Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-0108 PECTHIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail Will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail on January 8,1996, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a Minor SDD Amendment to allow for changes to the development plan located at Millrace Phase 3,1335 Westhaven Drive/Development Area A of the Glen Lyon SDD (SDD No. 4). Applicant: Steve Riden representing Gregory Walton Planner: Jim Curnutte A request for a Major SDD Amendment to allow for a 485 square foot addition to an existing condominium in the Gateway Building located at 12 Vail Road, Unit 5/Vail Gateway Plaza Building. Applicant: Steve Riden representing Vail Apartments Inc. Planner:. Randy Stouder A request for a building height variance to allow for a residence currently under construction to exceed the height limit located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD #4). Applicant: Bill Anderson representing Mr. and Mrs. Charles Hovey Planner: Lauren Waterton A request for a wall height variance and driveway grade variance for the Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicant: Eric Johnson for Gary Koenig Planner: George Ruther A change to the TOV survey policy to require an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) prior to a foundation inspection when a project is within three feet of a setback line, has a building height within six inches of the maximum allowable, has a driveway that is greater than 10% or for all projects including three or more separate structures. Planner: Lauren Waterton **Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information.*" Community Development Department Published December 20, 1995 in the Vail Trail. f leveryone\pec\nolices\010895.vopd PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 8, 1996 AGENDA Project Orientation / Lunch • Discussion of PEC packet distribution/pick-up - Mike • PEG Consent Agenda Site Visits 1. Gateway - 12 Vail Road 2. Hovey - 1339 Westhaven Circle 3. Koenig - 795 Potato Patch Drive Driver: Randy 12:00 pm Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a Major SDD Amendment to allow for a 485 square foot addition to an existing condominium in the Gateway Building located at 12 Vail Road, Unit 5/Vail Gateway Plaza Building. Applicant: Steve Riden representing Vail Apartments Inc. Planner: Randy Stouder 2. A request for a building height variance to allow for a residence currently under construction to exceed the height limit located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD #4). Applicant: Bill Anderson representing Mr. and Mrs. Charles Hovey Planner: Randy Stouder 3. A request for wall height variances and a driveway grade variance for the Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicant: Eric Johnson for Gary Koenig Planner: George Ruther 4. A change to the TOV survey policy to require an improvement Location Certificate (1LC) prior to a foundation inspection when a project is within three feet of a setback line, has a building height within six inches of the maximum allowable, has a driveway that is greater than 10% or for all projects including three or more separate structures. Planner: Lauren Waterton r f r? J 5. A request for a Minor SDD, Amendment to allow for changes to the development plan located at Millrace Phase 3,1335 Westhaven Drive/Development Area A of the Glen Lyon SDD (SDD No. 4). Applicant: Steve Riden representing Gregory Walton Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 22,1996 6. Information Update - Susan 7. Approval of December 11, 1995 PEC minutes. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 8, 1996 FINAL AGENDA Proiect Orientation / Lunch 12:00 pm • Discussion of PEC packet distribution/pick-up - Mike • PEC Consent Agenda Site Visits 1. Gateway - 12 Vail Road 2. Hovey - 1339 Westhaven Circle 3. Koenig - 795 Potato Patch Drive Driver: Randy Public Hearina 2:00 p.m. A request for a Major SDD Amendment to allow for a 485 square foot addition to an existing condominium in the Gateway Building located at 12 Vail Road, Unit 5/Vail Gateway Plaza Building. Applicant: Steve Riden representing Vail Apartments Inc. Planner: Randy Stouder MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 4-0 TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 22, 1996 2. A request for a building height variance to allow for a residence currently under construction to exceed the height limit located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD #4). Applicant: Bill Anderson representing Mr. and Mrs. Charles Hovey Planner: Randy Stouder MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 4-0 DENIED 3. A request for wall height variances and a driveway grade variance for the Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicant: Eric Johnson for Gary Koenig Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Greg Amsden SECOND: Kevin Deighan VOTE: APPROVED - a) Wall height variance w/condition that a 36 linear foot guardrail (not steel) be used for safety, ie. boulders/landscaping, by a vote of 4-0 DENIED - b) Driveway grade variance by a vote of 4-0. 4. A change to the TOV survey policy to require an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) prior to a foundation inspection when a project is within three feet of a setback line, has a building height within six inches of the maximum allowable, has a driveway that is greater than 10% or for all projects including three or more separate structures. Planner: Lauren Waterton MOTION: Henry Pratt SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 4-0 TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 22, 1996 5. A request for a Minor SDD Amendment to allow for changes to the development plan located at Millrace Phase 3, 1335 Westhaven Drive/Development Area A of the Glen Lyon SDD (SDD No. 4). Applicant: Steve Riden representing Gregory Walton Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 22, 1996 6. Information Update - Susan Mike Mollica reported no update. 7. Approval of December 11, 1995 PEC minutes. MOTION: Kevin Deighan SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 4-0 TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 22, 1996 Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. '.4-40 t PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 22, 1996 FINAL AGENDA Project Orientation / Lunch 11:30 pm Discussion of appeals process - Dominic Lodges at Timber Creek / phasing change request - Randy Site Visits 12:30 pm 1. Golfcourse Townhome #48 - 1568 Golf Terrace 2. Drisco - 325 Forest Road 3. Dauphinais - 1875 West Gore Creek Drive 4. Camelot Townhomes Unit 4 - 2801 Basingdale Driver: George Public Hearing 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, and a density variance, to allow for an expansion to an existing unit located at 1568 Golf Terrace/Unit #48, Golfcourse Townhomes, Sunburst 3rd Filing. Applicant: Bob Trotta Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Jeff Bowen SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED 2. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to an existing unit located at 2801 Basingdale (Camelot Townhomes - Unit 4)/Lot 2, Block 8, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Jamie Turner Planner: Dominic Mauriello MOTION: Jeff Bowen SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 3-2 (Deighan, Amsden opposed) APPROVED WITHOUT CONDITIONS 3. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to be used in the construction of a Type I EHU in a new Primary/Secondary residence located at 1875 West Gore Creek Drive/Lot 24, Vail Village West 2nd Filing. Applicant: Pat Dauphinais Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Jeff Bowen SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED 4. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to an existing duplex unit located at 2850 Aspen Lane/Lot 17, Resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village 11 th Filing. Applicant: Frank Wimer Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Jeff Bowen SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED 5. A request for a worksession to discuss a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to an existing unit and a front yard variance to allow for a garage to be located in a front setback in association with the construction of a new Primary residence located at 325 Forest Road/Lot 18, Block 7, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Steve Riden representing Tim Drisco Planner: Jim Curnutte NO VOTE - worksession 6. A change to the TOV survey policy to require an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) prior to a foundation inspection when a project is within three feet of a setback line, has a building height within six inches of the maximum allowable, has a driveway that is greater than 10% or for all projects including three or more separate structures. Planner: Lauren Waterton • MOTION: Jeff Bowen SECOND: Greg Amsden VOTE: 5-0 APPROVED 7. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to an existing single family residence located at 2299 Chamonix Lane/Lot 7, Block A, Vail Das Schone Filing #1. Applicant: Frank D. D'Alessio Planner: George Ruther MOTION: Jeff Bowen . SECOND: Kevin Deighan VOTE: 5-0 TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 12,1996 8. A request for a residential addition, utilizing the 250 Ordinance, to allow for an expansion to the secondary residence located at 275 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 40, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Applicant: Steve Berkowitz Planner: Randy Stouder MOTION: Jeff Bowen SECOND: Kevin Deighan VOTE: 5-0 TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 12, 1996 0 t 9. • A request for a Minor SDD Amendment to allow for changes to the development plan located at Millrace Phase 3, 1335 Westhaven Drive/Development Area A of the Glen Lyon SDD (SDD No. 4). Applicant: Steve Riden representing Gregory Walton Planner: Jim Curnutte MOTION: Jeff Bowen SECOND: Kevin Deighan VOTE: 5-0 TABLED INDEFINITELY 10. A request for a Major SDD Amendment to allow for a 485 square foot addition to an existing condominium in the Gateway Building located at 12 Vail Road, Unit 5/Vail Gateway Plaza Building. Applicant: Steve Riden representing Vail Apartments Inc. Planner: Randy Stouder MOTION: Jeff Bowen SECOND: Kevin Deighan VOTE: 5-0 TABLED INDEFINITELY 11. Information Update - Susan • PEC terms and appointments 12. December 11, 1995 minutes MOTION: Jeff Bowen APPROVED January 8, 1996 PEC minutes. MOTION: Greg Amsden APPROVED WITH CHANGES SECOND: Kevin Deighan VOTE: 5-0 SECOND: Henry Pratt VOTE: 5-0 Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479-2114 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 8, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a wall height variance and driveway grade variance for the Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicant: Eric Johnson for Gary Koenig Planner: George Ruther r 1, U 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Eric Johnson, representing the property owner, is requesting a wall height variance and a driveway grade variance for a new Primary/Secondary residence under construction on Lot 26, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. A Building Permit for the Primary/Secondary residence was issued on April 21, 1995, and construction on the project has proceeded since that date. On October 17, 1995, the applicant submitted an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) for staff review and approval. Staff requires a review and approval of an ILC to insure that the improvements under construction comply with the relevant development standards. When staff reviewed the ILC for Lot 26, it was determined that the retaining walls on the south side of the driveway, and those on the north side of the driveway, in the front setback exceeded the 3-foot height limitation pursuant to Section 18.58.020 of the Municipal Code. The heated driveway was also be over the 12% grade maximum. Section 18.58.020 of the Municipal Code permits retaining walls up to 3 feet in height in the from setback, and Section 17.28.030 allows driveway grades up to 12% if heated and approved by the Town Engineer. Since the applicant is proposing retaining walls up to 6 feet in height in the front setback, and a heated driveway with a finish grade of 14.1%, a variance approval from the Planning and Environmental Commission is required. II. BACKGROUND According to the applicant, the need for the wall height variance and driveway grade variance requests are the result of minor construction defects. • On April 6, 1995, the Town of Vail Public Works Department reviewed and approved the proposed heated driveway grade at 12%. The Public Works Department's review and approval was based upon a site plan and topographic survey submitted to the Town of Vail. Additionally, the Fire Department approved the 12% driveway grade once the applicant revised the site plan to allow for a wider driveway access onto the property. n • On November 14, 1995, an inspection of the finished driveway grade was completed by the Town Engineers.. The inspection concluded that the finish driveway grade exceeded the allowed maximum grade of 12% pursuant to Section 17.28.030 of the Municipal Code. The finished driveway grade was determined to be up to 14.1% over a 20 foot long • section of the driveway. • On December 11, 1995, a worksession was held with the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss the proposed variances (See Attachment 1). At that meeting, the applicant presented a proposal to construct another three-foot tall boulder retaining wall along Potato Patch Drive. The purpose of the additional retaining wall was to facilitate the reconstruction of a two-foot wide gravel shoulder along the street. Upon detailed review of the site, it has been determined by the contractor's Consulting Engineer and the Town of Vail Public Works Department, that the pre-existing gravel shoulder cannot be restored and still maintain a safe slope adjacent to the street. Therefore, Public Works is now requiring that the contractor install 36 linear feet of steel guardrail, including flared-end sections, along Potato Patch Drive, should the wall height variance request be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The purpose of the guardrail is to protect the general public and the property owner from vehicles sliding off of Potato Patch and down into the driveway and house (See Attachment 2 ). The driveway grade variance was also discussed at the Planning and Environmental Commission worksession. The driveway as currently constructed, exceeds the 12% maximum allowed by the Municipal Code. The applicant has requested a variance to allow the existing