HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpraddle Creek Estates 1989 - 1990 Legal ` TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 2, 1990
RE: App�al of Planning' and Environmental Commission
�lecision to a ove..,.�road grade variance, retaining
wall hei �ance and pr�+ 'minary plan for the
` propose Spraddle �reek majox�iibdivision.
Apglica { . G�c�r +e G' Jr.
On September 24, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission
u�animously approved the preliminary plan, retaining wall height
variance, and road grade variance by a vote of 5-0. Chuck Crist
abstain�d from 'the vote and Conmie Knight was absent.; The two
variances were approved with the condition that the preliminary
plan and final plat receive final approvai. The preliminary plan
was approved with tk�e following conditions {comments in bold are
changes/additions made by the Planning Commissionj :
1. �'he proposed road grades and retaining wa11 heights 'are
maximums for the subdivision. If it is` determined by
staff through the final plat review and/or building
permit, or construction phase that road grades and
retaining wall heights may be `further reduced, the
applicant will agree to do so. The final plat
submittal will provide a thorough ,analysis of the soil
nailing and tie rod system 'for cut walls in order to
minimize site disturbance.
2. Construction guidelines will be used during the actual
building phase for the wall and road improvements. See
Section on EIR Wall Analysis of this memo.
3. A grading easement on the southwest corner of the
property will allow the Town of Vail the right to grade
onto this portion of the property if and when the North
Frontage` Road is extended to the east below the
subdivision to create a new underpass connecting to
Blue Cow Chute.
4. An agreement finalizing the stable relocation and
reclamation of the existing livery site will be
submitted with the final plat information.
5. The conditions for lots having slopes over 30� will be
applied to the subdivision. This section of the code `
is 18.69.050 A-D, F-I, K and L.
�r
1
� 6. Site cov+erage sha13 be limited to 80 to 100� of the
allowable`GRFA for each lot. This` condition will be
final.ized at final plat.
7. Zf a fireplace is desired by the ownsr, gas appliances
or gas logs shall be used in all caretaker units.
8. A chain link fence' around the culvert at the
subd�vision entry will be removed and a more aesthetie
barrier provided with appropriate landscaping i#
a1lc�wed by the Col.orado Division of Hiqhways.
9. The six spruce trees by the subdivision entrance on the
south side of `Giilett Road shall be relocated.
10. Al1 Fire Department standards and rer�uirements per the
letter from Mxke McGee" dated August 2, 3990 `shall be
complied with by the owner `or as otherwise modified.
11. Before any building permits are released for the
subdivision and once the subdivision receives final
plat approval,, the appropriate easements allowing for
public access' shall be recorded per the Forest Service
requirements.
12. Six foot paved shoulders on either side of the Frontage
Road for a public bike path shall be provided by the
developer.
13. All construction on each lot shall occur within
building envelopes. The building envelopes shall be
adjusted per the revised staff plan dated September 7,
1990 before final plat. Staff and applicant to
determine what will be allowed outside the envelope at
final pl�tt.
14: All construction for the subdivision shall comply with
requirements found within the Environmental Impact '.
Report for the project.
15. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding
� material for sanding the private road within the
subdivision per the approval of the Town of Vail
Environmental Health Department.
16. The open space tracts within the subdivision sh�ll be
rezoned to Green Belt Open Space at the same time �he
final plat is seviewed. Additional greenbelt open
space areas will be added adjacent to the Forest
Service switchback, Lot 5/6 switchback, and secondary
road per the staff amendments to the September 7, 1990
preliminary plan.
2
�
17. The owner of the subdivision shall maintain the road
�hrough the subdivision from the entry gate up to the
tap of the subdivision. This maintenance also includes
all common areas, retaining walls, and landscaping.
The owner also agrees 'to be responsible for
establishing the landscaping along the public road for
a two` to three year period from planting of the
materials: Once the landscaping is` established and
accepted by the Town of Vail Landscape Architect, the
Town will take over `the responsibility 'of the retaining
walls and landscaping.
18. Pedestrian and public access shall be allowed on the -
lower portion of Gillett Road extending from the
Frontage Road up to the subdivision gate.
19. Three caretaker units each having a ma�cimum ;square
footage of 1200 sq. ft. shall be provided within the
subdivision on Lots 14, 15, and possibly Lot 1. The
separation of the Lot l caretaker unit is under staff
consideration. The units will be permanently
restricted per section 18,13.080 j10) a-d of the Town
of Vai1 Zoning Code. Conditions on the 3 employee
units will be resolved at final plat.
20. The architectural' guidelines shall be amended as
follows:
a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as
extremely steep slopes.
b. Sod shall be allowed around the perimeter of
residences but large lawn areas are not
encouraged.
c. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 8� unless
approved by the Town of Vai1 Engineer.
d. Irrigation by retaining walls for the subdivision
shall be prohibited.
e. No chain link fence is allowed within the
subdivision even for dog runs. If dog runs are
proposed, another type of open fencing should be
used.
21. All construction within the subdivision shall comply
with the Town of Vail hazard ordinances found in
Section 18.69
3
�
22. No on-site livery shall be allowed within the
subdivision.
23. Aspens and large shrubs shall be used on aIl retaining
walls,
24. All ha�ard areas shall be excluded f�om contributing
site area to Lots 14, 5, and 4 for GRFA or site
coverage.
The Planning and Environmental Commission recommended
specifiaally that the applicant work on reducing the road grade
to the livery and also refine the architectural guidelines. The
PEC also recommended that the applicant be responsible for
maintenance of the landscaping along the public road for a two to
three year period after the landscaping has bePn established
rather than two to three years after planting.
4
P �
,�. �
PEC Minutes
r 9/24/9fl Meeting
Shelly stated that staff will try to have Art Mears and a
representative from Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation in
attendance.
VUTE: 6-0 TN FAVQR
Item No. 6: A request 'for a. mayor subdivision_,' to approve
the preliminary plan�, a request for a variance to
the maximum height for retaining walls, and a
� request for a variance to the maximum percent
c,Lrade for a' 'road, on a parcel commonl3r referred to
as St�raddle Creek, an approxima�e 4� ac�e parcel
located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 �
interchange and east of the Spradcl3e �reek liverv,
A'K3�3..icar�t; �eo�qe Gillett� �'�".
Diana Donovan- explair�ed to the public in attendance that the
Board had seen the item in a minimum of 3 previous work sessions.
Therefore, staff was asked to only review those items which had
been changed. If there were additional questions from the
public, they were asked to either speak up and ask questions or
' refer to the memo.
Kristan Pritz reviewed those items which had changed since the
last work session.
Kristan explained that the staff had asked the applicant to
exclude hazard areas on Lots 4, 4, 14 so that the areas did not
contribute to GRFA. Also, greenbelt areas on Lots l and 7 were
not to contribute to site coverage and GRFA.
Kristan explained that the pink area on the site plan displayed
on the tack board was where staff would like to see the envelopes
reduced to save the tree lines. Tn looking �at the GRFA and site
coverage, she felt the refinements would work. Lot 14 was the
biggest issue. .
The applicant had agreed to provide 3 employee housing units
which was 21�. All caretaker units were to be attached with the
exception of Lot One. She requested comments regarding the
detached unit on Lot 1 to be located by the guard gate.
Regarding road grade easements, the applicant had allowed for a
possible Frontage Road extension if needed in the future.
Staff recommendation was for approval of the variances with
conditions. The conditions found within the memo were not due to
: problems but rather to allow for refinements in the future.
- 11
PEC Minutes
_ 9/24/90 Meeting
Kristan wanted the applicant to know that staff appreciated their
willingness to refine the plans.
Joe Macy stated that the applicant had no formal presentation.
He explained that Mark Wentworth, from the livery, and Bi11
Woods, of the U.S. Forest Service ,were present and available for
questions.
Jim Shearer asked Kristan to explain the 80-100% of allowable
GRFA found in condition No. 6 and Kristan responded that the 80-
100% was reasonable for site coverage. The garage was not GRFA
but was still site' coverage. The Ordinance allowed 15% site
coverage of lot area.
,
Jim then 'asked who would own the -greenbelt areas, and Jay
Peterson answered that Mr. Gillett would keep ownership but
agreed to rezone the property. Jim asked what would 'happen with
the detached caretaker unit on Lot 1 since the area was to be
zoned greenbelt, and Jay explained that it was an area to be
refined and worked out.
Jim asked how the applicant felt about the required 3 employee
units, and Joe Macy explained that they anticipated most of the
property owners would want employee units. They had, however,
committed torthree.
Jim then asked Bill Woods of the U.S.F.S. how the service felt
about the development, and Bill Woods explained that the U.S.F.S.
had basically used the same concurrent planning processes as the
Board and felt comfortable at this time.
Kathy Warren asked Bill Woods if he had any concerns regarding
the proposed grade to the proposed new livery site and Bill
explained that he had not looked at that portion of the proposal
in detail, that it would be looked at.
Joe Macy explained that the applicant had met with Mark
Wentworth. He was present and available for comments.
Bill Wood explained that the U.S.F.S. approval was contingent
upon the agreement between the applicant and the livery, Mark
Wentworth.
Kent Rose, engineer representing the applicant, explained that
basically the proposed grade to the livery was the same as what
was there now. The proposal was for l6o and the existing road
was 110.
12
PEC Minutes
9/24/90 Meeting
Joe Macy interje�ted that the present road was not maintained and
the proposed road would be. Therefore, access should aetually be .
easier.
Dalton asked Mark Wentworth if he planned to run a snowmobile
operation in the winter and if the road grade would cause` a
problem at that time.
Mark answered that the road was not perceived to be a problem.
He had no intentions to run' a snowmobile operation. If` they did,
transportation would be by a 4 wheel tru�k or van and he did not
envision any problems.
Jim Shearer asked if the restriction of no on-site livery was
acceptable to the applicant and Jay explained that he and Kristan
had debated the subject many times. Jay felt that it' should be
allowed as it would be a nice amenity.
Kathy Warren agreed with Kristan that since there would be a
livery so close, there should not be a stab].e within the
subdivision.
Kathy then asked about the guidelines for detached garages and
Kristan explained that the same guidelines found within the 300
slope allowances were to be used.
Kathy explained that the reason she asked was that the
architectural guidelines provided by the appli�ant seemed to need
some more detail. Kathy also felt that what could and could not
encroach beyond the building envelopes should be better defined.
She felt that the 2 ft. offset called out for in the retaining
walls should be increased to 3 ft. in order to allow for more
extensive planting.
Kathy asked what would determine where the guardrails would be
placed and Kent Rose, engineer for the project, explained that .
they would be placed where safety concerns were evident. It was
likely, they would be placed in the areas that had double height
walls, 'intersections for cul de sacs and other places that had _
steep areas and changes of direction.
Kathy asked who would determine these needs, and Kent responded
that they would work with Greg Hall of Public Works.
Kath commented that she was concerned about the �� h to the
Y ����
livery being 16% grade. She wanted to know why the proposed
walls were changed from 8 ft to 8 '-8" and Kent Rose explained
that by increasing the walls by 8 inches, they were able to
�� eliminate a 4th wall section.
'��.� �
13
PEC Minutes
9/24/90 Meeting
Kathy asked if staff had required the applicant to filter
drainage water before it entered the creek. Joe Macy explained
that the requirement existed during aonstruction. Sedimentation
basins were to be used. He was not sure what would be required
after construction. Kent Rose interjected that the applicant
would not be required to filter the drainage= water. However,
they had discussed using one perxnanent basin to slow down the
sedimentation. They would be utilizing 3 or 4 during
construction.
Kathy asked who the owner was of the pedestrian easement along
the creek. Joe Macy responded that it was ub ic access.
� ��� ,�at�.
Kathy asked about the comment in the m mo regarding the use of a '
soil nailing system. She asked if t applicant would then use a
different` system than stacked block�,- Kent Rose explained-that if
the soil nailing system was used, they could still make the walls
look similar to the' original proposed stacked block. T�e�°-���c '
exi � �. o re ,
hc�r^�, o ..� +.,,... , ,_ - � - -�„n.,�,�,.�- r---•,�c�.
r
Kathy asked if the fill walls would be screened by aspen and
spruce, and Kristan explained that the design and structural �
� characteristics of the walls would only allow for the use o j��2(.C�
trees at the base��
Kathy commented that she felt the site coverage available for
Lots 12 and 14 was high, and Jay stated that she would have to
understand that the site coverage had already been reduced by the
use of building envelopes.
Kathy asked if crabapples and other colorful types of trees would
be used and Joe Macy explained that they would have to ask the
Division of Wildlife. They had been asked not to plant or
introduce species highly palatable to wildlife.
Kathy commented that the applicant had only listed one type of
rose and wanted to know why. The applicant's landscape architect
responded that there was only one rose found on the property and
, they were trying to keep to the natural surroundings found on the
property presently. Kathy wished the applicant luck in the fine
tuning process to be done in the future.
Jay wanted to comment on a few of the conditions. Regarding
condition No. 8, the removal of the chain link fence, the
applicant would be more than happy to remove the fence as long as
it was acceptable to the Colorado Division of Highways. Joe
asked to have the condition amendmended to reference the CDOH
approval.
� 14
PEC Minutes
r 9/24/90 Meeting
Regarding condition No. 10, compliance with the Fire Department
standards, Joe asked the condition be amended to state "or as
otherwise modified by the Fire Department" .
Joe felt that, regarding the sanding material required in
condition No. 15, the applicant should be allowed to use the same
material as the Town.
Kent Rose said, the Town switched materials and the Village Core
received different treatment with the use of' granite chips.
Everywhere else cinder was used.
� Kristan commented that granite chips chipped windshields and that '
was why the Town did not use this material in heavy vehicular P'�'���`-��
traffic areas. Also, she felt that to s t e appl 'eant o use
the least polluting�was reasonable �v�r+�.-'������jt�.��h�t (�� f� �'�
'"��b�o�Q,, � ����l��
Jay felt the standard should be reasonable. I�i the future, other ��
people may require something different. • �
Kristan asked if the applicant would accept the condition to say
"material acceptable to the Environmental Health Department" of
the Town of Vail and Joe agreed.
It was also suggested that condition No. 13 be amended to allow
staff and the applicant to determine what would and would not be
allowed outside the building envelopes.
Kathy Warren suggested that Item No. 7 be reworded so that it did
not seem to imply gas appliances or gas logs were required to be
used in all caretaker units. She suggested adding the wording
"If a fireplace is desired by the owner, " at the- beginning of
the condition. �
Jay commented that regarding condition No. 20 (e) , chain link dog
runs, they were trying to work out a solution. Jay had an
example of a chain link that could be screened well with vines
� and was acceptable to the Division of Wildlife.
Jim Shearer agreed that there should be some flexibility.
Kristan felt there were alternatives. Chain link dog runs were
not allowed in the Town. Staff was not asking the applicant to
do anything above and beyond what was required o the rest of the
Town.
� �f�
i
��.,.,. �5
PEC Minutes
9/24f90 Meeting
Continuing with the applicant's response to the conditions of
approval, Jay reiterated that the applicant did not agree with
Condition No. 2, prohibiting on-site liveries.
Regarding the building envelopes, Jay wanted to make sure that
the board was aware tk�at they still needed to work with `staff to
refine the plans. They made be changed a little, especially
Gillett's lot. The greenbelt area on Lot 6 would need to be cut
back and they felt that Lot 5�should be�U� little more.
: Jay explained that Dan Corcoi�an�and Kent Rose had spent a lot of
time on the site on the visual analysis aspect and felt
comfortable with the yi -�# the 'site.
���.i:������,� '
Dan Corcoran, surveyor, commented that at project completion, a
person should only 'be able to see 5 ft. of house. He looked at
what would' block views of the homes. He r°r� r�"�> ~+-^_a �;,,�
1
a.
He stated that he was very comfortable with the view analysis.
K ,
a p o o . Kent felt the picture was a
true representation��v1�QW ��'�'S �
__
i Regarding the walls Ja tated that Singletree had some vines
- overhanging the reatinain, alls and the walls were practically
invisible. y�;��
Ludwig stated that he was comfortable with the roads and the
caretaker unit at the gate, as it would add to the project. He �
felt the Design Guidelines needed work. In general, he felt the
project will be a landmark in the future. ���.�1�
�
Diana stated that she was against having a live� inside the
project. Regarding the sanding, she felt the ypplicant should be
just as concerned as the Town for the build up over the years•
e. Diana asked that the Community
Development Department be included on the staff visits to the job
site for the on site custru t o�review. Regarding the timing of
the Town's responsibill y o maintainin landscaping, Diana
felt the Town shou ' ' 1
t ears . She also felt that the
walls should have longer guarantee. 2 to 3 years was not long
enough for the ttling of the walls to occur.
j'�oo"`'`� �° �'�'��1°r.�
���r%d;j�
�,� �b .z�' ��
'��-- � ���`�' �'�
, �� �r �� 16
�l � ���� _
�
�
PEC Minutes
9 24' 90 Meetin �p�'e'�
/ / g ,�-�
�,,,i��"" ,�
Jim Sfiearer co�ented that he was not totally opposed to -a�-
���t livery if the corral was limited to two stalls and not
� bui�.t out of fence. Jim felt comfortable with the site coverage
' at 100% of GRFA and felt the landscape irrigation should be
���
`, � ' addressed in the Design Guidelines. Jim also asked about parking
�-,����..
for the livery����� 1���-
C = - Jay stated that additional parking would be provided at the
'�1� livery rather than at the turnaround.
G
Dalton commented that he was in the area recently and felt the
� parking presently 'was a problem, Jim Shearer agreed that there
� ' should be more parking made available.
Kent Rose responded that he felt the 17 spaces planned would be
adequate. Many of the hikers would continue to drive further up
the hillside to a meadow that was also available for parking.
Jim Shearer, �^A� �^ � v 15, stated that he was in favor
of the detached caretaker 'unit by the gate.
Dalton commented that he liked the idea of limiting site
coverage to 100% of the GRFA. He liked the livery in the project
as well as the detached caretaker unit by the ,gate.
, l�'
-- Diana Donovan wanted to see Vail Associates or�Gillett facilitate
a snow dump to be worked out with Stan Berryman of Public Works.
�,l1�+�0�
Kristan clarified that the 80-100%�GRFA ��site coverage would be
pinned down by final plat.
A motion to approve a request for a variance to the maximum
height for retaining walls on a parcel commonly referred to
as Spraddle Creek per the staff inemo with the variance
contingent u�on final plat approval was made by Kathy Warren
and seconded by Jim Shearer
VOTE: 5-0 WITH CHUCK CRIST ABSTAINING AND CONNIE KNIGHT
ABSENT
A motion to approve a request for a variance to the maximum
percent qrade for a road found on the preliminary plan dated
9f7/90 on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek
per the staff inemo with the variance contingent upon final
plat approval was made by Kathy Warren and seconded by
Dalton Williams
VOTE: 5-0 WITH CHUCK CRIST ABSTAINING AND CONNIE KNIGHT
ABSENT
17
PEC Minutes
, 9/24/90 Meeting
A motion to a�prove a reques�t for a preiiminary plan for a
ma-ior subdivisic�n as it meets the Hillside Residential Zone
DistrZCt and Major subdivision reguirements and >per the
conditic�ns found within the memo as madified in bold ancl
listed below on a 'parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle
`Creek was ' made � Kathy Warren and seconded' bY Ludwia Kurz.
1. The proposed road grades and retaining wall
heights are maximums for the subdivision. Tf it
is 'determined by staff through the final plat
review and/or building permit, or construction
phase that road grades and retaining wall heights '
may be further reduced, the applicant will agree'
to do so. The final plat submittal will provide a
thorough analysis of' the soil 'nailing and tie rod
system for cut walls in order to 'minimize site
disturbance.
2 . Construction guidelines will be used during the
actual building phase for the wall and road
improvements. See Section on ETR Wall Analysis of
this memo.
3. A grading easement on the southwest corner of the
property will a11ow the Town of Vail the right to
grade onto this portion of the property if and
when the North Frontage Road is extended to the
east below the subdivision to create a new
underpass connecting to Blue Cow Chute.
4. An agreement finalizing the stable relocation and
reclamation of the existing livery site will be
� submitted with the final plat information.
5. The conditions for lots having slopes over 30%
will be applied to the subdivision. This section
__ of the code is 18. 69. 050 A-D, F-T, K and L.
6. Site coverage shall be limited to 80 to 100% of
the allowable GRFA for each lot. This condition
will be finalized at final plat.
" 7. If a fireplace is desired by the owner, gas
appliances or gas logs shall be used in all
caretaker units.
'�,._
18
PEC Minutes
- 9/24J90 Meeting
8. A chain link tence around the culvert at the
subdivision entry will be removed` and a more
aesthetic barrier provided with appropriate
landscaping. If allowed by the Colorado Division
of Hiqhways.
9. The six spruce trees by the subdivision entrance
on the south side of Gillett Road shall be
relocated.
10. All Fire Department standards and requirements per
the letter from Mike McGee dated August 2, 1990
shall be complied with by the` owner `or as
otherwise modified by the Fire Department`.
11. Before any building permits are released for the
subdivision and once the subdivision receives
final plat approval, the appropriate easements
allowing for publia access shall be recorded per
the Forest Service requirements.
12. Six foot paved shoulders on either side of the
Frontage Road for a public bike path shall be
provided by the developer.
13. All construction on each lot shall occur within
building envelopes. The building envelopes shall
be adjusted per the revised staff plan dated
September 7, 1990 before final plat. The staff
and applicant are to determine what,will be
allowed outside the buildinq envelopes.
14. All construction for the subdivision shall comply
with requirements found within the Environmental
Impact Report for the project.
15. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding �
material for sanding the private road within the
subdivision per the approval of the Town of Vail
Environmental Health Department.
16. The open space tracts within the subdivision shall
be rezoned to Green Belt Open Space at the same
time the final plat is reviewed. Additional
greenbelt open space areas will be added adjacent
to the Forest Service switchback, Lot 5/S
switchback, and secondary road per the staff
amendments to the September 7, 1990 preliminary
plan.
_- 19
PEC Minutes
9/24/40 Meeting
17. The owner of the subdivision shall maintain the
road through the subdivision from: the entry gate
up to the top of the subdivision. This
maintenance also includes- all common areas,
retaining walls, and landscaping. The owner also
agrees to be` responsible for establishing the
landscaping along the public road for a two to
three year period from planting of the materials.
Once the landscaping is establ'ished and accepted
by the Town of Vail Landscape Architect, the Town
will take over the responsibility of the retaining
walls and landscaping.
18. Pedestrian and public access shall be allowed on
the lower portion of Gillett Road extending from
the Frontage`Road up to the subdivision gate.
19. Three caretaker units each having a maximum square
footage of 1200 sq. ft. shall be provided within
the subdivision on Lots 14, 15, and possibly Lot
1. The separation of the Lot 1 caretaker unit is
under staff consideration. The units will be
permanently restricted per section 18 .13 .080 (10)
- a-d of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Conditions
on the 3 employee units will be resolved at final
plat.
20. The architectural guidelines shall be amended as
follows:
a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as
extremely steep slopes. _
b. Sod shall be allowed around the perimeter of
residences but large lawn areas are not
encouraged.
_ _ c. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 8%
unless approved by the Town of Vail Engineer.
d. Irrigation by retaining walls for the .
subdivision shall be prohibited.
e. No chain link fence is allowed within the
subdivision even for dog runs. If dog runs
are proposed, another type of open fencing
should be used.
_ 20
II. ENS7IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY -
Below is a summary; of the staff' comments on the
environmental impact report (EIR) .
A. �tetainincx WallslSlope stabilit�/Drainaqe:
1. Wa11s:
Because of concern regarda.ng ground water and also
the desire t� minimize disturbed areas, the
pr�posed soil nailing system is particularly
reTevant for the large cut walls. iiThe; applicant
i5 asked to address the possible use of either a
soil nailing or grou�ed tie rod/p�nel retaining
system in the extreme cut `sections as soon as
possibie. The locations for this system to be
considered are STA 34+00-39+00 and STA 50+00-
52-�00.
In adclition, preliminary desiqns of th+e worst case
retaining walls must be computed, {Worst case
being, 8'-8" fill wall with traffic loading, 8'-8"
cut wall, triple tier` full wal'1 with traffic load,
triple tier cut wall) . Preliminary design should
be approved by both the Geotechnical Engineer and
the wall design Engineer. The latest Geotechnical
report only states the accepted bearing capacity
of the soils is 5000 lbs/sq. ft. This report
should also address maximum slones` above the wall,
the phi angle of the soil (older reports give 2
different ones) , the unit weight of the soil, and
the soil parameters which the wall designers need
in evaluating the walls. Based on agreed upon
soil parameters, the: wall technology needs to be
looked at for the; four worst case scenarios. The
walls overall stability regarding failure to
overturning, sliding and bearing pressure in
addition to fabric strength needs ,to be
determined. From this information, the areas of
disturbance can truly be determined and the need
to look` at other wall technologies can be
evaluated.
The proj;ect's cross-,sections as submitted show no
cut or fill slopes greater than 2:1. There will
be specific areas during final design and
construction ;where slopes greater than 2:l could
be beneficial to the overall project. Approval to
exceed slopes greater than 2tl must be received
first from the project's design/geotechnical
engineers and landscape architect. Secondly, the
10
I�. �ede�tr.ian jVehica�lar Access;
The utility easement through Lot 12 and a portion of
the old road bed at the top of `the subdivision, which
provides access tc� the domestic water storage tank,
have a3so be�n designated as a pedestrian easem�ent for
use by the residents of the Spraddle Creek Subdivision.
The owner has also agreed to provide a pedestrian
easemen�t along Spraddle Creek within the subdivision.
Public ac�ess to Forest Service Land is provided at the
3c�wer switchback on the east bc�undary of the site. The
Forest S+erv,ice aceess easement on the northern port`ion
of �he proposed subdivision will be relocated to match
the lawe� public access r4ad as a condition of final
piat approval:
o. Open Space;
The owner has agreed to rezone th� open space tracts to
"Greenbe3� Open Space" at the same time the final plat
is submitted. However, the applican� wishes to
maintain ownership of the property as opposed to
deeding the land to the Town of Vail , Greenbelt areas
are designated for land in between road switchbacks and
the hillside area ;below the lower subdivision road
leading up to the entry gate.
P: Architectural Guidelines:'
Architectural Guidelines are proposed with the
subdivision. The guidelines would :be administered by
the Spraddle Creek Desiqn Review Board'. Approval of
the Spraddle Creek Design Review Board would be
required before a proposed residence could be submitted
to the Town of Vail Design Review Board. The Spraddle
Creek Design Review Board would be responsible for
enfo�cing; their guidelines. The Town :of Vail would be
a party to� the covenants and would have to review and
approve any changes to' the covenants. The guidelines
also 'address site planning and landscape concerns.
Q. Construction Phasina:
The applicant has submitted a phasing plan but has
decided to submit a revised phasing Flan at final plat
when the 'scheduling of the construction can be more
accurately planned. Phas'ing is effected by the timing
of requested approvals for the project.
9
L. iver �
The owners intent is to relocate the existing livery to
a bench to th�e east of the subdivision on Fc�rest
Service property. The parking and �rail head access
for Forest Se�vice land will also be provided in the
area of the livery. This site will be acc�ssed by a`
gravel. road extending to the east in the approximate
location of the gate for the subdivisiQn. The existing
livery site will be reclaimed. and revegetated by the
owner. S�veral ca'bins, ten�s, 'a stable, anc� corrals
wi31 be relocated at the new livery location, At this
time, the agreement between the owner of the stable,.
Mr. Mark W�n�worth, and the owner of the subdivision
has not been finalized, An agreemen} was approved in
3985, however, this agreement has expa.red. 'The
�PPlicant and owner of the 'livery are in the process of
workin.g on the agreement. A new Fc�re�t 5ervice special
us�e permit is 'also' necessary. !The applicant will
submit the livery agreement at final plat.
M. Hazards:
Rockfall Hazard, Debris Flow and I7ebris'' Avalanche
Hazard zones from 'the Town' of Vai1 1984 studies `were
extended into the subdivision area.` The hazard zones '
include and are located as follows:
1. Rockfall, to the west of Spraddle Creek; and
2, Rockfall, along the southern edge of property; and
3, Debris flow, ' along the Spraddle Creek drainage.
The rockfall fiazard zones are located away from any
proposed development. ' No lots ' are included` in the
Rockfall Hazard Zones. The debris flow has' a potential
to restrict traffic along the access road. `
The owner has 'also agreed to comply with Section
18:69.05tt of the Town of Vai1 Zoning Code which
outlines special restrictions for development on lots
where the average slope of the` site beneath the
proposed structure and parking area is in excess of
30�. . The Sections that would apply to this subdivision
include 18.69:050 "A-D," F-I, K and L.
8
TM basin will be 'utilized to control both se�iimentation
and water veloci�y. During cc�nstruction c�f the
project, storm runoff will` be routed through temporary
s�dimentation basins,
I. Wa�er:
The wa�er system will connect to the exi,sting Upper
Eagle Valley Water system at the loc�tion c�� the I-70
Frontage Road and Spraddle ' Creek entrance, Because of
th�e elevation °variation on'the projeet site, a booster
pump station will be necessary 'on the low end of the
project. The ;pump st�tion will gump into a storage,
tank lc�cated near the northwest c4rner of Lot 12. A
wat�er' storage ;tank of 150,O�JO to 18�,��U ga3lons is
prraposed fc�r the prc�je�t, The tank wou].d be located
underground at th� west corner :Qf Lc�t 12 adjacent to
�khe property Tine. Placement of fire hydrants and
siting pf' the storage tank w3,11 be per th� Town 'of Vail
Fire �epartment requiremen�s, 'The water syStem
including' valves, ;piping, and constructi+�n will comply
with the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation
District requirements. The water system will be `placed
in road right-of-way and utility easements (see the
attached subdivision preliminary plan for location of
easements) ,
,7. Sewer System•'
A sanitary sewer system wi31' connect to an existing
manhole located southwest of the Tawn of Vail
Transportation Center.' The crossing of I-7O will be
accomplished by utilizing, a bore under the Interstate
Highway. ' A new bore wi11 have to be provided along
side the two e�isting 10 in, ductile iron pipes under
I-70 to accommodate the sewer. The system will be
gravity flow and will be located witizin road right-of-
` way and utiiity easements. A13 matexials, design, and
construction procedures will comply with the Upper
Eag1e Valley Sanitation District requirements.
K. Electric 'and Other Utilities:
Holy Cross Electric has an existing overhead high-
voltage line crossing the project site. This line will
be plac�d' underground. However, the subdivision will
not be served` by this line (please 'see the °preliminary
plan for the route of the subdivision service line) .
All other utilities (gas, telephone, and cable T.V. )
will be placed underground within the road right-of-way
and within specified utility easements.
7
water the plant materials by hanc� frnm a portable water
tank. The second method would be to place several
small tanks at the top ;of the walls with drip tubing
and emi�ters going ;to each plant. �"he tanks would then
be filled by a water truck at periodia intervals so
that if there was a malfunction, there would not be any
significant water s�epage. This system would then be
removed after the plants were established.
The subdivision owners w�uld mai�ntai�n the walls and
lands+caping on the private section of the road. The
Town of Vail would be responsible for maintaining the
walls and lands�aping on the lower/pubiic road up to
the subdivision gate once the plant materials are
established and accepted by` the Town of Vail Landscape
Architect, " in appraximately. 2 to 3 year�.
Staff would also like to see a landscapa p1�n for the
entry to the subdi�tision at the North Fronta+ge Road.
The design should consider the planting concept in the
Town of Vai1 Landscape Improvement Plan for this area.
G. Frontage Road Design:
A ,jug handle intersection is proposed for the Frontage
Road and entry to the subdivision. The Colorado
Di�ision of Highways (CDOH) access permit has been
approved for the project. It is included in the
project notebook. A 6 ft. shoulder for 'a bike path
will also be provided on either side of the Frontage
Road beginning at the entrance to the subdivision and
extending west approximately 300 to 500 ft.
H. Drainage:
The drainage system will consist of both surface and
storm sewer routing. Surface drainage along the roads
will be contained by curb and gutter or in limited
areas by ditches. Where the run-off velocities in the
ditches exceed acceptable velocities rock check
structures are proposed for erosion `'control.
The proposed storm sewers along with the drop inlets
will control the drainage along the curb and gutter
sections. Storm sewer outlets will discharge
frequently using energy; dissipaters to slow down the
outlet velocities to minimize the erosive effects. The
majority of the runoff will lead to Spraddle Creek.
Portions of the storm runoff will be discharged into
the naturai drainage swale to the east of the property.
Prior to release into Spraddle Creek, a sedimentation
6
F. Landsca�e' and Irrivatic�n fc�r Reta3ni�cr Wall Areas:
Th� applicant proposes to revegetate with approximately
the same number of trees and shrubs per' acre as
cu�rently exist on all' disturb�d areas within the
subdi�isic►n. 'The appl icant states that the``
concentration `of plants will be heavier along the walls
and lighter in less visible a�eas. ' Most piant
materials tc� be used will be n,ative to the site`.
Native vines will also be introduced some of which were
not seen on �the site, Test piots ha�e been established
this summer in the Pota�o Patch area to determine the
most appropriate vines' for the 'final planting plan.
Grasses to be reseeded will be `na�tive to the site as
much as possible. Biue Spruce and Aspen will be the
'�YPes of trees ir�cludecl in` th� ` revegPtation plan.
All disturbed areas will be seeded with a mix of
grasses, forbes (herbaceous plan�s oth+ex than grasses) ,
and shrubs as `indicated in the ,,plan list in the proj'ect
notebook. The t�rraces be�ween the wails will be
seeded with grasses, forbes, and shrubs and planted
with vines and possibly small one to ten gallon size
shrubs and small trees such as aspens, : It is e�ected
that cut walis built above the road will a�rerage only 2
feet between the rc�ad and the bottom of wali. Planting
pockets will be made wherever possible -to allow
planting of trees and shrubs.
Spruce trees may 'be used on the top of the cut walls
only if there is room to place 'them a sufficient
distance away from the wall (approximately 12 ft. ) .
The top of the fill walls will get �arious treatments,
depending; on slope and if there is a guard rail. Areas
with guardrail will be planted `with aspens and fill
slopes without the guardrail will be planted with
smaller shrubs, forbes, and grasses. `The base of the
fill slopes will be planted with aspen, spruce, and
native shrubs.
With respect to irrigation, a permanent system will not
be installed due to the potential for accidental water
seepage into the wall if the system failed. One of two
temporary` irrigation methods for watering the wall
planta.ngs are 'proposed: The first method would be to
5
� The maximum wall height proposed is 8 '-8" . Tota1
lineal wa3l length is 6179 feet. B�low is a chart
showing the break dawn of wall height to length of
wall. These f�.gures are as accurate �s possible given
the level 'of design work required at pr�liminary plan.
Please keep in mind that these numbers may vary
slightly at final plat:
ei ht Length of Wall
g�_1�� � to 8'-8" 291 1.f,
6' to 8' 2663 1. f.
lower than 6' 3225 1.f.
Total 6179 1.f.
In some areas, the 8 ft. to 8'-8" high walls will be
terraeed with a 10 ft. bench between each wall. ' The
maximum number Qf terrac�s praposed is three. These 3
terraced walls have a maximum combined height of 3o ft.
This situation is found at �he eastern mast switchback
on U.S, Forest Service property at the lower end of the
subdivision, the switchback adjacent to 'Lots 5` and 6,
and the intersection of the secondary road accessing
Lots 1-6. The applicant proposes to build the
retaining walls with a colored,;; split-face, concrete
block veneer using a geogrid support system.
. Type Length Height of Number
Location of Wall of Wall Tiered wall of Tiers
Forest Service Fill 116 1. f. 19 ft. 2
Switchback
Forest Service Cut - 236 1.>f. - 30 ft. 3
Switchback
Lots 5 & 6 Fill 130 l. f. 30 ft. 3
Switchback
Lots 5 & b Cut 79 l.f. 30 ft. 3
Switchback
Secondary Road Fill 135 l. f. 30 ft. 3
to Lots 1-6
In summary, a wall height variance is necessary for
2954 l.f. 'of wall abo�e 6 ft. , not to exceed 8 '-8" or
47.8� of the wall length.
4
'Th.e lineal focatage of the roadway from th+� �'rontage
Road up to the top of �he subdivision is approximately`
+�- 6,20U l.f. In addition there is a secondary
roadwa� Qf 674 ft.
The road right-of-way is 50 ft.' The asph�lt width is
22 ft. and has a mina,mum 2 ft. :'of shoulder on the
downhill side of the road with curb and gutter proposed
for the uphiil side {2 ft. ' standard seetic�n) . Pavement
and roadbed widths will be widened `in switchback areas
and shoulder widths will be widened to accommodate
guard' rails as required.
A variance is requested to ailow the road to be
d+esigned to a grade which exceeds the maximum allowable
grade 4f 8� per the 5ub�.ivision R�gulatio�s, Section
17.28.3flt3. The overall av�erage grade c�f the road is
7.88�' if the secc�nciary roadway 'is als� included, The
steepest c�rade is 8.8�04. Below is a chart showing `the
length of' road which meets various percer�t grades.
'Lineal Feet Percent Grade
250 1. f. ! @ ' 3.85�
200 l.f. @ 4.27$
400 1.f. @ 6. 00�
- 500 1,f. `' @ 7.00�
, 2300 1. f. @ 8.00$
2600 1. f. @ 8.59�
650 1. f. @ 8. 80�
6900 l. f. Total
A road grade variance 'is required for 3250 l.f. of
roadway that exceeds the 8� maximum and falls within
the range above 8$ to 8.80%. 47g` of the roadway
requires 'a variance.
Approximately 200 lineal feet {l. f. ) beyond the cul de
sac, a gravel access road leading up to the new livery
site and Forest Service trail head is proposed. ' This `
road has a maximum grade of approximately 16�.
E. Retaining Walls:
Retaining walls are proposed to accommodate. the
subdivision road. A variance is required for walls
which exceed the maximum height allowed of 6 ft. The
section of the code which `reiates to retaining wall
heights is found in Section 18.58. 020.
3
Lot 1. The gate house unit would be located to the _
south of Gillett Road on I,ot 1. Tha.s unit woul+d be
used by an on-site manager for the entire subdivision.
The issues of separation of units and ownership need to
be resolved (please see the attacY�ed zoning ;summary
sheet for a breakdc�wn of lot size, building , envelope,
GRFA, and site cover�ge) .
B. Building Envelopes:
Envelopes have been established for each lot indicating
the limits of :eonstruction and building: No
development is groposed to be located beyond the
boundary of any building envelope.
C. Site Coverage:
Site :coverage is to be reduced from the allowed 15� of
tc�tal sit+e area under Hillside Resi�iential to an amount
equi�alent to the allowable GRFA, This issue wili be`
resolved at final ,plat to insure that a reasonable
amount of 'site coverage is avai�able.
D. Access•
The subdivision will be accessed by a road beginning at
the North F�ontage Road and extending through the
existing livery site and to the east side of the
subdivision. `The connecting road passes through U.S.
Forest Service property. The Forest Service has agreed
to allow access to the subject property upon the fina�
platting of the project and upon compliance with the
terms, of the letter dated No�ember 12, 1987 to Jay
Peterson. ` A gate wi12 be located on the owner's
property at the entrance to the subdivision. Upon
completion and acceptance, the road wi�1 become a
public road maintained, by the Town of Vail. From this
point on, the road will be `a private road extending up
to the top of the -subdivision, The, public will have
access from the North Frontage Road up to the gate. A
cul de sac is located on the �ower most eastern switch
back.
The applicant proposes that the Town of Vail maintain
the public section of the road and the owners of the
subdivision shall maintain the private section. The
pri�ate part of the road is 230A L f. and has grades
from 7.0� 'to 8.0�. The secondary spur road (access' to
�,ots 1-6) , 670 l.f. at 8.8� will also be maintained by
the owner. The Town of Vail wi11 maintain the 3900
l. f. of road from the Frontage Road to the gate. This
portion of the road has grades from 8.0 to S.fi�.
2
.
TO`s P3anning and Environmental Commission
FRQM: Cammunity Development Department
DATE: Sep�tember 24, 1990
RE: A request to approve the preliminary p3an for a major
subdivision, a request for a variance to the maximum
height for retaini.ng walls, an� a request for a
variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a
parcel c4mmonly re�erred to as Spraddle Creek, an
approximate 40 aere parcel located n+�rth and east of
the Main Vai3 I-70 interchange and east' of the Spraddle
Creek livery.
Applicant; George Gillett, Jr.
I: �'HE REQUEST
Spraddle Creek is a forty acre parcel 3ocated northeast of
the Main Vail Interchange. Mr. George Gillett Jr. is the
owner of the property. ` The; property is surrounded by White
River National Forest land on the north, east, west,`,and
south. I-70 right-of-way is located adjacent to, Spraddle
Creek's southwestern boundary. The applicant is'' requesting
approval for a` major subdivision, a �ariance to the percent
grade for the roadway,; anci a variance to retaining wall
heights. The property was annexed into the Town of Vail in
Jar�uary of 1985 and Hillside Residential zoning was applied
in November of 1987 by' Qrdinance No. 38, Series of 1987.
Below is a` summary of the subdivision proposal, some of
which has be�n' taken from the applicant's project notebook.
This section of the memo provides an ovexview of the key
components of the project and also explains the two variance
requests. ,
A. 14 Hillside Residential Lots:
The proposed subdivision is comprised of 14 residential
lots. Each lot will be allowed a main dwelling unit
plus one caretaker unit which is required to be
attached to the main unit, or may be integrated within
the garage structure serving the main unit, but shall
not be a separate freestanding structure. `The
caretaker' unit shall not exceed 1200 sq. ft. of GRFA.
This zone district requires that the caretaker unit not
be subdivided' or sold separately from the main unit.
The caretaker unit will be limited 'to one gas fireplace
or gas appliance. The owner has agreed to provide a
minimum of three caretaker units within the subdivision
'and said units will be located on Lots 14 and 15. A
caretak+er unitJgate house is also being considered for
1
Town of Vail project planner, Town Engineer and
Landscape Architec�t must re�criew and approve any
slopes exceeding 2:1,
Construction guidelines should be used during the
actual construction of the; project. These
guidelines shoul.d include;
a. Encourage the elimination of walls; and
b. Vary slope grades and undulate the slope
lines; and
c. Provide planting pockets where possible; and
d. Save significant vegetation or rock
outcroppings through use of steeper grades,
sma31 boulder walls, or minor road
rea3ignment, and
e. Main�ain maximum 2;1 slopes c�n fill walls
with plantings in front of wa11.
f, The project will be slope staked prior to the
beginning of ;the clearing, grubbing and
topsoil removal operations. Town staff will
walk the project and approve the limits of
, construction. During construction, if
significant geological features appear which
enhance the final project, tfie Town staff
should be notified to possibly incorporate
these into the design.
2: Slope Stability/Hazards:
Staff concurs with the Koechlein Consulting
Engineers' recommendations on P�ge 11 of the
December 17; �985 report concerning slope
stability. The report states: `' "
"The stability of slopes are greatly
influenced by surface and groundwater
conditions. We recommend that all surface
and subsurface drainage on this site be
carefully designed and constructed so that
�he existing ,stability of :slopes can be
maintained: All areas should 'be carefully
sloped to reduce the possibility of
infiltration of surface water into cut and
fill slopes. In addition, all water should
be directed away from the face of cut and
fiTl slopes to reduce the risk of significant
11
erosion. Some drainage areas> may need
stabilizing with rip rap or other erosion
'control materials. "
The site does have geologic hazards. No housing
is proposed in any hazard 'area, From the hazard
reports, it is evident that hazards will need to
be addressed during the construction of the road
to insure safety.
3 . Surface Drainages
Koechlein recommends in their December 1985 report
that surface water be directed away from the top
of a3l ,slopes so that' significant erosion or
possibie infiltration of water into the slopes
will' r�ot occur. The�y also state that a fabric for
reducing surface erc�sic�n be considered for the
faces of all disturb�d slopes. Vegetation should
be grown on these slopes as �oc�n as passible to
reduce ar�y erosion. Staff agrees with this
apPraach ;to the surfa�e drainag� and believes that
the existing plans inaorporate these design
considerations.
`These concerns will be fully addressed in the
- 'final construction plans.
The report from Koechlein concludes that
excavations for the road and water tank should be
- inspected to `verify that subsurface conditions are
as anticipated by the explorato:ry boring.
Placement and compaction of fill as well as the
installation of retaining'wall systems or soil
retaining systems will be inspected during
construction and `the developer shall have 'a soils
testing technician on site to ensure compliance
with the strict construction speci'fications.
B. Revegetation:
Overall, the proposed revegetation plan submitted for
roadways and walls is ' acceptable. The applicant has
stated that all disturbed 'areas will be revegetated to
the same approximate density which exists today on the
site. Indigenous' species of plant materials will be
used` as much as possible. The' concentration of
plantings wi11 be heavier` at the walls.
12
Much of the wall planting is dependent upon the results
obtained fr�m the test plots in Potato Patch. These
results will not be avai3,ab3.e until next year. Staff
will look a� this m4re cic�sely when the final landscape
plans and specifications are submitted at final plat.
In respect' to irrigation of the landscape materials, a
drip system, gra.vity f+ed from tanks, is probab3y a
workable system. Prop+er maintenance to f�.il the tanks
and inspect the lines and emi�ters is critical to the
` system's success, The owner should commit to ensure
the �ontinuation of maintenance' of the system, untiT
all plants have been weii established.
The Town of Vail Landscape Architect requests that the
fi�nal land5cape pi�n address what wiil happen to the-
six spruce trees east of the main entrance along the I-
7� off ramp, Ail six tre�s" are within the construction
limit line. If the� are to be moved it should be done
�his f�ll or next spring while the sap is not flowing.
C. Wildlife•
The wildlife section of the Environmental Impact Report
stat�s that "there will not; be a significar�t' impact on
wildlife in the area as a result of `the propos+ed
pro3ec�." Staff agrees with this statement as long as
tfie option for+ Lr�t 14 to have a livery is nc�t used.
Tfie applicant has proposed sev�ral methods to minimize
impacts on any wildlife in the area. These 'measures
include:
1. Any owner with a dog will be required to have
a dag run or kennel which is fenced to a
sufficient height` to prevent the dog from
jumping out. ' This is a direct recommendation
from the Division of Wildlife which should be
incorporated into` the covenants for the
subdivision. `
2. The applicant has; agreed to require that all
trash containers for units must be bear
proof, This also complies with the Division
of Wildlife's (D.O.W. j concern on this issue.
The D.O,W. has identified this' area as being
bear habitat. Wit� the ongoing problem with
garbage bears in the Cour�ty, the Division is
recomm�nding all development in bear habitat
have bear proof containers. They also
13
recommended that ,one central garbage point _
would reduce cost and lessen the prc�blem with
garbage bears, This apprc►ach should be used
by �he appl i�ar�t.
3. The d.evelc�per has also maintained the
requ�s�ed bufter ;zon+e between the Forest
'Se�^vice property `l�.ne' and development in the
subdivision. The required distance is 6o ft.
�'his distance will allow for an adequate
buffer between the residential development
and surrounding U.S. Forest land, '
4. "The owner has agreed to use landscape
materials which are unpalatable to wildlife.
The Division of Wildlife stat�s that by using
'unpalatable landscapir�g items, the developer
" will' r+educe damage to' landscaping caused by
wilcllife (letter dated December 19, 1989 from
Bill Andre, District wildlife Manager)`.
D.` Atmos„pheric �onditionsz
The Town of V�il's Environmental Health Officer
reviewed the original Air Quality Report and
recommended that the analysis use the Vail Valley
emission factors from the Town of Vail Air Quality, May
1989, ;report. It was also 'required that total build-
out numbers be used for evaluat�.ng the air impacts.
The report has' been changed to incorporate these
concerns. The report states:
"PM 1fJ emission for the peak day (assume to
Christmas Holidays, 1990) will ;�e approximately 24
lbs or 6/10 of 1� of the PM 10 emissions expected
for the �tail Village area, "
These numbers reflect that 1/2 of the units will have a
woodburning fireplace and the caretaker units would
have gas appliances or gas logs: The impact is also
due to road sanding. Because the subdivision will at
times require heavy sanding during the winter the staff
believes it is appropriate to require the owner to use
the least polluting sanding material available. This
material �would' be subm�.tted to the Town of Vail
Environmental Health Officer for review and approval.
The Town of Vail is also inves�igating materials which
are less polluting than the existing sanding materials.
14
' E. �isual Tmpact•
The �riew analysis clearly indicates that there will be
visual impacts xesulting frc�m the subdivision's walls,
new road, ' housing, and livery relocati�n. These
structures will impact the visw caf the present site
which is now predominantly a natural mountain setting.
The applicant has prop�sed the foll'owing mitigation
measur�s to address the view impacts.
1. The fina3 p3at submittal will �nclude .a detailed
landscape plan that wiil address common open space
areas as well as the retaining wa�ls for the
subdivision. Fill walls raill be screeaned by aspen
and spruce plantings. The applicant has agreed to
use the ��grove planting arrangement�� to try and
create a natural appearance for the plantings.
This apprc�ach is especially important on the lower
portion Of Gl'��.5"�.'� Rfl�tC�. frc�m the Frc�ntage Road up :
to the F�rest Service" switchbac'k. These walls are
particularly visible fr4m Uail �Tillage and Vail
Mountain and must be scr�ened adequately.
2. The major switchbacks shall a3so include aspen and
shrub plantings in the terraces between retaining
walls, This is a critical design element of the
landscape plan and will help to mitigate the
impact of the terraced walls.
3 . At final plat review, building permit, and actual
coz�struction of the project, the staff will
continue to try to reduce the retaining wall
heights and eliminate walls when possible. This
design appzoach should minimize visual impact as
much as possible thr4ugh each refinement of the
retaining wall/road design.
4. Because much of the site will be disturbed, during
construction, an erosion control plan will be
submitted by the applicant to minimize erosion
during the construction process.
5. The building envelopes have been decreased in size
from what was originally proposed. This will
limit the disturbed areas and also concentrate
development, thereby ,decreasing visual impacts.
This approach will allow for more :of the natural
landscaping to remain and will reduce the overall
disturbed area within the project.
15
6. Site coverage has also been reduced to 100°� of the "
- allowable GRFA to encourage development that is `
more cr�mpact and less spread out r�n the site.
7. Architectu�al guidelines are suamit�ted with the
prc�gosal. Many of the guidelines wili h�lp to
make ;the project as compatible` as p4ssible with
the surrounding site. Sod arouncl the perimeter of
the hause is allowed. Staff recommen�is
discc�uraging large lawn areas. Retaining walls
are also recommended to be minimized and extremely
s�eep slopes are cliscouraged. A color board will
be submitted at final :p3at to ensure that the
� range of colors for the houses' will be 'attractive,
�et subdued. Owners should also be required to
site thein c��uses using the natural terrain.
These concepts as we11 as 'others within the
architec�ura3 guidelines wil3 encourage the
project to �ae as compatibie as possible with the
site.
8'. The owner has agreed to create open space areas in
the major switchbacks and to also maintain open
space in the iower portion of the site; The owner
will rezone these portions of the project to
Greenbelt 4p�n Space at the final plat review of
the subdivision. This site planning approach will
help a great deal to minimize the visual impacts
of the project on the' Vail' community.
In summary, the staff 'concludes that although there
will be visual impacts because 'of the man made
development on the site, the agplicant has proposed
measures to off-set the visual impacts as much as
possible. The proposed mitigation measures are
acceptable to ;staff.
F. Circu'lation and Transportations
1. Frontage Road Intersection
The applicant has obtained a CDOH access permit
for the project. A left turn lane for east bound
traffic will be pro�ided at the project entrance.
The intersection for the development, once
constructed, will be further to the east to allow
greater separation between the; project
intersection and the west bound off ramp of I-70.
In additian, 6 ft: shoulders will be provided on
each side of the widened Frontage Road to
accommodate future bike lanes as proposed in the
Town of Vai1 Recreation Trails Master Plan.
;16
2. Emergency Accessibility
Th+� maj or portion caf the road gr�.de e��eeding Town
star�dards wi11 be' maint�ined by the Town of Vail.
The addition of the first turnarc�und will give the
Fir�e Departmer�t the ability tc� travel 370o ft. and
turn around oar go' an addi�ional 320� ft, before
reaching ;�the top. ' Some houses cannc�t be accessed
within 150 ft". on alI ''sides and these houses wi11
need to be interna3ly sprinklered.
3 . Road Grade
The road. grades have been refined r�umerous times
to achieve a balance between a'! low road grade and
l�w retaining walis. 'At �his time, 47� of the`
road 'exceQds the 8� maximum grade, but does not
exceed 8.8�, Tn other words, a �rariance is
required for a 0.8� increase in road grade. The
Town �ngineer b�iiev�s further refinement of the
road gracie wi'll be required at final plat in order
to fine tune the relationship of grades to
retaining wal3s. However`, staff believes that the
road ;grade has been designed to an acceptable
grade at `this time given site `constaraints.
4>. Driveway ;'Grade
The driveways for each lot shall meet Town of Vail
standards for 8� and if grades exceed 8�, the Town
Engineer's approva3 shall be required. Driveway
grades must be refined at final pl'at to insure
safe access to each lot.
5. Pubiic Access
lhiblic access to the Forest Serviee trailhead and
livery has been improved, with the exception that
the gravel roadway to the livery which will be a
16.5� maximum grade �ersus the` current 11�. It
should be pointed` out °that the livery road varies
from `16.5� to 10.67� grade. The applicant should
try to decrease the road grade to the livery as
much as possible. This concern should be
addressed at final plat.
A turnaround for the general public has been
placed within 200 ft. of the proposed security
gate. This may cause minor traffic problems,
however with proper signage it should not cause
great concern.
; 17
G. Hvdrologic Conditions:
Increased runoff from th� site will have an
insignifican�t impact on the overall drainage, basin:
The development of :the site will hav� a noticeable
impact on the mir�or ev�nts and speaific drainage
channels, especia].ly the eastern basins: Care should
b+e taken in th+e final design to address the handling of
the increased flows anci the neeci to ,provide adequate '
protection against`erosion.
H. Noise and Odor
The noise ,and odors associated with, this project will
occur primarily during the constructian phases for the
subdivision. When the 'f�.nal phasing plan is submitted
at final plat, sta�f wi11 re�iew the plan to try to
minimize impacts from construction e;�uipment, blasting,
and an� odors that may c�ccur during; construetion.
I. Social ancl Economic Repart
Staff concurs with the social and economic section of
the EIR which states that there is no requirement
within the Town of` Vail that requires a subdivision to
pay its own way as daes exist in some communities. The
biggest concern with the project is related to possible
increased costs for road and retaining wall '
maintenance. Because the grades are st+�eper on the
proposed road than allowed under the subdivision
regulations, the additional 0.6� increase in road grade
does contribute to an increase in maintenance cost for
the Town on the portion of the road that the Town of
Vail will be maintaining. However, Public Works is of
the opinion that the cost increase will be minimal now
that the road grades have been lowered significantly
from the original road grade proposal.
The Town also believes it is positive that road access
to Forest Service land. has been imprr,ved through this
project. The public access road will now be paved and
allow for: somewhat easier access to Forest Service
land.
The Police and Fire Departments con.cur that they will
be able to provide adequate protection `to the
subdivision.
- 18
At this time, no pubiic bus stop for Town of Vail Bus
� Service is proposed, Pubiic Works" opinion is that it
would not be appropriate to provide a s�rvic� through
this subdivision due to the limited population and road
gr�de; T� ma� be reasvnable to asl� �he app�.i�ant t+o
1oc�k at a possilale school bus turn �ff at fina3. plat.
This turn'-c�ff w�uld b+� located `at the base Qf the
subc�ivision adjacent to the Frontage Road.
In summary, the primary con�ern �f the staff with the
social and economic section of the EIR cc�ncerns road
maintenanae aost. At this time, it appears that the
road grades will not significan�ly increase maintenance
costs for the ;public portion of the road for the Town
of Vail. The 'steepest portion of the raad, 8.8$ will
be maintained by the owner, In respect to the
retaining walls, the applicant ``has agreed to be
responsible for the maintenance of a31 landsaaping and
re�aining walls for the first two to three years after
constructifln, " Once the vegetatic�n has been
estab].ished, the Tc�wn of Vail would be responsible for
landscape ;and retai.ning wall maintenance on the public
sec�tion of the roadw Public Wc�rks finds this
maintenance arrangement aceeptable.
J. Land Use•
This sectian of the staff's review will relate the Town
o`f �Iail Land Use P1an to slements of the Spraddle Creek
proposal. ' Below is a list of goals and comments from
the staff summarizing the projects relationsh'ip to the
Land Use Plan.
The property is designated HR or Hillside Residential.
This designation states:
"This category would allow for single family
dwelling units at densities no` more than two
dwelling units per buildable acre. Also permitted
would be typical singie famiiy accessory uses such
as private recreational amenities, attached
`caretaker units, or employe units and garages.
InstitutionalJpub3ic uses `would also be permitted,
These areas would require sensitive development
due to slopes, access, visibility, tree coverage
and geologic hazards. ' Minimum buildable area of
20,Q00 square feet would be required per dwel3ing
unit.��
1g
Staff did not ask the applicant to provide a total -
"buildable�' acreage as ths zone district requires that
each lot have a minimum +�f ' 21,�80 sq. ft, of contiquous
buildable area, A11 lots met this requirement and
a.n�ent of' the HR clesignation, Please see the attached
PEC memo on the adoption of �iR zoning for Spraddle
Creek.
Goal 5.4, Residential growth sh�uld keep place with the
marke� piace demands for a full range of
housing types.
This is the first subdivision to utilize the Hillside
Residential Zoning. When the Hillside Residential Zone
District Was appiied to this parcel in 1987, the staff
opinion was that this site was w�ll suited to the
zoning standards for Hillside Residential. The
de�eloper is abiding by most stanclards Af the zone
district, The Hillside Residential' Zone Di�trict will
pravide a lu�ry home housing type f+�r the Town of
Vail. Ix� addition, the developer �as committed to
provide three employee dwelling units and each of the
remaining eleven units will �ae allowed to have a
caretaker unit if the owner so desires:
Goal 5.3 : Affordable employee housing should be made
available thraugh private efforts, assisted
,by limited incentives, provided by the Town
of Vail, with appropriate restrictions.
Goal 5.5z The existing employee housing base should be
preserved and upgraded. Additional employee
housing needs should be acaommodated at
various sites throughout the site.
The applicant is meeting these goals by providing a
minimum of three employee units. Units will be
provided on Lot 14, 15;, and l. Staff would like to
require that these. employee units be constructed within
three years of subdivision approval. The Lot l unit is
proposed to be separated from the main unit. This
caretaker unit would be located at the <gate for the
subdivision and would serve as an employee unit for a
person who would be responsible for maintaining the
entire subdivision. The unit would not exceed a total
GRFA of 1200 sq. ft. and would be integrated into the
site as much as possible. Lot` l would not be allowed
to have an additional caretaker unit at the main house
and would be required to reduce GRF�, for the main unit
by 1200 s.f. Staff believes this idea has merit and
needs further study to resolve the unit separation
issue and ownership arrangement.
20
The potentiai number of employes housing units that
c�ulci be provided within the subdivision is 14. The
prcaject cc�mplies with the emplQy�e housing goals by
provi�ing ''a minimum of ' 21� or 3 units c�f the total
a3.lowable ur�its as pennanen�tly restricteci employee
hc�using, The 'restrietiflns are per S�etion 18.13. 080
{Bj and a, b, c, and d.
Goal 1.2: "The quality of �he environment including air,
water, and other natural resources should be
protected as the `Town grflws.
Goal 1.6; 'i�evelopment proposals on ;the hillsides should
be evaluated on a case by case basis.
'Limited developm+�nt ma� be permitted for some
low 'intensity uses in areas that are not
highly visible �rom the vai3ey floor: New
projects' should be carefully eontrolled and
deveioped with sensitivity to the '
en�vironment.
Goal 1,7: New subdivision should not be permitted in
high geologic hazard areas.
Goa1 5.1 Additional residential growth should aontinue
to occur primarily in exis�ing, platted areas
and as appropriate in' new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
All of these goals relate to the general site planning
for the subdivision. At staff's request, the applicant
has agreed to 'incorporate more restrictive standards
into the subdivision than `normally required under the
Hillside Residential Zone District.' Building envelopes
are provided for each lot `which' locate development in
areas `that do not have hazards, and reduce disturbance
of the existing tree line as much as possibl'e. By the
use of building envelopes, development will be limited
to the most appropriate locations on each lot.
GRFA has been reduced on Lots 14, 5, and 4, by
excluding any `hazard areas from site area that would
contribute to'' GRFA: This reduces the GRFA for Lot 14
by approximately 3,190 sq. 'ft. ,` Lot 5, by 325 sq, ft. ,
and Lot 4, by ;1,050 sq. ft.' Lot 7 's GRFA has also been
reduced to all'ow for a greenbel`t tract on the western
end of the lot. Lot i has also had its GRFA reduaed by
approximately 2,520 sq. ft. to allow for another
greenbelt open space segment on the southeastern aorner
of the subdivision.
21
Staff felt that it was appropriate to require Lot 1 to �
redu�e GRFA as the devel4p�r was able to utilize the
� adjacent ForQSt S+�rvice land fox the switchback. It is
an equitabl.e solu�ic�n t� take the land that is within
the subdivision that is no l�ng+er being u�sed for the
switchback and devote that area to greenspace for the
projeet's and general p�abl,ic's �benefit.
Site cov+erage has also been reduced to 100� of the
allowable GRFA instead of taking 15� of the total site
area, Due to the large size of the lots, the site
coverage was in excess of the allowable GRFA.
Certainly, a low profile buil+ding is desirable,
however, staff feels that the development also needs to
be as sensitively located on the site as possible. In
order to accflmplish this, qiven the slopes and high
GBFA allotments for each lot, staff felt it was
appropria�e to reduce �the site epverage for each lot.
Staff is cc�nsiclering a sit+e coverage percentage of 80
to 9U� which is similar to the site coverages normally
allowed in PrimaryJSecondary ar�d Single Family zone
districts 'on 30� slope ;sites, We feel this 'approach is
more in keeping with the intent of site coverage and
will resuTt in bet�er site planning for the
subdivision. We believe it is positive the applicant
is willing t4 reduce site eo�erage to 1000 of the
allowable GRFA, However, an 80 or-90o ratio may be
more appropriate, Staff would like to finalize the
percentage at final plat wfie� final lot sizes are
determined.
, The developer has also proposed to maintain ,open space
on the lower portion of the subdivision: Instead of
providing lots in this area as originally proposed
several years ago, this area will be designated as open
space. The owner agrees to submit a rezoning of the
property at the same time final plat submittal is made
to the department,
Ari important question related tb the subdivision is how
many `lots could realistically be located within the
subdivision given the road alignment. This is a very
difficuit question to answer as it is obvious if the
owner only wished to build one house on the lower
portion of the subdivision, the; upper access road would
be aompletely unnecessary and impacts from the
subdivision would be greatly minimiz�d.
22
Staff believes it is appropriate to recognize that the
parcel was annexecl by the �own of Vail and rec�ived
Hillsi.de Residentia3 zc�ning with the intent to allow
for deve].opmen� per the s�andards of this zc�ne
district. ` Given the fa�t that the developer is not
requesting any variance to the H,illside Residential
development standards, it is estimated that
approximately four to five additional lots could be
iocated within the' subdivision, if so desired. Staff
believes a balance has` been found between a reasonable
number +�f lots for the: subdivision and 'good site
pianning principles.
Given the above comments on how this project relates to
the land use plan, the staff believes that it is in
conf4rmance with the Land Use Plan. Even though the
project does have some hazard areas, no development is
proposed in these areas anci h�zard areas are not
coz�tributing tc� any adclitic�nal GRFA or site coverage.
K. Utilities:
All utilities will be placed underground. Re�egetation
of disturbed areas wi11 be required and will be
addressed in the landscape plan submitted at final
°;. plat.
" " IV. CRITERIA FOR NlA�?OR SUBDIVISION
= The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found in
Section 17.16.110 of the Town Subdivision Regulations and
� are as` follows:
"The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to
shota that the application is in compliance with the
intent and purpose of this chapter, the zoning
ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC
deems' applicable, Due consideration shall be given to
the recommendations made by public agencies, utility
companies, and other agencies consulted under Section
17.16,Q9Q. The PEC shall review the application and
consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies
relating to subdivision aontrol, densities proposed,
regulations, ordinances and resolutions, and other
applicable documents, environmental integrity, and
compatibility with the surr�unding land uses 'and other
applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the
Town, environmental integrity and aompatibility with
�the surrounding land uses. °
23
Publie Aaency and Utility Company Reviews: �
Notificatic�n has been mailecl to the :f411owing agencies and
as of �his' date, the fc�llowing comments have been received
by �the' Town;
l. Upper Eagie Valley Water and Sanitation District:
Please see the letter dated September 19, 1989
from Fred Hasiee in the project notebook. The
District daes not have any problems with the
project as long as all ruies and regulations and
payments of appropriate tap fees are agreed to by
the developer.
2. Public Service Co. of Colorado:
Please see the letters dated Oc�ober 5, 1989 and
May 22, 199fl from; Gary Hall in' the project
notebook. These letters indieate that service
will 'be provided per the ruies and regulations for
gas service extensions on file with the Public
Service Commission of' Colorado,
3. Holy' Cross Electric Association:
Please see the l�tter dated September 21, 1989 �
from Ted Husky in the proj`ect n4tebook. The
utility is able to provide service to the project.
4. Mountain` Bell/U:S: West Communications;
Please see the Ietter from Bonnie Herod dated
September 22, 1989 in the project notebook. The
phone company has indicated that they cannot
commit to providing service until all studies are
completed. U.S. West will request that the
developer provide an analysis for the ;services
required by the developer ``or ow.zer. It is their
understanding is that the :deveiaper accepts the
responsibility for completing this work.
5. Heritage Cabl'evision:
Please see the February 28, 199fl letter from Steve
Hiatt in the project notebook. Service will be
`provided' to the project.
°;24
� 6. United States Forest Service:
Please see t�e Apri1 30, 1990 l.etter from Bill
WQOd in the project �otebook, If, �.he F�rest
Service parcel to the west' is deeded to the Town,
_ it will be necessary to determine the exact
l�ocation of �he publie easement �o be retained by
the Forest Service. It alsc� stat�s that:
"As with all subdivisions ''bordering National
Forest System Lands, it is desirable to allow
permanent public `access across the private'
land to the fc�rest. The propc�sed sub�division
`plan cioes allow for this.i�
'"The main access road tc� the proposed ,
subdivision crQSSes Nationa3 Forest System
Lands on the ;Spracldles Creek Parcel on an
existing road, I understand the grade of
this rQad exceeds Tcawn c�f' �Tai3. standards. T
fsel 3.t is appropriate to graa�t a 'variance at
'th�.s locatic�n to keep the ac�ess road on this
alignmer�t. Keeping the road on the present
alignments seems to be the environmentally
_ preferred location to keep from disturbing
additior�al ground and to minimize the visual
impact from Interstat+e 70, the Town of Vail
and the ski area. This alignment wouTd also
become �he Forest Service Easement when the
;parcel is deeded to the Town of Vail."
`"In summary, ,the Spraddle Creek Subdivision
meets the needs of the National Forest
System, I feei the access road across the
:�ational' Forest is in the best possible
location and urge you to approve this
alignment for access to the subdivision."
Staff will require an updated letter at final plat
from the U.S. , Forest Service stating their
approval of the switchback. on their land. This
letter should be includ�ed in the final plat
submittal.
7. Town of Vail Public Works, Fire and Police
Departments:
Commer�ts form the Town of Vail Public, Fire, and
Police Departments have been incorporated in to
this memo.
: 25
8. Colorado 'Division of Highways:`' �
An access permit has been apprQVed by 'the Colorado
Division of Highways for the Frontage Road
improvements.'
�'he approved Ci�QH Access permit requires that
finai roadway constructiaan glans be submitted to
+CDOH 45 days prior to cc�mmeneing construction.
V. ' CRITERTA AND FiNDINGS FOR A` VARIANCE
Upon review of Criteri.a and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community
Development recommends approval. of the requested variances
based upon the following factorss
A. �onsideration of Factors: '
1. The relationshi�,of the rec,�uested variance to
�other existinq or potentiai uses and structures in
the vicinity.
a) Road Grade•
There will be no major negative impacts because of
the road 'grade variance to allow 0.8� increase in
road grade from the allowable 8�. ; Public Works
beiieves 'that the` increase will be difficult to
'discern and that safety concerns have been
addressed. Public Works would prefer to have the
roads meet the 8� grade throughout the entire
subdivision, `however, `the applicant has reduced as
much as possible the road grade without
dramatically inereasing wall heights.
b) Retaining Wall Height: `
The request for an addition 2 ''=8" in wall height
above the 6 ft. allowable wail IZeight will
increase the visual impacts of' the project.
However, i� is the staff's opinion 'that the visual
impacts could be even worse if 6 ft. high walls
were maintained with additional terracing. ' Staff
believes that a balance has been found between
actual wall height, heights of the terraced walls,
and view impacts. The three tiered retaining
walls have a 'combined maximum height of 30 ft. It
is staff's opinion that the height of these walls
would increase if 6 ft. high walls were maintained
as more terracing would be necessary.
26
Staff does believe that it is very important for
the applicant to analyze soil nailing and the tie
rod systems to minimize disturbed areas, This
analysis should occur during the final plat
re�i�w, The landscaping pian will also be
reviewed carefully ancl the` use o� on-site
+cc�nstruction guidelines wi11 h�].p to minimize the
visual impact� of �he project frc�m points within
the valley, The specific color for the concrete
block veneer facing far the retaining walls should
be chosen' before finai plat approval.
2, The deqree to which relief from the striat and
l�.teral inter_pretation and enfnrcement of a
si�ecifisd re�c.ulati�n is� necessary to achievs
cam�atibilit� and uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinit,y or �o attain the objectives
of this tit�.e without grant of s ep ciai priv312cre:
Road �rade and Retaining Wa11 Height:
Be�ause of the topography and soil €ound on this
site, dif�icult develQ�ment cflnstraints are
created. Staff believes it wouid be a hardship if
the strict and literal izaterpretation of the code
requirements for road grades and retaining wall
heights were required for `this project, In many
instances, the road is proposed through areas
where the slope is at 4t3% or great�r. 'The
variances'` allow the developer to minimize the
impact on the site as much as possible while
maintaining appropriate road grades and reasonable
wall heights. The variances result in better site
planning by decreasing disturbed areas: The Town
Engineer has examined` other alignments for the
road 'and it is his opinion that this alignment is
the best given the road grade and wall height
requirements of the Town of Vail regulations.
Each variance request should b� reviewed for its
own merits. However, other owners of property
within the Town of Vail have ,also received
variances for retaining wall heights because of
topography and soil conditions on their property,
Recent approvals included the �erisola wall in
Potato Patch and the Byrne wall in Vail Village
lst Filing.
3, The effect of the requested variance on liqht and
air,� distribution of �opulation, transportation
� and traffic facilities, uublic facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
27
;a) Road Grade:
The increase in road grade above the 8� standard
to 8,80� :wiil, hawe some nega�ive impact on the
ability o� vehic3.es to n�egotiate the roadway,
however, it will be �ery hard to measure any
empirical amount of recluction in public safety.
bj Refiaining Wa11, Height:
Staff believes it is appropriate to require a
grading easeme�at on the southwest corner of the
property to allow the 'Town of Vail to grade onto
this ,portion of the site if and when the Frontage
Road' is extended to the east to create •a new
underpass connecting to the Blue Cow Chute area.
�'his proposal is part of the preliminary
recommendations in the Master Transportation Plan
for the Town o� Vail. However, this option is
�be2ieved to be someth�ng �hat would not be
accompli�hed, in the immediate future. Staff
3aelieves that it is appropriate tQ allow for this
option as it results in tfie de+crease of retaining
walls for the possible future road extension.
V. FINDINGS
The Plannina and Environmental Commission shali make the
followinct findings before grantinct a variancec
A: 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. `
B. 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.
C. That the variance is warranted for one `or more of the
following `reasons:
1. The `strict literal interpretation or enforcement
of the 'specified regulation wouid result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title,
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances �r conditions applicable to the same
site of the variance that do not apply generally
to other properties in the same zone.
2$
- 3 . The strict interpretation or enforeement of the
specifi+ed regulation would deprive the applicant
of priva,leges enjc�yed by the owners of other
prc�perties in the same district.
VI. STAFF RECONII�iENDATION
A. Variance Request:
Staff recommends approval of the variance requests to
allaw road grades to be at a maximum of 8.8� as well as
the retaining wali heights at a maximum height of 8.8��
- per the preliminary plan dated September 7, 1990 and
associated cross-sections and road profiles submitted
by RBD Engineering. We belie�e that the request would
not be a grant of special privilege and that the
variances ;would not be detrimental to the public health
safe�y or weifare, The topographi� and soil conditions
on �the site ha�e created development constraints which
warrant relief fxom the strict 'and literal
interpretation of the �oning code.
It is felt that if the strict and literal
interpretation of the wall height and road grade
maximums were required, the project would have -more
visible impact on the community. Findings supporting �
the variance are IV A, B, and C l, 2, and 3,
This appro�al is contingent upon the preliminary plan
and final ;plat receiving final approval. Staff would
also like to emphasize that additional fine tuning of
the road and wall heights may result in slight
modifications to the grades and wall heights.
B. Major Subdivision:
The staff recommends approval of the major subdivision
preliminary plan. It is felt that the project meets
tYie Hillside Resiclential 2one District standards and
subdivision regulations except :in the areas of road
grade and wall' height which were discussed in the
criteria and findings section of the memo' concerning
variances. The recommendation for approval includes
the following conditions:
l. The proposed road grades and retaining wall
heights are maximums :for the subdivision. If it
is determined by staff tfirough the final plat
re�iew andJor building permit, or construction
phase that road grades and retaining wall heights
may be further reduced, the applicant will agree
to do so. The final plat ,submi��tal will provide a
thorough ;analysis of the soil nailing and tie rod
system for cut walls in order to minimize site
disturbance.
29
2. �onstruction guid.elin�s wi11 be used during the
actual building phase fc►r the wall and road
improvements, See Sectio� �n EIR Wa11 Analysis of
this' memo.
3, A grading easement on the southwes� corner of the
praperty will allow the Town of Vai7, the right to
grade on�o this portiran of th� property if and
when 'the North Frontage Road is extended to the
eas� �below the subdivision to create a new
underpass connecting t4 Blue Cow Chute.
4'. An agreement finalizing the sta�le" relocation and
reclamation of the existing 1i�very site will be
submitted with the final plat information:
5. The conditions for lots having slopes over 30�
will be applied tc� th� subdivision. This section
of the code is 18,69,05�? A-D, F-I, K and L.
6. Site coverage shall be limited to 80 to 100� of
the allowable GRFA for each lot. This condition
will 'be finalized at final' plat.
7. Gas appliances or gas logs shall be used in all
caretaker units.
8. A chain link fence around the culvert at the
subd'ivision entry will be removed and a more
aesthetic barrier pro�ided with appropriate
landscaping. '-
9. The six spruce trees by the subdivision entrance
on the south side of Gillett Road shall be
relocated.
10. Al1 Fire Department standards and requirements per
the let�er from Mike MeGee dated August 2, 1990
shall be compiied'with by the owner.
il. Before any building permits are released for the
subdivision and once the subdivision receives
final plat approval, the appropriate easements
allowing for public access shall be recorded per
the Forest Service requirements.
12. Six foot 'paved shoulders on either side of the
' Frontage Road for a public bike path shall be
provided by the developer.`
13. All construction on each lot shall occur within
building envelopes. The building envelopes shall
be adjusted per the revised staff ,plan dated
September 7, 1990 before finai' plat.
30
� 14. Ali construction for the subaivision shall comply
with requirements f�aund within the Environmental
Impact Report for the project.
lb. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding
material for sanding the private road within the
subdivision.-
15. The open' space �trac�s within the subdivision shall
be rezQned to Green Belt �pen ' Space at the same
time the final plat is r�v,iewed. Additional
greenbelt open space areas will be added adjacent
to the Fore'st Serviee switchback, Lot 5/5
'switchback, and secondary road per the staff
.amendments to the September 7, 1990 preliminary
. plan.
17. The owner of` the subdivision shall' maintain the
road throu�h the subdivision from the entry gate
up to the top of the subdivision. This
maintenance also includes 'all common areas,
retaining walls, and landscaping. ; The` owner also
agrees to be responsible for establishing the
landscaping along, the` public road `for a two to
three year period from pla.nting of the materials.
Once the landscaping is established and aceepted
by the Town of Vail Landscape Architect, the Town
will take over the responsibility of the retaining
walls and landscaping,
I8. Pedestrian and public` access shall be allowed on
the lower portion of Gillett Road extending from
the Frontage,'Road up to the subdivision gate.
19. Three caretaker units` each having a maximum square
footage of 12QO sq. ft. shall be provided within
the subdivision on Lots 14, 15, and possibly Lot
1. The separation of the 'Lot l caretaker unit is
under staff consideratiom. The :units will be
permanently res�ricted per sectic�n 18.13.080 (10)
a-d of the Town of Vai1 Zoning Code. Conditions
on the 3 employee units will b� resolved at final
plat.
20. The architectural guidelines shall` be amended as
follows:
a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as
extremely steep slopes.
b. Sod shall be allowed 'around `the perimeter of
residences but large lawn areas are not
' encouraged.
31
c. Dri.veways shall have a maximum grade of `8�
unless apprQVed by the Town of Vai1 Engineer.
d. Iarriga�ion by r�taining walls for the
subdivi,si�n sha11 be prohibited.
e. No chain link fence is allowed within the
subdivision +even for dc�g runs, If dog; runs
are proposed, another type of ;;open fencing
shc�uld be used.
21. All construction within the subdivision shall
�omply with the Town of Vail hazard ordinances
found in Se�tion 1'8.69
22 . No on-site iivery shall be allowed within the
subdivision.
23 . Aspens and large shrubs shall be used on all
retaining wal.ls.
24. Al3 hazard areas shal�. be exclu�ed from
contributing site area to Lots '34," 5, and 4 for
GgFA or site coverage.'
VII. FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL MATERIAL
Below is a list of final plat submittal material which is
necessary to resolve issues raised at preliminary plan
reviewt
1. A complete landscape plan which addresses the entire
subdivision and the Frontage Road entry and gate
design.
2. Building envelopes which reflect the staff changes.
3. , Wail heights will be r�au�ea as much as possible
particularly in the areas of Lot 14 and 15 at STA 53+00
and 57+00 and also at the intersection of the secondary
road by STA 5+00 to 2+00.
4. The subdivision improvement agreement.
5. Erosion Control Plan
6. Fina1 Driveway' locations with approximate grades.
7. , Final :agreement on the livery.
8. Revised final ETR in one submittal package that
includes a11 the updated reports.
32
. 9. Fina1 Plat drawing should indicate the following
information for each lot: lot size, building envelope,
site coverage and allawable GRFA.
10, Revised architec�ura3. guidelines.
11. Realigned aceess road to the water storage tank
utilizing the oid raad bed,
12. Revised phasir�g plan.
13. �educe the liv+ery road grad� as much as possible.
14: New 3etter from the Forest Service addressing the
switchback on their property.
15. �reenbelt areas designate�l per sta�f re�ommendations on
the final plat and' a rezoning submittal.
33
:i%:::,y;i:•r.�F�,./ ; . �:,, , ,$ ,:. < , , ,;.. ,; ��.
::•:I.•y'•f i . �� , r. Y . . '1�,'���i7} h y 5:
.�rU�i;/fi.,.f//�'/'. � z�
s�s�•r.,�,,�� : , .: : .�� �z r��
. � :>..;:.:�rSf/v";'{•�}iYi... " . ::.. .�. � :�:�. � ::: . ' :: ..; : ..�' .. � .. } { �� 4 . �C�r'•.4,'C��:;;.,;? hk.; . �
\
x.. P�� C1L.� �F��� D�. . �L�C��'�11N��t1T �T'/�1"� �"C�
:::fi:..::.. :r.,..,.,:.�. C� K � � '� �. �:...��:�
:�::.�.
:.:.. ..v. ... _. ...::...:::.:::. ...:..
::.r::.... ... .. . ::.:..........:::..........:.. . . ..... ....:.::...::.:.::::. . ........:... ..... .::.......... . ..5..�.. ..�
.,,. ,r. .,.....,................ ................................................,.......,......,....:...........�..............................�.........�::::::::::.::.:,::::::::....:..........�:::::::.::::.:.:.M �... ...n�z,.:.�.�::
:.'.:�::....:?v.h..:.Y.N.......................:w:.:::.::::::�:•:::�..:::.:.:::::::.::.:.
....,................................................................................,.........._.
.....................................................................
........1..!:w.........A..
- > . .. ..., �a°#�. ;
� . . .. . . . ..
: ::: :Lt'��"..:SiZ�.:.: �UILDII�G ENVELC�PE ::;;..Sl� �OVE�AC�:: GR�A
_ . � }� � .� �
ORIC..��.: ._-.REV. :: ORIG. REV. +++��� ,�
� �.�����Y. ,..:...:�..��� .... :.�..:. O��M• ._ ��. ��• �� � � � ` '�
LOT 1 ....: : ,:
:. :
...::134809 ;.:.84409; 14805 ' ... :; 202�1 ::r:.: ...:. .599t)�: 10007' 7d8]'
-.;
. . . :
Lt�T 2.: ... .:.:.�oa. ..;:' .:::. . ..... ..... �:sss2 :< ..:.: " . ...::. .. ::...:::�ss ..: ..;: . ..:.:..a��as: ....... �ssx::.:. .... �`::. ...:
LOT 3 .... .:.. _
....:: 86149 .� ... ... 14403 ' .:,,129�2
...... � � ,.....:..6059; 7574 .
,, ,, _ . .: . :
L0T.4;f .:::.s52ss ...: sa�ss:: . .::.... ... : -
�saas�� '�.. . ..�.>:..:�osas .. �..:..���so :�:�> ._.. :�. s�sa�> .: ....�53�.�:_._......c��o: ��;
;, , -
�.aT �'3 .. .;61082 . .�::5�4982:> 22397 13700 .9162 . :; . .:,..479T.` 5321 599�
.: . ;: ,
LOT.;6; f • ., ... :
. ...._..�9228 ,..,'<. .:. .�.. ..:...:: . ;�::21�95 ; . . ..:::. "... ...... . ;,.::..11884 ...,.:. . 5782: � 72�8.. ;�4.. .4, .
, . . . . . .. .....y... .. :., ...v..... .. .,-'.
LOT 7 ....
. . .,
, �: 50354 :..48854�� 14572 11924 _ ::?.:•:7553 .:r:;. . . .;::...402$::- 57'85 5035
, . :.. : .. .
L.CJT S`:�. . .,,...�1 s�� ::..:.".. .::: . .::.. .:;i�2�� ;.. ::: ' . .:.::� ... . :::> ..�7$1 .: ..... . . ..:::...sss�: .......a�si : :. `. ":: .:.
LC)T 9 . ..
:.
::64752 ...+ ,:... 12983 106`75 ' . .�
::.: .. . . ,. .97'13 .: :... . 5204':: 6505 ' "
.: ; ,
LOT.:10 . .:.�....a�s�s ..... '.:" ...:: : :. . .,.��sss- > . 1 ." . . .,. ..: . ... . s�:. . {..:��� �`.. . �.:. ......: ; Y� �
. . . . ..� . .._:.. :.�� . �
. ,
. : .
.:.
LOT 11 . �.::��ais , ..,:::'.. :.... 1a5s2 sss� . ,
. . �
;>:.yo�i� .:. ..... : . .s��r4.: sa�a
L�Yz.�� . . :_:9621�� , ,.::.:�20153 '. .,.:,..... 14471 ;� '.14432 : :
:: .
�462� .... ...807$ i. . .:..` ..,. .
LOT 14 .:. :.2asoa� ;2z12ss; 22s� �as�2 .,
<;;�:.42i'S� . :; . . .1'146!�: 17519 id330
LOT.15 .�<f F.r�2s�s�. ..: :<.'` ..:. ...:,. : .. . .::��a.� �: ,::�... >s�s ::;�.:.�r.r� . ...:.: Y � . �{ �
. ......:.. ss�o: .... ..,a��s: <... ....
* No Cnange
�. � . � . . . . . . .Y, f
.,. ♦ a� � �J, 0.�� • .� . .� ` . � � . .
� � •
.�' � ������ - �sr , ` � .. .. .
i �
° �td. , ,`,`�„ N �
, , . .�.,, �,.. �� �
. . . . . $ .. .
. . . . . . . .
.,:.� ��,,. . . : ------- , . .
. � 0 . . . . .._.. .� -..:..� .�.
', ; a:� . .:, N � � `-----• �� ` �i� • •• `� _
• • • .
• 8 • • • • •• �,��• ` -,,v
• . • . * •. � � \" • �'' - `�.
•t�e . . . ..--�---- --`-�, \ s.: ,.
s•
�'.w.,_, • . . r . . � ':.. r �� ��` \ ` `�.,,` ` �`n.4"'�j;r w.,. r,�..� � � .
� `
• � •Tr � r ' �` �, ;� � . -4 :� .• '�1..y��7J`i:..e t r...�..y •. •i�� ..
• �����
i,`A r,,�//�, • • ` '. �
�Y.� � � \ � . L�..� :i �[^� . . .
J[}(, • i •�,� `_..� . � \ \ �`� , �.`- . •. . r�.�` M r►�....�.r.�r.s �_1 �+d. .y .: . . M'��..
_ _-�a.��+ ' �• . • •♦ . . � . ' �\ \' � . �'! .. ..�, � '. j-r.:�. � +.:7' � -zi�'����t� T).. ��i'..�..,�,_..,..�..,����,�;..r,..r�r:
. • � . �1 - •" � I^`� ` \ �. ' f •' ' • •�� `.TZ' S;'
.
� � •• .��rV• ��. . � ~ �r`�. � � 1 ^ �
• � • _ .
S9.. .' ' . •.•�•� ,_,�,_.. ��.t-:3�-...90 , ` �\ ' , ` �. � •".•.`��`\`�,...'f�"�.w..y_��.,�`+r�.,� •�.a:= :�,',`�.. ,;..�-�,—r
� • \ ' �� -�J^w.
♦� � • � • . � � : �� � ' . � .'�
�' y,��
.
1 � • • • ♦♦ �• Y.. s,�_ \ ` � `"`ti.._..�` •.' � "�a. ��•w'Y!'�w��r���_�..` ��'` �r,�..+� •+��U
• �� .• �
"• • �� � � � •" `a. � � ` `"`�.."_'- "'� . . + ��.� .�
�
..�_� .
: •,:: ::' ' '`' f � �'' G S�.O �'•• �'`r- .�-_' � :,..,,� . � _�___ ..�:�
_ _:a.
, ,. . ,y; ,
. .
0 •.. • . � . t- � .�
. . .�e�.,,,_,,.... ..,..._ ! •• "�"'`�- .---.,.�,� �r.., • "r:.r .. , �� .` �
_ ..- _.�
�+.,�,��. . . . .'. .1. �`.,� • •. �~--`�'�y`"= "� � f•I,..�
. ' • • � "�.,,,,,,,,_,
• � • • � --"� -..., '. �,.." �. '� \ ,,.y" � Y.
. � .��1.. . .
- - . --.�_ 38 +-4�:� -� �r— � • - �-�. �� �,,�*`��,- ,
�-�.-� . . ., .: , , ,.� � ..., .�`.. , � � � .�,:
-.`"",,,-�,... •. � - ---._.. , '�, �; . ` ` �� r�� �y
. � ���
. . ., , . ,
�
. _
i i�. . , , ��- „ ` '"�-..,,. ,___ ""�.. .�. `�''• '� --.._. :.`. *aa�wt
•� �•• �.' . . • - `.�--..�� �` �`.•. . � . f. =�'-s--"„_ Y '��-�''�•�"t'``` ^-�.ti, _ . -
' � i
.�
• ti,�
� � �
' i\ • ' � '
h'�u'0- �� � • �� �` � .._. J"`� �.-'� ,��_,�_� �.` ' ���4!� r%"' e _ ,
v •���:. •
\ �.
, � • • - •
� , . . � =;...
� �� ,v�.; -�` � • �
�-.. . -
. . . . _
; `
"'� � ♦ , . . I�✓�. '.._ � � '\, ,t. � -2' `� �,► �t �
� . u�.....+
�, � \ � �%r . -� .� � ♦ : �'. \. t �; � �
.�'"'.w. ` �...�i-.��..��+, ,/��` �� �.t ' � �. , • �:
�-. @�:...�-•-•--(hj __�...r1'4,/ ,�. ; 1 _ ,� -�.
,
- � - � �• 1 8b PC�
.,� � ` �.�.��♦ �'--..."r �'�l�
�,
; ,-
x __� . � .
. . . . , _ ___ �..—,. , :; . . .
:.
.
• -� • ;,�`�r� —• �•;�- : � ,, '_ ...`` -� � '` �\ `�•' ` ` '� - � � -
�-• �
� , �.. . •.
. �'•"_� `
�r� • •' ' ,��� `` ` �2! d�,�i ` � � `.. !
� . . . •. . . / . � `--- `y .
:�-t• �..._ . • •� ,�, � ' �
� �
. . --..�,�„ � P , . ..a �` x � s a
. . _ _.. . , _,. . . �
s 9 , ` , � , .. � � �"'� � ; . . .. ,, y <�d
'��. . . _' . , _
.� - ____ ,.,. .- � .
'�:�' �..—�. 36': , ' � -� `��,,--�•:.. 4� , � � ,� ' -_� " �''�� � ,,,'�' '-`
7 ' ' '
, i, . � �•.. •. ff ' , • �
- . .
� ` �\� , � � •.�ti. �: � � t 3� ' *
� �,�' r ,�
. �-.. �•�„t { ��..� •�. , ♦ ` � �\ _. ._.
� ,r � •�---
\ ` � •
� • :
� . . ... � . �� . � . : t�.. ' .. .` ' - . y� �G '�:
- �'`-"';1• ` _ ♦ � . ., . �,. . �'
�- --
s -_'.:-�.r._: . '� _-' �, 8'S --�"`� �; `�� , �``•:ti' �+ �.
._ � c
. . � --� • ` ,
. . � `-, , �.. , 1� :' r
. �„_ �� �+ � - .
': .�� . •� •�+ `�.. � , .� . ._ ' � ,
, �� � �
.
'. �� ��� r.. � � � '� �„_.�:.( ..�� ��:,�� � ti`� � ,\i� .�* . � �.��.
' � � � v . �1� --�i � `�t :
-•-s� `;`�`�t ` ' ` �`�� �✓ d J ` �,���`_ `\•` `.. . . � � , �
, �
-
..
' \� ^ � � . .
. � � .
,. �. , .. . t ✓ � .,`� � : ` � •�• . y. �� +`�' .�' Q ,.
. �""l,r„- �� � ` �` � I - . .
• • x �.
.. . •
...t. r r � �• . �.. � ` • .. ..
• ` .. t �• 1 �`� .� .
.
�
� 1 t•. . - . r�.
� � ��` ' � `, , . t�. � t �.�
. - � w
.
.•. - 1 • � `'
.
.
-
� ` � a � `-. T � � \ , .��,. . �
. ,
, . � . • -
�, 8 4 -'' ,"1'-�,,,� . ,'�'_ � , ... .
w � ..� . .,� . . .,,,.. r
` • ,� `` ",.. ,,,,,. �� • y� �ry / \ � , .
� � �.. � �` ° ` \,
# �•��• �.. �
, � ;� 1` .� ♦` �V � �.:` .�. / `1' ` \.
� • • � ♦ • . �t `
`_+� ••' • ' � �� . ..r ' '
. • , � • � �� �4ti � � � � -�..,,
, .• ' �.�� . �+ . , �� ��A • ���� ��-y TA /� / r (/'�
+ w. • ' . ...' ,
l���:�. •� + •�� � � �„/� `���`` � ` V L f \LJ L.(,,,,, � �.r���� ���
�` • • , •. �4�5 � • �� rf �.� �`�,` �
�.� ,�~`�` " \ � ,� `'�.. .+-.."•'�,` \�l ` \
.�� � �... ..�� ���� �• '� _ ♦ \ �� �. �\ � � .
, . `�.
�
. . ..._. . , . ... ... . . ....... . . . . .. , , $'� .
t�., `: . � . , , , .
. , , • ,
. . . . � .. ... .........� . , .. .�......, , . a , `� ...,...�:.. ._...�:. ......:'. , . .
, , ... . . � , . . . . .
.�...�
...:: .
, `
. .. . .`, � _. . ..r... . .. . .
�
� .... . .
. • .. � �.«'. . .... ... ........ ...
. . .. .�.{..:� , + . . � � . � � � �. . . .�. + ,j
'; i
� �� . • ,
. . ... , ��r... . . ...... ....�.,.,... _ ..� . .:.f ... . . . .. . .. ..
.._ . � `��S � 11 � �
. . , , . -+� _ .
.�� �
�. .��, . � ': • ' . t.. .... .«...�....� �_�.'.�.5..��. .�.. . ... � ..._�... .�...�.. 1..1�_�a,,._ ��_.�.,. _ , , ,�
� ..._ " . �. O
. . �
� �' ..���i �_,...:� , "
� , � • . : � , 1 � , . � � . , , ",` , , -� —
. :.. _�. ,_.
.
_:s.
_� - �. �i
. . . . , i _ .. .;._.. ..._ ..._ ., ...._.�.. u;_..... ..;...a_!� � � ....�.,.� _ , � �,` ��
M� 4 + ' .� .� , �
: ,
. �.
. i , . �
• �r . , � r• , . �.. .�! ... . .
. y� .
, . . . . ! -� 1 �- �. .ti.� .! � _ ',:,..� ,
. , . _ -_ + � -}--
.� �. � ..�..I.� ��;`. �
. . � ':.
. . .. . . . . ... ...!...... ......: ....... .... i ,....._...:...._:., ..... • _ ... ._:_.' ;-
� � � � ._..., ' � ..,,,..Y.,,..
.
w...
. . , , ,� ., . . ..._..:..�... ." . , . . . .,. . . .` . ... � . , .:... , ..., Fj� . ..
� r
�` � .
, � � t"l
.,.... �.! ..., ,. � ... ... �
.. ._... �
, .
;
,
. , . ... .
. .
. .._._....... �..Y...�.....__::_.. ..:.
. �...._..._...... . .._.........._. -_____...;....,...__..�.�.._. ...._._... .'.
... ..........__._.. ..
. .
,
.._..
' _ ..,. .......:�• ..�_.,..�,,
;r+
.;w .».
`._....
. . . . . . . . . . .. . . � . , . ...... , .
..., �1
. . ..__. . . . . . ,
, . .. , :. . . _ . :_...
. _, ' ,.. , . . , � � . ,.,.,..� '. , � . ...
. . . . . . . . . ..:' . . . ,
,
. ,.Y_. .. : . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. .-. . ,
.._. .. , , , •.,/"
• „i"
, . . . _ . . , � �
. . .
• � ��I
,
. . . ,
. • /
. .. .': . ....�.r_�....... . . . . ..,
V
. . , .. . ... .._ .....i... ... . _ _
... . _..�. '
. . . . . . . . . . ._... ..._.�
_.. ....
, . . . . , . . . . , . . . . . . . . .. . . , '. . ...._. . . . .
, ,_..... . 8�iL
. . .. . ,
. . . . . . �
°
�:.�
�
. . .. .: � , . ... ,. ,", . ..' .'
� : • , �„
.
. . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . ... �._... . . .
. . . . .
. ., . • �„I' .,
. . � . , .. . .
. . ; . • .
A�r ` •
"J O
. .. . . . _. ...__ . .... . . . � •
� ;
.. .. _. . _.:... .. ., _.. . . . . .. ..._�_._. _ . �55C
�. � . .. •
: . . . : .
.
. . . . ,.. . . .. _...... ,.
