The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPEC120033 REVISIONS_092612Submitted to the Town of Vail: August 27, 2012 An application to amend the GRFA requirements & to allow for Participation in the EHU Exchange Program for SDD No. 34, Lots A, B, and C, the Valley Phase V Major Amendment to Special Development District No. 34, Lots A, B, & C, The Valley Phase V I.Introduction Jim and Cookie Flaum, the owners of 1631 Buffer Creek Road / Lot A, The Valley Phase V, are requesting an amendment to Special Development District No. 34, to allow owners within the SDD to participate in the EHU Exchange Program and to allow for additional GRFA. The owners of Lots B and C, Steve Lindstrom and Margaret Forken have also consented to the submittal of this amendment. SDD No. 34 includes lots A, B, and C of the Valley Phase V. The SDD limits the allowable GRFA to 2,933 sq. ft. per unit and requires one EHU prior to the construction of the third unit in the SDD. The EHU was constructed on Lot A, the Flaum Residence in 2006. The Flaums are requesting this amendment to SDD No. 34 so that they may participate in the EHU exchange program. In addition, the amendment allows an increase from 2,933 sq. ft. of GRFA to 3,800 sq. ft. of GRFA (which is a smaller increase than has been allowed generally throughout the Town and the neighborhood). A similar request was recently approved for the Crossview SDD. The Flaum’s EHU is 837 sq. ft. To participate in the EHU exchange program, the Flaum’s will need to provide an EHU of 1,674 sq. ft. or provide a fee-in-lieu of $230,476. Lot 1 Lot 2 Tract A The Valley Phase V Subdivision Special Development District No. 34 II.Background SDD No. 34 is unique compared to other special development districts in the Town of Vail. Eagle County approved a PUD for the site in October of 1980, known as The Valley Phase V PUD. The PUD allowed for a clustered development of 4 duplex lots and a signiﬁcant open space tract of just over 12 acres. Each lot was permitted a duplex with each unit limited to 2,200 sq. ft. of GRFA (as deﬁned by Eagle County in 1980). The lots created by the 1980 PUD act as building envelopes and the ﬂoor area allowed was not based on a ratio as would be typical. 1 In November of 1981, shortly after Eagle County approved the PUD, the property was annexed into the Town of Vail. The Town of Vail then zoned the property Residential Cluster, but recognized the existing approvals of the Eagle County PUD. It appears that there may have been a lawsuit which required the Town to recognize the County’s approval but information on this issue is limited. Residential Cluster, unlike the lower density Town zone districts, bases the GRFA ratio on “buildable area” rather than total lot size. Buildable area is deﬁned as that portion of the lot with less than 40% slopes. These lots are generally very steep and therefore the RC zone district does not appropriately reﬂect the topography of the area. Zoning these properties RC would have substantially reduced the allowable GRFA, rendering the lots nearly unbuildable without signiﬁcant variances, which is why the Town recognized the County approvals with the annexation, at a minimum. Because of this recognition of the Eagle County PUD, the Town has interpreted that any changes to the approvals for these lots are done through the SDD process. In 1997, the Town approved an amendment to the Eagle County approval which allowed for Lots 3 and 4, The Valley Phase V to be converted from 2 duplex lots into 3 single family lots. This amendment established SDD No. 34. In 2007, SDD No. 34 was amended to allow for larger EHUs for the site, increasing the allowance from 500 sq. ft. to 850 sq. ft., and increasing the EHU garage credit from 300 sq. ft. to 400 sq. ft. As well as being a unique Special Development District, The Valley Phase V lots are unique in the neighborhood. Because their GRFA was limited by the previous Eagle County PUD, which was carried over into the SDD language, they have not been able to take advantage of any increases in GRFA allowed by the Town over the years. Other RC zoned properties in the neighborhood recently were allowed a 44% increase in the allowable GRFA (the ratio increased from 0.25 to 0.36) and yet since these lots are within an SDD, they did not enjoy the same increase given to similarly situated lots. Lots of similar sizes and topography in nearby subdivisions are permitted signiﬁcantly more GRFA. Eleni Zniemer and Lia Zneimer Subdivisions were also PUDs approved by Eagle County and subsequently annexed into the Town of