Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-1212 PECMEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT Greg Arms do Dalton Williams Mike Mollica Bill Anderson Randy Stour Bob Armour Jim Curnutte Jeff Bowen Andy Knudtse► Kathy Lan genwalter Tom Moorhead A request for a conditional use permit to allow a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit to located at 1195 Hornsilver Circle/Lot 14, Block 6, Vail Village 7th Filing. k Jinn Wear, the usyis' representative, stated that the additional 2.3 foot building height did not benefit the applicants' property in any significant way. He stated that the punishment did not fit the crime in that it did not seem fair that the applicant would have to tear down construction that is already completed. Bob Armour asked the contractor, Jim Gregg, to explain how he established the building base elevations. Jim Gregg explained the method which he used to establish the building base elevations. Bob Armour felt that Findings B1, B2, B3(a), (b), and (c) were met and that special ^circumstances did currently exist on the site, in the form of onstructed residence. Bob suggested that the Town require footing inspections to help alleviate this problem in the future. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 1994 2 I Kathy Langenwalter felt that Finding B1, B2 and B3(b) were met and that she did feel that this was a situation in which an honest mistake had been made and that she felt comfortable approving the variance. Bob Armour made a motion to approve the request for a building height variance with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion. Bill Anderson asked Tom Moorhead if this decision would be precedent setting and if the PFC would see similar requests as a result of the granting of this variance. Torn Moorhead stated that the criteria applied to each request was the same. He said that the difference was the facts surrounding each situation. He stated that the P C in each instance, would have the opportunity to evaluate each request based on its particular merits. Jim Curnutte asked Bob Armour to clarify which findings he was basing his motion for approval of this request on. Bob Armour replied it was his opinion that all findings had been met for this request. 4-2 vote approved this request with Bit! Anderson and Greg Amsden opposing this item per their reasons stated above. . A request for a site coverage variance and a conditional use permit to allow for an expansion at the Vail Mountain School located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road /Part of Lot 129 Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing. Applicant: Parry Hopkins, representing the Vail Mountain School Planner- Randy Stouder TABLED TO DECEMBER 1 , 1 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item to the December 1, 1994 PC meeting with Greg Ams en seconding the request. A 6 -0 vote tabled this item to December 19, 1994. 4. A request to amend Section 16.57, Employee Housing, to set forth requirements pertaining to Type VI Employee Housing units and set forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Town of Vail Planner: Andy Knu t en TABLED INDEFINITELY Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item indefinitely with Greg Amsden seconding the motion. A 6 -0 vote tabled this item indefinitely. I Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 1994 Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this item indefinitely with Greg Amsden seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this item indefinitely. 6. Approve minutes from November 28, 1994 PEC meeting. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 28, 1994 PEC meeting with Bob Armour seconding the motion, A 6-0 vote approved the minutes from the November 28, 1994 PEC meeting. 9. Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes December 12, 1994 4 0 Or & MIM MO SUBJECT- A request for a building height variance for a residence located at 4465 Glen Falls Lane/Lot 69 Forest Glen Subdivision, Applicant- Aiarc Musyl and Carol Curtis Planner: Jim Curnutte 1 f The impact of this building height variance request on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity is minimal in staff's opinion. The location of Lot is such that it would appear that only the other homes in the Forest Glen Subdivision could possibly be affected by the building height exceeance. The applicant has provided several letters from the owners of property immediately adjacent to the Musyl residence indicating their support of the building height variance request (see Attachments 5, 6, and 7). Additionally, the applicant has pointed out that this particular ridge line, as well as all other ridge lines on the building, with the exception of one, were calculated according to existing grades and not finished grades. The result is that the highest ridge line does not extend beyond the building foundation walls of the building and therefore has no visual disturbance as viewed from surrounding properties. The applicant points out that as viewed in relationship to finished grades surrounding the property, the building does not appear to have an excessive building height. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement f a specified regulation is necessary to iev compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to t in the jec iv is title without grant of special privilege. The degree to which the applicant is requesting relief from the building height regulation is the minimum necessary to allow the structure to remain as is. The applicants have stated that the general contractor established the building base elevations in compliance with commonly followed construction practices. However, on April 3, 1991, the Community Development Department distributed a memorandum to all architects, contractors and surveyors doing work within the Town of Vail (see Attachment ). The purpose of this memo was to clarify certain information which the Town required and also to avoid problems similar to this variance application. The memo clearly points out that sewer inverts, section corners and property corners make good benchmarks and manhole rims, the asphalt in streets and fire hydrants are not to be used For all new residential construction taking place within the Town of Vail, "black book" is given to contractors at the time a building permit is issued. This "black book" contains an inspection card as well as the above- referenced surveying policy and is to be left on the job at all times, The surveying policy has been included in the "black book" and given to all contractors of new homes for the past year and a half. Mr. Gregg, the general contractor on the usyl /Curtis residence was given a "black book" for the Musyl residence as well as his own residence being constructed in the West Vail areas Both of these black books should contain the Town's surveying requirements. Although the error which cawed the building to exceed the maximum height allowance appears to have been an honest mistake, staff believes that granting the variance would be a grant of special privilege. 3 The height variance will have no negative impact on any of the above- referenced criteria. � 2\ �� \ ) .\ � / . � :. � \�� �� � . R., . \ / �� �� \ e� � 1, s • • El NOTE: EASWEN'M SNONM ARE PER PLAT ONLY. NO ME SENiCH WAS P"OED FOR THE EXISTENCE OF ANY UWPLATrED VSDADM. LOT 5 ORRUGATED LS. 26626 WAL P.PE FOUND PN & CAP SCALE: 1" 20' L.S. 26625 215�0 DATE OF SURVEY: 10/7/94 S I — TRANSFORMER 20' SAArTAWf SEVIER EnsmEw 1-30,03,34' TELE%4s� PED —a. —4' Rd- 1 MOO p"Dw Ko AVK HE RU%-GUT AND L=65.58 T-33.56 v al LC=64.83 B C -S 09'44'14!' W A. .I— 'oo j IV 2 STOI FRAum MY A, nuE Of SURVEY 'fv — 4465 GLEN FALLS LANE UNDER CDNSTRuCRON 0,.72 ACRES FOUND PiN px CAP _--� A LS. 26626 -F •Me'ROVEMENT LOCATION CERPF)CATE REV: H 63.7 M, ELEV: a440,0 RIM ELEV; 84wG 15�;`td he"ab, .-t fy that thin 1—C on c-tific.i. v ".P,.d f., jl. R15?9— '_ _ --- - — Oho t it --t - --d -dr-Y not - —pld--t Wt, that 1 --, and �-. not to 1-i-d UP- f- the WbliNeh—ht of f-e., buRdmg - other lut- fjlih-I —WY that the Npl—tl on the be- d—ib.al Porch UP this date, I0/7/94 . 41cePt ItilitY con-di-S. We entirely within the boundaries of the paac*�, *F­pt an dhows, thAt there or a admd,hm­t* "I described LOT 7 Pon "ornitft by implo—tA on APN W)eln" premiers. at Z . and the t th.. W,--t "d-- - V of any n, --t a'. soing w bird -lhg any p.,k of ta,ld,pw.4. —pt ae —too. Date:- 4 Stan Cdkwad. PAZ5. 26595 IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE Nonci:: LOT 6g to Colioradoilam you tNust commence any Re"I aio, bood Any defect in cheat FOREST GLEN 41IN W"AY 8 & 24. MLE -VA& Wan 03 survey -itnin th,Aht = after you ditua-""" 'W"a" In tuived defeat in i. d,nhy "' TOWN OF VAIL P�a ED. 8DX 12M WARDS. CO. 81632 .—y do Y�-=- dtat. W th. cm ton .�— he,.—. So3)q49—oa EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO PO4TWX "J-AMAZ 10/12/941 JOB No. 2081 s • • El �7 Ln ATTACHMENT 12 KrA Inter-Mountain EngineemingLtd. November 29, 1.994 2 If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to X Duane D. Fehringer, P. E. , P. L. S. 77 Metcalf Road, #200 * Box 978 a Avon, Colorado 81620 a Phone- 949-5072 * From Denver Direct: 893-1531 142 0 Vance Street * Lakewood, Colorado 33216 9 Phone: 232-0158 ATTACHMENT #3 APPLICATION ECP VARIANCE � 0 LOT 6, FOREST GLEN We respectfully request your concurrence. 0 Applicant: Property: APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE Marc Musyl and Carol Curtis Lot 6, Forest Glen Subdivision, Vail, CO Variance Requested: Two-foot height variance for interior ridge line I. VARIANCE REQUESTED December 2, 1994 C November 29, 1994 [7 ATTACHMENT #8 MEMIOPUDMUM TO: All Architects, Contractors and Surveyors Doing Work in the Town of Vail FROM: Community Development Department DATE: April 3, 1991 SUBJECT: Survey Requirements A. Survey Policy Clarifications 3. Roof Heiaht. On the ILC, the surveyor should note the roof material (if any) on the highest point of the ridge which exists the day of the shooting® The planner will add the dimensions of all other materials (except a cold roof vent) which will be built in the following weeks. For example, if only the ridge beam has been constructed the day of the shooting, the surveyor should note that on the survey and then the planner will add the dimensions of the insulation, sheathing, etc. to verify that the finished product will not exceed the height limit. Ridge height will be measured to the top ridge of the sheathing. On the attached diagrams, the point identified with an asterisk is the top ridge of the sheathing. A cold roof vent, not exceeding 12 inches in height, measured from the sheathing to the top of the shingles, is considered an architectural projection and will not be included in the height. 