. .':. .. . � . . :.�. . �. . . � ..
. (. . � _ �:: .
. . . , K
• .. . ":�. ..... �:; _ . ' ....:. ... . .��...:.... ........c _�.���.... ...... ....�.�...............�.
..,.. ... .. .. .,�� ���. . .... �
�V��
. .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. � . .. . . . . , . .
. .
. �
� � � � —�r/+�� �� � .. ��. • `, i�. _
,
. . . ��� . . . . .� �. ... ,• . ... . .. . � . ...... �� . ..��. .
•
. u . .
.::, . . �.. .
� . / . � . � � . .. �� .. +.. . ... � .
.
. .. ... �.. � . .. .. ....r .,._ . - - -
._.
.. .. .. . _..._ ._.__. .�__.__.
.
_ .�....__._ .�._ .._.._. :.:... �
a
8 �c
' , ��� ..
. . . . . .
. . , , .
....
�......
`
-
. � .. . . . . ._ . . ... . . . . . . ... _ _
� . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . .
. . � �, . . . : . .._ . .
. . . .. .. . . . , .
. � � . S T��G�' A CC�SS f'�aF/L�'S
/ � �
. . ,�
. .. .. : . .. ..: . . ._.. . ... .
. .. .. .._. ....._::. . ; . .
. _.__ _... ...._�__._ � � . :s�z+�
�- _..._..._ _
_.. . .._..,. �_._. _ �..... ._�.__� _.... . .
� ._.. .
/ �
♦ . . �
/ _ .
� . 8:51�
� ' . :......___. ..._.. .. _.. .. . .
. . . . .
' .
4 p 4 � � 4
� .'� � �O . p .
.
;, .
, T0: _ Planning and Environmentai Commission
FROM:' Community �e��lapmsnt �epartment
,. ' DATE; ` +Dctcber 26, ;1987.
SUBJECT: A x�quest to apply H�.11sic�e Resid+ential zoning to
' a 2? acre parcel of land commc�nly ref�rred to as
Spraddle Cre�k
App3icant: George W. Gil3stt, Jr. .
I. TAE RE4IIEST
On November 18, 198�, the Tcwn of Vail �dopted a
comprehensive I,a�d Use Plan. In the plan, parcels of land �
in and ad�acent to the To�wri o� Va3.1 were designated for
certain po�ent�ial uses i.� they could meet certain
criteria, standards and p�la,c�.es of the Lanc1 Use Plan and
c�thex planning dccuments previously adopted by the Town of
'Vail. The Spraddle Creek parcel i� a 2?' acre parcel of
land 'that was anr�e�ed by �the Town of. Vail some time ago.
It has neyer received any Town o� Vaii zoning designation.
Through the Land Use Plan, the Spraddle Creek parcel was
given a land use designation �af Hi3lside Residential.
�Tpon `completion of the Land Use Plan, a' zone district
+enti�led Hillside Residential was written to correspond ' �
with the criteria` outlined in the I,and Use 'Plan. The
maximuia allowable densi.ty for the Hillside Residential
zone district is 2 dwelling units per buiidable acre.
The Land IIse .Plan also states that any development
proposal 't�ill require`an in-depth analysis `to assure
sensitivit� to +constraints, provision of ac3equate access,
minimization of visil�iiity; from the valiey floor, and
compati3�ilit�` with surrounding `�land uses. The proposal
for the Spraddle Creek parcel is� for zoning only and does ,
not dQal with a development proposa�. or subdivision plan.
A review of the 2oning request is limited to whether the
request is compatible with surrounding iand uses, �neets �
th+e development obj ectives of the Towri, and the �nore �
tangi.ble issu� of provision of legal and physical access.
II. EVALUATION OF REQUEST �
Criteria #1. Suitability +�f Existina Zonina
This parcel of land has never previously had a Town of
. Vail zone district designati+�n, Under the jurisdiction of
Eag1e County, <this land was zoned Resource. The Eagle
Courity R+esource zone district allaws one dwelling unit per
: 35 acres and is generaily intended as the agricuiture zone
.,
.
_ distr,ict and to p=eserve natural open space features.
, During the Land Use Plan w�xk 'sessicns, much discussion
was cen�ered on the land use designaticn that should be
given tc th�' Spraddle Creek area. ' It was generally agreed
� at that time by the Zand Use +committee and 'the parti�cipa- � -
ting public that as ,a propesty adjacent to the T4wn of
Va,il, " some level of development was warranted. At the
same ti�ie, this parcel was xecogni��d as being very en-
. 'vironmenta3.ly sensitive and �taluable to the Town of Vail
as open space. The 2and use designation was proposed as a �
use that should give devel.opment potentiai ta the
property, yet maintain and understand the' environ-mental
sensitivity of the parcel.
Cr,iteria #2.: Is the amendment presenting a convenient,
. workable r�l'atxonship among land uses consistent with •
munici�al ob�ectives?
__.
As an implementation cf the I�and Use Plan, this applica-
tion i.s cr�nsistent with municipal objectives. However, it
is reccgnized that this parcel of land 'is highly visible
and environmentall� sensitive, While the zoning ot the
property meets and is consist+ent with municipal
'obj ectives, any develcpment plan and subdivision proposal
will` need to be reviewed yery 'carefully to ensure that the
- proposal is consistent with the developmant objectives cf
- `the Hillside Residential land use designation and ot �the -
_ � Town of Vail. . .
Whil`e we currently have indication that there is legal and
phys'ical access and th+ere will continue to be legal and
ph�sical access in the future,• this issue will need to be
discussed and clarified at the subdivision stage.
Crit�ria #3. Does the rezoning proposal provi.de for the
yc�rowth of an orderiy �nd uiable community?
'The Community Development' Department feels that the
=ezoning itse3f does allow fo= the growth for an orderly
an�. viable community. We feei that the Hiilside �
- Residential designation while aliowing 'the `developer
development pctential for his property, will assure envi-
ronznentally sensitive` deve3opment ot the property. At
this point, there is not enough information to comment on
any development of the site �t all. A very thorough
review will be necessary to ensure that all proposed
development does meet this criteria for orderly and viable
growth• ,
III. STAFF RECON�'lENDATION
. Staff recommendation for the proposed zoning ot Hillside
Residential for this parcei is for approval. The
� ,
� ... Community Develvpment Depa�tment feels that this meets the
intent of the Land Use Plan and the development object�.ves
of the Town of Vail.
. . : . , � . . , ..
t .. . .
.. • .. t . . , .. . . . . .
Q�7ARpQ.I/L�
�
�`A�.� . �� ' � . � �.. � �.. . .. .. .
. . ����,,., �. .. � . . .
. .—•-'� ..�
'=111_li�
2, � a
/
M,�. M�x �
�(r�� �OpSo�t" -
• - �
. �
. �
.. . . ' � . . .. , . . .
�
1
�
� M'J• �� r OG�
i!." 'foP',o��.. _�1'�-1i
1 � � ll l-- �
�._._, . .
. .,
. . , , . ... . . .. , . � � " �
.. .. . t .. . � .. .
, . . � . . . . --�......,.
�iL�L W/.A lrl.. —�/I 1TN �V�'+F.'_'�_'{Z./�11--- ��
Cj•'. i' ... ' �t�.__�1 �;";�1.1 � ��
�—Y I
1"- � �
G��,l.i �: — J .
Q��.� ���
r�� �-�'',3^
t
!
/
• �
�
♦ �
��� t �
�
^.1��=�
1'�ditJ, �� .
��.N -r����..� .� '�' �
I
� '
a �
�
��
i�l`
�{----� z�;.�. '
I �r.'� ��,� � i-
��11���111 � '��
1___.,�
L._._. _ ;
. L ;
� 1 ,
t � ..
��
� F'�1 ���. �+�t t.,
.-, �
'��— .- .-. t:.>r t.:?'{�.i�
�. •i''^.:..
�_' . . "— �
..,�c.,/� 1_t,_ � - �j
. . . ������L�
. .. , .
�1" �, r - �?�_.. 3. 'h^cs:: i 'q�.: �+ v. �t > .�'� 4 yj�;.. +K.' S pr. .' i i r ,z� ,y�,,,,,C. ..'4ii
, �
.. ,, _
., .
.a P :4 a
_ y ,
. .�: � -
„�"'� � '4�.
�, •
�.;.r, t :�r�?. '.� �. '�,. ,�. 9 ) �'QI .i�;.;�. :Y �� a ' 4 �.1.'J ,,�''"'.�`'„�. .1.• �,� ,(�
`��.� � ..�?. � >r ?'�h. .,t� `,.� ,r'". v' r':, w.� �f
1. .,A 3 '...t.y :}.:, .:+nn.�.J� '�F . 1��!-} `:t, :.:SY!� I. ..+Y- }M n.i.�` F•.k ^,t�.W.�.
�� . .. ... ��: .Y.; s y,, � 't� .'...
i,3`S�„„r,a ,�k�;', �..:. :., .z .s:,.> .. �� .`_.���. ., t..�..� . . .>.+-. ..�.:'� •:.�:F`� -a. . w .:�i. �. '� fo ,i•` q . .,t ra' _r � . r # �). �'v1^ � .�.Y':w;cS.n.
..-..,. ,y,,._� _,.._....... ......: ... .� .o..,. .�..�-...:.,. ,., .., r i�vm��..�. e .;._ � .::�:: .d4"g'1+..�. ,,.i. +$��.'+s! �c+' .z:�r .���G��,."� 4�'- s- ,.r, . ��.�...
,.._ ..a. ,,.. -�..x.k��w.-. ...,r: z ��:.. .. ...;.. r ,,..... .v�. �. � ,. �� [� .,_�.,...�r . ."1� ; . h. �s�... %' ..5,�.�.a r... -..k;.�"d` `:�,:� .�,k) ."n :,.�:e.r
..,. ....., �...,, ....ss•e��t.�«.� .K...,�. �.# ...... .k� ...: .�. �y. :r.�.._ -�.:>aC�..GNf e . �.ws ti� a ,. s�,Fe.,i�.,r. d �'.�^F+''+ "�,xn k a' `r �i ,iz b�� �.d�' "d,?�?�
,:.�...� ,..�, t� , ...:; Y,.,�?.r'X,.. ,'�n2.,. . .... ._. ..,n.., .+ .w,•,,,_,.r�'�._ :<�:�$. . � "�r 1 •f . .�..-... ,'��i..�.c�'aa.e.. �.,.' ;��, ���';a ,�... -� .4., t�•� X+
,.. �s �:.,..� . .�.�.:.. C .,�_ , . --t?P k ,�N. k .�:. ..,-.-,..�, . „�.rf. :. :'�,�. a» . .. w.� ..,,�...:�.:,.�.a�.. r h. .,.�� ..;� ...'&3 .�.:.: .,:i� '� ..'�.* -��'srn'°� ..'2,.,._,,�, .�.. :
, ,.-,,.. ,.-.. .� .:., �.. ..._..«�,... ..,...;.. :..�... '�.�....a .r.,�..t....� ., „w .s..� 'v, A-a ..'�. a r .'4.t,.. �,f "�r. ,s ��
.. .,.t�.. ..,,. ,: ..s�. ........,."� ''�. . .._ .�. ......,:....r.. , ..�{.� :-i-;%� �, :�=�,:� �.n1' r+ .r:� :�t'Y'. µr �a�v��a:.4� '�`�'? n�_;.}.:. ,.�r��� ..fyd`,�+�.
..�..., . ,... �., a.r_...,...a. .n-.. ....aa:..'3' .�`..'�..,. -._� ..,,._.. . d.-��.�. ..,.`s y.. .., �. �.i�.y, }� .�ru. �` .t.., e. .k.. r+v$ {'
�.....i: S� . +ot >..3 �hs .. . ..... .".c..:.. ,�.'N...,.. �.. -,�.." .i �3» .�§:.. ��� '�'R.:'-.Y r � ?.:+�.}e„a �k.' �v -.>Y'r '.Y "'V
�.3 -1.. S Y. ) � ..0.� I. ."�;
..,.....z.#�.�..., , .,:.�.l.v. � �1 ,. n t t"Y... ..:..:.,.�x ,.,..','Y ..... ��►•�:.� .t'..-.�,;.. 4..a.: . ..t.'6 '�",:^ "k:':• �.d .b �'i�?�4 :"'�'.y.
�r .... ...-. .,..: , f....:., ,..-s ..� . . +4a,-,. -..i ... � . �r. � 5.�.,.: 'a .}....:...s.. � . ., ....,,...�. ., �>.!t ��:4'°'^i $" :f fV`�4. �:>" r,'Y��i �:G�...�R��+'�"'. el1,`f4. r 4:t�`, }�j
,.:.. ..ec "`�t. ....,r., ., ,�. >:.�..,.3�w..., , �-..::,:.. ,,.,.r::�. ,. ,.:.5. .. ....,.. ,,, ..., ., r�. �3;, »?.,�Y. Z ��. 4,.p. `'fi'. ,4�...+Q N r�-. .�, �.�''�`Rru.-w$.�. .�ti�.r�- -.ir.�
.. o .. .� ;� ,. ,., ..... .. , ,. ,. .? �k.,. .. .....h .. 'C .S . .,. ... r .q,:�:�. , ..-. �, , ,i��- E^�-S.a•. �.&. ,f_.h°i va!'. r_ ,,
...w... -{.. >�..o-. .. ..x, .t , ..°f.` ..-,�, ...r ., .�..... t Yi, .�,k R.: ..� ..k'.-,s ., ., �. . i . �. -�.... . .,,'� ".i.`� '!�� w5..�.n a:�i F; ^,,+ `� ��C:.':.,.�':.
...4r'r,. .,...� ,.... ,x. d._ ........,,�ww. ) ....�,�. .r� ..,.. . .�.,,-.:�,.., f...,. , k-. .... .... ...� '...+a"h;� ,,. :,n ._.' .� ° �d�&.. °�r . �_'�' } .v
,....�.�, t: . r Y._ ..� ,...,wri,,, < � � .� ._.._n ,.�a _,:..,,.�., � :.�!U.. . ,,�rci. h, . , .w . + a . �. �� ..v�, s ,�r 'rcx *:,'ttc�-. a.
.� .> ..... .fo. .r,:.. ... .�, e, . ......,� , ,..�t: , ....,.+ ...Y , s .:, . „ ,.3 . -.e� .: .a.'i ��{ �).�. �a. ..t. t�,:. 't,r..�S r�:a[f .a�:: :k-r �'�% Y ,.�:a �z
�t.��.�b G � ,..,, ... _........ . r .. . . :�.,,. T�"y... .,, a...,... r. ��:, t.. ., ,. .e-. _,.�� ,...... -� y;4.. ,�. `�.��5' �.,� i .:i?� �.�,.r....�a�. `{. ,�r.v;
...,. <�r-..., .n,.... 4.....�-�.�_. s .,..,..... . _ :., t .... .:�, .. a.: �.,.p 'w. . ......... ..�,,. �� i- 3.t ..°�g`.. �A..,
_<;� .,�>. .. ..� .. :?.,. .a+."�:.`.. a . . .�,. l...� . ...,... .> �.r f_. ,,, �.: -.�+...,� a ... �,�k._.. �§: .: ,,t�'Si.: . ., .�. „ ,�,.. 4.F<°s �i ..'v: �i•r�� <l,r. r� ,k� =E$ s. �e$J�::�
�.._.. "�.`$ . �::. ,y.. .b. .a, .. ., �„ :. .�,� .w..�. ..�..,- i� ..,�,...,., .. .,r .,.„ ..1�.;..: ..{ :C .S.�u ( �- »o-�'Y+.'�' ,'¢a� �: e�... �. a�'is-� .�ti� ��. ;�"'.
r .:. ,�„. .,, ,_ ���, .. .,:, �+a r.. '}, �;..a,... �. ., r ,n-: .,,.k�.r��tr. � ;. �.!`, ...'�c�., q4r, .`• ...+1 i� . ' .p,.,. �{ #r�1' ys .�' ,.s_�.
.,� . ._.:,, w. At..a, a�, ,.,. � ,, >.,r.a, a....... �.4 v. ;,,, ,��, .`�; .x . ,.i. . . r;.� a,r � >�.� � � 4 �,, ..5= „�.: �� �.
�. .... -:h.tl ' .£, .. ..,x . .. �.. t._. .r. .n .. .�.. < .,5.. 'y .,..i.. ,. ..,. . .�,..w .i. i ..c�SY. .?. ..a. .e. '.,�f.. }�i .Ck �'Y vN f`, .�{�y �°' .� i.'�:9.^,
�...,�, ...v,.... ..: .•a,... ?.�.✓.:r., f.. .,.......r. . .-.�.:.. .�..�Y,......... ,Y , -�.:. ...... _ .�.. ..i . ..1�.,..,�(� .�" : i - h�li ..i+'�., rM' ....:.,. �'.,�,„�dr 'l�P?' �:f.' 4i-.� y� '.y,
. . _. .. a..�-�... :, .>, .ta `.��: .„.... .{ .,, ..r, t,. ... ;}s .a. ....,�.. .. _.) . ..� .,e ..`Y,s.Vm:�y1t ,�` ,.,.� , ,�.-.,� A {:.t '�d'ra '.',r �y.:�Ha. �5' t`-� .w
,'ii.. .. ..� -:.:# .....�. .r:a. .. ., .., +.:"h . 0....>.. tA. ......'.\,:. s.. .... �i�.�.h:I,b,.. , � ..a.w.� fai.,.�. �a c... .a . .£d�: �_.•, xryi.yh..} �1� , �APi-. �.t�-£�$.
.,, s� ,.,;,., .. .�,. .a�.... �.. ..q..,. -._ . <,r..,..�. . .. ..�,,. �r. ..,... ,. ., .. .a:� � ,. .... -�z:... . ..,.,4. ,�-m.`'�e�` ..xt. � r�z ��.,�' 1'< �a + ..n.� .ti-•:�,Y�"' • �'��.:...��a;v�.
... . ,.;KS.�i . , k, a`��:'9,,.., ,�,k..,t ..,.�.. ., .,.::. .�...�.., .�,� ,. . r .�..4. �s .. �ay. . M...��.�E''' ... .. ..f�. ,.r<.... t .-.r,.�3�p�u� l. .,L� -�`"�.. tl:, ,�?fi e 4'� �.� .,,t. A,�..r
, .�°... . .��� t : . .,.. .fi� r ., t ..�'. _,,,. .. .y....�:- „�..,�. ..�:. ,,. ...i. .. °4 a. 3 .,., ,.�$k. , �?:?. x§..•�,ta s , t., a ��,a ;. .�� w�P �1r
r.. ._._.> ..-e o. £ .::�:. ..,. �..... .:-,.,.... Y _ c.�,_ ., . .. ..e.c.h�. �, .:�.r ..,�. ,,.:�.:.� . �x..�"� y,,. ��. ,. �T.. . � .,.. t��< ,k...�°fr, z--iv�,�..„ ;}^ g.i"�`�', . '�'``` � z:^.
.,.. . .�. ,.. ..t ,.. ... ..,.,_...��. a ,,. . ..i r:i,:�3 •........� ��..�. ..s,� .x. .., s a .,w, :# �.at�+�.. .��e..�„� ,.. . ..... , 4 .s�k,'.b�. p�;•�.: , �r.. `�.f, �;2 �"1 .t��, ,4:7+.?h,"r`�1 `�K .r�.y:
-..'R.. .��v-�,.. t17 .�,....,.�. ..�.s, ,.� ..... .w. .,_::.t.. ..ss.... w .. N� :,:..t.. ., ,:,., �.�r.,�-:_.. . . .tl,.. .., !1..d�.r- G a � 1� si �.,yH2Y` .s,.L., %�',�,7.0 J '`�
�<�� ... ,.�.4,. . . ..3� r. ,..., � , . �,.. ..x.....a .,x:f.:. ...,.s., . .... ,h, .,�.�5� f �.. , ...,t�7f ��.:=i. '"i 4.: .�`1. ,�R Y't ��t' � -.A:i�
.�... , .,� .. ., _..� .s�. .n .. '.a..b-.R..x. .,:,�.n s�'."{'.i ._i. br 4a a;... ,,. ... .. w, .. ..�...�.., ..1� A" ..v' wQ �� :°'� ..$' a"�` '`�:f{':,: y?� .Y'..
a,., '�?; . . <,..�..�,�^�< w _ 3 ,.., ..,,. k. .._ : `r, �„ ,,, . , �,"� .:.� � ,.«. ,:, . .1 Z .. Y, ...a�`. .. ��,�t��,,,�+h. t v;,. » ,a�3. .�. ;+� r..,.:
r .: ; .._ �. _. t�. , a 4 �>.. :,.� �.s ,. . ,+�'k.. ..�" . a 1 �,. . � .�:,, , 5,�.._ .��1" o'.s.;.. a. �;. � .�r�? � "�t'�-.` �'+..
,...a..b+,.r�,:..,- .`?"r a, „�„.:.:,..r._.� .,,, 3,;�4�,�..� , ..i:,-,�. .;,, i.y�. K....,.^wt n,�4�.:.��....,-� ,tn: ... ..... � -,. ..,. . .s:::vM, -ah. 'a�,o�$` .s..,�.�3,. ��-� .�y, :'I�.,��. ��
w.. , .,�«, !^ , i.. , a. „� r ... . ,� ., , . �. ,'`�"'�. .� �. ,,�`,"�. , ... ,r�....�. , , ��h. � _s�. .. .,� �?� . � i �°�, � .s; �.
...,. ., ,....i .,�.,.....r.. .. ..... -r.-. :�.,�..,� 1.,.,a ,, w� ... ?^*n .,r.,t.:�a ..�+ ��.... ..i..,s...,�.. .. .. ;�+ r ,..;. �. .c ^� .�','?'�: r ,,i .,�' �«. t-x �,. ."P ..;�^. .�z�,
�_. ,.. i...:1 ....... ., t...a .,,�c.. �,.s.,y... ., r,r. .... x.,..�.:, wd . ..... .flv �.w.Mi .�,.... .. ,'� � . =1 S'!Y. 'f�. +N.. a. ,�°}" '.�(3�4a �'_.. `� r��. ?ti�.
� 4.,� .`c *� .... .,,. .....�, <,:.:� ,. .,..n..x�. ,-.a.�. ,.c. ,.. ..a.�. � ;:,�.......K s ... t .,:'�./.. �..�� ;•�.�, a. ��. �.�^,. k: :r S�t�.:��t Y.:;. .,,�,�,
... . �`'",..._ ,sv< .r. ,:.,.r . a .. ._.. �,.,.,.,�. , . ..,�.., . .......�:.,.,..: . .���� r,.a .,...,_6�. :.. t�:+��. 5q.t�.. .. �..ti• ,.:��i, �+�,;;:,r' t'�.�. �tf�,. ,..pt�.r;� �„�,.;_
..?". . .5�.. ,t.: ...w�.,�..... . .. �. .,.... . -<..�4'� i". . .a. .-..�Y . t...,. :2_,".t`�.....;� .,,. . .. . .�, S . ..'�!_� � r.. . ...... �a. ._.1.� & •�,+..:.� .-�+i'� .4''� ;��13�" � ;;';:�'x�..
°*Y,..�... ..,,: .d-,,a , ,.. :.Y .r,,,'r .���a�..... .�,...,_, ;,.._ . .��.,,.._ ,. .'h,, ,.n.'�.t. .�. . . .... ... . .... .ro �;•. ,a.>,�. :,�c.. i�.��. �t`sa�, ,M:c�r�..�,:.u'S'�,r. �`�3;:s�
r.... ,, , ,�o. ,, a , . «dn ...� .-. . :..t.t.1. ., . u ... .,i.. w ,, w, .� . -r: t 1 >.�fi;; r. ,3��. �s., +J. 'i`�SS�i�t av� „'�r. `�'.
,:..:w. .:. .1;��q..., ,r„ „x,� �..::: ,3 .�...:..., ...:. ,-..�. ,.::n.. . �,. :w::� .# ..�.,..nx,.., .,.w �y.� ,.`c.�.�' � .d�� ,�' 't ^+� �iw.
�.
�,"�.�, , . .. z.-M,. ... '?u. .v. _, ,n ».. ._ . .t , t ..,. ., b. i.. b'ti.,.. _ „+ �x ..t ,_r+.4: �� a�.. :a: �g t �r�` � �. -r:•;
..r}..:.a. .,•,.., 3�. `4..,.... .`�t" .b., M r , .. .u� �.r:+�.'x�.. .:..... � �$ ...::. �,4...... .- ,n,. ,b,, . rv� �b.�m �-;{�,�;. ��a. , ` �i%,�$'•!� .�r`:� Ft:i?;-s.�
,. � .,,.. :. . �_.,. ,x �13 .,• �a{�,�,. ..:7:v < �' « ........ ,. .y.. �� ti � ;.. . ` � �..?'t ,2'��,: ` '�..
:.,"�-:. :?1�..s..x .,x�. .�- . ,�.-.;. .�..4a;."� . ..s .�.., �,.... .,...,. .5�..,a.. i�` -:a ,,��1 .� :� . -�:, �,n� t�!��� ,�.�.:����� ��}L yh7 K.�'v 'r.,.,,...a ,-z..�rW. k:� �..n
Y. %§�,x`= .:: � . . �, ae.�:E�.�, , �,,.....N. ..,:Lt....?^k.. �. �.,.. .T. ,.,, ,...,.��.�'.�.;r�e,. .w Rx., �s.. �4�. �8�� .R. .,$:. 4:� .�+.:. �-� ,.k+ . s�.�. .� =?��
., , ..,. ,,» �,.+.. �,� � ..-� _ �r...�i , ,r.�'ytl. r, .. , ., o :�...Y`i;• 3.'�"'+..�. Gn�. ak'� a^� �..
!F.�, . . -�... ....« .�°,r:- x wr:,. e,::;. ' t.:'Yt, . ,,...�. . .,.....- , .,, ; ,,�_ �t_ ::• .�, ....,. t' .� Vk..= >e�'xS: � °�t,'n..� ..X .�}`,:�,;� �,
.: . �„ �
. .. . � .. . . � . - . � t .. . . � . . � .. .
; . , r
� , __ „ , < .. . . .
€� . .. . . ... ... .. . . . � .
. .� .. ... ... . .. . . � ; �
. . �... .. :. .,.:. . . .. � . �
I
�' �
(l � �
� . � Ill�..�. � . ... .. � � ..
_r+�=
. ,�
Y �
; . . ��
h
: � �� � t_,__�� � � � � ,
1..—.1 '
� .
t; .
t�1=��
� � � ���it=�+�
l " 1= �' �
.. . � _ . � ... . . . , .
. � �' Ro�o
C�►� `��; l r.�..,_ '\J �T�-� 1������r .
;
C r oss S�-r,o�l 3
� � �,���._� �'' = 5 ' .
�������
' �
� �'�..�` ���-....�_O:w` FrryCE (S'9orb ,r~
� �
`--+.--r.. ed)
. � / ��'�`"/���=`�
��7 �— p/"�� �.PPDP^SED REtiM�Md xa�:--+�„�,,,,
�C° !✓���/,dJLt� '�' ' �� ��"*C�Sf1N0 1NEC UN[� �/�✓'
.z ��.- � �.ti...,,_,.,,_,� . �" �EK
� ! � .,....� ��� `-----�•�---�.. •�,,,, „ � '`--'' `OLE G kt�,qD
. �,� ,_,_,,
� - ~- - y�
. . a I.� Pp0 G 7POL1'+ � �D ,��'� 1 � i `. `
. .. . �. � c, � {� •P� � . -,.
+ .�.r�,�t.•c�'o,q. I
��y� .� PpOPDSED� S70 SIOM: � • .�.
r,�
� � � . 1: Q . J .
���..__ ��� 20' ,
Z-�"= �� \ . +� � • �0.5` ��o,
•. � � . , � N 1 7�'�J'lA �jd16�C.��� fl R �
� �• .�
l 2S�'! /Z.S:i Ta�oe/ u � ,
� � � � � , •t . n. BELL'`�,51
� Q �s. ' _ `� `` : � �i �l�y- - \' 1� `i.`�MAFIk+_�L
�... ` �)�.. -`.�
. Q � �,
� � � .
� � ! � ' �X/SrS� c G it �' ` _'_'�'_...� � � "� �' �� ' �\
� , ` •
y'7 -,.. ' - '��., \. . ..C`
� -- z s:, roper ' _ ' � ; -Th r�'Trc�c� ' -- • .,. . .
�Proi�C'SEc� E;d; , - - �' .` r ' +�
•� � ..� A't� i� � , �\
IVOis"T�N `�� 'y r,'-,� �, � \ . .
�'---?� `� � �''�� �: � \ � . +�
�� \ .
, Ff ' '
, . � �
✓�✓�'ivtpl� ,���s'�� � � �
: ,
.. . ,
.. �r �n . � ` 1'`, ;
- /V, f--�` �'d. G ,,7- J .ria�a'/e G:.�. �
�' • �vI e E ,��� ' x'
, �
�` -
. ,
._- � YQ/% C�7 j . � . �
: . . � � ND ��.PEDE37RitN � j�' . r�1 ' � � 1
,, � • � SICM ��. . . ,.. �. . �. ..
; ; . � .
I�I ': ./ ' . 1
� /
, . I . .�.. r.� . � .. ,,.
; , - 7d ACCE55 RAMP ' ' �—.—
; 7Di��CJLO�tADO�INC. ��.� �
# i575 Larimer �� ' , I
; Suite 600 �� ' �
� ie Genver,Colorado 80202 '
' QO �
: ��I , ,
. �.����y � o��a ,���r .�. .
� . ��L1pHTPOIC . + �. '
�MtERSt�tE St6N� . -e- __.
�
. 4,B'S1DEWatK � � �
. �� ,q���,��� �
. .
_ � _ _ ��„
, s,
� � , � , �.
; ���.�t�....,..:
s� �
��
� �� � � �� � � � � 3�� �� � � � � �
� ����;: � � � ��
� ,,w. .a � :
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIQN
August 27, 1990
Present Staff
Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz
Diana Donovan Mike Mollica
Connie Knight Jill Kammerer
Ludwig Kurz Shelly Mello
Jim Shearer Andy Knudtsen
Kathy Warren Betsy Rosolack
Dalton Williams Larry Eskwith
The Planning and Environmental �ommission meeting was called to
order at 3t3Q p.m. by Diana 'Donovan, Chairperson. Chuck Crist
was absent Por the site visits but arrived for the meeting.
Item No. 1: A�pproval of the minutes form the August 13 . 1990
meetinct.
In the interest of time, Item No. 1 was postponed to the end of
the meeting.
.� � ' �'����'� ������'�� re est for a work session for a ma or
r ,�*'�^����`�� � Z
�° °� subdivision, to agprove the pre�iminary plan, a
rectuest for a variance to the maximum heiqht for
retaining walls, and a request for a variance to
the maximum percent grade for a road, on a parcel
commonl referred to as S raddle Creek an
oximate 4fl a rs arcel loeated north and east
� � � °`� - of the, in Va' ln n e and east of the
�:_.. w:� ,..� <� � S raddle Cr 've
� � � A� 1 icant � ��`�
� � �� � ��
����;.._-�-�
Spraddle Creek had been visited on the site visits. Kristan
explained the site planning on Lot 5 and 6 and more discussion
followed concerning the location of the building envelope on Lot
5. Kathy did not like the long driveway for the house in that
location. The building envelopes for both Lots 5 and 6 placed
Lot 6 directly below Lot 5. Diana felt that whatever was the
least visible must work on the site and she felt that moving the
building envelope to improve the plan should be done.
The walls of the project were discussed. Kristan felt there
should be a visual analysis of the switchback �hat is on Forest
Service Land.
1
�
Minutes
PEC 8/27/9Q
Jim Shearer suggested pushing back the upside cuts to make room
for taller trees. He also supported banking with dirt where '
possible and planting trees as opposed to high walls.
Greg suggested bowing out the curve which would break up the
Lineal length of the wall.
Jay felt that two tiers might work. Kristan said the trade-off
might be a higher wall.
Kathy agreed saying that when you have a -higher wall, there is
less length but felt it` was easier to break up the long walls
than short walls by putting planting in front of them.
Kathy ,felt that the walls should not go beyond 8 ' in height.
Greg suggested' ways to build the walls with a grid which would
allow plantings.
Jim reminded the group that from below you woul.dn't see the lower
part of the upper walls. Kent showed profiles of the roads.
Ludwig suggested plantings to offset the visual impact. He asked
if there would be any guard rails and Kent said there would be,
it was felt guard rails were needed.
Dalton suggested having a building envelope near the bottom of
the subdivision below the road. He felt the visual impact would
be less than having the homes close together higher up on the
hill .
Jay responded that he felt the lower property was "sacred" and he
would like to keep all of that lower area as open space,
Regarding the road grades, Greg felt that Kent had done a good
job. But there were three places he would change and Greg
described where the cuts and fill would change. He recommended
that the roads be between 8 and 8. 6% grade. Greg also was
concerned with some driveway grades and felt that the access to
Lot 6 would have to be changed. -
Kristan mentioned that construction guidelines were going to be
needed for the project and much supervision needed on the part of
the staff during the actual road construction.
Kathy was comfortable with the slope as it was now but she felt
that if it could be reduced without creating more cuts and fill,
2
;y
�
Minutes
PEC 8/27/90
and without creating more visual impacts, she would be pleased
with that as well. She suggested using boulder walls where
possible. ' A section through the switchback on Forest Service
property and the other major switchback above Lots 5 and 6 would
be helpful.
Kathy suggested a separate drawing showing building envelopes,
driveways, lats, retaining walls, and roadway would be helpful.
Heights of the walls could b� indicated by different colors.
This approach would make it 'easier to understand the project:
Kathy also requested a view analysis for the entire °subdivision.
Greg said that he would meet once more with Kent and Kristan to
refine the roads for the preliminary plat review.
Connie Knight `said that she 'was sti11 concerned about encroaching
onto Forest Service Land. She realized `the trade-offs involved
but was concerned with the relationship to the Tennenbaum ,trade-
off.
Joe Macy stated that this property was an "in holding" which
meant that it was surrounded on three sides by Forest Service
Land and the Forest Service had to provide access by law.
Jay added that this did not reTate to the Tennenbaum case and the
stable would have to build a new road anyway. This was strictly
for access.
Diana wanted to stress that she did not want landscaping just
along the roads and the buildings. -She suggested creating groves
with plantings in other areas to create a natural appearance.
Item No. 3: A request for an exterior alteration on Lot C and
Lot D, and the southwesterly 4 feet of Lot B, all
in B1ock 5=B, Vai1 Village lst Filing, 227 Bridge
Street fCovered Bridge Buildinq) .
A,.pplicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm
& Associates.
Mike Mollica showed how the applicant had modi�ied the building
since the last work session. Mike explained that the request was
for an exterior alteration. He reviewed the zoning
considerations and compliance with the Purpose Section of CCI,
the Vai1 Village Master Plan, the Urban Design Guide Plan, and
the Design Considerations and stated that the staff recommended
approval with one condition: that prior to the issuance of a
building permit the applicant post a letter of credit to cover
the replacement of evergreens which are to be relocated. Mike
explained how the staff had interpreted the height on the
3
_ � U �
` J STATE OF COLORADO " ��-�`�(��
" . Roy Romer, Governor � (} REFER TO:
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES ���� �O��D�
DIVISlrJN rJF WI LDL! FE � �
b �'
. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER � .:
Perry D,Olson, Director �',j 1,'D�
6060 Broadway �'�'OF'�`
Denver,Colorado 80216
Telephone:(303)297-1192
�.�%r:r;4 1 =�, � `_���
, �C�.1
t_�,;r�'_:'';? _,., .-':::)�.��_�_ ,
_-.i�.J L".�� ��! .i�1Y`1r,,7,;--�Lt�T =1C%Zj� I !�r'+�-!-i(�.:t�
/a _ '}— �
._. 1...�� a _;..1.-�.��.�.'J ri;.� 4�'�_� y/�
-_�J .J.. . _
/ 1..�.. J . �JI
1 � .J�.)�1��.�.1 .�..��r�;7 V Ca.`,-� _L�:. .
;y;,;� ,-;,-., ;�� ��7
� ;�;_< < � � �
i�=;<^.� t;:ri�tti,r'? �
_ . . „ . - . �
,,,�i,p <.-�zr 'l - Yl 'i � ' f�� � '-a �- �. � -,-,r�7- � i��; rl� "�,..,"1" �`",-y '?°'P� � ri i r' I '}/�
i -
1_S.<<. �— C __�..�f�.�.,. G_.. ...�1_1 � ._v _I.n..... _li �.-�.�� . __ �/`...� J�. C.'.,i.�R.�.4. � .J-_^a ,� ..��L J C.S �__i.� -.._L3
-�= a. ✓�,'� �.�a.,.. �.iC„� ti'_� T('J�_�._,i;ll.ri b �..,'T'ir�. ,.[1 4,:. ._;,.�:7;... �r� .,r ;:`.17�r«_�� � i ':7�n-
0
� � �w 1 G �� .'y .....a,�.. ...� t;_�i��i� �A,.._,� t't n �.J;-_�� .�: .�r_..�;_�.� �..i' -r����..�1 a., .��__%�_ �.3 ,�a..___.�:! :���
i
L r.
, '�
� i �
_- !' ��' _ . .I` ''� ��rl-..r_ , .� _ �_ � `� ._.,..�"� .�_..��, v�1.� _,F° ,.. f;_ �, -
_c,.__.._ _l_ , .,,-._J_ _. _�_ . __ , _. ,�
� �
���
i -
� -�.
.` _
-��::+.� 'v"J :.l. � i; �.. � �v w� ,�; a i{'f� �-.°�.��_�I�," .�._.,.:1 l �... ._.x�., � .���:�:ll?ZJ`� i..''1 ?"�'�.Z,A.�v_.il v
r;o��. 'rla._r���si�:�; ,,�_�ti71���: � .,'_�e _c �.,�_�z 1�.�.1 �.�,� bee,� i�iv:�..�.?.�� �;P�re.r_�,1
��.:�G.1 V 1^1 C'.r1 S ;.'?G t C� C��;�P rl.�._ �.�r O V2�_ i}"_1 P i�L�C t 1�:°o -'_!"l�T U Y]1� +,"�'1`i.� c`��.,
�C� S�"'i��U1.Ci 1J2 ?"e;;�J1�'eC7 1'�� r�d��1e a `30�-" -r'U_� OY' ��B:CI:C!el t.'rG� 1S i�C'-,.YICeG.
to a �sur�'icie.�t r�ei���t t�� i�:re�re�?i� the �.��U f'r�rn jumz�in� �J�1ta
�� :.,-� O",._,.Y'�G�° Cc�;!]i�_ �iY' CO.��i:�.�.[7��'t s_�``�LJL'.�..�? I"�.G� Ci°tiitj.ne� :'i?�_1� C�.(=,�T�'L''.Cli`�u
Z 0 ��° r P c.�" i'J Z'��^v i, 1)P S�,_f"-,'':S i��' i,�� C O:�?�;,1:']e r.� C�.�? 'rJ 2 O rJ�L o_1.Y]°G. i 1"��'f1
th.= �.�ivisio� a~� the �:��.rtn _`;_�neric�,.-n �e��.r ��ciety�� �,co$-t���,lep ;`�,;',o
, . .
.
�}'12 t;1"C7iJ G`.;e C' �J�Q,1 d�.��_v.Y] 1 S 1:'] �°:i.Y' �7���1 t r.-G� '�^J 1�1� i,�° D:il i���i=�c� y'r=;; 1 8 m
�J�. i r r�G��'����j G� �`.�.�',Y'i ' 1.�_1 li�l� L':J J..'�? v"'g li}'!� __;J..�T 1 v 1 li Y' �..`�` r`C;v� 1'1'-��,[.�`,<..�..v ...,i i
fJ�-'.'jr'Z;�i:'i�lpjj L l_i`] �(Ja�;.Y' 't'1 ����_l.�Nl i1G..�r'" ���%,' J�'vGi �Qr's�i;'_Zn'�1'� a .j`.?7�c C�.�`iJGY'�.1.
cj�_r'�;,��° C O 1 Z 4�t 1(.7.C] 1J O 1.i 1;, 1B,J(l j;_!�1 �.�`',u'la C� C,'sJ f � c;,.'3 G'_ Z c S�.�.P�? 'v'f''� �'r'✓b�.::�`i
�Ji: '��u_rb�v'e Ge��r;:�; o
'� ; iOt,.i' t.Y1ci,Z c:f'2 ctQ�01:!]1Y]�T �i�,�10Y1c�.� .''0=G'@S-G iY'Oi°r't,� �i!GU1C1 'Y?�.V�
buil�in� e.��re�.ope� t�a.t �r;�ul� pro�,ride a �uizer -,tri�� ��T at l�asti i��
�'eet bet�l�ae��n the buil i.n; and. �ne ??a�io.��l �+`�reut b;�u:ndar�;f o 'i��i� ;alould
?�r��,vicke a.r.� a�'c!i�ior�,1 �u��e_ zo:ne be �..�c.e.n ���-:: o_� relol,me:n�t a:nd ����tio:r�a,l
_ 1 1` " Y' 'Llo .� .1.- r �P� y,. -
..�,'}�Y'eCl� Z�.[�(�9 L1�.c:.L �r�:JU�[�. Y'l.°,�J�l:C.'C �/;1i1d1ii�e �1r'iy'Ca,L' �: '.�.C� �re .t'��.'Y'�x.r.`,Z; �.n� Ci,�..��'.`�
Z't�(��;tCC� tfi2 11�'1Vc�3`l,e 1�,.r�r��1,Pt�r�o�� Cr;T�i�lc�l.t�ttiy Oi tl'le �U�11C �F1;r� ZGv�
clrlse t�� �i,� re;sir.°.nc� o
L!1 -'`��--t1��l� t}'l.@ �1�T1^1G:!1 `,^.��>>JZ:� �'eCO�'!I?12�1� tn=�� �n.2 C%�V��_��J°:L' C'_�lOSc
la:rcisc:�pi�?� �tems tr�a�, ar� unn�.l�,tc�,ble t�� �-�i1�7_iieo �ue t�� t�e
�10C^i,1`?1? Oi' t�1� S1)�`(?.1v�_S10'? s C2f't;.,1Y1 S�i2C1C� ��� V�1�_C11,1:�:2 W1�_Z L'S� t}`1C
a_r_eao -i'ivr usin�- u:apGla.table l�r?dscr:;�i:�,g i�e�s t'r� dev�elope:r ,,;;ill
r_ed.uce dam�ge tc la�?dscai;i.��� cav�ed by ����ildli�'eo t:�'he ��ivisi��� {?r t'c?�
Colora,do :;t-��.te J�ten;�ion o�=.�icr :r�.��� in.�=or_~��,t�_��� on lar_�r.3:�c;�-pi:��; �r�ecic�
�?�f,t a��� ie.-= c�;.,�cei_;�i'.�le �Lo �:�,�ilei�if2 c��,m�ge a
1he -�:�vi�ian :;,-���-recin,te,� the �i 1 ro�u��?it�r t� cor.�n�ent ��� �h�s ��rop::�e,,l,
DEPARTMENT OF NATI.IRAL RESOURCES, Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, George VanDenBerg, Chairman . Robert L. Freidenberger, Vice Chairman . William R. Hegberg, Secretary
Eldon W. Cooper, Member . Rebecca L. Frank, Member . Dennis Luttrell, Member . Gene B. Peterson, Member . Larry M, Wright, Member
� _ .^�TATE OF COLORADO _-
. Roy Romer, Governor REFER TO;
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES �o��Do
DIVISION OF WILDLIFE d , �
. AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
Perry D.Olson, Director � yq�
6060 Broadway ��OF�
Denver,Colorado 60216
Telephone:(303)297-1192
�-'�.E=;: G
(��8-`a,�� :ir'C?�.. F�7'F1° t1,�1 i O:C)�",:�;Cf 1r� 1�L ��JU �'?u,''T^-'. ca,L1�y` C�1J..2��1C�:C]:�;o
;i„n cer•e1�r
�Y ._. ,`l j�
V �,, ���'�'� ��,/'
�J,C,-' ,, /�?' ' �Zk'�.._
�:?.il_1. ;:t�cree, i;��t�'i�t :°;i�ldliie '��'':�..n��e_r•_Vu.i�
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director
WILDLIFE COMMISSION, George VanDenBerg, Chairman . Robert L. Freidenberger, Vice Chairman . William R. Hegberg, Secretary
Eldon W. Cooper, Member . Rebecca L. Frank, Member . Dennis Luttrell, Member . Gene B. Peterson, Member . Larry M. Wright, Member
,d�¢*.� .�Tnited States Fo`rest White River Hoiy�Cross Ranger District
�� �4 Department of Service National P.O. Box 190
���� A�riculture Forest Minturn, Colorado 8Lb45
� Reply to: 273�
Date: Dec. 5, 1989
C,��
� ��
� 1�� � �
Rristan Pritz
Office of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Ms. Pritz:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary plan for the
Spraddle Creek Subdivision. I have the following comments:
l . Generally speaking, adjoining National Forest lands are not available for
the placement of utilities, structures, or other special uses to support
development of the subdivision, Consequently, project design should
incorporate all necessary improvements on the private parcel.
2. Access to the parcel is proposed via the construction of a road across
National Forest lands. An easement would be conveyed to the Town of Vail under
the authority of the Forest Road and Trail Act. Criteria for evaluating
conveyance include the possibility for alternative reasonable access routes,
construction to local standards, and environmental impacts.
3. The National Forest parcel that the easement would cross is identified as
the "Spraddle Creek Parcel" in the Vail Land Exchange. A decision notice
signec� by the Regional Forester dated September 17 , 1987 documents the
decisions regarding the disposal of this property. This decision notice was
forwarded to the Town of Vail via an August 30, 1989 letter from Forest
Supervisor Hoots. As described in the letter, the Spraddle Creek Parcel is
available for conveyance to the Town until June 26 , 199� under the authority of
the General Exchange Act as amended. This parcel has been identified for
disposal. Therefore, any specific proposal received for an easement or special
use on the parcel will have to be evaluated for the effects the encumburance
would have on existing agreements and contracts, appraisal value of the
property, and future disposal opportunities.
�U�S Caring for the Land and Serving People
FS-8200•28(7-82)
;'b'�r�rr� � . �
.�.�,
�� +� �
�o'.."�.��� � .
This evaluation would be done through our normal enviromental analysis process
and subjeet to public comment/review. Until this analysis is complete I cannot
make a decision commiting public access across this National Forest System
parcel. To date we have not received a formal proposal from Mr. Gillett which
would initiate the analysis process. We have however informally discussed his
plans with his representative Joe Macy.
We would b e happy to discuss the above informa.tion with the Planning Commission
or Town Council if you feel this would b e helpful in your review of this
project. Again thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
�
ILLIAM A. W00�
District Ranger
ccc Joe Macy, VA
M. Spencer, SO
�,,,,,,,,� Caring for the Land and Serving People
U�►S
FS•82Q9•2817•82)
ST�T� OF COLOI��DO
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS �T oFy
222 South Sixth Street, P.O. Box 2107 �� �'��-�� °°�cy�
Grand Junction,Colorado 81502-2107 .�`jy ��-•� � � "
(303)248-7208 i� ` * *
Y�' ���� N�'�DO
1�`� . 'T�OF`OyOPp
December 4 , 1989
Kristan Pritz
Town of Vail
75 Scu�h Frontage Road
Vail, CO 816577
Re: Spraddle Creek Subdivision
The Colorado Department of Highways offers the following
comments:
The access road should not make direct access at the interchange
due to volume and safety considerations. Access road should
traverse northerly of the main intersection and tie to the
frontage road 200 to 300 feet westerly of the main intersection.
Address questions to Charles Dunn at 248-7232 in Grand Junction.
�� "�*��� ; ��' �3,
�rM�"�
STAT� OF COLOR,�D�
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS �,,T oFH
71A Grand Ave., P,�. Box 298 '``��� rO j
� ,��`�'� N
Eagle, Colorado 81631-0298 �p
� �
(303) 32$-63$5 ��,'�r;� � �<wPQ*-
.�-.�./
November 22, 1989 ��F CO�-pQ
�
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Attn: Kristan Pritz, Office of Community Development
Re: Spraddle Creek Subdivision
Dear Ms PritZ,
Tn reviewing the preliminary plan for Spraddle Creek Subdivision, I can foresee
some possible problems.
Due to the fact that this project is approved by the Forest Service, this
approach road would be safer and less of a traffic and drainage problem if the
access was moved to the north and extended past the intersection. This would
place the access entrance west of the intersection on the frontage road. There
would also be better control of drainage and snow removal. The grade of access
could also be lessened.
The proposed access at the I 70 Interchange would put an additional traffic
burden on the existing I 70 interchange. There would also be a requirement to
place asphalt on the existing access. This would put a larger accumulation of
drainage on the state right of wav. It would also create a greater problem
with snow removal and control of ice.
The additional tax base to the city and county is very attractive. This should
also be a consideration in the selection of a better and safer location for
this access.
Sincerely,
J. Bryce Sanburg
Hwy. Maint. Supr. III
i��� � ,.
-`� �-'P
A1 ed L. Pierce
S . Hwy. Mtce. Supv.
xc: Sanburg/Drieth
Pierce/Hill
Patrol 19
��.;, . ,, �
• � _n�„_�_ ,,..� _ ,�.
� � � �.
, �� � ���. , � ����. : ..:.. �:����
„
R:EG�IP'C .T"�ite�'own of�a�il °
J k :.'�. . '., ��.. ^ '�. � .'� , ".� , ," , � � '. '
. i �� ,� • �, � ,.:.�'
` I}t1fi� ,.k�-`------ �� ��r��� .
� �
,
� � � . :
<
� � : �
5 ,, � ,� . ,., a..x , 4... ;4 ,n
�' . .�:��������,���� ,. a: .. ., mu., : ....
{ d
� ... :... '.. . '. �,. .,. ' ' ' .:. ' .''
f .. . ;������ �:�.:.�•• �: ,• :.;••' ' ' ,',� ....' :.. ..�.'•• i .. '. :: . . . .
. . � .. ..,�. 1 .. ,
� . . ;� � ; . .,. � .
, .. ; . '�... .� .
"
$.
t'
� y�{
. .. .t�.` �,.... •,.. ;, .i�� '... . ,
, � ; �... '..
+v.
i. � ...`.r . . , , ..
� .".� � ,tc c�� ..' : . :. � . . . ., '��:L .. � ' ��.������ .
�
t ` ., .< .. . � . ' ((:
, . , . ` � ..^ , .. � '., .. � . ' . .
' ' � 'i � ... '. .
�
:' .; . . �,�... �
� ': . . . . . , �� �. , ,. . ,�j ` �.•". . , . �. ,..� , `
E
i ' ' . �. . . . . . ::�� � ;
� ����-- �, ��, �:� �c;c.�°.�"�€ v : .�"
!
� : :. .- ' E lt/l�wC�m.�^-� . .
� Permit Nu�bers ' k'ciliee Receapt�Tuz�Bers
� � �. � � „ � �
� �; � . HEl'W'�PA�I)=---�asl�. �"� � Gheck� � � ,�� �Y�
�� _ . . � � � _
�.,�� �_,�. �__ _____ _-______ �_ . _
GEORGE N. GILLETT. JR. 3 8 5 2 ..
�UF NO. YQUR INVOICE NO. lNVOICE DATE INVOICE AMOUNT AMOUNT PA1D DISCOUNT TAKEN NET CHECK AMOUNT
10/31/8 200 . 00 200 . 00 200 . 00
�4 �,. ,..:�� �� ��� ��
� .. .. .��� ..
To; Jay Peterson and Joe Macy
From: Community Development Department
Date: November 19, 1989
Re: Spraddle Creek
The staff requests that you submit the following information:
1.An explanation of how the lots meet the Hillside Residential
Zone District standards. A; surveyor will need to calculate
����: buildable area for each lot. Maximum GRFA figures for the primary
� unit and caretaker unit should be listed for each lot. 30 percent
�(p. slope areas within 'building envelopes should also be indicated.
2 . Master Drainage Plan� �?������'1.
3 . View Analysis with emphasis on the views of road cuts and
retaining walls. Building envelopes which will also be easily
viewed should be addressed.
4 . Details on retai �.ng walls including materials, heights, and
revegetation. �5-�.-�lOs�
5. Documentation of any geological hazards on the property. All
geological hazard areas should be indicated on a site plan.
6 . A written statement on how the proposal relates to the Land Use
Plan.
7 . A written agreement between the owner and the livery operator
concerning the relocation of the livery should be submitted. A
site plan showing the relocated livery and road is needed.
Information on the desi n (grades retainage etc. ) of the road is
necessary. — �� y j�� '�1QC2.�tr��-
8 . The traffic analys '�s �ho�u,�l/drr`,a�lso in ]�ude veh�.cles accessing the
Forest Service land.- �.%� �� �
9� A table showing a realistic build-out rate and associated costs
to TOV versus revenue should be developed.
10. We support the Fire Department's recommendation that
"Wildland Urban Interface" landscaping criteria should be
incorporated into the design guidelines.
�1. An ex lanation of ho he raddle Creek DRB e ates t e �
�' P , r 1 �h -
� � , t,.
�ov DR�. . . � � -��tn?��r �55GL, ��R��i�
������ ,�.. 1�Y��1�� - ��t�CJ
12 . CDOH comments revised Fronta e ad ' te se .._/
� g R o i n r c t i o n
should be obtained. We would also like to hear their comments on
the traffic analysis.
13✓ Are the caretaker units restricted per the TOV employee
housing requirements?
1�4 . Please provide more justification for the assumption that the
` subdivision will have a 50% occupancy.
�15. What is the basis for the sales tax contributions referred to
on page•�of the Social and Economic Report?
_,_._
� _
16. Below is a summary of your requests. Is this your
understanding of the total list?
A request for a major subdivision; A request for a variance to
road width; A request for a variance to road grade; A request for
a variance for retaining wall height.
Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr.
18 . Letters form Heritage Cable and Western Slope Gas verifying
service should be submitted.
19. An additional seven copies of the Spraddle Creek notebook
will be necessary for Town Council.
20 .The Air Quality Analysis is being reviewed by Susan Scanlan,
environmental health officer for the Town of Vail. Comments on
environmental studies will be forthcoming.
This is a summary of the staff's preliminary comments. We would
appreciate it if you would submit this additional information to
our department within three weeks prior to the date of your final
review by the PEC. We ask that you submit the information listed
in points 1, 2 , 7, 8 , and 12 as soon as possible so that the staff
may proceed with reviewing. the proposal .
�
� � ���. �.
VAIL FI?2E DEPARTME?�IT
REVIE�^� OF SPRADDLE CI�EEK SUBDIVISI01`1 PROP�SAL
�vovEr•�BE� 19�9
TC7PICS OF CONC�'�IV and QBSERVATIDNS
1 . I��ethod of public access to Forest Service land should be
clearly indicated. ThP intersection of the Forest Service access
road and Gillett Road and the relative nositioning of the security
gate should be designed to allow space for trail head parking,
space for vehicles traveling in both directions and emergency
vehicle access c•�idths .
Th� presence of a Forest Service access road indicates a
notential for vehicular traffic in excess of those number ot
vehicles directly related to the subdivision.
?. Emergency egress and access through the security gate must be
provided. Adequate roads widths through the gate are absolutely
required. The gate(s) must operate in a fail-safe manner ( i.e. the
gate arm must be of a breaka���ay design or automatically open during
power failures, etc. ) .
3. The provision of a careta}:er is strongly recommended and
encouraged. A responsible narty will need to be on file, with
local address and phone number and with adequate authority to
resolve problems. Management of fire alarm systems, snoe� removal
and on-street parking is essential.
4. The proposed site is heavily forested caith natural grasses and
ground cover . The south facing slope predisposes the vegetation
to being dry er and thus subject to a more severe fire danger.
Guidelines developed by the Federal Emergency P4anagement Agency and
the U. S. Forest Service under the title of "6•Jildland Urban
Interface" should be incorporated into the overall design and
layout.
PROPOSED II��PROVi�'IErITS
STREETS
5. The request for a variance from Town of Vail street
requirements should �e denied. The requests to reduce the
eff ective road c�idth to 18 feet is not recommended. The net width
of a fire engine is eight and one half feet. ��1ith the doors or
compartments open, the gross width of the fire engine is 14 feet.
A1lowing only a two foot space on either sic�e of the vehicle from
the side ot the road and from the centerline, and allowing a two
foot space on either side of an oncoming vehicle, leaves a net
width of one and a half feet. Two vehicles cannot safely pass
without slowing to a crawl.
SPRI�DDLE CRE�I{ SUBDIVISI�JN PROPOSAL
Vail Fire Departm�nt
Page` 2
6. The of f er to provid� a tv�o foot should�r on the down hi 11 sic�e
do�s not provide sufficient `mitigation. Driving a 40, 000 lb.
vehicle uphill on an unpaved portion of a roadcaay within 24 inches
or less of a steep and notentially icy or sno�a covered slor�e is not
rnasonable; it is unsafe, and is not permitted under Toem of Vail
safety guidelines.
7. The curb and gutter on the uphill side of the roac�way ��ill
reportedly add only one foot to the roadway. Hocaever, if a gutt�r
is to ad�c�uately function as a drainage feature, it �ai11 need to
}.�e canted and slop�d. briving cio�mhill on an icy or snow covered
surfac� that is bath cant�d and s].oped is not conducive to drivinr,
without getting stucl�. -
8. The presence or existence of other non-conforming roadwal�s
��ithin the To�•m of Vail does not serve to confirM, endorse or
approve additional sub-standard roads. The specific referenc� to
roads in the Glen Lion subdivision does not mention that the roads
in the Glen Lion subdivision are private, have not been acc�pt�t�
by th� Tocan and will be required to be upgraded before they �•�ill
be accepted. The reference does not mention that the Glen Lion
area is relativelv free from steep slopes anc� tne roads to not
border the edge of the slope.
9. The grade of the slope is in e�cess of adopt�d standards. The
submittal itself states the projected vehicle load of 18 vehicles
per hour is compatible with a 1Oo grade but requests a variance to
11�. An increase of over 23� in the maximum grade has not ueen ,
demonstrated to be absolutely essential. The option of
reconfiguration of the road to provide a more reasonable grade ���ill
understandably be more e:�pensive but not �aithout merit.
10. The fact that the project is on the south aspect oz �he
mountain does not "minimize snow and ice problems" but merely
reduces the number of days per year the roads ��ill be adversely
affected by the ambient ���eather. During incl�ment weather, icy
roads are slick on north and south facing aspects.
In contrast, the southern exposures are more prone to the
semi-annual freeze / thaw cycle in the spring and fall ��hen
temp�ratures cause snow to melt during the day and then refreeze
at night.
11 . The proposed intersection of the Spraddle Creek P,oad and the
North Frontage Road inclucles an island configuration. It is our
recommendation that the island be pulled back away from the
frontage road. The existing cant on the f rontage road combin�d
with th� natural tendency to veer a��ay from obstacles (i.e. the
_ ,
{
SPRADDLL CREEK SU�iDIVISIODI PROPOS?�L
Vail Fire Department
Page 3
island) may tend to cause west bound traffic to cross or edge
to�aards the centerline of the frontage road. The island concept
can still be incorporat�d into an entry�f�ay design if moved up
to�aarcis the hillside.
DRAINAG�
12. The proposal states �f�ater drainage ���ill be accomplished in
part by the curb and gutter system to be built on the unhill side
of �he roadway. This confirms the issues discussed abov� tr�i"th
respect to cant, slop� and road wic?th. people tend not to driv�
in the gutters, esp�cially if there' s wat�r, ice, roc�s washed into
the gutter by the runoff or other obstacles.
F1AT�R SYSTEI•'i
13 . The pro;�osal indicates a storage tanls of 1 50, 000 to 180 , 000
gallons will be constructed. It also states TTlocal crit�ria
supports less storage." The other "local criteria" includ�s a
provision that each structure be equipped ;>>ith a �roperly designed
and installed fire snrin];ler system and monitored fir� alarm
sy stem.
SOC IAL I�ND ECOrIO'�SI C
14. The projected economic impact is estimated by the proponent
at $5, 000 per year over road maintenance costs at buildout of the
project. No amortization schedule was derived to reflect cash flo���
over the proj ected 6 year neriod anticipated for buildout.
The availability of up to twelve employee housing units is
suggested. The proposal does not even ruarantee the caretaker' s
position will be filled. It suggests a caretalcer' s unit will be
available, "if rented."
ENVIROI�IP�El`1TAL IA4PACT P.EPORT
15. The impact on 4�ildlife is suggested to be minimal if human
activities and pets are properly controlled. It also states
protective covenants ���ill be established. Protective covenants
have not been sho��n to be enforceable ( i.e. leash la�as) under Town
of Vail riunicipal Code sections .
16. The Social and Economic section, Item �� 6. , suggests the
positive economic benefits derived from property tax, transfer tax
SPRP.DDL� CRTEI� SUBDIVISIOP� PROPOSAL
Vail Fire D�partment
Page 4
and sales ta:� "can be directed to�-�ards" Mitigating the costs
associated �aith providinc� fire and polic� protection. Such a
suggestion does not necessarily either ozf `set the actual cost nor
does the budget process really work in such a fashion.
ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
17. Landscaping and preservation of existinc� vegetation should �e
in accordance with the guidelines issues ay the Federal Emergency
Manager�ent Agency , U. S. For�st Service, Colorado State Forest
Service, and associated agencies .��ith resPect to mitigating the
threat of wildland, forest and �rass fires.
18. 4�Iood siding and woo� shake roof coverings on the residential
buildings should be kept to a minimum due to the close proximit�
to th� fore�t lanc?s and the threat of fire eith�r from �-�ithin t?iA
structure or from the forest itself.
19. Spark arrestor are required on all solid fuel fireplace
chimneys.
20. All structures should be desic�ned orith fire snrinl�ler systems
in accordance F�ith N.F.P.A. Standarc?s 13, 13R or 13D, 1989 edition,
and provided with approved fire detection systems monitored by
approved c�ntral station iacilities.
GEI�IERAL FEATUP.ES
21 . Adequate turning radius for fire department vehicles must be
provided, including turnarounds.
22 . No trees shall be allo����d ���ithin 5 feAt of the exterior
perimet�r of the structure.
23 . No trees shall be allowed to overhang any point of a
structure.
24 . Thin all ladder fuels ���ithin 30 feet of the ext�rior perimeter
in e:�cess of 10 feet high.
25. Forest management plan shall be submitted by an approved
agency. The plan should include thinning trees to provide crowns
at 10 - 20 foot maximum spacing, architectural planning, and
execution of the plan.
, _
� �� ��
_
9 x �
' � .. � . �� � ��. ����
The Town of Vail Public Works/Transportation Department' s review
of the Spraddle Creek Subdivision Proposal dated November 1989 .
The review comments try to follow the format presented in the maj or
subdivision report.
1. Geolocxy and Soils
The proposed cuts and fills are of significant magnitude, even with
care, the potential of ground water in the cuts is very high. The
ground water when found will cause significant slope failures which
will require even greater cuts to stabilize. This will cause
significant problems with slopes, drainage and wall construction.
The report states water and sewer will be the only underground
utilities. All utilities wi11 need to be underground.
The report states subsurface investigations should be performed for
each building site to determine design criteria. This should read
"shall be performed" .
',1 � The report provides an equivalent fluid pressure {EFP) of 65 pcf
U'� S
�,, for the water tank wall design. The report states this takes into
Sl account a sloping backfill. What is the maximum slope allowed for
a�� the backfill to result in the EFP to be 65 pcf?
�1a
The soils engineer needs to be aware and comment on the new wall
system proposed.
Before the preliminary roadway is approved, some further work
should be completed by as the report states, "a firm specialized
in the type of wall" and severe slope conditions proposed to
determine the feasibility of the slope stabilities and the walls
proposed and prepare specific X-sections and plan segments of these
critical sections depicting the overall area of disturbed soils,
to be reviewed by the Town Staff and PEC.
Soils report states:
Fills less than 10' high should be at maximum of 2: 1, fills
greater than 10 ' should be further examined. �'Fi'e"'��summary ...
tates fills will not exceed 1 1/2 : 1, this is incorrect.
�.-----
The cut slopes section, brings up two important factors that need
to be understood before preliminary approval is given. This is the
existence of ground water that will be encountered in the
construction of the roadway and how to handle it. The other item
being the method of building the walls and the presence of ground
water on these walls. Both of these will have significant and
costly effects upon the project. They need to be discussed,
understood and a method to handle them determined by a soils
engineer, before work progresses on the design.
The soil nailing, the report discusses may be workable, as stated
previously, further work needs to be completed before it is
acc�pted. The most signif-icant issue, besides �he technical
feasibility would be the aesthetics of the nailed surface.
The report states that cut slopes up to T5 feet should be at a
maximum slope of 1.5 to 1, slopes greater than this need to be
further analyzed. The Town Staff and PEC will determine the
maximum height and grade of cut and fill slopes before further
analyzing is required.
There is also the balancing act of getting proper revegetation of
cut and fill slopes and protecting the ' slopes from surface' water
and groundwater effects. To establish good growth on steep slopes,
the area should be irrigated for two seasons, longer if trees are
to be replanted, This however causes saturated soils and some
erosion before the growth takes hold. Howevsr, if the slopes are
not irrigated, growth is significantly stunted, especially on the
south facing slopes, Trees will not survive the unirrigated
setting. The more barren slopes are still susceptible to erosion,
slope failure and rocks rolling onto the roadway, not to mention
the lack of aesthetics. It `will be very important to schedule
construction and the revegetation to obtain the best revegetation
results.
The handling of groundwater and surface drainage along the roadway
is of significant importance in guaranteeing the integrity of the
pavement life. An overall method of handling both these flows will
need to be presented before work progresses.
The two soils reports, cannot emphasize enough the slope stability
concerns in regards to encountering groundwater and large cut
slopes.
2 . Vegetation
Because the proposed construction will have significant areas of
disturbed soils, a revegetation plan needs to be finalized and
approved before the preliminary street construction plans are
approved. Everyone needs to agree how the mitigation of the
disturbed areas will be handled, allowing the engineer to final the
street plans knowing there should not be any concerns with the
aesthetics as these were agreed to before significant time and
money was spent on the plans. This is also concerning the walls
and the slope stability methods employed. The revegetation should
be warranted for 3 growing seasons with a warranty bond to ensure
the slopes obtain the treatment agreed to.
3 . Wildlife
It would appear that the roadway network disrupts more than 9 acres
of wildlife habitat. How is this determined and who has the final
word?
The protective covenants on pets and livestock - who will enforce
these?
Why is their no effect on the deer population? It appears the
average stays the same when it doesn't.
4. Atmosphere
Has the concerns or methods changed in determining the effects
since 1974?
The study assumes a 50% occupancy, the peak polluting days from
auto emissions, woodburning emissions and other polluting sources
occurs at the peak times. This is also some of the worst
atmospheric conditions also. The analysis should consider 1000
occupancy.
Mitigation should include the use of catalytic converters on the
woodburning units.
5. Visual
The block walls on Potato Patch are pleasing as smaller walls,
however, high and long stretches of these wa11s are not the most
attractive system.
Even revsgetated cut slopes and utility corridors will be a scar
on the landscape due to the site currently being heavily forested.
6. Engineerinq
The engineering section of the report states this is a summary of
the major improvements required to serve the subdivision. The
engineering report needs to provide more detailed reports to verify
the summaries.
Traffic
The engineering report states there are 120 VPD. in the
Atm section. ` It was reported there wou e a peak
0 240 VPD. The 240 appears to be a more realistic number.
Thi also cause the DHV to increase. The report states
the probability of this peak occurring is slight. However,
it will occur at the peak time of all the Town of Vail' s road,
so it does occur when it is most critical.
The modified T intersection appears unacceptable. However,
a proposed striping plan of this intersection will need to be
.pr.esented to _finalize the review.. This adds additional a ,
confusion and safety probiems to an already unsafe
intersection. The access point to the subdivision should
enter the Frontage Road at a 9O degree angle at a point where
intersecting movements can take place in a safe manner. The
Mountain Bell Tower road shouid be looked at as a possible
access point. The Town would like to receive copies of
correspondence with CDOH on this matter.
Streets
The street designs presented need to be looked at as two
street systems. The first being the public road section to
the proposed Forest Service access and the second being the
proposed private roadway system above the security gate.
Public Roadway Section
This roadway will experience many types of drivers and
vehicles because of its' location and the functions it serves.
The driver types that can be expected are as follows:
` ,.' 1. Property owners and hired help
� �� 2 . Deliver trash xemoval and other service industries
p},� Y,
V� including construction personnel
3 . Guest"s of property owners, both frequent and those
unfamiliar with the roadway conditions
4 . Emergency response personnel
5. Maintenance personnel
. General public such as:
a. Sightseers
b. Firework watchers and photography seekers due to
its' excellent elevated location across from Vail
� Mountain
7 . Forest access types such as:
� a. Woodcutters
b. Hikers
c. Hunters
8 . Other modes to be expected:
a. Pedestrians
b. Bikers
c. Horse riders and horse drawn vehicles
9. Tourists
10. Possible logging operations
The private roadway above the security gates will be utilized
mostly by the first group of users above general public.
It is the group of vehicles and driver mix of the general
public and forest access users in combination with the private
road uses :that r.equires .the r.oadway .design to be .carefully
thought out and designed appropriately to insure for a safe
roadway section.
The combination of width, (both paved roadway and shoulders) ,
grades, horizontal alignment, vertical alignment, severity of
roadway cut & fill slopes, severe weather conditions, drainage
facilities, sight distances, design speeds and vehicle and
driver mix that determine the requirements of a safe roadway.
The Town's minimum standards for the type of roadway based on
only the ADT from the report, which seems low when compared
to the traffic volumes experienced on upper Potato Patch above
770 this past summer� would be:
1�,��
Paved „j,� Leve1 Gravel Design Max Min.
Width ,��o�'� Shoulder Each Speed Grade Curve
Side % Radius
Public Sec. 22 �� 3 ' 30 8 6a
Private Sec. 22 �' 2 ' 3a 8 5a
However, when all the additional design factors are
considered, it is apparent minimum standards may not apply.
The final determination will be made once the whole roadway
is designed. This includes providing X-sections, sight
distance checks, guardrail locations and determining final
drainage improvements.
Based on the reliminar plans provided, it is recommended the
public section of roadwa shou e 24 ' wide - gravel
ou ers or cur s with 2 ' pans, maximum qrades of 80, provide
a-d'e a�e si—T�"d�.s�ances and uardrails where downsi'T'e slopes
exceed^3: 1. The presence of walls, severe s� or
guardrails and steep grades provide an effective width of 2a ' .
This is the minimum width two vehicles could pass each other
at reasonable driving speeds. The actual width provides some
room to still have vehicles able to safely see and pass a
parked car, pedestrian or bicyclist.
The private section of roadway should be 22 ' wide, 2 ' -3 '
gravel shoulders or curbs with 2 ' pans, maximum grades of 80,
provide adequate sight distances and guardrails where downhill
slopes exceed 3 : 1. The presence of walls, severe side slopes
or guardrail and steep grades provide an effective width of
18 ' . This is the absolute minimum two cars could slowly pass
each other. The additional width allows some minimal space
for pedestrians or bicyclists.
_ _
. �
Grades in excess of 8% should not be allowed due to the severe
weather conditions experienced in Vail. The necessity of
emergency vehicles to negotiate grades above 8o is asking for
trouble. Police and medical response vehicles do not have 4
wheel drive vehicles. Fire trucks are 4 wheel drive, however,
when a pumper tank is fully, a 40,000 lb. vehicle has
difficulty climbing grades of 8%, much less grades above this.
Emergencies do not wait for the roads to be plowed and sanded.
The reliability of a private maintenance contractor to
guarantee the roadway is passable to 2 wheel drive vehicles
and loaded fire trucks at all times is a heavy cost to pay.
In addition, the liability to all the parties involved,
including the Town of Vail, if a mishap occurred due to an
emergency vehicle not being able to respond is unthinkable and
will not be allowed to take place.
Public Works agrees with Fire Department' s comments concerning
the streets. The distinction between private and public
roadway sections should not be made for reviewing this
subdivision. The Town could be `approached at a later date to
accept the private sections of roadway as public roads, Many
private roads are offered to the Town. To preclude the Town
from taking the roads or putting any undue hardship on the
Town if these roads are accepted, the two sections should be
treated equally concerning the design.
The report should address street lighting.
A standard turnaround needs to be constructed at the Security
gate to allow people to safely turn around if they travel up
this roadway.
Drainaae
The report states a Master Drainage Report has been completed.
This needs to be submitted for review before comments can be
made on drainage concerns.
7 . Social Econamic
The study reports "As is the case of all new subdivisions in the
Town of Vail, the developer is responsible for providing the
subdivision with all necessary utilities, infrastructure and roads-
designed to Town specifications" . This subdivision is not
providing this.
It states that 3/4 of the caretaker's units will be occupied - the
Atmospheric assumed 1/2 of the caretakers will be occupied.
The estimated sales tax assumes a caretaker's household wage of
$40, 000. This appears high in additian to raom, utilities and
possible .boa-rd. The estim�ted expenditu�e o-f $68, 000 being spent
in stores in` Vail by the permanent residents seems high. These
people could shop anywhere for what they need. I wouldn't expect
that type of expenditure from them in Vail.
Al1 the economic benefits assume immediate build out of the
subdivision to compare against the costs borne by the Town which
will be realized immediately after construction of the roadways.
If the estimated full economic benefit is to be compared to an
incremental preceived additional cost, a better comparison would
be full benefit to full cost.
Therefore, the cost of maintaining the road should not be excluded
from the comparison. These road maintenance costs need to be
included and power costs for street lights. These costs need to
be added to the cost of an overlay every 7-10 years to keep the
road in good shape.
The water pumping costs - is this cost for any specific head?
Also, these residences are larger and are required to have
irrigated landscaping. It would appear their use is higher than
an average household. The estimate only figures an average week -
there are also peak times which add to this cost. Like the
streets, the cost of the utility maintenance costs need to be
included into the comparison.
Livery stable relocation and the forest roadway connection past the
subdivision needs to be addressed with proposed grades, widths etc.
Application for a Variance
Roadway grade variance should not be allowed by the PEC. Pre-
application conference will also need to be set up with the
Town Engineer on Engineering Variances.
Adjacent property owner's list does not include Crossroads
Shopping Center
Forest Service should obtain a fee simple ROW verses an
easement in the swap of properties. This agreement should not
be signed until the final street construction plans are
approved, the roadway is constructed and accepted.
In regards to the Upper Eagle Valley Water letter, it states
any additional fire service that needs to be added to those
already existing will be paid by those requesting the service
- does this mean the Vail Fire Department?
. �'
Site Development Standards
llr�i-nage .
An additional item should be added, that runoff from driveways
should be intercepted and not allowed to run onto the roadway
surface.
The rest of the conditions cause problems with the underlined
caution at the bottom of page IV-4 . There appears to be a
contradiction in these standards.
Grading/Slopes
It states that in severe circumstances, the maximum cut and
fill slopes shall be 2: 1, Also, these design guidelines
suggest that slopes greater than 2 :1 will not be revegetated.
The extent of these slopes need to be identified. Soi1s
report says fill slopes greater than 10 ' and cut slopes
greater than 15' need to be analyzed for other slope
treatments. Length needs to be defined in discussing cut and
fill slopes.
Access/Driveways/Parking
Maximum grades of 8% unless individually approved by Town
Engineer. Adequate snow storage and trash enclosures should
also be addressed in this section. Driveways on north side
of house are bad.
Architectural
The standards report foundations shall be designed by an
n-�_-.��'� professional engineer. Please define this.
Chimneys
Require catalytic converters.
Trash Containers
Define trash containers and there placement must be reviewed
before constructed.
Landscaping
Provide low maintenance area minimum 8 ' wide for roadway snow
storage. Irrigation causes problems of groundwater. Erosion
control measures need to read "shall" in both paragraphs.
�g
.� . � r �. �:
� _ _.._
i
�� . .. .. � . .. . � .. . ' ,
�, i•O: Tow� Council
FROM: �ommunity 17evel�pmen� Department
DATE: October 2, 1990
REs ApPeal of 'Planning and Environmental Cammission
deca.sion tca appro�e a road grar3e variance, retaining
wall height�v�riance and preliminary plan for the
pxoposed Spracldl�e Creek major subdivision.
APPlicants Mr. George` Gillett `Jr.
On 'Sept+ember 24, 1990, the Planning and Environmer�tal 'Commission
, unanimousty approved the �reliminary plan; re�ai 'ng wall :height
variance, and road grade variance by ;a vote o -U, Chu�k. Cris.t
abstained from the vot�e and Conn,ie Kni ht was b , T�le....t.�Q
va ' ' rove with the condition that the preliminar
pl an' final plat receive f�.nal apprcava . �minary pian
wa wi e o ow�ng cond� �o s (comments in bold are
changes/addi�ions made by the Planning Commissionj :
1.. The prflposed roa�d grades and retaining wall heights are
maximums for the subdivision. If it is determined by
staff through the final plat review andjor building
permit, or construction phase that road grades and
- retaining wall heights may be further redu+ced, the
applicant will agree to do so. ' The final plat
submittal 'will provide a thorough analysis of the soil `
nailing and tie rod system for cut walls in order to
minimize site disturbance.
2. Construction guideiines will be used during 'the actual
building phase for the wall and road improvements. see
Section on EIR Wall Analysis of this memo,
3°. A grading easement on the southwest corner of the
property will allow the Town of Vail the right to grade
onto this portion of the property if and when the North
Frontage Road is extended to the east below the
subdivision to create a new underpass connecting to
Blue Cow Chute.
4. An agreement finalizing �the stable relocation and
reclamation of the existing livery site will be
submitted with the` final plat information.
5. The conditions for lots having "slopes over 30� will be
applied to the subdi�ision. This section of the code
is 18:69.050 A-D, F-I, ` K and L.'
1
. .. . . . � .. . . . . � .. . � .. . .. fi' ..
. . . . . .. . .. � � .. �
6. Site coverage shall be limited to 80 tc� 100� of the
� a114wable !GRFA fc�x eaeh lot. This `condition will be
� � � f�inalized� at final pla°�. ����- ���'���
.7�. If a fi.replace is desired by the owner; gas appliances
or gas logs sha11 be used in all caretaker units. � ����;,
� � ,. � �� . � . �. . k ��".
8. A' chai�n link fence around t�.e cuiyert at th� ����;",.
subdivision +entry will be removed and a more aesthetic `
barrier proyided with appropriate landscaping if
allfl�ed by ths Colorado Division of �iqhways.
9. The six spruce trees by th+e subdivision entrance on th
south side of Gillet� Road shall be relocated.�� 5����'�
� � � ��� �'5�;. �
1�. A1.1 Fire Depaxtment standards and re�uirements per the � ���«
,
l+ett�er from Mike NicGee dated August 2, 1990' shail be � � .�
complied with by the owner' or as otherwise �n+�+dified. . {
11-. Before �ny building permits are releaseci for the
subdivision and once the subdivision receives final
pi�t approval, the appropriate '!easements allowing for
public access shall be recorded per the Forest `Service
requirements.
12. Six faot paved shoulders on either side of the Frontage
Rc�ad for a public bike path shall be provided by the
developer:
13. All construction on each lot shall occur within
building envelopes. The building envelopes shall be
adjusted per the revised staff ;plan dated September 7,
199� before final plat. Staf,f and applicant to
determine what will be allowed outside the envelope at
final plat.
14. All construction for the subdivision shail comply with
requirements found within the Environmental Impact
Report for the project.
15. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding
material for sanding the private road within the
subd�vision p�r the approval of the' Town of Vail
Environmental `Health Departmenfi.
� ,
� � �
16:. The open space tracts within the subd9.vision shall be
_ ��� rezoned to Green Belt :Open 5pace at the same time the
final plat is seviewed. Additional greenbelt open
space areas will be added adjacent to the Forest
Service switchback, Lot 5/6 switchback, and secondary
road per 'the staff amendments to the September 7, 1990
preliminary plan.
2
.�
� � � � � � � �� � � � � �
�
�
17. The owner of the subdivision shall maintain the `road
through the subdivision from the entry gate up to the
top of the subdivision, This maizatenance also includes
ail common areas, retaining walls, and landscaping.
The owner also agrees to be responsible for '
es�abla.��i,n,�.� e landscaping along the publa.c road for
a wo tca three�+ear periQd from planting of 'the
ma -s:•-----t3�ce the landseaping is established and
acce�ted by the Tnwn of �Tail Landscape Archi.tect, the
Town will take oyer the responsibility of the retaining
walls and 'landscaping,
18. Pedestri.an and pub3.ic access shail be aliowed on the
iower portion of Gillett Road extending from the
F'rontage Road up to the subdivision gate.
�.,, : � <3.
� 19'.��. Three caretaker units each 'having a maximum square �,am
��°���;�,:`� foQtage of 12fl� sq`. ft. shall be pravided within the
subdivision an Lots 14, 15, and possibly Lot l. The '
separation of the Lot 1 caretaker unit is under staff � , '
consideration. The units will be pe�nanently ,
- Yestricted per section 18.13 .080 (10) a-d of the Town 1t�"�.
of Vail Zoning Code. Conditions on the 3 employee ���j,�
units will be resolved at final plat. "'"� '
20. The architectural guidelines shall be 'amended as
followsc
a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as
extremely steep slopes.
,�.� ' �� b. �Sod sha11 be al].owed around th�e perimeter� of
�'�' residences but large lawn areas are not
encouraged.
c. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 8$ unless
approved by the Town of Vail Engineer.
d. Irrigation by retaining walls for the subdivision
shall be prohibited.
e. No chain link fence is allowed within the
subdivision even for dog runs. If dog runs are
proposed, another type of open fencing should be
used.
21. All construction within the subdivision shall comply
with the Town of Vail hazard ordinances found in
Section 18.69
3
�
� ���
� . . . . � .. � .. . � ' � � � fl
22, No on-site livery shall b� allowed within the
subdivision.
23. A�pens and la ge shrubs shall be used on all retaining
wal l s.°°��t o�dl.� .� �� ,
24. Al1 hazard areas shail` be ex+cluded f:om contributing
site area ;to Lots 34, 5, and 4 for GRFA or site
coverage.
The Planning and Environmental CQmmission recommend�ed
specifically that the applicant work on reduaing the road grade
to the livery .and a],so rQfine the architecturai guidelines. The
PEC also recomm+er�ded that the applicant be responsible for
maintenance of the landscaping along; the ;pubiic road for a two to
three year period after the landscaping has beQn estabiished ` -
rather than two to three years after planting.
4
� { ' . .� . . . . . . " , . .. . ., „ . . . .
Ci'����.�.
� T0; Planning and Environmental Commission � ��
FRC�M; Communit Develo ment �e artment ��
Y P . P
DATE: September, 24, 1990
RE: A request to approve �he preliminary plan for a major
subdivision, a request for a variance tc� the maximum
height for retaining walls, and a request for a
variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a
parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an
_.
approximate 4D acre par�el located north and east of
the Main Vail I-70: interchange 'and east of the Spraddle
� Creek` livery. '
� Applicants George Gillett, Jr.
I. THE REQUEST
Spraddle Creek is a fc�rty acre pareel located n�rtheast of
the Main Vail Interchar�ge, Mr, George Gillett Jr. is the
owner of the property. The prop�rty is surrounded by White
River Natianal Forest land on the north,; east, west,` and`
south. I-7D right-of-way is located adjacent to' Spraddle
Creek�s southwestern boundary. The applicant is requesting
approval for a major subdivision, a variance to the percent"
grade for the roadway,: and a variance to retaining wall
heights, The property was ar�nexed into the Town of Vail - in
January of' 1985 and Hillside Residential zoning was applied
in November of 1987 by 'Ordinance No. 38, Series of 1987.
Below is a summary of the subdivision proposal, some of
which has been taken from the applicant's praject notebook.
This section of the memo provides an overview of the: key
components of the project and also explaitis the two variance
requests.
A. 14 Hillside Residential Lots:
The proposed subdivision is comprised of 14 residential
lots. Each lot will be allowed a main dwelling unit
plus one caretaker unit which is required to be
attached to the main unit, ; or may be integrated within
the garage structure serving the main unit, but shall
not be a separate freestanding structure. The
caretaker. unit shall not exceed 1200 sq. ft. of GRFA.
This zone district requires that the caretaker unit not
be subdivided or sold separately from the main unit.
The caretaker `unit will be limited to one gas fireplace
or gas appliance, The owner has agreed to provide a `
minimum of three caretaker, units within the- subdivision
and said units will be located on Lots 14 and 15, A
careta;:er unitJgate house is also being considered for
1
. .. . .. .. � . A .
. „� . . . . . . � .. . ( ; � .
�
Lc3t 1. The c�ate house unit would be located to the
south of Gillet� R.oad ``on Lot 1. This uni�t would be
used by an on-site manager for` the `entire subdivision,
The issues of separation af units and owner�ship need to
be reso3ved (please see th� attached zoning summary
sheet fer a breakdown of lot size, ''builc�ing envelope,
GRFA, ar�d site cov�ragej .
B. 8uilding Envelopes:
Envelopes have been est�blished for each lot indicating
the limits of construction and' building, No
development is proposed to be located beyond the
boundary of any building envelope.
C. Site Coverage:
Site coverage` is to be reduced from t.he allowed 15$ of
tt�tal' site area und+er Hillside Residential to an amount
equivalent tp` the allowab�.e GRFA. 'This issue wi3.l be
resol�ved at fin�l plat to insure that a reasonable
- amount of site coverage is available.
D. Access:
The subdivision will be accessed by a road beginning at
the North Frontage Road and extending through the
existing livery site and to th� east side of the
subdivision. The connecting road passes through U.S.
Forest Service property. The Forest Service has agreed
'to allow access to the subject property upon the final
platting of the project and upon compliance with the
terms of the letter dated November 12, 1987 to Jay
Peterson. A gate will be located on the owner',s
property at the entrance to the subdivision. Upon
completion and acceptance, the road will become a
public road maintained by the Town of Vail. From this
point on, the road wiTl be a private road extending up
to the top of the !subdivision. . The public will have
access from "the North 'Frontage<Road up to the gate. A
cul de sac is located `on the Iower must eastern switch
back.
The applicant proposes that the Town of Vail mainta:n
the public section of the road and the owners of the
subdivision shall maintain the:private section. 'The
private part of the road is 2300 l.f. and has grades
froia 7. 0� to 8.0�. The secondary spur road (access to
Lots '1-6) , 670 l.f. at 8.8o will also be maint�ined by
the owner. The Town of Vail will maintain the 3900
1.f. 'of road from the Frontage Road to the gate. This
portion of the road has grades from 8. 0 to �.6$.
2
* � ,
The linea], footage of fihe roadway �rom the Frontage >
Road up to �he t4p of the subdivision is agproximately
+/- 6,2+�Gt l.f, Tn addition there is a secondary
roadway of 670 ft,
The road right-of-way is 50 ft. The asphal.t width is '
22 f�. ancl has a minimum 2 ft. of shoulder on the
downhi7.1 side of the road with curb' and! gutter proposed
for the uphill side (2 ft. standard section) . Pavement
and roaclbed widths will be widened in switchback areas
and shoulder widths will be widened to aocommodate
guard rails as xequired.
A variance is 'requested to allow the road ta be
designed to a :grade which exceeds the maximum allowable
` grade of 8� per the Subdivision Regulations, Section `
17.28,300, The ov+erall average gracle of the road is
7:,88� if th+e secc�ndary roadwa� ;is also included. The
steepest grade is 8.8��. Below is a chart shc�wing the
length of road which meets various percent grades.
Lineal Feet Percent Grade
250 1.f. , @ 3.85%
200 l. f. ' @ . 4.27�
4'00 l. f. @ 6. 00� <
500 l.f. @ 7 .`00�
2300 l. f. @ 8. 00� ;
2600 1,f. @ 8.59%
650 1°.f. @ 8.80�
6900 l. f. Total
A road grade variance is required for 3250 l,f. of
roadway that exceeds the '8% maximum and falls within
the range above 8� to 8.800. 47% of the roadway
requires a variance.
Approximately 200 lineal feet (1. f. ) beyond the cul de
sac, a gravel access road leading up to the new livery
site and Forest Service trail head is proposed. This
road has a maximum grade of approximately 16�.
' E. Retair�„ing Walls:
Retaining walls are proposed to accommodate the
subdivision road. A variance is required for walls
which exceed the °maximum height allowed of 6 ft. The
section of the code which relates to retaining wall
heights is found in Section 18.58. 020.
3
The maximum wall height prop�s�d �s 8�_g'". Total
li�eal. wall length is 6179 feet. Below �.s a chart
sshowing the break down' of wall h�ight to l�ength of
wall. These figures are as accurat� as posszble given
the ievel of design work required at preliminary plan.
Piease keep in mind that these numbers may vary;
siightl�r at final ,plat.
ei ht Length of W�11
8'-1"' to 8'-8" ! 291 1.f.
6! to 8' '' 2663 1.f.
lower than 6' 3225 1. f.
Total% 6179 ,l. f.
In some areas, the 8 ft. to 8 '-8" high wa.11s will be
terra�ed with a 1� ft. bench between each wall. The
maximum number of terraces; propQSed is three. These 3
terraeec� walls ha�e a maximum eombined h�ight of 30 `ft.
This situation is fc�und at the eastern mc�st switchback
on U.S. Forest Service property at the lower end of the
subdivision, the switchback adjacent to Lots � and 6,
and the intersection of the seoondary road accessing
` Lots l-6. ' The applicant proposes to build the
retaining walls with a colored, split'-face, concrete
block veneer using a geogrid support system.
U�'�.�v
Type Length Height of Number
Location ; of Wall : of WaTl Tiered wall of Tiers
Forest Service Fill 316 l.;f. 19 ft. 2
Switchback
Forest Service Cut 236 1.f. 30 ft. 3
Switchback ,
Lots 5 & 6 Fill 130 T.f. 30 ft. 3
Switchback
Lots 5 .& 6 �Cut 79 l.f. 30 ft. 3
Switchback
Secondary Road Fill 135 l. f. 30 ft. 3
to Lots 1-6
In swnmary, a wall height variance is necessary for
2954 1.f. of wall above 6 ft. , not to exceed 8'-8" or
47.8� of the wall length.
4
_� .
F. Landscape and Irrigation for Retain�.nq Wali Areas:
The applicant propc�ses ' to revege�ate with agproximately
the same number of trees and shrubs per' acre as
currently exist on a11 disturbed areas within the
subdivision. The appiicant s�ates that' the
concentration of plants will be hea�vier alon+g the walls
and lightex a.n l�ss visible areas. ' Mos� plan�
materials '�a be used wi11 be native to the site.
Native vines will �.lso be introduced some of which were
not s�en on the site. Test p1+�ts hav+� been 'established
this summer in the Potato Patch area to de�ermine the '
most appropriate vines for the final planting plan. '
Grasses to be reseeded> will be native to the site as
much as possible. Blue Spruce and Aspen will be the
�YPes of trees inciudecl in `the reveg�tation ;plan.
��'� ��,�'��'�+�� :�x�� ���.� ��?�f��+��;�� '���. a ��.� ,�a�'
������s, ���s�nd��a��ed��.������.�������������-��������ect
� ���. �����w. �.� � � � � �..
�-�n��+��±��. The terraces between the' walis wi11 be
seeded with grasses, forbes, ancl shrubs and planted
with vines and possibly small one to ten gallon size
shrubs and smali trees sucfi as `aspens. It is expected
that cut walls built above the road will average only 2
feet between the road and the bottom c�f' wall. Planting
pockets will be made wherever possible to allow
planting of trees and shrubs.
�p�uce ��ees �ia�r 3a� �se�«�i�..,��a�e�.�i�p �� ���i� ,��� �,r�3�.�`.
� only� i�f there ��is room �to place ��them a sufficient � � ��
distance away from the wall (approximately 12 ft. ) .
��The top of the fill walls will get various treatments,
�depending on slope and if there is a guard rail. Areas
�ith guardrail will be planted with aspens and fill
��lopes without the guardrail will be planted with
�maller shrubs, forbes`, and grasses. The base of the
� �� r�y .
,�i31 slopes will be planted with aspen, spruce, and
�ative shrubs.
With respect to irrigation, a permanent system will not
be installed due to the potentiai for accidental water
seepage into the wall if the system failed. One of two
temporary, irrigation methods for watering the wall
plantings;' are proposed. The first method wouid be to
5
' 9,�
water `th� p�ant materials by hand fr�m a portable water
tank, The sec�nd methQd would be to place several
small tanks at the top of the walls with drip tubing
and emitters gc�ing to each plant. The tanks would then
be fi�.led by a water truck at periodio intervals so
that if there was a malfunction, there would not be any
signifiaant< water seepage. This system would then be
�removed after the plants were established,
The subdivision c�wners would maintaiz� the wa3ls and
landscaping on the private section of the road. The
Town of Vail would be responsibie for maintaining the
walls "and 'landscaping c�n the lower/public road up to
the subdivision gate once the plant'materials are
established and accepted by the Town of Vail Landscape
Architect, in approximately 2 t� 3 years.
Staff would also like tQ see a iandscape plan for the
entry ;to the subdivision at the' North Fronta+g� Road.
Tl�e design should consider the planting cc�ncept in the
Town of Vail Landscape Improvement Plan for this area.
G��1 ������i������������•
_�,��,�,.�,.,,�.,T.. � � : �.- �"..,.��.,..�x'��,.�
A jug "handle intersection is proposed for the Frontage
Road and entry to the subdivision. The Colorado
Division of Highways (CDOHj access permit has been
approved for the project. It is included in the
project notebook, A 6 ft. shoulder for a bike path
will also be provided on either' side of the 'Frontage
Road begi�ning at the 'entrance to the subdivision and
extending west' approximately 300 to 500 'ft. `
H. Drainage:
The drainage system will consist of 'both surface and
storm :sewer routing. Surface drainage alonq the roads
will be contained by curb and gutter or in limited
areas by ditches. 'Where the run-off velocities in the
ditches exceed acceptable velocities rock check
structures are proposed for erosion control.
The propased storm sewers along with the drop ,inlets
will control the drainage along the' curb and gutter
sections. Storm sewer `outlets will discharge
frequently using energy dissipaters `to siow down the
outlet velocities to minimize the erosive effects. The
majority of the runoff will lead to Spraddle Creek.
Portions of the storm runoff will be discharged into
the natural drainage swale to the east of the property.
Prior to release into Spraddle Creek, a sedimentation
,' 6
- basin will be utilized to control both sedimentation
and water velocity. During construction of the
projeet, storm runoff will be routed �hrough temporary ,
se��.mentation basins. .
T. Water.
The water; s�stem will connect to the sxi.sting Upper
Eagie Valley Water syst�m at the loc�tion of the T-7U
Fronta+ge RQad and Spraddle Creek en�rance. ` Because of
the �elevation 'variation on the ;pr4ject site, a booster
pump station will be necessary on the law end of the
proj��ct. The `pump station will pump into a' storage
tank iocated near the northwest corner of Lot 12. A
water storage tank af 350,000 to 180,000 gallons is
proposecl for the prc�ject. ` The `tank wauld be located
underground at the west corner of Lot 12 adjacent to
the property 1ine. Placement of fire hydrants and
siting of the :storage tank will be per the Town of Vail
Fire Uepartment re�uirements. The water system
including valves, piping, and construction wili 'comply
with the Upper Eagle Va31ey Water and Sanitation
District xequirements. The water system will be placed
in road right-of-way and utility easements '(see `the
attached subdivision preliminary plan for location of
easements) .
J. Sewer System•
A sanitary sewer system will connect to an existing
manhole located southwest of the Town of Vail
Transportation Center. The crossing of T-7U wi11 be
accomplished by utilizing a bore under the 'Interstate
Highway. A new bore will have to be pxovided along
side the two existing 10 in. ductile iron p'ipes under
I-7U to accommodate the sewer. The system wiil be
gra�ity flow and will be located within` road right-of-
way and utility easements. All materials, design, and
construction procedures will comply with the Upper
Eagle Va11ey Sanitation District requirements.