Vail, but the process to amend their development rights only require PEC review, rather than an SDD amendment. The following analysis provides a comparison of the GRFA permitted for SDD No. 34 in comparison to the GRFA allowed for other similar dwelling units in the neighborhood. As indicated in the analysis, most other lots, many of which are similar in size and topography, enjoy signiﬁcantly higher GRFA allowances. The SDD No. 34 properties are allowed signiﬁcantly less GRFA than nearly every other property in the neighborhood. The same would be true if the analysis were expanded to other single- family homes throughout the town. Even at 3,800 sq. ft. of GRFA as proposed, these homes will be among the lowest in GRFA in the neighborhood. 2 Map Key: GRFA Analysis for the Buffer Creek Neighborhood: Lot Lot Size Allowed GRFA GRFA as % of Lot Area SDD No. 34 - Underlying Zoning of Residential ClusterSDD No. 34 - Underlying Zoning of Residential ClusterSDD No. 34 - Underlying Zoning of Residential ClusterSDD No. 34 - Underlying Zoning of Residential Cluster Lot A 20,725.85 2,933 14% Lot B 26,284.10 2,933 11% Lot C 32,012.24 2,933 9% Average 26,340.73 2,933 11% Eleini Zneimer Subdivision - Zoned Residential ClusterEleini Zneimer Subdivision - Zoned Residential ClusterEleini Zneimer Subdivision - Zoned Residential ClusterEleini Zneimer Subdivision - Zoned Residential Cluster Lot 1 218,235.60 5,267 2% Lot 2 92,957.04 5,267 6% Lot 3 95,788.44 5,267 5% Lot 4 83,286.72 5,267 6% Lot 5 28,357.56 5,500 19% Lot 6 22,476.96 4,180 19% Average 90,183.72 5,125 9.5% Lionsridge F4 Block 4 - Zoned Primary/SecondaryLionsridge F4 Block 4 - Zoned Primary/SecondaryLionsridge F4 Block 4 - Zoned Primary/SecondaryLionsridge F4 Block 4 - Zoned Primary/Secondary Lot 1 36,198.36 8,822 24% Lot 2 35,457.84 8,777 25% Lot 3 27,442.80 8,118 30% Lot 4 35,370.72 8,772 25% Lot 5 31,711.68 8,553 27% Lot 6 40,336.56 9,070 22% Average 34,419.66 8,685 25.5% 3 SDD No. 34 Lionsridge F4 B2 Lionsridge F4 B4 Eleini Zneimer Lia Zneimer Lot Lot Size Allowed GRFA GRFA as % of Lot Area Lionsridge F4 Block 2 - Zoned Primary/SecondaryLionsridge F4 Block 2 - Zoned Primary/SecondaryLionsridge F4 Block 2 - Zoned Primary/SecondaryLionsridge F4 Block 2 - Zoned Primary/Secondary Lot 2 20,647.44 5,384 26% Lot 3 NA NA NA Lot 4 17,293.32 4,948 29% Lot 5 20,560.32 5,373 26% Lot 6 20,865.24 5,412 26% Lot 7 23,740.20 5,786 24% Lot 8A 60,243.48 10,532 17% Lot 8B 60,243.48 10,532 17% Lot 9 26,048.88 6,086 23% Lot 10 13,590.72 4,467 33% Lot 11 67,213.08 11,438 17% Average 33,044.616 6,996 23.8% Lia Zneimer - Zoned Residential ClusterLia Zneimer - Zoned Residential ClusterLia Zneimer - Zoned Residential ClusterLia Zneimer - Zoned Residential Cluster Lot 1 55,713.24 3,500 6% Lot 2 32,805.04 4,271 13% Lot 3 37,343.99 3,495 9% Lot 4 50,181.12 4,524 9% Lot 5 50,181.12 5,264 10% Lot 6 41,556.24 4,500 11% Lot 7 34,848.00 4185 12% Average 44,630.125 4,259 10% Overall Average (Excluding SDD NO. 34)47,610 6,295 18% Overall Median (Excluding SDD NO. 34)35,458 5,373 19% III.Zoning Analysis Lot GRFA Existing GRFA Proposed % Increase % of Lot Area Lot A 2,933 3,800 29.6%18.3% Lot B 2,933 3,800 29.6%14.5% Lot C 2,933 3,800 29.6%11.9% There is no change to any other development standards as provided by the Special Development District. As indicated from this analysis, the percent increase of 29.6% in GRFA is substantially less than that allowed in 2004 (44% increase) for other Residential Cluster zoned properties and that the ratio 4 of lot size to ﬂoor area at 11% to 18.3% is more appropriate given the average within the neighborhood of 18%. Therefore, the proposed increase in GRFA creates more equity among similarly situated properties and the increase allows these properties to remain consistent and compatible with neighboring properties. IV.Criteria for Review for the Major Amendment to a Special Development District Section 12-9A-8: DESIGN CRITERIA AND NECESSARY FINDINGS, Vail Town Code, provides the criteria for review of a Major Amendment to a Special Development District. These criteria have been provided below, along with an analysis of how this proposal complies with these criteria: 1.Compatibility: Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. Applicant Response: Other lots in the neighborhood are permitted signiﬁcantly more GRFA as indicated in the charts above. The average lot in this neighborhood is allowed up to 6,295 sq. ft. of GRFA, while these lots are limited to 2,933 sq. ft. of GRFA per unit. In addition to the overall allowance of GRFA, the percentage of GRFA compared