Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB140538_Variance Request_1417546560.pdf Page 1 of 4 September 20, 2007 Request for Variance Town of Vail, Planning and Zoning Commission Project: Mr. Dave Hilb, Primary/Secondary Residence Location: Lot 10, Vail Intermountain Subdivision, Block 1 Address: 2755 Snowberry Drive, Vail, CO 81631 Description of the variance requested and specific regulations involved: The lot owner Dave Hilb is respectfully requesting a variance from the strict interpretation of the access standard for a Primary/Secondary Lot from Title 14 Chapter 3 of the Town Code under 14-3-1: Minimum Standards which reads: Entry angle minimum deflection for first 30’ of driveway length shall be 45 degrees. This standard is represented by the following detail 5. We have studied the impact of this access issue on our excessively steep lot and have come to the conclusion that a variance is required in order to keep the driveway platform from exceeding 12 feet or more over existing grades at the point of 30 feet distance at a 45 degree angle. A series of drawing exhibits (see Exhibit A) clearly demontstrate that the strict interpretation of this entry angle/distance at several different points along the roadway edge will place the driveway edge 12 feet or more over existing grades which make the engineering and construction of the driveway complicated and costly as well as creating a hardship in keeping site walls to a maximum height of 6 exposed feet. Even with several benched walls it is difficult to catch up to the quickly receding grade lines below and the walls look very tall and massive and tend to disregard the natural grades to a negative aesthetic effect. We request that a tighter access angle than 45 degrees be granted and that the 30 foot minimum length be changed to a shorter distance approvable by the Town of Vail engineering department. Page 2 of 4 A description of the relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity: The relationship of the 45 degree/30 foot rule variance to other existing or potential uses would have a possible but negligible effect on traffic safety at the intersection of our driveway with the main road Snowberry Drive. Our assumption is that the 45 degree/30 foot rule is in place to keep automobile sight lines to a safe angle. However a tighter degree and shorter distance would not necessarily be unsafe and surely many examples of non-conforming driveway angles abound in the Vail area and do not create hazardous intersections (see Exhibit D). Also the fact that this property is at the very end of Snowberry Drive with only a duplex and a single-family home higher up on the road means that very little automobile traffic will ever be impacted by the driveway access variance. Another issue is that the public Snowberry Drive is actually partially or totally within the private property lines at the area best suited for the driveway location which has created man-made grade lines even steeper than the already steep natural grades and pushed those steeper grades deeper into the private property exasperating an already difficult access issue (see Exhibit C). If the town’s road was built to the edge of the private property line and not completely into it, this variance may not have been needed. 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. Many properties in this neighborhood of Intermountain along the streets of Snowberry Drive, Bassingdale Blvd., Larkspur Lane and Bellflower Drive have very steep access issues and have dealt with them in any number of ways. Many look to be non-conforming simply because the access was too difficult for a strict interpretation of the access rules (see Exhibit D). In our case we are trying to keep the retaining walls that hold up the driveway to shorter heights which would be a common objective of many lots along the streets of that neighborhood and would not appear to grant a special privilege. The effect of the variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety. The requested variance would only impact the items of traffic facilities and public safety in terms of sight lines and traffic safety as described above. Page 3 of 4 A description of how the request complies with adopted Town of Vail planning policies and development objectives. Our variance request would actually comply with several of the Town of Vail planning policies in a positive way, whereas if the variance is not granted these policies would be effected in a negative way. Please review the excerpts from the town code below which are positively effected by the access variance. Design Review Standards and Guidelines excerpts: Any building site in Vail is likely to have its own unique land forms and features. Whenever possible, these existing features should be preserved and reinforced by new construction. The objective is to fit the buildings to their sites in a way that leaves the natural land forms and features intact, treating the buildings as an integral part of the site, rather than as isolated objects at odds with their surroundings. The location and configuration of structures and access ways shall be responsive to the existing topography of the site upon which they are to be located. Grading requirements resulting from development shall be designed to blend into the existing or natural landscape. Any cuts or fills shall be sculptural in form and contoured to blend with the existing natural undisturbed terrain within the property boundary. Building siting and access thereto shall be responsive to existing features of terrain rock outcroppings, drainage patterns, and vegetation. Building footings and foundations shall be designed in accordance with the minimum standards of the adopted building code. Footings and foundations shall also be designed to be responsive to the natural topography of the site, and shall be designed and constructed in such a manner as to minimize the necessary amount of excavation and site disturbance. Retaining Walls (General) All retaining walls are reviewed by the Design Review Board or the Administrator to determine compatibility to the existing topography and the materials in use. Retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of six (6) feet. Within a front setback, retaining walls shall not exceed an exposed face height of three (3) feet, unless related to access to a structure constructed on excessive slopes (in excess of thirty (30) percent). Retaining walls associated with a street located within a public right-of-way or access to an underground covered parking structure are exempt from these height limits, but must be approved by the Design Review Board. Retaining walls shall be located a minimum of two (2) feet from adjacent private property boundaries and should be ten (10) feet from the edge of a public street unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer. All retaining walls over four (4) feet in height, measured from the bottom of a footing to the top of wall as per the adopted Town of Vail Building Code, shall be engineered and stamped by a licensed Colorado Professional Engineer (P.E. stamp) except in the right-of-way, where retaining walls over three (3) feet in height, measured in the same manner, shall require a P.E. Stamp. All retaining walls requiring a P.E. stamp shall be required to submit and have approved, prior to Building Permit release, engineered stamped plans, profiles, sections, details, and engineering analyses and calculations for each wall type as required by the Town Engineer. Page 4 of 4 At a minimum, unless otherwise directed, the engineering submittal shall include P.E. stamped plans, and P.E. stamped typical details with all engineering design parameters and calculated Factor of Safety provided on the details. Plans and details shall be cross-referenced. (Ord. 14(2006) § 5) Boulder Retaining Walls Boulder retaining walls shall comply with all the standards of retaining walls (general). The height listed for retaining walls is the exposed height of either a single or combined height of combination walls. If the batter (slope of the face of the wall) is greater than 1:1, a P.E. stamp is required. Combination Retaining Walls A retaining wall should be considered a combination wall if the upper wall falls within a prism defined as starting 1’ behind the face of the lower wall at the lowest finished grade line and then back at a 1.5:1 angle from this starting point. The minimum bench of combination retaining walls shall be four (4) feet. All combination retaining walls shall have a P.E. Stamp. Similar Review Standards for garages on steep lots: The presence of significant site constraints may permit the physical separation of units and garages on a site. The determination of whether or not a lot has significant site constraints shall be made by the Design Review Board. Significant site constraints shall be defined as natural features of a lot such as stands of mature trees, natural drainages, stream courses and other natural water features, rock outcroppings, wetlands, other natural features, and existing structures that may create practical difficulties in the site planning and development of a lot. Slope may be considered a physical site constraint that allows for the separation of a garage from a unit. It shall be the applicant's responsibility to request a determination from the Design Review Board as to whether or not a site has significant site constraints before final design work on the project is presented. This determination shall be made at a conceptual review of the proposal based on review of the site, a detailed survey of the lot and a preliminary site plan of the proposed structure(s).