K. Electric and Other Utilities:
Holy Cross Electric has an existing overhead high-
voltage line crossing the project site. This line will
be placed ur�derground. However, the subdivision will
not be served by this line ; (please `see the ;preliminary
plan for the route of 'the subdivision service line) .
All other utilities (gas, telephone, and cable T.V. )
will be placed underground within the road right-of-way
and within specified utility easements.
7
L.' Liver}�:
The owners intent is to relc�cate the existing livery to
a bench to the east of the subclivision on Forest
Service property. The' parking and traii head access
for Fores� Service land will also be prs�vided in the
area of the livery, This site will'' be accessed by a
gravel road extending to the east in the approximate
locatic�n of the gate for the subdivision. The existing
livery site will be reclaimed and revegetated by the
owner. Several cabins, tents, a stable, and corrals
wili be relocated `at the new livery location. At this
tim�e, the agreement between the owner of the stable,
Mr. Mark Wentworth, and the owner of the subdivision
has not been finalized. An agreemen� was appxoved in
1985, however, this agreement has ea�pired. ' The
applicar�t and owner of' the livery are in the process of
working on the agreement. ''A new Forest Service special
use permit is also necessary, The appiicant will
submit the livery agreement at final plat.
M. xazaras:
Rockfall Hazard, Debris Flow and Debris' Avalanche
Hazard zones from the Sown of Vail `1984' studies were
extended into the subdivision area. The hazard zones
include and are located as followsc
1. Rockfall, to 'the west of Spraddle Creek; and
2. Rockfall, along the southern edge of property; and
3. Debris flow,' along the Spraddle Creek drainage.
The rockfall hazard zones are located away from any
proposed development. No lots are included` in the
Rockfall Hazard Zones:' The debris flow has` a potential
t� restrict traffic along the access road.
The owner has also agreed to comply with Section
18.69.050 of the Town af Vail Zoning Code which
outlines special restrictions for development on lots
where the average slope of the site beneath` the
proposed structure and parking area is `in excess of
30�. " The Sections that would apply to •this' subdivision
include "18.69.050 A-D, F-I, K and L.
8
� N. Pedest�ianfVehicular Access:
The utili�y easemen� through Lot 12 and a portic�n of
the old road bed at the top of �he subdivision, which
provides access to the domestic water storage tank,
have also been designat�d as a p�destrian easement for
use by the residents of the Spraddle C�eek Subdivision;
The owner has also agr+eed to provicle a 'pedestrian
easement along Spraddle Greek within the subdivision.
Public ac+cess to Forest Service I,and is provided at the
lower switchback on the east boundary of the site. The
Forest Service access easement on the northern portion
of the proposed subdivision will be relocated to match
the lower public access road as a condition of final
plat approval.`
O. Open Space:
The owner has agreed to rezone the open space tracts to
"Greenbelt Upen Space"` at the same time the final plat
is submitted, However, the applicant wishes to
maintain ownership c�f the prQperty as opposed `to
deeding the land to the Town o€ �Iai�. , 'Greenbelt areas
are designate.d for, land in between' road switchbacks and
the hillside area below the lower :subdivision road
leading up to the 'entry gate.
P. , Architectura� :Guidelines:
Architectural Guidelines are proposed with the
' subdivision. The guidelines would be administered by
� �, . _
° �� �� t�e Spraddle Greek Design Review Board. Approval of
' ; the Spraddle Greek Design Review Board. would be
required before a proposed ;residence could be submitted
= to the Tflwn of Vail Design ,Review Board, The Spraddle
� �� Creek� Design Review Board would be responsible for�
� � enforcing their guidelines, The Town of Vail would be
= a party to. the covenants and would have to review and
" approve any changes to' the covenants. The guidelines
,; also address site planning and .landscape concerns.
Q. Construction Phasincx:
The applicant has submitted a phasing plan but has
decided to submit ,a revised phasing �+1an at final plat
when the scheduling of. the construction can be more
accurately planned. Phasing is effected by the timing
of requested approvals for the project.
9
II. > ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT SUMMARY °
Below 'is a summary of the staff er�mments on the '
environmental impaet report' �EIR) , '
A. 12etaining' Wails,(Slope Stabilitv/Drainage:
1'. Walls:
Because of concern regarding ground water and also
the desire to minimize disturbed areas, the
propos�d soil nailing system is parti�ularly
relevant' for 'the large cut walls. ' The applicant
is asked to address the possible use of either a
' soil nailing or grouted tie rodJpanel retaining
system in the extreme cut sections as soon as
possible. The locations for this ;syst+em to be`
considered are STA 34+40-39+04 and STA 50+00-
52+Oi3.
In addition, 'preliminary d�si+gns of the worst case
retaining walis must be computed. ' (Worst case
being, 8'-8'" 'fiil wall with traffic loading, 8 '-g"
cut wall, �riple tier full wall with traffic load,
triple tier cut wa11) . Preliminary design should
be approved by both the Geotechnical Engineer and
the wall design Engineer. The iatest Geotechnical
report only states the accepted bearing ,capacity
of the soils is 5000 lbs/sq. ft. This report
shouid also address maximum slor�es above the wall,
the phi angle of the soil (older reports give 2
different ones) , the unit weight of the soil, and
the soil 'parameters which` the wall designers need
in� evaluating the' walls. Based on agreed upon
soil parameters, the wall -technology needs to be
looked at for the four worst case s�cenarios. The
walls overall stability regarding faiTure `to
overturning, sliding and bearing pressure in
addition to fabric strength needs to be
determined. 'From this information, the areas of
disturbance can truly be determined and the need
to look at other wall technologies ,can' be
evaluated,
The project's cross-sections as submitted show no
cut or fill slopes greater than 2 :1. There will
be specific areas during final design 'and
construction where slopes greater 'than 2:1 could
be beneficial to the overall project. Approval to
exceed slopes greater than 2:1 must be received
first from the project's design/geotechnical
engineers and landscape architeGt. Secondly, the
- 10
. �� � �
�c��a �� '��,�,� ,����,.���. �a�.����r, „��'�w��,���g��:nee� a��
F��"'"'���������,,����.�� ��fst ��r���.#. -a�c� ��pr.��v'Y �rn�
_�s�:c����.,e��e�d�.�s� ,���.�. - v �
. �
Construction guid�3ines should be used during the
F ` actual construction of the prQject. These
� � guidelin+�s should include;` � � � _
a. Encourage the eliminatiQn` of walls; and
` b. Vary slope grades and undulate the slope
lines: and
c. Provide planting pockets where possible; and
d, 8ave significant vegetation or rock
outcroppings through 'use of steeper grades,
' ; ����smal��l boul,der wal3.s, ��or minor�� road �� � � �� � � � �
�� � � �; �:Y ��� ��real ignm�en�t; �: and ' � � �
= e. Maintain' maximum 2:1 slopes on fill walls
with plantings in front of wall.
.� � � �
,�,
°-f. The proj ect will .be slope staked prior to the
beginning of the clearing', grubbing and
-� � j ��� topsoil removal operatians. �Town��staff�� will
walk the project `and `approve the limits of
aonstruction. During construction, if
significant geological features appear which
; s enhance the final project, the Town staff
��y� ; should be notified to possibly incorporate
these into the design.
2. Slope Stability/Hazards:
Staff concurs with the Koechlein Consulting
Engineers' recommendations on P��ge ll of the
December 17, 1985 report concerning slope
stability. The report states.
; '�The stability af slopes are greatly
influenced by surface and groundwater
condita.ons. We recommend' that al`1 surface
and subsurface drainage an this site be
carefully designed and constructed so that
the 'existing stability of` slopes can be
maintained, A1.1 'areas should' be carefully
sloped to reduce `the possibil'ity `of
infiltration of surface water into cut and
fill slopes. In addition,' all water should
be directed away from the face of cut and
fill slopes to reduce the risk of significant
11
er�sion. Some drainage areas may need
stabilizing wi�h rip rap nr other erosion
controi materials."
� The site does have geczlogic hazards. No housing
� is proposed in any hazard area, From the hazard
reports, it is evident that hazarcls will need to
� � � � y„� be addres�ed during the constructic��a of� the��� roacl
� �,�. to insure�� saf�ty. �� �
3. Surface Drainage:
Ko�chlein re�commends in their December 1985 report
that surface water be 'directed away fram the top
of a13 slopes so that signifi+cant erosion or
possible infiltration of water into t'he slopes
wiil 'not occur, They .also state that a fabric for
reducing surface erosion be considered for the
faces of all disturbed slopes• �legetation should
be g�rown on these slopes as soon as possible to
reduce any erosion. Staff agrees with this
approach to the surface drainagn and believes that
the existing plans incorporate these design
considerations.
These concerns will be fully addressed in the
• final construction plans. '
The report from Koechlein concludes that `
excavations for the road and water tank should be
inspected to �erify that subsurface conditions are
as an�icipated by the explorato.ry boring.
Placement and compaction of fill as well as the
installation of retaining wall systems or soil
retaining systems wil'1 be' inspected during
construction and the developer shall have a soils
testing technician on` site to 'ensure compliance
with the' strict construction specifications. -
B. Revegetation:`
Overall, ;the proposed revegetation plan submitted for
roadways and walls is `acceptable. The applicant has
stated that all disturbed 'areas will be revegetated to
the same approximate density which exists today on the
site. Indigenous species of plant materials will be
used as much as possible. ' The concentration of
plantings will be heavier 'at the walls.
12
_ Much of the wall plan�ting is dependent upon the results
obtained from th� test p3.ots in Potato Patch. These ,
results will not be avaiiab],e until next year. Staff
will 30+�1� at this m�re ' c�.c�sely wh�n the final landscape
plans and specifications are submitted at final plat.
In respect to irrigation of the landscape materials, a
d,rip system, qravity fed f�rom tanks, is probably a
warkable system. Proger maintenance to fill the tanks
and inspect the lIhE:S and emi�ters is critical to the
system's success. The owner shouid commit to ensure
the continuation of maintenance of `the system, until
all plants have been well established.
The Town of Vail Landscape 'Architect requests that the-
final ' landscape plan address what raill happen to the
six spruce trees east of the main en.tra�►ce along the I-
'70 off ramp, All six trees are within the construction
limit line. If they are �o be moved it should be done
this fa11 or next spr�.ng while 'the sap ,is not flowing;
C. Wildlife:
The wildlife section of the Environmenta3. Impact Report
states that "there will not be a significant impact on
wildl`ife in the area as a result of the proposed
project. "' Staff agrees with this statement as long as
the option for Lot 14 to have a iivery is not used.
The applicant has propased several methods to minimize
impacts on any wildlife in the area. Thes+e measures
include:
1. Any own�r with a dog will be required to have
`a dog run or' kennel which is°fenced to a
sufficient height to prevent the dog from
' jumping `out. This is a direct recommendation
from the Division of 'Wildlife which should be
incorporated into the covenants for the
' subdivision`.
2. The applicant has agreed to require that all
trash containers for `units must be bear
proof. This also complies with the Division
of Wildlife's tD.'O.W. ) concern on this issue.
'The D.O.W. has identified this area as being
`bear habitat. With the ongoing problem with
' garbage bears in 'the County, the Division is
'recommending all development in bear habitat
have bear proof containers. They also
13
;
recommen�ied that one central +garbage point `
would reduce ccast and iessen the problem with
garbage b�ars. T�is approach: should be used
;by �he applicant.
3, The dev�loper has also maintainsd the:
rQquested buffer zon+� bettaeen the Forest
Service property line and development in the
subdivision, The required distance is 60 ft.
This distanc+e will allow for an aclequate
' buffer between the residential development
'and surrounding �7.S. :Forest land. ;
4. The owner has agreed to use landscape
materials which are unpaiatable to wildlife.
The Division of Wild3ife states that by using
unpalatable landscaping items, the developer
,will reduce damage to landscaping caused by
wildiife {letter dated December 19, 1989 from
Bill Andr�, District Wiidlife' Manager)'.
D. Atmo�heric Conditions:
The Town of tlail's Environmental Health Officer
reviewed the original Air Quality Report and
recommend+ed that the analysis use the Vail Ualley
emission f�ctors from the Town of Uail Air Quality, May
1989, report. It was also required that total build-
out numbers be used for evaluati�ng the air impacts.
The report has been changed to incorporate these
concerns. The report states:
"PM 10 emission for the peak day (assume to
Christmas Holidays, 1990) will be approximately 24
lbs or 6/10 of l� of the PM 1O emissions expected
for the Vail Village area.!'
These numbers reflect that 1/2 ,'of the units will have a
woodburning fireplace and the caretaker units would
ha�e gas appliances or gas lags, The impact is also
due to road sanding. Because the subdivision will at
times` require heavy sanding during the winter the staff
believes it is appropriate 'to require the owner to use
the least polluting sandi�g material available. This
material would be ;submitted to the Town of Vail
Environmental Health Officer for review and approval.
The Town of Vail is also investigating materials which
are less polluting than the existing sanding materials.
14
- E,: Visual Im an ctz
The vi.ew analysis elearly indicates that there will be
visual impacts' resulting from the subdivision's walls, -
new road, housing, and livery relc�cation, These
`strucfiures will impact the view' of the present site
which ,is now predominantly a natura3 mountain setting.
The applicant ha.s proposed the followinc� mitigation"
measures to address the �view impacts.
1, 2'he final plat submittal will include a detailed
2andscape plan that wili address common open space
areas as well as the retaining walls for the
subdivision. Fill walls wi11 be screened by aspen
and spruce plantings, ' The applicant has agreed to
use the "grove planting a.rrangement�� to try and
create a natural appearance for the plantings.
This ',appr�ach is especially important on the lower
por�ion c�f Gillett Road from the Frontage Road up
fio the Forest Service switchbac'k. These walls are
particularly visible from �ail Village and VaiT
Mountain and must be screened adequately,
2: The major switchbacks 'shal'1 a3so include aspen and
.shrub plantings in the terraces between retaining
walis. This is a critical design element of the
landscape plan and wiTl help to mitigate the
impact of the'' terraced walls.
3, At final plat review, building permit, and actual
construction -of the project, the staff ,will
continu+e to try to reduce `the rQtaining wall
heights and eliminate walls when possible. This
design approach should minimize visual `impact as
much `as possible through each refinemez�t of the
retaining wal3Jroad design.
4. Because much of the site will be disturbed during
construction, ' an erosi'on control plan will be
submitted by the applicant to minimize erosion
during the construction process.
5, The building envelopes have been decreased in size
from what was originally proposed. This will
limit the disturbed areas and also concentrate
development, thereby decreasing visual impacts.
This approach will allow for more `of the natural
landscaping to remain and will' reduce the overall
disturbed area within the project.
15
6. Site coverage has also been reduced to 100� of the
ailowalale GRFA �o encourage c�eveiopment that is
mc�re compact an� less spread ou.t on the site.
7. Architectural guidelines are su:�mitted with the
proposal: Many of the guide�.ines will he3.p to
make the pro��ct as compatible as possible with
the surrounding site. Sod arc�und the perimet+er of
th+e house is �llower�. Staff recommends
discouraging large lawn areas. Retaining walls
are also recommended to be minimized and extremely
s��ep slopes are discouraged. ' A color board will
b� submitted at final plat to ensure that the'
range of colors for the houses'' will be attractive,
yet subdued. 4wners should aiso be required to
si.�e, their houses"using the natural terrain.
These eoncepts as weli as others within the
architectural guidelines wi31 encourage the
project to be as compatible as possible with the
s i�e.'
8: The owner has agreed to create open space areas in
the major switchbacks and to also maintain open
space in the 1c�wer portion of the site. The owner
will rezone these portions of the project to
Greenbelt Open Space at the final 'plat review of
the subdivision. This site planning approach will
help a great deal to minimize the visual impacts
of the project on the Vail community.
In summary, the staff concludes that although there
wili be visual impacts because of the man made
development on the site, the applicant `has proposed
measures to off-set the visual impacts 'as much as
possible. The proposed mitigation measures are
acceptable to staff.
F. Circulation and Transportations
1. Frontage Road Intersection`
The applicant has obtained a CDOH access permit
for the project. A left turn 'lane for east bound
traffic wi�.1 be provided at the project entrance.
The intersection for the development, once
constructed, will `be further to the east to allow
greater separation between the' project
intersection and the west bound off ramp of I-70.
In addition, 6 ft. shoulders will 'be provided on
each side of the widened Frontage Road to
accommodate future bike lanes as proposed in the
Town of Vai1 Recreation Trails Master Plan.
36
,
2. Emergency Accessibility
� The major portic�n of the road grade exeeeding Town
� s�andards will be maintained by �he Town of Vail.
The addition of the first turnaround will give '`the
Fire 'nepartment the abilit� to' travel 37�� ft. and
turn around or go an additi.onal 32U(3 ft. before
reaching ;the top. Some houses cannc�t be accessed
within 150 ft. on all sides and these houses will
need 'to be internall.y 'sprinklered.
3. Road Grade
The road grades have been refined numerous times
to aci�ieve a balance between a 3ow' road grade and
low retaining, walls. At this time, 47� of the
road exceeds the 8% maximum grade, ' but does not
exceed 8.8�; In other w+�rds, a variance is
reguired fsar a 0,8o increase i.� road grade. The
Town `enc�ineer' believes further'" refinement of the
ro�d 'grade will be required at final plat in order
to fine �tune the relationship crf gr�des to '
retaining walls. However, staff believes that the
road 'grade has been designed to an' acc+eptable
grade at this time given site constraints.
4. Driveway Grade
The driveways for each lot shall meet Town of Vail
standards for 8� and if grades exceed 8�, the Town
Engineer'`s approval shall be required. Driveway
grades must be refined at final plat to insure
safe 'access to each lot.
5. Public Access
Public access to the Forest Service trailhead and
livery has been improved, with the exception that
the gravel roadway to the livery which<will be a
15.5� maximum; grade versus the current 11�. It
should be, pointed` out, that the livery road varies
from 15.5� to 10.57o grade', The applicant should
try to decrease the raad grade" to the livery as
much as possible. This concern should be
addressed at final plat.
A turnaround for the general public has been
placed within 2�0 ft. of the proposed security
gate. This may cause minor traffic problems,
however with proper signage it should not cause
great concern.
17
,
G. Hvdrolo�ic Conditions:
Increased runoff fram the site will have an
insignificant impact Qn the o�verall drainage basin.
The development of the site will have a: noticeable'
impact c�n the minor events 'and specific drainage
channels, ;especially ths eastern basins. Care should
be taken in the final design to address the handiing` of
the inereased 'flows and the need to; provide` adequate
protection against' erosion.
H. Noise and Odor
The noise 'and odors associated with this project wi11
o+ccur primarily during the 'construation phases for the
subdivision. � When the final phasing plan is submitted
a� final plat, staff will review the pi�an to try to
minimize impacts frc�m canstruction e�uipment, blasting,
and any od.ors that may; occur during' cor�struction.
I. Sc�cia]. and Ecc�nomic Report `
Staff concurs_ with the social and economic section of
the EIR which `states that there is no requirement
within the Town of Vail that requires a subdivision to
pay its own way as does exist in some communities. The
biggest concern with the project is related 'to possible
increased costs for road and retaiz�ing ;wall
maintenance. `Because the grades are steeper on the
proposed road than allowed under the subdivision
regulations, the additional 0.6� increase in road grade
does contribute to an increase in maintenance cost for
the Town on the portion of ' the 'road that the Town of
Vail will be maintaining. However, Public Works is of
the opinion that the cost increase will be minimal now
that the road grades have been lowered significantly
from the original road grade proposal.
The Town also believes it is positive that road access
to Forest `Service 'land has been imprr�ved through this
project. The ';public access road will now be paved and
aliow'` for' somewhat easier access to Forest Service
land.
The Police and Fire Departments concur 'that they will
be able to provide adequate protection to the
subdivision.
18
At this time, no public bus stop for Town of Vail Bus
Service is proposed, Public Works' opinion is that it
would not be appropriate tca pr+�vide a service through
this subdivision due t� the �.ima.ted �aopul�ti�an and road
grade. �t may, be reasonable to ask the ,,applicant to
loak at a p4ssible school bu� turn off at final `plat.
Thi.s turn-off would be located at th� base of the
subdivision adjacent to the Frontage Road.
In summary, the primary cc�ncern of the staff with the
social and economic section of the EIR concerns road
maintenance cost. At this time, it appears �khat the
road grades wilJ. not significantly increase maintenance
aosts `for the publia portion of the roac� for the Town
of Vail. The steep�st portion of the road, 8.8� will
be mair�tained by the owner. In respect to the
retaining walis, the applicant has agr�ed to be
responsibie fc�r �the maintenance of a3.1 landscaping and
re�aining walls for the first �wo to three years after
constructi+�n. flnce the �veg�tation lnas been
established, the Town of Vail would be r�esponsible for
landseape ;ancl retaining wail maintenance on the publie
section of the roacl, Public Wc�rks fir�ds this
maintenance arrangement acceptable.
J. Land Use•
This section of the staff's review will relate<the Town
of Vai3 Land Use Plan to elements of the Spraddie Creek
proposal. Below is a list of goals and comments from
the staff summarizing the projects relationship to the
Land Use Plan,
The property is designated HR or Hillside Residential.
This designation states:
'"This category w+�uld allow for single family
dwelling units at densities no` more than two
dwelling units per buildable acre. Also permitted
taould be t�pical single family accessory uses such
as private recreational ame ities, attached
caretaker units, or employ �ts and garages.
Institutionai/public uses ld also be permitted.
These areas would ;require sensitive deve�.opment
due to slopes,, access, uisibility, tree coverage
and geol4gic hazards. Minimum bui3dable area of
20,000 square feet would be required per dwelling
unit.°
19
Staff did not ask the applicant to provide a total �
� "'bui�,dable" acre�ge as` the zone district requires that
each lot have `a minimum of 21,78U sq, ft. Qf cflntsguous
builclable area. All lots met this r�e�uir�ment and
intent of the I3R c�esignation. 'Please see the attached
PEC memo on the adoption of HR 'zoning for Spraddle
Creek.
Goal 5.4: Residentiai grc,wth �hould keep place saith the
market place demands for a full range of
housing types.
This is the first subdivisi.on to utiiize the Hillside
Residential Zoning. When the Hiilside Residential Zone
District was applied to this parcel in 1987, the staff
opinion was that this site was weli suited to the
zoning standards for H13.181C1@ Residentiai. "The
deveioper is ,ab.iding by mast standards of the zone `
distric�t. The Hillside Residential Zone District will
prc�vide a luxury home housing type far the Town< of
�aa.l, Tn addition, the developer has committed to
prcavide three employee' dweiling units and each of the
remaining elev+�n units will be aliowed to have' a
caretaker unit if the owner so desires. :
Goal 5.3: Affordable employee housing should be=made
avai3able through private efforts, assisted
by iimited incenti�es, provided by the Town
of Vail,` with appropriate restrictions.
Goa1 5.5: The existing employee housing base should be
preserved and upgraded. Additional employee
housing needs should be accommodated at
various sites throughout the site:
The applicant is meeting these goals by providing a
minimum of three employee units. Units will be
provided on Lot 14, 15, and 1. Staf� would like to
require tha� these" employee units be constructed within
three y,ears of subdivision 'approval. The Lot 1 unit is
proposed to be separated from the main unit. This
caretak�r 'unit would be located at the gate for the
subdivision arid would serve as an employee unit for a
person who would be responsible for maintaining the
entire subdivision'. The unit would not exceed a total
GRFA of 12fl0 sq. ft. and would be integrated into the
site as much as possible. Lot 1 would not be allowed
to have an additional caretaker unit at the main house
and would be required to reduce GRFA for the main unit
by 1200 s.f. Staff believes this idea has merit and
needs further study to resolve the unit separation
issue and ownership arrangement.
20
Th� potential number of employee housing units that
could b� provided within the subdi�ision is 14. The
proje�ct, comp�ies with the empic�yee hou.sing goals by
provid.ing .a mS.nimum of 21� or 3 units of th� total
allowable units as permanently res�xicted employee
housing. The restrictions are per Se�tion 18.13.OSo
{B) and a, b, c, and d.
Goai 1,2. The quality of �ha envirc�nment including air,
water, and c�ther 'natural resources should be
protected as `the Town grows.
Goal 1,6: Deveiopment proposals' on the hilisides should
'b� �valuated 'on a case by case basis.
'Limited development may be permitted for some
low intensity uses in areas that are not
'highly uisible from the vailey floor. New
prajeats should be carefully controlled and
developed �aith s+ensitivity to the
environment. '
Goal 1.7: New subdivision should not be permitted in
"high geolagic ha�ard areas,
Goal 5.1 Additional residential growth 'should continue
to occur primarily in' �xisting, piatted areas
and as appropriate in new" areas where high
ha�ards do not exist.
All qf these goals relate to the general site planning
for the subdivision. At staff's request, the applicant
has agreed to `,incorporate more restrictive standards
into the subdivision than norma3ly required `under the
Hillside Residentiai Zone District. ' Building envelopes
are provided for each 3.ot which locate development in
areas that do not have hazards,' and' reduce disturbance
vf the existing tree line as much as possible. By the
use of buiYding envelopes, development will be limited
to the most appropriate locations on each lot.
GRFA has been reduced on Lots 1�, 5, and 4, by
excluding any hazard areas ;from' site area that would
contribute to GRFA. This reduces the GRFA for Lot 14
by approximately 3,190 ;sq. ft., Lot' 5, by 325 sq. ft. ,
and Lot 4," by 1,050 sq. ft. Lot 7's GRFA has also been
reduced to allow for a 'greenbelt tract on the western
end of the lot. Lot 3 `has also had its `GRFA reduced by
approximately 2,520 sq. ft. to allow for another
greenbelt open space segment on the southeastern corner
of the subdivision.
21
St�ff felt that it was appropriate to require Lot 1 to
reduce GRFA as the dev+eioper was able to utilize the
acijacen� Fores� Service land for the switchlaack. It is
an equitable solution to take �he land that is within
�he subdivision tha� is n�a longer being used for the
sw.itchback and` devote that area` to +greenspace for the
project's and general publ3e#s ben�fit, '
Site co�erage has als� been reduced to 100� of the
allowable �RFA inst�ad of taking 15� of the 'total site
area. ` Due to th+e large size of' the lots, the site
coverage was in excess 'of the allowable GRFA.
Certainly, a low profile building is desirable,
. however, staff feels that the d+ev�lopm�nt also needs to
be as sensitively iocated on the site as possible. zn
order to accomplish this, given the slopes and high
GRFA allotments for each lot, staff: felt it was
appropriate to reduce the site �coverage for each lot.
5taff is considering a >site coverage percentage of 80
to 90$ which is similar �to the site` coverages normally
aliowed in PrimaryJSecondary �nd Single 'Family zone`
distric�s on 30� sl.ape . sites. We feel this ,approach is
more in keeping with the intent of site coverage and
will result in' better site planning for the
subdiv3sion. We believe it is ;,positive the applicant
is wiiling to reduce site coverage to 1OOo of the
allowable GRFA. However, an 80 or 90o ratio may be
more appropriate. Staff would like` to finalize the
per+cer►tage at final plat when final lot sizes are `
determined.
The developer has also ,proposed to maintain open space
on the lower portion of the subdivision; Instead of
providing lots in "this area as originally proposed
several years ago, this area will be designated as open
space, The owner agrees to submit a rezoning of the
property at the same time final plat submittal is made
to the department.
An important question related to the subdivision is how
many lots ;could realistically be located within the
subdivision given the road 'alignment. This is a very
difficult question` to answer as it is obvious if the
owner 'only wished 'to build 'one house on the 'lower
portion of the subdivision, the upper access road would
be compietely unnecessary and impacts from the
subdivision would be greatly minimiz�d,
22
- Staff believes it is appropriate to recognize that the
parcel was annexed' by the Town of Vail and received
Hillside Resid�ntial zoning with the inte�t to allow
for �.ev�icapment per the standards c�f thi.s zone
di,strict. Given the �ac� that the developer is 'not
requesting any variance to the `Hillside`Resi.dantial
developmen�t stand�rds, ; it is estimated that
approximately four to five 'additionai lots could be
lc�cated within the subdivision, if so desired. Staff
belieYes a balan�e' has 'been fvund between a reasonable
number af lots for' the subdi�ision and good site
planning principles,
Given 'the above comments on how this project relates to
the land use plan, the staff believes that it is in
conformance with the Land Use Plan. Even though the
project does have some hazard areas, no development is
proposed in th+ese areas and hazard areas are not
c+antributing to �ny additional GRFA` c�r site coverage.
K. Utiiitiss.'
All utilities will be placed underground. Revegetation
of disturbed areas' will be required and will be
addressed in the landscape plan submitted at final
plat.
IV. CRITERIA FOR MAJOR SUBDIUIS30N
The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found in
Section 17,16.110 of the Town Subdivision Regulations and
are as` followss
"The burden of; proof shall rest` with the applicant to
show that the application is in' compliance with the
intent and purpose of this chapter, ; the zoning
ordinance, and' other pertinent regulations that the PEC
deems ' applicable. ' Due consideration shall be given to
the recommendations made by public agencies, utility
companies, and other agencies consulted under Section
17.16.090. Th� PEC shall review the application and
consider its appropriateness in regard to Town' policies
relating to subdivision control;, densities proposed,
regulations, ordinances and resolutions, and other
applicable documents, environmental integrity, and
compatibility with`the `surrounding land uses and other
applica�le documents, effects on the aesthetics of the
Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with
the surrounding land uses. °
23
�ublic Aqency and Utility Company Reviews; �
No�i�ication has been mailed to 'the 'following agencies and
as af this 'date, �the following comments ha�ve`been received
by the Town:
1. tTpper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District:
Piease se+e the let�er 'dated September 19, 1989
from Fred Haslee in the project notebook. The
i�istric� 'does' not have any problems with the
projeat as long as all ruies and regulations and
payments +of appropriate tap fees are aqreed to by
the cleveloper`.
2, Public Service Co. of Colorado:
Flease see the letters dated Oetober 5,: 1989 and
May 22, 1990 from Gary Hall in the project
notebook. These letters indi+cate that ;service
will be provided per~the ru3.es and! regulatic�ns for
gas service extensions on file with the Public
Service Commission of `Colorado.
3. Holy Cross Electric Association:
Please see the letter dated September 21, 1989
from Ted Husky in'the prr�ject notebook. The
utility is able to provide service to the project.
4. Mountain Bell/U.S: West Communications:
Please see the letter from Bonnie Herod dated
September 22,' 1989 in the project notebook. The
phone company has indicated that they cannot
commit to providinr� service until all studies are
completed. U.S. West `will' request' that the
developer provide ' an analysis for the services
required by the developer or ow�zer: It is their
understanding is that the developer accepts the
responsibility for completing this work.
5, Heritage 'Cablevision:
Please see the February 28, 1990 letter from Steve
Hiatt in the project notebook. Service will be
provided to the project.
24
- 6. United States Forest Service:
Pl+ease see the April 30, 199fJ latter from Bill
Wood in the project noteboc�k, ' Tf, ;the Forest
Se�.^vic+� parcel to the `west' is de�ded to the Town,
it will be necessary to determine the exact
location of the public easement to be retained by
the Forest Service. It also states thats
'�As with all subdivisions bordering National
'Fores� System I�ands, it is desirabl+e to allow
permanent public acaess across the private`
land to th� forest. The proposed subdivision
pian does allow for this."
"The main access road to �the proposed '
subdivision crosses National Forest System
'Lands on the Spraddle Creek Parcel on `an `
existing road. I understand the grade of
this roac� exceeds Town of Vaii standards. I
feel it is appropriate tc� grant a variance at
this location to keep the aecess rflad on this
alignmer�t, Keeping the road oan the present
alignments seems to be the environmentally
� preferred ].ocation to keep from disturbing
additional ground and to minimize the visual
'impact from Interstate 70', the Town of Vail
and the ski area. This aiignment would also
become the Forsst Service" Easement when the
parcel is deeded to the Town of Vail."
"In summary, the 'Spraddle Creek Subdivision
'meets the needs of the National Forest
System. I feel the access road across the
'national Forest is in the best possible
location and'' urge you to 'approve this
alignment for access to the subdivision."
Staff will require an upciated letter at final plat
from the U.S.` Forest Service stating their
approval of the switchback on `their land. This
letter should be included in the final plat
submittal.
7. Town of Vail Public Works,` Fire and Police
Departments: '
Comments form the Town of Vail Public, Fire, and
Police Departments have been incorporated in to
this. memo.
25
8. Colorado Division of Highways:
An access; permit has been approued by the Colorado
Di�tisic�n Qf Highways for the Frontage Road
improvements. `
The approved CDQH Access permit requires that
final roadway 'cs�nstruction' plans be submitted to
+CDQH 45 days prior to +cc�mmencing construction.
V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE'
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
= the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community
Development recommends approval of the requested �ariances
, based upon the following factors:
A. Consideratic�n of Eactors:
1. The relationship of the rec,�zested variance to
c�ther existing or 'potential uses and structures in
the vicinity
a) Road Grades
There will be no major negative impacts because of
the road c�rade variance to allow 0.8� increase in
road grade from the al3owable 8�. Public Works
beiieves that the 'increase` wili be' difficult to
discern and that safety concerns have been
addressed. Public Works would prefer to have the
roads meet the 8� ;grade throughout the entire
subdi�ision, however, the appl'icant has reduced as
much as possible the road grade without
dramatically increasing wall heights.
b) Retaining Wall Height: '
The request for an addition 2 '-8" "in wall height
above the 6 ft. allowable wall 'height will
increase the visual impacts of the project.
However, it is the staff's` opinion that the visual
impacts could be even worse if ' 6 ft. high walls
were maintained with additional terracing. Staff
believes that a balance has been found'between
actual wall height, heights of the terraced walls,
and view impacts. The three tiered retaining
walls have a combined maximum height of 30 ft. It
is staff's opinion that the height of these walls
would increase if 6 ft. high walls were maintained
as more terracing would be necessary.
26
� Staff does believe that it is very important for
the applicant to analyze soil nailing and the tie
rfld systems to minimiz� disturbed areas. This
ar�aiysis sh+�uld occur during the final plat
re�riew, The landscaping plan wili also be
re�iewed carefully and the use of on-site
construc�ion guideiines will help to minimize the
visual impact of the prc�ject from points within
�he vall+ey, The specific colo�c for the concrete
block vene�r facing for the retair�ing walls should
be ehc�sen before final plat approval.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretation ar�d enforcement': of a
speaified requlation is necessary to achieve
compatibilitv and+ uniformity of treatment amona
s�.t�s in the v�.cini:t�'or to attain the'> obj ectives
of this title withflut grant af special'° privilgc�e.
Road Grade a�d Retaining Wall Height:
Because c�f the topography 'and soil found on this
site, difficuit development constraints are
created. Staff belie�es it wc►uld be a hardship if
the strict and iiteral interpretation of the code
requirements for road grades and retaining wall
heights were required for this project: In many
instances, th+e road is proposed through areas
where th�e slope is at 4Q� or �greater. The `
variances allow �he deveioper to minimize the
impact on the site as much as possible while
maintaining appropriate road grades and reasonable
wall heights. The variances result in better site
planning by decreasing disturbed areas. The Town
Engineer has examined: other alignments for the
xoad and it is his opinion that this alignment is
the best ;given the road grade and �aall :height
requirements of the Town of Vai1 regulations.
Each variance request should be reviewed for its
own merits. Howe�er, other owners of property
within the Town of Vail have also received
variances for retaining wall heights because of
topography and soil conditions on >their property.
Recent approvals included the Cerisola wall in
Potato Patch=and the Byrne wall in Vail Village
1st Filing.
3. The effect of -the rec�uested variance on light and
air, distr�.bution of popul_ation, transportation
and traffic facil'ities, public facilities and
utilities, and pub3ic safety.
27
a) Road Grade: �
The incr+�ase in ro,a�3 grade abc��� the 8� standard
to 8,8U� will have some nega�ive impact on the
ability of vehicles to negotiate the roadway,
hc�we�ver, it wiTi be very hard to measure any
empirical am+�unt of reduction �.n public safety:
b) Retaininq Wall Height:
Staff believes it is appropriate to require a
grading easement on the southwest corner of the
property to allow the �'own of Vail to grade onto
this portion of the site if and when the Frontage
Road ;is exteanded to the east to create •a new
underpass co�nnecting to the Blue Cow Chute area.
This proposal is part o� the preliminary
recc�mmendations in the Master Transportation Plan
for the Tc�wn of Vail. However, this r�ption is
beiieved to be somethinq that would not be
accom�3ished in the immediate future, Staff
believes that' it is appropriate to allow for this
option as it results in the decrease of retaining
walls for the possible future road extension.
V. ' FINDINGS
The Plannincl and Environmenta3 Commission shall make the
following firidincts before granting a variance:
A: That the grantinq of the 'var;iance will not constitute a
grant`of special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations on other properties classified in the same
d:istrict.
B. That the granting of the �ariance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties .or improvements in
the vicinity.
C.` That the variance is warranted for one>or more of the
following' reasons:
1. 'The strict literal interpretation or enforcement
of the speaified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
2'. There ar+e exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applieable to the same
site of the variance that do not apply generally
to other properties in the same zone.
28
Y 3. The strict in�erpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant
of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
prQpQrties in the same d�,stri.��.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATI�N
A. Variance R+�quest:
Staff recommends appr�val of the variance requests to
a31ow road grades to be at a maximum of 8.8� as well as
the re�aining wali heights at a maximum height of 8,8n
per the preliminary plan dated September 7, 1990 and `
associated eross-sections and road profiles submitted
- by RBD Engineering. W+e believe that the request would
not be a grant of special privilege and" that the
variances would not be` detrimental to the public health
safety or 'wel�are. The trapographic and soil conditions
an the site have creafied development constraints which
warran� relief frQm the strict and literal
interpretation of the zoning code.
It is' felt that if the strict and literal
interpretation of the wall height and road grade
maximums were required, the project would have more
visible impact on the 'community. Findings supporting -
the variance are IV A, B, and C l, 2, and 3.
This approval is contingent upon the preliminary plan
and final plat receiving final approval. Staff would
also like to emphasize"that additional fine tuning of
the road'and wall heicrhts may result in slight
modificatioris to the qrades and wall he�ghts.
B. Ma j or' Subdivision:
The staff xecommends approval of the major subdivision
prelimznary plan. It is felt that the project meets
the Hillside Residential Zone District standards and
subdivis�.on regulations except in the areas of road
grade and wall height which were discussed in the
criteri� and findings section o:f the memo concerning
variances.' The recommendation 'for approval includes
the following conditions:
�. The proposed road grades and retaining wall
heights are maximums for the subdivision. If it
' is determined by staff through the final plat
review and/or` building permit, or construction
phase that ro'ad grades and retaining wall heights
may be furth+�r r�c'l�ced� the applicant will agree
to do so,� �'�� ��.�t�.�� ����:� ���►�;�����. ��r;�����,�'��.�c� a
� �� ,'�"����� ���1�s�.� o� ��� ����. ��.��.��' �� ��e��rod �
,; ������ ��r �u� ��13� i� ����r.�.�a ��.r��,�an�:�� ��.te
distu�ba�i�e;
,:
�,. ��,_,
29
2. Construction guidelines wi11 be used during the
��ctu�l building pha:se for the wall and road
imprc�vements. See Section on EI� Wall Analysis of
this memo.'
� A grading easement on the southwest corner of the
property will ;allow the Town c�f Vail the right to
grade onto this portion of the ;property` if and
when the North Frontage Road is �xtended to _the
east below the subdivision to create a new
underpass connecting ta Blue Cow Chute.
4. An agreement finala.zing the stahle relocation and
r+eclamation +�f the existing livery site will be
submi�ted with the final piat information.
5. The conditions for lots having ,siopes over 30�
wiil be applied to the subdivision, This section
of the code is 18.59.050 A-D, F-I, ,K and L.
fi. Site +coverage shall be limited to 80 to 100� of
the allowable GRFA for each lot. This condition
will be finalized at final plat.
'Y� Gas appliances or gas logs ;shall be used in all
caretaker units.
8. A chain link fence around the cul�ert at the
subdivision entry will be removed and a more
aesthetic ;barrier provided with appropr.iate
landscaping,
� The six spruce trees by the subdivision entrance
on the south side of Gillett Road shall: be
relocated.
10. All Fire Department standards and requirements per
the letter from Mike McGee dated August 2, 1990
shall be complied with, by the owner.
11. Before any building permits are released for the
subdivision and once the subdivision receives
final plat approval, the appropriate easements
allowing for public access shall be recorded per
the Forest Service requirements.
12. Six foot paved shoulders on either side of the
Frontage Road for a public. bike path shall be
provided by the developer. `
13. A3.1 construction on each lot shall occur within
building enve3opes. The building envelopes shall
be adjusted per the revised staff plan dated
September`7, 1990 before final plat.
30
1'4. All coanstruction for the subdivision shall comply
with requirements found Wl"�Illll the Environmental
I�npac� R�port for the ;project:
i5. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding
mat+erial for sanding the private road within the
subdivision,
ib. The open space tra��s within the subdivision shall
be rezoned to' Green Belt �pen Space at the same
tim� �he "final plat is reviewed. Additional
greenbelt c�pen spac+e areas will be added adjacent
to the Fore'st Service switchback, Lot 5/b
switchback, and secondary `road per the` staff
amendments to the September 7, 1990 preliminary
plan.
17. The owner of the 'subdivisi.on shall maintain the
road through the subdivision from the entry gate
up to the top of the subdivision. This
maintenance also includes all common areas,
r�taining walls, and landscaping, The owner also
agrees to be responsible for establishing the
landscaping along" the public road for a two to
three year period from planting of the materials.
Once the landscaping is established and accepted
by the Town of Vail Landscape Architect, the Town
wiil take over the responsibility of the retaining
walls and landscaping.
18. Pedestrian and public access shall be allowed on
the l�wer portion of Gillett Road extending from
the Frontage Road' up to the subdivision gate.
19. Three caretaker units each having a maximum square
footage of 1200 sq. ft. shall be provided within
the subdivision on Lots 14, 15, and possibly Lot
3. The separation of` the Lot 3 caretaker unit is
under staff consideration. The units will be
permanently restricted per section 18.13. 080 (lOj
a-d of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Conditions
on the 3 employee' units will be resolved at final
plat.
20. The architectural guidelines shall be amended as
foliows:
a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as
extremely steep slopes.
b. Sod, shall be allowed around the perimeter of
residences but large lawn areas are not
encouraged.
31
c. Dri�eways shall have .a maximum grade of 8� "
unless apprQVed b� the Town of Vail Engineer.
d. Irrigation by retaining wails for the
` subdi�ision shall be prohibited.
e. No �hain link fence is allowed within the
subdz�ision even for dog runs. If dog runs
are ;proposed, another type c�f open fencing
shoulcl be used.
21. All constructian withi.n the subdivision shall
comply with the Town of Vail hazard ordinances
found in Section 18.69
22. No on-site livery` shall be allowed within -the
subdivision.
23. Aspe�s and large shrubs shall be used on all
retaining walls,
24. All hazard areas shall be 'excluded from
contributing :site area to 'Lots 14,' 5, and 4 for
GRFA or szte caverage.
UII. FINAL PLAT SUBMITTAL MATERIAL
Below is a list of final plat submittal material which is
necessary to resolve issues raised at preliminary plan
<xeview:
1. A complete landscape plan which addresses the entire
subdivision and the Frontage Road entry and gate
design.
2. Building envelopes which reflect the staff changes.
3. Wall heights will be reduced as much as possible
particularly in the areas of Lot 24` and 15 at STA 53+00
and 57+�0 ' and also at the intersect'ion of the secondary
road by STA 5+00 to 2+00.
4. The subdivision improvement agreement. `
5. Erosion Control Plan
6. Final Driveway locations with ,approximate grades.
7. Final agreement on the livery.
8. Revised final `EIR 'in one submittal package that
includes all the updated reports.`
32
% 9. Final Plat drawing should indicate the follow�ng
information �or eaeh lot; lot size, building envelope,
si�e coverage and �llowable GRFA.
10; Revised architeetural r�uidel.ines.
11: Realigned access road to the water storage tank
utilizing the old road bed.°
12. Revised phasing plan.
13. Redu.ce the livery raad ;grade as mucfi as possible,
14. New letter from the Forest Service addressing the
switchback on their proper�y.
15. Greenbelt areas designated per staff recommendations on
the final ;plat and a re�ox�ing submittal.
33
� .. �:. . . ..�., .:. .; � �'�.`.,y�ri3 ���t �� . .
�, �y�r��,/�l/..�r// i. .., . �., �. .�.. � � ph+. '2 ?}`��•,S�,�t{ �
�. '�'��`$:!ii1%f�f�ff. � � 4. ,.�: ' n . ;. :_ '...� ..•: ..,: � . 1r.: }. .��s';:``�y�:b#; �v.•" ..
}
. . iY•`f:,'.•:�ti{..+. '� .������.�� �'����� ������������uf����������''�'S�YS}�i'':�'t?��+1tii�L��',�'R.�,r,: � . "
. n}.,�ii''f�'::�'.fr'rnv.6�.,, ..
:;..i�:.:L�: �.•
� � :X.:{if f I ..::;v:i � •''•'i::::::%:5::• � ... .
. .......::::: ...
.....i.r'1,.�.,e.iY:$�%i.:.,y.:ti^}!:?'::v�::::.�iYti.:::... ......... ...:.. ...... .�.. .. ..::. ..::..:....:i�v:.....�. ....� ... .
. � .. � ._ } �. . . � ,.��: . .
} . ��}
� .
. . . ... � .... : �
� :
��,��q� ;..::. :Lt»` ;S�Z� ,:;� BUtLbl�l� ENVELQPE ,; .�1T� GOVERAG� GR FA ����
� �� �
� �� ����������� � � � � �� � '
.{3�IG:.. .:.REV. :.'� ORIG. REV. ;t�RIC. : } i��"1/'� . .: = C)RIG. R�U. ���� .�'�,a,..
.. 64409,.: 14805 2�i �99ty ���0(?l�7 7'd8'� �,�( b1/�
,q ....
� ���+-� LOT 1 :��aos � �� ��c -���°' ��, �
.
`�, � � . ::iss�2>: . ;....: .�.::. ... .: ::: .::. s� . .::. ..: a�as ..._.... �s�x.;� ...... .:.... :.. ���� `�"�
�'�� �� LOT:2 s�oa _
.. . . . .
r F �.rA., ...:.:. 86149. :.::... � 14403 ' ��`�1 , 22 ;> 4.. 60�9 TSi4 ' -���� 6 I S�
`y `������ LOT 3 .. :: -� . ::..... t,' :,�....... . S"(.��
�� ��.� �(� : . . .;:. ,85268 .:::;64258. ,:..::. ... .. ..15886:> .. _....:.. .:10648
.�.�' , 90 ., 5184 �?530..;; ,� .�.�.`6d80.; '���
: � ,
, , �.��s��� �s�s ���� �tS�3�
��i����� LO`� ...:�...s�o$z . ::s�asez> z�3s� �s�oo ���is� : �a7s� ���
��� � � � ��� ,
� �������� LOT:6 . .._:..:is�a . ::: '..::. : . ...; . . ::��sss:: . . .::: "...;: : �� saa : s�� ....:. ��s.; .�..... ` ���a
:: .� . : : . . ;..� ��
� .� ���� �� :
:....���
� �`�� � ;.�� L(�T���� . �� . �
`��s M.� . :.'. ;5d354 ,.:48854� 145'72 11924 �'<7553 ; 4028 5785 `�35 J��� ' �J'��'
._ ,
� . . � ° �
�� �.���� L07�� 31s�s :..:.4 ` t . t «
. ,... ... ::.�a.2��: .. .:: .. ::: _ �� a�� f �e�e .:..a�s�:- ....._ ........... �1��1 ����a
�.� �.� ���� L(�7 J :::. 's'a�32 .: • : i zs�s3 �os�s �:���si1 s 5� ssos ' ���� ' ��.��
�.��:�� . ` . . : �.. . ..: 11593' . . ,:��� .."...:.'
-v� "��a��` �
���..,�a���,� � .: 32296 , : ......... � �.��184� � 9J05 .: �882,: ... , ....���� � ���� �
,.
.
, �.���� .;::..71419 .,.:.:. �. .::;:: 14592 9937 ;���'�0713 ,<� ..: . _ :547fl. fi836 ' ��,�� .���'� -,
�� ���� LOT 11
� � . � , � ��
... i�a�i ���_ � ��� ;< .. :.:, ,sasz ..._�< so�rs; . ..:...`. . .:.... ���� ���� '
�� ��..�� LOT;1� � ss21� � ;::. ..:.:.:20�s3`� `
:...,.. .
_. .:,:285043 ;221253: 22953 14612 ��:��:4 56 .:: ,.,., 11d64 �"��I 519', 43�t} ����¢ � ������
� ���,o��� �� L.�T � �
�. � w ..���� LC)1" i }::; .,zsts� � �� r < ��� :��e�: ��s�s �r.r�a �szo ���� �5��� .��:_����
'` �� � ��
v . l,. . � . �
. }
e .:. ...:� .. ..:...:. ... .: . ...:. :...: . . ..... ..:... ..,::.
.
' No`Change
� . . . . , � ,���5 � r.
. . . . . . .r .. .
:. • •� �i, c,• • _ . . ._ � _� ,�
;��• . �• • c�► N ���'�►�v�.�- � . �
;;•. . ______ � .
. � - . -...,��.. �.-- �` r
. • . - . �—
. . . . . . . .
. . � � .� `�"""� ..,
. •.�. .�,_�
. . . �\.
• ••� .Et�O-. • .� ° � .------_.,, \.��' .•- �,�.. •. _ . ``` �_
..
• •8' '�,�. . . • N •�,�* _ . s.
. ` .
. . �ie • :;1►:,: .,. � r.--�—�'�" "�"`...�.,�� �`� ,�` �s �V.� .r''" , �'`��'� . . .
a 4�.
� . +
• �.��. �r�� s. • `1` ':�1�.''�'� ..r, i , �w� !
� r � • . � r� .,i � . • \ \�` . 1`, l. �ti I � . •��"hi��.r_�'►.�'}Y t�t..LIMn► �• r�� • . .
w • s . � ��"_ �\` \` _� : ' L . ' ✓. .:_,• . "..,�,,,�� � �^.. "' •�' �� . .�
t���� � • . ♦ \ . . a`: '^�, ` "' " .. �, ., .
�+�,. � •.s • ��• ""' `` . �\ ~ •� .�'. -i ... �• � 't.'.�.e•,,"c .4 +t - .�� �,,,�� i�y1,���._. YL„� ^ w:;!T�":
. � .,, •
♦ �1 • ,� ; _ �.""1 � � \ �..� �t �"` . � � �.
. .
. +
S A: • • .� . �r• � . "�..90 � /� . � '^� �♦ � �+'��►�'S. �i�a�4%i,,, .t"' ��t'+.�"""
��1r • r� ••� �.l. \ � � 'S�w,�„� _ . .. �a..�.{�i= �h. o` _ J^«. ;
�` . .. . �
• .
`� � •���t � �� .' •w�1• . ."\ � �"`.'� � '�J "..t � L+�'�,�►�i��` f�"' �'3.�..+"� �' . :
_ ♦ �
• +�.� � •i !
� � �• • �� •.�` � \ ��� � �;�� a �� _v', ✓�•Ig��J�
�• • � • •.� � •��+i r....__ •� �G � `� � . � ,� � � . � � . _�.r����.i.r ��;` .
. � :.; �� �.......�"� . . ' .' ' .
• �+.•�`,�,-��� ��� � ' . � .O ..� �•.`�. �i �,,� �;�+. .� .1
_ �• ,.�
• • � •T...`,iJ����• . .•• �-�•"�,...� �• � �'�'..._ / `\ /l
`�� ' • • � � . wr.rJ.•• .. ♦ .'���-. •.. r :� ,� \ . \ .. J Ir-.��+ �. x. .k y
� � • Q
� � � � , .� i`� ��...,�,�. .. ., . •• •. � ' r (
� � ���• ' •�' / �V. � {�•� � �� . •1�` �.� '� •` .� ••�� `a �, ��"GV'�„"' . �
• •� • �- s � � ' •+����
� ` .
�"'.f,....�, � . �...
�`�'`�„��,�`�`;.� • � ! J "y �..�.r`.�'�„ � . �'��;�Y ''t\ ' •,�� �����`��,` `�• �/ �; .,
w • • . . •
♦ ` • �.
�`'tt.' . . �`�' ., '� �'`�,._ ..__ 1`�. . , ,.� � a " y� ��, s Ka.ce,
. +r.♦ '�'. �� i. � � "�r.,_. �`.. .�7/�� :���� \�� ��'°�.. � .�. .�. �:�"c-`...� �``.., �.�����1� ���1, ,�- \
, —..� !\� '
�Q ' •� '.��• . �`�" '�` . '..� ,.,...""'+. r�.-� � ,, �` `• ti.. ..: f .
. '�'Q� . � � 1 � ��i;,a1t►�••ir_"'�!'�..�.._,_,_,*1`;'�, . . ��'�-: >„";.`+'r ..�.�: �� �.
.
�.' �! . . ��w.
• .. / ,:.� �. • � ... .
` � ♦. � r \ � ��� .` i .•\� � `� �� -1` ,�j.,�I y .� �
- � .
,
' +- .
• ��r+� ♦ • . 1', �\, �� � 1
�`" \ �� " � � .�+-..� , � � �. .. ;� �N
♦ ,� . �-
_ ,, _�:-,�,r ; . � . , � Y .. , . :�� r .. ,.�� �,��,�
. � .
''`�_ @•r��' � ---r� . 1 �. 8b P.C� \ • ' \ • ��� �, � ���+ z +� -�
_ � - . . �
.,�'_=_'�,r � " �`- ;:,.,-" ''_r_.__..r'��'' ' . � . •. -.
.. . . .
.
. . . . � � ' � �. `
� , . .,. � ` . .
�:.;� : '`''*.... .. � ` / � ' � . ;-w'+� ' "'' T '
_ � •.
-, • • .• � •, .� � � _ �' t . ��.' � '� �r... � y -
• . . .; � ,,� .,,, \,�.� o�.��C' . •.,� . j � ,� o . � ,,
:. � ..
-�•,.,..�„�r �...
� , _.: •
�g . -- ` . v ' "�. , "- \ - •. � � � - �0 �.:
• --_ :• � � ._.-.
, ._ � � .,
�••'' ` __--`,..,� ' -, /� � -`�.
• ..• .., • _�,_ a
�,.i.++ �+'�� � � � � • ` .�\ ,�1.��� `T .. . ....
/ 36`� � � \ � r �� �
. . � � . � , •., •. . —.,..
\. � �``�� � � \'. . � � � ♦ � '''"' �-
.. y.
—.�..�...,�,�, � � � � ...qti.� `;. . . 1 � \ .� � �„`�y� ..�„� �'�^ � �
..
`�S �� � ,, . . ., ... .
' ♦ ��" _ ,. •,. \ �
:ytsr��� � . � .
+ ... . . . � " � .
• • • • � \ � 1 `� `�.... .. .'f� qc. ��
` �\, . ' . ��,, �}
`' � " � \ ' ' �.
• ��
• -
�,� • � �� �s � � _ ���v ti� '� � ! � �x
,_ . + +�. � • w �\� � '` .
�.__ � .
�"r,-►�� i
. �••- ,, � �„ , .
� ��•
• �.. ' .
� -+ •
i,� • ► ' . r_._ �-� � �\ � '+. � `- �� �,�.�
.. � '. ` .�
�•rs..+r"'7C-7-..�r"� �. � \ ��'`�_ � �.. � � �``\_ � � -��` ���``\ � �f"� . � � .~ ��. +
.
�-�—y-�l'r`C � .._�, ��V
_ . .
. ��� ` � -►��.
\
d ' "
' , . ., �•'
_. :
• • � • , �\ �'�y4>„�. �--�t ,,� a � o•- �
� . .a•
f^' ". . .,
�. ���- .. . � ✓ � . .+� � ,` ,���' `•.`.`,. , 1 \' _
. � �
�`� \ • '
� i��'T^..• •�•'• .. \.. x x � �� \ '• + `, ♦. ` � . i . ..
• • • '�\ 1 �\ ' � � �, •
_ .
� = ., . .�.. .. i►
. � r
• . • . � `: �. . -. .
. . ., � -
s - , .
�• , . � a'l � � � ��� , �\y, `
�� � � � � � . ' . - �, , \
- -
,� 64 .- , •. . ._ ._ „
• . � — �
. - _ , % •` `
�( a �\
' '
.
+� •• • �� r�� �� �1�.:: �` _�� OQ� \ \,. +�' '. / �`.. .� \� . . .
�� x `.- ,;
����� • a •� •�+ ;� ��"C�� �L, � � � � � 4�. � .
.. �.... � : • � ► � r � Ta, ..��� ��
• "
. .....;,,".:+ ;,` �'�.. g�A ;- ' STf�L3L � �CC�SS PL��
'�:L , , , . �.,�. _� _ ,� .
. . . . . 8 as ��;- � ��,,.�..;. ` `�. ��
, ,,,.' �� - , �\ \� �� ,
�'.�' �� �` /""� \ ` `... f----�. `' \ \
. �,'� • . ' '. ` - . �`, �� �'• ` �
1. a . � h ... , .., . . , , 8 __
�
. .... . . , �.'�5 ' .
. ., . _
i..... . . �
. , � • •
.
. . . . , . ..'..._....� � � ............. � , . � ....., .;.. .., ..�.� ........ , .,. . � . . , .
.. . . � . .
� .., ,._.. . � ....
. :
, . .. �. '
. , : ,. . . .. .. �... ... ... ..._...._..... ...:. ......+...�.k.._� � •
. . .. .1 i .E. : . . ,c . � . ; � . i.: +..�. ....
� � f � � � �
. . ,.. . .... . . � �...�.. .. _ ....... . _.- __�.... . _....._ _ :. .._... .. . .. � �.,�.a __.G..w �.�.��, _� _�.. .�..r. �....._..� °'e _ .
, .
; ' � � - : .._: '��
. . � _ .
. . ,
, ; : � : � �
, , � ... ...�.�...,t � ...::.�_. , .. ; .� .:.�.. .�...a. .. _{-1—.Ir.�_�1..._ `t_�. � .,.i.. ��.�_,�. _a. '.+'�'
..+
;
t ' + ' � ..�1 !' ' � � � S._ � � � , _...i... �' i � •
.
� � �
.. : .
. . . . . ... .. , .,...... . .�_ ., .,.....,...._... .. _...;... ..:.. . w. -}�.1 .. ,.t. ...
_... .� ._ � r .., :.
. ' ' w..
_ t - � . - -. ,��. _ . '. ..
� � � .� ,�� � : , t .� +��� 1. !.t.:� �;..1._� �...:..�� �_.:_.� .���...:,.t �••'- � — .
� f A- < < �� � � + � � . ;.
. . . . � ' � ... :' .. ... .1 a �.6 �
" 1 ( t... ! . = j�.
, . �.... .r.... . �" . . '.. t . .
. .. ,;. � . . �. ,
r , . "�^"
. ,
. .._...._._.. • � �
... .
.. . �
�;
.. .. .... - - ......_...... ... ... ......_._. �....�_.....,._....__........' �...,...........�.Y...,... ".......3 .. .. . _
.,. .. :...».
� �� ` � � � ..�.,.
. .�...,. ... ......!
. .........,..,_....,. .. ....... .........�' ,� '
..r .......�.�� '_...„ ....�
....:....�......�...�
. . . . , . . . . . . . � . � . ._....;". :. .
. . .�._. . . ,. . . . S.�O
, . , ., r :_ . .....
. , .
..:�..._� .... . . . . , . , .. .,:.. . .
. , . ..._ . , . . . . . ..� . .
. . .
. ,
.:._ . . . ,!,
. .. . . . . . J,,, .
. � . . . .
. _ . .
.
.
.. . .
. .. .. ._...___�. _...._. . . . ... . . , ..
.
. :: . ... ... .. ... .. _ .. . ,_ ._.
C3''
:�. . . 8�6L
.....
, . . . . � . . . . . . . . . . . . . �,, . . . . .. .
... .. . , . �. . <
,rr''
��.
� . .
.
. . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . ... ._...._ . . . . .
. . .
:.. . � . . , . . . ,. . .
.
e . . . . . ,.
0 . . .
'� ° .
.
. .. . . . �. ...._ .. .... . ' , � "
.
_..._. .. _ . . . . . ...... _..�_ ._ . 6550
. ._ .. _. . , . ,
. . . . . . . ... . . .. _..:_.. ..
. _ .
� , . .
. . .
., .
. _.. _ .. . . . _ :. . .._. .
.
... . . . __...:_. ..__._ ._-�---�— ...... :..._._._.�_..... _.__.�,._... . .. _. ---.. ... . .8��+�
.
. . � . . . . . . _ � .. . . , . . .,.
.
. i
: . . ..-er � � : ,
.
�— � . .
.c�'' . .. . . . , � .
. : . .
. . . . . . , ,
. .
. �
� . . . .
. . . �
.
.. ... �, . . . .. ...� ..:_ . .. . . .. . -..---.-.--..___.--__: - -
. ..
.. . : 8� �:�
.. ._... _ _ �,
. o�d . . . . : -
. � .. . . . . .. . . . . . .. ...
� _ .. .
. . . . . . . . . . .. . ..
. .
. . l �. . . . . . : . : . . ...:_ . . . .
. . . , .
. / � J ��'1��.�. �1 l.�G.�„�'e�'S• ��l t��J"�,���
.f , + ,
,. ... .' . ..
. ._.. -�
.�_.... .- .. ;: .._. .. .......:.. _.__.,._.... ...._...._ ._:._.._�__._..._. .. ._._.... ...... .
� :t3:5.20
� -_... . �_ . . .. .
/ �
/ � ` �
1' .
� � _
, . .. : ..._... . � 83��
. , : �
. ' � �Q � � QV
� �. � � . � �
.
;, •
y T�: _ Planning and En�ironmental �ommissicn
FR�M; Cammunity DevQ],opment Department
. D�,TE: �Dctober '26, 198"7'
SII&?ECT: A request to'; aPPly Hill.side Residential zoning to '
a 2� acre parcel of land commvnly referred to as
Spxaddle Creek
;Applicant; George W.` Gil3e�t, Jr. .
I. T�iE RE�2UEST ' �
On NovembQr 18, 19 8 5, ;the Town of 't�ail adopted a
comprehensive Land Use Flan. In the p1an, parcels of land •
in and adjacent t4 the Town o� Vail w�re designated for
certain potential uses if they; could meet certain
criteria, standards and pola.cies of the Land Use Plan and
cther p3anni�g documents previously adopted by the Tcwn of
'Vail.,. The Spraddl� C=eek parcel is a 2? acre parcel of
land that was annexed by the Town of. Vai3 sc�me time ago`.
It has neyer received any Town vf Vail zoning designation.
Through the Land Use Plan," the`Spraddle Creek parcel was
given a 3and use designation; of Hillside Residential.
Upon completion of the Land Use Plan, a zone district
entitled Hills�,de Residenta.al was wxitten to correspcnd � �
with :the 'criteria� outlined in the Land Use Plan. The
maximum allowable density for th� Hillside `Residential
zone district is 2 dwelling units per buildabl� acre.
The I,and Use Plan also states that any development
propcsal wi31 require an in-depth analysis tc assure
sensitiv�,ty to constraints, provision of adequate access,
nu.nimization of visibi3.ity; from the valley floor, and
eompatibility with surrounding �land uses, The prcposal ;
for the Spraddl� Creek parcel is• for zoning only and does .
not deal with a development proposal or subdivision plan. �
A review of the 2or�ing request is limited to whether the
request i5 compatible with surrounding land uses, meets �
�he .development objectives of the Tcwn, and the more
tangi.ble issue of provision of legal and physical access.
II. EVA3�UATION OF REQUEST :
Criteria #1. Suitability of Existina Zonina
�
This parcel of land has never previously had a Town of
Vail zone district d�signa�kion. Under the �urisdiction of
Eag1e County, this land was zoned Resource.' The` Eagle
County Resource zone district allows one dwelling unit per
- 35 acres and is generally intended as the agriculture zone
,�
. -
dist�rict' and to preserve natural open space features.
. During the Land Use Plan work sess�ons, much �iscussion
was centered' on the land �se designation that should be
given to the Spraddle Creek �rea. Z�t was geanerally agreed
- at that time by the Land Use comiaittee and the participa- .-
:ting' publi.c #:h�t as a propert� adj ac�ent to the Towri of
'�ail, some level ''of dev�e3opment was warranted, At the '
same �time, this parcel was recognized as bei�g very en-
viranmentaily sensitive and va�.uable to the Town of Vail
as ogen space. The land use designation was proposed as a �
use that should give development potential to the
property, yet maintain and understand the environ-mental
sensitivity of the parcel.
Criteria #2, ' Is the amendment presentinq a' convenient,
taorkab3e relationship amonq -�az�d uses consistent with �
municipal objectives?
As an implementation of the Land Use Plan, this applica-
ticn' is ccnsisten� with municipal objecfiives. However, it
is reccgnized that this pa�cel of land is highl.y visible
and _enviroxuaenta3ly s�nsitive. While the zaning of the
property meets "and is` consistent with municipal
objectiv+es, any development plan and subdivision proposal
will' need to be �eview�d very carefully to ensure that the
proposal' is consistent wa,th the development objectives of
- the Hillside Residential land us� designation and of �the � - �
- Town of Vai].. .. .
While we currently have indication that there is legal and
physical access and there wiil continue to be legal and
physical access in the futuze,,• this issue will need to be
discussed and clarified at the subdivision stage.
Criteriai #3. ` Does the rezoning proposal provide for the
qrowth o'f an+orderlY and viable community?
The Cammunity Deveiopment Department feels that the
rezoning itself does ailow for the growth fcr an orderly
- and viable con�munity. We feel' that the Hillside �
- `Residential designat�on while a3lowing 'the developer
development potential for his praper�y,'` will assure envi-
ronmentally sensit'ive development of the property. At
this point, there is not enough information to comment on
_ any development of the site at all: A very thorough
seview will be necessary to ensure that all proposed
development does meet. this criteria for orderly and viable
growth.
III. ST�,FF RECOMMENDATION ''
Staff recommendation for the proposad zoning of Hillside .
�tesid�ential for this parcel is for approval. The .
, .
� _
� '
� � Community Development Department fee�.s that ,this meets the
i.ntent of the I�and Use Plan and the devel.opment objectivas
� of the Town of vail..
. ,
.
� , � . ..
,
, i .
. .. " � .. ,. .. . . .. � � . .. 1 . .. � � . . . .. . . . , , , �
�.,��.Rpg�►u�--�, �
'D�O '� . ` 1
�i�� : �
�� � /
lt�t11 �
�:� � ,
M�u. Max
��,,, -r,PS,.�... � .
_ �
� �
.. �_.__
. � �' . . . .. . . , .
�
1
�
� � ��J. .. . ��+ �� . .
„�� T0�01L .'�i� 14�.r,�
. �, . � . .. .���' `���" �
� � � �.
' •1
, .• . . . . � .. . . .. � .. t . . . .� .. •
. . .. . . i .. . . �� .. .
' . . . i . � � ..�
�I LL W A�,l� —�I� 1 TN G U A F'.�:,,R-JU L� Lr..__.
Ci��i' ... • �`._�.�l�l:,��.� � l�_
�-----�
I"- � '
G���t t: � � _
���-� ���
�� �
� �
1 �
�
,
�
• �
'' �
w �
��� ( i
�
.,...t 1��
Mt�.t, ��
i�." ���' �.,,
�
I �
� ' �
<
��
�L_._._
�J ��„�' � i�.
� 1� +i�;,l. ,',=111.=111 Q
'(11:111"' ` '
1___,!
L�. _
LJ
l�1 .
� i � -
1
� J � • '�
��
lJ F�� �l..l_.. W�L_t:.
��i+^��� t �r�'��i,_�� �
("'' ���'- i � �
.�t.n 1_�:_ � - �
- ���-`�����
,a �i!;:}. .,S'?.:_:i -ri .' u%�.",. _ :. . � .c
- �+ ,L > y , �, „:� � , .. .a&. , » , :'i � a•F• .,�..,, r.s�. ,p
.XS�..o-� ...A. :�..,Y. � ;,.yin+. . �:§.:...y.,�, ...���.. ..a �fi:.tt.,t� J ��v'.,. - .,.�:�LA�. ,_...��.,�-. .�. 'P ".�'":. �l �,'!A ..f. :A, 2 �,��. .�.�,. .�..
:5,� .:r. a .........y l .,t � :. .� Y�l.t.{...., . �:�!..� _ . a, � �..:: ��� . :;,- �. ..,� �...,J't �.�... ♦�3 "�'. i.t ���°" �i� h v�,1�� '�1'.
.�fi.e,.. .,.� -._�:�.. ,,,...,�-:: ,.. i .. t ....r,,:"'�.�"�. ,. ..,a y,.��:1.�J.,.��M- � .r. ,� ,6�.»i� , '�.�-.�...,rd i ���♦ �` ;�e: 1 ,� '����.` LL. i �i u � �;�;�' �.'i
_:
..4. . +... ,.;:.�s � �. �.a �� �.�'4��' . �..�. �...ur ` , .:; ,a,...., ..,.05. .: :: .. .3�.� :���n d L.�„ -�I:� � Je�e
x.. .. >..�..c ��.n�.. . ,.:..,. .. ; :; z. ,_.��. ,.. ... .,� ,. -��..,_.a . .t� .��3 ,t :i..::..�. :a. ,..:,.��, '�� � �.
�'�> ...; ,.. . .. '.. . ,. ,., .m . ,. . ___.. ti . a,�, _�S . xa r »_ .6 . , . .:.., ,,.r.�. #" -" r" � #� ,.i.. x.i �, ay,, w:.
... .... ». c ,.. ,. ,. , e . ... .,.,.,.. . �. ,.. ,. �, .,........w. . C.,� . s, ..b.� ...., ..0 ,4„ y, i, :t.,y• �:w'. .�.;��-� a „.J' .� } �.,�. �34`�'rp;�
...} �., .. .....,... �4�:��.,.r ,., : r.:�. ..a..,k .::.. . . ., . . a . . ..rs ... -„�..,"; {� '?=1 ,.r.::' Fw '+is _;_° !.'A� �-;��, a,� .r�.s
„ ,-.. , k�"�.. �..., -o- . .n� .,+ . ,, .-;�:.... -,.. �'r. �...�,�,ca �. ..,. �..� �'Y'` .i,����r..,�. . .. .,`�,. .�a,�' a.. �.�i' f:�a. .�'�. yd.t� ..d. ,� �n�,.
_: �i ....�'�,�v.�a ...+�:. ....�� .x .at.. .�.. . ,,.�..a�b s-. .. .,,';x'�....�ar'!. �:. 7�y�, y�5�s..� a k 4;��A's�,.'i:�:9'.,x'°3t^�-�.. '.' -t� k.'.. ��k- *-�i. ..,�{' 1»i a,�'.. .rd� d-
..>, ':. ,-�7 , �... �„,..,..,.�:� A.. �.--.�.,,., ,_. - .:..ry�..�.... ,.,-..a+.t �, -�..., ,.,.� .+�., y.. ., y,, . .. ., ,.. .�,�, ..R� ''�: ��wF �r�:;e : r. ,t .�`1 .i •.a;�r
.:....... . ..: ...:.TMi., � ,�:+.., .....,. ...F�.-„1C",.. �'"� ,.,.�. .a. _ ,.a _.,..�..U.rf: ,a�z. ,.,s �Y�': . ..,., .�.�.1.!...,_. �.s b=� r z.�„:.� .�.6 S..'' �.�-�v,� 7�`_;"+�
_.:-. .... .. ,._._,.t'm :.,. .. ,: .. .,.. �. F. . ...: � �'.r€ .3.t..x ..�s-.�i. . . . ,...: i . �L «�' ,�,,. �.. r..+,.. �n� 7:'+ qt ':r.:
r. �-.,...:4...� .t. .-.__. �..,:,b .r...n... .bw�..�. .'�vx.:�.?`t�. s.. ,n. .e. .. ... .. .S�*a �...o- zz!.+ .��,., ,.. .:'�L14:� ..«.�... .9;.1"" .<�j.J.����.+;Y„ .s .,+s .� � Y �w� :F�
�...,..w..... „ ,..,i�'. ..> ....r -.,., �...�. _. .;"Y.2±- r.,� ., ,,..,,.�a., , �4+,.�. ?t 2 t.. .,....�.8. _�. . .... M�'' ....1.,..t� 'w,. ,� v�� i� t �.. ";w .r�� .�wr.A'- t:�.�,.' .32 -�a�
..,., ...-. .,...a ,,w„.. ....a}:. .. ., . ,an� .. .,i. '�,. .:t�.. ,��.r,. , ., .1: ,. x ,. ,_. . ,� � .,�.. ,i� ,r,�, ,-� .Y., ,:r� ��:. e..a t,.
.
, ..._ ;: ,. . 1 ;�.,.. � a: s�:>,< .,. o- k. . .: .. ,...a'C .,f......:�.y....;q �..$.. .�. ... ;�..Y¢�., . k6. : .u.. .,�--i.' ..l. .S. .e ft�: i°-:".; a!..
,..t. �. .. ,.✓.._,� � , ., ,,.. ,., r .. ........ik .>. ., .., ,..,,s,t:�.: si.. .f . 'M,s.,,� .:_�. . ,..as.,trx�- .,., .+.�,'li1 �' .8e: .t ��s.s ...t.. :t
..r,.,..r?' .�. .. x. , . _.;. s �,� .. .. . ,.... „ F".. ....., .,. ,...,.�r . .� .. ,.w . � .�,.:.�.. ,,, ...�C�. Y, .6:��. .>.K. z u} .:�4 ',�ku�?x,'.� �;?�
.�'Cc„ ...,....�, �. .. iw,_1�. .., a. .,. K ,... r. .,.. ..� ..1 , .> it , ,«.
.,. .. �.,.-,,, a,,..�. K... ,.. . .. ..: .._. .,..�'�".�. .r ... ..�. �t' .....�. .,S . as.�t�. ..+;� ��"�"��` ,,...�w 'd? ,w+n��.u �c�se..`�.9�.- `t ..S t,'�' ../'� �°"
::r. .,.�... -,�...rw.. ... ,. ..y� .sa�. � ..v- . H ... �...€i... c��. �� .,� ,. �•..:.,.. '""�,:. . „ ,.. .. x ., ..,...,t� r�.. la:.�- .�rw ...�•. .reb•,
.� . ... .. ... ..... �.r.. .. -,,..:,: .. ,�., . .. _.., ,mx._,. :...,W-: .. .. ..'.. .s ....xrn. ._. ...dY� ..d`'�..:,� �R, .7::.r. �.�,��. `�.'_
x '
. � ?.'. � .. } ... � ., .. rv: a ktj ,.
..,.:....+c5a,. �t. n ,.,..t „. ,... ... �.. ....'� ,. ;,.. .[. ,._ ..�.G;a v .c•�_ K.a �..... .... .... �_..: �. �. ., ,�... ;m�� .S�Y :�.#v,t r ��+
.. '!, ,'�s.. �a.. �_,.F..4 w�. �.. A, . �-i , , ..�,....., .r...a,. »:.�.., ..L. .. „ .. . ..., ,� ,:. .,,,._ ._ .'��:� ..4°a .�n ,» .�trr .�,.�. ,��.
..,.., .t -, c., ,, ,::�k �,...:1..,,.. �iY4_. ..a ki .,..r..?Ya .,. ,,..?�K;ha_� ..'�`.. , .a. .... .,.,.�k.�r vl .. . , .�... ... M:s>� .a G ,.41s,:. .,+v. 'u -r,-. '�-..�,.
. ,�? .. a ...... . . .s , ne�' ,,.,.� a�. p. �+ s ,r,., . .. �"�Z'. .n :�+�{ � �' �a: . 'r. ,.� ; a, 5. � �. ,�.,� �
<. . ....Yr >$ _..,... .�.. . .... .a .i. �� .� �....,_ ..k..., . . ...,._ .. , n .;.r.. .. �?. b`F. ,�-.. ., a.�` ���Y„ �. d.,.t..rpY'.. r z� .w' `°'�.,.
, ,�:+,� � ...,: .:�.� .�...a�.., .., "'�.+ .,}.;a� a ,:,.- .».. }..1. .,.,. �,�,c"`�� .�ns.:� ...- . ,. '1e, }.. ,�"�` .�. ,`"Sf,; ! .a:.�g�, p�EO ;iF ,��,y .,'::,�i ,''� -S,�.
, �.sk.�' .:, ...�, .�. ��.-.,. .. `�� �..,a.�s,.�,...� m. i .�:..3,,,. .,. .,. °�'t� :.. }, �...,. .....,. ., ..��-a���q'. �i„.�. �. ..rr +�,� �7�:.ro. .Y .aa�� ^�.V��
a. ., . .. ., ...�... .�ev �. ., M..,. :� , k-. ..Y a. ., z.�y ,, na ..� �,9',, - .�.�q .. 7.,;,,� �'��F". '�,a; n7 .�. ...°�'�`rw, l:�",
r' . ,.,. s� r`G:.k�,....,r ...::. ..,. ,.�...�ar .N`,}5 � ..x �.'�I-."c�. . ...�.� ,.. . ., .9�... .��. ,�'., .. "�%� .. :;,:.4 �, 4i'"� a �"ri� '+�t„:v t ��'r
.. . � ., s.k.•' . �.. ,..,�. �.� ...r"fi,Ya ...,�.'�. .,.���:�3.,.* .,... ...'�. 4.1, '4��� .,.-tp. ..,i ..\..� �(... .x. 3�':4. 2� ��in .u� ��.. '"�k �?kYQ R M1>k� .Fr. �. ���,
. . .Y�,..:�. �w « -.c v'�..., c, ...w� .. �t ... �`i,.. .:... ...�+,�r.. a+�.. ,�.., . .., �:.. ..� �. Y �-.• i,_,. �` �.- .i��:'i .� .:'�;�� �k. > �., �,:s's74�"<rA.
:�.:. .,��.$,.,.w, . .o-, �'� .4�. .; : ,�.,�-.r , t�v;<�.�:;n.;x .:� ���r..�, . ., � ......... �•:... <�..., .. , ��'�.r�a ,ak... �v� .-r. ✓a��w ..S�t� +�n... "iw,.
,. x a�.... . ,. .,a�.. .€. y`'� t� � .. � �'..,,. ..s3.�`.�i 't..,.. ,- ..x <�.. .4 �:a+ ..j�}��'� y;...� .. .„ :'� .a' ° sv..a'� �7'r'''yy e#. .�..,
.n .. .... . , �,i. ,�'�..��. a,a.,. ..,an. -.... .. .., .3;._,. .�8�' ���.� i.�.vv'�' � .. �...,.. �'� . . ;�;�. .}.: i .,. � :��.. ..��� �,m.�� '.�..a�:� �:�r�°'; ,r"�+
._. . .., ::':.�... .. .. .. ...... . .�,:.. ;�e .... ;w�r �,<.�,.. , .�.,,.,i� .,e �,��.a� ,..a.�.k+.. } :.a.,...,e � . .,.._.�.u� �>>��� ,�.. .+?fi. .y. "&�� ..+,. .�..
.$'„,i�P...,,... ,. ...�....�L r� ,...... , ,. �' ....... .�.,... ka �k �.». ,f_ �... �. ,... <+k:,4 .�� �-'-l�r. 5, ��,mi:� r--,.,r,., §�� ��� �' # ..r f
, ...- . ,., �°*�� ,.. ......_. .=5 ,t� ..p , �T a;':=r, .�,.,: .� ....r.::.,. a§.r,.: y.s> .� ,. v x_ �. ./�.<:..�,j�� z�..^t ...�t..:: •,,' �tv .�y .�� ��$.?� e�':».
��. ... .�._�.s $'� >.. r r.:.. .....,... .. .e.� .M�°S�. ...�.�,.�� .� .�,�.��� ,. :� ..}.. �xS , . ,._, v ....,. 'rotr'+,x . `��;:� ,..,. :�'a�.'.,1�� t^' '4&`?, ,f `a
..,..�.,- s-' �.rc.;.4.,. � ..., e.,..��. :�.. .,.. aa.., ...� o-�� u .�,.,w„-r, j� . .,. .aE. ..:. ._s ..._.... ��P.�..., l��., a.., ��.���r���{� ...'xs2s. §N'' ��, ,v;;�." a
sr.9` ir.�.f� 3»i���..: ..< .a.. i,..,..r. ...x .-, .;�+. !�.' t�a..,.->.. .��� :.� , ...N',I i .�f. .. .n ....Y .X4 ,_ .,�r � �.. c�;� �
�.�r 7 �:, .....�. � :K..�. �.. ..a} ::. �..�.:�a�, ..,:5�.�. .. .v,v� ... . .. .}. Y.i.•. ^K.S ii':�� ..�53' dA.��,t%' ...a -.l"-:Y' w.",t`..�.h i. � ;�!.�' ";'t+. }'��.r �""u� q 3�1'r'. y' .,�� "e�.'� �
,...,.�..}�. .�. ..�?�:r ;._. �s. . �ib, ?y�,,.. n.r .. � .�',.;�. .«�.�y�, ,�..;.*��� ,a� .,., .r k±. ..•a �..: ., .. ..., e�G n a ,:. ..,.� ..r�..+� �t .Y- „y .�.., -�;�Y
t.. ,� ..�: .,,.. ... -...,�.. �, m.�, .,+... .... ..._ ., ,:, ,. . .�.. .n ,3�. r..+it a ,, (�1�� . . ,. ,.o.,. .S.. ' ..;. � .�: _..,, '� r� ��.i.i,::.
,. Yia`5� �•W$�..:.. :v.+.. ...Sh ..1`..�.. ��.$,..p.�� ,;. ,. �..�.rY � ....; ..�.y1.��N' �%.u:��i:�M.. .i�����r...�m: ��.t i. �y,.. . "§......, „Y!�'`� ....... ' ., i . b�..«.... ..�. YS:��b.J. . t#...� 1d„ � .,q.fl a�..�:s;..�..i� . t� �`......
,.,::.k , .. .,a..�...Y. ..m�:..�...._.; � ..... ., „4ar.FGd r ..:..m,. , s..... .:....�. ._. ix.�� . .....�,Y�' c�_y�.
,.,. ,>��.. . ,a. .... .:,,. i .,u.P� a+ . .�.......:.�,..-S. .. .... ,. .. , .. .. �.t.,-- .t.: ,n-.s, f. .e.�.+'�m.�� r`� .:.4- �+. .:x, * q.:zs"'i.., r;�it" 2�� .I- :.t.{� 5.�5:...
�... , .. :�S�P ...u,..:.., ,.. �.,a.. -P>,s�..<_tv �.v.. �» r ,:.rwa e` , .r..,�,♦.....s{4,�„� v�a :�a� �F. .r *f;� .: .. ,�. � ..�'� '•r .vh���� �3s. z �wa ..1 �.�.e �r; ..?,�. ...!� '�:,
e :,.,,,.4 , ..».. .,`a .a <.., .,...�... .�:_ .,�, ..: �.:�. .,. . .�i �w.3.. .:.r. •.. „ . . -. �„p� ..'�...a ,.�' t o�t .x� ����
..,. � . �?,f ,a . _.s �?x� .,,._ �, ,� � , . .x'° f s„�7�' . ... {.. .�_„'C s. i �:y:, . .1 �:. �t "�F
>,- !.y,. ,. � _.,,, � .... .. st y . .$
...� .,.. .. ... �. �e .. .:.. .� '� a, ,. .., ... ..,., .,. .,...a ..�h'. :, �. 5. �':� .,;�.:. o . w.4 � .:......�. ::.�� � ,���;.y.,: ,a�v ..�v-,!� )�t. .,.�'.- � ..e�:•_.�# ,:�r��.,,,.; -
.... .�,�..i� t st�..s...> - ..F.. .,:....n .,.,�- ..�-t,xi�.., :, t,�} y�:.i,C,: 9.:�.. `u�M ,.. ..rW �. � � ,�. ..J �� +�^ ,`�. > �.. c ...1 �� .k .f i.�...��
.:.. .s. ..��,. <._�. �,.,�- .... ,. �;4'ro.,,sar �. °� .r. t'��,..... ..�. ..., ,,. ?�§'.�..[ ,. ,�tk.. .. ....3 8�.. --u�'..,, .3��--� .�. ..»i,� .,, u. r .?�
.. �,.H. . . ... 't.i..k..� .. a.,4 *wd....ii,.." , t ... S.. .eP...C:�^'�.i.a..x. �. ......''�. � i . ..�. . . C �?. a.�. X. ..3p. .�,k. .J �.£?.�v;�.vq. l'� wY-d'. .�V :d ..�f"`s.-.x i�.. .a. �i"�;i
,. ..�.,. . i.. ..a� .. .. _ �....Ir��_ .. .. .. �3 . ,....;i -_ . z ,,. .>n�:w� _ .. +. '�o �'�,a x� .,.�. . ..� �,,,. ..a��c�.t va���� .�:.,_� .3• '.i�,
,.,,. 'S.`2w.. .�_. ,g a.:.y. ._, .�i"e . ,.r,..�.a. ..... ,a�,�...,'?. .. �,.. 'R,.. .F 5 y .ik,�} � �.r R°� ��r.� .s�� .(JI"�. 1 LL^�t._' ...��
, �.....!. . ,....at.,.�, .a -� ..:.,a ._t .. ......�.#�:,,,. .x. r,� .. e.�'3a.. . .,e�"i�,!,k,x�,�� , .t��at°;; ` } -.1�+ ��.,�.�t...�! _fi:. .,�,,> .�r a ���5,��.,;4;:'.. . �n1...�i'
• , � � ,<.. .. . ..r �t ,,.r , ... 4- � v Yw .. ., .e ,r �t+$. ;4� r�.� 4.� t. s �^ f. =�k. ,b.*` i �,". �«
.i'. , e ..- �� 'K.nb .y�p. ,.. �V.,.4.,.�. " „_,o'-..: .. .>�. � ... . . ..5' . '' .,C �C°+W.,i,.. '.�,`n..
�- :.i. .✓w..«. :& ..:�.3,.:'�a .... ;. .��.'+��� .,.� , k. ...w.. . .....,�.s.., �..:� -1 .4 ., .� a.., a . y�:`�A..:� p` ! �Y �$ „f.. .;«,+�, - ��.Y� ..c
•� � . :�...+e._. ;.��_, �,.... w. .�.. ��.:.�-;, ,. ..,.. ...�r,a4w.,. ...@..c�r..�1 S�x_ ,,.... . .. .. ?� rrA;��s,.. �aa_ �. :.'�" r.,t. �� t'a'�`�:.s .m':
.,.� ...�.�A �C_.:..:R... . . :D .,. y. ,:���� ,.."..r ...,. b.,.:s,°i.. . �4 - .,k s ,. . .e,:.n�t:.. . .i ...�3''�a". . . , .�� �. ..... .r' ' ' 'vr `♦• �*<.- Y ���' � 7
. . .�q., ..< �w, r _°�»�f.� �Yz :,w � ...S �.. , �s� �, .,.Y.. „_. .. r, .. _., � ,,. 1. �� r�, .�;iF� i e?{ .,�',s+dr i a.� �?:..., "iw,� �'.if� �
...�s., r,r t, .��.�. . ... :,...,sr�v,., ���,_.. ._;,,. . ��.... ...- ,�� .. .. . .;F: � �..�Y'��i .��+i:-:: :. ;.:��r� �,y,y .,.1+'a,.�'d:� �cY74.,, �r a. .�_ -:�`r. .a:.�" � �°y� �'�_
.. .:4.0 -���.�4..Nt�;...�?.` ,!..�r-.R�. u, .. ,<_ -�;. .`�.x�� ...r.;,�. ,� .. .t� � :..� 3 ..... „� •,�-..�,iq.n .,,���"�#,?A��a�F r. � `*'+S�" '���.�;
._.� �t n�.f'w. � ,�.,:�e...� .. .,_.!;,.�. :,.. �,,:. ,.,..,....:y , •_. ,t.r'� S�, :. ;!a . e.:1,.n,• •�.. :.,,.- ...'�.. ..V,�+c.�,'�.-k: �'� N� C ..tkna i� ,>v, �. i7�`'U .a.�..a�±'�*2?'�'..a. .�l...u..p.z..�
x-..�.a'+- .-;.: ,.r� _$: a,,.�C' �e� ,..,N. .. .� .,, x1 � e .,.$` .�� ..' i'�}ti VY. q� ».*�.�..�.�� ?,'�« .1. :'�f. A � 't E .
� '�a��' „s.,7"�: ....� ;.i, ... �,.. ... i.Y ,��.,.a-5�f ....t�x �..�.�k����il` , �.. ...,;.. ..r �. �-+R� :� 'i .�KV7y.�.�� W .t� n.,..9E.b" ,�-k. `F':.,; za.� "a3� ,4-��'v�, 3� ..3.t ,?
ua. ..s. r�. *��1I�e.�.,yy..,.,p•. ,�-� '�: �'`�+dF �Y,;t},� � {�r:. '+a!C� .,1.,.'�. T`Su '��•� A.. ,x�. - ,a"Si.. 'a.:�. .�"'� `�" .�"°1M��' y.>.
" '�,'� � ^;� d .,.-,.�, .� E�'",� '.�?S�i3 : : � ,. ;: y� ��a. 1 :W �. ""w .�5. �`�*"�`: '�-'� �r ';4".p
>�,�•�`�a c .,_ ,>. �.3��" ..;+� . t ;, � sr.. .., „ �.,�'ba • r , '�, , .. . . ..�.. .�`4? , ' ,f�+�r`',i� .�. � e: e; v.r-b' � � :a�':
,.yt,, *.�,r.,,.,a.0 y .o., .�� $pa.s�,yg4,Sp, S �3,47( t t.. a`�>^ ..�`'. +'�8 �'t 1�"t�"`.''�"y.. �+�i;`.�. *�y , '� ayr.-��s.�2'. .�.3.: �`� ��•`s;�y:*
.,,�` ., �Sr.•#:c ,� ..� , ".r �4_ .'S�'r.+s �b � ,, .. . ,t... t. � �;u'{ _r. ;.., S,s• ,fr., ti �,� .'�;:`�.'� ���; }u t'. ?r ��`�?„�_�'�
.y. �' '.a' ., "i �..: y,+
� "» ��. i?°. gv ER�'.�. .Y�e;j.. .C'. �Ynr.rFit *r.t5�..r�' 'S�..i!x�5t.�!§`e. � .r�'. c�s. ��o`rak�'�._. .0 ;S� `'A 1 ".ki 'f' K:�L: '�,.�. ,�i'4e `�F"F'_�, 8•' ?',�: :� 't.
,tv r.r
rw�, x. ,��r ,..w�� �, .... �»�`;�;:,�» .a.�a � .,� ,,. ,, : ,:. R�.,.���,� ^� .;�lt.��,�it. ,l�i,, �r.. �.�' �Er� ,x+ , ��,��r: �• 'r "�;:+
. £�. � .t -.:e.: ,,....� ..::,�..-,.X.�r.....$+.4 . . .M9 t.-. � , t..:. � f '•;;� ��'.'a:.y #�,`t�,'.r���' �R. r:rg.w'� . '�±��,* .,, .��r;�..�5.��`�`�N„�
,y,r>.�r '�'..- ,.h �,._...�-�., - ...�e ,� ..-t�. . ...1. .��t,...�.��?d.'...� �..;:;.'� .,w.,.r :;..$ .w.,. ,,�`�,i�r'�..,�-- _^w+`.' ix .�..�� ..+e�„��;y.t«8�-t�.n. }:'F SY u�•€�„a,�� Z .�.,,;_.
,...:,. . . .... :a•.. 5v. �.. �+ee...., .a„W.;,. .�., ..:_n fi . .., � ..,� � �.r �' �§ .
}`�,�.k�, .> �..:' .,a°..iz� `w '; .'��.A- 7� . � � •, �. ♦_.,. �. � ... r+:r�!�. ��, ;il1c. ��' �t+.:.'�t -:A?`." ,v,���,��,',
rr..[ti. .'-ti».:..�.�»�..s t......n .:. `t't8.1 ;�..,.... � c�Y t ..� .... .e. ,,.aCt" f.� ,t�.r�.'�'a,� .7i'
..,y,�w ;, �' �`�� �, °s��Yi wt�' '��. `;'�e�'f..l�x� "� a�
�n. C •.:�. . w . ,+d �"c '� #,,;. ., p,,, .a..Y '• ..'-.�. ,r,:S.� .; +a,... l+Y�➢' �i. f�'� .w+K�. �a� ^YF`���.sr �'c�. '''��,�Y*,!''""�t�'� ��° s...'S-� w� 'z;� r�
,:'� �t!�,' A �„� �,�, ti±lr��d±^. �f. 9ei .�) r 3 w ; i�x R"'•' ...r,_.
F:: ��.. ,- �q,.�+ir..�<. .:..- .r:._ �. ..,. � �-..,, s...�k�..i . � :.. � . � .:.K �� �xy_ �,. ,-ti,. �..r �� ; . � K� c �"7t r„�--.�;� .r ���i
S f�,.'rs ..�. a�' ,p.. 5��.d+.K� t" 1�:.,,,.s. �." �o_.� .�� �"...,i�:" `� rVRLr. 'i'•�1�. ;:r« � � ,r�Y�+�.��:''A �d:i��Y� ay '�+ i .d:' � 3� .1� 1�d�..�. � :.i�.
� ;..�,.��'°I.+ . '� �;:,`,�i �.� s `�,�`:,'�4''�'�ty, w.i.. �?.�,. .�a twt• :'�" :f:J���'�(�;T*',:°M,y'# ;�+�'�ti'�'!�`.r -:', �p� �' . �`�..
1"` '���u - `t` .,. �� �`� ` � '. -.. . .:
4�j4�: �s 14a;�a`,�� , . ��'_!�M'.. . �7$�� �1.�.s .�IRI J . . I l v�. . t'.:^ �s; ..• .�.... �w, :_.. �.
�„' ,� ;�� �;� ia.. ��
. u
�
� �r ` { .�r -� , � . ti+: .� � , t �.
f{ Yl� .�� �� . . . a i '1 � 7 t. � �w -t�� J i. t,•
' �, ,� tt rr.�. 'T' - .� .� � #+, �' l�.�,y^/,_�7 -� , a... ^ <.t� r `�.
� � i' ��a� ,y�r�,* u�,; ,,..:., t N. � }e�", �'tS ,�� „';.L
,� .. � � �;f .� �,.-< �.; ,� � � ,a -.�j �#t�� �;� �.Y �¢��-
�, �
'�%' �"vt�^k.��+g;; p �'`•'° �}���,y§�,�.� �; y! i�'{dd, � t� �`, t � t h�- �ti '�.�� ?���`,�`.
�'`�,z�� ,����s��-� '�� e�� r�g�+ ' r; ����� , �' ,�, "4��� �3 �a . ',u A �'". �,
��� +qn ,�#a � �:(4 � ±Y�+i �� � r� ?�o- �' � .. kryp,,,,f.�� �;z, - �� ���:'�',� !'��``',
^5^, � {j.:, h k b.�,. � -�'�t"t 5 n T+' �4� `�'S�a�, t�� ,,� < �`,.� �°�w G'p'fi'X'� 5 4� ti��8� `i°.�•
'�j"��, �' s �.,. _ `�,�f .�`° �+.��r.) �:�,$��«- t es a `.j a .w4-�ro db Y'°.g'��",�- „t�. � - �
..,�� �� � ' i '
�� ) �'. � S .� r• �'�i t� �'}'�`� . 4 �'S'��` ^ ' u§.`� s, � } �, 4"`Nx���; �`
w�v�u�,c3- '� ':� �S L ,� +C - i £'��''� `� �vs . S y '`3 m"�e°� �7 � �$r..9 6 '�xy;,,,
*a- a 4? s:^ �w w.. ,l, `' +,R,a f� #'�a; �S .� a�. •.. t'.�.?;�� M�"'�'a �.