to lot size is less than similar lots. Lot A (Flaum) Because the proposal includes the ability to eliminate the existing EHU restriction on Lot A and use the ﬂoor area already existing within the building, there is no impact to the architectural design of the existing house, including the scale, bulk, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation. However, if the owner chose to maintain the EHU and add GRFA through an addition, the design, scale, bulk, building height, etc., would still be compatible with the neighborhood. Lot B (Lindstrom) The existing home on Lot B could potentially add approximately 867 sq. ft. of GRFA with this proposed SDD amendment, assuming the property is currently maxed out on GRFA. Any application to add GRFA will comply with the requirements of the SDD and the Zoning Regulations, in addition to the Design Guidelines. Lot C (undeveloped) This site is currently undeveloped, but any new construction on Lot C will comply with the requirements of the SDD and the Zoning Regulations, in addition to the Design Guidelines. 2.Relationship: Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efﬁcient and workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity. Applicant Response: There is no change to the proposed uses and activities for the SDD. There will be less density on the site as the EHU will no longer be located on this property. 5 3.Parking And Loading: Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in chapter 10 of this title. Applicant Response: Lot A (Flaum) The existing unit complies with parking and loading requirements. The future elimination of the EHU restriction will reduce the parking requirement for this site. Lot B (Lindstrom) There is no change in the parking requirement for Lot B with the increase in GRFA. The current parking requirement for Lot B is 3 parking spaces. Increasing the allowable GRFA to 3,800 sq. ft. maintains the same parking requirement, so an addition this lot would not generate the need for additional parking. Lot C (undeveloped) The parking lot requirement for this lot will be assessed when an application for development is submitted to the Town. However, the parking requirement is 3 spaces if the lot were developed to the maximum GRFA both existing and proposed. 4.Comprehensive Plan: Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail comprehensive plan, town policies and urban design plans. Applicant Response: The Vail Land Use Plan provides the following Goals and Objectives which are applicable to this proposal: 6 The proposal complies with the Vail Land Use Plan. 5.Natural And/Or Geologic Hazard: Identiﬁcation and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on which the special development district is proposed. Applicant Response: The proposed amendment has no effect on the above criterion. 6.Design Features: Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality of the community. Applicant Response: The proposed amendment has no effect on the above criterion. By allowing the applicant to use the ﬂoor area already existing in the EHU, the is no need for an addition which would impact the site plan or building design. As a result, no additional site disturbance or landscape impacts will occur. No exterior changes are proposed with this request. 7.Trafﬁc: A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off site trafﬁc circulation. Applicant Response: The proposed amendment has no effect on the above criterion. However, the reduction of the EHU will minimally reduce the trafﬁc in the neighborhood. 8.Landscaping: Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve natural features, recreation, views and function. Applicant Response: The proposed amendment has no effect on the above criterion. No landscape changes are proposed with this request. 9.Workable Plan: Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efﬁcient relationship throughout the development of the special development district. Applicant Response: The proposed amendment has no effect on the above criterion. 7 V.Adjacent Addresses STEVEN J. LINDSTROM REVOCABLE TRUST - ETAL PO BOX 1152 VAIL, CO 81658 FLAUM, RONNA J. PO BOX 3117 VAIL, CO 81658 TOWN OF VAIL IN CARE OF NAME FINANCE DEPT 75 S FRONTAGE RD VAIL, CO 81657 VALLEY RECREATION & PARKING ASSOC PO BOX 3176 VAIL, CO 81658 KENTON M KROHLOW PO BOX 2475 EDWARDS, CO 81632 BURGERMEISTER, MICHAEL F. & NANCY K. OWNER ADDRESS 755 7TH ST BOULDER, CO 80302 BURGHARDT, LARS & HELGA IN CARE OF INGE ANDERSON 302 S ROBB WAY LAKEWOOD, CO 80226 MADDEN, JOHN W., III 370 17TH ST STE 3500 DENVER, CO 80202 8