statements were developed to reflect a general consensus once the public had had the opportunity to reflect on the concepts and ideas initially presented. The goal statements were then revised through the review process with the Task Force, the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council and now represent policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. These goal statements should be used in conjunction with the adopted Land Use Plan map, in the evaluation of any development proposal. The goal statements which are reflected in the design of the proposed Plan are as follows: 1. GENERAL GROWTH/ DEVELOPMENT 1.1. Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident. 1.3. The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever possible. 1.6. Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor. New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with sensitivity to the environment. 5. RESIDENTIAL 5.1. Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist. 5.4. Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for a full range of housing types. 3 CHAPTER Vl, SECTION 4, PROPOSED LAND USE CATEGORIES (in part) LDR Low Density Residential This category includes single- family detached homes and two - family dwelling units. Density of development within this category would typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acres. Also within this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and club houses for the use of residents of the area. Institutional / public uses permitted would include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities. TITLE 12. ZONING REGULATIONS, VAIL TOWN CODE (in part) 12 -2 -2. DEFINITIONS OF WORDS AND TERMS. SITE COVERAGE. The ratio of the total building area of a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purposes of calculating site coverage, "building area of a site" shall mean that portion of a site occupied by any building, carport, porte - cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway constructed at, below, or above grade as measured from the exterior face of the sheathing of the perimeter walls or supporting columns. ARTICLE 12 -6D. TWO- FAMILY PRIMARY /SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL (PS) DISTRICT (in part) 12 -6D -1: PURPOSE. The two - family primary /secondary residential district is intended to provide sites for 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 /secondary residential district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single- family and two - family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appropriate site development standards. 12 -6D -9. SITE COVERAGE. Site coverage shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the total site area. CHAPTER 12 -17. VARIANCES (in part) 12- 17 -1(A). PURPOSE. Reasons for Seeking Variance. In order to prevent or to lessen such practical difficulties and unnecessary physical hardships inconsistent with the 4 V. 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 or the location of existing structures thereon, from topographic or physical conditions on the site or in the immediate vicinity, or from other physical limitations, street locations or conditions in the immediate vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict or literal compliance with a regulation shall not be a reason for granting a variance. CHAPTER 18. NONCONFORMING SITES, USES, STRUCTURES AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS (in part) 12 -18 -1. PURPOSE. This chapter is intended to limit the number and extent of nonconforming uses and structures by prohibiting or limiting their enlargement, their reestablishment after abandonment, and their restoration after substantial destruction. While permitting nonconforming uses, structures, and improvements to continue, this chapter is intended to limit enlargement, alteration, restoration, or replacement which would increase the discrepancy between existing conditions and the development standards prescribed by this title. (Ord. 8(19 73) § 20.100) 12 -18 -5. STRUCTURE AND SITE IMPROVEMENT. Structures and site improvements lawfully established prior to the effective date hereof which do not conform to the development standards prescribed by this title for the zone district in which they are situated may be continued. Such structures or site improvements may be enlarged only in accordance with the following limitations. A. Lot And Structure Requirements. Structures or site improvements which do not conform to requirements for setbacks, distances between buildings, height, building bulk control, or site coverage, may be enlarged; provided, that the enlargement does not further increase the discrepancy between the total structure and applicable building bulk control or site coverage standards, and provided that the addition fully conforms with setbacks, distances between buildings, and height standards applicable to the addition. SITE ANALYSIS Address: Legal Description: Zoning: Land Use Plan Designation Current Land Use: Lot Size: Geological Hazards: 146 Forest Road Lot 6, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1 Two - Family Primary/Secondary Residential Low Density Residential Single - Family Residential 15,730 sq. ft. None 5 Statistics shown in bold are those standards under which the site is currently non- conforming. Standard Allowed/ Existing Proposed Required Setbacks (min): Front: 20 ft. 21 ft. no change East Side 15 ft. 24 ft. 18 ft. West Side 15 ft. 23 ft. no change Rear: 15 ft. 37 ft. no change Standard Allowed/ Existing Proposed Required Height (max.): 30 ft. /33 ft. 30.75 no change Density (max): 2 dwellings 1 dwellings 1 dwelling GRFA (max): 6,594 sf. 5,820 sf 6,004 sf Site coverage (max.): 3,146 sf 3,177 sf 3,361 sf (20 %) (20.2 %) (21.4 %) Parking (min.): 3 spaces 2 enclosed 2 enclosed 1 outside 1 outside VI. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Existing Use Zone District North: Single - Family Residential Two - Family Primary/Secondary South: Single - Family Residential Two - Family Primary/Secondary East: Two - Family Residential Two - Family Primary/Secondary West: Single - Family Residential Two - Family Primary/Secondary VII. REVIEW CRITERIA The review criteria for a variance request are prescribed in Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. R The subject property is located within a residential development bordered on the north, south, and west by other single - family homes, and on the east by a two - family home. The proposed 184 square foot addition would occur on the ground level, replacing an existing patio that is covered by a stone terrace adjacent to the level above. The addition would lie within existing outdoor architectural features, and would not diminish the existing landscape area. The addition is designed to blend seamlessly into the existing structure architecturally and will have little effect on the building's perceived mass and scale. The proposed variance will facilitate additional site coverage that will not alter other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed variance conforms to this criterion. 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. The applicants' representative has provided examples of past site coverage variances granted, most of which were done so on the basis of a clear, identifiable hardship resulting from site constraints. The only supporting example provided by the applicant that was not the result of a site constraint was for the site coverage variance issued in 1995 for the Aasland Residence. The structure was approved in 1989 by the Design Review Board to be constructed in two phases. Between the completion of phase I and the approval of phase 11, the definition of site coverage had changed, which prompted the need for a variance. The staff memorandum and PEC minutes have been included for your reference (Attachment C). You may hear a similar argument today from the applicant's representative —that changing the definition of site coverage has created a hardship for the structure at 146 Forest Road. Staff believes the same argument cannot be applied to this case however, for two reasons. First, variances are to be treated independently as each property has a unique set circumstances. Therefore, the granting of one variance cannot set precedence for another potential variance. Second, the fact that site coverage has been redefined is not reason alone to grant a variance. Municipalities are often required to update and change portions of their code in order to promote the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their communities. When the policies of a community no longer provide progress toward a desired goal or objective, that policy, or a portion thereof, is typically amended to provide greater advancement toward a shared vision for that community. A system cannot exist by which past and current regulations are selected to suit the specific need of an applicant. Approving a variance on this basis would constitute the granting of special privilege, and would defeat the purpose of even enacting or amending regulations. The current Vail Town Code is the only set of regulations applicable to a development proposal at the time it is submitted to the Community Development Department. Staff does not believe that the redefining of site coverage to be a unique circumstance or extraordinary condition that impacts the applicant's structure in such a manner as to warrant a deviation from the site coverage requirements of Section 12 -6D -9 of the Vail Town Code. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The proposed variance will facilitate additional site coverage that will not alter population; will not increase the required number of parking spaces; will not affect any existing transportation or traffic facilities, public facilities, or utilities; and will not affect public safety in comparison to existing conditions. Therefore, Staff believes the proposed variance conforms to this criterion. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department recommends denial of a request for a variance, from Section 12 -6D -9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for a site coverage variance to construct a residential addition, located at 146 Forest Road /Lot 6, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1 and setting forth details in regard thereto. This recommendation is based upon the review of the criteria in Section VII of this memorandum and the evidence and testimony presented. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to deny this variance request, the Community Development Department recommends the Commission makes the following findings: "Based upon a review of Section Vll of the November 11, 2013 staff memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission, and the evidence and testimony presented, the Planning and Environmental Commission finds. 1. That the granting of the site coverage variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. 2. There are no exceptions, extraordinary circumstances, or conditions that apply to this site that do not apply generally to other properties in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. F 3. That the strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation does not deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the Primary /Secondary Residential Zone District. IX. ATTACHMENTS A. Vicinity Map B. Applicants' Request C. Aasland Memorandum D. Public Notice r �� ,+r �, I j �' ;�. ': � ;fit _— .j - - - -• f IZO s �• / I 1 � �• i.� tea_ 1 •� 1 P .