Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-0911 PEC
THIS ITEM MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Plannin and Environmental Commission of the Town Vail if ho g w l id a public heanng m accordance with Section 12-3-6 of the Municipal Code of the ~,~ Town of Vail vn September 1 fr 2000, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In consideration of: A request for a major subdivision and variance from Section 12-68-5 {Minimum Lot Frontage) of the Town Code, to allow for the subdivision of Lot S into Lots 8A & 8B, located at 1467 aspen Grove Lane/Lat 8, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4. Applicant: Robert Selby, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6 of the Town Code, to allow for the addition of a garage and GRl~A in the side setback, located at 2992 A Bellflower DriveJLot 10, Block 6, Vail intermountain. Applicant: J.P, O'Brien Planner: Ann ISjerulf A request for a rezoning (from Outdoor Recreation to General Use), a minor subdivision and a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a seasonal ice hockey rink at the Vaii Golf Course, located at 1776 Vail Valley Drive 1 Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association, Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson A request for an amendment to the Ford Park Master Plan and a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a seasonal ice hockey rink at the Ford Park Softball Fields, located at 530 South Frontage Road East /Ford Park Subdivision. Applicant: Vail Junior Hockey Association, Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479- 2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published August 25, 2000 in the Vail Trail. ;~ TOPVN Ulr 4~A[G xn • r • ~_ J LL u.. ~~'~~~ U =o.E ro~+m W.~ C Z C~oc~m~ ~~ Um~ m-'-~ v~ (~ w ma~- w9Q~ • acR~ w ~ ~ c ~ ii F.~ OcmN`oc ~ ~, _ a w c ~ ® ~ U O O u.a ~ O ~ ~ -c ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 L b w Q C C ~' O~ C~ ~ ~~ 4 w~~~Q~~~~oc ~~-I ~ ~ Cl x C ~ C3 C `"~ ~ ~ N O ~ 3 p ~ w 0 ~} .C Q7 '' ~ C C p ~ .~ ~ ~ O} C > } :~ CU ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~w, ~~ ~ _ s ~ t a ~, !Il c Q > ~ ~ ~ O O O ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ Q a ~ ~ ~ ~ .c o a ~ ~ r 3 a~ U a~ c~ 3~ ,~ ~ a c v ~ ~ `o ~ ~ © ~ s ~ ~ ~, m o ~ ~- ' o ~ ~ -c o ~ ~ ~ .~~- c ~ cz ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ .~- ~ to Q) ~ ~ L U ~. ~- ~ ,~ _ O IE p " U ~- ~ ..- N ~ ~ Q C ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c o o } • C c~ w ~ U ~ ~ © > ~ ~ ~ a ~ a~i d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c C ~, ~ ~ U ~ ~ o = Z3 ~L ~ ~ U d Q •~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ p Q ~ ~ L .,~ ~ ~~ ~N t~ r c ~° ~~ O n'. r" a PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION PROJECT ORfE111TATION ! -Community Development Dept. MEMBERS PRESI=NT Site Visits 1. O'Brien residence -- 2992 A Bellflower Drive 2. Selby residence - 1467 Aspen Grove Lane 3. Hockey rink - 1778 Vail Valley Drive Driver: George ~3 A10TE: if the PSG hearing extends until 6:DO p.m., the board may break for dinner from 6:0.6:30 p.m. 1:00 pm Public Hearinq -Town Council Chambers 2:00 p.m_ 1. A worksession for a major subdivision and variance from Section 12-68-~ (Minimum Lot Frontage} of the Town Code, to allow for the subdivision of Lot 8 into Lots $A & 8B, located at 1467 Aspen Grove LanelLot 8, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4. Applicant: Robert Selby, represented by Braun Associates, Inc_ Planner: Allison C7chs 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-GD-6 of the Town Code, tv allow for the addition of a garage and GRFA in the side setback, located at 2992 A Bellflower DrivelLot 10, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: J.P. O'Brien Planner: Ann I{jeruif 3. A request. far a rezoning (from Outdoor Recreati.nn to General Use}, a minor subdivision and a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a seasonal ice hockey rink at the Vail Golf Course, located at 1778 Vail Valley Drive 1 Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3. Applicant: Vail Junior Hoekey Association, Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson 4. A request for a final review for a minor subdivision to allow for the reconfiguration and replotting of two existing fo#s and the rezoning of Lot 16, Bighorn 2n° Addition, from Agricul#ural ~ Open Space to Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential, and the rezoning of Tract A to Natural Area Preservation District, located at 388fil3896 Lupine DrivelLvts 1 S & 1fi, Bighorn 2"d Addition. Applicant: Wilson Family Trus#, represented by Jay Tschirner, First Land Development, LLG Planner: George Ru#her TABLED UNTiL SEPTEMBER 25, 2080 ,,, ~1 it 1 TOWN O~ HAIL ~ PUBLIC MEETING SCI~EQULE Monday, September 11, 20QQ AG9 vfyFo PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS ABSENT •~ 5. Information Update ~~'~ The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's office located at the Town of Vaii Community "' Development Department, 75 Sou#h Frontage Road. Please call 479-2'f 38 far information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour not cation. Please call 47g-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Gammunity Development Department Published September $, 200D in the Vail Trail • 7 PLANNING AN^ ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING RESULTS Monday, September 11, 2t)OQ PRO.lECT ORIENTATION 1-Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:U(? pm MEMBERS PRES1=fJT MEMBI=RS ABSENT Galen Aasland Chas Bernhardt John Schafield Diane Golden Brian Doyon Doug Cahill Tom Weber Site Visits : ~:~{~ pm 1. O'Brien residence - 2992 A Bellflower Drive 2. Selby residence - 1467 Aspen Grove Lane 3. Hockey rink - 1778 Vail Valley Drive Driver: George ~~ NOTE.: if the PEC hearing extends until 8:00 p.m., the board may break for dinner from 8:00 - 8:30 p. m. Public Hearing -Town Council Chambers 2:Q0 p.m. 1. A worksession for a major subdivision and variance from Sec#ion 12-68-5 (Minimum Lot Frontage) of the Town Cade, to allow for the subdivision of Lot $ into Lots 8A & 8B, located at 1467 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 8, flack 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4. Applicant: Robert Selby, represented by Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Allison Ochs WORKSESSION - NO VOTE 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D-6 of the Town Code, to allow for the addition of a garage and GRFA in the side setback, located at 2992 A Bellflower Drive/Lot 1Q, Block 6, Vail intermountain. Applicant: J.P. Q'Brien Planner: Ann Kjerulf MUTION: John Schofield SECOND: Brian Doyon VOTE: 6-1 (Cahill opposed) APPROVEI] WITH 1 C©NDITION: 1. That the applicant permits the staff to walk through his residence to determine whether or not it constitutes one legs{ dwelling unit. ~ ~o~~~v o~ Y.4IL ~~ 3. A request for a rezoning (from Qutdoor Recreation to General Use}, a minor subdivision and a condi#inal use permit, to allow for the construction of a seasonal ice hockey rink at the Vail Golf Course, located at 1778 Vail Vaiiey Drive /Lot 3, Sunburst Filing 3. Applicant: Vail Junior Hoc#cey Association, Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 25, 2400 4. A request for a final review for a minor subdivision to allow for the reconfiguration and replotting of two existing lots and the rezoning of Lot 1r;, Bighorn 2"d Addition: from Agricultural & Open Space to Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential, and the rezoning of Tract A to Natural Area Preservation District, located a# 388613896 Lupine DrivelLots 15 & 16, Bighorn 2"~ Addition. Applicant: Wilson Family Trust, represented by Jay Tschirner, First Land Development, LLC Planners George Ruttier TABLED UNTIL SEPTEMBER 25, 2t?QO 5. Information Update The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours in the project planner's offioe located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. Please call 479-2138 for information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notifica#ion. Please call 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department • MEMORANQUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Qevelopment Department DATE: September 11, 2000 SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision and variance from Section 12-6B-5 {Minimum Lot Frontage) of the Town Code, to allow for the subdivision of Lot 8 into Lots 8A & 8B, located at 1467 Aspen Grove Lane/Lot 8, Block 2. Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4. Applicant: Robert Selby, represented by Braun Associates, lnc. Planner: Allison Ochs DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST Lot 8, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4, is currently zoned Single Family Residential {SFR) and is approximately 3.296 acres. The applicant, Robert Selby; represented by Braun Associates, Inc.: is proposing to re-subdivide lot 8 into two lots, lot 8A and. 8B. According to the Town Code a major subdivision: means any subdivision involving more than four (4} lots, or a subdivision proposal without all lots having frontage on a public, approved street, or with a request to extend Municipal facilities in a significant manner, or a proposal which would negatively affect the natural environment as determined under Section f2- 12-2, "Applicability", or if the proposal would adversely affect the development of the remainder of the parcel or the adjacent property. Because Aspen Grove Lane is not a public street, this request is a major subdivision. As a major subdivision. it is subject to the review process and criteria as outlined in 13-3 of the Subdivision Regulations of the Town Code. Section U of this memo summarizes this process. In addition to the subdivision: the applicant is requesting a variance from Section 12-68- 5, of the Town Code to allow for a variance #rom the minimum frontage requirements. According to Section. 12-6B-5: Lot Area and Site Dimensions: the minimum lot or site area shall be twelve thousand five hundred (12,00) square feet of buildable area. Each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty feet (3d'}. Each site shall Le of a size and shape capable of enclasirrg a square area eighty feet (80) on each side within its boundaries. The applicant is requesting a variance for Lot $B from the 30' frontage requirements. Because Lot 8B, has no frontage on Aspen Grove Lane, access is proposed through an easement across Lot 8A. The criteria for a variance is outlined in Section VII of this memorandum. ..,•~.~, , y1 ii TOW,1" ~F Yet 1L ~` STAFI= RECt~MMENDATIQN As this is a worksession, staff will not be making a recommendation at this time. The preliminary plan will be presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission at the September 25, 2000, meeting and a recommendation will be provided at that time, Ill. V BACKGR©UND Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4 was originally subdivided in Eagle County in 1988 and rezoned from Resource to Residential Suburban Low Density. Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4 was then annexed into the Town of Vail in 1987, at which paint it was zoned Single Family Residential (SFR}. At the original subdivision far Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4, extensive studies were done in accordance with the subdivision regulations of Eagle County. While this is considered a major subdivision because Lot 8 lacks frontage on a public road, since this is a resubdivision of an existing platted lot, some of the submittal requirements have been waived. Please refer to the 9egai file on the original Lion's Ridge Subdivision for additional information. ZONING ANALYSIS Standard Current Lot $ L.ot 8A Lot 8B Lot Size: 14,3530.2 sq. ft. Lot lines will be revised to create lots at 60,265 GRFA: 16,853 sq. ft. s°. tt- Site Coverage: 21,529 sq. ft. (if slopes 3©%} 28,706 sq. ft. {if slopes<30%) By revising Lots SA and 8B to 60,265 sq. ft., the total GRFA for both lots will be 16,653 sq. ft. The revised lots will be presented at the September 25, 2004, meeting. REVIEW PROCESS FDR A MAJOR SLI~BDIVIStt)N Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, of the Tawn of Vail Municipal Code establishes the review process and criteria far a major subdivision proposed in the Town of Vail. Pursuant to Chapter 13-3 {Major Subdivision) of the Town Code, the first step in the review process is for the applicant to meet with a. Town Planner to discuss the preliminary plan. Staff lass met with the applicant on several occasions to discuss the proposal and address submittal requirements. Staff feels the applicant has successfully complied with the initial step in the review process. The Town of Vail is required to notify the following agencies that a major subdivision is proposed and that preliminary plans are available for review: a. Department of Public Works. b. Town Fire Department. c, Town Police Department, d. Public Service Company of Colorado. e. Holy Crass Electric Association. f. U.S. West 2 g. Gablevision company serving the area. h. {National Forest Service.. i. