Board of Adjustment pauses decision on 55-foot height variance for 115 St. Moritz Terrace after neighbors raise view and precedent concerns

The Summit County Board of Adjustment on the evening of the hearing held a public discussion and unanimously voted to continue a height-variance request for a proposed home at 115 St. Moritz Terrace so the applicant can provide additional design and topographic analysis.

The applicant is seeking a variance to exceed the Hillside Stewardship Zone’s 32-foot height limit and allow up to 55 feet above existing grade to permit a garage and multilevel house on a steep, heavily wooded lot. Laura (principal planner) told the board that “the applicant is proposing a height variance in order to construct a single-family dwelling,” and outlined the five statutory variance standards the board must consider.

Neighbors said the request would harm views and set an undesirable precedent. Dean Duncan, whose home sits across the street at 120 St. Moritz Terrace, told the board he and his family “spent a lot of time and energy staying within that compliance,” and said a taller building across the street would “greatly impact” their view. Adjacent property owners Joan and Mark Danninger and another neighbor, Mike Henson, also urged the board to require designs that follow the hillside contours rather than a four-story back wall.

The applicant’s architects, Tyler Gant and Davis Quist of Inaway Design, and owner/contractor Tommy Foster said they had consulted county engineering early in the process and were advised that a height variance was the practical path to build. Tyler Gant said the design approach was intended to “be as least impactful” from the street by using a bridge-style approach to the garage and keeping the visible front elevation low.

Board members probed dimensions and comparables: the front elevation is roughly 13 feet above the street level, the garage footprint is about 25 feet deep and the house width (excluding exterior decks) was shown near 45 feet. Several members cautioned that past approvals in the neighborhood did not necessarily set a required outcome for this lot and flagged the third statutory factor—whether the variance is essential to the enjoyment of a substantial property right—as a difficult standard to meet.

Deputy County Attorney Ryan Stack reminded the board that its deliberations must focus on the five statutory factors and noted the board can limit any approval by capping perceived height from the street grade as a condition.

After extended discussion the board offered the applicants the option to return with revised materials—detailed topographic sections, envelope comparisons at 40, 45 and 50 feet, and alternatives that would reduce the rear elevation—and a motion to continue the hearing at the applicant’s discretion passed unanimously.

Next steps: The applicants said they would work with planning staff on alternative designs and return to the Board of Adjustment with supplemental information. The continuation preserves the applicants’ ability to revise the request; no variance was approved or denied at this meeting.