driveway to remain as constructed. According to the "as-built" survey submitted by the applicant, the driveway exceeds the 12% maximum over a 20' section of the driveway. The maximum grade on the existing driveway is 14.1 %. According to the applicant, the excess driveway grade is due to minor defects in the construction process. It has been suggested by the Planning and Environmental Commission that the applicant research the possibility of "capping" the driveway to resolve the grade issue. The applicant has met with a Consulting Engineer to discuss the possibility of "capping" the driveway. The applicant has indicated that according to the Consulting Engineer, the long term longevity of the "capping" process, including the use of special concrete additives and epoxy, is'questionable. The concern of the Consulting Engineer revolves around the extremely thin layer of concrete that will be added to the driveway. The applicant is continuing to research the "capping" process. At the December 11th worksession, staff had identified several issues which we wanted to discuss further with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant. These issues included the redesign of the retaining wall along the south side of the driveway, and the need to redesign and regrade the landscaping in response to the change to the retaining wall system. The applicant has submitted a set of plan revisions illustrating the redesign of the retaining walls on the south side of the driveway, as well as a new landscape and grading plan (See Attachment 3). The applicant has indicated that the retaining wall south of the driveway will be modified by adding one more planting zone at the southernmost aspen to raise the grade of the top of the wall, thus shortening one of the areas where the wall is now just over four feet. The applicant has indicated a desire to leave the top course of stones along the driveway to act as a deterrent to vehicles sliding off of the driveway, and to prevent the erosion of the driveway subsurface. 2 40 Additionally, the applicant is proposing to amend the landscape plan by adding three additional Colorado Blue Spruce, twelve five-gallon Red Twig Dogwoods, and eight Blue Rug Junipers to the previously approved landscape plan. The additional landscaping is intended to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed six foot tall retaining walls. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Compliance with the Town of Vail Zonina Code. A. Pursuant to Section 18.62.060 (Criteria and Findings), before acting on a variance application the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the requested variance with respect to the variance Criteria and Findings. Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for a wall height variance and driveway grade variance. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; The relationship of the requested variances to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity of the Koenig Residence will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on existing or potential uses and structures. The retaining walls are located on the downhill side of Potato Patch Drive. The walls will not be visible from any other location than the applicant's property and the adjoining lots to the east and west. To mitigate the visual impact of the retaining walls, the applicant has proposed to add more landscaping on the property. The additional landscaping will be placed to take maximum benefit of its' screening ability. Similiar to the wall height variance, the driveway grade variance will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The request to exceed the maximum grade allowable by 2.1% will only affect the users of the driveway. The proposed driveway will remain heated to help ensure all-weather access. Staff would like to point out however that since the adoption of the 12% driveway grade standard in 1991, no driveway grade variances have ever been granted. The approval or denial of the requested variance does not create precedence for future driveway grade variance requests. 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 applicant has requested the minimum relief necessary from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the driveway grade and wall height regulations to achieve compatibility with the objectives of the 49 3 Municipal Code. The applicant has agreed and proposed to add and delete boulders in the retaining walls where possible to reduce the finished wall's height. According to the Consulting Engineer, the retaining walls constructed to the north of the driveway are the minimum necessary to support the earth behind. In some locations, the Engineer has indicated • that it may be desirable to increase the wall heights, however, this is not necessary. The applicant has submitted a set of Engineer's stamped plans to the Town of Vail as requested by the Planning and Environmental Commission. A letter from the Consulting Engineer has been attached (See Attachment 4) The applicant has neither proposed to increase, nor reduce the existing driveway grade. Instead, the applicant has requested that the driveway grade be permitted to remain at the grade constructed. At the present time, only 20 feet of the total driveway length exceeds the 12% maximum grade. Staff believes that the applicant is asking for the minimum amount of relief from the code necessary to achieve the desired objective. Staff, however, is concerned that granting the requested variances may result in the granting of special privilege. As discussed at the worksession meeting, the applicant had originally submitted, and the Town approved, a Building Permit set of drawings that illustrated the ability to construct the residence with a maximum 12 % driveway grade and three foot tall retaining walls in the front setback. If the applicant had come to the Planning and Environmental Commission requesting a wall height and driveway grade variance prior to the start of construction on the residence, it is quite likely that the variance would not have been approved because it appears no physical. hardship or practical difficulty existed on the property. It would appear now that a practical difficulty exists. The issue, however, is that the practical difficulty of removing and reconstructing the retaining walls and driveway was self-imposed by the applicant and the contractor and their representatives. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; Staff believes the wall height and driveway grade variances will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on the above described criteria. Staff would like to point out that from a public safety standpoint, the Town of Vail Fire Department has granted their approval to the driveway grade variance request ( See Attachment 5). 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. Staff has not identified any other factors or criteria applicable to the proposed variances. 4 0 B. The Planning 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. