Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994-10-04 Town Council MinutesMINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 4, 1994 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, October 4, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor Mery Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem Sybill Navas Tom Steinberg Jan Strauch MEMBERS ABSENT: Paul Johnston Jim Shearer TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Vail business owners, Joe Stauffer and Jack Curtin expressed their concerns regarding amplified sound in the village, as well as emergency vehicle noise. Mr. Stauffer suggested Council pass an ordinance which would prohibit outside amplified sound, and asked about an emergency substation in West Vail. Peggy stated the Council would again review the Town's noise ordinance during a meeting to be set following the budget sessions. Mr. Curtin stated amplified sound ordinances were not being enforced, and suggested the Town enforce its current regulations, as well as increase police presence. Pam Brandmeyer informed Council that review of amplified sound was scheduled for the November 22 worksession. Peggy urged both gentlemen to be present at that time. Second on the agenda was a Consent Agenda which consisted of the following items: A. Approval of the Minutes for the meetings September 6 and September 20, 1994. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 21, Series of 1994, an Ordinance re: Greenbelt and Natural Open Space Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Mery moved to remove item B from the Consent Agenda and approve the minutes for the meetings of September 6 and September 20, 1994, Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Sybill noted an error on the minutes of the September 20 meeting and requested item 4 be corrected to reflect the item passed 4-2. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0 to approve the minutes with the above -referenced change. • Ordinance 21 was then discussed at length. Jim Curnutte reviewed the changes suggested by council at first reading, and informed council the section number on page 8 would be changed to reflect the correct section number: Section 18.38.020. Jim further explained the ordinance would modify the descriptions of two zone districts, Greenbelt and Natural Open Space and Public Use, and would create a new zone district, Outdoor Recreation. Russ Forrest explained staff was interested in accomplishing the proposed text changes by passing the ordinance, then, at a later date, staff would review property zoning and propose zone changes to Council, Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association, voiced his concerns regarding the ordinance. Council concerns included a desire to tighten development standards in the public use district, and those involving "quasi -public" uses. Sybill made a motion to pass Ordinance 21, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and passed, 4-1, Mery voting in opposition. Tom recommended reviewing changes to the public use zoning district standards in January, and other councilmembers agreed, directing staff to include the item on the Council goal setting agenda in January, 1995. 0 Council would not take a position and stressed the presentation was only for the purpose of information sharing. 'Those communicating support of the issue included Bob Kendall, Citizens for Better Golf in Vail and Bald Mountain Road homeowner; Steve Satterstrom on behalf of Tom Whitehead of the Jr. Golf Foundation; Jeannie Nedvelo, homeowner; Jeff Wild, President of Vail Men's Golf Association; Earnie Bender; Sonny Caster, homeowner; Don Eden, East Vail property owner; Mary Caster, Bald Mountain Road resident; Hermann Stauffer; Joe Stauffer; George Knox; Gail Malloy; Kathy Douglas; and Rick Sackbauer, property owner. Those who spoke voicing their opposition to the Golf Course included: Barbie Christopher, area resident; Jenny Culp, Vail resident; Diana Donovan; Dennis Linn; Jeff Bowen; Tim Muscow, East Vail resident; and Evie Nott.* Rob Robinson answered specific questions with regard to design, parking, traffic, etc. Evie Nott asked Council to request Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, Sarah Fisher, send pro -con notices out with absent voter ballots. Council suggested the Vail Recreation District ask the County to follow through with Evie's request. Item No. 5 was a report by the Town Manager. Bob stated he had nothing to add to his memorandum, which had been included in Council packets. Sybill moved to adjourn into executive session, with a second from Merv. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0. Council adjourned into executive session at approximately 10:30 P.M. ATTEST: Holly L. McCtitclieon, Town Clerk Minutes taken by Holly L McCutcheon ('Names of cedain indMduelswho gave public input my he inaccurate.) Respectfully submitted, ;�arg,t A. Osterfofoss, Mayor U�ariccUtc[voV�Ll �b I.ceholaw TC AAx - 19 nvu tlh9 io.4711,94 THE FACTS: The Booth Creek Par 3 1.How is the property zoned? And what are the covenants? The property is zoned agricultural and open space. Conditional uses allowed are a. any use within public parks..which involves assembly of more than two hundred persons together in one •building or group of buildings or in one recreation area or facility b. Public or private schools and colleges, c. churches,f.