Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-02-06 Town Council Minutes!A MINUTES VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING February 6, 1996 7:30 P.M. A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, February 6, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at approximately 7:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Armour, Mayor Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro -Tern Kevin Foley Rob Ford Mike Jewett Paul Johnston Ludwig Kurz MEMBERS ABSENT: TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney Pam Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk First item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Town of Vail resident J B Smith voiced his concerns regarding the regional transportation authority and their working on expanding the regional transportation system. Mr. Smith complained about people driving too fast and recklessly in our area and urged Council to oppose an increased 75 mph speed limit. Second was the Consent Agenda which consisted of approval of the minutes for the meetings of January 2 and 16, 1996. Sybill moved to approve the Consent Agenda, and the motion was seconded by Kevin. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. . The third item on the agenda was Resolution No. 4, Series of 1996, a Resolution Extending the Present Term of the Design Review Board. Tom Moorhead explained that the terms of Hans Woldrich and Robert Borne, had expired on February 1, and it was necessary to reappoint them in order for the February DRB meetings to be conducted with a quorum. Tom further explained that staff was recommending the Council pass Resolution No. 4, Series of 1996 until new DRB Members could be sworn in on March 6. A motion was made by Paul to approve Resolution No. 4, with a second from Mike Jewett. A vote was then taken and passed. unanimously, 7-0. Fourth on the agenda was Resolution No. 5, Series of 1996, a Resolution Agreeing to Indemnify Stewart Title for Attorneys Fees. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead, presented the item, stating that pursuant to the agreement with City Market, it was the obligation of the Town of Vail to provide title insurance. In the event such title insurance was not available it was the obligation of the Town of Vail to bring a declaratory judgment action to resolve any issues concerning the Town's authority to enter into the previously executed agreement. Tom said that upon review of the agreement and the authority of the Town to enter into the same, Stewart Title believed that the actions taken were appropriate and consistent with Town of Vail ordinances, its Charter and Colorado law. However, Tom stated, obtaining title insurance would require an agreement that the Town of Vail would share any cost of defending such a lawsuit. Tom stated that such an agreement was reasonable and would relieve the Town of Vail of the obligation to presently bring a declaratory judgment action to remove any potential of a lawsuit being fled by the "Common Sense for the Commons" Petitioner's Committee. Tom further stated that the staff recommendation was to pass the resolution, which would authorize the Town Manager to enter into an agreement with Stewart Title to share attorneys fees and costs �M— in the event a cause of action was brought by the "Common Sense for the Commons" Town Council Evenong Meeting 02106196 Petitioner's Committee challenging the authority of the Town of Vail to enter into the agreement with City Market. A motion was made by Sybill to approve Resolution No. 5, Series of 1996, with a second from Paul. Mike stated he didn't participate in an earlier executive session because of his involvement with the Common Sense for Commons iCommittee, but said he would vote on the issue. Sybill questioned whether the time frame for a lawsuit had passed, and Tom stated that the review period for a court action in district court challenging the project as arbitrary and capricious had passed. Mayor Armor questioned whether it was appropriate for council member Mike Jewett to vote on the issue. Tom addressed the question, stating it Mike Jewett's responsibility to disclose any conflict of interest he might have. Mike said after studying documents he received from the Secretary of State's office he was confident he did not have a conflict and stated he was clearly opposed to the project. A vote was taken and passed 6-1, Mike Jewett voting in opposition. Item number five on the agenda was an appeal to the Town Council, pursuant to Section 18.62.070 of the Municipal Code, of the Planning and Environmental Commission decision to deny the Koenig driveway grade request, for a residence currently under construction on Lot 26, Potato Patch Subdivision/795 Potato Patch Drive. Town Planner, George Ruther presented the item, and provided the following background: On January 8, 1996, the applicant's representative met with the Planning and Environmental Commission, ("PEC"), requesting a driveway grade variance for a residence under construction at 795 Potato Patch Drive, in accordance with Chapter 18.62, Variances, of the Municipal Code (see attachment 1). Upon review of the requested variance, a motion was made to deny the applicant's request since the PEC could not make the findings necessary to grant approval of a variance (see attachment 2). The motion passed unanimously (4-0). A letter from the applicant's representative, Eric Johnson, dated January 17, 1996, appealing the PEC decision, was reviewed (see attachment 3). In the applicant's letter, he referred to Section 17.28.030, Design Criteria, as being the section of the Municipal Code from which he was seeking relief. Specifically, the applicant was seeking relief from the maximum grade for heated driveways.(12%). In this appeal, the applicant wished to be permitted a heated driveway with a finished grade of 14.1 %. A copy of the memorandum prepared by staff to the PEC on January 8, 1996, was attached for reference (see attachment 4). George reviewed the three findings as outlined in the variances section of the Town Code. Town Engineer, Greg Hall, said maximum grades for both heated and unheated driveways were adopted and that not more than 12% was allowed. Project Architect, Eric Johnson, addressed the Council, stating the biggest concern should be the safety issue. He said the Fire Department had reviewed the site and issued a letter of support. Mr. Johnson then presented a survey of the property and expressed his feeling that more hardship would be caused on the property if the driveway were not allowed as requested. Contractor, Ray Kutash, and owner of Beehive Construction, reviewed the details of the heated driveway and explained how the survey error had occurred. He felt the survey error constituted a hardship, and that allowing the variance would not be detrimental to public health or safety and reiterated the fire department's approval of the request. Project engineer, Jerry Law, informed Council that it would be safer to allow the driveway to remain as is. He then reviewed possible solutions and presented a diagram of the project. Councilman Ludwig Kurz asked if the 12% grade could have been adhered to, and the applicant stated that it could have been in compliance had the surveying error not occurred.. Paul Johnston said that if the owner of the property would be willing to indemnify the Town of Vail against any emergency or accidents, he would have no problem overturning the decision. George explained that the applicant would be willing to indemnify the town, but felt strongly that the agreement should be recorded, as future owners might not be willing to comply. Tom Moorhead said he'd not heard of such an indemnification running with the land. Paul Johnston moved to overturn the decision of the PEC, conditional upon the owner of the property indemnifying the Town of Vail. The motion was seconded by Sybill Navas. Mike Jewett was concerned that vehicles might end up parking on the street if they couldn't get up the driveway, and Ludwig Kurz commented that he would be in favor of Paul's motion for two reasons: 1) the percentage by which the grade was in excess was minor, and 2) because the applicant did not intentionally go over the allowable grade. Sybill stated she Town Council Evenong Meeting 02106196 would vote in favor, but felt it unfortunate that many designs are being built at the absolute maximum allowances without leaving room for possible error. Rob agreed, suggesting applicants needed to allow for a contingency. A vote was taken and passed, 4-3, Mike, Sybill, Paul and Ludwig in favor; Mayor Armour, Rob Ford and Kevin Foley voting in 40 opposition. Tom Moorhead asked if it was a requirement that the indemnification agreement be recorded with the County Clerk & Recorder, and council members agreed that it was a condition of the motion that the owners of the property execute an indemnification agreement with the Town of Vail, and further, that the agreement must be executed and recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to issuing a T.C.O. for the east -half of the duplex. The sixth item on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob McLaurin gave an update on the railroad abandonment project and asked Council to allocate $4,000 from council contingency to assist Eagle County with legal fees associated with the project. Paul Johnston moved to approve the $4,000 contribution and the motion was seconded by Sybill Navas. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. Bob then invited council members to attend an appreciation luncheon for Town of Vail employees the following day, to thank town crews for their hard work during January's . record snow fall. There being no further business, Rob moved for adjournment. The motion was second by Ludwig and the meeting was adjourned at approximately 9:00 P.M. ATTEST: m Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk (Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate.) !t Respectfully submitted, jRoeertW. Armour, Mayor Town Council fvenonq Meeting 02106196 �y TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2100 •4X 970-479-2157 MEDIA ADVISORY February 7, 1996 Contact: Suzanne Silverthorn, 479-2115 Community Information Office VAIL TOWN COUNCIL HIGHLIGHTS FOR FEBRUARY 6 Work Session Briefs Council members present. Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Ludwig Kurz Ludwig Kurz, who was elected to fill a mid -year term during the Jan. 30 special election, was sworn in by Town Clerk Holly McCutcheon_ Kurz will serve until November 1997. --Citizen Participation, Diane Golden The Council heard from local resident Diane Golden who expressed a concern about the effectiveness of the town's GRFA (gross residential floor area) provisions. Golden said the town's GRFA requirements are too restrictive and are driving people out of town. She said the town should continue to restrict exterior bulk and mass, but should be less concerned about what takes place within the interior of buildings. Council members said they would add the topic to their retreat discussion scheduled for Feb. 27. Golden asked the Council to have new policies in place in time for the coming construction season. --Site Visit Council members visited a residence under construction at 795 Potato Patch Drive in preparation for the evening meeting. --Volleyball Courts The Council voted 7-0 to allow the Vail Recreation District to proceed through the planning process to request a conditional use permit to allow for the construction of four new sand volleyball courts on town -owned land at the east end of the existing • soccer field south of Vail Valley Drive. The request will be heard by the Planning and Environmental Commission at its Feb. 26 meeting, For more information, contact George Ruther at 479-2145. --Vail Commons Lottery Criteria After reviewing various options to structure and prioritize criteria for the Vail Commons �#) �more� R CYCLED APER Council Highlights/Add 1 lottery, the majority of the Council members reacted favorably to: 1) Pursuing a modified point allocation structure with basic eligibility as the preferred approach to structuring the lottery. Under this approach, individuals would be ranked based on such factors as length of employment, length of residency and home . ownership status. Based on the ranking, individuals would qualify for different tiers. A random drawing would be conducted within each tier, starting with the top tier and moving through to the next, until all homes are allocated. The strength of this approach, said senior housing policy planner Andy Knudtsen, is that it allows for a variety of values to be involved in the ranking without getting too detailed. 2) Requiring financial pre -qualification prior to applying for the lottery, 3) Giving higher priority to applicants who work in Vail, while those who work elsewhere will be weighted slightly lower. Longevity will be recognized with an emphasis placed on long-term employees and residents of five or more years. 4) No preferences will be given for length of residency in Vail as compared to other locations in the Vail Valley. 5) Giving low priority to persons who already own homes; however, should an existing homeowner agree to deed restrict a current property, the application could be weighted higher. 6) Making the 37 two -bedroom units available to any lottery applicant (singles, couple, etc.), while prioritizing the 16 three -bedroom units for families (three or more persons related by blood, marriage or adoption). 7) Allowing business owners to participate in the lottery only if there are no other individual purchasers. During the discussion, several members of the public offered their opinions and suggestions, including: keep the lottery process as simple as possible; consider adjusting the 3 percent appreciation cap on resales to the Denver/Boulder Consumer Price Index; allow for room mates, so long as the unit also is occupied by the owner; keep the lottery process fair for single applicants and make it as random as possible; and consider targeting some of the units for critical employees such as hospital workers, police, fire, etc. Following yesterday's initial discussion and direction provided by the Council, the proposed lottery application and structure will be refined and presented for additional public input at a work session on Feb. 20 and at the March 5 evening Council meeting. Demand for the 53 for -sale units is expected to exceed the supply. To date, more than 200 individuals have requested information on the housing. For more details, contact Andy Knudtsen in the Community Development Department at 479-2138. --Youth Recognition Award After hearing an overview from Paul Johnston, Council members agreed to move forward in selecting and announcing winners of a new youth recognition award sponsored by the Town of Vail. The award, which replaces the Chuck Anderson Youth Award, will honor two high school juniors, one from Battle Mountain, the other from Vail Mountain School, with a summer internship experience in another country, such as St. Moritz, Switzerland. The town will provide funds for the students' travel expenses and (more) Council Highlights/Add 2 will coordinate other arrangements through the Vail Valley Exchange program, formerly the Sister Cities Committee. For more details, contact Johnston at 479-1860. • --Town Council Appointments Ludwig Kurz was asked to consider serving on four committees: Northwest Colorado Council of Governments alternate; Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Water Quality/Quantity Committee alternate; Eagle County Recreation Authority (Berry Creek Fifth) alternate; and the Colorado Ski Museum and Ski Hall of Fame.. --Information Update Council members were asked to review the criteria for contributions to outside agencies in preparation for the 1996 budget. Last year, the Council gave priority to requests that sought to enhance the town's economic viability through marketing, special events and other activities, while deferring social services requests to other agencies. The Council added the topic to its list of discussion items for its Feb. 27 retreat. Assistant Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer said the town has received some complaints from residents in the Matterhorn neighborhood regarding late -night snowmobiling in Donovan Park. She said staff will monitor the situation and will recommend if an ordinance on snowmobiling within the town's boundaries should be pursued. • The benefit package for council -appointed board and commission members was discussed. Currently members of the Vail Valley Marketing Board and Vail Housing Authority receive no benefits, while members of the Arts in Public Places, Local Licensing Authority, Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission receive a minimum benefit of either a blue parking pass or a recreation pass. Applications for 10 open seats on five boards are due Feb. 14, The Council.will discuss the benefits in more detail at an upcoming meeting. --Council Reports Paul Johnston, who represents the Council on the board of the Chamber of Commerce, distributed a Vail Valley map which represents the first joint venture between the Chamber and the Vail Valley Tourism and Convention Bureau. He said plans are progressing for construction of a new tourism information center in Avon which would also house a new Eagle County Annex. Rob Ford gave an overview of the Ford Park management study meetings. He said parking and access issues have dominated the discussions. Since none of the user . groups have expressed interest in financing a parking structure at the park, Ford said the study group is reviewing better utilization of current parking facilities and an extension of bus service from the in -town shuttle route to accommodate events and other activities at the park. (more) Council Highlights/Add 3 Sybill Navas, through her committee assignment on the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, reported on an effort to direct excess state revenues to the Department of Transportation for possible projects in the Vail Valley. Navas also encouraged the town to become involved in an economic analysis of the • area conducted by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs at the request of the U.S. Forest Service. Navas said it's important for the data to be accurate since the Forest Service will use the study in making land use decisions. In another committee report, Navas said the Special Events Commission has approved funding requests for three events: the local mountain bike race series; the Vail International Hockey Tournament; and a June marketing program sponsored by the Vail Alpine Garden Foundation. Also, Navas said the Special Events Committee has suggested revamping town ordinances to allow more banners during events. The Council agreed to discuss the item at its Feb. 27 retreat. Lastly, Navas said it appears the Vail Valley Tourism & Convention Bureau and Vail Associates are continuing to make headway in resolving the 1-800 number conflict. Kevin Foley said he attended a workshop for elected officials sponsored by the Colorado Municipal League (CML). Vail will host CML's annual conference in June with an estimated 1,500 delegates. Foley encouraged his colleagues to participate in the conference. --Other • Public Works/Transportation Director Larry Grafel gave an update on snow removal efforts in January: crews worked the equivalent of 6 weeks within the month; $56,000 in salaries were paid while equipment costs totaled $96,000; 16 pieces of equipment were kept running an average of 12 hours a day for a total of 3,600 hours; 780 tons of cinders and 1,600 gallons of magnesium chloride were used; $33,000 was spent on contractual services to haul and remove snow; 1,800 truck loads of snow were hauled, or the equivalent of one football field piled with'22 feet of snow. For additional details, contact Grafel at 479-2173. Evening Session Briefs Council members present: Armour, Foley, Ford, Jewett, Johnston, Kurz, Navas --Citizen Participation The Council heard from J.B. Smith of Vail who expressed concern about the regional transportation authority's progress in expanding the regional transportation system. Smith called the process extremely bureaucratic. He also complained about people driving too fast for conditions in and around Vail and asked for the Council's support in • opposing an increase to the speed limit on the interstate. Smith learned the town has already sent a letter to the state in opposition of a speed limit increase on Vail Pass west through Dowd Junction. --Design Review Board Term Extensions (more) Council Highlights/Add 4 The Council voted 7-0 to approve a resolution extending the present terms of two members of the Design Review Board, Hans Woldrich and Robert Borne, until the newly appointed members are sworn in on March 6. The terms had been set to expire • Feb. 1. --Vail Commons Indemnification The Council voted 6-1 (Jewett against) to approve a resolution directing the town manager to enter into an agreement with Stewart Title Guaranty Company to share any attorneys fees and costs which might be incurred defending any action brought by the "Common Sense