��. ,(- n � S r a WE If Y I ` ! I i , co uj CL I lu uj lu ti !a ,mow • J ir Attachment B Hubbard Residence Back Site CoverageVarian e Date Submitted: October 9, 2013 I 'V a u Lei Mauriello Planning Group Introduction Al and Kathy Hubbard own the single family home located at 146 Forest Road / Lot 6, Block 7, Vail Village I st Filing, which they purchased in 2004. The owners are requesting a site coverage variance to enclose a small covered patio. The enclosing of this existing covered area increases the site coverage by approximately 184 sq. ft. while increasing the GRFA of the home by the same amount. There is 590 sq. ft. of available GRFA on the property remaining after the proposed addition. The patio is located at the lowest level of the home, adjacent to two small guest bedrooms. It is beneath an impervious deck located at the main level of the home. The area is screened by substantial landscaping, a waist height solid wall on the exterior and two existing walls of the structure on the west and north side and is only visible from the driveway to the home. L r — — — - I I se eeoa�n _---------- Existing Floor Plan / While the owners are requesting a site coverage variance, the proposal meets all other zoning requirements and standards including setbacks, landscape area, and GRFA. The property is zoned Two - Family Primary /Secondary. The lot is 15,730 sq. ft. with a current site coverage of 3,177 sq. ft. / 20.2 %, which is in excess of the allowable site coverage of 3,146 sq. ft. / 20 %. The property is therefore nonconforming with regard to site coverage. This nonconforming condition is due to a change in the way site coverage was calculated from when the home was originally constructed. The home was approved by the Design Review Board in 1989 and constructed in 1990. The following year, Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1991 provided a major rewrite to the site coverage regulations and amended the definition. This change was a significant departure from what was counted in the definition of site coverage. In this case, the change that affected the Hubbard property was the inclusion of cantilevered space in the definition of site coverage. There are several cantilevered areas within this existing structure. A comparison of the existing and proposed plans and elevations are provided on the following page: 2 - - - - - - - - - - -- �XI!71N- CAST ELEVATION 4 91 j 7i ? A) PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION Al PARTIAL PROPOSED CONDITIONS ENTRY LEVEL rLOOR. PLAN Impact of the Enclosure The location of the proposed enclosure is a key consideration in the review of this variance. For all intents and purposes, the patio space today is substantially "enclosed" with a concrete ceiling above, a concrete floor below, and solid walls but for an opening of 5 ft. facing to the east and a small opening facing north. The proposed addition is the addition of two windows on the exterior walls. The addition is in an inconspicuous location on the structure without impacts to the outward community, as indicated in the images below: View looking east from the existing patio. Illustrates the significant vegetation which is tall enough to reach well above the existing patio. View of the patio from the driveway. Existing vegetation significantly screens the patio from almost all view points except this one. View of the patio from the driveway across Forest Road located at 95 Forest Road. Significant landscaping screens the patio from the public way and the property across the street. View of the patio from directly in front of the neighbor's garage at the shared driveway at 126 Forest Road. Vegetation screens the patio from view. 4 Background Site coverage as a zoning tool dates back to the early zoning ordinances developed in the 1950s and from "A Model Zoning Ordinance" developed in the 1960s. Site coverage was developed as a bulk and mass control to prevent the crowding of buildings and allow for adequate light and air. Its use in the Town of Vail mirrored that intent until it started to control the extent of below grade improvements. From 1973 to 1991, the definition of site coverage was much simpler. This is the definition that was in effect at the time of construction of the Hubbard Residence: Site Coverage: The portion of a site covered by buildings, excluding roof or balcony overhangs, measured at the exterior walls or supporting rrombers of the building at ground level. Ordinance 8, 1973 As indicated in this original definition, only the area of a building at ground level was included in the site coverage calculation. As a result, when the Hubbard Residence was constructed, it was well under the allowable site coverage limitation in effect at the time. The 1991 amendment to site coverage changed the definition of site coverage to include a much greater area of a building. The 1991 definition of site coverage was amended to the following: 18.04.360 Site Coverage "Site coverage" means the ratio of the total building area on a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area" shall mean the total horizontal area of any building, carport, porte cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway as measured from the exterior face of perimeter walls or supporting columns above grade or at ground level, whichever is the greater area. For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, deck or walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or deck shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the lower balcony, deck or walkway. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eave, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet from the exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns. Ordinance 35, 1991 5 Changes to the site coverage definition included the following: All areas, above grade or at ground level, were now included in the site coverage calculation All roof overhangs greater than 4 ft. were included in the site coverage calculation These changes had substantial impacts on the site coverage calculation for the Hubbard Residence. The Hubbard Residence was constructed with several cantilevered spaces and roof overhangs which were not included in the calculation for site coverage when the home was approved. These changes, which did not amend the allowable site coverage of the zone district, immediately rendered the Hubbard Residence non - conforming a year after it was constructed. Site Coverage is currently defined as follows: SITE COVERAGE: The ratio of the total building area of a site to the total area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the purposes of calculating site coverage, "building area of a site" shall mean that portion of a site occupied by any building, carport, Porte- cochere, arcade, and covered or roofed walkway constructed at, below, or above grade as measured from the exterior face of