-j. ski lifts and tows, cemeteries,etc. The existing covenants in effect for the Par 3 parcel,Tract A, Vail Village Thirteenth Filing read as follows: ... the Subject Lands, shall be used as an open area for recreational purposes or public and private schools or municipal services such as a fire sub -station. It may be improved by landscaping, paved or gravel paths, decks retaining walls, wind screen, walls or fences, parapet walls, fountains, steps, minor vehicular driveways, recreational facilities, including pools and related appurtenant buildings. 2. What about the proposed ordinance providing for open space? If ordinance #21 presently before the town council passes it will amend the present green belt and open space district guidelines. There is no guarantee that this parcel will or will not be included under the above ordinance. Furthermore, there are no guarantees that future councils will not take any action 5 or 10 years from now to change any protective status that may occur. 3. Will our taxes be increased? There will be no tax increase. The Par 3 will be financed by revenue bonds with payments of principal and interest paid by revenues generated by the VRD (Vail Recreation District). 4. What about the wetlands? There is .4 acre of affected wetlands on the site. This .4 acre will be mitigated (traded) to the satisfaction of the Army Corp of Engineers for other wetland sites in Vail. Similar wetlands were mitigated when the Vail Valley Consolidated Water District enlarged Black Lakes Dam. According to VVCWD Bob Weber, of Hydrosphere, sufficient mitigation sites are available within the Vail Valley. 5. What about chemical fertilizer usage? The VRD (Vail Recreation District) is extremely sensitive to the need to maintain the water quality in Gore Creek. Healthy turf is one of the best forms of protection against erosion. Those agencies monitoring Gore Creek water quality have not currently found golf course chemicals to have impacted water quality. 6. Is there a sufficient water supply? The Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, according to its' attorney, Glen Porzak of Holme, Roberts and Owen, has sufficient water rights to service this new golf course. The physical supply of water for this course could either be treated page 1 water or raw water from the Consolidated District's Booth Creek diversion point. 7. What about the safety of the Par 3? Dick Bailey, AIA of Dick Bailey Design Inc. a certified golf course architect, is staking his reputation that he can build a safe golf course. No architect has ever criticized the Dick Bailey design for this Par 3. There is sufficient acreage for the Par 3_ Both the Cherry Hills Par 3 in Denver and the Pebble Beach Par 3 in California are built on smaller acreage. 8. When is the election and who can vote? The election is Tuesday, November 8th at your specified polling place. The deadline for voter registration is October 14th. In addition to Vail registered voters, any VRD property owner who is a registered Colorado voter is also eligible to vote. An absentee ballot may be requested from the Eagle County Clerk at 303-328-8710 or the VRD offices at 303-479-2279. The ballot must reach the clerk's office before 7:00 PM on Tuesday November 8th, 1994, election day. 9. Why is the Par 3 needed? The VRD supports the development of the Booth Creek Par 3. They are currently turning away all golfers,including juniors, because of limited tee times. The Par 3 will relieve some of this pressure from the 18 hole course and free up tee times • for the 18 hole players. 10. How will the Vail resident golfer benefit? Vail residents will be given reduced green fees and/or season passes with special consideration given to juniors. They will have a quality course to practice their short game, requiring less time than the championship course. There will be a longer season on this course due to the local (southern exposure). Of the numerous golf courses in the VAil Valley most are private. Currently there are only two public courses available between East Vail and Gypsum. 11. Does the Vail Town Council approve of this usage? The Town of Vail has approved the VRD to lease this parcel for a Par 3 golf course. 12. Will the Par 3 make money? The feasibility study states that in the most conservative of estimates, the Par 3 will make $40,000 the first year (revenue less expenses). This will be applied to the debt service. After 10 years, the revenue bonds will be totally repaid and the Par 3 will be debt free thus producing revenues for the recreation district for programs such as sports, youth service and ice skating. 13. How do the residents and homeowners of Booth Creek feel? page 2 I I* I* The overwhelming majority of these homeowners are 100% in favor of the Par 3. 14. Who else supports the Par 3? Among many others, the CGA (Colorado Golf Association), the Tom Whitehead Jr. Golf Foundation Board, the Vail Men's Golf Association, the Vail Men and Women's Senior Golf Association and the Vail Women's Golf Association have pledged their support. 