for the Commons" Petitioner's Committee, which has sought to block the project. Town Attorney Tom Moorhead said the indemnification was a reasonable request by the title company in exchange for providing title insurance for up to $20 million for improvements on the Vail Commons site. In the event of a lawsuit, the agreement provides that Stewart Title Guaranty Company would be responsible for the first $7,000 in attorneys fees; the town would be responsible for the second $7,000; and both entities would split equally all fees in excess of $14,000, Before voting on the resolution, Councilman Michael Jewett said he chose not to participate in an executive session discussion of the issue because of his involvement on the Petitioner's Committee. In response to a question by Council member Sybill Navas, Moorhead said the review period for a court action in district court challenging the project as arbitrary and capricious has passed. Ground breaking on the Vail Commons development is aexpected to occur later this month. For more information, contact Moorhead at 479- 2107. --Appeal of Planning and Environmental Commission Denial of Driveway Grade Variance Request The Council voted 4-3 (Foley, Ford, Armour against) to overturn denial by the Planning and Environmental Commission of a driveway grade variance request for a residence currently under construction at 795 Potato Patch Drive. Following the vote, Council members. Sybill Navas and Rob Ford emphasized the need for future applicants to plan responsibly in accounting for margins of error within the framework of the project's design rather than squeezing plans to the maximum grade, height or square footage, and then expecting to receive a variance from the town. For more details, contact George Ruther in the Community Development Department at 479-2145. --Town Manager's Report During an update on the railroad abandonment project, Town Manager Bob McLaurin recommended and received approval on a 7-0 vote to appropriate $4,000 to help Eagle County with legal fees associated with the local action. McLaurin said the town would be hosting a luncheon today (Wednesday) to thank town crews for their hard work during January's record snow fall. (more) Council Highlights/Add 5 UPCOMING DISCUSSION TOPICS February 93 Work Session All Day Council/Staff Public Process Work Session PEC/DRB Report Information Update Council Reports February 20 Work Session PEC Interviews DRB Interviews Housing Authority Interviews Vail Valley Marketing Board Interviews Continuation of Lottery Criteria Discussion 9 0-Year Budget Contribution Request Criteria Revisit Town Council Board/Committee Appointments Executive Session/Land Negotiations February 20 Evening Meeting PEC Appointments DRB Appointments Housing Authority Appointments Vail Valley Marketing Board Appointments Eagle Valley Land Trust Presentation February 27 Work Session DRB/PEC Review All Day Council Retreat 0 0 eric johpsona r c t o c t January 17, 1996 Town of Vail, Town Council 11 S. Frontage Road West Vail, CO 81657 Gw JAN 17 1996 TOROK DEU= DEPT. RE: Koenig Residence Primary/Secondary Residence Improvements 795 Potato Patch Drive Vail, CO 81657 VARIANCE STATEMENT This variance is written in order to prevent hardship and increase practicability for an existing non -conforming condition. A request to deviate from a strict interpretation of Section 18.58.020 and Section 17.28.330 involving the items listed below was denied by the PEC on 1/8/96 is hereby submitted for appeal. The difficulty lies in a minor construction defect found in the driveway installation due to a topographic survey error and a request by the Town Engineer to install an extensive steel guardrail in the Public -Right -of -Way. The original heated concrete driveway was designed for a maximum 12% slope as allowed, reviewed and approved by Public Works on 4/6/95. Upon on -site verification on 11/14/95 by the above representatives it was determined that on the centerline of driveway, a short (20') section at the bottom exceeded 12%. This could be attributed to a minor construction defect; however, following a request by the PEC Worksession for as -built surveys, the original topo showed errors of 8". The 12/28/95 topo and follow-up letter by White Survey clarify this fact. This eliminated any room for error and this hardship has resulted in a request to appeal the variance denial. As seen in the enclosed letter of approval by the Fire Marshall, this area of concern has been mitigated by an extensive fire alarm system and state-of-the-art driveway snowmelt controls. The costs associated with completely resolving this matter involve the cutting, demolition and complete removal of the seamless hydronic tubing and reinforced concrete and the re -installation of the same for approximately $70,000. A smaller scale concrete capping of the related area would be approximately $1,500-$3,000 but the quality, longevity and .upkeep of this solution is highly questionable. This opinion has been acknowledged by Public Works. The issue of the steel guardrail along Potato Patch Drive is a last minute condition attached to the PEC approval of the retaining wall variance by the Public Works Department to safeguard a condition that was existent before the project began. As seen in the 7/25/94 topo survey there was no shoulder along Potato Patch Drive before construction began nor was any shoulder proposed in the 4/6/95 approved drawings. 1000 lionsridge loop • suite 3d 9 vail colorado 81657 • (970) 476-9228 + fax (970) 476-9023 The Contractor has made every effort to restore a 2' gravel shoulder with at least 5' of 1:2 slope but this is now impossible to achieve (in a small area) with the driveway and retaining walls in place. The area requested to be mitigated by the Town Engineer (adjacent to the shoulder) is also occupied by a 1 1/4 " PVC gas line @ 30" below grade that may be impacted during construction and certainly effected for future repairs. We feel Public Works created a hardship condition in 8/89 when, according to Gary Hall of PSCo, Director Stan Berryman ordered a second gas line be placed on the south side of Potato Patch Drive to eliminated future asphalt utility cuts. PSCo requires maintenance of the line be performed between the asphalt and any improvement. Therefore, allowance for future guardrails, such as is presently requested, was not made and herein lies the hardship. This also brings up the issue of future maintenance, liability and shared costs. Initial construction estimates suggest $3500- $4000 installed without having to move the gas line. Should this be absorbed by the property owner or is there a possibility of shared costs? Should the railing need maintenance or is damaged, who should absorb these costs? The barrier also creates a hazard by limiting sight lines for traffic and casting shadows that create ice slicks. Who is liable in these instances? While there is the issue of additional damages created by improvement of the property there is also the safeguard of homeowners insurance that covers such matters. While we agree to the request for matters of safety our own civil engineer has reached a similar and less obtrusive solution. we respectfully request these methods be considered in interest of cost, the likelihood of damage to an underground gas line, reduced hazards and appearance. We feel these matters and the consequences to the home owners shall have no effect on the light, views and safety of the public. Herein lies the summation of the variance request along with the survey dated 12/28/95 and letters for the above stated Primary/ Secondary residence. The above items have been presented and discussed with the Planning Staff, Public Works and the Planning and Zoning Commission in previous conferences and this statement is our understanding of the matters involved. We appreciate any other points of clarification and should be brought to our attention in writing. Retf 11y ubmitted, Eric Jo 0 ERIC JOHNS ARCHITECT, P.C. Enclosures: Fire Dept (Mike Magee), White Survey (Daryl White), PSCo (Gary Hall), Civil Engineering (Jerry Law), Petition (Adj. Neighbors), Beehive Const. (Ray Kutash),.Longs Excav (Daryl Long). Casson Concrete Construction (limbo Casson). MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 8, 1996 SUBJECT: A request for a wall height variance and driveway grade variance for the Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicant: Eric Johnson for Gary Koenig Planner: George Ruther DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant, Eric Johnson, representing the property owner, is requesting a wall height variance and a driveway grade variance for a new Primary/Secondary residence under construction on Lot 26, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. A Building Permit for the Primary/Secondary residence was issued on April 21, 1995, and construction on the project has proceeded since that date. On October 17, 1995, the applicant submitted an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC) for staff review and approval. Staff requires a review and approval of an ILC to insure that the . improvements under construction comply with the relevant development standards. When staff reviewed the ILC for Lot 26, it was determined that the retaining walls on the south side of the driveway, and those on the north side of the driveway, in the front setback exceeded the 3-foot height limitation pursuant to Section 18.58.020 of the Municipal Code. The heated driveway was also be over the 12% grade maximum. Section 18.58.020 of the Municipal Code permits retaining walls up to 3 feet in height in the front setback, and Section 17.28.030 allows driveway grades up to 12% if heated and approved by the Town Engineer. Since the applicant is proposing retaining walls up to 6 feet in height in the front setback, and a heated driveway with a finish grade of 14.1%, a variance approval from the Planning and Environmental Commission is required. II. BACKGROUND According to the applicant, the need for the wall height variance and driveway grade variance requests are the result of minor construction defects. • On April 6, 1995, the Town of Vail Public Works Department reviewed and approved the proposed heated driveway grade at 12%. The Public Works Department's review and approval was based upon a site plan and topographic survey submitted to the Town of Vail. Additionally, the Fire Department approved the 12% driveway grade once the applicant revised the site plan to allow for a wider driveway access onto the property. • On November 14, 1995, an inspection of the finished driveway grade was completed by the