the sheathing of the perimeter walls or supporting columns. For the purposes of this definition, a balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony, deck or walkway, and in such case the higher balcony or deck shall not be deemed a roof or covering for the lower balcony, deck or walkway. In addition to the above, building area shall also include any portion of a roof overhang, eaves, or covered stair, covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered patio that extends more than four feet (4) from the exterior face of the perimeter building walls or supporting columns. This definition was amended again in 2004 to include areas below grade that extend beyond the footprint of a home. In the years following the original construction of the Hubbard Residence various additions have been approved. In 2005 and 2007, small additions were made to the home. However, it does not appear that any new calculations of site coverage were done and instead the additional site coverage was added to the 2,309 sq. ft. that was approved in 1989 with the original approval. In fact, a note in the file identifies that after an addition in 2007, approximately 627 sq. ft. of site coverage remained for the property. No subsequent additions after 2007 added any new site coverage. However, an analysis (shown at right) completed in 2013 by Eagle Valley Surveying indicates that the property is over allowable site coverage. As shown on the analysis, 530 sq. ft. of cantilevered building is now counted in site coverage, which was not included in the original calculation due to the 1991 code change which excluded these areas from the calculation. SITE USAGE EXHIBIT -0T 6, BLOCK 7, -VAI- VILLAGE FIRST FILING EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO EJI'_CING FOOTPRINT 2 7 6Q. FT. EUILJING 200 S1 I DVER ,S 6 SQ. 7. 0V011 JO '.75 SQ. I OVE1— 4° SQ. FT. OVERHANG 3177 SO. Fl. T^TPL 1s731 su. -- IST aaBn .20 ­­1 NFTIO 3 7�'40'E Ig0.0' w r � _ ry sm s�. N so. LOT 6 /y sa. -- 0.3611 1110 7. SQ.: T. rniv,�px� N N N " 40 IV 150,0 Sao e[� �A eT— JOB NO. 1203.6 ia;olwd -; mss- ei ax 6 While the owners recognize that it would be possible to enclose the space under the cantilevered areas without the need for a variance, this would would substantially modify the existing character of the home, have much greater impact on the bulk and mass of the home and therefore greater impacts to neighbors than the proposed location of the patio enclosure. The home today is greatly enhanced by the architectural interest created by the cantilevered areas. The photos below show these spaces, which create interesting articulation and shadows. Eliminating these areas would have a negative effect on the character of the home and the neighborhood. Example of cantilevered spaces that create shadows and interesting architecture. These areas did not count towards site coverage when originally constructed. rig Even this small overhang (above the garage) now counts towards the site coverage calculation. This is 149 sq. ft. of site coverage that counts under the current definition of site coverage which was not included when originally constructed. This area creates interest and shadows and infilling these areas would have the effect of substantially increasing the public perception of bulk and mass. Architectural interest that would be discouraged by today's definition of site coverage, as this area counts as site coverage today. II Zoning Analysis Location: 146 Forest Road / Lot 6, Block 7,Vail Village I st Filing Zoning: Two - Family Primary /Secondary Lot Size: 0.3611 acres / 15,730 sq. ft. Zoning Regulation Allowed Existing Proposed Lot Area 15,000 sq. ft. 15,730 sq. ft. 15,730 sq. ft. Site Coverage 3,146 sq. ft. (20 %) 3,177 sq. ft. (20.2 %) 3,361 sq. ft. (21.4 %) GRFA 6,594 sq. ft. 5,820 sq. ft. 6,004 sq. ft. Setbacks (east side) 15 ft. 24 ft. 18 ft. Criteria for Review Section 12 -17 -6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS, of the Vail Town Code provides the criteria for review for a variance. These criteria, along with an analysis, are provided below: I. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Applicant Response: The proposed addition is located beneath an existing deck, screened by the existing structure and substantial existing vegetation. The following photos indicate the lack of visibility of the location of the enclosure: View of the patio from the driveway across Forest Road located at 95 Forest Road. Significant landscaping screens the patio from the public way and the property across the street. View of the patio from directly in front of the neighbor's garage at the shared driveway at 126 Forest Road. Vegetation screens the patio from view. 9 The proposed addition will match all existing materials and colors, and due to its location, has little effect on bulk and mass of the building. Only the north and east sides of the patio are open, and even these openings are limited: the patio is encased in stone, with a stone wall around it of approximately 3 ft. tall, and with large stone columns which are approximately 20 inches by 20 inches. The south wall of the patio is a solid stone wall with no openings, while the west wall enters into 2 guest bedrooms. Below the architect has provided renderings of the existing and proposed east elevation. As indicated in the rendering, there is very little change to the structure to accommodate this enclosure. Photo - rendering of proposed addition X -Ray photo- rendering of proposed addition, with landscaping removed for clarity. 0 The surrounding properties are all zoned Two-Family Primary/Secondary, as is the Hubbard Residence. The neighborhood was originally platted in 1982 under Eagle County jurisdiction and is part of Vail Village First Filing, as indicated on the plat below: VAIL ` ~~ ~ FILING �rs u T, bject Property �.� ' Many of the original homem in the vicinity have since been demolished and new, much larger homes have been constructed in their place. 10 Adjacent homes include the following: 126 Forest Road: This home shares a driveway with the subject property. This home is likely the only one that could see the proposed addition. 