� ;�i .,�'�'i�. btiv r��u b � ,�,�'��'���TaP+w�t�,' ' { ti, sr� �',es,w,+��' �.°r'�'v`"�3�:�,xl�Z
�'"� ..� �'.`' �:.:..aW k a�:^� g . a n�n�,�;q� ��h„�'j{;ri. �� 'p,;�"� ?!'' y _ t.�� .t�,,ip�.���`� `�a,�N#F
��' ..���� �,� # � s� ��y4� 4.'i.� ty' aJ:'y`s'9 ' .'.{�+w,y 4 l`� 7)e�''^V,:=� "fc ��•���d �J- r`'"�i�`���� f:s^��".�^'�� I�.���.
� �,,;3 x � p M t'"�za'�w t,. , � A.?i X ,:t y�`ra . ,r F
i.�„ � 3r 1`� -:S r« < i y�'} �v 3 @ �g� tsR� �` v :vm,gw� �T.�* -+�- t ����..,a yl�,�: '6�'i.a:
k. .ti:`a�,�.�K � s Y�::,�.,-. �'� x+9�. ^: �li,t 6 f p $ � P" w�.'�'i '� t s d k* :� �-�'�'� �1�
:��� ��` �' �� x ��. �` -r� '�..u,tr� �Z`r� .,g�c r 1.";,,..�;y.� �' :�s: -,�„�?x � r�����3. � ��`-�
5�,�' �' �y ���t"a:��� ,Z�� �� �` 4f #r # ✓ '! �w'Lti.,.sra y� �''�.+���"�'i4�-<id}s ;. .�?i:k'h ��,�1>,�' �7.,�',i+
�ss �§� a � � t�'a .�' ? �, r r . �`�' i� '�.. �^�s": .��'�r'i� '>� �,�:�.�,4"
:.t,�j -; .e. �� �f 4 ���t^' t ..�a < h d 1�:.v y R�'� rN' ""'� 4�• .P ? y S� v�' .
p,��3, a.. ' � n �..i r 4'� r C e.! `^i Wa�,! a } ,h . � a ,�ayx x..� y r y � F w � :�.
�.�`�, ,��� �,� a .�'.�;t� 1i„I��r i`a,�``�»ti'.�.4 r ..� � 4 y i'!. t ,�."p'. "x'et,�.'{.,t s �-.. -��a �. .r�'�4' .y�.�3�.e�"�.3P' �.'I ,�
*� � � �` :� � r. ;a.�� , "� • �� �',�.��"� �;� �. � �
�,ti� ..�'� � ax� .,,'�+'-. .�,5'��t.�tta �*`., j.vi ,� t�'.�,t�.-..: � �✓ �s.%�� �i��h�:.4�i� '�e ..t.y, ` w*r!�`��. � „r `� �r a�:,k�� .
���Tap� ';Pt- � �`�.�;L�«'�� �'$'� }.8.,..{,. .;; �e` ;a�ad• � \ �.�'`�.. �,:�?"__. 9t^ t.iqtt;rc�,��'tkNr.(` �..�� �nil�'w�!.iti'�'i� .'^'r,'+'� '"i ���``"{ r� .�9��.+ � ��r,�,�,.
r �'p ,y�� ( e s ♦ i �` .-.4�w t�f ?".w+ k l��':Y . 1 �i..a � M
t�t$�f �s�h. J �..w.-= �. .r ,w.. s'i�,����S.�y4a+���r.T,f` •L r 'e�.$ !..• t W * .+���{�.��e ,g�,:�.t�,t'�a%'�4�`�s���`;'T'�';�..'..'"r ���.°:.�+s v��'1a4�' ^' �w'!.�ar' .r.i
� "�t "• -,��1 ti' . . -.
6 ,}" 1+ �t�,,� �,' �� � a,�♦ ,�..�. rr e�y� ,.,�r` ♦�.f•f. .ib 6! �� �'r o ..t�,+n A .�. ,ra�La..41 ��.•y�:!'>{. 1' ati`MK�tiFiR., r.�q »Y* 9a
�7:. � ,-t . r srj'�r '•,+ ,� �� �; a,> �� �!�O �ti �•��te �•v... :r,q�';h..y- -�1dS<:-'� ..rtzyr{{ _,�� •� `:Wr
V� " i9..�r� � 8.,'. ,� .i:. �� .!• a�'� �� t '... �. J'' � •v.. r�3itr. arr �::>
..A,� .,�ry.�.� ;� � r�'y�r� �.t�awY .� , �s�„�;w•�y Y „ :.t. i.1,.,��..� � t � �... '�,t,'''4�,«ri + �y.xT `• %�� �a'�`'�5.'� . -f�" �rqii t;r �
'�/ �+iyy�;!r 'r,.{�. :tn:�.&+.'.Y. �Y :A'k. ;�i} ti+�.":a1y�:l' Y"i�:•.' ..��....��, t" '�y'� ,X+y��;. i+.4r;�"!}� �7' �, w,...'!� 4s 5.,�;:!t. � a
y M i
•�.w ft.��v s �# ♦_A:+�L.. „v.v'� .:.f�. /;w: e.,.�,�.d' Q "�..'k:.� ,: t� .ti '�4 ,t's
t � �5. ��'R ��' s d�ne�� "'�'^.°`;<�S` �� s�.N' -s•`# �'�:jht:#+ci �`�,.r;4z � t���:;;s'f�, �,�` f7"�'¢, .t' �?'4�w �SJ� �.�v`,��-.�k �:�� .}'�C y�
w��a ?,Fx;,t �, . v �.' ��..,. �, ra,� � ;i,a, �y n �9•k. 'wrge'• :`t �, �. `w �`'�t'�: 5� 1 ,a3, k,�.d� ^�,,,? �'?` .+'!4
�,
,
. . ..,
. :�
i, Y +� h :'� «
' •y ''�k` ,,.�.§� r �. t •,'},�!� ,::� A 4 a!?e '�' ��� �s.''' �+, '�.�r:��•3. ��° 'ra�- ���ti., v,h� �.!�4� ��;`�,`4 -.�� �i.� J"r�� �+�Y��`�i�,te� ?�'�S, o: 4��i ;'j�' t WJyG.
„ R7
r •�.b �-' ,�`a'. 'yc'��;�'s{ ,t k�� � 1 '���i. ��,y^M, .:r..,,,� �� `� �.s,o-.,,1�M"�g.,;��t �+.`� S�;'; �i_ �'�.''e.r.�� a�.`•�°-'�a k;. .t. ^1 •,a
. y�
.,.. . �. .�� : ,,ng, n�
- � ... ;�"„���� ;.' . • .,,.:.o-. ,.,[ �:", '+T �+.��',��,iy, :rs c�'r,' -a, .�t ♦.. �"e �,e ..e�' 7 3"` 3�C`Y 4A.�"S;v��, ,..� ' ' ..!%�.:a'Vfw�.,
y.t .x..i:..� �; ...,,.""Sr-.@��> ,.; <a ..>��'�..sr$;#�.;��, +<. a,�-�, .. , "i;., -.. • L.:°^.i �.,x4;' +.S.k�? _'Jxz ..�'y,w �!:� 5, x'�'i�;.. x,'Y`,�:...; ,:'� t..
. . � �• �..�'. ,�, ,.�,:� ..,�,,y� ..,... '+9�?,L.;^��..;� .,...�.t *-��.,.,r �'r,�'. a�. � " t;tz xi{Y, ..�k _aY: ��'»���!�;F�«�"` .;:�`r ���lr�,a.i�.a ,u� ��„ ^'y'
x al .f. '�: ..�.; � �.�.� .i, _ 4 "r,F � �f°�„ �pc�..+i��....�6�lr;.. ,�+, .i�� },,:'1 �!'�.�. � n:T" f :�,� y. x �.,`,a :s h`�Yg:�4� e4 .:t1�'. �'�� ;�r�,..�: ♦
,�. � y .
. �. . ,.r '�1 �
,!� ,,C s�
E .� :.i �F�� ���_..:�. . '+,r� ...��.., 'Y�+t �:;:•..t', �'"�:`,{.S�'� :���"�a . -y`at! �i iM�:r� ."d� - ,yyy `•�;t�t� �:.g�n'4,I�,.. �:.tr,`;� �,��a,µ;:�'�Y�w���»� "g�t.:..i- y,�... , 4.S,�i�S". .. •Y_ s •�
�;�, �" .1,,.�„+�. �'1�. '� ..'� r +Ma. . x ..j�,.l� e y+ �'??.;St�VY� �� � �w�� ��K s♦ ,:. `�,..',:a. L� - . �. �, :.�a a, •a _
,"I� t jj.: '` i�,.�> .�+,i�x � r�: . ••?•.. '� ��, •' "e:. '!.�$'o+ ' � '� v�;:`}^ '�,+� > �
��.L� j � �t?:d����r 1S kyn ai''�ie." �� ?"t ':y�,� , ; s'��i*.y� .da w.t� r��. . '��.` `� �% ' ,� z,� i
�t � � r. t �'�'�'.'�`„ �,��, 4� . ��. �• -��:;,� n . • ��` r � `��' �a
i�.' �r {.�� :��" .�n ;�.. ' $�"' +;;� �i• Js % � '��,���;� �� , ��, r � ,�;
{r � � �� �� , ' � , �, ����
1 �'�j as� �� . � � � r � �� '� ,r 1,, ��•�j
�..��'+ '93� + �ti r''� f!.'t�, A` '�•" � t�°. � ti•.�i ,y��� j� ,� i.'� �rt��,��y:' b'�,�t;�y'�'3y.,�y,�'�.j r��p'�% ,$� ���t
j� �+�''• ��}+t� t�'.�/�� I'� jT �' ,v� �,��,�d� ft .e'')[f�:�,u..t� +f �d yY i,.,fy�t pS i� ' " Z�� '��
•¢i 8+ � i. I�t `l � � j`�ig -N,'t' �"f�'- �,.+'f.I'� / ,y� � � ���;ah� ia��,���,. .s',l .,�.'p". :v1., + �.T���f+.+�C�,'� ! s"�.P�� ��yk��F.
f,.,� k 4} � � r,���� � �' ) ..:r ,+ � �;. '`�Y•��1� .Y�F 4 Ij. r` {rt.�<�� �:'�4:; /A �t.: i .�,-` �.r��� Y. .{.
3' <i d�^y ir:,�ry J 'i'4' X '�r, , ��' J��� � '� r x �c" �� .t: '.�i`� �+C. ',�' w .�::�..c9°
.
,,� j �.a a� , i� 'i,� _�` �.4 �� y� ��3
� } /� J �¢
.� t':;�t�.t..ds.. .;�pJ^i,:,�lR. #-��.'•��y :t� Y., t'.P :4.1 ��1 ' j� 4i� �S t; `u�' Y J� rj�l. .M�° d �.ii , ;. .f'. ....� ,� ��enr�{�..'vY,r zfiy"„-..4 } i i`'•..��..'f i': �.. . `y�•..
�Fj t.F. 7?,Y a ,i s�x�('Y � t� �.,�, t. ���� i�.{r' Y'j' � n t .�:m ,�yr,� ��N. �I� rJ< ='t � .r� �1+'� 1!` r��f °�M.^c'h�.r�c Y:.�. .,.{ +.'Y, �4.
,. . ..��'ii' ,. .�piF,.,,.r., .� � �k.. . .,� � .r�� s7 �`�'�! �t�� � Sy� y �. �� "'� #a' �i� .r�.�°. �.�
.ty' �r ,f}�e�i
�. �'a: r . } .��,. . .i, . . Y/6Y- � i -`'JI '�/r . � � �y�1%�'j� J.� d' �.. f. �'. � t�{�� cx.' �i �{�.;'< ��� +"' :�1.
>- •�. �
''"j'�,. ^ dr.rw��lt{�,. s��5��cs•,�r��a� '�Y�, p`"Y"'1 .V��ft ,�, •� � !+` „�"r,�'t'.� .� ��� '�'f: r a .�:�';�d:}!�y��� ;��rl.g �'' ti��' v ;},� �'S+{>1"�� ':�.�,,j ,�t!� .r+� . �I'�;�
,�t�.. �:��t..a r �' :t�t"�+ �f� ��,�.. �,�(r!...�,� ��y���' �# ';, rfY.;, !�'� ����� .r �,� :Y.� 71Y� ,.,i.K}� �;�t'�. �� ��..'�te"is�a".i"X .,r �-.,,�� �y, .la:Ir}t
� � ��� �:.� ��:,��� � ��`� ,�� s� ,. ����- ���;: � ��:;,,�,� n � r,- � � ,.,r�..�.a,� � �,
���_� �� � � ��� ��� -� ,. .� �� � �� � , ; �.���.
�.j r r�� f ',M'�4' s`' ,A..�:'�S{,y+'j}Zr� '."-� f�,,i.i4' �!> g �'�.�'i� `,� �r ..'�y�. 3d' +t,!�1,,. . . ����.
a tr�JYat Ys;"� ,+ '�. ""� `iy �,.1:.�' .t".tl�r��.�f'� �.��wi��r r {
! 1. ' +�' + �.�i►rt�°'ir;� :t �.
.� ��
.�. .
� " ��:
,�+ y -r ; ... � ' :� � . ,�_ �
���. r `s! s '�4, .f �
�y ,°,{"* '' v�. ' �, .
'' .-n, `,�, t � - r s
JjY`yu0. .'S�; +•� � _ s 4 S
� � �,���, �� � �
. ..
ti . . ,
. .
a �
�:���� � �
� .
s
� : ' i
�� � � '
111� �
�111--.-
t_.
„
' ' � s
' � �
�.-.—�
1 .
'��'i-_-��t ' .
, ���i�=-t+�
r.�-i �1 �-. .. . .
. . .. . . � ... � , � . . .
' I � Ro�-o
CLt i �'•"./�•LL.. �V �T 61 �nG1C t=T .
C�oss S�,-,o� 3
� �,��a._� �'' = 5 ' .
i��.�-1(���
, , "'..+►--.... 1.�p p �'•'.-.�
� "`..-�--:�.:W FfHCE /S• �
--...�_,r,_Bo�beQ1
. .� . . ��.j /��/'�+// � .. �pPOPOSED RETUNiM N;►�C�,_,,,.-� .
�� � � ,, . .. � � . . . �.� � � ��
� ` : �..�' ✓ r�i�-F�+YIN6 TAEC IINE �. �+� �. �ryG . . �O � ..
_� � 2G�i .E�� i✓'t�T�jsr' �---�.._.--._._•�„>, . . � Fr
� �, /�r --- •�.—. '�,,,�;,�.�,.` , O L EK �
���� lfrr.�.r �..� �' `_ .. ^ �.. :
�� O�VS�� C TpDIC� �� �IfY ��•�.O f t� � �� ',`.
.. . � t���.t �P .
� �°-�37;'��fJ,e(, ` 1 "'�� pROPOStD Sfd SIGN ` I
l �ti�
•- i, o �
- zo' ,
+ j . 0:3' ��o.
-- � )� c
z�% ��. �� � �� 11'i� � j i i f I R
, \ � � - . �, U l rr�� c� �
� �) /Z.5:/ .Ta�oc/ :; \' n' 9ELL S��`4��S
• � NHnL£
.._.. � ",-
� � ,
`S i: ""' "'.. --,- ...... , .,,�,J �� ►���r�t1�cu,¢.,,.,7y �'- '` . ' ��
� l ,?S/ --- � .
"�A
^,�``---- � ,Y _� �"_ � �` .
� ' �- . ` ". 'r� .. . � . � � .
t ' •�L-8X15f1/!S �(J "�� �� .
c. Q . C. ./f. •..,.�.._." � . _ . '� \. ' , ,,C'`
� `�( '" ''• ,\
i . ' , � ._ .
� � -- 25:� roprr � '7hru'Tts+(�;,�x„ ,` . .„-- '\ � \
�'Pro,++cse� E.c, . �. . \
._. . .
� � � � � ~ � \
•� ' � �� ��
� ,� . ., . �.
d 'r%�d � h �'h U j. ' � .\ , � \1
.
y (
. . F7�: '.. � �:4'.'c,� . . .. � .� � � � "� �
.. � .� ... �� . � � '
.. ... ` �� ,..
,�5ryrpG� ,r��s��n ' �'', ,
,
, .�
�r , .� �
.. /1J, ���A�•r G .T."��I e � v j���A��/e G; ,�. j� " � . .
, .._. . . � �QI/ (rl(/ : N0� PL4£5tn�aN�O 1� � � � ' ���' , �� ..�� .
. . • S1GN . ,• ` •
I J, �
�� . •
, . f'
� . . �
. i _ � ,
I` 70 ACCESS RAMP , ��r—
TDp CaI.ORADO MC. !! �
� 1�75 Larimer I I � 1
� Suite 600 �
R Genver,Colorado 80202 �,
Q��/ / O . '"-r i
, -( �! �� � � . � DROP :INLET �,�..�� � � . .'. .
. a.G�a�i�
t�en�oott .
. -:— __.
� - � . � � , IMTEASfATE SIGNO .. � �....
.
� � , � 4.8��SIDEWALR : � � �� � �� �
.. . . . . . , � ..
. ��- :�r�.�1 j�� �
_ ; _ .
�
� �
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
OCTOBER 2, 1990
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, October 2, 199Q, at
7:30 p.m. , in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem
� Lynn Fritzlen �
Merv Lapin
Robert LeVine
Peggy Osterfoss
MEMBERS ABSENT: Jim Gibson
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was the approval of minutes of the September 4 and 18,
1990, meetings. Merv Lapin questioned Kristan Pritz as to the minutes of September
4, 1990, regarding the withdrawal of the request from the Mariott Mark for rezoning
on second reading. He asked what the staff's opinion was in going forward with that
even though the applicant does not wish to go forward with the request regarding
underlying zoning. Kristan stated that clearing up the underlying zoning would be
helpful for the western and middle portions that would become HDMF, with the eastern
portion being originally zoned PA. Merv Lapin asked if there was any question in
the staff's mind as to what the underlying zoning is as the property now stands.
Kristan stated that at this point in the staff's opinion it is clear, and needed to
be put into the SDD so if there was a question in the future the information would
be available. Kristan stated she would like to work with the applicant on the
application of the zoning, Merv stated that if there was any confusion as to what
the underlying zoning was, this would be the time to solve the problem and clarify
it for the record. Kristan stated that it was clear to her but thought it would be
helpful for any future staff person to define the position. Peggy Osterfoss made a
motion to approve the minutes of September 4 and September 1$, 1990. Tom Steinberg
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
There was no Citizen Participation.
The next item on the agenda was Ordinance No. 33, Series of 199Q, first reading, an
ordinance amending Special Development District No. 4, Coldstream Condominiums.
Mayor Rose read the title in full . Shell.y Mello presented the ordinance to the
Council , amending the G'RFA allowed at Coldstream Condominiums and SDD No. 4. The
applicant is asking for an increase of 1032 additional square feet of GRFA. Shelly
stated that as a result of remeasuring the property, the GRFA was actually 66,878
square feet, rather than 63,968 square feet which was indicated in the Town of Vail
files. The staff recommends approval of the request with conditions as stated in
the staff inemo. Shelly also stated the Planning Commission had approved the request
unanimously, with additional restrictions as listed on the first page of the memo.
Eric Hill , representing the applicant, gave a history of the project. The Council
raised concerns regarding the need to grant the additional GRFA, what the additional
space was to be used for, parking concerns, recreational amenities, and employee
housing. Shelly stated it had been disclosed that they had received their rec fee
back of approximately $23,000.00, which would have to be repaid when the applicant
requests to convert the existing facility. Tom Steinberg asked if it wouldn't make
more sense•to ask for the additional GRFA when the condominium association was in a
position to request approval for the addition of an affordable housing unit, rather
than making it a two-step process. Peggy Osterfoss concurred. Mayor Rose felt the
consensus of the Council was that the concept of additional GRFA was not opposed,
but it should be granted when the applicant comes in for employee housing approval .
Kevin McTavish, representing the condominium association, stated the owners did wish
to use this additional GRFA for a deck expansion, but that the requirement to build
2-3 employee units in a given place was highly restrictive. He stated that the
racquet facility was unused at this time and would be the most likely spot for
employee housing. After a lengthy discussion, Merv Lapin made a motion to deny
Ordinance #33, Series of 1990, on first reading. Peggy Osterfoss seconded the
motion. Rob LeVine asked to go on record as saying that if and when the applicant
�
b �
� '��_,.
comes back and requests the space specifically for employee housing that he would be
receptive to approval . Merv Lapin agreed. Peggy Osterfoss stated that it would be
beneficial to have a more comprehensive plan in place before resubmittal . A vote
was taken on the motion and was passed unanimously.
The next item on the agenda was first reading of Ordinance #34, Series of 1990, an
ordinance relating to bed and breakfasts paying a Town annual business license fee
and being treated in the same manner as short term rental businesses. Mayor Rose
read the title in full . Sally Lorton, sales tax administrator, presented the
ordinance to the Council . Sally stated that the purpose of this ordinance was to
regulate bed and breakfasts in the same manner as short term rental businesses were
being regulated. Any unit with more than 2 rental units would be required to pay a
license fee. Merv Lapin asked how many units were presently licensed in the Town.
Sally stated there were two licensed and approximately 7 or 8 unlicensed businesses
in town. Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, advised the Council that this ordinance was
identical to the short term rental ordinance. There was discussion as to which
businesses would be required to pay the business license fee. Merv Lapin made a
motion to approve Ordinance #34, Series of 1990, on first reading. Tom Steinberg
seconded the motion. Peggy Osterfoss stated that she felt both short term rentals
and bed and breakfasts should be contributing in some way to the marketing fund like
all other businesses in the commun•ity. For that reason, she felt that she would not
be able to vote in favor of this ordinance. Merv Lapin stated that considering the
enforcement problem and amount of monies it involved, he thought it was not good
legislation the way we presently were doing it. Mayor Rose stated that he shared
Peggy"s thoughts on this, but also felt that with what was going to happen at the
County or State level with the reassessment of residential property to commercial
property, this ordinance and several other ordinances would need to be further
reviewed regarding commercial uses. Peggy Osterfoss agreed and concurred that some
other arrangement should be reviewed for a marketing fee that wasn't based on
operating a business. Tom Steinberg stated that they do contribute in a small way
by paying sales tax. Peggy Osterfoss asked how many do, in fact, pay sales tax.
Sally Lorton stated that the businesses do want to pay the sales tax, but did not
feel that a business license fee was appropriate. Merv Lapin stated that he felt
many of the businesses were doing this as a matter of survival , not as a pro�fitable
business, and they were, in fact, helping the economy. A vote was taken on the
motion and the motion passed unanimously. Peggy Osterfoss stated that she had
inadvertently voted for the motion.
The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #35, Series of 1990,
an ordinance defining the term "construction materials". Mayor Rose read the title
in full . Merv Lapin stated that he thought this ordinance had been presented to
Council previously and questioned the legality of it. Larry Eskwith stated that
this does not change anything, only defines the term. There was some discussion on
the definition of construction materials. A motion was made by Rob LeVine to
approve Ordinance #35, Series of 1990, on first reading. Tom Steinberg seconded the
motion. Merv Lapin clarified the purpose of defining what are construction
materials for tax purposes, those items being considered construction materials
being tax exempt. A vote was taken and the ordinance was approved 5 - 1, Lynn
Fritzlen opposing.
The next item on the agenda was the action on the Forest Service Participating
Agreement. Ron Phillips addressed the Council regarding the work being done over
the past year by the Forest Service, the Town of Avon, the Town of Minturn, Eagle
County, and the two resort associations, to reach an agreement regarding the new
information center at Dowd �unction. Phillips stated that the agreement presented
to the Council had been approved by most of the entities involved, and $15,000.00 is
budgeted to contribute to that effort. �his is the same amount that is being
contributed by the Town of Avon and Eagle County. The money contributed will be
used to construct a public area in the main entry office of the Forest Service
building for a visitor center. Tom Steinberg stated that Eagle County's
contribution was $13,500. Merv Lapin asked if the Town of Vail would be supplying
any personnel at the facility. Ron Phillips stated that VRA and ABCRA have the
right to provide personnel if they desire. Bill Wood, from the White River National
Forest Service office, stated that he had spent quite a bit of time over the last
year working with Ron and the signatories on the agreement, getting it to a point
where it was ready to be signed. He did state that the Avon/Beaver Creek Resort
Association, because of some internal considerations, is unable to sign this
agreement at this time. All of the other entities are receptive to this agreement.
He did not feel this would affect the VRA or the Town of Vail . Merv Lapin asked
what the annual operating costs were expected to be. Bill stated that he estimated
that the overhead costs would be approximately $10,000. This does not include
Forest Service personnel . Bill stated that the building the Forest Service is
_2_
�.
presently occupying will go back to its owners. Mayor Rose asked Bill to give an
overview of what will be housed in the new facility and the benefit to the
community. Bill stated that the building will be located at I-70 and Highway 24.
Start-up date for building is May 1, 1991, with plans to be occupying the facility
in October of 1991. The office will be open 8-5 Monday through Friday on a
year-round basis, with the office being opon on weekends during the summer months.
He stated that VRA had expressed an interest in staffing it on weekends on a
year-round basis. The Forest Service felt this was a highly visible location and
had high potential to serve as a Regional Information Center for all area entities.
Tom Steinberg asked if the Forest Service received credit for tap fees from the old
Meadow Mountain building that was previously on that site. Bill stated that he did
not believe they did. He stated the Forest had to develop their own water system
there, but the engineers were working on the sewer tap fee issue. Peggy Osterfoss
reiterated her concern of extending the hours of operation, particularly during the
summer. Bill agreed. A motion was made by Merv Lapin that the Participating
Agreement between the White River National Forest, the Avon/Beaver Creek Resort
Association, the Vail Resort Association, the Town of Minturn, the Town of Avon, the
Town of Vail , and Eag1e County be approved. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A
vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
The next item on the agenda was the appeal of the PEC decision to approve the
preliminary plan, retaining wall height variance, and road grade variance for the
Spraddle Creek Subdivision: George Gillett, applicant. Mayor Rose excused himself
from the bench, as the company he works for has been involved in the design of the
project. He stated he would be available for any questions that should arise in the
discussion. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, gave a brief history of the
project prior to Kristan taking the floor. Kristan stated she would be hitting the
highlights of the proposal and that the staff did recommend approval on two
variances regarding retaining wall height, road grade variance, and the preliminary
plan. Kristan stated there were 14 buildable hillside residential lots, each of
which may have a caretaker unit up to 1200 square feet. Three employee housing
units will also be built. There was discussion regarding the time frame for
building the employee housing units. Kristan explained the soil-nailing system to
the Council . The staff had asked the� applicant to look into this type of system for
the project. Various �ypes of landscaping plants, bushes, and vines, were discussed
by the Council and applicant Kristan reviewed each item in the staff
Se tember 24 1990 to the �v��k°�ti'� �� � �� , - � ��� h��� ,�� �, ���z��,���!�° dated
�,��:� ��,y��,���}�, z � � ��,Cat�t�,,ci 1 A���t����r� �,�����l�'����;��t���%� ����'�����.".������'����°�.
. � \S}. ,:,c� '1�St"� �t`"�`��'l. „� £3 �.i'�� a, �.��c�cR��y�.� �p�4,,� �+� n3 ./?��.... � �.a�'�k+T.�/�z� �k p .°�it� �' �
�� :. � � SS l��w� �� '�� ���Gei ��4i CA����4���YY'f������i �`��,n�' \��i �;�'"'�o� ..;..--4 Z �h\.'. 3 '?`v .,;7�A.`({
. � CI�� ����`�,��k,�2. a�1'�n'-`��`� ":�\d°�tK �� '�s� r+, t � �fl;'��,?h9},�\Y'i'�� 1� k 1 .;�,;S t�'S�`"�` ,�i�•@��a?.�dP��,����h��� �;� �C a�',� �A
��$ ����� � ������ zt �u�� �e�� a m�n�mltm s � ��?����.,,ar��ur��,.M�ar�,'��:����c��� ,
�r�-�ts=���l�c�u�d= � �e�ermi�t��ir����w��rtls�a'��F't n�:� ���,� ��� N.,,,.;
����, �.�„�`;a��3�?tix�Gs"��`��; Th21^e WdS d1SCUSS1011
� relating to an on-site��l�v'e��y�b������r�g��a`I�1`o`rved within the subdivision. Kristan stated
that the next step would be to go back to the Planning Commission for final plat
approval Peggy Osterfoss reiterated her concern for at least one employee housin�
�<,
u�;�,t ��, k�e� bu i 1}t i n phase one of the ro ,ect �T���t��'����be�� ,z��e '�tes`��d .`�h.�.�s����t���v�'o�d
���;�, � � �. r t � i�� � q ^ti �c O��C 't�"° s��> ..a.k. .a�,.. aw 9 ,.u...,,..,.��.......,...� ..,__.. _ .._..
��r�es�°s=�e,,..atic���.a.ta, .��t�, �I�a�� -�������ett�, �,���= Kri stan stated that the appl i cant had
worked very closely with the staff to ensure that all points were covered and
fine-tuned before presentation. Jay Peterson wished to mention that Bill Wood from
the Forest Service had 'given a lot of his time in working with the applicant and
staff as well , in the preparation process. After some discussion relating to filing
fees vs. time spent on this project thus far, Merv Lapin made a motion that the PEC
decision and recommendations October 2, 1990,� o�t. ,�h� ��,�ll�t� �u�d�vision be
�pp��ue�, wl�h�y �,he ����'��f�1���ion or� T�er� � " ;,��' � ��� �i� orrly`arle �i���d��u������►`g
fti re 1 ac y1.�� { y} ,{.. p ,j./� T� ��. �y��}�.�{�'y��}�Q,���7�3�V� ���,� �+���� tz �,� ��� ; �� � ��`�
. �F.. . � hR �� y�R� R""l���F� .��If 4�V 4V��t ��4 ���:h�l G�� ��1���1� ��41� ��, t nF1S �kk .'�,( ��i W:�..��'��Y, ..
et}' " �y+�, � t}� � � wy\��,l.a p<,\\§4L d'�\\l '�"`�"� 5yt h _ '�����
�
. ��$�"��',��`, '°" y,.4.... ��`������������,�,+4�����y\�4���F,�4�� �� �����4n�G_����������� ��t� ��1'�� t � \ � �����`�
�v��lf��v"F1�44S�������1��kc��`��'�"��4a't;�R�'a"e'.+'S` .t������5 2� yl� ���� ����U� �� Y9�G� ��� �l�1��>����� ��,}�� S
�� i�#�{.�� £� �? � c�� �� 2�tCi ;QCt k
k������������ b� � � '� � j#�`�, �u� `� d���r������`��'����� rr e�'����'�� ��
�"�'�'���»�a�'�ng-��u�c�sts.� s,���1^��`�'����ob �l.eVine"�seco'nded�t�ie�motion. P�eggy Oster�Foss stat`ed��
that a good job had been�done by the staff and the applicant on this project thus
far. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously. Dan Corcoran stated he
would like to thank Kristan Pritz, Greg Hall , and Todd Oppenheimer, for their hard
work and for the department heads within the Town of Vail for their assistance.
The next item on the agenda was a request to amend the Town of Vail 's snow avalanche
hazard map in the general vicinity of Vail Meadows, Filing No. 1. Greg Hall and
Shelly Mello, representing the Town of Vail , presented the item to the Council . A
map was handed out to the Council relating to Lot 22, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1.
The red and blue hazard areas were defined on the maps given to the Council . Art
Mears, an expert in the field of avalanche hazards, was hired by the Town to study
the subject area and report back to the Town on his findings. The study being
proposed for adoption shows that the red hazard zone is moved uphill to the east
while the end of the blue zone essentially remains the same, as indicated in the
1977 study. The new study would allow for development on Lot 22. Art Mears gave a
_3_
, �
report to the Council on his findings. pne of the major concerns was in regard to
the effects of the water tower above the subject lot if it were to be in the path of
an avalanche. The Council is being asked to amend the hazard map according to the
information found by the Mears' study, as the Town of Vail requested and paid for
the study, rather than the property owner. The Council asked Larry Eskwith what his
opinion was as to who would be liable for the damage if the water tank were to
break. Larry stated that he would need to investigate the matter further before
giving an opinion. After some discussion, Peggy psterfoss made a motion to approve
the request to amend the Snow Avalanche Hazard Map in the general vicinity of Vail
Meadows. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. Tom Steinberg asked if Upper Eagle
Valley was aware of all this information. Jerry Bender from Upper Eagle Valley
Consolidated Water and Sanitation Districts addressed the Council and assured them
the district was very much aware of the s�udy and possible liability and they were
reviewing the studies conducted. Motion passed 5-2, Merv Lapin opposing. Mayor
Rose thanked all concerned with work done on this project.
The next item on the agenda was an appeal of the DRB decision to deny approval of
construction of a fence/trench to mitigate rockfall hazard at Booth Falls. Greg
Hall of the Public Works Department, the applicant, presented the item to the
Council . There was discussion on the use of the trench/fence method as opposed to
the berm/trench presently being used to mitigate the rockfall hazard. Mayor Rose
stated that the Council should see the fence/trench solution presentation that the
DRB saw. Ken Brotsky, Senior Vice President of Banner Consulting Engineering and
Architects of Glenwood Springs whose firm has been retained by the Public Works
Department to design and monitor construction of a rockfall mitigation system, gave
a presentation on the fence/trench solution to the Council . He stated the fence was
developed in Switzerland, and has been introduced in the United States within the
last 4-5 years. The proposal calls for removing a portion of the existing berm and
placing that material back into the trench to develop a wide flat area. The fence
could then be installed in the flat area. This flat area will also allow some room
behind the fence for equipment to remove any rocks that had fallen down. It was
felt that the area below the fence could be removed from the high hazard area with
the installation of this fence. Jill Kammerer asked Ken to address the stability of
the existing berm and whether the Council needed to be concerned about the solution
to the problem prior to next spring. Ken stated that there was a concern at the
same time last year and felt that precautions taken then eliminated the danger of
the berm coming down the hill . The cost of the fence is approximately $200,000.
Larry Eskwith asked the Council to deal with the matter of the appeal of the DRB
decision at hand, rather than get into the matters that may relate to a current
lawsuit involving the Town of Vail resulting from existing berm construction.
Discussion was held as to the landscaping to be done to eliminate the visual impact
of the scar currently on the mountainside, and who will be paying for the mitigation
to be done. Larry Eskwith again stated that the issue at hand was the DRB decision
regarding construction of the fence/trench, as opposed to areas the Council was
getting into at this time. Larry suggested that the Council should call an
Executive Session to discuss these concerns. Ray Story, Booth Falls resident,
voiced his concerns with the chain on events leading to the decision to install the
fence/trench solution. ' Mayor Rose stated that he would not be able to make a
decision at this meeting, although he felt the discussion that was held was
beneficial in knowing what the DRB concerns were. He felt the next step would be to
go into an Executive Session in the very near future and discuss the Council 's legal
responsibilities, liabilities, and thoroughly understand the issue, and then come
back into a public discussion. Larry Eskwith agreed. Larry stated to Ray Story
that the Town had not gone out to bid for this solution and that nothing has been
done to proceed with it. Because of the time limitations, it was felt that the Town
needed to get DRB approval as soon as possible so that if this was the solution
chosen, it could be done this fall . A motion was made by Lynn Fritzlen and seconded
by Merv Lapin to table this issue until further direction from the staff. Ron
Phillips, Town Manager, informed the Council that Joe Pellar called him today, owner
of the lot at the west end of the mitigation. Ron had been asked to express to the
Council Mr. Pellar's opposition to the fence. Mayor Rose stated to Larry that if
the motion did pass to table the issue, an Executive Session needed to be scheduled
as quickly as possible so the Council could understand the legal issues. Larry
suggested the next Council work session. Peggy psterfoss asked Larry to also give
the Council guidance as to how the neighborhood could be involved in the solution to
this. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
The last item on the agenda was an appeal of the DRB decision to deny approval of a
proposed bike path on the north side of Bighorn Road in Colorado Department of
Highway right-of-way. Mayor Rose stated that this was located mainly in the East
Vail area from Streamside Circle to the east Town boundary. Ji11 Kammerer and Greg
Hall presented the appeal to the Council . The wall in question could be constructed
_q_
r�
out of several different types of materials and these were presented to the
Council . The Highway Department was against the dry stack boulder wall . The DRB
voted against the wall only because of the 1300 foot length. The wall varied in
height between 2-4-6 foot lengths. The cost of the wall was also a DRB concern. If
the waTl were to extend above 6 feet, it would need a variance approved by PEC. The
application has been tabled at this time. Jill Kammerer stated that the reason the
design of the wall had gone to Design Review Board before the wall height variance
had been requested was the materials to be used in constructing the wall would make
a difference in the height variance requested from the Planning Commission. Greg
reviewed the Highway Department's concerns over the wall and the widening of the
bike path. Tom Steinberg asked if there were traffic figures for automobiles using
this particular section of the road. Greg stated that these figures were available,
however, he did not have them with him. Peggy Osterfoss asked why the DRB was
concerned with the cost of the construction. Greg stated hat the DRB was possibly
over-stepping its boundaries at that point. Tom Steinberg stated that the reason he
asked about the traffic numbers is the possibility of one-waying traffic at that
point and bringing the traffic back through the developments and using some of the
highway right-of-way for bicycles on each side of the road. Tom was interested in
investigating a way to do away with the construction of the wall . Greg stated tha�
the road in question is a Town of Vail road that the Town has jurisdiction over.
The only concern the Highway Department would have is the fill flow. Much
discussion was held relating to the location of the path. Merv Lapin concurred with
George Lamb's memo regarding rerouting of the bike path, stating that there was
enough traffic on Bighorn Road, with cars and buses traveling there. Greg stated
that buses did not use this particular road on their routes. Mayor Rose stated he
thought it would be beneficial for the Council to take a look at the area in
question to see what options were available. Merv Lapin suggested getting input
from local bikers also. A motion to table this issue until the Council reviews
their options was made by Rob LeVine and seconded by Tom Steinberg. A vote was
taken on the motion and it was passed unanimously.
As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
� � �—�__-----.
Kent . Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
�4.�'��''�-C�.rYYLtt,l�.�.._,�
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, To n Clerk
s
Minutes taken by Mary A. Caster
_5_
�,�
f . .� .. . . . .
� .s -
r .
�.. . b . . � . . . .. . . . . � .. ��a/�
, {,. . ... . . . � . � � - � . .
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
,,-�� September 24, 1990
Present Staff _
Chuck Crist Kristan Pritz
Diana Donovan `Mike 'Mollica
Ludwig Kurz Jill` Kammerer
Jim Shearer Shelly Mello
Kathy Warren Andy Knudtsen
Dalton Williams Penny Perry :
_ Members Absent
Connie Knight
The meeting was called to order at 3:25 p.m. by Diana Donovan,
Chairperson.
Item No. 1: Approval of `minutes from the Auqust 24 � 1990 and
Septe k�er 10, 1990 me�tings.
Chuck Crist and Dalton Williams asked Penny to make changes on
pages 10, 11, and 14 and Penny agreed.
A motion to approve the minutes from the Auqust 24 , 1990
meeting with corrections was made by Chuck Crist'and
seconded by Dalton Williams.
+,
VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVOR
Item No. 2: A request for an exterior alteration for Vail
Mountaineerin�in the Be11 Tower Buildin�_201
Gore Creek Drive Part of Tract A B1ock 5B Vail
Villaqe 1st Filing.
Applicant: Axel Wilhelmson
Ji11 Kammerer explained that this item had been discussed on the
site visits.
The board felt they were comfortable with the request per the
staff inemo.
Diana asked if there were any comments from the public or the
applicant and Ned Gwathmey, representing the applicant stated
that the applicant agreed with the staff inemo. There were no
public comments.
Jim Shearer stated that he liked the proposal with the most ;
planting and Kathy Warren, Chuck Crist, and Diana Donovan all
agreed with him. .
1
PEC Minutes
9/24/90 Meeting
Dalton liked the proposal with the most symmetry and Ludwig
agreed with Dalton but felt he could be `easily swayed to support'
the proposal with the most landscaping.
A motion to approve the exterior alteration' submitta3 B.
which' included planter` landscaping,` with the details of the
column base to be worked out with staff per the ''staff inemo
was made by Kathy` Warren and seconded by Chuck Crist:
VOTE• 6-0
Item No. 3: A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4L
Coldstream Condominiums in order to amend Sections
18,46.090 �Bl density and 18.46. 1Ofl {B} flo�r
area, at Lo�' 53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476
Westhaven Drive. '
Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association> '
Shelly Mello presented the proposal for staff. She explained
that the applicant was requesting a major amendment to SDD No. 4-
-Cascade Village, Area B - Coldstream Condominiums. The
applicant was proposing to amend Section 18.46. 100 (B) Floor Area
from 65,000 sq. ft. GRFA to 67,930. Shelly reviewed the
background of the :project and rationale `behind the request.
- Shelly reviswed the zoning considerations, criteria, and
development standards used in evaluating SDD amendment requests.
Staff recommendation was for approval with the conditions found
within the memo.
Erich Hill, architect representing the applicant, explained that
Kevin McTavish, manager of Coldstream, wished to exp].ain the
reasons for not going forth with the employee unit.
Kevin McTavish stated that the Council would require a recreation
fee im an exorbitant amount to be paid at the time an employee
unit would be completed. The fee made the cost of completing an
employee unit completely unreasonable.
Kathy Warren asked Kevin if he would agree to the site coverage
limitation called out in the staff inemo. Kathy felt that
enclosing of garages would be an asset and wanted to give
flexibility to the applicant that allowed such an enclosure.
She11y Mello felt that it would be possible to word the condition
in order to exclude the enclosure of carports as counting toward
site coverage.
2
PEC Minutes
9/24/90 Meeting
Kathy repeated her question to Kevin regarding the site coverage
limitation and Kevin asked for clarification. Shelly clarified
the limitation and Kevin agreed,
Diana commented that if the applicant wished to convert the
racquet ball courts to employee housing, they would not have the
GRFA available and Shelly explained'that they would have to come
back before the board,
Diana asked if the difference in square footage was due to the
building not being built according' to plans `and Shelly explained
that staff felt the discrepancy` was due 'to different methods of
calculation, and possibly staff error in the past, Staff felt
that the current methods were more 'accurate.
Diana asked if the 250 ordinance could be used on the project and
Shelly responded that it could be used, but only internally.
Chuck Crist asked about the five parking spaces that were
required but not existing.
Shelly explained that originally, there were 84 spaces required.
Due to the evolution of the project, there` were now only 79
spaces. The 79 spaces seemed to be adequate.
Diana asked, if the shortage became a problem, could the board
require the remaining 5 spaces be added, and Mike answered they
could, however, staff did not see a problem presently.
Erich Hill responded that he had no idea as to where the spaces
were originally proposed and Kevin McTavish guessed that it could
have been due to the enclosure of the trash facilities.
Diana felt that it might be to the Town' s advantage to mention
the shortage in the conditions that would be listed on the
present proposal.
Dalton Williams felt strongly about the employee unit. He felt
that it was critical with the employee housing shortage for the
project to supply housing. He felt that if the Board were to
approve additional square footage, employee housing should be
included in the proposal.
Erich Hill commented that the applicant would need more GRFA and
Dalton responded that he would be willing to a�prove additional
GRFA.
3
PEC Minutes
9J24J90 Meeting
Kevin commented that $300, 000 was a 'rather e�ensive 1032 sq. ft.
unit.
Ludwig Kurz and Jim Shearer had no further comments.
' Diana asked Kevin if they had a manager's unit, and Kevin
explained that there was no manager's office in the racquet club
building. The Condominium Association rented a unit for the
manager. _
Diana commented that in some ways, she agreed with Dalton
regarding the employee unit. She would like to see a condition
that', if the racquet ball court building was converted in the
future, that the conversion include employee housing.
Kathy Warren suggested simply adding the wording '�within the
existing racquet ball building" to the condition f�und in the
staff inemo.
Erich e�lained that problematically, three units were almost
impossible and Kevin added that the original proposal called for
one employee unit and offices.
Kathy remembered that she was uncomfortable with the amount of
- office space in' the original proposal. She recalled that she
felt two employee units could be included at that time.
A motion to recommend to the Town Council approval of a
ma�or amendment to SDD No. 4, Coldstream Condominiums per
the staff inemo with the following conditions was made by
Kathy Warren and seconded b� Dalton Wil3iams:
1. The density of the proj,ect shall be reduced from 65
units to 45 free market units {the number of "free
market units existinq� , and three�ermanently
restricted ��emplo_yee" units, for a total of 48 units
allowed.
2 . If any change is made to the racquet ball facility in
the future, 2 employee units shall be included in the
facility.
4
PEC Minutes
9/24/90 Meeting
3 . The allowable site coverage shall be reduced to 36:500
sct. ft. from '64 .216 scx ft. Currently, 34,878 sa, ft.
of site` coveraae exists. The enc3osure ot' the existinci
carports not to cc�unt as `site coveracxe.
4. 5hould the Office of Community Development deem that
the existinq parking be insuf€icient, the applicant
will be required to install additional spaces.
Discussion after the motion centered around the feasibility of
building two employee units and an office in the racquet ball
building.
Kevin, speaking for himself, stated that he felt the government
was limiting options rather than creating them.
Diana commented to Kevin that the Board was trying to get the
message to the public that the need for employee housing is
important.
VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVOR
' Item No. 4: A reguest for a conditional use permit and a
side setback variance in order to construct a
remediation 'svstem at the Vail Amoco Service
Station, 934 S. Frontage Road.
Applicant: Chevron U.S.A. , Inc.
Since the proposal had been seen at a previous work session, Jill
Kammerer, representing the staff, reviewed only those areas in
which changes had been made. Jill explained that the applicant
had agreed to move the trees south of the remediation building
uphill, install additional landscaping along the station' s
eastern property line in an area between the back wall of an
existing planter and the Town of Vail shop chain link fence, to
remove the chain link fence, and to install an irrigation system
to water the trees south of the remediation building. The staff
recommendation was for approval of the conditional use permit and
a side setback variance. Staff believed the extraordinary
circumstances of hydrocarbon petroleum product subsoil and
groundwater contamination justified a setback variance. The
recommendation for approval was conditional upon those items
agreed to by the applicant (as mentioned at the beginning of the
presentation) being completed.
There was no applicant's presentation.
5
PEC Minutes
9/24/90 Meeting
Jim Shearer asked if the Design Review Board would review the
redwood fence and Jill answered "yes. "
A motion to apprc�ve a conditional use permit and a side
setback variance per the staff inemo with the followinq
conditions was made by Chuck Crist and seconded by Jim
Shearer
1. Applicant to install additional landscaping alonq the - -
station's `eastern property iine in an area between the
back wal3 of an existing planter and tfie Town of Vail
shop chain link fence.
2 . The applicant shall instal�l 5 to 7 spruce trees in the
grassy area south c�f the unit close to the proposed
redwood fence:
3 . The applicant shall install a drip irriaation system to
insure survival of the s�ruce trees.
4. Annual review and approval of the Conditional Use
Permit by the PEC. The Conditional use permit for the
remediation system shall terminate when the unit is no
; lonqer necessary,
VOTE: 5-1 WITH DALTON WILLIAMS ABSTAINED BECAUSE HE WAS NOT
PRESENT AT THE WORK SESSION PRESENTATION OF THE ITEM.
Item No. 5: A request to amend the Town of Vail 's Snow
Avalanche' hazard map in the general vicinity of
Vai1 Meadows, Filinq #1, pursuant to Section 18,&9
of the Town of Vail ZoninQ Code.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Shelly Mello explained that the Town of Vail was requesting to
amend the Snow Avalanche Hazard Map for the Vail Meadows
avalanche path. The amendment was a result of the reevaluation
' of the runout distances and the hazard zonation of the area
completed by Art Mears. Shelly explained which lots would be
affected by the amendment and the result the amendment would have
on the lots.
6
PEC Minutes
9/24/90 Meeting
Shelly reviewed the background behind the amendment. The staff
recommendation was for approval of the proposed amendment. As
per Section 18:69.030, the master hazard plans may be altered to
conform with new information or existing conditions. ` Staff
recommends approval as `per `"Quantitative Analysis of Runout
Distance, Energy and Avalanche `Zoning Implications, Vail Meadows
Avalanche, Vail, Colorado" by Art Mears (Septetnber 1990) .
Diana Donovan asked for clarification as to what type of
de�elopment may be done and Shelly responded that in a red
avalanche area no development can be constructed and in the blue
avalanche zone construction can be completed with mitigation.
Kristan elaborated that anyone who builds on a hazard area would
have to have 'a site specific study done.
Chuck Crist asked if the blue zone merely touched a corner, would
the owner have to mitigate and Krisfan responded that the owner
would be required to have a site specific study done.
Shelly commented that the area studies are general.
Frank McKibben, Lot 28 owner, felt his lot was affected by the
study. He wanted to commend the Town of Vail for ha�ing the
study completed. He commented that he had concerns regarding the
Borne house at the DRB meeting more specifically as it related to
the water tower. He felt that the study did not address the
tower. To his understanding, the Water District had done a study
and plan to design and implement a diversionary structure. He
was concerned about the houses that had been added that he felt
had already expanded the flow to the left or right as well as the
possible construction on Lot 22 . Also, if the Water District did
a major diversionary structure as proposed, the study in question
could be a "moot point��.
Shelly explained to Frank that the Water District would be
required to have a site specific study completed as well. The
study would have to show that there would be no impacts upon
other properties.
Kristan explained that the decision before the Board was to
approve or deny the boundaries found on the map. Whether or not
the owner of Lot 22 could mitigate in a manner in which no
impacts would occur on other properties was a separate issue.
7
PEC Minutes
> 9/24/90 Meeting
Frank stated that he strongly felt that no further approvals
should be given until the Water District diversion was addressed
and Kristan responded that the` water tower mitigation would be
addressed at the time it is proposed:
Diana reiterated what the planners had stated regarding the fact
that any mitigation, including the water tower mitigation, would
not be allowed to impact other properties: No diversiori to other
properties would be allowed.
Jay Peterson, representing Bob Borne--owner of Lot 22, stated
that RBD engineering is looking at the water problem. He
reiterated that Mr: Borne and the Water District could not
mitigate in any manner that would impact adjac�nt properties.
Tom Leroy, owner of Lot 21, commented that he was one of the many
owners in the area that mitigated. He mitigated by the siting, of
his home. The adoption of the new study would mean he spent
unnecessary money moving his home out of the .red hazard area.
The `new study moved the red zone uphill and his property would be
a11 b1ue. He did not feel the study should be approved until the
Water District mitigated the water tower. He felt that no matter
what the Water District did, the mitigation would impact the
properties below. Ae asked that the study not be adopted until
the water tower and Lot 22 construction was completed and a new
study performed.
Byron Aoyle, Lot 26 owner, asked if staff had asked HydroTriad
their opinion of the second Art Mears study.
Shelly responded that staff decided to have the study under
question completed because of a new method of calculations. The
first Art Mears study and the HydroTriad study were done with old
avalanche calulation methods.
Byron asked who paid for the 3rd study, the Town or Bob Borne.
Ae also wanted to know how the forces were defined and Shelly
explained that the Town paid for the study and Art Mears would
have to explain the forces.
Byron asked how the Blue zone could be greater than the original
study and the red zone smaller. Ae felt there should be a third
opinion, not a third study.
Shelly explained to the group of concerned members of the public
that the development of Lot 22 was never taken into consideration
on the report.
8
, � ' � � � �
PEC Minutes
9/24/90 Meeting
Byron stated that as a property owner, he would like to see a
third opinion separate from Hydrotriad and Art Mears.
Shelly explained that the amendment would go before the Council
on Tuesday night and staff would see if Art Mears would be
available to answer the technical questions. She e�lained that
Art Mears was an expert in 'the area of hazards.
Kristan asked Byron what he expected a third study to show and
Byron responded that he simply felt ,there was too much of a
discrepancy,
Diana Donovan felt inclined to agree with the new technology.
Especially since it did not adversely affect any persons. Diana
commented that the lines are general. That is why site specific
studies were required:
Kristan commented that the bottom line was that no owner was
going to `have to mitigate any differently than in the past. All
owners that had avalanche zone designations on their lots would
still have to have a site specific study. She asked the
concerned public what specific 'questions they had for Art Mears.
Byron responded that he would like to know what the forces were
- that determined red and blue zones. Were they mass, weight, or
speed and have they changed or stayed the same? Byron wanted to
know why the red avalanche area was shorter and the blue
avalanche area longer?
Frank McKibben wanted to know what risks were involved with the
Avalanche hazard in it present condition?
$yron stated that he also would like to know what impacts would
be present with mud from problems with the water tank?
Kristan commented that the staff would see if Upper Eagle Valley
Water and Sanitation would come to the Council meeting on Tuesday
as well. She did feel though, that it was a separate issue.
Joyce Walker, Lot 28 owner, reiterated Byron's comments. She
also wanted to know what the different forces were that created
blue and red zones.
Shelly commented that Bob Borne's, owner of Lot 22, site study
was extensive and site specific. The new study which was done by
Art Mears for the Town, dated September 2990 was for a larger
area and would not be as site specifc.
9
PEC Minutes
9/24/90 Meeting
Tom, an owner in the area, asked what amount of diversion was
considered acceptable, 1 inch or moving the line?
Diana stated that in the Board's opinion, mitigation cannot
divert impact onto adjacent property.
Kristan felt that it would be best to direct the question to Art
Mears. She felt the intent of mitigation was not to shift the
hazard to an adjacent 1ot. Kristan stated the avalanch ordinance
did not have the same requirements as the debris and rockfall
ordinances regarding impacts on adjacent properties.
Frank McKibben commented that -it was one thing to have an
avalanche hit your home. It was another to have a house hit your
house.
Kathy Warren stated that, unfortunately, avalanche is not an
exact study. She felt that having a study updated to be` more
accurate was for the benefit to the whole neighborhood.
Diana commented that regardless of where the blue line now fell,
the red line is further away.
Frank McKibben commented that he had trouble understanding how
the red zone could decrease and the blue zone increase.
Dalton stated that he understood Frank's comments on a
mathematical point of view. He did feel that the first study was
inexact as shown by the rounded boundary line. The study
completed with new technology seemed more accurate as depicted by
the jagged edges on the boundary lines. .
A motion to recommend to the Town Council to approve an
amendment the Town of Vail's Snow Avalanche hazard map in
the c�eneral vicinitY of the Vail Meadows, FilinQ #1 to Town
Council per the staff inemo was made bv Dalton Williams and
seconded by Jim Shearer
Discussion after the motion:
Jim Shearer recommended to the public to attend the Council
meeting on Tuesday.
10
PEC Minutes
�� 9/24/90 Meeting
Shelly stated that staff will try to have Art Mears and a
representative from Upper Eagle Va11ey Water and Sanitation in
attendance.
VOTEc 6-0 iN FAVOR
item No. 6: A request for a ma-ior subdivision, to approve
the preliminary 'plan, a request for a variance to
the maximum height for retaining walls, and a
request for a variance to the maximum percent
grade for a road� on a parcel commonly referred to
as Spraddle 'Creek, an approxima�e 40 acre parcel
located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 `
interchancte and east of the Spraddle Creek livery.
Applicant: GeorcLe Gillett, Jr
Diana Donovan explained to the public in attendance that the
Board had seen the item in a minimum of 3 previous work sessions.
Therefore, staff was asked to only review those items which had
been changed. if there were additional questions from the
public, they were asked to either speak up and ask questions or
refer to the memo.
Kristan Pritz reviewed those items which had changed since the
last work session.
Kristan explained that the staff ,had asked the applicant to
exclude hazard areas on Lots 4, ,�, 14 so that the areas did not
contribute to GRFA. Also, greenbelt areas on Lots l and 7 were
not to contribute to site coverage and GRFA.
Kristan explained that the pink area on the site plan displayed
on the tack board was where staff would like to see the envelopes
reduced to save the tree lines. in looking at the GRFA and site
coverage, she felt the refinements would work. Lot 14 was the
biggest issue. �
The applicant had agreed to provide 3 employee housing units
which was 21%. All caretaker units were to �be attached with the
exception of Lot One. She requested comments regarding the
detached unit on Lot 1 to be located by the guard gate.
Regarding road grade easements, the applicant had allowed for a
possible Frontage Road extension if needed in the future.
Staff recommendation was for approval of the variances with
conditions. The conditions found within the memo were not due to
problems but rather to allow for refinements in the future.
11
PEC Minutes
9/24/9,0 Meeting
Kristan"wanted the applicant to know that staff appreciated their
willingness to refine the plans,
Joe Macy stated that the applicant had no formal presentation.
He explained that Mark Wentworth, from the livery, and Bill
Woods, of the U.S, Forest Service were` present and available for
questions.
Jim Shearer asked Kristan to explain the 80-100% of allowable
GRFA found in condition No, 6 and Kristan responded that the 80-
100% was reasonable for site coverage, The garage was not GRFA
but was still site coverage. The Ordinance allowed 15°s site
coverage of lot area.
Jim then asked who would own the greenbelt areas, and Jay
Peterson answered that° Mr. Gillett would keep ownership but
agreed to rezone the property. Jim asked what would happen with
the defiached caretaker unit on Lot 1 since the area was to be
zoned greenbelt, and Jay explained that it was an area to be
refined and worked out.
Jim asked how the applicant felt about the required 3 employee
units, and Joe Macy explained that they anticipated most of the
property owners would want employee units. They had, however,
committed to three.
Jim then asked Bill Woods of the U.S,F.S. how the service felt
about the development, and Bill Woods explained that the U.S.F.S.
had basically used the same concurrent planning processes as the
Board and felt comfortable at this time.
Kathy Warren asked Bi11 Woods if he had any concerns regarding
the proposed grade to the proposed new livery site and Bill
explained that he had not looked at that portion of the proposal
in detail, that it would be looked at.
Joe Macy explained that the applicant had met with Mark
Wentworth. He was present and available for comments.
Bill Wood explained that the U.S.F.S. approval was contingent
upon the agreement between the applicant and the livery, Mark
Wentworth.
Kent Rose, engineer representing the applicant, explained that
basically the proposed grade to the livery was the same as what
was there now. The proposal was for 16% and the existing road
was 11%.
12
PEC Minutes
' 9/24/90 Meeting
Joe Macy interjected that the present road was not maintained and
the proposed road would be. Therefore, access should actually be
easier.
Dalton asked Mark Wentworth if he planned to run a snowmobile
operation in the winter and if the road grade would cause a
problem at that time.
Mark answered that the road was not perceived to be a problem.
He had no intentions to run a snowmobile operation. If they did,
transportation would be by a 4 wheel truck or van and he did not
envision any problems.
Jim Shearer asked if the restriction of no on-site livery was
acceptable to the applicant and Jay 'e�lained that he and Kristan
had debated the subject many times: Jay felt that it should `be
allowed as it would be a nice amenity.
Kathy Warren agreed with Kristan that since there would be a
livery so close, there should not be a stable within the
subdivision.
Kathy then asked about the guidelines for detached garages and
Kristan explained that the same guidelines found within the 30%
slope allowances were to be used.
Kathy explained that the reason she asked was that the
architectural guidelines provided by the appli�ant seemed to need
some more detail. Kathy also felt that what could and could not
encroach beyond the building envelopes should be better defined.
She felt that the 2 ft. offset called out for in the retaining
walls should be increased to 3 ft. in order to allow for more
extensive planting.
Kathy asked what would determine where the guardrails would be
placed and Kent Rose, engineer for the project, explained that
they would be placed where safety concerns were evident. It was
likely, they would be placed in the areas that had double height
walls, intersections for cul de sacs and other places that had
steep areas and changes of direction.
Kathy asked who would determine these needs, and Kent responded
that they would work with Greg Hall of Public Works.
Kathy commented that she was concerned about the approach to the
livery being 16o grade. She wanted to know why the proposed
walls were changed from 8 ft to 8 '-8" and Kent Rose explained
that by increasing the walls by 8 inches, they were able to
eliminate a 4th wall section.
13
PEC Minutes
9/24/90 Meeting
Kathy asked if staff had required the applicant to filter
drainage water before it entered the creek. Joe Macy explained
that the requirement existed during 'construction. Sedimentation
basins were to be used: He was not sure what would be required
after construction. Kent Rose interjected that the applicant
would not be required to filter the drainage water. However,
they had discussed using one permanent basin to slow down the
sedimentation. They would be utilizing 3 or 4 during
construction.
Kathy asked who the owner was of the pedestrian easement along
the creek. Joe Macy responded that it was public access.
Kathy asked about the comment in the memo regarding the use of a
soil nailing system. She asked` if the applicant would then use a
different system than stacked block. Kent Rose explained that if
the soil nailing system was used, they could still make the walls
look similar to the original proposed stacked block. They needed
flexibility to design and wanted to reduce the width of all areas
because of the lack of landscaping.
Kathy asked if the fill walls would be screened by aspen and
spruce, and Kristan explained that the design and structural
characteristics of the walls would only allow for the use of
trees at the base.
Kathy commented that she felt the site coverage available for
Lots 12 and 14 was high, and Jay stated that she would have to
understand that the site coverage had already been reduced by the
use of building envelopes.
Kathy asked if crabapples and other colorful �types of trees would
be used and Joe Macy explained that they would have to ask the
Division of Wildlife. They had been asked not to plant or
introduce species highly palatable to wildlife.
Kathy commented that the applicant had only listed one type of
rose and wanted to know why. The applicant's landscape architect
responded that there was only one rose found on the property and
they were trying to keep to the natural surroundings found on the
property presently. Kathy wished the applicant luck in the fine
tuning process to be done in the future.
Jay wanted to comment on a few of the conditions. Regarding
condition No. 8, the removal of the chain link fence, the
applicant would be more than happy to remove the fence as long as
it was acceptable to the Colorado Division of Highways. Joe
asked to have the condition amendmended to reference the CDOH
approval.
14
PEC Minutes
9/24/90 Meeting
Regarding condition No. l0, compliance with the Fire Department
standards, Joe asked the condition 'be amended to state "or as
otherwise modified by the Fire' Department",
Joe felt that, regarding the sanding material required in
condition No. 15, the applicant should be allowed to use the same
material as the Town,
'Kent Rose said the Town switched materials and the Village Core
received different treatment with the use` of granite chips.
Everywhere else cinder was used.
Kristan commented that granite chips chipped windshields and that
was why the Town did not use this material in heavy vehicular
traffic areas. Also, she felt 'that to ask the applicant to use
the least polluting was reasonabTe.
Jay felt the standard should be reasonable. In the future, other
people may require something different.
Kristan asked if the applicant would accept the condition to say
°material acceptable to the Environmental Health Department" of
the Town of Vail and Joe agreed.
It was also suggested that condition No. 13 be amended to allow
staff and the applicant to determine what would and would not be
allowed outside the building envelopes.
Kathy Warren suggested that Item No. 7 be reworded so that it did
not seem to imply gas appliances or gas logs were required to be
used in all caretaker units. She suggested adding the wording
"If a fireplace is desired by the owner, " at the beginning of
the condition.
Jay commented that regarding condition No. 20 (e) , chain link dog
runs, they were trying to work out a solution. Jay had an
example of a chain link that could be screened well with vines
etc. and was acceptable to the Division of Wildlife.
Jim Shearer agreed that there should be some flexibility.
Kristan felt there were alternatives. Chain link dog runs were
not allowed in the Town. Staff was not asking the applicant to
do anything above and beyond what was required of the rest of the
Town.
_ 15
PEC Minutes
9/24/90 Meeting
Continuing with the applicant's response to the conditions of
approval, Jay reiterated that the applicant did not agree with
Condition No. 2, prohibiting on-site liveries.
Regarding the building envelopes, Jay wanted to make sure that
the board was aware that they still needed to work with staff to
refine the plans. They made be changed a little, especially
Gillett's lot; The greenbelt area on Lot 6 would need to be cut
back and they felt that Lot 5 should be up a little more.
Jay explained that Dan Corcoran and Kent Rose had spent a lot of
time on the site on the visual analysis aspect and felt
comfortable with the visibility of the site.
Dan Corcoran, surveyor, commented that at project completion, a
person should only be able to see 5 ft. of house. He looked at
what would block views of the homes. He personally stood inside
the lots and on the most part, the trees would not be removed.
He stated that he was very comfortable with the view analysis.
Kent Rose commented that the same guy with the same rods marked
all parts on the photo he laid out. Kent felt the picture was a
true representation.
Regarding the` walls, Jay stated that Singletree had some vines
overhanging the reatinaing walls and the walls were practically
invisible.
Ludwig stated that he was comfortable with the roads and the
caretaker unit at the gate, as it would add to the project. He
felt the Design Guidelines needed work. In general, he felt the
project will be a landmark in the future.
Diana stated that she was against having a li,very inside the
project. Regarding the sanding, she felt the applicant should be
just as concerned as the Town for the build up over the years
would not be desirable. Diana asked that the Community
Development Department be included on the staff visits to the job
site for the on site custruction review. Regarding the timing of
the Town's responsibility of maintaini.ng the landscaping, Diana
felt the Town should not be � onsible
�` � � ��� �� � p �
� ����'�.���a'��� � �
�
W31��,S '�'a�1Ci#� � � � �'��� �������'���''�'+'�'�'�",'��" ����
r� �'� ��J � �..°�' �� �„ » ��� , �•� ,�. � ^�
��� f
� �e �u� � �a� �����.� :��� �,�.�,�?���-�.��� ���-- �
. �. � . ,� . �_
16
PEC Minutes
y_ 9/24/90 Meeting
Jim Shearer commented that he was not totally opposed to an in-
project livery if the corral was limited to two stalls and not
built out of fence. Jim felt comfortable with the site coverage
at 100% of GRFA and felt the landscape `irrigation should be
addressed in the Design Guidelines. Jim also asked about parking
for the livery.
Jay stated that additional parking would be provided at the
livery rather than at the turnaround.
Dalton commented that he was in the area recently and felt the
parking presently was a :problem. Jim Shearer agreed that there
should be more parking made available.
Kent Rose responded that he' felt the 17 spaces planned would be
adequate. ' Many of the hikers would continue to drive further up
the hillside to a meadow that was also available for parking.
Jim Shearer, continuing his comments, stated that he -was in favor
of the detached caretaker unit by the gate.
Dalton commented that he liked the idea of limiting site
coverage to 100% of the GRFA. He liked the livery in the project
_ as well as the detached caretaker unit by the gate.
- Diana Donovan wanted to see Vail Associates or Gillett facilitate
a snow dump to be worked out with Stan Berryman of Public Works.
Kristan clarified that the 80-100% GRFA to site coverage would be
pinned down by final plat.
A motion to approve a request for a variance to the maximum
heiQht for retaininq wa11s on a parcel commonly referred to
as Spraddle Creek per the staff inemo with the variance
continqent upon final plat approval was made by Kathy Warren
and seconded by Jim Shearer
VOTE: 5-0 WITH CHUCK CRIST ABSTAINING AND CONNIE KNIGHT
ABSENT
A motion to approve a request for a variance to the maximum
percent grade for a road found on the preliminary' plan dated
9/7[90 on a-parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek
per the staff inemo with the variance contingent upon final
plat approval was made by Kathy Warren and seconded bv
Dalton Williams
VOTE: 5-0 WITH CHUCK CRIST ABSTAINING AND CONNIE KNIGHT
ABSENT
17
PEC Minutes
9/24/90 Meeting
A motion to ap�prove a recruest for a prelim�.nary .pian for a
ma-ior" subdivision as it meets the Hillside Residential Zone
District and Maior subdivisi�n requirements and per the
conditions found within the memo as modified in bold and
listed below on a parcel +commonly referred to as' Spraddle
Creek was made by Kathy Warren and' seconded by Ludwig Kurz.
1. The proposed road grades and retaining wall
heights are maximums for the subdivision. If it
is determined by staff through the final plat
review and/or building permit, or 'construction
phase that road grades and retaining wall heights
may be further reduced, the applicant will agree
to do so. The final plat submittal will provide a
thorough analysis of the soil nailing and tie rod
system for cut walls in order to minimize site
disturbance.
2. Construction guidelines will be used during the
actual building phase for the wall and road
improvements. See Section on EIR Wall Analysis of
this memo.
3. A grading easement on the southwest corner of the
property will allow the Town of Vail the right to
grade onto this portion of the property if and
when the North Frontage Road is extended to the
east below the subdivision to create a new
underpass connecting to Blue Cow Chute.
4. An agreement finalizing the stable relocation and
reclamation of the existing livery site will be
submitted with the final plat information.
5. The conditions for lots having slopes over 300
will be applied to the subdivision. This section
of the code is 18.59.050 A-D, F-I, K and L.
5. Site coverage shall be limited to 80 to 100°s of
the allowable GRFA for each lot. This condition
will be finalized at final plat.
7. If a fireplace is desired by the owner, gas
appliances or gas logs shall be used in all
caretaker units.
l 18
PEC Minutes
9/24/90 Meeting
8. A chain link fence around the culvert at the
subdivision entry will be removed and a more
aesthetic barrier provided with appropriate
landscaping. If allowed by the Colorado Di�vision
of 'Hiqhways.
9. The six spruce trees by the subdivision entrance
on the south side of Gillett Road shall be
. relocated. _ _
10. A11 Fire Department standards and requirements per
the letter from Mike McGee dated August 2, 1990
shall be complied with by the owner or as
other�rise modified by the Fire Department,
11. Before any building permits are released for the
subdivision and once the subdivision receives
final plat approval, the appropriate easements
allowing for public access shall be recorded per
the Forest Service requirements.
12. Six foot paved shoulders on either side of the
_ Frontage Road for a public bike path shall be
provided by the developer.
13 . All construction on each lot shall occur within
building envelopes. The building envelopes shall
be adjusted per the revised staff plan dated
September 7, 1990 before final plat. The staff
and appliaant are to determine what will be
allowed outside the buildinq envelopes.
14. All construction for the subdivision shall comply
with requirements found within the Environmental
Impact Report for the project.
15. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding
material for sanding the private road within the
subdivision per the approval ot the Town of Vail
Environmental Health Department.
16. The open space tracts within the subdivision shall
be rezoned to Green Belt Open Space at the same
time the final plat is reviewed. Additional
greenbelt open space areas will be added adjacent
to the Forest Service switchback, Lot 5/6
switchback, and secondary road per the staff
amendments to the September 7, 1990 preliminary
plan.
19
PEC Minutes
9/24/90 Meeting
17. The owner of the subdivision shall maintain the
road through the subdivision from the entry gate
up to the top of the subdivision. This
maintenance also includes all' common areas,
retaining walls, and landscaping. The owner also
agrees to be responsible for establishing the
landscaping 'along the public road for a two to
three year period from planting of the materials.
Once the landscaping is established and accepted
by the Town of Vail Landscape Architect, the Town
wi11 take over the responsibility of the retaining
walls and landscaping. .
18. Pedestrian and public access shall be allowed on
the lower portion of Gillett Road extending from
the Frontage Road up to the subdivision gate.
19. Three caretaker units each having a maximum square
footage of 1200 sq. ft. shall be provided within
the subdivision on Lots 14, 15, and possibly Lot
1. The separation of the Lot 1 caretaker unit is
under staff consideration. The units will be
permanently restricted per section 18.13 .080 '(10)
a-d of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. Conditions
on the 3 employee units will be resolved at final
plat.
20. The architectural guidelines shall be amended as
follows;
a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as
extremely steep slopes.
b. Sod shall be allowed around the perimeter of
residences but large lawn areas are not
encouraged.
c. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 8%
unless approved by the Town of Vail Engineer.
d. Irrigation by retaining walls for the
subdivision shall be prohibited.
e. No chain link fence is allowed within the
subdivision even for dog runs. If dog runs
are proposed, another type of open fencing
should be used.
20
PEC Minutes
r.- ,, g�24�90 Meeting
;
21. All construction within the subdivision shall
comply with the Town of Vail hazard ordinances
found in Section 18.69
22. No on-site livery shall be allowed within the
subdivision:
23 . Aspens and large shrubs shall be used on all
retaining walls.
24. All hazard areas shall be excluded from
contributing site area to Lots 14, 5, and 4 for
GRFA or site coverage.
It was also noted that discussions not covered will be
worked on until final plat, such as livery road grade and
Design Guidelines and rev+�rsed 'envelopes per Kristan' s pink
areas on the plat.
VOTE: 5-O WITH CHUCK CRIST ABSTAINING AND CONNIE KNIGHT
ABSENT
._
3tem No. 8: Ap;pointment of PEC member and alternate to DRB for
' - the months of October November and December
1990.
The appointment was given to Connie Knight and Jim Shearer
as alternate.
Ttem No. 7: A request for a heictht variance in order to
construct a retaining wall along Phase II of the
East Vail Bike Path on the North side of Bighorn
Road, in the Colorado Department of Highways
Ri*xht-of-way.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Item No. 9: A request for a height variance for Unit E-6,
Crossroads 141 East Meadow Drive Lot P Block
5D, Vail Villaae lst Filinq.
Applicants H. William Smith, Jr.
Item No. 10: A request for a ma�or change to existinct
development approval for the Valley, Phase VI.
Applicant: Edward Zneimer
21
� �
. - �, � � � � � � � � �
PEC Minutes
r,_ 9/24/90 Meeting
Ttem No. 11: P, �equsst for an amendment to the approved
access �lan for Lots 5 and 6, Block 7, Uail
Villacxe '3st Filinq, 146 and 126 Forest Road. ,
A�plicant: Rc�n Byrne
Item No. 12: A request for a variance to allow a satellite
dish 1.n the Gore Creek 50' setback and a reguest
for a floodplain modification` on Lot 3 , Block 1,
_ Bighorn ist addition; 390'7 Lupine 'Drive.
Applicant: Ron Oelbaum _
A motion to table Item No. 7 indsfinitely and Item No.s '9�
10, 11, and 12 to �ctober 8th was made by Ludwig Kurz and
seconded by Dalton Wiiliams ,
UOTE: 5-0 CONNTE KNIGHT AND CHUCK CRIST WERE `ABSENT
22
� � � � �
e:
� �� , � � � � � � �
TO: Plar�ning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Coza�nun�ity Deve3opment Depa�rtment
DATE: September 24, '1990
RE: A re est to a ra�e the relimina �ar� for 3
� PP P r'Y P ma�or
subdivision, a request for a variance tc� the maximum
height for retaining walls, and a request fcr a ';
variance �s� the m�ximum percent grade fc�r a road, on a
parcel commonly referred to as Spracld�.e' Creek, an
a�iproximate 40 acre pareel lecated r�orth and east of,
the Main Vail I-70` interchange and east of the Spraddle
Creek �.ivery.
Applicant: �George .Gillett, Jr.
I. THE REQUEST
Spraddle Creek is a farty acre parc�l loca�e+d northeast of
th+e Main Vail Interchange. Mr. G+�orge Gillett Jr. is the
owner of the property. ' The property is surrounded by White
River National `Forest land on the north, east, west, and
south, I-7t� right-of-way is located adjaeent to Spradd3e
Creeks southwest�rn boundary. The applicant is requesting
approvai for a major subdivision, a variance to the percent
grade for the �roadway, and a variance to retaining wall
heights, The propert� was annexed into the Town of vail in
January of "1985 and Hilisi�e ResidQntial zoning was applied
in November of '1987� by _brciinance No. 38, Series of 1987:
Below is a `summary of the subdivision proposal, some of
which has �een tak+en .fram the applicant's project notebook.
This s�ection of the" memo provides an overview of the key
components of the project and also e�lains the two variance
requests,
A. 14 ,��illside Residential Lots:
" The proposed subdivision is comprised of 14 residential
lots, ` Each lot will be allowed' a main dwelling unit
plus one caretaker'unit which is required to be
attached to the main unit,' or may be integrated within
the garage stxuctu�e serving the main unit, but shall
not be a sepaz`ate freestanding 'structure. The
caretaker unit shaii not exceed 1200 sq. ft. of GRFA.
This zox�e 'district requires that the caretaker unit not
b�e subdivided or sold separately from the main unit.
The cazetaker unit will be limited to one gas fireplace
or qas appliance. ` The owner has agreed to provide a
minimum of tliree caretaker 'units within the subdivision
and said units' will be Iocated on Lots 14 and 15. A
caretaker unit/gate house is also being considered for
1
.. �� . . . . .. . . .. 3 ..
.. � . . . . . . }
Lot 1, The gate house ;unit would be located to the
� south of Giliett Raad c�n Lc�t 1• This uni� wc�uld be
used by an on-site manager for the entire subdivision.
� � �� The issue�� of �eparati.or� of� units �nd ownership need���to �
be reselv�d (pleas� s�e th� attached zoning sumzaary
she+et for a breakdown of lot size, building envelope,
GRFA, and sit� coveragej .
$. . �L�'+dinQ F�velOpes»
�nv+�lo�e� have been established for, each lot indicating
#�he limi�s of constru�tion and buil.ding. N�
developm�nt is propc�sed t� be located beyond the
boundary of any building envelope,
C. S�te Cove�aaes
5ite coverage is to be reduced from the allowed 15� of
�ota3.' site area under Hi13.side Residential to an amoun�
equ�.valent �o the aliow�able GRFA. This issue will be
resolved at final plat to insure that a reasonable
amount of site covezage is avai�.able.
D. �ccesst
The subdivision will be accessed by a road heginning at
the North Fr�ntage Road and extending through th�
existing livery site and to the east side of the
subdivision. The 'conneeting road passes through U.S.
Forest Service property, The Forest Service has agreed
to allow acc�ss to �he subject' property upon the final
platting of the project and upon comp3iance with the
terms of the letter clated November ';12, 1987 to Jay
Pete=son. A gate will be located on tlne owner's
property at the sntrance to the subdivision. Upon
completion and acceptance the road will become � public
road maintained by the Town of Vail. From this point
on, the toad will be a private road extending up to the
top of the subdivision. The public will have access
from the North Frontage Road up to; the gate. A cul de
sac is located on the lower most easte�n switah back.
The applicant proposes that the Town of Vaii maintain
the publie.section of the road and' the owners of the
subdivision shall' maintain the private 'section. The
pra.vate part of the roac� is 2300 l.f, and has grades
from 7,0� to 8.0$, The secondary spur road (access to
Lots 1-6') , , 670 l.f. at 8.8� wiil also be maintained by
the owner. The Town of Vail will maintain the 3900
l.f. of road from the Frontage Road to; the gate. This
}�ortion of the road has grades from 8,0 to `8.6�.
2
,
;
_ , , '
The lineal footage of the roadway from the Frontage
� Rc►ac� up t+� the top �f the subdivision is approximately
+/- 6,2�0 1.�. Tn addition there is a secondary
roadway of f�0 ft.
'The road right-o�-way is 50 ft. The asphal£ width 'is
22 ft. and has a minimum 2 ft. nf shoulder on the
downhil3. side of the road with' curb and gut�er proposed
for the uphill side (2` ft. standard section) . Pavement
and roadbed widths will be widen�d in switchback areas
and shoulder widths will be widened to a�commodate
guard` rails as r+equired.
A variance is '!requested to allow the road to be
designed to a grade which e�cceeds the maximum allowable
g=ade of 8$ per the Subdivision Regulations, Section
1�:�8.3�0. The overall average grade of �he road is
'7,88$ if the secondary; roadway 'is alsc� inciuded. The
steepest grade is �.80�. Below is a ehart showing the
length of roacl which meets various percent +grades.
Lineal Feet ` Percent Grade'
250 I.f. ', @ ' 3.85$
200 1.f. @ 4.27$
40fl 1,f. @ , 6.'00$ ,
500 1.f. @ 7.00�
2300 1`.f. ' @ 8.00$
2600 1.f. @ ; 8.59$
650 ;1.f. @ 8.80$
6900 1.f. Total
A road qrade variance is required for 3250 l.f. of
roadway that exceeds the 8� maximum and falls within `
�he range above 8� to 8.80�. 47� of the roadway
- requires a variance.
Approximately 200 lineal feet (1.f. j beyond the cu1 de
sac, a gravel access road leading up to the new livery
si�e and Forest Service trail head is proposed. This'
road has a maximwn grade of approximately I6�.
' E. �etaining Walls:
Retaining walls are proposed to accommodate the
subdivision road. A variance is required for walls
wY�ich exceed the maximunt height, all`owed of `6 ft. The
section of the code which relates to retaining wall
heights is found in Section 18.58.020.
3
The maximum wall hei�ht prop�sed is' 8'-8". ;Total �
l�.neal wail length is f>179 feet. Below is a chart
s�owing the break clQwn of wa].1 height to ler�gth of
wall. These figures are as aceurate as possible given
the level of design work xequired at preliminary plan.
Ple�se keep ini mind that these r�umbers may vary
slightly at final pl�t,
�ieiah� �,,e�qth of Wai3
g�_lwr� to 'g�-8" 291 i,f.
�� �o g' 26�3 1.f,.
1Qwer than 6' �2 2 5 +l.f.'
Totai 6179 1.f.
I�n some areas, the; 8 ft, to 8'-8"' high walls will be
terraced with a 10 ft. beneh between each wall. The
maximum number +af terraees ;prt�posed' is three. These 3
terraced wal"ls have a maximum combinec� height of 30 ft.
This situation is found �t the eastern m�s�' switchback
on U.S. Forest Service property at the iower end of the
subdivision� the switchback adjacent to Lots 5 and 6,
and the intersection of the se+condary road accessing
Lots 1-6. The applicant proposes to build the
retaining walls with a colored, split-face, concrete
block veneer using a geogrid support system.
Type Length Height of Number
�,ocation of Wall , of Wall Tiered wa11 of Tiers
Forest Service Fill 116 l.f. 19 ft. 2
SwitcYiback
Forest Service Cut 23b 1.f. 30 ft. 3
Switchback
Lots 5 & 6 Fill 130 1.f. 30 ft. ` 3
Switchback
Lots 5 & 6 Cut 79 1.f. 30 'ft. 3
Switchback
Secondary Road Fill 135 l.f. 30 ft. 3
to Lots 1-6
In summary, a wall height variance is neoessary for
2954 1.f. of wall above b ft. , not to exaeed 8'-8" or
47,8$ of the wall> iength.
4
� �. �andscape and Irriqa��4� for Retai���� Wali Areas•
The applicant ;proposes �o revegetate with appr�ximately
the same numk�er of trees ancl shrubs per ac�e as
currentl�r exist on al�. disturbed ar�as within the
subda�vision. 'The applicant states that the
ccncentration ;of plants will be �eavier alcng the walls
aind l.ighter in l+ess visible areas. Mos� plant
materials t+� be used will be native te the site,
Native vines wi33 �,lso be introduced some ot which were
n�t seen �n the site. fiest piots h�ve �aeen +�stablished
this summer in thQ_ Fotato Patch area to. determine the
most appropriate vines' for the fina3 planting p].an. ' '
+Grasses to be reseeded will be nativQ to th+e site as
mueh as possible, ' Bl�e 5pruc� and Aspen wiil be the
types of trees includ�d in the 're�egetation plan.
All d,istux�bed areas will be seeded with a mix of
grasses, forbes (herbaceous p].ants other than grasses) ,
and shru�as as '�.ndicateci�in 'the plan list in th�e proje�t
notebook, The terraces between the wails will be
seeded wi�h grasses, forbes, and shrubs' and pianted
with viz�es and possibly small or�e to ten gallon size
shrubs and small �rees such as 'aspens. It is expected
t'hat cut �al1s built abo�e the 'roacl wiil av+erage only 2
- feet for ,planting between the roact and the bottom of
wall, ' ,Wider planting pockets will be made wherever
possible to a31ow 'pianting of trees' and shrubs.
Spruce trees may be used on the top of the cut walls
- c�nly if there 'is room to place them a sufficient
distanee away from' the wall (approximately 12 ft.) .
The top of the fi11 walls will get varic�us treatments,
dependinc� on slope and if there is a guard rail. Areas
with guardrail will be+ p3anted with` aspens and fill
siopes without the` guardrail will be planted with
smaller shrubs, forbes, and grasses. The base of the
fill siopes will be planted with aspen, spruce, and
native shrubs.
With respect to irrigation, a penaanent system will not
be installed due to the potential for accidental water
seepage into the wall if the system' failed. One of two
temporary irrigation methods for watering the wall
plantings "are propc�sed. The first `method would be to
5
water the p3ant �aterial� b� hand fro� ;a portable water "
tank. The seccnd m�thod would be to place several
small �anks at th+� top of the walls with drip tubing
and emitters gQir�g tc each plant, "The tanks wouid then
lae filled by a water truck at periodic intervals so
that i� th+ere was a malfunction, �there would not be any
significar�t water se�epage. This system would then be
removed affi�r the plants wexe estab33shed,
The subdivisa.on awners would maintain the walls and
landscaping on the private seGtion of the road. The
Towr� o� Wail woulci be iresponsible for maintaining the
wa�Is a�d' ,�andscaping ;on the lower/public road up to
the subdivision gate onee the plant materials are
established and ac�epted by the Town of Vail 7�andscape
Architect, in aPProximate2y 2 to 3 years.
Staff would also lik+e to see a landscape plan for the
entry,; tc� tlae subdivisian at the North Frontage Road,
The design shou].d consider the planting concept in the
�'own af 37ai.3 �,andscape Imprc�vement Plan far this area. '
G. Frontage Road Desic�ns
A jug handle intersection is proposed for the Frontage
Road 'and entry to the subdivision. The Colorado
Division o� High.ways (;CDOH) access ;permit has been
approved for the project. ' It is included in the
project notebook. A ,6 ft. shoulder for a bike path
will -also' be provided on either side of the Frontage
Road beginning at the entrance to the subdi�ision and
extendinq west approximately 300 to 500 ft.
H. Drainage:
The drainage system will consist of both surface and
storm sewer routing, Surface drainage along the roads
will be contained by curb and gutter or in limited
areas by ditches. Where the run-off velocities in the
ditches exceed acceptabie velocities rock check
structures are proposed for erosion control.
.
The proposed storm sewers along with the drop inlets
will control ,the drainage along the curb and gutter
sections. Storm sewer outlets will discharge
frequently using energy dissipaters to 'slow down the
autlet velocities to minimize the erosive ef�ects. The
majority of the runoff will lead to Spraddle Creek.
Portions of the storm runoff will be discharqed into
the natural drainage swale to the east of the property.
Prior to reZease into Spraddle Creek, a sedimentation
basin will be utilized to aontrol both sedimentation
6
�ar�d wa�er velocity. During construction of the
prcajec�, storm runOff wiil be routed through temporary
sedimentation �asins.
I Wa -
. �
The water ;s�s�em w3.11 connect to the ex3.sting Upper
Eag�e Valley Water system at the locatican of the I-7�
Frontage Road and Spxaddle Creek entrance, Because of
the slevation v�ria►tion on the proj+eat site, a booster
pu�np station will be nece5sary on the low end of the
projeet. The pump' station will pump into a storage
tank lo�ated near the nozthwest corner of Lot 12. A
water'.stcrage tank of 15�,000 to 180,000 gallons is
proposed for the project. The tank' would be located
underground at' the iwest corner of Lot 12 adjacent to
th+e proper�ty line. Placement of fix+e hydrants and
siting of the storage tank ;will be per the Town of Vail
Fire pepar�ment requi�ements. The water system
- ix�clu3ing val��:s, pipir�g, and cons�ruction will comply
with the Upper Ea+gle Valley Water and Sanitation
Distriat requirements. The water system will be placed
in rcad right-of-way and ,utility easements {see'the
attached subdivision preliminary plan for location of
easemer�ts) .
J. Sewer` Svstem: '
A sanitary sewer system will connect to an existing
manhole located southwest of the Town of Vail
� Transportation Center. The crossing of I-74 will be
accomplished by utilizing a bore under the Interstate
Highway. A new bore will have to be provided along
side the two existing 10 in. ductiTe iron pipes under
3-70 to accommodate �he sewer. The system will be
gravity flow and will be located within road right-of-
way and utility easements. All materials, design, and
construction procedures will comply with the Upper
Eag1e Valley Sanitation District requirements.
K, �;�,prt,�i c and Other Util ities:
Holy Cross Electric has an existing overhead high-
voltage line crossing the project site. This line will
be plaeed underground. However, the subdivision will
not 'be sezved by thi�s iine (please see the preliminary
plan for the route of `the subdivision service line) .
All other utilities �gas, telephone, and cable T.V.)
will be placed underground within the road right-of-way
and within specified utility easements.
7
L. iver • -
The owr�ers intent is to relc�cate the exi.s�t�ng livery ta
a bench to the east of the subdivision on Forest
Service property. The parkinig and trai:l head access
�or Forest Serviae land will also be provided in the
area cf the livery. This site wilT be a�ccessed by a
grav+�l road extendi»+g to the east in the approximate
1'ecation of the gate f�r the subdivisi+�n. The ex3.sting
33Yery site will b� reclaimed �nd revege�ated by the
owner. Several cabins, tents, a s�able, and corrals
wiii be relocated 'at the new livery 3ocation. At this
time, the agr�ement between the owner of the stable,`
Mr. Mark.S�Ter�tworth, and the ownex of the subdivision
2�as not been fianalized. An agreement was approved in
1�85, however, this aq=eemer�t has +e�ired. The
aPP���an'� and owner of!� the livery are in the prvicess of
wcrking on the agreement. A new Forest S�ervice special
us� permit 3s also necessary, 'The 'applicant will
submit the livery agreement at fin�al plat.
M. Hazards:
Rockf�ll Hazard, Debris Flow and Debris Avalanche
Aazard zones from the Town of Vail 1984 studies were
extended into the subdivision area. The hazard` zones
include and are located as follows:
1. Rockfall, to the 'west of Spraddle Creek; and
2. Rockfall, along the southern edge of property; and
3. Debris flow, along the Spraddle Creek drainage.
The z�ockfall hazard zones are located away from any
pr�posed development. ' No lots are 'included° in the
Rockfa2i Hazard Zones.' The debris flow has` a potentiaZ
to restrict traffic along the access road.
The owner has also agreed to comply with Section
18.69.050 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code which
outlines ,special restrictions for development on lots
where the average slope of` the ':site beneath the
proposed structure and parking area is in excess of
30�. The Sectians that would apply to this subdivision
include 18.69.050 A-D, ' F'-I, R and L.
N. Pedestri�njve�}�.cular A�cess: _
The utility easement through Lot 12 and a portion of
the old road bed at the top of the subdivision, which
provides access to the domestic water storage tank,
8
� � . . .. . . � . � . . � � . .
_ have also been designated as a pedestria» easement for
� use by the residen�s of the Spraddle Cr�e�ek Subdivision.
The owner has als+a ac�xeed to prc�vict� a pedestrian
�asement aiang Spraddle Creek within th� subdivision;
Public access !t+� Fiarest Service �ana is proviaea at the
lower' switchback on the east boundary o� the site. The
F+arest Serv��ce access easement er� th+e ncrtherm portion
of the proposed subd3vision wi1.1 be reloaat+ed to match
the iower pu3�lic access road as a condition of final
plat ,approval.
D. �„Fen S,pace:
The owrier has agreed to rezone 'tY�e open space tracts to
'�Greenbelt Open Space" at the same time the final plat
is submitted. However, the applicant wishes to'
maintain r�wnership of the ,property as opposed to
cieeding the land tc the Town o� Vai3. Greenbelt areas
are desig�ated for land in'betwee� road switchba�ks and
the hiilside area below the lowe� subdiv�sio� road
leading up �o the entry gate,
P. Architect�ral Guidelines: ' �
Architectural Guidelines are proposed with the
subdivision, The guidelines w�uld be administered by
the s�r�aa�.e Creek Design Review Board. Approval of
the Spraddle Creek' �Design Review Board would be''
required b�efore a proposed residence could be submitted �
to the Towri of Vail Design Review Board. The Spraddle
' Creek:,Design Review Board would be responsible for
; enforcir�g their guidelines. The Town of Vail would be
a party to the covenants and would have to revi'ew and
approve any chang+es to the co�enants. The guideiines
also address site planning and landscape concerns.
Q. Construction Phasing:'
The appiicant has submitted a phasing pian but has
decided to submit a re�ised phasing plan at finai plat
when the scheduling of the construction can be more
accurately� planned. Phasing is effected by the timing
of requested approvals' for the project.
II. ENV„�20NMENTAL IMPACT REPORT StTMMARY
Below is a summary of the staff commentB on the
environmental impact report =EZR) . '
9
A. Retainincr walls/Slope stabilityj�raina+ge; �
1. Walls:
Because of concern regarding ground water and also
the desixe to mini�nize dis�urb+�d areas, the
proposed s�ii nailing system is particularly
relevant ' for the large cut walls. The aPplicant
is asked to address the possi3�le use of either a
soil< nailing or qrouted tie rQd/panel =etaining
system in the Qxtreme cut sections as soon as
possible, The locations for this sys�+em to be
considered are STA 34+00-39+00 and STA 5a+Q0=
52+fl0,
In additiQn, preliminary designs of the worst case
retaining walls must be computed. {Wo�st case
being, 8'-8" fill wall with traffic loading, 8'-8"
cut wall, triple tier full waii with traffic load,
tripie t�.er cut w�llj . Preliminary; design shoul�d
be appr4ved by #�oth the G�eotechnical Engineer and
the wall design Engineer. ' The latest Geotechnical
report only states the accepted bearin� capacity
of the soils is 5000 lbs/sq. ft. This` report
should also address maximum slopes abo�e the wall,
the phi angie of the soil (+�lder reports give 2
differ�nt ones) , the unit weight of the soil, and
the soil parameters which the wall designers need
in eyaluating the' walls. Based on ag=eed upon
soil- parameters, the wall technology needs to be
looked at for the four worst case scenarios. The
wails overall s,tability regarding failure to
overturning, sliding and bearing pressure in
addition to fabric strength needs to be
determined. From this information, the areas of
disturbance can truly`be determined and the need
to look at other wall technologies can be
evaluated.
The project's cross-sections as submitted show no
cut or fill slopes greater than 2.1. There will
be specific areas during final` design and
construction where slopes `greater than 2:1 could
be beneficial to the overall project. Approval to
exceed. slopes gre�ter than 2:1 must be received
first from th'e project�s design/geotechnical
engineers and landscape architeat. Secondiy, the
Town of Vail projec� planner, Town Er�gineer and
Landscape Architect must review and approve" any
slopes exceeding 2;1.
la
� Construction guidelines should be used during the
actual const�cuction of th+� project. These
guidelin+es slaic�uld include:
a. Encourage the elimination of `walls; and
b. Vary slope grades and undulate the slope
1 j.11ES: dlld
c. Provide planting pockets where possible; and
d. Save signif3,cant veg+etati�n or rock
out+croppings` �hrough use of steeper grades,
small bould+er walls, ;or minor road
;realignment; ; and ;
e. Maintain' maximum 2:1 s3opes on fill walls
with plantings in frcnt of wail.
f. The `p=oject will b� slope, s�aked prior to the
bega,nning of �the clearing. grubbing and
topso3.1 rQmoual operations. Town staff will
walk the prpject and approve the limits of
construction: During construction, if
significant geological features appear which
enhance the finai project, the Town staff
should be notified to possibly incorporate
these in�o the design.
2. Sl�ope Stability/Hazards:
Staff concurs with the Koechlein Consulting
Engineers' recommendations on Page 11 of the
December 17, 1985 report concerning slope
stability. The report states:
"The stability of slopes are great3y
influenced by surface and groundwater
aonditions, We recommend that aIl surface
and subsurface drainage on this site be
carefully designed and constructed so that
the existing` stability of slopes can be
maintained. All areas should be :carefully
sloped to reduce the possibility `of
infiltration of surface water into cut and
fill slopes. In addition, all water should
be directed away from the face of cut and
:fil], slopes to reduce thQ risk of significant
erosion. Some d.rainage areas may need
stabilizing with rip '=ap �or other er�osion
control materials."
11
The 'site! does have geoloc�ic haz�rds. No housing
.is propcsed in any hazard area, FrQm the hazard
reports,; i� is ��ident that h�azards will need to
be addressed duriz�g the construation of the road
to insure safety.