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the wall height and • driveway grade variances. Upon review of the Criteria and Findings listed in Section III of this memorandum, staff feels the applicant has failed to meet the findings necessary to recommend approval. Staff agrees that the requested variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious, to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the Koenig Residence. Staff is concerned, however, that the applicant has not addressed finding 131 since. the granting of the requested variances may constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the wall height and driveway grade variances, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following condition: 1) That 36 lineal feet of steel guardrail and required flared-end sections be installed along Potato Patch Drive in a location approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department. PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 11, 1995 draft minutes 6. A request for a worksession for a wall height variance and driveway grade for the Koenig • residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicant: Eric Johnson for Gary Koenig Planner: George Ruther George gave an overview of the worksession to discuss the wall height variance and the driveway grade. Two walls are now over the 3' height limitation. Public Works would like to have a 2' wide shoulder along Potato Patch: Staff would like the contractor to explain where the discrepancy happened between the approved set of plans and what got constructed. Public Works said the driveway is over 12%. Mike McGee (Fire Department) indicated that the building may need to be sprinklered in order for the grade to be approved. The driveway is heated, but there is no requirement from the Town to turn on the heat and also no enforcement. The current owners have provided a disclaimer releasing the Town from any liability. Ray Coutash, owner of Beehive Construction and contractor for the Koenig residence stated'the intent was to try to preserve the native plantings. Upon excavation he moved the existing aspens. If wasn't for the rock wall those trees would have had to be cut. They tried to remove as little as possible. They only brought in one truckload of rock because they were able to use existing stone which explains the difference in the rock size. The slope of the roadfill was over 40%. The change in elevation from the highpoint to the driveway was not supplied in the original survey. There is almost 13' in elevation change. Eric Johnson, the architect, gave a 23% guideline. The staging area that the Fire Department • wanted was an additional 4'. There is only one area in front of the east garage doors where they raised the wall. Durability and strength were the reasons the wall needed to go to that height. They didn't make a cut along the road due to the presence of utilities and mature trees and felt that that was the primary reason for the decision. On the south side the intent was to preserve the aspen trees. If they used a three foot stepping process they would have ended up with five walls. The rocks along the roadway created the higher wall. He discussed these changes with the neighbors and decided to mitigate with landscaping to make the wall appear less high. The neighbors were ok with the look and liked the rock walls. Terri Martinez thought a guard rail should be put in. Ray Coutash said that would have created more problems. Their engineer is writing a letter to keep the earth the way it is and not put any more rock walls there. Ray raised the north side 9" to bring the driveway up, and came up 34, short of 12% grade. Thursday evening he had a 12% grade. Because he never got a response from Terri Martinez the inspection never came together. He had difficulty with the pour and called for two inspections. Inspections to check rough grades never materialized. He made the decision to go ahead with the driveway. It was a great surprise when it didn't make grade. Portions of the center of the driveway do make grade and he feels that should be the criteria. George Ruther introduced Terri Martinez as the project engineer. Henry Pratt doesn't see the driveway grade as a big deal. He is for adding a second wall along the street. He encouraged the applicant to do double or triple walls without impacting trees. ATTAC]Diw4 t #1 0 Dalton Williams said the wall height is to keep the neighborhood from looking like a bunch of walls. Dalton is not concerned about the wall except for safety reasons. He thinks a guardrail would make it safer. The Town goes bonkers over driveways. The Town gave an extra 2% • grade allowance just so we would never have to grant another variance. You can't add 3"4' of concrete without sloughing off. Ray Coutash said he is low in the driveway relative to the slope of the driveway. George Ruther said the bottom needs to come up to lesson the grade at the top. Dalton Williams said he is not in favor of granting a variance for the driveway. Jeff Bowen said whatever needs to be done to get the driveway to the correct grade needs to be done. He is concerned with the heating being so deep into the concrete. He would like to have an Engineer design the rock retaining walls and will not approve the request unless that is done. Greg Amsden agrees with Henry Pratt to go with the existing walls to save the landscaping. As for the driveway, he agrees with Dalton. When the extra 2% grade was allowed, it was supposed to give leeway. Greg has a tendency to be lenient with it. Kevin Deighan would like to see some type of solution between staff and the applicant. He has no problem with the retaining walls. He would like to see an Engineer's certificate saying the retaining walls will hold. Greg Moffet said the retaining wall problem is the result of procedure. There is a somewhat contradictory Zoning Code. Greg's concern is hearing about it after the fact and not before it was put it. He agrees with Henry to terrace as much as possible to save trees. He is also sensitive to the safety issues with the driveway. He agrees with the guardrail or rock wall on the south . side. He would like to see an attempt made to get the driveway within code. Jeff Bowen stated that one of the problems that exist on Potato Patch, and Garmisch as well, are that rock walls present a terrible safety issue. High retaining walls present a safety threat for children falling off. He wants an engineer to say the retaining walls will last a long time and at a height that a car or child will not fall off. He will let the driveway issue go. Dalton Williams said he will be ok with an Engineer's letter approving the retaining walls. Greg Moffet stated this is a worksession. Ray Coutash assured Jeff that the heat in the driveway does work very satisfactorily. It has melted a 3' snowdrift. George Ruther asked the PEC for direction. Terry Martinez stated that we do need a 2' shoulder and slope. A 2' rock wall would launch vehicles. Recovery on a 2' shoulder could happen, but there is no guarantee. Steep grades on driveways encourage people to park on the roads, rather than in the driveway, which presents a problem for snowplows. George Ruther began the summarization of the direction. Jeff Bowen said it is critical it be certified by an Engineer. Dalton Williams said the driveway needs to be redone. Greg Amsden asked what the Town's position was on replacing previous driveways. Dalton Williams assumed that if we required a heated driveway, we should require it to be turned on. George Ruther said it is impossible to police whether heated driveways are turned on. Dalton Williams said a condition should be that the heated driveway be operational at all times. George Ruther had preliminary conversations with the Fire Department. They feel the house needs to be retrosprinklered. Henry Pratt said one of the conditions of approval should be that the Fire Department may not be able to access the house. Eric Johnson (architect) said the owners have signed a waiver absolving the Town from any liability. Greg Moffet said he doesn't like waivers, just indemnifications. Eric Johnson said the owner would take on the full responsibility and mitigate whatever the Town wants. Snow plowing generates a huge amount of snow. A guardrail inhibits snowplowing. Henry Pratt mentioned that a snowblower can throw snow over any guard rails. 