166 Forest Road: Home to the west of the subject property. Would be unable to see the proposed addition. 115 Forest Road: This home is directly to the north of the subject property. Due to the siting of this home within the hillside below Forest Road, would be unable to see the proposed addition. 95 Forest Road: This home is to the southeast of the subject property. Would only be able to see the proposed addition from the garage. 107 Rockledge Road: This home is directly to the south of the subject property. Would be unable to see the proposed addition. 11 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. Applicant Response: Site coverage variances are granted relatively rarely by the Town of Vail. Because site coverage is a ratio of building footprint to lot size, it is difficult to meet the required findings for a variance. However, there have been two primary rationales used to justify site coverage variances that have been granted by the Town of Vail in the past: a. Site coverage variances required to construct a garage where no or little enclosed parking exists. This variance was typically granted by the Town to further a Town -wide goal to provide enclosed parking. These types of variances furthered an overall public objective to remove unsightly surface parking and storage. While there are many examples of site coverage variances granted for garages, and the justification used to justify hardship and grant of special priviledge is not directly relevant to the conditions here, it does show a precedent in relief from the strict and literal interpretaion of the site coverage definition in a "reasonable" manner and for a reasonable goal. b. Site coverage variances granted based on the construction of a structure built prior to annexation or the adoption of the current zoning regulations. Variances were granted to homes with existing nonconformities which made additions and /or redevelopment challenging. Below are some examples of site coverage variances that have been granted based on existing nonconformities as a result of a change to the applicable zoning regulations subsequent to the original construction of the home, as is the case here: Collins Residence located at 1 1 15 Hornsilver: A site coverage variance of 21.7% was approved by the PEC on 6/ 1 1 /01. Exceeded site coverage for an addition. PEC found that the approval of the variance would not be a grant of special privledge due to the existing structure and the non - conforming lot size. Aasland Residence located at 2527 Arosa Drive: A site coverage variance allowing site coverage up to 22.6 %. was approved by the PEC on 10/9/95. Exceeded site coverage as a result of proposed cantilevered space as part of an addition to the home. Variance was granted as a result of the change in the definition of site coverage from the original construction. Ricci Residence located at 2576 Davos Trail: A site coverage variance allowing site coverage up to 23.9% was approved by the PEC on 3/13/95. Exceeded site coverage with garage and entry addition. Stephanoff Residence located at 2339 Chamonix Lane: A site coverage variance allowing site coverage variance up to 23% was approved by the PEC on 11/22/04, then reapproved on I 1/ 13/06. Franke Residence located at 2712 Kinnikinnick Court: A site coverage variance allowing for site coverage up to 21 % was approved by the PEC on 7/28/08. The staff memo specifically stated: The Planning and Environmental Commission has consistently held that construction of a structure prior to annexation or the adoption of the current zoning 12 regulations may be a basis for granting a variance from the Town's current zoning regulations. 10 Cahalin Residence located at 1816 Sunburst Drive: A site coverage variance allowing site coverage to up to 24% was approved by the PEC on 4/24/06. PEC found that the existing nonconforming structure and drainage issues presented a physical hardship for a site coverage variance. Taylor Residence located at 2409 Chamonix Road: A site coverage variance allowing site coverage up to 21.3% was approved by the PEC on 5/24/93. This variance included a garage and additional GRFA. Because each of these examples had unique circumstances, the Planning and Environmental Commission recognized that changes to the regulations which governed the original construction of the home on the property created a hardship, and that the granting of the site coverage variance was not a grant of special privilege. As indicated in the Background analysis above, one year subsequent to the approval and construction of the Hubbard Residence, the Town of Vail substantially modified the way site coverage was calculated, rendering the home nonconforming. As recently as 2007, the Town of Vail believed that there was over 600 sq. ft. of site coverage remaining available for use on the property. The current site coverage analysis indicates that the property was actually over the allowable site coverage by 37 sq. ft. Because the change in the site coverage calculation was done only one year subsequent to the construction of the original residence, rendering the property nonconforming, and creating a unique and difficult hardship for the property, the granting of this variance would not result in a 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. Applicant Response: The proposed addition has no effect on the distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities, utilities, and public safety. With regard to light and air, the existing patio is beneath a stone deck . The wall and support columns surrounding this patio cause this patio to be dark and unusable. By allowing the Hubbards to enclose this patio, the space will be interior to the home and therefore more usable, with no effect on light and air to adjacent properties or the public way, as the patio is already substantially enclosed. Section 12 -17 -6: CRITERIA AND FINDINGS, of the Vail Town Code provides the findings that the Planning and Environmental Commission shall make for the granting of a variance. These findings are provided below: (.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 zone district. 