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. j. Vail Recreation District. k. Eagle County Ambulance District. I. Other interested agencies when applicable. All of the above agencies have been notified. No responses have been received. The next step in the review process shall be a forma{ consideration of the preliminary plan by the Town of Vail Planning and Enviranmental Commission. The applicant shall make a presentation. to the Planning and Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. The presentation and' public hearing shat{ be in accordance with Section ~ 2-3-~ of the Town Code. The applicant's appearance before the Planning and Environmental Commission scheduled far September 25, 2000, sha{l serve to meet the public hearing and presentation requirement. The burden of proof that the appkication is in compliance with the intent and purposes of the Zoning Code and other pertinent regulations shal{ {ie upon the applicant, In reviewing the preliminary plan, the Planning and Enviranmental Commission shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town pol[cies relating to: 1. Subdivision Control; 2. Densities proposed; 3, Regulations; 4. Ordinances, resolutions and other applicable documents; 5. Environmental lntegrity; 6. Compatibility with surrounding land uses; and 7. Effects upon the aesthetics of the Town and surrounding land uses. The Planning and Environmental Commission sha{I have twenty-one days from the date of the review of the preliminary plan to approve, disapprove or approve with conditions or modifications, the major subdivision request. Within ten days of making a decision on the request, the Staff shall forward the Planning and Environmenta{ Commission's decision to the Vail Town Gouncil. The Council may appeal the Planning and Environmen#ai Commission's action. The appeal must be placed within seventeen days of Planning and Environmental Commission's action. If the Council appea{s the Planning and Environmental Commission's action, the Counci{ shall hear substantially the same presentation by the applicant as was heard at the Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. The Counci{ shall have thirty days to affirm, reverse., or affirm with modifications the Planning and Enviranmental Commission decision. The appeal hearing shall be held during a regularly scheduled council meeting. The final step in the review process of a major subdivision request, after Planning and Environmental Commission preliminary plan review, is the review of the final plat. At any time within one year after the Planning and Environmental Commission has taken action an the preliminary plan. a final plat shall be submitted to the Town of Vai{ Community Development Department. The staff shall schedule a final review of the final plat. The final review shall occur at a regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission public hearing. The review criteria for a final plat are the same as those 3 used in reviewing the preliminary plan as contained in Section t3-3-~ of the Subdivision Regulations. VI. The Town of Vail has the ability to require certain irprovements when approving a major subdivision. The following improvements shall be required by the applicant unless otherwise waived by the zoning administrator, Planning and Environmental Commission, or Council: 1. Paved streets and parking lots; 2. Bicycle and pedestrian path linked with the town system. and within the subdivision itself; 3. Traffic control signs, signals or devices; 4. Street lights; 5. Landscaping; 6. Water lines and fire hydrants; 7. Sanitary sewer lines; 8. Storm drainage improvements and storm sewers; 9. Bridges and culverts; 10. Electric fines; 11. Telephone lines; t 2, Natural gas lines; t 3. Other improvements not specifically mentioned above but found neoessary by the Tawn Engineer due to the nature of the subdivision. MA.fOR SUSQIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA Section 13-3 of the Town of Vail Code provides the criteria by which a proposed major subdivision is to be reviewed. Section 13-3-4: Commission Review of Application; Crites states: The burden of prQOf shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in cQmplianee with the intent and purposes of this Chapter, the Zoning ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the Planning and Environmental Commission deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to the recamrnendations made by publr'c agencies, utility companies and other agencies consulted under subsection 13-3-3C above. The Planning and Environmental Commission steal! review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Tawn policies relating to subdr`vision control, densities proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and ether applicable documents, environmental integrity and compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other applicable documents, effects an the aesthetics of the Town. 1. Subdivision Control In accordance with the Subdivision Regulations, all appropriate agencies have been notified of the request. Adjacent properties have been notified. 2. Densities Prooosed Currently, Lot S is zoned Single Family Residential ~SFR}. Lots 8A and 8B are proposed to remain SFR. According to Section 12-6B-$, `°not more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on each site." The proposed subdivision of lot S 4 would allow for one single-family dwelling unit on each lot, for a total of 2 dwelling units. In addition, each unit could construct an Employee Housing Unit, in accordance with Section 12-13 of the Tawn Code EHUs are a conditional use in the Single-Family Residential Zone District. While EHUs do not count as density, they do have an effect on required access to the units (see below). The Land Use Plan designates this lot as Medium Density Residential. 3. Reaulations Z'onlncr Code The Purpose of the Single-Family Resiidentia[ Zone District (12-6B-1) is stated as follows: The Slagle-Family Residential District is intended to provide sites for low density single-famiiy residential uses, together with such public facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district. The Single-Family Residential District is intended to ensure adequate fight, air, privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single-family occupancy, and to maintain the desirable residential qualities of such sites by establishing appr©priate s/te development standards. Refer to Section IV of this memorandum for the zoning analysis. Develoiament Standards The Purpose of the Development Standards is stated as follows:. It is the purpose of these rules, regulations, and standards to ensure the genera! health, safety and welfare of the community. These rules, regulations; and standards are intended to ensure safe and efficient development within the Town of Vail for pedestrians, vehicular traffic, emergency response traffic, and the community at large. The Development Standards will help protect property values, ensure the aesthetic quality of the community and ensure adequate development of property within the Town of Vail. While mast of the t~evelapment Standards apply to the actual construction of new units, the subdivision must also conform to the standards imposed. Section 3: Residential Access, Driveway and Parking Standards specifies standards for Driveways and Feeder Roads. According to the Development Standards, a driveway must be a minimum of 12 ft. wide to serve up to 3 units. The requirement far 4 units is a driveway of a minimum of 2Q ft. Because the subdivision would allow for 2 units, plus 2 EHUs, staffi has required the applicant to indicate that a 2Q ft. wide driveway is possible on the plat. However, should the owners choose not to construct EHUs on bath lots, all that will be required to actually construct is a 12 fit. wide driveway. Staff has requested that the applicant provide plans indicating that the 20 ft. wide driveway is possible. In addition, the applicant has agreed to indicate a fire truck turnaround area for the September 25, 2Qf}0 meeting. The Fire Department will be requiring a fire hydrant. All other Development Standards have been reviewed by the Public Works Department. 4. Ordinances. resolutions and other aopiicable documents 5 In reviewing this proposal, staff relied upon the Town Code, the restrictions recorded on the plat, and the Vail Land Use Plan. The issues relating to the Town Code have been addressed previously. 5 The Vail Land Use Plan contains goals which staff considers to be applicable to the major subdivision request. The applicable goals include: 1.0 General Grr~wthlDevelopment 1.1 Vaii should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve bath the visitor and the permanent resident. ~ .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. 1.6 Development proposals an the hiNsides should be evaluated on a case by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some law 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. 1.7 New subdivisions should not be permitted in high geologic hazard areas. 1,12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing developed areas {infill areas). 5.0 I~esiidential 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. ~.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, asSlsted by limited incentives, provided by the Town Of Vail with appropriate restrictions. 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the marketplace demands for a full range of housing types. The Vail Land use Pian identifies this neighborhood as Medium Density Residential. Environmental I ntearity In a report dated July 17, 2000, Collins and Associates reviewed the hazards on Lot 8. That report has been attached for reference- To summarize, the proposed building envelopes are located within the Medium-Severity Rock#all Zone. The report indicates that "normal" mitigation wil! be required at the construction of units within the building envelopes. "Normal" mitigation includes raised and strengthened foundations, limited openings on the uphill side of structures, berms 6 or rock walls, landscape grading, structure orientation, etc. A preliminary drainage study completed by Peak civil Engineering has also been attached for reference. • • 6 7 Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses The surrounding residential lots are zoned Single-Family Residential. Tract A is zoned Natural Area Preservation. Staff has completed an analysis of all of the lots in Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4 for comparison to the proposed subdivisian for Lot 8. The analysis provides the following: Lot Block 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 Black 2 Lot Size (acres) Zoning Allowable GRFA fsa. ft.) .3E SFR 3868 .3B SFR 3868 .772 SFR 5663 ..509 SFR 4512 .499 5FR 4474 .727 5FR 5467 1 .587 SFR 4857 2 .474 SFR 4365 3 .413 SFR 4099 4 .397 SFR 4029 5 .472 SFR 4356 6 .47'9 SFR 43$7 7 _545 SFR 4674 8 3.295 SFR 16~'S3 current 8A ;'.38 SFR 8327 8B t .38 SFR 8327 9 .598 SFR 4905 10 .392 SFR 4009 11 1.543 SFR 9021 Average Lot Size for Block 1: .538 Average Lot size far Black 2; .59 The applicant has agreed to realign the lots sa as not to increase the combined allowable GRFA above what is currently allowed #or lot 8. Effects !Jean the Aesthetics of the Town and Surroundin^ Land Uses As with all new construction,. any application for development on the proposed lots will be reviewed by the Design Review Board. The proposed building envelopes are sited to minimize site disturbance and the ;arapased driveway will meet the minimum required width for the number of units actually constructed, VII. VARIAI~ICE CRITERIA CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR GRFA VARIANCE A. Consideration of Factors R~aardina the GRFA Variance: 7 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Because of the nature of the request, staff does not believe that the variance request will have any detrimental effects on other uses and structures in the vicinity. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility anti uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the otajeetives of this title without a grant of special privilege. The purpose for variances is stated as follows: 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 r~nnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dimensions of a site ar the location of existing structures thereon; from topographic yr 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 far granting a variance. The staff believes the applicant is requesting the minimum amount of relief from the minimum street frontage regulation necessary tv achieve the desired goal of subdividing the property. Staff believes the applicant has adequately met the intent of the minimum thirty-foot (30`) street frontage requirement through the dedication of the access easement proposed on the final ;plat. A similar variance was granted at Tall Pines. 