0 MEMORANDUM • TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Public Works Department DATE: January 2, 1996 SUBJECT: Konig driveway/ wall height variance 1. The architect is requesting a variance for a driveway grade which exceeds the maximum grade allowed by 2.1 %, as well as a wall height variance for walls exceeding the maximum height of 3' by 2'2". II. III. Upon review of Section 17.28.330 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Public Works Department recommends denial of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. No variances for driveway grade have been granted since 1991 when the Town began to enforce the ordinance. All driveways that have been built since then have been in conformance with the Town standard. B. The Town Engineer will allow the contractor to exceed the maximum allowable grade of 12% to account for inadequate surveys, etc. The contractor can exceed the maximum grade by 10%, or go to an absolute maximum of 13.2%, before we would ask the contractor to submit a request for a variance. In this case, the grade exceeds the absolute maximum allowable at 14.1 %. To allow the contractor to use a driveway at 14.1 % would definitely be a grant of special privilege. C. Allowing the driveway to remain at 14. I % will potentially cause access problems for the current owner as well as any future owners. Potential problems include bottoming out or scraping if they drive larger vehicles on the drive, as well as problems with emergency or delivery vehicle access, particularilly if the owner chooses not to turn on the heating system. D. The wall height variance as proposed is acceptable, but the contractor will be required to install 36 linear feet of guardrail, including flared end sections on both ends. The guardrail should be installed to protect the general public from sliding off of Potato Patch Drive, down into the Kong driveway/home. The contractor was unable to restore the preexisting shoulder on Potato Patch Drive and still meet safe slope requirements for this section of the property frontage. ATTACHMENT 12 b • rlSOL _ r ..r - • i . 84.5 -S ' S•PR Jce i ? 2' 1 ZI K.ar. r1?N-t ' <•oK 'aK 1./0 1 1 I4 ` t I N vz; P'+^or?l ?+jpJt.1?BK ¢E(il'IIIIF?? af.?t. /j -\` ? _,` /^. ? ??7+;M. t E-7Rr+uaf6?.•!.l%CO y?a rT1• a rn. ?T. ?•rr. , . ' N a ?? I --------------- ' 1 (a) a bf+- vO' '. , } C3) ,1? oi+. /.fb l , LU ' :Yt1.l.o H 1 W ' cJCSiI•LT ' ---------------- ---------- ? N ,n W TRwa+ o•,r•'u fi+ / ? ' '`•' -??:?_t?t:+:z+sie:pP?ruc? ? (> ' 1 TW PL.1. vuTSF • ILA _ l _ / , ' ' µ •ro .6•YJ..r+' t ?. 1 a.r. Dr+? 1' ? •. • ? I)Z) rj bP4 at?U6 sJU V , 1 It ,u M ul. ~ J ytl t ' f.hai Zn / . 1 ,' N Y C1 ? ? ?; ?,r• °. ' ) • 5 6N? R6 D sou Y•1 s'C7 ; ? ' 111(((---VVV i E it / r lu?` 1a ? _. LI:. 11 / ' 1 O all Ak/ 17 JQ) 4-1 ??I?trf.4;s- •• ? %GI I4Y W \ 4 O • . iy TsrL16N- ? , s pl?•u r rM,,le+lr+ Ki L » k• cr yr;; 6V MfW '?-` _ N WR 0•r-Np ?IV.IT bow?•a•ri.•-• l j P6FMIT ?i•?'q5• J,ylt\ ATTAM&&A 7 k•,•,z GO HGJIT R7R FuT.¢b 7 aov.rao"•d 1 ? :. / l.IH1T ?K yl,/OW HOJ{ ? yp?w. . t a - ' t Jerry C. Law, P_E. 335 Donegan Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 0 December 28, 1995 George Ruther, Town Planner Town of Vail Department of C....... anity Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 RZ: The Koenig Residence Wall Height Variance Dear Mr. Ruther: 4 1 have prepared the following summary paragraphs out of respect for your limited time to study the many different variance cases which you review. I respectfully request that the wail height variance be allowed based on the positive aspects of the existing walls versus the unsafe and sparsely landscaped 3' walls shown in Exhibits C-1,C-2,C-3,C-4. THE GOOD The existing walls (see Exhibits B-1,B-2,B-3,B-4) were built using sound construc- tion principles with well compacted soil held in place with Mirafi fabric covered with tightly interlocking boulders. The walls will provide a stable service life long after the landscaping has matured and established extensive root systems. TIC BAD • It is physically impossible to construct a 2' road shoulder, a 5' slope at 2:1, then step the rock walls 3' vertically within t1u space allowed at the Koenig residence. THE UGLY See Exhibits C-1,C-2,C-3,C-4. The series of 3' walls would be mostly rock exposed with very little landscaping in between and only a 2' shoulder with no 5' slope at 2:1 (unsafe). Respectfully submitted, C? d Jerry C. Law, P.E. A Rfitsr oME .A e, 25044 o- IONA4 EN Z.. . ATTACHMENT 14 • r s An TOWNOF OfLY 42 West Meadozm Drive Vail Fire Department Vail, Colorado 8T647 303-479-2250 January 4, 1996 George Ruther Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Koenig Request for Variance on Wall Height and Driveway Grade Dear George; The Vail Fire Department completed another plan review and conducted a site visit this morning at 795 Potato Patch. Based on the observations we made during the site visit and having again reevaluated the plans and conditions as they exist, we do not object to the granting ofthe variance provided the structure is provided with an approved and monitored fire alarm system. Please advise us as to the PEC's decision. • Sincerely, Michael McGee Fire Marshal ATTACM%rucL #5 P., TOTAL P.01 MEMORANDUM is TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 8, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a building height variance to allow for a residence, currently under construction, to exceed the height limitations of the Zoning Ordinance. The residence is located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD#4). Applicant: Bill Anderson, representing Mr. & Mrs. Hovey Planner: Randy Stouder • I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is in the process of constructing a residence on Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision. The Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) submitted by the applicant indicates that sections of three separate roof ridges were constructed at heights exceeding the 33-foot height restriction for structures constructed in the Primary/Secondary Zone District. The ridges in question are labeled A, B and C, starting at the lowest of the ridges and going up to the highest. See the attached site plan and elevation drawings. According to the interpolated existing grades provided by Intermountain Engineering (based on the original topographic survey), and the ridge height figures provided by Eagle Valley Surveying (ILC), ridges A and B were constructed 7.2 inches higher than the 33-foot height limitation and ridge C was constructed 8.4 inches higher than the 33-foot height limitation. The applicant is requesting a variance to retain the roof ridges at the existing, constructed heights. Thus, the applicant is requesting a maximum variance of 8.4 inches to the 33-foot height limitation. II. 