Town Engineers.. The inspection concluded that the finish driveway grade exceeded the allowed maximum grade of 12% pursuant to Section 17.28.030 of the Municipal Code. The finished driveway grade was determined to be up to 14.1 % over a 20 foot long section of the driveway. • On December 11, 1995, a worksession was held with the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss the proposed variances (See Attachment 1). At that meeting, the applicant presented a proposal to construct another three-foot tall boulder retaining wall along Potato Patch Drive. The purpose of the additional retaining wall was to facilitate the reconstruction of a two -foot wide gravel shoulder along the street. Upon detailed review of the site, it has been determined by the contractor's Consulting Engineer and the Town of Vail Public Works Department, that the pre-existing gravel shoulder cannot be restored and still maintain a safe slope adjacent to the street. Therefore, Public Works is now requiring that the contractor install 36 linear feet of steel guardrail, including flared -end sections, along Potato Patch Drive, should the wall height variance request be approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission. The purpose of the guardrail is to protect the general public and the property owner from vehicles sliding off of Potato Patch and down into the.driveway and house (See Attachment 2 ). The driveway grade variance was also discussed at the Planning and Environmental Commission worksession. The driveway as currently constructed, exceeds the 12% maximum allowed by the Municipal Code. The applicant has requested a variance to allow the existing driveway to remain as constructed. According to the "as -built" survey submitted by the applicant, the driveway exceeds the 12% maximum over a 20' section of the driveway. The maximum grade on the existing driveway is 14.1%. According to the • applicant, the excess driveway grade is due to minor defects in the construction process. It has been suggested by the Planning and Environmental Commission that the applicant research the possibility of "capping" the driveway to resolve the grade issue. The applicant has met with a Consulting Engineer to discuss the possibility of "capping" the driveway. The applicant has indicated that according to the Consulting Engineer, the long term longevity of the "capping" process, including the use of special concrete additives and epoxy, is questionable. The concern of the Consulting Engineer revolves around the extremely thin layer of concrete that will be added to the driveway. The applicant is continuing to research the "capping" process. At the December 11th worksession, staff had identified several issues which we wanted to discuss further with the Planning and Environmental Commission and the applicant. These issues included the redesign of the retaining wall along the south side of the driveway, and the need to redesign and regrade the landscaping in response to the change to the retaining wall system. The applicant has submitted a set of plan revisions illustrating the redesign of the retaining walls on the south side of the driveway, as well as a new landscape and grading plan (See Attachment 3). The applicant has indicated that the retaining wall south of the driveway will be modified by adding one more planting zone at the southernmost aspen to raise the grade of the top of the wall, thus shortening one of the areas where the wall is now just over four feet. The applicant has indicated a desire to leave the top course of stones along the driveway to act as a deterrent to vehicles sliding off of the driveway, and to prevent the erosion of the driveway subsurface. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to amend the landscape plan by adding three additional Colorado Blue Spruce, twelve five -gallon Red Twig Dogwoods, and eight Blue Rug Junipers to the previously approved landscape plan. The additional landscaping is intended to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed six foot tall retaining walls. III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS 0 Comnliance with the Town of Vail Zpnina Code. A. Pursuant to Section 18.62.060 (Criteria and Findings), before acting on a variance application the Planning and Environmental Commission shall consider the requested variance with respect to the variance Criteria and Findings. Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, staff recommends denial of the applicant's request for a wall height variance and driveway grade variance. 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity; The relationship of the requested variances to other existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity of the Koenig Residence will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on existing or potential uses and structures. The retaining walls are located on the downhill side of Potato Patch Drive. The walls will not be visible from any other location than the applicant's property and the adjoining lots to the east and west. To mitigate the visual impact of the retaining walls, the applicant has proposed to add more landscaping on the property. The additional landscaping will be placed to take maximum benefit of its' screening ability. Similiar to the wall height variance, the driveway grade variance will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The request to exceed the maximum grade allowable by 2.1% will only affect the users of the driveway. The proposed driveway will remain heated to help ensure all-weather access. Staff would like to point out however that since the adoption of the 12% driveway grade standard in 1991, no driveway grade variances have ever been granted. The approval or denial of the requested variance does not create precedence for future driveway grade variance requests. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites In the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege; The applicant has requested the minimum relief necessary from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the driveway grade and wall height regulations to achieve compatibility with the objectives of the Municipal Code. The applicant has agreed and proposed to add and delete boulders in the retaining walls where possible to reduce the finished wall's height. According to the Consulting Engineer, the retaining walls constructed to the north of the driveway are the minimum necessary to support the earth behind. In some locations, the Engineer has indicated that it may be desirable to increase the wall heights, however, this is not necessary. The applicant has submitted a set of Engineer's stamped plans to the Town of Vail as requested by the Planning and Environmental Commission. A letter from the Consulting Engineer has been attached (See Attachment 4) The applicant has neither proposed to increase, nor reduce the existing driveway grade. Instead, the applicant has requested that the driveway grade be permitted to remain at the grade constructed. At the present time, only 20 feet of the total driveway length exceeds the 12% maximum grade. Staff believes that the applicant is asking for the minimum amount of relief from the code necessary to achieve the desired objective. Staff, however, is concerned that granting the requested variances may result in the granting of special privilege. As discussed at the worksession meeting, the applicant had originally submitted, and the Town approved, a Building Permit set of drawings that illustrated the ability to construct the residence with a maximum 12 % driveway grade and three foot tall retaining walls in the front setback. If the applicant had come to the Planning and Environmental Commission requesting a wall height and driveway grade variance prior to the start of construction on the residence, it is quite likely that the variance would not have been approved because it appears no physical hardship or practical difficulty existed on the property. It would appear now that a practical difficulty exists. The issue, however, is that the practical difficulty of removing and reconstructing the retaining walls and driveway was self-imposed by the applicant and the contractor and their representatives. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public safety; Staff believes the wall height and driveway grade variances will have minimal, if any, negative impacts on the above described criteria. Staff would like to point out'that from a public safety standpoint, the Town of Vail Fire Department has granted their approval to the driveway grade variance request ( See Attachment 5). Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. 0 Staff has not identified any other factors or criteria applicable to the proposed variances. The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before granting a variance: 1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute.a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district; • 2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone. C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the wall height and driveway grade variances. Upon review of the Criteria and Findings listed in Section III of this memorandum, staff feels the applicant has failed to meet the findings'necessary to recommend approval. Staff agrees that the requested variances will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious, to properties or improvements in the vicinity of the Koenig Residence. Staff is concerned, however, that the applicant has not addressed finding 131 since the granting of the requested variances may constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. Should the Planning and Environmental Commission choose to grant an approval of the wall height and driveway grade variances, staff would recommend that the approval carry with it the following condition: 1) That 36 lineal feet of steel guardrail and required flared -end sections be installed along Potato Patch Drive in a location approved by the Town of Vail Public Works Department. 