3. Surfa:ee Drainaget:
Roech3.ein recommends in their December 1985 report
that surface water be directed away from the top
of all slopes so that significant erosion or
rpossible infiltration of water infio the slopes �
will not: occur. 'They. also state that 'a fabric for
reduci,�g surface erosion b� considered for the
faces of all ''disturbed slopes. vegetation; shouid
be grown on these slopes as soon as possible to
reduce any erosion, Staff agrees with this
approach' to the surface drainage and beiieves that
the existing plans incorporate these design
cc�nsiderations.
Thes�e cancerz�s will be fully addressed in the
final construction p2ans.
The report from Koechlein concludes that
�excavations for the road and water tank should be
�nspected to verify that subsurface conditions are
as anticipated by the exploratory boring.
� Placement and compaction of fill as well as the
_ installation of retaining wall systems or `soil
_ retaining systems wi11 be inspected during
construction 'and the developer shall have a soils
testing technician on site to ensure compliance
`with` the strict construction specifications.
B. Reveqe�ation: >
Overa3l, the proposed revegetation plan submitted for
roadways and walls is acceptable. The applicant has
stated that a13 di.sturbed areas will be revegetated to
' � the same `approximate density wh�ch exists today on the �
site: Indigenous species of pl�nt materials will be
used as �much as possible. The 'concentration of
plantings` will be heavier at the walls.
Much of the wall planting is dependent upon the results
obtained from the 'test plots in Potato Patch. These
results will not be available until next year. Staff
will iook at this more cicsely when the final landscape
plans and specifications are submitted at finaT plat.
12
In resp�ct to ;irr3gation of the landscape materials, a
dri� sys�em, gravity fed from tanks, is probab�.y a
workable system. Prc��er m�i�tenaz�ce to fill the tanks
and inspect the lines and emitters 'is critical to the
sys�em's success, The owner shou].d conuait to ensure
the continuation of maintenance of the system, until
a11 plants have been well +es�ablished. :
Th� Town of '�7ai1 Z,ands�cape;Architect requests that the
final' landseape pl'an �aaress what will happen to the
six spruce trees �ast of the main entrance along the I-
70 off ramp, All six trees are within the construation
limit line, If they are to be mo�ed it should be done
this fal3 cr next 'spring whi1Q -the sap ,is not flowing.
C. Wildlife:
The wiidlife section of the Environmental Impa�t Report
states ti�at "there wiil not be a significant impact on
wildlife in the area as a result c�f the prapos+�d
project." ` Staff agrees with this statement' as long as
the option for Lot l4 tothave a livery is not used.
Th+e applicant has proposed' several methods to minimize
impacts an any wildlife in the 'area. These measures
include:
1. Any owner with a dog will be required to have
a dog run or kenne], which is fenced to a
sufficient height to prevent'the dog from
jumping out. This is a �direct re�ommendation
from the Division of 'Wildiife which should be
incorporated into the covenants for the
subdivision.
2. The applicant has agreed to require that all
trash containers for units must be bear
proof. This also +compiies with the Division
of Wildlife�s {D.O.W. ) concern on` this issue.
,The D.O.W, has identified` this area as being
bear habitat. With the ongoing prablem with
garbage bea,rs in the 'County, t�e Divfsion is
recommending ail 'development in bear habitat
�have bear proof containers. They' also
recommended that"one 'central `garbage point
would reduce cost' and lessen the problem with
garbage bears. This approach should be used
by `the applicant.
13
3. The deve3oper has also maintained the
' requested buffer zone between the Forest
Serv�.ce ,'property line a�c� develc�pment in the
sukiciivision. ThQ required da:stance is 60 ft.
` This distar�ce will allaw for an adequate
buff+�r between �he residential development
and surrounding U,S. 'Forest lan►d.
4. The` owner has agreed to use landscape
materials which are unpalatable to wildlife.
The'.Division cf Wildlife states that by using
; unpalatable lanascaping items, the developer
` will reduce da�nage to landscaping caused by
` wildlife (letter` dated De�ember 19, 1989 from
Bill Andre, District Wildlife Manager) .
D, �tmospheric �nd�tions:
The T�wn of Vai1's EnvironmentaZ H+ealth Officer
revietaed the oxigina�. Air �Quality R�port anc�
xecommended that the analysis use th� Vai1 �alley
emission factors from the Town of 'Vail Air Quality, May
1989,, report. It was also required that total build-
out numbers be used for evaluating the `air 'impacts.
The` report has been changed to incorporate these
concerns. The report :states:
"PM 10 emission for the peak day {assume tc
Christmas Holidays, I990) wi'll be approximately 24
lbs or 6/10 of 1� of the PM 10 emissions expected
`for the Vail Village `area:" `
These numbers reflect 'that l/2 of the units will have a
woodburni�ag fireplace and the caretaker units would
have gas appliances or gas` logs. The impact is also
due to road sanding. `Because the subdivision will at
times require :heavy sanding during the winter the staff
believes it is appropriate to require the owner to use
the least' polluting sanding material available. This
material :would be 'submitted to the Town of Vail
Environmental 'Health Officer for review and approval.
The Town of Vai3 is also in�estigating materials which
are less polluting than the existing sanding materials.
` 14
� E, V�.sua�Impact:
The v�.ew ar►alysis clearly indieates that there will be
�isual impaets resulting from the subdivision's walls,
riew roa+d, housing, and livery relocation, These
structures will impact the view of the present site
which is now predominantl,y; a �atural mountain setting,
The applicant 'has proposed the follo�ing mitiqation `
measu�res to a�ddress the view impacts.
1. The final plat submittal will inalude a detailed
lar�dscape plan that will address common open space
areas as weil` as the retaining walls for the
subdivision. Fi.11 wa11s will be screened by aspen
a�nd spru+ce plantings. T2�e applicant has aqreed to
use the "grove planting arranc�ement" to try and
cr�ate a natural appearance for. the plantings,
This �pproach is especially important on the lower
portion of Giliett Raad from the Frontage Road up
to the For�st Service switchback. These walls" are
particularly visible from Vai3 Village and Vail
Mountain and must be screened adequat+ely.
2. The major switchbacks shall also include aspen and
shrub plantings in the terraces between retaining
walis. This is a criticai design element of the
iandscap+e plan and wiil help to mitiqate the
impact of the terraced walls,
3. At final plat review, building permit, .and actual
construction of the project, the staff will
continue ta try to reduce the retaining wall
heights and eliminate walls when possible, This
design approach should minimize visual impact as
much as possible through each refinement of the
retaining wallJroad design,
4. Because much. of the site will be disturbed during
construction,' an erosion control plan will be
submitted by the applicant to minimize erosion
durinq the construction process.
5. The building envelopes have been decreased in size
from what was' oriqinally proposed: This will
limit the disturbed areas and also concentrate
clevelopment, thereby decreasing visual impacts.
This approach will ailow #or more of the natural
landscaping to remain and ,will reduce the overall
disturbed area within the project.
r 15
b. Site coverage has also be�n reduaed to 100� of the
allowable GRFA ta encourage development that is
mor+e compact and ;less spread c,ut on the site.
7. Ar�hiteotural guidelines ar� submitted with the
propos�l. M�ny of the guidela,nes wi11 help to
make the' project as cQmpatible as possible with
the surzounding site. Sc�d axcund :the perimete= of
the house is ailowed. Staf� recc�mmends
discouraging large 3awn areas. Retaining wa11s
are also reeommended to be minimi2ed and extreme].y
st+eep slopes are discouraged. A color bcard will
be submitted` at .final plat to ensure that the '
' range of` colors for the houses will be attractive,
yet subdued. Owners should also be required to
site their houses using the natural terrain.
The�e concepts as well as others within the
archi�ectural guidelines will 'encourage the
� prc�ject to be as compatible as possible with the
site.
8. The cwner has agreed to create open space areas in
the major switchbacks and to `also maintain open
space in the 'lower portion of the site. The owner
wiil rezone these portions of the ,project to
Greenbelt Open Space at the final plat review of
the subdivision. ^ This site planning approach will
' help a great deal to minimi2e the 'visual impacts
bf the project on the Vail community.
' In summary, the staff concludes that although there
will be visual impacts because of the man made
� development on the site, the applicant has proposed
measures to off-set the visual impacts as much as
possible. The proposed mitigation !measures are
acceptable ta staff.
F. Circulation and Transportation:
1. Frontage Road Intersection
The applicant has obtained a CDOH access permit
for the project. A ieft turn lane for east 'bound
traffic will ''be provided at the project entrance.
The intersection for the development, once
constructed, wiil be further to the east to allow
greater separation betwsen the project
intersection :and the west:bound off ramp of I-70.
In addition, b ft. shoulders wi13 be provided on
each side' of the widened Frontage Road to
accommodate future bike lanes as propo�ed` in the
Towri of Vail Recreation Trails Master Plan.
ib
2. Emergency Accessibility
The ma�ar portion Qf the aroad gra+�e e�ce�eding Town
stanrlards will be main�ained by the Tawr� of Vail.
The addition of the first turnaraund will gi�e the
Fire' Depa�ment the ability tc travei 3700 ft. anci
turn arouncl or go; an additicnal 3200 ft, befor�e -
r�eachir�g the top.` Some houses canr�ot be acoessed
within 150 ft'. �on all sides ax�d these hcuses will
need`to 3�e internally sprinklered.
3. Road` Grade
The road �rades have been refined nt�terous- times
t4 achieve a balance between a lcw road grade and
low re�tasning walls, At this time, 47$ of the
r+�ad exceeds the 8� maximum grade, ; but does not
�Xeeecl 8.8$, In other Wo�ds� a variar�ce is
requirsd ';for a 0.8� increase in road grade. The
Town engineer believes further ref�.nement of the
road grade will be requi=ed at final plat in order
- to fine tune the reiationship of gradss to
�etaining wa13.s. HQwever, staff believes that the
road grade has been designed to an acceptable
grade at this time gi.ven site constraints.
4. Driveway Grade
The d=iveways' for each lot shall meet Town of Vail
standards for 8� and if grades' exceed 8$, the Town
Er�gineer's approval shall `be required. Driveway
grades must be refined at final plat to insure
safe access to each lot.
5. Publ`ic Access
Public access to the Forest Service trailhead and
livery has been improved, 'with the exception that
the gravel roadway to the livery which` will be a
16.5� maximum grade versus the aurrent 11�. It
should be poianted'out that the livery road varies
from 15.5$ to` 10.67$ grade: The applicant should
try to de�rease the road grade' to the livery as
much as possible. This concern should` be
addressed at :final plat.
A turriaround for `the general publi+c has been
placed within 200 ft. of the proposed security
gate. This may cause minor traffic problems,
however with proper signage it should not cause
great concern.
17
G. IIvdrologic �onditions: `
Increased runoff from the site will" have an
insignificant "impact Qn the overall dr�inage basin.
T'he development of the site will have a noticeable
impact on the 'minor events and ;specific drainage
channels, especs.ally the east�ern basins. care should
be taken in the �i.nal design t� address the handling of
the in+creased flows and the need to provide adequate
protection against erosion:
H- �tQise and Odor
The noise and odors associated with this project wi11
occur'; primarily during the constxuction phases for the
subdi�i,sion. When the' final phasing plan is submitted
at final plat, statf will review the plan to try to
minimize impacts from construction equipment, blasting,
and an� cdors that` may cccur during construction.
I. Social and Economic Report
Staff concurs :witfi the sociai and economic section of
the E3R which ''states that there is no requirement
within the To�,m of Vail that requires a subdivision to
pay its own way as' does +exist in some cpmmunities. The
biggest concern with the project is related''to possible
incx�eased costs for road and retaining wall
maintenance. Because the grades are steeper on the
proposed road `than allowed under the subdivision
regulations, the additional 0.6� increase in road grade
daes contribute to an increase in maintenance cost for
the Town on the portion of the 'road' that the Town of
Vail will` be maintaining. However, Public Works is of
the opinion that the cost increase will be minimal now
that the road grades have been lowered significantly
from the original road grade proposal.
The Town also believes it is positive that road access
to Forest Service land has 'been improved through this
proje�t. 'The publ'ic access road wiil now be paved and
allow for;somewhat easier access to Forest Service
land.
The Police and Fire Departments concur' that they will
be able to provide adequate protection to the
subdivision.
18
At this time, �o public bus stop for Tot�m of Vail Bus
Sezvice is pxr�posed. P�.iblic Wr�rks�' opinion is that it
would n�ot' be appropriate to prcvide a service through
fihis subdivision �iue tc� the limited populat3,cn and road
�rade, It may be ,reasonable to �sk �he, aPPlicant to
1.00k a�t a' possib].e school bus tuzr� off �at fir�al plat.
This turn.-off would be located at the base of the
sub�livision acljacent to the Frontage Road.
In summary, the primary coneern of the staff with the
social and economic section of the EIR concerns road
maa.ntenanee cost. At this ti.me, it appears that the
road grades will not significantly incr+ease maintenance
' +costs for the public portion of the road for the Town
of Vail. The steepest pertion of the road,' 8.8� will
be maintained by the owner. In respect to the
retaining walls, the a�plicaant has agreed to b�e
respor�sible for the main�enance o� all lar�dscaping and
retaininc�, walls �c�r the f3rst two to three years af�er
cons�ruc�ion. �nce the vegetation has beer�
estab3ished, the Town pf 'Vai1 wc�uld be responsible for
landscape; and 'retaining �aall mair�tenance or� the public
section of the road. Public Works `finds this
maintenance arrangement acceptable.
J. Land Use:
This section of the staff's review wi13 relate -the Towr�
of Vail Land Use Plan to elements of the Spraddle Creek
proposal� Below is a list of goals and �omments from
the staff summarizing the projects '`relationship to the
I,and Use Plan.
The property is designated' HR or Hillside Residential.
This designation states:
"This aat,egory would allow for single `family
dwel3ing ,units at densities no more than two
dwelling ;units per buildable acrQ. A1so permitted
wouticl be ;typicai single family accessory uses such
as private recreationa�. amenities, attached
caretaker units, Qr employe units and garages.
Institutional/Qublic uses would. also be permitted.
These areas would` require sensitive devQlopment
due �to slopes; aecess, visibility, ; tree coverage
and geologic ha2ards. Minimum buildable area of
20,000 square' feet would �ie required per dwelling
unit."
19
Staff did not ask the ;applicant to provide a total -
�buiidabl+e�t acreage as the zone d strict requires that
each lot have a min3.mum of 21,'780 sq. ft, of �,ontiauous
buildable' area. A11 lots met this requirement and
intent of th� HR designation. Please see the atta�hed
PEC memo on the adc�ption of HR zoning for 5praddle`
Creek.
�oal `5.4: Residential growth should keep place with the
market place clemands for a full range of
housinq types.
This is the first subdivision to utili�e the Hillside
Residentia2 Zoning. When the Hillside Residential Zone
District was applied to this parcel in '1987', the staff
" oginion was that this site was well suited to the
zoning standards �or Hiilside Resiclent3al, The
developer is. abiding by most standards of fihe zone
district, The Hiliside Residentiai Zone District will
provide a lu�ry hQme 'housing type for the Town> of
�ail.' In! addition, the cieve3oper has cemmitted to
provide three: employee dwelling units and ea�h of the
remaining: eleven units will be' allowed to have a
+caretaker' unit if the owner so` desires.
Goa1 5.3: Affordable emp�oyee housing shou3d be made
available through .private efforts, assisted
� by limited incentives, provided by the Town
of Vail, with appropriate restrictions.
Goal 5.5: The: existing employee housing base should be
' preserved and upgraded. , Additional employee
housing needs should be accommodated at
various sites throughout the site.
The applicant is meeting these`goals by providing a
minimum of three employee units. Units will be
provided on Lot 24, 15, and 1. ` Staff would like to
require that these employee units be constructed within
three years of subdivision approva3. The Lot 1 unit is
proposed to be separated from the mai� unit. This
cax�etaker' unit would be l�cated at the gate for the
subdivision and would 'serve as :an emp2oyee unit for a
person who wouid be responsible for ma3ntaining the
entire subdivision. The unit would not exceed a total
GRFA of 1200 sq. ft. and would`be integrated into the
site as much as. possible. ' Lot ' 1 wfluld not be allowed
to have an additional 'caretaker unit at t3ie main house
and would be required to reduce GRFA for the main unit
by 1200 s.f. Staff believes this idea 'has merit and
needs further study to resolve the unit separation
issue and ownership arrangement.
20
- The potentia3 number of emp3oyee hous�ng units that
could be pro�rided wi.thin th+� subdiv3.sion is 14. The
project complies wi.th the employse hc,using goals by `
providing a minimwn of 21� or 3 uni�s of the total
ailowable units as permar�ently ,res�ricted employee
housing. The'restrictians are'per Sectic�n 18.13.080
(B� and a, b, c, and d,
Goal 1.2: The quaiity of the environa►ent inc3uding air,
wat�r, and other natural resources should be
protected as the Town grows. '
Goal 1.6: �e�elopment proposals oz� the hiilsides should
be +evaluated on a case �y oase basis.
I�imited '�evelopment may be permitted for some
Tow intensity uses in areas �hat are not
highly visibTe from the valley fiflor. New
pro�ects should be carefully +controlled and
t�evelc�ped with sensitivity �o the
enviroriment.
Goal 1.7: New subdivision should not be pe=mitted in
high geologic hazard areas, `
Goal 5.1 Additional residential growth shouid continue
to occur primariiy in exist�.ng, platted areas
and as appropriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
All of these goals relate to the general site planning
for the subdivision. At statt's request, the applicant
has aqreed to incorporate more 'res�rictive standards
into the subdivision thar� normally `required under the
Hiliside Resid+entiai Zone District. Buiiding envelopes
are provided for each lot which locate deve2opment in
areas that do not have hazards, and reduce disturbance
of the existing tree line as muoh as possible. By the
use of building� envelopes, development will be limited
to the most appropriate locations on each lot.
GRFA has been reduced on Lots 14, 5, and 4, ' by
excluding; any ;hazard areas from site area that would
contribute to GRFA. This reduees the GRFA for Lot 14
by $ppzoximately 3,190 sq. ft. , Lot 5, by 325 sq. ft. ,
and Lot 4, by 1,050 sq, ft, Lot �'s GRFA has also been
reduced to allow for a greenbelt tract an the western
end..of the lot. Lot 1 has also had its GRFA reduced by
approximately 2,520 sq. ft. to allow for another
greenbelt open space segment on the southeastern corner
of the subdivision.
,21
� � r� � � � � � � � �
Staff felt that it was appropriate to require Lot 1 to �
reduce GRFA as �the developer was able ta utilize the
adjacent Forest Service land for the swi�tchback. It is
an equitable solution to take the land that a.s within
the subdivision that is no longer being used for the
switchback ancl devc�te that area to greenspace for the
project's' and general public's benefit,
Site cove=age has also been xeduced to 100� of the
allowable GRFA ir�stead' of taking 15� of the totaL site
area. Due to the :large size of the lots, the site
covsrage was in exCess of the allowable GRFA.
Certainly, a 3ew profile buiiding is desirable,
� however, staff feeis that the development also needs to
b+e as' sensitively located on the site as possible. In
order to ac�omplish this, given the slopes and high
GRFA allotments for each Tat, staff felt it was
appropr3.ate t+o redu�e the site 'coverage for each lot.
Staff is considering a' site coverag+e percentage of 80
to 90� which is similar to the "site cc�verages normal'ly
allewed in Primary/S�cc��,dary and Single Family zone
district�s on 30$ slope sites. `'We feel this approach ;is
more in keeping with the inter�t of "site coverage and
will result in better site planning for the
subdivision, We believe it is positive the applicant
is willing to "rQduce site coverage to 100� of the
all+�wable GRFA, However, an 80 or 90� ratio may be
more appropriate. ' Staff would 'like to 'finalize the
percentage at "final plat when 'final lot sizes are
determined.
The dev+eloper has �lso proposed to maintain open space
on the lower portion of the subdivisi�n. Instead of
providing 'lots in this area as originally proposed
severai years 'ac�o, this area will be designated as open
space, The ciwner agrees to submit 'a rezoning of the
property at the same time final plat submittal is made
to the department.
An important question related to the subdivision is how
many lots could realistically be located within the
subdivision given the road alignment. This is a very
difficult `question to answer as it `is obvious if the
owner`only wished to build 'one `house on' the lower
port�,on of the subdivision, the upper access road would
be completely unnecessary and �.mpacts from the
subdivision would be greatly minimized.
22
• Staff b�liev�s i.t is appropriate to �recogr�i�e that the
paxcei was annexQd. by the Town of Va31 and received
�iillside �'tesid+entiai 2oning with the inteant �Q a3.lQw
for de�elop�ient per �he standarcls of this zoz�e
dist=ict, Giveri the fact that 'the developer is not
requesting any variar�ce to 'the Hillside Resi�er�tial
development standards, it is estima�ed that
�PProximately fQUr to fi�e additional lots could be
located within the subclivision,; if so d+esired. Staff
believes a balance' has b�en found betwee» a reasonable
nt�mber of lots for the subdivision and good `site
planning principles.
Given the above comments on how tl�is project relates to
the lan+d use plan, the staff believes that it is in
conformance with th� Land Use Plan. Even though the
pro�ect does have some`hazard areas, no' development `is
paroposed in th�se areas and hazard axeas are not
cc�ntributin+g tc� a�y additional GRFA or site coverage.
K. ` Uti�i ies:
All utilities will be p3aced underground. Revegetation
of disturbed areas wili be required' and will be
addressed in the landscape plan submitted at final
plat.
IV. CRITERIA F4R MAJOR StTBD�VZSI�N
The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found in
Section 17.16,110 of the Town Subdivision Regulations and
are as followss
"The bu�rden of pro�f shall rest with the applicant to
show that 'the application is in compliance with the
intent and purpose' of ,this c�apter, the zoning
ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC
deems applicab3e. Due aonsideration sha31 be given to
the recommendations made by public ag�ncies, utility
companies,' and oti�er agencies consulted under Section
17.16.090. The PEC shall review tt�e applicati`on and
consider its appropriateness in regard to Town policies
relating to subdivision control, densities proposed,
regulatiflns, ordinances and resolutions, and other
a�plicable documents, environmental integrity, and
compatibility with the 'surrounding land uses and other
applicable documents, 'eff+�cts on the aesthetics of the
Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with
the surrounding land uses. "
23
Public AQenc� and Utility Cc�mpany Reviewss
Notifica�ticn has been mailed to the 'follQwing agencies and
as of this date, the follc�wing comments have been received
by the Town:
1. Upper Eagle Va11ey Water and Sanitation Distri'ct;
Please see the letter dated September 19, 1989
fram'Fred Haslee in the project notebook. The
. �istrict does not ha�ve any problems with the
project as long as all rules and r�gulations and
payments of appropriate tap fees are agreed to`by
the developer,
2:. Public Service Co:. of �oloradot
Please see the iett+ers dated t?ctober 5, 1989 and
May 22, 1990 'from Gary Hall in the' project
notebook. These letters indicate that service
wiil be provided per the rules and regulations fcr
gas service extensions on file with the Public
5ervice Commission of Coloradc�.
3. Holy Cross Electric Association:
Please see the letter dated September 21, 1989
from Ted' Husky in the project notebook. The
utility is abie to provide service to the project.
4•. Mountain Bel1JU.S. West Communications:
Please see the letter from Bonnie Herod dated
September 22, 1989 in the; project notebook. The
phone company has indicated that they cannot
+commit to providing s�ervice until all studies are
completed. U.S. West will request that the
.deveioger provide an anaiysis 'far <the services
=equired by the developer cr owner. It is their
understanding is that the d�veloper accepts the
responsibility for completing this work.
5. Heritage Cablevision:
Please see the February 28, 1990 letter from Steve
Hiatt in; the project notebaok. Service will be
;provided to the project.
24
� 6. United 5tates Forest Service:
Please see the April 30, 199Q letter from Bill
Wood 3.n the ,projec�t noteb4ok. If, the Forest
Service parcel to the' west is 'deeded to the Town,
it wiii be neaessary to determine the exact
3oeatior� 'of tl�e public easement to be retained by
the For�st Servic+e. It also states that:
"As witfi all subdivisions borde�ing National
Forest System Lands, ;it is desirable to allow
permanent publi.c access a.cross the private
iand to the forest. The ;proposed subdi�ision
plan does a�.low for this.��
"The main access rcaad �o 'the proposed
subdivision crosses National F�rest System
Lands on th+e Spr,addle Creek Parcel on` an
existing road. I understand the grade of
this road ex�eeds Town of �aii standards. I
feel it is appropriate to grant a variance at
` this� iocatic�n to keep the aecess r4ad` on this
alignment. Keeping �he road on the present
alignments seems` to be the environmentally
preferred ];ocation to keep from' disturbing
additional r�round and to minimize the visual
impact from Interstate 70, the Town of Vail
- and the ski area. This alignment would also
become the Forest Service Easement when the
parcel is deeded to the Town of 'Vail.��
"In summary, the Spraddle Creek Subdivision
meets the needs of the National Forest
System. '. I feel the access road across the
national Forest is in the best possible
location. and u=ge you to approve this
alignment for access ta the subdivision. '�
Staff will require an updated letter at final plat
from` the U.S. Forest Service stating their
approval of the switchbaek on 'their land. This
letter should be included in the final plat
submittal.
7. Town of Vai1 Public Works, Fire and Police
Departments:
Comments fox�a the' Town of Vail Public, Fire, and
Police Depa=tments have been incorporated in to
t3iis memo.
25
8. Colorado' Division of Highways;
An acc�ess per�aait has been approved by the Colorado
I�ivision Qf Highways far the Frontage Road
`'improvements.
The approved CDOH Access permit requires that
'�ina�. roadway construction plans be submitted to
CDOH 45 days prior to commencing construction.
V. CRITE�IA AND FINDINGS �OR A VARTANCE
Upon review of Criteria and �'indings, Section 18.62.060 of
the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Communfty
Development recommends approval of the requested variances
based 'upon the follow�.ng factors r
A. Cansideration of Factors:
1. �he relationship of the �equested variance to
ot�ier existing or �otential uses and structures in
the viainity.
a) Road Grade:
There wiii be no major negative impacts because of
the raad grade variance to allow 0.8$ increase in
rQad grad+e from the allowable 8�. Public Works
believes that the i�acrease will be difficult to
discern and that safety concerns have been
adflressed, Public Works would prefer to have the
� roads meet the 8�' grade throughout the entire
subdivision, however, the applicant has reduced as
much as 'possible the road grade without
dramaticaliy ,increasing wall` heights.
b) Retaining Wall Height:
The request for an addition 2 '-8�� in wall height
above the 6 ft, allowable wall height will
increase `the visual impacts of the project.
However, it is the staff's opinion that the visual
impacts could be even worse if 6 ft. high walls
were,maintained with additional terracing. Staff
believes that a balance has been found between
actual wall height, heights of the terraced walls,
and view impacts.: The three tiered retaining
walls have a combined;'maximum `height of 30 ft. It
` is staff's opinion that the height of these walls
would increase if 6 ft. high walls were maintained
as more terracing would be necessary.
26
Staff does �elieve that it is very important for
� the applicant to az�alyze soil nailing and the tie
zod s�ystems to minimize disturbed areas. This
analysis siiould occur during the final plat
review. 'The landscap3ng plan will also be °
reviewed carefully and the use ef on-site
construeticr� guidelines wi.11. help to minimize the
visual impac� of the project from points within
the valley. fihe specific "color for the concrete
bieck veneer facing for the retaining walls should
be chosen before fina3. plat approval.
2. �'Y�e deq��e to wh3ch re„�ief from the str�.et and
- l��eral interpretat�on and enfo�c+ement of a
�pecified 'requl�tion is neeessary to achieve
r�ipatibil itv and un�.�o,�mity of treatment amonc3
sites in the vici:nit� or to a�tain` the objectives
Q� �his title` withaut qrant of s�eciaT �,riviiege.
Road Grad.e ancl Retaining 'Wal1 Height:
Beaause of the topography and soil found on this
sit+e, difficult development cAnstraints are
created. ' Staff believes it would be a hardship if
the strict and literal interpretation of the code
requirements for road grades and retaining wall
heights were required for this project. In many
instances, the road is proposed through areas`
where the slope is at 40� or greater. The
variances allow the developer to minimize the
impact on the site as much as possible while
lnaintaining appropriate road gr�des and reasonable
wall heights. The variances result in better site
;planning by decreasing disturbed areas: The Town
Engineer has examined other alignments for the
road and it is his opinion that this alignment is
the best given the road grade and wall height
requirements of the Town of Vail regulations.
Each variance request should be reviewed for its
own merits. However, other owners of property
within the Town of Vail have also received
variances for retaining wall heights because of
topogr�phy and soil condit'ions on their property.
Recent approvals included the Cerisola wall in
Potato Patch and the Byrne wall in Vail Village
lst Filing.
3. �he effec� of the requested variance on light and
air. distribution of population. transporta�„tion
� ��},d traffic f�ciiities, pnblic facilities and
�tilities� and public <safetv.
27
a) Road Grade;
The ir�cr�ease in road grade above �he 8� standard
to 8.80$ will have some negative impact on the
abi3ity of vehic2es to negoti�ate the roadway,
however, it will be very hard to measure any
empirical amount' of reduction in public safety.
b) Retaining Wall Height;
Staft believes it is appropriate to require a
grading easement on the southwest corner of the
property to allow the Town of Vail to grade onto
this portion of the site if and when the Frontage
Ro�d is extended to the east to create a new '
underpass connectin�g ;te the Blue Cow Chute area.
This proposal is ;part of the preiiminary
recommendaticns i,n the Mast�er Transportation Plan
for the TorMm of Vail. HowQVer, thi.s option is
believed �to be something that would not be
accomplished` in the immediate future. Staff
'believes that it is appropriate to allow for this
option as it resu�.ts in the decrease of retaining
walls for the possible future; road extension.
V. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
fo3lowina findings before�"rantinq a variance:
A. 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.
B. `That the granting of the yariance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity.
C. :That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons;
1. 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.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the same
site of the variance that da not apply generally
to other properties ia the same zone.
28
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
speci�ied requiation would deprive the applicant
+af privil+eges en�oyed by �th� owners of other
properties in the same district.
VI. �TAFF REC0.�+3I'�,F.�'TD,�iTION .
: A. : Variance Request;
Staff recommends approva3 c►f the variance requests to
allow roa� grades to be at a maximum of ' 8.8� as well as
the retaini,z�g wall' heights at a' maximum 'height of 8.8"
per the preliminary p�.an �dated September 7, `1990 and
as"sociated cross-sectians and road profiles submitted
by RBD Engineering. We believe that the request would
not be a grant of spe�ial privilege and'that the
varianc+es �aouid hot be detrimental to the public health
safe�ty or welfare. The topographic and soil conditions
on the site ha�e created dQVelopment constraints which
warrant re�.ief from the strict and literal
interpretation of the zonin� code.
It is feit that if' the 'strict and literal
interpretation of the wall height and road grade
maximums were required, the project would have more
visible impact on the community. , Findings supporting
the variance are IV A, 'B, and C l, 2, and 3.
This approval is contingent upon the prsliminary plan
and final plat, receiving final approval. Staff would
�1so like to� emphasize that additiona� 'fine tunina of
the road and wall heiah�s mav result in slight
modifications to the qrades and iaall heights.
B. Major 'Subdivision:
The staff recommends approval of the major subdivision
preliminary plan. It is felt that the project meets
the Hiliside Residential Zone District standards and
subdivision regulations except in the areas of road
_ grade "and wall` height which were discussed in the
criteria and findings section of the memo concerning
variances. The recommendation for approval includes
the foliowing'conditions:
l. The proposed road 'grades and retaining wall
heights $re maximums for the subdivision. If it
is determined by staff through the final plat
review and/or building permit, or` construction
phase that road grades and' retaining wall heights
may be further reduced, the app].icant will agree
to do so. The finai p].at submittal will provide a
thorough, anal�sis of the soil nailing and tie rod
system for cut wal].s in order to minimize site
disturbance.
29
,
2. Constructicn guidelines will be used during the
actual bu�.lding p2�ase for 'the wall; and roaa
improvements.' See Section an EI�2 Wal1 Analysis of
'this memo.
' 3. A grading e�sement on tha southwest corner of the
property wili allow the Town of Vai2 the right to
+�rade onto this portior� of the property if and
when the 'NQrth Frontage Road is extended to the
east }aelow the subdivision to create a new
underpass cotuiecting to Blue Cow Chute.
4. 3�,ri, agreement finalizing the stable =elocation and
reclamation of the existing livery' si�e will be
submitted with the final plat information.
5. The conditions for lots havzng s2opes over 30�
wi1.3. be applied tc� the subdivision. This section
of the ccrde i.s 18.59.050 A=�, F-I, K and L.
5. Site coverage shall be limited to 80 to 100� of
�the allowable GRFA for each iot. ' This 'condition
will be finalized at final plat.
7, Gas appiiances or gas : logs shall be used in all
caretaker units. `
8. � chain link fence around ;the culvert at the
subdivision entry wi11 be removed and 'a mare
aesthetic barrier;provided with appropriate
iandscaping.
9. The six spruce trees by the subdivision entrance
� on the south side of Gillett �2oad shall be `
relocated.
10. All Fire Department standards and requirements per
the letter from Mike McGee dated August 2, 1990
sha�� be complied`with by the owner.
11. Before any building permits are released for the
` subdivision and once the subdivision receives
final plat approval, the appropriate easements
allowing fer ;public access sha2]. be recorded per
the Forest Service requirements.
12. Six foot paved shoulders Qn either side of the
Frontage Road for a public bike path shall be
provided by the developer.
13. A�.1 �onstruc,tion on each lot shall occur within
building envelopes, The building envelopes shall
be ad�usted per the revised staff plan dated
September 7, 1990 before final` plat.
`3 0
14, A21 constructi4� fcr the subdivision shall comply
wai.th reguirements foun�i within the Environmental'
Impact Rep+�rt for the ipro�ect,
15. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding
material for sar�ding the private road within the
subdivision.
15, The open space tra�ts within the subdivision shall
be rezoned �o' Green, B+elt Open Space at the same
time the 'fina�. glat is reviewed, Additional,
greenbelt open space areas wili be added adjacent
to the Forest Service switchback, Lot 5/5
swit+chback, and seaondary road per the staff
a�nendments to the Septsmber �, + 1990 preliminary
plan.
17. The ow�'�er cf the sub�livision shall maintain the
road :thrc�ugh the subdivision �rom the entry gate
up to the tcip` of the subdivision, This
maintenance a3so includes a1.1 +ccmmon areas.
retaining walls, and landscaping. The "owner also
agrees to �e responsible for establishing the
landscaping a3ong the public road for a two to
three year period from planting of the materials.
Once the landscapinc� is established and accepted
by the Town of Vail Landscape Architect, the Town
will take over the responsibility <of the retaining
walls and landscaping.
18. Pedestrian and public access shall be allowed on
the lower portion of Gillett Road extending from
the Front'age .Road up to the ,subdivision gate.
19. Three caretaker units each having a maximum square
footage of 1200 sq. ft. shall be provided within
the subdivision on Lots 14, 15, and possibly Lot
1. The separation of the Lot 1 caretaker unit is
under st�ff consideration. The units will be
permanently restricted per section 18.13. 080 (10)
a-d of the Town af Vail Zoning Code. Conditions
on the 3 employee units will be resolved at final
plat.
20. � The architectural guidelines shall be amended as
follows: �
a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as
extremely steep 'slopes,
b. Sod shall be allowed around the perimeter of
residences but large lawn areas are not
encouraged.
31
c. ` Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 8�
' unl+ess approved by �the Town caf Vail Engineer.
d. Irrigation by retaining walls for the
subdivision shall be prohibited.
e. No chain link fence is aliowed within the
subdivision even for dog runs. If dog runs
are' proposed, another type of open fencing
should be used.
21. All construction within the subdivision shall
comply with the Town of Vail hazard ordinances
found in'! Se+etion '18,69
22, No on-site 3ivery shall be allowed within the
subdivision.
>23. Aspens and iarge: shrubs shall be used`on all
`retaining wal3s. ''
24. All hazaxd areas shall be excluded from
cont=ibuting' site area to Lots 14, 5, and 4 for
GRFA or site coverage.
VII. FINAL 'PLAT SUBMITTAL MATERTAL
Below is a list of final plat submittal material which is
necessary to resolve issues raised at preliminary plan
review:
1`. A complete landscape plan which addresses the entire
subdivision and the Frontage Road entry and gate
design.
2. Building envelopes which reflect the staff changes.
3. Wall 'heights will be reduced as much as possible
particularly in the areas ,of Lot 14 and 15 at STA 53+00
and 57+00 and also at the intersection of the secondary
road by' STA 5+00 `to 2+00.
4. The subdivision improvement agreement.
5. Erosion Control Plan
5. Final Driveway locations with :approximate grades.
7. Final agreement on ,the li�ery. ;
8. Revised final EIR in one submittal package that
includes all the updated reports.
32
9. Final Pl�t drawing should indicate the following
� infonaation for each lot: lot size, build3nq envelope,
site coverage and allowable GRFA.
l0. Revised architectural guidelines.
11. Realigned access zoad to the water storaqe tank
utilizing the old road bed.
12. Revised phasinq plan.
13. Reduce the livery road grade as much as possible.
14. New letter from the Forest Service addreseing the
switchback on their property.
15. Greenbelt areas desiqnated per staff recommendations on
the final plat and a rezoninq submittal.
� 33
E
. , G
...: ...:. ... .. . ..�:::-.;:..:.:.,.. .,-...:: ..,. . . ..:.:;...::..,;�.:.::::.>,�;;::::::.:::.:.;;::;;:.;;...::.:;;::�:::;:�; .,;::::.'.:..
.:::;.::�.:...... ....:�::,.r.::..::.:...,:.:.::.:::,,.:.:..::.;;.:::;.::��..::::........:.. .:..... :.,:,,.... y,
.,:.::::.::.;�;:.:��:<,�>r•rf.f.::�� .. ., �:: ..;. :. .. ;::. ;.::: .. :�, f �}<rr�.
.;�$��.�... �r . v' ... .. . .;, �:: ::! �i:. � ':. '. v: ... .. ` ,r�.j�•::•���:> .i C { .: .
. . y.
�
c� ,S.� ...�'......
. .
.
. . :, ;
�.... r3�..�.t��if�`�r :i 3% �: ;:;• :.i :`a:i °.:•.::r ;::';•:: � ..: .. `:.. •:.:t•:r. .:•,�
. . t;: ` �..,�::..�.
.,-v„ . � v^•+..,
. i�}�}hi'•+n�f„+}!f .,. ... . fl. 'y�� ' ��. 4'� .
�a.. . .:. .; 4 . ::.: ..... . ..„ � ..�. .. .
. nt� • :8 v ':�'%};:i;'V'y��'�\i:�?'?:�;•: �
�������•�:��::ii�:����� �.���.�����.��� �����..� . :�� ��� ` �..
...... ..,
::::xx . .•::v,:{e.::•{.i...... '. '� .� . $�.f...,
::.:::..eF�X�..rl.�. ..r.......�.....::......................................::i............ '� ......,:..n}r..•...... �
r....I:. ... . .
.v .. ... .. .. ... ... .. .. .. ... ........................:....r.....:....,.............................�.....-..... ......�...v� ....:........, i.. .. . : .. ,, .
.. ... ......n....... ... ..... .......n. ..... ...... ..n.. ...... ..... .............................................................n.....................�......�. �.........n........}�}..............:. .Li..,.:F.t. :.: �Sv ✓, .
...r..4........v......... ........ti.... ..... � �. .......� . . .
......,.::�.r..;......::....:.::.....:::.......:....:.........:.....:..:...............................................................�..............,........... .. ... ...:...,�x,�..>,........ .a�
. .:::::,.c A'::::::::<:•.�:::::. ..r.......... .... ..... ...........................................................................................................................�...�.........................,..........,................ .:. �..�:.,.s. r�'r,S,,'�,?�.,..:•S..£X � .
:::;i: . . ; .
. :; . .. ., . ... .
; _ .,:LC��` SIZ�; : BUILDtt�G ENVELOPE : .S�'T��Ct�VER�i;G�: GI� FA
;OR1C�.. ...:R�1/: ..: ORIG. R�1/. :ORIC�.. ;::.. ...��1/'.. :.. . .:: ORIG. RE1l. ,.,.,;,
�.OT 1 ,.: 134809.. .:..: 84409:: 14805 ` ' _
: � �«, ,,>
� ...._.:. .:.:,59$0< 10QtIT i487'
20221 .
LOT'.2... .,.:......s�o�: ,:�. '_.... ......... .: �3s32 . .... ." . ........:: .. ...�sss ::: ....... ......a�as: .........�ss�. .......: '`...... .`
LOT'3 :::::::�::<::<�:»:: : : :
` ...;...:.86'149,,.,.:. �.:::.,:.: 14403 ' ;.....12922 .,.;,. ,.......:6059,: 75T4 •
L0T:4.....:....... aszsa .:::.. sa��s . :.:. . . . ..... ..
.: . : .
15806 . . . 1 C)6d8: ; ,i 2790 . ...: '�1�4 753t� F 6484:
L0T 5 ` :
... .....
fii.082 < 54982; 22397 13700 : .9i 62 ... .,: 479T,� 6321 5996`
::
Lt�T.6 ..:::.:..._:�s�s :.::... ' .:;: . :. .:; .. . .:.;:z��s� .::. . "::.;. ... _ . ����a ':
. ...,. : ......:.. ...... 57�2. .....:....72�8. :.. .....".........
LOT 7 : - , ,
; , . ,50354 „ ; �8854 14572 11924 ` . �'55'3 <; ...4028.� 5'�'S5 `5035
- LOT`8 _ ;:
: s�s�s .: � ��7� • :, . .;�.�r�� ,:;;.. ..... :��s� aas�: *
. .. .... .....
........... ..
_
�.OT 9 -: ..:64752 . .>. }. :..,; 12983 10675 : , 9713 ',
. � . :.,...... .52t)4,: 6505 »
, ..::
LC�T.:10 . :: ..:s�zss 4: .. _ .. . :.:.��ss�. .. .: . . w.::..... ....:: .. :: :� ..�.:. . ......_.. ...sso�.: ..:. :...ass� .:......` .....:
. ... .
LOT���11� � � � , ; . � ��,
..7'14i9 ; ' , :. 14592" 9937 ; 'f0�13 ,: ,. : . 547{I; 6838 •
,.,P���-
LOT.:12 :.: ..:.ss2». ::: � . .>..... ... �zo�s3 _
.. 1447'1 ;,.14432 ,.:.. . ........ 8078 "
. . ..,,. .. .. .:G4$2 ..._... . _.. ..
, ,
�.OT 1� :.?:: 2$5t1d3' .;;221253; 22953 14612 ': :42756 ::: .: ...11464' 17519 1 d33t�
. :
LOT:_15 ...: .:2s�sf : � 7�s �:. s��. �
.:. ......:. .. .. ...:... .. . : . . . ._ 377+�: :..:, .... ...........3620 .:... ,_ 4525. ._.... .... .... .
* No Change
,�,�.� ,� N. . _ . .��`,,,�� ` � }
1 �
. ,' .�:':�,, � �
, , . .�
.`` _..r'''"
. , .�.
• . . . . ' • � `" ,
• . � .
• . . .:' _"""'_", \ . . •
���� ' � ' ' �--.."` '/'i"'' ` �`�````",` . -.,``
• • ' :
� � � . 0 . ..� N �,.-- '-----`.. ��. �\, '.., ... ,. __
8 � •• �.
• •�� • • '� .s.:
. . ,f is • . . . ,�� .,,..,.._..__. _.....�� �, '�. . . `�•
. . � .
:�'-�t..;r„ � •" • • . '`• ;.. ._.,.�.,� \ ' �, �� :--,.4�v��-u, .,,,,,y�, ° •. . _
. �
• . ..+ . .� . /' � . �.:� . .v '�t'Y,^,.,�r.r..c c ..e.., �
~���'• ' • „ •.., � �� ` \\ � ` � � - ..�.` _ .. �•.r''" � ...` �.S . .. .
�
. C' ..- �
��,e • � � ...♦� ��� ,�"� � � �� �� ,` `�..�,.. _: _ l�` � _ --"""'r' yc "`�"s �" -"� y. :r �-.+�. ;-ir .'.`..�
. .
• . • ` . • �� , ` ., . y r�• t ti� �w ��.� r';r .�.�� +',,. w .'?rr,,,•r._e�.
. . . . . . --.�j \ � �:,..�,` . . :�
.• � . . . • ( F�.C. + r
� . � • ,E„ ] ,�\ _". : � -. �"`"`� '.:'��
h-
5� • • ' � �.-1� \ .. � _ ..�.��,�``�at'� .:_� ^:e; �,� .
�. .
. . , �. � • •. �, . .: _ , '�" — -..... _
'+ • • • ' '' � � �"`"`--���,. ..� .:.:,..�t!+.."'�'•,�c.. *�+ _ -.,.�.•- "— —
� . � .� . . . . _ _-
� . . .. .
. • , r
^♦ • ., . •.. • •• � . \ \\ . �� � . ..:. �� .. �" � / � V�.�J.
� ..
• . �`
�_ . � • �
, f::: � , , . ., �, G {� . +_ : `'�: _,,--__.
� i,'�. ,�,,,.;� '� ..}\.
e� ��. • •_`,� ` _'` • `; -% �� , I— -1 ,�w�
. �. �
� • .•�`+ ���.. � �-.. ,` � �� ."'�..-..� �� ,�`...�� � �� I
' .. .
�• • • •��•� ���� � �\ � �.� � .. .. .` � �:�1�' \ \� � 1 r.� �� '` ,
ti �
� ,.
.
'
�
• -'=-�=.�``-' � ' � 38 ��'�Z -K: `�— � . ,��.. ;� ;.�� �± � _
. . . �--...�,,,,,� �- , '-- .. ,�� .., � � ,y/r�.s., _ '-• ��°. -.
. . .
.
^"�•.-�•�......�,,•,�� • � � � .,.._ _ _.,�� & �.�� .•ti� , �����,,,,,f-,� ,�. �y
� � �
. + . . ` ., •
' � `j''�• • • � �" » \ "�.. �� -.` �`'_ � --"-�.-- .=�-- I 3T7fi,�4L� ���.,
�� • ' . �` \., - .,•, :. :..�.,� � -
, � ' +.,.. ' ",-�. ��'.
�O � `.• `�``"-..,,, • � �,,.__� °_ `y-�-�� �� �� �w.. ..._ , ' '
�.
� �.:� ��� ��\ r � ...�``. � . . 1 . .+ r _
O � ` •• !� "•�. � . ..
� �� . .
O ' . � � ' _.���'��.1 �, . . �� �y �.. � � �
. � � �
. • ; � �,,,.-�,���� �*``.� . � �=„�`� ^'.`'�.._•:�....�.�
�„` � �� � . .. _
'..�„r� � � .
.
` �' ` \' �----- �� -- � � .t. '� rt �
,` .
_—�s� • � 1. v\ .� .
� �� ` r�{ r�r"'� ,: .` . .�.\ �+ , ~ �_�.. � ,�` V� ~�.� .� \...
• \
�
\ . / ��.��+� � x
� ''
,,� �,,.,���,�....��! �...f� � ='"�.�.�..
•,��2 - ' '� � �- 8b C?, � ;
P � '
_ . .
, �_ ` \
.
�-`.`'�. , • • ' t�o
, . .
.._....,.., "`'`..,,,_ ';''� �" ' . ��� ��t � ' i\,
- �.
y
.
. , ,� ; , _- � , . � / y ..,, . � � ,\ � ..�.,,�� _ �,,. ,
,` " . - � • '` ( `9
. . . J/ } _
�-:• • •• • •• • .<\�i��-. � �`� �..�.,� ��-G.�� D�. . �� :. :.•`` `..\ `_�� � Q",�`s d .�� .
• a� �
+-�._..,,,,�_ r.,�
�.� .
..�-
.. .
. �..---''l 3 • C�. , �. ) �"�-- '—� � \ _.' . � •'"`� ,,.=�� �r:At
. ....
, .. . �'' �,' �=_
. --_ � � -
. �.. _ .
�9 ,�/ 6, - � � � ' . �- -.... � ,, • -
�,,,"' -'--. . • •
� � ¢ � � � : ,, � .. `• �t ..
. � � \ . � �. �- . ! ` • .--..
. � �
�1 � �. �� � \ � � \ . ' r.. � � + • * i- '-
� �•. � : i 1► �.�„�'�,.r r— .
, � , 3 _...
• _.
. _
` , / '�
_ _ , , �
• '�+..,,, \ �,�j' � ,♦ �� : ', � ti. . +' � •�_ i\
_
. ' • . • . , � • � •, ,•t� ��
. . � � \ -
`• r • • r ��O —�.��� .. � .` 1 � . ���r `
� � ' • ' 1
�
L • �•��. ♦♦ �� � � ��S" � � � � . � �'i� I
.�•..�. ��.
'�`� l '
� .�:1r.•�..�,� �.,. �.�_ � . �\�,,,1`y�,�� \ `t ., .�, ,\\. `, �.:. �. i'. '
ta` ...• •` . `"^�� . \ � '`' .. ', ♦` . �f� .1�+ /.
• � •"Z--y+�,� .. �� \ �,�- � . � �`� "�. . '�:�� ��� � � /p ��.� i
�--����� �.,��_ �r..��r \ �\ . t �,' .♦ � �
-
� ` � �. _ .
- � "�.�/ o� ' � ��\ � -. � "� . .. `
�"�'�� . . \ \ � . _.
,�+►� ' \` .: \��;`���;♦- ' s� % s` "`, :
, . .a . '�. \� � . �.- � �; � '• ��
. • '/""� .� � �� '- 1 -
• s�:. .� � '�� ' 8' \ x � \ '.� • ... ��. .� \ t,,, . � • '\ � ••� � - �' ^ • .
s • •. . 1 � '�': • �. •.'t�. � `! ..�_,,.
� �•�� . � .. .
� 1 � �.. . : •
` . . .�
. •
� `-. �
• • • - p11 � �. �� ` • ��,� . .
, _ � ' . �
, `� , \� .,, .
.� : � � � \ '�, � .. -� . `
�-_. a 4 �. .
�, � � � . . .._ .. „
• ' '— .�,r � / '�
. � . —� _,` ` .,,�� x \ � � ��, '
J '� • .� � �1 � • .
' , . , ��' ., ,,. � ��� �
• • , ' '• ; , � ``�„�, �� , � \ . " --- � .� ��
. . . \�
-._„ � . . � . � �
. . . , .
' .. �''; ;'.: :: �`` a�A .. ' ST�C3L -
�.., •, ,. . �,,. .�..--� � �, �'�. .� . E �CC�"S� t'Lf�N
. �
. • • . . . .` 8 A3� ' p � —''
�. . .` . . � � '� � \ �'., ��-.. �.--�\�\ \1 �`�
•• . ..� . ` _ ,
•�� �. �..._ �0,. � . �. ` \ ` .`�\ \ \�
� . , .. . , . . ..... . . : .. .. .._ .. �J`J : . �
:� . . � .
� • � • �� .
. _ ..� . - • � �
. .
. . _
. . . , ` `_}. , .� . . � � � �. � � �
, ... . ..... _:..._.. .._ ..... ,. _ _._ _ _...... ....._ � � ;� , � ,. .�:
. _ . ' .
.. , . -i--"-
Y .. y
. , , �
. .. � . ��. � . �:��. . .. . ..�.�.... . I � i..� � .
� � � � �� ;� � � t f � i V
.....
� ` r
i ,. �
w � �..«. .y.. ..�._. ..: +' •.r..._. �....
�. �a �
� � � � 1 � i , i , i i _. 1—�..J_.i 1 ��� i� ' � ..F.
._ ,
. .�.:. . . i � _1"_.�._.,__ ....._... �......-1..._ . _..._...' . . �� i � � 1 .� i- �i 1 �i -1 .
_{ r ,�
� t` i .
. . 't'- . . .....�. ...... ..,. '�( ,r. ,. _ j�
-.." '
� t �.. . . .. . .� . .._._._ _. r..� � y ,�.
� . � .. .
. .. .. �.. ..: + r M
�
� "� s 1 � ... � �
� � , t� w�r•�— �.. �.--�-� �++1 �- +.. .
, .. . . . ... . , a�.� .r... ......�._.� .. . .. ...�-..........._..:�.. .1 '.... .I:
. .�� .y l..l..::}... � �'"'i"�`
, � . � � � � � l
.
,
1 t i i . .. '"_�_ ..r_:..:.,--• _....._._.._..._.� _�........ ..�k.. ....:� . �r` ' _
, , , �...��...
.':.�. . .. �..:� � .:.�..... .:....:.`... . . .;: ...�... .. . .. . � . �.. r. .. .:�. i .. . .... .�.. .f .. .
�.._ ,...-. .� r.�..:-.
� � , � i
`
... �. .�� ... , . , . .�
, . ... � ,. ' , .
. .....�.._.�.. _ w...��..�.. .....�._ ........ ' ' '.�... .__....... �.."'_ ' ' � " _'
• «
, .. ..:, �..-...� ,... _. ..... ...��. �_._..,: ,. '� _. �.. . ....� �.� .. _ �. . `.
„ ....
. . . . -...�.... ._� ...�.. .. � :��,,,,���..,,_ .
. .�..
.....
.
..�..�_�.�..�.... .�. � ,
. ���.._.. .. . . . . . - , . . " �. . .. .., ._... . .
.. . -., . ' ; �.. . � ., �
. .�. ,. . , �.. ' . . . . . �. � i�� . .
. �..... . . .. . . . . . � . . .
��.. . ... . . .. .. . . . .. . ,
. , . . . . . . ..
" ' ' j
.
.
, .�... ... ..._�.� ...�"' ' • ,/ �
.�.. . �� . .. , .. ...�_ ... .. .. ... i . . ' "
�
. . . . , . . . . . �
.._.� .��/.:_� ,. _... � .. . .
,
��. .. .... � .
.��:. _....S ..�.... .....
....����� j
.... . ...
. . . . . _ . . . .
. . . . .
, .,��. .. �� � � ,uti:,:� i
. . . .. .. � . . . :. . ,
� � � � / � � � � �
� . . . _ . . . . . . . , .. , . ._.: , . . _ . , �a
,d� m� ,
. .. .
l �
. . . . . . _
. : . _ , . ;
O! ,
. .. . , , . .... .__ .. ._.. . � °
. _. ..- _. . ...,. . .. . —-� /
. . . ...... _:_...-- -- �SS�
� • .
, ,
.<:.� .. .. . .:... . _ . .._ ' • _ .
_ ; . ' :B•S'�i�0
. .
. . .
� . . . . . . . .
. .._ _
.
. i
..-�''r . . . . . .
. ., . ��
�� • :
�+ � • � -
�r . ,
, . . � . ., .
/ • �r � . --
. � . .. .. .� .._ . .. . _ .._..-_-- -__--- ---_ - - -- - _ •• - -
. .. .. . . , .
. _._ ,�� ...._._ _.� ,� ��,71�n�:
Oa� ,.
_
. . . .
. .
� � � . ` . . . , . . .._ . . . . . . . . . _:
. . . . . . . . . ,. _ . .. . . .
. . .
// �r_, . . . . . . . ...._ . . . . , . . ,
� S ?'��G E' A CC�SS r°f O�',lG��
/ . ..
. ..
. . .. . . .�.._ ._ ._ ... . . __. . .. :: � .. ' . ..�.. :::....... =.._-----.. ._..._..:.. ._....�__�.�.._... .. .. � ...,. .: ._..__.....__ _._:. . . ..:'._,. .. _85�Zc�'
° � . . . - . ._
1 :' ;
� . ,
i
/ .
� . . ,....... • � ��>o
. . . _. . _.. . . a
. : �
o° o o � �
o . ; �
� � e ° . �
� D �
� ��, . .. � .. � . . . . . .. . . . ._., � � . .
9 �� . �. . . � . . . .. . � � .. . � .
Tfl; � Planr�ing and Environment�al Commissi�n
FROM: ' �c�mmunity: �evelopmen� Depar#:ment
. ' DATE: October 25, 198fi
SUBJECT. A x�quest to apply Hillsi.de Residential zoning to �
a 27 acr� paree�, c�f lana commQnly referred to as
��raddle Cre�k
Appli.cant: George W. Gillett, Jr.
I. THE RE4UEST
fln November 38, 1986, the Town of Vail adQp�ed a
comprehensive Land Use 'Plan. In the plan, parcels of land
in ar�d adj acent to the Town of 'Uail were designated for
certain potential uses if they cauld meQt certain
criteria, standards and policies o� the Land Use Plan and �
other planning documents previously adc�pted by the Town of
Vaii. The 5praddle Cre�k parcel is a 2? acre parcel of
land that was annexed by the Towza of Vail some time ago.
It has iiever recei�ed any Town of Vai1 zoning designation.
Through the La.nd Use Plan, the Spradd3e Creek parcel was
given a land use designation of Hiilside' Residential.
Upon completion of th+e Land Use Plan, a zone district
entit3'ed Hi3lside Residential was written to' correspond �
with the criteria� outlined in the Land Use Plan'. The
maximum aliowable derisity for the Hillside Residential
zone district is 2 dwel3ing units per buildable acre,
The Land Use Plan also s�ates that any development
proposal will require an in'-depth analysis to assure
sensitivity to;constraints, provision of adequate access,
minimization of visibil'ity from the valley floor, and
compatibil'ity with 'surrounding land `'uses, The proposal
for the Spraddle Creek .parcel is� for zoning only and does .
not deal with a development proposal or subdivision plan,
A 'review of the 2oning request is limited to whether the
request is compatible with surrounding land uses, meets
the development objeatives of the Town, and the more
tangible issue of pro�ision of legal and physical access.
II. EVAIUATION QF REQUEST
Criteria #1. Suitability of Existinc�Zoning
This parcel of land has never previously had a Town of
Vail zone district designation. ` Under the jurisdiction of
Eag1e County, thzs land was 2oned Resour�e. The Eagle
County. Resource zone district allows one dwelling unit per
35 acres and is generally i�tended as the agriculture zone
�
district and to preserve natural open space features, $
�uring the Land Use Plan work sessions, mu�h discussion
was c�ntered on �he land use designation that should be
given �o th� Spraddle Creek ar8a. 'It was generally agr�ed
at that time by the Land Use committee and the participa-
ting ,public that as a property ad�acent` to the Town of
Vail, some level of deveiopment was warranted, At the'
same time, this parcel was recognized as being very en-
vironmentall� sensi.tive and va,luable to the Town of Vail
as open space. The land use designata.on was proposed as a �
use that should give deve3opment potential to the
property, yet maintain and understand the environ-mental
sensitivity of the parcel.`
Criteria #2. Is the amendment presenting a convenient,
workable relationsh�.� ;among land uses +consistent with •
mun�.c�.pal ob�ectives?
As an; impiementatir�n Qf the Land Use Plan, this applica- �
tion is cons�.stent with muni,�c3pa3 objec�ives. However, it
is xecognized that this parcel of land is his�hly visible
and enviranm�ntally sensitive. Whiie �he zaning of `the
property meets and is consistent with municipal
objectives, any development p3an and subdivision proposal
will need ' to be reviewed very carefully ;to ensure that the
proposal is consistent with the development 'objectives of �
- the Hillside Residential land use designatio.n and of the .
� Town of Vail. ' � � �
While we �urrently have indicat`ion that there is legal and
physical access and there will continue` to be legal and
physical access in the future,. this issue will need to be
discussed and `clarified at the subdivision stage.
Criteria '#3. Does the 'rezoning proposal r�vide £or the
qrowth of an orderly and �iable community�
The Community D+evelopment Department feels that the
rezoning its�lf does allow for the growth for an orderly
and v:iable community. We feel that`the Hill`side
Residential designation while allowing the developer
development �otential for his property, will assure envi-
ronmentally sensitive development of the property. At
this point, there is not enough information to comment on
any development of the site at a�l. A very thorough
review will be necessary to ensure that all proposed
development does meet this criteria for orderly and viable
growth.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for the proposed zoning of Hi�lside
Residential for this parcel is for approval. ` The
.
,� � � � � �
� , ., _
1 ._� Community Develvpment Department feels that thi.s meets the
intent of the Land`Use Plan and the 'development objecta.ves
of the Town of Vail.
. . . , ... . . . ' i . . , ,.
. . � . . , .. . , . .
. ' ,. , t . , . . .
QVARpQA1l..� � .
�
'�o..o �
���,.-.
����«� � /
Z:� � �
0
M�1,1, M�X
t�„ -�oPSo,L �
__ �
. �
. . . ' �
. . '� . . . . . . . .
�
1 /
� M„�.
1 ie" 'fo PSo�` "'���..=11�
�� -1!I (I l= �
u ' ' ,
,�
. . . . . ... . , .. , . � ,. �
.. . . � . . . � . .
. ` � � �i . --```_~S.
���.�. �,.1�L� -��l �T� Guh��:,_,2�,�. �-
�;? � .:.. .^'�.�....:,-,;-:,►.� 1 t�.
�._ �---_,
I" - � '
C',J l�� i- - J
���-� ���
/`'''>
.. .. . . � • L . . . ,.. . . . .
J
� / .
�
w /
1 t'.�- .. ( ' .. � ! � , . . ... , . , ,
� � .
_1��=i
M�a• 1--� ��.._���-
1!o" ot �So a+J�,�i___
1
a f
�
4
��
�
�� t't�a,
� {�
I 1�" i�,;.1 !l l
-1 I�= �
� �1 I�tl 1= �
L—!
L—. _
. L—
��.
I�_I
.. . , � i� . . ., . , . .
L-1
C�
�
U �N ��.� ����-�
� _�, � .2
�._
� .�:n y��' .7r_C..',.��_ll�
�_ i+ /
._��-.� �_�__ l = 5
- . . ���—;`����
h �a� � �? �A `�311 t �' � a7�'Y�� b"` '��..; ��ts �C�, � ,„.
.q, �..�� � e��� ��x � r iilU� ?.� ,� ,-�%L�t � . wi' " � ��`� ,� =� �'k`r ;� .� �����*�t�' �� � ° ��h3 � ,��',�.�ty�i���.? � ,;,'.
�di ���`���`�ta������s ti� ��a a aaF`� �.�` �} �� .� �� �
d�' �-, L 4��,y� ���o� �_�0 � ���Y� � �� � .� � ��_ ��i, � � �, `���� �'�`P �`�`^:;d.;�.
�z��.� .� � �'�,�, °.�� � .:�� s
, � , . .�� : ;• . �,. . , � , � � .
; ��i 1�k�fq � �i&�� 4��'
�" � ;� 3 f
,�pvn. $ .... �,���U�,�?t;t x , �di`���\U, �V��`.
� � �{ � ���� ����.
� c�7> `�
F�4��s� .
t ':i,'� \ 4}��i��t�.}n�N���� �
�..
ar \>�j fl i���x� '�`-, .: �t��,"� ���,�. ������± � .
Ys k 7�� ��t\ "�kk`a��`����Ya. � ��� �� h� {� � ��.
� �
� `#�'�� �o�����w��t�f��k"���il� ,�� 4 � ?�
� kg A�,�.��Y t�I !� Yf �7r, e� . .1 `��.��'c
. . � . i .,....� �
" � � Sry(}���,� � ��2 ��� .' ,r r �'I� �:
�. � � YFh � �x"'z l ""� ���. 5 I
� ��s ��� �����'���� �3���e
�: `?.*i, 6� ��'�t?��`y .. 3�h��
�l\°��\ ��"�
iY d, �` �{§;,.
�\ 3\"� �s\�e� � e�E'�.�k3,� �
4� N
f`
���� r
'�. � , .�
�°
� �
�� ?'� � �.;
r .� �.
� � ���_
� �
. . � � �
� � .�-�. � � . �k � a�
. � �, -
,
,
.. v � « . )h ��..
. . ', q,. � �� � .. ". _'..
� �
w�dr�
5:
l a z y �:6� � .� 4 +��a t �����a �t��� ; �� ",�; h•�kas, ..
,1 � �' <k' � 1 � : 11 � �t � S � k�. k v�¢ `� A t.�y��� 3� � Y 1`r,.� 2Y.,.. �:
\ � `2�"$ 1 . �
� .:, � 3 � � � � �:i t� �,r: ,.,�-�a} t �� 3+..�.,a4��r � `����''�s., a� i� :i.�p4*�,R{x:v� � �"�..:
,.� ., .<. �:� � ,�i. � .,, ,.s ,
;
�, ��
�'�R Y 3� +;�-.
�. ,.� :l � � � ;t l . ::. . .. ,c .,. h„x.:� a,_:,r 1. .,.. >. `�;�� 'm c r -�c,�'°� �a 1 5 ..,. 4�., �.:.* ,1. .,.. �:., v . 3 �.
� �
.., ... 'i \ , *S �� ��, l''�'i�"�... ...,i.',.. �`t :-,'`i, \�,.�, .. .:. .1 �� . - a� �.:; .�' ,x,:.
�,,,�.= a. :tx-.,�.. ��,� -:x >,1 4 � �r t �.: -�.i�- �! .:.::t ca ,�� e�a�.c.�.`.,�� A �::`v. �.... ..... ,., .�s
.... ., ..: r� .-4, � ,, ,�: t Z ... \l�., a",v m .i..... � ..:, �`� ....� ..�.,.. va .`�... .�.-... ,� �. .. ..-
� � 1 �\ , a � x z ..�.. � � , �,,;
.-..� . E '� '�:. 41 �., 'a .._ .. � _.,. ,,,,.,. ..5.:. '� .v� .l. -u ... `4_
�.. , S: i k . t. .n.i>..��. r"a, t..:� .. ..� . :., t�� .,2 ... .. �. < .,
.. � 5 .':��-,. 7 :t;.. ,'. V'� 1 1:' .\,�.`s..- a�. . . .�... R ��': .,.mu > ..kS� �. , ._ �...:.
.�., .. a. � . � '�. � .`�C?�o .,, t .�...:n,..�..e...s .�...., �, , ,s�. �- �<. , e 'ti...�
, .0 v.��a �:. � t ,�! -:._ -a .. .� .. -.. --�.c�; o. \ , � G .. � �
... � 1� r. v�' _:o�...- � .�`a,. <. .� .. . � �� a. . �.� '� ..
. �.. . `i , \, .Ht: ,_ .} > > w `,.. .o�., . , ..
.>.. . ... -s l ..,... .i. \r .. :..... '.x 2ri �'.13 2 � v
, � .. -::a . a :': �.. .... � . . ._ .� -�. , ..�.
, .,, r . , , .. ? � . a. a�. �,
., �. . . �� �. \ :.. .. .„ . .,. .� .., . ,n.. �.. _a w .....� . ��: �. .�..
. �.. a .: .....r. �. �Fr:. .,.... s� a �..,.. .�... � .,. +�ae. i zs . .. r
,� . .n �. .,. `-(,1i1.. \i T S 'v.Y,.i.. . t. .r., P .. $.,. ."� .s,. -s u �.. ... . .,. , . . � �k..
> . . � .. , � � x ,,,, � �
„ � . �� � ,r , . �. � , � �
� . �, � r _� � a �e � � .. t. a, � . e ,� Y, .
,� , � � y � x , ,. . a. <, �
a �. � . , , a �. , � F . , t F � � � � � �
. � �,� rr > � c � �. � , � � � �.
t..,. �, t.. < "� > `�, . ,. � � �., � �N. �. �.
a.. .�i.. n.,u!. �a .r ... ....... ..�s.,,,�t ... . � ���... „ . ,a .� ��. .a... �� .�. ..
... � .r .-.. ..._ \ ..u., .- .,.. .� �,.- . �.... . .�`. .�"" . a
.,,. .,. +�,. .... .�. � a. ,. ., e .�.. ,s 1 4'�:,.. ��`.'�'c>,� .� .,�. ��, ...., . � , ,,,
.,. �.. .�.. .. ,i •-: �-: -. . ._ . , .. . . : ,F ,.. . .-�... . .. � � -, ..�.. .K-�. -�_.
`d *��-,. ., v ,s ..,.. .� . ., .,... > .. t�..,. ..a., d � ti . . ,.., .-,. .a , `c.- .. , . , l�, . .
„ � .. ,,.d_ ,�. . .�. .,.... , . �� =.i.. .`�,i ... ..� . . �.. . . � .��_ ,. . : .e,. . . �,..
v�..S.,......�' �c `�, .. :,`t�aa r .�.� ..,...:, , ... .".. ., . �s ,�...� .�'�\ .- ..,. .s .h. . ,s .... �. . .,- 1... .., r� �
c�.u,.�..�., s, .,,.. �c1.?. .� k� .,....... .... .. .�..i.�. fic .,t<.. ..�,,. a.� \ �. .�..,.. . ... . . . ... .� .,,..., ., , .x... , .,,... .... ���. .,,. �, ....
� , ..<, :.....,.. .� «,. .,5,. ... �.z .o.. �.�.., is. , t t� ,z.�r� w �� � � v y. k�:�F .":�� �����... . ��e a�..
-.:, .n,. r..:� ,.. , ?.. ,... .... ..R...i. .,- �.'. m ..,, d u. ., . 5. ... .�.. ,. , ,k _a. .�.n`.�'�+._.�-,._ ., �.. . .. � , . > .. 1..
.L. .#�.4 �Y .. .l..,a.. �.�. �., .n �;- .'S...a$eax\ r. . , ,�.�'�. . S . 3i. .�R_ o -*� ,.Y. . ..�. .����F \.� . , � ..:.. . .r...
r. .�.,........ . , , x r 2`�. < ..., �. �. ..., , u s �. -, `�� .,, ,�, '�..,a. .� ..�gu. .,... .�.... :. 52..� ...�.. ... ...., a.� .. � �.. :.
.�Z � ... � � � �, , . ,��., �. . �,. ���� . �� � ,ti`� `,. \ ��.. �. �,,.�` r,. �
� ._. Y a?� k .. ,_ r. 1t ,. �� �., c . .a. k�a a � c. � � ���
�::�.,..°a H T �-`i�W. �... ...k_ d -t ., ��.. "t. . � . .� .e.,,� .9 . � :' ._ ,.�.._ ^�.;.�.': �:.. � c�. , k + �l�N.. ",. t �
�.._t,,. � _ z `� . .. �. .�. .i . . . �., . �� �.. �. �.. .., . . � � >. �_., �",�.��� ��
.,a,.:.,.....�.,... ., "`'�,. �,, s .t,,,,:�-n- a �: .� .,� ,. , .. .,.,. .,.. . . . . ., ...�ee'�� �:.,,. .8. 8. .�. .�. �� .�.. ,,:�. ., ,,. �;v� .. ".- . � .�::. 1..
,,,ss,._.�ai � .�s., �� e � � �'� �C�i� ,..�.�,b��Y� .. � v,:� . � � � ,�,.. ��� c������„�,s.�§,... ..... � ^ , �, ',� ,
..t:., :�a��. ��. � � : � � ,-�,�. ..�.�., .,,. .�. � -�c 3� h.�a�te�c -� �.:�Yi� k��e;z�s i�. .�. .�.:,�l,F��Y., :�.,,a# ,. ,.�, .. . ,, ., � � ..,1..,
. .�', � .� . � ,�- . . .,. ..� , . � s.. �..� ��sx ...�.....*�41?-.� �'�er�c`s,��4�. , , -, .s�. .�"'�, za�, � ��8�.`.,.
r, < , r , ,� i , '� '��.; rz;,..��� �.�����1�,a� .s. ,,.,� , H, �� ��� :�� � ��.
. - , a � . , ..� ,. .." �����\:�S �.�i��€��4 �������k,,:�. . „ � ��wi�,� r�������� � �. ,�� `u�"��
�� � .t_ -. .,. ; .°�.�. .,. , , �, �.�s;��a'�������n;,�.,G l ..., « '� <i....�..�"k , x ti s'+�'1�,� �.a��,'L� ..\i�:;�,�2� .a�r,:_z.��, �iS-�, w���. .
���� .k t..��i3��.t.,c k ��7�5.�r a �.;..v 'a'3�,,. N.�, x- z`'t�� ''�. �,° ¢�:
. ..,. , . �, ,.,..�- ��„ ��� '4 ��� �... � ?�.,.., 1.. ,� .:� .i� �������
:�a�. .'e`�' )+.�� �.�o'�.'�, x,�;�. �.. �.�aC f ..a���. �i.°'
� v+ .t�E:, cr •:aa� �a fi,.t � �d: *s '�+�a,.�, ;.�� .�'�. ,.i. s�.
.0 .�,.`, '�°' .,.�,� �:�1 :.a�'�t�.,.� �.:t�'e*�... z.0 �� �`�s -.� ��w',.
s �»..: �y*.-fi. l! Y: ��Zd b�"',u-�3, - ��"� .34 ``u'. ����Z�
-'�a�, .�.;��� 5t .,'Aa`�'n ��.�C 4\�'��e:. � -�.,u �.:..
"�+fY` � �'.�.. � '�t :��,�r�a iw� .z� �.. ..�, ,�y� ."�.„ ��,� �.�.
:?; � �„ .�'�'��a �,x. �`�':�e�,`�. �ha`ky�i i�� '�a`���s _ �,;
, .,.., .�, i
�, ..�... q,.� e � .
� 1 �.
..v4. .M � .....' ` �.,'" .�z. � � , r � �, t����L � �
... �� � �``�. ,.'�
� � . , ,., � ���
i
� �. . y
��" �, �:. n�
. �.. �
, � ,- �,P
� ��- ,. � ��„ �
, � � > �
�.
, � � �
. ,R. � b , .. v; a
,
� ,
.. ... �, ., � Yr�.
�k�
. , . -. ' � � . yi
�:
�
�
� "'';
�.
. q
vd�.;�' , ;,
. , . � .� . . . . .
. , . x ��� � �'� ,
. . . . � �� ..w . . .. .. . � � . ` ��,�. � e.>.� ` .,�, ,.�. tt.-:.;r. .��. a��, .rr.�.. . . �� .. �. ea. .�a� . �Y���t,v��..� ,a ���a.
,
�
` ,r
, ,,.,_,� Ys�F_. � . , a ,v� .t .� x,� a�,�*, , .... �'
�
.
�i � . .
f�,� �
^��,_
� � I
� � �
i�__._.�
�
l
�1.=„
1�1���=���
. ��- �'
-
.. . � . � � . .
__:_.1 .. . . . .
� � j2.oa-o
���i �;.�1,L,L.. �U �-r F-1 �oC�1� r--T"
�r rOS� �E.GTI O t�l �
. �:��._� ,��� _ 5 ,
���`���t�
� f
,r—�
, �_^ (_7p rt�.0,w. F��ry� (5_,�8or�ed) �
�-�:.,_,.,,�
� . ! PPOPng�RETn�H�H. f�n���--�``-�,``-1�EK k�qA
.."}: . . ��`f/Ci4e0L1".t�NG TREE �INE� ,� � V� � -- -�
�' � p.�
� .,� , � ` � '-` q ,ri. j C d� '.s,
`"� � . . . ..�'^,..s,.�.�'�.��'��.��*.""''^ PRD .. ' G 'POLE a � Po
'ti 2vf .C���ecf-T j;+�r- ��� . �eg' ,�p ro
� � . ,
�t �If✓p��� 1 � � � . .. . .-I$.� PROPOSED STQ SIGH , .
( /
� .EX1J�'��O.d. �'"� �` 20`� �4.5' ��a.
FiA
�. : i
� , : ,
��
: a. 9ELl. ='�
� � . � � ��• � � �„�M p N r, `r�
J4$ �� hfU Ir4�
� � :i �� er zv.i �{ _ _ -- � ` ' - \ �\.,�`
z�c j 'i�?' ' � �. `,,, - .
_ �� t2.5 °P � � i �rA�,.� I�� � � . �
� 2�.1 ,.._,..J •.. ,
r ! �.rrsti��c.G R. _' . -- � �' � ' ; _ � '� \ �
�z � z � � . � y,,ru'.Trrz�,�;c�-� . ��
` v� ''� . - � �— � j�. -
t� � � -- 25:� roper `�p,'iD�,;csEd E.6; .` ; i til `�.
� \
i'� � \
� � .� ` .,r r �, � �
� h �:''� �' � , �
� NvK�rf Zp �, I .
�...,_._".,...� , `�'�''—, .. ` ,
Ff. � . ;,�� ,
� � � ,� 1� ,��st�n ' � - �
`�� ��r- � � � ,53���a�le ��, k�/. � :� � . ���
,�` kd. ' � ` �
� /(/ � G T;���e �° l � � ,, . �',
r,o aeoesT R�an o / /
.r���/ �� 5,�� � i �� -----
--- - � . � ; .� t
t- 70 ACCESS RAMP � I � �
-,� �p�1�G. � � �
� Tj}�+l'�.'�." . '
� 1575�.arimer ,
. '�UliO E�OQ �
� penver,Colarado 80202 � DROP INLET
�t� ����Q . . . �iGHTPOLE �
' �.�G�y/,/�/ INTERSTA7 E SIGH� '
�-�/r y '
f � il �
4.8' S�DEwaI.K
�
�� `�l�-�'1�`�t�
1 ' 1 � �`
� .
i����
" � ' � � �► ► /. � ' 1
i � � ' � �
�
f � ;
� �.. , � ° 1 � �, �!' �� V`�I �'0�!� • �_ �
r ,
�
4
� _ �� � a-� + �� �� .���
�� ;� � ' ������ i.� �#'"' � �� � r'� �� t.�
f � � ��� �
� r
) � �� �,��� � � �.� ��p � � , r�, � �
;
,, �
� ��� ►� � �r ��� � 6 �'�� � � �� �� � O�l �
, � � ► � ,.1� � � ' �� t
�
j �1 y '��
� 1 • , �.
�� 1 � � �. � �
� �A�,���. � '�
� � � � r
�4t6 � E U
y .,a ► � q ,
�1I t sT�s� ��ll� ��
�� �1 ; � � I
� _ � #� � .� �`� �
� � � � 1�
,� � o m
� t f i � ��� �, r
� � � , � �
� � ,, �� 1�, � � �� /
�
.�� ,,
� � .�sr1 ��. � ,�
y
� � � � � t , � 1� �
r s �
► r w����
i . A J
/
• � �.�'.4-��... i�
� �
� b ��
a�
��� �,���..�.._.
�� ����
>
<
t
A � ���.� �.. '�`�,
��.. �'.�����.- �
�
� �� - �. �.. �
� ���� � � �� � �� ���
� �� �����
� �.
�'��°�.�- ��- � ,���.. ��.� ����� �.....: ���
k. ��� � �� �
�
��
�. ��:
� �
� �
�
�����
1
� � C�����.�� � ;� �. � ����> �.�� :�.��. �
� '
�.: �� �.����.�� � ��r
� � } ��i ������.���.
# � � � .�4�
, � �
� �� v���� � �„ ��� �- � ���
i � �
��' ��� U�}�� 1��/�- �---����� q
;� � � ��
: ��'���� � � :� .
�`' ��.�.
� ���� � � ���
�� ��
'� ������ �M� �u � ���.
� � ���� 1 � ������
����4�� t�.����"� _1"�' � "^� ���..:.- ��` � �`�� ������.
� � �
, �
�
�
„
� ; � � � � �: ,
Z � � i
�� �� �� ��� �.�����
�
����� ���� �_
�
� ��.��_ �-� l�l � �� :�� � �
�.. �
��
�� � � ,��
� � ��� ���� �� ��� � �
�� �� �
� �.� c�� ' �� �� �� -
�� �
� ���� �� � ���� �� ���
,.� a:� ,.*s4,
i;
11
. . �� � . . � .. �
E
, .. . t A... . . .
, . . . . , ,. ..� �.
i� a, e...:.. ...v . :...�... , �� ,.,. ...�. .. .. .:.. ..�, ✓. .,. . .,��,� ��-
„ � .� ..;.....,�.., ���... . ,,.�...,. ! j...., wi�..,.a d ' .
. .. �. . � .. � . � "�.� i
, :,, �. �,.�.,. ,�, � ., :��.,,",., �, . � �
� m,. . � , . �..
aw�.,
� �o
� ��
_�������n�_° . � .
�
�. { ��.
�� � ��� �.� ���� �� �
� � � i
t ry�
�����. �� � �►
,�?��-a ��'����� � ' '�.� �
� 1�. �� � � ���
�1; � � � �
� � ��
� 1�1�'�,��L�� � °��l„ ��
` �� � �� a '���� �c�.l� ���Q..
� � � ,
J �i
E ; �
�
_ � � . � � �
}
�
r
�
,
,,
, . ,.. � , . �
� s .� . .
�
�� ��
� � �
, �'; , ,,
�
��� '`� � t;�
� �. � � ��� � � �
�
� ���� `� �� ����� ���
� ��
: �, �
-�� � �� � �.� ���.
� � � � �
�
� ��
���� � �����. ��.
� ��#���N
�� $
��� �
,..�.,.... . . ,„ ,.; . ....�b,. F � ' .
. ..��. .� , �,�<<�;. �. ., ..., � . .��,,. .�.�, ... . .. .. ..,., ., .�. , . .. .
IGf.,�,�,�„�
���.-_ `
_ �� z
, �� _ �
� � � �
� � �"�.�
x � 1�� �� �� � �
k p
s,
� `
i
s
p. . . .n'• � . • ' � �4'�'.`
� , . ..� ...� � � �.. .. � . .
_�, .. .. .. ...
t.` � �� F '�` � ,: .
\ �. ,
..... ���'� ...: � :
i2 Y��� � .. . P x� � . �. ._ . .
:. � . . .. . . . . ..
��� �
' �1!.
z
�
l�� � ��►� - � � �� �
� . � ���.,- 1 . �
� ��
� s. . ' : �
ti� � � � � _
; -� < � � � _
�.. � ,'
�
� � � 1� _ �� h���. ��11 � b1 �� � u���s ��� _ �� �
� ���.
.A ... � '. .. . .
c�n��,�. ���11 �� ��
: � � _
:�}�a��.- � �� c� u�" i� �o� �� ��±�:.;*
� � ,
:
��w.��t�� �� �.� �� - � �u��v .
� � � �
� ���
;
� �� � ��. ��
. �
. � �
.
r. , ., � e ° �
h
t�
, _
��� � .� ��,��,�- G�r� i
� � �
� � ��� : � �
.} � . � : .. ;
�� �� � �� ���, �
.�� . � �. � a►��,
,:� . __
�:� ��
z
,
t� li
_ .
S. �� a�� u�a. - -}� ,��,��,. �
� � .
� ��..a�. 1c�� c�..� ���
;. u� . _
�� � �
....
z,
zs _ _
. ...�.�� �����,,� �.� �,d�� -�,��
�� � :�� �
� ���
������� ��� ������.������ �1��,, 1� ��� ' �.
��� � � � � . _
�
, '�1� � 1� �-� . �l�� � w�c�� �
�� � ��
. � �� v�
� �
� ��
,
; �re L �� w �� '���
. �
� �
q�
_ . , ,
� �3
t � �
� i .' �: ...: ' � .
. . � .. .� . � 4 ` . ��
.. '.. , .. � � x �. ,yyr
�
�
� ���� .. � � . �„ � �\ �� .
� � �
� � * �
�j�/� � ��
� 1 Wy� � � ��
� �„
� � � �
� � � _. .u
��
a$
�
��
� * � �1►����. ����:.� 1�1�I� �lDr'1�t.. �nQ,t ' �
. � ; , � � ,. ..3
\ '�: ``... . p
:�. . �. . . .. .
�., .. , . ,. � w 3 . I,
. . , ... . : .. �i: . , . . .
'L
. . .. .. .., - '.:, .. . �e ,�:....u, � � �
�i
.. _ ,. . . . . �,
� . � . � . � � . � .. � �� � ���.
. . �:. � .. . . . . �q
3�
"'"' . "��1�. ��� -� '
� ��� �
r�� �- �� � � ��� � �
� �� �
� � _ . � ;�
� � 4f
'�N�� A�111 � ��'�a��.. �+=�' t.. .,�,,� �7 1� iS .
A � �{
��
i m1�,��.._.;� ' � . ��
� ��� � �� �
�
.�
� r = � �- � ����� �
�
� �. �
�r
� � � �
,� � , ��
� �
�
_, � ��
C�n�. � cr��n�.� �.1��� � :����� � ��������� � ���
� . �
:
. � �
��
s��� -� h��. ca���. � . �_
�E o. . ��1�, �
� � � ��
��
. . ��
� �
f
, `.e. .. . ,`
t c
� > . . . . .� ..:
��
��
^ � .. . . .,� ',
a �
� ��.
�� }1
�j
. . � .' �f�. .
� � � � .�` �����.
.. .... .��. :. ,
' ����
� ���: �. ��v� u► �. � ��� �
� � ��:.
� � ��
,
��
. . . .. .. . .. ,, k
��
tx
;
... .. .... .,. .._,. . , ... ....._ ._._ ., ,�_� �,��5�.
P' 3
�..
1c
. : . . `�' . 't .'. :
�
'. '� 2 .. � ' . ',
.:. ..: ..._ ...... ___ ... __.: ., .v.�. .y., � }.
� �.
� �
§$
�
.. ..... ... ..... .. .... ..... ..... .. ... � ��..
��
c
k4
��
..... .. ... ,��;. ... .... . t�: .
+
y . . - t R
}
?<< J: • ; . :: . �..'
t `
� � . ,. . ,v. . „� � :v ,, i�. �.
���4' � :
...: _.. _,.. ...... �� .,_. . : . ' w . v ,y.� . . � ..,�
� ,�.»e; . .... ...�. . " ..�, ` . ��� ...
. ,: . . , o. &gkz-
..... �.�' . � �j 5.
7�}�t
w.. ,, ��. _ .. . �... � . q .
�E
*
�„
� `
� ��. , '����
� � .
�.
y o
� � � �
_ � �> �
�
�
� �.
��� : M. e ._, a� �� � � ,: �
�.
.,
Q�
��
, r �
�
�
r ;
. �
,�
� ._
� ��
�_ > . �.
� � ���
�,` ��
�.
,,
��
�. ,
� _.
. �.
���
� a �
�;�
_
x � ��
� �,
� ;,
��� � � � � � �.
� � ;;
� � �: �
� _� � ���
_, , � � �.� .� . �
�� ,, �.
� m � �,,.
;
„
;
t �� � ! �
:� _
3
;
t __ _
� � � �
�� � � � � � � �
� � � � � �
i '.
' i
; s...:—.r. . ,e .,,.. ,....,: �.....,9 .,,,...,.e..,.,.., ,.
ti . .., ...
; ,,� � �� ° �
�,���� ��� ��
, � ., ��
� �, � ` .' �
4* ,.;g� �'��
�p ����'H ... � �..
� � ,���
r� � �
�� � �
� ,� � � �
F. �,. # � . . . .
3
.� i �� � �
.Y'" �� � � � ,.
� ���+�`� �V :� ... � � �� � � . �y. { ., � •_
x , �� � , : �� � � � �-: �� � ������. � �
�
.
�
. ��r
.� � �
� �� .� � �
��� `����.������ ���..� ��...���'� � ����.�����,�� ���� C�� �t���� � � �
� �
� � �
�, 4������ -��"� � �`�c��. 1�.� �,���� — �,��� ��� �' ��
� Y
� i� ��� � � �. � �
�
�� � ���� �.� t�`��'.� �� �1,,�,� ���� ��SS�..���,
� � �
��� t�� � �� :�t�� � � :- ����,
; �
� > � ��i�a.�.� �srt����t��''^�t���
z��� . �; � � �
� �
' ' ' �" ' ��� �� � � � �� ��t.�l��..�.�..—�
, ,.
a ,
� � ��.�' � � �.
� , � { ����
� � :
s
� � � �� ���� � �,
`� �`���;�-�� � ;� �/� �.�c I
ti
C � �
� �� � �
�� ���� ��� ���� � �
, . ��
°j �` f
i �
��� ��
> � � �
, r
� ' �
x
� �� �� �
,�"� � �
# �I.,� ��� ����,��", �`..�?�'�'�������� t,�1� �����,� ��t.t` .. ..
....
g n
��
§ ���� � � �
:; � •
k;, F,.f" : � � .. ..
t +. � :
� � � �`t��4�-� �����,
� � � �� � � �
� ��,;: � �'��-- �������� : ~�'-��, �,,��� ��►�� _
; � , z,
� ��i': ���'��� ��'����� � �r���� ������` �` t '���'�`#�I�� .��'"''t� �,' �
� � �
� � �� � ��M� 'J'�°� �� .
;, , �h�
��r ���!�#���..: ��C�� �I���� _ ,�
.....4.� .....� .
t
�����1 ; "r .
x �
� t ' �.�z,-��1���;�� �
����� ��������� �� �� �
� � . �
� �
���� �-� cs.-�c�,� �� 7
` ���,�`� a��..C���r'�.z��
PUBLIC N4TICE
f ° � N4TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental
Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hear' n
accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the `municipal code o h
Town of Vail cn August 27, 1990, at 3:00 p.m. in the Town of
Municipal Building, Consideration ofs
1. A request to apply an underlying zone district of Public
Accommodatian all of Lot 4 and Lot 7, Block 1,
yail.JLionshead Third Filing, a subdivision recorded in Book
221 at Page 992 of 'the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and
R��order's records, part of I�ot c, Morcus Subdivision, a
subdivision recorded in Book 255 at `Page 70 of the Eagle
County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder's records, being more
particularly described as follows:
8eginn3.n� st the Southeast carner of Lot D; Mvrcus
Subdiviaion, thence N 22°38'�11" W a' distanc� o� 159.�2 fset;
thence � 83°25'g5" W a dietance of 63.29 feet; thenee
N 18817'21" W to the So�th�rly r�ight-of-way� line of 4,1est
Lionehead Circle a distance of 165:.59 feet; thence along eaid
�aoutherly right-of-way an arc distance of 240.51 feet' along a
c�rve to the left, said curve havin� a central angle of
29°O1'07", a radius of 392.00 f�et and whose iong chord bears
�1 57°48'28" E a distan�e of 198.33 feet to a point of reverse
curvature; said curve having a 'c�ntral angle of �8°28`52�", �a
radi�as of 239.00 feet and whose iong chord bear� N fi8°35'32" E a
distance of 196.11 feet to a point of reverse curvature; thence
continuing alang said right-of-way an �►rc distance cf 4fi.�i7 feet,
s central angle af 13°18''51", a radius of 2Q0.00 f�et and whase
long chord beara N 86°09'26" E a distance of 4fi.37 feet to a
_paint of reverse curvature; thence continui�� an arc d�.'stance of
71,32 feet, a central a�ngle of 47°4�'02", a rad�uB cf �25.40 fset
and whose long chord beare N 75°3fi'29" E a distance of 71.2� feet
to a point of reverse curvature; thence 22.59 �eet alon� the arc
of a curve to the right witli a c�ntral angle of 8fi°17'02", a
radfus of 15.00 feet and whose long chord bear� S 65°08'31" E a
diatance of 20.51 feet; thence contiauing along the weaterly
right-of-way line of Lionahead Place 83.57 feet 8lone the arc of
� a curve to the rfght with a central angle of 28°00'00", a radiue
of 171.00 feet and whoee long chord beare S OB°00'00" E a �
diatance of 82.74 feet to s point of reverae �urvature; thence •
ccntinuing along said rieht-of-way line along a curve with an arc
dtetance of 71:30 feet, a central angle of 37'�48'1?", a radiva of
110.04 feet and whoe� iong chord benra S 12'34'09" S a :diatanae
vf- 70.06 foet, to tho �aort}serlsr oarnor o£�t� 3. �lAi 7.�,iflnahaed
- Third Fi.ling; thence S 44°00`00" W a distarice of 185.88 feet;
thence S 02°56'51" E `to the southeaet corner of eaid Lot 4 a
dietance of 130.76 feet; then.ce S 83'�9'00" W-�e�-d�ata�xce of 30.00
feat; thence ,S ?6°`14'0�" W ,a di.atance of 135.64 feet; thence
$ 66°24"00" W to the Southwe�t corner of eaid Lot 4 a dfetance of
�2.29 #eet to tba Point of "Beginning, containin 152,866 aquare
feet or 3.5 ncree more or less. %
� ��,;fo�-�-�- �-�... ��l �o ' .
/��=��' �
°
. and a request .:o apply an underlying zone district of High
. � Density Multiple Family to all 'of Lot D and a part 'of I,ot
� C, Morcus Subdivision, a subdivisian recorded in Book 255,
at Page 70 of the Eagle County, CoTorado, Clerk and
Recorder's records being more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at the southweeterl.y cQrner of said Lot D t#ience -N
lfi°i7'2�," � a di9tance of 3�9.fi4 feet to the Southerly right--of-
way of West Lion�head Circle; thence a1v�g esid S4uth�xl3r right--
of-way an are sifs�ance �f 360. 14 alvn� :a curve to the left, said
curve having a r�diue of 392�DO feet, a central angel of
81°42'30" and whose `chord bear9 N 8S°34'4?" E a dietance af
158.99 feat; thence S 1fi°17'21" E a diatanc� of 1�5.59 f+�et;
thsnce' N 83°2b'45" E a distance of . fi3,29 feet; thence S
22°38'41"E a di�tance of lv9.a2 feet to `the South+easterly corner
of eaid Lot D, thence S 66°29'00" W along Southerly lot line a
distance of 210.d(3 �ee�; thzn�e S 16°Z7'04" E a dietance af 3�.5"
feet; thence S 73°42'�?" W to Sauthwost :corner of eai.d Lot D a
diatance of 2fi:6� feet to the pQint ` of beginning containing
fi8,$61.19 equare fe�rt or 1.`58 �cres more or l��s.
Both properties know as 715 West I,ionshead Circle (The
Marriott Mark Resart) .
Applicant: M-K Cflrporation
2. A request for a major subdivision, to approve
� tT�e preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the
' maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for a
variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on :a
parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an
approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the
Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek
livery. Commencing 'at the Northeast Corner of the Southeast
1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, Township 5 South,
Range 80 West of the 6th Principal Meridian; being an Eagle
County Brass Cap properly marked and set, with all bearings
contained herein being relative to a bearing of S 00` 11' 00"
E between the Nvrtheast Corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the
Southwest 1J4, and the Southeast Corner of said Southeast
1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 being an Eag1e County Brass cap
properly marked and set; said Northeast Corner of the
Southeast l/4 of the Southwest 1/4 being the Point of
beginning; thence S 00 11� 00" E along the east line of said
Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 2/4 of Section 5 a distance
of 1320.14 feet to the Southeast Corner the said Southeast
1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5; thence S 89 47' 48" W
along the south line of said Sautheast 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4 of Section 5 a distance of 901.00 feet; thence N 73 48�
32° W along Interstate 70 Right of Way line a distance of
214.12 feet; thence N 66 52 ' 12" W along said Right of Way
line a distance of 241.10 'feet to a point on the west line
of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5;
thence N 00 20' 31" W along the west line of said Southeast
1/4 of the �. ;thwest i/4 of Section 5 a�'� �stance of 1161.56
feet to the �orthwest Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the
< ° ` Southwest l/4 of Section 5 being an` Eagle County brass cap
� properly marked and set; thence N 89 41' 12" E along the
north line, of said Southeast 1/4 of` the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 5' a distance of 1331.07 feet to the Point of
Beginning. Said real property containing 39.55 acres, more
or less,
Applicants George Gillett, Jr.
3. A request for an exter�or alteration on Lot C and Lot D, and
the southwesterly 4 feet cf Lot B, all in Block '�-B, Vail
Village lst Filing, 227 Bridge Street {Covered Bridge
Building) .
Applicants Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and Bruce Amm &
Associates.
4. A request for a major amendment to SDD No.
16, part of parcel A, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing 2. {The
Valley Phase III)
Applicant; 8rad & Susan Tjossem
The applications and information about the proposals are
available for public inspection in the Community Development
Department office,
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Published in the Vail Trail on August 10, 1990.
�
r
, ��
TM
y,
i��.