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 height variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The requested variance will have little or no impact on adjacent properties and structures. The portions of roof ridges that exceed 33 feet are very short and the height exceedances are small. The worst case is ridge C, which is 8.4 inches over the 33-foot limitation for a length of less than 5 lineal feet. ?J 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 applicant's statement indicates that the height exceedances occurred as a result of dimensional changes that were made in the floor structure and roof structure. These two structural changes increased the thickness of the floors and the height of the roof structure. Compensating changes could have been made to the interior floor to ceiling heights that would have alleviated the height problem with negligible impact to the interior spaces. The floor to ceiling heights were not adjusted accordingly. Staff believes that approving the variance would be a grant of special privilege that could open the door to similar, after-the-fact requests. Staff believes it is important to strictly enforce the 33-foot height limitation in order to maintain the integrity of the height regulation. 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 this criteria. B. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the followina findinas before arantino 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. 2 0 Ill. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the PEC deny the requested variance. Staff believes that granting the • height variance would not be materially injurious to other properties in the vicinity or to the public health, safety and welfare. However, staff believes that the variance would be a grant of special privilege since there does not appear to be any unusual circumstances unique to the property, or the construction process, that would justify the request. Staff believes that the strict and literal interpretation of the height limitation is necessary to ensure that all residential construction in this zone district is subject to the same height restriction. If the PEC denies the requested variance, staff recommends that the height problem be remedied as follows: The applicant shall submit a re-designed roof plan to the Design Review Board no later than January 22nd. The roof plan shall propose a modified roof design that meets the 33-foot height limitation and is architecturally harmonious with the remainder of the structure. 2. An ILC shall be provided by the applicant, after the roof is re-framed, to confirm the height of the re-designed roof is at or below the 33-foot height limitation. 3 E 711(' ,r "b A?k `'?_ •- • IIVIMMZQ? J? S A PRATE aESOENCE aT c ? , !f: f!{ Lir nESnMtEh CRCLF ARCNTELT Y•. r.• f? { P "!1(/?(,. sr ? ti \ J } • - w. l k f All ?,• ,, i ?•' •• _. ::..? • ? :ter L Mc .Mt?9' .•r < ,? ' il. w '? t' , ' 0' ", f4 812Q 24: 22 _ 18 16. 1 N08-491&E 130.00' - D 1 ?r sS°?. (as meti tlfe Ulatd ~ i see gotW above s . p _TOW8127 t v OW 8119.5 r On-grade ) Patio caliper rk\. typ• + i 811 ?I 12 D. % t Q ' 8100 ? I - ?:-, 08 06 04, 02 8098. i a -r s? swraoe? elea. I-? i = ? io, /' ? i C B +3104' F, I $_ 260 CMP TO y81?12 ?Se l c, + 81ot3 `,- / i ' ?' i Electric Serve i i --? - 1---- sewer - ?i - r--1- a , 1 - -------- Stacked boulder retaining wall, tyi -Reese ! °'-° _V to pr( water , - - `? water - - 8100 - - - ?D m t? ?-Conc. stair • C?.y ,? ? ? 3 1'n grade -.Asphalt paved d I j D i Westhave i Circle G s P m I 02 G ?. \4.f `\ 1 '. Sodl - '?°? 1 ` j _ i P H 1 `? I. - ----- - - - 18" a min. culve per TOV spec. y! . `- 1 I +8103 - V, ; ! _ -- Concrete draim y per TOV spec. o 12 A8: 06-m ` ? i I I N 8110 ' Proposed cable TV con- 603 .. - duit outlet. Verity wlTCL %I-iiv ncarecf nhnna f Trt_. I^ t. 1 7 i I I I_ i n i trl (_ I 11 tytr` n - -? I w t!_._1L`1'i i?/ {' 1?I???.fj h;?? 'n '- ---------?•----- ------------ 1 u It it i .1 1 Il I' n ?"' _ 1 - '-- II ! I --- fi 1 t fjl:::v:?;'ri:4:?':;'i:}i'?'i'?:?i-r:{2:`'r:{?:•':?:Ji:i:.':i{j'i ?v: ,: 1 E 0 } D W _ 87.96.35.8 O 22 18 A ' 0.5• CONC. wwt O 15.2 t O O 26.0 0 16.0 Ll.I 8125.5 O/' t1? 147.1 1 n IV W N O N t 8132.4 ?o Q 35.0 81 5 STORY 1 2.0x8.0 8149.1 OVERHANG ?? 0, - , . MULTI-LEVEL O co WOOD FRAME HO USE 81471 O UNDER CONSTRUCTION) 15.4._.x, O 1 1339 WESTHAVEN ?- CIRCLE 4.0 16.7 z V N O 00 0.5 nj 8149.0 w O "- Cn v z8y50. ? V) 15.0 20.0 8146.9 x 8149.0 0 1 ).5 4.5 0.7' CONCRETE RETAINING WALL N N au 141.5 UTILITY & `° 15.0 DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOT 23 0.5175 ACRES N O N„ 15.0 V O V i LO 2 110 moo: 1 HOVEY RESIDENCE VARIANCE Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision 1339 Westhaven Circle Vail, Colorado i (" U4 s C4,,A The variance requested is a height variance as it relates to the thirty-three foot (33'-0") maximum building height for structures in a duplex zone district. The subject project is a single family residence at 1339 Westhaven Circle, Glen Lyon Subdivision, SDD No. 4, Area C, Glen Lyon Duplex Lots. The current Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) by Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc., Job No. 2242, dated 11-2995, indicates minimal encroachment in three roof areas: (Also see attachments.) r A. 7" to 0" for a lineal distance of 4'-0" at the third floor, north bedroom north wall dormer. (8147.1 per ILC vs. interpolated 8113.5 per original topographical survey by Intermountain Engineering, Ltd., Project No. 948565, dated 11-4-94.) B. 7" to 0" for a lineal distance of 3'-0" at the third floor hip ridge, north bedroom. (8149.1 ILC vs. iterpolated 8115.5.) C. 13" to 0" for a lineal distance of 5'-0" at the third floor highest roof ridge. (8150.6 ILC vs..interpolated 8116.5.) Design Review Phase ridge line elevations were "best estimate" vertical dimen- sions prior to structural engineering and construction phase detailing. The ridge elevations were related to an enlarged, interpolated topographical survey provided by Intermountain Engineering, Ltd. The third floor, north bedroom hip roof was incorporated into the design to bring the roof into compliance at'.DRB stage. The applicant acknowledges the ILC encroachment and has attempted to determine areas where the discrepancy occured. In addition to slight dimensional variances which may commonly occur during in-field construction, two areas of height in- crease have been determined: 1. Increase in depth of floor framing members/plywood subfloor to support radiant heating topping slab. (From 10" to 12 5/8".) This dimension applied to two floors results in a total increase of 5 1/4". 