15. what is the history of -this land? The parcel was originally used by sheep ranchers and a Vail horse operation resulting in overgrazing and invasion by thistles,the tell tale sign of overgrazing throughout the western states. 16. What about parking and how big will the clubhouse be? The structure to be used as a starter facility and snack outlet will be smaller than the present starter house at the 18 hole course. The parking area is designed for 26 cars and is approved by PEC and DRS. page 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 10, 1994 SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance to allow for GRFA to be located in the front setback for a proposed structure at 2840 Basingdaie Boulevard/Lot 4, Block 9, Vail Intermountain. Applicant: Daniel Frederick Planner: Andy Knudtsen ;:rAe. •cw:a�.¢•x`Q,•xv?�t,;;, �tiyakb � .;��;:.Lx�,u\lit;.-�;�.y :OR?s£�i' �. ': �x'�i�w+yshro,?•.g. �. ;`d.�:. 5: 3�%cr.,'t'-`?`e:.�:: ;?':a;'�x, . >>r u:;ax;;..;::. a;?e:•a �s��s :�r.?>::�;s`�>iro ..4.•` � ,a.M::.�:..�: a\: ti�;•x�'��"�E.r .:;L: ��,``a l•: SeS',:3,. ;..y ��'.,.. .;:,,:.,;:., .:,�,;,,.;;`-,.��;.,., g,:• a.a s:.�':2w; ��::�;;. .a�':.l:y.'o>.. .tz:.,`."�:.xi., `�,.,v..u,,, o$�.,, ���G,�. JhE.<; .. .?:"F��.ra:?^ Qx £,a: �5; cg,..,, �.c>z'Sc.:k^�s.K,.3�,.risa�„�•��r;;�x:��fi�sY��, � x;.��f.�`'tk,�, '� .�,,�:�'i��.�';..'' I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST Dan Frederick, the applicant, is requesting a variance to construct GRFA in the front setback. The setback requirement is 20 feet and the applicant will be providing a 4 foot setback. The . variance requested is for 16 feet. The development proposal includes a single family home on a Primary/Secondary lot in Intermountain. In addition to the residence, he is proposing a detached two -car garage to be located in the front setback. Since the lot exceeds 30% slope, a setback variance for the garage is not required. Since the applicant is proposing two structures, Design Review Board (DRB) approval for a separation is required. On April 20, 1994, the ORB reviewed the separation request and approved it. On May 9, 1994, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed the proposal and approved the site plan which included variances for wall height. The retaining wails at the front of the garage were designed at 6 to 7 feet in height. The Zoning Code allows a maximum of 3 feet for walls located in the front setback. The PEC approved the wall height variance and subsequently, as a result of this request staff amended the Code to allow walls to go up to 6 feet for garages that are constructed in the front setback on slopes which exceed 30%. Since the time of the approvals by the PEC and ORB, the applicant has had the drawings reviewed by structural engineers. They have made recommendations that modify the original design that include one level of GRFA above the garage. Because the lot is 36% slope, the retaining wall at the rear of the garage would be approximately 17 feet fall. As a result, this rear wall was approximately the height required for a second level. The applicant returned to the ORB with a proposal to enclose the area above the garage. The ORB approved this with the condition that no floor area be installed without returning to the PEC for a setback variance. Following this ORB approval, the, applicant's engineer indicated that floor joists would be required to stabilize the structure. The applicant would like to pursue this and is now requesting a variance to allow 296 feet of GRFA in the front setback, (above the garage). IL ZONING ANALYSIS Lot Size: 0.64 acre or 28,039 sq. fL Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Allowed AoDroved Mav 9. 1994 Pr000sed October 10. 1994 Height: 33, 32.5' 32.5' GRFA: 6,753.9 sq. ft. 1,071 sq. ft. 1,413 sq. ft. Setbacks: Front: 20' 4' for garage, 20' for home 4' for garage, 20' for home Side: 15' 62' 62' Side: 15' 35' 35' Rear: 15' 65, 65' Site Coverage: 4,205 sq. ft, (151%) 815 sq. ft. (3%) 815 sq. ft. (3%) Landscaping: 10,823.4 (60%) 27,044 sq. ft, (96.4%) 27,044 sq. ft. (96.4%) Parking: 2 spaces 2 spaces 2 spaces III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS . Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. Consideration of Factors: 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures In the vicinity. Staff believes that the relationship between the requested variance to other structures in the vicinity is positive. In general, we believe that locating the garage at the street level with a 4-foot setback will entail less site disturbance than locating the garage higher on the lot, behind the front setback, and constructing a driveway from the street level up to a higher elevation. The additional story above the garage, including the GRFA, is reasonable in staff's opinion due to the steep hillside the development is located on. The roof of the second floor addition will be flush with the grade on the south side so that the garage and the second floor will appear benched into the hillside. There will be a 4-foot setback from the property line and a t 9-foot setback from the edge of pavement. As a result, staff believes that there is an adequate buffer between the proposed construction and the street. 