4. Setbacks. When specifying the distance of a setback on the ILC, note the material existing on the structure the day of the shooting. Planners will then add any wall material to what is shown on the survey in order to determine the final distance of the setbacks in the same way that will be. done for height. If ledges or supports for rock veneer or any other facing material have been built into the foundation, measure the setback to that exterior point (see diagram below). Final distance will be measured from the outside edge of the exterior wall material. ® Benchmark. On the ILC, identify the benchmark used for the basis of the elevations. If the same benchmark is used throughout the construction process, the measurement of a building should be consistent. As long as the same benchmark is used for shooting, every the building can be measured accurately and should not exceed the height limit. Items which make good ATTACHMENT #8 PAGE 2 are sewer inverts, section corners, and property corners® Do not use manhole rims, the asphalt in streets, or fire hydrants® B. Survey Requirements for Projects with Variances anL9 . Recommendations for Owner/Builder Projects N i. For owner/builders, the Town strongly suggests that--a registered surveyor stake out the foundation prior to " U�' 0 0 I-M This proposed caretaker unit is located in the portion of town just west of the Village Core that is currently fully serviced by transportation facilities, utilities, schools, and parks and recreational facilities. Additional public needs are not anticipated in this neighborhood, and the proposed use should have little to n't impact on existing facilities. 2 U] � It shall be located within, or attached to, a sinale-familv dwellin The employee housing unit contains a full kitchen with a washer and dryer and full bathroom facilities. There is no internal . connection to the primary unit. Only two units are proposed `on this site; the primary unit and the Type 11 Employee Housing Unit. N • M The employee housing unit is approximately 570 square feet in size. The applicant proposes to use both 25's available for the property. The use of the second 250 can be approved by the Design Review Board (DR B) only if it is used in conjunction with the construction of a Type 11 Employee Housing Unit. Planning and Environmental Commission (PEG) approval of a conditional use permit is also required for the Type II Employee Housing Unit. f. It shall have no more than two bedrooms. The proposed employee housing unit is an efficiency type of apartment where the bedroom is located in the living room. g. No more than ILo () adults and one 1 } child net elder than sixteen 1) years of age shall reside in a one (1) bedroom Tyke 11 EHU. No more than two {2) adults and two {) children not older than sixteen (16) years of age shall reside in a two--L2 bedroom T e 11 EHU, Tenants are unknown at this time. The applicant must comply with this requirement. h. Each Type 11 EHU shall bo rewired to have no less than one {1) parking space for each bedroom located therein. However, if one (1�eroom Tyne II EHU exceeds six hundred {600) square feet it shall have o {2) parking s aces. All arin q spaces rewired y this Code shall e locate on the carne lot or site as the EHU. If no dwelling exists u on the proertwic is ro deed for a Type II EHU at the tune a uildin errnit is issued or if an existing wellin is to e demolished and replaced y a new dwelling not less than one 11 of the parking_ spaces re aired by this paragraph shall be enclosed. A 300 square feet RP credit shall e allowed for the construction of one enclosed parking space for the Type I1 EHU. The applicant is proposing to provide one enclosed parking space for this unit. The full parking requirement based on the square footage of the employee housing unit is two spaces. The applicant has provided the full two spaces. However, as staff pointed out earlier, the auto courtyard, which technically provides for two unenclosed spaces, is tightly configured and does not allow for easy maneuvering of vehicles in and out of the garages and the driveway. Staff feels that the automobile circulation pattern on -site needs to be improved for the parking situation to work adequately. 5 IH M SAM I w »2242 conditional usg_p«rmit: 1 M ©t the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the 2»«2222u e permit section of the zoning code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. 2. That ?2 +y: #2«)««» »2£ the use and the conditions under which h would b:««w«2#? intained would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. LORM t 6wathmey Pratf Schultz W-11, 0 0 E-- WEST ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION Prafi U- z w W U) w U) 0 > M-j < 0 U) a > Si Z LU u, z 0 0-0 - -- - - -------- Cr lam A ffiz PLg(J- LEER LEVEL CID% PLAN- UPPER LEVEL -kO—omf—'N'51 I k-'Y TO ICICM 19 IL cn LU Q M LU W > < > LL 0> z < z �o' z (D 0— 0 7 �— 0 L-------- j IK El