2. Increase in roof truss top chord vertical height per truss manufacturer's shop drawings. This occurred during the construction phase and was required to maintain typical fascia depth/detailing throughout the pro- ject. (From 6 1/16" assumed 2x6 to 9 13/16".) This results in an in- crease of 3 3/4". The above two areas result in a total increase of 9" to the height of the building. A • Page_l.of 2 .0 The project is located in a Debris Flow Hazard Zone and the owner requested IIG that appropriate mitigation measures be incorporated into the design. The design "tucks" the south facing, up-hill side of the residence and mitigation walls into the site to create as little site disturbance as possible and yet maintain the mitigation standards.of the consulting geologist and the views and natural light requests of the owner. Preserving the south portion of the site and saving as many trees as possible were requirements of the DRB at approval stages. Had potential minor dimensional increases been deemed to pose a problem, the lower level slab elevation could have been lowered a foot or so, thus lowering the total height of the structure as it rel4tes to original natural grade. However, this most likely would have resulted in higher exposed mitigation walls on the south side of the structure and/or increased regrading on the up- hill side with resultant loss of trees. It is the applicant's wish to request.a height variance in order to maintain the existing, DRB approved design integrity and detailing of the residence. We feel that maintaining the current aesthetics of the building out-weigh the minor encroachments. The encroachments were in no way intentional, nor do they benefit the owner or detract from neighboring properties. APPLICATION ITEMS TO BE ADDRESSED: 1. The subject project is a single family residence located in an area of large duplex residences. The structure already presents less of a visual impact than adjacent properties and the requested variance • would not have detrimental affects on any existing or potential uses and structures. (See attached photos.) 2. The granting of the variance would not constitute special priviledge, since similar residential issues and encroachments have previously been granted variances in.order to maintain the best interests of a particular project and adjacent areas. 3. and 4. The granting of the variance will have no affect on light and air, distribution of population, transportation, traffic facil- ities, utilities, public safety and Vail's Comprehensive Plan. Page 2 of 2 shuhm 4P D JAN 8 8 • PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 8, 1996 Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Greg Moffet Greg Amsden Kevin Deighan Henry Pratt • Public Hearina Jeff Bowen Dalton Williams The meeting was called to order by Greg Moffet at 2:05 p.m. Dalton Williams and Jeff Bowen were absent. Mike Mollica George Ruther Randy Stouder Lauren Waterton Judy Rodriguez 2:00 p.m. 1. A request for a Major SDD Amendment to allow for a 485 square foot addition to an existing condominium in the Gateway Building located at 12 Vail Road, Unit 5/Vail Gateway Plaza Building. Applicant: Steve Riden representing Vail Apartments Inc. Planner: Randy Stouder Henry Pratt moved to table item No. 1, item No. 4 and item No. 5 until January 22, 1996. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. 2. A request for a building height variance to allow for a residence currently under construction to exceed the height limit located at 1339 Westhaven Circle/Lot 23, Glen Lyon Subdivision (SDD #4). Applicant: Bill Anderson representing Mr. and Mrs. Charles Hovey Planner: Randy Stouder Randy Stouder gave an overview of the proposal. He stated that staff had reviewed the variance criteria carefully and found that justification for granting the variance was lacking. According to the applicant, depth was added to the floors and to the roof structure during the construction process without compensating reductions in the height of the structure. Staff felt that the structural changes could have been compensated for by reducing floor to ceiling heights. This was not done. Randy stated that the variance request should be denied because staff finds that approval would be a grant of special privilege. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 8, 1996 1 Bill Anderson from Beck and Associates referred to a situation in East Vail where a house was 3' over the height limit and was granted a height variance. He was on the PEC at the time. He stated that th surveyor made a mistake which resulted in the height increase. He felt that the mistake made on the Hovey residence was no different than the mistake made on the East Vail residence, both were honest mistakes. He stated that the Hovey's had nothing to gain from the mistake. Bill said that he had contacted the adjoining property owners. The adjacent owners did not have any problems with granting a variance. They did not feel impacted by the additional height. Greg Moffet asked for public comment. No one came forward. Henry Pratt said although the impact is negligible and the neighbors don't care, he feels handcuffed since the Findings are not met. Greg Amsden said for practical reasons that the variance should be granted, but based on Code, it would definitely be a grant of special privilege. He felt that he could not grant a variance based on a review of the criteria and findings. Kevin Deighan said he agreed with Greg Amsden's comments. Greg Moffet asked if an ILC was performed after the foundation was poured. He also asked if this mistake would have been caught by an ILC at that stage? Bill said no, that structural elements above the foundation had been changed and this caused the height increase. Dave Peel said they went from a 10" floor to 11-7/8". He also explained how the roof structure was modified slightly, resulting in additional height. Greg Moffet said that the height problem was a self imposed hardship and the Board could not grant a variance. Bill Anderson mentioned that for on-site construction mistakes, the Board has granted variances in the past. Randy Stouder said the East Vail variance was for the Musyl home. That variance was granted because of a surveyor error. The surveyor used an improper benchmark. Staff recommended denial even though the entire roof of the structure would have had to be taken off. The PEC did grant that variance. Henry Pratt asked if there had been any other height variances granted recently. Randy Stouder said that the Musyl variance was the only one he could recall in the two years he has been with the Town. Mike Mollica stated that each variance request has to stand on its own merits and should be judged individually. Mike Mollica also doesn't remember any other similar requests being granted. Bill Anderson stated that if this variance was granted that it would not set a precedent for more variance requests, at least not by him or his company. Beck and Associates has a long track history Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 8, 1996 2 for being on target with heights and setbacks. We screwed up and made a mistake. He does not want to tear up the roof and destroy the architect's design. He asked the Board to look at the request with some common sense. No one has been adversely effected and no one has gained anything from the small height increase. Greg Amsden made a motion for denial of the variance request. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously with a vote of 4-0. Mike Mollica added for the record that the applicant has 10 days to submit a written request for an appeal to Council. He also said that Council uses the same criteria and findings that the PEC uses. Bill Anderson stated that the Hoveys want to move in by March 1, 1996 and asked if he could get a TCO by posting a bond to guarantee that the height overage would be corrected. He did not feel that the work could be completed prior to March 1. Mike Mollica said he would be comfortable with bonding. 