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 associa#ed with this proposal on the above-listed criteria. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the fc~llowina 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. 8 3. That the variance is warranted far one or more of the following reasons: '~ a. The strict literal interpretation ar 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 ar conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that da 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. • C7 9 [~,~,[f' B [~1 ~~1f ICJ A1~~~~ A ~f IE~ o ~[ [ ~4 ~L4NNING anc COMMUNITY iJkVEI.CJPMENT August 14, 2000 George Ruther Chief of Planning Todvn of Vail 75 5. Frontage Road Vail. CO elf}~7 Re: Preliminary Plat Application for Lat 8, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Piling Dear George: • Included with this. letter is an application for a preliminary plat to re-subdivide Lot $ into two single- family residential lots. Additionally, a request for a variance from the minimum frontage standard of 30' is also included in this application.. Summary of Request Lot $ is currently zoned Single-Family Residential which requires a minimum lot area of 12,50{) sq. ft. Lot $ is approximately 3.295 acres (13,530.2 sq. ft.} in size. The proposal creares 2 lots; Lot 8A is approximately 2.2'95 acres and Lot $B is approximately 1.0 acre, bath containing in excess of 12,500 sq. ft. of buildable area. Both lets are proposed tU contain a building envelope sized in order to restrict development to certain areas of the lots as well as grant sufficient flexibility to home designers to develop creative structures. The application also limits the allowable Gross iZesidential Floor Area allowed on the two lots to that allowed on the lot before any re-subdivision. The GRFA is proposed to be limited by a plat note. Access to the site will be provided from Aspen Gcove Lane via a driveway constructed to the Totivn of Vail Development Standards. An easement is proposed to provide legal access to the easternmost lot (Lot $$}. A driveway of this nature will be required whether this site is developed for one lot or two and therefore does not represent a ckange in potential conditions on the site. The Homeowner's Association for this subdivision has discussed the proposal and is supportive of this application. Additionally, the adjacent property owners have been contacted and arc aware of this application. -- Edwards Village Cent®e-Suite C-i(}9 Ph. - ~70.926.i57 ~ I t1'S Edwards Village Bov~levard Fax - 9?0.926.7576 Post Office 5o;c ~~653 w~wv.braunassociates.~om Edwards, Calorada 8 ; 632 We believe you will find this apotication complies 4vith all of the criteria necessary fQr the Planning and. Environmental Corrurbissiotn to ~~rant approval. If you have any questions, please feel free contact me al 9?(i-7575. Spi cerc~ly, D~~rzrinic F. Mauriello, A1C~ r~ • Lot 8, Blnck ~. Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing d Page ? of Braun Associates. Inc. • P~LIlYI~~iR4' D~3.L~iAGE S ~'v u~ LOT S, BLOCK ~ L~(~N'S RI~3GE S~B~i('VS~ON', FILL~TG 4 1 ~.A~:'S ~A' !'t3J L7 ~~'4.XL,f'r C®u~.l I ~ C~LLY+I~`7~~ Aucus~r zaaa Prepared for: iVfr, Tam Braun Braun and Associates PQ Bax 2658 Edwards, CO 81632 Preparesi by: Peak Civil Engineering 1444 Lion's Ridge Loop Vail, Ca 81657 • Ii~T?~D~UCTIO~ Lot 8, Filing 4, Lion's Ridge Subdivision is located in Vail, Colorado. The existing site contains grass, sagebrush, and Borne rc~cl~ outcroppings with one noticeable Swale down the center afthe property- Two single-farniiy homes are proposed on the bench on the northeast portion of the site. This preliminary drainage study will review the necessaey drainage size and structures to salEiy distribute the runoff away from. the proposed driveway and. structures. HI~(~I.(~GY The dr~.inage area behind Lot 8 ,generally slopes from northwest to southeast, front elevation '~24fl to elevation 8~3 a at the south portion of the lot. The area of the basin was estimated to be ! 1.2~ acres from the LrSGS Quad lVlap. Refer to the offsite drainage basin plan included in the appendix. Per Town of Vail Development Standards the rainfall intensities, runoff and flows were estimated from "Procedures for Determining Peak Flows in Colorado", published by USDA.-SCS. These figures are included in the appendix. According to Town of Vail Development Standards the 25-year frequency storm is used far design of all drainage structures under all minor streets. The maximum flow produced during a 25-year storm is approximately S.7S cfs. HYDRAULICS The Inlet-Comrol Homographs from the HEC-5 Idydraulic Charts (FHA 1905) were used to size the two proposed culverts -one located near the entrance of the drive and one located within the existing Swale in the center of the property. In order to be conservative each pipe was sized to handle all of the off-site and on-site runoff: Based on an HI~/W of 1.0 an 1 ~-inch pipe will be su#~cient. Refer to the attached nomograph in appendix_ C: 'S ~~`.n 1 t i ~ \ fI `+.. a ~ ~~ .' \~ ~ ,* t . ~ ~~T' ti ~~~~ ~ ~ _ l~ . _ .- .~.•.•. ~:~- '~~~-'- ~\ ~ 5 \ ....."~.. . ..~ ~ ~~n ~;_ ~. BEST C~'Y - ' ~. - .r ~ ~ ~ -' r7r ,fin y '' ~'~*; ' ~s .fix ~ ~ ~ ~ +-` ~~+-~°S'^T ter., -_ ~,at ~ L+M4 'i~ - ~~ • r?F ,l ~~. +y S 'R~~ ~jS ~ •`-'c, ~~ ' 'Y fir;, ~~ 1`~ 4 ~1~-T- ~ ~ ! .''/fit r' ~~~ ~ __ ~ _ `,' ~; Pr©ject Project Number Name late BEAK L~-ND CONSULTANTS, iNC. E,~.K LAND SI-JRVEYIfJG, iNC./PEAK C11f11. cNG1NEERING, INC. - 970>47G-8G44 - EAX 970-47G-8G1 6 1000 LrUi~.fS"5 RIDGc LQG~P - VAEL CO 81657 ~_. ~ , i ' , ~ I ~ ~ g ~ ~, I ~ I [ I = , ~ ' ...:._~ ;~i ~.~ -~ y~.r: r?~-rte= '~; llt. G . :.! .f`'C~.~IC`. 'ti.:itia '~ , ~ ~ ' ~ j y ~ r-.~ ,i r.v; ~ ,.3 ~ - r r~ r .~ ~ °._.-, e±- - 1.J1 ~.'.~ it ~3 +k ?~ . r ~ / _ - - l i ~ i . ~: i=~:~~ G .~ .. ~'/_ .. ~i , ,~ ~ ~" ~ .~ is r~i! 1'~'v\ ~ *r.: ` ~ - ~y ~. .!' ~: ~ ,""I' ; ~' ~ ~~./. ' S : j I l~ i 1 i .~' j { a I w~ .i ~ ~ ~ 1 V' J ~'~ ~ - J T ~ i i I f k€! it I ' `'!`^~ 5 'T I .f I- I I IE ~ I I I r I I I I ~ I I I, I i I i ~ I i r , , i i i I , I i i f e s~! i a l, i~- i ~ I~~ 9 I i t ~ o I t~ ! I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ iiJC ~ { , 1 ~.a ~S ~ i i i , (i i . - . ~ ~ I ~ ' i I I I 9! I i l a I ~~ I s l i I[- I C I I l t l l l I - I I ' 9 t~ I i i t "'"3 I 1 1 I 1 1 l l i i i 3 l j I l i I I i i r _ ~ ' - 1 I- 1 I I I ~ I ! ~ ~ _ i f i i ~- ~ - - li 3- I ! i ~i ! I ~I i I I ~ ~ I I - f i 3 ~_ -, I I ~ I ~ ~ ' I I I ~ ~ I , ; ., -bl I r 1 { . I I 3_ I a I I I - 1 i ~~ . I ~ ~ i r I , 9~ . I I! f I i I , f. I! i ' t€l', i ~ {{IIi , €? 1 k I o ~ -S T I a - i - , I C I f{ r __ iF: ~ - - i c M f r I d I I F i i r • G 1. ~ ~ r a i I f s I i ~ r 1 E} o I z - ~- I . t i-- ,. i ~ I = t - r I j l - ' . r i ~ '- i ~ 3 I ~ - i I r r I 4 ~ II ' 4 I w ~ ~; I . ; , ~ i ,_ , I , , I ~ . ; E I e 1 ~ ' k { f, ~ ~ I i I i I I- . _ I 1 L_~ . 1 . r , s s - - - ~ . a ~ ~ a 1 ; . ~_ _ r • ~i ~ I I i t # i _ r i ~ i - , i k € '. ~ 1. ' . i I ' i i ,~ ~ I § _ i . , ~ I ` , , , . ~ II. { I ~ Ef 1 I } i 4 l E .f11II~ d 1 1 1 I P[ ~ I I ! Y i I I!i~ c f l a ill I i a f I I I ! ~ , i ' ~ ~ ' I I I I I I I 1 l t - I i I I I ; i - ---t._ __ a I. I i ~ 1 1- ~l i l 1 i l a i I I + 1 1 1 1! 1 1 1 E , I 3 9 f l i l i I I I I ., ~ I, I j _ .I ,~; i i ' I, { ~ i l ! I ' 3 I I I I [1+. j l~ I I I I I ~, I 1 1 I ~~ I r ~ 4 k i ,Ijt i I i i { I i ¢ { ~ ~ { i i t 1 ~ i i I~ I 1 i ~~ i 11 t i ~ ~ ; ! t ~ - . y.. ~ ~ l 1- i f Y { i r ~ l t 1 i ' ! ~ ~ ~ ' , i l i ' I I I i I I .. ] I i t fl~ ~ ~ I E i i ' i !~+ i r ! Il ! ~ f .~ I a li i I f l= I I l a 1 7 ~ € ? ? i I , I ~11 I Il , Ii 1 i i a , I~ i 1 ~ -__ i r ~r _ , I I I T_ I ! I . ~ '. ~I I, a: ~~ t .~ ~ ~~ ti ~ ~ ~: _'~. r; i. ~': i. ;: !~ ;; ,.. il, ;: c~RVE ~ SPY ~0 ~l'VlIiLAB~ RUNOFF FOR 1NCHE5 OF RAENFALL 1°enfhs _ Inches 0.3 ~ a.~. o,~ ~ o.s a.7 ~ a.$ ~ a.9 O.GG C.OL 0. G3 G. 04 G.C6 0..08 G.11 0.14. C.17•, 2 O.Z4 0.28 0.32 G.36 a.41 u. 46 0.5G 0.56 G,61 3 G.7z' 0.77 G. a3 c.89 a.~~ i.ol 1.c7 1.14 1.20 1.33 1.40 1.47 1.54 1.61 i. b8 1.75 1.82 1.E9 2..04 2.11 2.19 2.26 2.34 x.42 2.49 2.5T 2.65 2.8i 2_89 2.97 3. G5 3.I3 3. 2? 3.2-) 3.37 3.4b 7 3.52 3.70 3.79 3.87 3.56 4.04 4.i3 4.21 4.30 4.47 4.55 4.64 4.73 4.81 4. 4G 4.9') .5.07 5.ib . :9 5.34 5.43 .5.5Z .5.60 5.59 5.78 5.e7 5.95 b.05 • ~a • 6.23 5.32 , b.4i b. 50 d.59 a.b8 b.77 .6.85 5.95 ?r~l -:7.13 ° .-7.23 7.32 7.41 7.5G .:`7.54 7.b?_ -.7.7E, - .7.87 :• ^ '. ~~ p 05 14 ~ '8 8 Z4- 13.33 `8.42 8.51` B.EI - 8.7G-. 8.79 - . . . . . . . _... ..,. ~~ ..8.98 9.07 9.17 "9. 2b 9.35 9.45 1 9.54 9.b3 9.73 ~ ~ 4 __-. y.92 1G.01 10.10 .1G.20 16.29 10.39 10.48 10.57 10.b7 _ '~ ~ 5.. .. .. . .,... ~-• 10.8b . IC.95 11.05 - 11.14 ...- 11:.24 11.3.3 11.43 11.52 -- 11.52 ~~ I1,e1 11.90 12.0[7 lz.C9 12.19 ~ 12.28 12.33 12-.47 12.57 ,~ _ ~.~ 12.76 lc. 8b 12.95 13.05 3,3.14 13.24 13.34 13.43 13.5? --- --1~ y -^ I3,72 13.82 13.91 14.011 ].4.iG 3.4.20 ].4.33 14.39 14.45 "19. ;. :- 14.68 .14.78 14.87- 14.97 15.G7 - --- 1. ],6 ].5.2b 1 4.IS.36 15.4 ,: ~. :;~a- ._ ~ ; . ;15,65. .1.5.74 1.5.84• 15.94 ~ ..15.03 ~ 16.13 1b.23 I .1b.32 _ ,16.4 . ... ~: . _ - , ., (P-0 Z S)2 ~ ~ f~Q~E: Runoff; value . determined by equatlan Q = ~, -. -~ .: ~ ~ s t ", ~ ~HYDR National EngineerFngHandhoak,.Sectiorx4, REFERENCE: : OLOGY ' ~~ _.~n'.~~ . . Sri . v v 0, 2C ,/ •~ _ -' 0.5E 1.27 1.96 2.73 3.54 4.3E 5.25 5. I4 7.04 , 7.96 - 9.89 - 9.82 10.15 11.71 12.67 13.62 14.58 i5 55 16.52 - CURVE ~~ ,1~+ RiJ~EOF~ FC}!~ INCHES OF RAINFALL ~~ ~1'VI~-~ Tenths finches o.o C1.1 0.2 d.3 0.4 ~ 0.5 a.6 0.~ 0.8 a.9 _.: a ..: _ ..... ._ . ..._;. 0.01 0.07 0 15 0.23 0, 3Z 0.41 0.5C C.40 , 0.79 C.89 0.49 1.08 1.18 i.28 1.38 1.48 1.58 1.62 1.77 1.87 1,97 2.07 2.17 Z, 2T 2.37 2.47 2.57 ~...(~'.--~ 2.77 2.87 2.97 3.07 3.17 3.27 3.37 3.47 3.57 3. b7 4 3.77 3.84 3.96 4.Cb 4.14 4.26 4,36 4.4E 4.Sb 4,44 • J 4.76 4.156 4.94 5.06 5.16. x.24 5.36 5.4E 5.56 5.46 • _- ~3 5,76 5.Bb 5.96 4.06 b.16 c. 2b 6,3b 6.46 6.56 b.bb -6.76 4.86 6.96 ~ 7.Gb 7.15 7_26 7.36 7.4E 7.56 7. b6 -7.74 7.86 7.96 8.04 8.14 8. Z6 8.?b 8.44 8.56 8.bE . ~ 8.7b 8.84 8,96~.p9.04 9.1b 9. 2b 9.3b 9.4E 9.56 9, bb _ _ __ _ - .1~ 9.74 9.86 9.96 LO Ob iG.ib L0. 26 10 36 10,46 IG.Sb 10.66 1~ 10,76 10.86 10.96 i1.Gb 11.16 11.Zb 11.36 11.4b 11.5b 11.66 . - ... _ _ . 12 11..76 11.8bV 11.96 i2. 06 12.16 iZ..26 12.36 12.44. -12.56 12.6E ~-.1~~ -.1~.7~,~ 12.~8t~ ~~..Q¢ 13Trlb ~'j.~l.h~ 13 26 ]3.36 13.46:.. 1-3.56 13. b6 _ . - 1~' 13.76 13. Bb 13.96 14.06 14~.~1b ~ .14.24 I4.36 14.46 14.56 14. bb ~~ 14.74 1.4.86 1.4.96 15.04 LS.Ib 15, 26 15.36 15.46 15.56 15. b6 _ -. - - -- 15.74 15.86 15. 9b 16.04 14.16 Lb.2b 16.34 16.46 16.56 16.56 :_. ._ .. - ~7 16.76 16.86 lfi.96 _1,7.06 17.16 I7. 26 17.36 17.46 17.56 17.66 -; _r__ ~$ 17.76 17. 8b 17.96 18.06 18.14 1~3.2b 18.36 lEi.46 18.56 18.66 ... . - _. c. _.- ... - - -._ = lg_ 18,76 18.8E 1A. 96 1.9.04 1.9.16 .19 ?6 19.36 1.9.4E 19_.56 19.64 -:Za~ .19.76 19.84 19.96 20,46 20.14. 21,.26 20.36 20.46 20.56 20.66 ~ - --_ ..~ __ -. .~. Y ,. ' NOTE .Runoff value determined by equation ~ F ~ P D ~ S}Z _ _. - REF~R'ENCE National Engineering Handbook, Section 4, ' FiYDROL©GY - . 't- ,. _. :..-.- • ~ r.7~ - '. .. ~ _.. I -. .. .. .. «.. . "..r. .._ ... ~.. .~ I.r 4 . . < ~ ~+~~ ~~T I l~A ,~ 5 ' r ~~ , _ ~~ F~ { I -~-- ~ i ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ , ~--~ ~ N ~ ~ I f l ~ ~ ~ I ~ I - I ~ i ~ I ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ E r= ~ _ . E -{ --: n 1 -•- .~~~ - 1f. vrti,_ ,~a " ~ ~~ . ~ ~ .._- ~I ' ~ ~ ~=r~ .~ -~`-r~- I ~ ~ rv_I ^ u~ .zi ,.~ ~ ~ ~, .- l ~'-~~...- f--"•'I ~ ~,±-~''- ~~tI ~~ ~ ~ti ~ ~ ~" ~jy}- "J '~ I7F~ ~ f L _, ~ ~ ~ `, r~~ f . }P. _ I PI~ :` I ~ 1• t _ l ~ l~r S } ~ + ~ ~ {v ~ --^.--.,d I ~ ~. I~ _. ~ ~. l ..L yt^~d ..L~ A ` LL~ ~4~ ~ i +J ~ - ~l x i I ~ t .. ,-~-- , ~, r ~ ~ ~~ III LI I ~ ~.l i;;;. _ , r; _ 4 ~r I 1 J. . I I 1i ~ , '~ I I I~ e r - k 1 I 1 r ~,_{ . I~ i I ~ r ~ ` ~ y - ~. L I I i~ I ~~ I --- ...-~; _ ~'r l e r I`F ~'t ~ I '1 a~ Iri• I i ~ -~'~ r : ~~ LFti t I- ~l}L ]-; i ~ y- _ r ~ '~ ~ I i- , {''r ~ I I i i I I T"""tii""""' r { , ~~ ~ I'1 I I I: i i t `.~ ~.I 11~~ ' I _ ~~ ,,. t r . - ~ ~ I ~~ ' ,r '"i i - ~~~ + I; I~ I ~ I - S~ -=., -~~ _t ~. --t-~ _'.i ~I I'rr ,;- ,1i... L~.I{ - ' j _w , - , . rt ~ ~ ~ ~ j' ~ L _ ~ 1 I'F r~ ~~ ~ - I ~ .-L I ~ ~ 1 ~ f ~ -1 T ~ ~ ~~7T Ir- ~~~~ 1 ' - F A`~ ~.-r r~. ' ~ , ~ ' - k_` T il, ~ I F !~L!-? {~n - 1 ~ I ~ I Y~ j-i~ ~'~r ~-~~ ~ ~ ~ I _ • r ji ~~ 'r'I__\\ t .r ` ` ~ I I ' ~ I _ 'a ~ rYl I i~'I y Tf- r s , ~ _~~-f _L' :EPA c~,~ 1 ,1T ?'~ i .f I i I I r I I~ 1 If i f i T` I` ~f" r l T ~l t t i~~ r f ~ ` Y"T'F-.. ~. {_{ 1 IJ .. - :1 -I/~ ~Lf~. f ~ ~ r ii 4 1 II - I._ ~ i t ,. ~f r I ~ r i. -F' I-`' 4T. L-F~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ r~-FyY~ Illrrr7YlYl` ~F 1-"'t~ - 1 ~-` ~.~..-. J_s.1. 