2 Concerning the use, staff understands that the applicant would like to finish the second floor as a bedroom. The site is large enough to accommodate a second unit on the site; however, the site plan as currently designed, does not provide adequate parking for two dwelling units. As a result, there is a maximum of one dwelling unit allowed. The applicant understands that no kitchen facilities may be constructed in the floor area above the garage. An option staff discussed with the applicant is to create a Type II Employee Housing Unit above the garage. This would require the addition of one more parking space. Staff would recommend that the applicant increase the retaining walls around the garage to accommodate another space on -site. If this could be done, staff would recommend that the employee housing unit be created. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes that the physical hardship on the site which warrants a variance is the slope. The slope under the proposed residence and garage is an average of 36%. Due to the steepness of the site, staff believes that the construction of this building can be two levels. 3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety. The parking requirement for the development is two, both of which are inside the garage. The staff received one call from a neighbor (in the Camelot Townhomes) and he expressed no opposition to the development but said that parking in the neighborhood was tight. The parking requirement has been met; however, to address the parking concern, staff must clarify the code requirement that the on -site parking be completed prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for the residence. This will ensure that the required parking is available once the residence is completed. A related concern of staff involves the soil conditions of the site. The drainage that runs through the site is the same drainage that another developer in town had problems with. Staff has talked to a representative from Koechlein Consulting Engineering Company who has recommended that a soil investigation be done in the area where the garage will be constructed. The engineer believes that the location of the house is high enough on the hillside that there will be very little risk of soil instability. However, the garage is built in an area of the site that may be impacted by drainage. Because of this information staff has received from the engineer, staff is requiring strict adherence to the Hazard Section of the Zoning Code, Section 18.69.050. This section requires the soils investigation to be provided to the Town r� for to issuance of building permit. The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings, before arantind a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners 41 of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the variance to locate GRFA in the front setback. We believe the request meets the variance criteria, as discussed above. In addition, staff believes that the proposal meets the findings. Specifically, staff believes that Finding 1 is met In that there is no grant of special privilege, as the slope is very steep and other setback variances have been granted on lots that are of a similar slope. Staff believes that Finding 2 is met in that there is no impact to public health, safety, or welfare, given that a soils report be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. Finding 3b is met, in staff's opinion, as the slope is an extraordinary circumstance on the site that warrants a variance. Therefore, staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. The moulder walls and foundation of the garage and house must be designed by a registered professional engineer. 2. The utility service line for the garage and house shall be buried underground. 3. The applicant must secure a public way permit prior to applying for a building permit. 4. The applicant must provide a detailed drawing of the driveway showing a 4-foot wide valley pan and a maximum of an 8% slope from the edge of pavement to the garage slab. i 0 �4N�{doll 40- 0 109 ra =077--- -8_ ® - _. n 7F= T d E C0.tiP 7 2. A request for a conditional use to allow for three employee housing units to be located at 44 Willow Place?Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village 1 st Filing. Applicant: Jay Peterson Planner: Andy Knudtsen Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the request for a conditional use permit to allow for three employee housing units per the staff memo with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote approved this request. 