13 Applicant Response: The granting of this proposed site coverage does not constitute a grant of special privilege. As indicated in the analysis above, similar variances have been granted to other properties within the Two - Family Primary /Secondary zone district based on amendments to the applicable regulations subsequent to the construction of a home. 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. Applicant Response: The granting of this proposed site coverage variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. As indicated in the analysis above, the proposed addition will not be visible to most properties and due to the existing configuration of the patio, along with the substantial existing landscaping, the addition will be appropriately screened. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: (a) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with 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 same zone district. (c) The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone district. Applicant Response: The variance is warranted because the strict interpretation of the site coverage regulations results in a practical difficulty and physical hardship inconsistent with the Zoning Regulations. Furthermore, there are extraordinary circumstances applicable to the Hubbard Residence which do not generally apply to other properties. When originally constructed, the property was well under site coverage limitations of the Two - Family Primary/ Secondary zone district. However, only one year after the home was constructed, the Town of Vail amended the definition of site coverage, rendering the property nonconforming. This created a practical difficulty for the property, and exceptional circumstances which do not exist elsewhere. 14 Adjacent Properties STROUM, CYNTHIA 2001 6TH AVE STE 3434 SEATTLE,WA 98121 SMITHBRIDGE PARTNERS LLC 285 WILMINGTON -WEST CHESTER PIKE CHADDS FORD, PA 19317 CMEVAIL QPRTRUST In Care Of STEVE COVALT PO BOX 948 COLORADO SPRINGS, CO 80901 115 LLC 5910 S UNIVERSITY BLVD C -18 BOX 434 GREENWOOD VILLAGE, CO 80121-2879 PITKIN, EDWARD M. & JUDITH A. 8787 BAY COLONY DR APT 1705 NAPLES, FL 34108 -0788 STEVEN M. READ QUALIFIED PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST, STEVEN M. READ TRUSTEE - ETAL 4100 HAPPY VALLEY RD LAFAYETTE, CA 94549 -241 1 ROSENBACH, GARY & SUSAN 107 ROCKLEDGE RD VAIL, CO 81657 ZIMMEL 2012 FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TRUST, JOHN M. ZIMMEL & J.P. MORGAN COMPANYTRUSTEE - ETAL 159 PARSONAGE RD GREENWICH, CT 06830 -3951 MPG PO BOX 4777 EAGLE, CO 81631 15 Attachment C MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 9, 1995 Back SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an addition to the Aasland Residence, located at 2527 Arosa Drive /Lot 3, Block D, Vail Das Schone 1st Filing. Applicants: Galen Aasland Planner: Randy Stouder DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is proposing to construct a two story addition to the existing primary unit. The addition consists of two bedrooms and a bathroom on the lower level, and a large living room on the second level which cantilevers over the lower level bedrooms. A bathroom is also proposed to be added to the third level loft. The proposed additions constitute Phase II of the project. Phase I, the existing residence, is comprised of the primary unit, a secondary apartment (deed restricted as an employee housing unit) and a 3 -car garage. Based upon a lot size of 10,716 sq. ft., the applicant is allowed 20% site coverage or 2,143 square feet. The proposed addition, combined with the existing building, would cover 22.6% or 2,425 square feet of the site. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 18.13.090 (Site Coverage - Primary /Secondary Zone District) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code to allow for an additional 2.6% or 282 square feet of site coverage. II. BACKGROUND On May 31, 1989 the Design Review Board (DRB) reviewed a development plan for the Aasland residence that indicated a two - phased development plan for a single family residence. Phase I included one bedroom, a kitchen, a dining room and entryway, and a garage. Phase 11 contained a living room and two bedrooms. The DRB approved only Phase I of the proposed development. On May 4, 1990 the DRB approved a secondary unit where a crawl space was shown on the original DRB approved plans, and a third story loft addition. Due to insufficient lot area, the secondary unit had to be deed restricted as an employee housing unit. Again, a second phase was noted on the 1990 site plan, but it was not approved by the DRB. On February 20, 1991 the DRB approved the Phase II addition that had been shown on earlier plans, but had never been approved. The Phase II addition approved by the DRB on February 20, 1991 is very similar to the Phase II addition currently proposed. However, current site coverage regulations now include cantilevered GRFA and roof overhangs which exceed 4 feet; these portions of the structure did not count as site coverage when the DRB approved Phase II in 1991. The approved Phase II additions were never built and the DRB approval granted on February 20, 1991 has lapsed. Since the site coverage regulations now include cantilevered areas and large roof overhangs, the applicant is now requesting a site coverage variance to allow the construction of Phase II to occur. III. ZONING STATISTICS Lot Size: 10,716 square feet Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Allowed Existing Proposed GRFA: 3,529 sq. ft. 2,343 sq. ft. 3,753 sq. ft.