4 - l1 I -~ ~ 1 ~ ~"r ~'' ~ ' I1 i 1' ' ~ ~ '7 I {'~~ JEL ~ ~1. "r I f f ! _ - i ~ ~ 1 ~~~ x ~~ ~.= --! ~ i o_ r= a ~ + - t J 1 I-I f T ~ ~ I a I _ r_~ Tf = t' y:, ~ ~ `~ ~I' ~ =~ st r+ ~ ' ; = #----~= - $ ~ r` `:~'tL it . , { r~ ~ ~I ~rJ I ' i j~ 1- ~r--~ -.2 I~ J 1 ~~ rt r:~ T ~.. rt't ~. ~ I~r '~ ri ~ 'I*~ .L ~:. 1-1 t, ~ 1 {r~ ~ t.. r~ .4 . ~ ~.. ~r '- I I I ~ r ~ E-r ~i3 _~ IFTr T rj}i.~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ + ~ ' ' I I rr ~ 1. 1 ! -i. ._1 r i~ 'l_ I 11 / f _ 1 r ~ i! S ~ tlYl: J I ~ f ~ ~ i1: . f t r~ ~` lll ~, ?I 144 ~i r ~ I I # 7 ,: I~ ~ ~ s'T;r . j ~ T1. f'r-+ ~ c h~ . 1 ~ } 1 I r.r , , 1 ~~ rF, ~ t,s, r r ~ r 4 c y+ , I~ iin ~ l ~S v - L ^. .~ ~r .s _ I_ 4=~.T- { 7~~'i" I I TTf l 't .; II ~i:~1 ~~~~ ~ 'i71 fi(r #7r rr -t - r l '-... 2 -_. a 5 .. ": : a o . r .. o ... x ~ ~ 4 ~ .- 5 6 - F A 9 1 0[l .:.:. ? ... 3 _ 4 .. ._. ,~, 4C 3 I~ !~ roc I 9 : a ~ -g ~ ~ 7 ~ r ' ~ i~ j l - . 4 r 1 t t t ,~. r ~ r 1 16 l ~i , 7 r~ f ,h~ " 5 x i { ' ~ . { f- ff f 7 { ~ l I i e ~ t r . r ~ ~, l Vi ~ l i. I 1, ~ ~ & _ _ > ~ ` it I f ~ _ l' ~ - - ~- I i I : {L _ _ _ _ IVi ~ 1 r ai _ 1~ •°'~:. ~ .' ~y i f •~ g~ST ~~PY A~I~~i~E • Vf~ ~ L f n "°""~i` Zil= IF+.~3 ~ ~ IFP~'f~ 5~~~"~,T~t~~~ ~+ 4 ~ l ~ Lll~~!f111~{ f I W1~1,~,~~~I1~~1~ _ s 7 $ _ a S100G ~ b Rates of =p~scharge for Small Watersheds (24 Hour __ _>.y IL -Starrri Disfributian), SHEET 6' aF ~6 ~NA~T ~ ~..,, - ~ laa -- ~ ID,caD `~ ~ ~-- ISa I e,DDO EXAMALE ~2} L 155 6,{700 D-36 inc:fes {3.6 feet) 6 . i ~ S,aaD ORCi6 cts 1~~ 1 1 ~ 144 Caa 4 5, ~ 6. x ~ , ~w Hw ." F3Z 3 000 ~ Ctsrt) ~' f~ 5. .- fi. ~ 12D ~ 2,aD0 (2) 2.1 s.3 5. 4. a (3) 2.2 6.6 IQS ~ 3 4. + J wD in feet 96 ~ I,aDQ 3. ~ v 806 ~ ~. n: - 84 ~• m 600 2, ~aa 40+7 ~ T ~ 2. 2. ~ w 7Z 300 ~ ~ i 5 C ~ ~ 1. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U 2D0 _ ~ 1.5 1 5 ~ - 90 ~ ~~ ~ . / T 54 0 ~ w ~ s ' ~ 48 a 80 ' ' 7 Q ~ x ~ ' ~ c .~ ~ N 60 1.0 !.0 ' o 42 ~ ° 50 W t.a ao ~ i~ . ~6 _ 3(1 H-'M SCALE EN3F2 Ir ~ . w ~ f3 P E a .'~ 3 G 30 ~ (2) Mitered fo eanform tv g ~ fa slaps T - 0 27 {D ~ (31 are}aclinq ~ .~ ~ ~ k ~ ~ a r . z ~. Fi .,,~ ~ - ~ Ta use SCaIC (2} qr {3) project _ • 21 e} harixgntally to scale [f ), then ,(y 6 - - - a3e sfraighl inclined line lhravgh - ~ 6 and (] scale3, ar reverse as ~ .6 ' ilkusfrated. ~ ~ ~~ ` l8 _ 2 -.a .5 - 15 ~ .,. 'S _ -. _....-- , _ . 5 _ 1.4 . - ~ r 12 ~ ~ HEADWATER gEPTH FQR - _ .. .4 - C. M.° PIPE CULVERTS - .. :- _ ' T CONTROL i NLE - °W ITH ' 6URE.7.U OP '~119LIC RQADS JAN. 1963 - - . . `. _ - . _.. .. _ -•, _:.. ICM. ~ 1~kA7URAt RESCURGE Ccn+~nru~r5 P.o. Box 23 - i12611Am1EO,-a DRavl` Sztt, Coux~~no $ib52 Rl~l~/F~uc (9~0) 87b-5400 bawl@rof.net July 17, 200Q Dominic F. Mauriello, A1CP BAI/Braun Associates, loc. P.O, Box 2658 Edwards, Colorado 81 b32 Gentlemen: Robert Selby 4380 N. Campbell Ave. No. 200 7"ucson, Arizona S5~ 7 8 a _ RE: _LoT $, LsvNSTtIDG~ S[!BI}MSION F1L.~NG N0, 4 At Mr, Mauriella's request 1 nave examined the subject property fos Ilse purpose of evaluating potential geologic hazards to the tract, and the effects of mitigating suck hazards as may exist on adjacent properties, in accordance with Tawn of Vail Regulations Chapter 7 2-27-15. The property was the subject of a previous investigation and report dated December 4, 7990, by dr. Nickolas Lampiris; it is being reexamined in light of the proposal to subdivide the parcel into two lots, generally in accordance with the conceptual site plan provided by Mr. Mauriello. According to this plan, the two lots are located near Ilse northeast end ofthe parcel, with a driveway extending northeasterly from the exi'ng cul-de-sac at the end of Aspen Grove Lane. ~, Lot 8 itself consists of a moderately-steep slope (up to 27°J along the southeast side, a bench area through the center ofvarying width with slopes from flat to less than 70°, and bedrock slopes up to the northwest generally between 20° and a maximum of 30°. The lower outslope consists of glacial drift composed of cobbles and boulders ofvarious rock types in a matrix of silt and sand. These materials are generally quite stable, although care must be taken to avoid saturating them, especially where disturbed by cuts or excavations. The bendy itself is the result of resistant ledges of upper 1~linturn Porrnation sandstones and limestones. The contact between the Pennsylvanian INinturn and the overlying Maroon Focmation of Pennsylvanian -- Permian age occurs along and near the northwest boundary of the . property;~the uppesslopes consist ofrecl-Mar-von silstenes, sandstones-and~shales; with some limestone; - _ _ _ exposed ledges of which can be seen especially above proposed lot 2. These slopes also appear to be stable. Ilse two proposed building envelopes as Shawn on the conceptual diagram occupy the reladvely- ievel bench toward the northeast end of the tract, while the driveway climbs from Aspen Grove lane onto the bench through a Swale in the center. The conceptual lot. and access locations appears to be the best possible, taldng full advantage of the existing topography. The building envelopes are located on very g~.1L,~-sloping tonearly-that land, while the driveway will curve up and through a gap in the Minturn Fornyation ledges, thereby minimizing potential rock work. As originally recommended by Qr. Lampiris, excavations drat are required into hillside slopes should be supported by engineered retaining walls. If hillside excavations are required for structure foundations, those foundations should be designed. accordingly, Because of the unconsolidated glacial drift that composes the slope below the envelopes, landscaping should be limited to the extent possible to native vegetation that does not require supplemental irrigation.. All drainage should be designed and constructed in such a manner as to prevent saturation of these materials. • • Page ~ Both conceptual envelopes lie within the medium-severity rockfall zone as shown on the Tornm of Vai€ geologic hazard maps. The hazard is present in the form of the slopes noted above and rock ledges of the Minturn and Maroon Formations on these slopes. The beds that make up these ledges dip generally north, into the 'hillside, and bedding is such that fragments that do break off are usually slabs or blocks, which do not tend to ro€€ far down the slopes. Slope variations and vegetation further reduce the actual rockfa€! hazard, although it is Certain€y not nonexistent. One or more "normal" rocld`a11 mitigation measures such as raised and strengthened foundations, limited openings on the uphill side of structures, berms or ruck walls, landscape grading, structure orientation, and so on may be recommended on a site- specificbasis once building envelopes are established with certainty and conceptual building designs are available. Extraordinary mitigation requirements are not anticipated. While the site area is not included in any of the Town of Veil's snow avalanche hazard zones, because of the moderately-steep slope there is the remote possibility of small slab-type s€ides after unusually heavy snowfall, and snow=rolls,. or "doughnuts," are also a possibility. M itigating measures for rockfa€! that may _ -be requifed-depending on-frna€-eRUe-l+ape-location-and.ac~ncept}tal st~cture_.desig~shouid-also proude- - adequate protection against either phenomenon. The necessity for proper drainage has been noted. Soil testing should be sufficientto Locate near-surface bedrock areas, if any, and foundations and perimeter drainage should be engineered accordingly. While soils and bedrock materials found in the area do not ordinarily contain rod€oactive minerals, inhabited structures should as a matter of course be designed to preclude radon gas accumulation. Likewise, the Vail area is one of many faults, some of them of significant displacement, and as a result, although there has been no movement on these structures for thousands of years, inhabited structures should be designed and constructed according to the Uniform Building Code provisions for Seismic Zone €. The site is in an area of modest geological sensitivity, and site-specific mitigating measures are not anticipated to be significant. The proposed building envelopes and access road are as well-located relative to existi ng topography and recpgnized geologic hazards as possible.. There is nothing to suggest that the ,proposed subdivision or potential site specific hazard-mitigating measures that might be required will increase the hazard to other property or structures, or to public buildings, rights-of--way, roads, streets, easements, uti€ides, or facilities ar other properties ofany kind. This report is intended to comply with appropriate portionsofTown ofVail Regulations Chapter ~2-2~-15, and nothing contained hereinshould be interpreted as suggesting that the subject property is not exposed to the mapped hazards. lfyou have any questions or require arty further information, p€ease do not hesitate to contact:ne. 'llrisreportconcernsnatur~]procesacsthatareunpredictableandinlargemeasurepoortyufiderstvod.ltisintendedwidertrifyr... ,:a9abeervehCeharardstawhich the subject property is ...~ . y_: and to suggest mitigating tri~easWYS in complianet vridr applicable regulations. Nothing in this report should he _.,..~;., aed or i..._.,,.,.__~ as suggesiing the absence ofthc described hazards, ar ffiat the retommrended mitigations na"Ik protect the subject property fmm the described hatatds under all drewnsrances. /.. _,.rn or rmforeseen, F~lathing in this report should be .,,..,.,. gyred ar i__.:~ r _ . ~.3 as ~~~~/ng that additional unldentifled harards are rat present. kmast also be and ., ..... J that ..;:,~, tinn" does nota~ean either the eiiminaxiun afrre ha~ttysq ar r.., .-.::un afthc rons ... ~ . es ofa harard went ar events, only the reduction to the _.._ _,._ reasonably possible of toe latter. gY acccptirtg this report all present and subsequent parties .:~ :.:,, agree to indemnify and hold harmless the preparer for any artd aCl damages, direct, irdireet or consequential, itrc~L,rdirrg personal injuryor toss ofHfe, above and beyond the original cost of this study. caused by or resuhing from airy oca..=.....: of the described' or other hamrd{s}, whetlter or not such damages may rr:uli from failw+e tai .. , :' ~ said haaardix) ar from failure or inadequacy of properly errgincered... _ ..~_ acted. arxt maintained .....,., .~, ended mitigatiarrs. Tire r~. ~,..., -. oftitis report cannot aid will not be responsible In anyway or ~.. ~.. ., why.,. ~, ~ far dre proptr engineering, construction, andlor mai,nenanro of .., . o. dtd mitigations. or°the irradegwcy or failure of improperly engineered, c_ ,yam . ~.xd, arrdJor maintained recommended mitigations, or m' :, ,. ~. ns that have been altered in wy tray wh...~,, . .., from those recommended try the , ~ _s .,..,. Major Subdivision Request • ~~ ~- ~_. 410b Al ~~ 113e1 /~ nQ~y~ F Rl DGE AT ~~ O'' ~ t3 9 _~ 1~IB ~ r.~1~ its 77 ~ ~ A7 ~~~ ' 7d A ,r ~ , :~CASQIAR 1 '~, 1, a `~~ r aait hha ~ 7 45~ 74i 11%5 ~ ~~ ~~ 9~ ~ ~" r.P~i ~ i1~e ~ V • • ` ti I 1 ~ E:~ i,~ ~:_,r ~ ~~ 1 $ ~ f '- ' ' ~ ~l'~ ~ 1 ~~~ . { L I ~1 ~ r r; ~~i ~ ~~~ ' ~, ~ ' f, r, ~~.; ; . ~ 1: .~ i Pal ~ '~ r ~ ~ ,~, I. ~y, ~r_ ~. ~ f° `` 1 I fr( ~S ~. ~t~, ' ..rr<', ~# • t }? E't~ ' ~: ., ~ L ., ~ t` ;i, , '% J j ~~ s ~ ~, _' - i iv# ~ } ~m ii _ yi ~4 ~7~~ ~ 1~ ca r~ r . `~ t: -, ~. 1 1~.~i1 - ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~. ! I <. ~ . a . f' -~ ~ r ya ~. ~ ~ S ''u ~ ~ ~ G . _ _ _ . -- - -~~- _ __ -_~ ovERA ~ m - _ __. ~ _ .. - --- -- LL SITE PLAN -- ~ - !_ICN'S FidCCE SJBGIVfS}GN - - -- _ _ RLINO 4 -LOT B - - - -.c .. VAIL. COLOHACO ~ ~ n x 4.~ i • ~ C 6] • ~ k Y • __t~ V ~ ~ i .y _~ -._,~ r }` \ J i ~~ &L .~k ~ ~ S_J: +Li~..A_l.. rF\j 1Po 5~t\ ` t V ~~~~ ' 1 1 ~~ r r ~G , 6 4. z; . V 4 ~~9. f xaf - ~ ,~ f` }, - ~1 ~i ,~ ~_ + ~+ 11' ~~ ~ ,V. °. I ' ~_ V V ~ ? t ~i - ~I rfyl~l i r~~`. r +~' ~ I~I V V ~ ~ ±'I'V~~'~I~~~ cq`aa~0103 '"i151A 34 _ 4y: __ a ,~ E ld~ - 4'JNI-lid ~~ _ ~ F- NOISIAIQ9P.S 3`JQI"d S.Ndl1 _ ~ ~ - - "' ~ U N~~~~a ~,dn~~nE~a ~~a~n~~w~-~~~~ r --;---- - -T--- - r. ~ ~ i ~ ~ , ~~ ~ ~ ` 555555LLLLLL ~ ~ ~ P I E ~ VI ~ ' I ~ I~. ;~! b V SIB i ;t • `~ ~ ~~I i ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ '' I ~ ~ ~ ~I ~_,~ I f ~ I~ pis r~~~ , I i I ~ ~- ~ I lFVI V ~ ~ I ~ ~ „'fie„ ~ ~ A~,SyY ~ _l - I J P I ~ ~~'- 4.~J i l iili VI+.'ilt i ~ p ~ I f ; ENV I, ` ~ ~ ~ I Cf1 ~ J ~ P, I I l I I _ - ~ e ~ - o - _ - I ~ ~~ G ~_., ~y c U =- 3 V- V ~ s ~ L_h !. r J {1 ~ yg _I_ y / Y~J-fi ~ _ - ~ 1 / fV _ '~ , + ~ ~~ ~1 ~ 4 ~ ~ _7 \ i 1 ~_ I~~ f ~n _- ._ - ~ ~4 r r .r ti ~ + 1 ~ J I i , . 7y ~ i V ~~ f f1k ? 1` ~- ! ~ I I-. I i ~ 1 ) ~ ~-~ 9 i ! 1 I 1 t ~ a ~ `` I I i q 5 ~ , ~ i ` ` `~.~ ' ~ ` I I ~ `~ ,~ ` ` ~ R~ f - k y l.~l~ __ I - _ ~ ~ ~ ki - ~ . ~ _ _ 1~!p i~ ~ {,} 1 . ~ ~~I ~ II i ' ! f: V Y d ~~~ i' .I _ _ ~ i ~ ~ ~ i ( ~ M T°~ +~+ I i 3 j ,',JJ ~ , ~ } - -~_- i r;raf + ~1~~3 I t t 1' i ~ I ,ter = + ~'~ r. _ - - - ~ ~ ' - I - lY it ' t 1 ~ I ~, ~ ~ ` ~ ff ~~lI III ~P' .ir ~ - i t~ 1 t ~ i ~ I +I { ~ I ~ ' i ! 