��✓
� ��,�
✓
jr,
�1
��>
_ �,y�� � �
�owa ofi uai � � � �
75 south frontage road �
vafl,colorado 81657 V����S�
(303)479-2158
department of public works/transportatlon
MEMORANDUM
TO: Kri.stan Px'it2 `
Community ��Development � •
FROM: Todd Oppenheimer
DATE: 8/21/90 ,
RE: Comment of Spraddle Creek Submittal
*********************************************�******�************
I have reviewed the latest submittal from VA or Spraddle Creek and
have the following comments. Most of these comments have been
discussed with Joe Macey and a representative from Matthews &
Associates.
1. Overall, the proposed revegetation plan submitted for roadways
and walls is acceptable. They have stated that all disturbed
areas will be revegetated to the same approximate density
which exists today. Indigenous species of plant material will
be used as much as possible. The concentration of plantings
will be heavier at the walls.
2 . Much of the wall planting is dependent upon the results
obtained form the test plots in Potato Patch. These results
will not be available until next year. Joe Macey has
expressed VA' s intention to vegetate the walls in a manner
which is appropriate and acceptable. We will look at this
more closely when the final landscape plans and specifications
are submitted. As for this point in the process, I am
satisfied with their submittal.
3 . I have discussed with Joe Macey the feasibility of planting
Aspen in the 3" space between the back of a curb and the
walls. I do not think this is appropriate for several
reasons, including snow removal, public safety, etc. This
will also be reviewed with the final landscape plans.
4. Watering via drip system gravity fed from tanks is probably
a workable system. Proper maintenance to fill the tanks and --,-,
inspect the lines and emitters is critical to its success.
VA should commit to ensuring the long term continuation of
maintenance of the system.
5. Soil reports do not include a specific fertilizer
re�Qmm�ndation. I would suggest the application of treble
superphosphate (0-46-0) at time of seeding followed by an
application of balanced fertilizer (20-10-5) when the grass
has begun to take hold.
6. The final landscape plan should address what will happen to
the six (6) spruce trees ea`st of the entrance along the off-
ramp. A11 six are within the aonstruction limits line. If
they are to be moved it should be done this fall or next
spring while the sap is not flowing.
7. In most instances the cut/fill slopes are in excess of 2: 1.
2c1 would be preferable, however, I don't believe the benefit
justifies the increase in disturbed area. I would recommend
approval unless Greg Hall disagrees, in which case we should
discuss it in interdepartmental. '
In summary, I believe they have met all of my concerns in an
adequate manner and the submittal can proceed to the next level.
� ° `
,�
•'���
�ow� of ��il �
75 south#rontage road office of commu�ity development
vail,colorado 81657
(303)479-2138
(303)479-Z139
August 7, 1990
Mr`. Joe Macy
Vail Associates, Inc.
Box 7
Vail, CO 81658
RE: Spraddle Creek SubdzvisionJl�orth Frontage Road extension to
the east.
Dear Joe:
At our Parking and Transportation Task Force meeting on August 2,
1990, the idea of extending the North Frontage Road east past the
main Vail interchange to connect with a possible underpass
extending toward the Blue Cow Chute area was considered to be a
desirable alternative by some of the Task Force members. In
particular, Peggy Osterfoss and Merv Lapin asked that I inform
you of an interest in allowing for the possible extension of the
North Frontage Road.
I asked Greg Hall to keep the drawing that showed the possible
location for the extension of the North Frontage Road. If you
wish, Greg and I will be happy to sit down with you and Kent to
review this design concept. At this point, I am not certain how
we would allow for this extension. Perhaps an easement or a
condition of approval with the subdivision would be appropriate.
r, . . . . � � � � .
� t� � .. . � .� . . . . .. . . .
JOE MACY
LETTER, PAGE 2
Per our discussion on August 2 , 1990, you indicated that you
would talk to Kent about this issue and see what the next .step
should be. Please let me know as soon as possible if you think
we need to meet. Thank you for considering this idea.
Sinc rely, •
, l
� �
Kristan Pritz :
Community Development Director
KP/PP
ccs Ron Phillips
Kent Rose
�t� �,�.'
�. ��. ��`�
Q �
.
,�;y
tow� o �ai '�
42 west meadow drive fire department
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 479-2250
Kristan Pritz
Director of Community Development
Town of Vail
Re: Spraddle Creek ��d����
Dear Kristan,
I have read the letter from Joe Macy dated August 6, 1990 and
I feel the following clarifications are needed.
Mr. Macy's response to point 37, regarding agreements made by
the Fire Department, specifically item # 3 on fire sprinkler
systems, deserves more explanation.
While neither the fire code nor the building code require fire
sprinkler systems to be installed in residential property, there
are advantages for the owners if they elect to have sprinklers
installed. The discussions between Chief Duran, Jay Peterson and
myself revolved around the sizes of water mains, required fire flow
requirements, fire hydrant placement and the size of the water tank
in both scenarios, with an3 without fire sprinklers.
If they elect to install fire sprinkler systems in each of the
homes, the following design criteria may be used as follows:
Fire Hydrant Spacing 450 feet maximum between hydrants
Fire Flow per Hydrant 1000 gpm (without wood shake roof)
1500 gpm (with wood shake roof)
Water Mains 8 inch minimum
Fire Pump for the
Water Tank 250 gpm minimum
Water Tank Capacity 125, 000 gallons
Spraddle Creek
Page 2'
In the event the homes in Spraddle Creek are not provided with
residential fire sprinkler systems, the following criteria will
apply:
Fire Hydrant Spacing 450 feet maximum between hydrants
(Note: Two fire hydrants will be required for each structure
within the maximum 450 foot distance, consistent with
a tactical approach. )
Fire Flow per Hydrant 2000 gpm (assuming 6000 sq.ft. Type
V construction)
Fire Mains 8 inch minimum
Fire Pump for the
Water Tank 750 gpm
Water Tank Capacity 250,000 gallon plus total maximum
domestic use over two hour period
(assuming minimum residual capacity
of 96%)
The water tank capacity and fire flow requirements are based
on the tables in the 1988 Uniform Fire Code and I.S.O. guidelines.
The requirement is to provide a sustained fire flow for a minimum
of two hours. ( 2000 gallons per minute x 120 minutes = 240, 000
gallons. 240,000 gallons is 96% of 250, 000 tank capacity. If
allowing for 80% maximum fill level, the size of the water tank
would be somewhat over 300, 000 gallon capacity, depending on the
total domestic use over a 2 hour period.
The fire pump should be interconnected with Vail Valley
Consolidated Water District, meet their specifications, be pre-
approved by the District, the Fire Department and a Colorado
Registered Professional Engineer familiar with municipal water
systems. The pump shall have emergency backup power.
These requirements should be considered to be minimums.
Please call me if we need discussion or clarification.
Sincerely,
��-�=�-'.1��-�.."�-----..
Michael McGee
Fire Marshal
cc: Fred Haslee, U.E.V.W. & S.
>
�,
� TO: Joe Macy
FROM: Kristan Prit2
DATE: July 3, 1990 '
RE: Submittai information for ;�����.+��„� ��c��k � '
Be3ow is a list: of the additional submittal information for the
Spraddle Creek Preliminary Plan. My understanding is that you
are going to submit a cover 'letter describing the changes to the
project with handouts which will be inserted into the most recent
notebook. Many of these items you already know about but I
thought it would be more helpful if 3 gave you a full summary.
I. Revised preliminary plan showing the road on U.S,F.S. to the
east, `trail head and livery site plan, 6' shoulders on
Frontage Road, and Frontage; Road intersection. Necessary
changes to the lot configurations and bui.lding envelc�pes
should be shown.
�t��X.L� 2. View analysis plus perspectives of the road at critical view
points'.
3. Road/Wa11 cross sections designed to a preliminary level of
detail.
��}#�� 4. Retaining wall, information--show walls on preliminary plan
��^,"�+ and heights. Indicate ;grades, slope of walls, surcharging
�rtM���� areas, construction areas, soil ' conditions, terracing,
- construction limit lines and appropriateness of
'�D"�i.� reenforcement, elevations of walls (per .Kathy Warren's
� � request) .
5. Show ha2ards on preliminary plan.
6. Tie Frontage Road improvement intersection 'onto preliminary
Plan•
7. Driveway grades per Fire De artment's request should be
shown on preliminary plan. �r0►Al�� �r� � ��i7'10 D�' �a�b..�A�.
8. Landscape proposal for walls.
9. Show pedestrian easement for creek on preliminary plan.
10. Consolidate utility easements on xoad.
���5 11. Soil report? Is more work necessary? Concerns were raised
J� about the 'ground water especially in the area of the walls.
''f" �� _
12.' Pin down the gate location and public turn-around cul de
sac.
�
�
.,�
����,�'�� 13. Address Town of Vail and some PEC members desire to limit
+"" w� site coverage and GRFA especially for lots 12 and 14;
�
1�. Dog runs should only be allowed in guidelin�s�i��'�A�e-nces
D ' especially on property lines. -�IQQ�-�f' ����
15.` Proposal on how to permanentiy insure open space is
restricted as open space. Town would like land to be
dedicated to Town of Vail as open space. �pµ}�qM�' -}p f�C�Ji�Gl�,t� �D��"`��
11'�'�'�11�
16. Spraddle Creek trail is' referenced in the Reereation Trails d �ot
Plan. ; How will your proje relate to this trail. An ��� '
easement is necessary. �;1� �t�W-�r'�►. q,cao�. n ��
17. List easements vacated and new easements key ;changes to a ��
survey,. (�'r�
�
18. Revegetation/Landscape Plan should be submitted for final- ��y�
pl at• ;''0
19. The section of your report addressing top soil should be
� changed to state that "all areas" that are disturbed will be
��'`� . stripped to full depth of top soil. 4" is a minimum depth
and 6"-8" is preferred.
20. CSU soil report should be submitted with the landscape plan.
21: Erosion control plan should be submitted' at final plat.
Locate silt fences,' hay bal`es, sedimentation po cTs etc. :
22. Please use building envelopes on preliminary ,plan , pull
back Lots '14 and 10 envelopes to north so development is not
over edge of hillside.
2.3 . Include 30� slo e rest�rictions for your lots `from Section
' 1$ .6 9. 0 5 0. aq�l.Q.�cQ db �(�tl .
w��',� ll `
� 24. Submit livery agreement.
". 25. Traffic study address full build-out and any changes.
26. Revised cross section of Gillett Road to show existin � �
. g �p ��,
� drainage ditch, big drainage hole, culverts, show easements,
� . discharge, remove chain link clean up culvert make as =���
��` � natural as possible, storm drainage address. `
C
27. Restrict caretaker 'units to` gas appliances or gas logs.{,i)��l '�0-
28.` Restrict caretaker permanently provide � or more if �° nt-� YG1���•
possible. ` W;U {�tOfox� 3�0�'� ' ,
. `� V+19'+�-° , uwr�'s
29. Submit CDOH permit. ��,
�
�
�,
$ 30. Show 60' setback on northeast 3 lot�-, .,� � lots 9,
1tl, 11. 12.
"���p�� . '31. Show water tank overflow location design.W;p�l..� �y �b ,p�` j� �•
11'.�'"" a �
��
32. Use maximum bui-ld-out for all studies.
�1�' 33. What are impacts of "wild land u ban 'nte ac " program?
�a'� �-.�+���.-
34. Show gate cul de sac turnaround etc. Method fo emergenc
access` should be determined. ,lkt�. 1+r+�-<{�4c.c#+�ec��o�- f��{�re 5����i��"�' '-
� � .
35. Utility plans revised.
36. Construction staging and phasing of development submitted.
37. Resolve fire protection. Are buildings sprinklered? Fire
Department requests agreement in writing. - �,('�t�►�,
38. Remove on site livery for lots meeting square footage
minimum (I believe Lot 14 is only lot) . �� �� �'�qM�� �i'�.
39. Mee t a l l s tan dar ds for pre liminary p lan su bmi t ta l in
Subdivision Regulations.
40. �Architectural Guidelines iist Town of Vail as part' to any
changes in covenants with Subdivision being resporlsible for
enforcing. Require subdivision design board approval before
'�submittal to Town of Vail Design Review Board.
;�a
41. All information must be submitted to staff 3 week before
the PEC meeting.
Joe I will be happy to meet with you if you have any questions
about this or feel free to give me a call. Also thanks for
bringing that information over to Corky. I really appreciate it!
. � � � � . .. .. .. .. � .. . . . �e 1 .
k�� . . . > ._ . . . . . � � .
�`' PLANNING AND ENVIRS?NMENTAL ,COMMISSION
JUNE 11, 1990
Present Staff Present
Chuck Crist i�ristan Pritz ;
lliana Donovan Mike Mollica
Connie Knight Shelly Mello
Jim Shearer Andy Knudtsen
Kathy Warren Betsy ;Rosolack
Dalton Williams; Penny, Perry
Larry Eskwith
Absent
Ludwig Kurz
In the interest of time, Item No. 11 a work session was begun at
2:30 prior tQ the Public Hearing;
Item No. 11: A request for a work session 'far a ma�ar
�r subdivssion, a request to ' approve the preliminary
plan, a request for a variance to the maximum `
heiqht for retainin� walls, and a request for: a
variance to the maximum nercent urade for a road,
��� ��
� ��� �,�r�el commonly referred to as �����.� � �
��-e� - �n a roximate 40 acre arcel�lo�M�cated�rio th
,�G�� PP P
and Qast of the Main Vai3 `I-70 interchange and '"
east` of the Spraddle Creek livery,
Applicant:` George Gillett, Jr.
Joe Macy and Kent Rose displ'ayed revised plans beginning at the
lower level on the hill. Kent Rose stated that the road took
advantage of two benches and the whole road was out of the creek
by' taking advantage of two of the "platform" areas where the
stable was located and by putting two switchbacks in that area.
Kathy asked what the vertical distance between the two roads on
the Forest Service land was and Kent stated that there was 22'
difference. He added that they may still have to adjust the
roads.
Kent summarized the situation with the grades by saying that the
first 250 ' were, 3.8�, the next 700 ' were 9� onto 7.5�, to station
no. 24. He finished describing the roads and explained that all
the switchbacks were 8� grade or less except for the first
switchback which was 8-1/2�: He felt that there were some trade-
offs. Where they were increasing the fills to have a lower grade
on the road, they would have higher walls. He said that the
worse scenario was at station 5 with a 13 foot high wall.
1
� �
Jay pointed out` that the only way to come up 8� grades everywhere �
was to ;go onto Forest Service property and although they had laid
it out that way; they didn't know if they could +get Forest service
approval. He asked' what the quan�ity of reta'ining walls was with
the new proposa3 versus the previous proposal, and Kent stated
that the retaining walls had been lessened with the new propasal.
Kent felt that the baiance taas better. Jay Peterson felt that
the trade-off was quit� significant. Kent pointed out that if `
they limited all of the road to 8� there would be higher walls,
but if `they could be allowed to go up to 9�, they could reduce `
the height of the walls.
Kristan stated that Greg Hall felt that Joe and Kent were going'
in the right direction but that they needed to meet with the
Forest Service and refine part of the plan. Jay said he would
like to have the flexibility to go over 8� grades.
Dalton felt that the Forest Service land was a good place` for a
�turnaround in order° to make the Forest Service land more
accessible:
Jay asked i`f they could have the` flexibility to design the roads
to 9�.
Dalton was concerned with the top switchback and` the fact that it
was so tight and Kent explained that' the road sloped toward the
mountain rather than away from the mountain. Kent explained that
the slopes made additionai changes very difficult. Cars, ` if
sliding, would tend`to slide into the hill rather than away from
the hill.
Kathy felt the project was looking good and that she would be
comfortable with a 9� grade 'maximum. She was still 'uncomfortable
with the heights of` the`walls. She wanted to see 8 ' maximum
tiered 'walls.
Connie Knight was concerned about the prospect of using Forest
Service land. She was concerned about getting into a situation
similar to 'the Tannenbaum conflict. '
Jim Shearer was comfortable` with any grade less' than 9�. He
suggested the possibility of increasing some of the 8� grades in
order to reduce the wall heights. Jim also suggested the
applicant make the flat area at the project entrance into 'parking
and a trail' head and Jay explained that the trade'-off to the
Forest 'Service for the use of the land would be construction of'
the trail head` and the old road would be maintained.
2
�
� Ka�hy Warren asked who would maintain the road proposed on tk�e
Forest Service land and Joe ;exp3aine�l that as part of the
agreement with the Fc�rest Ser�ice, th� appiicant would have to =
show that the Hc�mec�wners Assp�ciation woul+d agree to maintain the
road.
Connie Knight asked what percentage of the road was over 8$ and
Kent calculated; apprc�ximateiy 25�.
Diana felt they were getting much closer to an acceptable
proposal.
Kristan statQd that �he �ext step was to meet with the Forest
Serviae and Joe Macy explained that he had a meeting set in
approximately 45 minutes, He would get back with Rristan with
the resuits pf the meeting.
The Planning and Environm+�ntal Commission public hearing was
ca3led to order at 3:10 p.m. by Dian� flonovan, Chair�aa�rson.
Item No. 1: A request to apply Hi.+r�h Density Multi-Famiiy
ac�ning as an underlying zone district to the
Marriott Marl� Resort, Special Deveiopment
District No. 7 a maior amendment to Special
_ Develogment District No. 7 {Marriott Mark) in
order to add >56 timeshare units and 10 empl�ee
housinq units, 714 West Lionshead Circle. Lots <4L
'7, C, D, `Block 1, �lai1-Lianshead 3rd Filina.
Applicant. Marriott 'Corporation.
Diana Donovan wished to point out that there were two <requests
and two memos. One request was tc apply High; Density Multi-
Family zoning as an >underlying zone district and the other
request was; for a major amendment to the Special Development
District.
Diana then proceeded to explain to the public the format for the
review. There would first be a staff presentation, an applicants
presentation, public comments, and then board comments.
Kristan explained that at the April 23, 1990 PEC work session,.
the Commissioners had requested that underlying zoning be
applied. Kristan briefly described the research that was done
and the reasons behind applying the underlying zoning. She then
reviewed the zoning criteria explaining that the ,proposal was,;
with the exception of units per acre er density and GRFA, , in
accordance with zoning regulations with regard to setbacks (with
the exception of one side) , height, site coverage, and
landscaping. , Kristan then reviewed those land use policies that
related to the project. She' felt the "key goals�' of the Land Use
Plan gave direction to the staff. The staff recommendation was
for approval of the application of the High Density Multi Family
: 3
�
zone d�s�rict as an' underlying 2one district to the Special `
Development District Na. 7 with the approval being contingent
upo� the SDD amendment being approved, Staff beii�ved that th�
proposal me� all o� the eriteria for a zoning review. `
Kristan then proceeded to review the proposal for a major
amendnn�nt to SDD No. 7. She gave a brief summary of the proposal
comparing the changes made since` �th� April 9, 199t3 meeting, �he
reviewed th� SDD criteria stating that the goais of the Land Use
Pian, especiali� goals 1,12,; 2.1, and 4.2, supported 'such a
project. The staff recommendation was for approval.' A review;
of the SDD criteria indicated that the project was consistent
with the purpose and intent of the zone district. Staff felt
that it was important to emphasis the uniqueness of the Marriott
Mark Resort�s situation to ensure that density increases were not
deemed automatically acceptable by using 'the SUD `process and
Kristan review�d a brief list identifying these characteristics.
Kristan also felt i� was important to identify the 11public
benefit" which would result !from the project and `proceeded to
review the benefits. The staff recommenc�ation was for approval
with the conditions found within' the memo.
Diana asked if there was an applicant's presentation.
Jay Peterson explained that :Bill Burding, the attorney
repres+enting the Vail Spa, needed to return to Denver as soon as
possible and requested he be allowed to speak first and Diana
agreed.'
Bi11 Burding explained that the Vai1 Spa had, to this point, been
against the proposal due to "the view blockage, design, and
current Marriott appearance. He stated that, at this time, the
Vai1 Spa approved of the proposal. The Marriott had been �ery
accommodating . in working with" the Vail Spa and they felt that the
new design, decrease in mass, new color, and landscaping were
needed improvements. The Vail Spa was in support of the
proposaL
Peter Jamar began the applicant's presentation by introducing
those people in attendance with him who were available for
questions. Peter gave a brief history of the Land Use Plan
e�laining'that the' Lar►d Use Plan guided the Marriott in the
proposal.
Peter' stated that the applicant had tried to respond to all the
input' received from- the staff, boards and public. He stated `that
they now had strong support from' all the-neighbors, with the
exception of the Forest Road owners, including Vail Associates,
the Vail Spa, and the Antlers. They felt it -was unfortunate they
could not get the Forest Road owners' support.
4
�
. PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTTCE IS IiEREBY GIVEN that the Planninq and Environmental Commission of
the Town of Vail will hold a public hearinq in accordance with Section
18.66. 060 of the municipal code of the Town of Vail on July 9� 1990 at 3:00
p.m. in the Town of Vai1 Municipal 8uildinq. Consideration of:
1. Discussion of Fireplace Research - Air Quality
2. A request for an amendment to Section 18.13.080 (Aj , Density Control,
of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Ccrrsction of a
typographical error in the Primary/Secondary zone aistrict.
Applicant: Town of Vail
3. A request for an exterior alteration on Lot 8, Block 1, Vail-Lionshead
3rd Filinc�, Montaneros - 641 W. Lionshead Circle.
Applicant: Montaneros Condo. Assoc.
4. A work session on the view Corridor ordinance nmendment and
establishment of a new view corridor in Vai1 Villaqe at the southern
portion of the Red Lion Buildinc�.
Applicant: Town of Vail
5. A request for a major amendment to SDD No. 4, Coldstream Condominiums
in order to convert existing racquet ball facility into an employee
housing unit, management office, laundry and owner storac�e area at Lot
53 Glen Lyon Subdivision, 1476 Westhaven Drive.
Applicant: Coldstream Condominium Association.
6. A request for an exterior alteration nnd a landscape variance in order
to construct an addition to the Bell Tower Building at 201 Gore Creek
Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 5B Vail Village ist Filinq.
Applicant: Hermann Staufer - Lancelot Restaurant
. A request for a major subdivision, to approve the preliminary plan, a
request for a variance to the maximum heiqht for retaining walls, and
a request for a variance to the maximum percent grade for a road, on a
parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek� an approximate 40 acre
parcel lOCdLEQ AOI'L'tl SI1C� E�S'� t�i �i:�i� Fiaiil vail ���� i��2T��:iiaiiCfc ai►u
east of the Spraddle Creek livery.
Applicant: Georqe Gillett, Jr.
The applications and information about the proposals are
available for public inspection in the Community Development
Department office.
Town of Vail �
Communit Develo ment De artment t �a"���� � � �� `
Y P P
Published in the Vail Trail on June 22, 1990.
� �
4,
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GZVEN :that the Planning and` Environmental
Commission' cf the Town of Vail wiil hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18.56.060 of the mun`icipal code of the
Town of Vail on May 14,` 1990 at 3s00 p.m. in the` Town of Vail
Municipal Building. Consideration of:
1. A request' for` a final glat for ;a major subdivision for SDD
No. 16, on a portion of Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision,
Filing No. 2 '(The Valley -' Phase IIT)
Applicant: Brad `and Susan Tjossem
2. A request for an exterior alteration in order to construct
an addition to the Bell Tower Building at Z01 Gore Creek
Drive.
Applicantc C1ark Willingham / Bell Tower Associates, Ltd.
3 . A request for a site coverage variance for an addition on
Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing.
Applicant: H. Ross Perot
4. A request to apply High Density Multi-Family zoning to the
Mariott Mark Resort and for a major amendment to Special
Development District No. 7 (Marriott Mark) in order ;to add
58 timeshare units and 8 employee housing units.
Applicant: Marriott Corporation.
5. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Bed
and Breakfast at Lot 11B, Matterhorn Village Subdivision.
Applicant: William Clem
5. A request for a major subdivision, a request for a variance
to the maximum height for retaining walls, and a request for
a variance to the maximum percent qrade for a road, on a
parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an
approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east of the
Main Vail I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek
livery. Commencing at the Northeast Corner of the Southeast
1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5, Township 5 South,
Range 80 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, being an Eagle
County Brass Cap properly marked and set, with all bearings
contained herein being relative to a bearing of S 00 11' 00"
E between the Northeast Corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the
Southwest 1/4, and the Southeast Corner of said Southeast
1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 being an Eagle County Brass cap
4. e
properly marked and set; said Northeast Corner of the �
Southeast l/4 of the Southwest 1/4 being the Point o�
beginning; thence S U� 71' 00" E along the east line of said
Southeast l/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5 a distance
of 1320.14 feet to the Southeast Corner `the said'`Southeast
1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of ;Section 5; thence S 89 47' 48" W
along the south line of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest .
1J�4 of SQCtion 5 a distance of 901,00 feet; thence N 73 48' �
32" W along Interstate 70 Right of Way line a distance of
214.12' feet; thence N 55 52 ' 12" W along said Right of Way
line a distance of 241.10 feet to a point on the west line
of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5; ' `
thence N 00 20' 31" W along' the ,west line of said Southeast
1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section '5 a distance of 1161.66
feet to the Northwest `Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the
Southwest l/4 of Section 5 being an Eagle County brass cap
properly marked and set; thence N 89 41' 12" E along the
I3��t�'I 13.ii�' +Zst aalu �t711'��7E3215L 1/� Of ;the SOUthWest 1/4, Of
Section 5 'a distance of 1331,07` feet to the Point of `
Beginning.' Said real property containing 39:55 acres, more
or less.
Applicant: George Gillett, ` Jr."
The applications and information about the proposals are -
available for public inspection in the Community Development
Department office.
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Published 'in the Vail Trail on April 27, 1990.
1
�
�
I
I
��
. - - _ 1��
PUBLIC NOTICE ;
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental
Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18. 66.060 of the municipal code` of the
Town of Vail on June 11, 1990 at 3s00 p.m. in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building. Consideration of:
� 1. A request to apply High Density Mul.ti-Family zoning to the
Marriott Mark Resort, a major amendment to `Special ` '
�e�:elopment �is*_ri�± �10. '? �Marrin�t ��rk1 'and faar a
conditional use permit in order to add 58 'timeshare `units ` :
and 8 employee housing units.
Applicant: Marriott Corporation.
2. A request for a front setback variance and a creek setback
variance for Lot 6, Vai1 Vil.lage West, Filing No. 2, 1755
West Gore Creek Drive. '.
Applicant: Dan and Karen Forey -
� 3 . A request for a height variance for an addition to
Condominium Unit E-6, Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First
Filing, 141 East Meadow Drive:
Applicant: H. William Smith, Jr.
4 . A request for a height variance for an addition to
Condominium Unit E-5, Lot P, Block 5D, Vail Village First
Filing, 141 East Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Robert Smith
5. A major amendment to Special Development District No.` 4,
Area C, Section 18.46. 100, Paragraph C: deletion of the
following sentence "No residential lot `shall contain more
'Lhan ��Ou square �eei. �i �xr^A �,,c� ��ie ��err �,ya�' �uudivis��r� -
covenants", which amends the GRFA requirement to conform to
the Primary/Secondary zone district, `Section 18`. 13 .080,
Density Control.
Applicant: Greg Amsden for 75� of the property owners.
.
6. A request for a setback variance in order to add a bay
window at Villa Valhalla, Unit No.` 3, Lot JI, Block A, Vail
Village 5th Fi�ling. � � �
Applicant: Harry Davison �
�
�
7. A request for a major subdivision, a request to approve the
preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maximum
height for retaining walls, and a request for a' variance to
the maximum perGent grade for a road, on a parcel commonly
referred to as Spradd2e Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel
located north and east of the Main Vail I-70 interchange and
east of the Spraddle Creek livery. Commencing at the
Northeast Corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4
of Section 5, ''�^:�.�::��i.p 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian, being an Eagle County Brass Cap properly
markPd an�l set, with all bearings contained herein being
„r�x T _ , , .,, .... �,
relative to a .'^earing of S 00 11' 00” E b� �aeen the
Northeast Cori ? of said Southeast 1/4 of .ie Southwest 1/4, ,
and the Southeast Corner of said Southeast 1/4 of the ` '
Southwest 1/4 being an Eag1e County Brass cap properly
marked and set; said Northeast Corner of the Southeast 1/4
of the Southwest 1/4 being the Point of beginning; thence S
00 11' 00" E along the east line of said Southeast 1/4 of
the SQUthwest l/4 of Section 5 a distance of 1320. 14 feet to
the Southeast. Corner the said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest
1/4 of Section 5; thence S 89 47 ' 48" W along the south line
of said Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest l/4 of Section 5 a
distance of 901. 00 feet; thence N 73 48 ' 32" W along
Interstate 70 Right of Way line a distance of 214. 12 feet;
thence N 66 52 ' 12" W along said Right of Way line a
distance of 241.10 feet to a point on the west line of said
Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of Section 5; thence N 00
20' 31" W along the west line of said Southeast 1/4 of the
Southwest 1/4 , of Section 5 a distance of 1161. 66 feet to the
� Northwest Corner of' the Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4
of Section, 5 being an Eagle' County brass cap properly marked
and set; thence N 89 41' 12" E along the`north line of said
Southeast l/4 of the Southwest l/4 of Section 5 a distance
of 1331. 07 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said real
property containing 39.55 acres, more or less. '
Applicant: George Gillett, Jr.
8. A request for a conditional use permit to a11ow for a Bed
" and Breakfast at Lots 6 and l/2 of 5, Block'S, Vai1 Village
� Seventh Filing, 1119 E. Ptarmigan Road.
Applicant: - Monie S. Beal
9. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Bed
and Breakfast at Lot 3 , Block 3, Vail Intermountain, 2754A
Basingdale.
Catherine S. Cheney
10. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Bed
. and Breakfast at Lot 8, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision, 5th
Addition, 5198 Gore Circle.
Applicant: John and Paula Canning
11. A request for a conditional use permit to allow for a Bed
; _ an�. �r,�a,k���t_ �t L•ot �P, Vai1 V�llage lOth Filing, 920
Fairway Drive.
Applicant: Alice M. Cartwright
The applications and information about the proposals are
available for public inspection in the Community Development
`` Department office.
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Published in the Vail Trail on May 25, 199A. _
� _
p :.
TO; Planning and Environmental Commission �
FROM: Town of Vail Departments .
DATE: J'une 4;, '199U
RE: A work session for a major subdivision, a request for a
variance to the maximum' height for retaining' walls, and
a request for a �variance tcr the maximum percent grade
for a road, Qn a par+c�el com�nonly referred to' as
Spraddle Creek,; an approximate 4U acre parcel located
north and east of the Main Vail I-7fJ interchange and
east of the Spraddle Creek livery,
ApPlicant. George Gillett Jr,
I. INTRODUCT3flN
The applicant Mr. George Giilett, Jr. is requesting a major
subdivision, variance to the` maximum percent grade for a
road, and a variance �o the maximum height for a retaining
wall for a 40 acre parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle
Creek. ' The: prflperty is Zonea ni�.�.sia� resid+ential.
Fourtaen lots are proposed. ' Each lot will be allowed one
single-family unit as well as one care-taker unit with a
maximum floor area of 1200 sq. ft.
A 22 foot wide road 'having a; maximum grade of 11.9� is
proposed, The subdivision regulations allow for a maximwn
grade of 8�.
In addition, the applicant is proposing retaining walls that
have a :maximum height of 25 feet. The Town of Vail Zoning
Code allows for a maximwn height of 6 feet for all walls.
II. SUMi�1'ARY �F T�WN:�F VAIL -DEPARTMENT C�MMENTS
The purpose of the work session is to provide the Planning
and Environmental Commission with a staff overview of the
proposal and related issues as well as to give the applicant
the opportunity to hear preliminary staff and PEC camments
on the project. Below is a summary of the Town of Vail and
Department issues related to the proposal.
1
�
.
- ;�
� � � � � � s
A.' Road Grade and Retaining Wall Heictht
The applicant needs to look at reducing the roadway ,
grades to 8�. There are some opportunities to pick-up
the grade in the frallowing ways:
1. By maintaining a 4� grade on Gillett Road from the
Frontage road for 50 feet and then tranisitioning
to an` 8� grade the' steepness of this portion of
the road will be decreased. Drainage on this part
of the road and the Frontage road can b�e handled
with a cross-pan +gutter system and inlet.
2. At the cul de sac at the very top af the <
subdivision, the grade should go ta 8� to pick-up
some fall which wi11 decrease grades further on
down the road.'
3.` The third 'way ;Qf picking up t�e grade will lae to
lengthen the roadway where `ever possible. This
can be acebmplished at the stable through some of
the S-curves and before the turn at the east
property line. It is possible for the road'-way to
extend onto Forest Service property to the east.
The permitting process` is similar to the process ',
for the raadway on the west side of the property. "
The Town staff did a conceptual design and was
able to decrease the grades to S�. However, f;
addit'ional work should be done to refine this
design and insure the asswnptions are correct. '
Retaining 'wall heights increased in some areas to
a maximum heig�� of 36 feet. This height does
take into account 8 feet terraces 'for 12 feet
height intervals. The proposed variances is for a =
height of 26 feet. However, this does not take �
into acaount the terraces. If a 10 ft. terrace is �
required for every 12. 'ft. of wall height and the
wall intercepts a 2:l slope then the applicants �
wall 'height will be approximatQly 3'1 feet. This ;
results in a fivQ foot' difference in wall height �
between the staff analysis and proposal.
�
;�
�
�
,�.
�� � � � � � � � � � � �
7
�
° 2
� � � � � � � � �
,3
. .Y . . .. ... .. � ... ... .. . . � � � ... . .. . . .. � . . �. 1
. .. � . .. . .. � . ... . . ... � . . .. � � � �
The retaining walls need to be designed to a �
preliminary level. Th� staff needs to verify that `
::
t�e prc�pQSed wall system can handle �he required
wa11 h+�ights in a manner �hat is sensitive to the x
site. The design work needs to identify the °'
slopes above the wall, surcharging areas, f
eflnstructifln areas, soil c4nditions,. terracing and �
so forth for sta�f to determine wheth�er! a fill
wa11 is better than a cu�-slop+e wall. The focus �
should be to try to Iay out the roadway for
minimal impacts on wail height while maintaining
the flatter 8� grades. The slopes could be 2:1
versus the 1,5:1. This will allow a better slope -
for revegetation. In only extreme `circumstances =
should the 1,5:1 slope be allowed.
The Town has a maj:or concern with the type of wall
being proposed in the cut slopes. The disturbed
area wili be great. The soils report suggests
other' types of soii reinforcement coulci work. It
would appear this should b� investigated. The
;
terracin�g of the wall should also be iooked at. `
The staff realizes that the applicant has tried to
align` the road in the most sensitive manner
possible to decrease the grades and retaining wall
heights. We believe that more work can be
completed' to minimize the grades and impact of the
retaining walls. We would also suggest that the `
possibility of realigning the road 'in some areas
'be considered by the applicant "in order to �
minimize grade and wall heights.
B. REVEGETATION AND VEGETATION IMPACT REPORTS <
Overall the revegetation plan is very general. �
However, it is adequate if the statements contained „;
within it are carried out in the landscape improvement k:
plan.. Staff believes it is important that the -
applicant submit a landscapeJrevegetation plan after �
preliminary plan approval has been ' received and before
final `approval of the subdivision. The �egetation �
impact report states "in all cases, limits of �
construction activity `shall` be imposed and enforced. " _
;
This is key to minimizing disturbance to the site. �
,:
Construction limit lines should be drawn on the �
submittal plan with a statement' of how the line will be- g
established: Fencing would be preferred but in some �
locations staking with lathe may be appropriate.
�
� �
� 3 � �
� � � �.
�
,, .�
� �
.� �.._ . �..���.� ,_.__ ..�.;� _.� �_���,..�.�,��.t.�� e..���- � w�...._.,._..� s � �.... .,,.�. �_�..,., �_... �..
Y� ���� _ . . m _ ,__ �a,�. ,- ,_ _..�
�
In sev�ral ioca�ionis in the re�regetation plan, the use
of native trees, shrubs grasses and forbs for
re�egeta�ion of the site is stated. The plan states
that plants will be installed in t�e same percentages
as wk�at exists naturally and that the final product
will be of equal quality tc�` that of the undisturbed
site. This will be the basis of all reviews made of
the landscaping improvement plan when submitted.
The revegetation plan states that top so`il will be �
stripped when possible. It is important that top soil
be stripped from all areas disturbed to its "full depth. ;.
The worr�ag+e �'when possible"' should be deleted and the °
statement changed to reflect "ail areas disturbed" and
"to fu31 depth." 4" is a minimal depth and 6�' to 8" is t
preferred. :
Copies of the sail test report being prepared by CSU
should be submitted with the landscape pian.
The revegetation plan mentions all possible methods of
- reseeding grasses and forbs. The developer shall be
encouraged` to utilize drill seeding where ever
possible, with hydromulchinq over it. Many areas will
have to be broadcast seeded` or hydrQSeeded. However
drill seeding offers the greatest germination ratio.
An erosion control plan should be submitted prior to
final approval of the subdivision. `The plan should
show the exact location of silt fences, hay bales,
sedimentation ponds etc. to be`utilized in keeping run-
off from the site free of sediments. The only specific
reference to an erosion control, plan is the use of jute
netting over seeded areas. ' The erosion `control plan :
should include both plans and details for the proposed '
work. � �
C. BUILDING ENVELOPES �
The staff feels it is appropriate to utilize building '
envelopes for the project. All >structures should be
located within the 'envelopes� Specifically for Lots 14
and 10, staff believes that the `envelopes could be
pulled back further to the north. Building envelopes, _:
are necessary due to the sensitivity of the site. We �
acknowledge that when the original submittal was made :
back in October of 1989, the staff indicated that
building envelopes probably were not appropriate. w
However, after several site visits to the propert ' ;�
Y. it �
is apparent that the envelopes do make sense given the �
sensitivity of the site. �
� � � a�
� � � � � �
�
� � � � � � _ �
, �
;�
R
� � � � � 4 � . � � � r�
f4
,.
, . � ;....,�..�.�..�.,_._��.,.__._a_:a_ _ .a.w��. �
.,_
_ , . . ,�� .._ ..� -�--._e_ ._. �
x���. � ��,..�,�... r„ _ .__;.�r.. y..� _._.�
�
D. SITE C�VERAGE
��
� �
Due tc� the large si.ze of the lots, the site coverage �'
for each 1Qt is extremely high. Staff would like to
see a reasonable cap put on the' amount of site coverage
allQwed for a lot. Below is a chart cQmparing site
coverage to GRFA
LOT SITE C�VERAGE GRFA 'ALLOWED
1' 9646.5 6483 �>
�
2 8941.0 ' 6248 ;
3 12749,5 7517
4 `' 14109.0 7970
5 10023 .6 6608
6 7652.0 5818
7 , 7344.0 5715
$ ' 8721.0 6174
9 11275,0 7U26
10 4372.0 4725
ll 10710.0 6837
12 14760."0 : 8187
14 41'093.'0 16965
15 3670.0 4491
� E. IATS HAVING SIAPES (IVER 30�
In the zoning code in section 18.69.050, there are
specific: requirements that relate` to lots having over
30� slope. This section relates only to `
primary/secondary, duplex and single family lots. '
However, staff believes that this section should also
relate to hillside residential properties. `Staff feels ;
it is appropriate to require for each residence site
specifia soil and foundation investigations, engineered :
foundations. 10� limit to .total site area covered by =�
driveways and surface parking. a minimum of one (to �
two) covered parking space 'per' unit, a revegetation -
plan for each `lot, - a detailed plan for retaining walls �.
or cuts and fills 'in excess of five feet. This '
information would' not be required during the planning `
�
process. However. each individual lot owner would be �
asked to provide this information at the DRH stage of �f
construction for an individual lot. It makes good s
planning sense for'the `owners of each of these lots to :
comply with these requirements. Staff believes that it �
�
was an oversight that the hillside residential was not �
listed under this section of the code when this zone „
district was established several years' aga. '
r
rt
,rr
�
:x
,5 �
F. OPEN SPACE DEDICATION AND PEDES'i'�2IAN EASEMENTS �
The s�a�f waulc� 1 ike to; see the open space areas
dec�icated to the Town of Vail as permanent open space.
The reason for this request is to avoid any future sub-
di�visic�n of the open space into `additional lots. The
intent is to preserve the open space perman+ently.
� The applicant has agreed to provide a pedestrian '
easement along the Spraddle Creek corridor. We think
this is very, positive.
The Frontage Road widening will ,need to have the six
foot shoulders completed to allow for the future bike-
path to be completed on the Frontage Road.
G. SPRADDLE CREEK LIVERY
The livery is proposed to be relocated to Forest
Service property on the' east side of this parcel. An
agreement detenaining who will pay for the relocation
has not been finalized at this time. However, it is
staff's understanding that the Forest Service and
County are in general agreement with the idea of the
relocation of the stable. Staff believes that it is
important that the stable use continues to exist. 3t
is a much needed guest amenity.
Staff does not support the idea of `a horse stable for
Lot 14". Horses could be stabled at the new livery.
H. TRAFFIC
The traffic study needs to be updated to` include the
full build out. '
I. , DRAINAGE ::
The cross-sections at the beginning of Gillett Road �
need to be revised to show the existing drainage ditch. <
The plan will need to be re�ised to show the big '
drainage hole and the culverts under the roadway. The
drainage easements need to be determin+ed and will be
required before final plat. The Town has some concerns
with the areas of discharge, mainly those that
;
discharge toward the interstate. The final location ;
and treatment of discharge should be handled in the ,;
final drainage report. ;
A design related issue is the staff's request that the �
owner try to clean up the appearance of the culvert e
area` at the entry to the subdivision. We would like to ;
see the chain link fence removed if at all possible. �
We understand this drainage area is located on CDOH �
property. our request is a recommendation.
� � �
�
fi �
J. ATR QUALITY
Staff would like to reques�t that the applicant restrict
the caretaker units to gas app3.iances or gas log
fireplaces.
K. EMPLOYEE HOUSING °
Staff beiieves it is appropriate to restrict any
caretaker unit to employee housing permanently. We
also f�el it may be appropriate to request the owner
commit to praviding a minimum of three caretaker units
within the subdivision. '
L. COLORADO DIVTSTON OF HIGHWAY APPROVALS ;:
The applican� is in the process '�f receiving CDOH
approval for the access: permit off of the Frontage
Road. ' The `permit will allow for a left-hand turn lane
' and minor widening of the Frontage road. The Town
Engineer has reviewed this design. Staff
recommendation is that the ;percent grade of Gillett �
Road be increased to approximately, 4� at the entrance
to the subdivision and retaining walls minimized. When
the specific configuration of the intersection is `:
finalized by CDOH, the staff will have final comments.
We must require 6 ft. shoulders to allow for a bike
path.
M. MAINTENANCE OF THE SUBDIVISION ROAD
At this time, the staff has the understanding that the
applicant is proposing that the lower portion of the
road extending from the Frontage Road up to the eastern ;'
side of the property would be a public road. At this
point, there would be a gate which would be a private-
road into the subdivision.: The applicant is proposing -
that the Town maintain the public road. Staff's
opinion is that additional work needs to be done on the
grades and retaining walls and location of the road
before we give the applicant a definite answer as to
how we would like` to see the road maintained'.
N. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
Staff feels that it is positive that the applicant is
willing to include architectural guidelines for the
project. We would suggest that no fencing be allowed
around houses ta maintain the natural appearance o.f the
property. �
.�
�
�
�
7 �
O. UTTLITY EASEMENTS
Th�e applicar►t has made a stronq effort to consolidate
the utility easements in the roadway. We think this is
a good solution as it minimizes` cuts on `the hillside.
We would sugges� that the applicant coordinate the
Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District line
work with the Town's parking structure project. The
work will occur adjacent to Crossroads and it would be ,
helpful t� the Town if the work could be coordinated
with the parki�ng structure construction.:
In general, the staff realizes how much work has gone inta
developing a sensiti�e proposal. We' would like to work with
the appli�cant on the issues listed. Additional comments
from other agencies are attached to this memo.
<
�
� � � � � � � � ;�
� �
�
�
�
�
°"�
�
_ =�
�
8 �
STATE OF COLORADO
Roy Aomer, Gove�rnor . ReFea ra :;
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL R�SOURCES G������
�lV1�1U�1 C�F 1N1L�LlFE � .,�,' � �
An�E(3UhL GPP!�RTUf.iT'!E�APLOYER .,,
' `�J
Perry D.Olsan, Qlrecior �',r 'a =
8060 8roadway ��{'OF�`'�"
Denv�►,Colorado 8Q216
Teiephone:(303)29?-i 192
May 29s �990
vail Assoc. .
ATTN: Joe Macy
Boa 7 .
Vail, C0. 81658
Dear Joe,
This letter is to summarize the discussion we had on 5/26/90 in ;
regards to the Spraddle Creek development.
The first issue was bighorn sheep, the CDO�V has reports of bighorn
sheep use in Spraddle Creek drainage, the use has generally been
north and east of the development. Any impacts to bighorn sheep
from the development should be minimal a.nd mitigated bp following
the same guidelines outlined for elk, ( ie. dog control) . '
• The second issue was the recommendation for a 10Q foot setback from
the USFS boundarp. As we discussed on the 5/26/9Q there are 3 lots
on the east side o� the develoFment that can' t meet this recommendation,
but could have a 6� foot setback, This recommendation was for a
buffer zone, not just for wildlife conflicts, but also for people
conflicts, the CDOW feels that a 60 foot setback on these 3 lots
is reasonable. � �
We also discussed adding some wording to the documents on the
i.nteraction a.nd conflicts that could occur with wildlife in the
area, to advise the buyer of this poten�tial.. This was mainly i.n
la.ndscaping a.nd designs.
Joe, if you have any further questions please give me a: call 926-3�3�.
Sincerely,
.-----> ,;
;.�;'�.l' f�,,n��";-sz—.
Bill Ax�dree
District Wildlife .Manager-Vai1
_ �
;�
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESaURCES, HamlerJ. 8arry, Execuuve Director
�.,n� n� �cC �nnntiAlRRION �anrae VanOen9era Chairman . Robert L Freidenberqer. Vice Chairman . Wiliiam R. Negberg, Secretary
. ��-
:',�TATE OF C4CORAD+t33 �� � �
�: ° �,�f��
.Ro�/A�om�r, Gavernor ��
��PARTNIEN"'�O� NATURAL RE80URCE� � �� ��� � �fl�p��� � �
� D���1l���C���������1 C)� '11ViL.C)L��F� �� � � � .
. AN EQWL OPPf3RTUN17Y EMPLOYER � "� � � �
Plfry Q.+�1s�: �" � . �� §
6060 Bso�dMra�► . jp�'OF'�,y :
;
�enve�.+Cokxsdo 8021� "
Tekq,or�r;(3t%3)2s�t1s2=
�'ec. 19, 19�9 `
�
�
ic�.�n c� 'r�il � �
�
;:ffice' of °�om�u�it� ieveloF��e.:�t �
'tt�: r_ri�tan �rit�
75 �=�uti�z �r;.r�ta,�e 3c-wd ' �
�T�il " � 5� �
, �`:, .,1� �
r
rear 7a?�i4t�.� , �
�
's'he �ivi�i�n ef :;iidlife rl�.s ?�eviev�s�� t�e �,rrzc�dle Cr��k ;:ubdivisi�n �
Prcr��al a�d nav ti�`e fal�cwin� cc��!e.nt, �.n� recQ�n-nendati�ns. .�
�
'I : '�':�e rror��.:�.I ^t���e� tY��.t �c� �'o� ke.rnel� or run� will be �.11o�ec� . �
�
i���g kennel; 4nd run t:l�_t �'° i�:I'�}i-'c�._�S�T fe.�C° a..�.'° t1�G^ �T11;; ef�GC't�Ve 3
?���y" t� co.>.�trel �ooa. lhe iea.G'r� ���vr i� n':t eT�ective in =ed.ucin� '
ffQ , C`..4�. ���' . . � � y�. ...., , 4• j - :.. G Q ,. ...�G '�
dr,a� ���r�...,in,., ���.i1d.11f,., t�_e �e�.�n larr ha,, b..en tried:..�n ..everal
Lubdivisions a:�d to date 'na� Frcved. ineyfective. _'_ny u.nit� �rith a $
dog �hould be re�uirea to h�.ve a �og run` er ken.nel th�t i� fence� 4
te a sufficient neig'�t to preve.�t the do� from jumping out.
2) �11 u�.r�a�e ca�s cr contziners �hould be c�e�ig.ne� �.nd constructad ;
to be bea.r proof. re�i�ns for t�e cc.nt�.iners c�.n be optained frc�_�n
the �iviiicn or the �?o:ctit ;',meric�.n �•e�.r �cciety, �cotts�ale, �:�. �
The provc�ed Lubdivi�ic.n i� in bear _�abitat, ��iti? t�e o.ngoing ,n.rc�ble!�
Cf T��',a.Y'�c.�e b@c?'Stj 1Tl ��'3@ CQU:]t;}'� �k@ �1�71�1C?? 1� T@CG�T'.L1P't]fJ1Xlc; ::i1. °
cievel���ent in be�:r habit�.t ��.ve be_�r ���c�l container�. ��ne ce�trwi �
garbage collection pcint �vt�L.i� reduce co�t and les�en tne Frobie-n �
of �!o�.rbage o�arv". �
3} 1:otq that are adjoining j?a.tional �orest gr�perty should h�.ve
buildi�g envelopes tha-t v�ould Frovide a• ouffer �tri� of at le�.�t 1 G0 °
feet betwee.n the buil• ing �id the ;:?�.tional i�re.st b�und�.ry. Tn�� �rro�.ld_
provide an 3dditio.nal buffer zo.n� betv��een the d.evelo�ment a,nd =y�.ti�.r_al
��re�t l�.nci, that would rzduce wildlife i���cts �:n the' F�ore�t �,nd �l�a =
reduce the private iandowner ce►�plaint�,; ;,f t��.e Fu�lic being tcc�
clo�e to n.is reQidenee. .,
41 r�'inall� the �7ivisio,n would recom�ne�s� t'r_at �he developer chose
l�.nd�caping items that are un�alztable t� �Nildlife. �.ie ta the :
location of the ,�ubc�ivi,�ion, cert�.irt species �f wildlife will use the
area.: By using un�alatable landscaping items tre develcper will
reduce d�.m�.ge to lan�iLcapin� caused by 'wildlife: The �ivision or the `
Calorada State Extensia.n affice �ias infarmatio-r� a.n landse�wning. �gecies ��
t�?t are leG� su.e°x�tible t� �vildlife damage., �
i'h� �ivi�ion anpreciate4 the op�r�tunity to< comment ��r thiQ propc�ul, %
QEPAR't'MENT OF NATt7RAL AESC3UNCES,Hamtet d Barry.E7cecutive Directoc
'WILDLIFE COMMISSION.George VanDe�Berg.Chairman . Robert L Freidenberg+er.Vice CNairma�• William R.Hegbera SecretaryF
; : .
�
�� �t �
� � � ��
4 .
.�.. �'TATE flF COLORAD+� _
' ' .Ra�t iiomsr, +C�ovemo�° ��a%,
DEPARTMENT 06 NATURAG RESQURCES �fl���4
- o�vts�o� o� wi�o�iF�
_ �N ECiU7►I.OPPURiUNITY EMPlOYER � �,
6��� ��Q ��
�
Dern�r.Colorsdo�11�- '�'OF`�`
T�slepl�otnt;(303)28?-!19Z�:=' .
Page 2
pleas� feel free ta contact` me if you have� any �uestio�s.
�incerel;� �
��._.7
t - . .
,���� .�zc��t�.,..
r�ill �ndree, Di�trict �iildliie ,tiia,n�.ger-�Tai1
. �_ M
� �
� �
�
�
. �
�
�
,�
�
�
�
�
�
s
- �
,�
�
:�
, � �
_ . �
� . ..�. . � . . ... . . .. .... . . .. . .. �
� � ... .. . .. . �
�
.... � . .. . ... . . . . . . .. .. ._.i
. . '� .. � � . . - . �
. .. .��:. .. . . . . . � . . :..�.... . . . . . . ,4
... , ...:. •- � . .. . . •, _ ' . . � . � . � .. . • � ....
�
'�
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAt RESOURCE9r HamleE.t Barry,Execu;iveDirectcc �:
� WlLDLIFE COMMISSIOIk George VanDenBen�Chairman. Rober#L Frekienberge�r.Yke_Chairman . Wiiliam R Hegberg.Secretar�- �;
Eldan W.Cooper,Member. Rebecca L Frank Member. Dennis tuttrel�Membet. Gene a PetB�ora�Membet. Larry i�Wrigh�Memk� ':�
fl-- , " ,�`d .
1 Oaited ,.States � �est �� �Thite� 8ivex ��� : �y Cross Ranger�District
�����' � Depaztment of � � ..� vice ����� �National � � ��:�i. Boa 19fJ � �� � �
' A,�I�,,,�niture Fores� Mi�n,��;rn. Co7flrado 81645
. . _ .. / � �1 �'
. . . . ... . � . . � . � � . 1..� :.
.
8eply to: 2720 rf� �`�; n
�Y ' 4
-,►n,-, r. J{� ���
J ��'�" �
,a ..
Date: April 30, 1990 ��'"�
�.
� ,
gristaa Pritz ' �:
Community Development Director �
� � � � Towa o€ '�oail�. � �
75 °S. Frontage Hoad.
Vail, C0 81657 °
Dear Sristaas
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on< the Spraddle Creek Subdivisioa. As
you know from our previous discusaioas, I am also processing an ;application - ,
from l�ir. Gillett to acqnire subdiviaion access acros� the adjacent Aational
Forest System land on a parcel known as the Spraddle Creek 'parcel. The Forest �
Seroice has a policy to permit such access when no other reasonable access �
esists. An additional factor is that the Forest` Service has decided to sell' �
this Spraddle Creek parcel to the Town of oail, aad the Town and Forest Service
toget�►er are pxoceeding with this transaction. Before the 'parcel is deeded to'
the xowa, I will have to determine the esact location of the public easement to
be retained by the Forest Service.
i�lith that background, following are my co�ents on the proposed subdivision:
1. As with all subdivisions bordering National Forest System lands, it it '
desirable to allow permanent public access across the private land to the
Forest. xhe proposed subdivision plan does silow for this.
2. The main access road to the proposed subdivision crosses National Forest
System lands on the Spraddle Creek parcel on an esisting road. I
understand the grade of this road esceeds Town of Vail standards. I feel
it is appropriate to grant a variance at this location to keep the access
road on this alignment. Reeping the road on the present alignment seems to y
�
be the environmen�tally preferred location to keep` from disturbing
additional graund and to minimize the visual impact from Interstate 7d, the �
xown of Vail, and the ski area. This alignment then would also'become the }:
Forest Service easement when the parcel is deeded to the Town of Vail. �
� In summary, the Spraddle Creek Subdiviaio� meets the needa- of the National ;
Forest System.- I feel the access road across the National Forest is in the s
best pos:sible Iocation and urge you to approve this alignment for accesa to the
subdivision.
If you would: like ta discuss- this further, please Iet me know. -,
�
� � � � ;,�
' . ` �
'a�r,�+ _ _ `
FS-{2��-2e(T•e2) �
_ . .. _._ ._ . . - . _,__ . _ _ � :�
- ,
_.� .�_.. _ ._____�__ ----__._�.�_,,,-,,,,�
,.
N ;
a. � �w
� � � .. . 'x"'� ... . . ..`'`__,.?T .� .. , � .,�.
�R.�. . . . . .. .. . � � .. ' . � . .. . � .. .� .. � .. .. ..
Thank you.
Siacerely, '
,� ' , `
�
�r ,
LLIAM A. WOOD
District Ranger
:�
.. . .. � . . . ..:;.�i
. ..� � . .. ' . �� . � � .. �.. � .. ��..
� ' .. . .. � . , .. . .. � .. _,�
\ • � ���C .. .. . . . ... . . . � � r
. . : Y' J .. . . . .. . .. ... . .... .. . . . . . .. � . �
c�� �/a�'
� Planning and Environmental Commission
June 4, 1990
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Chuck Crist Kristan Rritz
Diana Donovan Mike Mollica
Connie Knight Shelly Meilo
Jim Shearer Gary Murrain
Kathy Warren Susan Scanlan
Greg Hall
ABSENT Mike McGee
Dick Duran
Ludwig Kurz Betsy Rosolack
Dalton W,i1l;iams
In the interest of documentation, minutes were taken during the
work sessions prior to the beginning of the public hearing.
Work session on Air �uality Survey 4uestions.
Susan Scanlan, Environmental Health Officer, presented the
survey. Suggestions were made from the board.
A work session on the ��,r����� ..�eekxR`subdivision.
P
.. �! �3-'.f....�. ..w-..�a .v S, � .
Kristan Pritz e�tplained the staff concerns and asked for concerns
from the board. She stated `that the parcel contained about 40
acres and met the standards for Hill'side Residential zone
district, Kristan also explained that l caretaker unit with a
maximum GRFA of 1200 square feet would be allowed on each lot.
The roads were to be 22 'feet wide, and a maximum grade of 11.9a '
was being proposed. The variance being asked for on wall height
was for 26' high walls (6 foot walls are allowed) ,
Kristan pointed' out 'that this proposal really involved all of 'the
Town of Vaii departments. She showed site plans and stated that
this was a very, sensitive site, and that decreasing the road
grades 'increased the wall height`s. Kristan summarized the
comments of the various Town of Vail departments,'
With regard to the proposed road grades, it was felt that the
grades must be reduced to 8�. More work was needed to decrease
both the road grades and the height of the walls.
Kristan stated that the Town felt that the plans ' for' revegetation
were good, though preliminary. A detailed revegetation plan
should be submitted.
1
� � . . . .. . . � . ♦' ; . .
� � .. . � .� ... ` .. � . . . . . . .
Regarding building envelopes, the staff felt that it was - -
appropriate to utilize buildinc� enveloPes, due to the sensitivity
Qf `the site. With regard to site coverage, the staff would like
to 'see a reasonable 'cap put on the amoun� of site coverage
allowed for each lot. �
Concerning lots with slopes over 30�, staff believes that the
requirements fc�r lots in Primary/Secondary and Single Family zone
districts should appl� to Hillside Residential properties as
well. She ` stated that this had been an oversight when writing
regulations for the Hillside `Residential zone district,
The staff would like to see open space areas dedicated to the ` �
Town as permanent open space.
Staff feels that it is important that the stable use continue to
exist. The memo also deait with traffic studies, drainage,
fireplace restrictions, employee housing, maintenance of the
subdivision road, architectural guidelines, and utility
easements.
Joe Macy, representing the applicant, stated that owner was not
interested in dedicating the open space to the Town of Vail.
With regard to fireplace restrictions;, Joe Macy stated that a `
study had been updated and that it had indicated that this ;
property was above the inversion le�ei of the Towr� of Vail and �
that there would not be any problem with the fireplaces. ;
i
Regarding employee housing, the applicant indicated that 3
employee units would be acceptable.
Joe then discussed the road heights, grades, and wall grades and
he :felt' that the road alignment forced the height `for the walls.
Jay Peterson, representing the client as well, stated that this
was a matter of fine tuning, that they agreed with everything
except the grades on the roads and the retaining walls. He had
with him Kent Rose, the ,engineer, Dan Corcoran who did the
survey, and Richard Matthews who did the landscape plan. Jay
described the process that they ,had gone through and the various
steps that ,had determined the proposal as it was now being ' ;
presented. Jay said they could do a11 8$ grades, but many ;other`
negative impacts would come about.
Kent Rose then explained the process >that he had gone through in
designing the grades. First he showed what had happened when
they planned for 8$ grades only and then the refinements that
followed until<they; reached the ,proposal as it was being
submitted.
2
�
` The stable sit�: was :discussed at: the cul 'de sa�. Tt was aiso -
pointed out that the roads had a larger radius tha.n ma.ny 4ther
roads. a0'-80� radii were propose+� on the cuxves,
Dick Duran, Fire �hief, e�axessed his con�+�rns. He said that
while coming down an 11� grade, especially �uring the winter it `
would be nearly impossible fQr the fire trucks to stop. Mike
McGee, ;from the fire department, compared the' road to Po�ato
Patch. H+e also' repe�ted that the bi:g groblem was stopping and
Kent expiained that there would be no crown on the road but that
�the road would slop� 2� into the hiil which would' have a tendency
to pull vehicles into the hill rather than away frflm the hill,
Mike Mc�Gee was concerned with stopping at the gate and wanted to
have the area near the gate as l+ev�l as possible. If they had t�o
stop to open the gate it wouid be difficult for them to maintain
their momentum. Jay explained that they would work this out so
that they would have access to open the gate electrically. Mike
felt that if the Town of 'Vaii was maintaining: the' roads, t�he �'ire
Department would feel more at ease regarding the condition of the
roads.
Kathy Warren felt the need tr� have m4re study completed regarding
getting the emerg�ncy vehicles up �he grades. She said that this
afternoon, ,when, they went up to look' at grades, they 'were not on
many grades of 11�. Jay reminded her that this was a sunny
area. Mike Duran stated that Potato Patch was a sunny area also
but that they sti11 had slippery; roads.
Discussion followed concerning other maintenance vehicles. Diana
Donovan said garbage trucks had trouble with traction in Potato
Patch. Kristan asked Kent to explain how the cul' de sac on the ;
east related to the wall' below it.
Jim Shearer expressed the need to have a turn-around below the
gate and Jay said they would explore it.
Kathy Warren felt that the roads were too steep overall. Perhaps
there could be a better combination of roads and wall height.
Mike McGee was concerned about the grades of the driveways and
Kent said that they would put in all the `driveway cuts.
Jim Shearer questioned Richard Matthews about what kind of
planting could be done on the terraces, and Richard explained
that the flat areas could have vines but many vines did not live
at 'this altitude and also some of the terraces would be too
narrow so that all they could plant was grass and shrubs. , He
would have to wait and see the final plan and then after a couple
of seasons they could also replant.
3
Jim Shearer asked Kristan what grades were acceptab2e to ths
Town. Krista� reminded him that` 8� was the maximum grade but
that the �own was w�rking with the applicant to f�nd a balance`
poin� and that there would probably be areas over 8� if the
criteria that wa11 heights be as 1ow 'as possibie is also given
priority. Kristan then stat�d that she thought that the open '
space should be dedicated to' the Town of Vail, Jay responded '
that it wo�ld be zoned open space with any restrictions that the
Town of Vail would want to haue on it. But that the prablem with
giving it to the Town is that any pedestrian could come up and'
use the area as a picnic ground and he felt that this was not an
appropriate place for this.
Jim asked if Giilett did not have th+e stable on his property, if
there would be enough space in the designated stable. Joe Macy '
stated :that horses were aliowed by zoning on the large l�t that
Mr. Gillett would use. If h4rses were kept, they wouTd probably
be kept at the livery stable',
Mark Wentwor�h, representing the spraddle Creek Livery, said at
this point, he �ou1c? not ke+ep horses for other p�opole on Forest
Ser�ice land with his existing special use permit:
Jim Shearer asked Jay about fire protection systems, and Jay said
that he had talked with Mike' McGee and Dick Duran regarding
sprinkler systems for the homes, but that one probl�m 'that some
homes in Beaver Creek had encountered was fro2en pipes. Mike
McGee said that` they had not had any frozen sprinkler systems for
some time in the Town of Vai1.
Kathy Warren asked about drainage and the scarring that might
occur from the drainage. Kent explained'that` there would 'be
shallow swales that would be revegetated to keep them from
eroding and that they would end up being natural grass swales:
There was a discussion of the visibility of the cut through the
trees. Kent said that they would try to utilize areas where
there were- previous` cuts. Kathy said that although they may
utilize old road cuts, she was still concerned with grade and the
water drainage: She felt there should be more study of the
retaining walls. She was concerned about the` roads that would"be
owned by the Town of Vail and she felt that the Town of Vail
property should in particular keep the grades down. Kathy was
concerned that the slopes proposed would 'not revegetate very
well. Regarding site coverage, Kathy felt the need to restrict
the amount of site coverage ;and on Lots 30 & 34 she felt that the
allowable GRFA should be reduced, Regarding the stable, Kathy'
felt that this needed to be worked out. Kathy also felt that dog
runs would also have to be allowed.
, 4
�
Joe Macy stated that th+ey would allow for dog runs. �'ay stated
tk�a� he felt it was appropriate to allow s�me landscaping type of
�eneing. Kristan said that she would iik� them to try tc� avoid `
fences all around the property lir�e as was starting to happen on
Mill Creek Circle.
Joe Macy also said that there would be no irr�gation system
proposed for the retaining walls, that they would be watered by
truck until the vegetation was started because the irrigation '
system could ruin the walls if it froze. '
Diana was very concerned about the visual impacts'. She felt that
the open space restriction was critical . The revegetati+an
should be done with natural seed and that there shouid be a cap
on site coverage and GRFA. She stated that the whole site was
visible. She agreed with Kristan the r�eed to' know what was going
to `happen with the stable and felt that the stable should stay.
Diana also wan�ed to make sure that the path from'! the 4-way to
the Boc�th Creek path remained available tc� the public 'per '�he
recommendation in the TQwn of Vail Recreational Trails plan.
Diana asked that when the road was plo�t+ed i� the' building sites
had been considered and Jay "felt` that they had been.
Kathy also wondered why people were going to be kept out of the
open space and Jay felt that this space had a' direct impact on
those lots adjacent to it. They didn�t want people picnicking
there but they were 'willing to guarantee that it would be open '
space. Kathy said that she had no pxoblem not having picnic
tables on that area but did feel that people could use the open
space. ' �ay said that people could go 300 feet to the east for
open space. Dan reminded them that originally, lots were platted
on that open space. Kathy asked that they not have signs that
say private" property.
Kristan felt that there ''should be 5' employee units rather 'than 3
using the 24 unit total possible`. Joe Macy had a problem `with '
that. He said originally only 20� of the lots were going -to be
required to have employee units. Kristan said the original 24 '
lots resulted in 5 'lots with' caretaker units but "Joe felt that
the 20� should be multiplied by 14 lots which equals 2.8 or 3
units. Joe was asked if the`° caretaker units would be` put on the
market and Joe -explained that the caretaker units would not be
subdivided or sold off` separately from the main unit.
Kristan discussed architectural guidelines and asked if the Town
of Vai3 would have to be a party' to the Arch'itectural Guidelines.
They would prefer not to have to enforce them. Jay felt that the
Town of Vail would be more lenient than the applicant 'would be
with regard to architectural guidelines. Joe Macy felt that the
,5
�G
. people building would have to go through the applicant�s -
guidelines first. Kristan said that Larry Eskwith was concerned
about the Town get�a.ng into a position of en�orcing privat�
design '.guidelines through the �RB. She said that� they would work
with Larry ,on that.
Diana asked if the Town `of Vail should be a party to' the
covenants and Kristan said �hat she would discuss that with
Larry. 5he' then showed a view analysis of the walls with photos
from. Kent. Joe Macy sh�wed 'slides of walls around the Town of
Vail that were over 6' high,
After looking at the wa11s, Jay stated that he felt that the
trade-off with road grades compensated with less visible walls.
The average grade is now at `8.9�. The trade-off was with
retaining wall height and stay�.ng out of Spraddle Creek. He
asked for some direction from the Commission.;
Connie comment�d that she was for steeper roadways versus higher
walls and against expanding �he road onto the' Forest Service
land. Joe said, that if they do not go into the F'orest Service
land, they would have bc��h steeper roadways and higher walls.
Kathy showed plans where she had marked the retaining walls.
Discussion followed between Greg Ha11 and Kent Rose concerning ,
the roadways and walls. Diana felt the depth of the terracing
was also important. Kent explained to her that the terraces
would have 'to go back 12 ' if 10' walls were used.
Kathy Warren said they could use 5' walls with 6' terraces. More
discussion <of height of wall and length of terraces followed.
Kathy stated that she disagreed with Connie in that she felt that
the road could go farther east into the Forest Service land in
order to decrease the grade levels of the road. Jay stated that
he did have the switchback cut down because the staff had asked
them to stay out of Spraddle Creek. Kathy suggested that perhaps
the turnaround could be moved west. She said she would rather
see lower retaining walls especially on the lower roads.
Connie said she would rather see roads than retaining walls.
Mark Wentworth, representing the Spraddle Creek I,ivery, said that
was the only spot for a stable. That and the old location.
Diana felt that 11� roads were too steep. She felt that she
needed to see more of how the roads and walls were going to look
and she suggested that an elevation be drawn with every retaining
wall and its true height.
The work session was over.
6
�
The Public Hearing o� th� Flanning and Environme�atal Commission
meeting was c�lled �o order at 3:Ofl p.m. by Diana Dono�ran,
Chairperson.
Item No. 1: �t�arova3 0� minutes from May 14, 1990 meetinq.
A motion to approv+e the mir�utes from the Ma�' 14,�,`1990
meeting as written was made` by Kathy Warren and seconded bv
Chuck Crist,
VOTE: 5-0< IN FAVOR
Item No. 2: Appeal of a staFf decision �elating to the number
of woodburnin+g fireplaces at Lc»ts 1 & 2 , B1oak 2 :
Lionsridge Filing? 4 , 1175 Sandstone Drive.
APPiicant: Sidney Schultz` for Todcrer Anderson
Susan Scanlan presented the staff proposal and Siciney Schultz,
representing the applican�, revi+ewed 'the proposal.
Sid explained that he originally reviewed the construction of
this .home. He said 'that originally this was two lots and each
lot could have had two housing units `on it which would have been
equal to two fireplaces and two wood stoves. The applicant would
be happy to put a d+eed restriction on the property and also give
up a right to a fireplace on' a caretaker unit.
Mike Mollica pointed out that the zoning had not changed, ,that
simply a lot line had`been eliminated which combined two lots
into one and allowed for a larger home.
Susan Scanlan added that if two condominiums are combined, one of
the fireplaces must b+e removed. She 'felt that this home was
being handled in the same way. Sid repeated that he would be
willing to restrict 'the deed in order to give up any future
fireplaces.
Discussion followed s�as logs �ersus wood burning ,fireplaces and
it was felt that this was a request for a special privilege and'
was not appropriate. Kristan pointed ouf that the ordinance was
based on the units, not the zoning.
Susan explained that on clean burning units, she has found that
people don't usually put in both wood fireplaces and wood stoves.
Jim asked to have the ordinance clarified and Kristan explained
that a person could have one burning fireplace and one certified
wood burning stove and unlimited gas appliances but not gas
fireplaces. Jim felt that he would rather see 3 gas log
fireplaces as opposed to any wood burning devices.
, 7
Connie felt that the staff xecommendation should be adhered to
bec�use the' staft has done their homework. She alsc� felt that
this was consistent with hc�w the ' condo owners were handled.
Diana felt that they must stick to the Ordinance.
A motior� to deny �he appeai'per the staff inemo was made by
Kat�y Warren and seconded by Jim Shearer>
VOTE: 5-0 TO DENY
Diana added that Dalton, whom was absent also supported the staff
memo.
Ttem No. 3: A request to amend Seetion 18.12.030 of the Vail
Munie�.pal Code to !provide 'for Bed and Breakfast
�perations in the Two `Fami3y 12esident3al �Ft1
Uistrict.
APPlicant: Town of Vail
Betsy Rosolack presented the proposal explaining that upon
adoption of` the �original' Ordinance, the Two Family Residential
District hacl been inadvertently omitted.
A motion to recommend amendment of the ordinance to the Town
Council was made bv Kathv Warren and seconded by 'Chuck
Crist:
VOTE: ° 5-0 IN FAVOR
Item No. 4: A request for' an amendment to `an existina
conditional use^permit in order to add 868 sq. ft.
to the da,ycare facility at 149" N. Frontage 'Road.
an unplatted site commonly referred to as the
Mountain Bell sit+e north of I-70 and west of the
Main Vail' I-70 interchange: :
Applicant: ABC School.
Item No'. 5: A reguest for a side and front setback varianee in
order to `construct a garage on Lot 7; 81ock 3,
Vaii Villacxe 9th Filinq, 898 Red Sandstone Circle.
At�plicant: Paul `Testwuide
8
4
Item No. 6: A request for a variance from the minimum lot size
on a parcel of land described as that unplatted
pTat of the southeast if4 of the southeast 1 4 ' of
5ection 1, Township 5 south. Range 81 west, of the
6th Principal Meridian. lying northerlv of the
Lion's Ridge Loop as shown of the recorded t�lat of
the Lion's Ridae 5ubdivision recorded Julv 25.
1969, in case 2, Drawer L, and Book 215, at page
649:
Applicant: A. L. Shapiro & Co. � A Colorado
Nominee General Partnership.
Item No. 7: A request for an exterior alteration and a
landscape variance in order to construct an
addition to the Bell` Tower Buildincr at 201 Gore
Creek Drive Part of Tract A Block 5B Vail
Village 'ist Filinq.
AppTicantc Hermann Staufer - Lancelot Restaurant
A motion to table Items 4 5 and 6 to June 11 1990 and
Item No. 7 to June 25: 1990 was made by Kathy Warren and
seconded bv Cannie Kniaht.
VOTE: 5-0 IN FAVOR OF TABLING
9
� _..
- TO: Joe Macy
FROM: Community Development Department and Public Works
DATE: May 16, 1990
RE: Additional submittal information for Spraddle Creek
Major Subdivision and Variances to Wa11 Height and Road
Grade.
1. The revised preliminary plan should show the intersection of
Gillett Road with the North Frontage Road. Any retaining
walls should be indicated on the plan. Entry should be
staked.
2. All lots must have a 50 ft. minimum frontage. Lot 4 does
��� not meet the standard and Lot 14 does not have a minimum
frontage indicated on the plan.
3 . One hundred year flood plain on impacted lots as well as any
hazards must be indicated on the plan.
4. We ask that you meet the Division of Wildlife's request for
a l00 foot buffer between any building envelope and Forest
Service boundary. Building envelopes should be indicated on
the plan.
�..���",
5. Maximum build=out figures should be used for air qtlality,
traffic, water quality, and economic reports within the
Environmental Impact statement.
6. The road at the livery must be realigned so that it does not
��-- encroach into Spraddle Creek. The intersection of Gillett
Road at the North Frontage Road should also not encroach
into `Spraddle Creek.
7.. The preliminary plan should Iist the square footages
'� �� allocated to open space, development for lots, roads, and
`'�`'���.- any other uses.
8. All visual impacts should be indicated in the view analysis.
Construction impacts, disturbed areas, as we11 as roads and
buildings should be shown in the view analysis. ' Additional
view studies are necessary from the Gold Peak ski base area,
I-70 pedestrian Bridge, and south of the Christiania vantage
points as stated in the EIR.
a
F c
g 9. A revegetation plan and erosion protection plan are
required. The erosion protection plan should be keyed to
the types of soils found on the property. Protection of
���� creek areas is particularly important. Also please e�tplain
the wildland urban interface requirements. If clearing is
required around units, staff needs to know how this relates
to the view impacts of the subdivision.
10. Show the cul de sac at the subdivision entry at the top of
the public road on the preliminary plan and any retaining
walls.
11. Describe the appearance of the water tank. Is it possible
to pull it back off of the slope area further to the north
without impacting the Forest Service property. Also, please
indicate where the water tank overflow will be located and
how the overflow will reach the creek.
12. What is the status of the CDOH approval of the intersection.
If the approval has not been received, then please explain
when you believe you will receive approval and status of
permit.
13 . The air quality section of the report should address air
impacts due to sanding the road as well as pollution which
occurs above the inversion level (using maximum buildrout
numbers) . Also, staff is concerned that the consultant for
air quality is using a report from 1974: We strongly
believe that this report should be updated or that an expert
on air quality should write a letter explaining why this
report is still valid 16 years later.
14. A preliminary subdivision improvement agreement should be
submitted as soon as possible to explain how the owner
desires to maintain the subdivision and the role af the
Town.
15. Please document that no grading for the road will occur on
Forest Service property.
16. Please submit a utility plan showing access to utilities and
availability of service.
f .
17. Elevation drawings for each retaining wall should be
submitted. The assumptions for the soils for the retaining
walls should be clearly identified. It may be necessary to
do site specific soil testing at a later date for particular
wall locations. The length and height of all retaining
walls should be indicated on the preliminary plan. Any
additional computer renderings would be helpful to the staff
to show cut and fill areas and the retaining walls. The
cross sections need further refining and should be updated
to a preliminary design level. Due to the fact that the
request includes a wall height variance, the staff needs to
understand exactly how the walls will be built, heights, and
areas of disturbance. Please identify exactly how much of a
variance is requested. The maximum height of a retaining
wall is 6 feet per the code.
18. The percent grade of the road should be indicated on the
road profile. Please take the preliminary plan and color
code the lots, building envelopes, road, utility easements,
retaining walls, and areas above 8� on the road. There is a
great amount of information on your preliminary plan. I
believe this will greatly help the Planning and
Environmental Commission as well as staff to review the
project.
19. Please expla'in how construction will be staged for the road
improvements and what impacts will occur. The ;plan should
identify the temporary and permanent sedimentation basins.
How big will these basins be and where are they located?
Temporary erosion controls and mitigation for the blasting
should be presented.
20. Is storm drainage' included in the plan? What pollution
control devices are proposed? The drainage study needs to
be revised to address :the road and drainage easements.
Drainage easements must be identified on your preliminary
plan.
21. The PEC requested that. you provide information on Bighorn
Sheep; that may be affected by the construction on the
property.
22. Are there an easeme ts to e vac ted rpu t ' s ma ' r
subdivision process.��-S- ����-���C�=�+"�``���tat�����re�rr,9��� �'����-��i
I���y ��t��SS �r,��,.�C` �'`Y�t�'�-
�Q
23 . Staff would like to see the Spraddl'e Creek corridor on the
northwest corner of the property dedicated to the Town as an
open space tract with a pedestrian easement.
24 . In respect to the livery, is ,there any plan to reclaim this
site. If so, who will pay for the reclamation.
..,. r.` ` � .
25. The utility easements must be consolidated as much as
possible. We prefer to see the utilities in the actual road
easement. We do not support the easement that runs south
from Gillett Road down to I-70.
26. The major subdivision process requires 5 feet or less
contour intervals for the preliminary plan. You will need
to use a larger scale for the plan. Staff prefers to see
the information presented on 1 sheet.
27. The preliminary plan also needs to indicate contours and
site improvements within Z00 feet on all sides of the
property.
28. Please verify al1 the specific variances you are requesting,
maximum slope on the road and maximum wall height.
The staff has scheduled a work session for the Spraddle Creek
Subdivision and variances for June 4, 1990. The work session
will begin at 1:30. I would like to receive this information by
May 29th, 8: 00 a.m.
Once the above information is submitted, staff will schedule the
project for preliminary plan review. The staff will require that
all submittal information be received in our department 3 weeks
before the proposed Planning Commission review of the preliminary
plam. If you have any further questions about this information,
Mike Mollica or Greg Ha11 will be able'to answer your questions
while I am gone.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEETING
April 18, 1990
Wednesday at 10: 00 a.m.
Attn: Ron Phillips Pam Brandmeyer
Stan Berryman Tom Braun
Greg HaII Gary Murrain
Pete Burnett Susan Scanlan
Todd Oppenheimer Mike Mollica
Dick Duran Kristan Pritz
Mike McGee Betsy Rosolack
Pat Dodson Joe Norris
Ken Hughey Shelly Mello
Agenda
�. Vail Valley Medical Center Parking Structure.
�$ . Sonnenalp Transmitter Applicatior..
� . Oelbaum Garage.
�. Mill Creek Court Bldg. - Revocable ROW Permit.
�. Lot 34 Potato Patch.
�. Carriage Ride Applicatiora.
i � �(h��� �-���
� -,
�' ���`��
� �� �
�-� ���'�'�
�,�`�- �� �.
�`
����`��4j �� • ���r� `�
� /�� �� � �
�� �r�-� �� i �� � �
. . ��--� ��' ��-
; � �� -- � �
����., �
��
' . . . . . . . � . ..
. ...';..3 v. ,.Fi,r:� . .,.�x.y.. ��.y�.�� i.�,.��:e .`v.�"r ..... ,..,�.,...,,�.. . . . . .. . .. . . .. . . . .. , � . . , ..
� �Ic���'��-
M
� �;��
i �� ��; ���� �
� ,
r � r = � . _ �
e
�
.
������ �� � ����. ��� �� ���� �������� ' ����� � ���- --���>�� � � . ���� .
� �,,� � � �
.�-.��� ��.,��. --� ��.�1���� ��� -���.� �?�` �� ..__.
,���� _� 1�=i-��.�� - ���?�S . . .
, } � ,
��� ����� ��'c�1C.��1 --��� `'1�. < .
�
�
� � �
�� ����� �� ����E� ��.� ��,��� � �� ��� � S ��-� . �� -
.��� � : � r
� ��� � ��� � ���� ������-���� ����� ��~� �
�
� � � .
. �. -� ��� C� � �� C��`� !� �,�..- � ��
�. . la�� _ � -�� �
`� � � �
�-���.�. �-�����.��-- � -����� 1��� �� :
� � � r �
�-?��� �-- �:��� �.:. �.� �- �l t�-��� ������ -
� �
������ ������ �.��� ����. �����? ����'�� � � �
� � ��� � ��� � � : ��� ��- ��-- � ����� �� �b���.
��� � � � �ss�-�
- ��
���� � �� � � � ��:
���
�--� - �.. $�
��. m �,Q��D �.��5 ���-.- �s � ��c� ��� �
t
��� � ������c��� ��1
�. ���.n � �� � � 1 �� ��: -���_� � ���?�
�....� � ��, .�
E �
�� .�
�. �'�� ���� �? .� ��;��.� ��.� ��' ���—
��� �
� S�-�.� -
�
�� �-��
.� i�� �-� ���� �.��c� ; �,���.�` 1��� �_
� � �
��
� � � �
�.. .� ���. ���� �.�� �
. c.�� �������� � ����c�.�- ��
� � � ��
� �������� ��.��
�
i�.��������.�: ���� ���.��� -���.� �� ,�� �
I ���
.. I'IMT .L7 "."7✓J. 11•14 MltC y��lUYI. .� . . h'.G�;�
�� !�S �'i r �
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � ����y�'�'��- -�.
� � �� �;
. . . . f. � «, �,�, 1,� ,.�.
r
. . .. . . . . . . . . � .. . . ' . . . C��r � p Z '{�.k
a �"' ft �� � £ j'
� � � ;L� °r � ,�, - �
� �, ��;,"�`✓ :��„,'� '�
� r �!
< � , �:i�
.. . .. .. .. � �.. .. � . . � � . - � �,i � R � ,.. ��P.
. . � . � � ' . . � . � i��✓
� �
� �� �.
. .. � . � . . � .. . . . . . � 1 ���f�� � � �y�
. . . � . . � . � . . � . . ' . 1 ..� t � .
� � . � . . . .. �� . .. � � � � � .. . �.. �I f � �. C et��1}
.. : . . . � � .. .. . . . .. / �"���3 .
� � ..� � . � � .. . . . . . . � Z� �� h:�.
1"�y��L�� _
�
� � I�,����'';`}�(,'
AIR 1�1APA�TS C1N VAlL VALLEY ����"'� '
from th� PRaPQS�D SPRAL?�l.E CREEK SUBDlVISION ;�� �
� �� � � � � � � � � � � � �� � ���°�
� �� ��-
�� i �,
J
. .. � . .. . . .' , � � . . . , . '�� rf.� �,,� .
� . � � � e �`t��^��
� � � � � � I �� ���'
t '�;'✓f
�QJ� �t
-.:��� �
i <'��
. ' . � , a F�j�
� � ,,Prepared far �'��� ,
_ .-._ Vail Associates,lnc. � ._
�
�
Prepared by
Air Sciences 1nc.
Project 25-4
�� � � May, 1990
MAY c5 "�� 17,�1: AIR SGIEi�rE IP���. P.3/5
�.��..
,
. 1NTRODUCTl�N , '
The 5pradd[e �rQek Subdivisir�n is`to be loc�ted on th� north side of Vaif Va{ley, acro55
Intersxate70 from Va;l Vi!lage. !t is 5ituated on ihe mountainside with hQuse la��tians #rorn 8,A5�
feet to above 8,704�eet. The�iall�y#loar is at an eleuation of 8,24Q#eet. There 8re to be a m�ximum
of S4 printipa! resicfert�es and 14�are#aker hot�sing units in th�subdivision. Ffowever, it is urtknown
whether all o##}�:e car2tafcer units will�e t�uift. The�e will be ait ernissions from wovd�urn+ng devites
and vehicl�traffit on the lo�al roads. Thes� are sc�urces oF parti[ulates, carbon monoxide and other
gases at negfigfbie rates. B�ca�tse tn�rQ is littl� toncern anym�re'with the t�rbon monaxitle
ca�centrations in the valiey, attent;Qn in this report is focusecf on the particu4ate emissians and their
impa�t an the air basin. Th+s report rar► thQ air impa�#s supersedes tha earlier r$port submi�ted on
b�half af the subdi�ision on April 15, 199fl.
His#orically, airbome particul�t2s havp been classified �5 either total suspended particles (TSP)
or sm�ller than 10�m didmeter parti�fes(PM 10), 7he p�rCiculates of concern to hea}th and for whith
ther2 are ambient sta�dards are the PM1� particfes, and it is only these that this report addre$ses.
Fireptaces and wocdburning Stoves produce very fin�-5ized partitles betause they are fr4m a
combustion process. There could be up �� one fireplace and ane woodburning stove in each
dwelling_ Dust ftflm vehicles�rave�ing on dirt or sanded �nads is refatively large in Sixe, at�haugh a
signi#icant p�riian is in the less than i O �m range. The partitulate problem ir1 Vail Va!!ey octurs
intermittently, over p�ri�ds of time u� t� sev�ral days. It is not one of high lon�-term average
tQncentratit�n_ These hi�h-concentraU�n tlays ac�ur in Detember thrpugh February when the
occupancy rat�s ar�highest and the weatherpatterns include intenselystable air irt the valley.
The analysis of impa<t af rhe Spr�ddle Creek Subdivision is for a pctentially high pollutien day
in the valley, v+�hich wou{t! indud�any day over th� Christmas hplidays. During this period it is likely
. ihar a11 ttie residen�es in the 5praddle C�2ek Subd'+vision will be in use. 7his imp�ct anaiysis fotlows
the format af the PM10 analysis performed in 1989 for ihe Town af Vail �y Air Stiences, "PM10
i'articulate Emission In�entary, Gore Va11ey, Eagle Cpunty, tQlarado, M�y 19$9." That analysis was
bas�ed on a n�aximum �mission day� In this report emissions from activities in the Spraddle Cr�ek
Subdivision �re compared with emiss�ons frorn the total vall�y and fhe Vail Village section o# the
valley,
s
1
r��,��r �� ��� 11:ss Az� sczErar_� �zrac. � � P.a�s
a
� PM�0 PARTt��!lATE EMISSIONS
Th� talculation of emizsions is based on activity i�vels in Vail Valley and the 5ulod'svisio�s, and
emissir�n f�ttors. 3he Vail Valfey activity tevels for 1994 and the emiaaian factors uSed herein are
2aker� fr�om the M�y 1989 report. The r�umber of dwe�lirigs in Gore Ualley is Iisted in Tabie t of#fi��
report and is reptoduted h�re in 7able i a�ong with the dwellings in Spraddle Cteek: Th�se numbers
are�sed for th�tat�ulation of fireplac�,wpod stave and 5andir�g resuspensian erriissiqns.
TABLE 1
' NRJMBER 4F DWELLlNG UN1T5
Pert�er�t of
Area �lo of Units Gcre V,�tlev �
Spraddle Cre�ek 28 �0.42
� v�il VilSage 2,820 43
� � GAre VaUey 6,b08 100
For the talculation of road sand resuspension emissions, the number of vehi�le miles driven is
used(Tabfe 9 of the 1989 reportj_ These are summacized in Tabte�befow.
TABtE 2
NUMB�R QF 1.QCAL VEHlCl.E MiLES DRIVEN-PEAK DAY
� Percen#Qf
. Miles Gore Vallev
Spraddle Creek 194 Q.61
Vail Village 4,1142 14
Gore V�lfey 30,980 100
For the ca1�ul�tion of fireplace PM1q emissior��frbm the 5praddle Greek dwel{ings we assume
36.6 Ib of wood tansUmed in ficeplaces per dwelling unit. At thys rate ther�will be a totai af 1,0251b
of wbad consumed. At 2�n emission rat� af 2$.$Jblton af waad,total emissipns wil! be 14.8 Ib. 1'he
average stove burn-time p�r dwelling is 2.Q3 hours. So, for 2$ dweilings the tatal burn time is 56.$
hours. For woodstoves, the emission r�at2 wi�h high-efficien�y s�aves is A.106 lbJhour (adjusted f�r
altitude�and tf�e total subdivisicn emissions will be a maximum of 61bs.
7he �ocal sanding emissions are c�ttulated by assuming that on a peak•use day thare will be
four rpur�d-trips per dwefling un;t to the interstate in�er$eciion,d distance of 4,500 feet. Total daily
clistan�te per dwelling will be 36,000 feet or 6.8 miles. Total subdivisian miles will be a maximum of
2
�
-'°� 190 vehi<le m�les. Fromthe 1989 repart, sanding resuspension emissions from tra�c are at a rate of
Q,A1$Ib/VMT. '
7A8L£3
PM 14 EM15510N5 Fftpf�/I ALt;50ll RCES-PEAK pAY
(Ibs)
Percent ot Gore`
_ Area - Fireolace Woodsto�re Santlin Oth�rs Total Vatl� e�,,,y Tdta4
Spraddle�reek �5 b 3 0 24 0.32
Vail Vili�ge 1,48b 1,103 $74 3S8 �.$21 36
GQreV�lley 3,QS1 2,585 3,492, 1,140 14,698 100
coN«usioMs
The S�raddte Cr�ek �M1Q �missions have been estimatQtl �ssuming the maximum number of
dweNings (2$), one fir�piace and o�e high-e#fitiency woad sZove in each dwelling, and using the
same procedures as w�re used in the Air 5<ier�tes �989 an�lysis of FM10 emissions frar trie erttire Gore
___ Va1i�Y- There may nQVerbe 2$dwpllit�gi in the subc3ivision, espetialiy sin�e h�tf of them can only be
� carEtak�t unit5. There may n4t E��d fir2place o�w44d StOV2 ifl �very uni�. 7hu5, the emissions are
considered ar�upper limit.
PM1Q emissians for the peak.day �assumed t4 �� Ch�istmas l�oli�ays, 1990} will be
approximately 241bs, or six-tenths of one pertent nf the PM 1 J emissions expecte+d for the Vai1 Viflage
area. The �M]a impacts of the subdivision on tt�e Vai1 Village am6ient tantentrations will be ir►
approxim�tely ihe same ra#ia as the s�rbdivisipn �mis5ions ta the Vail Viilage emissions. 7hus, sint+e
the subdivision emissions wifl be�six-tenths of one percenx of the total of the�1ail Vi!lage emissi4ns,
then the imp�Ct will result in approxim�tely six-tenths of pne pertent increase in tht Vai1 1/illage
impac^�ks or�itself. Assuming that the impacts an peak days are at approximately#hQ ambient standard
�f 150}�g!►n3,tf�en th�impatt of the Spraddle Creek Subdivision will be about 1 �glrn3.
,� �
3
__., ._._ - - - � -�._. � . � � �
__---_ _. � _
� � � � � � � �� �� � �
, ,. .
^� �
, �„ _ G����
; � „
. � -;- j
�,''.'.�► '
��
-!j �x�.�� L�-t� ��
� C�
_ _.� __..___..__._�� _ _._.__ _.. _. .. ..�_._. ._._. __. _ . __ __ ___.
m
_ _ _-. _ ���._..�_� �__�.��.� --�--�:.�.-..���_ _,����,-�...���.�__._� ___�.��._�_
�f��'� o�
�a �. _ ___��.�..��.� �. � e _ _, .-.- --_:�.�_ . .. .._ _� ,__
. _ .�.��_ ��_ _. r�N _ �� _ __
� � �� �� � ,� � � ` . . �� .�.�,�.,�..,,�.:,�..� 1� �
Z — �
_..�..__�_..�___�_.__ �_�� . .,_.,cY��yQ,._�_���-e"r',/�-. ,_ _. __._. _ ..___
� , _ ._ _ , __...__.
� �,.�CJ_-_l�'o�'�._.__�y�,v�-� _,_. _ �___ .. ..__._. .. .. � _ ..___.__„__ ,,,_.._____.
___.�._._. �.�.___._�.. �. �_____�...___�_.x.,_
- _ ( s �
-��U��_�.. _,_���.�re��^�?._.w____.__.__.:Y=��._.�_ .._., .- , ...__�� , . _.. _ _
ccm-o�� •
� _,� x.._ __��._�..,�.._._ ,_r___�._ __.�. � �_. __ � _ .��_ _�_ _ ._
� � 7
' �
� � .�_ �.��_,_._1�� .-�___ _ �_� .. _�_ ..S,���-�.�� _ _.n._ .�_n. ,_. _ .___�_ _
,
l����`�` ��""�`�
- ___ -a--...�._._�____._.�zo � � �� � ��. �� - � � C�� � -.� �.., _ _._._a_
_ ti�`� � _ _ _��_ �:�� � _.-
,
_ �.-C 1?.��..__:_� �_
� ._. ..�w�.�.��_ _-. _.�-�-y_�. ,� � � �
�-�o � l
�
�._.v.-__..�______ __ � �L_��.�'�.e__._��,.�:� . - .�_.._.� ._� ..u� �►.. 3, � .----_... .._.
G��
� � �
_�_��_.__���_ _ ______.�.._ti_� __�_ �.__ _ _ __ �_ ____
__,.. ._ �. ._ .
__ . :__.___�___ _
.��__---�---- __r� �_� �._ //
� - ,�_._ �.�°,�,�__� �.�..�___,,�`-.. -.�.z.�__��T._._.__ __
. ��Q�� V i_ � �lI�7Y, �
�, a�� , .
_.�__._._____ .__---_---_._�_______._._. . _ �_ _.__ G . �_ � c�.,�e_-,___�_._.
_.�.... __,y����_..__s.�.a�,��t.�,-c.�w_._ a.�=-�_ ���-�.Y._��=.�.._._. __._.�.�.____� ..__�_____.__._.
_
�..�__ ___�.____�b�.__ _��.��__� �,�.�:.,qG� 2,.
_ �_ _Y.��-.-��._ _-
____G�___ � _,
S ^ � .
_____���_ � __ _..�._.G�.�
___�.. - _��__�.__U�'��..��� --____.._.. _ _.�_.
,
____�.��_m �.:�:�. _ ,� .� __ ______ _.� ___ _�.______� .
��- -
' 9' Zz -
_�_��s��.. �. �______-.--��-___��.� ___�__��;;�
�� � .,ur--�-�f x ./-�°�.r►-eL..._.� . _.C.o�-d��`�-�--�--
-- ___.�.
. fl
r � _.__ _ ___.. _
__ _ _ __. .
' . • �
�d�... _�.�' /U - �v�,..� -�, ,�� 7 �Ja� � �.�-r �-g� ��-��
�_ _ � �
__— ____ . w � � � �� 7'�Jr4 �-�-e 2 c� �.i-�.2 � �
��..,5�%��-ar= �2—;��- S. - ___
_ _________ ���-��t .�.�� ��\ -,�=, �.�� d�.G, 7 � ,�,,...7`,.��
� �I{ Q�, , / ��e�,at%.Q �-oC � � 'a- - . .
� � � _ � � �O.v„(�OC. /r,� , � ,
� � , � � �� � � � �f
� � � ��, 5�..��.-�-- �3 — /�,�.� �P ����,� ✓ ���,��e,�. ? L�
_�
._._._._�._ .� _.._�'� __C�`��.__---�.����,.
,4����
.___._._.� _ _��_.__._.._.,.....�_.M_ _���� _ ___��.�_..�.�����-���. ..� __
. _ _ ____�...�_ _�
�` �e--_.
� �c � ? ��
�..w.�.�....Y.._..�.��_�._..�..�� ���l� � �:.���.
� . . _
___.��.� _ . .,_��....._...._.�_���....�_.
M..�. ,�s.�:�.�.��..���..._ �_____...