* Setbacks: Front: 20' 52' Front: 21' Sides: 15715' 20',23' Sides: 20', 23' Rear: 15' 17' Rear: 17' Site Coverage: 20% or 2,143 sq. ft. 15.1% or 1,614 sq. ft. 22.6% or 2,425 sq. ft. Landscaping: 60% or 6,430 sq. ft. 69.3% or 7,422 sq.ft. 61.7% or 6,611 sq.ft. Retaining Wall Heights: 6 feet (max.) 6 feet max. 6 feet max. Parking: 4 spaces required 6 spaces 6 spaces *The applicant has applied to the DRB for approval of one additional 250 sq.ft. GRFA allotment to cover this overage. IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of the Criteria and Findings for variances, contained in Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested site coverage variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The proposed addition adds significant mass and bulk to the structure, and makes it less compatible with some of the surrounding, smaller structures. However, the site coverage variance would allow the applicant to build -out the allowable GRFA, including the use of an additional 250 square foot GRFA allotment, and keep the building lower to the ground than the current height restrictions would allow. The addition is partially buried in the hillside which reduces the mass and bulk of the structure when viewed from the west side (nearest neighbor). The applicant feels that the project fits into the neighborhood better if it is kept low and spread out across the lot rather than utilizing the remaining GRFA by going more vertical with the design. However, this necessitates the requested site coverage variance. I 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff has supported several site coverage variance requests that were associated with the construction of enclosed parking. Staff reviewed the files of all the properties that directly surround the Aasland property. The review turned up two projects that have received variances. One was for a setback encroachment associated with construction of a garage, and the other was a site coverage variance to allow for the construction of a two -car garage to replace a one -car garage. The applicant already has a three -car garage. Staff believes that the current proposal has merit in that it reduces the potential height of the structure, however, staff also feels that the requested variance goes beyond what is necessary to allow the applicant to complete his project in a reasonable fashion. The proposed living room is 801 square feet, and contains 215 square feet of cantilevered space that contributes directly to site coverage. Staff believes that the applicant can reduce the footprint of the proposed addition without compromising function and marketability. If the applicant eliminated only the cantilevered portions of the living room, the variance request could be reduced to 67 square feet or 20.6 %. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff does not believe that there will be any negative impacts associated with this proposal regarding this criteria. The applicant prepared a written response to the criteria listed above, a copy of which is attached to this memorandum. The applicant has also included a series of letters from the surrounding neighbors who support the site coverage request. Copies of these letters have also been attached to this memorandum. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 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 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. 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. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the PEC deny the requested variance. Staff believes that granting the site coverage variance would not be materially injurious to properties in the vicinity, in fact the variance would allow the applicant to use more GRFA at a lower elevation, thus reducing the potential height of the structure. However, staff cannot find a physical hardship or extraordinary circumstances particular to this property that would justify the variance request. Thus, staff feels that approval of a site coverage variance, in this specific case, would be a grant of special privilege that could set a negative precedent for the neighborhood. Other lots in this portion of town are small and site coverage is usually the constraining development factor that keeps the footprint of structures in proper proportion to the lot size. F: EVE RYON E\PE C\M E M OS\AAS LAND: 009 • Attachment C: PEC Minutes, October 9, 1995 (in part) Randy Stouder gave an overview and stated that the request was similar to the Mobile Cathetor ab request. It is different in that it will be in place only until the permanent MRI lab is finished inside the hospital. 7. A request for a site coverage variance to allow for an addition to an existing primary/secondary dwelling located at 2527 Arosa Drive/Lot 3, Block D, Vail Das Schone Filing #1. Applicant: Galen Aasland Planner, Randy Stouder fAevezyoneNpec�enda;A10995 i The Phase I design was originally constructed with the Phase 11 plan to be added later when he could afford it. This house fits into the neighborhood and all the neighbors are in favor of it. alen's neighbor couldn't rebuild her house under current coverage rules. This type of unfortunate situation is what variances are made for. If this is turned down,. Galen most likely will not stay in town. This is a better design solution than what zoning will force him to do. One, thought is that he did solve his parking problem first. i Galen Aasland stated that what he is allowed is considerably more mass. This expansion is what the original plan for the house was to be and he feels it meets the criteria. Bob Armour mentioned that them are 5 letters from neighbors on , men's behalf. Kevin Deighan had no comment. Greg A sden asked if the living room could be smaller. Galen Aasland said it was ossi le, however he showed the PEC a picture of a museum that he had visited during his childhood in New York and was modeling this dream room after it. To make it smaller was not what he wanted to do. He did not want to take out the cantilevered part. Jeff Bowen felt that in this specific circumstance, that the Town of Vail created a hardship situation by changing the site coverage rules. Therefore, Jeff Bowen is in favor of granting this request. Henry Pratt stated that this was an extraordinary circumstance and so he is also in favor of ranting the request. Jay Peterson said he felt very strongly about this request Galen A sl nd mentioned that most people show the plans and build shortly thereafter; they don't wait 6 years, with rules changing during that time, before they finish it® He said e would have done the same, but he simply did not have the money to do the complete project all at one time. Bob Armour stated that he also is in favor of granting the request. Jeff Bowen