7I I V n ~ I : 1 i ~~„_ ~ I i 6 ~ 1J~ ~ ~ 11 rr ~ ~ IV ~ iL. F^c ! I Ag ill " J '~ ~ ti ~_ ~. I ,_ j.... _-__.. I. ~ _' -_- _.__ . I d' 1 ~~ - iL i 1 I t ' d Gti r ~u ~ i ,~z ! ~' ~ i I I ~ ~~ ~ ~ A I _ ~:~ ~ _ , f i~ ~ ! ~, ~ ~~ I ~ ~ ~ ',~ . I ~ ~, i .:a = _ . _._--____ r z ~ _ 6~ ~ - ~ _ r ' ' r F - ~gU ~~~ r ~~ f ~3. ~~' n6r J w u N I ~ I _ ~A. V ' - ~ i V le ' .. ~. ,~ _ _ ~ ~ _ w~ - _ J i i ~ ti 8 iC i - h'JNiI~ --j--~ __ _. __ . _ _ ~ F a"~ fJOi~^INGe'15 3;3014 S,NO' ~ _ ~_ - -t ~ ~ -_-~ 1 +~ ~, . - _ _ _ -- -'-- 7 ~ 'I'1 ~ i ~'~~ ~ ,1 1 ~} I'~i v _ I 1 ~ ~I ~ `+1~ ` ff I': Iii . F ~ ~ ~' . f"' ~/ +f~ , ,rrr i ~ ~~ ~i ,, + a {~; ~ F + ' i I 1 \ '+~ I , 'r.i~l ~~`rI < <~~ J° . ~' i 4~ ~ ~ li , . ~ ~ ~ ~~~.~ 4~~ 1 ! ~ it ~ ~;' a fd} +r: 1. ~ ~~ ' ~ ~+I;r I' ; ' ,1. ' f +~, ~ l+,+++r ~ + ' - + V. . ~ ~+ ~ ;, _ -- -.__..._._ ~. - --~----_. ._._.- a I~ ~ If "' I+~ ~' a ~+~ ~I~ F ~ ~_ F - ~~ ~' + Ala ~~II~ ~~ ~r€ ~r q ,~ S y '~ I S Y 6~ Rf. E c 6~ I~ I ^,I d3:. , `« _ ~ Y ~ - F -Nj ~ ~~ 'I~+ JIB I ~, z~ q- ~ e 6+ Z 1 i I 3 g aY~x? fr€ F41 g s k a= 1 '~ ~I li,' ~ ~~i` 4 z ~ xG yx_ ~ - ai `sF °fF ~ ~ gG R ~ i I ' + _P ~ t F € €t a ~_ Y @ky rfL J... y I ~ ~ ~~ ~~I ~~ ~ ~ 1 a'7 ~ P ~t r - -a ~~~ J r ed~~1 i ~ ~ 1+i i~ z .rc e f c E 5 ~ .C, I+ ~ ~ fy CS _ I ` ... . S.s Tx F ~^ t6 s s c Fo. { ~ ~r ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~b - I?a 1'~~J ~ ° e ~s p~s a aC= ~} ~~ I I x g ~~ y fi° Syr C. 3 S C F~ CY LF£ I e C 1- ,' ~ J _ z ! - a +5- 11 I I ~ ~ 1~f~ 7 _ 4r SE;i~ C, ~ ~ e r F~ 16 _ _ _ 1 5- '+ I _ . ` 6 F - ~ a b - .5 5F -'S ~ - ~. ck. ~ de c5 d7 ;i - y I ~"s i ~' ~ - I Y raua~e_:sae ~~~e oua~o~oa'~IVn ,~ ~ - ; -- (, ~. ~ ~ ~ tNQISI-n7K~J..6/f?ASI~3,,:rJOf'~ S.fJgi ~ c ~ i - ~ ~c 5: a u t ~_ , a }t!" ~; ~ ;~ ~~, ~ ~ ~ . ' ~ +; ;' 1 .-# ~. ~~ r ~~. f ~~,y; F`J:;' -` u ~'i:'i ,1 {.;, f i~ ,I~~` ~i~ ~ ~ ~~ td ~: ~ i1q ~ ,, ~-,' i ;,..,, r'~ P ."~ <~ .'. °, a:' .. `_. ~~ _t }~ _ _ _ _ g F "' V _ ~ = U m 6 f .rvl! j Iae t` - I ~ Ea I=mo a i f~ 6' ~ ~ °" I S. i ~ ~ ~ q i~ ~ o ~. f ~. f ` ~--- • ~i, ~ 3 ~~ ~~' ~ ~+~ ~ `js ~~ ~ ~~, ~ ~ ~K~ 'Y~ 1 w ~~ a ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~ E ~ ~._ v ~ '~G F' of 4t .~ ~ ~ 't` 1. s ~ ~ f ~ .~ ~ ~ i^ ^~ ! si ~ E 7, ~•~ f ~ 4 ~ ~ f ~~ ~ ht • ~ t i ]~f t t~ ~~t r ~ ~' 1 r . I .Iii4 4 l tl, iF~-"~~ ,~ r~ F' ~ ~`. c r r F , ,'r .. r yy f~ : ~ ~ '... , E .rii t 5 y k a. + M1 !~y ~ z Z~~ 1 u ~ ~~~ -- ~ a _ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~¢ ~' a n : 4. ~ru *. i ti ~ o C` , ~ a f -- ~ pV~RALL SV'fE PLAN _, :, i .. ~ ___ _. ` ~. ~tIC~1`~ A'~G S'JBC1`~ll$'OK r:_~ ~ ~ cr-r s ~._ u3 ~ K ~~ ~i I • • i- r: MEMORANDUM TQ: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development. Department DATE: September 7, 2000 SUBJECT: A request far a variance from Section 12-6D-r3 of the Tawn Code, to allow for the addition of a garage and GRFA in the side setback, located at 2992A Bellflower Drive/Lot 10, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: J.P. ~'13rien Planner: Ann Kjerulf SACKGROUN[] AND DESCRFPTION OF THE REQUEST • • The applicant is requesting a side setback variance to allow far the construction of a 304 square fact detached* two-car garage. In conjunction, the applicant would like to construct 226 square feet of GRFA above the garage. This additional square footage is being reques#ed under the provisions of the 250 ordinance. The size of the proposed expansion would trigger the requirement for this site to came into compliance wi#h the design guidelines, Currently, the property is non-conforming with respect to lot size and density. There is an existing duplex. on the lot constructed under the jurisdiction of Eagle County. The lot was later annexed into the Town of Vail and zoned Two-Family Primary/Secondary; which rendered the lot non-conforming because it did not meet the minimum lot size requiremen# for two dwelling units. Currently, the parking area which serves bath sides of the duplex an this lot is an unimproved, gravel parking surface located partially in Tawn of Vail right-of- way. Only two parking spaces can be accommodated on the property according to current Town of Vail Development Standards. The proposal would allow for two additional spaces to be constructed an the property, thus bringing the lot into compliance with on-site parking requirements as specified in the Tawn Cade. The construction of the garage would also bring the property further into compliance with the zoning regulations, specifically 72-21-14{J} "Hazard Regulations", which states that `A minimum of one covered parking space shall be provided far each dwelling unit". This regulation is placed upon development on any lot within the two-family primaryJsecondary residential district where the average slope of the site beneath the existing ar proposed structure and parking area is in excess of thirty percent {30°,/0}. There are significant site constraints upon the property including excessively steep slopes and large coniferous trees, NormaNy, excessively steep slopes {greater than 30%} would warrant the construction of a garage in the front setback. However, there is an existing 20 foot easement which coincides with the 20 foot front setback which forces the proposed garage to be loeated partially in the side setback. The new side setback would be 10 feet, a 5 foot variance from the 15 foot side setback which is required by code in the two-family primarylsecandary residential zone district. "The proposed' separation was approved by fhe Design Review Board on April 5, 2000 clue to significant life constraints an the property, F~ TOW,V lIF PAIL t II. STAiFP RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Departrnen# recommends approval of the requested side setback variance to allow for the construction of the garage and GRFA subject to the following findings: 1. That the granting of the setback variances does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limits#bns on other properties in the Primary/Secondary Zone District. 2. That the strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the setback regulations results in a prac#ical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the development objectives of the Municipal Cade or the PrimaryJSecondary Zone District.. 3. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the applicant's property that do not apply generally to other properties in the PrimarylSecondary Zone Dis#ricte III. ZON[NG STATISTICS Lot Size: 0.2378 acres or 10,359 sq_ ft. Zoning: Two-Family PrimarylSecondary Residential Regulation/Standard Allowed Existing Prooosed Density: A. Dwelling Knits 1 2 2 (no change} 8. GRFA 3015 3600 (approx.} +22fi s.f. (254 ord.) Setbacks: Front: 20' S6' 20' Sides: 15' 38'l23' 38'/70' Rear: 15' 20' 20' (no change} Si#e Coverage: 15% or 11 % 14.4% 1,554 s.f. 1188 s.f. 1,492 s.f. Parking (required} 4 spaces 2 spaces 4 spaces • • IV. GRITERlA ANE} pINDIN~GS A. Consideration of Factors Reaardina the Setback Variances: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. Staff believes that the proposed setback variance request is compatible with and comparable to the surrounding development in the Intermountain area. A number of variances have been granted in the area (see attached map) where the PAC found that relief from the zoning regulations imposed upon these lots was required in order for improvements to be made. Specifically, variances have been granted in order to allow far the construction of garages {McCully, 1996; Scolnick, 1998). Many of the duplexes in this area were constructed withou# garages or an-si#e parking. This has created a significant parking problem in the Intermountain area. Staff believes tha# the provision of covered, an-site parking is a benefit to the neighborhood at large because it will help reduce right-of-way congestion and reduce the visual. pollution caused by surface parking. There is, however, a potential negative impact upon the other owner of the duplex who is also utilizing surtace parking at this time. The proposal would use the majority of the remaining site coverage on the property so that any future proposal requiring the use of site coverage would most likely require a variance. This restriction is in part due to the 15% site coverage limitation imposed upon this lot due to its excessively steep slopes. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regale#ion 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. Staff believes chat the reruested setback variance is warranted and that a degree of relief from the setback regulation is necessary far the applicant to construct a modest two-car garage. There are significant constraints upon the property including trees, steep slopes and existing retaining walls. The applicant has tried to keep the proposed garage as far out of the side setback as possible in order to protect a large conifer in the middle of the ]o# and #o achieve the required grades for cons#ruction of the garage and driveway. He has also kept the proposed garage out of the 2~ foot easement in the front of the property and on his portion of the lot as identified on the recorded plat. The proposal would result in the removal of two coniferous trees. This is partially in conflict with the DRS's conditional approval of the separation request which was that the conifer a# the northeast comer of the lot be preserved. In order #o meet grading requirements, the #ree would have to be removed. This action is subject to fur#her review by the DRI3. The applicant has proposed to plant four new trees (including two conifers} to replace the loss of the two existing trees during construction. • 3 Typically, the Community Development Department would not support a request to constnact GRFA in a required setback. However, in this instance, the location of GRFA above the garage is very practical given that a significant amount of retainage is necessary to maintain slope stability in front of the existing residence. It also makes sense to place GRFA in an area where site coverage is already being proposed. The second-story space is intended to be used for storage and can not practically function as living space because it is open to the garage below. However, it must be considered GRFA because the head heigh# of the space is greater than 5 feet. Nat allowing for GRFA above the garage would virtually eliminate the applicant's ability to upgrade his property via the 250 ordinance at a future date because there would only be approximately X62 square feet of site coverage remaining on the property. Hence, staff believes tha# an approval far the request far GRFA in the side setback would not be a grant of special privilege. Site constraints present a significant hardship far improvements on this property, as is the case with numerous other properties in the Intermountain area. Far this reason, staff believes that approval of the requested side setback variance for the purpose of constructing a garage would not be a grant of special privilege in this case. 3. The effect of the requested variance an light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. Staff is concerned with the steepness of the existing driveway. At one location,. the grade is almost 22%, Current development standards limit an unheated driveway to a 10% grade. However, the Public Works Department has indicated that, if a cross-slope not greater than ~°!°, and a driveway grade not greater than 1Q%° (measured along the midpoint of the approach into the garage) can be achieved an Mr. U'Brien's portion of the lot, the project may be acceptable. The approach to the garage would also be paved as specified by Title 14 "Development Standards", which states #hat "All parking areas shall be an improved paved surface". However, the Development Standards allow some flexibility for previously existing, non-conforming sites in order to encourage redevelopment. Specifically, "the paving of existing legal non- conforming, ie. unpaved, driveways shall be allowed without strict compliance with the Development Standards". Staff believes that requiring any other portion of the driveway to be an unheated, paved surface would create hazardous conditions for parking. The existing surface parking area located on the other half of the lot would receive no improvements and there would be no obstruction created to Mr. Allen accessing the existing parking area located on his portion of the lot. The proposal would be beneficial in relocating existing utility lines which currently run through the middle of the property to the 5 foot utility easement located an the east side of the property. B. The J'lannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings beforearantina a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classfed in the same district. ~. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safe#y or welfare, or materially injurious to proper#ies or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the fallowing reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with 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. • 5 CCI E l~Ytiq 1YlQSL731 ~ ~tY l S 9 1 f C O Y Y O Z 0 0 ' Z 1 Y A ~ ; 9 I ~ ~~~ 'YO YH~O"[dTTIi Y S66L ~w,r~.aru I+ZOI.LIQav 3~Y'~Y~ i~~ruH .O ~1~~}~~ ~ cn z a a ~~ ~ ~~ x E trr ~~ ~~ ~ ~~_ ~ ~ } ~ }~ ~~1~~~ ~ ~~~~ Qo _ _ a. s ~ ti ~ ! w ,~ 1 ~ ~ ~ `~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~t 1~ ~~o ~~~ ,~ ,mss +~ r ~ ` ,,, ~ ~ ~ I L O `` l I ~ ti~ 1 ~ ,,paE ~ , ` ; 44h~` 1 ~a ` ~~ ~ ,~1 _~_ ~~ ~~ `\ T ~ ~ a.4p~w.aoa H ~! ~~~ ~~ y~ ~! ~i i a l~Yiid ~11hCLL~.L I uadY 1 ,S 9[~ O ®Y 1[ 0 3 0 D "[ [ Y A ~1~~' •Ya raYO'raK~rae ~ zs~c 1wv1Y3! I~IOr1Iacly 3~VlIva x~i~g .L) 1 I I _II ~~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ } • 6 ... ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~~ a w v 4 ~ ~ y ~ '~ + C a ~ ~ 1 i ..~ I a t .a _ - -- --1 I # w _ ~ ! ~ ~~ '' X989 r ~- ra ~ I r+ ~~ .y-.. ~ ~ ~i W ~ !. ~ ~ ~ h 9 t a A _ .. ~ : ~ i p ~ ~ ~ ~ 'C ~ C 9~ x a f w fl O .a ~ w .~ w Y w .~ .~ 93gi~ ~aj49~ ~ i ~ ~^ i ,~e~~ ~1 f~:.. 9 I °,L r r •[; I t f r I t I ~ I --- I I E. I m I w I .___, ~~~~ ~'I' ~ a ~a J• ~:~ ~ ~a~ 9 c 3 I Z I p I ~ [-~ I ~ I ~ I a t "~ I i ~ I i w 1 ' ,~ ~~ f 1 N z 0 F W a z .~ w r+C ~ a Q - a " w . w' c~ ; ~ a ~ v • • ~- ~ - ~ y •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r '~ cG ~ ~ Q ~ tJ ~ F: it7 yp ~ ~, , a; N ~j~'~ ,~ ~ ~a ~i ~ fir, ~In+A~ ~ _ ,:.__ `~ .~ _ -~ ~~ I 1 J.P. O'Sri~n, 34374+r-~14 (d}, 97[1~79~212 (1!} TO: Ann KjerufF ~ 9717.479.2452 _""L> Frain: J. P. O'Brien psgaa: 4 Plwn~ 97®.479-2148 t~tsl~a: 0.9147ft30 ale: 2992 l~elt~c>uver- !_etter ko f. Afler~ Parking CC: ^ Wyent ~( forReWew f~ Please Gaer~nnent ^ Please Reply D Plo>da~e ![,..,~ w s ~ ~o~rnarats: /~; Attled is my '[^1198 fetter ro F. Allen ,.:~.,,~ing irv~rovernerlts to the 13elli4a~r prapeyty in question { I r~ bracket date of .s,..::r: if contested } and a short explanation of issues dbscx~ssed witFt~. Please note, all it does not directly Pin to the issue at harxf, but does r~ ~. ~ to a: ~. , issues, ttrai the awning dsGUS.sect ir- this letter is stilw cap-repaired (3 y ~. ~ atke~' the damage aoeurred}, in spite of the fact that I offered to pay half of the repair costs (with ncs fagot abl~aG~.rr tv do so} and that the cause at the damage can I}e dit>rctly linked to IIAr. Allen's failure to remove snow oFf Iva roof while he was renting it (coindding with when 1 Tryst bought my half of the duplex}. I have rat p~ustrcd tl•Sis issue any further br±cae~se a $~qC1 issue is teat w+arih the perterrtial casts of li#igation, urlfartu~~;~~~ repair costsTriave risen sigr~car3t~irraction and further westfirer related degradaiian to building rnaterials- 1 have dated pictures and .." (r..- wtticty I wilt bring if this .......~ up to share wdh YOV. ~ ~' More ice, L~,~y, eyed why I share this letter wittl you, over two years t p...~,.~d (see "marked area on 2 of letter} a rnutua#ly l~aat resc5lutiar7 to the ~„y ling r..,G..lsm at our , ~.1~'-C.e (I« the errkn'e ptg platform to street level } b~rt to date trot aciiorl has beery taken Mr. Aden ~ rasafving any of tt~ issues discussed in this letter in a mutually :.: : ~o~ ~, ~a, „,sr fiat at tf'ue 1ea51, fairty)_ Quiba to tfae Gth-fi'ary, I Carrie home one weekend (7 71'99 tis find era entirely clew stone retaining waU on tVlr. Allen's property in place vnthaut any notice to me ar, as f$r as I krrpw to ~'QV. AS rri~lti,...:..] in the atl~lchecf latker ~a9ain t have cJotG.1 pictures ~ ~e retaining wall on Mr. Atleri s progeny was abv~n to ca:~~ v~,;~icalEy tail, he e'~rltually repfac~ and improved ttre area h~ without rrly krlawlsdge, let alone d~s~ssion, ag.:.~.,,arrt, or approval, and potrlfy only due to his rattrrenk BrT~aibc~n of selling ttiS Hopefully we can disrxrss fester aril ,~..oJu, points of the i°,St,1eS et hared beFore 2~Q Nlorrday! t'it gnre you a ccalll Ma~rxiay ~ ~ 'n9. Regards, .1F~ Tj - Zd WtiT S : ~'~ 0~®z 80 •da5 85L®+~69+~p~ 't]N ~f*I~{d ~ L I S tiNfl~~l~df~S ~1 I ~QNti~i J,?~C101 WO?~~ .J.~'. O'Brien ~' 403 S, Dawning Denver, Co 8D2p9 November 19, 199$ Fritz and Paula AICen P.D. Box 216 McCoy, Co. 80463 Dear Frig and Paula; The intent of this letter is to update you with some additiwnal information 1 have obtained in regards to the duplex we co-own in Vail in a clear and documented manner. I have gathered this information and convey it to you in the spirit of coaperatiart anti hope we can move forward with some necessary repairs in a productive and business-like manner: Further, I have enclosed several attachments) 1 include them far your review so that you can see what I am basing the statements cuntwined in this letter an. First off, !would like to h~~; the awning over the frorrt stairs repaired, and will share the cost of having these repairs done evenly with you. Enclosed as attachment 1 is a bid sheet l had prepared in order to estimate the cost of performing these repairs. The estimated Latai repair cost ranged from 51,200. to approximately $1,6{?4. dependant upon how much material can be reused. Thus, the repairs will range in cost from 5600, to 5800. for each of us. I hope you will agree that these repairs need to be done. In order to complete these repairs please cn~sign and date the propasal below my signature and send it knack to me along with a check. or money order made out to Rusty Spike, far 5304. This is 25°~ of the 50% payment due to start the work, f will enclose a check for 5300. and forward it to Rusty Spike so that they may schedule the repairs. If you need to send this to your insurance company for approval, ar would like to take same other course of action to accomplish these repairs please let me knew v+rhat your intentions are at your earliest convenience and l will proceed #rom there. Further, for the record, and solely for my awn information, I had an attorney Zook at our covenants and party wall agreement. I have ertciosed excepts from the letter I received from Ms. l._arsen as attachment 2, Ms. Larsen is the attorney I retained to look into this. Her independent conclusion is staled on the letter I have enclosed_ Although her cvnclusigc- was that "the repairs to the entryway are entirely Mr. Allen's responsibility" )choose to share these costs with you for several reasons, namely I prefer to work with. you in rnainta'rnng our dr~plex and do not want to verbally split hairs with you or possibly go through litigation over c{uestions of • ~d Wti~S:zO ~0~~ 8(d '~~S 8S~(~+~69+~0~ 'ON ~CJ~Hd ~IIS QNfI~I~draS ~~I~CINE~~ .l~!'10~ W0~l~ negligence or whose responsibility these repairs are. As far continued rnair:tenanCe n# the entryway awning, !will try to remove snow, when needed, from areas an both our sides of the roof that may potentially fall and impact the entryway structure. Unfortunately, my work occasionally requires travel out of the state and/or out of the country, sometimes far months, therefore a cannot guarantee that I will be able to remove snow from the raofi at all tirr}es when it is needed. However, I offer one passible solution: when out of the state for an extended period of time I will contact either yourself Qr a snow removal contractor to assure the rc~af gets shoveled and the entryway remains undamaged, 1 only ask that you share the snow removal duties, ar the potential cast +af having a contractor perform the work when ! am out of the state for an extended period. I hope you find this to be agreeable. 1n light of the fact that the continued maintenance of the entryway roof falls evenly on 6~h of us, being a shared structure, 1 feel my affr;r to be at the least- fair, I have also contacted several attorney's in addi#ian to Ms_ Larsen, Town of Vail {TDV} personnel, and my insurance company for information regarding repairs to the retaining wall Qn your side of the property, and the parking easement that torts through both our properties. 1 also had a bid prepared fc~r repairs to this retaining wall, and have enclosed it as attachment ;3 with this Better for yarar information and reference. My professional expErience as an enginr:ering geologist, and conversations with the bidding contractor, suggest that it evil) be significantly mare costly to repair this retaining wall after a failure has occurred. Also enclosed is the letter, as attachment 4, I recently received from my insurance company regarding repairs tQ this retaining wall. The result of their investigation is outlined within this letter, namely that we are separately responsible for repairs to retaining walls located ort our respective sides of our properties. My insurance company also tells me that separate responsibility also applies to any damages caused by a failure of our respective retaining wa[Is. Further, cc,nvsrsations with land attorneys and TOV personnel revealed the following in regards to our parking easement: the area of land within the parking easement has been set aside fvr~our common use, and any upgrades to this area by either petty does not in any way infringe upon the right of the other party to use this area for parking. In my opinion our parking area needs to be expanded and~or otherwise upgraded. I also realize that you may not agree with this statement or may. not wish to upgrade your portion of the parking area. if this is tlZe case we do not need to discuss it any further. WitFtirt the next few years I will pralaably expand (widen) my portion of the parking area, which will in no way interfere with your ""right cif accommodation, or right of passage" in the easement ,area. If you would like to r+wark together on upgrading the parking area ! am certainly open to discussing it further with you, i,e. it may make mare sense to excavate the whole area down to street level and rebuild our respective retaining walls. • ~d Whlz~ : L@ e®H~ HH .d~5 BS~0+~69+~'e~' 't~N ~NOHd 51 I 5 QNf1Sa3df1S ~ I ~Nd~ J,df'1©~ W02~~ Please let me know if you would like to proceed with repairs to the ertryway awning either in the manner I have outlined ar by some other meth©d, ar~d if the solution 1. have; outlined for maintaining the repaired entryway structure is acceptable tcs you, hurther, if you have any infcrrmatian that indicates any of the above information is incorrect, ~sieas~share it with me at your earliest convenience and hopefully, if need be, we can work something out between aursalves. At this paint I would prefer that you convey your decisions and thoughts on these matters to me by letter, I believe this will help to eiimrnate any rr~isunderstandings between us. Sincerely ,~~ _ J.P. O'Brien • ~ ~ find Wti~S : L0 090 80 'daS ~SL~+~59+~~£ '!~J ~NOHd 3L I 5 QNfI~'cl~~ES `~~ i ~QNti~ J.~9h10~ WQ2I.~ xune 21, 2fl00 Town of Vail Community Development Dept, Vail, Co. Director, My name is Francis (Fritz) Allen, my wife and 1 own one half of a duplex located at 2992 B. Bellflower in Vail. I am writing this letter to make you aware of concerns we have with a proposed project our neighbor (other side of duplex) JP G Brian has planned. He has requested a variance for the purpose of building a garage, i• came into you offices and spoke with a planner and as l understand his proposal of building a garage an his side of the property, it will ef~'ect our side as it relates to site z coverage of the lots combined because we are a duplex lat. if this is true we are 100% opposed to this project as it would limit us from doing a project similar to his proposal at any time in the future. We will consider this mattes closed as we are sure you cannot approve any building ~ permits unless all affected parties /owners approve of the proposal. ~' We look forward to hearing from you. gincerely, ~~ Fritz Allen • y. 4 v I I Dep~~, ~ ~„rrrt of Cmnarur+ity i~evelvpmenx 7S South Frontage Rr~ad Trait, +Coloradv 81657 970-479-2138 FAX 97d-979-2452 ~vwa: ci. voiP» co. its July # 3, 200D Fritz Allen 2992 B. Bellflower pr Vail, CD 81657 Re: Proposed Garage far trot 10, Black f3, Vait tntermauntain } 2992 A. Bellflower Dr. Dear Mr. Allen: The purpose of my letter is to address your oncerns reg~rrding a garage that your neighbor, Mr. J.f'. O'Brien, has proposed for Lot t0, Black 6, 11af1 lnterrnpuntain /2992 A. BeNflower Qr. Ally. O'Brien has expressed 8 strong interest in creating a parking area an hcs portion of the tat and has submitted ponceptual plans for a detached garage- Un April S'", 200E?, the t]esign Review Beard reviewed these conceptual plans and determined that there are significant site onstraints an the hat which warrant a detached garage (a garage separated from a dwelling unit). Ta date, Mr. O"Brien has not submitted final plans for the prapased garage and has Hat received final approve! from the Deslgn Review Beard. In additit~n, he has not requested any variances. Because the Community Development pepartment has Hat received fir-ai plans, there is no indication as to whether ar net any variances wiN be required for the project to proceed. ff final plans are submitted and staff determines that a ~a:.e.nC@ is required,. you will be ncatified in ac..,}~Janc~e with the 7c>wn Cade as an adjacent property ~~wner. Although, L~ara ~ ~~a ~} , requirement to notify adjacent property owners of l]esign Review Baarrl actions, we wit! notify you of any submittals or hearings regarding this application. With respect to the availab~ site overage an the let, this can only be accurately determined once a topographic survey far the entire ia! has taeen submitted. If the average slope is greater than 30°~,, site coverage {buildir-g footprint area) is limited to 15°Yo of tot area {approximately 360 d~~ , sq.ft.)