0 PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION December 11, 1995 draft minutes A request for a worksession for a wall height variance and driveway grade for the Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicant: Eric Johnson for Gary Koenig Planner: George Ruther George gave an overview of the worksession to discuss the wall height variance and the driveway grade. Two walls are now over the T height limitation. Public Works would like to have a 2' wide shoulder along Potato Patch. Staff would like the contractor to explain where the discrepancy happened between the approved set of plans and what got constructed. Public Works said the driveway is over 12%. Mike McGee (Fire Department) indicated that the building may need to be sprinklered in order for the grade to be approved. The driveway is heated, but there is no requirement from the Town to turn on the heat and also no enforcement. The current owners have provided a disclaimer releasing the Town from any liability. Ray Coutash, owner of Beehive Construction and contractor for the Koenig residence stated the intent was to try to preserve the native plantings. Upon excavation he moved the existing aspens. If wasn't for the rock wall those trees would have had to be cut. They tried to remove as little as possible. They only brought in one truckload of rock because they were able to use existing stone which explains the difference in the rock size. The slope of the roadfill was over 40%. The change in elevation from the highpoint to the driveway was not supplied in the original survey. There is almost 13' In elevation change. Eric Johnson, the architect, gave a 23% guideline. The staging area that the Fire Department • wanted was an additional 4'. There is only one area in front of the east garage doors where they raised the wall. Durability and strength were the reasons the wall needed to go to that height. They didn't make a cut along the road due to the presence of utilities and mature trees and felt that that was the primary reason for the decision. On the south side the intent was to preserve the aspen trees. If they used a three foot stepping process they would have ended up with five walls. The rocks along the roadway created the higher wall. He discussed these changes with the neighbors and decided to mitigate with landscaping to make the wall appear less high. The neighbors were ok with the look and liked the rock walls. Terri Martinez thought a guard rail should be put in. Ray Coutash said that would have created more problems. Their engineer is writing a letter to keep the earth the way it is and not put any more rock walls there. Ray raised the north side 9" to bring the driveway up, and came up 34, short of 12% grade. Thursday evening he had a 12% grade. Because he never got a response from Terri Martinez the Inspection never came together. He had difficulty with the pour and called for two inspections. Inspections to check rough grades never materialized. He made the decision to go ahead with the driveway. It was a great surprise when it didn't make grade. Portions of the center of the driveway do make grade and he feels that should be the criteria. George Ruther introduced Terri Martinez as the project engineer. • Henry Pratt doesn't see the driveway grade as a big deal. He is for adding a second wall along the street. He encouraged the applicant to do double or triple walls without impacting trees. ATTACHKENT # 1 Dalton Williams said the wall height is to keep the neighborhood from looking like a bunch of walls. Dalton is not concerned about the wall except for safety reasons. He thinks a guardrail would make it safer. The Town goes bonkers over driveways. The Town gave an extra 2% grade allowance just so we would never have to grant another variance. You can't add 3%4" of concrete without sloughing off. Ray Coutash said he is low in the driveway relative to the slope of the driveway. George Ruther said the bottom needs to come up to lesson the grade at the top. Dalton Williams said he is not in favor of granting a variance for the driveway Jeff Bowen said whatever needs to be done to get the driveway to the correct grade needs to be done. He is concerned with the heating being so deep into the concrete. He would like to have an Engineer design the rock retaining walls and will not approve the request unless that is done. Greg Amsden agrees with Henry Pratt to go with the existing walls to save the landscaping. As for the driveway, he agrees with Dalton. When the extra 2% grade was allowed, it was supposed to give leeway. Greg has a tendency to be lenient with it. Kevin Deighan would like to see some type of solution between staff and the applicant. He has no problem with the retaining walls. He would like to see an Engineer's certificate saying the retaining wails will hold. Greg Moffet said the retaining wall problem is the result of procedure. There is a somewhat contradictory Zoning Code. Greg's concern is hearing about it after the fact and not before it was put it. He agrees with Henry to terrace as much as possible to save trees. He is also sensitive to the safety issues with the driveway. He agrees with the guardrail or rock wall on the south side. He would like to see an attempt made to get the'driveway within code. Jeff Bowen stated that one of the problems that exist on Potato Patch, and Garmisch as well, are that rock walls present a terrible safety issue. High retaining walls present a safety threat for children falling off. He wants an engineer to say the retaining walls will last a long time and at a height that a car or child will not fall off. He will let the driveway issue go. Dalton Williams said he will be ok with an Engineer's letter approving the retaining walls. Greg Moffet stated this is a worksession. Ray Coutash assured Jeff that the heat in the driveway does work very satisfactorily. It has melted a 3' snowdrift. George Ruther asked the PEC for direction. Terry Martinez stated that we do need a 2' shoulder and slope. A 2' rock wall would launch vehicles. Recovery on a 2' shoulder could happen, but there is no guarantee. Steep grades on driveways encourage people to park on the roads, rather than in the driveway, which presents a problem for snowplows. • George Ruther began the summarization of the direction. Jeff Bowen said it is critical it be certified by an Engineer. Dalton Williams said the driveway needs to be redone. Greg Amsden asked what the Town's position was on replacing previous driveways. Dalton Williams assumed that if we required a heated driveway, we should require it to be turned on. George Ruther said it is impossible to police whether heated driveways are turned on. • Dalton Williams said a condition should be that the heated driveway be operational at all times. George Ruther had preliminary conversations with the Fire Department. They feel the house needs to be retrosprinklered. Henry Pratt said one of the conditions of approval should be that the Fire Department may not be able to access the house. Eric Johnson (architect) said the owners have signed a waiver absolving the Town from any liability. Greg Moffet said he doesn't like waivers, just indemnifications. Eric Johnson said the owner would take on the full responsibility and mitigate whatever the Town wants. Snow plowing generates a huge amount of snow. A guardrail inhibits snowplowing. Henry Pratt mentioned that a snowblower can throw snow over any guard rails. n �J is MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Public Works Department . DATE: January 2, 1996 SUBJECT: Konig driveway/ wall height variance 1. The architect is requesting a variance for a driveway grade which exceeds the maximum grade allowed by 2.1 %, as well as a wall height variance for wails exceeding the maximum height of 3' by 2' 2". H. III. Upon review of Section 17.28.330 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Public Works Department recommends denial of the requested variance based on the following factors: A. No variances for driveway grade have been granted since 1991 when the Town began to enforce the ordinance. All driveways that have been built since then have been in conformance with the Town standard. B. The Town Engineer will allow the contractor to exceed the maximum allowable grade of 12% to account for inadequate surveys, etc. The contractor can exceed the maximum grade by 10%, or go to an absolute maximum of 13.2%, before we would ask the contractor to submit a request for a variance. In this case, the grade exceeds the absolute maximum allowable at 14.1%. To allow the contractor to use a driveway at 14.1% would definitely be a grant of special privilege. C. Allowing the driveway to remain at 14.1 % will potentially cause access problems for the current owner as well as any future owners. Potential problems include bottoming out or scraping if they drive larger vehicles on the drive, as well as problems with emergency or delivery vehicle access, particularilly if the owner chooses not to turn on the heating system. D. The wall height variance as proposed is acceptable, but the contractor will be required to install 36 linear feet of guardrail, including flared end sections on both ends. The guardrail Should be installed to protect the general public from sliding off of Potato Patch Drive, down into the Kong driveway/home. The contractor was unable to restore the preexisting shoulder on Potato Patch Drive and still meet safe slope requirements for this section of the property frontage. ATTACHMENT #2 do + f f • '16•li'4 llWalpd lRaminrTiv IZ"'� 9s'inJ 114d lIrlaNDo 9*Y14 } � -u.o 11 .A VMMOY .4M .➢I�f 9tI94O1�1'1 �Q� � �—al.•f . � s1,Yl/4 n4'si J>.; is ! iwNlniw'Y tl II�AG y O Dy M pp a ! .l2:1..re BG i \ s e �My* i 0 r -1 • •h Lm ��1•i JJ.L Isc.l•+ '1.h ) t—1+•W ciN.7 per: ,y, •-I�dr"I �I>yl�lay! '.18d�no� hlada. L I L if'� 1-094 kAl • n ham. d7.41'+y'1t 4 Ndai.L H 1, S, f.; l S' s. 3• } 40 Jerry C. Law, R.E. 335 Donegan Road Glenwood Springs, CC 81601 December 28, 1995 George Ruther, Town Planner Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Co 81657 RE: The Koenig Residence Wall Height Variance Dear Mr. Ruther: 1 nave prepared the following summary paragraphs out of respect for your limited time to study the many different variance cases which ,You review. I respectfully request that the wall height variance be allowed based on the positive aspects of the existing walls versus the unsafe and sparsely landscaped 3' wails shown in Exhibits C-1,C-2,C-3,C-4. THE GOOD The existing walls (see Exhibits B--1,13-2,B-3,B-4) were built using sound construc- tion principles with well compacted soil held in place with Mirafi fabric covered with tightly interlocking boulders. The wails will provide a stable service life long after the landscaping has matured and established extensive root systems. THE BAD It is physically impossible to construct a 2' road shoulder, a 5' slope at 2:1, then step the rock walls 3' vertically within the space allowed at the Koenig residence. THE UGLY See Exhibits C-1,C-2,C-3,C-4. The series of 3' walls would be mostly rock exposed with 'very little landscaping in between and only a 2' shoulder with no 5' slope at 2:1 (unsafe). Respectfully submitted, �&7 e 4.