made a motion to grant the request. Kevin Deighan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, by a vote of 5 -0. request for a density ( A) variance to allow for the conversion of "open to elow' space to GRFA located at 3130 Booth Falls Court/Lot -A, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant- Jeffrey & Eileen Shiff rin Planner: Randy Stouder The conversion of "open to below" space to GRFA occurred without the necessary design review and building permit reviews by staff. Randy Stouder summarized the request and stated that the applicant is over the allowable GRFA by 139 sq. ft. Bob Armour if house asked this was eligible for a 250 yet. fAeveryone\pec\agendm \1 5 12 Attachment D TOWN OF VAIL ` THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE Back NOTICE 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 November 11, 2013 at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. A request for the review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -4, Minor Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the relocation of the platted building lots and access easement, located at 1624, 1626, 1628, 1630, and 1632 Buffehr Creek Road/ Lots 1 -5, Elk Meadows Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130028) Applicant: Elk Meadows Development, LLC, represented by Sharon Cohn Planner: Joe Batcheller A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6D -9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for new construction in excess of the allowable site coverage, located at 146 Forest Road /Lot 6, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth dtails in regard thereto. (PEC130029) Applicant: Hubbard Family Investors, represented by Mauriello Planning Group �(X� Planner: Joe Batcheller log A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6C -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for new construction within the front and side setbacks, located at 4238 Nugget Lane /Lot 5, Bighorn Estates, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130030) Applicant: Kent and Mary Johnson, represented by Peel /Langenwalter Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend site visits. Please call 970 - 479 -2138 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. Published October 25, 2013 in the Vail Daily. Ad Name: 9657080A THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE Customer: TOWN OF VAIL /PLAN DEPT /COMM NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Your account number is- 1 OP2P 33 Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail will Vail Daily hold a public hearing in accordance with section 12 -3 -6, Vail Town Code, on November 11, 2013 at 1:00 pm in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. A request for the review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -4, Minor Subdivision, Vail Town Code, PROOF OF PUBLICATION and allow for the relocation of the platted building lots and access easement, located at 1624, 1626, 1628, 1630, and 1632 Buffehr Creek Road/ Lots 1 -5, Elk Meadows Subdivision, and setting forth STATE OF COLORADO } details in regard thereto. (PEC130028) Applicant: Elk Meadows Development, LLC, repre- sented by Sharon Cohn 1 ss I Planner: Joe Batcheller COUNTY OF EAGLE } A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6D -9, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, pursu- ant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for new construction in excess of the al- I, Don Rogers, do solemnly swear that I am a qualified lowable site coverage, located at 146 Forest Road /Lot 6, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1, and set- representative ofthe Vail Daily. That the same Daily newspaper ting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC130029) Applicant: Hubbard Family Investors, represented printed, in whole or in part and published in the County by Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Joe Batcheller of Eagle, State of Colorado, and has a general circulation g g A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 Setbacks, Vail Town Code, to therein; that said newspaper has been published continuously -6C -6, pursuant Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to al- low for new construction within the front and side and uninterruptedly in said County of Eagle for a period of setbacks, located at 4238 Nugget Lane /Lot 5, Big - horn Estates, and setting forth details in regard more than fifty -two consecutive weeks next prior to the first thereto. (PEC130030) Applicant: Kent and Mary Johnson, represented by publication of the annexed legal notice or advertisement and Peel /Langenwalter Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence that said newspaper has published the requested legal notice p q g The applications and information about the opos- for inspection during and advertisement as requested. q als are available public office hours at the Town of Vail Community Develop - ment Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend site visits. Please call 970 - 479 -2138 for additional information. The Vail Daily is an accepted legal advertising medium, Sign language interpretation is available upon re- quest, with 24 -hour notification. Please call only for jurisdictions operating under Colorado's Home 970- 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Im- paired, for information. Rule provision. Published October 25, 2013 in the Vail Daily. (9657080) That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1 consecutive insertions; and that the first publication of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated 10/25/2013 and that the last publication of said notice was dated 10/25/2013 in the issue of said newspaper. In witness whereof, I have here unto set my hand this day, 11/04/2013. General Man ager/Publisher/Editor Vail Daily Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public in and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado this day 11/04/2013. � 2m.&& 9. -V-� Pamela J. Schultz, Notary Public My Commission expires: November 1, 2015 �pRY PUe/ ' PAMELA J. SCHULTZ 9�� COt -ARP$ My Commismn Expires 11/0112015