��...,�_._�.�._ �� � . ..______ _ d�/ �'� -�___ __._.__.
b t _______��e... .._ �___���j���
����� _ _� _.�_._ � _ �__._._��_- - —.T..__,_._..�_..___—__��____.._.._..__.____.___ -� -- ---
..�....�.,�______ __ _ _ ,-:�---G1�°-�`___���.r.._
_ .
.
.
:�._.��._�__ �.� --�.___--��-e___._���;,�.�_�.�,u,�..«..��,�..�;�_�_?_,��_____._.���
� .5,��-�-;_..1�, " _ B c�..�- � �_/Qo
,
_ ,
�.��._ ___�w.�� _ � - �.
____ , �_.�______._� _ _ ��.,�___._.,_.__
,.._�. - -- _.�. �'�.�-� .� � �.�� �l
_ _____� . __ ._�... _ �_... . ___.....�....____._,_ --�. .�.______._�____��_._��___.N_._..__
.
___a.�_ __ �_ ._�_ l��._._.1_���t S�!�___.._...r�-�?-�?�._ .._,.�.___. .��_._ � ° --.� 7 ____..�._�..�__,�______ �___
i��
:�����.. � S — _ ______.___�
__ __.._ __�,�� _�o.,._____�_____ ._� _.�_._._...____�.�__y�..,�;���_
����
- .e�.__..
___ ____��.�_...�. --- _ _�..e�_- -- _.__ ___. .._ __. �- __rr�_ - .- ----t. _��_ �___�
IhTE.°.-D�P�RTFIENTAL REVIEW
�' ' r .
P?.OJE ��n�y�.i'��.� C"�-:�`C�. -- C;- ,�,�,,t,,;,�' ��, � �-:.�'I����c ��'-'='"�i
c-r: . � �
D4T� SU�t�ITTED; • DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CCt•���ENTS PIEEDED BY: �
BRIEF OE�C�IP7ION OF THE PROPOSAL:
PUBLIC b;ORKS .
P,evie�.ed by: Date - .
Cc�.��ents: � • .
. ,
- ' FI RE DEPAR7t1EN7
. Revi ewed by: �`� G��� Date �' W'�o-r� �
• Con,�nznts: ' �
. �fj� GJb7% �'�?�.�`tiGS
� ���;,`�°�i G°c�..�✓ r,��j"Sc/t�—� �--Y.sz_._. / .
�s'� .�/�-u ��(.2✓ CtiLR. .�✓pt� /C.r"4 l✓���� .
v�p,sz�r'rz�� c.�/�e%-:ei !e°�`2�3�i/. �a�v t-c% �?
/1�• � / ' �� ���.,� J�-�,�-�;c��Gs�.
� `'
' �`' sn;�,-.,��.«n.� ,...:�,:7'1.,�
u�r��,�c�� /�-��rv�<°,1.'�r� `�°'�-�_ J�
C.--i�.�a � U ,yzy;� �`"'�"r��''f,
���—c...�fl i`vl Gi4.�.�1 l7�s.n/ /%j•�'?���'.
nl? ��:a'��z_. � � /
. ,dri rv�1 L' . . ..
/
� c�'�_"'���� _
POLICE DtPART1�lEN7 � '
Revie���ed by: Date .
Co^�^ents: ��•
� • � . . T.
� � ��•1
. �'�
' � y'.IiI
r • :�
(:,
f; • •
t •
�. . � • .
REC=��7iQ!1 CtP��ci1'cN7 •
Rev i e�red .�y:_ Date .
Co-.«nts: • �
�
I • .
�
l '
�
��� �
.
� ,
, . . .
� <
, .
�"�NI � �� �
l
� � � ���=�-' LG�f�'L'�'*�f'"�!�` �
��
t
�� ���� �
�� �,�i� w � � C� � c°b cv�,�-�z� —rrnz5-� �✓�,�� �Tz ,-� � � �� � J
� � � � �
' I/ /i l�.�- � c' S`;�+-u !��-iea�'a �fZs J���PSS �
.L/cv.�-=�Y "� J'D c�..55 � �v�tVlk /
'� � �
� �� � f� � -�� �� ,� .l � �
� ��� l��'ww �.� � �� G�e� S� a � � ��
��� s
� �
v
�� ���f � 16Upt �� j/�p����n �, ���,v�� �`,✓�eS C�
� � � �b d �
�
�
r � j ` �
-�tv � �� - � `-��n2� Ci.v-�- �at�^�C a;� �Dj`f u"``+'NS �
/ l �,
�
t�t� �� -�� �� -� �
� �
�.
� �� �� �.� �
r� l� J�w-,4,�.�, a �/ P�v� ru,�-,.
� � r
� L
�- �� �b ` ��-�► - .� �
`--i,��ns, ��,. -� �,, � �
�:�,.,���-. � / v�� �.,� ny
�r�� L. o�� � �ru,���uS.e c.�.�� ��,,; � �. � -��Z� �,
2�� � � � �w � c�Y �-
�G� ' �I � �e _ �� �.� � �, . �.
� ;5 IG� �,,��
c��[� (�. � �
��cres.>-e� j6a.�e,� .� ��c lc v� �� .-�� .
/ �"
� t�
��,�. �5 . J ��l� �
�ss��,/� �G��� G�Yw�e � /��//`-��,
�O .. � .. � . .. � . � . : V . . i/
�/J . . .. � .. . . . . � � . .
� � � . � .� � .. . . .. .. .. , , ..
�� �'%fj�ij�'"� �/-�Q�. �,, G�+ � �p l
/' � U.� J',"` � VGc��.� (,��` �f
� � /
''�` � I� ck�,.� .� i!('jw� !.�u--._. L.��p� -��'/� b5 SM�� `-e �
�' d � 9 ,�
�t�� �. � ���� ��ti�, � �.� �i� 5��. ,G/ �
� / �`7 litYrj ' � h
f/ ��a
��'�.-�e �,�' �� S C(a/�U� 5 �' 1��,�.�� �: jl
� ?7�- �v
�w'� �.�- �� -2.�s-i / .
rv�� r C G��.r ���`-('' `)` �� y,��
� � ' � �
�rrc�-1 �✓��� �i'Ix.-�� �� � �� .ao� �� � ;�,�,��-�a 6,� �'
(
n
UTILITY GONFERENCE - DISTRIBUTION LIST
Ron Philiips , K. Don" Thompson
Pete Burnett Colorado Department of Highways
Gary Murrain �P.O. Box 2107
Dick Duran Grand Junction, C0 81502
Mike Mollica "
Stan Berryman Larry Metternick
- � Eagle County Offices
Gary Hall P.O. Box 850
Public Service Eagle, CO 81631
P.O. Box 430
Minturn, CO 81645 Mr. A1 Pierce
• Colorado Department of Highways
Richard Chavez P.O. Box 84g
� Upper Eagle Valley Water �9�� i � 8►�c31
846 Forest Rd.
Vail, CO 81657 Mr. Ted Huskey
�. � Holy Cross Electric
Mr. Fred Haslee ' P•0. Box 972
Upper Eagle Valley Water Avon, CO 81620,
' - 846 Forest Rd.
� Vai1, C0 81657 Mark Guzinski
. _ Heritage Cab1e
J. Mechael Gale P•0. Box 439
US West Communications Avon, CO 81620
5151 Fox Street, Room 107
Denver, CO 80216
Don Gress
US West Communications
169 N. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail, CO 81657
Chuck Raney
'US West Communications
169 N. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail, C0 81657
Ernie Chavez
Vail` Postmaster
' Vail, CO 81658
Ken 'Freeman
US West Communications
P.O. Box 3050
Dillon, C0 80435
t
�
� ���^ s-���� � G��� '-� ��.�-��`.�. ��7
� r",�s .�� ,.�-
�� �
� �7�v'�c��� ��,�� �,r¢,.�t �� Gv�s c�/t cre.�� fv` �� �-
� J � � � ��,
� � ( f .// rr
,�� �� �,1
�-1G� ,.v,,.�.,,,__ �'I,�J ` 4V:Y o � �(�� ✓// L� �` ;��
t � I j� l�S
(
�� � � c�.�- �t
�� � ��� �� � � � ���� ��...(s � � �
`��'cs��` �-��r>���.�..� ��. ' � ° - c'�- � .� I Z` � Li�
� . j �
� � ��. IlJ �t��f.� �l�l..f,`'mw� ' c.e�a. S
�s ��� i ��� �� �� �� �: �:�-� � �� � �
� �`aar�� r
7
�,� � 7 ��,, ��� �o��y�� �
� �� w
[� t.�_c.��.�t-�" „�-�✓�u,�5 `�-} �
—�:ed�cc-� ��, r
� �f���b�� c� �C>
�� ���d t
/�- �� � Z�rt � �jL�.; ��� � �
�/ ''�- a'� �- ��
�`�� �: �r �
� �� r �J���
�I��vJ . .. � f
�. � ��. ��
� � � �
. �� � �� �--�� �� ���z` �.� �s �
� � � _
� � �
�� t�u�i��..., �� �rj,�� �. � � " �
`� �- C�' �nc.� ��, �� v,�e.-�.� �
� ��
`�� I,U�t,��5 Y�L¢�� ..�, � � _
�� � �� ���.-�� � � s��� .���. -��-1 �� ��
r �..�� l . �
D� �1�
d�� .-��� ��.-,.� '� l�v��
� � .��. ��v l �,; ��1 (��� c�� ��
� � ����
�j`�ot a
+ , 5� � �t,v� �;;� �t, '(,�''�+�+-�
�� � ..�- c�,Ls � /
�� 1 �-y0. ��� �y � �J� � � � . . . . ���G� �' J
:-�-""' i 'V�-��'��`4WL!� ��Tt.�C-i.� OI.JL� �i�' �-fT'� o � � ��r!'v�.%�,,..� ' .
c� � � �� r� � _
� � 1�.�--� ��- � ��,� s �o� �:�--i �
�..�G. � J
��.
�. J�
� �Y� �YLC� ��G,�� � 6�,t,�,`�..��� � L��III����,,,���F....G � �� �..
� �v�.. � \
� (
l�-����-��r �,� ������'� �� •
�.. �-- ���� ����� �. ���.� .��- s���1;�r�;�.-.
�
J / �
� � CcN� � �� d �c� ` ���
� ��. �� �l� f�- 2, � �/��-`� � l��R�
�
�
�`� t�'1I c�.�{�,a� CL ��Ic-f ��r����=�� �- ��e�=����.,-� . ��: . o,,.( �e x-���..._
L�L vVV� � V V
c ;��=> S�.. �� ��,,� �- -� �.5^ � slv�� �. ���,� .
` =�=�_ �__i i,� � � ( ���'1 � ��-��� � s�� ���, �����,,�--��
J�"�'�� i�r�� �,,- � � j��� �.� .�, �. �`��I� ��' `t � s�--� �� � 4 cLw�G�I
r
�
UTILITY CONFERENCE - DISTRIBUTION LIST
Ron Philiips K. Don Thompson
Pete :Burnett Colorado Department of 'Highways
Gary Murrain �P.O. Box 2107
Dick Duran Grand Junction, C0 81502
Mike Mollica
Stan Berryman Larry Metternick
- � Eagle County Offices
Gary Hall P.O. Box 850
Public Service Eagle, CO 81631
P.O. Box 430
Minturn, CO 81645 Mr. A1 Pierce
�� Colorado Department of Highways
Richard Chavez P.O. Box �i8 ,
- Upper Eagle Ualley Water �4�� � � $►l03)
. 846 Forest Rd.
Vail, C0 81657 Mr. Ted Huskey
�. • Holy Cross Electric
Mr, Fred Haslee P.O. Box 972
Upper Eagle Valley Water Avon, CO 81620
' - 846 Forest Rd.
� Vail, CO 81657 Mark Guzinski
_ _ Heritage Cable
J. Mechael Gale P.O. Box 439
US West Communications Avon, CO 81620
` 5151 Fox Street, Room 107
Denver, CO 80216
Don Gress
US West Communications
169 N. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail, CO 81657
Chuck Raney
� US West Communications
169 N. Frontage Rd, -W.
Vail, CO $1657
Ernie Chavez
Vail Postmaster
' Vail, CO 81658
Ken Freeman
US West Communications
P.O. Box 3050
Di11on, C0 80435
. fi� � , lm,. .. . .
, .�w.,�.. �.5 � ��� ��.,,���. �.,_�� :�� � �.� a--� �;�v�l
� �
�` ��U�°�� `� `-7 h.�.. G�`� s lc f��s `—�ri.� c��s "�..c�`�..� .-4e
� ` �- �.
� ��
I ,l�. �� / _ .`6r�c.�_, / � SD i"l5 �P �r,{ ;j�- S a c�f�?f "��7-�-- �.S
�iJ t� � � �� v �
o � s�� � l r���,.� ��r�.,..�..�� ���r� �,��r . / �
� � C-v�aJ/G� Q/l°�s_✓'
� �
`"�'�5 ,�'�c�v <C.'l �"/� =f'!! !/L�'J` �� .B.��C � ` fY1X,. C �1
� ��� �Q� ���
(�� ��s-...� �— �d �� .�l„-� �..�Gc ,
� �
__.._._
._M_.��__.� _�_.�_
w��.v.
_w._..
_ _.
� , . � _�_��-.------ �_ _.
�� � � v � �w�� � � ��1� �C l ���l�v.
� ��� j�� ��5 � � J�
r�-�"l+�
� / /�� J
� ��s �,���� tYlc�r�t'— �f'� "'" �v L�' l�� �^'"r�
� � �� � �
���- �� ���� j� -� �_
�
� lC �� ; � ��-,�" (� �
�� �,� � �'� `�:.'� `.�
� � � �
�
f f� � ��,,,,,,. � 1.�� ,..� �l���..� ���. ��:-��-
--�j�,y 1��i./'S �,.ci�-�x-'`
r
��, � l��-�-� � �- ��- � 5�_
��l� � � a�- c
�
� �
___ .
_ . .
` X ✓ ��F� (.t/' '.'!""- �D `...r1�i I�, �� J "'N.-� Y(�G�-'� (.�/ � ���4 1
/� t0`-� . ��
� � . .. ..� . . � � .
�� � �- tir����� �. � 5�,�, � �-�- ��'�'� . �'-��s�.� - �
�� �,�ll G,,eQ� � �.� � ���..,��-- �-�
rQ���a�-�
U�� � u-
c� (� � � ��-- j� � �� � r�-
c ��.�� � ��-G- �� ,,� S � � � '
K
UTILITY CONFERENCE - DiSTRIBUTION LiST
Ron Phil3.ips K. Don Thompson
Pete Burnett � Colorado Department of Highways
Gary Murrain �P.O. Box 2107
Dick 'Duran Grand Junction, CO 81502
Mike Mollica
$tan Berryman Larry Metternick
- � Eagle County Offices
� Gary Hall P.O. Box 850
Public Service Eagle, CO 81631
P.O. Box 430
Minturn, CO 81645 Mr. Al Pierce
� Colorado Department of Highwatys
Richard Chavez P.O. Box 8Ag
' � Upper Eagle Valley Water �Q�� i � $I1p31
846 Forest Rd,
Vail, `CO 81657 Mr. Ted Huskey
�. • Holy Cross Electric
Mr. Fred Haslee �" P.O. Box 972
Upper Eagle Valley Water A�on, C0 81620
- 846 Forest Rd.
Vail, CO 81657 Mark Guzinski
Heritage Cable
J. Mechael Gale P.O. Box 439
US West Communications Avon, CO 81620
5151 Fox Street, Room 107
Denver, CO 80216
Don Gress
US West Communications
169 N. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail, CO 81657
° Chuck Raney
� US West Communications
169 N. Frontage Rd. W.
Vail, CO 81657
Ernie Chavez
Vail Postmaster
� Vail, CO 81658
Ken Freeman
US West Communications
P.O. Box 3050
Dillon, CO 80435
�
� A�e.�. � de..-��2���..� �1 � c1U�.�`�.� ��:�s�.,,.��� r� v���� (v���� -J�.�� J/J�jG,�
.����t ���/l.'� . tN Y �l �=7 wti'G .�j Lc I\C.L�� � /f - � �. : . . . 1
�--�,--" 7�"'� _ �/o
� �
r . n
__-/----~' / r vl a"� " J "r g`�
V
I ! ; ,.
,
�Ck, l CtJ L��: ��c.�-,- 5 c�-F � � ��r5 i/l� C'-�-t�c� �j`G�72�n U � ��
,: � � �
�✓Ti .� � �, / Ca��cc�a- / / ` / /�
If�> �T l�v(�t{r�a�� � i/lGl�i �.� c„!<�.� C9T ��cuv../ �;�
- �-� v��v�.".� " )/� /
V�,Y' '� �j ,. � ' .. � t� � j/�^e:��C/��c�c„r'1-l.Es� � ��'L.-...,-`��
a�..�� 1.�� �J��oc� �����
� � 1 � � �,�,.Q.�s�. . �.�e°
f r ��
C3/��5;�,• a�.- f-or s y
/ � �'� J�� S.`Lr`, �.7'��
�
�v;r/�eni7"j `f�„"C- /�)wi'l !�laLs 5or�..�� �'C>l�(C-C'! vi S c.t,,:-.�1
� �
�d� Ce.i"��5 , a`� c�l�°scr /vt��.`� l
G�� l ��� ��c �° �
� 1 �`"`'"_ �
��� �`�-
�� � .Lw� ��,,/ �����.� w� �s-��..,���- �-�' i;f �-2
G�..,,� �, `�
`� �� 2w� �a-�...k� �,� ��.-�_✓`��
� � /
l
;�e s��, �.Z, �� `l '�Ce. ��.-,,��� � -� .�v�o� ,�� �_
�
�. �
cJ� � ���,�„�.: � � �..�� � ..,�� �- � `e� �G�.e-1��
������ � �ti� ��� ��.�-� _
�LJa 43F1a}-i f=E=1C�"1'LI-1"Y ` f�it�E:S .
P�a f�r �;,.:, • t.: • �- r.,.� . < , . �t ,
l3ivi_ai�_�r�-1.:J .�C.L�. 1l�Yl ���'�i�zi1C_ �t1E��ilc1Y11.Ci_l� I'SC^�4.��..IlY�E?fI1P_Y7�:'_"sy ��
�� ��''. . � � �� � • u •• _ _ ' �� .� . .��� .
cll�lC� �_1].V 7.:1�:�Y1--'�,t'S ,4..iE?C_�:l�tiYl ��dfa l C7 �.l E�C:t 1''1 L i:i l {'{F.?C:��_I J.T�E_'filE�Y"l���t�� Y��;�1'"
Y'(?L�1_l i 1''�?fll E?1"1�:t3 '!'���f" fll k?L�l c.i Y'f].C ri.�. cl i"/f.� �.�E?C:�:P'7.C�.i.�. .L Y'1 s��:c3�. .�c'i� :I.'--'Y�C�4
�'>t«��i l�f��n�E � Wii:l...�ir� 1� ci�ys �:�f' (�1�:��; ic�� tr_.� 'F'r �_,c�k��c�y ���.it:�riix�t �1 1 a.�:>�::
_�, �. _. _
�_�i �.,1..�'I`I�f'i�t_�+��1'"9 �S Ei�ii1"�' ri5i��.iC3YID1G�l^I�:fi� ll"IC1��..lGjlY'�C3 .7�.lf�G?1^:L1"f�:4?1''lC�f?i^I'�; cjl"If:�
E,e_�r^s.�_�r�r���]. �fi: i�t•r E3 �s i�L-�,a 3 i ci�r��L_i i-y i r�ci i v i c���a 7.�s y t h-,f�i r c:l�_��1; i�_.a t:�r�•,cJ
f'k?..t-".�7�:�Y!!�1tJ111�: 1E?si� c9CaCjT'k2aL-'s�?f3 i„lYlCj '�;C3.�L;?�:3f1+:�YlE? ;1'71_ll'17�:.)t?Y'=�;Y '
: . . . _
E-��:�5�: L�i:!�]1��.: 11`I �flE? �=�����:)�C.� fl7E?E?'�lYfl] 1''���:;�1'17S �;f1E' ��.E?.l.C;j ��'�'�' 1.C::f�j c:iY'IC�
��i: E��.�cl�� i;�rnFr:��r��,ar�y i:�lE���l����r�e.
�1"I�iGE'C�1�;�Y��C�'� ( � iY�C�l t ].���Y�S C Tf72 �.Yl�t:ct l l E?Y' ���f E,'c3C;f1 i.�:�+lil}:�i:�i'IE?i"�'�; �'s�l i:1.1 �.
_---- ---_ �,. _.�. ...,_. ....., ,..
i r���eci: '1:hca ta�_�U51:r•a�;c�: �.�r�c� c:,��r�ci i�L i�:�r-��a �.1r�cJ�r��wl�i a.�.t3 W�;;��r�� Z�a
�.7E.:'1'"'7'{lT"'III�'t3. ll��i Y��;�{; �]r�t_i�f?f?C� 1_lYtt ). 1 �.IY15ac:i'� lfa�c'tC'k;�;}Y')/ ���'tl^�C�1'l; 1.i.:�Y1�.: �"tc.�VE'
i3E?E?YI C7t?P'P'C?C;1;L?Cj.
h(��tr�:���<<et�.�t,�r�' s_ l.r��•tr��+_�c°�La�c�r,�e C;{=�r,7ply with rii��r�,�_�t�.�c:•k:�_�rw�:,r,, �,
1 Yi ta�:c.i�. �ci�: .l�:]YI ' .l YI�j;1''�_l C`�:l i i Yf a i,i YI C� f'��c_�.�rn rn�r�c�:�i: i,:,r°�-.s� 1:�=:� ��i i.-� [:�X j;E,�i'11; �:1"}��L
` 't;�iE��� c:iY^E' 711�;:iY'f..' ti�'�:'T'7.Yti��'YI'� �:�lcil'I Y'k?C:f�_l l i'E�f13E�Y1'L"5 l Yl ����Yi'�:T',-3t`�: l.)1.:�C:.`ll7ilf?l i'�:fS.
1��Ksiae�L in�.-�t�r;i��l iuu'�7�c:ii�.al:�l� �,���.��r� d�.livc;.:.y ����cJ ; �:-���aii�� �>>�•�.,_,;:, -G,.:,
_..__�..�. _...__
ir�s#:G�11�:�t :i�::�r�. F��.j��cfi: cl�rnagerl rir�ti c.it.fi�c��L- iv�� i.�L�rii:�a
. . , .
�-�Y'���V1(�� c��'.'�i�C�ll'Il�?1"Il: i�Yl!� L_�il'11`1�.'L�: l��Y•l (:�C�V.1C=C?�i i�Yll� fl7C-.'1:�"1!_�Cj'.� Yl-L�C-G'Sa�:St:aT')/
_,_..__._.,__ __..`.,. ___.__� _._._.__._
�'iiT' EsE�C=�_l'f'lYli� �dC''�l CL}Y'IS�:T'I.IC:'�1L:�Y'i E.'�.E?f17C-'YI'�;. ��E=C,I.IY^2 f?c.�iC_�'1 C_�:�1'I�StT,�_�c_�L- i,_�r"�
e�lern�r,�; i;r��_�� ��;�� lir��a ��r���i l�v�.l. t-i.11t�w f�,r� c�x}��ar��i�.�r� s.�r°�c� I��.�ildir��c�
>'. �ftI�M�V�C')17�Y1'�. ' �� � , � � � � � �
Ul�:i�_lc\.l �'�1'EC��: }°'Y'C:�V1��' �_lYll'���Y"fl'I ,)iilYl� W1C]t;fl�i 1'f� E?}:�:1�i�E:�C� W���i'"'}�.w
r=�r,r��r����.-j�='ir�t-; �;�_� ,��bi�airi 'L-t�� l��ssi: ci'fcc:i:. �h'�1''�,�r c:��_i��_si.i�,r�,��ble
r�t�r�,�i c_�� t��_� z h� ��e..��rs-�>��.*c=��- �f�c�r� cJ e c_i�i t�r-�o
� �, ,:;f
�^��C�'lC?(.'_}<, f�1�i�ti+..lP'�f�1LY��:S c,�i'�Cj 1�1f�1�'Y�S1��1"�5y �]L�'�"�.��1^� S'Lr:IY"�: lY'ii�' 1Y1�:i�:ciljcl�: liii'7„
1 r,afi,��1 1 e}�e h c_,_�rii��_�r��rrL cl�.�r^i r�q we�'t h��r: cc�r�tl i t i���r�� �ir�tl �r���j�c:��L
_._._.._ _.____.,----.- ---
- ' s1:��c�_�:; i:hai: ti�i.11' c_�r�s�_(r�c� 1:i�ica b���; "r��s�-�11:�e Ts�.�:l�1:ca tiaac,l•i p��ri: i=�^�_�rn
l YIC���h1�.7c�� l f?�.B fllcl'�EyT'l cd l c�iS YIE?C:E'�Scl.Y"')/ ��_� (.]Y'f?i/f�l'It C:�E:''�:E?T'l��}1'''c':i1;1 C�Yl4
���:i��l.'C.�11'I��'��� �:�1'11�.7!�!1"^c1Y_�!Ll'IL=1i iS�.Ai'T�'S W1�:�'1 lYl:�i�]-C'('�j; lr°ii"Isy ��il"I(j 'LC"��:'�y 'Ei�
f�llt'ilfll^l :_E? �_�r-�c��_:�v�r'lYl['. C`���fll}71f?tE?C� G'���Y��3�Y'llC�: 3.�=�Y1 f�=iT^ '��'l�i�: �'.}llT'F1ti�'-aE'.
tr1�_��_�r��; i ri� __I i c�i��I�i•t_s: W h e r•�� m�::��_����i: i r�� h ca i�h�L s a r�� r���.��L- i r�ci i�_a t�c:�,
ir��•t�-t'11 c_�:.�rnE�t�ris'rit;s �.�t s�L-ar�d�rcJ hE�i�l-it� f�;:�r th� �.a�rpl ir_�a�L- i�:�r�
ii�c�ic_�i:�ci. (2��f��r c�i_�esi; i�_�r�;�U:ic� dc�c=i�ir�r�� t�°; 1.hc� -+�r=i.=1-7-�-���=�:.
'j u�v�"�`
C:l.e��.ar_�,:ir�c�_..�r�,cJ_._F�'r',:,fi,.�r__ti..t;�r,: L��.�r^ir�c� t,��r'�c1'lir,c� �tr��cl ir�5t�x11c�Li�_�r',a c::'lE_z�r�
c�YiC� F]T'�;ij;E?C:j: C,'.�=�1"IS1.T'�_1C:1; 1+��Y1 ].Y'1 �:]1•'t!C�i''C::i�a t�l"1C� clCj,)�_�,lYill'if.a I'1'li:.ij;t=?Y":Lril:� 1T'1
f�l�:�c�E�. fa�:,p1y �r�r_:��EC_tivEa c_c�v��,i.r�t3 wti�r�� r�q�_�ir-�Fd ���� �r�::,_��•��
�71''��!j;C-?C':j: 1�;:�Y'I 'l'1^i:�ftl Cjc.ifll�ig�? �:'�f' Cjfc'j:C?1''1{iY'c1�: 1���Y'I c�i; .`.�']�_IL]9it��1'I'� .1:i1 �,�:=�f11�]1C?'� 1�::.�i'I,
t��.�'ciY� cll`IC� f11i��i 11"I'�c:i 1 Y"1 G"�:�filf].L fa�E?C.� C_i iYlf"si;1"llC_� 1���Yl cl•a �:!i-'�Ec'Y1 c:i��:
1'iC?CC?`_afa�'::�ii")/ �:fli''i:�l_l�l� i;�lf�' C�=�fISj;Y'L.IC=�: ].{:�Yi �:7C?1"1�:��1:j. ��C�.)�_lfii; i:�l'Ifj
��};�.r��:c.-,.. c�[:l f:l f�n J:t�l F=a'1�:[i71u ij�1 i_�_'���.� �-� :�
�
_._,�.,�; �. .,.u.. _ .,�,�`�.''`� `�..,m«'! u�_..; _.. .,..
,
N,,.,.���, ��S.�,c�.-s�c,:�`... ��,�z �.��,.�,t��c�=.� r.... ���—c,..���-�
7�� �_N�v .� w � .�.�....., �' w � �.�.-��'a_ __w.M . . _....�. ,_.r� . .,___ ..:
y ��y ���' �'�
._.�.,��,.��..,,:�.�,.. ,�b�.�iw"�J;,�..,,,,.,.���������,.,�^.�(,�e�„+—^•.,, ��,.�t�+ ,�,,.,.�, �� ..-...,,.,.,a ,�.,..,,;.„ �
„�,.,
, .,,�.....�.,7,,.,,.,.. ,..,.,�...�.��� , �.���,` � ..,�.",,,��.� .,,�.�`�,.,,,...W.,.� ��:. , ,..,.,.�;,, � �;
� .,_.._„ _.e,-., r�, ..,.,_.,, ,.�. .,,....,,M,m...:..- �....._..-.,; �_�, ,�..�.:, �............._�_: � � ,
w�.,�.�,_��'�,_'�..� . _�.�r�..� t�..,[�a.!s_�a„__..�R._ ..9`��L7.,�.,,,�, m._.,,��J:�-r�����:?- .��.��1�_�./.�_�=-c.r-�...,..���„��._.: ._,,._::.
„��__� ,.�__�:._a �_., ��-n.T�t?.'""''�_��� �,���: ,,, _ � �.,.�._� �
�,�_� �. .a.a� „�. .�.��f,�,,,.�I �3 t��i..t� L?�..�R. , .._ .�.. �__,.,.., .,�r_�:.iti�+..La.a.,�,,,.c.�_:.,°�..,, .,..'�,._�._.���'�.. .,._.� . , „ _��.�a.�.,,�..,._` .. ,.�.
t � ,,. � �� � ��
�.. �..,: ,_m .�... ...... ti. �,��-e���r.� �-�,�� ��_x�.,ti.#,_w.��--� ,.�,.�...�.._c,�-�-_ ��� �_�� .��.�,,. �:
v �_ ��_�_,_. ��.�aa � �
� _ �, 1 . '�� ~��� .m,�....�Y,��✓�.,,�_;:,._., ���� .__.�.�,..,�,.�..� r.�..� "�_,�,,.,� _...,v. ._... �....._
..�.,,�� .�.o�.�:_ � e,.,U����.�,+-_�..�_C,%a -�,..e�..�... � �rv��.�_� ,
��� g /' � � �
_,_..���_ � ,_._�; ._.,_�,_._..t.�'� .rv�.-__w..�._. ._..��r�t�--�` .,,_.r�:.�s.,-�,�,����<3_-�'.,:�_._,.�_,���-,. ,. �_ 1 ��--. !_'���.�.w/__tt�l'-r'�_p_
� �� N,� � � .. ����e�..,
�w �_.... .__ _T _ m..�.--�-;��._. ..��.._.�..��...c,-�...__. �-��� _,����-�__._ . . ._. ,,�'
` � �:�.�..�-�: . __� ..._� .._��... . ._. .
,....��. ._e__,.�_ ��.� - �-�� _...���!_��..��... - �.�,..�. � _..._.�..� � �.�n_ _�... � � _. ,_.
4__... ��..: ��.� w� �.,�w�;.. a-�-�.__.
L �
� � � �. � �� �� �
� ,� ..�- �c��-� .�. a�.�. e�,_.. , ws� �:,. �_ _.�v�em.�,..,� �e�.�P
` ; ,
e w��:��-��a� , e
� {':�l,7..�°�-.�.��,...._�.. �w�-�-' .�.,..��-�-c..�t:`y��.-.��m.�v��___: .,..m��c.-�.,..,._..,_ ..�..�'a..w ,.....c.�-�..2`�_:..._.__ _._�_.,,..
, ._�_,... .�_�.. .� ,...:. � _,._.,.w J � � � !
�,_._..� �.�a�,�_w_n�� .._�.___�.., �,,� _w,�.� �_ ___..__`��-c��v�'�tJ�-t�-- �.�� _�_._�w c:�.��
�',�°.�'� .��. _u.�__� �.,� _.n�- ��.. / ��..
� ���� ___..w� ..�_u..��.w �. __
„� ,,,�_. . _...�.�m w..� _. �w,_,�.������..`�`�,����_ �:,.c}.-�a.�: �. ,_.. .__. _ .µ. ,_C�✓3�7-�...�i.�,_.;� lr.rv_._� ._�_,.�: ...,_.,.
� ,_.�.�_._ � - - �
_._,.., ...,_�..�_. ,� . . __,_� .H��_�"-,cz°_'t-'''.,LL�.� C9 c..�.,_,..w
�..,..4�4� ��`�'--.. _.._._�5�.!+r_s.�.�..�_G4.��..,,. ..,.,._..� m..,_ ,.,......_..
.�w�_..� _,.,..u�� ,.,��_.....�_.t,.�,7��wa//3_�.t.i..�-�i�.�.�..,wjb_��c.�...---..,_, . ._���,_�_.��_w.,._ .�_S_._�..,�,C..�c� �_.__,,,��.,�,.�_. . ,_ .
I � ,
_. �.__..µ__r�_.��.p� �..wF��.r_ _.�.. ..__tm..��.�_�,-,���-->_�.. ,���.-�.,. _.___�� !�� �-,. ��.-���w.._ .__ �.-�,.,___::�._.._._ .
_r�_...�_ _.._.,m�..._�,. .� . _.__.. �-1�.c���.•�,.._M.��.��� ������,,_,��..�m�a-��___.G�'..�..�.-L�..��.�_�e.,�.�_:�-{___.
�"�� �
' � ;
� A_n�� . __�.dw __ ���.�. �_ __� .�v e�� _, _ __ _�°� _ � m .��� _�: .� ��_ �� u� �.
, r �
� �
�_..�._x. t.._._��..._. �_..._�._..r�.��.c_-�.��.���,._�._ ,__ � _� ��_ : �_._� �-�..._.,�-e_�._�.'� .
�'���� �'' . ._�_���v �.n�n���.5_��e_ m�__.� � �
�.
��'�. ��t%�.�... �.
�
�
�
_ _ �
« . �. . � � -��- ��- _ _ ��..� 1��. �.� � � �. �� .,
� � �� �
�� �.,.�..- ' /
�
. . ,., r ,. . ..,. . � ' �� �;.� . �, S�: �.� t 1�r�. � . +��'� b �-a..,..-.����"'
�
� � '
�
} ,
d �
' � � ��,��� � �,-m . � , ��� �.�. . ��.�. -��' �a.e.:,.-�-,��
� ., . ...� . ,_.. �..�����'�� ��, ... � �^-.� °. . �
< � �- ��- � -,:
_. � .,__.,_ .: _._�,.� �-_��. �t.�,� �>.. ' _ �� _.. _���.�?.� �t�<?_�-�±- �. �...-c-?.�� a �-�S .. _.. � c.�.�rr� �,..�..�,,,� � . �.
! t
� ` �Cv.��s �-�.--r � lru.s.�.. .w,., ,C�,,S _ ��
_._.._.'�.. � .._ : __.��. �_ ..�.. ���� � _._ �.�-__ . ___._.. _. _ _� ,_ __ ���'�'-'-`�--� � __.. �
� . � �
_� � . . �.. _ _��� _� ��.���,..�f>�'__�� �p � _ � � ��
_,z��°�—.-., _. ._�.'_. _.__:_..� �o,c�.z�'�`� ..,.._. .
G�-�YS�--.� _ - _ _Z�.?�.�..: 's'�._ .� ._ . ... .. �p�s..J. . ��� . .. ..... . .... .
� �:
�.. �.
'.. ...... . :. ... ..�,. . ��:. . �£.?1.��. .'`..�.�G� �.,,. .,..,.L .� �,r.���,�r,�- �., _. ..... .. ;.. ,. �,-�G!✓i_ .,.. ..Lc,.,3 c'3��
.. �.: ,,� �. � �: s
_,, , .,,,. „_ ,. ,�,��, . �. , ;_�J L...' � ._ ,�w w ,,. ��,,- , ,:�+�C +c.,�_ M����/(..� ;.. , ,
���.�.., c
�� ,._.... _. w �_.�_,.�.�._.. � ��-= �. � , ��.�i.�,°�'�... �.__ � �� fst.�� � � ��?�. �_°�,
��,-. ._.erv._ �._.�. ..., .. �� .,��., �����, __ , 4 .
� �� � �� � �� � � � � ��� ,
� , �
�_ _ _ r .� _ � .
J — �
y
, ....,>,: ..,.,,,__..,_,. �...�,,...,..�,�,,.,..,_..Y',.'"-�-->ti'`�I�,�.,..L—.C�_G,'�r_y}!„�i7�!�...J, ,..:�Z?'�!�.. �..,,��., „.±..,'S`"�- �:_ ..,,,�.��,.�-�'„�..�,:.�""",.�.. .�.. ,,, .... . :
.. � . . .� .. ,..
�....: . .__,..��..,_.�_�c7..ti.--.-- _.��-�.�:, ,!.�5,..�e......_.,_ _.,;�� �z�--�,,.,.....�- ...�'',.,�,.-u.=�...�._j .;��it�z�� S__
,. . _._..�.,.� :;r`" S f -e� . �� �'� _� _, _.c.�i... .,_/.�-�U'-+� ... :._ c ..�� , , ..
�.��%�-'.. „ ....
� � �
: �;-�- � �s ��.-��? __ _�, _ �l�.a..3.. ��. � ��.. �- ��`�-�..� .
. �
.
�,�� � �_.�.�l��'�_ �_�:.�..:r_ �-�-�.-_ ��...�.._.�,..-., .� �.�. .
_ �r`.�'
� �. _ � __ ,_��_ �_;,f.���, � �� ���� �� _ __���_�_�� � ��.�,,,�:��� �- ��.�. ___ . _.
1 �} .
.���_ .
,��1..'C.r�. �.'�.�.�w.�,!.__. �_...,_, . ��..L— w�L(.u--"S_..: ,`"�.�i„� _._�� ._,��'c..;�.,�j;'^+,,,}... ,..,.� .:, �._ ..:
.,.;., ._. „-_ .._...�.: . _ . .._ .. �
�, �.. .�.... � ; 4--°'' .
._ . �� .. � , ; �..., . ,.
_ _ �_ �_ . _ � . ��� , ��_ �_: �� � �.�.:�_. . �� _���,s �.�..�%�t. _ � �_.�.,. _ .
��_�.�`� � l� ,,,� z,�!#..��-x� . _�_�__�,��.._.... _ �_ t`�_ _ .. .
� �� _�
� ___...C�-�� ��� .
_.��.� _ _ �.-_ _ ��;,��.�..�n�..-�. � �;�.�. �,��.�- �z..�. ���,����..�� :
��_ � � � �����-��.- . ��� . �
�
�� .� _����,,�� � � �
_ � �� � � � �-- �_� ��.�.�. ..._.��.ti. ���� . ��. � _ ���,�, � �� �.
. f /� f
� � .
,: .. __,.„ :.. . ,. i'.�..�I.:L,� , .,�.._.:l,.��'��-t� Cd.....����,,., �t7,�. .�.3,`a �-S..< r . ��' 1i''.�
� �- ��..�.. f ��p� � � �
�� _ _ ��.�:,;/ �..� �-�-����--� �,�a...� � ��
� —
, . . .
_ . ��.�..�.� � ��..�-�.,�..��._ �" _ �~�_ 1J �.����,... P �`�.. _
�
-`�✓ >
t�
..,.�; ���,.�: ���,A���._"_��__��. '_, �.�,.��� _ c,�'�°�-.�..��.�n � .�_w�_�.�, .� C�.,:_ � �. � �.,�.�_�„�....�..�..e . ��--r-�.._. u
�� �
r.�..�� �.:. . .� r����y �..� �,.� —��,.� w��r m� ,_n._�^.;�.�.�,. . . ti �_� .� ��.!���.�
� �:..:.,� �.,�w ..(,�-�-�_,_.�._,�...�� ._.��-�..,e�..�,.w.,,._.���'�-: �, _ �.W,e �.�°�.�f'�� �..� �..,�t��,m
� � � �
�u,,.�.,�_�. ����� .,.,.�.���-��� ,._�M ..����.� �d�l� „Gi,�c.�i...�.�__�,�..�..��et�.r.t,��.����c��.-�°--r � .�`��_�f����-��zr..�
�. _,._.�._.._ ��
/
-.
� ..,., ... muw ..�,�.}� _�.��.w��..��_._�_� _ _ _����� s��,�o����.:����w�;�. _ :.��..�>�-���� ,�.. ;� _��r�..� .
�...� ..� . ..,�M W,_.nW�:. �.._w,_ :��. � _ v.... .�. ._ ��.�v.rv� ..�. ��.w��_�.�-.��� .,_�._,�;�r�,�-� �___ �_.�-:.:/�.��� �.�_ . �._. r...... .
�� �
. ..� � .�� .N �..� m�;� �'�. . .����..- __��-�s�-��.. _..��?��..�:- .�,2 _ . �. __.
� ^
� , �...�,, _���,. ��'�:� ���. _�.,,,� rt , W,�.�� x
� �� .� � � w._ _
a� �_ � �J��.�1�_ �__, o- _.�_., .__
, �..�.,�„i.m��-��' , ,_a�t.:,���'�zz �!!�..� _.
_^�, �,�,_
�__..��. rv�.._,.� n,�.._� �M_�'�.._��'r�.._S..�.._S �...��,��.w�_. �.��_.�.�-,� �..�t.,G�.� .
��� ��.m ,_� �.,..�� ��� � . . , __. _. � m..,:���:�
���m.�,,4
� /
.rww.. . .._,� .�d�,��v...�;;..�2..a .�,�_a��,�•A,i_��c��.._ . � _ �;�r,.���`��.c- .�:��._�L_�....� ._.�!��l <
, ��,.�._.�� ��� � �a�_ e�.w
.�... _,�_�� �Mw�:, .._.�..�-�.:�,m :�,:�1.,�:�..�..,�,,,�_..�� �:�.w.�.�_.� -,�_. _
pa ,
� )y �_�. � �m... � ���...��.�.��� _m _,. �, _e....��:�
... . .. �. ..: J R �� � /) (p) ..
.. ._.,,.,.� .,..»,..,:.,.� .,.._.....�+.,..,-..�.. ..,..�jF-�- .,,.....^Yric.�,.r��,-/%S/..,R('�!L�IL.erC...�.Y.,�..... .«��...,�.:.�!i�f.—,?r�.,_�._...._��.I._,.�:....-.�Y. ,.:,....(�..;,i',�+e. .... �/��_ .. ..
.. . . . � . . ,f.;,.�v,......�'�!'�:.1�G'�.-+�.,_������+��,_ ...
.,.,_ _,,,.,,...->.,,.,>�_..... ...........w..,.t.,...».-.. .:.e..�,., ,i."i� ,.,..,:.,.��.�'z„.C's'��,.,n, '�..,,.,,.,�-..s�..,,�.._,,.._.,,..�„�.,1.,,.f-.,,3..,:�.,..,_ie',.kG<.i,.y�'n+R:;.. �} L� _.,-... ,..,
.:..,._, „! `.�,_.,.:..,.,-�_�--^�—_,.. .,,.. _..;....-_... .„ �.�:.,� .,_.....,: . ..
,.......•. .:. ...........: .„_�....—, ,......_.._._...___��""`!I".✓��...�C..*;A.,...�.<. .v�,_„_.,.,.�».-. ..Lr",5,..,...,,._,�;4f---J''S"+='^+r;S-",'.���!�.:;,,.�,,.,._�l.L./�-,�_,......._�,-�._�'tr"?.-.,,.._.,�,...., ..__...
.. ,., . . .. � �: .. �. .
.�-„n.,,..e:�, ._,.,__._..,..-, P,,...»...,w ., ' � ..a...... .. ___ _.._� .' � � ._
t�,-�,�_,.�.�w.�_' �� _ _ , �e�.- m �_N � �. ... _ _ _ �'�.� �,._�m_ .,_�.
�l.� _ ��r,�,��,� i_ ���._w_. c�.
�� — ����� � � �
_�_na�� r�..�e �.���� �_,�w���w.�.��.��.�..-�.v�,� ..�- � � � �. _, __ � � - -
���: �._n��_.��_.� �n� �_._�� �,..�_ _.
w�_._:;. ,__�,���.,.�..�.�`�,___.,_�!(�,.V�-���_Z_1:J�%�.. __��.., _ �?s"�'�jjt3: (w___.w �l_�e.%�,_._m.._.�.�?..�;---��..� :_
�J � � J _�.�_ �...__�._
,�f��.v ���..�_„L',�,_�����,_ t�G l?✓' _�.�t��i-:I�l,��ti1 t.�Z�.Gt/i...._ .
,_�V �
^ �
__-��; � .�n. � e,� .�.N: _,.w_�.��G" � _��':;.1�af��_ ., ��r�.a �
� ���.r,.w� _���'t/�.:__.��_.1��1.6_td��__..v�..i�_i.��.._,,w�-C'......,w ... ._.�. ..._,_.�.
' '� � �
..��_.W .._ �:. __._�_: _��_�����.�� �.-�'_h___ _��,�����-�.._����_� ._ � _�,_.�_�Y_��-_, _ _ _�_�, ._�_��� _ _r ._�nn__ __.�w..__.�_.
. / ��� . �'� �
__...�,. m ._._...w�v���..� .�,,.__ ..._�__��,,..,.t..�J 1___�..���_�'.�.+��_m,.___.����u,v� ��_��_ _�.� .�-�... , �,�...�Z7 ��,.._.
,
,�� � _�.�. � .e._.�_.��.�ro-�t,���!�:Z�'.��.�.,�_..__s�:�°�.'��;f���.�..�'.� .._�j��_�_� _ __: ��,�..�.� ..��n,,.� .�._� .__..� __
1 L�°�° ��
7 -
,_
_ .. ,,._.�'�--a ��- .., '�'�.,,��. t<���.� ��� ,:. . .,. .G- .. �"��-�.',_.<,a,�'c!'"�.� '
,
_... __,.,����- j�.. �,. . . ...., _ . ,�>, r�,.`���,�;�r �}_ '�.-� �L. �, . ,�,�.,.. _ ,4„�,.C.�.,.
��-� ,< � ._ � . ��` � -
��
_ .. .._: ..__... w c��._. .,.�:�. .__, �.�„�.� ._......c.�. f��.- c..�,.,��.�,.. � ..,.. . �... ,µ .:
/,, � s
_ =_tF�.--
�._�,/�-�,..-�_ _ .�.-�^�,._c;::�.�a�_... .��-!�..,�,c.�.�y,.:.,t ... , , _._.,., .,.,....;�!� �,�-:Z.�3:°� . .._. .
�
µ_ . ...:._c.-��... . _..�. : ....._. �;�,.-;...�. ... .�;.;�.�-�:,c,,.�� c��.�.�..r..�z,--�.-e:.,. . .._. ���. .��--. . ��
� ��
.
�_ .: __.._. � � ���-�?n.�_... ���.� �.�"�.+..o- _r���._ ., '_ T �� �.:�r� �G_'_.S.-e.�._����C�z��'��_,:.�,�.
__����_.. � � � w_ �
� �
,. � _ _, M
__ ;.. ;,_ .._���_�..—� ,., ,.�--�: . �--�.�_, _.�_'�-�.c2c,�.J..__ �,. .� ... .. _, ..�_ ..��'..t�`-<�--- �..�-�-_..' .
� ' �
--�.'^:� ,�l .S � �
�.� _w _.._:_ .w_,., ._ . .... ... . . ...... �_ �e�,� . .d ��
r _
� ,_.
�.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONN�EhTAL COMMISSION
May 14, 1990
11:00 A site visit to Spraddle Creek: The PEC work session
will be on June 4th. Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40
acre parcel located north and east of the Main Uail :
I-70 interchange and east of the Spraddle Creek livery.
Applicantr George Gillett, Jr.
2s 00 Site Vis`its
2 : 30 PEC review of a 1041 request which has been scheduled
before the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners.
The request is for a major extension o£ an existing
domestic water system. A 16" pipeline from Vail to
Eagle-Vai1, through Dowd Junction.
Applicant: Vail Valley Consolidated Water District.
3:00 Public Hearing
SITE VISITS
1. Approval of minutes from April 9, 1990 and
April 23, 199fl meetings.
1 2 . A request for a conditional use permit to
`��: allow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lot 11B,
�� • Matterhorn Village Subdivision.
� Applicant: William Clem
- 3. A request for a final plat for a major
subdivision for SDD No. 22 , a resubdivision
of Lots 1-19, Block 2, Lionsridge Filing No.
3.
Applicant: Pat Dauphinais, Dauphinais-
Moseley Construction.
- 4. A request for a final plat for a major
subdivision for SDD No. 16, on a portion of
Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing
No. 2 (The Valley - Phase III)
Applicant: Brad and Susan Tjossem .
3 5. A request for a site coverage variance for an
addition on Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Village 1st
Filing.
Applicant: H. Ross Perot
��
�
�
TABLED 6. A reques� to apply High 'Density Multi-Family
until 6/1 zoning to the irlarriott Mark Resort and for a
�-�� ���, major amendment to Special Development
� ��� � � District No. 7 (Marriott Mark) in order to
�^� add 56 timeshare units and 8 employee housing
units.
! Applicant: Marriott -Corporation.
, ����,�
� '�. Discussion and appointment of PEC members to
' the Zoning Code Revision `Task' Force.
� �
8. Appointment of a PEC member 'to act as a DRB
alternate.
9. I�eminder of Discussion with Council on
Fireplace Ordinance Amendment, Tuesday
Worksession, May 14th.
`2 10. Review and discussion of potential open space
purchases in the West Vail area.
��- ;�
�f�����-��:x...�—=
� L�����--=
� �� ��.�� ����', ,
.� ��;9�?1 -- .l�t�.U�����
� ���-���� �-)-
� (1����3
: ��, �
� J ��'
.
. �� �
�� �1 � ����
� ,�� -�, �
�� �s . r��e ���.� ._ , � e � _ � �. �
� , � _ a � a� L �� � , �-
� ra �
� v _ .. .��-.C�.:�.. � � . , �►.� � � �?,���a�_ �1��
��. �c�. �� �...S�d .�,�.,.
w. _���� � ��. ..
���_.�.... 5-�--���. � �..- ��5�� �m �.....-
. . �,�.x �.N C��- �.� �� ,ll �
� � ��, l� . �,
: _, ...... � �.,.
� ...�_.:.�..�.. _� ,�..,��. �����.. .�.�. !.��-L�,,� ,�. �., v���S .,. (�/�....�� �����!..?,�,. ,:.� .�.�� , '�?��. ,�..:. �.�.� . �.�� .. .
� � �
' �� �
�. .�f. . ,..„.; „�,....:_... �_�,,... . :. �,�.���....., �.,,:�
, ,
,� ..
.. .
� � _ _.0 � ���.�. ,-� .��1'� ��. . -� �t --� �, t � � �� ���
� � � �
� l ` � .
��� � _ A �� v ��z�. �� , �. � �-��� �� a� �-� ���� . __� _
_
� �
� � � : . �� � .� �� � �� _ ��� �� _ � -�-��-�._- _
,
�� __ � � � � ��� _ �� � . x, . �
�b � _ � a � . _
�
.�� � .��' � -� _ �. -��., ���
� � e F
.�� ��:-�.�
�� � � � _ . , . . .
. � � �� ,�.
1_ ,
�C�Q � �� �� -� -��-�� ._ � .
--�'�-- � :�
� « . a = ._ � x _ � � � _ � � _
_ .
� . w ������,�w ��.,.� �., ��� �_ �, � _ .
, , ;� � � � . _ . ��
� . �
.
. � l
, , , � . , , � ���.��+;��t��. . ��M., .Gt.C,��.�0 � �'!-�W .�1 _. ..� �'��, ,
� ���-' , �'� ,
. � r
s ��. _ _ 4� �;�—�j.: ��ti►��:�cN"� �U�.�. u�S�� � , �
� �x �
_ � _
_ _ .
_ . �. = ��lv�l , � .����-� �`' �� {��°1V�iCRt� .(,1Y�i,���C,..:,
� � � i �
��t?�= 'I� . ���.�tYv��--�_ V� �i� G�...Q.�
� � � � � � � . ,
. . �
: - ���� �...�� D � -�
�` . � �
, ` �����a.�.,2._
n ��� . -� � . .
� - 1�� • ;�.,��� �� . �jti�� �
� . . .
_
�
_ �- . �
.
, `
, . 2
� �.
��_, �� t�� �� � �� � ��, ���� � F.
. � �� ,� ; ..�w._ ���_ .a. �.� �
_. ��� vo :����, �_ �ro� �� �r: _
�
�. �y���'�l�.�t, � ;�� C��'�`('�'!��
� . _ _. ��f N.,� ��. .. � � , � � N
` � i �`c� �.t.�.. �"' �'��,..�
x;��� ✓ c,�.�.�-. . ��� . __�1�, �.�� �
,� y � _ :� _ . .
�v .r� . � � �1►���� ��,� ��� ��� . ��.• �ul��� ���..�
� rv 1 : � � �►��� . -� ��. ��� : .
; _ . . � ���, � . .. . �1� .�. ��...,��,�= ���� -
��� � . ��
_ � .WYw w � _�a��s ��� :�-�..�. �a�
�
� r� � �m� ��� �� � �
Y
_ � _,. „
. ..,... >. ,..,. „ ..,
_ . . .n. � �r ��,�!,n, _ s��1 ; � � ����- (,�a��' �a��� ': _
. . , ,
� x, ����.. �� �c���SM �,r�t `� . QV�r�r��.�c�� .
. -�� � � �
.
l .g_ � ���� . � �
� . �
. _� �_ �
a .
�
1�,� l�
F ,.
a���..
, ,.. i .. _ ....
, .�� � �u _ ,. _ _ t ��-1 a �o��--�—�., r ��: �. �'��
: . ,t. ���.�.. . . _ .. _ .
� e �. ��..w.__ �a. � �� _ _ _ ri _ � _.�. .._ �
�` � ,� �
�
�_d . . �, �. r.�� ��, � b�-�,�o �:�,. � � � ' �.N�
T, ,, , ., . ,. . . , . _
: �
�
���'��'� ;� ���V��'a�����'������ _
'
k � � ..� � 4 a w .� e� ��!�� �(� � l� ,w ���. ����� . . _ ��_ � �
� � _ � _ � �
. � �� y R �11� �
�
� _ � _n �3�,� ,_� � � � . a��k � � � -�
_ �_
u--�� ��. �. �
� �� � � ��
u .� � � � � � �
y �� ��-� �� - ��:�� ���!� � � � v�e.-�c�..�
. . �
� � ; � �
,
' �
. �
� �������
_ .a���,� -� �,��.���,�.. �'��.�.�,�. n .
�.
� �
_.
�_�����.j. ��.��,�r�. .k�.�? �.�� :
. � � �� . ��� l� ���
�.�d � �.w.�P� . � ��_.. ��� _ �..-- .�. .� � --��
,
� � ��- �:. .� � �
�. ,.; F�.� ��. � �
�� m �e . w��w_ _W ����
,
�.r.� .�� �4. �� � � � ti_�� m��� � �z. � �
. �_ ��� � � . � � _ � � � .
� �� � �� � r�-�. ,� ����� �
�� .� �� �. e� .� �.. �_,.t�. a��.�� ���� �� � �U u�=. F�� �. ;�..����� 11�,g ��.�?��� � w,.
a- �� u��. � �
��� _ � �� _ __��� _ � � �. .� -��� � � �� . � ,
.�. .
�
.
:� ����..� t �.� _ _�.�,.��.�� �� �� � ���±�.�.� �� � � ��
�
m �� �. ��� w _ m� �a � _ � � � � � e �
c� a_��±� � �� r �� ���'
� �
�� �
�. � � � � �b.� � �� � � . � � ��� a � � � �_. r � _ � _ �_ . _ , _ . �
,
u � u ��� � �� � �
� � � � �
� �� e � � �.�_ � _ ��� e
. y _ , �� ?1��..��'� �?�1.�- �`�� .�i� �c�'1------J.
� �
� u ��v v � .
. _ o . �.
�
� + ti� � �. ��C�.. ���
�"�� •
r . .,x, . � �
� � ,�, � �
` : �'�� � ��►� . � �
�� � � �. � � � ,
_ w .
� � � �_ —� � � w � ,�
�
� .�. �� _ , . . � e ��
.
��. � ��--_ :
� � ��. � _. , � � _ .
� �
� .
� _. � � � � �?�, � .o�,� �- c��� - � _ �,5��, �.
?.� � c� s � ��.-�� �
�� ,
_ � _ �r a� �� � . . � _ �
� . . . .� ,
_ , � �_ �!�.;� -�, .�,�� ���� r � r� ��-��- � ��� � �_ ��
_
, —
^
. � � . .,�� � � �;� � �� ��� ���-� : m� e �. � . ��
s�
. .
. _ � .
� ��u�u�a.-- 1�-�� � -�.�� � �c,��- .
�
. , � .. � � � �� �
.
��� � � .�� ,15. _ ���:C., ��'�,Q,� �?��� � UJI�� ��J�Q�� �.U�'�� �
� � �� � . , � � . �
� .
ra�l- �,� �,� . w��l� ��,�, .� . ��- � �'i��.-- �
_ . . � . �� � �-- � � �� �
' . �l'
� � � �
_ _ � ' ."" ��� � ���.-� �� .������� ��---- ���� ���.�....._. ,
a �'
:. �
. �
� �� :
.
���� -- ��r�-� � r � �'.�..� �-� ���, � � �a��.
e �
� ,� �' �
� � �o- �.o � � � _ _ �� f� ��. � ��
� �1��,�.1 . ��.. � � �.�1.
����� ����� � �
�
. _ � . �� Y
-- � - C�u����?�!���- �:�.. Ca��
� � ��,1 ..� vr ��-�'�
r _ � � � � � � _� � �
��� �� � . � ��� ,��� � � ��� ,
: ��
����� �?�� �� �� � �u��� �:
e . � �r � '��� ��
� e� �
�
. �
_ .� � �� � � ��.��_ ��� �� ��� - �� u��� �� ���� � ��
�� � ._ �
� � �� � � ��� � �� � c���. �� � � � �� � _ r n �
�
_ � � � . .
� . . ,
: ��� . .; �.��- �. �.1�� �� �������.� ������� �
�, .. �
�: � .n ��_� � � � F� �� �� � � � : w
�w� . �� _., : _ � _ , .
F �. � �
� �
�_... �.. ,,..�, �.._ ,v ,. ,.� .i.��� _ „ . � ��
�� � ,.� ,... _. � �. _ . .
�... � �., � .., .
:
, .,. : � ..
� � .,.. , ' -�U,(�a���� _ V`�J�._..�S�J,(�'���. ���~� . �U11�t C�l����
r _ � � ��� � _,. � e�. � , �., ... . �._ . m _. � . �. � , � a
� Y_
_� ,�:r. . m � �' s� r � � `� .
. _� � �
_
� -
��. � � � �
_.� � � ����� � v� � � _ �
_
- ������ , -�— �z�... l�� .��.
.._� �. r�.� , . w� ��e .� u _ � .
� c..� �, � __ . � '�
__ .� � �. � �.--�� �. � : �� � . � � . � :
�
o �
. .�� � u _ � a _ � �
� . �� _ _
. � ��� � �._ ��. � ����,
m � � ��.�--�- �� ,
�
d .�
� _ �
� _ � d �} z ! .� r � �.� � � ��c � _ � _
v �
�a �
,
__ n � ����� � �� _
� .� ._ _ � . � .�
��; �
�
..,.
��tt�,�..._ , ��� ��� Y��1�,�1�, ��� ��
.,� �� _ r a _�, ���.� . . ,_,� ,�w.. �, �..r ��,�.
, �. .� �,Q-,� � � �
� � �� � �
� . � ��. � _ � w . t ._. : _ . �l� .:� � �_'-�. � � �o� . � ��!���..��._��v Y
��� � � � . �
�� . � � � � �� � �
� �. �� i.� ���
� . . � _FO � .�� q.�_� � ,� ��F �ti o� . �� � � �
� _ � � � � � ��� m � .� ��?�,.�.��� _ _ � � .��. �� �
: w . .. _ n �.� ��� _ � � �. -���
� � y _
�
�� �� �. � �w : . � ...���� ��.� � � ���
�� _ _�� ��.�. '
ti .
���- ����. _ ��::
� ���� � . _
�� �� �� .�_ __ � ��� � �� ���a �� � iu��:�...��v . � � �� _, _�� �
.
� -���.,, '�.,
1 ;
TO: Planning & Environmental Commission , �� ,
FROM: Community Development Department �•
DATE: June 4, 1994
SUBJECT: '- Woodburning Ordinance Research
The topic of the air quality research has been raised several
times, both at Council and at Planning Commission meeting. At
this time I would like to give you the list of ;questions which
are being researched by staff for �arious communities throughout
the country. The research is presently ongoing and is` producing
a wealth of information from the various communities.
The questions being asked of the communities contacted are as
follows:
1) Name of communityJcity contacted
2) Name of contact person, position and phone number
3) Request copies of all pertinent legislation which is
currently in place.
4) Are any additional control measures proposed for the future?
5) Does the legislation address existing woodburning units as
well as those relating to new construction or is new
construction the only area affected?
5) What was the basis for implementing the control measures?
Level of study or testing which was completed prior to any
development or implementation of control measures?
7) Were decisions based on empirical data, visual effects or a
combination of both?
8) If based on empirical data, did the data indicate violations
of state or federal air quality standards?
9) What was the public response to the control measures
enacted? Well received, violently opposed?
14) Do you have any type of registration or inventory program
whereby you have an accurate count of the numbers of wood-
burning units? Are they broken down by type so that you
have a count of fireplaces, woodstoves, inserts, gas logs,
gas appliances, etc.? If so, how was this accomplished?
11) Did you offer or do you offer any incentives - rebates, tax
breaks, etc. - to encourage individuals to convert old wood-
stoves to state certified units, fireplaces to gas logs,
etc.? If so, what was the funding source for that program
if it was financially based?
12) What is your current air quality status? Are you in compli-
ance with state and federal air quality standards?
13) Do you have any mandatory or voluntary no burn days? If so,
how is the enforcement of these carried out?
14) Do you have extensive monitoring equipment used for
predicting high pollutionJpoor air quality days?
15) 'Any additional information, comments or observations?
The ;list of communities to contact continues to grow as i talk
to different places. ` They are recommending other communities to
=contact based on their own research and experience.
Tentatively the schedule for presentation of this research is as
follows:
June 4th - Presentation of list of questians for research
June 25th - Provide PEC members with copies of pertinent
'research information
` July 9th - Discussion of research findings at .work session
July 23rd - Present amendment` to Fireplace Ordinance
Later schedules to be determined based on the input from
research and PEC requirements. '`
�, � � � � � � ��
�
� � � � �
� ; � � �� �
. �., ,..
�, ,. ,., ,
� ,�'�� � ' �_�v � �� ��—_'��--. , ��� '�,Q. � �`V� � �. � ._� :
� `�
. �. �:�� � _. _� ����!�����« a� _ ����._�_ a � .
�� _ .� � � � � ;� � ro _
� � ��� . � �
� � .� , �.
,._ ,,,. �, �����,�,� -- ����, ��I�j,��_!�
_
, ..
rr� ��� . u.. M �IIJIIV� �.� r� m � � � .ti ,
� � H � �� . . _�5���. . � �: � _ _���� � �.
� _.
� ., �,� .�
�� �� � � ���.� � ��� �, �.� �.
� . � � e � w � y � � �
�.� ���.
,
� �� -�,; �� �;
. . � �� � a . �
� � _ � _ �� � � �� � �
� r . � .
���, � .���. -� ���. � �� ������'
� .
r � ���_ ���..���__.�. � ' � . � � �
3 �. ���
� �
. � . �� �r �e ��� � � �
� � w_ � �
ae �
c � �
�� . . r � � r.. N . � � � u �e � rz
�w
� _� _� r
. ��oa!a.� ��..�?.� :�_ �s-�c��--�� t,��u!�. _. � .��� � �. . :
� . ,� _ �� .�� �. ���� ���.-_-��--� � �� � � ._ �� �
��--�
e . a � � _ ,_mA m _ .
, �� � �
�
,
� � ���� w ��.s�w � �o+�� ��--�� ���. � �
�
� ���
�' . �
�����_��� �� � ��_ -.� � �.� � � .� _��
� � � �_9 � �
� � � � � � ,� � �� ti� � � . , e�.
��
. . .
�.��:����.��-�D �� �-��- � ���.-� -� �a�r
- ��
�
..�_ .�
" TOc Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Town of Vail Departments
DATE: June 4, 199U
RE; A work session for a major subdivision, a request for a
variance to the maximum h�eight for retaining walls, and
a request for a variance to the max�mum p+ercen� grade
for a road, on a parcel' commonly referred to as '
Sparaddle Cr�ek, an apgroximate 40 acre parcel located
� north and east `of the Main Vail <I-7U interchange and
east of th+e Spraddle Creek livery.
APPlicant: George Gillett Jr.
I. INTRODUCTION
The applicant Mr. George Gillett, Jr. is requesting a major
subdivision, varianes to the maximum ;percent grade for a
; road, and a �ariance to the maximum height for a retaining
wall for a 40 aere parc�l commonly referred to as Spraddle
Creek. The' prQperty is zoned hillside residential.
Fourteen lflts are propc�sed. Each l.ot wil'1 be allowed one
single-family unit as well as one care-taker unit with a
maximum floor area of 1200 sq. ft.
A 22 foot wide road having a maximum grade of 11.9� is
proposed. The subdivision regulations al'1ow `for a maximum
gra�le of 8$.
In addition, the applicant is proposing retaining walls that
have a maximum height of 26 feet. The Town of Vai1 Zoning
Code allows for a maximum height of ,6 feet for all walls.
II: S'tJI�IMARY OF TOWN OF VAIL DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The purpose of the work session is to pro�ide the Planning
and Environmental Commission with a staff overview of the
proposal and related issues as well as to give the applicant
the opportunity to hear preliminary staff and PEC comments
on ,the project, Below is a summary of the Town of Vail and
> Departinent issues related to the,proposal.
1 .
� �
��.�, �.____..,_._.�._._..�T_-..�.,m,e....,......�
� �
A. Road Grade and Retaining Wall Height
The applicant needs tc� look at reducinq the roadway
grades' to 8�. There are som� opportunities to pick-up
the grade i:n the following ways;
1.'' By maintaining a 4� grade on Gillett R�ad from the
Frontage road for 50 feet and then transitioning
to an 8� grade the steepness of this portion of
the road will bs decreased, Drainage on this part
of the road and the Frontage road can be handled
with a cross-pan gutter sys�em and inlet,
2. At the cui de sac at the very top of th+e
subdivision, the grade' should go to 8� to pick-up
some fall `which wiil ciecrease grades further on
�c►wn the road,
3. The third way 'of picking up the grade will be to
lengthen the roadway wh+ere ever possibie. This
can be accomplished at` the stable through some of
the S-curves and before the turn at the east
property line.` It is possible- for the road-way to
extend onto Forest Service property to the east.
The permitting process< is similar to the process
for the roadway on the west side of the property.
The Town staff did a conceptual design and was
able to decrease the grades to '8�. However,
additional work should be done to refine this >
design and insure the assumptions are correct.
, Retaining ;wall heights increased in some areas to '
a maximum height of 36 feet. This height does
take into account 8 ;feet terraces 'for I2 feet`
height intervals. The proposed variances is for a
height of 26 feet. However, this does not take
into account the terraces. If :a 10' ft. terrace is '
required for every 12� ft. of wall height and the
wall intercepts a 2:i slope then the applicants
wall height will be approximately 31 feet. This
results in a five foot difference in wall height
between the staff analysis and proposal.
�
�
r
�
�
� �i ' }
. . ' . . . � . ,�
�
. � . � . .. . � . . . ti�
:f
�� � . ... . .. .. .. .. ... .. .. . .. . . .. .... �. - . . . .. � `�
a>..
� � � ��°�
� ���
e�ain�ng walls need �� � � ''�-° a �
�, ��" � � ":.F � Y �,yj�,����;�� ����s�'"�c1�w v.��cr_,verify that
� � � � �.. � �,. �.
�� � � the propos�r"`�'�wall sys�em can handle; th�' required
� � ��� wall heights in a manner that is sensiti.ve to the
���.
'�, , Q� ��� site. The design work ne+eds tc� identi.fy the
`�����" �� slopes above the wall, surcharging areas,
' � construction areas, sr�il conditions, terracing and,
� �° ����� 7;�or s�af f" to �ete�n�ne ��, ,,�ther��� a f�11 �� � �
�� � � � � , �� ,-� ,�r�� '�
,'� � % ��° -�������+���������'�������� � .� , The focus
ti..�. �.d��,��r �� ��,�a.��� . �,. �. .
%n = shauld be 'to try t� �ay oui �he roadway for
°� minimal impacts on wall h�ight while maintaining
the fiatter 8�' grades. The slcapes c�uld be 2:1
versus the 1.5:1, ' This will ai'low a better slope
for revegetation. In oniy extreme circumstances '
should th� 1.5:1 slope be a1lQwed. '
The Town has a major coneern with the type of wall
beinq proposed in the cut siopes. The disturbed '
�� rea will be great. The soils report su.qgests
����ther: types of soil rein orcemen� cc�uid` work. It
�� ' a ear �.s s ou d be ir�vestigated. The
��Y�� erracing` of the wall should also be looked` at.
a ��
�,��,�
The staff realizes that the applicant has tried to
align the road in the mos�t sensitive mar�ner
possible to decrease the grades and retaining wall
heights. We believe that more work can be =
cflmpleted 'to minimize the grades and impact of the
retaining walls. We would also suggest that the
possibility of r�ealigning the road in some areas "
be considered by the applicant in order to
minimiae grade and wall heights.
� �, ��`,,
B: REVEGETATION AND VEGETATION IMPACT 'REPORTS
Overall the revegetation plan is very general.
However, it is adequate if the statements contained ;
within it are carried out in the landscape improvement A
plan. Staff believes it is important that the
,
� � , applicant submit a� landscape/revegetation plan �aft�e� ;
� . preliminary plan approval has�"e n ei�e and b+efo
� �na approva ���o e subdiv3sion. ���The �egetatior� ��
-, impact report states "in all cases, limits of '
, constru�ction activity shall be imposed and enforced."
This is key to minimizing disturban+ce ta' the site.
Construction ' ' ' 'ne e d wn on the
�, � m�.ttal 1an`with a st t � . . e s`
Fencing wouJ.d'be preferred but in some �
locations staking with lathe may be appropriate.
�y
�
-
_ �
. 3 � � � ,�
� � � ��
�
_ �
�
�
�n several locations in' �he' revegetation plan, the use
of nati.ve tr�ees, shrubs' grasses and f�rbs �or
�revegetation of the site is stated. The plan states
that piants will be instal.led in the same p�rcentages
as wh��. exists naturally and that the final product.
will be of" equa]. quality �o that of the undisturbed
site. ' Th�s will be the basis of ail r�va.ew� made of
the lands�aping improvement plan when submitted.
The reveg�etation plan states tha�t top soil will be
stripped when possibl�. It is important" that top soil
be stripped from aii areas disturbed to its full depth.
The wordage "when possible" shoul'd be deleted and the "
statement changed to reflect "al��s aistur��a�� ans�
��to full debth.'� ��' is a minimal depth and 6" to 8" is ;
�e.f er,�„ed..
Copies c�f the soil test report being prepared by CSU
should' be submi�t�d with the l�ar�dscape plan.
The revegetation plan mentions all poss%bie` methods of
reseeding grasses and forbs. The developer shall be
� encoura sd' to utilize d , � where ev�
ossible w�.th h dr� ' 't. Mang areas will
' have to be broa cast seeded or hydroseeded. However
drill seeding offers the greatest germination ratio.
An erosion control lan shou2d be sub '
(���� i a rova of he subdivision. The plan should
show the exact location of silt ences, hay bales,
L sedimentation ponds etc. to be utilized 'in keeping run-
off from the site free of sediments. The only specific
reference to an erosion control plan is the use of jute
netting over seeded areas. " The `erosion control plan
should include both plans and details for the proposed ;
work. ,
C. BUILDING ENVELOPES <
The staff feels it is appropriate to utilize` building
����� envelopes `for the project. All structures should be
,�•y„ located within 'the envelopes. Specifica3ly for Lo s 34
�`J and �;._„�taff believes that the en�-�og�'s cout'a e
pulled, back further to :the north. Building envelopes u
are necessary due to the sensitivity of `the site. We :;.
acknowledge that when the original submittal` was made
back in October of 1989', the staff indicated that �
building envelopes probably were not appropriate. _
�;
However, after 'several site visits to the property, it �
is apparent that the envelopes do make sense given the �
� sensitivity of� the site�. � � � � � �
�
�
� � �
4
� o � �:
� a.�_ .._. �.�, � .�___ ___,�_, w.�Wa =,��.�..� �<. � ti:,�.�.�..._.. . .�� _.�._�. a .Kd_._. �� _a �..
_._ .�w,� _ro.._�_M� �.o.�
D. SITE �OUERAGE
Due to the large siz+� +�f the lots, the site caverage �
for each 1ot is extremely high, S�aff would like to
see a r�asonable cap put on the amount of site co�rerage
allowed for a lot. Below is a chart comparing site
coverage tc� GRFA
LOT SITE COVERAGE. GRFA ALIAWED
�
1 9646.5 _ 6483 „
2 8941.4 6248
3 12749.5 7517
4 ' ' 14109.� 797",0 :
5 10023.6 6608 :
6 7652.0 , 581$
7 7344.0 571`5
8 ' 8721.0 6174
9 ' 112'75.0 702`6
10 43?2.0 4?2`5 =
11 10710.0 6837
12 14750..0
14 41093.0 1696
15 3670.0,
E. LOTS HAVING SLOPES OVER 30$
In the zaninq code in section 18.69.050, there are �
specific requirements that relate to lots having over `
30� slope. This section relates only to
primary/secondary, duplex and single family lots.
However, staff bel'ieves that this section should also
relate to hillside residential properties. Staff feels
it is appropriate to require for each residence site `:
specific soil and foundation investi ations en ineered
f n a ions 10 1�.mit:to ' covered by '
iveways and surfa ' ' ' one o �
wo covered ' ace ' er un' etation �
plan for each iot a . , . :
s an fills in excess of five feet. This "`
in orma ion would not be requ�.re urx.ng he planning ;;
process. However, each individual lot owner' would be �
asked ;to provide this information at the DRB staga of �
construction for an individual lot: It makes good �
planning sens� for the :owners of each of these lots to '
comply with these requirements. Staff believes that it �
was an oversight that `the hillside residential was not �
listed under this section of the code when this zone. �
district was established several years aqo. ''
_ �
5
F. OPEN SPACE DEDICATION AND PEDESTRIAN EASEI�+IENTS
The staff would like to see �he open space areas
dedicated to the Tawn of 'Vail as permanent open space.
� The reason for this request is to a�void any future sub-
���; division of the open space into additional 1ots.` The
intent is ta preserve the open space perman�ntiv.
The applicant 'has agreed to provide a pedestrian
easement along the Spraddle Creek corrido-'r' +�]e think <
"��i#'s-ts very positive. ,
�,���. The Frontage Road widenin w' need to have the 'x
? oo s rs com pleted ta allow for the futur+e bike �,
path to be completed on the Frontage Road. '
G. SPRADDLE <CREEK LIVERY
The livery is proposed ta b� relocated to Forest
Service property on the east side of this parcel. An ;
agreement determining who will pay for the relocation
has not been finalized at this time. However, it is
staff's understanding that 'the Forest Service and
County are in general agreement with the idea of the
relocation of the stable. 'Staff believes that it is
imgortant that the stable use continues to exist. It
is a much needed guest amenity.
� Staff does not su ort the ' abl
L 14 Horses could be stabled at the new li�.
H. TRAFFIC
The traffic study needs to be updated to include the :
full build out. :
I. DRAINAGE
The cross-seations at the beginning of Gillett Road
need to be revised to show the existing drainage ditch. ?
The plan will need to be revised to show the big
drainage hole and the culverts under the roadway. The
drainage easements need to be determined and will be
required before final plat. The Town has some concerns
with the areas of discharge, mainly;those that '
discharge toward the interstate: The final `location
and treatment of discharge should be handled in the �
final drainage report. ;
�:
A design related issue 'is the staff's request that the
owner try to clean up the appearance of the culvert
area `at the entry to. the subdivision. We would like to �
see the chain link fence removed if at all possible. y
We understand this drainage area is loaated on CDOH �
property.- our request is a recommendation. �
� � � � �� � � � � �
6
,.,. A . ` e� .r»..m,w�a .n,. .�. � ,. _ � i..m
J: AIR QUALITY
� Staff would iike to request that the applicant r�strict
` ' the caretaker units to gas appliances or gas log
fireplaces.
i K..' EMPLOYEE HOUSING
Staff believes ;it is appropriate to restrict any
oaretaker unit to employee housing permanently. ` We
also feel it may be appropriate to request ths owner
commit to pro�iding a minimum of three caretaker units
within the subdivision.
L. COLORADO D3VISIQN OF HIGHWA�i APPR�VALS
The applicant is in the pr�cess of receiving CDOH
approval for the access permit off of the Frontage
, Road. The permit will allow for a left-hand turn lane
- and minor widening 'of the Frontage road. The Town
Engineer has reviewed this design. Staff
recommendation is that the percent grade of Gillett
Road be increased to approximately 4� `at the entrance
to the subdivision and retaining walls minimized: When
the specific configuration of the intersection is
finalized by CDOH, the staff will have final comments.
We must require 6 ft. shoulders to allow for a bike
path.
M. MAINTENANCE OF THE SUBDIVISION ROAD
At this time, the staff has the understanding that the
applicant is proposing that the lower portion of the
road extending from the Frontage Road up to the eastern
side of' the property would be a public road. At this
point, there would be a gate which would be a private
road into the subdivision.�' The applicant is proposing
that the Town maintaim the public road. Staff!s
opinion is that additional work needs to be done on the
grades and retaining walls and location of the road
before we give the applicant a definite answer as to
how we would 3ike to see the road maintained.
N. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
Staff feels that it is <positive that the applicant is
willing to include architectural guidelines for the �
project. We would suggest that no fencing be allowed
around houses to maintain the natural appearance of the
property. �
�
.�
� � � �
7
w
� ,,,
� � �v�k..�.�.,..._..��.�._. ��.�:.�...�. �� �_.r:.�.___�..::,:_...�.e�f_._ _._...,. ����.. �
e.._�� ._u__,�_ _._�. .�._ �._ . �_.��,.a.�, ��-_-___ . , ... _
O. UTILITY EASEMENTS
The applicant has made 'a stronq effort to consolidate
the utility easements in the roadway. We think this is
a; good solution as it minimizes- cuts on the hillside.
We would suggest that the applicant` coordinate the '
Upper'Eagle Valley, Water and Sanitation 'District line `
work with the Town's parking structure project. The
work will occur adjacent to Crossroads and it would be
helpful to the Town if the `work' could be coordinated
with the parking structure const�uction.
In general, the staff realizes how much work has gone into
developing a s+ensiti�re proposal. We would like to work with
the appli�ant �n the issues ' listed. Additional comments �
from other agencies are attached to this memo.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
�
� �
�
�
;
�
. �
Y.
�
�
u.
�
� � � �
� �
_ ;.�?
-�
:�
� � � �� � � �
8 �
. . . . . . . . ....;f,
STATE UE COLORADO
Roy Romer, Govemar R�F�a Ta
DEPAR7MEMT OF MATURAL RESOURCES �����QQ
��v�s�t�N oF wi ����F� .
AN EOU�L CPPOq7U�:17'!E�dPLOYER ' : � �' � .,�"„
Perry D.Olson, Dlreetor �'r y�J�
6060 Broadway ��1'{���+�
Denver,Colorodo 802iS
Teiephone;{303)297-1192
May 29, 1990
Vail. Assoc. -
ATTN: Joe Macy � _
Boa 7
Vail, C0. 8'1658
Dear Joe,
This letter is to summarize the: di�cussion w� had on 5/26/90 in .
r;egards to the Spraddle Creek °development.
The first issue was bighorn sheep, the CDOW ,has reports of bighorn
sheep use in Spraddle Creek drainage, the use has generally been
north and east oi the development. A,ny impacts to bighorn sheep
from the development should be minimal and mitigated 'by following
the same guidelines outlined for elk, ( ie. dog control) .
• The second issue was the recommendation for a �00 foot setback from
the USFS boundary. As we discussed on the 5/26/90 there are 3 lots
on the eas`t side of the development that can' t meet this recommendation,
but could have a 60 foot setback. This recommendation was for a
buffer zone, not just for wildlife conflicts, but also for people
conflicts, the CDOW feels that a 60 foot setback on these 3 lots
is reasonable. '
We also discussed adding some wording to the documents on the
interaction and conflicts that could oc.cur with wildlife in the
area, to advise the buyer of this potential. This was mainly in
landscaping and de�igns.
Joe, if you have a.ny further questions please give me a ca11 926-3030.
Sincerely,
,-----""'>_ ,;
�
J c;'�' �,'n�L�---.
Bill Andree � � � � � � � � � �
�
District Wildlife .Manager-Vai1
� �� � � � � � � ��
�
DEPARTMENT OF tVATURAI FESOURCES, Hamlet J. Barry, Executive Director
. � __,.__ --s
� _.__ _ .._____..._�__�_�____��__�..e �. f�
_ _ _. . ..n.. _.r�_�.w.._.__ __ . , �
; ",�
� � .__ _______ �
:
, �
. �
► 4��-
.'STATE�F COLORAD!D t�"
� ����� a��
.F�oy Aomer, Goxemoe�
QEPAKT'MEt+t"�OF NATURAL RESOURCES. ��� 9,���
D11/��S��I�i �JF WiLDLIF� �. 4
. AN fQUAL OPPORTUNl7Y EMPLOYER � y. �
.�.
�0.� �. ' �� ��'�
c�a s�� . �'oF�''
penvar,+cobrado.s021e
TeMe�twrNe;'�3QCij 29T-119Z-.
re c. 19, 19.�'s9 �
�
: _. . _ �
1��.��n �i :r3.i1
�ffice nF ��or:!munit�r �evel.a�cme.nt _ '.
_'-_tt�: r;i�t�,..� �rit� � .
� 75 ::,ouzn �r::,.nt��e 3cwd _
V�il, ���� . 81657
- �
rpar �riQt�.�, �
�
, : �
'1'he ,�ivi�i�n of :tiildlife r�S ?'@Yl°�N�C3. t�e �yr��dle �r22�t ;:ubdivisi^n �
Prc•r��31 �.�d ha� t:�e iol�cwinb cc*��!e.nt� a:nc? reco-�:nendat�c�ns. �
1 ; •'':�e rr��t��ai .^t�:�e� tri�t .r_,o c'o� kernel� or runs will be �.11e��ei: .
�
�
�,r;o ke.n�?el� and run tzr.t 4.r= y::r�:�z:�^i�r fe��c° �r.° t��e �r,�;; effective �
?���y t�' co��trel c?oa�. ��ne iea��� ��;�i i� n';� et�ective in _ed.uci.a�; _
d�o4 ���.r�.�Gin� �%ilr_llifY, t�e �e��.�n l�.s�r h3� �een i:ried��n �everal �
�ubdivi�ions w:�d to date :na� Frcved. ine�fective. _�ny unit` �•ritr a �
dag ahould b2 re�uired t3 ha.ve a �og run or kennel that is fe.nce� °�
ta a sufficie.nt neig'_nt to preve.�t tne do� from jumFing aut.
2# �11 ;ar�age ca?�� cr contziner� �hauld be aP�ij.nea :.,�a con�tructed �
to be beG.r prcof. Te�i�;ns for t�e cc.nt�.iner� c�.n 3e o'�tRined fr���
the �ivi�ic?a or the �?t�:ctn :,mericG.n �ear ���ciety, �cott��ale, :�.
The pro�c�ed �ubdivi�i;,n i� in bear =.abitat, ��iti� tne �no�ing preblem
Cf iiga.r��.�e be�r��° lY] t?1@ COi�:2 t�}r� ��'�@ �'1�I1.�ier iG re c�mn�n�,]�,�; ::ii
cievel;;�r�ent in �ie�.r h��it�t hav� be��r ���cof co.ntainer�. •�:ne ce.ntr�� �
garb�ge c�ll�ctio.n puint =,voL.id reduce coLt anc�. les�en tne groble�n �
of ��a�:rbzge 'oe2s�'�. . �
, , �
3) iQta th�.t ?r� adjoining rja.tic�nal �'ore�t grtperty �hould h�ve
building envelapes tha.t would Frovid� a• o�.ffer �trig of at Izast 1 GO
>;
feet betwe?n the buil ing a.nd tne i�3tion�.1. ��re�t b;�und�.ry. ln�� �r�ckl� �
provide a.n additio.ral buffer zo.ne bet��ee.n the d.eve�oFment �nd =��.tion�.1 `
��re�t lwnd, that woulci rzduce ��ildlife i�,Facts �n the r•ore�t �.nd �1�� :
reduce the private landowner ce*?plaint�, �f tne rublic being tca '
clo�e t�- nis reaidence.
4 j r�'inally the Divisio:n would recom�nenc� trat uhe developer chose
l�nnd�caping items that are unp�.latable t� ��ildlife. ';ue ta the
locati�n of the �ubdiviLion, certain species of wildlife will use t1�e
area.. By uaing unpalatable lanciscapir_g items tY:e developer kill
reduce dam�.ge to landscap�ng caused by wildlife. Th'e �ivision �r the
Colorado ��tate ��tension oifice ri�� informati�n o.n lancisc��ping �Fecies
thwt: axe le�� auscentible t� �vildlife damage. '
'�hz �ivi�ion anpreciatea the onprctunity� -to comment on this- propc��.l, -
DEPARTMEPif aF NATURAL AESOUNCES�, Hamlei.l. Barry.Executive Directoc'
�
_ _, ,�.._.�... ,._ a .� �_,�_ ..�.._..�..:�,.�_�_�v._� ,�o_.� �,,.�k.,,:.y� �___ ..�..,,,__�._:.�.a.___.�.._� .,__.�_�.�.. �_.......
_.: ww_.�_�
` ,
�,.,• ,�TATE OF COLORAD�
' � .Ra�t Rome�, Govemo� ��a�ra
OEPARTMENT�F NATi1RA�.RESOURCE9� �p1AR.4�j4
Q�rr�s��� o� w��o�iF� t,rt
_ AN EQUAL dPPORTUNITY EMPLCYER ` �-�j �
s�8�iraa�ou,ec�o�, �o�., ����a
Demer,Cokuado 6021A� ° , �F ;
Teleptwn�s{303I 28?-119Q�=- ,
�age 2 .
�lease feel free to contact me if you have a.ny �uestions.:
� �
;incerely .
.
.,..------� �
;' �
��� ,�,�t�•z.�- �
bill �ndree, �istrict ,aildli�e yianaoer-Tai1 �
�
� _ �
z �
%
b
;
�
�
�
�
�
�
. �
- �
e
. �
�
• � �- �
•. � �� .��' - � � . � �
�
: �
�
�
„
�
. �
' • _ �
�
pEPARTMENT OF NATURAL fiESOUACES;HamfefJ.,Barry.Executive Directoc
, ,
� -
�� IInited State$- � F� ���est �� Ahite� xiver �� �'������� Cross Ranger Dis�rict ��
� ,
�� � � ,Department of ��, �:�rice ��� �Aational � ;�:: $oa 190 �� �� �
• � Forest Minturn. Colorado
���.t1�lT�� $�,545 �.
.{
�p
xe 1 to: 2720 �,i�'� }i
P y ,,�.,,-� . ..,� � �,� i
, .... ��.;
1 �".
.. .. . .. . ... ' � � ��� �.
Date: April 30, 1990 , ������
Bristan`Pritz
Co�u,nity Development Director ,
Town of Vail :
75 S, Frontage Boad
9si1, C� 8i657 '
Dear gristan:
Thank yo� for the opportunity to co�nt on t�e 'Spraddle Creek Subdivision, As
you know from our previous discussions, I am also processing an ,application
from Mr. Gillett to acquire `subdivision access acroas tbe adjacent National
Forest System land on a parcel known as the Spraddle Creek`parcel. The Forest
Service-has a policy to permit such access when no other reasonable access
exists. An additional<factor is ihat the Forest- Service has decided to sell
this Spraddle Creek parcel to the Town' of �ail, and the Town and Forest Service
together are 'proceeding with this transaction. Before the parcel is `deeded to'
the Town, I will have to determine the e�act location' of the public easement to
be retained by the Forest Service:
With tbat background, following are my comments on the proposed subdivision:
i. As with all >subdivisions bordering National Forest Sys`tem lands, it it
desirable to allow permanent public access across the private land to the -
Forest. The proposed subdivision plan does allow for this.
2. The main access road to the proposed subdivision crosses National Forest
System lands on the Spraddle Creek parcel on an esisting road. I
understand the grade of this road esceeds Town of Vail standards. I feel ;
it is appropriate to grant a variance at this location to keep the access ;
road on this alignment. Reeping `the road on the present alignment seems to ;
be the environmen.tally preferred location to keep from disturbing
additional ground and to minimize the visual impact from Interstate 70, the
Town of Vail, and the ski area. This alignment then would also become the
Forest Service easement when the parcel is deeded to the Town of 9ai1. _
' In suffinary, the Spraddle Creelc Snbdivision meets the needs of the National
Forest Syste�. I feei the accesa road across the National Forest is in the
best pos.sible location and urge you to approve this alignment for access to the-
subdivision. :�
If yau would like to discuss this further, please let me know.>
�
� . �� �
¢
.�
�
�
�S •
Fs-ezoo-ze��•e2�
� . �. s� �: .. �.. . . r,_ �.. .... � .�.
, s; ..
�- .,�.:� .�.e,.. � . . . v= .,_...w...��..,�...,_,..��.,.�......�.�.:n.a.....,�..,..,.�:�.._v.wv..�.�....�.-.,_.._.
�„�
.. . . �.,�.w....�,._..�.-n.-�----`""- .,...�..�.�.�...W.k..�.,___._........_..._� . .�„
� .. . . „ � . � � � a
�'+i� . � . � .� � . . . . .. . .. .� � ...
'�SSA�C yOII.
.S1IIC�r�ly�
. � ;
9
� ,
LLIAM:A. WOOD
District 8anger
�
:x
�
a �
� . � � � � � � � � � ��
,. . �
f
� : :
- , I.:�S ;
�
� . 5��� (flV����
�- SUBMISSION T0 'THE T�JWN OF VAIL
FOR
PRELIMINARY PLAN
SPRADDLE CREEK SUBDIVISI�JN �
VAIL, C OLORAD�J
O�PNER
GEORGE GlLLETT
P.O.BOX 7
VAIL, COLORADO 81658
CON TACT: JOE M ACY
,� PLANNING & PROJECT COORDINATION
LAND DESIGN PARTNERSHIP,]NC.
P.O. BOX 517
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
CONTACT: RON LISTON
TRAFFIC CONSULTANT PROJECT ATTORNEY
TDA COLORADO,INC. OTTO, PETERSON & POST
DENVER, COLORADO VAIL, COLORADO
CONTACT: DAV1D LEAHY CONTACT: JAY PETERSON
SOILS & GEOLOGY CIVIL ENGINEERING
KOECHLEIN CONSULTfNG ENGINEERS RBD INC.
� 019 8TH STREET, SUITE 101 953 S0. FRONTAGE ROAD WEST
GOLDEN, COLORADO 80401 SUITE 202
CONTACT: WILLIAM KOECHLEIN VAIL, COLORADO 81657
CONTACT: KENT ROSE
f
. 4...,.: 1 .. . . . . . .
PR(JJE�.P OVERVIEW
SPRADDLE CREII{ SUBDIVISICN
VAIL, COTARADO
INTRODUCTION
The Spraddle Creek Subdivision is an approx�mately 40 acre tract of land
located i.m�ediately north of I-70 and approximately 1,000 feet east of the
main Vail Interstate-Interchange. The property is owr�ed by George Gillett,
the applicanf, and was annexed into `the ��.x�m of 'Vail in January of `1985 (see
Tab III,F--G). At that tiur� the property was owned' by Vai1 Associates. The
development was originally proposed in'1984, with twenty-four lots. A year
later the plan was modified �0 18 lots, but the application was not form�lly
submitted. The property was subsequently ac.quired by George Gillett and the
herewith application prepared. Contained herein are applications reques�ting
the Town of Vail "s consideration of zoning, subdivision and certain design
standard variances for the property and proposed developirent.
EXISTING LAND USE
The present site has no active land use except for the Forest Service access
road crossing the southerly portion of the site and an electrical transmission
� line (69KV) crossing the center of the site in a east-west direction. The
site is abutted on three sides by White River National Forest and on the south
by a narrow strip of open space adjacent to Interstate 70 right-of-way. The
Spraddle Creek Stable is located on a Forest Service permit site on the access
road i��ediately west of the property boundary. The stable operated a
sna,annbile concession during the winter, which will be discontinued. , �'h�_
property is zoned Hillside Resid�tial.
PROPOSED LAND USE
Spraddle Creek proposes fourteen (14) single family lots accessed by a
�mbination of public and private roads. �'he proposed road frcun the
intersection v��ith the North FYontage Road to the East boundary of the Spraddle
'Creek property is proposed for dedication to the Taan of Vail. This section
of road will continue to be used by the public for access to National Forest
Land and the relocated Spraddle Creek Stable. The rem�inder of the prcposed
road will be privately owned and riaintained. A security gate will be located
.: on Gillett Road just above the forest access road intersection on the eastern
boundary of the site.
The residential units will be restrict g to a caretaker (secondary)
unit of a maxim�n 1,200 sq. ft. which,`_'f rented, uld be used as employee
housing.
Seven of the thirteen lots average over one and one-half acres in size with
-° one lot being over six and one-half acres. The rerr�ining lots range fran just
� under one acre to one and one-half acres. The gross project density is 3.5
units per acre, with 9.24 acres proposed for permanent open space to be aaned
- 1-
� by the Spraddle Creek Hc3meowner�s Association. Consistent with the demands of
the targeted market and the desires of the developer, Spraddle Creek will seek
to achieve a high standard of design and construction quality. This quality
e�hasis is reflected in the accam�xnying Preliminary Plan and the herewith
attached Design Guidelines for site and architectural design and construction.
:�" The building on I,�t 14 or I,�t 15 may include a c�ffice for ;�e personal use of
= Mr. Gillett.
�`- � � � �
The residential lots, because of theis location, views, privacy and quality of
proposed developrrent, wi11 appeal to the lc�ury home market. It is
anticipated that a campleted residence and lot will have a market value in
excess of one million dollars.
The accce�Ypanying Spraddle Creek Preliminary Plans (2 sheets) address items
A.2., a. through j. , and 1, as requested in Chapter 17.16:070, "Preliminary
Plan - Suksnittal Requiresnents for the Town of Vail, Colorado" (see Tab III,A-E
for Subdivision Application Form).
The following is a s�srm�ary of the nroposed major improv�nents that will be
required to service the Spraddle Creek I�ots.
PROPOSID IMPROV.EMENTS
STREEI'S
� The road system will consist of approximately 5900 feet of roadway, of which
1600 feet is the entrance road connecting the I-70 f rontage road to the
project site. The connecting road passes through U.S. Forest Service
Property. e The Forest Service has agreed to allow access to the subject
property upon the final platting of the project (see Tab III,H-L) , and upon
ccenpliance with the ternls of a letter dated 11/12/87 to Jay Peterson (Tab III,
�. H-L).
t
A minimLUn asphalt pavement width of twenty-two (22) feet is proposed, Two (2)
f eet of shoulder will be provided on the da�anhill side with curb and gutter on
the uphill side (2" Standard Section) . The gutter will add m�re than a foot
of driving width to the road surface. Pavement and roadbed widths will be
widened in switchback areas and shoulder width will be widened to accorrur�odate
guardrails, when required.