-z Jerry C. Law, P.E. ATTACHMENT S4 r 'r'Y rY :+ #k u 1 TOWN of VAIL 42 Wsst Meadow Drive mail Fire Department Vail, Colorado 81d47 303-479-2250 January a, 1996 George Ruther Town of Vail Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Re: Koenig Request for Variance on Wall Height and Driveway Grade Dear George, The Vail Fire Department completed another plan review and conducted a site visit this morning at 795 Potato Patch, Based on the observations we made during the site visit and having again reevaluated the plans and conditions as they exist, we do not object to the granting of the variance provided the structure is provided with an approved and monitored fire alarm system. Please advise us as to the PEC's decision. Sincerely, Michael McGee Fire Marshal ATTACHMENT #5 TOTAL P.01 0 sII E COPY George Ruther gave an overview and said the Steinbergs were appealing the staff's interpretation of the Zoning Analysis. The Steinbergs were not present and were appealing that a third dwelling unit on the property was the concern they had, since only two dwelling units were allowed. Staff was recommending upholding the staffs zoning analysis. Rick Rosen, representing Sam Cook, said Town Council should not have sent it back to the PEC. • The addition is a wet bar sink and lemon refrigerator. Section 18.04.190 states the definition of a kitchen does not apply to this addition. It is simply a bedroom with a sink. The code is real clear and we should not be here. He didn't appreciate the Steinbergs writing a letter and not having any representation at the meeting. George Ruther said Tom Moorhead could not be here. Tom was looking for an agreement from the property owner to get on the record that the intent is not to be used as a third dwelling unit. Sam Cook, the owner of the house, has 4 children who each have 2 children. It is simply an extra bedroom. He regrets the problem with the neighbor. Lynn Fritzlen, Mr. Cooks architect, wanted to assure staff that they have gone to elaborate lengths to stay within the constraints of the Zoning Code, even though the house was built in '64. There were no problems by anyone on the Board. Jeff Bowen made a motion to uphold the staffs Zoning Analysis and that it be approved in a manner where the PEC agrees with the review. Kevin Deighan seconded the motion. 0 The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0, A request for a worksession for a wall height variance and driveway grade for the Koenig residence located at 795 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 26, Vail Potato Patch Subdivision. Applicant: Eric Johnson. f Planner: George gave an overview of the worksession to discuss the wall height variance and the driveway grade. Two walls are now over the 3' height limitation. Public Works would like to have a 2' wide shoulder along Potato Patch. Staff would like the contractor to explain where the discrepancy happened between the approved set of plans and what got constructed. Public Works said the driveway is over 12%. Mike McGee (Fire Department) indicated that the building may need to be sprinklered in order for the grade to be approved. The driveway is heated, but there is no requirement from the Town to turn on the heat and also no enforcement. The current owners have provided a disclaimer releasing the Town from any liability. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 11,1995 Ray Coutash, owner of Beehive Construction and contractor for the Koenig residence stated the intent was to try to preserve the native plantings. Upon excavation he moved the existing aspens. If wasn't for the rock wall those trees would have had to be cut. They tried to remove as little as possible. They only brought in one truckload of rock because they were able to use existing stone which explains the difference in the rock size. The slope of the roadfill was over 40%. The change in elevation from the highpoint to the driveway was not supplied in the original survey. There is almost 13' in elevation change. Eric Johnson, the architect, gave a 23% guideline. The staging area that the Fire Department • wanted was an additional 4'. There is only one area in front of the east garage doors where they raised the wall. Durability and strength were the reasons the wall needed to go to that height. They didn't make a cut along the road due to the presence of utilities and mature trees and felt that that was the primary reason for the decision. On the south side the intent was to preserve the aspen trees. If they used a three foot stepping process they would have ended up with five walls. The rocks along the roadway created the higher wall. He discussed these changes with the neighbors and decided to mitigate with landscaping to make the wall appear less high. The neighbors were ok with the look and liked the rock walls. Terri Martinez thought a guard rail should be put in. Ray Coutash said that would have created more problems. Their engineer is writing a letter to keep the earth the way It is and not put any more rock walls there. Ray raised the north side 9" to bring the driveway up, and came up 34, short of 12% grade. Thursday evening he had a 12% grade. Because he never got a response from Terri Martinez the inspection never came together. He had difficulty with the pour and called for two inspections. Inspections to check rough grades never materialized. He made the decision to go ahead with the driveway. It was a great surprise when it didn't make grade. Portions of the center of the driveway do make grade and he feels that should be the criteria. George Ruther introduced Terri Martinez as the project engineer. 9 .Henry Pratt doesn't see the driveway grade as a big deal. He is for adding a second wall along the street. He encouraged the applicant to do double or triple walls without impacting trees. Dalton Williams said the wall height is to keep the neighborhood from looking like a bunch of walls. Dalton is not concerned about the wall except for safety reasons. He thinks a guardrail would make it safer. The Town goes bonkers over driveways. The Town gave an extra 2% grade allowance just so we would never have to grant another variance. You can't add 3"-4" of concrete without sloughing off. Ray Coutash said he is low in the driveway relative to the slope of the driveway. George Ruther said the bottom needs to come up to lesson the grade at the top. Dalton Williams said he is not in favor of granting a variance for the driveway. Jeff Bowen said whatever needs to be done to get the driveway to the correct grade needs to be done. He is concerned with the heating being so deep into the concrete. He would like to have an Engineer design the rock retaining walls and will not approve the request unless that is done. LJ Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 11, 1995 Greg Amsden agrees with Henry Pratt to go with the existing walls to save the landscaping. As for the driveway, he agrees with Dalton. When the extra 20/6 grade was allowed, it was supposed to give leeway. Greg has a tendency to be lenient with it. Kevin Deighan would like to see some type of solution between staff and the applicant. He has no problem with the retaining walls. He would like to see an Engineer's certificate saying the retaining walls will hold. • Greg Moffet said the retaining wall problem is the result of procedure. There is a somewhat contradictory Zoning Code. Greg's concern is hearing about it after the fact and not before it was put it. He agrees with Henry to terrace as much as possible to save trees. He is also sensitive to the safety issues with the driveway. He agrees with the guardrail or rock wall on the south side. He would like to see an attempt made to get the driveway within code. Jeff Bowen stated that one of the problems that exist on Potato Patch, and Garmisch as well, are that rock walls present a terrible safety issue. High retaining walls present a safety threat for children falling off. He wants an engineer to say the retaining walls will last a long time and at a height that a car or child will not fall off. He will let the driveway issue go. Dalton Williams said he will be ok with an Engineer's letter approving the retaining walls. Greg Moffet stated this is a worksession. Ray Coutash assured Jeff that the heat in the driveway does work very satisfactorily. It has melted a 3' snowdrift. George Ruther asked the PEC for direction. • Terry Martinez stated that we do need a 2' shoulder and slope. A 2' rock wall would launch vehicles. Recovery on a 2' shoulder could happen, but there is no guarantee. Steep grades on driveways encourage people to park on the roads, rather than in the driveway, which presents a problem for snowplows. n George Ruther began the summarization of the direction. Jeff Bowen said it is critical it be certified by an Engineer. Dalton Williams said the driveway needs to be redone. Greg Amsden asked what the Town's position was on replacing previous driveways. Dalton Williams assumed that if we required a heated driveway, we should require it to be turned on. George Ruther said it is impossible to police whether heated driveways are turned on. Dalton Williams said a condition should be that the heated driveway be operational at all times. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 11, 1995 1 George Ruther had preliminary conversations with the Fire Department. They feel the house needs to be retrosprinklered. Henry Pratt said one of the conditions of approval should be that the Fire Department may not be able to access the house. Eric Johnson (architect) said the owners have signed a waiver absolving the Town from any liability. Greg Moffet said he doesn't like waivers, just indemnifications. Eric Johnson said the owner would take on the full responsibility and mitigate whatever the Town wants. Snow plowing generates a huge amount of snow. A guardrail inhibits snowplowing. Henry Pratt mentioned that a snowblower can throw snow over any guard rails. 7. "Council Reports." a. A vacancy existed on the PEC board created by Bob Armour. b. Call-up of Serrano's. C. Golden Peak has gone before the Town Council for a first reading. Kevin Deighan said he heard that the Council was going to require a parking structure. d. The Bob Borne denial was overturned by Council. Henry Pratt heard that Council overturned some of PEC's architectural approvals. He is not sure to what extent the Council has overturned the PEC recommendations. 8. Approval of November 27, 1995 PEC minutes. Jeff Bowen moved that the minutes be approved. Henry Pratt had changes on page 20 to delete the 7th line. Greg Moffet had some deletions on page 20. Dalton Williams had changes on page 20. Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the November 27, 1995 minutes as modified. Henry Pratt seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. Dalton Williams said he doesn't plan on running again for the PEC. He is stepping down due to time retraints but has enjoyed his 6 years on the Board. Jeff Bowen made a motion to adjorn the meeting. Dalton Williams seconded the motion. It passed unanimously by a vote of 6-0. The meeting adjorned at 4:50 p.m. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes December 11,1995 10 -�-�� - \ Ifccllivc (',onstrrEci3ora (`.�r'x�qua�ay � � 12l-Sii llovc� 11AMPImont. Colo. Rt1.501 o 651411285 metro 447-NM6 i Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Rd. Vail, Co. January 1, 1995 Attn: George Ruther Re: Koenig Residence 795 Potato Patch Dr. Vail, Co. Dear Sirs, Our proposal for the work relating to our variance application is outlined below. The meeting with Terry Martinez, Eric Johnson, and yourself on Friday, December 29, 1995 was very helpful in evaluating the engineering report and determining our course. We request that the variance for the rock walls north of the drive be granted, leaving the walls at their present height. Cleaning up of the road right of way, landscape planting and minor grade work will be completed in the spring. As outlined in the engineering report no more • excavation along the road will be done, this will ensure that the load capacity of the road fill and the shoulder can be preserved as well as providing a safety zone for the public right of way. The visual impact of this wall will be minimized through the landscape and the planting of ground covers within the interlocking rock wall. The wall south of the drive will be modified by adding one more planting zone at the southern most aspen to raise the grade at the toe of the wall thus shortening one of the areas where the wall is now just over four feet. The remainder of the wall would be left at its existing height, the stone steps will shorten the height of the wall near the house, and provide access. This will leave one section of the wall slightly taller than the three foot height, we have planted a Balsam Fir in the planting zone in front of this section, it will stabilize the earthwork and visually mitigate the wail height. This wall will also be planted with ground covers and improved in the spring Iandscaping.We wish to leave the top course of stone as the deterrent to sliding off the drive and to prevent erosion and the undermining of the fill that supports the concrete drive. The zone between these rocks and the concrete serves as a curb and is better able to warn a driver of the edge without the likelihood of becoming stuck or going beyond the drive without a possible recovery. The sloping character of the wall will be enhanced by the removal of the rubble stone stored there at present, and the wall will be much safer and attractive upon completion, resembling the natural rock indigenous to the region, The driveway grade is an issue much troubling me. Our engineering consultants support the granting of a variance based on the drives construction and minor grade defect. To achieve compliance a capping process has been evaluated. The long term viability of the cap process, . even with special add mixtures and epoxies, has been questioned and no warranty on the process is possible. We will be asking Mike McGee, the towns fire marshal) , to evaluate the as built survey and to visit the site and see the work. I believe that access is the key issue and there are alternatives to the staging area on the drive that satisfy the 150 ft. rule and provide protection to the site, the firemen and their equipment. the drive design was based on survey information that contains two errors making this an unnecessary hardshipand an extremely difficult design and engineering task. The grade did not reveal the nature of the wall at the northwest property comer and the second error of a much more substantial nature is the grade at the drive along Potato Patch is actually .8 ft. or between 7 and 9 inches higher than the approved drawings show it. This additional height removed any tolerance from the driveway grades. This second error was discovered in evaluating the as built survey and interpreting the earlier survey work and drawings. This Is a very sensitive Issue and I hope that we are able to resolve this without compromising the Intent of the statute and the process of variance. The nature of the drives construction may help in the decision to grant a variance. The hydronic heat system is a 70% glycol closed loop. More Important Is the control, a Tekmar controller "sees" precipitation it turns on and off the 2 boiler, 2 pump system as the temperature, snow, and Ice require heat. Unlike many systems this costs much less to run and is automated where the system remains in the ready mode until needed, the system is on and is supported by backups. This system is repeated In both units with slight variation. It has always been my intent and the owners intent to fully comply with codes and ordinances. In an effort to satisfy the comprehensive plans guidelines we have made every effort to unlfy the home with the site, saving the native trees by moving them , utilizing the Indigenous rock and plants and preserving the natural character of the site. I would request that you grant this variance based on the strength of the engineering reports and the efforts to fulfill the Intent of the codes and the statutes governing our building project. • Thank you for you consideration, Sincerely, Raymond Kutash- Beehive Construction w - BccHivc Construction Comitany 12�C EEovcr l.ongmontt. Colo. 141111501 n 651-3249 metro 447-8866 Town of Vail Community Development 75 South Frontage Rd, Vail, CO January 23, 1996 Town Council: The section of road above the Koenig residence at 795 Potato Patch is along a dead end road. The project is along a straight section of road with moderate slope not far down from the end. Town engineers are asking the owners to install a thirty six foot guardrail west of the drive. Other similar road sections do not have guardrail. The building project has added shoulder where steep slope with no shoulder fell off before construction. The rock wall and fill have provided access and a road buffer as well as preserving indigenous plantings and aspen groves. The guardrail would add the risks of ice shading, higher accumulated snow from plowing operations, and blocked sight lines for cars entering and leaving this drive. These risks outweigh the limited protection provided by the proposed rail. As an alternative we would prefer you allow a low landscape visual barrier and not require a guardrail. • Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely: } Ray Kutash Beehive Construction Sharon and Gary Koenig - Owners Barbara and Bob Dowie - Owners We are signing this at the request of our neighbors: n U i0'Nj4 OF VAIL, EAGLE CouN�Y+ c;UWKAUU __.___ •__. ,P m+u` s9ss< V POTA70 PATCH OR1Vf Sz3 � 9z.56 6592 6� 95 2f+. 11 P6 c568.39 a669.25 d d590A6 8590.57 / . d590.04 0 o a05gB.o2 0 0 o5SB54'2 6.0 c c c. o aQ p J/( na56.69 0 o658E�30 0 , g580.955� / . P 5BB9.50 ® oB588d90 oB586.34 a o o o r 0 6 _ f �sW,r ort4nr c ROCK WN L� a ae 5.39 g �85.16 4wlR'AtRE ® o a 1 28ta p a o o L. p1p o ,pg;B283o oB587A7 C o 5g 56{A5 59{e6585.32 � 0 085`�8.24 5d m tt� ^`81.55 �egge.7b c o a o 00�6.11 a o �P2.58 � 588.� B5B<.75 � O 4 582-91 5d t� OB5BB.60 ppp D 1.iJ y7 ao�5Bg.05 , . 8567.19 ®P od5is _ _ a Q o a 85g8.31° ° e ° 65 ® C 2p0 ,_"` ---�.. - a +' _: .. e° �f•-..-.do65B2.96 8585.89 ® p 562T _""'_ ..-�._. `I°4• +._ .-..v _ - ' _ -. °° ��8yy5• � POBSgW 1 owee.3a PPa0-bga^`�"-- °ao P P pwP d5B2.fS J ngB'=4D n9014 fl.$2. A'�7" uo.53 RO f 79.5 579.DB 3$'i Peyghp .lpm 5D ! g5•''T o °° ° 12 %°°o° } aM,•[i1,, Ap a3 ( a5 O OJfg�2 gS81' 0.582- � B 42 I x p583.P2 a � ° o c �' a 8.56 76.51 a 'B0.13 Fds.2q ( t 79.21 / OW7-24 0 G1tAPHIC 5� s f4s7�95 � Iue - 4 a MpDATES ASPEN TREE I7S.D7 aYY¢ INDICATES EVERC�E '"'OKuNE J-� 'AF IpRIVEWAY A f l0T PATCH F0. Ir/ - "AIL/pO"r AWN OF VAVL 1 �IAJQ,�LIJ'Wi� CN �I. �p g"CP SUBDIVISIONS S. Alleys - Alleys shall be provided if required by the planning commission. The minimum wiidth of the alley shall be twenty feet. Dead-end alleys shall not be permitted. All alleys shall be paved. 6. Easements - Easements shall be provided for all utilities, drainage ways, channels, or streams which traverse across the subdivision. 7. Block lengths - The length, width, and shapes of blocks shall be determined by the type of use, zoning requirements, needs for convenient access, circulation and safety of street traffic, and limitations and opportunities of topography. 8. Cul-de-sacs - Cul-de-sac streets, however, shall be designed as minor or local with a right-of-way bulb of fifty foot radius and pavement radius of forty feet. 9. Street width -Street width shall conform to the following: CLASS R-O,W PAVED SHOULDER DESIGN MAX MIN. CURVE FUTURE wom VMM SPEED ORADE96 RADIUS AM Arterial (Frontage) 70 12' 8 50 6 650 750 and per lane over Collector 50 24 4 40 7 250 300-750 Local 50 22 3 30 8 60 150-300 Minor (Private) 40 22 2 30 9 5o 0-150 Driveway — 12 1 --- 8► 20 — B. Horizontal Alignment. The major considerations in horizontal alignment design are: safety, grade profile, road type, design speed, sight distance, and topography. All these factors must be balanced to produce an alignment that is safest, most economical, and adequate for the type of road proposed. Horizontal alignment must provide at least the minimum stopping sight distance for the design speed at all points. This 'Maximum grade for driveways may be up to 10% if the Town Engineers approval is obtained. If the driveway is proposed to be heated, the grade may be up to 12rfo . if the Town Engineers approval is obtained. 298-26 (Vail 4-7-92) A TOWN OF VAIL 75 South Frontage Road Office of the Town Attorney Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2107/Fax 970-479-2157 MEMORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Robert W. McLaurin' Town Manager DATE: February 2, 1996 SUBJECT: Town Manager's Report Lunch with PEC The Planning and Environmental Commission wanted to invite the Town Council to have lunch with them on Monday, February 12. This meeting will be held in the Town Council Chambers and will begin at 12W noon. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss local housing and how the Planning Commission and Council can best work together to accomplish this important goal. If you are able to attend please R.S.V.P. to Susan Connelly at 479-2138. Public Participation Workshop As you are aware, on February 13th we will host a public participation workshop for the Council and selected members of the TOV staff. The purpose of this workshop is to provide a better understanding of public participation, to understand specific public participation objectives and techniques to accomplish these objectives: It is our hope that this session will improve our ability to manage the various "processes" that we undertake in debating, deciding and implementing public policy. This workshop will begin at 8:00 a.m. and wilt continue until 5:00 p.m.. It will be held at the Evergreen Lodge, and lunch will be provided. We hope you will be able to join us as we believe it will help you be more effective in dealing with the many complex issues that you will be facing over the coming two years. For additional information please contact Suzanne Silverthorn at 479- 2115. For your information I have attached a list of the participants for this workshop. RWM/aw • Ca7ownmqupl L,,$ RECYCLED PAPER Citizen Participation Training 8 am to 5 pm, Evergreen Lodge Lunch will be provided FEBRUARY 13 FEBRUARY 14 Bob Armour Sybill Navas Kevin Foley Rob Ford Michael Jewett Ludwig Kurz Paul Johnston Bob McLaurin Bob McLaurin Pam Brandmeyer Pam Brandmeyer Community Development Staff (16) Community Development Staff (16) Suzanne Silverthorn Suzanne Silverthorn Holly McCutcheon John Power John Power Steve Thompson Steve Thompson Chris Anderson Chris Anderson Buck Allen Dick Duran Dick Duran John Gulick Mike McGee Mike McGee Jeff Atencio Jeff Atencio Larry Grafel Larry Grafei Greg Hall Greg Hall Jim Hoza Jim Hoza Terri Martinez Terri Martinez Larry Pardee Larry Pardee Todd Oppenheimer Todd Oppenheimber Mike Rose Mike Rose Jody Doster Jody Doster Annie Fox Annie Fox Susan Boyd Susan Boyd Greg Morrison Greg Morrison Jeff Layman Jeff Layman Corey Schmidt Corey Schmidt Joe Russell Joe Russell Dick Gericke Dick Gericke Linda Moore Linda Moore Tom Moorhead Tom Moorhead Jim Weber Jim Weber Totals: 53 Totals: 28 J WM61IJ40 lUl'll'lvll1.nIlu iJ 71J J•Ji riu.uuJ r.u1 TOWN OF VAIL CITY COUNCIL_ / STAFF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION TRAINING FEBRUARY 13, 1996 PRELIMINARY SESSION AGENDA gaw.-5�wi Cu[rg�[t., L4��e I.untl,proo��lcd) What is citizen participation? What It is not Why is it important? How do we know it will matter? Overview of national research What DO people expect from local government? What does practicing citizen participation mean? The pro's and con's of making a public commitment to citizen participation Roles and responsibilities Of leaders Of managers and staff Of citizens When is citizen participation the right approach? When NOT to use When to use Key questions for planning a citizen participation process Identifying the problem to be solved De -brief of Vail Commons project c< } t, r s Group work on defining the problem on the West Vail Interchange Establishing the 'Givens' Group work on establishing the givens for the West Vail Interchange process Deciding who needs to be involved Small group work on West Vail Interchange interests / issues matrix, and report -out • Determining if all people / groups need equal opportunity to be involved in the process; if they all need equal attention .i +unirii'..i .u+'I+'IVlvlt.fiI lu lU 1174f rIt JHN 1J JU );JZ NU.UUJ r.US L Determining the expectations of each citizen participation process Setting objectives Deciding on expectations and objectives for West Vail Interchange process The difference between public opinion and public judgment Encouraging consensus decision -making How people's values influence the process An overview of citizen participation methods General rules of thumb Cautions Setting the tone for citizen participation processes Communications principles What can go wrong in a process Honoring the process when it comes to decision time Saying 'thank You 9 n TOWN OF VAIL STAFF CITIZEN PARTICIPATION TRAINING FEBRUARY 14, 1996 Rr - 5 �.r PRELIMINARY SESSION AGENDA �vergrccr i�od�e (First block of time in the morning. is dependent on whether the staff in this session attended the previous day's session; if not all staff were at the Feb, 13 session, some time will need to be spent at the beginning of this session re- capping the major points made the previous day). Review Vail Commons discussion from previous day's session; discuss lessons learned Common staff mistakes in citizen participation Re -visit the West Vail Interchange matrix begun the previous day Determine additional interests I issues Review how to use the matrix Determine the depth of interest on the West Vail Interchange Determine the complexity of information needed Review step-by-step chart of decisions Discuss as a planning tool Review in context of West Vail Interchange project How to determine the series of decisions and information needed Follow a problem -solving sequence Communicating technical information Develop a process plan for West Vail interchange Review checklist for designing a citizen participation process Review of citizen participation methods Select methods to use on West Vail Interchange What consensus decision -making looks like The importance of listening for the values people hold 9 Checking the process with citizens Preparing the written plan Communications, internally and externally Specifics about meetings Inviting people Logistics Amenities Room set-up Agenda Group memory Response forms Specifics about deliberation and consensus Preparing elected officials for the final decision Communicating the decision Saying Thank You Evaluating the process Jrill 1'J JU J-'JL NO.UUJ N,05 Y 0 2/6/96 Town Council Meeting RA The next item on the agenda, Resolution No. 5, Series of 1996, a resolution directing the Town Manager to enter to an agreement with Stewart Title Guaranty Company for • attorneys fees and costs. RTM Mayor this relates to our agreements for the development of Vail Commons which will provide the public purpose of making housing available for local employees. Pursuant to our contracts the Town has an obligation to provide title insurance. Based upon threats of litigation that it had been previous brought by the Common Sense for the Commons Petitioners Committee, Stewart Title is willing to provide the title insurance up to the amount of $20 million for the improvements on the property with the agreement that the Town of Vail would share attorneys fees and costs for any cause of action that was brought by the Common Sense of the Commons Petitioners Committee. I believe that that is a reasonable request by Stewart Title and would recommend passage of this resolution. RA Thank you Tom. Is there any public input on this? If not, is there a motion for discussion. SN I move for approval of Resolution No. 5. • Pi Second. RA So moved by Sybill, seconded by Paul. Is there any further discussion? MJ I'll discuss. RA Yes. MJ We've had a couple of , we had an executive session today where basically, and I don't really think that that was privileged what we were talking about specifically, but I think that for the sake of , for my interest I think that I should mention that I did not participate. in the actual executive session that concerned the commons because I have been a participant. with the Common Sense for the Commons Committee, which of course is against this particular project. And as I've been out of Town for a week and I'm not sure of the current status of where they're going with this, my understanding is that they did want to pursue some type of legal action, but since I have been extremely close to. this I did remove myself from the meeting today. I felt that the conflict was really not because - I am an employee of Safeway but I wanted to bring it out in the open that it was because of my participation as a member of the Common Sense for the Commons Committee. As far as the voting on this particular issue I guess I've got a choice to make, I can either abstain, or I can make a move to vote. What I think would doon this particular case is because I do not know for sure if there is action, I will vote on this particular issue, with the understanding that I have not participated in executive session participation. Thank you. • RA Further discussion. SN Did, Tom did you just (inaudible) sorry, I know it was mentioned earlier that the time frame for a lawsuit has passed... RTM For certain lawsuits Sybill, for a lawsuit that would be brought pursuant to Rule 106, which provides for District Court review of any action of Town Council as to whether it would be arbitrary and capricious, that time has passed. SN Thank you. RA Tom your, and I ask for legal advice on Mike's decision to vote on this, is it appropriate or should he recuse himself. TRM Mike had previously stated to me that he had a conflict of interest in regard to any issues dealing with the Vail Commons. Other than that he and I have had no discussion in regard to this. Whether or not he has a conflict is something that falls within his decision • making process. It's not for me to say whether or not Mike Jewett has a conflict in this matter. MJ I think that if I can respond to that. My concern originally, and I'm not an attorney so I don't want to interpret law, but the way I was reading the documents that were provided plus what I've picked up from the Secretary of State's Office was that there was a need for like a monetary gain and I didn't see any monetary gain on my part. Because at Safeway, where I work, I'm very very high on the seniority list and so as far as layoffs and that type of thing I don't anticipate any problem. Where the conflict would arise now at this point is if the Common Sense for the Commons Committee did file a suit and I was in an executive session where privy information was being divulged then in theory if I'm part of that group then I would have that conflict with the Town of Vail. Now at the same time I feel that I have, I represent a certain group of individuals within the Town of Vail who are against this particular project and was voted into office for that particular reason. There's going to be a varying degree depending on how that individual felt but certainly I received enough votes to get elected and they knew my position clearly, that I was against this particular project, not because of another grocery store but because of the way this process was handled and the way it all came down. So, for that reason, there's no monetary gain and so I feel comfortable voting. RA Very good. Any further discussion? Is there a motion? (Inaudible) There is a motion on the floor. All those in favor? Aye.