3. A request for wall height variances and a driveway grade variance for the Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicant: Eric Johnson for Gary Koenig Planner: George Ruther • George Ruther gave an overview and quickly went through the items the applicant changed since the December 11th meeting. Public Works suggested that a two-foot wide gravel shoulder be replaced with a guardrail since the shoulder could not maintain a safe slope to the street. Staff does not feel there would be any negative impacts if the variances were granted. Staff has the greatest concern with item 2 of the Criteria. It is the staff's opinion that the hardship is self imposed by the contractor. Staff is recommending denial because of a grant of special privilege. George then went over the conditions in the memorandum, should the PEC grant the request of the variances. Ray Coutash, owner of Beehive Construction and representing the property owners, the Koenig's and Dowie's requested the variance be granted based on the landscape changes to save the existing trees. One other hardship shows the surveyor made a mistake in the original survey and it wasn't discovered until after the fact. This is the first time he heard about the guardrail request. The utilities run where the guardrail is proposed. He would prefer plantings, rather than erecting a guardrail. Greg Moffet asked for public input. Henry Pratt said again practicality should rule rather than the letter of the law. A lack of a shoulder is a serious issue for the Town. The driveway can be remedied. Providing a variance wouldn't do anything for the walls. There has been an effort to save existing trees. Henry is not optimistic about the wall variance, however. Greg Amsden said preservation of trees is justification for granting the variance. There are site constraints for the wall height variance. The driveway is a grant of special privilege. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 8, 1996 3 Kevin Deighan would support the wall height variance because of the preservation of trees. But he is cannot support the driveway variance. George Ruther explained the driveway grade problem occurs in the middle section of the driveway. To resolve the problem they need to cap a portion of the driveway. A solution would be to reconstruct the middle section. George said if the driveway is reinstalled, the driveway issue could be remedied. Greg Amsden asked if a portion of the driveway could be removed. Ray Coutash said no because of the piping for the heating. The entire driveway would need to be removed and reconstructed. Greg Moffet said the building and site designs are built right up to the legal limit. We are being asked to grant forgiveness, rather than permission. Pouring concrete is not an exact science. He feels the driveway variance would be a grant of special privilege. Greg Moffet quoted Section 18.54.050 (b) from the Design Guidelines and is inclined to grant the wall height variance based on that. George Ruther explained how and why the third wall was added. It was at the recommendation of the consulting engineer not to install another wall but to leave the walls as built. Public Works is recommending a guardrail instead of the shoulder for safety reasons. Greg Moffet said the client would stand to suffer, if the guardrail were not installed. Greg Amsden asked if the original plans required a shoulder or guardrail. • George Ruther said no. Ray Coutash said one of the things he did was to create a shoulder when there was none to begin with. In the previous 10 years a car could just fall off into the aspen groves. Ray said he eased the grade and added a shoulder. This satisfied the requirement for a 2:1 slope. Jerry Law, the Engineer for the job, stated that the wall is 52" at the highest point. He said Ray went above and beyond to fix some of the things that weren't required. He is not big on guardrails because of aesthetics and feels a rock wall would look better. Jerry Law said he came on the job December 18th and doesn't understand the utility problem. Greg Amsden said he would like to break this item into two portions. He made a motion that the wall height variance be approved based on the portion of the code read by Greg Moffet. Kevin Deighan seconded the motion. The wall height variance motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Greg Amsden amended the previous motion with the removal of the guardrail condition. He said aesthetically it was not the best solution and suggested the applicant work with staff for a more natural solution. He noted that the location of utilities pose additional problems with adding a guardrail. Planning and Environmental Commission • Minutes January 8, 1996 4 J-. Greg Moffet said some barrier is needed and advised the applicant to work with staff to arrive at a solution. Henry Pratt asked Greg Moffet to clarify the motion; is the barrier optional or mandatory? Greg Amsden asked George Ruther what Public Works wanted. George Ruther said Public Works wanted to protect the general public and the applicant. Mike Mollica asked if Public Works is adamant regarding what kind of barrier. He said Public Works has a problem with boulders as barriers since they can cause more damage. Kevin Deighan said it is not fair for the applicant to pay for a guardrail. Mike Mollica said we can move forward with this, but may have to come back before the PEC. Greg Moffet mentioned that outstanding improvements could all be bonded for. Kevin Deighan seconded the amended motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Greg Amsden made a motion that the driveway grade variance be denied pursuant to Finding B1, a grant of special privilege. He had a question regarding what the Fire Department required. Kevin Deighan seconded the motion. Ray Coutash said the fire system is in place. Mike McGee is in favor of supporting a driveway grade variance. Capping affects the useful life of the driveway. He has not found a product that anyone can guarantee thus causing it to be prohibitive for the contractor to guarantee. Henry Pratt reminded the Board that it is not fair to put conditions on denials. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. 4. A change to the TOV survey policy to require an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) prior to a foundation inspection when a project is within three feet of a setback line, has a building height within six inches of the maximum allowable, has a driveway that is greater than 10% or for all projects including three or more separate structures. Planner: Lauren Waterton TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 22, 1996 Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes January 8, 1996 5 5. A request for a Minor SDD Amendment to allow for changes to the development plan located a, Millrace Phase 3,1335 Westhaven Drive/Development Area A of the Glen Lyon SDD (SDD No. 4). Applicant: Steve Riden representing Gregory Walton Planner: Jim Curnutte- TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 22, 1996 6. Information Update Mike Mollica had no information updates. 7. Approval of December 11, 1995 PEC minutes. Kevin Deighan made a motion to table the minutes until next meeting, since all the members were not present. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. Kevin Deighan made motion to adjourn the meeting. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 3:15pm. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 11, 1995 6