_ If the average slope is less than 8t)°-'o, site coverage can not exceed 2t7% ref lrst eras (approximately $80 sq.tt,). It is my understanding that Allr. O'Brien is in the process of having a survey of th+s let completed. Once a survey is submitted staff will make the determination of haw much site coverage is available on the property for develrspment. If it is determined that the average slope ran the property exceeds 3096, thereby restricting site coverage to 15% of the lot area. it is quite possible that hilr. O'8rien's garage ~,. ~F,osal cautd ~~ w utilize al! of the remaining site coverage on the property. The Ca~unite Devek»ment Depa~trr~eni anlY revuire approval trt}m adiao~{~, duplex c~-~(~ers iF a osat irrl~~cts a comrngrr pare, According to a s~amped survey tram 199, your jot has b~ert subdrvidec~ rnio two parcels that are separa#ed by a party wall. Mr. f)"I~rien's proposal tabs entirely on his side of the party welt ana i not encroach upon your property. As promised we have also reviewed our policy regarding property owner signatures on applications that wilt utilize floor arks or site coverage on a duplex lot. Attar reviewsr~p this )icv we aggree that a du ex owner should be required #o notify the other owner of a pending Dl~ tiZation. At this tame we are not requiring both owners to sign a L]RB or PEC application if the ap iication does not involve building on cornmoniy field property. We have reviewed this poCrcy with the Town Attorney and the premise for the floor area artd site coverage regulations ds to ~~ , ensure the size of the structure is in balance with the size of the entire property. Our zt~ning_ r ulations, in the context of a duplex lot, rec~nize the entire site that the duplex is built upon. ~ tie Town want8 t4 avoid~ettin rota p~vate matters between duplex pry owners and creating situations of "zorilhg b ~~ ftMor". !n a!I ~nstanCes we are most frtterested in havi~tg private property owners resbty~ deviopmi3nt matters prior to the sutxnmat of a aeveioprrient reYtE~nr appiu:ailbn_ As you Indicated this podicy has the potential to still result in conflicts between property owners and the Town. l share your coticem and wi~uld like to review an number of podicy options with Ohs -~~ 'f'awn Council_ 1 will commit to review this issue with the Town Council within the next 9tl days to date" , .... "e their interest in changing our policy. 1 wiN contact you to invite you to that discussion with the Council. tf you do not wish to wait for a discussion with the Town Council, and an DRB application is subrr-ltted for the garage, yyou may app>e#31 the 6taft decision regarding application signatures to the Pte and Environf'Pientat G,~~ ,.:~t+Qn. You can arso s[it~rr-it plans sor your side of the ~~ . c~upfax. i~e this has pra~vipect you a better unQ~,,,,;,:,nding of the situation. 'You may wish to investigate any private covenants or declarations exist+ng on the property, as the Town of Vaii does not recognize these documents during the development review process. df you need any clarification of these issues or have further quesCions, please feel free to coned me at 479-2146. 5iricer y%"- ` ` Russell Forrest Director of Comrriunity Dev~etopment x.c. Bob Mcd_aurin Tom Moorhead George Rather Ann Kjerul# F;ladpvli:3USS1L~ ~ 2 ERS1QUt_Elladlen.doc • Approved September 25, 200(] PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL GGMMISSIOt~~ 1~ ~t'~~ ~ ~ ~uj~ • September 11, zaaa Minutes MEMBERS PRESENT: Galen Aasland Ghas Bernhardt John Schofield Diane Golden Brian Doyon Doug Dahill Tom Weber MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF PRESENT: Russ Forrest George Ru#her AlI1SOn Ochs Ann Kjerulf Judy Rodriguez Torn Moorhead Public Hearing 2:04 p.m. Galen Aasland cafied the meeting to order at 2:20 and apologized for being [ate, due to site visits. A worksession for a major subdivision and variance from Section 12-68-5 (Minimum Lot Frontage} of the lawn Code, to allow for the subdivision of Lot 8 into Lots 8A ~. 86, located at '1467 Aspen Grave LanelLot 8, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 4. • • Applicant: Robert Selby, represented by Braun Associates; Inc. Planner Allison Ochs Allison Ochs gave an overview of the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked for the definition of a major subdivision and a minor subdivision. Allison Ochs gave the definitions and explained the access. She said Public Works had reviewed the road issues. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had anything to add. Dominic Mauriello, from Braun Associates, Inc. representing Dr. Selby, explained that this was the largest lot perhaps in the Tawn of Fail. He said, because of the slope, it would require a very long driveway, but met all of the development standards. l-ie said the applicant had been working with the homeowner's and agreed that the owner would not. take additional GRFA with a plat restriction. He said by dividing the lots into two single-family lots, with the third parcel being used for access, they would not create additional GRFA. He addressed some of the staff issues. He explained that the major subdivision regulations protect the public. He said Aspen Grove Lane was a private platted street and the intent was to insure that all lots had access. He gave a similar example of the Tali Pines Subdivision and Lots 39-182 in Glen Lyon and further stated that this was not a unique situation by asking for an access easement. He mentioned another issue being the width of the driveway. He said the appfGant had met the standard for two single-family homes, although not the 20' wide driveway, which would be required far 2 EHU's. He said there was a concern regarding access to Lot 9 and Planning and ~nwironmentad commission Minutes September~1,2444 Approved Septerraber 25, 20Q0 there was an easement between Lots $ and 9 that would address that issue. He said they were requesting a preliminary plat approval with proposed building envelopes. Galen Aasland asked if the public had any comments. Carroll Orrison, the guardian of the owners of Lots 9 and 10, said they all agreed that this was the best way to go. He said landscaping was required to be kept in native form 1(} years ago when he built his house and he would request the same from this applicant. Doug Cahill asked about the original access to the lots. Dominic Mauriella said there was a requirement that it be a joint access. Doug Cahill said he was concerned with the length. of the road and passing on a 12' driveway with the steep drop off. Allison Ochs explained the 12' access easement. Doug Cahill asked if the original intent was to have the development sites as proposed today. John Schofeld echoed Doug's concern with the road and it might drive the applicant to consider a larger driveway. Dominic Mauriello demonstrated the revegetation, grading and Fire Dept. requirements and said that the retaining walls would preserve more of the hillside. John Schofield asked for a more detailed retaining wall description by the next meeting and would also like to see the utility plan and revegetation plan. He did say that they were meeting the intent of the Code. Diane Golden said Doug's point about passing was a good point. Tom 'Weber said it would be in their best interest to show the amount of disturbance. He said he would not like a real steep-cut look with the retaining walls and would like to see roadway cut sections. Brian Dvyan said the turn-around was critical. He said this was an ugly development up on that hillside with the large retaining walls and he would like it kapered down a little bit and the road mitigated as much as possible with the rock outcroppings as retainage. Chas Bernhardt said the driveway would ga through the same contortions with a subdivision ar not and stated that the rock outcroppings were really beautiful and would also like it rewegetated with the natural species. Galen Aasland agreed with what his fellow commissioners said. He said he would not like an applicant in the future to come in and use a subdivision to gain square footage and thought requiring the applicant to have an EHU was an unfair burden. He said we should look at this property consistently with other properties and not put it in never land. He said he also had concerns with the site walls. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September t 1.24Q1] 2 Approved September 25, 20Q0 Doug Cahill asked to see what the guard rails and lighting would look like. Dominic Mauriello stated that would be for the DRB to review, but we could show you a preliminary plan. He then summarized the PFC's concerns; the width of the driveway and competing objectives. He said this development encourages building which the Zoning Code encourages. He said they had tried to adhere to the Town objectives and that of the neighborhood. He said they could show a 20' drive up to the site, but there would be a lot of disturbance and he asked if this was something the PEC would like to review even though the owners intend to build a 12' driveway. John Schofield said if someone wanted to add an EHU, it would be real expensive. Galen Aasland said he would like to see same passing zones. John Schofield said this was a unique circumstance, as you don't see driveways that long too often. 2. A request for a variance from Section 12-6D_g of the Town Code, to allow for the addition of a garage and GRFA in the side setback, located at 2992 A Bellflower Drive/Lot 10, Block 6, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: J.P. O'Brien Planner: Ann Kjeruif Ann Kjerulf gave an overview of the staff memo. Ann said the application was complete and in conformance with the Town guidelines. Galen Aasland asked George Ruttier if the applicant had standing to apply for this. George Rather said, yes. Galen Aasland asked if the applicant had any comments. J.P. O'Brien said the current parking was hard to use and the neighborhood had changed over the years, so this had to be done. He said this will be the first winter when we will not have street parking (referring to former parking area on the Nuerta property which is now being developed') and he said he feared collisions. He said the request for the variance was necessary to avoid changing the current grades of the driveway. He said he needed to build a 20' retaining wall and because of that, it made sense to add GRFA. He said emergency issues needed to be addressed, as the current parking situation was designed fora 1972 neighborhood. Galen Aasland asked if there were any public comments. Fritz Allen said he has owned his half of the duplex since 1988 and that the applicant was trying to take away his site coverage and that he didn't understand GRFA. Ann Kjerulf explained GRFA.and that each side of the duplex could potentially add up to 250 square feet of GRFA. Galen Aasland explained GRFA_ • Planning and Environmen#al Commission Minutes September 11 , 2000 Appra~ed September 2S, 2(}40 Fritz Allen said 8 years ago he and Kevin Deighan had come in to the Town of Vail to add and employee hauling unit over a garage and they were told that they couldn't do it. He said he was 100% against his neighbor's proposal. He then passed out a letter from Russ Forrest explaining when two signatures were needed and said that his neighbar needed his permission to build a garage. Galen Aasland said this was not an issue far the PEC. Fritz Allen said he never knew about this proposal. John Schofield said he read a letter from Fritz Allen which explained that he did knew about the proposal. Galen Aasland said that since this was a heated issue, we would like the Town Attorney's opinion, as we didn't want to get in#o a confrontational situation. He said he didn't want Fritz to address whether the applicant had standing to apply far this at this time. Fritz Allen said just because J.P. U'Brien came first, wasn't fair regarding his site coverage. Fritz Allen said that he owned more of the lot than 11f1r. O'Brien and so he should get the site coverage. Tom Weber said site coverage wasn't divided up with you (Fritz Allen} getting 60%. Galen Aasland requested that there be some kind of organized fashion to this discussion. Fritz Allen said the Town Council said it was 60% and his neighbor was renting out his home and this was getting out of hand. He said his neighbar was creating more space that he could rent out He then said, °'UVhat is wrong with this picture." He