3. A request for a setback variance to allow for GRFA to be located in the front setback for a proposed structure at 284Basfngdafe BoialevaicULot i3lock;9;:;Vail ?FJiermounfa[n� Applicant: Daniel Frederick Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that staff was recommending approval of this request with the six conditions outlined on Pages 4 and 5 of the staff memo. . Kathy Langenwalter inquired about the proposed two-story structure which was located within 4 feet of the property tine. Andy Knudtsen stated that the DRB had approved the separation request for the 24 foot tall garage since it complied with all zoning standards. Kathy Langenwalter felt that the Zoning Code did not intend for such two-story structures to be located this close to the property line given the slope of the site. Dalton Williams did not feel it was appropriate to locate a 24 foot high structure within 4 feet of the front setback. He also felt that the 17 foot high retaining wall was excessive. Kathy Langenwalter stated that she opposed this request because it did not conform with her interpretation of the intent of the Zoning Code. Andy Knudtsen stated that the PEC should make a determination concerning the location of GRFA in the front setback and that interpretations of the Zoning Code could be done later. • Dalton Williams stated that the intent of the Zoning Code was to allow for a minimally - sized garage in the front setback. He believed that a significant change to a project that had received PEC approval should be required to come back through the PEC. Concerning the GRFA in the front setback, he stated that he was not familiar with any sites in Town that have been allowed to have GRFA located above the garage. Planning and Environmental Commission Minules October 10, 1994 2 Allison Lassoe had nothing further to add. Jeff Bowen stated that the original approval for the wall height variance was to allow for the garage to be located in the front setback and that to turn the garage into a two- story structure was not the Intent of the original approval for the wall height variance. Bob Armour opposed GRFA being located In the front setback. Bill Anderson agreed with Bob's comment. He asked the applicant why he desired to build a 24 foot tall garage if no floor area was allowed. Dan Frederick felt that the 24 foot tall garage was a better design than what the PEC had previously approved. Jeff Bowen made a motion to deny the request for a setback variance to allow for GRFA to be located in the front setback with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote denied the applicant's request. Andy Knudtsen stated that he would discuss the situation with Tom Moorhead to determine which board (PEC/DRB) has purview over which sections of the Zoning Code. 4. A request for an update on the conditional use permit approval for the tent to be used for the Vail Associates ski school to be located south of the Lionshead Center Building/Tract A, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant: Tim Kehoe, representing Vail Associates Planner: Andy Knudtsen Andy Knudtsen presented modified drawings of the proposed tent to be located at the Vail Associates ski school located south of the Llonshead Center. He stated that the DRB had approved the tent with the condition that the exterior tent have a "woodsy, western -like" appearance. The PEC was not concerned with the proposed location of the tent. Jack Hunn explained the differences between the currently proposed tent and the tent approved by the PEC. Bill Anderson inquired how Vail Associates proposed to achieve the 'woodsy" concept the DRB had requested. . Jack Hunn stated that this would be accomplished via a series of applied logs on the exterior. Kathy Langenwalter pointed out that the current tent was not what the PEC had recently approved. Planning and Environmental Commission Minwes October ID, 1904 - �t TOWNOF VAIL �75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 303-479-2107/FAX 303-479-2157 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission Community Development Department FROM: R. Thomas Moorhead DATE: October 20, 1994 RE: Approval Process for a Proposed Structure • at 2840 Basingdale Blvd., Lot 4, Block 9, Vail, Intermountain 1. Aooroval Process. Office of Town Attorney My understanding of the approval process is as follows: 1. April 20, 1994 Design Review Board approved separation of the garage and residence due to the topographical features on the lot which include slope in excess of 30 percent and natural drainage. 2. May 9, 1994 the Planning and Environmental Commission approved wall height variances in excess of the allowed maximum of three feet for walls located in the front setback. 3. May 18, 1994 the project received Design Review Board approval after a detailed review of the Design Review Guidelines that pertain to the proposed development. 4. August 3, 1994 DRB approval for the addition of a second story to the garage that is to be located in the front setback. The height of the proposed structure is within the zoning code as it is under 33 feet. 5. October 10, 1994 Planning and Environmental Commission denied a request for a variance to allow GRFA to be located in the front setback. ll. Discussion. My understanding of the issue is that the Planning and Environmental Commission questions whether the applicant should have, returned to the Planning and Environmental Commission for approval of modification of the proposed garage by adding a second floor prior to Design Review consideration of the proposal. In as much as the height of the building Is in compliance with the zoning code, the applicant could not be required to return to PEC prior to DRB consideration. As the height of the proposed structure was within the height requirements, the DRB must evaluate the design of the structure pursuant to its guidelines. As long as the application is found to