Due to the nature of the project site, it is necessary to request a m�im�.un
grade variation from 8 per cent to a maxim�un of 11 per cent (see Tab III,A-E
for Variance Application Form) . Grades have been flattened at intersections
� and on cul-de-sacs to facilitate safer starting and stopping conditiQns. The
nature of the site and the low traffic voluir�s are compatible with l0 per cent
grades. The south facing aspect of the project site will minimize snaw and
ice problems. 'The prQposed grades are consistant with Qther roadway grades
1QCated within the Tawn of Vail. Auto safety rails will be installed above .
all sections of retaining wall.
,. The Spraddle Creek access road intersection with the North Frontage Road is
� proposed to be a modified "T" intersection. (See Tab II Engineering; Figure
1) An island is proposed to allow oontinuous flow of frontage road traffic
through the intersection, while stopping the occasional vehicle traveling east
_Z_
from the frontage road into the subdi�isiora. The propc>sed intersection design
�, : has been submitted to the Colvrada r�ment of Highways for their approval.
A new traffic seport has bee ' prefer by TDA Colorado to`assess the traffic
impacts of the subdivisic�, T amplete report may be found at the end,of
the`Technical Report Section.
i�2AII�IGE
The drainage syst�n will consist of both surface and underground routing.
Surface drainage oads will be contained by curb and gutter or in
limited ` areas by ditche The ` velocity: in the ditches may be erosive,
therefore, rock is proposed for erosion c�trol.
The proposed underground storm drainage along with drop inlets will control
the drainage along the curb and gutter sections. Underground drainage will be
discharged frequently through energy dissipators although the major portion of
this system will lead to Spraddle Creek. Prior to release into Spraddle
Creek, a'sedimentation basin will be 'utilized to c�ontrol both sedimentation
and water velocity. During construction of the development, �storm r�off will
be processad 'k-hrough temporary sedimentation basins.
in�,'I'ER S�'SZ'ET'1
The Water syste.m`will c�onnect to the existing Upper Eagle Valley Water syst�n
at the location of the I-70`frontage ra3d and Spraddle Creek entrance. Due to
the elevation variation on the project site, a booster pump station will be
� necessary on the low end of the project. It is antici�xted that the booster
pump station will be sized at 30 to 40 gallons per minute. The pump station
will p�unp into a storage tank located on the high side of the project.
Insurance Sezvices Office (ISO) criteria of 1,2�0 gallons per minute for a two
hour fire, would require a storage tank with a capacity of 150,000 gallons.
Due to the potential size of the residences, ISO"s criteria would suggest m�re
fire storage, but other local criteria supports less storage. At this time, a
water storage tank of 150;000 to 180,000 gallons is anticipated.
The fire hydrants will be placed to insure that all habitable buildings will
be within 300 feet of at least one hydrant. Final pla��ent of hydrants and �
sizing of the storage tank will be coordinated with the Town of Vail Fire
Department.
The entire water system, including valves, piping, and construction procedures
-wi11 comply with the Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District requiranents.
The Water syst�n will be placed in ra3d right of way and utility eas�nents.
SEWER SYSTE�'I .
The sanitary sewer system will connect to an existing manhole located
southwest of the Transportation Center. The crossing of I-70 will be
� ` accomplished by utilizing a g ore under the Interstate
HighWay. A new bore will have to be provided alongside the tw� �isting 10"
ductile iron pipes under 1-70 to acco,mr�ate the sewer.
-3-
. � � , ,._
� Ti�e sewer system will be gravity flaw and will be located within road right-
� of- way and utility easerrents. All materials, design, and construct�on
�_ _ procedures will comply with the Upper Eagle Va11ey Sanitation District
requirements.
OTI�R UI'ILITIES
Ho1y Cross Electric has an existing overhead high voltage line crossing the
project site. This line will be placed ur�derground. All other utilities
(electric, gas, telephone and cable TV) will be placed undergotmd within the
road right of way and within specified utility easan�ts.
RETAINING WALLS
Th � • al topography of the _ site will require retaining walls to
ac ������the access roads. �he heights will range fr�n 6 to 25 feet.
Only about four (4J percent of all cut and fills involve �+valls of 16 to 25
feet. Retaining,wal ls are designed to be stepped back approximately f ive 'feet
when the individual wall seg�nt �eaches 14 'feet in height. This will break
up tlze potentially monotonous character of the larger walls. Landscape
plantings will be installed, when feasible, on the step between the wall
elevations.
Retaining walls, as set forth under the Town Code of Vai1, Section 18.58.020C,
fences, hedges, walls and screening, limits t1Ze vertical height per lift to
six feet. The proposed retaining wall heights vary across the site but are
generally in excess of the required m�xi.mum of 6 feet (see Tab III, A-E for
� Variance Application Form) .
In an effort to m�ximize visual enhancer�nt of the retaining wall systems, a
oolored, split-face concrete block veneer is proposed. The block veneer
system will provide a haiznonious blending of �olor and texture with the
surrounding environs on and adjacent to this site. The proposed walls will
match the recently campleted walls in Potato Patch Subdivision.
SUCIAL AT�ID DCONOI�C
The average Spraddle Creek home is expected to contribute fram twr� to three
times as much to the Town"s ad valorem tax revenues as an average residence.
Property tax revenues are projected to exceed road maintenance costs in excess
of $6,000, annually, at buildout of the project. Additional revenues will be
generated by the Town"s sales tax and real estate transfer tax.
The availability of up to fourteen �nployee housing units will be a positive
� addition to the Vail employee housing market.
PIDESTRIAN EASF�T
The utility easement through Lot 12, which provides access to the domestic
water storage tank has also been designated as a pedestrian easanent for use
by the residents of the Spraddle Creek Subdivision. This easement will
provide pedestrian access to Forest Service land at the north boundary of the
f site. Public access to Forest Service land is provided at the lo�r
d._ switchback on the east boundary of the site.
-4-
RF�I;ACATION OF �ISTNG LF�ND USES
� '
The Spraddle Creek Stable cjperation is proposed to be relocated to a new
Forest Service permit site east of the subdivision property {see Tab III,H-L) .
AZr. Gillett has agreed to pay for the relocation of tlze stable operation {see
Tab III,H-L). The old, wnused Forest Ser�ice easement across the upper
portion of the site will be transferred to the newly constructed lawer
roadway. {See Tab IIZ,H-L),
CONCL�t7SION
Based on the compiled results of the F�vironmental Im�ct Report"s analysis of
the design and mitigation measures proposed by tlie Preliminary Plan, the
Spraddle Creek Subdivision will have a positive in�act on the Town of Vail.
All potentially negative impacts are either corrected by specific mitigation
measuxes or are significantly offset by positive impacts.
�
�
-5-
� ENVIROI��I�TI'AL IMPACI' REPORT
SPRADDLE CREII{ SUBDIVISION
VAIL, COIARAI�
CONCLUSIONS AND '1'�HNICAL REPORT SUMMARIFS PREPARED BY:
LAND DFSIGN PARTNER.SHIP, INC.
CONCLUSIONS
The follawing wnclusions are the culmination of interactive analysis of the
technical reports which canprise the body of this F�virorunental Impact Report.
These technical reports appear in their entirety in the following section of
this submittal.
1. The Town of Vail gains a quality high-end residential develop�rent
which is wnsistent with the Ccmrnunity Action Plan and cc�npetitive
with the develoFxnents at Beaver Creek and Axrowhead.
2. Visibility and visual impacts will be greatly min�znized by:
a retaining much of the existing vegetatian
b. utilizing sensitively designed retaining wa1Ts to reduce road cut
and fill disturbance
c. application of intense revegetati.on methods
d. controlling building sit�ng and design
� 3. The Town is projected to experience a net gain of property taxes over
required service expenses. The 'Ibwn of Vail will also receive
increased revenues from property transfer t�es and sales taxes.
4. As a result of the visual impact analysis, input from the Town of
Vail, and detailed building site investigations, the proposed lots
were reduced from 24 to 14.
5. The site is found suitable for the use intended when wnstru�ted in
� accordance with the plans and guidelines s��xnitted with this
application.
6. The area of the site designated for develops�nt is free of geologic
hazards as m�pped by the Tv�,m of Vail hazard studies.
7. Wildlife and habitat will be affected, but only minimally if hum�n
activities and pets are properly a�ntrolled.
8. The proposed land use will be harmonious and unobtrusive to the Town.
9. Disruption to the �isting forest access road and the stable
operation have been resolved in a m�nner that will improve both
facilities over their present condition when the development is
constructed.
�ti -1-
- S�Y OF 'I'ECHNICAL REPORTS
(ti The following are s�r�naries of each of the technical reports which oomprise
� the body of this Envirarurental Impact Report.
GEOLOGY & SOILS
'I'he property has moderate to steep slopes facing south above the Gore Creek
Valley and the Interstate 70 Highway. 'The area soils are silty, sandy clay
lc�an�s, varying fran a few inches to several feet thick, over bedrock of
sandstone, siltstones, and glacial deposits. The area is drained by Spraddle
Creek, a deeply incised minor stream at the west edge of the property. The
Geologic Report finds that there are potential geolagic hazards around the
property but not in the area pmposed for develo�xnent. The conditions for
potential hazards e�ist to the north and west of the project site, and include
potential rock falls, flooding, snow avalanches and debris flc�ws. T�e Report
indicates, .hcxaever, that any hazardous ,occurrences would pass through the deep
.'valley of Spraddle Creek, to the West of the proposed .r�evelo�nent lots.
A follow-up site inspection on May 3p, 1984 by CTL/ThcYnpson, Inc. , the
geotechnical engineers who prepared the Geologic Report, "did not reveal any
indication of unstable slope conditions. in addition, no indication of water
seeping out of slopes on the site aould be found within the proposed building
envelopes. Based on these observations, the site is suitable for construction
of the proposed development."
VEGETATiON
� The property and surroLmding area is mostly covered by m�ture stands of Aspen
and by grasses and brush. An ample amount of trees will remain after
development of the site to provide screening of the buildi.ngs. Dead Aspen
trees will be rerroved to enhance visual quality and reduce fire hazard.
WILDLiFE
The area provides a moderate habitat for small znarr��als, birds, deer, and elk.
Animals irost affected by the develop�nt w�uld be grouse and elk from loss of
feeding and cover areas and from intrusion by dogs and cats. �he .area is
important to wildlife but does not pmvide �ritical �rinter range or migration
;mxoutes.
Protective covenants for the develop�nt or rules of the Homeowners
Association, are proposed to contain restsictions regarding free r�mi.ng pets.
Dogs will be required to be on leash at all times when outside a building. `- No
pet :run or kennels will be allowed. 'These restrictions-�vill man.imize the
impact of developn►ent -activities on the area wildlife.
ATMOSPHERIC
Air currents flow through the Gore Valley and maintain a clear and clean
atmospheric oondition throughout most of the year. During the ooldest winter
mQnths, the air mass sometimes becomes stagnant and temperature inversions
occur. These conditions can entrap dust and gas p�rticles and will
�� temporarily reduce air quality. The developzrent would be just above the
-2-
level where inversions occur.
� inversion layer and be less likely to have pollutants emitted from it trapped
in ,the Valley. E�en so, total emissions from the project are estimated to be`
significantly less than one percent of the current pollutants emitted in the
Valley.
VISUAL "S1�ACT
The project site is approxima�ely 300 to 600 vertical feet above ' the Vail
Village and rrost of the building sites are "'behind" a ridge when viewed from
the area along the frontage road. Buildings in tlze Village also block many of
t17e views of t17e site. The site is m�st visible frc8n'Vail Mountain. The`
impact of this view is reflected by the perspective sketch of the view from
Lift 1 included earlier in this submittal. This sketch was prepared with the'
help of ,00mputer perspective,plotting to assure accuracy. `While the property
now is a part of a` wooded vista, it is already scarred by a power transmission
line and clearings for forest access roac]s. Most visible will be the proposed '
road cut and fill slopes and retaining walls on t_he`low�r section of road
i��ur�diately above I-70. ' The e�tensive use of retaining walls will
significantly reduce site disturbance. Facing the walls with split-faced
block will lessen the visual impact of the retaining structures. Generally,
however, the project and buildings will appear to be nestled in a �oded
valley ' against a background of large mountains. Visual impact can be
effectively oontrolled by m�intaining the Aspen tree �over for screening, by
proper revegetation of disturbed areas and by appropriate design and use of
building materials. Portions of the proposed improvanents will be seen fran
� some locations in the Vail valley but with adherence 'to the proposed design
plans and guidelines the i�roverr�nts will blend harm�niously with the site.
CIRCULATION AND TRAI�'SPORTATION �'
The traffic engineer's report sho�as est' tes of 12.96 vehicle trips, �r day,
per prim�ry residence. 6.6 vehic ' s, per day, are estimated, per
caretaker, unit {b units) . The dwelling its are projected to generate an
average daily volume, at full sumner upancy, of 220 vehicle trips. Usin�
ITE Standards, about 10$ of these trips will occur in the 4:00 p.m. to 5:00
p.m. neak hours, or 22 additional peak hour trips. C�rrent peak hour traffic
from Spraddle Creek is estimated at ll trips. 1988 actual traffic oounts, at
t17e peak hour on the North Frontage Road, were 613. Thus, the additional
traffic impact of Spraddle Creek during the peak 4-5 p.m. hours is
insignif icant.
Access to the site occurs at the I-70 main Vai1 Interchange where the present
Forest Service access road intersects the North Frontage Road. The proposed
� Spraddle Creek ,access road intersection with the Nort17 FY'ontage Road has }�een
submitted to the CAlorado Departirent of Highways for their approval. The
design provides a storage lane. The lane will minimize the potential of rear-
end collisions for cars entering Spraddle Creek from the va�st. These
facilities will not solve existing traffic congestion at the interchange but
they will assist in the mitigation of tlze minor impacts that t1�e projected
Spraddle Creek traffic might have on this area.
� The proposed Spraddle Creek Subdivision consisting of 14 single family and 6
caretaker units oould generate about 22 additional vehicle trips on Sprad�le
Creek Road in the 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. peak hours during a season when all units
are occupied.
-3-
Th�s voltmle is about equivalent to the volurr� ncxa on the road during a high
� activity sumner day. The resulting volwr►e would still be low enough to
m�intain a high level of traff ic operation at peak titr�es at the intersection
with North Frontage Road. Safety of the intersection could be enhanced if
Spraddle Creek Road could be moved north some distan� to achieve greater
separation from the adjacent I-70 w�stbound off ramp. Several alternatives
for this relocation will be 'discussed with State Highway Departtrent Officials
to determine the best feasible solution for this stretch of North Fr�tage
Eaad. During peak hours, the Level of Service of Left Turn In and Right Turn
Out irove�rents at the intersection of Spraddle Creek Road, wauld be at I�vel of
Service "A"; Left Turn 0ut move�nts would be at Level of Service "B".
Public access to Forest Service lands will be preserved and improved by the
dedication of the proposed develop�rent access road to the 'Ibwn of Uail. The
Forest Service has review�d the proposed road design and engineering plans and
has ac}a7owledged their complian� with Forest Service standards tsee Tab
III,H-L) . The e�sting and presently unused Forest Service access ease�rent
11935 R.O.W. ) located further north an the site will be transferred to the
location of the proposed develop�rent lower access road upori dedication of the
proposed R.O.W. to the Town of Vail lsee Tab III,H-L) . The new road will be
oonnected to the Forest access road from the loca�r switchback at the very
easterly property line of the Spraddle Creek site. The applicant will be
responsible for oonstructing the connecting road segn�nt betca�en the proposed
Spraddle Creek road and the Forest access road. The Forest Service agrees to
provide public raad right-of�way access across Forest lands between the North
Frontage Road and the Spraddle Creek boundary upon final approval of the
� proposed develop�rent by the 'Ibwn.
The proposed subclivision access road will have grades up to a maximum of 11
percent. Grades have been flattened at intersections and on cul-de-sacs,
where possible, to facilitate safer starting and stopping conditions. The
southern exposure of the raadway will expedite melting of snow and ice frccn
the asphalt paved surface. The steeper road gradients will demand greater
winter maintenance efforts. Greater maintenance expenditures will be offset
by higher than normal revenues to the Town as a result of the Spraddle Creek
development. These revenue and expense calculations are discussed in the
Social and Econanic section of this sum�ar_y.
i1rILITIFS AND DRAINAGE
All utilities which service the project will be installed underground. Water
and sewer capacities of the area are adequate to serve the proposed project.
The existing power transmission line will be placed underground through the
project. The ease�rent for and location of the line will be incorporated into
the road right-of-way for a majority of the distance across the site.
Drainage and run-off from the project will be minimal and no m�jor drainage
ways will be directly affected. Surface waters must be drained quickly from
the site to avoid soil saturation. Curb and gutter is �oposed along a
majority of the cut side of the roadway to protect against the erosive
velocities generated by the steep gradients and to minimize infiltration of
� m�isture into the road bed. The curb and gutter will require less maintenance
than wnuld a roadside ditch. The master drainage plan shows surface runoff
-4-
- being frequently disperse� through energy dissipators onto native vegetation.
This design conoept avoids large potentially detri�ntal �ncentrations of
� runoff and is the least disruptive to the normal hydrologic character of the
° site. The area of greatest runoff conoentration is shawn on the master
drainage plan. This water wiTl be piped to a sedimentation pond, 'if needed,
before being released into Spraddle Creek. This water is piped to a
sedimentation pond before being released into Spraddle Creek. All points of
discharge are located to avoid any negative impacts on the propose� building
sites. Construction werk run-off must be filtere� to avoid pollution of
S�raddle Creek and Gore Creek. Such t�np�rary erosion cca�trols are called for
by the Design Guideline for the development.
SOCIAL AND F]CONJMIC
The proposed completed project is ex1�ected to be populated in part by high
income residents less than full time and in �rt by some more full time
"caretaker" residents. Population additions to the Town are estimated to be
45 per average week and 128 per peak w�ek. Costs to the Tawn for servioes to
the pro�ect wr�uld be mi.nimal and for most services no more than for any normal
- subdivision. Ho�ever, the steep road grades will require higher than nortnal
�intenance �idit�res.
John Ryan has coordinated the analysis of the financial im�cts of the
Spraddle Creek develop�rent with the Zbwn of Vail. The results of this
analysis can be su�narized as follows:
l. The average Fair ?��arket Value of a Spraddle Creek lot and residence is
� projected to be $1,806.250 at time of canpletion.
2. ' Road maintenanoe and snow relrioval costs are projected at $15,898 per
year for the public segment of the Spraddle Creek roads.
3. After completion of fourteen (14) residences, the Tc�wn should
experience, over a ten year period, a net total cash flow benefit of
$246,214 from Spraddle Creek project revenues.
4. A SPraddle Creek ho� and lot are e�ected to cantribute two to three
times the average Vail housing unit contribution to Town of Vail
property tax revenues.
5. The Town of Vail will also receive increased revenues from property
transfer taxes and sales taxes.
6. Im�ct on police and fire protection was not anticipated to be
immediate but there may be scxne impact in the future. The net positive
tax revenues generated by the develop�rent can be directed tcx�rards
these potential impacts.
7. Vail co�nunity eznployee housing will benefit from the potential for up
to fourteen housing units restricted to Vail area eznployees.
Site develop�nt is planned to be substantially completed within two years of
� approval of the final plat. Residential construction is anticipated to be'
completed within six (6) years of approval.
-S-
COI�'II�7CINITY ACTION PLAN 1984
�..
The proposed subdivision is supportive of economi.c development, neighborhood
identity, creation of pern�nent open space and design quality both in
subdivision site improvements and residential oonstruction.
SPRADDLE CREEK STABLE
ln response to possible negative impacts on the Spraddle Creek Stable, an
alternative site for the stable was investigated. A site just east of the
Spraddle Creek property boundary was ,agreed upon by the Forest Service and the
permit holder. Mr. Gillett has agreed to pay for the �st of relocating the
stable facility (see Tab III,H-L) . The terrain on the new site will
acc�modate the stable operation more c�mfortably than the present site.
Included in the Appendix of this submittal is a copy of the Forest Service
letter 'dated ll/12/87, pertaining to possible relocation of the Stable and the
Eag1e County Special Use Pexmit which has also been issued for the stable
operation.
��
�
-6-
( WILDLIFE IMPACT REPORT
L
MARCH, 1990
PURPOSE AND I�,'I'HODOLCX�Y
This report is to provide inforn�ation regarding wildlife and the significant
effects on it as a consequence of'the proposed Spraddle Creek Subdivision
development. Methods used to obtain inforn�ation include on-site reviews,
review of existing doc�nents, and discussions with people kr�owledgable of the
area and subject.
WILDLIFE AND HABITAT .
The area as previously described provides habitat for a limited nlnnber and
��Aes of animal life. Findings ahow that the area is valuable to wildlife but
- � is noL consiciered of major or critical importance.
The U.S. Forest Service has developed a system to estimate types and n�rs
of animals associated with a known habitat without actually "counting" them
( on-site. The assessr�nt system illustrated in the acccenp�nying Tables ass�nes
�- a square mile (Section 5) of habitat with some amount of influence from the
proposed project. One assessment is of current conditions and one is for the
proposed project conditions.
The assessment assumes the extreme amount of influence on the area based on an
estimated amount of disturbance of the project site. The disturbance would
include approximately six acres of constructed road and utility ways and
approximately six acres of develt�ed building sites. The assessnent is based
on a measured 70 to 100 percent forest cover of aspen and associated
undercover. The cover would provide habitat for a m�derate population of
small ma�ttr�als and birds, and smaller populations of large ma�r�als, in
p�rticular deer and elk. The Colorado Division of Wildlife personnel e�ect
that the area is used to sor[� extent by grouse as a feeding area.
The assessment esti.mates that the more significant wildlife use of the area is
limited to 7.3 elk in sunm�er and 3.5 in winter; 26.5 deer in s��er and none
in winter. The area is not "open" enough (too forested) to allow enough feed
and browse to grow to support m�re animals and the snow is usually too deep
for winter use. The area is used more for s�nn�r feeding and cover, and is on
the lowest part of a migration route between suiraner and winter ranges to the
west and east. The assessment assu�s the m�st extreme case of clisturbance
�rom the project site with_ primary andjor secondary residential buildings
fully occupied year-round�nd 12 acres of land disturbed by roads and
buildings; the h�r�an population is calculated to be 2.5 persons per residence
or 13 X 2 X 2.5 = 65 people, and the dog population calculated at one per si�c
� persons equaling 10.8 dogs.
-1-
�_ IMPACTS AI�ID EFFEGTS ON WILL?LIFE
£ The �asured loss of i�abitat in the entire area would be approximately 12
=� �acres ` as previously 'described. The estimated effect on elk would be to
decrease the winter and sLUtYr�er populations each by 60 percent, but the deer
pap�zlation wr�uld probably not be decreased. There ^would be �ome loss of
;�rote�tive cover for grouse and other small animals. �'he greatest effect
�wever, wQUld be from worry and harass�ierat caused by him�an activities, i.e.
; t�i.sturbance of habitat by people and harassnent by dogs and cats.
ASSESSMENT OF IMPACI'S
There will not be a significant impact on wildlife in the area as a result of
the proposed project. Small anim�ls will not be appreciably disturbed and the
loss of feed for deer and elk will not be ha�nful. The elk wi11 retreat
approxunately one half mile from the projec� site but the deer and grouse will
continue to stay and'use the area if not harassed. It is better to extend
from �isting develo�ent sather than intrude it into isolated areas.
MITIGATIONS
Present deer and elk populations can be closely maintained in the area if
humazi activities are controlled. Dogs and cats must be oontained in buildings
or fenced areas. The undercover brush must be maintained to provide
protective oouer for grouse and other small animals. There should not be
� fences around entire' b�undaries of lots so as'to allow passage for deer and
other animals.
In order to minimize the impact of pets on wildlife in the area, the fo1loL;inq
will be made a part of the rules for the Spraddle Creek Homeowners
Association.
Livestock and Pets: Thekeeping of livestock and animals, except
dogs, cats and other household pets for personal enjoyment and
not for commercial purposes , shall not be allowed. -"However, the
owners of lot 14 would be allowed to keep horses, if desired.
The keeping of such dogs, cats and other household pets shall be
strictly governed by the applicable rules and regulations adoptect
by the Town of Vail. In addition, for the purpose of protecting
deer and other wildlif,e, owners are highly discouraged from brir�ging
dogs and cats into the subdivision. Any dogs or other pets or
animals brought into the subdivision shall be kept inside a
building or when outside shall be on a leash no longer than 10
feet and completely undercontrol of the owner at all times. No
pets will be` allowed to roam at will throughout the subdivision.
No dog or other pet run or kennel facility shall be allowed. In
the event of violation of this rule, any property owner may contact
the proper authorities to impound the animal or to take any other
action permitted by law.
�
�_
1 Eagle County H.B. 1041 Maps, Colorado Division of Wildlife
2 Conversation with Bill Andree, W.C.O. , Colorado Div. of Wildlife, August
1984
3 Supervisor"s Office, t7.S. White River National Forest, B. Rios and M.
Garvey, Wildlife Specialists, August, 1984
4 Conversation with Bill Andree, W.C.O. , Colorado Div. of Wildlife, August
1984 :
5 U.S. Census, Eagle County, Colorado, 1980
6 �ct Staterrent, The Potato Patch, Prepared`For The Tawn Of Vail and Vail
Associates, inc. , Vai1, Colorado by The John Ryan Compax�y, February,
1974, Page 24.
�i
�
-3-
AIl2 QUALITY INlPACT REPORT
��.
MARCH► 1990
PURPC)SE AND METHODOLt)GY
This report is to provide information regarding the quality of air in the area
of the proposed subdivision and the effects of the developrr�nt on that
quality. The methodology is the same as that used in the Impact Statement for
the Potato Patch Subdivision, by The John Ryan Company, February, 1974.
POLLLF�ANTS CCh�7SIDEREI�
Typ�s of pollutants considered are particlates {dust and ash) , and gases
{carbon rrbnoxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons). Sources of pollutants
are construction activities, autcmobiles, residential gas furnace and wood
fireplace emmissions.1 ����5��j J
( POLLL�ANT SOURCES
t�
Population of the residential project and the occupancy patterns are the basis
for calculating pollutants. Asstuning there are 14 lots each with a prirr�r.y
and/or secondary residential building, there would be an average of ten
vehicle trips per day per dw�lling unit {regardless of population or vehicles
per family) and each unit with one gas furnace and one wood burning fireplace.
Theoretically, there would be an average of 280 vehicle trips per day, six
miles per trip, 28 gas furnaces, and 28 wood burning fireplaces on the project
if full develo�nent and full occupancy year-round were to occur. Ho�ever, the
type of occupancy to be effected by Vail Associates would m�intain
approxunately fifty percent occupancy of the primary residences. Assuming
also that fifty percent of the secondary residences would be occupied, there
would ultimately be 140 vehicle trips and 840 miles driven per day, and there
would be 14 gas furnaces and 14 wood burning fireplaces. Table 1 identifies
the m�jor sources of air pollution and the amounts potentially oontributed by
the proposed project.
-1-
�
�.
TABLE 1
NL�jor Souroes of Air Pollution Potentially
Contributed by the DeveloFxr�ent of Spraddle Creek
Vail, Colorado
(pounds �er da�
PartiCU- Carbon Nitrogen Hydro-
Souroe lates Monoxide Oxides Carbons
�� � f���� � � � � �
Natural� Gas ����'�- ��
Unit �nissions
a resident hous' ;g; uni .031 .033 .15 .010
Project E�nissions {50�)*
14 resident ho ing its .434 .462 2.10 .14
Wood Burninq Fireplaoes
Unit �nissions
a resident housing unit .64 .22
Project F�nnissions {SOo)*
14 resident housing units 8.96 3.08
�
Automotive
Unit �nissions per znile .23529 .00515 .01765
Project Eanissions (SOo)*
14 resident housing units
est. 840 zniles per day 197.6436 4.326 14.826
'I'OTALS 9.394 198.1056 9.506 14.966
��. -}� .��6.�� �Z ��• ��Z �-�. �3a- = y�3 ,9�3Z
Source: Appendix A. Impact Statenent, The Potato Patch, Vail, Co. , Feb. 1974
* not more than SOo occupancy at total build-out.
�.lr'�/.���I�����L�,,�'`.�%1.�2�� �� �e� 4LC'Gc�2 � - �������� ,�� �2r ��,��
� � �
�'�l�,�C�,<uc�i�G��'' 2� �2�:_c����5� ����,�f!-�t'���'����, '.�' �-��`/�� `� �
� � � � � � � �
Table l identifies the potential total pounds of air pollutants (�rticulates
and gases) that could be introduced into the atm�sphere each day from the
project. The pollutants, however, are not emitted every day and by all
dwelling units even though the Table shows a combined total of 222.5775 pounds
per day for pollutants. While autcrnobile gnissions may occur any day of the
year, furnace and fireplace Hnissions are �pncentrated in tn four coldest
winter months; Nov�nber thru February. Q.QpO lt/l�Qr�.lAJe j��G�2�� ���Q�^
��
�
-1-
� A??^cndix A of the Potato Patch Impact Statament is a comprehensive study of
the m�teorological, atnxjspheric and air quality �nditions of the Gore Valley.
It clearly shows that p�llutants are 'readily carried out of the valley during
the warmer period of 'the year by uprising constant westerly winds. In �lder
weather, hc�wever, an exacerbating cc�nbination of events occur to cause
p�llutants to linger and conc�ntrate. In winter the ski resort canm.�nity has
the greatest population occupancy, and since this occuxs in the coldest
rronths, there is more use of furnaces and fireplaces. The winter air mass is
�oia �a nea�`�a.W�,as are often calm, particularly in December.
[�en air pollution emissions are greatest and when there is no mw�nent of air
for dispersal of pollutants, there occurs an "episode condition." The study.
included an estimate that the episode condition, or high pollution potential,
could occux at 20 percent of the t�me during winter months `(Novemb�r thru
February) . A peculiar characteristic of the Valley, haaever, is a temperature
inversion layer of air approximately 200 feet above the valley floor, or at an
elevation of approxi.mately 8360 feet. The project site, in ccx��parison, lies
between elavations of 8300 to 8800 feet, or 0 to 500 feet above the inversion
layer that traps air pollutants in the Val'ley.
CONQUSIQI�]S AND MITIGATIONS
�
The project, after full buildrout, would produce less than one percent of air
p�llution to the present arrount. In the critical winter �riod, air
p�llutants would likely be emitted above the entrapping inversion layer and be`
,� � dispersed out of the Valley. Preventing or decreasing air pollution may be'
� j accom�lished by prudent control of fireplace and vehicle use, selective use of
/ fuels, use of inechanical devices to enhance fuel combustion, and more use of
z solar energy for heatinq.
� � ,
� ' � � '�,
/ � � ��� �gG� �CDC'_5 ,
jt �Ifj't���` �C�/��7tii�I °�°C°�' l�u "�'C���CG,�2''1i L�,1j v�� CCC��S ��i�.��,J �
�� � � � �
� -° �J
� ����� �
,s
�
�'f '��,; ,� �/ ' x J���`�, �' �r.;.��� ���� z� ,��,.�f�' i� /t.� �,�YL
��e.J r�,�/,/l�/i1'r-,G 1 �L�.�/L 7 ;L�`` �tl_�r � ���d� � - /
�1" � ;r t./ �� /G�L'�'�.-..�ed),�/C!�e'�
`??`'��s�'�i G'� � �l��L���G��S �f�r.� �i ����� ��� �O f
„ t -
,
�' 'r%'�f G' ���'�i �S�' ��'" ./r C'�����'%�-���� � � cC �� ����������,_----
� �, � � , � `,
G,L� � �1,�;' /��` :�' ° /
� /
�/J�, � �%,�L,��,tfr�'�l�����'�l�i�'�
� � '� �, ��'� rf_��' ,�a ���G2�� r���� �'� /
;
��C��'��,t;,5,�1�J�� �ir��/',.r l��% C r �� Q.� �� ��� c.- �� .5. �-��� .
1 gineering Report for the Prelit�inary Plan Application for Spraddle�`�
Creek Subdivision, Prepared for Vail Associates, Inc. by Mountain
Engineering and Land Surveying Company, Glenwood Springs, Colorado,
August 23, 1984.
2 Impact Statement, The Potato Patch, Vail, Colorado, Prepared for the Town
� of Vail and Vail Associates, Inc. , Vail, Colorado by The John Ryan
Com�xny, Denver, Colorado, February, 1974.
3 Ibid.
� VISUAL II�7PACT REPORT
MARC�3, 1990
VISUAL ANALYSIS
The proposed Spraddle Creek Subdivision site represents a high visual
sensitive level, prim�rily due to the fact that the site is so closely alic�ned
and contiguous to the Town of Vail, Vail Nbuntain and I-70. The high `
sensitivity level is campounded by the fact that populations associated wi:th
the ski/recreation complexes historically are particularly sensitive to visual
resource quality within such an area.
Visual access to the Spraddle Creek site is the most pronounced from Vail
Nbuntain, I-70 eastbound from the pedestrian ovespass at Lionshead to the
project site, the south and north frontage roads from the pedestrian "bridge to
the project site, and from unobstructed areas of Vai1 Village, i.e. south of
the Christiania L�odge and from the Gold Peak base area. The major portion of
Vail Village is :not totally visually accessible to ` the project site.
Visibility from Vai1 Village is masked by architectural structures and only a
�rtial view is apparent in rrost cases. Another important point to consider
i.s the fact that most view corridors within the village are prim3rily oriented
toward Vail Nbuntain and in an east and west direction along store fronts and
� are not oriented in a northernly direction toward Spraddle Creek.
Visual access by motor vehicle along the eastbound lanes of I-70, and
eastbound along the north and south frontage roads, is unobstructed and
presents a high level of view�r sensitivity. The viewer will be �posed to
the western portion of the site and will actually experience a profile of the
project site.
The rrost sensitive and by far the most critical of the view oorridors to the
project site are the views from Vail Nbuntain. The proximity of Vail
Nbuntain, being directly south and across the valley floor f rom the proposed
Spraddle Creek Subdivision, represents a view shed that is c:anpletely
unobstructed. Also, the relationship of elevation of Vail Mountain to the
project site are s�milar and higher in nature, thus creating full e�osure to
the project site.
Even though the visual sensitivity of the proposed Spraddle Creek Subdivision
is potentially high, certain amenities exist that help mitigate the visual
impact of the development. The vegetation that exists on the project site
serves as a visual screen. Eecause the vegetation is such a strong and
oontinuous element of the landscape, any develop�nt on the project site will
be subordinate to the dominance of the landscape. I�ocation of building sites
have been evaluated using extreme caution and care, in taking advantage of
vegetational screening. The proposed Design Guidelines dictate strict
restrictions on vegetational disturbanc�es around building envelopes in order
to preserve as much vegetation cover as possible. The color sketch included
� in this submittal package and titled "Perspective View from Lift #1" presents
the anticipated visual impact from one of the more sensitive areas of the Vail
Village.
-1-
�
� The existing topcjgraphy lends itself to screening sane ,portions of the
proposed developr�nt. An existing ridge that is appro�cim�tely 400 feet north
of I-70, screens a major portion of the project site from I-70 north of Vail
Village, some areas within Vail Village, and the Vail Transportation Center.
The ridge will mask the major portion of the project site.
Potential visual impacts can further be mitigated through careful planning arul
design of architectural structures, retaining structures and utility
corridors. Criteria for these mitigation methods have been �dentified in the
proposed 'Design �idelines.
Architectural design guidelines have been tailored to reflect a harm�nious
relationship between structures ' and erivironn�nt. Design criteria such as
building mass, form, color and texture`are given the upm�st ' consideration in
the design guidelines to insure that the structures are visually subordinate
to the overall landscape of the project site.
Extensive retaining structures are proposed to reduce the site disturbance
from road cut and fill slopes. Reinforced earth wall systems faced with
oolored, split-face concrete block, are identified as the preferred
alternative for retai.ning wall treat�nt. The split-face concrete block
system provide the greatest potential for oolor and textural harmony with the
visual character of the site. This retaining wall system can be observed c�n
the access road to Potato Patch.
�
Utility oorridors have been designed to minimize vegetation disturbance and
long horizontal runs. Utility scars will be revegetated with grasses,
wildflowers and shrubs that are indigenous to the project site. Revegetation
with native to the site plants will reduce the visual impacts of such
disturbance.
In sLUYa�ary, the visual impact of the Spraddle Creek Subdivision will be
subordinate to the overall visual character of the site and surrounding scene.
As a result of existing amenities on the project site and mitigating affects
of the proposed designs and Design Guideline methodologies the anticipated
Spraddle Creek Subdivision visual impacts are of a level acceptable to and
consistent with the visual character of the Vail Valley.
l
-2-
VAIL FI?2E DEPARTiTE?1T
REVTEra OF SPRADDLL CRLEK SUBDIVISI01�1 PROPOSAL
N 0 V�T�i BER 1 9 t3 9
TOPICS OF CONCyRN and OI3SERVATIONS
1 . P•iethod of public acc�ss to Forest Service land should be
clearly indicated. The int�rsection of the `Forest Service access
road and Gillett �:oad and the relative nositioning of' the security
gate should be desic�ned to allow spac� for trail head parking,
spac� for vehicles travelinc� in both directions and emergency
vehicle access �•�idths .
Th� presence of a Forest Service access road indicates a
potential for vehicular traffic in �xcess of those number of
v�hicles directly related to the subdivision.
2. Emergency egress and access through the security gate must be
provided. Adec�uate roads widths through the gate are absolut�ly
reauirAd. The gate(s) must operate in a fail-safe manner ( i.e. the
gate arm must be of a breakaway design or automatically open during
�au�er failures, etc. ) .
3. The provision of a careta};er is stronaly recomMended and
encouraged. A responsible �arty �•�ill need to be on fils, �•�ith
local address and phone number and �r�it:� adequate authority to
resolve problems. Management of fire alarr� systems, sno�•� removal
and on-stre°t par�cing is essential.
4. The proposed site is heavily forested �•�ith natural grasses and
ground cover. The south facing slope predisposes the vegetation
to being dryer and thus subj ect to a more severe fire danger.
Guidelines developed by the Federal Emergency i4anagement Ac�ency and
the U.S. Forest Service under the titla of "T�7ildland Urban
Interface" should be incorporated into the overall design and
layout. -
PROPOSED II-1PttOVEi�I�rITS
ST��ETS
5. The request for a variance from To�vn of Vail street
requirements should ?�e denied. The rer_,uests to reduce' the
effective road �Aridth to 18 feet is not recommended. The net width
of a fire engine is eight and one half feet. j�]ith the doors or
compartments op�n, the gross ��idth of the fire engin� i� 14 feet.
Allowing only a two foot space on eith�r side of the vehicle from
the 'side of the road and from the centerline, and allo���ing a tF�o
foot space on either side of an oncoming vehicle, leaves a net
caidth of one and a half feet. `i'�•�o vehicles cannot safely pass
without slo�•�ing to a cra�al.
,.
SP?2�DD?� CREEI{ SUBDIVISIrJN PROP�S�L
Vail Fire Department
Page 2
6. The offer to nrovide a two foot should�r on the do�an hi11 sin�
does not provide sufficient mitigation. Driving a 40,000 lb.
vehicle uphill on an un�aved portion of a road�•�ay �aithin 24 inches
or less of a steep anc� notentially icy or snow covered slone is not
reasonable; it is unsafe, and is not permitted under To��m of Vail
safety guide'lines.
7. The curb and gutter on th� uphill side of th� roadway ��ill
reportedly ac?d only one foot to t'�e roadc��ay. Ho�aever, if a c�utt�r
is to ad�ctuately function as a draina,e feature, it �•�ill need to
k� canted and slopnd. Driving c�o�•�nhill on an icy or snow covered
surface that is both cant�d and sloned is not conducive to drivinr,
��ithout getting stucic.
8. The presence or existence of other non-conforming road�•�ays
within the Toz•m of Vail does not serve to confirr�, endorse or
approve additional sub-standard roads. Th� specific ref�rence to
roads in the Glen Lion subdivision does not mention that th� roads
in the Glen Lion subdivision are private, have not been acc�pt�d
by the Town and ��rill be required to be u�a,rad�d befor� they ��ill
be accepted. The referenc� does not mention that the �Glen Lion
area is r�latively free from steep slop�s and tne roads to not
border the edge of the slope.
9. Th� grade of the slope is in excess oi adopt�d standards. Th�
submittal itself states th� projected vehicle load of 18 vehicles
per hour is compatible with a 10o grade but requests a variance to
11�. An increase of over 23� in the maximum grade has not been ,
d�monstrated to be absolutely essential. The option of
reconfiguration of the road to �rovide a more reasonable grade wi11
understandably be r�ore e:tpensive but not �•�ithout merit.
10. The fact that the project is on the south aspect o= the
mountain does not "minimize snow and ice probl�ms" but merely
reduc�s the nur�ber of days per year the roads �-�ill be advers�ly
affected by the ambient ���eather. During incl�ment weather, icy
roads are slick on n�rth and soutli facing aspects.
In contrast, thz southern exposures ar� more prone to the
semi-annual freeze / tha�•� cycle in the spring and fall ��hen
t�mp�ratures cause sno��� to melt during the day and then refreeze
at night.
91 . The propos�d intersection of the Spraddle Cr�ek Poad and the
North Frontag� Road includes an island configur�tion. It is our
recommendation that the island be pulled back av�ay from the
frontage road. The existing cant on the frontage road combin�d
with th� natural tendency to veer a��ay from obstacles ( i.e. th�
�, � .
�
SPP.ADDLE CREEIC SU}3DIVISION PROPOS?�L
Vail Fire Department
Page 3
island) may tend to cause w�st bound traffic to cross or edge
to��rards the centerline of the frontage road. The island concept
can still be incorporat�d into an entry:aay design if r�oved u�
to��arc�s the hillside.
DRAINAG�'
12. The proposal stat�s 4�ater draina,e t��ill be acco:�plished in
part by the curb and gutter system to be built on the uphill side
of the roadtaa�y, This confirms' th� issues discussed above c�it;�
res�ect to cant, slo�e and road ���idth. People ten� not to drive
in the c�utters, esp�cially if there' s t��at�r; ice, roc?;s washed into
the gutter by the runoff or other obstacles.
ti�1�TER SYSTE:.2
13. Th� pronosal indicat�s a storage t�n?c of 1 5D ,000 to 1 80 , 000
gallons will b� constructed. It also states "local criteria
supports less storac�e. " The other "local criteria" includes a
provision that each structure be equipp�d ;-�ith a �ron�rly designeC
and installed fir� snrinkler system and n�onitornd fire alar�
sy stem.
SOCIAL �.PdD y'C0,10:�1IC
14. The projected economic impact is estimated by th� proponent
at $5,000 per �ear over road maintenance costs at buildout of the
project. No amortization schedule �aas derived to reflect cash flo:•�
ov�r the �rojected 6 �year period anticipated for buildout.
The availability of . up to tt•�elve employee housing units is
suggested. The proposal does not even cuarantee the careta}cer' s
position will be fill�d. It suggests a careta?cer' s unit will be
available, "if rented. "
ENVIRODIPIENT�.L Ir1PACT P�PORT
15. The impact on t�rilc�l if e is sugg�st�d to be minimal if hur:►an
activities and pets are properly controlled. It also states
protective covenants t•�ill be established. Prot�ctive covenants
have not been sho��m to b� enforceabl� ( i.s. leash laws) under To:an
of Vai 1 hluni cipa 1 Code sections.
16. The Social and Economic section, Item �1 6. , suggests the
positive economic ben�fits derived from property tax, transfer tax
,
�-, _..<
SPRl�DDI,� CR�EI: SU3DIVISIOr1 PROPOSAL
Vail Fire D�»artment
Page 4 �
and sales ta:s "can be dir�cted toc<�ards" Mitigating the costs
associated t�ith providing fire and polic° protecti�n, Such a
suggestion does not necessarily either oif set the actual cost nor
does the budget process real-ly wor;; in suc�1 a fashion.
ARCiiITrCTURAL GUIDELIrIES
17. Landscaping an� preservation of �xisting vegetation should ?�e
in accordance 4�ith the guidelin?s issues �y the Federal Emerc��ncy
I�lanageMent Agency, U. S. For�st Service, Colorado 5tat� Forest
Service, and associated agencies' ;Jlt�'1 res��ct to mitigating the
threat of wildland, forest and grass fires.
18. y�]ood siding and wood shake roof coverings on th� residential
buildings should be kept to a �inimum �u� to the close pro�imit1
to th� forest lands and the threat of fire �ith�r from t•�ithin t?Z�
structure or from the forest itself.
19. Spark arr�stor are required on all soli� fu�l rireplace
chimneys.
20. All structures shoul� be designed c�ith fire snrinl,ler slste*�s
in �ccordanc� ���ith N.F.P.A. Standarc?s 13, 13P, or 13D, 1989 ndition,
and provided with approv�d fire detection syst�ms monitored by
approv�d central station �aciliti�s.
GEAIERAL FEATURES
21 . i�dequat� turning radius for fire departm�nt vehicl�s must be
provided, including turnarounds.
22. No trees shall be allo�•��d �•�ithin 5 feet of the exterior
p�rimet�r of tlze structure.
23 . No trees shall be allou�ed to overhang any point of a
structure.
24 . Thin all ladder fuels ���ithin 3Q f�et of the �:{terior p�rineter
in e�cess of 1p feet high.
25 . Forest manag�ment plan shall be submitted by an approved
ag�ncy. The plan should incl'ud� thinning trees to provide crotms
at 1Q - 20 foot maximum spacing, architectural planning, and
ex�cution of the plan.
.. $
,
The Town of Vail Public Works/Transportation Department's review
of the Spraddle Creek Subdivision Proposal dated November 1989.
The review comments try to follow the format presented in the major
subdivision report.
1. Geoloqy and Soils
The proposed cuts and fills are of 'significant magnitude, even with :
care, the potential of ground water in the cuts is very high. `-The
ground water when found will cause significant slope failures which
wi11 require even greater cuts' to stabili`ze. This will cause
significant problems with slopes, drainage and wall construction.
The report states water and sewer will be the only underground
utilities. A11 utilities wil3 need to be underground.
The report states subsurface investigations should be performed for
each building site to determine design criteria. This should read
"shall be performed" .
The report provides an equivalent fluid pressure (EFP) of 65 pcf
for the water tank wall design. The report states this takes into
account a sloping backfill. What is the maximum slope allowed for
the backfill to result in the EFP to be 65 pcf?
The soils engineer needs to be aware and comment on the new wall �
system proposed.
Before the preliminary roadway is approved, some further work
should be completed by as the report states, "a firm specialized
in the type of wall" and severe slope conditions proposed to
determine the feasibility of the slope stabilities and the walls
proposed and prepare specific X-sections and plan seqments of these
critical sections depicting the overall area of disturbed soils,
to be reviewed by the Town Staff and PEC.
Soils report states:
Fills less than 10' high should be at maximum of 2 : 1, fills
greater than 10' should be further examined. The summary
states fi11s will not exceed 1 1/2: 1, this is incorrect.
The cut slopes section, brings up two important factors that need
to be understood before preliminary approval is given. This is the
existence of ground water that will be encountered in the
construction of the roadway and how to handle it. The other item
being the method of building the walls and the presence of ground
water on these walls. Both of these will have significant and
costly effects upon the project. They need to be discussed,
understood and a method to handle them determined by a soils
engineer, before work progresses on the design.
The soil nailing, the report discusses may be workable, as stated
previously, further _work needs to be completed before it is
accepted. The most significant issue, besides the technical
feasibility would be the aesthetics of the nailed surface.
The report states that cut slopes up to 15 feet should be 'at a
maximum slope of 1.5 to 1, slopes greater than this need to be
further analyzed. The Town Staff ` and PEC will determine the
maximum height and grade of cut and fill slopes before further
analyzing is required.
There is also the balancing act of getting proper revegetation of
cut and fill slopes and protecting the slopes from surface water
and groundwater effects. To establish good growth on steep slopes,
the area should be irrigated for two seasons, longer if trees are
to be replanted. This however causes saturated soils and some
erosion before the growth takes `hold. However, if the slopes are
not irrigated, growth is significantly stunted, especially on the
south facing slopes. Trees will not survive the unirrigated
setting. The more 'barren slopes are still susceptible to erosion,
slope failure and rocks rolling onto the roadway, not to mention
the lack of aesthetics. 3t wi11 be very important to schedule
construction and the revegetation to obtain the best revegetation
results.
The handling of groundwater and surface drainage along the roadway
is of significant importance in guaranteeing the integrity of the
pavement life. An overall method of handling both these fTows will
need to be presented before work progresses.
The two soils reports, cannot emphasize enough the slope stability
concerns in regards to encountering groundwater and large cut
slopes.
2. Vectetation
Because the proposed construction will have significant areas of
disturbed soils, a revegetation plan needs to be finalized and
approved before the preliminary street construction plans are
approved. Everyone needs to agree how the mitigation of the
disturbed areas will be handled, allowing the engineer to final the
street plans knowing there should not be any concerns with the
aesthetics as these were agreed to before significant time and
money was spent on the plans. This is also concerning the walls
and the slope stability methods employed. The revegetation should
be warranted for 3 growing seasons with a warranty bond to ensure
the slopes obtain the treatment agreed to.
3. Wildlife
It would appear that the roadway network disrupts more than 9 acres
of wildlife habitat. How is this determined and who has the final
word?
- ,
The protective covenants on pets and livestock - who will enforce
these? _.
Why is their no effect on the deer population? It appears the
� average stays the same when it doesn't.
4. Atmosphere
Has the concerns or methods changed in determining the effects
since 1974?
The study assumes a 50� occupancy, the peak polluting days from
auto emissions, woodburning emissions and other polluting sources
occurs at the peak times. This is also some of the worst
atmospheric conditions also. The analysis should consider 1DD$
occupancy.
Mitigation should include the use of catalytic converters on the
woodburning units.
5. Visual
The block walls on Potato Patch are pleasing as smaller wa11s,
however, high and long stretches of these walls are not the most
attractive system.
Even revegetated cut slopes and utility corridors will be a scar
on the landscape due to the site currently being heavily forested.
6. Encxineerinct
The engineering section of the report states this is a summary of
the major improvements required to serve the subdivision. The
engineering report needs to provide more detailed reports to verify
the summaries.
Traffic
The engineering report states there are 120 VPD. in the
Atmospheric section. It was reported there would be a peak
of 24a VPD. The 240 appears to be a more realistic number.
This would also cause the DHV to increase. The report states
the probability of this peak occurring is slight. However,
it will occur at the peak time of all the Town of Vail's road,
so it does occur when it is most critical.
The modified T intersection appears unacceptable. However,
_ a proposed striping plan of this, intersection will need to be
presented 'to finalize the review. This adds additional ,
confusion and safety problems to an already unsafe
intersection. The access point to the subdivision should
enter the Frontage Road at a 90 degree angle at a point where
intersecting movements can take place in a safe manner. The
Mountain Sell Tower road should be looked at as a possible
access point. The Town would like to receive copies of
correspondence with CDOH on this matter.
Streets
The street designs presented need to be looked at as two
street systems. The first being the public road section to
the proposed Forest Service access and the second being the
proposed private roadway system above the security `gate.
Public Roadway Section
This roadway will e�erience many types of drivers and
vehicles because of its' location and the functions it serves.
The driver types that can be e�ected are as follows:
1. Property owners and hired help
2 . Delivery, trash removal and other service industries
including construcfiion personnel
3 . Guests of property owners, both frequent and those
unfamiliar with the roadway conditions
4. Emergency response personnel
5. Maintenance personnel
6. General public such as:
a. Sightseers
b. Firework watchers and photography seekers due to
its' excellent elevated location across from Vail
Mountain
7. Forest access types such as:
a. Woodcutters
b. Hikers
c. Hunters
8 . Other modes to be expected:
a. Pedestrians
b. Sikers
c. Horse riders and horse drawn vehicles
9. Tourists
10. Possible logging operations
The private roadway above the security gates will be utilized
mostly by the first group of users above general public.
It is the group of vehicles and driver mix of the general
_ public and forest access users in combination with the private
road uses that requires the roadway design to be carefully
thought out and designed appropriately to insure for a safe
roadway section.
The combination of width, (both paved roadway and shoulders) ,
grades; horizontal alignment, vertical alignment, severity of
roadway cut & fill slopes, severe weather conditions, drainage
facilities, sight distances, design speeds and vehicle and
driver mix that determine the requirements of a safe roadway.
The Town's minimum standards for the type of roadway based on
only the ADT from the report, which seems low when compared
to the traffic volumes experienced on upper Potato Patch above
770 this past summer, would be:
Paved Level Gravei Design Max Min.
Width Shoulder Each Speed Grade Curve
Side %, Radius
� Public Sec. 22 3 ' 30 8 60
Private Sec. 22 2 ' 30 8 50
However, when all the additional design factors are
considered, it is apparent minimum standards may not apply.
The final determination will be made once the whole roadway
is designed. This includes providing X-sections, sight
distance checks, guardrail locations and determining final
drainage improvements.
Based on the preliminary plans provided, it is recommended the
public section of roadway should be 24 ' wide, 3 ' -4 ' gravel
shoulders or curbs with 2 ' pans, maximum grades of 8�, provide
adequate sight distances and guardrails where downside slopes
exceed 3:1. The presence of walls, severe sideslopes or
guardrails and steep grades provide an effective width of 20 ' .
This is the minimum width two vehicles could pass each other
at reasonable driving speeds. The actual width provides some
room to still have vehicles able to safely see and pass a
parked car, pedestrian or bicyclist.
The private section of roadway should be 22 ' wide, 2 '-3 '
gravel shoulders or curbs with 2 ' pans, maximum grades of 8�,
provide adequate sight distances and guardrails where downhill
slopes exceed 3 : 1. The presence of walls, severe side slopes
or guardrail and steep grades provide an effective width of
18 ' . This is the absolute minimum two cars could slowly pass
each other. The additional width allows some minimal space
for pedestrians or bicyclists.
. . �
� �...
Grades in excess of 8� should not be allowed due to the severe
weather conditions experienced in Vail. The necessity of
emergency vehicles to negotiate grades above '8$ is asking for
trouble. Police and medical response vehicles do not have 4
wheel drive vehicles. Fire trucks are 4 wheel drive, however,
when a pumper tank zs fully, a 40, 000 lb, vehi.cle has
difficulty climbing grades of 8�, much less grades above this.
Emergencies do not wait for `the <roads to be plowed and sanded.
The reliability of a private maintenance contractor to
guarantee the roadway is passable to 2 wheel drive vehicles
and loaded fire trucks at all times is a heavy cost to pay.
In addition, the liab'ility to all the parties involved,
including the Town of Vail, if a mishap occurred due to an
emergency vehicle not being able to respond is unthinkable and
will not be allowed to take place.
Public Works agrees with Fire Department's comments concerning
the streets. The distinction between private and public
roadway sections should not be made for reviewing this
subdivision. The Town could be approached at a Tater date to
accept the private sections of roadway as public roads. Many
private roads are offered to the Town. To preclude the Town
from taking the roads or putting any undue hardship on the
Town if these roads are accepted, the two sections should be
treated equally concerning the design.
The report should address street lighting.
A standard turnaround needs to be constructed at the Security
gate to allow people to safely turn around if they travel up
this roadway.
Drainacte
The report states a Master Drainage Report has been completed.
This needs to be submitted for review before comments can be
made on drainage concerns.
7. Social Economic
The study reports "As is the case of all new subdivisions in the
Town of Vail, the developer is responsible for providing the
subdivision with all necessary utilities, infrastructure and roads-
designed to Town specifications". This subdivision is not
providing this.
It states that 3f4 of the caretaker's units will be occupied - the
Atmospheric assumed 1f2 of the caretakers will be occupied.
The estimated sales tax assumes a , caretaker's household wage of
$40, 000. This appears high in addition to room, utilities; and
possible board. The esti�nated expenditu�e of $68, 000 being spent
in stores in Vail by the permanent residents seems high. These
people could shop anywhere for what they need. I wouldn't expect
that type of expenditure from them in Vail.
A11 the economic benefits assume immediate build out of the
subdivision to compare against the costs borne by the Town ,which
will be realized immediately after construction of the roadways.
If the estimated full economic benefit is to be compared to an
incremental preceived additional cost, a better comparison would
be full benefit to full cost.
Therefore, the oost "of maintaining the road should not be excluded
from the comparison. These road maintenance costs need to be
included and power costs for street lights. These costs need to
be added to the cost of an overlay every 7-10 years to keep the
road in good shape.
The water pumping costs ' - is this ,cost for any specific head?
Also, these residences are larger and are reguired to have
irrigated landscaping. It would appear their use is higher than
an average household. The estimate only figures an average week -
there are also peak times which add to this cost. Like the
streets, the cost of the utility maintenance costs need to be
included into the comparison.
Livery stable relocation and the forest roadway connection past the
subdivision needs to be addressed with proposed gr�des, widths etc.
Application for a Variance
Roadway grade variance should not be allowed by the PEC. Pre-
application conference will also need to be set up with the
Town Engineer on Engineering Variances.
Adjacent property owner's list does not include Crossroads
Shopping Center
Forest Service should obtain a fee simple ROW verses an
easement in the swap of properties. This agreement should not
be signed until the final street construction plans are
approved, the roadway is constructed and accepted.
In regards to the Upper Eag1e Va11ey Water letter, it states
any additional fire service that needs to be added to those
already existing will be paid by those requesting the service
- does this mean the Vai1 Fire Department?
. ' r
Site Development Standards
Drainage .
An additional item should be added, that runoff from driveways
should be intercepted and not allowed to run onto the roadway
surface.
The rest of the conditions cause problems with the underlined
caution at the bottom of page IV-4. There appears to be a
contradiction in these standards.
Grading/Slopes
It states that in severe circumstances, the maximum cut and
fill slopes shall be 2:1. Also, these design guidelines
suggest that slopes greater than 2 :i will not be revegetated.
The extent of these slopes need to be identified. Soils
report says fill slopes greater than ' 10' and cut slopes
greater than 15' need to be analyzed for other slope
treatments. Length needs to be defined in discussing cut and
fill slopes.
Access/Driveways/Parking
Maximum grades of 8� unless individually approved by Town
Engineer. Adequate snow storage and trash enclosures should
also be addressed in this section. briveways on north side
of house are bad.
Architectural
The standards report foundations shall be designed by an
architect professional engineer. Please define this.
Chimneys
Require catalytic converters.
Trash Containers
Define trash containers and there placement must be reviewed
before constructed.
Landscaping
Provide low maintenance area minimum 8 ' wide for roadway snow
storage. Irrigation causes problems of groundwater. Erosion
control measures need to read "shall" in both paragraphs.
� �
��. �
To: Jay Peterson and Joe Macy
From: Community Development Department
Date: November 19, 1989
Re: Spraddle Creek
The staff requests that you submit the following information:
1.An explanation of how the lots meet the Hillside Residential
Zone District standards. A surveyor will need to calculate
buildable area for each lot. Maximum GRFA figures for the primary
unit and caretaker unit should be listed for each lot. 30 percent
slope areas within building envelopes should also be indicated.
2 . Master Drainage Plan
3 . View Analysis with emphasis on the views of road cuts and
retaining walls. Building envelopes which will also be easily
viewed should be addressed.
4 . Details on retaining walls including materials, heights, and
revegetation.
5. Documentation of any geological hazards on the property. All
geological hazard areas should be indicated on a site plan.
6. A written statement on how the proposal relates to the Land Use
Plan.
7 . A written agreement between the owner and the livery operator
concerning the relocation of the livery should be submitted. A
site plan showing the relocated livery and road is needec�.
Information on the design (grades,retainage etc. ) of the road is
necessary.
8 . The tratfic analysis should also include vehicles accessing the
Forest Service land.
9 . A table showing a realistic build-out rate and associated costs
to TOV versus revenue should be developed.
10. We support the Fire Department's recommendation that
"Wildland Urban Interface" landscaping criteria should be
incorporated into the design guidelines.
��` v �
11. An explanation of how the Spraddle Creek DRB relates to the
TOV DRB.
12 . CDOH comments on the revised Frontage Road intersection
should be obtained. We would also like to hear their comments on
the traffic analysis.
13 . Are the caretaker units restricted per the TOV employee
housing requirements?
14 . Please provide more justification for the assumption that the
subdivision will have a 50% occupancy.
15. What is the basis for the sales tax contributions referred to
on page 4 of the Social and Economic Report?
16. Below is a summary of your requests. Is this your
understanding of "the total list?
A request for a major subdivision; A request for a variance to
road width; A request for a variance to road grade; A request for
a variance for retaining wall height.
Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr.
18 . Letters form Heritage Cable and Western Slope Gas verifying
service should be submitted.
19. An additional seven copies of the Spraddle Creek notebook
will be necessary for Town Council.
20.The Air Quality Analysis is being reviewed by Susan Scanlan,
environmental health officer for the Town of Vail . Comments on
environmental studies will be forthcoming.
This is a summary of the staff's preliminary comments. We would
appreciate it if you would submit this additional information to
our department within three weeks prior to the date of your final
review by the PEC. We ask that you submit the information listed
in points 1, 2 , 7, 8, and 12 as soon as possible so that the staff
may proceed with reviewing the proposal.
�
ORDINANCE N0. 38
- Series of 1987
AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING ON A PARCEL OF PROPERTY
COMMONLY REFERRED 'TO AS SPRADDLE CREEK, LOCATED IN THE
SOUTHEAST ONE QUARTER, SOUTHWEST ONE QUARTER OF SECTION
5, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH RANGE 80 �IEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO, HERETOFORE
ANNEXED TO THE TO�IN OF VAIL, DESIGNATING SAID ZONING DISTRICT FOR
THE ANNEXED PROPERTY; SETTING FORTH DETAILS RELATING THERETO;
AND AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP IN RELATION TO THE ANNEXED PROPERTY
;WHEREAS, the property to' be zoned and more particularly described in Exhibit A
attached hereto has been annexed to the Town of Vail ; and
WHEREAS, there is an application from the property owner for said zoning said
parcel ; and
WHEREAS the Planning and Environmental Commission has considered the approp-
riate zoning for the annexed property and has unanimously recommended that the Town
Council zone the parcel Hillside Residential ; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers it in the public interest to zone said an-
nexed property as soon as possible,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TO�IN OF VAIL,
COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1 . �
The Town Council finds that �the procedures for the provision of zoning districts
for property annexed to the Town of Vail have been fulfilled, and the Town Council
hereby received the report of recommendation of the Planning and Environmental ,
Commission recommending the zoning of the annexed property.
Section 2.
Pursuant to Section 18.68.070 of the Vail Municipal Code, a parcel of property
commonly known as Spraddle Creek is zo�ned as Hillside Residential (HR) .
Section 3.
As provided in the ordinances of the Town of Vail , the zoning administrator is here
by directed to modify and amend the official zoning map to include the zoning
specified in Section Z (Z above) .
Section 4.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of
the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby decla�es it
would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsec�ion, sente�ce,
,
clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
£
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
3 _
Section 5.
?; The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of the Vai1 Municipal
�A �
� � � � �
�
� Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued,
any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof,
�
� any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or
�
� by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any
provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS 3rd day of November ,
1987, and a public hearing shall be held on this ordinance on the 3rd day of
� November , 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal
� Building, Vail , Colorado.
Ordered published in full this 3rd day of November , 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town �le.rk
INTRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this day of , 1987.
Paul R. Johnston, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
z:�: � � � � -
�„°; ,�.
P=
��.�� :';..
������ . ,
�.,; .a � - . .. ,. - . . � . ,. _ ; - � •�,
: . . . . . ... . , � � ��.}i�.
. ", '-;�Xr,��
- � ��`:sa�
�% �v��
- ••�,;,'
�XHZ�IT A _' .":si'� `
� °r:��4S:
(Attached to and torming part o! Warranty Deed dated ��'`�
April 30, 1986 tz'om Vail Aseociates, Znc. to ,T�-�►.`,.
_ George N: �illa'ct, Jr.� ` 'y
;:5,�-c
.�
,:t,
- �G]�.,'��$Ip�I92i OF TH� PRAP£kT'Y .,:;',?;;
. ;�.:
]� parcel o! land common2y retKrrsd to as Spraddle Creek
located in the SE 1/4 SW 1/4 ot 5ection 5, Townehip 5 South, .";, �
Range 80 WeRt o! the 6th Principal Meridian, Eagla Coun*_y, '.;:�';
Colorado more particularly dascribad aa lollowe: =�'.=�;
•�:a,.,��r� .
� - BEGINNING at the SE corner pt sald SE 1/4 SW 1/4, a :.,��i; .
, . � brass cag; thencn 5 89'47'48" W a diatance ot 904.32 reet a2ong � ='r
tha aouth boundary lina o! aaid SF. 1/o SW 1/4 to a point on the ��,;s:Y
nos-therly right-ot-Way line ot IntMrotate HighWay No. 70, beinq .
� a point on an ex�.sting tence; thence al�,�g eaid right-ot-way
,, �, ' fence line N 73'�5'54" W a distance c:t 21�.95 t�et to an angle ` _ -
point in said tencat thence N E6'53'28" W-n distance of 241.J5 ,
_ leet along said right-of-way fencs line to an aluminum cap and
� rebar on the weat boundary lins of snid SE 1/4 S5i 1/4; thence ���1`F-�
� : ' � ti 00'�0'31" Fl a diatan::e of 1,161.66 teet along th• veet '.';
boundary line of safd SE 1/4 SW 1/4 to th• NW corn�r of seid SE ''' ;
- 1/4 Sw ]./6, a brass cap: thence N 89'41'12" E a distanca of
1,331.07 feet along said ncrth boundary l�ne of the NE corner :_
said SE 1/4 Sw 1/4, a brass cap; thance S 00'll'00" E a dista�:a
' " . of 1,320.14 tezt alony the. east boandary line oP said SE 1!a St,
1/4 to the PGINT CF BEGItl!(;HG, c�n�aininq ]9.554 acrea more .r
i � le�e.
i •
.:;=.
�D
_
�
�•S .
. ...
. .:. . .. . . .
� ' ''. :. _ � . .'' '
al.
_�.A�.
� ; t��,
'' ` • ,'.r..��•
y t�.
�j.ru:
��7�
'IY�i
i��
;}
. �A�
.&� ' �
. `f�+�
:1�
,-� . . �,��'�i;t
' • 1 :ly�
. .:��..s,`
� ..i��+k.=
. ,, .��s;f,?
. 1 . ' . , •,'���.
c��•. . .. . - - ..'�`�"'
.y � . � .Y' � . ••� fv'qw'.S�Mpf,�
'4,F t l � � _ _ �{ .. : . i' ' r 7_ .1:-�.�,�''
�. ti=..
F_?r�lY y�< ��. . , � .' �_�F \ � .L " � �!T�'C�`.
y�� �t: �avK'„�,,. r�.Y r � S;t,y�,:t'� .� �' . -, , r -� . .,-;,,`1.�"�'7."'f.
��t.�s p. y,�� 'iy`b o� �7 � `v �r1 +�.�ai''J. .i'}3"�t7�>P�' �. tvj ✓ t'4 ..t � -►sr 'M.e�.3 t,� # �'''.+Y'�� ���r �I III.
`� �x,�. � ..t. � . � '��, y � b `,�`t� � �.,r,3���ar�,:�'. �' 2�,x ,, �"� �i
�y�*.�{� � x ,�-R;�y+.i����� � .t K�Y"�-'�w,�cjpy„��N�eC""S�"`#`���:�MM_T�,r'iV'���'t''F,�, .i,stSa'� � �I V�� I
� �� , . . ., . j.. -� � - �.,
October 15, 1996
Ms. Carolyn Hale
Spraddle Creek Homeowner Association
via fax (970)479-9384 .
Re: Spraddle Creek Assigned Parking Spaces
Dear Carolyn,
This letter is to confirm our agreement regarding the parking spaces currently provided by
Vail Associates,Inc.to the Spraddle Creek Homeowner Association. These spaces are
currently located at the surface lot P3,located across from the Christiana Lodge.
From this time,until the availability of parking for Spraddle Creek property owners at the
Golden Peak parking structure(planne"d for approximately mid-December) in conjunction
with their memberships in the Passport Clubhouse at Golden Peak, Spraddle Creek property
owners will have the use of four spaces at the current parking site, Lot P3. These will be
identified by the Spraddle Creek parking signs currently in use. The remainder of spaces will
be available for use as determined by Vail Associates.
The Spraddle Creek Homeowner Association is currently paying a quarterly fee to Vail
Associates for their assigned parking spaces. This fee will be waived starting at the date of
this letter. The beginning of the last quarter was October 1, 1996 and the amount currently
owed for this last quarter by the Spraddle Creek Homeowner Association is$450.00 (15
days/90 days x$2,700).
Please let me know if you have a different understanding regarding our telephone
conversations on Tuesday, October 15. My phone number is 845-2568.
Sincerely,
VAIL ASSOCIATES REAL ESTATE GROUP, INC.
Joe Malone
Project Director
cc: Jeff Babb,Vail Associates
David Corbin,Vail Associates Real Estate Group
Ted Ryczek,Vail Associates
Page 1 of 1
Pam Brandmeyer- Spraddle Creek
,....a,.al",vd� >.�..rzd,e.0 s.r..�..� �_-,,.,u,_u:��».,...r'T'�.�.rd,r.s.,�.,,�,�., .. ,,,,,,. yaa.,, "�:',va�:M:_.k'".�,�..,,- + .,,,..raa�.3:::�.,,,.,-„�,<.a�v o,_w.'',.�,�N....,.<.,TSrn� ...w.m._�.,..�,.t,:».a.....,.. � .
From: Jeff Babb <JeffB�vailresorts.com>
To: 'Pam Brandmeyer' <PBrandmeyer@vailgov.com>
Date; 1/16/2009 4:53 PM
Subject: Spraddle Creek
Attachments: SPCRKPKG.DOC
Hey Pam,
Here is the)etter that was sent to me recently. I was just re-reading it and the portion regarding Passport Club
memberships caught my eye. It might be that an original purchaser af Spraddle Creek received a club
membership/parking and probably kept that if they moved, I do remember removing the signs from P3&J when
we were starting �ounders construction. Not much help!
Jeff
The information contained in this message is confidential and intended only for the use of the individual
or entity named above, and may be privileged. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution
is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,please reply to the sender immediately, stating that
you have received the message in error, then please delete this e-mail. Thank you.
file://C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise\4970BB8... 1/19/2009
� � �
_. _ __
_._ _._. .. _,,. , .. �, . �. ,„ �,.
�
,,,,..�.�
".
u��
, ���. � �,�� , �
� �
� ,�� ��.�` ���°.
�t %�'� � ��s`�'a�I�
. � 1 r ;f{r y„�`
, fi
;� '
� Z�;��, y
�; y 7 i
�- �, �
�, �, , �. ,
u ,
� s �, �
• ,.,
�t,
#,.� � #5r �;
� v �; 4„ �,r: � , ���
„ �
<, �;,;,� � � ;
�� ,._
�9 �� ��. , ,
,
w ,. „ � �
�� �s „
, . '
;- �, �
°
• I
� , � , �� l
, �
_ ., >..,,.
� �. �`�
�,. �
�;� ,
,, �.
.�- `�
� � I
,
� ,�,�.,�. �
�„ r� b. a
µ
� s�� �u ; � .,.
� � ,,,, �-
� �
f: „ , ��
„». =
�'�;�.�,
.; „
"1
..�„
.,. ,:� � a..
�
.. . >»�%I �.
e
I
,. , �Y/,��'��� �twYL�G`.�l. �:u U r,. ..����'��,Z ' , , .. , . ....
. , m r..�,i.,,, , ` ...��, .,^; �,�:
���� � Spraddle Creek History � �
1984 -- Spraddle Creek Parcel annexed into the Town of Vail
1986 -- Town of Vail adopts the Land Use Plan which designates
Spraddle Creek as Hillside Residential
1987 -- Town of Vail zones Spraddle Creek as Hillside Residential
10/30/89 -- George N. Gillett submits an application for a majar
subdivision at Spraddle Creek
9/24/90 -- Unanimous approval to the Spraddle Creek Preliminary
Plan by the PEC
10/2/90 -- Site visit and evening meeting by Vail Town Council
at request of applicant
Spraddle Creek Fact Sheet �
Subdivision Size: 40 acres �
Number of Lots: 14
Number of Acres in Lots: 26 . 65
Number of Acres in Road Right-of-Way: 5 . 26
Number of Acres in Open Space: 7 . 65 '
Density: .35 units per acre
2 . 8 acres per unit
Length of Roads : 6900 Lineal Feet
Average Road Grade: 7 . 880
250 LF at 3 . 85%
200 LF at 4 . 270
400 LF at 6 . 00%
500 LF at 7 . 000
2300 LF at 8 . 00%
2600 LF at 8 .590
650 LF at 8 . 8%
Width of Right-of-Way: 50 Feet
Road 4�idth: 22 Feet Plus
2 ' Curb and Gutter and 2 ' Shoulder ,
Retaining Walls
Height Length
8 ' 1" to 8 ' 8" 291 LF
6 ' to 8 ' 2663 LF
Less than 6 ' 3225 LF
Samples of retaining wall materials are in the
council chambers.
Landscaping
All disturbed areas to be revegetated at approximate number
and types of trees and shrubs and grasses as currently
exist per acre - with mostly native species. Please see
the attached photos which indicate how plant materials
can reduce the visual impact of the retaining walls.
.�' *� ,'r,." ,.. �:� '� a y � � :, . �a
� ��. . .. ; �� '�,�
;
:
_ k
�`� "'�°l4�^'� + �c . ' �.<. � �`b'.. � ��`:
�k -'���`' �� ���
5
,� �` ,� ��. � � � �
�. ���,,r f . y :. %� �`. t ?k\, v� .� ;5
:� � a tz � r_.,. �:� 5��'� +�,n ���\.�, � � e.a� � �� �: � � � .. .
� e � ' ����'� � � a i� � � �� � � '°
� �`� ' �� � � �� �' ��� �C � � �� � ��� � Er �.
� �����.. �� � � �� � "� � �.
�,.. �y� . '� s�:. ' �,. _" s�a �� � ':'�* � z � � � Fr; 4�:.`d'
:
� � �� �. � �.���
;. �� � �. , � �A , �
, .. . a
a
. ;... .F,i s�. ��� r. `.^ �. ,_:. g ��$� � l'4 xr�,��, ��§. ys�� � '� . � �B ; g..& n .
� ' k
` -�n.� �� �: �.m , . . . �� E � �S "#�, . i����� �� �' �a� F t X\
�; ;� . � . . � o ' `*� .
����. ,�<: �' � a �r� �� � � v. � ��.��:. � ��'�� ^��,t°� �; � .# ",P c `• x. �-��
a, , .,- ;; . .,
%
;R �'� � T '� �t �% � ��-:�:z .�;. '�° � y..: , � i. , °� �� "�4 � �°= 9,� p j�f��; � �„.+z`r
�„
x �' , -. ' , � .
; g�." �y.g� y�/.
�
� �y � "�,„ ,4{� i°�i+: S� . ,x: rr ., e,* Fg ' .x"; y6 -..P^�p�,Y s�l, .��n"�`� � z, <�*.
,
�'
'�'s' :. ,� x �:; �. a' ' ¢ ax '� <.r' �y �' 1�
w : v,
"`±o'�a ; '� . , '6�., t���' � . .7 ". �� ���! ..
b, � ,
� a
�. �:. , # . . .
,. ..� � ��,- , � � x`�.: � � ��� ,�:�a �` 'i 3 °+a v
�.: �t�,� e
�a �
�� \ � ��� � � " �� a � � �.a. � � �� � ��
` y� W�+ai .. . -
� �
; �� � ��� � � �,� � ��� t� � ' � �` � �� ��� �� �?, ��� ����'
�
• � .
,
�. � N
W . � �<
,
a
. : .� � . .
�
,. � �� � ��
� s � � ��, � � �� �<
" a '� ,� .;:ti�`�.�a�` � , ,. ,.. :. �... � �� +� i. . "� �:i� �`� :`�"� � t .�� � �� a^�'d" `.:d
u � .
��. �'� ., 3, � , y, �� .:. , �. :�. � Hv.� `� . �� g � � .� � �`t
<
�. �,. �^' :,"� � 5 ,,:' � .� '� ;, �� *� t E „e,� '#!. ! #�= d � d �� � � �a
«
.
a .
„ a
� ,e� c - �- �,
� ro, � �y
.. : � � ce��'_ ,'�. ' m e �•�� rt ' . �, Y� �. ' �,r `� _l� `a
,
.
±�..�. � � � �� a'.�����. �. � � .. : -. �,.._ . � ys ��.� .�!'��� '�� „o--°� ,,�=�+� ,t,+�Ft,'�� ��
�' �„�,
,�� �`m� " ,��� r'., �� �.,_ �, �� � � .e� �� � "o x`' rd ��, �� 'wa��`��.� �, � �°��
� � �
� �� ..
,
�.<. �� �, r��, � , : ,, ... � � �. � 3,� .hr .r�� ��'*`�
x .,� ,.� �::�,�
a s � ?`
^
..,"
. .
�
�� � � ` � ��
;� � � �_ � �, �'��� �� � �� �� /��,t�,�
, �
�:
# .
�
„,��� ; �� g; �� ��� w � �' 6 �� � �� �� � ��� �'
� d� � � �
,
e
� � �s. �• e��� a� �,a��� ��� �,� �
•
v a � :, y �� �
_ � .,_ � � e
� �.'� �„ .. �' � ` .�. »C��� .� � ' ��i` .' , . � � , '�c �``*+`�" p� e. t'e� ���� �d�_�, ��n�
�,
..
.� ..,, , .� , .
.4 , v� �. ,. . ,3 y, y,,p
,
s
� A- � :� . �'a� ' � ` fi � ', �� °�- ��"- � �4� �� t`, �`> ��',,�� `�� xk^�+
� �
, . .,,
�� • � _ � w
� ; �4 °M��" ��. � �,. �^� .,�.. ..._�'� „ � . " � � �,� � ������ �`� . � . ��'��,u�.. �� ��g`�
� � � �
- � `M'. ° a a � �.." �, ri . >; � . !. , � . _ . . � � �� � ,a F'� ��s`a� ,§ � .'+��a,s
r
.
.o ��
„
. , ,: #..
;m<°s? �.� � � ..�,- •-� ,�. �•a. ' t �'e` '.�: 4 p� '��'�' p�� � �, e� ��� -{° .�p ey�
,.
�� ��
�
M
""i� ,s = yi : , � . `�< 1
v � � E
. e � � - - � � �S '
�
� �,; '<"� �'� .k
,�°`� . �„ �'+'e� � .� ',� F .,�; . ° � .. � � ��... ...�� &����sR .p,`�.�l � z. s'` �� �t4��' �v� �,�,
`��„� �,'�,�. � . �;,-. ,' .. �� �� ��� � �"��f S°� �,�:
. .
. , � t r � o � ``�
,
'� . �� * � �, ` a: a ,�,„� .�„..„. ` �PY a � �
� . �
'�� � �� .� ,��, . ,�.. � , �.. ,.a � . .. ° �� �� �� : F��+ �a �� _��,'� '. � ,t�
� � g
„
.r ,� °& .: , � t� � �,�� �, , .
, p�
a m•
' � " k
r � �_�� �� , � ;� r�� ��. °,� �� �`�, *` : � ,�.� ,, �#
,
m� : �
,
. � $ � . > � � �� ,a s . �,�"�"a��&��,� �, �,�
, ,
� � .�t ,� � "'.��, �e, ,� ,��.t.. .. , ,.�.. m u�� �� •�'°e � '�`�.S a., �«.r <t'��,�,m,,.. �,< ..+ �'.��`'a� �'e.�.� sE-%a. �q��?
� :,. , , < $�y� ,� �, � ��e �. , � ,�� : �,, � •�. �"�':.�° ��'R'"� �" °'� k"�"�:r�''r�T
:
.e " � e . �
� , », a �,;� v
,.,. � :
,� , � � a � .�
,
� � � � � ��" `"�_� ��a' > e�s��_ "'�� �� �� �`�� �., �� �c� ss� ^��� �°` �^°�
� " �
�, � �, �, d� �,`� '"� 4�" ;� t# .y �`q„° �.� � s.z; � " �.; r�a '4 .�
.. � , , ,,, c . �. �-f ,�
� � �. • � � y� ���€� �p a � `��°�� � � � � ,� °� � � �� ?S, 'e`�:,
�. ;
� ..
„ �. ¢ �f p
, .
, - �.,a ., �, ,.; :� ;, » . Ik . p� - ?°` �
.
� 4.,.
Y .<.; ,-;3"� „ "
� '��r °�ro,: � :��� �: ', ;�. ,,•, ' � �� �,��� '��,� .,�.1$�..���°, ��° � �'� �x ��;..��r � ,� .},,� ff,�_� �
.�,S'�k ��. �,�y"��. F� .� '>„� �� �-� � °��` . °4 *•'� ���'..� � �� ".�$ M" x"� , ..� ��"�'�.
'�< � �t ¢ M,,°�� ,� � „� �. ' .��
$ ,
�"- „� `"r � ����` �tG.' � ::� �.�"; ,,r ^a.°Y..,.'e. L `t;, .&
rz
' .
.� . ,._,,.' �..�,.;, �
,�? :,, s*
:.�,$, . . a ".,�. \ ,.��... �. �,�a:� .. � q�� �e ry�� , . ��. °� ��� -��� * .�:
, ... � , ... Y. .
a A
, �, .. �, �` �.` ,.,-.� � �.. �. ..,,w aa� >��,. > ... � �r`„ ..t� � ��� P . ��F' ♦ �'d��`�.��� �.�° �d°'.: ,w�� �".«:
�
».,s. � ,... �
, � rs ,.� �� � ,�
�
, ,�. �. ,. � � . �.�E'� . _ � .,r �„ z. �s� . ♦. m� � d� p��... �� ,�+� _'`t,A r`�,` � ,�"��
� ' �� . x . .�.�: ,� �
;:, , .:�,. �:; . ' . � .w
. : •.` A� � �r�
_ . � � � „ ' �� �.
. .�tr�
` � �
��. � �e 't ,.,ya„ � ' v � �` � ���u"a�.���' t. a�� �vm .,�� .a� �� ^ ��,�:. � ��w �f�
� � ` �
'� ��`-°� �.�.. �'� �, �.�- � �,., '�.�.�a.'��� .� y . , � °��. ^_e,� .a �F;, t °'�`: �ws c:
.
� < ,�., ��.� ._. � . :
�� � " T �_ �' � � : �� � ; .a _�. � � � :������� ���`
e,.
�
� ,_
.�' �� _ � �' a�,� �;,,'m.e ��- a:° e =�e� �'� �e °°� � � � ��'
, .
�, ��. a�__� � -� . , , �A.� .�,-�.4 ��
.._
�: �� �� � � � e . .� � r; ��� a � � Q. , �� � �,:� �,� � ��
`� . � � � �t �� � � .� k '.. � ., ,. ;� ,. .a � �,���"� �. �`s�, � < �,� .� ;;
`�` ,,�..� ',� � �� �," ����i, ��°�y�0� ,�4���` _ �,n .� � ��:,,
� �.Sti+`u .N` „& �e^ 5���. � ,.;1a' 4 .x�' .��"x ��A 'aw+»»8'.. �,a;"� .�B$.' �q �
� r:._ ., < e . ' :, . ..
; r ' m .
�". � ' :� : �x , .�p � � ,.. M h� �. - ��� ��`� '='
�. �s
: � .. . .-.m.e.,r -' °^+., k �at �k.� � :� ��4 ^����' .�"" � � '�
a „f �.. �p�., �� i -w � e .„ �,• � ,.��C
m,:. v
`� _ $ ,. �� « : °� ° . �, �� �t.. �:.�� ��,� �' ,.,� ' �_ �� � �
< �
�
.
; _
�� ;_ . �°
.r �!� � ,.,�" � ''��� �. � a` � ° �� ' � c + .-� ���� °�� a ���� ;`� �i� ^��, ���
. � .� �,.
� ...� � ,�. . ,�,. � .' ':xi: e �� .;-. `,d"m�""� �`�r p -
_
� t
.�
� .,
M
,
:: � �� : �'. «-�� - �'" �
,
'- . ' '�. �.'�����'-� �
r •
c �
� .
�� ,� �. � M
,� ,
v
.
„ � . �
„
�, �
, ��g�
r ', �� 3.:'E� U.� �� Y<' ,�p'� ,.
e � . r �p Mr kr� � e: , a �` '�� �
�'� � � •��` £ @�'
_�� >, _ . . �,_. ss ; .
_ .
� �
,�.'.: �, . . . t ' Y . . �.; , .�q,R . k..
�k � , €�a .. , `° * � '�a..�
� ^
�. � �
_,�"` � '.�,�R. '�p�' y�•e"��, "� . ��.3t�y � `'� �i+�� �� � �. a� :a
. � - � ���,�
�� ' x � �`..: ` . ,... N � i �} '� 4� k ' C a
a., i �
e. .
s ` q, �,' � �t.' ,: - 4 ' ��`� *. +�, °�� ���'��"r�%�,��,.R� 4�y�`�
� �
�
�� �1.
, �.. .. . . � L�
" ..��t. .. °r t w ,. , <„ ,� P,.. . � �' se... ,., ,��.,.��;.;j�� �,'� �,5" �..� i a �':&� ���, � ��� �4� �
� ;.. ' �` �., . w�� ' � d �A. . �� 4 ,3 r � � - �p .' �e.. k'�
�
�� � �
, �,a. �, .. ``,-:.a .r� _ .;�a� � '� ` § � 'a-� �.�� ^'�,�` ' ,f e� � � "p,,,, � _ ''� • _ ,:
t =�m g�`
c.
< „„�..: _ ,..
� F �k� �� €N�-� d .�y ¢ >`�`�' -'p""`", '�r �"` �:.'���t � ''i �� ��� ���;�`� �'���# �.«��`��
Z
, ... �.F �, : ,�,i� t �x t �t�`�°ac�.l,��,` 1. :� � t E'?� ��� �i` � .2���� Y ?� �k " � °��`s�� ��'�1��*':.��� ,_"� ��Aa �1p'� ��f *.�:. x
�i�`�`'."�i h.+Ti��S�-. � S ��SY�"€ �" �r� fi .�"F �$ y `.�.'`. � �S \ �4�- �'S(� '� .� �` �1 . 4 �.
a'� � �� ���, �� �� ����i a �����r � �i .�a' ����. 3���{: � � �1 n; .�-�$y� ��y\.�a, e".n` #e; � �a�s, y.:
� .
� .} ti��' < .«��. ��
; �
�
__ .�. . � r� � :., . y.. .
?:'� � "�`.�:� 3�'� 'e`�� � jl . ..
�.. ���\� �� #��. �'l �l� ���.� *�-�°�}e �il G
1
hY b k ����i`� �. �45 " �`�i�� ������-- {,
>.. _ 4�� t��.,.' ., 7����`?}����`tt?�'� �+{'� ��� . auF��',��a
�,a i
� ��� � �y
�� i,4�,V
�Q.� � � �sz �,�i����"�'�� "��' �k� � ' � � e'��'a z
,..,a ���°.,�+.i,�`�.r;'r3n:.ii:ii� �`'�, U���� �=
q .. � � . ,..� , 1
"�" �y\� . '�'�,��,4c
1
2� s�, C .:� ,�c ..
�,�; �g��,^�, - �� -' ���,� , �n����r� ,���
,�. Q p a'; �$�2i���� �.
a �z
` a ' `` ��, c,
� "��,';
��..
, � ��
ti
d�
� �
F „'� . ..� - ....... `a
�l�,'��.% ;�
° �' R .xcS� . .,.
.�� �- ���..
V,�
,.:.. :.,. � j\. . .
� .
� �,
c.
.,. . ., ' .., R
� , ' S � r' ' � , � Z
�
,, ' r�::y� „ , �.
�� � r
� {� �*, '�£���i a��^ \�� � �i �`���1 ��C'�����,�3`'�a'� t �e� c v..�v�'� e:�
r�" c `'�'", ti �� t� i�'� ' � >Y�- �t � a��� n S:1'��"��,��""a�r� v �. ,�� �-�F�������' �3�,�
�,. t:� v t �1 i� r �� k.t: � i�� �`��1;� .�^.. �t....=.:��* _'`'�,`;�v
n� ^, � fi � ��� �f � �� � � �`�.
�a ��- �� � .�.� .�� �, ��
. w
.�, .;k �,� lti. ..k 1�-. ..4 f� � ..�: �� r -�\�i�.;�' ,��
t
,
.�.. .. �.a .�> d. .: <�,��, ?, 1 � .:.� �.i .Y�- . 1 .. ... .. , . � �,,,v.
.,._ ,,.. ... :.,a:. \ ti 1�ti �: 4 -:a. r �r�" ��,.Y<,.... ,..� x...... .�� : »..,.. ,.,-. ..,3��.-�s., .; � . . :.fc,.�
�. �;:....1 t 3'� .). S.. %. .\ v.. .t .°� ..�:s� `.� � ... ��. ,�. ,. \3, .*� "�C. �
.�. ,._ � .w3�, z � . -..<.. .,S `s � q,, ,` c . .."2. :, � S ., �:...�,m:..�.. .�v .. �, ..�...:
.... �-,.. -�.3.'��N �1 � > a.: �`�.�..�s�..n.� . } ,R .z- >. ,:.,. �, o ..�,,,. bC ,.-:..F., i. �,. ,. . .S<_
.fi� ��.. �-�'.�lf'. .,C S ..?.. `;.. h..., �.,x_,.--�., ��� s�^� .� ��.,§`�%. ..�.f ,,..a3�.. ..,�.,��.. , ..� , .. ,....
:: , , n � � a t ;� � F x a� t e .., �. , � .�`2 � .�., � , .
_. ». ... S .. .�...a�. k .a� � ..�..,. ... e �.� -�..-. .:,. �". _.. .y� .\ � .x .� �s'
... .., ... : 5\.. . . � ..a..t . , a,.. ..... �.. ,: ..,. . .. , ' � �.
.... . :*.. ..z``� .�_:.. -..�5�,... ..��: v4 .:i�. . .. .. ':�..1.,. ..E v..,... , , . .,w� . .:.t. �- .�.. ., , ��.... .. ... ,
.,... . 2 �.� .� .�.. "'4 .,a.., � .,. . �`a. fi a , ... � ...� .,.. . . ;,-..... . v .<. .:j....t.� �
,....:,...s,.� ....Y ,.,.� ..f.:c. .�....z �. ...\i .���. �... ., .,u,..l . \...:. ., . .� ..�., �.. _, . ..�vn,. ��
,.. L . -i.....,�`2� 12.. l t ..-`3.. .i i: ,a , t,:�; ...1.}. .... , s, ,s. ..1.., n . ..i . ..}.. ,+b.,.,... s s.. sa. ,. , \� .-. ,. ., y.,, .,.Ea..,t
, . .. � � tt\:4 Y-:. \ . ,^�t :2,. S.. M... r,.`,..�.c. . ... 'a.� < 3:- a':�...fl., aa . %a. «:.� \.
� .� .. �l. �'-��. � �,.. . -.,�
. , �.�� .1 �. a ��:< . e � �.. .. � .� .,. : , . � �.. .a,,t,: � �z.�:,�;�� '�.. , ,, s�
� � ,. �. �.� � ..;- a .� � .� . �. '`� � � � �a f..., .� �s� . .. � , �>.,
> �. '�i. � ..,.a, �. .�, .... „��. s�s.. ��a-. �, .;-... _�. . ..,.. , �.r.... .�. _.� . ..s.. ;d'��. .. ° .i..�i �.. ��n .�...
..��,<.-.y .ed;-. .S a�. . �a,.�. �*. �'�.vfi:� ..g ...... ,;`l.k.. �.. ;� ...�: .., .� » .. .�... �°: . n... .: �`7.. :- � _, x�. .. S..>.
?3 tc'� ....s �r�.� d ,�- ..te ,.. m�. � :..; .�..a, �.., �..r�-�. ,... , .� 4���! .t.,. ..��'r'�`�a y :;- c. .���� ' � ., a. �
,.. .�„�".k ..i. . .:�'v t.. .,,..,.:..E.e�. r.a,< ,_�. �i :.., .� ., . . , .. . �, t � , ..� �'��. "?�. .. �.� .,-.. � ...-.s�^��
f.._�. .�,,,,.'�i. � �:- �. c..a. \... ..y._ �. .�,.�.v-..... ..,„"�.��. , .� s .2� �
.�..�. .�i. r.. t�...� k,����. .., ..' .,..w. �', -. �4. ..t� .. S •. � ...�.. :, .;,�. •..� Y.�i� ., �.,�`�$u .�"4�..���\ �`,�..�' :�. ��.-:., ,.�.
�'�,r.n�S.. ; '»a `��S �.�,._,, �.�.c.��.t ., k'�;.,:a�, a+�, .:���,-_ .`+, ..,... � ,. „ '�:. .
't..";r� .- .\.. t� , .. �at�n.,.. 5�,:... -��� s:`i� � : -; .. _ � .-�,...z�.-,� ;.� , �_,.;�;. �`. .)a<�� .�� *
�<�:. � .>,. .., 1..�,'., .....�,-.,, .v.� .. �, . .�,s F. ... . , .�...�. �. ,...-� , . z';, ...�.�:. .`�{:.t�.� *.. � �. � ��'�?r,�..�a+ -
,,,�......� . ,���, . . ,.. ., . . ��. .. , ,, �e, ���`� �� �� ,�,.,; �,��������.
� ,�� �``�',,•, ,� L� ..���'�`��3, �_. � ��?� �,� i�G s� ������,����� �. ,
�:v�: �: � �, �������`g��k�t? .n>.�c�,�����y,3;� st
� t- �:j3`:_ '� 'z�;',�4 hc�s i,,�����aR`�.�w,.. . ��s.'� � �"�CC,.a '� ��:�
,�
� .. � . `'�� `'�� . `,�... � ...�k'�"ta�"?�. ��i t� �����,��i ���z{'4�.t�.�.�.���^:.a�����.'� `ik`¢ . ,\o.' ::��
� , �
, , . . . r.`+£, t:. r� ., � �e: 3 � t �- a � `�'�.���t���a������2��'�±��,�z��a e��"?.�°+ a��A��sm�
.�, .„:. . . , �..; ,
�� ., ,. . .\ H,�. ... ,.. R ' . � ��h`°,��,�,���i�t\�� '�,�, ay� �,',��„��i ay 1,:..A,� �a�e, �
, .�x , , ,-- , v.�`` �,x�. > , .� i�`� ��,._: .e;, t� a.�` �'�;,x�2,��� �'��•> $�'l g. �,� �.�'. ���� ���".
;�� k;., ay .� .`a3�;� s����e�'�"., z r>;
e1 ti �e A
-,. .. � \ .. . .
. .. _ .� , . .� -. ,.. .
�,_
, . ...F ,. �... . ..
, � . � �, lys . �}., ...
� �
\,
��
� . . \„ ", ',, � . '
A 4Y
� �
.
� ` .
a.wa.,
.. - � , ., � � ,.. . �..
. .. . . .' . ,� ��'
. 4�db��.� � e � .. ' v
� o \ ..L �
+ � y_
' . _.- . � u .�
, : " � �.e �, �,� . � � ��i�., � . �:�. � ,., .� `� � _'. , �` ' '�
Y :. z �
�.
�
' � �
.�
A
�o �,,,
.
, � �
4 �..�.,., �. ;
� �x.
a ,,.. �,.
,. ,. :
� ��. �
,. . ..�. . . vb.F�. `� .. ,
4
... u .�e,. ....5 ��:`�,� .
�.e` `.
- _ �``"`r�Y-.
�... .�....,
� ��a.
� e,.
ntirv
_ „ i
..� � .,,.� .
. .,.: '�,..: .;� �4.' . .,,. ':.w: -- ..
�\ � �.�
�,
<
.... . ,� ��... .,. � �- � � ,. �a
. ' .:.>�. �.. ,R.., �-.
�
i �
+;�i,,�.• �- .. a,�2,. a;�;;,.
�..�::