said his understanding of what Russell said was when property owners were not in agreement, the PAC wouldn't grant this, as disagreements should be worked out before they come in. He said he was also 100%° opposed to trees being cut down. Brian Doyon asked how long he (Fritz Allen) had lived in the house. Fritz Allen said since 1988. Brian Doyon said you (Fritz Allen} haven't lived in the house since 1988 because I (Brian} stayed there in 1996 and you (Fritz Allen) weren't living there at the time. Fritz Allen said he had fved in it all but 3 years, since 1988 and that his neighbar was creating all the parking problems. He said he would fight this tooth and nail and he would hire an attorney, as he should have been advised. Paula Allen asked about the space above the garage Ann Kjerulf explained the space an the second floor of the garage was intended for storage and because it was greater than 5 feet in head height, it had to be taunted as GRFA. She said it was nat taking away floor area from the neighbar. She explained that site coverage was limited to 15°/° of the site. She said a second garage would require a variance and that the applicant would be using up mast of the site coverage, Planning and Enuir°nmental Commission Minutes Septemher 91, 2004 4 Approved September 25, 2000 but not all of it. Paula Allen said she just wanted it to be fair far bath neighbors. Russell Forrest asked if there were site coverage variances in the past in this neighborhood. Ann Kjerulf said yes there had been site coverage variances granted in the past in this neighborhood and that variances had also been granted fior garages and GRFA in setbacks and referred to the map that had been included in the staff memo. Galen Aasland asked Torn Moorhead if he was familiar with this application. Galen then said that, far the record, Mr, Allen had called him and he had directed him to call Tom Moorhead. Galen summarized that this was an A!B parcel with only one signature needed on the application and asked Tom if this would give Mr. ©°l3r~en standing. Tom Moorhead said the Community Development Department had accepted this application and he had no reason to question that acceptance. He stated that. it was difficult to predict the future so it was necessary to apply the guidelines that are in effect at this time. He said that the Town Council, whenever they adopted an ordinance in the past, had honored applications that were in effect beforehand. Galen Aasland mentioned that Brian Doyon had lived in this house in the past and asked if Tom felt there was any conflict- Tom 'Moorhead stated that dust having contact with the location doesn't put him in a conflict and that it would be up to the individual Commissioner to make the ca[1 if he felt there was a conflict. Brian Doyon said that there was no conflict. Chas Bernhardt said it didn't make sense to put the garage that far back. He suggested both owners building a garage and applying for a variance together and doing one side at a time then Mr. Q'Brien could build his garage right away and the Allens could build their garage whenever they had the money. He said this would be a win-win situation. Fritz Allen said years ago he was willing to deed restrict his house and put in an EHU. He asked what would they do for parking in the interim. He said he had site coverage that he owned and to him it meant talking about a third parcel. He said it should be that we both have to sign off on the application. He said this ~Od% affects his property values and his property and that is why the Town Council is changing this. Chas Bernhardt said he must be frustrated and that a C parcel is commonly awned. Tom Weber said we have to take this on what is legal today. Galen Aasland said we would take a poll on whether the applicant has standing. Tom Weber said, yes. Brian Doyon said, yes and stated there was no reason to table this. Planning and Environmenta6 Commission Minutes September 11, 2001] 5 Approved September 25, 2000 Chas Bernhardt said, yes. Doug Cahill said that at the present time, it did meet the requirements. Jahn Schofield said that under the current regulations, the applicant has standing and the PEC cannot do anything based on something that might happen in the future Diane Golden said the applicant had standing. Galen Aasland concurred with his fellow Commissioners. He said at this particular time, we were empowered to do what the ordinance says at this time and he summarized that all the members fielt the applicant had standing. Fritz Allen said he agreed, but said it doesn't mean the applicant had to get it. Galen Aasland said we would now go to the Commissioners. Tom Weber asked if the grading was done by an Engineer with an Engineer plan laid out. J.P G'Qrien said only conceptually but the grades had been reviewed by the Public UVorks Department. • Tom Weber said this application impacted the trees on the east side of the lot very significantly and the trees were significant enough so the garage needs to taken ou# of the side setback and that affecting the grade on the other side is not acceptable. J.P U'Brien said he moved the garage as far as he could to comply with Town of Vail requirements and to move it further to the west is impossible as he was under extreme space and grade constraints. Fie said he planned. on planting four or five new trees, Tom Weber said he had a valid argument, but there was a lack of engineering documents to support this. Brian Doyon said the trees can go if they were replaced foot for foot and he would recommend this as a condition. He said the driveway sucks, but anything to improve the parking and get cars off the street was a step in the right direction. Ann Kjenaif said the applicant would be providing two parking spaces which would bring the property into compliance with the Town's parking requirements. 6rian Doyon said he was in favor of this, as it was a good improvement and he understood why Mr. Q'erien couldn't move the garage further to the west. Chas Bernhardt agreed with a part of each Commissioner's comments and said that this would affect the trees to the east but if he moved the garage to the west, it doesn't meet.. grading requirements and so this proposal creates other problems. He said if this was moved over, it wouldn't affect your neighbor's trees. Hs said he thought this proposal could be improved, but the applicant would have to get together with the neighbor. He said it does meet the criteria for a hardship. He said he would have to approve this, although he thought it was a poor proposal and should be tabled and come back. Planning and Environmental Commission NCinutes September 11, 2t){~0 Approved September 25, 200U Torn Weber said in the past GRFA was kept out of the setback . George Ruttier said we try to encourage applicants to minimize GRFA in the setbacks. Ann Kjerulf said that variances had been granted for GRFA in the setbacks and referred to a map which had been included in the staff memo showing properties with setback variances for GRFA. Tom Weber said he didn't want the GRFA in the setback to make anon-confnm7ing situation any worse and so he would not be in favor of this. Brian Doyon said he had no problem with the GRFA. Chas Bernhardt said he had no problem with the GRFA. Doug Cahill said he was uncomfortable with this, although it did comply. He asked if this was bidded out and what the cast was. J.P. O'Brien said he talked to a contractor, bu# had no cost yet. Doug Cahill said this was a great project but he could see a better way because pushing it into the root zones on the east side put more danger to the trees. He said he thought it should be tabled. He said he would be more agreeable to use the front setback without that dangerous 22°Io (driveway) grade into the property. .~.P, O'Brien said. he wrote Fritz a letter two years ago. He said he had been involved in this process since January and if the PEC had suggestions, he would be open to them. Doug Cahi11 suggested working together with your neighbor. He said he was more in favor of tabling this for a better solution. He said it was approvable, but suggested reducing the garage. He said there were a number of garages in the front setback. J.P.. O'Brien said if he could squeak a third spot out., he would do it. Doug Cahill said he had no problem with the GRFA. Fritz Allen said that he (Mr. O'Brien) had two units in his half of the duplex and that it was illegal. ,3ohn Schofield asked how many kitchens were in the unit. ,l. P O'Brien said there was one kitchen. ,john Schofield said one kitchen constitutes one unit. He said because of the hardship, it was a na-brainer to grant this and that the special privilege issues have been addressed in this neighborhood. He said with regard to the trees, while looking at the larger plat, there was no room to work with. He thought that nothing else you could come up with would be dramatically different. He said the DRB would decide the trees and he was in support of this application. He said the PEC was bound to make decisions based on the current regulations, but an applicant could always go to the Council for an appeal, as the regulations do allow recourse. He said he had na problem with the GRFA. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes September 11 , 2000 Approved September 25, ~40~ Diane Golden said everybody can feet the frustration. She said the parking was dangerous, but Mr. O'Brien was trying to remedy the situation. She said she thought 4 spaces in the front setback would be the best solution, She said that this application was an effort to remedy and she had no problem with the GRFA. Galen Aasland said the PEC had to view properties if they meet the ordinance ar nat. Fritz Allen told the PEC to do a walk-through of Mr. O'Brien's unit. J.P. O'Brien said the PEC can da awalk-through. Galen Aasland said the #rees da not have to be replaced foot for foot and that in this case that would net be practical. He suggested tabling this and come to an agreement with Mr. Allen. He said the PEC can't guarantee that anyone would get a variance in the future. J.P. O'Brien said he has tried hard to work with Mr. Allen, who has been very resistive, He said he would like a vote on this and would like to go forward. John Schofeld made a motion for approval, in accordance with the staff mama with the findings and with a note that the hardship and special privilege had been addressed in the staff memo. Brian Dvyon seconded the motion John Schofield said awalk-through was up to staff and he felt comfortable that the DRB would address the trees. Galen Aasland said staff would like a condition to be added for awalk-through to be conducted before a building permit was issued. Jahn Schofield amended the motion to include the walk-through. Brian Doyen amended his second. Tam Weber said, far the record, the garage could be reconfigured better to save the trees. Doug Cahill said that the public heal#h and safety was a big enough concern far him. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Doug Cahill apposed. 3. A request for a rezoning {from Outdoor Recreation to General Use), a minor subdivision and a conditional use permit, to allow for the construction of a seasonal ice hockey rink at the Vail Golf Course, located at `1778 Vail Valley Drive 1 l_ot 3, Sunburst Filing 3. Applicant.: Vail Junior Hockey Association, Vail Recreation District, Town of Vail Planner: Brent Wilson Brian Doyen made a motion to table this until 912510p. Planning and Environmental Gommissign iulinutes September 11, 2004 $ Appro+red September 25, 2Q~]0 Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 4. A request for a final review for a minor subdivision to allow far the reconfiguration and replotting of two existing lots and the rezoning of Lat 16, Bighorn 2nd Addition, from Agricultural & Open Space to Twa-Family Primary/Secondary Residential, and the rezoning of Tract A to Natural Area Preservation District, located at 388613896 Lupine Drive/Lots 15 & 18, Bighorn 2"d Addition. Applicant: Wilson Family Trust, represented by Jay Tschimer, First Land Development, LLC Planner_ George Ruttier TABLED UNT1L SEPTi>=MBER 25, 2000 Brian made a motion #o table this until 9125/QQ. Chas Bernhardt seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-~. 5. Information Update George Ruttier sand the Town Council invited the PEC to have lunch at noon on 9119/00 in the Town Council Chambers for about 1 'f~ hrs. to discuss changes to the code. George Ruttier asked for heap in contacting anyone who might be interested in serving on the DRB, since we had no applications for the 6 month vacancy that the PEC rep left and the deadline far applications was 9/13100. Tom Weber suggested calling Brent Alm . John Schofield made a motion to adjourn. Doug Ca ill seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of 7-0. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.rn. • Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes 5epternber t 1, 2060