be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the zoning code, the project shall be placed by staff upon the agenda of the DRB. 18.54.040(c)(2). Appropriately, the DRB approval was limited to no floor area being located in the structure without further PEC approval. I believe that appropriate consideration was given to the project by PEC and DRB. I hope this information is helpful. • 0 TO: Town of Vail / Commtmity Development FROM: Daniel Frederick ITEM: Request appeal for decision handed dmAm on 10/10/94 by the Planning and Environmental Commission. HISTORY: I, Daniel T. Frederick, owner of 2940 Basingdale Blvd. Vail Intermountain, wish to appeal a. decision made aweek ago by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) concerning the construction ofmy personal residence. On October 10, 1994 the PEC `rejected my proposed plans to allow for 296 feet of GRFA in the front setback. My developmentt proposal is for a single family home, twelve hundred square feet and a detached 2 car garage on a. Primary/ Secondary lot in Intermountain. I am proposing the detached two -car garage to be located in the front setback. Since my lot exceeds a 30% slope, I am required by ordinance to construct a 2 car garage. A setback variance for the garage is not required. On April 20 , 1994 the DRB reviewed my separation request and approved it. On May 9, 1994, the PEC reviewed my proposal and approved the site plan which included variances for wall height. As aresult of that meeting the code to allow wall heights up to 6 feet for required garages was enacted. On the advise of my Structural Engineer that because of the on average 36� o slope tinder the garage that a retaining wall in 17 feet in height will have to be built. With �aonsideration given to drainage and potentially active geology. it has been recommended that the garage will need to be stabilized with floor joists and plywood. No exterior changes will be needed to the approved plans in order to allow this structure to be constructed and stabilized properly. This will allow me to have storage space with a roof overhead. In reviewing the staff recommendations to the PEC , the Community Development Department has recommended approval of my proposal. The Staff can be quoted as saying the relationship between my requested variance and the other structures in the area is a positive one. They believe that locating the garage where I am proposing now would create less of a disturbance on the land than locating it higher up on the property. They also have said they believe that the additional story above the garage, which would become living space, is wramonable proposal. They state that the garage will appear to be benched into the hillside and that adequate space is being provided between the front of the garage and the street. They understand that I mean to use this story as a bedroom. In the document that my planmer, Andy Knudtsen, submitted to the PEC, the staff recommends approval on all three criteria. It is because of staff approval that I am appealing the PEC decision, because they feel that I have met the requirements that would be needed. In reviewing, the staff believes that this request meets the requirements needed to obtain the necessary relieffrom the strict and Iiteral interpretation. In their review of my application for a variance, Community Development stipulated 3 objectives that I must meet before they'd give their approval. All of the objectives were met to their satisfaction, including the one which stated that the granting of a. variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege. It is my belief that this variance is warranted due to the reasons I have stated above. In working with the planning department at various times during this process, I have inquired about the feasibility of providing the 400 sq,ft.ofGRFA over the garage to deed restricted Type If employee housing. I was told deed restrictions were not required for what I was proposing and that it would require an additional parking space. Excavating for an additional parking space will require the construction of large a retaining wall that with the current proposal does not exist and are not required. Furthermore, the Town of Vail says in its Statement of Goa.[s & Objectives for 1994, that one of their objectives in the realm of housing is to "facilitate construction and retention of local housing, which is affordable, and compatible, in order to maintain the social and economic viability of the Town of Vail " I am a, long time resident of this valley, and one who due to lack of rental space in Vail, has been forced to move down Valley. As a. concession on my part I am willing to deed restrict all currently proposed development to Type H employee housing. This would be a total of 1600 sq. ft living space along with a 2 car garage. I understand that this would be, if granted, a. Conditional Use Permit. I also understand that all future development will need to reviewed in a traditional manner. TOV Statement of Goals & Objective for housing #5 states,"Encourage through zoning improvements/changes/ modifications our ability to stabilize the local population..." ec" WO -IT Vt7,Mw H "re:pmt;, e[icf?ov�-""",o I � rt 1Z Gi PSI:-iN� � D 1 pi�.